The Sun.
London, England, 1864-11-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 24, 1864.

the Opposition, on the left hand of the Speaker.
Oa this occasion the Opposition brought for.
ward a motion condemnatory of the Government,
which they had no right to do, because they were
really more to blame for the delusion that had
been produced in the country than the Government.
The Opposition was continually stimulating the
Government to do something, or making them re•
sponsible for entertaining something, and putting
grave questions to them, keeping their countenances
while they did so, and not leading us to suppose
that it was all a joke; therefore, when they had
been thus parties to the wasting of the session, they
could not, logically or consistently, condemn the
Government. Mr. Kinglake, who had never been
in favour of the proceedings in regard to Schles-
wig-Holstein, substituted a passage in the resolu-
tion, which neither absolved nor condemned the
Government, but merely expressed satisfaction that
we had escaped war ; and there the matter ended.
But now let me tell the solid, substantial manatee.
taring and commercial capitalists of the country
that this is not a very honourable position to be left
in. They allowed the Government to go on, and
commit themselves in encouraging a small Power to
fight with a big one. It was very much like a man
backing a little fellow for a prize fight, drawing
him to the scratch where his toe is to come, telling
him how to plant himself, superintending his train-
ing, and assuming responsibility for all he does,
and then, as soon as blows are exchanged, running
off. (Hear, hear.) This is the position in which
we were left by what happened last session in re-
gard to Schleswig-Holstein, and we are caricatured
in every country of Europe. I myself saw German
and French caricatures immediately afterwards.
There was a French one representing Britannia
with a cotton night.cap on, (Laughter.) I recol-
lect a German picture of the British Lion running
off as hard as he could pursued by a hare.
(Laughter.) That is not a satisfactory state of
things, because I maintain that to a great extent
we deserve all this ; that is, we deserve it unless we
show that we did not run away merely because it
did not suit us to fight, but that we intended to
adopt a new principle in our foreign policy,and that
other countries must not expect us to fight except
for our own business. (Hear.) The manufacturing
and commercial interests of the country were in a
state of almost unparalleled expansion. Vast en.
gegements had been entered into in the belief
that they would be fulfilled in time of peace. Both
capitalists and labourers felt if war had arisen just
then it would have produced enormous calamities,
such as no nation ought ever to bring on itself ex-
cept in defence of its vital interest and honour.
(Hear, hear.) But all that was a subject to have
been foreseen and anticipated, if not by Govern-
ment, who are living in the traditions of 50 years
ago, by active public spirit on the part of the people.
You cannot separate yourselves from the honour or
dishonour of governments, from the acts of your
cabinets and legislatures, whom you leave to act in
your behalf or in your name. This I will tell, you
what appears to me to have been the result of a
week's debate on the Schleswig Holstein qaeetion.
Both sides felt they were parties to such a hideous
fiasco, that they were in such an ignominious
plight, that as representatives of this great nation
they had so compromised themselves, that there was
a general disposition to take the pledge of non-in-
tervention. (Cheers and laughter.) But you know
that when people get a headache after a debauch
they sometimes take the pledge to teetotallers, but
they do not keep it. Now what I want to do is to
prevent the recurrence of that disgraceful proceed.
ing which wasted you the last session of Parlia.
ment, and ended by making you as a nation, as far
as a Cabinet can make it ridiculous, Well I thought
we had made some progress through the declara-
tion of sentiment from the leading men on all sides
of the House of Commons, But what did you hear ?
—what did you see ? I have seen the report of a
speech recently made by an honourable and respec.
table gentleman to a constituency—a manufactur-
ing constituency—whose good voices and support
he is endeavouring to obtain at the next election—
a manufacturing borough that shall be nameless,
further than that it is on the banks of the Roche.
(Loud laughter.) The hon. and learned gentleman,
addressing this manufacturing constituency, is said
to have been received with immense applause. He
has a long programme of foreign policy, which, if
it be carried out, and adopted by a manufacturing
community, I think we ought to reckon on being
at war every year of our lives, and instead of spend-
ing twenty-five millions for such services, we
ought to begin by spending 50 millions. It is said
we must form our armaments on a new scale, in
order to prevent Franco from swallowing up Ger-
many. Now, I think if France were to perform
such a feat as that, she would suffer terribly from
indigestion. (Loud laughter.) After swallowing
these 40 millions of uncJmfort ;bin Teutons, I think
she would be an object of pity rather than terror
ever afterwards. (Loud laughter.) Well, now,
really it is surprising to hear men aspiring to be
statesmen come and talk exactly as if they had
taken passages from " Baron Munchausen" and
" Gulliver's Travels," How can we possibly say
that we have made any great progress if such senti-
ments can be paraded in a manufacturing body on
the banks of the Roche ? and what must we expect
to hear from the agricultural districts in the neigh-
bourhood of Midhurst ? (Continued laughter.) A
speech has recently been made by my right hon.
