The Sun.
London, England, 1864-01-27 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 27, 1564•

hares from the Ministry. Nor did he believe, a
though the resolution referred to a Reform Bill as a
question of importance, that the present Parliament
-would ever take that question up in a manner to
justify the expectations which appeared to be enter-
tained. With regard to foreign questions, he thought
the Government were perfectly right in refusing to
enter into the Congress proposed to them by France,
but he regretted that the manner in which that over-
ture from France was met had been more logical
than courteous. As to the Danish difficulty, he did
not profess to be master of all the complications of
the question, but he sincerely hoped that we should
not allow ourselves to be mixed up in it. He trusted
it would be borne in mind that although by the
Treaty we acknowledged the succession, we did not
guarantee it. If the King of Denmark was in diffi-
culties, like al! other Sovereigns in difficulties he
must fight out his own battles, and not rely on us
to help him. (Cheers.) His own opinion was that
the policy to be adopted by her Majesty's Govern-
ment was a policy of strict non-intervention. When
Parliament assembled next week he believed that
the Queen's speech would contain no promise of a
Reform Bill, but he entertained sanguine hopes that
when the state of the finances of the country was
laid before Parliament it would be found that there
was another surplus, and that consequent upon that
there would be another reduction of taxation. The
present Chancellor of the Exchequer was thew orthy
successor of Sir R. Peel, and was determined to
carry out the great doctrine of free trade, to reduce
the expenses of the country, and to raise the
funds necessary for the Government in a way less
burdensome to the people. To show the efEct which
a free-trade policy had produced, he might state
that from 1840 to 1862 taxes in the shape of Cus-
toms were abolished to the extent of £23,000,000,
-whilst the taxes imposed amounted to £9,000,000,
showing a net reduction in favour of the taxpayer
of £14,000,000 sterling, and yet those taxes which
in 1830 produced only £35,000,000, produced no
less than £41,000,000 in 1862. The assessments
for the income tax which in 1840 were £192,000,000,
amounted in 1861 to £276,000,000. The exports
and imports, which amounted to £172,000,000 in
1840, in 1862 had risen to the prodigious amount
of £393,000,000. Turning to another topic the hon.
gentleman said when in 1862 he stated his views
with regard to the American civil war—(cheers and
hisses)—be hoped it would not have been necessary
for him again to allude to the subject on that occa-
sion. He differed from a large number of his best
and warmest friends, and from his hon. colleague,
with whom he differed on no other subject.
(Cheers.) He had not changed his opinions, how-
ever unpopular those opinions might be. (Cheers
and hisses.) He was not about to change them. He
had never sought mere popularity, and never would
do so. A. great trust bad been confided to him,
which he had executed to the best of his ability ;
and when his constituents told him that he no
longer enjoyed their confidence, he would retire
from service without any ill-feeling towards any
one. A letter had been published in one of the local
papers, in which the writer, after expressing his
surprise that he (Mr. Scholefield) had joined
the Southern Confederation, went on to say he
ought,in fairness, to tell the electors what he meant
by recognition, and asked them, " Does he want to
bring a pressure on the Government by enforcing
the breaking cf the blockade and forcing the country
into a war with the United States? This is a
question about which Mr. S. ought not to leave
us in doubt." (Hear, hear.) Now, although
be abominated above everything recurring to
past speeches, as he was now on his defence ho must
refer to matters of history. In the r3petch which he
addressed to them in 1862, he said this :—" I am not
for intervention, because that means war. I am not
for mediation, because that means failure ; but I am
for simple recognition." He was asked if he was
ready to plunge this country into war by the recog-
nition, or if ho was prepared to call on the Govern-
ment to break the blockade. With regard to the
blockade, if the legal advisers of the Crown said
that there was a legal blockade, he for one would
not lift his little finger to break it; and if by recog-
nition war was implied, then he would recoil from it
with horror. (Hear, hear, from Mr. Bright.) He
contended that recognition was not a departure
from neutrality, and that it only implied the moral
effect of public opinion; He thought that secession
was an act of folly on the part of the South, but it
was not for strangers or foreigners to judge what
amount of oppression would justify revolt. The
Southerns, whatever their grievances, were surely
better judges of these grievances than we were. His
own opinion was, that however foolish and illegal
the secession may have been, it was a moral right
conceded by the declaration of independence, and
sanctioned by President Lincoln himself. Secession
was no new thing in America. There was a seces-
sion in 1814. It was not then a secession of the
South, but of the New England States. Being
opposed to the war, they not only seceded but raised
a flag of their own. How was it, then, that what
was held to be patriotism then, was now to be re-
garded as treachery and impolicy ? He urged that
the present war was not a war for the emancipation
of the slaves ; and if it were, it was not the less on
that account an immoral and unjustifiable war.
