The Sun.
London, England, 1865-01-24 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 24, 1865,

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Mr, Dunlop, M.P., at Greenock,

On Friday, Mr. Dunlop, M.P. for Greenock,
addressed his constituents in the Town-hall. There
was a large attendance both of electors and non-
electors. On the motion of Bailie Lyle, Provost
Grieve was called to the chair, and briefly introduced
Mr. Dunlop to the meeting.
• Mr. DUNLOP, who was received with applause,
said,—l have to apologise for holding my annual
meeting at a period so much later than usual, but I
was unwilling to appear before you without being
able to say something definite on a subject personal
to myself, to which I shall advert before I sit down,
and the great difficulty I have had in coming to a
final decision on that subject has been the sole
cause of the delay which has taken place. Since,
however, I do present myself to you only on the eve
of a new session, I shall not trouble you with going
over, as is my ordinary custom, all the proceedings
of the past session, the interest of which is now lost
in the prospect of that about to commence. On one
point, however, connected with last session, I must
say a few words, as a vote which I gave on a very
important question might, without some explana-
tion, appear to you to have been inconsistent
with the views I have repeatedly, on former oc-
casions, stated to you here. On the Slesvig-Holstein
debate I voted, and very cordially, against the
resolution of censure on the Government policy,
proposed by the Opposition. Now, you will pro-
bably remember that, for several years past, I
have, year after year, at my annual meetings,
been condemning the policy which the Government
persevered in pursuing up to very near the close of
the important struggle between Denmark on the one
hand, and Austria and Prussia on the other. Four
Years ago at least, while Frederick VII. of Denmark
was still alive, I brought under your notice the dan-
gers likely to arise, in the event of his death, out of
the provisions of the unhappy treaty of 1852, by
which the Sovereigns of Europe, in conjunction
with King Frederick, took upon them to regulate
the succession to Denmark and the Duchies united
to it, in violation of the then existing law of succes-
sion, alike in Denmark and in the Duchies, and
without any reference to the wishes of the people
over whom the proposed monarch, selected by the
parties to the treaty, was to reign ; and I expressed
my condemnation of that treaty, especially if it
should be held to imply that the parties to it had
thereby come under an engagement to secure, by
force of arms, the succession therein provided. In
the course of the immediately following session of
Parliament, I took occasion to ask a question of
Earl Russell, then in the House of Commons, as to
the construction, in this respect, put on the treaty
of her -Majesty's Government, inquiring, with a
view to the probability of King Frederick's death
without issue, whether the Government held them-
selves bound by the treaty merely to recognise
Prince Christian of Glucksburg, now King of Den-
mark, in the event of the law of succession
in the several portions of the Danish monarchy
being constitutionally altered so as to admit
of his succeeding lawfully ; or whether they consi-
dered the treaty as a combination in order to force
on the people the new Sovereign on the death of
Frederick, under all circumstances, even contrary to
their law and irrespective of their wishes. After
the struggle was over, and Denmark had been de-
feated by its ambitious and selfish assailants, Lord
Russell, in a despatch to Prussia, laid down the
sound principle that it is essential that when new
bonds of allegiance are required nations should be
satisfied, and expressed the desire of our Government
to see the wishes of the people of these Duchies con-
sulted on the choice of their future Sovereign. If
his lordship had availed himself of the opportunity
afforded him by my question in 1861, to give utter-
ance, at that state of the question, to such views, as
being those by which the conduct of our Govern-
ment would be regulated, he would, I believe, have
prevented the calamities which ensued, as he would
likewise have been spared the retort with which
13ismark so fairly rebuked him, of pressing on Prus-
sia, after the war was over, principles to which,
during the whole course of it, the policy of this
country had been opposed. His lordship was not,
however, prepared to take such ground, and he
declined to give any answer, on the plea that till
King Frederick's death the question was merely
hypothetical. This refusal necessarily led to the
conclusion which the subsequent conduct of the
Government proved to have been well-founded,
that they contemplated the aiding, by force of arms,
the imposition of Christian as their Sovereign, on
the people of the Duchies, the States of which, act-
ing differently from those of Denmark proper, had
refused to alter the order and law of succession so
as to admit of his succeeding. Accordingly, at my
meeting with you in 1861, I again adverted to the
subject, and denounced the treaty of 1852, and still
more strongly the inferred intention of putting on
it the construction of an obligation, on our part, to
force a new Sovereign on a people, in violation of
their law, and regardless of their wishes. I thought
the treaty really bore no such construction, and
that the course of policy apparently contemplated by
the Government was iniquitous in itself, and utterly
at variance with the constitutional principles on
which our own monarchy is founded, and any in-
terference with which we should have been pre-
pared to resist, in the face of the whole world
in arms against us. In the following year I rei-
terated the same opinions, and uniformly con-
demned the policy pursued by our Foreign Office,
which all tended to encourage a war for the purpose
of forcing a new dynasty on a free people, in viola-
tion of their law of succession, and contrary to, or,
at all events, regardless of their will. You might
therefore possibly have expected that when a motion
was made condemnatory of the policy of the
Government as to this question, I, who so strongly
condemned a large portion of that policy, might
have concurred in supporting such a motion ; and I
feel bound to explain and justify my conduct in
supporting the amendment moved by my hon.
friend, Mr. Kinglake. Now, in the first
place, although the motion of censure did not specify
what part of the policy of the Government was con-
demned, and so left it open for any one who con-
demned any part of that policy to vote for it, yet,
looking to the parties from whom it pro—ceeded, and
their views on the Danish question, the necessary
interpretation of a vote carrying the motion must
have been that the House of Commons condemned
the Government for not going on to declare war, in
accordance with the tendency of the earlier policy,
of which I disapproved ; so that in supporting it I
should have been condemning them for abandoning
a policy I had denounced, and for at last adopting
the policy I had ever advocated. In the second
place, the amendment for which I voted contained
no approval of the Government policy universally
as to this question, but only of their having kept out
• of war, in which approval I, of course, cordially
concurred. And in the last place, the real meaning
and object of the motion was to turn the Govern-
ment out, and put the Opposition in their place.
NOW, it certainly would have been a strange pro-
ceeding on my part if I had seized, as the occasion
for turning out the Ministry, the very fact of their
wing,
abandoned the policy I condemned, and taken
theup
Y I had always contended for ; and thus
in order to lintin statesmen who, I knew, if they
loss been in Power,
loss and damage, would have carried out, to the
of th
which Iso strongly country, that policy licy of
thankful that the
"lY lisalinei?proved, and which I was
eitconsshisuitedntaaltwinlasiothstt
%try had at last, though
so tardily, given up. It
to us now to find, after hiaavian:reat satisfaction
been in a small
minority so long, in advocating that policy as to this
question which alone seemed to me
justice and sound principle,
have been adopted by the Government, should
universally approved of by the country. It has been
said that the result of this question is to settle
a
policy of absolute non-intervention on the part of
this country with reference European politics. I
should be very sorry if this could be truly stated so
broadly and unqualifiedly as I have seen it repeated
on various occasions of late. No one can be more
thoroughly opposed than I am to intervention with
reference to the internal affairs- of another State, or
0 involving this country in war in order to main-
tain or change any dynasty, or to resist or promote
some new territorial distribution of province. Nor
would I hold it enough of itself to sanction a war on

