1)A igS3 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THIS BOOK IS ONE OF A COLLECTION MADE BY BENNO LOEWY 1854-1919 AND BEQUEATHED TO CORNELL UNIVERSITY Date Due PRINTED IN U. S. A & CAT. NO. 23233 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tlie Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924088016245 MACAULAY'S SPEECHES. SPEECHES, PARLIAMENTAEY AND MISCELLANEOUS. RT. HON. THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY. IN TWO VOLUMES. VOL. II. LONDON : HENRY VIZETELLY, GOUGH SQUAEE, FLEET STREET. CLARKE, BEETON, & CO., 148, FLEET STEEET. 1853. X \ CONTENTS OF VOL. If, {The Pm-liamentary Speeches contained in the present volume have been extracted by Special Licence from "Hansard^s PafUamenta/ry Debates," Third Series.) LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S INDIAN GOVERNMENT. On Mr. Vernon Smith's Motion condemnatory of Lord Ellenborough's Proclamation respecting the Kfistoratiou of the Grates of a Temple to Soumauth. March 9, 1843 . . . . .1 THE ASHBURTON TREATY. On Lord Palmerston's Motion for Copies of the Communications that had taken place between the GtoTemment and Lord Ashburton on the Subject of the Treaty recently signed at Washington. March 21, 1843 19 THE STATE OE IRELAND. On Mr. Smith O'Brien's Motion for a Committee of the House to consider the Causes of Discontent prcTailing in Ireland, and to provide a Uedress of GricTanees. July 7, 1843 . . . .3.5 EXTRADITION OF OFFENDERS. On the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Appre- hension of Offenders (America) Bill. August 11, 1843 . . 49 DEFAMATION AND LIBEL. On the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into Committee on ■ the Defamation and Libel Bill. August 16, 1843 . . 54 THE STATE OF IRELAND. On Lord John EusseU's Motion for a Committee of the whole House to take into Consideration the State of Ireland. February 19, 1844 , 57 84 CONTENTS. UNITARIAN CHAPELS. On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Dissenters Chapels Bill. June 6, 1844 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. On Mr. Duncomhe's Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Circumstances under which Letters have been secretly opened at the Post-office, and to report as to the Expediency of altering the Law on the Subject. June 24, 1844 . . . ■ .98. On Mr. Duucombe's Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Duties and Employment of the Persons engaged in the Secret Depart- ment at the Post-office, and as to the Authority under which the Functions of the said Office are discharged. July 2, 1844 . .106 On Mr. Duncombe's Motion that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Mode in which Letters have been Opened and Besealed at the General and Provincial Post-offices. February 20, 1845 . . 110 THE SUGAR DUTIES. On the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee of Ways and Means. February 26, 1845 . . . .116 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. On the Second Reading of the Maynooth College Bill, providing for an increased Grant of Public Money for the Purposes of that Institution. April 14, 1845 . . . . . .138 On Mr. Ward's Amendment that any Provision to be made for the Purposes of the present Bill ought to be taken from Funds already applicable to Ecclesiastical Purposes in Ireland. April 23, 1845 . . 153 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. On Moving the Second Reading of the Universities (Scotland) Bill. July 9, 1845 . . . . . .173 FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. On Mr. Duncombe's Motion for an Address to her Majesty, praying her to take into consideration the Petitions presented in favour of a restoration to their Native Land of Frost, Williams, and Jones. March 10, 1846 190 CONTENTS. V I'AOE. DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. Oa the Second Reading of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill. Feb. 24, 1847 200 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. On the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply for the purposes of National Education. April 19, 1847 . 206 AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. On the Resolution moved by Mr. Hume that, in the Judgment of the House, the armed Interference of the Government between Political Parties in Portugal is unwarrantable in Principle, and likely to lead to serious and mischievous Consequences. June 14, 1847 . . 229 THE EXCLUSION OF JUDGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. On Lord Hotham's Motion for the TJiird Reading of the Judges Exclusion BiU. June 2, 1853 . . . . .243 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. On the Second Reading of the Indian Bill. June 24, 1863 . . 256 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. At a Meeting of the Society for the Mitigation and Abolition of Slavery, held at Freemason's Hall. June 25, 1824 . . .279 LEEDS ELECTION. At a Meeting of Electors in the Music Hall, Leeds. November 29, 1832 288 At a Meeting of Electors in the Music HaU, Leeds. December 3, 1832 . 293 From the Windows of Messrs. Stansfield's Warehouse on the Nomination Day. December 10, 1832 . . . . .297 At the Hustings after the Declaration of the Poll. December 14, 1832 . 303 At the Public Dinner given at the Commercial Buildings, Leeds, in celebration of the Return of Messrs. Marshall and Macaulay. Decem- ber 14, 1832 . . . .307 VI CONTENTS. PAUR. EDINBURGH ELECTION. At a Meeting of Electors in the Assembly Eooms, Edinburgh. May 28, 1 839 314 On the Hustings at Edinburgh. June i, 1839 . . .332 At a Meeting of Electors in the Waterloo Eooms, Edinburgh. June 26, 1841 . . . . . . - 338 THE LITEEATUEE OF BRITAIN. At the Opening of the New Philosophical Institution, Edinburgh. No- vember 4, 1846 . . . . . .354 EDINBURGH ELECTION. At the Hustings on the Day of Nomination. July 29, 1847 . . 363 THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. On being installed Lord Kector ia the Common Hall of the College. March 21, 1849 . . . . . .367 EDINBURGH ELECTION. At a Meeting of Electors in the Music Hall, Edinburgh. Novem- ber 2, 1852 . . . . . .376 PARLIAMENTARY SPEECHES. 1843—53. PARLIAMENTARY SPEECHES. LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S INDIAN GOVERNMENT. March 9, 1843. On Mr. Vernon Smithes Motion condemnatory of Lord EUenborougKs Proclamation respecting the Restoration of the Gates of a Temple to Somnauth. If, sir^ the practice of the hon. member (Mr. Emmerson Tennant) had agreed with his precepts — if he had confined his ohservations in this House to the particular subject under dis- cussion — I should have strictly followed his example, conceiving that there is abundance, indeed, to be said both as to the matter and the manner of this proclamation ; nor, sir, will I suffer myself, by the peroration he has made, to be led away to any great distance, or for any long time, from the important question which is now before us. Yet I cannot regret that the hon. gen- tleman, who has this night exhibited, as he has done on former occasions, proofs of no small stock of ability and acuteness, should have complained that this charge was brought against his right hon. friend, the Governor- General, in his absence. Is this House, sir, interdicted from considering the conduct of a Governor- General who is absent? Why, sir, how are we to attempt to criticise his conduct, if we may not do it ia his absence ? For my own part, I may say for myself, and I may truly say for my right hon. friend near me, that we both would have wished with our whole souls that we could have discussed this question in the presence of the Governor- General. Ajid permit me to say, that if there be any public man, if there be VOL. II. B 2 LORD ELLENBOROUGH S INDIAN GOVERNMENT. any Governor- General, who lias no right to complain of any remarks in his absence, it is that Governor- General — the first Governor- General who has borne that high station who has employed his power to place a stigma upon the character, and to bring a charge against his predecessor in his absence; that Governor-General who has been the first to forget all official de- cency — who was the first to forget that rule of unity in the State which should have prevented him from placing a stigma upon the conduct of the Governor- General, of whom I will say this, and this only, that whatever may have been his faults in other respects, he was faultless with respect to Lord Bllenborough. I am sure, sir, that no hon. gentleman will rise on the other side of the House and will deny my assertion that no Governor- General ever exerted himself more strenuously or more effectually to leave to the Governor- General who should come after him all the facilities in his power, or to contribute more earnestly to his success. If his successor had been his awn brother, it was im- possible that my Lord Aiickland could have laboured more to give him every advantag'c. And what was his requital? A proclamation from that successor, published in his absence, stig- matising the whole of his predecessor's conduct. But since our attention has been called by the hon. gentleman from the pro- clamation now under discussion — since it has been said that it was a mere calumny to say that the orders for the withdrawal of the troops were given before the fate of the prisoners was known, or to assert that the Governor- General was indifferent to the fate of the prisoners — permit me to ask the hon. gentleman, or the hon. director who sits behind him, to explain one point which it appears to me most important to resolve. I promise them I will be very concise in the question I will put. When my Lord Ellenborough put his hand to the proclamation of the 1st of October, 1842, did he, or did he not, know that the prisoners were then in safety? That on the 1st of October the Governor- General did not know that the prisoners were safe I am certain. What defence, then, is offered for this proclamation ? Even this : ^ihat -the proclamation itself bears a false date — that it was not framed on the 1st of October, That the date of the 1st of Octo- LORD ELLENBOROUGH's INDIAN GOVERNMENT. 3 ber was inserted I believe, and I shall be glad to hear it contra- dicted; though I doubt whether any hon. gentleman wiU venture, on his own knowledge, to contradict the statement. I believe that my Lord EUenborough placed to that proclamation the false date of the 1st of October, because my Lord Auckland's mani- festo against Affghanistan was dated on the 1st of October, 1838. The false day was put for the sake of so paltry and so contemp- tible a triumph. That act, I say, indicates an intemperate mind, unfit for so high a trust ; for the sake of a paltry triumph over his predecessor, a date is put to the proclamation which makes it appear that he and the EngHsh Grovernment were per- fectly indifferent to the fate of the prisoners. For the effect of such a proclamation among the natives of India must be — the general impression of Lord EUenborough, with respect to that order, must be — that he, and the Grovernment which appointed him, were utterly regardless of the fate of the prisoners ; and, sir, I believe that my Lord EUenborough rendered himself Uable to this imputation by inserting a date which might appear as an attack upon my Lord Auckland. That, sir, is not the only subject on which I might touch, if I chose to foUow the hon. gentleman into a debate on larger mat- ters, and imconnected with the subject more immediately before us. I might caU to the attention of the House the conduct of the (rovernor- General towards the civil service in India, the spirit of which, I fear, may be broken by his treatment. I might talk to the House of the financial commission issued by the noble lord to find out the blunders of his predecessor, and which ended only in finding out blimders of his own. But, sir, I conceive that the present subject, both on the serious and ludicrous side of the question, ought to occupy all our attention. And first, as to the serious side. I abjure at once aU intention, and every wish, to raise any fanatical outcry, or lend my aid to any fanatical progress. I solemnly declare that I would at any time rather be the victim than the tool of fanaticism ; and that if the conduct of Lord EUenborough were caUed in question for using strict toleration towards all religions, or for any reprobation of the misguided zeal of Christian missionaries, I would, notwithstand- 4 LORD ELLENBOROUGH's INDIAN GOVERNMENT. ing any political differences between us^ be the first to stand forward in his defence. This, however, is not the case. It is all very weU for the hon. gentleman to say that we look at small and trivial errors. This I deny. This is no light thing. We are the governors of a larger heathen population than (with one, exception, I believe) the world ever knew collected under one sceptre since the first Christian epoch. It is, sir, no light matter to say what the policy of a Christian Government should be in such circum- stances. It is a serious and a grave question in morals and m government. However weak we might have been when we first went to India, we now find subject to our sway there 100,000,000 of souls not professing the Christian faith, a large portion of whom are Mussulmans. They are a minority, but a minority reckoned by tens of miUions ; they are a more united, but they are also a more fanatical body than the majority j they are accustomed to unite, they are used to war, they show a higher spirit than the majority, but in general they are more untract- able and more fierce. Mingled with them are many, many millions of idolators. Many are inordinately influenced by the forms of their superstition, of which it is impossible for any person who values even their temporal interest to speak without the deepest and most serious consideration. I believe, sir, that in no part of the world is there a superstition more unfavour- able to the advancement of knowledge and of civilisation. There are many fables, the very believing of which produces the utmost degradation of the miud, bound up with these false notions; many errors and prejudices in reference to physical subjects are connected with their distinct and odious belief, raising great and almost insuperable obstacles to the advance of science. There are symbohcal badges teaching them a kind of worship which I will not mention ; their very forms of worship are connected with the worst forms of prostitution. There is a great and deplorable degradation of the female races. And, sir, when we have said all this, we have not said the worst. The most fatal crimes against religion and against property are closely allied to the reHgion they uphold : they offer up human LORD ELLENBOUOUGH's INDIAN GOVERNMENT. 5. sacrifices to their deities ; they have still their inhuman Suttee, by which the widow is sacrificed by her own children. Even the atrocious practice of the Thugs is carried on notoriously under the apparent direction of their divinities. During my stay in India I read the examination of two Thugs, where one reprimanded his brother for letting ofl" with his life a traveller who had fallen into their power, saying, " How can you expect our goddess to protect us, if you thus spare the life of the traveller you have taken ?" Where, sir, we find a rehgion of this sort, it is an extremely difficult problem to be solved in what way a Christian Govern- ment should deal with a people holding such a religion or such a faith. We might have attempted the policy which was of old adopted by Spain; we might have attempted to convert this heathen people to our own faith. We might have attempted a large scheme of proselytism ; but, in my opinion, the English Government have acted more wisely. They have not adopted any system of proselytism ; at the same time, we have not imposed any civil disabilities on any native of India, let him hold what- ever faith he may ; and the very last act concerning the charter of the East India Company declares that no native, let his religious opinion be what it may, shall be incapable of holding any situation under Government. Although we have not done anything to put down their religion, and although in this we have acted most wisely, yet, sir, I am not sure that for some time a most dangerous and pernicious leaning has not been exhibited the other way : I believe that we have done much to make the idolatrous practices a matter of national reverence. We. long looked with jealousy on the labours of the Christian mis- sionaries who went to India ; we long looked too severely on the conduct of those whose labours were of no shght value ; we tolerated too long the human sacrifice, we allowed too long the degrading practice of the Suttee, which might have been put down long ago were it not for our toleration. I believe that we made no attempt to protect the persons or property of our fellow-creatures and our subjects against the demands of super- stition. As far, too, as related to a great part of their idolatrous 6 LOKD ELLENBOROUGH's INDIAN GOVEENMENT. processions, and to the decoration of their temples, we lent our aid. We sent, under our escort, the native chiefs on theii* way to worship at those temples ; and we thus marked our support of an idolatrous worship. We might have had an object in all this. I think it undig- nified — even if it were not, under all considerations, most inexpedient — in a temporal point of view; and as a temporal matter alone will I be tempted to discuss it. The inevitable effect on the people of India was to make them believe that we attached no importance to the vast distinction between that rehgion, every work of which has always been, beyond all other religions, to advance knowledge and learning, to widen the field of domestic happiness, to promote and secure public and personal liberty — which in the old world has struck off the chains of slavery — which has everywhere raised the condition of woman, and assuaged the horrors of war ; and that other religion, which we cannot sanction or support without committing an act of treason against civilisation and against humanity. Gradually, however, a system has been introduced which everyone who is aware of the state of India wiU admit to be of considerable im- portance, and without meaning to say it amounts to absolute perfection, I am not aware that at the present moment the rules laid down by the Home Government for the conduct of our Indian authorities admit of any considerable improvement. I think it was my Lord Wellesley who led the way and abolished the immolation of female children ; and great as is the title of that eminent statesman to the gratitude of his country, S. this was one of the proudest of the claims which his friends and \ those who regret his loss will rejoice to acknowledge. In the year 1813, the restriction on the admission of missionaries was aibolished : a clause was inserted in the charter which defeated tmat restriction. At a later period, sir, Lord W. Bentinck aloolished the Suttee. An order was also sent out by the Government at home on the subject of the pilgrim-tax. Lord Glenelg— J was in office at the time, and I know the fact — Lord Glenelg, with his own hand, wrote that most important and valuable! despatch of February, 1833, to which such fi:'e- LORD ELLENBOROUGH's INDIAN GOVERNMENT. 7 quent reference has beeu made. In that despatch — and I recollect it so well that I can almost state with precision the paragraph^ and quote its substance, almost its exact words — in the sixty- second paragraph of that despatch will be found a complete system — I might call it of legislation — but a code of conduct for the Indian authorities. It directed that all matters whatever relating to temples and to idols are to be left entirely to the natives themselves to act. This order was to be acted upon by the Indian authorities, who were to use their best discretion in introducing it. Its operation was left, as it neces- sarily must be, to the Indian authorities. Again, there was in the year 1838 another despatch, which recognised the sixty- second paragraph of the despatch of 1833, which pointed out its importance, and the intention of the directors to carry it out. Again, in the year 18-il, orders upon this subject were sent out, which were so framed that I am almost led to believe that my Lord Ellenborough had read them carefully through for the express purpose of disobeying them as far as he could. Orders positive and distiact were given to the Indian autho- rities by this despatch to have nothing to do with the national temples of the idols; positive and distinct orders to make no presents to these temples; positive and distinct orders to give no decorations to those temples; positive and distinct orders to employ no troops to do honour to the worship of these idols. This despatch was sent out by the Court of Directors in the year 1841 ; and I think while that despatch is acted upon, our own rehgion is held sacred, whilst all possible toleration is given to the professors of different religions. To attempt to convert that toleration into a direct approval appears to me to be a crime, and directly opposed to the reasonings and the intentions of individuals of the best information with respect to India, and far better qualified than the Governor- General to form a correct opinion. It was the intention of the Government rigidly to preserve wise neutrality. I come, then, to the charge against Lord EUenborough; it is, that he has departed from that neutrality — it is, that he has disobeyed the orders of those from whom -his 8 LORD ELLENBOaOUGH^S INDIAN OOVEllNMENT. power is derived, and to whom his obedience is due. That is the first part of the charge, but it is not the gi-eatest or the heaviest. Is it denied that my Lord Ellenborough assisted in the decorations of these idolatrous temples ? Is it denied that he interfered with their concerns ? Is it denied that he made them gifts ? Why, the only argument of the hon. gentleman opposite is, that as my Lord Ellenborough sent the troops to escort the gates, he had not interfered in any religious way, because the directors had ordered him not to give any encou- ragement to idolatry. That was a strange mode of proving that Lord Ellenborough had not disobeyed the orders of the directors. Undoubtedly, if the first principle of our reasoning is to be, that my Lord Ellenborough is a perfect man — if the first principle is to be, that he cannot possibly do any wrong — why then I fully admit the force of the hon. gentleman's argu- ment. But, sir, can it be seriously denied that Lord Ellen- borough did send the troops to carry these gates from a Mahometan mosque to a Hindoo temple, and place them on the restored temple of Somnauth ? Aye, the restored temple ! Let us understand that word, restored. We all know that the temple is in ruins. How is it possible to doubt that my Lord Ellenborough, before he determined to issue that important proclamation, did not know that the temple was in ruins, or that he did not ask of those about him, and who knew the state of that temple ? If the hon. gentleman will seriously stand up and say he believes that my Lord EUenborough wrote that despatch without asking a question of those around him — if such were really his conduct, the hon. gentleman, by statiug it, would pronounce upon it the severest condemnation. It is clear, sir, that his lordship, if he did not know the fact, did inquire into the state of the temple, and that he was told that it was in ruins. And what did his lordship say ? He calls it the restored temple. It is impossible to doubt that he intended its restoration before he should set up the gates in it. I defy the hon. gentleman, I defy all human ingenuity, to get off one of the two horns of the dilemma. Either way it will settle this question. Either his lordship did publish his proclamation LORD ELLENBOROUGh's INDIAN GOVERNMENT, 9 without making inquiry or knowing of himself that the temple was in ruins^ or, having been told that it Avas, he determined that it should be restored. Turn and twist it which way you will, you can make nothing else of it. It is like the stain on the key in the story of " Bluebeard ;" if you can clean it on one side, the spot springs up on the other. Here, then, is direct disobedience to the orders of the Court of Directors ; and that is the first charge which I bring against my Lord EUen- borough. It is not, however, the chief or the most important. I come now to the duty of an English Governor, supposing that the Court of Directors should not have given him any direc- tions, and supposing that he had not violated any such instruc- tions. Lord Ellenborough has not a mind so contracted as not to know the difference between the temporal effects — for I mean to speak only of these — and the civil effects of a rehgion like that of his countrymen, and a rehgion like that which exists among the idolators of India. It was clearly his duty to pay no homage to any native rehgion in that country, and to offer no insult to any. But, sir, he has paid that homage, and he has offered that insult, and more than that. Not only has this homage been paid and this insult offered, but it has been done in the worst possible manner. We might have looked with some sort of favour on his lordship's acts and in- tentions — it might have been some mitigation of those insults if they had been offered to the most degrading and most corrupting of all forms of worship, and if the homage had been paid to some reasonable and salutary doctrine. But the fact was just the reverse. His lordship took the worst possible way of deviating from the required neutrahty in the orders which he issued. He deviated from his proper course in the ivrong direction; he offered an iasult to truth, and he paid homage to the most vicious falsehood. Is it not an insult to truth? To what religion is it that the offering was made? It was to Lingamism — to a religion which is polytheism in its worst form, which in its nature presents the most degrading, the most odious, the most polluted representation of the Supreme Being. It is to that doctrine which, more than any other, is fundamental 10 LOED ELLENBOROUGH's INDIAN GOVERNMENT. to everything in the Hindoo religion^ and it is in violation of all those principles which we are taught to consider as the main- spring of Christianity. And what is this temple which my Lord EUenhorough means to restore ? The hon. gentleman who last spoke seemed to think that he had achieved a great victory when he made out that the offering was not made to Siva^ but to Krishna. Krishna is the preserving deity^ and Siva the destroying deity ; and as far as one can venture to express any preference for these false godsj I confess that my own tastes would lead me to admire rather the preser^dng than the destroying power. But the temple was consecrated to Siva, not to Krishna; and the hon. gentleman must luiow what were the rites, what were the em- blems of the worship of Siva, what were the dreadful scenes enacted in this very temple of Somnauth. Why, in speaking in this House of those scenes, we are ashamed to describe things which the Governor- General is not ashamed by his proclamation to promote ! Now this, I must say, is a great and serious wrong. Lord Ellenborough proposes the restoration of this temple, and I defy anyone to put any other meaning on his words. Well, I have spoken of the moral consequences of this procla- mation, and I will now come to the question of its political effects. On that point I agree in every syllable which has fallen from my right hon. friend. I am convinced that the first effect of this will be, and I have strong reason to believe that that effect has already in some degTee arisen, that amongst the Mahometans the most violent feelings of indignation will be excited. We know their feelings, and we know that by the Mahometans this wOl be thought one of the greatest outrages to their religion. We require for this proposition no better and could have no stronger authority than that of Mr. Elphin- stone. We know what have been the consequences, and what serious internal perils have arisen from former supposed outrages on the Mahometan rehgion. We need only remember the occur- rences at Vellore and at Bangalore. In the first case, outrages of an extraordinary description arose from a supposed disrespect being shown to the Mussulman tin-ban ; in the latter, similar scenes were enacted from some alleged disrespect to a Mussul- LORD ELLENBOROUGH's INDIAN GOVERNMENT. 11 man mosque. It is no light thing to commit such acts as this. I have reason to believe, and the House ■will agree with me that my belief is not without foundation, that there is a party of the Hindoos who look with great and eager joy at this proclamation, and the consequences which may be anticipated from it. They are elated with delight at this event, and they look upon it as a certain proof of the intention of the English Government to take them and their religion under its protection, and that some great victory of Brahma is about to be achieved. But does the Government mean to answer these expectations ? Does the right hon. baronet opposite mean to adopt Brahminical principles in the government of India? If not, I say that these great hopes must be disappointed ; and the disappointment consequent upon the continuance of those principles by which the Government is now actuated, must inevi- tably be followed by resentment and anger. And I do not know whether I could apply to the question a fairer test than this ; and I beg to call on the members of her Majesty^s Government just to state to us what they mean to do about this part of the case. Do they mean to carry into effect the promises held out in the proclamation ? Do they mean to authorise the Governor- General to restore the temple of Somnauth? Is the public revenue to be expended in creating a new place for the worship of the idols of the Hindoos — in erecting a new shrine for the exhibition of the revolting spectacles which have in former ages disgraced the locality of this temple — in hiring fresh hordes of dancing-girls to do honour to the gods of idolatry ? I have no possible doubt that Lord Ellenborough wiU receive, in some form or another, such an admonition as will prevent his incurring the odium consequent upon the adoption of such steps. What then will occiu* ? The whole tide of popularity which has been gained by this proclamation among the Hindoos win be stopped ; the Hindoo population, which will have been looking forward to this consummation of their hopes, will find that those hopes have been raised only to be disappointed. But even if this, be not so — if these effects be not produced — is it nothing, I ask, to have this continual turning and wavering in a 12 LOED ELLENBOROUGH^S INDIAN GOVERNMENT. government like that of India ? This is not the only procla- mation which Lord EUenhorough has put forth. He put forth another, which contained an announcement that Dost Mohammed was coming to his Durbar, and then, in another, he contradicted this statement. And to this is to be added this new proclamation, put forth with great pomp, promising the chiefs and princes of India that something is to be done which cannot be done, because the Governor-General is opposed by the Govern- ment at home. By force of their superior authority he will be compelled to submit to the humiliating necessity of abandoning his promise. This, I say, is no light matter. It is a most serious thing to contemplate the feelings with which, so far as I can learn, the native population of India will be led to regard the noble lord. We have had governors-general of India of various stamps. Some governors-general there have been who have been guilty of faults ; some who have even committed crimes. The natives in some cases have hated the governor-general ; but now, for the first time, they have a governor-general whom they laugh at. And how are we to blame the natives of India laughing at what is occurring under their own immediate observation, when aU Europe and all America are laughing too ? Was there ever any- thing which more justly excited ridicule? And what is the defence which is set up ? The hon. gentleman opposite pro- duces some turgid Eastern papers, full of brilliant tropes and flowing figures, to show that this proclamation is couched in the terms in wliich documents in former times were sometimes couched by native princes. But is that a parallel case? May it not as well be said that it was fit that the noble lord should allow his beard to grow down to his waist — that he should attire himself in the Eastern costume — that he should hang about his person jewels and glittering ornaments, and that he should ride through the streets of Calcutta upon a horse gaily caparisoned, and ornamented with jingling bells and glass beads, and all the showy paraphernalia of the native princes ? When the natives see a nabob or a rajah indulge himself in these luxuries, they bow to him, and take the splendour of his appearance to be indi- 13 cativCj as it is, of his rankj his power, and his wealth ; but if Sir Charles Metcalfe had so bedizened himself, I am inclined to think that it would have been concluded, and not without reason, that he was out of his wits. Depend upon it, the natives are not such fools as they are taken for. It is a mistake to imagine that they do not under- stand the respect which is due to the peculiar simplicity and solemnity of our habits and manners. The conviction exists in their minds between our appearance and our character, as between om' white colour of skin and our superior education and powers of mind. And if this species of feeling were not sustained, to what ridiculous lengths we must go ! Why, you do not suppose that the Governor- General should paint himself black, surely; but even to this extent might the principle contended for be argued to extend. Why, it is by the association of ideas that their opin- ions of our great mental superiority, of our high morality, of the commanding powers of our minds, and of all those qualities which from the time of Lord CUve have made the English domi- nant over the country, are maintained. How is it that Lord EUenborough seeks to maintain this high character which we have so long enjoyed? His plan of governing with success seems to have been th^rt of turning himself as fast as he can into the various characters of Hindoo, Eajah, Mussulman, and omni- potent governor ; and that alone supplies ample reason for his recall. But to turn to the words of this foolish proclamation. I say that it is neither English nor Oriental. It bears no resemblance whatever to anything I have ever read of which professed to be of the same character, nor of the hundreds of thousands of models to be found in the archives of the East India Company. It is not original either ; and I wiU tell the House whence Lord EUenborough borrowed it. It is an imitation of those trashy rants which proceeded from the proconsuls of Erance, in the time of the Directory, during the Erench Revolution, and more especially of that address which was put forth at the time of the passage of the Po. It is exactly in the style of these productions, and my Lord EUenborough could hardly be ignorant of them or 14 LORD ELLENBOROUGH's INDIAN GOVERNMENT. their terms. There are, besides, some lines of Mr. Canning upon them, which that noble lord could hardly fail to know, when he speaks of the invasion of Italy and the justice of the agents of the Revolution. Mr Canning says — Not she in British Courts that takes her stand, The dawdling balance dangling in her hand, Adjusting punishments to Fraud and Yice, With scrupulous quirks, and disquisition nice ; But firm, erect, with keen reverted glance. The avenging Angel of regenerate France — Who visits ancient sins on modern times. And punishes the Pope for Csesar'e crimes. In the papers of revolutionary Prance, the noble lord found his models. But they had an excuse which was wanting to the proclamation of the noble lord. The French Revolution had thrown down all good taste and judgment in writing, and all diplomatic and official places were filled by persons new to public affairs, who had scrambled into high situations — some of them possessing mere smatterings of college learning, others devoid of education, except such as they might have obtained by chance, and from seeing Talma at the theatres. But was it for the noble lord to adopt these documents as precedents — he, a Conservative Governor- General of India? If the noble lord plead them, I think we may safely say that he has found it difficidt to find any other. I do think, then, that in this proclamation we find matter for serious condemnation. If we go over aU the states- men who have governed India, we find none who have not com- mitted very serious errors, and we find occasions on which the most important and most grievous mistakes were made. True it is that no statesman ever existed who did not commit some miscalculation. Lord Somers, Mr. Walpole, Mr. Pitt, and Lord Chatham had. Nobody would now deny that Mr. Pitt had miscalculated when he sent the expedition to Quiberon, but even then he had been guilty of no error hke this ; and all that could be said was, that though the miscalculations of those great men had been most serious and pernicious to the country, still they were not such as to unfit them for the conduct of the greatest affairs. LORD ELI/ENBOROUGH's INDIAN GOVERNMENT. 15 This proceeding of the Governor- Grcneral of India reminds me of the triumph of Caligula^ who took his soldiers to the beach, and hade them fill their helmets with coclde-sheUs ; and then marched them and deposited the shells in the Capitol, as trophies of his triumph over the ocean. That was a proof that Caligula was unfit to govern. So it is related of the Emperor Paul of Russia, who once ordered that men should not wear pantaloons ; that they should not wear their hair combed over their foreheads ; and that, finally, having ordered that no man should wear a round hat, an Englishman thought to outwit him by going into the streets in a hunting-cap ; when the Emperor, unable to define the new covering for the head, issued an order that no man should appear in public with a round thing on his head such as the English merchant wore. It might be well said that a man who put forth such a ukase as this was not a man capable of managing great afl'airs. With regard to this proclamation, I do not say that the noble lord is not entitled to employ a new style. Did it never occur to him, however, to consider that it was probable that if this sort of style had any peculiar advantage, Warren Hastings, Sir Charles Metcalfe, and other governors-general, men who were as familiar with the languages and the maimers and the habits of India as many hon. members of this House are with the language and habits of France, would, in all probability, have employed it ? — did it never occur to him, I say, independently of his own high merit, that this origiaal and striking mode of speaking to the people of India would have been just as likely, if not more so, to have been adopted by men of such attainments as I have described, if they thought it could be attended with any good results ? But there is another reason why this procla- mation is to be viewed with regret, because it affords a serious indication of the terms on which Lord Ellenborough stands with the officers of the civil service of the East India Company, and especially with that eminent individual, mth whom I have the pleasure to be acquainted, whose name is attached to this notifi- cation. I will pawn my life that Lord EUenborough never asked that gentleman his opinion on the subject of this procla- 16 LORD ELLENBOROUGh's INDIAN OOVERNMENT. mation, or that^ if he did, he gave an opinion adverse to it. No one in the Indian service will believe that the noble lord ever applied to Mr. Haddocks. I am certain that no Governor- General who stood on the terms with the civil servants of the East India Company, on which Lord William Bentinck or Lord Auckland stood, would have looked to them in vain for aid. I am confident that if either of those noble lords, in an unlucky moment — their minds enveloped in some mist — had proposed to publish such a proclamation, the gentleman to whom I have referred would have advised them not to issue it. The only possible explanation which can be given of the issuing of this proclamation, therefore, is, that the terms on which Lord Ellen- borough stands with the Company's servants are such, that even the most eminent of those servants did not venture, even on the most important occasions, to offer him advice, however greatly he should be in want of it. I will now for one moment consider in what position it is that Lord Ellenborough is placed. Is the House aware that, even when the Governor- General is at Calcutta, surrounded by his council, his single voice can overbear that of the whole council in any case on which any executive measure is to be determined on ? All that the other members of the council can do is to give him their opinions in writing, and to call upon him to write down his reasons for any adverse opinion at which he may arrive ; and then, if he chooses, his single voice, whether the question involve the important considerations of war, peace, or finance, overbears all. The right hon. baronet opposite is a powerful Minister — a Minister more powerful than any we have had for many years ; but I venture to say that his power over the people of this country, great as it is, and extensively as it is exercised, is as nothing when compared with the extraordinary influence which a Governor- General can put in force over 90,000,000 or 100,000,000 of subjects of Britain. And this is his power when controlled by the presence of his council. But where is he now ? He has given his council the shp ; he is alone ; he has not a single person with him who is entitled to advise him. If he had, there might be some hopes entertained that nothing like this LORD ELLENBOKOUGH S INDIAN GO\'ERNMENT. 17 would have happened. But no; he is by himself. He is invested with the whole of the council. Of this you may be sure, that no Governor- Greneral in this situation wiU ever have one word of advice, unless he so conduct himself as to show that he is willing to receiAe it ; therefore, the danger and the risk of having a person in the position of Governor- General, who is dis- posed to place himself in a situation of solitude, at a distance up the country, are beyond all description. The interests constantly arising, and dependent on his sole command, are so vast, that words which would only soberly describe them would sound like a gross exaggeration, and those powers are aU vested in one man who has only been a few months in India ; and I can hardly think that my Lord EUenborough can be said to have acted wisely, considering his short experience in India, in separating from all those who possessed knowledge and abilities, and had a right to advise him. We find other Governors-General who have had long acquaintance with that part of the British dominion, care- fully abstaining from adopting a course calculated to remove from them the means of obtaining adidce. I cannot sit down without addressing mj^self to the Board of Directors of the East India Company, and I must express my sincere hope that, considering the heavy responsibility which rests on them, they wiU not hesitate to recall Lord EUenborough from liis government. I do hope that they will take the advice in this respect of one who was an attached servant of the Company; who still possesses the greatest desire for their good, and woidd do everything in his power to see them placed in a safe and honourable position. But if they are placed in that position that they camiot or tstII not recall the noble lord^ then I trust that they wiU not hesitate to give him immediate instructions to return to his council. He has now no adviser who can raise his voice to secure him from the creation of new e^^ls. I am sure that the next despatches to be received from India will be looked for by the Board of Directors as well as by the Government with the greatest anxiety. I say, send back the noble lord to Calcutta. There^ at least, will be those who will be entitled to speak to him with authority, and who, if I kno^' anything of the members of VOL. II. c 18 LORD ULLENBOROUGH^S INDIAN GOVERNMENT. councilj will do so. It is something even to be required to recor your reasons for eveiything you do — it is something to interpos a delay, though only of twenty-four hours, which is required i this case, between the conception of a project and the carrying c it out. I know that these checks are not sufficient in some cases but they are something, and I do most earnestly implore th Directors to consider gravely the position in which they wi] stand, if they give up this most faithful and sincere council, cannot help thinking that where a body such as the council exist — a body formed for the express piu'pose of checking the Gover nor-General in proceediags inconsistent with the interests of thi empire of Great Britain in India, the powers of such a bodi ought not to be put in abeyance in the case of a man who, abov( all who have ever been sent to India in the capacity of Governor General, most stands in need of such assistance and restraint as the council are able and bound to afford. 19 THE ASHBUUTON TREATY. March 21, 1843. On Lord Palmer stones Motion for Copies of the Communications that had taken place between the Government and Lord Asliimrton on the Subject of the Treaty recently signed at Washington. I HOPE, sir, I shall find credit -with the House when I state, with all earnestness, that the few ohservations which in the dis- charge of my duty to my country I feel bound to offer on this occasion, are in no respect dictated by any feelings of either national or personal animosity. The feeling of national ani- mosity is in all cases odious, but such animosity on the part of Englishmen towards the people of the United States, may justly be termed unnatural. Whatever intercourse I have had with the citizens of the United States has been imiformly an inter- change of courtesies and kind offices ; and as a public man, and as an Englishman, I can think of that great community only as one composed of persons whose veins are full of ovoc blood, whose minds are nourished by our literature, and whose most valuable institutions are derived from our own. As a pubhc man, again, I cannot but reflect that while peace is in all quarters the greatest of blessings, while war in any part of the world must be regarded as one of the greatest of pubKc calamities, a war with the United States would be of all the calamities that could befal this country the most disastrous ; for it would unite with all the horrors of foreign war many of the peculiar enormities of civil conflict, it would interrupt that salutary connexion which exists between the two countries, it would produce frightful disturbance of trade, it would involve in extensive ruin private families, and it would obstruct, to a greater extent than any other event I can well con- ceive, the great interests of humanity and civilisation. 20 THE ASHBURTON TllEATV. Having protested that towards tlie United States I entertaii no feeling of ill-will, I can vnth equal truth make the sam declaration with respect to the nohle individual whose conduc is peculiarly under discussion ; and I cannot easily conceive, fror anything I have seen or heard, that Lord Ashburton can, in thi House or elsewhere, have any personal enemy. I readily an( cordially admit the extent of his information ; and I sincereh admire those eminent abilities which I have seen displayed ii this House with great profit and advantage to the pubHc, an( from which I have myself derived pleasure and instruction. . readily admit his integrity, and his many amiable qualities ; an( if, in anything I may say, I should, with reference to that nobli lord, exceed the limits of the strictest decorum, or the rules o parliamentary debate, I can only say with regard to anything . may so utter, that I beforehand wish it unsaid. But his lordshij knows, and those connected with him know, that it is the dutj of public men to scrutinise most strictly the conduct of th( responsible servants of the Crown ; and they know that on nc occasion could it be more important to do so than with reference to the subject now under discussion. Indeed, after the declara- tion which has been made by the right hon. baronet (Sir E Peel), it is more important to scrutinise the conduct of the Go- vernment with respect to this question than at first sight appearec necessary. The right hon. baronet takes upon himself, and upor the Government of which he is the head, the entire and complete responsibility of the matter and manner of this important ne- gotiation. Now, this negotiation is not only important in itself on account of the interests at stake, but in another point of vie^ it is of great importance. It is the first great negotiation which, since the last change of Ministry, has been concluded between England and any foreign power. Coming into ofiice after ex- clusion from power, with a short interval, for, I think, upwards of ten years, the members of the present Government found that our relations with the United States presented one of the most important subjects to which their attention could be directed They considered the subject, they state, with extreme attention; they selected, with the greatest care, a negotiator for the purpose THE ASHBURTON TKEATV. 31 of caiTying their views into eftect ; they approve, in every respect, of his conduct. The fruits of this negotiation lie before us ; and Tve must consider ourselves as inquiring, not merely whether this treaty is a just and proper one, not merely whether this corre- spondence be honourable to the abilities and public spirit of Lord Ashbtirton, but — seeing how probable it is that the present Go- vernment -mil for a considerable time retain their position in power — ^whether their policy be pacific in truth, or pacific only in show; and whether, on the system they seem at present inclined to pursue, it is probable that the honour and interests of this country are likely to be promoted. I shall commence by making a concession which I think the right hon. baronet opposite wiH admit to be a large one, and for making which, I fear, the noble lord near me (Lord Palmerstou) may consider that I merit some degree of blame. Though I am firmly convinced that, if this question were tried as a mere matter of right, we have, with regard to the boundary, clearly ceded too much ; though I thinlv we have ceded not only that which we had a right to keep, but that which it would in many respects have been advantageous to us to have retained ; though I think the negotiations, in many of the points mentioned by my noble friend, have been on that subject most unskilfully con- ducted — yet I feel, and I have always felt, most strongly the inmiense importance of arriving at a settlement of this question. I have always felt that when a subject has been agitated during so many years, when it has excited so much exasperation, when, on both sides, there is so firm a conviction of the justice of their respective claims, something must be sacrificed. It is necessary, I admit, under such circumstances, that a compromise should be made. I cannot better express my opinion on this subject than by adopting the language of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood) at the beginning of the present session :— I am ready to admit (my lion, friend said), that if the causes of difference between the two countries are fairly adj usted, if the arrangements are such as to close tlie present, and preclude future causes of dispute, I am not one of those who would attach much im- portance to a few square miles of territory more or less ; but then I must have a distinct assurance that those causes of difference have actually been removed. 33 THE ASHBURTON TREATY. The conditions^ however, which I think myself entitled tc demand, when we have been ceding what the right hon. baronei opposite admits, if I understand him, to be our right, are these three : First, that the dignity and honour of this country shall be in no respect compromised by the manner in which the ar- rangement shall be made. To that condition, if I correctly understand the right hon. baronet, he will, I doubt not, give his assent. The second condition I must require is, that the treaty purchased by this sacrifice of our rights shall be a treaty which either removes all cause of difference, or, if it does not effect that, at least does not place us with regard to any of them in a deci- dedly worse position than that in which we stood before the treaty was concluded ; and lastly, I am entitled to demand that this treaty shall be one which has produced on both sides Idndly and cordial feelings, and which has rendered the recurrence of any difElculties such as those which preceded it in the highest degree improbable. I regret to say that I entertain very grave doubts — I may say more than doubts — whether the negotiations, and the treaty which has resulted from them, will be found to fulfil these conditions. First, then, as to the question of national honour. I may say that it is impossible to read through this correspondence, to compare the letters, vnthout exception, of the English plenipoten- tiary with those which emanated fr-om the American secretary, without being struck with a certain humble, caressing, wheedJing tone which pervades them, and which seems to me utterly incon- sistent with the dignity of the office which Lord Ashburton occupied. Many cases, which I could cite, occur to me ; some of them — indeed most of them — appear slight at the fii'st glance ; but as Lord Bacon says, " A straw will serve to show you which way the wind blows." I think it was highly improper on the part of Lord Ashburton to state to the Government of the United States, as a reason why he should be especially trusted by them, and why they should act with more confidence and cordiality towards him, that he had opposed the last war with America. I think that was not the course an English Ambassador ought to have pursued. I disap- THE ASHBURTON TREATY. 23 prove of that war. It occurred before my timej but, as far as I have obtained iuformation on the subject, I think that those who joined Lord Ashburton in opposing that war acted a wise and patriotic part. But I conceive that when a person receives the Queen's command to go forth as her representative, he is in that capacity the organ of the Government, and he is not entitled to ask the favom' and confidence of the power to which he is accredited on the ground that his opinion is opposed to the line of conduct which has been pursued by his Government and by his Sovereign, that conduct having been sanctioned and sup- ported by the voice of the Houses of Lords and Commons. Can any hon. gentleman furnish me with a diplomatic precedent for such conduct ? I remember none, although I confess my own diplomatic studies have not been so extensive as I could wish. I do remember, however, the negotiations of 1806, and if Mr. Fox had chosen to do so, he might then have made a merit with the French Government of his constant and determined oppo- sition to the war vrith France. He might have said in his letter to Talleyrand, " I have been the firm opponent of war. When everyone was clamouring for war against France, and when the Opposition dwindled down to thirty or forty members, I cried ' Peace, peace, peace !' '' But Mr. Fox — the greatest diplomatist. Lord GrenvOle said, who ever lived — knew too well what per- tained to his duty as a public man, and never by one word did he repudiate or disclaim any act of his predecessors, or make any distinction between himself and Mr. Pitt. In this corre- spondence, however. Lord Ashbm'ton expresses his strong disap- proval of the last war. I will take one document of some im- portance ; and I shall be surprised if I do not satisfy the House that a stain has been inflicted on the character of this country such as it will be very difficult to parallel in the whole history of diplomacy. With respect to the Madawaska settlement, Lord Ashburton says — The history and circumstances of this settlement ave well known to you. It was originally formed from the French establishments in Acadie, and has been uninterruptedly under French or British dominion, and never under any other laws. The inhabitants have professed great apprehensions of being surrendered by Great Britain, and have lately ^4 THK ASHBURTON TREATY. sent an earnest petition to the Queen deprecating that being done. Further, this settlement forms one united community, all connected together, and living some on one and some on the other side of the river, which forms a sort of high road between them. It seems self-evident that no more inconvenient line of boundary could well be drawn than one which divides in two an existing municipality — ^inconvenient as well to the in- habitants themselTCB as to the authorities under which they are to live. There would be evident hardship, I might say cruelty, in separating this now happy and contented village. Now, I will put it to the House, can any obligation be stronger than that which lies on a Sovereign to keep imder his govern- ment — except where he is bound by justice, or compelled by over- powering force, to cede a territory — all those subjects who are attached to his sway ? The cession of a territory, the inhabitants of which implore you to retain them under your government, is the very last calamity which conquest brings on a nation. The answer returned to this communication by the United States Government is in a very different tone. Indeed, the whole tone of the correspondence on the part of the United States is firm, resolute, vigilant, and unyielding ; but I must do them the justice to say that, except in this single instance, there is no case in which offence can be justly taken. In this case I cannot acquit the Secretary of the United States of having offered something in the nature of a serious afiront — I hope it was not intentional — to the English Government. The Secretary of the United States informs Lord Ashburton, in his reply to the noble lord's letter, that he Porbears from going into the consideration of the mass'of other arguments and proofs, for the same reasons which restrain your lordship from entering into an extended dis- cussion of the question, as well as because your lordship will have an opportunity of perusing a paper addressed to me by the commissioners of Maine, which strongly presents the subject on other grounds, and in other lights. I think that, under the circumstances, I am entitled to say that Mr. Webster adopts the opinions expressed by the Maine commissioners. He says distinctly that he will not enter into the arguments urged by Lord Ashburton, because he sends him a paper drawn up by the commissioners of Maine, which presents the question in a strong point of view. Now, see in what manner the IMaine commissioners address themselves to Lord Ashburton's THU ASHUUllTO.X TK.EATY. ,io argument about the feeling of the people of Madawaska. They pronounce an invective on the tyranny which they allege Eng- land has exercised towards that very people. They say — The hard lot and sufferings of these people and of their fathers give them a claim to our sympathies. The atrocious cruelties practised upon then' ancestors are matters of history. The appalling details of them are among their traditions. The fathers and mothers have taught them to their children. When, fleeing from their oppressors in 1785, they settled down in the -wilderness of Madawaska, they believed and understood themselves to be within the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, a people of whom ^France had been the friend and ally in the war which had just terminated in their independence, and who was still the friend and ally of France in peace. Their history since that period has lost little of its interest. Too few in number, too weak in resources, too remote to expect or receive aid, they submitted to whatever master assumed authority over them. With a knowledge of their history, and the wrongs they and their ancestors have suffered, it will be difficult for the people of Maine to bring themselves into the belief that these people are opposed to living under the mild and gentle sway of our free institutions. It will be equally difficult for the people of Maine to satisfy themselves that it is only from a lively and disinterested sympathy for these poor Frenchmen that the Government of Great Britain is so soHcitous to retain possession of the south bank of the St. John, extending from the due north line more than fifty miles up to Fish Kiver. This is the paper transmitted by Mr. Webster to Lord Ash- burton, in answer to his lordship's earnest appeal in behalf of the people of Madawaska ! It avers distinctly that the British Government had alienated the 'people of Madawaska by its cruel conduct towards them, and insinuates broadly that Lord Ash- burton's declared sympathy for them was nothing but hypocrisy. I venture to say that, if any such paper had been addressed by Lord Ashburton to Mr. Webster, a sharp reply would instantly have been returned to it. Anyone who looks at the whole of this correspondence, cannot fail to observe a marked contrast between the tone of the representatives of the two Governments. What was Lord Ashbm-ton's reply to the passage which I have read ? Nothing bat an expression of profound respect for the gentlemen of Maine. His lordship says, in his next letter to Mr. Webster — If the observations contained in my note of the 13th ultimo have given rise to these consequences, I much regret it ; and I would now pass over aB these more than useless discussions, and proceed at once to notice the proposals you make, if I were not appre- hensive that my so doing might be construed into some want of respect for the parties from whom these observations have proceeded. 26 THE ASHBURTON TREATY. Then comes an observation respecting the people of Mada- waska — It is sufficiently explained in my plan for a settlement, why I was anxious not to divide, in two parts, by our new line of boundary, the Madawaska settlements ; and I am sorry to say that the information I have since received, both as to local circumstances and the anxiety of the people themselves, tends strongly to confirm my impressions. That is to say, as he had said at first, that it would be a cruel act, that it would be " an evident hardship" to separate these people — ^that he should consider such a separation, by placing them under separate laws and governments, " a most harsh pro- ceeding" — that it would be maldng aliens of a people who wished to remain under the protection of the British Crown ; but stUl — the noble lord in effect goes on to say — but still, as the commis- sioners of Maine say that it is hypocrisy in the British Grovern- ment to say that these people wish to remain under our protection, you may take them. That is what Lord Ashburton says. And then Lord Ashburton puts the matter on the ground of hu- manity, and says — I had hoped that the other equivalents which I had offered, combined with the sense entertained by the Grovernment of the United States of the pressing importance of the case on the ground of humanity, would have been suiBcient for the purpose I so anxiously desired; but perceiving from your note, as well as from personal conversation, that concession on this point is insisted upon, I might be disposed to consider whether my anxious desire to arrive at a friendly settlement would not justify me in yielding, however reluctantly, if the latter part of your proposals did not, if iinally persevered in, forbid all hope of any settlement whatever. This was the miserable result. After being insidted by the commissioners of [^Maine, and told that the English Government was guilty of nothing but hypocrisy in pretending to feel any anxiety for the people of Madawaska, Lord Ashburton quietly gives them up ! Now, if it was necessary to give these people up, was it necessary for the EngHsh Government to degrade itself by going to another Government, and asking to be permitted to retain sovereignty over them, on the ground of humanity ? Why should the Queen of England ask leave to retain control over her subjects on the ground of humanity ? I can conceive only two grounds on which her Majesty's Government could be justified in resorting to the plea of humanity. If the United THE ASHBUETON TREATY. 27 States had a clear right to the territory, we might with propriety have begged them to forego their claim on the score of humanity. Again, we might have had recourse to the same plea if we had suf- fered some terrible reverse in war, as we know that after the battle of Jena the Queen of Prussia almost went down on her knees iu order to obtain, the single town of Magdeburgh ; but, I ask, was there anything in the relations subsisting between England and the United States to make it imperative on us to say, " We have a right to these people ; they are clinging to us for protection ; we wish to retain them under our Sovereign's government ; pray, for the sake of humanity, let us do so." If the thing was to be done, if the Government had, after all, made up its mind to sacrifice them, why exhibit itself before all the world in the degrading position of a supplicant to the United States on the score of humanity ? Most part of these negotiations were carried on generally at conferences and discussions ; very little of it was conducted by means of writing. One of the most important articles in the treaty is the 8th, which appears to have been negotiated without a single line of correspondence having passed between Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster. Now, if it was necessary that this country should submit to the disgrace which I maintain is involved in the Madawaska transaction, why was not that also decided by oral negotiation ? Why was our humiliation paraded before all the world in this correspondence ? Far be it from me to recommend anything bike a contumelious policy towards other nations — far be it from me to advocate the adoption of a bullying policy; but I do say that the self-respect which exacts from nations with whom we are treating courteous conduct, is essen- tial to the independence and security of a nation. There is a distinction between bravado and the adoption of a high tone becoming the position and character of a great nation. I have said that the correspondence on the table exhibits a marked difference in the tone of the negotiation of Great Britain and the United States. Mr. Webster writes on this subject — Your lordship's observations upon the propriety of preserving the unity of the Madawaska settlement are in a great measure just, and altogether founded, I doubt not. 28 THE ASHKUETON tllKATV. ill entirely good motives. Tliey savour of liumanity and a kind regard to the interests and feelings of individuals. But the difficulties seem insuperable. Well, then, can any human being say that our honour was not concerned in preserving to the British Crown this territory of Madawaska, the settlers upon it being anxiously desirous to remain under our sway ? Observe, too, the tone in which Mr. Webster receives even the mildest and gentlest remonstrance on the part of Lord Ashburton. Lord Ashburton had ventured to express a doubt in the correspondence relative to the CaroHne, whether, in a particular instance, the American Government would possess sufficient control over its subjects in their conduct towards other States ; a very natural doubt, considering what has happened in late years. Mr. Webster, however, did not suffer the observation to pass for a moment without replying to it, and he declared — It is for the Congress of the United States, whose attention has been called to the subject, to say what further provisions ought to made to expedite proceedings in such cases ; and in answer to your lordship's questions, towards the close of your note, I have to say that the Government of the United States holds itself, not only fully disposed, but fully competent to carry into practice every principle which it avows or acknow- ledges, and to fulfil every duty and obligation which it owes to foreign Governments, their citizens, or subjects. I ask anyone to compare the letters of Lord Ashburton and of Mr. Webster from the beginning to the end of the correspon- dence, and to declare whether an entirely different spirit does not pervade every sentence of them. I think, therefore, that I have made out some ground, at least, on which to support the first point which I proposed to estabhsh, and that there is grave reason to doubt whether the dignity of the country has not been grievously compromised in this negotiation. The negotiation, I must observe, far from settling all the points in dispute between the two countries, has placed some of them in a worse position than that in which they previously stood. At this late hour I will confine myself to only one of these points. I undertake to prove that, with respect to that most important point of dispute between the two nations, the right of \dsit, the Treaty of Washington has placed us on a worse footing than we stood on before. The right of visit has, it is well known, excited a strong feeling in the THli ASHBURTON TREATY. 29 United States^ and the right hon. bai-onet opposite has declared that the British Government will not abandon it. Now I wish to understand from the gentlemen opposite what construction they put upon the words of the eighth article of the treaty. It runs thus : — The parties mutually stipulate that each shall prepare, equip, and maintain in service on the coast of Africa a suiEcient and adequate squadron, or naval force of vessels, of suitable numbers and descriptions, to carry in all not less than eighty guns, to enforce, separately and respectively, the laws, rights, and obligations of each of the two countries for the suppression of the slave-trade ; the said squadrons to be independent of each other, but the two Governments stipulating, nevertheless, to give such orders to the officers commanding their respective forces, as shall enable them most eifectually to act in concert and co-operation, upon mutual consultation, as exigencies may arise, for the attainment of the true object of this article ; copies of all such articles to be communi- cated by each Government to the other respectively. Does that article mean that we have ceded the right of visit or not? The right hon. baronet has told us distinctly that it does not ; but in what sense is that article received in the United States? The right hon. baronet, if I understood him aright, took some exception to the reference which has been made to the conduct of the American Senate with reference to this question, and said that the President was the only executive organ. I contend that the Senate is a portion of the executive power. Gentlemen m^ust be aware that, by the constitution of the United States, the consent of the Senate is as necessary to make a treaty binding on America as the ratification of the Sovereign in this country. Now I hold in my hand the report of a speech delivered by Mr. Rives, the senator for Virguiia, and chairman of the committee of foreign relations to which the Treaty of Washington was referred, and upon the report of which it was ratified, Mr. Rives, in referring to the eighth article, said that, under that, each power is to act separately and independently of the other, and neither power would be at liberty to visit the vessels of the other. I say that the eighth article is, in fact, so much waste-paper ; for it has been received in one sense in America and in another in London. Her Majesty has ratified the treaty in the sense that it does not abandon the right of visit, and the American President has ratified it in the sense that it does. Did anyone 30 THE ASHBURTON TREATY. ever hear of such a mode of setthng long-disputed questions between two countries, and laying the foundation of long-con- tiaued amity ? It would be bad enough if the matter were to stop here for the present, and we should hear nothing of the results for four or five years ; but the very hand which has sown the seeds of dissension has also provided for their immediate fructification. It is provided that each country shall send a squadron, to enforce separately and respectively the laws, rights, and obUgations of each ; and it is intended these squadrons are to act with a view to obtain the same end. How ? Why, by one having instructions to enforce the right of search, and by the other having instructions to resist it ! Was there ever such a device for bringing two nations into collision? Here are two squadrons, commanded by high-spirited ofiicers, and manned by gallant crews, the one being instructed to do that which the other is told to consider an outrage on their flag. No device could have been more elaborately and ingeniously contrived to destroy the chance of maintaining pacific relations between the two countries. It is a cmious circumstance that this article, so important in itself, and so strangely framed, is one respecting which not a single line of explanation is to be found in the correspondence — everything respecting it would seem to have passed in conversa- tion. Which of the two suppositions am I to adopt ? Am I to suppose that Lord Ashburton, not intending to abandon the right of visit, yet in conversation with Mr. Webster inadvertently let fall some expressions which induced that gentleman to believe that he did abandon it ? [Sir R. Peel : " No."] I accept the right hon. baronet's denial ; but then, look at the other horn of the dilemma. How came it into the head of Mr. Webster, within a week of the signature of the treaty, to inform the Committee of Foreign Affairs of the Senate that We had given up the right of visit ? And how came it into the head of the American President to make the same declaration? I am un- willing to attribute this apparent misapprehension to intention or misrepresentation on the part of the American authorities. Perhaps it is better to suppose that Lord Ashburton, in his con- ference with Mr. Webster, allowed his speech to get the better THE ASHBURTON TREATY. 31 of him. I have sometimes observed that that able and ingenious man, when on the floor of this House, allowed his speech to get the mastery of him, and so has given utterance to words which he had not well weighed before, nor could accurately remember after. To suppose that the Government of the United States should, before the ink of the treaty was yet dry, have committed an act of state craft such as its conduct, if insincere, would be, is to imagine a proceeding which could not be accurately described in very mild terms. However, the first proof we have of the amicable effects of the Treaty of Washington is, that on the first day of the session, the Prime Minister of England is obliged to rise in the House of Commons and contradict what the Ameri- can President had stated about the eighth article ! This is not a symptom betokening the existence of that state of amity which we have been brought to expect would be the result of the treaty. I cannot help referring to another point, I allude to the BiU introduced into the Senate respecting the Oregon territory. That such a BUI should have been carried by a majority is sufii- ciently indicative of the state of feeling in America towards this country. It should be borne in mind that the Senate is not dependent for its existence on the popular will ; it is elected, not by a democratic body, and endures for sis years. It is a body which comprises amongst its members a large proportion of the men of the greatest weight and most distinguished for their ability in the United States. When such a Bill as that about the Oregon territory can find supporters in such an assembly, it shows the state of pubhc feehng which has sprung up in America from the Washington Treaty. One other matter connected with this view of the question I may refer to. It was, it must be admitted, sufficiently ungracious conduct on the part of the American Minister at Paris, General Cass, to interfere to prevent ¥rance from joining in the treaty of the five powers on the subject of the right of search. But was it necessary that, in the very first speech which the American President made after the signing of the Treaty of Washington, he should take credit for having, in that respect, irustrated the policy of England ? This is another proof of the amity which has sprung up from the 32 THE ASHBURTON TRKATV. Treaty of Washington. Look, again, at tlie language used in the Senate — not only the language of those who entertained strong feelings against England, but of Mr. Calhoun, who was always supposed to be favourable to this country. What did he say, when speaking on the right of visit ? He said, that if England put any other interpretation on the treaty than that in wliich it was construed in America, she must " do it at her peril." Does this look like a pacific result '? The right hon. baronet tells us that he has not abandoned one particle of his position, and he will not, of coiirse, now disgrace the country by receding. The noble lord had spent eight or nine months in arranging a treaty which is to secure peace and friend- ship, and what is the result ? Are not the symptoms of pug- nacity still greater than they were before ? And is not this the natural result of the com'se which has been pm^sued? What other effect could be hoped for ? How can any nation respect a Government which has ceased to respect itself? I said before, and I now repeat, that, instead of procuring for us the blessings and ad'^'antages of peace, the course pursued has every tendency to plunge us speedily into a war with America ; and it is because of the strong sense which I entertain of the advantages of peace, and because I feel that the policy indicated in the papers before the House is not calculated to insure peace, that I now express those sentiments. It vnll not do for this countiy at one moment to take certain steps in the cause of humanity, and shortly after to retrace them when resisted by other nations. The moment we abdicate any one object because of the resistance of another power, England loses the high place which she holds amongst the nations, and then every other power will be increasing in its demands for fresh exactions. What do we see daily in the French papers? They have taken the tone from this circumstance, and are constantly re- ferring to the example of America as one to be followed. They say, only let M. Guizot bully the English as the American President has done, and France would soon triumph over the arrogant pretensions of the haughty islanders. Everything in the country conspires to make it an object of general envy with THE ASHBUUTON TREATY. 33 other nations. Its great power, its immense wealth, its extensive empire, its flag floating in every sea, all contribute to that effect. It is easy to talk of the treaty of July, and to attribute the feeHng of hostility to that, but it is well known, everybody knows, that even the powers who are parties to that treaty entertain a feeling of envy towards this country. Under these circum- stances, I am satisfied that if you suffer yourselves to be treated with anything like contempt by other nations — if you allow any doubt to arise as to the spirit with which you are prepared to maintain the interests of this country in your deahngs with the other powers of the world — if you allow it once to be thought that the higher the ground taken by others the lower will be yom* tone, and the more submissive you wiU become — ^if you allow these impressions to go abroad, founded upon your public intercourse with any one nation, then I am satisfied, I say, that you win soon have to contend with more than one enemy for your place among the nations of the world. I do not say that these are maxims which can be used by every Government. I do not say that there may not be some petty principality or some insignificant republic to which they would not apply — ^that there may not be some Duke of Lucca or some republic of Geneva that might not find it safe to adopt them ; but I say that that is not the state of our country; that she has been too great ever to find her safety in humble littleness. If she cannot find safety in her firmness and her dignity, England can never find it in subserviency and shame. These are my charges against this treaty. Allowing, in the first instance, that the boundary-line is not the only direct source of censure, I say that the negotiation generally has been con- ducted in such a manner as to lower the character of this country. And, secondly, I say that the negotiation has been so conducted, and the treaty has been so framed, that it has left one of the most serious causes of irritation more inflamed than before. I say that one article of the treaty has been ratified in one sense at Washington, and in another sense in London. I say that you are both sending your squadrons to meet each other under cir- cumstances in which they can be scarcely friendly. I see no VOL. II. D 34 THE ASHBUBTON TREATY. symptoms leading me to believe that the effect of all your humiliation has been to obtain any kind feeling, any esteem, any respect from the United States. On the contrary, as far as I can judge the disposition on the part of pubhc men in the United States, I think they seem to beheve that that power has nothing to do but to take a very high and resolute tone in order to obtain whatever it may wish. I thinlc, too, I can see in the feeling of the other powers of the world towards you the effect of what you have done with the United States. I think I can see on their part a belief that they advantageously profit by adopting the example set them by the United States. And I conceive, there- fore, that this policy of yours, though professedly pacific — and which, as' far as your intentions and those of Lord Ashburton went, was so — is more likely than any other policy ever adopted by any Government of this country to bring on, before long, some most fearful and devastating war. THE STATE OP IRELAND, July 7, 1843. On Mr. Smith O'Brien's Motion for a Committee of the House to consider the Causes of Discontent prevailing in Ireland, and to provide a Redress of Grievances. Me. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Shaw) who has just sat down commenced his speech in language presenting, I thiak, a somewhat singular contrast to its close. He began by- saying that he conceived it a sufficient reason for voting against the motion that he should otherwise imply a want of confidence in the Ministers ; and he closed his speech by declaring, in language not to be misunderstood, his own want of confidence in them. And, in truth, I have seldom heard a Government less efficiently defended in debate (I speak of this evening), for every gentleman who has addressed himself to the question before us, whether on the right or the left, sir, seems to me to have directed his attack — ^though not always has it been upon the same ground — against the pohcy pursued by the present Administration. I say every gentleman who has addressed himself to the question, for the speech of the hon. member for Belfast was merely a speech against the Repeal of the Union. The noble lord, sir?, the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Ehot), used an expression much resembling that with which the right hon. gentleman the member for Dublin Uni- versity commenced his speech. He said, this motion must be con- sidered as a motion of censure on the Government. I confess that on some grounds it must be so considered. I do not think it the only object — that of throwing censure on the present advisers of the Crown ; but although it is not the principal object of those who support the motion, I cannot consider it as a reason against our supporting it, that it does by imphcation throw a censure on her Majesty's present advisers. For I am come, sir. 36 THE STATE OF IRELAND. to this deliberate opinion, that to their conduct in opposition, and to their conduct since they came into office, we do really owe in a great measure the difficulties with which we have now to contend ; and it is also my opinion that, since those difficulties arose, they have not shown any disposition to meet them with wisdom and with justice ; and finally, that, so far as I can judge, from the declarations they have made respecting the policy that was expected from them, we have to anticipate calamities even worse than those which they have already encountered. I am justified, sir, in saying that the present state of things, which so justly alarms all men of all parties, is to a great extent, to be attributed to the part they pursued before and since they gained the reins of power. Sir, it is impossible for us not to remember that two years ago the repeal agitation did not exist ; that from 1835 to 1841 the agitation for repeal did not exist in any formidable form ; that, during the whole administration of Lord Normanby and of Lord Fortescue, Ireland was in a situation in which I firmly believe the present Ministry would gladly see it again ; that, whatever expressions may have been used by Mr. O'Connell — a very able speaker certainly, but not the most con- sistent speaker, not a speaker from whom the expressions that drop one month can be deemed any indication of what he may utter the next — whatever, I say, the expressions made use of by Mr. O'Connell in addressing large crowds, the fact undoubtedly is, that in the years during which Lords Normanby and Fortescue administered the government of Ireland, that country presented a most marked contrast to its present position ; nay, more, I have upon this subject the distinct admission of the right hon. baronet at the head of the Grovernment himself, that there is something in his position, and in the character of the party of which he is the head, which places his government in Ireland under peculiar difficulties. We cannot have forgotten that in 1839 the right hon. baronet declared that the difficulty which he felt principally stood in his way, when at that time called to power, was Ireland. It was not the colonies — it was not the foreign aflairs — it was not the finances — no ! But, said the right hon. baronet, " I will be frank. I wiU not attempt to disguise that the main difficulty of my position is Ireland." THE STATE OP IRELAND. 37 The right hon. baronet judged rightly. Undoubtedly it was soj and it is so. And why was it so ? and why is it so ? The right hon. baronet felt it then; he has still stronger reason to feel it now. What was it ? Was it not because in that party of which the right hon. baronet is the head was to be found every person who had made himself justly obnoxious to the people of Ireland ? Was it not because in that party every man was to be fovmd who had always been — as far back as memory could go — on the side of the few against the many ? Was it not that in that party every man was to be found whose peculiar dehght had been in the contemplation of such parts of Irish history as showed the traces of severity — perhaps severity that could not be contemplated without pain^ and that spoke of victories that should have been foUowed by no triumph ? Was there not to be found in that party every man whose favourite toast and tune was something odious to the great body of the Irish people ? Was there not to be found in that party every man who had been obstinately opposed to Catholic emancipation ? or who had been amongst the last liugering yielders of slow, reluctant, ungenerous concession ? When at last public danger rendered it impossible to hold out any longer, was there not to be found in that party every man who did his utmost, when emancipation had been yielded, to prevent its being carried into effect? everybody who cried out against the first appointment of an Irish Catholic Privy Councillor? everybody who exclaimed against the appointment of a Catholic Secretary to the Admiralty or a Lord of the Treasury? Was there not to be found in that party every creature who let loose his virulent tongue to call the Irish Catholic preachers "priests of Baal," every scribbler who termed them " surpHced ruffians ?" Was there, in fact, a single one of those whose efforts had long been directed to rousing up against himself and his party the aversion of the Irish people, who was not to be found among those who followed the right hon. baronet and raised him to power ? And the right hon. baronet must have known the feehngs of the people of Ireland. He must have known that, however cautious, careful, and correct his own language and proceedings may have been, he stood at the head of a party which had long 38 THE STATE OF IRELAND. wantonly outraged the feelings of the Irish people, and must be obnoxious to them. Well, sir, such was the position of the right hon. baronet in 1839. Circumstances occm'red which kept him from power for two years longer, yet many signs and symptoms seemed clearly to show that he, and the party of which he is the head — as his abilities unquestionably entitle him to be — would probably, at no distant day, occupy their present position ; and I should have conceived that any wise men and any patriotic men— nor is the right hon. baronet destitute of wisdom or pa- triotism — I should have thought that, under such circumstances, any wise men, and any prudent men, and any patriotic men, having a strong sense of the diificulties that lay in the way of their administration of affairs in Ireland, through the hostile feelings that had been roused against them by their friends, would have employed the remainder of their time on this side of the House, and have done their best to conciliate the attachment of the Irish people. Instead of that, the noble lord the member for North Lancashire (Lord Stanley), who then acted with the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) now a member of the Cabi- net, in the next year introduced his Bill for disfranchising the Irish people, under pretence of registering their votes ! It is hardly necessary for me, sir, to say anything of that BiU., after what has been done with it by its authors themselves ; but, at the same time, it is impossible not to look upon the history of that year and the following one, as to the position of the party now in power respecting Ireland, and, above aU, comparing it with their professions, their declarations, and their protestations. 'The noble lord asked the Government if they mean to bring in a measure to correct the evils of the registration system in Ireland? He declared the evil pressing— the morality of Ireland endan- gered ! Are you not, the noble lord impatiently said, prepared to avert the danger — ^to meet the evil ? The answer of the Go- vernment was, that they were not at present prepared to bring in any such measure ; then, I said, the noble lord will bring in a Bill. The Bill was brought in, but it was no sooner examined than it was condemned by almost every member for an Irish constituency. All, with one voice, declared it to be, though THE STATE 01' IRELAND. 39 called a measure of registration, a measure of disfranchisement'. Unjust and odious as it was, however, oflfendve as it was to the pride and keen sense of wrong of the Irish people, the Bill was pressed forward night after night. I never saw or heard debates carried on in so vehement and contentious a spirit. I have never known a minority (it became soon a majority) so well trained and disciplined. My hon. friend the member for Halifax (Mr. C. Wood) tried to throw an impediment in their way. He said, " Do not legislate for the Irish voters till you have legislated for the Enghsh." He made a motion to that effect. " No," said the noble lord (Lord Stanley), " the cases are not parallel. There are no evils of this kind in England, they are not to be met with except in Ireland. There they are so rank that they must be put down; delay would be too dangerous; you cannot, must not wait for English legislation. Public morality is endangered • — perjury is the prevailing practice. This is not a mere question of details, of registration, or revising barristers ; a great State crisis is here — a great principle is at stake ;" and the noble lord forced on his measure. He overruled the motion of my hon. friend the member for Halifax. He was determined to carry it before the EngUsh measure on the subject was brought iu. The Bill, however, did not pass in that session, and in the ensuing session the noble lord came down again with his favourite measure. The Government interposed, and said they thought it . premature to legislate with respect to the registration of electors tiU they had defined the franchise. Again the noble lord said, " No ! it was not necessary to define the franchise ;" and again the noble lord pressed on his Disfranchisement BUI, as it was justly called. Well, the plan prospered ; the delusion— not the first of unfounded delusions — prevailed. The noble lord suc- ceeded; he and his party are in power; two years have elapsed, and this great moral evil is yet unabated ! We now hear nothing of " perjury," nothing about those enormous frauds of the people of Ireland which had long been polluting the Legislature ! We ask, "Where is the BiU?" We are told, "The Government desire first to settle the English franchise." We agree in the propriety of that ; but why was it not assented to by the party 40 THE STATE Or IRELAND. opposite when we proposed it? Then, again, we are now told, forsooth, that " when the measure is looked into, it is found to be a measure of disfranchisement." True. But were you not told so before ? Was it not proved to you over and over again, and that in the clearest manner ? We are now told that we are to have a Registration Bill, with a franchise defined, based upon the poor-rate. [Lord Stanley : "The franchise was not defined."] It was, at least, an alteration of the Reform Act. The right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) said he was pledged to WiUiam IV., or somebody else, not to alter the Reforrh Act; yet he voted in favour of a Bill ostensibly to regulate the registration of voters in Ireland, but which absolutely altered the Reform Act in its spirit and eificacy, and placed the franchise on an entirely new basis. The right hon. baronet and his friends now speak of the responsibility of office ; but has an Opposition no responsibilities? Have men who have ruined the country whilst sitting on this side of the House no responsibility when they go over to the other ? An Opposition, sir, has responsibilities ; and I should blush if I did not show, in my own conduct, that I am not un- mindful of them. But the noble lord, as soon as he finds the responsibility of government lie at his own door, will not ven- ture to do an act which, from its great unpoptilarity when he was in Opposition, he attempted with no other object than to obstruct the Government of the day. By all these and similar means, you [addressing the Ministers] were raised to power, and do you suppose there is to be no reckoning for such conduct? Happily, yes ! As political as well as private probity is the best policy, your time of retribution was to come, and, by th^ course you then took, a deep distrust was generated in the minds of the Irish people. I was surprised that it did not come sooner, for undoubtedly, from whatever cause it arose, there was a lull, and a doubt how you would act. A notion got abroad that some- thing great was to be expected fi'om the Administration ; but the very mode in which the right hon. baronet formed his Irish Ministry showed on what principles the government of that country was to be conducted, and upon those principles it has THE STATE OF IRELAND. 41 been conducted ever since. After the lectures he formerly read to us on the inconvenience of open questions and discordances in the Cabinet^ I own I was surprised at the formation of his Irish Administration. He told us over and over again formerly of the evils resulting from joining in the same Government individuals whose opinions were decidedly hostile ; but what did he do when he came to form his Irish Ministry ? With regard to a secre- tary, I am bound to say that he made the very best choice in his power ; but one thing made me wonder^ and that was the manner in which the right hon. baronet dwelt upon the excellence of that appointment^ for he made it appear the peculiar and emi- nent fitness of the noble lord (Lord Eliot) arose out of the votes he had given against the right hon. baronet. This was rather a curious ground for a Prime Minister to take when pronouncing a panegyric ; but then^ in direct defiance of his own doctrines^ the right hon. baronet pairs with the noble lord a gentleman of whom I desire to speak with all respectj and who privately deserves to be so spoken of^ who certainly was taken from the other extremity of the party. It was impossible^ perhaps, to find two men whose views with regard to Ireland were so diametri- cally opposite as those of the noble lord and Mr. Serjeant Jack- son. The very first debate upon education exhibited the very best parliamentary set-to between the Secretary for Ireland and the SoHcitor- General for Ireland that was perhaps ever witnessed. We had the whole of that side of the House vehemently cheering the Sohcitor-Generalj while the unfortunate Secretary was obliged to content himself with the approbation of this. In fact, no more direct and obvious opposition could have been esta- blished than that which existed between the two managers of different departments of the Irish Government. And this has been from first to last the whole system ; but I will do what justice I can to the right hon. baronet and his colleagues, and I will say for them that I believe they have governed Ireland as well as they could for very shame. They had no choice but either to act with the most glaring inconsis- tency, or to govern Ireland ill; they have boldly faced the charge of inconsistency. The recantation on the subject of the 43 THK STATE Olf IRELAND. Eegistration Bill must have been bitter indeed to the noble Secretary for the Colonies; but the system was to be carried throughj and the recantation must be made. The same system has pervaded your whole pohcy. You take up a certain plan of national Irish education : yom' Solicitor- General attacks it with the greatest virulence- — you make him a judge ; you place on the Episcopal bench a prelate known to be opposed to it. You talk of impartiality in the distribution of appointments, and yet you place in the very highest offices persons, however respectable, who must be regarded by the people of Ireland with the utmost enmity and distrust. What is the natural effect? Your friends are cooled — your enemies are not conciliated. You may learn this fact from the whole Orange press, if you ynR not take the word of your supporters ; and in a very short time the spirit of hostility has grown up to a height never before equalled in Ireland. At this moment the language of every man of every party is, that we have arrived at a most formidable and alarming crisis ; on one hand you are reproached for not conceding with alacrity, and on the other for not coercing with vigour. Out of your own cu'cle, not a man in the country, in Parliament or out of Parliament, speaks of your Irish Administration with the slightest confidence. Nobody supposes that this repeal agitation can go on from year to year without some decided measm-e ; and what has been the distinct intimation from the highest authority — from the Home Secretary, who is, in fact, the Chief Minister for Ireland, when the Secretary for Ireland is not in the Cabinet ? He has declared that concession has been carried to the utmost. True it is, that an hon. member this night has endeavoured, in some manner, to explain away those words ; but even he coidd not have explained or defended what followed — I do not mean to lay any stress upon expressions which the right hon. gentleman (Sir J. Graham) himself explained: I merely speak of that which he avowed in the clearest manner — which he did not attempt to retract ; he told us almost in as many words, that he repented all he had done towards Catholic emancipation ; he had supported it, he said, in consequence of hopes which had THE STATE 01' IRELAND. 43 not been realised; wliile the prophecies of the right hon. member for Tamworth in 1817 had been too completely verified. He recanted all his opinions on this subject in words as clear as any he could employ; the best part of his political life has been wasted upon an object he regrets to have attained, and all he has now to do is for the rest of his time to Uve and repent. - We must, therefore, understand from the G-overnment that con- ciliatory pohcy is at an end ; concession has been carried to the utmost; and the right hon. gentleman is sincerely sorry that even Catholic emancipation was granted. I do not mean to state that he said anything to show that he would support the repeal of the Emancipation Act, but if words have a meaning, his words clearly showed that he repented it had ever been passed. In my opinion, some of the discontent in Ireland arises from causes which legislation cannot correct ; but it seems to me that the present extreme violence of that feehng has been produced by the misconduct of the party ia power, both at the time they came into ofiice and afterwards. Their difficulties being so great. Ministers appear to have made up their minds to this, and this only : that all their actions shall be on the side of coercion and severity, and that they will do nothing in the way of kind- ness and conciliation. On the subject of the Arms Bill I have no extravagant feeling. Although I have voted for an Arms Bill in Ireland, yet, as a general rule, I believe it to be a most inef&cient measure. I say this, not from an observation of Ire- land alone, but from conversing with men of great experience in other parts of the world. Men of great military and poHtical abilities in India have universally told me that disarming orders invariably produced this effect: that they took away arms from the weU-affected, and left arms in the hands of the dan- gerous. At aU events, you cannot deny that you have introduced into your Arms BiU irritating clauses which can have no value in enforcing its provisions. Then look at your executive measure — your dismissal of magistrates. You could not dismiss them for reasons which I, for one, should not have censured, but you must dismiss them on the most unconstitutional grounds you could discover. You 44 THE STATE OF IRELAND. could not dismiss them without even violating the privileges of this House. You have a Chancellor talking about speeches in this House, with no official declarations, and, in fact, amount- ing to this — that whenever a Minister of the Crown declares against a measure every man must be turned out of the com- mission who opposes it. I know that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland cannot seriously maintain such a proposition ; but what can we think of a Government, which ought to be the most cautious of any, adopting the acts of that learned lord — acts of the most grave nature? — for the turning of a magistrate out of the commission of the peace is one of the strongest measures, and one in which the strictest adherence to form is absolutely necessary. A wise Grovernment would not have coupled itself to any measure, adopted by any of its officers, however high in station, if the recognition of his acts involved a breach of the privileges of the House. No wise Government, sir, would have adopted such acts, which must have been done in haste, because it is only telling every magistrate in England that he must not give expression to any opinion hostile to any Act of Parliament which the Government of the day stated in their place in Parliament must be maintained inviolate. Sir, it may be thought that I dwell too much upon these two solitary acts, but I must he permitted to remind the House, these are the only two acts which you have opposed to the agitation, which Mr. O'ConneU did not overstate when he said all Europe, as well as America, was looking to it with deep interest. It is on that point, among others, that I differ from Government. I do not think that concession has been exhausted — I do not think that we have arrived at the end of our resources pro- ceeding on a conciliatory policy. As to the repeal of the Union, no man has expressed, or can express, feelings so strong that I would not concur in them. I am persuaded that it is utterly impossible to have two equal and independent legis- latures under the_ same Sovereign. If there are any appear- ances in history to the contrary, they are delusive. Down to 1782, the English Parhament legislated for Ireland j and sub- sequently to that period, Ireland was governed first by cor- THE STATE OF IRELAND. 45 ruptioiij and afterwards by the sword. I do not believe tbat the hon. mover was borne out when he reprehended the right hon. baronet for saying that he would prefer war to a dissolu- tion of the Union. The question is not between dissolution on the one hand and war on the other^ for in my opinion war must inevitably foUow dissolution. I have already said that legislation can afford no relief to some of the evils of Ireland. One of these is absenteeism ; and as to fixity of tenure I would rather be a learner than a teacher. Some of the projected measures of redress would be useless, and others would be mere confiscation; and to confiscation I would never give my consent. Nevertheless, I am not pre- pared to say, certainly not after the debate of to-night, that much may not be done in the way of legislation to improve the relations between landlord and tenant; but there are legis- lative and admiaistrative reforms perfectly in your power. It is possible for you to correct the manner in which pubUc patronage is bestowed. I do not say that I would give parlia- mentary offices to members who were opposed to the Govern- ment, but you stand in Ireland iu this position, that you would find it difficult to promote persons who have been your hearty and zealous friends, and who would not be regarded with dislike and distrust by the Irish people. For what you have hitherto done amiss you must now suffer penance, and the penance is the bestowal of your patronage upon men who have not been your general supporters. In my opinion that is a very light penance too, when we look at such cases as those of Mr. Lefi-oy and Mr. Serjeant Jackson, who were rewarded for what they did in your service. The refusal to bestow patronage without regard to mere political claims may be a good reason why you should retire from of6.ce, but it can be no reason why Ireland should be mis-governed. You say that you mean to settle the elective franchise on a new basis, and next year you must come down vnth a new Bill to inform us who are and who are not to be electors ; in that measure you may adopt a conciliatory course without the slightest hazard to the public peace. Let us consider our situation: we are 46 THE STATE 01? IRELAND. beyond all teaching, if the experience of the last few weeks has not taught us that a formidable Irish leader is much more formidable out of the House than in it. The measure of registration is studiously kept back from an uneasy feeling : if it turn out to be like your former measure of this kind, it cannot but excite the strongest opposition, and the most angry feelings ; but we cannot expect from you a truly fair and liberal measure, siace it would expose a vast system of delusion. Yet why should you hesitate ? You have already commenced your course of humiliation; you have already drunk of the cup, and the best thing you can now do is to drain it to the dregs : if it be bitter, remember you mixed it for yourselves. One subject I must speak of — ^the situation of the two Churches with relation to each other. Without any advice from the right hon. member (Mr. Shaw) I should carefolly have abstained from aspersions upon the characters of individuals, and from expres- sions as to the institutions which might be considered abusive or scurrilous; but let any gentleman take any of the celebrated defences of the Estat^lishment, whether by its greatest, ablest, and most uncompromising advocates, Warburton or Paley, or by names of smaller note, and if he can make out anything like a case in favour of the present Protestant EstabUshment in Ireland, I wUl at once give up the question. Is it not the plain and great object of a Church to instruct the main body of the people? Is it not its first duty peculiarly and emphatically to instruct the poor ? If any person attacked the Church Establishments of England or of Scotland, wordd not its vindication at once be rested upon the point which above all others contrasts it with the Church Establishment of Ireland ? Is not the whole evil of the voluntary system to be found in the present state of rehgion in Ireland? Does not Hume tell us', in a passage quoted on a former evening by the hon. member for Bath, that it is of the highest importance to the State to connect the State with the priesthood, who teach the great mass of the people, which priesthood might otherwise exercise an influence dangerous to the civil power? Can anybody deny that the evil of a want of connexion exists in the highest degree in Ire- THE STATE OF IRELAND. 