The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-02 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 2, 1865.

Reform Meeting at Leeds.
A meeting, called by the Mayor of Leeds (Mr.
Luccock), in compliance with a numerously signed
requisition, got up under the auspices of the Leeds
Working Men's Parliamentary Reform Association,
was held in the Town-hall of that borough on Tues-
day evening last. There was a large gathering on
the occasion, fully 2,500 persons being present. The
chief speakers were Mr. E. Baines, M.P., ML W.
E. Forster, M.P.; and Viscount Amberley, eldest
son of Earl Russell. Lord Amberley, who is about
23 years of age, and who may be said to have made
his political debut on the occasion, was the great
attraction of the evening, and there is no doubt that
many persons, both Liberals and conservatives,
attended the meeting in order to hear his speech.
He met with a very cheering reception, and was
listened to with deep attention.
the proceedings, said that
The MAYOR, in opening
after he had received the requisition from so large
body of his fellow townsmen as had signed it, he
had no hesitation in calling the meeting. The sub-
ject they had met to consider was one of the deepest
importance to the welfare and happiness of the
country. It was a subject which had engaged the
attention, not only of the present, but of other Par-
liaments ; for they found that the Earl of Derby,
as representative of the great Conservative party,
and Lord Palmerston, as the representative of the
great Liberal party, had both expressed their opi-
nion on the great measure which the meeting had
met to consider. They had declared that there was
a large, virtuous, intelligent, and independent body
of men excluded from the franchise who ought to
have it. (Hear, hear, and applause.) They had
met that night to petition Parliament in favour of
granting to that large and important body of men
the exercise of the electoral right which had been
denied them, and unjustly denied them, for many
years. (Cheers.) But there was another subject
for them to consider. There was at the present mo-
ment a large body of men intrusted with the fran-
chise who had been unfaithful to their duty—(cheers)
—some men who, from want of moral energy
or from indifference, had, in their exercise of the
franchise,been treating it with contempt; others who
would sell their franchise fora pot of beer; and others
in a higher rank of life, who systematically and de-
terminedly set themselves to work in order to tempt
men to violence, and to do that which they knew to
be contrary to the best interests of the State. (Hear.)
It was for the meeting to say what should be done
with such men—whether they should be struck out
of the electoral list altogether, or whether they
should be punished in some way in which the law
may decide. (Cheers.)
Alderman CARTER moved the first resolution,
which was as follows :
" That, in the opinion of this meeting, the present House
of Commons having been specially elected to carry a just
measure of Parliamentary Reform, and the leaders of both
political parties having admitted its necessity, her Majesty's
Ministers ought not to allow the next session of Parliament
to pass without affording another opportunity to the House
to fulfil the pledges then solemnly given to the country."

The principal object of the meeting, he said, was to
call upon the Government, solemnly and earnestly,
as Englishmen, to redeem the promises they had
made in the Queen's Speeeh, and in the speeches of
the Ministers, to give the country, before their time
of office expired, a fair, reasonable, and just mea-
sure of Parliamentary Reform. (Applause.)
Mr. E. FINNIE, a journeyman printer, seconded
the resolution.

Mr. E. BAINES rose to support, and was received
with rounds of cheers. He commenced by saying—
I rejoice very much to meet an assembly under the
presidency of the chief magistrate to promote this
great cause, and especially I rejoice to promote this
great and noble cause, and especially I rejoice to
meet an assembly which has been convened
through the instrumentality of the working men
of Leeds—(cheers)—of the Working Men's Par-
liamentary Reform Association, which has been
now for nine years existing, and which intends
still to exist, to' assert the rights of their order
and to extend the liberties of the people of Eng-
land. (Loud cheers.) All the operations of that
Parliamentary Reform Association, and most espe-
cially the resolutions and petition which will be laid
before you to-night, have been characterised by the
most signal moderation and fairness. I rejoice that
I have been able as your representative to appear in
the House, of Commons, and with the full assent of
my judgment and my feelings, to endeavour to carry
the measure on which you have set your hearts.
(Cheers.) I am not in the slightest degree dis-
couraged by the delay which has hitherto taken
place in the accomplishment of the measure. Con-
sidering, as I do, that every year witnesses an in-
crease in the intelligence, an improvement in the
education, and an advance in all the moral qualities
fitting them to exercise the franchise, of that vast
portion of our fellow subjects who still remain ex-
cluded from the pale of the constitution, I am, cer-
tain that every year there is gathering behind us an
increased - moral force that, without any physical
violence whatever, yet will sweep away every ob-
stacle that shall remain in its course, and carry the
establishment of the just rights of the people.
It is the cause of justice and the cause of liberty,
and it would be utter blindness to the teachings of
history, utter blindness to the power of moral con-
sideration, utter blindness to the force of those in-
stitutions which we already have in Parliament,—
the press, the right of discussion, and the right of
meeting, to suppose it was possible for long to deny
the just rights of those who now claim to be ad-
mitted within the pale of the constitution. (Cheers.)
It is well and universally recognized that self-go-
vernment constitutes freedom in nations ; but self-
government cannot exist for those who have no vote
in the choice of their governors, and therefore I say,
as I have said many times before, that I recognise
that there is real freedom on the part of those classes
who are excluded from the franchise ; and, at all
events, nobody will deny that which is the universal
guarantee for the protection not only of life and
propcity, but for the protection of liberty and all
that is dear. That guarantee does not exist
for those who are excluded from the ex-
ercise of the franchise. I do not think that I
should be just, that I should be doing what is
right, if I were to make you a long speech this
evening, because we are favoured with the presence
here of two visitors whom I am most heartily re-

