The Sun.
London, England, 1864-10-24 00:00:00

Mr. Bernal Osborne on Public Affairs.

Mr B. Osborne, M.P., addressed his constituents in the
Guildhall at Liskeard at eight on Friday evening; Mr H.
Caunter, Mayor of the borough, occupied the chair.
Mr OSBORNE, who was recQived with great cheering,
said,—This, gentlemen, is the season for societies' meet-
ings and congresses of all sorts. You have social science

meetings, political meetings, scientific meetings, and eccle-
siastical congresses all assembling. You have addresses, ex-
plainings, lecturings, andmystityings upon all the subjects,
Let me hope that my speech will not be of the latter class,
(A. laugh.) I am here to give, as far as in= lies, a straight-
forward account of my Parliamentary career and conduce

in the last session—to explain, if 1 am able, the speeches
that I have made, and to defend, if you require it, the votes
which I have not given. You will all remember that this
last session of Parliament in this year of grace, 1864,

opened with most stormy prognostications. There were
very dangerous winds and from very opposite quarters. To
be sure, nobody can deny that the climate has been some-

what dull at home—bat at the same time the tempest in the
north of Europe was very violent, and, though very many
ill •natured people observed that her Majesty's Government
had no domestic policy, it could not be denied that from
their great experience it was expected they would have
peculiar abilities for managing our foreign affairs. I think
they have shown that they have peculiar abilities for
entangling us in foreign embroihnents. Well, there
were many people who consoled themselves for the
Government not undertaking to bring in a Reform Bill
for home consumption with the idea that they were about
to advise his Majesty the Emperor of Russia, and suggest

a Reform Bill for his subjects in Poland, or rather the
Duchy of Warsaw. Well, it was then regarded as a great

consolation for not having a Reform Bill for England
that we should have ono for Poland—and, although wo
have had no very great measures brought into Parlia-
ment for England, Ireland, or Scotland, there are many
people who console themselves for that by the consideration
that we have lectured Germany, bombarded Japan, defied
the Ashantees, and bullied the Brazils. (Laughter.) That

may be a very great consolation to some people, but I con-
fess I am not one of those ardent spirits who look upon
those things either with sympathy or approval. Let us see
what the results of the session were ? I cannot do it

from a more favourable point of view for the Government
than by taking the Government's own account of the matter
given in the Queen's speech. I observe that the present
speech was read by commissioners, and not by her Majesty.
I have no doubt she was rather disgusted with the Eng-
lish, because people don't like to have such speeches and
things put into their mouths. I would not like to have de-
livered it to my constituents. These speeches are made, I
may tell you, in this manner —One man puts forward one
sontence, and another man another, and when they are all got
together it is then put to the vote, and one unfortunate being
has to put this conglomerate English together and make
what he can out of it. (Laughter.) Let us see now what
portion of this speech is devoted to our domestic policy. We

(the members of Parliament) weie thanked for the zeal an,i
assiduity with which we had applied ourselves to the dia-
charga of our duties in Parliament. Let me tell you, as au
old member of Parliament, what this zeal and assiduity is.
Whenever there is anything really doing, when the esti-
mates are moved, and whenever great sums of money are
voted, there are 50 people in the house. And I must say
this, that those people with whom I act—although I never

was a financial reformer—that those financial reformers who
some three years ago presented a fine flaming document to
the Prime Minister for retrenchment are never there. That
is the first sentence, and when we come to the remainder, it
is really quite curious, It is not like a speech of an Eng-
lish Government,but reminds us of what old Johnson says—
" Lot observation with extensive view,
Survey mankind from China to Peru.''

Every country is spoken of except England, and England
is omitted. Well that may be very satisfactory to some
people, but I dont think it is a satisfactory state of things
for this country that the whole of the working power of the
nation in Parliament should have had nothing to do but to
discuss foreign affairs, leaning our own affairs in slain quo.
Now, I don't stand here to tell you that Parliament has
been utterly useless, and have passed acts which have been
of no value, because I am not of that opinion. The budgets
of Mr Gladstone would form the financial backbone of any
Administration, and Mr Gladstone deserves the greatest
credit and the greatest assistance from the people of this
country for devoting his power and his intellect in prepar-
ing these budgets and lightening the taxation of this coun-
try. Now, what has been the fact with regard to Mr Glad-
stone i Up to the year 1859 the expenditure of this country
was increasing at a monstrous rate, but since Mr Gladstone
has been Chancellor of the Exchequer—since the 37, ar 1859
—he has cut down the taxation from £72,000,000 in the

