The Sun.
London, England, 1867-10-24 00:00:00

Archb'shop Manning on Intemperance.

At the annual public meeting of the United King-
dom Alliance, held last evening in the Free Trade
Hall, Manchester, Sir Wilfred Lawson, Bart., in
the chair- -

The Archbishop of WESTMINSTER, who was re-
ceived with protracted cheering, moved the first
resolution, as follows :—" That this meeting regards
the appalling amount of pauperism, ignorance, and
crime of the nation, with its consequent taxation,
as constituting an intolerable burden on the indus-
trious and sober portion of the community ; and as
the conviction is now universally felt that a vast pro-
portion of these evils is the direct result of the liquor
traffic, the meeting calls upon all patriotic, moral,
and religious men to aid the United King-
dom Alliance in its efforts to banish in-
temperance from the land." He said he could not
put any personal interpretation upon the kind man-
ner in which he had been received. As a co-
operator in the United Kingdom Alliance he was too
conscious that he had done nothing to merit such a
reception as that. Ile therefore put on it something
better than a personal interpretation. He believed
it was an expression on the part of the meeting of
a desire to unite together in their great work the
hearty co-operation of all those who loved their
people and their common country. (Cheers.) He
understood them to signify that, peacefully and
kindly eliminating all those points on which they
must be, unhappily, somewhat in diversity, there
was a multitude of the most vital, the most import-
ant, the most far-reaching interests, on which they
were one—one in intelligence, in heart, and in will.
(Hear, hear.) He had come to take a part
in the meeting at the invitation of friends whom
he learned to respect in the early part of this year,
for until then they were unknown to each
other. He was present for this reason —that if
there was one thing which, at this moment, was
destroying the foundation of society in Great Bri-
tain, which was dissolving the homes of the poor
and corrupting the national life, it was the curse
and the sin of drunkenness. Being, as he was, the
pastor of, he might say, the poorest of the working
men of London ; being in constant contact with
them ; and loving the working men of England
from his heart—(hear, hear),—there was nothing
lie felt more dear to him than the effort made by
all of them, with one heart and one strength, to put
down, and put down so effectually that it could
never rise again, this monster evil, by the destruc-
tion of those laws which now constituted what had
been most truly described as a system of legal-
ised temptation. He felt heart and mind with the
Alliance in the work upon which they had entered.
(Hear.) When he became aware, in the early part
of this year, of the nature of the Alliance, its
objects, and the means by which it sought to pro-
mote them, he felt so hearty and so extensive a
coincidence of judgment in its work, so earnest a
desire to see it prosper, that it immediately com-
manded his sympathy. He believed that there
existed in Great Britain no organisation so well able
to grapple with the gigantic evil of drunkenness as
that of this Alliance. He tendered to Dr. Lees his
thanks for the prize essay which that gentleman
wrote some years ago, in which was collected a body
of facts and statistics which must carry conviction
to every honest mind. (Cheers.) 'With that essay
the Alliance had struck a blow as with one of Na-
smyth's hammers. The dint of the hammer bad
gone into the national intelligence and the national
conscience ; and the blow, repeated as it would be,
day by day and year by year, would produce an
impression upon the public mind of Great Britain
which in the end would have its effect. (Hear, hear.)
He agreed in every syllable of the resolution ; in
the connection of every proposition in it. He be-
lieved that at that moment the amount of pauperism,
crime, and ignorance in this country was appalling.
He would not then ask whether comparatively with
other countries it was greater or less. As soon as
they entered into comparisons they always lost their
calmness. Taking it as it stood, in its positive
quantity, it was appalling. Bat what appalled
him more was this. They were told by those who
had examined the success of the education of the
last 20 years, that its result had not corresponded
with their expectations and with the outlay of pub-
lic money. (Hear, hear.) He would not say that
ignorance was on the increase ; but he must say that
education in this country was not yet what it
ought to be, either in quantity or in quality. In
quantity it did not correspond with their needs; and
in quality it was superficial. Another fact which
was certain was this, that from 1860 to 1866 there
bad been an increase in the number of paupers of
one sixth of the number, and in the cost of convicted
criminals of one sixth. Ile believed that this ap-
palling fact was increasing and multiplying around
them ; and he traced it—he did not say altogether,
lest he should seem to exaggerate—to the existence
of the legalised temptation to drunkenness, which
day and night was creating paupers and crimi-
nals all over the country. (Cheers.) They bad
a just right to complain that the poor rates
which were paid by the honest, sober, laborious
working men should be made more burdensome by
intoxication and the vice it created. (Hear, hear.)
They had a right to complain that three and a half
millions of public money should be expended in the
administration of criminal justice. That was the
amount expended eight or ten years ago; and if he
was right in saying that crime was increasing, he
was justified in concluding that the cost of criminal
justice had not decreased. (Hear, hear.) It was
a great evil that money in such vast extent should
be lavished upon punishment, when the same legis-
lative enactments multiplied—he was going to say
created—and sowed broadcast over the land the
temptation and the cause of that crime. (Applause.)
If his hearers desired to see a connection between
drunkenness, crime, pauperism, vice, and insanity,
and all the evils of which human nature was heir,
established by proofs beyond controversy, let them
go to the hospitals, the asylums, the gaols, the peni-
tentiaries, the reformatory schools, the homes that
wore dissolved by divorce and by misery, to the
streets, to the Curragh —if that scene described by
the Pall Mall Gazette of Saturday was true, and not
a fiction—and then they would have proof of
what had been said again and again, that
three fourths of those miseries came not from
aberrations of tin moral nature, through auddeu and

