DUKE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2018 with funding from Duke University Libraries https://archive.org/details/lifespeechesofjo01jone THE LIFE AND SPEECHES OF Joseph Cowen, m.p. EVAN ROWLAND JONES AUTHOR OF “ LINCOLN, STANTON, AND GRANT ; HISTORICAL SKETCHES,'’ “ FOUR YEARS IN THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC,” ETC., ETC. COitTj 'fence! Portrait. “ Eloquence is a Triumph of Pure Power.”— Emerson. Hondon: SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, SEARLE, AND RIVINGTON, 188, FLEET STREET, E.C. (All rights reserved.) UNWIN' BROTHERS, THE GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND LONDON. PREFACE. “ T QUESTION very much whether there are three men in 1 Europe who could have delivered an oration of equal merit,” said a northern orator, a “ doctor in the schools,” and a political dissentient withal, when publicly referring to one of Joseph Cowen’s speeches. “ He is the orator,” said no less competent a judge, no less accomplished a speaker than the junior member for Newcastle to the writer of this page in referring to a speech just then made by his colleague in the House of Commons. Having listened to Mr. Cowen upon a score of occasions, having enjoyed his friendship for a dozen years, and sharing the opinions of John Morley and Robert Spence Watson, I suggested the present publication to Mr. Marston : the result of his decision is now before the reader. But Mr. Cowen was loth to accede to my wishes. In the course of his reply to the proposal, he said : “ You set more value by my talking than I do or the public does. I always take some trouble in preparing any set speech I have to make, but after it has been delivered I can never read it with satisfaction. And even the few friends who think my harangues tolerable at the time of their delivery will never be at the trouble of reading them when the occasion that lent them a temporary interest has passed.” Mr. Cowen pro¬ tested that “ no one would buy the book,” that my services IV PREFACE. would “ go unrequited ” ; and, finally, when his objections to the publication had been overcome, he urged me not to think of a portrait—“No one cares a straw about my appearance,” he said. When, however, the work was begun, every facility was afforded me that an author has a right to expect; and for this I now make grateful acknowledgment. My qualifications for the work are soon recounted. I had lived on Tyneside for upwards of fourteen years. Some of the active associates of Mr. Cowen in the work of agitation under the old Northern Reform Union, and those who shared his sentiments and seconded his endeavours on behalf of European freedom, Italian Unity, and American liberty, were my personal friends and neighbours. My own residence in Newcastle commenced in 1S69. I was present at the meeting when Mr. Cowen first appeared before the electors of Newcastle as a candidate for Parliament, and I have witnessed every political contest and every party feud that have since taken place in the constituency. Being disfranchised by my official position, I was treated with the consideration extended to non-combatants by the leaders of the contending political parties and sections in Newcastle, and was therefore enabled to estimate with tolerable accuracy the political and personal situation. Indeed, in a variety of ways, public and private, I have enjoyed opportunities for acquiring the information necessary for a work of this character. The present biography is the most comprehensive that has hitherto been attempted. It deals with the life and public services of Joseph Cowen, from his birth to the present day—the last chapter being devoted to an account of his methods, style, and characteristics as an orator. About four hundred pages of the volume are devoted to a careful selection of Mr. Cowen's speeches, embracing all the best addresses of their class. These speeches are remarkable for the wide range of subjects they traverse, PREFACE. v the amount of solid information they contain, the art dis¬ played in their arrangement, and the elegance of language in which they are clothed. They teach temperance, tolera¬ tion, equality, and liberty protected by law. They deal with literature, art, and politics; social science, and the laws of trade. They are classified into—first, political speeches delivered out of Parliament ; second, Parliamentary speeches ; and, third, speeches made on general subjects. It only remains for me to tender my hearty thanks to my friends—Mr. R. B. Reed, for many excellent suggestions, and a glimpse of the olden time on the North-East Coast ; Mr. William Duncan, for a very complete collection of Mr. Cowen’s speeches, and for other courtesies ; Mr. Richard Welford, for addresses both old and new; and, finally, to my friend Mr. W. E. Adams, for valuable assistance, cheerfully given, and now acknowledged with gratitude. With less imperative demands upon my time the biography might have been made more worthy of the subject, more satisfactory to the writer, and more acceptable to the reader; but abundant compensation for the shortcomings of my part of the work will be found in the choice orations and speeches of Joseph Cowen. E. R. J. Cardiff, October 28, 1885. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Political Movement in the North of England—The Manchester Riots—The Northern Political Union and its Leaders—The Reform Bill Agitation—Sir Joseph Cowen, M.P., and his Contemporaries—Democracy on the Tyne .... CHAPTER II. Ancestors of the Cowen Family—Sir Ambrose Crowley’s “Crew”— Career and Death of Sir Joseph Cowen, M.P.—Birth, Edu¬ cation, and University Experience of Joseph Cowen, jun.— His Commercial Life—The Blaydon Burn Works . . . . CHAPTER III. Sir James Graham and the Bandieri Letters—Mr. Cowen and Mazzini—Garibaldi on Tyneside—Presentation—The General’s Speech—Mr. Cowen and the Foreign Refuges—His Services for the American Union. CHATTER IV. Agitation for the People’s Charter—Collapse of the Movement— Feargus O’Connor and Ernest Jones- Joseph Cowen and the Northern Reform League — Political Demonstrations in New- castle-on-Tyne — Death of Lord Palmerston — Advent of Mr. Gladstone to the Leadership of the Liberal Party—Significant Speech by Mr. Cowen on the Town Moor — The North- Country Miners and the Reform Bill of 1867—Co-operative Congress in Newcastle — The “Northern Tribune” — Mr. Cowen’s Connection with and Purchase of the “ Newcastle Chronicle ”. CONTENTS. SPEECHES. POLITICAL SPEECHES OUT OF PARLIAMENT . I. Tories and Liberals—A Contrast. January 27, 1877.113 II. The Liberal Position and Programme. December 19, 1877.120 III. Finance and Centralization. November 15, 1879 126 IV. Party Government, Shorter Parliaments, and Payment of Members. December 3, 1879 • • 14+ V. The Foreign Policy of England. January 31, 1880.153 VI. Political Organization ; Montenegro and Greece ; Irish Grievances. January \881 . . . 177 VII. The Irish Legislation of 1881. August 29, 1881 . 196 VIII. The Land; The Cloture; Coercion. January 28, 1882.201 IX. Parliamentary Procedure; Ireland; Egypt. Janu ¬ ary 8, 1SS3.220 X. Workmen Members. July 14, 1883 .... 236 XI. Egypt ; Home-Rule; Reform. December 22, 1883 240 XII. Imperial Federation; The Soudan; The New Democracy. February 14, 1885.259 SPEECHES IN PARLIAMENT . XIII. The Queen’s Title. March 23, 1876 .... 280 XIV. Licensing Boards. May 17, 1876.285 XV. The Release of the Fenian Prisoners. August 1, 1876..296 XVI. School Boards. August 5, 1876.300 XVII. The Prisons Bill. April 5, 1877.304 XVIII. The Eastern Question. February n, 1878 . . 307 XIX. Law Reform. May 8, 1878.314 XX. The Bishoprics Bill. July 31, 1S7S .... 326 XXL The Duration of Parliaments. February 24, 1880 . 335 XXII. Urgency for Irish Coercion. January 25, 1881 . 342 XXIII. Irish Coercion. February 8, 1881.346 XXIV. An Appeal for Clemency to Ireland. February 25, 1881 .......... 355 XXV. The Irish Coercion Act. May 23, 1882 . . . 362 CONTENTS. xi XXVI. The Right of Free Speech. November io, 1882 . 371 XXVII. General Gordon’s Mission to the Soudan. February 12, 1884.380 XXVIII. The Expedition to Suakim. March 15, 1884 . 385 XXIX. The Liberal Government and General Gordon. May 13, 1884.389 XXX. The Right of Women to the Suffrage. June 12, 1S84.393 SPEECHES ON GENERAL SUBJECTS . XXXI. The House of Commons ; General Grant ; America and England. September 22, 1877. . 399 XXXII. The Spirit of our Time. October 1, 1877 . . 403 XXXIII. Art in Trade. October 24, 1877 .... 407 XXXIV. Art and Education. November 21, 1877 . . 410 XXXV. English and Foreign Art. November 21, 1S77 . 415 XXXVI. A Eulogy on a Local Orator. September 30, 1880 419 XXXVII. Art: Its History and Tuition. October 12, 1880 423 XXXVIII. The Rise and Strength of Great Towns. October 6, 18S1 . . . . . . . 428 XXXIX. Mechanics’ Institutions and Oratory. Sep ¬ tember 18, 1882. . . . . . . .431 XL. The Change in the Work and Ways of Parlia¬ ment. September 29,1882.441 XLI. The Value of Health to a Nation. September 30, 1882.444 XLII. State of Education. October 4 , 18&2 . . . 447 XLIII. Parliamentary Order and Oratory. December 27, 1882.452 XLIV. Spring—Horses and Exercise. May 14, 1S83 . 456 XLV. Medical Students : Thejr Work and Power October 1.1883.461 XLVI. The Change in Parliamentary Work. January 11, 1884.466 XLVII. Temperance. January 19, 1884.469 XLVIII. Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. April 16,1884 474 XLIX. Modern Preaching and Preachers. May 26, 1SS4 479 L. The Industries of Tyneside. August 20, 1884 • 483 LI. Thirty Years’ Progress. September 17,1884 . . 485 LII. Juvenile Crime. September 25, 1884 .... 489 LIII. Religious Liberality and Tolerance. October 13, 1SS4.492 JOSEPH COWEN, M.P. CHAPTER I. POLITICAL MOVEMENT IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND — THE MAN¬ CHESTER RIOTS—THE NORTHERN POLITICAL UNION AND ITS LEADERS—THE REFORM BILL AGITATION—SIR JOSEPH COWEN, M.P., AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES—DEMOCRACY ON THE TYNE. HE wave of reform has passed over Britain and America, A sweeping away many crying evils and anomalies in its going. Slavery is gone : Civil Rights are assured : the Franchise is extended : and existing inequalities before the law are as tidal sand-heaps to the formidable mountains sub¬ merged. Reformers may take a short rest, and give a hearty cheer to the victory, heedless of the clamour of the charlatans who would redress imaginary wrongs by robbing honest toil of its own. But neither politicians nor parties can long maintain ascendency upon the prestige of even a glorious past. They must keep time with the aspirations of to-day, or get run over. It is necessary, however, to look back and contemplate the modern Acts upon the Statute Book—the finger-posts on the traversed way of reform—lest we lose the line of direction and join a Quixotic crusade. It is well to call the muster-roll of the old brigade at intervals, and know who are the veterans, who the recruits, who the camp followers—to inquire where were the windmill warriors of to-day when the conflict was raging on the commons of England and the bloody fields of America. Garrison’s band 2 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. was a mere handful when the Chief was hustled through the streets of Boston, halter ready round his neck. The Pioneer Corps was not the fashion until after the tree¬ felling feat at Appomattox. Even the great woodman of Hawarden “ did not learn when at Oxford that which he has learned since, namely, to set due value on the imperishable and inestimable principles of human liberty.” Reformers were not respectable until after they had conquered Independence, Emancipation, Electoral Rights, and Religious Liberties, “ in the teeth of clenched an¬ tagonisms.” The influential people of Boston were satisfied with the old regime, because their skin was white : they were shocked when Garrison told them that the “ glorious Con¬ stitution ” of their forefathers was “ a covenant with death and an agreement with hell ” ! Respectable Englishmen were satisfied in the possession of a franchise capriciously denied their own kith and kin : they were outraged when the Manchester men demanded universal suffrage and vote by ballot. Abolitionists were mobbed in the North ; they were “ hanging from the trees ” in Texas in those days. British Radicals were dragooned as traitors ; and proscribed by “society” in those days. Now the “First Families” acknowledge the wisdom, truth, and justice of the Black Republican’s creed ; and the current of empire, once stemmed by the curse of slavery, is flowing southward. And the “ People’s Charter,” for the most part, is passed into law, while its authors and heroes, persecuted and imprisoned then, are now esteemed among the statesmen and patriots of their own time. But the lines of political stalwarts are thinning. Lincoln and Sumner, Lambton and Grey, and many more have fallen out of the ranks. The portfolios and offices of States, with few exceptions, have passed into other hands : you can count the exceptions on your fingers. But my pen is devoted to one who still holds a high place in his country’s THE PEOPLE OF TYNESIDE. 3 Parliament, and an abiding corner in the hearts of freed and enfranchised men : to one who roused and organized the dormant spirit of reform, and promoted self and social culture in the North; who wrought with youthful verve against Poland’s partition, Austria’s crime, and Hungary’s defeat; who nourished the cause of Italy and nerved the arm of her heroes; who foretold and accelerated the Napoleonic col¬ lapse ; who steadfastly kept the faith and promoted the fortune of American Liberty and Union throughout the days of misfortune, defeat and disaster, in Charlestown harbour, on the Potomac, the Rappahannock, and the James, until tardy Victory came at length, bringing with her the eternal overthrow of human slavery under the banner of the Great Republic. Judged by the measure of service, sacrifice, and devotion, nobly given from youth to age, in the cause of humanity, everywhere, without thought of race or creed or colour, there is no man more worthy of homage than the fearless “ Northern Tribune”—Joseph Cowen, M.P. The people of the North of England are unsurpassed for strength of character, wealth of intellect, and fearlessness of expression. Collingwood in warfare, Eldon in the law, Grey in affairs of State, and Stephenson in mechanical science, are numerically inadequate to represent the moral and intellectual excellence of Northumberland and Durham : a thousand names press hard upon these exalted characters of history. And the banks of the Tyne, the centre of these moral and intellectual forces, have been the rendezvous of a sturdy outspoken democracy for a hundred years. The political faith of John Cartwright, that human liberty is “the immediate gift of God,” found a ready acceptance on the rugged and storm-beaten North-East Coast. The Tyne¬ side advocates of the Divine faith were fearless as the men whose defence immortalized the name of Erskine. Their sympathies were broad enough to include native and alien ; black and white; Christian and heathen. Not always did 4 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. their sentiments find an advocate of national repute : but the heart of the people was with Clarkson, Wilberforce, and Granville Sharpe, against the slave trade and slavery; with Grattan and O’Connell for Catholic Emancipation; with Romilly and Mackintosh for reform of the Penal Code ; with Russell for religious equality; with Grey and Lambton for the Reform Bill; and with Frost, Williams, and Jones for a larger measure of political justice and equity. When the ancient rights of public meeting and petition exercised by the Radicals of Manchester in 1819 were violated in the name of law and order, the people of Tyneside assembled on the Town Moor of Newcastle, and spoke with courage and self-reliance against the outrage. The various Radical Associations of Newcastle and the surrounding dis¬ trict assembled in and near the Castle Garth on the nth of October in that year, and marched in procession, tens of thousands strong, along Collingwood, Pilgrim, and Northum¬ berland Streets to the Town Moor. The hustings were significantly draped in mourning ; the leaders of the move¬ ment carried white wands decorated with crape and white ribbon; the national emblem was carried at half-mast; Grief was represented weeping over the sepulchral urn, while History recorded the bloody work at Peterloo. Joseph Cowen, of Blaydon Burn, afterwards Sir Joseph Cowen, marched at the head of his brother blacksmiths to that meeting of indignation. Resolutions were adopted with enthusiasm and unanimity, asserting the right of the people to publicly discuss political questions, and to make known their opinions in resolutions, petitions, or remon¬ strances. And the vast gathering expressed approval of the conduct of the Manchester meeting, while condemning the magistrates, the military, and the Government of the country for violating the constitutional guarantees of the people. Subscriptions for the relief of the Manchester sufferers were opened, and a fund was inaugurated for the purpose of THE REFORM BILL AGITATION. 5 affording pecuniary and legal assistance to all persons in Newcastle and the neighbourhood who might happen to become victims through advocating in legal form the rights and liberties of Englishmen. This Manchester business occasioned the greatest possible excitement at the time; but popular interest in it gradually died away. The leading spirits of the Reform movement continued their labours in Parliament and throughout the country. Extraordinary anomalies had grown out of the old system of representation. Boroughs which flourished in ages past had ceased to exist as communities, though they still maintained their Parliamentary representation. Old Sarum, celebrated in the Reform debates, was one of these. It had passed entirely away as a human habitation : not one stone stood upon another wherefrom the bittern could mourn a departed glory: but it was equal in law-making privileges to the great county of Lancaster. The Nabob of Arcot once owned the seats of twenty Parliamentary boroughs; and he sent that number of members to St. Stephen’s to carry out his behests according to the instructions of his London agent. One hundred and eighty persons elected, directly or indirectly, 350 members, or more than a majority of the House of Commons. But after vigorous agitation, long sustained, the Reform movement crystallized in a measure which proposed to disfranchise 56 boroughs, real or imaginary, lower the representation of 31 constituencies, enfranchise 41 districts with either one or two members each, and add to the repre¬ sentation of large towns. Scotland and Ireland were to be favoured in the same manner. The controversy over the Reform Bill was heated and the tension great. Parliament became divided against itself; while the King oscillated between the Commons and Reform, and the Lords and Reaction. The throne itself trembled. Radicals and Whigs were organizing everywhere. Both sections of Liberalism were united in favour of Earl Grey’s 6 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. great instalment of popular rights. After a lapse of twelve years from tjie date of the Manchester Riots, the Radicals and Whigs of Tyneside met in the Music Hall of Newcastle on the 27th of June, 1831, and established the Northern Political Union. The late Sir Joseph (then Mr.) Cowen took an important and steady part in the movement. The new organization pledged itself to defend the principles of the Reform Bill; to assist in returning reformers to Parlia¬ ment ; to agitate for the removal of the taxes on knowledge; to improve the condition of the industrial classes; and to aid in the diffusion of sound political information in any manner that might be deemed most expedient. The Reform Bill had been introduced on Dec. 12, 1831. After a three months’ struggle, it passed the House of Commons by a majority of 116, to be thrown out by the Lords. Earl Grey resigned in consequence. The Duke of Wellington was entrusted by King William with the forma¬ tion of a Government. It was during this period of suspense, while the great soldier was nominally at the head of affairs, that the Northern Political Union made a significant demonstration at the Spital, Newcastle, on May 15, 1832. The shops were closed, and business was suspended. Detachments of Reformers from the outlying districts assembled in St. Nicholas-square, and marched to the Spital, headed by bands of music, and accompanied by flags and banners. Man}’ of the processionists bore fire-arms, while others carried oak saplings. These suggestions of an appeal to force showed the resolute temper of the populace. The speeches delivered on that memorable occasion were full of fight and defiance. The Chairman, Mr. John Fife, afterwards Sir John Fife, referred to the fact that his coun¬ trymen were armed and arming, and claimed for them as good a right to their weapons as the Marquis of London¬ derry had to his, “for the most ignorant and simple-minded man in this assembly,” said Mr. Fife, “ is as likely to THE NORTHERN POLITICAL UNION. 7 make a proper use of them.” The spirit of desperation into which the people had been driven by the obstructive action of the Lords, may be estimated from the language of Mr. Charles Larkin, a celebrated Tyneside orator of his time. He accused the Sovereign of treating the advice of the Com¬ mons with scorn ; he charged the Queen with exerting her influence against the rights of the people; and he asked a succession of significant questions : “ Should not William IV. recollect the fate of Louis XVI. ? Should not a Queen, who makes herself a busy, intermeddling politician, recollect the fate of Marie Antoinette ? ” “ From this hustings,” he added, “ I bid the Queen of England recollect that, in con¬ sequence of the opposition of that ill-fated woman to the wishes of the people of France, a fairer head than ever graced the shoulders of Adelaide, Queen of England, rolled upon the scaffold.” Such was the temper of the great meeting of Northern Radicals held on May 15, 1832. Wellington failed to form a Ministry; Grey was recalled to office; and within a month of the Spital meeting, the Reform Bill passed into law. The Northern Political Union was an amalgamation of Whigs and Radicals. In the presence of a common enemy, they forgot their political differences, and fought with courage and resolution for the common object of Reform. But when the victory was achieved, the differences in political faith assumed their normal proportions, gave rise to serious dis¬ putes, and resulted in the dissolution of the Union. A great reaction set in after the battle ; political interest became dormant, if not dead; apathy and indifference were spread over the district so recently ablaze with political energy. It remained for Joseph Cowen, Jun., born during the white heat of the Reform agitation, to sound again the onward march, and light anew the beacons of Radicalism in the North. 8 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. CHAPTER II. ANCESTORS OF THE COWEN FAMILY — SIR AMBROSE CROWLEY’S “ CREW ”—CAREER AND DEATH OF SIR JOSEPH COWEN, M.P.— BIRTH, EDUCATION, AND UNIVERSITY EXPERIENCE OF JOSEPH COWEN, JUN. — HIS COMMERCIAL LIFE—THE BLAYDON BURN WORKS. OTWITHSTANDING the estrangement of political 1 M leaders, and the dissolution of the Northern Political Union, the home of the late Sir Joseph Cowen remained from first to last the focus of democracy, and the rallying- place of the sturdy Radicals of Blaydon and its surround¬ ings. It was during these troubled times of civil strife, which only escaped civil war through the retreat of the Peers, and in this abiding-place of the Republican faith, at Blaydon Burn, on the 9th day of July, 1831, that Joseph Cowen, the present member for Newcastle, was born. The Cowens originally came from Lindisfarne, or “ Holy Isle,” but they have been settled on Tyneside for upwards of 300 years. Many of them were skilled workmen engaged at the “factory” established at Winlaton by Sir Ambrose Crowley—the Sir John Anvil of Addison’s Spectator —for the manufacture of tools, building utensils, chains, and “ almost all other sorts of smith’s wares.” The workpeople were known as “ Crowley’s crew,” and were celebrated throughout the kingdom for their skill, industry, and intelligence, while the wisdom and sagacity of Sir Ambrose—in many respects the forerunner of Robert Owen—were also widely known. He was a manufacturer of enterprise, and a socialist in the S/R AMBROSE CROWLEY'S “CREW. 9 best sense. He established a code of laws for the social governance of the community, and a Court of Arbitration for the settlement of trade disputes. He authorized the work¬ people to elect their own religious instructor, whose stipend was provided in equal parts by master and men. Sir Am¬ brose also promoted schools, adjacent to his several works at Swalwell, Winlaton, and Winlaton Mill, where the chil¬ dren of the employed were taught the rudiments of education. A medical officer was appointed to attend the sick and injured of the community, who were maintained from a general fund throughout their ailings. The disabled through age or infir¬ mity were permanently assisted, and ample provision was made for those whom death deprived of their breadwinners. Joseph Cowen’s grandfather was the last of his race engaged in Sir Ambrose Crowley’s factory; and when, at the close of the French war, in 1816, the establishment was removed and dissolved, he commenced business, in a com¬ paratively small way, on his own account. The traditions of this remarkable community are still cherished on the Tyne ; and it is easy to understand that the early association of his family with Sir Ambrose Crowley’s band, and the story of the employer’s beneficence, inspired Mr. Cowen even in early manhood to work for the improvement of the moral, educational, and social condition of the people among whom he lived. The late Sir Joseph Cowen started life at the forge; but he was a man of character and industry, and he won for himself and his successors a large store of wealth before the close of his career. He was a blacksmith at first, after¬ wards a manufacturer of fire-bricks and gas retorts, then a coalowner and landed proprietor. He is remembered as an amiable, gentle man, of pleasant manners and handsome presence. He served his district and country as Chairman of the River Tyne Commissioners for twenty years—from 1S53 until the day of his death, on the 19th of December, IO LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 1873. During that time, great piers were projected and built, though not completed; important docks were pro¬ moted ; a new bridge over the Tyne was constructed ; and the Tyne itself was transformed from a shallow stream to one of the noblest maritime rivers in the world. The later years of Sir Joseph were almost entirely devoted to Parliamentary and public work. He was elected member for Newcastle in 1865, and re-elected in 1868. The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, then Prime Minister of England, visited Tyne¬ side in the autumn of 1871, and upon his return to Downing- street he tendered to Mr. Cowen the honour of knighthood, in acknowledgment of the public service which he had rendered for so long a time and with so much ability as Chairman of the River Tyne Improvement Commissioners. The honour was accepted ; but it is the simple truth that the recipient, while gratified by the good intentions, was indifferent to the proffered title. The writer of these pages remembers examining a portrait of Sir Joseph at the Commissioners’ office one day, while the late Mr. James Guthrie sounded the merited praises of the late Chairman of the Commission—his ability, earnestness, and remarkable tact in the conduct of public business. “He was a true gentleman,” said he. The universal verdict of Tyneside was pronounced by Mr. Guthrie. The son, upon his first public appearance as a candidate for the seat made vacant by the father’s death, made use of the following just, but modest terms regarding Sir Joseph: “There have been many men more learned in the knowledge of the schools,” said Mr. Cowen, “ many men more brilliant; but I can say that I know of no man more conscientious in the beliefs he entertained, and more consistent in upholding them. But * all that wealth and all that power ever gave ’ will leave us sooner or later; and everything, my friends, will soon be forgotten, except the uses we have made of the opportunities for good that have been placed within our reach.” HIS CAREER AT THE EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY, u Mr. Cowen’s mother was Miss Newton, a sister of Mr. Joseph Newton, a political philosopher. From both lines of parentage Mr. Cowen inherited elements which have marked his public career. But he has passed the line of ancestral names in political affairs. Joseph Cowen was educated first at a private school at Ryton, on the Tyne, and finally at the University of Edin¬ burgh. Though fond of outdoor games, and especially of the beautiful but much-abused sport of rowing, he was a good student. He did not study for the law, or the medical profession, but, untrammelled, he cultivated the Classics, became a devourer of histories, with a passion for the poets, and a turn for public debate. The faculty of fluent speech distinguished his collegiate career; and he was made presi¬ dent of the debating society of his University. His memory even then was phenomenal; and his mental pigeon-holes are still occupied by political truths in prose and verse which captivated his early life and have leavened his public career. When Mr. Cowen was pursuing his studies in Edinburgh, the times were full of controversy. The spirit of revolu¬ tion was active on the Continent; the disruption of the Established Church and the secession of the Free Kirk had just taken place in Scotland ; philosophic scepticism was making inroads upon orthodox views through the influence of George Combe, author of the “ Constitution of Man,” aided by his brother Andrew and others, but more especially by Robert Chambers, whose “ Vestiges of Creation,” pub¬ lished anonymously, created a furore in the Scottish capital. Young Joseph Cowen took a deep and lively interest in all these questions. He lived with a minister of the Free Kirk, at whose house he frequently met Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Cand- lish, Dr. Cunningham, Dr. Guthrie, and other leading adherents of the Free Kirk : he enjoyed the advantage of hearing the chief questions of the time discussed by these robust and earnest men. The University was then in the 12 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. zenith of its fame. The names of Palmerston and Russell, as former students, gave it prestige. The faculty was strong in truly great men. Dr. Lee, professor of Theology, was at the head of the college ; John Wilson (Christopher North) occupied the chair of Moral Philosophy; Sir William Hamilton was professor of Logic ; and the medical branch of the University was served by men of great distinction. Macaulay represented Edinburgh in Parliament ; and Mr. Cowen had frequent opportunities of listening to the Whig orator during two contested elections: first, when he was returned upon being made Postmaster-General, in 1846, and again in the following year when he was defeated, owing, as it was asserted at the time, to his speeches in defence of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, and in support of a repeal of the civil disabilities of the Jews. A good story regarding Mr. Cowen’s education was told to the writer, not by a lady, but by one who ought to know. During his first contest for the representation of Newcastle, Mr. Cowen was much abused, of course, as all English and American candidates are apt to be. His religious faith was assailed; his Republican proclivities were de¬ nounced ; and his intellectual training was belied. “ He is just an ignorant fellow, without any education,” said one gentleman to another in the train between Newcastle and Scotswood. A lady sat in a corner-seat of the compartment ; she leaned slightly forward and quietly said: “ You will excuse me ; but Mr. Cowen was educated at the Edinburgh University. I happen to know, because I am his wife ! ” At that moment the train stopped at Scotswood : the gentlemen hurriedly departed. One of them lived near the station ; and he sometimes tells the story at his own expense. At the close of his University training, Joseph Cowen, Jun., entered his father’s office, ultimately assuming the management of the transactions of the firm. Commercial capacity and application are rarely found in highly poetical INVENTIVE FACULTY OF SIR JOSEPH CO WEN. 13 temperaments devoted to the work and advocacy of reform. Mr. Cowen is an example to the contrary. During his management, the works were enlarged and the transactions multiplied until Cowen’s fire-bricks and gas-retorts, cele¬ brated at home, were exported to every country in the world, The manufacture of bricks, with which the name of the Cowens has been associated for many generations, was begun in the neighbourhood of Blaydon Burn over a hundred and fifty years ago. The late Sir Joseph first became con¬ nected with the works by joining his brother-in-law, Mr. Forster, in partnership. Within a few years, however, Mr. Forster retired from the firm, leaving the once junior partner sole proprietor. Soon thereafter Mr. Cowen in¬ vented retorts and other fire-clay utensils, which were found to be superior to articles made of iron for the manufacture of gas. The first retorts were made at Blaydon in the year 1826. They were constructed in sections, and afterwards joined—a process which entailed extra labour and expense. Now, however, they are made by the firm of Joseph Cowen and Co. in one piece, even to the great length of 10J ft. The Blaydon Burn works are celebrated throughout Eng¬ land, not only in extent and annual products, but for the extreme painstaking exercised in the manufacture of their goods. The raw material is procured from no less than nine different seams, whereby great advantages are ensured in the way of combination of clays for the various goods produced. The Chinese method of exposing the raw material to the action of the weather for years, turning it over at intervals, and removing fossiliferous fragments from it, was adopted by the late Sir Joseph Cowen, and the excellence of the firm’s goods has been attributed to this practice, among other reasons. Messrs. Cowen & Co. have exhibited their gas retorts and other “ objects in fire-clay ” at many, if not at most, of the great exhibitions of the world ; and the highest awards have always been bestowed upon them. 14 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Upon the death of Sir Joseph, in 1873, Mr. Cowen and his brother, Colonel John A. Cowen, succeeded to the property and business, the eldest son following the paternal footsteps to St. Stephen’s. Upon thus entering a political career, Mr. Cowen withdrew from the active management of the firm’s business, when his brother assumed the direction. Thus manufacture and commerce, as well as sporting pursuits, are left to Colonel Cowen, while the senior member for Newcastle devotes his time and energies in the main to public and political affairs in and out of Parliament, and to the guidance of his able and enterprising journal, the New¬ castle Chronicle. Mr. Cowen, in conjunction with his brother, is a large coalowner and maker of blast furnace coke. He is a considerable landed proprietor also, and owns the Barlow estate on the Tyne, and, conjointly with Colonel Cowen, the Ryton Grange estate. About 800 acres of land are farmed by Messrs. Cowen. The late Sir Joseph was one of the lords of the manor of Winlaton, and herein the eldest son succeeded to the rights of his father. MR. CO WEN AND THE MAZZINI LETTERS. 15 CHAPTER III. SIR JAMES GRAHAM AND THE BANDIERI LETTERS — MR. COWEN AND MAZZINI—GARIBALDI ON TYNESIDE—PRESENTATION—THE GENE¬ RAL’S SPEECH — MR. COWEN AND THE FOREIGN REFUGEES—HIS SERVICES FOR THE AMERICAN UNION. S already indicated, the spirit of revolution was active JT\. everywhere on the Continent while Mr. Cowen was at the Edinburgh University; and an event took place which brought the Tyneside student into close relationship with many, if not with most, of the revolutionary leaders. The brothers Bandieri were contemplating an insurrection in Italy, and were in correspondence with Mazzini regarding the movement. At the instance of Sir James Graham, then Home Secretary, Mazzini’s letters were opened and their contents made known to the Austrian Ambassador in London, in consequence of which the brothers Bandieri were arrested and finally shot. The action of the Home Secretary created great sensation, and evoked widespread condemnation at the time. It served to develop popular sympathy for the cause of Italy, while the odium attached to what many considered a service in the cause of despotism clung to Sir James Graham to the end of his life. The circumstance was made the sub¬ ject of discussion at the University Debating Society, and Mr. Cowen spoke against the action of the Home Office with great earnestness and the passion of youth. Not satisfied with this he denounced the business in the public prints, and wrote to Mazzini upon the subject. This was the initial i6 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. step towards that friendship, loyalty, and devotion which subsequently existed between the great Italian and Joseph Cowen. Like so many young men of Democratic leanings and ardent natures, young Cowen was in full sympathy with the movement which resulted in the French Revolution of 1848; and when, a few years later, Louis Napoleon performed his coup d'etat, England and America — then the only safe asylums among nations for political refugees—were overrun by Frenchmen and Italians, Hungarians and Poles. Their first flight was to England, and Mr. Cowen’s sympathy with the cause they served, and his acquaintance with Mazzini, the greatest intellect of the Revolution, brought him into personal contact with most of them. The leaders among the refugees associated and organised, and formally pledged themselves to serve each other’s cause and work into each other’s hands. According to their programme, Italy was to be united and made a nation; Poland was to be re-estab¬ lished, Hungary made independent, and the regime of Napoleon III. overthrown. The efforts of the revolutionary leaders were largely directed towards disseminating throughout the Continent literature favourable to their cause. But their task was a difficult one: their work and movements were closely watched by foreign emissaries, and their publications shut out from France, Austria, Italy, and Russia. The commer¬ cial relations of Messrs. Joseph Cowen & Co. extended to most of the great seaports and populous centres of Europe. The facilities possessed by the firm were used by the im¬ petuous young Democrat to run the blockade with the proscribed documents, which were concealed among fire¬ bricks and other exports. But vigilant spies followed the revolutionary leaders like shadows everywhere. The visits of these leaders to Tyneside gave a clue which revealed Mr. Cowen’s connection with the movement. After this GARIBALDI ON TYNESIDE. 1 7 discovery, meetings between the refugees and their foremost English friend and financial supporter used to take place at Newark and other inland towns between London and York; and the work was continued as before. Henceforward spies were stationed at Newcastle, and they dogged the steps of Joseph Cowen, Jun., whithersoever he went. He was well known by repute to every despotic Government, and viewed as a danger by every tyrant in Europe. Passports were refused to his father through mistaken identity, and the countries of the Continent were sealed against the son. Most of the great leaders who visited England went to> Blaydon-on-l'yne as to the source of never-failing sympathy and support. Kossuth and his wife visited Joseph Cowen at Blaydon ; Orsini lectured in the district ; Louis Blanc was often under Mr. Cowen’s roof. In the month of April, 1854, Garibaldi visited the Tyne in command of the American ship Commonwealth, a vessel of about 1000 tons burthen. The friends of European freedom, under the chairmanship of Mr. Cowen, proffered a public demonstration to the great Italian patriot. In terms of gratitude for the kindly intent the honour was declined. Subsequently, however, an address, accompanied by a sword and telescope, was presented to the General. The ceremony of presentation took place on board the Commonwealth, at Shields, on the nth of April, the day before the ship sailed from the Tyne. After introducing; the delegation and reading the address, Mr. Cowen made the further presentation, and in the course of his remarks, he said :— “Along with this address I have to ask you to receive this sword and this telescope. The intrinsic value of these articles is but small, and to a representative chieftain who is accustomed to animate his compatriots by deeds of personal prowess, such a sword may be more ornamental than useful. But, when I tell you that it is purchased by the pennies of some hundreds of working men, contributed not only voluntarily but with enthusiasm, and that each penny represents a heart which beats true to European freedom, it will not, I think, be unworthy of your acceptance and preservation.” 3 LIFE OF JOSEPH COIVEN, M.P. Garibaldi replied in these terms :— “ Gentlemen, I am very weak in the English language, and can but imperfectly express my acknowledgments for your over great kindness. You honour me beyond my deserts. My services are not worthy of all the favour you have shown me. You more than reward me for any sacri¬ fices I may have made in the cause of freedom. “ One of the people—a workman like yourselves—I value very highly these expressions of your esteem, the more so because you testify thereby your sympathy for my poor, oppressed, and down-trodden country. Speak¬ ing in a strange tongue, I feel most painfully my inability to thank you in terms sufficiently warm. “ The future will alone show how soon it will be before I am called on to unsheath the noble gift I have just received, and again battle in behalf of that which lies nearest my heart—the freedom of my native land. But be sure of this : Italy will one day be a nation, and its free citizens will know how to acknowledge all the kindness shown her exiled sons in the days of their darkest troubles. “ Gentlemen, I would say more, but my bad English prevents me. You can appreciate my feelings and understand my hesitation. Again I thank you from my heart of hearts, and be confident of this—that what¬ ever vicissitudes of fortune I may hereafter pass through, this handsome sword shall never be drawn by me except in the cause of liberty.” The Commonwealth , though flying the American flag, was owned and manned entirely by Italian patriots, many of them representatives of noble families. She was bound for Genoa with coals, and was really intended not for the mer¬ chant service, but as a clipper ship to fight for Italian freedom. The following letter, addressed to Mr. Cowen, and written just as the Commonwealth left the Tyne, is worthy of pre¬ servation :— “ Ship Commonwealth , Tynemouth, April 12, 1854. “ My dear Cowen, —The generous manifestation of sympathy with which I have been honoured by you and your fellow-citizens is of itself more than sufficient to recompense a life of the greatest merit. “ Born and educated as I have been in the cause of humanity, my heart is entirely devoted to liberty, universal liberty, national and world¬ wide, ora e setnpre (now and for ever). England is a great and powerful nation ; independent of auxiliary aid ; foremost in human progress ; enemy to despotism ; the only safe refuge of the exile ; friend of the op¬ pressed ; but if ever England, your native country, should be so circum- GARIBALDI'S LETTER TO CO WEN. 19 stanced as to require the help of an ally, cursed be that Italian who would not step forward with me in her defence. “ Your Government has given the Autocrat a check and the Austrians a lesson. The despots of Europe are against you in consequence. Should England at any time in a just cause need my arm, I am ready to unsheath in her defence the noble and splendid sword received at your hands. “ Be the interpreter of my gratitude to your good and generous country¬ men. I regret, deeply regret, to leave without again grasping hands with you. Farewell, my dear friend, but not adieu. Make room for me in your heart. “Yours always and everywhere, “ G. Garibaldi.” During the critical times and emergencies through which England passed in 1885, while nearly all the nations of Europe were somewhat niggardly in their sympathy and their friendship, the single exception in the case of Italy was significant. It showed that the services of Englishmen in the cause of Italian Unity had not been forgotten, and that sentiments of gratitude were not dead on the Tiber. Subsequent to Garibaldi’s visit to England Mr. Cowen did yeoman service in the cause of Italy; and, some thirty years ago, a warrant against him, as proprietor of the Newcastle Chronicle, was applied for, in consequence of his violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act in inducing Tyneside men to serve under Garibaldi. Nor were the efforts of Mr. Cowen in the cause of European freedom confined to the despatch¬ ing of literature and the enlistment of men. Arms were sent and ships were chartered to aid the struggling nationalities. Indeed, the experience of Mr. Cowen in connection with the leaders of the movement for European freedom bristles with soul-stirring episodes which should be recounted by himself. He was upon the most cordial and confidential terms with Kossuth, Wysocki, and the Hungarian leaders ; with Mieroslawski and YVorcell, the Polish chieftains; with Herzen and Bakunin, the leaders of the Russian revolu¬ tionary party; with Ledru Rollin, Louis Blanc, and many other French refugees ; with Mazzini, Garibaldi, and nearly 20 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. all the Italian patriots. He gave his time and influence with enthusiasm to their work, and his means to carry out their democratic programme. He rejoiced in their successes, shared in their sorrows, participated in their melancholy pleasures ; and friendships formed during those trying times were among the most valued he ever contracted. Some of these men, like Garibaldi, lived to see the triumph of their cause. The closing hours of others were softened through Mr. Cowen’s bounty. Many of the Hungarians and Poles had to pay the last penalty of their acts, while others were doomed to drag out a weary and broken-hearted existence, and end a life of devotion and disappointment in Siberian graves. This was the school, and Mazzini the High Priest, which emphasised the democratic leanings of Mr. Cowen, and determined from afar his conduct upon every question in¬ volving the encroachments of absolute monarchy upon the confines of constitutional liberty. Perhaps he had a right to ask his constituents that he might be excused from “ singing paeans to the Czar of Russia.” He can, however, with satisfaction remember that the principles for which the revolutionary party struggled, and in aid of which he so bountifully contributed, have, for the most part, triumphed. Italy is free, united, and prosperous; Hungary enjoys self-government and ascendency in the councils of Austria-Hungary ; while the Republic has again been established upon the ruin wrought by Napoleon III. Poland, it is true, has been absorbed, and is likely to remain an integral part of Russia. But the advance made and the advantages secured in the cause of humanity have been sub¬ stantial. They are looked upon by the present generation of Englishmen as an order of things that has always existed. Even those who take an historical interest in the events which brought about the revolutions and their results, have but little conception of the struggles, the sufferings, and the EFFORTS FOR AMERICAN LIBERTY. 21 sacrifices made some thirty or forty years ago by a devoted band whose names are fading into forgetfulness. Nor were the efforts of Joseph Cowen in the cause of liberty and humanity confined to European movements. When the Southern States of America sought to destroy the Union and establish a separate Government upon the basis and for the maintenance of human slavery, he realised the merits of the controversy, and, with tongue and pen, en¬ lightened the minds and strengthened the hearts of the poor, who, almost alone among English classes, were true to British traditions. His impassioned eloquence was every¬ where heard for the Union, from the Tees to the Tweed, and his able journal, the Newcastle Chronicle, never faltered in the cause. LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. CHAPTER IV. AGITATION FOR THE PEOPLE'S CHARTER—COLLAPSE OF THE MOVE¬ MENT—FEARGUS O’CONNOR AND ERNEST JONES—JOSEPH COWEN AND THE NORTHERN REFORM LEAGUE—POLITICAL DEMONSTRA¬ TIONS IN NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE—DEATH OF LORD PALMERSTON— ADVENT OF MR. GLADSTONE TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THE LIBERAL PARTY—SIGNIFICANT SPEECH BY MR. COWEN ON THE TOWN MOOR —THE NORTH-COUNTRY MINERS AND THE REFORM BILL OF 1867— CO-OPERATIVE CONGRESS IN NEWCASTLE—THE “NORTHERN TRI¬ BUNE ”—MR. COWEN’S CONNECTION WITH AND PURCHASE OF THE “NEWCASTLE CHRONICLE.” HE passage of the Reform Bill of 1832 was followed 1 by a period of political indifference on the North-East Coast. Elsewhere, however, the Act was pronounced in¬ sufficient and unsatisfactory, and the agitation for what was known as the “ People’s Charter” soon commenced. The programme of the Chartists was definite and wise in the main. The plan of campaign was often erratic. The Charter demanded universal suffrage, vote by ballot, pay¬ ment of members, equal electoral districts, annual Parlia¬ ments, and the abolition of the property qualification. These were the six points of the People’s Charter. Their advocacy constituted the most popular political movement ever witnessed in England. Their immediate adoption was demanded, and many of the Chartist leaders favoured a resort to arms rather than forego any of their claims. For upwards of twenty years the agitation was maintained. But the highest point of political importance was reached in 1847 : at all events, the failure of the Kennington Common COLLAPSE OF THE CHARTLST MOVEMENT. 23 demonstration, held on the 10th of April, 1848, indicated that the agitation had spent its force, and foretold the subsequent collapse of the movement. The Chartists were then looked upon as little better than rebels, and their great demonstra¬ tion was viewed by the timid traders of the metropolis as a menace to society and a danger to the State. Up to that time Feargus O’Connor, an erratic man, held supreme and despotic control of the Chartist movement. Thenceforward he gradually lost control of the masses, and, eventually, of his own reason. Then followed differences and quarrels in the organisation. The rank and file began to abandon a desperate and dying cause, and finally, the great political campaign expired when Ernest Jones, broken in spirit, and reduced to poverty, if not to actual want, gave up the conflict and returned to the law for the means of sub¬ sistence. The collapse was complete and emphatic, leaving scarce a hope behind. It extended generally over the United Kingdom, the North-East Coast excepted: decline elsewhere signalised returning political activity in Northumberland and Durham. Joseph Cowen, fresh from college, imbued with a sense of the political injustice by which men were deprived of their natural rights at home and abroad, full of eloquence and earnestness, rich in this world’s wealth, and untram¬ meled by its conventionalities, resuscitated a dying cause and organised further endeavours for reform. Round about him men of kindred spirit and resolution, chiefly from the ranks of labour, gathered for organisation. Much of the People’s Charter was abandoned ; and it was resolved to^ direct the movement towards securing three points of the late programme—namely, manhood suffrage, vote by ballot, and the abolition of the property qualification. This was the political platform of the Northern Reform Union, sub¬ sequently known as the Northern Reform League, which was organised on the 3rd of January, 1858. The late William 24 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Cook, of Gateshead, was chosen president of the Cnion; the duties of secretary were undertaken by Mr. R. B. Reed, then an ironworker from Winlaton, but now and for many years past the manager of the Newcastle Chronicle; while the finances of the movement were managed, and for the most part supplied, by Joseph Cowen himself. The leaders visited every town and village in the counties of Durham and Northumberland within a day’s ride of the Tyne. Occasionally they made incursions into more distant places ; once or twice they even invaded Scotland. Pitmen, ironworkers, and agricultural labourers were thus instructed in popular politics. While every other part of the country was sunk in sloth and apathy, the fire of Reform was kept alive by the incessant fanning of a few dozen energetic politicians in the North. During the time the Union lasted —that is to say, from 1858 to 1862—hundreds of'meetings were held throughout the district. Mr. Cowen himself must have delivered in this period speeches enough, if collected together, to fill three or four such volumes as the present. Help in the agitation was now and then obtained from outside the district. For instance, the late Washington Wilks, one of the most powerful platform speakers of his day, made a tour with Mr. Cowen, Mr. Reed, and others through the Tyneside towns and villages in the winter of 1858. Mr. H. J. Slack, who has since devoted his attention to science, Mr. J. P. Cobbett, son of the celebrated William Cobbett, and Mr. James Stansfield, afterwards a Cabinet Minister, were sometimes among the Union speakers. An impetus was given to the agitation, too, by the appearance of Mr. P. A. Taylor, subsequently member for Leicester, as a Radical candidate for Newcastle about the same period. Charles Larkin and Thomas Doubleday, remnants of the old Political Union, lent occasional assistance to the movement. For several years after the collapse of Chartism, Tyneside stood alone in asserting the right of the people to share in DEATH OF LORD PALMERSTON. the management of their own affairs. But the time came when the nation at large awoke from its political slumber. Then it was that the agitation which Mr. Cowen and his friends had conducted bore fruit. When the Liberal party took up the question of Parliamentary Reform, there was no part of England better prepared, from knowledge of the question and interest in its settlement, than the district which Mr. Cowen and his coadjutors of the Northern Reform Union had so thoroughly and efficiently instructed in the rights and duties of the people. Two magnificent demonstrations of the public opinion of the Northern Counties stand out prominently as the product and consequence of the mission of instruction and enlighten¬ ment Mr. Cowen had previously undertaken. The first of these great displays followed hard upon similar expressions of popular opinion that had been brought out by the political circumstances of the period immediately suc¬ ceeding the death of Lord Palmerston. While that nobleman lived, a want of earnestness and an air of insincerity per¬ vaded the ranks and infected the spirit of the Liberal party. Mr. Bright had said that nothing would be done “ as long as the old men lived.” It was, he implied, the younger genera¬ tion of statesmen who would have to take in hand the great business of reform. The accuracy of Mr. Bright’s view of the case was proved when the chief of the “ old men ” was con¬ signed to the grave. A new era dawned instantly upon the country. A man of earnestness and sincerity, of command¬ ing powers and undaunted courage—a man whose wonderful enthusiasm infected all around him—took the place of the departed Premier as if by popular vote, and certainly amidst popular acclamation. Mr. Gladstone's advent to the leader¬ ship of the Liberal party gave an impetus to political reform such as had not been experienced for years before. The pulse of the country became quickened as much as the hopes cf the country became excited. The question of 26 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. reform of Parliament at once became the burning question of the day. A Liberal Ministry for the first time since 1832 staked its existence on the measure it had prepared. When that measure was defeated in the House of Commons, the country took the matter into its own hands. Demonstrations of the most imposing character were held in all the large towns of England and Scotland. It was as if a great wave of popular fervour had swept over the land. For the purpose of taking a suitable part in the struggle, the Northern Re¬ form League, which had suspended its labours for a time, was re-organised on the 6th of November, 1866. From that date, till the 29th of January in the following year, Mr. Cowen and such of his old associates as still survived, with the assistance of new comrades who shared in the enthusiasm of the hour, devoted themselves unremittingly to the work of arranging and organising the greatest exhibition of popular power that had ever down to that time been witnessed in Newcastle. A magnificent procession of 25,000 artisans marched through the streets to the Town Moor, where a multitude estimated at 50,000, surrounding six platforms, carried by acclamation and without the smallest sign of dissent the resolutions submitted to it. These resolutions, besides protesting against the charges of venality, ignorance, drunkenness, and indifference to reform that had been brought against the working classes by Mr. Lowe (now Lord Sher¬ brooke) and Lord Cranbourne (now the Marquis of Salisbury), declared for the old doctrine of manhood suffrage and the ballot. The vast open-air demonstration was followed in the evening by a great meeting in the Town Hall. Among the speakers at this meeting were Lord Teynham, Mr. G. O. Trevelyan, Mr. Ernest Jones, and three local Members of Parliament—Mr. John Candlish, Mr. T. E. Smith, and Mr. Alderman Cowen, father of the gentleman whose career we are endeavouring to trace. Mr. Cowen himself, whose work of inspiration and organisation had produced the gather- DEFENCE OF THE WORKING MEN. 27 ing, occupied the chair, and delivered an eloquent and im¬ passioned speech, from which we take the following extract : “ Gentlemen, this day’s proceedings are the answer of the working men of Tyneside to the accusation that they are indifferent to the cause of political reform. When Mr. Lowe, the next time he slanders the working men by accusing them of preferring a vicious gratification of their animal passions to their sense of duty as men and as citizens ; when Lord Cranborne sneers at the artisans and ridicules the idea that they are made of the same flesh and blood as the titled idlers that now monopolise all the national honours; when Sir John Rolt strives to excite the timid fears of weak men and weaker women by an appeal to some of the apocryphal terrors of the rising democracy, there will be three northern M.P.’s who will be able to point to this meeting in New¬ castle and to tell them that the accusations of one gentleman are false, that the fears of another are chimerical, and that the insinuations of the third are as unjust as they are ungenerous. Gentlemen, I know not how far these our opponents may feel disposed to give credit or to attach im¬ portance to the testimony of an individual who has had during the last sixteen or seventeen years no small intercourse with the working men of this district. How far they may be disposed to attach weight to that testimony I know not ; but this I can say—that during that time I have known the working men of this district and of other parts of England intimately ; I have mingled with them daily ; I have met them as an employer ; I have met them, too, in their efforts for political emancipa¬ tion ; I have been with them in the class-rooms of their Mechanics’ Institute, in the committee-rooms of their industrial associations, and on the platforms of their temperance societies ; I have been, too, within the sacred precincts of their domestic hearths; I have shared their joys and sorrows, listened to the recital of their wants and wishes, rejoiced with them in their successes, and mourned with them in their sufferings and struggles ; and this I can say — the men who have slandered the working men, as the parties to whom I have just referred, are entirely in ignorance of the character of the artisan classes of this country. They know not their worth, and they are unable to estimate their virtues. Gentlemen, the working men have their faults like other men. There is no intelligent man—no impartial and fair-dealing man — who would attempt to say that they are without their faults. But I have this to say —take numbers for numbers, and circumstances for circumstances, they are in every respect equal in morality and intelligence to the other sections of the community.” Great as was the success of the demonstration just de¬ scribed, a still greater triumph of the same kind was achieved 28 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. a few years later. The Reform Bill of 1867, notwithstanding that it had been stripped of the restrictions with which its authors had hampered and clogged it, was found in practice to guarantee fewer popular rights than had been expected. The miners in such boroughs as Morpeth were excluded from the polling-booth on account of the peculiar tenure on which they held their houses. Hence arose an agitation which, beginning at Choppington and the pit villages in the neighbourhood, was ultimately taken up by the whole of the miners of Northumberland and Durham. To show at once their spirit and their strength, it was resolved to hold a great gathering on the Town Moor. The committee which was charged with the duty of organising the affair chose Mr. Cowen for its chairman. Again he showed that wonderful aptitude for dealing with popular forces which had enabled him to produce unexampled effects in the past. The miners were joined in the movement by all the trades of the district. There never had been before, and there never has been since, so extraordinary an exhibition of numbers and enthusiasm in Newcastle as that which was presented on the 12th of April, 1873. “Accurate and exhaustive returns of the re¬ formers who marched in procession,” says a writer who described the event at the time, “were obtained from the officials who had charge of the different contingents. These returns showed that at least 80,000 persons took part in the splendid array. As regards the numbers which assembled on the Moor, they were so vast that no view of them could be obtained at one time. It is, perhaps, quite within the mark to say that from first to last at least 100,000 persons followed the appointed speakers to the Moor.” Six platforms were again erected on the Town Moor, and from each appropriate resolutions were put and carried without a single dissen¬ tient. Mr. Cowen presided, as a matter of course, at one of the platforms. His was the guiding hand of the immense gathering. THE CO-OPERATIVE MOVEMENT. 29 But the proceedings of the day which have just been related were sandwiched between two other remarkable events in which that gentleman played a leading part. A congress of delegates from Co-operative Societies in Great Britain and Ireland was opened in the morning. It fell to the lot of Mr. Cowen to welcome the delegates to Newcastle. The address in which he performed this service was an elaborate exposition of the progress and principles of the co-operative movement. The same evening a crowded meeting of co-operators was held in Newcastle. Here, again, Mr. Cowen delivered an eloquent and interesting speech. So closed the day, devoted to social and political reform, which will ever be remembered by all who took any part in its exciting and inspiring proceedings. Mr. Cowen wielded a two-edged sword in the promotion of reform at home and abroad. He was a powerful speaker, and a clear, courageous, and convincing writer. He estab¬ lished the Northern Tribune, a monthly periodical for the people, while yet a very young man. He has been a con¬ tributor to the Newcastle Chronicle from boyhood ; was interested in it before he reached the age of citizenship, and has been its sole proprietor for over a quarter of a century. During all that time, the Chronicle has been con¬ ducted with great ability and enterprise. Expense has never been considered when a project has been deemed wise and desirable. The editorial staff is numerically large and of remarkable ability and devotion to principle. The Chronicle has never been a party organ. It has advocated measures of social and political reform, no matter from what political camp they might emanate; it has stoutly opposed coercive measures for Ireland when advocated by Tories and Liberals when in office ; according to its light, and with absolute independence, it has fought the battle of the people, and has advocated the enfranchisement, education, and general well¬ being of the masses everywhere. The direct management LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 30 is in the hands of Mr. R. B. Reed, who has no superior— certainly in provincial England—in journalistic direction and control. Several of the present writers of the Chronicle —including Mr. Ruddock, the present editor—have been connected with it for a quarter of a century; while Mr. Cowen and Mr. Reed have been life-long friends, having fought side by side under the banner of the old Reform Union, which derived its life and energy chiefly from their power and earnestness. Mr. Cowen is, besides, the proprietor of the Newcastle Weekly Chronicle —a publication which, some twelve or fourteen years ago, effected a new departure in weekly journalism that has since been followed by nearly every one of its contemporaries of any importance in the provinces. Partly newspaper and partly magazine, the Weekly Chronicle is probably the best and most entertaining print of its class. Mr. Cowen speaks of the “Weekly” as Adams’s paper, it being edited by that splendid journalist and true man, W. E. Adams, author of “ Our American Cousins.” Ever since his return to Parliament in April, 1874. and during nearly every sitting of the House of Commons, Mr. Cowen has contributed London letters to the Chronicle under the title of “ Politics and Parliament.” They constitute a rtfsumc of Parliamentary work, with comments upon men and measures, and are perhaps the most brilliant contribu¬ tions of their class ever sent to any paper. The Chronicle celebrated its centennial in 1S64. Mr. Cowen became its proprietor in order that it might be made a more powerful medium for the betterment of the people’s condition. But great commercial success has attended the enterprise, ability, and energy of its control. REPRESENTATION OF NEWCASTLE. 3i CHAPTER V. VACANCY IN THE REPRESENTATION OF NEWCASTLE THROUGH THE DEATH OF SIR JOSEPH COVVEN—MR. COWEN SELECTED AS THE LIBERAL CANDIDATE—HIS CANVASS AND ELECTION—PUBLIC MEN AND POLITICAL LYING—DEFEAT OF GLADSTONE’S GOVERNMENT— A GENERAL ELECTION — MR. COWEN AGAIN RETURNED — HIS OVERWORK AND LONG ILLNESS—HE GOES ABROAD IN QUEST OF HEALTH. ARLIAMENTARY life had become irksome to Sir -I- Joseph Cowen under failing health and the weight of years. He had, indeed, resolved in the winter of 1873 to withdraw from the representation of Newcastle at the close of the session then ensuing ; and it was his purpose to call the electors together, declare his resolution, and request them to make selection of a candidate to become his suc¬ cessor. But death came in his own unexpected season to terminate a career of worth. Joseph Cowen had ever taken a leading part in the political movements of Tyne¬ side. His knowledge of the constitutions, governments, and peoples of foreign States was unsurpassed by that of any Englishman of his years ; while his sympathies and sacri¬ fices for oppressed nationalities were notorious. In home politics he was known as a Liberal of democratic leanings. He had many political admirers and personal friends who were anxious to see him in Parliament ; but he was a political philosopher, and an earnest propagandist of the gospel taught by the older Radicals. He believed that the cause of political reform could be better served by him through earnest independent speech, vigorous criticism, and 32 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, ALP. advocacy in the Press, than upon the floor of the House of Commons ; therefore he turned a deaf ear to the syren voices of friends and constituencies. He was not ambitious of the honours attached to a Parliamentary career, nor of the social distinctions which are readily reached through the House of Commons. Speaking to the electors of Newcastle during his first canvass, he said : “ I have as much honour as I deserve, and more than I care for.” And again : “ I never was enamoured of ‘ society.’ I have all my life given it a wide berth. I disliked it to start with, and as years have increased upon me that dislike has deepened.” Beyond the gratification he found in social and educational works, Mr. Cowen’s ambition pointed rather in the direction of author¬ ship, dealing with the thoughts and efforts of reformers, than to fame in legislation. And if the country has gained an eloquent, fearless, independent political advocate in the national council, the world has been deprived, until now at least, of valuable contributions to our store of political philosophy and history. But the death of Sir Joseph Cowen found the Newcastle constituency undecided regarding a Liberal candidate. Several able local gentlemen were named for the vacant seat. The moderate Liberals favoured Mr. Isaac Lowthian Bell (now Sir Isaac), an alderman and ex-mayor of the town, a large ironmaster, an authority upon the trade and com¬ mercial questions in which Tyneside is engaged and inte¬ rested ; the Radicals were unanimous and enthusiastic for Joseph Cowen. Mr. Cowen was intimate with the wants and workings of the district. He had served as guardian of the poor, mem¬ ber of the Town Council, member of the School Board, member also of the Local Board of Blaydon, his home. His acquaintance with the commercial wants and resources of the district was undoubted ; his knowledge of home and foreign affairs pre-eminent; his Radicalism the staunchest; THE LIBERAL CANDIDATE. 33 and his popularity amongst the working-classes of Elswick, Westgate, and Byker wards supreme. For these considera¬ tions and elements of success his candidature was adopted at a public meeting convened to make a selection. Within a few days of his nomination Mr. Cowen appeared before the electors at the Lecture Room on the 30th of December, 1873, declared his political principles, and re¬ ceived the enthusiastic endorsement of an overflowing meet¬ ing. After speaking of the condition of the constituency, and of the considerations which had formerly swayed him away from the House of Commons, he stated the reasons which finally influenced him to accept the nomination. “Our friends,” he said, “ were anxious to support, some one, some another, and some a third. It was manifest that, if two or three candidates came into the field, the forces of the Liberals, would be weakened, and probably the result would be defeat.. I was asked, then pressed, to take the position, not because I was acceptable to the entire party, but because it was. thought that my candidature would create the least division. It was on this ground that they urged the matter upon me. The case was put to me in this way : That, supposing I became a candidate, I should divide the party least. There are circumstances in the history of a man’s lifetime when he is not really master of his ow r n actions. I have been engaged in political contention for many years; I have been criticising members of Parliament; and I have been attempting to in¬ fluence the action of the House of Commons, and I feel that it would have been cowardice and selfishness on my part if I had allowed any personal interest or private convenience to risk the defeat of our party or the endangering of our cause. I therefore allowed these personal considerations to. be set aside entirely, and I am now the accepted candidate of the Liberal party.” The contest thus inaugurated for the vacant seat was. carried on with great vigour and ability. Mr. Charles 4 34 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, ALP. Frederic Hamond, the Conservative candidate, was a man of extraordinary energy, industry, and resolution. In the matter of canvassing he was, perhaps, unrivalled; and, knowing his strength, he devoted his efforts in that direction for the first ten days of the campaign. Mr. Cowen, on the other hand, left the out-door labour and the details of the candidature chiefly to others: he confined his energies and arguments to the platform, and, day after day, sometimes twice in the twenty-four hours, he addressed the people of Newcastle, in the several wards of the town, in a series of speeches remarkable at once for their information, their eloquence, and their ability. Mr. Cowen had ever been known as an able, earnest public speaker, well and abundantly informed upon political ques¬ tions ; but the speeches of this canvass demonstrated clearly that the full height and measure of the man had not hitherto been accurately gauged. “ Equality before the law ” was the foundation and keystone of his political arch; and he reared the structure up with parts well squared and finished, each fitting into its place with fidelity to his model. He was for electoral equality, and universal suffrage ; religious equality, and the disestablishment of the Church; and he would apply the principle “ the greatest good of the greatest number ” to all legislative work. He dealt with every pro¬ blem within the range of practical politics, and left no one in doubt regarding his position upon the questions discussed. He would support Mr. Gladstone—“ go in advance of him when he believed it was necessary, encourage him, if possible, to further progress, and sustain him in all liberal acts.” He would support the extension of the Franchise ; he believed the right of every man to the suffrage to be “ a natural right; that no Government ever gave it to him, and that no Govern¬ ment could take it from him.” He would levy taxes upon land, luxuries, and realised property, which were fair subjects of taxation. He would amend the land latvs, convert the MR. CO WEN'S POLITICAL “PLATFORM.” area now occupied as deer parks into food-producing acres, simplify the process and reduce the cost of land transfer. He was opposed to the teaching of denominational creeds in the public schools of the State; he favoured the total aboli¬ tion of the game laws; he would vote for the release of Irish political prisoners, and support the principle underlying the undeveloped programme of Home Rule. He would vote for Henry Richard’s resolution in favour of Arbitration, and he commended the settlement of the Alabama Claims as one of the proudest pages in the history of Mr. Gladstone’s Govern¬ ment. He was opposed to class representatives. Members of Parliament should not be men that represented a middle class, or a working class, or an aristocracy, or any other specific class. “ They should be Englishmen, they should be citizens, they should be men fitted by character and capacity to discharge the duties of legislators; and the fact that they accidentally belonged to any one sect or party or class in the State should neither be a qualification nor a dis¬ qualification.” These were among the questions discussed before the electors and non-electors of Newcastle during the winter of 1873-4; an< i the speeches in which they were explained to crowded audiences continue to be admirable sources of reference for Radical principles and political facts to this day. But a man becomes public property when he enters poli¬ tical life. The value set upon him by his owners is often faulty or fictitious. He is praised or blamed in proportion to the zeal and ability he devotes to the advocacy of his principles or the fortunes of his party. He is extolled or abused according to the intelligence and temperament of friend or foe. Contemporary opinions of statesmen differ as do the knowledge and wisdom of constituents : the verdict of history will make a nearer approach to justice. And, again, men who would scorn to steal the purse of gold will emphasise the idlest, most unfounded gossip to injure the 36 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. character of public men. A license to lie about the leaders, in the Commonwealth is the worst phase of the political life of England and America. This has been true from the days, of Washington and Chatham to those of Cleveland and Gladstone. It is unnecessary to particularise. Fair mert of intelligence know that pure statesmen are often described as libertines, sober men as drunkards, honest men as thieves, earnest patriots as opportunists and traitors, through mad¬ ding partisan bigotry. At home these charges are evanescent: they are discounted or discarded by men of judicial minds who fashion and consolidate that public opinion which even¬ tually passes into history. Abroad, however, the wildest canard is believed. Men seem to derive comfort from the calumny which is wafted across seas and borders from other lands. The supposed vicissitudes of foreign statesmen are paraded to extenuate the faults and to decoy public atten¬ tion away from the foibles of their own ministers. Of frail humanity the truth is bad enough: public opinion should fumigate the atmosphere and destroy falsehood in the germ. Joseph Cowen has not escaped the common lot of public men ; indeed, the character of the charges brought against him on the threshold of public life was outrageous, while the quantity of abuse poured upon him was extraordinary. This kindliest of men and most considerate of employers was described as the workman’s oppressor and the tyrant of his own hearth. This man of simple habits, a total abstainer from childhood, "was called a self-indulgent drunkard in the heat of a Parliamentary contest. Ay, and he was desig¬ nated an infidel, a disturber of the peace, and an organizer of discontent. He was accused of “ colleaguing with thieves and murderers,” and of “ organising a gang of lazaroni to foil the peaceful endeavours of magistrates and police, and thwart the ends of justice.” When, upon occasion, the yilest charges had been made, and Mr. Cowen was urged to POLITICAL LYING. 37 notice them, he replied in a private letter containing the following passage:— “ I never in my life either wrote or spoke a single sentence in mere personal defence ; and it is very unlikely that I ever shall do so. If the Jittle public reputation that I may possess is so rickety that it cannot take care of itself, I am sure no defence that I shall make of it will prop it up. If there ever should come a time when an accusation against my character ■were likely to injure any public cause with which I was identified, then, for the interest of the cause, I would not hesitate to attempt the unplea¬ sant task of a public defence ; but for purely private considerations cer¬ tainly I will never condescend to trouble the public with a defence of my small reputation.” Mr. Cowen has not changed his faith, his regimen, or his conduct of life since he entered Parliament. He continues to give to “ society ” and the bottle a wide berth, to honour the Queen, obey the law of the land, and respect the opinions and sentiments of those who differ from him. In all that appertains to the charges which he disdained to answer he is unchanged. But many of the voices that calumniated him in years gone by sound his loudest praises to-day. Why ? What has wrought this complete change ? Merely this : on questions of foreign affairs and Irish policy Mr. Cowen has voted against his party. Degrading, humiliating answer; but the only answer possible, nevertheless. All this is pain¬ ful writing : it will be unpleasant reading to him concerning whom it is written. But it is an earnest though unavailing protest against the flippant calumny which is showered upon ■civil servants and aspirants for honours in the State, which falsifies the record of the living and the memory of the dead for the purposes of a party victory. Mr. Cowen’s first canvass was indeed a heated and bitter one throughout. Personal, political, and sectarian misre¬ presentations disfigured the record. But he was returned by a majority of 1,003, the actual vote being—Cowen, 7,356; Hamond, 6,353. Mr. Gladstone’s Government had done substantial work 38 LIFE OF JOSEPH COIVJEA 7 , M.P. in the Parliament of 1868. It had disestablished the Irish Church, had passed an Irish Land Act, the Elementary Education Act, the Ballot Act, and other useful measures. The strained relationship with the United States, growing- out of the building, arming, and manning of cruisers to sail under the Confederate flag and prey upon American com¬ merce, had been removed by the Geneva Tribunal acting under the Treaty of Washington. The verdict of the tribunal had gone against England, carrying with it damages to the extent of £3,229,000. The decision was unexpected, and especially so regarding the amount of the damages; but it was the greatest triumph for the principle of Inter¬ national Arbitration in the history of the world. Words would fail in adequate praises of the temper and tact of Gladstone and Granville on this side, and Grant and Fish on the other. But the verdict was unpopular. Even so great a man as Sir Alexander Cockburn, Lord Chief Justice of England, lost his temper and slammed the doors in con¬ nection with it. Conservatives and tradespeople as a rule— confining the assertion to England—favoured the South in its struggle to establish a Government with slavery as its avowed corner-stone. They believed that the Confederate arms would triumph. The result of the conflict proved that they were wrong in their forecast; and the verdict of Geneva established the principle that to permit the fitting out of expeditions to make war upon a friendly Power was a viola¬ tion of International Law. Public feeling was angry and unreasoning at that time, even among the adherents of Mr. Gladstone. Thanks, however, to Scotland in part, to Wales as a whole, and to British workmen as a body—thanks to the Premier and his Foreign Minister, to Potter, Bright, Cobden, Cowen, Richard, Forster, and others—the majority verdict was : Serve you right! ” Mr. Bright’s language in reply to the cry that England was humiliated by the award was: “ The humiliation of England took place between ’61 and THE ALABAMA CLAIMS. 39 ’65.” But notwithstanding the grandeur of the work done at Geneva—not on account of the miserable money, but because of the triumph of a beneficent principle—the settlement of the Alabama Claims caused many temporary desertions from the Liberal camp. As already stated, the Gladstone Govern¬ ment passed a Disestablishment Act and a Land Act for Ireland. A further measure of justice to the people of that country was contemplated in the Irish University Bill. But to the surprise of most, including the Prime Minister, the Government was found in a minority of three on a vital division over this measure. Two days later, or on the 13th of March, 1873, Mr. Gladstone announced the resignation of his Cabinet. The Queen sent for Mr. Disraeli and requested him to form a Government. That statesman contended that Mr. Gladstone had resigned upon “ inadequate grounds.” After considerable friction and unpleasantness, Mr. Gladstone resumed Ministerial functions, remodelled his Cabinet, and carried on the Government. Suddenly, however, and most unexpectedly to the public, the Premier announced the dis¬ solution of Parliament on the 23rd of January, 1874, ' n a letter addressed to the electors of Greenwich. Thus it was that a second contest was forced upon Mr. Cowen within a few days of the first. He was returned for Newcastle on the 14th day of January, and on the 23rd he found himself once more in the thick of an exciting struggle. The senior member, Mr. Headlam, offered himself for re-elec¬ tion ; but the tireless energies of Mr. Hamond prevailed against him. Mr. Cowen was again returned at the head of the poll, with Mr. Hamond, the Conservative candi¬ date, as his colleague, the vote of the constituency being— Cowen, 8,471; Hamond, 6,474; Headlam, 5,807. The idea of a Conservative reaction did not prevail among the robust Democracy of the North. The defeat of Mr. Headlam was attributed to his Whig proclivities and over-confidence; but 40 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. the result of the General Election proved that the country was dissatisfied with the Liberal Administration, and Mr. Disraeli came into power with the substantial majority of 56, without counting the Irish members. During all this time, Mr. Cowen had made immoderate demands upon his strength and energies. A large manu¬ facturer and coalowner, a newspaper proprietor and active politician, a member of the Newcastle Town Council, and a leader in works of education and social reform, he had as many irons in the fire as he could handle with justice to him¬ self and his work. But when we contemplate a man of fine nervous organisation charged with the additional labours and excitements of two political contests in succession, during which he addressed scores of public meetings in speeches bristling with facts and delivered with fervid eloquence, there is but one result to look for—exhaustion of power. This is what overtook Mr. Cowen. The nominal nature of his ailment was a severe cold. The vitality was insufficient to throw it off; it lingered and became chronic ; and for over two years Mr. Cowen was incapacitated for public work. Two-thirds of the Parliamentary session of 1874 had elapsed before he took his seat. During the recess, he endeavoured to renovate his wasted strength by repose. With the opening of the session of 1875 he sought to discharge his representative duties, but was forced to relinquish the attempt. During the succeed¬ ing session, he attended to the routine work of Parliament, and, with the adjournment, he went to the South of France in quest of health. THE EMPRESS OF INDIA BILL. 4i CHAPTER VI. THE EMPRESS OF INDIA BILL—MR. COWEN’S SPEECH—COMMENTS OF THE PRESS AND PUBLIC MEN — MR. COWEN INTRODUCES THE LICENSING BOARD BILL—DEFEAT OF THE MEASURE—INSURRECTION IN THE TURKISH PROVINCES—GLADSTONE’S AGITATION AGAINST ATROCITIES—MR. COWEN’S SPEECH AT BLAYDON—HIS DEMANDS FROM TURKEY—HE OPPOSES ARMED INTERVENTION—DECLARATION OF WAR BY RUSSIA — DEFEAT OF TURKEY — MR. COWEN’S SPEECH IN SUPPORT OF THE VOTE OF CREDIT—THE SAN STEFANO TREATY —ATTITUDE OF EUROPE—THE TREATY OF BERLIN—MR. COWEN DEFINES HIS POSITION IN POLITICS—THE SOUTH AFRICAN BILL— MR. COWEN’S COUNTY COURTS BILL—HIS OPPOSITION TO THE BISHOPRICS BILL—PARLIAMENTARY WORK OF 1879. R. COWEN had spoken in the House of Commons IV A upon a few questions, and had set the wholesome example of not occupying the time of his colleagues without first mastering the subject of debate. But on March 23, 1876, he delivered a speech which astonished the House, delighted his friends, and created a sensation throughout the country. Mr. Disraeli’s Administration had added to the statute book some excellent measures of domestic reform, including the Friendly Societies Act, the Employers and Workmen’s Act, the Public Health Act, and the Artisans’ Dwellings Act. In the spring of 1876 the Government introduced a short Bill intended to confer upon Her Majesty the Queen the title of “ Empress of India.” It was in opposition to this Bill that Mr. Cowen revealed his abilities, and electrified the House by the earnestness and passion of his eloquence. The address was a short one, covering only some three pages of Hansard ; but it was fully charged with 42 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. historical facts and deductions, all admirably arranged, and told in sentences of great vigour and beauty. It evoked compliments from the Government and Opposition benches, and even from the Prime Minister himself. At its conclusion members grouped round the orator and offered him their hearty congratulations. So severe and capable a critic as the Right Hon. Robert Lowe—now Lord Sherbrooke—charac¬ terised the speech as one of “ eloquence and force, which showed that the speaker felt deeply what he was uttering.” And he added : “ When they turned from the speech of the hon. member for Newcastle to that of the Prime Minister, it was like listening to the lispings of the nursery :— “ My brother Jack was nine in May, And I was eight on New Year’s day.” The Daily News said that the speech “was received with universal admiration as a masterly blending of argument and eloquence,” adding that it would “ be remembered as one of the most remarkable events of the series of debates arising out of the Ministerial proposal to add to the titles of the Sovereign.” The verdict of hon. members and of the Press of all sections was one of emphatic praise and commenda¬ tion. But the Bill secured the Royal assent; and the Queen was proclaimed Empress of India on May i, 1876. There was during the time immediately following the delivery of this speech a strong feeling among the Radicals, both in and out of Parliament, that Mr. Cowen should assume the leadership of the Radical section of the Opposi¬ tion. But he gave no encouragement to the suggested distinction : he maintained his simple, independent way. Mr. Cowen is averse to the present system under which magistrates grant licences for the sale of intoxicating drinks, and he has upon several occasions introduced a Bill to remedy the evil. His proposal, as he explained to the House of Commons, was to vest the power of granting, MR. CO WEN’S LICENSING BILL. 43 withholding, and transferring licences in a Board electee^ by the ratepayers. The qualification of members of the Board would be residence, and ratability for the relief of the poor. “The jurisdiction of the Board would be co-extensive with the Poor Law Unions; elections would be triennial, the voting by ballot ; and each ratepayer would give one vote for each candidate. The cost of the election and the working of the Board would be defrayed out of the local rates; the number of members would vary according to population, never being less than five or more than twenty-one. Against the decision of the Board there would be no appeal to magistrates in Quarter Sessions or other authorities.” Mr. Cowen moved the second reading of a Bill to give effect to his views on May 17,1876. The speech was a valuable educational contribution to the literature of the subject. It opened the eyes of Parliament, and of the country, to a large extent, not only to the evil practice and worse consequences of drink, but to the indecent system of rewarding political service by appointment upon the magis¬ terial bench. It was an exhaustive, outspoken statement of the case, and Mr. Cowen received the support of 109 hon. members. But 274 voted against the Bill, whereby it was lost. Trouble was growing in the East. The seeds of conflict, always in the soil, had for years been germinating in the Turkish provinces. They were destined to cover the political landscape and destroy the peace of Europe. The immediate cause of insurrection in the Sultan’s dominions did not arise out of differences existing between the governing and governed races in religion and civilisation; it was a farmer’s question. Owing to the great agricultural depression of 1874-5, the Christian people of Herzegovina were unable to pay the taxes imposed upon them by Turkey. The Government officials, however, insisted upon the uttermost farthing, regardless of existing hardships and adverse times. The Herzegovinians 44 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. appealed in vain to the Government at Constantinople. They finally took refuge in Montenegro ; but upon the assurance of the Governor of Hezegovina that justice would be done to them, the refugees returned towards their homes. They had scarcely crossed the border-line when they were assailed, outraged, and murdered, while their homes and villages were reduced to ashes by Turkish troops. The insurrection had its immediate rise in the conduct of the tax-gatherer; and the barbarous behaviour of Turkish troops towards the Herzegovinians fanned the flame of insurrection until it ■spread over Bosnia, Bulgaria, and Servia, and finally de¬ veloped into the Russo-Turkish war. The insurgents sought to be placed upon terms of equality with their Ma- homedan neighbours by petition, through the prayers of the foreign Consuls, and by the request of Count Andrassy, supported by Germany, Russia, and England. Further attempts were made to secure an armistice, and to induce Turkey to introduce reforms into her Christian provinces, by the joint action of Austria, Germany, and Russia, in a Note adopted at Berlin in May, 1876. The “ Berlin Note” was subsequently endorsed by France and Italy; but the Govern¬ ment of Mr. Disraeli declined to unite in this attempt at moral coercion. When the Conservatives came into power, in 1874, Mr. Gladstone retired not only from party leadership, but also from active participation in Parliamentary work. When, however, the outrageous work done by Turkish troops and gaol-birds became known and established through the excel¬ lent services of Commissioners and newspaper correspon¬ dents, he roused the nation into one simultaneous voice of protest against the iniquity. Mr. Cowen took a substantial part in the agitation. At a large open-air demonstration held at Blaydon, his own home, on September 30, 1876, he made an eloquent speech, dealing with the whole Eastern Question. TURKEY AND THE POWERS. 45 “There are,” he said, “four points that the English people should insist upon. First, the exemplary punishment of the perpetrators of the crimes; second, the restoration of the women and children that have been carried to Turkish harems ; third, the rebuilding of the homesteads, and giving compensation to the remnants of the unhappy families that have perished ; and last, but most important, the taking of means to. prevent a repetition of such barbarities.” A Conference of European representatives sitting at Con¬ stantinople had agreed upon a comprehensive scheme of Turkish reforms in December, 1876. But Turkey—standing alone, covered with the world’s odium, confronted by the united voice of Europe—declined, through a National Coun¬ cil on the iSth of January, 1877, to undertake the execution of the reforms. Meanwhile, however, innovations amounting to revolution in the Government, inspired by Turkish re¬ formers, were going on. The programme of proposed reforms embraced universal suffrage, vote by ballot, religious equality r freedom of the press, a permanent judiciary, and a Parlia¬ ment consisting of two Houses. While condemning to the uttermost the old regime, Mr. Cowen was in favour of giving the reformers a chance. In the speech already referred to,, and speaking of Turkish administrators, he said :— “ I have no affection or sympathy with their past government or mode of procedure. They have, by their recent acts, forfeited the respect of all liberal-minded people. But, still, to the worst of men we should accord a measure of justice ; and what I say is that the Constitution they have now prepared, and the efforts they are now making, are fairly worth a trial.” Throughout the great excitement over the Eastern Ques¬ tion, Mr. Cowen, while favouring Ministerial action and protests, looked disapprovingly upon anything like armed intervention. He pointed out, in a speech delivered before his constituents in January, 1S77, that notwithstanding the united voice of Europe, and the gathering of the Russian army on the Pruth, the fatalistic Turks had turned their backs to the wad and refused even the modified proposals of the Conference. But he would not go the length of forcing 46 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. the recommendations of the Conference upon Turkey at the point of the bayonet. It was manifest throughout the speeches of Mr. Cowen at this period that his faith in Rus¬ sian protestations of unselfishness was sickly. He sought to be just to the Emperor and his people, and expressed the hope that the party of peace was dominant at St. Peters- burgh ; but these expressions indicated his desires rather than his convictions. The Russian form of government is certainly not the realisation of a Democrat’s ideal. Rational sympathy between a lifelong Republican and the head of an absolute monarchy is impossible ; and the remembrance of old-time wrongs and aspirations still swayed the sentiments of Kossuth’s friend in opposition to the attitude and encroach¬ ments of Russia. The speech from which we have quoted was delivered on January 27, 1877. Three months later, on April 24, Russia made common cause with the in¬ surgents by a declaration of war against Turkey. Towards the end of June following the forces of the Czar crossed the Danube, and the Russo-Turkish war began in earnest. This is not the place to recount the story of the conflict. The heroism of Osman and his beleaguered band at Plevna, and the extraordinary prowess of Russian troops in forcing the Schipka Pass amid the winter snows, are already on record among the remarkable events of military history. But after a gallant struggle the military power of Turkey was crushed ; and the nature of Russia’s demands, the probable terms of peace, occupied the attention of the great Powers and agitated the public mind of Europe. Parliament assembled on January 17, 1878. The Russian armies were marching on Philipopolis and Adrianople. Ne¬ gotiations for an armistice were going on between the belligerents. Even the Queen of England exerted herself for peace. Russia, however, flushed with victory, declined mediation. The ultimate objective of the Muscovite forces was a question of doubt and grave anxiety. The Government SPEECH ON THE VOTE OF CREDIT. 