The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-02 00:00:00

THE PRESS.

four years since the Reform Bill came into operation, and
certainly during fourteen years out of those twenty-four
you have had the affairs of this country administered by
Ministries of almost every shade of opinion, who have
commanded large and compact majorities. Lord Grey,
who represented the high Whigs, had not only a large and
commanding majority, but a majority of which the only
fault was that it was too large. Lord Melbourne, who re•
presented what was called " Whig Radicalism," but which
in more courteous parlance we will now call " Liberalism,"
Lord Melbourne for five years carried on the affairs of this
country with a sufficient majority, even in a Parliament
which had been called together by his rival. Certainly the
sixth and seventh years of his administration were nGt
distinguished by great strength, but that was attributable
not so much to the want of a majority as to a circumstance
which I am sure the friends of Lord Melbourne have now
lived long enough to regret—that he clung to office beyond
the time at which Parliament would tolerate it. When he
left office Sir Robert Peel appealed to the country as a
Tory and Conservative Minister. Was there then no com-
manding majority. There was a considerable and ample
majority, which allowed Sir Robert Peel to carry on affairs ;
and, therefore, it does not appear to me that there is any
truth whatever in the popular statement that the Reform
Bill is the root of all this evil. Hear, hear.)

But then it may be said that this state of things is to be
attributed to the fact that parties are broken up. It is a
favourite topic to talk of the " dislocation " of parties.
" Parties," they say, " no longer exist because there are no
longer distinctive principles among public men." That also
is a very current opinion ; but is it true ? (Hear, ;war.)
Knr the interest of the country and for our own honour
let us pause a moment to inquire whether it is true. Sir,
I shall not venture to make any observations on hcn.
gentlemen who are members of this house. It is my hap-
piness to think that I have personal frieues on both sides
of the house, and the question is of too great importance
to depend upon the opinions of individual members on
either aide. But, if I look to the country, if I look to
society in the genuine sense of the phrase, I mean to the
society of all classes in this country, I do not find that
parties are extinct. When I listen to men who have para-
mount influence with great masses of the community, I do
not find in their conversation anything to lead me to the
conclusion that distinctive parties have ceased.
. .

I find two great classes and bodies of opinion which I
think I may fairly represent by epithets which, though not
very happy nor very precise, have yet passed into popular
acceptation—the epithets Conservative and Liberal. I hold
that these are too classes of opinion which are perfectly
distinct, and in most instances entirely opposed the one
to the other. Let me, that I may the more clearly explain
my meaning, briefly advert to some points in which I think
that that distinction is particularly manifest. I wish to
speak with perfect respect of both classes, for each is re-
presented in this country by numerous bodies of men.
Each is supported by numbers, intelligence, property, and,
in a word, by " respectability" in the true aad legitimate
meaning of that phrase. But the dissimilarity of these
opinions is very perceptible.
For example, I hold that to be a conservative principle
which regards the parliamentary settlement of 1830 as a
satisfactory settlement. I hold that to be a conservative
principle which, without any blind or bigoted adherence to
the doctrine on all possible occasions, believes that tam-
pering with the suffrage is a great evil to the State.
I Ironical cheers from the Ministerial benches.) I believe
I am right in maintaining that that is a conservative prin-
ciple which holds that the due influence of property in the
exercise of the suffrage is salutary and beneficial. (Ironical
cheers from the same quarter.) I think it is a conservative
principle which holds that in any representative scheme the
influence of landed property ought to be sensibly felt.
1 hold that to be a conservative principle which would
maintain inviolate the union between Church and State—
( a derisive cheer from Mr. Hadfiell)—and which would
not only preserve but expand the ecclesiastical institutions
of this country. I hold that to be a conservative principle
which maintains that the establishment of the Church
should be respected, and that the Church itself should not
be the stipendiary of the civil power.
I hold that to be a conservative principle which would
maintain the Established Church in Ireland—(ironical
cheers from the Ministerial benches)—believing that it
is perfectly reconcileable with respect for the rights and
privileges of all classes of her Majesty's subjects in that
kingdom.
I hold that to be a conservative principle which would
cherish and protect all hereditary influences, because they
are opposed to a crude centralisation, and because they
are the source of a power at once beneficent and econo-
mical. I hold that to he a conservative principle which
would respect venerable corporations—(laughter and iro-
nical cheers from the same quarters)—and uphold a free
magistracy throughout the country.

The ironical cheers of the hon. gentlemen opposite con-
vince me that I am right in this estimate, and that there
is a body in this country which, though 1 had scarcely ex-
pected it, is even represented in this house, and which
holds opinions exactly the reverse of those which I have
stated. (" Hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches.)
The cheers from the Ministerial benches show that there
is in the country, and even in this house, a body who be-
lieve that the parliamentary settlement of 1830 ought
not to be maintained, seeing that it arrests the progress
of a cause in the advancement of which they feel an inte-
rest—a body who believe that what we regard as the whole-
some influence of property on the suffrage ought to be
prevented—a body who, instead of cherishing and encou-
raging, would check and repress the natural influence of
landed property on parliamentary representation. I have
no fear of misrepresenting the opinions of hon. gentle•
men opposite when I say that there are among them those
who look with suspicion on the union between Church and
State—who, if they bow to it, do so only because it is al
ready established—who are not in favour of expanding, and.

