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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVEN

ccedings,
• Mr. G. DIXON moved the following resolution—
" The present House of Commons having been
elected on the question of Reform, and the majority
of its members having pledged themselves to pro-
mote en extension of the franchise, this meeting
e records its opinion that the Parliament has failed in
its duty in not having passed a measure which
would have admitted a large number of the unen-
franchised to a real share in the government of the
Natation ; and that this meeting believes the present
_}period to bo favourable to the passing of such a
aawasure, the necessity for which has on various
occasions been enforced by her Majesty's Ministers,
• 'and by the leaders of both political parties."
1 The motion having been seconded by Mr. Alder-
man igaenroN, was put and unanimously agreed to.
Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, M.P., then rose to address the
meeting, and was received with mingled cheers and
lijizie,s, but the cheering greatly predominated. He
olerved that he was prepared to-night, as he
" aays had been, to address his constituents, and
fiqrusted that if any differences of opinion pre-
vailed they would agree to discuss those differences
;„ iiisp.erfect good temper. With regard to the last
Ti setiion of Parliament he did not agree with those
c. villa' asserted that nothing was done during that
r 4001&11. He believed many useful measures had been
pliped, and he knew of none of an obnoxious cha-
racter except those odious restrictions in reference
. to the game laws which both himself and his col-
league had opposed to the utmost of their power'
He was not sanguine that any great measure would
be passed next session. The reins of government
were in hands that ware not certainly very strong.
The power of the Government was at the mercy of
„, • •1 he Conservatives at any moment, and such being
44
0
~,.
.. tie case we could not look for any important mea-
la - ' sures from the Ministry. Nor did he believe, al-
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
7 j=ustify 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 'oe 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 all 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 Qozen'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
hid 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 efft.ct 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 19,000,000,
showing a net reduction in favour of the taxpayer
et £14,000,000 sterling, and yet those taxes which
in 1830 produced only £35,000,000, produced no
less than £11,060,000 in 1802. The assessments
for the income tax which in 1840 were £192,000,000,
amount,A. in 1801 to £276,000,000. The exports
and imports, which amounted to £172,000,000 in
1810, is 1862 had risen to the prodigious amount
of £093,000,000. Turning to another topic the hon.
gentleman said when in 1862 ho stated his views
with regard to the American civil war—(cheers and
hisses)—he hoped it would not have been necessary
for him again to allude to the subject on that occa-
sion. He differed from a largo number of his best
and warmest friends, and from his hon. colleague,
with whom ho 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 nu
longer enjoyed their confidence, he would retire
from service tt ithout any ill-feeling to wards any
one. A letter had been published in one of the local
papers, in which the writer, after expressing his
surprise that ho (Mr. Scholefield) had joined
the Southern Confederation, went on to say he
cugbt,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 of 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
he abominated above everything recurring to
past, speeches, as he was now on his defence he must
refer to matters of history. In the speech which he
addressed to them in 1862, he said this :—" I am not
fur intervention, becauso 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 it' he was prepared to call on the Govern-
.
nsent 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
frora neutrality, and that it only implied the moral
. Lit. et of public opinion. Ha thought that secession
_ w`" '",n set 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
2i • 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, bet of the New England States. Being
opposed to the war, they not only seceded but raised
afiig 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 cleclared---4,1y promised object in
this struggle was
to save the Union. (Cheers.)
Without 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
alone I would do that. What I would do about
coloured men and slaves I would do because I be-
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-
The proclamation emancipating the
approbation.)
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 emancipation of the slave, their he said most

rAnphatically 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 lut down
slavery in Cabs, upon Russia to put down serfdom,
or upon the King of Dahomey to p:t ( own 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 ha 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 hevalued 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. BRIGHT 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 its
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. He 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 statements 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 tho 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 s' every, although
it was simply a political revolt, anti 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 opinion, 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 Supremo the slaveholder—un-
taught and unteachable by fact cr argument, or
Christian precept—has been permitted to commit, I
will not call it the crime, but the act of suicide upon
himself. (Ceeers.) Whether President Lincoln be
in favour of abolition—whether the North arc
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 raising,of 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 hail), 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 P.ochdale, 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 was
this :—I should say, if we were fairly represented,
that feudalism with regard to the land of England
should be abolished ; and that the agricultural
labourer
throughout
from
that
povertyth
redeemed
and
to this time, has been his lot.ltswerotud awkheicah' p
longu
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 largo tracts
that
that
system t one man
is a
of land into the possession of
one
may exercise great political power, h man,
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 roily refer to the comments of one paper, the
Times. The Times, in are article on foreign polities,
and speaking of the small States of Europe, which
may have somethieg to gain by charge, said they
may look upon those ehunges with eomething of
that setisfection with es high 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 cf
that passage, between my friend Mr. Cobden and
Mr. John Delane, the editor of the limes, Now this
is what the limes had said two days after the
speeches :--"'Phis 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 be wrote a letter to
Mr. Ccbden, 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 poen 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 wculd 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 ho 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.(Cbeers.) But Mr. Cobden came
forward to assail Mr. Delano 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. Delane 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 for 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-
ir.gdicalar. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir, the limes
newspaper, notwithstandin g 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. Ile
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 wilt 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 diffirs from me. I
am very glad he is in the meeting. I would ask you
whether, in past years, you have ever read any
letters in the limes newspaper signed " S. G. 0."
Those letters are written by a gentlerc an 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 aro unwilling to take
their evidence, let us take that of a witness
that nobody hero will call in question, and that is,
the evidence of the Saturday Review. Now, on
the 20th 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
warreetwched,
uncured
horaise the e
crops
ofor,p s untaught
which
w brutese
live." h t
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 the one rickety, foul, vermin-

haunted bedroom. The picture of easieultural life
unrolls itself he 'a.); e 13 es is is painted by theses who
Know it beet. We see the dull, &.outiert mind, the
bovine gaze, the brutality and recklessness, the
sirope audacity, aed 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 en 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 con-
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 ho 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 thacountry are in the condition
in whioh they are described ; is it so in the most
civilised countries in Europe ? Is it so in the United
States of America P 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 affsira ; 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 pol•
Lion 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 pareni, 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 worldhave
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-
per;y, 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. But 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 erectly 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.)
But 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 naturel 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 D,
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 oat 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. (Caeers.) What are
the reasons ? These things aro 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 long
time—it is hardly broken down yet—that the
wielders7,,of the sceptre should oven destroy their
younger brothers, lest they should become competi-
tors with them for the throne. What
ywould you
think if the law of this country doomed tne 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 all the youngcrs boys and girls from education
as it i 3 tO cut them off from their fair share of
—who does not serve
morning, in all probability, an editor in this town
their father's property. But you will find to-morrow
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.
perty shall be divided in case there is no will? So
few men die without a will that it will make very
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
place it on the side 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. Mr. Jefferson, after-
wards the President, considered it one of the greatest
acts of his life that ho 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 its wealth also mono-
polised the civil offices." You will be able to judge
whether that is the case in this country. (Cheers.)
Amongst the reasons which be gave for abolishing
entails, he said he wished to make an opening for the
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-
pher that this change had not merely altered the dis-
tribution of that portion of landed property which 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. Ho went on to bay that cases are very rare in
which a parent makes by his will a much more:un-