47 of Lord Beaconsfield asked the House of Commons for a Vote of Credit for six millions ; and it was at the same time announced that the British fleet had been ordered to the Dardanelles to protect, if need be, the waterway and the life and property of British subjects resident at Constantinople. Mr. Cowen supported the Government. On February 7, speaking in the House of Commons, he said that that was a time when party differences should be forgotten. It was not the interest of a faction that was at stake; it was the very welfare of the nation. He maintained that firmness and union would be the best preventive of war and the best security of peace. On the following day Mr. Gladstone criticised some of the principles laid down by Mr. Cowen re¬ garding party allegiance and foreign affairs ; and three days later, on February 11, the hon. member for Newcastle replied in what was generally admitted to be the speech of the debate on the Vote of Credit. The House had been lis¬ tening to an hon. member, amid a scene which was graphic¬ ally described in the Daily News of the following day—“ a gentleman talking at the very top of his voice, and yet being unable to make any complete sentence heard above the murmur of the general conversation, from amid which there sometimes issued an articulate voice ironically calling upon the hon. member to ‘ speak up.’ ” But when the gentleman resumed his seat Mr. Cowen rose. His appearance upon the floor of the House was unexpected. There was that about his face and manner which foreshadowed the earnestness and passion which animated him, and the House became still and expectant. He commenced his speech by a criti¬ cism upon the comments of the ex-Prime Minister, and then launched out into sweeping denunciations of Russian rule, and glowing panegyrics upon the outnumbered armies of Islam. He contended that the memorable struggle before Plevna would be associated in military history with the great sieges of the world. 48 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. “ The name of Osman,” he said, “ will be linked with the foremost commanders of modern times. It was not the dented, rusty scimitar of Mahomet that that gallant Moslem wielded. The skill that planned the fortifications, the dauntless courage that manned the deadly breach in face of such fearful odds, and when, the last crust consumed, the last car¬ tridge gone, that which led the final charge was the brilliant, dazzling fire of genuine patriotism. A people capable of such intense energy, of such generous and complete obedience, such utter self-sacrifice and heroic devotion, have vindicated their right at least to live. If Turkey is dying,” he continued, “ there is no reason why Russia should slay her before her time. Let her die in peace. If she is dying, that is no justification for the northern vulture to prey upon the yet quivering body of his stricken victim.” And in this magnificent strain, declaiming in full voice amid the absolute stillness of the House, Mr. Cowen con¬ tinued to the end. The speech was one unbroken chain of historical facts, scathing criticisms, glowing admiration, and fervent appeal. To quote one of the press comments upon it, “ there was not a weak sentence in the speech.” Mr. Gladstone at once rose to reply with evident emotion. He assumed that Mr. Cowen’s references to “ partisan bigotry ” and “ imperfect historical knowledge ” were in¬ tended to apply to himself, and he made full and dignified answer. Towards the close of his speech, however, he descended to a much lower plane, and, referring to Mr. Cowen’s speech as a whole, used these words :— “ I do not know whether it was originally intended for this occasion or for some other occasion and was not used, but it was thought better that it should be produced on this occasion rather than that such a valuable composition should blush unseen.” In all the wide domain of intellect and morality the poli¬ tical world has not produced within this century so grand a representative as William E. Gladstone. But viewed in the light of the issues involved, of Mr. Cowen’s mastery of the subject, and his antecedents in opposition to Russia, the language quoted was unworthy of the occasion and of the greatest living English legislator. Every thought uttered is THE TREATY OF SAN STEFA NO. 49 productive for good or evil of thoughts and consequences to the end of time, and should not heedlessly be despatched. Humanity is marvellously constituted. We are more sensi¬ tive than the photographer’s plate, more easily vibrated than the mysterious mechanism of Edison and Bell. We may be at once simple, modest, and retiring as a peasant maid, and as proud as Lucifer—brave as a lion. Wholesome human nature ever struggles to be just and generous, and seeks an upright keel. But the books have not solved the problem whether intellect or some mysterious power beyond our ken is motive power, master or servant; and we must read the deeds of men, the great annals of the world’s history, by the light and through the glasses of deeds done and words spoken generations agone. Human nature is unchanged. But the Vote of Credit was granted. The British fleet entered the Dardanelles on February 13, 1878. At the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war the Czar pro¬ claimed that he coveted neither Constantinople nor territorial possessions on the Balkans—the object of his campaign being solely to rescue the oppressed Christians from tyrannical rule; and it must be remembered to the credit of the campaign, if not of the Czar, that some eleven and a half million Christians were rescued by the sword from intolerable Mahomedan yoke. But the Treaty of San Stefano, signed on the 3rd of March, demonstrated that the performances of the Emperor were less unselfish than his professions. The Treaty was dictated to a prostrate foe, while Constantinople was within easy reach of Alexander’s overpowering arm. He might have outlined his conditions of peace within the Turkish capital but for the presence of the British fleet in the Sea of Mar¬ mora. Moreover, he emphatically violated his pledge by the annexation of Bessarabia, and the territory around Batoum, Kars, and Ardahan. Lord Beaconsfield and his colleagues, in common with leading European statesmen, offered strong objection to the San Stefano document, and took a 5 5c LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. determined stand against its execution. Out of this attitude, and chiefly through the initiative of the English Govern¬ ment, representatives of the Powers concerned met in Con¬ ference at the German capital on the 13th of June, 1878. By the terms of the document finally agreed upon by the Con¬ ference, and subsequently known as the Treaty of Berlin, ratified on the 3rd of August following, some of the provisions of the San Stefano agreement were repeated ; but, as a whole, the Berlin Treaty was decidedly less favourable to Russia. Under the new Treaty Bulgaria was constituted an indepen¬ dent principality; the new province of Eastern Roumelia, partially autonomous, with a Christian Governor-General, was created ; Bosnia and Herzegovina were practically ceded to Austria; Servia became an independent State; Roumania was made independent after losing a part of Bessarabia, which was ceded to Russia; and England became possessed of the island of Cyprus. The Porte undertook to institute internal reforms and to rectify the boundaries of new States under the stipulations of the Treaty. Throughout the controversy over the Berlin Conference and the Berlin Treaty Mr. Cowen supported the Government of the day. He maintained that the designs of Russia, as revealed in the San Stefano document, were to obtain pre¬ ponderating influence on the Balkan peninsula, and that the move had been checkmated by Lord Beaconsfield. “The result is,” he said, subsequent to the ratification of the Treaty, “that Russia is now further from the Bosphorus, and less likely to get there, than she has ever been, and this has been accomplished chiefly by the action of this country. It has been achieved, too, without the loss of a single English life, and without setting an English regiment in line of battle.” Mr. Cowen looked upon the possible occupation of Constan¬ tinople by the Russian forces as fraught with danger to the integrity of the British Empire. He pointed out that, if Russia “A DANGER TO ENGLAND . 5i were to obtain supremacy on the Bosphorus, she could stop the passage of the Suez Canal, and intercept the British \va3r to India by the Euphrates Valley. “North oftheDanube Russia is comparatively harmless,” he said. “With the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmora, and the Straits, she would have at her command a position unequalled in the world for commerce and for war. She could barricade the Dardanelles, and behind it she would have two inland seas which would be at one and the same time harbour, arsenal, dockyard, and naval station. She could there with security and ease equip and arm her ships, and train her sailors, and manoeuvre her fleet in the numberless islands and roadsteads of the Archipelago. She would have protection for conducting either offensive or defensive warfare such as is to be found in no other part of the globe. This position is the key of Europe—one of its life arteries. Its occupation by a conquering, am¬ bitious, and despotic Power would be a danger to England, to Europe, and to liberty.” Prominence has been given to the Eastern Question because it is the one upon which Mr. Cowen first differed from his old friends, and in consequence of which he finally asserted his independence of party organisation. He con¬ tended that when great national issues were at stake a man would forfeit his own respect and become recreant to his country if he ignored his convictions and failed to act up to them. And he further maintained that the policy which he advocated in connection with the Eastern Question was the policy of Mackintosh, Brougham, and Durham, of Moles- worth, Mill, and Grote. “ I am not a conventional adherent of the fashionable Liberalism of the hour,”he said, “but I am a lifelong Radical by conviction, sympathy, training, and taste. I am concerned for something more and higher than the transference of the offices of State from one set of men to another. I will not trim my political faith to catch the passing breeze, however pleasant. ‘Unplaced, unpensioned, no man’s heir or slave,’ I neither look for nor care for the honours, the favours, or the patronizing approval, ‘ lisped in liquid lines mellifluously bland,’ of any party.” It is more than probable that Mr. Cowen underestimates the patriotic uses of organisation and discipline within 52 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO IVEN, M.P. party lines. Neither statesmen nor parties secure the mea¬ sures upon which they are resolved in precisely the form and at exactly the time they desire them. Compromise and accommodation become obligatory, and progress in the direction of the greatest good of the greatest number would be capricious and uncertain without the support of a great party. But, for all that, who can gainsay or question that the presence in the House of Commons of a man like Joseph Cowen, possessed of great ability and eloquence, absolute independence and fearlessness, is not a wholesome element, and a safeguard against jobbery in the people’s Parliament ? No attempt is made in these pages to chronicle all the Parliamentary work of Mr. Cowen. Questions in the con¬ sideration of which he took a leading or important part alone are noticed, and even these are necessarily noticed with brevity. Mr. Cowen supported the South African Bill, intro¬ duced by Lord Beaconsfield’s Government to enable the Colonial Office, in conjunction with the Legislatures of the various South African Communities, to form a Confederation of South African States; and in a speech delivered on the 24th of July, 1S77, he contributed more towards a clear understanding of the relative positions of the South African Settlements, and of the intention of the British Government in the proposed Bill, than anything that was said during the debate. It was a Permissive Bill : it gave the South African colonists, in the language of Mr. Cowen, “ the power to unite or not to unite, as they desired.” All it did was to lay down the framework of confederation ; the details were to be filled in by the colonists themselves ; and if they did not approve of the scheme, they could decline to fill up the skeleton, and the Bill would thereby become a dead letter. Like all the public utterances of the hon. member, his speech upon this occasion is valuable if only for the facts it contains in relation to, the subject under debate. Mr. Cowen has repeatedly brought the unsatisfactory and MR. CO WEN'S COUNTY COURTS BILL. 53 limited jurisdiction of County Courts under the notice of Parliament, and on the 8th of May, 1878, he moved the •second reading of a Bill to give effect to the reforms he favoured in this direction. The County Courts Bill proposed the establishment of seven principal courts—one for Liverpool and Manchester, another for Leeds and Bradford, a third for Newcastle and Durham, a fourth for Hull, York, and Stockton, a fifth for Sheffield, Nottingham, and Derby, a sixth for Birmingham, and the seventh for Bristol and Gloucester. All the existing County Courts within the circuits of these superior courts would be affiliated to the principal courts. There would be attached to each principal court one or more assistant judges, and such number of registrars as the business might require. Power would be given to Her Majesty in Council from time to time to alter, extend, or consolidate old circuits, or to create new ones. Parliament would have the power of fixing the salary of the new judges, and thus to hold the purse-strings in Crown appointments. The salary of the judges of the principal courts would be £3,000 per annum, which would include travelling expenses. The judges would rank next after the junior judge, for the time being, of the High Courts, and amongst themselves according to the order of their appoint¬ ment. They would be placed on the Commission of Assize for the discharge of civil and criminal business on circuit, and would be qualified for promotion to be judges of the High Court. They would be required to reside within their districts, and be prohibited from practising at the bar. The principal courts would have jurisdiction in Common Law and Equity up to £5,000, and to any further amount by the consent of all parties. These were among the provisions of the Bill that was explained and elaborated by Mr. Cowen .in a speech which was full of information and details, and which indicated the thorough acquaintance of the speaker with the jurisdiction and administration of justice in the 54 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. various courts. The Bill was opposed by the Government, with the promise, however, made by the Attorney-General, that some of the reforms advocated by Mr. Cowen would be brought under the consideration of the Select Committee then sitting and considering kindred measures. Mr. Cowen took an active part in the debates upon the South Kensington School of Art Appropriation, the Valua¬ tion of Property Bill, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill; and, on the 31st of July, 1878, on the motion to go into Committee on the Bishoprics Bill, he moved :— “That in the opinion of this House it is undesirable, so long as the Episcopal Church continues to be established by law, to increase the number of bishops.” The Bill proposed the establishment of a see in Northum¬ berland under the title of the bishopric of Newcastle. Mr. Cowen strenuously opposed it. His speech was a strong argument against Church establishments. He pointed out that men holding the doctrines of Dr. Colenso on the one hand, and of Dr. Pusey on the other, could be members of the Church. “ It has,” he said, “ a Papal ritual, a Cal- vinistic creed, an Arminian clergy, and an Erastian form of Church government. Its wealth and its poverty constitute the canker that is eating the heart of the Church away.” The lion, member could not recognise any resemblance between a bishop with two palaces, an income of £15,000 a year, and pleasure grounds of 500 acres in extent, and the humble fishermen of Galilee whose principles he professed to teach and whose lives he aspired to emulate. He said that in 1873 there were 1,163 ministers of the Church of England receiving only £100 a year, and over 3,000 whose salaries ranged between £150 and £200. “ If,” said Mr. Cowen, “ instead of proposing to increase the number of bishops, the earnest members of the Church of England would set about a redistribution of the vast funds which that corporation possessed, they would accomplish both for their Church and country a much THE WORK OF THE SESSION. 55 more useful and honourable work. The people ask for more light, more mental liberty,'’ he continued ; “ they require a better appreciation of their responsibilities as men and as citizens. They want a broader dif¬ fusion of the principles, and a more faithful practice of the spirit and the teaching of the Founder of Christianity, and it was proposed to give them more bishops, more sleek and oily parsons, more of a superficial and artificial ecclesiasticism. They should have an institution—call it a church if you like—not of priests, but of and from and for the people, into which any man, however poor and however ignorant he might be, could enter and take a heart to be purified, an intellect to be enlightened, and a spirit to be elevated. They want a church in which there is absolute intellectual freedom and complete Christian equality—which would be a place of refuge for the weary, a shelter for the poor, a solace for the sick, of help for the desolate, and of tribuneship for the oppressed—not a ring of parsons and bishops rolling in wealth and swaggering in the foretop of the State.” The legislative accomplishments of the session to which Mr. Cowen lent his assistance consisted of the Factories and Workshops Act, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, the Intermediate Education (Ireland) Act, and that bene¬ ficent private member’s measure, the Irish Sunday Closing Act. It was not a bountiful Parliamentary harvest. But the energies and efforts of the Government were largely exercised in dealing with present difficulties and problems of future import arising out of the Russo-Turkish war. Parliament and the Government were engaged during 1879 in dealing with the civil and fiscal confusions in Egypt, the finances of India, the distress in Ireland, the wars in Afghanistan and Zululand, and in finishing all necessary legislation for carrying on the Government preparatory to* the General Election of 1880. 56 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. CHAPTER VII. THE TREATY OF BERLIN—“ PEACE WITH HONOUR ’’—GENERAL ELECTION OF l 880 —LORD BEACONSFIELD’S PROGRAMME—CANDIDATURE OF MR. ASHTON W. DILKE FOR NEWCASTLE—MR. COWEN AND THE LIBERAL ASSOCIATION—HIS PAINFUL INJURY AND LONG ILLNESS— RETURN OF COWEN AND DILKE—SUCCESS OF GLADSTONE AND HIS PARTY—MR. COWEN’S LETTER TO MR. BURT—POLICY OF THE NEW ADMINISTRATION—TURKEY AND THE GREAT POWERS — NAVAL EXPEDITION IN THE ADRIATIC — GLADSTONE AND THE TURKISH EMPIRE—MR. COWEN’S DEFENCE OF CHALLEMEL-LACOUR AND GENERAL ROBERTS — PARLIAMENTARY SESSION OF l88 l—MR. COWEN AND IRISH COERCION—THE IRISH LAND BILL—MR. COWEN’S TRIBUTE TO GLADSTONE—HIS SPEECH IN SUPPORT OF MR. BRAD- LAUGH—THE SESSION OF 1882—EGYPTIAN AFFAIRS—BOMBARD¬ MENT OF ALEXANDRIA—MR. COWEN’S APPEAL ON BEHALF OF MR. DAVITT—ABANDONMENT OF COERCION—RELEASE OF IRISH PRISONERS—THE PHCENIX PARK MURDERS—THE NEW PROCEDURE RULES—MR. COWEN’S OPPOSITION TO THEM—ADOPTION OF THE CLOTURE. HE Treaty of Berlin was a victory for England. Lord -L Beaconsfield had brought Alexander II. to his knees. The British representatives returned from the Conference bringing with them what was grandiloquently described as “ Peace with honour.” The phrase was one which appealed to the pride and vanity of Britons. It is difficult to understand why the prince of tacticians did not appeal to the country for a lengthened lease of power in the hour of victory, and when Jingoism was rampant. Since the dissolution did not take place at that opportune moment, it was generally expected that Parliament would live out its natural life, and that the General Election would take place towards the close of 1880. GENERAL ELECTION OF 1 SS 0 . 57 But, to the surprise of the country, the dissolution was made known on the 8th of March of that year. The programme with which Lord Beaconsfield sought to carry the elections was contained in a letter addressed to the Duke of Marl¬ borough, then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It was founded upon the Home Rule movement, which the Premier viewed as a danger “ in its ultimate results scarcely less disastrous than pestilence and famine ” ; and it appealed to “ men of light and leading”—whatever that may mean—to resist the doctrines of disintegration which the Liberal party was then supposed to encourage, if not to advocate. A great change in public opinion and the attitude of parties regarding Home Rule has taken place since Lord Beaconsfield went with a wrong cry to the country. Since the General Election of 1874 the Liberals had per¬ fected their organisations. Liberal associations had been established everywhere. In times past English constitu¬ encies had often been the victims of individual arrogance. Men without a single qualification for members of Parlia¬ ment, fortunate in the possession of wealth, and having an abnormal amount of conceit, used to force themselves upon the constituencies. But the new associations brought the era of the wealth and impudence combination to a close within the Liberal party. Newcastle was, politically, divided against itself. It sent one Liberal and one Conservative to Parliament, and thereby neutralised its political vote and influence. The local Liberal Association looked far and wide for a suitable candidate for the second seat, and finally the choice fell upon Mr. Ashton W. Dilke. He was a man of education, experience, and travel, and of great intelligence in political affairs. His candidature was endorsed by the senior mem¬ ber ; but, that gentleman, owing to the difference of opinion between him and a large number of Liberals within the local organisation on Irish questions and foreign policy, and for S3 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. reasons arising out of the provisions of the Ballot Act, decided to act independently, and conduct his canvass apart from the Liberal Association. In explanation of his posi¬ tion, Mr. Cowen subsequently said :— “ At the dissolution I was in the unfortunate position of being out of harmony with the majority of Liberals on the pressing questions of the hour. While resolved to maintain untrammelled my own opinion, I wished to respect the opinion of those who differed from me. This, in my judgment, could only be done by my acting independently.” While approving of party organisation for the promulga¬ tion of great principles, such as Electoral Equality, Religious Liberty, and Free Trade, Mr. Cowen strongly objected to what he designated as the modern electioneering machinery, which, he maintained, stunted the growth of speculation while restricting the range of inquiry and crystallising poli¬ tical thought. He explained at length the danger of entrust¬ ing the conduct of a canvass to an organisation by reference to the contest at Bewdley. There the candidate had placed himself in the hands of the Liberal Association. Two mem¬ bers of that society were found to have broken the law. The judges held that they were the candidate’s agents, and the member lost his seat. Arrangements had been made, however, for the sitting member and the Liberal candidate for the second seat to address the electors from the same platform on the 18th of March, 1S80. Mr. Cowen had been sadly overworked for a considerable time. In addition to his Parliamentary duties, he was engaged upon certain specific work in connection with the Royal Commission on Agriculture, of which he was a member; and it was not without considerable difficulty that he was enabled even to attempt to keep his engagement. The Town Hall, the place of meeting, was packed beyond its capacity. Thousands stood around in the streets out¬ side. Every staircase was crowded. No provision had been made to protect an entrance for the admission of the candi- STELLA HALL. MR. CO WEN SERIOUSLY INJURED. 59 dates; and as Mr. Cowen, nervous and exhausted as he was, assisted by his brother, Colonel Cowen, sought to force his way up the narrow staircase, he became jammed against an angle of the balustrade, and thereby sustained a painful injury. He fainted in the agony, and fell back upon his brother; and it was with the greatest difficulty that even so powerful a man as Colonel Cowen was able to carry the helpless member into an ante-room of the Town Hall. As soon as the staircase could be cleared, Mr. Cowen was carried to the Chronicle office, and ultimately to Stella Hall. The accident created a great sensation at the time, and occasioned grave anxieties and sincere regrets, until Mr. Cowen was pronounced out of danger. When the accident was an¬ nounced in the Town Hall, a cry to adjourn was at once raised and acted upon, and the campaign begun under such melancholy circumstances had to be continued throughout without the aid of Mr. Cowen’s presence and eloquence. Both Liberal candidates were, however, returned. Mr. Cowen was at the head of the poll, with Mr. Dilke, who succeeded in unseating Mr. Hamond, the Conservative candidate, second, the vote being as follows:—Cowen, 11,766; Dilke, 10,404; Hamond, 5,271. The Liberals gained no fewer than a hundred seats com¬ pared with the previous Parliament, and secured a majority of 46 over the combined strength of Conservatives and Home Rulers. This result was largely due to Mr. Gladstone’s marvellous campaign in Midlothian, where he was opposed by Lord Dalkeith, the Conservative candidate. By a series of truly great speeches, covering the whole range of political affairs, the ex-Premier roused the spirit of his party, and charged his adherents with his own energy, enthusiasm, and confidence. Never in the history of English politics was a part) 7 victory more clearly attributable to the services of a single man. Mr. Gladstone felt that the Premiership be¬ longed to Lord Hartington, who had led the Opposition 6o LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, AI.P. with great strength and skill during the ex-Premier’s retire¬ ment. But the country demanded Mr. Gladstone’s return ; and Mr. Cowen, in a letter to his friend the member for Morpeth, was among the first to indicate and to urge what was indeed the unanimous voice of the Liberal Party. Mr. Gladstone returned to office as First Lord of the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exchequer. The policy of the new Administration was foreshadowed in the Queen’s Speech. The Irish Peace Preservation Act was to be abandoned; and measures were to be introduced to establish the rights of Dissenters to bury their dead in parish church¬ yards ; to amend the game laws, whereby the farmer would be empowered to destroy ground game ; to determine the liability of employers for accidents sustained by their work¬ men in the discharge of their duty ; to enable tenants to obtain damages from landlords when evicted from their holdings otherwise than for non-payment of rent. Such, in brief, was the policy of the Administration in home affairs, and to all the promised measures Mr. Cowen gave a hearty support. Mr. Gladstone’s foreign policy was explained in four words—the Concert of Europe. The Premier main¬ tained from the first that the Treaty of Berlin should be faithfully carried out. Certain rearrangements of boundaries had been provided for under the Treaty. The execution of the work was left to Turkey. But it was contended, on the part of the Government, that the Administration at Constan¬ tinople was insincere—that, instead of rearranging the Montenegrin boundary, Turkey encouraged the Albanians to resist, by force of arms, the cession of their soil to the neigh¬ bouring province. The Great Powers united in what was known as the Identic Note, which was presented to the Porte on the 12th of June, 1880, wherein “ the Powers held the Sublime Porte responsible in advance for the grave consequences that might be produced by a further delay in giving satisfaction to the rights acquired by the Principality,” THE CONCERT OF EUROPE. 61 and his Majesty the Sultan was requested to state explicitly what were his intentions regarding Montenegro. No results were produced by this mandate of the Powers. Acting further upon the idea of the International Concert, Mr. Gladstone proposed that a naval expedition representing all the Great Powers should assemble in the Adriatic to oblige the Sultan to hand Dulcigno over to Montenegro. Mr. Cowen, ever jealous of Russian intrigue, and ever watchful of Russian encroachments, delivered in the House of Commons an exhaustive speech upon the situation on the 4th of September, 1880. He contended that the Sultan had not acted unfairly in his treatment of the Montenegrin question; that he had striven to surrender the territory awarded by the Treaty of Berlin by sending one of his ablest statesmen and generals, Mehemet Ali, to give effect to the arrangement. “ But,” said Mr. Cowen, “ the distinguished soldier and his suite were murdered by the Albanians. Rather than comply with the order from Constantinople, they killed their own countrymen. It was not want of will so much as want of power on the part of Turkey to do what was asked of her.” In the course of the same speech Mr. Cowen requested to be informed by the Government, first, whether the naval power of England, if used for the service of Montenegrin nationality, would not be used to the disservice and detri¬ ment of Albanian nationality; second, whether any further arrangement had been made as to the proposed arrangement with respect to protecting the remnants of the Turkish Empire; and, third, whether the suspicious action of Russia in Bulgaria and Roumelia had received the attention of the Government. Sir Charles Uilke, the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, contended that the objects of the Govern¬ ment were pacific, and intended to put an end to a state of things which threatened the peace of Europe; and he com¬ plained that the hon. member for Newcastle should use his 62 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. impassioned oratory against a Government so exercised. Mr. Gladstone also replied to Mr. Cowen’s speech, and made use of a sentence which clearly indicated his policy, and which became somewhat celebrated. “ Granting,” said the Premier, “ the policy that the independence of the Turkish Empire was maintained, they were bound to see that reforms were introduced into all the administration of the subject provinces with other different nationalities. But if the Porte refused to introduce reforms completely and thoroughly, the integrity and independence of the Turkish Empire must be left to shift for themselves.” Mr. Cowen had gone into all the facts and circumstances which led to the attempt to coerce Turkey, chiefly to show that the risks attending the naval demonstration were out of all proportion to any advantage which could accrue there¬ from. But having stated the case for Turkey, and having directed attention to the suspicious doings of Russia, his object had been attained, while the answers and declarations of the Prime Minister and Sir Charles Dilke were reassuring and satisfactory. Within one month of the date of the debate, the difficulties were overcome, and the fleet of many flags in the Adriatic dispersed and sailed for other stations. An incident took place during the session of 1880 which emphasised the chivalry and independence of Joseph Cowen. M. Challemel-Lacour had been appointed Minister Pleni¬ potentiary of the French Republic at the English Court. Soon thereafter an hon. member submitted a question to the House of Commons reflecting most offensively upon the ante¬ cedents of the French Minister, whereupon Mr. Cowen stood up in defence of the absent stranger. He pointed out that M. Challemel-Lacour was a distinguished scholar and man of letters, a brilliant orator, and one of the foremost politicians in France. He had been a Deputy and was then a Senator. Moreover, but for failing health he would undoubtedly have held high position in the government of his country. MR. CO WEN DEFENDS GENERAL ROBERTS. 63 Mr. Cowen spoke approvingly of the American system under which men of letters were sent to represent their country in foreign courts, and he commended France for taking a step in imitation of the elder Republic. He hailed these changes and innovations upon old time practice as signs of progress, and pointed out that, whoever else found pleasure in con¬ demning the practice, it was not for members of the Press to do so. In like manner the senior member for Newcastle defended the name of that gallant soldier, General Roberts, when accused in the House of Commons of treating the Afghans with cruelty during the campaign in which he had held the chief command. These may be points of minor importance, but they tend to show that Joseph Cowen is ever ready, according to his lights, to defend the cause of personal rights and political justice, no matter by what friend assailed or by what majorities supported. Friction and controversy distinguished the Parliamentary session of 1881. Mr. Cowen had already found himself in opposition to the Government on the Eastern Question. Now his convictions drove him into an attitude of bitter opposition to his party concerning the policy pursued in the government of Ireland. The Chief Secretary, the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, had framed measures for the Protection of Persons and Property and for the Preservation of the Peace in Ireland. Urgency was claimed for these Bills, and on the 24th of June the Prime Minister moved that they should take precedence of all other business from day to day. The regular order of the day was a Bill brought in by the hon. member for Tipperary, granting increased powers of local government in Ireland. It provided that Parliamentary inquiries into purely Irish questions should take place in Ireland, the result of such inquiry to be sub¬ ject to subsequent Parliamentary action. The Bill was one 6 4 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. in which the commercial section of the Irish people took a deep interest. It had been introduced upon three former occasions, and now, when the hour of its consideration had arrived, the Irish members found the Government determined upon its indefinite postponement, and that, too, in order that measures of Irish coercion might be introduced. They felt aggrieved, and resolved to oppose the Prime Minister’s, resolution by every means at their command. Unseemly wranglings followed, and the turbulent sitting was continued throughout the night and well into the afternoon of the following day. When Mr. Cowen left the House, he did not suspect the gathering storm which was soon to break out. But learning of the all-night sitting he returned to the jaded Chamber, and about one o’clock in the afternoon of January 25, he rose and delivered a speech of great fire and vigour. Mr. Cowen objected to the resolution of Mr. Gladstone, first, because it was an interference with the few and fast diminishing privileges of private members. In support of his contention he pointed out that during the first session of the preceding Parliament the then leader of the House moved that all the time should be placed at the disposal of the Government eight or nine days before the House rose ; that the year following the request was made two or three days earlier; that in 1876 it was made two or three days still earlier; and that in 1877 it was made even earlier than in 1876. “ Every year,” said Mr. Cowen, “the time at the disposal of inde¬ pendent members has been gradually curtailed, and the time at the dis¬ posal of the Executive has steadily increased. The difference between the time absorbed by the Government at the close of the first session of the present Parliament, and that absorbed at the close of the first session of last Parliament, is more than three weeks. Hon. members will there¬ fore see that, unconsciously to a large extent, and imperceptibly, the powers of the Executive have increased, and the opportunities at the command of private members have decreased. Last session also con- MR. CO WEN AND IRISH COERCION. 65 tinued a month longer than usual. It extended in all over fifteen weeks Hon. members may have overlooked the circumstance, but it is a fact that for eight weeks out of last session—more than half the time — the Government had almost complete control of the time of the House. It is quite true that last session was an exceptional one. I have no wish to undervalue the weight of that consideration. But when an exception is allowed to pass without protest it becomes a precedent. Precedents are accustomed to increase, and an accumulation of them constitutes law. What is fact to-day becomes doctrine to-morrow.” Mr. Cowen opposed the resolution, in the second place, because it destroyed the chance of Irish members of intro¬ ducing a measure fraught with benefits to the country, and that in order that the liberties of Ireland might forcibly be confiscated. The speech was an indignant protest against coercion. Mr. Gladstone was an attentive listener to the impassioned harangue, and indulged in ironical cheers at some of its pointed and fiery passages. But, though he stood almost alone, Mr. Cowen maintained an attitude of opposition to the coercive measures of the Liberal Government in every form and at every stage. Writing to the Secretary of the Junior Liberal Club of Newcastle on the 10th of February, he gave a forecast of his conduct in these words:— “ I do not wish you and your friends to have any doubt as to my inten¬ tions. I mean to oppose the Coercion Bill on every occasion and at every point by all the resources in my power. When all opportunity of defeat¬ ing the principle has gone, I will strive to delay its operation by every honourable, fair, and legitimate process. When that resource is exhausted, I will assist in mitigating the harshness of its clauses and minimising the despotic powers that the Government are seeking to obtain. I never fe't more convinced in my mind on any subject than I do upon this. It is my emphatic belief that the course the Ministry is pursuing will embitter the relations between England and Ireland. It may create a temporary lull in the present agitation ; but it will certainly further weaken the faith of the Irish people in the equity and sacredness of English made law. I regard the Bill as cruel, unjust, and impolitic, and, so regarding it, I con¬ ceive that I am acting not only strictly within my right, but doing my duty, in availing myself of every instrumentality that the forms of Parliament permit to oppose its enactment. I am quite aware that many Liberals view the subject in an entirely different way, and, of course, they are 6 66 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. equally justified in supporting the measures of the Ministry. But a man must act up to his convictions. I regret that I feel myself compelled to assume such an unqualified attitude of opposition to a Ministry with whose policy in the main I sympathise.” The pledge contained in this letter was faithfully kept. It is now only a little more than four years from the date of Mr. Cowen’s letter, and we find substantial proof that he saw into the future of Irish affairs with clearer vision than his critics. Coercion is all but universally condemned, not only by the Radical section of the Liberal Party, but by all the members of a Conservative Administration. And it is finally dawning upon the English mind that the presence of the Heir Apparent to the throne upon Irish soil, and the smiles of his noble wife upon the Irish people, are more potent factors in the interest of law and order and concord than the many Coercion Acts which have swelled the Statute Book and marked the shortsightedness of English legislators through succeeding generations. Mr. Cowen gave a hearty support to the Irish Land Bill, which was introduced by the Government after the passage of the Coercion Act. He criticised many of the details of the measure with a view to their improvement, and repeated his opinion that the simplest and only safe way of settling the agrarian difficulty in Ireland was to turn the occupiers of the soil into owners thereof. Writing to Mr. Parnell on the 14th of April, 1881, he stated that he had read Mr. Gladstone’s speech with pleasure. “ It is clear, comprehen¬ sive, and cordial,” he said. “ If what was done and said during the Coercion debates could be forgotten, I would be more sanguine of the success of the Ministerial measure.” On the motion for the third reading of the Land Bill, made July 29, 1881, Mr. Cowen paid a warm tribute to the Prime Minister for his ability, patience, and perseverance, and for the faculties of statesmanship he displayed in piloting the Bill through Parliament. THE CASE OF MR. BRADLAUGH. 67 “ He has been both philosophical and practical,” said Mr. Cowen, “ comprehensive enough to grasp great principles and close enough to apply them. By his patience under delay—inevitable, perhaps necessary, but still troublesome delay; by his perseverance in the face of difficulties —some of them unexpected, some of them unnecessary; and by his steady energy and ever ready resource throughout, he had revived the highest and happiest memories of political leadership. However men might differ with the principles of the Bill, however they might question the results it produced, it would be ungenerous and ungracious in the last degree not to acknowledge these powers ungrudgingly.” During the session of 1881, Mr. Cowen spoke strongly in favour of admitting Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, the duly-elected member of Parliament for Northampton, to the duties and privileges of the House. Speaking on the 27th of April, Mr. Cowen maintained that the only way to settle the difficulty was by legislation. He pointed out that Parliament had abolished the Christian test by admitting Jews; that the Protestant test had likewise been abandoned by the admis¬ sion of Catholics; and that legislators would be obliged to abolish the orthodox test and admit Freethinkers. “A man’s religious opinions, or want of religious opinions,” said Mr. Cowen, “ought neither to aid him nor hinder him in his duty as a citizen; and if we can so alter the law as to enable Freethinkers to enter the House as they enter the Law Courts, we will be giving effect to this principle.” The arguments and appeals of Mr. Cowen were unavailing. Northampton is still deprived of its full representation in Parliament by what is believed by many, including Mr. Glad¬ stone, to be the illegal conduct of a Parliamentary majority. Egypt, Ireland, and the new Procedure Rules monopolised most of the time of Parliament during the session of 1882. A strong revulsion of feeling had set in against the influence, the intrigues, and the special privileges and immunities of foreigners in Egypt. Arabi Pasha became the representative of the popular will, and leader of the movement to give it effect. The country sustained him, and the army executed 6 S LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. his orders. The ordinary government was suspended, and the Khedive became practically a prisoner in his own palace. The English and French Governments, acting conjointly, sent a squadron to Alexandria to demand the submission and resignation of Arabi. The chief of the revolution declined to surrender, and continued to strengthen his military position. Finally, on the nth of July, the British section of the squadron, acting alone, began the bombard¬ ment of Alexandria. Thus was inaugurated a war which the English Premier ingeniously but accurately characterised as “ an act of police,” having for its object the reinstatement of the Khedive in authority. The object of the expedition was attained through the victory of British arms at Tel-el- Ivebir on the 13th of September, and the unconditional surrender of Arabi on the following day. Mr. Cowen, in common with other Radicals, was in sympathy with Arabi and his movement; and his voice and votes were exercised against the attitude and action of the Government in Egyptian affairs. Upon Irish questions also the senior member for New¬ castle was generally, though not uniformly, found in opposi¬ tion to his party. Mr. Michael Davitt, the founder of the Land League, was elected member of Parliament for the county of Meath on the 22nd of February. On the 28th of the same month the Attorney-General moved that the election be declared void, because Mr. Davitt had been adjudged guilty of felony, and was then serving out a penal sentence which rendered him ineligible to serve in Parlia¬ ment. Mr. Cowen appealed to the Government for the re¬ lease of this Irish prisoner.' “He knew of nothing, of no one act, that it was in their power to per¬ form that was more likely to clear their pathway from difficulties and hasten the establishment of amicable feelings between the two peoples than such an act. It would be the most effective message of peace they could send just now to a disturbed and afflicted country.” THE PHCENIX PARK MURDERS. 69 But the motion of the Attorney-General was carried by a vote of 208 against 20. Mr. Parnell and several of his colleagues had been arrested in October, 1881, on the charge of inciting intimidation, and for urging the non-payment of rent in Ireland. The condition of the country was turbulent, and the island was described as seething with sedition. Mr. Forster, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was obliged to confess that the measures of the Government had proved abortive through the influence of secret societies. The situation was desperate. The prisons were overflowing, there being no less than 511 suspects locked up on the 1st of April, 1882, when the Government determined upon a reversal of policy by the abandonment of the Coercion Acts and the release of Mr. Davitt, Mr. Parnell, and many other prisoners. This change of front was followed by the resignation of Mr. Forster and the Lord Lieutenant, Lord Cowper, their positions being assumed by Earl Spencer as Viceroy, and Lord Frederick Cavendish as Chief Secretary. But the good intentions of the Government, and the hopes of good men that a better era was dawning upon Ireland, were frustrated by the diabolical acts of assassins. Four men approached Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. T. H. Burke, the Permanent Under Secretary, at 7 o’clock on the evening of May 6, in Phoenix Park, Dublin, and murdered them. The friends of law and order and goodwill towards Ireland were staggered by this work, which came to blast their hopes and hurl back the country into the grasp of coercion. A Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland was immediately intro¬ duced by the Home Secretary, and hurried through Parlia¬ ment. The foul business in Phoenix Park supplied the friends of coercive measures with abundant argument, while it paralysed the voice of Englishmen opposed to that policy. It cast a black shadow over Ireland, and a gloom over the United Kingdom. It was enough to deter the bravest advocate of free speech from offering a protest against the 70 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Home Secretary’s Bill; but Joseph Cowen broke the silence and “ faced the music.” On the 23rd of May he moved :— “ That while this House is desirous of aiding Her Majesty’s Govern¬ ment in any measures which they can show to be necessary to adopt for preventing, detecting, and punishing crime, it disapproves of restrictions being imposed on the free expression of opinion in Ireland.” He pointed out that the House was entering upon the discussion of a fresh Coercion Bill—the fiftieth in eighty years—with impatience ; that it was reasonable also that the wrath and horror excited by the tragedy at Phoenix Park should colour the discussion; but with great ability and earnestness he argued against the principle of coercion. He reminded the House that the Bourbons, Bonapartes, and Hapsburgs had carried out the policy of repression far more effectively than ever an English Ministry dare attempt to do, but that a sharp clear stroke of popular indignation had smitten the keystone of the arch of European despotism and shattered it to fragments. “ And our Government,” he continued, “ of all Governments, may rest assured that their attempts to repress the legitimate and necessary expression of popular opinion will end in equal disaster. They can win the Irish people’s hearts by just laws, by equitable administration, but they can never win them—never deserve to win them—by measures as hateful and as odious as the one under consideration.” The country and Parliament were sullen and angry, and Mr. Cowen’s amendment only received 47 votes in a House of 391. The Press, with rare exceptions, spoke highly of Mr. Cowen’s speech, but with greater unanimity they opposed the policy he advocated. The Daily News, how¬ ever, regarded with apprehension the probable or possible effect of interfering with the right of public meeting and the freedom of the Press in Ireland, and admitted that Mr. Cowen was right in his contention that secret societies were not to be put down by the use of the gag. Mr. Cowen found himself opposed by what amounted to the unbroken THE NEW PROCEDURE RULES. 7 i phalanx of both parties in the House of Commons. But when the party leaders — Liberals and Conservatives alike— appeared before public meetings before the General Election of 1885, there was not to be found among them all a single responsible speaker who proposed to renew the Coercion Acts for the government of Ireland. During the progress of the coercive measures through Parliament, the Irish members opposed them at every stage and by every possible means. Organisation and dis¬ cipline, well-ordered and bravely adhered to, controlled the Nationalists, and through their obstruction the business was impeded and the Parliamentary machinery clogged. With a view to facilitate the business of the House and to put an end to organised obstruction, Mr. Gladstone, on the 13th of February, 1882, introduced the new Procedure Rules, which included a provision for the appointment of Grand Committees to arrange and agree upon the details of Bills, and the Cloture, which gave power to a majority under certain conditions to close a debate. The introduction of these rules may have been necessary—their adoption has certainly been to some extent beneficial, while the evil fore¬ bodings concerning them have not been realised. But the proposed Cloture was looked upon by many, including Mr. Cowen, as a dangerous instrument which might be arbi¬ trarily exercised to silence independent members. Hence he opposed the new rules on their passage through the House, and made one of the most effective of his Parlia¬ mentary speeches against the Cloture on the 10th of November. The House was all but empty when Mr. Cowen rose, but it rapidly filled as he proceeded, and the conclusion of the speech was followed by rounds of applause which lasted several minutes. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, after¬ wards Chancellor of the Exchequer in Lord Salisbury’s Ministry, said that its eloquence was worthy of the best days of the House of Commons; and Mr. Cowen received 72 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. an extraordinary number of congratulations, both on the floor of the House and by mail from nearly every section of the country. The Cloture was adopted by a vote of 304 to 260 on the nth of November, 1882, and the new rules were made standing orders on the 1st of December following. HOME LEG/SLA T 10 N. 73 CHAPTER VIII. SESSION OF 1883 —IRELAND AND EGYPT—PASSAGE OF THE PATENT LAW—THE BANKRUPTCY ACT—CORRUPT PRACTICES BILL—MR. COWEN ON BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION—END OF THE WAR IN EGYPT — MR. COWEN SUPPORTS PROPOSAL TO REWARD LORD WOLSELEY AND LORD ALCES'I'ER—RESIGNATION AND DEATH OF ASHTON DILKE, JUNIOR MEMBER FOR NEWCASTLE—ELECTION OF JOHN MORLEY TO THE VACANT SEAT—MR. COWEN ON THE SELECTION—ELECTORAL INEQUALITIES—SESSION OF 1884 —INTRO¬ DUCTION OF GLADSTONE’S REFORM BILL—MR. COWEN’S SPEECH IN FAVOUR OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE—DEADLOCK BETWEEN THE LORDS AND THE COMMONS—MR. COWEN ON HEREDITARY LEGIS¬ LATORS—PASSAGE OF THE REFORM BILL, DECEMBER, 1884, AND OF THE REDISTRIBUTION BILL, MAY, 1 885. GYPT and Ireland again monopolised a large share of J_> the time of the House of Commons during the year 1883. Some useful home legislation was, however, enacted, including the Patent Law and the Bankruptcy Act, intro¬ duced by the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, President of the Board of Trade; and the Corrupt Practices Bill, intro¬ duced by the Attorney General. To these several measures Mr. Cowen gave a cordial support, though in Committee he endeavoured to improve them by amendments and modifica¬ tions. He viewed the new Bankruptcy Bill as perhaps the best that could be attempted under the circumstances; but he regarded with apprehension the ever-widening network of officialism which was being thrown over the doings of private life, and which, in a measure, would be extended by the new Act. The Bill became law on the 25th of August, 1883, and the general verdict is that it has approximately answered the expectations of its promoters. But the views 74 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. of Mr. Cowen upon the question of bankruptcy are original, while his remedy is bold and drastic. He maintains that there is but one way to reform bankruptcy laws, and that is to abolish them entirely. His argument is this—When a man violates the laws of nature, he suffers in health; when he violates the laws of trade, he should be allowed to suffer financially, and when he has suffered enough, he will be more circumspect in his transactions. The only safety clause which Mr. Cowen’s scheme would provide is in the event of a purchaser securing credit by fraud ; such a person he would send to gaol as he would any other rogue. The principle here set forth in brief runs through all Mr. Cowen’s public utterances upon bankruptcy, and in a speech delivered before his constituents on the 22nd of December, 1883, he indicated the benefits likely to accrue from his plan as follows:— “By clearing the country of the huge hierarchy of bankruptcy barristers, bailiffs, receivers, lawyers, controllers, assessors, and ac¬ countants, who live out of the traders as the traders live out of the public, the gain to every individual citizen would be substantial, and the influence on the nation beneficent. The saving effected by the extinction of this colossal officialism would compensate for the shadowy dividends now got, while commerce would be purified and profits increased. When,” he asked, “ will Englishmen of business see the folly of having a new bank¬ ruptcy law every decade, oscillating between the extremes of official laxity and supervision, and have the courage and sense to apply a drastic cure to a drastic evil?” Mr. Cowen spoke and voted for the second reading of the Corrupt Practices Bill, and during the progress of the measure through Committee he took an active part in the debates. He supported an amendment of Mr. Raikes’s which was intended to modify the penalty for personal bribery or treating, so that the candidate unseated for such practices should not be for ever excluded from sitting for the con¬ stituency in which the offence was committed. He expressed himself as against perpetual punishment either here or hereafter; but the amendment was defeated. Mr. Cowen LORD WOLSELEY’S BOUNTY. 75 advocated several modifications to the clauses of the Bill, including one which would entitle any person to use his own carriage for the conveyance of himself and any other person in company with him to the polling booth. All 'proposals tending to do away with or discourage canvassing and extravagance were supported by him. The Act as it now stands, prohibiting the hiring of carriages and various other election expenses not provided for, was passed on the 25th of August, 1883. With the end of the war in Egypt, conducted by Lord Wolseley and Lord Alcester, the customary proposal was made in Parliament to reward the successful heroes of the Army and Navy by pensions ; and a motion to that effect was introduced by Mr. Gladstone on the 19th of April, 1883. Opposition was offered to the proposal by Mr. Labouchere, the Member for Northampton, and other Radicals. But in this instance, as upon all kindred occasions, Mr. Cowen supported the Government. He had disapproved of the policy of the Government and of the expedition into Egypt; but he pointed out that the noblemen to whom it was proposed to grant a pension were no more responsible for the Ministerial policy in Egypt than they were for the Ministerial policy in Ireland. The Cabinet had started the war, Parliament had sanctioned it, the country had supported it, and the officers to be honoured and benefited had carried out what the House of Commons must view as the will of the nation. “ It is because they are efficient servants of the State, therefore,” said Mr. Cowen, “ and not because I approve of the policy of the war, that I am willing to accord any reasonable emolument to the two commanders.” He ob¬ jected, however, to the way in which the Government pro¬ posed the reward, and urged that the pensions should be capitalised and given in a lump sum. He was anxious to deal handsomely with these successful officers, but he would vote against the proposal in the form which it was submitted 76 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. to the House, whereby the already too numerous list of hereditary pensions would be increased. Mr. Cowen gave notice that he would move in Committee an Amendment to give effect to his plan of rewarding Lords Alcester and Wolseley by a lump sum. Subsequently, this view of the case was adopted by the Government ; and on the 29th of June the sum of £ 25,000 was granted to Lord Alcester, and £30,000 to Lord Wolseley in consideration of their services in Egypt. In the autumn of 1882, Mr. Ashton Dilke, the junior member for Newcastle, was obliged to resign his seat in Parliament on account of ill-health. Indeed, Mr. Dilke was far from well when he contested and won the seat in 1880. His conscientious services in the House of Commons told injuriously upon his frail constitution. He was, therefore, obliged to retire from the representation and seek the restor¬ ation of his failing strength in a more sunny climate. The Liberal Association looked far and wide for a suitable suc¬ cessor to Mr. Dilke. Mr. R. S. Watson and others were invited to stand in the Liberal interest, but declined. Sub¬ sequently the Liberal Association asked Mr. John Morley to offer himself as a candidate ; and when that gentleman finally agreed to contest the seat he was heartily endorsed by the great bulk of the Liberals of the constituency. He was opposed by Mr. Gainsford Bruce, Q.C., Recorder of Bradford, and a gentleman of position at the Bar. The Conservatives were fortunate in their candidate. At the preceding General Election Mr. Bruce had made a stout fight and an excellent impression while contesting the borough of Gateshead against Mr. James, the sitting member. He was a native of Newcastle, and the son of J. Collingwood Bruce, LL.D., the well-known antiquary, and one of the most highly-esteemed men on Tyneside. The contest was fought out between Mr. Bruce and Mr. Morley upon public and political grounds, and with entire avoidance of person- RETURN OF JOHN MO RLE Y FOR NEWCASTLE. 77 alities. It was, indeed, in some respects a model contest. The Irish vote—which is a strong element in the con¬ stituency—was given for the Conservative candidate ; but, notwithstanding this defection, Mr. Morley was elected by over 2000 majority. The choice was an admirable one. Mr. Morley came to the constituency a stranger; but his simple, fascinating manners, his finished style as a speaker, supplemented by a national fame as an author, a journalist, and a reformer, secured for him the confidence, not to say the affection, of the Liberals of the constituency. Several months after the election, a complimentary dinner was given to Mr. Morley by the Newcastle Liberal Club. Mr. Cowen was invited to attend ; and he explained his absence, and expressed his views and sentiments towards his colleague in the following letter, addressed to Mr. Quinn, the Secretary of the Club :— “ March 28, 1883. “ Dear Sir, —Your polite note only reached me this morning when I was leaving for London. Had my arrangements permitted, I should gladly have joined with any section of the constituency in doing honour to Mr. Morley. He is well worthy of popular confidence. Electors of all classes, creeds, and parties may rest satisfied that he will never tarnish the trust reposed in him. In the long roll of able and honourable men who have sat as members for Newcastle, I know of none more able or more worthy. It is not the business of a sitting member to meddle with the selection of his colleague. But the selection having been made I feel myself free to say that I know no man with whom I would more gladly be associated than with Mr. Morley. On all essentials, and on most non-essentials, we are agreed, while personally it would not be easy to find two members between whom there exists such a cordial trustful¬ ness and friendship. I trust you will have an agreeable and successful banquet.—Yours very truly, JOS. Cowen.” The members for Newcastle are perhaps still in harmony upon nearly all, if not upon quite all, questions of home and Irish policy; but they differ upon foreign affairs. Whether they will ever sit upon the same Treasury Bench is doubtful, though not impossible. With stricter observance of party 78 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. discipline and greater regard for party expediency, Mr. Cowen, supported by North Country members, English Radicals, and Irish Nationalists, might long since have been in the Ministry. But he detests office-seeking, and loves the independent way of the historical Radicals, whose names run like threads of gold through the political annals of their country. It is not improbable, therefore, that Mr. Morley may be the first entrusted with one of the portfolios of State. Public opinion and party conditions already point in that direction. But certain it is that Mr. Cowen’s hold upon his constituency and Tyneside was never firmer than now. The most vital question submitted to the people during the General Election of 1880 was the extension of the suff¬ rage—the assimilation of the Borough and County Fran¬ chises. The Act of 1867 was a capricious makeshift. Extraordinary electoral inequalities continued to exist. Port- arlington, with only 2000 inhabitants, elected a member of Parliament, while 151 towns and places, each with over 10,000 inhabitants, were without representation. The 23 smallest boroughs, aggregating about 28,000 voters, returned 45 members to the National Council, while Edinburgh, with the same number of voters, only returned 2 members. Men working at the same craft, in the same shop, at the same bench, were electors and non-electors, made so by absurd geographical limitations. Those living within the borough limits could exercise the Franchise, while others who, for reasons of health, comfort, or economy, lived fur¬ ther afield, were excluded from the electorate. The injustice thus inflicted had often been brought before Parliament by Mr. George Otto Trevelyan, the zealous champion of house¬ hold suffrage; and by 1880 public opinion had become permeated with a sense of the wrong under which millions of men were deprived of their rights. During the canvass of that year Liberal electors everywhere demanded the reform ; Liberal speakers everywhere advocated it. Candidates and MR. GLADSTONE’S REFORM BILL. 79 constituents were in harmony upon this pivotal question of the campaign. Indeed, even Conservative candidates, espe¬ cially in large towns, yielded acquiescence to a demand which was national rather than partisan. They made it a condition, however, that redistribution of seats should accom¬ pany the enlargement of the suffrage. This was the position taken by Mr. Gainsford Bruce in his contest for the second seat for Newcastle in 1882. Mr. John Morley, on the other hand, advocated the extension of the franchise pure and simple, untrammelled by a redistri- butory scheme. These candidates faithfully represented their parties, and their divergence foreshadowed the battle¬ ground upon which the contest was finally fought in Parlia¬ ment. But the country had pronounced emphatically in favour of the reform. The Liberal Government had promised it ; and upon the first day of the session of 1884, the Prime Minister gave notice of his intention to introduce the Bill. Within a few days thereafter, on the 28th of February, he brought forward his Representation of the People Bill in a speech which demonstrated that he had lost nothing in mastery over principles, grasp of details, and power of expo¬ sition. He referred to the fact that Lord John Russell pro¬ posed the enfranchisement of half a million of people fifty years ago in bated breath. “ But I take my stand,” he said, “ on the broad principle that the enfranchisement of capable citi¬ zens, be they few or be they many—and if they be many, so much the better—gives an addition of strength to the State.” And to demonstrate his proposition that “ the strength of the modern State lies in the representative system,” he added— “ Never had this great truth been so vividly illustrated as in the war of the American Republic. The convulsion of that country between 1861 and 1865 was perhaps the most frightful which ever assailed a national existence. The efforts which were made on both sides were marked. The exertions by which alone the movement was put down were not only extraordinary, they were what would antecedently have been called impossible, and they were only rendered possible by the fact that they So LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. proceeded from a nation where every capable citizen was enfranchised and had a direct and an energetic interest in the well-being and the unity of the State.” The Prime Minister explained that the Reform Bill pro¬ posed to enfranchise the county population upon equal conditions with the population of the towns. There would be the yearly value franchise of 1832 with this extension, that the £10 clear yearly value should apply to land even without houses or buildings. There would be the lodger franchise of the Act of 1867. There would be a service franchise, which Mr. Gladstone characterised as a far-reach¬ ing one. “ It goes,” he said, “to men of high class, who inhabit valuable houses, as the officers of great institutions, and it descends to the humble classes, who are the servants of the gentry, the servants of the farmer, or the servants of some other employer of labour, who are neither owners nor tenants, and who in many cases cannot be held as tenants in consequence of the essential condition intended to be realised through their labour, and who fully fulfil the position of responsible inhabitant householders.” And there would be the household franchise which had its foundation in the Act of 1867. It was proposed to abolish the £50 franchise because, as Mr. Gladstone explained— “Two categories of franchise where only one is necessary, are highly inconvenient in the rate-books and registration, and because we believe, it is hardly possible that there will be any men entitled to this ^50 rental franchise who will not come within the county franchise as we propose it in this Bill. We propose to reduce the figure of the rated franchise of 1867 from J\2 rateable value to ^10 clear annual value. The household, the lodger, and the service franchise we propose to import into the counties precisely as they are now. We maintain the property franchise in principle, but we propose provisions which are brought forward in order to secure it against abuses which are known in many parts of the country, and which, in some portions of the country, are grievous and menacing. The purpose of this Bill, and I may say that the fundamental part of the structure of this Bill, is in the direction and with the intention of bringing about a union of the three kingdoms in one nation, and essentially, so far as we can without undue complexity achieve it, not only in one measure, but in one and the same measure.” MR. CO WEN AND WOMEN SUFFRAGE. Si The addition to the register which the Reform Bill would make was estimated at 1,300,000 persons in England, about 200,000 in Scotland, and about 400,000 in Ireland, or a total addition to the voters of the United Kingdom of two millions. The verdict of the country had already been given in favour of the Bill. A majority of the House of Commons was assured for it. The necessity for talking had passed. Those who talked least best served the cause of Reform. Mr. Cowen, upon entering Parliamentary life, asserted that he would go in advance of the Liberal leader when necessary. Upon the question of the Franchise he had from boyhood been in favour of manhood suffrage, and would have preferred a more sweeping reform than that proposed by the Government. But he gave the Bill a cordial and undeviating support. He never suggested an amendment, and “ never said a word ” whereby the measure could be delayed, until the 12th of June, when Mr. Woodall moved his amendment in favour of women suffrage. Mr. Cowen supported this Radical proposal in one of the most solid and convincing speeches ever made upon the subject. He pointed out that the Bill before the House would enfranchise two millions of men irrespective of intelligence, morality, character, or capacity; occupation being the only test of fitness. “And if,” he asked, “ we exact no personal qualification from men, why should we do so with women ? ” He argued that the course of modern legislation had been to affirm the maxim that taxation and representation should go together, that rights and burdens should correspond, and that persons should have at least some voice in making the laws by which they were governed. He pointed out that women were admitted to the gallows and the gaol, to the income-tax list and the poor-rate book, and he wanted to know why they were debarred from the ballot-box. He continued— “ We allow women to vote in all, and to be elected to most, parochial and municipal bodies. In some of the American territories women are 7 82 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. invested with the full rights of citizenship. Will any man have the har¬ dihood to argue that injurious results have arisen from the possession of such powers ? Woman’s influence,” continued Mr. Cowen, “ whether ex¬ erted in a British School Board, or in an election, college, or convention amidst the rough miners in the slopes and valleys of the Rocky Moun¬ tains, had been beneficent, and her authority salutary and elevating. Justice and logic, precedent and experience, are in favour of her inclusion to the roll of citizenship. What are against it ? There are two potent forces—pride and prejudice.” Mr. Cowen denied that woman was intellectually man’s inferior. “ History, reason, analogy,” he said, “ prove that her faculties—from diverse vocation and tendency, from perennial legal inequality and injus¬ tice—may be dissimilar, but they are not inferior. Her position has been the gauge and the thermometer of civilization in every age and country.” He argued that it was difficult to determine whether the inconsistency that would deny Miss Nightingale and Miss Octavia Hill a vote, but would give one to the latest house¬ breaker and wife-beater fresh from prison, or the imperti¬ nence that affected to prescribe the circuit of duty for the Martineaus and the Somervilles, the Jane Austens and the Mrs. Brownings, was the more intolerable. Mr. Cowen denied that the members of the House of Commons had any right to apportion the arena in which woman had to labour. He held that the proper sphere for all human beings was the largest and loftiest to which they were able to attain ; and maintained that those who argued that the domestic was the only arena for which women were qualified, demonstrated their own ignorance or forgetfulness of history. “ Our parasitic conventionalities,” said Mr. Cowen, “ our fantastic and fanciful modes of life, degrade woman, while they profess to honour her. Our very homage contains a latent irony. It stimulates the cultivation of her personal graces and lighter accomplishments toj the neglect of her nobler powers. We make for her a world of dolls, and then complain that she is frivolous. We deprive her of the lessons and stimulus of practical out-door life, and then we chide her with being flippant and undisciplined. But, notwithstanding these disadvantages, the number of women who have shone as sovereigns, or have risen to renown in LORDS AND COMMONS: A DEADLOCK. 83 politics, literature, art, and ordinary life, is exceptionally large. Call the roll of the most distinguished rulers the world has known—keep in mind the predominance of men over women—and will any one contend that the proportion of great queens has not been in excess of great kings ? The three proudest eras in British history were when the sceptre was wielded by women—Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria. What does Austria owe to Maria Theresa, Sweden to the valiant daughter of Gustavus Adolphus, and Spain to Isabella, who pawned her jewels to fit out a fleet for Columbus ? Can any one,” he asked, “ in face of such instances, gainsay the fact that, the opportunity being given, woman, spite of her artificial training, has risen to the responsibility of rulership ?” The motion to admit women to the franchise, so elo¬ quently supported by Mr. Cowen, was defeated by a majority of 136 on a total vote of 426. The Representation of the People Bill was opposed by the Conservatives in the House of Commons upon a variety of grounds. It was contended that “ the loyal minority would be swamped ” by the newly-enfranchised in Ireland ; that the agricultural population did not ask for the suffrage. But the principal objection to the Bill was that a plan of redistribution of seats did not accompany it. Mr. Gladstone’s reply to the contention that the loyal minority would be swamped in Ireland was a wholesome and charac¬ teristic declaration. “ Let us be as strong in right, ’ he said, “ as we are in population, in wealth, and in historical traditions, and we shall have abundant force to settle our accounts with the people of Ireland and their representa¬ tives.” All opposition in the Commons was overcome, and the Bill was read for the third time on the 27th of June. But it was blocked by the Lords. Efforts were then made to effect a compromise between the Government and the leaders of the Opposition. The Prime Minister undertook that, if the House of Lords would pass the Bill, the Govern¬ ment would bind Parliament by an address to the Queen not to dissolve until both the Reform Bill and the Redistri¬ bution Bill had become law. But, after much misunder¬ standing, and a considerable display of temper in Parliament 8 4 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. and throughout the country, the compromise failed. As in the case of Earl Grey’s measure, Mr. Gladstone’s Bill of 1884 was defeated for a time by the Peers. The country then took up the question. Demonstrations in favour of the Franchise and against the House of Lords were held through¬ out the country, while counter-demonstrations in support of the Peers were made by the Conservatives. Mr. John Mor- ley’s pithy saying that the House of Lords would have to be “ mended or ended,” stamped itself upon the Liberal mind, and became the motto of Liberal banners. Mr. Cowen, speak¬ ing at a Franchise demonstration on the 27th of September, likened the House of Lords to a once useful but now orna¬ mental building whose existence is bound up with a family life, and said that the people of England had no desire need¬ lessly to meddle with the Peers or their mediaeval privileges. He contended, however, that, logically, their position in the State was indefensible. “ A hereditary legislature in the 19th century,” he said, “ is a political anachronism. It may be endured, but it cannot be defended. Once popular passions are roused, the traditional feeling that sustained it would be roughly brushed aside. Just as grey old mansions, whose halls once glittered with the splendour of jewelled rank, and were alive with the tread of many feet and the hum of admiring multitudes, had to go down before the imperious demands of modern enterprise, so our consti¬ tutional antiquities must yield to the demands of the people if they stand between them and their irrefragable interests. I am against abusing the Lords,” continued Mr. Cowen. “ They have acted unwisely, but they are within their right. I am against threatening them, for every man of spirit resents a threat. But a respectful warning is not a menace. I am opposed also to humiliating them by making their power still more shadowy than it is. I trust, too, we will never see in England a pluto¬ cratic senate. Better let us keep the House of Lords with all its defects than have a quasi-political and wholly reactionary Chamber of Notables. But,” added Mr. Cowen, “ if the question of the existence of a second Chamber is raised, my vote and voice shall be for its abolition.” As the agitation extended towards the winter, evidences of a coming compromise flitted across the political horizon like a will-o’-the-wisp. A redistribution scheme was eventually MR. CO WEN AND THE HOUSE OF LORDS. S5 submitted to Lord Salisbury and his colleagues, and ac¬ cepted by them. The Reform Bill was finally read for the third time on the nth of November, 18S4. The Lords read it fortl e first time on the 14th of November, and for the second time on the 18th of the same month. Here progress was de¬ layed until the second reading of the Redistribution of Seats Bill by the Commons, for the terms of the compromise neces¬ sitated that the Redistribution Bill should be read a second time before the third reading of the Franchise Bill in the House of Lords. This arrangement was carried out accord¬ ingly. The Redistribution Bill was read a second time in the House of Commons on the 4th of December, and the third reading of the Franchise Bill took place in the House of Lords on the following day. The latter measure passed into law on the 6th of December, 1884. The further consider¬ ation of the Redistribution Bill was postponed until the session of 1885, and its third reading by the Commons took place on the 12th of May, 1885, and by the Peers on the 12th of June, 1885. Neither party in the State can be said to have achieved the victory in the precise form for which they contended. The Redistribution scheme did not accompany and form part of the Reform Bill, but it followed so closely upon its heels as to constitute a compromise amounting to a partial victory for the Conservatives. In the language of the Times, when referring to the struggle, “ honours were easy, but Gladstone scored the trick.” Under the new Act England and Wales secure a net gain of six seats in Parliament, and Scotland twelve seats. With Ireland it stands thus :—There is a net increase of 21 seats for the counties, and a net decrease of 21 seats in the boroughs. The total gain of seats for the United Kingdom is 18. The last Parliament was composed of 652 members, and the first Parliament under the Reform Bill of 18S4-85 will 86 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. be composed of 670 members. But, as already stated, some¬ thing like two millions of men receive the stamp of citizen¬ ship under the new Act. Great credit is due to the men who roused the country and organised the final victory by practically compelling the legislature to give precedence to the Reform Bill over other measures. Without this, and in view of troubles abroad occupying so much of the Govern¬ ment time, it is not improbable that the Reform might have been further postponed. But still greater credit is due to those who steadfastly advocated the Franchise long before public opinion was ripe for it—to the Radicals as a class, to Mr. Trevelyan in especial, who devoted his best thoughts and energies to the enfranchisement of the people during the last quarter of a century, and whose final triumph was sig¬ nalised by his admission into the Cabinet, and last to Joseph Cowen, whose early, earnest, and continuous political teach¬ ings did so much to ripen the public mind of the northern constituencies whose representatives finally marched in solid phalanx into the Government lobby in support of the Bill. It was a long struggle, of varying fortunes, of storm, of hopes and misgivings ; but, as Mr. Bright has said, “ there is much shower and sunshine between the sowing of the seed and the reaping of the harvest, but the harvest is reaped after all.” MR. CO WEN’S OPPOSITION TO THE GOVERNMENT. 87 CHAPTER IX. MR. cowen’s opposition to the foreign policy of the govern¬ ment—he SUPPORTS SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE’S VOTE OF CENSURE—HIS VIEWS REGARDING BRITISH SUPREMACY IN EGYPT —AND OF GOVERNMENT CONDUCT TOWARDS GENERAL GORDON AND HIS EXPEDITION—THE “FUNCTIONS OF A REPRESENTATIVE” —THE GOVERNMENT AND THE HEALTH OF THE ARMY OF RELIEF — FALL OF KHARTOUM — THE DEATH OF GORDON — HIS CHA¬ RACTER — RUSSIAN ADVANCE TOWARDS AFGHANISTAN — MR. COWEN’S POLICY—FIGHTING ON THE KUSHK—CONDUCT OF THE GOVERNMENT—THE SHIPPING BILL OF 1884 —REASONS WHY MR. COWEN OPPOSED THE BILL—THE POSITION OF THE SHIPOWNERS —THE BILL REFERRED TO A ROYAL COMMISSION—MR. COWEN’S ATTITUDE—RECEIVES THE THANKS OF SHIPPING ASSOCIATIONS FOR HIS SERVICES IN PARLIAMENT. T no time during Mr. Gladstone’s Administration was il Mr. Cowen able to give a hearty support to the foreign policy of the Government. At first he hesitated to take strong grounds against his party, but once the reluctance was over¬ come his opposition was outspoken and vigorous. When, on the 19th of February, 1884, Sir Stafford Northcote moved his vote of censure upon the Government for their conduct in the Soudan, Mr. Cowen supported the Opposition with great eloquence and vehemence. Whatever may be thought of the principles he advocated or the line of action he selected, all men must admit the excellence of his speech, and his matchless faculty for marshalling facts in close, consecutive, and attractive form. In this comparatively short speech he reviewed the entire policy and work of the Government in Egypt. He described the Multiple Control as “ a machinery for working multiple mischief.” He complained, not that ss LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. the Government wished to leave Egypt, but that they thought it possible to do so. He maintained that the Government, while viewing the Soudan as a source of weak¬ ness rather than a source of strength to Egypt, should either have prevented Hicks Pasha’s expedition, or taken care that it was prosecuted under the conditions of success. He re¬ viewed the conduct of the Government in connection with subsequent expeditions with great severity, and closed his vigorous protest in these words :— “We must either rule Egypt openly and effectively, or leave it. We cannot, in my judgment, leave it. Interest, honour, humanity forbid us. We carried all the horrors of war into the country, upset the Govern¬ ment, and destroyed the army. Mankind would execrate us if, having reduced the people to helplessness and stripped them of their means of defence, we left them a prey to ruthless invasion from without and remorseless robbery and tyranny within.” In answer to the plea that the defeat of the Government should be avoided lest the Reform Bill should be lost, he concluded his speech with this sentence :—“ I have not yet mastered the subtle political ethics which enable a man to think one way and act another, so I mean to sustain my opinions by my vote.” Again, on the 16th of March, he assumed the same attitude towards the Government. Mr. Labouchere, the member for Northampton, when motion for Supply was under consider¬ ation, moved an Amendment declaring that the necessity for the excessive loss of life in the Soudan had not been made apparent. Mr. Cowen supported the Amendment, and re¬ asserted his belief that the Government could not withdraw from Egypt. “ The army of occupation,” he said, “ might be diminished, or increased, or withdrawn ; the British supremacy was as surely settled on the banks of the Nile as on the banks of the Ganges.” Once more, on the 14th of May, Mr. Cowen supported a vote of censure on the Government moved by Sir Michael Hicks- THE FUNCTIONS OF A REPRESENTA TIVE .” 89 Beach. A bald recital of the facts, according to Mr. Cowen, should and would have been sufficient to carry the vote of censure were it not for party vassalage. “ Let the touching telegrams from General Gordon be placarded broad¬ cast,” he said. “ Let the cross of manliness and devotion he has raised in far Khartoum be upheld at home, and it would arouse a spirit which would shatter the equivocating and huckstering statecraft, whose highest effort is to—■ ‘ Promise, pause, prepare, postpone, And end by letting things alone.’” Mr. Cowen was for heartily supporting General Gordon, and against the suggestion that he should sacrifice his comrades and secure his own safety by decamping. “ That there will be men slain if an English army goes to Khartoum,” he argued, “is incontestable, but the number will be greater from the decrepitude and nervelessness of Ministers. If we had acted with decision at first, there would have been no war. If we had moved to the relief of Sinkat and Tokar sooner, we would have saved the slaughter, the pur¬ poseless slaughter, at El-Teb and Tamai. If we had sent 500 soldiers to Berber after General Graham’s victory, the road to Khartoum would now be open and the refugees on their way to Cairo. (A voice : That is your view.) Of course it is my view. I am not accustomed to speak other people’s views. It is my practice to think for myself, and when I have arrived at a conclusion to express it. That I understand to be the function of a representative.” The Government, while resolved to relieve Khartoum, were anxious concerning the health of the Expedition, and therefore the movement was not commenced until the exces¬ sive heat of summer was over. Troops reached Wady Haifa on the 23rd of August, Lord Wolseley arriving there on the 5th of October. The forward movement and the eventful, heroic, but disastrous campaign on the Nile and across the desert followed, until finally Sir Charles Wilson and his party sailed up the river to within 800 yards of Khartoum, to find the town in the enemies’ possession and to ascertain that the gallant Gordon had been killed on the 26th of January, 1885, only a few hours before the advanced guard of the relief force reached the outskirts of the fortress. yo LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Too much cannot be said in praise of the simple, self- denying Christian patriot, General Gordon. But a great deal might be said of the way his life and death have been manipulated and conjured with for mere partisan purposes. His scheme for a one-man expedition for the rescue of Khar¬ toum was idealistic, grand, and in keeping with the character of the hero. But it’is the business of statesmanship to apply rational and not idealistic means towards the results desired. The position of the Government was not only difficult and perplexing; it was almost desperate. They were urged by the press and by public men to favour the wild scheme of a meteoric rush across the alien desert; but they should never have adopted it. It might have succeeded ; and that is the most that can be said. Had Lord Wolseley started sooner, or selected a different route, Gordon might, or might not, have been saved. But Gordon’s scheme was wild in the extreme. Can it be pretended that either Washington or Wellington, Grant or Sherman, would have attempted the conquest of a country alone, without a base of supplies, a line of retreat, a well-founded hope or promise of reinforce¬ ments ? Obviously not. The Government, it must be admitted, was responsible ; but it says little for speakers and writers who applauded the wild conception and the suc¬ cessful ride across the angry sands, and who have subse¬ quently failed to find English words strong enough to con¬ demn the Government for too willingly responding to their demands. The safe arrival of General Gordon at Khartoum was a miracle : it is not fair to expect nor prudent to rely upon a succession of miracles in military affairs. Dis¬ appointment must, and disaster may, ensue. It has been said that Lincoln was fortunate in his death. Was it not even so with Gordon ? His chivalrous nature, his idealistic life, and his soul that knew not fear, stand out against the horizon of a work-a-day world, a monument of living light to warm, to quicken our better nature; and to fill our THE RIDE TO KHARTOUM. 9 1 ledger-keeping, dividend-expecting existence with yearnings for a life more true than society—more substantial than political reputations. The ride to Khartoum, the heroic defence, the final disaster that filled our hearts with sorrow, are full of inspiration. But, humanly speaking, the scheme was unsound—the success improbable. Joseph Cowen at all events was consistent in his opposition to the Govern¬ ment policy in Egypt and the Soudan. Although Mr. Cowen was unable to support the general foreign policy of the Government, he was in perfect accord with Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues in the attitude taken against Russian encroachments on the Afghan border. He treated Russian representations with suspicion, and Russian pledges as the proverbial pie-crust—made to be broken. He endorsed the firm but dignified stand takenj by Mr. Gladstone after the Penjdeh incident, and throughout the controversy. Mr. Cowen strongly felt that “ Halt ! should have been ordered before Russian bayonets began to glisten on the banks of the Kushk; but he also felt that, in the circumstances existing in the spring of 1885, the policy of the Administration should be—first to push forward the means of communication with Candahar, and, second, to strengthen Herat, so as to enable the garrison to hold out against a possible enemy until reinforcements could come to their relief. On the opening day of the session of 1884, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, President of the Board of Trade, gave notice of a Bill to provide for the greater security of life and pro¬ perty at sea. The object of the measure was one upon which all good men were agreed. But the provisions of the Bill whereby the Board of Trade sought to accomplish that object met with the unanimous opposition of British shipowners. They denied the allegations that over-insurance was common, and maintained that a fair indemnity, based on the value at date, had been, and continued to be, the ruling principle 92 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO IVEN, M.P. of insurance ; they contended that the question of over¬ loading should be set at rest by the Load Line Committee, then pursuing their investigations with a view to the adop¬ tion of rules applicable to all ships, trades, and seasons; and the} r protested against the extension of the Employers’ Liability Act to shipowners, whereby they would become liable for the acts of agents and servants beyond their control holding Board of Trade certificates. They main¬ tained, moreover, that clauses should be incorporated in the Bill for the proper safety of deck openings of vessels, for providing collision bulkheads of proper strength, to en¬ courage shelter spaces for the comfort and convenience of seamen, to ensure crews joining their ships in a sober and healthy condition, and to have the maximum dead-weight capacity of each vessel declared upon her register. Mr. Charles Mark Palmer, the member for North Durham, had given notice of a motion to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in order that the shipowners might have an opportunity to answer the charges brought against them, and Mr. Cowen undertook to support the motion on the ground that the shipowners had a right to be heard, “ and ought to be afforded an opportunity of replying to the ter¬ rible accusations that had been made against them.” Ugly sentences had been used on both sides, and angry feelings were entertained. The proposal of Mr. Palmer, to have the Bill referred to a Select Committee, supported by Mr. Cowen, was endorsed by the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom and by kindred associations throughout the country. Many of the Liberal Associations, on the other hand, supported the position taken by the President of the Board of Trade. The condition of the struggle was changed when the Government decided, not to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, but to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the extent and causes of the loss of ships and lives at sea since the report of the Commission on unsea- MR. CO IVEN AND THE SHIPOWNERS. 