new

our part, that its object was to check or punish in-
justice on the part of the strong against the weak,
unless the interest of this country was involved in
the dispute. But, in my view, the interest sufficient
to justify a war on our part need not be exclusively
a material interest. I hold, on the co atrai y, that the
interest most vital to us for the permanent security,
prosperity, and welfare of the country is the mainte-
nance of constitutional liberty in Europe ; and if
the cause of war be just in itself, I should, so far as
the mere matter of interest is concerned, deem it
more important for this country to maintain consti-
tutional liberty in Europe against external aggres-
sion, than such objects as forcing the opium trade
in China, battering down the Tartar dynasty as we
did there for a while, or bolstering up again as we
have been doing lately, making dear friends of the
Japanese at the cannon's mouth, or securing to the
colonists of New Zealand the privilege of lawfully

depriving the Maori tribes of their land. In this
view, if we had intervened by joining the German
Diet in seeking to secure to the people of the
Duchies the right of maintaining their own law of
decision, and deciding who should be their Sove-
reign, we might have had some justification for our
intervention, as we should then have been promot-
ing the cause of constitutional liberty against a law-
less and ambitious aggression, by setting up an
equally lawless plan of forcing a new dynasty on a
free people, the cause of liberty would have been
injured rather than promoted by the support of this
country being given to such an attempt. I should,
however, be very sorry to think our hands were so
absolutely tied up that they never could be em-
ployed, under however favourable circumstances,
and however just in cause, for maintaining and pro-
moting that constitutional freedom in Europe, on
which, to so large an extent, our own commerce,
security, and welfare depend. If this supposed prin-
ciple of absolute and unqualified non-intervention
had been the rule of conduct in former days on the
part of free States, Scotland would have become a
province of France, and in all probability Eng-
land too, and the Reformation and civil liberty
would have been crushed in both countries. Holland
would not have become a free Republic, to lead the
way in the modern race of commercial enterprise
and industry, and now, in our own days, Italy would
still be languishing in degradation and disunion
under the deadening influence of Austria and the
Pope. lam contented to take the decision of the
country in regard to the Danish question, as it is,
and to take it thoughtfully, without passing it be-
yond its true import, which seems to me simply to
be to lay down for us, as our policy for the future,

that we shall not interfere to force a new Sovereign
on an unwilling people, nor even to resist or pinish
an act of unjust aggression by one European Power
against another, unless our own interests are
involved, and above all, that we shall never take
part again in such an unwarrantable proceeding
as joining in any treaty like that mischievous
treaty of 1852, by which the Sovereigns of Europe
took upon themselves to settle prospectively for

the future who should rule over certain peoples,
without consulting them, and in defiance of
the laws which regulated the succession to their
their throne. This treaty, indeed, presents the most
melancholy exhibition conceivable of the results of
our modern secret diplomacy. Originated by Russia
for the professed purpose of securing the integrity
of the Danish dominions, it not only failed to effect
that object, but was the main cause of the disinte-
gration which has recently taken place, and the
only object which has been attained by it is the un-
avowed object for the sake of which Russia got the
treaty entered into, but which the utmost efforts of
our own diplomatists should have been exerted to
prevent—namely, the getting rid of the large num-
ber of intermediate heirs to the Crown of Denmark
who stood between the late and the present King,
and establishing the limitation of the succession
thenceforward to the heirs male of his body, so as to
accelerate the period when Denmark, which holds
the keys of the Baltic, may become a Kingdom
without a lawful heir to succeed, and to be con-
tended for in a struggle in which Russia will not
have the worst chance of success. Relying on that
treaty, the late King made no attempt to fix on a
successor, who might have satisfied all the portions
of his monarchy. Emboldened by it, instead of
attempting to conciliate his subjects in Slesvig and
Tolstein, he persevered in irritating them by petty
3rrannies, so as to reader them anxious to avail
hemselves of his death, and consequent divergence
i the order of succession, to escapc, from the domi-
ation of Denmark, by refusing to submit to the
sovereign, whom, though the Danes had
accepted him for Denmark Proper, they were en-