(Cheers and hisses.) The preservation of the
Union was the great idea which pervaded
the minds of the Northerners from the
President downwards. The President on one
occasion declared—" M promised object in
this struggle was to save the Union. (Cheers.)
IVithout freeing any slave I would do it, and if I
could save it by freeing all the slaves I would, and
if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others
elone I would do that. What I would do about
colour innn and slaves I would do because I edbe-
lieve it helps to save the Union." (Cheers.) After
such an expression of opinion he was surprised to
hear people say that the object of the President was
to put down slavery. (Hear, hear, and marks of dis-
approbation.) The proclamation emancipating the
slaves was issued by the President solely as a war
measure, to crush the rebellion and restore the Union
by war. (Cheers and uproar.) If this was a.war for
the emancipetion of the slave, then he said most

emphatically that it was an immoral war. If it was
morally right in America to put down slavery in
that country, it was equally morally right for this
country to make war upon Spain to put down
slavery in Cabe, upon Russia to put down serfdom,
or upon the King of Dahomey to put down infan-
ticide. (Cheers, hisses, and great uproar.) He had
never been an advocate for peace at any price, but
he had always been opposed to any war that was
not a decisive war. An aggressive war was, to his
mind, a great crime, and would never meet with his
sanction and assent. He was told he was blamed not
so much for the opinions he had expressed in 1862,
but for having joined a Confederate association. He
thought he would have been more open to condem-
nation if, after expressing his views, he had not had
the courage to carry them out. He was told that
in consequence of the course he had taken he would
lose his seat. Deeply as he valued the honour which
they had conferred upon him, there was something
he valued still more highly than a seat in Parlia-
ment, and that was the right to speak and act freely
and independently within the range of the powers
with which they themselves had entrusted him. If,
for the course he had taken, they deemed him no
longer worthy of representing them, he should bow
to their decision without the slightest murmur.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. BRIGn! then presented himself, and was re-
ceived with enthusiastic cheering. When silence
was restored he spoke as follows :—Gentlemen,
although I have often stood on this platform, yet I
can assure you that on no former occasion have I
felt it necessary so much to ask your forbearance
and your silent attention as on this occasion. I had
no hope a week ago that I should be able to attend
here to-night, and to address this large audience—
but, being here in the performance of my duty, as
one of your representatives, I shall endeavour to
lay before you the thoughts which are uppermost
in my mind in which we all feel deeply interested.
(Cheers.) There are two subjects which have been
treated upon by my hon. colleague, about which I
would just say a few words before I come to those
matters on which I had intended to speak. The
first is the question which now keeps Europe in
suspense ; which may end in a war, or may end in
some diplomatic accommodation of a long-standing
quarrel. I will not go into the history of the
Danish and German dispute. I have received since
I came here a long and most able letter from a Ger-
man professor resident in this country on behalf of
the German view of the question. Possibly he is
now within the sound of my voice. I can only tell
him, in telling you, that I agree entirely and from
my heart with every word that my hon. colleague
spoke upon that question. And I will say further,
that if there be a possible Government in our day
that will plunge this country into war under the
pretence of maintaining the balance of power in
Europe, and sustaining any kingdom there, be it
little or great, that Government not only is not
worthy the confidence of the people of England, but
deserving of our execration and abhorrence. (Loud
and prolonged cheers.) There is one other question
to which my hon. friend has devoted a consider-
able portion of his speech. Ho said, and I
believe it, that a year ago he felt it a painful thing
to stand here and avow opinions contrary to those
of many of his friends, and contrary to those which
I had avowed before. I told you then how painful
a thing it was for me to stand up and controvert on
this platform any of the stetemen,s which he had
adduced. I came here to-night intending to say no
single word as to the question between North and
South in the United States. My opinion is that the
unanimous judgment of the people of England, so
far as that is ever shown upon any public occasion,
is in favour of the course which her Majesty's Gover-
ment have publicly declared it to be their intention