93 worthy ships, and to recommend remedies against such losses, “ having special but not exclusive regard to the fol¬ lowing subjects: the laws concerning marine insurance and the liability of shipowners; the functions and adminis¬ tration of the marine department of the Board of Trade ; the functions of the courts before whom the wreck inquiries were conducted ; the condition and efficiency of merchant officers and seamen, and the best means of improving the same.” The constitution of the Royal Commission was not, however, satisfactory to the shipowners, and on the ist of November Mr. Cowen gave notice in the House of Com¬ mons of an amendment to the Address in these words : “ But humbly to express to Her Majesty our regret that the con¬ stitution of the Commission to inquire into the state of merchant shipping recently issued by Her Majesty under the recommendation of the Board of Trade, is not satisfac¬ tory.” A four-line whip was issued by the Government against the amendment, while the shipowners exerted themselves vigorously in its favour, and, to quote from the Daily News —“ Not since the day when the Irish Sunday Closing Bill was before the House have so many telegrams reached the House of Commons as on Monday, November 3rd.” Mr. Cowen himself, the author of the motion, received from shipowners and others no less than 75 telegrams before six o’clock in the afternoon. Finally, the Government gave way by the admission of the nominees of the Shipowners’ Associations from Liverpool, the Clyde, and from the North-East Coast upon the Commission. Amotion, moved by Mr. Glover, of London, and seconded by Mr. J. I). Milburn, of Newcastle, was unanimously passed, by the Chamber of Shipping, accepting the proposed compromise : the hearty thanks of the meeting were accorded to Mr. Cowen and others [for the important services they had ren¬ dered to the shipping interests of the country. Similar 94 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. complimentary resolutions were adopted by the various associations of the country. Mr. Cowen, on the occasion of his annual address to the electors of Newcastle on the 14th of February, 1885, was questioned regarding his action on behalf of the shipowners, as follows : “ Were you the person who moved the rejection of the Shipping Bill ? ” He replied in these words : “The Shipping Bill was withdrawn by the Government. I exerted myself to prevent the packing of the Shipping Commission, and I am glad to say the effort succeeded.” There is no class of men more anxious to promote the excellent object which Mr. Chamberlain had in view— namely, to provide for the greater security of life and pro¬ perty at sea—than British shipowners. The only difference between the ex-President of the Board of Trade and those for whom he sought to legislate arose out of the means employed to secure the end. It would be unjust to impugn the motives of either the Board of Trade or British ship¬ owners. It would be outrageous even to insinuate that any considerable number of any class of Englishmen could be indifferent to the loss of the lives of their countrymen. Few men have struggled longer and have accomplished more in the cause of humanity than Joseph Cowen: and if he exerted himself to defeat the Board of Trade measure, he did so, not because he failed in sympathy with the objects which Mr. Chamberlain had at heart, but because he dis¬ believed in the means by which it was sought to give them effect. MR. COIVEN AS A WORKER. 95 CHAPTER X. MR. COWEN AS A WORKER—HIS SERVICES ON BEHALF OF MECHANICS’ INSTITUTES AND CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES—GROWTH OF THESE SOCIETIES IN THE NORTH OF ENGLAND—MR. COWEN’S SPEECHES OUT OF PARLIAMENT—EX-PRESIDENT GRANT FliTED AT NEW¬ CASTLE—MR. COWEN’S SPEECH AT THE BANQUET—THE GENERAL’S IMPRESSION —INTERNATIONAL PEACE — ENGLAND AND AMERICA —MR. COWEN AND HIS IRISH CONSTITUENTS—HIS PROGRAMME OF REFORMS FOR IRELAND STATED FIVE YEARS AGO—HIS ADDRESS ON ORATORY—HIS ADVICE TO THE LIBERATION SOCIETY—HIS ANNUAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC QUESTIONS BEFORE HIS CONSTITUENTS —HIS REMARKABLE READINESS AND VERSATILITY IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS — HIS OPINION OF THE CHANNEL TUNNEL — HIS DEFINITION OF THE TERM “ GERRYMANDERING.” HE good work of every community is performed by X the thoughtful few who take a proper view of individual responsibility and duty. If you would establish a charity or promote a scheme of education, you must seek assistance from the overworked and not from men of leisure. They rarely have time for aught save the gossip of society and the sports in season. Mr. Cowen has been a worker from boy¬ hood. When he returned to Tyneside at the close of his collegiate career, he found time, apart from the large business transactions of his firm, not only for immense labour in con¬ nection with home and foreign politics, but for earnest and effective work in promoting popular education and improving the general well-being of the masses around him. Mechanics’ Institutes, as established by Dr. Birkbeck and those associated with him, though immensely popular at first, gradually lost their hold upon the people, owing to the severity of the lines upon which they were founded. News- 96 LIFE OF JOSEPH COWEN, M.P. papers and novels were excluded as either useless or dangerous. The institutes partook of the character of col¬ leges for working-men. They appealed only to the studious few. Mr. Cowen recognised the principle that the' faculty for study must be cultivated by gradual process under the most favourable circumstances possible. He determined to make the Blaydon Mechanics’ Institute attractive as well as instructive. He established weekly meetings during the winter months, introduced music and amusements to the proceedings, and varied the programme with short speeches or lectures delivered by himself and others; and by this means the Blaydon Society soon became the most popular in the North of England, if not, indeed, throughout the country. It subsequently served as a model for kindred institutions along the North-East Coast. The weekly entertainments, at once educational and edifying, were attended by large numbers, and looked forward to with pleasure. Mr. Cowen acted as secretary, and was, indeed, the animating spirit of the organisation. Subsequently, chiefly through his efforts, the Mechanics’ Institutes of the district were united into what is now known as the “Northern Union of Mechanics’ Institutions.’’ He served as secretary of the Union from 1859 to 1864, and presided at its Annual Conference, held at Blaydon, on September 17, 1884. During several winter sessions, Mr. Cowen, anticipating, as it were, the University Extension Scheme, delivered courses of lectures before the Blaydon Society. He chose social and educational topics. His addresses upon co-operation, which were well received, resulted in the establishment of one of the best co-operative societies in the country at Blaydon. The idea, though acted upon many years previously at Rochdale and elsewhere, was new on the Tyne and through¬ out the North of England, but it soon gained a safe footing. The benefits of co-operation were urged upon the working MR. CO WEN ON CO-OPERATION. 97 classes by Mr. Cowen in the most attractive form ; and the men were readily induced to trade with the stores upon find¬ ing that they received dividends at the end of each quarter in proportion to their purchases during that time. Speaking at Newcastle on April 18,1873, as chairman of the Co-opera¬ tive Congress, Mr. Cowen related an incident indicative of the attraction of these dividends. He said : “ I recollect well, just after the establishment of the store at Blaydon, going to a neighbouring village on a political mission, where, owing to the crowding round the door in which the meeting was to be held, I heard one of the working-men ask what it was all about, when the answer he received from one of his fellows was, ‘It’s about the new shop at Blaydon, which is the best thing going; for at the end of the last quarter it made its members a present of £5.’ ” This Blaydon store was the first of its kind in the North. It adopted the rules and methods of the well-known Rochdale Society, and it has been followed with undoubted advantage to the working classes in nearly every town and village in Northumberland and Durham. In many if not in most of the communities, the co-operators have large and well-supplied stores to meet the wants of buyers. They generally own their own build¬ ings, which include commodious halls for the purposes of public meetings, lectures, concerts, tea-meetings, and con¬ versazioni, chiefly promoted by and for the members of the Society and their families. Mr. Cowen’s Parliamentary duties, which keep him in London for the better part of each year, have rendered it impossible for him to do the same amount of work in extending the field of co-operation that he formerly did ; but his faith in the principle and his interest in the societies founded upon it are as strong as when, thirty years ago, co-operation was put to the test by the establish¬ ment of the now strong and flourishing Blaydon Society. But the public work of Mr. Cowen is not confined to his Parliamentary duties. Every recess heavy demands are 8 98 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. made upon his energies and oratorical powers for public occasions. Through long continued illness and enforced absence from home in search of health, Mr. Cowen was unable to respond to the many requisitions for his services during the first three years of his Parliamentary life. Sub¬ sequently, however, he has abundantly made up for lost time. His ex-Parliamentary speeches are ever valuable and numerous, dealing with the greatest variety of subjects— political, social, and economic; industrial, literary, and scientific. Though he often speaks twice or thrice in a single day, each address bears significant evidence of culture, skill, and industry. Whether the occasion is the annual dinner of a society of clerks, or the banquet to America’s great ex-President; the opening of a College of Physical Science, or the presentation of prizes at a public school, he elevates every occasion to the same level by the dignity and excellence of his speech. When the late General Grant visited Newcastle in the autumn of 1877, he was entertained at a banquet in the Assembly Rooms, and Mr. Cowen spoke on the occasion. The American soldier had no ear for music; indeed, he told the writer that he only recognised “ Yankee-Doodle ” through the cheering which followed it. Nor had melody and beauty of speech much charm for him ; and when the Tyneside orator began his address he sat in¬ different, and seemed engrossed by his own thoughts. Gradually, however, as the speaker, with remarkable ac¬ curacy and great feeling, referred to the modesty and magna¬ nimity displayed by Grant towards his great lieutenant— Sherman—during the closing days of the War for the Union, and to his chivalrous treatment of the vanquished captain cf the Southern forces, his eyes rested on the orator while he listened with interest and surprise. Mr. Cowen next dealt with a subject ever foremost in the heart of Grant—International Peace, and that too in its most sacred GENERAL GRANT IN NEWCASTLE. 99 relationship. Referring to England and America he said:— “ Our common interests are peace. We are streams from the same fountain, branches of the same tree. We spring from the same race, speak the same language, are moved by the same prejudices, animated by the same hopes. We sing the same songs, cherish the same political principles, and we are imbued with the conviction that we have a common destiny to fulfil amongst the children of men.” And as the speaker proceeded in one continuous stream of noble thoughts and language of beauty, the man who captured his hundreds of thousands in arms sat spell-bound and conquered by the power of true genius in oratory, the like of which he had rarely if ever listened to before. On the 13th of September, 1880, Mr. Cowen opened the Public Library of Newcastle in a brief but appropriate address. On the 30th of the same month he unveiled a monument erected to the memory of Charles Larkin, a fearless political leader and orator of his time, already mentioned in the early pages of this volume. On the 27th of October, 1880, Mr. Cowen was presented with an address, couched in grateful terms, for his political services to the Sister Isle, by the Irish residents of Newcastle ; and in reply he indicated a policy for the government of Ireland which may be summed up in one sentence :—Peasant proprietorship through Government aid, and Home Rule for purely Irish affairs. Public opinion is fast advancing upon the position held by Mr. Cowen five years ago : his programme is now clearly within the range of practical politics. Even the Conservative leader, Lord Salisbury, dallies with it. In the autumn of 1882 he delivered an address on Public Speaking, showing a thorough acquaintance with the great orators of the world, their style, methods, and peculiarities, before the Working Men’s Club, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. During the following spring Mr. Cowen presided at a meeting of the Liberation Society, and urged the members to IOO LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. follow the example of Wilberforce during his crusade against slavery, of Cobden while agitating for Free Trade, and of Milner Gibson in his advocacy of a free press, by turning a deaf ear to party arguments in favour of expediency, and going forward with their question in Parliament vigorously, independently, and uncompromisingly. The friends of temperance, education, and social reform, and the promoters of the humane treatment of the lower animals, have ever found Mr. Cowen ready and willing to assist them in their good work to the extent of all the time at his command. Every winter since he entered the House of Commons, excepting when prevented through illness, Mr. Cowen has appeared once or twice before his constituents, in the largest available hall in Newcastle, to give an account of his stewardship. Upon these occasions he reviews the great questions which have occupied the attention of Parlia¬ ment and the country during the immediate past session, and gives the reasons which guided his action in relation to them. The halls are always overcrowded; overflow meetings, addressed by the leading supporters of Mr. Cowen, have become the rule rather than the exception ; and votes of confidence in the senior member have in¬ variably been passed. At the close of each oration a perfect shower of papers containing questions are sent up to the Chairman to be answered by the representative, and if evidence were wanting of Mr. Cowen’s versatility and readi¬ ness of speech, it could be abundantly supplied from his ready replies. It is worth while quoting one or two of these questions and answers in illustration. A member of the audience once asked:—“ What is Mr. Cowen’s 'opinion of the Channel Tunnel ? ” “ My opinion of the Channel Tunnel,” said Mr. Cowen, “ is not worth much. My friend Col. Beaumont says it can be made, and Sir Edward Watkin—one of the cleverest and most MR. CO WEN AND THE CHANNEL TUNNEL. IOI far-seeing men I have met with in my journey through life—says it will pay when it is made. As the one pledges his professional reputation, and the other pledges his cash, and as neither want any money from the State, I see no reason why they should be prevented making the experiment. I have been down the tunnel. The mouth is to be two miles from the sea, and there is to be an apparatus by which a man with a few minutes’ notice could block the exit. It is not conceivable that a hostile army could gather at the other side of the tunnel without long notice ; but if such a surprise svere possible the protection referred to would be sufficient to prevent our suffering from it. The Duke of Cambridge, General Wolseley, and other military men are opposed to the tunnel. Their opinions are entitled to every respect ; but experts are often wrong. One eminent engineer said that the Suez Canal could not be made ; another that the Pacific railway was an impossibility. Sir Humphrey Davy said that London could never be lighted with gas. History, indeed, is studded with the record of instances where experts have been in error; and our military men may be wrong about the tunnel. The danger appears to me to be trifling, and the benefit from its construction likely to be so great, that if the scheme come before the House of Commons for decision I shall vote in favour of it.” Another question asked Mr. Cowen arose in consequence of his having used the word “gerrymandering” in his speech, and it was as follows:—“ What do you mean by gerrymandering ? Here is the answer. “ It is an Americanism. It means political dodging. Its origin ex¬ plains its object. And as there may be a great deal of ‘ gerrymandering ’ shortly, perhaps it may be useful to make its purpose plain. This is how it originated. In the State of Massachusetts seventy or eighty years ago a great •conflict was waged—indeed it was common to all America— between the States-rights men and the Federalists. The 102 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Governor of Massachusetts, Mr. Elbridge Gerry, was anxious that his party (the Federalists) should win, and he manipulated the State in a most fantastic manner for that purpose. His manipulation maybe understood by saying it would resemble a re-division of Newcastle, by which Jesmond was allied with Westgate, and Elswick with East All-Saints. By Mr. Gerry’s electoral legerdemain, he succeeded in altogether altering the position and strength of the two parties in the State. They really about balanced each other, but by his plan the Government and his party in the Chamber suc¬ ceeded in getting the Federalists thirty-nine members and leaving their opponents only nine. An officious States-rights man went into the office of a Boston newspaper, whose managers had prepared a map, showing how the new division appeared. This gentleman was something of an artist, and he took his pencil and added a few marks at the top and the bottom, saying to the editor when done: ‘There is a magnificent salamander for you ’—a creature half-toad and half-lizard. But the editor replied, ‘ No, don’t call it a salamander; call it a Gerrymander.’ The Americans have a great liking for odd expressive words, and this one ‘ took.’ It passed at once into current conversation, and has always since been used to describe the illegitimate manipulating of constituencies.” CHAPTER XI. JOSEPH COWEN AS AN ORATOR. T HAT was a happy idea of the Druids to attribute to Hercules oratorical rather than physical strength. They pictured him, not as a man who in childhood strangled serpents, and tore asunder the lion’s jaws in maturity, but as a small personage of frail physique, drawing multitudes after him by chains extending from his silver tongue. Cer¬ tainly men of small stature have contributed their quota to the ranks of orators and reformers. Grattan’s body was “ a frail tenement for a spirit so eminently aspiring.” Russell was of small physique ; Douglas a little giant; Louis Blanc a diminutive personage; and Joseph Cowen is below the medium height. His serious face is soft and pale. His brow is lofty, his eyes luminous, with a dash of sadness in their gaze. He walks with a bending gait and a swing¬ ing stride, oblivious of surroundings. But his dreams a-foot are often disturbed by the tales of the borrower. Like Horace Greeley’s, his kindly, credulous nature has suffered from imposition upon his funds, if not indeed upon his facts. He has parted with many a five-pound note over the hun¬ dred yards which separate the Chronicle office from the Central Station at Newcastle. In the matter of attire he is careless as Burke, with this difference: while the clothes of the member for Bristol were too small, those of the member for Newcastle are too large—and uniformly black. Neither his clothes nor his convictions are fashioned 104 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO IVEN, M.P. in the West End. In the House of Commons, as on the banks of the Tyne, he wears the soft hat once distinguished by the name of “ Kossuth.” It is more comfortable than the hard casement of fashion, and Mr. Cowen can afford to consult his own pleasure regardless of usages. When a friend once remarked to that sterling man, Thomas Burt, the member for Morpeth, that he had forsaken the familiar soft hat upon his entrance to Parliament, he replied, “Yes; I have given way to established custom at a sacrifice of comfort. Mr. Cowen’s standing and fame entitle him to do as he likes; for me to do so in this matter would be accounted affectation.” Such was the language of a working¬ man representative. Was ever finer taste, greater delicacy of touch, displayed under the coronet ? Mr. Cowen’s best speeches—the finished oration he gives to his constituents every year—are composed in his library at Stella. The room is a large, lofty oblong, abundantly supplied with books, and decorated with portraits and busts of Cromwell and Milton, Mazzini, Garibaldi, and Lincoln, and the demi-gods who have lived to some purpose. Here, seated in his arm-chair, or pacing to and fro, his wonderful political essays are composed. Cicero’s concise statement of the orator’s duty remains unexcelled. “Quod dicat, et quo loco, et quo modo.” The speaker should well consider what he is to say, and in what order, and how he is to say it. Mr. Cowen’s whole life constitutes a training for the discussion of public questions. He has been a politician from childhood, and has kept abreast of home and foreign politics ever since. His store of information is supplemented from every available historical and contemporaneous source. Thorough knowledge of the subject, the most essential qualification of the orator, is assured when Mr. Cowen essays to speak. The material and its arrangement decided upon, then begins the thinking, coining, and refining, whereby the remarkable success is attained. Every fact is verified, MR. CO WEN AS AN ORATOR. 105 every policy examined; nothing is taken for granted or retailed at second-hand. After the subject-matter has been pondered over and digested for weeks, and passages of special import condensed, refined, and reduced to writing, then the speech as a whole is evolved to a stenographer before it is addressed to the audience. And here is an extraordinary fact: Although the delivery of the speech may not with accuracy be described as an effort of memory; yet still, so carefully has the material been arranged, the arguments developed, and the language chosen, that the whole, occupy¬ ing, perhaps, an hour and a half in delivery, reasserts itself with unerring fidelity. The speech delivered is ever identical with the speech dictated. There is no superfluous language; sentences are turned into epigrams, and the final product is not only a lesson and a lecture in politics, but a contribution to the literature of our language. The vocabulary is exten¬ sive : it is perhaps the most extensive wielded from the political platform of our time. The thoughts are clothed and the sentences finished in matchless beauty. Excessive alliteration is a fault. Recognising the principle of associa¬ tion in memory, the writer of these pages asked Mr. Cowen if he adopted alliteration as an aid to memory. “ That thing! ” he replied; “ no, I do not adopt it; it flows in upon me. It is my abomination.” This blemish, however, does not present itself in many of his speeches, and, judged by the highest standard, Mr. Cowen’s political orations, annually delivered at Newcastle, are nearly perfect in order, style, and language. They are certainly by far the ablest contribu¬ tions made from the platform to the political literature of the present day. The division which exists among Tyneside Liberals is un¬ fortunate from a party point of view. It is for the most part unnecessary. It partakes more of the character of political and personal estrangement than political and personal difference and dislike. But it has served one io6 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. admirable purpose. When Mr. Cowen found himself at variance with old friends and political associates upon lead¬ ing questions of the day, he felt the necessity of having his own views and reasons clearly set forth and unmistakably understood ; and to this estrangement between the senior member and many of his old supporters are we in part in¬ debted for the excellence of these political essays. Mr. Beecher says somewhere that true oratory goes before; that the orator follows up, and often wonders why he so expressed himself. The pastor of Plymouth Church is a high authority upon all that appertains to rhetoric and oratory. His hypothesis may be a correct one, and doubtless is, when applied to single passages of great force, to beauti¬ ful images, and to illustrations; but we must reject it as inapplicable and impossible in sustained efforts. We know that all the great orators, from Demosthenes to Castelar, have always carefully prepared their harangues in material, in order, and in language, before appearing in the tribune. The speech of Grattan, which won the early applause of Pitt in the House of Commons, had been spoken to bare walls and in the open fields. Webster’s apostrophe to the American Union had been forged in the furnace of the soul before it rivetted the minds and drew forth the tears of men and women in the Senate. Even that immortal image of Bright’s—“ The angel of death has been abroad throughout the land; you may almost hear the beating of his wings ”— did not flit across the speaker’s vision for the first time when he held Parliament spell-bound by his protest against war. Speeches equal in excellence to those of Mr. Cowen, in arrangement, style, and beauty, are simply impossible without the time, the industry, and the infinite pains devoted to them. There is a vulgar but fortunately fast disappearing prejudice against prepared speeches. We are often told with a sneer that speeches of great merit smell of the midnight oil. Ought we not rather to admire the man who so respects our MR. COWEN AS AN ORATOR. 107 intelligence that he takes time and trouble to prepare the address intended for us ? To have spent years upon a picture, a book, or a figure in marble, stands to the credit of artist or author. The time, trouble, and devotion given to the work is an earnest of excellence, and a recommendation where intelligence and authority sit in judgment. The same principle should be applied ho the products of the orator, which embody both literature and art. The man who honours his audience by presenting them with the richest and best that his mental harvest can afford will certainly merit, and shall as certainly receive, their confidence and regard. The shallow remarks and silly sneers about the midnight oil formerly heard in connection with Mr. Cowen’s speeches have been deluged long since by the waves of applause which greet and follow the orator. When Mr. Cowen appears before the overflowing audiences which ever welcome him, he generally looks pale and wan. During several minutes his voice is at first somewhat weak and cloudy; but, as he proceeds, physical strength and vigour return, and the timbre and volume of his voice improve and increase until he can fill the hall and be dis¬ tinctly heard in every corner and at every angle of the largest buildings in Newcastle. He obeys the injunction of Demosthenes by continuous action—action while stating his case, action in the discussion of it, and action when making his appeal. In this regard temperament controls the orator. Webster was statutesque and grand ; Chatham was graceful but animated ; Mirabeau laboured and thundered ; Grattan was almost grotesque in excessive action of body and limbs. In many respects, but in modified degree, Cowen resembles the great Irish orator; and even in composition the parallel holds good. Grattan’s speeches on Repeal, the Catholic Question, and the downfall of Bonaparte bear great resem¬ blance to some of the speeches of the Tyneside member. Both are remarkable for epigram and antithesis, for grandeur 108 LIFE OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. ' of imageiy, for highly wrought metaphors, seething vehe¬ mence, and richness of language. Mr. Cowen presents his case with extended hand, argues with pointed finger, and declaims with his whole body. His forefinger often rests upon the temple, preparatory to a flight through the air. He pulls upon his coat-collar vigorously with both hands, then shoots them into his coat pockets, shakes his fists at the audience, swings to and fro, works with every fibre of his frame, and by his extraordinary earnestness of face and voice, and the animation of the whole person, he takes the heart of the audience captive, and wins the plaudits of those who differ from him. The critic might object to the faulty pro¬ nunciation, which amounts at first to a Northumbrian “burr.” Mr. Cowen is “ racy of the soil ”—a quotation he somewhat favours ; but the provincialism passes almost entirely away as the orator proceeds and warms to his work. In thought and action he is original and independent; his politics and his elo¬ quence are his own ; his individuality is intense. He has not the impressive presence and richness of voice of the greatest living debater—Gladstone ; he has not the quiet power, the finished gesture, and the silvery cadences of the incomparable political orator—John Bright; nor has he the trenchant wit and elaborated sarcasm of Disraeli; but in sustained excellence of composition, richness of language, and intensity of earnest¬ ness, he is superior to each of the great triumvirate—supe¬ rior to any contemporary political orator of our language. And this intensity is a magical possession. Knowledge, however extensive; genius, however dazzling, and the voice of witchery and incantation are unavailing without it. It has characterised the men of history, the benefactors of our kind, throughout the realms of time. It was the source of power to Jefferson and Adams for Independence ; to Chatham and Burke for the right of representation ; to O'Connell and Grattan for religious equality; to Phillips and Sumner for human liberty ; to Cobden and Bright for free trade; and, MR. CO WEN AS AN ORATOR. 109 attended with rich resources and tireless industry, this earnestness for the rights of humanity everywhere, and for absolute equality before the law, has won for Joseph Cowen the gratitude of the enfranchised, the homage of freed- men, and a place among the great orators of his time and country. SPEECHES OF JOSEPH COWEN, M.P. I. Speeches Political, out of Parliament. II. „ in Parliament. III. „ on General Subjects. I. POLITICAL SPEECHES OUT OF PARLIAMENT. i. TORIES AND LIBERALS—A CONTRAST. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, January 27, 1877. I T is three years since I last addressed a public meeting on general politics in Newcastle. The elections had just commenced, and we were congratulating ourselves on the anticipated triumph of the Liberal cause. The returns from half a dozen constituencies had reached us. They recorded the election of Liberal candidates. We thought they presaged success. In a few days, however, that dream was dissipated. The Liberals were not only beaten but routed. They had never, in modern times, received such a crushing discomfiture. We were all sur¬ prised in this district, and had reason to be so. We knew there was no reaction here, and we thought there was none in other districts. But we were mistaken. The Liberal vote cast in the North of England in 1874 was heavier than it had ever been before. Not only a larger number of people voted, but, relatively, the number who polled in favour of Liberal candidates was greater than it had been at any previous election. The Liberals lost one seat in Northumberland, but they won three in Durham. That number has been slightly altered by subsequent proceedings, but still, to-day, the Liberals send one more member to the House of Commons from these two counties than they did in the halcyon days of Gladstonian ascendency. Not only are we numerically stronger, but the opinions of the seventeen northern Liberal members are more advanced, and the opinions of the Conservative members are more Liberal, than are the opinions of any similar group of English representatives. I do not profess to explain how this excess of Liberal sentiment is created. It may be the product of superior intelligence, or it may be attributable to the bracing north-east wind, which blows so bitterly over the rock-bound coast of Northumberland. Mr. Kingsley contended that the wind from 9 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 114 that quarter not only stimulated a man’s nerves, but nerved his mind. But whatever may be the cause, whether it is mental, moral, or atmo¬ spheric, the fact remains that Northumberland and Durham are politically the most Liberal counties in England. The wave of reaction which washed over the whole of this kingdom scarcely cast its spray upon the country lying between the Tees and the Tweed. We have now had a Conservative Government for three years. They have had an opportunity of developing their policy, and of making their principles plain before mankind. Judge them not by their professions, but by their performances. There are advantages in having occasional changes of Government. It is not desirable that our rulers should always be selected from one class of politicians. If our Ministers were always Whigs, they would in time become indolent and possibly corrupt, while the Opposition would become dispirited and indifferent. We can only have an effective Administration when we have a vigilant Opposition. Such an Opposition prevents the Government lapsing into excesses, and it keeps alive public spirit. The Liberals have been in office more than two- thirds of the time since the passing of the first Reform Bill, and they will get their backs straightened and their knees strengthened by a spell on the other side. The members of the present Government are as disinterested and as anxious to labour for the welfare of their country as were their predecessors. There were men in the late Government of more force of character than there are in the present. There is no man in the present Ministry who has had the varied official experience, or who has such an unrivalled faculty of exposition, as Mr. Gladstone. There is no one who has the logical incisiveness of Mr. Lowe, or the oratorical gifts of Mr. Bright. But apart from these exceptions, the members of the present Administration are the equals of their predecessors. And one advantage that they have over them is that they work better together. They are diligent, painstaking, and courteous. In this respect, they surpass their predecessors, who were at times bumptious, if not arrogant. Their haughtiness made much against their popularity. But let this pass. Apart from their better manners, what have our present Ministers done ? What did the last do in the first three years of their official life ? They severed the connection between the State and an alien Church in Ireland—a Church whose existence for centuries had been a source of continual rancour. They gave the Irish peasant power to obtain from absentee and exacting landlords compensation for the capital which he had expended on his holding. They laid the foundation of a system of national education. They decreased the opportunities for drinking, and thus strove to increase national sobriety. For the first time in the history of this country, they extended the protection of the law to voluntary associations of artisans and labourers. They settled an angry dispute between ourselves and our kinsmen across the Atlantic. They opened TORIES AND LITERALS—A CONTRAST. 115 the way to the promotion of merit in the army. They received from their predecessors a deficit of ,£2,300,000, and they converted it in less than twelve months into a surplus. During their term of office they spent twenty millions for exceptional purposes — the Abyssinia and Ashantee Wars, the Alabama Claims, the purchase of officers’ commis¬ sions, and defensive preparations for Belgium. At the same time, they relieved the trade of the country from taxation to the extent of £13,500,000, reduced the National Debt by ,£38,000,000, and handed over to their successors a surplus of upwards of ,£5,000,000. The reforms they effected went straight down to the foundations of the State, and they will influence beneficially our national life for generations to come. We are too near the scene of the conflict and the din of the battle to appraise their worth. But when the prejudices and passions of the hour have passed away, when the vanities and irritations of the day have cleared off, when the record comes to be submitted to the impartial judgment of history, then, but not till then, will the work of the Parlia¬ ment of 1868 be appreciated. Look on that picture and on this. What have the present Government done ? They have given the Oueen an additional title, and within the last few weeks it has been proclaimed throughout India, amidst the booming of cannon, the beating of drums, the marching of many ele¬ phants, and the fluttering of much bunting. The creation of the title was a blunder; and its proclamation, under the circumstances of the hour, is little short of a mockery. What is the condition of India at the present time? One of her great provinces has been visited by a terrible calamity. A cyclone has recently swept over eight hundred square miles of terri¬ tory. A wave, twenty feet deep, has carried at one fell swoop upwards of 250,000 people to their graves. One hundred and fifty thousand more have been rendered homeless and destitute. Our hearts were moved, our feelings were excited, when half a dozen ships were wrecked at the mouth of the Tyne and thirty gallant fellows were lost. But what would we have thought if the entire population of the county of Northumber¬ land had been carried into the sea ? Yet such a catastrophe has occurred in Bengal. In Madras and Bombay famine is prevalent over an area of something like 34,000 square miles, affecting a population of upwards of 8,000,000 of people. There are there thousands of our fellow-subjects suffering from want of the bare necessaries of life. Yet, in the midst of this desolation and misery, we threw away the people’s treasure on idle pomp and empty show. We may learn how much the Indian Govern¬ ment have expended on these gimcracks and gewgaws, but we shall never know how much has been wrung from the hard earnings of Indian peasants by the native princes who took part in the raree-show. The Government have made a brace of bishops ; they have increased the daily hours for drinking by thirty minutes ; they have lowered the educa- 116 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. tional standard ; and they hav'e abstracted a certain measure of national funds to help Church schools. Their Judicature Act is Lord Selborne’s Bill emasculated. Their Commons Act is Mr. George Lefevre’s Bill watered down. Their Shipping Act is the Bill of the late Government elongated. They passed a measure for securing compensation for unex¬ hausted improvements to farmers, but they deprive it of all its merit by enabling landlords to schedule themselves free from its operation. There are three measures which the Government have passed which are deserving of commendation. The Friendly Societies Act will benefit these useful institutions. It is not a complete measure, but it will form a good basis for future legislation. The Artisans’ Dwellings Act is a valu¬ able contribution to sanitary legislation. Its drawback is that it is limited in its operation. By the Labour Laws Act the Government have put the artisans on a legal level with their employers. For Scotland they have passed during the three years only one general Act, and that is of a somewhat unique character. By it the Church of Scotland has been practically disestablished, but not disendowed. Ireland has got her usual supply of coercion, and nothing more. Contrast the work of the first three years of the present Government with the work of the first three years of the last one, and what Liberal can hesitate as to his verdict ? The Conservatives got into office through the disaffection of harassed inte¬ rests. Foremost among these interests was that of the licensed victuallers. The principle of that trade, as I fear of others, is self-interest. They help those that help them, and oppose those who oppose them. This may be selfish, but it is natural. The victuallers are possessors of a valuable mono¬ poly, and the Tories have always been the upholders of monopolies. They opposed the abolition of slavery in the interest of the West Indian planters ; they opposed the repeal of the Corn-Laws in the interest of the land- owners ; and they oppose further change in the licensing laws in the interest of the publicans. In doing this, they are but consistent. The other class which interested themselves most strongly for the Conservatives were the clergy. They, too, are monopolists. They fought for their craft as the publicans fought for their trade. The Tories, too, are their best friends. There is only one way of dealing with such monopolists, and that is to fight them. There is only one way of beating them, and that is by preferring national to class interests. The third adherents of the Government are the farmers. They have always been consistently Conservatives. But why I cannot well see. What was their position ? Rates are rising, and other imposts have increased, and are increasing, until local taxation has become a serious item in the annual outgoings of all agriculturists. Rents, too, are advancing. Whenever there is a piece of land to be sold, some retired tradesman or successful manufacturer or merchant buys it up. They often pay a fancy price. They do not want to live by it, but pur¬ chase it for pleasure. The effect of this is to raise the price and increase TORIES AND LIBERALS—A CONTRAST. JI7 the rent of land. Wages also have risen. On the other hand, the value of the farming produce is decreasing. When the price of corn reaches a certain level in this country, grain is brought, not only from the valleys of the Danube and the Loire, but from the rich prairie land of America. We get our food supplies now, not merely from Riga, Odessa, and Rouen, but from Chicago, Chili, and California as well. The pastures of Hol¬ stein, Holland, and Brittany send us live-stock ; and New Zealand, Australia, and America are exporting to us flesh meat either fresh or preserved. The farmer is thus placed between two hostile influences. His expenditure is increasing, while the price of his produce is decreasing. What has he to gain from the Tories ? What services have they rendered him? They have given him subsidies, but the major portion of them have gone in relief of the landowners, and not of the tenants. The success¬ ful merchants and tradesmen who have made money sufficient to enable them to live in the suburbs and run a gig of their own are anti-Liberal- Yet, this class is the creation of Liberal legislation. If it had not beea for the Liberals, they could not have existed—commercially I mean. The trade of this country has developed enormously within the last forty years. At the time of passing the Reform Bill, our exports did not reach ^36,000,000 ; at present they are valued at ,£301,000,000. They have increased during that period eight times. Our imports forty years ago- reached £27 ,000,000 ; they now amount to ,£225,000,000. They have- increased eight and a half times. What has led to this larger trade? Liberal legislation. Taxes have been taken off more than 3,000 different articles. Commerce has thereby been re-invigorated and enterprise de¬ veloped. England has become a depot for the whole world. Along with these fiscal changes we have removed ecclesiastical, political, and civil disabilities. That has brought political contentment, which is the in¬ evitable forerunner and handmaiden of successful commerce. Yet the class that has benefited so much from Liberal legislation turned on and spurned the men that have served them. There is, indeed, no grati¬ tude in politics. And what have they got by their defection ? Have they got better trade ? During the time of Mr. Gladstone's Administration there were two or three bad harvests, and it was a common thing for clergymen to tell their flocks that these bad harvests were a visitation for the sin and sacrilege of disestablishing the Irish Church. We are not so foolish as our clerical critics. We do not say that the Tories have brought bad trade, but certainly bad trade came with their advent to office. The income-tax presses heavily on tradesmen. They never tire of denouncing its in¬ quisitorial character. When the Liberals entered office it was sixpence in the pound. They reduced it to threepence, and if Mr. Gladstone had continued in power he would have abolished it. A cry was raised against the Liberals for reducing the wages, and needlessly dismissing dockyard SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, ALP. 118 labourers. But the dockyard employes have not received a farthing advance from the present Government, and the dismissed men have not been re-engaged. The Liberals, we were told, blundered about the Cap¬ tain and the Mcgcera. But have the present Government not lost the Vanguard, and nearly destroyed the Thunderer ? But enough for the past. What about the future ? They told us we were not to have showy, but “ suet-pudding legislation.” This is not an elegant, but it is a suggestive title. Suet-pudding is an indigestible com¬ pound, and I believe some of the promised legislation will not easily assimilate itself to the national tastes and wants. If you scrutinise the policy of the Government, you will detect in it a resemblance to the well-meant, if now all but forgotten, theories and designs of the “ Young Englanders.” Mr. Disraeli and Lord John Manners were moving spirits in that historic organization. They argued that the people were in¬ fluenced more by manners than by laws, more by customs than by Acts of Parliament. That was the essence of their doctrine. Mr. Disraeli has restated it in his novels and his speeches in every variety and form of language. It was the leading idea in his first address to the electors of Wycombe, in 1832, and in his appeal to the country in 1874. It is an old doctrine. Two centuries ago the Scotch Radical, Andrew Fletcher, of Saltoun, gave expression to the same thought when he said, “If you let me make the ballads, I care not who makes the laws of the nation.” Mr. Robert Owen had the same theory in his mind when he preached that customs and circumstances, and not legislation, formed men’s characters. Within limits, the doctrine is true. But while customs often make the law, law sometimes makes the custom. Take duelling as an illustration. It was common formerly for men in wrath to go out and shoot at each other. A law was made against it, and the practice has ceased. If the law were repealed to-morrow, duelling would not be resumed. The existence of the law has abrogated the idea that sus¬ tained the custom. But to the belief of the Prime Minister that men are influenced by manners as largely as by legislation, we may not unfairly ascribe his predilection for permissive legislation. Legislation of that character for certain purposes, and under certain circumstances, may be desirable. It is right that the inhabitants of certain districts should be permitted to say how many taverns they want. It is right, too, for them to be allowed to say whether or not they will have a free library. But it is not right to give an exacting landlord leave to say whether he will pay his departing tenant the value of the unexhausted improvements he has made in his farm. The law in such cases should be compulsory and not voluntary. The cardinal points in Mr. Disraeli’s political charter are these : Sympathy for the poor, regard for the aristocracy, reliance on the Crown, and a desire for an Imperial policy. He has expounded them times out of number during his brilliant and remarkable career, but he TORIES AND LITERALS—A CONTRAST. 119 has never before had an opportunity of giving practical effect to them. He has been in office before, but not in power. Now lie is in office and in power as well, and he is striving to give legislative fulfilment to the ideas he has consistently preached for over half a century. His concep¬ tion of life is the castle, hall, or manor-house surrounded with a com¬ fortable and contented peasantry. He would clothe and feed the labourers well. He would erect May-poles for them to dance round, send baskets of alms round at Christmas, and give prizes to the best-dressed labourer at the autumn show. They would be expected, however, to kiss the hand that caressed them, and dutifully do the bidding of their masters and mistresses. This is all described in “Vivian Grey.” I own I have a liking for the Prime Minister. I honour him for the valiant way he has fought the battle of life, and I respect him for the manner he always speaks of and treats the poor. But I would like his bearing better if there were less of charity and more of independence in it. There is only one way of helping the people, and that is to teach them to help themselves. Mr. Disraeli has a great admiration for the aristocracy as an institution, but no special regard for aristocrats as men. He believes the order, with its roots far back in the legendary traditions of the country, is an essential element in English national life. But it is not to be wondered that he, a man of literary genius and artistic taste, should not care for the society of solemn mediocrities, although they might be “ acred up to the lips, and consolled up to the chin.” He has faith, too, in the throne. Few men have written so much and spoken so often in support of the royal prerogative. He censured the Whigs for lowering the English monarch to the level of a Venetian Doge. But on this head he is fighting against a rising wave. The drift of modern thought is in favour of popular power, and not of kingly authority. While there is no wish or intention to alter the Constitution, it is unwise for statesmen to bring the Crown needlessly into the arena of debate. In the Prime Minister’s action on the Eastern Question, and in his purchase of the shares in the Suez Canal, we get the key to his foreign policy. He is for maintaining the Empire, and upholding the honour and interest of England, at all hazards and at any cost. He would never have her to sink to the level of Holland or become a second Spain. These are the principles, and this is the policy of the Government. There is a difference between them and the prin¬ ciples and policy of their predecessors. The Liberals were energetic in home and permissive in foreign affairs. The Conservatives are vigorous abroad and permissive at home. It is for the people to pronounce their preference. 120 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. II. THE LIBERAL POSITION AND PROGRAMME. [Mr. Cowen presided at a Meeting of The National Reform Union, held in Manchester, December 19, 1877, and delivered the follow¬ ing address.] For full two-thirds of the time which has elapsed since the passing of the first Reform Bill the Liberals have ruled in this country. Four years ago they were in office, with a large following behind them. To the sur¬ prise of all, in February, 1874, in the short space of a week, a Liberal majority of nearly one hundred was converted into a minority of sixty. The position the Conservatives then conquered they still retain. All Ministries in process of time lose their hold upon the constituencies. The third session has usually been looked to as furnishing the turning-point in their career. The novelty of the new appointments has by that time worn off, and the leaders calculate on defeats and defections. The test¬ ing session for the present Government has come and gone, but they have suffered no apparent diminution in their popularity in the constitu¬ encies, or in their voting strength in Parliament. There have been one hundred elections since Lord Beaconsfield was called to the Premiership. Upwards of ninety new members have in that interval entered the House of Commons. Yet, the Tory majority is still unbroken. They have lost some seats and gained others. Perhaps, they have lost more than they have won. But, at the General Election, there were some doubtful Liberals returned who have since then gone openly over to the Conservatives ; and for the purposes of party warfare the Government to-day, in both Houses of the Legislature, are as strong as when they took office. Sanguine adherents have assured us from time to time that there has been, or was about to be, a Radical reaction. We will all welcome it when it comes, but after giving full force to every favourable symptom, I can see but faint signs of a change. We are still enveloped in the depressing fog of political stagnation. There are only transient and fitful rifts in the leaden. THE LIBERAL POSITION AND PROGRAMME. 121 clouds which hang so heavily overhead. The political outlook is almost as dispiriting as the commercial. There is no wisdom in ignoring the actual or real. Before the late Government had been four sessions in existence, the Tories had made a sensible diminution in their majority. The Liberals, in a like period, have made no proportionate impression upon the supporters of the present Administration. Parliament is the reflex of public opinion. When public opinion is once deliberately formed in this country on any subject, it can, and certainly does, take means to get itself expressed in the House of Commons. If there had been any strong desire in the electorate to reverse the verdict of 1874, we should have some better proof of it than the one hundred and twenty elections which have taken place show. I want to put the case against the Liberals as fully and as forcibly as I am able. It is only the weak and the vain who barricade themselves in a fools’ paradise, and crv up fictitious triumphs. Let us look squarely at the facts. Let us clearly recognise our position, and then manfully brace ourselves to breast it. What was the reason for the tremendous rout which befell the Liberals in 1874? What was its significance? What is the cause of the con¬ tinued apathy of the people ? These are all questions which thoughtful politicians ought to ask themselves, and honestly strive to answer. It was more the Liberal party than Liberal principles that was worsted. The electors, in unequivocal terms, expressed their want of confidence in Mr. Gladstone’s Administration, but they gave their new representatives no mandate to reverse the measures to which that Administration had given the force of law. Lord Beaconsfield and his colleagues have recognised and acted upon that popular desire. They have not seriously attempted to overturn the work of their predecessors. They have made changes in the machinery of the Education, the Army, and the Licensing Acts, but they have not proposed to assail the principles on which these Acts were drawn. Their course has been rather stationary than retro¬ gressive. There has been more an absence of motion than a positively reactionary policy. Some attempt to explain the Liberal defeat by saying that the Liberals acted on broad national principles, and appealed to wide, patriotic purposes, while the Tories coalesced with and petted the partisans of assailed monopolies ; and in the conflict the narrow but organised trade interests proved themselves too strong for the loftier and more generous ideal. Others accused the Liberal leaders of wilfully estranging their stoutest supporters, the Nonconformists, and of showing a suspicious eagerness to conciliate their clerical opponents. Not a few find a reason for Liberal unpopularity in the arbitrary manner in which some of the Ministers exercised their authority. There is a measure of truth in all these explanations. But I am disposed to attribute the fall of the late 122 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Government, chiefly, to the conviction entertained by timid people that the Legislature had effected all the constitutional changes which are for the present either desirable or necessary. This belief lay at the root of the reaction. Our middle classes have grown rapidly rich. The pos¬ session of wealth has generated a taste for luxury, ease, amusement. It has produced, too, political effeminacy and cowardice. Your well-to-do conventional, non-political citizens dread changes lest they should have a disturbing effect on trade, and not unfrequently their very nervousness produces the result they fear. They are satisfied with their own material success, and indifferent to the condition of their less favoured fellow- countrymen. The statement might appear paradoxical, yet it is, never¬ theless, correct, that the very spread of Liberal principles has weakened the party. Independence of thought is the essence of Liberalism, and this is destructive of that hard uniformity of opinion which is essential to the maintenance of party unity. A body bound by trade ties, yielding implicit obedience to its leaders, is necessarily more easily united than a party, the first condition of whose existence is, or ought to be, its individu¬ ality. Mr. Cobden used to liken the electors, the men within the Constitution, to soldiers in a fortress, and to contend that, by strengthening the garrison, we weakened the disaffection outside, and augmented the sum of popular satisfaction. The correctness of this theory has been strikingly demon¬ strated during the last forty years. Every reform that has been effected has reduced the aggressive force of the Liberals, and strengthened the Conservatives. The militant Tories and the militant Radicals in the nation do not vary much. In every age and every country, there has been on one side a number of ardent, hopeful, sympathetic, speculative men pressing for progress, who have respect for the past, confidence in the present, and who look with hope and faith to the future. These are Radicals. On the other side, there have been always a number of narrow, frightened men, bent on conserving the unconservable, and putting pre¬ rogative and prestige above the national weal. These are Tories. Numerically, the antagonistic parties are about equal. But between them there is a body of cautious and unimaginative persons who look with indifference on public affairs. These negatives float from one side to the other without well knowing why. At the General Election in 1868, the popular current carried them into the ranks of the Liberals. In 1874, the tone of society was Conservative, and they drifted to the Tories, with whom they remain. There has nothing arisen since to arouse them from the state of somnolence into which they have been lulled. How can we quicken this sleeping mass of middle-class scepticism—how can we awaken these political chameleons from their torpor? It may be regret- able that men with such doubtful opinions and wavering resolution hold the national balance. But they are not without their value. They THE LIBERAL POSITION AND PROGRAMME. 123 act as the buffers of society. They prevent the fiercer forces coming into conflict. The lowest animals in creation have their uses, and these poli¬ tical polypi have a moderating influence upon public life. Their mission is not an elevated one, but it is serviceable. How to reach the dull political consciences of the lukewarm electors, is the problem which Radicals have to solve. Lord Hartington and Mr. Gladstone suggest extended organization. They contend that, although the sum of the last elections gave the Tories a majority, yet, upon exam¬ ining into the details of the voting, it will be found that, in many instances, the supporters of the Ministry had only a small margin of advantage, which might have been turned to the other side by the better marshalling of the Liberal voters. There may be force in this contention, but it is very easy to over-estimate it. Some are apt to concern themselves more about the machinery than the purpose which the machinery is intended to subserve. Organization is only useful as a means to an end. If the end is not clearly defined, the apparatus may be rather a detriment than a help. It is not desirable to drill Liberals into military line. The very breadth and comprehensiveness of their creed forbid their securing such party compactness. The Tories have two established institutions which are constantly working on their behalf. Every clergyman is an election¬ eering agent, every publican is a canvasser. At the last elections, rectories and beershops were converted into committee-rooms for the Conservative candidates. The best-ordered voluntary association cannot permanently contend with institutions like these, whose roots have struck so deeply and are interlaced so tightly in the very foundation of English life. Organization is not the only thing, scarcely the chief thing, that is required. Organization, if pressed too far, may become a means of oppression. The history of American Caucuses is not encour¬ aging. They have driven some of the best men in that country out of public life. Through their instrumentality, politics in the United States have been made a profession, which is manipulated by wirepullers. Excessive organization, too, is apt to produce a reaction. In Scotland, before the passing of the first Reform Bill, the Tories wielded supreme authority. They were stringently and strictly organised. To such a length did their union go, that any Scotch tradesman who had the temer¬ ity to proclaim himself a Liberal, had matters made so unpleasant for him that he either had to leave his country or abandon his business. The chronic Liberalism of Scotland is a re-action from the organised Toryism of the Dundas rigime. At an election the most damaging accusation which can be fixed upon a candidate, in the estimation of many, is that of being the nominee of a clique. The people of Manchester have experienced the ill effect of such a stigma being fastened on Liberals. I hope organ¬ ization will never supersede, or be allowed to act as a substitute for, the free thought and the free action which have ever been the boast and 124 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. the glory of British Radicalism. We may require machinery to give effect to our opinions, but unless that machinery is lit by the fire which political earnestness alone can supply—unless motion is breathed into its works by the spontaneous force of sincere conviction, it will certainly fail of its highest purpose. A Conservative orator of some eminence recently ridiculed the frantic efforts of Liberal office-seekers and election-agents who are in search of a “ cry.” I have no sympathy for men who are only bent upon formula¬ ting a shibboleth just sufficiently advanced to catch the imagination of the workman, and sufficiently Conservative not to frighten timid tradesmen. This is a species of political pole-balancing which I have no taste for. The National Reform Union are not shareholders in an Electoral Limited Liability Company for attaining office for men with such slippery professions and such elastic programmes. Its members have convinced themselves that the adoption of certain measures will contribute to the national welfare, and, so thinking, they are honestly striving to gain adherents to their faith. There need be no bitterness, there should be no deception, in this propaganda. We can afford to treat our oppo¬ nents manfully, to consider their counter-proposals with candour and without any intentional unfairness. I have more faith in promoting a knowledge of democratic principles, and of gaining converts to them, than in elaborate electoral clockwork, which may go wrong at the very time it is wanted. We seek an equalization of the franchise, not merely as an act of justice to rural artisans and labourers, nor in the hope that the new electors will be an addition to the Liberal forces of the State, but because household suffrage in the counties will identify and interest a larger section of the population in the Constitution, and broaden the basis of citizenship and contentment. We seek enlarged municipal institutions, because we believe they will lend a loftier sense of national life to our provincial populations, and, if framed in a comprehensive spirit, they may perform some of the work which is now imperfectly discharged by our overwrought central Parliament. The ratepayers have to pay for the consequences of intemperance, and we contend that they should have the power of controlling the pernicious traffic which drives such numbers to drunkenness, desperation, and premature death. In any country, but more especially in one where such diversity of theological opinion exists as there does in England, justice requires that there shall be not only religious toleration, but religious equality. Any established Church, but especially one ruled by an aristocratic hierarchy, is liable to be reactionary. It cannot well be otherwise. It is a monopoly, and most monopolies are ex¬ clusive and illiberal. The Church wields great social and political power. It is deferred to, flattered and honoured in every way that public senti¬ ment is supposed to render itself felt. Statesmen laud it. Poets sing its praises. Philosophers bow to it. Society speaks of it with bated breath. THE LIBERAL POSITION AND PROGRAMME. 125 in whispering humbleness. Notwithstanding its power, however, the English Establishment would soon go the way the Irish one went, if the people resolutely resolved that it should do so. The conflict is every¬ where the same. The people are on one side and the reactionaries on the other. In France, they have striven for the last seven months to overturn the only form of free government possible in that country. But they have been beaten—ignominiously beaten. The whole tribe of poli¬ tical tricksters and intriguers have been driven from power. The names of Grevy, of Gambetta, of Louis Blanc, and their Republican colleagues, will be entwined by history with the names of Hampden and Elliot, Russell and Sidney, in the bead-roll of the world’s patriots. They have won a noble battle—all the more noble because bloodless and legal—not for France alone, but for mankind. All honour to their patience, their intrepidity and their devotion ! The peaceful foundation of the French Republic will mark a new starting-point on the thorny pathway to Euro¬ pean freedom. As the French Revolution in 1831 hastened the passage of the first Reform Bill, so the rout of the reactionaries cannot fail to react on this country, and promote a renewed popular awakening. 126 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. III. FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, November 15, 1879. /AN all sides, the present Parliament is assailed, in good set terms,for NA its legislative supineness and incapacity. It is accused of having attempted little useful work, and of having done that little badly; of being turbulent where it should have been tranquil, and quiet where it should have been active; of having been parsimonious in some directions and extravagant in others. There is a considerable degree of truth in this criticism ; but it is scarcely fair to throw all the blame on Parliament. It has but acted up to the mandate confided to it by the constituencies. Three charges were persistently levelled at the late Government and the Parliament of which they were the organ and mouthpiece. They were accused of having meddled needlessly and mischievously in home affairs ; of having attacked in turn the Church and the army, the landlords and the publicans ; of having worried every trade, harassed every profession, assailed or menaced every interest and institution ; and, by their “plun¬ dering and blundering,” of having sown broadcast a spirit of political unrest and social distrust. They were said, too, to have starved the services, and introduced into the administration of the national finances the practice and temper of hucksters. Economy with them—so the case ran—had gone mad, and become miserliness generated by excessive riches. They were censured for lowering England in the rank of nations by shutting her up, “baited in spirit and with pinions dipt,” in a little island encircled by a streak of silver sea, pursuing a sordid struggle for comfort and luxury. This was the heavy indictment preferred by their opponents against the late Administration, and endorsed by the non-political classes who in this country, in times of election, always cast the scale. These accusations, repeated day by day, came at last to saturate and suffuse society. You could go nowhere but, with wearying iteration, they were dinned into your ears. In church and in playhouse, in taverns and in trains, by pictures and in print, the identical gospel was preached. The Parliament of 1874 was the outcome of this state of national feeling FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. 12 7 and sentiment. It was commissioned to stay the course of Liberal policy. And it has done so. It has abandoned absolutely all attempts at political reform ; it has spent the revenues freely, and it has broken through our insular exclusiveness, and taken an active part in foreign affairs. In a word, it has acted up to its orders. The blame for this does not rest with Parliament alone, but with the power behind it—with the electors who created it. If you plant your field with potatoes, you cannot calculate upon collecting a crop of turnips ; if you sow oats, you cannot expect to reap wheat. I prefer no complaint against the present Government for the paucity of their political measures. They never promised any. On the contrary, they somewhat ostentatiously pledged themselves to abstain from all attempts at constitutional amendment, and the electors returned them subject to that pledge. Economy, too, was no part of their pro¬ fession. Unfortunately, it is not a popular plank in any political platform. People talk loudly enough about it, but they usually grumble when an attempt is made to put their talk into practical operation. In bad times it is a favourite topic to generalise on, but with a return of prosperity our virtuous resolutions to keep down expenditure generally vanish. It is the old tale— “ The devil was sick, the devil a monk would be ; The devil grew well, the devil a monk was he." The resolute efforts to secure financial saving and simplicity on the part of the late Government, no doubt, hastened their fall; and the present one, acting on the principle of self-preservation, did not deem it desirable to follow in their footsteps. But the great, the rapid and almost startling, growth of the national outlay will force its consideration on all thoughtful persons. Look at the facts. In 1830, the last year of the Wellington- Peel Administration, the national expenditure amounted to ^47,000,000. In 1835, it fell to ^44,000,000, and in 1838 it rose again to ^55,000,000. In that year, Mr. Cobden published an amateur Budget, in which he contended that ^10,000,000 could at once and with advantage be taken from the expenditure. He fixed on the year 1835 as a standard, and argued that all sums in excess of the amount spent in that year would be extravagance, and that all below it would be economy. He counselled his countrymen to say to the Ministry of the day : “Here is ^44,000,000 ; if you are not able to conduct the affairs of the State for that sum, you are unfitted for your office and undeserving of national confidence.” These state¬ ments, read in the light of subsequent events, sound somewhat curiously. The expenditure for the present year was estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in April last to be ^81,153,570, but before the session terminated a Supplementary Budget was submitted, and the aggregate outlay was set down at ^84,216,819. Even this latter and larger sum, there is too good reason to fear, will be exceeded, and that next April the confession will be made that the outlay for the year will have reached 128 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. £85,000,000. Last year, it was £85,400,000. During the last five years, the expenditure has been £37,906,000 more than it was during the five previous years. In other words, the expenditure of this Administration has been that sum in excess of the expenditure of the late Administration for the like period of time. It is difficult to make plain to a crowded audience the complicated •details of Government expenditure, but it is possible to put amounts in juxtaposition which will convey a general idea of the way the national funds are dispensed. We can institute a rough contrast between the expenditure of 1830 and the expenditure of the present year, and thus I may possibly be able to fix the leading sums in your memory. The amount paid for interest on the National Debt in 1830 was 29 million pounds ; the amount paid this year for interest and towards its redemption is 28 millions. The army and navy cost together, in 1830, 14 millions ; in 1853 they cost 16 millions ; in 1879 they cost 30 millions. The civil service estimates in 1830 amounted to four million pounds ; the same estimates in 1879 reached 15 millions. The cost of the collection and management of the revenue and of the postal telegraphic and packet services was eight and a quarter millions. This amount ought to be added to the 15 millions, as it is part of the same branch of expenditure, and the two together make about 23X millions—the total cost of the civil service for this year. Let us contrast these figures. They show that we are paying now one million a year less for the interest and redemption of the National Debt than we did in 1830. We are paying about double the amount that we paid then for the army and navy, and we are paying nearly six times the amount we paid then for the civil service. In 1877-78, the expenditure exceeded the income by £2,640,000. In 187S-79, the excess of outlay over income was £2,300,000. These two sums, amount¬ ing to £4,940,000, show the total deficit for the last two years. There will be a deficiency again this year. Trade is improving, and there is a more hopeful commercial outlook than there was, but the improvement has had, so far, no appreciable effect upon the revenue. Indeed, the figures, as far as the year has gone, have not been so satisfactory as they were last year up to this period. It is not, therefore, unreasonable to sup¬ pose that there will be a further deficiency of at least two million pounds this year. But this will scarcely represent the total deficit. Two millions were lent to India without interest. The repayment of it was to begin next year, but it is very doubtful whether, in presence of further hostilities in Afghanistan, the Indian Government will be able to keep their engage¬ ment. It is likely that this money, in the end, will have to be paid by the English Government. We have, therefore, a deficit of nearly five million pounds for the last two years, a probable deficit of two millions this year, and the money that we have lent to India. Together, these sums will make a total of above nine million pounds. There are three FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. 129 ways of dealing with a deficiency. One is to add to the National Debt, another to pay it out of revenue, and the third to effect a temporary loan. There are many reasons why it is not desirable to add so comparatively small a sum to the debt which we have been striving for years to lessen. And the Government argued—I think with force and reason—that it would not be well, in the depressed state of business, to further increase the burdens of the people by imposing additional taxes. They decided, therefore, to raise by Exchequer Bonds money sufficient to meet the deficiency which has been in the main caused by exceptional and extra¬ ordinary expenditure. The amount raised in this way already has been little short of five million pounds; and Sir Stafford Northcote calculated that he would be able, with improved trade, and consequently augmented resources, to repay this money over a limited space of time. Trade has not improved as rapidly as was expected, and the probability is that we shall find ourselves next year with the unfunded debt of the country augmented by an amount little short of 10 million pounds. And it will become a serious question how this is to be dealt with : whether it is to be carried forward again, or fresh taxes imposed to meet it. These figures, standing alone, are sufficient to disturb the equanimity of the most self-complacent optimist. But I neither “ wish to extenuate” nor “set down aught in malice,” and it is only fair to add that there are considera¬ tions which mitigate their force. The statement may be accepted without qualification, that no system of expenditure has ever yet been devised by which a country which is increasing in population and in wealth can prevent its expenditure augmenting. It is the same with a nation as it is with an individual. If a man has an income of ,£150 a-year, and he is a prudent person, he will live within it. But if he marries and gets a family, and his income rises to ;£e,ooo a-year, necessarily, but unconsciously, his expenditure will increase. The population of the United Kingdom in 1830 was 23 millions. During the last fifty years there has been an increase of 18 millions, but out of these 18 millions about eight millions have emigrated. The total increase of inhabitants in these islands, therefore, during the last half- century is little more than 10 millions, the population being estimated, at present, at about 33^ millions. It is not easy to fix the absolute amount of the wealth of any country, but from the information supplied by the Customs, the Inland Revenue, and the Income-Tax returns, we can get a fair idea of the resources of the United Kingdom. These figures have the advantage of understating rather than overstating results. Our foreign trade in 1840 amounted to 172 million pounds; in 1850 to 268 millions ; in i860 to 375 millions ; and in 1878, which was a bad year and considerably behind some previous years, it was 646 million pounds, or nearly six times as much as it was forty years ago. During the last thirty-seven years, the value of our imports has increased 636 per cent. IO 1 3 o SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO IVEN, M.P. This increase has been occasioned chiefly through the importation of food and raw materials for clothing. In the same period, the value of our exports has increased 130 per cent. This has been occasioned by the exportation of our manufactures. According to the calculation of the late Mr. Porter, the total capital of the people of the United Kingdom in 1815 amounted to 2,200 million pounds. In 1830, it amounted to 2,500 million pounds, having increased 300 millions in fifteen years. According to Mr. Giffen, the capital of Great Britain and Ireland amounted in 1865 to 6,100 million pounds. In 1875, it amounted, according to the same authority, to 8,500 millions. There has been an addition in these ten years, during the lifetime of all present, of 2,400 million pounds to the capital of the country—an increase amounting to three times the sum of the National Debt. It has been at the rate of 39^2 per cent, for these years. The amount is bewildering. Even persons who are accustomed to deal with large amounts have some difficulty in grasping its full extent. Our national capital is now eleven times the amount of our National Debt. The gross income of Great Britain was assessed seventy years ago upon 115 million pounds. In 1815, it was assessed on 130 millions; in 1843 on 251 million pounds. Up to that time Ireland had not paid income-tax. In 1855, the income assessed in the United Kingdom amounted to 308 millions ; in 1865 to 396 millions ; in 1875 to 571 million pounds. The increase in income assessed during the ten years from 1865 to 1875 was at the rate of 44 per cent. The income from capital in 1815 was about 90 million pounds ; the income from capital now is about 445 millions. At the conclusion of the war with France, we had a popu¬ lation of 20 millions, a debt of 900 million pounds, and a national estate worth 2,200 million pounds. Now we have a population of 33^ millions, a debt funded and unfunded under 800 millions, and a national estate valued at 8,500 millions. These figures may be made plainer by stating that, if the debt in 1815 had been divided amongst the inhabitants of these islands, it would have amounted to £70 a-head. If the estate had been divided it would have amounted to ,£170 a-head, or each man would have had ,£170 for the purpose of paying £ 70 . Now, if the debt was divided, it would amount to ,£25 a-head, and if the estate was divided it would amount to .£251 a-head. There has been, in these years, a decrease in the debt of ,£45 a-head all round in the population, and an increase in the national estate all round per head of population of j£8i. There is no country in the world where such great or rather stupendous material progress has been made in such a comparative short space of time. It has been the result of Liberal policy and enlightened enterprise. Forms of government and modes of rule have much more effect on the progress of trade and the formation of national character than either suns, or soil, or climate. If free and surrounded by liberal institutions, a people can accommodate themselves to almost any conceivable condi- FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. >3i tions, but no change either of climate or of circumstances will enable them to recover national energies if they are once lost through the enervating and deteriorating influence of despotism. While England has prospered, other countries, with vastly superior natural advantages, have either been stationary or have receded. The expenditure of a country, too, must be judged not only by its amount, but by its object. Some of our increased expenditure has been for purposes that will not commend themselves to the approval of all this audience. We have doubled our military outlay in fifty years. This has been occa¬ sioned mainly by the extension of our dominions abroad, and the costly character of our modern armaments. It is a large sum undoubtedly, but when compared with the increased expenditure in other countries it is comparatively small. In Germany and in France, the military outlay has more than quadrupled within a much smaller number of years. In Russia, in Austria, and in Italy the same mad and rapid rate of outlay has been followed. These enormous armies are eating the very vitals out of European life. They act as a detriment to social progress, and are an insuperable barrier to political freedom. From one side of Europe to another the barracks practically dominate the council chamber ; the soldiers control the statesmen. But while the military and naval expen¬ diture of this country has doubled, the outlay under the head of civil service has increased sixfold in the last half-century. Much of this sum been expended for beneficent purposes. In the Budget of 1830 not a shilling is set down for education. It was only in the year 1834 that Lord John Russell timidly and hesitatingly moved that ,£30,000 annually should be given to the Privy Council for educational purposes. This was the first direct grant made by this country for that object. The sum voted this year for education, science, and art amounted to ,£4,153,000. There are other indirect payments scattered through the estimates for like objects which, if added to this amount, would raise the educational grant to little short of five millions. The expenditure for sanitary works, drainage, water supply, and kindred enterprises is paid by local rates, but their supervision entails upon the Imperial treasury a no inconsider¬ able amount. Within the last thirty years, we have developed a system of social legislation which was unknown in pre-reform days. We have covered the country with regiments of Government agents, who penetrate into every recess of civil, of commercial, and even of domestic life. They inspect our factories and workshops, our mines, our ships, and canal boats. They test our medicines, our milk, our flour, and our flesh meat— every article, indeed, that is consumed as food by the people. This supervision can only be maintained at a large annual outlay, which is variously estimated at from ,£150,000 to ,£200,000. We have established reformatories and industrial schools, by which nearly 30,000 children are kept from the contamination of depraved homes and the degradation of SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 132 gaols. These institutions, the growth of recent days, cost the country ,£340,000 a-year. All this expenditure is a valuable national investment. It will yield, and is indeed already yielding, an ample interest. In the increased intelligence, in the improved health, in the superior stamina, the purer tastes, and loftier morals of the people, we will gather an abun¬ dant dividend for this outlay. We may not live to see the full fruits of this legislation, but it will bloom and blossom and make the earth glad when we are gone and forgotten. When putting before you the large increase in our expenditure, I wish to place also the reasons and the object of that expenditure. When you look at one side of the account, it is but fair that you should look at the other. In considering the gross expenditure, we should take into account the increased population, trade, capital, income, and declining debt of the country, the broad results of which I have rapidly summarised. My com¬ plaint against the Government is not that they have increased the expen¬ diture of the country. That is inevitable from the daily increasing claims of our complicated civilization. The expenditure under many heads is greater this year than it was last, and it will be greater next year than it is this. No Government can restrain it ; and it would be undesirable if they did. I would not withdraw a single sixpence of this social and edu¬ cational outlay, if well and wisely used. But my complaint against the Government is that their national management has been not only costly, but loose and thriftless. In expending annually from seventy to eighty millions of pounds, most of which is laid out in distant and obscure quarters of the globe, there must be leakage. There will always be some department, or some branch of a department, where the expenditure may be curtailed, and others where it is necessary to increase it. As far as my observation goes, the Ministry fail in adapting themselves to the con¬ stantly shifting circumstances of our vast administration. Their work is performed in a too perfunctory fashion. There is an absence of that com¬ mercial flexibility which adapts the expenditure to the daily altering con¬ ditions of our complicated national life. I will cite a fact illustrating what I mean. Two or three years ago, the office of First Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission became vacant. According to the testi¬ mony of trustworthy and disinterested persons, the duties attached to this office were slight, and could easily have been transferred to, and per¬ formed by, the other Commissioners. It was, in fact, little more than a sinecure. But at the General Election a faithful and respected member of the Conservative party failed to secure his return for a borough that he, or some member of his family, had represented for generations. He was deprived, as a consequence, of a place in the Administration. Shortly after he was called to the House of Lords—a preferment that no one begrudged him, as both friends and opponents admit he in his day has done the State some service. Soon after he was made a Peer, this FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. 133 appointment came to be disposed of; and although the gentleman re¬ ferred to was bordering on eighty years of age, the office, which carries a salary of £ 2,000 a-year, was given to him. Two thousand pounds is a trifling sum in an expenditure of upwards of eighty millions, but it is only by strict supervision that the vast outlay can be kept within even reason¬ able bounds. Another case, illustrating the same temper that I am com¬ plaining of, came under my special knowledge and notice. I have introduced a Bill into Parliament for three sessions, proposing the reform of our County Court system. The Bill embodied the recommendations of the Judicatory Commission. The principle of it, and to some extent the machinery, have met with the approval of some of the highest legal authorities in the land. But it is too radical a scheme to be carried in this day of compromise and small things. When stating its objects, I showed that, by a comparatively small change in our present system, a saving of from 100 thousand to 120 thousand pounds a-year could be effected. My contention was assented to by the Ministerial spokesmen,, and the correctness of the figures was confirmed by a committee which investigated the subject. There is reason to believe the Government were willing to legislate on the subject, but the lawyers in the House- thought their interests would be affected by the proposed change. These- gentlemen are both numerous and talkative, and can be troublesome. Rather than come into collision with them, the matter has been allowed' to drift, and the saving has not been effected. It is this well-meaning weakness of the Government that leads them into so many troubles. Their defect is not corruption. Corruption as it existed in the days of Walpole, or even in the times of Pitt and Liverpool, is not known now.. It is not even vulgar extravagance such as you find in Eastern or some Continental countries. It is financial feebleness and administrative timidity. But if the Government did not promise political reform or fiscal retrenchment, they did promise to initiate and carry a series of social measures. How have they fulfilled that engagement ? What is the extent and what the value of their domestic legislation? It would be as absurd as it would be untrue to contend that all their Bills were bad, and that all their resolutions were vicious. Only the most unreasoning partisans would attempt to uphold such a contention. I have little right to com¬ ment on other persons who are standing on the same side as myself, but I cannot help thinking that some recent speeches have lost their effect through pushing denunciations too far. These speakers have so persis¬ tently painted with a big brush and in black colours, that they have failed to secure the advantage of light and shade. The force of censure consists in its correctness. Spasms in the political as well as in the physical world are indications of weakness. The full, deep stream flows noiselessly ; it is only shallow brooks that brawl. The most successful 1 3+ SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. Opposition is a discriminating one, which gives credit where credit is due, and censures where censure is deserved. The manner in which the Government have dealt with the laws respecting labour, workshops, and factories is such as to command the approval of all liberal men. Their Commons Bill, their Artisans’ Dwellings Bill, the Summary Jurisdiction Bill of last session ; their Bills affecting elementary, intermediate, and university education for Ireland, were all devised with a view to meeting acknowledged wants, and they have enjoyed at least an average measure of success. But the number of their incisive and effective Bills holds about the same proportion to their ineffective and feeble ones that Jack Falstaffs “halfpenny worth of bread” held to his “intolerable deal of sack.” The measures of the Government may be ranged under three heads. They are permissive, consolidating, and centralising. To describe them in other words, they are Bills enabling persons to avail themselves of certain legal privileges, Bills consolidating into one Act all the Statutes on a given subject, and Bills increasing the power of the central and decreasing that of the local authorities. The farmers have always been the most earnest and consistent supporters of the Conservatives. When other classes have faltered or failed in their allegiance, they have remained true. “Faithful found amongst the faithless—faithful only they.” Amongst the first Bills introduced by the Government were those devised for dealing with the agricultural interest. One proposed to improve the conditions under which land was let, and another the terms on which it was transferred. The Agricultural Holdings Bill has, even by the admission of its supporters, failed. It has not accomplished the object contemplated by its promoters. It is, in my judgment, inadequate. It is not in harmony with advanced modern thought nor with the exi¬ gencies of the times. But it did not imperfectly embody the wishes of some Liberal as well as Conservative landlords. Whatever merit it had, however, was destroyed by the insertion of a clause designed for the purpose of accomplishing what was euphemistically described as “ freedom of contract.” This clause enabled landlords to contract themselves out of its operation. Immediately the Bill was passed, these gentlemen rushed in a panic to free themselves from it, and the result is that the Bill is useless. It has no motive-power to put it into action. It is like an engine without a boiler, or a pump without a piston. The Lands T ransfer Bill was designed to render the conveyance of property easy, economical, and expeditious. The machinery was not specially objection¬ able ; but there, too, the permissive element injuriously intervened. It has been three and a half years in operation, and during that time only forty- eight pieces of property have been conveyed under it. And that even does not represent the full extent of its failure. The number of persons who resort to it is getting smaller by degrees and beautifully less, and FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. 135 the work now done under it is absolutely nil. There have been only six pieces of property transferred through its instrumentality this year. It has not only been a failure, but it has been a great cost to the nation. The Land Registry Office costs little less than £ 6,000 a-year, and the transference of these forty-eight pieces of property entailed upon the country little short of ,£20,000. The last six estates conveyed cost about £1,000 each. These Bills illustrate not unfairly the permissive measures of the Ministry. The consolidating legislation is exemplified by the Army Regulation Act of last session. It not only consolidated, but it codified the military law. It introduced also important disciplinary changes. I have no wish whatever to detract from the credit which is due to Colonel Stanley for the ability with which, under prolonged and somewhat painful opposi¬ tion, he piloted that measure through the House of Commons; but really the Bill was the work not of one party, but of both. It was, in fact, a measure of the Legislature, and not of the Ministry. The old Mutiny Act had been condemned by successive Governments as cumbrous, com¬ plicated, antiquated, inconsistent, and oppressive. Every Judge-Advocate, for the last thirty years, has taken up his parable against it. Reforms, however, are not effected in consequence of their abstract justice, but from the strength of the popular or Parliamentary pressure that can be brought in their support. In the House of Commons, as in the world at large, the “ still, small voice ” of righteousness and reason goes unheeded, when the noise of the discontented and the threats of the angry gain both audience and attention. The suggestions of Ministers would have been disregarded had not the opposition to the Bill been pressed with incon¬ venient pertinacity. The Mutiny Bill usually goes through the House of Commons as a matter of form in a few hours, but in the session of 1878 it occupied eleven full sittings ; and the opposition was accom¬ panied by the declaration that it would be renewed year by year until the Act was amended. The Government then saw not only the wisdom of a change, but the necessity of making it at once. A committee was appointed to inquire into the subject, an elaborate report was presented, and upon that report the Bill was drawn. I do not profess to offer an opinion upon the military merits of the measure, but there is one point in it that demands commendation. No man can now be inveigled or entrapped into the army in a state of intemperance or a fit of despera¬ tion. If he wishes to join the national forces, he can go to the barracks, as he does to a factory, and offer his services. He will have an oppor¬ tunity of trying whether he likes the service or not. At the end of three months, if he discovers that it is unsuitable to him, and he is anxious to be freed, he can claim his discharge, not as a privilege, but as a right. All that would be required of him would be the payment of £7, or £8, or ,£9, according to the circumstances of the case, that the State has spent 136 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. in feeding, clothing, and housing him during that period. This is a distinct gain not only to the army, but the nation. We hear long and loud lamentations as to the condition of the British army. It is notable that these complaints are always current. The same things were said fifty years and a hundred years ago, and the same will probably be said fifty years hence. My belief is that the army, through the opera¬ tion of the reforms which Lord Cardwell initiated, is in as satisfactory a state as it has ever been this century. We have abolished purchase, shortened the service, increased the pay of the soldiers, done away with flogging absolutely in times of peace, and greatly curtailed it in times of war ; and in a few years we will abolish it also. We have likewise given the soldier what has long been wanted—freedom of contract. It will take a time before the result of these reforms can be seen, but my belief is that they will work beneficially. There have been other consolidating Bills of less importance, but that affecting the army best exemplifies the kind of legislation which I have just described. The Prisons Bill is the best example of the centralising measures. Until recently, the inmates of gaols were treated differently in different counties. In some their punishment was lenient; in others severe. There were twenty or thirty prisons that were seldom used, in connection with all of which expensive staff's of officials had to be kept up. The Prisons Bill establishes uniformity in the treatment of prisoners, and it is designed to effect economy in the working of gaols by shutting up some and making better use of others. These objects are commendable. But the promoters of the Bill had other purposes in view as well as these or rather before these. It transferred the government of prisons from the local justices to a body of Commissioners who sit in London, and it handed over the maintenance of the prisons from the local rates to the Imperial Treasury. These changes are, in my judgment, objectionable. They are in keeping with the disposition manifested by nearly every Government, and by both parties to centralise power. The official hier¬ archy of this country are quite conscious of the national prejudice in favour of local government, and they never attack any local institutions openly and at once. Their assaults are insidious and made by degrees. The first weakening of local authority over our prisons took place in 1865. It has been nibbled at once or twice since then, and now it is completed. The local authorities have now no control whatever over their manage¬ ment. We will see the same system applied to the police. A few years ago, the Home Office proposed to the different corporations that if these bodies would raise the police force to a given standard, and subject their men to Government inspection, the Treasury would contribute a given sum towards the cost of maintenance. This offer was accepted, and we will see, in the course of a few years, that the entire control of the police will gradu¬ ally drift from the counties and boroughs into the Home Office. This year FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. 