titled to regard as a lawless usurper over them ;
while the present King, relying on the supportwhich
the treaty held out to him, hesitated not, at his ac-
cession, to give to Prussia and Austria the pretext
for war which they immediately took advantage of;
and afterwards to throw away every opportunity of
an amicable arrangement, trusting to aid from the
several parties to the treaty who, one and all, ex-
cept ourselves, either directly violated it or stood
aloof from all assistance ; so that the ostensible
author of the treaty of London has not only had to
witness the utter failure of his supposed grand
achievement for maintaining the integrity of Den-
mark, but to feel the mortifying consciousness that
he had been used in reference to it, as the mere
tool of Russia, whose ulterior objects, at variance
with the interests of his own country, he has so
effectively helped to advance, while failing in any-
thing else. (Applause.) Leaving, however, this
subject, of which, interesting though it was at the
time, you are probably now heartily tired, and not
troubling you with any of the other matters which
engaged the attention of Parliament during the last
session, I would ask you to look forward with me
for a little to that which is about to open. The sub-
ject which most impresses men at present, with re-
ference to the future, is the old, but now interesting
ing question of Parliamentary Reform. It is not, in-
deed, to be expected that this Parliament should, in
its closing session, settle this question, nor have I

any confidence in the present
with
of Commons,
if they did take it up, dealing it as it ought to
be dealt with. They were originally elected for the
purpose of carrying an extension of the franchise,
which would have been, I believe, on the whole,
satisfactory to the country, but they very soon be-
trayed the cause that had been intrusted to them.
The question of reform was only used to accomplish
such a union in the Liberal ranks as should enable
the Whigs to turn out the Tories, and settle them-
selves in their place ; and having accomplished that
object, the cold shoulder was immediately turned on
Reform by that section of the Liberal party which
chiefly shared the benefits purchased by the use that
had been made of the question, and the Reform
Bill, brought in by the Government in fulfilment of
their pledge, was allowed to fall through, mainly
through the lukewarmness, if not hostility, of the
section of the Government supporters to which I
have referred ; who, I believe, , at heart, as averse
to any real and effective Reform as the Conserva-
tives themselves. They had, it is true, the excuse,
which to a certain extent was fell founded, that the
people generally had become apathetic on the st
b-
ject of Reform ; and assuredly, if the same
apathyl
is shown at the election for the next Parliament, the
same result will follow as took place in this, and we
shall have no Reform till the repressed demands of
the unenfranchi.sed classes create an excitement akin
to that which carried the• last Reform Bill, but pro-
bably much more dangerous. I:earnestly trust this
hazardous experiment of waiting till the people get
excited may not be tried a second time ; and, to
assist in averting it, there would be great advantage
in having a discussion in Parliament next session,
even though there might be little hope of actually
carrying in it the extension of the suffrage desired.
(Cheers) Some new interest has been introduced into
this old question by the recent reviving of schemes for
guarding against an overwhelming preponderance of
the most numerous class of society, by means of the
interposition of electoral colleges, or by giving
votes
corresponding to the extent of the voter's property,
as
Is done in reference to some matters involving the
imposition
at once
scheme of of local rates.h. Now, if it were
to establish
but no one at present
and so long as we
extending the franchise
society, as each
restriction
universal suffrage, some such
r proposes anything of the kind,
oincetiegdht deserve consideration ;
on the principle of only
straw: stratum after stratum. of
successively, by the ad-