to pursue. I believe that my hon. friend is mistaken
in the view which he takes of the meaning and of
the result of what he calls the recognition of the
South. (Cheers.) I have seen it stated by authority,
North as well as South, and by authority which I
may term English, and by authority from France,
that in the present condition of the quarrel recog-
nition, by all the usages of nations, must necessarily
lead to something more—(cheers)—and therefore,
although there were no question of a avery, although
it was simply a political revolt, and that there were
no special moral questions connected with it--I be-
lieve that, looking to the past usage of this country
with regard to the rebellion of the Greeks against
the Turks, and with regard to the revolt of the
colonies of South America against Spain, that it can
be demonstrated that these cases afford no support
whatever to the argument that we are permitted to
recognise the South, and that if such recognition
did take place now it could only exasperate still
more the tearible strife which exists on the North
American continent, and would spread that strife
over Europe itself. Now, I am myself of opin ion, and
have been from the first, that the people of America
so numerous, so powerful, so instructed, so capable
in every way, would settle the differences of that
continent without asking the old countries of Eu-
rope to take any share in them. I believe that in the
providence of the Supreme the slaveholder—un-
taught and unteachable by fact or argument, or
Christian precept—has been permitted to commit, I
will not call it the crime, but the act of suicide upon
himself. (Cheers.) Whether President Lincoln be
in favour of abolition—whether the North are
unanimous against slavery—whatever may be said
or thought with regard to the transactions on that
continent—he must be deaf and blind, and worse
than deaf and blind, who does not perceive that,
through the instrumentality of this strife, that most
odious and most indescribable offence against man
and against heaven, the slavery and bondage of four
millions of fellow-creatures, is coming to a certain
and a rapid end. (Loud cheers.) Sir, I will say of
this question that 1 look forward to the time when
I shall stand on this platform with my hon. col-
league, and when he will join with me—for he is
honest enough and frank enough to do that—when
he will join with me in rejoicing that there does not
breathe a slave cn the North American continent—
(loud cheers)—that the Union has been completely
restored, and not less will he rejoice that England
did not in the remotest manner, by a word or a
breath, or the raisingof a finger, or the setting of a
type, do one single thing to promote the atrocious
object of the leaders of this accursed insurrection.
(Continued cheering.) Now, Sir, I must ask you
to listen to me a little on matters less exciting, and
our friends down below (alluding to the crowded
state of the hall), who are enduring a sort of
purgatory, I must ask to be as compassionate to me
as they can, and I will commiserate them as much
as possible. About two months ago, on the 24th
of November, I had the opportunity of making a
speech in the town of Rochdale, where I live. The
meeting was, I suppose, nearly as large as this. It
was called for the purpose of affording an oppor-
tunity to our distinguished representative, Mr.
Cobden, to address his constituents. There are
very few meetings of that kind in Rochdale to
which I am not ins ited, and in which I am not ex-
pected to take part. On that occasion I took the
opportunity of objecting to those persons who think
that everything is done in this country that need
to be done, and that everybody is so happy that
politics are at an end. I spoke particularly of the
question of the million or million and a half of our
labouring population employed in cultivating the
soil. I need not tell you what you know per-
fectly, that from that time to this there has been
rather a lively discussion in the newspapers about
what was said on that occasion. I have had no
opportunity of speaking, and I have not thought it
necessary to write anything on the matter; but if
you will give me your attention for five minutes, I
should like to say a little about it. Now, what I
said to that meeting on the subject of the land ss as
thithat
s
: —f e
uI
dsahl
iosuml d
ws
tyh,
ri
ef
gwa er
dwteor e t
he fairlyland
o represented,f
England
should be abolished; and that the agricultural
'Atbourer throughout the United Kingdom should be
redeemed from that poverty and serfdom which, up
to this time, has been his lot. It would take a lent;
speech, indeed it would take a night to go into the
question of the condition of that class—but with
laws such as we have, intended to bring large tracts
of land into the possession of cue man, that one man
may exercise great political power, that system is a
curse to the country, and dooms the agricultural
labourer to perpetual poverty and degradation.