exceptional temptation, but the steady habit, ending
in the debasement of human nature. (Applause.)
It was, as tho resolution affirmed, the duty of every
patriotic man, of every moral man, and of every
religious man to endeavour to banish intemperance
out of the land. (Hear, hear.) He had passed the
greater part of his life in close contact with work-
ing men, and he knew how they besought those who
had the care of them to help them in their struggle
against the temptations which were around them.
(Hear, hear.) Let it riot be imagined that the poor
drunkard was an obstinate sinner. (Hear, hear.)
Nine times in ten that drunkard threw himself upon
his friend, his teacher, his pastor, and prayed him in
God's name to save him. (Applause.) He was speak-
ing in the presence of those who knew Ireland well,
and they would bear out his words, that the sorrowthe
grief with which those poor working men went and
cast themselves on those in whom they could confide,
and besought them to help them in their weakness,
was enough to touch the heart of any man. (Hear,
hear.) How could this evil be abated ? By moral
means ? Certainly moral means to a vast extent.
A change in the turn of a man's heart and will was
a moral work ; that was proved. He need only
point to the Catholic Archbishop of Cashel and the
Catholic Bishop of Thuries, who by their sole influ-
ence had closed all places of drink in their dioceses
on Sunday—(applause)—to show what moral means
might do. He pointed to it in order to show that if
they reclaimed drunkards mechanically they did not
make them sober ; they would be drunkards when-
ever they could, unless their moral nature was
changed. He granted all that ; and he said it be-
cause some of their wise public teachers were, on
the morrow of such meetings as this, always preach-
ing homilies upon the necessity of self-reformation.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He wished to add this
further, that those two good prelates in Ireland had
said to him that the great obstruction to the
thorough putting down of Sunday drinking was this
—that when one honest man whom they could in-
fluence shut his public-house, another man whom
they could not influence kept his house open. (Hear,
hear.) He applied that argument to the whole sub-
ject ; and he said that in addition to all the moral
efforts that the Alliance and individuals used, the
Legislature must come in and undo what it had done.
(Applause.) He was glad to see so many young
people present. They were the promise of the
future; and would carry on the work when its pre-
sent leaders had gone to their rest. He was old
enough to remember when the change in the beer
law introduced the beerhouse, and poured out a
pestilence over the country. (hear.) He also re-
membered the time when the reduction of the duty
on spirits multiplied the consumption so as to in-
duce a new flood of intoxication. He therefore
said that the Legislature had done two acts which it
must undo; and ho turned to legislative enactment
as an absolutely necessary assistant in all the moral
efforts which were being made. (Cheers.) This
was a moment of great public crisis and anxiety—.
but., for his part, he had no anxiety. (Hear, hear.)
The Chairman had said that he had little or no con-
fidence in politicians, but great confidence in the
people. He (Dr. Manning) always had great confi-
dence in the people, having lived among them and
known them. He knew that they were, with excep-
tions, an honest, upright, sober, self-governing and
temperate race, but he believed that the evil and
the dangers of intoxication which beset them and
penetrated on every side, threatened them to
such an extent, that unless they protected themselves
and received the aid which this Alliance sought to
give them, the evil would in the end be too strong.
There need be no anxiety if the working men knew
how to govern themselves. Let an appeal be made
to the great principle of moral self-government,
which was the characteristic of the country—to that
self-government, self-denial, and that strong moral
power over themselves which the people of the three
kingdoms possessed. Education had been spoken of.
Ho would only say that education was the root of
that self-government, and they must go down to the
root. Their working men must be taught when they
were the children of working men, and just old
enough to pass the threshold of their fathers' doors
to go to school. Self-government must begin there,
and sobriety would follow. They must appeal to
those working men, and their confidence and their
strength would be in them. The working men who
were sober, who were heads of families, on whom
the pestilence had not fallen, would all be with them.
Those who in time past had fallen into the vice and
had been reclaimed would respond to their appeal
with an eagerness that no words could express. He
believed that drunkenness was indeed the vice and
the curse of the people ; but he did not accuse the
working men of England of drunkenness. (Applause.)
He accused some among them of drunkenness ; but
they were spots upon the population which he trusted
the rest of the working men would desire to wipe
away. (Applause.) He was confident that what they
were doing would have a response throughout the
land amongst the working men, and that their
strength would be with the Alliance ; because, as
power was passing into their hands, it would be they
who would return hereafter men who understood
what was necessary for their good. It was most
important that this should be so ; because there was
established in the country a dominion extremely
powerful, extending daily in organisation and in
strength, and ramifying its influence on every side
—he alluded to the power of that enormus capital in
the hands of brewers and distillers—which was
exercising tyranny over the country and over Par-
liament itself. (Hear, hear.) He knew no way of
counteracting that but one—to arouse the working
men of England to a consciousness of their own
dignity, the dignity of sobriety, of self-government,
and of the power which it gives. (Cheers.)

