The Sun.
London, England, 1862-11-24 00:00:00

MR. FORSTER, 211. P., AT BRADFORD.

On Friday evening, Mr. W. E, Forster,
addressed a crowded meeting of his constituents in
St. George's Hall, Bradford. Mr. Alderman Brown
occupied the chair, and introduced the hon. gentle-
man.

Mr. FORSTER, who was received with hearty
cheers, said he would not give the history of the
past session, but take counsel with his constituents
on the present state of home and foreign politics.
With regard to himself, he had judged each ques-
tion upon its owh merits, independently of its effect
upon parties, and he hoped that his constituents
would not take offence at his having voted some-

times contrary to their opinions. But politics were
not in a healthy state when a man who wished to
do what was right could take an independent
course. As parties were at present there was no-
thing so much more attractive in Palmerston's Li-
beralism than in Lord Derby's Conservatism as to
cause an independent member to be influenced by
the chance of his vote depriving Lord Palmerston of
power. (Hear, hear.) The present Ministry had
as thoroughly shelved reform, and taxed the
people fully as much as any Ministry that could
be devised. In fact our professed leaders were
either with our enemies or pulling us back. (Hear,
hear.) The Night Poaching Act was an instance in
point; for the Home Secretary denounced it, while
the Irish Secretary supported it, and Lord Palmer-
ston gave it an opposition which was tantamount to
support. Therefore, he was not surprised that some
Liberals would prefer to see the Tories in power, for
then they would know with whom they had to deal.
(Hear, hear.) Still he was not prepared to endorse
Mr. Cobden and assist in turning out Lord Palmer-
ston with the avowed intention of putting Mr. Dis-
raeli in, for two reasons. First, we had no reform,
and we spent much money in guarding against ima-
ginary dangers, not because Lord Palmerston was
premier, but because the country had been careless
of reform and reckless of expenditure. (Hear, hear.)
The best way to create a hea'thier public opinion
would be to deal with every question on its own
merits, irrespective of party intrigue. Secondly,
because, in the main, he did not disapprove of the
ministerial policy in foreign affairs, about which the
country just now cared a great deal more than it did
about reform. In this respect he had more confi-
dence in Russell and Palmerston that in Disraeli
and Derby. (Hear, hear.) The Ministry had con-
sistently carried out the principle of non-inter-
vention, while Mr. Disraeli had found excuses for
the French occupation of Rome, and leading ;mem-
bers of his party and the Tory press had urged in-

tervention in American affairs. As he had said, he
approved the ministerial foreign policy, with one
exception ; for he looked with the greatest possible
Auspicion on what was going on in China, where, by
lending troops to the Imperialists, the Government
was violating the non-intervention principle. To
turn to Italy, he regarded the question of the French
occupation of Rome as purely political. There would
not have been much heard of the religious aspect of
the question if it had not been for the temporali-
ties possessed by Antonelli and others of the
Pope's courtiers. His duty, as a member of the
House of Commons was, he considered, to support
Lord Russell when he upheld the principle of non-
intervention, and protested in the councils of

Europe—which was every day becoming more and
more a vast commonwealth—against the Emperor
of the French, by his soldiers, compelling the
Romans to submit to a Government of which they
they did not approve. (Applause.) The contrast

between Italy and America was sad—in the former

liberty was impelling to union, in the latter country
slavery had driven the people to disunion. He
thanked the Government for keeping us clear of the
American imbroglio, and would support them in 1
their continuance of the same policy, (Applause.)
The abstinence of the Government from interference
had not been an easy matter, against the ingenious
efforts of a party in the House of Commons to in-
volve us in that war. There had been attempts
to force us to a premature recognition of the
Confederate States, which would have been a breach
of international law, and therefore he opposed them.
The next attempt was to induce us to break the
blockade, on the contradictory ground that it was
inefficient, and that it was so efficient as to be caus-
ing great distress. He had not studied the question
of blockades sufficiently to commit himself, yet it
appeared to him that there was much truth in what
Mr. Cobden had said on the subject. It would have
been a great breach of international law for Eng-

land to have broken the blockade. The next attempt

was Mr. Lindsay's motion to offer mediation, which
soundedvery plausible, but concealed a threat which
America would surely have resented. The next was
the French overture of joint mediati:n. But we had
no reason to suppose that exhortation and entreaty
would be of any avail. If they were of any avail the
public opinion of Europe would have stopped the
war long since. But the French offer was intended
to go further, and to insist on the cessation of hos-
tilities. The argument was that we must forget ab-
stract principles in the practical good that would be
achieved for the Americans and ourselves. Such an
argument was fallacious, because it was by no means
certain that such an interference would not involve
us in war with the United States (which would be
the most costly and extravagant mode of relieving
our present distress), because it would raise the war-
like zeal of the Northerners until it equalled that of
the Southerners, which it did not at present, and
because he thought it was undesirable that our fo-
reign policy should be inextricably involved in the
wishes and plans of Louis Napoleon. Before consi-
dering whether they would like the responsibility of
forcing an end to the war, they must ask why the
men of Lancashire were suffering. It was because
certain men in the United States
determinationStatesh
adrebelletdo,
rather than relinquish their
spread slavery over the vast territories of the
United States. Whatever might have been the
hearers' opinion as to whether the Northern States
should have let the rebels or seceders go, there
could be no doubt that every Government would,
from a mere feeling of self-preservation, have done
as did the United States, and would have attempted
to put down such a rebellion. In saying this, he
did not deny the courage and endurance of the
Southerners in their bad cause, nor would he conceal
his abhorrence of Gen. Butler's tyranny. But it was
curious, that considering the feeling which axisted
in England against slavery, every idea of interven-
tion had been in favour of the slaveholder. His
sympathy for his suffering fellow countrymen in
Lancashire would never lead him to consent to an
intervention which would result in the perpetuation
and extension of slavery. (Applause.) There were
three ways by which peace might be restored. The
Northand
of these South might remain separate, with liberty
to act as they deemed expedient; they might have
separationorre-union, with slavery predominent.
pence,
t onor that
could vast
he
But
none
aesesuenrs:st:o wtohueldodlc)trrg
ipermanent
tr wintry or progress to her
expressedindus-
innes
by Mr. Gladstone when he said that to recognise
tuoteioon
of to as a
one
sinvery. l Let People would ensure the abo-
distress in Laneashiretonell.usion, be referred to the
cessary he would gladly vote fit should be found ne-
money for the support or th e unemployed operatives
a portion
of
the public
but he would much prefer that h
be relieved by private means, which
hdistress should
could
if every one would do all in his powerThbe done
iles
tiOn Of the best means of meeting the distress must
'be the first consideration of Parliament. The re-
sult of the crisis might he to make them poorer in