137 a Bill was passed for the purpose of establishing a public prosecutor. This is a measure that has been often advocated by men of all shades of opinion. My idea of a public prosecutor is that he should be a local official, and elected much in the same way as we elect a coroner, or as we appoint a town clerk ; that, in short, he should be chosen by the people of the different localities, paid by them, and made respon¬ sible to them. Instead of that, the new prosecutor, who is to receive a salary of £2,000 a-year, is another Home-Office official, and he will direct his proceedings from London. Thus the work goes forward. Prisons, police, prosecutions, magistracy, are all gradually being sucked under the control and direction of the central authorities. In this country, in a few years, we will see the detection and punishment of crime and the administration of justice handed over unconditionally to the central body. We will have established in England the same system that they have in France. I may be old-fashioned in my opinions, but I can only regard this change with misgiving. I am satisfied that the people are not conscious of what is going on. The official bureaucracy of the land is gradually sapping our old local institutions, and is augmenting the central power at their expense. These measures that I have cited exemplify the chief legislation of the Ministry. I have not referred to them in a bitter and recriminatory temper, as if I believed that all the virtue of the country rests on one side and all the vice on the other. I have criticised them according to the impressions they produced on my mind as they have been unfolded in Parliament during the last six years. I would ask any supporter of the Ministry, in surveying this legislation, whether he can say there is any¬ thing in it likely to secure more than a cold, formal, and commonplace assent ? Is there anything in it to win the hearty approval of the pre¬ sent, or the enduring encomiums of the future ? Is there any group of measures that has been passed that will enter into, and affect largely and permanently, the social life of the people, or will mark an epoch in our commercial, civil, or political history ? I institute no comparison between the work of this Government and the work of the last, for that comparison would be, as Mrs. Malaprop says, rather “ odorous.” The domestic measures passed by the late Administration were exceptional. We will probably never see in this generation a Government do as much as it did. The people did not know its value. But compare the work of the present Ministry with Lord Melbourne’s. No one points to that as an exceptionally brilliant period of modern history. It existed about the same length of time as the present Government, and what did it do ? It should be remembered that Lord Melbourne had scarcely half the majority in the House of Commons that the present Ministry have, while in the House of Lords he was in a minority. Lord Melbourne’s Government passed the Municipal Reform Bill and the Poor-Law Amendment Act, the SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. beneficial operations of both of which we have daily before our eyes. It took powerful steps to lessen the slave trade in South America and Africa. It laid the foundation of that system of national education which has in recent years received such effective development, and from which such beneficial results are anticipated. It weakened, if it did not destroy, the fetters upon the press. It removed, further, civil disabilities from Dis¬ senters and Catholics ; amongst other liberties it conferred the one en¬ abling them to marry in their own chapels and to register their own chil¬ dren away from the Established Church. But, better than all, it instituted penny postage. Compare the work of the present Government with the work of Lord Melbourne’s in the same length of time. The Ministers urge, in defence of the incompleteness of their domestic legislation, that theirtime has been engrossed by foreign complications, and that their labours have been curtailed by the peculiar form of opposition. There is some force in this apology, but it should be remembered that neither the foreign complications nor the opposition that they refer to arose until more than half the course of their Parliament had run. The course of the Administration is crippled, and their legislation is naturally coloured by the character of their party. Of the three hundred and odd gentle¬ men who sit on the right of the Speaker, upwards of two hundred represent county constituencies. For the most part, these are broad- acred squires, who entertain all the narrow principles and exclusive pre¬ judices of their class. The world wags well enough for them. They want things to be left alone. They seek no change, and least of all such changes as Radicals would bring them. The Government, after con¬ siderable pressure, engaged to introduce a Bill giving the farming class some control over county government. This was done in 1878. The Bill was vacillating and feeble; it gave with one hand and took away with the other. Still, in a blundering sort of way it did concede the principle of representation. But it was too liberal for the squires, and it was abandoned. Another Bill on the same subject was introduced this year. It was the lamest piece of legislation I ever heard expounded. The late Government passed a measure for the valuation of property in the metropolis. It has worked satisfactorily, and the Ministers were desirous of applying its provisions, with some modifications, to the country at large. It has been proposed five years in succession, and has never yet passed. The opposition to it really came from the partisans of the Ministry, and not from Liberals. The best Bill that they have proposed is one for codifying the criminal law. In the production of this measure the Ministry have expended a considerable sum of money, probably five or six thousand pounds. This is good evidence of their earnestness. The Attorney-General has, upon more than one occasion, ably and lucidly expounded its objects, but it has been abandoned, too, in deference to the benumbing influence of the gentlemen who sit behind the Treasury FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. 139 bench. The projects of the Ministers cannot, by any stretch of ima¬ gination, be described as liberal. They are halting, hesitating, and in¬ sufficient. But even such as they are, incomplete and bad though they be, they are objected to by the stolid squires who constitute the strength of the Government party. The only hope and chance of change is by sending an invigorating breeze of popular opinion through Parliament. There is no reason why we should conceal our regret and our surprise at the fact that the first use made of the great constitutional changes, which against bitter opposition and amidst much contumely and re¬ proach the Liberals had for generations championised, should have been to give to the opponents of these measures the longest and steadiest lease of power they have enjoyed for forty years. There is no such virtue as “ political gratitude,” or the result of the earliest combined exercise of the ballot and household suffrage would have been the maintenance in power of the men who had made the passage into law of these reforms possible. But the enlarged electorate at the last election not only hit the Liberals hip and thigh, and gave the Tories a heavy majority, but, what is still more surprising, it has, so far at least, sustained them with it. Modern history furnishes no parallel to this experience of the existing House of Commons. Ministries usually wear out their majorities in three or four sessions by the unavoidable friction of Parliamentary life. But the pre¬ sent one has not only not done that; but notwithstanding serious blunders, both in policy and administration, and misfortunes as disastrous as the blunders, in the presence of widespread social distress and unparalleled mercantile stagnation, with a falling revenue, augmented expenditure, and increased taxation—in spite of all these adverse surroundings, they find themselves, at the end of their seventh session, with their voting strength undiminished and their cohesion unshaken. There is no wisdom in ignoring realities when they make against you, and there is singular folly in attempting to draw hopeful auguries from unfavourable conditions. Let us look squarely at the facts. Let us manfully “ face the music.” There is no necessity for depression—certainly none for despondency, but there is for a careful survey of the circumstances, for a candid review of the position, and a deliberate weighing of all the forces for and against us. It should be remembered that the strength and success of a political party do not, even mainly, rest with the leaders or with members of Parliament. The people—and by that I mean the general body of rate¬ payers—wield a power which is almost supreme. With the possession of every instrument and agency of political activity, with an absolutely free press, and the uncontrolled liberty of assembly and organization, with the virtual command of the large borough constituencies, they can, if they choose, dictate their own conditions. It is not now as it was in the old days, when they had only the fettered use of a limited franchise. Parlia¬ ment feels the change. It was never more amenable to popular control, 140 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. when that control is exercised. The House of Commons, indeed, is fast becoming, if it has not already become, little more than a committee for registering the decrees promulgated in the larger council of the nation, speaking through and acting by such gatherings as the present and other not less potent agencies. All great questions now are settled out of, and not in, Parliament. The House of Commons only ratifies the edicts of the electors. If the behests of the constituencies have not recently been heeded, then, gentlemen, depend upon it— “ The fault is not in your stars, But in yourselves." If the people really desire to drive the Government from office, they have the power to do so. If they have the will, they will soon command the way. One genuine and sustained blast of national indignation will shatter any Ministry. We will probably see a turn in the political tide. For some time it has strongly and steadily set in the direction of foreign questions. It may now be expected to reverse its course and run towards home affairs. In what manner will they be dealt with? Regret as to the past is only valuable up to a point. It is chiefly useful as a guide for the future. What is done is done, and cannot be altered. Details of the past interest political antiquaries. The living present and the im¬ mediate future concern practical politicians. Theirs is the present who can praise the past. The Liberal party can never build itself into power by a bundle of negatives. Whatever else the English people are, they are, above all, positive and practical. Before they can be called on to re¬ verse the decision of 1874, they not unreasonably wish to know what will be done with the power they are asked to confer. The Liberals, then, are pledged to secure an equal suffrage and a redistribution of electoral influence, to confer representative institutions on the counties, and to re¬ form the land laws. To give the miners and agricultural labourers the franchise, to give county ratepayers control over county expenditure, and to farmers the means of claiming compensation for unexhausted improve¬ ments, are, as I understand, the three chief points in the new Liberal charter. In the strife of opinion truth breaks forth, and, in order to maintain freedom, every opinion should be freely expressed. I will say then, candidly, that I don’t think this programme sufficient. I am speaking only for myself, but I would prefer further and more drastic changes. Intelligent farmers will not be satisfied, and if satisfied now they will be disappointed after, with a vague proposal to give an indefinite return for what are real but somewhat indefinable improvements. Land reforms will not be satisfied with the bare enactment that if a man dies without a will, which is not often the case, his real property will be divided in the same way as his personal. Advocates of religious equality will not be appeased by merely allowing Dissenters to bury their dead in our fast-diminishing number of FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. 141 churchyards. The Irish will not be content with a simple extension of the suffrage. Those who think that concession will placate them will find themselves grievously mistaken. The condition of that portion of the kingdom is such as demands, and is certainly not getting, immediate and earnest consideration. I have been in Ireland recently, and I was assured, by men who have the best means of judging, that something little short of famine is likely to settle on the western and southern counties. My own observation bears out that opinion. The weather has destroyed both the food and the fuel of the people, and they are threatened with a state of affairs only a little better than that experienced in 1846 ; and notwith¬ standing the present and the impending misery, speech after speech is de¬ livered by English politicians and statesmen, and not an allusion is made to it. The condition of the people of Cyprus and of Asia Minor, of Zululand, and of Afghanistan, is discussed with animation by men of both parties, and rightly so. They deserve all the attention they get. But they should not monopolise public interest. There is, however, never a word of sympathy for our suffering countrymen across the channel, nor a suggestion as to their relief. Publications that “stuffed our ears with declamation ” about the “deplorable position” of the “richest and most prosperous peasantry in Europe,” a few years ago, have only this heartless remark to make as to Ireland—that as the people there are too plentiful, they should emigrate, and if they cannot emigrate they should die. I am much in error if these callous taunts don’t some day come home to roost. There is trouble brewing in Ireland, and we won’t see it ; but it will force itself on the consideration of Parliament, and disturb the proceedings of not only next session, but of many sessions yet to come. But while these are my opinions, I know that in a constitutional country, and under a system of party government, we must all submit to accept compromises. No one person, or no one section of persons, can wield arbitrary power. We have to take what we can get, not what we want, or believe ourselves entitled to. No man is called upon to sacrifice his conscience to his party, but he may reasonably be asked to sacrifice his conception of pro¬ cedure. In matters of principle, there must be liberty, but in matters of detail, union. If the balance of opinion in the party cannot rise to the full level of the larger reforms I have indicated, there is no alternative but to take an instalment of our demands, and wait for a favourable time to secure the rest. In politics, as in everything else, the wisest course is to do the work that lies nearest to you, assured that by so doing the next will be easier and appear more clearly. But I must again record my belief that if the Liberals are to gain power and keep it, they must proclaim a more comprehensive and definite programme than they have yet done. I purposed limiting my remarks to-night to home affairs, but I cannot conclude without briefly referring to the differences that have recently arisen between myself and an influential section of the constituency. I 142 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. know that my views on foreign policy have not met with the approval of many of my friends. Some of them are in an especial manner grieved and dissatisfied at the course I have pursued on the Eastern Question. I don’t now intend to start any contentious matter. On another occasion I will do that, but I wish in a few sentences to state, as I understand it, the extent of the difference between us. It has been, for generations, a settled principle in the policy of western States, that certain territory in the East of Europe should only be held by a neutral Power. Diplomatists and statesmen have entertained that belief, because they feared that, if any powerful Government got possession of these coveted districts, it would gain an undue predominance and imperil the European system. Liberal politicians have held the same belief for the same and for this additional reason, that if the restless aggressor, that has for centuries disturbed the peace in the East, should come to dominate in the Levant, hers would be an influence not only hostile to all liberal progress, but a standing menace and danger to freedom. This has been hitherto the national policy of England. It has received the adhesion and the active support of successive Governments. We have fought for it. We have expended millions of pounds and sacrificed thousands of lives to uphold it. Before recent events, the last occasion on which it was officially dealt with was in 1871. In that year Russia, taking advantage of the prostrate condition of our ally, France, denounced special clauses in the Treaty of Paris. Her demand for their repeal was complied with ; but in the new Treaty, effected by the late Cabinet, the wisdom and necessity for not allowing certain points of vantage to pass to one or other of the Great Powers were reaffirmed. Circumstances, however, have since then occurred that have led some eminent Englishmen to alter their opinion. For reasons that to them no doubt appear sufficient, they have abandoned the old policy, and now contend that there is no need for the maintenance of an unaggressive State in the East. Some have gone further, and argued that the possession of Constantinople by the Russians would be neither a disadvantage nor danger, but rather “ a consummation devoutly to be wished.” I could not follow those gentlemen in this change. With extreme reluctance I had to sever myself, on this subject, from men with whom on other questions I cordially agreed. But it became a choice between my sense of duty and my sense of party allegiance. I followed what appeared to me to be my duty, rather than my party. I may have been wrong. But I think I was right. I may plead in support of the course I have pursued the fact that my interest in these questions did not begin with the Bulgarian insurrection ; and my knowledge of them, such as it is, has not been gleaned from late speeches or articles in magazines or newspapers. Both date from a much earlier period. Accident first, next sympathy, and then conviction forced the subject on my consideration, FINANCE AND CENTRALIZATION. M3 when many of my censors were either ignorant of or indifferent to it. The soundness of the conclusions, arrived at under peculiar circum¬ stances, has been but confirmed and strengthened by recent proceedings. Some of my more noisy critics, when inclined to dogmatise, may remem¬ ber with advantage that there is no such thing as political infallibility. When their zeal tempts them to denounce men who are upright as them¬ selves, as recreants, merely because they have followed a different course on this subject, they should recollect that it is possible that they may be mistaken. The ablest and wisest men have sometimes been in error. No one is superior to the infirmities of humanity. Still, I recognise fully the right of the Newcastle electors, on this or any other matter, to change their opinion, and to require their representatives either to support the new policy, or to make way for some one who will do so. I have always expressed my willingness during this controversy, if such a request was made, to comply with it. I do so again. The constituency should, however, bear in mind that I did not seek the position I hold. I have no Parliamentary ambition. I have never been a voluntary candidate for a seat in the House of Commons. I only became one in Newcastle under pressing circumstances, much against my inclination, and at no insignificant sacrifice of interest and convenience. My opinions on foreign questions have been frankly and freely proclaimed, through every available medium of publicity, for the last quarter of a century. They have never in principle, and seldom either in form or in mode of expres¬ sion, varied. I have practised no deception ; I have broken no pledge. When the Liberals of this borough took me, they did so with all my imperfections upon my head. They were acquainted with my antece¬ dents, and they knew who and what I was. But although I did not seek the honour of representing Newcastle, I value it highly. If I don’t talk often or loudly of it, I appreciate it none the less. No Highlander was ever more attached to his heath-clad hills than I am to the valley of the Tyne, and to all its cherished associations. I am bound to it by the ties of interest, of duty, and of affection ; and to represent, in the great assembly of the nation, its chief town is the only distinction I care for in life. But it can only be held on terms consistent with political honour and honesty. If my course as one of your members has been such as to merit your disapproval, I am willing, if you wish it, to return at once to private life. I will do so without any feeling of bitterness or the slightest sense of disappointment. 144 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. IV. PARTY GOVERNMENT, SHORTER PARLIAMENTS, AND PAYMENT OF MEMBERS. North Shields, December 3, 1879. HE late Sir Cornewall Lewis once declared that life would be en- -L durable if it were not for its amusements. I am tempted to supple¬ ment the sentence, and to say that the pursuit of politics would be passable if it were not for the speechifying. With some the appetite grows on what it feeds upon. But that has not been my experience. In a small way, and over a limited sphere, I have done a fair amount of talking in my time. I never, however, engaged in it but with reluctance, and as years roll on my aversion to the practice deepens into dislike. I would gladly have escaped this meeting ; but the promoters pressed me so earnestly to be present that I could not, without being discourteous, but comply with their request. And yet you have no need of extraneous oratory when you have your own member, Mr. Smith, with you. He brings to the discussion of public affairs great natural abilities, world-wide observa¬ tion, and varied and extensive attainments. Few men are better capable of taking a comprehensive view of national matters, and no parliamentary man discharges his duty with more fidelity. He differs, no doubt, in opinion from some of his constituents. He would not be entitled to your respect or worthy of your confidence if he did not. No man who thinks at all can think alike with all his friends on every subject. Any one who pretends to do so is either a charlatan or a cheat. There must be divergence of view where you have intellectual independence and integrity of purpose. A member of Parliament is a representative, not a delegate. He has to express judgment on many and conflicting topics. He is not chosen to vote on a single subject, or set of subjects, in a specified manner. There may be occasions when such a course can be pursued with pro¬ priety and advantage. But a member of the House of Commons cannot be a delegate, because in the course of a session unexpected emergencies are constantly arising, and the most diverse issues are being started upon PARTY GOVERNMENT. 145 which no man could, however willing he might be to do so, collect the opinions of his constituents. The work of a member, therefore, is different from, and more elastic than, that of a delegate. If he had only to vote to order, a machine would do as well. Black and white balls would be as good, and a deal less costly. Letters sent by post or messages despatched by a telegraph expressive of the decisions of different districts might answer the purpose, if a man’s individuality is to be effaced and no personal colouring is to be given to the expression of his opinions. We have met to-night to plead the cause and to uphold the claims of the Liberals to popular confidence. The keenness with which political controversy is waged has revived a discussion, more common last century than this, as to the utility of party warfare and the morality of the ac¬ cepted codes of party strife. The theory on which a party is constructed is this :—A special line of policy is considered to be the best for the country. Certain men are deemed capable of giving effect to that policy. To enable them to do so, they must be got into office. To get into office, they must have a majority in their favour in the House of Commons. To secure this majority, there must be organised co-operation amongst the supporters of the policy in question. This plan is plausible, but, like everything else in this world, it is not perfect. It has often been abused, and not seldom made the instrument of oppression and injustice. Pope expressed the view common in his day when he described party to be “ the madness of many for the gain of a few.” Men so dissimilar in character as Defoe and David Hume, Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke, the author of Junius’s Letters and Addison, all condemned the party system as being frequently dishonest, not unfrequently corrupt, sometimes disastrous, and always objectionable. I have never been able to screw myself up to that overpowering sense of party fervour that some are able to reach. The register of the suc¬ cesses and the disappointments, the vices, the follies, and the quarrels of those who engage in contentions for power, is neither a pleasant, a profitable, nor an elevating chapter in the history of this country. I am more concerned for Liberal principles than for the Liberal party. The two words have not always been synonymous, as many old reformers recollect to their cost. Principles are immortal ; parties are evanescent. The great idea that underlies our struggles, the principle of political free¬ dom, of mental independence, of liberty of conscience, of the eternal progress of human thought, has passed unhurt through the wars of centuries, and will never die. It is imperishable. It is the same to-day as it was two thousand years ago, and as it will be to the “ last syllable of recorded time.” But a party, its rise and fall, is only an accident of history, fleeting and transient. Still, an arrangement that has borne the blows and buffets of generations must have its uses, or it would long since have expired. II 146 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. That form of rule may be accepted as essentially good, whatever name it is known by, which progressively adapts itself to the nature of a country, and to the wants, the character, and education of its people. The British constitution abounds in absurdities, incongruities, and incon¬ sistencies, but it smells of the soil on which it grows, and has grown for centuries. In this consist its excellency and its strength. Party management has woven and interwoven itself into our constitutional life, and has become acclimatised to our national existence. Its foundations are buried deep in the legends of the past. They are older than either epics or histories. Our fathers fought as partisans under stormy steel- clad barons against feudal castles and frowning barbicans. We fight in popular assemblies and stately council-chambers. But nothwithstanding our Liberal proclivities, I fear we must admit that the framework of our society is still aristocratic, and that the tastes of the people are still essentially conservative. The leaders in the past were the Bedfords and the Exeters, the Warwicks and the Talbots, the Percys and Douglases ; to-day, although the scene and circumstances of the conflict have changed, our chiefs are still the Cavendishes and the Cecils. It is a melancholy and dispiriting reflection that the people of England, “ the common people,” have not felt themselves strong enough, or have not been courageous enough, to take the management of their own business into their own hands. They have yet to realise that worth, not wealth, should wear the crown. A party to win, and to retain, the trust of the nation should have a proclaimed principle and avowed aim, and an acknowledged instrument for attaining that aim. The principle should unite tradition with the future, should recognise what has been and what is, as well as what is to be. The aim should be general, not sectional, sectarian, or local. The instrument should be in harmony with, and analogous to, the aim, and should cover all the living forces of the State. Our principle as Liberals is government for and by the people—democratic rule, tempered by the teachings of history, em¬ bodying the highest, and the noblest, and the purest of national aspi¬ rations ; our aim—an executive resolved to give effect to this ideal; our instrument education, and legitimate and necessary organization. To give vitality to this principle, and security to this aim, it is necessary to have a full, fair, and free representation of the people in Parliament. In towns this has been practically accomplished. The borough franchise allows every grown man, whether householder or lodger, to have his name inserted on the electoral roll, if he choose to take the trouble to get it placed there. In counties it is different. A proprietary barrier prevents the majority of the residents becoming voters. Should the Liberals secure power at the next election, this barrier will be broken, this inequality will be destroyed. Even if the Conservatives succeed in retaining office, we need not despair of seeing a change made and SHORTER PARLIAMENTS. 147 progress effected. They have never met the demand for an equal franchise by an absolute and unconditional negative. They have only pleaded that it was inopportune, inconvenient, or inexpedient. Their amendments have been devised with the view of causing delay rather than rejection. Some roystering Tories, it is true, have proclaimed that they have put their foot down, and that they will not take another step in a democratic direction. These declarations need not disturb us : they are rather hopeful symptoms. In this world of motion no man can remain long with his foot down ; if he does he will be left behind. The act of putting your foot down precedes the act of taking it up again. The history of this century is crowded with solemn declarations from eminent statesmen that they would not concede certain popular demands. Yet, in a few years, sometimes even a few months, these same men, notwithstanding their loudly asseverated dissent, notwithstanding their positive predictions that the changes were both dangerous and im¬ practicable, have either acquiesced in the carrying of the reforms, or have themselves given them the force of the law. Like Byron’s maiden, vowing they would ne’er consent, they consented to the national wish. The Queen reigns in England, but public opinion governs ; and if the unenfranchised would resolutely and persistently declare that they would no longer continue to remain outside the pale of the constitution, there is no Government that could or dare refuse compliance with their request. Mr. Pitt once said that the House of Commons was an assembly that was, or ought to be, bound by the closest ties to the people. Earl Russell repeatedly contended that the first principle of a representative system was that the representative should be an exact image of the represented. If those ties Mr. Pitt speaks of are to be established, and if this image that Lord Russell refers to is to be created, we must not only have in England complete suffrage and an adequate apportionment of members to population, but we must have the duration of Parliament shortened and the expenses of elections reduced. A long Parliament becomes stale and stagnant, like a country pool which is overgrown with ducks’ meat. Annual election was the practice of this country for three hundred years. Charles I. attempted to govern and to tax the people without a Parliament. To defeat this unconstitutional proceeding, a bill was passed in the sixteenth year of his reign requiring the monarch to summon a new Parliament at least once in three years. If they failed to do it, the work devolved on the great officers of the State. If they neg¬ lected it, the Peers were authorised to undertake it. If the Peers declined, the Sheriffs were empowered to issue writs. If sheriffs, peers, great officers of the State, and king all neglected to summon a new Parlia¬ ment every three years, then the people themselves could assemble in their different constituencies and choose representatives. Charles II. 148 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. regarded this act as an infringement of his royal prerogative, and cal¬ culated to lessen him in the estimation of his brother sovereigns, and at his instance it was repealed. He had at the time a House of Commons crammed with servile placemen, known in history by the opprobrious nick-name of the “ Pensioners’ Parliament.” The members were only too willing to do his bidding. Pym, Hampden, and other heroes of the Commonwealth, were either dead, in prison, or in exile, and the law establishing triennial Parliaments was easily abrogated. In 1694, the Duke of Devonshire got a Bill through the Legislature re¬ establishing the old system. William the Third had on three occasions refused his assent to a measure for that purpose, but in the year men¬ tioned circumstances favoured its adoption. The King was in want of money, as kings usually are. He had been engaged in continental wars, and required five millions to pay his troops and discharge his pressing personal liabilities. The Queen, too, was ill, and near unto death. His position in the country was not assured. It was, therefore, to his interest to make friends with the House of Commons, with the view of securing their con¬ tinued support and getting the money he so sorely needed. He assented under those circumstances to the re-establishment of the plan of triennial elections. Under it nine Parliaments were chosen. The Act was again repealed in 1716. In the year 1714, the Whigs had obtained a large majority at the poll, and their party was in power. A year after that election, the first Stuart rebellion broke out. It was put down with brutal severity. To this day there linger in popular recollec¬ tion on Tyneside mournful memories of the hard treatment of the gallant but unfortunate Derwentwater and his followers. The severe measures of the Hanoverians had produced a reaction, and their partisans being afraid to appeal to the country at the time prescribed by law, they passed an Act not only increasing the length of future, but of the sitting Parlia¬ ment as well. In other words, the Whigs illegally decreed themselves four years’ longer term of office. No more unconstitutional act has been perpetrated in this country since the time when Charles the First attempted to collect ship money. The Septennial Act was thus tainted at its birth. Its promoters pleaded, in defence of their conduct, that the measure was only temporary, only devised to counteract the plots of the Jacobites, and defeat the machinations of the Popish faction who were supposed to be intriguing in England in the interests of a foreign Power. Whatever truth might be in this contention at the time, it has long since spent itself. There is no Pretender now to the throne of England ; and although political distrust of the Roman Catholics has ot, I regret to say, entirely died out, yet the most intolerant no-Popery man would not now say that they are less worthy of respect as men, or less loyal as citizens, than are their Protestant fellow-countrymen. SHORTER PARLIAMENTS. 149 The aspect of the country has altogether altered since then. Myriad- minded and million-handed enterprise has been busy “ weaving in the loom of time a new garment for humanity.’’ The whole condition of life has been recast, and the current of existence quickened. The members who were elected in Northumberland to serve in the Parliament of 1714, took upwards of six days to travel between the Tyne and the Thames. This same distance can now comfortably be covered in as many hours. In this simple fact, the history of a great epoch is epitomised. The lumbering stage-waggon was succeeded by the highflying coach, the coach has been displaced by the locomotive, and the locomotive, for many purposes, has been supplanted by the telegraph. We can now not only correspond, but converse, with electricity. We have given practical opera¬ tion to the promise that Puck made to Oberon to *‘put a girdle round about the earth in forty minutes.” Our merchants and tradesmen regulate their dealings not by the prices current in the neighbouring markets, or evet> in the metropolis, but by transactions on the exchanges of Chicago and' Calcutta, of Sydney and San Francisco, which are reported to them a few hours after they have taken place. England to-day is as different from, and superior to, the England of the days of Walpole, as England of that day was different from and superior to Russia, or any semi-civilised State in the same era. Mechanical improvements, abridging labour while multiplying its products, the wonders of art, the achievements of physical science, and the refinements of taste, have in a century evolved almost a new race. Barren wildernesses, the marsh and the forest, have been erased at the call of social industry. That great magician, the labourer, has transformed the scene. Waste moors and wild hillsides, that only at rare intervals re-echoed to the footfalls of the huntsman’s horse or the sharp rattle of the sportman’s gun, have now been made— " The abodes of men irregularly massed Like trees in forests, O'er which the smoke of unremitting fires Hangs permanent and plentiful as wreaths Of vapour glittering in the morning sun.” We have been assured that one year of Europe is worth a hundred of Cathay. If this be the case, three years of 1879 are worth more than seven of 1714. England gives her representatives a longer lease of power than any other country. In France, in Italy, and in Spain, the Chambers are re¬ elected every five years; in Portugal, Holland, Belgium, and Greece, every four years ; and in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark, every three years. In America, a new Congress is chosen every two years. We have, therefore, a seven years’ Parliament in England, as against one of five years, four, three, and even two years in other countries. The Reform i5o SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Bill of 1867 really, although not in words, increased the length of Parlia¬ ments. The old law was, that at the demise of the monarch the Parlia¬ ment then in existence should be dissolved. This has now been changed, and the death of the monarch does not affect the length of the Parlia¬ ment. If the Oueen should die, her successor is under no obligation to summon a new House of Commons. One, not the only, not the chief, but still a strong reason for long Parliaments, is the costs of contests. A general election is a huge fine imposed by the nation on the men who are willing gratuitously to serve it as legislators. We have had many and ingenious speculations as to when the present Parliament is to be dissolved. One of the most potent reasons—the pecuniary one—for its prolongation has seldom been alluded to. Men in business have been making losses, not profits, for the last four years. Landowners have been compelled to reduce their rents, and they have had difficulty in gathering even their minimised imposts. A borough election costs from ,£1,000 to ,£4,000, a county from ,£5,000 to ,£10,000. It is only natural that men whose incomes have been getting small by degrees and inconveniently less should desire to postpone the date when such heavy outlays are to be incurred. This consideration has had more to do with keeping the present Parliament running than any of the wire¬ drawn theories that have been so persistently elaborated. When the report of an intended Dissolution got into circulation last year, the party leaders were astonished at receiving intimations that some of the best- known men in the House would not again become candidates. The causes of their intended withdrawal were the pressure of the times and the cost of contests. There cannot now be expended on individual elections such sums as could be squandered previous to the first Reform Bill. Polls cannot now be kept open from ten to fifteen days as was done formerly, and the law does not allow an unlimited expenditure for display, refreshments, and agency. It would be somewhat difficult for two county families to waste a couple of large fortunes on a contest now as easily as they could do a half a century ago. Still, the expense of elections is excessive. In a south country city, which has only five thousand electors, an election took place two years ago. The two candidates spent between them upwards of fifteen thousand pounds, or about ,£3 a-head over all the electors. In a constituency near to this, a contest took place more recently. It was legitimately conducted, yet there was expended over it between eighteen and twenty thousand pounds. There is no exaggeration in saying that in North Durham there has been spent for electioneering purposes since 1868, by the two parties, eighty thousand pounds. These are heavy amounts, yet they are not so large as could be, and were, spent in former times. But although the cost of single elections has been lessened, the aggregate cost of a General Election has been increased. Strange to say, PA YMENT OF MEMBERS. iSi the Ballot has added to, rather than reduced, the expenditure. There are those in this meeting, probably, who remember the historic election in Northumberland in 1829. A contest in the city of York about the same time cost ,£150,000; and over one in Northampton, it is said, the Earl Spencer spent between ,£70,000 and £ 80,000. But while on these single elections this excessive outlay was incurred throughout the country, there were comparatively few contests in the pre-Reform times. This is illustrated by the course of electoral affairs in the borough of Newcastle. In the fifty years immediately preceding the passing of the Reform Bill, there was only one contest there, and that was accidental. A gentleman had been nominated as a candidate against the sitting members without his consent, but immediately he knew of it he withdrew. We may, therefore, say that for half a century before 1832 there never was a poll in Newcastle. Since then, there have been sixteen elections and fourteen polls, or only two elections where there has not been a contest. To put it in other words, for fifty years before the Reform Bill, there was not a single contest in Newcastle, and in the forty-two years succeeding the Reform Bill there were fourteen. A General Election entails an expenditure of upwards of a million of money. Electioneering experts say that in 1874 one million six hundred thousand were spent, and this came out of the pockets of twelve hundred persons. The immediate, direct, and inevitable consequence of this outlay is to limit the area over which candidates can be chosen. It is only men of means who can afford such an expenditure. When the election managers are settling candidates, what ought to be the first and most important inquiry is the last and most insignificant. They do not inquire whether the suggested candidate is fitted, either naturally or by his acquirements, to discharge the office of representative. They do not ask whether he has made himself acquainted, by study and observation, with our conflicting foreign relations ; whether he is familiar with the history of the Constitution and the present position of our complex Colonial Empire ; whether he is versed in those subtle economic principles the wise application of which benefits, while the unwise application injures, trade ; whether he is master of the details of the huge fiscal system which is the growth of modern legislation. These inquiries are not insti¬ tuted, or, if referred to, are treated with indifference. The chief points asked of a candidate are whether he will vote with his party, and is willing and able to incur the expense of a contest. If he can and will do this, his knowledge of legislation is of secondary consequence. A candi¬ date for a Lancashire constituency not many years ago made, in the dialect of his district, this candid speech on the hustings : “ I canna speak; I know now’t o’ politics, but I stink o’ brass, and if you send me to the Big House I’ll vote stiff for the party.” Before a man is permitted to physic our physical pains, he is required to undergo an examination, SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. and to subject himself to severe educational and professional tests. But a man maybe put in a position to manipulate and mangle the body politic, who is as ignorant of the science of government as is the noisiest empiric who bellows his pills in the market-place of the science of medicine. We are constantly told that modern Parliaments have degenerated—- that they now consist of three classes—professional politicians who are seeking place; younger members of the aristocracy, who by some extra¬ ordinary freak of nature are supposed to be born legislators ; and successful commercial men, who are anxious to crown careers of prosperous trading by getting admission through this channel into what is called “society.” Yet, the men who complain of this admixture main¬ tain the system which produces it. The expenses of municipal, parochial, and School Board elections are defrayed by the ratepayers. There is no¬ reason why the legal costs of Parliamentary elections ought not to come from the same source, and no other expenses except those that are strictly legal should be allowed. We pay our Ministers for their services, and we ought to pay our members also. Nearly every other constitu¬ tional country pays its representatives, and England paid hers during the noblest period of her Parliamentary history. I know that this is not a popular doctrine, but it has the merit of being both ancient and constitutional. We will never see Earl Russell’s theory that the House of Commons should be an exact image of the constituencies realised until we have complete suffrage, an accurate apportionment of members to population, shorter Parliaments, the payment of election expenses by the constitu¬ encies and of members by the country. Every obstacle that prevents the nation availing itself of the large and high thought, of the tried, steady, and trusted principle, the superior knowledge, the greater far¬ sightedness, the rigid impartiality, the generous sympathy with suffering and indignation at wrong, of her best and ablest sons, ought to be removed. The only qualification for Members of Parliament should be knowledge, character, and capacity. Laws cannot equalise men, but they ought not to aggravate an inequality they cannot cure. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 153 V. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, January 31, 18S0. I HAVE rarely addressed a meeting with more misgivings than I do this one. My hesitation does not arise from any doubt I entertain as to the correctness of the statements I am about to make, of the strength of the argument I purpose sustaining, or of the soundness of the deductions I intend to draw. On all these points I am thoroughly persuaded in my own mind. My reluctance to speaking springs from the conviction I entertain that anything I can say will be valueless, and may be locally mischievous. International problems of great intricacy and importance have come up for settlement since the last General Election. Many of the issues started are old ones, some of them centuries old, but they were not then before the electors. The Liberals, as a body, have assumed towards them an altered attitude. They have abandoned, no doubt for reasons which appeared to them good, the historic policy of the country, if not the traditional principles of the party. There is neces¬ sarily difficulty in fixing with precision the position of a complex body in a state of change. But no injustice will, I think, be done to any one by saying that many Liberals, on foreign questions, have espoused in spirit, if not in substance, the doctrines which were held with such tenacity and expounded with such earnestness by that band of capable men who made the world their debtors by their labours for Free-Trade. I have not been able to become a convert to this new faith. I am not, and never was, an adherent of what is popularly known as the “ Man¬ chester School.” On this subject there is between myself and some of my friends a distinct divergency, which 1 have no desire either to mini¬ mise or ignore. I am in favour of a European and national, as against an insular and—I use the word in no offensive sense—a parochial policy. It may seem somewhat hard to dismiss a member because, in the course of a Parliament, he has not been able to change his creed. I recognise, however, the right of the constituency to demand uniformity of view from their representatives. I also feel that, in my present position, I am 154 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. a source of embarrassment to many and of annoyance to some ; and I have repeatedly expressed my willingness—and I do it again to-night—to solve all difficulties by quietly retiring. It has not been thought desirable that an election should take place in Newcastle at this time ; and although my immediate retirement might meet with the approval of some, I under¬ stand that it would not meet with the general approval of the electors. Such being the case, in my judgment it would have been wise not to re-open troublesome topics, which may add possible irritation to honest difference by promoting a discussion that can be fruitful of no good results. I do not object, without further hearing, to be tried, con¬ demned, and, if you decree it, dismissed. There is nothing that I have said on this question which I wish either to modify or retract. There is nothing that I have done which I regret. I may be mistaken ; I am not infallible; but I believe that the course of policy I have supported has been the best for England and the best for liberty. I fear my convictions are too strongly fixed to be shaken. I am not either so sanguine or so egotistical as to suppose that any¬ thing I can say will turn my friends from the faith they have accepted with so much devotion. Apart from political considerations, party pas¬ sions and personal predilections and prejudices have been imported into the controversy, and in some instances these have been intensified by religious animosities. It is hopeless to reason against such a combina¬ tion of active and angry sentiments. But “ the blast that blows loudest is soon overblown ; ” and having lodged an earnest protest in support of my opinions, I am willing to bend to the storm and wait for the sobering effects of experience and the modifying influence of time to wear out the asperity of the political jehad which is now being preached against doc¬ trines that, to my mind, have the semblance at least of truth and justice to sustain them. But if I am to speak, I will do so frankly, and without reservation or equivocation. In a country where unfortunately speech is so much controlled by, and so much based on, party interest, little favour is shown to the politician who ignores its consideration and ventures upon the dangerous practice of striving to be impartial. If he speak the unbiassed sentiments of his own mind, he secures the opposition of his former supporters, the slanders of his atrabilarious opponents, and the sneers, if not the suspicions, of some of his associates. But sincerity of utterance is the only channel of truth ; and I believe that my fellow- townsmen will listen to declarations of opinion which may involve oppo¬ sition, and possibly censure of some of them, if these declarations are untainted, as I trust in my case they will be, with either levity or igno¬ rance. I cannot cite a new fact, and no one can adduce a new argument either for or against the policy that this country has recently pursued. The subject has been written about and spoken of so often, and at such THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 155 length, that every argumentative thread is worn thin and bare. The literature on it is interminable. Every form of thought, every shade of opinion, has been presented in all shapes of attraction and repulsion. But if what I say is not new, it will only be in keeping with the speeches of more distinguished persons. We are not philosophers speculating upon what might be, nor philanthropists dilating upon what ought to be, nor poets chanting the dirge of a brilliant but buried past. We are matter-of-fact politicians, talking of the prosaic present. And politics, I fear, are too often controlled more by self-interest than by sentiment. We are not dealing with an ideal State. If we were, the fragmentary and composite Empire of Britain would not realise my Utopia. Greece, whose name has been for centuries a watchword upon earth, whose fame will never fade, from whose history mankind have derived inspiration and guidance, and which still rises upon our intellectual sight like a mountain-top gilded with sunshine, amidst the devastations of a flood— Greece, I say, rather than law-giving, conquering, imperial, splendid, but savage Rome, would be my model. I would have a State in which every man is free, and where every man is fortified against superstition by education, and against oppression by arms ; where the arts and graces of Athens, and the martial independence of Sparta, would commingle with the mercantile and industrial enterprise and the naval prowess of Britain ; and in which, while influence and authority are won by intellectual strength and moral worth, a proud defiance could be bid to despotism’s banded myriads. But these are the dreams of the idealists. We belong to the real and the active, and not to the imaginary world. We are to deal with things as they are, and not as we can sketch them in our fancy. We are the inheritors of a Colonial Empire, the most widespread, scattered, and extensive ever known. It reaches to ever}'region, and has its feelers and its feeders in every corner of the globe. Some of these possessions came to us in a questionable shape, and by means that no one can justify, and which I, at least, have no desire either to palliate or excuse. But the pre¬ sent generation of Englishmen are guiltless of the crime attending their acquisition. Our colonies cover an area of three millions of square miles, and have a population of fourteen million persons following diverse pursuits, but all animated by one mind, aim, and tradition. In India, we have a frontier of twelve thousand miles, an area of one and a half million square miles, and 240,000,000 of people under our sway. Our insular position frees us from many of the dangers which surround Continental States, but our external empire makes us at the same time one of the most sensitive and assailable of nations. No serious movement can take place in any part of the earth without our feeling its influence. No country ever occupied such a peculiar position as Britain and her daughter empires now hold. It is not egotism to say that, notwithstanding all our 156 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. shortcomings, power so vast was never wielded with so sincere a desire to use it beneficially. Every tribe we touch acknowledges our supremacy, and looks to us either in conscious fear of weakness, or with brightening hope of participating in our elevation. To secure the existence, to rivet the cohesion of this vast dominion, blest with one of the highest forms of freedom that the world has ever seen, to carry to distant countries and succeeding ages the loftiest form of civilization, is our mission. To abandon the opportunity of usefulness thus conferred, to throw aside the hope of securing equal rights and impartial freedom, to destroy the means of establishing a feeling of fraternity and consciousness of com¬ mon interests amongst so many millions of our fellow-beings, would be a narrow, niggardly, short-sighted, and selfish policy for a great nation to pursue. If we left South Africa, what would be the result? There are 350,000 British-born men and women—our own kith and kin—living there. Without some protection from the Home Government, the home¬ steads they have erected by years of patient toil, the centres of civiliza¬ tion and of commerce that they have created by their enterprise, would be endangered, if not destroyed. Their assailants would not be the natives of the soil, who are friendly and inoffensive, but savage invaders from the North, who are as much aliens and aggressors as the English. If we abandoned India, a like but more disastrous result would ensue. The different races and nations into which the population of that country is divided would fly at each other’s throats. In the earliest encounters probably the fierce, courageous, unteachable, and intractable Mahome- dans, who are forty millions strong, would re-assert their supremacy, but after years of internecine war and social disorder the country would eventually fall a prey to a foreign invader—possibly Russia. The 8,ooc> miles of railway, the 18,000 miles of telegraph, the canals, and other creations of English capital, would be destroyed. The machinery for the administration of justice, and the protection of life and property, which England has created, and which has assured to the common people of India more security and greater personal freedom than they ever enjoyed under former rulers, would be upset. This country would suffer equally with the Indian people ; the ^128,000,000 of Indian debt would have to be provided for ; civil servants and officers whose careers would be destroyed would require their pensions ; and compensation would possibly be demanded by traders who would be ruined by our change of policy. India, England, and the world would all be injured. No English¬ man could contemplate such a contingency with approval, or acquiesce in it with satisfaction. Now that we possess it, we are bound to protect and defend India—to hold it against any enemy as stoutly as we would hold Cornwall or Caithness. England is not so many square roods of land, but a nation whose people are united in love of soil and race, by mutual sympathy and THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 157 tradition, by character and institutions. It is not a fortuitous con¬ course of individuals merely bound over to keep the peace towards each other, and for the rest, following their own selfish objects, and crying outside their own cottage, counting-house, or country, to let everything “ take its course.” Our country is something more than the mere workshop of the world, a manufactory for flashy clothing, and a market for cheap goods. We are pledged to each other as citizens of a great nationality, and by solidarity of life. We owe a duty to ourselves, to our families, and to our country, as well as to our generation and to the future. We have grown great, not merely by the extent of our posses¬ sions and the fertility of our soil, but by the preservation of our liberties and the energy and enterprise of our people. The present generation is the outcome of centuries of effort. The history of England is woven and interwoven, laced and interlaced, with the history of Europe and of the world for a thousand years. Wherever liberty has struggled successfully, or wherever it has suffered in vain, there our sympathies have gone. There is nothing in human affairs that can be foreign to us. Wealth almost beyond the dreams of avarice, territorial possessions, and educa¬ tion bring with them heavy responsibilities. Power, to the very last particle of it, is duty. “Unto whom much is given, of him much will be required.” As we have inherited, so we have to transmit. No one can took slightingly on the results which rest upon our national resolves. Put if ever a nation, drunk with the fumes of power and wealth, makes an apotheosis of gold and material pleasure, prefers riches to duty, comfort to courage, selfish enjoyment to heroic effort and sacrifice, it sinks in the respect of others, and loses the first and strongest incentive to human effort. Great work demands great effort, and great effort is the life and soul both of individuals and nations. I contend, therefore, for these two principles—the integrity of the Empire, and the interest, the right, and the duty of England to play her part in the great battle of the world, as did our illustrious ancestors, the forerunners of European freedom. Let me apply these principles to the recent controversies in the East and the action that has been taken by this country. India is one of our most distant, as it is one of our most important dependencies. We hold it more as conquerors than as colonists. There are urgent and obvious reasons why our communication with it should be rapid, easy, and expeditious. Nature, mechanical science, and commercial enterprise, have contributed to make the best route to it through the Isthmus which unites the con¬ tinents of Asia and Africa. The Egyptians, the Phoenicians, and the Carthagenians, before the Christian era, travelled to India this way. In the Middle Ages, the Danish and Venetian merchants went by the same road. The first envoy whom England ever sent to India also jour¬ neyed by this path—Bishop Sherborne, who was deputed by King Alfred 158 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. to undertake a mission to the people on the coast of Coromandel and Malabar. As before the Christian era, so to-day—the most direct route to the East is by the Isthmus of Suez and Asia Minor. The canal is the link which unites our Eastern and Western Empires. Through it we not only reach India but our dependencies in the Chinese Seas, our Australian colonies, the Mauritius, and the British settlements on the East Coast of Africa. It is the neck which connects the head with the extremities of our Empire. It has been suggested that if we lost it we could resume our old road by the Cape of Good Hope. It is quite true that this could be done. It is equally true that we might return to pack-horses and stage-waggons as means of transit, but it is not likely that we shall do so ; it would be contrary to the genius of civilization and the spirit of our times thus to recede. We have got the Canal, and, in the interests of ourselves and of the world, we will hold it free for every one at all hazards. If Russia were to obtain political supremacy on either side of the Bosphorus, she could stop the Canal or intercept our way to India by the Euphrates Valley. North of the Danube she is compara¬ tively harmless ; but with the Black Sea, the Sea of Marmora, and the Straits, she would have at her command a position unequalled in the world for commerce and for war. She could barricade the Dardanelles, and behind it she would have two inland seas, which would be at one and the same time harbour, arsenal, dockyard, and naval station. She could there with security and ease equip and arm her ships, train her sailors, and manoeuvre her fleet. In the numberless islands and road¬ steads of the Archipelago, she would have means for conducting either offensive or defensive warfare, such as is to be found in no other part of the globe in equal space. This position is the key to Europe—one of its life arteries. Its occupation by a conquering, ambitious, and despotic Power would be a danger to England, to Europe, and to liberty. The aspirations of the Russian peasant are southward. He yearns to be clear of the Boreal regions of snow and solitude in which he is enveloped for the greater part of the year. As naturally as the sap rises in the vine, so naturally does the desire of the Russian rise to reach more genial regions, and to burst the political and frozen cerements which rob him of life and of development. It is only the force of the iron yoke that makes him a labourer. By choice and by taste he would be a wanderer, a boatman, a pedlar, or a travelling mechanic. Russia is not a nation like France, or Italy, or Spain ; it is not a dynastic aggregation of States like Austria ; but it is a crushing and devouring political mechanism, which has annihilated fully fifty distinct nationalities. It kills every spring of independence ; it has covered whole continents with the melancholy monuments of nations. Poland, the Niobe of nations, whose gallant sons have been the knights-errant of liberty the world over, has been all but interred by her in Siberia. Circassia, the cradle of the human race, THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 159 whose people are the manliest and handsomest in the world, has been converted into a tomb ; and she is now seeking to engulph the desert steppes, the briny waters, and the shifting burning sands that lie between the Caucasus, the Caspian, and the Afghan Table-Land. The interest, the instinct, and, to some extent, the necessity of the Russian people, urge them to seek “ fresh woods and pastures new ” away from their biting north winds, their icy frosts, their bleak and limitless plains. The government, which is Asiatic rule, bastardised by German beaurocracy, with appropriating frenzy, has striven to annex territory in all directions ; while the Emperors, animated by an ambition akin to that of “ Mace¬ donia’s Madman and the Swede,” have been dazzled by a dream of universal empire. To find a foothold for their power in the unrivalled natural resources which Turkey affords, has been their aim. The defeat of Russia in the Crimea modified for a time her external and internal policy. To soften the discontent created by the surrender of Sebastopol, liberal legal changes were instituted, and a decree emanci¬ pating the serfs was promulgated. The benefits conferred by this instru¬ ment are more apparent than real. By it the peasants were relieved from some claims to the landlords, but they were charged with equivalent burdens for the national revenue ; and the imperial functionary is often a harder taskmaster than the local lord of the soil. M. Walewski calculated that the emancipation of the serfs doubled the direct taxes of the Empire. Repulsed in the south and west, Russia sought an outlet for her stream of conquest in Central Asia. Unnoticed, and to a large extent unknown, she has, in that quarter of the globe during recent years, absorbed a ter¬ ritory nearly equal in extent to Continental Europe, and she has now a bristling array of bayonets in threatening proximity to our Indian Empire. Although popular feeling and historical recollection have always favoured a campaign for supplanting the Crescent by the Cross, there is a small but intelligent and influential party in Russia who are adverse to this tempting and treacherous cry of “To Constantinople !” They contend that, if the seat of Government were removed from the banks of the cold and misty Neva to those of the brilliant Bosphorus, the Empire would perish through the effeminacy generated by residence in the sunny and seductive South. Hardy Northmen would be replaced in the councils of the Czar by intriguing Greeks and Bulgars. This would lead to divisions in which the unwieldy dominions would be split in twain through the struggles for supremacy that would ensue between the genuine Slav and the idle mongrels that would flutter round the court of the new Byzantium. This view has been maintained not only by authors like Gurowski, and by soldiers like Fadeof, but by many Russian Liberals. Three of the most remarkable men that the revolutions in the East sent into Western Europe were Bakunin, whom the Emperor Nicholas, after an interview with him, described as a “noble but danger- i6o SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. ous madman Alexander Herzen, one of the most fascinating of men, who combined the philosophy of Germany, the politics of Republican France, and the practical good sense of Englishmen, with the native Russian character; and Mieroslowski, the brilliant and eloquent Polish leader. I have heard all of these gentlemen contend that Europe would not see for many years—probably not for generations—another effort made by Russia to obtain Constantinople. They held this opinion, not because they all approved of it—Bakunin certainly did not—but because they believed that the German party in Russia had realised the hopelessness of a struggle with the Western Powers, and they would not resume it. The nervous, hesitating, indolent, but kindly man who is now at the head of the Russian people, has always, until recently, been credited with a settled determination not to renew the enterprise that ended so disastrously for his father. The idea was general that India and China, rather than Turkey, would be threatened by Russian advance. I own that I largely shared that opinion. But events have shown that this was an error, and that the passion for accomplishing what the people of Russia believed to be their manifest destiny was not dead, but only slumbered—the leopard has not changed his spots nor the Tartar his skin. The first pronounced intimation of the retention of this old faith was seen in the course pursued by Russia during the Franco-German war. Immediately our ally was worsted in that disastrous conflict, the Czar intimated that he intended no longer to comply with the clauses of the Treaty of Paris that neutralised the Black Sea. He did not invite the other Powers of Europe who, along with himself, were parties to that treaty, to meet and discuss the reasonableness of his request for an alteration, but, with autocratic pride and despotic imperiousness, he pro¬ claimed his determination to look upon that portion of the treaty as null and void. He had observed it as long as France was in a position to unite with England for its maintenance, but when she was temporarily disabled, he seized the opportunity to break an engagement which he had solemnly entered upon. This was the first sign of the change, the effects of which Europe has just witnessed. Russia, in her attacks upon neighbouring States, follows a uniform and unvarying plan. She begins usually by professing an interest in their welfare. At one time, she is moved by sympathy for her brethren in bonds, as if there were no persons in bonds in Russia. At another time, she is roused to fervour for her co-religionists, as if there were no persons suffering for their religious opinions within her own borders. She knows how to lure adjoining rulers to destruction by encouraging them in every frivolous expense, every private vice, and every public iniquity, as she did Abdul Aziz and many an unfor¬ tunate Asiatic Khan. She can compass the destruction of popular liberty by Jesuitical intrigue, as she did in Poland. She can engage in THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 161 plots and conspiracies, as she did more recently in Bulgaria. Ignorance, ambition, corruption, are all made in turn to minister to her designs. The cupidity of Turkish pashas, who too often obtain their positions by bribery, and hold them by oppression and extortion, and the hope¬ less confusion into which the ministers of the Sultan have allowed affairs to drift at Constantinople, formed a favourable field for the work of Russian emissaries. The stereotyped process was followed. There was first complaint, then suggestion, and then the inevitable conference and the equally inevitable war. The Turkish people, both Mahomedan and Christian, suffered under solid and serious grievances. They have been oppressed and outraged by a system of administration that was out¬ rageous and indefensible ; but they sought redress of their grievances at the hands of their own rulers, and not from a foreign Power. This was shown by the stubborn resistance that was made to the advance of the Austrian troops into Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Hungarians are the truest friends the Turks have in Europe ; and if they fought so stoutly to oppose their entrance to their provinces they would have fought with greater resolution against the admission of the troops of any other country. After the war the Russian diplomatists and generals succeeded in getting a band of trembling palace pashas around them at Adrianople, from whom they abstracted a treaty that unmasked their designs, and placed them in a broad and startling light before the world. If there was any doubt before as to the aim Russia had in commencing the war, there can be none now. Before she started on her campaign, the Czar declared—first, that he did not intend to enter Constantinople ; second, that he did not seek territorial acquisition ; and, third, that his sole object was to ensure the freedom of the oppressed nationalities. He kept the ■“ word of promise to the ear, but broke it to the hope.” He did not enter Constantinople, it is true, but he surrounded it, and his troops would have entered it, if the English fleet had not been in the Sea of Marmora, and the English soldiers within call at Malta. He broke the second engage¬ ment by annexing Bessarabia and the territory around Batoum, Ardahan, and Kars. By the Treaty of San Stefano, he proposed the creation of what he euphemistically described as a “ big Bulgaria ; ” in other words, a huge Russian province, whose borders were to extend to the shores of the Aegean. If the treaty had remained as drawn by Russia, she would have had a port at Kavala in the south ; she would have had another in the Adriatic at Antivari; and she would have been left in command of two-thirds of the shores of the Black Sea from Midia, twenty-five miles north of Constantinople, round to beyond Batoum. There would have been left around Constantinople a few acres of ground, little more than half the size of the county of Durham ; then this new Russia, like a wedge, would intervene ; and beyond that there would have been Macedonia, Albania, and the north-western provinces. Turkey, left without frontiers 12 162 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. and without fortresses, would have fallen a ready and easy prey to Russia, whenever she felt herself strong enough, and Europe was indifferent enough to allow her to resume her crusade. By this treaty Russia not only took territory in Armenia and Bessarabia, but she proposed also to subject the entire Balkan peninsula to her authority. She kept her third engage¬ ment by ignoring the nationality of the Roumanian inhabitants of Bessa¬ rabia, separating them from a free and uniting them to a despotic State. She despised the religious and race leanings of the Maho- medans near Batoum, and treated with contempt the nationality of Mahomedans living in the southern provinces of Turkey. She in this way either broke or evaded every engagement she had made. To have allowed Russia to retain the position she projected for herself at San Stefano would have destroyed the balance of power in Europe, would have put the fate of Asia in her hand, and placed in her grasp the virtual dictatorship of two continents. The main purpose of international arrangement is to secure the freedom and safety of smaller States, and to enable them to live their own lives while surrounded by Powers which could annihilate them without such protection. The law of nations prevents grasping, greedy Governments crushing weaker ones. If it were not sustained, the marauders of the earth would be let loose to prey upon their poor and feeble neighbours. It is no childish dislike of Russia that leads me to contend for the maintenance of this law and this policy. National enmity is not a sound or permanent ground of either duty or policy. It is the defence of Eng¬ land and of Europe, the assertion and maintenance of the principles of free government, as against a despotism — England and the Western Powers representing the one, and Russia the other—that leads me to advocate the resistance of the advance of the Muscovites to the Bosphorus. In what way has the recent policy of this country contributed to the defence of the Empire, the maintenance of the way to India, and the upholding of the authority of this country’ in the councils of Europe ? Let us look fairly at the facts as they are, and not as they are painted by rival partisans. To the jaundiced eye everything is yellow. By the fortunes of war—a hypocritical war it is true, but still by the fortunes of war — Russia had Turkey at her mercy. She had fought, and she had won. She did not occupy Constantinople, but she commanded it, and to the victors belong the spoil. It is true, as I have just explained, she made certain promises before commencing the conflict, which she either evaded or broke. But that is not remarkable. It would have been more remarkable if she had kept them. The Treaty of San Stefano did not fully express her desires, but it did express the extent to which she believed she could with safety go in the presence of the indifference of other Powers, and the assumed incapacity and unwilling¬ ness of England to oppose her. The Treaty of Berlin did not fully THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 163 express what this country wanted, but it did express the extent of the concessions that it was possible to obtain. A comparison of what was dictated by Russia at San Stefano, and what was accepted by her at Berlin, will show the measure of change made mainly at the instance of this country. The Russian troops have evacuated Turkish territory. This may appear a simple statement, but it is not unimportant. Every effort was made by her to retain possession of the provinces she had conquered. She strove to promote discord between the Mussulman and Christian inhabitants, hoping that that discord could be made a pretext for her remaining. Failing in that, she propounded the Jesuitical plan of a joint occupation of Eastern Roumelia by herself and other Powers. These schemes, however, were baffled ; and there is now not a single Cossack trooper west of the Pruth. If the Treaty of San Stefano had stood as it was drawn, Turkey would not only have been dismembered, but destroyed. She has now the opportunity of making a fresh start in national life. She can, if her rulers choose, rehabilitate herself in the estimation of Europe and of the world. There is little evidence as yet, I am bound to say, of this disposition. The incorrigible pashas who control her policy seem to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing by the cruel experience of the last three years. The Government is as rotten as the portals of the Porte are worm-eaten. These men have most of the vices of both Eastern and Western peoples, and few of their virtues. There are persons high in the confidence of the Sultan, who are as completely under the control of the enemies of their country as Faust was under the control of Mephistopheles. But though the Porte may perish, Turkey will remain. The Empire vanished, but France was left. There is, and has been for years, an active and patriotic party in Turkey, who have been striving to adapt their institutions to Western modes of life and to European requirements. The programme of this party is the fusion of the various races in the peninsula into a united State, based upon the equality, religious and political, of all. Fuad Pasha and Ali Pasha laboured long and earnestly for these principles, and they are advocated with equal sincerity by Midhat and his supporters. Men of all creeds and all races will be placed on a common level. This pro¬ gramme has the support of Christians and Mahomedans alike. One of the most painful and regretable incidents of the controversy is the disparaging way in which the honest efforts of these Turkish reformers are spoken of by Liberal politicians in England. Whoever else cares to sneer at the Turkish Constitution, it certainly is no part of the duty of professed advocates of liberal government to take up their parable against it. It is certainly not impossible to conceive of the establishment of a Government in which both Mahomedans and Christians may be united, and the pernicious influence which now predominates at Con¬ stantinople be exorcised from Turkish political life. 164 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO IVEN, M.P. By the Treaty of San Stefano injustice would not only have been done to the Greeks, but that country would have been condemned to sustain an exhausting conflict for its bare existence. By the extension of a Slav State to the Aigean, Greece would have been denied development. With resources limited and population scanty, she would have been stripped of the elements of growth. She might have been an inde¬ pendent State truly, but so weak that she would have been unable to fulfil the purpose of her foundation. She has now the opportunity of working out her redemption—she is the nucleus, the preparatory agency for the enfranchisement of the Hellenic race. Greece has a lofty mission to fulfil, and, despite present unfavourable signs, I do not despair of seeing her accomplish it. She is something more and better than when Byron mournfully described her as “ Greece, but living Greece no more.” She does live ; she has sustained a soul almost “ within the ribs of death.’’ “ The Spartan blood that in her veins yet throbs at freedom’s call:— Every stone of old Greece—has it not its hero-tale ? Where they fought, where they fell—'twas on every hill and dale. The dead are but the hero seed that will spring to life again." By the Treaty of Berlin Greece gained but little, but at least she was not by it “ cabined, cribbed, and confined ” to the narrow limits of her too restricted territory. The idea of most European Liberals has been that Russian aggres¬ sion could be stayed only by the creation of a belt of free States between the Danube and the Balkans. The different nationalities would be there grouped in distinct organizations, and, when combined, they would be a more effective barrier to Muscovite progress than an effete and receding empire like Turkey. Many Liberals who agree with this principle see difficulties to its practical realization. The in¬ habitants of this region are chiefly members of the Greek Church. The Czar is the head of that Church, and he holds them in a state of political as well as theological tutelage. Russia has often professed to assist at the birth of a new nation, but she has ahvays managed to keep her thumb upon its throat, so that it could be destroyed if it became trouble¬ some. It was a common saying of the Russian troops in Bulgaria, “ We have now got these Bulgar pigs, and we will drive them.” Apart, how¬ ever, from these speculative objections to the project of distinct nation¬ alities—the oft-declared policy of the Czars—when the Emperor Nicholas proposed to Sir Hamilton Seymour that England and Russia should divide between them the possessions of the Sick Man, he said there were many points in his proposed scheme which he was willing to yield to the wishes of England, but there was one point on which he would never yield. Whatever else he consented to, he would never consent to the establish¬ ment of a number of small and independent States on the Russian THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 165 frontier. These would be, he said, nothing but nurseries in which a per¬ petual crop of Mazzinis and Kossuths would be raised ; their opinions would penetrate into his dominions, and endanger the necessary authority of his government. This was then the settled policy of Russia, and has been authoritatively expressed repeatedly since. Bulgaria, as created by the Treaty of San Stefano, would have been little more than a Russian Principality ; but by the Treaty of Berlin the Bulgarian people have had afforded to them the opportunity of winning for themselves an indepen¬ dent national life. Some few years ago, the Bulgarians were held up in this country as models of Christian meekness. Recently they have been condemned with almost equal vigour, and their character has certainly developed some not very lovable attributes. They profess to be Christians,, but they have scarcely acted upon the Christian principle of doing unto- others as they would like to be done by. They complained loudly and' justly of the oppression they suffered from the Turkish pashas ; but now r when they have the power, they have manifested toward their Mussulman neighbours a more arbitrary and tyrannical spirit than these Mussulmans ever showed towards them. But I have no wish to judge them harshly, A nation that has, for generations, been sunk in ignorance and vice cannot be expected all at once to realise the enlightened magnanimity of philo¬ sophers. People who have been trampled on will remember it ; those who have been injured will retaliate, and those who have been oppressed will not all at once forget. But the Bulgarians, in time, will take their place amongst the European family of nations, and shake off some of the offensive characteristics that have recently distinguished them. The most gratifying and encouraging intelligence that has come from the East of Europe recently is that these independent States have realised their position. They have learned that Russia’s interest in their behalf was not disinterested. The Roumanians remember with bitterness that although they came to the assistance of their big neighbours when they were in sad straits before Plevna, their reward has been the loss of one of their most important provinces. The entire tone of feeling throughout those regions is a determination on the part of the peoples to assert their independence, and shake themselves clear of Russian influence and direc¬ tion. But the most important event that has taken place in Turkey has been the occupation of Bosnia by Austria. This action cannot be justified on the grounds of national right or justice. I certainly have no wish to extenuate or defend it. It is understood that the clause in the Treaty of Berlin, which assured these provinces to Austria, owed its authorship to Prince Bismarck and Count Andrassy. Germany contends that the Danube is a German stream — that as she controls its source so should she command its mouth. German colonists are planted along its banks, and their statesmen are unwilling to allow it to pass under the domina¬ tion of Russia. Austria objects to the creation of an independent Slav SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. 