vance of education and intelligence, becomes fit to
exercise it without risk to the community, I can see
neither the necessity nor the wisdom of attempting
any such innovations in our long-established method
of voting. Another innovation, to which I am less
unfavourably inclined, was proposed in a former
bill of Lord John Russell's, who suggested a plan
by which the minority of a constituency, if suffi-
ciently large, might secure the return of, it might
be, one representative, while the majority elected
two. At present the minority of the country at
large is considered to be represented by those mem-
bers who are elected by the constituencies in which
the majority hold the opinions which are in a mino -
rity over the whole nation ; but I own, I think, that
advantages of some value would result from this ob-
ject being attained through the proportionate repre-
sentation of particular constituencies. At the same
time, I should be quite contented with some such
measure of reform as was proposed by Government
at the beginning of this Parliament, and portions of
which have been repeatedly introduced since, by my
friends Mr. Locke King and Mr. Baines. I have
cordially voted for these measures more than once in
the course of the present Parliament, and I shall be
glad to have an opportunity of voting for them once
more before we *are dissolved. Besides reform,
another and a yearly recurring question of interest
will come before us—that of economy or extravagant
expenditure. Till very recently, I had ventured to
indulge the hope that some considerable reduction
in our annual expenditure would have been effected
next session. The idea that we required to keep up,
in time of [peace, as large an expenditure on our
army and navy as during the Crimean war seemed
too monstrous to be permanently maintained, and
the circumstance that the French Government had
announced their intention of considerably reducing
their military establishment, a purpose about appa-
rently to be adopted by that of Russia also, seemed
calculated to sweep away any remains of the insane
panic which visited us some years ago as to the im-
minence of the French invasion, so as to warrant
our bringing our army and navy somewhat nearer
to the standard of a peace establishment. But from
recent paragraphs in the Government papers, it
would appear that any such hopes of . retrenchment
are unfounded, and we are still threatened with the
continuance of the same extravagant outlay which
has characterised our Government for some years
past, chiefly, I presume, in building new vessels of
war, and manufacturing new descriptions of arms in
place of those which have failed to realise the ex-
pectation entertained of them, and possibly destined
from want of sufficient previous experience and of
skill to be again superseded, in future years, by a
like lavish and comparatively useless expenditure.
I think, however, in reference to this continued ex-
travagance on the part of the Government, that Mr.
Cobden, in a late speech of his, did injustice to one
member of the Cabinet, Mr. Gladstone, when, while
justly lauding him as the most eminent financial
Minister, not leaving even William Pitt out of view,
we have ever had, he talked of him as the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer under whom the expenditure
of this country had reached the highest point
of extravagance, as if he had the absolute con-
trol over that expenditure and was responsible
for it. Now, a Chancellor of the Exchequer,
unless indeed he be as Pitt was, Prime Minis-
ter also, has no such absolute control.
The estimates are, of course, prepared by the
several departments, each for their own department,
and it is the Governnient, and not the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, who alone can cut down the amount
demanded. The Chancellor may indeed remonstrate;
but unless he feels warranted to resign in case his
remonstrances are unattended to, and take on him-
self the responsibility of the consequences to which
that resignation may lead, he must accept the esti-
mates as settled by Government, and frame the
scheme for raising the necessary revenue in the way
least burdensome to the country, or propose the re
ductions he may be permitted to make in the form
most likely to stimulate trade and advance the pro-
sperity of the country. Now, in these, his proper
functions, Mr. Gladstone is admitted to be unrival-
led ; and I believe he is the most earnest and ardent
economist not only in the Cabinet, but in the House
of Commons itself, and that, not from a spirit of
mere parsimony, but because he knows so well what
a glorious use he could make of a power to take off
taxes, and promoting the general prosperity of the
empire. But for the accomplishment of this object
he has not only to struggle with his own colleagues,
among whom are the heads of the several depart-
ments, each naturally anxious to secure as large an
amount as possible for his own department, but with
the House of Commons also. In the first place, the
Opposition in a house so nearly balanced look to the
possibility or probability of their being able, any day,
to change places with the Ministry, and so they can
never let out of view the bearing of any proposed
reduction on themselves, if they were in office.
An Opposition which must look to the lapse of
years before they can hope to be in power may deem
it well worth their while to gain credit with the
country by becoming the champions of economy ;
but an Opposition, daily anticipating their return
to power, view all motions for reduction nearly in
the same light as if they were themselves already
in office, and so they almost uniformly support the
Ministry in resisting such motions. Then, all the
representatives of localities interested in Government
expenditure, or seeking to divert some portion of the
public money in their own direction, as for the erec-
tion of docks, forts, and harbours of refuge, the
establishment of packet services, or the like, have a
great leaning towards a liberal outlay ; and finally,
since large classes of the public have tasted the
sweets of Government expenditure, in the way of
education, police, and other grants, economy is not
nearly so popular, either in the house or out of it as
it formerly was. The difficulty, too, is heightened
by the manner in which the estimates are discussed
in Committee of Supply. These are proposed, not in
large slump sums for each great branch of the pub-
lic service, but in an infinite number of items, some
of them of very small amount. Now, though it is
important that the house and the country shall see
the details of which the total expenditure of a depart-
ment is made up, the taking of the vote by such items
gives the officials of the department a great advan-
tage in the discussion, as the objecting member can,
never be expected to be so familiar with the details
as the official is, and he is liable to have his mouth
shut by some statement to which his own knowledge
does not enable him, on the instant, to give the pro-
per reply. Then the comparatively small amount
of the sum actually in question in any one of the
votes makes it impossible to create such interest in a
motion for its being reduced or omitted, so as to
secure the constant attendance which is essential, if
anything is to be carried ; while the regulations
of the house as to going into Committee of Supply
are such as to make it quite impossible to know,
with anything approaching to certainty, when the
house- will actually go into committee, or when
any particular vote will come on, and every pro--
posal calculated to do away with that uncertainty
has always been resisted by the leaders on both
sides of the house. The inevitable consequence
is, that members, seeing that they may possibly have
to hang on for several nights for any vote in which
they are interested, without its being brought for-
ward, and that after all, even success attains so little,
cannot be brought to attend in sufficient numbers
even to give a chance of success. The passing of
the estimates through committee has consequently
become little better than a form. A mere handful
of members generally are present, one or two of
ratheras
havingactostisfa thery
whom seek a cheap notoriety by frequent but useless
teorittiheienaGsoovnersnmmaleni items, t
which
, is
otherwise,
appearance of passing their estimates through a real
ordeal, while, in truth, it is nothing but a mockery.
Occasionally, indeed, some member who has made
himself master of a particular branch of expenditure,
makes a telling exposure of its extravagance, and
benefits certainly results from this, not, however, in
the way of getting any vote negatived, but by makl•
ing an impression on the country, and so leading the
department, in their next year's estimate, to make
some modiffcation which may enable them to escape
being again so held up to public censure and odium.
Otherwise, and in the way of directly checking the
estimates proposed by Government, these commit-
tees of supply are of no practical use ; and if any
reduction of expenditure is to be effected by the
House of Commons,lit mustibe done in a form which,