-- - __
joiced to see,—first, my valued friend and yours,
the hon. member for Bradford—(cheers)—whom
for many years you have now known as the stanch
advocate of the rights of the people—(cheers)—who
visits his old friends in Leeds--kindly visits them.
I am grateful to him for it, and he will address you,
I think, with more propriety at length than I should
do this evening. But I have also most gratefully
and with the utmost pleasure to acknowledge the
presence this evening of a nobleman whose name
recalls some of my earliest and dearest recollections
connected with this great cause and with the town
(3,1 Leeds in which we stand. Lord Amberley, bear-
mg the illustrious and venerated name of Russell—
(cheero_comes here with a hereditary claim upon
your respect
in the • and gratitude, for there is not a name
; . 11'14e'rY of this century
connect, century so closely, so illus-
triouslyd with the reform of our institu-
tions and the extension of our liberties as the name
which he bears ; and
and ungrateful if we we should be most forgetful
did
not remember that'to his
father we owed it,
that h
the Reform Act, confer proposed, ten years before
to
franchise upon this
borough, and which it then did
did
not
Reform enjoy, and that
afterwards it was the very same
Act which
that
has immortalised his name, did act
within the pale of the franchise.ll
ua y call us
re-
joice that that young nobleman (Cheers.) lis about t
mence his public career in a town which has ° corn-
reason to be grateful to his father, and so much
which, I am
n sure, will fondly wish for him a career as b • -
bright and
as useful as Lord Russell has enjoyed. (Rear,
hear.) But although I must speak shortly, on
account of your wish to hear our visitors address
you, perhaps you may think that, as you may think
think that, as your representative and as havini,
t,

taken a somewhat prominent part elsewhere on this
question, I ought to say a few words to you upon the
subject. (Hear, and applause.) What is our great
grievance? It is that three-fourths I don't know that
thfee-fourths of you—but that three-fourths of the
man)* millions of the inhabitants of this country are
shut 0 Alt of the enjoyment of those rights and

immunities which 'peculiarly characterise free
men ; millions of our fellow men—a large propor-
tion of whom, as I believe, are qualified by educa-
tion, intelligence, and moral qualities to e:ercise the
franchise, are deprived of that right. That is a
grievance which sins against justi e, which sins
against the individuals deprived of the i ight, and in
my conscientious belief it does an injury to the
community which it thus deprives. (Hear, hear,
and applause.) But we are attempted to be fright-
ened by a great bugbear. We are told that you
cannot remedy this evil—which really nobody pre-
tends to defend—that you cannot remedy it without
introducing a state of things so extreme in the oppo-
site direction that you would swamp and swallow
up the upper and middle classes of society. (A laugh.)
Why, this is a comment that has been made by one
of the leading journals of England within a few
days upon the recent speeches of my hon. friend the
member for Birmingham—(loud cheers)—and the
member for Huddersfield. (Cheers.) We are told
that the evil cannot be remedied without going to
the extent of full democracy, of pure, unqualified
democracy. I say for my hon. friends, that if they
go further in the direction of enfranchising than I
would do, both have shown themselves practical and
honest friends of reform. (Cheers.) Neither of
them has ever advocated extreme measures in Par-
liament. Both of them spoke and voted in favour
of the bill of Lord Russell ; and both of them spoke
and voted in favour of the bills introduced by Mr.
Locke King and myself—(cheers)—and you know
that these bills were not measures advocating any-
thing like democracy. (Hear, hear.) No bill has
ever been proposed in Parliament—certainly none
of late years—none in my recollection, that could
be considered as anything more than a respectable
instalment of the rights of the people. (Hear,
hear.) What was the bill of Lord Russell in
1860 ? I believe it would have given a great and
substantial measure of enfranchisement, but that
bill went to the extent of admitting occupiers of
£lO premises in counties, and of £6 premises in
boroughs. Now, would that have swamped all
the upper and middle classes of society ? What
was Lord Russell's calculation ? He calculated
that the effect in boroughs—for there was no
sufficient estimate of the effect in counties, only I
may put that aside by saying that not a single
working man would have been admitted in counties
by a £lO occupancy. It is you, the great working
men, who are the bugbear that frightens them.
(Laughter andcheers.) It is you in the boroughs
who frighten these folk in high places out of their
propriety. (Renewei laughter and applause.) Well,
what would have been the addition made to the
constituencies
,by Lord Russell's bill in boroughs ?
He calculated, upon official authority, obtained for
him by the Poor Law Board from the Poor Law
authtrities all over the kingdom, that there would
have been an addition, on the average, to borough
constituencies of 48 per cent. ; that is, less than one-
half of the present constituents had to become new
voters. Suppose there were a town that had 200
voters, it would henceforth have 300, or a town that
had 2,000 voters would henceforth have 3,000.
Surely if every one of that additional 1,000 had been
a working man, they must have been very cunning
to swamp or swallow up the 2,000 of the middle and
upper classes. (Laughter and applause.) I have
given you credit for intelligence, for strong heads,
and for great qualities ; but I never gave you credit
for this, that 1,000 of you could swallow up 2,000
of the upper and better classes. (Renewed laughter
and cheers.) Well, the working men would only be
admitted in the boroughs ; none of the working men
would be admitted by the addition it was proposed
to make to the county voters. Therefore, if you take
the borough and county voters together, and make
a proper deduction for those newly-admitted who
are not working men—and there is a very consider-
able proportion of those who would be so admitted
who are not working men—l say the proportion
which the working men would bear to the upper
and middle class electors would not be, as near as
I can calculate, more than about one in four.
(Hear, hear.) The working classes are three-fourths
of the population ; they would only be one-fourth
of the electors—and yet that is called swamping !
(Laughter.) My own fear has ever been that the
measure was too small, not that it was too large
(hear) ; that it would be rather a difficult thing to
vindicate it before a popular audience, and I could
uly do so by having a strong confidence in the mo-

deration and good sense of my fellow-countrymen,
and by saying that I believe it is the utmost that in
the present state of society it would be possible to
obtain, and that it would really be a very substan-
tial extension of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) After
entering upon a course of further argument to show
that there was nothing formidable to the middle
and upper classes in the measures of Parliamentary
Reform which had been proposed, and, adducing in
accordance with 14 custom, a batch of statistics,
the hon. member concluded by saying—l appeal to
the common-senserand to the memory of English-
men, has not every reform of the last 30 or 40 years
worked infinitely better than even its friends anti-
cipated from it, and disappointed all the fears of
those who conjured up bugbears against it, such as
now we hear conjured up to oppose the further ex-
tension of the franchise ? Why, the great Reform
Act, the Act of Lord Russell, that I say has been
the most prolific source of strength, of wealth, of
union, of prosperity, of reformation, and of happi-
ness that was ever passed by any Legislature in the
world. (Cheers.) My confident belief is that it
was so because it infused new blood into a some-
what exhausted system, and I believe there is more
blood to be brought into the same system still—
hear)—as good, honest, pure English blood
to be brought in which will still further carry on the
advance which was made through the operation of
the Reform Act. (Cheers.) I will just say a word
with regard to the resolution. That resolution says
that it is the duty of the Government, as redeeming
the pledges they gave, and considering what has
been said by the leaders of both political parties, to
take the opportunity of the very next session of
Parliament which begins next week to pass a Re-
form Bill. I most conscientiously believe that that is
their duty and their wisdom. (Hear.) I believe if
they would attempt it they would succeed. (Hear.)
You know that two private independent members
got the great bulk of the Liberal party to honour
them by following them into the lobby when they
proposed measures to carry out the extension of the
franchise formerly proposed. But Government
has a vast advantage over private members.
There are many men who say, some from caution,
some, perhaps, seeking for an excuse, " That this is
a question so great, of such constitutional magni-
tude, that it ought to be brought forward by Go-
vernment, and not by a private member." (Laugh-
ter.) But I never will admit the force of that
argument to the extent that it should prevent inde-
pendent members from bringing forward such a
measure—(hear, hear)—for otherwise I must con-

demo Lord Russell for contending for ten or twelve
years, as he _ did, in constant minorities, for that