166 State on the west, as she has already one on her eastern borders. For these dynastic and State reasons, the occupation, or rather the annexa¬ tion, of these provinces by Austria has been assured. I am not justifying what has been done, and am dealing only with the facts as they are. The occupation of Bosnia by Austria renders the advance of Russia to Constantinople all but impossible. Both political and military reasons combine to prevent her achieving her designs on the great city of the East. The case may be put in a sentence. The design of Russia, as revealed by the Treaty of San Stefano, is to obtain a preponderating influence in the Balkan peninsula. The object of England is to prevent her doing this. The result is that Russia is now further from the Bosphorus, and less likely to get there, than she has ever been ; and this has been accomplished chiefly by the action taken by this country. It has been achieved, too, without the loss of a single English life, or without our setting a single regiment in line of battle. Of all the strange things that I have heard during this controversy, the strangest is that Russia has achieved a victory, while England has sustained a defeat. We are told this in varying forms almost daily. I do not think any one else in Europe says so except some English party politicians. It is a fact beyond dispute, that the military and aggressive party in Russia are loudly proclaiming that the victories they won with so much difficulty in the field have been abstracted from them in the Council Chamber. They were dissatisfied with the mode in which the war was commenced and for some time conducted, but the advance of the troops to the neighbourhood of Constantinople consoled them for a season. The Treaty of San Stefano, objectionable as it was regarded by England, was considered by the active party in Russia as incomplete and unsatisfactory. Their complaints against it, however, were mollified by the assurance held out to them that it was only temporary. But when even that unsatisfactory treaty had to be subjected to the revision and alteration of the other European States at Berlin, their discontent assumed an active and threatening attitude. The promulgation of the Treaty of Berlin corresponds with the recommencement of a period of political assassinations and plots. This reveals popular discontent, while the marching and counter-marching of Russian troops, and the massing of armies on the German and Austrian frontiers, reveal the state of feeling which pervades the governing class. It is indisputable that, in the estimation of men familiar with Russian society, the Treaty of Berlin has shaken the system of government to its foundation ; while the war which Englishmen are so fond of regarding as a triumph for Russia and a discomfiture for this country, is looked upon by Russians as having entailed upon their country a harvest of discontent and disappointment. To balance the territorial advantages gained by other Powers, we THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 167 have obtained a more assured position in the Levant. I will not enter into the rather pitiful squabble about Cyprus — whether that island is what the poets of the past have painted it, “the blest, the beautiful, the salubrious, the happy, the dream and the desire of man,” or as it is as drawn by partisan politicians in this country—a fever-bed and charnel-house. That it is advantageously situated for guarding the Suez Canal from any danger from the North, and that it affords a favourable starting-point for advancing to the East through the Euphrates Valley, will scarcely be denied by any one who has impartially examined the subject. Military and naval men maintain that it can be made not only a watch-tower, but a depot for arms and a safe naval station. It is only twenty hours from Port Said, nine from Acre, and six from Beyrout. It is near enough to watch, and close enough to strike, if we require to strike, in defence of our road to the Red Sea and to the Persian Gulf. By the Anglo-Turkish Convention, England has taken upon herself heavy responsibilities. But if we had not effected that arrangement, the Sultan, like Shere Ali, despairing of help from England, would have thrown himself—reluctantly, no doubt, but still he would have thrown himself—into the arms of Russia ; and whatever the result of such a bargain would have been to the people, the greedy pashas would have been secured in their pleasures and possessions. We had, therefore, either to accept the position or permit it to pass into the possession of a rival who, with such a leverage in the centre of two continents, could not only have imperilled our Empire in India, but our authority in Europe. We have often entered into treaties with other nations entailing equally onerous obligations. We are bound to defend Greece against Turkey ; Portugal against Spain ; Belgium against France and Germany. We were bound to defend Denmark, and with culpable cowardice we evaded the responsibility. Under a stringent treaty we are bound to maintain the independence of Sweden and Norway. If Russia should attempt to lease the fisheries in Swedish waters or the pasturage on Norwegian soil, this country is to be informed of the fact; and any attempt on her part to infringe upon the Scandinavian territory we are under engagement to resist by force of arms. We are parties to other treaties, many of them quite as risky as the one we have recently entered into with Turkey ; and few of them offer such prospect of achieving such beneficial results as may spring from the Anglo-Turkish Convention. In Asia Minor, there are 700,000 square miles of some of the finest land in the world, washed by three seas, watered by large rivers, and posses¬ sing spacious ports and harbours. The soil is capable of producing grain, fruit, and cotton in abundance, while the hills and the valleys abound in copper, lead, iron, and silver. Much of this fair and fruitful region, on which the seasons have lavished all their beauty, and nature all its frag¬ rance, is given over to malaria and to wild beasts, is the gathering 168 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. ground of predatory Kurds, and the camping-place of wandering Arabs- The spot from which the first enterprise of man started—the land around which such a wealth of romance, poetry, and mystery fastens—which has influenced the destinies and formed the characters of not one, but many peoples—is now, from causes partly local and partly foreign, doomed to endure a system of rule which is little less than organised anarchy. We send our surplus population across the Atlantic or to the Antipodes. There is no reason why they should not find a field for their labours, and an outlet for their skill, in a luxuriant land, rich with golden grain and an infinite variety of plants and fruit, and minerals, within a few hours of our own shores. What has hitherto been wanted is security for life and property. Under the protection that might be, that ought to be, and I trust will be, given by this treaty, these obstacles to colonization would be removed. English capitalists and the English Government have always refused seriously to consider the project of a railway through the Euphrates. Valley, because they declined to risk such large investments in a country over which they had not sufficient control. This treaty ought to, and I think will, dispense with that difficulty. The railway scheme is described by partisans as Utopian and visionary, but that is a kind of opposition which has grown stale and obsolete. It is not many years ago since the construction of the Suez Canal was demonstrated by our townsman, Mr. Robert Stephenson, to be an impossibility, and it was laughed at in the House of Commons by Lord Palmerston as the dream of a crack-brained Frenchman. But the canal is, nevertheless, a great fact. Last year, there passsed through it between sixteen and seventeen- hundred ships with a tonnage of nearly three million, and thirteen hundred out of the sixteen were English vessels—a proof of the import¬ ance of that water-way to this country. When the scheme of making ar railway across the American continent was first promulgated, it was met with characteristic derision, and yet now the line between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, a distance of nearly 2,800 miles, carries thousands of people in the course of a year. Russians, in these matters, are somewhat bolder and more enter¬ prising than some Englishmen are. By the combined effects of river and railway, canal and lake, they have nearly united the basins of the Baltic, the Black Sea, and the Caspian. They have revived the old project of diverting the course of the Oxus, and by their system of land and water carriage, commencing at Riga and Warsaw, and ter¬ minating not far from our Indian frontier, they hope to secure a pre¬ ponderating influence in Central Asia. The Euphrates Valley Railway would be 1,200 miles long, and the cost of its construction is esti¬ mated at ^12,000,000—a comparatively small sum when the amounts- invested in railways in this country are considered. I know no more of THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 169 the future than a prophet, but I think it would be no great venture to hazard the prediction that the railway will be made, and made, too, through English enterprise ; that this work will not only act as a break¬ water against Northern aggression, and a bulwark for the Indian Empire, but will be made the fulcrum for raising politically and socially an unfor¬ tunate people, and making the early seat of arts and refinement, the theatre of some of the most momentous events in history, once more bloom and blossom as the rose. My contention, in a sentence, is that our external Empire should be maintained and defended, as much in the interests of freedom and civilization as in the interests of England and its instant dependencies ; that we cannot honourably and without danger shrink from the responsibilities that our history and our position as the oldest and one of the chief of free States in the world entail upon us ; that the security of our dominions in the East and the equilibrium of Europe were threatened by the advance of Russia on Constantinople ; that the action this country took, although it was open to objection in its details, was necessary, and in the main judicious ; that it largely contri¬ buted to thwart the dangerous, the aggressive, designs of Russia ; has protected our present, and made provision for our obtaining an improved way to India; may help to secure better government for Turkey ; and has strengthened the influence of England in the councils of Europe. It is impossible now to discuss at length the policy pursued in Afghani¬ stan, but I wish to express shortly the views I entertain on the action that has been taken in that country. Our Indian possessions are encircled by the ocean on the south, the south-east, and south-west. On the East, they are protected by high ranges of mountains and all but impenetrable forests. These mountains and these forests are occupied by savage tribes, who, although capable of great annoyance, as the Nagas are now, are incapable of inflicting any real political or military injury upon us. On the north and north-west our frontiers are the bases of the Himalaya and the Sulieman Mountains. It is an accepted canon in military science, that a Power which holds the mountains and possesses what in soldiers’ parlance are called the “ issues of the frontier,” has an enormous advantage over the Power which occupies the plains. This is an opinion which will scarcely be contested. These mountains are peopled by fierce, warlike, and turbulent tribes, who have no special love for Eng¬ land, but have just as much dislike of each other. They live partly by pasturage, partly by plunder. They fight for their own hand. The only race that has an organised Government of any strength there is the Afghan. As long as these passes and mountains, and the country generally, are occupied by tribes of this character, no danger to India is to be anticipated. Partly brigands, partly soldiers, they can annoy us, and levy blackmail on the adjoining inhabitants, yet they cannot seriously disturb or threaten our authority. But it is the accepted opinion i7o SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. of men of all parties—statesmen and soldiers alike—that should this strong military position ever pass into the possession of a powerful Government, our exposed frontier would lay us open to serious danger. For years Afghanistan, if not friendly, has at least been neutral ; and there was an understanding between Russia and England that that country should be considered as outside of their mutual interests and influence— that it should be regarded as a neutral territory, both being concerned in upholding its independence and neutrality. The advance of Russia, however, to the East so alarmed the late Ameer that he urged, some years ago, the English Government to enter into a closer alliance with him than then existed. He pointed out that Russia was advancing, and did not conceal his fear that, unless he was protected by England, the same fate would overtake him that had overtaken many another Asiatic ruler. Our Governmental that time did not share Shere Ali’s fears, and refused to comply with the requests that he preferred. He became discontented; and from having a friendly leaning towards England, he began to lean towards Russia, and to open negotiations with her commanders in the adjacent provinces. When Russia’s objects in Turkey were thwarted by this country, she retaliated by striving to set our Indian frontiers in a blaze. No one can complain of her doing so ; it is what we would have done, probably, in like cir¬ cumstances. She objected to our fleet being in the Sea of Marmora, and she thought she would disturb us and distract our attention by assuming a threatening attitude in Afghanistan. A Russian mission was sent. It was received with ostentatious displays of sympathy by the Ameer, and, as far as he was able, he proclaimed that in future he would be the firm friend and ally of Russia, and if not the enemy, at least not the friend, of this country. If not in words, the substance of his declaration and his action at the reception of the Russian mission amounted to this. Our Govern¬ ment required that, as he had received a mission from Russia, he should also accept one from England. He refused to do so, and we attempted to force the mission upon him. It is unnecessary to repeat the facts which are in the recollection, no doubt, of all present. Shere Ali’s refusal led to war. After a small show of resistance he fled from Cabul, and shortly afterwards died. With his son, who was made his successor, we concluded peace, and entered into a treaty. By that treaty England got the right of sending agents to certain specified districts in Afghanistan, and also obtained an improved frontier. Instead of having the base of the mountains as a border, we got the mountains themselves. By that treaty the country should stand. The frontier secured to us by it should be maintained. A most lamentable, melancholy, and disastrous inci¬ dent occurred last autumn—the murder of Sir Louis Cavagnari and his suite. But that ought not to divert us from the settled policy that was THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 171 developed and expressed by the Treaty of Gandamuk. I am in favour of holding the possessions that we have, but want no more. We have provinces plenty and to spare. Even if we possessed Afghanistan, it would be only a perplexing acquisition ; but supposing it were a profitable one, it would be contrary to the wishes and feelings of the Afghans to come under British rule, and I am altogether opposed to enforcing it upon them. The Treaty that Yakoob Khan entered into embodies the policy of the country, and it should be upheld. I have discussed principles, and not personalities. I am not interested either in defending or in decrying any body of men. All I have been concerned for is to state the grounds on which I have been led to support the assertion of what I believe to be Liberal principles and the main¬ tenance of a national policy. It is easy to find fault, and easier still to impute bad motives to your opponents. “ A man must serve his time to every trade Save censure. Critics all are ready made.” The shortcomings of the Government are as apparent to me as to the fiercest opponents of their foreign policy. They have often been weak, sometimes vacillating, not unfrequently wrong ; but I wish to judge them as I would like them to judge me, or the party with which I am identified, under like circumstances. They have been beset by a succession of diffi¬ culties and dangers such as never before encompassed an Administration in our times. Apart from the inherent intricacies of the questions they have had to deal with, they have had to contend with the rival interests of other Powers, a strong opposition at home, and some divisions in their own party. It is not generosity—it is simply justice — to remember this. We should also recollect that, in dealing with foreign affairs, there are always some matters that cannot be explained. Ministries are called upon at times to act upon information that they cannot make public. “ What’s done we partly may compute, But know not what’s resisted.” It is possible, even in party warfare, to drive your attacks too far. Unqualified denunciation usually provokes reaction. The Government, who have had the support of large majorities in both Houses of Parlia¬ ment, are accused of not only being wrong, but of being criminal — not only of being mischievous and mistaken, but of being malevolent and mali¬ cious. They are charged with having roamed round the world with in¬ cendiary designs, bent upon turning our frontiers into “ blazing bastions fringed with fire.” The accusation is, in my judgment, not only incorrect but foolish. The indictment I would prefer against them would be of the very opposite character. I think they have acted with tameness and timidity. They have been six years in office, and the first half of that 172 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. time presented them in their normal and natural character. An entire absence of political legislation, some mild but useful social measures, and a free and easy administration were their characteristics. Taking warning by their predecessors, their great effort was to avoid needlessly offending any one. Events that they could not foresee, circumstances which they could not control, have driven them into warlike action. People are easily misled by a cry, but no man who has examined the facts for himself can contend that the English Government started the conflict in Eastern Europe. Whoever began it—whether it was the Russian emissaries or the Turkish people themselves—certainly Lord Derby, who was then the Foreign Minister of this country, did not do so. He pressed the Sultan to settle the disputes with his subjects, and if that could not be done, he urged him, with somewhat cynical indifference, to suppress the insurrec¬ tion. When that failed, he strove to localise the war. It may be said that England should have obeyed the three Emperors, and signed the Ukase which the Imperial League issued from Berlin, and if Turkey refused to comply with their demands, she should have been coerced— in other words, that we should have gone to war against her. It is a matter of opinion, but, in the judgment of men familiar with the East, had such a course been pursued, the Turks would have turned their backs to the wall, and with all the disciplined fanaticism of their race, they would have fought against Christian and coalesced Europe for their country and their faith. The resistance that was given in Bosnia to the advance of a friendly Hungarian army strengthens this view. But if the Berlin Memorandum was refused, England assented to, and took part in, the Conference of Constantinople. However we may condemn the course taken by the Government on the Eastern difficulties, no man can fairly say that they caused them. The Afghan war, for which they are more directly responsible, was the outcome of the action of Russia in Turkey. We may fairly criticise the policy of the Government, but no one, I think, can say that they sought a cause of quarrel. I do not contend that foreign politics are outside the domain of popular and Parliamentary criticism. On the contrary, I regret that for many years the English people have given so little and such fluc¬ tuating heed to foreign questions. But I do say that such delicate topics should not be made the battle-field of party. There are two modes of conducting a discussion—one to elicit information, to sustain, to direct and guide the Executive ; another to win a party victory out of Govern¬ ment troubles. If the Government of the country are in difficulties abroad, the nation is in difficulties ; and it grates as much against my national pride as against my sense of justice to go hunting for arguments against my political opponents amongst the stiffening corpses of my fellow-countrymen. On this subject, I will quote the opinion of the late M. Thiers, when discussing the attitude taken in France by the Orleanists THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 173 and the Legitimists during the Crimean war. The veteran French states¬ man, speaking to Mr. Nassau Senior, said :— “ The rules of party warfare allow me to call my opponent a villain, though I know him to be honest ; to abuse his measures though I know them to be useful; to attack his arguments with sophistry and even with falsehood ; all this my opponent may do to me, and therefore it is fair that I should do it to him. But we must both of us abstain from using as our battle-field the foreign relations of our country. In these relations an error may be fatal. We may quarrel amongst ourselves ; we must be united against the foreigner.” 1 am not insensible to the benefits of party government. English liberty owes much to it. Successes won by serious and prolonged struggles have been retained by party vigilance. The education gained in such struggles has made the victories permanent. It would be difficult to replace, too, a system that has become so acclimatised to our constitutional life. But party spirit, pushed too far, crushes individuality of thought and cripples independent energy. It impairs the disciplinary value of the suffrage by destroying the voter’s sense of responsibility. It lowers the character of the Parliament by converting independent representatives into political automatons, whose value consists in the unreflecting vigour with which they shout the party shibboleth. On points of procedure and of detail, a member may obey the party managers without injury or disadvantage; but when great national issues are at stake, a man forfeits his own respect, and becomes a recreant to his country, who ignores his convictions and submits to think by deputy or to act by order. Some of our friends, I think, act somewhat inconsistently on this subject. One of their chief causes of complaint against the present Parliament is its want of independence. They charge it with being an unthinking party machine, and they applauded the action of Lord Derby and Lord Carnarvon when they separated themselves from their col¬ leagues and announced their dissent from their policy. But when Liberals, on the other side, acting from equally high motives, separate themselves from their leaders, they are censured, and in some instances ostracised. What is accounted as commendable independence on the one side, is condemned as an exhibition of fractious self-will on the other. There are in the House of Commons some thirty or forty members who, more or less, have supported the policy the Govern¬ ment have pursued on foreign questions. Their numbers possibly would have been larger if vote by ballot had been in operation in the House. Their action, however, in this Parliament is only in keeping with the action of other sections of the Liberal party in previous Parliaments. In the last Parliament, the Nonconformists were dissatisfied with the way in which the Government dealt with elementary education. The Irish members were discontented with the manner in which they dealt with university education. The hostility of the Irish representatives to the 174 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Irish University scheme of the Ministry led to their defeat in Parliament. The opposition of Nonconformists did not cause that defeat, but it cer¬ tainly contributed to produce that which followed it at the poll. Yet, the Ministers who were responsible for this educational legislation are to-day amongst the trusted leaders of the party. In the Parliament of 1865, stronger differences were developed. Lord Russell introduced a Reform Bill, proposing to give a vote to every man who lived in a house of the value of £7. This moderate proposal was objected to by a section of Liberals, who denounced it as revolutionary. Their opposition led to the defeat of Earl Russell’s Government, and his subsequent resignation. Lord Russell himself describes this party as consisting of three gangs —the timid, the selfish, and those who were both timid and selfish. For the first, he said, he had pity ; for the second indignation ; for the third contempt. During all his long career he declared that he never encountered a body of politicians so little influenced by principle or animated by a patriotic spirit. The leader of the party he described as a man “ sagacious, bold, and turbulent of wit.” Yet, this same leader was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Ministry, and is now one of the ablest of the Liberals in the House of Commons. Another difference took place in the same Parliament, which had more beneficial results. The Conservative Government proposed that house¬ hold suffrage should be made the basis of the Reform Bill. This was objected to by the official Liberals of the day, who wished to have a ratepaying, instead of a household, franchise. A number of Radicals met in the tea-room of the Parliament House, declared that they approved of the principle of the Government Bill, and resolved that if the Ministry would give them an assurance that they would stand by that principle they (the Radicals) would support them. The Ministry did give the assurance, the Radicals did stand to the arrangement ; and the result was that household suffrage became the law, notwithstanding the opposi¬ tion of Liberal chiefs. The Adullamite defection drove the Liberal Government from office, and the tea-room defection succeeded in making household suffrage the law of the land. There has never been a Par¬ liament since the Reform Bill where instances of the kind have not occurred. The policy on foreign questions that I and others in the House of Com¬ mons have defended is the old policy of this country. I have no wish to shelter myself behind big names or to shake myself clear of responsibility. I have too often been in a minority to be afraid of being in that position again. I know what it is to be in the right with two or three. But the policy I have expounded to-night, and which I have supported in Par¬ liament, is the policy that was advocated by Mackintosh and Brougham, Horner and Lord Durham ; it is a policy that received the approval of the philosophic Liberals—Molesworth, Mill, Grote, and Buller. It is the old THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND. 175 Radical policy that was expounded by Major Cartwright, Lord Dundonald, William Cobbett, and General Thompson ; and it was the common faith of Radicals when I first became interested in political affairs. It is not the faith, I know, of the Manchester School ; but it is, certainly, of the early Radicals. I could quote, from the speeches and writings of the men whose names I have cited, numerous extracts to confirm my state¬ ment ; but I will content myself with citing, in support of my position, a few words from a statesman whose name will, in every Liberal assembly, be received with favour. Earl Russell, for over fifty years, played a lead¬ ing and important part in the history of this country. No one has rendered the Liberal cause more effective service than he has done. He has not boxed the political compass and served all sides in turn. He ended as he began—a moderate and consistent advocate of Liberal principles. In his last work, Lord Russell expressed the strong regret he felt at having retired, as he did, from the leadership after the defeat of the party in 1867. The reason why he regretted having retired was the policy the party was led to pursue on foreign matters. The policy that the present Opposition have supported is the policy of the late Govern¬ ment. Lord Russell commended their domestic legislation, but censured, in strong and emphatic terms, their action in foreign matters. These are his words :— “ I had no reason to suppose, when I surrendered the leadership of the party, that he (the Liberal Prime Minister) was less attached than I was to the national honour, less proud than I was of the achievements of our nation by sea and land, that he dis¬ liked the extension of our colonies, and that the measures he promoted would tend to reduce the great and glorious empire of which he was put in charge to a manufactory of cotton, cloth, and a market for cheap goods, that the army and navy would be reduced by paltry savings to a standard of weakness and inefficiency. By his foreign policy he has tarnished the national honour, injured the national interests, and lowered the national character.” These are not my words. I never used language anything like so strong, but they are the words of the honoured leader of the Liberal party for the better part of half a century. I am not a conventional adherent of the fashionable Liberalism of the hour, but I am a life-long Radical by conviction, sympathy, train¬ ing, and taste. I am concerned for something more and higher than the transference of the offices of State from one set of men to another. I will not trim my political faith to catch the passing breeze, however pleasant. “ Unplaced, unpensioned, no man’s heir or slave,” I neither look for, nor care for, the honours, the favours, or the patronising approval lisped “ in liquid lines mellifluously bland ” of any party. There is only one consolation for a public man, and that is the approval of his conscience and a sense of duty done. I will not know¬ ingly or consciously offend any man by either word or speech, but when placed in a position where I must speak, I wall speak what be- 176 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. lieve to be the truth, temperately, kindly, but plainly. Whatever my lot in life may be, whether I am a member of the British Parliament again or not, I will labour for the advancement of Radical principles, and serve the Liberal cause according to my lights and to the best of my ability. But while I “ wear the party uniform I will never wear its plush.” I will take my position, however humble, in the ranks, but it will be as a volunteer, and not as a lackey. With me the people’s welfare is the supreme law, and our country’s honour and safety the first consideration. But I prefer national interests to the triumph of a faction. I am weak enough to own that I still believe in the now derided obligation of patriotism and the duty of the individual to the State, as one of the first principles planted in the human breast. I know my country’s defects, but I cannot join with those who exaggerate and parade them. The land of Michael Angelo and of Dante was not destitute of energy; but when she per¬ sistently proclaimed herself to be miserable and infamous through the mouth of Machiavelli, the world took her at her word and trod upon her. Englishmen disposed to decry their native land may remember with advantage the experience of Italy. It is ours to hand down to posterity, undimmed and undiminished, the priceless heritage of a free State, the imperceptible aggregations of centuries, won by the struggles of a heroic national life. It was planted, has been reared and watered by the sweat, the tears, the blood of some of the noblest of men. She has carried liberty and laws, art and thought, in triumph round the globe. If England be old, she is not decrepit, and has still within her daring and elasticity. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. 177 VI. POLITICAL ORGANIZATION ; MONTENEGRO AND GREECE; IRISH GRIEVANCES. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, January 3, 18S1. N the last occasion that I attempted to address a public meeting in AA this hall, I had the misfortune to meet with an accident, which, for a season, disabled me. Many questions that were then contested with much warmth have since been shelved or settled by that common arbitrator— Time. To go back upon them now would be like recalling a chapter of ancient history. But there are two points on which I disagreed with some of my friends that it is necessary to notice. They may arise again, and it is right that there should be a clear and frank understanding upon them between myself and the people of Newcastle. If agreeable rela¬ tions are to be maintained between a member and his constituents, there must exist between them mutual candour, confidence, and equality. These conditions can be secured without any exhibition of arrogance on the one hand, or of servility on the other. With some electors it was a source of regret, and with others of surprise, that at the General Election I did not commit my candidature to the organised Liberals of the borough. Others complained that I have not shown more cordiality for associative party action. My first reply to these regrets and complaints has but a transitory application. The second is more wide-reaching in its character. At the Dissolution, I was in the unfortunate position of being out of harmony with the majority of Liberals on the pressing questions of the hour. While resolved to maintain untrammeled my own opinions, I wished to respect the opinion of those who differed from me. This, in my judgment, could only be done by acting independently. Unhappy displays of party temper—inevitable, perhaps, under the tension of the times — lent temporary triction to our intercourse. But these personal disagreements have, so far as I am concerned, been long since consigned to dumb oblivion, and our peculiar differences may also be relegated to the limbo of exhausted or unsettled political feuds. I have, however, an abiding objection to modern electioneering 13 178 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. machinery, which I wish to express with all brevity but with all pre¬ cision. Organization, when carried too far, becomes tyrannical, and ends by either defeating the purposes for which it was designed, or by creating evils peculiar to itself. Shelley’s father-in-law, the author of a work that was once the text-book of English Radicalism, when warning the poet against joining a political association, told him that he might “ as well tell the adder not to sting, or use questions with a wolf; as well forbid the mountain pines to wag their high tops and make no noise when fretted with the gusts of heaven,” as expect organizations of any kind to be fair to those who differed from or opposed them. This is a severe verdict, and one not likely to meet with acceptance in an age con¬ spicuous for the disparagement of individualism and the deification of combinations. Experience proves that the most effective way for persons desirous of securing specific, constitutional, or social changes is to band themselves together for the advocacy of such ends. Societies established for the purpose of obtaining the adoption of prescribed programmes, and which, when these programmes are achieved, dissolve, are commendable exhibitions of popular union. Members of learned professions, followers of the same trade, may also advantageously combine to protect their inte¬ rests. But permanent organizations for shouting the shifting shibboleth of fluctuating factions, stunt the growth of speculation, restrict the range of inquiry, and crystallise political thought. The State should have the advantage of the matured, dispassionate, and unbiassed judgment of every informed citizen. But excessive organization destroys individual elasticity, and hammers and hardens all variety of opinion into a me¬ chanical mass, which thinks only with the brains, and sees only with the eyes of recognised but often self-chosen chiefs. This country is ruled alternately by two currents of opinion—one feverish, fervid, and formid¬ able, which is political ; another sluggish and stately, which is social. In periods of excitement, the former current carries all before it. In quieter days, the latter assumes supremacy. Amidst the passion of an election, political opinion wields undisputed authority. But when the people become fatigued with the “ monotony of their own energy,” social influences re-assert themselves. Popular concern in the details of politics cannot be sustained, but the vigilant managers of associations retain power, and from their activity often succeed in impressing their will rather than the will of the electors upon the constituencies. These remarks apply to all organizations, to all parties, and to all times. Recent constitutional changes have, it is contended, rendered combina¬ tion, within limits, more requisite than formerly. The original object of these new bodies was to select candidates. Under a restricted suffrage, this was usually done by a coterie of irresponsible local politicians. With an enlarged electorate, it became necessary to broaden the consultative body. If these associations had confined themselves to this work, they POLITICAL ORGANIZA TION. 179 would have been worthy of all approbation. But when they aspired to select not only candidates for seats in the Imperial Parliament, but can¬ didates for seats in all local corporations—when, too, they essayed the direction of all these divers contests, they entered upon a course that may become dangerous to civil liberty. They aimed at the creation of an electoral oligarchy to control the constituencies. To push political differ¬ ences into every pursuit, to split asunder our municipal assemblies by fierce polemical discussions, would lessen the amenities of life, and embitter social intercourse. By compelling candidates to permit them to direct their contests, these new organizations have multiplied the risk of electioneering indefinitely. Any candidate who accepts the services of an electoral association renders himself responsible for the doings of every member of that association. An association may number two thousand members, and the candidate who takes its help places himself at the mercy of every one of the two thousand men. Electoral law is subtle, complicated, and contradictory. It is full of traps. Nothing is more easy than for ill-informed, injudicious, and impetuous canvassers to fall into one of them. The difference between a candidate entrusting his cause to an association and fighting the election independently is well illustrated by the contests at Westbury and Bewdley. In both cases there were petitions. At Westbury, although there was clear proof of bribery having been resorted to by the winning party, the judges did not unseat the members, but they recommended the prosecution of the offending electors. The bribers were not in any way officially connected with the candidate, and for their conduct he could not be justly held answerable. The men who bribed were, therefore, punished, but the election was not voided. But at Bewdley the candidate placed himself in the hands of the Liberal Association. Two members of that body were found to have broken the law. The judges held that they were agents, and the member lost his seat. If petitions had been presented, and the law had been applied as rigidly in any of our Northern constituencies as it was at Bewdley, few association candidates would have escaped. It is all but impossible to conceive of an election being conducted without conscious or unconscious breaches of the law when the agents of the candidate are numbered by hundreds. I don’t doubt that these associations helped to secure the return of the majority got by the Liberals at the last election ; but they are a many-edged weapon, which can cut in several, and may cut in some very unexpected and undesirable, directions. Of all the troubles that beset a member’s existence, only one surpasses that of a contest, and that is a petition. The expense, the annoyance, the uncer¬ tainty attending such trials are so harassing, that I think it will be found, now that the law of agency is better known, that many candidates will adopt the course I pursued, in face of much misunderstanding and some reproach, last spring. The Ministry arc pledged to attempt a reforma- i8o SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. tion of our electoral system. I trust that they will reform it boldly and radically. Our corrupt, costly, and demoralising plan of electioneering is a blot upon our representative system, a heavy and unjust tax upon candidates, and a scandal and opprobrium upon our boasted political purity, independence, and intelligence. Another complaint preferred against me has been my general indiffer¬ ence to party interests. Party, in its best sense, may not be what Pope says it is—“ The madness of many for the gain of the few,” although history teems with instances supporting the poet’s definition. It may not either be, as some think, the wisdom of many for the gain of the whole. But it is certainly true that controversy, by filtering the turbid currents of public opinion, “ through certain strainers well-refined,” evokes truth. Freedom, too, has often caught <: its form, its temper, and its strength” amidst the whirlwinds of political passion. But while admitting the general force of the plea put in for party rule, while granting that men often act more purely and from higher motives when they act together on a common understanding than when they act individually and for personal ends, and while allowing, too, the necessity of assaulting the strongholds of power and corruption with all the force of unbroken unity, it is neces¬ sary that the limits of party thought and authority should be carefully prescribed. It should not extinguish freedom of thought, speech, or speculation. Its programme should not be encumbered by needless details, or overloaded with subordinate issues. Party interests are not the only, nor are they the highest interests that a politician has to care for. Behind the party there is the State, and behind the State there is the individual. There is a higher law than the Constitution. Party prizes may have a high value in the eyes of some, but there are nobler dignities than office can confer. Glitter and gold lace at best are but tawdry trappings, which must be unbearable if their carriage covers a forfeiture of cherished beliefs. Every man must act according to his convictions. They are his safest, and ought to be his only guide. Upon matters of detail, he may subordinate his opinion to his associates. The majority in such cases may guide him, but upon questions of principle he must stand firm, even if he be as one against one thousand. In the application of a principle, there may be opportunity and necessity for concession. Legislation is a practical science, and it is modified by traditions, customs, and institutions. Difficulties may arise as to where acquiescence in party demands should terminate, and where individual independence should assert itself. In such cases each man must judge for himself. Some, with equal honesty, may go further in support of party than others. Party exigencies not unfrequently conflict with the higher claims of political morality. Honourable men sometimes con¬ ceive themselves justified in deflecting from the more exalted standard, and making heavy mental sacrifice for party, or what they may deem POLITICAL ORGANIZA TION. 181 political necessity. A generous constituency will uphold a representative who acts upon his own sense of duty, even though, in their view, he may have fallen into error. Men of strong beliefs may be open to the charge of being sometimes unreasoning, hot-headed, and prejudiced ; but in all great national emergencies it is the men who make a conscience of their work, the men who have not only convictions, but the courage to act upon them, that can be trusted. In recent years, there has been a tightening of party cords. The number of unattached politicians is perceptibly reduced. The majorities of either side are usually so strong that they have become practically despotic. In the Parliament of 1868, the Liberals overwhelmed the Conservatives ; in that of 1874, the position was reversed. We have now recurred to the state of affairs that prevailed ten years ago. Our party managers divide the electors into two camps. They would have- them to think as well as act in battalions. All are right on the one side, and all are wrong on the other. They overlook the possibility of both the regular parties being mistaken, and of there being many unenslaved by party ties who are indifferent to the ascendency of either section. In the House of Commons chosen immediately after the passing of the first Reform Bill, there was a phalanx of men distinguished for their literary, philosophic, and scientific attainments, for their purity of pur¬ pose, loftiness of aim, and for the depth and disinterestedness of their convictions. Grote, Thompson, Hume, Molesworth, Burdett, and their colleagues in Parliament were sustained by Mill, Fox, Bowring, Fon- blanque, and others out of it. These men represented an order of political thought that has few adherents and fewer spokesmen now. They stood steadily and strictly on the ground of principle. They were im¬ pervious to official temptations. No sordid considerations influenced, their decision. While anxious to see Liberal men in office, they cared for this only in so far as they saw in the Ministers security for the cause they’ laboured to promote. They worked together irrespective of the interests of party. They believed in measures which related to, or depended upon, broad democratic doctrines of government. They were troublesome, no doubt, to the Administration of the day, but their influence on national life was purifying, inspiriting, and elevating. Their exertions made a date in history, marking one of those memorable conjunctions by which we calculate the progress of human freedom. They were the immediate successors of the advanced thinkers who found voice through the stormy invocations and the passion-woven stanzas of Byron, the dreamy and melodious prophecies of Shelley, the broad philosophy of Godwin, the trenchant common-sense of Paine, the chivalrous patriotism of Major Cartwright, and the sledge-hammer eloquence of William Cobbett. But Radicalism, as expounded by these Fathers of the Faith, has become a tradition merely. An elastic and accommodating Liberalism, which may 182 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. mean this, that, or t’other thing, or anything or nothing, has swamped the sturdy Radicalism of fifty years ago. Here and there a Radical of the old type may be found, but he lives in the midst of a population that does not understand him. A Fifth Monarchy man would hardly be more out of place, or an acknowledged member of the Commune could hardly more excite the aversion of many modern Liberals. The inheritors of the honoured name of this school of politicians—for it was a school rather than a party—have become Ministerialists. They give a passive acquiescence to everything which emanates from the Liberal leaders. When the “ dew of youth was fresh upon me,” I espoused the principles, and became enamoured of the teachings, of these apostles of philosophic democracy. Amidst every vicissitude of fortune and life, I have striven to be faithful to their traditions, and to uphold—I only know too well at how great a distance—their policy and expound their creed. But a generation has arisen that “does not know Joseph.” They conceive all independent thought heresy, all generosity to opponents weakness, and all action outside the orthodox party lines as flat blasphemy. They are puzzled and alarmed when praise or blame is dispensed discrimi- nately, when a man’s principles don’t turn with the tide and the times, when more regard is shown for measures than for men, for truth than for victory. Perhaps time may subdue, and experience may temper, their displeasure. But be that as it may, my resolve is taken. I will follow only those who carry the flag, and march to the music of freedom. The exaggeration and the unfairness of partisanship were well exem¬ plified by the querulous attitude assumed even by responsible politicians when the country was in all the throes of foreign troubles. For cen¬ turies the Eastern problem, out of which these troubles arose, has occu¬ pied the thoughts of philosophers and disturbed the deliberations of statesmen. It involves deep and delicate diplomatic, dynastic, and national interests. The political, social, and religious destinies of millions are bound up in it. It is a struggle for a slice of border-land, the possession of which will give to any owner a preponderating and dangerous authority over the military, moral, and material issues of two continents. It is the confluence of competing forms of civilization, where the devotees of conflicting creeds and the adherents of antagonistic social systems have for ages wrestled for mastery, and where national hatreds have been intensified by the cruelty and the injustice of successive con¬ querors. The soil which is the scene of this internecine strife is split into settlements, as confusing as the interwoven ridges of cotter tene¬ ments on a Connemara mountain. The adjustment of the claims for supremacy in this political Pandemonium, which has baffled the inge¬ nuity of generations of rulers, and will continue to vex their successors as long as the common passions of human nature move men to action, was made a question of party. Points of detail affecting a distant and little- MONTENEGRO AND GREECE. 183 known land, that could only be debated with effect after careful study and in the light of extended knowledge, were factiously fought over by many who had never given the subject one serious thought till it was cast into the boiling cauldron of electoral passion. The immediate purpose for which this furious controversy was stated having been accomplished, the agitating interest in it has subsided, and it is gradually dropping into the background, where it will probably remain till a fresh faction fight forces it once more to the front. I have often and fully expounded my views on this question. It is unnecessary to recapitulate them. From the first, I maintained that the compromise arrived at at Berlin, although objectionable in its details, was a vast improvement on the treaty drafted at San Stefano, and that, under the circumstances, it was the best arrangement that could have been effected. It was one, too, that, if honestly and equitably worked out, might for a season oil the creaking wheels of Oriental statecraft, and be made the basis on which to build a further period of peace. The contract with respect to Cyprus and Asia Minor, I held, was capable of being enforced for the service and the safety of the British Empire, the well-being of the native population, and the special benefit of India. Russia, by the treaty, had been prevented from destroying a State which it had been the combined care of Europe to uphold, not for its own merits, but as the keystone of the arch to the European system. The forward position secured to Austria was such as to enable her to bar the aggressor’s advance to the Bosphorus. The treaty also secured for the new Danubian States freedom from Muscovite tutelage, and opened to them an opportunity for entering the circle of free nations. England, when she resisted the arbitrary demands of Russia, and insisted on her submitting the terms she had extracted under terror from the Porte to the collective consideration of the Powers, was, in my judgment, not only defending her own interests, but the interests of civilization and freedom. She was stand¬ ing up for the rights of the weak against the strong, for the rule of justice and not force in determining international difficulties ; for the balanced independence against the caprice, greed, and grasping ambition of a military autocracy. These views were stoutly opposed by many Liberals at the time, and those who took the course I did were subjected to no small measure of party vituperation. The Treaty of Berlin was first denounced as unjust, and then ridiculed as unworkable. The cession of Cyprus was laughed at, and pledges were given by more than one Cabinet Minister that the repudiation of the Convention with Turkey would be one of the earliest steps towards a saner diplomacy that would be taken by the Liberal Administration. Austria—not the Austria of Metternich or Haynau, but the Austria of Andrassy—was denounced in unmeasured language, and in terms of offensive menace. She was warned to keep her “ hands off.” SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 184 How have these electioneering threats and platform pledges been re¬ deemed? The despised treaty has been found to be so valuable a basis of European policy, that every clause in it, except such as make for Turkey’s favour, is to be put in force with Shylock-like exactness. Cyprus, alternately described as a howling wilderness and a charnel-house, is never referred to. “ Oh, no, we never mention her, Her name is never heard ; Our lips are now forbid to speak That once familiar word." The Convention, with all its mad, if not wicked, responsibilities, is undis¬ turbed. Austria has been soothed by an apology, and both her hands and her harbours have been utilised in the recent assault upon the nationality of Albania. In this hurly-burly age, when the doings of to-day crowd out all recol¬ lections of yesterday, it is difficult for those who do not follow closely the course of affairs to grasp the full measure of the change that has taken place in popular thought and feeling in a few short months. If you will summon up remembrances of a year ago, and contrast the temper then shown, and the arguments then used, with that shown and those used now when these questions are debated, you may not be unwilling to admit that rebellious Radicals like myself, who did not follow the more taking side in those transactions, were not, after all, so far wrong. You may realise, too, how the weight and responsibility of office sober men’s judgments and exorcise polemical acerbity from their speech. The cardinal difference between the two Eastern policies lay in the application or the non-application of force. When the Sultan refused to comply with the findings of the Constantinople Conference, leading Liberals advocated the application of force to compel him. They contended that, if our iron¬ clads were moored in sight of his palace, and if his Asiatic ports were blockaded, he would tamely submit to the demands of Europe. All that was required to be done, it was argued, was to threaten long and to threaten loud, and the pashas would cry “ Peccavimus.” The late Govern¬ ment took the opposite view. They held that, although Turkey might yield to force, she would not yield to threats, and that to threaten without meaning to fight was undignified, and might be dangerous. History shows that whilst the Turks have many times surrendered provinces after being worsted in battle, they have resisted all direct attempts by Chris¬ tian Powers to meddle in the internal affairs of their polyglot empire. You may beat, you may break, but you will find it difficult to bend these poverty-stricken, but lordly and fanatical, Ottomans. At the instance of our Government, coercion has been tried for the purpose of obtaining what was really an unsecured remnant of the last war. And with what success? After an extravagant expenditure of diplomatic paper, ambas- MONTENEGRO AND GREECE. 1S5 sadorial patience, and demonstrating gunpowder, after no end of sailing and counter-sailing of a mighty armada, and a dangerous approach to fighting, the co-operative and coercive mountain has brought forth a mouse. Turkey, bleeding, broken, and bankrupt, with few friends and no credit, torn by internal dissensions, harassed by greedy neighbours, and borne down by disasters, managed to trouble the whole of Europe for months over the cession of an insignificant fishing village. Is it not reasonable to suppose that, had force been applied to her three years ago, when her army was unbeaten and her stores unexhausted, her resistance would have been more tenacious and more prolonged ? And what was this Adriatic demonstration for? In 1878, Dulcignowas taken by the Montenegrins. By the Treaty of San Stefano, the place was ceded to its conquerors. But when Russia was compelled to lay her stolen goods on the table of the Council Chamber at Berlin, and submit to have her treaty revised by Europe, the place was given back to the Turks, because—mark the reason—it was found that between the inhabitants and the Montenegrins there were bitter and unsurmountable enmities. Union between the two peoples was deemed by the Plenipotentiaries to be impossible. Montenegro, therefore, had another district granted her in lieu of Dulcigno ; but here again the irrepressible conflict between op¬ posing and enduring forces forbade incorporation. The two parties were higgling in Eastern fashion as to what territory should be transferred when the present Ministry came into office. England then assumed the lead in the negotiations, and demanded peremptorily that the old Russian scheme should be reverted to, and that the Dulcignoites should be handed over to their hereditary enemies. Turkey never denied her obligation to yield up some territory, and always protested her willingness to keep her bargain ; but she hesitated to force people who desired to remain under her dominion to go under the dominion of an alien, a hostile, and a hated race. And her hesitation was not only natural but honourable. The Powers, at the instance of England, threatened to open fire on the harm¬ less hamlet if it was not transferred to Prince Nicholas. This prince is really rather a Russian stipendiary than an independent chief. 11 c draws more than half his salary from the Czar, and is as much under the control of the Russian Government as the Governor of Malta is under the control of the English Government. Powder, plenty to blow Dulcigno to Hades, was ostentatiously despatched from England, and we have the assurance of Ministers themselves that it was meant for use and not for show. But this was more than the Powers had bargained for. They were not un¬ willing to join in a promenade, but when pressed to play, the harmony of the concert vanished. One by one, they began to make excuses, and in the end it was found that there were only two Powers willing to begin the work of destruction—England and Russia. With the object of con¬ ciliating the Powers that hacl stood so far her friend as to refuse to aid in SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 186 the bombardment, the Porte agreed, even by force of arms, to compel the Albanians to abandon the Ottoman rule. Incapable of defending a viola¬ tion of the principles they profess specially to uphold, the apologists of the forcible cession of Dulcigno contend that the resistance of the inhabi¬ tants was fomented and fostered from Constantinople. The sequel shows that this accusation was false. After the brave and unavailing resistance offered to Dervish Pasha’s troops, it would be difficult to revive the story, or, at least, to secure credence for it. Even Albanians won’t purposely stand up to be shot at. Reflect for a moment on the part England has played in this business. The Cabinet were not charged to undertake the execution of the treaty. Conjoint action on the part of the Powers for carrying it into effect is not warranted by the instrument. When Prince Gortschakoff, in the interest of Russia, proposed concerted and obligatory action, the other Powers re¬ jected the proposal. It was agreed that, while there should be surveil¬ lance, the fulfilment of the treaty should be left to the operation of time and the modifying influences of circumstances. To use force, then, in applying it was not only a self-imposed and gratuitous operation on the part of England, but contrary to the arrangement entered into at Berlin. With curious inconsistency, our Government are championising the cause of nationality in one part of the Ottoman dominions while they are re¬ sisting it in another. Of course, there is a difference. The Albanians are Mahomedans, and the Greeks and Bulgars are Christians ; and this, I know, means much with many whose cares for nationalities seem to be bounded by the Greek and Slav races. The word “ Christian ” has a fasci¬ nation for some people, but the Eastern professors of that faith are not very Christ-like persons. Their Christian virtues are singularly superficial. They resemble the ingenious negro, who, when his master detected him in some offence, and asked him if he never made use of his Bible, said, “ Yes, massa, me’trap my razor on it sometimes.” The only use these Eastern Christians make of their Christian text-books is to sharpen their swords upon them. The Greek claims stand on a different footing from those of Montenegro. Prince Nicholas had land assigned to him by the Berlin Congress ; the Greeks had not. Europe, however, has endorsed the justice of the Greek demands, and Turkey, in principle, has admitted them. The difference, therefore, is only over details ; and if there is any vitality in the belauded Concert, it might be usefully exerted to effect the peaceable settlement of this question. As matters stand, both Greece and Turkey, but especially Greece, have great grievances against the Powers. A Conference met in spring to mark out fresh frontiers, and, from what was said, and written, and done before, and at, and subsequent to that meeting, it was not unnatural for the Greeks to expect an early and easy adjustment of the dispute. But the zeal of the Powers has since then cooled, and they now IRISH GRIEVANCES. 187 wish matters set on one side for a season. It has been assumed in this country that France was the chief champion of Greece, and scores of speeches have been made and endless articles written in praise of the Republic’s chivalry, and in disparagement of England’s selfishness. But the French Foreign Minister denies the soft impeachment. According to his version of the business, the honour we have been heaping on France was undeserved, and the reproaches we have been taking to ourselves are unmerited. M. Bartholomew St. Hilaire declared, a few weeks ago, in the French Senate, that France had never intended to help Greece further than by fair words, and that the crusading designs on behalf of the Hellenic ideal attributed to her were a delusion. Whichever tale be true as to the past, for the present certainly none of the Powers is disposed to aid Greece with either money or men. They bid her be patient, which is not very practical counsel under the circumstances. Calculating on more effective help, Greece had strained her resources and exhausted her credit in preparation for a conflict in which, if unaided, she would be most unequally matched. The Greeks have great cause of complaint in having thus been lured by her patrons on to the ice—there, it would seem, to be left to slide certainly to immediate injury, if not to permanent damage. If Europe has her Eastern, England has her Irish question—both equally ancient and distracting ; both, too, owing their origin to the twin causes—conquest and confiscation ; and both having been perpetuated by race-rivalries. From the day that Strongbow landed in Waterford to the day the present Lord-Lieutenant landed at Kingstown, the history of Ireland has been a long register of repression and violence—tempered only in recent years by a glimmer of better things. While England and Scotland and Wales, under our flexible Constitution, have been prosperous, contented, and loyal, Ireland has been distressed, dis¬ contented, and disloyal. She is the skeleton in our national cupboard. We have made Great Britain a vast store-house, into which are wafted the harvests of every clime. We have dotted the surface of the earth with colonies, which in number, extent, and variety, Rome, in all the plenitude of her power, neither possessed nor dreamt of. We have made these colonies in their turn the centres of a genial and ever-widening civilization. Yet, we have never been able to win the hearts of one of the most generous and attachable of races, nor do more than extract from it a forced and gloomy acquiescence in our partnership. While we busy ourselves with the sufferings and struggles of oppressed nationalities at a distance, we have been singularly oblivious to the enduring aspira¬ tions after national life of a neighbouring people honoured in the archives of history, and traceable into antiquity by its piety, its valour, and its suffering. It is the French missionary Hue, I think, that tells the tale of an Oriental emperor who, when called upon to put down a rebellion in a SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 188 distant province, felt so humiliated by having to undertake so painful an enterprise that he did penance for his shortcomings as a ruler before his people. We may with advantage copy the contrition of this “heathen Chinee.” We have governed Ireland for more than seven centuries with the result, if not of producing, certainly with that of not preventing, periodical famines, followed first by conspiracies and then by insurrection. We judge a tree by its fruit, and the fruit of our Irish rule has been like Dead Sea apples—fair without, but full of nauseous and bitter dust within. I say it with sorrow and shame, that the sun does not shine upon any corner of the earth in which the people are more supremely wretched than in the impoverished districts of Ireland. Much higher interests are involved in the future of Ireland than in the fate of factions. It touches our honour, curtails our influence, and damages our fair fame as a nation. While I counsel no cowardly abandonment of any of our distant responsi¬ bilities, duty and decency alike require us, for a season at least, to turn our thoughts and concentrate our efforts on our internal affairs. Before attempting to pick the mote out of our neighbour’s eye, we should try to extract the one that is irritating our own. The desire for nationality is at the root of Irish discontent. There is no gainsaying the fact that a very large proportion of the population are as hostile as their fathers were to the union with England. Their designs differ. Some are in favour of separation, others of Home-Rule ; but one form or other of autonomy, or independence, they have never ceased to aspire after. It may be unpleasant for Englishmen to be told this, but there is no wisdom in ignoring what is palpable to every one else, save ourselves. In the unrelieved gloom of the Irish peasant’s life, he broods over his country’s wrongs. The recollection of them sharpens his hostility to those whom he regards as his conquerors, and stimulates his separatist hopes. He might have become acclimatised to our authority had the conditions of his existence been less hard, but his pinching poverty strengthens his dislike and intensifies his distrust of our connection. There are thousands of Irish families that have nothing between themselves and starvation but a paltry patch of watery potatoes. There are at least 150,000 tenants struggling to exist on holdings, the annual average produce of each of which is not more than ^25. In moderate years, they manage to exist upon this pauper pittance ; but one bad season brings trouble, a second want, and a third starvation or insurrection. The affections of the Irish people may be won. No people are more amenable to a kind and fostering Government, which, while respecting their national idiosyn¬ crasies, treats them with justice, concedes to them liberty, and trusts them. Englishmen recognise these requirements easily enough in foreign countries and with other peoples, but, by some strange incapacity, they cannot see the force of them on the other side of the Irish Sea. The virtues they honour abroad they disregard and often despise at home. IRISH GRIEVANCES. 189 The Irishman’s troubles are not listened to, and his miseries have not unfrequently been mocked. The unsympathetic snarl with which the English press usually receives Irish proposals for a reform tends much to embitter the relations between the two peoples. Our illustrated papers seldom portray an Irish peasant in any other character except that of a scoundrel, a skulk, or a coward. Yet, amongst the people thus so shamefully lampooned, there is less crime—as crime is commonly counted —than amongst any other people in Christendom. There is no race whose daughters are so virtuous, or whose sons are more valiant. The annals of France, and Spain, and Austria, of England and America, are crowded with the achievements of brilliant captains who have sprung from Irish stock. No people are more prosperous away from their own country, and few have a higher sense of veneration. And yet a race, with all these fine qualities, we cannot manage. Our fundamental error, in my judgment, is our reluctance to realise the difference between the two peoples. We treat peculiarities that to the Irish are dear and sacred, with contempt, and sometimes with scorn. We concede their demands from necessity, not from justice. They appeal only to our fears, and we yield only to their force. The rooted belief that any concession from England can be got only through dread of injury was vividly brought to my mind by a conversation I had near the end of last session with a prominent Irish¬ man. When the Land Commission was issued, I urged my friend to go home and help Lord Bessborough and his colleagues by collecting infor¬ mation, to probe to the bottom the evils of the present agrarian system, and thus pave the way for immediate and amending legislation. “ I will go home,” he said, “but not to help any English-constituted Commission. The Government, if they care to study it, have information in galore respecting Irish land. The literature on the subject is illimitable. What Parliament wants is, not more knowledge, but a disposition to use what knowledge it has got. I will go home, and help to organise the most determined agitation that has ever stirred the Irish people, and then your Government will perhaps utilise the information they have stowed away in their pigeon-holes. We will not conspire. A conspiracy would be detected, as the only thing the Irish Executive can do well is to employ spies. We will not fight. Fighting in our position would not only be foolish but criminal. We will agitate, and that strictly within the lines of the Constitution. Many of us will be arrested, some of us will be imprisoned, and all decried as cowards and ruffians. But out of our imprisonment reform will come, and the people will be benefited. Your selfish and soulless politicians and your venal and ignorant press mav howl till the crack of doom if such be the result. Our sufferings will be our countrymen’s salvation.” These were the bitter words of as fearless a man as ever led a forlorn hope, and as pure a man as ever patriotic blood warmed. He is absolutely destitute of personal ambition or ani- SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 190 mosity, but he has no confidence in either the equity of the British Government or the good feelings of the English Legislature. His hatred is regretable and unjustifiable, but his reasoning is only too well warranted by experience. History supports the correctness of the contention that all reforms are won in Ireland by force. At the General Election in 1865, the Irish Church was declared by all leading Liberals to be out of the range of practical politics. The Fenian conspiracy, however, developed itself in that and the two succeeding years. An attempt was made to free one Fenian leader by blowing down one of the walls of Clerkenwell prison, while two other chiefs were actually rescued from a police-van in broad daylight in the streets of Manchester. This event startled our statesmen. Immediately the Church question entered upon a new phase. We have the assurance of the author of the Church Act himself that it was the Fenians who forced the disestablishment from the position of a speculative to that of a practical problem, In 1844 and 1845, the repeal agitation was at its height. Menacing meetings were held in these years at Tara, Trim, Mul- laghmast, and on other historic arenas. At the same time, England had differences with France about the island of Otaheite, and with America about the territory of Oregon. War with both countries seemed imminent. Sir Robert Peel suddenly saw the necessity of sending what he called “ a message of peace” to Ireland. He brought forward Bills providing for the establishment of institutions, in which the youth of Ireland could receive a higher education than was otherwise available to them ; for granting a subsidy to the Catholic College at Maynooth ; and for altering the mode of transferring and regulating the terms of holding land. When Sir Robert Peel and Sir James Graham, respectively, introduced these Bills, they stated that these remedial measures were proposed because the Cabinet dared not deal boldly with France or America if peace was not assured in Ireland. The Ministers declared that to go to war with either, or with both States, while an insurrection was smouldering so near at home would be dangerous, as American or French soldiers might be landed in Ireland, and the repealers might welcome them as friends. A measure for emancipating the Catholics from the operation of the inhuman penal laws was held out as a bribe to induce Irishmen to give up their Parliament; but the promised relief was not conceded for nearly thirty years, and, when granted, the Duke of Wellington made no attempt to disguise the fact that it was given, not out of regard for the righteous claims of the Catholics, but because he and his colleagues believed that the alternative before them was either emancipation or civil war. By the confession of the originating statesmen themselves, it was dread of civil war that won emancipation in 1829, and fear of war with America and France that got the educational and ecclesiastical concessions in 1845. It was the Fenian rising that forced forward the IRISH GRIEVANCES. * 9 * Church Act in 1869 ; and it is beyond dispute that any radical amend¬ ment of the Land Laws that may be made next session will be the result of the present agitation in Ireland. No Government can ignore the significance and the force of that social uprising. The only way in which, in the opinion of many, it ought to be met, is by the old, the odious, and ignoble device of coercion. The un¬ ceasing cry of these persons is “ restore order,” “ protect property,” and “imprison the agitators.” The sword is with them the only sceptre. But it would be difficult to imprison an entire people. Doubtless, the first duty of a Government is to insist upon the maintenance of law. If that is not done, chaos will come again. Where law terminates, tyranny begins. But suppose law is enforced by a “ whiff of grape-shot,” or by the click of a forty-pounder—suppose you do create desolation, and call it order, what then? Is its authority to be sustained only by the halter of the hangman, or the carbine of the constable ? That is not the way law is maintained in England. With us, it is broad-based on the spon¬ taneous and inviolate good faith of a free people ; and until the law is sustained in a like way in Ireland, all the machinery at the command of the Executive will fail to uphold it. You can only kill an agitation by removing its cause. As long as the germs of a disease are in the system, the patient is uncured. I have no desire to apologise for, or extenuate, the excesses in the Irish agitation, but there has been gross exaggeration concerning it. It is difficult to collect, even upon the spot and in quiet times, exact reports of what is transpiring. In times of excitement, and in distant districts, the difficulty is greatly increased. I am far from saying that the stories sent to the English papers are intentionally untrue, but I do say that little pains is taken to verify their truth before they are sent. Rumours gather as they roll. They are then caught up and published as facts ; and a lie once put into circulation cannot be caught until it has made the circuit of the daily press. People see the first report, and never see the correction, even if one is ever published. A fictitious publicopinion is thus created from which unoffendingpeople suffer. Even Government returns are not always to be trusted. They have to depend upon the police, and the police are sometimes hasty, sometimes un¬ scrupulous, and never infallible. In that respect, they are simply like us all. Parliament last session, during the discussion on the Disturbance Bill, had a notable instance of how misleading Irish judicial figures may be. Elaborate arguments were built upon statistics which, when explained, conveyed an entirely opposite meaning to what they seemed at first to convey. When some further figures come to be subjected to the scrutiny of Parliament, explanations will be forthcoming which will materially soften their force. The worst feature in the movement is the cruelty shown to dumb animals. It is as irrational as it is brutal to injure harm¬ less cattle for wrongs done, or supposed to have been done, by their SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. owners. No punishment would be too severe for persons proved to have been guilty of such barbarity. But if the feeling of indignation excited by the houghing of cattle is understandable, that caused by the sending of threatening letters seems childish. A threatening letter breaks no bones, and need disturb no man’s digestion. I have got scores of such epistles during the last three years. Because I did not support the Liberal party in the course they took during the discussions on foreign policy, some adherents of that party, attributing twenty times more im¬ portance than they deserved, either to my aid or to my opposition, began to send me anonymous letters. First they counselled, then denounced, then threatened. I have often had six or eight in a week. There were drawings of gibbets, coffins, and other deadly apparatus on these sense¬ less missives. I was threatened in all conceivable language for my manifold transgressions. Post-cards were sent containing indecent drawings and offensive intrusions into my business and family affairs. To make sure of my receiving them, they were addressed to me at the House of Commons, my house, my office, and at every other place in the North and in London where letters were likely to reach me. This was the way bitter partisans in England tried to frighten a man into conformity with their views. At first I was amused, then surprised ; but I cannot say, excepting on one or two occasions, when unoffending friends were attacked besides myself, that I was annoyed. The writer of a threaten¬ ing letter may be a spiteful person, or he may be a foolish one, but he is certain to be a coward. Such attacks are the wounds an independent man gets in his combat with malice and prejudice. They may sometimes inflict a scar, but never dishonour. We know, from the records of the law-courts, that ordinary crime in Ireland is less now than it usually is, and we have official assurances that the amount of agrarian crime is also less than it has been in former periods of disturbance. There is truly a huge strike and lock-out, or a lock-out and strike combined. Certain landlords and certain tenants have been ostracised. A vast system of exclusive dealing has been instituted. This may be very foolish, and under certain circumstances very cruel, but it is certainly not illegal, unless it is enforced by conspiracy and terror. How far and to what extent this has been done is a point now being discussed in the Dublin Law-Courts, and cannot with pro¬ priety be referred to here. But the practice is not new. It is what the reformers in this country did half a century ago when they resolved to “ Boycott ” the oppressive Governments by not purchasing taxable articles. Mr. Cobbett and others concocted endless condiments for people to use in lieu of tea, coffee, and sugar. The destruction of crops is but a repetition of the doings common when the desperate and starving population in the Midland and manufacturing districts injured machinery, destroyed property, and threatened life. I do not recall these painful IRISH GRIEVANCES. 193 periods of our social history with the object of excusing breaches of the law in Ireland. Two blacks do not make a white. But when the pro¬ ceedings in Ireland are denounced with such vindictive rhetoric, it is well to remember that poverty and wretchedness generated, amongst English¬ men, greater and more reprehensible excesses, than causes, more prolonged and more intense, are now generating in Ireland. We tried repression and it failed. We then tried concession, political and industrial. We have the result in as free and as contented and as prosperous an artisan population as any country can boast of. Untaught by experience, our white terrorists revive the demand for coercion—that never-failing nostrum of all timid politicians from the days of Draco to the present time. It is eighty years since the Union was effected that was to secure for Ireland liberty, peace, and prosperity. During that period of time, there have been forty-seven Acts passed limiting, and ten Acts passed entirely suspending, the most precious right of the Constitution—the right of personal freedom. Ireland certainly has not benefited by these poisonous provisions for public safety. According to the advocates of coercion, it is to-day more seriously disturbed than it has ever been since ’98 ; and yet they would apply their quack specific once more. In the dark days of England, the reformers advocated the necessity of going to the root of the political cancer, cutting it out bodily, and then binding up the wound by generous measures. From this they got their name of Radicals. As a believer in their faith and a follower of their policy, I repeat the old demand—reform and not repression, concession and not coercion, for Irish, as it was demanded for English grievances. If the union between England and Ireland is to be anything more than a merely legal form, the Irish people must be trusted. We systematically exclude Liberal Irishmen from offices of high political responsibility. In the present Cabinet there is not an Irishman. In the present Adminis¬ tration there is not one, except the law-officers and two or three courtiers, and they are really rather Englishmen who live in Ireland than Irishmen. England, Scotland, and Wales are all represented on the Treasury Bench, but Ireland has not a solitary spokesman there. Even the ornamental office of Lord-Lieutenant is filled by an English Peer ; and the officials of the Castle are now, as they ever were, drawn from the English garrison, the traditional and inveterate haters of everything Irish. Distrust begets distrust. Mutual repression should be replaced by harmonious com¬ bination. In other countries, and in our own self-governed colonies, Irish legislators are not tabooed. A few years ago, by a singular coincidence, three of the leading Powers in Europe had in offices of the highest re¬ sponsibility descendants of old Irish exiles. At the same time, three of our colonies had in posts of equal authority three other Irishmen whom we had banished as rebels in 1848. If Irishmen can rule with success in Australia and Canada, if we can entrust them with the direction of 14 194 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. hazardous campaigns in Afghanistan and South Africa,surely we may trust them to assist in administering their own affairs at home. Until we do this, all our efforts to pacify Ireland will fail—fail egregiously and deservedly. It is impossible at this hour, and on the eve of the production of a Government measure it is unnecessary, to discuss the merits of the multi¬ farious projects for dealing with the Irish land. Amidst numerous counsellors it is to be hoped there will be found wisdom. Those who have thought over the subject longest, and examined it most minutely, are the least disposed to dogmatise upon it. To every scheme that is, or ever was, or ever may be suggested, there can be found objections. Any Government proposal must be, from the very nature of the case, a com¬ promise. It will try to balance rival interests, reconcile conflicting theories, and adjust opposing claims. Without giving detailed reasons for my faith, I think the first thing to be done should be to initiate a great scheme of arterial drainage and reclamation. There are over six million acres of waste land in Ireland. Four millions of these are capable of being brought under cultivation. This area is equal to the four counties of Durham, Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland, and the North Riding of Yorkshire. By employing the peasantry of the south and west of Ireland—who are now huddled together in miserable holdings, on which it is impossible for them to scratch a decent existence—on this great national work a treble benefit would be conferred. It would give immediate employment, and the consequent food, to a half-starved popu¬ lation. It would permanently extend the productive resources of the country, and while clearing the air of some of the superabundant moisture, it would help to clear the minds of the people of political disaffection. It is true that, if not well-worked and manured, the reclaimed land might go back, first to sedge and then to bog. But it need not do so, and it would not do so, if it were portioned out on easy terms amongst the ten¬ antry themselves. The standing complaint of the Irish farmer is his sense of insecurity. There are 600,000 tenants-at-will in Ireland, and they are in daily fear either of their rents being raised or of being evicted. This stops improvement, paralyses effort, and stereotypes a bad system of agriculture, from which both the nation and the occupier suffer. The compensation for eviction got under the Land Act is little relief to a cotter. It may help him to emigrate, but nothing more. To remove the feeling of distrust, it is proposed to extend some form of the Ulster Custom to the rest of Ireland. I would prefer the more effective plan of making the occupiers owners at once. A system of dual ownership has many disad¬ vantages. The price paid for the good-will of a farm in Ulster is often twice, and sometimes thrice, the value of the freehold. There are cases where thirty, forty, and fifty, and sometimes even sixty years’ purchase is given for merely the right of tenancy. If a farm is let at an annual rental of ,£50, and fifty years’ purchase is given for the tenant-right, that IRISH GRIEVANCES. •95 would be ,£2,500. This sum, at five per cent., would cost £75 a-year. A man who buys this right, therefore, buys the obligation to pay £135 a- year for a farm the agricultural value of which is only £50. The fee- simple of the same land would be worth about £1,250. This is only one amongst other reasons against the theory of tenant-right. But to set against this reason, you have the fact that where tenant-right prevails the people are fairly contented and the country fairly prosperous. The land¬ lords, too, are satisfied, as they have in tenant-right security for their rents. The testimony of countyjudges, land-agents, and other informed and disinte¬ rested persons who have had experience of the system, is, that it works well. Whether Ulster prosperity is the result of the system, or the system is the outcome of the prosperity, certain it is that prosperity and tenant-right in Ireland are nearly conterminous. There is the exception of Donegal, it is true, but that county is peculiarly placed. An agent of the Marquis of Londonderry, being asked before the Devon Commission what would be the effect of treating the tenantry in Ulster as the tenantry of Munster were treated, replied—“ You would soon have a Tipperary in Down.” The agent of Lord Lurgan said before the same Commission he did not believe that there was a force at the disposal of the Horse-Guards suffi¬ cient to keep the peace in Protestant and Tory Ulster if any disturbance of the Ulster Custom should be attempted. If tenant-right secures peace in Down, and if the absence of tenant-right produces disturbance in Kerry, it is not unreasonable to try the specific in the south that cures the troubles in the north. While thus putting the case for tenant-right, I again record my conviction that the establishment of a system of peasant proprietary would be fairer to the landlord and better to the tenant than this scheme of complicated copy-holding. If the Government honestly and fairly buy a landlord’s estate, no injustice is done ; but to forcibly compel the Irish landlords to accept, as co-partners with them in their properties, some 250,000 or 300,000 tenants, is a scheme scarcely likely to work satisfactorily. Whatever plan, however, the Government propose, should not only be carefully, but generously considered. So far as I am concerned, while I will not hesitate to criticise it freely and frankly, I will givethe Ministry the most ungrudging support in their resolve to deal with this, as knotty a question of social and political economy as ever perplexed a Parliament. If our interests require that we should rule Ireland, our honour requires that we should rule it with acceptance. The times and the circumstances are calculated to excite doubts, to arouse passions, and to awaken fears. It behoves all anxious for the prosperity of the country to rise superior to the crooked tactics of party, and help every honest effort made to uproot the social canker which is eating into the soul of a sensitive and suffering people. If the Ministry have the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, and the strength to execute a settlement of this harassing problem, their names will “ On Fame’s eternal bead-roll be worthy to be fyled.” 196 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. VII. THE IRISH LEGISLATION OF 1881. [Speech delivered at an Irish Conference held in Newcastle-upon- Tyne, August 29, 1SS1.] T N concert with the Irish Members, I have unceasingly opposed the -L obnoxious coercion policy of the Ministry ; but all our efforts have been fruitless. It is useless reasoning with the master of many legions. Arguments are unavailing, and protests only produce recriminations. The Liberals have given the Prime Minister power-of-attorney over their consciences, their principles, and their votes. And he says that the only means by which law can be maintained in Ireland is by its being super¬ seded. His followers accept this paradoxical decision without demur. You cannot argue against such blind subserviency. When the Cabinet got their Coercion Code, they promised that it should be administered mildly, and abandoned soon. One of these conditions certainly has not been complied with. I do not appeal to their generosity — that is a feeble factor in politics. I do not, either, appeal to their sense of justice, but to a lower and probably equally potent motive—their desire to see the success of the measures upon which they have lavished all their strength. The Land Act has a dual purpose to serve. It is not only an agrarian, but political measure. It was devised, not merely for the purpose of amending the tenure under which land is owned and occupied, but for allaying agitation. If it fails in accomplishing both these ends, it fails in achieving the purpose contemplated by its authors. The Act is too complicated to be popular. It is too abstruse and intricate for plain men to understand. It does, by a roundabout process, what ought to have been done directly. No enthusiasm has been excited for it. The common opinion was fairly expressed by an Irish farmer the other day. He said that what he understood of the Act was not good, and what was good he did not understand. A measure, to be immediately effective, should strike the imagination, arrest attention, and rivet the interest of THE IRISH LEGISLATION OF 1SS1. 197 the population. That it has not done. When the Lords threatened to throw it out or mutilate it, there was agitation amongst political managers in this country ; but in Ireland the action of the Peers created no com¬ motion, and for this reason. The Land Act was preceded, and was blurred and distorted by, the Coercion Act. The people saw one measure through the blackened medium of the other. The evidence of all inde¬ pendent and disinterested witnesses proves this. During the last few months, several competent persons have been to Ireland with the view of ascertaining the position of the people, their wishes, and their expecta¬ tions. The inquiries of these travellers have covered the whole country from Donegal to Waterford, and from Kerry to Down. Their testimony is uniform. Small concern is manifested in the Land Act. It is seldom mentioned spontaneously. But the Coercion Act is in every man’s mind, and it is referred to with universal abhorrence. And this is but natural. Any benefit that the Land Act will confer is distant and doubtful, but the injuries inflicted by the Coercion Act are present, and only too palpable. There is scarcely a village from which one or more men have not been sent to prison, and these men were the leaders of public opinion, the active participators in all public work. The Government believe that, by their Land Act, they have cut away a deep-seated cancer from the social life of Ireland. But when a skilful surgeon performs an operation, he binds up the wound, and strives to assuage the pain. The Government have followed the opposite course. They have stuck a blister on the open sore, and they profess to be astonished when the patient winces under it. The Land Act may be successful, or it may fail. That is a question about which there are doubts. But whether it succeeds or fails, the Irish people know to whom they are indebted for it. If there had been no agitation, there would have been no legislation. In the election programme of the Liberals, land legislation for Ireland found no place. It was not included in the Prime Minister’s list of pressing projects of legislation. Lord Hartington, when interrogated on the subject, said, before any new legislation could be attempted they must have proof that the old had failed. The Duke of Argyll says that the Cabinet, when formed, never spoke about, certainly never contemplated, a Land Act. Notwithstanding all this, however, we may prepare ourselves to be told that the measure of the present year was foreseen and intended from the first. The Irish people will not be deceived by such assertions. They know why they got the Act and how they got it. The prisoners were its authors. They struggled, and are now suffering, for it. The Irish peasantry will be cowards and ingrates, if they permit their comrades to remain in gaol without protest. They are bound by the triple motives of duty, interest, and honour, to labour for their release, and they will labour unceasingly until every man is free. Lord Granville has warned us that if the agitation is persevered in, the SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. I9 S coercion bonds will be tightened. Will they ? Let them try to do so. With what show' of decency can men to whom agitation has brought so much fame and so many advantages decry it? No reform has been obtained in Ireland save by threats and from fear. We have never redressed Irish grievances from a simple sense of justice. The people, therefore, trust in agitation, because they know what it has won them. But they have other incentives to it. The Irish peasant, left to his marshes and to his mountains, has few sources of recreation left to him ; he has little to give play to his mind, or to lend zest or humour to the passing hour ; nothing to relieve the monotony of life. Thus one of the liveliest, most imaginative and emotional of races has often become melancholy, if not morose, and is not unfre- quently driven to reckless courses. There are few sadder things in life than the lot of an Irish peasant. Reared amidst the smoke of a one- roomed and chimney-less cabin, and the exhalations of a rotten roof and clay walls, with a dungheap on one side and a cesspool on the other; his bedding often a pallet of straw, his clothing rags, his furniture a rickety table and a few seats—his enemies are the law', the landlord, the process-server, and the policeman ; his consolation the priest and his family ; and his hope, agitation. A people so circumstanced, with such a history and with such incentives to political activity, if not desperation, are not likely to remain quiet when their leaders and their colleagues are in gaol. We have heard much of late of an “ assassination press,” and of the “gospel of explosives.” I refer to this class of comment only with a view of illustrating my argument. But in doing so, I wash to express my abhorrence and detestation of proceedings that meet with tacit, if not open, approval across the Atlantic. Those engaged in the agitation in Ireland have no sympathy for, and nothing in common with, such dastardly doings. But painful though they are, ought they not to supply a lesson and a warning to the Government ? Recall the facts. Some years ago, an attempt was made to win for the Irish people their inde¬ pendence. The attempt may be described as unwise, or worse ; that point I am not arguing. It is quite certain that the means possessed were inadequate to attain the end sought. But the men engaged in the attempt v'ere animated by good motives. Many of them had the in¬ trepidity of heroes, and the devotion of patriots. They risked their own liberty for the chance of securing the liberty of their countrymen. The attempt failed, and the chiefs V'ere arrested and punished. The custom in civilised countries is not to treat political as they treat common prisoners. A man who commits a burglary does so for his own gain ; but a man who commits himself to a daring political enterprise, seeks to benefit others, not himself. In other countries, when a man is found guilty of a political offence, he is restrained, not punished as we punish THE IRISH LEGISLATION OF 1SS1. 199 criminals. But our Government subjected the Fenian leaders—men of education, pure lives, and high character—to a punishment that was only short of torture. No more barbarous treatment has been meted out to political prisoners in modern days in Western Europe than was meted out to them. We sowed the wind ; we are reaping the whirlwind. Friends have been converted into foes, and foes into friends. They are retaliating by a propaganda of desperation. The bitter bread that we cast upon the waters has come back to us in barrels of dynamite and boxes of infernal machines. Notwithstanding this unhappy experience, the Government seem bent upon repeating it. They have two hundred men in prison on mere sus¬ picion. We have made all these men and their relatives enemies. The most moderate computation gives five to every family, so that there are one thousand persons directly affected by these imprisonments. Every family whose bread-winner has been arrested will be a centre of agitation and focus of disaffection. And thus the weary round of dislike and discontent revolves. The Coercionists strive to disparage the strength of the popular movement, and allege that the funds that sustain it come from America. That does not redound to its dishonour or lessen its force. When a disaffected Englishman emigrates, he forgets his country’s feuds, and the ardent democrat often softens into a mild Conservative. Distance lends enchantment to his view ; and the absent Englishman sees his country in rosier colours than he did when living in it. But the Irish emigrant carries -with him bitter memories ; and with honourable devotion and commendable liberality he aids his countrymen to free themselves from laws that overmastered him or drove him into exile. But is it not a fact that movements both legal and rebellious have often, been helped from the outside ? The money with which the Greeks commenced their War of Independence was found by English sym¬ pathisers. Repeated funds have been raised in England during the last century for revolutionary efforts to secure the independence of Poland, Italy, and Hungary. Did we not send English legions to fight against Don Carlos in Spain, and King Bomba in Naples ? How can we con¬ sistently cry out against help being sent by Irishmen abroad to Irish¬ men at home to promote objects in which they are equally and alike interested ? I oppose coercion on principle. It injures both the rulers and the ruled, both the governors and the governed. How can the Irish peasant have any respect for laws that are so often, and on such frivolous pretexts, suspended or ignored ? Exceptional legislation 1 Why, the “ exceptional ” condition in Ireland is when the ordinary law is in force : the un¬ exceptional condition is when the ordinary law is suspended. If you want to know what liberty a people possess, you have to live 200 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. amongst them, and not look to their statutes for it. The language of the law may be that of freedom, but the practice may be the very opposite. The law of a country is meant to protect the people from the tyranny of individual rulers as well as from the despotism of a mob. But if a law is to be made a holiday-parade ; if it is to be used only when the sky is bright ; and if every rumour of conspiracy is to be sufficient for its sus¬ pension, and to justify the application of all the artillery of repressive enactments, then the swagger that Englishmen make of their Constitution is an idle boast. Coercion demoralises rulers as much as it does the people. It renders their administration temporarily more easy. If every supposed offender is to be brought before a magistrate and then sent before a jury; if every point in the indictment against him has to be upheld by witnesses and enforced by lawyers, the work is troublesome, expensive, and sometimes annoying. It is much easier to arrest the man and send him to prison without inquiry, or without trial. This short and easy process lightens the labour of the authorities. In Ireland, it has been resorted to so often, that there never is the slightest approach to agitation but a demand is made for it. The Executive constantly clamour for more power. They do not see that it is not more power that they want, but more wisdom. THE LAND , 201 VIII. THE LAND ; THE CLOTURE ; COERCION. