The Sun.
London, England, 1863-11-25 00:00:00

TEE SEN. LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, NOVEMBER 25, 1863.

Nr,s7as, COBDEN AND BRIGHT AT
ROCHDALE,

(From the Special Reporters of the limes.)
ROCHDALE, Tuesday Night.

A cr inwded public meeting, attended by about 3,000 per-
sons, was held at Rochdale this evening, to hear an address
from Mr. Cobden, M.P. Mr. Bright was present, and also
add,:essed the meeting. The chair was taken by the Mayor
of the borough.

Mr. ConDEN, who was received with great cheering,
'yoke as follows : —lt is to me, as your representative, a very
happy and pleasant omen to find ray arrival hero greeted by
Igo largo an assemblage of my friends. It is the least that
can be expected from a member of Parliament that he should
once a year meet his constituents face to face to state to them
his viows upon the passing events of the day, and to hear
from them in a public assembly like this what are their
wisTaes and views with reference to his future conduct.
Gemerally, when a member makes his minuet appearance, it
is, expected that he should have something to say with refer-
,ence to the proceedings of the immediately preceding session
of Parliament. I should be much at a loss for a text if you
confined me to the topics furnished by our proceedings dur-
ing the last session. The best I can say of the present Par-
lieu:tent is that it is drawing near to its end. (Cheers and
laughter.) It failed to perform any service to the country
When it was in it, prime, and therefore you will not expect
anything good from it in its decrepitude. (Laughter.) The
Sooner it is returned to the country, the better it will be
both for the country and for Parliament. Now I think, when
a new Parliament meets, it will have to be furnished with
c_
Pritic4les from the country. (Hear, hear.) The great lack
of tne present Parliament is that it is destitute of principle
arid of purpose. (Cheers.) Probably we, whom I may
t o call call
the Freetraders of this country—we have a right
ourselves Freetraders here if we have anyanywhere—are, We have
are largely
responsible for this state of things in Pa
been, contrary to our professed principles,
hrelaam last quarter of akind of mono-
polists of the public arena for nearly the
century. It will be 25 years nexta sei,nce my hon.
first joined
friend here to my left, and manywhr
together to commence that effortree
triceuhonnahtha
ms
ended now in
principles. During
the complete recognition of
f to 'have occupied pretty ex-
all that time we may
by
ycal parties and of statesmen.
elusively the saidattentionbeof.peoali
labourers who wore advo-
catingWe found the field occupied
For instance, there were the advo-
cates of Parliamentary Reform,
of religious equality, and in the words "religious equality"
I embrace the dealing, for example, with that great and
he Irish Church, which Lord Brougham
glaring abuse, t
2tas denounced as the foulest abuse in any civilized country,
(Cheers.) Well, we
elbowed out of the way those questions,
for we
had a question in hand that would not bear delay.
We were advocating a question of bread and employment
for the people. (Cheers.) We have accomplished our ob-
ject ; this present Parliament has finished the work. It
had just languid force to carry the last remaining measures
to complete the free-trade system, helped a little by the
extraneous and rather exceptionable proceeding of a foreign
treaty ; but with that aid this present Parliament has
completed the work of free trade, by which I mean that it
has settled that great controversy as between protection
and. free trade. Doubtless there remains something more
to do. Our children must carry on the work. There is
still the question of direct and indirect taxation. (Hear.)
There is still the question of a large reduction of expenditure
in the government. But the great controversy as between
protection and free trade is now settled, and I say the next
Parliament will be required to be endowed by new princi-
ples by the country when we have another general election.
(Cheers.) Some people say there is great apathy and indif-
ference in the country. I don't think there is any want of
interest iu the country upon public affairs. (Hear. hear.)
There is a lively interest in the public proceedings of the
Whole world, and the public mind is very demonstrative ;
bet what 1 observe is that the attention of the country
Weems to be rather given to the affairs of other nations than
to its own. (Hear, hear.) We are something as a nation
as YOv would bo in Rochdale as a borough if your town
eerie cil were generally employed in discussing the affairs of
Preston, Blackburn, or Manchester, instead of its own. it
is curious enough that while we are devoting more than
aver of our attention to foreign politics, we are still con-
stantly professing the principle of non-intervention. We
have non-intervention on our lips, but there is always a de-
sire in the corner of our heart for a little intervention for
some special object or other abroad. (Rear.) I don't charge
this against any particular party or any Government. We
have all our little pet projects of intervention. For instance,
some would manage the affairs of the Americans, others
would take in charge to regulate the affairs of Poland,
others are interested in Italy ; and so it is that, in spite of
our profession of non-intervention, we aro in fact, as far as
any observation goes, interfering more than ever with the
affairs of foreign countries. (Hear, hear.) Some people say
it is the telegrams. They say that Reuter's telegrams are
the daily morning dram which stimulates and excites us with
a great battle in America, or a butchery in Poland ; that we
have no taste for the simple aliments of which our domestic
affairs are made up. For instance, we have at this present
moment a party in this country actively advocating an inter-
ference in the affairs of America. When I say interference,
I mean we have a party who advocate either recognition or
something which means interference if it means anything.
I have seen lately the report of two meetings of constituen-
cies in the west England, one at Bristol and the other at
Plymouth, in which Liberal members have been recom-
mending that Government should emmr into arrangements
with some foreign Power in order that they may neognise