THE REFORM LEAGUE AND FENIAIVISM.

Last evening the principal business at the Coun•
cil of the League was the discussion of a letter from
the president, Mr. Beales, M.A., upon Fenianism.
Mr. Beales says, speaking of the arming of the
police, that every effort should be used to prevent a
foolish Fenian panic from being converted into a
pretext for infringing on the landmarks of the law
and constitution, and introducing practices dangerous
to rightful, independent popular action, and fruitful
of enormous national mischief, by setting the Eng-
lish people against the Irish, and thus further weak-
ening and separating, instead of uniting and
strengthening, the two countries. He had in Ire-
land urged the people to adopt the principle of the
League, namely, to proceed to remove national grie-
vances by the firm and resolute but peaceful expres-
sion of the public opinion in a lawful and constitu-
tional manner. He thought that if tha Fenians
had acted on that principle, and had enlisted and
rallied public opinion round a moral instead of a
physical force standard, they might now be assisting
to exercise an irresistible power for the benefit of
both countries, instead of exciting, by their san-
guinary and highly irritating, though abortive pro-
ceedings, a spirit of animosity and hostility here,
tending only to retard the political and social ad-
vance of their country.

Upon the motion that the letter of the president
be entered upon the minutes,
Mr. LUCRAFT objected to the publication of the
letter, and he also objected to that portion of the
letter which condemned Fenianisin, because he felt
that the Irish people wero fully justified in using
physical force to redress their wrongs when they
had received such fearful provocation.
Mr. WHITFonn said that the people of Ireland
had hem so much trod len upon that it could not be
right to utterly condemn them in this way.
Mr. COOPER did not believe in putting a stop to
a discussion on this question. lle wished to say that
he cordially endorsed the remarks of Mr. Lucraft as
to the justification of the Irish using physical force.
Fle was no Fenian, but he knew that there was no
argument so powerful to get justice from England
as that addressed to her by the Fenians. An Irish-
man was fully justified in appealing to force, and
the only question was the prudence of so doing.
Mr. ODGER fully endorsed the sentiments of Mr.
Lucraft with regard to Fenianism, and the assertion
that the English Government had provoked the
latter. If he had influence with Irishmen he would
say, "Let Englishmen and Irishmen work out their
emancipation together." The Irish had good reason
to be displeased with English rule, and he was fully
persuaded if he were an Irishman he would be a

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, ocroBER 24, 1867

Fenian. (Cheers.) Ireland would never make an
impression upon her rulers until Ireland knocked
down some of her rulers, whether in the way of the
Hyde-park railings or otherwise he did not know.
(Cheers.) How were the people to get redress ?
Why, the bloated parsons, who professed a religion
the people did not believe in, bad no sympathy with
the people, and that state of things would continue
till some power to strong for them would say, " We
will endure it no longer." Fenianism, if not what
they all liked, had taught a lesson, a sad lesson, to
jobbing Governments. Until Ireland was placed in
a proper position there would be a black spot in the
kingdom. The Government had made a great
mistake in denouncing Fenianism as they had done,
and unless Ireland was righted it would be for Eng-
lishmen to see what they should do. (Cheers.)