_ .
Reform which at length was triumphantly carried ;
but I do admit that there is no question Govern-
ment has a much better chance of carrying such a
measure than an independent member, and if Lord
Palmerston were now to say to the House of Com-
mons, " I lay this measure before you ; it is a mea-
sure which in its principle has been recommended
by the Queen several times, and in principle actu-
ally carried by the House of Commons—(for Lord
John Russell's bill was read a second time without
a division) ; I stake my office upon that bill, and if
it is not carried either I go out or appeal to the
country and let them decide"--(cheers)—my belief
is he would carry the measure. (Bear, hear.) But
if he did not, I say still that he would stand in a
a disorganised,
better position than if he goes, as he must go in a
thew. months, to the country, not having done his
31.- (near, hear.)an(l
I to carry a Reform measure, for he would then
send his friends the Liberal party to the country as
abnovee
part
would find in the .partbasabilait
ydiisshothnoaturhede
mare last session of Parliament far
super{, than h
first session ; for he would ever obtain in the
seeing members, though very fond of
your f aces—
often, you know Yet don't like to see them too
passed through the ordeal laugh)—and just having
m which they may
haveael of one contested election
they don't like to have • paid pretty handsomely
ediately
pay for the gave ceremony afterwards tt;
again. (Laughter.)

Therefore, the first session of Parliament is the
worst time to propose a Reform Bill, the last ses-
sion is the best time, and we Reformers have a right
to ask a reforming • Government that they will
bring forward the measure at the most favour-
able time, and not at the least favourable time.
With one more condition I should be almost confi-
dent of success. If we could get, not members of
small ability and small influence, like those who
have brought forward these measures before—(l say
that for myself, and not of my friend Mr. Locke
King, who has with the most indomitable courage
and perseverance for many years advocated the
franchise in counties)—if instead of these we could
have such a man as he who stands forward as the
ablest of our statesmen and the first of our orators,
who has a heart as well as a head—if we could have
Mr. Gladstone. (Enthusiastic and repeated cheer-
ing, followed by a call for three cheers, which were
rapturously given.) I am glad you gave those three
round cheers ; we shall hear of it another day. If
Mr. Gladstone would take up this matter, and take
it up with the same spirit and courage and determi-
nation with which he proposed and advocated the
repeal of the paper duty (the last of the taxes on
knowledge), I feel confident this measure would be
carried. (Applause.) I am glad that a resolution
is to be proposed expressing the hope that Mr.
Gladstone may take up this cause, and, depend upon
it, he will not have one man who will rejoice more
heartily than I shall, or one who will be prouder
to be his follower. (Cheers.) But if the Govern-
ment will not do it, then necessity is laid upon us
in some way or other, by some independent member,
if not by an official member, that this question shall
be brought forward—(cheers)—andyou must know,
the country must know, who those are who approve
•of the extension of the franchise, and who they are,
who vote against it. (Loud applause.) I believe
that nothing would tend more to the happiness and
concord of the people of England than to grant
them all their just rights. I believe that justice is
one of the most healing, one of the most beneficent
of all feelings. If we could see the civil institutions
of England having their foundations laid deep and
level upon the rock of justice—if we could see the
fabric carried up with such a balance and such a
harmony of parts that every pillar, every buttress,
and every arch combined to sustain the whole,
then may we hope to see the top stone of that fa-
bric in some future day brought forth in a bond of
honour and prosperity the highest that communities
of men can ever hope to realize. (Cheers.) That
that justice may be done, that that fabric may be
reared, you and I must all do our duty—(hear, hear)
—and, exhorting you, come what may, never to be
wanting to your own consciences and to your coun-
try, I now, after this too long trespass upon your
attention, take my leave. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. FoRsTER also supported the resolution. He
was received with much applause, and after some
introductory remarks, in the course of which he re-
ferred to the late Reform meeting in Bradford,
he said :—What has struck me as the most remark-
able circumstance following upon that meeting is
this, that there has been no attempt whatever to
meet the practicalproposition which we there brought
forward, by any practical argument. (Hear, and
cheers.) What was the proposition we there met in
favour of ? It was the same you have met in favour
of—a moderate, an immediate increase of the fran-
chise. (Cheers.) Many of—l suppose the enorm-
ous majority of you—think you ought to have, as a
reform of the representation, not merely an increase
of the franchise, but a better distribution of seats
and the greater protection of the voter. (Cheers.)
Nevertheless, as practical Yorkshiremen, we say
that as it seems difficult to get this complete Reform
Bill, we are contented at first to demand that which
we feel is most urgently required—an increase of
the franchise. Then as regards that increase of the
franchise the enormous majority of you think that
what we are asking for—the increase of the franchise
to £6 tenants in boroughs, and to £lO tenants in
the county—is very far below what ought to be
granted to us. (Cheers.) I cannot say but what
I think so myself. (Laughter and applause.)
What arguments have been advanced against these
demands? I have not seen one practical argument.
It is not an argument, and no one has attempted to
use it as such, that these six-pounders are unfit for
the franchise. No one denies that they are. The
member for Huddersfield, Mr. Leatham, the other
night delivered an admirable speech to his consti-
tuents. He spoke in favour of Reform ; he
spoke against the Permissive Bill. I am not going
to bring in the Permissive Bill except to notice a
curious argument alleged by the Times against his
remarks on Reform, and it deduces that argument
from his remarks on the Permissive Bill. I wonder
they do not see that what they and he said against
the Permissive Bill is the strongest argument in
favour of Reform. They say, " It is very unfair that
A should be prevented from drinking because B gets
drunk." (Laughter.) I think it is very unfair that
the six-pounders of Leeds should be prevented from
voting because somebody thinks that the four-
pounders and the three-pounders are unfit to vote.
(Cheers and laughter.) Well, we have been told
that what we were not asking for would be a very
bad thing. We have not been told that what we
have been asking for is bad. We have been met by
taunts, and taunts only. Now, take the great organ
of—the leading newspaper of the day—the great
organ of what I may call fair weather Reformers,
which says that, when you get up a good agitation
they will be on your side, but not before. (Hear,
hear, and laughter.) The reply they made to us of
Bradford was—" Why, you are not in earnest about
Reform ; when you are in earnest we will listen•to
you." They did not say that what we were asking
for was bad, that it would do harm. That was an
afterthought. What they said was—the people are
not angry enough ; they are not earnest enough.
Just a word or two about this so-called apathy. But
really these writers and these speakers who say there
ought to be fierce agitation before they will do what
is just are playing with edged tools. (Hear, hear,
and applause.) I will not speak of physical force
and agitation such as we have had, and symptoms of
which have threatened the order and the peace of
the country; but I will say this, that those who go so
far as to speak of an agitation of the working classes,
as we call agitation in this country, do not understand
of what they speak. Why, to what extent does not
such an agitation as that interfere with the industry,
with the daily work, with the comfort, and, though
it must be orderly, even with the good order
of the community ? Those who call out for such
an agitation, call out that the working men
should give their time to political matters from morning to
night, know very little, at least of this part of the country.
But failing that interruption to the industry and daily work
of the community, what more could you have done than you
have done ? The Liberal constituencies pledged the Liberal
members to Reform at the last election. What more could
they do? I do not think that I should have had much chance
of being accepted by the Liberals at Leeds at the late con-
test if I had not been a Reformer. I can only say this, that
knowing I was a Reformer, I went into a few of those sta-
tistics upon which your member is the best authority. I
was forced to do so by the necessities of the case, and grieved
I was to find that I could count up the working men in
Leeds who had votes. If you had anything like a tolerable
share, or anything approaching it, even if you had one-tenth
of what your member proposes to give you, I suppose I
should not have been here as a stranger, but as your mem-
ber. (Loud cheers.) I say you did all you could do—you
pledged your members. That was done by the Liberal con-
stituencies throughout the country. And does anybody sup-
pose that these members will not be pledged again ? That is
a question which I ventured to ask, and which I ask here
again. Is there anyone here who attempts to read the signs
of political action in the country who does not suppose that
at the next election the Liberal members will be pledged to
Reform as much as they were before ? Does anyone suppose
that the so-called apathy will prevent their being pledged ?
Does anybody who attempts to understand politics doubt
that those pledges will be exacted quite as strictly, and justly'
with a more suspicious earnestness than they ever were
before ? Well, then, I can repeat another question to which
I have got no answer. How long—l will not say do our
foes, our opponents, but how long do our friends, those who
call themselves our friends, think that those pledges are to be
trilled with ? Are we to have another Parliament pledged,
anotheriParliament playing with these pledges ? Are we to
have another Government elected upon the strength of these
pledges playing with them ? I fear that if that be the
case those who call out for fierce agitation before a Reform
measure is passed, those who demand that agitation will be
likely to have that demand granted. (Cheers.) There is a
fault somewhere. The Parliament was elected upon Reform ;
the Ministry were put into power uponßeform, and yet there
is no Reform. i
Where is the fault ? Well, it is thrown upon
Parliament ; Ministers throw it upon Parliament ; mem-
bers of Parliament sometimes throw it back upon ltuils-