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, January 28, 1882. HERE has been of late years, in this country, increased party organi. J- zation, but diminished animation in the discussion of political prin¬ ciples. At, and immediately preceding, an election, exceptional activity prevails, but the electors seem to think their duty terminates with voting. Further debate is relegated to their representatives. The substitution of a spasmodic, for a sustained concern in important organic problems, is to be regretted. Two years ago, popular attention was concentrated on foreign policy, and we were daily told that, in the final adjustment of Eastern differences, momentous issues were involved. The feverish phase of that controversy has passed, but the national interests involved in it are as vital to-day as they were at the General Election. If not exactly mena¬ cing, matters both on the Bosphorus and on the Nile are perturbed and threatening. England has been supplanted by Germany in the councils at Constantinople. France is angling in troubled waters, and no one can foretell what fish may be caught in her North African net. Russia is at the old artifice of despots—trying to distract attention from domestic anarchy, deficient revenues, and strained taxation, by fomenting broils abroad— forging her way steadily towards Afghanistan in one direction, and towards Asia Minor in another. To the troubled minds of Spanish and Italian statesmen, the embarrassing action of France in Tunis has brought acute, if impotent, irritation. Austria’s designs in Bosnia and Herze¬ govina, and on the Danube, her competition with Russia for the leader¬ ship of the Southern Slavs, and the ill-omened activity in Eastern affairs of that Machiavellian statesman who, not long since, declared that he would not risk in their settlement the boots of a Pomeranian dragoon, un¬ pleasantly remind us of the inflammable state of Europe. Neither externally nor internally, are affairs reassuring. The horizon is skirted by portending clouds. The elements of disaffection, jealousy, and gather¬ ing anger are rife all round. Interests which it was once deemed our province to safeguard are directly threatened, and principles of policy which it was formerly conceived to be our duty to defend are in danger. Yet, the 202 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. discussion has dropped into a whisper. Deeds of violence and blood, that erewhile would have provoked indignant reprobation, are allowed to pass without reference, much less protest. The fate of Cassandra always befalls prophets on foreign affairs. They are never believed in, and seldom ever listened to, until the evils which they have laboured to avert are consummated. General attention to these affairs will only revive when matters have twisted themselves into a knot, over the unloosing of which rival partisans will squabble. On domestic reforms, a like languor prevails. Before the present Administration took office, a Liberal charter of thirty odd points was promulgated. The changes they desiderated were declared not only to be necessary but urgent. The party is in office, and has at its head a statesman of unquestioned ability and unrivalled experience. He has behind him a majority of unparalleled strength and unsurpassed docility. Yet, only the fringe of the programme has been touched, and there are no signs of public discontent. Even the suffrage and Church questions have failed to awaken their old zeal. The urban population is indifferent, and the rural population is apathetic about the equalization of the suffrage ; while for the disestablishment of the Presby¬ terian Church there has not been, so far, sufficient spirit manifested as to provoke a debate. There is, however, one subject the discussion of which is followed with intelligent and widespread, although not boisterous, interest. The con¬ viction is growing that our whole agrarian system requires revision. Our farmers have laboured under the double disadvantage of bad harvests and foreign competition. They have had lessened produce and lowered prices. The loss sustained from insufficient crops during the last six years is estimated at ^160.000,000. But the evil does not end there. Pastures have been deteriorated, and arable land has been soddened by heavy rainfalls and frequent floods. It will take a succession of favour¬ able seasons before either can be rehabilitated. Agriculturists could formerly, in some measure, recoup themselves for a deficient yield by higher prices ; but the facility with which corn and cattle can now be brought from America has deprived them of this mode of compensation. In 1870, the total value of agricultural produce imported into the United Kingdom was under ,£79,000,000. The value of the same description of goods imported last year was ;£ 143,000,000. In eleven years, there has been an increase in the amount of such imports of ,£64,000,000 a-year. We now import two-thirds of our whole consumption of wheat and flour. The general public have benefited by this importation. During the bad times, they have had cheap food. Those interested in the carrying trades have profited by the enlarged demand for tonnage ; but all directly and indirectly connected with land have suffered severely. Some farmers have emigrated ; many have abandoned their businesses ; and during the last three years, in England and Wales alone, 3,664 have become bank- THE LAND. 203 rupts. Striking though these figures are, they do not reveal the full state of the case. In the same period of time, and in the same portion of the kingdom, there have been more than 10,000 bills of sale registered by ar mers. Men in business know the significance of such a statement. There are now in Great Britain 400 farms, covering fully 50,000 acres, unoccupied. An equal number of farms, and more than an equal number of acres, are calculated to be let only for rates, repairs, and taxes. Ab¬ sorbed as we are in these North-eastern counties in manufacturing, mining, and shipping industries, we are apt to underestimate the extent and value of agriculture as a factor in our national economy. But, not¬ withstanding the tremendous strides we have made in recent years in other businesses, farming is still our staple trade. There is invested in it a capital of ^700,000,000—little short of the amount of our National Debt; while the capital sunk in mines is only ^56,000,000, and in iron works ^29,000,000. There are employed in agriculture 3,100,000 persons, while there are occupied in mining of all descriptions—coal as well as metal— 1,200,000, and in our textile manufactures 2,150,000 persons. The annual produce of our mines is valued at £ 66,000,000, but the produce of our fields and homesteads is estimated to be worth the immense sum of ^300,000,000 annually. It is impossible for so vast an industry to suffer so long and so seriously without affecting the entire population. What concerns it concerns the whole country. The subject is engaging the serious thought of men of all parties. The remedies proposed are “ as plenty as blackberries.” They embrace reforms in the tenure, the transfer, the taxation, and the occupation and cultivation of land. There is a prevalent impression that what are vaguely described as the Land-Laws have their foundation in the feudal system, and that they have been but¬ tressed by modern enactments. Both opinions are incorrect. Entail is not a legacy of the Conqueror, and it owes its origin more to the lawyers than the law-makers. The Norman kings were opposed to alienation, and for obvious reasons. Their thrones were unstable, and rebellions were of frequent occurrence. Circumstances were constantly arising when the Barons reluctantly had to take sides in wars of succession. They might not hesitate to set their incomes, their liberties, or their lives, upon a cast, and stand the hazard of the die ; but, with creditable consideration, they did not wish to endanger their family patrimony. The kings, on the other hand, wished the estates of their turbulent lords to be liable to forfeiture for felony and treason, as property thus held would act as a security for the loyalty of its possessor. For fully two centuries after the Conquest entail, as now understood, did not exist. But with the growth of the power of the aristocracy, a plan for protecting their estates from the risks of civil war grew also ; and during the Wars of the Roses it was assented to by the Crown and acted on by the Courts. Henry VIII., however, felt himself strong enough to make entailed estates liable 204 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. to fine and forfeiture for treason on the part of their owners, and from his reign until the Commonwealth real property was as subject to confiscation as personal. The severity with which the law was enforced both against the property and persons of defeated partisans, and the uncertainty whether the rulers one day might not be fugitives the next, led to the re¬ creation of entail. The law, however, was not the outcome of Parlia¬ mentary discussion, but of the skill and knowledge of adroit conveyancers, who ingeniously contrived a method by which an owner could settle his estate upon any number of existing lives, and upon the unborn issue of any existing person. This is the law which is now in operation, and under it fully three-fourths of the land of the country are held. The un¬ certainty and instability that the system was devised to provide against have long since passed away. There are now, happily, no wars of succes¬ sion, and no provocatives to treason. Such abridgments are out of harmony with the times. They might have been necessary in the seven¬ teenth, but they are an anachronism in the nineteenth centuiy. They produce an unnatural centralization of land; they make it pass with every generation into fewer hands; and they have heretofore invested its owners with undue legislative power. Limited owners are often without the means or the motive to improve their property. Both the owners and the nation suffer by this curtailment. By preventing fathers from dividing their property as they desire, they set up family inequalities as mean as they are often cruel. One son is made a Crcesus, and the others paupers. Politically, socially, and economically, these laws are always objectionable, and sometimes disastrous. Primogeniture, or the right of the eldest amongst the males to inherit the land, which is partly the result of custom and partly the creation of law, and which, unlike entail, had its origin in feudalism, contributes another barrier to agricultural improvement. If our farmers are to com¬ pete successfully with the untrammelled cultivators of America and other countries, we shall be driven to abandon all these obsolete restrictions. Until they are removed—until the laws of primogeniture and entail are altered—the cumbrous and costly system of transferring property cannot be effectively amended. Investments in land should be as negotiable as those in the Funds. If a man invest ,£1,000 in Consols, he can do so in a few minutes, and at the cost of a few shillings, but if he wants to invest the same amount in land, he will have to drag a lengthened chain of title- deeds behind him, wait probably two or three months for the completion of the bargain, and spend ,£20, ,£50, or even ,£100 on the process. The inconvenience and the expense of our mode of transferring land, and the impediments that our laws offer to the successful cultivation of the soil, are admitted by all parties. The late Government, by various Bills, showed that they deemed reform necessary. The present Government have pledged themselves to deal with the subject in a more drastic man- THE LAND. 205 ner than their predecessors. If the public would shake off their indiffer¬ ence, and give point to their desire for a change, we should speedily have one. Farmers expect too much from the reduction or readjustment of rates. Lessened rates mean increased rents. Our chaotic system of local taxation imperatively requires reformation, but it requires it in the interest, not of a class, but of the nation. Poor-rates, even during depressed times, have somewhat declined, but other rates, which have more than made up for the reduction, have been imposed. Ten years ago, our local taxation amounted to ^29,000,000, and it now amounts to ^50,000,000 a-year. The taxable income of the country amounts to ,£500,000,000; but the whole of our local taxation is levied upon ,£150,000,000 of real property. This is certainly unfair ; but it would be impracticable to tax personalty locally, as we do land and houses. To assess the stock-in-trade of farmers and shopkeepers would be more difficult than assessing their incomes, and would lead to greater inequali¬ ties. Subventions in aid of rates are objectionable, but through them, in a rough way, personalty is partially rated. That a farmer should reap the full fruits that his skill, industry, and capital yield, is admitted by all. The difficulty is in hitting on a mode that will best secure to him his interest in his improvements. Fixity of tenure establishes an unequal partnership, in which one interest is fixed and the other fluctuating. It divorces the landlord from the soil without marrying the tenant to it. Such a dual ownership cannot be permanently prosperous. There are not more than 200,000 landlords as distinct from owners of houses and fac¬ tories in Great Britain, and 1,000 of these own more than an average of 30,000 acres of land each ; while 4,000 others hold 5,000 acres each. In no other country is tenancy so prevalent and ownership so limited. A century ago, Arthur Young said, “ Give a man the assured possession of a bleak rock, and he will turn it into a garden. Give him a nine years’ lease of a garden, and he will turn it into a desert.” When small freeholds are diffused throughout a State, when the bulk of the population have a hold on the land, you have a strong safeguard for the independence of the country. You have a barrier around it which is far beyond all the walls and battle¬ ments which can be raised by the hand of art. You have a rampart of bosoms glowing with patriotism, because patriotism and their own posses¬ sions are one and the same thing. In the establishment of a proprietary of peasants, more than any wire-drawn scheme of tenant-right, the sub¬ stantial prosperity of our agricultural classes will be found. But a change effected in this manner, or by the removal of the restrictive land-laws, will be slow and the relief remote. Immediate benefit can be got only by a reduction of rents. During the last fifteen years, the rental of land in Great Britain has risen nearly 16 per cent., or by the gross sum of £S, 000,000 a-year. This rise is partly for interest on improvements made by the landlords, and partly the result of competition for land. Men in 206 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. business during periods of prosperity were tempted into farming, for pleasure more than profit, and gave fancy prices for their holdings. The landlords have met their tenants liberally in the bad seasons. They have made reductions in the rents, varying from io to 20 per cent. The amount of rental returned by them to their tenants is estimated to be not less that ^40,000,000 in six years. But if the farmers are to compete on anything like equal terms with those in America, Australia, and India —for the finest kind of wheat now comes from the Punjaub—there will have to be a permanent reduction in rents ; and it is somewhat difficult to see how this reduction is to be effected. There are, according to the Land Blue-Book, issued a few years ago, in the United Kingdom nearly 13,000,000 acres let under 5s. per acre per annum. There are 7,000,000 acres of land let at an average of 7s. per acre. There are, it is true, 150,000 acres let at over ten guineas an acre, but according to the calcu¬ lation of Mr. McQueen, the secretary of the Financial Reform Associa¬ tion, the average rental of 39,000,000 acres returned in the Blue-Book is only 13s. 3l4d. per acre per annum. These rents do not yield more than 2 per cent, on the capital, and, if reduced further, the margin for the owners would be small indeed. There are some economists who hold that the inevitable tendency, in a wealthy country like England, is for land to gather into a few hands. They believe that small, and even compara¬ tively small, farms will disappear. They think, too, that this will be beneficial, as large farms can be worked more cheaply and made more productive. This theory is maintained by men of ability and knowledge, and is deserving of respectful attention. I, however, entertain the very opposite opinion. The tendency, in my opinion, will be in the very contrary direction. Land has hitherto been regarded as a luxury. It has not been held exclusively for profit. It gives, or is supposed to give, to its owners political power and social prestige, and it furnishes opportunities for sport. These advantages are vanishing before modern legislation. The landlords’ political domination received a rude shock in the extension of the suffrage and in the institution of the ballot. It will be extinguished when the franchise is equalised and representation newly apportioned. The establishment of representative Boards will destroy the landowners’ county predominance. The ground game has become the property of the tenant, and winged game will soon follow. Deprived of these incentives to accumulate land, with rents reduced by foreign competition, and the law of entail abolished, many landlords will sell the outlying portions of their unwieldy properties and invest their capital in securities equally as safe, more profitable, and less onerous. The land sold will probably pass into the hands of men who will cultivate it themselves, and many of whom will add to farming other business. There will thus be not only a change in owners, but a change in the cultivation and cropping adapted to the altered condition of commercial and agricultural life. The Irish THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS. 207 famine repealed the Corn-Laws. The French Revolution carried the first Reform Bill, and the English land monopoly is being broken up in the granaries of Chicago and on the rolling prairie lands of the far Mississippi. No session now would be complete without a Bankruptcy Bill. There have been fifteen within the last ten years. The old plan of winding up estates by the Court was found to be tedious and expensive. It was contended that, as the assets of a bankrupt belonged to his creditors, the creditors ought to be the best parties to realise and distribute them. In 1869, the management of insolvent estates was transferred from officials to the creditors or persons chosen by them. But the interests of creditors are too minute, and the salvage they secure is too small, to induce them to devote time, trouble, and money to the thankless task of administra¬ tion. The business usually falls into the hands of experts, who so manipu¬ late matters as to vest in themselves not only the management of the property, but the undivided balances and the unclaimed dividends. The public interest in this subject is much greater than is generally recog¬ nised. The loss by bad debts sustained in England alone reaches nearly ,£25,000,000 a-year—a sum almost equal to the annual cost of the army and navy. It is a direct tax on the community, as traders have to repay themselves for the loss by charging enhanced prices for their commo¬ dities. The small sums that are left for distribution are frittered away in expenses, some estates taking 46 per cent., and others 66 per cent, to realise. Even the residue does not find its way to the rightful owners. The trustees in bankruptcy now hold in their possession ,£5,000,000 belonging to creditors ; and there is only too good reason to believe that much of this money could not, or would not, be paid if called for. There is probably no country so largely engaged in commercial pursuits where such facilities, almost inducements, are offered for trading recklessness and extravagance. The Government propose to establish a stricter system of official supervision, and to require the public examination of debtors. The changes will be improvements, but it is doubtful whether they will be sufficiently stringent. There are two opposite but effective ways of dealing with bankruptcy. One is to decide, as the French Con¬ vention did on a famous occasion, that a man’s liability for any debt he may contract ceases only with its payment. The French made this pre¬ cept the basis of their law of bankruptcy ; and we see its salutary effects in the trustworthy character of French tradesmen. The other way is to abolish the law of bankruptcy, and to take away the power of suing for trade debts. Such a proposal may startle at first sight ; but, seeing the small amount of dividends that are got, the change is greater in appear¬ ance than it would be in reality. And think of the relief that would be experienced in being freed from the annoyance and uncertainty of debt litigation ! It might curtail commerce, but it would make it more stable. 208 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. There would be less speculation, but in the end more profit. The annual transactions on the turf are counted at hundreds of thousands of pounds, and debts there are irreclaimable by law. Yet, the losses sustained are comparatively insignificant. If English tradesmen would screw their courage up to attempt such a radical reform, they would destroy once and for ever the baneful system of credit, and sweeten the breath of our mercantile life. The Corrupt Practices Bill is another Parliamentary Annual. The last Bill might mitigate, but it would not cure, the evil which lies deeper than law. Public opinion requires revolutionising on this subject. Candidates and constituencies are alike sinners. We act as if men became members for purposes of gain. Candidates undergo great labour, suffer many indignities, and pay heavily for being elected. This expenditure, labour, and annoyance exceed what most persons are prepared to give and endure for purely public objects. So, at least, a cynical and unbelieving public reason. The Legislature endorses this opinion, as it calls upon candi¬ dates to provide the requisite electoral machinery. The inference from such a demand is that the representatives, rather than the electors, are benefited by the outlay. In no other department of the public service are men required to supply, at their own cost, the mechanism of election. The frantic efforts made by rival partisans for the success of their cham¬ pions strengthen this unwholesome belief. The only efficacious way of eradicating electoral corruption is to throw on the constituencies the necessary cost of taking votes, and to prohibit all other expenditure. Make canvassing, the conveying voters to the poll, agents, runners, and the whole paraphernalia of electiondom illegal; allow the candidate every opportunity of stating his opinion, and allow voters equal op¬ portunities of interrogating him ; provide abundant facilities for electors voting easily 7 , conveniently, and inexpensively, and then fine every one, not incapacitated by illness or absence, who does not vote. The fines thus levied would nearly pay the cost of the contest. We fine a juryman who neglects to obey the summons of the sheriff, and why not fine an elector who does not obey the first duty of citizenship? By direct and drastic measures of this character, we may in time produce a correct ap¬ preciation of the responsibilities of electors and the obligations of candi¬ dates ; but by such feeble palliatives as have been hitherto proposed, there will be no serious amendment. Our present system is dishonourable and disgraceful. Let us cut the social cancer out by the roots. The first work the House of Commons is to be invited to apply itself to, however, is not bankruptcy 7 , election, or land reform, but the amend¬ ment of its own rules. The Cabinet thinks that the usefulness of the Legislature is curtailed, and its influence injured, by the dilatory way in which its work is done. It is possible to admit that the legislative har¬ vest has been deficient both in quality and quantity, and still not admit THE CLOTUREj COERCION. 209 that Parliament itself, the Palladium of our liberties, has become effete. The House of Commons is a rough but faithful reflex of public opinion ; and if legislation does not proceed at a sufficiently rapid pace, the people -—its creators—and not the members, are to blame. Water cannot rise above the level of its spring, and if the political or administrative spring be low, the level of the legislative work will be low also. The forms of Parliament speedily adapt themselves to popular desires, when those desires are definitely and decidedly expressed. When the steam is fairly up, there is no engine which answers more readily to pressure than the British House of Commons. The fault, therefore, is with the electors if the legislative machine be deficient in motive power. A reasonable adaptation of the rules of the House to the ever-altering conditions of the time is what all admit to be necessary. The work of Parliament has increased, and is increasing. Both its character and its composition have changed. All these circumstances suggest the desirability of re¬ arrangement, the demand for which is not new, but has been urged for years. So far, there is unanimity. But when the necessity for amend¬ ment is admitted, agreement ceases. Respecting the means for giving effect to this amendment, scarcely two persons who have thought at all on the question, think alike. It is, too, a subject of infinite detail, and one on which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to excite public interest. To spend the best hours of a new session in the consideration of such an intricate and unattractive theme is open to question as a piece of party strategy. But the Cabinet have evidently taken their stand ; and upon the success of their scheme more will depend than the simple adop¬ tion or rejection of the proposed new rules. The first reform should be to lessen the labour of the House. More work is thrown upon it than it can perform efficiently. Every session this work increases, and the care with which it is done decreases. There has, in the last thirty years, been a startling transmutation in the characteristic features of English political existence. We have been steadily, but imperceptibly, drifting from a localised to a centralised system of Government. If the reform of pro¬ cedure should lead to a distribution of the work of Parliament, if some of its self-imposed duties be relegated to representative bodies where the special advantages derivable from local knowledge and interest would secure for it more careful attention, it will be a national service. In the forms of the House themselves, amendment could easily be effected with¬ out interfering seriously with ancient privileges. One of the first of these would be the taking up of the work of one session at the point where it had been left the previous one. A member with great exertion and much patience may pilot a Bill into committee ; but if there be not time to get it passed before the recess, all his efforts are lost, and the same ground has to be gone over again the following year. Only those who are familiar with the difficulty of conducting a Bill can measure the value of such a 15 210 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. change. Of itself, it would go far to clear the block in the legislative pathway. The season of the year when the House sits, and the hour of the day, or, rather night, when it assembles, might be altered with injury to none and benefit to all. Instead of meeting in February and sitting till August, the session might begin at Martinmas and terminate at Mid¬ summer. One week at Westminster in July is more enervating and ex¬ hausting than three weeks in March or April. The folly of commencing business when other people are closing it, and of transacting the impor¬ tant and delicate work of legislation in a drowsy, jaded assembly, hours after midnight, is so palpable, that nothing but inveterate prejudice can sustain the practice. But while these and other changes might be made easily and advantageously, it is to be hoped that no unnatural craving for legislation will tempt Parliament to surrender any of the rights of free discussion, or any of the privileges of minorities. Though we may think them cumbrous and antiquated, it should always be remembered that the rules of the House of Commons, which are now almost part of the Con¬ stitution, were framed with the object of protecting the independence of members, and securing the priceless possession of free and untrammelled speech. Majorities are often wrong, and nearly always exacting and in¬ tolerant. If any proposal be made to place in the hands of the majority, which would really be in the Government, the power of closing a debate when Ministers please, it will be resisted to the last Parliamentary ditch, and by every means justified by honour and sanctioned by usage. To give such an arbitrary power to any majority, whether Liberal, Conserva¬ tive, or Radical, would be to destroy the deliberative character of Parlia¬ ment, to unsettle legislation, and decree the dictatorship of the leader of the House. It would turn our political contests from honourable struggles for principles into scrambles for office. The two last sessions have been engrossed with Irish affairs; and these will also engage a large share of attention in the session about to open. Average Englishmen do not understand, and won’t inquire into, the origin of Irish agrarian ideas. By a cynical combination of cruelty and selfish¬ ness, England destroyed Ireland’s manufactures for the purpose of helping her own. The land is now the chief, almost the sole, source of the exis¬ tence of the population. But apart from this dependence on the land, the Irish people believe they have an interest in it in a sense unthought of in this country. According to the old Brehon law the land belonged, not to the individual, but to the sept. The chief held the position by choice more than by inheritance. This system we either ridicule as absurd or ignore as antediluvian. But neither penal laws, anti-Papal edicts, successive confiscations, nor centuries of oppression and injustice, have been able to eradicate from the mind of the Irish peasant the belief that he has a share in the soil he tills. He holds this belief to-day as stoutly as his father did before the planting of Munster. It is in this faith THE CLOTURE; COERCION. 21 I that he builds his cabin on the hillside, drains his bit of bog, and fences his field. All who have attempted to legislate on the question have recog¬ nised this root idea of all Celtic land systems. Generations of debate have evolved two methods of reconciling ancient usage with modern ways. The first, tenant-right, by which, at a fair rent, the cultivator is secured a fixed and saleable interest in his holding ; the second, ownership on the guarantee of the State. The framers of the Land Act adopted neither of these plans absolutely, but they adopted modifications of both. Like all compromises, the Act has satisfied neither party. The landowners de¬ scribe it as spoliation ; the tenants complain that the concessions made under it are insufficient. Generally, rents have been reduced to Griffith’s valuation. This valuation was made for the purposes of taxation, and it included not only the land but the farm-houses and steadings. The tenants argue that to reduce rents only to this standard is not enough, as under it they will still have to pay rent upon improvements made by themselves or purchased from their predecessors. This, they hold, is not only unfair, but, according to the clause introduced into the Act at the instance of Mr. Healy, it is illegal. But whatever the reason, the Act has so far failed to satisfy either side. It is a subtle and ingenious piece of legislation. There is not a clause in it, the germ of which has not been embodied in one or other of the hundred and odd land Bills which have been submitted to Parliament. But the way in which rival interests are balanced, the manner in which seemingly contradictory proposals are dovetailed into each other, is unique. To utilise an Americanism, the Act is “ too clever by half.” It reminds you of a steamer that was recently projected for preventing sea-sickness. She was double-engined and double-decked. She was so arranged that when the waves struck her on one side a set of swivel gearing on the other would steady her. She was to walk the water like a thing of life. The plan looked pretty on paper, and ingenious in the model; but— “ The best-laid schemes of mice and men gang aft aglee." When brought into contact with the sea, the delicate mechanism went all awry. With one touch of nature, the dreams of her inventor vanished. It looks almost as if the Land Act was going to have a like fate. It has certainly not cured the political sea-sickness of Ireland, and the agrarian relief it is to afford s all in the future. The landlords declare they have been deceived. They assert that they assented to the measure upon the assurance of its promoters that it would not reduce rents. But they find that rents are being reduced fully 25 per cent. This on many encumbered estates absorbs the small margin left for the limited owners, and naturally enough they are angry. It was calculated that the tenants would accept one case or a set of cases in a district as tests, and voluntarily settie with 212 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, ALP. their landlords on that basis out of court. The executive of the Land League initiated such a mode of procedure, and if they had been allowed to put it into practice it might have succeeded. The Cabinet, however, sent Mr. Parnell to prison for suggesting the plan that they now advocate, but advocate in vain. There are three Chief-Commissioners, thirty-six Sub-Commissioners, several valuers, a secretary, and other officials at work. They have been engaged since October, and have settled over one thousand cases. Half of these, however, have been appealed against, so that really considerably below that number have been finally adjusted. Some, it is true, have been agreed to out of court ; but both out of court and in court the number absolutely closed up to this time is not over 1,000. There are 600,000 tenants-at-will in Ireland, and nearly 300,000 of them can take their rents into court for adjustment. If they all apply, and if from one cause or other the rate of progress is not bettered, the pre¬ sent staff of commissioners will not complete their work this century. The Act will cost to work on its present scale about £ 70,000 a-year. The expenditure for it since it started has been about ,£17,000, which is more than the amount of the rents dealt with, and greatly in excess of the re¬ ductions made. The financial part of the question might have been overlooked if the measure had produced the results promised. But politically it has certainly failed, and socially its success is more than doubtful. The system of dual ownership that it creates in some instances and perpetuates in others is economically unsound, and will no more stand the strain of a succession of bad seasons than the Act of 1870 did. This, however, is only an opinion, and it may be falsified by experience. I trust I may be wrong. But it is not an opinion, but a fact, that the Act is having a demoral¬ ising effect on the character of the people. Commercial communities instinctively avoid the law. Traders resort to it only after all other resources have failed. The bane of agricultural populations is their hankering after litigation. The Land Act is creating a nation of litigants. The League scheme would have been attended with no such injurious results. It would have conflicted with no economic principles, and done injustice to no party. The owners’ interest would have been honestly bought out on equitable terms by the State guaranteeing the landlords the price of their property. By the establishment of land banks after the plan followed in Prussia, and recently in Roumania, with pre-eminent success, the tenants would have been able to purchase their holdings by easy instalments, as workmen and tradesmen in this country buy their houses through building societies. A beneficent revolution might thus have been wrought without injustice, loss, or anger. But the land¬ lords would not reason, the English people would not listen, and the honest, moderate, and, in the highest and best sense of the word, Conser¬ vative proposal of the Irish peasantry was scornfully rejected. The TEE CLOTUREj COERCION. 213 results we all know only too well. What was refused three years ago would be taken thankfully now. Every day we read of proposals, differ¬ ing only from those of the League in the language used, being brought forward by the landlords or their advocates. But much has happened since the League was started. We have lived fast these last three years. What was possible then is impossible now. Animosities have been aroused, the force of which the Government have not even yet been able correctly to gauge, and resentments have been started which the present generation will not see die out. The initial error of the Cabinet was in treating a vast national upheaval as the work of a handful of malcontents. According to one Cabinet Minister, Ireland, at the General Election, was enjoying unparalleled contentment. According to another, there was no necessity for further land legislation, as the failure of the Act of 1870 had not been proved. When the new Parliament met, Irish affairs were crushed into a corner. The Disturbance Bill was the result of an acci¬ dent and of Irish adroitness. When the coercion code was applied for, the Cabinet assured the House of Commons that it would be used lightly, and only for a short time. On the third reading of the Bill, the Secretary stated to the Lord-Lieutenant that it would be only necessary under it to put a couple of dozen of misguided persons in temporary restraint. Im¬ mediately it became law, through columns of exulting articles and speeches, we were assured that the Land Leaguers were cowards, that the mere threat of the Castle whip had cowed them, and that their leaders had taken to flight. Opinion sobered down when it was discovered that these said leaders had neither fled nor been frightened. Arrests were made rapidly. Amongst them were a member of Parliament, a Catholic priest, and numerous town councillors, Poor-Law guardians, and town commissioners. By the end of the session the Ministry had incarcerated, not a couple of dozen of miscreants, but over a couple of hundred of influential and respected citizens. We were then asked to wait for the Land Act. It would set all things right. The cupidity of the peasants was emphasised and expatiated upon. They were described as among the meanest and most ungrateful of human kind. It was predicted that, when they realised the material advantages of the Act, they would abandon their quondam-chiefs and cheer for the Ministry who had sent these chiefs to prison. Once more the prophets were wrong. A convention was held in Dublin, and at it these sordid tenants surpassed their own executive in the strength of their demands. Instead of the League forcing the convention, the convention forced the League. Clinging still to the fatal belief that the agitation was manufactured, the Government suppressed the organization, arrested its leaders, opened their corre¬ spondence, put down public meetings, seized their newspapers, and established a veritable white terror. Then, again, the stereotyped shout of satisfaction was sent up by the British public: “Now, surely, the 214 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. dragon’s teeth are drawn.” It is three months since these Draconian edicts were promulgated ; and what has been their effect ? Disorder has increased ; outrages have multiplied ; and law is enforced only by the aid of 60,000 soldiers—horse, foot, and artillery—more than 12,000 gens (Pannes, and an army of spies acting under the direction of military magistrates. With its leaders in gaol, and all the appliances of public life suspended, this ubiquitous League lives, and its orders are obeyed. Englishmen, however, still reason themselves into the belief that it is only an organ¬ ised cabal, with no hold on public opinion. They do this, too, in the face of incontestable evidence that outside of the official caste, and apart from the military, the police, Castle officials, and dependents of landlords and magistrates, the entire population in three provinces, and a majority in the fourth, are in sympathy with the movement. There are differences of opinion as to some parts of the recent policy of the League, but respecting coercion, its futility and its failure, there is absolute unanimity. Aversion from it, too, is strongest amongst the middle and trading classes. They resent it as an indignity. This is proved by the action of the munici¬ palities. The municipal suffrage in Ireland is much restricted. For example, Dublin has a population of 300,000, but there are in that city only 5,000 municipal voters. Newcastle has scax-cely half the population, and there are 28,000 municipal voters. There are more voters in West- gate Ward than in the city of Dublin. Yet, every borough outside of Ulster has strained its power to honour the League leaders. There is no dignity the people can confer that has not been tendered to the men whom English newspapers and politicians delight to. describe as the ringleaders of a set of ruffians. Is it reasonable to suppose that the governing bodies of large towns like Limerick, Cork, Dublin, Wexford, and Waterford—the representatives of the tradesmen and the merchants —would voluntarily honour men if their characters were as dubious and their teaching as diabolical as Englishmen describe those of the League managers to be ? Unfounded statements, too, as to the foreign supply of funds have been made the basis of much unfair criticism. Large amounts, it is true, have been contributed by Irish emigrants and exiles. Stronger proof of the intensity of the feeling against the existing order of things in Ireland could not be furnished than by men and women thousands of miles away contributing out of their limited means so freely and so largely for their distressed and suffering countrymen at home. To their lasting honour be it said, they have obeyed the scriptural injunction, and felt for “ those in bonds as bound with them.” But it is incorrect to say that Irishmen in Ireland have not contributed. For the Ladies’ Land League, for the defence of the traversers, for the support of the suspects, for the purposes of local organizations, apart from general expenditure, sub- THE CLOTURE; COERCION. 215 scriptions have been raised amongst Irishmen in the United Kingdom, amounting altogether to upwards of ,£100,000. Considering the distress there has been in the country, the difficulty there always is in gathering small sums from poor people, and the obstacles the authorities have thrown in the way of such collections, that sum is a substantial evidence of popular interest and earnestness. (A voice : “ Where has it gone to?” ) Where has it gone to ? Nearly £ 20,000 of it went to defend Mr. Parnell and his associates in the State trials at Dublin, originated by the Govern¬ ment, in which they were defeated. There are from 500 to 600 men in prison —honest worthy men—and these funds go to support them. Lord Derby, who was once a large Irish landlord, and who has a hereditary knowledge of Irish politics, is the only statesman who has had the candour to admit that the uprising is national. The first condition of success in statesman¬ ship, as in medicine, is to make a correct diagnosis of the disease. If this is not done, the best appliances fail. There is no wisdom in hiding the truth. English newspapers and public men may repeat, until they believe it, that the agitation in Ireland is fictitious, that its chiefs are cowards, and their clients are criminals and curs ; but the repetition will not make the charge correct. Ireland’s discontent will not be appeased by recrimination, nor by Coercion Acts, nor by Arms Acts. You may exasperate, but you will not pacify, people by such clumsy instruments of oppression. They are doubly demoralising. They injure both rulers and ruled. If you accustom a man to walk on crutches, use in time becomes second nature, and he ends by finding he cannot walk without help. The Irish Executive has had forty coercion crutches in eighty years, and it has come to believe that they are a necessity, and that the country cannot be governed without them. We complain of Irish lawlessness, and yet we encourage it by our example. We have broken, or superseded, or over¬ ridden the law in Ireland so often and so arbitrarily, that we have destroyed all respect for it in the minds of the Irish peasant. The Czar has at his disposal no more tyrannical appliances than those now in force in Ireland. Constitutional statesmen are expected to be able to govern without the degrading devices of despots. The resources of the ordinary law are strong and far-reaching. The Executive, without coercion, can disperse mobs, quell riots, patrol disturbed districts, arrest any man who assaults or intimidates his neighbour. These powers are sufficient for all the righteous purposes of Government. It is false to say that the land agitation was designed for overt pur¬ poses, or that its leaders connived at, or promoted, outrages cr excesses. Its founders discountenanced both illegality and cruelty. Mr. Davitt, the day before he was arrested, remarked to me that his only fear was that the Government, by their repressive measures, would drive the people either to arms or to outrages. He had tried the former plan, he said, and he had 2 l6 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, ALP. paid dearly for his experiment. The latter never helped any good cause. These sentiments the League leaders have again and again expressed to me in all the freedom of friendly intercourse. The Government have removed the only barrier that existed against terrorism. Their own returns too clearly prove that they have not arrested the village ruffians, but that they have arrested the village leaders—the men whose influence held the ruffians in check. These leaders have more influence with their neighbours than the Castle and its constables. When they were im¬ prisoned, a salutary restraint was removed, and the catalogue of crime was swollen. The Irish Executive learns nothing and forgets nothing. It is to-day enforcing ordinances as hateful, and measures as despotic, as those which in the dark days of Sidmouth and Castlereagh provoked Liberal reprobation and indignation. It is a bitter irony on their past professions that our first Advanced Liberal Cabinet should have signalised their possession of power by putting in force modes of rule, the denunciation of which secured for their members popularity and won them office. Have their indiscriminate supporters considered what will be the consequence of this ruinous Irish policy? They cannot always keep untried and uncon¬ victed men in gaol. A day will come when the prisoners must be released ; and when released, what then ? There have been altogether over six hundred “ suspects” imprisoned. There are still five hundred in custody. For offences arising out of the agitation there have been imprisoned, for longer or shorter terms, fully five hundred more persons, amongst them a number of boys for whistling “ Harvey Duff.” Do you think that the feelings of these men and their families towards England will have been sweetened or softened by their imprisonment ? Do you imagine that they will be any more easy to manage when they get free ? Every one of them will be smarting under a sense of injury and injustice. Avowed rebels understand being arrested. They enter the conflict with their eyes open, knowing they must abide the result ; but the men imprisoned under the Coercion Act did not appeal to physical force. They believed—and the Government sustained them in their belief—that they were fighting a legitimate and constitutional battle ; and they now believe that they are punished partly to please offended landlords and incensed magistrates, and partly to gratify the Executive’s intolerance of opposition. Without being convicted, without being conrfonted with their accusers, and allowed opportunities of defence, men have been taken from their homes and businesses, to the serious loss and suffering of themselves and all connected with them. What will be the result ? They will be the enemies for life of the power and party that have subjected them to such indignity. Scattered through the country, these thousand persons, rankling under a sense of wrong, will foster sentiments of enmity towards England. The Government have supplied every village with a leader of disaffection. Irish gaols have been converted into insurrectionary forcing- THE CLOTUREj COERCION. 217 houses. A respectable farmer, who was discharged from Kilmainham recently, because the authorities feared that if they kept him he would die, said to a friend : “ I entered gaol a reformer, and I leave it a rebel.” But it is not the Act, repugnant though it is, nor its administration, cruel though it has been in many instances, but the harsh and hostile spirit in which it has been advocated, that has wounded Irish feeling. English speakers and writers are brimming over with that self-sufficient superciliousness that cuts a weak but high-spirited people to the quick. A painful illustration of this disposition was given on the arrest of Mr. Davitt. Mr. Uavitt’s career is calculated to awaken kindly feelings in the minds of all generous men. His life has been a hard one, and he has borne it bravely. When a child, his family was evicted. In rags and poverty they reached Lancashire, where the father found employment in a factory. Davitt was put to work at a tender age, and when minding a machine he lost his arm. Unable afterwards to labour, he improved his education, and qualified himself to take a situation, first as a timekeeper and then as a commercial traveller. But his own family’s sorrowful experience, and the knowledge that thousands of his countrymen were enduring a lot as hard, led him to dedicate his life to their service. He has trod, in turn, the pathway of hardship and honour, that has been so often watered by the blood and tears of patriots and exiles. Released by the late Government, he dedicated afresh his regained liberty to the cause of his country. He discarded the military, and applied himself to constitutional methods. The Government admit that they could not charge him with any treasonable acts, but because he was an influential member of an association admitted to be legal, but powerful, they sent him back to penal servitude. I have some knowledge of the treatment of political prisoners, and I do not think any more cowardly and treach¬ erous exercise of power can be produced from all the gloomy records of modern despotism. Yet, when the arrest was announced in Parliament, it was received with more elation than the news of a great victory. That exultant yell — for it was a yell and not a shout—that went up when the Home Secretary said the gallant Irishman had been returned to slavery —undid at a stroke all the kindlier sentiments that it had been the design of recent legislation to cherish. It brought to the surface in all their force old national hatreds. It showed, too, that the men who had secured office, by their ostentatious advocacy of the principles of nation¬ ality, could not, when their own interests were involved, observe the dignity of silence in the presence of the sufferings of a nationalist whose misfortunes appealed to the sympathies of both friends and foes. There arc deeds done and words spoken in political crises, not in themselves important, but which, from the circumstances of their utterance or performance, colour the course of events for years afterwards. The vin- 2 I 8 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, 31 .P. dictive and ungenerous spirit which displayed itself on that painful occasion will rankle in the minds of patriotic Irishmen for a generation. A like disposition was manifested when the Prime Minister, surrounded by partisans, got upon stilts to strike an absent political opponent, and when he, by a transparent stage device, pandered to the prejudices of a City mob. Some Liberals are beginning to perceive the mischief that has been wrought by the prevailing temper ; and knowing how much they have depended in the past on Irish votes, they are desirous for a recon¬ ciliation. There was a time when a workable understanding might have been arrived at between English and Irish Liberals. Leading Irishmen were anxious for such an alliance. They knew that former compacts with English parties had brought them few benefits and no honour, but they argued that the men they dealt with then were Whigs, and that men now in office were Radicals—by profession at least. With them it was trusted a union could be established that would be lasting and mutually beneficial. It was in this hope that the Irish vote at the last General Election was cast solidlyfor Liberals. Theunderstandingwasmaintainedduringthe session of 18S0, but the introduction of the Coercion Bill, and the spirit and manner of its discussion, shattered those hopes and dissipated those expectations. There is a party in Ireland which has no faith in any English league. They believe that Irish members have been in the past, and will be in the future, used only to serve party purposes. They seek independence in a double sense—ultimate independence of the English Parliament, and immediate independence of English parties. They were in a minority, and would probably have remained so. But coercion and English ran¬ cour have given them influence and strength. Every turn of the coercion screw, every exhibition of national animus, in speech or newspaper, aids their side, and strengthens their opinion that legislative union between the two countries is undesirable, if not impossible. These men have ceased to care for the opinion of this country. I was struck with the force of this feeling last summer. Reports of outrages were circulated upon infor¬ mation that was known to be false. There was evidence in London to prove them so. I advised that a contradiction should be given to the reports on the authority of responsible Irishmen. But they refused. They said neither the English press nor English politicians wanted to be cor¬ rected. Their prejudices were inveterate, and it was folly to reason with them. It pleased them to think evil of the Land League, and they could enjoy their pleasure. As for English opinion, it was so unjust that they did not regard it, and they would not trouble to inform it. This indifference, or rather contempt, for the opinion of this country is, to my mind, the most distressing and disheartening aspect of the unhappy con¬ troversy. The men who are daily declaiming against the threatened disintegration of the Empire might reflect that their taunts and provoca¬ tions are helping to produce the very result they fear. It is useless THE CLOTUREj COERCION. 219 talking of a better understanding when men are kept in prison without trial, and the odious Coercion Acts are on the Statute-Book. There are two modes of ruling Ireland. One is, abandon all semblance of law and constitutional freedom, and rule avowedly and openly with the sabre of the dragoon and the baton of the constable. You can make a desert, decree a union, and call it peace. The other and better way is to place Ireland, politically and legally, on identically the same footing as England ; give her people the same freedom as we enjoy ; recognise their national idiosyncrasies and aspirations ; allow them to regulate their home affairs in their own way ; and make them realise that they are an integral part of the United Kingdon, and not a subjected province of a large empire. There are no people more easily ruled than the Irish, if you will do them justice and treat them as equals. There are none more difficult to rule by that combination of coercion and coaxing, and that entire absence of confidence and trust, which have been the dis¬ tinguishing and disfiguring characteristics of our recent Government. 220 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO IVEN, M.P. IX. PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE; IRELAND; EGYPT. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Jattuary 8, 1883. AST session started amidst hopeful assurances and with many fair -*—' resolves. Its fitful course is strewn with broken promises and baffled projects. The events of even a sterile session are so multifarious, they crowd upon each other in such rapid succession, that they confuse the public mind. This has been pre-eminently the case in the session of 1882. The recollection of its earlier proceedings has been effaced by the latter. The long-drawn-out debate on the Address in answer to the Queen’s Speech ; the production of a fresh Parliamentary code ; its post¬ ponement to permit of the proposing of a vote of censure on the House of Lords for presuming to inquire into the working of the Land Act; the resumption of the procedure debate, and its second adjournment in con¬ sequence of the menacing attitude of Irish affairs ; the abandonment of the Coercion Act; the release of the suspects ; the retirement of the Viceroy and his secretary, and the proclamation of a conciliatory policy for Ireland; the extinction of the popular expectations thereby excited by the ghastly tragedy that took place in Phoenix Park; the dejection caused by that cruel crime ; the recurrence to the stale and dreary round of repression and reform represented by the Crimes and the Arrears Bills ; the passage of the former after the suspension of the Irish mem¬ bers and of the latter after a futile opposition from a section of the Peers; the wavering and evasive Egyptian diplomacy of the Cabinet, culminating in the bombardment of Alexandria and the subsequent invasion, conquest, and occupation of the country ; the supplementary session, the final adoption of the cloture, of a number of minor rules, and of a scheme of Grand Committees, constitute together as chequered a sessional retro¬ spect as modern experience supplies. There have been mistakes many, and miscalculations not a few. There have been dangerous inroads made into constitutional practices, and flagrant violations of Liberal principles committed. But the results, although legislatively discouraging, repre- PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. 221 sent a large measure of physical exertion and mental worry. They bring into prominence the Parliamentary intrepidity, resource, arid endurance of the leader of the House, which, whether men agree with or dissent from his purpose, all must acknowledge and admire. Little of the work promised has been done, although other work, equally arduous, has been accomplished. The House will resume in February, 1883, the task set before it in February, 1882. The Liberal programme is the same this as it was last year, as it was at the last election, and indeed as it was at the election before last. I can add nothing serviceable to the summary of it given, or the comment on it offered, when I spoke here eleven months ago. There is little difference as to the principles, and less as to the necessity for measures dealing with bankruptcy, electoral corruption, local taxation, and patents. Disputes will arise over the details, and the details cannot be discussed until the measures are produced. One material advantage the Government now enjoy. They have at their command facilities for forcing forward their business such as no previous Adminis¬ tration ever possessed. Nothing save their own want of tact and judg¬ ment can impede their progress. They have power to divide their work, to silence the Opposition, to muzzle all malcontents. They have behind them a majority practically undiminished in numbers and unbroken in enthusiasm. Their stock of popularity in the constituencies is unex¬ hausted, while their opponents are disorganised and dispirited. Not a passing ripple ruffles the smooth surface of the political lake, and the outlook all round is roseate and reassuring. The jarring notes that reach us from Ireland are but reminders that all Governments are human and liable to the infirmities of human kind. This is the Ministerial version of the situation. I do not endorse it in its entirety ; but, taking the picture as they paint it, their programme, position, and prospects justify us in looking for a busy and productive session this year. The Ministers have a great opportunity. No Ministry ever had a greater. They have the measures, the machinery, and the men. How will they use them ? Time will show. We will leave the thirty odd questions of primary and urgent interest that three sessions ago they took office to carry — about them there is little difference of opinion amongst us—and turn to more debatable topics. The distinguishing characteristic of the Cabinet has been their passion for coercion. They have applied it everywhere. Let us attempt to estimate the effect of this policy of force on Parliament, on Ireland, and on Egypt. The advocates of the cloture have changed their ground. We were assured, by all variety of argument and expression, that it was the sole specific for saving the House of Commons from present degeneracy and ultimate decay. When an inventor gets a new patent it is, with him, for the moment everything. Nothing before was ever so good. But as the novelty wears off his enthusiasm declines. So it has been with the SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. patentees of the Parliamentary penal law. It was everything that was wanted till it was got. When got, its merits are minimised. The Prime Minister himself says that any man who looks to the gag as a cure for garrulity is not only in error, but in an “ inexcusable and stupid error. 1 ’ These are his own words. They are rather hard on the party claqueurs, who for months past have been crying up the Ministerial apparatus as a certain remedy for legislative barrenness. We are now told it is to be often looked at but seldom used, that it is only a Parliamentary tawse to frighten obstreperous members. If this be the case, what has the fight been for? It has been a culpable waste of time and temper. If the cloture be applied in all its stringency, the injurious consequences pre¬ dicted from its application are as certain to arise as anything contingent can be certain. It is impossible to calculate the cumulative effect of all the rules. Trial only will tell that. But no meaning is to be attached to party threats, and English political warfare has undergone a marvellous change, if the cloture is not used to stop a debate when that debate becomes damaging and disagreeable to the majority. The Government concentrate their care on the legislative functions of the House of Commons. With them the machinery is everything—the spirit nothing. They value the chains and pulleys of the Parliamentary gearing more than the impelling force that sets them in motion. They seem to think that they can shuffle the political forces as they can shuffle a pack of cards. They want to revolve men as regularly as they do cog-wheels. Bald formulas are substituted for vivifying principles. I do not under¬ value the utility of State mechanism, nor deny that the complicated appliances and arrangements of civilised life have developed the neces¬ sity for elaborate law-making. But you can drive a good doctrine too far. If the State has its rights, so has the individual. I hold that the other functions that Parliament fulfils are almost, if not equally, as important as the legislative. It is the supreme tribunal of the nation, to which all grievances gravitate. It is a political court of appeal with unlimited jurisdiction, before which the highest and the humblest can be arraigned. Ignorance and insignificance, poverty and despair, debarred a hearing elsewhere, can secure one there. It is the people’s conscious¬ ness that, in the last resort, their case can be stated freely, fearlessly, and without fee in Parliament that has given it its enduring vitality and perennial power. The paper Parliaments of other countries have fallen, because their foundations were not laid in popular confidence. Ours has survived the vicissitudes of centuries, and gathered strength as it gathered years. It is the centre of the nation’s free life. Its decisions have not only given force to national sentiment, but its debates have had an important influence in forming that sentiment. This influence will be impaired by the restraints on discussion that have been adopted. If you shut out light from the eye, you lessen the capacity for seeing. If PARLIAMENTARV PROCEDURE. 2 -3 you cease to exercise a limb, it withers and weakens. If you stifle debate, you do a double damage—you diminish the faculty for engaging in it, and you create a demand for further limitations. The principle—if it can be said there is a principle—that underlies the cloture is sophistical and unfair. It fetters the whole for fear of the few. It supplants the genial courtesies which have been the growth of generations by cold and rigid regulations. It is said those courtesies have been curtailed. Admit it. Is that a reason for their abrogation? Every good in life has its alloy of evil. The alloy of liberty is license. The alloy of discussion is loquacity. Excessive talk may have postponed good, but it has also stopped injurious legislation. Who will contend that the benefit con¬ ferred by Parliamentary liberty does not far outbalance any injury inflicted by Parliamentary license? What has not been won by free speech ? What may not be lost by gagging ? The business of the House of Commons, some complain, is often badly done. Legislation is botched and tinkered. As much time is expended in passing explanatory and amending Acts as in passing the originals. Allow all this. What then ? The work, if mere law-making be all that is wanted, would be more expeditiously executed by intelligent experts. But the political security and freedom derived from discussions far more than compensate for the inefficiency of the process. The men now in power may not mean it, but the drift of their policy is certainly to circumscribe freedom of action, crush out individuality of character, and plane down every politician to the party pattern. The disparagement of the cloture , since it was passed, indicates a determination not to enforce it in its crude and naked form at first. If it were, it might provoke a reaction. It may, too, only be applied to the orthodox Opposition under circumstances of party exacerbation. But it will be used at once and without hesitation against political groups. Under it, the independent member’s occupation is gone. He will either be silenced or swamped in the rushing stream of head¬ strong and unreasoning officialism. There are three parties in the House of Commons, but there are only two classes—the official and the non-official. Both have their privileges, or rather had, as the privileges of the unofficial class are a vanishing- quantity. They are steadily decreasing, while the privileges of the official class are as steadily increasing. The change going forward may largely affect, and not for the better, the course of affairs in Parliament. Yet, the public are ignorant of it, and too many members are indifferent to it. Listen to these figures. They tell a tale worth hearing. In the session of 1872, ten years ago, when the Liberals were in office, and during a period of legislative activity, the House sat 120 days, and out of these private members had the initiative of the business on 70 days, and the Government on 50 days. In 1877, five years ago, the House sat 122 days. The Government had control of 42 days, and private members of Sc. 224 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. These were typical sessions in the last Parliament and in the Parliament before last. Now, notice the difference between them and the three sessions of this Parliament. In 1880, the session lasted 87 days. The Government had 70, and private members 17 of those days. In 1881, the House sat 154 days. The Government had control of 114, and private members of 40. This session, the House has sat 162 days, and the Government have had the initiative on 127, and private members on 35 of them. Measuring the proportion of time between the two classes by the hour instead of the day, the difference is equally striking. Out of 1,027 hours the House sat in 1872, the Government had control of 560 hours, and private members of 467. In 1877, out of 1,039 hours, the Government had control of 540, and private members of 499. But in 18S0, out of 778 hours the House was in session, the Government had command of 522, and private members only of 258. In 1881, out of 1,409 hours, the Government had 1,029, an ^ private members only 380. For this year the returns are not published, but out of about 1,320 hours the House has sat, the Government have had command of about 920 hours, and private members of about 400. Five years ago, and ten years ago, the time of the House was about equally divided between the Government and private members. The contrast would be more marked if it were carried back fifteen or twenty years ago. Then the proportion of time assigned to private members was much greater than it was a decade ago. Now the Government have command of from two-thirds to three-fourths of the working hours. There are men who regard this shifting of the balance of Parliamentary facilities carelessly, if not with approval. The House to them is but an enlarged Government office— only an ante-chamber to Downing Street ; and all this talk about private members’ rights is, in their judgment, so much private members’ non¬ sense. Formerly, active Liberals took the rights of unofficial members under their especial care. The proudest achievements of their party are identified with independent action. There has never been a time in political memory, when a Liberal Ministry have been in office, that there has not been a group of free lances below the gangway, spurring them forward, commenting on their defects, and censuring their errors. The present Home Secretary 7 was the unceasing critic of Mr. Gladstone’s last Government. The late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was a “ candid friend ” of the Governments of Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell. There were many more censors besides them. Some revelled in their adventurous isolation ; others aimed at the lofty function of Par¬ liamentary arbitrament between the contending factions. But much has happened since then. The “ candid friends ” and the independent arbiters of past days are Ministers and ex-Ministers now. Like all neophy-tes, they display an excess of zeal in their new vocation. No censure is too severe, and no imputation too mean to apply to the men PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE. 225 who are trying to do now what they did till office seduced and silenced them. The despised private members have been the pioneers of progress. There is no reform that Liberals glory in, and the nation has benefited by, that their unrequited and oft-unrecognised exertions have not forced from the theoretical to the practical stage. There is a broad difference between the reformer and the statesman. The reformer labours for the future. His ruling passion is duty. He is not perplexed with the corroding calculations of interest or popularity. The statesman is necessarily a trimmer and a temporiser. He labours for the present, and secures the honours and huzzas of the hour. I make no complaint of the men who started their careers as “root-and-branch” Radicals, and are closing them as courtiers and placemen. Every man to his taste and his faculty. But it is the reformer that has made pro¬ gressive Ministries possible. His task is the nobler one, although it is neither the pleasantest nor the most profitable. It is to the advocacy of Mr. Whitbread that we owe the earliest efforts for national education. It is to Mr. Wilberforce that we are indebted for the abolition of slavery, to Mr. Hume for financial reform, Mr. Grote and Mr. Berkley for the ballot, Mr. Cobden for Free-Trade. These were all non-official men, all independent members—men who sought the success of then- cause rather than the convenience of their party. The list might be swelled with the names of some of the foremost Englishmen of the century. Mr. Bright himself, when an independent member, thus spoke of the class:—“There is nothing more essential for the progress of the freedom of this country than that you should have an independent party in the House of Commons. If there had been no men in Parliament but those who trembled for the fate of a Ministry, where would have been the liberties that you have already achieved ? ” Where, indeed ? Let Mr. Cobden answer. “ I am convinced,” said he, “ if anything is to be done for the great mass of the people, if you are to secure any reform of magnitude, it is to be done by the people resolving to secure it, and totally disregarding the convenience or the existence of political parties in the House of Commons.” Leading Liberals are acting as if they had found the truth, and that all further inquiry was unnecessary. Everyman must humbly toe the party line, or be punished for his temerity. The Government, by their new rules, are rendering the existence of groups of advanced men impossible. The cloture is to destroy them in Parliament, and the Caucuses in the constituencies. There are, I know, many Liberal members who realise the situation, and regret it. They chafe under the restraint, and cherish the hope that it will be but temporary. Some expect to get from the Government an amendment of the liquor, and others of the land-laws. Some look to them for further steps towards dis¬ establishment, in which they will be disappointed ; others think they will equalise the suffrage and concede county government. They do not 16 226 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. approve of all that is done, but they submit to it for the prospect of securing early legislation on one or other of their favourite projects. When the whirligig of time brings the Conservatives once more to the Treasury Benches, Liberals will recover their liberty of speech and action. They will then revive their protest against the invasion of the rights of private members, and resist all encroachments strenuously enough. To get what they think an ultimate good, they will now do a little wrong. I do not believe in this immoral and emasculating Parliamentary opportunism. The men who follow it will find, when it is too late, that the privileges they have been content, for party convenience, to allow to fall into abeyance will have been abrogated. They may call for their revival, but they will call in vain. There are few forms of recrimination less profitable than the “ I told- you-so ” argument. But as my opposition to coercion did not meet with general approval, I maybe permitted to recall the reasons for my resisting it, and compare them with the results. I opposed the first Coercion Bill because it was odious in theory, and would be impotent in practice, and the second because it would convert open agitation into conspiracy. Have not both these forecasts been fulfilled? Before the Act of 1881 had been half a year in operation, it was felt to be a failure, and its authors abandoned it. They released the prisoners, made a bargain with the men they had erewhile denounced as rebels and incendiaries, and amended the Land Act at their suggestion. The Act of this year has driven dis¬ content beneath the surface, and led to a dangerous development of secret societies. I do not presume to be an authority, but I know it is the opinion of men who are, that the Irish people are socially and politically more disturbed, and in some parts of the country more distressed, than they ever have been in recent years. The sense of wrong done by coer¬ cion rankles in the popular mind. It has not been, and will not soon be, either forgotten or forgiven. Every man imprisoned without trial cherishes an undying grudge against his gaolers. The Land Act has not been largely successful. Ministers took an inaccurate gauge of the work that the measure was to perform. They calculated that in two or three years, with a specified staff, all the tenants whose cases would come under its operation would be reached. Now, what are the facts ? The Act has been in operation eighteen months. The strength of the staff has been trebled, and its cost quadrupled. The number of fair rents that have been fixed by the Court is 18,600, and the number of agreements to fix rents out of court is about 19,000—in all 37,000, or 38,000, less the decisions ap¬ pealed against. And this out qf a total of 600,000 tenants. The gross amount of reduction of rent got is about ,£70,000. But that has only been obtained at a cost to the tenants, landlords, and Government combined of ,£400,000, for legal and other charges. To put the result in a sentence —for the expenditure of ,£400,000 in eighteen months, 37,000 odd tenants IRELAND. 22 7 have got a reduction in their annual rents of £ 70,000—rather a slow and a somewhat costly process. The action of the Arrears Act has been even wider of the Ministerial calculations. It was estimated that 300,000 occupiers would benefit by it, and that the sum required to meet their demands would be from two to three million pounds. But the applicants are only a third of that number, and the money required to satisfy them will be short of three- quarters of a million instead of three millions. The tenants whom the land legislation has satisfied are the comparatively well-to-do class. The starving cotters on the west coast, whose misery it is impossible to ex¬ aggerate, and the smaller holders elsewhere, have not been reached by it. The Act excited hopes that are unrealised, and fears that are unappeased. The landlords are sulky and the tenants unsatisfied. The weather, too, this year has spoiled both food and firing. In some districts the harvest has been lost, and the turf not collected. There will be serious want from Kerry to Donegal, before the next crops are gathered, amounting to little short of famine. The English people have not realised the new power that has arisen in Irish politics. There have been agrarian, ecclesiastical, and national agitations often before, but there has been none so broadly democratic as this last one. Amidst all their strife, the Irish people have hitherto shown a certain submission to their social superiors. The Episcopal clergy were not favourites, but they were deferred to. Dis¬ establishment has shorn them of their shadowy influence. That outpost of the pale has been driven in. The landlord’s power has lost its lustre. If not broken, it has been bent. Its glamour is gone. The farmers will never again doff their hats to local Gesslers. They are seized with the conviction that one day they will become landlords themselves. They have secured a partnership in the soil, and they think they will shortly secure an ownership. That is the all-pervading belief. The men who hug the delusion that the Irish peasant is still the deferential dependent so picturesquely depicted in novels or portrayed in plays ; those who think that the Hall and the Manor House still inspire their traditional terrors or command their customary obeisance, will have a rude awaken¬ ing some day. The change is the consequence of political teaching and of contact with America. The hand-to-mouth politicians, whose con¬ ceptions never reach beyond the machinations of parties and the votes of Parliament, ridiculed the Young Irelanders when they sought to create a national literature and make it racy of the soil. But these disparaged poets, orators, and historians were right, and their self-satisfied critics wrong. The late agitation is the fruition of the teaching of the men of ’48. Irish history may be a sealed book in the Government schools, but it is read and re-read by many a cabin fire. Its recital alternately stirs bright and bitter memories. It is crossed by many a bar of gloom, but it is illuminated by many examples of heroism and devotion. Emigration has 223 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. lessened the population, but it has leavened it with principles intensely antagonistic to those of the men who bartered their independence for paltry bribes and more paltry decorations, and whose descendants have abandoned a career of noble, national effort for one of ignoble ease. The clearances have crowded the towns with paupers. While sweeping away the shopkeepers’ customers, they have added largely to their rates. As their outgoings have increased, their capacity to meet them has decreased While emigration has democratised the peasants, evictions have agrari- anised the artisans. The landlords thought, when they drove their tenants from their estates, that their troubles had ended. But they were mis¬ taken. The people have found the force of Jeremy Bentham’s conclusion, who, after a survey of five hundred years of European history, declared “ that only by making the ruling few uneasy could the oppressed many obtain a particle of relief.” Matters will not mend till we abandon the statesmanship of makeshifts, palliatives, expedients, and coercion. The social difficulty will never be settled till the occupiers are made owners ; and the political difficulty will never be settled till we allow Irishmen to govern themselves. We have gone so far as to make the landlords rent- chargers on their own estates. They have all the odium of ownership and none of its powers. Let us go a step further and honestly buy them out. In a well-arranged peasant proprietary, we shall alone find a founda¬ tion of agrarian stability. The present compromise cannot stand. We have either done too little or too much. We cannot recede, and if we do not advance we may be in unending turmoil. All rightful government ;*ests upon consent, and the Irish people will never consent to be ruled Joy a corps of English bureaucrats fulminating edicts from Dublin Castle. The Government in Ireland is the most centralised and the least national in Europe. Its agents are out of sympathy with the population, and the population has no means of influencing them. We ought to make it both the duty and the interest of the people to maintain the law and preserve order, and this can never be done till the administration of the Jaw is entrusted to them. Every position of responsibility in the Ad¬ ministration is held by Englishmen or Scotchmen. It is a humiliating .confession, but the inference is inevitable. We dare not trust the Irish people in their own country. The French say, “You can do anything with bayonets but sit upon them.” We cover Ireland with troops. Let us be frank, and own we do so because we can only rule by force or fear. The longer this distrust continues, the longer will disaffection last. Con¬ fidence begets confidence. How would Presbyterian Scotchmen like to be governed from Edinburgh Castle by a ring of Irishmen and Catholics ; What would they have done if we had upset their legal, ecclesiastical, and educational systems, and planted and sustained amongst them by force systems alien alike to their convictions and traditions ? The spirit of Sir William Wallace and of Jenny Geddes would have started from IRELANDj EGYPT. 229 every hillside and resounded through every valley from Solway to John o’Groat’s. And yet that is what Englishmen and Scotchmen do in Ireland, and they wonder that Irishmen writhe convulsively in their shackles. Angry outbursts and sullen discontent will alternate till we radically reform our rule. Liberty is not the daughter, but the mother, of order. It is not want of right feeling on the part of Englishmen, and certainly no desire to deal unjustly, that prevents a change. It is want of knowledge and consequent indifference. Sydney Smith was not a rebel, and he said that the moment Ireland was mentioned English politicians bade adieu to common sense, and acted with the barbarity of tyrants and the fatuity of idiots. If Englishmen won’t study the origin of Irish grievances, let them reflect on the miseries and the mischief these grievances produce. The Constitution is suspended in Ireland. All the safeguards of liberty that we prize so highly, and boast of so much, are enjoyed only at the will of one man, the Viceroy. Ministers, judges, and higher officials never move about except under the protection of armed men. When we read of such things in Russia, we rush into homilies over the horrors of arbitrary rule, and satisfy our self-conceit by the reflection that we are not as other nations—hardened political sinners. We put men into prison, and the fact of our imprisoning them secures them their countrymen’s confidence. The High Sheriff of Dublin is incarcerated, the Lord Mayor is snubbed. And with what result ? Contrary to all custom, both are re-elected, to show that the imprisonment and the snubbing honoured, and did not discredit, the recipients. Some members of the Council vote against conferring the freedom of the city on Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon. The electors retaliate by rejecting them at the first election. The best passport to popular regard in Ireland is to have suffered for your political opinions at the hands of the English Government. Ex-suspects are made sheriffs, and mayors, and aldermen, and councillors, and members of Parliament. A constable, supposed to be a political spy, is shot in the streets of Dublin. The man who killed him is cheered on his way from the hospital to the gaol, and his supposed accomplices are serenaded by bands playing Irish national airs. Is it possible for thoughtful and observant Englishmen not to see the significance of all this? Did we not see it all clearly enough when like things took place in Lombardy under Austrian rule ? This is certainly not a party question. It is pre¬ eminently a national one. It touches us all closely. Our fair name, as well as our interest, is involved in its settlement. Not in the spirit of recrimination, but with patriotic earnestness, I appeal to every man here to help to free England from the humiliation of having an integral part of the kingdom constantly revolving in a dismal cycle of distress, dis¬ turbance, and despotism. The dazzle of our military parade has obscured the origin of the war in 230 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Egypt. The line of policy that led up to it has been lost in the smoke of Tel-elTCebir. We cannot go back. What is done is done, and cannot be mended. But we may predict the future from the past. Why did we go to Egypt ? Why ? To defend British interests. English interests are twofold—national and personal. England is interested in it as a highway to India. She is interested in it because a number of her people have invested heavily in Egyptian finance, and not a few in Egyptian trade. Heretofore we have striven to keep Egypt, as we have striven to keep Constantinople, out of the control of an aggressive power. We wanted to trade with the Egyptians, to have a road through their country, but we did not want to possess it. The settlement which secured the Sultan as sovereign and his Viceroy as ruler, served us, satisfied the Egyptians, and did not disturb Europe. It worked fairly well for twenty years. But a profligate Khedive got into debt, and, in an evil hour, he began to borrow. And borrowing brought disaster. In 1862, the first debt of ten millions was contracted. This indebtedness was increased, one way and another, to nearly a hundred millions by 1873. Only about forty-five millions, however, were actually received. The rest was expended in interest and expenses. The contractors made large profits, amounting, in some instances, to twenty-six per cent., and never less than twelve per cent, on the loan transactions. Of these forty-five millions, not much more than sixteen millions went to the improvement of the country. The other was wasted, or, what was as bad as wasted—it went to pay the debts of insensate and extravagant rulers. Before this financing began, the annual taxation of the country amounted to ,£4,900,000. Now it exceeds ,£10,000,000. It has more than doubled in less than twenty years. The Egyptian fellah is one of the poorest, and most patient, ill-treated, and inoffensive cultivators of the soil in the world. He has been the victim for ages of oppression. But never since the time of the Pharaohs has he been more systematically and unmercifully crushed than by the interna¬ tional usurers and their agents. He is taxed £2 per head—double as much as the Czar taxes the Russian, and ten times as much as we tax our Indian peasants. Fully half of the revenue is carried out of the country to pay bondholders’ interest. There is proportionally a larger tax drain from the Egyptians than from any other known people. There are but five millions of them, and they have to stagger on under a debt almost equal to that of India, which is borne by 240 millions of people. But that is not all. The Egyptians have not only to pay, but to pay for the privilege of paying. The taxes are wrung from them by battalions of European bailiffs. The number of foreign tax-collectors in Egypt is 1,400, and their joint salaries amount to ,£374,000 per year, or about one-twelfth of the entire spendable income of the country. There are 60,000 Europeans in Egypt. They have not only seized the revenues, but they have secured all he concessions for public works, and freed themselves from the pay- EGYPT. ment of taxes. A native pays a house-tax of 12 per cent. The European's house is free. The native cabdriver pays a heavy carriage duty. The rich European’s equipage is exempt. The smallest worm will turn, being trodden on, and the mild-mannered Egyptians were driven to rebellion when they found themselves sinking under the gigantic burden imposed by their extortionate creditors. They did not attempt to inter¬ fere with the revenue pledged for the Khedive’s debts. They did not refuse the bondholders their stipulated share. But the Chamber of Notables desired to be allowed to control the moiety which was assigned for internal administration. A righteous and reasonable demand, surely. When the controllers were appointed, it was not intended that they should do more than act as receivers. They had to get the bondholders’ half of the revenue—nothing more. The government of the country was not made over to them. Their office was financial, not political. Our representatives assigned two reasons against the Chamber getting the power to control half the Budget. The members, they said, would use it to replace European tax-gatherers by natives, and to strengthen the army. It may seem incredible to those who have not read the official correspondence, but it is nevertheless a fact, that the security of India and the safety of the Canal and the prosperity' of the Egyptian people are never referred to in it. The only reason given for going to war was to prevent the Egyptian Parliament voting its own Budget, and, through the authority thus got, possibly weakening, the securities of the bond¬ holders, and diminishing the places and the pay of the foreign officials. The Controllers contended that they could only get half the revenue by regulating the collection and expenditure of the whole. The Egyptians would not admit the force of this reasoning, and stuck to the resolution to control their own share. Out of this resolution arose the Dual Note, the ultimatum, the movement of the fleet, the bombardment of Alexandria, the war, and all the undefined and unrealised responsibilities that have followed in its wake. In Parliament, the Government defined the ends of their policy to be the protection of life and property, the extinction of anarchy, and the freeing of the Egyptians from military despotism. Their theory was that security at Suez could only be got by keeping “ order at Cairo.” Order at Cairo! Who disturbed it? Not the Egyptians, certainly. Whatever was done elsewhere, the peace of the capital was not broken. Danger to the Canal ! Who threatened it? Not the national leaders. If they had so desired, they could have closed it, and ruined it a score of times. The Canal dependent upon Cairo ! Had we not an overland route through Egypt long before the Canal was constructed ? And was it ever impeded during the years of internal trouble ? Protection of life and property ! Neither was imperilled until we sent the fleet to Alex¬ andria, stirred up national and religious prejudice, and provoked riot, 232 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. retaliation, and revenge. We were warned what would be the result, yet we neither heeded the warning, nor provided against the danger. We accused Arabi and his colleagues of promoting the outbreak, but we have withdrawn the accusation, and acknowledged that neither as accomplices nor accessories were they ever implicated. Foreigners frightened ! They were ; but they need not have been. After the regretable pro¬ ceedings in June, no man suffered in consequence of his nationality, either in property, purse, or person. The prisoners were treated, not merely with consideration but with kindness. The law was maintained, the land was cultivated, and preparations were made against a high Nile. If Arabi had been seeking his own aggrandisement at his country’s cost, he had abundant means of enriching himself. Yet, he has gone into exile a poor man, bankrupt in everything but honour. The extinction of military despotism ! Oh, the exquisite irony of that phrase ! The men who have overridden the Constitution, and made Ireland a vast barracks, rushing three thousand miles off in their zeal to put down military despotism ! Can the force of sarcasm or self-deception further go ? Arabi did not make the rebellion. The rebellion made him, and the combined folly and greed of successive Khedives and the Controllers caused the rebellion. If ever there was a genuinely national uprising, it was that of these unrevolutionary and unwarlike Egyptians. The Notables and the Ulemas, the people and the army, all joined in it. There was scarcely a man, however poor, but contributed his mite to it. Some placed at the disposition of the Government of the National Defence half their property, others the whole. In thirty days, 100,000 volunteers, with 8,000 horses, 4,000 mules, and stores for nearly double that force, were raised. There is no precedent in the history of Islam of such patriotic devotion. There is no case in Christendom to be com¬ pared with it since the Poles gathered for their last, but not, I trust, their final, fight with their oppressors. The Egyptians failed—failed easily, because their military skill was not equal to their devotion. But the resignation with which their failure was accepted gives the lie to the accusations of cupidity and cruelty levelled at their leaders. We went to war, not for the safety of the Canal, which was never threatened, not for the maintenance of order, which we were the first to disturb, but for the unromantic and materialistic purpose of safeguarding British interests, by securing greater control over the government of Egypt. So much for the past. Now for the future. We are the uncontested masters of the country. What will we do with it ? Keep it ? Yes, we will keep it. We have been successful and fortunate—successful in the war, fortunate in the state of Europe. Turkey is nervous and uneasy, but cannot interfere. France threatens, but she will do, can do, nothing else. Russia is angry but powerless. Italy growls, but she won’t strike. Germany, which means Austria, also acquiesces if she does not approve. EGYPT. 