forward, but from beginning to end there is not one syllable
said about tariff or taxation (cheers) ; from beginning to
end there is not a grievance alleged but that e: ;eh was
connected with the maintenance of slavery. ' 1- ere ate
propositions calling on the North to give increased secu-
rity for the maintenance of that inetitutio a They are in-
vited to extend the area of slavery, to ma :e laws by which
fugitive slaves should be given up; they are pressed to
make treaties with foreign Powers, by which foreign Powers
are required to give up fugitive slaves ; but from beginning
to end no grievance is mentioned except the one con-
nected with slavery. It is slavery, slavery, slavery,
from the first page to the last. (Cheers.) It is
not astonishing that in the face of facts like these
any one should have:the temerity,
with any regard to de-
cency or any sense of self-respect, to get up in the House
of Commons and say secession has been upon a question of
free trade and protection? This is a war to perpetuate and
extend human slavery. (Cheers.) It is a war not to defend
slavery as it was left by their ancestors—l mean a thing to
be retained and to be apologised for—it is a war to establish
a slave empire in which slavery shall be made the corner
stone of the social system, and shall be defended and justi-
fied on scriptural and ethnological grounds. (Cheers.)
Well, I say, God pardon the man who in this year of grace,
1863, should think that such a project as that could be
crowned with success. (Cheers.) You know that I have
from the first never believed it possible that the South could
succeed, and I have not founded that faith upon moral in-
stincts, which teach us to repudiate the veryidea that any-
thing so infernal should succeed. No, it is because in this
world the virtues and the forces go together, and the vices
and the weaknesses are inseparable. (Cheers,) It is therefore
and they attempting with
tinngea to nearly
I felt certain that this project never could succeed, for how
is
efl'
ghhatl f of
anotherit its popu-
lationeoea .
it
slaves,Thereis a community
ar
munity where every weekian. man is 6 an ls a free man. It is as
though Yorkshire and Lancashire were
con-
flict, and it was understood that atthe
case
to
enter into
labourers who did the muscular work ofof one all the
the country,
whether in the field or in the factory, whether on the
roads or in the domestic establishments, should be not
from the fighting
only eliminated
population,
take advantage of the war
either t
oruaawbaut roeradfiyoltot
against their own country. How could a community so cir-
cumstanced fight against a neighbouring country where
every woiking man was fighting for his home ? What
chance of success would it have, even if left to physical
force, without speaking of the moral considerations to which
I have referred ? That is the position of two sections of the
United States at the present moment. In the one case you
have honour given to industry ; labour is held to be honour-
able. What are we told ? Have we not heard it used as a
reproach by some people who fancy themselves in alliance
with the aristocracy, some of our writers who would lead
us to suppose that they are of the aristocratic order, that
Mr. Lincoln was once a rail splitter. Why was a rail split-
ter raised to be President of the United States ? Because
labour is held in honour in that country. (Cheers.) With
such a conflict going on, and with such a result as I feel no
doubt will follow, I fear to speak of such a contest as that
as a struggle for empire on one side and for independence
on the other. I say it is an aristocratic rebellion against a
democratic Government. (Cheers.) That is the title I
would give to it, and in all history, when you have had the
aristocracy pitted against the people in a physical contest,
the aristocracy have always gone down under the heavy
blows of the democracy.
,(Cheers.) Let it not be said I am
indifferent to the process of misery and destitution, ruin and
bloodshed, now going on in America. No ; my indignation
against the South is that they fired the first shot and made
themselves responsible for this war. I take probably a
stronger view than most people in this country, and cer••
tainly a stronger view than anybody in America, of the
vast sacrifice of life and of economical comfort and resources
which must follow to the North from this struggle. They
are mistaken if they think they can carry on a civil war
like this, drawing a million men from productive industry
to be engaged in a process of destruction, and spending two
or three hundred million sterling without a terrible collapse
sooner or later, and a great prostration in every part of the
community, but that makes me still more indignant and in-
tolerant of the cause, while of the result I have more doubt
than I have on any subject that lies in the future. Why do
some people wish that the United States should be cut
up in two ? They think it desirable that it should be
weakened. Will that view bear discussion for a moment or
not ? I am of the opinion which our statesmen were in the
time of Canning, who thought it desirable that America
should be strong, because it should thereby prevent Euro-
pean Powers from interfering in American affairs. (Cheers,)
That has been the case hitherto. That country has pros-
pered. It has never come to interfere in European politics,
and it has kept European Governments from interfering in
other American States, which have not been so prosperous
or so orderly as the United States. See what has happened
already from this disruption of the United States. You
have France gone to Mexico. You have Spain gone to St.
Domingo. Why, there are horrors unutterable now going
on in St. Domingo, because Spain has invaded that country
with a view to reconquest ; and the French Government
has embarked in a career in Mexico which I will only cha-
racterise as the greatest mistake committed by the present
monarch of the country. These enterprises would never