Now, there were comments upon that speech, but I

shall only refer to the comments of one paper, the
Times. The Times, in an article on foreign politics,
and speaking of the small States of Europe, which
may have something to gain by change, said they
may look upon these changes with something of
that satisfaction with which the poor might regard
Mr. Bright's proposition for the division among
them of the lands of the rich. Well, now, you
know that a correspondence took place
almost immediately, and in consequence of
that passage, between my friend Mr. Cobden and
Mr. John Delane, the editor of the 7imes. Now this
is what the limes had said two days after the
speeches :—" This language"—that is the language
that Mr. Cobden and I had used, and my language,
I am free to say, was more strong on the general
question than Mr. Cobden's—" this language, so
often repeated, and so calculated to excite discontent
among the poor and half-informed, has really only
one intelligible meaning. Reduce the electoral fran-
chise ; and when you have done so you will obtain an
assembly which will seize on the estates of the pro-
prietors of the land and divide them gratuitously
among the poor." (Laughter.) Well, sir, when this
notable newspaper editor was brought to book, what
did he say ? On the same day he wrote a letter to
Mr. Cobden, the 18th December, and he also had an
article in his newspaper. In his letter he says this,
" You seem to assume that I charged you with pro-
posing that this division should be accomplished by
violence." Does anybody believe that anybody
without violence can seize upon the lands of the
rich and distribute them gratuitously—that is, for
nothing—among the poor. On the same day, in an
article, he made this statement, " Nobody was likely
to charge these two gentlemen with recommending
agrarian outrage; for their interests are as much
bound up with social order, the rights of property,
and the Queen's peace, as that of the whole peerage."
That is true enough ; but why did he not find that out
before he made that charge ? He says—" Nobody
who read the single line which Mr. Cobden has seized
for a peg to hang his defence upon would imagine for
a moment that it pointed to violence." Well, now,
that is a gentleman who professes to reconcile and
lead the nation. Suppose that he had charged Adam
Smith, the great apostle of political economy, with
approving piracy, or if he had charged John Wesley
with being a great encourager of drunkenness and
profanity, would it have been more extraordinary
than that he should charge Mr. Cobden and myself
with instigating to agrarian outrage, the seizure of
the estates of those who now hold them, and the di-
viding of them amongst the poor—of course, taking
nothing from the poor for them, and, therefore, giv-
ing nothing to the rich for them ? Why, I will
undertake to say, if there be two men in England
who have more constantly and more earnestly for
25 years preached the doctrine of absolute honesty
with regard to legislation, those two men are Mr.
Cobden and myself.(Cheere.) But Mr. Cobden came
forward to assail Mr. Delane with regard to this
charge against me. He found a man in a mask en-
deavouring to stab me in the back—for he had not
seen that the same man had been in a previous ar-
ticle also stabbing him—and he came forward and
dragged his mask from him, and showed him, with
whatever lineaments he is distinguished, to the gaze
of the whole nation and the whole world. After
denial and equivocation of every kind, this unmasked
editor of this great journal was obliged to retire
from the personal part of this controversy, and to
skulk back into the anonymous, which suits him
better. (Laughter and cheers.) Neither Mr. Cobden
nor I have ever said anything to show that we
thought it desirable to abolish by force of law anony-
mous writing in our newspapers ; but Mr. Cobden
laments, as I do, and as you all do, that the anony-
mous system inevitably is a shelter for a man who
has no sense of honour. I recollect a description
which, I am sure, will suit Mr. Delano admirably.
It was published some time ago in the city of New
York, and describes a notorious politician there,
who, if I am not mistaken, has been at the elbow of
the New York correspondent of the limes fur the
last 12 months, with what happy success to the fore-
cast and the honesty of that paper we all know. It
was said of him that he was a just man, and a right-
eous, and he walked uprightly before the world; but
when he was not before the world his walk was slant.
iogdicular. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir, the limes
newspaper, notwithstanding all this, is a power in this
country—(hear, hear)—and a power in Europe. No
man laments more than Ido that so much power
should be associated with what I will call a godless
intellect and a practical Atheism. No one laments
more than I do that a paper that was once great in
its independence has become now—what shall I
say ? domesticated,—for the editor of the limes is
now domesticated in the houses of Cabinet Minis-
ters and members of high families in London. He
has learned now in this day that that paper might
have been more useful than ever to fetch and carry
for Cambridge House. (Laughter and cheers.) And,
Sir, for aught I know, looking to what is said in the
clubs in London of the dispensation of patronage to
men who have been writers in that journal—lam not
sure, unless what I say now may make it difficult,
that some day or other Mr. Walter, the proprietor or
chief proprietor of that paper, may not find himself
placed in the House of Peers as a compensation for
the services offered to the present Prime Minister of
England. (Laughter and cheers.) But now pass-
ing from that subject, you will remember that my
argument at Rochdale was this, that the agricultural
labouring population of this country was in a de-
plorable condition, but I believed that to a large
extent it was to be attributed to the unsound and
unjust laws which regulate the possession and dis-
tribution of land. You know of course, living in
Birmingham, as well as we know, that contrary to
what exists in some countries, we have first the
great landowner, who is always becoming richer—
that is if he does not spend too much—his land is
always becoming more valuable; you find him living
in a better house, with more gorgeous fittings and
with more splendid equipages. [A Voice—And so is
the cotton owner.] No doubt if you pursue it further
you will find the tenant farmer occupying larger
farms, and with much greater apparent wealth.
