The Sun.
London, England, 1851-01-25 00:00:00

already made such progress that some four or five mil-
lions of reduotion in our expenditure has taken place.—
(Cheers.) I have no doubt that further retrenchments
are going on at this present moment. As fiscal ques-
tions will engage a good deal of attention in the ensuing
Parliament, I would have you rigorously to draw a
distinction between two questions which are very often
jumbled together, causing great confusion in the public
mind—l mean the difference between a surplus caused
by an increased revenue, and a surplus caused by reduced
expenditure. The Government comes forward with a
suplus of 2,000,0001. arising from an increase in the re-
ceipts of the various existing taxes; and the Govern-
ment is then too apt to take credit to itself for the
great merit of having created a superabundant revenue.
They do not tell you—and you are too apt to forget
it—that this surplus is merely the effect of your having
given out of your pockets 2,000,0001. more into
the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one
year than you did in the last year; and then the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer tells you, " I have two millions
more than I estimated, I will return it to you." But I
wish that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer
brings forward his budget you would examine critically
the amount of the redaction of his estimates for the
next year's expenditure as compared with the estimates
of last year.—(Hear, hear.) The surplus that is now
being estimated is upon the present year's estimates; I
want to see the next year's estimates and the budget,
that we may judge of the Government by their esti-
mates, and not by any revenue they may have reached.
—(Cheers.) I have not since the close of Parliament
addressed any audience upon general political topics. I
have addressed peace meetings, I have addressed meet-
ings of freehold-land societies, I have addressed educa-
tion meetings, but I have not addressed a meeting where
so wide a range of discussion and observation has been
permitted as is now open to us in this assembly. I
very much regret it, because I should like to have
said a few words upon a controversy which has been
raging in this country for two or three
months, and which I should be guilty of cowardice,
seeing it is always my practice to deal with the
prominent topics of the day, not to refer to. I speak
to you only as a politician. For the last two or three
months there has not been a calm in this country. We
have heard of a great political calm, but there has been
no calm. On the contrary, there has been an agitation.
It has, I admit, been mainly sectional; but it has been
wide-spread, and it has occupied almost exclusively the
attention of the leading public prints. I need not tell
you that the question is that which is called " The
Papal aggression." The remark I wish to make is, that
the discussion cf this topic has overlaid, arrested, and
smothered for a time every political topic. In this coun-
try the public mind entertains but one subject at a time;
therefore the discussion of this topic as a political topic
has prevented the public mind from occupying itself upon
k fiscal questions and questions affecting reform in the
representation, and other questions which politicians
have had for many years at heart, so that we approach
the meeting of Parliament without the opportunity being
afforded or taken by the country of signalling
to the Government the views they take, upon
these questions. I wish you to bear in mind
that when we meet in Parliament our time will
then, I fear, be very much occupied with the
discussion of this same question; for if we may believe
the Rev. Hugh Stowell in what he told us at a very large
assembly, every political, social, fiscal, or reformatory
question must be suspended until this one great question
be settled by the House of Commons.—(Applause.)
What I want to ask is—" Is this a question that can be
settled by politicians?"—(Loud cheers.) I may settle it
in my own mind as a Protestant, and as a Protestant I
may have my opinions. But I want to ask, if there is
any reason why religious questions should net be removed
out of the domain of politics, the same as in the United
States of America? Lord Carlisle, when he honoured
himself by caning out of the Cabinet to deliver an ad-
dress to the Mechanics' Institution of Leeds, made a
remark which, coming at the time it did, I think
expressed more than words would entirely do, when
he said, "I confess I do envy the complete toleration
which exists in the United States. —(Loud cheers.)