have been undertaken if the United States had not been in
this civil war, and it is the least creditable part of these two
enterprises that they have been undertaken because Atherica
was weak. (Cheers.) It only required that the North
should have been a little weaker than it was, and then we
might have had England and France, and probably other
Powers, going to settle the affairs of the Union. Is that
reasonable? Don't you think we have enough to do at
home ? Do you think that Europe has so much wisdom
to spare from the management of her affairs that she can
afford to cross the Atlantic to set the New World
in order? It so, what is the meaning of the utterances
which we have lately heard from Imperial lips
calling for a Congress of the Powers of Europe ? And
what for ? To form a new pact for tho European States,
because the arrangement entered into at Vienna is, to
use his own terms, torn all to tatters. That is not very
consolatory for us. We fought for more than 20 years, we
spent a thousand millions of treasure in that great war, and
the only result we had to show was the Treaty of Vienna,
and now we are told that it is all torn to tatters. I say that
is not encouraging to enter upon a similar career again. At
all events I take it to mean this, that Europe has quite
enough to do at home without going, at the instigation of
silly people, to interfere with the affairs of America. (Loud
cheers.) I would not bo thought to say one word agains
the project of the Emperor of the French to hold a Con-
gress ; there is one passage in his address which prevents
my treating it with unqualified opposition or indifference.
For the first time a great potentate, the head of the most
military and powerful nation in Europe, has called a Con-
gress, to devise, among other measures, the means of reduc-
ing those enormous standing armaments which are the curse
and peril of Europe at this time. (Cheer 4.) But this I
would say, that if there should be a Congress, and this part
of the programme, a diminution of armaments, is not made
the primary and fundamental object of that Congress, I am
afraid it would only lead to an increase of the evil. (Hear,
hear.) I remember the Congress in 185 G, after the Cri-
mean war, which was to establish peace and enable us to
reduce our armaments—we had a Congress in Paris, and
they arranged the peace of Europe. What has happened
since ? There are nearly a tmillion more men trained
o arms in the two services in Europe now than
there were before the Crimean war, and England
herself has 200,000, besides a gigantic scheme of fortifica-
tions, such as the world never saw before in one project.
One of the objects for which the new Congress is to be
called is to arrange the difficulties and troubles in certain
European States. There is the case of Poland particularly
referred to. Now, I am not unmindful of the claims of
Poland or any other country struggling for what they con-
sider their rights—that is, where they can show a pro-
gramme of grievances, as I believe the Pules can do; but I
have not much faith in the power of any one country to go
and settle the affairs of another country upon anything like
a permanent basis. This is the ground on which I am such
a strong advocate of the principles of non-intervention. It
is because intervention must almost in its very nature fail in
its object. There are two things we confound when we talk
of intervention in foreign affairs—the intervention is easy
enough, but the power to accomplish the object is another
thing. You must take possession of a country in order to
11!Preaa your policy upon it, and that becomes a tyranny of
mother sort; but if you go to intervene in Poland with a
view to rescue the Poles from the attacks of Russia, I main-
taia that,
jag an
, 80 far as England is concerned, you are attempt-
earce_it:oessibility ; and if you can't do it by physical
certain to eflie can't do it by war, then I submit that you are
by diplommytnore harm than good if you attempt to do it
on this
occaa
jo(rtllear.) Mark what has been done in Poland
spatches. -unless :V0 have had three Powers writing de-
threatened with feZtain measures are acceded to Russia is
It has made the whole Whatll has been the effect of that ?
foreign Powers. They might people united against these
against their own People,
Iftitti not have been so exasperated
in you have the whole RaeetZtediately foreigners stepped
frenzy, not to oppose the Poles,
ttiri roused to a patriotic
Powers that at e attempting to interfet° oppose some outside
The consequence is that the Poles ere them. (Cheers.)
hope of foreign ave been encouraged
to go on by the
.influence, have
• • far more perilous to them thus • been placed in
a position
cheers.) Some if You had never
interfered at all. (
evils withoutthese
without
re
--''Y 1, Well, I
have faith in God, anc. s. a twine Providence
that I don't think Providence ence
that regulates this world. denee has
his behests. I tee
it into our hands to execute
given ink when
whether in Poland or elsewhere, the
injustice is done,
if left itself,- very
to to provoke
process of injustice is calculated, .
in j uE. bee produces weakness;
its own punishment, because
who commit 1
injustice produces injury to the parties
has given.t.
the Almighty
(Cheers.) But do you suppose that
to this country or any other country the power and the
re-
sponsibility of regulating the affairs and remedying the evils
i ure
of other countries ? No ; we have not set a sufficentlY P
When I see
example to be entitled to claim that power.
that Russia is burning Polish villages, I am restrained from
point
even approaching them, because I am afraid they will
to Japan, and sound in our ears the word " liagosuna,
Here that word Kagosima brings me to a subject upon which
I wish to say one or two words. I see that my noble frend
the Secretary to the Admiralty, who always enters upon the
defence of any naval abomination with so much cheerful-
licas—(hear)—that really he seems to like the task,—he had