But if you come to the labourers who cultivate the
land, by whose toil and whose sweat your tables are
furnished with bread and with beef, and with many
other things that they produce, you find labourers
at this moment, I believe, at a greater distance
from the landlord and from the tenant, probably,
than they were almost at any former period. (Hear,
hear.) [A Voice—No.] There is a gentleman in the
body of the hall who evidently differs from me. I
am very glad he is in the meeting. I would ask you
whether, in past years, you have over read any
letters in the limes newspaper signed " S. G. 0."
Those letters are written by a gentleman of rare in-
telligence and of great benevolence, and his descrip-
tion I believe may be entirely relied upon. If any of
you happened to read some three or four Months
ago letters written from parts of Buckinghamshire
and published in the Star newspaper with regard to
the condition of that population, you will know what
it is that I mean. But if you are unwilling to take
their evidence, let us take that of a witness
that nobody here will call in question, and that is,
the evidence of the Saturday Retied). Rolf, on
the 26th September last there was an article in
that journal on agricultural labourers, in which
it said—and I beg you to listen to it, for in point of
fact it is a great point of my speech—" When
the dull season of the year comes round—that is,
between October and the meeting of Parliament—
all sorts of odd persons and things have their share
of public attention, and even agricultural labourers
are pitied and discussed. At other times they live
on with no one to care much for them—the farmer
looking on them as his natural enemies, the parson's
kindly soul getting weary of his long combat with
their helpless stolid ignorance, and the squire not
knowing what he can do for them further than build
two or three Elizabethan cottages, covered with
honeysuckles, close to his gates. If foreigners write
about them, we are moved to a languid shame and
sadness by thinking how true the picture, and what
wretched, uncured for, untaught brutes the people
are who raise the crops on which we live." Bear
in mind that is not my language, but the lan-
guage of a great friend of the agricultural
interests. The writer says—" There is a wailing
for the dirt and vice and misery which must
prevail in houses where seven or eight persons
of both sexes and all ages are penned up together
for the night in thu one rickety, foul, vermin-

haunted bedroom. The picture of agricultural life
unrolls itself before us as it is painted by those who
know it best. We see the dull, clouded mind, the
bovine gaze, the brutality and recklessness, the
simple audacity, and the confessed hatred of his
betters, which mark the English peasant, unless
some happy fortune has saved him from the general
lot, and persuaded him that life has something be-
sides beer that the poor man may have and may re-
lish," Then he goes on to declare " that the old
feudalism of England--the state of things when they
yet were serfs, and when the lords of the soil were
almost a different order of beings—still colours the
relations of the rich and the poor." Perhaps you
would like to know what he says an agricultural
labourer ought to be and do. He says—" It is
looked on as the duty and place of the poor man
to stay for ever in his native village, to work for
ten or twelve shillings a week, to bring up a large
family respectably on the money, to touch his hat
to the gentry, to go to church regularly, and make
out as much as he can of the service. To be content
and happy. To hate the public-house and feel no
longing for company, or a bright fire, or gossip; to
be guided towards heaven by the curate and the
young ladies." (Laughter.) He adds—" This is
the poor man which modern feudalism aims at pro-
ducing." This is the testimony of the Saturday
Review—and what do you think the writer pro-
poses ? He proposes that instead of a man receiv-
ing his parochial relief from the parish, he shall be
allowed to receive it from a larger area, namely,
the union. He says that a law, hardly ever put in
force, by which a working man who breaks his eon-
tract with his master is treated as a criminal,
should be abolished. I do not think that
these remedies would be sufficient for the
malady he has described in such powerful lan-
guage, and I ask you this question—ls it an un-
changeable law of heaven that the agricultural popu-
lation of this country shall continue in that condi-
tion ? (Cries of no, and cheers.) They tell you your
agriculture is far better than the agriculture of any
other country, that you can produce a larger quan-
tity of wheat than any other producer from a given
surface. We know that there is the greatest market
in the world close at our doors, and the means of
conveyance to every part of the kingdom. Then I
want to know why it is that the labouring popula-
tion on the farms of the-country are in the condition
in which they are described ; is it so in the most
civilised countries in Europe ? Is it so in the United
States of America ? I could give it to you (only read-
ing evidence from books is not suited to a meeting like
this, from the highest in rank, from the most culti-
vated in mind, from those most extensively known
in public affairs; and I could prove to you beyond
all contest, that in all those countries in Europe,