ters. They say of Palmerston's Ministry, of Lord Palmer-
ston himself—and especially because he is Premier—that
had he staked his continuance of office upon passing a Re-
form Bill he might have carried it. Ido not loam if it is of
much use bandying about the shuttlecock to find out which
battledoor struck it last. (Laughter and applause.) But
certainly it is the way for the Ministers to show that they
are what they were elected to be—earnest Reformers—to
give the Parliament yet another trial. That brings me to
your resolution, which I confess I think is a most practical
and a most wise resolution. In it you call upon the
Ministry—in this the last year of its Session—to make
another attempt to do that which they were put into
power to do—to bring forward a franchise bill. (Hear,
and applause.) Now, I am anxious to speak upon that
point, because I do not want any one:to suppose that I do not
think that the wisest course for Reformers to take. I must
confess that at our meeting at Bradford your member was
rather more hopeful than I was. He being our leader in
this matter—and as, being an independent member, ho must
continue to be—and it will be very hard for us to find a
better—(loud applause)—it is well for us that he is hopeful.
I do confess I had my doubts whether the Ministry would
see so strongly and imperatively as they should that
it was their duty to bring forward this measure. But

I had no doubt about what was the wise course for
them to take, which ,it is our business earnestly to call
upon them to take, and I will say further, regarding which
it was our duty to ask them imperatively the reason why
they did not take it. (Hear, hear, and applause.) Well,
we aro not merely met with taunts of apathy by our fair-
weather friends, but our opponents have something to say ;
and what do they meet us with ? They do not meet us with
arguments ; they also meet us with taunts. And what is
their taunt ? Will the Whigs give you reform ? Will Lord
Palmerston give you Reform ? Do you suppose you will
ever get it from him ? I say the time is come, and it is well
for us, the members of the Liberal party ; it is well for the
leaders of the Liberal party ; it is well, above all, for that
man who is the Premier of the Ministry and of the Liberal
party, to take these taunts well to heart and find out what
is their meaning. Only a few days ago our Conservative
friends had a great gathering. They met three or four
strong in one of the agricultural counties. (Loud laughter.)
They began, as they generally do, with a very good dinner.
I only wish we could do it, 1)4 there are generally so many
of us that it would be rather hard work. Their chairman,
Mr. Mowbray, who was an influential member of the Derby
Administration, made a capital speech. As he was describ-
ing the state of parties, just hear how he described our
Premier :—" We have had for many years a Liberal leader
born and bred in a Tory camp, who, having spent middle
life among the Whigs, seems in riper age to revert in heart
to the fond recollections of political childhood. (Laughter.)
Now, I say it is not pleasant for me as a member of the
Liberal party to hear my leader thus described by one of
his and my opponents. (Cheers.) Ido not exactly know
what Mr. Mowbray meant to convey—whether that Lord
Palmerston was in his second childhood, or had deserted us
for the principles of those against whom he professes to
lead us; but I am quite sure he was congratulating himself
and those who were dining with him on the fact that they
(the Conservatives) were perfectly safe, while the Liberals
were led by a man in whom they (the Conservatives) had
the fullest confidence. They may be right, or.they may be
wrong ; but I say, what can be more insulting to our leader,
what can be more humiliating to us his followers, than such
remarks as these ? (Cheers.) If they be true, then surely,
notwithstanding Lord Palmerston's claim to the respect of
this country, it is time for us to think whether we will any
longer stultify the Liberal party by being led by a man in
whom the Conservatives have the fullest confidence.(Cheers.)
If it be false, then I say Lord Palmerston ought himself to
prove its falseness—(hear, hear)—by showing his earnest-
ness in that Reform without professions to support which
he would not at this moment be Premier. I say in no pos-
sible way could he show the falseness of such remarks more
clearly than by allowing his Cabinet again to try whether
Parliament will do that work for which it was specially
elected. (Cheers.) He may say, "I agree with the Times—l
think the country is apathetic." Try—that is all we ask—
whether they aro apathetic. Ido not pretend to have any
special knowledge of the signs of the times, but I believe
the reply that he would obtain would be very different from
what some persons feel. lam like your member—l am
rather hopeful of what would be the result in the House of
Commons if a franchise measure were brought forward—
because, as he said, the members would not have the fear
of dissolution before their eyes, because they know it must
come ; but they would rather have the fear of those whom
they will have to meet at a dissolution. (Applause.) But
we will suppose that they are beaten in the House of Com-
mons—then I follow Mr. Baines and say—let them go to