In the United States the Pope may appoint bishops
wherever he pleases; he may parcel out that vast
continent into as many dioceses as he pleases; ho
may send as many cardinals as he pleases; and no
' matter by what pompous phraseology all that be
done, the United States' politician, or the United States'
Legislature at Washington, would be perfectly indif-
ferent to it all, Why cannot we, in this country, as
politicians, leave with the same security to private and
individual judgment the settlement of this question, as it
is in the United States? Is it that we are so ignorant,
or that we are so liable to be misled? Then I say lot
us look sharp and follow the advice given by Mr. Law-
• rence, the American Minister, and educate ourselves.—
(Loud cheers.) But lam told that the reason is that
we have a State Church in England. Well, but does a
State Church render the people of this country less able
to protect themselves, by their own unaided judgment,
knowledge, and sound sense, from aggression? Are the
people less able to protect themselves against error be-
cause they have a State Church? Will that be the con-
fession? No. But the State Church has been made
the obstacle, or attempted to be made the obstacle, in
every parish, to the promotion of the same liberality
that exists in America, and against every proposal
with regard to liberty, whether civil, religious,
or commercial.—(Loud applause.) We are and • have
' been continually tempted to be obstructed by the cry
of "The Church in danger;" yet in every case the parti-
sans of the Church have found their predictions singu-
larly falsified. After the repeal of the Teel and Corpo-
ration Act—after the accomplishment of Emancipation—
after the Reform Bill was severed—there was the same
cry; but I believe it will be admitted, by both Church-
men and Dissenters, the Church never was so active and
prosperous, never were so many churches built, and
never had the Establishment greater authority than after
the last of those great reforms down to the present day.
Where, then, are the grounds for fear en the part of
Churchmen for the security of the Church? Ido not
stand here as the advocate or the partisan of the Roman
Catholic body. As a politician I do not presume to
afar my opinions on the faith of any man. But I may
be allowed to say that I am no friend to the organiza-
tion of the Roman Catholic body. It is too subduing to
the intellect, and too centralizing for me. But at the
same time let the Roman Catholics living in England
judge for themselves, not only of their own faith and
motives, but of the mode in which they have looked up
to the organization that will follow religious
teaching.—(Loud cheers.) Why should you dictate
to Roman Catholic bishops whether they govern
by a cardinal, an archbishop, or diocese? Thoy do not
come to me as a politician to ask me to give force and
validity to their titles, or to give them stipends out of
the public purse. What right have I, then, as a politi-
cian, to come before a public meeting, or to get up in
the House of Commons, to say a word upon the subject
of their faith, or on the polity of the Roman Catholic
Church?—(Hear.) We shall be told, pretty often no
doubt, that unless Government interferes the privileges
and prerogatives of the Queen of England will be in-
vaded by the Pope—not by Cardinal Wiseman. Cardinal
Wiseman is a British subject; he cannot invade the pre-
rogative of the Crown without being guilty of high trea-
son; and if he is so guilty, let him be tried by law. But
what prerogative has been invaded by the conduct of the
Pope? Not the temporal prerogative. Why, the Pope
has at this moment in his army a few thousand French
and Austrian troops; and I have it on the best authority
that if these troops were removed dire would be the
dismay and speedy the flight of the whole body—Pope
and Cardinals.—(Cheers and laughter.) It is not,
then, the army of the Pope that is to threaten the
temporalities of the Crown. Aro the temporal pre-
rogatives threatened by sea? You may have a list
of the entire naval force of the Pope—it amounts
I to two gun brigs and a schooner.—(Laughter.) Put one
quarter of an effective service on the coast of Essex, it
would be quite sufficient to guard the whole island,
against it. We are told, however, that the spiritual do-
minion of the Queen is to be perilled. Now, are we as
politicians, who are called upon to vote money for
ordnance and for shot and shell, to meet and repel the
aggressive enemy that meets us with similar weapons—
are we to forge the spiritual artillery with which we are
to meet this aggression ?—(Cheers.) If we are, I beg
you to consider how capitally we are suited in the House
Of Commons for that purpose.—(Loud cheers and laugh-
ter.) Admitting, if you please, that we are the great
majority of us eminent for our piety, how are we con-
stituted?—(Laughter.) Are we all Churchmen, owning
to the spiritual authority of the Queen? Why, about
40 or 50 of us are Roman Chatholic; and, mark me, you
will have a great many more Roman Catholics returned
from Irelavd at the next election.—(Hear, hear.) We
have an Independent or two, we have three or four
Unitarians, and we have a Quaker I am happy to
say, and I wish we had a good many more—(Great
applause)—and we have a prospect of having
a JeTe•—(Hear, hear,
body and d
menlau laughter.) t eurp. )b
uphold
the
Queen's
Now, is not
that a very nice ,
supremacy as head of England's Church ? If
you wanted to give us a task in the House which should
• last till Doomsday, then give us the task of settling the
question of Papal aggression.—(Cheers.) I say, give
it to the politicians settletii-
if
you want it never to be
settled at all. As has been w
ell expressed here by Mr.