lately been speaking at a meeting of his constituents. He
alludes to the horrible massacre which took place in Japan,
and he says it is quite wrong to suppose that our gallant
officers ever intended to destroy that town, Kagosima, with
its 150,000 rich, prosperosta, commercial people; it was quite
an accident. (Laughter.) Unfortunately, ho can't have
read the despatch which appeared in the Gazette, addressed
to his own department, where it Is stated that Admiral
Kuper threatened the Japanese envoys who came on board
the admiral's vessel the day before the bombardment that if
they did not accede to the demands made upon them he
would next day burn their city. The conflagration was only
carrying out the threat, nut there is another circumstance
in connexion with that affair, for which I feel greatly ashamed,
—the stealthy, shabby, mean way in which it was managed to
mako it appear that the Japanese wore the aggressors.
Lord Russell's instructions to Admiral Kuper were that he
might go and take the Japanese prince's ships of war, or
he might shell his palace or he might shell his forts. He
does hot tell him to do all these things; he was to demand
satisfaction, and, in case satisfaction were not given, it was
suggested to him to do certain things by way of reprisals I
and one of the things was to take the ships belonging to
this prince. Well, the ships were moored—hid, as it were
—concealed away at some distance from the city, and
steamers were sent by our admiral to seize these vessels,
and they were not within miles of the fort which has been
firing on our ships. Had the admiral contented himself
with seizing these ships, which were three steamers of
great value bought from Europeans, and waited to see
whether this had brought the prince to his senses, there
would have been no conflagration. But how did he act; he
lashes these steamers alongside his own, and then with his
whole fleet goes under the batteries of the Japanese, and
waits for several hours, and when the Japanese fire on him,
he says that the honour of the British flag required that he
should at once commence to bombard the place because he
had been attacked first. I remember that during our last
war with the Burmese • precisely the same manoeuvre was
resorted to—the only ship of war belonging to the Burmese
Government was seized by our officers under their forts, and
because they fired on our vessels in the act of carrying off
their whole navy it was said they commenced the war, and '
the honour of the British flag required immediate bombard-
ment of the place. Now, let us suppose that a French fleet
came off Portsmouth and took three of our ships of war at
Spithead and lashed them alongside their steamers, and
then came within range of our forts at Portsmouth. If the
commander of these forts did not immediately attack
the French with all his available resources he would
assuredly be hung up to his own flagstaff on the first occa-
sion. (Cheers.) Is it not deplorable that we English directly.
we get east of the Cape of Good Hope lose all sense of
honour, morality, or Christianity. (Cheers,) We resort
to all the meanness and chicanery, and treachery, with
which we accuse those Oriental people of practising upon
us. We forget what De Tocqueville says in speaking of
some proceedings of ours in India. He said "You ought
not as Englishmen and Christians to lower yourselves to
the level of that people. Remember your sole title to be
there at all is because you are supposed to be superior to
them." (Hear, hear.) Do you suppose these things can be
done by an Englishman with impunity ? Do you think
there is no retributive justice that will mete out vengeance
to us as a people if we continue to do these deeds, giving no
redress, showing no compunction? There is a writer at
the Oxford University, one who writes bold truths in the
most effective language, and who is writing for the instruc-
tion of the next generation of statesmen—l mean the Pro-
fessor of Modern History, Mr. Goldwin Smith, treating of
this very subject, says "There is no example, I believe, in
history, from Imperial Rome down to Imperial France, of
a nation which has trampled out the rights of others with-
out ultimately forfeiting its own." (Cheers). Do you think
those maxims which we tolerate in the treatment of three,
four, or five hundred millions of people in the East will not
turn back to curse us in our own daily lives, and in our own
political organisation ? We have acquired India by con-
quest and by means which no Englishman can look back
upon with satisfaction. You hold India. Your white
faces are ruling that country, and has it ever occurred to
you at what cost you rule ? We have lately had a report
of the sanitary state of the army in India, from which it
appears, if you take into account the losses we sustain in
that country, by fever, debauchery, ennui, and climate,
not by war, you are holding India at a cost of killed and
wounded, if I may be permitted to use the term,
of a couple of battles of Waterloo every year. Is not
that a tremendous responsibility, accompanied by a
tremendous evil ? Are you to allow your lawless adventu-
rers to penetrate into China and Japan and commit outrages
there upon the natives ? The history of our proceedings in
China at this time are as dishonourable to us as a nation
as were the proceedings of Spain in the times of Cortes and
Pizarro. When Pizarro went to Peru they did not commit
greater outrages than Englishmen are now doing in China.
You have them mixing themselves in this civil war and
rebellion for the sake of loot, and aiding the Chinese Go-
vernment in storming defenceless towns. I hese things are
done at so great a distance that you do not feel them or see
them, or know your responsibility ; but the evil will find
you out, and find out your children. I remember when in
the House of Commons I brought forward the conduct of
our agents at Canton, who were opposing the authority of
the Chinese Government. I was met by the present Prime
Minister with this argument—Why deyou have such sym-
pathy with this Chinese Government? It is so detestable a
Government, the lives and property of the people are so in-
secure, that you can buy a substitute for a few hundred
dollars if you are ordered to be executed. Another time I
get up and oppose giving assistance to the present Tartar
Government, when I am taunted by the same Minister with
defending the Taepings—odious monsters :—to whom he
applied all the epithets which he formerly applied to the
Chinese Coverument. How is it that our Government is
found in alliance with the most odious Governments of the
world ? There is the Government of Turkey, which is our
especial pet and protege ; there is the Government of China ;
we have lately been interfering to help the Emperor of
Morocco out of his difficulties ; and the Govern-
ment of Austria—which is only a Government and an
army, and not a nation—is always our special
pet ally. Why should the English people be
identified with these proceedings ? I will only say
ono word before I sit down upon a subject which I hope to
see the order of the day again. I am talking very much
against my own principles upon these distant questions. I
want to see our attention called back to our own domestic
affairs. I consider, notwithstanding the attempt to shelve
it, that which lies at the bottom of all others is a reform in
the representation of the country. (Loud cheers.) It has
been a fashion of late to talk of an extension of the fran-
chise as something not to bo tolerated, because it is assumed
that the mass of the people are not fitted to take a part in
government, and they point to America, and France, and
other places, and draw comparisons between this country
and other countries. Now I hope I shall not be considered
revolutionary, because at my age I don't want any revolu •
tions. They won't serve me, I am sure, or anybody that
belongs to me. England may compare very favourably
with most other countries if you draw the line in society
tolerably high, and if you compare the condition of the rich
and upper classes of this country, or a considerable portion
of the middle classes, with the same classes abroad. I don't
think a rich man, barring the climate, which is not very
good, could be much happier anywhere else than in Eng-
land; but when my opponents treat this question of the
franchise as one that is likely to bring the masses of the
people down from their present state to the level of other
countries, I say that I have travelled in most civilised coun-
tries, and that the masses of the people of this country do
not compare so favourably with the masses of other coun-
tries as I could wish, I find in other countries a greater
number of people with property than there are in England. I
don' tknow a Protestant country in the world where the masses
of the people are so illiterate as in England. These are not bad
tests of the condition of a people. It is no use your talking of
your army and navy, your exports and your imports ; it
is no use telling me you have a small portion of your people
exceedingly well off. I want to bring the test to a compari-
son of the majority of the people with a majority of the peo-
ple in other countries. Now, I say with regard to some
things in foreign countries we don't compare favourably.
The condition of the English peasantry has no parallel on
the face of the earth. (Hear.) You have no other peasantry
but that of England which is entirely divorced from the
land. There is no other country in the world where you will
not find men holding the plough and turning up the furrow
upon their own freehold. I don't want any agrarian outrages
by which we should change all this ; but this I find, and it
is quite consistent with human nature, that wherever I go
the condition of the people is generally pretty good, in com-
parison with the power they have to take care of themselves,
and if you have a class entirely divorced from political
power, while in another country they possess it, they will be
treated there with more consideration, they will have greater
advantages, they will be better educated, and have a better
chance of having property, than in a country where they are
deprived of the advantage of political power. (Hear.) It is
more than 30 years since our Reform Bill was passed, and
we must remember that during that time great changes
have taken place in other countries : nearly all your colo-
nies in that time have received representative institutions;
they are much freer in Australia, New Zealand, and
Canada ; much freer in their representative system thaa we
are in England, and 30 years ago they were entirely under
the tutelage of our Colonial-office. Go on the continent
and you find there wide extensions of political franchise.
Italy is more free, Austria even is stirring its dry bones;
you have all Germany now more or less invested with
popular sovereignty, and I say that, with all our boasted
maxims of superiority as a self-governing people,
we don't maintain our relative rank in the world, for
we are all obliged to acknowledge that we dare not intrust a
Quegen htabe
considerable part of the population of this country with poli-
tical power, for fear they should make a revolutionary and
dangerous use of it; besides, bear in mind that both our
P ice h
sernesei
i al
parties, both our aristocratic parties have already d
themselves
madeto a nt 0
recommend extension
n h franchise
her
throne
theth e
throya:nptrhome
extension of the f •
classes in this co
they do not fulfil
mendations; end some day
yield to violence and amour
in proper season. (Cheers.)
franchise. You have placed the governing
extent the masses of the people from
always =fling the risk of that which
iwaresono.gufdoradaollptlutthuorseetrimeoeo,mi!
or other they will be obliged to
what I think you ought, in
tranquilly and voluntarily, and
You exclude to the present
the franchise, you are
a very sagacious old