Mr. HAWKER said that Ireland could not now be
overlooked as she had been. Several persons who
came to him on business were Fenians, and he was
glad they were. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Burn said he endorsed every word that had
been said in favour of Fenianism. The letter of Mr.
Beale was an abortion. He (Mr. Brisk) would say,
" Let Fenianism go on and prosper." (Hear, hear.)
Mr. GOLDRING thought it would be detrimental
to the League if this letter condemning Fenianism
went forth to the world. (Hear, hear.) He pro-
tested against the letter of the president as con-
demning Fenianism.
Mr. BUBB moved, " That, without approving of
all the views contained in the letter of the president,
the letter be received and entered upon the
minutes."

Mr. ODGER said that the resolution of Mr. Bubb
was not strong enough, considering the words
" sanguinary" and " abortion" in the letter of ➢lr.
Beales. What would be said if these two terms
were applied to the actors in the Roman Revolution?
They had all as much right to sympathise with the
Fenian movement as with the Roman movement.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. B. LANGLEY (the chairman) said that the
only justification for a revolution was a reasonable
prospect of success. (Hear, hear.) With regard
to Fenianism, while he sympathised with the wrongs
of Ireland, and while he would go as far as any
one in redressing them, he felt that the Fenian
movement was fatal to the progress of Ireland at
the present time. Ile did not believe that a revo-
lution or that the Fenian organisation in Ireland
would have a chance of success, and that an
enormous sacrifice of human life would be the re-
sult of an attempt at revolution in Ireland.
After a stormy discussion, the motion of Mr.
Bubb originally moved was carried, and the council
shortly after adjourned.

MR. D. M'LAREN, M.P., AND HIS
CONS7I7UENIS.

On Tuesday night, at the special request of the
Independent Liberal Committee, Mr. D. M'Laren,
M.P., addressed a public meeting of electors and
non-electors in. the Music-hall, Edinburgh. The
hall was crowded. Mr. Hugh Rose was called to the
chair.

