The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-18 00:00:00

largest populations of mechanics and workmen, for '
Philadelphia has changed its character from being,
as it formerly was, a leading seaport, and has be-
come almost entirely a manufacturing' city, with
600,000 inhabitants. This gentleman would not
have told me, I am sure, that elections in America
are pure in every respect—that there is not very,
often a great deal of manoeuvring and party man-
agement—that there are not to some degree perso-
nation and double votes, and tne like—he would not
have told me that without exception all their elec-
tions are carried on peaceably and tranquilly ; but
he mentioned the fact that the ballot presented
such an obstacle to bribery that nobody cared to
buy a vote and pay for it when he did not know
that he got value in exchange. (Cheers.) Gentle-
men, I shall say no more of my experience in Ame-
rica at present, for, to confess the honest truth, I
was too kindly treated there ; and I feel that I was
received so kindly there from my connection with
a great question of cosmopolitan interest ; and I
fen, in all humility, that I was greeted as the re-
presentative of others who had the same claim as
myself to receive the kind civilities of that people,
and if they presented themselves there they would
be received with the same hospitality as myself.
But I confess 1 was so kindly treated in America
that I feel I am not an impartial witness in their
cause, and I ought to say as little as possible on
that topic. (Laughter.) Now, it is important that
we should see that the source of our electoral sys-
tem is pure, inasmuch as it is quite evident that
for weal or woe public opinion in this country, as
manifested at the polling-booths, must become
more and more powerful in the government of this
country, and not merely in our domestic govern-
ment ; and this is a question to which at the pre-
sent moment it is well to refer. It is quite evident
that public opinion is becoming more and more
potent in matters of foreign as well as domestic
policy. We have seen lately, and I have seen with
very great satisfaction—it was during my ab-
sence that it occurred—that the public voice of
the country was raised in opposition to any
interference by force of arms in the dreadful
war which ra ed on the Continent since I
left England. Cheers.) Well, I was glad to see
f
that outburst o public opinion in favour of non-
intervention, and I congratuate you all, and I con-
gratulate this country, that for the first time
almost in our modern history we have seen great
armies march and great battles take place on the
Continent without England having taken any part
in the strife. (Cheers.) And now shall we take stock
just at the present moment, to use a homely, but
expressive phrase, rnd ask ourselves whether all
the musty predictions and traditions of our old
diplomacy have proved to be true in this c ise ?
They told us that if we did not mingle in Euro-
pean wars we should lose our prestige in the world,
become isolated, and lose our power. I ask you
while the thing is fresh in our recollection, have we
really lost prestige or power by having abstained
from the late war in Italy ? On the contrary, do
we not know that now the great Powers of the
Continent, feeling that England is powerful, more
powerful than ever in her neutrality, are anxious,
are almost solicitous that we should go and take a
part in the conferences that are to be held with a
view of securing peace ? (Cheers.) Well, gentle-
men, we have prevented intervention by force of
arms, and I say let public opinion manifest itself,
as I believe it has manifested itself, against any in-
tervention by diplomacy, unless it can be in accord-
ance with principles and for objects of which Eng-
land may be proud and may approve ; but do not
let us have any more Congresses of Vienna—
(cheers)—where we are parties to treaties that par-
tition off Europe, and apportion the people to dif-
ferent rulers just with the same indifference to
their wishes and instincts as though they were so
many flocks of sheep. (Cheers.) Now, I think
Lord John Russell in the House of Commons laid
down certain conditions upon which alone the Go-
vernment would be disposed to go into a Continen-
tal Congress in order, if possible, to arrange and
perpetuate the peace. He made conditions which
I thought were good, and I think they are not
very likely to be acted upon or accepted by the
great Powers of the Continent. But what I wish
now to express—and I am sure I can utter no
words that will be more likely to express your
sentiments—is, that if England takes any part in
the Congress that is to be held by the great Powers
on the Continent, her object should be, and the sole
condition on which we should go into that Con-
gress should be, that the Italians should be left
free to manage their own affairs (cheers) ; that they
should be as secure from intervention—that they
should enjoy the privilege of non-intervention in
the management of their own internal affairs just
as sacredly as any of the great Powers themselves.