Conservative statesman once spoke of in the House of Com-
mons when he said, "I am afraid we shall have an ugly
rush some day." (Laughter.) Well, now, I want to avoid
that "ugly rush." I would rather do the work tranquilly
and do it gradually— (hear)—but ali this will be done by
people out of doors and not by Parliament, and it would be
folly for you to expect the House of Commons to take a
single step in the direction of a reform until a great desire
and disposition are manifested for it out of doors. When
that day comes you will not want your champions in the
House of Commons. (Cheers.) You have one of them
here ; you could not have a better. (Renewed cheers.) He
and I began work at the same time, but I had the misfortue
to be seven or eight years older. (A laugh.) Now, he has a
good Reform Bill in hire yet—(laughter)—but I am not sure
that I shall live to be able to afford you much help in the
matter. Before I sit down I congratulate you that the pros-
pects and condition of the community are not so bad as they
were last year, and I hope they may not be worse than they
are now. (Cheers.) I think the manner in which you have
borne the ordeal through which you have passed has been
creditable to employers and employed. Some mon rise in
the world by adversity ; I think you have done so. You
have shown that you are able to bear yourselves manfully
against a very cruel and sudden disaster. I do not think
that what has occurred will be without its significance even
in a political point of view. (Hear.) I have heard in all
directions that so far as you are concerned in Lancashire
the conduct, the bearing, the manliness, the fortitude, the
self-respect with which you have borne the ordeal through
which you have passed commend you to the favourable con-
sideration of those who have the power to enlarge the poli-
tical franchise of this country. (Hear, hear.) I think that
what you are going through will have another salutary
consequence. It is a cruel suspense to which you are sub-
jected with cotton at is 8d or 28:a lb., instead of at 5d or 6d ;
but be assured that it is working its own cure, and in a way
to place the great industry of this country upon a much
more secure foundation than before, The Cotton Supply
Association in Manchester has rendered a service to this
district which probably it will be hardly
future ages, by sending cotton seed
world where cotton can be grown, and
possibletot that
a tio
and t
to
ra nc to ty,
of the through
i,
by making the natives acquainted with the use of machi-
potrheu m
machi-
nery necessary to clean it. By such means, I have no doubt
that in addition to a supply of cotton that will sooner or
later come from the valley of the Mississippi, from African
free labour—(cheers)—for I sincerely hope there will never
be another cotton seed planted in the ground, with a view
to your future suppl), by v. slave in America—(cheers)—
you will be supplied with the article essential to your com-
fort and prosperity to a larger extent, on better terms, and
with a more secure basis than you ever enjoyed before.
(Loud cheers.)
The Ex-MAYon of Rochdale moved a resolution, declar-
ing that the Parliamentary conduct of Mr. Cobden had the
thorough approval of his constituents. The resolution was
seconded by Mr. H. KBLSALL, and carried by acclamation
with one dissentient.
The MAYOR then called on