47 land ? If, then, your Protestant ChTirch in Ireland possesses all the evils of the voluntary system, is it not something strange and startling to be told that it is an institution sacred and inviolable ? The arguments seem to resolve themselves into this : That six or seven millions of Roman Cathohes are compelled, in the year 1843, to acquiesce in the degradation of their own rehgion, and submit to the Protestant domination of one mUlLon. Let me, however, be distinctly understood. I do not say that it would be necessary, or even that it would be desirable, to subvert and utterly to destroy the Protestant Establishment in Ireland. I would preserve vested rights inviolably, but it is necessary that the Church should be reduced to a strict proportion to the wants of the Protestants. Everything it is now in the power of the Government to do should be done for the purpose of putting the two rehgions on a perfect equality in point of consideration and dignity. I believe that this would be foimd a most beneficial and useful reform, and we have in favour of it an instance the best that all history can supply. The right hon. member for Dublin University told us that if the Church and State were dissevered in Ireland, there would be an end of the Union ia two years ; but it is natural and proper that we should look at the other instance of a legislative union which presents itself at once to our eyes, and which is strictly analogous. When Scotland was united, there were circumstances which indicated that it would not be more permanent than the Irish Union ; it was effected after long, and violent, and bloody hostilities ; there was also a case of disputed succession, and the language in the Highlands was as different from our own as that prevalent in many parts of Ireland. Porty-thi-ee years have elapsed since the union with Ireland, and why, after forty-three years had elapsed since the imion with Scotland, was there not as much danger of its termination ? Why was there no agitation — ^no disturbances ? There were plenty of causes of dissatisfaction, and circumstances that seemed to favour a project for severance. There was Lord Bute's administration, Wilkes's election, violent political contests, much satire, bold invective, but no movement, no mobs in favour of disunion, nor the speech of a solitary agi- 48 THE STATE OP IRELAND. tator in favour of repeal. One of these unions has turned out the most happy and the most firmly established that was ever known among men; while in forty-three years after the union with Ireland we find mOlions of men throwing out the loudest and most violent aspersions upon that measure. Is it not, then, natural to look a little at the principles on which the two unions were established ? As far as regards representation, Ireland has the advantage, for Scotland was allowed a much smaller number of members; but when the union with Scot- land was effected, the great Whig statesmen, Somers, Halifax and others, succeeded in iaserting a clause containing a full recog- nition of the religion to which the people of Scotland were fondly and firmly attached. If the union with Ireland had contained a similar wise and just provision, it is nay belief that we should not have heard a murmur against it, and that it would have been as inviolably maintained as the union with Scotland. I am per- suaded that it is stiU in your power to repair to a great extent this great omission in the Irish Act of Union. Like the hon. member for Mallow, who so ably addressed the House this even- iag, I do not wish for the predominance of the Roman Catholic religion ; but I do wish to see the Protestant and Roman Catho- lic religions equal in dignity and in honom', and that to neither should any ascendancy be given. I believe that if this course had been taken at an earlier period, a great calamity might have been averted ; and I believe that by taking it still the evils by which we are surrounded may be avoided. I wish I could enter- tain any hope that the present Government is about to adopt such a salutary policy; but at all events it will be some satis- faction to me to mark by my vote, that although the discontent in Ireland is partly attributable to the delusions of demagogues, and partly to causes which legislation cannot correct, yet that it has been inflamed to its present height by a system of unjnst and injudicious government, and that by adopting a sound and wise policy it may yet be allayed. 49 EXTRADITION OP OFFENDERS. August 11, 1843. On the Order of the Day for the House going into Committee on the Apprehension of Offenders {America) Bill. He had hoped that his hon. and learned friend the Attorney- General (Sir F. Pollock) -would have given such an explanation as would have rendered it unnecessary for him to address the House on the question ; hut^ with great concern, he must declare thatj after listening to the observations of his hon. and learned friendj he felt more uneasiness respecting the Bill than he did when the discussion commenced. He could assure the right hon. baronet opposite that he had not the smallest intention of making any charge against the Government on this occasion. He was aware that a similar treaty was in contemplation when the late Ministry was in ofi&ce, and he gave the present Ministers ftdl credit for having intended nothing but to connect more closely the relations of amity between the two countries, and the promotion of justice. He, however, looked with some anxiety to some portions of the Bill, and he seriously entertained an opinion which would probably startle his own friends as much as the hon. gentlemen opposite, namely, that the best course the Government could take would be to drop the BiU, and cancel that part of the treaty to which it referred. He could not concur in the fiindamental principles which his hon. and learned friend had laid down on the subject of extradition — a word, by- the-bye, which seemed to be introduced into the English language, and which, therefore, he might be excused for employing. No doubt it was a great evil that murderers and robbers should escape punishment — it was an evil to the country from which they fled, as well as to that in which they sought refage ; but, nevertheless, he must be allowed to observe that, in another part of the world in which he had had an opportunity of hearing the VOL. II. E 50 EXTRADITION OF OFFENDERS. matter discussed, it was considered essential to a good scheme of extradition that there should be between the two contracting States a general assimilation of laws, manners, morals, and feel- ings, as would make it impossible that any conduct should be pursued by one State which would be grossly shocking and start- ling to the other. This had been the coui'se pursued in India " under successive Governments. Our Government in India never dehvered a fugitive criminal to a power which was likely to try him upon principles which, according to our views, were grossly unjust, nor to a power which was likely to inflict a punishment shocking and horrible to civilised men. Those were the princi- ples on which they acted in India. Suppose there was a country so barbarous and absurd as to punish ofifenders by the ordeal of red-hot ploughshares ; would it be proper to establish extradition with it? Should we give up offenders to be subjected to that punishment ? And, talcing his hon. and learned friend's illus- tration, if any nation were to be so utterly absurd as to enact that a bachelor should be broken on the wheel for an offence for which a married man would be merely fined, would his hon. and learned friend contend that we should have a treaty of extra- dition with that nation ? As regarded the treaty with Prance, he saw no objection to it; and if such a treaty as the one under consideration had been entered into with the Northern States of America, in which the reports of om: law courts were quoted, and the veiy details of our legal proceedings were adopted, it would have been productive of advantage. But in the Southern States the unfortunate re- lations between master and slave came into operation. He meant to give no opinion on the subject of slavery in the United States. He thought that it was in the highest degree improper for mem- bers of that House to pass censures on the institutions of foreign countries ; and, if he wanted a warning to deter him from that course, he should find it in the exhibitions which American orators had made when descanting on internal questions apper- taining to these islands. He alluded to the question of slavery merely for the purpose of observing that there was a fandar mental difference in that respect between the law of England and EXTRADITION OF OFFENDERS. 51 Americaj and that difference in the law occasioned a difference in manners^ usages, and habits, which wotdd create difficulties almost insuperable to the execution of a treaty of extradition between the two countries. Now, a word with respect to the law. He did not wish to misrepresent his hon. and learned friend, and begged it to be understood that he was seeldng for information on the question he was about to put. He earnestly wished to know in what sense his hon. and learned friend understood the words murder and piracy ? His hon. and learned friend would say that those words must be interpreted according to the law of the country in which the offences are committed. Now, there are many acts which would be classed as murder or justifiable homicide, accord- ingly as" the relations of slavery might be recognised or not in the place in which they were committed. He would give one instance of this. A woman in England, attacked by a ravisher, had a right to defend herself, and, if she should kiU her assailant, the act would be declared justifiable homicide ; but if a woman in Georgia should slay her ravisher, or if a quadroon girl should act so, she would be held guilty of murder. Take the case of a slave who had committed murder in his own defence. Suppose a man scourged him, pursued him, the slave had surely a right to resist, and, in his defence, to kill his assailant ; by the law of England that would be justifiable homicide, by the law of Georgia it would be wilfol murder. In the case of the Creole, his hon. and learned friend said he had recommended the Crown not to give up the slaves ; and, no doubt, he was quite right in doing so ; but what would his hon. and learned friend have done under this Act ? He (Mr. Macaulay) should like to hear a definition of piracy. Suppose any person were to lay hold of us, clap us under hatches, and take us to sea with a view of selliag us ; there could not be a doubt that, by the law of England, individuals so held in confinement would have a perfect right to seize upon the ship, and to take it into the first port where they thought them- selves likely to be secure. But if the persons held in confinement on board of such a ship were convicts, in the legitimate charge of officers appointed to take care of them, the same act would 52 EXTRADITION OP OFFENDERS. be piracy. There could not, surely, be any objection to the insertion in the Bill of some clause to tliis effect : Provided always, that in any case of a charge against a slave, he should not be delivered up if the offence with which he was charged would be one justifiable if committed by a freeman. He did not mean to propose these as the precise terms of the clause. That his hon. and learned friend would be much better able than he to draw up. The next point on which he felt anxiety was the mode of trial to which a fugitive slave would be subjected. He could not agree with his hon. and learned friend that England had nothing to do with the mode of trial that might be adopted, nor could he believe that the nature of the punishment to be awarded was unimportant. Another question presented itself to him. Sup- pose the man was acquitted in America, what was to be done with him then ? Was he to remain a slave in the hands of a master incensed by the attempt to run away? Would the slave's life in such a case be safe, even after his acquittal ? No : for in some States of the American union the law held it no crime to cause the death of a slave by what was called legitimate correction. And be it remembered that he was talking now, not of a guilty but an innocent man ; and he must say that he could not contemplate such things without the greatest dread as to the effects they were likely to have on our national character. We had nothing to do, certainly, with the laws of America, but we must not on that account make ourselves the slave-catchers of the Americans. Suppose, even, her Majesty's Government put a liberal construction on this Bill, the question was, what construction the Government of the United States would put upon it ? He believed that the view taken of the treaty in the United States was that, if a case similar to that of the Creole were to occur again, the " pirates and murderers," as they were called in America, would be delivered up under this Act. But was this country prepared to submit to such a thing ? If her Majesty's Government had made up their minds that they would not be the slave-catchers for the United States, and if the United States Government persist in taking a different view of the obli- EXTRADITION OF OFFENDEllS. 53 gations of the treaty from that taken by her Majesty^s Govern- ment, ■would it not be better to cancel this treaty at once ? By doing so they would be guilty of no breach of engagement, for the power of doing so was expressly reserved in the treaty itself. If, however, her Majesty's Government waited till another case like that of the Creole occurred, and then, while they put one interpretation upon the treaty, the Government of the United States put a dijBFerent interpretation upon it, it was very possible that the most serious consequences might arise. 54 DEFAMATION AND LIBEL. August 16, 1843. On the Order of the day for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the DefamMtion cmd Libel Bill. He felt there was great force in the argument of his hou. and learned friend^ that the criminal law with regard to justification of the publication of a libel should be brought as nearly as pos- sible to correspond with the civil law. That part of his hon. and learned friend's argument seemed to be unanswerable. If to assert a thing of A was an injury which he ought not to sustain^ and which could not be compensated by any public benefi-t, he could not see why he should not be entitled to damages. But if, on the other hand, he sustained no injury, then it was quite clear that the only injury to the pubhc had been through or by the defamation of his character, and he was at a loss to understand how to frame the law so that there might be a justification on the one hand as to the civil law, and on the other as to the criminal law. He wished to ask the Attorney- General whether he meant to carry the same principle throughout the Bill. If he said the truth should in aU cases be an answer to a criminal indictment, and that in cases of a civil prosecution truth ought to be an end to the proceedings, then he made his argument consistent, and it was entitled to grave consideration. He must own that he thought there was a great deal to be said in favour of that view ; but he most decidedly preferred the way in which the Bill was drawn to what the learned Attorney- General proposed. His view was this : You charge a person with having defamed you ; the defendant answers, " What I said was true ;" but then you are to reply, " But you said it with some mahcious view." Now, to that view he altogether objected ; because it was perfectly possible that a thing might be maliciously said DEFAMATION AND LIBEL. 55 which ought to be said, and which was for the public benefit. He would put a case — one that might have already occurred : — Take the case of a person comiug over to this country, and being employed in the tuition of young ladies in music : a situation as dehcate, perhaps, as any since the days of Abelard and Heloise could be. Suppose that man had actually been condemned to the galleys in a foreign country, and had had the very brand on his shoulder ; could it be doubted that in such a case as this, the person who made public the fact as regarded this man conferred a great public benefit ? Would you in such a case go into the question of malice ? Would you say, " True it is that the de- fendant has saved some twenty, or thirty, or forty young ladies from the tuition of that scoundrel, but we had got evidence that he said at some time that he would publish something of that man iu revenge — somethiug that would injure his character ?" If that was the meaning of the Attorney- General's argument in favour of the proof of malicious motive, then that argument was iuconsistent, in his opinion, with all sound principles of legisla- tion. Was there to be a kiad of constructive malice ? The question was not whether a man ia his own heart had a good or a bad motive, but what opinion a jury would form of his motives. If he was not mistaken, he had heard learned judges who were great authorities on libel law, put it to the jury, that where there was no direct evidence of bad design, where there was no pecu- liar malignity, the law looked at the general tendency of the libel, and thence inferred mahce. Surely this question of mali- cious motive, then, was nothing more than a circuitous mode of getting at the question whether the published matter was for the public benefit or not. Could his learned friend say that he would ever, as a juryman, find a person guilty of malice for puo- Ushing something which it was clearly for the public benefit that he should publish ? If that was the general feeling, would it not be better at once to set forth in the BUI what the point was on which the jmy should be caUed upon to give a decision ? Was it of so very diflBcult a nature ? Was it so very different from other points which were generally left to the jury ? Look- ing at the question submitted to them in cases of pohtical libel. 56 DEFAMATION AND LIBEL. the question whether or not a person had overstepped the fair limits of legal discussion — again^ looking at the question sub- mitted to the jury in cases where the charge was for blasphemous libelling — seeing what was left to the jury's decision in such cases as these, surely it might safely be left to them to say whether a particular private story required for the public benefit to be recorded. Those were his views on the subject. If, how- ever, the third and ninth clause could be made to harmonise in some such way as that they should work tolerably well together, he should not be disposed to stickle for any particular form. 57 THE STATE OF IRELAND. Februaey 19, 1844. On Lord John Bitssdl's Motion far a Committee of the whole Home to take into Consideration tlie State of Irelamd. I CANNOT refrain^ Mr. Speaker, from congratulating you and the House that I did not catch your eye when I before presented myself to your attention. I should have been exceedingly sorry to have prevented any Irish representative from addressing the House on a question so interesting to his country ; but peculiarly sorry to have stood in the way of that gentleman (Mr. J. O'Brien), who pleaded the cause of his cotmtry with so much force and eloquence. I now wish to submit to the House those reasons which appear to me to vindicate the vote I am about to give ; and in doing this I am sorry to say that I shall not feel myself justified in following the course traced out to us by my hon. friend opposite, with all that authority which he, as he justly states, derives from his venerable youth. I cannot agree with the hon. gentleman in thinking that our best course is to suffer her Majesty's G-overnment to go on in their own way, and give us the measures which they have prepared, seeing that the way in which they have been for some time going on is an ex- ceedingly bad one. Sir, the ground on which I support the motion of my noble friend is this : I conceive that Ireland is in a most unsatisfactory, and, indeed, alarming condition. I con- ceive — though for the remote causes of the disorders of Ireland neither the present Government nor any living statesmen are responsible — that the immediate causes of those disorders which now peculiarly alarm us will be found in the conduct of Her Majesty's present advisers. I conceive that when those disorders had reached in autumn an alarming height, her Majesty's Minis- ters did not show in any part of their conduct, either by their 58 THE STATE OP IRELAND. legislation or their administratioiij that they justly appreciated the nature of those disorders, or were aware of the proper mode in which they should be treated. I see no signs of promise for the future of a policy better than that which they have hitherto followed. I look forward, certainly, with deep uneasiness to the state of Ireland. I conceive that, in such circumstances, it is the constitutional right and duty of this House to interfere; and I conceive that my noble friend, by inviting us to go into a Committee of the whole House, has proposed a mode of interference which is at once perfectly parhamentary and con- venient, as it is undoubtedly called for. Now, as to the first of these propositions, it will not be necessary for me to waste any time in an attempt to show that the condition of Ireland is one which may justly inspire great anxiety and alarm. On that point I conceive that both sides of the House are fuUy agreed. That country, sir, in extent about one-fourth of the United Kingdom, in population certainly more than one-fourth ; superior, probably, in internal fruitfobaess to any area of equal size in Europe ; possessed of a position which holds out the greatest facilities for commerce, at least equal to any other country of the same extent in the world ; an inex- haustible nursery of the finest soldiers; a country beyond all doubt of far higher consequence to the prosperity and greatness of this Empire than aU its far distant dependencies, were they multiplied four or five times over — superior to Canada added to the "West Indies, and these both conjoined with our possessions at the Cape and in Australasia, and with all the wide dominions of the Moguls — such is the state to which you have reduced it, that it is a source not of confidence and strength, but of alarm and weakness. How do you govern it ? Not by love, but by fear; not as you govern Great Britain, but as you govern the recently-conquered Scinde ; not by the confidence of the people in the laws and their attachment to the constitution, but by means of armed men and entrenched camps. Undoubtedly this is a fact which, if we knew nothing more, would fully justify the House of Commons in entering into a grave inquiry, in order to ascertain why these things are so. That these things are so, is THE STATE OF IRELAND. 59 undoubtedly to be ascribed, as I said, partly to remote causes, independent of any which have a bearing on the parties of the present day. To dwell long on those remote causes would be out of place, and would occupy the attention of the House unnecessarily ; and yet I think we can hardly do justice to this inquiry except by taking at least a hasty glance at them. When we seek for the primary causes of these disorders, we must look back to a period not only beyond the existence of the present or late adminis- trations, beyond the time of any hviag statesmen, but to times anterior to those ia which the party names of Whig or Tory were first pronounced — anterior to those of the Puritans, to whom thehon. member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli), in his very ingenious speech, attributed the calamities of Ireland—- anterior even to the Reformation. Sir, the primary cause of the evils of Ireland is imdoubtedly the manner in which that country became annexed to the English Crown. It was effected by con- quest, and conquest of a pecuhar kind. The mere annexation of the country to the English dominion would have been no dis- advantage to Ireland, and might have been a benefit to both ; but it was not a conquest like those we have been accustomed to witness ia modern Europe. It was not a conquest Kke that which united Lorraine to France, or Silesia to Prussia. It was a conquest of a different kind, well known in ancient times, and down to our own days practised in rude or semi-civihsed nations — the conquest of race over race : such a conquest as established the dominion of the Mahrattas ia GrwaUor, or that of the Spaniards over the American Indians. That, I think, was the first great cause of these disorders, and the effect has not by any means ceased to act. I believe the very worst of tyrannies that can exist is the tyranny of race over race. I believe that no enmity which ever existed between nations separated by seas and mountains, aggravated as it may have been by long enmity, has ever approached the intense bitterness which is cherished by nations towards each other, when they are geographically and locallj^ intermingled, and yet have never morally amalgamated. And 60 THB STATE OF IRELAND. has not a feeling like that which reigned in the breasts of the Spaniards and Mahrattas towards their conquered slaves been excited, by your own boasting and taunts, in a great part of the people of England towards their brethren in Ireland ? It might have been hoped that the lapse of time and the consequences of civilisation would have healed the original evil — that what we have seen in our own country, which formerly suffered under the same evil, and suffered most cruelly, would have taken place also in Ireland. Here Celt and Saxon, Dane and Norman, all have been fused down and melted together, to form the great and united English people. A similar amalgamation, we might have hoped, would have taken place in Ireland ; and I believe it would, but for the cir- cumstances mider which it was attempted to force the Reforma- tion on that country. Then came new divisions to strengthen and embitter the old. The English colonists adopted the new doctrines as they had been embraced in England ; the aborigines remained true to the ancient faith, alone among all the nations of the North of Europe. Then a new line of demarcation was drawn; theological antipathies were added to the previous dif- ferences, and revived the dying animosity of race, continuing dissensions and perpetuating a feud which has descended to om' own times. Then came the occurrences to which the hon. member for Shrewsbury referred in his speech. It unfortunately so happened that the spirit of liberty in England was closely alhed with that spirit in theology which was most zealously opposed to the Catholic Church. It did so happen that those who wished for arbitrary government during the 17th century, were closely aDied with the leaders of the old religion, and not with its theo- logical opponents. Such men on the one hand as Pym, Hampden, and Milton, however eminent defenders of freedom, though up- holding in their widest extent the doctrines of free discussion and religious liberty, yet always made one exception to theii' tolerance — the Roman Catholics. On the other hand, those princes who never respected the free rights of conscience in any Protestant dissenters, all betrayed a propensity to favom* the religion of their Catholic subjects. James I. regarded them, with no 'dvev- THE STATE OF IRELAND. 61 sion, Charles I. showed them great favour and attachment; Charles II. was a concealed Catholic, James II. was an avowed Catholic. In this manner it happened, throughout the whole of that century, that our slavery and their freedom meant one and the same thing ; and that the very events, dates, and names which in the mind of an Enghshman were associated with the glory and prosperity of his country, were associated ia that of an Irishman with all that had worked the ruiu and degradation of his. Take the name of William III., the memory of the battle of the Boyne. I never recoUect being so forcibly struck with anything as with a circumstance which occurred on a day I have every reason to remember with gratitude and pride — the day when I had the honour of being declared member for Leeds. While I was chaired, I observed that all the windows were filled with orange ribbons, and the streets crowded with persons wearing orange favours ; aU these were in favoiar of Cathohc Emancipation, and animated with the strongest feeling to contend for equality of rights being granted to their Catholic feUow-subjects. I could not help observing that the orange ribbon seemed rather incon- gruous. " Not at all," was the answer ; " under an orange flag the Whigs of Yorkshire have always banded together. An orange flag was carried before Sir George Saville, one of the first persons who stood here on the basis of equal rights for all." The very chair in which I sat, it was added, was the chair in which Lord Milton had been carried, when he gained the victory in the great cause of religious liberty agaiast Lord Harewood. Now, what effect would this have produced in Limerick ? It would have been at once considered as a mark of triumph over and iasult to the Catholic party, marking a disagreement at every poiat in the history and even of the moral being of these two nations. Twice during the century of which I have been speaking, the Cathohc population rose against the Protestants; they were twice put down, and both times with a large annexation of land on the one side, and confiscation of property with the infliction of severe penalties on the other. The first insurrection was put 62 THE STATE OF IRELAND. down by Oliver Gromwell, the second by King WiUiam. Each of these eminent leaders, after his victory, proceeded to establish a system of his own. That of CromweU was simple— strong, fierce, hateful, cruel; it might be comprised in one word, which, as Lord Clarendon teUs us, was then constantly uttered in the Enghsh army — extirpation. What would have been the consequence if he had lived no one can tell ; but his object is stated to have been to make Ireland completely Enghsh. How- ever, he died, and his plans were interrupted. This policy vanished. The policy adopted by William III. and his advisers was, iti seeming, certainly less cruel, but whether in reality less cruel I have my doubts. The Irish Catholics were to live, multiply, and replenish the earth ; but they were to be what the Helots were in Sparta, or the Greeks under the Ottoman, or what the man of colour now is in Pennsylvania. The Cathohc was to be excluded from every office of honour and profit ; his every step in the road of life was to be fettered by some galling restriction. If desirous of military glory, he was to be told. You may go and gain it in the armies of Austria or France ; if he felt an inclination for political science, he might meddle in the diplomacy of Italy and Spain ; but if he remained at home, he was a mere Gibeonite — a "hewer of wood and drawer of water.^^ Bad laws, badly administered, fostered and increased the ill feeling thus begun ; and to this period and to these laws may be referred the peculiar and unfortunate relations between landlord and tenant which to this day deform the social state of Ireland. A combination of rustic tyrants was opposed by a host of rustic banditti, who appeared under various names, at intervals of four or five years, during the whole of the last century. Courts of law and juries existed only for the benefit of the dominant sect. The priesthood, of which we heard some anecdotes the other night, and very strildng they were, who were revered by millioiis as the dispensers of the Christian sacraments and the great teachers of truth, who were considered by them as their natural guides and only protectors, were ordinarily treated by the domi- nant faction, including the bulk of the gentry of the country, THE STATE OF IRELAND. 63 as no man of common good nature would treat the vilest beggar. A century passed away, and the French Revolution awakened a spirit of liberty throughout Europe. Jacobinism was not a natural ally of Catholicism, but oppression and misery produce strange coalitions, and such a coalition was formed. A third struggle against Protestant ascendancy was put down by the sword, and it became the duty of the men at the head of aifairs to consider 'what measures should be adopted to give for the first time peace and good order to Ireland. Little as I revere the memory of Mr. Pitt, I must confess that, comparing the plan he formed with the policy of Cromwell and Wilham, he deserves praise for great wisdom and humanity. The union of Ireland mth Great Britain was part of his plan, an excellent and essential part of it, but stiU only a part. It never ought to be forgotten that his scheme was much vdder in extent, and that he was not allowed to carry it into effect. He wished to unite not only the kingdoms, but the hearts and affections of the people. For that object the Catholic disabilities were to be removed, the Catholic clergy were to be placed in an honourable, comfortable, and independent position, and Catholic education was to be con- ducted on a liberal scale. His views and opinions agreed with, and were, I have no doubt, taken from those of Mr. Burke, a man of an understanding even more enlarged and capacious than his own. If Mr. Pitt's system had been carried into effect, I beheve that the union with Ireland would now have been as ftdly secure, and as far out of the reach of agitation, as the union with Scotland. The Act of Union would then have been associated m the minds of the great body of the Catholic Irish people with the removal of most galling disabilities. All their religious and national feeUngs would have been bound up with the English con- nexion ; and the Parliament ia CoUege-green would have been remembered, according to its deserts, as the most tyrannical, the most oppressive, the most venal, the most corrupt assembly that ever sat on the face of the earth. In saying this, I can be giving no offence to any gentleman from Ireland, how strong soever his national or political feelings may be, for I only repeat 64 THE STATE OF IRELAND. the sentiment which has been expressed by one of his own countrymen. Mr. Wolf Tone said — I have seen the corruption of Westminster Hall, I have seen jobbing of all sorts in colonial legislatures, I have seen corruption in the Council of Five Hundred ; but any- thing bordering on the infamy of College-green never entered the heart of man to conceive. Not only, I say, would the Union, if the measures I have aUuded to had passed, have been associated in the minds of the Catholic population of Ireland with great wrongs removed, with great benefits received, but those benefits must have in- spired a corresponding feeliag of gratitude, because they were conferred when England was at the height of her power, and in the moment of victory. I believe if those measures had passed, we should not now have been contending with agitation for the repeal of the Union. Unhappily, however, the Union alone, of all the measures planned by Mr. Pitt, was carried, and the Irish Catholics found that they had not the name of national independence, that which to them, however little its intrinsic worth, was a source of pride, and that they had obtained no compensation by an addition of civU and religious liberty. Hence the Union, instead of being associated in their minds with penal codes abolished generously, and religious disabilities swept away, became an emblem of disappointed hopes and violated pledges. Nevertheless, it was not even then too late. It was not too late in 1813 ; it was not too late in 1831 ; it was not too late even in 1825. If the same men who were then, as they are now, high in the service of the Crown would have made up their minds to say that which they were forced to say foui' years later, even then the benefits of the policy of Mr. Pitt might have been realised. The apparatus of agitation was not then organised, the Government was under no coercion; that which was afterwards given in 1829 might have been given with honour and advantage, and might, most probably would, have secured the gratitude of the Irish Catholic people. But in 1839 concession was made, and largely made — made, too, without conditions, which Mr. Pitt would un- doubtedly have imposed — but still made reluctantly, and with THE STATE OF IRELAND. ' 65 obvious dislike — ^made confessedly wMle the Government was in a state of duresse, and made from the dread of civil war. Was that concession calculated to inspire the minds of the Irish Catholics with gratitude and content ? Had it not rather a tendency to inspire the minds of those Irish Catholics with a feeling and opinion to be most deeply lamented, that they could only obtain redress by opposing the Government — with the evil effects of wliich we are at this day contending ? Could these men forget that they had been coming before the English Parliament for twenty-seven years as suppliants, representing, pleading the justice of their cause, urging the rights of con- science and the civil liberty of the subject, pointing to previous solemn pledges, to the promises of Mr. Pitt, even to the supposed promise of George IV. when Prince of Wales, and pleading and urging all these reasonable arguments in vain ? Could they forget that the most profound thinkers, the most eloquent orators, had waked and toUed in their cause in the English Parhament — and had failed to procure them redress. Mr. Pitt endeavoured to fulfil his pledge, and he was driven from office. Lord Grenville and Lord Grey endeavoured to do less, indeed, than Mr. Pitt proposed, but some portion of that which Mr. Pitt proposed, to carry into effect, and they too, in turn, were obliged to abandon power. Then came Mr. Canning ; he took part with the Catholics, and he was rewarded by being worried and hunted to death by the party which is now in office, and of which he was perhaps the most distinguished member. And when he, one of the brightest ornaments of Parhament, and the eloquent advocate of the Catholic cause, was laid in his grave, then the Cathohcs began to look to themselves for aid, to display that formidable array of force, just keeping within the limits of the law, which soon produced most memorable consequences, and led to a result which their noblest advocates had been imable to achieve. Within two years after that great man was carried broken-hearted to his resting-place in Westminster Abbey, everything he could have done — nay, more than he could have done — was effected. Was it possible, then, that from that moment there should not have VOL. II. F 66 THE STATE OF IRELAND. been an opinion deeply rooted in the minds of the whole Catholic population of Ireland, that from England, or, at all events, from that powerful party which governed England, nothing was to be got by reason or by justice, but everythiag by fear ? However, the concession was made at last, but made so that it deserved no gratitude, and obtained none. The organisation of agitation was complete. The leaders of the people had tasted the pleasure of power and distinction; the people themselves had grown accustomed to excitement. Grievances enough, Grod knows, remained behind to serve as pretexts for agitation, and the people were imbued with a sense that nothing was to be got by pleading, and justice would only be awarded to power. These I caU the remote causes of the difficulty we have now to deal with ; these are the causes which explain a great part of that immense mass of discontent and morbid feeliag which has come down to us in our day, as a proof of the constant, uninterrupted misgovernment of Ireland from the reign of Henry II. to that of William IV. These are the evils with which the statesmen of the present time have to deal. And now for the immediate cause of the present alarming condition of Ireland. There is, I conceive, if I understand it rightly, a great predisposition to disease, but not of absolute paroxysm. Ireland is always combustible, but not always on fire. The right hon. baronet opposite, during that time when he appeared before the public as a candidate for the high situation he at present fills, announced himself under the title of a physician, and he used several metaphors, if 1 remember rightly, drawn from the situation of a medical man at the bedside of a patient. If I were to follow out the metaphors of the right hon. gentleman, I should say that Ireland — I do not accuse the right hon. baronet of having poisoned his patient who was in an ill state of body, but that the malady was one which, by former good treatment, had been long kept under, and one which, by the continuance of such treatment, might have been subdued, until the whole system had become, in the course of time, restored, and the patient gradually placed in a sound and THE STATE OF IRELAND. 67 healthy condition. But the right hon. baronet's poUcy has heen to apply irritants, which have produced nothing hut a series of paroxysms, every one more powerful than its predecessor ; and now the condition of the patient, unless you adopt most decisive measures, threatens a most formidable crisis. It is impossible to doubt that the administration of Lord Melbourne was popular with the great body of the Catholic population of Ireland. It is impossible to doubt that the two viceroys he sent over to Ireland received a larger share of approbation from the great body of the Irish people than any viceroys from the time of William III. We know that during his administration great perils threatened the Empire in other quarters; but we know also that to whatever quarter the Government might look with apprehension, to Ireland they might look with confidence. When some designing men raised disturbances in England, and an iasurrection was threatened, troops could be spared from Ireland. When an insurrection broke out in one of our colonies — an insurrection, too, in which it might be supposed the Irish CathoUcs would be inclined to sympathise, seeiag that it was the insurrection of a Catholic population against an English Protestant domination — even then the Catholics of Ireland remaiaed true in all things to the general government of the Empire, and Ireland could spare troops to suppress the insiurection in Canada. And no one, I beheve, doubts, that if in 1840 there had been an unfortunate necessity to go to war, and if a foreign power had sent an army such as once before appeared there on the shores of Munster, that army would have met with as warm a reception as if it had landed on the coast of Kent or of Norfolk ; and no one doubts that there would have been a general determination on the part of the Catholic population to defend and support the throne of Queen Victoria. Under what circumstances and by what means were these effects produced ? Not by great legislative boons, conferred by the Government upon the Irish people ; for that Government, although it had the inclination, had not the power, against the strength of a powerftil miaority in this House, and of a decided 68 THE STATE OF IRELAND. majority in the other House, to cany any such legislative measure. No, it was merely the effect of an executive administration which, crossed and thwarted as it was at eveiy turn, contending, as it had to contend, against the whole power of the Established Chui-ch, and a very formidable portion of the aristocracy and the landed gentry, yet, with such means and such powers as it had, endeavouring honestly and in good faith to remove the religious distinctions which had been maintained in practice after they were abolished by the law, and to concUiate the affections of the Irish people. And I cannot help thinking that if that administration had been as strong in parliamentary support as the present, if it had been able to carry into full effect measures for extending to Ireland the benefits of the British Constitution, that, in one generation, by such adminis- tration and legislation, the Union would have been as secure against popular agitation as is the trial by jury, or tlie most revered part of our Constitution. But this was not to be. Dui'ing six years an Opposition, powerful in numbers, formidable in abihty, selected the admi- nistration of Ireland as the object of their fiercest, deadliest attacks. Those lord-lieutenants who were most popular in Ireland were assailed as no others had ever been assailed ; and assailed, too, for those very efforts of their admiuistration which were the chief causes of the concdiation of the Irish people. Ever)' legislative ^Vct, too, without exception, introduced by that Government for the advantage of Ireland, was either rejected altogether or mutilated. A few Catholic gentlemen, men of eminent ability and stainless character, were placed in situations which, I can only say, were below their talents and desert. Those appointments were hailed with great satisfaction by their countrymen, and no wonder ! For 150 years of proscription, of ban and oppression, during which powers of eloquence as great as those of my right hon. friend the member for Dun- garvon (Mr. Shell), and of other ornaments of his country, wither in utter obscurity under penal and disabling laws — after a century and a half of proscription, during which no Irish Catholic attained to those honours in the State to which his THE STATE Ol' IKELAND. 69 talents and character were entitled^ unless he apostatised from his faith and betrayed his country — at last a Catholic was sworn in of her Majesty's Privy Council, a Catholic took his seat at the Board of Treasuiy, and another appeared at the Board of Admiralty. Instantly all the underlings of the great Tory party raised a yell of rage, such as the " No Popery" mob of Lord George Gordon, to whom reference has this night been made, could never have surpassed. That is one example of the feehng which was exhibited with regard to the Catholics, and of which we have not been without manifestations in this debate. The leaders of the party, indeed, even at that time, seldom joined in that cry — although I could mention one, and, perhaps, even two eminent instances to the contrary — but the leaders of the party were accused of listening to it, and of enjoying it; of encouraging it, and of benefiting by it. It was not necessary for their purposes that they should do more. StUl there were some pubhc expressions used which sanctioned that outcry. " Aliens !" was the phrase used by one leader — " minions of Popery" was the term employed by another. The Catholic priesthood, regarded with the deepest reverence and love by their flocks — and, from all I have heard, I beheve they deserve that reverence — were assailed with most scurrilous epithets and rancorous abuse. They were called a " demon priesthood," and "surphced ruffians." They were stigmatised from the Pro- testant pulpit as "priests of Baal" and as "false prophets," whose blood, like that of Jezebel, was to be licked by dogs. Not content with throwing these obstacles in the way of the Executive Government, and mutilating every measure brought in for the benefit of Ireland, the Opposition of that day assumed an offensive attitude, and determined on bringing in a measure of their own for depriving Ireland of one of her advantages. They called it a measure for the registration of electors, but they now admit that it was an Act of disfranchisement. I desire to take my description of that measure from no lips but their own, and what they would not then admit they admit most ftdly now. We said. If you impose a much more stringent mode of registra- tion, you disfranchise the great body of the Irish voters. You 70 THE STATE OF IRELAND. denied it then^ you admit it now. Am I to believe that you did not know all this as well in 1840 as in 1844? * Has one fact been stated now that was unknown then ? lias a single argu- ment been brought forward now that was not then urged, and urged twenty, thirty, forty times on the floor of this House ? But your explanation is, that the responsibility of office now rests upon you : that is, that you use your power to injure your country only when you are in Opposition, as a means of getting into of&ce. Well, sir, in place these gentlemen are. It was very fit that such service should have its reward. It has had its reward. Several causes concurred to place them in the situation they now fill ; but I believe the principal cause to have been the discontent which they excited in England against the Irish policy of the late Grovernment. I believe that to have been the princi- pal cause ; and that it was a principal cause will hardly be denied. But, in the eagerness for the contest, they called up a spirit more easily evoked than laid — the spirit of religious intolerance. That spirit placed them in power, and then began their punishment, which continues to this day, a memorable warning to unscrupu- lous ambition. It was pleasant for them to hear the sermons of the Rev. Hugh M'Neile ; to hear their cause represented by the High Churchmen, the Low Chiu'chmen, and the Dissenters, as the cause of the Gospel struggling against spurious Liberalism, which made no distinction between religious truth and religious falsehood ; it was pleasant to hear that theu' opponents were the servants of Antichrist, the slaves of the Man of Sin, and marked with the sign of the Beast ; but when they came into power they found they had to govern in this island and in Ireland about 8,000,000 of Cathohcs, who had been constantly, by them- selves or their followers, insulted and defamed. What was the necessary result ? I give them the fullest credit for not wishing to do the country the smallest harm — that was not necessary for the overthrow of their pohtical opponents ; and I give them credit for all the declarations they have lately made as to their desire to appoint Catholics to place in ofiice. I believe in their * See Macaulay's speech on this subject, page 276, vol. i. THE STATE OP IRELAND. 71 sincerity when they say they would wish to find a Conservative Catholic lawyer at the Irish Bar to elevate to the Bench. Nothing, no doubt, would delight them more than to find a Catholic Conservative gentleman, of good talent for business and abdity of speaking, to assist them in the business of Government. I believe all this; but they say they cannot promote their ene- mies ; and what I want to know is, why are all the Catholics in the Empire their enemies ? Was such a thing ever heard of before ? Here are 8,000,000 of people of aU sorts of professions, all sorts of characters, of all ranks — ^the peer, the lawyer, the merchant, the peasant — ^ranging from the Hereditary Earl Mar- shal, the heir of the Howards, the Mowbrays, and the FitzaUans, down to the poorest CathoKc labourer of Munster — and aU these are arrayed against the Government ! Was there ever anything hke it ? Is there anything in Catholic theology of a tendency to ally itself with Whig and democratic doctrines ? On the con- trary, its tenets are of an opposite tendency ; and, without going into questions of theology, it has been thought that, of all forms of Christianity, Catholicism i3 that which attaches most impor- tance to antiquity, which rests upon immemorial usage ; and it would, therefore, appear consistent with analogy that there should be a tendency among Roman Catholics to Conservatism. And so I beheve it will be found. In the Civil War, was there a single Catholic in the army of Fairfax ? How many do you think fought against Charles I. ? Not one ! They were all arrayed under his banner. And when the reward of ^65000 was placed upon the head of Charles II., Catholics of aU ranks were found faithful to him, and amongst them he took refuge. Who stood so firmly as the peasantry of that faith to the cause of monarchy ? It was so in La Vendee — it was so in the Tyrol — ^it was so in Spain ; and are we now to believe that, under a fair government, a just government, an equal government, the professors of the Catholic faith in Ireland would not be found friendly to that government ? My own belief is, that the Tory party made the greatest blunder they ever committed when they threw the Catholics overboard. My belief is, that those who are acquainted with 72 THE STATE OF IRELAND. Mr. Burke's writings, which I believe were the source whence Mr. Pitt drew most of his opinions with regard to Ireland, will be aware that Mr. Burke considered the attachment of the Ca- thohcs of Ireland to the Government might be well secured if the Grovernment treated them Avith kindness, and that their attachment would be a great barrier against the inroads of Jacobinism. Under the influence of that opinion, he was, in the latter part of his life, the warm advocate of the Catholics. He justly considered that the alliance between a large portion of the aristocracy with the venerable institutions of the country, and the ancient Church to yhich they were attached, was so material, that nothing but madness coidd prevent the alliance. That op- portunity of forming such an alliance was thrown away by the pretended disciples of Mr. Pitt, who, professing to drink his health on his birthday, as the saviour of his nation, have re- nounced every one of his principles. Now, see where aU this ends. You are forced to bestow your patronage among the Pro- testants, that class of ultra-Protestants who may be called Orangemen, though I do not speak of them as connected with Orange societies. Then these appointments must necessarily increase the discontent of the Roman Catholic body, and this discontent goes on producing and reproducing, and wiU continue to go on reproducing, similar results, unless Parliament shall furnish a great and decisive remedy. By the principles upon which the present Government, I believe, acts, as far as respects all favour of the Crown, the great measure of emancipation is utterly annihilated. Of all the boons that were supposed to have been conferred by the Act passed in 1829, Catholics of Ireland have, as far as I conceive, obtained only one, and that is admission to Parliament ; and they would not have possessed even that if the present Government, when in Opposition, had been able to pass their Irish Registration Bill. The wounded national spirit, the womided rehgious spirit now breaks out, and shows itself in a hundred forms, some of which I abhor, and some I condemn ; but none excite my amazement, and all seem the natural effects of gross misgovernment acting on strong sensibility. You refuse to admit the Roman Catholic THi; STATE OV IRELAND. 73 to a fair and full conummion in the Constitution, and he there- fore finds out a narrow local patriotism, confined to Ireland. Turn where he Avill, he sees every ofiice, and, I may add, stall, filled with those whom he considers, and not without reason, as his enemies. What more natural than that a people in such a situation should set up their own tribune against the regular constitutional authorities of the country ? They aU remember, and it would be strange if they did not, what their union under the same guidance as now extorted from your fears in 1829, and they have determined to try whether similar effects cannot be produced from the same means in 184:4. These are your difficulties, and they are of your own making. Great statesmen have sometimes brought themselves into diffi- ctdties, and have yet retrieved their credit for wisdom and firm- ness by the manner in which they extricated themselves. Let us see, then, how you meet your dif&cultiesj and first with regard to legislation. The beginning and the end of all your legislation, last session, for the evils of Ireland, were comprised in your Arms Bill. There was no conciliation in that ; and it was not worthy the name of a measure of coercion, but simply a measure of petty annoyance. It satisfied the desires and was sanctioned by the judgment of neither side of the House. We called for a boon of a difierent sort for Ireland, whilst your friends, or many of . them, called for a still more vigorous coercive measure ; and one noble and learned lord was so much struck by your remissness in this respect, that he even bestowed some of his own great abilities in framing an Irish Coercion Bill. The fruit of your legislative wisdom in the last session of Parliament, then, is the Arms Bill only. Then, as to the executive measures of administration which you have dealt out to Ireland during the recess, I protest in the strongest manner against what was said by the noble lord the Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley) the last night the House met, that in his opinion no reasonable man could find fault with the Government on this ground, because it Avas proved that it had done all that was possible. Now, by the statement of the Government itself, it appeared plain that the proclamation against the Clontarf meet- 74 THE STATE OF IRELAND. ing was agreed to on the Friday morning ; and for them to say that it could not have been made known in Dublin and its suburbs untU after dark on the Saturday evening was an ab- surdity. It was idle to weigh the words of a proclamation at such a time wheu they should have been occupied in weighing the lives of the Queen's subjects. No rational person will venture to say^ if there had been in the minds of the rulers of Ireland a proper sense of the hazards they were rimning, that that proclamation could not have been pubHshed in Dublin and its neighbourhood early on Saturday morning, by which the hazard of the loss of many lives might have been avoided. And by whose agency was that evU warded off? By the interposition of the man you have prosecuted. Fortune stood your friend/ and he stood your friend ; and it was by his exertion mainly that, in all probability, a scene more terrible than that which occurred at Manchester was prevented. But I win pass from that, and come to the prosecution. The charge I make against this prosecution is one and simple. The one main charge I bring against the Government is this, that they seemed not to have considered the nature of such a prose- cution ; that they regarded it as proceeding in a suit of meum and tuum, in a qui tarn action for the recovery of penalties. They considered nothing but this — whether they could get together such evidence as to facts, and such opinions as to law, as would entitle them to a verdict and a judgment. Now, my opinion is, that both the verdict and judgment ia a great political case are the very smallest part to be considered. What the Government has to ask itself, when instituting a great public prosecution, is, wiU our moderation and justice stand the test of public opinion ? What wiU be the effect produced on the pubhc mind by our proceediags ? Of covirse, the law must be strictly observed, but that is only one of the conditions of a pubhc prosecution. To make it wise in the Government to adopt such a measure as a prosecution, it is necessary that its conduct should be such, not only that it could not be questioned, but that preju- dice itself could not cavil at it. You were instituting a prose- cution against an individual of whom I feel considerable delicacv THE STATE 01' IRELAND. 75 in speaking in Ms present situation — a situation which, however, did not prevent an hon. member from vindictively assailing him, which but one man in this House would do. My beUef is that, as regards the end that hon. gentleman has lately been pursuing, it is not only mischievous but wholly unattainable. I regard with deep disapprobation some of the means pursued to obtain that end ; and, in saying this, I wish to speak with the respect that is due to eminence and misfortune, but with the respect that is due to truth. I must say, too, that the position which Mr. O'Connell holds in the eyes of his fellow-countrymen is a position such as no popular leader in the whole history of man- kind ever occupied. You are mistaken if you imagine that the interest he inspires is confined to this island. Go where you will upon the Continent, dine at any table d'hote, tread upon any steamboat, enter any conveyance, from the moment your speech betrays you to be an Enghshman, the very first question asked — ^whether by the merchants or manufacturers in the towns in the heart of France, or by the peasant, or by the class who are like our yeomen — the first question asked is, what has become of Mr. O^ConneU? {Oh, oh !) Let those who deny this assertion take the trouble to cross the Chaimel, and they will soon be convinced of its truth. Let them only turn over the French journals. It is a most unfortunate, a most unhappy fact — but it is impossible to dispute — that there is throughout the Continent a feeling respecting the connexion between England and Ireland not very much unlike that which exists with respect to the con- nexion between Russia and Poland. I do not approve of this feeUng, but it is natural that it should exist. Without adverting to the immense jealousy which the great power of England pro- duces, I may remind the House that the Irish agitation has on the Continent two aspects, which enlist the sympathies in common of Royahsts and Democrats. As a popular movement it is looked upon with favour by the extreme Left in France, or by the democratic part ; while, by its involving the cause of Catho- licism, it obtains for itself the coxmtenance of the extreme Right, and of those who espouse the cause of the Pretender; and in this manner it has probably created a wider interest and more 76 THE STATE OF IRELAND. support on the coutinent of Europe than any other question of our domestic pohtics was ever known to command. I do notj it is unnecessary for me to say^ urge this for the pur- pose of frightening the Enghsh Government ; but I do say that, on such a question, it is of the greatest importance that the pro- ceedings which the Government have taken should be beyond impeachment, and that they shotdd not have sought a victory in such a way that victory should be to them a greater disaster than a defeat. Has not that been the result ? First, is it denied that Mr. O'ConneH has suffered wrong? Is it denied that, if the law had been carried into effect without those irregularities and that negligence which has attended the Irish trials^ Mr. O'ConnelPs chance of acquittal would have been better ? No person denied that. The affidavit which has been produced, and which has not been contradicted, states that twenty-seven Catholics were ex- cluded from the jmy-list. [Mr. Shell : "Hear."] My right hon. and learned friend whose voice I hear is competent to do more justice to this part of the subject than I possibly can. But take even the statement made the other night to the House by the right hon. and learned gentleman opposite, the Recorder of the city of Dublin. He said that twenty-four names, the majority of which were Roman CathoUcs, had been omitted. It is very easy to talk of 720 names being reduced to forty-eight; but what is the forty-eighth part of 730 ? Fifteen. Now, if these fifteen names happened to be Roman Catholics, there was an even chance that another Catholic would be one of the forty-eight. But it is admitted that twenty-seven Catholics were omitted from the list; and this would give almost an even chance of there being two Catholics among the forty-eight. Will any human being tell me that Mr. O' Council has not, by that vio- lation of the law, sufl'ered a distinct wrong ? Will any person say that it is impossible, or that it is not even very highly probable, that a different result might have taken place but for this blunder ? For remember the power which the law gives to any one juryman. It is in the power of any juryman, if his mind is made up, to effect a conviction or an acquittal. But is this my opinion alone ? What is the language of Judge Perrin? THE STATE OF IRELAND. ^1 As I. find reported in the papers favourable to the prosecution, he said that in the getting up this part of the case there were great negligence, failure of duty in regard to the striking of the jury, and that he was not prepared to say that that was the result of accident, or that there were not circumstances of suspicion. Why, this was the statement of one of the judges ; and when the noble lord calls upon us to pay respect to what the judges say, are we not bound to regard his words ? That learned judge must necessarily know better than I can, or than any other Englishman can, what sort of tricks are likely to be practised in the striking of a jury in Ireland, and he says that he is not satisfied that this blunder was the efli'ect of accident. But I now come nearer to the business — I come to the right hon. baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham), who said, and truly said, " We are not re- sponsible for this." I know the right hon. baronet is not. The right hon. baronet added, " I regret it most deeply — I wish it had been otherwise, for I feel that by this matter a prejudice has been created to the administration of justice." This is exactly what I regret. I say a prejudice has, by this transaction, been created to the administration of justice. I say the taint of sus- picion has been thrown upon the whole of these proceedings. Nothing can be more true, and I wish to know what must be the practical effect of these words ? I wish to know whether, in a great cause upon which the eyes not only of Europe^ but of the civilised world, are fixed, it is not the only noble and manly part for the Government to take to say, " A mistake has taken place — ^that mistake has created a prejudice to the administration of justice ; and we cannot and will not avail ourselves of the con- viction so obtained." I am ready to take the facts as they have been stated with regard to the striking off the names from the list. There may be very good and excellent reasons, no doubt, for doing so — but does that settle the question? Is not the question this — ^Was it possible, in a great cause pendiag between two great religions and races, to have a fair verdict at the hands of a jury of Protestants ? I know that all the technicalities of the law were on the side of the Crown, but my great charge against 78 THE STATE OF IRELAND. the Government is, that they have merely regarded this question in a technical point of view. We all know the principle upon which a jury de medietate linffUCB was founded. Suppose a Dutch sailor, landed on our shores, in a broil stabbed an Englishman. For that offence he would not be left to be tried by twelve Englishmen. No ; our ancestors knew that that was not the way in which justice could be obtained — they knew that the only proper way was to have one half of the jurymen of the country in which the crime was committed, and the other half of the country to which the pri- soner belonged. If any ahen had been in the situation of Mr. O'Connell, that law would have been observed. You are ready enough to caU the Catholics of Ireland " aliens " when it suits your purpose — you are ready enough to treat them as ahens when you can raise a prejudice against them ; but the first privilege, the only advantage of alienage, you practically deny them, when you refase them, in a case above all others requiring it, a jury de medietate Ungues.. Is it possible that any reasonable man can conceive that, in a case in which the feelings of two sects and creeds are set against each other, a jury composed of one of these sects could do justice ? But could you not have avoided this ? Why should you not have had a common jury? A common sheriff's jury, containing several respectable Cathohcs, who were not members of the Association, was not difficult to be obtained. A trial by such a jury would have tended much to settle men's minds, and to conduce to the pacification and quietude of the Irish portion of her Majesty's dominions. But you — the Go- vernment — have now got a verdict from a jury impanelled contrary to law — a verdict from a jury from the constitution of which no man could expect justice — a verdict dehvered after a charge from the Chief Justice which has been pronounced un- precedented, but which I will not say is unprecedented, because it so strongly resembles some of the charges communicated to juries in the State trials which distinguished the seventeenth century ! With this panel, with this jiu-y, with this charge, you have obtained a verdict, and what are you the better for it ? Has the THE STATE OP IRELAND. 79 verdict tended to quiet Ireland ? I know that Ireland is quiet at the present moment, and wiU be so, probably, from the present time until that at which the sentence shall be executed ; because the whole Irish people, feeHng the deepest interest in the fate of ' that eminent man, their leader, wiU avoid doing anythuig which may place him in a more dangerous position. But your diffi- CTilties will begin when a prison's wall closes upon the hon. and learned member for Cork. By what means do you intend to prevent a very serious and strong outbreak of popular feehng ? Is it possible that a man who has possessed himself so bound- lessly of the feehngs of the Irish people, is all at once to lose his popularity^ because he has become a martyr? I am as much attached to the Union as any hon. gentleman, and as much opposed to the demand made for its repeal. If I, who am as much attached to the Union as any gentleman opposite, and who as much dishke some of the means which have been used to excite the people against it — if I cannot in my con- science say that Mr. O'Connell has had a fair trial — if the right hon. gentleman opposite (Sir J. Graham), who tells us that "a prejudice has been created to the administration of justice," cannot say it — if Englishmen, friends of the Union, cannot say that no suspicion lies on the verdict, and are convinced of its unfairness, what must be the feelings of the people of Ireland — the people who agree with Mr. O'ConneU, and heartily assent to all the views which he propounds to them in his ardent and enthusiastic speeches? And what are you to expect from his incarceration ? The power of his name will remain to stir up their minds, though you deprive them of his presence, which has been so often exerted in preventing their excitement from breaking into acts of violence. This seems to me to have been your conduct as to the past. And now as to the future. Your executive measures, I fear, are of the same sort. What have you given them hitherto ? Sol- diers, barracks, a useless State prosecution, and an unfair trial. And what have they now to look forward to? An unjust sentence — its infliction, and more barracks and more soldiers. With respect to your legislative measures, it is true you propose 80 THE STATE OP IRELAND. a Bill for the registrajtion of Irish voters, coupled with an increase of the franchise. But what the provisions of that measure are we cannot as yet foresee ; all we know is, that the subject is one on which it is impossible for you to legislate at once with credit to yourselves and with benefit to the public — all that we can say with confidence is, that the measure must either be destructive to the representative principle in Ireland, or to the remnant of your own character. Of the Landlord and Tenant Commission I say nothing. On that subject, too, a report is to be made, but when \ve shall have the report nobody can say. On some future occasion I may have an opportunity of going at length into another very important question — I mean the Established Church in Ireland. AH I can do now is to take some short notice of the manner in which the question has been aUuded to in the course of the debate. I must say that I haA'e heard declarations on this subject from some gentlemen opposite with wliich I am highly delighted. I only regret that their votes will not accompany their speeches. But from Ministers we have heard nothing except this — -that the Established Church is there, and that there it must remain. As to the speech of the noble lord (Lord Stanley), when I hear such a defence of the Establishment from a man of his eminence, what inference can I draw but that nothing better can be said for it ? What is the noble lord's argument ? That in 1757 and 1792, and, I believe, some other years, when Roman Catholics were seeking the removal of penal laws and disabilities, they did not complain of the Established Church as a grievance. Is it not, let me ask, perfectly notorious, that such is the ordinary progress of aU questions ? When men are at a distance from their desired object — when they, perhaps, so little hope of ever attaining it, they do not go the full length of even their just demands ; but after the men who sought less have been thirty years in their graves, and circumstances have entirely changed, thek successors may have a right to take up a different position. The noble lord now comes to us and teUs us what the Catholics said when suffering under the penal laws, as if that were a reason for our not taking into consideration the THE STATE OF IRELAND. 81 state of tlie Church in Ireland. Why, I will give the noble lord a proof to the contrary from his own practice. Does not the noble lord know that during the discussions on the slave- trade, all who spoke disclaimed in the most earnest manner any desire for the emancipation of the slaves ? Nay, emancipation was not then so much as thought of; and the speeches of Lord Grenville, Mr. Pitt, Lord Howick, and of my honoiu-ed and revered friend — of whom I can never speak without respect and regard — Mr. Wilberforce, were directed against the slave-trade, and^id not say one word about emancipation. I know that in 1807, when the Duke of Northumberland, in the ardour of generous youth, rose to propose a Bill to abohsh slavery, Mr. Wilberforce pulled him down, and told him that their iirst object should be to abolish the slave-trade. But did the noble lord (Lord Stanley) feel that that was a reason to be urged against him when he brought in his Bill to abolish slavery? When he had pointed out vrith so much eloquence the horrible evils of the whole system, suppose any man had got up and said that, in 1792, Mr. Pitt and Mr. Wilberforce only wished to abolish the slave-trade; would that have been considered an answer to the noble lord, who was anxious by liis Bill to emancipate the slaves ? Thus the noble lord^s argument is con- futed by his own practice. Then as to the Act of Union, it seems that the fifth article sticks ia the noble lord's throat : that must on no account be altered. But does not the fourth article of the same Act fix the number of members who should sit in this House ? Yet the fourth article has notoriously been abrogated. And who brought in the BiQ to abrogate it ? The noble lord. Next comes the question of the Eoman Catholic oath; and here, were the noble lord present, I might be disposed to say something more severe than I will utter in his absence. I will, therefore, confine myself to the strict bearings of the case, and putting the argument of the noble lord to the utmost, it amonnts to this : that the Roman Catholic members should walk out into the lobby when ecclesiastical questions are about to be discussed, but not that the Protestants who might be left within the HoLise should not discuss and mature measures for altering the VOL. ir. G 83 THE STATE OF IRELAND. relation of the Establishment in Ireland to the people. Is it any argument to say that when a particular man is tied up by an oath, no one else shall presume to touch the matter against touching which he is bound ? — that when the E,oman Catholic members should have left the House the 640 remaining members could not discuss the oath, or the propriety of altering the condition of the Established Church in Ireland ? Surely, this is the strangest argument that was ever addressed to the House ! I do hope that the right hon. baronet opposite (Sir. R. Peel) will deal with the subject in a larger manner — in a maimer worthy of his high position and eminent character. He, I am sure, will not come down with a piece of " Hansard," or with old declarations made in '57 and ^92. I do hope that he will grapple with that subject hke a great statesman, and not palter with it like a puny politician. Let him consider these ques- tions : Is the institution a wise one or a bad one ? What are the ends for which an Established Church exists in Ireland? Does the Established Church in Ireland accomplish those ends? Can a Church which has no hold in the hearts of the great body of the people be otherwise than useless, or worse than useless? Has the Irish Protestant Church any hold in the hearts of the great body of the people? Has it, during the two centuries and a half that it has existed in Ireland, made any vast conquests of conversion or proselytism ? Has it been what the Churches of England and Scotland have been caUed mth much justice — the poor man's Church ? Has it nursed the great body of the people in virtue, consoled them in affliction, or drawn down upon itself the respect and reverence of the nation and the State ? To be able to answer these questions in the affirmative is the true and rational defence of the Church of Ireland, not by making quotations from forgotten speeches, or producing passages from mouldy petitions, presented in the time of George II., and ever since laid by with legislative lumber. Do not let us again be told that many years ago all which the Roman CathoKes asked was the removal of certain penal laws. Why, in 1757, no Roman Catholic would have gone even the length of requiring admission into Parhament. They did not then carry their demands for justice half the length of what they have since obtained. THE STATE OF IRELAND. 83 I think I have now said enough to justify the vote I shall give in favoui' of the motion of the nohle lord. I think that the evils we deplore have been brought upon Ireland by a false and pernicious pohcy. I think that the mode in which it is proposed to deal with those evils wiU tend, not to lessen, but to aggravate them. While the present system is pursued in Ireland it is impossible that she can be peaceable; and until Ireland is peaceable, the British Empire cannot enjoy her full power and proper dignity. The accordance of aU classes is necessary to her strength, and her dignity is identical with her security. In every negotiation, whether with France on the Right of Search, or with America on the Boundary, while Ireland continues discontented that fact wiU be uppermost in the minds of the diplomatists on both sides ; and while it restrains and cripples the one, it vrill embolden and invigorate the other. Such must be the necessary and iuevitable consequence. This is indeed a great, a splendid, a mighty empire, well pro- vided with means of annoyance and with weapons of defence. She can do many things which are far beyond the power of any other nation in the world; she dictated peace to China, she governs Australasia, and she rules Caffraria. Should occasion again arise, she could sweep from the surface of the ocean the commerce of the world, and, as formerly, blockade the ports, and spread her triumphant flag from the Baltic to the Adriatic. She is able to maintain her Indian Empire against every threatened hostility, whether by land or sea; but, amidst aU this vast mass of power there is one vulnerable point — one spot unguarded, and that spot nearest to her heart;" a spot at which, forty-five years ago, a deadly, happily not a fatal blow was aimed. The Government and Parhament, each in its sphere, is deeply responsible for the continuance of such a lamentable state of things ; and, for my part of that responsibility, I intend to clear myself by the vote I shaU give in favour of the motion of my noble friend, and I trust that I shall find with me so large and respectable a body of members of this House, as shall satisfy the Irish Cathohcs that they stdl have friends in England, and that they need not yet relinquish aU hope of protection from the wisdom and justice of an Imperial Parliament. 84 UNITARIAN CHAPELS. June 6, 1844. On, the, Order of ike Day for the Second Beadbig of the Dissenters Chapels Bill. If ever there was an occasion on which I could desire to have before me the two examples^ in the discussion of a measure like this, both as to the temper in which I should wish to debate it, and the temper that in speaking of it I ought to shun, then both these examples have been given me by the mover of the second reading (Sir. Wm. FoUett), and the seconder of the amendment (Mr. Plumptre) . I despair, sir, of adding much to the very powerful and luminous arguments of the hon. and learned gentleman who, to our great joy, has again appeared amongst us ; but I am unwilling to allow the debate to proceed further without offering some observations to the House. Sir, I think it desirable that some person should rise on this side of the House, generally occupied by those the most strongly opposed to the existing Administration, for the purpose of declaring a cordial and warm approbation of this honest, this excellent Bill, and my firm conviction that none but the best and purest motives have induced the Government to bring it forward. I am glad, also, to bear my testimony to the exceed- ingly mild and temperate manner in which my hon. friend the member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) has discussed this subject. I most highly approve of the resolution which he formed, and to which he so faithfully adhered, of treating the question as one of meum and tuiim, and not as one of theology. But whatever the hon. baronet omitted has been fully supplied by the seconder of the amendment, for from him we have heard a speech in which there was an utter and complete absence of everything like argument or statement of fact, in which there was not even a shadow of reason, and there was naught to be heard but the UNITAKIAN CHAPELS. 85 language of theological animosity. In many of the petitions presented on this subject I have grieved to discover the exhibition of similar feehngs; and when the hon. member opposite asks me why I do not suppose the petitioners com- petent to judge on this matter^ my answer is, because they treat it as a question of divinity, when they should but have looked at it as a question of property ; and when I see them treat a question of property as a question of divinity, then I affirm that, however numerous they may be, they prove them- selves not competent to judge this question. If the persons who desire this measure be orthodox, that is no reason that we shoidd plunder others to em-ich them; and if they be heterodox, that is no reason why we should plunder them to enrich others. I should not think it honest to support this Bill if I could not conscientiously declare that, whatever the rehgious persuasion may be of those interested on the occasion, my language and vote should be precisely the same. If, instead of their being Unitarians — with whom I have no peculiar sympathy — it were a Bill in favour of the Cathohcs, of the Wesleyan Methodists, or the Baptists — if it were in favour of the old secession Church of Scotland, or of the free Church of Scotland — my language and my vote would be precisely the same. It seems to me that the point in all this matter, that on which great stress is laid, is the second clause of the Bdl. I can hardly conceive that there is any gentleman in the House prepared to vote against the first clause — that any would vote against the third merely because of a marginal error in that clause — or that, because there is a provision respecting pending actions at law, he would vote for refusing a second reading to this BiQ. As to the first clause, I have heard of no objection made to it. My hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford, if I understood him rightly, said, that if the BiU contained only the first clause, it would not necessarily be exposed to his opposition. Indeed I do not think it would be easy for him, with his candour and humanity, after the clear, powerful, and able manner in which this part of the case was stated by my hon. 86 UNITARIAN CHAPELS. and learned friend, to oppose that clause. We come, then, to the second clause, and here lies the whole stress of the matter. The second clause is one that rests upon this principle: that prescription, as a general rule, ought to confirm the title of those in possession — that there ought to be a term of limitation, after which a title that might have originated wrongfully cannot rightfully be set aside. Certainly, I never could have imagined that in an assembly of reasonable, civilised, and educated men it would be necessary to offer a word in defence of prescription as a general principle, if I had not been painfully instigated to it by that body of sages lately assembled in conclave at Exeter HaU. I should have thought it as much a waste of time of the House, as to make a speech against the impropriety of burning witches, or of trying a right by wager of battle, or of testing the guilt or innocence of a culprit by making him walk over biirning ploughshares. They did me the honour to communicate to me the burden of their opinions, that this principle of prescription, as declared by the present Bid, is untenable and unworthy of the British Legislature. They said that this principle of legis- lation, adopted for the purpose of terminating and quieting people in possession, is a principle untenable, and one that is unworthy of a British Legislature ; and they added, " the present Government is inconsistent in bringing forward a BiU contaimng this principle of limitation, because that Government has created two new Vice-Ghancellors." If these gentlemen are bad logicians, they are just as bad jurists. I stand here as the advocate of prescription, and I do not forget the prescriptive right which the gentlemen who assemble on the platform of Exeter Hall have of talking non- sense. It is a prescriptive right which may be abused, and in the present case it is my opinion that it has been abused. At aU events, this must be evident : that if these gentlemen are in the right, aU the master philosophers, all the jurists, and all the bodies of laws by which men are and have been governed throughout the civilised world, are fundamentally ia the wrong. How, it may be asked, can any civilised society exist without the aid of that untenable principle which is said to be unworthy of a British UNITARIAN CHAPELS. 87 Legislature ? It is in every known part of the world — in every civilised age ; it was familiar to the old tribunals of Athens, it formed part of the Roman jurisprudence, and was spread with the imperial power over the whole of Europe. It was recognised after the French revolution, and when the Code Napoleon was formed, that very principle of prescription was not forgotten. We find it both in the East and the West ; it is recognised by tribunals beyond the Mississippi, and in countries that had never heard of Justinian, and had no translation of the Pandects. In aU places we find it acknowledged as a sacred principle of legis- lation. We have it amongst the Hindoos, as well as amongst the Mexicans and Peruvians ; la our own coimtry we find it coeval with the beginning of our laws. It is foimd in the first of our statutes — it is close upon our great first Forest Charter; it is consecrated by successive Acts of Parliament — it is introduced into the Statute of Merton — it is found in the Statute of West- minster ; and the principle only becomes more stringent as it is carried out by a succession of great legislators and and statesmen down to our own time. , You have been convinced by experience of the advantage of this principle, and you have found that when particular points have been left unguarded by it, oppression has been the result, and legislation has been called in to remedy the evil. Sir George SaviUe brought in a law barring the claims of the Crown ; Lord Tenterden brought in a Bill barring the perpetual claims of the Church. Go where you will, you will see it in the civil legis- lation of every country. You will find in our body of laws a perfect agreement as to this principle — -you wiU find it in our first Great Charter — you will find it enforced by the Imperial and Greek jurists — ^you will find it adopted by the great men that Bonaparte brought about him — ay, and you will even find it amongst the Pandects of the Benares. How, unless there has been some universal sense of the great good it contained, and of the great evil of wanting it, could men have been brought by distinct paths to the same conclusion ? Is it difficult to see how men have arrived at this conclusion? Is it not clear that the principle of prescription is essential to the institution of pro- 88 UNITARIAN CHAPELS. perty itself, and that, if you take it away, it is not some or a few evils that must follow, but general confusion? Only imagine if you were to do away with this principle in Exeter Hall — I beg pardon, I meant Westmiaster Hall — only imagine if you were to strike out this principle — if you were to intimate that it was unworthy of the British Legislature ; what confusion would be the consequence ? Only imagine any man amongst us being liable to be sued upon a bill of exchange accepted by his grand- father in the year 1760; only imagine, if a man had an estate and manor coming to him from his father, and grandfather, and great-grandfather, and yet liable to be turned out of possession because a will or a deed in the reign of Charles I. was found in some old chest or cranny ! Why, if this could be done, should we not all cry out, that it would be better to live under the rule of a Turkish pacha than under such an intolerable evil ? Is it not plain that the enforcement of obsolete rights would in effect be committing absolute wrong ? that this extreme rigour of law, without a limitation of time, would be a system of great and methodised roJDbery ? If this, then, be the general principle, and if it is proper to estabhsh a certain limit to rights, then I wish to ask how it is that it is not to apply to the case before us. I have read the petitions that have been presented here ; I have heard the argu- ments of my hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford ; and I should have heard, if he had any to state, the arguments of the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre). My hon. friend did his best to take this case out of the general principle ; but, instead of that, his arguments were against the principle of hmitation itself. He has said that here the measure arises out of wrongful possession. Why, all the statutes of hmi- tation do. My hon. friend says this is ea?joos^/«c^. What act of limitation is not so, to a certain extent ? Let him go to the Statute of Merton, passed iu 1335 ; to the Statute of West- minster, in 1275 ; to that of James I., in 1623 ; to that intro- duced by Sir George SaviUe, or that by Lord Tenterden, and he wiU find that every one of them had a retrospective effect. He will find that every one of those Acts looked to the past as UNITARIAN CHAPELS. 89 well as to the future. Reasoning and reflecting men approved of this ; everyone approved of it ; and, until religious bigotry was aided by chicane, there was no one to find fault with it, and no one to differ from the general opinion. There is not a single Act for healing existing defects in titles that does not take away a right ^vhich, if such a law had not passed, would have existed. The second clause of this Bill does not differ from any statute of limitation that has ever been passed. The opponents of the mea- sure said, "It is a reason against the BiR that you make the leng-th of time during which these parties have been doing wrong a justifi- fication for them. It is an aggravation of the case, for you suffer this length of time to be a reason for consecrating the wrong." This is the case wherever the principle of limitation exists. It is a greater wrong to my tailor if I refuse to pay him for twenty years, than if I refuse to pay him for twelve months; but the law says that at the end of twelve months I must pay him, whilst at the end of twenty years I am not bound to pay him. It is the same with an estate. It is a greater evil for a gentleman and his family to be deprived of his property for five generations than for five days ; and yet, after an ejectment of five days, you may be restored to your estate, but at the end of five generations the right is barred. Every argument used against us on this occasion is an argument against the whole principle of limitation ; and, if there be a case in which limitation ought to be applied, this, I would say, is the very case. Suppose a person is turned out of an estate after holding for sixty or ninety years (about the time which the members of the Unitarians are said to have held their chapels) ; then, bad as that might be, still all you would do would be to take away from the individual that to which he had a defective title. He could lose nothing that was his own. But the property of the Unitarians is so mixed up with the acquired property under trustees, that it is impossible to take away the mere original soil, without also taking away something of great value, which is unquestionably their own. It is not a case of ordinary property, in which a man gets rents and profits, and expends nothing and loses nothing beyond the original value of the land. 90 UNITARIAN CHAPELS. And yet limitation in this case is petitioned against as a griev- ance. Have gentlemen bestowed their attention upon the pe- titions presented against this BiU ? They are filled with vague declarations and theological invective ; whilst the petitions in favour of the Bill contain statements of great practical grievances ? Take, for instance, the case of Cirencester. The meeting-house was built in 1730, and it was in proof that in 1742 there were preached there Unitarian doctrines. That was twelve years after the chapel had been founded, and when a great many of the original subscribers must have been living. Many, too, of the present congregation were the lineal descendants of the original subscribers, and large sums had been continually laid out by them in embellishing the chapel. Now doubts were raised as to their title. Then there was Norwich, where, in 1688, a great dissenting meeting-house was established. At an early period anti-Trinitarian doctrines were professed, and so it went gra- dually on, until at length, in 1754, it was certain that both the preacher and the congregation were Arianists. At the present moment there is all round the meeting-house a burial-ground, in which there are the gravestones of Unitarians. A library is attached to the school-house. All these expenses have been incurred, and at this moment the hands of the congregation are tied down, and they dare not bmld nor repair until they know whether their title be good. Such is the common, the ordinary history of these congrega- tions. Gro to Manchester, go to — I do not know that I have cited the best cases for my argument — but go to Manchester, where I am certain Unitarianism has been preached for seventy years — that large sums have been laid out upon the chapel, and that it is, moreover, the place where Priestley himself once taught. Or take Leeds : I am assured that £4000 has been subscribed for repairs to the principal Unitarian chapel there — ^that it is lying idle, because they dare not repair a single pew while this matter is pending. Go to other places ; go to Maidstone — every- where you will find the same story — there £700 had been sub- scribed ivithin a short period. At Exeter Unitarianism has been preached for eighty years, and £3000 has been expended upon UNITARIAN CHAPELS. 91 the chapel. At Coventry, Bath— everywhere, I repeat, it is the same. Now, are these chapels places of which a British Legis- lature will consent to rob their possessors? I say "rob" — I can use no other, no lighter word. How would you feel were such a proposition made as to other property? Would it be • borne ? And what are those who oppose this Bill to get in com- parison to what those who are injuriously affected by it are to lose ? What feelings have these latter associated with Priestley's pulpit — with Dr. Lardner's pulpit ? What feelings have they connected with the places wherein Unitarian doctrines have so long been taught, and around which are the gravestones which pious love has placed over the remains of dearly-prized sisters, wives, fathers, brothers — that these associations are to be so rudely disregarded, and structures wrenched from those to whom they are so valuable ? To those who seek to obtain possession of them, they are of no value beyond that which belongs to any place in which they can get a roof over their heads. If we throw out this Bill, we rob one party of that which that party considers to be invaluable, to bestow it upon another stronger party, who will only value it as a trophy of victory won, and as an evidence of the humiliation and mortification of those from whom it has been wrested. An imputation has been thrown out — ^not, I think, here, but it has been thrown out in many other places — I say an imputation of fraud has been applied to the Unitarian congregations holding the chapels now in dispute. It has been said that they quite well knew the meaning of the original founder — -that they knew that his views were Trinitarian ; that nevertheless they had not acted up to those views, and that therefore they were guilty of fraudulent misapplication of funds, and fraudulent misapplication of lands and buildings. And further, sir, it has been said by a great authority upon such matters, that they must have been necessarily, down to a comparatively recent period, either Trini- tarians or counterfeit Trinitarians. Sir, it has been said that until 1779, every dissenting teacher was under the necessity of subscribing to the articles of the Church of England, and that if he was an honest man he could not have subscribed to them, and 92 UNITARIAN CHAPELS. have been also an Unitarian. Therefore the inference is clear, that persons who taught in meeting-houses down to 1779 were either Trinitarians or rogues. Now, they were neither the one nor the other ; and the eminent person who stated the contrary, intimately acquainted as he must be with the history of that Church to which he is an ornament, and who is, or ought to be equally familiar with the annals of nonconformity, must know that, from a very early period, the practice of compelling dissent- ing ministers to sign the articles of the Church of England was not persisted in. There were many eminent dissenting ministers of early days who never signed them. Dr. Calamy resisted, and was not molested; and if it was so at an early period of the history of nonconformity, when penal laws were strictest — when, as the vulgar proverb has it, it might have been expected that new brooms would have swept clean — is it not to be supposed that at a later period their operations would have become still more lax ? But the truth of the matter is this. As early as 1711, when the Whigs, by means of their coalition with Lord Nottingham, managed to get the Occasional Conformity Bill through the Hoiise of Lords, they inserted, by Avay of a favour to the Dis- senters, a clause which very much took away the stringency of the obligation to subscribe to the articles of the Church. This clause provided, that if a person informed against a dissenting teacher for not having signed the articles, the latter could, at any stage of the consequent judicial proceedings pending the judgment, defeat the information by signing the articles, a pro- ceeding which, it was also enacted, should throw the whole burden of the costs upon the shoulders of the informer. The House may conceive that very few informations were Kkely to be laid under such conditions. The truth is that, in 1773, it was stated, both in Parliament and in papers put forth by the dis- senting body at that period, that the majority of dissenting preachers then teaching had never subscribed the articles. There- fore, I maintain that any argument grounded upon the supposed insincerity of the Unitarians falls valueless to the ground. As the case now stands, then, can it be necessary to prove UNITARIAN CHAPELS. 93 how easily, how insensibly, how naturally these congregations, having — as was, indeed, the very principle of the early Presby- terians — no confession of faith, no precise form of worship in- serted in theii- trust-deeds to fix the actual doctrines, no sub- scription to any such document being, in fact, the very bond which held them together — what can be more conceivable, more probable, than that they gradually should have gone on hardly knowing that the doctrine preached one Sunday was not the same as that delivered the last ; that they should have gradually passed from one set of opinions to another ? I know that this statement has been treated with derision. I see that my right hon. friend near me (Mr. Fox Maule) does not assent to it. Will he allow me to refer him to an instance with which he cannot but be well acquainted — I mean that of the first Scotch secession ? He will not surely hold that the doctrines taught and believed by the first Scotch secessionists are the same in all respects as those professed by that body now. I have talked with many eminent, and good, and learned men belonging to that persuasion, and they have all admitted that upon points which were considered essential and fundamental by the original seces- sionists, their descendants have widely differed from them. Take, for one point, the connexion between Church and State. The first generation of seceders held that such connexion was proper, and sound, and desirable. They subscribed the solemn league and covenant, and afterwards, when Whitfield went to Scotland, although they agreed with him in his Cahdnistic opinions, and admired — as everybody ought still to admire — his talents and his eloquence, yet they would hold no communion with him, because he held and taught that connexion with the State was sinful. But how do matters stand now ? Are not the descend- ants of those very men crying out the loudest for the voluntary system, and contending the most earnestly for the principle that the Church should not be interfered with by the State ? Here is an instance of gradual change in opinion ; and because of that change will you brand a great body of good men with such gross epithets as have been applied to a similar change of opinion among another body of Christians ? True, my right hon. friend 94 UNITARIAN CHAPELS. may say and think that such a matter as the connexion of Church and State is of less importance than the doctrine of the Trinity; but, sir, I very much doubt whether, if he had lived in the times of the original seceders, he would have found many of them to agree with him. In their opinion, the question of the connexion of Church and State was a vital question. Agaia, the Wesleyan Methodists are very eager in their oppo- sition to the Bill. Sir, is there nothing, I ask, in their history, to make them uneasy on such a point ? I think I can refer to some matters well calculated to afford grounds for very bitter recrimination. What were the doctrines of that great and good man, the founder of their sect, upon the subject of the lay administration of the Sacrament? He told his congregation, when they A\dshed for it, that it was a sin which he could never tolerate — which should never be committed with liis consent — and, in effect, I believe it was never performed during his life- time. After his death, however, the feeling in favour of the lay administration of the Sacrament became very strong and very general ; a Conference was applied for, was constituted, and, after some discussion, it was determined that the request should be granted. What is the consequence ? Why every building, every chapel, every plot of gTound belonging to the Wesleyans, is, Sunday after Sunday, applied or misapplied to the performance of rites which the founder of the sect pronounced to be a sin and a heresy. But now, forsooth, these persons cry out loudly that it is a fraud, downright fraud, when the opinions of congrega- tions change with the lapse of time, and are modified by the progress of events, that they should be permitted to retain theic original endowments. If we refuse to pass this BiU, the quantity of litigation which win arise you can hardly dream of. I own that, as I said before, it is painful to me to see the manner in which this Bill has been opposed, and the quarter from which much of that opposition proceeds. That of the Church is mild in comparison with that of other religious bodies, and yet the opposition of the Church party is certainly more excusable than the opposition of dissent- ing bodies. Nothing is more natural than that the power of UNITARIAN CHAPELS. 