2 jj> England and France at variance makes her game. Neither France, nor Russia, nor Italy, nor Turkey can move—and Germany won’t. We are masters of the situation. Flow will we act ? How should we act? There are three courses open to us. We can call a Congress, and abide its decision. That is possible, but not probable. A Congress has no defined field of deliberation. It can range at will over the whole domain of European politics, and might revive inconvenient controversies. Our old friend the “concert’’has been wounded—fatally, I fear—in the house of a friend. He served his time. Let him rest in peace. The second plan is to restore the status quo ante Arabi, but that we are not likely to attempt. It was well enough to extol the control before the war. It was a catching cry for the time. But the dual control is gone beyond recall. If Arabi has been exiled, so also has French influence. Having once got clear of France, we will keep clear. Political partnerships are often incon¬ venient, and sometimes unpleasant—especially when the purposes of the partners do not run on all fours. The third plan is annexation ; and that, after some dallying we will, I believe, adopt. Men are dominated by words. “ Conquest ” is a harsh word. We will disguise our doings under a more euphemistic appellation. “ Occupation ” is better. “ Pro¬ tection ” is better still. At first, the selfish imputation will be indignantly repudiated. Those persons who peer through the political mirage, and blurt out the possibilities of such an appropriation, will be labelled libellous. But we will annex, nevertheless. The public will be stultified by the chloroform of an unctuous verbiage, during which time the annexation will be effected without their being aware of it. We will repeat our l’unjaub performance—not all at once, but gradually. Our troops will remain for a time. Meanwhile, we will revive the Mamelukes under the title of a gendarmerie, command them by British officers, and control them by British agents. And it is difficult to see how the Govern¬ ment, on their own theory, can act differently. They say they went to war to put down anarchy. They have so far succeeded as to have sent the alleged anarchists to Ceylon. But the weak and era ven firote’gt! whom they have set up cannot stand. If the English army leave, he will go, and that speedily. They have shorn him of even a semblance of authority. They have superseded his courts, nominated his Ministers, and dictated their policy. Lord Dufifcrin is the real ruler. Tewfik and his Pashas are merely marionettes that our astute plenipotentiary works at his will. He will be kept as we keep a Rajah in India—as long as he does our bidding. If he turn restive, we will remove him. Ministers have not said this, that’s true. But they have done many things they said they would not do. They protested that their interference was merely a matter of police, and that they would not meddle with the Egyptian Government. But they have. They denied that they were going to war. But they went. They say they don’t mean annexation. I don’t 234 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. doubt they say what they think. Nor do I doubt that many of them don’t want it. But unless a miracle be worked, they will be driven to it. They cannot help themselves. It is the inevitable outcome of their policy If they retire now, they will hand the country over not to anarchy only but to pillage. And woe betide the ill-treated fellah whose labour nourishes every one ! I will not stop to discuss the possible advantages of annexation. It will have fascinations for not a few. The ancient land of the Pharaohs and the Ptolemies an English possession ! The sacred Nile a tributary to the Thames ! There is something attractive in the picture. Our military posts—Gibraltar, Malta, Cyprus, Said, Suez, Aden—stretching in an unbroken chain from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean, give a sense of power which may be pleasing, but a sense of responsibility which may depress. Let us labour, however, under no illusion. Our annexation will not end with Lower or Central Egypt. Mr. Gladstone was right when he said, in 1877, that our first site in Egypt, be it got by larceny or by emption, would be the “certain egg of a North African Empire.” Our borders, like the poet’s North, will recede as we advance. It will be Cairo now, Khartoum next, the sources of the White Nile some other time; and on and on until we reach Natal, and hold unbroken sway from Alexandria to the Cape. There are boundless possibilities in the dazzling dream of an African Empire. Nations, like men, have their missions. Greatness imposes obligations. While prepared to resist all encroach¬ ments on our existing Empire, and to take any measures for its main¬ tenance, a new enterprise involving such vast complications may well stagger the boldest. The annexation of Egypt, whatever name we dis¬ guise it under, be it open or secret, immediate or deferred, will lose us the alliance of France and the friendship of Italy. It will excite, too, the jealousy of all the other Mediterranean Powers. It will lead to the re-opening of the Eastern Question, with all the interminable inter¬ national problems that it covers. The English settled at Cairo means the Austrians at Salonica, the Russians at Erzeroum, and the French or Italians at Tripoli. It means the break-up of the Turkish Empire. Egypt may, probably will, prosper under our rule. The laborious, re¬ signed, and docile fellah will not have his taxes beaten out of him by the bastinado twice over. The grosser abuses in the administration of the law will be remedied. But the idea of an Arab nationality—the dream of the race for centuries—will be dissipated. But leaving the tangled skein of Egyptian politics and the speculation that it suggests, let us ask, where are the election professions of the Government in all this ? Did they change their doctrines when they changed their seats ? An unmentionable place is said to be paved with good intentions. Is office paved with “broken pledges and principles in pieces ? ” They were bound to a policy of peace, and yet they have EGYPT. taken to war with a fervour seldom equalled, and never surpassed. They were the special champions of Nationalities, and yet they have beaten down, by bombs and bayonets, one of the most interesting and hopeful efforts after national life that modern times have seen. They promised never to build up British interests on the “ bones of people fighting for their Fatherland,” yet they have founded their authority in Egypt on the corpses of Egyptian patriots. They declaimed loudly and bitterly against the injustice and meanness of charging the cost of a war on the Indian border on the Indian exchequer, but they are putting the cost of a war far from the Indian frontier on the “ mild Hindoo.” The men who denounced so fiercely the blood-guiltiness of aggression and the dangers of annexation, have achieved the greatest conquest of the century, and entailed on the nation responsibilities of greater weight and extent than were ever dreamed of by their predecessors. The somersault has been cleverly executed. If the consequences were not so serious, it would be amusing. With what delightful disregard of consistency the crowds who cheered so lustily for one line of policy a couple of years ago, are cheer¬ ing now for the very opposite ! To complete the contradictions, the Cabinet, who commenced the war without the consent of Parliament, gave only the most meagre reports, and no explanation of it, during its progress, are now committing the country to engagements, the full con¬ sequence of which no one can foretell, free from both Parliamentary comment or control. All Parliament will have to do with the settlement will be to reject it or ratify it. And it will ratify it by a party vote, in which members will vote as they are told—not as they think—not for their principles, but for their party. It is a strange world, my masters ; and there is nothing stranger in it than the gyrations of party politicians. The three boldly-marked questions in the year just closed are those symbolised by the words “ Parliament,” “ Ireland,” and “ Egypt.” I have dealt with these chiefly, as on those alone I have differed from the Government. It would have been more agreeable to select points of agreement for discussion, to chant the praises of Ministers in chorus, and to rush into rhapsodies over their measures. But although pleasanter, this course would not have been so candid. It is manlier, when you differ from the current of opinion, to state your dissent openly, and accept the consequences of popular disapproval. A repre¬ sentative should be something more than a machine. He should not only vote, but he should make known why he so votes. By expounding his doctrines and diffusing information, thought is stimulated and opinion formed. Members who frankly criticise public affairs, show their own sense of responsibility, and exalt the character of the tribunal before which they plead. As long as my fellow-citizens care to send me to the House of Commons, I shall use these annual gatherings to expound and enforce definite political principles, and comment on events, not from the narrow platform of a partisan, but from the broad ground of a citizen. 236 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. X. WORKMEN MEMBERS. [The following speech was delivered at a meeting of miners on the Race Course, Durham, July 14, 1883.] HE scene presented by this meeting is inspiriting and picturesque. -It is a chapter of English history in miniature. Below us are the re¬ presentatives of a busy, pushing age, the pioneers of progress, men march¬ ing forward to the realization of great principles. They are flanked by memorials of ancient civilization, ecclesiastical and military. The pano¬ rama is fitted to call forth the highest faculties of a poet or a painter—to evoke the imagination of the one, and employ the pencil of the other. But, however tempting the theme, there is not time to dilate upon it. We have to deal with practical matters. The resolution I have been asked to support is a speech in itself. To adequately discuss its different clauses would require as many hours as I feel myself at liberty to occupy minutes of your attention. I will confine my remarks to the last paragraph, as it refers to a current controversy. I am saturated with the subject of corrupt practices and election ex¬ penses. The House of Commons has talked of little else for the last month. With all deference to that august assembly, I cannot help think¬ ing that the debates on the Government Bill, which passed through Committee early this morning, have been too technical and perfunctory. There is more in the measure than the granting of permission to convey lazy and loitering voters to the poll; than the employment of canvassers whose hectoring eloquence is often stimulated by something stronger than conviction ; or than for providing the machinery for presenting and prosecuting election petitions. The Bill really covers the whole question whether the occupants of the House of Commons are to be drawn exclu¬ sively from men living on one social level. What are the facts? Out of the 639 members who compose the pre¬ sent House, the military and naval profession contribute nearly one-fourth, and the aristocratic and landed interest more than another fourth. Law and literature have over 160 representatives; while commerce, in all its WORKMEN MEMBERS. 2 37 diversified classifications, supplies the remainder. The aristocratic and fighting interests constitute the material of which the pillars of the legislative fabric are constructed. They are bound together by some legal straw and some mercantile mortar. But the artisan and labouring population, who outnumber all the others by four to one, have no appreciable representation. This exclusion of a class—whose aggregate annual earnings are over 380 million pounds, and whose accumulated property in furniture, tools, deposits in savings banks, shares in co-opera¬ tive stores and building societies, amounts to nearly 700 millions sterling —is unwise, and may some day be dangerous. The men whose labour contributes so largely to the creation of national wealth—who have to pay their share of the taxes, and who may be called upon to defend their country at the peril of their lives—have rights to protect as well as inte¬ rests to sustain, and they ought to be able to do something more than play the part of spectators in the legislative drama. Why are they not there ? There is no legal obstacle to working men returning members of their own class to Parliament. The property qualification has been abolished, the franchise has been lowered so as practically to embrace every urban artisan who cares to take the trouble to possess it, and they have had thrown round them the protection of the ballot. Why do they not use this power? Is the English workman dead to all sense of national responsibility, or indifferent to the possession of political influence? I do not think so. Much of their old political fer¬ vour has died out as the necessity for its exhibition has departed. Ex¬ tended liberty, purer and better administration, a conscientious study of events, and the beneficent care for the social welfare of the poor shown by other classes, together with lighter taxation and freedom of trade and industry, have helped to exorcise the tone of asperity from the daily life of the people. Our laws may still be obscure and illogical, and they have often, in the past, been unjust. But the House of Commons, in modern times, has never been to England, whatever it may have been to Ireland, an instrument of oppression. If an abuse has been tolerated, it has been because it was lightly felt. We have an absolutely free press, and the unrestricted liberty of public meeting. The popular voice can always, through these means, make itself heard. Without such safe¬ guards, the best institutions run the risk of being jeopardised, and with them the worst strive to make themselves bearable. These circumstances account for the absence of the discontent that was once chronic amongst the industrial orders. But if they have become less demonstrative, it does not prove that they have become less earnest. The people are strong, and that enables them to be patient. Political activity, with all its indomitable aspirations, will revive. Like a clear breeze, it will sweep through our closed legislative chambers, and lend life, and heart, and hope to many an inarticulate want and many a temporarily sup- 238 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. pressed ideal. Any one who cherishes the belief that the present dulness means political death, or even decay, will find himself mistaken. The reason why the workmen do not send members of their own order to the House of Commons is not because of their indifference, but because of the obstacles put in their way. We have removed the legal barrier to their admission, but we have legalised practices and created customs which are more powerful than the law. We have kept the word of pro¬ mise to the ear, but broken it to the hope. We do not pay members now as we did in the “ good old times.” We have it on high authority that the labourer is worthy of his hire, and I do not see anything more deroga¬ tory in a member drawing a stipend for his services than in a minister taking a salary. Nearly every other Legislative Chamber in the world pays its members except ours, and England did so in the most famous days of her Parliamentary history. This ancient and commendable constitutional practice, however, does not find general acceptance. It may, therefore, pass. But we not only do not pay members for their ser¬ vices, but we mulct them in heavy charges for doing the nation’s work. The cost of elections is so excessive that it makes a seat in the House of Commons the all but exclusive property of the rich. Representative workmen might probably be got to sit in Parliament without salary, but they cannot defray the large, increasing, and demoralising expenditure of contests. That inconceivable admixture of corruption and passion, of venality and patriotism, called canvassing, constitutes, along with the large outlay for the transport of slothful voters, the most humiliating feature in English electoral struggles. It requires the purse of Fortunatus and the craft of Machiavelli to manipulate and manoeuvre the rough and deli¬ cate influences that go to win an election in some of our constituencies. It is the prevalence of these electoral evils that is slowly, but steadily, altering the character and, some fear, weakening the influence of Parlia¬ ment, and debauching the public service. The floor of the House of Commons has ceased to be the exclusive platform from which to address the nation. Men of moderate means cannot afford the cost; and sensi¬ tive men of independent character, if they can afford it, will not submit to the conditions required to secure their admission. We may extend the franchise to every farm labourer, to every county mechanic, and to every miner ; but the House of Commons will still remain closed to the spokesman of the working classes until the mode of conducting elections is altered, and until the cost is thrown on the constituency. I go further than the resolution. There should be no “ necessary expense ” either to the candidate or those who support him. “ Legitimate expenditure ” will lead imperceptibly, but surely, to “illegitimate expenditure.” It should be prohibited as provocative of corruption, and as an incentive to electoral depravity. When a man undertakes the office of a representative, he does so, or is WORKMEN MEMBERS. 239 expected to do so, in the service of the State. If he give his time, his labour, and, as he often does, his health, the State should free him at least from outlay. I do not overlook the old objection, that property by such an arrangement would be deprived of its legitimate weight. But the insidious power of money can no more be bound by this or that stand¬ ard of voting, by this or that mode of conducting elections, than a tiger can be tied by a string. There is little fear, in this country, of substituting the pure and simple sovereignty of numbers for the combined sovereignty of wealth and title. These appendages are still worshipped obsequiously by all classes. They constitute a tacit league, in which ancient preju¬ dices and modern social organizations are united. The hold they have upon the principles and prejudices of Englishmen is strong, and in no sense declining. Whatever else may happen, the influence and authority of rank, and of ancestral merchandise, are not likely to recede as long as the conventional classes so dearly love a capitalist or a lord. An objectionable feature in modern politics is the disposition to plane down opinion to a common level, and establish a dull uniformity instead of a genial and enlivening diversity of thought. The infusion of new men into the House of Commons ought to lend variety as well as strength to its deliberations. In the highly artificial society amongst which we dwell, the workman has retained more of the natural ingenuousness and directness of character than other classes. This originality and freedom from restraint will, I hope, throw a freshness into Parliamentary debates which will be both healthy and invigorating. Reference has been made to the low level of profits and wages along¬ side the high level of production. The volume of our trade has increased, and is increasing ; but its value is stationary, if not retrogressive. The want of elasticity shown in many of our staples has induced gloomy anticipations as to the future. I do not share this despondency. The depression we are suffering from is not decay. The currents of national life are constantly running into new channels. In piloting the vessel of the State through the social shoals and eddies amidst which she has to be steered, the broader the outlook our political captains can take, the more easily they will reach a secure anchorage. Methods of government have more to do with the formation of national character than sun and soils and climate. In competing with countries better placed than we are, we shall require to adjust our energies to the task we are best fitted to fulfil. In selecting our work, we shall want not only theoretical but prac¬ tical skill, and we can obtain that only by inviting to our legislative as well as to our consultative boards the representatives of all classes, but especially of that one which first feels the pinch of adverse times. The community is always renewing itself, and if our institutions are but made sufficiently flexible and elastic—if, instead of coming into collision with the advancing powers of civilization, we accommodate them to its growth there is no reason why our State should not “ flourish in eternal youth.” 240 SPEECHES OF /OSEPH CO WEN, M.P. XI. EGYPT; HOME-RULE; REFORM. Newcastle-upon-tyne, December 22, 1883. R. MAYOR, ladies, and gentlemen,—Did you ever try to pump water from an all but empty well ? As you work the handle, plashes of puddle and gusts of wind, mingling with Roughs and screeches, like sounds from a soul in pain, are emitted from the pipe. It is not a profit¬ able exercise, but not more unprofitable than that put before a member of Parliament who has to pump up a speech from the dull details of an irksome session. Every spring of ideas has been drained ; every current of criticism exhausted. There is nothing left but political bilge-water. It is easy to bespatter one party with mud, and blow the praises of the other in fulsome phrases. But that is not edifying either to auditor or speaker. Party controversy is but a parody on serious political argument. The controversialists do not try to trace the reason of things. They only try to trip each other up. But what can any member say of last session that has not been said a hundred times or more ? It was hum¬ drum, not heroic. We sat long and late. We talked often, and talked fast. Some of the talk was sensible, some of it silly, all of it stale. It is doubt¬ ful whether any of the Acts passed will permanently affect the life of the people ; and it is certain that mankind would not be the poorer by one fresh thought or one graceful form of utterance if a fire were made of its miles of oratory. The Government are to be commended for making provision for the further reduction of the National Debt, for attempting to substitute an affirmation for an oath for those who object to the present form of swear¬ ing allegiance, and for trying to negotiate a convention with the Suez Canal Company. Their Bankruptcy Act is well meant, but it will only succeed, if it succeed at all, till designing chicaners discover a method of breaking through its meshes. There is only one way to reform the bank¬ ruptcy laws, and that is to abolish them. If a merchant or a tradesman be weak enough or careless enough to trust an unworthy creditor, let him take the consequences of his ignorance or his supineness. When a man EGYPT; HOME-RULE; REFORM. 241 violates the laws of Nature, he suffers in his health. When he violates the laws of trade, let him suffer in his till. When he has suffered sufficiently, he will be more careful. If a purchaser secures credit surrep¬ titiously or by fraud, send him to gaol as you would do any other rogue. By clearing the country of the huge hierarchy of bankruptcy barristers, bailiffs, receivers, lawyers, controllers, assessors, and accountants, who live out of the traders as the traders live out of the public, the gain to every individual citizen would be great, and the influence on the nation bene¬ ficent. The saving effected by the extinction of this colossal officialism would compensate for the shadowy dividends now got, while commerce would be purified, and profits increase. When will English men of business see the folly of having a new bankruptcy law every decade, of oscillating between the extremes of official laxity and supervision, and have the courage and sense to apply a drastic cure to a drastic evil ? There are many things doubtful about the Corrupt Practices Act, but this is plain—it will serve—perhaps was meant to serve—the regulation candidates with organised parties behind them, and will place at a disad¬ vantage, often a hopless disadvantage, those who stand independently.. It may reduce, but it will not abolish, illegitimate expenditure. We may- double or we may quadruple penalties, but as long as it is the interest of men to buy votes, there will be found electors to sell them and agents who will manipulate the sale. The root of the evil is embedded in the custom which leads us to treat a seat in Parliament as a position to be paid for. Electoral corruption will never be eradicated till we prohibit all expendi¬ ture by candidates. Why should a man be mulcted in heavy penalties for offering to undertake an onerous public service ? Can you wonder that needy and ambitious men try to recoup themselves in office, dignities, or social distinction, the money, not voluntarily given, but extorted frorrx them ? The purpose of representative institutions is to bring the will of the Government into accord with the will of the people ; and that cannot be done until the unscrupulous rich are prohibited purchasing and the unscrupulous poor prohibited selling votes. The new Act may increase the difficulty of such transactions, but it will not prevent them. Three questions faced the Cabinet last February, and they will face them again next — Parliamentary procedure, Egypt, and Ireland. Those new rules that were adopted by general approval have worked fairly well. The Grand Committees, however, have been but partially successsful; and the cloture , over which so much discussion was expended, and from which so much was expected, has never been applied. Yet, according to its supporters, there has seldom been a session where it was more re¬ quired, as weeks were wasted in needless debate. The army estimates were passed after two o’clock on a summer Sunday morning. The most important discussion of the year—that on Indian legislation and finance— was driven off to the last day, and then cut short by the prorogation. 17 242 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. There has never, in a modern session, been so much legislative loss—so many bills introduced and abandoned. But such complaints are chronic. They were as rife three centuries ago, and will probably be as rife three centuries hence, as they are now. Once when Queen Elizabeth asked a Speaker what had passed since she last saw him, he suggestively replied seven weeks, meaning that that length of time had passed, but that nothing had been done. What was, is, and will be, the case. With six hundred performers, each having an equal right to a share of the stage, and an equal belief in the efficiency of his political remedies, and all playing to an audience of thirty millions of people, the majority of whom measure a member’s worth by his skill in tongue-fence, you must get a superfluity of speech. Those who expect otherwise are ignorant of human nature—of Parliamentary human nature especially. Those who promise its extinction speak without knowledge, and hope without justi¬ fication. We may not agree with Plato, that rhetoricians have been the ruin of every State in which they have obtained predominance, but loquacity has been, from the days of the Greek Sophists to the days of modern stump-orators, the bane of popular assemblies. It has emascu¬ lated some and asphyxiated others. We have not reached either stage yet ; but time is wasted and faculties submerged in a vortex of fizzenless talk. Pericles, before he spoke, always prayed to the gods to prevent him uttering a word that was not pertinent to the matter in hand. I fear none of us sufficiently strives after the great Athenian’s terseness of style. Speech ought to represent an equivalent stock of information and thought. But it does not always do so. In the talking, as in other trades, a large business is often done on a small capital. By dividing the work of Parliament, we may quicken its speed, but the unequal divi¬ sion lately in operation cannot continue. It must either be carried further, or be abandoned. Members will not be got to do double duty. The whole House might be split into committees, and fora time it might give itself over almost exclusively to committee work. Why cannot Par¬ liament meet, like the law-courts, in November? Ministers could then introduce their Bills, and have them read a second time, or rejected, before Christmas. From January to Easter, the committees might pursue their labours. By Easter the Bills might be reported, and by Whitsuntide passed. Our Teutonic ancestors, in their national councils, debated every subject twice—once sober and once drunk, so that both sides might be seen. We have bettered that performance, as we often discuss the same questions in the same Parliament, not twice but ten times, while other subjects cannot get squeezed into a solitary hearing. By a comprehensive scheme of devolution, by allowing Bills to be taken up one year where they were left the last, and by forbidding any question to be raised twice in the same Parliament, the congestion complained of may be mitigated. It is too much to hope it will be removed. EGYPT; HOME-RULE; REFORM. 243 The Delphic utterances of Ministers during the session respecting Egypt had the merit of satisfying both annexationists and anti-annexa¬ tionists. We have since been told that our troops are to be, and would have been, withdrawn, if it had not been for that mysterious apparition— the False Prophet. Perhaps, and perhaps not. But whether withdrawn, reduced, or retained, of this we may remain assured—the Government will not relinquish their control of Egyptian affairs. We deceive our¬ selves with words. We take phrases for facts and illusions for realities. A well-known French satire describes how a certain Monsieur Jourdain conceived himself injured when his father was called a shopkeeper. His father a shopkeeper ! Never ! It was a slander. “ He was,” explained the indignant son, “an active and obliging man, and a good judge of cloth, parcels of which he bought and distributed amongst his friends in exchange—for cash. No one would call such a man a shopkeeper. He was a gentleman.” It is a matter of taste. But on Tyneside we would call him a “ menage-man.” There is just as much difference between a peripatetic tradesmen like Monsieur Jourdain’s father and a menage- man, as between our holding Egypt by a British force or holding it by a force of mercenaries raised, drilled, and controlled by British officers. It is a difference without a distinction. We have 200,000 soldiers in India, but little more than one-fcurth of them are Europeans. Our control over Egypt is as complete as it is over India. Englishmen direct its policy, control its finances, command its army, superintend its gendar¬ merie, and manipulate its taxes. The Khedive and his pashas do, in a languid and lackadaisical manner, their allotted work, and draw their salaries. But let either one or the other turn rusty, and it will very soon be made manifest who are masters. We may wreath our sword in roses, but it is all the same a sword — keen and pliant as a Damascus blade. Mr. Cobbett once offered to be roasted on a gridiron if certain financial results promised by Mr. Spring Rice ever transpired. If the doughty pamphleteer had been alive now, he might, with greater confidence, have engaged to be grilled on his historic gridiron when English influence ceases to dominate in Egypt. We are there, as we are in the Punjaub, in Assam, and other Indian States, none of which we formally annexed, but all of which we have occupied and kept, for the same reason that we have occupied and will keep Egypt, because our interests required it and our means permit it. We have really no discretion in the matter. Egypt cannot now stand alone. When people crouch, like camels to be loaded, those nearest at hand mount them and apply the whip of the tyrant. Our abandonment of Egypt would be as cruel as our original occupation was uncalled-for. There was a chance of the Egyptians working their way to self-made independence. The process would have been long, and slow, and tortuous, but the end might have been achieved. We stopped it. We overturned their Parliament, and are now trying to construct a -44 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. pinchbeck one ourselves. Our plan is to be Arabi’s with Arabi left out. It is foredoomed to failure. The talk of an Eastern Belgium is babble. Eastern Belgium, forsooth ! rather call it an Eastern Babel. Belgium is the product of centuries of freedom—Egypt of centuries of enslavement. In one country, we have a staid and sturdy population with the memorials of many a stout national struggle stamped on its character ; in the other, the debris of a thousand years of slavery and oppression. If there is one fact better attested by history than another, it is the impossibility ot mingling on equal terms the nomadic, dreamy, fatalistic Asiatic, and the pushing, practical, and progressive Englishman. They both have merits, but you can no more mix them than you can mix sulphuric acid and sweet milk. The Eastern may form a Government of its own with many- admirable features in it, but it will shrivel up when you plant it alongside one raised on the Western model. Experimentalists at Cairo and else¬ where are trying to amalgamate Occidental and Oriental ideas in their constitutional mortar-kits, but with all their skill and good intentions they won't get them to blend. The consciences of some who clamoured for interference are becoming disturbed. They find it difficult to recon¬ cile our position with their conception of Christian ethics. That is very likely. But they should have thought of that before. Our hands are to the plough, and we cannot turn back. If we do, woe betide the hapless fellaheen ! Chaos would, indeed, return. The finances would be fastened on by harpies, the taxes would be enforced by the curbash, justice would be bought and sold, the group of slothful and mendacious pashas and unprincipled and greedy usurers, who constitute the entourage of the Khedive, would revel in their regained liberty to rob and ravage. We voluntarily undertook the task, and duty, interest, and humanity require us to stick to it. Cairo, too, is on the way to the Cape. Along it we will find sale for our goods, fields for our enterprise, scope for our philan¬ thropy. There are roads to make, markets to open, lands to till, and slaves to emancipate. No grander outlet offers for colonising genius. The marvel is that it should have been opened by men who, three years ago, made society vocal with their denunciations of the sin and danger of national acquisitiveness. But it is only another version of the world¬ wide truth, that circumstances are often stronger than men—even the strongest. In foreign affairs, there is a superficial tranquillity, but there are clouds on the horizon that may swell into a storm. When Europe is bristling with bayonets, fear, rather than confidence, is excited by ostentatious assur¬ ances that all is serene. Englishmen are grieved and bewildered when they see the young Republic of France copying the discredited policy of despotic kings or doomed usurpers. Nations, like individuals, after great misfortunes, usually strive to consolidate their strength and regain their prestige by avoiding adventures. After Koniggratz, Austria recast her EGYPTj HOME-RULE; REFORM. 245 polyglot empire, and accorded to each nationality the inestimable boon of self-government. After the Crimean war, Russia developed her means of internal intercourse. After the treaty of Tilsit, the Prussians, their credit gone and their cities in ruins, formed the famous Tugenbund and betook themselves—the world knows with what brilliant success—to organic, educational, agrarian, and military reforms. But France, while still under the shadow of a terrible disaster, is restless, if not turbulent. There is no method either in her movements. Eighteen months ago, she refused to send a soldier to guard a canal, designed by her own engineers, and made with her own money. Now she is sending men to perish and money to squander in tropical thickets and cane-brakes, where victory can bring her no renown and where defeat may entail calamity. She wrangles with liberal Italy, quarrels with constitutional Spain, and strives to strike up a dubious friendship with despotic Russia. She hesitated to send a representative to the Berlin Congress one year, and the next she discussed the possibility of despatching armed aid to belli¬ gerent Greece. She long fretted under clerical restraints, yet, when free, she uses her power with childish and retaliatory intolerance. This friction may work mischief to the Republic and trouble to Europe. Let us hope that it is only a passing aberration—the rebound from an irk¬ some effacement. Englishmen have a strong, sincere, and steady attach¬ ment to France. We admire her chivalrous sentiment of national honour, her enthusiasm for abstract ideas, her grace, genius, wit, and vivacity. No temporary difference or irritation will shake this friend¬ ship ; but we follow with misgivings and regret the vagaries of her opportunist politicians. We wish her well. We begrudge her no dis¬ tinction. But we cannot but see that she is surrounded by mistrustful, if not hostile, neighbours, and a stumble may bring back the sordid Bourbons or the selfish Bonapartes. Every nation typifies an idea. France represents equality—without which complete civilization is impossible. England represents industry—the foundation of freedom. The progress of mankind depends on the union of the two nations—the mingling of the two ideas. There can be friendly competition between us, but there need be neither anger nor envy. The perennial conflict in the East of Europe has been transferred from the Bosphorus to the Danube. Turkey, with a reduced but consolidated and reformed empire, might have regained some of her old power, but the Sultan was obdurate and infatuated. He banished his best advisers, took counsel of his own fears, and seems determined on drifting to de¬ struction. But whatever the future may have in store for him, he has ceased to be the pivot on which the Eastern Question turns. Austria, and not Turkey, is now Russia’s competitor for Balkan supremacy. The war of 1866 did more than turn Austria out of her German Confederation —it transformed her, against her will, into a semi-Sclav and Oriental 246 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. State. She is now at Novi Bazar, and the slightest jerk in international mechanism would send her to Salonica. This is mainly the work of the astute German Chancellor. By it Germany gains greatly. Her rivals now neutralise each other. While they watch and wrangle, Germany solidifies her power, and prepares for the delayed, but inevitable, encounter between Sclav and Teuton. Austria and Russia must collide. They are like two trains on the same metals steaming towards each other. The people of the Danubian States expected, when they had banished the Turk, that their troubles would terminate. They have discovered their error. They have only exchanged one form of servitude for another. They dream of a confederacy. Every liberal Englishman would like to see it realised. But it is only a dream. They are held hard fast between hammer and anvil. Neither of their neighbours means them to be inde¬ pendent. Their position is only provisional. Meanwhile, the country that has for generations been the cock-pit, has now become the gaming house, of Europe. It is seething with intrigue. Its statesmen are playing at hazard with political dynamite for dice. Russia has won the cast in Montenegro and in Bulgaria. Austria in Servia and in Eastern Romuelia. In Roumania the two balance. The coup d'etat at Sophia, the rebellion in Servia, the Parliamentary strike at Bucharest, the marriage of a Mon¬ tenegrin princess to a Servian pretender, mark the moves of adroit and desperate gamesters. Fate hurries on the dance of sceptres. It may be next year, or two, or ten years hence ; but as sure as death, and as steady as time, the hour approaches when the lowering tempest will burst, and the semi-Mongol Czardom will be driven to make its last throw for its long-coveted prize. The stake is a heavy one—the struggle will be supreme. The avenging angel will blot from his record the inarticulate wrongs of centuries with something less tender than a tear. Official spokesmen assure us that the chimera of Russian aggression in Asia is extinct. The chimera may be, but the reality is not. As the sea saps the shore, so Russia undermines surrounding territory till it tumbles under her control. Impelled by a force of expansion, which no individual can arrest, and by a greed of conquest which no acquisition can appease, her emissaries, ever watchful, are again active on our Indian frontier. We have bought the Ameer of Afghanistan ; but it is a bad bargain. The wily Asiatic takes British gold with one hand and covertly proffers the other to our rival. It will trouble him as little to throw off his allegiance as to throw off his turban. What cynical reflections this Afghan controversy suggests ! How well it illustrates the hollowness and artificiality of party politics ! Three years ago the country was afflame with indignation at Lord Beaconsfield for annexing, for purely defensive and military purposes, some thinly-peopled valleys and a range of uninhabitable mountains. We are now planting forts along the borders of Beloochistan, and virtually incorporating a territory equal to the EGYPT; HOME-RULE j REFORM. 247 United Kingdom, and ten times the extent of that enclosed by the scientific frontier. Yet, our party fuglemen are mute. About the other focus of disorder—South Africa—what can be said? Nothing but that we have made a huge muddle. Everywhere there are suffering and dis¬ content bordering on war. And all occasioned by our well-meant vacil¬ lation ! If we intended to keep the Transvaal, we should have kept it. If we intended to retire from it, we should have retired openly, altogether, and at once. We have done neither, and are experiencing the proverbial fate of those who try to sit upon two stools. Whatever course we adopt, justice and national honour require us to protect our native allies—the tribes who stood by us in our straits, and prevent them being robbed and ruined by pious, slave-driving Boers. And Ireland—always Ireland. Time rolls its ceaseless course ; other questions come and go, but this flows on for ever. It has made and un¬ made many Ministries, but it is to-day what it has been for generations— the most perplexing of our political problems. What Englishman is there who does not feel a tingling of shame when he sees that the outcome of all our statecraft is smothered revolt and a state of siege—the rude device of vulgar despots? It is far too melancholy a matter for recrim¬ ination. Optimistic functionaries assure us that all is well, or will be well, if we only let things alone. It is the old, old tale. The notes of the cuckoo are not more invariable than those of the complacent preachers of peace where there is no peace. In the midst of discord, their judgments are undisturbed, and their hearts are at ease. When the late Prime Minister indulged in a flight of pleasant self-deception on the same sub¬ ject, the present one rebuked him in words that may usefully be recalled: “ Considering the fact that the dearest privileges of liberty have been suspended in Ireland for nearly three years, I am astonished at the recent statement of Mr. Disraeli, who had the hardihood or infatuation to con¬ gratulate a festive party of his friends on the state of Ireland. It is like the conduct of the military despot who, having trampled liberty under foot with his armed forces, declared order at last existed. When per¬ sonal liberty is suspended, we have arrived at a stage only short of civil war.” Mr. Gladstone was out of office thai. He is in office now, and may see matters in a different light. But if his position is changed, his reasoning has not lost its cogency. Party rhetoricians admit the disaffec¬ tion, but attribute it to the machinations of a cabal of agitators, who abet assassins and utilise outrage. Balderdash ! Can agitators, any more than other men, light a fire without fuel, or sustain a revolution without reason? It never was done. It never will be done. But for argument's sake, let the charge stand. And what does it prove ? What, but that our policy has failed ! If the people ever were terrorised over by a social vehmic, they are not so now, or what has been the use of our crushing coercion ? Yet, being free, they cling all the closer to the alleged terrorist, 2 4 S SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. From Monaghan to Mallow, from Mallow to Wexford, to Sligo, and to Limerick, north, south, east, and west, in county and in borough, by farmers and by shopkeepers, the candidates of these outrage-mongers are everywhere returned. If the agitators are in league with assassins, then the people are in league with the agitators. When an entire people are against the law, the law is wrong. When the populace are in sym¬ pathy with crime, the mode of rule under which that is possible is by that very fact condemned. To convict the Irish representatives of being accessories to outrage is to convict the people of the same offence ; and to convict the people is to condemn the Government. Disparaging comparisons are drawn between the present and past popular leaders. We are reminded that Wolfe Tone was a capable soldier, that O’Connell and Butt were great lawyers, that the men of ’48 were poets and orators, who, in other spheres and under happier influences, served the State and proved their powers. I will not contest the comparison. But it makes against those who draw it. All national movements require either a great man or a great principle. If the Irish have not got the man, they have got the principle. Their advocates, if not great, are genuine. They are racy of the soil. They spring from, and belong to, the people. They know their wants and share their aspirations, and their very mediocrity constitutes their strength. An unfailing test of the sincerity with which a man holds his principles is his willingness to pay for them in person or in purse. During the last few years, hundreds of Irishmen have gone to gaol, and thousands more have contributed to their defence and support. Well-nigh half a million pounds have been raised in that time for political and agrarian purposes. Much of this, it is true, has come from America, but large contributions have recently been raised at home, and under very adverse conditions. The Government, unable to restrain the collections itself, stealthily sought the help of the Pope. But both Papal disapproval and official opposition were un¬ availing. Persecutions do not crush, they fortify convictions. When the numbers of the population, the means of the contributors, and the unique opposition are considered, the testimonial recently presented to Mr. Parnell equals, or more than equals, that raised by populous and wealthy England for Mr. Cobden on the morrow of the great Free-Trade victory. This testimonial is the last but not the least striking proof of an intense and sustained national sentiment. It is plain enough to any one but ourselves, but we cannot, or at least we do not, see it. We would see it, however, clearly enough, and preach no end of homilies concerning it, if it occurred in a distant country and under foreign rule. What is the cause of this irreconcilability? Scotland and Wales are reconciled to us. What prevents Ireland being so? There are many subsidiary, but, to my mind, two main reasons—one political, and one social. Our administration is ostentatiously anti-Irish. It does not EGYPT; HOME-RULEj REFORM. 249 study, or if it does study, it does not heed, the people’s idiosyncracies. It is the least national and the most centralised Government in Europe. All our changes notwithstanding, the mass of the Irish people are as much outside the ruling pale as they were in the days of the avowed ascendency. We have never incorporated them. It is not their positive suffering, but the sense of exclusion and injustice, that is so insufferable. We do not trust them, and they do not trust us. Time has not drawn his oblivious veil over a dishonouring and disastrous past. Seven-tenths of the Irish people are of one race, religion, and order of politics. Three- tenths are of another. The three-tenths monopolise the places of trust and authority, and the seven-tenths protest and agitate, and would rebel if they could. This is the political grievance. All our concessions have come too late. They have either been extorted by embarrassment or by fear. They have allayed no resentment, or evoked no friendship. The social difficulty springs from imperfect sympathy. We live under a bour¬ geois oligarchy, tempered by aristocratic influences and prepossessions. The workmen may some day assert themselves, but, so far, they have not done so. Our middle classes have many virtues. They are earnest, energetic, and enterprising, but, politically, they are austere, narrow, and ungenial. They mean well to the Irish, and would make sacrifices to serve them, but they don’t know how. They conceive that all they want is money, and they throw a new Land Bill at them, as they would throw a bone at a dog, and cry, “ Take it and be content.” The Irish do take it, make the most of it, and are tiot content. And won’t be. Our country¬ men do not realise that it is not a gift only but a state of feeling, an attitude of mind, that is required to draw the two peoples together. It is difficult for a rigid, methodical, Puritanic Englishman, with all his push, and thrift, and tact, to appreciate the bright, quick-witted, imaginative and emotional Roman Catholic Celt, with his slovenliness and irregularity, his strange mixture of acuteness and simplicity, of melancholiness and mirth. We forget that men are ruled as much by their hearts as by their heads. Our Government want the very features that are most attractive to Irishmen. I all but despair of seeing an assimilation between such incompatibles as the Irish peasant and the English tradesman. But they may advance, each in their own way, side by side, in a career of reci¬ procal amity. We can continue to rule Ireland from Westminster as we do at present. We can make it a Crown colony, or we can concede it self-government. If we follow the first plan, our Parliament will be dis¬ credited and its influence lessened, for the Irish party will always be strong enough to turn the scale in delicate divisions and to impede legislation. If we lower the franchise, and lessen the number of mem¬ bers, we won’t mend matters. The proportion of Nationalists in the reduced roll will be increased. Ireland is too big to rule for any length of time as we do the Mauritius, the Fiji, or the Falkland Isles. If we 250 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. tried, remonstrances would come thick and fast from America and the colonies—such remonstrances as we sent to Turkey and Bulgaria, and to Russia about Poland. If these remonstrances were discarded, something more serious might follow. There is an invisible power in Irish politics which no Coercion Acts can reach. It would be hazardous to predict in what complications the steady and active hatred of eight or ten millions of Irishmen, wielding great political power in America, might involve us in a time of trouble. But Ireland, as a Crown colony, is little more than a political figment undeserving of discussion. Ireland, however, as a self-governing section of the United Kingdom, would be a reality—a peaceful and prosperous reality. Home-rule means improved union, and not separation. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have it. Are they not parts of the United Kingdom ? In Canada, at the Cape, and in the Australian colonies, there is the fullest form of self-government, and are they not parts, loyal and contented parts, of the Empire ? When there are already eighteen independent Parliaments in the British dominions, it is only prejudice that can contend that another would make the difference between union and dismemberment. Goethe said that the English were a very practical, but a very pedantic people. And he was right. Your practical man of the world is useful enough in his sphere. He is great upon expenditure. That is the tie that attaches him to his fellows. But he is ignorant of ideas, and unable to deal with aspirations. He cannot reach the lofty regions of sentiment and imagination. He cares only for what lies within the limits of the day, and he has proved himself pre-eminently unfit to rule Ireland. Pedants are persons under the control of phrases. They give a cause or a scheme a bad name, and they get frightened at it—the name, not the thing. Partisans have decried Home-rule, and the people have caught up the cry without in¬ quiring what it means. It means no more than giving to Irishmen the same home liberties as Manxmen and Jerseymen have had for centuries, and which we have more recently conferred, with such beneficial results, on the colonies. We have tried to rule Ireland by the army, by the Church, by the landlords, and by the three combined. All these agencies have failed, and brought us shame and humiliation. Let us now try to rule her by her own people. We can only keep our world-wide Empire —the legacy our fathers left us, the heritage we owe to our sons—and which I for one am prepared to hold at all hazards—by conceding to the diverse nationalities within it liberty to work out their own national life in their own way. A genial diversity will give elasticity and strength ; a Procrustean uniformity weakness. Time has been wasted, and temper lost, in discussing whether the first work of the next session should be a London Government or a Suffrage Bill. It has been a tempest in a teapot. The Government are pledged to initiate legislation on both subjects, and the order of procedure can be EGYPTj HOME-RULE; REFORM. 251 left to the Cabinet. There may be reasons determining their action, the force of which outsiders cannot measure. Much, too, may happen before February. A fresh False Prophet may arise, or the old one may cause further trouble. But, assuming the absence of deterring circumstances, there is no reason why both Bills should not be dealt with. So far as the peopleare concerned,the Suffrage Bill is already carried. Parliament ought not to dally with it longer. It must be passed, and it would be well if it were passed quickly. But if it is to fight for precedence in an unwieldy programme, if it is now and again to be jostled out of place by minor measures, the session may slip away before much progress is made. One thing at a time, and that thing thoroughly, is the way to get through work in Parliament, as in the world. Let us have either Bill first the Cabinet chooses, but both before the dissolution. It is to be hoped that the Suffrage Bill will include Ireland, and that it will not include redis¬ tribution. Redistribution is required urgently enough, but it can follow the franchise. The two together would cause complication, and compli¬ cation would cause delay. Efforts will be made to substitute tentatively, and over a limited area, proportional for majority representation, and the constituencies may usefully familiarise themselves with what Mr. Mill and other philosophical reformers have described as “as important an im¬ provement in political art as the application of steam w r as to industrial pursuits.” I cannot call myself a convert to Mr. Hare’s scheme, but I recognise the truth and force of much that is said in its support. To describe its advocates as fools and fanatics, as has recently been done, only shows the ignorance and intolerance of the critics. What is it we want? Is it not government of the people by the people, and for the people ? Whatever variety of opinion exists in the population, should be proportionately represented in an assembly which is to discuss and decide matters affecting their well-being. Parliament should mirror the spirit, wisdom, and interest, not of a section only, but of the entire nation. The elected should be an epitome of the electors. The majority must govern, but the minority should be heard. That is scarcely the case now, and every year it gets less so. Let me illustrate my meaning by adduc¬ ing some facts. At the General Election in 18S0, all the members returned for Durham were Liberals. In 1874, all the members returned for Essex were Tories. But the Durham Tories polled 22,000 voters against the Liberal 42,000, while the Essex Liberals polled 11,000 against the Tories’ 12,000. The Tories were half as strong as the Liberals in Durham, and they had no member; while the Liberals had thirteen. The Liberals were only one thousand fewer than the Tories in the entire county of Essex, yet the Tories had ten members and the Liberals none. These may be said to be exceptional cases. Perhaps they are, although others equally striking could be quoted. It is not, however, the excep¬ tion, but the rule, for Liberals in counties and for Conservatives in 252 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M P. boroughs to be reduced to a state of political nullity. Throughout the country, fully forty per cent, of the total voters are unrepresented. It not unfrequently happens that the majority in the constituencies is repre¬ sented by a minority in Parliament, and vice versa. The majority of a majority may be the minority of the whole. This is a palpable defect, unfair to the individual voter, and injurious to the State. But a greater evil than the exclusion of the minority is the deterioration of the whole that the existing system promotes. Our widened electoral machinery requires much preliminary work to keep it in order and set it in motion. This work is mechanical, and can be best performed by experts. The body of the electors cannot, or won’t—anyway don’t—take an interest in it, and the apparatus passes under the control of wirepullers, who, in obscure and devious ways, utilise what is avowedly intended for party often for personal purposes. Here we are only apprentices ; in America they are masters of the art. The Americans, like ourselves, have party govern¬ ment. Their parties are controlled by factions, the factions are ruled by cabals, the cabals are led by “ bosses,” at whose discretion the spoils of office are dispensed. The nominees of the Democratic ring and the Republican machine divide between them authority and office. A dis¬ tinguished senator was asked, “What does Civil Service reform mean?” “ It means,” said he, “ how to keep the other fellows’ men out and to get ours in.” We have not come to this yet, and it is to be hoped we never shall. But that is the direction in which we are drifting. The first object of an organization is to succeed ; the first duty of a candidate is not to offend. If he has inconvenient opinions, he must rub them down till they fit the party groove. Everything must be sacrificed for victory. Members who have wills of their own are kittle cattle, to whom wide berths are to be given. In the United States, the men selected are usually only the standard-bearers of party warfare, who are as much under discipline as their military prototypes. They vote as they are told, and cheer their leaders loudest when they are furthest wrong. Men of marked character, with originality and comprehensiveness of thought, won’t submit to be made automatons of, and they retire from public life in disgust and disappointment. This explains the sameness, sterility, and corruption of American politics. Any scheme that will avert such mischief, that will give to all parties and principles their just weight in our National Assembly, that would encourage individual intelligence and responsibility, and raise political life out of the ruts of management, is entitled to the thoughtful consideration of all unprejudiced persons. Mr. Hare’s scheme is theoretically perfect, but whether it is workable or not in our complicated constituencies is a question that can only be settled by trial. A half-hearted recognition of the truth that the old plan of voting works injustice had led to the adoption of minority and cumulative voting. But neither c hese plans has succeeded. They have increased EGYPT; HOME-RULE ; REFORM. 253 the stringency of party organization and intensified the evils of electioneer¬ ing. We have experimented with a limited vote; why can’t we do so with the proportional plan ? Why not try London ? It affords many facilities. It has contiguity. It has not homogeneity, and there cannot well be any “Jerrymandering.” Its borough boundaries are arbitrary, not historic. It has little corporate life, and less local patriotism. Its vast population is a trouble, if not a terror to our legislators. The pervading indifference of the well-to-do classes may disappear when every man knows his vote will count, and feels that he is not a tool in the hands of election mana¬ gers. But whether these be the results or not, the trial can injure no one, as, by adopting it, we violate no constitutional principles. If it fails, it can be abandoned. It cannot well be a greater failure than the three- cornered system. But whether such an experiment is, or is not, tried, reformers should insist on some approach to direct representation being made. Let every constituency have one member, every elector one vote, and require that vote to be exercised where the owner resides. It is said that this would necessitate the creation of electoral districts, but it would not. Abstractly, electoral districts are right, but there is a creditable feeling in favour of preserving old landmarks, and it ought to be re¬ spected. This desire may be gratified, and the idea of single representa¬ tion reached. Formerly, Northumberland was one constituency. Now it is two. Why not make it four, giving each division one member ? Why should the people in Newcastle have two votes each and the people in Gateshead only one? Can Newcastle not be divided as easily as Northumberland, and other large constituencies also ? 1 fail to see either constitutional or practical reasons against such a plan. It would secure an independence to the individual voter which it would be difficult for the hardest party organization to manipulate. It is intelligible; the most illiterate can understand it. It will lighten the burden of political domi¬ nation, and it would retain the historic names. If a suffrage Bill be passed, it is said a dissolution must follow. It may, but it is not true that it must. If it does, little would be lost. Parlia¬ ments are like rivers—the further they run the dirtier they get. Detailed forecasts as to the anticipated reform are premature. Our political astrologers have not data sufficient from which to cast the horoscope. The conditions are too numerous, widespread, and complex to draw elaborate inferences. Probably the results will disappoint both parties. Constitutional changes usually do. Who is not now amused at the calamities foretold from the first Reform Bill? What a travesty these predictions constitute on human foresight ! Household suffrage has not overturned the Constitution. Life and property were never safer, and affairs rub on much as they did before. It is an error, common to poli¬ ticians, to look only at the proximate causes and the immediate effects of new laws. Every change brings with it social readjustments which 254 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. make the next step tolerable, and even easy. But if all the evil predicted has not accrued, neither has all the good. The extended franchise has not banished discontent, or ushered in a reign of righteousness. The ballot has not lessened the cost of elections, nor stopped corruption. The abolition of the property qualification has not flooded Parliament with penniless adventurers. The present is said to be the best—it is certainly the richest Parliament that ever was elected. The agricultural labourers, when enfranchised, will not work a revolution. They will probably fall into the party ranks with as much docility as the urban artisans have done. Previous infusions of fresh electors have lent temporary fillips to the legislative machine. After 1832, we got Municipal and Poor-Law Reform ; after 1868, we got the Irish Church and Land Acts, educational extension, and army reorganisation. The impulse from the expected measure is not likely to be so great, as the fervour of its advocacy is not so strong, but it seems to prefigure early changes with the Church and with the Lords. The most lugubrious pessimists, however, may console themselves with the reflection that whatever the re-arrangements may be, they will not inflict any individual injustice. Liberalism is not confined to the Liberal party ; neither are aristocratic tastes and sentiments to the aristocracy. They assert themselves at every turn. They are an ever- active factor in our national life. Declamation against the Lords is often declamation and nothing more. Liberal statesmen have, during the last half-century, made many more Peers than the Tories ; and to increase a body is usually not supposed to be the best way of destroying it. A hereditary House of legislation in the nineteenth century is logically in¬ defensible. Aristocracy may once have meant the supremacy of the best and the bravest. It certainly does not do so now. But if we substitute a Senate for the existing Chamber, we may exacerbate the evil we want to cure. Practically, the House of Commons is now supreme. The Lords may delay, but they dare not defeat, a measure demanded by it. They may be willing to wound, but they are afraid to strike. The work of recent sessions has shown this. A Senate would be more self-assertive, and the House of Commons, like the American House of Representatives, might be overshadowed. We have now got an anachronism—we might get a master. It is the fear of this that leads some politicians to desire to retain the Peers, but to limit their veto, and that leads others to wish for one Chamber, with restraints upon the majority. As for Disestablish¬ ment, the Dissenters could have it if they wished it, and would subordinate party interests to secure it. But they don’t, and won’t, and all they need look for—certainly all they will get—is the severance of the slight bonds that bind the Scotch Church to the State. The portents, however, point more in a social than in a political direc¬ tion. The reforms of the last fifty years have been reforms and nothing more. They have not altered the essence, only the form of our institu- EGYPT; HOME-RULEj REFORM. 255 tions. The old programmes, however, are nearly exhausted. Old catch-words are losing their force. We are in a transition state. Maxims once thought sound, and the habits once deemed salutary, are being appealed against. Institutions which age has cemented, power supported, eloquence embellished, and opulence enriched, are falling into decay. Our philanthropy has become revolutionary. It wants not only fresh reforms, but fresh principles. New circumstances require new men and a new creed. Modern society is made up of class-layers, between whom there is little intercourse. Its face had been smoothed, but how deep the refining process has penetrated it is difficult to decide. Opinions vary as to the standard by which the position and prosperity of the nation should be judged. Some take statistics as the test, but alone they are unsafe guides. Like the sieve of Danaides, they are good to look upon, but will not hold conclusions. The old proverb says: “As the statist thinks, the bell clinks.” It is not by a man’s wages alone you can tell his income. You must know the constancy of his employment, the cost of living, his broken time, and his habits. Externally, the English work¬ man of to-day is in advance of his progenitors. He has better and speedier means of locomotion, cheaper food and clothing, extended information, and he is not addicted to the coarse and brutal pastimes of the past. But these improvements are general, not special. They apply to society at large, and not to a class. Men measure their well-being by their neighbours, and not by their ancestors. It is their comparative, and not their absolute or abstract condition, that concerns them. Workmen have many comforts now their fathers had not, but the gap between them and the modern capitalist is greater than that between the old squire and his labourers. We have gained in strength by the new system, but we have lost in sympathy. The personal ties that bound the head of the little workshop to his helpers are broken, or rather never existed in our leviathan establishments where the workman is but a part of the plant, and the sole nexus that unites him to his employer is cash. Enlightened men do their best to bridge this gulf, but the system will not permit the restoration of that direct and friendly intercourse between the two classes that once existed. In this severance there lie present weakness and future danger. But it is not the skilled, but the skill-less—the layer below the artisan and above the pauper whose case presses. Their surroundings are physically depressing and morally degrading. Purity is pent up in the same noisome den as corruption. The two are tied together, as the Latin tyrant tied the dead corpse and the living victim. The talking orders can speak for themselves in Parliament or elsewhere, but the dingy, dwarfed, shrivelled millions cannot. They have to find a vent for their discontent by any orifice available. History, in Belshazzar’s fire- cyphers, proclaims that the decadence of that nation has begun where the poor exist as a race apart, and without moral unison with the other classes. 256 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Whilst bickering partisans fight out their broils, can nothing be done to help those helpless ones ? The inquiry raises afresh the old con¬ troversy of State versus individual action. Both doctrines, if pushed to extremes, are wrong, and both, if not so pushed, are right. We should, at starting, extract and utilise every faculty and virtue of the individual. Any law or custom that dwarfs that development, that curtails that power, is enervating and vicious. But there is work that individuals cannot do, or cannot do so well as the State ; and there corporate action must be resorted to. Where individual action is to end and the State to begin must be decided by the work and the circumstances. Cries for and against State interference come in cycles. The prayer of the reformers of last century was to be let alone—to fetter the State and let loose the man. For a couple of generations, the demand was for liberty, even liberty to pit the bones and muscles of half-fed children against metal valves—the human heart against iron pistons. It was driven too far. Atheistic do-nothingism, the smug philosophy of the breeches’ pocket, the comfortable, cosy-creed of the good man who never cut a throat nor dishonoured a bill, but who ground the last stroke out of the puny, pallid factory hands, produced a reaction, and set the stream of popular senti¬ ment into the other channel. It looks as if it would run too far in the new course. Some are unconsciously asking for the revival of sections of the Sumptuary Laws. Whenever a difficulty arises, we run to the Government, clamour for new inspectors, more police, and fresh re¬ strictions. When the Hindoo experienced the good results of the plough, they made it, not its originator or its results, but the inanimate piece of wood and iron, an object of worship. Many Englishmen seem resolved to idolise in like manner State machines. Board of Trade inspection may be necessary, but would not the loss at sea be lessened if society put its ban upon the men who gamble in human life for their own gain ? Our liquor regulations are defective, but if the same energy that is expended in the endeavour to get new laws were expended in creating new habits, should we not sooner secure a sober population ? Let us have fewer laws, more men—valiant, self-centered men—less machinery, and more steam, and our progress will be as rapid, and much more reliable. The primary purpose of Government is to guard its citizens against aggression ; to secure to each the unhindered power to pursue his own good. It is not to pursue that good for him. It is the right and the duty of the State to protect those who cannot protect themselves. But it is neither its right nor its duty to regulate the actions of grown men by an infinite number of minute and vexatious provisions. Mr. Herbert Spencer contends, with unanswerable force, that the best mechanism is that which contains fewest parts and is the least complex. The constituencies transfer their power to Parliament, the Parliament transfers it to the Government, the Government to the Cabinet, the EGYPT; HOME-RULEj REFORM. 257 Cabinet to departments or to boards, the boards to inspectors, and the inspectors to sub-inspectors—all acting through a series of levers, each of which absorbs, in friction and in inertia, parts of the moving force, which, in private undertakings, is direct and simple. Co-operative, friendly, and trade societies well illustrate the workings of willinghood. They have, amongst their members, abolished the demoralising system of credit, almost abolished strikes, and extracted the sting from the Poor-Laws. Wholesome vigour is lent to public life by such efforts. In¬ dividual exertion secures independence in thought and energy in action. These, in their turn, re-act on the nation. Disasters and difficulties, which would have crushed less vigorous men, serve but to rouse them to greater vitality. On the other hand, a State-controlled, law-pampered people, without initiative or resource, become stationary, tame, and nerveless— the easy victims or the ready agents of tyrants. Patriotism can never be generated, or kept alive, by a passive enjoyment of sordid and spiritless comfort. Let our projects, therefore, for social betterance be voluntary if possible, corporate if necessary, but let us not destroy the spirit of self-effort and self-reliance by which the most gigantic and most insig¬ nificant projects of civilised life have been started and sustained. Under any form of Government, but especially in a Democracy, which, whether we like it or not, will be the rule of the future, the proper discharge by each citizen of his individual duties, is as essential to the welfare of the whole as the purity of each drop of blood is to the healthiness of the human body. Aristocracy is class-rule ; Ochlocracy is mob-rule ; Timo¬ cracy is the rule of the rich ; but Democracy is people’s rule—the rule of all, rich and poor, lord and labourer, priest and layman. It draws its strength and its dignity from its universality and its freedom. It cannot disown the past, and it does not disparage it. Each order has done its allotted task, and has been useful in its day. All were links in the un¬ erring process of political and social evolution. The Aristocracy broke the power of the Court, and gave us national courage, culture, and refine¬ ment. The middle classes broke the power of the Aristocracy, and gave us liberty of thought, education, and commerce. The workmen are in embryo. We cannot foretell their future. They are untrammelled with old habits and systems, and they have a progressive spirit and broad sympathies. They should lift politics out of the idealess level of hucksterers and drill-sergeants. They should move at times not in the beaten tracks, but upon new ground. They should be something more than a link in the chain of machine politicans. They should be the pro¬ pagandists of noble principles—should seek the victory of reason over force, enlightenment over superstition, justice over crime, morality over vice. Philosophers tell us that life consists in the effort to assert itself, but it cannot assert itself if it is to be a bald copy of some one else’s life, whose judgments are to be unquestioned, and whose behests are to be 258 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. obeyed. Let every man use his own faculties—inquire for himself; and when he has arrived at a conclusion, let him speak it—act it—act it regardless of any mystifying despotism that may have temporarily got astride the popular breath. Do not let him duck under it, nor go about to circumvent it or pinch it to suit an audience, or water it with honey- drops to suit the prejudices of his friends. Out with it bravely, and take the consequences, whether these be anathema or ostracism. A man may get notoriety—the juggler’s reward—by pretence, but nothing more— not even as much as belief. Shuffle as much as he may, he cannot shuffle himself out of his responsibility. In the end, he must rely upon himself. Better live in a tub with Diogenes, and be free, than be a whimpering puppet or bedizened lackey in the palace of any Alexander. But with your independence mingle tolerance, and with your courage sympathy ; for on the eve of the natal day of Him who, eighteen hundred years ago, preached the glad doctrines of humanity and brotherhood, this sin-stained world is in sad want of both. The stifled echo of His trials and teach¬ ings reverberates through the ages, and calls us all again to faith and labour, to duty and to service. IMPERIAL FEDERATION. 259 XII. IMPERIAL FEDERATION; THE SOUDAN; THE NEW DEMOCRACY. Newcastle-upon-Tyne, February 14, 1885. SSAYING to designate the transactions which will secure promi- nence for a given epoch is a somewhat deceptive occupation. Events that amidst the deteriorating tumults of party strife pass unheeded, or linger only transcendentally in echo, often leave a deeper impression than others which have concentrated popular attention and excited momentary clamour. But it is easy to predicate that, when the achievements of the present Parliament come to be dispassionately recorded, the divergence between its promises and performances will be counted its distinguishing feature. The Government took office pledged to a dual retrenchment— retrenchment of expenditure at home and of liabilities abroad. England, according to their showing, had meddled too much and too often in ex¬ traneous affairs. She was in future to leave other nations to pursue their careers in peace, commit herself to a course of inflexible economy, and renounce the pomps and vanities of a bombastic and demoralising ambition. This was not the only, but it was the strongest plank in their platform. Has it been stuck to? No ingenuous critic can answer affirmatively. Taxation is heavier, expenditure is greater, and the revenue less elastic than during the regime of alleged rhodomontade and waste. A mysterious fatalism has doomed the Cabinet to catch up the dropped links in the policy of their profligate predecessors. Aggres¬ sion forsooth ! Why, what modern Administration have, in so short a time, made such additions to the Empire ? Run over the list. They have proclaimed the entire coast, not already appropriated, from Port Elizabeth to Delagoa Bay to be under British protection. If, by a pre¬ varicating diplomacy, they have lost Angra Pequena, they have made amends by assuming legal dominion over the Lower Valley of the Niger. Bechuanaland, Basutoland, Pondoland, Zululand, and the Amatonga country, if they have not positively taken, they have intimated they will prevent others doing so. Ours, too, is the southern seaboard of New Guinea, Louisiade, and the adjacent islands, while the Queen has been advised to accept the suzerainty of the lands ceded by the Sultans of 260 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH COIVEN, M.P. North Borneo to a company of British adventurers. They have resumed the construction of the railway towards Candahar, which in a fit of party pique they pulled up. The Scinde desert is thus being bridged, Quetta is absorbed, and outposts in the Pishin Valley, conquered by General Roberts, are retained. We pay the Ameer of Afghanistan an annual subsidy of ,£120,000, three times as much as we pay the Prince of Wales, we supply him with munitions of war, direct his foreign policy, and are now delimitating his frontiers. He is as much a British as the Emirs of Bokhara and of Khiva are Russian vassals. Yet, we are facetiously assured that the Afghans have recovered their independence. In Egypt we are absolute. We are there, and there our authority, if not our arms, all lachrymose vaticinations to the contrary notwithstanding, will abide. The most dexterous special pleader, or the most belated panegyrist, cannot reconcile this catalogue of annexations, occupations, and protec¬ torates, with the ascetic programme promulgated by the Government four years ago. How comes the contradiction? Thus. There are two policies—an insular and an imperial. The advocates of the former would endanger great objects to save expense and avoid obligations. The ad¬ vocates of the latter contend that the Empire can be held only by the display of the spirit that won it, and that to imperil it would be to cripple commerce and jeopardise civilization. The former is easily sustained amidst the polemics of the platform, but not so'easily amidst the respon¬ sibilities of the council chamber. National traditions, colonial exigencies, inexorable circumstances, and the steady force of trained opinion, com¬ bine to modify the application of so seemingly self-denying, yet really so selfish a creed. When emergencies arise, Ministers, with disciplined inaction, take up an obtusely negative attitude. Under pressure they waver, and then, with tremulous precipitation, yield. But this process occasions embarrassments, increases the cost, and sometimes drives them to adopt high-handed proceedings to recover advantages they never should have lost. This is my hypothesis of their indecision. It does not arise from insincerity or conscious inconsistency, but from their inepti¬ tude in adjusting their policy to the irresistible drift of human affairs. They allow their theories to colour their observations, and argue from principles to facts, instead of from facts to principles. What ought to be England’s relation to her dependencies, and what her attitude to the States with which they may draw her into collision, are questions which recent events have forced into delicate prominence. Historians and political economists, students and statesmen, have long discussed them, but they have not yet passed into current controversy. Vast projects of human transplantation, involving to us paramount issues, are being unfolded, but the mass of our countrymen survey the process with stoical imperturbation. The order of history is apparently being reversed. Heretofore civilization, enfeebled by luxury, or lulled into IMPERIAL FEDERATION. 261 lethargy by success, has periodically succumbed to belligerent barbarism. The ruins of palaces and sanctuaries, over which decay is drawing its effacing fingers, remain to remind us of the precariousness of earthly power. Philosophers have frequently foretold a like fate for nations now in the full flow of tumultuous life. But we are witnessing a contrary operation. It is not Goth or Hun, Turk or Tartar, that is impinging upon flourishing commonwealths, or overwhelming effeminate dynasties, but it is the militant traders of Europe acquiring dominion over the treasures of the earth. The valleys and uplands of tropical Africa, the Oasis on both sides of the Altaic range, from the shores of the Caspian to the ribs of the Himalayas, and the El Dorados of the Pacific are being eagerly exploited. It looks as if an epidemic of mingled acquisitiveness and adventure had set in, which will soon leave no eligible slice of the globe’s surface without the sovereignty of a civilising power. The inoffensive Polynesians are disappearing before the peace¬ ful competition and the extemporised illegality of battalions of Northern emigrants ; while the hardy nomads of the Turkestan steppes, blending with their conquerors, are to form the vanguard of the army with which a Muscovite Tamerlane is to lay waste Southern Asia. The Arabs and the Ethiopians, on the ether hand, setting death at defiance, pitting courage against science and javelins against rifles, are waging a brave but unequal fight with the inevitable. Amidst this scramble for material prosperity, the policy of England should neither be vacillating nor am¬ biguous. Our colonial possessions contain ten millions of persons of English lineage—as many as Great Britain contained at the commence¬ ment of the century. Two hundred and fifty million more people of diverse nationalities are subjects of our Queen. The British Empire covers an area five times the size of the Persian under Darius, and four times that of the Roman under Augustus. Our power is the measure of our duty. Has the average English elector realised how these colossal posses¬ sions not only control domestic politics, but how largely they affect his everyday life? I doubt it. Except when party rivalry brings the subject into prominence, it is seldom spoken of, and seldomer studied. This unconcern lends strength to that school of publicists who take an exclu¬ sively mercantile estimate of the colonies, and contend that England can only widen her circumference by weakening her centre. Colonization may have been advantageous when the colonies were favoured or en¬ forced customers for our produce ; but that, the object for which we founded, governed, defended, and cherished them, having been aban¬ doned, why, ask the latter-day exponents of emasculated Benthamism, should we retain them ? They cost us more than they yield, create ceaseless difficulties, and are provocative of war. Their tariffs are hostile, and their commercial philosophy selfish. They will be as good customers when free as when held by the reins of metropolitan authority. Why not 262 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. relinquish them and relieve us of the risks they entail ? Why not ? Be¬ cause we are bound to them by the treble ties of race, religion, and interest. Because their security, their prosperity, even their existence requires, and because our honour is pledged to accord them, the protec¬ tion that their nascent powers cannot give. No nation lives exclusively on its own produce, and England less than any. We import nearly half of what we eat, and much of what we wear, while our annual increase of inhabitants is nearly 300,000. We cannot, within the narrow precincts of these islands, provide sustenance and work for such a steadilv growing population. The excess emigrate. By so doing they get occupation for themselves, send food to those they have left behind, and take in return the output of our mines and factories. Colonization thus relieves one labour market and supplies another. It carries the superfluities of one part of the world to repair the deficiencies of another part. By this reciprocity, it augments the resources and contributes to the equit¬ able distribution of the race. The benefits it confers, however, are not merely mercenary and ethnographical. Is it nothing to have pushed our pioneers into the remotest recesses of primeval forests, and to have fixed our flag in the barrenest as well as in the richest regions? Is there no satisfaction in having peopled and planted groups of communities, amongst whom, whatever befalls the old country, her institutions, traditions, and manners will survive ? Is this world-wide reproduction of that combination of independence and discipline, of freedom and order, of enterprise and endurance, which constitute the salient features of the English character, a result to be measured by money ? Wealth alone never will, nor can, sustain a State. If it is to thrive, the higher and nobler faculties of our nature must be brought into play. Sybarites soon sink to the level of their brother-brutes. It is the soul which creates itself a body—the idea which makes itself a habita¬ tion. A nation is not a fortuitous multitude whom circumstances have called together, and may again divide. It is a commonwealth of free men, labouring fraternally for a common aim. It has a mission and it has duties, towards the performance of which the faculties and forces of its sons should be dedicated. One of the duties demanded of English¬ men is, the extension of the benefits conferred by liberty and of the security conferred by law to the communities created by their enterprise. But the Aborigines—what of them amidst our industrial crusading? Have they no rights ? Sancho Panza’s idea of colonising an island was to sell the inhabitants into slavery, and put the money into his pocket. Sancho’s countrymen did that, and something more. They shot those they could not sell. Without extenuating such cupidity and cruelty, or without accepting Mr. Carlyle’s dictum, that in the run of centuries right and might are identical, experience shows— “ That civilization does git forrid Sometimes upon a powder cart." IMPERIAL FEDERATION. 263 But this admitted, it must also be admitted that our treatment of the native races likewise makes a page of history over which most of us would gladly draw a sponge. The present generation, however, although it inherits the evils bequeathed from the past, is not responsible for them. Our procedure may not be faultless, but it is more humane than it once was. The exactions and oppressions of former times have ceased. If England seeks to enrich herself by conquest, she seeks also to dispense equivalent advantages. She may try to transform, but she does not forcibly denationalise the natives. She recognises the rights of the conquered as well as the duties of the conqueror. Her efforts to admin¬ ister justice, foster commerce, secure order, and improve the means of transit, redeem some of her earlier harshness. Her career in India has been unique. It constitutes one of the most marvellous spectacles in history. There is not another instance on record where the victor has so vigilantly, sedulously, and disinterestedly exercised his authority for the benefit of the vanquished. The heterogeneous, divided, and defence¬ less, but industrious, inhabitants were periodically plundered and enslaved by invaders, whose ferocity was only equalled by their greed. Their cry was blood and plunder. England’s is commerce, not spoils. We have not always shown requisite respect for older but different forms of religion and civilization in India. We have destroyed many bad things, certainly, but some good things as well. The people may have grounds of complaint with different branches of our Administration. Our management is not perfect. But the natives under it live in peace and security. They are free from internecine feuds, and from the ravages of Afghans, Mahrattas, and other buccaneers which would surely be renewed if we were to retire. We have incurred obligations to our countrymen who have emigrated on the strength of the Imperial connec¬ tion, and to the natives whom we have rescued from the brutality of their former masters. Both have acted and suffered under a tacit cove¬ nant, which it would be a flagrant dishonesty to violate on the plea that it would be convenient or economical. The Empire has got too big, and its organization has got looser and lower, say the pessimists. But the extent of an empire is a relative, not an absolute thing. Size and value are not always equivalent. Certain conditions being conceded, a small State may be the best. Philosophical writers on Government, from Aristotle to the elder Mill, have been op¬ posed to large States. In ancient times, the city and the State were often conterminous. Aristotle’s fear was, that if the citizens became too nume¬ rous, no herald or stentor could address them and no general command them. We have made little advance in mental speculation since Aris¬ totle’s time, but we have made much in practical science. A modern orator now can address an audience of many thousands, and a modern general can direct an army when miles away. Small States, it is true, 264 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. have often shown the highest types of manhood. It was at Athens that liberty first found a home, and that the arts and graces danced around humanity. It was her 20,000 free citizens, and not the Macedonian phalanxes, that illumined the world with the light which burns as brightly to-day as it did 2,000 years ago. The Italian Republics and the free Teutonic cities were the nurseries of art and commerce, and the abodes of law and literature, when Europe was given over to the brutal rule of force, to the civilization of the bivouac, to the liberty of satraps. There was more intellectual refinement in Germany when she was split into petty princelings, than there is now amidst the noxious and all-absorbing militarism of the Empire. This can all be conceded freely, but it avails nothing in our case. England could not become a maritime Switzerland, or another Athens, or Florence, or Weimar, even if she wished it. Her course is fixed, and she cannot reverse the decrees of Fate. She is, and must remain, a colonising Power. There are two sets-off to the advantages of small States. Sometimes their possessions excite the envy or the avarice of their big neighbours, who either annihilate or incorporate them. Sometimes their prosperity precipitates their ruin in another way. Smug, self-centred, self-satisfied, they abandon effort, cease to aspire, and, like the bees in Mandeville’s famous fable, they live on in egotistical tranquillity, and die for want of incentive. While the role of England is not that of a sordid conqueror, neither is it that of an austere solitaire —the world forgetting, and by the world forgot. She cannot be indifferent to the encroachments that are being made and threatened on all sides. There is a law antecedent to and above all treatise—the law of self-preservation. The Russians are within one hundred miles of Herat. Those who have ever seriously thought about Central Asia know the significance of that fact. If their empire increase at the same rate the next fifty years as it has done during the last, they will have a territory equal to, and a population half as numerous as, all Europe. Prussia, which at the Treaty of Paris scarcely surpassed Piedmont in importance, now dominates Europe ; France is infringing upon the Chinese, and Austria upon the Ottoman dominions. The few small European States that are left—Holland, Denmark, Belgium, Roumania, Greece, Portugal—hold their separate existences only on sufferance. At the Congress of Vienna, there were in Europe over fifty sovereign States—now there are not fifteen. Every¬ thing seems to indicate that we have entered upon an era when States will be bigger than they have been. England must not only hold her own, but she must buttress her possessions, or she will be thrust from her position of a world to that of a European State. Englishmen may not have mastered the philosophy of Imperial expansion, but their instincts and impulses will prompt them to oppose a spiritless surrender of lands that have been watered by the blood of their best and bravest. They IMPERIAL FEDERATION. 265 survey with vigilance, but without jealousy or displeasure, the colonising zeal of other Powers. They have no desire to check it. Every new market creates benefits, and every old one ruined injures them. But such aggrandizements impose precautions. It is not a neighbourly act for a competing State to plant a settlement in inconvenient proximity to one of ours. It will generate disputes as to jurisdiction, and may become a source of rivalry and vexation. Nor is it tolerable to have adjacent islands seized, not for the purpose of trade, but as outlets for criminals. France cannot be a successful colonising Power, and for this all-sufficient reason—she has no surplus population. Her peasantry, too, prefer their native fields to the parched plains of Senegal and the fever- stricken delta of the Red River. “The Fatherland wants soldiers not colonies,” was once the motto of Prince Bismarck. But, unable to arrest the exodus of his countrymen, he seeks to divert it, speciously suggesting that it is the consequence and token of German prosperity. More disin¬ terested authorities say it is the consequence of the Conscription, of excessive taxation, and political repression. But the Greater Germany that her Chancellor dreams of will never be created if the Draconian Code enforced at home is applied to it. Emigrants will prefer the free prairies of America to settlements in which the fermenting anarchy they have fled from is reproduced. If Germany does not bestow upon her over¬ sea possessions the right of self-government, they will languish as the Dutch and the Portuguese do, or she will lose them as Spain has lost hers. We need not fear our rivals, nor rush into panics over their preternatural activity. Fear is a fertile source of evil and misfortune. Nations cannot be ruled by any more insidious, injurious, or undignified influence. The clouds that have gathered so loweringly over us can be dispersed by a clear enunciation of our rights and a firm assertion of our de¬ termination to maintain them. There are the seeds of a noble destiny in our dependencies. Neither of us can rudely sever the bonds of sentiment and confidence which centuries have entwined. We are a source of mutual strength, and by liberality and forbearance, by removing all alienating restraints and leading the colonists to feel that they are fellow- citizens in something more than name, this strength may be indefinitely increased. Distance was once a barrier to such a union, but it is so no longer. Quebec is, for all practical purposes, as near to Liverpool now as Liverpool was to London when Wolfe stormed the heights of Abra¬ ham. Intercourse with India is more easy now than it was with the Highlands before the Pretender planted his standard on the braes of Braemar. Turgot’s famous aphorism that “ colonies, like pears, fall when they ripen,” is striking but defective. Absence seems to quicken colonial loyalty and attachment. The combination of a series of self-controlling cantons or principalities, once scouted as chimerical, experience has proved to be practicable. The United States, whose disruption has been 266 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. so repeatedly and so exultantly predicted, have survived a century, and they supply a felicitous example of federated expansion. Why cannot England and her congeries of commonwealths federate also for their separate advantage and corresponding security ? They present a surface vulnerable at many points, but few empires combine, in an equal degree, the danger of being stricken with the power to strike. The public busi¬ ness of England is the private business of every Englishman ; and surely no weightier business can enlist their study than the security and pros¬ perity of their native land and her affiliated provinces. It is incom¬ parably more important to them as citizens, and to England as a nation, than the recriminatory topics on which political partisans love to ring the political changes. To illustrate how mighty conflicts arise from trivial things, Pascal maintained that if Cleopatra’s nose had been a little longer, the world would have had a different destiny. This sweeping theory may not be correct, but it is undeniable that if a bucket of water had been shed at the right time upon the fire that was lighted in Egypt three years ago, the conflagration that has laid that unhappy country in ruins would never have broken out. The voice of faction should be hushed in the presence of calamity. But the same sentiment that forbids attempts to turn national disasters to party advantage, forbids also the use of mincing platitudes at such a juncture as the present. The undertaking the Government have in hand in Egypt is inherently arduous ; but, by alter¬ nate hesitation and recklessness, they have precipitated a crisis at once grave and perplexing. We require to go back to the ill-fated W T alcheren expedition to find in our annals a modern parallel for the nervelessness, dawdle, indecisions, perplexities, half-measures, delays, and perversities that have distinguished the action of the Executive. The elementary facts of the situation have been distorted by long-drawn-out debates. Let us look at them as they are, and not as they are coloured by parti¬ sans. What have we done in Egypt ? We bombarded Alexandria and left it to burn. In less than three years, we have equipped three expedi¬ tions—two under Lord Wolseley, and one under General Graham. We have had two abortive Conferences—one at Constantinople and another at London, and measureless diplomacy. We have despatched three special missions—a diplomatic one under Admiral Hewitt to Abyssinia, an administrative one under Lord Dufferin, and a fiscal one under Lord Northbrook to Cairo. We allowed Hicks Pasha’s army to be sent to the shambles. We could either have stopped it or strengthened it. We did neither. We sent General Gordon and Colonel Stewart alone to bring away the Soudan garrisons—a piece of Quixotism worthy of mediaeval knight-errantry. We are now lavishing blood and treasure to recover, if alive, the chivalrous rescuer whose forlorn and heroic struggle the world has followed with admiration. In all we have, directly or indirectly, THE SOUDAN. 