Mr. BRIGHT, who was received with great cheering. He
said—A remark has been already made on a fashion just
now prevailing, which is to say that at present there is no
such thing as politics in the country—that there are no
abuses to remove and no grievances to redress—that the
lines which divided contending parties are obliterated, and
that statesmanship is no longer wanted in regard to convic-
tions on legislation ; but that we want clear-headed clerks
who shall administer the departments of the Government.
If we are arrived at this political millenium I might ask,
why such a vast concoutse of persons within this building
to-night ? (Hear, hear.) I fear that this picture which I
have been partly describing is one which has come from
certain artists' studios, if I may so speak, which are to be
found rather in Downing-street than elsewhere, and that it
is repeated through the country because it has been echoed
by a very partial press. My notion is that there are many
facts in connection with the country which show that this
picture is not true, and that there are still questions which
it is worth our while to discuss. (Hear, hear.) This is
called a very rich country, and there are in it many very
rich men. At the same time there are in it, apparently per-
manently, no less than 1,000,000 of paupers, without
reckoning the, I hope, temporary distress which prevails in
this county—and there are, besides this number, at least
1,000,000—1 suspect much more than 2,000,000—0 f men,
women, and children who are always on the very verge of
pauperism. Now, if we take the real condition of the bulk
of the people, if we regard the houses in which they live,
if we remember the fact, already alluded to, that so many
of them have no property, if we can scan narrowly the
state of public instruction among the masses of the people,
and if we compare this with the abundance and the
luxury of other classes, I fear we shall come to
the conclusion, and I hope we shall, that there is some-
thing yet to be done by legislation in this kingdom to
improve the condition of the great body of the people.
(Cheers.) If now, when we are all so happy, and there
are no parties and no politics, but everything has been set-
tled as everybody wishes, it is still necessary to collect from
the taxpayers not less than about £70,000,000 sterling a
year to manage the Government of this country, then I
think it is probable that in that direction we might exercise
some superintendence with beneficial results. (Hear.) If
we look abroad and see that in this country, so industrious
and so rich, the soil, which is in every country the source
of power and of freedom, is every year getting into fewer
hands, then I think we may suspect that further legislation
might be applied with advantage to improve the condition
of the whole population. Again, if we choose to cross the
Channel and see there a people whose government the Par-
liament of Great Britain has undertaken for a long period,
and particularly for 60 years past, I think we shall see a
state of things which is not flattering to the legislation or
the administration of this country; we shall find there not
only that Church which I believe nearly every leading man
of the Liberal party in this country during the last 30 years
has justly described as a scandal to Christianity, as well as
to legislation—we shall find not that only, but a people so
despairing of their country that they break all the bonds of
family, and all the ties which bind men in ordinary cases to
their native soil, and they flee by thousands across the un-
known and mysterious ocean to a country which it is the
fashion of leading and powerful men here to point to as one
whose example we ought to avoid in every possible manner.
These Irishmen are now vary much in the position, with
regard to land, that the agricultural population of this
country are in, divorced to a large extent from their native
soil ; their soil is in the possession of men, for the most part,
to use a phrase of the late Lord Lyndhurst, but to reverse
its application, who are alien to them in religion and in race ;
you find atter so much discussion with regard to Ireland for
many years past, that its population is making its escape as
fast as possible to the United States of America ; and if the
United States were to send transport ships to Ireland, and
offer to carry every Irishman and every Irish woman and
child free of cost to the United States, and to send them on
to the lands of the West, I am not certain that there would
be men enough left in Ireland at the end of the year to cul-
tivate one-half of its soil ; but more than all this, we have
7,000,000 of men who are upwards of 20 or 21 years of age
in the United Kingdom, and 6,000,000 have no more
direct political power through our present organisation than
if they lived in the most despotic country in Europe.
(Cheers.) It is odd, it is most strange, that this country—
which is the parent, and boasts that it is the parent, of re-
presentative institutions for almost all the world—should
thus for some cause which we understand, but which power-
ful people in this country often wish to conceal, shut out
its own children from the franchise and from the right to
have that which every Englishman becomes immediately
heir to if he passes to any of our colonies, or if he passes
to the United States. Now, if representation is not a blun-
der, if the voice of a people in a free country is to be re-
garded as the voice of God to legislators and rulers, I ask
you--not non-electors only, not the unenfranchised only,
but the enfranchised—if there is not a great grievance here
which it becomes us to attend to and redress? For some years
past there has been no violent show of discontent. Vio-
lence is an immense influence—in the House of Commons
it is very much spoken against, but unfortunately with
too many Governments, ours among the rest, it is the thing
they pay most attention to. (Laughter.) The last victory
which we, the people of England, obtained over our heredi-
tary masters was the repeal of the Corn Laws. There are
many persons now, young men and young women, who
have not the least idea what that law was. Without entering
into any minute description of it, I will say that it was a
law which had no parallel for cruelty and wickedness, ex-
cepting that institution in the United States of America
which is now crumbling into ruin beneath the wrathful
judgment of Heaven. (Cheers.) Well, the result of the re-
peal of that law and of other measures it necessarily led to
was an immense increase in the trade of this country. I
don't attribute all the increase to these changes, but the
main portion of it, I believe, may be fairly attributed to them.
It is an increase so great that your exports and imports have
been more than doubled, nay, have nearly trebled, within
the last 20 years, and the result of the increase of trade has
been that the middle classes, the shopkeepers, manufac-
turers, brokers, merchants, and persons connected with
shipping have all had a wider field for their occupation, and
have been, therefore, on the whole, much more prosperous
than they were before. At the same time, as a matter of
course, to provide for these increased exports and the in-
creased internal trade, there has been much greater demand
for labour; work has been more steady to the workmen,
and wages, I believe, in every part of the country have
considerably increased. This naturally would lead to less
of that discontent which we saw in former years ; but it
does not in the least degree lessen the claims on the part
of the great body of the people to their share of political
power. (Cheers.) On the contrary, it increases the force
of that claim, for if they aro better in their circumstances
and if they aro more educated, which is the natural result
of greater prosperity, then they are more likely to make
a wise use of whatever political power may be intrusted
to their hands. (Cheers.) But the wish has been so
general and so notorious, and the demand has been so
just, that nobody who has had the management of the
affairs of the country has dared to deny the justice of
it ; and you know that in 1853 a Government com-
posed of those whom we understand to be the avowed foes
of reform, yielding to that general wish, proposed a bill
which they considered to be, in some sense, a bill of reform.
Now. , I am obliged to speak disrespectfully of that bill. I
think it was a very dishonest bill. It was intended, by doing
nothing, to somehow or other get up the idea that they had
done something, in order that the year after nothing more