95 dominion^ the habit of exercising authority, and that of treating religious bodies out of the Church as inferior to its members — nothing is more natural than that aU this should produce great and grave faults. In the constitution of human nature it is hardly possible but that the High Chiirch party, strong in their great endowments, in their power of affecting seats in Parlia- ment, in the influence and effect of their old Universities, and accustomed, as I said before, to look with somewhat of disdain on other sects — it is hardly possible, but at all events it is not astonishing, that such a party should set itself up against the principle of religious hberty ; not that I approve of that, but it is abnost what I expect. But, sir, I am astonished that persons who have been over and over again compelled to invoke the prin- ciples of civil and religious liberty in their own behalf, should now cry out against this apphcation of them. Sir, I have seen this conduct with astonishment, not unmingled with harsher feelings; but that which increases the astonishment, which deepens those feelings, is to hear from them this loud outcry of opposi- tion at a moment when they themselves, in a parallel case, are imploring the interposition and protection of Parliament ; and while they are demanding an ex post facto law for themselves, are opposing its apphcation in the case of others ! Sir, I allude to the question of Irish Presbyterian marriages. See how parallel the cases are: the Presbyterians have been marrying according to their own forms and rites for many years — so have the Unitarians been occupying property. In neither one case nor the other was any question raised for many years upon the subject; nothing occurred calculated to excite doubt or suspicion in the minds of the most honest or the most scrupulous person. Well, then, about the same time arose both questions, and about the same time were they both decided, The courts of law, deeply feeling the responsibility and the necessity under which they lay of administering the law according to the letter of the law, decided that neither ia the case of the celebration of Presbyterian marriages, nor in that of the possession of Unita- rian chapels, could prescription avail against the letter of the law. Up got, immediately, the orthodox Trinitarian Dissenters ; 96 UNITARIAN CHAPELS. they first accused the lawyers who had pronounced this decision, and now they accuse the legislators who wish to relieve not only them, but other Dissenters, from its effects. It was but the other day that I observed the oration of an eminent person amongst the Irish Presbyterians indignantly demanding whether, in the case of these marriages, old and forgotten laws were to be dug up and applied to times and to circumstances so different from those in which they were enacted ; and yet, in the course of a very few hours, I find him urging the digging up and application of these very old and forgotten laws to another body of his fellow Chris- tians. I should like to know how Presbyterian Dissenters would like the High Church party of England to take up the same tone towards them which they have thought proper to adopt in reference to their Unitarian brethren. Suppose the High Church party were to say, " We also have law upon our side. If the Unitarians are heretics, you are schismatics ; and we refuse to give you the relief which you decline extending to them. You shall have no ex post facto law legalising the marriages cele- brated by yourselves, if you refuse an ex post facto law to them legalising their possession of the chapels supported by themselves. If they are tm-ned out, your marriages shall be invalid." How would you, Presbyterian orthodox Dissenters, Mke to be treated as you treat others ? Great and just as is the importance which you attach to the point of doctrine which separates you from Unitarians, by yom' conduct you seem to have forgotten that it is not the whole sum and suostance of Christianity, but that there is a text about " doing unto others as you would that others should do unto you." There is, however, certainly one distinction between the two cases. The Trinitarian Dissenters are a far more opulent and powerful body, and have means more likely to be applied and more easily applied to influence constituencies and affect seats than have the Unitarians. We know that that sect is small— that it is unpopular — that it can produce little effect upon elec- tions ; perhaps I may go so far as to say that it would probably be the best way to win public favour altogether to repudiate them and their doctrines ; and therefore, if such be the case — if there UNITARIAN CHAPELS. 97 be any person of an arbitraiy nature and intolerant turn of mind who wishes to enjoy the pleasure of persecution with perfect per- sonal impunity — then I say that he can have no more excellent opportunities for the indulgence of his propensities than the present. For myself, sir, I have taken up the doctrines of civil and rehgious liberty, not because they are popular, but because they are just ; and the time may come, and it may come soon, when some of those who are now crying out against this Bill may be compelled to appeal to the principles on which it rests ; and if that shall be the case, then, sir, I will attempt to prevent others from oppresstug them, as I now seek to keep them from lording it over others. At present, I contend against their m- tolerance in the same spirit as I may hereafter have to battle for their rights. VOL. H. 98 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. June 24, 1844. On Mr. Buncombe's Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the Circmnstomces utider which Letters home been secretly opened at the Post-office, and to report as to the. Expediency [of altering the Law on the Subject.* He could assure the rigtt hon. geutleman (Sir J. Graham) that it was his intention to look at the motion then before the House as anything but a party question, and to discuss it without the admixture of anything like party views ; but he must at the same time observe, that the topics here presented were such as he could wish might be avoided; for he must say that the language and the manner of the right hon. gentleman were not those of a man who was conscious of the * The Debates on this subject originated on a petition presented by Mr. Dimcombe from .Joseph Mazzini and others, complaining that letters sent by them through the Poat-olEce for no political purpose, and containing no libellous matter or treasonable comments, had been detained, their seals broken, and thoir contents read by the Post- office authorities. The Petitioners prayed the House to grant without delay a com- mittee to inquire into the matter, to give immediate redress to the Petitioners, and prevent the recurrence of so unconstitutional and infamous a practice. A petition was afterwards presented from Captain Stolzman, a Polish officer, and eventually a secret committee, selected by Sir J. Graham, was appointed. ^Ir. Duncombe's charges before this committee were five in number — 1st, That there existed in the Post-office a secret department, -where the sanctity of private correspondence was violated ; 2nd, That the Secretary of State for the Home Department had made a most unscrupulous use of his power, more letters having been opened by his directions during his period of office than had been opened within the same time by any of his predecessors ; 3rd, That the con- tents of the letters of certain exiles had been communicated to foreign powers, and imprisonment, banishment, and death upon the scaffold had resulted from the system ; 4th, That the correspondence of foreign ambassadors was inspected by the Govern- ment ; 5th, That a roving commission had been sent in 1842 into the manufacturing districts to open letters for political purposes ; and 6th, That his (Mr. Duncombe's) own letters, he being a member of that House, had been detained and opened. The report of this committee was considered unsatisfactory by Mr. Duncombe, and in the following Session of Parliament he moved for a new committee on the subject, but after a very lengthy debate the motion was lost by a majority of il5. OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. 99 very peculiar position in which he was placed. Even if the right hon. baronet had the power, and said that the power was necessary, and that in these cases it had been properly used, still it was a power that it was most odious to use, and for which strong reasons ought to be given; for, even if the power were necessary, still it might be obvious that it was one singularly abhorrent to the genius of the English people. The power here exercised was one which the House had, in cases of necessity, intrusted to the Government ; but then it was a power the exercise of which the House was bound to watch, and they ought to know precisely what had been done; the nature of the warrant; how often such warrants had been issued : and they ought to be told, too, the course of proceedings that had been adopted. This was a case, beyond all others, in which the Minister ought not to think he had done enough to satisfy a House of Commons by merely saying that he had the power; he had exercised it; he was responsible for the exercise of such power; but he would give them no account of the manner in which he had exercised it. That was to encourage the suspicion that the power had been abused; because he could not see — and this he said without casting the slightest imputation on the right hon. baronet — he could not see how so considerable a power as this, intrusted to a Minister and exercised by him, could be used without the Minister deeming it to be proper to do something more than this, or only thinking that it would be sufficient for him to say that " he was responsible." Now, he thought that where there was such a power exercised, the question was not to be so treated. They had the fact as to such a power existing, and then came a very serious question upon this most important motion of the hon. gentleman the member for Finsbury, calling upon them, amongst other things, to appoint a committee to inqiiire into the present law giving that power. Now, he begged to say, that for the present state of the law neither party of that House was answerable. Both parties had received it from their ancestors — both parties, when in power, had used it — and he 100 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. did not impute to either the having used it dishonestly or oppressively; but since their attention had been called to this power, it could not, without very great modifications, be per- mitted to last. He defied any person to show him the difference between a letter of his being taken from him when in the Post-office, and a letter taken from him out of his desk. He defied them to show how the public safety could justify any more a letter of his being taken out of the post- bag than it could justify its being talcen out of his desk. Why was the letter put into the post-bag, except for the purpose of being transmitted to the person for whom it was destined ? It w^as given to the Post-oflfice, and for the purposes of revenue a monopoly was given to the Post-ofl3.ce. The sole purpose was the safe transmission of the letter ; but the turning the Post- office into an engine of the police was, he said, utterly abhorrent to the public feeling. Let them only consider if there was a single reason for examining letters to or from him in the Post-office, which was not good and valid for examining letters that he had in his desk; let them take it that there was a treasonable plot — the most treasonable ever thought of : the letters might contain treason. Then the treason could be as well discovered in the letter in his pocket, as the letter when transmitted. As to the inconvenience, it was the same to him in both cases, and the plea for both was the public necessity. It was the same whether a person^s correspondence was examined before it reached him as after it had reached him. There was no diflference as to the injury done to him. If the public danger was the same, the inconvenience to the individual was the same. Then why make the distinction ? He knew that in cases of suspected crime the letters could be examined and produced in a court of justice, whether taken in transit or in the person's pocket. But then, if a letter were delivered and they took it wrongfully, they would be liable to an action for damages ; and if they used violence, they would be severely punished. Thus, in the case of Mr. Wilkes, when his letters had been seized, and carried to Lord Halifax and the Under Secretary of State, he brought an action for those OPENING LETTEUS AT THE POST-OPl'ICE. 101 letters being wrongfully seized and without probable cause, and the result was that he gained his action, and they were obUged to pay, by the verdict of a jury, .€1000 damages. That was what he called ministerial responsibility. He wanted to know if a letter, after it got to Mr. Mazzini, was so sacred that it could not be touched, and yet before it came to him that it coiild be examined — that, upon the most vague suspicion, fifty or a hundred letters could be thus stopped, and yet Mr. Mazzini never know whether they were examined or not. If it were possible to show him that the examination of a letter before it arrived was less injurious to the individual than the examination of it in the desk after it arrived, then he would give up the argument. It was idle to teU him that this was neces- saiy ; for worse things than this might be done, and sustained on the same plea. The fact was, the whole of the arguments in favour of the practice belonged to a class which the sense of the country had repudiated long ago. The question was not whether there were advantages in the spy system; for that had been decided by their ancestors long ago. They were not now to determine whether they were to adopt the practice of employing spies, as was done by foreign Governments. And Avhat difference was there between their having spies upon words spoken or words written ? In common fairness, he said, it was no difference to him between a Government breaking the seal of his letter in the Post-office, and the Government employing a spy to poke his ear to the keyhole, and listen to the con- versations he carried on. They might regard it as necessary to the public safety to do this — to say that such a person was suspected, and that they had one of his servants feed to betray him. They might allege the same excuse for the pobce reading letters as for listening to conversations ; and there might be some advantage in this. There could be no doubt there might be an advantage in breaking open letters. No one denied it; but then, was it fitting that it should be done ? In the same way, did anyone doubt that there was an advantage in having police spies ? But then the country did not approve of them. The French had an 102 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OPFICE. advantage in having police spies. No one doubted that the spy system enabled them to bring to justice many who must other- wise have escaped. It was the same thing as to torture. There could be no doubt that as long as the English law sanctioned the use of the torture, a great many crimes were detected by it. It had, too, its advantages. {Cries of " Oh, oh.") Yes; for the instant that Guy Fawkes was shown the rack, out came at once the entire story of the gunpowder-plot. Even this torture, as weU as the spy system, had these advantages ; but then this country had determined long ago that such were pernicious, debasing, and dangerous modes of maintaining its institutions. Their ancestors declared that they would rather take the risk of great crimes being committed than owe their security to that system or those means which woiild destroy the manly spirit of the people, on which far more reliance could be placed than all the schemes and decrees that could be invented for maintaining their greatness and independence as a nation. He did not — ^he again repeated it — -mean to af&rm that there had not been a fair intention in the power that had been exercised, but then he could not but see that the use of the power must have perni- cious consequences. Suppose a Minister were to say, " Since I have been in office, two letters have been opened at the Post-office. One was opened in reference to questions of great importance regarding the public peace ; another because it was supposed to be of a nature to throw great light upon the Exchequer Bill Case." Informa- tion of this kind, given by a Minister of the Crown, would have a great effect in quieting the minds of the public. But the right hon. gentleman having refased to give any information of the sort, forced forward the conviction that this practice had been carried on to a very great extent by him, and under pecu- liar circumstances of concealment. He would never beheve that if the right hon. baronet could have denied the charge that seals had been counterfeited and stamps replaced, in order to conceal the opening of the letter, he would not have been glad to have done so. The right hon. baronet must know that, unless protected in particular cases, the power exercised by the OPENING LETTEllS AT THE T'OST-OFl'ICE. 103 Grovernment, and the practice of couuterfeiting seals and re- placing stamps, was a malum in se, as well as an infraction of the common-law of the land. The right hon. baronet admitted that being empowered by this Act of Parliament to do acts which were illegal at common-law, he had authorised the opening letters at the Post-office, detaining some, and sending on others, taking care, however, to disguise the fact that they had been opened ; yet he would not satisfy the House and the country by telling them how often he had done this, nor the circumstances under which he had done it. The right hon. baronet would state neither the grounds upon which he acted, nor would he allow them to see the warrant which he had issued for the purpose. When he saw this, he (Mr. Macaulay) asked whether the House of Commons was not entitled, in a case like this, to take steps for a further inquiry ? He had put the case hypothetically — he could do nothing else; he was forced to do so, for the right hon. gentleman would tell them nothing of the facts of the case. Two years ago the manufacturing districts were in a very excited state, there was a great deal of violence used, and attempts made to keep people from going to work. He could not forget that, whilst these things were going on, an assertion was very generally put about that these troubles were got up in an underhand manner by certain gentlemen belonging to the Anti-Corn-law League. Now, this suspicion existing, what evidence was there to be obtained in support of it — what proof so easy for a Government to obtain as by openiijg the letters of the gentlemen, many of them members of this House, known to be most prominently connected with the affairs of this society ? He was not a member of the Anti-Com-law League, he was not one of its representatives in this House ; but, as a Member of Parliament, he wished to learn whether the right hon. gentleman the Secretary of State might not, on some occasion like this, think it his duty on principle to open all the letters of some thirty or forty most hon. gentlemen, represen- tatives of the people in this House, some having reference to important public affairs, others filled with the secrets of their 104 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. respective families. As regarded an Englishman^ tte hardship of the case only went so far as this, that his secrets were read by pubUc officials; but the case was a very diiferent one in regard to the unhappy foreigner. They could not hang an Englishman, whatever his letters might contain, without the ordeal of a judge and jury; but with respect to foreigners, he really did wonder that men who assumed to be so humane as hon. gentlemen opposite should think so hghtly of the conse- quences of this sort of procedure. Some unhappy foreigner has come to our free land; and, relying upon the supposed good faith of the English Post-office, writes to his friends with greater freedom than he would otherwise have done, or than he would ever do abroad. Then came the secretary of some foreign embassy to the Secretary for the Home Department, apphes for information as to the contents of the letters of certain parties, which, on receiving, he sends over to the native Government of the unhappy foreigner, who carefully lays it by. No evil consequences result to the unfortunate vmter whilst he remains in this country ; but, at length, unconscious of what awaits him, he goes back to his native land — he actually walks into the Uon's mouth, in a land where there is no jru-y to protect him ; and, upon evidence got up in this manner, he is consigned, perhaps, to the inside of a dungeon for life. He believed that the House would admit that he had never been one to indulge in this House in reflections upon the insti- tutions or internal affairs of any foreign country whatever. On the contrary, he thought that, as a rule, the tone and manner of the House, as of the Government, ought to be marked with something of the respect and decorum of diplomatic procedure. But whilst they did not set themselves up as judges upon neigh- bouring Governments, at least let them not set themselves up as their spies. This he must say, that if the continuance of this power in the hands of our Government would lead to such applications from foreign powers, for the revelation of the con- tents of letters passing through our Post-ofifice, he thought the only course would be to repeal this law altogether. For he thought it might sometimes be putting a Ministry into a very OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. 105 awkward position, if tliey should have to refuse to the Minister of a foreign friendly power information of this kind, which he said he required for the interests of his Government. He thought if this practice were found to exist, that it would he better to enable a Minister to say at once, " Parliament has not given us power to do what jou ask us to do," than to run the risk of giving offence by saying, " We have the power, but we do not choose to exercise it in jonx case ; all that can be done in the matter must be done with such pubUcity as will give an injured, helpless man, an equal chance of redress and justice being done him." His feeUng upon this subject was so strong that even if the motion of the hon. gentleman had gone much further than it did, if it had been for leave to bring in a Bill to take this power from the Secretary of State, he would have cordially voted for it ; but, as it was, he would cordially give his vote for the motion for a committee to inquire whether this power had been properly exercised or not. 106 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. July 2, 1844. On Mr. Duncomhe^g Motion fin' a Select Committee to inqui/re into the Duties and Etwployment of the Persons engaged in the Secret Depa/rt- meni at the Post-office, and as to the Aiithority under which the Functions of the said Office a,re discha/rged. I WOULD not now presume to address the House were it not that I understand, during my absence, some allusion has been made to me by the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir J. Graham). It is extremely difficult for a person who has not been present during a debate in this House to collect precisely what has been said duriug his absence ; and it is proportionally difficult for him to give an answer to any charges which have been made agaiust him. But if I rightly understand what I am told has been said by the right hon. gentleman, the charges he has made against me may be classed under two heads. He has imputed to me, in the first place, a dereliction of my duty as a sworn servant of her Majesty; and, secondly, he has accused me of making a personal attack upon him, and of imputing to him some misconduct unprecedented in the administration of his predecessors. Now, as to the first and more important of these attacks, I deny that I have in any respect, by any observation I have addressed to this House, violated my oath of duty as a Privy Councillor. I deny that I have divulged any secret which came into my possession in that capacity. I deny that, in the character of a Privy Councillor, I ever became acquainted with any circumstance whatever relating to the practice of the Post-office. I deny that any paper I knew to be obtained by the opening or scraping of seals was ever, to the best of my knowledge, submitted to me in that capacity. I declare; also, that there is no gentleman, on either side of this OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OPFICE. 107 House, who is more completely ignorant than I am of all details of that department of the Post-office to whidi frequent reference has been m.ade during this discussion. Then, with respect to the second charge made against me by the right hon. gentleman, I deny, with equal confidence, the imputation that I came down to this House to make a personal attack upon that right hon. baronet. I certainly came down iutending to express concisely a very strong opinion as to the present state of the law and practice, and I intended to have prefaced my observations by declaring that I made no imputation whatever upon the right hon. baronet, beyond what must attach to him in common with all others who had been called upon to administer the same invidious law. If I departed from that line of conduct, it was because the right hon. baronet himself forced me to such a course ; because I considered that the line of con- duct he adopted was utterly inconsistent with all notions of ministerial responsibility. I now say that, in m^y opinion, there is a wide distinction between the conduct of the right hon. gentleman and that of any persons who have preceded him in his present office ; for who, when called upon in the face of this House to state on what principle he had exercised the power we are now discussing, ever declined to do so before the right hon. baronet? When Sir Robert Walpole weis called upon in this House to make such a statement, he frankly avowed the principle on which he had acted. The noble lord near me has made a distinct statement of the principle on which, during his adminis- tration, that department was directed. He distinctly declared that, in the exercise of this power, he acted solely with a view to the safety of this country ; and that he would have considered it a departure from the spirit of the law to examine the letters of foreigners, in consequence of applications from foreign Govern- ments, founded upon apprehensions they might entertain. The right hon. baronet opposite was repeatedly asked, "WiU you state that this was the principle Upon which you acted ?" The right hon. gentleman replied that he would not— that a sense of public duty, regard for the safety of the State, induced him to I refase to declare the principle upon which he had acted. Was 108 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. that consistent with the conduct of the right hon. baronet to- night ? Wliy is net this secret committee, consisting of nine members of this House, to tell us upon what principle this prac- tice was carried on ? Is it not appointed in order that the House may ascertain on what general principle letters have been opened ? There can be no doubt that the intention is, that this secret committee shall state to the House, not particular cases, but the general principles upon which the Post-office and other au- thorities have acted. To the appointment of that committee the right hon. baronet (Sir J. Graham) entertains no decided objection. Does he not conceive that the pubhc safety is com- promised by the appointment of such a committee ? Let me ask the right hon. baronet why he did not state to the House what he conceives will be the substance of the report of that committee ? Why, if the report of that committee will com- promise the public safety, the right hon. gentleman ought not to agree to its appoiatment ! If the public safety will not be com- promised by such report, the right hon. baronet ought not to have shielded himself under the pretence of " pubUc safety," and have refused any answer to questions put to him on this subject. A mere declaration from him of the principles upon which he has acted would have prevented me from making any remarks as to his conduct ; I should merely have addressed myself to what I think the most important part of the subject- — the state of the law. I shall be much suprised if the report of this committee shoidd lead me to entertain an opinion different from that I have hitherto expressed, namely, that the state of the law requires very great and extensive alteration. I will not detain the House further than to say that I heartdy approve of the motion of the right hon. baronet opposite, and that I think, upon the whole, it is desirable that, ia the first instance at least, the proceedings of the committee should be secret. I conceive it to be possible that some matters connected with the administration of foreign affairs might be disclosed in the course of the examination, the publicity of which we might have reason to regret. I am not desirous that any secresy what- ever shoidd be preserved with respect to the internal arrange- OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. 109 ments of the Post-office ; because, with regard to all matters purely internal, the people of this country are fully competent to judge what is for their own interest. Matters which it is not advisable to render public might, however, be disclosed in the course of an inquuy of this nature. I do not conceive that any report this committee may present is likely to induce me to change the opinion I now entertain — that the power possessed by the Secretary of State with regard to the opening of letters ■is one M'hich produces no advantage at all commensurate ■with the evils and the feeling of insecurity which it occasions ; and that it is a power which, whether we censure the past exercise of it or not, we ought without delay to abolish. 110 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. Pebbuary 20, 1845. On ike Motion of Mr. T. Dunaomhe, that a Select Committee be anointed to Inquire into the Mode in which Letters have heen Opened and Re-sealed at the General and Provincial Post-offices. I WISH to explain, as clearly as possible, the precise grouiids on which I shall feel it my duty to give my vote on this question. I cannot vote for the motion of the hon. member for Finsbury as it stands, and my reasons are two. First, I think that the motion, framed as it is, contains in itself an implied censure on the secret committee ; and, secondly, even if the words of the motion did not imply a censm'e, the speech of the hon. member who introduced it imparted to it the character of a censure. The notice is, " to caU the attention of the House to the evasive and unsatisfactory character of the report of the secret com- mittee." Everybody knows that where the terms of a motion are doubtful, they may be explained by what is said in support of it ; and what would otherwise be a matter perfectly unim- portant, may assume great importance if introduced by a speech containing matter of crimination. Such may be the case with a common motion, but much more so when it is a motion which implies in itself a species of censure. On that ground — if that ground were all — I could not support the proposition of my hon. friend the member for Finsbury. The secret committee, I fully believe, did its duty honestly ; and, from a knowledge of most of the members of it, I am sure that their conduct has not deserved censure. Be it observed that we ought to be pecuharly cautious in passing censure upon a secret committee ; because the gentle- men comprising it are tied dovm in honour, as well as in public duty, and cannot state or explain what may appear to some a deficiency in their report. This is quite decisive in my mind. OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. Ill Another part of the proposal is^ that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the expediency of the present practice. I see no reason for that. I conceive that the subject is now ripe for legislation. I want no farther information^ and on that account there is no groimd for referring the matter to a com- mittee. Nevertheless, I must say that I do, to a great extent, agree with the hon. member for Pinsbury, though I cannot support his motion. It appears to me that we ought, in the first place, to pass a law upon the subject. I thinli that we are already in possession of the necessary materials, and I have myself very little doubt, though discussion may modify my opinion, as to the principle by which such a law should be governed. I cannot conceive how we can make out that there ought to be any difference in principle in the way in which we should treat a letter in transit, and a letter after it has been delivered. A letter directed to me, and put into the mail-bag, is my property in the same sense, to the same extent, and with the same limitation, as a letter which has been delivered to me. I can see no reason whatever for any distinction in principle ; they are both alike my property ; and the exposure of my secrets is the same, and attended with the same consequences, whether from the readiag of a letter which is yet to be delivered, or from the reading of a letter which has been dehvered. As to the public also, the effect is exactly the same, whether the infor- mation be derived from a letter which was dehvered to me this morning, or from a letter which is to be dehvered to me to- morrow morning. The right of any gentleman to his letter is subject to the claims of society; but in the same way, whether it be or be not delivered. True, there may be a great convenience in cases which you may suppose, in opening a letter before it reaches the party to whom it is addressed, in extracting the contents, sealing it again, and then sending it to him. I can very well rmderstand that there may be instances where that course would be useful ; but in the same way I can understand how it might be useful in certain circumstances, instead of ob- taining a search-Avarrant, and opening my drawers, to induce a servant to secrete my papers, to convey them to the Home-office, 112 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. andj after having examined them, and perhaps made extracts from them, to place them smooth again, and to restore them quietly to the situation from which they had been purloined. This coiu-se may at times be very convenient ; and it may be very convenient also to open a letter in transit in a surreptitious manner, and to send it re-sealed to the owner. What I con- sider a sound principle in relation to this subject is this : I would leave a power with the Secretary of State to send a warrant to call for any letter. I would give him the power of opening any letter; but I would require that, after a certain time, a reasonable time to be fixed, that letter, which continues all along to be the property of the person to whom it is addressed, should, unless it be to be used in some judicial proceeding, be forwarded to the party, with a stamp showing that it had been opened. I may hear objections to that sound and plain principle ; but I own that I camiot anticipate them. I know that it may be sub- ject to some inconvenience ; here and there a rogue may escape; now and then a plot may be successful which would otherwise be defeated ; but in this country, and at this time of day, we are not to argue it as a question whether we ought to enjoy all the advantages derived from exemption from those expedients to which despotic Governments resort. Espionage is very advan- tageous beyond a doubt ; to have " a servant fee'd in" every house might be extremely convenient ; and it was said that in France, at the revolution, this convenience was to a great extent enjoyed. But does it follow that we are to resort to the same system ? I recollect last year I said that torture had its advan- tages, and I was met by an indignant " No, no," from many hou. members ; but, nevertheless, what I advanced was quite true. I venture to affirm that many atrocious crimes have notoriously been brought to light by torture ; but I do not affirm that we ought therefore to re-introduce it into our criminal jurisprudence. So I say in the case before us : the experience of many years sbows us that the benefits arising from the strict observation of the security and secrecy of private life, without the exercise of arbitrary power, much more than counterbalance all the advan- tages to be derived from a contrary system. That, at least, is OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. 113 my deliberate opinion. I think that a Bill should be brought in on such a principle, and, if brought in, it shall have my support. We then come to another part of the subject — to the com- plaint of the hon. member for Finsbury. I must say that, as it seems to me, he is entitled to what he asks. A member of Parha- ment ofPers to prove that his letters have been opened. The right hon. gentlemen opposite do not deny it ; and I cannot conceive, after what they have said of their case, why they should pause in giving their consent to an inquiry. I cannot conceive that any great danger to the State can really arise out of their acquies- cence. If they could say, " There is no truth in the charge, and we defy any human being to prove it," what danger could possibly result ? None in the world : it is impossible. If they tell us that there never has been any such warrant, what danger could arise from the answer? And I must here say that another circumstance, to which at the time I did not attach much importance, has since produced upon my mind a strong im- pression. Whether what is charged has or has not been the case, it produces a suspicion that Government has not dealt quite fairly by the House in respect to the appointment of the secret committee of last year. The circumstance requires explanation. When Ministers agreed to grant a committee, it seemed most natural and usual that the hon. member who brought forward the subject should be put upon it. As far as my recollection goes, I scarcely know of the appointment of a committee by the House to investigate a grievance, from which the gentleman who introduced the question to its notice was excluded. However, the usual, the invariable course was not the course in this instance ; for the members of the Government got up and told us that they meant to constitute the committee on a new and peculiar priaciple; that fairness and justice re- quired that the hon. member for Fiusbury should be excluded. Every member of the existing Government, and every member of the late Government, was also to be excluded. It could not be a fair iuvestigation, said they, if a member be present who is the accuser, and therefore we will constitute a secret com- mittee from which every party interested shall be shut out. The House was carried away by this grand show of justice and VOL. II. I 114 OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE. candour. I myself, among others^ was misled by it; and I afterwards regretted that I had voted with the right hon. gentle- men opposite on the principles they professed, which was to form a committee on a plan so peculiarly fair. A few days afterwards Ministers had to form a committee on the very same subject in the House of Lords, and then they utterly forgot their own boasted principle. They took upon it members of the late as well as of the existing Government — Chancellors and ex-Chan- cellors, in short, several most active persons in the former and in the present Administration. It was the same G-overnment which formed both committees ; the same reason was assigned for the committees in both places; and the same principle, if good for anything, ought to have been applied to both. If justice could not be done by a committee here, in which the accuser and members of the Government had seats, how could justice be done elsewhere, in a committee where the accuser could not sit, but to which members of the present and late Administrations were admitted? They were very anxious to exclude all interested parties in this House, but as soon as they came into the other House that principle was utterly forgotten. Unless I hear some explanation of the difference, and they tell me why a committee of the House of Lords, on precisely the same question, was to be constituted on the very opposite principle, I must believe that it was so constituted here only for the purpose of keeping out the hon. member for Finsbm-y. As far as I can see, I think that there is great reason to beheve that the letters of the hon. member were opened. I do not mean to say that they may not have been properly opened. It is perfectly possible that he may be, as no doubt he is, innocent of rmything hke criminal correspondence; but such information may have been given to the Home-office by calumniators as might excite a reasonable suspicion in the breast of the right hon. secretary. But I think a member of Parhament who offers to prove the fact is entitled to be heard : it is a question of privilege in a very peculiar sense ; it is a privilege not for his own benefit, and it ought not to be for his own benefit. It is a privilege for the benefit of his constituents, and for the sake of free intercoui'se and correspondence between the representative OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OPPICE. ll5 and the represented. Every member of Parliament is to be looked upon as one of the grand inquest of the nation. Many persons -writhing mider the pressure of what they consider a grievance are apt to use angry language ; they are perhaps hot- headed men, and employ terms which others would much regret and disapprove ; but for a member of Parliament to show a dis- position to receive complaints of giievances seems to me a virtue and a merit. If they come readily to him from different parts of the country, it is one of the signs that he does his duty in this House. Is such a correspondence to be subjected to in- spection and criticism — and that, too, by pohtical opponents? Supposing them to be men of honour, their minds must be in some degree heated by the nightly conflicts in which they are engaged in this place. They might fancy, in siich a state of mind, that the hon. member was engaged in schemes which never entered his head, and this species of correspondence ought to be peculiarly sacred. Are his letters of this kind to be placed in the hands of his opponents, of his enemies in a pubhc though not in a private sense ? I conceive that when a member of the House of Commons offers to prove that his letters have been opened, when he offers to submit his conduct to the inspection of the public, on every ground of reason and justice we ought to comply. We ought to allow him to prove his case, if he can, for our own sakes. If he has in any way compromised the safety of the State — if there be any suspicion of it — if that suspicion be confirmed, then, sorry as I should be to see it, still I must say that he ought no longer to continue a member of Parhament. If, on the other hand, his letters have been opened and nothing found in them, then he is entitled to reparation; and the least reparation he can expect is a fair inquiry, and an open declaration of his innocence. What I suggest is, that instead of caUing upon a committee, as in the concluding part of the motion, to investigate the present practice in this respect, we should proceed at once to legislate. It seems to me that we are in a condition to do so ; but I cannot vote for the motion as it stands, though I would support a proposition to inquire into a complaint of a member of Parliament who declares that his letters have been improperly opened. 116 THE SUGAR DUTIES. Feb. 26, 1845. On the Order of the Bay for tJie House going into CoTnmittee of Ways and Means. Sir, if the question now at issue were merely a financial or a commercial question, T should be unwilling to offer myself to your notice ; for I am weU aware that there are, both on your right and on your left hand, many gentlemen far more deeply versed in financial and commercial science than myself; and I should think that I discharged my duty better by listening to them than by assuming the ofiice of a teacher. But, sir, the question on which we are at issue with her Majesty's Ministers is neither a financial nor a commercial question. I do not under- stand it to be disputed that, if we were to pronounce our decision with reference merely to fiscal and mercantile considerations, we should at once adopt the Amendment of my noble Friend.* Indeed, the right hon. gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone) has distinctly admitted this. He says that the Ministers of the Crown call upon us to sacrifice great pecuniary advantages and commercial facilities, for the purpose of maintaining a moral principle. Indeed, neither in former debates nor in the debate of this night has any person ventured to deny that, both as respects the public purse and as respects the interest of trade, the course recommended by my noble friend is preferable to the course recommended by the Government. The objections to my noble friend's amendment, then, are purely * lord John Eussell had moved the following amendment to the Goyernment propo- sition — " That it is the opinion of this House that the plan proposed by her Majesty's Government in reference to the Sugar Duties, professes to keep up a distinction between foreign free-labour and foreign slave-labour sugar which is impracticable and illusory; and, without adequate benefit to the consumer, tends so greatly to impair the revenue as to render the removal of the income and property tax at the end of three years extremely uncertain and improbable." THE SUGAR DUTIES. 117 moral objections. We lie, it seems, under a moral obligation to make a distinction between the produce of free-labour and the produce of slave-labour. Now I should be as unwilling to incur the imputation of being indifferent to the welfare of the African race as any hon. member opposite can be to incur the imputation of hypocrisy. I do, however, think that it is in my power to show strong reasons for beheving that th-e moral obligation pleaded by the Ministers has no existence. If there be no such moral obligation, then, as it is conceded on the other side that all fiscal and conamercial arguments are on the side of my noble friend, it follows that we ought to adopt his amendment. The right hon. gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade has said, that the Grovernment does not pretend to act with perfect consistency as to this distinction between free-labour and slave-labour. It was, indeed, necessary that he should say this ; for the policy of the Government is obviously most inconsistent. Perfect consistency, I admit, we are not to expect in human aflairs. But, surely, there is a decent consistency which ought to be observed ; and of this the right hon. gentleman himself seems to be sensible ; for he asks how, if we admit sugar grown by Brazihan slaves, we can with decency continue to stop Brazilian vessels engaged ia the slave-trade. This argument, whatever be its value, proceeds on the very correct supposition that the test of sincerity in individuals, in parties, and in governments, is con- sistency. The right hon. gentleman feels, as we must all feel, that it is impossible to give credit for good faith to a man who on one occasion pleads a scruple of conscience as an excuse for not doing a particular things and who on other occasions, where there is no essential difference of circimistances, does that very thing without any scruple at all. I do not wish to use such a word as hypocrite, or to impute that odious vice to any gentle- man on either side of the House. But whoever declares one moment that he feels himself bound by a certain moral rule, and the next moment, in a case strictly similar, acts in direct defiance of that rule, must submit to have, if not his honesty, yet at least his power of discriminating right from wrong very gravely questioned. 118 THE SUGAR DUTIES. NoWj sir^ I deny the existence of the moral obligations alleged by the Grovernment. I deny that we are tinder any moral obh- gation to turn our fiscal code into a penal code, for the purpose of correcting vices in the institutions of independent States. 1 say that, if you suppose such a moral obligation to be in force, the supposition leads to consequences from which every one of us would recoil, to consequences which would throw the whole commercial and poHtical system of the world into confusion. I say that, if such a moral obligation exists, our financial legislation is one mass of injustice and inhumanity. And I say more espe- cially that, if such a moral obligation exists, then the right hon. baronet^s Budget is one mass of injustice and inhumanity. Observe, I am not disputing the paramount authority of moral obligation. I am not setting up pecuniary considerations against moral considerations. I know that it would be not only a wicked but a short-sighted policy to aim at making a nation hke this great and prosperous by violating the laws of justice. To those laws, enjoin what they may, I am prepared to submit. But I will not palter with them, I will not cite them to-day in order to serve one turn, and quibble them away to-morrow in order to serve another. I will not have two standards of right, one to be applied when I wish to protect a favourite interest at the pubhc cost, and another to be applied when I wish to replenish the Exchequer, and to give an impulse to trade. I will not have two weights or two measures. I will not blow hot and cold, play fast and loose, strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Can the Government say as much ? Are gentlemen opposite prepared to follow out their own principle ? They need not look long for opportunities. The statute-book swarms with enact- ments directly opposed to the rule which they profess to respect. I will take a single instance from our existing laws, and propound it to the gentlemen opposite as a test, if I must not say of their sincerity, yet of their power of moral discrimination. Take the article of tobacco. Not only do you admit the tobacco of the United States which is grown by slaves, not only do you admit the tobacco of Cuba which is grown by slaves, and by slaves, as you tell us, recently imported from Africa, but you THE SUGAR DUTIES. 119 actually interdict the free labourer of the United Kingdom from growing tobacco ! You have long had on your statute-book laws prohibiting the cultivation of tobacco in England, and aiithorising the Government to destroy all tobacco-plantations, except a few square yards which are suffered to exist unmolested in botanical gardens for purposes of science. These laws did not extend to Ireland. The free peasantry of Ireland began to grow tobacco. The cultivation spread fast. Down came your legislation upon it ; and now, if the Irish freeman dares to engage iu competition with the slaves of Virginia and Havannah, you exchequer him ; you ruin him ; you grub up his plantation. Here, then, we have a test by which we may try the consistency of the gentle- men opposite. I ask you. Are you prepared, I do not say to exclude slave-grown tobacco, but to take away from slave-grown tobacco the monopoly which you now give to it, and to permit the free labourer of the United Kingdom to enter into com- petition on equal terms, on any terms, with the negro who works under the lash ? I am confident that the three right hon. gentlemen opposite, the Ffrst Lord of the Treasury (Sir R. Peel), the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn), and the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone), will aU with one voice answer "No." And why not? — "Because," say they, " it wiU injure the revenue. True it is," they wiU say, " that the tobacco imported from abroad is grown by slaves, and by slaves many of whom have been recently carried across the Atlantic, ia defiance, not only of justice and humanity, but of law and treaty. True it is that the cultivators of the United Kingdom are freemen. But then on the imported tobacco we are able to raise at the Custom-house a duty of 600 per cent. — sometimes, indeed, of 1,200 per cent. ; and if tobacco were grown here, it would be difficult to get an excise-duty of even 100 per cent. We cannot submit to this loss of revenue, and therefore we give a monopoly to the slaveholder, and make it penal in the freeman to invade that monopoly." You may be right; but, in the name of common-sense, be consistent ! If this moral obligation of which you talk so much be one which may with propriety yield to fiscal considerations. 120 THE SUGAK DUTIES. jct US liave Brazilian sugars. If it be paramoimt to all fiscal considerations, let us at least have Britisli snuiF and cigars. The present Ministers may, indeed, plead that they are not the authors of the laws which prohibit the cultivation of tobacco ui Great Britain and Ireland. That is true. The present Govern- ment found those laws in existence ; and no doubt there is good sense in the Conservative doctrine that many things which ought not to have been set up ought not, when they have been set up, to be hastily and rudely pulled down. Bat what will the right hon. baronet urge in vindication of his own new Budget? He is not content with maintaining laws which he finds already existing in favour of produce grown by slaves. He introduces a crowd of new laws to the same eifect. He comes down to the House with a proposition for entirely taking away the duties on the importation of cotton. He glories in this scheme. He tells us that it is in strict accordance with the soundest principles of legislation. He teUs us that it wiU be a blessing to the country. I agree with him, and I intend to vote with him. But how is all this cotton grown? Is it not grown by slaves ? Again I say, you may be right ; but, in the name of common-sense, be consistent ! I saw with no small amusement, a few days ago, a paragraph by one of the right hon. baronet's eulogists which was to the following efiect :— " Thus has this eminent statesman given to the Enghsh labourer a large supply of a most important raw material, and has man- fully withstood those ravenous Whigs who wished to inundate our country with sugar dyed in negro blood." With what, I should like to know, is the right hon. baronet's cotton dyed? Formerly, indeed, an attempt was made to distinguish between the cultivation of cotton and the cultivation of sugar. The cul- tivation of sugar, it was said, was peculiarly fatal to the health and life of the slave. But that plea, whatever it may have been worth, must now be abandoned ; for the right hon. baronet now proposes to reduce to a very great extent the duty on slave- grown sugar imported from the United States. Then a new distinction is set up. The United States, it is said, have slavery ; but they have no slave-trade. I deny that assertion. I say that THE SUGAH DUTIES. 121 the sugar and cotton of the United States are the fruits, not only of slavery, but of the slave-trade. And I say further that, if there be on the surface of this earth a country which before God and man is more accountable than any other for the misery and degradation of the African race, that country is not Brazil, the produce of which the right hon. baronet excludes, but the United States, the produce of which he proposes to admit on more favourable terms than ever. I have no pleasure in going into an argument of this nature. I do not conceive that it is the duty of a member of the English Parhament to discuss abuses which exist in other societies. Such discussion seldom tends to produce any reform of such abuses, and has a direct tendency to wound national pride, and to inflame national animosities. I would wiUingly avoid this subject, but the right hon. baronet leaves me no choice. He turns this House into a court of judicature for the purpose of criticising and comparing the institutions of independent States. He tells us that our tariff is to be made an instrument for rewarding the justice and humanity of some foreign Governments, and for punishing the barbarity of others. He binds up the dearest interests of my constituents with questions with which otherwise I should, as a member of Parliament, have nothing to do. I would gladly keep silence on such questions. But it cannot be. The tradesmen and the professional men whom I represent say to me, " Why are we to be loaded, certainly for some years, probably for ever, with a tax admitted by those who impose it to be grievous, unequal, inquisitorial ? Why are ^\^e to be loaded in time of peace with burdens heretofore reserved for the exi- gencies of war?" The paper-manufacturer, the soap-manufac- turer, say, " Why, if the income-tax is to be continued, are our important and sufferiug branches of industry to have no relief?" And the answer is, " Because Brazil does not behave so well as the United States towards the negro race." Can I, then, avoid instituting a comparison ? Am I not bound to bring to the test the truth of an assertion pregnant with consequences so momen- tous to those who have sent me hither ? I must speak out ; and if what I say gives offence and produces inconvenience, for that 133 THE SUGAR DUTIES. offence and for that inconvenience the Government is respon- sible. I affirm^ then, that there exists in the United States a slave-trade not less odious or demoralising, nay, I do in my conscience believe more odious and more demoralising than that which is carried on between Africa and Brazil. North Carolina and Virginia are to Louisiana and Alabama what Congo is to Rio Janeiro. The slave States of the Union are to be divided into two classes — the breeding States, where the human beasts of burden increase and multiply and become strong for labour, and the sugar and cotton States, to which those beasts of burden are sent to be worked to death. To what an extent the traffic in man is carried on we may learn by comparing the census of 1830 with the census of 1840. North Cai-olina and Virginia are, as I have said, great breeding States. During the ten years from 1830 to 1840 the slave-population of North Carolina was almost stationary. The slave-population of Virginia positively decreased. Yet both in North Carolina and Virginia propa- gation was, during those ten years, going on fast. The number of births among the slaves in those States exceeded by hundreds of thousands the number of the deaths. What, then, became of the surplus ? Look to the returns from the Southern States — to the States whose produce the right hon. baronet proposes to admit with reduced duty or with no duty at all, and you will see. You will find that the increase in the breeding States was barely sufficient to meet the demand of the consuming States. In Louisiana, for example, where we know that the negro-popula- tion is worn down by cruel tod, and would not, if left to itself, keep up its numbers, there were, in 1830, 107,000 slaves ; in 1840, 170,000. In Alabama the slave-population duriug those ten years much more than doubled; it rose from 117,000 to 353,000. In Mississippi it actually tripled. It rose from 65,000 to 195,000. So much for the extent of this slave-trade. And as to its nature, ask any Englishman who has ever travelled in the Southern States. Jobbers go about from plantation to planta- tion, looking out for proprietors who are not easy in their cir- cumstances, and who are likely to seU cheap. A black boy is THE SUGAR DUTIES. 123 picked up here ; a black girl there. The dearest ties of nature and of marriage are torn asunder as rudely as they were ever torn asunder by any slave captain on the coast of Guinea. A gang of three or four hundred negroes is made up ; and then these wretches^ handcuffed, fettered, guarded by armed men, are driven southward, as you would drive (or rather as you would not drive) a herd of oxen to Smithfield, that they may undergo the deadly labour of the sugar-mill near the mouth of the Mis- sissippi. A very few years of that labour in that climate suffice to send the stoutest African to his gTave. But he can well be spared. While he is fast sinking into premature old age, negro boys ia Virginia are growing up as fast into vigorous manhood, to supply the void which cruelty is making in Louisiana. God forbid that I should extenuate the horrors of the slave-trade in any form ; but I do think this its worst form. Bad enough it is that civilised men should sail to an uncivilised quarter of the world where slavery exists, should there buy wretched barbarians, and should carry them away to labour in a distant land ; bad enough ! But that a civilised man, a baptised man, a man proud of being a citizen of a free State, a man frequenting a Christian church, should breed slaves for exportation, and, if the whole horrible truth must be told, should even beget slaves for exportation, should see children, sometimes his own children, gambolling around him from infancy, should watch their growth, should be familiar with their faces, and should then sell them for four or five hundred dollars a head, and send them to lead in a remote country a life which is a lingering death, a life about which the best thiug that can be said is that it is sure to be short — this does, I own, excite a horror exceeding even the horror excited by that slave-trade which is the cm'se of the African coast. And mark, I am not speaking of any rare case, of any instance of eccentric depravity — I am speaking of a trade as regular as the trade in pigs between Dublin and Liverpool, or as the trade in coals between the Tyne and the Thames. There is another point to which I must advert. I have no wish to apologise for slavery as it exists in Brazil ; but this I say, that slavery as it exists in Brazil, though a fearful evil, seems to 134 THE SUGAR DUTIES. me a much less hopeless evil than slavery as it exists in the United States. In estimating the character of negro slavery^ we must never forget one most important ingredient — an ingredient which was wanting to slavery as it was known to the Greeks and Romans^ an ingredient which was wanting to slavery as it appeared ia Europe during the middle ages — I mean the anti- pathy of colour. Where this antipathy exists in a high degree, it is diflScult to conceive how the white masters and the black labourers can ever be mingled together, as the lords and villeins in many parts of the Old World have been, in one free commu- nity. Now, this antipathy notoriously is much stronger in the United States than in the Brazils. In the Brazils there are many hundred thousands of blacks and coloiu-ed freemen. These people are not excluded from honourable callings. You may find among them merchants, physicians, lawyers ; many of them bear arms ; some have been admitted to holy orders. Whoever knows what dignity, what sanctity the Church of Rome ascribes to the person of a priest, will at once perceive the important consequences which follow from this last circumstance. It is by no means unusual to see a white penitent kneeling before the spiritual tri- bunal of a negro, confessing his sins to a negro, receiving abso- lution from a negro. It is by no means unusual to see a negro dispensing the Eucharist to a circle of whites. I need not tell the House what emotions of amazement and of rage such a spectacle would excite in Georgia or South Carolina. Fully admitting, therefore, as I do, that Brazilian slavery is a horrible evil, I yet must say that if I were called upon to declare whether I think the chances of the Afr'ican race on the whole better in Brazil or the United States, I should at once answer. In BrazU. I think it not improbable that in eighty or a hundred years the black population of Brazil may be free and happy. I see no reasonable prospect of such a change in the United States. The right hon. gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade has said much about that system of maritime pohce by which we have attempted to sweep slave-trading vessels from the great highway of nations. Now what has been the conduct of Brazil, and what has been the conduct of the United States, as THE SUGAR DUTIES. 135 respects that system of police? Brazil has come into the system; the United States have thrown every impediment in the way of the system. What opinion her Majesty's Ministers entertain respecting the right of search we know from a letter of my Lord Aberdeen which has, within a few days, been laid on our table. I believe that I state correctly the sense of that letter when I say that the noble earl regards the right of search as an efficacious means, and as the only efficacious means, of pre- venting the maritime slave-trade. He expresses most serious doubts whether any substitute can be devised. I think that this check would be a most valuable one, if all nations would submit to it ; and I applaud the humanity which has induced successive British administrations to exert themselves for the purpose of obtaining the concurrence of foreign powers in so excellent a plan. Brazil consented to admit the right of search; the United States refused, and by refusing deprived the right of search of half its value. Not content with refixsing to admit the right of search, they even disputed the right of visit, a right which no impartial publicist in Europe will deny to be in strict conformity with the law of nations. Nor was this all ; in every part of the continent of Europe the diplomatic agents of the Cabinet of Washington toiled to induce other nations to imitate the example of the United States. You cannot have forgotten General Cass's letter. You cannot have forgotten the terms in which his Government communicated to him its approbation of his conduct. You know as well as I do that, if the United States had submitted to the right of search, there would have been no outcry agaiast that right in France. Nor do I much blame the French. It is but natural that, when when one maritime power makes it a point of honour to refose us this right, other maritime powers should think that they cannot without degradation take a different course. It is but natural that a Frenchman, proud of his country, should ask why the tricolor is to be less respected than the stars and stripes. The right hon. gentleman says that, if we assent to my noble friend's amendment, we shall no longer be able to maintain that right of search. Sir, he need not trouble himself about that 126 THE SUGAR DUTIES. right — it is already gone. We have agreed to negotiate on the subject with France : everybody knows how that negotiation will end. The French flag will be exempted from search ; Spain will instantly demand, if she has not already demanded, similar ex- emption ; and you may as well let her have it with a good grace and without wrangling, for a right of search from which the flags of France and America are exempted is not worth a dispute. The only system, therefore, which in the opinion of her Ma- jesty's Ministers has yet been found efficacious for the prevention of the maritime slave-trade, is in fact abandoned. And who is answerable for this ? The United States of America. The chief guilt even of the slave-trade between Africa and Brazil Hes, not mth the Government of Brazil, but with that of the United States. And yet the right hon. baronet proposes to punish Brazil for the slave-trade, and in the same breath proposes to show favour to the United States, because the United States are pure from the crime of slave-trading ! I thank the right hon. gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade for reminding me of Mr. Calhoun's letter. I could not have wished for a better illustration of my argument. Let anybody who has read that letter say what is the country which, if we take on ourselves to avenge the wrongs of Africa, ought to be the first object of our indignation. The Government of the United States has placed itself on a bad eminence to which Brazil never aspired, and which Brazil, even if aspiring to it, never could attain. The Government of the United States has formally declared itself the patron, the champion of negro-slavery all over the world — the evil genius, the Arimanes of the African race — and seems to take pride in this shameful and odious dis- tinction. I well understand that an American statesman might say, " Slavery is a horrible evil ; but we were bom to it, we see no way at present to rid ourselves of it, and we must endure it as we best may." Good and enlightened men may hold such language ; but such is not the language of the American Cabinet. That Cabinet is actuated by a propagandist spirit, and labours to spread servitude and barbarism with an ardoxir such as no other Government ever showed in the cause of freedom and THE SUGAR DUTIES. 127 civilisation. Nay, more ; the doctrine held at Washington is that this holy cause sanctifies the most nnholy means. These zealots of slavery think themselves justified in snatching away provinces on the right hand and on the left, in defiance of public faith and international law, from neighbouring countries which have free institutions, and this avowedly for the purpose of dif- fusing over a wider space the greatest curse that alflicts humanity. They put themselves at the head of the slave-driving interest throughout the world, just as EHzabeth put herself at the head of the Protestant interest ; and, wherever their favourite insti- tution is in danger, are ready to stand by it as Elizabeth stood by the Dutch. This, then, I hold to be demonstrated : that of all societies now existing, the fiepublic of the United States is by far the most culpable as respects slavery and the slave-trade. Now, then, I come to the right hon. baronet's Budget. He tells us that he will not admit Brazihan sugar, because the Bra- zilian Government tolerates slavery and connives at the slave- trade ; and he tells us, at the same time, that he will admit the slave-gTown cotton and the slave-grown sugar of the United States. I am utterly at a loss to understand how he can vindi- cate his consistency. He tells us that if we adopt my noble friend's proposition, we shall give a stimulus to the slave-trade between Africa and Brazil. Be it so. But is it not equally clear, that if we adopt the right hon. baronet's own propositions, we shall give a stimulus to the slave-trade between Vu-ginia and Louisiana ? I have not the least doubt that as soon as the con- tents of his Budget are known on the other side of the Atlantic, the slave-trade will become more active than it is at this moment ; that the jobbers in himian flesh and blood wdl be more busy than ever ; that the droves of manacled negroes moving southward to their doom will be more numerous on every road. These will l)e the fruits of the right hon. baronet's measure. Yet he tells us that his measure rests on somid principles, and will greatly benefit the country; and he tells us truth. I mean to vote with him ; and I can perfectly, on my own principles, reconcile to my conscience the vote which I shall give. How the right hofa. baronet can reconcile the course which he takes to his con- 128 THE SXJGAK DUTIES. science, I am at a loss to conceive, and am not a little curious to know. No man is more capable than he of doing justice to any cause which he undertakes ; and it would be most presumptuous ia me to anticipate the defence which he means to set up. But I hope that the House will suffer me, as one who feels deeply on this subject, now to explain the reasons which convince me that I ought to vote for the right hon. baronet's propositions respect- iug the produce of the United States. In explaining these reasons, I at the same time explain the reasons which induce me to vote with my noble friend to-night. I say then, sir, that I fully admit the paramount authority of moral obhgations; but it is important that we should accu- rately understand the nature and extent of those obhgations. We are clearly botmd to wrong no man. Nay, more, we are bound to regard all men with benevolence. But to every individual and to every society Providence has assigned a sphere within which benevolence ought to be pecuharly active ; and if an iudividual or a society neglects what lies within that sphere in order to attend to what lies without, the restdt is likely to be harm and not good. It is thus in private life. We should not be justified in injuring a stranger iu order to benefit ourselves or those who ' are dearest to us. Every stranger is entitled, by the laws of humanity, to claim from us certaia reasonable good offices. But it is not true that we are bound to exert ourselves to serve a mere stranger as we are bound to exert ourselves to serve our own relations. A man woidd not be justified m subjecting his wife and children to disagreeable privations in order to save, even from utter ruin, some foreigner whom he never saw; and if a man were so absurd and perverse as to starve his own family in order to reheve people with whom he had no acquaintance, there can be little doubt that his crazy charity would produce much more misery than happiness. It is the same with nations. No statesman ought to injure other countries in order to benefit his own country. No statesman ought to lose any fair opportunity of rendering to foreign nations such good offices as he can render without a breach of the duty which he owes to the society of which he is a THK SUGAR DUTIES. 129 member. But, after all, our country is our country, and has the first claim on our attention. There is nothing, I conceive, of narrow-mindedness in this patriotism. I do not say that we ought to prefer the happiness of one particular society to the happiness of mankind ; but I say that, by exerting ourselves to promote the happiness of the society with which we are most nearly connected, and with which we are best acquainted, we shall do more to promote the happiness of manldnd than by busying ourselves about matters which we do not folly under- stand, and cannot efficiently control. There are great evils connected with the factory-system in this country. Some of those evils might, I am inclined to thiak, be removed or mitigated by legislation. On that poiat many of my friends differ fromi me ; but we all agTee in thinking that it is the duty of a British legislator to consider the subject attentively, and with a serious sense of responsibility. There are also great social evils in Russia. The peasants of that empire are in a state of servitude. The Sovereign of Russia is bound by the most solemn obligations to consider whether he can do anything to improve the condition of that large portion of liis subjects. Tf we watch over our factory-children, and he watches over his peasants, much good may be done. But would any good be done if the Emperor of Russia and the British Parliament were to interchange functions — -if he were to take under his patronage the weavers of Lancashire, if we were to take under our patronage the peasants of the Volga? — if he were to say, '' You shall send no cotton to Russia till you pass a Ten Hours' Bin " — if we were to say, " You shall send no hemp or tallow to England tiU you emancipate your serfs ?" On these principles, sir, which seem to me to be the principles of plain common-sense, I can, without resorting to any casu- istical subtleties, vindicate to my own conscience, and, I hope, to my country, the whole course which I have pursued with respect to slavery. When I first came into Parhament slavery still existed in the British dominions. I had, as it was natural that I should have, a strong feehng on the subject, I exerted my- self, according to my station and to the measure of my abilities, VOL. II. K 130 THE SUGAR DUTIES. on the side of the oppressed. I shrank from no personal sacrifice in that cause. I do not mention this as matter of boast — it was no more than my duty. The right hon. gen- tleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department knows that, in 1833, I disapproved of one part of the measure which Lord Grey's Government proposed on the subject of slavery. I was in office ; and office was then as important to me as it could be to any man. I put my resignation into the hands of Lord Spencer, and both spoke and voted against the adminis- tration.* To my surprise, Lord Grey and Lord Spencer re- fused to accept my resignation, and I remained in office ; hut during some days I considered myself as out of the service of the Crown. I at the same time heartily joined in laying a heavy burden on the country for the purpose of compensating the planters. I acted thus because, being a British legis- lator, I thought myself bound, at any cost to myself and to my constituents, to remove a foul stain from the British laws, and to redress the wrongs endured by persons who, as British subjects, were placed under my guardianship. But my especial obligations in respect of negro slavery ceased when slavery itself ceased in that part of the world for the welfare of which I, as a member of this House, was accountable. As for the blacks in the United States, I feel for them, God knows ! But I ain not their keeper. I do not stand in the same relation to the slaves of Louisiana and Alabama in which I formerly stood to the slaves of Demerara and Jamaica. I am bound, on the other hand, by the most solemn obligations, to promote the interests of millions of my own countrymen, who are not, indeed, in a state so miserable and degraded as that of the American slaves, but who are toiling hard from sumise to sunset in order to obtain a scanty subsistence ; who are often scarcely able to procure the necessaries of life ; and whose lot would be alleviated if I could open new markets to them, and free them from taxes which now press heavily on their industry. I see clearly that, by excluding the produce of slave-laboui' from our ports, I should infhct great evil on my feUow-subjects * The Speecli in question will be found on page 198, vol. i. THE SUGAR DUTIES. 131 and constituents ; but the good which, by taking such a course, I should do to the negroes in the United States seems to me A^ery problematical. That by admitting slave-grown cotton and slave-grown sugar we do in some sense encourage slavery and the slave-trade, may be true ; but I doubt whether, by tm-ning our fiscal code into a penal code for restraining the cruelty of the American planters, we should not, on the whole, injure the negroes rather than benefit them. No independent nation will endure to be told by another nation, "We are more virtuous than you; we have sat in judgment on your institutions ; we find them to be bad ; and, as a punishment for your offences, we condemn you to pay higher duties at our Custom-house than we demand from the rest of the world." Such language naturally excites the re- sentment of foreigners. I can make allowance for their susceptibility ; for 1 myself sympathise with them. I know that Ireland has been misgoverned; and I have done, and purpose to do, my best to redress her grievances. But when I take up a New York journal, and read there the rants of Presi- dent Tyler's son, I feel so much disgusted by such insolent absurdity that I am for a moment inclined to deny that Ireland has any reason whatever to complain. It seems to me that, if ever slavery is peaceably extinguished in the United States, that great and happy change must be brought about by the efforts of those enlightened and respectable American citizens who hate slavery as much as we hate it. Now I cannot help fearing that, if the British Parliament were to proclaim itself the protector and avenger of the American slave, the pride of those excellent persons would take the alarm. It might become a point of national honour with them to stand by an institution which they have hitherto regarded as a national disgrace. We should thus confer no benefit on the negro, and we should at the same time inflict cruel suflbr- ing on our own countrymen. On these groimds, sir, I can with a clear conscience vote for the right hon. baronet's pro- positions respecting the cotton and sugar of the United States ; but on exactlv the same grounds I can with a clear con- 133 THE SUGAR DUTIES. science vote for the amendment of my noble friend. And I confess that I shall be much surprised if the right hon. baronet shall be able to point out any distinction between the cases. I have detained you too long, sir : yet there is one point to which I must refer ; I mean the refining. Was such a distinc- tion ever heard of? Is there anything like it in aU Pascal's Dialogues with the Old Jesuit ? Not for the world are we to eat one ounce of Brazilian sugar. But we import the accursed thing ; we bond it ; we employ our skiU and machinery to render it more alluring to the eye and to the palate ; we export it to Leghorn and Hamburgh; we send it to all the coffee-houses of Italy and Germany ; we pocket a profit on all this ; and then we put on a Pharisaical air, and thank God that we are not like those sinful Italians and Germans who have no scruple about swallow- ing slave-grown sugar. Surely this sophistry is worthy only of the worst class of false witnesses. "I peijure myself ? Not for the world ! I only kissed my thumb ; I did not put my lips to the calf-skin." I remember something very like the right hon. baronet's morality in a Spanish novel which I read long ago. I beg par- don of the House for detaining them with such a trifle, but the story is much to the purpose. A wandering lad, a sort of Gil Bias, is taken into the service of a rich old silversmith, a most pious man, who is always telling his beads, who hears mass daily, and observes the feasts and fasts of the Church with the utmost scrupulosity. The silversmith is always preaching honesty and piety. " Never," he constantly repeats to his young assistant, "never touch what is not your own— never take liberties with sacred things." Sacrilege, as uniting theft with profaneness, is the sin of which he has the deepest horror. One day, while he is lecturing after his usual fashion, an Hi-looking fellow comes into the shop with a sack under his arm. "Will you buy these?" says the visitor, and produces from the sack some church plate and a rich silver crucifix. " Buy them !" cries the pious man. " No, nor touch them ; not for the world ! I know where you got them. Wretch that you are ! have you no care for your soul ?" " Well, then," says the thief, " if you will not buy them, will THE SUGAR DUTIES. 133 you melt them down for me ?" " Melt them down !" answers the silversmith, " that is quite another matter." He takes the chalices and the crucifix with a pair of tongs ; the silver thus in bond is dropped into the crucible, melted, and dehvered to the thief, who lays down five pistoles and decamps with his booty. The young servant stares at this strange scene ; but the master very gravely resumes his lecture. " My son," he says, "■ take warning by that sacrilegious knave, and take example by me. Think what a load of guilt lies on his conscience. You will see him hanged before long. But as to me, you saw that I would not touch the stolen property. I keep these tongs for such occasions. And thus I thrive in the fear of God, and manage to turn an honest penny." You talk of m^oraHty. What can be more immoral than to bring ridicule on the very name of morality, by drawing dis- tinctions where there are no differences ? Is it not enough that this dishonest casuistry has already poisoned our theology ? Is it not enough that a set of quibbles has been devised, under cover of which a divine may hold the worst doctrines of the Church of Rome, and may hold with them the best benefice of the Church of England ? Let us at least keep the debates of this House free from the sophistry of Tract No. 90. And then the right hon. gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade wonders that other nations consider our abhorrence of slavery and the slave-trade as sheer hypocrisy. Why, sir, how should it be otherwise ? And if the imputation annoys us, whom have we to thank for it ? Numerous and malevolent as our detractors are, none of them was ever so absurd as to charge us with hypocrisy because we took slave-grown tobacco and slave-grown cotton, till the Government began to affect scruples about admitting Brazilian sugar. Of course, as soon as our Ministers ostenta- tiously announced to all the world that our fiscal system was framed on a new and sublime moral priaciple, everybody began to inquire whether we consistently adhered to that priaciple. It required much less acuteness and much less malevolence than that of our neighbours to discover that this hatred of slave-grown produce was mere grimace. They see that we not only take 134 THE S0GA11 DUTIES. tobacco produced by means of slavery and the slave-tradCj but that we positively interdict freemen in this country from growing tobacco. They see that we not only take cotton produced by means of slavery and of the slave-trade, but that we are about to exempt this cotton from all daty. They see that we are at this moment reducing the duty on the slave-grown sugar of Louisiana. How can we expect them to believe that it is from a sense of justice and humanity that we lay a prohibitory duty on the su-jar of Brazil ? I care little for the abuse which any foreign press or any foreign tribune may throw on the Machia- velian policy of perfidious Albion. What gives me pain is, not that the charge of hypocrisy is made, but that I am unable to see how it is to be refuted. Yet one word more. The right hon. gentleman the late Presi- dent of the Board of Trade has quoted the opinions of two persons highly distinguished by the exertions which they made for the aboKtion of slavery, my lamented friend Sir Thomas PoweU Buxton and Sir Stephen Lushington. It is most true that those eminent persons did approve of the principle laid down by the right hon. baronet opposite in 1841. I think that they were in error ; but in their error I am sure that they were sincere, and I firmly believe that they would have been consistent. They would have objected, no doubt, to my noble friend's amendment; but they would have objected equally to the right hon. baronet's budget. It was not prudent, I think, in gentlemen opposite to aUude to those respectable names. The mention of those names irresistibly carries the mind back to the days of the great struggle for negro freedom; and it is but natural that we should ask where, during that struggle, were those who now profess such loathing for slave-grown sugar ? The three persons who are chiefly responsible for the financial and commercial policy of the present Government, I take to be the right hon. baronet at the head of the Treasury, the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. gentleman the late Presi- dent of the Board of Trade. Is there anything in the past conduct of any one of the three which can lead me to believe that his sensibility to the evils of slavery is greater than mine? THE SUGAR DUTIES. 135 I am sure that the right hon. baronet the Fh'st Lord of the Treasury would think that I was speaking ironically if I were to compliment him on his zeal for the liberty of the negro race. Never once^ during the whole of the long and obstinate conflict which ended in the abolition of slavery in our colonies^ did he give one word^ one sign of encouragement to those who suffered and laboured for the good cause. The whole weight of his great abihties and influence were in the other scale. I well remember that^ so late as 1833, he declared in this House that he could give his assent neither to the plan of immediate emanci- pation proposed by my noble friend who now represents Sunder- land (Viscoimt Howick)j nor to the plan of gradual emancipation proposed by Lord Grey's Government. I well remember that he said, " I shall claim no credit hereafter on account of this measure. All that I desire is to be absolved from the responsi- bihty." As to the other two right hon. gentlemen whom I have mentioned, they are West Indians, and their conduct was that of West Indians. I do not wish to give them pain, or to throw any disgraceful imputation on them. Personally I regard them with feelings of good-will and respect. I do not question their sincerity; but I know that the most honest men are but too prone to deceive themselves into the belief that the path towards which they are impelled by their own interests and passions is the path of duty. I am conscious that this might be my own case, and I beheve it to be theirs. As the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) has left the House, I will only say that, with respect to the question of slavery, he acted after the fashion of the class to which he be- longed. But as the right hon. gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone) is ia his place, he must allow me to bring to his recollection the part which he took in the debates of 1833. He then said, " You raise a great clamour about the cultivation of sugar. You say that it is a species of industry fatal to the health and hfe of a slave. I do not deny that there is some difference between the labour of a sugar-plan- tation and the labour of a cotton-plantation, or a coffee-plantation. 136 THE SUGAR DUTIES. But the difference is not so great as you thinli. In marshy soils^ the slaves who cultivate the sugar-cane suffer severely ; but in Barbadoes, where the air is good, they thrive and multiply." He proceeded to say that, even at the worst, the labour of a sugar- plantation was not more unhealthy than some kinds of labour in which the manufacturers of England are employed, and which nobody thinks of prohibiting. He particularly mentioned grind- ing. " See how grinding destroys the health, the sight, the life. Yet there is no outcry against grinding." He went on to say that the whole question ought to be left by Parliament to the West Indian Legislatures. [Mr. Gladstone : " Really I never said so. You are not quoting me at all correctly."] What, not about the sugar-cultivation and the grinding ? \_Mr. Gladstone : " That is correct ; but I never recommended that the question should be left to the West Indian Legislatm-es."] I have quoted correctly. But since my right hon. friend disclaims the senti- ment imputed to him by the reporters, I shaU say no more about it. I have no doubt that he is quite right, and that what he said was misunderstood. What is undisputed is amply sufficient for my purpose. I see that the party which now shows so much zeal against slavery in foreign countries is the same party which formerly countenanced slavery in the British colonies. I remember a time when they maintained that we were bound in justice to protect slave-grown sugar against the competition of free-grown sugar, and even of British free-grown sugar. I now hear them calling on us to protect free-grown sugar against the competition of slave-grown sugar ; I remember a time when they extenuated as much as they could the evils of the sugar-cultivation; I now hear them exaggerating those evils. But, devious as their course has been, there is one clue by which I can easily track them through the whole maze. In- constant in everything else, they are constant in demanding protection for the West Indian planter. While he employs slaves, they do their best to apologise for the evils of slavery. As soon as he is forced to employ freemen, they begin to cry up the blessings of freedom. They go round the whole compass, and yet to one point they stedfastly adhere ; and that point is THE SUGAR DUTIES. 137 the interest of the West Indian proprietors. I have done, sir. I thank the House most sincerely for the patience and indulgence with which I have been heard. I hope that I have at least vindi- cated my own consistency. How her Majesty's Ministers will vindicate their consistency, how they will show that their conduct has at all times been guided by the same principles, or even that their conduct at the present time is guided by any fixed principle at all, I am unable to conjecture. 138 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. April 14, 1845. On the Second Reading of the Maynooth College Bill, providing for an increased Gra/nt of puhlic Money for the Pwrposes of that Institution. SiRj I have no intention of following the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gregory) who last sat down into a discussion on an amendment which has not been moved. When my hon. friend the member for Shefi&eld (Mr. Ward) shall think it expedient to propose to us a motion upon the subject which he has repeatedly introduced to the notice of the House, I may, perhaps, request your indul- gence while I offer a few remarks on the question. At present, it is sufficient that I should explain why I think it my duty to vote for the second reading of this Bill, which 1 think I cannot do better than by passing in review, as rapidly as I can, the principal objections which have been made in this House, and out of the House, to the measure now before us. It seems to me, sir, that these objections, or at least by far the greater part of them, may be readily arranged under three heads. There is, in the first place, a large class of persons who, it seems, do not object to the grant to Maynooth already made ; but object to the proposed increase of the existing grant. There is, again, a large and respectable body of persons who object to any grant whatever— to the old grant as well as to the increase for religious purposes. They conceive that they are not justified, either as private indi- viduals or as members of a State, in contributing to the propa- gation of what they deem to be error. There are others who take a still wider ground — those who say that, without inquiry whether the Catholic Church teaches truth or error, they on either supposition object to any and every endowment for its clergy, on the principle of opposing all State endowments. They are advocates of the voluntary system ; and if consistent to the MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GKANT. 139 opinions they profess^ they ought equally to disapprove of the maintenance by the State of the endowments of the Establisjied Church of Ireland as well as the grant to the Presbyterian clergy. NoWj as to the first of these parties, I must confess I am exceedingly surprised that there should be found in this country any person not objecting to the old grant, who yet takes the very fallacious and untenable ground of objecting to its increase. I am forced, however, to believe that there are many such persons. When I remember how quietly this grant has passed in former years, and with what violent excitement the proposed increase is opposed — what small minorities have voted against this grant in former years, and how large a body of persons come down to vote against the increase — I miist think there is a very consider- able number of persons who, if the right lion, baronet at the head of the Government had merely proposed the original vote of £9000, would have voted for it without the smallest scruple, and yet whose minds are greatly troubled by his proposal. I cannot but wonder that it should be so, for this is a question which I cannot conceive that any human ingenuity can convert into one of principle. Of all the strange contrarieties which ever entered into the human mind, this is the strangest, for the question is purely and solely one between £9000 and £26,000 a-year. (" No, No.") I cannot tell how hon. gentlemen oppo- site imderstand the objection I am considering, but thus it appears to me. I am speaking not of those Avho object to any grant to Maynooth ; I am speaking of those who say that, if a vote of £9000 had been proposed, as last year, they would have voted for it, and yet who do object to the increase to which we are asked to consent. I understand the advocate of the volimtary system, who says, " Whether the Eoman CathoHc Church teaches truth or error, I on principle will grant it no support." I under- stand the zealous Protestant who says, " On account of the errors of the Eoman Catholic Church, I think it wrong to give her clergy any support from the public purse, and therefore I refuse my consent ;" and I understand the Protestant, equally zealous, but in my opinion more enlightened, who says, " In spite of the 140 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. errors of the Roman Catholic Churchy I do think myself at liberty to grant some aid." But I cannot understand the man who admits the propriety of the former grant, and resists the increase; who says, "^In spite of the errors of the Eoman Catholic Church, I am at liberty to grant her aid ; but on account of her errors that aid shall be a pittance it is disgraceful for me to give, and her to receive. Her rites are so superstitious that I will give her a squalid, dilapidated chapel wherein to perform them ; her docti'iues are so absurd that I will find a professor to teach them to whom I will give wages I would not offer to my groom." I cannot understand those gentlemen who say they have no objection to a Cathohc establishment, provided it be shabby; they have no objection to support those persons who are to teach the doctrines of rehgion, and administer the sacraments to the next generation of the Irish people, provided only those persons shall cost something less than the pay of a common infantry soldier; they have no objection to board them, provided only the allowance for their board be made so scanty that they are compelled, as we have been told, to break up their studies before the proper time, merely for want of provisions ; they have no objection to lodge them, if only they are packed Uke pigs in a sty, exposed to vtdnd and rain. Is it possible to conceive anything more frivolous or abstu'd ? Can any principle of action be clearer or better founded than this — whatever it is lawful to do, you ought to do it well? Can anything be more evident than that, if it be right to keep up a college, it is right to keep it up respectably 'i Whatever this institution be, whether good or bad, it is clearly an important institution ; it is established to form the opinions and moral cha- racter of those who are themselves to form the moral character of a nation. It may be right to withhold patronage from it alto- gether — that is a very grave question ; but what I say is, if you do give patronage at all, it should be patronage worthy of the greatness of the object and the dignity of the donor. It is with a peculiarly bad grace, I must say, that the member for the University to which I have the honour to belong (Mr. Law) — a gentleman who never voted, or thought it necessary on any occa- MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. - 141 sion whatever to oppose the grant of £9000, now opposes strenuously the grant of ,626000; I say, that objections >f that sort come with a very bad grace from one who is the repre- sentative of an Enghsh University. When I consider with what magnificence religion and science are endowed in our Univer- sities; when I call to mind their long streets of palaces, their venerable cloisters, their trim gardens, their chapels with organs, altar-pieces, and stained windows; when I remember their schools, libraries, museums, and galleries of art; when I remember, too, all the solid comforts provided in those places both for instructors and pupils, the stately dwellings of the principals, the commodious apartments of the fellows and scholars ; when I remember that the very sizars and servitors are lodged far better than you propose to lodge those priests who are to teach the whole people of Ireland ; when I think of the halls, the common- rooms, the bowling-greens, even the stabling of Oxford and Cambridge — the display of old plate on the tables, the good cheer of the Idtchen, the oceans of excellent ale in the buttery, and when I remember from whom all this splendour and plenty are derived ; when I remember the faith of Edward III. and Henry VI., of Margaret of Anjou and Margaret of Richmond, of William of Wykeham, of Archbishop Chicheiey and Cardinal Wolsey ; when I remember what we have taken from the Roman Catholic rehgion — King^s College, New College, my own Trinity College, and Christ's Church — and when I look at the miserable Do-the-boys Hall we have given them in return — I ask myself if we, and if the Protestant religion, are not disgraced by the comparison ? If the advocates of this opinion have convinced themselves that there is a clear distinction of principle between =€9,000 and £26000 — if they can show us it is a question of principle — if some of them would rise and do that — I, for one, shall be ready to give way. I believe I may safely defy any of them ; and I must remain unconverted by them. There are some who say that a contract was made at the time of the Union with the Irish Parliament; and this, it is suggested, binds us to the maintenance, but not to the increase of the grant. Now, I 143 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. must freely say^ with those petitioners who have laid so much paper and parchment on your table, that I do not admit the existence of this contract. Even if there be any contract with the old Irish Parliament and people, still this would not absolve us from the business of legislating for this college. If the measure of endowment be in itself pernicious, we have a right to deal with the grant on the ground of its own merits. I do not think there is likely to be much dispute between gentlemen in this House on that head. I conceive I am as much at liberty to deal with this as with any other subject concerning Ireland — to vote for the abolition or reduction of the grant, as I should be to vote on a grant for the artillery or the marines. Suppose you admit a contract ; that \\'ill not get you out of the difficulty. How would that prove the radical difference between ^69000 and £26,000 ? Construe it as you would, you would not be able to establish the distinction you aim at. What is the contract ? Are you bound to do for Maynooth what the Irish Parliament did for it ? Or are you bound io maintain it efficiently and respectably ? If you are only bound to do for it what the Irish Parlianient did, £9000 is too much ; but if you are bound to maintain it efficiently and respectably, then I defy any person to argue that the .€26,000 now proposed is too much. I say, therefore, it seems to me impossible that any such distinction as hon. gentlemen opposite suppose can be established. If the grant of £26,000 be innocent, vote it ; but I think it cannot be contended that if £26,000 would be wrong, because it is contrary to our moral obligations to encourage error, a grant of £9000 would not be wrong also. I come now to an objection which I should be sorry to treat lightly — I mean, the rehgious objection. That is, simply stated, " The Church of Rome teaches error ; and you are not justified, either as individuals or a State, in contributing to its propaga- tion." I must say I cannot admit the soundness of that proposition. I think it wholly impossible to deny that there are occasions on which the State is bound to contribute from its resources to objects on the promotion of which the propagation of some amount of error may be consequent. Let me be MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 143 clearly understood. It is undoubtedly a very plausible propo- sition, that you ought always to do your best to spread truth, and never to propagate error j but if the constitution of the human mind and the state of the world be such that it is im- possible, on any large and extensive scale, to propagate truth at all without some intermixture of error ; if no machinery has yet been devised by which error could be absolutely excluded; if even those rays of moral light which come down to us from on high, pure and perfect as they are in themselves, necessarily become in some degree refracted, distorted, and obscure, when they enter that dark and gross atmosphere in which we breathe — ^what then? I presume that no Christian, no Protestant Christian, will deny that, if it be possible to propagate pure truth, it must be by the circulation of the Scriptures ; and yet when that is tried — when you circulate the Scriptures, what difficulties are experienced ! I remember being in the East when a translation into the Oriental languages was proceeding with great vigour, munificently assisted by societies iu this country, assiduously attended by men whose object was to enUghten the natives of India. The translation was very well executed, but every skUfiil Orientalist knew that there were errors in it ; and everyone must acltnow- ledge how impossible it would be to take any particular version of Sacred Truth and say. Human infirmity has left no error here — human transcribers are to be detected in no fault. If that be the case even with the Scriptures themselves, how much more will it be the case with the institutes of men ! How much more wiU all the machinery they employ with schools and books ; for you may send forth teachers and circidate tracts, but neither the one nor the other are inspired ! Are your teachers infallible — are your tracts perfect ? Look at your own Church ! Many persons advocate an addition to the means of religious instruction already existing in this country ; will they say that the Church teaches truth without admixture of error? Does both the Church of England and the Church of Scotland teach truth without any admixture of error ? — or that, though the same in principle, their doctrines and government do not in many 144 :\IAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. respects differ ? Theiij when you endow and protect both these institutions, must you not in one case or the other be dis- seminating a certain amount of error ? Go into cither of them, which is perfect? Take the Church of Scotland before the late unhappy separation. "Will anybody say that there was not a large amount of error within its communion ? There were at one time, Dr. Robertson and Dr. Erskine preaching under the same roof, one in the morning, the other in the afternoon, upon two different systems of doctrine ; so different that the admirers of the one thought those of the other fanatics, while they in their turn regarded the former as Arians. Again, is the Church of England one in which no error is to be found ? Is not the whole country convulsed with the different doctrines which are taught by its ministers ? My hon. friend the member for Ox- ford (Sir E-. Inglis) wants Church extension; he demands a large addition to the Establishment ; is it because he thinks no error is taught within the Church ? Is it not absolutely certain that, whether those who are called Tractarians or the Evangelical party be in the right, some people get into the pulpits who are very much in the wrong? My hon. friend himself will say that one or other of these propagates opinions which he holds to be erroneous. It is quite clear, then, that in the Church of England a great deal of error is taught ; and if we were to vote one or two miUions to increase the endowments of the Church of England, a great proportion must go to the propagation of error. What is the result? My hon. friend defends his plan of Church extension. The missionary at Serampore defends his translation of the Scriptures, many copies of which he gives away among the native population. But do we propagate error for the sake of propagating error? Far from it. But some alloy must necessarily be mixed with the truth. It is the effect of human infirmity. Therefore the principle which we foUow is this : where truth is of such importance and value that it is in the highest degree desirable it should be known, we will not refrain from circulating it, in spite of an alloy of error in it, by any means in our power. We think it better, in the first place. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 145 that the people should be taught some portion of truth than not be taught at all ; and secondly, we do not stand in the way of those who would teach more truth. It is much better that the people of Ireland should be Roman Catholics than have no rehgion at aU. The argument that we might as well contribute to teach the people the worship of Juggernaut and Kalee is of no force. It is not logically necessary that we should go to the extreme of supporting Juggernaut and Kalee. That which is good and valuable in the Roman Catholic religion is so much out of proportion to that which has nothing at all good and valuable, that it is infinitely better that the Irish peasantry should live and die Roman CathoUcs than indulge their passions without any religious restraints, bear the calamities of life without the consolations of religion, and die at last without reUgious hope. In the course, therefore, which it is now proposed to pursue, we are, I conceive, conducing to their in- struction and advantage. Then the question is, Do I stand in the way of anything better? Do I ofter an obstacle to the advancement of prure religion ? Will that be impeded by giving better instruction to those who are to teach the people ? If there is any gentleman in this House who, after the experience of generations, believes that by withholding this grant to Maynooth CoUege he gives an impulse whereby to bear down the Roman Catholic rehgion, I think he ought on that ground to vote against the grant ; but I find it difficult to imagine, after the experience we have had, that any gentleman can seriously be of that opinion. These, then, are the considerations that satisfy my mind. I do not aim at propagating error. To do so is not only wrong, but diabolical ; but I say that it is of the greatest importance that Christianity, even in a form which I think greatly tainted with error, should prevail in Ireland, and have influence on the peasantry ; and seeing not the shghtest probability that it would have that influence except in the form of Roman Catholicism, I think we are at liberty to confer this boon in spite of the error which I believe to be mixed up with the Roman Catholic religion. Nay, I think we are bound to VOL. II. L 140 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. provide competeut instruction for those who are to teach that religion. Then as to the objection founded on the voluntary principle. I admit that there is great force in that objection ; but I say, even if we were to admit the general argument to be in favour of the volmitary principle, that this case forms an exception. Is there any case like it ? Here you see Ireland with a popu- lation of some eight millions, and with an Established Church the members of which amount only to about 800,000, richly endowed. I recollect that it was stated in the debates of 1833, that among the twelve prelates retained there was divided the sum of £70,000. There is an archbishop with £10,000, and there are bishops with large emoluments. You have, at the same time, the Protestant dissenters in the North of Ireland receiving in another form an endowment from the State ; and then you have four-fifths of the population- — the poorest of all — those who stand the most in need of assistance from the State (if any have a right to it), and who are the very people for whom these endowments were intended by the donors, re^ ceiving no aid from the Government in the way of payment of their spiritual teachers. Even if you deny the vahdity of en- dowments generally, can you say that this is not a case which stands by itself ? And can you apply to it, even if you are opposed to State endowments generally, an argument founded on such an objection? I was quite astonished to hear the hon. member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli) tell us that, if we, made this grant, it would be utterly impossible for us to resist the claim of the Wesleyan Methodists and other dissenters. Are the cases analogous ? Is there the slightest resemblance between them? There are 16,000,000 of people in England. Show me that the Wesleyan Methodists number 13,000,000; that there is an Established Church here with 1,500,000 only of persons belonging to it; that the other dissenters are re- ceiving a Regiuni Donum. Add to this that large endowments bequeathed to John Wesley and his followers have been taken away by Parliament and given to the Church, and that the Wesleyan Methodists ask for £26,000 a-year to educate their -MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 147 clergy. Give me that casCj and I will be prepared to take it into consideraljion. But you will bring me no such case either from England or the whole world. It is impossible to give it anywhere but in Ireland. How could it be ? It could not be in England ; it could not be in France, nor in Prussia. It could be only in a country in one particular situation ; and what I am going to mention is a consideration M'hich reconciles me much to laying on the nation this burden. It could be only in the case of a weak country connected with a more powerful country, which had abused its power and enabled the minority to triumph over the majority. Never but in Ireland, and under the circum- stances I have mentioned, did such a case exist; and while these great endowments exist, and are appropriated in a different way from their original intentions, I do not conceive that it is open to me, however strong my general feeling might be on the voluntary principle, to meet the Irish, who ask for £17,000 more for the education of their priests, and say to them, I am on principle opposed to such a grant. Where the grant is to come from remains for an after-discussion; the question now is, whether it shall be made or not. It appears, therefore, perfectly clear to me, in the first place, that if we have no scruple about granting £9000, we can have no con- scientious scruple about granting J26,000. In the second place, it seems to me to be impossible to maintain to the fuU extent that we ought never to contribute to propagate error, without making it impossible for the State or individuals to make exertions to propagate truth ; and lastly, it appears to me that the particular circumstances in which the Catholic popu- lation of Ireland is placed in reference to the Established Church of that country, do, even supposing the voluntary principle to be generally the sounder principle, take the case of Ireland out of the operation of that sound principle, and constitute it an exception. They make it one of a morbid character, and, as it were, a Itisus naturce. Under such circumstances, I feel con- vinced that if we were to oppose this grant from any notion of asserting the principles of religious equality, we should only be 148 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE fiRANT. giving a victory not to the friends of religious liberty, but to those who are the most opposed to rehgious liberty. These are the chief observations which I have to offer with respect to the measure itself; but another class of considerations have been forced upon our notice. We were called on, upon the first night of this debate, to oppose this measure, whatever its merits might be, because it was brought forward by men who could not justly or honourably bring it forward. A similar argument has been repeated to-night; and I conceive that on this occasion we may and ought, not from party spirit or vin- dictive feeling, but from a just regard for the public interest and for the character of public men, to go into some of the circum- stances connected with this matter. Undoubtedly, it is of the highest importance that we should pass good laws ; but it is also of the highest importance that public men should have some great fixed principles, and that they should be guided by those fixed principles in office and in opposition. It is most important that it should not appear to the world that a mere change of situation produces a complete change of opinion. I think I need not attempt to prove that a particular measure may be exceed- ingly good, and may yet, when viewed in connexion with the former conduct and opinions of those who bring it forward, be lowered in public estimation. When such is the case, our course is clear. We ought to distinguish between the measure and its authors. The measure we are bound, on account of its intrinsic merits, to support ; whUe, with regard to its authors, it may be our duty to speak of their conduct in terms of censure. In such terms of censure I feel it my duty to speak of the conduct of her Majesty^s present advisers. I have no feeling of personal hostility ; and I trust that the political hostility I shall avow by no means precludes me from admitting that the right hon. baronet at the head of the Government is a man of con- siderable capabilities as a legislator ; he possesses great talents for debate, for the management of this House, and for the transaction of official business. He has great knowledge, and, I doubt not, is actuated by a sincere desire to promote the interests of the country ; but it is impossible for me, with truth, to deny MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GllANT. 149 that there is too much ground for the reproaches of those who (havingj iu spite of bitter experience^ a second time trusted and raised him to power) have found themselves a second time deluded. It is impossible for me not to say that it has been too much the habit of the right hon. baronet to make use, when in opposition (as he has done in reference to the present question)^ of passions with which he has not the shghtest sympathy, and pre- judices which he regards with profound contempt. As soon as he reaches power, a change — a salutary change for his country — takes place. The instruments are flung aside ; the ladder by which he climbed is kicked down. This is not a solitary instance ; and I am forced to say that this sort of conduct is pursxied by the right hon. baronet on something like a system. I shall not attempt to go over the events of years ago. I shall say nothing more of 1827 and 1839 than this : that one such change is quite enough for one man. Again the right hon. baronet was in oppo- sition, and again he and those with whom he acted returned to their old tactics. I will not go through the history of all those manoeuvres by which the Whig Government was overthrown ; I wUl only ask this question, whether there be one single class of men which ralhed round the right hon. baronet at that time which does not now declare bitterly against him ? One part of this subject I will leave to the managemeut of the landed gen- tlemen, and I shall confine myself to the matter before us. I defy any man to deny that the cry which most injured the Melbourne Government was the " No Popery" cry. This was admitted by the hon. member for Northamptonshire (Mr. O'Brien). Is there a single person in this House who believes that if, four years ago, my noble friend (Lord J. Russell) had brought in this BiU, it would not have been opposed by the whole party then in opposition? Indeed, four years ago we were discussing a very different Bill. At that time the party in oppo- sition brought ia a Bill which, though under another name, was neither more nor less than a Bill to disfranchise the people of Ireland by tens of thousands. They brought it in and pressed it on, representing it to be necessary for the good government of Jreland ; and all their followers declared that it was necessary it 150 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. should pass iu order to purge the House of Commons of the minions of Popery. It was argued^ on the other hand^ that that Bill would destroy the Irish constituency ; and the right hon. gentlemen opposite have since shown by their conduct that they knew it would have that effect. We pleaded for delay ; we asked the party in opposition to wait till we instituted inquiries as to the eflfect of the measure ; we called on them to wait at least till the next session. No notice was taken of our appeals ; the Irish Registration Bill was stated to be of the utmost urgency, and it was pressed on the House. At length a change took place — a change from opposition to power. The right hon. baronet's instruments were needed no more. The right hon. baronet has been in power for four years, and has had a Parhament which would have passed the Irish Registration Bill. Where is the Irish Registration Bill ? Flung away ! — positively pronounced by its authors to be so oppressive and destructive of the representative system that no Minister of the Crown could venture to propose it ! That Bill having been thrown away, what has been substituted for it ? Why, the present Bill for the endowment of Maynooth College. Did ever person witness such legerdemain? You offer to the eager, honest, hotheaded Protestant a Bill to take privileges away from the Roman Catholics of Ireland, if he will only assist you to power. He lends you his aid ; and then, when you are in power, you turn round on him and give him a Bill for the religious endowment of the Roman Catholic college in Ireland. Is it strange that such proceedings as these should excite indignation ? Can we wonder at the clamour which has been raised in the country, or be surprised at the petitions which have been showered, thick as a snow-storm, on the table of the House ? Is it possible that the people out of doors should not feel indigna- tion at seeing that the very parties who, when we were in office, voted against the Maynooth grant, are now being whipped into the House in order to vote for an increased Maynooth grant ? The natural consequences follow. Can you wonder that all those fierce spirits whom you have taught to harass us now turn round and begin to worry you? The Orangeman raises his MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 151 howl, and Exeter-hall sets up its bray, and Mr. M'Neile is horror-stricken to think that a still larger grant is intended for "the priests of Baal" at the table of "Jezebel;" and your Pro- testant operatives of Dublin call for the impeachment of the Minister in exceedingly bad English. But what did you expect ? Did you think, when you called up for your own purposes the devil of religious animosities, that you could lay him as easily as you raised him ? Did you think when, session after session, you went on attacking those whom you knew to be in the right, and flattering the prejudices of those whom you knew to be in the wrong, that the day of reckoning would never come ? That day has come ; and now, on that day, you are doing penance for the disengenuousness of years. If it be not so, clear your fame as public men manfully before this House and this country. Show us some clear principle, with respect to Irish affairs, which has guided you, both in office and in opposition. Show us how, if you are honest in 1845, you could have been honest in 1841. Explain to us why, after having, when out of place, goaded Ireland into madness, in order to ingratiate yourselves with England, you are now throwing England into a flame in order to ingratiate yourselves with Ireland. Let us hear some argument that, as Ministers, you are entitled to support, which shall not equally show that you were the most factious and unprincipled Opposition this country ever saw. Sir, these are my opinions respecting the conduct of the Ministry j but am I therefore to take the counsel of the hon. member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Disraeli), and vote against this Bill ? Not so. I believe the fate of the Bill and the fate of the Ministry to be in our hands ; but I believe the spectacle of inconsistency which is exhibited on that bench wiU do mischief enough. That mischief will not be lessened, but infinitely increased, if an answering display of inconsistency be made on this side of the House. Admit that the circumstances of this Bill being brought in by Tories or Conservatives, whichever they term themselves, may of itself produce evils, they would be doubled if it were rejected by means of the Whigs. It seems to 152 JIAYNOOTH COLLEGE GKANT. me that then we should have nothing before us but one vast shipwreck of all the public character in the kingdom. And therefore it is that^ though at the cost of sacrifices which it is not agreeable to any man to make, and restraining many feelings that I own stir strongly within me, I have determined to give to this Bill, through all its stages, my most steady support. To this Bill, and to every Bill emanating from the Government which shall appear to me calculated to make Great Britain and Ireland one united kingdom, I wiU give my support ; regardless of obloquy, regardless of the risk which 1 know I run of losing my seat in Parliament. Obloquy so earned I shall readily meet. As to my seat in Parliament, I ^vill never hold it by an ignominious tenure ; and I am sure that I can never lose it in a more honourable cause. 153 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. April 23, 1845. On Mr. W(M-d's Ainendnwnt thai any Provision to be made J'm ike. Purposes of the present Bill ought to be taken from Funds already applicable to Ecclesiastical Purposes in Irdand. I WAS desirous, sir, to catch youi- eye tliis evening, because it happens that I have never yet found an opportunity of fully explaining my views on the important subject of the Irish Church. Indeed, I was not in this country when that subject for a time threw every other into the shade, disturbed the whole political world, produced a schism in the administration of Lord Grey, and overthrew the short administration of the right hon. baronet opposite. The motion now before us opens, I conceive, the whole question. My hon. Mend the member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward) asks us, indeed, only to transfer j£26,000 a-year from the Established Church of Ireland to the College of Maynooth ; but this motion, I think, resembles an action of ejectment brought for a single farm, with the view of trying the title to a large estate. Whoever refuses to assent to what is now proposed, must be considered as holding the opinion that the property of the Irish Chui'ch ought to be held inviolate ; and I can scarcely think that any person wiU vote for what is now proposed who is not prepared to go very much farther. The point at issue I take, therefore, to be this : whether the Irish Church, as now constituted, shall be maintained or not. Now, sir, when a legislator is called upon to decide whether an mstitution shall be maintained or not, it seems to me that he ought, in the first place, to examine whether it be a good or a bad institution. This may sound like a truism ; but if I am to judge by the speeches which on this and former occasions have been made by gentlemen opposite, it is no truism, but an 154 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. exceedingly recondite trutli. I^ sir, think the Established Church of Ireland a bad institution. I will go farther. I am not speaking in anger, or with any wish to excite anger in others ; I am not speaking with rhetorical exaggeration — I am calmly and deliberately expressing in the only appropriate terms an opinion which I formed many years ago, which all my observations and reflections have confirmed, and which I am prepared to support by reasons — when I say that of all the institutions now existing in the civihsed world, the Established Church of Ireland seems to me the most absurd. I cannot help thinking that the speeches of those who defend this Church suffice of themselves to prove that my views are just. For who ever heard anybody defend it on its merits? Has any gentleman to-night defended it on its merits ? We are told of the Roman Catholic oath, as if that oath, whatever be its construction, whatever be the extent of the obHgation which it lays on the consciences of those who take it, could possibly prove this Church to be a good thing. We are told that the Catholics of note, both laymen and divines, fifty years ago, declared that, if they were relieved from the disabihties under which they then lay, they should wUlingly see the Church of Ireland in possession of aU its endowments; as if anything that anybody said fifty years ago could absolve us from the plain duty of doing what is now best for the country. We are told of the fifth Article of Union ; as if the fifth Article of Union were more sacred than the fourth. Surely, if there be any Article of the Union which ought to be regarded as inviolable, it is the fourth, which settles the number of members whom Great Britain and Ireland respectively are to send to Parliament. Yet the provisions of the fourth Article have been altered with the almost unanimous assent of all parties in the State. The change was proposed by the noble lord who is now Secretary for the Colonies. It was supported by the right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and by other members of the present Administration; and so far were the opponents of the Reform Bill from objecting to this infraction of the Treaty of Union that they were disposed to go still farther. I MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 155 well remember the night on which we debated the question whether members should be given to Finsbmy^ Marylebonej Lambeth^ and the Tower Hamlets. On that occasion, the Tories attempted to seduce the Irish Reformers from us by promising that Ireland should have a share of the plmider of the metropolitan districts. After this, sir, I must think it childish in gentlemen opposite to appeal to the fifth Article of the Union. With still greater surprise did I hear the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for Ireland say that, if we adopt this amendment, we shall make all landed and fiinded property insecm-e. I am really ashamed to answer such an argument. Nobody proposes to touch any vested interest ; and surely it cannot be necessary for me to point out to the right hon. gentleman the distinction between property in which some person has a vested interest, and property in which no person has a vested interest. That distinc- tion is part of the very rudiments of political science. Then the right hon. gentleman quarrels with the form of the amendment. Why, sir, perhaps a more convenient form might have been adopted; but is it by cavils like these* that a great institution should be defended? And who ever heard the Established Church of Ireland defended except by cavils like these ? Who ever heard any of her advocates take the manly, the statesman- like course ? Who ever heard any of her advocates say, " I defend this institution because it is a good institution : the ends for which an Established Church exists are siich and such, and I will show you that this Church attains those ends ?" Nobody says this. Nobody has the hardihood to say it. What divine, what political speculator, who has written in defence of eccle- siastical establishments, ever defended such establishments on grounds which will support the Church of Ireland? What panegyric has ever been pronounced on the Churches of England and Scotland which is not a satire on the Church of Ireland ? What traveller comes among us who is not moved to wonder and derision by the Church of Ireland ? What foreign writer on British affairs, whether European or American, whether Pro- testant or Catholic, whether Conservative or Liberal, whether 156 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. partial to England or prejudiced against England, ever mentions the Church of Ireland without expressing his amazement that such an establishment should exist among reasonable men ? And those who speak thus of it speak justly. Is there any- thing else like it ? Was there ever anything else like it ? The world is full of ecclesiastical establishments ; but such a portent as this Chiu-ch of Ireland is nowhere to be found. Look round the continent of Europe. Ecclesiastical establishments from the White Sea to the Mediterranean; ecclesiastical estabhshments from the Wolga to the Atlantic; but nowhere the Church of a small minority enjoying exclusive establishment. Look at America. There you have all forms of Christianity, from Mor- monism, if you call Mormonism Christianity, to Romanism. In some places you have the voluntary system. In some you have several religions connected with the State. In some you have the sohtaiy ascendancy of a single Church. But nowhere, from the Arctic Circle to Cape Horn, do you find the Church of a small minority exclusively established. Look round our own Empire. We have an Established Church in England ; it is the Church of the majority. There is an Established Church in Scotland ; when it was set up it was the Church of the majority ; a few months ago it was the Church of the majority. I am not sure that, even after the late unhappy disruption, it is the Church of the minority. In our colonies the State does much for the support of religion; but in no colony, I believe, do we give exclusive support to the religion of the minority. Nay, even in those parts of the Empire where the great body of the population is attached to absurd and immoral superstitions, you have not been guilty of the foUy and injustice of calling on them to pay for a Church which they do not want. We have not portioned out Bengal and the Carnatic into parishes, and scattered Christian rectors, with stipends and glebes, among millions of Pagans and Mahometans. We keep, indeed, a small Christian establishment, or rather three small Christian establishments, Anglican, Presby- terian, and Catholic ; but we keep them only for the Christians in our civil and military services, and we leave untouched the revenues of the mosques and temples. In one country alone, is MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 157 to be seen the spectacle of a community of 8^000,000 of human beings, with a Church which is the Church of only 800,000. It has been often said, and has been repeated to-night by the hon. member for Radnor, that this Church, though it includes only a tenth part of the population, has more than half the wealth of Ireland. But is that au argument in favour of the present system ? Is it not the strongest argument that can be urged in favour of an entire change ? It is true that there are many cases in which it is fit that property should prevail over number. Those cases may, I think, be aU arranged in two classes. One class consists of those cases in which the preservation or improve- ment of property is the object in view. Thus, in a railway- company, nothing can be more reasonable than that one pro- prietor who holds 500 shares should have more power than five proprietors who hold one share each. The other class of cases in which property may justly confer privileges is where superior intelligence is required . Property is, indeed, but a very imperfect test of intelligence; but when we are legislating on a large scale, it is, perhaps, the best which we can apply. "For where there is no property, there can very seldom be any mental cultivation. It is on this principle that special jurors who have to try causes of peculiar nicety are taken from a wealthier order than that which furnishes common jurors. But there cannot be a more false analogy than to reason from these cases to the case of an EstabHshed Church. So far is it from being true that in establishing a Chiu-ch we ought to pay more regard to one rich man than to five poor men, that the direct reverse is the sound rule. We ought to pay more regard to one poor man than to five rich men. For, in the first place, the public ordinances of religion are of far more importance to the poor man than to the rich man. I do not mean to say that a rich man may not be the better for hearing sermons and joining in public prayers ; but these things are not indispensable to him, and, if he is so situated that he cannot have them, he may find substitutes. He has money to buy books, time to study them, understanding to comprehend them. Every day he may com- mune with the minds of Hooker, Leighton, and Barrow. He 158 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. therefore stands less in need of the oral instruction of a divine than a peasant who cannot read^ or who, if he can read, has no money to procure books, or leisure to peruse them. Such a peasant, unless instructed by word of mouth, can know no more of Christianity than a wild Hottentot. Nor is this all. The poor man not only needs the help of a minister of religion more than the rich man, but is also less able to procure it. If there were no Established Church, people in our rank of life would always be provided with preachers to their mind, at an expense which they woidd scarcely feel. But when a poor man who can hardly give his children their fill of potatoes has to sell his pig in order to pay something to his priest, the burden is a heavy one. This is, in fact, the strongest reason for having an Estabhshed Church in any country. It is the one reason which prevents me from joining with the partisans of the voluntary system. I should think their arguments unanswerable if the question re- i^arded the upper and middle classes only. If I would keep up the EstabUshed Church of England, it is not for the sake of lords and baronets, and country gentlemen of £5000 a-year, and rich bankers in the city. I know that such people will always have churches, aye, and cathedrals, and organs, and rich communion-plate. The person about whom I am uneasy is the working man — the man who would find it difficult to pay even five shUings or ten shillings a-year out of his small earnings for the ministrations of religion. What is to become of him under the voluntary system ? Is he to go without religious instruction altogether? That we should aU thinlc a great evil to himself and a great evil to society. Is he to pay for it out of his slender means ? That would be a heavy tax. Is he to be dependent on the liberahty of others ? That is a somewhat precarious and a somewhat humdiatiug dependence. I prefer, I own, that system under which there is, in the rudest and most secluded districts, a house of God, where public worship is performed after a fashion acceptable to the great majority of the community, and where the poorest may partake of the ordinances of religion, not as an alms but as a right. But does this argument apply to a Church bke the Church of iMAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 159 Ireland ? It is not necessary on this occasion to decide whether the arguments in favour of ecclesiastical establishments, or the arguments in favour of the voluntary system, be the stronger. There are weighty considerations on both sides. Balancing them as well as I can, I think that, as respects England, the preponderance is on the side of the Establishment. But, as respects Ireland, there is no balancing. All the weights are in one scale. All the arguments which incline us against the Church of England, and all those arguments which incline us in favour of the Church of England, are alike arguments against the Church of Ireland ; against the Church of the few, against the Church of the wealthy, against the Church which, reversing every principle on which a Christian Church should be founded, fills the rich with its good things, and sends the hungry empty away. One view which has repeatedly, both in this House and out of it, been taken of the Church of Ireland, seems to deserve notice. It is admitted, as indeed it could not well be denied, that this Church does not perform the functions which are every- where else expected from similar institutions ; that it does not instruct the bodj^ of the people; that it does not administer religious consolation to the body of the people. But, it is said, we must regard this Church as an aggressive Church, a prose- lytising Church, a Church militant among spiritual enemies. Its office is to spread Protestantism over Munster and Connaught. I remember well that, eleven years ago, when Lord Grey's Government proposed to reduce the number of Irish bishoprics, this language was held. It was acknowledged that there were more bishops than the number of persons then in full commu- nion with the Established Church required. But that number, we were assured, would not be stationary ; and the hierarchy, therefore, ought to be constituted with a view to the millions of converts who would soon require the care of Protestant pastors. I well remember the strong expression which was then used by my hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford ; we must, he said, make allowance for the expansive force of Pro- testantism. A few nights ago a noble lord for whom I, in common -with 160 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GUANT. the whole House, feel the greatest respect, the member for Dorsetshire, spoke of the missionary character of the Chm'ch of Ireland. Now, sir, if such language had been held at the Council-board of Queen Elizabeth when the constitution of this Chiirch was first debated there, there would have been no cause for wonder. Sir William Cecil or Sir Nicholas Bacon might very naturally have said, "There are few Protestants now in Ireland, it is true. But when we consider how rapidly the Protestant theology has spread, when we remember that it is little more than forty years since Martin Luther began to preach against indulgences, and when we see that one half of Em'ope is now emancipated from the old superstition, we may reasonably expect that the Irish wiU soon follow the example of the other nations which have embraced the doctrines of the Reformation." Cecil, I say, and his colleagues might naturally entertain this ex- pectation, and might without absm'dity make preparations for an event which they regarded as in the highest degree probable. But we who have seen this system in fall operation from the year 1560 to the year 1845, ought to have been taught better, unless, indeed, we are past aU teaching. Two hundred and eighty-five years has this Church been at work. What could have been done for it in the way of authority, privileges, endow- ments, which has not been done ? Did any other set of bishops and priests in the world ever receive so much for doing so little ? Nay, did any other set of bishops and priests in the world ever receive half as much for doing twice as much ? And what have we to show for all this lavish expenditure ? What but the most -zealous Roman Catholic population on the face of the earth? Where you were one hundred years ago, where you were two hundred years ago, there you are stiU: not victorious over the domain of the old faith, but pain- fully and with dubious success defending your own frontier, your own English pale. Sometimes a deserter leaves you — sometimes a deserter steals over to you. Whether your gains or losses of this sort be the greater I do not loiow, nor is it worth while to inquire. On the great solid mass of the Roman Catholic population you have made no impression whatever. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 161 There they are^ as they were ages ago, ten to one agamst the members of your Established Church. Explain this to me — I speak to you, the zealous Protestants on the other side of the House— explain this to me on Protes- tant principles. If I were a Roman Catholic, I could easily account for the phenomena. If I were a Roman Catholic, I should content myself with saying that the mighty hand and the outstretched arm had been put forth according to the promise in defence of the unchangeable Chiirch ; that he who in the old time turned into blessings the curses of Balaam, and smote the host of Sennacherib, had signally confounded the arts and the power of heretic statesmen. But what is a Protestant to say ? He holds that, through the whole of this long conflict during which ten generations of men have been born and have died, reason and Scripture have been on the side of the established clergy. Tell us, then, what we are to say of this strange war, in which reason and Scripture, backed by wealth, by dignity, by the help of the civil power, have been found no match for oppressed and destitute error ? The fuller our conviction that our doctrines are right, the fuller, if we are rational men, must be our con- viction that our tactics have been wrong, and that we have been encumbering the cause which we meant to aid. Observe, it is not only the comparative number of Roman Catholics and Pro- testants that may justly furnish us with matter for serious re- flection. The quality as well as the quantity of Irish Romanism deserves to be considered. Is there any other country inhabited by a mixed population of Catholics and Protestants, any other country in which Protestant doctrines have long been freely promulgated from the press and from the pulpit, where the Roman Catholic spirit is so strong as in Ireland ? I believe not. The Belgians are generally considered as very stubborn and zealous Roman Catholics ; but I do not believe that in either stubbornness or zeal they equal the Irish. And this is the fruit of three centuries of Protestant archbishops, bishops, archdeacons, deans, and rectors. And yet where is the wonder ? Is this a mu"acle that we should stand aghast at it? Not at all. It is a result which human prudence ought to have long ago foreseen VOL. II. M 163 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GKANT. and long ago averted. It is the natural succession of effect to cause. If you do not understand it, it is because you do not understand what the nature and operation of a Church is. There are parts of the machinery of government wliich may be just as efficient when they are hated as when they are loved. An army^ a navy, a preventive service, a police-force, may do their work whether the public feehng be with them or against them. Whether we dishke the Corn-laws or not, your custom- houses and your coast-guard keep out foreign corn. The multi- tude at Manchester were not the less efFectually dispersed by the yeomamy, because the interference of the yeomanry excited the bitterest iadignation. There the object was to produce a material effect ; the material means were sufficient ; and nothing more was required. But a Church exists for moral ends. A Church exists to be loved, to be reverenced, to be heard with docility, to reign in the understandings and hearts of men. A Church which is abhorred is useless or worse than useless ; and to quarter a hostile Church on a conquered people, as you would quarter soldiery, is therefore the most absurd of mistakes. This mistake our ancestors committed. They posted a Church in Ireland just as they posted garrisons in Ireland. The garrisons did their work. They were disliked, but that mattered not. They had their forts and their arms, and they kept down the aboriginal race. But the Church did not do its work; for to that work the love and confidence of the people were essential. I may remark in passing that, even under more favoiu-able cn- cumstances, a parochial priesthood is not a good engine for the purpose of making proselytes. The Church of Rome, which, whatever we may think of her ends, has shown no want of saga- city in the choice of means, knows this well. When she makes a great aggressive movement — and many such movements she has made with signal success — she employs not her parochial clergy, but a very different machinery. The business of her parish priests is to defend and govern what has been won. It is by the religious orders, and especially by the Jesuits, that the great acquisitions have been made. In Ireland your parochial clergy lay under two great disad- MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 163 vantages. They were endowed, and they were hated ; so richly endowed that few among them cared to turn missionaries, so bitterly hated that those few had but little success. They long contented themselves with receiving the emoluments arising from their benefices, and neglected all those means to which, in other parts of Europe, Protestantism had owed its victory. It is well known that of all the means employed by the Reformers of Germany, of England, and of Scotland, for the purpose of moving the public mind, the most powerful was the Bible trans- lated into vernacular tongues. In Ireland the Protestant Church had been estabhshed near half a centiiry before the New Testament was printed in Erse. The whole Bible was not printed in Erse till this Church had existed more than 120 years. Nor did the publication at last take place under the patronage of the lazy and wealthy hierarchy. The expense was defrayed by a layman, the illustrious Robert Boyle. So things went on century after century. Swift, more than 100 years ago, describes the prelates of his country as men gorged with wealth and sunk in indolence, whose chief business was to bow and rob at the Castle. The only spiritual function, he says, which they performed was ordination ; and when he saw what persons they ordained, he doubted whether it would not be better that they should neglect that function as they neglected every other. Those, sir, are now living who can well remember how the revenues of the richest see in Ireland were squandered on the shores of the Mediterranean by a bishop whose epistles — very different compositions from the epistles of St. Peter and St. John — may be found in the correspondence of Lady Hamilton. Such abuses as these called forth no complaint, no reprimand. And all this time the true pastors of the people — meanly fed and meanly clothed, frowned upon by the law, exposed to the insults of every petty squire who gloried in the name of Pro- testant — ^were to be found in miserable cabins, amidst filth, and famine, and contagion, instructing the young, consohng the miserable, holding up the crucifix before the eyes of the dying. Is it strange that, imder such circumstances, the Roman Catho- hc religion should have been constantly becoming dearer and 164 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. dearer to an ardent and sensitive people^ and that your Esta- blished Church should have been constantly sinking lower and lower in their estimation ? I do not, of coiu-sej hold the living clergy of the Irish Church answerable for the faults of their predecessors. God forbid ! To do so would be the most flagi- tious injustice. I know that a salutary change has taken place. I have no reason to doubt that in learning and regularity of life the Protestant clergy of Ireland are on a level with the clergy of England. But in the way of making proselytes they do as little as those who preceded them. An enmity of 300 years separates the nation from those who should be its teachers. In short, it is plain that the mind of Ireland has taken its ply, and is not to be bent in a different direction — or, at all events, is not to be so bent by your present machinery. Well, then, this Church is inefficient as a missionary Church. But there is yet another end which, in the opinion of some eminent men, a Church is meant to serve. That end has been often in the minds of practical politicians. But the first specu- lative politician who distinctly pointed it out was Mr. Hume.* Mr. Hume, as might have been expected from his known opinions, treated the question merely as it related to the tem- poral happiness of mankind; and perhaps it may be doubted whether he took quite a just view of the manner in which even the temporal happiness of mankind is affected by the restraints and consolations of religion. He reasoned thus : It is dan- gerous to the peace of society that the public mind should be violently excited on religious subjects. If you adopt the volun- tary system, the public mind will always be so excited. For every preacher, knowing that his bread depends on his popu- larity, seasons his doctrine high, and practises every art for the purpose of obtaining an ascendancy over his hearers. But when the Government pays the minister of religion, he has no pressing motive to inflame the zeal of his congregation. He ^vill probably go through his duties in a somewhat perfunctory manner. His power will not be very formidable ; and, such as it is, it will be employed in support of that order of things * It is, of course, to Ilume the historian that Mr. Macaulay refers. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GKANT. 165 under which he finds himself so comfortable. Now, sir, it is not necessary to inquire whether Mr. Hume's doctrine be sound or unsound. For, soxmd or unsound, it furnishes no ground on which you can rest the defence of the institution which we are now considering. It is evident that by establishing in Ireland the Church of the minority in connexion with the State, you have produced, in the very highest degree, all those evils which Mr. Hume considered as inseparable from the voluntary system. You may go all over the world without finding another country where religious diiferences take a form so dangerous to the peace of society, where the common people are so much under the influence of their priests, or where the priests who teach the common people are so completely estranged from the civil Government. And now, sir, I will sum up what I have said. For what end does the Church of Ireland exist ? Is that end the instruction and solace of the great body of the people ? You must admit that the Church of Ireland has not attained that end. Is the end which you have in view the conversion of the great body of the people from the Roman Catholic religion to a purer form of Christianity ? You must admit that the Church of Ireland has not attained that end. Or do you propose to yourselves the end contemplated by Mr. Hume, the peace and security of civil society ? You must admit that the Church of Ireland has not attained that end. In the name of common-sense, then, tell us what good end this Church has attained, or suffer us to con- clude, as I am forced to conclude, that it is emphatically a bad institution. It does not, I know, necessarily follow that, because an institution is bad, it is therefore to be immediately destroyed. Sometimes a bad institution takes a strong hold on the hearts of mankind, intertwines its roots with the very foundations of society, and is not to be removed without serious peril to order, law, and property. For example, I hold polygamy to be one of the most pernicious practices that exist in the world; but if the Legislative Council of India were to pass an Act prohibiting polygamy, I should think that they were out of their senses. Such a measure would bring down the vast fabric of ycur Indian 166 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. Empire with one crash. But is there any similar reason for dealing tenderly with the Established Church of Ireland ? That Church, sir, is not one of those bad institutions which ought to be spared because they are popular, and because their fall would injure good institutions. It is, on the contrary, so odious, and its vicinage so much endangers valuable parts of our polity, that even if it were in itself a good institution there would be strong reasons for giving it up. The hon. gentleman who spoke last told us that we cannot touch this Church without endangering the Legislative Union. Sir, I have given my best attention to this important point, and have arrived at a very different conclusion. The question to be determined is this : What is the best way of preserving pohtical union between countries in which different rehgions prevail? With respect to this question, we have, I think, aU the Hght which history can give us. There is no sort of experiment described by Lord Bacon which we have not tried. Inductive philosophy is of no value if we cannot trust to the lessons derived from the experience of more than 200 years. England has long been closely connected with two countries less powerful than herself, and differing from herself in religion. The Scottish people are Presbyterians ; the Irish people are Roman Cathohcs. We determined to force the Anglican system on both countries. In both countries great discontent was the result. At length Scotland rebelled. Then Ireland rebelled. The Scotch and Irish rebellions, taking place at a time when the pubhc mind of England was greatly and justly excited, produced the Great Rebellion here, and the downfall of the monarchy, of the Church, and of the aristocracy. After the Restoration we again tried the old system. During twenty-eight years we persisted in the attempt to force prelacy on the Scotch ; and the consequence was, during those twenty-eight years, Scotland exhibited a fright- ful spectacle of misery and depravity. The history of that period is made up of oppression and resistance, of insurrections, barba- rous punishments, and assassinations. One day a crowd of zealous rustics stand desperately on their defence, and repel the dragoons. Next day the dragoons scatter and hew down the MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 167 flyiiig peasantry. One day the knee-bones of a wretched Cove- nanter are beaten flat in that accursed boot. Next day the Lord Primate is dragged out of 'his carriage by a band of raving fanatics, and, while screanmig for mercy, is butchered at the feet of his own daughter. So things went on, till at last we remembered that institutions are made for men, and not men for iastitutions. A wise Govern- ment desisted from the vain attempt to maintain an episcopal estabUshment in a Presbyterian nation. From that moment the connexion between England and Scotland became every year closer and closer. There was still, it is true, many causes of animosity. There was an old antipathy between the nations, the effect of many blows given and received on both sides. All the greatest calamities that had befallen Scotland had been infUcted by England. The proudest events in Scottish history were victories obtained over England. Yet aU angry feelings died rapidly away. The union of the nations became complete. The oldest man living does not remember to have heard any demagogue breathe a wish for separation. Do you believe that this would have happened if England had, after the Revolution, persisted in attempting to force the surplice and the Prayer-book on the Scotch ? I tell you that if you had adhered to the mad scheme of producing a rehgious union with Scotland, you never would have had a cordial political union with her. At this very day you would have had monster meetings on the north of the Tweed, and another Conciliation HaU, and another repeal button, with the motto, " Nemo me impune lacessit." In fact, England never would have become the great power that she is. For Scotland would have been, not an addition to the effective strength of the Empire, but a deduction from it. As often as there was a war with France or Spain, there would have been an insurrection in Scotland. Our country would have sunk into a kingdom of the second class. One such Church as that about which we are now debating is a serious incumbrance to the greatest empire ; two such Churches no empire could bear. You continued to govern Ireland during many generations as you had governed Scotland in the days of Lauderdale and Dundee. 168 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GllANT. And see the results. Ireland has remained^ indeed, a part of yoiir Empire; but you know her to be a source of weakness rather than of strength. Her misery is a reproach to you. Her discontent doubles the dangers of war. Can you, with such facts before you, doubt about the course which you ought to take ? Imagine a physician with two patients, both afflicted with the same disease. He applies the same sharp remedies to both. Both become worse and worse, with the same inflamma- tory symptoms. Then he changes his treatment of one case, and gives cordials. The sufferer revives, grows better day by day, and is at length restored to perfect health. The other patient is still subjected to the old treatment, and becomes con- stantly more and more disordered. How would a physician act in such a case? And are not the principles of experimental philosophy the same in politics as in medicine ? Therefore, sir, I am fully prepared to take strong measures with regard to the Established Church of Ireland. It is not necessary for me to say precisely how far I would go. I am aware that it may be necessary, in this as in other cases, to consent to a compromise. But the more complete the reform which may be proposed — pro- vided always that vested rights be, as I am sure they will be, held strictly sacred — the more cordially shall I support it. That some reform is at hand I cannot doubt. In a very short time we shall see the evils which I have described mitigated, if not entirely removed. A Liberal Administration would make this conces- sion to Ireland from a sense of justice ; a Conservative Administration ■noil make it from a sense of danger. The right hon. baronet has given the Irish a lesson which will bear fruit. It is a lesson which rulers ought to be slow to teach, for it is one which nations are not slow to learn. We have repeatedly been told by acts — we are now told almost in express words — that agitation and intimidation are the means which ought to be em- ployed by those who wish for redress of grievances from the party now in power. Such, indeed, has too long been the policy of England towards Ireland ; but it was surely never before avowed with such indis- creet frankness. Every epoch which is remembered with pleasure MAYNOOTH COLIEGE GRANT. 169 on the other side of St. G-eorge's Channel^ coincides with some epoch which we here consider as disastrous and perilous. To the American war and the volunteers the Irish Parliament owed its independence. To the French revolutionary war the Irish Roman Catholics owed the elective franchise. It was in vain that all the great orators and statesmen of two generations exerted them- selves to remove the Roman Catholic disabilities — Burke^ Fox, Pitt, Windham, GrenviUe, Grey, Plunkett, Wellesley, Grattan, Canning, WUberforce : argument and expostulation were fruit- less. At length pressure of a stronger kind was boldly and skilfully employed; and soon all difficulties gave way. The Catholic Association, the Clare election, the dread of civil war, produced the Emancipation Act. Again the cry of " No Popery" was raised. That cry succeeded. A faction which had reviled in the bitterest terms the mild administration of Whig viceroys, and which was pledged to the wholesale disfranchisement of the Roman Catholics, rose to power. One leading member of that faction had drawn forth loud cheers by declaiming against the minions of Popery. Another had designated 6,000,000 of Irish Catholics as aliens. A third had publicly declared his conviction that a time was at hand when all Protestants of every persuasion would find it necessary to combine firmly against the encroach- ments of Romanism. From such men we expected nothing but oppression and intolerance. We are agreeably disappointed to find that a series of conciliatory measures is brought before us. But, in the midst of our delight, we cannot refrain from asking for some explanation of so extraordinary a change. We are told in reply, that the monster meetings of 1843 were very formidable, and that our relations with America are in a very unsatisfactory state. The public opinions of Ireland are to be consulted, the rehgion of Ireland is to be treated with respect, not because equity and humanity plainly enjoin that course, for equity and humanity enjoined that course as plainly when you were calum- niating Lord Normanby, and hurrying forward your Registration Bill — but because Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Polk have between them made you very uneasy. Sir, it is with shame, with sorrow, and I will add with dismay, 170 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. that I listen to such language. I have hitherto disapproved of the monster meetings of 1843. I have disapproved of the way in which Mr. O'ConneU and some other Irish representatives have seceded from this House. I should not have chosen to apply to those gentlemen the precise words which were used on a former occasion by the hon. and learned member for Bath (Mr. Eoebuck) ; but I agreed with him in substance. I thought it highly to the honoTir of my right hon. friend the member for Dungarvon (Mr. SheU), and of my hon. friends the members for Kildare, for Roscommon, and for the city of Waterford, that they had the moral courage to attend the service of this House, and to give us the very valuable assistance which they are, in various ways, so well qualified to afford. But what am I to say now? How can I any longer deny that the place where an Irish gentleman may best serve his coimtry is Conciliation HaU ? How can I expect that any Irish Roman Catholic can be very sorry to learn that our foreign relations are in an alarming state, or can rejoice to hear that all danger of war has blown over ? I appeal to the Conservative members of this House. I ask them whither we are hastening ? I ask them what is to be the end of a pohcy of which it is the principle to give nothing to justice, and everything to fear ? We have been accused of truckhng to Irish agitators ; but I defy you to show us that we ever made or are now making to Ireland a single concession which was not in strict conformity with our known principles. You may there- fore trust us, when we tell you that there is a point where we will stop. Our language to the Irish is this : " You asked for emanci- pation : it was agreeable to our principles that you should have it, and we assisted you to obtain it. You wished for a municipal system, as popular as that which exists in England : we thought your wish reasonable, and did all in our power to gratify it. This grant to Maynooth is, in our opinion, proper ; and we will do our best to obtain it for you, though it should cost us our popularity and our seats in Parliament. The Established Church in yom- island, as now constituted, is a grievance of which you justly complain; we will strive to MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. 171 redress that grievance. The repeal of the Union we regard as fatal to the Empire, and we never will consent to it; never, though the country should be surrounded by dangers as great as those which threatened her when her American colonies, and France, and Spain, and Holland, were leagued against her, and when the armed neutrality of the Baltic disputed her maritime rights ; never, though another Bonaparte should pitch his camp in sight of Dover Castle ; never, till all has been staked and lost ; never, tiU the four quarters of the world have been convulsed by the last struggle of the great English people for their place among the nations." This sir, is the true policy. When you give, give frankly. When you withhold, withhold resolutely. Then what you give is received with gratitude ; and as for what you withhold, men, seeing that to wrest it from you is no safe or easy enterprise, cease to hope for it, and, in time, cease to wish for it. But there is a way of so withholding as merely to excite desire, and of so giving as merely to excite contempt ; and that way the present Ministry has discovered. Is it possible for me to doubt that in a few months the same machinery which extorted the Emancipation Act, and which has extorted the Bill before us, will again be put in motion. Who shall say what will be the next sacrifice ? For my own part, I firmly believe that, if the present Ministers remain in power five years longer, and if we should have — which G^od avert ! — a war with France or America, the Established Church of Ireland will be given up. The right hon. baronet (Sir R. Peel) will come down to make a proposition conceived in the very spirit of the motions which have repeatedly been made by my hon. friend the member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward). He will again be deserted by his fol- lowers ; he will again be dragged through his difficulties by his opponents. Some honest lord of the Treasury may determine to quit his office rather than belie all the professions of a life ; but there will be little difficulty in finding a successor ready to change aU his opinions at twelve hours^ warning. I may, perhaps, while cordially supporting the Bill, again ventm-e to say something about consistency, and about the importance of 172 MAYNOOTH COLLEGE GRANT. maintaiaing a high standard of political morality. The right hon. baronet will again tell me that he is anxious only for the success of his measure, and that he does not choose to reply to taunts. And the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goulburn) will produce " Hansard/' -will read to the House my speech of this night, and will most logically argue that I ought not to reproach the Ministers with their inconsistencyj seeing that I had, from my knowledge of then- temper and principles, predicted to a tittle the nature and extent of that inconsistency. Sir, I have thought it my duty to brand with strong terms of reprehension the practice of conceding in time of public danger what is obstinately withheld in time of public security. I am prepared, and have long been prepared, to grant much, very much, to Ireland. But if the Repeal Association were to dissolve itself to morrow, and if the next steamer were to bring news that all our differences with the United States were adjusted in the most honourable and friendly manner, I would grant to Ireland neither more nor less than I would grant if we were on the eve of a rebellion like that of 1798, if war were raging all along the Canadian frontier, and if thirty French sail of the line were confronting our fleet in St. George's Channel. I give my vote from my heart and soul for the amendment of my hon. friend. He calls on us to make to Ireland a concession which ought in justice to have been made long ago, and which may be made wdth grace and dignity even now. I well know that you will refuse to make it now. I know as well, that you will make it hereafter. You will make it as every concession to Ireland has been made. You will make it when its effect will be not to appease, but to stimulate agitation. You will make it when it will be regarded, not as a great act of national justice, but as a confession of national weakness. You wiU make it in such away, and at such a time, that there will be but too much reason to doubt whether more mischief has been done by your long refusal or by your tardy and enforced compliance. 173 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. July 9, 1845. On Moving iht Seoond Readlnj of the Uiiiversitie; (Saitlaiii) Dill. I HAVE been requested by my right hon. and learned friend the member for Leith (Mr. Rutherford) to act as his substitute on this occasion. I very greatly regret that a substitute should be necessary. I regret that we have not him amongst us to take charge of this measure^ which he introduced to a very thin House indeed, in one of the most forcible and luminous speeches it has ever been my lot to hear. The few hon. members, however, who were then present, cannot fail to remember the powerful effect which the speech of my hon. and learned friend, on apply- ing for leave to bring in the Bill, produced. The Ministers who came down to oppose it relinquished their objections to it. They hesitated, they consulted together, and at last, under the irre- sistible influence of his eloquence, they consented that he should have leave to bring in the Bill. They subsequently appeared to regard the Bill with favour, and my hon. and learned friend, with myself, was thus induced to expect that the opposition to it was over. We anticipated that this important and salutary measure would be suffered to become law. But we have been disappointed. It has been intimated to us that it is the intention of her Majesty's Government to resist the farther progress of the measure ; and under these circumstances I now rise to move the second reading of the BUI. Were this an ordinary occasion, I should, under such circumstances, despair of success ; but when I consider the strength of our cause, and recollect the justice and necessity on which it is founded, I cannot think it possible that even the opposition of her Majesty's Government could succeed against it. I should consider success not only possible, but certain, if I did not know how imperfectly most English 174 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. gentlemen are informed on subjects immediately connected with Scotland. It is on this account that, departing from the ordi- nary course, I think it necessary, even after the able and elo- quent statement of my hon. and learned friend in introduciag the measure, to address the House, instead of simply moving the second reading of this Bill ; and in doing so I shall beg the attention of the English gentlemen present to the state of Scot- land. I hope that they will think that on this occasion the member for Edinburgh has some right to their indulgence. I have been sent to this House as the representative of a great city, which was once the capital of an independent kingdom — once the seat of a Court and of a Parliament ; and though for the general good it descended from that eminence, it stiU continues the intellectual metropohs of a great and inteUigent people. Their chief dis- tinction of late years has been derived from their University, which was practically constituted on the pure principles of tole- ration now advocated by her Majesty's Ministers. So consti- tuted, it has flourished during several generations, a blessing to the Empire, and renowned to the farthest ends of the world as a great school of physical and moral science. This noble and beneficent institution is now threatened with a complete and ignominious alteration in its character by the shortsighted and criminal policy of her Majesty's Government, and by the viru- lence of ecclesiastical faction, which is bent on persecution, with- out even the miserable excuse of fanaticism. Nor is it only Edinburgh that is threatened- In pleading for it I plead for all the great academic institutions of Scotland. The fate of all depends on the discussion of this night ; and, while pleading for them, I am confident that I shall be heard with favour by everyone who loves learning and religious liberty. I shall now proceed, therefore, without further preface, to the consideration of the Bill before the House. I say, first, that this Bill is founded on a sound principle. I say, secondly, that even if the principle of this Bill were not one which could be defended as generally sound, still the principles of the Ministers should make them desirous of passing the Bill ; and. THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. 175 thirdly, I say, that if the Bill ought to pass, it ought not to he delayed hy the Governmeiit. I state, first, that the prin- ciple of this Bill is a sound principle ; and whoever else may undertake to controvert that assertion, by her Majesty's Miaisters, at least, it cannot be controverted. From their mouth a declaration AviU not sound well that literary and scientific instruction is inseparably connected with spiritual instruction. It will not do for them to rail against the prin- ciple of this Bill as establishing " a godless system of educa- tion," or to talk with horror of the danger of young men listening to lectures delivered by an Arian professor of botany, or a Popish professor of chemistry. They have contended that those sciences can be taught without reference to a rehgious creed. They have, for a country in which a great proportion of those who require academical education are dissenters fi-om the Estabhshed Church, advocated a system of academical education altogether separate from religious tests. In that case they have thrown open the professorships to every creed and they have strenuously defended this principle against attacks from opposite quarters — against the attacks of zealous members of the Church of England, and of the prelates of the Church of Rome. A test was offered only the day before yesterday for their acceptance by the hon. baronet the member for North Devon (Sir T. Acland), a test singularly moderate, merely requiring the professors to declare their belief in the divine authority of the Old and New Testaments ; and even this test the Ministers resisted as inconsistent with the prin- ciples of their measure. It was then argued that it was uimecessary to apply such a test to professors of secular science ; that it was unworthy to insinuate that they would inculcate infidelity on their pupils; and all men must remember with what scorn the Ministers discarded the notion that science could not be taught except in conjunction with a religious creed. The right hon. gentleman at the head of the Govern- ment said that it was utterly impossible to suppose that the professors would stoop to conduct anywise so degi'ading, and abuse the confidence reposed in them. J 76 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. We heard in otlier quarters the use of very diiferent lan- guage ; but that language made as little impression on Ministers as on me. We were told that secular knowledge^ unsanctioned and unaccompanied by sound views of pure religion, was not merely useless, but was positively noxious — that it was not a blessiag, but a curse. I respect most deeply some of those who used that language; but it appears to me that this pro- position is one which, whUe you state it in merely general terms, may possibly have a pleasing sound to the ears of some persons, but which, when brought to a test by applying it to the real concerns of life, is so monstrous and ludicrous that refutation is out of the question. Is it seriously meant, that if the cap- tain of an Indiaman should be a Socinian, it would be better that he should not know the science of navigation — and that if a druggist should be a Swedenborgian, it would be better that he did not know the difference between Epsom salts and oxahc acid? Is it seriously meant, that 100,000,000 of the Queen's subjects, being Mahomedans and Hindoos, and pro- gressiag towards our state of civilisation, should be sunk below the aborigines of New South Wales, without an alphabet, and without the rudiments of arithmetic? Gentlemen who mean seriously that secular knowledge, unsanctioned by a pure system of rehgion, is a positive evil, must go that length ; but I should think that no sane man would be found to do that. At least, I never could conceive how an error in geology or astronomy could be corrected by divinity, or how a man well acquainted with his Bible could be saved from scientific errors. On these grounds, I cordially supported the measm'C which her Majesty's Government introduced with respect to the Irish colleges. The principle of the Irish Colleges BilL and the principle of the Bill the second reading of which I now move, are the same; and the House and the country have a right to know why those who bring in the Irish Colleges Bill call on us to throw out the present Bill. It is most true that in Scotland there is no clamour against the English con- nexion. It is true that in Scotland there is no demagogue who thinks to obtain popular favour by attempting to excite THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. 177 animosity against men of the Englisi. race; and it is true that in Scotland there is no party -who would venture to speak of the enemies of the State as possible to be, imder any cir- cumstances, the allies of Scotland. In every extremity the Scotch people will be found faithful to the common cause of the Empire; but it will not, I hope, be thought — I am sure that, at any rate, it will not be publicly avowed — that on this account a measure bestowed as a boon on another part of the Empire ought to be withheld from Scotland. But if this is not the distinction, where are we to look for a distinction ? In Scotland, as well as in Ireland, unhappily, the Established Church is the Church of the minority of the population. It is perfectly true that the proportion of dissenters to the Esta- bhshed Church in Scotland is not so great as in Ireland ; but we cannot say that on this occasion we are dealing with the whole of the population. The question concerns that class which requires academical education ; and among that class in Scotland, the proportion of dissenters from the Established Church, it would not be very dif&cult to show, is as great as the proportion of Roman Catholics among a similar class in Ireland. If it is desirable that there should be no sectarian education in Ireland, it is no less desirable in Scotland. If it is desirable that Protestants and Catholics should study together at Cork, it is no less desirable that the sons of elders of the Established Church of Scotland, and the sons of those who are separated from that Church, should study together at Edin- burgh. If it is not desirable to require from Irish professors a declaration that they believe in the divine authority of the Gospels, on what ground is it necessary to call on the Scotch professors to say that they assent to every clause in the Con- fession of Faith ? I defy right hon. gentlemen opposite, with all their ingenuity and eloquence, to find one argument or rhetorical topic bearing against this Bill, which would not be as effectual against their own Irish Colleges Bill. I consider this Bill, then, as safe from attack, with respect to its prin- ciple, from her Majesty's Ministers. But I go further ; and I say that, even if I did not hold the principle of this Bill to be VOL. II. N 178 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. most sound and excellentj I could still show, in the peculiar case of Scotland, some irresistible reasons for adopting the BUI, and for inducing many who even voted against the Irish Colleges Bill to vote in favour of the present Bill. In the first place, I would call attention to the peculiar cha- racter of academical institutions in Scotland. The case of Scot- land differs widely from the case of England and from the case of Ireland. The Enghsli universities have a character of their own — an ancient, deeply-marked character. It may be good, or may be bad ; that question I will not now argue ; but this we must aclmowledge, that it is in perfect harmony with the system of tests. The Irish colleges have no character. They have to receive their character fi'om the Legislature, and we may impress on them what character we please. If we think it desirable to gi\'e them a character not in harmony with the system of tests, we may do so. But the Scotch universities have a distinct character, as strongly marked as that of the English institutions, and altogether out of harmony with the system of tests. I iiitreat English gentlemen not to suppose that the system of discipline or mode of instruction in them is like that in the Enghsh imiversities, or that there are such authorities in them as the Provost of King's College, or the Warden of New College. This is a distinct question from anything connected with the Enghsh universities, and is to be decided on different gromids. We are not introducing a precedent for allowing dissenters to be professors at Oxford and Cambridge. There is, in fact, no analogy whatever between the universities of the two countries. What ought to be done with respect to the Enghsh universities is a perfectly distinct question, and to be dealt with on perfectly distinct grounds. The object of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford is, to bring up young men in connexion with a particular Church. At Cambridge, no person is suffered to gi'aduate -without declaring his adhesion to that Church. The rule at Oxford is even more strict ; for on matriculation a decla- ration on oath must be made. The discipline, even outside the walls of the colleges, is analogous to that pursued Avithin. The students are lodged in the colleges, and are obhged to attend to THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. 179 the strictest regulations with regard to their conduct, and to attend constantly in chapel and in hall. A person is appointed in each college to note the absence of the young men from divine service, another to watch their absence from hall, and another to keep account of those who return to the coUege at late hours ; and imiversity officers parade the streets by night, as a sort of university police, to seize upon any students they may find beyond the walls of their respective colleges. In these universities there are punishments for any breach of decorum, and the authorities of the imiversity have the power of control over the conduct of the pupils. The Scotch universities are of a different nature. They do not pretend to inculcate one form of religious opinion more than another ; a Jew might become a Master of Arts or a Doctor of Mediciae as readily as a member of the Chm'ch of Scotland. No academical authority has a right to ask a young man attending the university whether he went to the synagogue or the Cathohc chapel, to the Free Chm'ch or the Established Church. As to the moral conduct of the young men beyond the walls of the university, no influence could be exercised, and none of the heads of it could interfere with a student for conduct in the streets of Ediuburgh. The proceedings in Edinburgh were similar to branches of scientific education in London. A young man might attend lectures at St. George's Hospital, or the lectm-es of Mr. Fara- day in Albemarle-street, to learn chemistry, and of Mr. Carlyle on German literature, without any interference on the part of his instructors beyond the lecture-room. Would it not be absurd to require a religious test fi-om the lecturers to medical students at St. George's Hospital, at Surgeons' Hall, or in other places where science was taught? The relation between those parties being exactly analogous to the relation existing between the Scotch professors and Scotch students, on what principle can we defend the requiring of rehgious tests fi'om the Scotch pro- fessors? If I held aU the opinions of those gentlemen who most dislike the Scotch system, I should say, after all, that in such a system religious tests would be out of place. Where you aim at bringing up young men as members of a pai'ticTiiar 180 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. Churchj there is a reason for requiring from all who educate a test to show that they belong to that Church ; but where you do not propose to inculcate certain religious opinions^ it is absurd to require that men should be Protestants before they give lectures on chemistry, or Trinitarians before they can take medical degrees. I therefore say, that the peculiar character of the Scotch universities is, in my opinion, one strong reason to agree to this BiU. The peculiar engagements which exist between the English and Scottish nations also appear to me a strong reason for adopting the Bill. Some gentlemen may think that I am venturing on dangerous ground. We have heard that the Treaty of Union and the Act of Security require us to prevent the passing of such a measm'e. I say that by those Acts I am not bound to throw this measure out, but that I am bound to adopt it, or some measure to the same effect ; and this I undertake to prove by irresistible argu- ments. I shall resort to no paltry quibbling with the view of explaining away words. I utterly repudiate such an attempt when made in reference to questions like this. If I thought that the public exigencies required us to break tlirough the Treaty of Union, I would say so openly, and should never quibble at words. I mean to deal with the Treaty of Union as a solemn engagement. In what sense was that treaty adopted by the contracting parties — and, more especially, in what sense was it understood by that party which, if there is any doubt, ought to prevail, that party being the weaker party, and standing in need of a guarantee ? It was declared by that treaty that no person should be a teacher or office-bearer at the universities who did not subscribe to the Confession of Faith, or, in other words, did not declare his adhesion to the Established Church. What Established Church was that ? It was the Church esta- blished in 1707, when the Union was adopted. Is the Church of Scotland, at the present moment, on all points constituted as that Church was in 1707 ? I answer, certainly not. The British Legislatm-e violated the Articles of the Union, and made a change in the constitution of the Chm-ch of Scotland. From that change has flowed almost all the dissent now existing in THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. 181 Scotland ; and if you attempt to enforce the letter of the Articles of the Act of Union against the dissenters, you are actually excluding from acting as ofiicers of the imiversities precisely those persons to whom the Act of Union meant to give the exclusive possession of the academic offices. This I undertake to prove. Every person who knows anything of the ecclesiastical history of Scotland must be aware that, in the opinion of the great body of Scotch PresbyterianSj the mode in which pastors are appointed is a matter of great importance. From the time of the Eeformation, the great body of Scotch Presbyterians held that, in some form or other, the people ought to have a share in the appointment of their ministers. They do not consider this as a thiag indifferent ; they consider it as a matter jure divino ; for they think that, according to the revealed word of God, no individuals are entitled to be ministers to congregations if their preachiag does not tend to edify the congregations. I am sure that I do not exaggerate when I say that members of the Church of England do not attach more importance to their ecclesiastical government and ordination than many Scotchmen who fear God and honour their Queen attach to this right of a popidar voice in the choice of their spiritual ministers. What was the state of the Church of Scotland as constituted in 1707 ? It was constituted in a manner satisfactory to the great part of the Presbyterian body. In 1690 the Act was passed for the regulation of the presbyteries, and giving to popular bodies a share in the election of the ministers ; which then was considered an essential principle of the Church of that country. The Church of Scotland was so constituted when England entered iato the solemn engagement with Scotland, by which the two countries were united, and in which it was declared that the then form of the Church should remain and continue unalter- able. But five years after the Union there was a violation of this Article of the Union — a violation the consequences of which I never think upon without regarding them as one of the most solemn warnings history presents to States, always to keep public faith strictly inviolate — and without a conviction that in 182 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. the end, though long periods, though whole generations may elapse, retribution for the injustice will come. In the year 1712, it is Avell Icnown how the country was governed : the Whigs, who were the chief authors of the Union, who had carried on the war with Louis XIV., had been driven from power ; they had fallen in consequence of the prosecution of Dr. Sacheverel, and the enmity of the Church of England. A Tory ministry was in office, brought in and kept in by the Tory country gentlemen. The heads of that Ministry, but still more its followers, regarded the Presbyterians of Scotland with great dislike ; that was a feeling which persons acquainted with the writings of Swift would know existed at that time. The general feeling was, that the English nation and the English Church had made a bad bargain, of which they were desirous to get rid, and which, as far as they possibly could, mthout risldng the general safety of the State, they ought to violate. During their short period of power, they did offer numerous petty insults to the opinions, or, if you please, the prejudices, of the Presbyterians ; but the chief act on which they ventured was the introduction of a Bill abolishing the law of 1690, and giving back the power of filling up vacant benefices to lay patrons. Of the history of that Bill we have a little in Burnet, and we have something very significant in our own journals. The measure was hurried on with the greatest speed, that it might be got through the House before intimation of it could reach Scotland ; for those were not the days of railroads, when a speech made at two or three o'clock in the morning is read the same day at Exeter and Newcastle. The significant entry on our journals respecting it is this : there was an obstinate fight, and in the debate on the third reading it was ordered that the Act of Union and the Act of Security should be read to the House. This is a pretty clear indication of what the feeling was on that occasion. But the Bill got up to the House of Lords ; then came a petition from the General Assembly of Scotland against it. The first name attached to the petition was that of Carstairs, an eminent man, who had enjoyed the confidence of William III., and well known for the share he took in the establishment of THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. 183 the Church of Scotland after the revolution. In that petition their lordships were prayed not to violate the Act of Union. But party spirit ran high^ and bore down aU opposition; the Act of Union was ^'iolated ; year after year the General Assembly protested against the violation, but in vain ; and from the Act of 1712 undoubtedly flowed every secession and schism that has taken place in the Church of Scotland. It is true that the Act being upon the statute-book was not a necessary reason that men should secede from the Church ; but as often as it was put in execution, so often the Act of Union was violated again ; as often as the subject was agitated by the operation of the Bill, so often these secessions took place. It is not my intention to detain the House with the minute history of these separations, but, in consequence of the operation of the Act, the seceding Ministers formed the Associate Pres- bytery; and in 1753 the Belief Church was established. Even in our own time we have had similar instances ; only two years ago we saw— not, perhaps, with unmixed approbation, but with strong sentiments of admiration — 470 ministers leaving their parishes and manses, throwing up their stipends, and committing themselves, their wives and children, to the care of Providence ia this cause. Their congregations adhered to them firmly, fol- lowed them in crowds, and, surrounded by willing and delighted hearers, they preached in other churches, or, if none could be obtaiaed, in tents and barns, or on those lulls and moors to which in other times their ancestors fled, and worshipped God in despite of Lauderdale and Dundee. They were supported by their congregations, and the spirit ia which every one contributed resembled that in which the widow of old threw her mite into the treasury at Jerusalem. Through whole districts, in whole counties, on the other hand, the ministers of the other Esta- bhshment were preaching to empty walls. This was the fruit of the Act of 1712; from the Act of 1712 sprang the disputes which led to these distinct and repeated secessions. The repeal of that Act, and a return to the constitution of the Church of Scotland, as it existed at the time of the Union, would have sufiiced to heal the wound that had been inflicted. 184' Tl-IK SCOTCH UNIVEllSITIES. This is the true history of dissent in Scotland; and, know- ing it, can any English statesman have the front to invoice the Treaty of Union and the Act of Security against those who hold those precise opinions which the Treaty of Union and the Act of Security were intended to protect, and who are dissenters only because that Treaty and that Act have been violated ? I implore the gentlemen of England to think over the manner in which England has acted towards the Presbyterians of Scotland. Eirst, by a solemn treaty with the people of Scotland, you bound yourselves to maintain inviolate the constitution of their Church as it then existed ; and five years afterwards you changed the constitution of that Church in a point which the people of Scot- land regarded as essential; in consequence of which, secession after secession takes place, one great body of worshippers after another leaves the Church, till the Establishment is reduced to the Chui'ch of the minority. Then begin your scruples about the Act of Security and the Treaty of Union; then you cannot depart from the letter of your contract ; then, if we ask for justice, you turn away your faces, and say you must perform your engage- ments ; then you appeal to Acts of Parliament, not to put the Church in the same situation she held in 1707, but to persecute those who adhere firmly, in faith, doctrine, and discipline, to the constitution of the Church of Scotland. These are the present conscientious scruples of her Majesty's Government ; but I must say that even its " Sugar" scruples, though they make it the laugh- ing-stock of Europe and America, sink into insignificance when compared with these. Can they have a doubt of the animus imponentis of the BUI of 1712, when they see the names of those who opposed it, the names of Carstairs and of Boston, the author of " The Foui-fold State ?" Suppose we could call them up from their graves, and explain to them the revolutions which have since their time talcen place in the Church of Scotland, and then ask them, " Which of these was your Church at the time of the Union, for the protection of which the Articles of the Union and the Act of Security were made V — have you the slightest doubt of what their answer would be ? They would say, " Om* Church was not the Church you protect, but the Church you THE SCOTCH UNIVEUSITIES. 185 oppress ; our Church was the Church of Chalmers and Sir David Brewster, not that of Brice and Muir." I am entitled to make a strong appeal to those members of the House of Commons who are attached to the Church of England. If they think the Bill now proposed will not be in truth a viola- tion of the Treaty of Union, but that it is, as far as it goes, a small reparation for the injustice committed on that Treaty, I ask, how can they vote for tests that exclude men of their own religious persuasion from the universities of Scotland ? We may differ as to the countenance we may give to what we view as error, but he incurs a grave responsibility who persecutes that which he believes to be truth. Yet that wiU be the position of the zealous member of the Church of England who gives his vote to-night against the BUI on the table, which affects Episco- palians as well as Presbyterian seceders. There is another argu- ment which seems stronger still in this regard in favour of the Bill. You may say you are averse to removing these tests, but the question is not whether you wilt remove these tests, but whether you will impose them ? The laws imposing these tests have fallen into disuse. We have heard that disuse made an argument by the right hon. baronet the Home Secretary in favour of the Irish Colleges BiU. He said, " the experiment has been tried ; in Edinburgh these tests have been disused for near a century." I implore the House to remember this; we are called on to establish colleges in Ireland without tests, and yet we are asked to introduce a system of tests into the University of Edinburgh ten times as stringent as the test the hon. baronet opposite (Sir T. Acland) proposed to introduce into the Bill for establishing CoUeges in Ireland ! Is it possible that the House of Commons will bear out the Minister in such an attempt as this ? These tests have long been dormant in Edinburgh ; I do not exaggerate when I say there are at least ten professors who have not subscribed the tests. Let the right hon. baronet the First Lord of the Treasury give the House some information on this point, for he has been himself Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow. And observe. Episcopalians are precisely the class of men whom these tests were meant to exclude ; the tests were 186 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. made rather against Prelacy thau against Papists ; at that time it was much more likely that a Papist should have been punished by the penal laws than made a professor. Everyone Imows that the right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, and the noble lord the Secretary for the Colonies, have also been Lord Sectors of the University of Glasgow : they know practi- cally that these tests are obsolete. Being to this extent obsolete, why are they now imposed ? Having so long slept, the attempt is made to revive them precisely because a schism has taken place, and there has been a vigorous demonstration of differences which you might have laid to sleep for ever. They were not enforced while the Church of the people was the Church of Scotland, but you begin to enforce them as soon as the majority of the people become dissenters. You enforce them as they never were enforced before ; and the very moment you do so you make the universities sectarian bodies. The Presbytery certainly deserves credit for striking at high game; their attack is against Sir David Brewster. I hold in my hand the libel — the word is here used in its technical meaning, in the law language of Scotland equivalent to " charge," or declaration" — in this case of Sir David Brewster, containing the proceedings taken with the view of ejecting him from his office as principal of St. Andrew's College, his offence being neither more nor less than this : that he adheres in all points to the doctrine and discipline of the Church of Scotland as it existed at the time of the Union. Here we have an instrument put forward against him, conceived in such a spirit that I must say, with respect to the Presbytery, that it will have very little right on any future occasion to say anything about the arrogance and intolerance of the Vatican. The libel declares — That the Senatus and Faculty of the University of St. Andrew's ought to he required forthwith to redress the evil which you have brought upon the Church, by taking all steps competent to them for removing you from the office of Principal of the United College, and that the Senatus be required to report to the Presbytery, quam ;prvmv/m, what steps they have adopted to effect this, that you may be removed from your office, and visited with such other censure or punishment as the laws of the Church enjoin for the glory of God, the safety of the Church, and the prosperity of the university, and to THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. 187 deter others holding the same important office from committing the like offence in al 1 time coming, but that others may hear and fear the danger and detriment of following devisive courses. And here is another question — For the glory of God, the safety of the Church, and the prosperity of the University ! " The glory of God !" As far as that is concerned, T will here say nothing more than this : it is not the first time the glory of God has been made the pretext for the temerity and the in- justice of man. As to the safety of the Chm"ch — if, which God forbid ! the Church of Scotland is possessed with the spirit of this Presbytery — ^if, having lost hundreds of able ministers, and hundreds of thousands of devout hearers, instead of endeavouring by meekness and diligence to regain those whom late events have estranged, she is ready to make war upon the seceders — if she is determined to furbish up for the piu'pose those old laws, the edge of which has long been rusted off, and which were originally meant, not for her defence, but for theirs — then are the days of the Church of Scotland numbered. With respect to the prosperity of the university, is there a corner of Europe where men will not laugh when they hear that the prosperity of the University of St. Andrew's can be promoted by expelling Sir D. Brewster from his professorship? The University of Edinburgh knows better how its prosperity is to be promoted ; for I believe the Senatus Academicus of Edinburgh is almost unanimous in favour of this BUI. And, in fact, it is perfectly clear that fearful consequences lie before the universities of Scotland, unless this or some such measure is carried speedily ; if it is delayed, I beheve there will be a new college founded and endowed with that munificence of which, in the Free Church, we have seen so many examples. Prom the day such a college arises, there is nothing before the universities of Scot- land but a gradual, and, I fear, not a distant destruction. Even now it is notorious, such is the competition and emoluments of other pursuits of life, that it is difficult to procure eminent men to fill the chairs of the universities. We can now choose from the whole of Scotland, from the whole world, men to fill the office of professors. Throw out this Bill, and you narrow this 188 THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. choice to half of Scotland or less; the diminution of students will lower the emoluments of the chair to less than half their present amount. What will be the consequences? Is it possible not to see that you will have a lower class of professors? With the inferior abilities of the professor^ the students will decrease, the decline vnll be rapid and headlong ; and it is clear that all will sink into utter decay, till the lectures are deserted, the halls empty, and a man not fit to be a village dominie will occupy the chair of a Dugald Stewart, an Adam Smith, a Reid, a Black, a Playfair, and a Jameson. How do her Majesty's Ministers like such a prospect as this? The right hon. baronet the Secretary for the Home Department has already, by his misfortune or his fault, secured no enviable place in the annals of Scotland ; his name is inseparably asso- ciated with the disruption of the Scotch Church. Will he ruin the Scotch universities? If the Government were consistent, even though it acted on an erroneous principle, though we might disapprove, it would be with some mixture of respect j but a Government that is guided by no principle whatever ; a Govern- ment which on the gravest questions does not know its own mind for twenty-four hours together ; a Government that goes from extreme to extreme, backwards and forwards, like "a reed shaken by the wind ;" a Government that is against tests in Ireland, and for tests in Scotland — that is against tests at Limerick, and for them at Glasgow — against them in Cork, and for them in Edinburgh — that is against tests at Belfast, and for them at Aberdeen — that opposes tests on Monday, and advocates them on Wednesday, to oppose them on Thursday again — it is impossible such a Government can command either respect or confidence. Is it strange that the most liberal measures of such a Govern- ment should fail to gain the applause of liberal men ? Is it strange that it should lose the confidence of one-half the nation without gaining that of the other half? But I speak not to the Government, I appeal to the House ; I appeal to those who, on Monday evening, voted with the Govenunent against the test proposed by the hon. baronet the member for North Devon (Sir T. Acland). I know party obli- THE SCOTCH UNIVERSITIES. 189 gations are strong ; but there is a mire so blaek and so deep that men should refuse to be dragged through it. It is only forty- eight hours since hon. gentlemen came down to vote against a test requiring the professors in the Irish colleges to be believers in the Gospel ; and now the same hon. gentlemen are expected to come down and vote that no man shall be permitted to be a professor in a college in Scotland who will not declare his adhe- rence in all parts to the system of Church government in Scot- land. This is a matter of gross injustice to Scotland on the part of the Government ; but its injustice to its own faithful followers surpasses it. The zealous members of the Church of England^ I implore them to consider well before they make it penal to hold those doctrines they believe to be true ; lastly, I caU on every man, of every party, who loves knowledge, and science, and lite- rature, who is a friend of peace, and respects the solemn obliga- tions of public faith, to stand by us this day, in this last attempt to avert the destruction that threatens the universities of Scot- land. I move that the Bill be read a second time.* * The motion for the aecond reading of the Bill was lost by a majority of 8. 190 FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. March 10, 1846. On Mr. Buncombes Motion for an Address to her Majesty, praymg her to take into consideration the Petitions presented in favowr of a restoration to their Native Land of Frost, Williams, and Jones. I WOULD not, sir, say a single word on this question, if my lion, friend had not brought forward my name in the course of his speech,* and if, in doing so, he had not, he must permit me to say, fallen into some mistakes. There exists no such con- nexion as my hon. friend appears to think between the letters which he introduced to the attention of the House and his motion. Those letters were written by me at diiferent times and to different persons. One of them was in answer to a private letter from one of my constituents, informing me of some scru- pulous feelings which he and others entertained respecting the * Mr. Duucombe had made reference to some letters addressed by Mr. Macaulay to a portion of his constituents^ and in the com-se of his observations quoted the following passages from them, " But rely upon it, there will be insmrrections enough if turbulent and designing men are apprised that the penalty of raising a civil war is henceforth to be less than the penalty of robbing a hen-roost. Thinking this, I cannot hold out any hope that I shall vote for any address in favour of those criminals. ... '■ They raised a rebellion, which you admit to have been unjustiiiable, led thousands of ignorant labouring men into guilt and danger, fired on the Queen's troops, wounded a magistrate in the discharge of his duty, caused the deaths of several unhappy crea- tures. ... " I believe that the non-electors are as deeply interested as I am in the security of property and the maintenance of order ; but I believe that a very large portion of them do not understand their own interest. That it is so, I have proof under their own hands. I refer to the petition which Mr. Puncombe presented to the House of Commons in 1842. In that document, some hundreds of thousands of Chartists asked for the fran- chise, and told us how they meant to use it. They avowed that their objects were national bankruptcy, confiscation of the soil, of canals, of railroads, of machinery; in short, the destruction of all property. . . . " I was firmly convinced, and am firmly convinced, that such measures would produce indescribable misery to the great majority of the petitioners. I refused them the fran- chise, as I would refuse a razor to a man who told me he wanted it in order to cut his throat. FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. I9l proposed calling out of the militia ; and the other was written in answer to the secretary of a committee^ asking me to support the motion of the hon. gentleman on this matter. I had no notion that either of these letters would have been published, though they were published at the same time; and perhaps I have some reason to complain of their publication, and especially that they should have been published together. They were pub- lished without my consent or authority, and not only that, but by persons taking the same view of this question which the hon. gentleman himself takes — by persons who conceived that the pubKcation of these letters might possibly be acceptable at the place which I have the honour to represent, but certainly not with any view to prejudice the persons whose case is now under discussion. With regard to the first of these letters, I mean to pass over all that has been said by the hon. gentleman respecting his motion in 1843 for an extension of the elective franchise, as I thinlc it would be very much out of place were I on this occa- sion to go over all the ground that he went through on the sub- ject. There is not one word in that letter which, on the discus- sion of the petition which the hon. gentleman presented, I did not state in the most distinct manner,* giving him an opportunity of refuting it at the time ; and I will add, there is not a word in that letter which I am not still prepared to abide by. I will not turn away from the question before the House, by deviating into a discussion on the principles of Chartism ; but I will ask every hon. gentleman to read for himself that national petition, and then judge whether I did or did not take a correct -(dew regarding it. And I beg to say, also, that though the letter which I wrote on the subject of the liberation of Frost, Williams, and Jones, was written without the least expectation that it woi\ld be ever published, there is not one word in that letter which I am not prepared to re-assert and maintain. But to come to the motion before the House. In the first place, I have a preliminary objection to the hon. gentleman's motion — an objection which would be decisive with me if the * Tliis was the petition in favour of the Charter. Mr. Macaulay'a speech on the subject will be found on page 38S, vol. i. 192 FBOST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. grounds on which he has brought it forward were even much stronger than I thinlc they are. I have an insurmountable objection to interfere — for this House to interfere — with this par- ticular prerogative of the Crown. No doubt this House has a right to advise the Queen with respect to the exercise of any of the prerogatives of the Crown. There is no law which says you may advise the Queen with regard to the exercise of certain pre- rogatives, but there are other prerogatives of the Crown on which the House of Commons is not to advise her Majesty. There is no such law as this. But the discretion of former Houses of Commons has imposed laws upon themselves, and our discretion ought to impose similar laws on ourselves, as to the extent to which this advice should be given. There are certain rules which usage has laid down, and which we ought not lightly to pass over. There are some prerogatives of the Crown with respect to which we ought to offer advice, and there are some prerogatives with respect to which the Ministers of the Crown would be greatly to blame if they did not ask ouj advice before we offered it. For instance, the right of declaring war is strictly a prerogative of the Crown, and yet I think any Minister of the Crown would be much deserving of blame if he did not bring down a message to this House, asking our advice and co-operation, and ascertain- ing whether the House of Commons was prepared to grant sup- plies for carrying on the war, before the prerogative was acted on. But there are other matters connected with the prerogative of the Crown — the command of the army, for example — on which I do not suppose that any person would allege we ought to inter- fere. That is a branch of the administration with which this House can have nothing to do ; and I pass from it to the prero- gative of the Crown involved in the question now before us — the prerogative of mercy. It is no superstition, no blind veneration for the prerogatives of her Majesty, no desire that these preroga- tives should be exercised without check, which would make me wish not to interfere in their use ; but I say that those by whom her Majesty is to be advised as to the exercise of that prerogative of mercy, and who are responsible for its results — that those who should be responsible for the peace and well-being of the com- FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. 