friend (Mr. Bouverie) at Kilmarnock, and there
seemed to be some parties who are generally rather
acute sitting on the platform near him, and he gave
utterances to some opinions that rather tended to
show that, in spite of the concessions of the last
session, we shall have to do with the policy of in•
tervention what we did with respect to the corn
question. (Cheers.) We shall have to reiterate,
and repeat, and repeat, as Mr. O'Connell once said,
"I always go on repeating until I hear what I am
saying coming back to mo in echoes from other
people." (Hear.) Now my friend Mr. Bouverie
speaks in favour of a foreign policy which should
be founded upon a benevolent, sentimental principle
—that we should do what is right, true, and just
to all the world. I think, as a corporate body, as a
political community, if we can manage to do what
is sight and true and just to each other—if we can
manage to carry out that principle at home it will
be about as much as we can do. (Hear.) I do not
think I am responsible for seeing what is right and
just done carried out all over the world. If we
had the responsibility I think Providence would
invest us with more power. We cannot do it, and
there is an end of the matter. My right hon. friend,
when he advocates the carrying out of the senti-
mental policy, carries us as far back as the time
of Queen Elizabeth, and says that she was a Sove-
reign who did what was right and true and just, and
in the interest of Protestantism all over the conti.
nent of Europe. Now, I think he could not have
selected a more unhappy example, for if ever there
was a hard headed and not soft hearted Sovereign
—if ever there was a place where there was little of
that romantic sentiment of going abroad to do right
and justice to other people, I think it was in the
Tudor breast of that good Queen Bess, as she is
called. (Hear, and laughter.) When I read "Mot..
ley's History of the Dutch Republic"—when I read
this history of the rise of the Netherlands, and when
I see how that struggling community, with their
whole country desolated by Spanish bigctry, and
every town lit up daily by the fires of persecutors--
when I look at what passes when the envoys come
to Queen Elizabeth to ask for aid, how she is huck-
stering for money while they are talking of religion,
I declare,with all my doctrines of non-in tervention,l
am almost ashamed of Queen Bess and her grasping
Ministers Burleigh and Walsingharn. They carried
out what they considered a British policy with a
degree of selfishness amounting to downright ava-
rice. My right hon. friend next quotes Lord Chat.
ham. Now do you suppose that Lord Chatham was
running about in the world protecting and looking
after other peoplos affairs ? Why he went abroad
in the spirit of a commercial traveller more than any
Minister we ever had. Just drop into the Guildhall
in the metropolis and read the inscriptions recorded
by the city of London to the memory of Lord Chat-
ham. They state it to be a recognition of the bane.
fits which the city of London received by her ample
share in the general prosperity, and then they go on
to describe by what means that great man had made
them so prosperous-1141" by conquests made by

arms and generosity in every part of the globe, and
by commerce for the first time united with and
made to flourish by war." Well they were living
under a different dispensation from our own. At
that time Lord Chatham thought that by making
war on France and seizing the Canadas he was bring-
ing custom to the English merchant and manufac-
turer, and he publicly declared that he made these
conquests for the very purpose of having monopolies
of these markets, and he would not allow a colonist
to manufacture a horseshoe for himself. That was a
time when the people believed that the only way to
flourish in trade was to establish a monopoly, and
that blood and violence would lead to profit. We
know that that is no longer the case. (Hear, hear.)
If you take his great son—if you take the second
Pitt—when he began war he began the conquest of
colonies. He went to war with France in 1793, and
for three or four years afterwards he was employed
in seizing islands in the West Indies. Whether
, to Holland, or to Den.
they belonged to France
mark, he believed that such a course of proceeding
would render war profitable. We live in a time
when it is utterly impossible for Englishmen ever
to make war profitable. What we want in states-
manship is this—that we should know what are the
interests of our days with our better lights and
knowledge, and not be guided by the maxims and
rules which appertain to a totally different state of
things; and no statesman ever did succeed unless
he was carrying out a policy that was suited to the
times in which he lived and in which he wrought
up to the highest lights of the age in which he
fleurished. That is the only way in which a states.
man can distinguish himself, and I have no hesita-
tion in saying that any modern statesman who is
trusting for favour or future honours to anything
that has been done in foreign policy during the last
30 or 40 years will most miserably be forgotten, and
will only be remembered to be avoided within two
years after his death. (Cheers.) Now I am going to
touch on a very delicate question. It is not enough
that the Government should not interfere in foreign
questions. It is not enough that the Government
should not lecture foreign countries as to what policy
they should pursue; there is something else required.