from the amount involved, will excite sufficient in-
terest to secure a full attendance, and which, by
being brought forward in the House itself, will afford
a certainty of its coming on at the time expected.
Nor is there any reasonable objection to the House
deciding the amount of expenditure which ought to
be sanctioned for any of the great departments, or
for the whole empire, in the slump rather than in
minute detail. On the contrary, parties who
might well be puzzled to tell why some petty item
should be one or two hundred pounds less or
more than is proposed, may be perfectly able to
decide, and to decide rightly, and on suffi-
cient grounds, the maximum sum which should
be allowed for any department, or with which the
whole administration of the country might be car-
ried on ; and I feel convinced that till our leading
men who are in favour of reduced expenditure shall
try the question in some such wholesale way as this,
the House of Commons will effect as little saving in
time to come as they have done in years past. As
matters stand, therefore, our only hope is in pos-
sessing a finance minister, who, from his knowledge
of the immense good he could accomplish by means
of a reduction of expenditure, is, I believe, much
more earnest in his desire to effect a saving, than
many of those whose position allows them to make
a parade of their small, though apparently assiduous
efforts to secure some reduction in a few petty items
of the estimates. (Applause.) The success of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's recent measures in
increasing the prosperity of the country, and so
keeping up the revenue, notwithstanding reduction
of taxation, will enable him, even without diminished
expenditure, to take off next session about as large
an amount of taxation as that from which he re-
lieved the country last year ; but I feel perfectly
confident that such an amount of reduction in the
expenditure might easily be made without at all
impairing the efficiency of any of the services of the
country, as would enable him to double the relief
to the country, and of course correspondingly to
promote its trade and prosperity. To accomplish
this, however, he would require the cordial backing
of the country, and I would fain trust that, on a
new election, that will not be withheld. In addition
to these standing subjects, we shall probably have
before us very important questions in regard to the
Established Church both in England and inlreland.
On these I might say a great deal, but the interest
in them is not, to you, so immediate as to warrant
me in detaining you at present. There may also
be before us, though of that I cannot be yet certain, a
question much more nearly touching ourselves, and of
great practical importance, I mean that of the system
of education in Scotland ; but my position excludes
me from now entering on any discussion upon it, and
I have besides often had occasion to state to you
my opinions regarding it. You are probably aware
that the great body of teachers in Scotland strongly
remonstrated last year against the extension to this
country of the provisions of the Reserved Code, and
pressed the Scottish members to unite in endeavour-
ing to save them from it, at all events without an
inquiry similar to that which had taken place in
England. The members from Scotland generally
concurred in the propriety of such an inquiry, but
we thought it should not be limited to the narrow
question about the Revised Code, and we considered
that any such inquiry should extend to the whole
subject of education in Scotland. We accordingly
asked an interview with the Lord President of
the Council for the purpose of urging on the Go-
vernment the propriety of issuing a Royal Commis-
sion on this important matter. Nearly the whole
body of Scotch members, of both sides of the house,
attended on this occasion. They did me the honour
to select to state our united views, and I was
cordially supported by several others of the members
present who spoke to the same effect as I had done ;
and the result was that, on the Lord President
laying the matter before the Cabinet, it was agreed
to issue such a Commission, and it was ac-
cordingly issued about the end of last autumn.
The Commission has taken a great deal of evidence,
and is in the way of obtaining much important
statistical information ; but, being myself a member
of that Commision, I cannot say more than that
the subject is undergoing a careful and candid con-
sideration, the results :of which may, I trust, be
beneficial to the country. There is another subject
of importance to Scotland now also undergoing the
investigation of a Royal Commission, in regard to
which I am not under the same restraint as in refer-
ence to that of education—namely, the law of hypo-
thee. I do not wish to exclude myself from any
enlightenment which that investigation may afford,
and I trust that I am not so obstinate in my opi-
nions as to refuse to alter them, on a more thorough
inquiry, but having long ago formed an opinion un-
favourable to our law on that matter, I feel no
obligation to withhold it, because a commission has
recently been appointed to report on it, reserving
always to myself to give effect to any change which
the evidence led may produce on my views ; though
I must frankly own, that so far as the evidence has
yet been published, it has not convinced me that I
have been wrong in the judgment I had formed. As
to one part of that law, there must be very few in-
deed; if any, who will stand up for it—l mean the
rule which permits a landlord who knows that his
tenant has not been able to pay his rent, to leave
him, without notice to the public, to retain the posi-
tion of credit which the possession of the farm gives
him, and the full management of that farm, and yet,
the price
theoe purchaser c
has has to
alreadypay pa fori
thed
when the tenant may have sold to a bona fide pur-
chaser part of the produce, authorises the landlord
getto
secondt back,
time or
to to h
compel
in good faith to the tenant. That such an iniquity
should have been allowed to be established at all is
very wonderful, but that it should have held its
ground in a commercial country till the present day
is still more marvellous. But there is a great deal
more in the law of hypothec which is objectionable,
though not so monstrous as this. In the event of
the tenant's bankruptcy, the landlord has a pre-
ference over the produce of the farm for his rent,
in competition with the other creditors of the
tenant, which generally secures to him payment in
full, although the other creditors may get only a few
shillings or a few pence per pound on the debts
owing to them. Now, I own that I can see no
principle of justice on which such a preference can
rest. It might, perhaps, have been, with some plausi-
bility, defended, at a time when our farms were held
in -steelbow, as it was called—that is, when the
stocking and everything required by the tenant, in
working the farm, even to the seed corn, was pro-
vided by the landlord. In this state of matters
it might have been pleaded that the landlord was
truly the cultivator, and that the so-called tenant
was substantially a manager for him, and conse-
quently that the crop and produce of the farm were
truly the property of the landlord, and not of this
manager under him, so that in exercising his right
of hypothec or lien, he was only retaining his own
property till his claims were satisfied. But now that
the landlord merely hires out his land for a rent, he
is simply a creditor of the tenant for that rent; and
why he should be a preferable creditor I have never,
looking to the justice of the case and any legal prin-
ciple involved, been able to see. Even without such
preference, the landlord is in a more favorable posi-
tion than other creditors. He has better means of
ascertaining the true state of his tenant's circum-
stances ; and in his lease, with its clause of registra-
tion, he has always prepared execution, ready to put
in force the legal compulsitors for effecting payment
or attacking the tenant's property, while other cre-
ditors must first constitute their claims, and in any
race of diligence are likely to be behind the landlord.
In this way he has, without hypothec, a great ad-
vantage over the seed merchant or the manure seller,
or the tradesmen who supply or repair farm imple-
ments, all of whom may have been led on to trust
the tenant by the landlord's delay to enforce his
claims, and the absence of any means to certify
them that the rent is in arrear. As between, there-
fore, the landlord and the other creditors, I can see
no ground on which the former should be en-
titled to a preference over the latter. But it is said
that if no valid plea can be set up in the mere
interest of the landlord, it is still for the public
interest that the preference should be maintained,
just as it was contended, at the time of the Corn-
law repeal discussion, that though the landed in-
terest could not
Justly demand protection in order
to keep up the price of:corn it was for the interest
of the public that the nation should not be left de-