former year to £37,000,000 in 1864. (Hear, hear,) That is a
beginning, and a very good beginning, I think. Mr Glad-
stone has reduced your income tax; he has in part reduced
that monstrous and unjust tax called the duty on fire in-
surances ; he has reduced your duty upon sugar ; he has
given you—l am speaking now to the industrial working
classes—he has given you a bill, upon which I had very
great doubts as to its propriety at first—l mean the Govern-
ment Annuities, but which, ;Icon further examination, I
was convinced was a most beneficial measure to the indus-
trial working classes. (Hear, hear.) I was in some doubt
about it at first, I tell you candidly, for I have always
thought that it was not the duty of the Government to in-
terfere with the Ibusiness of the private speculator. But
the case was so strongly made out as to the way in which
the poor men were spoiled and deceived by many companies
which were composed of schemers—as I may call them—l
Could not resist the case which was brought before me, and
I gave my entire and hearty support to the bill. That,
I think, was a good and sound measure, and I must give my
meed of approbation to the financial policy which has dis-
tinguished her Majesty's Government, for I am not always
disposed to act with the Government, and to support it at
any rate. I will never keep back the expression cf my ap-
proval where I think it is due. I have drawn your atten-
tion—and I thank you for the attention—to the Queen's
Speech. Now what is the reason why home politics are not
attended to ? What is the reason there is such apathy over
the whole country, I think I can account for it. Gentle-
men, so long as it is the pride of the people of England to
have what is called a spirited for eign policy, so long will
you hive no domestic policy. What is the effect—just look
at the effect—of concentrating all the attention and all the
energies of the country upon foreign politics? What is the
effect but to blind you as to what is going on at home, Now
just look at cur treatment of the Emperor of the French.
Sometimes he is exhibited as a friend—sometimes he is
held up as a bugbear. My own belief is that the Emperor
of the French, who has been brought up in a different man-
ner to other sovereigns—who has known adversity, and is
well acquainted with the ways of the world—knows what
the English people are; and that the Emperor of the French,
not perhaps out of any romantic love for this country, but
from motives of self-interest, is one of the best friends of
our nation. (Applause.) And I must protest against his
name being made Use of to work upon the people of this
country, at ono time for the purpose of altering the laws for
his protection, and at another time to load us with taxation
to protect ourselves from him. The two are incompatible.
I have said something about foreign p atics, and let me in
the first place direct your attention to Poland. Few ques-
t ions were so popular in England as this Polish question,
and I may say that I think that really moral courage is
shown as much in resisting the people when they are
wrong as in going with them when they are right. (Hear.)
Let us look at this relish question, which I have taken
some pains to inquire into from the beginning. In the year
1831 the constitution of Poland was suppressed altogether.
What did we know ? In that year Louis Fhilippe was upon
the throne of France, Earl Grey was at the head of the 1Ii•
nistry of this country, and Lord Palmerston was Secretary
fur Foreign Affairs. Lo: is Philippe proposed that the Eng-

lish Government should interfere by arms and go to war
against Russia for Poland. The English Government, how-
ever, most sensibly refused, but they also did as they have
generally done when they have done nothing else—they
protested. By some papers published in 1861 it has now
come out that in the former year Lord Palmerston gave as
his reason for not interfering on behalf of Poland that Eng-
land was not disposed to go to war for Poland against her
faithful ally the Emperor of Russia. These were Lord Pal-

merston's reasons for declining to act with Louis Philippe,

and very good reasons indeed they are; but I want to know
why, if these reasons were good in 1831, we have altered
our opinion now ? because it is very much to our interfer-
ence in this Polish question that I trace all the evils that
have lately arisen, The Government proposed six points to

Russia—a sort of Russian Reform Bill—and no doubt it was

very consoling to some people, that as there was to be no
Reform Bill for England, one was proposed for Russia. In
July, 19, 1863, there was great excitement in the House of
Commons. Articles had appeared in the papers, and it was
supposed that we were really going to be mad enough and
foolish enough to go to war for Poland. Meetings were

held in London in support of it, and were attended by
people whose cry was " Liberty to Poland and death to
Russia," and who did not have any anticipations of having

to pay alO per cent. income tax. (Hear, hear.) Of course
they were excellent points to propose if you had an army

at your back and intended business ; but what business
had you to excite those men to revolt, as they were by this
means making themselves obnoxious to Russia, and them
quietly to say you meant nothing, and cover yourselves with
confusion when you had plunged Poland into blood? I
will say that this policy is a policy which makes this coun-
try ridiculous, and adds misery to all the unfortunate people
wha are led away by this foolish, this unmeaning, this

criminal swagger. That is my opinion on the national ques-
tion. Then why did Lord Palmerston hold one language to