Englishmen, through their public speakers and their
press, may learn toareat foreign nations in a different
spirit than they have hitherto done, and they must
learn to do it as a point of honour to other countries,
as well as from a sense of self-respect of what is
due to themselves. You mislead foreign countries
by your futile demonstrations of opinion which are
not to be followed by acts, and instead of belie•
filing other nations, you often injure them with the
best possible intentions on your part. There is
nothing that my friend Mr. Bright and myself have
more avoided than public demonstrations in favour
of some nationality or people abroad. Nothing
would have been easier for us to have gone down to
Guildhall and to have gained immense applause and
popularity by making declamatory speeches in
favour of Poland or Hungary, or some oppressed
nationality. I have, however, always felt that in
doing this we were likely to do a great deal of harm
to those with whom we sympathised. I hope no
one supposes that we have less sympathy for other
people than those gentlemen who are accustomed
to speak at those meetings, or who write in the
newspapers on behalf of foreign nationalities. But
I maintain that a man is better doing his duty to
his country who is engaged in extending aid to re•
ligious and commercial liberty than he is speaking
and writing on behalf of other people all over the
world. But see what mischief you may do. I have
no hesitation in saying—and I speak on the autho-
rity of parties themselves deeply interested in this
matter, who have been the victims of what has been
done in London and Paris last year on the subject
of Poland, which has led thousands of the generous
youth of Poland to a premature grave, thousands
more to Siberian exile—it was the manifestations
and instigations of London and Paris that precipi-
tated the insurrection—if it can be called one at all
—in Poland last year. It never had a chance from
the beginning—it was never shared in by the mass,
of the people; and I am told from the best authority
that the class of nobles or proprietors in Poland,
from whom all previous efforts for national eman.
cipation have proceeded, have been utterly annihi-
la!ed by this last abortive effort. It is futile to
expect another effort from this class; but God, in
his own good time, may raise up another class of
peasant prorr:etors who, inspired by motives of
religion or patriotism, may again take the field ;
but at present the. Polish nation is practically hors
do combat. I saw reports of a meeting held in
Guildhall on behalf of Poland, but I have
travelled abroad, and I know what exagge-
rated ideas aro attached to such meetings in
Guildhall, with the Lord Mayor in the chair, with
peers and members of Parliament present. You
may say that you only mean moral force ; but you
cannot persude people abroad that meetings so held,
and so attended, had co other object, and that Eng.
land did not intend to give material aid to that re-
volution. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Schleswig-
Holstein, there is no doubt that the English Gevern-
ment encouraged that small country Denmark to
resistance, and that she expected we should come to
help her. But this is not the only mischief we do.
The moment that another nation appears in the
field you excite far more resentment and stimulate
to greater efforts the Governments engaged in put-
ting down these rebellions. I have no hesitation in
saying that these movements in England did more
to consolidate the power of the Russian empire than
anything else, for at that time it was in danger of
being thrown into confusion by the emancipation
of the serfs. Directly France and England began
to direct despatches to the European Governments
it made an appeal to the peopl©, not so much
against the Poles, as to resist any attempt of the
Western Powers to dictate to Russia ; and it was
thus enabled to call forth the patriotism of its
people, and to go to an expense against Poland
which it would not have ventured to have done ex-
cept under the assumption that it might have to go
to war with France and England. I say that these
considerations ought to make the best intentioned
people in the world pause before they join in de-
monstrations of this kind. You must not only dis-
courage the Government from taking proceedings,
but you must do nothing to mislead people abroad,
or stimulate those Governments to increase their
efforts against their own populations. (Cheers.) If
I would only flatter you instead of talking these
home thrusts, I believe I might be Prime Minister.
It' I would say that you are the wisest, the best,
and the happiest people in the whole world, I
have no doubt that I might be Prime Minister.
I have seen in my experience Prime Ministers
made by this process. (Cheers.) It is not my
custom to court momentary popularity ; but I
always gat it back with exorbitant and even
usurious interest far more than I deserve. (No, no.)