the country. Well, but it may be said, they will be beaten
in the country. It is possible they might be, but if it be so, if
a good franchise measure, a good, moderate, but earnest and
sincere franchise measure be brought forward by the Mi-
nistry, if it be beaten in the House of Commons, if upon it
they dissolve, if upon appealing to the constituents the con-
stituents elect those in the majority who are opposed to it,
that will prove that the Conservatives aro in a majority in
the constituency of the country. (Applause.) If they were
so, then, I say, let us be ruled by a Conservative Govern-
ment. (Hear.) I am not one of those who would escape as
the Secessionists in America did from the rule of the majo-

city. If the Conservatives are in a majority, let them have the
responsibility of Conservative government. Let them have
the blame, the reproach of posterity for carrying out a policy
which, as we honestly believe, is not most to the interests of
the country. (Cheers.) Do not let it be done by the Liberals.

If there be that Conservative reaction of which we hear
so much, and if it has taken so much possession of the
country, I say far better is it that we Reformers should at
once know our position. (Applause.) We hear much of the
Conservative reaction ; we hear much of the power of the
Conservatives. It is not so much because the country is
more Conservative than it was ; it is not because the Con-
servatives are more powerful ; but it is because the Liberals
are less powerful—because the Liberals are weak ? And
why ? Not because the mass of them have lost confidence
in their principles, but because they are doubtful whether
they Aught to have confidence in their leaders, and because
in fact, they have not been led with that earnestness which
can alone command success. (Loud cheers.) I say, let
the leklers come forth, and there will be followers enough.
(Hear.) We had a hope given us last year that we should
have a leader—the leader who of all others would guide us
to a safe but sincere and earnest measure of Reform—Mr.
Gladstone. (Loud cheers.) I am right sure that that great
man was not trifling with the people of England when he
held out that hope. I feel sure that he will fulfil it. If
the Premier would not any longer stop the way, but would
allow 3 , re. t
b before
e long Gladstone t o
we
g o
should forward, i
have a goodbelieve the
measuretime
would n I
of reform. (Cheers.) And we should not have a leader in
that house only. I do not know why the presence of Lord
Russell's son to-night should prevent me saying what I
should have said in any circumstances—that I blame Lord
Russell less than any of the Ministers for the present posi-
tion of reform. (Hear, hear.) I believe that those words
at which we have wondered of late have been wrung from
him rather by the feeling that he has not been sufficiently
supported than by the feeling that he does not still ear-
nestly wish to accomplish that great work which he has
begun, and which he has been so instrumental throughout
his life in aiding. (Cheers.) I say, if we had a bill
brought forward in the House of Commons, we should
have a very good hope that after it left us it would
receive his energetic and earnest support in the Lords.
(Cheers.) I won't detain you any longer. You are anxi- 1
ous, I am sure, to hear his son. So am I. (Cheers.) I
look upon it as a good augury for the future that the first
appearance at any large public demonstration of Lord
Russell's son is among the working Reformers of Leeds.
(Loud cheers.) I think it shows that the Russells mean to
be true to the principles of their family, and that we shall
have in future days, as we have had in many a past day, la
Russell inthe van, when the cause of the people is to be
struggled for. I trust you will give him such a welcome
as will enable him to tell his father that if he takes heart
again, if he, while thankful for his rest, is willing once more
to start forward, if he will come forward and use his influ-
ence to fulfil the just demand of the people, and to declare
that their patience should no longer be trifled with, nor the
promises of statesmen broken—that, at any rate, he will
have the full support—and I think he knows what that
means—of the Reformers of Leeds, and I may say of York-
shire. (Cheers.)
The resolution was then put to the meeting and was
carried without any expression of opposition with loud
acclamation.
Alderman MIDDLETON proposed the second resolution,
which was as follows :
" That in the event of her Majesty's Ministers tailing to
introduce a measure of Reform in the forthcoming Session,
this meeting hopes the esteemed Liberal representative for
this borough will at once place on the notice paper of the
House of Commons the motion he has already twice pre-
sented to that assembly ; and we alsO congratulate that
gentleman on the success that attended his efforts last Ses-
sion in having been the occasion of eliciting from Mr. Glad-
stone the speech then delivered, and we trust the day is not
far distant when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will place
himself at the head of the Liberal party on this question."
In the course of an impassioned speech Mr. Middleton
quoted a passage from Mr. Gladstone's well-known speech
on Reform in the course of last Session, which passage he
(Mr. Middleton) said meant neither more nor less than uni-
versal suffrage, and he (Mr. Middleton) would never be
satisfied with any Government bill which did not rest upon
the two great principles of universal suffrage and a re-dis-
tribution of electoral seats.
The Rev. W. THOMAS, a Leeds Congregationalist mini-
ster, seconded the resolution, and in the course of his remarks
he referred to the proceedings at a recent dinner given to
Mr. G..Beecroft, the Conservative member for the borough,
by the Leeds Working Men's Conservative Association,
and expressed astonishment that any intelligent working
man could have sympathy with the Conservative party,
which had from his earliest recollections opposed every
measure intended for the benefit of the working classes,
and concluded by Warning the members of the Houses of
Commons as to the reception they would meet with from
their constituents if they did not, during the next session of
IParliament, pass a Reform Bill which would c,onfer a largely
extended measure of reform upon the people. (Cheers.)
The MAYOR said he had now the pleasure of introducing
to the meeting Viscount Amberley, son of Earl Russell.
(Loud cheers.) Ile could not mention the name:of Earl

Russell without expressing his deep feelings of gratitude to
him as one of the greatest patriots and friends of the liberty
of the subject that ever existed in his lifetime. (Cheers.)
The office he had the honour to hold owed its existence
entirely to the labours of that nobleman, and but for Ear
Russell the chain now in his possession would never have
encircled his neck. (Cheers.)