193 munity — should be able to assent to the extension of the royal prerogative of mercy in every case in which it is exercised ; that they should be able to feel that the exercise of this prerogative in any instance is not dangerous or injurious to the peace and order of society, when they are answerable for the effect which it may produce, and when they are bound to see that that peace and order are preserved. Is there not an object of efficacy kept in sight, in saying that they who have in view all that the necessities of society may require, shall be the persons to tender to her Majesty the advice under which she uses this prerogative ? My hon. friend (Mr. Dimcombe) seems to look at this pre- rogative in an erroneous light. He seems to think that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy is a matter of mere amuse- ment to the Sovereign — that it is a thiug to be used for the purpose of giving pleasure. That is not a right view of the prerogative of mercy. I do not imagiae that the royal preroga- tive of mercy is a thing to be let off Uke fireworks in order to celebrate a festivity, and to gratify the public mind. I think that it is a distinct part of justice ; that it is a very solemn and awfiil trust resting on these principles. The Government is bound to preserve the peace of society, to see full protection given to life and property ; and it is bound to do so with the smallest infliction of suffering, even to the guilty, compatible with the attainment of that object. To consider the exercise of the prerogative of mercy as a matter of gaiety is next to the con- sideration of punishment as pure revenge. The two views go together. The hon. gentleman, in alluding to the first, reminded me of the King in " Tom Thumb," who, when good news arrived, ordered the celebration of a universal holiday, but who afterwards, when another messenger came in with disagreeable intelligence, gave orders to the schoolmaster to whip all the boys. I do not think that view of the prerogative of mercy is consonant to the English constitution. In this country the exercise of the prero- gative should not, as in the case of some contiuental governments, be allowed to depend on casual circumstances, as on the event of a lucky birth in the royal family ; and yet this appears to me to be but a fair analogy to the notion which the hon, gentleman VOL. II. o 194 FROSTj WILLIAMS, AND JONES. has advanced. The view that I take of the subject is this : I conceive that the prerogative of mercy is always likely to be best used when used in conformity with the advice of those on whom rests the responsibility of watching over the public security. There is no such burden over us. For us there would be nothing easier, according to the established usage of Parhament, than to seek to gratify the feelings of our constituents by making motions for an extension of the royal prerogative of mercy in favour of aU sorts of persons ; and if once the precedent be set, depend upon it you wiU have it soon followed by hon. gentlemen anxious to give no offence to their constituents ; and we shall have motions of this sort made in the case of every enormous criminal who may be sentenced to death. Have not petitions been presented in favour of every convict, no matter how great his offence may be ? And 1 say the circumstance is perfectly intelligible. It is the natural reaction of the human mind against that barbarous penal code which was enforced in England up to the close of the last century. It is the natural reaction against the severity of our criminal law until a recent period. We have a sort of feeling which it is impossible to account for in the mind, arising from a repugnance at the severity of the law ; and the result is, that there is no case of atrocity so horrible that people — ay, thousands of people — will not be found petitioning for mercy in favour of the perpetrator of it. And I say that if this House give due encouragement to this ^feeling, the people wiU almost force their representatives to make motions similar to the present in every case where a capital punishment may be awarded. We had a case a short time ago, in which the greatest exertions were made to procure the release of a most infamous hypocrite,* who to the last moment pretended innocence. He had poisoned an unfortunate woman, to whom he was bound by the tenderest ties ; and who, whatever might have been her errors, towards him maintained the most irreproachable conduct. There was not one circumstance of palliation in his case. He had all the advantages that religion, all the advantages that station, aU the advantages that education could have afforded him ; yet, not- * John Tawell, executed for the murder of Sarah Hart, at Slough. FROSTj WILLIAMS, AND JONES. 195 ■withstanding this aggravation of his guUt, we had persons of the most pure and religious feehngs petitioning in his favouj.-. Even dignitaries of the Church of England signed such petitions, pray- ing that a woman might not be hanged. She was represented to be so good, so excellent an instructress of youth, and her services would be so valuable in a penal colony in instructing the children there in the precepts of religion, that her life was earnestly prayed for. She had been, it was said, irreproachable through life ; her only offence, forsooth, being the little one of having mixed some arsenic in her father's drink ; and petitions Were poured in, praying that she should not expiate her crime upon the scaffold. If the prerogative of the Crown were to be used in favour of such criminals, every one of us would soon be concerned in bringing forward cases of the same character. We should find it difficult to refuse the calls that would be made upon us to make motions similar to the present. We should have the House occupied almost every day with such matters. I therefore think it necessary to make a stand, in the first instance, against such a system. I have no hesitation in saying, with regard to this power — the prerogative of mercy — that I would rather intrust it in the hands of the very worst Ministry that ever held office, than aJlow it to be exercised under the direction of the very best House of Commons. If you acquiesce in my opinion, there is no diffi- culty that you cannot easily get through. The plain course is open before you. If you think the law too severe, mitigate it. It belongs to legislative authority to do so. If you thiak the Ministry do not exercise the prerogative of mercy where they ought, then address the Crown to remove them. But while you have a Ministry from whom you do not think you would be justified in withdrawing your confidence, then you are bound to leave them, as your ancestors did, free to advise the exercise of the royal prerogative according to the best of their own judgment and discretion. I do not know a case in which, as a member of the House of Commons, I should be disposed to interfere with the Ministry in advising the Crown on this matter. If I could contemplate such 196 FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. a case, it would be spme case of most momentous necessity — some flagitious and monstrous case of oppression — something like the severity that had been exercised in the reign of King James II. against those who had taken up arms against him in the Monmouth rebellion ; some case the mere mention of which would be enough to make the blood boil — to make the hair of one's head stand on end. But is the present a case of that de- scription ? These three persons raised 4000 or 5000 men, armed, some with fire-arms, some with scythes, some with pitchforks, manjr, in fact a large proportion, with deadly weapons of various kinds ; and at midnight they marched with them for the purpose of taking a town. They fired on the Queen's troops, they wounded a magistrate in the discharge of liis duty. \_Mr. Dun- combe : " He was not wounded by them."] He was wounded by the fire of the traitors who were so armed. [Mr. Buncombe : "No, no."] I certainly read the trial formerly, and unless my recollection altogether deceives me, the fact was as I have stated. I believe it is the case, that two wounds were received by Sir Thomas Phillips, who behaved on the occasion with a gallantry that would have done honour to a veteran soldier, much more to a man who had been trained in the civil service. After he was wounded, he avoided mentioning the matter to the private soldiers, but called Lieutenant Gray aside, and stated the fact to him. I believe it appeared on the trial that this attack was intended to lead to a great rising of the Chartists in the middle and northern counties of England. That was part of the evidence adduced. Now, when I consider the language used by Chief Justice Tindal — I allude to the passage read by the right hon. gentleman opposite — I ask. Is it too strong for such an occasion ? Does it even come up to the necessary conception of the enormity of the offence ? When we imagine the effect of a great civil war between classes in England — and that is what these persons pro- jected, that is what they desired, that is what they intended — it would be worse than any war we ever read of. Remember the wealth, remember the civilisation, remember the power of aU those classes. They were possessed of advantages to retain I'ROST, WILLIAMSj AND JONES. 197 which they would have made every possible eftbrt. A civil war commenced under these circumstances, and with such objects in view, would be a visitation more horrible than can possibly be conceived — more tremendous than this country ever saw. It would be more dreadful than the wars of the Cavaliers and the Roundheads in the seventeenth century. Other wars may be carried on without producing any great or irreparable destruc- tion. Soldiers may be slaughtered on the field of battle. There may be executions after the battle. But then the evils effected are not of an overwhelming character. There is no irreparable wound offered to the civilisation of the country. The land may recover after such battles even as those of Towton or of Bosworth ; but do you imagine that such would be the case after a great war of classes in this country ? All the power of imagination fails to paint the horrors of such a contest. It would produce a shock that would be felt to the end of the civilised world, and that our grandchildren and posterity far into the twentieth century would have cause to lament and deprecate. And yet this is what these men attempted. Are we to take this as a light case ? Is what they meditated a trifle ? Were the means they had recourse to of a sHght kind ? Were their objects small and insignificant ? Was their purpose one which we should ordinarily be not likely to reject ? Is all crime against society in itself so very low and trivial — the murder, and rapine, and spoliation, and every excess of brutality so imimportant that any motives are sufficient to commit and to sanction them ? Is it nothing that the design comprised all the mischief that can act upon the human mind ? I speak of the ringleaders. God forbid that I should thus describe the conduct of the unhappy multitude who followed them ! though even for them no indi- vidual can have any sympathy, even for those who fell by the fire of the troops. But remember that, in order to be merciful to the multitude, we must show at least ordinary severity to the ringleaders. Every man who commits a crime means to succeed in the object which he has in view. The principal ringleader in this instance hoped to succeed in raising himself from the station of a linendraper in a country town to be the protector of a 198 FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. kingdom ; to be one of the rulers of the public State; to be put upon the same footing with the potentates of Europe, with boundless means of gratifying his rapacity — ^if that be his passion — or of gratifying any other prevailing disposition which he may have. He hoped for boundless distinction and honours. These are the sort of motives which actuate the designers of such a crime. This is the sort of distinction which those aim at in meditating a measure of this kind — who seek to establish a new form of government ; and yet a motion is now made to put an end to a punishment for such a crime which would be scarcely thought too great for a case of misdemeanour. Is it not possible that these men may find imitators, if it go forth to the world that persons guilty of high treason — men who have shed blood, who have meditated a great civil war, a civil war of the worst of aU kinds, a war of class against class — are to escape with a less amount of punishment than the shop-boy who filches five shUhngs from the tiU, or than the woman who steals a piece of ribbon from the counter ? What is the use of law tmless its punishments bear some sort of proportion to the crime committed ? The hon. gentleman alluded to the case of Canada in the last rebellion. But were none of the Canadian rebels hanged ? Is there any resemblance between that and the case the hon. mem- ber seeks to estabhsh ? In Canada you hanged the most guilty — which was proper^ — -and you pardoned the others. It is exactly the same case here, except that you hanged nobody. You trans- ported the ringleaders ; but how many of the 4000 or 5000 that they brought with them, and who were technically guilty of treason, were even tried ? The hon. gentleman argues as if in this case we had hanged a good many ringleaders, and spared the rest. I have said more than I intended. I observed the highly questionable nature of the argument used by the hon. gentleman, and I could not allow it to pass unnoticed. I do not mean to say that under no circumstances woidd the Government be justified in extending the mercy of the Crown to these persons ; and in voting against the motion of the hon. gentleman I do FROST, WILLIAMS, AND JONES. 199 not object to such an extension of the royal mercy on a proper occasion. Were I to do that, I should imitate the conduct of the hon. member, which I condemn. The only opinion which I express is, that her Majesty^s Ministers are not to be forced by the House to exercise the prerogative with which they are intrusted, contrary to their own judgment. It would certainly be inconvenient, and perhaps unprecedented, for the House to interfere with the prerogative of mercy. 200 DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. Feb. 24, 1847. On the Second Readi/iig of tlie Roman Gatholic Relief BUI. I AM truly sorry, sir, that this question should come on when some hon. members who are eminently qualified to discuss it are necessarily absent ; and I regret also that it shoidd be debated on a day when, should a division take place, only an imperfect representation of the general sense of the House can be obtained. I cannot, however, shrink from shortly and temperately stating the opinion I entertain. And, first, I will state that I conceive that whenever a Bill is brought in that contains a great quantity of matter which the House ought to place on the statute-book, it is not an objection to the second reading of that BiU that there may be some portion of it which it cannot be possible to admit upon the statute-book ; and I shall therefore think my vote sufficiently vindicated if I can show that many of the provisions of the BUI are provisions to which we ought undoubtedly to give the force of law. Now, sir, the first provision of the first clause of the Bill, the hon. baronet (Sir R. Inglis) who has just spoken has not ventured to prononnce to be improper, nor has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Shaw) who spoke last characterised it as an improper provision. The hon. member for Oxford himself — the learned Recorder for Dublin — does not condemn the provision. In fact, it is one which I may confidently challenge any gentle- man in the House to pronomice to be an improper provision. For what is that provision ? Is it the intention of this House that every Roman Catholic in England shall be subject to fine and imprisonment for being a Roman Catholic? Now, I say, that until you pass this clause of the Bill which proposes to repeal the 1st of Elizabeth, c. 1, relating to the supremacy, every Roman Catholic in England is liable to fine and imprison- DISABILITIES OF THE llOMAN CATHOLICS. 201 ment for being a Roman Catholic. The law to be repealed is to this effect : — That any person wliatever affirming, holding, setting forth, maintaining, or defending the doctrine, that any foreign prince, prelate, person, State, or potentate whatever, has any authority, pre-eminence, power, or jurisdiction, spiritual or ecclesiastical, within this realm, shall be liable to fine and imprisonment ; and that any person whatever who advisedly does anything for the extolling, setting forth, maintenance, or defence of such jurisdiction, power, pre-eminence, and authority, shall also be liable to fine and imprisonment. Now this enactment^ though repealed as to the particular penalties and punishments referred to in it by the Act of last session, remains in aU other respects the same as if the Act of last session had not been passed ; and the holding, maintaining, and enforcing this doctrine still remains, as I understand, a misde- meanour, and therefore punishable by fine and imprisonment. I will ask you, then, does not that enactment include at the present moment every Roman Cathohc in England? Does not every Roman Catholic in this country believe and hold that some spiritual jurisdiction resides in the Bishop of Rome ? I know that there have been great contests on that matter ; I know there were great contests upon it at the Council of Trent ; I know that some Jesuits have attributed to the Bishop of Rome a much greater degree of spiritual jurisdiction than the GaUican Church gives him ; I know that some writers have placed his spiritual authority far above that of general councils; that some have made him co-ordinate with general councils, and some subordi- nate to general councils; but take the whole range of Roman Catholic teachers and writers, from Aquinas down to Bossuet, and you will find not one Roman Catholic writer but holds that some spiritual jurisdiction does reside ia the Bishop of Rome. There is no Roman Catholic in this country, then, but must consider himself in communion of some sort or other with the Bishop of Rome. Therefore I say that there is no Roman Catholic in this country who, under the law as it stands, is not hable to fine and imprisonment. Now I wish to know whether there is any gentleman in this House who thinks it right or just that every Roman Catholic who teaches his sons the dectrines of the Roman Catholic faith, and this amongst others, and that 202 DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. every Roman Catholic priest who teaches to his congi'egation this among others of the fundamental doctrines of his creed^ should be hable to fine and imprisonment for doing so ? If it is to be asserted this day that every Roman Catholic, for holding the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion, shall be liable to fine and imprisonmentj then just suppose that the Government were to hold it to be their duty to order the Attorney- General to pro- ceed against persons to whom any proceedings or conduct contrary to this statute were attributable ; and suppose Dr. Wiseman was to preach a sermon on the text, " Thou art Peter," treating it in the sense in which it is understood by the whole Roman Catholic Church; is it seriously meant that the Attorney- General should be obHged to prosecute Dr. Wiseman for teaching and enforcing this doctrine ? And if Dr. Wiseman was sent to Newgate for preaching that sermon, is there one man in this House who could say that it would be justifiable ? I venture to say there is not. Here, then, you have an enactment which this Bill pro- poses to repeal, and of which, I will venture to say, you cannot put a single hypothetical case in which you can possibly enforce it. But what is the state of our legislation now with reference to this subject generally ? There are in this country several reh- gious sects who dissent from the established religion of the country, and what is to be your course with regard to them ? You may take that which I think is the true course to take — you may impose on them neither penalties nor disabilities by law ; or you may take an extreme course, and may impose on them both penalties and disabilities by law ; or you may take a third course, which I have heard agitated in this House, and never more earnestly than by the hon. member for the University of Oxford, and the supporters of which are accustomed to say, " DonH let us punish, don't let us hang the votaries of these doctrines, but let us keep them from power." But what can be more unreasonable than this ? You admit the Roman Cathohc to poUtical power in this House, and you dispense him from the oath of supremacy, instead of which he takes another oath on his entrance among us ; and yet he remains liable to pains and penalties for infringing this statute for enforcing the supremacy DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. 203 of the Crown which you have not repealed. Is it not unfitting that the House should allow an Act of Parhament to remain on the statute-book of which the best defence is that it is never executed? Taking a fair view of the matter of the Bill, as brought forward by the hon. and learned member for Kinsale (Mr. Watson), it hardly can be asked that we should not pass this part of the Bill because it goes to repeal an enactment that win never be executed. If so, why not affirm this proposition : that we will never repeal any statute that is never executed ? Sir, I think we should disgrace ourselves, and injure the character of this country, by hesitating about our vote as to the provisions contained on the second page of the BiU ; and this applies also to the gi'eater part of the provisions on the next page. Now, as to the first of these, for the repeal of the law against the bringing in and putting in execution of buUs, writings, or instruments, and other superstitious things, from the see of Rome, my hon. friend the member for the University of Oxford was mistaken — he must pardon me for saying so — ^in what he has said ; for he said that this part of the hon. and learned member for Kinsale's BUI was mmecessary, because that law against the importation of bulls, writings, or instruments, or other superstitious things, from the see of Rome, was done away with by the Act of last session. But what was really repealed by the Act of last session? Why, the Act against the importation of bulls, writings, or instru- ments, or other superstitious things, was repealed, "so far only as the same imposes the penalties or punishments therein mentioned ;" but it was also expressly declared that there was nothing in the Act to " authorise or render it lawful for any person or persons to import, bring in, or put in execution within this realm any such buUs, writings, or instruments j and that in all respects, save as to the said penalties or punish- ments, the law shall continue the same as if this enactment had not been made." The effect of this is to leave the bringing in a bull, a rescript, or an Agnus Dei into this king- dom, subject to fine and imprisonment, as for a misdemeanour. Now, I must say that it a little weakens the respect which I 204. DISABILITIES OF THE llOMAN CATHOLICS. must feel for the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Spooner), to hear him say to the House, as he did in one of the debates on the BUI of the hon. and learned member for Kinsale, of last session, that he could not reconcile to his conscience the repeal of a law which made those who brought in bulls from Rome liable to be hanged, drawn, and quartered. Is it really meant to continue legislating for the Roman Catholics, so as to prevent their importing a crucifix from Rome, without being liable to pains and penalties ? ts it really meant to maintain that law ? Sir, it seems to me, that as to these provisions, and until we come down to those parts of the Bill which the hon. and learned member for Kinsale declares that he is willing to modify, we come to nothing which we ought to dispute about. Then, sir, supposing that those latter parts of the Bill may be objectionable ; was it ever heard of that a Bill generally approved of was ever thrown out on the second read- ing for a clause which the member who brought it in declared that he was vdlhng to modify ? But, sir, having said this, I must also say that I think it would be most inexpedient and unjustifiable to confer on Roman Catholic ecclesiastics the power of makiag the pro- cessions of their Church in public in this country. Even James the Second, when he was treating with the Roman Catholics in Scotland, thought it necessary for the public peace that no processions should pass through the streets; and I must say I think to allow it would be most objectionable, because I believe that it would lead to violations of decency and dis- turbances of the public peace. I am convinced that no pro- cession could pass through the streets without something occurring that must be ofl'ensive to the feelings of every Roman Catholic. I think few processions could take place without leading to disturbance or breach of the peace. Reli- gious processions are not allowed in India, though, if there be a tolerant Government on the face of the earth, I think it is the Government of India; yet they constantly prohibit the processions of the Mahometans, because such processions would be dangerous to the public peace, from the risk of DISABILITIES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS. 205 coUisioii with the followers of Ali and Omar ; and I must say that I have no objection to any law which prevents the celebra- tion in public of Eoman Catholic rites^ which^ when celebrated ill public, are likely to be celebrated amidst circumstances of indecency or outrage. Then, with respect to religious societies and orders, I do not think it a just or reasonable thing that an English Roman Catholic subject, for being a member of an order — a Franciscan, for instance — should be banished the country, and, if he returns, should be hanged. It is perfectly clear that such an enact- ment cannot be enforced. Everybody knows that there are regular clergy of the Church of Rome in this country, but still not a single human being dares, or ever wiU dare, to put the law agaiust them in execution. But, sir, while I say that I have no objection to that which many persons think of im- portance, I do not see why a system of registration should be objectionable ; I cannot think that the religious orders of the Church of Rome could object to that. My objection is to enacting a punishment against a man for being a Franciscan ; but it is not to punish a man for being a Franciscan to oblige him to teh the country that he is one. Sir, with respect to the Jesuits, I am far from giving credit to aU the idle scandal that may be wandering over England or France about them ; but I say that if a person who is a Jesuit is found mingling in society and disguising the fact that he is so, such a person would be a just object of suspicion to the heads of families with whom he associates, that he is there for the purpose of conversion. Therefore, I think that it is desirable that there should be some system of registration, under which it should be known who are, and who are not, members of religious orders in this country. That, I think, is perfectly compatible with religious liberty, and also necessaiy for the security of societv. 206 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. Apbil 19, 1847. On the Order of the Day for the House to resohe itself into a Committee of Supply for the purposes of National Education. I VENTURE, sir, to ofl'ei' myself to your notice for this reason : as a member of that Council whose conduct is called in ques- tion, the first duty I performed was to give my hearty assent to the minutes of the plan of education ; I am, therefore, one of those who have been accused throughout the country, who are accused in this House, of aiming, under an artfal pretence of educating the people, a blow at the civil and religious liberties of the country. It is natural, therefore, that I should take the earliest opportunity of vindicating myself from these charges. The hon. member for Finsbury (Mr. Buncombe) must excuse me if, in the remarks I shall offer to the House, I do not attempt to follow very closely the course of his speech. The hon. member must excuse me if I say I should very imperfectly vindicate the conduct of the Committee of the Privy Council by doing so. For, considering the degree of acuteness and ability possessed by the hon. gentleman, and the excitement produced throughout the country by the conflict of the principles by which society is divided with respect to this question, I must express my as- tonishment that to these great principles scarcely one allusion was made in the whole course of the speech of my hon. friend. He brought in local anecdotes — personal anecdotes ; he raised questions upon collateral points ; but, after listening attentively from the beginning of his speech to the end, I am utterly unable to discover what his opinion is, even on the great fundamental principle that at this moment divides the country — whether the education of the common people be or be not something to which GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 307 it is the duty of the State to attend. The hon. member sat down leaving us utterly ignorant of the opinion he entertains on that important subject. Yet I have no hesitation in saying that, on the opinion we entertain on that question — on the sense we may have of the duty of the State to educate the people — must altogether depend the view we take of every plan submitted to us for that piu-pose. When I consider how much excitement has been raised throughout the country on this point, and how large a propor- tion of the petitions laid on the table express an opinion I must consider most groundless^ I feel it my duty to commence the observations I have to offer to the House by stating in the clearest manner my opinion on that great part of the subject. I hold that it is the right and duty of the State to provide for the education of the common people. I conceive the arg-uments by which this position may be proved are perfectly simple, per- fectly obvious, and the most cogent possible. For what ends was government instituted, is a question on which the most ingenious men have differed. Some hold that it is the duty of a Government to meddle with the whole system of himian life — that it should regulate the operations of trade by prohibitions, expense by sumptuary-laws, literature by a censorship, and reli- gion by penal statutes. Others have gone to the opposite ex- treme, and have cut down the province of a Government to what I think is too narrow a limit. But it is quite unnecessary on the present occasion to go into any of these controversial points ; for on one point we are all agreed : I say that all are agreed that it is the sacred duty of every Government to take effectual measures for securing the persons and property of the commu- nity, and that the Government which neglects that duty is unfit for its situation. This being once admitted, I ask. Can it be denied that the education of the common people is the most effectual means of protecting persons and property? On that subject I cannot refer to higher authority, or use more strong terms, than have been employed by Adam Smith ; and I take his authority the more readily because he is not very friendly to State interference ; 308 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. and., almost on the same, page as that I refer to^ he declares that the State ought not to meddle with the education of the higher orders; but he distinctly says that there is a difference, par- ticularly in a highly civilised and commercial community, between the education of the higher classes and the education of the poor. The education of the poor he pronoim^ces to be a matter in which Government is most deeply concerned ; and he compares igno- rance, spread through the lower classes, neglected by the State, to a leprosy, or some other fearful disease, and says that where this duty is neglected, the State is in danger of falling iato the terrible disorder. He had scarcely written this than the axiom was fearfully illustrated in the riots of 1780.* I do not know if from all history I could select a stronger instance of my position, when I say that ignorance makes the persons and property of the community unsafe, and that the Grovernment is bound to take measures to prevent that ignorance. On that occasion, what was the state of things ? Without any shadow of a griev- ance, at the summons of a madman, 100,000 men rising in insm'- rection — -a week of anarchy — Parliament besieged — your prede- cessor, sir, trembling in the chair — the Lords pulled out of their coaches — the Bishops flying over the tdes (not a sight, I trust, that would be pleasurable even to those who are now so un- favourable to the Church of England) — thirty six-fires blazing at once in London — the house of the Chief Justice sacked — the children of the Prime Minister taken out of their beds in their night-clothes, and laid on the table of the Horse Guards ; and all this the effect of nothing but the gross, brutish ignorance of the population, who had been left brutes in the midst of Christi- anity, savages in the midst of civilisation. Nor is this the only occasion when similar results have followed from the same cause. To this cause are attributable all the outrages of the Bristol and Nottingham riots, and all the misdeeds of General Rock and Captain Swing ; incendiary fires in some districts, and in others riots against machinery, tending more than anything else to degrade men to the level of the inferior animals. Could it have been supposed that all this could have taken place in a commu- * The Gordon Riots. GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 309 nity where even the common labourer had his mind opened by education^ and had been taught to find his pleasure in the exer- cise of his intellect, taught to revere his Maker, taught to regard his fellow-creatures with kindness, and taught likewise to feel respect for legitimate authority — taught how to pursue redress of real wrongs by constitutional methods ? This seems to me an irresistible argument on this subject — that it is the clear duty of a Government to protect the lives and property of the commmiity, and that the gross ignorance of the multitude produces danger to the lives and property of the community ; and therefore I am at a loss tq conceive how, on the very lowest view of the duties of Grovernment, it can be con- tended that education is not the province of Government. What is the alternative ? It is granted that Government must protect life and property from spoliation. By some means it must do this. If you take away education as a means, what do you leave ? Why, means which inflict an immense amount of misery, and appeal only to the lowest parts of human nature. Take away education, and what are your means ? Military force, prisons, solitary cells, penal colonies, gibbets' — all the other apparatus of penal laws. If, then, there be an end to which Government is bound to attain — if there are two ways only of attaining it — ^if one of those ways is by elevating the moral and intellectual character of the people, and if the other way is by inflicting pain, who can doubt which way every Government ought to take ? It seems to me that no proposition can be more strange than this: that the State ought to have power to punish and is bound to punish its subjects for not knowing their duty, but at the same time is to take no step to let them know what their duty is. In my opinion, it would seem less paradoxical to say that no power can be justified in punishing those whom it neglects to teach. Can we see without shame, and something like remorse, that many of those who in our own time have been executed in this country for capital crimes might now have been in life, and perhaps useful members of society ; that more than half of those who are now in oux jails might have been free and at liberty ; that more than half of those who are now in our VOL. II. ^ 210 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. penal colonies might liave been honourably and usefully employed on their native soil — if the State had expended in forming them into honest men but a small part of what had been expended in inflicting misery on rogues ? Sir, looking over the very first report which was presented to the Committee of the Privy Council for Education^ and which came from the district of Newport, being framed just after that frantic insurrection of which I do not need to remind the House,* I found that, according to that report, it appeared that there were about 11,000 children ia that district at an age when they ought to have been receiving education, but that of those about 8000 attended no school, and that a great many of those who did might as well have stayed away for anything useful that they were taught ; that the apparatus of instruction was most faulty — that the masters were some of them ruined tradesmen, some of them discarded miners, &c. — ^ men whose sole qualification for tuition was that they were utterly disquabfied for any other pursuit. Then can it be doubted that a population which is reared in such a state hstens readily to the bad man who excites it to rise against -constituted authority? They become his ready prey, his unresisting victims. Then follow anarchy, confusion, and an armed insurrection. You, in self-defence, and in defence of the constitution committed to your charge, resort to arms to quell their violence. You have nothing else for it. No choice is left to you. Having neglected the best way to make them obedient citizens, you are forced to take the only mode still left to you, and to fire upon these wretched men. It is under the com- pulsion, the inexorable compulsion of necessity, that you do so. But what necessity can be more cruel than that of shedding the blood of people who, in all probability, would never have listened to the incentives to crime if the State had but disciplined their passions and purified their minds by educating them properly ? I say, therefore, that the education of the people ought to be the first concern of a State, not only because it is an efficient means for promoting and obtaining that which all allow to be the main end of government, but because it is the most efficient, * Alluding to the outbreak headed by Frost. GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 211 the most humane, the most civilised, and in all respects the best means of attaining that end. This is my deUberate conviction ; and in this opinion. I am fortified by thinking that it is also the opinion of aU the great legislators, of all the great statesmen, of all the great political philosophers of all ages and of aU nations, even including those whose general opinion is, and has ever been, to restrict the func- tions of government. Sir, it is the opinion of all the greatest champions of civil and rehgious liberty, in the old world and in the new, and of none — I hesitate not to say it — more empha- tically than of those whose names are held in the highest esti- mation by the Protestant Nonconformists of England. Assuredly, if there be any class of men whom the Protestant Noncon- formists of England respect more highly than another, if any whose memory they hold in deeper veneration, it is that class of men, of high spirit and unconquerable principles, who, in the days of Archbishop Laud, preferred leaving their native country, and living in the savage solitudes of a wilderness, rather than to live in a land of prosperity and plenty, where they could not enjoy the privilege of worshipping their Maker freely according to the dictates of their conscience. Those men, illustrious for ever in history, were the founders of the commonwealth of Massachusetts ; but though their love of freedom of conscience was illimitable and indestructible, they could see nothing servile or degrading in the principle that the State should take upon itself the charge of the education of the people. In the year 1642 they passed their first legislative enactment on this subject, in the preamble of which they distinctly pledged themselves to this principle, that education was a matter of the deepest pos- sible importance and the greatest possible interest to all nations and to all communities ; and that, as such, it was in an eminent degree deserving of the peculiar attention of the State. I have peculiar satisfaction in referring to the case of America, because those who are the most enthusiastic advocates of the voluntary principle in matters of religion turn fondly to that land as affording the best illustration that can be anywhere found of the successful operation of that principle. And yet 212 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. what do we find to be the principle of America, and of all the greatest men that she has produced, upon the question ? " Edu- cate the people," was the first admonition addressed by Penn to the commonwealth he founded ; " Educate the people" was the last legacy of Washington to the republic of the United States; " Educate the people" was the unceasing exhortation of Jeffer- son. Yes, of Jefiferson himself; and I quote his authority with peculiar favour; for of all the eminent public men that the world ever saw, he was the one whose greatest delight it was to pare down the functions of Governments to the lowest possible point, and to leave the freest possible scope for the exercise of individual exertion. Such was the disposition — such, indeed, might be said to be the mission of Jefferson ; and yet the latter portion of his life was devoted with ceaseless energy to the efibrt to procure the blessing of a State education for Virginia. And against the concurrent testimony of all these great autho- rities, what have you, who take the opposite side, to show? Against this splendid array of authority, you can oppose but one great philosopher, but one great teacher of wisdom, but one man distinguished for his services in the cause of letters and of humanity. Have you, I ask, anything else to oppose to the concurrent testimony of the wise, and the good, and the great of every age and of every chme ? Nothing, except a clamour got up so recently as 1 846 ; a clamour in which those who engage condemn not only the wisest and the best of those who have gone before them, but even their former selves. This new theory of Government may at least claim the merit of originality. It signifies this, as I read it, if it signifies anything : All men have hitherto misconceived the proper func- tions of Government, which are simply those of the great hang- man of the age ; the business of Government is to do nothing for the repression of crime except by harsh and degrading means. From all other means, which operate by exalting the intellectual character, by disciplining the passions, by purifying man's moral nature. Government is to be peremptorily excluded. The only means it may employ are those of physical force — of the lash, the gibbet and the musket, and of the terror which GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 213 they evoke. The statesman who wields the destiny of an empire is to look calmly on while the population of cities and towns is hourly increasing. He knows that on the moral and intellectual culture of the bulk of that population the prosperity of the country — nay more, perhaps the very foundations of the State — may depend; no matter, he is not to dream of operating on their moral and intellectual nature. He is not to advance their knowledge. He may build barracks as many as he pleases ; he may parade bayonets and ordnance to overawe them if he dreads their appeal to violence ; if they break out into insurrection, he may send troops and artillery to mow them down for violating duties he never taught them ; but of educating them he must not dream. The same holds good of the rural districts. He may see, and shudder as he sees, the rural population growing up with as little Christianity, as little civilisation, as little en- lightenment as the inhabitants of New Guinea, so that there is at every period a risk of a jacquerie, no matter, he is not to interfere. He must wait till the incendiary fires are blazing, till repeated attempts are made on the machinery of the district, till riots occur such as disgraced this country in 1830 and 1831 ; and then begins his business, which is simply to hang, imprison, or transport the offenders. He sees seminaries for crime arising on all hands around him — seminaries which are eagerly attended by the youth of the population ; but he must not endeavour to allure them from those haunts. He may have a thorough con- viction on his own mind that if he were to oifer the means of wholesome instruction to those youth, a very great nimiber of them would be drawn away from vice, and induced to dedicate their lives to an honourable purpose ; but he dare not make the experiment. He must look calmly on with folded arms, and suffer those to become the cancers of the State who might have been made its power and its strength. He must remain inactive till the harvest of crime is ripe, and then he must set about dis- charging the duties of his mission, which is, to imprison one man, to hang another, and to send a third to the antipodes. If he venture to raise his voice against this system — if he venture to say that it is the duty of a Government to try and make a 214 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. people wiser and better — he is an enemy of human liberty, an oppressor of conscience, and ought not to be tolerated. That is the aspect in which the new theory presents itself to my mind. It is difficult to conceive how any man of clear intellect and of honourable intentions — as some, I wil- lingly admit, there are, amongst the opponents of this measure — could have brought themselves to view such a theory with favour. The explanation which, from aU I can hear, and see, and read upon the question, occurs to me, is this : I beheve this singular opposition is a curious instance of the operation of a law, the operation of which may be traced in many other questions as well — the law of reaction. We have but just concluded a fierce and prolonged contest,* the object of which was to extirpate the princi- ple of Government interference in matters of trade. Men's pas- sions have been excited by that contest just over. Much has been said and much written on the advantages of free competition ; but now that that principle has been accepted as applied to commerce, it is to be regretted that the same intelligent men who have succeeded in driving the Grovernment out of a province which did not properly belong to it, should conspire to drive it out of a province which is clearly its legitimate domain. Their argument, or rather their fallacy, would appear to be, that, if free compe- tition is good in trade, it must be good in the education of the people as well. " If it be good in regulating the supply of corn and sugar," they say, " it must be equally good in regulating the supply of schools to satisfy the educational requirements of the people." But no argument from analogy can be falser or more absurd than that. In fact, there is no rule of analogy whatever in the two cases. There can be no doubt but that free competition with grocers gives us more sugar, and at a cheaper price, than we could hope to obtain if Government were to turn grocer, and take the whole trade into its own hands. The reason is manifest. The grocers have manifestly a stronger interest in doing what is fair towards the pubhc than the Government, if it were to monopoUse the trade, could possibly have. If one grocer's sugar is found to be worse in quality and * The Corn-law contest. GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 215 higher in price than that of another, he is inevitably ruined. He will have to give up business, he will become a bankrupt, and for his wife and children there will be no refuge but the workhouse; but if his sugar is good and cheap, he grows rapidly rich, sets up his carriage, and aspires to a viUa at a watering-place. That is the reason why competition in the supply of food is a principle of irresistible potency, and will not brook the interference of the Government. But what class of men, I should like to know, have the same strong and personal - — strong because personal — ^interest in supplying the poor with schools, that the grocers have in supplying them with sugar ? None whatever. I do not question but that there may be individuals here and there throughout the kingdom anxious to devote their time and their money to the education of the people, and there may be amongst such persons a benevolent competition to do good. But do not be imposed on; let no fallacy, however ingeniously contrived, so deceive your under- standings as to induce you to believe that there can be anything hke the zealous and animating contention which is prompted in men^s breasts by the desire of wealth or the fear of ruin. Competition to do good to others never sways men's minds so potently as the competition to enrich themselves. Would it not be a strange proceeding to argue for the abohtion of the Poor- laws, because, forsooth, there might be here and there found some benevolent person who felt a Christian pleasure in admin- istering to the necessities of the poor ? And yet, if the principle held good in one case, why should it not be applied to the other? Institutions for the education of the people are on every gTound the very description of institutions which the Government, as the guardians of the people's best interests, are boimd to interfere with. This point has been powerfully put by Mr. Hume. I speak of Mr. David Hume. The sentiment I am about to allude to did not originate with the hon. member for Montrose, but it is so profound that I am sure he will have no hesitation in adopting it. After laying down very emphatically the general principle of non-interference and free competition, Mr. Hume 216 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. goes on to make the admission that there undoubtedly may be and are some very useful and necessary matters which do not give that degree of advantage to any man that they can be safely left to individuals. Such matters, he says, must be effected by money, or by distinctions, or by both. Now, sir, if there ever was a case to which that description faithfuUj^ and accurately applies, I maintain that it is to the calling of the schoolmaster in England. That his calling is a necessary and an useful one, is clear ; and yet it is equally clear that he does not obtain, and cannot obtain, adequate remuneration without an interference on the part of Government. Here, then, we have the precise case, if we are to adopt the illustration of Hume, in which the Government ought to interfere. Reasoning a priori, the prin- ciple of free competition is not sufficient of itself, and cannot supply a good education. Let us look at the facts. What is the existing state in England ? There has, for years, been nothing except the principle of non-interference. If, therefore, the principle of free competition were in reality a principle of the same potency in education as we aU admit it to be in matters of trade, we ought to see education as prosperous under this system of free competition as trade itself is. If we could by possibility have had the principle of free competition fairly tried in any country, it would be in om- own. It has been tried for a long time with perfect liberty in the richest country under the heavens, and where the people are not unfriendly to it. If the principle of free competition could show itself sufficient, it ought to be here. Our schools ought to be the models of common schools ; the people who have been educated in them ought to show the most perfect intelligence ; every school ought to have its excellent httle library, and its mechanical apparatus; and, instead of there being such a thiag as a grown person unable to read or to write, such an individual ought to be one at whom the people would stare, and who should be noted in the newspapers ; while the schoolmaster ought to be as well acquainted with his important duties as the cutler with knives, or the engineer with machinery ; moreover, he ought to be amply remunerated, and the highest respect of the public ought to be extended to him. GOVERNMENT PLAN OP EDUCATION. 217 Now, is this the truth ? Look at the charges of the judges, at the resolutions of the grand juries, and at the reports made to every public department that has anything to do with education. Some facts have been adduced by my noble friend ; many more might be referred to. Take the reports of the inspectors of prisons. In Hertford House of Correction, out of 700 prisoners, about half were unable to read, and only eight could read and write well. In Maidstone jail, out of 8000 prisoners, 1,300 were unable to read, and only fifty were able to read and write well. In Coldbath-fields, out of 8000, it is not said that one could read and write well. If we turn from the reports of the inspectors of prisons to the registers of marriages, we find that there were nearly 130,000 couples married in the year 1844 ; and of those, more than 40,000 of the bridegrooms, and more than 60,000 of the brides, could not sign their names, but made their marks. Therefore one-third of the men and one-half of the women who are supposed to be in the prime of life, and who are destined to be the parents of the next gene- ration, cannot sign their names. What does this imply ? The most grievous want of education; for many of the remainder who have been able to sign their names may have received an education which has had httle operation on the mind ; such an education as a large part of those receive who are now at our day and Sunday schools. How many of the day-schools are nothing more than a dirty room, with a heap of fuel on one side, and a brood of chickens on the other ; where the only instru- ments for instruction are a dog's-eared spelling-book and a broken slate ! And as for the masters — ^men who ought to deserve and to receive all honour, and deference, and encourage- ment, as well upon principle as from their high station, being men who have first educated themselves and are then to educate those who are to come afterwards — how many of these men are now the refuse of other callings, discarded servants or ruined tradesmen, who cannot do a sum of three ; who would not be able to write a common letter ; who do not know whether the earth is a cube or a sphere, and cannot tell whether Jerusalem is in Asia or America ; whom no gentleman could trust with the 218 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. key of his cellar^ and no tradesman would send of a message? Yet such are the men to whom you trust the mind of the rising generation, on whom the prosperity and the future eminence of this great country will depend. Let me take some evidence on this point which no one will dispute. Probably all the members of this House will know the important position which the Congregational Union holds among the Nonconformists. On May 16, 1846, there is a report of the committee of the Congregational Union on the subject of general education, which was made to the Union, and the mover of that report adopted its principle. That motion was made by Mr. Edward Baines, jun., and what I am about to read, therefore, cannot be considered as representing any mean opinion. I find it said — If it were necessary to disclose facts to such an assembly as this, as to the ignorance and debasement of the neglected portions of our population in towns and rural districtflj both adult and jurenile, it could easily be done. Private information communicated to the board, personal observation and investigation of various locahties, with the pubhshed documents of the Registrar- General, and the reports of the state of prisons in England and "Wales, published by order of the House of Commons, would furnish enough to make us modest in speaking of what has been done for the humbler classes, and make us ashamed that England, the sons of the soil of England, should have been so long neglected, and should present to the enlightened traveller from other shores such a sad spectacle of neglected cultivation, lost mental power, and spiritual degradation. That statement perfectly agrees with aU the information I have been able to obtain. I do believe that the state of educa- tion among the common people of this country ought to make us ashamed, and that we should present a melancholy spectacle to any very enlightened foreigner visiting our shores. Under these circumstances, what is said ? We are told that the prin- ciple of non-interference and of free competition will he as powerful a stimulus to education as it is to trade. Why, this morning I received a paper containing reasons for opposing the present grant ; and it is said that, if we only wait with patience, the principle of free competition will do all that is necessary for education. We have been waiting with patience since the Heptarchy. How much longer are we to wait ? Are we to wait tm 2847, or till 3847? Will you wait till patience is exhausted ? Can you say that the experiment which has been GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 219 tried with so little effect has been tried tinder nnfavourable cir- cumstances ? Has it been tried on a small scale, or for a short period ? You can say none of these things ; and I defy you to show that you ought to apply to education the principle of free competition. That principle is not applicable. As the south of this island has furnished me with one argument, so the north Avill furnish me with another. We see there a people of ancient lineage, sprung from the same blood, and speaking, with some diversities, the same language, who separated themselves from the see of Rome at the same great emancipation of the human mind ; united under one sovereign ; joining in a series of revolts ; and then united in one legislature and nation, striving for the good and the welfare of both. Yet there is one great difference. England for many ages has been the richest and the most prosperous among the civilised countries of the world ; whilst all men know that Scotland was almost at the bottom, if not quite at the bottom, of nations that have known civilisation. It is known that 150 or 200 years ago the names of Scotland and Scotchmen were words uttered with contempt, and that great statesmen and patriots looked with despair on the state of the lower orders. We have already heard this session of Fletcher of Saltoun. It was at the end of the seventeenth century that Fletcher of Saltoun, a brave and able man, who foiight and suffered for hberty, was so overwhelmed with the spectacle of misery his country presented, that he actually published a pamphlet in which he proposed the institution of personal slavery in Scot- land, as the only way to compel the common people to work. Within two months after the appearance of the pamphlet of Fletcher the Parliament of Scotland passed, in 1696, an Act for the settlement of schools. Has the whole world given us such an instance of improvement as that which took place at the beginning of the eighteenth century ? In a short time, in spite of the inclemency of the air and the sterility of the soil, Scotland became a country which had no reason to envy any part of the world, however richly gifted by nature; and remember that Scotchmen did this ; and that wherever a Scotchman went — and 230 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. there were few places he did not go to — he carried with him signs of the moral and intellectual cultivation he had received. If he had a shop, he had the best trade in the street ; if he enlisted in the army, he soon became a non-commissioned officer. Not that the Scotchman changed ; there was no change in the man. For a hundred years before, Scotchmen of the lower classes were spoken of in London as you speak of the Esqui- maux ; but such was the difference when this system of State education had been in force for only one generation, the lan- guage of contempt was at an end, and that of envy succeeded. Then the complaint was, that wherever the Scotchman came he got more than his share ; and when he mixed with Enghshmen and Irishmen, he rose as regularly to the top as oil rises on water. Now was this a perfect system of State education ? Very far from it. It was open to very grave objections as to its impar- tiality between different religious persuasions. The system was open also to many other objections which it is not necessary to particularise ; but under this system of State education, whatever were its defects, Scotland rose and prospered to such a degree that I do not believe a single person, even of those who now most loudly proclaim their abhorrence of State education, would venture to say that Scotland would have become the free, civil- ised country it is, if the education of her people had been left to free competition without any interference on the part of the State. Then how does this argument stand ? I doubt whether it be possible to find, if there be any meaning in the science of induction as applied to politics, any instance of an experiment tried so fully and so fairly, tried with all the conditions which Lord Bacon has laid down in his Novum Organon, and of which the result was so evident. Observe, you take these two countries so closely resembling each other in many particulars — in one of these two countries, by far the richer of the two, and better able to get on with free competition, you have free competition ; and what is the result? The Congregational Union tell you that it is a result, indeed, to make us ashamed, and every enlightened foreigner that comes amongst us sad. In the other country, GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 221 little favoui-ed by nature^ you find a system of State education — not a perfect one, but still an efficient one ; and the result is an evident and rapid improvement in the moral and intellectual character of the people, and a consequent improvement ia secu- rity and in prosperity such as was hardly ever seen before ia the world. If this had been the case in surgery or in chymistry, and such experiments and results had been laid before you, would it be possible for you not to see which was the wrong course and which the right ? These arguments have most fuUy convinced me of a truth which I shall not shrink from proclaiming in the face of any clamour that may be raised against it — that it is the duty of the State to educate the common people. And now I will refer to this amendment ; and first, as to the money part of it. Undoubt- edly, if the education of the people is a thing with which the State has nothing to do, the more money we spend the more does it become this House to consider the question and expe- diency of such expenditure ; but if my argument is correct, that it is the duty of the State to educate the people, then, I ask, are you prepared, on account of a vote of a few thousands, to with- hold the performance of that duty ? I believe that, in a strictly financial point of view, the very utmost expense would be infi- nitely more than compensated by the difiierence there would be between an educated and an uneducated people. I believe also that what you would be called upon to lay out would be more than compensated by the reduced expenses of your State prose- cutions, prisons, and penal settlements ; and I cannot believe — having never grudged anything that was asked to preserve the peace and protect property by means of inflicting pain — that you will now refuse to preserve order by this more beneficent means. As to the objection which has been made with respect to the patronage which it is said the Government will possess through means of the appointments, I ask, has my hon. friend considered that of all the patronage — I wiU not call it patronage, of all the expenditure — of the Government, there is no part of it under a check like that which this expenditure is to be placed under ? There is not only a general check upon it, but there is also a 223 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. particular check applicable to itself alone. Not only must the Government come before us every year for the grants in the same manner as with the votes for the Navy and the Ordnance, but when we have voted the gross sum, the application of the details is taken under the control, in every locality, of the friends of education — men who will be altogether independent of the Government. Before they can act, they must have actually con- tributed towards the expense, for otherwise the Government will contribute nothing ; and when hon. gentlemen talk of the Government corruptiag the schoolmasters, and of this measure supplying them with the means of jobbing and iafiuencing elec- tions, recollect, first, that the Government does not appoint the schoolmasters ; in the next place, the Government cannot dis- miss them ; in the third place, they cannot be dismissed by managers altogether independent of the Government ; in the fourth place, the schoolmaster will receive nothing whatever unless those managers, who are altogether independent of the Government, report well of him, and reply that he shall receive it ; and that can be no mere formal report, for the condition of it is that, having received £15 of the public money, the managers shall themselves, out of their own funds, pay him i630 a year and find him a house. Now, where is there a chance of jobbing ? Suppose a school- master who belongs to the dissenting school of Liberal poh- ticians — at Leeds, I will say — had been offered (a Conservative Ministry being in power), if he voted for a Conservative candi- date, the £15 ; if there was any suspicion of that, his dissenting managers would have nothing to do but withhold the report, and he could not get one farthing of it. Nay, more, if one or two large subscribers, thinking anything of the sort, should withhold their subscriptions, down goes the salary below £30, and he could not get anything from the State. So that the whole details and apphcation of this money are under the very strictest check that it is possible to devise — stronger than this House has ever imposed for any part of the estimates. I should like to know how a job can be done if, when a man comes and asks you to make his son an exciseman, you say you will make GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 233 Mm an exciseman if he lays down twice the exciseman's salary. Sir, this principle, though in a different form, runs through the whole of this measure. It is perfectly true that no part of the salaries of the public teachers and stipendiary monitors will be paid by the school — at least, what Goyernment grants them is not contingent on what wiU be paid by the school ; but no person can be a pupil-teacher or stipendiary monitor unless the school is kept up in conformity with the preliminary regulations re- quiring the preliminary outlay, and unless the managers of the school make themselves responsible that during the whole time those pupil-teachers and stipendiary monitors shall go on, the master of the school shall receive the salary. Thus you will have the friends of education spread over the country, of all sorts, of all parties, and acting upon the strongest secm-ity ever devised, the payment of their own money. It is impossible not to see the absurdity of the arguments that are brought against this plan of the Government. We are told in the same breath that it will destroy all voluntary exertions, and cost £2,000,000 a year ; and in the paper to which I before referred I find that the gentleman who moved that the report be received put those two things side by side. If that gentleman had taken the trouble to read the minutes, he would have seen what was the proposition of the Government ; and that, whilst on the one hand they leave voluntary exertions untouched, on the other hand, if those exertions are checked, this House will not be called upon to pay one single penny. If ever we shall be called upon to pay £2,000,000, the reason will be that the volun- tary principle will have been stimulated to the most surprising degree ; for, before any such amount can be called for, the friends of the voluntary system throughout the country must be so seriously animated as to be prepared to pay no less a sum than £4,000,000. I think I have now answered the objection with regard to the expenditure, and also the objection which has been urged on the subject of patronage. But there is another objection which has been lu-ged by my hon. friend the member for Finsbury. He says that this is a most unconstitutional proceeding on the 324 GOVEENMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. part of the Government. My hon friend did not, however, tell us what principle of the Constitution it was that the Government had violated. He spoke, indeed, of the proposed Committee of Council as being a self-elected body, a self-appointed body, and an unconstitutional body. But this Committee of the Council is just as much a constitutional body as any other body of functionaries in the State. It is a body appointed by her Ma-iesty's authority, by and under the advice of her responsible and constitutional advisers. In no case can they be considered as self-elected. No one can understand how the members of the Council can be self-elected any more than a Secretary of State can be self-elected. But what is the constitutional proceeding which my hon. friend requires ? He says that we ought to have an Act of Parliament ; but I must say that this is one of the very acts which do not call for any power to be con- ferred by Parliament. For why is an Act of Parliament, at any time, in such a case, required ? It is in order to give to the Crown a power of acting which it did not already possess ; but in this case the Crown is perfectly qualified to act without any parliamentary sanction. It is quite competent for the Crown, as for anybody else, to do all that has been proposed to be done by the Committee of Privy Council ; and all that this House is required to do is to give the money to enable the Crown to carry out the plan of the Committee of the Council. Surely, this is acting upon a most constitutional principle. Anybody may do all that the Council have proposed to do, provided they have the money wherewith to do it. Are the acts as proposed by the minutes of Council illegal? Is there the slightest doubt that anybody might do them if they possessed the money ? May I not educate children, appoint stipendiary scholars, maintain pupil teachers, provide monitors, make provision for schoolmasters, and give to them, after years of service, pensions for the remainder of their days ? All these acts are perfectly legal, and require no Act of Parliament to sanction them. To pass an Act of Parliament for such a case would be absurd. What the Crown wants is money. Whose province is it to give it ? It is the business of this House. To it belongs the peculiar GOVERNMENT PLAN OP EDUCATION. 225 privilege, as in all analogous cases ; and can there be anything more analogous than in the provisions which are made every year for the military schools? It did not require an Act of Parhament to establish the military asylum at Chelsea. When I was Secretary at War, I proposed the establishment of a girl's school in every regiment ; but no Act of Parhament was required, and why should there be when it was in anybody's power to have done the same thing ? Therefore is it, in the present case, in the power of her Majesty to make these regulations for educating the people. ; and all that she requires of Parliament is the money to enable her to carry out her plans. If the Crown were to ask for money for a purpose which was illegal, then there must be an Act of Parliament to sanction its appropriation. I believe this is the soimd constitutional definition of the power both of the Crown and of Parliament. The next point which I am led to consider is, the rehgious objection which has been made. Now, upon that point I do not conceive that my hon. friend has dealt with the argument fairly, or has put it upon that footing which seems to me to be just. It appears to me utterly impossible not to admit that, as far as the different religious sects are concerned, the minutes of 1839 proposed a scheme of perfect fairness. I have read the minutes of 1845 and 1846; but I speak chiefly with reference to the minutes of 1839; and after giving them the maturest con- sideration, I think every care has been taken to obviate the sUgTitest interference on the part of the Government with the various religious sects; and that, as between the Church of England and the Protestant dissenting bodies, it is impossible for me to conceive a system of stricter impartiality. Will any gen- tleman say, that in that system or plan there is an advantage given to the members of the Church which is not given to those connected with the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Wesleyans, and with the Church of Scotland ? I can find no trace of the kind. The advantage of the scheme is intended for aU in com- mon. The dissenting ministers and managers of schools will have equal authority with the parochial minister of the Church. The boys of the dissenting schools wiU be just as eligible to be VOL. II. Q 226 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. pupil-teachers and monitors as those of the Church. As to the schoolmasters^ there are exactly the same conditions imposed on the schoolmasters of the Church of England as upon the dis- senting schoolmasters. They wiU enjoy the same emoluments, and, after a series of years of service, will have the same retiring pensions. I wish, instead of using phrases of disparagement against the scheme proposed, hon. gentlemen would answer this plain question. Supposing in any one city there should be a school connected with the Church, another connected with the Wesleyans, and another with the Presbyterians ; will any gen- tleman distinctly point out to me what share of the public money or what patronage is that which the school connected with the Church wiU get, and which the other schools will not get ? If the school connected with the Church of England, from remiss- ness and mismanagement, fall below the mark, it wiU not, under these minutes, get even those advantages which other schools wiU. A system of more impartiality in principle I am utterly unable to conceive ; and I am quite convinced that it will be a system of perfect impartiality in practice- — as respects, at least, our great cities and town districts. With reference to another objection which has been made with regard to the estabhshment of schools in the poorer districts, I admit there may be some difficulty for some time in supplying education to such districts; and the subject has engaged the most anxious thoughts of the Committee of Education. Doubt- less, there will be an advantage for the Church in those places where the dissenters are few, and the members of the Church many ; but in some instances the case will be reversed ; and when, for instance, the Presbyterians preponderate, then they will gain the advantage, and the Chiu-ch will go without. But, whichever way it may be, you cannot tell me that the principle is unsound. If there should be 900 members of the Church in a given district and only 100 dissenters, then, indeed, the advantage would he in favour of the Church ; but even in thaf case the dissenters would not be worse off than they are now. By the supposition, the district would support only one school, and that would be of the Church ; but that can be no injury to the dissenters ; and I GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. 237 do hope that the Nonconformists ■vvill remember that they are not so much Nonconformists as not also to be Englishmen and Christians. I do trusty whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the merits of the minutes of the Committee of Education, that Baptists, Congregational Unions, Wesleyans, Presbyterians, Chm'chmen, and men of all creeds, wiU feel that they have a deep interest in the good education of all men. They live on the same soil, and have one and the same interest that the great body of the people should be educated. Take the case, as I said before, of Lord George Gordon's rabble. Was not, I ask, the Churchman as hable to have his property destroyed as a person who belonged to the dissenting body ? Does not our common interest in the security of order give us a common interest in the education of the people ? And I deny what the hon. gentle- man the member for Finsbiu'y says, that you call on men to pay for an education from which they get no advantage. Sir, there is no man contributing to the education of the people who gets no advantage from it. I utterly deny it. If a dissenter be surrounded by men belonging to the Church, I deny that that dissenter gains nothing by having those meu made good Christians. I say it is just as much a matter of common interest as the defence of our coast ; and no particular person is entitled to say, because he belongs to a particular sect, that he has no interest whatever in, and is not bound to contribute to, the com- mon security and defence of the whole nation. Now, sir, I think I have gone over all the points. No, there is one other point to which the hon. member alluded. The hon. gentleman wishes to have a select committee to inquire into the effect of this education— though he did not tell us what he meant by the phrase — -on the Queen's subjects. In what way education was to affect their civil rights, my hon. friend did not think it right to inform us. I think it can be hardly necessary for me to say that to a population such as a large portion of the population of England is, if the description given by the Congregational Union be correct, civil liberty can scarcely be more than a name ; and it can hardly require a committee of this House to satisfy us that an improved and extended system 238 GOVERNMENT PLAN OF EDUCATION. of education is a likely or a good way to carry on the war against liberty. And this I must say^ that he is a very short- sighted friend of the common people who is eager to bestow upon them vast franchises^ and yet who makes no effort to give them that education without which such franchises cannot be bene- ficial either to themselves or to the State. I have done^ sir; and from the clamour which has been aroused around us, I appeal with confidence to the country to which^ in no long time, we must render an account of our stewardship. And I appeal with stiU more confidence to a future age, which, while enjoying aU the blessings of a just and efficient system of State education, will look back with astonishment to the opposition which the introduction of that system encountered, and which wiU be still more astonished that such resistance was offered in the name of civil and religious freedom. 229 AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. June 14, 1847. On the Resolution moved hy Mr. HurtK tliat, in the Judgment of the House, the a/rmed Interference of the Government between Political Parties in Portugal is unwarrantable in Principle, and likely to lead to serious and mischievous Consequences. Sir, I have heard with great pleasure the amendment pro- posed by the hon. member for Finsbury.* I beg to assure my hon. friend that in that amendment is set forth^ with great force and precision, the principles which have guided, and which wiR continue to guide, the conduct of her Majesty's Government. The members of the Administration feel that whenever the Government is, by an unfortunate necessity, compelled to depart from the general rule which prescribes abstinence from all interference with the internal concerns of foreign nations, it contracts a grave responsibility; and it is with a fuR conviction of this on their minds that her Majesty's Ministers have determined to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, and will contiaue to act on the principles which have hitherto guided their conduct. I see with the greatest pleasure that my hon. friend, and others who^ like my hon. friend, were at first disposed to look mth jealousy on the course taken by the Government, have, upon examination, found sufficient cause to change the opinion which they originally entertained. Sir^ I am not surprised that such jealousy should at first sight be entertained as to the proceedings of her Majesty's Government. There can be no doubt that the rule which * The following were the terms of Mr. Duncombe's amendment : " Great Britain having become a party to foreign armed interference witKjthe-jyie^ of terminating the civil war now unhappily existing in Portugal, it is the opinion of this House that, on tranq^uillity being restored, it will be the duty of the British Government to endeavour, by all just means in its power, to secure to the people of Portugal the full enjoyment of their constitutional rights and privileges." 230 APFAIKS OF PORTUGAL. condemns interference in the internal concerns of a foreign country is a sonnd general rule. There can be no doubt that on the Minister who so interferes the burden of proof is thrown to show the necessity of interference. There can be no doubt that he is bound to make out his case to the satisfaction of the public. In the present case, it must be acknowledged that there are peculiar circumstances which make it one of great difficulty and delicacy : there can be no doubt about that. There can be no doubt — and this I shall acknowledge as a distinctive part of our case — that the throne of Portugal has long been surrounded by evU counsellors. There can be no doubt that the most violent and unconstitutional measures have been adopted by the Court. There can be no doubt that some acts which I am compelled to designate as cruel have disgraced the history of the Portuguese Government. There can be no doubt that cu'cumstances have occurred which justified the Portuguese people in receiving with distrust the assurances of the Portuguese Government. And I cannot wonder^ therefore, that persons who dislike interference in general, and think interference with the international affairs of other nations a very bad course of policy, should look with peculiar jealousy at such an interference as this, of which at first sight the object might seem to be to rescue a Govern- ment which has committed grave faults from the peril which is the natural consequence of misconduct. All this I admit ; yet, admitting it, I am still convinced that her Majesty^s Government chose the least of two evils; and under such circumstances a choice of evils was all that was left to it. Considering our relations with Portugal, con- sidering the civil war which is raging, considering the strong inclination to interference felt by foreign Powers, I hold it, sir, to be clear that no course whatever exempt from incon- venience and risk was open to the British Government. Similar cases frequently occur in pubUc and in private Ufe. It comes within the daiiy experience of all men, that persons are fre- quently, without any fault of their own, placed in situations in which they must act, and in which every course they can take Al'l'AIRS or PORTUGAL. 331 has its risks and its inconveniences. Now^ it is not a fair May of reasoning to exag-gerate the risks and the inconveniences of the course actually adopted. No argument against the course taken under the circumstances is sound, unless he who pro- nounces the condemnation gives us also his own line of conduct, and shows us good reasons for believing that that line of conduct would be attended with less objectionable consequences than that which has been followed. And remember, too, that in such cases those who have to defend what has been done always speak at a disadvantage. You feel the inconveniences of the course which has been taken : of the course not taken you do not feel the inconveniences. They are mere matter of discussion and speculation. Wby, you might deny in toto that there was any risk of their taking place at all ; but of the course taken you feel and know the evils. Under these circumstances, then, it is, that I think Government is fairly entitled to call on every gentleman who is in favour of the vote of censm-e under discussion to lay before the House not only a statement of the inconveniences admitted — and admitted to have arisen as inseparable from the interference which has taken place — but also to state to the House some plan of policy which would have avoided these inconveniences without leading to greater. No such plan of policy has yet been submitted to the House ; and I doubt whether it be in the power of human wisdom to devise such a plan. I think that I see ia every possible course, other than that which has been followed, inconveniences greater than those which have resulted from our policy. Sir, my argument rests upon the peculiar relations subsisting between England and Portugal. With many other Powers no such question as that which we are now discussing could have arisen. Suppose, for example, that a similar state of things to that of Portugal had occurred in the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, or the Grand Duchy of Tuscany; then, indeed, it might have been the duty of the Government to have sent a frigate into the Bay of Naples, in order to protect, and, if necessary, to carry away British subjects and British property; but there the matter ','32 AFl'AIllS 01' POllTUGAL. would have ended. No interference similar to that which has in this instance taken place would have been the subject of any dis- cussion. But our relation with Portugal is a most peculiar one — one without any parallel in European politics — without any parallel, I may say, in the history of the world. Sir, I do not remember anything which struck me more than, when looking over that collection of treaties with Portugal which we called for — a collection extending from the days of the Black Prince down- wards, from the year 1373, and produced, not for the gratifi- cation of any antiquarian curiosity, but treaties stiU in force, and in active operation — when looking over these early treaties of the fourteenth century, one thing, I say, most particularly struck me. It seemed as if those who framed these ancient documents had some presentiment of the length of their existence, and that they would completely outhvc all the arts of war then in use ; for to the stipulation for furnishing troops, archers, slingers, and galleys, to defend Portugal, contained in the first treaty with that country, a saving clause adds the condition — provided that these be the means of defence then employed. This may be fortuitous ; but has it not a singular aspect, in the middle of a treaty of the four- teenth century, to see such a clause as that? And, in truth, there is a great analogy between the manner in which these treaties were observed in tlie fourteenth century and the manner in which they are observed in the nineteenth century — an analogy one of the most remarkable on record. Perhaps the noble lord opposite, whose studies have been not a little directed towards those interesting and curious parts of history which belong to the times of chivalry, will remember Froissart's glowing description of how — in the year 1381, 1 think it was — the Portuguese ambas- sadors appeared before the Coiu't of London — of the splendour of the pageant, of the magnificent reception which greeted them, of the presence of the representatives of the two great families in the realm (John of Gaunt, and Edmund Langley Duke of York), standing one on either side of the king ; and how they addressed the Portuguese ambassadors, and how they told them to tell their fair cousin of Portugal that what she wanted she should have; that Portugal was the friend of the friends of England, and the Al'FAIllS OF PORTUGAL. 333 foe of the foes of England. And then, says old Froissart, the Parliament resolved that 500 archers and men-at-arms should be sent off to Portugal ; aye, an expedition then, in the fourteenth century, just as the expedition of 1826, though armed in a different manner, sailed to protect the same country from danger from the same quarter. Such a close alliance between nations for 300 years is almost without precedent ; and let me recal, in connexion with it, a striking observation of Mr. Canning, that from the very first om' treaties with Portugal had the character, not of mere formal diplomatic conventions, but that there was a force of fervent expression about them which bound the two countries in a far more kindly connexion. Why, in the very treaty I have men- tioned, we boimd ourselves to defend Portugal, by sea and by land, " against all who may Hve and die." Again, in 1661 the King of England " did profess and declare to take the interests of Portugal and aU its dominions to heart, defending the same with his utmost power by sea and land, even England itself." And once more, in 1 703, we confirmed our former engagements, and contracted new ones to the same effect in equally strong terms. Sir, there may be those who think that such relations as these were inexpedient for this country — a country so great and so powerful — to enter into. I hold, I confess, a different opinion. Any services we may have rendered to Portugal have been amply repaid. In all our contests Portugal has ever been our friend. In the Seven Years' War, when France and Spain were leagued against us — when they attempted to incite Portugal on the same principle to join with them, and help to free herself and Europe from the tyrant of the seas — then Portugal boldly refused their proffers. And yet it was a critical time for the Portuguese. The earthquake was recent, their capital in ruins, the king with scarcely a place to lay his head, a foreign army hovering on the frontier ; still Portugal kept her faith, and acted up to the spirit of her treaties with England. Again, when it would have been easy for the house of Braganza to have made terms with our enemies, they preferred exile across the Atlantic to such a violation of their engagements. And then the soil of 234 AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. Portugal became the spot from, which we moved the world. It was in Portugal that you fought your own battles, and success- fully defended youi' own liberties. For nothing was more true than that passage in the despatches of our great military com- mander — despatches which may outlive even the popular memory of his victories — -nothing he ever wrote was more true than that sentence in which he expresses his belief that the question was between the defence of Portugal and the invasion of England.* On that occasion Portugal suffered for us. By her devastation we were enabled to look in security upon our own cultivated fields; and as for those lines of Torres Vedras, they protected against spoliation and massacre a larger capital and a greater population than that of Lisbon or that of Portugal. When that struggle was ended, you renewed, at the time of the general settlement of Europe, the treaties and conventions under which you had already acted. In consequence of those engagements, in 1826 you promptly sent to Portugal assistance against foreign invasion ; and in 1834, when pretenders to the crowns of Spain and Portugal — having to a great extent a common interest — made their appearance in the Peninsida, then, sir, England took upon herseK the defence of Portugal, and entered into the Quadruple Alliance expressly on the ground of our ancient, solemn, and special relations with that country. Thus, in this .singular manner, are we bound up with a country which has now been for many months the theatre of a most disastrous struggle. If I be asked what the origin of that war * From what I have seen of the objects of the French GoTernment, and the sacrifices they make to accomplish them, I have no doubt that, if the British army were for any reason to withdraw from the Peninsula, and the French Grovemment were relieved from the pressure of military operations on the Continent, they would incur all risks to land an army in his Majesty's dominions. Then, indeed, would commence an expensive contest ; then would his Majesty's subjects discover what are the miseries of war, of which, by the blessing of God, they have hitherto had no knowledge ; and the culti- vation, the beauty, and the prosperity of the country, and the virtue and happiness of its inhabitants, would be destroyed. Whatever might be the result of the military operations, God forbid that I should be a witness, much less an actor in the scene. And I only hope that the King's Government will consider well what I have above stated to your lordship, and will ascertain, as nearly as is in their power, the actual expense of employing a certain number of men in this country beyond that of employing them at home, or elsewhere. — Dmke of Wellington's Despatches. AFFAIKS OI' PORTUGAL. 235 was, then, sir, I do not hesitate to say that I believe it was caused by the acts of the Portuguese Government. By violent and unconstitutional decrees, they banded against them large bodies of armed men, professing to contend for freedom ; and while the principles held by the Government, on the one hand, tended undoubtedly to despotism, on the other hand you have opinions prevailing which as surely were incentives to regicide. Let it be remarked, too, that it was in the power of neither party effectually to control the body of its adherents. It was in the power of neither the Queen nor the Junta to meet on fair terms, whatever their inclination may have been. The Queen was held in a species of pupUage by her Ministers, who, whenever she was dis- posed to moderate coraicils, threatened to resign their civil offices and to lay down their military commands. Around the Junta had sprung up a crowd of adventurers eager for employment, and therefore ready to discountenance every whisper of peace. The country was uncultivated, trade was at a stand, British interests were suffering. But during several months the English Government interfered merely by preaching conciliation, by imploring the Court to act leniently and constitutionally, and by impressing on the Junta counsels of moderation. It is admitted even by those who blame the conduct of the Government — it is admitted even by the hon. member for Mon- trose (Mr. Hume) — that the principle of non-interference had never been more ably put forward than by the papers of my noble friend (Lord Palmerston) during the first months of the conflict. But they say, and he says, that then there came a change — that then came interference. There must be some mysterious cause for this ; some strong influence which I cannot describe, cries one ; some backstairs intrigue, which I need not particularise, says another. Now, for my own part, I should have been inclined to say that, on the simplest inspection of these papers, the reason for the change will be seen on their face, and cannot be mistaken. It is this : while the question was a purely internal question, the English Government inter- fered only by counsel, exhortation, and friendly offices ; but it afterwards became an international question, and then Govern- 336 AFFAIRS OF POUTUGAL. ment could refrain from interference no longer. An attentive examination of the despatches will show that England ceased to follow the strict course of non-interference when the question ceased to be an internal question of Portuguese politics. And I may ask the hon. member for Montrose^ however much he may be attached to the general principles of non-interference, whether he will not admit that sometimes the internal policy of a country becomes its international policy, and that in such a case the general principle of non-interference ought to be, and is frequently suspended? Two remarkable instances of this Ivind have been alluded to in this debate. We interfered under Queen Elizabeth in France. " What," it may be said, " did it signify to us whether the Government of France or the League got the better?" But the success of the League would have increased the power and the influence of the House of Austria, already too formidable in Europe ; while, on the other hand, the success of Henry IV. tended to preserve the balance of power against Phihp of Spain, and add to the security of England. Thus was the principle of interference justifiable. So, again, as to the States General, when they interfered in our internal policy in 1688. They saw safety in the predominance of the Orange party. If William III. were to be on the throne of England, the balance of power would be preserved as against France; but were James II. on the throne, he would have made England the vassal of France. That circumstance took the case of England out of the general rule ; and such was the reason always advanced by the States General to justify their inter- ference. Now, if it be admitted that the rule of non-interference ceases to apply when the question becomes international, then certainly the rule does not apply to the present case. Is it not clear, that at the end of March or the beginning of April, the question of interference was begun to be debated by other nations? I hold it, sir, to be quite clear that Spain did contemplate and fully resolved upon interference. One hon. gentleman who spoke is unable to find out the slightest trace of the probability of AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 237 Spanish interference. Why, sir, there is the note of Mr. Bulwer of the 5th of April, 1847, and what does it say? Neither (it proceeds) ought I to conceal from you that, although the Spanish Government will be delighted that in this negotiation the representatives of the Allied Courts, accredited at that of her Most Faithful Majesty, and who signed the treaty of the Quadruple Alliance, should take part, yet this will not hinder, should it by any event not be possible for the four Powers to agree and act upon a common and thorough understanding, should a case of urgent necessity occur, that the indispensable remedy would be applied, pEirticulai'ly endeavouring to do so in accordance with Great Britain, and to caiTy out the intervention in the manner and on the basis which might be de- termined on between the two Governments. I must, however, state to you, that in the event of a sudden crisis, during which the throne of Donna Maria de Gloria might be overthrown, the Spanish Government could not possibly consent to such a catastrophe, and would act alone, and of its own accord. Again there is the note of Mr. Bulwer, commenting on the lan- guage of M. Pacheco. What do we find in it ? Our ambassador I, however, think that M- Pacheco's real wishes are to arrive at some fair transaction in favour of the Queen in concert with ourselves : that he has no wish to interfere at all with an armed force, and is not likely to do so without our concurrence. But, at the same time, I think that the means he will adopt for arriving at a transaction may be too calculated to elate the hopes of one of the parties, and thereby prevent its making reasonable concessions ; and that, under certain circumstances, he may be disposed, and even compelled, from the position in which he will find himself placed, to enter into Portugal without concert with us, and even contrary to our wishes and opinions. I say, therefore, sir, that it is perfectly clear that an armed inter- ference was contemplated by the Spanish Government ; and I think it must also be added that the Fi-ench Government con- ceived that, in taking that course, the Spanish Government would be acting warrantably. Thus, after having laboured, while the question was an internal one, to settle it by good offices, advice, and mediation, you find that it had ceased to be an internal question. Circumstances change ; events thicken ; Spain collects her troops upon the frontier, and declares that in certain cases they shall enter Portugal. France again declares that, in her opinion, Spain has taken a just view of her rights. These, then, are the circumstances under which you have to consider what is the best course to adopt. But here let me ask in what sense I am to understand non-interference. 238 AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. Do you mean merely to rest passive, without intimating to other powers that they must not interfere, or are you to say, We shall not interfere ourselves, but we will iaterfere with Spaia if Spaia interferes with Portugal ? Well, now compare the inconveniences of either of these courses with the inconveniences of that actually adopted. This is the whole question. Now, as to saying abso- lutely. We shall not interfere — Spain and France may do so if they please — they may occupy Portugal, they may act just as it suits them, but we shall leave the affair absolutely alone : to have said that, and adopted that course of policy, would, I conceive, have been disgraceful to this country. Considering our ancient, our historic, our intimate relations Avith Portugal, such a course would have been nothing less than a complete desertion of the position England has always occupied ; and had we adopted it, and allowed Spanish interference to take its course, then that interference would unquestionably have placed the liberties of Portugal and the lives of the Junta in a much more hazardous position than that in which they now stand. I mean to say nothing disrespectful — quite the reverse — of the Spanish people or Government ; but certainly the observance of leniency to the vanquished in civil strife has not of late years been carried by them so far as a humane man might wish. And I believe that there is not a single member of the Junta, or attached to the cause of the Junta in Portugal, who, if you asked him " whether — supposuig an armed interference did take place — would you prefer as the interferiag power Spain or England ?" would not answer at once " England." If it be so, sir, then I conceive that the course which we have followed is clearly a better course than that of leaving France and Spain to interfere according to their own good pleasure. But there remains still another hne of alternative policy. We might have said, We shall not interfere ourselves, but we wiU interfere with whoever else interferes. But, sir, would any member of this House counsel us to risk a threat without being prepared to risk a war ? Would you tell Spain, " You shall not do what you wish to do, and what France thinks you are justified in doing ?" AVhy then there Avould be war ! [" Hear !"] I AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 239 am not deaf to that cheer ; I can well conceive that there are those to whom such a course would have its charms. See what thirty-two years of peace have done for civilisation, for humanity and good government; and when you compare the state of Europe during those thirty-two years of peace with what it was during the twenty -three years of war, that man, I say, incurs a grave responsibility who would set the first spark to the mass of combustible matter which, once exploded, could end in nothing but general European conflagration; and whether such a war would cease in 1850, 1860, or 1870, it is beyond the power of the wisest man living to prognosticate. I say that, unless you can show that what has been done is something so pernicious that to avoid it we ought to have incurred the risk of European war, you must admit that we have done right. I think the hou. member for Finsbury talked somewhat too lightly of war ; but I quite agree with him that we should not give up to the Queen of Portugal the head of one of the Junta to avoid war with all the Powers of Europe. I agree with the view taken by Mr. Fox, who, though the great advocate for peace, when some one hinted that Bonaparte might require the expulsion of the Bourbons from England, said — I never was a friend to that family — they are a bad family ; but for the worst Boiirbon that ever sprung from their stock I'd go to war rather than that England should abjure the rights of hospitahty. I recommend no disgraceful, no injurious, no pusillanimous course ; but I say that if it was possible to effect any settlement which would be just, which would be humane, which would be favourable to the liberties of Portugal, and if by so doing we could avoid these two evils — the infamy and degradation of giving up Portugal to the absolute disposal of Spain, and the risk of a European war — such a settlement it was our duty to make. The strongest invectives have been pronounced against the Queen of Portugal and the Cabral party ; but every invective against the Queen is the best panegyric on her conduct. Loud complaints have been made of the cruel and severe punishments which have been inflicted on those who have taken up arms against the Queeu. But what is the first article of the conditions 340 AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. on which we have insisted ? It estabUshes an absolute and com- plete amnesty ; and if you draw an inference unfavourable to the humanity of the Portuguese Government from their having so long refused to agree to accede to those terms, you should also have drawn the inference that, if they did agree to them, it was impos- sible they could refuse strictly to observe and execute those terms. Why was it worth their while to battle so long upon the subject, if they were about to make a promise which they knew they could break? The Portuguese Government said, "We will inflict no capital punishments ; but let us have some persons sent out to the colonies." " No," wc replied, " we cannot consent to that." Then said the Portuguese Government, "They shall not be consigned to a cruel and miserable exile, they shall not be sent to Africa, they shall be sent to Paris ; they shall remain there till peace and order are restored in this country, and their fortunes shall be remitted to them." WTiat was the answer of England? "Not one mile from the territory of Portugal." The Portuguese Government still asked, " Let them be exiled for eighteen months." "No, not one." " Only for sixteen." "No, not one." " Only for ten." " No, not one ;" and to these terms we adhered to the last. Those who talk of us as having shown a pusillanimous desire to avoid a collision with France or Spain should remember that, in order to avoid any such collision, we would not have consented to the banishment for ten months to Paris of one member of the Junta. As far as respects the amnesty, then, I think our case is complete. The second article provides that all the unconstitutional acts of the Government shall be rescinded. The Junta complained, and most justly, that the assembling of the Cortes had been improperly delayed; but the second article of the conditions entered into by the Queen of Portugal provides that the Cortes shall be called together at the earliest possible period. The fourth article of the conditions provides that no member of the Cabral party shall form part of the Government. [An Hon. Member : " How do you guarantee that?"] I cannot conceive that you can very easily have a better guarantee than this : that instead of being an agTeement between the Queen of Portugal and her subjects, this is an agree- AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL. 241 ment between the Queen of Portugal, and England, Spain, and France, who possess the most undoubted power to compel the Queen of Portugal to observe the conditions to which she has assented. This, ill my opinion, is a fuU justification of the course which has been taken by her Majesty's Government. I thinlc it right to call the attention of the House to one circumstance which has been alluded to, in order to put an end to all misrepresentation on the subject — I refer to the manner in which the orders of the British Government were carried into effect. I do not conceive, even if the officers commandiug on the station had neglected to send a proper notice to the authorities at Oporto of the course they intended t6 pursue, that that circumstance alone would justify anyone in adopting the views of the hon. member for Montrose; but, at the same time, it is the duty of a Govern- ment, when the conduct of those who have served their country well and faithfully has been impugned, not to pass by the first opportunity of vindicating them. I say that fuller and fairer notice never was given than was given in this case ; and if any person who has the means of knowing the circumstances denies this statement, I will only say that I think he cannot deny it conscientiously. The following is a letter written by Captain Robb, of the Gladiator, to the Secretary of the Junta for Foreign Affairs: — Hia Excellency Senor Jose Fassos, Secretary of Foreign Affairs, Provisional Government, Oporto. Ser Majesty's ship Gladiator, May 23, 1847. Sir, — Having transmitted to your Excellency, through her Britannic Majesty's Consul at this place, the wishes of her Britannic Majesty's Miaister at Lisbon, relative to the cessation of hostilities, imtil the delivery of the letter vrith which I am charged to his Excellency the Conde das Antas, and having received no reply to that letter, I have the honour to acquaint you that I am commanded by Vice- Admiral Sir William Parker, Bart., G.C.B., that if any demonstration is made on the part of the naval force of the Junta for quitting the Douro, to warn the Junta of the probability of their being stopped by a British force wherever it may be met with. — I have the honour to be, &c., (Signed) John Eobb, Captain. Senor Jose de Passos, in his answer, says — It is therefore that the undersigned saw with great regret that you declare, in con- formity with the orders of his Excellency Admiral William Parker, that in case of the VOL. II. R 243 AFFAIRS OF POKTUGAL. ships of the national squadron leaving the port, they will probably be detained by British naval force. Under these circumstances, I defy any person to say that i full and fair warning as could be given was not afforded to tl Junta. I have now really nothing further to say than to than the House for their indulgence. I may, however, shortly sui up the case thus : I say it was utterly impossible for us, relate to and connected with Portugal as we are, to observe the ordinal rule of non-interference; for, the moment that France ai Spain had shown an inclination to interfere, if we had not inte fered, and if we had not at the same time suffered them interfere, we should have lowered England to the very bottom the scale of nations. If we had not interfered, but had declan that we would go to war with France or Spain if they interfere we should, in my opinion, have taken upon ourselves a mc terrible responsibility, and we might not impossibly have plung Europe into a general war. Nothing remained but to interfe boldly, justly, humanely, and with a desire for peace. I de anyone to read the articles to which the Queen of Portugal b assented, and to say that this has not been the character of o interference. There were three objects almost incompatible wi each other which we had, if possible, to maintain, and to mai tain in such a way that by maintaining one we should not r' the least hazard of not maintaining the others- — the dignity England, the liberty of Portugal, and the peace of Europe. ^ saw only one way of maintaining these objects. If our poh was right, I think there will be little dispute about the mam in which it has been carried into execution. It will scarcely doubted that the means were adapted to the end, and that t instruments were sufficiently well chosen. I can only repeat my hon. friend (Mr. T. Duncombe) that we feel with him tl the interference we have been compelled to adopt does lay up us the duty so emphatically set forth m the amendment he 1 moved; and I will only add that our consciences acquit us and I hope the vote of this House vdll acquit us — of havi in this most difficult and embarrassing conjimcture, failed in J part of our duty towards England, towards Portugal, or towa Europe. 