pendent, in the event of war, on foreign countries
for our supply of food. In the same way here, it is
said that, irrespective of the effect of the law of
hypothec in keeping up the rents of lands through
enlarging the class of competitors, by enabling the
landlord to dispense with the possession of such an
amount of capital as would otherwise be required,
it produces beneficial results in enabling industrious
and trustworthy men of enterprise and energy
to take farms which they could not otherwise from
want of capital offer for, who afterwards thrive and
become prosperous, and also in enabling landlords
to be more indulgent to a struggling tenant, who
thus gets over a temporary state of difficulty which
otherwise would have crushed him, and to go on
prosperously to the end of his lease. Now, lam
always, I own, a little suspicious of the plea of
public benefit when used to buttress up some special
advantage enjoyed by a particular class—though I
have no doubt that many young men have got on
in this way, just as if some such artificial security,
as a substitute for capital, were provided in some
mercantile lines, many clever young men would
also get on in those who at present cannot start for
want of capital—yet such casual results, however
gratifying though they may be individually, afford
no justification to a factitious derangement of the
natural order of things, for the purpose of giving
people without capital an advantage over those who
have it; nor, in the long run and on the whole, can
we expect any true and permanent public benefit to
result from such factitious derangements. Then,
as to the indulgence afforded to deserving tenants
under temporary difficulties, no restraint would
be put on any such indulgence by doing away with
the law of hypothec, and good landlords would
doubtless continue to show indulgence to all tenants
in whom they had confidence. But the question
is not whether they should or should not grant such
indulgence, but whether they should be entitled to
grant it, at the risk and expense of other people,
without incurring any risk themselves ; and I con-
fess I attach no great value to that sort of easy
kindliness which puts off the painful scene of roup-
ing out a tenant, while no scruple is felt in exposing
to the risk of serious loss the families of the poor
tradesmen who, in consequence, get it may be 6d.
in the pound on theinidebts, instead of ten or fifteen
shillings. On the whole, as at present advised, I
should be prepared to sweep away this privilege of
landlords, leaving them their right of sequestration,
and to other creditors that of pari passu ranking,
using their diligence within a certain limited time
after the publication of such sequestration. I shall
not on this occasion trouble you any further with
public questions, but I am anxious to say a few
words to you on a matter personal to myself, though
having a bearing also on the constituency of the
burgh. The approaching session will doubtless be
the last of this Parliament, and before I can meet
you again there will in all likelihood have been a
dissolution. In this position I felt that it was my
my duty to inform you now, whether at the new
election I should again offer myself for the honour
of being once more returned by you, should I still
be so happy as to retain your confidence, and that I
ought not to leave you uncertain as to the course
I was to take, till the eve of such election. Now, you
are aware that, for some time past, I have had a
great longing to retire into private life. I have not
indeed ceased to appreciate as highly as ever the
distinction of being your member, nor has my
strong attachment to you or my warm interest in
the welfare of the town in the slightest degree
diminished ; but I am growing old, and, though
blessed on the whole with good health, the infirmi-
ties of age are gradually increasing with increasing
years. I am now within a year or two of the ordinary
allotted time of human life, and it seemed to me not
unmeet that I should devote more of the time which
might yet be spared me to attention to my family
and to my private affairs than I have been able of
late to do, and to disengage myself from matters
which so much tend to withdraw the mind from
thoughts of the grave to the verge of which I am
coming so near. I felt, also, that I was no longer
able to perform the duties of my office as I was wont.
My bodily powers are not equal to the fatigue I wil-
lingly for years underwent, while the increasing size
and trade of our town, in whose flourishing state I
so heartily rejoice, requires more work on the part
of its member than formerly ; and I was conscious
that I had lost much of the mental energy and
courage which is so essential to the due performance
of the general functions of a member of the House
of Commons. In these circumstances I have been
for some time anxiously considering what course I
should follow on the occasion of a dissolution, and a
few months ago, I frankly acknowledge to you,
nearly made up my mind then to retire. I could
not, however, look forward without great pain to
the prospect of a severance of that tie so dear to me,
which has connected us without interruption since
you first elected me ; and to parting from a consti-
tuency such as, I venture to say, no other member
can boast, for kindness, indulgent forbearance, gene-
rous abstinence from everything that might embarrass
me, trusting confidence, and a personal attachment
on the part of so many of its members, which has
ever been most grateful to me, and which I so
heartily reciprocate. I was also strongly remon-
strated with from various quarters. Views of duty,
different from those I had formed, were urged upon
me, and although these were founded on opinions
of a power of usefulness on my part of which I was
unconscious, I could not feel warranted in entirely
them, and I have been pressed with
disregarding
many other considerations which altogether have
driven me from my original purpose, and led me to
the resolution I now communicate to you, of once
more soliciting the honour of being privileged to
represent you in Parliament. (Applause.) I have,
however, thought it right to give you timeous warn-
ing of my inability to undertake the same amount
of labour I have in former years expended on my
duties, so that when the election comes on you may
have had full time and opportunity of well consi-
dering what I can give you, and whether that will
suit what you require. f, notwithstanding my
decay in strength and capacity of service, you shall
then be still willing to take me as I am, I shall con-
tinue to do what I can ; and whatever else I may
fail in, I feel confident that in this I shall not fail—
devotion to your service—exclusive regard to the
welfare of my country, and gratitude to my con-
stituents who have stood by me so steadily, and
whom I love so well. (Loud applause.)
Councillor JAMES MORTON, seconded by Mr. W.
MARTIN, moved a vote of confidence in Mr. Dun-
lop, which was carried by acclamation.