Mr. APLAREN, who on rising was received with
enthusiastic applause, said— Our opponents have
thus had two meetings since we had any ; for you
must all remember that while I was in London at-
tending to your interests, and my colleague was
attending in Edinburgh to his own, by carrying on
his business at the bar, he called a public meeting
to abuse me for a letter I wrote, refusing a proposal
to coalesce with his friends in election matters, be-
cause of his past conduct, and stating the facts and
arguments justifying that course. His friend the ex-
Whig Solicitor-General, against whom I had never
said a word, accompanied him to the platform, and
performed the not very dignified part of throwing
mud, which, however, only soiled his own hands
without doing me any injury. With respect to the
meeting recently held, I cannot promise you any-
thing like what was then promised by its chairman,
who said—" We are desirous of hearing from our
hon. friend, whom I at once class among the states-
men of the present day, what line of policy the
Liberal party may now go ou to pursue, so that our
minds may become more settled, and the agitation
which has for so long time past deprived us of all
those enjoyments which we delight to have may
subside." Of course, you all know I have no preten-
sions to the character of a statesman, and still less to
that of a prophet, and I will not, therefore, presume
to address you respecting the future, but rather
confine myself to the past—giving you, as the phrase
goes, some account of my stewardship, which you
have a right to expect. And I have observed, as no
doubt you all have, that when parties deal largely
respecting future events, it begets a suspicion they
possibly have not much to say respecting the past
which would redound to their credit. Still,
my colleague had
of the day, because
Ibeereemade
oinveithof pthleeassutaretesmtheant
statesmen necessarily require so closely to watch
national affairs that they aro obliged to be constant
in their attendance in Parliament. But at the meet-
ing held for abusing me the learned Solicitor-General
not only did not claim for his friend the position of a
Parliament l lawyer,
e
like other mem-
bers, statesman, but he stoutly contended that he was not
even an ordinary member of Parliament—that he
who could not
g
bweaseaxppereatecdtistion
Edinburghattend
unless he was paid for his attendance by hold-
ing a lucrative public office. Accordingly his prac-
tice has corresponded with this theory, for as respects
attention to national affairs, other than the Reform
Bill— of which I shall speak hereafter--he was pre-
sent, I thiuk, at only seven divisions during the whole
session, including one against your Annuity Tax
Bill, while I was present at upwards of 60, in addi-
tion to those on the Reform Bill; and I had to attend
to nearly the whole business of the city, in conse-
quence of his absence. It is therefore a great relief
to mo now to learn that he has become a statesman,
as by his constant attendance he will relieve me from
the load of business which, during last session, he so
unjustly cast upon me by his absence." After re-
ferring to his own promises before election, and the
manner in which he had fulfilled them, Mr. M'Laren
proceeded to discuss Mr. Disraeli's bill. g, when I
read Mr. Disraeli's bill I thought it, as a whole, if
passed in its original state, the most objectionable I
had ever seen ; and I would rather have waited 20
years for a Reform Bill than have voted for that one
as it stood. But it appeared to me that Mr. Disraeli's
speech in introducing the bill dealt with the question
of reform in a spirit of fairness and candour, and
made proposals which commended themselves to my
judgment. And here I may remark, once for all,
that I do not desire to impugn the motives, or opi-
Inions, or conduct of those who thought and acted
differently from what I did. I intend simply to express
the feelings of my own mind, as impartially as I can,
without entering into controversy with others who
have spoken on the subject. In introducing the bill and
in other speeches, Mr. Disraeli said, in effect—' We
know our party cannot carry any reform bill with-
out the assistance of the opposite side, and they know,
from the experience of last session, that they cannot
carry one without our assistance. Let us then agree
that a joint action shall take place, that the House
of Commons and the Government may frame a good
bill in committee, both parties making concessions
in order that one may be carried this session.' Now,
this proposal seemed to be fair and reasonable, and
also a very fair one for the Liberal party, because
if the promises thus made were
_not performed,
the Liberals, having a large majority in the house,
could extinguish the bill on the report, when it
came out of counittece, or on the third reading.
But it was also objected to by some that this
was not a dignified course for a Government to
pursue. I thought, however, that it was a wise
course for the cause of reform ; and, besides, you
did not send me to Parliament to watch over the dig-
nity of any Government, and I thought that they
were the proper guardians of their own political
honour." After recounting the various stages
through which reform had passed during the last
session, the hon. gentleman went on to explain why
he was opposed to throwing out the Derby bill. "I
formed a strong opinion that it was my duty, and
for your interest, to do what I could individually to
get the Reform question settled during that session,
and to resist any attempt to throw out the bill by
substituting a £5 rating franchise for a professedly
household suffrage, however imperfectly developed.
, Another consideration weighed with me in fol.