243 THE EXCLUSION OF JUDGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. June 2, 1853. On Lord ITothmn's Motion for the Third Heading of the Judges Exclusion Bill. Sm^ I cannot suffer the House to proceed to a division on this question without expressing the very strong feeling which I entertain on the subject to which it refers. I shall vote with all my heart and soul for the amendment moved by my hon. friend the member for Surrey.* I never gave a vote in my life with a more entire confidence that it was right ; and I must say that I think it hardly creditable to this House that a BiU against which so much can be said, and in favoiu- of which so little has been said, should have been permitted to attain this stage without a division. Sir, on what ground is this Bill brought in? Is it brought forward on that ground which is the only ground on which I should conceive a Conservative statesman would propose any important reform — is it brought forward on the ground that the present state of the law has produced any practical evil whatever? That ground is utterly disclaimed by those who support the Bill. Is it asserted, then, that in any single case, during the experience of ages, inconvenience has arisen from our permitting the Master of the Rolls to have a seat in this House ? The office of Master of the RoUs and the House of Commons commenced their existence in the same generation — certainly in the same century. During 600 years the Master of the Rolls has been eligible for a seat in this House. To go no farther back than the Hanoverian succession, we have had, as most distinguished members of this House, successive Masters of the RoUs. We have had Jekyll, Strange, Pepper, Arden, Sir W. * Mr. H. Drummond's amendment was that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. 244 THE EXCLUSION OF JUDGES Grant, Sir J. Copley, and, finally, Sir John Romilly. Sir, is it pretended, even now, that any one of these eminent judges ever in any respect discharged his judicial duties less efiiciently because he was admitted to a seat in this House ? If it is not so pretended, I ask, is it the part of a wise statesman — above all, is it the part of Conservative politicians — to alter a system which has existed for six centuries, and against which it is not alleged that in any single case inconvenience has arisen, save that it does not appear to us to square with an abstract principle ? Well, what is this abstract principle? That it is desirable to separate the political from the judicial functions. " Nothing is so hateful," I think these are the words of the noble lord, "as a poKtical judge." The union of the political and the judicial character is contrary to a principle so sacred, he says, that although we cannot by the experience of ages find that that union has had any pernicious eflect, stiU, to be true to a theory, we must destroy it. Sir, if I adopt the principle of the noble lord's Bill, I must pronounce this Bill to be the most wretched and pitiful reform ever proposed — the most homoeo- pathic dose which ever quack proposed for the most wide-spread malady; for if the noble lord considers the nature of the political and judical system of this country, he will find the judicial and pohtical character so combined from top to bottom in that system, so interwoven with it, that this reform which he proposes to make will be only an infinitesimal change as com- pared with the system he desires to amend. It has been asked, and with great justice, why, if you exclude the Master of the Rolls, should you not exclude the Recorder of London ? I should be exceedingly sorry to exclude the Recorder ; but I must say I think the reasons for excluding the Recorder ten times stronger than those for excluding the Master of the RoUs. But, if you exclude the Recorder of London, why not all recorders, and all chairmen of quarter-sessions ? I venture to say that stronger reasons can be adduced for excluding chair- men of quarter-sessions than the Master of the Rolls. I have attended quarter-sessions formerly ; and I have seen presiding over the quarter-sessions of a great county a man of most rilOM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 245 eminent ability — one of tlie most able and expeditious lawyers I ever knew. But this gentleman was a member of Parliament, a keen poHticiau, and a decided party man. He was one who had made a motion in this House which had caused a change of Ministry, and before the close of his life he obtained a seat in the Cabiaet. Yet this gentleman — the head of the " Blue " interest, as it was called — would have had to preside at the trial of any Orange rioters in his county. The same individual took a conspicuous part in the case of the Queen ; was hooted, and perhaps pelted, too, by the mob of London ; and yet he might have had to go down into his own county to try people for breaking the windows of those who refused to light up on the occasion of the Queen's acquittal. Sir, you leave persons of this kind members of this House, and you exclude the Master of the Rolls. Nothing is more notorious than that, in times of political excitement, when the people have been disposed to act with turbulence, or have shown a disposition to outrage, the whole democratic press have cried out that chairmen of quarter-sessions and the unpaid magistracy were not to be trusted with the administration of justice. So loud once was this cry, that Mr. Canning, in one of his most eloquent speeches, said that this distrust of such magistrates was one of the worst signs of the times. Yet you propose to leave forty or fifty of them in this political assembly, and exclude the judges. You propose to exclude a judge whose judicial functions, as well as those of his predecessors, have been so well performed, that since the time of Edward I. not even calumny has hinted that they have been used to promote a political end. You turn out the Master of the Rolls, then, because you hate political judges. But even if I were to admit that there is something in the office of Master of the Rolls which would make it important that he should not take part in politics, I should still vote against the Bill, as inconsistent and inefficient. Because, as you say, it is unfit that he should be in a pohtical assembly, you shut him out from the House of Commons. But the House of Lords is open to him. It is notorious that, for several generations, the judges in the House 346 THE EXCLUSION OF JUDGES af Lords have had political sway, and very often a decided ascendancy. It is perfectly notorious that Lord Hardwicke ruled in that assembly; that he bequeathed his power to another judge, I/ord Mansfield; and that when his health decayed, the power devolved upon Lord Thurlow. Most of us can remember the powerful influence which Lord Eldon exer- cised in that House ; how he made and unmade Ministries, how by one party he was regarded with a veneration approaching to idolatry, and by another with feelings of the strongest aversion. When the domination of Lord Eldon ceased, other great judges. Whig and Tory, were found contending there. Some of us remember — it is impossible for some to forget — the first ten days of October, 183L That was the most alarming, the most exciting political crisis that has occurred in my life. It was the time when the debates in the House of Lords, which had lasted for many months, ended in the rejection of the Reform Bill in that House. God forbid that I should again sec such a crisis ! I never hope to hear such a debate again. It was, indeed, a most splendid display of every kind and variety of ability. I daresay there are some here who, like myself, awaited all night the dawn of an autumn morning, now walking up and down the Court of Requests, now crowding and squeezing each other at the doors of the House of Lords, well pleased to catch a few words of that wonderftd conflict of oratory. In the front rank were to be seen pitted against each other two judges — Lord Brougham, the Lord Chancellor of England, on the one side — Lord Lyndhurst, Chief Baron of the Exchequer, on the other. How eagerly we hung upon their words ! — how eagerly they were read before noon on that day by hundreds of thousands in the country ! What fearful excitement they caused ! — excitement followed by the disasters of Nottingham and the sack of Bristol. And this arena the noble lord, who hates political judges, is ready to open to the Master of the Rolls. His objection is not to the union of the judicial and political character, but it is simply to the union of the judicial character with that of the Master of the Rolls in the House wherein you are now assembled. A judge this day I'ROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 247 may be — the Master of the Rolls may be — the soul and head of a great party ; he may be the leader of a democracy, or the chief of an aristocracy ; he may use all his powers of oratory, or all his powers of sophistry, to iaflame the passions or to mislead the understandiQg of the Senate ; but he must not do it in this room ; he must go a few hundred yards off; he must take his seat upon a red bench, and not upon a green one ; he must say, "My lords," and not "Mr. Speaker;" and then the noble lord is perfectly willing to suffer it. But I am understating the case; I greatly understate the case ; for this union of the judicial and political character is not m the other House a mere accidental union. The fact is, it is not only that a judge may be made a peer, but that all the peers are necessarily judges. Why, if any foreigner who had been admitted to the gallery of this House had heard the noble lord declare his hatred and abhorrence of political judges, and state that we ought to make a change ia the law, would such a foreigner ever imagine that our supreme court of appeal was a great political assembly, and that to this assembly go up appeals from the courts of equity and law in this country, from the courts of Scotland and the courts of Ireland, and from this very Master of the Rolls himself? Is it not perfectly clear that, if the principle of the proposed law be sound, we ought to begin, not with the Master of the RoUs, but with the House of Lords ? for the court above is more important than the court below. If the Master of the RoUs goes wrong, the House of Lords may correct him ; but who is to correct the errors of the House of Lords ? The noble lord is perfectly content that their lordships should sit in the morning as judges upon questions that affect the liberty, property, and character of every man among us ; that they shoidd decide them in the last resort ; and that they should pronounce decisions which are absolutely binding upon all the ordinary tribunals of the realm ; and that then, in the afternoon, the same lords should meet as poHticians, and debate — sometimes pretty sharply, and sometimes in such a way that, if you, sir, were among them, you would call them to order — such questions as the Clergy Reserves, Irish Education, and the government of 248 THE EXCLUSION OF JUDGES India. To that the noble lord sees no objection whatever. Here, then, you have politics combined with judicature. And if we pass this BiU it will be doubtless taken up to the House of Lords by men who have a judicial character, and it will be taken out of their hands by one who is a Cabinet Minister, and the highest judge in the realm. And this mummery we shall call purifying the administration of justice from all poUtical functions ! But this Bin, for the purposes of purifying the administration of justice, is utterly ineffectual. It is effectual, I admit; for one purpose, and for one purpose only : that of weakening and degrading the House of Commons. This is not the first time that a similar attempt has been made. More than 150 years ago there was a great and general cry — and a just one — against the number of placemen in Parliament. The evil was great, hut rash and short-sighted men, although doubtless well-intentioned, Uke the noble lord, proposed a remedy which would have pro- duced an evil much greater than that which they sought to correct. They brought in a BiU which provided that no person who held any office under the Crown should sit in this House. This clause was not to take effect before the accession of the house of Hanover, and before that accession occurred it was happily repealed. It is easy to see what the effect would have been. It was easy to say that the Bill would purify the Parha- mentary atmosphere — that the influence of the Crown, which was so fatal to the Hberty of the people, would have been done away with — and that it was just that the servants of the nation should be the servants of the nation alone. The supporters of that Bill asked how it was possible for persons who were ap- pointed by the prerogative of the Crown to be the faithful guardians of the rights and liberties of the people. That argu- ment was specious, but no more. The effect would have been to depress that branch of the Legislature which springs from the people, and to elevate the hereditary aristocracy. All the Minis- ters of the Crown must necessarily have been peers ; and all the eminent members of the House of Commons would have made it their object to obtain a peerage. And as soon as any man, by FK05I THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 249 his eloquence and knowledge, had obtained the distinction of being selected to fill the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, or Secretary of State, or First Lord of the Admiralty, or Secre- tary at War — no matter what — he would instantly have turned his back on what would then have been emphatically the " Lower" House, and would have gone to that House in which alone it would have been possible for him to display his great abilities. Walpole, the two Pitts, Fox, Canning, Peel, and all the men whose memory is now inseparably associated with the House of Commons, and whose names we think of with pride as we pass through St. Stephen's Chapel — the old scene of their conquests — all these men, in the vigour and prime of life, would have become peers, while the great conflicts of opinion would have been transferred from the House of Commons to the House of Lords ; and it would have been impossible for the House of Com- mons, left without one single great statesman or constitutional authority, and filling its high place no more, to give a general direction to the policy of the realm. All Europe would have been looking for those great contests between Pitt and Fox to the House of Lords, and we should have been left to look after turnpike-roads and canals. That is the exact spirit of the legis- lation in which we are now invited to proceed. It may be said that this Bill is not so exclusive ; but the tendency of this BiU, and of similar BiUs, is to make this House decidedly less efficient than it was once, and than the House of Lords is now, for some of the most important purposes of a legislative assembly. I have heard it argued as if the only thing that a great legal personage could possibly do in the House of Commons, and as if the only employment a judge could have here, would be to vote to turn one set of men out and to bring another in. It is not so. Party struggles there always have been, and always will be. But there are provinces of parhamentary labour remote from questions of party, and in which a great jurist can render to his country the most eminent services, and earn for himself im- perishable fame. And if ever there was a time when a jurist was needed in this House, and when his services would be appreciated by the country, it is the present. No observant 350 THE EXCLUSION OP JUDGES man can fail to see that there is in the public mind a general, a growing, an earnest, and at the same time I must say a most reasonable and sober desire to extend law-reform. I hope and believe that some of the sessions that are approaching will to a great extent be occupied by these questions of law-reform ; and in the consideration of these questions no person is so well fitted to take a high and distinguished part as an upright and en- lightened judge. And at such a time it is we are called upon to shut the door of this house against the last great judicial functionary whom the bungling legislation of Parliament has left to us. In the meantime, the other House is open to him, and to other judicial officers who are excluded from this House. The judge of the Admiralty Court is one of the judges thus ex- cluded from this House, and that obligation I believe the House owes to the noble lord who brings forward this BUI. In the House of Peers you may have the Lord Chancellor, the Chief Justices, the Chief Baron, the Lords Justices, the Master of the RoUs, and the Vice Chancellor ; but here you are driving out the last man who, by his judicial position, gave this House any weight and consequence. I am very far from anticipating any conflict with the House of Lords, but it may be of great im- portance that we should have the advice and authority of so high a judicial personage in any question with that House. I was much struck the other day — I do not loiow whether the hon. member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) is in his place — the last time this Bill was to have come before the House. I came down to vote against this Bill, but it could not come on in consequence of the debate upon a BiU brought in by the hon. member for West Surrey — the " Combination of Workmen BiU." I believe that the hon. member for .Montrose is decidedly favourable to that BiU, but I was amused at hearing him press the Govern- ment to pass the " Combination of Workmen BUI," for this was his reason. The hon. member said, " We really know nothing about it. Send it to the Lords, for they have the judges there, and they wUl say whether it is right or wrong." Did anybody ever hear of a great legislative assembly being called upon to abdicate its functions like that? And is it not extraordinary FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 351 that a gentleman ordinarily zealous for the poptJar part of the Constitution should propose that in matters so grave the House should content itself with registering what the judges in the House of Lords may be pleased to say ? And is it not more extraordinary still that the deficiency of the House in one most important respect should be aggravated by a proposal to shut out the learning and ability that might yet come in ? But then it is said that the Master of the RoUs has duties to perform, and fills a position hardly compatible with the duty of a member of Parhament. It is said that he is paid to give his whole time to the performance of his duties ; that it is desirable to enforce a division of labour ; and that he ought not to waste his time in parhamentary duties. If this be an argument of any weight, it is an argument for keeping him out of the House of Lords as well. But I deny that it is an argument of any weight whatever. I say that the principle of a division of labour is one of great value and im- portance, but it is one which can be most easily abused. You can hardly carry it too far in matters mechanical, but you may easily carry it too far in the higher operations of labour, and in matters of intellect. I do not doubt that in pin-making, as Adam Smith has said, the pins will be best made where one man makes the head, and another cuts the wire, and another rolls it up, and another sharpens the point. But I do not beheve that Michael Angelo would have been a greater painter if he had not been a sculptor; I do not beheve that Newton would have been a greater experimental philosopher if he had never been a mathe- matician and a logician ; and I do not believe that a man would be a worse lawgiver because he is a great judge. On the contrary, I beheve that there is as close a connexion between the ftuictions of the legislator and those of the judge as there is between anatomy and surgery; and it would be as absurd to exclude the judge from taking a part in legislation as it would be absurd to exclude a surgeon from the practice of anatomy, and for people to say, if they were looking out for the best surgeon, that they would have one who knew nothing of anatomy. I am happy to state that I have authority for what I say of high 252 THE EXCLUSION OP JUDGES value — authority^ indeed, to which the hon. member for Mon- trose will probably pay more respect than I do. I mean the authority of Bentham. For Mr. Benthamj as a jurist and a metaphysician, I have no very high opinion, but as a juridical writer there can be none greater. In his " Judicial Organisa- tion" I find a chapter in which he speaks of the exceeding evil of pluralities in the case of judges. He strongly objects to suffering a judge to be anything but a judge, with one single exception. A judge, he says, ought to sit in the representative assembly; '^for," says he, "the very best school for a great legislator is the judicial bench, and legislative ability is so rarely found in any society that it is madness to throw it away when it is accessible." The hon. member for West Surrey has well rephed to the argument of indecorum, and that there need be, in the endeavour to get a seat in this House, something unworthy of the judicial ermine. The noble lord spoke of unseemly jollifications at elections. I wish from the bottom of my heart that indecent joUifications were the worst means by which men, reputed to be men of honour and respectability, stoop to obtain seats in this House. I should be sorry if the Master of the Rolls, in order to obtain a seat in this House, played the mountebank or stooped to tricks upon the hustings ; but I should be still more sorry if any Master of the Rolls should stoop to avail himself of the low arts, the false addresses, and the machinery of corruption by which some hon. members have entered this House. I am told that the Master of the Rolls ought to be scrupulous in the means by which he is elected. For this I can answer — for along friendship and an intimate acquaintance with the Master of the Rolls entitle me to speak vidth confidence upon this point — that if ever the present Master of the Rolls sits in this House, he will be brought in by very different means from those by which he was sent out. But, let me ask, are we prepared to say that no person can come into the House of Commons except by means inconsistent with the conscientious self-respect which ought to distinguish the judicial character ? If so, it well becomes us to set our house in order ; for how can a country long prosper if FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 253 that assembly on which all its dearest interests depends — ^if the assembly which can, by a single vote, give a new direction to the whole policy of the country, colonial, commercial, and financial — can be entered only by means that lower the character? In what manner did Sir William Scott lower his character by entering the House of Commons as a member for the Univer- sity of Oxford ? In what manner did Sir J. Copley lower his character by entering the House as the representative of Cam- bridge University ? But it is not necessary to speak of uni- versities. It would be most unjust and ungrateful in many members of this House not to say that a dehcacy and liberality of sentiment that would do honour to any university might be found in the £10 householders of some great cities. Need you go further into that subject than to look to your own chair ? It was of as much importance for you, sir, to maintain the dignity and gravity of your character at the last election as it could be for the Master of the Rolls. It would have been impossible for you on that occasion to permit the smallest indecorum without grievous injury to your public character and utihty. If the great county which does you the honour to elect you, the Speaker of this House, for its representative, enables you to look back at your election without the smallest shame, what reason is there to doubt that some of our great consti- tuencies would not be as just to any eminent judge as to you? And I have not the smallest doubt that he might take his seat in this House without doing anything inconsistent with the nicest punctilio of decorum due to his station. It is truly said that the law is in a very inconsistent state. My advice is, as we have entered upon a bad course, let us stop in it and retrace it. The time is not far distant when we must pause to reconsider the constitution of this House. I think on that occasion it will be the duty of the Government most caxefully to reconsider who are excluded and who are admitted to this House. The law is in a very singular and most unsatis- factory state. As the law now stands, no person can sit iu this House whose office was created since a particular day — I think since the 25th of October, 1705. The effect is highly incon- 254 THE EXCLUSION OP JUDGES venient. For example^ there can be only two Secretaries of State in this House, and only two Under-Secretaries of State. If there were two Secretaries of State in this House, and if a vacancy should take place in the ofSce of Foreign Secretary, then, although a member of this House of Parhament might be the best man to fiU. the office, he could not have it. You must give him the Admiralty, and give the ofSce of Secre- tary of Foreign Affairs to some member of the House of Peers, who would, perhaps, be better suited to the Admiralty. Again, the Postmaster-G-eneral cannot sit in this House. He is generally a member of the Cabinet, and, with the single exception of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is no public functionary whom it would be so convenient to have in the House of Commons. Yet he is excluded. I hope and trust that when the constitution of this House is recon- sidered these things wiU be taken into consideration. But, speaking of the judges, my principle is very simple. I would admit into this House any judge whom the people would send here, unless there was some plain reason why he should not come here. There is a plain reason why the fifteen judges of the common-law courts should not have seats in this House. They sit, and have places in the House of Lords ; and although they do not vote, yet, if you continue the House of Lords as a supreme Court of Error, their assistance is absolutely necessary in a Court of Error. That assistance is furnished by the fifteen judges to the House of Lords, and there we will leave them ; for it would be inconsistent alike with our convenience and our dignity to have any members here who are at the beck and call of the other House. The same principle applies to the Scotch and Lish judges, for the obvious reason that they also cannot discharge their duties in those countries and be members of this House. I would certauily leave the door of this House open to the Master of the RoUs, and I would open it to the judge of the Admiralty Court, who has been most absurdly excluded. I would also suffer those eminent judges who have been kept out of this House, not by any pecuhar Act applicable to them, but by the operation of the Act of Queen Anne — the Lords Justices and FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 255 tte Vice-ChanceUors — to sit in this House, if they can find con- stituencies disposed to place them here. In that way I am perfectly certain that we should add to the credit of this great representative assembly, with the credit of which that of every representative assembly in the world is bound up, and we should at the same time render ourselves more efficient for the discharge of our duties. But whether the more extended change which I recommend shall be adopted or not, I can see no reason what- ever for entertaining the Bill of the noble lord. I ask the Con- servatives on that side of the House whether they are prepared to make a change in a law which has lasted for twenty generations, and from which they cannot themselves say that the smallest inconvenience has arisen. I address myself to the Liberal members also of the House. I would ask them whether they think it right to lower the character and diminish the efficiency of that branch of the Legislature which springs from the people. And, sir, uniting in myself the character of Liberal and Con- servative, I do in both characters give my vote most cordially for the amendment of my hon. friend. 256 THE GOVERNMENT OP INDIA. June 24, 1853. On the Second Reading of tlie Indian Bill* I SHALL vote for the second reading of the bill ; and, even if I had not determined to take that course, I should not vote for the amendment proposed by the noble lord (Lord Stanley) .f That amendment appears to me to be not much mended by the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Hume). He certainly cannot tell us that he has not all the information he can desire, or that he has not sufficiently made up his mind on the subject. He has made up his mind not only that the present bill is a bad one, but also that it is desirable to adopt, * The changes in the Government of India which the bill proposed to eifect were as follow : — The Court of Directors were to be reduced from thirty to eighteen members, six of whom were to be nominated by the Crown. The salaries of the Dii'ectors were to be increased, and the amount of their patronage limited. No person was to be admitted by favour or nomination to the civil service of India. A similar course was to be pui'sued with regard to the scientific branch of the Indian army, and with regard to the appointment of assistant-surgeons. The whole was to be thrown open to unlimited competition. The Governor-General was to be relieved of the administration of the province of Bengal, and a lieutenant-governor of the province appointed, A Legislative Council was to be constituted, one member of which was to be selected by the governors of the various presidencies and the heutenant-governors of the provinces. The Governor- General of India was to select two members from the civil service. The Chief Justice of the Queen's Court, and one other judge of the same Court, were to form two other members. Three further members were to be persons of legal education from England. The remaining fom' members were to be selected from the various presiden- cies. The Governor-General was to have a veto on their acts. An improved system of education and examination at Haileybmy College was to be adopted with regard to all candidates for Indian service ; and great improvements were also to be effected in the Superior Com't of India and the Court of Amalgamated Judges, with a view to the better administration of justice. f The amendment moved by Lord Stanley was to the following effect : — " That in the opinion of this House further information is necessary to enable Parliament to legislate with advantage for the permanent government of India ; and that, at this late period of the Session, it is inexpedient to proceed with a measure which, while it disturbs existing arrangements, cannot be considered as a final settlement." THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 357 even in its most minute details, a plan of government whicli he himself recommends. The hon. member sketched out the com- plete plan of a Government, fixing the relations between the Board of Control and the Court of Directors, and disposing of the patronage of India in a manner certainly very different from that proposed by the Bill. After having given this complete sketch of an entirely new plan of a Government for India, that the hon. member should call upon us to pass a resolution declaring that the information is not at present accessible which alone can enable us to legislate for India does seem to me somewhat para- doxical. Nor can I agree with the noble lord opposite (Lord Stanley) in condemning the Bill on the ground that it changes the existing system, and yet is not final. The noble lord has condemned the Bill for being what any Bill proposed for the government of India, either this year or next year, or three years hence, or ten years hence, must necessarily be. Such a BUI ought to make alterations, and yet it ought not to be final. The Bill which we pass, be it what it may, ought to be a large yet cautious step in the path of progress. That which we have a right to ask from the Government is not a Bill which should leave everything that exists unchanged ; it is not a Bill which should make such reforms that no other Reform Bill would ever hereafter be necessary — it is a BUI that shaU introduce improve- ments and leave us free agents to effect future improvements ; and such a BUI has been proposed by the right hon. baronet the President of the Board of Control (Sir C. Wood). One reason which, perhaps, leads me to look on this Bill more favourably than some gentlemen for whose ability I have great respect, may be this : that the parts of the Bill which to them seem the most important are precisely those which, to me, seem least important. We have heard very much, we have read very much, about the changes which it is proposed to make in the Home Government. That the Home Government ought to be constituted with care, that it should be as well constituted as possible, is perfectly true ; but I do not conceive that the points in dispute touching the constitution of the Home Government are by any means the most important points we have to decide. VOL. II. s 358 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. The truth is^ that vicinity, as we well know, acts on the mind as it does on the eye. A small object near will hide a large object at a distance. India is a great way off, but we all know the India-house ; and India-house politics may liide from some, and cause more to see imperfectly, Indian politics. We all know something about India-house politics. A man must have led a very secluded life indeed who has not come across a canvass for a seat in the Direction. I think that many men would find it very difficult to state whether the people of the Mysore or of the Nizam^s territory are Mahomedans or Hindoos, or to explain the difference between the Ryotwary and Zemindary settlements, who, nevertheless, would take exceeding iaterest in the question who will be the person next elected director. If not stockholders ourselves, at all events we may be asked to speak to another gentle- man to ask him to speak to a lady to ask her to speak to a proprietor to secure the promise of his vote, if not for this or the next time, at least for the time after. When a director is elected — -he having solicited us for our " vote and interest " during his can- vass — we begin to solicit him for writerships. Some of us he obliges and some he disobliges ; but it is on account of these circumstances that we all know somethiug of the Home Govern- ment. We all watch its operation ; and therefore the proposed change excites a strong feeling, and has given rise to a contro- versy which really seems to me to be altogether disproportionate to the magnitude of the subject. Por what, after all — ^when we come to examine it — is the vague idea entertained about the Home Government ? Much has been said against a double Government; and yet, when we come to examine any plan which may be proposed by any gentleman, we always find that it always does propose a plan which deserves the name of double Government exactly as much as that contained in this BiU. No human beiag proposes that the Crown should have nothing to do with the Government of India. No human being proposes that dominions containing a population more than half as large as that of Europe, and where a greater military force is kept up than in all the rest of the Queen's territories, should be placed under an authority THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 359 distinct from that whicli governs the rest of the British empire. Bnt if you have the Indian Government under the control of the Crown^ the Minister for India must go out of office with the other Ministers of the CroAvn ; that is to say, he must come in and go out on grounds which have nothing whatever to do with the merits or demerits of Indian administration. In fact, siuce the Board of Control began to exist in 1784, I believe no single instance can be foimd of a President of the Board of Control taking or leaving office on account of any difference of opinion on Indian affairs. One may have gone out on the question of Cathohc emancipation, and another because he would not agree to a BOl of Pains and Penalties against Queen Caroline ; but the last President but one of the Board of Control went out because his colleagues were in a minority on a Militia Bill, and the last because the Cabinet was in a minority on their budget. During the last quarter of a century there have been ten changes in the Board of Control — that is to say, the average time during which the Indian Minister has held office is about two years and a half. When we consider the nature of India — the vast extent and number of the various subjects which demand attention, and the smaU amount of attention which those subjects generally receive from the English public, whose peculiar duty it is not to study them, you must be forced to admit that the Minister for India often wants the experience it is desirable he should possess ; and then it seems to me necessarily to follow that you must give him some more permanent body, which shall, to a certain degree, operate as a check. If this be admitted — and no person, I think, wiU deny it — then I say that you have double Government. It seems to me idle to say it is a double Government if the Crown appoints the Minister and the pro- prietors elect the Council, but that it is not double Government if the Crown should appoint both Minister and Council. Surely it is just as much double Government as if the Minister holds office by one tenure and the CouncU by another. You will have the same inconvenience whether the Council be appointed by the Crown or by the Court of Directors. It is utterly impossible to attach to any Minister a council or body of men whose business 360 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. it is to look on, to restrain, and advise him — it is utterly impossible to give any Minister such a council, without at the same time reheving him to a certain extent from his responsibility, and without in some degree causing delay in the transactions of the department. It seems to me, however, that under the plan of the Government there will be found rather a better council to assist the Minister than we have had before. I think it a great advantage that it is a smaller councU ; and that, I thinli, will, on the whole, cause its proceedings to be marked with more vigour and ability. I accept it as an improvement ; but still I do not conceive that the improved constitution of this Council is to settle the govern- ment of India. I hear one hon. gentleman say that the Board of Control really governs India ; while another says that that is not so, but that the Board of Directors are the governors of that empire. Now, I conceive it to be very incorrect to say that either the Board of Control or the Board of Directors really exercise the chief authority in this respect. India is, and must be, governed in India. That is a fundamental law which we did not make, which we cannot alter, and to which we should do our best to conform our legislation. While such an extent of ocean and of continent lies between Calcutta and London, India must be governed there, and not here. Ay, in spite of all the im- provements which science has made, a despatch from India is not read in London until six weeks after it was sent from Calcutta. Suppose it is answered on the very day when it reaches here, sis weeks more must elapse before the answer arrives at Calcutta. But no such despatch is answered on the same day as that of its arrival — very rarely, indeed, in the same month. The double G-overnment, whatever be its meiits or demerits, is unquestionably not an expeditious Government. When a despatch is received, it must be considered, and both branches of the governing body at home must have opportunities of offering suggestions as to the answer to be sent out ; and when you reflect on aU this, when you take into consideration the delay which is the efiiect of your machinery and the effect of distance, you will see that when a despatch reaches Calcutta it is THE GOVEKNMENT OF INDIA. 261 a despatch not calculated to meet the state of things existing on its arrival, but such as existed six months before. No empire can be governed by a despatch shaped to meet a condition of circumstances which existed six months before. All our own experience proves that this is impossible. We all remember when, upon a July, a royal speech congratulated Parliament on the increasing prosperity of the country ; and yet mthin twenty- four hours of our parting before Christmas we had a famine. We all, too, recollect when, in autumn, all Europe seemed in a state of profound peace ; and yet, in the next year, from the Vistula to the Bay of Biscay there was nothing but war and insurrection. Of what use, in such a conjuncture, would be the ablest and clearest instructions on foreign pohcy drawn out six months previously ? It is therefore impossible that India can be really governed except in India. The instructions sent out there are generally expositions of principles, the business of the home authorities being rather to suggest what is best than to give positive direc- tions as to the future ; and when the instructions are most positive, there is almost always a proviso that, after all, the local authorities must, on a view of the circumstances existing when ■ the instructions arrive, exercise their own discretion as to what is to be done. The whole history of the Indian Government is full of instances to this effect ; but from my own experience I think I can illustrate this proposition in the clearest manner, for when I had a part in the government of India, I can venture to say that every day important measures were taken by the Government ; indeed, every measure of which history will here- after make mention was taken without any authority whatever from the Home Government. I believe that almost every one of those measures or acts were regarded with disapprobation at home ; yet not one of them was rescinded or annulled, but every one of them was suffered to stand, the language of the home authorities generally being such as this : " You have done wrong, but what you have done is done." That was most eminently the case with respect to that great reform made in 1835 by Lord W. Bentinck before liis departure from India on 262 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. the subject of native education. Such was the case with respect to the abohtion of the transit-duties. On that occasion, a severe reprimand came out with respect to the distinguished functionary who bore the chief part in that transaction. Nevertheless, the transit-duties were abolished, and that great boon was conferred on the people of India. The same was the case with respect to the act which established the liberty of unlicensed printing. A severe reprimand came out to India on account of the rashness imputed to the legislative authorities there; but, nevertheless, they were not directed to annul the act. The same, too, was the case with respect to the act in regard to the uniformity of coinage. Here, again, a reprimand came out, but still the act was allowed to remain. These fom- instances, aU taken from a period of less than a year and a quarter, are sufficient to give a general idea that the organisation of the Government in India is reaUy of more importance to the happiness of the people of that country than the organisation of the Home Government. Without meaning to speak with the least disrespect of the functions exercised by the Home Government, I am not sure whether the most important of aU their functions is not the choice of the Governor- General ; and I should be inchned to say that even upon the character of the Governor- General much less depends than on the general character and spirit of those servants by whom the administration of India is carried out. A test, then, by which I am inclined to judge of the present Bill is the probable effect it would have on the character of the civil service in India. Is it likely to raise or to lower the character of that distinguished body which furnishes India with its judges and collectors ? for, without meaning the slightest disrespect to the Court of Directors, I must say that three or four or six incompetent directors woid.d cause far less evil to the people of India than a single incompetent collector in a district where a settlement is to be made between the Government and the villagers. Though manj' hon. gentlemen fancy they know what the functions of a collector of revenue are, yet there exists, and I am surprised at it, a strange ignorance as to the power and im- THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 263 portance of fimctionaries of that class in India. Some gentlemen seem to imagine, putting the Indian collector at the very highest, he is somethiag like a commissioner of taxes or stamps iq. this country; while the truth is that the collector of revenue in many parts of India is the sole consul of a great province, the district assigned to him beiag about the size of one of the four provinces of Ireland, of Leinster or of Munster, and the population therein probably about 1,000,000 of human beings. In all that district there is not a single village, there is not a single hut, in which the difference between a good and a bad collector may not make a difference between happiness and misery. The difference between a good and bad collector to the people in such a district is infinitely greater than the difference between the very best and the very worst Government that we have ever seen, or are likely ever to see in England, can be to the people here. I hare been assured by those who have had the best opportunities of judging that you might read the character of the collector in the eyes and in the garb of the population, in the appearance of the fields and of the houses. Where there was an incapable collector the peasantry there were broken-hearted. In the first place, the ornaments of the women, on which the peasantry of India place so much value, are sold ; then the pressure overcame their fondness for the village to which they belonged, and emigration by hundreds and thousands took place. The villages became desolate, the jungle encroached on the country before cultivated, and wild beasts made dens where human habitations stood before. But let a good collector replace the bad one, and the whole scene is altered. Cultivation re-appears, the jungle recedes, the tigers and beasts of prey return to their former haunts, and the fugitive population come back to their villages. Such a power as that which collectors in India have over the people is in no part of the world possessed by any other class of functionaries; and I can conceive that, if we made the best arrangement with respect to the Home Government, we should be rendering far smaller service to those millions whose interest, in the first place, we have to consider, than if we raised the capacity for the civil service. Some gentlemen for whose ability I have 264 THE GOVEENMENT 01' INDIA. great respect, though I cannot agree with them, think the best mode of improving the Grovernment of India is by giving the pubUc appointments to the Governor- General, and letting him choose his instruments for the Administration. There will be no want of ability, they say, if you only give him the freedom to choose those who serve under him. There is something plausible in the proposition that you should allow him to choose able men wherever he finds them. But my firm opinion is, that the day on which the civil sendee of India ceases to be a close service will be the beginning of an age of jobbing the most monstrous, the most extensive, and the most perilous that ever existed. Every Governor-General would, in such case, carry out with him, or would soon be followed by, a crowd of relatives, nephews, first and second cousins, friends, and political hangers-on ; while every steamer arriving from the Red Sea would carry to India adven- turers bearing with them letters from some powerful man in England, all praying for employment. Then upon these persons so recommended the Governor- General would have it in his power to distribute residences, seats in the Council Board, and places of from £4000 to £6000 a-year — upon men without the least acquaintance with the character or habits of the natives, and with only suflBcient knowledge of the language to be able to caU for a bottle of pale ale, or to desire their attendants to pull the punkah harder. These men would be sent to exercise au- thority in different districts. One might be sent to a great station as ruler ; and Mysore, not inferior to Scotland in extent and population, might be made subject to his absolute power. In what way could you put a check on such proceedings? Would you — the House of Commons — control them ? Have you been so completely successful in extirpating nepotism and jobbing at your own door, and in excluding all abuses from Whitehall and Somerset House, that you should fancy that you could establish purity in countries the situation of which you do not know, and the names of which you cannot pronounce ? I beheve most firmly that, instead of purity resulting fr'om that arrangement to India, India would soon be tainted by it; and that, before long, when a son or brother of some active member THE GOVEllNMENT OF INDIA. 265 of this House went out to Calcutta, carrying with him a strong letter of recommendation from the Prime Minister to the Governor- General, that letter would be really a bill of exchange drawn on the revenues of India for value received from parlia- mentary support. That would be no new traffic, but only an old traffic revived. We are not without a guide and experience on this point. We have only to look back to those lamentable and shameful years which followed the first establishment of our power in Bengal. Then, as may be well known, if you only look to any poet, satirist, or essayist of those times, you may see in what manner the system of appointments operated. Looldng over, only yesterday, for another object, a file of newspapers of 1771, I was struck by a paragraph stating that Mr. So-and-So, who went out with the Governor- General only three years ago, had just landed with £40,000. These were the sort of men who took no offiice, but simply got the Governor- General to pay a species of ransom, laying upon him a sort of tax — what the Mahrattas call choret, and the Scotch blackmail: that is, the sum paid to a thief, in consideration that he went away without doing harm, There was a tradition in Calcutta, where the story was very circumstantially told and generally believed, that a man came out with a strong letter of recommendation from one of the Ministers to Lord Clive ; and when Lord Chve saw that he was not only unfit for, but would positively do harm in any office, his lordship said, in a way peculiar to him, " Well, chap, how much do you want 1" Not being accustomed to be spoken to so plainly, the man replied that he only hoped for some situation in which his services might be useful. " That is no answer, chap," said Lord Clive. " How much do you want ? Will Jl 0,000 do?" The person replied that he should be de- lighted if, by laborious service, he could obtain that competence. Lord Clive then wrote out an order for the sum, and told the apphcant to leave India by the ship he came in, and, once in England again, to remain there. I think the story is very probable, and I also think that the people of India ought to be grateful for the course Lord Clive pursued; for though he 366 THE GOVEENMENT OE INDIA. pillaged the people of Bengal to give this man a large sum, yet the man himself, if he had received an appointment, would not only have pillaged, but misgoverned the people. Against abuses of this kind, the only security is that the civil service be kept close ; and the consequence of keeping the service close is, that though the Governor-General has a wide choice, he must choose from among a certain set of instruments which he finds prepared. It is in the highest degree improbable that any- one, upon going out as Governor-General to India, should find any relatives or friends in the civil service ; and the consequence is, that the most unscrupulous Governor- General would dispose of his patronage under the present system more properly than an upright Governor-General under a system by which he should be at liberty to appoint anyone. Even an unscrupulous Governor- General, when he finds he cannot oblige relations and friends, comes to the conclusion that the best thing to do is to appoint men who would do the most credit to his choice, and make the public service go on most easily and successfully. That valuable man Lord W. Bentinck, in the month he left India, said, in my hearing, " I have now been here seven years, and during that time I have had to dispose of immense lucrative patronage, and I have never but once in all that time been able to do a single service to a single English friend." There was the office of a police-magistrate vacant at Calcutta, not strictly belonging to the civil service, and Lord W. Bentinck gave it to this fi'iend of his who had fallen into distress. That was the single instance where Lord W. Bentinck had an opportunity of appointing a fi'iend by going out of the service. What a security such a system is for the proper disposal of the patronage ! — infinitely a better secmity than even the virtues of such a man ; for if any man is to be trusted with the uncontrolled disposal of the Indian patronage. Lord W. Bentinck certainly was. Then it appears we are agreed that it is of the highest im- portance that the civil service in India should be most capable and efilcient. We are agreed, also, that it must be a close service. In this case, it certainly necessarily follows that we ought to watch with the utmost care over the road to admission THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 367 to that service — that we ought, if possible, to take such measures that this service may consist entirely of fit and of superior men. Now, it is because, in my opinion, this Bill does tend to produce that effect that I feel earnestly desirous that it should pass, and pass without delay. My right hon. friend (Sir C. Wood) pro- poses that all places in the civil service, aU admissions to the civil service, shaJl be distributed among young men by compe- tition in those studies (as I understand the plan) which constitute a hberal British education. That plan was originally suggested by Lord G-renviUe iu a speech which, though I do not concur in any part of it, I would earnestly recommend every gentleman to read ; for I believe that, since the death of Burke, nothing more remarkable has been dehvered. Nothing, however, on this point was then done, and the matter slept till 1833, when my friend Lord Glenelg, the purest and most disinterested of men, pro- posed the adoption of a plan not altogether framed according to his views, but stiU a plan which would have introduced this principle of competition. Upon that plan twenty years ago I remember speaking here.''^ I ought not to say here, for the then House of Commons was burnt down, and of the audience I then addressed the greater part has passed away. But my opinion on that subject has always been the same. The BiU was passed ; but difficulties arose with respect to the enactments I have just referred to, and they were repealed, and the patronage continued to run in the old course. It is now proposed to introduce this principle of competition again, and I do most earnestly intreat this House to give it a fair trial. I was truly glad to hear the noble lord who proposed the present amendment express approval of the general principle of that part of the BiU. I was glad, but not surprised at it; for it is what I should expect from a young man of his spirit and abilLty, and recent experience of academical competition. But I must say I do join with the hon. member for Kidderminster (Mr. Lowe) in feeling some surprise at the manner in which that part of the plan has been spoken of by a nobleman of great eminence (the Earl of Ellenborough), once President of the Board * The speech referred to will be found in toI. i., page 162. 268 THE GOVBllNMENT OF INDIA. of Control and Governor-General of India, and of very dis- tinguished ability as a statesman. If I understand the opinions imputed to that noble lord, he thinks the proficiency of a young man in those pursuits which constitute a liberal education is not only no indication that he is likely in after-life to make a dis- tinguished figure, but that it positively raises a presumption that in after-life he will be overcome in those contests which then take place. I understand that the noble lord is of opinion that young men, gaining distinction in such pursuits, are likely to turn out duUards and utterly unfit for the contests of active life ; and I am not sure that the noble lord did not say that it would be better to make boxing or cricket a test of fitness than a liberal education. I must say it seems to me that there never was a fact better proved by an immense mass of evidence, by an ex- perience almost unvaried, than this : that men who distinguish themselves in their youth above their contemporaries in academic competition almost always keep to the end of their lives the start they have gained in the earher part of their career. This experience is so vast that I should as soon expect to hear anyone question it as to hear it denied that arsenic is poison, or that brandy is intoxicating. Take the very simplest test. Take down in any library the Cambridge Calendar. There you have the hst of honours for a hundred years. Look at the list of wranglers and of junior optimes ; and I will ventm-e to say that for one man who has in after-life distinguished himself among the junior optimes you wiU find twenty among the wranglers. Take the Oxford Calendar; look at the hst of first-class men, and compare them with an equal number of men in the third class, and say in which list you find the majority of men who have distiaguished themselves in after-life. But is not our history full of instances which prove this fact ? Look at the Church, the Parliament, or the bar. Look to the Parliament from the time when Parliamentary Government began in this country — from the days of Montagu and St. John to those of Canning and Peel. You need not stop there, but come down to the time of Lord Derby and my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone). Has it not THE GOVERNMENT OP INDIA. 269 always been the case that the men who were first in the competi- tion of the schools have been the first in the competition of life ? Look also to India. The ablest man who ever governed India was Warren Hastings ; and was he not in the first rank at Westminster? The ablest civil servant I ever knew in India was Sir Charles Metcalfe ; and was he not a man of the first standing at Eton ? The most distinguished member of the aristocracy who ever governed India was Lord Wellesley. What was his Eton reputation ? what was his Oxford reputation ? But I must mention — I cannot refrain from mentioning — another noble and distinguished Governor-General. A few days ago, while the memory of the speech to which I have alluded was stUl fresh in my mind, I read in the Musce Cantabrigienses a very eloquent and classical ode, which the University of Cambridge rewarded with a gold medal. The subject was the departure of the House of Braganza from Portugal for Brazil. The young poet, who was then only seventeen, described in very Horatian language and versifica- tion the departure of the fleet, and pictured the great Por- tuguese navigator, Vasco de Gama, and the great Portuguese poet, Camoens, hovering over the armament which was to convey the fortunes of the Portuguese monarchy to a new hemisphere ; and with pleasure, not altogether unmingled with pain, I read at the bottom of that composition the name of the Hon. Edward Law, of St. John^s College. I must say I saw with some considerable pleasure that the name of Lord EUen- borough may be added to the long list of those distinguished men who, in early youth, have, by eminent academical success, given an augury of the distinguished part which they were afterwards to play ; and I could not but feel some concern and some surprise that a nobleman so honourably distinguished in his youth by attention to those studies should, in his maturer years, have descended to use language respecting them which I think woidd have better become the Hps of Ensign Northerton, or the captain in Swift's poem, who says — A scholard, when just from his college broke loose, Can hai'dly tell how to cry bo to a goose ; 270 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. Your Noveds and Blaturehs, and Omurs and stuff, By George ! they don't signify this pinch of snuff; To give a young gentleman right education, The army's the only good school in the nation. The noble lord seemed^ from his speech, to entertain that opinion. My schoolmaster called me a dunce and a fool, But at cuffs I was always the cock of the school. I never could take to my book for the blood o' me. But if a recollection of his own early academical triumphs did not restrain the noble Earl from using this language, I should have thought that his fihal piety would have had that effect. I should have thought that he would have remembered how eminently splendid was the academical career of that great and strong-minded magistrate, the late Lord Ellenborough ; and, as I have mentioned him, I will say that, if there be ia this world a trying test of the fitness of men for the competition of active life, and of the strength and acuteness of their practical faculties, it is to be found in the contests of the EngHsh bar. Look at Lord Mansfield, Lord Eldon, Lord Stowell, Sir Vicary Gibbs, Lord Tenterden, and Lord Lyndhurst. Take either the common law or the equity bar. The present Lord Chief Baron was senior wrangler ; Mr. Baron Alderson was senior wrangler; Mr. Justice Maule was senior wrangler ; Mr. Baron Parke was eminently distinguished at the university for his mathematical and classical attainments ; Mr. Baron Piatt was a wrangler ; and Mr. Justice Coleridge was one of the most eminent men of his time at Oxford. Then take the equity bar. The Lord Chancellor was a wrangler; Lord Justice Sir George Turner was high in the list of wranglers ; all the three Vice- Chancellors were wranglers ; Sir Lancelot Shadwell was a wrangler, and a very distiaguished scholar ; while my friend Sir James Parker was a high wrangler, and a distinguished mathematician. Can we suppose that it was by mere accident they obtained their high positions ? Is it possible not to believe that these men maintaiaed through life the start which they gained in youth ? And is it an answer to these instances to say that you can point — as it is desirable you should be able to point — to THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 271 two or three men of great powers who, having neglected the struggle when they were young, have afterwards exerted them- selves to retrieve lost time, and have sometimes overtaken and surpassed those who had got far in advance of them? Of course there are such exceptions : most desirable it is that there should be, and that they should be noted, in order to encourage men who, after having thrown away their youth from levity or love of pleasure, may be incHned to throw their manhood after it in despair; but the general rule is, beyond all doubt, that which I have laid down. It is this : that those men who dis- tinguish themselves most in academical competition when they are young, are the men who in after-life distinguish themselves most in the competition of the world. Now, if this be so, I cannot conceive that we should be justi- fied in refusing to India the advantage of such a test. I know there are gentlemen who say, for it has been said, " After all, this test extends only to a man's intellectual qualifications, and his character is quite as important as his intellectual qualifica- tions." I most readily admit that his character is as important as his intellectual quaUfications ; but, unfortunately, you have not quite so certain a test of a man's character as of his intel- lectual qualifications. Surely, if there are two quaUfications you want a man to possess, and which it is very important he should possess ; and if you have a test by which you can ascer- tain the presence of the one qualification, but no decisive test by which you can ascertain the presence of the other, your best course is to use the test you have, and to leave as little as you possibly can to chance. This argument would seem unanswer- able unless some person should say that the circumstance of a man's superiority in academical competition raised a presump- tion that he was inferior in practical judgment and manly rectitude; but if that can be shown, then the consequence would go a great deal further than the rejection of my right hon. friend's proposal. It would go to this : that we must re- consider the whole system of English education, and remove oui- boys from those places where they are trained to studies which have a deleterious effect upon the character. 273 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. There is another point on which I am desirous to say a few words. Some very able and judicious men^ who are strongly of opinion, as strongly as I am myself, that it is important that there should be high intellectual tests for admission to the Indian service, are yet of opinion that this would be best managed, not by means of competition, but by having examina- tions of a high standard, and rejecting every candidate who does not come up to that standard. Now, all my experience and observation lead me to believe that this is a complete mistake. The effect of competition is to keep up the standard. Every man struggles to do his best ; and the consequence is that, without any effort on the part of the examiner, under a system of competition the standard keeps itself up. But the moment you say to the examiner, not " Shall A or B go to India?" but " Here is A ; is he fit to go to India T' the question becomes altogether a different one. The examiner^'s compassion, his good-nature, his unwillingness to blast the prospects of a young man, lead him to strain a point in order to let the candidate in if he possibly can. That would be the case even if we suppose the dispensers of patronage to be left merely to the operation of their own minds ; but you would have them subjected to solici- tations of a sort which it would be impossible to resist. I speak of what I know, and of what I have seen. I have known cases where public servants have been under the painful neces- sity of pronouncing young men, on examination, to be unfit for the public service. What is the consequence ? The candidate declares that he wiU exert himself to the utmost, and that, if he be but tried, no endeavour shall be wanting on his part to dis- charge his duties satisfactorily. The father comes with tears in his eyes ; the mother writes the most pathetic and heart-breaking letters. I have repeatedly seen very firm minds shaken by appeals of that sort. Now, the system of competition allows nothing of the kind; but it necessarily keeps your standard high, while the other system constantly tends to bring it lower and lower. I hope most earnestly it will not be supposed that in anything I have said I intend in the smallest degree to reflect on the present THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. 273 civil service of India. Some of the dearest and most valued friends I have in the world belong to that service, and for the general spirit and character of that service I feel the greatest respect and affection. I think it wonderful that a body of men not picked or chosen^ but taken merely at random, appointed because one is the son of a director, because another is the nephew of a director, because another is related to some person who has been, perhaps, of great service to a President of the Board of Control at a contested election — I think it wonderful that men selected purely and avowedly on grounds of a personal nature should have conducted themselves as they have done, and have discharged duties of great difficulty with so much success. It is, I think, a thing glorious to our country that 800 men taken in that way, at random, from among the gentlemen of England, should have conducted themselves in general with such distinguished ability and probity. That, however, is no reason for not making the service better, if we can do so ; and it is impossible to deny that we have proofs that the service is not entirely free from defects. How, indeed, could it be otherwise ? You must necessarily haA'e a certain number of inferior men in a service formed in such a manner ; in a service consisting of 800 men, not selected on the ground of ability. Among any 800 gentlemen whom you might select at random there would be a certain number of men of very superior powers ; the great majority might be not very much above, nor very much below, the average of ability ; but there must necessarily be, in every body of 800 men, not selected by some test of ability, a considerable number — say a tenth, or, if you please, a twentieth — who faU decidedly below the average of abihty. Now, you can do very well with this. You don't want all the clerks in the War-office or the Treasury to be superior men. There is plenty of routine business to be done in those offices which a man of no great ability can transact. The men of small ability do that routine business ; the men of great ability rise in position. But the case is different ia the Indian service. You have there 800 men charged with the happiness of 130,000,000 of people. There is not a single one of those VOL. II. T 274 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. men upon whose capacity the happiness of a very large numljpr of human beings may not^ in any situation, depend. It is utterly impossible that one-tenth part, or one-twentieth part of that service can consist of incapable men without causing great suffering to thousands of individuals ; and here, I believe, we find the real explanation of that which has appeared to me, from all I have been able to learn, the most defective point of our system in India. I quite agi'ee with the noble lord who moved the amendment OS to the evils of the judicial system in India. All the evidence leads me to that conclusion ; but permit me to say that this is no novelty. Those evils were distinctly predicted before the Bill of 1833 passed. I heard them predicted myself. It was said by a very able man, " Your opening the China trade will, in one sense, inflict great evils upon the people of India, unless you alter the mode in which the patronage is dispensed. While patronage is exercised as it is exercised, there will always be a certain number of incapable men in the service. At present, they are sent into the trade; your able men are left for judicial, revenue, and political positions. If you abolish the trade, you will still have the same proportion of incapacity in the service ; but there will no longer be commercial affairs to which you can appoint these men of small ability, and you will send them to the judicial department." The prophecy has been strictly realised, for to the judicial department they have gone. The evidence before us leaves no doubt that, though there are very eminently able and useful men — as able and useful as any which the service comprises — in the judicial department, yet that in general it is to that department that men deficient in ability and energy are sent ; and I do not blame those who have taken this course, for, shocking as it sounds in the ear of an Englishman to say that the collection of taxes is more important than the administration of justice, yet, practically, I do believe that the happiness of the people of a district in India depends more upon the ability of the revenue-collector than even upon the ability of the judge. Now, what is the remedy for this ? Not, I think, as some THE GOVERNMENT OP INDIA. 275 would propose, to strengthen the judicial department at the expense of the revenue department — not, in my opinion, to pom- out upon India, as has been suggested, some scores of barristers from the back rows of the Court of Queen's Bench, and to give them of&ce as Indian judges. Tlie true remedy is to raise the general character of the service, and to take such measures that it may be in the highest degree improbable that any men who are really incapable, any men who are below par, will find their way into that service at all. I believe that the plan proposed by her Majesty's Government will accomplish this end ; and it is on that ground chiefly that I give it my most sincere and cordial support. One word more. It seems to me that this plan provides the best means that can be imagined for effecting an object upon wliich much has been said, and which I admit to be desirable — the gradual admission of natives to a share in the higher offices of the Government. Legally, they are now admissible ; practi- cally, none have been admitted. I do not blame those who do not admit them ; for it is my belief that there is not in India a young , native whom it would be a kindness to the native popu- lation to place, at the present moment, in your civil service, I can conceive nothing more unfortunate for the people of India than that you should put into the civil service a native, because he is a native, if he is to be the last man in that service — a man decidedly inferior in attainments to all the other members of that service, and who would be looked down upon by his European colleagues. Above all, I cannot conceive anything more per- nicious than the suggestion which has been made, that, before you admit any native to the service at all, before any native has been even an assistant-collector or a judge, you should take some native and appoint him a member of Council. That, of all propo- sitions, would seem to me least likely to promote the real benefit of the people of India. Under the proposed system, it would depend on the natives themselves, and upon them alone, at what time they should enter into the civil service. As soon as any young native of distinguished parts should, by the cultivation of English literature have enabled himself to be victorious in com- 276 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. petition over European candidates, he would, in the most honour- able manner, by conquest, as a matter of right, and not as a mere eleemosynary donation, obtain access to the service. It would then be utterly impossible for his European fellows to look down upon him ; he would enter the service in the best and most honourable way; and I beheve that in this mode, and in this mode alone, can the object which so many friends of the native population have in view be attained in a manner at all satis- factory. I differ, I am well aware, as to the effect of the admission of natives to such situations, from a noble lord (the Earl of Ellen- borough) whom I mentioned a short time ago. That noble lord is of opinion, not only that we ought to exclude natives from of&ce, but that even by encouraging them to study the arts and learning of Europe we are preparing the way for the utter de- struction of oar power in India. I must leave it to the noble lord to explain what seems to me a rather singular inconsistency in his opinion. I am at a loss to understand how, while utterly contemning education when it is given to Europeans, he should regard it with dread when it is given to natives. This training, we are told, when given to a European, makes him a bookworm, a twaddler, unfit for active life ; but give the same education to the Hindoo, and he is to acquire such an accession of intellect that an estabhshed government, 150,000 soldiers, and the whole army and navy of England are to go down before its irresistible power. I do not pretend to explain how the knowledge which is power in one race can be absolutely impotent in another ; but I can only say for myself, with regard to this question, that, in my opinion, we shall not secure or prolong our dominion in India by attempting to exclude the natives of that country from a share in its goverimient, or by attempting to discourage then study of western learning ; and I wiU only say, further, that, however that may be, I will never consent to keep them ignorant in order to keep them manageable, or to govern them in igno- rance in order to govern them long. MISCELLANEOUS SPEECHES. 1824—52. VOL. U. MISCELLANEOUS SPEECHES. ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. June 25, 1824. At a Meeting of the Society for the Mitigation and Abolition of Slavery, hdd at Freemasoris Hall. Had I been requested^ sir^ to lend my support to any other resolution than that which has heen proposed by my honourable friendj I could not have offered myself to your notice without great reluctance. I should have felt that the cause in which we are engaged, although it could never have a warmer friend, might easily have found a more able and more experienced advocate. I should have thought it advisable that you should be addressed by some gentleman who had distinguished himself in this or in a former great contest for the rights of human nature, rather than by one whose only claim to your attention is derived from services not his own.* From these feelings I am relieved by the natm-e of the present motion.f It is a motion which, as I conceive, I can second, not only without presumption, but with peculiar propriety. It is a motion which seems especially to * This reference was to services given to the cause by Mr, Miacaulay's father, who was one of the most energetic of the anti-slavery champions. f The resolution, which was moved by the Hon. Baptist H"oel and seconded by Mr. Macaulay, was as follows : — " That, in the opinion of this meeting, the bondage in which eight hundred thousand of their fellow-subjects are held is repugnant to the spirit of Christianity, contrary to the soundest maxims of policy, and a gross violation of the principles of humanity and justice ; and that, animated with the hope of being instrumental in putting a period to this state of oppression and suffering, and wiping out this foul reproach to the British name and character, the meeting now pledge themselves to prosecute the sacred cause they have undertaken with zeal, activity, and perseverance, until, by the blessing of God on their united efforts, they are enabled to rejoice together in the final accomplishment of their great work of mercy." 280 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. belong to those wlio are entering on life — to those whOj although they have not contributed to your past success, are ambitious to participate in your fature labours. It pledges us to continued exertion ; it announces that, even if those in whose guidance we have hitherto confided be destined to leave unfinished the work which they have so gloriously begun, the good cause shall not, therefore, want fresh champions, nor, if it must be so, fresh martyrs. As a friend to humanity, sir, I cannot look without the great- est satisfaction on such a meeting assembled for such an object. We hear, indeed, much of the pernicious tendency of these discussions; we are told that they inflame the passions of the slave and endanger the person and property of the master ; we are adjured to take warning by the insurrections of Barbadoes and Demerara; and these admonitions may have produced an effect on some honourable and benevolent minds. To me it seems somewhat singular that such assertions should proceed from the same persons by whom we have been assured that the system of colonial slavery is the glory of the British name, the envy of the British peasant — that all its evils exist only in theory, that in its practical operations it is the greatest of blessings. No assertions, however bold and pertinacious, can possibly obtain credit when they so directly contradict each other. Never was any Government at once so benignant and so insecure; never were any subjects at once so happy and so turbulent. Abuses merely speculative never yet roused to revolt the great body of any people. An educated man of enlarged views and enthusiastic temper, a Thrasea or a Sidney, may convince himself that one form of government has a greater tendency than another to promote the happiness of mankind; and by such considerations he may be induced to engage in hazardous enterprises. But the multitude is not thus influenced. When they are excited to a general revolt, it is not by speeches, it is not by pamphlets, it is not by meetings ; but by physical evils, by sensible privations, by the spoliation of the honest fruits of their industry, by the violation of the sacred ties of nature, by unmeasured exaction, by stripes, by insults, by ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 281 the strong necessity of famine. These things sting men to madness. These things turn ploughshares into swords, and pruning-hooks into spears. But when was it ever known that the mere exposure of theoretical evils excited a people to re- heUioUj while they were enjoying comfort and personal security ? We need not look very far for instances : observe the state of our own country ! For many years, hundreds have been em- ployed in telling the people of England that they are debarred from their just rights, that they are degraded, that they are enslaved. Every day this is heard, read, believed by thousands. More appeals are made to their passions in a week than to those of the West India slaves ia a year. Yet who lives in the appre- hension of rebeUion? Who, except in times of temporary distress, expects even a riot ? Who does not know that, while their rights of property, person, and conscience are protected by law, and while they are all well fed and clothed, Cobbett may write away his fingers, and Hunt may talk away his lungs in. vain ? And yet, sir, with this example before us, we are required to believe that men whose situation is infinitely better than that of the English peasant — men whose condition is a realisation of Utopia, a renewal of the golden age, an anticipation of the pro- phetic millennium — cannot safely be permitted to hear a single whisper against the system under which they live. It requires no skUful interpreter to translate these forebodings of danger into confessions of tyranny. What are we to think of a system which, as its advocates teU us, cannot be discussed without ex- citing insurrection ? What, again, are we to think of a system under which insurrections, as its advocates also teU us, cannot be suppressed without massacre ? Look at the punishments inflicted a few years back on the insurgents of Barbadoes, and recently on those in Demerara. Where, in the whole history of modern Europe, shall we find an instance in which the destruction of so large a proportion of the population has been deemed necessary for the safety of the survivors ? The British subjects of the New World have outdone, immeasurably outdone, all the military despots, all the frantic Jacobins of the Old. Their 282 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. tender mercies are more cruel than the vengeance of Dundee ; their little fingers are thicker than the loins of Alva. Robespierre chastised Math whips^ but they chastise with scorpions. But we are told this was not wanton cruelty; it was indispensably necessary for the peace and safety of the colonies ! Grant it ; and what then? Must not every particle of blame which is taken away from the agents be laid on the system ? What must be the state of things which makes that wholesome severity which elsewhere would be diabolical atrocity ? What are we to think of the condition of a people^ when inflictions so tremendous are necessary to make endurance appear to them a less evil than rebellion ? Woe to that society which has no cement but blood ! Woe to that Government whichjin the hour of success, must not dare to be merciful ! I need no other testimony against the colonists than that with which they themselves furnish us, and that which daily and hourly forces itself on our notice. When I see institutions which tremble at every breath — institutions which depend for support on restless suspicion, on raving calumny, on outrageous persecution, on mihtary force, on infamous testimony, on per- verted law — I have no further need of witnesses or of argu- ments to convince me that they must be as flagitious and unjust as are the means by which they are upheld. We hear, indeed, that this system, in theory confessedly odious, is in practice lenient and liberal ; and abundance of local testimony is adduced to this effect. Local testimony is, indeed, invaluable when it can be obtained unadulterated by local interest and local prejudice ; but that it is adulterated I must always believe, when I see that it contradicts great general principles. Is it possible that the power with which the slave-codes invest the master can be exer- cised without being perpetually abused ? If so, then is there no truth in experience ; then is there no consistency in human nature ; then is history a fable, and political science a juggle, and the wisdom of our ancestors madness, and the British Con- stitution a name ! Let us break up the benches of the House of Commons for firewood, and cut Magna Charta into battle- dores ! These assertions, then, of our opponents are not, they ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 283 cannot be, true; and fortunately it is not merely by reasoning on general principles that we are enabled to refute them. Out of the mouths of our adversaries themselves we can fully show that West Indian slavery is an evil, a great and fearful evil — an evil without any affinity to good principles, or any tendency to good effects — an evU so poisonous that it imparts to almost every anti- dote a nature as deadly as its own ! When this country has been endangered either by oppressive power or by popular delusion, truth has still possessed one irresistible organ — ^justice one inviolable tribunal : that organ has been an English press — that tribunal an Enghsh jury. But in those wretched islands we see a press more hostile to truth than any censor, and juries more insensible to justice than any Star Chamber. In those islands alone is exemplified the full meaning of the most tremendous of the curses denounced against the apostate Hebrews, "I will curse your blessings \" I have said that this may be proved from the confession of our antagonists. There are few persons present, I presume, who have not bestowed some attention on the case of the late Mr. Smith.* We remember — ^and God Almighty forbid that ever we should forget ! — ^how on that occasion hatred — deep, cunning, rancorous hatred — regulated every proceeding, was substituted for every law, intruded itself upon the seat of judgment, allowed its victim no sanctuary in the house of mourning, no refuge in the very grave ! It is true that those who had not the hardihood to acquit had not the * A rising of the slaves had taken place in Demerara, and a large number of them had been executed; but this was not deemed a sufficient example, and Mr. Smith, the missionary, was taken into custody on the 21st of August, on the charge of being con- cerned in the conspiracy. All his papers were seized ; and so strict was his confinement that his brother missionary, Mr, Elliott (against whom there was no ground of sus- picion, as not a single negro under his superintendence had taken part in the revolt), was imprisoned for ten days, merely because he had paid him a visit. On the 13th of October, Mr. Smith was brought to trial before a court-martial, which continued, by adjourmnent, to the 24th of H"ovember, and concluded by finding the accused guilty of a capital offence. The men, however, who had the courage to condemn, were afraid to carry their sentence into execution ; and proceedings were suspended till his Majesty's determination on the case could be known. In the meantime, Mr. Smith was subjected to the closest imprisonment, the miseries of which were aggravated by much imnecessary severity. A disease under which he laboured when he was first deprived of his liberty went on increasing, and he died before the news arrived that the King had rescinded the sentence of the court-martial. 284 ABOLITION 01' SLAVERY. virtue to condemn ttem ; but not less true is it that the pubhc has examined the case, has pronounced its damnatory verdict, has passed its sentence, and will assuredly execute it ; and history v/Wl doubtless rank the proceedings of that court with those of the murderous judges of Latimer and Sidney ! Now, sk, what was the argument adduced during the late discussion by the advocates of the colonists? What was the reasoning wliich they opposed to what (if I may venture to add the humble voice of private respect to the blessings of the widow and to the applause of an admiring nation) I would call one of the noblest struggles ever maintained by genius ia the cause of liberty, of justice, and of national honour ? "What was their argument ? They positively asserted, they repeatedly asserted, that, in their opinion, a jury composed of planters would have acted with far more violence and injustice than did this court- martial — this court-martial which not one of themselves would defend — this court-martial which could not find a single lawyer to stake his professional character on the legahty of its proceed- ings. Their argument was this : " Things have doubtless been done which should not have been done. True it is that the court permitted the judge-advocate to act in a way totally inconsistent with his office ; true it is that they admitted hearsay evidence on one side, and rejected it on the other. They tried a man over whom they had no jurisdiction; they convicted him without satisfactory evidence ; they condemned him to punishment not warranted by law. But we must all make allowances ; we must judge by comparison. Mr. Smith had great reason to be thank- ful ; it might have been much worse. Only think what would have been the case if he had had a jury of white planters to try him ! That would sm'ely have been infinitely worse \" Sir, I have always had the happiness of living under the pro- tection of the law of England, and therefore I am utterly unable to imagine what could be worse. But though I have a slender knowledge, I have a large faith. I am by no means so pre- sumptuous as a West Indian judicature ; and since the colonists solemnly assure us that a jury of their own body not only pos- sibly might, but necessarily must, have acted with more violence ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 285 and injustice than this court-martial, I certainly shall not pretend to dispute the assertion, although I am utterly at a loss to con- ceive the mode. Therefore, sir, I am warranted, by the confession of our oppo- nents, in saying that this system ought not to stand ; and, thank Grod ! hy the character of the British people I am warranted in saying that this system cannot stand. England cannot long tolerate it, without renouncing her claim to her highest and most peculiar distinction. She has, indeed, much in which to glory. She may boast of her ancient laws, of her magnificent literature, of her long list of maritime and military triumphs — she may boast of the vast extent and security of her empire ; hut she has still a higher praise. It is her peculiar glory, not that she has ruled so widely, not that she has conquered so splendidly, but that she has ruled only to bless, and conquered only to spare ! Her mightiest empire is that of her morals^ her language, and her laws ; her proudest victories, those she has achieved over ferocity and ignorance ; her most durable trophies, those she has erected in the hearts of civilised and liberated nations. The strong moral feeling of the English people, their hatred of injustice, their disposition to make every sacrifice rather than participate in crime — these have long been their glory, their strength, their safety ! I trust that they wiU long be so. I trust that Englishmen will feel on this occasion, as on so many other occasions they have felt, that the policy which justice and mercy recommend is that which can alone secure the happiness of nations and the stability of thrones. It is surely dehghtful, sir, to look forward to that period when a series of liberal and prudent measures shall have delivered islands, so highly favoured by the bounty of Providence, from the curse inflicted on them by the frantic rapacity of man. Then the peasant of the Antilles wiU no longer crawl, in listless and trembhng dejection, around a plantation from whose fruits he must derive no advantage, and a hut whose door yields him no protection; but, when his cheerful and voluntary labour is completed, he will return with the firm step and erect brow of a British citizen from the field which is his freehold to the 286 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. house which is his castle. Then those regions where civihsation has displayed only its strength will exhibit also the fruits of its wisdom and its mercy — arts^ sciences^ letters, equal laws, benevolent institutions, the temples of a pure religion, the marts of a legitimate commerce, tribunals where justice may be ex- pected, even by a negro or a missionary, senates where liberal sentiments and decorous phraseology will have succeeded to the doctrines and language of buccaneers ! I cannot think these anticipations chimerical when I reflect on the past con- dition of our own country, and on the interesting and pathetic event to which, ia a great measure, it owes its present bless- ings. In an Italian slave-market, a priest observed some chil- dren of exquisite beauty exposed for sale. He asked whence they came; he was told from England. His heart burned withia him ; he pitied the misery and degradation of a distant people. As soon as he was raised to the Papal throne, he instantly took measures for introducing into this island the Christian religion, and aU the moral and political blessings by which that religion has ever been accompanied. We are not exactly informed of the difiiculties which he had to encounter, but we know that in every age human nature is the same ; that in every age it is through hatred and obloquy that the path lies to virtue and to glory. There were, probably, grave statesmen to suggest that the work of amelioration had better be left to the Wittenagemotes of the Heptarchy. No doubt there were slaveholders who protested that their slaves fared more sump- tuously than the King of the Lombards. The statue of Pasquin was not. then standing in Rome ; but then, doubtless, there were not wanting wits to deride his enthusiasm, and liars to asperse his character. It is not impossible that there may have been found ruffians to puU down his chapels, and forsworn judges to send his missionaries to the gallows. However this may have been, we know that he persevered ; and now look at the result ! Now look at the miserable, the degraded country, the land of the oppressor and the oppressed ! There is freedom in the respiration of its air, and in the very contact of its sod ! Now look at that ocean which then bore to our coast nothing but ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 287 plunderers, and carried back from it nothing but cargoes of misery and despair. That very ocean now rolls around us at once to enricli and to defend — at once renders our coast every- where accessible to commerce, and everywhere impervious to war. Look at our maritime power, at our commercial opulence, at our martial glory, at the proud list of our great men ; and then reflect from what we were raised, and by what means. These things should inspire us with hope, and not with hope alone. Do we owe so many blessings to the generosity of an ignorant priest in a dark age and a distant country? and shaU. not we, who live in the fall blaze of morals and intellect, exert ourselves for the welfare of those over whose fate we possess an irresistible control, and in whose wrongs we have most deeply participated ? Again, therefore, and agaia we pledge ourselves to this good cause. Danger, difficulty, and opposition shall only animate us to the work. We will consider every success as a presage of final triumph; every failure as a call for redoubled exertions. Slander, enmity, ridicule we expect and we despise. When the crusader in Tasso lifts his sword to break the enchantment of the haunted forest, gigantic forms surround him, terrible voices menace him, the wind roars, the skies are darkened, the earth shakes beneath his feet; but the blow is struck, and instantly the sun shines forth, the storm subsides, and the demons fly howling from the spot which they could pollute no longer. We are bound on a higher adventure — we are sworn to undo the spell of a fouler witchcraft ; and it is not by any tempest which the worst arts of our adversaries can conjure up that we will be turned back from the enterprise. Never, never shall this contest be terminated but by a decisive victory of those principles of honour, benevolence, and freedom from which alone States can derive a substantial prosperity, and statesmen an immortal renown ! 288 LEEDS ELECTION. November 29, 1832. At a Meeting of Electors in the Music Hall, Leeds. He thanked the meeting most sincerely for the kind reception they had given him^ and still more for having done him the honour of meeting him that night. They were aware that he had formed a fixed resolution to canvass no elector ^ and he thought it necessary that he should on that occasion prove it was not from fear or shame, or from having anything to disguise, that he had been induced to adopt it. It was due to them that on a fit occasion he should present himself to answer any questions which electors might please to put. There were some advan- tages in a personal canvass — one which his hon. and excellent friend Mr. Marshall had mentioned ; it brought the candidate and the elector face to face, and enabled the one to ask questions exphcitly, and the other to answer them as plainly. All the advantages, however, of this course were, he thought, attained by meetings like the present, and they avoided aU the incon- venience of a personal canvass. When a candidate came before a meeting it was impossible to return one answer to one man, and another to another — to play a Tory with a Tory, and a Radical with a Radical. There the eyes of both parties would be upon him — his answers would be put on record, and he would be held to his words. Some kind friend, or perchance an enemy, did him the favour to forward him papers to London regularly, in one of which, the Leeds Intelligencer (a paper respectably conducted, as far as such publications went), he was amused to see that he was charged with being guilty of gross hypocrisy on the subject of personal canvass. It set forth that in fact he could not be spared from London — he was the common drudge of Ministers ; LEEDS ELECTION. 289 and, while the members of the Cabinet were out shooting pheasants and partridges, or were spending their time at watering- places, or other scenes of recreation, he was compelled to remain alone behind, and do the whole business of the nation. His accusers, however, belonged to that class of persons who pro- verbially stood in need of good memories, for he saw, on turning to a fifesh page of that paper, that his only occupation was to look out of a window for half-an-hour a-day, and read the news- papers,- and that he was a mere sinecurist, receiving j61300 a-year for nothing. When the object was to show that he could not canvass Leeds, he was the most laborious public servant; but when the object was to prove that he was uselessly receiving public money, then he had time enough to spare to canvass the electors from the beginning of the year to the end. He was almost ashamed to have detained them so long on such a subject ; these charges excited no feeling in him, and they could do him no possible harm with the public. His opinions on all great questions were well known, his confession of faith was before them, and he believed their sentiments and his own generally agreed. It was unnecessary now to go over what he had said and written on many occasions, but he desired to say a few words vnth regard to the particular crisis in which this country was at present placed. K it had been in his power, he should have ardently wished to appear at the great meeting of last week, where the foreign policy of Ministers was so ably discussed, for the purpose of explaining his opinions on that important topic. He had on a former occasion stated that he thought that when great measures had to be carried, it was advisable for persons not to press forward and insist on their particular views on minor points. But the question of peace and war was no matter for compromise, neither were the questions of treating justly a foreign power, and of taking human hfe. If, in his opinion, the conduct of the British Government had been unjust, he should now have stood before them a man out of office. The interests of the people rendered the course Ministers had pursued impera- tive on them. He beheved that to be the view of those before 290 LEEDS ELECTION. him, and that of the town of Leeds, which expressed it most audibly last week. It was natural it should be so. It was strange to see the party who had supported war from 1792 to 1815 now coming forward in favom" of peace. It was extra- ordinary that these men were crying out against Lord Grey as a friend of war — the men who had almost driven Ireland to a civU war not long ago, who had acted the same part towards England last May, who had clamoured for war with France, at the head of whose first petition was the clerical gentleman who had been so conspicuous in the affair at Manchester. The blood of Dutchmen seemed precious to them, while that of Englishmen was cheap. He was astonished that men whose leaders had, in 1815, attempted to force Norway under the Swedish yoke, and had given up Saxony to Prussia, and Poland to Russia, men who uttered no complaint then, had reserved aU their sympathies tiU the present moment, to bewail the hapless situation of the poor Tinfortunate King of Holland. When the present Govern- ment came into office they found hostile proceedings commenced on the Continent ; an armistice was all that kept the contending parties asunder. The Duke of Welhngton first began to inter- fere between them, and professedly to act as mediator ; though, in his speech, in which he called the King of Holland an " en- lightened monarch," and the Belgians "revolted subjects," he assumed much more of the tone of a judge pronouncing sen- tence than of a mediator inquiring into the dispute, and en- deavouring peaceably to reconcile the parties. Was not the war, then, just ? It was a strong reason for thinking the war just that the Emperor of Russia, brother-in-law of the Prince of Orange and the King of Prussia, both of whom were likely to lean to the side of the King of Holland, had assented to the award of the other Powers, that Antwerp should be given up to Belgium. If the award of those Powers were just, ought we to leave it unexecuted ? He thought not. Were England to say, " We retire from the dispute altogether," he believed a general continental war would be the result. Many English politicians asked whether we could not keep out of the scrape, supposing this to happen ? No, we could not, for England could no more LEEDS ELECTION. 