Bailie GRAY moved a vote of thanks to Provos.
Grieve for presiding, after which the meeting sepa.
rated.

THE BLACKHEATH TUNNEL ACCIDENT.—One of
the principal sufferers by the late accident at the Blackheath
Tunnel, on the North Kent Railway, Mr. Edward Mayers,
of the War-office, whose injuries, consisting of a fracture of
the left leg and severe contusions on the ankle, &c., have
confined him for five weeks to a bed in Charing-cross Hos-
pital, has so far advanced towards recovery, under the care
of the skilful surgeons attached to that institution, as to
hare been removed on Saturday last to his residence at
Barnes.

[ADVERTISEMENT.]—HoIIoway's Ointment and Pills.—
Dangerous Diseases.—How many life-long maladies spring
from neglecting trifling symptoms. The pimple, readily
curable in the nursery, becomes, through carelessness, the
irremediable torment of after life. With a knowledge of the
curative powers of Holloway's Ointment and Pills those
who fail to use them for extirpating the first seeds of here-
ditary ailment will have to bear the punishment resulting
from their folly. Holloway's remedies will remove erup-
tions of the skin, scorbutic diseases, and scrofula, and heal
every description of ulcer, sore, wound, or abrasion. By
the employment of Holloway's excellent, speedy, and safe
medicaments much pain and immense expense will be saved,
and a great benefit conferred on the present and succeeding
generations.

BREAKFAST BEVERAGE.--Homceopathic practitioners,
and the medical profession generally, recommend cocoa
as being the most healthful of all beverages. When the doc-
trine of homoeopathy was first introduced into this country,
there were to be obt ined no preparations of cocoa either at-
tractive to the taste or acceptable to the stomach ; the nut
was either supplied in the crude state, or so unskilfully
manufactured as to obtain little notice. J. Epps, of London,
ffomccopathic Chemist, was induced in the year 1839 to turn
his attention to this subject, and at lcnAth succeeded, with
the assistance of elaborate machinery, in being the first
to produce an article pure in its composition, and so refined
by the perfect trituration it receives in the process it passes
throrigh, as to be most acceptable to the delicate stomach.
For general use Epps's Cocoa is distinguished as an invigo-
rating, grateful breakfast beverage, possessing a most deli-
cious aroma, Dr. Hassall, in his work, "Food and its
Adulterations," says —"Cocoa contains a great variety of im-
portant nutritive principles—every ingredient necessary to
the growth and sustenance of the body." Again "As a
nutritive, cocoa stands very much higher than e ther coffee
or tea." Directions—Two teaspoonfuls of the powder in a
breakfast cup, filled up with boiling water or milk. Secured
in tin-lined Vb., alb., and 11b. labelled packets, and sold by
all grocers, confectioners, and chemists.—CADvT.J

