The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-06 00:00:00

KR. HORSMAN AND HIS CONSTITUENTS.

We are requested by Mr. Horsman to give publi-
city to the following letter :
" Ashley St. Ledgers, Rugby, April 4.
"My dear Stanton,—l see by the Stroud Journal
that you attended the meeting called by some of my
constituents last week, and, as my proposer at the
last election, defended my conduct in the present
Parliament.
"I cannot but think it was a somewhat novel pro-
ceeding for constituents to meet and pass judgment
on a representative without formally apprising
him
that the meeting was to take place and inviting him
to attend, and still more strange was it that the
chairman of the meeting should not have the cour-
tesy or fairness to communicate to me the resolu•
Zion that had been come to, but should leave me to
get my information from the newspaper. s or any
ether accidental source. In the meanwhile so un-
truthful a report of the proceedings had b
been sent
to the London newspapers that even foreign jour-
nals have been able to use it largely to prove that
Lord John Russell's recent declaration of the policy
inasmuch
as his Cabinet is condemned in England,
as the member who elicited that declaration has
been discarded by his constituents.
" In writing therefore to thank you very sincerely
for your generous vindication of me, I must take
this opportunity of giving through you that reply
to the meeting for which so much pains has been
taken to deprive me of a more legitimate opening.
" I am accused of having acted inconsistently
with the principles on which I was elected.
" No accusation can be more entirely unfounded.
The two questions on which I had to express myself
most frequently and publicly at the election were
Parliamentary reform and foreign policy.
" On Parliamentary reform some of my consti-
tuents were dissatisfied with my recent vote on
Lord John Russell's abstract resolution, and my
answer to them was this Whether I have been
right or wrong must at present be a matter of
opinion. We must wait till this time next year.
If you have then the large and comprehensive mea-
sure that has been promised you I shall own I have
been wrong. But if, as I predict, you are offered a
measure no better nor more satisfactory than the
one now rejected, you will own I have been right,
and that it would have been wiser to have settled
the question by amending Lord Derby's bill with-
out the turmoil of a dissolution and the loss of a
year.'
" This issue was universally accepted. It was
raised in March, 1859, and the new bill has been
discussed in March, 1860. With what result ?
The dissatisfaction felt with the bill of Lord Derby
was as nothing compared with the contempt and
ridicule that from every side are poured on the bill
of Lord John Russell ; and while last year's mea-
sure had at least the merit of exhibiting much
thought and pains bestowed on its preparation, this
new one is universally condemned for its careless
and slovenly character, and no one suggests how,
by any number of amendments, it can be made as
good a bill as Lord Derby's, with very few and sim-
ple amendments, might have become.
" Moreover, the reluctance shown by the Govern-
ment to introduce their bill, and the indifference
with which they have postponed its progress, dis-
credit the whole proceeding as emanating from the
necessity to redeem a pledge rather than a desire to
reform Parliament.
" Therefore, on the question of parliamentary re-
form I have little in my conduct to regret, and my
constituents as little to complain of.
" On foreign policy my views were as clearly ex-
pressed, and my course has been equally consistent.
"For years past I have warned my friends at
Stroud, at every annual meeting, that the aggres-
sive policy of France was a storm ahead, and that
increased armaments and augmented income-tax
would be forced upon us, and I concluded a speech
two years ago with the expressions I see you quoted
at the meeting—' Put your faith, if it please you, in
the Emperor of France, but keep your powder dry.'
" Towards the close of last session of Parliament
(on the 9th August) Iprotested against the English
Ministry becoming so much the French Emperor's
partisans in Italy. I warned them that he had ulte-
rior designs of French aggrandisement, and that
they would find themselves deceived and embar-
rassed by complicity in his acts.
"In the first week of the present session the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, when announcing the
treaty, asked the House of Commons if under any
conceivable circumstances the alliance between
France and England could be too close ? I replied
immediately, ' That our alliance with France could
be too close when it separated us from the other
Powers of Europe.' This was on the 27th of Ja-
nuary, and on the 14th of March I again urged
on the Government the necessity and the duty of
drawing closer to other continental Powers, and
especially of combining with Prussia against the
common danger from France.
" There seemed at that time no hope of such a
policy,ryet, within a fortnight from that day (on the
26th of March), Lord John Russell, in answer to
another appeal from me, announced, amid the cheers
of the house, that the eyes of the British Ministry
were opened at last to their grievious error, that
they were now freeing themselves from that special
alliance with France which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had vaunted, and were seeking those
other European alliances that I had ventured to re-
commend.