The highest people have a peculiar way of dealing
with foreign questions. We are the only people
in the whole world that make foreign topics mat.
ters of passionate
earnest internal politics. You
never see in France or Germany, or in America, the
newspapers taking up foreign questions and attack.
ing each other because they are not of the same
opinions. I have had a
message from a gentleman
in this town stating that he would not vote for me
because I did not entertain the same opinions as he
did on the American war. (A laugh.) I said in
reply that I did not profess to dictate to others on
a matter of such pure abstraction as that; but I
wanted to know who made him my political Pope.
(Cheers.) If we are to discuss these foreign ques-
tions at all, let us do so calmly and temperately, as
I now mean to do the subject of the American
war. (Cheers.) I wish to be tolerant towards every-
body who differs from me about this dreadful civil
war in America. I have most intimate friends who
differ totally from me on this question ; it never
drove me from their doors nor prevented me from
associating with them. Nay, more, I had always
said, that whilst I holey() many entertain sinister
views on this question,there are, on the other hand,
many who have taken the part of the South be-
cause it is the weaker, because it is insurgent, and
because, looking at the extent of territory, they do
not believe that the North can succeed in subduing
it, and that as the struggle is a hopeless one we
ought to endeavour to put an end to it. These are
views that ought to be regarded with deference—
but there are other parties in the country who have
not had the sense to conceal their objects, but who

wish to see an end put to republican institutions in
that country. I will tell you what my opinion is
with regard to Republicanism. I think we may
have greater advantages in this country with a
hereditary monarchy than we might have from
electing a president every four or every six years.
Now this is my theory—but, at the same time, if I
see a people setting up a government upon a standard
very far in advance of anything that was ever known
in the world before, a people who say, "We will rule
ourselves by pure reason—there shall be no re-
ligious establishments to guide or control us—
there shall be no born rank of any kind, but every
honour held and every promotion enjoyed shall
spring from the people and by selection—we main.
tain that we can govern ourselves without the insti-
tution of any hierarchy or privileged body what-
ever"—l think everybody will admit that at all
events that programme is founded upon an die.
vated conception of what humanity is capable of.
(Cheers.) It may be a mistaken estimate—it may
fail, but do not ask me—who always consult to the
best of my ability the interests of the great masses
of my kind—do not ask me to wish it may fail—
do not ask me to exult if it seems to fail—because
I utterly repudiate the possibility of my partaking
any such sentiment es that. (Hear, hear.) We
have lately seen that great country brought into a
strait and a difficulty which we might be thrown
into tomorrow. We are now ruling India, con-
taining a population of 130,000,000 or 140,000,000
of people for the sake of their custom—and for nos
thing else ; for I can defy you to show that this
nation has any interest in that country except for
the commerce that is carried on—that is au adven-
ture unconnected with free trade. You might have
something happen out there at any time—you
might have something happen in Ireland. Is it
conservative to jump up immediately that this great
republic falls into this civil wer from the fault of
no one living, but to trace out the first cause rather
to the British nation and to the British Court some
150 years ago—l ask, is it conservative in this
country, or among the religious classes of Europe,
that they should have jumped so hastily into this
kind of partnership with this insurrection ? (Hear,
hear.) Now let us see what it is. Here you have
a great political description, in which the active
parties, who are very able men—l know the leaders
on both sides—and what were they doing ? They
knew the tremendous consequence of the course
they were going to entail upon this cotton region.
For instance, here is a disruption by which they were
to throw into convulsion this populous district,w here
many wear a paler brow than they would have done
but for this civil war. Now what did they do to
justify themselves in the eyes of foreign States?
to induce us and other countries to recognise them
as belligerents ? In our political convulsions you
may remember that the parties who have sought to
create a disruption tending to shake the commu.
nity, and cause loss and inconvenience abroad, have
always put out, from respect for the world, a pro-
gramme of their grievances. But where is there any
programme in this case ? In the case of our civil
war after Crom well and his Parliament had deposed
and decapitated Charlesl., they put out a programme
of grievances, which they published in three lan-
guages and circulated throughout all Europe, show.
ing why they had deposed the King and why they
had established the Commonwealth. (Hear.) What
happened when James 11. was dethroned and Wil-
liam 111. was invited over ? A declaration of rights
was published, a narrative of the grievances against
James 11., and the programme included the condi-
tion required from the succeeding King. (Hear.)
What did the Americans do when they declared
their independence in 1776? They put forth a decla-
ration of grievances—and at the present time no
Englishman can doubt that they were justified in
separating from the mother country—(cheers)—
though they were in the beginning of far more
gigantic proportions than all those to which I have
alluded, which the parties knew would convulse
I this peaceful district. Have they put forth any pro-
gramme ? I know the men, and I know that no one
is more competent to write such a programme than
Jeff. Davis. He could write it out as well as Thomas
Jefferson and the declaration of 1776. But why is
there no such declaration ? Because they have but
one grievance—they want to consolidate, perpee
tuate, and extend slavery, but they cannot do it.