(Cheers.) I know what is the excuse that is made
by those great Powers for interfering in the affairs
of Italy and the smaller States ; they do it under
the pretence of preserving order. A hypocritical
pretence I have no hes tation in calling it. Do the
great Powers preserve order themselves P Have
we had perfect order prevailing in the Austrian
empire or in the French empire during the last few
years ? Do they preserve the earth from blood-
shed ? Have not these two great Powers during
the last six months especially shed more blood in
their mad quarrels than has been shed by all the
smaller States of Europe during the last 50 years ;
and shall those great Powers, for the purpose of
interfering, send their armed bands in order to re-
press the free instincts of the people of Italy ?
Shall they be allowed to set up the pretence that
they want to preserve order and to prevent blood-
shed ? (Cheers.) But I will face the chance of
disorder. I will say if the Italians cannot settle
their own affairs without falling into disorder, why
should not they be allowed even to carry on a civil
or domestic tumult, or even a war itself, without
any other Power venturing to take advantage
of that to enter their territory ? Why,
how did we act in the case of France
when she fell almost into a Red Repub-
lic 10 years ago ? Was not our Government
most eager to proclaim that whatever happened in
France we would never interfere with her internal
affairs, but leave her free to choose any Govern-
ment she pleased ? What you allow to the great
Powers allow to the smaller Powers. (Cheers.)
And I say this not merely in the interest of the
smaller Powers themselves, but in the interest of
humanity, for there can be no chance of peace, and
no prospect of any abatement in those vast military
establishments that prevent the people from enjoy-
ing the fruits of their industry, until you have the
principle of non-intervention recognised as appli-
cable to every small State as sacredly as to the
larger ones. I say, therefore—and I do not err
when I expressed my conviction that I rightly
interpreted your views on the subject—l say the
one condition, and almost the sole condition on
which our Government should be prepared to take
any part in any Continental Congress with refe-
rence to the affairs of Italy, should be by laying
down and insisting upon the fundamental maxim,
that Italy should manage her own affairs without
the interference by force of arms of Austria, Russia,
or France, or any other Power whatever. (Hear,
hear.) I confess that I do speak with some strong
sympathies on this question. I have had the op-
portunity of mingling much with Italians. I have
travelled in all parts of their country. I have
watched with the greatest interest the proceedings
of their late elections. I have seen with admira-
tion the orderly moderation with which they have
carried on their elections, though plunged suddenly,
as it were, into the furnace of revolution, with all
their old landmarks and old authorities disappear-
ing, and I have been very much struck with
this fact, and I mention it not merely for this
meeting, but because our proceedings will be
heard and read elsewhere. I have observed
that I oth in Tuscany and among the Bolognese,
the Legations of the Pope, as well as in other parts
of Italy with which I am acquainted, the people
have not only elected the very ablest men, but the
men who by their wealth and position represent
the property of their country. There are men—l
have seen their names in the papers—elected as
their representatives, who are as fairly entitled to
he taken as representing the great wealth and in-
fluence of the country as Lord Derby, Lord John
Russell, or Lord Lansdowne would be, or any of
our great names of historic family fame in this
country. (Hear, hear.) Well, the Italians having
done this, have shown themselves capable of main-
taining order among themselves, are entitled at
least to the forbearance of the countries that sur-
round them ; but we all know that if the more
powerful nations choose to send secret emissaries
and spend money in corrupting or debasing the
least instructed part of the communities, it will be
very easy to produce disorders in those countries ;
it will be very easy to make it difficult for those
eminent men who have been elected as the repre-
sentatives of the people to carry on a Government
not within
moderation or success, and if they should fall
into disorder by such means, or because they have
I;ia:tnmseltv_esatfl7 theae,
d moment
knows the
it elementsm usmust
b be
difficult to find such elements with so little expe-
rience as they have had in such matters—but if
a hypocritic6l pretence,
that is no reason, it is only
the continent should interfere why
the strong Powers of
ebrfere with them. (Cheers.)