America and another to Russia ? What so foolish and so

wrong as his interference with Poland ; what so wise and so
right as his conduct with regard to America ? You know
America is a very good customer, and won't stand any non-
sense, and that is the reason why you do not interfere with
her. (Hear, hear.) So anxious am I not to interfere that I
would not express an opinion upon the question ; for a man
may do some mischief who could not do any good. I say,

however, that we have pursued a right course towards
America, and that we have no business to interfere. That

war was to be lamented for the sake of our common hu-

manity; but at the same time as Englishmen we cannot
help remembering that those people upon both sides, who
are showing this indomitable perseverance, and making this
stupendous struggle—•that those people are descended from

ourselves. We must feel a pride in that. The reason they
have to fight is great; for if the Southern States are sepa-
rated from the North, the greatness of America is set for
ever. I can give no opinion as to the result. Looking a.. a
sensible man at all the circumstances, I cannot help think•
ing that however long the contest may be, it must be like
that of two gladiators in the arena, with whom, science being

equal, weight will tell, and I believe the North will eventu-
ally make a solitude and call it peace. It is not for us to
vindicate either party ; it is not for us to stand by and be as
little offensive to either as we are capable of being. There-
fore, if I decry the conduct of the Government for inter-
ference in Poland, I give them every credit for the neutral