lowing this course. The great and almost over-
whelming demonstrations which the working
classes had got up throughout the kingdom, with so
much ability, and at such a great sacrifice to them
of time and money, proved their earnest desire
to obtain the franchise ; and with my feelings of
confidence in the wisdom with which they would
use the power when they obtained it, I felt that it
was my duty to endeavour to obtain the franchise
for them at once, and in as large a measure as pos-
sible, without running the risk of having to wait for
some years, and then perhaps get a smaller measure
than now appeared to be within our reach. It also
appeared to me that the franchise proposed by Mr.
Gladstone, equal to a real rental of £6 55., would
net have satisfied the working classes, after all
that had taken place during the preceding year, and
therefore that it would not have settled the ques-
tion. In accordance with these feelings I resolved
to oppose this instruction, but always with the
rixed determination to support in committee every
amendment which I thought would improve the
bill, and which should be brought forward in
the spirit of improvement, without any concealed
desire to defeat the measure." As to the attack on
the Tea-room party, he said—" From the re-
cent covert attacks on the conduct and morals
of the Tea-room I shall select two examples—the
first from a Radical member who had not sufficient
light to find his way into the Tea-room, and who
appears to be displeased with those who did find
their way into that now rather celebrated place, be-
cause they have been so well treated by the public
generally for the independence and moral courage
which they exhibited. I refer to my friend Mr.
Baxter, the member for Montrose, and I am not
going to say a word against him, but only to point
out certain errors respecting matters of fact into
which he has inadvertently fallen ; for I willingly
admit that he has been a very useful member, and
I wish that all the Scotch members called Liberal
had been equally useful and independent in their
political conduct, Mr. Baxter said—' It appears
to me, likewise, that those gentlemen who deserted
their party, and who from the beginning supported the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, take too great credit to
themselves for the part which they took in passing the
bill. Far be it for me for a moment to doubt their
political honesty, or even to impeach their wisdom;
butl can't help thinking that, if all of us had taken
that course, the Government never would have been
driven from position after position until all the
Tory safeguards were swept away. It was fear of
the majority of staunch Liberals rather than grati-
tude to the small number of seceders which impelled
the Ministry to give way point by point.' Mr.
Baxter then went on to say that the Tories well
knew the bill must be made to please the Liberal
leaders, and then he refers sneeringly to the Tea-
room party—to the self-complacency of smaller
men who assume to themselves the whole merit of
the victory.' Here it is plainly implied that we had de-
serted our party, and from the beginning supported
Mr. Disraeli ; and that, had it not been for Mr. Baxter
and his friends who supported Mr. Gladstone, the
improvements made on the bill never could have
been carried; that the majority of stanch Liberals,
with Mr. Baxter's support as one of the number, did
everything, and the smaller men of the Tea-room
nothing, notwithstanding all their self complacency
and their alleged claims to the contrary. Now, as
one of the party, I say at once that I have not
claimed and do not claim anything whatever, except
that I acted according to the light I possessed, with
the sincere desire to promote the public good, and
no doubt Mr. Baxter did the same. But let us look
at the practical value of the support given to improve
the bill by both sides. You know that all the divi-
sions which take place duringthe session are printed,
and that each member is furnished with a copy. By
referring to these lists, then, it can easily be known
how far each member assisted in improving the bill,
and how far he failed in doing so. Mr. Baxter's
remarks have induced me to analyse these votes,
and I will tell you the results ; but I will first give
you an opinion from another source to compare with
Mr. Baxter's. The Scotsman has bad a series of
articles, headed Reminiscences of the Session,' evi-
dently written by an actor on the scene, more or
less direct, all very favourable to the old Whig
party ; and the following isbis statement respectin g
the Tea-room, which I think is both correct and
candid The Tea-room Liberals held that, being's
in opposition, they enjoyed somewhat greater free-
dom of action than when Mr. Gladstone led the
house from the Treasury bench. By joining t he Tories
in getting household suffrage they knew they could
compel Mr. Gladstone to follow, and thus deliver him
from the opposition of some of the great Whig peers
and a few insincere friends of Reform who were be-
lieved to have proclivities more or less pronounced
for the Cave in which Earl Grosvenor and Lord
Elcho had taken refuge.' " He next replied to Mr.
Baxter's attack :—" There were 50 divisions re-
specting the Reform Bill from April 12 to August
8. At 49 of these Mr. Disraeli was present, and
you may be interested in hearing that the one on
which he was absent was the women's suffrage, pro-
posed by Mr. J. S. Mill, to which Mr. Disraeli was be-
lieved to be personally friendly, and therefore did not
vote against, as most of his party did. Mr. Gladstone
was present at 43 divisions, and on eight of those he
voted with Mr. Disraeli, and on 35 against him.
Mr. Baxter, who thinks he did so much to improve
the bill by his exertions, along with his friends, was
present at only 31 divisions, and on five of these
he voted against Mr. Gladstone, and with Mr. Dis-
raeli. Four of these 31 votes were given on the last
day the bill was before the House, when the amend-
ments by the House of Lords were considered ; and
from the fifth division on that day he was absent.
He thus gave nominally 26 votes out of 50 to the
Liberal party to improve the bill ; but, on the well-
understood principle that a vote taken from the one
side and added to the other counts double, Mr.
Baxter's effective support to Mr. Gladstone, to im-
prove the bill, must be considered as- equivalent to
only 21 votes out of 50. It is right, however, to
add that Mr. Baxter obtained leave of absence, for
good reasons, during a short period, and that what-
ever divisions took place during that time should be
deducted from the 60. Still, it is plain that if all
the Liberal party had been present as seldom as he
was, to vote for improving the bill, they could not
have gained one single division ; for it implied the
absence of about one-half of the Liberal party, as
a general average rule, from all the divisions ; and,
as the Tories attended remarkably well, they must
have gained in every case. But fortunately the
party of the Tea-room, composed of Liberal Whigs
and Radicals, attended much better than the honour-
able member for Montrose, and, with a few excep-
tions, voted with Mr. Gladstone for improving the
bill whenever they did not think it would be endan-
gered by their votes. The Conservative Whigs
were the great defaulters. Many of them did not
desire a really good bill, and left Mr. Gladstone in
the lurch, declining to attend and vote with him.
Although Mr. Baxter had voted 12 times against
Mr. Gladstone instead of six, I should have believed
that he acted conscientiously ; but what I cannot
understand is, why an eminent member of the tea-
room party like Mr. Grant Duff, for example, who
addressed his constituents on the same day as Mr.
Baxter did, and who said he had not voted once
against Mr. Gladstone, should be called a worse Libe-
ral than the hon. member for Montrose, who voted
against his leader six times, besides being so remiss
in his attendance." As to Mr. Gladstone's position
as leader, he mid :—" In September, 1853, I had
the honour, as your chief magistrate, to propose
that the freedom of the city should be conferred on
Mr. Gladstone, in these words, namely, in testi-
mony of their respect for his high character as a
statesman, and for his eminent service in administer-
ing the financial affairs of the nation,' which was
unanimously agreed to. During the 14 years which
have elapsed since that event I have closely watched
his career, and in the Chamber of Commerce and
other meetings have always supported his policy,
even when the Parliament House Whigs would not
move a finger to defend or support him. From
what I have seen and heard of him since I entered
Parliament, I am satisfied he is by far the
fittest man to be the future Prime Minister of this
country ; and I believe the Radical members, al-
though lamenting his shortcomings on certain ques-
tions, would hail his advent to power with far more
. cordiality than the Conservative Whigs. But with