" Yet, while all England is applauding this change
of policy which gladdens the heart of every Liberal
in Europe, there are speakers at the Stroud meeting,
differing, I venture to say, from the sentiments of
electors of every party in every other constituency
and censuring me for my distrust of France.
" Extracts from my speeches were read to the
meeting to prove that I was exciting war with
France ; but why were these expressions which I
used on the 13th of March not correctly quoted ?
The whole question is this, what is the policy that
leads to war ? Is it a policy of firmness ? Because
I cannot but recollect an occasion, not very long
ago, when divided counsels, leading to compromise
and tending to weakness, did drift us into a most
disastrous war.' Was I singular in these views ?
There is now a very general opinion in the House
of Commons that if Lord John Russell had delivered
a month ago the speech that he delivered
last week; or if the Ministry at an earlier period
had declared, No Savoy for Franca, or no commer•
vial treaty with England; no Savoy for France, or
no special alliance'—the Savoy 'difficulty never
would have arisen. And lam informed that this
is also the language of the France, Emperor of
who
complains that the English Cabinet have misled
him, as they misled
asthe Emperor of Russia into the
and
CriMan War,they misled the French Em-
peror himself on the Conspiracy Bill.
th
" The resolution of
the
the meeting condemned my
votes and speeches on
commercial treaty and from
the budget ; but, so far am I
regretting them,
that I have now the satisfaction of seeing oppo-
nents in all directions coming round to my opinions.
There is scarcely an independent organ of th
that has not modified its approval both of theetat
and budget. The former exhibits the Cabinet in
the unfortunate light of having extorted great
sacrifices from England to benefit France at the
very time they knew that France had designs on
Savoy; and my arguments against the budget have
now been endorsed by the highest authorities,
justly alarmed by the new financial policy of the
Cabinet, and the enormous deficiency that is ine-
vitable next year without the smallest indication
of how it is to be met.
"The treaty and budget were both of them sur-
prises on Parliament and the country, and were
hurried through the House of Commons before it
had recovered its senses. The forms and usages of
Parliament are interposed as securities for the
nation that ample time shall be given to deliberate
on public measures, of which all the consequences
cannot, on the instant, be foreseen. Bnt during
the present session those securities have been set
aside to an unprecedented extent. I protested, but
in vain; and now, when it is too late, the true cha-
racter of those measures is beginning to be under-
stood, and many of their supporters are by no means
satisfied with the votes into which they had been
hurried.

"The last charge preferred against me by some
speakers at the meeting was that I had not been
sufficiently ' Ministerial' in my votes and speeches,
and that I had unexpectedly and inconsistently
Gposed the present ' strong and united Liberal
overnment.'
"To this again I reply that my Parliamentary
speeches and public declarations to the electors had
left no room for doubt of my intentions.
Las
"
~ t year, on the 4th of April, when Mr. Dis-
raeli announeiiodthe dissolution, I indicated my views
of the situ
:rouble you with one in
a speech from which I will
extract :
u ' The present Government is not strong ; the
next one, if it be the
nescpult of a party struggle on
reform, cannot be strong,
it assembles,
first proceedings
believe that it will depend on in my conscience, I
of the new Parliament, whenon'assembles, whether,
in our generation, we shall everl a strong Go-
vernmentasteipieois•oespehet resting
again. That will be
quewstino are our
very much on the conduct of
leaders in this house. It willbneoat of reformn nor
the new Parliam;nt assembles,
party, but of the permanent influence and chaorraocf
ter of our representative system. It will be for our
leaders to uphold that character, and maintain un-
impaired '..
that influence. But, how‘ver they to
whom we have a right to look for example in this
house may discharge themselves of their responsi
bility and duty, I hope that we on these benches
shall remember that we, every one of us, have a
responsibility and a duty too; that we shall make
it known that a political party can have higher ,
ends than office, and that we shall throw back the J