should be done. (Laughter.) The Parliament of that year
—and it was approaching its end—though it was not a very
old one, and, perhaps, it did not know that it was approach-
ing its end—the Parliament of that year rejected the bill,
and the Government of that day called a new Parliament;

but, to its great dismay, that new Parliament followed up
the practice of the old one, and actually rejected the authors

of the bill, and Lord Derby's Government came to an igno-
minious end. (Laughter.) You recollect that there was a
resolution introduced into the old Parliament which con-

demned their bill, and thus forced on a dissolution. When
the new Parliament met another resolution was introduced,

which being carried caused the extinction of that Govern-
ment; but both these resolutions pledged all the leaders and
followers of the Liberal party, and both Parliaments, to carry
a satisfactory measure of reform. What followed ? There was
a great to do about who should come in. You have no idea
of the scene in the London clubs when it is a question of who
shall come in. (Laughter.) I know what sort of scene it is at
the Reform Club. There are a great many men at the Re-
form Club who look with intense interest to the advent of
what they call a " Liberal Government ;" and it especially
causes great excitement among expectant lawyers. (Laugh-
ter.) I believe at the Carlton Club there is just as much ex.

citement, and the hall of the club is like an exchange or a
fair, and everybody can tell you of some rumour. One
statement was that Lord Granville had been sent for, and I
believe it was true, to make a Government; but it was found
that the old stagers, like Palmerston and Russell, did not
wish to serve under a man so much their junior in politics,
and therefore he found himself unable to form a Govern-
ment. Another story was, "that the Queen did not like
Lord Palmerston because it was known that he did not like
the Prince Consort." (Hear, hear.) And another story
was that she did not like Lord J. Russell because Lord John
was rather capricious. He went out of Lord Aberdeen's
Government without giving three months' warning.
(Laughter.) I am only giving you the rumours. (Laughter.)
It happened that Lord Palmerston was supposed to be much
less friendly to the question of Reform than Lord J. Russell,
and the great powerful Whig families, without whom no
Whig Government can live. They can live for a long time
without the great constituencies supporting them, but not
without the great Whig families, They were more in favour
of Lord Palmerston, so Lord Palmerston came in, and he
has remained in ever since. What was done ? Nothing that
Session, there was not time. But the next Session came
round. Time, you know, is inexorable, it comes round and
makes its demands; and it made its demand upon this Go-
vernment and for this bill that had been promised, and a
bill was brought in. It was not a very large bill, but it was
not a fraudulent bill. It was a bill that was perfectly honest
to the extent that it went, and as such 1 believe all the other
persons honestly in favour of reform gave it what support
they could. It passed a second reading. The principle of the
bill was, therefore, affirmed by the House of Commons with-
out a division, and then it got late in the session and the bill

was withdrawn. Then came the next session, and there was
the Qeeen's Speech without any reference to reform. Lord
J. Russell got up in the House of Commons and made a
speech in which he said they were not going to do anything
on reform, and I certainly felt very much pained with the
language he used, which I thought was not so respectful to
the friends of reform as they had a right to expect from him.
(Hear, hear,) The question therefore was repudiated ; all
those promises were violated. From that time to this, as you
know, the question has been put aside by this so-called
Liberal Government, and I am sorry to say that a great
many newspapers which call themselves Liberal, and great
supporters of the Government, appear to do their best to pre-
vent the question taking gi ound again. Let us look a little at
the:mode in which things work in this country, where the
people are led alternately by one section of the aristocracy
and by another. If you go back to what they call the very
glorious Revolution of 1688, and trace the history of this
country down to 1830, the time of the Reform Bill—a period
of 140 years— you will find that the Government of this
country was purely and solely aristocratic. The popular
influence through representation might be said to be almost
nothing. During that time those great families revelled in
a taxation and patronage which were every year increasing
(hear, hear), and I believe it is a fact to be demonstrated
from the history of the peerage that at least half of the
present families of the House of Lords owe their political
existence to the slime and corruption of that period. (Cheers.)
Now, this aristocracy, ac you are aware, is divided into two
parties. The Tory party is the most numerous ; the Whig
party is the least numerous, but has been generally, 1