(Loud and repeated cheers.) Bat instead of taking
a straightforward course, what do they constantly
say ? These eminent men—eminent, I mean, for
their intellect—who would so well state their case if
they dared to speak the truth, what do they say ?
Leave us alone—all we want is to be left alone,
That is the reason why the conservative Govern-
ments of Europe, and so large a portion of the
upper classes is England, have consented to back
the insurrection. Now, how would they feel if Essex
and Kent, having been beaten on the subject of
the corn laws, had chosen to set up Kent and Essex as East
Anglia, right across the Thames, as the secessionists have
sought to attempt to cut off Louisiana and the morah of
the Mississippi, and if they had said, "we want to be left
alone." (Hear, hear.) Why, can any Government be
carried on if a section of the people when they aro beaten at
the poll at a peaceful election be allowed to secede ? I ask,
where is the conservatism among the governing class of
the country? I come to the conclusion, that after all
there is more conservatism among the democracy, (Loud
cheers.) We have heard news-from America lately which
I confess has struck me as being one of the most sublime
spectacles in the whole history of the world. You have 23
millions or 24 millions of people spreading over territories
some thousands of miles square, exercising on ono day the
right of sufferance upon a question respecting which cur-
rents of blood are flowing. And you see the result of that
peaceful election, given without so much tumult as I have
seen in that dirty little village of Calne, or that little town
Kidderminster. (Laughter.) That is an event that humanity
may be proud of, and it is not the subject for the political
party to exult over or scowl over. (Cheers.) A people who
can do that have given to the world a spectacle such as was
never before presented by any other people, and what have
they done ? They have decided after years of war, and after
almost every household has lost a relative or an inmate, the
contest that arose between General M'Clellan, who desires
to put down the war without making the abolition of slavery
a condition, whilst Mr Lincoln desires to put down the war
and extirpate slavery from the South. (Cheers.) Notwith-
standing that that was the appeal made to the whole
people, they have preferred acti-ng in the interests of
humanity, for that can no longer be questioned—they have
preferred the continuance of war rather than the continu-
ance of degreding slavery. (Loud cheers.) Let us have
no more of the late talk that this is not a war to put down
slavery. Everybody now admits that, whatever is the
issue of the struggle, slavery will be abolished. Now, with
regard to the issue itself, I told you two years ago that
I did not believe that I should live to see two independent
States on that continent of North America. I have repeated
that assertion since, and I now come to confirm that opinion,
but with far more emphasis than I have ever expressed be-
fore. (Cheers.) I do not believe that that country, in my
day, will ever be separated. I look upon the geographical
difficulties in the way of separation to be absolutely insur-
mountable. (Cheers.) Take the case of the Mississippi ; that
river, with its tributaries, flows through 20,000 miles of
navigable waters into the Gulf of Mexico, and in order that
the United States might have its mouths in their own occu-
pation, that they might, as it were, have the keys of their
I own doors in their own pockets, they purchased from the
First Napoleon the State of Louisiana with the money of the
old Union for three millions sterling, (Hear.) Well, now,
some two or time hundred thousand people could have
squatted there. Some English, some French, and some
Americans have taken into their heads that they will carry
off this State, and place the mouths of that great river, the
outlet of this vast country, in the hands of a foreign State.
I have said it would be far easier for Essex and Kent to
carry off the mouths of the Thames, and sot up an East
Anglian Kingdom, than for Louisiana to carry off the
mouths of the Mississippi and set up for an independent
state. Thera aro some few hundreds of thousands in the
counties of Kent and Essex, but the valley of the Mississipi
will become the home of 200,000,000, and this makes it in-
finitely more impossible that the United States should allow
the mouths of the Mississippi to be carried off than that
England should suffer the mouths of the Thames to be taken
away. Wby should they do so when they can prevent it and
by the smallest expense retain possession of it, for a few gun-
boats could easily blockade the outlets of that river ? Even
if the North cannot conquer Louisiana they might cut the
dykes above New Orleans and dry up that State, In saying
this 1 am speaking of the motives and possibilities and not
of wishes or feelings of my own. (Cheers.) If you think
that Mr Jefferson Davis would be contented with the
Cotton States and not be allowed to extend into Texas, he
would not thank you. They are fighting in the South to
carry slavery beyond Texas into the vast regions of Central
America. Now, I say, that if the geographical features of
the country had been looked at by the ruling classes and
those who write in the newspapers, they would not have
arrived at a conviction of the success of the Southern side.