Bright, politicians have been at the work already for 406
or 500 years. They have tried every available means;
they have tried fire and faggot, and then came the penal
laws which went every length short of extermination.
What has been the tendency of the last century? Con-
stant relaxation, a tendency more and more to religious
toleration. What has peen the course taken by the
leading statesmen of this country? Why, to their
honour be it said, the greatest and most illustrious states-
men of the last sixty years were so far in advance of the
latent bigotry existing in the country, that they were
ready to sacrifice their fame, they were willing to forego
place, patronage, everything which statesmen and poli-
ticians hold most dear, rather than lend themselves to
the continuance of a system which I very much fear
there are men now in the Cabinet who owe all their dis-
tinction in public life to having been identified with the
principles of toleration to which we are constantly more
and more progressing, who are now ready to sully
their fair fame, and belie, I had almost said, the
whole of their past politicalthe
political on entering into
political season of 1851.—(Cheers.) Gentlemen, I en-
treat you to remove this question of
religious opinions
—remove it out of the domain o f
not only to make politics if you wish,
progress in those questions which we
cannot delay, but if you wish to prevent
policy. It will not end in a merereturn a retrograde
of religious monopoly, but will be certainto the parties
you into a retrograde track in questions
affecting conduct
temporal interests, and for which many of those
our
fancy themselves sincere are now lending their" who
"Iwhen they raise this cry for religious intolerancel
agree with Mr. Gibson completely, that if this country
suffers one step backwards in the career ofreligious to-
leration, you are endangering yourselves in questions
on
questions
on which you feel most nearly interested.—(Hear,
hear.) I never felt the slightest doubt in the world
come across my mind on the subject of retaining every-
thing we hive gained in the way of social improvement

THE SUN,

until I saw the account of a county meeting in Essex,
which has had its counterpart nearly in every part
of England, and at which Sir John Tyrell was one of
the most prominent actors, when he called for three
cheers for Lord John Russell.—(Cheers.) Look at the
actors throughout the country in this present movement
against what is called the Papal aggression. Who are they ?
Have you seen those men advocating the repeal of the
corn-laws?—(Hear, hear.) Have you not seen, in every
case, that the most prominent actors in these county
meetings are the men who resisted the establishment of
that principle of commercial reform?—(Hear, hear.)
When I ask you if by any accident—such accidents as
may happen in our constitution—we are precipitated at
any moment—when I ask those who agree with me upon
the subject of commercial freedom, and generally upon
questions of liberal policy in secular affairs—when I ask
them to answer me this guostien,—Suppose a general
election were to take place, and those who are prominent
in opposing religious toleration succeeded—and I am not
sure that they would not succeed—in returning to Par-
liament a majority for re-enacting the disabilities and
restrictions upon Roman Catholics—would not that be a
majority that would either tamper with the corn-laws or
take care to indemnify themselves for what has been
taken from them?—(Cheers.) It is so; and those who
are acting have not been so discreet in this case as
to conceal their belief in the possibility of retrieving
their monopoly. I say to those who have generally
been favourable to commercial freedom—who have
been, in fact, friendly to civil and commercial
freedom, and who join in this cry, and lend
themselves to the support of this party who are in
favour of religious restrictions—l say they would,
in my opinion bring back on themselves commercial
monopolies and political monopolies; and I say to them
as inconsistent men—for I don't address myself to those
