The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-28 00:00:00

in possession of an immense expanse of culturable
men
nd
of almost unlimited area, and where there might rise
up a race of men of almost sovereign power, the question
might assume a very different aspect. But the fault of the
American political system is not essential, but accidental.
It is the turbulent and demoralised multitudes that disturb
the peace of their cities which lie upon the coast that con-
stitute so great a reproach to American institutions, and,
If you were to attempt to introduce these into England I
believe the effect would be decidedly disastrous. If a domi
nant and turbulent multitude were to succeed in the object
of obtaining the land of England, it would not be done with-
out a long and painful struggle, and then, after all, the land
so obtained would occupy only a small area. And what would
be the consequence of this? Why, that you would reduce a
first-rate kingdom to the level of a third-rate power. I am,
therefore, opposed to the prevalence of these American
principles which must pull down the prosperity of an old
country into which they might be introduced. The hon.
member for Montrose deprecated any allusion to the hon.
member for Birmingham. Well, sir, that is very con-
venient. (Laughter.) It is a convenient arrangement ; it
is very convenient to make speeches in two places, and not
to be answered in either. (Cheers.) lam not one of those
who depreciate the talents or the character of the hon.
member for Birmingham. I admire his great abilities. I
listen to his eloquence, often with delight, and while I re-
cognise his unexampled energy, I regret that such gifts as
he possesses should be exercised—l am sure conscien-
tiously—in favour of principles which, if successful, I be-
lieve, would be fatal to this country. (Cheers.) It is very
disagreeable to me, as it must be to any honourable gentle-
man in our debates, to comment upon the conduct or the
words of any individual member of this house. I feel the
embarrassment and the pain of it all, but it is not my fault.
If the hon. member for Birmingham were in his right place
this would not occur. I have to make remarks upon gentle-
men opposite, and they have to make remarks upon us on
this side of the house, but it is the policy of Government
which we oppose, and it is the manoeuvring of the Opposition
which they expose— (laughter)—and there is nothing painful
about it. Dealing with a corporation softens the necessary
asperity in the midst of our political conflicts. If the hon.
member were seated on that (the Treasury) bench, as he
ought to be seated—(cheers)--we should not hear of the
member for Birmingham any more ; but we should hear of
her Majesty's ministers, and therefore I am bound to say
something, disagreeable as it is to me. If the hon. member
for Birmingham, who really, though not avowedly, dictates
the policy of this country, is not in the position in which
he ought to be placed, I nevertheless must comment upon
the sayings and doings of so eminent an individual. (Laugh-
ter.) Some of my friends have spoken with indignation of
the manifesto which the member for Birmingham thought
fit to publish when this house was not sitting. My feeling
when I read the letter was not a feeling of indignation, nor
did it contain any expression of contempt—nothing of the
kind ; it was a feeling of pain, of mortification, of disap-
pointment. I felt that I had totally misunderstood the cha-
racter of the individual with whom we had so long been
placed in a connection which I thought was at least digni-
fied. I thought, for example, that the member for Birming-
ham was proud of being a member of the House of Com-
mons, and I confess myself that I saw sometimes, not with-
out satisfaction, that the house seemed not disinclined to
be proud of him. (Cheers.) But that he should leave
us only to hold us up to public obloquy, and in such mode
Was, to me, not the cause of indignation, but of deep re-
gret and mortification that he should speak of us in a
manner which I think was very different in candour and
judgment, and wanting alike in truth and taste. (Cheers.)
It was painful—l say unaffectedly—it was very painful to
me. Ho was the last man, knowing what I know of him,
and of this house, that I should have supposed would have
held up the House of Commons, with almost the truculence
of a Denton, to public obloquy. (Cheers.) It is not to
vindicate the House of Commons that I say this. That is
not my place, it is the privilege of another. (Cheers.) I
must say that it was a source of astonishment to me that
the leader of the House of Commons who must have been
in that part of the country at the time—l do not know
whether he was at the same meeting, but hemust have been
in thst part of the country, as we all know—who wasattend-
ing dinners and making speeches in theatres and amphi-
theatres—(cheers)--I say it was a subject of astonishment
to me that the leader of the House of Commons should not
have come forward, and noticed that address, that he
should not have come forward and vindicated the honour
and the character of that assembly of which it ought to be
his greatest pride to be the leader— (cheers)—he, who is the
champion of our honour and privileges. (Cheers.) These
were not hurried words, and he had not the excuse of ex-
cited oratory, but they were penned with malice prepense.
(Cheers.) The:right hon. gentleman could find time at one
of those dinners given him by the Financial Reformers of
Liverpool—(no, no)—well, attended by one of the most
distinguished of those provincial fanatics—(loud cheers)—
he could find time to criticise the comparatively insignifi-
cant letter of the right hon. the member for Caine. That
was the staple of one of his speeches ; but he could not
find time to comment on the letter of the hon. member
for Birmingham, although it was an attack upon the
honour and the character of those of whom he is
the leader, and of the house of which he ought to be proud to
be the:chief and champion. (Loud cheers and counter cheers.)