where the land is divided and the people have
the chance of having some of it—at least those
who are industrious and frugal—that the condition
of the agricultural peasant population is infinitely
superior to anything to be seen in Great Britain
and Ireland. (Hear, hear,) Well, then, you may ask
me very reasonably—What is the difference be-
tween the laws of these countries and the laws of
ours, and what change do you propose ? I will tell
you in as few words as I can. In the greatest pore
tion of the continent of Europe, in France, in Ger-
many, in Belgium,'in Holland, in Norway, and it is
likely to spread over Europe, the state of the law is
this. It follows what I believe to be the natural
law of affection between parents and children, that
a large portion of the property of the parent must
by will, or if not by will the law will order it to be
equally divided among the children. What is the case
with respect to all property but land ? All
the property of the parent, according to
the number of his children, must be divided
amongst them, except what he may be-
queath by will. You are to be frightened by this
law of bequest as if it was something very dreadful.
Why it only follows the rule which merchants and
manufacturers and all other people in the world have
followed in latter days, in treating their children
with equal affection and equal justice. (Cheers.) Go
to the United States and you will see a different
state of the law from what you will find in this
country. There a man may leave his property as he
likes among his children, because the United States
law believes that natural affection and justice form
of themselves a sufficient law in the majority of
cases, and therefore that it is not necessary to en-
force them by any statute. If a man dies without
a will, the law of the United States takes his pro-
perly, and looking upon his children with equal
affection and equal justice, makes that distribution
which it believes the just and loving parent would
have made. Bat if you come to this country what do
you find ? This—That with regard to all kinds of
property except that which is called real pro-
perty—the land of the country and the houses upon
it—our law does exactly the same. It divides it
equally amongst the children, because it knows that
that is what the parent should have done, and would
have done if he had been a good parent. (Cheers.)
Bat when it comes to the question of land, then,
contrary to the European law, which makes a sta-
tute according to natural justice—contrary to the
United States law, which, when there is no will,
makes a law in accordance wiih natural justice, our
law does exactly that which natural justice would
forbid. (Cheers.) I should like to know if anybody
is prepared to deny this. Personalty—that is,
property which is not land—is divided equally. The
property which is land is not divided equally, but is
given to the eldest son in a lump. Now, tell me
whether the principles which the law of Eu-
rope for the most part wishes to enforce,
that which the law of America enforces
when there is no will, that which we enforce
when land is out of the question, tell me if that is
not a more just law, approving itself to the hearts
of men and before the eye of Heaven—than the law
by which we send as beggars into the world half a
dozen children in order that we may make one rich
in the possession of the land, (Cheers.) What are
the reasons ? These things are not done without
reasons, for they are high political reasons. (Laugh-
ter.) Now, these reasons are very curious in some
countries: In Turkey it has been the custom a
yea lone
time—it is hardly broken down
wielderslof the sceptre should even destroy their
younger brothers, lest they should become competi-
tors with them for the throne. What would you
think if the law of this country doomed the younger
children to the want of freedom and the want of
education, and conferred freedom and education on
the elder son, leaving the rest to go into the
streets? Bat it would be just as reasonable to cut
off ell the youngers boys and girls from education
as it is to cut them off from their fair share of
their father's property. But you will find to-morrow
morning, in all probability, an edib3r in this town
—who does not servo you generally, as I have
noticed, with strong meat—you will find that, if he
comments on this part of my speech, he will say,
what use would it be to make a law that all the pro-
few men die without a will that it will make very
perty shall be divided in case there is no will ? So
little difference. Well, I will tell you what diffe-
rence it will make. It would take all the tremen-
dous sanction of the law from the side of evil and
pine° It on the aide of good. There.is a case, it is
the only one Which occurs to me at present, which
happened about the time-when the American colonies
were separted from this country. In the State of
Virginia laws of primogeniture and entail were en-
forced in the most rigid manner. 11Ir. Jefferson, after-
wards the President,considered it one of the greatest
acts of his life that he had prevailed on the Legis-
lature of Virginia to abolish this law,
and in his
life I find this statement; ;—" The class which pro-
vided for the perpetuation of ii:.' wealth also mono-
polised the civil offices." You will i,.:
able to judge
t
whether that is the case in this country.