Viscount AMBERLEY then came forward, and was received
in a very enthusiastic manner. After the cheering had
subsided his Lordship said,—You, Mr. Mayor, and some of
the gentlemen who have preceded me, have been kind
enough to allude in very flattering terms to my presence
here. Perhaps it may not be unacceptable to you,and certainly
it will be agreeable to myself, that I should preface the re-
marks I have to offer with a brief allusion to the feelings of
cordial pleasure with which I am enabled to come among you
on this occasion. (Cheers.) I was particularly glad to receive
the invitation sent me by your committee, partly because it ap-
peared to imply a certain presumption on their part—a pre-
sumption that I trust you will consider to be justified by the
event—that I should sympathise with the objects of this
meeting—(cheers)--and partly because I rejoice to have this
opportunity of meeting some portion of those who at the
present time have the strongest claim upon the attention of
Reformers. (Renewed cheers.) The subject upon which I
am now called upon to speak is one with which I may be
said to have a special historical connexion—(loud cheers)—
nor does it at all detract from the gratification with which
I have resionded to your call, that I have been invited to
come here on account of any personal merits of my own,
but simply as a son of that statesman by whom the first
great Reform Bill was introduced, and who in 1831 and
1832 fought and conquered in that battle of Reform which
all modern Liberals aro fighting now. (Cheers.) They are
fighting it, indeed, on a different battle-ground, but the
arguments they employ themselves and-the arguments they
have to meet from their opponents are in many respects
almost exactly similar to those which at that period of our
history were employed by the Government, on the one side,
and by the Opposition on the other. (Hear, hear.) Many of
the principles which were urged in 1831 and 1832 in favour
of a Reform Bill by the Ministers of that time are applicable
now for a further extension of Reform, and in the same
way many of the arguments which were brought forward
in order to defeat that bill are constantly brought forward
now in order to oppose a further extension of Reform. I
have alluded to personal and private causes of satisfaction
for being here ; but there is another reason, of a public
nature, of which I must speak—and that is, that I am glad
to have an opportunity of witnessing one of those great
meetings which furnish the best and most emphatic con-
tradiction to the statement so often and so pertinaciously
advanced, that the people of England do not care about
the franchise. (Hear, hear ; Bravo ; and cheers.) lam
not about to dispute or deny that statement, although I
must say that it generally proceeds from a rather suspi-
cious quarter. (Laughter.) It is made by those who, if
they cannot entirely prevent the advance of this question,
are, nevertheless, anxious to put it off, and to prevent the
adoption of a new Reform Bill as long as they possibly can.
(Hear.) But if the case were as they say—if it be true that
the people of England do not care about Reform—the con-
clusion I shall draw from that fact is the direct opposite of
theirs. They advance it in order to impress upon Mr. Bright
and others the hopelessness of persisting in a cause in which
they do not possess the sympathy of the people. Now, it
seems to me that if the people do not care about Reform,
and if they are indifferent to the possession of votes, it
should be regarded as a national misfortune. (Cheers.) I
know that it is called contentment ; but it rather appears
to me to be the contentment of carelessness and ignorance
than of enlightened reason. (Cheers.) Therefore, if the
people really are indifferent on this question, I would en-
deavour by all means in my power to put an end to that
indifference (hear, hear), and if they really do not desire to
possess the political franchise, I would teach them to desire
it. It is, I think, especially necessary that such meetings
as this should be held, and that clear and decisive opinions
should bo expressed ; because you will find in the House of
Commons a natural reluctance to effect its own reformation.
Public bodies have in this respect some resemblance to in-
dividuals. There are individuals who may be anxious to
correct the errors of their neighbours, but are not particu-
larly anxious to correct their own (hear, hear), and I think
you will observe in large bodies of men the same natural
tendency. Thus you have found a Parliament devising
the appointment of Royal Commissions to inquire into
our universities and our public schools ; and those commis-
sions, by exposing the abuses which existed in the universi-
ties and public schools, have induced those bodies, or tried

to induce them, to begin to reform. But it was necessary
in that case to apply a certain amount of pressure from
without, or else reform could never have been effected.
(Hear.) Now, Parliament being the supreme authority in
the land, it is necessary in every case that the pressure from
without should be applied by the people ; and it is my own

conviction that you will not obtain the reform you desire
unless you aro earnest and steadfast in urging it upon
the members of the House of Commons. (Hear, hear.)
A circumstance there is which is exceedingly surprising
to me ; and it is that those who are so constantly talking
about the apathy of the people upon this question have also
another argument against Reform, which appears to me
slightly inconsistent with the other. It seems, if we listen
to what they say, that those listless and apathetic people—
those who do not care about &form—those people who
have not the slightest desire for the possession of votes, if
once they were enfranchised, would be converted into a
frantic and unreasonable mob—a mob that would carry
everything before them, and be determined to have every-
thing their own way, and that would listen to no voice in
the councils of the nation that was not in harmony with
their own. (Ilear, hear.) Now, I confess it does seem a
little strange that those who are so very indifferent to the

possession of power should nevertheless be so immoderate
in its use. (Hear, hear.) This argument about mob go-

vernment has been heard before. It was heard very loudly
in the year 1831, and when I look back to the debates of
that period I am strongly reminded of what is said upon
the subject now. There we find eminent statesmen—men

of such distinction as the late Lord Lyndhurst and Sir
Robert Peel—using very violent language against the Re-
form Bill. Sir Robert Peel, on one occasion, informed the