who oppose freedom in every shape, but those who are
eenerally with us in advocating civil and commercial
freedom—l say if they gain the triumph of religious in-
tolerance, and if they gain along with it a monopoly
in food, as well as political institutions, they richly merit
their fate.—(Loud cheers.) But there is ono thing that
has been said by those who preceded me—they have
alluded to the bigotry, and fanaticism, and ignorance,
which prevailed fifty years ago among the mass of the
people of this country. Now there is one symptom, and
almost the only symptom, which has consoled me in this
agitation for religious disabilities, and it is this—the
calm, passive, and, in many respects, contemptuous silence
and indifference with which it has been regarded by the
great mass of the people of this country.—(Cheers.) If
the same tumults had occurred fifty or sixty years ago,
owing to the then ignorance and bigotry of the mass of
the people of this country, half the Roman Catholic
chapels would have been in flames, and half their oc-
cupants lives in danger.—(Hear, hear.) And I thank
the demonstration only for this—that it has given me,
more than anything • else, a conviction of the great
progress that has been made in real intelligence by the
great mass of the people, especially in the north of
England. I will not say so much of the south. And I
cannot say much of the corporation of London.—
(Cheers and laughter.) Why, only think of that cor-
poration professing to represent the city. Only think of
it! Last year setting itself up and agitating in a fer-
ment of enlightened intelligence and patriotism in favour
of religious liberty to the Jews. When has there been
such a spectacle, even so absurd a spectacle, exhibited
as that which was shown, when the London corporation
took that great gingerbread coach, the pattern of 200
years ago, and clothed themselves in that Bartholomew
Fair dress of theirs, and took a man with a fur cap,
whose pattern dates back, I believe, five centuries, with
a long sword in his band, and all the other sot of the
paraphernalia of the corporation of London, and went
down by the railroad to Windsor in order to present an
address to the Queen in order to put down—Popish
mummeries!—(lmmenso cheering and laughter.) If you
want to see mummeries, go and see the Lord Mayor's
procession. I have seen the grand ceremonies in the
Vatican at Easter; I have seen the most gorgeous re-
ligious processions the Church of Rome can boast of; but
I never saw anything half so absurd or half so offensive
to intelligence or common sense as the mummeries in
which the c srporation of London indulge in every year.
—(Cheers.) Now, gentlemen, lam glad to say of the
north of England that the mass of the people here have
not joined in this intolerant outcry.—(Hear, hear.) I
only regret that circumstances have prevented this meet-
ing from being held in the Free-trade Hall, that I might
have heard the cheer which I should have had from
5,000 auditors in expressing the sentiments I have just
enunciated. Now, gentlemen, only one word more—
as a politician again, but not as a party politician, if
you please. Something has been said about conduct
or misconduct during the last session. I don't come
here to answer to you, because I have not the honour of
representing most of you. But this I will say, I am
exceedingly tolerant of every Member of the House of
Commons who strains a point to vote with the Govern•
ment, because he has been some 15 or 20 years lon-
ger in the political arena than I have been. I believe
my friend Mr. Brotherton, for instance—(Cheers) —aims
as much at benefiting the mass of the people in this
country, in every form which he can do it, as I do—
(Cheers)—but I believe Mr. Brotherton has a stronger
sentiment of reliance on and sympathy towards the pre-
sent Government than I have; and it is easily accounted
for. Mr. Brotherton entered Parliament after the pass-
ing of the Reform Bill and shared their struggles in ob-
taining that Bill, which I still regard—notwithstanding
what lir. Dyer said—a great progress in political reform.