cannot admit that the main improvements in the
Reform Bill were carried by him or by his influence,
far less by the influence of the assailants of the tea-
room party, who have so strongly magnified their
own importance. The fact is, that in the 35 divisions
in which Mr. Gladstone voted against Mr. Disraeli,
he was beaten in 27 and successful only in eight ;
and I leave you to judge whether it was men who
constantly attended and voted with him, or the
men who remained at home attending to their own
business, who were the cause of these defeats. It
was neither Mr. Gladstone, nor Mr. Disraeli, nor
the Whigs, nor the Radicals that carried the bill in
its improved form, for nearly all the bad clauses were
dropped without a division. I will inform you, in the
words of an eminent Whig lawyer, but not of the
present Edinburgh school of Whiggery, how the bill
was carried. Mr. Coleridge, to whom I refer, says—
'They knew perfectly well that they owed that great
mea,:ure not to the Chancellor of the Exchequcr,but
to the fervour of popularenthusiasm, and they knew
that, through one great man above all others in the
land, perhaps one of the greatest orators of the day,
whose conduct that session fiad shown him to be one
of the greatest statesmen of the day, it was that
the fervour of popular enthusiasm was raised to such
a height as to make it irresistible—and that man
was John Bright."
Mr. MQAREN afterwards referred to the Scottish
Reform Bill, which he considered inadequate and
unsatisfactory. He next took up the Irish Church
and other leading topics, and resumed his seat amid
applause .
Several questions were subsequently put by the
audience and answered by Mr. M'Laren, and after
an enthusiastic vote of thanks to the hon. member
the meeting separated.

EARL DE GREY ON THE REFORM ACT AND ITS

OPERATION.

LEEDS, Wednesday Evening.