There is a newspaper in London read by everybody, but I
have marvelled at the opinion which it has betrayed of the
geographical features of this territory. In one article recently
there was a river of 580 miles of internal navigation, to
which the largest river in this country is a mere rivulet, and
it was made to turn, up hill any number of mike into another

river, and these two cemented were made to fall into a third
river, into which neither really pours a drop of water.
(Hear, hear.) Now there is a real danger in the ignorance
of what, for want of a better term, I may call the ruling
classes of this country—there is a real danger from their
total ignorance of everything relating to America, and you
may get into difficulties from this ignorance which may cost
much national dishonour to escape from. (Cheers.) If I
were a rich man I would endow a professor's chair at Ox-
ford and Cambridge to instruct the undergraduates of those
universities in American history. I will undertake to say,
and I speak advisedly, that I will take any undergraduate
now at Oxford or Cambridge, and I will bring him to a map
of the United States and ask him to put his finger on Chi-
cago, and I will undertake to say that he does not go within
a thousand miles of it. Yet Chicago is a place of 150,000
inhabitants, from which one or two millions of people in our
country are annually fed. These young gentlemen know all
about the geography of ancient Greece and Egypt. Now, I
know I shall be pelted with Greek and Latin quctations for
what I am going to say. When I was at Athens I sallied out
one summer morning to seek the famous river, the Ilissus,
and after walking some hundred yards or so up what ap-
peared to be the bed of a mountain torrent, I came upon
a number of Athenian laundresses, and found that they
had dammed up this famous classical river, and were
using every drop of its water for their own sanatory pur-
poses. Why then should not these young gentlemen who
know all about the geography of the Ilissus, know also some-
thing about the geography of the Mississippi. I am a great
advocate of culture of every kind, and I say when I find a
man like Professor Goldwin Smith or Professor Rogers,
who, in addition to profound classical learning, have a vast
knowledge of modern affairs, and who as well as scholars are
thinkers. These are men whom I know to have a vast supe-
riority over me, and I bow to them with reverence for their
superior advantages; but to bring young men from college,
with no knowledge of the country in which the great drama
of modern politics and national life is now being worked out,
who are ignorant of a country like America, but who
whether it be for good or for evil, must exercise more in-
fluence in this country than any other class—to bring up
the young destitute of such knowledge, and to place them in
responsible positions in the Government is, I say, imperil-
ling its best interests, an earnest remonstrance ought to be
made against such a state of education by every public man
who values in the slightest degree the future welfare of his
country. (Hear.) You now know my opinions with re-
spect to the future of America. I do not desire to carry
them out, and I should not have said so much if so much
had not been said on the other side. I want nothing but
neutrality—(cheers)—but if we are to have perfect neutra-
lity:on this subject, let us try, for Heaven's sake, to have a
little temper in the discussion of a question for which,happily
for us, we are not responsible. I am mute and silenced
when I recollect that I have been protesting against war
ever since I came into public life, but I have never suc•
ceeded in preventing wars all over the world. I could not
say to America—Why do you insist on carrying on this
civil war ? I should at once be subject to the reply—
Why do you not take the beam out of your own eye before
you take the mote out of ours ? But I fear that the ad'•
vocates of all the wars against which I have always
been vainly protesting are now turning up the whites
of their eyes, as if they had been Quakers from their
birth. Now, gentlemen, I have done with foreign policy,
and I have only spoken so much concerning non .interven-
tion because I wish to have less to say about it in future,
when I hope we shall be allowed to attend to our own affairs,
(Hrar.) I am happy to be able to fortify myself by a quo-
tation of a very sound doctrine from a very orthodox source.
A wrher in the Edinburgh Review of last month thus de-
fines the views of foreign policy which have now been accepted
by Parliament and the majority of the nation as to our rela-
tions with the Continental Powers of Europe--" That this
country shall enter into no official discussion and no public
engagements on affairs remotely concerning herself—that
she will reserve her power and influence for British pur-
poses—that she will not pronounce an opinion unless she is
resolved to support it by action—and that she will throw on
other States the whole responsibility of acts affecting them-
selves more directly than they affect us." That is unques■
tionably a sound and wise doctrine, and the wonder is how
anybody should ever have disputed it. The adoption now,
however, is rather like taking the pledge after the headache.