(Cheers.)
Amongst the reasons which he gave for abolabolishingentail., he said he wished to make an opening forth.:
aristocracy of virtue and talent, which now has so
wisely provided for the direction of the interests of
society, and scattered with equal hand throughout
all its conditions. When he came to the abolition of
the law of primogeniture, it is stated by his biogra-
phert dis
that this change had not merely altered
tribution of that portion of landed property whihe c
- h is
transmitted by the silent operation of the law, but
that it had also operated on public opinion so as to
influence testamentary dispositions by the proprie-
tors. He went on to :lay that cases are very rare in
which a parent makes by his will a much more eun-

equal distribution of his property a mong his child
ren than the law itself would make. It is thus that
laws themselves—the creature of public opinion—
often powerfully react upon it. The writer goes
on to show that the effect of the change had been to
alter the distribution of land. It lessened the chances
of ever being so enormously rich, and it gave much
great©r chances for moderate riches and comfort ;
and that if there were fewer coaches-and-six in the
State of Virginia, there were twenty times as many
carriages and pairs. (Cheers and laughter.) The
question of primogeniture I have briefly touched on.
The question of entail is much on the same footing.
I will only say a word or two on the subject. The
object of entailing land is to keep great estates to-
gether, and to keep them in one family. Under this
system land in this country is sometimes tied up for
fifty, eighty, or one hundred years, and no person
has the power to sell it, however advantageous it
may be to the proprietors themselves and to the pub-
lic that the land should be sold. (Hear, hear.) And
then we come to the difficulties of the question of
transfer. If you will ask gentlemen who are near
me, who are connected with the law, they will tell
you that it always takes months, and sometimes
years, to provide a title, and of course that has no
inconsiderable effect in increasing the amount of the
purchase-money. (Cheers.) Now, may I ask what
are the particular reasons for which this state of
things is maintained? It is for the very reason for
which this system was established 800 years ago that
there may be in this country a handful of persons—
twice as many, perhaps, as there are in this room,
who are the owners of nearly all the land in the
country—in whose hands is concentrated nearly all
the power, and by whom the government of the
country is mainly conducted, and amongst whom the
patronage of the Government is mainly distributed.
(Loud cheers.) In every country of the world as far
as I know, the possessors of land are the possessors
of power. In France at this moment we all know
perfectly well that notwithstanding there may be a
revolution now and then in the streets of Paris,
still if you come to the greater question of voting,
of the opinion of numbers, the proprietors of the
land of France are the vast majority of the voting
population, and ten or twelve years ago it was
their suffrages that conferred the supreme
power upon the present Emperor of the French. (A
Voice—That's a lie. Laughter.) If you cross the
Atlantic and study the political system of the
United States, where almost all the farmers are the
owners of their farms, you will find that they are
the holders of political power. The city of New
York, through its mayor, it may be at one time, or
the governor of the State at another, and the news-
papers of New York may denounce the policy of
the Government at 'Washington ; but it is not the
tenant but the land-owning farmers and cultivators
of the great States in the interior of the country who
are the depositories of political power, by whose will
alone the President of the United States is able to
carry on the great matters which belongs to his
exalted station—(cheers)—and it is the same in the
Southern States—for the great planting populatioia
—the great owners of plantations, are the life and
soul of the disorders which are now unhappily
reigning in those States. If you come to your own
country, if you come to your own county of War-
wick, you will find that two or three landowners
can sit down and determine who shall or who shall
not go to Parliament in the pretended representa-
tion of the population of this county. (Cries of
Shame.) I believe that these vast properties, which
are of no real advantage to those who hold them—
for £lOO,OOO or £200,000 can give no more real
happiness than £lO,OOO or £5,000 a-year—l believe
that these great properties give great political
power, and this, which we call our great territorial
system,prevails to an extent in this country which is
probably unknown in any other, and leaves the cul-
tivators of the soil ignorant and hopeless and de-
graded. (Cheers.) There is a great tendency to
larger farms throughout the country, which makes
it still more difficult even for a labourer even to be-
come a tenant, or even to rise above his present
condition. An illustration occurs to me which I
once before used in this room. I see a ladder—a
social ladder—up which I want to see the poor,
and depressed, end unfortunate nine-shil-
lings or ter-shillings a week labourer
ascend gradually. I ehould rejoice to see him
getting up a few steps and becoming a farmer,
even in a small way, or becoming the owner of a
piece of land; but I find that at six, or eight, or
ten feet every stave of the ladder is broken out, and
from his low position he has no chance of ascending.