SATURDAY,

scarcely in favour of maintaining our ecclesiastical jinni.
tutions—who would be glad to see the Church the sti-
pendiary of the civil power—who are opposed to here-
ditary influence—who, instead of a free magistracy, would
have a magistracy constructed upon principles which they
regard as more precise and rational, but which in our
op►nion are not so favorable to the preservation of public
liberty in this country. (Hear, hear.) I do not fall out
with hon. gentlemen for entertaining these opinions, but
their assent to my exposition of them shows that I am
right in the supposition that in this country there are
two great parties, and that those parties have distinct
principles. (Hear, hear.)
And if I go to another great branch of public life—to
subject which years ago did not attract much of the atten-
tion of Parliament, but which now absorbs it, tothe injury,
as many believe, of those measures of internal improvt-
ment to which her Majesty made allusion in the Speech
from the Throne—l mean the general question of foreign
affairs, I find, if not in this house, at least throughout the
country, opinions quite opposed to each other. (Hear,
hear.) Nor is this an unimportant consideration, for,
upon the prevalence of one or other of these classes of
opinion the whole form and aspect of the history of this
country may be said to depend.
I have always thought with respect to foreign affairs
that there were three great questions on which it became
any man who aspired to be a statesman in England, as
well as any parliamentary party which incurred the re-
sponsibility of supporting such a man, to have clear and
precise ideas; and these three are,—the Russian empire,
the Austrian empire, and our relations with the United
States of America.

There is, no doubt, a class of persons who have always
looked with great jealousy on the existence and policy of
the Russian empire, and when we went to war the object
—the avowed object of that party—which they upheld with
energy, eloquence, and earnestness, was the dismember-
ment of that empire. ( Hear, hear.) For my own part,
I have ever been of opinion that the dismemberment
of the Russian empire was not an object which any states-
man ought to propose to himself—that such dismember-
ment, even supposing it to be attainable, could not be
attained otherwise than by one of those long wars which
must fatally exhaust the energy and indelibly tarnish the
character of this country, and that, even if such dismem-
berment did take place, we might find that the ultimate
result would be to disarrange the balance of power in
Europe in a manner prejudicial to our interests. On that
question, however, there are manifestly two opinions, each
supported by a powerful party.
Take again the case of the Austrian empire. It is a
conservative opinion to hold that the maintenance of the
Austrian empire is necessary to the independence of Europe,
and, if so, essential also to the civilisation, and even to the
liberty of Europe. But surely there is a contrary opinion.
( Hear, hear.) Surely there is in this country a great party
who hold that, through the dismemberment of the Austrian
empire, very great political advantages might be obtained,
not for this country only, but for the world and fur mankind.
(Hear.) This leads us to a question which has recently
engaged our attention—the condition of Italy. Just as the
dismemberment of the Russian empire involves the ques-
tion of the restoration of Poland and Finland. so does the
dismemberment of the Austrian empire include the inde-
pendence of Hungary and the emancipation of Italy. Ale
we to be told that upon these subjects there is no distinct
policy in the country? Do we not know that tomorrow
we might be called upon in this house to give our votes on
questions such as these, and that upon them depend the
position and influence of the nation ? (Hear, hear.) I
hold it to be a conservative opinion that, if we or any
other power should forcibly interfere in the affairs of Italy
with the view of changing the political settlement of that
country, the result would be one of those protracted wars
which would fatally exhaust this country, and which, even
supposing it to be successful, would leave Italy, very
possibly, not in the possession of Austria, but under the
dominion of some other power as little national.
Look next to your relations with the United States.
What is your policy with respect to that country? Theis
are those who view with the utmost jealousy. and regard in
a litigious spirit the progress of the United States of
America—who think that any advance in their power or
any expansion of their territory is opposed to the commer-
cial interests, and perhaps, also, to the political influence
of England. Sir, I run not of that opinion; I am of
a contrary opinion. (" Hear, hear," from an hon. gentle-
man on the Ministerial side.) I don't mean to say that
on the question of the United States there is a division of
opinion equally well defined with that which prevails on
other questions. I can therefore understand the cheer of
the hon. member ; but he will hardly deny that there are
distinctive principles held by two different parties on this
important subject. While nothing can be more monstrous
than attempts on the part of the people of the United
States to attack the possessions of civilised powers—
attempts, for example, to appropriate a Canada or a Cuba—
while such violations of international law would, in the case
of the United States, I do not doubt, bring the same retri-
bution and the genie punishment as would visit infrac-
tions of public law by any other country—yet I cannot
forget that the United States, although independent, are
still colonies, and still influenced by colonial tendencies.
that, where they come in contact with large tracts of
territory either wholly uninhabited or but sparsely occa.
pied by an indolent and unintelligent race of men, it is ua.,
possible—and you find it impossible—to resist the expan-
sion of those States; and that, moreover, that expansion
is not in any sense injurious to England, but contributes
to her wealth—while (let me say this in a whisper, lest it
should cross the Atlantic) it diminishes the poser of the
United States. I am, therefore, apposed to the policy
which looks upon the extension of that country, and the
advance of those young communities, with an eye of jea•
lousy and distrust,