(Laughter.) I am glad also to have the opportunity of
quoting the same orthodox publication on another most
important matter. Speaking of domestic reforms that await
our attention, the reviewer say—" At home we have still to
apply to land and to labour that freedom which has worked
more marvels in the case of capital and commerce." Now,
that is not my language; it is that of the Whig reviewers,
but I say Amen to it. However, if I had 25 or 30 years,
instead of twice that number, I would take Adam Smith in
my hand, and I would have a league for free trade in land
just as we had a league for free trade in corn. There is
just the same authority iu Adam Smith for the ono as for
the other ; and if the matter were only properly taken up,
not as a revolutionary Chartist notion. but as a step in
political economy, I believe success would attend the effort
—(hear)—and I say this, that the man who can secure the
application of free trade to land and to labour will do for
the English poor more than we have been able to do by
the application of free trade to commerce. Besides the
question of Parliamentary reform, which lies at the bottom
of most things, there is something which must be done next
year in the way of revising our financial position—and this
will_follow very much as a corollary to our new foreign po-
licy, and as an illustration of the fruits which may be
reaped from its adoption. If you avow the principle that
your not going to fight for anything but your own inte-
rests and honour, nor the honour of the barrack room, but
the honour of the great Christian country which need never
under a wise Government be dissociated from its inte-
rests, I say if you acknowledge that rule, I defy you to find
a necessity for keeping up your present military establish-
ment and spending twenty-five millions a year on the
army and navy. Already I see it announced in an autho
ritative quarter that there is to be a reduction next year,
and I am glad of it very much for the sake of the Chan•
cellor of the Exchequer. (Hear.) Mr Gladstone is the
best Chancellor of the Exchequer that England has ever
had—(cheers)—and I do not hesitate to say so, recollecting
that among his predecessors was "William Pitt. I am
sorry, however, to add that Mr Gladstone has been the
most extravagant Chancellor who ever managed the Trea-
sury. He has proved himself a master in adjusting the bur-
dens of the country—l mean that he found the weight
placed on the animal in such a way as to render it most
difficult for him to carry it—the burden was tied round his
knees—it was fastened to his tail—(laughter)—it hung
over his eyes, it blinded him, impeded his movement, and
lamed him at every step. Then came Mr Gladstone and
released the fettered limbs, placing the burden most inge-
niously on the softest possible pad on the animal's
shoulders. But we must not forget that the beast is still
carrying the burden, and a great deal more than he had
to bear before this beautiful process was commenced. We
never had a Government which extracted from the coun-
try 75 millions of income in time of peace. People ex-
claimed about the American expenditure. A friend told
me the other day that the Americans were spending
2,000,000 doll. a day, and asked me what I thought
of it. I said I.thought it was rather more ; but having re•
gard to the depreciation of American currency and the pre.
sent rate of exchange, it was very near the amount which
Mr Gladstone, in time of peace, was drawing from our own
country —(hear, hear)—and mind you as long as the people
of England are apt to think with that comfortable com-
placency of theirs that they can only go abroad to find ob-
jects of pity, they will always bo persuaded that they are
cleverer, happier, and doing everything better than their
fellows. Why is it that the American States have laughed
to scorn the prediction of all our acts, magnates, and our
writers on finance, who told them that they could not go on
with the war far six months without coming to Europe for
a loan ? How is it that they have deceived and disappointed
the whole of Europe? (Hear, hear.) It is because the
American people have allowed their Government to
make a war expenditure in time of peace. (Cheers.) That
is the whole secret. They were spending for the purposes
of their Government from £15,000,000 to £17,000,000 ster-
ling per annum when the war broke out, and the savings
then made have enabled them to go through this terrific
strain. Take ten millions of savings for forty years, add
together ten millions of savings for forty years, with com-
pound interest, and you will see what a fabulous amount it
comes to. This is what America did : but what are you
doing here ? You are keeping up a war expenditure in time
of peace, and those gentlemen who are so ready to rush into
a war would find that we are crippled by our previous ex-
penditure, I hope that Mr Gladstone will be enabled dur-
ing the next session to make a large reduction in the actual
expenditure. 1 do not want to look at details; and we are
told, and we are thereby deceived as to the actual state of
things, that so many Excise and Customs duties have been
reduced and abolished, but I look at the whole amount, and
I find that the Customs and Excise together still amount
to about forty millions: sterling, or more than you had
to pay before the reductions began. I want to sec bow
much the whole income of the tax-payer is reduced, and
I hope that during the next session Mr Gladstone will
do justice to himself. He has told us that he con-
siders the expenditure excessive, but it is sailing very near
the wind for any Minister after proclaiming that he is spend-
ing more money than he ought to do. To justify himself it
is for you, the people of England, to come forward and pre-
vent it. (Cheers.) Mr Gladstone is the man who has by his
talent and ability enabled the Government to get this money
—but I am willing to admit that on account of his services
in other respects Blr Gladstone is justified in remaining in
the Ministry; but he had nearly finished his career of mani-
folding the sources of revenue. He has nearly completed
his work—any future services that he can render must be
in reducing the expenditure. Lord Stanley the other day de-
clared that he could see his way to an annual expenditure
of 60 millions; and I suppose that when Mr Gladstone sees
distinguished members of the Opposition making such a
statement he will hasten on to that amount for fear he should
be taken up by the other side. He has declared the present
rate of expenditure to be profligate•—that I think was the
term. Mr Disraeli also has talked :about bloated arms•
ments, and so we have things all round. I do not know
how the public can interfere in Mr Gladstone's budget; but
I would advise him to appeal to the people at the next
election, and I am inclined to think this is the only way
in which they can interfere in the matter with his budget.