291 ■emain neutral than the United States in the last French war. Was it possible to do so, while all the ports of the Continent rere blocked up against the entrance of our manufactures? Che United States, at such a distance from Europe, had been io excessively inconvenienced by the late struggle, as to be compelled to range themselves on one side or other; and he was persuaded that if a continental war were now to break out, and with a probability of continuing for ten or twenty years, bhe people of England would find it so detrimental to their Luterests, through standing neuter, as^ before fifteen months were passed, with one voice to demand that our Government should enter the lists. The policy of Ministers had been in this matter dignified, wise, and, above all, pacific. He firmly believed that the conduct of the Opposition had for its sole purpose the bringing themselves into office, and that, when arrived there, they would themselves plunge us into a universal war, with the loss of honour into the bargain. At present the only chance of such a catastrophe was the obstinacy of the Dutch Government, which arose in great part from its believing it was supported by a party in England. He believed that, had all the meetings on this subject ended Uke that of Leeds, the King of Holland would have given way. By that meeting the people of Leeds had done as good service to the country as any set of people had ever done. The party who supported the King of Holland cared neither for peace nor war, nor for trade being depressed ; but would even have welcomed the cholera itself as a relief from the Reform BiU; so great was their hatred to freedom. The people of Leeds had stopped their designs, and given a happy tura to public meetings throughout England. He hoped that the Tories would be sig- nally disappointed, that the hands of Government would be strengthened, and that we should be able to preserve peace by showing that we did not fear war. He saw that the right feeling of the people of England was with Ministers, and that would induce him to support, as far as he was able, the pohcy of his Majesty's Government with regard to what is called the Dutch war. To any questions of the electors, he, like his 292 LEEDS ELECTION. friend, would be ready to return candid and explicit answers. It was his wish, and confident expectation that, by the vigorous measures of Government, we should very soon see the dangers of a foreign war disappear, and be able to turn our attention to the improvement of the laws, the liberation of trade, and to all necessary plans for the revival, contiauance, and augmenta- tion of the prosperity of the nation. 293 LEEDS ELECTION. Dec. 3, 1832. At a Meeting of Sectors in the Music Hall, Leeds. It was with peculiar pleasure that he now saw the electors assembled even in numbers larger than those which had done him the honour to meet him on former evenings. He peculiarly wished to be able to address to-night a rather larger audience than usual, becausCj as they were aware, some mummeries had lately been enacted ia this town which seemed to call for notice. Siace he entered that room, some kiad ffiend had placed in his hands a paper which had been put forth — as if to meet the feel- ings of two coalesced parties— in blue and white : a proper type of a doubled-faced and double-tongued politician. He found there that the object of their opponent was "to prevent the inde- pendence of the borough of Leeds from being surrendered into the hands of political monopolists." " The independence of the borough of Leeds \" Would that these persons had been so anxious for the existence of Leeds as a parliamentary borough ! It was somethuig too much that those who, through two most arduous sessions, through many days and nights of anxious labour and watching, struggled to prevent this great town from ever obtaining representatives, should, at the very first election, declare themselves to be the persons exclusively anxious for its " independence." Political monopolists ! And this from those whose whole public principles are nothing but monopoly — monopoly not only in trade, but even ia religion ; monopoly ia religion, attemptiag to confine all office and power to a dominant sect; monopoly ia government, attempting to give up the whole power of the State into the hands of one small party ! " The independence of the borough of Leeds, protected from political monopolists," by one whom, with his own ears, he VOL. II. X 294 LEEDS ELECTION. liad heard in Parliament declare, that unless the rotten boroughs were preserved, all property would be given up to boundless spoliation. Are we a close corporation? Have we the power of granting and taking away licenses ? What undue arts have we used ? Whom have we bribed ? Whom have we threatened? Whom have we fawned upon? These charges proceed from those who have exclusively availed themselves of all the arts and means which monopolies can furnish. This address, on which it would be idle to comment farther, was followed up by an appropriate display in the streets. He had been informed that one of the flags which had been exhibited coupled his name with " sinecures." It might be a sufficient answer to say, that a certain eminent person instituted, at a great and eventful crisis, the office he had the honour to hold.* He at first said that its duties were not sufficiently arduous to require a salary. Eight years afterwards, he came down to Parlia- ment, and said that he had been deceived ; that the duties could not be discharged without a salary ; and he proposed a larger salary than he (Mr. Macaulay) now received. Who was that eminent person? "The pilot that weathered the storm" — no other than Mr. Pitt, who, in the year 1793, when our Indian empire was not one half of its present extent, conceived that the office was entitled to a salary. Would those, then, who called him a sinecurist, represent that great idol and great head as the patron and creator of sinecures ? Another flag coupled his name and that of his honourable friend with the Anatomy Bill. On that subject he was very desirous to address them. They would bear him witness that he had never avoided in the least any topic likely to be unpopular, but that when any prejudice existed against any part of his public conduct he himself had been the first person to bring it forward. He had supported Mr. Warburton's Anatomy Bill.f He was firmly convinced that in supporting it he had acted wisely, humanely, and, above all, with an especial regard to the interests * The office held by Mr. Macaulay at thia time was that of Secretary to the Board of Control. + See his Speech on the subject, vol. i,, page 79. LEEDS ELECTION. 295 of the poorer classes. It was a matter that approached as near to demonstration as anything in politics, that the whole evil against which the Anatomy Bill was intended to guard fell on the poor, and that aU the benefits which it was intended to secure would be secured for the poor. He knew there was a difference of opinion. What were the ends which the Anatomy Bill was intended to secure? First, to prevent the outrage offered to the feelings by the horrible practice of exhumation ; second, to prevent burking; third, to provide good surgery. Now, everyone knew that ninety-nine out of a hundred of the bodies dug up were those of poor people, who could not afford to have fences and guards to their graves. Did they ever hear of the body of a nobleman being raised ? Rich men were buried in vaults and leaden cofims, and in places not easy of access. In this respect, therefore, the whole benefit of the Bill belonged to the poor and not to the rich. Secondly, the object of the Bill was to put down burking. He would put it to them all, Was it the rich or the poor that were liable to be burked ? Did they ever hear of a man of £1000 a-year being burked ? Generally, the temptation to murder was the property of the victim ; but here it was the mere man, the mere animal, that was sought for ; and it was a very curious thing that whereas in most murders the body was concealed, and the murderer was discovered by the sale of the clothes, in the case of Bishop and Wilhams they sold the body and buried the clothes. Therefore, the fact of a man being rich, being well dressed, and having friends, was a protection to him ; and the individual marked out as a victim for these wretches was some poor outcast whom nobody knew or cared for — some Lascar just landed — some drover-boy come up from the country — some miserable, houseless, friendless female. Having shown that the practices of the resurrection-men, and those of burkers, fell upon the poor, he now came to the point of good and bad surgery. It was the fashion to say, " What a horrible thing to dissect men for the good of science !" As if this were a mere question of abstract science ! As if the question whether a man who had a broken leg and required to have it set, or who had received a wound and was likely to bleed to death, 296 LEEDS ELECTION. should or should not be cured, was a question of mere abstract science ! Let them consider that the whole, or almost the whole, of the cnls of bad surgery fell upon the poor. Suppose they could ruin the English school of medicine — suppose that every man who studied medicine was obliged to go to Holland or to France — this would raise the price of medical assistance ; it would put back England 300 years. Look at Russia. Who suffered from the bad state of surgery in that country ? Was it the Emperor ? No ; he had the best physicians that money could procm'e from any country. Was it the nobility? No. When an accident happened to a peasant, he must lie down and die, on account of the ignorance of the native surgeons ; but the Emperor and the nobility obtained men bred in the schools of Edinburgh and London to attend them. A man of £10,000 a-year in England, who needed to have his leg cut off, would always have a man who could cut off a leg well ; not so with the poor. It was a most pleasing consideration, that in these days the poorest man in the poorest village in England could have better medical assistance than kings could have commanded 300 years since. When a poor man fell down a ladder, you saw relief provided for him within the comfortable walls and clean wards of an infirmary, with every healing application, and every- thing that could promote his recovery : there was not a common carpenter or bricklayer who did not, in these admirable institu- tions, obtain better attendance than Henry VIII. or Queen Elizabeth could have obtained, if they would have given all their revenue to procure it. To see persons attempt, then, to bring us back to that period, and to see them do it under pretence of love to the poor, was, he must say, one of the most extraordinary signs of the times. This, gentlemen, is my explanation ; this is my defence of my vote ; and I must say that, if my friends at Leeds are dissatisfied with my conduct, then I am sorry for it ; but I am not sorry for my vote, and if that vote had to be given again, I would give it in exactly the same way. 297 LEEDS ELECTION. December 10, 1832. From the Windows of Messrs. StansfieM's Warehouse on tlie Nomination Day. Gentlemen, I have never addressed an audience in this place without having reason to thank them for their kindness. But in what words shall I thank you this day ? In what words shall I describe those feelings of pride and deUght with which I this day witnessed your triumph and my own? It was indeed a great and memorable day for Leeds. The youngest child now present will be looked to with interest when he tells^ eighty years hence^ that he saw the first Leeds election ; that he saw the first hustings that were ever set up in your Cloth Hall yard ; and that he saw the triumph of the orange flag, and of those true and sound principles of civil and religious liberty which that flag has long represented. It is true, gentlemen, that once before in Enghsh history an election was held at Leeds. Ohver Cromwell, when he had been raised by a series of remarkable events to the supreme power in England, being, as he was, with all his faults, a very great and wise man, saw clearly the monstrous absurdity of allowing mem- bers to Gatton whUst Leeds was left without them. During the short continuance of his power he bestowed members upon Leeds. This was shortly after his death taken away; and I pray you to consider well from this illustration how transitory are the great victories of reform, when they are achieved by force and not by reason. OHver Cromwell was raised by the sword and in opposition to the laws. His great qualities were, un- fortunately, employed for a long time in disturbing the peace of his country. He violated the law ; he cut off the head of the King ; he drove out the Parliament by force ; and therefore it was, because his proceedings depended on violence and not on reason, that his great and salutary reform in the representation perished 298 LEEDS ELECTION. as soon as it commenced. But om' victory was sullied by no such stain. The peaceable victories of reformers of our day has been achieved by force of argument, and according to all the forms of law. They have the strength of truth, and will be im- mortal with all the immortality of truth. Gentlemen, you know well the circumstances under which I was invited to offer myself as a candidate for your suffrages. I was invited by a large and most respectable body to present myself before you. This I have now done. You know my opinions; I have never disguised them; they are extant in writing, and you have heard them in many speeches : Hatred — implacable hatred to colonial slavery, an earnest desire for a revision of the Corn-laws, a wish for a reform in the Church, reform in law, reform in the fintoces, rehgious freedom, freedom of pohtical discussion, freedom of trade, the extinction of all op- pressive monopoUes, whether commercial, municipal, or pohtical. These, gentlemen, are the principles on which I before offered myself, and on which I again offer myself before you. You well know, gentlemen, to what base arts a desperate faction, whose despair must this day be more intense than ever before, has of late resorted, in the hope, the vain and futile hope, of depriving me of your regard and esteem. At one time, gentlemen, I have been represented as the implacable enemy of the working-classes, I who can with truth declare that I consider their happiness as the most important object of all government, because in every society they form the most numerous body. At another time I have been represented as the enemy of a religion I most affectionately love, which T profoundly venerate, in which I was brought up, which I should consider it to be the greatest crime in any way to assaU, which I regard as the greatest blessing bestowed by Heaven upon man. And so little, gentlemen, have my calumniators attended in their falsehoods to the commonest rules of consistency, that though they are determined that in some way I must be an odious heretic, no two of them can agree on the precise offence. One placard announces me to be an infidel ; another will have it that I am an Arian ; and yesterday,* * Sunday. LEEDS ELECTION. 299 gentlemen (for -with some Christians it seems to be held " better day better deed"), the walls of your town were plastered with placards proclaiming me to be a Socinian. One story has been circulated here to which I must allude — namely, that a most estimable and religious person, the head of a congregation of Methodists in a great town, a person of the highest respectability of character, had, during a visit to this place, pronounced me to be an infidel. A reverend friend of mine, when this story came to his ears, wrote to that distinguished member of the Methodist body to inquire if it was true ; and he has received an answer this day, saying that the story, so far as it related to me, was every word of it false. You, gentlemen, I am quite sure, will appreciate my motives for not proceeding further in this discussion. You, I am sure, are of opinion that man has no right to interfere with the con- science of man, except when some open heresy, some gross immorality, or some attempt to unsettle the faith of others, renders it necessary. I never have made, I never will make, meetings like this a place for theological controversy ; and neither calumny nor any art which man can employ shall induce me to depart from this resolution. And, indeed, why should I complain ? The mystery is simply solved — I am a reformer, and it has been ia all ages the fate of those who wished to reform abuses to be held up by some odious nick-name by those who wish to profit by those abuses. The reformers of our religion were burned as heretics ; those who reformed science were shut up in the dun- geons of the Inquisition ; the man who discovered the telescope was imprisoned under the charge of heresy. TUlotson and Locke, the great advocates of toleration, were caUed atheists. Gentlemen, my public life is before you. I have so often gone over, at our meetings in the Music Hall and elsewhere, the defence of every vote of mine which has been objected to, and of every part of my pohtical conduct on which it has been attempted to aflix a stigma, that it is quite unnecessary to go over these points again. Gentlemen, I was unable to hear, to- day, any part of the speech of Mr. Sadler ; the consequence is, I am utterly unable to reply to any arguments, if there were 300 LEEDS ELECTION. arguments^ that might be directed against myself. I have never, gentlemen, adopted the disgraceful course of blackening a man^s private character because we differ in opinion — because we are rivals in a political competition ; but no man has a right to sit in Parliament, and share in the government of the nation, without exposing all his public conduct to free comment. I tell you, gentlemen, that, however respectable Mr. Sadler may be in private life, and I have not the slightest reason for denying his respectability in pubHc hfe, I can only regard him as a time- server. He tells you he wiU reform the Reform Bill; he teUs you his objection to the Reform BiU ; and his whole or his principal reason for speaking, voting, and struggling against it was this : that it did not give the franchise extensively enough — that it confined it to the £10 householders. Is it possible that any person can be imposed upon by such flimsy pretences as this ? If this was really his objection to the Reform BiU, why did he not vote for the BiU on the second reading, and support in the committee a proposition for lower- ing the franchise? There was a motion made for throwing open the franchise to all householders. Mr. Sadler never voted for it. Yet he could vote for the Marquis of Chandos's motion to give the franchise to ^650 tenants at wiU: and why? Because the one was favourable to the aristocracy, the other democratic. But, gentlemen, did Mr. Sadler vote for schedule A? Well, then, here is a man who says that his principal reason for opposing the Reform Bill was because it did not go low enough ; and yet he thinks two or three hundred persons ought to name one half of the House of Commons ? Did he vote for representatives to be given for Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham ? Then, again. Lord John Russell made a motion to add a hundred members to the House of Commons, at the expense of the rotten boroughs ; did Mr. Sadler vote for that ? Is it not clear that by substituting a i6lO franchise for individual nomination you are making a great addition to the constituency ! Yet here is a man that wiU not vote for adding 500,000 persons to the constituency ; and he says he wiU not vote for giving aU those persons their rights, because you will not give the franchise to a greater number. I myself heard LEEDS ELECTION. » 301 Mr. Sadler state in the House of Commons that, unless either the rotten boroughs were kept up, or something equivalent substituted for them, all property would be robbed by the mxiltitude. And now, gentlemen, what are we to think of the public character of a man who tells you in the House of Com- mons that property will go to ruin if the nomination of half the House is not confined to two or three hundred individuals, and who then comes here and complains that four thousand electors are too small a constituency to send members for Leeds? What is this but a chameleon pohtician — sometimes blue, sometimes of the true revolutionary tri-colour — sometimes a Tory of the Tories, sometimes a Radical of the Radicals : the old constitution was not sufiiciently aristocratic for him, and the new one is not sufiiciently democratic. He never saw any necessity for reforming the rotten boroughs ; but he thinks it indispensably necessary to reform the Reform Bill. Gentlemen, you miist consider this, that aU great changes necessarily pro- duce a certain class of people, who, from some laxity of public morality, which, I daresay, they would never stoop to in private transactions, think very little of saying whatever is likely to serve the turn on public questions. We had them in the time of the civil wars; they used then to be called "Waiters on Providence." They were the people who were first courtiers of Charles I., then attached to the Tory Parliament, then cour- tiers of Cromwell, and then, again, courtiers of Charles II. They huzzaed when Charles I. had his head cut off; they huzzaed again when the bones of Cromwell were dug up by the common hangman. This class was well known in France during their revolution, and they are called Gironettes, or weathercocks ; and there is, it is said, an old French Minister who, when he came up to take the oath to the new Constitution under Louis Phihppe, said, " This is the thirteenth Constitution I have sworn to and held place under, and I hope it wiU. be the last." Now, gentlemen, we have had a great change in England ; and the people who before set their heels on your necks are the very people who are now coming to kiss your feet. The same motives which made them court the oligarchy formerly make 302 LEEDS ELECTION. tliem court the people now. You may find such men in abun- dance. I am not such, and never will be. I wUl be as free in my dealings with you as T was in my dealings with those who lately were your masters. Public life is not so unmixedly agreeable as to make it worth a wise man's while to obtain it by any sacrifice of principle. As to beiug in Parliamentj to holding office, to being written about in the newspapers, and stared at in the streets, I thank God I do not thiuk any or all of these distinctions worth the sacrifice of anything which seems to me to be right. Choose me, if you wish for a representative desirous not to flatter you, but to serve you — who wiU not fear to contend against what he may think your errors as manfully as he has contended for your rights. I feel myself a little exhausted, gentlemen, by this very fatiguing day. For the present, I bid you farewell. On Friday we shall meet again. On Friday, vanquished or victorious, I shall not be ashamed to look you full in the face. A man may be defeated by the acts of others ; he can be degraded only by his own. I thank God that, whatever the result of this election may be — and that it will be favourable I cannot doubt — I have still left many sources of quiet happiness and honest pride. I have still left literary tastes, domestic affections, and the recollections of a public life, short indeed, but during which, my conscience bears me testimony, I have never once swerved from the path of rectitude and honour. I have also, gentlemen, the recollection of a part not altogether obscure or inglorious in the great dehverance of my country. These reflections wUl enable me to look upon you, in the worst event, cheerftd and unabashed. But I anticipate no such event. I am sure we shall meet again to congratulate each other on the consummation of a great victory. We shall meet rejoicing to think that the yoke of that faction which so long ruled in this district, as tlirough the whole Empire, is broken, and broken finally. We shall meet and be able to boast that the men of Leeds have shown as much energy and discernment when the Reform Bill was to be used as they showed when the lleform Bill was to be won. 303 LEEDS ELECTION. Dec. 14, 1832. At tJie Hustings after tlie Decla/ration of iJie Poll. It is not easy for me, gentlemen, though not altogether unpractised in pubhc speaking, to express the feelings I enter- tain on this the proudest and most iateresting day of my life. If I were among you merely as a stranger ; if I were merely passing through Leeds for the first time ; if I were told that a great assemblage met for the purpose of sending the first mem- bers for your borough to Parliament ; if I saw in this place, surrounded on every side by the fruits of your industry and intelligence, a large meetiag assembled and listening to discussion with that patient attention which ought to characterise all men when called upon to exercise a great civil privilege ; if I were told that this was the first occasion on which a great company were called upon to exercise the rights long denied to it, but at length conquered for it by the wisdom, the spirit of a great people ; if, I say, I were an uninterested spectator, and merely told these things, with what pleasure and dehght must I, as an honest inquirer, have contemplated such a scene ? But when I reflect, gentlemen, that I am the object of your choice, and what is the manner in which you have shown gratitude for the services which it was my bounden duty to render to my country, I find it difficult to express ia any words the emotion of my mind. When last, gentlemen, I had the pleasure of meeting you here, discussion was out of the question. It was then impossible to express my opinions so that a word should have been audible. I was not able to hear any of those arguments urged on the other side, nor to make the confession of my political faith. As to my political opinions, they are before you. They are preserved in records more lasting than any speech I could now make. You 304 LEEDS ELECTION. have them in writing ; your own ears have heard such clear and plain professions of my opinions^ that I must be not only the basestj but most shameless of impostors^ if I should attempt to flinch from what I have avowed. But you wiU allow me^ with perfect courtesy and goodwill, such as I should manifest to a person of the greatest respecta- biUty, as is the gentleman on whose speech I am about to com- ment, to make a few remarks with regard to a speech which, when delivered here, was not heard, but which has since appeared in letters of gold.* "Whether this was done that the richness of the execution might compensate for the poverty of the matter, I cannot decide ; but certainly the best part of the speech is the gilding. The only part of the speech to which I tliink it neces- sary to call your attention is an argument you have often heard, that a man in office ought not to sit in Parliament, at least, for a great constituent body. It was said, and said truly, that to be a faithful guardian of the public pm'se was one of the first duties of a representative; and the inference followed, that one who himself holds place could not be faithful to his constituents. This is an argument I have heard from decided republicans, but which I scarcely expected to have heard from the quarter from which it proceeded. And I am the more astonished when I reflect that the very gentleman who used the argument exerted himself strenuously for the county of Westmoreland to return Lord Lowther, a Lord of the Treasury under the unreformed Government. Highly as I reverence the people of Leeds, I think the people of Westmoreland are entitled to as good a steward of the public purse as even those whom I now address ; and the only difference I can perceive in my case and that of Lord Lowther is, that he held office under a Government that refused reform, and I under a Government that granted it. And, gentlemen, since I am answering the arguments used against me, I will take notice of some calumnious assertions — the last calumnious assertions, I trust, to which this election will give rise — and which appeared in a paper called the Leeds * The speech of Mr. AVilliam Beckett at the nomination was printed in letters of gold, and circulated by Mr. Sadler's committee. LEEDS ELECTION. 305 Intelligencer. I had, not timej in tlie business and hurry of yesterday, to look at that paper more than three minutes, and that, probably, is the reason why I discovered in it no more than three lies. It was asserted that I am appointed to a place of ^1,800 a-year. It is a falsehood. It is asserted that money from the Treasury has been employed at this election. It is a falsehood. The last assertion I confess is one which has given me some pain. It is a falsehood, and a falsehood of the blackest and most malignant kind. It is asserted that I have spread a report that Mr. Sadler is addicted to profane swearing. It is a he ; it is pure, gratuitous invention. It was stated in a placard that lately appeared, but which I never saw till it was printed, that some member of Parliament had said that Mr. Sadler was a profane swearer, and that he checked him, and that Mr. Sadler had apologised for his conduct. I never exchanged a word with Mr. Sadler in my life ; but this I say, that, if I had known the charge to be true, I would not have uttered it. I never did, I never will, look into a man's private life for the purpose of assaOing him. I never wrote a line against Mr. Sadler that was not perfectly well known to be mine. If I did know — what I do not know — any private act of Mr. Sadler's life that was dis- graceful to him, I would not drag it from its secrecy. No calumny shall ever tempt me to retort in such a way. Such weapons poUute the hands of those that use them more than they wound the party to which they are directed. "With this notice of the last lie of the Intelligencer, I dismiss aH recrimination and all complaint. Whatever is past is for- gotten by me. I now am the member, not for the orange party or the blue party, but for the borough of Leeds. You are all my constituents. To some of you I owe a gratitude I can but feebly express, but to all I owe a duty — the duty of serving you faithfully and well. It is of importance to our connexion that no rankling on account of this contest should continue to exist ; I therefore dismiss it altogether. I shall be as perfectly ready to serve, in every part of my parliamentary duty, those who opposed me as well as those who supported me. My gratitude, the feelings of my heart, I cannot control ; but my services are 306 LEEDS ELECTION. due to you all alike. If anything has happened which might leave vindictive remembrances, I have forgotten it; but how shall I ever forget what I owe those who supported me ? How shall I forget their firmness, their public spirit, their ability, their personal Idndness to myself, their consideration for all my failings ? They have conferred on me the greatest of obhgations, and in the kindest of manners ; invaluable ia itself, the trust is more so from the manner in which it has been bestowed. I know to what I owe it — to your recollection of a public life, short, but not dishonourable — to your hopes of future service to be rendered to the State, I will repay you as I know you wish to be repaid. 307 LEEDS ELECTION. December 14, 1832. At the Public Dinner given at the CoTmnercial Buildings, Leeds, in celebration of the Return of Messrs. Ma/rshall and Macaulay. It would be strange indeed, gentlemen, if I could be insensible to the proofs of your kindness wbich I have this night received. Yet these proofs of your kindness, great as they are, sink into insignificance when compared with that more important proof which has so lately been given to me. The highest of all trusts has been reposed in me. You have shown that you are prepared to confide to me the greatest and most important charge which one Englishman can place in the keeping of another. You have confided to me, as those indentures we have heard read to-day express it, your " power to agree in the great council of the nation, to such things as may be then and there proposed, in your name." You have confided to me that which Parliament has lately, by a wise though tardy act of justice and policy, confided to you — a great and important share in the government of this vast empire. The gratitude, the pride, the deHght with which I receive that trust I have no words to express ! It is, I well know, by my public conduct that you must be thanked. I wiU not attempt to employ words which will be inadequate ; I will endeavour so to act that, when we meet again, I may be able to look on you without shame. And, gentlemen, I would here willingly sit down — I would willingly relieve you from the weariness, after so many political discussions as those in which we have lately been engaged, of hearing any further dissertation on State afiairs, were it not that some circumstances have occurred within the last very few days which have filled my mind, and I doubt not your minds also, with joy and exultation. Gentlemen, it was impossible — I do 308 LEEDS ELECTION. not scruple, I am not ashamed to confess it — it was impossible for any person who had borne a part in establishing the ncAv system of representation — who had m-ged the country into trying the great experiment which has now been tried, not to feel nervously solicitous and anxious about the event. For, gentle- men, let it always be remembered that, when abuses are first removed, they stiU leave many of their fruits behind them. The first harvest reaped under the good system springs from seed sown under the bad one. And thus it often happens that the first proceedings of a nation restored to liberty are violent, profligate, and cruel, and savour of the tyranny from which they have emerged ; whilst in many other eases the first ages of despotism, as in the Augustan age at Rome, have been crowded and illuminated with the virtues and talents fostered under an age of liberty. Therefore, gentlemen, I felt not a little solicitous lest the great body of the people of England, now for the first time admitted to share in the government of their country, should not exercise their new power with that judgment and those feelings and tempers with which power ought to be exercised. I confess I feared, though my hopes were stronger than my fears, otherwise I should not have supported the Eeform BiU— but I did feel some fear that designing men might obtain the sufiTrages of those great bodies to which the elective franchise was extended. And I looked, not merely as you looked, with an earnest desire of good government, to the elections, but also with a painful sense of responsibility, as one of those who had been placing power in what might possibly prove to be unsafe hands. You know, gentlemen, what the restdt has been. You know that never, under a system of the closest nomination, has a greater aversion been shown to mere disturbers, has a stronger disposition existed to preserve the rights of property, and protect order while reforming abuses, than has been shown by those con- stituent bodies so lately intrusted with the franchise. I have said that my hopes were always stronger than my fears. They were so. I did see, while the great contest now at an end was raging, two extreme parties of great power, formidable from their real strength, more formidable from their violence and LEEDS ELECTION. 309 fanaticism; all the vices engendered by power, all tlie vices engendered by distress ; a narrow oligarchy here, an infuriated multitude there ; on one side the privilege belonging only to pro- perty ascribed to pohtical trusts, on the other side men attacking property itself as if it were a pohtical abuse. In this state of things I trusted to that great, that all-powerful party which stood between the two. I trusted to that party which we com- monly call the middle class of Englishmen, and which is the middle class, not only in its fortunes, but also in its opinions, which is the middle class in its moderation, which is the middle class because it holds a calm, a tempered, and even course between two extreme parties; I trusted that that great party would thrust itself between them, lay its hands on them both, and say to them, " You shall not tear us, you shall not tear each other in pieces." I knew it had the power, I knew it had the will; I knew it could protect us from sword-government and from mob- government; I knew it could protect us from the Duke of WeUington^s administration, and, as I knew that, so I knew it could protect us from such devastation as that wrought by thieves and profligates of every kind at Bristol. This great party has done its duty. Through the whole course of this contest it has done its duty. And now, when the contest is over, when the Reform BiU is passed, invested with the supreme power in the choice of the Commons House of Parliament, that party has pre-eminently done its duty. This is the case in every part of England, with very few ex- ceptions, and those exceptions are easily accounted for. The new elections prove a degree of discrimination and intelligence in the great body of the electors such as I confess, in my most sanguine moments, I did not expect. Mr. Hunt and Sir Edward Sugden, Mr. Scales and Sir Charles Wetherell, are the lowest on their respective polls. When I see that, for the most part, men have been returned, reformers but not destroyers, earnestly desirous to reform and preserve, and to preserve by reforming, I am more than ever convinced that we have, by granting the Reform Bill, taken the only prudent and safe course. If in any part of this country the principle* of VOL. II. Y 310 LEEDS ELECTION. the Tories have triumphed in great constituent bodies, we shall find invariably that they have triumphed only because some portion of the vices of the old system have been suffered to survive. If there are any places in which Tory candidates have been returned by great constituencies, they are the same places in which, by a lenity which I cannot altogether approve, nor yet altogether condemn, the old roots of a bad and pernicious kind have been suffered to exist — places where old and iaveterate habits of bribery have been formed. In this new constituency, in this great child of the Reform BiU, Leeds, we have no such old and corrupt habits to encounter. The constituent body here is pure ; God grant that it may always remain so ! Never, never, I trust, shall we see here the scenes which have disgraced Liverpool and Norwich. I am firmly convinced we never shall. I perceive, wherever I go through this large constituent body, signs of a pure and healthful state of moral feeling. I beheve the great body of the electors know the importance of the trust committed to them ; they are not disposed to sell their birthright for a mess of pottage. We shall never see Leeds falluig under the censure of a reformed Parliament for those practices which, under unreformed Parliaments, were so common. Gentlemen, I need not press on you — for to you in a great measure Leeds owes this proud distinction — the importance of enforcing in every manner, and by every argument, these just principles. I need not tell you how important it is that purity of election should be maintained in this your great newly-esta- bhshed borough, how important it is that your candidates should not be ruined before you return them, and should not go to Parliament as venal men, who woiild betray you for six years provided they could bribe you at the end of the seventh. I ought to be ashamed of lecturing you on duties which you show you so well understand, and which you have so weU performed. I am firmly conviaced that this great town, so long quoted as illustrating, by its want of members, the vices and the evils of the old representative system, will be quoted as the brightest example of the beauties and purity of the new. I wiU once more repeat to you, with the warmest feelings of gratitude, LEEDS ELECTION. 311 respect^ and personal kindness, my thanks for the honour you have done me in drinking my health, and I will still more warmly repeat to you my thanks for the steadiness, perseverance, and puhlic spirit you have shown through this most arduous and protracted contest. But I am firmly convinced that you feel sufficiently repaid by our victory. You know its importance — enjoy it. You have a right to do so. It is your own work. I gain more from it in one sense than some of you ; but I am. sure there is not one sittmg here who does not feel as much elated and as proud of it as I do. {On the toast of Earl Grey and the Administration being given, Mr. Macaulay said) — Gentlemen, I rise in answer to your toast, because, I believe, I am the only person in this assembly who has any connexion with the Administration. This connexion has been made a topic of reproach ; but, justi- fied by my own conscience and by your approbation, I will bind that reproach to me as a badge of honour. In my connexion with the Grovernment I have nothing to be ashamed of. I supported them before they were a Government; when they fell I was prepared to follow them to a not inglorious retire- ment. If I am now joined with them by official ties, it is only because I believe there is no danger to them which is not also a danger to the common weal, and because their power is insepa- rably bound up with the dearest interests of this Empire. While I see reason to believe that their policy will be what it has hitherto been, and that they will efTect in other departments such reforms as they have effected in the representation of the people, I win stand by them. When they abandon those principles I will abandon them. Neither the personal friend- ship I feel for some of them, nor the gratitude which, in common with all my fellow-countrymen, I owe for their late great measure, shall induce me to continue my adherence to a Government from which I do not expect great and important benefits to my country. I may remark that the ties by which I am bound to them may be broken in a single day. It has been, and it shall be my duty to keep my pohtical connexions in my own power, I will not, by profuse expenditure when in 312 LEEDS ELECTION. place, leave myself without the power to quit it. It shall be my endeavour always so to live and to act that at twenty -four hom-s' notice I may be able, without inconvenience, to resign. Grentlemen, 1 am convinced that you have able and patriotic Ministers. They have done more for you than any Ministry ever did. I see among them men of genius and of virtue, and of the highest and most approved public spirit. We are reaping the fruits of some of their measures, I firmly believe they will give us other measures not less excellent. But you have taught me, gentlemen, to-day, if you had not taught me before, that there are honours higher than any Ministry can bestow ; you have taught me to-day that the choice of the people is the highest of all the distinctions to which a citizen can aspire. No man who passed through that great crowd which we saw in our procession along your streets, no man who saw the windows on both sides filled with such a display of your population, excited, ardent, animated as by a great triumph, all down your streets a vigorous and manly population crowding around the car which conveyed the candidates you had chosen — no such man would hesitate whether he would choose the favour of a court or the approbation of the people. I should not feel even tempted to hesitate one moment; whenever my conscience, whenever honour, whenever the public good command me to quit the station I occupy, I will instantly quit it. But I am convinced you would not wish me, by impracticable conduct, by censoriousness with regard to a Government which has deserved so well of us, to offer impediments to salutary measures. I have seen that the people I represent are not only honest but reasonable people. It is not necessary to govern them by delusion. I have heard it said, "You cannot have Ministers returned by great constituencies ; how is it possible to explain the principles on which Governments act ? You will be com- pelled to explain things which they are not able to comprehend." I believe not one word of it. I believe for the people to under- stand reason, it is only necessary for gentlemen to talk reason. I will endeavour always so to act tha,t I can give a reasonable and honoiuable explanation of my conduct, and I would as soon LEEDS ELECTION. 313 submit it to the constituency of Leeds as to any assembly in the world. And now, gentlemen^ I must bid you farewell — with what feehngs you will imagine : I feel it very hard to express them. Obligations, honours, you have conferred upon me, such as could only be conferred by a great constituent body of free Englishmen. I owe you a debt such as is most difficult to acknowledge. You will believe I feel it, you will believe I wiU attempt to repay it. I hope at intervals of no long dura- tion to present myself before you — to explain what may be misunderstood in my public conduct, to defend myself against accusation, to overthrow calumnies, to receive from you a state- ment of your opinions. It is peculiarly desirable that such intercourse should exist between representatives and consti- tuents. While our connexion lasts, I shall never have reason to shr ink from it ; for, be our differences what they may, I am sure I shall do nothing to make me ashamed. Again, gentle- men, farewell. I came to seek constituents and I have found friends. The kindness, the cordiality I have received, have made an impression on me never to be effaced. 314 EDINBURGH ELECTION. May 28, 1839. At a Meeting of Electors in the Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh. My Lord Provost and Gentlemerij— At the request of a very large and respectable portion of your body^ I appear before you as a candidate for a high and solemn trust, which, uniavited, I should have thought it presumption to solicit, but vrhich, thus invited, I should think it cowardice to decline. If I had felt m.yself justified in follovnng my own inclinations, I am not sure that even a summons so honourable as that I have received would have been sufficient to draw me away from pursuits better suited to my taste and temper than the turmoils of political warfare. But I feel that my life is cast in times in which no man is free to judge merely according to his own taste whether he shall devote himself to active or to contemplative life — in times in which society has a right to demand from any one of its members active and strenuous exertions. I, therefore, have obeyed the call, and now present myself before you for the piu-- pose of offering to you — not what I am sure you would reject with disdain, selfish flattery, degrading to a respectable and intelligent constituency, but such reasonable, candid, and manly explanations as becomes the mouth of a freeman, ambitious of the confidence of a free people. It is hardly necessary for me to say that I stand here unconnected with this great city. It would be mere affectation not to acknowledge that, with respect to local questions, I have much to learn ; but I only promise that you will find in me no sluggish or inattentive learner. I do not mean to say that, though discussion and the new phenomena produced by the operation of the new representative system have led me to modify some of my views on questions of detail, yet, with respect to the fundamental principles of govern- EDINBURGH ELECTION. 315 mentj my opinions are wtat they were in 1831 and 1833^ when I took part, according to the measure of my abilities, in the great pacific victory which provided the representative system to England, and first gave anything deserving the name of a representative system to Scotland. At that time, gentlemen, the leaning of my mind was strongly in favour of one measure in which the illustrious leader of the Whig party, whose name ought never to be mentioned without gratitude and reverence in any assembly of British electors, I mean Earl Grey, entertaiaed strong opinions, and to which the Cabinet was iavariably opposed — I mean the vote by ballot. All that has passed since confirms me in the view which I was then inclined to take of that im- portant question. At that time I thought, and still think, that the question was, as, indeed, all questions of civU enactment are, a question in which . the whole advantage is not on one side and the disadvantage on the other. I must admit that the practice , of secret voting would be to withdraw the voter from some salutary and honourable as well as degrading and pernicious motives. But I say that the practice of intimidating voters, instead of diminishing, is gaining ground. Believing as I do that the operation of the Reform Bill has tended rather to increase than to diminish that practice, I feel myself called on to consider whether the time has not arrived for applying what seems to me the only sufiicient remedy. And, gentlemen, I feel myself compelled to consider whether, in so doing, I am not foUowing out, strictly, closely, and legitimately, the consequences of the Reform Bill itself; for surely those who supported that measure intended to give to the people of Britain a reality, not a delusion; they intended to give a nomination, not the name of a nomination ; a franchise, not the name of a franchise ; least of all did they mean to give a degradation in the name of a franchise. If the nomination was meant to be a delusion, then no man returned to Parliament has the voice of a free and inde- pendent constituency; and the ancient system of election was by far the best, for the ancient system gave you members chosen, not by the voice of an independent constituency, and under it there was no necessity for applying intimidation. The present 316 EDINBUKGII ELECTION. method, in that case, is no better than a nomination for Old Sarum or Newark. In the first of these instances, the proprietor nominated the member ; and, in the second, two hundred voters sold their votes. We gave our votes against these abuses ; and with the strictest consistency with the principles on which I voted, in the time of the Reform Bill, for schedule A and schedule B, am I impressed with the necessity of giving to those to whom we give a legal franchise a real and virtual franchise. I considered also, gentlemen, that there is, perhaps, no point on which all parties were more agreed than the necessity of restraining and punishing corruption in the election of members of Parliament. The evils of corruption are great ; but it appears to me that every evil exists in the system of intimidation, and that it has great and monstrous evils from which the practice of corruption is perfectly free. In the one case the voter is corrupted, in the other intimidated. In both cases he gives his vote to a person of whose principles he does not approve, and whom he does not wish to see in Parhament, under the pressure of a feeling of self-interest and the wish to attain immediate advantage. There is this difference betwixt them : corruption operates by giving pleasure, intimidation by giving pain. To give a man £5 costs no pain, but, on the contrary, produces pleasure. It is an agreeable process, which, on another occasion, woiild not only be an harmless, but an innocent act. But to tell a man that you will reduce him to a situation in which his family will be forced to beg their bread, is an injurious act. So far as corruption is called forth in the comparatively small bodies of electors in Scotland, it will be found to engender feeHngs of attachment betwixt the poor and the rich. There is a notion of charity and hospitality connected with the distribution of money, even in a corrupt manner, which occasions acknowledgment in the shape of political support. We ought to consider that we have a kind of liberality on the one side, and gratitude on the other. It is exaggerated rather than misrepresented what has taken place in English constituencies, where large sums have been lavished on the people for the purpose of obtaining their suffrages. , EDINBUBGH ELECTION. 317 Intimidation is both, a base and a cruel system. The feeling on the part of the elector is that of shame and degradation, and hatred towards the person to whom the vote is given. The voter subjected to intimidation is placed in a worse situation than if he had no vote at aU; for there is not one of us who would rather not have the franchise than give a vote to the person whom he does not wish to support. While we find in the practice of intimidation all the evils of corruption, and other evils of a more grievous character, we are led to consider whether it is possible to prevent it by the means by which corruption was restrained. Corruption is made the subject of penal laws, and a breach of it, if proved, is visited by condign punishment, although it is not often it can be brought home to the parties accused. There are, however, such instances; and I remember several cases of men of property being committed to Newgate for corruption. Penalties have also been frequently awarded against oifenders to the amount of £500. This remedy has been applied by the committees of the House of Commons in every case where corruption was proved ; and although it was by no means a complete remedy, yet it was to a certain extent. You can trace out and punish a man for corruption, or deprive him of all the advantages he has gained by it j but in cases of intimidation the evil could not be corrected by the penal laws. You cannot put them in force without affecting the sacred rights of property. Can I tell a man that he must deal with such and such a trades- man who has voted against him, or that he shall renew a lease to a tenant who has done the same ? If I did that, it would destroy the sacred rights of property. What is it the Jew says in the play ? " I'll not answer that, But say it is my humour ;" or, as a Christian of my own time expressed himself, " I have a right to do what I like with my own." There is a great deal of weight in the reasoning of Shylock and the Duke of Newcastle : " I have a right to do what I like with my own." If you tell a landlord that be is not to eject a particular tenant, you might as well teU a man that he must employ a particular butcher, and 318 EDINBURGH ELECTION. take as much beef from him this year as last. The principle of the rights of property is, that a man is not only to be allowed to dispose of his wealth according to common sense, and in an ordinary way, but that he shall be allowed to indulge his whims and caprices — to employ whatever tradesmen and labourers he pleases, and rent, or refuse to rent, his land to tenants according to his own pleasure, however absurd the principle on which he chose to let it to them. The first evening I had a seat in the House of Commons, Mr. Poulett Thomson made a motion for parliamentary censure on the Duke of Newcastle in reference to the borough of Newark. Sir R. Peel opposed the motion with his accustomed abihty, and with really forcible and unanswerable reasons. He asked if it was meant to be held that the tenant who voted against the land- lord was to be kept in his place by penal laws because of his vote ? If so, the tenant who wished to keep possession of his tack had only to vote against the landlord, and receive protection from the law. Such is the argument against penal laws in relation to the rights of property. Were they enacted, it would be impossible to tell what the consequences would be ; and therefore we are obliged to consider whether there is any other means of preven- tion. The only other mode of putting down the practice of intimidation appears to be vote by ballot. That the ballot has disadvantages to be set out against its advantages, I do admit; but it appears to me that the evd. for which the ballot is the only specific remedy is greater than any evil which the ballot could possibly produce. And observe, gentlemen, with what exquisite accuracy the ballot draws the line between the power that we ought and ought not to give the landlord. It leaves him absolute power to do what he likes with his own, except in this case. It leaves him at liberty to foUow out his wildest whims and caprices in the exercise of all his rights as landlord. The only thing the ballot takes from him is the power of controlling the vote, which it is our only duty to protect. I ought at the same time to say that there is one objection to the ballot of a serious nature, which may nevertheless be obviated. It is clear that if you have the ballot you can have no remedy against an unfair election by EDINBURGH ELECTION. 319 means of scrutiny. Unless^ therefore, the registrations could be counted on as correct, the ballot would be a dangerous measure. At present, the registrations were strictly looked after ; but if all chance of changing the representative were removed, they would require to be stiU more so. A careful revision of the law of registration ought to be considered an inseparable part of any measure by which the ballot is given. Considering that the evils of intimidation have been so generally and practi- cally felt, it is not surprising that the cry for a remedy has been loud and urgent. There is another question respecting which I understand many of you are anxious, that respecting the duration of Parliaments. It will be admitted that for some years past we have had very little reason to complain of the length of Parhaments. Since the year 1830 we have had five general elections, two occasioned by the demise of the Crown, and three by political junctures. As to the present Parhament, I do not think, whatever are the opinions which any gentleman may entertain of the conduct of that body, that they will impute any of their faults to the sitting to the end of the seven years. I doubt whether one member in ten considers his seat worth three years purchase. When we consider this question, we must consider it as one not of an im- mediately pressing character, as one under the evils of which we are not presently placed. There is no reason for not fairly con- sidering the question, for it is the part of wisdom to prevent evil, and guard against its possible consequences. If the law is in a bad state, it is no reason for not improving it that accidental circumstances have prevented evil. The question, like that of the baUot, has serious considerations on both sides. The objec- tions to very long Parliaments are obvious. In very long Parha- ments it is strikingly apparent that there is no representation at all. The public mind goes on changing irom time to time — and still we have a representative body differing in feeling and opinion from the people. Before the Revolution the duration of Parliaments was limited by the length of the sovereign's reign ; and the effect of this was, as in the reign of Charles II., that a Parliament elected when the nation was thrown into hysterics of 330. EDINBURGH ELECTION. loyalty by tte return of the prince from exile, and whicli was therefore favourable to the king, kept in for eighteen years, by which time two-thirds of the nation wished Charles back to Holland again. Since the Revolution we have not had any evil of the same extent ; but it must be admitted that a term of seven years is too long. There were other considerations connected with general elections — \dolent political excitement and the ruinous expense. Both of these have been much reduced by the Reform Bill. Formerly there were things of which we know nothing at all. In England the injury to the peace and morals of society resulting from a general election was incalculable. During a fifteen days' poll in a town of 100,000 inhabitants, money was flowing in all directions, the streets were running with beer, business was suspended, and there was nothing but drinldng, rioting, and fighting, whUe lies and calumnies were circulated which lasted for many years in the bosoms of families, or rankled in the hearts of former private friends. By limiting the poll to one day, as much good was effected as by any other provision of the Reform Bill. It is not to be denied that there are excite- ments still on occasions of election, but these are on the gradual decline. The expense of election is greatly diminished. I believe you are all well aware of the York election of 1807, and the Northumberland of 1836. In these sums of £300,000 and £300,000 were expended. The tenth, the hundredth part of such sums was unnecessarily large to be expended in securing the return of a representative. The hardship of such expendi- ture falls not on the candidate, but on you, and the effect is to limit you in the choice of able men. The number of men who can afford to advance £5000 is necessarily much smaller than those who can lay down £500, and the number who can lay down £500 in three years was necessarily less than the number who could advance the same sum once in seven years. It was a simple question of comparison. In long Parliaments their choice of representatives would not be so limited as if the period of duration was short, uidess, indeed, the expense of elections was very considerably reduced. Now, in all questions of this sort it is the part of wisdom to attempt to strike a correct balance; but EDINBURGH ELECTION. 321 that could not be done in a political matter with arithmetical precision. If electors were to judge of candidates by their habits of miad and qualifications as brought under their obser- vatioUj it would tend very much to the reduction of the expense of elections. I have stated the arguments in favour of long and short terms of Parliament ; but this I would have you to observe, that whatever term you fix on for the duration of Parliament, the legal term should be one year longer than the term you think it desirable that Parliament should sit, for the practice is that no Minister will allow the Parliament to sit to the extreme length — if, indeed, the country is in a state that he can dissolve the preceding year. If he allowed the Parhament to sit the extreme length, then he must dissolve ; and that may happen at a period when famine, insurrection, and everything else may render a general election highly inexpedient. AU men of ordinary prudence would attempt to avoid that necessity by dissolving the preceding year. Mr. Pitt's Parhament of 1784 dissolved in 1790; the Parhament of 1790 in 1796— and that again in 1802; the Parliament of 1812 dissolved in 1818 ; and that of 1820 in 1826. No Parhament has for many years ever been allowed to sit out the full term of seven years; and, under the Septennial Act, no prudent Ministry would allow the time to expire. If, then, you wish Parliament to sit for three years, the legal term must be made four years ; and if for four years, then the legal term should be five years. My own inclination would be to fix the legal term at five years, making the practical rule four years. When any shortening of the duration of Parliament takes place, my opinion is, that the law which renders it necessary that Parhament should be dis- solved within six months after the death of the reigning Sovereign should be abolished. The demise of the Crown is no reason that a Parliament elected six weeks before should be dissolved so shortly afterwards. I attribute this error in the law to nothing but an old legal technicality, for the continuance of which no good reason was advanced appertaining to the pubHc good. And now I come to another subject, and it is a subject of the highest and gravest importance — I mean the elective franchise ; 323 EDINBUEGH ELECTION. and I acknowledge I am doubtM whether my views may be so pleasing to many here present as what I have already stated appears to have been; but, at the same time, I shall express them as a man more desirous to have your esteem than your votes. I am for the principle originally proposed in the Reform Bill. I think it, as a principle which fixed the elective franchise, an excellent one, and I think it only remains to foUow it out. I deeply regret that the Government of that day ever departed from it, because it was a deviation to which I, as an individual, was most strongly opposed, and to which I believe the Govern- ment was as strongly opposed when it consented to it, but to which the Ministry were driven partly by the vehemence of its opponents, and partly by divisions amongst its own friends. There was first the admission of the old freemen to the franchise, and, secondly, the £50 tenant-at-will clause. At the same time, I may state that I despair, at the present time, of the Ministry being able directly to correct either of those evils ; but as to the latter, the £50 tenant-at-will clause, I think the real corrective will be found in the ballot ; and as to the other, the only cor- rective I know of, and which has already been introduced into many places — I say the only corrective seems to be, that Parlia- ment should keep its eye fixed on those places, and vigilantly investigate the conduct of the electors, and, when convicted of corruption, disfranchise them. As to the other changes, my opinion is, that very great difficulties are thrown in the way of registration. I think measures should be taken so that the clauses as to the payment of rates should be amended, or alto- gether removed; and I also believe that the elective franchise might be extended to every j£10 householder, whether his house is within or without the limits of any borough. To this extent I wiU go ; but I should not deal with you with that ingenuous- ness which I think you have not the less a right to demand at my hands than it is my earnest desire to employ towards you, if I did not teU you that I am not prepared to go further. There are many other questions on which you have also a right to know my sentiments, but which at present I can only glance at in the most cursory way. I have always been a de- EDINBURGH ELECTION. 323 termined enemy of the slave-trade, and of personal slavery in every form. I have always been a friend to popular education. I have always been a friend to the right of free discussion. I have always been averse to every restriction on free-trade, and, above all, to restrictions on trade which affect the necessaries of life ; and, lastly, I have been always adverse to all religious perse- cution, whether it took the form of direct penalties, or civil disabilities, or exclusion from any of the blessings of society or government. And now, having said something to you about measures, I hope I may be permitted to offer a few words about men. If you send me up as your representative to Parliament, I wish you to understand that I shall go there determined to support Lord Melbourne's Government. [Interruption.) Gentlemen, I am not only perfectly used by long practice (although I acknowledge my hands have lately been out) to expressions of dissent, but I can assure you that I entertain no feelings otherwise than those of kindness and perfect respect for such expressions as every person in this assembly is entitled to use. But I say again that, if you send me up to Parliament, I go there as a supporter of Lord Mel- bourne's Admiaistration. And I do so, not on account of any personal interest or personal feeling that I may have to gratify, although I have certainly the happiness to have several kind and valued friends among that Government, and there is one member of that Government (the President of the Council) to whom I owe obligations that I shall never forget. To that noble lord, when I was perfectly unknown to public men, and scarcely known to himself, I owe the honour of having been placed ia the House of Commons j and when there he never ia the least interfered with my perfect freedom of action.* I have since represented a great constituent body, whose kindness I never can forget, I , * Mr. MacauJayj in reply to some attacks made upon him during the Leeds election, thus referred to his political connexion with the Marquis of Lansdowne : " In the ses- sion of 1831 — that session which was terminated by an abrupt dissolution, so that a debate on slavery was left unfinished — it was, I believe, the intention of Governmenfc to oppose Mr. Buxton's motion. I went to my excellent and noble-minded friend Lord Lansdowne, and told him that I believed Grovernment intended to oppose the motion, but that, if I sat in Parliament, I must both vote and speak for it ; that therefore my seat was at his disposal. Lord Lansdowne answered that his only wish was that I should act according to my conscience on that and every other occasion." 324 EDINBURGH ELECTION. mean the borough of Leeds. I may, by your kindness, be member of Parliament for Edinburgh, but I can never feel more independent than when I sat in Parhament as the nominee of Lord Lansdowne. But while I acknowledge with gratitude my obligations to that noble person, while I also express my friend- ship for many of his colleagues, it is not on such grounds that I announce my support of the Melbourne Administration. I have no right whatever to sacrifice your interests, or, atiU more, my own sense of the high obligations I undertake if returned as your representative, to any personal or private feelings I may enter- tain ; neither is it my principle, nor do my friends expect that I should bestow the support which I profess to give on these grounds. I believe that Administration to be by many degrees the best which, in the present state of the country, it is possible to form. I believe, further, that you have only one choice, and that choice is, in substance — I speak not of a particular section — I say that choice is, in substance, between an Administration under Lord Melbourne and one under the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel. If any man entertains an opinion strongly opposed to this view, perhaps I might direct my attention to his particular objections; but as these noises [alluding to certain hisses] carry no sense, I cannot infer on what gi'ound the opposite expressions proceed — whether they arise from Lord Melbourne's Grovemment being too Conservative, or from their not going far enough. I repeat, if I knew from what side they came, I would be most happy to direct my argument in that particular line ; but having no such guide, I am compelled to proceed as I best can. Now, I am far from denying that Lord Melbourne's Government have committed great faults; but when I see the difficulties with which they were struggling, I confidently say that, looking back at the past, I think them well entitled to praise. Looking to the future, I with still greater confidence pronounce them entitled to oxa support. It is a common error — it is one that I should not be surprised to find among the respectable body that I now address, for I have found it among men not only of education and good abilities, and, generally speaking, enlightened views, but also exceedingly conversant with public life — I allude to the common error of EDINBURGH ELECTION. 325 thinking in politics, that legislation is everything, and adminis- tration nothing. Nothing is more common than to say, " WeU, here is another session gone and nothing done ; no new Bill carried, the Irish Municipal Bill stopped in the House, and no measure brought in for shortening the duration of Parliament ; how could we be worse off if the Tories were in ?" Why, my answer is, that if the Tories had been in, you would of course have retaiaed those laws which are vicious, and you would have had a vicious administration of them into the bargain. It seems strange that people should think it not better to have an unre- formed system of laws administered in a spirit of reform, than a reform system administered in a spirit hostile to reform. We often hear the saying " Measures, not men," and it is an excel- lent one in one sense. Men are not to be supported on personal groimds — not because Sir Robert Peel happens to be Sir Robert Peel, or Lord John Russell to be Lord John Russell. I am not to foUow the pohtical leaders of the day as my highland ancestors followed their chiefs — the Campbells fighting for the House of Hanover because the Duke of Argyll happened to be a Whig, and the Camerons, on the other hand, contending for the House of Stuart because Lochiel was a Jacobite. But because people prefer measures to men, is it unimportant how those measures may be administered ? There never was a greater fallacy. Laws are a mere dead letter until some human agent puts hfe into them, and we must leave a great deal to the discretion of those who execute them. This is the case even in judicial matters, and you cannot tie up a judge from using this discretion any more than the Minister for Foreign Affairs, or the Minister for any other department ; but in the former case, is it of no consequence whether the laws be administered by a Judge Hales or a Judge JeiBferies ? And can you doubt that a stiR larger discretion must be left to the Ministers who ad- minister the policy of the country ? It would be easy to point out societies in which, with numerous bad institutions, a good administration of the government had made them happy ; and, on the contrary, other societies in which, though the institutions looked well on paper, and appeared in the abstract unexception- able, yet a bad administration was grinding a people to the dust. VOL. II. z 326 EDINBURGH ELECTION. We need not go beyond our own country to seek instances of a good administration well administering bad laws. Look at the state of the English law with regard to political libels. I hold that law to be a scandal to a civilised society. Nothing more absurd, I will venture to say, is to be found in the whole history of jurisprudence. We aU know to what extent this law was abused by Lord North, by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Perceval, Lord Liver- pool, and, I am sorry to say, although I do it most justly, by Lord Abinger, under the administration of the Duke of Wel- lington and Sir Eobert Peel. Now, will any man say that this law has been abused in one single instance by the Government of Lord Melbourne ? That Government has stood in no want of enemies ; they have had their share of maligners, both Tory and Radical, and a sufficient pretext in a series of the most gross and scandalous calumnies; but will any man say that this Government, so violently assailed, ever abused this law, or even filed a single ex officio ioformation ? Was it, I repeat, for want of hbellers that it so restrained itself? And so this is the effect of that law under the Melbourne Administration. Has the law been modified ? Not at all. It was all the same as the law under which Perry was punished for writing that George the Third was an unpopular king, and Leigh Hunt for writing that George the Fourth was fat, and by which Sir Francis Burdett was imprisoned for expressing his opinion, not certainly in the most judicious or most regular, but still in very natural terms, as to the proceedings in Manchester in 1820. But if that law had been completely remodelled, the press could not have enjoyed a liberty more entire than it has enjoyed ever since Lord Melbourne came into power. Even this is an instance of the power of a good administration to mitigate bad laws; but look at the immense importance of having a good administration to make good laws, and a good administration to execute them. An excellent measure was brought into the House of Commons by Lord John Bussell in 1828, and passed; and to any other man the carrying through of such a measure would have been an enviable distinction ; but his name happens to be identified with the great Reform measure. But yetj even amidst aU his titles to respect, this EDINBURGH ELECTION. 327 law entitled him to honour, and that was the law for repealing the Test Act. WeU, within a short time since, the Duke of Newcastle thought proper, merely on his own motion — and it appears that there is no life richer in illustration of the branches of misgovernment — his Grace announced, to the great surprise of the Government, that he would not recommend a certain gentleman to the commission of the peace for Nottingham, because he was a dissenter. So here is a law passed in 1828 ; you have a Tory lord-lieutenant, and he repeals it so far as regards the county of Nottingham. But if you have a Tory in Nottingham, what have you in Whitehall? They in White- hall put the dissenter into the commission, and they turned the Duke out of the lieutenancy. Now, do you seriously imagine that a Tory administration would have done so? I believe not. Yet, observe, of the great Tory leaders I would always speak vath most unfeigned respect, both as regards their public talents and their estimable private virtues. Of the Duke of Wellington I always feel as if the country had cause to be proud for having produced such a man. Nor do I entertain anything but feelings of kindness and respect towards Sir Robert Peel, of whose talents no man who ever was opposed to him would speak but with deep respect. Nor do I think that the Duke of Wel- lington or Sir Robert Peel would have approved of the conduct of the Duke of Newcastle; indeed, I believe the Duke of Wellington would as soon have run away from battle as ap- proved of it ; but then, I say, as Mr. Pulteney, a political leader, said a hundred years since, " They might be wiUing, but the heads of parties are hke the heads of snakes — carried on by the tails." It would have been impossible to have discarded the influential Tory Duke, unless they had at the same time resolved, like Mr. Canning, to throw themselves on the Whigs. Now, I have given you those two instances to show that, although the laws remain the same, it makes aU the difference in the world by whom they are administered ; that to have a Tory Government is one-half to repeal the Test Act, and to have a Whig Government is one-half to repeal the law of libel. If this is the case with England and Scotland, where society is comparatively in a sound state, how much more is it the case 328 EDINBURGH ELECTION. in a diseased part of the Empire — in Ireland ? Just take any man there — I don't care what his political creed — whether a Repealer, Precursor^ or Orangeman, or whether his views be right or wrong — but I say take anyone ; and I will venture that if you go from Mr. O'Connell to Colonel Conolly, they will tell you that all depends on the hands in whom the administra- tive Government is placed. In this country they may say that three years have the Government hammered away at the Irish Mimicipal Bill, and never pushed it through; but they in Ireland will tell you that they had rather lose ten Municipal Bills than lose Lord Ebrington, and see the Executive in the hands of Lord Roden, with Mr. Lefroy as chief secretary. I win venture to say, if you were to put the question whether they would take the Municipal BUI, and whether they would purchase that by having Lord Roden as Lord-Lieutenant, they would answer, " Leave us the municipal and all other abuses, and keep your heutenant." Nay, the slower reform is, it is just the more important that you should have a good Executive Government. In Russia, where the Crown is absolute, it is more important that you should have a wise and humane Execu- tive than in a country which possesses a legislative system ; and so it is more important in Ireland than in England and Scot- land. If you have not in the statute-book all the securities for a good government, it is surely the more necessary that you should have good men to administer such laws as you have. With regard to Lord Melbourne's Government, I observe that the worst fault that can be imputed to it resolves itself into the weakness of that Government. Is it, then, a weakness that renders it our duty to oppose, or a weakness that renders it our duty to support ? There is a weakness which I hold to be one of the greatest faults, and which, if I find in a Government, I would be the last man who would wish such a Government to stand. I mean an intellectual and moral weakness — an incapacity to perceive, and a want of courage to pursue, the true interests of the country. Such was the weakness of Mr. Addington's Government, when this coimtry was threatened with an invasion by an ai-mament in Boulogne. Such was the weakness of that Government that sent an expensive and useless expedition to EDINBURGH ELECTION. 329 Walchererij and thereby starved the army of the gallant Wel- lington in Spain, a Government vrhich never showed any vigour except in pursuing libellers and slaughtering rioters, which its own misgovemment had driven into outrage. But is that the weakness of the present GrovemiQent? I do not think so. Compared with any other Government, has it been deficient in either moral or intellectual strength ? In all the great questions in which they differed from the Conservatives, I held them to be in the right, and therefore I held that it was not an intellectual weakness that prevented them from attaining their ends. When you find how manfuUy Lord Melbourne stood forward against the Lords^ majority, in defence of the principles of that Govern- ment, and have seen how Lord John Russell in the Commons has extorted even the admiration of his opponents, while year after year, in the face of weakness, sickness, and domestic sor- rows, he fought the people's battles so manfully, you cannot think that moral weakness or incapacity can be charged against such a Government. I say, therefore, that their weakness seems to be a weakness of that sort which requires not opposi- tion but support ; and that support it is my purpose to afibrd to the best of my ability. If, indeed, I thought myself at liberty to consult my own inclination, I would have most willingly stood aloof from that strife ; but if sent up by you to that assembly, I shall find it a very different one from that I quitted in 1834. I left the Whig party united and dominant — strong in the attachment and confi- dence of one House, and strong also in the fears of the other. I shall now find them helpless in the Lords, and forced almost every week to battle for their existence in the Commons. Many whom I then left sitting side by side with the present Ministry, and apparently bound by the strongest ties of public principle and private friendship, I shall now find sitting apart, and, as is too often the consequence of such ruptures, opposing them with more than the ordinary bitterness of political hostility. Many with whom I sat side by side during the stormy nights of the Eeform Bill, till the sun broke over our undiminished ranks from the other side of the Thames, I shall now see ranged in hostile array. This is a painful alteration with some with whom I once 330 EDINBUEGH ELECTION. hoped never to have any conflict but in the generous and friendly object of serving our great common cause. I Igft the Liberal Government strong enough to maintain itself against an adverse storm. I see the Liberal Government now rests for support on the preference of a Sovereign in whom our country sees with delight the promise of a better, a gentler, and a happier Eliza- beth — a Sovereign ia whom we hope our children, and our children's children, will admire the firmness, the sagacity, and the spirit which distinguished the last and the greatest of the Tudors, tempered by the benignant influence of more humane times and more popular institutions. Whether royal favour, never more needed, and never better deserved, will enable the Government to surmount the difiicxdties with which they have to deal, I do not pretend to judge. It may be that the blow may be only diverted for a season, and that a long period of Tory domination is before us ; but if so, I entered public life a Wliig, and a Whig I still remain. When I use the word, I use it in no narrowed sense. I mean by a Whig, not a man who subscribes implicitly to all the contents of any book, though the writer were Locke, or to the dicta of any statesman, though that statesman were Fox, and to any party, although composed of the finest and noblest spirits of the age. It seems to me I can discern a great party often depressed, but never extinguished, preserving its constant identity — a party which, though often tainted with the sins of the age, was always in advance of it — a party which, though guilty of some crimes and errors, has done its best to promote civil freedom, religious toleration, civilisation, and social improvement ; and of that party I am proud to acknow- ledge myself a member. That was the party, gentlemen, which in the great question of monopolies stood up against Elizabeth ; that was the party which, in the reign of James I., organised for the first time a Parhamentary opposition, and gradually advanced the privileges of the people ; that party drove Charles I. from the resource of the ship-money, destroyed the iniquitous Star Chamber under Charles II., gave us the Habeas Corpus Act, and brought about the Eevolution of 1688 ; that was the party which broke the yoke of a tyrannical Church in this country, and saved Scotland from the deplorable fate of Ireland; that EDINBURGH ELECTION. 331 party maintained the constitutional throne to the house of Hanover, against the hostility of the rich Cathohc nobility and gentry of England, and the designs of the Pretender ; that was the party which opposed the American war in the eighteenth century, and through whose exertions in the nineteenth civil liberty was obtained to the Catholic. Freedom to trade in corn was advocated, the slave-trade abolished. Whatever, then, has been done for the amelioration of the condition of the people, for the modification of the penal laws, has been all done by that party, and of that party, I repeat, I am a member. I look back with pride on all its many struggles and flashes of glory- — on all its career in the advancement of human freedom and happiness — and I have seen it struggling with many difiiculties, but stiU. fighting the good fight, with leaders in whose veins glowed the blood of the champions and martyrs in the cause of freedom. To that party I am attached. Delusion may triumph, but the trimnphs of delusion are but for a day. We may be defeated, but our principles wiU, I am convinced, only gain fresE strength from defending them. Be that as it may, my part is taken, and while one shred of the old banner is flying, by that banner will I at least be found. The good old cause, as Sydney called it on the scafibld, may be vanquished or victorious, insulted or boldly triumphant, the good old cause is still the good old cause with me. Whether in or out of Parliament, whether speaking with that authority which always belongs to the representative of this great and erJightened community, or expressing the humbler sentiments of a private citizen, I will to the last maintain inviolate my fidelity to principles which, though they may be borne down for a time — borne down by senseless clamour — are yet strong with the strength and immortal with the immortality of truth, and which, however they may be misunderstood or misrepresented by contemporaries, will assuredly find sympathy, justice, and admiration from a better age. Gentlemen, I have to thank you for your attentive hearing, and to assure you, whether my opinions may or may not entitle me to your fran- chises, I trust that the candour with which I have expressed them will at least entitle me to your esteem. 333 EDINBURGH ELECTION. June 4, 1839. On tlie Hustings at Edinburgh. Gentlemen, — If you want votes, listen to reason, for no man can ever be worthy of that privilege that refuses to do so. If you do not wish to establish against yourselves and at once, without any argument on my part, or any reasoning conclusive to the judgment of every sensible man, that you are unworthy of the franchise, listen to reason. I perceive by a placard which was posted up in aU parts of the town yesterday, by some learned person, who seems perfectly ignorant of spelling and grammar — I say, I perceive that you have been informed that I used ex- pressions that I never did use. I see you have been informed that I described the working-classes of this country as Hotten- tots. [Cries of " So you did !") It is false. I said, and I say agaia, and I will give you my reasons for saying so, that if this country were to be governed on the principles on which a portion of the labouring-classes are calhng for universal suffrage, the attempt would inevitably reduce this country to the condition of the Hottentots. {Interruption.) My good friends, if you wish for the franchise, these hisses and yells wUl not establish your right to it. The meaning of my expression is this : I believe that the condition of the labouring-classes in this island, and particularly those in the north, are far, very far indeed, from what I could wish to see it. But still I do conscientiously believe that the difference between the condition of these labouring-classes, and the condi- tion of the people who live in countries utterly uncivihsed, is very- great indeed. (" It's a lie !") I can establish the fact. The cottages of the labouring-classes are not what I could wish to see them ; but still they are very superior to the kraals of the Hottentot or the wigwam of the Indian. Your clothing is not EDINBURGH ELECTION. 333 exactly what I could wish to see it, but it is better than the nakedness of the barbarians existing- ia many parts of the world. (" We're as good as you !") I am not disputing your goodness, I am telluig you how much superior you are to barbarians. One of the speakers to-day talked of the labouring- classes being in a state of starvation. God forbid that this should be the fact ; at any rate, I cannot charge myself with being the cause of it ; but whatever I could do to make food cheaper, I would most willingly and gladly do it. But observe, there are countries where, from want of civilisation and all social order, it is not unusual to see the whole population suffering from famine, whole families swept away iu a day, whole races, I may say, swept away in a season. When, therefore, we see the great difference between these societies where the people live in utter barbarism, and those societies where, though the people are not quite so well off as I could wish to see them, yet where they hold a com- parative high rank among the nations for civilisation and comfort, and which is mauily occasioned by their deference to law and the security of property, I say to every one amongst you, if any accident should befall you, if any sickness should overtake you, you could at this moment secure far better surgical skiU and medical attendance than the very princes of half the barbarian nations in the world. Now, to what is this owing ? Why, to nothing else than to the existence and preservation of law, order, and property. Now, what think you would be the consequence of carrying into effect these principles, which some of the leaders of the party who are now calling for universal suffrage have publicly avowed ? They have said, if universal suflrage is refused, a war against property wiU be commenced. (Crie* 0/ " No !" and "Yesl") I do not impute these sentiments to you, my good friends ; but I say that it has been said by some of the leaders of that party, that all the manufacturing houses, aU the machinery, all the railroads, all the great works which human industry and wealth have in the course of ages collected together, ought to be . destroyed by the labouring-classes. {Mr. Fraser, "That is false !") I do not affirm that that has been said here, but I tell you that 334 EDINBURGH ELECTION. I have read it. I repeat that I have read it in a Chartist news- paper ; and I have also read in the same quarter that if the landholders opposed the people's charter^ the landholders ought to be put to death. I say, also, that doctrines subversive of the rights of property have been put forth on this occasion. Even Mr. Fraser himself, moderate as he was, and not at all sanguinary, advanced doctrines which, in my opinion, are entirely inconsistent with the rights of property ; and I say that if you once touch the sanctity of property, property will fly from this country. That which is in a fixed form will perish ; that which is in a passing form will be carried away ; and the labouring-classes will be the great sufferers. Men will carry their capital to another country. I say that, out of this great, this vast population of twenty-four millions, cooped up together in a space which was never before so thickly peopled in the history of the world, with thousands unable to emigrate to any other country — if once you destroy the security of property, the consequence will be that you, the working-men, will be the great sufferers. The capital, the property, the educated classes, will depart — the labom'ers will be left to perish. That is what I meant when I said that, in my opinion, if the measures advanced by some of the leaders of universal sufirage were carried into effect, they would reduce Scotland and England to the state of the Hottentots. Gentlemen, you have been already detained so long, that I cannot think of going over at full length the immense number of topics which have been introduced, or follow Mr. Eraser through aU his misrepresentations of history, and all his inaccu- rate reasonings. I can do no more than merely refer Mr. Fraser to those historical works to which he referred me to prove that the Septennial Act, introduced by the Whigs, abolished annual Parliaments, in order to see that when the Whig party introduced that hmit to the duration of Parliaments, there was no hmit but that of the pleasure of the sovereign or the length of his reign. I beg leave to adviscMr. Eraser also to enlighten himself a little more with respect to Acts of Parliament before he repeats the statement that Lord Grenville was made Eirst Lord of the Treasury by an Act of the Legislature. I had presumed that by our Constitu- EDINBURGH ELECTION. 335 tion that appointment was always left in the hands of the Executive. Gentlemen, I had no wish to address you at any length to-day ; but having been informed that the working-men of Edinburgh had been induced to believe that I apphed to them a disrespectful epithet, I thought it right to do away with that impression. Having done so, I will not detain you farther. My explanations are before you. I am perfectly willing to abide by any test you choose to bring the contest between me and Mr. Crauford to an issue. I now leave my pretensions, such as they are, with you — to your choice I submit myself. [After the Sheriff had declared Mr. Macaulay duly elected, he attempted to address the crowd ; but the Chartists made so great a disturbance that it was impossible to hear him. He accordingly retired, along with a large body of his friends, to the Merchants' Hall, where he addressed them as follows.] Gentlemen, here, at length, I can be heard — here at length those thanks which were inaudible in the High-street may be paid to you, to whom they are especially due. It is a great honour to represent such a city and to succeed such a man. And I reflect with pride that our victory has been won by honest arts, without corruption, without intimidation, without, on my part, one insincere profession, or one evasive answer. But it is chiefly on public grounds that I am gratified and elated. A great national crisis has recently excited the pubhc mind. This is the first occasion since that crisis on which a great city has been called on to express its sentiments on pubhc affairs in the most solemn and authentic manner- — that is to say, by the choice of a representative. For though public meetings, resolutions, ad- dresses to the Queen, petitions to Parliament, are all in their way useful as indications of public feehng, you will, I am per- suaded, agree with me in thinking that the most decisive demon- stration of that feeling is the choice of a representative. On the present occasion the appeal has been made to a city which, considered with reference to its population, ranks very high among the cities of the Empire, and which has other high and peculiar claims to respect. Once the metropoKs of a king- dom, the seat of a Court and of a Legislature, it is still regarded with respect and fondness by an enlightened nation as their 336 EDINBURGH ELECTION. capital^ their chief point of union, the fountain of justice, the depository of archives and public monuments, the home of arts, of sciences, and of letters. The intellectual and moral respectability of the population is such, that its voice has far higher authority than that of some larger constituent bodies. To this community, so great, so distinguished, my opinions have been frankly and unreservedly explained. This community, by selecting me as its representative, has declared its general appro- bation of those opinions. Oiu" victory is complete. We have triumphed over each of the hostile parties on its own ground. We have beaten the Chartists, who boast of their number, on the show of hands in the High-street ; and the Tories, who boast of their weight among the upper classes, have not ventured to meet us at the poU. I speak vrithout the smallest feeling of personal unkind- ness towards the Tory party here. Such a feeling on my part would be most unjustifiable ; for I would venture to say that no candidate for the representation of a great town was ever more fairly and courteously dealt with by those from whom he dis- sented than I have been by the Tories of Edinburgh. I give them, as I would wish them to give me, credit for sincerity and good intentions towards our common country. I am sure that they refrained from encountering us, not from want of zeal, not from want of gentlemen who would have stood for the capital of Scotland, but from a firm conviction that they had no chance of carrying a member. I say, therefore, that the judgment — the deUberate judgment of this great city touching the state of pohtical parties has been most imequivocaUy ex- pressed. And what is that judgment? Even this. We are most grateful for the Reform Bill, but we demand that its principles be followed out to aU their legitimate consequences. We are most grateful for many good laws, the natural fruits of the Eeform BiU ; but we still see many abuses, and we demand that they be remedied. We have nothing in common with the enemies of peace, property, and civilisation. What we want is good government and not anarchy. We are as much averse to spoliation and confusion as to oppression and corruption. We EDINBURGH ELECTION. 337 will have reform : we wiU not have revolution. We will main- tain those two great principles which are the main sources of national strength and prosperity^ which are the chief nutriment of every talent and every virtue — liberty and order. I hope at no remote time to visit you agaiuj to see again many of those friendly faces, to shake again many of those honest hands. In the meantime, it is not here, hut in the House of Commons ; not by personal courtesies, but by useful and faithful votes, that I must seek to estabhsh myself in your favour. What may be the state of things when we meet again, what changes may have taken place, what party may be in power, no man can venture to predict. But this I confidently promise, that your representative will not be ashamed to look you full in the face, nor afraid to submit to your judgment the question, whether he has or has not, through all the vicissitudes of popularity and power, stood by those principles which have so signally triumphed to-day. 338 EDINBURGH ELECTION. June 26, 1841. At a Meeting of the Electors, lisld in the Waterloo Rooms, Edinhurgh. It is not without some emotion that I meet you again on this spot — -the very spot on which I last parted with you. When I entered the room, I at once recollected that it was here we assembled on the evening when I last quitted Edinburgh to discharge my parliamentary duties, and that it was almost from the very part of the platform on which I now stand that I pledged myself faithftdly to discharge those duties. Certainly, if I could reproach myself with any voluntary desertion of my duty, with any deliberate violation of my pledge, I know not how I should be able, in this place, to look you in the face— I know not how I should be able to sustain the shame and self- reproach which, itt that case, would be my just punishment. But it is not so ; and conscious as I am of many imperfections in the discharge of my pubhc duties, I venture to say that I can meet you without shame — that I can meet you with the feelings of a man who has at least meant well and endeavoured well. I conceive that I shall best meet your wishes, and best dis- charge the duty which Ues upon me on the present occasion, if, ■\vithout any attempt at rhetorical ornament, I endeavour simply and clearly to set before you what is the nature of those circum- stances in which the country now stands, and what the points are on which her Majesty, by the advice of her constitutional councillors, has determined to appeal to the people. You are aware that the cause of the present dissolution is to be found in financial embarrassments. Those financial embarrassments have not in this city, so far as I am aware — but they have in Parlia- ment, and before many constituent bodies — been made the subject of grave charges against her Majesty's Government. It EDINBURGH ELECTION. 339 has been said that Grovemment received the finances with a surplus, and that at present there is a deficit; that it is not necessary to inquire in what manner that deficit has been pro- duced ; that it is suificient for purposes of suspicion^ that it is sufiicient to justify you in withholding your confidence from Government, that having, when they came into of&ce, found a surplus in the Treasury, they have at present to deal with a deficit. That is a very commodious and simple style of argu- ment — one which, on minds fully prepared to believe it, on minds blinded by factious animosity, will easily produce a strong effect ; but which I am confident will produce no efiect on minds like yours. You will find it necessary to inquire, before making this deficit an article of accusation against the Grovernment, to what causes this deficit is to be attributed; and you will find that these causes, when you come to consider the question in its proper bearings, are partly causes utterly beyond the reach of any Government, and partly causes for which legislation and administration may fairly be held to be responsible. The first and most important cause of that deficiency is un- questionably the introduction of the system of penny postage. Now, of that reduction I can take to myself neither the praise nor the blame as a Minister of the Crovm ; for when that re- duction was made I was an independent member of Parliament. As a member of Parhament I gave my vote for the reduction, nor do I conceive that for that vote you can ever reproach me. It is impossible that you should have forgotten that, when two years ago I first appeared before you, at every meeting in every district, at every place where twenty electors were gathered together, the unfailing question was. Are you for the penny postage ? The answer I returned was, that to the system of penny postage I was decidedly favourable ; but I constantly added, as in justice and veracity I was bound to add, that if, as I expected, the effect of that change shoidd be to cause a deficiency in the revenue, I should expect your support and not your disapprobation in adopt- ing such measures as were necessary to supply the deficiency. I deny that on that subject I myself, as a member of Parliament, or the Government, in the course they adopted, practised any 340 EDINBURGH ELECTION. delusion. I deny that the Government ever stated that they expected the revenue would be as large under the new as under the old system. On the contrary, the fact is, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bringing forward the measure, distinctly apprised the House of Commons that he expected a deficiency ; and he called upon the House of Commons, in a manner for which there is no precedent, to give him a distinct and emphatic pledge that, if that deficiency took place, means would be taken to supply it. I say, then, that neither against myself as an individual, nor against the Grovernment as a body, can you, the electors of Edinburgh, of all men, bring any charge on account of the penny postage. Eor my part, I am fully convinced that, to whatever financial embarrassments that measure has given rise, it was a wise and a good measure. I am satisfied - that I speak to hundreds who, in their daily concerns, experience the beneficial efiects of that measure. I am satisfied that you have no wish to see us retrace our steps ; and, for my own part, I must declare that there is scarcely any mode of supplying the existiag deficiency which I would not prefer to a return to the old rates of postage. Another principal cause of the deficiency in the revenue is to be found ia the augmentation of some of our establishments, which late events have rendered necessary. If this were made an article of charge against us by persons who had all along disapproved of these augmentations — if a gentleman like Mr. Hume, who has all along condemned our foreign policy, who has all along condemned our measures taken for the purpose of strengthening our mihtary and naval force — if he had made this an article of charge against the Government, and called upon you to withdraw your confidence from her Majesty's present Administration, and repose it in himself, or in some of those gentlemen who had acted with him — then, though I should not think their views correct, I must be compelled to admit their consistency. But when we hear these charges brought against us by persons who always attacked our estimates on the ground of their being too low — when persons who never on any occasion proposed the reduction of a single ship, or the disbanding of a EDINBURGH ELECTION". 341 single regiment — ^who were always crying that the navy was Ul- mannedj and that the number of ships called into the public service was not sufficient, and that there ought to be an augmen- tation of troops — when I hear persons against whom I never had to defeu^ my own estimates, except against the charge that they were too low — against whom my friend Mr. More O'Ferral never had to defend his estimates, except against the charge that they were too low — -when such persons accuse us of profusion, and propose to you to transfer your confidence from us and give it to them, I am persuaded that, without any great sagacity, I could easily divine your answer. I do not believe it is necessary for me here to enter on any defence of those measures which rendered the increase in our establishments necessary. If any gentleman wishes to provoke that discussion, I am perfectly ready to enter upon it ; for myself, I claim only the credit of firmly and manfully standing up for the policy of Lord Palmerston. I believe that it was a policy indispensably necessary to the preservation of the interests and lionom' of this country. If any gentleman wishes to provoke a discussion on this subject, I shall be able to show that the course we have taken, so far from being a course hkely to provoke hos- tihties, was the only course we could have taken with any chance of permanently preserving peace. I believe, also, that I should satisfy you that this course was imperatively required for the honour of this great nation ; and that, if we had flinched under the circumstances in which we were placed, we should have de- graded the country to a position lower than it ever occupied, even under a Tory Government — to a position lower than it occupied when Lord Grey was called to office in 1830 — to a position lower than it occupied when the Austrians invaded Naples— to a position lower than it occupied in 1823, when the French invaded Spain ; and I venture to say that neve i n the history of this country — never, even in the time of Cromwell, or in the time of Lord Chatham, or even after the battle of Waterloo, did this country stand higher in the general opinion of the world— never, I firmly believe, was there diffused throughout the civilised world a stronger impression of its power and spirit than at this VOL. II. ■^ ^ 343 EDINBURGH ELECTION. moment. Permit me to say that I consider it no small addition to the glory of Lord Palmerston that he has produced this result while the Ministry in the House of Commons were in such a position that, from day to day, they were not certain of their existence — -that while from within we were thwarted by faction, we presented to the proudest powers of the civilised world a front as high and as bold as if we had counted a majority of two hundred. Well, gentlemen, such were the causes of the deficiency ; and I confidently appeal to you, as her Majesty has appealed to you, whether, on account of that deficiency, you will think it your duty to withdraw your confidence from those who now advise her? Then comes the question. What measures are to be adopted to supply that deficiency ? In point of fact, there were only two courses to follow. I may, indeed, mention a third, though 1 hardly need, in this assembly, explain how absurd and futile a course it would be. We might have borrowed — we might have put off the evil day from one month to another — we might have escaped from the necessity of taking up the question in 1841 by having a still larger deficit to deal with in 1843. That was no course for statesmen. There were then only two courses. The one was to tax you — either to make every one of you lay down on the table of the tax-gatherer a certain pro- portion of his annual income, or to lay additional burdens on your houses, your carriages, or your servants, or to tax your coals and candles, or the salt which seasons your food, or the leather which is so necessary in every department of industry ; or it would be necessary to lay a tax on the import of some foreign articles, and thus at once injure the consumer at home and restrict our trade with all other nations. This was one course. The other was to make manful war on some of the great monopolies which fetter the industry of the country and yield no return of any value to the revenue. The Government determined to attack the great monopolies. The Government thought that it would be disgraceful to lay taxes upon the people while they could obtain the revenue they required by relieving the people. They thought it would EDINBURGH ELECTION. 