Let there be slip of small farms and small estates,
and let land generally be bought and sold, and then
the labourer will have something to hope for, some-
thing to save even his small savings for, and by
chance some of them may find their way from their
humble and melancholy position to one which I
wish from my soul every labourer in the country
could occupy, (Loud cheers.) Now, for fear that
that the man in the mask—he has got his mask on
again for a time—(laughter)—for fear the man in
the mask should misrepresent my views, let me tell
you that I am not against great estates, or great
farmers, or great properties, or great factories ; but
I have a great desire to see small estates, and small
farmers, and small factories. In this country,
where there is such a great creation of wealth, there
is always a great desire for the accumulation of land.
I know the case of a nobleman—it is in a southern
county—l am speaking from public report—who is
said to have £120,000 a year, but who being a wise
man as regards his expenditure, only spends £40,000
a year; but it is a mystery to me how he does it.
(Laughter.) He has thus £BO,OOO a year left, and
what does he do with it ? Why ee buys every farm,
every estate that offers; and thus his estate is gra-
dually growing bigger. I don't blame him for that.
I applaud him in this respect, that he is a man who
does not waste his property ; and I have always
heard the nobleman to whom I refer bears an excel-
lent character in the neighbourhood where he lives
There are persons who come from Manchester and
from Leeds, and I hope from Birmingham, who can
purchase considerable estates. These is always a
tendency in this country, especially whore wo have
so much manufacturing and commercial industry
and wealth, to buy estates. There possessions give
great social position and great political influence. I
am not complaining of this; it is a natural, and a
just, and a healthy thing; it is desirable that the
farmer should have the stimulus of ambition to
acquire larger farms, and that those possessing
estates should wish to acquire larger estates.
This is the stimulus that leads men to strive for some-
thing honourable in this country. But to have all these
influences working in that direction, and to add to this
influence the force of a most intricate and complicated sys-
tem of law—to give all these forces greater forces, is in
my opinion contrary to all the true interests of England ;
and I believe that if it goes on in this way for another
half century as it has been for the last half century it may
cause discontent and great embarrassment within this now
peaceful kingdom, (Cheers.) What I propose is this—it
is the most moderato that can be proposed. If you want
to see an admirable description of what I think it would be
wise to do you will find it in a paper which certainly is
not very Radical—l mean the Spectator--a weekly Lon-
don newspaper. There was an article on land )wners
to
the State of Now York. The writer says with regard
certain changes, "No doubt Mr. Bright did not clnsider
them sufficient for his purposes and wishes." Now he is
quite mistaken. The changes which hoproposes are Tore
extensive than any changes which I ever proposed, either
in public or private. 'What ar o these changes ? First of
all, that the law shall declare that when any person owning
landed property dies without making a declaration . of it by
will the law shall dist:ibute it on the same prple that it
now adopts with any other kind o.f property. For
suppose a man has got money in the bank, and I wish
everybody had—(cheers and laugh
ter)—suppose he
has
machinery in a mill, or merchandise in a warehouse, or
shares and parchments in his safe—when he dies the law
makes a distribution of all that property in accordance as I
believe with the principle of parental affection and justice.
I say let that principle be extended to all property of which
a man may die possessed. In that respect I want to go no
farther. (Cheers.) With regard to the question of en-
ta:tsy I would say this—the Spectator proposes that a
y, may entail his property so as to prevent his heir
the next heir from disposing of it—that is, that
tand
here shall only be two persons in the entail. I only
tilat. a ma.n. may leave his property to
propose this,
any persons who nuy bo the time ho makes his
But at present he can leave it to a number of people,
awill.nd to the child unborn, and which may not be born until
90 years after the making the will. I would alter that sys-
tem. I should be content to have the property left to per-
sons in existence, and whose names should appear in the
will ; and you will not find as A, B, or C died off that the
property would come into the hand of a man who would
have ale absolute disposal of ,it. (Cheers.) That is what I