I bold that the House of Commons is more extravagant
than the Government. We have voted upwards of £500,000

.ate -
on the army and navy since I have been in the house, WI
1 never saw a single item reduced in that time, but 1 have
seen votes drawing in amount. The Government last ses"
sion attempted to effect a small saving on the yeorasurh
but the country gentlemen came down to the house in
body and carried the vote against them. I trust Mr Glad;
stone will appeal to the British public on the subject a'
this expenditure, and it is the only way that can be effeail
e:
tual at the elections, and lam sure that they will n°t
to support him. (Hear.) The House of Commons wants an
infusion of the popular element. I see before me so many °t
the middle classes,and beyond them so many cf the operatives,
it is thought by some that in the House of Commons the
middle-classes predominate, but that is:a great delasionbfer
that house is becoming more a rich man's club. You call
only have an infusion of the poor man's helmet by the 0.11 i:
largement of the rights of the people, and I advise the o,l°
dle-classes not to regard this as a mere working man's quer
tion. The middle-classes, too, are interested in havit,gb:
Reform of Parliament, in order that their influence may -
increased, for now we are but a very small ingredient ;
deed. (Hear, hear.) A friend the other day said "I e
lay a wager that the blacks in America will vote before thi
:
English working men." I should not like to say that, v„."
this I will say, that you cannot with safety exclude tm:
great mass of the people from the suffrage. This questi;
was never before in the position in which it now ea°
You have had several successive Governments, in Queen
Speeches, recommending an increase in the niunh,„et,,
votes. The people feel that they are trifled with. '",
there is nothing which causes such dissatisfaction °lie
sense of having been betrayed. The mass of the pe°Plet,i.c.
magnanimous and forgiving of everything but the
tion sometimes erroneous, of having been betrayed. (gear
The working classes are at present silent on the questi°lol
the suffrage, but that is something new, and if they d°_.ll,o
move, that is an additional reason why the middle
should do so. (Cheers.) Circumstances occur once in 0
t 3/
20 or 30 years when at?. appeal must be made to the Yll% t
mass of the community. Now it is not at all desirable Of,
it should leave the whole mass of the people with s
ante, a grievance of which they can convict you upon ie/1
.° •
own declarations, (Cheers.) There is danger in svoin
state of things, and the shape which controversy i 8 ;110
is, to my mind, very undesirable. It now takes 0
broad aspect of the question whether the working niee,,,o
as a whole shall be enfranchised, or whether they ris
not. It never presented itself in that shape before, f°r
the times of the Greeks the working classes were OP;
sented is many forms. Do you suppose it prob°.o
when the knowledge of the principles of Fnlitiho
economy has elevated the working classes, and 114,'
that elevation is continually progressing, that you osAir
fraanently exclude the whole mass of them from the tre:;
chile? It is the interest of the middle classes to eet obeli
solving the problem, and to prevent any danger they

to do so without further delay. -
The hon. gentleman resumed his seat amidst prol
and enthusiastic cheering,
The following resolution was then proposed and "
unanimously:—" That this meeting having heard the
es,
nual address of Richard Cobden, Lei , M.P., herobld
presses the heartiest approval of the course he has 1)01:00
during the last session of Parliament, again affirsas its
fidence in him as their representative, and resolves tosu:'
him in future a most cordial and enthusiastic suppot:d
The proceedings concluded with the usual vote of to-
to the chairman.