Why, what would have
coleurare of this great nation
, when the last la
that elapsed
of revolution—if
if, when we were in the
from 1645
during the hundred years
or 1650 to 1746
if,
fwioul hdavef
in favour of the Stuart dynasty_wh:t was
foughtd
been the fate of this great nation,
our instead
re-
demption,oallowing us here freely to fight out
away and then an-
other, and overturn one Ministry after another, what
to turn first one king
would have become of us as a nation if some great
Power on the continent immediately we fell into

civil war or commotion had planted a large per-
manen, army on our shores, and insisted on taking
the power from the hands of the people of redress-
ing their grievances, or rescuing themselves from
disorder ? Could the nation have grown up with
the stamina, power, force, experienee, and wisdom
which we have enjoyed ? Why, what we went
through during that century was a process of fer-
mentation, which, in the moral as well as in the
physical world, is necessary to throw off impurities
—which gives strength to nations or individuals to
battle with difficulties. Where would have been
our maxims of self-government if that century of
commotion of which I speak had been blotted from
our annals ; if in any of those contests to which I
have alluded we had had a French army or a Span-
ish army, or the two united, placed in the city of
London to control our operations and dictate to
both parties ? They might have preserved the
peace, but where would have been our liberties ?
Now, I contend,—and Heaven knows I shall not
be charged with being ono who looks with any-
thing like sympathy or toleration to violence or
bloodshed as a process of obtaining any human good
in this world, yet I stand here to maintain the right
of every people on the continent, however weak, of
having the opportunity of going through the same
process which we went through, and if it can be
had by no other means, of attaining to the maxims
of self-government which we have established by
that dreary and melancholy, but in such a case pro-
bably inevitable, process of civil commotion and
strife. Well, gentlemen, I have said that I am in
favour of non-intervention in the affairs of Italy. But
it may be said, where would Italy have been at this
present moment if there had not been the interven-
tion of the Emperor Napoleon ? Well, lam not going
to be so unreasonable as, I fear, some have been, in
first having quarrelled with the Emperor Napoleon
for going to Italy and then having quarrelled with
him for coming away from Italy. (Hear.) He has
removed the Austrians from Lombardy, but he has
left them in Venetia, and I quite agree with Mr.
Gladstone that he has done quite as much for Aus-
tria in removing her from that perilous position as
for Italy in getting rid of her baneful master. I
will say more, that I don't think Austria could do
wiser than to make an arrangement with Venice
and those provinces that are called Venetia for the
abandonment of her sovereignty altogether for a
consideration, such as the assumption by those pro-
vinces of a considerable amount of the national
debt. They are rich enough to pay such a fine for
the blessings of freedom and independence. Aus-
tria could not do a wiser thing than to remove her-
self into a territory where she may be tolerated, and
perhaps loved ; but in Italy she never can be loved
(Hear, hear.) I have said if Austria were wise—
but Governments never are wise, and the least wise
of all Governments is the Government of Austria;
it seems to me that that Government has lived in as
complete a stated of blessed ignorance as to what
w public opinion as, thinking of it as we were in the
middle ages. She might, without all this blood-
shed; without all her present disasters, have left
Lombardy ; she might have received a large pay-
ment for the independence of that province. Nay,
she might have avoided this collision if she had only
been content to abstain from interfering with the
States of Italy other than those that belonged to-
her by the Treaty of Vienna, but she would listen
to no terms. She made that attack which corn-
menced the war, and with such a stupid Government
as that—and it is the stupidest of all—it is useless
to expect any wisdom, and I don't think it is worth

while to consider any longer what she might have
done. I said I did not blame Louis Napoleon for going
to Italy. I did not presume to judge of his motives ;
it was no business of mine. Neither did I blame
him for coming away, for he did not go there to do
my business, or to do my bidding. Really I think
we Englishmen have a very high opinion of our
own importance and our power to judge people for
what they do and what they don't do, without any
reference to their rights or pretensions. But, apart
from this question of Italy, we have a peculiar in-
terest in these questions of foreign policy. Our
budget, I may say, is framed with reference to our
foreign, and not our domestic policy. (Cheers.) It
is not what we want to spend at home that op-
presses and troubles the people with taxes ; it is
what we want to spend with reference to our pro-
ceedings abroad, and it is on that account that I
talk to you here of foreign policy, because I see no
chance for the progress of fiscal reforms unless we
can turn our relations with foreign countries into a
diffsrent position. (Cheers.) Now, I don't come
here to advocate, and I never have advocated, a
principle of defencelessness or total disarmament,
or that we should trust any man on the face of the
earth, and not be prepared to defend ourselves like