343 be disgraceful to supply the deficiencies by making you poorer and poorer, when they could supply them by entering on a course the natural and necessary effect of which must be to make you richer and richer. Having determined to take this course, the Government thought, and in my opinion they thought most justly, that it was necessary to proceed, not step by step, but to bring forward one great and decisive measure ; for if they had determined to attack the monopolies one by one, a very plausible ground would have been made out to each for crying out of injustice. Suppose we had determined to begin with timber, they would have exclaimed, "Why sacrifice Canada ? Look to Jamaica. You think nothing of Canada because we have no members in your House ; while Jamaica has many proprietors in Parliament, and you dare not interfere. Then, if we had taken up the sugar question, the planters would have said, You propose to lay your burdens upon Canada and Jamaica, while the corn monopoly is the greatest of all, and you flinch from a conflict with the landowners. I say, therefore, that the Government have acted rightly in determining to deal with these monopohes together, and to deal with them all on one great principle. The particular question on which the Government was defeated was the question of the sugar-duties ; and the grounds on which the amendment was moved by my Lord Sandon, the effect of which was to bring the country into the position in which we are now placed, was, that by throwing open the ports of the coimtry for the introduction of foreign sugar at a lower duty than is now exacted, we should give encouragement to slavery and the slave- trade. Now, if there be a public man whose feeling with respect to slavery and the slave-trade ought to be, and is, strong and ardent, I venture to say that I am that man. I say nothing of the sacrifices which, under former Governments, I felt it my duty to make in the cause of negro emancipation — I say nothing of some other circumstances which now force themselves on my mind — I shall content myself with showing, as clearly as it is possible to show anything, that the whole cry on the subject of slave-grown sugar, that the whole principle laid down in the amendment moved by Lord Sandon, is one which is utterly futile 344 EDINBURGH ELECTION. — one whichj from respect to that noble person^ whom I believe to be a person of the highest honour^ I shall not designate as hypocritical, but which, I hesitate not to say, is one in which many hypocrites have joined. In fact, only look at the parties — analyse the division — examine on which side is to be found the majority of those men who made exertions and sacrifices to put down negro slavery — examine on which side are to be found the persons who constantly struggled against negro emancipation, who have lived on slaveiy — on whose estates the greatest mor- tality took place, and the flogging of women was daily exhibited — men who lived by selling the mother separate from the child — see on which side these parties are to be found, and whether there was not reason to suspect the cry of liberty, when it is suddenly set up and vehemently joined in by every old slave-driver in the kingdom ? Is there not something grotesque — something which forces itself upon us as ludicrous, if it were not too serious to be laughed at— in the notion of men just fresh from sipping their slave-grown coffee, with their snuff-boxes filled with snuff from slave-grown tobacco, and wearing stockings of slave-grown cotton, coming down to the House and making vehement speeches against slave-grown sugar? Was it proposed to adopt any consistent principle? Was it proposed to lay down a principle that no slave-grown produce should be introduced into this country, and that we should act purely upon that principle? There was, indeed, an attempt made by some ingenious men to make a sort of distinction between them ; it was said that the cultivation of cotton did not require such hard work, that the growth of tobacco did not ruin the constitution, and that in coffee the cultivation was comparatively easy; but that sugar required most severe and grinding labour. As much coffee, said they, as you please ; cotton, our manufacturers would starve without it ; tobacco, that wiU not be very injurious ; but as to sugar, that we can never bear. Wen, then, let us come to sugar. I wish you had heard Lord Palmerston on this subject, or that I had brought his speech with me. I have in my memory some fragments of the argu- ments which he used on the question, and I wiU try to give you EDINBURGH ELECTION. 345 some faint reflection of the incomparable manner in "which he exposed those fallacies. As he trtily said — do you mean to say that you will send no more manufactures to the Brazils ? That you do not say ; on the contrary, everyone on both sides is very desirous that the Brazilians shoidd take our manufactures. But if they are to take our manufactures, they must pay for them ; and if they pay, they can pay with nothing but slave-grown pro- duce. Well, what, in fact, is the course they take ? The Enghsh Minister and the Brazilian Minister meet to negotiate a tariff. Says the English Minister, I hope you will take our manufactures. Willingly enough, says the Brazilian ; but how are we to pay for them? You must take our sugar in return. No, says the Englishman, we can't do that. You don't understand us; we are a virtuous and humane people, with a high standard of morality — we cannot touch slave-grown sugar. Then, says the Brazilian, how am I to deal with you ? for, unless you do that, there is an end to the matter. Why, says the English Minister, things are not so bad as you think ; though we are men of high principle and strict virtue, and cannot possibly take slave-grown sugar, there are the Italians and Germans, who are not such a virtuous and humane people — the Itahans are benighted and besotted Papists, and the Germans are Socinians, and some of them Papists too, who do not understand our humane principles — they will take your sugar ; just go and deal vdth them, get their money, and then you can pay for our manufactures. But, says the Brazilian, how are we to send it to them ? we are ill-pro- vided with shipping. Oh, never miad, says the Englishman, our ships win carry it. It is true we are men of high morality, but stiH we don't object to our ships taking your sugar to Hamburg and Genoa. Oh, but, says the Brazilian, the sugar is not re- fined; we have no refining- apparatus ; and the Germans won't eat it unless it is refined. Bring it to me, says the Englishman. I win refine it in bond for you ; and then, when it is refined, I will carry it to Hamburg and Italy, and put in my pocket the value of the refining, and the rest wiU pay for our manufactures. But, continues the Brazilian, suppose we get on hand more sugar than the Germans will take, what are we to do with it ? Oh, 346 EDINBURGH ELECTION. says the Englishman^ we will send it to our colonies : and so they do. Are you aware that^ while these people are raising this clamour, at Newfoundland, the Cape of Good Hope, in Canada, and throughout our West India Colonies, Brazilian sugar is imported by those very West India proprietors who cry out against the monstrous principle of using slave-grown sugar, while they absolutely use nothing else in their own colonies, except in one or two where there has lately been a change ? Was this a prin- ciple for the sake of which it was worth the while of men of common sense to lay a burden on the people of a country hke this, to the extent of a sum very much more than the twenty millions? I think that we acted wisely in giving the twenty miUions ; and I should have said the same if it had been thirty millions. The moral principle I lay down is this : that no man ought, under any temptation, to do wrong. Whatever may be the price of liberating his conscience from crime, that price he must pay. But it is not the business of any man to look narrowly, and play the busybody with the concerns of his neigh- bours. Look at the case of individuals at home. A man makes his bread by keeping a gambhng-house, or any other receptacle of profligates — by cheating, by smugghng, or by pubUshiug a scurrilous newspaper. Such a course is most disgraceful ; a man of virtue ought to starve rather than do such things. But sup- pose a man is a hosier, or a hatter, or a glover, and a man comes to him to buy a pair of gloves, is that man bound to say, I shall not deal with you, because you edit a disrespectable newspaper, and were found guilty of libel the other day ; to trade with you would be to encourage libelling ? Or to say to another, I under- stand that you have made yom- fortune by illicit practices ; I shan't buy or sell with you ? Or take a case nearer to the point. Did any of those persons who most strenuously objected to slavery ever scruple to have common deahngs with Mr. Goul- bum, or Sir Alexander Grant, or any other of those gentlemen who possess slave-property, or derive their income from the existence of slavery? As an individual ought to act in his private capacity, so ought EDINBURGH ELECTION. 347 the Government to act in its public capacity. You ought not to do wrong yourself— you ought to suffer anything rather than do wrong ; if you have the authority of a magistrate, use that au- thority to compel others not to do wrong ; but, if they are inde- pendent of you, it is yoiu- duty to set them a good example, to give them good advice, to use your influence with them ; but it is not your duty as an individual to sacrifice the interests of your wife and children, or, as a Government, to sacrifice the interests of your people, in carrying on a useless and idle war against abuses which you cannot control, for which you are not respon- sible, and which you are unable to remove. Well, this plan for supplying the deficiency of the revenue, about which I am happy to see that our opinions perfectly coincide — this plan has for the present failed. In consequence of that failure, the Queen has appealed to her people. The rest remains with them. If they know their own interest, if they have the spirit to pursue it in defiance of corruption and intimidation, the victory is certain. I will not anticipate a different result ; I will not anticipate that the people of this empire are so blind to their clearest interests ; I will not anticipate that those who struggled so gallantly to obtain parliamentary reform will now slacken their efforts when the fruits of parliamentary reform are at length to be reaped. I have no more at present to offer on this subject ; and I should now sit down if it had not been suggested to me, since I came here, that it is expected I should say a few words on a subject which, in this part of the empire, appears to have pro- duced great excitement and agitation. You are aware that it has never been my practice to flinch from the avowal of my sentiments merely because I knew those sentiments to be un- popvJar. I feel that I owe to you the truth and the whole truth; and I shall attempt, in a temperate and respectful maimer, to express my feelings, and to state, as precisely as I can, my views of the great general principles which ought to guide us in settling those ecclesiastical questions that are now producing so much disturbance in society in this part of the country. I ought, perhaps, to begin by saying that, well as I know your kindness, I feel qtute certain that my views will 318 EDINBURGH ELECTION. hardly coincide exactly with those of every gentleman present. It is natural that a person coining from a distance, and not heated with the conflict, should look at the subject in a diiferent aspect from that in which it strikes those who have violently opposed each other. I beg you to understand that I have looked at this question with a view of promoting, as far as I can, peace and goodwill, and to put an end to those melancholy distrac- tions. In giving this opinion, I shall state the honest convictions of my heart; and if you do not agree with aU I say, at least you will give me credit for sincerity. I begin by saying that I am not one of those High Churchmen who think that there lies any obligation on Government neces- sarily to establish a Church ; neither am I one of those who are commonly knowm by the name of Voluntaries, who suppose that it is absolutely contrary to the moral duty of Grovernment ever to establish a Church. I differ from the one as well as from the other. I do not conceive that we can lay down any uniform principle on the subject. I believe that in some countries it is good to have one Established Church ; I believe that there are other countries where it is good to have none, and that there are other countries where it is good to have more than one. I have never thought it worth while seriously to consider the question whether, if I came to Scotland and found it without an Esta- bhshment, it would or would not be desirable to establish it. We must deal with the question as we find it. We find a great and venerable institution iriterwoven with the property of the country, dear to a large portion of the people, though certainly not to the whole; and, with these circumstances fairly con- sidered, it is not my wish — it is not the aim of my public life — • to pull down or destroy the Established Church of Scotland. As I would not demolish the Church, I feel it my duty to make that institution as useful in every respect as it can be made — to have it organised in such a way as wiU most conduce to the spiritual and temporal benefit of the people, and to have its laws and regulations placed on the best and soundest footing. Here I would make an appeal to my dissenting friends, whether it is possible for them to differ from me in this respect ? I am EDINBURGH ELECTION. 349 sure they will say that, whether an institution be good or bad, while it exists it is our duty to make it as useful as it possibly can be made. At the same time, I feel it my duty to state most distinctly that, while I am disposed to maintain the Established Church, I have, after full deliberation and consideration, fuUy made up my mind to oppose any proposition for what is called Church extension on any large scale. I thought it my duty last year, when Sir Robert Inghs — I have no doubt from the best of motives — brought forward a motion for a very great extension of the Church of England at the public expense, to vote against that motion. The reasons which determined me to take that course would equally deterinine me to vote against any motion for a similar extension, at the public expense, of the Church of Scotland. It seems to me that, by taking that course, I not only consult the pubUc interests, but the respecta- bility of that Church itself, which I am certain would be rendered in the first place impopular, and iu the next place comparatively useless, if, instead of resorting to the Christian liberahty of her members, she laid a general burden on the State for the purpose of increasing her revenues. I must also say that, while I am decidedly favourable to the maintenance of the Church of Scot- land, I should belie the whole tenor of my public life if I were to hold out the smallest expectation that I will ever, under any circumstances, give a direct or indirect support to any measure the tendency of which would be to make any civil distinctions between persons of different religious persuasions. And now we come to the most embarrassing and the most exciting of all ecclesiastical questions — I mean patronage. With respect to this question, permit me to make a distinction. These are two questions as widely different from each other as any two questions can be — one is, what ought to be the law in respect to patronage and the constitution of the Church? The other is, in case of a collision between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, is the Church or the State in the last resort to be supreme ? With regard to the first question, I tell you candidly that I have always been very desirous to see some measure brought forward which might secure the parishes of Scotland from having pastors 350 EDINBURGH ELECTION. thrust Upon them who are strongly dislilied by the great body of the people. I do not pretend to say whether the Veto Act of the General Assembly, or some law which shall restore the old system of the call, or some modification of either, will be most effectual — I do not pretend to say which of these courses would best answer the end ; but whenever any measure for that end is brought before the Legislature in an unexceptionable way, I shall give it my best consideration, with an earnest desire to find it such as I may conscientiously support. But, having said this, I must also say plainly, with respect to the other question to which I have adverted, whether, in the event of a dispute between the State and the Established Church, the State or the Established Church is in a last resort to be supreme, I must say plainly, at whatever risk of lowering myself in your good opinion — I say the State. ( Vehement clamour, in the midst of which a gentle- man exclaimed, " Say the Court of Session.") An honourable gentleman calls to me, " the Court of Session." I do not know what the law means, except that which the tribunals of the country declare to be law till the Legislature alters it. I know of no other meaning of the law in this country. {Renewed clamour.) If honourable gentlemen wiU tell me what the law means except that, I shall be most happy to receive instruction. I shall explain what I mean ; and let us have an interchange of opinion, without giving rise to personal excitement on a subject where good and honest men may fairly differ. I admit there are many arguments, and very strong ones, against suffering the civil power to be mixed up with spiritual questions — I admit that; but then all these are arguments against the existence of an Established Church. What is the essence of an Established Church ? Is it not this, that certain temporal advantages are connected with the discharge of certain spiritual functions ? This is not the definition of a Christian Church, I know well. [Tremendous cheering and clamour, which lasted for some time.) I rather think that I am a little misun- derstood. G-entlemen seem to imagine that I have laid down the proposition that an Established Church could not be a Christian Church. I say no such thing. If you ask me EDINBURGH ELECTION. 351 the difference between an Established Christian Church and another Christian Church — the Church of Scotland, for in- stance, as compared with the Secession Kirk, or any other dissenting body— the only difference I can see is this: that in the Established Church certain temporal advantages are con- nected by law with certain spiritual functions. If this be the essence of an Established Church, as distinguished from other Churches, consider to what we must come. Is the doctrine you lay down this — that, with regard to the temporal question, the Court of Session, and, finally, the House of Lords, is the Court of last resort, but with regard to the spiritual functions another body shall in the last resort be judge ? If you proceed on this principle, I say every Established Church carries the seeds of dissolution in its very nature. For while you have one body deciding on the spiritual question, and another body deciding on the temporal question, the two bodies may, and they do, take perfectly opposite views. See what the consequence is. The consequence is, that the temporalities go by one rule and the spiritualities by another ; and there being no umpire, no court in the last resort, to decide between them, it necessarily follows, as in the parishes of Strathbogie, you come to separate the spiritual functions from the temporal advantages, while the indissoluble union of the two is of the very essence of an Established Church. But to lay down the doctrine that there shall be paramount authorities, one in the State and another in the Church — that these two may differ, and yet that you are to keep up an institution in which the union of two is essential — seems to me to be a contradiction in practical politics. I conceive you have no choice but this : if you mean to have an Established Church, if you mean to have certain secular and certain spiritual things constantly and indissolubly united — which is the meaning of an Established Church — you must, in the last resort, have one power to pronounce upon the whole. {" No, no.") If this is denied, what is the consequence ? One power decides one way, and the other power decides another — the temporal things go one way and the spiritual things another, and your Establishment ceases to exist. The Church wiU iadeed still 352 EDINBURGH ELECTION. remain a Christian Church, and may, for aught I know, continue to edify the people and accomplish much good ; hut it wUl not be an Established Church. If you understood my argument, you must see that it is a positive contradiction to maintain an indissoluble union between two things, and then place them under different courts. At the same time, I must distinctly say that I deprecate all wanton or unnecessary interference of the State with the Chm'ch. But if the question is put to me in case of a collision, in the last resort, what is to be the final authority to which to appeal, I must answer, the State ; not certainly to compose men's consciences, but to say. If you will not take the endowments on the condi- tions we impose, you must go without the endowments. I do not conceive, on laying down this principle, that I lay down a principle which invades any right of conscience. As I put the case the other day to a respected friend of mine in London, sup- pose that any gentleman now in her Majesty's service — a colonel of a regiment, for instance — should conscientiously embrace the opinions of the Quakers, I should respect him for it. I would not compel him to violate his conscience by going to war — God forbid that I should despise a man for conscientiously refusing to draw a sword in the field of battle ! But suppose he should say. Yes, I have become a Quaker, but I want to keep my pay too — I must say. No, I can't agree to that; you got your pay on one condition, and you want to keep it on another. If you abstain from serving in the field, the way is open for you to quit the service, and I shall adopt no persecution to compel you to remain. What I say, summing up the question in a few words, is this : that I am desirous to see some measure brought forward which may settle the question, by legally giving to the parishes of Scotland some voice or check in the appointment of their pastors ; but that never for any object wiU I consent to set up the ecclesiastical over the civil power as supreme. (" In things spiritual?") I am not sure if I have succeeded in making myself intelligible to the honourable gentleman. (" Would you set the civil over the ecclesiastical power ?") I would not set up EDINBURGH ELECTION. 353 the civil power over the ecclesiastical to the extent of forcing any man's conscience — that I hold to be a sacred principle ; I would not impose pimishment on any man to compel him to perform religious functions which he thinks he ought not to perform. But if the State, on certain conditions, oifers a man a certain sum for the performance of certain functions, it is for him to consider whether he can answer to God for their perform- ance. These are my opinions. I am sorry that there should be any heat or stnall ruffling to interrupt the good intelligence for- merly existing between us. I am sure, if you will calmly tm'n over in your minds what I have now said, you will see, at all events, there is sufficient ground to give pretext for thinking that, in the opinions I have now stated, I am sincere. I shall not detain you longer, but thank you for the patient hearing you have given me. 354 THE LITERATURE OP BRITAIN. NOVEMBBK 4, 1846. At the Opening of the New Philosophical Institution, Edinburgh. I THANK you from my heart for this kind reception. I have thought it right to steal a short time from duties not unim- portantj for the purpose of lending my aid to an undertaking eminently qualified to raise the credit and to promote the best interests of this city, which has so many claims on my gratitude. The directors of this institution have requested me to propose to you as a toast, " The Literature of Britain." They could not have assigned to me any part in these proceedings more perfectly in harmony with the view which I take of the nature and objects of this institution. It is, I conceive, an institution for the pur- pose of imparting knowledge chiefly through the medium of our own language and of our own hterature. Your city is already rich in literature, worthy of her fame as a seat of learning and as a seat of jiu-isprudence. A man of letters can have no diffi- culty here in finding access to repositories of learning, fiUed with the varied wisdom of many ages and of many nations. But something was still wanting. We still wanted a library readily accessible to that large, that important, that respectable class which, though by no means destitute of liberal curiosity, or of sensibility to the highest powers of genius, are yet necessarily compelled, by the pressure of daily avocations, to confine their studies almost entirely to our own language. For that class, I conceive, especially, I do not say exclusively, this library is intended ; and I hope the directors will not be satisfied — I, as a member, wiU certainly not be satisfied — ^until we possess a truly rich and complete collection of English literature — until it wiU be impossible to seek in vain on our shelves for any English book which is valuable, either by reason of its subject, of its style, or of the light it may throw upon our civil, ecclesiastical, intellectual, THE UTERATUIIE OF BRITAIN. 355 or social history — a collection, in fact, of everything in the English language which can afford either useful instruction or harmless amusement. From such a collection, readily open to all that valuable class which I have mentioned, I am disposed to expect very great good. I, when I say this, do not at present take into account those rare and extraordinary cases to which my valued friend the Lord Provost has so happily and strildngly alluded. We must, indeed, remember that it is not impossible that some great genius, qualified to enrich our Hterature with durable works, and to extend the empire of mind over matter, may possibly, for the first time, feel in our library the consciousness of powers yet un- developed. It is not impossible that in our reading-room the first thought of something great may cross the mind of a future Herschel, or Arkwright, or Watt; but I speak not of these special cases. What I do anticipate is that, through the whole of that valuable class whose benefit we have peculiarly in view, a general iutellectual, and, in consequence, I hope and believe, a general moral improvement will be diffused; that many hours which might otherwise be passed in folly, and perhaps in vice, will be employed in pleasures which are not only harmless, but which have a tendency to purify and elevate the character. Our own experience leads us to hope this. My own observation in various parts of the world, and among various classes of men, leads me to hold this opiuion strongly. I have had occasion, officially, to form some notion of what those causes are which affect the moral and intellectual character of regiments ; and I venture to say that there is no experienced or judicious officer who will not tell you that the whole character of a body of young officers wiU be materially affected by the mere circumstance of being placed in the vicinity of a valuable library. I myself, from my own knowledge, can give an instance in support of this fact. I was told it by a most accomphshed man, an emiuent soldier, and a distinguished diplomatist, who has enjoyed the confidence of the first generals and statesmen which Europe has produced in our own times. When I asked him to what he owed his accomplishments and success, he said 356 THE LITBRATURE OF BRITAIN. to me, " Wheii I served when a young man in India, when it was the turning-point in my life, when it was a mere chance whether I should become a mere card-playing, hooka-smoking lounger, I was fortunately quartered for two years in the neigh- bourhood of an excellent library, which was made accessible to me." Now, as some of the objections which have been urged to that species of mental cultivation which we trust this institution will afford have been so happily and satisfactorily disposed of by my esteemed friend the Lord Provost, and by the Right Rev. the Archbishop of Dublin, I think it would be superfluous to advert to them. There is, indeed, a topic which I have heard often urged, and sometimes by men of eminence, against this and similar institutions, which I beg with your permission to notice. Their dread is of superficial knowledge. They say that know- ledge is undoubtedly a great blessing to mankind. It is closely connected with virtue; it is an indispensable preparative for freedom ; but then it must be profound knowledge. They say that a reading public — a crowd of people who have a little of mathematics, a little of astronomy, a httle of chemistry, a little reading of poetry, a little reading of history — is dangerous to States. Such a species of half knowledge is worse than igno- rance. Drink deep, or taste not ; shallow thoughts intoxicate ; drink largely, and that will sober you — repeating the well-known line of the poet. I must confess this danger never appeared to me very threatening ; and my very reason for this is chiefly this ; that I could never prevail on any one person who entertained this apprehension to let me know what was the standard of pro- fundity. It is an argument that presupposes that there is some line between profound and superflcial knowledge similar to that which runs between truth and falsehood. I know of no such line. When we talk of men of deep science, do we mean that they have got to the bottom, or near the bottom ? When we talk of deep or shallow, are we comparing human knowledge with the vast mass of truth which is capable of being known, and which probably in the course of ages the human mind will attain to ? If that be the meaning, then we are all shallow together ; and the THE LITERATURE OF BRITAIN. 357 greatest men that ever lived would be the first to confess their shallowness. If we could call up the greatest of human beings — if we could caU up Sir Isaac Newton — and if we were to ask him whether^ even in those particular pursuits in which he attained the highest excellence, he considered himself as profoundly knowing by comparison with the mass which is capable of being known, he would have told you that he was a smatterer hke yoiu'selves ; and that the difference between him and you vanished when compared ^rith the difference between the mass of science to be explored, just as the distance between a person on the level of the sea and a person on the top of Ben Lomond utterly vanishes when making observations on the fixed stars. But if this be not their standard, what is their standard ? Is it the same for one year together ? or is it the same in any two countries ? Is it not notorious that what is profundity in one country is consi- dered to be shallowness in another ? Is it not notorious that the profundity of one generation is the shallowness of the next ? "What now would be the chemists of 1746, or the geologists of 1746? There is a necessary and natural progress in every experimental science, of such a nature that in one generation the hind- rank necessarily occupies the place which the fore -rank occupied in another generation. That same knowledge which entitled Ramohun Roy to be called the most profound among the Hindoos would have made but a very superficial member of this Institute. That various geographical knowledge which entitled Strabo to be called a profound geographer would have been called shallow ignorance on the part of a girl from the boarding-school. The truth is, the change is something like what Gulliver ex- perienced in his wanderings. He was first shipwrecked on a country of little men, and immediately he was a colossus among them. He strides over the waUs of their capital— he stands higher than their temple— he tugs after him the royal fleet— he strides his legs, and the royal army marches below them, with drums beating and colours flying ; he devours for breakfast a whole granary, eats a herd of cattle for dinner, and washes them VOL. II. ^ ^ 358 THE LITERATURE OF BRITAIN. down with the whole contents of a cellar. But in a little while he finds himself in a country of giants ; then, instead of taking the people in his hand, as he used to take up the people of LiUiput in order that he might hear them, he is himself taken up in the hands of his masters ; and it is as much as he can do, with the help of his hanger, to defend himself against the rats and the mice. The monkey runs off with him to the chimney-tops ; the court-ladies use him as a plaything; and the dwarf drops him into the cream-jug, and leaves him to swim for his life. Now, whether is Gulliver a tail or a short man ? Why, truly, in his own house at E-edrifFe he would have been considered neither the one nor the other ; but take him to Lilliput and he is Quinbus Flestrin, the man-mountain, and at Brobdignag he is Grildrig, the Httle mannikin. Just in the same manner you may see the intellectual giants of one age become the intellectual pigmies of the next. It strikes me that, without much difficulty, you might make a parallel between the most profoundly-learned men of the thu'teenth century and one of the frequenters of our library, and which may lead us to change the names of profundity and shal- lowness. Let us draw a parallel in one or two points. Take your great and learned men of six hundred years ago, of the time of Henry the Third, or Alexander the Third of Scotland — some man who would be considered as the first in intellect, the first in science, and the first in literature of the whole island ; and let us see what his attainments amount to. Let us take the two sciences which were studied most in the Middle Ages. Let us take the two sciences of astronomy and chemistry. Take the astronomer. He is a firm believer in the Ptolemaic system — a man who never heard of the law of gravitation. TeU him that the succession of night and day arises from the revolution of the earth on its axis. Tell him that, in consequence of this revolu- tion, the polar diameter of the earth is shorter than the equato- rial ; and if he does not set you down as an idiot, the probability is that he hands you over to the bishop that you may be burned as a heretic. But if he be not well informed on these points, there are other parts of his science in which he has made great THE LITERATURE OF BRITAIN. 359 proficiency. He can cast your nativity. He knows what is meant by Saturn being in the house of hfe, and what events follow from Mars being in conjunction with the Dragon's Tail. He can tell you from this which of your children will be fortu- nate in marriage, and which of them wiU be lost at sea. Now, take this very profound man, and compare with him one of what may be called your own shallow members, whose exceedingly superficial knowledge is said to be dangerous to intellectual character. I doubt not that a copy of Sir John Herschel's beautiful little work on astronomy will be found in your Institute. A very few evenings spent over the perusal of that volume will not, it is true, enable him to cast the nativities of your children ; but it wiU, I believe, give him a far more correct and more pro- found notion of the solar system, and of the laws which govern the heavenly bodies, than the greatest astronomer of the thir- teenth century possessed. Or take the science of chemistry. Om- great man — for we will suppose him to be an universal genius — our great man of the thirteenth century is a great chemist. He has, perhaps, got as far as to know that, if you mix charcoal and saltpetre together in certain proportions, there will be a great explosion j but of the possibihty of employing this knowledge to make a revolution in the art of war, or to accomplish vast scientific results, he has no conception. But there are things in which he goes beyond the reach of modem chemists. He is in pursuit of the philosopher's stone ; and he has an array of saltpetre, and of red oil and white oil, boiling night and morning ; and he entertains the firm con- viction that, by means of these stews, he wiU, some morning or other, turn all his pots and pans into gold. Now, suppose that Professor Faraday was induced to give lectures to this Institute, something like the course which I heard him give to the children at the London Institution in the Christmas hohdays. I cannot promise you that he wiU turn your halfpence into sovereigns ; but I can promise you that you will carry away from his lectures a much more accurate and profound knowledge of chemistry, than a chemist who would have been considered worthy of the patronage of kings could possibly have given in the course of 360 THE LITERATURE OF BRITAIN. years in the thirteenth century. As it had been in seience, so it ■was in hterature. In literary knowledge, compare the position in which the sup- posed learned man of the thirteenth century was placed with the position in which our superficial student in the library of this Institution will be placed. As to Greek, they were very much on a par ; and at that time there was hardly a single im- portant book ia our vernacular language. The only literature of this learned man was Latia ; of which, perhaps, he had thirty or forty manuscripts — for we wiU. suppose his library to have been richly furnished. We will suppose that a considerable portion of the books he possessed were the best specimens of that literature; and I will, notwithstanding, say with perfect confi- dence that his opportunities of enlarging his miad, his means of literary improvement, were not for a moment to be named with those of the man who, possessed only of the Enghsh language, has the advantage of sterling Enghsh books. In tragedy, he could form no notion of anything which would equal Macbeth or Lear j or, in comedy, that woidd equal Henry the Fourth and Twelfth Night; or, in the epic, that would surpass Paradise Lost ; or, in philosophy, that can approach in value a single page of the "Novum Organum." One word more upon another subject connected with this. One of the great advantages which those possess who, though ignorant of other advantages, are yet well acquainted with the English language, and have a good library at their command, is, that they are, to a great extent, able to enjoy — it may be in an imperfect manner, but still able to enjoy — the great productions of the master-minds of other ages and of other countries. We have a great variety of translations. It is scarcely possible that any translation can completely attain the excellence of the original; but it is not the less true that the chief features of any great work — the conception of the character, and the general plan or outline of a large portion of it — ^may be preserved. Such works will give the English reader a notion of the great compo- sitions of other times and other nations. It will give a notion, for instance, to a person who is unable to travel to Italy, of THE LITERATURE OF BRITAIN. 361 Eaphael in the Vatican, assisted, as he may be in his reading, by valuable collections of engravings. There is no translation so bad that some part of the genius of a Homer or a Cervantes does not shine tlirough; and I am confident that any person who only possesses the English language may enlarge his mind by obtaining, in small degrees, a knowledge of the style, and manners, and views of the great men of other countries, by means of our hbrary. But let me not be misunderstood as wishing to depreciate the study of the ancient languages, or of the modem languages of Europe. On the contrary^ I would advise every man who has leisure and opportunity not to be content unless he possess several of these valuable keys to knowledge. I was very much impressed by a saying of the Emperor Charles V., who declared that he never learned a new language but he felt that he got a new soul. But let me felicitate those who are not so fortunate as to command that leisure that, through means of the English language, they may obtain admittance to intellectual wealth more precious than the greatest scholars in the days of Charles V. could obtain — ^more precious than could be obtained even by such men as Aldus, Erasmus, and Melancthon. But this brings me back to the point from which I started. The toast which I am requested to propose is to British litera- ture — to that hterature, the brightest, the purest, and the most durable of all the glories of our country— to that hterature which is rich in all the treasures of truth and fiction — to that hterature which boasts of the prince of all poets, and the prince of all philosophers — to that literature which has exercised a mightier influence even than the influence of our commerce or of our arms — to that literature which has taught Prance the principles of liberty, and has furnished Germany with models of art — to that literature which constitutes a tie nearer than that of blood between us and the great commonwealths of the vaUey of the Mississippi— to that literature before the hght of which impious and cruel superstitions are fast taking flight on the banks of the Ganges — to that Literature which will, in future ages, instruct and delight unborn miUions, who will then have covered 362 THE LITERATURE OF BRITAIN. with cities and gardens the Australasian and Caffrarian deserts — " To the Literature of Britain \" and wherever British literature spreads^ may it be attended by British virtue and by British freedom.* * Subsequently, Mr. Macauiay, in rising to return thanks for his health being drunk, said that he could claim little of the credit Dr. Moir had given him for having travelled four hundred miles to be present on this occasion. He rejoiced in having had an oppor- tunity of meeting in such a way with the citizens of Edinburgh. On almost every former occasion on which he had the pleasure of addressiug an Edinburgh audiencej it had been on subjects on which the wisest and best of men would difFer, and on which it was impossible even for the wisest and the best of men to differ without some feeling of bitterness. He rejoiced, therefore, that he had thus met the citizens of Edinburgh assembled to promote one common aim, and that to-night he would leave them^ almost for the first time, after one com.mou victory. 363 EDINBURGH ELECTION. July 29, 1847. At the Hustings on the Day of Nomination. I HAVE lately so fully explained my recent conduct, and the principles on which I offer myself here as a candidate, to a large number of the electors of Edinburgh, that I do not feel myself justified in long detaining you upon the present occasion. I will therefore attempt to confine the observations which I have to make to a topic to which great prominence has been given, both in the addresses which have been put forth by the very respect- ble gentlemen who stand on the other side of the sheriff, and also in the speeches of those who have this day recommended them to your choice. I imagine, from aU that I have been able to learn, that on most political questions Mr. Blackburn, of whom I desire to speak with all personal respect, would difier, if anything, more widely from my other respectable opponent than from me. But on one point I find a perfect agreement between them. There is one recommendation they have in common, and there is one objection in common to myself and my hon. friend (Mr. Craig). The principle on which they both ask your sufirages is this : that it is not desirable that this great community should be represented in Parliament by a Minister of the Crown. Permit me, without dwelling on any personal pretensions of my own, avoiding as far as is possible all egotism, to request you, as an assemblage of electors of a city universally allowed to be one of the most enlightened of the British Empire, calmly to inquire whether that doctrine can be maintained. There have been times in which undoubtedly it was true, the service of the Crown was incompatible with the service of the people. There have been times in which — I speak of those times while the Con- stitution was still taking its form, of those times which preceded 364 EDINBURGH ELECTION. the settlement made at the Revolution, when undoubtedly it was not for the interest of any great community to confide the care of its welfare in Parliament to any person in the service of the Crown. In those times the Sovereign and the House of Com- mons were enemies. Their whole existence was an existence of constant war. The Crown supported favourites against the voice of the Commons. The Commons withheld from the Crown the supplies necessary for carrjdng on the administration of govern- ment. The great object of the House of Commons was to obtain some concession from the Crown in respect to its prero- gative in return for doling out the suppKes. The object of the Crown was to cheat the Commons out of their money, and then to hurry Parliament to an end with a view of governing the country for several years without a Parliament at aU. The effects of those differences between the executive and the House of Commons were weakness in the Commons, internal disorder, and the humiliation of the nation in the eyes of foreign powers. At length happier times arrived, and the different powers which had contended were brought into harmony. The Crown was placed under such restrictions that it became impossible for any Ministry, not supported by the House of Commons, to hold office for more than a few weeks. During a long course of time no person can be a Minister of the Crown unless the people, speak- ing by their representatives, approve of the general conduct of the Administration. From the time that that became the case — from the time that the Sovereign began to proceed on the principle of constantly administering the government in confor- mity with the views of the representatives of the people, and of intrusting power to those only in whom the representatives of the people placed confidence — (" Question, question !") Am I not speaking to the question ? What charge has been made against me this day ? Are the qualities which should recom- mend men to the favour of the Executive Government distinct from those which should recommend them to their constituents ? When I hear it made a reproach to this great city that it has been represented by Lord Jeffrey, Lord Dunfermline, and Lord Campbell — when 1 hear it made a reproach to you, and see it EDINBURGH ELECTION. 365 held up as a disgrace from which you should free yourselves, that the men on whom your choice fell were the men whom the Sovereign, by the approbation of the representative body of the people, repeatedly called to situations of the highest trust— then I say that those who so instruct you teach you most destructive doctrine. If your representative be an honest man, his power to serve you as a Minister of the Crown is greater than his power as a private member of Parliament; and I believe that you will admit that, if he is not an honest man, in office or out of office he is certain to betray you. Don't imagine it is only official men who are under corrupt influence. Rely on it that if you send mercenary men to ParUament — and when I say this, I beg to say that I mean to convey no imputation on either of my opponents — but if you send mercenary men to Parliament, in or out of office, for some price and to some customer they will manage to sell themselves and to sell you. I firmly believe that the hon. gentlemen who are on the other side of the sheriff are as incapable of so betraying your trust as I am ; but I am certain not more so. But this I say, that if it be your pleasure to send, for example, Mr. Blackburn instead of myself to the House of Commons ; if he should, as in that case I heartUy hope he will, prove himself deserving in every way of your confidence ; if he should, as he may — ^for he is as yet an untried man in pubhc Hfe — show considerable talent for debate, considerable talent for business ; if he should obtain the ear of Parliament ; if he should obtain the confidence of the whole of Parliament, and prove that he is possessed of ability to transact and clearness to explain business ; if in consequence of a revolution in political affairs those with whom he is nearly connected in opinion should come into power, and if they should say to him, " We think your ability such as may be of use to the State as Secretary at War, or President of the Board of Trade ;" if, I say, all this should happen, then I should consider it as a most monstrous injustice that, because he had thus signally vindicated your choice, and because a Ministry, who must be supported by the great body of the representatives of the empire, conceived him to be a man 366 EDINBURGH ELECTION. who might be useful to his country in high places, you should therefore withdraw the trust which you have reposed in him. I am now, perhaps, addressing you for the last time. {Interrup- tion.) Some indulgence is shown to the last speeches even of convicted criminals. I have, therefore, only to say that, to your decision, whatever it may be, I shall submit respectfully and without repining; that I shall retain a grateful sense of your past kindness ; and that I only wish your decision may be one of which, when the irritation of the moment is past, and when you calmly review the whole history of the relation which has existed between us, you may conscientiously approve. [At the dose of tlie poll the next day, the election haring unexpectedly terminated in the defeat of Mr. Macaulay hy Mr. Charles Cowan, Mr. Macaulay said — ] I could have wished that the excitement about the contest had terminated with the contest itself. I once did believe, and from what I have seen either of English or Scotch communities I was entitled to believe, that there existed none where any person would have made his appearance for the mere purpose of hissing the defeated candidate. Gentlemen, I stand before you defeated, but neither degraded nor dispirited. Our political connexion has terminated for ever. If ever I return, and I hope often to return to your city, it will be solely for the purpose of seeing the most beautiful of British cities, and of meeting in private intercourse some of those valued friends whose regard, I hope, will survive our political separation. To those who have con- stantly and kindly supported me I return my hearty thanks. If there was anything to be forgotten or forgiven, I have forgotten and forgiven it ; and I will carry with me into private life a lasting and grateful recollection of your generous confidence, disturbed at last by causes to which I will not now refer. But it is my belief that hereafter, when more calmly you review the history of our connexion, you will admit that I at least meant and endeavoured well. 367 THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. March 21, 1849. On being installed Lord Rector in the Common Hall of the College. My first duty, gentlemen, is to return you my thanks for the honour which you have conferred on me. You well know that it was wholly unsolicited, and I can assure you that it was wholly unexpected. I may add that, if I had been invited to become a candidate for your suffrages, I should respectfully havff declined the invitation. My predecessor, whom I am so happy as to be able to call my friend, declared from this place last year, in language which well became him, that he should not have voluntarily come forward to displace so eminent a statesman as Lord John Russell. I can with equal truth affirm that I should not have voluntarily come forward to displace so estimable a gentleman and so accomplished a scholar as Colonel Mure. But Colonel Mure felt last year that it was not for him, and I now feel that it is not for me, to question the propriety of your decision on a point of which, by the constitution of your body, you are the judges. I therefore gratefully accept the office to which I have been called, fully purposing to use whatever powers belong to it with a single view to the welfare and credit of your society. I am not using a mere phrase of course, when I say that the feehngs with which I bear a part in the ceremony of this day are such as I find it difficult to utter in words. I do not think it strange that, when that great master of eloquence, Edmund Burke, stood where I now stand, he faltered and re- mained mute. Doubtless the multitude of thoughts which rushed into his mind was such as even he could not easily arrange or express. In truth, there are few spectacles more striking or affecting than that which a great historical place of education presents on a solemn public day. There is something 368 THE UNIVERSITY OP GI,ASGOW. strangely interesting in the contrast between the venerable antiquity of the body and the fresh and ardent youth of the great majority of the members. Recollections and hopes crowd upon us together. The past and the future are at once brought close to us. Our thoughts wander back to the time when the foundations of this ancient building were laid^ and forward to the time when those whom it is our office to guide and to teach will be the guides and teachers of our posterity. On the present occasion we may^ with peculiar propriety^ give such thoughts their course ; for it has chanced that my magistracy has fallen in a great secular epoch. This is the four hundredth year of the existence of your University. At such jubilees as these — jubilees of which no iadividual sees more than one — it is natural^ and it is good, that a society like this— a society which survives all the transitory parts of which it is composed — a society which has a corporate existence and a perpetual suc- cession — should review its annals, should retrace the stages of its growth from infancy to maturity, and should try to find, in the experience of generations which have passed away, lessons which may be profitable to generations yet unborn. The retrospect is full of interest and instruction. Perhaps it may be doubted whether, since the Christian era, there has been any point of time more important to the higher interests of mankind than that at which the existence of your University commenced. It was the moment of a great destruction and of a great creation. Your society was instituted just before the empire of the East perished — that strange empire which, dragging on a languid life through the great age of darkness, connected together the two great ages of light — that empire which, adding nothing to our stores of knowledge, and producing not one man great in letters, in science, or in art, yet preserved, in the midst of barbarism, those masterpieces of Attic genius which the highest minds still contemplate, and long will contemplate, with admiring despair. And at that very time, while the fanatical Moslem were plunder- ing the churches and palaces of Constantinople, breaking in pieces Grecian sculpture, and giving to the flames piles of Grecian eloquence, a few humble German artisans, who little THE UNIVERSITY OP GLASGOW. 369 knew that they were calling into existence a power far mightier than that of the victorious Sultan^ were busied in cutting and setting the first types. Your University came into existence just in time to see the last trace of the Roman Empire disappear, and to see the earliest printed book. At this conjuncture — a conjuncture of unrivalled interest in the history of letters — a man never to be mentioned without reverence by every lover of letters held the highest place in Europe. Our just attachment to that Protestant faith to which our country owes so much must not prevent us from paying the tribute which, on this occasion and in this place, justice and gratitude demand to the founder of the University of Glasgow, the greatest of the revivers of learning. Pope Nicholas the Fifth. He had sprung from the common people ; but his abilities and his erudition had early attracted the notice of the great. He had studied much and travelled far. He had visited Britain, which, in wealth and refinement, was to his native Tuscany what the back settlements of America now are to Britain. He had lived with the merchant priuces of Florence — those men who first ennobled trade by making trade the ally of philosophy, of eloquence, and of taste. It was he who, under the protection of the munificent and dis- cerning Cosmo, arrayed the first public library that modern Europe possessed. From privacy your founder rose to a throne ; but on the throne he never forgot the studies which had been his debght in privacy. He was the centre of an illustrious group, composed partly of the last great scholars of Greece, and partly of the first great scholars of Italy — Theodore Gaza and George of Trebizond, Bessarin and Tilelfo, Marsilio Ficino and Poggio Bracciolina. By him was founded the Vatican library, then and long after the most precious and the most extensive collection of books in the world ; by him were carefully preserved the most valuable iatellectual treasures which had been snatched from the wreck of the Byzantine Empire. His agents were to be found everywhere — in the bazaars of the furthest East, in the monasteries of the furthest West— purchasing and copying worm-eaten parchments, on which were traced words worthy of immortality. Under his patronage were prepared accurate Latin 370 THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. versions of many precious remains of Greek poets and philoso- phers. But no department of literature owes so much to him as history. By him were introduced to the knowledge of Western Europe two great and unrivalled models of historical compo- sition — the work of Herodotus and the work of Thucydides ; by him^ too^ our ancestors were first made acquainted with the graceful and lucid simplicity of Xenophon and with the manly good sense of Polybius. It was while he was occupied with cares like these that his attention was called to the intellectual wants of this region — a region now swarming with population, rich with culture, and resounding with the clang of machinery — a region which now sends forth fleets, laden with its admirable fabrics, to lands of which in his days no geographer had ever heard — then a wild, a poor, a half-barbarous tract, lying in the utmost verge of the known world. He gave his sanction to the plan of estabhshing an University at Glasgow, and bestowed on the new seat of learning aU the pri^aleges which belonged to the University of Bologna. I can conceive that a pitying smile passed over his face as he named Bologna and Glasgow together. At Bologna he had long studied. No spot in the world had been more favoured by nature or by art. The surrounding country was a fruitful and sunny country — a country of corn-fields and vineyards. In the city the house of Bentivoglio bore rule — a house which vied with the Medici in taste and magnificence — which has left to posterity noble palaces and temples, and which gave a splendid patronage to arts and letters. Glasgow he just knew to be poor — a small, rude town — and, as he would have thought, not likely ever to be otherwise ; for the soil, compared with the rich country at the foot of the Apennines, was barren, and the climate was such that an Italian shuddered at the thought of it. But it is not on the fertility of the soil, it is not on the mildness of the atmosphere, that the prosperity of nations chiefly depends. Slavery and superstition can make Campania a land of beggars, and can change the plain of Enna into a desert. Nor is it beyond the power of human intelli- gence and energy, developed by civil and spiritual freedom, to THE UNIVERStTY OF GLASGOW. 371 ttirn sterile rocks and pestilential marshes into cities and gardens. Enlightened as your founder was, he little knew that he himself was a chief agent in a great revolution — physical and moral, political and religious — in a revolution destined to make the last first and the first last — in a revolution destined to invert the relative positions of Glasgow and Bologna. We cannot, I think, better employ a few minutes than in reviewing the stages of this change in human affairs. The review shall be short. Indeed, I cannot do better than pass rapidly from centmy to centiiry. Look at the world, then, a himdred years after the seal of Nicholas had been affixed to the instrument which called your college into existence. "We find Europe — we find Scotland especially — in the agonies of that great revolution which we emphatically call the Reformation. The liberal patronage which Nicholas, and men like Nicholas, had given to learning, and of which the establishment of this seat of learning is not the least remarkable instance, had pro- duced an effect which they had never contemplated. Ignorance was the talisman on which their power depended, and that talis- man they had themselves broken. They had called in Knowledge as a handmaid to decorate Superstition, and their error produced its natural effect. I need not teU you what a part the votaries of classical learning, and especially of Greek learning — the Humanists, as they were then called — bore in the great move- ment against spiritual tyranny. In a Scotch university, I need hardly mention the names of Knox, of Buchanan, of Melville, of Maitland, of Lethington. They formed, in fact, the vanguard of that movement. Every one of the chief Reformers — I do not at this moment remember a single exception — was a Humanist. Every eminent Humanist in the north of Europe was, according to the measure of his uprightness and courage, a Reformer. In truth, minds daily nourished with the best literature of Greece and Rome necessarily grew too strong to be trammelled by the cobwebs of the scholastic divinity ; and the influence of such minds was now rapidly felt by the whole com- munity, for the invention of printing had brought books within the reach even of yeomen and of artisans. From the Mediter- 372 THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. ranean to the Frozen Sea, therefore, the piiblic mind was every- where in a ferment, and nowhere was the ferment greater than in Scotland. It was in the midst of martyrdoms and proscriptions, in the midst of a war between power and truth, that the first century of the existence of your University closed. Pass another hundred years, and we are in the midst of another revolution. The war between Popery and Protestantism had, in this island, been terminated by the victory of Protestantism ; but from that war another war had sprung — the war between Prelacy and Puri- tanism. The hostile religious sects were allied, intermingled, confounded with hostile political parties. The monarchical element of the Constitution was an object of almost exclusive devotion to the Prelatist. The popular element of the Consti- tution was especially dear to the Puritan. At length an appeal was made to the sword. Puritanism triumphed ; but Puritanism was already divided against itself. Independency and Republi- canism were on one side — Presbyterianism and limited Monarchy on the other. It was in the very darkest part of that dark time — it was in the midst of battles, sieges, and executions — it was when the whole world was still aghast at the awful spectacle of a British king standing before a judgment-seat and laying his neck on a block — it was when the mangled remains of the Duke of Hamilton had just been laid in the tomb of his house — it was when the head of the Marquis of Montrose had just been fixed on the Tolbooth of Edinburgh — that your University completed her second century. ' A hundred years more, and we have at length reached the beginning of a happier period. Our civil and religious liberties had indeed been bought with a fearful price. But they had been bought ; the price had been paid ; the last battle had been fought on British ground ; the last black scaffold had been set up on Tower Hill. The evil days were over. A bright and tranquil, century — a century of reHgious toleration, of domestic peace, of temperate freedom, of equal justice — was beginning. That century is now closing. When we compare it with any equally long period in the history of any other great society, we shall THE UNIVERSITY OP GLASGOW. 373 find abundant cause for thankfulness to the Giver of all good ; nor is there any place in the whole kingdom better fitted to excite this feeling than the place where we are now assembled : for iu the whole kingdom we shall find no district in which the progress of trade^ of manufactures^ of wealth, and of the arts of life, has been more rapid than in Clydesdale. Your University has partaken largely of the prosperity of this city and of the surrounding region. The security, the tranquilhty, the liberty, which have been propitious to the industry of the merchant and of the manufacturer, have been also propitious to the industry of the scholar. To the last century belong most of the names of which you justly boast. The time would fail meif I attempted to do justice to the memory of all the illustrious men who, during that period, taught or learned wisdom within these ancient walls — geometricians, anatomists, jurists, philologists, metaphysicians, poets — Simpson and Hunter, Miller and Young, Reid and Stuart ; Campbell, whose cofiin was lately borne to a grave in that renowned transept which contains the dust of Chaucer, of Spenser, and of Dryden; Black, whose discoveries form an era in the history of chemical science; Adam Smith, the greatest of all the masters of political science ; James Watt, who, perhaps, did more than any single man has done since the " New Atlantis" of Bacon was written, to accomplish that glorious prophecy. We now speak the language of humility when we say that the University of Glasgow need not fear a comparison with the University of Bologna. Another secular period is now about to commence. There is no lack of alarmists, who will teU you that it is about to commence under evil auspices. But from me you must expect no such gloomy prognostications. I am too much used to them to be scared by them. Ever since I began to make observations on the state of my country, I have been seeing nothing but growth, and I have been hearing of nothing but decay. The more I contemplate our noble institutions, the more convinced I am that they are sound at heart, that they have nothing of age but its dignity, and that their strength is vol.. IT. * ^ 374 THE UNIVERSITY OP GLASGOW. still the strength of youth. The hurricane which has recently- overthrown so much that was great and that seemed durable has only proved their solidity. They still standi august and jm- moveable, while dynasties and churches are lying in heaps of ruin all around us. I see no reason to doubt that^ by the blessing of God on a wise and temperate policy — on a policy of which the principle is to preserve what is good by reforming in time what is evil — our civil institutions may be preserved unimpaired to a late posterity, and that, under the shade of our civil institutions, our academical institutions may long continue to flourish. I trust, therefore, that when a hundred years more have run out, this ancient college wUl still continue to deserve well of our country and of manldnd. I trust that the installation of 1949 will be attended by a still greater assembly of students than I have the happiness now to see before me. That assemblage, indeed, may not meet in the place where we have met. These venerable halls may have disappeared. My successor may speak to your successors in a more stately edifice — in an edifice which, even among the magnificent buildings of the future Glasgow, will stiU be admired as a fine specimen of the architectm'C which flourished ia the days of the good Queen Victoria. But though the site and the walls may be new, the spirit of the institution will, I hope, be still the same. My successor will, I hope, be able to boast that the fifth century of the University has been even more glorious than the fourth. He wiU be able to vindicate that boast by citing a long list of eminent men, great masters of experimental science, of ancient learning, of our native elo- quence, ornaments, of the senate, the pulpit, and the bar. He will, I hope, mention with high honour some of my young friends who now hear me ; and he wUl, I also hope, be able to add that their talents and learning were not wasted on selfish or ignoble objects, but were employed to promote the physical and moral good of theu' species, to extend the empire of man over the material world, to defend the cause of civil and religious hberty against tyrants and bigots, and to defend the cause of virtue and order against the enemies of all divine and human laws. I have THE rNlVERSlTY OF GLASGOW. 375 now given utterance to a part, and a part only, of tlie recol- lections and anticipations of wMch, on this solemn occasion, my mind is full. I again thank you for the honour you have be- stowed on me; and I assure you that while I live I shall never cease to take a deep interest in the welfare and fame of the body with which, by your kindness, I have this day become connected. 376 EDINBURGH ELECTION. Nov. 2, 1852. At a Meeting of tlie Electors in the Music Hall, Edinburgh. Gentlemen, — I thank you from my lieart for this kind reception.* In truth, it has almost overcome me. Your good opinion and yoiir good will were always very valuable to me — more valuable by far than any vulgar object of ambition — more valuable than any office, however lucrative or dignified. In truth, no office, however lucrative or dignified, would have tempted me to do what I have done at your summons — to leave again the happiest and most tranquil of all retreats for the bustle of political life. But the honour which you have conferred upon me — an honour of which the greatest men might weU be proud, an honour such as it is in the power only of a free people to bestow — laid on me such an obligation that I should have thought it ingratitude, I should have thought it pusillanimity, not to make it at least an honour to serve you. And here, gentlemen, here we have met again in kindness after long separation. It is more than five years since I stood in this very place. A large part of human life. There are few of us on whom these five years have not set their mark, few circles from which these five years have not taken away what can never be replaced. Even in this multitude of friendly faces I look in vain for some which would on this day have been hghted up with joy and kindness. I miss one honourable man who, before I was born, in evil times, in times of oppression and of corruption, had adhered, with almost solitary fidelity, to the cause of freedom, and whom I knew in advanced age, but still, in the full vigour of mind and body, enjoying the respect and gratitude of his fellow-citizens. I * Mr. Macaulay, on standins; up, was received wilh a double round of the moat enthusiastic applause. EDINBURGH ELECTION. 377 should indeed be most migrateM if I could, on this day, forget Sir J. Gibson Craig — ^his public spirit, his judicious counsel, and his fatherly kindness to myself. And Lord Jeffrey, too ! With what effusion of generous affection he would on this day have welcomed me to Edinburgh ! He, too, is gone ; but the remembrance of him is one of the many ties which bind me to the city which he loved, and with which his fame is inseparately associated. But, gentlemen, it is not only here that, on entering again at your call on a course of life which I had believed I had quitted for ever, I shall be painfully reminded of the changes which the last five years have produced. In Parliament I shall look in vain for ^irtues which I loved, and abilities I admired. Often in debate, and never more than when we discussed questions of colonial policy, which are every day acquiring a new interest, I shaU remember with regret how much eloquence and wit, how much acuteness and knowledge, how many engaging qualities, how many fair hopes, are buried in the grave of poor Charles BuUer. There were other men — men with whom I had no party and little personal connexion — men to whom I was, during a great part of public Hfe, honestly opposed, but of whom I cannot now think without grieving that their wisdom, their experience, and the weight of their great names can never more in the hour of need bring help to the nation or to the throne. Such were two eminent men whom I left at the height, the one of civil and the other of military fame — the one the oracle of the House of Commons, the other the oracle of the House of Lords. There were parts of their long pubhc life which they themselves, I am persuaded, on a cabn retrospect, would have allowed to have been censurable ; but it is impossible to deny that each in his own department saved the State — that the one brought to a trium- phant close the most formidable conflict in which this country was ever engaged against a foreign enemy, and that the other, at the sacrifice — the immense sacrifice — of personal feeUng and personal ambition, freed us from an odious monopoly, which could not have existed many years longer without producing most fearful intestine discords. 378 EDINBURGH ELECTION. I regret them both ; but I peculiarly regret him who is asso- ciated in my mind with the place to which you have sent me. I shall hardly know the House of Commons without Sir R. Peel. On the first evening I took my seat in the House of Commons, in 1830, he was then at the head of the Government in that House. During all the years of my parliamentary service which followed, I scarcely remember one important discussion in which he did not bear a part wit?i conspicuous ability. His figure is now before me — all the tones of his voice are in my ears ; and the pain with which T think I shall never hear them again would be embittered by the recollection of some sharp encounters which took place between us, were it not that at the last there was an entire and cordial reconciliation, and that only a very few days before his death I had the pleasure of receiving from him marks of kindness and esteem of which I shall always cherish the recollection. But, gentlemen, it is not only by those changes which the natural law of mortality produces, it is not by the successive disappearance of eminent men, that the face of the earth has been changed during the five years which have elapsed since we met here last. Never since the origin of the race have there been five years more fertile of great events — five years which have left behind them a more awful lesson. We have lived many lives in that time. The revolutions of ages have been compressed into a few months. France, Germany, Hungary, Italy — what a his- tory has theirs been ! When we met here last, there was in all of those an outward show of tranquillity ; and there were few, even of the wisest among us, who imagined what wild passions, what wild theories, were fermenting under that pacific exterior. An obstinate resistance to a reasonable reform — a resistance pro- longed but for one day beyond the time — gave the signal for the explosion ; and in an instant, from the borders of Russia to the Atlantic Ocean, everything was thrown into confasion and terror. The streets of some of the greatest capitals of Europe were piled up with barricades, and were streaming with civil blood. The house of Orleans fled from France — the Pope fled from Rome. The Emperor of Austria was not safe at Vienna. There were EDINBUllGH ELECTION. 379 popular institutions in Florence— popular institutions at Naples. One democratic convention sat at Berlin; another democratic convention sat at Frankfort. You remember, I am sure, but too ^^-e\\, how some of the wisest and most honest friends of reform, men most inclined to look with indulgence on the excesses inse- parable from the vindication of public liberty by physical force, began to doubt and despair of the prospects of mankind. You remember how all sorts of animosity — ^national, religious, and social — broke forth together with the poUtical animosity. You remember how with the hatred of discontented subjects towards their Governments was mingled the hatred of nation to nation, and class to class. In truth, for myself, I stood aghast ; and, though naturally of a sanguine disposition, and disposed to look with hope at the progress of mankind, I did for one moment doubt whether the course of mankind was not to be turned back, and whether we were not doomed to pass in our generation from the civilisation of the nineteenth century to the barbarism of the fifth. I re- member that Adam Smith and Gibbon had told us that there would never be again a destruction of civilisation by barbarism. That flood, they say, would no more return to cover the earth ; and they seemed to reason justly, for they compared the immense strength of the civilised part of the earth with the weakness of those parts which remained savage ; and they asked whence were to come the Huns and the Vandals that should again destroy ci\'ilisation ? It had not occurred to them that civilisation itself might engender the barbarians who should destroy it. It had not occurred to them that in the very heart of great capitals — • in the very neighbourhood of splendid palaces, and chm'ches, and theatres, and libraries, and museums — vice and ignorance might produce a race of Huns fiercer than those who marched under AttUa, and Vandals more bent on destruction than those who followed Genseric. Such was the danger. It passed by, and civilisation was saved ; but at what a price ! The tide of popular feeling turned and ebbed almost as fast as it had risen. Imprudent and obstinate opposition to reasonable demands brought on anarchy ; and as 380 EDINBURGH ELECTION. soon as men saw the evils of anarchy, they fled in terror to crouch at the feet of despotism. To the dominion of mohs armed with pikes succeeded the sterner and more lasting dominion of disciplined armies. The Papacy rose from its debasement — rose more intolerant and insolent than before ; as intolerant and insolent as it had been in the days of Hildebrand — intolerant and insolent to a degree which dismayed and dis- appointed those who had fondly cherished the hope that its spirit had been mitigated by the lapse of years and by the progress of knowledge. Through all that vast region, where little more than four years ago we looked in vain for any stable authority, we now look in vain for any trace of constitutional freedom. And we, gentlemen, in the meantime, have been exempt from both those calamities which have wrought ruin all around us. The madness of 1848 did not subvert our throne. The reaction which followed has not touched our liberties. And why is this ? Why has our country, with all the ten plagues raging around us — why has she been a land of Goshen? Everywhere else thunder, fire running along the ground, a very grievous storm — ^ such as there was none like it since man was on the earth ; yet everything was tranquil here : and then again thick night, dark- ness that might be felt ; and yet there was light in all our dwel- lings. We owe this, under the blessing of God, to our wise and noble Constitution, the work of many generations of great men. Let us profit by the lessons we have received, and let us thank God that we profit by the experience of others, and not by our own. Let us prize our Constitution. Let us purify it, let us amend it ; but let us not destroy it. Let us shun extremes, not only because each extreme is in itself a positive evil, but also because it has been proved by experience that each extreme ne- cessarily engenders its opposite. If we love civil and religious freedom, let us in every day of danger uphold law and order. If we are zealous for law and order, let us prize as the best security of that law and order civil and religious freedom. Yes, gentlemen, the reason that our liberties remain in the midst of the general servitude, that the Habeas Corpus Act has never in this island been suspended, that our press is free, that Ave have EDINBURGH ELECTION. 381 liberty of association, that our representative system stands in all its strength, is this, that in the year of revolutions Ave stood firmly by our Government in its peril ; and if I am asked why we stood by our Government in its peril, when men around us were engaged in pulling their Governments down, my answer is, that it was because we knew that, although our Government was not a perfect Government, it was a good Government ; that its faults admitted of peaceable and legal remedies; that it had never been inflexibly opposed to just demands; that we obtained concessions of inestimable value, not by beating the drum, not by ringing the tocsin, not by tearing up the pavement, not by running to the gunsmitlis' shops to search for arms, but by mere force of reason and public opinion. And, gentlemen, pre-emi- nent among the pacific victories of reason and public opinion, the recollection of which chiefly, I believe, carried us safely through the year of revolutions, and through the year of counter- revolutions, I would place two great reforms, inseparably asso- ciated — the one with the memory of an illustrious man who is now beyond the reach of envy, the other as closely associated T^ith the name of another illustrious man, who is stiU, and, I hope, long will be, living to be the mark for detraction. I speak of the great commercial reform of 1846, the work of Sir R. Peel, and of the Reform Bill of 1832, which was brought in by Lord John RusseU. I particularly call your attention to those two great reforms, because it wiU, in my opinion, be the especial duty of that House of Commons in which, by your distinguished favour, I shall have a seat, to defend the commercial reform of Sir. R. Peel, and to perfect and extend the parliamentary reform of Lord J. RusseU. With respect to the commercial reform, although I say it wiU be a sacred duty to defend it, I do not apprehend that we shall find the task very difficult. Lideed, I have great doubt whether we have reason to apprehend a direct attack upon it at all. Prom the expressions used during the last session, and during the late election by Ministers and other adherents, I should, I confess, find it utterly impossible to draw any inference whatever. They have contradicted each other, and they have contradicted 382 EDINBURGH ELECTION. themselves. I would engage to produce, selected from their speeches, passages which should prove them to he Free Traders, and other passages which should prove them to be Protectionists. But, in truth, the only inference that can really be drawn from any such passages is as to the question whether the persons who made the speeches were addressing a town constituency or an agricultural one. I left London in the heat of the elections — for I was forced to leave London for Bristol — I left behind me a Tory candidate for Westminster and a Tory candidate for Mid- dlesex, proclaiming themselves Free Traders. All along my journey through Berkshire and Wiltshire I heard nothing hut the cry of Derby and Protection ; but when I got to Bristol, it was Lord Derby and Free Trade again. On the one side of the Wash, Lord Stanley, the Under-Secretary of State for the Foreign Department— a young nobleman of great promise, a young nobleman who appears to me to inherit a large portion of his father's ability and energy — held language which was universally understood to indicate that the Governirlcnt of his father had altogether abandoned aU thoughts of Protection. He was addressing the inhabitants of a town ; but on the other side of the Wash the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was haranguing the farmers of Lincolnshire : and when somebody took it upon him to ask, " What wiU you do, Mr. Christopher, if Lord Derby abandons Protection ?" the hypothesis was so monstrous, so insulting, that he said he would not answer a question so derogatory to Lord Derby. " I will stand by Lord Derby," he said, " because I know that Lord Derby will stand by Protection." Well, then, those opposite speeches of two eminent persons, both likely to know the mind of Lord Derby on the subject, go forth, and are taken up by the less distinguished adherents of the party. The Tory candidate for Leicestershire says, " I will stick by Mr. Christopher ; for while you see Mr. Christopher in the Government, Protection is safe." But, when I go into East SmTey, which is really a suburb of London, and a town constituency, there I find the Tory candidate saying, " Never mind Mr. Christopher ; I swear by Lord Stanley. What should Mr. Christopher know on the subject ? He is not in the EDINBURGH ELECTION. 383 Cabinet ; he can tell you nothing about it." And to such a degree was the thing carried, that the different members of the party changed their sides and previous professions, if they passed from a town constituency to a country constituency, or from a country to a town constituency. Take, for example. Lord Maidstone. He was at one time one of the most vehement Protectionists in England, and put forth a small volume, which I do not know whether any of you have seen, but as I am an elector of Westminster, and as I know he stood for Westminster, I thought it my duty to buy it, in order to be informed of his opinions. It was entitled "Free-trade Hexameters." Of the poetical merits of Lord Maidstone's hexameters I shall not presume to pronounce an opinion. But you may all easily form an opinion of them for yourselves by ordering copies ; for I foimd, when I bought mine of the pub- lishers in Bond-street, that the supply on hand was still con- siderable. But of the political merits of Lord Maidstone's hexameters I can speak with confidence ; and it is impossible to conceive a fiercer or more bitter attack — according to the measure of power of the assailant — than that which he made on Sir Eobert Peel's Free Trade policy. On the other hand. Sir Fitzroy Kelly, who is now Solicitor- General, and who was Solicitor- General under Sir Eobert Peel, and voted for all Sir Eobert Peel's Free Trade measures, and doubtless from a regard to the public interest, which would have suffered greatly by the retire- ment of so able a lawyer from the service of the Crown — he did not think it necessary to lay down his office even when Sir Eobert Peel brought in his measure for free trade in corn. But, unfortunately, Lord Maidstone became a candidate for the city of Westminster, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly went to stand for an agri- cultural county ; so instantly Lord Maidstone forgets his verse, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly forgets his votes. Lord Maidstone declares himself a convert to the opinions of Sir Eobert Peel, and Sir Eobert Peel's own Solicitor- General stands up and makes a speech apparently composed out of Lord Maidstone's hexame- ters against Free Trade. It is therefore, gentlemen, utterly impossible for me to 384 EDINBUllGII ELECTION. pretend to foresee^ from the language held by the members of the Grovernment and their adherents, what their conduct will be on the subject of Protection. Nevertheless, I think that I can confidently say that the great reform effected by Sir Robert Peel is perfectly safe. I beheve that the law which repealed the Corn-laws stands now on a firmer foundation than when it was first passed. We Free Traders are stronger in reason, and we are stronger in numbers. We are stronger in reason, because what was only prophecy is now history, and because no person can dispute the salutary effect which the repeal of the Corn-laws has had on our trade and industry. We are infinitely stronger in numbers; for I am sure you will all recollect the time when an exceedingly strong and formidable opposition to the repeal of the Corn-laws proceeded from a class which was most deeply interested in their repeal — I mean from the labour- ing-classes. I do not now remember^ — -I ought to remember, perhaps — whether that opposition produced much effect here ; but I do know that there were many of the largest towns in England where the Free Traders durst not venture to call a meeting for the purpose of petitioning against the Corn-laws, for fear of being interrupted by a crowd of working-people, who were taught by a certain class of demagogues to say that it was a question in which working-people had no concern — that it was purely a capitalist question ; that if the poor man got a loaf twice as large, the capitalist would give only a sixpence where he formerly gave him a shilling ; that it was a matter absolutely unimportant to the working- classes — nay, that any change would be positively injurious to them. I never had the slightest faith in these doctrines myself Experience even then seemed to me completely to confute them. I compared place with place; and I found that, though bread was cheaper in the State of Ohio than in England, wages were higher in Ohio than in England. I saw that those times when bread was cheapest in England, within my own memory, were also the times in which the condition of the labouring-classes was best. But now the experiment has been tried in a manner which admits of no dispute ; and I should be glad to know, if there were now an attempt made to re-establish TiDINBUUGH ELECTION. 385 a tax on corn, what demagogue would be able to bring in a crowd of working-men to hold up their hands in favour of such a tax. Thus strong, gentlemen, in reason, and thus strong in number, we need, I believe, apprehend no direct attack on the principles of Sir Robert Peel's reform. It will be one of the first duties of your representatives to be vigilant that no direct attack shall be made on these principles; and to take care that in any change which may be made in the present system of taxation no undue favour shall be shown to any class. With regard to the other question which I have mentioned, the qiiestion of Parliamentary Reform, I think that the time is now near when that question wiU require the gravest consideration, when it will be necessary to reconsider the reform of 1832, and to amend it temperately and cautiously, but in a large and liberal spirit. I confess that, in my opinion, this revision cannot be made with advantage except by the Ministers of the Crown. I greatly doubt whether it will be found possible to carry through any well-matured and complete plan of improvement if you have not the Government heartily with you ; and I must say that from the present Administration I can, as to that matter, expect I nothing good. What I am to expect from them precisely I do not know; whether the most obstinate opposition to every change, or the most insane and violent change. For if I look to their actions and conduct, I find the gravest reasons for apprehending that they may at one time resist the most just demands, and at another time, from the merest caprice, propose the wildest innovations. And I wiU teU you why I entertain this opinion. I am sorry that, in doing so, I must mention the name of a gentleman for whom personally I have the highest respect — I mean Mr. Walpole, the Secretaiy of State for the Home Department. My own acquaintance with him is slight, but I know him well by character. I believe him to be a honourable, an excellent, and able man. No man is more esteemed in private life ; but of his public conduct I must claim the right to speak with freedom; and I do so with the less scruple because of that freedom he has himself set me an ex- ample, and because I am really now speaking on the defensive. 38G EDINBURGH ELECTION. Mr. Walpole addressed the constituency of Midhurst, and in his speech to them he spoke personally of Lord John Russell as one honourable and good man should speak of another, and as, I am sure, I always wish to speak of Mr. Walpole. But of Lord John RusselPs public conduct he spoke with severity. Chief among the faults which he objected to his lordship was this, that he had re-opened the question of reform. Mr. Walpole declared himself to be opposed on principle to organic change. He justly said that, if an organic change were introduced, it should first be deeply meditated and well weighed, and that nothing should be done without thought and care; and he charged Lord John Russell with having neglected these precepts of prudence. I was perfectly thunderstruck when I read his speech, for I recol- lected that the most violent and democratic change in our repre- sentative system that ever was proposed within the memory of the oldest man had been proposed but a few weeks before by this same Mr. Walpole, as the organ of the present Government. Do you remember the history of the Militia Bill ? In general, when a great reform in Parliament is to be brought in, the Minister announces it some weeks before. He gives notice that he means to propose a change in the representative system. There is a great attendance, and the most painful anxiety to know what he is going to propose. J well remember, for I was present, with what breathless suspense 600 persons waited, on the 1st of March, 1832, to hear Lord John Russell announce his Reform Bill. But what was his Reform Bill to the biU of Mr. Secretary Walpole of the Derby Administration ! At the end of a night, in the easiest way possible, without the smallest notice, he proposed a clause to the tail of the Militia Bill to the effect that every man who served in the militia for two years should have a vote in the county. What is the number of those voters who were to be entitled to vote in this way for a county ? The militia of England is to consist of 80,000, and the term of service is to be five years. In ten years, the number will be 160,000; in twenty years, 320,000; and in twenty-five years, 400,000. Some of these will, of course, have died off in twenty- five years, though the lives are picked lives — remarkably good EDINBURGH ELECTION. 387 lives. How many I do not know ; but any actuary will easily calculate it for you. I should say, in round numbers, that you win have, when the system is in operation, for a generation, an addition of about 300,000 to the county constituent bodies ; that is to say, 6000 voters on the average to be added to every county in England and Wales. That is an immense addition j and what is the quahfication? "Why, the first qualification is youth. They are not to be above a certain age; but the nearer you can get them to eighteen the better. The second qualifica- tion is poverty. They are aU to be persons to whom a shilling a-day wiU be an object. The third qualification is ignorance; for I venture to say that, if ever you take the trouble to observe the appearance of those young fellows who follow the recruiting- sergeant in the streets, you will at once say that, among our labouring-classes, they are not the most educated^they are not the most intelligent. That they are brave stout fellows, I have not the least doubt. Lord Hardinge tells me that he never saw a finer set of young fellows ; and I have not the slightest doubt that, if necessary, after a few years' training, they will be found standing up for our firesides and hearths against the best disci- plined soldiers the Continent can produce. But these are not the quahfications of men whom we want to choose our legislators. The habits that generally send young men from the ploughtail to the army are rather a disposition to idleness. Oh ! but there is another qualification which I have forgot ; and that is, that they must be five feet two. This a quahfication for a county voter ! Only think of measuring a man for the franchise ! Well, this comes from a Conservative Government, a measure which would swamp aU the county constituents in England with people who possess the Derby- Walpole qualifications ; that is to say, youth, poverty, ignorance, a roving disposition, and five feet two. Why, what have people who have brought in such a measure as this to talk about — I do not say Lord John RusseU's imprudence — but about the imprudence of Ernest Jones and other people who propose imiversal suffrage ? At all events, they give wealth with poverty, and knowledge with ignorance, and mature age with youth. But to make a qualification compounded of disquahfica- 388 EDINBURGH ELECTION. tions is a thing I really do believe was never heard of, except in the case of this Conservative reform. This prodigious proposi- tion was made, I believe, in a very thin House ; but next day the House was fall enough, everybody having come down to know what was coming. One asked, Why not this? and another, Why not that ? Ai'e all the regular troops to have a vote, all the policemen, and all the sailors ? for, if you take ploughboys of twenty-one, what possible class of honest Englishmen and Scotchmen could you have the slightest pretence to exclude? But up gets the Home Secretary, and states that the thing had not been sufficiently considered, that some of his colleagues were not satisfied, and that he would not press the thing. Well, 1 must say that if it had happened to me first to propose such a reform, and at the next sitting of the House to withdraw it, because it had not been well considered, I do think that to the end of my life I never should talk about the exceediag evil of re-opening the question of reform ; I would never read any other man a lecture on the extreme prudence and caution with which he should approach questions of organic change. I repeat that, if I am to judge from the language of the present Ministers, taken in connexion vrith this solitary instance of legislative skill in the way of reform, I am utterly at a loss what to expect ; but what I do expect is a pertinacious, vehement, provoking opposition to what is most safe and reasonable, and then that, in some moment of fear or caprice, they will bring in a plan and fiing it on the table in a fit of desperation or levity — a plan which is enough to loosen the foundations of society. For my own part, I think the question of parliamentary reform is one which must soon be taken np, but it ought to be taken up by the Government ; and I hope, before long, to see in office a Ministry which will take it up in earnest. I dare say you will not suspect me of saying so from any interested feeling. The truth is, that in no case whatever shall I again be a member of any Ministry. During what may remain of my public life, I shall be the servant of none but you. I have nothing to ask of any Government except that protection which every Govern- ment owes to every faithful and loyal subject of the Queen, EDINBURGH ELECTION. 389 Bat, as I live, I do hope to see in office before long a Ministry whieh will treat this great question as it should be treated. It will be the duty of that Ministry to revise the distribution of power. It win be the duty of that Ministry to consider whether , small constituencies, notoriously corrupt, and proved to be cor- rupt — such, for example, as Harwich — ought to retain the power of sending members to Parliament. It will be the duty of such a Ministry to consider whether such constituent bodies, even less notoriously corrupt, ought to have in the councils of the empire a share as great as the West Riding of York, and twice as great as that of the county of Perth. It will be the duty of such a Ministry to consider whether it be not possible, without the smallest danger to peace, law, and order, to extend the elective franchise to classes of the community which do not now possess it. As to universal suffrage — on that subject you already know my opinions ; and I now come before you with those opinions strengthened by everytliing which, since that period, has passed in Europe. We have seen by the clearest of all proofs that universal suffrage, even united with secret voting, is no security against the estabUshment of arbitrary power. But, gentlemen, I do look forward, and at no very remote period, to the extension of the franchise, further than I admit I once thought would be safe or practicable. I beUeve that such an extension will, by the course of events, be brought about in the very best and happiest way. Perhaps I may be sanguine, but I think that good times are coming for the labouring-classes of this countiy. I do not entertain that hope because I expect that Fourierism, or St. Simonianism, or Socialism, or any of those other "isms" for which the plain English word is " robbery," will prevail. I know that such schemes only aggravate the misery which they pretend to reheve. I know it is possible, by such legislation, to make the rich poor ; but I know it is utterly impossible to make the poor rich. But I do beUeve and hope that the progress of ex- perimental science, the free intercourse of nation with nation, the unrestricted influx of commodities from coimtries where they are cheap, and the unrestricted efflux of labour towards countries VOL. II. 2 D 390 EDINBURGH ELECTION. where it is clear, will soon produce, and are beginning to produce, a great and most blessed social revolution. You know, gentle- men, I need not tell you, that in those colonies which have been planted by our race — and, when I say colonies, I speak as well of those which have separated from us as those which still remain united to us — j^ou know that in our colonies the con- dition of the labouring man has long been far more prosperous than in any part of the Old World. And why is this ? Some persons tell you that the people of Pennsylvania or New England are better off than the people of the Old World, because the United States have a republican form of government. But we know that the labourers of Pennsylvania and New England were more prosperous than the people of the Old World when Penn- sylvania and New England were as loyal as any part, of the dominions of George I., George II., or George III. ; and we know that in Van Diemen^s Land, in New Zealand, in Austral- asia, in New Brunswick, in Canada, the subjects of her Majesty are as prosperous as they could be under the government of a president. The cause, gentlemen, is different. The cause is, that in these new countries, where there is a boundless extent of fertile land, nothing is easier than for the labourer to pass from the place which is overstocked to the place which is understocked ; and that thus he who moves and he who stays always have enough. This it is which keeps up the prosperity of the Atlantic States of the Union. They force their population back to Ohio, across the Ohio to the Mississippi, and beyond the Mississippi. Everywhere the desert is receding before the advancement of the flood of human life and civilisation ; and, in the meantime, those who are left behind find abundance, and never endure those privations which in old countries too often befal the labouring-classes . And why has not the condition of our labourers been equally fortunate ? Simply, as I believe, on account of the great dis- tance which separates our country from the new, unoccupied, and uncultivated fertile part of the world, and on account of the expense of traversing that distance. Science, however, has abridged, and is abridging that distance ; science has diminished. EDINBURGH ELECTION. 391 and is diminishing that expense. Already, New Zealand is nearer, for all practical purposes, to England, than New England was to the Puritans who fled thither from the tyranny of Laud. Already, the coasts of North America, Halifax, Boston, and New York are nearer to England than, within the memory of persons now living, the island of Skye and the county of Donegal were to London. Already, emigration is beginning, if I rightly tinder- stand, to produce the same effect here which it has produced on the Atlantic States of the Union. And do not imagine that our countryman who goes abroad is altogether lost to us. Even if he go from under the dominion and protection of the Enghsh flag, and settle himself among a kindred people, still he is not altogether lost. to ns, for, under the benignant system of Free Trade, he wiU stiU remain bound to us by close ties. If he ceases to be a neighbour, he is still a benefactor and a customer. Go where he may, if you will but uphold that system inviolate, it is for us that he is turning the forests into corn-fields on the banks of the Mississippi ; it is for ns he is tending his sheep and preparing his fleeces in the heart of Australia ; and in the mean- time it is from us he receives the commodities which are pro- duced with vast advantage in an old society, where great masses of capital are accumulated. His candlesticks and his pots and pans come from Birmingham, his knives from Sheffield; the light cotton-jacket which he wears in summer comes from Man- chester, and the good cloth coat which he wears in winter comes from Leeds ; and, in return, he sends us back what he produces in what was once a wilderness, the good flour out of which is made the large loaf which the Englishman divides among his children. I believe that it is in these changes we shall see the best so- lution of the question of the franchise— not so much by lowering the franchise to the level of the great mass of the community, as by raising, in a time very short in the existence of a nation, the great mass up to the level of a reasonable and moderate fran- chise. I feel that I must stop. I had meditated on some other things upon which I intended to address you. I had meant to say something about the ballot, to which, as you know, I have 392 EDINBURGH ELECTION. always been favourable ; something about triennial parliaments, to which, as you know, I have always been honestly opposed ; I had meant to say something about your University tests — some- thing about the religious equality movement in Ireland ; but I feel I cannot well proceed. I have only strength to thank you again, from the very bottom of my heart, for the great honour which you have done me in appointing me, without soHcitation, to the distinguished post of one of your representatives. I am proud of our connexion, and I shall try to act in such a manner that you may not be ashamed of it. I'INIS. IIENRV My.LlELhX, PBINTEU AND 1:NGRAVEK, nOUGIiSQUARi;. Fl.DEIPTJlEE'l