House of Commons that if the Reform Bill were passed
there would be established in England one of the worst
despotisms that ever existed—there would be a Parliament
of mob demagogues instead of wise and prudent men ; and
Lord Lyndhurst, in the House of Lords, told that terrified
assembly that the House of Commons would be converted
into a fierce and democratic assembly. Well, now we have
for more than thirty years' experience of the state of things,
and this experience enables us to judge of the value of such
language. We have lived under that terrible despotism pre-
dicted by Sir Robert Peel ; we have experienced a Govern-
ment and also a Parliament of mob demagogues—fierce and
democratic assembly ; but I do not think we have observed
in the House of Commons any particular tendency either to
abolish the House of Lords, to overthrow the Church, or to
seize upon the property of the rich and divide it among the
poor. (Hear, hear.) I think, therefore, we may 'safely
regard these predictions as matters of very light impor-
tance. (Hear, hear.) The great difficulty, undoubtedly,
arises when we come to consider the question, where shall
the line be drawn between those who are enfranchised and
those who are not ; between those who take a certain part
in the legislation of the country and those who do not ?
Upon this point the great speech of Mr. Gladstone, to
which your resolution alludes, laid down a principle which
I consider of the utmost consequence. Mr. Gladstone, in
speaking upon this question of Reform, told his opponents
that he laid upon them the burden of proof ; that it was
not for him to show the reason why the great body of the
people should be admitted to the fra,nchise, but he left it
with them to show why they should be excluded. (Cheers.)
He considered it the natural state of a free people to
be in possession of votes, and when any large body
of the' people was not admitted to that privilege he
thought there ought to be some strong and sufficient
reason given for that deprivation. (Hear, hear.)
Now, it appears to me that is a principle of the utmost
value in constitutional government, and I should wish that
future retormers in introducing theirmeasures might always
bear it in mind. (Hear.) It is said, no doubt, in answer to
this, that it is necessary to exclude alarge proportion of the
people for the interest of good government, because, if ad-
mitted, they would by their violent and unreasonable pro-
ceedings make good government impossible or much more
difficult. I confess I think such reasoning as this would go
much further than it is intended to go ; that it might per-
fectly well have been said by the great landowners at the
time of the Reform Bill, " We think it for the interest of
good government that the power of legislation should be
confined entirely to ourselves---we think it extremely un-
advisable that any portion of the people who have not the
same stake in the country and the same interest- in order as
we have should be admitted to power ; and therefore it
would be better to preserve such a constitution of the House
of Commons as would make its members the nominees of
the landowners." Then, again, if we go a little further back
in our history, I think it would have been open to our
Stuart Kings--to Charles I. or James ll—to say in the same
way, " We 'think it for the interest of good government
that the sole power should be confined to the Crown."
(Hear, hear.) Now, representative institutions require that
so far as possible the people should be admitted to the elec-
tion of members—(hear, hear)—and the ultimate aim of
representative institutions is not fulfilled when a consider-
able proportion of the people are still debarred from the
exercise of the privilege. (Hear, hear.) It is objected
sometimes that by the admission of the people you would
place the whole power in the hands of a single class.
If any very violent or sweeping measures were proposed
this would no doubt be a serious objection and would
demand serious consideration. It is no objection to the
moderate measures now proposed—(hear, hear)—and even
if we were to go much further with reform, and propose a
much wider measure than this, I don't think it would be
an entirely conclusive argument. (Hear, hear.) I do not
wish to place power in the hands of a single class,
but at the same time it is exceedingly unjust that on account
of this objection an important class should be deprived of
the power altogether. end when I we Kr, Pell iu his j

recent speech saying that all classes and all interests are at
present fairly represented in the House of Commons, and
defending the present constitution of the House of Commons
on that ground, I must confess that I am astonished at the
boldness of his language. (Hear.) I quite perceive that
land and capital are represented in that house, but I am
unable to perceive that there is a fair representation of la-
bour. (Cheers.) Now, it is extremely difficult to say how
far we ought to go in representing labour in the House of
Commons. There are great difficulties in the way of sudden
changes, and therefore it may be more desirable, and I am
inclined to think it is, that we should proceed in this direc-
tion by gradual and successive steps ; but I cannot think
that the task of Reformers has been entirely accomplished
until something more has been done than even the mode-
rate measure of reform now proposed. (Loud cheers. I
hope the day may come—l do not know when it may corn-
-but still I trust the day may come when it will bepossible
that every intelligent and honest man, whatever the class
to which he belongs, or whatever the employment he pur-
sues, may be admitted to the exercise of the franchise.
_ _

(Renewed and still louder cheers.) Then we are told that
if such extreme measures as this are to be allowedwe shall
be making a violent change in the character of the consti-
tution. (Laughter.) For my own part, then, I have no
objection to violent changes in the character of the consti-
tution, provided only that they are changes for the better.
(Hear.) The great Reform Bill might, I suppose, be de-
scribed as a violent change, although effected by legal and
peaceable means. But it was urged at that time, andl think
justly, that the object of the bill was not to overthrow the
constitution, but to remedy anomalies which had crept
into the constitution. (Hear.) And I think the same argu-
ment may be applied now. It was urged then that it was a
great and marvellous anomaly that large towns such as your
own, and such towns asManchester, Birmingham, and Shef-
field, should be entirely unrepresented in Parliament. That
no doubt was a serious anomaly, but it is also a serious ano-
maly that a large and important class of the inhabitants of
these towns should be entirely without representation.
(Hear, hear.) There is some difficulty in effecting a large
increase in the representation, because it is supposed that in
this way an unintelligent class of voters would come in who
might be particularly liable to the influence of bribery. I
will not attempt to disguise from you that on the subject
of bribery I entertain the strongest opinions. I consider
that the man who accepts a bribe in exchange for his vote is
utterly unworthy to exercise it. (Cheers.) Therefore I con-
ceive it would be of the utmost importance that in admit-

ting the labouring classes to the franchise, we should en-
deavour by every means in our power to impress this truth
upon them. It would be necessary, as far as possible, to
teach them—l do not say exactly in what way, but you
might teach them where they do not know it, and I see that
you know it perfectly here—(cheers)—that the man Nth° ac-
cepts a bribe violates a public trust. (Hear, hear.) It would
be necessary to teach them that it is as criminal and dishonest
as the conduct of the man who being intrusted with a sum of
money by another, makes use of it for himself. This, I say,
it would be necessary to do, but I do not imagine that in
that way we could succeed entirely in getting rid of bribery.
On the contrary, I believe there would still unfortunately
be many who would be unworthy of the privilege of voting.
That is an unfortunate circumstance, but I cannot look upon
it as a conclusive objection to the enfranchisement of the
working classes. (Cheers.) Nor is it an objection that
could be made with very good grace by the upper classes,
unless they could say their own political morality was
im-
maculately pure. (Much cheering.) Really, to hear the
way in which some persons talk against the enfranchisement
of the poor, we might suppose the rich never employed
improper and illegal influences at elections. (Laughter.)
We might suppose that they never employed money for
purposes of corruption—(hear, hear)—that they never
voted or induced others to vote, except upon the loftiest
and most patriotic grounds ; but since this is not the case I
think in endeavouring to reform the poor upon this subject