At a civic banquet given at Ripon on Tuesday
night by the Mayor of the city, Earl de Grey and
Ripon, in responding to the House of Lords, said
he was glad to find by the mode in which the toast
had been received that amidst all the changes which
had startled some of them during the present year,
there still remained in the city of Ripon a feeling
of regard and respect for the Home of Lords. He
had heard much at one time during this year of
certain alleged shortcomings of that illustrious
house, but it was satisfactory to find that the
worst that could be said of their lordships was that
they did not take part enough in public affairs—
that they did not make their voices heard loud
enough in the discussions and debates on public
matters. It was not denied that the business of the
House of Lords itself, whether in the house or in
committee, was done well, and to the satisfaction of
the country. No suitors before the committee of
the House of Lords were accustomed to complain of
their decisions. It was not alleged that their lord-
ships had failed in their political duties—that they
had passed unwise measures and rejected good mea-
sures ; or that they had agreed to unwise and foolish
amendments ; but it had been said that their attend-
ance was small, and that a sufficient number of mem-
bers did not take part in the debate. He heartily
agreed with those who desired to see the benches of
the House of Lords more largely filled, and he was
very glad to think that during the past session we
had seen several young noblemen come forward and
take an important and highly creditable part in the
debates of the house. And why bad this been ?
Why, very much because there had been, during the
past session, debates having actual vitality in them,
which called out an active interest in the young men
who came out on those occasions. He trusted that,
having once begun, they would go on, but he was
not one of those who would desire to see the House
of Lords converted into anything like a debating
society. (Applause.) Let them do well the busi-
ness which fell to their share, and he was certain
they would not forfeit the confidence of the country.
(Hear, hear.) Amongst such a mixed audience it
would not, of course, be right to introduce questions
of a party kind, but he thought they might view the
new Reform Act as it had been passed, and fairly
consider the broad nature of the changes which it
would introduce, for he could conceive nothing more
unwise, when so great a constitutional change had
been made, than to attempt to disguise from them-
selves its real extent and its real scope, or that they
should endeavour to persuade themselves and other
people that it was something better than it really
was. (Hear, hear.) To sum up in one sentence what
seemed to him the broad result of the act of 1867,
he should say that it placed the institutions of this
country for the first time upon a democratic basis.
The act of 1832, which saved this country from re-
volution—(hear, hear)—placed the preponderance
of political power in the hands of the middle classes,
and he was bound to say that he thought those classes
who for 35 years had exercised the preponderance
of power might fairly look back with no little pride
and satisfaction to the history of the legislation of
those years—to those great financial and commercial
reforms, which step by step had been accomplished,
and now, happily, had been brought to a comple-
tion ; the reforms of the poor law and the reform
of our municipalities, to the wide extension of reli-
gious freedom, and to the spread of public educa-
tion. (Applause.) But the preponderance of power
had now been placed in the hands of those who were
accustomed to be called—in short—the working
classes of the country. (Applause.) This had been
called by some " a leap in the dark." He would
only call it a great experiment, and that experiment
would most likely work to the advantage of the
country if we clearly admitted that it had been made,
and clearly saw that the measure which had been
passed must be followed by other measures and
other results, which would inevitably flow from so
great a change. We often heard men speak as if
they believed that the alteration of the balance of
political power, now it had been made, would not
lead to any great change in the course of our legis-
lation, would not lead to the raising of new ques-
tions, and the introduction of new elements into the
House of Commons, and into our institutions ; and
we were told that that must be so, because we were
fairly entitled to rely upon the loyalty of the work-
ing classes, and upon their attachment, as it had
been called, to the great families of the country and
to their respect for the Church. (Hear.) If by
that it was meant that there was a sound and loyal
attachment to the Crown on the part of the great
masses of the people, and that there were happily
in this country none of those wide social distinctions
and those bitter feelings between class and class
which had been productive of so many evils in other
countries, he was happy indeed to agree in the
opinion. But if it were meant, on the other hand,
that we could look to everything going on in the
future as it had done in the past, and that we were
to expect that those new classes who had been ad-
mitted to the franchise would not have their own
opinions and their own interests and views, then he
said no greater delusion could exist in the mind of
any man. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it was the
duty of all of us fully to face the position in which
we were placed by the change which had now
been made, and to prepare our minds to consider
what would be the questions likely to be raised
under the new state of things, and what would be
the wishes and desires of the new classes to whom
power had been so entrusted, that we might meet
those wishes and desires, so far as they were just,
and fair, and reasonable, and that we might be pre-
pared to combat them by arguments on the floor of
the House of Commons, so far as they might be
unsound or unjust in principle. (Applause.) It was
quite clear to him that no man could tell what
would be the result to any party of the next general
election. lie did not believe Colonel Taylor on the
one hand, nor Mr. Glynn on the other, could form
any reasonable conjecture in this respect; but of this
he was certain, that we should find amongst the
new electors elements of a very different character
from those to be found amongst existing parties,
and elements which were very likely to confuse the
calculations of the party whips on either side. (Hear,
hear.) He was bound to confess himself old-
fashioned enough to think that it would have been
safe if the extension had been more gradual, but
still it was not for him who had been for many years
an advocate for an extension of the suffrage to in-
dulge in any of those gloomy forebodings of the

results of the measure which were heard uttered in
such eloquent terms in both Houses of Parliament,
and which we were so truly reminded had a great
resemblance to those objections which were taken to
the first great Reform Bill, and which, by the course
of events, had been so signally falsified. He re-
gretted, on the ground that he was a strong advo-
cate for the maintenance of moderate sized boroughs,
that the measure of redistribution in the bill had not
been carried further, and he would look with great
regret at the arrival of a time when we might be
called upon to establish equal electoral districts, or
to divide the members between the large towns and
the large counties. He thought the question of re-
distribution ought not to be dealt with by the new
Parliament ; but there was one great question
which must occupy the earliest attention of the
new Parliament. He meant the question of public
education. However much education might have
been a duty before, no one, he thought, would doubt
that it was a duty now. Ile knew no terms in which
he could speak of the notion that it would be safe—
above all, that it would be conservative—to rest
upon the ignorance of any class of the electors.