TIMES.-11 Messrs. Cobden and Bright were sud-
denly charged with the responsibility of the Crimean
War, and put upon their defence for the sanguinary
and expensive policy which they had recommended
to their countrymen, they could hardly exhibit greater
astonishment than is now assumed by the New Zea-
land colonists under imputation of a somewhat simi-
lar character. It is not to be denied that the colonists
have been regarded as looking at native wars and
large military establishments without much displea-
sure. It has been pretty plainly alleged, both in
and out of Parliament, that the settlers have found
their account in all the incidents of these wars from
first to last—in the expenditure upon the army, in
the penalties exacted from the natives, and in the
general depression of that race of people whose in-
terests were opposed to their own. More particularly,
it was insinuated that the " confiscation policy" re-
cently devised expressed the craving of the settlers
for the lands of the aborigines, and showed better
than any other evidence could do the true spirit and
origin of these vexatious wars. This being the case,
we have certainly perused with considerable interest
and some little surprise a circumstantial statement of
facts put forward on behalf of the colonists by some
of themselves. A colonial print has devoted its co-
lumns to what purports to be a complete elucidation
of the whole story, and we shall not withhold from
the public at home this new version of the affair.
" The Case of New Zealand," as thus constructed
and set forth, is indeed a hard one. According to
this document, the colony, prosperous and progres-
sive in itself, has always been more or less embar-
rassed by the double Government which a double
population rendered necessary. Side by side with
the British settlers stood the aboriginal race, and
these natives required and 'obtained an Administra-
tion to themselves. Up to the year 1856, however,
this Administration was conducted by the Imperial
authorities alone, to the entire exclusion of the
colonists from any voice in such, affairs. Whatever
might be the relations between the Government and
the natives, whether hostile or peaceable, satisfac-
tory or troublesome, they were determined by the
policy of the Government at home as represented by.
the Governor of the colony. In 1856 these arrange-
ments were so far modified that the Colonial Mini-
sters received permission to tender advice upon sub-
jects connected with native affairs, though the
actual decision was still reserved for the Governor
alone. This was the footing on which matters stood
when the war commenced in the spring of 1863.
The Colonial Parliament when it had last separated
had left the Governor, Sir George Grey, engaged
apparently in a policy of peace. Suddenly this
policy was changed for a policy of war, and hostili-
ties were planned on a scale of unusual magnitude.
Reinforcements of troops were procured, the co-ope-
ration of a powerful squadron was obtained, and
extraordinary measures were devised for the more
effective prosecution of this final war. Sir George
Grey, at his wits' end for resources, had hit upon a
plan suggested by his experience under similar cir-
cumstances in British Caffraria. He proposed to
invite volunteers from the Australian colonies, and
to recompense them for their services in the war by
planting them as military settlers on the lands to be
taken from natives in rebellion, thus at the same
time inflicting punishment on the insurgents and
providing for the future protection of the colony. It
is, however, most positively and unequivocally
affirmed in " The Case of New Zealand" that this
war and all these measures for conducting it origi-
nated with the Imperial authorities alone, that the
colonists had no concern with them or responsibi-
lity for them, and that, in fact, the Colonial Parlia-
ment, when it met in October, 1863, received from
the opening speech of the Governor the first autho-
ritative announcement of the nature and condition
of the contest undertaken. Just or unjust, necessary
or unnecessary, the war was the Governor's war, not
the war of the colonists. It had been made without
them, and they were only formally made acquainted
with it in the sixth month of its existence. Then,
and not till then, their part in the matter began, and
that part was as follows :—The colonists were first
asked to accept the same power and responsibility
in the affairs of. the natives as they possessed in all
other affairs of government. This proposal they had
previously declined, on the ground that existing dis-
turbances would not allow them a fair start in such
a troublesome branch of administration, but they
now, when it was pressed upon them, undertook it.
They had then to consider the policy of the Gover-
nor, as they term it, in regard to the war and the
means of carrying it on, and this they say they re-
solved to accept as an accomplished fact, and to give
it an ungrudging support. Consequently, they
passed all the bills brought before them for the sup-
pression of the rebellion, including the several
schemes above described ; they combined for the
vigorous prosecution of war; they raised, equipped,
and paid a large colonial force ; they consented to
encumber the colony with heavy pecuniary obliga-
tions, and they did their best to render effective a
policy which they had no share in concerting, but
which they thus found thrown upon their hands.
They add, too, that this policy promised success,
that the suppression of the rebellion was proceeding
satisfactorily, and that good prospects were given
of a permanent peace, when instructions arrived
from England for the termination of the war, and
the ultimate withdrawal of the Imperial troops from
a contest designated as a gratuitous and unholy
struggle conceived in the interest of the settlers
alone. This was the severest cut of all. The colonists
proclaim that whereas they have been absolutely
without any participation or concern in the declara-
tion of war or the policy which produced it, and
have confined themselves to supporting, with much
cost to themselves, the authorities placed over them
by the Home Government, they are now accused by
their countrymen at home of having fomented and
promoted the quarrel for purposes of their own.
They tell us that a policy which was none of theirs
was upon the point of becoming successful when it
was rudely condemned, and that they are thus left
in a position of perplexity and danger with the ad-
ditional infliction of a bad name and most un-
merited obloquy. Such, in substance, is " The
Case of New Zealand," which has been
carefully composed and transmitted to this country
for circulation. We give it the publicity which is
desired, but we need scarcely be at the pains of re-
marking how much more evidence will be required
before a conclusion can be safely reached. At pre-
sent we will only observe, on this statement, that
whatever may be its accuracy or inaccuracy touch-
ing parties in the colony, it bears rather too hardly
on Englishmen at home. We were absolutely driven
to look to that which was but too truly our own
affair. We found that, somehow or other, one New
Zealand war was always followed by another, and
that there was no visible end to the charges imposed
on the taxpayers of this country. It is all very
well to declare that this was really the last appear-
ance of this ugly demand, and that if the force in
the field had been but effectively maintained for a
little while longer there would have been an end of
all New Zealand wars. This is what we always hear
in such cases. It was even said that, if President
Juarez had not been interrupted in his final pacifi-
cation of Mexico, that Republic would in a few
months have become a happy, prosperous, and ex-
emplary State. We could not take this pledge. We
could only go by experience, and experience taught
us that one war in New Zealand always left another
to follow rather more onerous than the first. We
saw no escape, but in a declaration that the thing
must stop, trusting that, as in most other matters,
a way would soon be found to effect what necessity
ordained. If we have done the colonists any wrong
in supposing that they approved these wars,the injus-
tice is to be regretted—but if they are really for
peace, and if their wars have been due to Imperial
policy, they cannot lament that this policy is to
be changed. We are not in the least disposed to
consider that all the faults have been on their side.
We think that in some points of this competition
between races they have had hard measure. Of one
thing, however, they may assure themselves, and
that is, that in the present day the true merits of the
case will not long remain unknown. We cannot re-
ceive the statement of an advocate as conclusive
evidence, but the colonists have now had their say,
and may leave it to their opponents to reply.
POST.—Russian credit was once the darling of
Lombard-street. The days were—and it is little
More than ten years since—when Russia was an em-
pire whose prescriptive policy was peace, whose mili-
tary operations were restricted to the remote pro-
vinces of the Caucasus, and whose Five per Cents.
stood at about 120. But the interval has wrought
a great change. War and revolution have taken
the place of peace, and the same securities are now
down at 90. The publication of the Russian Budget
leads us to look into the causes of this state of
things. We used to hear of surplus and abun-
' dance, we now meet only with deficits ; and with
the exception of the kingdom of Italy, as yet but
imperfectly constituted and organised, there is no
Government in Europe that has laboured under so
huge a deficit as the Russian. Military operations
have smothered financial calculations, and expenses
have increased beyond expectation. The Court of
St. Petersburg seems to have forgotten that it is im-
possible at once to exterminate provinces and to
raise a regular taxation from them at the same time.
The kingdom of Poland, for example, hitherto the
most civilised, and probably the most fertile, portion
of the Russian empire, would have continued to have
yielded a large revenue if the common elements of
civilised life had not been taken away from it. But,
as it is, it is impossible to wring from Poland a
larger revenue, even in estimate than 20,00,900
roubles, or about three millions and a half sterling,
and the probability is that the greater portion
io f this
nominal revenue is not collected, unless it is n the
shape of forced loans. The Russian Budget for 1864