attitude they have assumed with regard to America. There

was a question that came before the House of Commons on
which I will now speak. It arose on June 17. The ques-
tion caused great excitement, and what are termed the
"whips," but who, I think, might more properly be desig-
nated the fishermen, were especially active that evening,
their best flies being thrown over the most doubtful fish.
(Laughter.) I don't know how they looked upon me, as I
am rather in disgrace at Westminster, and, I fear, also a
little with you, (No, no I) Sir John Hay, a very distin-
guished and gallant officer, who is upon the Conservative
side of the house, brought forward a vote of censure on the
Government for not making war on the King of Ashantee.
The Government only escaped with a majority of six. I was
in that majority, not because I had any love for the question,
but because I thought that the Government were ill-treated.
I examined and saw that they were being made responsible
for the sins of other people, for the measure they wore to
enforce was that of tb.e " Cape Coast Protectorate," which
was brought in by my Lord Derby, and pledged us.to pro
tect the natives on the Cape Coast. It was, in my opinion,
an impolitic act, as I think that we have no business what-
ever in interfering in such a matter. But the Government
were not responsible for this. When the debate was brought
on, the Duke of Newcastle—a man whose name should
not be mentioned by any Englishman without justice
being done to him as a man and a statesman—the Duke of
Newcastle was at that time smitten by the hand of Pro-
deuce, and was not able to make the defence which I know
he could otherwise have made, and therefore I gave
my vote for the Government, and I think materially con-
tributed to save it from defeat. I now come to what
I think I may term the question of the evening. I see some
of your faces sensibly becoming longer; and I don't wonder
at it when I know that you anticipate my mention of tho
words Schleswig-Holstein, or Denmark and her Duchies,
for if ever there was a puzzling question—a question
which bothered people's intelligence and set the world
astray, it is this question of Schleswig Holstein. I was the
first who mooted it in the House of Commons ; I have gone
through a course of reading upon it which almost made a
lunatic of me, and certainly aid not contribute to my hap-
piness in any way. You will remember that there are papers
in London peculiarly open to Lord Palmerston's sugges-
tions. They were all sounding the war trumpet. The de'
spatches were not produced, as you know, for six weeks.
" Where are the despatches ?" was constantly the cry, The
reply was that there was something wrong in the printing
office of the Foreign-office. I shall never forget it. Four
blue books wore laid en the table, containing thousands of
pages, with upwards of 3,000 despatches, and, in fact, they
were nothing short of a manual for the complete letter
writer. 1 here were letters of all sorts and in all styles ;
there were notes hectoring and lecturing—notes minatory
and monitory; despatches with a great deal of blarney and
bluster ; and ultimatums which nobody could understand.
(Laughter.) Here let me say, however, that I have no in
teation of blaming the Foreign Minister for what hap-
pened. He is like a young lady—a little too fond of the
pen; but if the advice had been followed which was con-
tained in his proposition of 1862 to the Danish Government
there would have been no war with Denmark, and the
question would have been at rest. I give Lord John
Russell—l mean Lord Russell, I wish he were Lord John
Russell—credit for having written that despatch, and I
must say that I think his proper place was the leadership of
the Liberal party in the House of Commons; Unfortunately
in 1852 this country entered into a contract to give a
King to Denmark and the Duchies, and we gave a King
who had a right to be King of Denmark, but had no right to
sit in the Duchies. We bound ourselves to give an unwel-
come S ,vereign to an unwilling people—and could I, as a
Liberal member of Parliament, taught to respect opinions
as expressed by legal organs, give my assent to that. I
could not, and as an honest man I opposed the Govern-
ment on that point. I brought the question forward early,
and Mr Disraeli then moved the previous question, which
meant that no opinion should leo given on it at all. If,
however, the line I mooted had at first been taken, we
should have come to an end of the business, for, as
it was, the Treaty of 1852 was " kicked into the dust,"
and in spite of all our lecturing we put our hands coolly
into our pockets, and at last did the sensible thing we ought
to have done at first. A. long debate took place, which ex-
cited the Danes to make a resistance they never intended to
make ; and in fact the Ministry was greatly to be blamed for
the bloodshed and the treasure wasted by Denmark. It
should be understood that greater tyranny never existed
than that to which the Germans ware subjected by the
Danes, who filled their public offices with Danish people'
and even prevented the Gorman language from being
spoken. An address protesting against the persecution by
the Danes was signed largely by Germans, and the pat ties
who presented it were put in prison and prosecuted—and
these are the people for whom all our sympathies were ex-
cited. We all like to see a little follow standing up well for
himself in a fight, whether he be right or wrong, and the
Dane was a little fellow who stood up gallantly, but he was
quite wrong. Various as the opinions on the debate were,
and great as were the differences, every speaker unanimously
agreed upon one thing, that our policy of nonintervention
was unjustifiable, and at the height of Lord Palmerston's
.popularity his foreign policy broke down, for you had no in-
tervention after that division on what was called a vote of
want of confidence in the Government, but which was really
a vote of want of confidence in the politicians on the other
side, who had no policy whatever to declare. Sir Robert
Collier, the most excellent representative of Plymouth, last
night said that the Government deserved credit for keeping
the peace. Now what did the Government do ? They ac-
tually proposed to the Emperor of France to go to war with
Germany, and now they are taking the credit of keeping the
peace. The Government were hindered from going to war
by the French Emperor, and by that section of the Cabinet
which considers that when war ceases to become a necessity
it:becomes a crime, There was a large division, and I did
not vote on it—you remember that. If a member does
not eat a full peck of dirt—if he stands up to make a
speech of strong and honest reprobation, is he to be told
that he is to lose the confidence of his constituents ? I ant
told that I have lost your confidence. lam here to ask, is
it so? (Cries of "No, no.") Well, I will tell you why I
did not vote. I could not vote what I thought was a lie—
that the Government had conducted the negotiations suc-
cessfully. You would have said, "He roars like any suck-
ing dove, but look how he votes ;" and you would have
been justified. Well, I could not vote for tho other side,
for they had no policy. If they had declared policy of non-
intervention and reduction I would have voted with them,
but they did not say so. I know that there are few cases in
which not voting at all upon an important question could
be excused, so as I could not vote I did the gallant thing—
I walked away. I know it will be said, " Oh, look at Mr
Osborne; ho is letting in the Tories." Letting in the
Tories I Pcor innocent individuals, I want to know where
they are, If that great Pagan philosopher, Diogenes, were
to descend into the impure and inflammable atmosphere of
the House of Commons provided with a patent Sir
Humphrey Davy's lamp, and were to endeavour to discover
a Tory party, after some difficulty he might find three pure
Tories—all most excellent, honest, energetic men. Diogenes
would say, " I think that the member for North Warwick-
shire, Mr. Nowdogate, is one." lie would say, " How are
You. Nowdegate ?" (Laughter.) lie would also see in the

member for West Norfolk, Mr. Bentinck, another Tory; and
as he was a man of great judgment, he would recognise, I
think, as the third Tory the noble lord the member for

Tiverton. (Laughter.) There is no reason why the Tory
should not be popular. We have an idea that he is a horned,
winged, and tailed animal, who is out of date. (A. hiss by a
youth,) That young gentleman who is sibilating there does
not recollect that for 50 years Lord Palmerston was a Tory.
The first speech made by Lord Palmerston was in 1809, in
defence of seizing the Danish fleet at Copenhagen. He
was a violent Tory then, and voted against reforms of all
kinds, and it curiously happens that in his last speech

he resigned Denmark to her fate. (Hear.) The most
efficient support to Lord Palmerston is given by the ex
treme Tory section ; else why are Church-rates still stand-
ing ? The names of Whigs and Tories are becoming by-
words. I cannot see why some new combination shoed