But, sir, although I have not the honour to be the leader
of the House of Commons, although that proud position is
not mine, I am, at least, by the favoured indulgence of
any friends, the leader of the Torty party—(cheers)—and I
therefore take this, the earliest opportunity, of telling the
Iron, member for Birmingham that the attack that he has
made upon the Tory party is one that he cannot substan-
tiate in fact, and which would convey to the country an
impression that it is impossible for him to demonstrate by
any reference to anything that occurred. (Cheers.) The
hon. gentleman has said that the Tory party were only
anxious to plunge this country into war to divert it from
that domestic progress and public concord to which he has
devoted all his energies. (Laughter.) I want to know
from the hon. member what grounds he has for making
that assertion ? (Cheers.) We have heard from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer enough of the last 30 years
during the recess. I have been in this house for nearly
those 30 years, and I believe that the hon. member for
Birmingham has been more than two-thirds of that time in
this house, and therefore he has had some experience of
public affairs, or, at the least, in our public deliberations
has taken an eminent part. What war have we plunged
the country into in that time ? (Cheers.) There was the
Crimean war. Were the Tories the authors of the Cri-
mean war? (Cheers.) They might have carried it on in
a different way, but they were not the authors of it. When
he charges us with this grave offence against the pros-
perity and the fortunes of the realm, has he forgotten that
a man, who I suppose ho still reveres, rose in that very
place where the hon. member now sits, and declared before
God that he believed that if Lord Derby's Government
had not been turned out, in 1852, the Crimean war would
not have occurred? (Loud cheers.) Those words were
uttered in the house by Mr. Cobden. (Cheers.) There
was another war. Did we take advantage of the
Italian war, to plunge this country into it ? Is it
not upon record—those records were not published until
the delusive amendment which turned us out of office
was passed—is it not upon record that every fair
means was used by this country to prevent that war, and
nothing but the headstrong conduct of Austria caused
it ? Then, I say, what reason has the hon. gentleman to
say that the Tories were always anxious to plunge this
country into war, to divert attention from progress and re-
form ? Therehasbeen
anotherDenwar in Europe daring the
last 30 years,
a war between
into
kar on that
and Germany.
jeDctid?
we want to plunge the country
wa
Is it not notorious? Can it
proved by documents on
this table that both the late Prime Minister and the present
Prime Minister of England did much to
pl us into that
war ? (Loud cheers.) Are the despatchesgeun in
inviting France to join England in going to
war—(cheers
—and, indeed, nothing but that policy could
justifyd w
theh
promises they held out to betray Denmark? An
prevented that war? They resolved to wait until thee
meeting of Parliament to decide on their policy and
to control their rebellious colleagues. But the con_
duct of the Opposition, and the declaration I made, with
the full consent and by the advise of those with whom I
act, prevented that war. (Oh, and cheers.) Why, it is
notorious, and I believe that the hon. gentleman himself
has said, that we prevented that war about Denmark. How
n he justify those statements made by a man of his great
leading in the country, calumniating, I will say, a great
political party ? (Cheers.) But the hon. gentleman in the
same manifesto did not confine his statements to Europe
alone, he stated that we wanted to involve the oountry in
war with America
• I want to know what ground he has
for making that
that painful strugcteasserntli°duid• that during
It is upon record
leagues, and esia; all I could, assisted by my col-
King's Lynn, to siodLabY my noble friend the member for
contributed eta the councils of this house and to
avert war between this
believe we deeply and the United S tates ; and I
many gentlemen, not eonnseddto that result. I admit that
either side of the house,
wished the recognition of
gthiaen
Sat4otuhthern States. Well, are
we come to thispassinEn
Government are not to
express their own opinions on pellti
affairs ? Now, I con-
fess that there were members on this
sidemen of consider-
7, and believed that
England that the South
able ability, who took avery decided
it was for the honourand intsrest of Era
should be recognised. 'Well, had theyg
who
belief ? It is a fact thatno one can deny otheaatuse for this
wished to recognise the Southern States had encourage_
ment from the Government. It is notorious thatntchouerage-
oro•an of the Government in this house made one of those
pilgrimages of passion (loud laughter, and cheers) of which
we have had lately several specimens. Not content with
speaking in this house, he made one of the most inflam_
matory harangues ever made in England, which, if it meant
anything, meant the recognition of the Southern States.
And did not his speech disturb every market in Europe, did
it not affect the price of public securities and produce confu-
sion throughout the world ? (cheers). Yet this is the
friend of the hon. gentleman who goes down to the coun-
try and says that we want to plunge the country into war
(cheers). But the hon. gentleman is not content with im-
puting to us an anxiety to involve the country in these in-
ternational calamities, but he says that the Tory party is
the cause of all the abject misery and wretchedness of the
people of England. Well, I will take the last 30 years that
has been dinned into our ears at these Liverpool banquets,