think, the most intelligent. From the time of the accession
of George 111., in 1760, to the Reform Bill in 1830—a
period of 70 years—the Tories possessed without interrup-
tion power and offices in the State, and the Whig families,
more liberal and intelligent, were almost entirely excluded.
When there came, therefore, the great movement of 1830,
1831, and 1832—reform, it was consistent with all the prin-
ciples of the Whig aristocracy, as it was clearly in favour of
their political interests, to join with the people in demanding
and carrying a measure of reform they did so join them, and
that measure of reform was carried. Since 1830 the wheel
has been entirely turned round, and the Whigs have been
for the most part at the top and the Tories have been for the
most part at the bottom. Now, the Whigs, when they are
in office, are not precisely the same kind of people that
they are whom they are out of office. (Cheers.) Their con-
tentment is something wonderful ; they believe that the
Constitution has attained its highest excellence. (Hear.)
I recollect one of their own writers describes them, and
uses some lines which I once quoted many years ago,
though I did not quote those lines against the Whigs then,
but was obliged to make a little change in them to make
them apply to somebody else. (Laughter.) Speaking of this
contentment of the Whigs when they get into office, he says
" As bees on flowers alighting cease their hum,
So, settling into places, Whigs are dumb."
_

(Laughter.) Now, it I speak of Lord John liussell, lam
sorry to say he is no longer known by his old name, but Earl
Russell of the Foreign-office. It must not be supposed that
r speak of him with disrespect, although when I refer to
what has been done in this matter it is not without pain.
He is not exactly the same sort of man in office that he is
when out of office. (Hear, and laugher.) I have sat near
him often when he was in office, and I was led to believe
what I even now believe. that there is in him, notwith-
standing some capriciousness and some error, a genuine love
of popular rights. I think it may be said of him, looking
back to his history, that ancestral voices speak to him of
freedom. (Hear, hear.) Well, when he is out I have
known him insist on reform. I have known him unite with
me and others in an attempt, and a successful attempt, to
overthrow the Government which was not willing to gran
us such reform as we thought necessary. But then again,
when he is in office, in high responsible office, we see him
taking a survey of the political landscape, in which he, I
must admit, has done something, and we find that his con-
tentment finds expression in the phrase " Rest and be
thankful." (Laughter.) Now, I hope lam not unthank-
ful for many blessings which we in this country enjoy, for
security of person and property, freedom to speak, freedom
to write. I hope lam one who will never be unthankful for
many blessings which we now have, and which those who
lived before us didn't enjoy, and if sometimes I see Content
sit basking on the cheek of Toil—it I find the reward of in-
dustry greater than it was when I first stood before a meet-
ing of my townsmen, and have been permitted to put even
a feeble hand to that good work—(cheers)—personally, I
may say that I wish for " rest." To me it seems often that
it would be an inexpressible relief if I were never more
asked to stand on a platform, or see the farce of representas
tion annually enacted in the new Palace at Westminster
but thankfulness and rest in the conditionof this country I
hold to be not only a folly, but a guilt. (Cheers.) I would
ask you whether mankind, as it is with us now, is at its
highest point. Are we, any of us, content with the real
condition of the great bulk of our population ? Can legis-
lation and civilisation carry us no further and no higher?
Are we so used to, aceustorned to ignorance and poverty
that we do not see it? lam told that the bastard chivalry
of the South is unconscious of the sufferings of the negro,
though it astonishes the world, and cries to Heaven for
remedy. I have known that the landowners of Ireland
have lived in ignorance altogether of the misery of their
perishing peasantry. I ask. shall wo believe that it is an
unchangeable decree of the Most High that more than one-
half of the population of this country shall live in houses of
not more than £5 yearly value, and that their children shall
grow up in comparison with those of the wealLtay classes to
a large extent uncared for and untaught ; that life with
them shall be but one long struggle to live, and that the
sunshine which falls across and athwart our path shall only
to them be the gilding of the land which they see afar off,
but which they can never hope to attain ? (Loud cheers.) I
believe that if the people of this country were really repre-
sented, if the wisdom and justice of the English people, and
not the prejudices and selfishness of classes, directed the in-
ternal and external policy of this land, we should find the
great bulk of our people raised in a few years to a much
higher platform of comfort, intelligence, morality, and in-
dependence than has ever yet been known in the realm of
England. (Loud cheers.) I believe, for example, that, if
the people were thoroughly rel?resented, five years would
not elapse—probably three years would not elapse—before
there was established a system of educa,`..3o32, universal and
complete, for all the people equal to that wh,:rth now stands
alone in the world, that which is offered to the people of
New England States of North America. If that were
we should find that the self-respect of the people gre2tlY
increased, and we should just find that which Mr. Cobden
described when he said that every man would receive more
consideration from every other man than the great body of
the working men in England now received from many above
them in position. On all these points I believe improvemen
as we are is going on ; but the course I am endeavouring to
recommend to you would, in my opinion, accelerate that
progress in a degree to which few of us can now give credit
I should say, if we were fairly represented, that feudalism
with regard to the people of England would perish, and the
agricultural labourer throughout the United Kingdom
would be redeemed from that poverty and serfdom which up
to this time have been his lot. It would take a nightdiiona
ofd
take a long speech to go into the subject and coon 't
we have,
that unfortunate class. But with laws
• great politi-
which are intended to bring vast tracts of slralionicadhoinato the pos.
session of one man, that one man may
and d egrada-
cal power, That system is a curse to the country, and dooms
tual poverty
the a 4ricultural labourer to
tion. I think, further, that
it would be possible to
PifeoruPParliament was a Lair and
honest represuntation of the country,
appind to it w ith more success with regard to our foreign
policy. That policy would then be much more moral,
It