—in endeavouring to teach them that they are not entitled
to sell their votes, we should impress lessons of the same
kind upon the rich also. (Cheers.) But, then, it is said there
are many, if you go low down among the population and
admit a lower class than you have at present, who are en-

tirely without education, and would be led away by any de-
magogue who happened to win their sympathy. Ido not
deny that the absence of education is a serious objection to
the possession of the vote. It is, I think, of great conse-
quence that education should precede enfranchisement, al-
though at the same time I believe the enfranchisement con-
duces to education. But I cannot pretend to say it would be
advisable to admit in all cases those who have little educa-
tion and know nothing and care nothing about politics. But
when we are told that they are easily led,away by dema-
gogues, by orators who make use of their influence for
selfish purposes, I reflect that there are two modes of influ-
encing the votes of the electors. One method' is employed
by the large landowners, and another method is employed
by the demagogues. And I have heard that the method of
the great landowner is sometimes particularly successful
—(laughter)—and they find their power of persuasion very
great over the minds of their tenants. (Great laughter
and cheers.) Now I confess if I had to choose between
these two ways of influencing people to vote accord-
ing to my opinions, I should say the method employed
by the demagogue is infinitely the more constitutional
and more straightforward one of the two. (Cheers.) Then
we have to consider the question, What are we to do with
those who, on account of education or want of interest in
political matters, are as yet unfitted for the exercise of the
franchise ? That is a difficult question, and I have not dis-
guised from you my opinion that it might be wise to prefer
their admission to the privilege of voting. (Hear, hear.)
That X conceive to be a principle not so much of a Conser-
vative as of a Radical description ; for if it were pushed to
a logical conclusion it would lead to strange results ; and I
should be inclined to warn Conservatives how they accept
it. Let me ask you to fix your attention for a minute on that
venerable and respected body the House of Lords. If you
look at the House of Lords you will find some, no doubt,
who are able men and admirably fitted for the seats they
have in that body, but I am assured you will find others
who coming into their seat simply by hereditary right are
not so fitted. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) You will find
some who have no political education worthy of the name
—who cannot be said to have any political convictions, be-
cause they simply adopt the opinions of the family, and
cannot be said either from their talents or from any other
reason to be fitted for the exercise of the great privilege of

sitting in the House of Lords. Yet these men, whose range
of political ideas is confined within narrow limits, are per-
mitted to sit and vote in the house, and obstruct the legisla-
tion of the country. (Cheers.) Gentlemen, you will have
been able to gather from the remarks I have now addressed
to you that I am not of those who regard the advance of
democratical opinions with particular alarm. That there
are dangers in democratic government, as there are in every
form of government devised by man, I am willing to allow.
Nor do I say that it will be possible to dispense with
every kind of safeguard against the errors or excesses into
which a democratic government may fall ; but I cannot
look on the abolition of those distinctions or the lines of
demarcation whioh hitherto have subsisted between the
various classes of men—l say I cannot look upon that
with displeasure or regret. I belieVe you will find that
those distinctions which democracy tends to get rid of
are not real and natural distinctions; but artificial distinc-
tions created by•society. You may get rid of that distinc-
tion which subsists between different men solely on ac-
count of birth, but you cannot get rid of those differences
which spring from character, talent, or education. You
would yourselves perceive it to be a false and unnatural
condition. of society which asserted idleness to be on a
level with industry, folly on a level with wisdom, or
ignorance and incapacity on a level with knowledge and
ability. (Hear, hear.) It is my opinion these distinctions
will not be got rid of by any form of government, but will
still subsist. All false distinctions and those which produce
mischief rather than benefit, will, I hope and believe, gra-
dually disappear and vanish from among us, but of those
false distinctions which, I trust, I see disappearing in the
course of time, is that which is still extant in this country
between the governing classes and the classes which are
governed. It is, of course, absolutely essential that
we should have men set apart for the work of the
executive government, and to conduct the business
of the public offices ; but when I say I dislike the dis-
tinction between the governing class and the class to be
governed, I mean that I do not believe in that state of
society which gives some men facilities for entering upon a
political career and makes it more difficult for others to
walk in the same line, although perhaps the ability of those
who are excluded may be greater than that of many who
are easily admitted. It is desirable that there should be
some facilities for all to exercise their talents. This ideal of
a representative government requires that every class of
the community should be equally interested, and equally
concerned in the maintenance of order, in the preservation
of freedom, and in the adoption of such laws as may be
most conducive to the welfare of the community at large.
Parliament to be a representative institution should always
tend to such an ideal as I have described. And this is an
ideal towards which you especially may combine with us
in bringing this country nearer and nearer, for although it
may be possible to prove by theoretical arguments that the
working classes of this country should be admitted to the
exercise of the suffrage, it is possible for you, you who be-
long to that class, you who have hitherto been represented
—to add an argument more conclusive still—the argument
of your own conduct. (Cheers.) It is for you especially to
refute the error that you are unfit for the exercise of that
important and responsible duty. It is for you to prove both
that you are earnestly and truly desirous to be admitted to
that trust, and that you would, if admitted, exercise it
wisely and well, and with a duo and serious sense of the
responsibility it brings. It is for you in furtherance of these
objects to combine energy with patience, resolution with
discretion, and a firm and unswerving adherence to your
demands with courtesy and charity to those who still re-
gard them with suspicion and dislike. (Loud cheers.) And
thus, although you may safely leave it to the eloquence and
talents of others to urge your claims upon the House of
Commons and the country, it is for you to add the final and
convincing proof of the justice of your cause. (Loud and
repeated cheers.)
The resolution was put to the meeting and carried wl,th
much applause.
After the adoption of a petition to Parliament einhridying
the two resolutions, a vote of thanks on the motion of 3lr.
BAINES, seconded by Viscount AMBEBLEY, was given to
the chairman, and the proMedinge Were Dreught t 9 § 09,50.