He shared all their struggles in carrying that Bill, and
it is natural that he should have those sympathies. But
I will say this in vindication of myself, that I entered
somewhat at an advanced time of life for a man who has
taken up the discussion of a public question, and I d;d it
resolved to devote my labours to the solution of that
question, without reference to the temporal interests or
conveniences of any existing political party. And the
result of that agitation in the cans of the corn-laws has
convinced me that if anything is to be done in this
country for the great mass of the people, if you
are to succeed in establishing any reform of mag-
nitude, it can only be done by the people
out of doors, and in the House resolving to do
that one thing, and totally disregarding the existing
political parties in that House. I desire to see some-
thing accomplished. I have set myself the task of ac-
complishing certain things, and among them the one
most dear to my heart is the advocacy of a more peace-
ful
and conciliatory policy in the intercourse of nations,
I would especially say, the intercourse between this
country and weaker nations. If you want to wound my 1
principles most acutely, it will be to show me England
violating the principle of conciliatory and humane po-
licy when it has to deal with a weak power, which is
like a child in its grasp. I look upon inhumanity, rude-
ness_or violence on the part of England towards a power-
less state like Greece with additional resentment, just
as I should regard that man as a coward as well as a
despot who molested and ill-used a child. Feeling, then,
that my principles were violated in the case of Lord
Palmerston, in the Greek affair, I voted against him on
that occasion, and I should do so again, if 10,000 seats
in Parliament depended on the issuing of my vote.-
-(Loud cheers.) Now, gentlemen, let me give one
word of advice to those who are in Manchester or else-
where, and take up a hasty conclusion against some of
our Members, with whom you generally agree, and in
whosejudgment and sagacity you have some confidence,
to beware how you take side against them merely because
you see in certain public prints a certain line of policy
argued. Give them credit for being wary—they have
a better opportunity of sifting public men than you
have.—(Hear, hear.) A man must be a fool if he does
not know better after being in Parliament seven or eight
years, and sitting in committee with nearly all the
Members, and hearing their motives when they arc dis-
closed, not ou the public arena, but when they are
chatted over by their own friends in private.—(Hear,
hear.) Depend upon it your Members will have rather
better opportunities than yQu will have of judging of
the conduct of public men. And if you happen to
think that Lord Palmerston, although he did try to
maintain a fixed duty long after Lord Aberdeen had be-
come the advocate of total repeal and untaxed bread—
if, notwithstanding certain other symptoms, I could
mention that Lord Palmerston is not the champion of
liberty that you suppose—if, I say, notwithstanding
you have an impression in favour of Lord Palmerston,
and if your Members come to a different conclusion,
why, give them credit for the same honesty of purpose
and intelligence with yourselves; and bear in mind that
they have the better opportunity of forming an opinion
than yourselves. I have no desire to stand out singu.
larly in my vote. As was well expressed by Mr.
Bright, it is a very unpleasant thing to do so ; and it
would be far more agreeable to make companionship
with those men on the Treasury benches, instead of
treading on their toes, and poking them in the ribs, and
making them uncomfortable. Is it any satisfaction to
me, do you think, that Lord Palmerston's organ, the
Globe, has denounced me, over and over again, as a dis-
appointed demagogue, and burled language at me which
no other journal—the Times for instance—has ever le-
velled at me? I know perfectly well that on the Man-
chester Exchange, and the Leeds Exchange, and the
Liverpool Exchange, where the Globe paper is taken,
and that being a Whig paper, when persons see it speak
is such terms of the Member for the West Riding, they
are apt to think there must be a great deal in it, and that
the Member must be making himself especially ridiculous
in the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) lam not a
disappointed demagogue; if ever there was anybody who
ought to be satisfied with his public career, it is I.—
(Enthusiastic cheering.) I thank you for giving me the only
response which could relieve me from the imputation of
great egotism in saying so.—(Renewed cheering.)
Well, as I said before, my position is not the same
as that of Mr. Brotherton. I have lived so long that I
whichTo y.
thlecTancnroiets
find
fro amd v oLcoartde
cannot see the line of demarcation between Whig and
sdeoe woohtatodpvroinocaitpol.e tihe
John Russell, in the House of Commons, not simply
greatimpatience, but petulance, and I had almost said
great insolence, in his dealings, particulary in the re-
marks he has made to our friend Mr. Bright—who I am
sure is very indifferent to the remarks themselves —but
they are sufficiently important in indicating the tone
y. ear
the man supposed to be the leader of our part
—(II of
.)
I must confess, that in regard to fiscal matters, lam
bound
to say I believe the Opposition party would do
quite as much in the way of retrenchment as the Whigs.
lam not sure that they would not do more. I believe
Sir James Graham, for instance, would show less sub-
serviency to the Duke of Wellington in military ar-
rangements, than Lord J. Russell or Lord Palmerston. I
believe in colonial policy; while Sir R. Peel resolutely re-
fused to add another acre to our tropical possessions, the
present Government are taking possession in Asia,
as well as Africa, of tracts of tropical territory which, I
believe, notwithstanding anything that may be said to
the contrary by the Manchester Association, ' are only
calculated to entail additional expense upon us, instead
of benefiting us,
ss a free-trading community. And I
fear that next session we shall be placed in a still worse
dilemma. If we are to believe the reports that Lord
John Russell, instead of being the champion of religious
liberty, is going to embark in a crusade against religious
freedom, I shall then find myself still further alienated