rational beings against all probable contingencies ;
but what Ido stand up for is this, that which I
heard Sir Robert Peel declare in connexion with
the very question of our finance, that for England
to pretend to take precautions, so that every mile
of her coast and every mile of the coasts of her co-
lonies shall be safe from aggression, is a hopeless
and an erroneous policy. He used, in fact, these
words, "We must be prepared to take some risks,
and the wisest statesman is one that will face some
risks rather than undertake these ruinous precau-
tions." Now, that is my principle and my policy
with regard to our foreign policy. (Cheers.) What
would you say if I were to tell you, and I do it as
the result of a little calculation, that if you take
the amount of money which we annually spend in
this country as a means of defence and precaution
against all warlike aggressions from France—if
you take that sum of money, as I will, as the very
lowest possible amount, six millions sterling—and
I believe it is nearer 12 millions—(hear, hear)—if
you assume that we spend six millions sterling per
annum as a means of protecting ourselves against
the possible aggressions of France, beyond the ordi-
nary amount of force we should maintain with
reference to the preparations for war in the rest of
the world ; and if I were to tell you that that sum
of money represents far more than the whole of our
trade with France, as la consequence, as a political
economical maxim, it would be for the benefit of
England if France did not exist. And, on the other
hand, assuming that the preparations of France
were made in the same way and on the same scale
with those of England to defend herself against us,
then it would be an economical truth that it would
be better for France if England were at the bottom
of the sea. I ask you one question as a corollary to
that. Is a man who calls himself a politician, and
does not even aspire to the rank of a statesman,
deserving of the name of a Utopist, is he to be con-
sidered only as living in dreamland and to be held
incapable of giving counsel to practical men like
the English, if he asks whether there is no possible
remedy for such a state of things as that. Is it not
hideously unnatural that 36,000,000 people in
France, and 26,000,000 people in England, separa-
ted by only 20 miles ofsea, in 1859 are so incapable,
through their Governments, of placing themselves
on any footing of real security towards each other,
or are so unable to believe the professions, or pro-
testations, or engagements of each other, that they
are keeping themselves prepared in this deadly
attitude for mutual attack or defence ? I say is it
too Utopian to ask whether diplomacy or states-
manship could not possibly devise some scheme to
spare the world and the age in which we live from
such a frightful scandal as this ? (Cheers.) I am
not going to trouble you at any great length upon
my old question, because you will say that I am
harping upon my old string, but I am bound to say
that we have very much to answer for ourselves in
this unnatural and this most unprofitable state of
things. I know that I shall be called to account by
those organs of public opinion who claim the right
to think for us, and to speak for us, and to pre-
dict for us, and to guide us, and who expect that
we shall allow them to do all that for us, and, if we
attempt to say a word for ourselves, immediately
chide us as very intolerant and very troublesome
people. I venture to state that a large part of the
newspaper press of this country, and a good many
of the politicians—those weak vessels that follow
so easily the lead of a popular cry—have much to
answer for in the state of things in which wo are
placed at present with regard to France ' • for I
hesitate not to say, as an observer of it, that the
increase in the armaments of France and the pre-
parations in their dockyards, and their other naval
and military preparations, so far as they relate to
England, have been quite as much provoked by this
country as our preparations have been provoked by
theirs. Now, probably in this matter we should
be more inclined to take the opinion of another
country, and I confess to you that, amid all the
good feeling and all the respect which I found in
the United States were entertained towards this
country—(cheers)—the high respect I mean, which
is found in offspring towards their parent where
the offspring are proud of their parent, or in a
parent that is proud of its offspring (and I believe
in this case that both have very good cause for that
pride)—l say that amidst all the kindness and re-
spect which were shown, and which I observed in
the newspapers were shown towards the English
people, to whom the Americans are al wa.) s ready
to admit that they owe everything they possess
which is worth having in their great maxim of
liberty and freedom, yet, amid all this, there was
one thing I saw in their papers which always struck
me with shame and humiliation, and that was the
ridicule which they always cast upon this con-
stantly-repeated cry in England about a French
invasion, and which made us again and again the
laughingstock of the newspaper press of America.
I will just read to you one, and only one, extract
I which cut from the New York Times, a paper
not unfriendly to England, and with a great know-
ledge of European affairs :
" There was a time in English history when the invic-
late island laughed all foreign threats to scorn, and met
even the terrible peril of the Great Armada of Spain with
a front of haughty defiance; but that time seems to have