267 slain over 20,000 persons and expended over ,£20,000,000. What have we achieved by this costly and sanguinary intervention ? We have struck the heaviest blow at British influence in the East that has been struck for a generation. We have made Egypt a weltering chaos. We banished Arabi, but we have re-invigorated the Mahdi. We have deranged every¬ thing, settled nothing, and have hopelessly compromised the fortunes and the future of every Egyptian. No body of men, either native or foreign, has as yet been benefited by our reforming schemes. We have given the world fresh lessons in massacre, the records of which are written in the charred remains of desolate cities and deserted villages, in the scattered skeletons of gallant Arabs, in the maimed and suffering occupants of many a desert tent, and in a demoralised executive and despairing people. What has caused this signal collapse ? The motives of the Ministry were meritorious—protection of British interests and the relief of the country from what they regarded—I did not—as a military Cama¬ rilla. Their resources were practically illimitable. They have had in requisition power, ability, and experience—the concentrated power of the Empire, the ability of commanding statesmen sustained by unrivalled devotion and unfaltering enthusiasm, and the experience of the most efficient agents which the public service can furnish. Yet, they have failed—ignominiously failed. Wherefore ? Because of the presence of divided authority, and the absence of clear aim, resolutely and con¬ sistently enforced. There’s the tap-root of all their difficulties. They have tried to rule an Eastern people by Western methods, and through a distracting dualism. Their well-meant machinery has broken down. Our officials, perplexed with doubts whether their positions were per¬ manent or provisional, had not authority to secure willing support, or to compel unwilling submission. Their projects were thwarted by the chronic inertia of their native colleagues, and marred by the machina¬ tions of foreign emissaries. Our combined maladroitness and misfortune have aroused the impatience and suspicions of Europe. Powers that were not originally unfavourable to our interference, and others, whose opposition only went the length of expostulation, had been incited to assert themselves somewhat menacingly. France has formu¬ lated financial proposals which have received the adhesion of Germany and her two Imperial allies. When the serpent wants to seem innocent, it puts its tail in its mouth, and diplomacy, when most to be distrusted, is usually most plausible. We have no authoritative statement of the French terms, but if they are what they are generally said to be, they are incompatible with the well-being of Egypt and the interest and dignity of England. The crucial clause would internationalise the posi¬ tion, and thus not only perpetuate, but intensify a paralysing bifarious- ness. A multiple control, disguised under any form of specious verbiage, will work multiple mischief. It is the very worst form of administration 268 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH COHEN, M.P. which human ingenuity can devise. It would be a focus of intrigue—a fulcrum for cabals. The designs and the ambitions of the respective States are not only diverse, but antagonistic. Their delegates would find a rare field for plots and counter-plots in a rejuvenised Control. In any country, but pre-eminently in an Oriental one, those who hold the purse control its policy. The men, in this instance, would really be the foreign creditors. They are of all nations, but of one genus. There is no regeneration for Egypt if its government is to be controlled by a con¬ fraternity so essentially mercenary. We cannot shuffle the duties and the responsibilities we have voluntarily undertaken on to a federation of financiers, with whom the interest of the country will be subordinated to private gains or national rivalry. He who takes a partner takes a master. If we cannot do our work alone, we cannot do it in partnership with persons who will checkmate us at every turn. While we are to share the financial, and, as a consequence, the political authority in Egypt, our troops are to perform alone the odious task of bailiffs for the bondholders—a humiliation which every Englishman of spirit will resent. Another stipulation, implied if not expressed, is that we are to leave at a fixed time. Having brought the country to bankruptcy, ceded its pro¬ vinces, and laid it open to invasion, it would be craven to abandon it until the mischief we have wrought is repaired, until external dangers are passed, internal confidence restored, and until there is hope of a per¬ manent amelioration in the condition of the people. We cannot hand them back to the exactions of the usurers and the courbash of the task¬ master. Justice and national reputation demand this. It is the least atonement we can make for the miseries we have inflicted upon an unoffending and submissive race. You cannot arbitrarily engraft into the Egyptian mind English ideas of government, or evoke a sudden rise of order and freedom out of the residuum of centuries of serfdom. It will be years before the new institutions we have projected will have taken firm root. They can only be reared through the fostering tutelage of British supervision. If we leave, they will fade as flowers do without water. Moral support is essential, but moral support, without visible power behind it, is useless in the East. It is unreasonable to expect an Executive shattered by rebellion and conquest, a ruling class corrupt, arbitrary, and retrograde, and a population of hereditary bondsmen, to realise at once the responsibilities, and adapt themselves to, the working of free institutions. Even in settled and progressive countries, this is the work of generations. A bureaucratic revolution amongst officials whose order of management has been the enaction of bribes and the infliction of the lash—an organic, fiscal, judicial, and legislative change—cannot be accomplished in a prescribed period, and with the veto of Europe hanging like the sword of Damocles over our operations. Nubar Pasha says the Egyptian problem is summed up in one word— THE SOUDAN. 269 irrigation. The poorest and most patient peasantry in the world are ground down by a proportionately heavier taxation than is imposed upon any other known people. Their overmastering poverty prevents pros¬ perity. produces discontent, and induces disorder. The wealth of Egypt lies in its mud. This fertilising agent requires capital to collect and utilise. Capital won’t settle without security. Security is the product of stable government. The guarantee for such a government can, in present circumstances, be given only by England. Popular interest is, for the time, concentrated in the Soudan. But when our task there is done, that in the Delta will be far from solution. There is a fear that the military may cause us to forget the economic and poli¬ tical crisis. While the country is pre-occupied, or ill-informed, the Govern¬ ment may, in their anxiety to clear themselves of present troubles, make arrangements that will contain the germs of future disasters. Before and beyond all things, let us keep clear of entangling compacts with other powers. If they only want to secure the money lent by their subjects, their demands may be met. We are expending, without a murmur, millions on the expedition to Khartoum, which, had we utilised the victories won near Suakim, would not have been needed, or if needed, and started six weeks sooner, would not have cost half as much as it will do; and surely we need not be afraid to endorse a loan which, with effective administration, would in three years be self-sustaining. This will satisfy the Powers if they are only seeking, as they say they are, a bond for their clients. But if they mean political trouble for this country, it won’t. Every Englishmen would mourn if the rejection of the terms now under discussion were to disturb our friendly relations with France, and arouse latent animosities elsewhere. We desire to live in amity with all man¬ kind, but more especially with a people bound to us by the ties of locality and association. We have a genuine admiration and regard for France. Recent years may have deprived her of the European initiative, but nothing can cancel her magnificent past. The bold defiance which, in the name of outraged justice, she flung at the coalesced kings, and the genius which carried her tricolour from Paris to the Pyramids and from the Escurial to the Kremlin, will never cease to fascinate the imagination and arouse the admiration of mankind. But all our admiration for her achievements, and our attachments to her people, ought not to induce us to set our seal to a treaty injurious to our interest, inconsistent with our duty, and prejudicial to our honour. The French are supple, brave, and brilliant, but they are also monopolising. They twit us with being a nation of shopkeepers ; but are their aspirations not sometimes saturated, and their souls not sometimes stirred, with materialistic ideas ? In their operations in Tunis, Tonquin, and Madagascar, they have not shown such a scrupulous regard for foreign rights and native wishes as to entitle them to lecture us on our insular selfishness or greed of conquest. Let 270 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. us treat France as a friend whom we would go a long way to satisfy, but treat her also frankly and firmly. Let her know that, while we will be “just to her interests, mindful of her susceptibilities, and desirous of her goodwill,” we will be neither coaxed nor bullied out of what is due to ourselves and to our engagements, for fear of giving umbrage to either her or her newly-found friends. He is an ungenerous critic who does not recognise the difficulties the Government have to contend with. Their futile and paltry attempts to throw the responsibility upon their predecessors, however, only excite the derision of independent men. The Cabinet is primarily, and its sup¬ porters are secondarily, responsible for the embroglio. The one initiated it, and the other supported the policy that has brought us all this trouble. They have been unfortunate, it is true, but most of their misfortunes they have brought upon themselves. If it were not so serious, their medley of protestations and contradictions would be amusing. Once they praised that dual control ; now they cite it as the origin of all the mischief. At first, they said we were not at war, and while saying so they despatched the most formidable army that has left our shores since the campaign in the Crimea. They declared that the Arabs were fighting for freedom, and that not a drop of British blood, nor a shilling of British money, should be buried in the sands of the Soudan. They are burying both there now very fast. They refused to allow General Graham to march to Berber last spring because the weather was hot and water deficient. They are sending the same General to do, this spring, the very work they refused to allow him to do last. And thus on through the whole bewilder¬ ing and painful programme! Theirs has been a policy of makeshifts. There is scarcely any statement that they have made at one time that they have not contradicted at another, and there is scarcely one thing they have refused to do that they have not subsequently done ; all showing that they grievously misapprehended the position and miscal¬ culated the gravity of the task they undertook when they shelled the Alexandria batteries. But swapping horses in mid-stream is a hazardous operation. While hitting Ministers, we should be careful that we do not strike General Wolseley. No Englishman, whatever his politics, will know¬ ingly do this. If, then, the Cabinet will screw up their courage to take a clear, consistent, and decisive course, both in Egypt-proper and in the Soudan, they will find behind them, not a party, but the nation. There are differences of opinion amongst us whether we should,.or should not, have gone to Egypt; but there can be no difference that, while there, we should do the work we have undertaken effectually ; that the fate of our emissary—one of the noblest spirits that ever shed lustre on our race—- should be ascertained, and if he is living, rescued; that, while repudi¬ ating a war of conquest and revenge, adequate security should be taken, by holding Khartoum, if deemed essential, for the defence of the Egyp- THE NEW DEMOCRACY. 271 tians from their threatening neighbours ; and that the water-way between the two sections of our Empire should not be at the mercy of other and unfriendly Powers. To attain these ends, Englishmen should close their ranks and uphold their executive. We can differ about our domestic matters as we like, but when external dangers threaten us I know only one party—the nation. It is a far cry from Egypt to Ireland, but it is not a jarring one, as there is much similarity in the mournful histories of the two countries. Our troubles in Egypt will, it is to be trusted, be transient, but in Ireland they are ubiquitous and abyssmal. Reference to Ireland is like throwing oil upon a blazing brazier—adding to the accumulated stores of reciprocal dissatisfaction. We despairingly try to thrust her out of sight, or to overlook her. But she will neither be forgotten nor ignored. She haunts us as Banquo’s ghost did Macbeth. Official chroniclers parade, with a serenity that nothing ruffles, long arrays of figures to show that rents have been lowered, and that evictions have been diminished, that crime has decreased, and exports increased. Very consoling information, no doubt, to every one but the landlords ! These tables recall the anecdote of an Irish farmer who one day asked a Tory friend, “ What does Dr. Cooke Taylor do?” “ He is a statistician to the Castle,” was the reply. “ And what is a statistician ?” rejoined the querist. “A man who is paid for inventing facts for the use of the Whigs?” The Castle authorities may not, as this story insinuates, falsify their returns, but they either don’t believe them, or they don’t draw from them the conclusions they are intended to convey. If the results revealed are so reassuring, how comes it that they cling so convulsively to coercion as their only mode of rule ? Is it from preference or from fear? If from preference, they are despotic ; if from fear, they are dissembling. There is an invisible spirit in Irish politics that all our ameliorative legislation cannot allay. Irishmen are not attracted by the brusque, tenacious, but somewhat ungenial order of mind that distinguishes our bourgeoisie law-givers. It has many merits, but it has certainly not governed Ireland wisely or well. It is adamantine rather than amiable, and sensitive, quick-witted Irishmen are repelled by it. The Rev. Sydney Smith once gave characteristic expression to the average middle-class conception of Irish requirements. He defined the object of the Government to be the securing for the people of roast pork, potatoes, claret, a stout constable, an honest justice, and a clear high¬ way. “ What’s the use,” he asks, “ of bawling in the streets about the Green Isle, the Isle of the Ocean, the bold anthem of ‘ Erin-go-Bragh ?’ A far better anthem would be Erin-go-bread-and-cheese—Erin-go- cabins that would keep the rain out—Erin-go-pantaloons-without holcs- in-them.” Ah ! Mr. Smith, the sentiment that finds expression in the touching poem that you and men like you deride, has quickened the heart of many an exile of Erin and made it tremulous with patriotic 272 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. emotion, amidst rags and penury ! It was the same sentiment that prompted the Samians to offer their breasts as bulwarks when their Republic was in danger, that nerved the arm of the patriot Tell, and of the Bruce of Bannockburn. It is the sentiment which constitutes to-day a more effective defence of England than all her wealth and her ships, all her fortifications and her arsenals. It is the living fibre that dies last in every true man. It is because the inheritors of Mr. Smith’s sensual philosophy conceive that all Irishmen want is only a well-filled trough, and a well-littered sty — it is because they don’t appreciate the finer qualities that are deeply implanted in the Celtic nature, that their efforts after reconciliation have failed. Scarcity, wretchedness, huge, dank, and baleful, are perennial in Ireland, and the people want only too urgently all that this facetious but worldly-minded clergyman describes. But they want something different and more. Every nation has its ideal. Greece typified beauty ; Rome force. The Saxon is practical; the Celtic is imaginative. But the existence of these diversities need create no intestine antipathies and dissent. If a legitimate outlet be furnished for their manifestations, they will lend picturesqueness and strength to the greater nationality which should cover all. We have tried in Ireland, with sad and dishonouring results, the harshest form of administration. Our method has been a word and a blow—the blow usually first. Suppose we try the softer forces of gentleness, generosity, and courtesy. This is not an original suggestion, certainly. It is as old as Christianity. But amidst all our plans, we have not attempted it yet in Ireland. Nations, like men, easily forgive injuries ; but insult and distrust inflame their hatred and perpetuate their resentment. And what can be more insulting and distrustful than the systematic exclusion of all Irishmen from positions of trust and authority in their own country? They regard such exclusion as a badge of conquest, a stigma of degradation, and they wince under it, and resent it. Would Englishmen not do the same? How long would they submit to be ostracised from the confidence, honours, and emoluments of their native land ? Material advantages, by all means, and to any extent short of exciting to corruption or inducing effeminacy ; but if Ireland is ever to be won over to settled order and contentment, her affections must be captivated, and her honourable ambition to administer her own affairs gratified. This will not be done by the renewal of the state of siege—a national humiliation that the Cabinet seem to be contemplating. There are individuals, no doubt, who ask for separation, but the Irish people, as a body, seek self-govern¬ ment. They want the same local liberties we have conceded to the colonies, and which are riveting rather than disintegrating the Empire. Union between the two countries is essential to the welfare of both ; but concord and amity are not incompatible with the repeal of the ill-starred Act of 1800. Home-rule might not work so well as its supporters THE NEW DEMOCRACY. 273 expect; but it is humanly impossible for it to work worse than the cove¬ nant of evil memory which was carried by bribery, and has been upheld by force. No people once fairly invested with legal power has shown any disposition to abuse it, or to indulge in acts of reactionary vengeance. I do not believe the Irish will. Away from Ireland, the Government have displayed, in domestic politics, a grasp and a sagacity that are absent from their treatment of colonial and foreign questions. The reason for this is not far to seek. Abroad, they are guided by a tortuous and mutable policy, and indecision is inevitable. At home, they regulate their action by settled principles, and vacillation is difficult. They know what they want to do, and they do it. In the matter of reform, they have done it well. Half a century ago, England had representative institutions, but not popular repre¬ sentation. Property was represented, but not persons. An organic change was then effected by what the Duke of Wellington described as a revolution in the due course of law. The Act of 1867 continued, and that of 1884 has completed, the alteration initiated in 1832. The resist¬ ance to the supplemental stages was insignificant when compared to that given to the first. To the last, it was narrowed to points of procedure and detail. But out of these, materials for a constitutional collision could easily have been found. Through the combined wisdom and forbearance of Mr. Gladstone and Lord Salisbury, this was averted. It is unnecessary, and it would be ungracious, to attempt to affix their respective shares of merit in these negotiations. The country is grateful for what they did, and their followers can amuse themselves in clamouring for the honours of victory. The bargain, it is said, did violence to Parliamentary wont and use. Perhaps. But there are usages “ more honoured in the breach than the observance.” Any arrangement that weakens party trammels is praiseworthy, and that this one did so, even temporarily, is not one of its least claims to commendation. There are other questions on which both sides are agreed in principle whose settlement might be advanced by friendly conferences. Is there any reason against trying them ? It would be surrendering the rights of discussion, asseverate some. I do not think so. Parliament would have the same liberty of debate after, as before, such a transaction ; while as for voting, have not the rank and file already relinquished their freedom ? There are some parents who* anxious to please their children, but disliking a noise, buy them a drum, on condition that they do not beat it. The liberty of a man in Parlia¬ ment is similarly restrained. He has the right to vote independently, but if he exercise it, he will be chastised. The Government scheme of reform is not ideally perfect, but it does intentional injustice to no class, and it will work without perceptible friction. Possibly this is as much as could have been said of any bill dealing with so complicated a subject. The sovereignty of the people is 19 274 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. not necessarily realised by the government of the greatest numbers. The people are the entire body of inhabitants. The widest suffrage will only give us the government of one section by another which presumably will be, but which in fact may not be, the majority. The legitimacy of the power of the majority rests on the assumption that it is right, and will be just. But no majority is infallible, and all are at times tyrannical. Any person who devises machinery that will protect the minority against the arbitrariness of the majority, and will guarantee the majority against its own errors, will be counted a benefactor of his species. The Ministerial contribution to this problem is the creation of single-membered seats. Their method may not altogether meet the difficulty, yet it is better than voting by list. But it ought to be applied uniformly. Why should thirty- six boroughs be exempted from its operation ? The electors in these places will be favoured with double votes, and the candidates will be penalised by double expenditure. What have these voters done to be so privileged, and their members to be so punished ? Splitting the constituencies will, in my judgment, tend to lessen, not to augment, party manipulation or dictation. And it is yet to be proved that by it vestrymen will be more readily returned than they are now by Caucus-ridden constituencies. But if they are, where is the mischief? Vestrymen, surely, are better than professional politicians who often pretend the public good to serve their own. The resident member will know the life of the place he sits for. He may have its prejudices, but he will also have its principles, and his municipal knowledge will enable him to contribute to the many vestry-like discussions that take place in the House of Commons, appropriate flavour, bias, and direction. His failings will be imperfect knowledge of Imperial subjects, and a craving after social recognition which may enthral him. But the carpet-bagger will be equally amenable to such blandishments ; while, in his anxiety for notoriety or place, he will efface his principles and sacrifice his constituents. Love of locality generates love of country, and is the ground-work of national sentiment. If a man is destitute of localism, his patriotism will be limp and lukewarm. We had better have stolid, uncul¬ tured burgesses, who will have the courage to blurt out unpalatable truths, than plausible adventurers who sail into Parliament by dexterously ad¬ justing their principles to the caprice of the hour, and tickling the ears of the voters with alluring claptrap. Those who enjoy the advantage of political detachment can survey with composure the pending competition for the franchises of the new electors. It is a case of Codlin versus Short. Like Hadji Baba, the rivals are trying how they can best turn the change to their advantage. One set of suitors attempts to dazzle its clietitele with vague schemes of sophisti¬ cated socialism ; and the other admonishes them that despotism and democracy are convertible terms, and that both are inimical to liberty. To those who have never been to sea, a squall seems a hurricane ; and to THE NEIV DEMO CRA C Y. 27s the timid, unventuresome Englishman, whose knowledge of politics is more superficial than his knowledge of trade, the propagation of theories that may weaken the rights of property is disquieting; but it need not be so. Their discussion is as old as Plato, and no nearer realization now than they were when the Athenian sage discoursed to admiring throngs in the olive groves of Academus. There is no fear of anarchy amongst a people possessed, almost to a man, of a passion for accumulation. If property be robbery, we have in England twenty odd million thieves, who will not readily refund. But to endow most amply with political power persons most poorly endowed with political knowledge, experience, and discipline, is suicidal, exclaim hypochondriacs. To have a Parlia¬ ment the express image of the people’s will, unless the people be wise, gives us no satisfaction, add sympathisers in chorus. And they both gloomily predict that as the Roman plebeians sold themselves to dema¬ gogues, and their liberties to dictators, so the unreflecting English labourers will sell their suffrages, and surrender their consciences, to scheming and seductive suppliants. Nonsense ! There is no warrant for such dyspeptic croaking. The men who thus discourse are either oppressed with political nightmare, or they have only seen their countrymen through a study window. There is nothing incongruous in the union of democratic doctrines with representative institutions. Ancient order and modern progress are not incompatible. Englishmen possess, intuitively, a temper of independence and a habit of self-restraint which will make them proof against both anarchy and autocracy, and will enable them to adjust themselves to transformations rendered indispensable by the invincible march of time and events. Our Cassandras smile incredulously when we discourse in this opti¬ mistic vein, and ask us to set our paeans to a lower key. But do not the facts justify us ? Our workmen are neither barbarians nor incendiaries. They are Englishmen first and operatives afterwards. They are always practical, sometimes provokingly prosaic, and they are instinctively Conservative. In both these qualities and defects, they only mirror the nation. It would improve us all if we had a little more poetry in our natures, and if we were not so wholly engulphed in the struggle for gain. We should be better, too, for a dash of Gallic logic and lucidity. The first effort of a reformer is usually to prevent further reformation. Having got what he wants, he is satisfied, and thinks others should be so also. Working men are more likely to resist change, or to be careless about it, than to espouse revolutionary ideas. Their modes of thought and habits of life have a tendency to become stereotyped. How tenaciously they cling to old ways, old tools, old methods of working ! How stoutly they stand up for the privileges of property in their class societies ! In sentiment, there is not a more sincere and consistent Conservative than a co-operative—trades-union—teetotaler. If you 276 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. doubt it, run athwart his cherished routine, and your incredulity will soon vanish. Shrewd, steady, plodding, you get in him the honourable union of intelligence and self-respect, with hard work. His mental vision may not be many-sided, but just as a horse with blinkers best picks his path and does not shy, so such a man walks straight, and sees clearly. He is not, probably never will, become a Conservative in a party sense, but the conception that underlies and controls his conduct is emphatically anti-anarchical. The urban householders have had votes for twenty years, but they have shown no disposition to use them in a sectional sense. They could have sent members of their own rank to Parliament, but they preferred capitalists and aspiring placemen—the two orders of men especially objectionable to genuine Jacobins. Their spokesmen are more Ministerial than Ministers, as they presume to defend proceedings that men in authority boggle at. Those who uneasily ask themselves whether we are about to witness an absolute, unbalanced, and permanent displacement of legislative authority, may console them¬ selves by recalling the suggestive experiences of 1841 and 1874. Probably, there never was a more unpopular Ministry than the Duke of Wellington’s. It was not merely disliked, it was execrated. But three years after its adherents had been hooted from every hustings in the land, they found themselves nearly strong enough to displace Lord Grey ; and after the dissolution they resumed office in front of a formidable majority. Notwithstanding the great achievements of the Liberals in the Parlia¬ ment of 1868, they were rudely displaced at the ensuing election. Public opinion is as shifty as the wind, and we will witness as great fluctuations in the future as in the past. For centuries, industrial combinations were tabooed. Unions were illegal, and unionists were outlawed. This induced unending recriminations and reprisals. The interdictions were removed, and the once-dreaded organizations became forthwith models of social decorum and political propriety. May we not experience a like result from the removal of the electoral ban under which the proletariat has lived ? May not the very evils anticipated from their enfranchise¬ ment be averted by it ? Experience seems to justify that conclusion. Human nature is the same in the factory as behind the counter, and you cannot alter it by Act of Parliament. There is no more reason to suppose the wage-earners will hold homogeneous political opinions than that the tradesmen will do so. Artisans and labourers have combined to secure the suffrage, as they all felt the exclusion ; but that having been got, the social distinctions between skilled and unskilled workmen, and the mental differences between man and man, will display themselves, and prevent the creation of an exclusively class opinion apart from, or hostile to, the rest of the community. Men are naturally conventional. Their notions are regulated by those generally prevalent. There may be a few who refuse to bend the knee to Baal, and who think and act for them- THE NEIV DEMO CRA C V. 2 77 selves. But they are a small minority. The majority glide along in peaceful mediocrity, adopting, without difficulty, the preponderating views, and just holding themselves on an easy level with their generation. This is the course with every order of men—workers as well as idlers. All available information goes to show that the rural voters will be as unaggressive as the urban ones have been. Their principles may be Liberal, but their instincts are Conservative. Previous Reform Bills gave a healthy impetus to the legislative machine. This one is likely to do so also, but no measures that may be adopted will subvert the Constitution. In a despotism, there is no remedy for injustice but force. But the elasticity of our institutions enables them to be adapted to the development of every kind of progress without civil convulsion. The expected legislation, therefore, will be in consonance with the traditions of the country and the requirements of a highly organised and expanding society. There is another side to the juste milieu picture, and this is it. The selfish prudence which contributes so much to secure social stability is itself a danger. Society is absorbed in its proprietary accretions and in search after pleasure. We run greater risk of being injured by the monotony engendered by the exclusive pursuit of corporal comfort, and the mental stagnancy created by its assured possession, than by the destructive designs of the people. The origin of all rights is a duty fulfilled. Instead of incessantly appealing to men’s selfishness, therefore, and preaching to them of their interest, our legislators might sometimes, with advantage, tell them of their duties, and try to call out their consciences. The only way of elevating society is by elevating man, and you cannot elevate man by making him a machine and concentrating his aspirations on his appetites. Material indepen¬ dence is the basis, but it is not the apex, of human dignity and develop¬ ment. A population absorbed in the feverish race for subsistence must be stunted and deformed. If it is to be raised, its soul, as well as its body, must be fed. Its physical wants are frequently but the manifestations of moral defects ancl mental delinquencies. The former can often be best supplied by healing the latter. Rome was ruined when its rulers came to care only for their suppers and their fish-ponds, and when its citizens came to crave only for idleness, largess of corn, and circensian games. States prosper just in the degree that they are morally strong. It is the moral that moulds the physical strength. All communities that have accepted the sordid and isolating creed of “food and amusements,” have rotted and perished. It has eaten like a gangrene into their existence. It is the Gordons, and not the Croesuses of the earth, that stir the pulses of mankind. It is not at the names of successful self-seekers, but at the names of men who have been martyrs for a faith, or who have consecrated with their blood the dogma of national liberty, that hearts glow with fervour. He who came from Nazareth propounded no projects of worldly 278 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. gratification or aggrandisement, but He laid down some simple maxims which have shaken empires and changed the face of the earth. The products of human history and activity—individual property and riches— are in themselves neither good nor bad, but they are the instruments by which we may work benefit or injury. They are not ends, but means to an end. Our duty is not to anathematise them, but to use them. Montesquieu’s savage cut the tree down to gather its fruit. We should train it, prune it, and pluck the fruit when ripe. We have to wed the ideal to the possible. We have not to re-create man, but to carry him forward ; to encourage him to develop harmoniously all his faculties ; to give to each according to his capacity, and to each capacity according to its works. We should not seek to impose passive uniformity, but to generate a sustaining spirit. We cannot do that by the barren utili¬ tarianism of the economist, or the deceptive Utopias of the cosmopolites. The one interferes too little, and the other too much. The former would deprive government of all initiative, and the latter] would give it a monopoly. Under the one, there would be no society, but an incoherent aggregation of individuals. Under the latter, society would be organised on an immovable model. There would be the bones and muscles, but intellect and imagination would be petrified. The form would be there, but the Promethean fire that gives life its vitality would be wanting. The Democracy of the future should have higher prototypes than either sloths or beavers. It should seek, not the highest happiness, but the highest nobleness, and happiness will follow as certainly as night the day. Man owes his growth to his conflict with difficulty. It is not what he has, but what he is, which constitutes his glory and his bliss. There is nothing so noble as courage and disinterestedness, and nothing so strong as the unconquerable purpose of duty. Different forms of Government tend to instil into their citizens different sentiments ; and it is argued by opponents that the cardinal principle of democracy—the right of every individual to act according to his will—is incompatible with the collective service of the country, and is the genesis of egotism and exclusiveness. But history does not support that contention. It shows that democracy induces a feeling of amity and fraternity amongst citizens, and disposes them to voluntary labour for the common weal such as no coercion can call forth. When men are taken into partnership in the State, they become guardians of its peace and promoters of its prosperity. The temper that is kindled by thoughts of independence and national honour leads them to repudiate the time-serving formula, “ Where I am well off, there is my country.” Our country is not a mere zone of territory, and it cannot be cast off as we cast off an old shoe. The ancient democra¬ cies were alternately lavish and parsimonious. They rapidly passed from foolish admiration to ingratitude towards their leaders, but on supreme occasions they impassioned their people with a love stronger THE NEW DEMOCRACY. 279 than death. In moments of civic agony and military dejection, the Athenians could be roused to generous and exalted sacrifices. When “despotism’s banded myriads” threatened their matchless city, the sacred associations of home and fatherland thrilled their souls, and stirred them to heroic devotion. England is as rich in blessings as ever Athens was, and her liberty is more comprehensive. It has been won by the toils and sanctified by the blood of generations of patriots. It has dowered her with beneficent activity and an enduring felicity. If it should be imperilled, neutrality would be treason. Democracy will best supply the stimulus and implant the elasticity requisite for its defence. I am for a robust, high-spirited, magnanimous Democracy—the Demo¬ cracy of Pericles, not of Kleon—a Democracy that will unfold the nation’s worthier nature and protect the highest properties of honesty and tiuth, and that will dissipate the moral inertness which at times grows parasitically over England’s energies and cramps her pristine vigour. 280 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. II. SPEECHES IN PARLIAMENT. XIII. THE QUEEN’S TITLE. [Mr. Disraeli moved on March 23, 1876, the third reading of a Bill to confer on the Queen the title of “ Empress of India,” and Mr. Cowen spoke against it.] T HE speech the House has just listened to from the Prime Minister was in some parts solemn and in some parts frivolous. I am sur¬ prised that he should again attempt to find an argument in so poor a precedent as the dedication of Spenser’s “ Faery Queen.” Perhaps, this is the first time that a grave constitutional change has been supported by arguments drawn from the most fanciful poem of one of our most fanciful poets. Spenser, it is true, made use of the word “ Empress.” But Spenser was a courtier. He was not only a servant of Queen Eliza¬ beth, but he received from her both a pension and property. The con¬ fiscated estate of a rebel Irish earl—Kilcolmac—in the county of Cork, was given by her to him ; and it was while residing there that the “ Faery Queen” was written. To put the matter mildly, Elizabeth had what the phrenologists call the bump of love of approbation largely developed. Whatever other merits she had, her admirers admit that she was a trifle vain. It was not unreasonable to suppose, therefore, that a courtier and a pensioner should feel anxious to acknowledge the gifts of his Royal mistress, by addressing her in a style acceptable to the Royal ear. A much greater man than Spenser, and a very much greater poet, travestied English history to please the prejudices and whims of the ambitious daughter of Hentry VIII. If Shakespeare could in this way try to win the favour of his sovereign, a weak and courtly man like Spenser surely might do it. But the action of either or both poets certainly ought not to be used as a justification for effecting political changes. The right hon. gentleman is fond of precedents. It is his love of THE QUEEN’S TITLE. 281 them that has led him to drag Spenser into his defence of this Bill. I will supply him with a precedent that he has overlooked, and which is more to the purpose. There was a King of England once who called himself “ Emperor.” Edgar the Saxon, commonly called “ the Peaceful,” took upon himself the double title of “ Basileus Imperator,” or King and Emperor of Britain. That was more than nine hundred years ago. Edgar wished to declare himself independent of the Holy Roman Empire and of the suzerainty of Henry the Fowler, who then occupied the Germanic throne. To show his independence, he assumed these two titles. If the Queen wish to adopt this new title, I submit that the precedent of Edgar is more relevant than that of an Elizabethan poet. I do not think, how¬ ever, that the country will be inclined to follow either precedent. The alteration made in the Bill during its progress through the House has modified, but it has not removed, popular hostility to it. All the opposition centres on the word “ Empress.” The title may amount to a very little, or it may amount to a great deal. The Prime Minister thinks that it will augment the prestige of the Oueen ; but every one has not the same passion for pageantry or the same fondness for cere¬ monial as he has. Others regard the change as a personal and family affair. They support the Bill because they believe it will be accept¬ able to the Court. If it be only intended by it to please the Queen, the Bill will be carried unanimously. But the question concerns the nation infinitely more than it does the Crown. Future generations are more interested in it than the present. It is not so much the direct or immediate, as it is the indirect and ultimate consequences, that we are afraid of. We live under a strictly guarded Constitution. Minis¬ ters wish us to engraft into our constitutional forms a military and autocratic name and style. In changing the title, they may unwittingly change the character of the Government. Phrases have a curious habit of transmuting themselves into facts. The liberties we enjoy have been too dearly bought, the privileges we rejoice in have been too stoutly fought for, to be surrendered, even in appearance. We can¬ not be too jealous of regal encroachments upon popular power and influ¬ ence. These fears are not entertained on the opposite side. If they were, the gentlemen sitting there would as resolutely defend every form of English liberty as I or any one would do. Although a majority are in favour of this Bill, two-fifths of the mem¬ bers of the House of Commons are opposed to it. The Government and their supporters may not—I believe do not—contemplate such con¬ sequences as I have described. But I am afraid, if they effect the suggested change, they will take the first step towards supplanting the historic title of “ Queen of England” by the tawdry, commonplace, and vulgar desig¬ nation of “ Empress.” What will be the effect of the dual title ? There are 32,000,000 of people in the United Kingdom, and 10,000,000 in the 282 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Colonies. In India, there are 240,000,000. If this change be made, one- fifth of Her Majesty’s subjects will address her as Queen and four-fifths as Empress. The communication between this country and India is large, and yearly increasing. Hindoos are constantly coming to Eng¬ land, and Englishmen are going in larger numbers to the East. When the Hindoos are at home, their ruler will be an Empress ; when they are in England, she will be a Queen. When Englishmen are at home, their ruler will be a Queen, and when they are in India, an Empress. Do hon. gentlemen think they can preserve this dual desig¬ nation ? They may carefully observe it on all State occasions ; use it in all royal proclamations, and embody it in a thousand Acts of Parliament ; but popular usage, which in matters of language is despotic, will abandon one title and retain the other. The title abandoned will be that which is, conventionally considered, inferior, and the one retained will be that which is considered superior. Charles V. was Emperor of Germany, King of Spain, and Lord of the Netherlands ; but who ever heard of him by any other name than that of Emperor Charles V. ? The Duke of Buccleuch sits and votes in the other House of the Legislature as the Earl of Doncaster, and the Duke of Argyll sits and votes as Baron Sun- dridge. The ducal titles are Scotch, but who ever knew them spoken cf otherwise than as the Duke of Buccleuch and the Duke of Argyll ? It is impossible to localise or limit a title; and when the Government promise to do that with the title of Empress of India, they promise an impossibility. The Prime Minister tells us that the title of Empress is not supe¬ rior to that of Queen. If it be not higher, it is lower ; if it be not lower, it is equal. The right hon. gentleman would not have the Queen to adopt an inferior title, and there would be no wisdom in encum¬ bering her style with another and merely equal prefix. He assures us that the mode of address of Her Majesty will not be altered ; that it is “ Her Majesty the Queen ” now, and that it will be the same in future. He has assured us further that the Queen’s children and grandchildren will not attach the word “ Imperial” as well as “Royal Highness ” to their names. This maybe correct; but the Royal personage who stands nearest the throne will be affected by the change. He bears a title that recalls some of the most touching and memorable incidents in English history. Recent bearers of the title have not sustained the character for chivalry and courage that distinguished its original pos¬ sessor. Still, the title is, pre-eminently, a British one. It is woven into the web of our national life ; and no man, whatever his politics or his party, would like to see it abandoned, and the meaningless designation with which a deposed French usurper tricked out his son adopted in its place. It is for purely Indian reasons that this change is said to be desired. No one contends that the people of this country wish it. THE QUEEN’S TITLE. All the arguments assigned for the alteration are drawn from Indian sources. But the House has no information that it is wished for, even asked for, by India. Ministers refuse to supply us with any official intelligence upon the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, indeed, says that articles have appeared in Indian newspapers advocating the change. I know something of the Indian press, and I have never seen any such articles, though we all have seen a large number of articles in the English press against the Bill. The right hon. gentleman knows the value of evidence as well as any man, and he must have a poor supply when he is compelled to rely upon such flimsy material as leading articles from Indian newspapers. He has read a petition from landowners in the province of Oude suggesting a prefix to the title of Queen. Hon. gentlemen near me who took part in the discussion on the Irish Coercion Bill last Session will appreciate the force of the remark, when I say that Oude stands towards the rest of India in much the same position as the County of Westmeath stands towards the rest of Ireland. Would the Government consent to change the title, or alter the duties, of the meanest official in the household of the Viceroy upon the requisition of a few landowners from a county which was accused—I do not say rightly —of being the last resting-place of Ribbonism ? If they would not make such a change upon such a requisition in a small country, surely they ought not to make it on so slight a pretext in a large country, and where millions of persons are interested in it. We have heard a good deal of India during these discussions. Men who have spent their lives there are the most unwilling to hazard any opinion as to the thought of the Indian people. We can easily become acquainted with its geography and its natural history, with the produce of its soil and its climate ; but the Hindoo mind is to Euro¬ peans a sealed book. Lord Salisbury, speaking in the House of Lords a few days ago, said that the greatest obstacle to English rule in India was our ignorance of the natives. The Hindoos are the inheritors of a peculiar, a wonderful, and an illustrious civilization. They are proud of it. They look upon Englishmen as powerful parvenus whom circum¬ stances compel them to submit to, but whom, in their hearts, they despise. The Hindoos, too, are a conquered people. They have all the feelings and the characteristics of conquered races. They are suspicious and distrustful of their conquerors. The passions and the prejudices of the people are only intensified in their princes. Whenever an Indian prince contemplates a conspiracy, or engages in a plot against our rule, he is always studiously courteous, conciliatory, and deferential to English residents and officials. As far as the evidence in our possession proves anything, it proves that the Indian people are supremely indifferent about the title of the Queen. And as for the princes, if they hold any opinion at all on the subject, it is likely to be hostile to the change. They will see, 284 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. or think they see, in it, some increase of power by England, and some further decrease of their own authority. The hon. and learned member for Sheffield tells us that the word “ Emperor ” has reference to empire, and is not derived from the Latin word “ Imperator.” I don’t think so. “ Imperator ” was the name given, in the first instance, by Roman soldiers on the eve of victory to their successful generals. The man who had led the Roman legions to triumph was on the field of battle proclaimed an “ Imperator.” This title at first was used after the proper name, as “Vespasian Imperator,” for example. Many Roman generals were repeatedly proclaimed “ Im- peratores.” Augustus, according to Tacitus, was more than twenty times made “ Imperator.” In the latter days of the Roman power a new meaning was attached to the word. It was then used by the rulers of Rome much in the same way as it is in modern times. But Rome was then decrepit and declining. She had been emasculated by excessive wealth, and weakened by excessive territory. I do not wish to institute an unpleasant parallel, but there is some resemblance between this country now and Rome when she first adopted the title of “ Emperor.” England has now a plethora of wealth. She has dominions in every quarter of the globe, and is following the Roman expedient of taking a pretentious title for her ruler. I trust the change does not indicate the commence¬ ment of the downward career of the power of Britain, as like circum¬ stances and changes marked the fall of Rome. The title of “ King” is of purely Saxon origin. It was the name given by free peoples to their chief-magistrates. The monarchy of England rested primarily on hereditary descent; but it was partly elective. The Parliament of England gave the Crown of these realms to the descen¬ dants of Sophia of Hanover, under specified restrictions and strongly guarded limitations. Ours is emphatically a limited monarchy, and the people share with the monarch the rule of the nation. To fasten on to the Constitution a military and autocratic figurehead may not be con¬ trary to the letter of the Act of Settlement, but it is certainly contrary to its spirit. Right hon. gentlemen opposite have told us that this is a question of sentiment. It is. Half of human life is sentiment. Existence would be a dull and dreary drudgery, unless it were illuminated by some ray of hope, and enlivened by some gleam of generous emotion. Men are much more easily moved by their sympathies than their convictions. They are more earnestly roused to action by their passions than by their interests. The men who are not conscious of this have only half learnt the art of statemanship. The Prime Minister has told us that the throne of this country depends for its support on the spirit of the people. I agree with him. The monarchy does not rest on soldiers’ bayonets or policemen’s batons ; it does not even depend on law, but on LICENSING BOARDS. 285 the good sense and right feeling of the population. But it is an error to suppose that there is any fanatical regard for monarchy in the abstract. The doctrine of Divine right was killed on the scaffold with King Charles, and went out with the Commonwealth. Englishmen support the mon¬ archy because they know that they enjoy under it a large amount of well-ordered liberty. The country, under its guidance, is prosperous and the people are contented. But if an attempt be made to drag into our Constitution the forms and principles of Imperialistic socialism, hon. gentlemen opposite will soon discover that the superstition of Royalty has no real hold on the nation. [The Bill was read a third time by a majority of 75—209 voting for and 134 against it.] XIV. LICENSING BOARDS. [Mr. Cowen, on Wednesday, May 17, 1876, moved the second reading of a Bill for establishing Licensing Boards throughout England and Wales.] The object of the Bill before the House is simple, soon stated, and easily understood. It proposes to vest the power of granting, withholding, and transferring licenses for the sale of intoxicating drinks now enjoyed by the magistrates, in a Board elected by and composed of ratepayers. The constituency will be all persons who are rated, or liable to be rated, for the relief of the poor. The qualification for members will be rateability and residence, and the jurisdiction of the Board will be co-extensive with the Poor-Law Unions. The elections will be triennial, the voting by ballot, and each ratepayer will give one vote for each candidate. The cost of the elections and the working of the Board will be defrayed out of the local rates. The number of members of the Board will vary according to populations, never being less than five, nor more than twenty-one. Against the decision of the Board there will be no appeal. All the licensing powers that the magistrates now possess will be handed over to the Boards without curtailment and without addition ; but there will be no interference with the ordinary licensing laws. The regulations that now exist with respect to the opening and closing of public-houses and the police restrictions will be the same under the Bill as they are at present. There are many other details in the Bill, regula¬ ting the elections for, and the working of, the Boards, but in none of these details are there any principles involved. They are merely matters of convenience and arrangement ; and if the Bill should be so fortunate as to be read a second time, these can be altered in Committee as the House thinks fit. 286 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. The vital principle of the Bill is the transference of the power of granting licenses from a class to the people—from an irresponsible to a representative body. The reasons for the Bill are two-fold. It is an act of justice to the ratepayers, and it will mitigate the evils of intemperance. Men of all parties, classes, and creeds are agreed that drunkenness is the curse of our age and country. No sane man will attempt to apologise for, or excuse, much less defend the vice. The subject has been written about so extensively, and spoken of so often, that it is almost impossible to give expression to a new thought upon it, or to clothe an old thought in fresh language. Medical men, judges, police authorities, all persons, indeed, interested in the administration of criminal justice, Poor-Law guardians, and the excellent men and women who are daily concerning themselves with the social improvement of the people, are all agreed that most of the pauperism, much of the crime, and a great portion of the insanity in the country are due to the excessive use of intoxicating drinks. It has been estimated that two-thirds of the pauperism, three-fourths of the crime, and half the insanity are thus occasioned. The indirect evils of intemperance are scarcely less than the direct miseries it inflicts. There is not a household in the land that has not felt its blighting and baneful influence. The wisest, the ablest, and the best amongst us have suffered either by themselves or through their connections from its demoralising and degrading contaminations. We are all anxious to discover some remedy that will, if not remove, at least moderate, the injuries inflicted on the nation by intoxication. Drunkards do not suffer themselves only for their vices, they entail suffering and expenditure on others. Poor-houses, lunatic asylums, and gaols have to be erected, upheld, and the inmates maintained by the sober and thrifty section of the community. It is difficult to calculate the exact amount thrown on the rates by this selfish and self-destroying custom. It has been customary, of late years, to include in the poor-rate almost every new local charge that is imposed ; but, making all necessary' deductions, it is calculated that the sober and thrifty ratepayers pay £ 20 , 000,000 a-year for the direct and indirect consequences of drunken¬ ness. On these two points—that intemperance is an evil and a conse¬ quent expense to the ratepayers—I believe I shall carry the united support of hon. members. My third point may not meet with such general approval. But experi¬ ence shows that the excessive and unnecessary multiplication of public- houses is productive of drunkenness. Committees of this House have often examined into the causes of intemperance and the best means for its cure. The all but unanimous opinion of the witnesses called before those Committees is that excessive traffic in drink is productive of drunkenness. The Church of Scotland, some years ago, appointed a Committee of their Assembly to make a like investigation. Their report LICENSING BOARDS. 287 was to the same effect and equally decisive. The Lower House of Con¬ vocation of the Church of England more recently inquired into the question. A mass of evidence was collected from all parts of the country and from all classes of men. Again, the all but unanimous opinion was, that you could tell the amount of drunkenness in a place by knowing the number of public-houses. As far as evidence can justify an opinion, therefore, it shows that, with extended traffic, we get extended intem¬ perance. My argument is this—that inasmuch as public-houses cause drunkenness, as drunkenness causes crime, pauperism, and insanity, and as these in their turn throw a heavy tax on the ratepayers, the ratepayers ought to possess the power of regulating and controlling the licensing authority. By abolishing public-houses, you would not necessarily abolish drunkenness. A man can drink in his own house, even to excess. No one has ever proposed that the law should interfere with the exercise of this individual right. Intemperance arising in this way is beyond the reach of legislation. All that has ever been proposed is to deal with open and public drinking. In asking that the power of licensing should be vested in the people, I am only asking for the extension of a principle that is acted upon in all other local institutions. The men who pay the educational rate vote for members of School Boards ; the men who pay the sanitary and municipal taxes vote for the members of Local Boards and Town Councils. I contend that the men who pay the drunkards’ rate should control the social mechanism that manufactures drunkards. The licensing authorities at present are the magistrates. I object to them possessing the power for two reasons. First, because they are drawn from a class not acquainted with the social requirements of the people ; and second, because they are irresponsible. I have no wish to speak harshly of the unpaid magistracy, but no one will deny that un¬ qualified men are often put on the Commission of the Peace. Before a man is made a Justice, it is not necessary for him to have any judicial training or legal knowledge. If he has a given social standing in his town or county, if his personal character is moderately reputable, and if he has been a more or less active partisan of either of our great political parties, he has no difficulty in being raised to the local Bench. In America, they say “ to the victors belong the spoils and when a change of Government takes place every officer, from the President of the Republic to the most obscure postmaster, is changed. We do these things better than that in this country, for, whatever changes of Government we have, the permanent officials are not altered. But whenever our political parties change sides in this House, there mysteriously arises from all parts of the country a demand for an increase in the borough magis¬ tracy. It is amusing to note how additional magistrates are always required just after an alteration in the Government has been effected. The Conservatives came into office in 1866, and in less than three months 288 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. the magistracy in the county of Lancashire was increased one-fourth. Perhaps this accession to the unpaid Justices had something to do with the subsequent Conservative reaction in that county. There are upwards of 3,000 borough magistrates in England and Wales. About one-half of that number have been created within the last ten years, and 300 of them were made in 1874, within seven or eight months after the present Government got office. The late Sir Arthur Helps, shortly before his death, said that he could not recollect during his long official career a case of political jobbery. The late Clerk to the Council was not an able but an amiable and unsuspecting man, and I fear his opinion of the absolute purity of our political parties would not be confirmed by any one who has been engaged in the rough-and-tumble Parliamentary life of the last quarter of a century. The Tories alone do not use their power for party purposes. The other side is equally to blame. The only difference between them is that the Liberals have been in office almost continuously for over a generation, and their appoint¬ ments have been spread over a length of time, whilst the Tories have usually made their in lumps. But whatever may be the political pro¬ clivities of the men before they are put on the Commission of the Peace, when in office I believe they fairly and conscientiously strive to do their duty. I shouldnot, however, like totrust tothe impartiality of a countybench when a game case is submitted for its consideration. Nor should I place much reliance on the fairness of either borough or county justices, when called upon to adjudicate on questions arising out of trade or democratic organizations. Parliament, too, has taken the same view of the magisterial character, for in the Labour Laws Bill of last session the powers of the jus¬ tices were restricted by special enactment. The doubt of magisterial im¬ partiality in game-law and trade cases applies also to licensing. A license is granted upon the theory that the public require it. The require¬ ment of the people is a very elastic term. It can be stretched either way without any great charge of partiality being sustained. I do not accuse magistrates generally of granting licenses improperly, but I do say that, without proper consideration and often for the purpose of oblig¬ ing a friend or serving a partisan, they allow the interests of the public to suffer. Their authority in this respect has been curtailed by the con¬ tinuous criticism of recent years, but they are still amenable to political and personal influences. It is a settled point of our Jurisprudence that judicial authority shall be dissevered from the exercise of patronage. Judges have the appointment of their own assistants and clerks, but, beyond that, they have no power to dispense offices of trust or value. The patronage of the nation is vested in the responsible Government, who have to account for it to Parliament, and in turn to the country. In this way, a wholesome restraint is put upon the exercise of this privilege. Although this is the general principle, we depart from it in the power we LICE.XSLXG BOARDS. 289 give the justices. A license is a piece of property. It is worth ^200, ^£300, ^400, or ^500, according to circumstances. The law, as it now stands, enables the men who have received their appointments as magis¬ trates for political services to give this valuable property to their friends and adherents. I propose to withdraw' this authority from them, so as to prevent the suspicion of corruption in persons administering a department of the criminal law. But the magistrates cannot only enhance the value of one man’s property, they can also, by conferring a license, decrease the value of his neighbour’s. I recollect a case which occurred quite recently illustrative of this point. A piece of property had to be sold for the pur¬ poses of a trust. It was put up for auction, and a certain sum was bid for it, but not being sufficient, the property was bought in. In three or four months afterwards, it was again put up, and the price obtained was less by .£800 than what had been previously offered. The cause of this difference is easily explained. In the meantime, the magistrates had granted a license for a spirit bar in the immediate neighbourhood. By adding this license, they more than quadrupled the rental of the owner of the tavern, while they sent the value of his neighbour’s house down by the amount I have named. It may be said that the same influence can be used by, and the same objection urged against, the exercise of this authority by licensing boards as is urged against its exercise by the magistrates. Undoubtedly this may be the case. The members of the licensing board would not be in¬ fallible. They would be amenable to some of the influences the magis¬ tracy are controlled by. But there would be this difference between the two. The magistrates are an irresponsible body. They are nominally accountable to the Secretary of State, and can be dismissed by the Lord Chancellor for any serious breach of law or duty ; but this power is very seldom exercised. A man once a magistrate is always a magistrate. He is in office for life, and irresponsible. Members of licensing boards, on the other hand, will be directly responsible to the people. If they fail to discharge their duty honestly, when they come for re-election they will be dismissed. The cardinal difference between the two bodies, therefore, is that the magistrates are irresponsible and the boards will be respon¬ sible bodies. In that distinction, there is much involved. The magistrates, too, are drawn from a special section of society. They are all members of one class. The theory on which licenses are granted is that they are necessary for the accommodation of the public. The magistrates are members of that section of the community that do not use these houses, and do not want them. They live, for the most part, in the country or in the suburbs. They, too, keep licensed houses as far from their dwellings as pos¬ sible. Public-houses are set down in the most densely populated localities ; and surely the men who live there would be better acquainted with their requirements than the persons who reside at a distance from them. 20 290 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO IVEH, M.P. The magistrates have had the power of granting licenses for 300 years, and how have they exercised it ? We judge a tree by its fruits, and do not expect figs from thorns or grapes from thistles. What have been the fruits of this magisterial licensing ? During the last fourteen years the population of England has increased 18 per cent. During the same period, violent assaults have increased 48 per cent.; breaches of the peace, 128 per cent. ; misdemeanours, 37 per cent. ; prostitution, 36 per cent. ; and drunkenness, no per cent. Along with this increase of in¬ temperance and crime, we have had a large increase in the number of places for the sale of intoxicating drinks. In 1829, 50,422 places were opened for the sale of drink. At that time, the population of England and Wales was under 14,000,000. In 1869, we had 135,720 places open for the sale of drink, and the population was under 23,000,000. I think, whatever else they might say about the magisterial licensing system, we can with truth affirm that during its exercise, even with the modern restraints that have been put upon it, there has been an enormous development of the traffic in strong drink, and along with it a large addition to the crime of the nation. In asking for the transference of the licensing from the magistrates to to the local authorities, I am simply asking for the restoration of an old constitutional privilege. For hundreds of years, the powers of granting and controlling licenses in this country was vested in the local autho¬ rities. It was only in the reign of Edward VI. that the magistrates were entrusted with the powers they now possess. The principle of Local Option has been adopted with advantage in different parts of America. I am not referring to the law in Maine, but merely to the exercise of licensing powers by municipal and parochial authorities. In Canada, and in two of the Australian Colonies, the same authority has been granted. In Sweden, too, an interesting licensing experiment has lately been tried. It vested the licensing authority in the municipal councils in boroughs and in the parochial authorities in rural districts. In this country, the same principles were once assented to. That the House of Commons, more than forty years ago debated and adopted by a large majority the identical principle that I am now contending for, hon. members may not be aware. But such is the fact. In 1835, Lord Melbourne’s Administration introduced into Parliament the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill. In that Bill the transference of the powers of licensing from the magistrates to the town councils was provided for. Clauses 52 and 53 of Lord Melbourne’s Bill were :— “ Clause 52. The Council of every borough to which a separate Com¬ mission of the Peace shall have been granted, as hereinafter mentioned, or a Committee of the Council to be specially appointed by the Council in that behalf, shall hold a special meeting in the month of September in every year for granting licenses to persons to keep victualling houses, LICENSING BOARDS. 291 ale houses, and canteens, and to sell ale, beer, and all other exciseable liquors by retail within such borough, and after September 1st, 1836, all such licenses within any such borough granted otherwise than by the Council of such Borough or such Committee of the Council as last aforesaid, shall be null and void.” “ Clause 53. That after September 1st, 1836, the councillors of every such borough shall act with all the powers ; and subject to all the dis¬ qualifications and penalties in the matter of granting such licenses enacted concerning Justices of the Peace by the Act of George IV. for amending the law for regulating the licensing of all houses in England, and preventing disorders therein. The Town Clerk shall act in the same manner as prescribed to Clerks of the Justices, and all provisions of the said Licensing Act of George IV. shall apply to the licenses to be granted by the Council.” This Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Lord John Russell, and Lord Howick, the present Earl Grey, was associated with him in the conduct of the measure. In introducing it, Lord Russell made the following remarks :— “ Then, with respect to another part of this measure which refers to what I consider a part of the police of the town—and a part which has often led to very great abuses—I mean the power of granting ale-house licenses, it is proposed that this power shall not be vested in any of the magistracy. We think that it ought not to be mixed up or confounded with the duty of administering justice, but that it should be left to the Council or to a Committee of the Council. I think that the Council,, being elected by the ratepayers, under the popular mode of election now proposed, although, no doubt, many of the members may have a desire to favour their friends or promote their own private views as a body, will always act under popular control, and be less likely to abuse the power of granting licenses than magistrates, in whose case the robe of justice is sometimes employed to cover a great enormity of abuses.” [3 Hansard xxviii. 555.] I beg the House to remember that these observations are not mine, but those of the distinguished Whig statesman who was the author of the Reform Bill. The Corporation Bill passed the second reading with¬ out a division. Conspicuous amongst its supporters was the late Lord Derby, who gave it his emphatic approval. As soon as the measure came for consideration in Committee, however, the late Sir James Graham proposed an amendment to the clause relating to licenses. He was not favourable to the absolute transfer of licensing power to the councils, and proposed to give to the county magistrates concurrent jurisdiction with the corporate authorities. His amendment received a qualified support. In the debate on the amendment Lord Howick made a rather remark¬ able speech, from which 1 will quote the following passage :— 292 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, ALP. Lord Ho wick said, “It appeared to him that his right hon. friend the member for Cumberland did not properly perceive the view upon which His Majesty’s Government had devolved the power of granting licenses to the town councils. The difference between the views of his right hon. friend and those of the Government was this, that while he con¬ tended that the power of licensing was a judicial function he (Lord Howick) contended that it was a power which had no relation whatever with the judicial function of the magistracy. The right hon. baronet said that the Crown was the fountain of all authority and the chief con¬ servator of the peace, and that all the authority of the magistrates was therefore derived from the Crown. Now, one of the great abuses of the present state of the magistracy was that it not only was without responsi¬ bility to the Crown, but was beyond the control of the people. The Government thought that the magistrates ought, in the first place, to be chosen upon the recommendation of the people, but should derive their power from the Crown. It was upon that principle—a principle which he conceived to be perfectly in accordance with the principles of the Constitution—that they had introduced this provision. If the distribu¬ tion of alehouse licenses were left in the hands of the magistrates, it might be made the vehicle of great political power, which would pro¬ bably be exercised for political purposes. The power was certainly an invidious function, but it was necessary that it should be placed in some hands or other ; and they thought it most important that the hands in which it was placed should not be those of the magistrates who had the administration of criminal justice. They thought, in short, that the administration of criminal justice and political power should be kept as far separate as possible. And it was upon that account that they took the granting of ale-house licenses out of the hands of the justices. He admitted that the contrary had been the late practice by the Statute Law, but he contended that it was not so by the principles of the Con¬ stitution. It was only subsequent to the Revolution that the power of licensing was first given to the magistrates. His firm belief was that it would be of less mischief to the people themselves if the power of licensing were not united with the administration of justice.” [3 Hansard xxix. 212 13.] I again beg the House to understand that the observations I have just read are not mine, but Earl Grey’s. The late Mr. Edward Baines, the Member for Leeds, Mr. Parker, the Member for Sheffield, and other gentlemen warmly supported the views of Lord Howick, and said harder things against the magistracy than I now dare to use. Even Lord Sandon declared, in the same discussion, that the publicans were the most dangerous and objectionable political party in the State. Upon a division, Sir James Graham’s amendment received only 166 votes, while the clause proposed by Lord Howick obtained 211, and was LICENSING BOARDS. 293 thus adopted by a majority of 45 in a House of 377 members. It is not generally known at the present day that Parliament has, by such a substantial majority, adopted the principle of Local Option. A leading objection to the Permissive Bill is that it has never been supported by a statesman of repute or influence. But is it not a fact that men of weight and influence never espouse a cause until it has become too strong for them to resist? It is always obscure men, men of little worldly influence, who champion unpopular truths. They were fishermen and workmen who first embraced the doctrines of Christianity. The abolition of slavery and of the slave trade, the advocacy of political reform, of free trade, and our great fiscal changes were all, in the first instance, battled for by obscure men below the gangway. It was only when these principles had been popularised, when the people had been educated to a knowledge of their truth and a recognition of their justice,, that the dignified occupants of the two upper benches lent them their countenance. The leaders on the front forms—men of weight and influence—decry and disparage unpopular causes till they become too strong for them. They then adopt them, and usually ignore the services of those who had advocated them in the day of doubt and diffi¬ culty. But whatever objection may be taken to the Permissive Bill on the ground of uninfluential support, no such objection can be taken to the Bill before the House. It has the advantage or disadvantage of having had its principles adopted by all the leading Whig statesmen for the last forty years. It has been sustained by the most distinguished names that modern Parliamentary life has furnished. There are only two objections, as far as I can discover, to it. It is- said that Licensing Boards will entail a heavy cost upon the ratepayers. That is a feeble objection, because if the Boards accomplish the objects that are contemplated, the expense will be a small matter indeed. It is a mistake, however, to suppose that any large outlay will attend the creation of the Boards. The working expenses will be the same then as the working expenses of the licensing magistrates are at present. The justices’ clerk will render the same service to the Board as he does now to the justices. The expense of the elections will necessarily depend upon the size of the Union. I have made inquiries of persons w'ho have knowledge of the subject, and I find that the probable expenditure such contests would entail upon the ratepayers would range from a farthing to a penny in the pound. This is a mere estimate. It may be more or it may be less. If it is a penny in the pound for three years, that can¬ not be termed excessive taxation. A man who paid rates upon ,£100 would in three years, be called upon to pay 8s. qd. The expense, therefore, would not be serious. But the elections will produce agitation, say some. This may be at once admitted. I he agitation, however, will be useful. At every election, 2 94 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , d/./h the question of intemperance will be fully discussed in all the Unions of the kingdom. The injury that drunkenness inflicts on the community and on individuals will be pointed out, and the elections may be made a means of inculcating the advantages of sobriety. This would be not the least of the benefits arising from the establishment of Boards. Agitation purifies the mental atmosphere, and clears the moral perception of mankind. The surface of a still and placid lake may be pleasant to look upon ; but if its waters be stagnant, they contain within them the seeds of disease and of destruction. On the other hand, the moun¬ tain stream that rushes ruggedly over rocks, and beneath hollows carries along with it in its current health, life, and freshness. Fear of agitation ! Agitation has been the very stay and bulwark of our national prosperity. If you wish to see the evil effects of the want of agitation, look across the channel. For more than twenty years, the French people have been deprived of the right of agitation. The press was fettered, and public meetings forbidden. They were allowed to laugh, dance, and be meiry, to make money and grow rich ; but they were not permitted to take part in the practical affairs of the nation. For a time, this succeeded ; but the inevitable explosion took place ; and the world read in the ruined cities, the burning hamlets and the desolated plains of mutilated and dis¬ membered France, a lesson on the folly—the stupendous folly—of trying to restrain the natural and necessary right of agitation, which every people should enjoy. In the mad and sorrowful excesses of the Commune, they learned the protest of the French against the unreasoning curtailment of free discussion. Lack of agitation begets indifference, and indifference begets corruption. It will be a fatal day for England when free and full agitation of all questions of popular interest and right is abandoned. But the persons who raise the cry against agitation may not mean political movements. They have in view the injury that agitation is likely to do to the liquor traffic. The first condition of success in commerce is security ; and publicans feel that if the existence of their licenses be in¬ secure, their trade may be diminished. There is force in the argument. But the publicans should remember that they enjoy a monopoly which brings them wealth, and influence, and political power. For that monopoly they must pay. Their trade, too, inflicts a heavy tax upon the community. Policemen have to be kept to protect and defend their customers. Asylums and workhouses have to be built to provide for them in their old age. When the publicans have drawn away their brains and their fortunes, they throw them for support upon the public. It is only right, therefore, and natural that the people who have to pay for the conse¬ quences of this traffic, should exercise over it a wholesome and proper control. Some urge that the licensing power should not be given to special boards, but to Town Councils. To this I have no objection. It acknow- LICENSING BOARDS. 295 ledges the right of the ratepayers to control the licensing, and that is what I am contending for. But members of Town Councils have already as many duties as they can properly discharge, and every year more are being thrown upon them. Men are elected to be members of Town Councils in consequence of their knowledge of local sanitary and muni¬ cipal affairs. If you vest in them the licensing power, you will in¬ troduce an element of unnecessary conflict. In places where the licensing party was strong, the licensing would overshadow all else. In others, where it was weak, it would be ignored. The question would be judged and settled often by side issues. This would be objectionable. It is quite possible to conceive a man very fit to be a member of the Town Council, and yet very unfit to be a member of a Licensing Board ; and, vice versa, a man might be a good member of a Licensing Board and a bad Town Councillor. Another objection to the Town Council is that they exist only in boroughs, and if you have to extend these licensing powers to counties, you must create special boards. Boards of Guardians are spread over both town and counties ; and it has been suggested that they would be acceptable licensing authorities. But a better suggestion still is that, instead of handing over the power to either guardians or councillors, you should have a board composed of representatives from all the Local Boards. The School Board might send two members ; the Guardians two; the Council two; the Local Board two; the Burial Board two ; and so forth. A board of this kind could easily be chosen. I do not think, however, that any one of these proposals is so good as tha in the Bill, namely, that of a distinct and separate board for the express purpose of granting licenses. Any one of the schemes, however, would be better than the existing one. The best would be distinct boards, and the next best would be a board selected from representatives of the other boards. The cry that has recently been got up against the multiplicity of local boards I do not attach much weight to. If the duties of the separate bodies could be merged in a general assembly, there would be a certain benefit ; but public bodies, having only one class of questions to consider, fulfil their duties better than they could do if they had one large body, without the division of labour that now obtains. The difficulty of numerous elections might be overcome by having them all on one day in the year. We now have our municipal elections in November, Guardian elections in spring, and our School Board elections at all times. If the whole of these could be arranged to take place at the same time, the expenses would be lessened, the interest would be increased, and the division of work would be maintained. Amongst these contests, the election of members of the Licensing Boards might also take place. Some hon. gentlemen seem to believe that this Bill would increase, rather than decrease, the number of public-houses. That might be so. 2 go SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO IVEH, M.P. No one can fortell. There is nothing more difficult than political pro¬ phecy. Whatever the gentlemen on this side of the House may say, there is no doubt we were astonished to find that the first election under household suffrage and the ballot returned a large Conservative majority. Possibly, the establishment of Licensing Boards may multiply the number of taverns. The effect of this, however, would be to rouse the sober and the intelligent in the nation to greater efforts for temperance reform. Whatever the result might be, the people, by the Licensing Board system, would have the control of their social future in their own hands. They would have the power, and I believe they will use it wisely and well. The true way to help the people is to teach them how to help themselves, and to throw upon them the full responsibility of their own actions. [The Bill was rejected by a majority of 165 ; 109 members voting for, and 274 against it.] XV THE RELEASE OF THE FENIAN PRISONERS. [Mr. Cowen supported a motion for the release of the Fenian prisoners made in the House of Commons on the 1st of August, 1876.] I DID not intend to take part in this discussion, but the extraordinary speech just delivered by the hon. and gallant gentleman opposite demands a reply from an English member. It is not sufficient that the only protest against it should come from Irishmen. I support the reso¬ lution, not only out of consideration for the prisoners, but for England. While I sympathise sincerely with the unfortunate men in their prolonged imprisonment, it is right to recollect that they were members of the Fenian Society ; that the aim of that organization was the dismem¬ berment of the United Kingdom, and that they sought to achieve their object by force of arms. When the prisoners committed them¬ selves to that enterprise, they knew, or at least they ought to have known, that they imperilled their property, their liberty, and their lives. If they had been successful, they would have been hailed as heroes. As they failed, they have been treated as outlaws. A hundred years ago, George Washington led an insurrection against British rule, and was successful. Shortly after, Robert Emmett attempted to do for Ireland what Washington had done for the United States, but he failed. Emmett was as good a man as Washington. Yet, history describes Washington as a patriot and denounces Emmett as a traitor. The English Govern¬ ment strangled him, and his remains still lie in an “ unnamed and un¬ honoured grave.” In the difference shown to the memory of these two men, we learn the way in which society views a successful and unsuc- THE RELEASE OE THE FENIAN PRISONERS. 297 cessful treason. The Fenians knew the risks they ran when they lent themselves to the daring project of making Ireland an independent State. Any argument, therefore, founded upon personal consideration for them, I can easily conceive the Government will treat with indif¬ ference. But strong and, to my mind, irresistible reasons can be found, arising out of British considerations alone, why they should be released. It is a settled principle with all civilised Governments that when the excite¬ ment occasioned by insurrectionary movements has subsided, generous consideration should be extended to the persons who have engaged in them. Statesmen in all countries have acknowledged that such a course of action is judicious. The late Administration admitted this when they released the chief prisoners. But the manner in which they declared a partial amnesty was peculiar. They freed the leaders of the insurrection, but retained the private soldiers. This course was not only unwise, but unfair. I do not know that such was the case ; but it is easy to conceive that some of the men now in prison were victims and some dupes. But be this as it may, if there are to be degrees of punishment, the men who fomented and directed the rising were clearly greater offenders than those who were simply followers. The men who were released, I know, were civilians, and those who are retained soldiers. This is supposed to warrant different degrees of punishment. It is alleged that soldiers are under exceptional bonds to be loyal, that they take a special oath, and that the breach of that oath ought to entail upon them special punish¬ ment. I deny that an ordinary citizen is under less obligation to be loyal and orderly than a soldier. But admitting, for argument’s sake, that the position of the Govern¬ ment in this matter is correct, I wish to call your attention to the fact that if these military men are exceptionally guilty, they have been excep¬ tionally punished. Most of the Fenian prisoners were arrested in 1865— 6-7. In iS69and 1870, the civilians were released. The soldiers have thus been double the length of time in penal servitude that their asso¬ ciates were. If the contention of the Government be that the men connected with the army should be more sharply dealt with, that end has been attained by their being confined twice as long as their fellow- insurgents. But I repeat I do not admit that soldiers are under any special bond as to their loyalty; and I challenge the Government to show that, in any instance, rebel soldiers have been treated differently from rebel civilians. No one will contend that a soldier is under a stronger oath than a member of Parliament, and yet Mr. Smith O’Brien came to that table, took the oath as a member of this House, went back to Ireland, and attempted to do identically what the Fenians did. He was arrested, tried, found guilty, and transported ; yet, he was not treated more 29S SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. severely than his brother-exiles, who were not members of this assembly. The case of the Duke of Marlborough has been referred to. One week he was in the pay and service of King James, and the next he was in the camp and under the orders of the Prince of Orange. I will not, however, cite individual instances. I appeal to honourable gentlemen on both sides of the House if it is not a fact that, from the battle of Edgehill to the battle of Culloden, there were not hundreds of men who at different times took the oath of allegiance to the Stuarts, to the Commonwealth, to the partisans of the Rebellion of 1688, and to the Hanoverians, and that those oaths, when broken, did not entail upon those who had taken them extra punishment in consequence of their connection with the army. Indeed the very opposite was the practice, and soldiers were treated with more consideration than civilians. But this is the common practice. Look at other countries. Take the case of the President of the French Republic. That antique example of Royalist chivalry, the Count Chambord, has described Marshal MacMahon as a modern Bayard, “without fear and without reproach.” Yet, it is notorious that this same soldier has taken the oath of allegiance to every known dynasty in France, and broken them all in turn. He has been Legitimist, Or- leanist, Bonapartist, and Republican in succession, and he has not been punished or discredited in consequence. But I will not enumerate personal instances, nor will I go back a hun¬ dred years to find illustrations. I will quote cases that come down to the present day, to the present Parliament and Government. 1 ask the attention of the Home Secretary to the facts I am going to recite. In 1831, an insurrection took place in Poland. Polish patriots attempted to do for their country what the Fenians attempted to do for Ireland. A secret political society was formed in Warsaw. Out of that society the insurrection took place. For a time, success attended the efforts of the insurgents, but in the end—- " Sarmatia fell, unwept, without a crime." After the suppression of the rebellion, many rebel Poles sought refuge in France, Switzerland, and England. The French Government voted for their relief £ 100,000 ; the Swiss Republicans gave them help propor¬ tionate to their means ; and the English Parliament, on the motion of the late Lord Dudley Stuart and the present Earl of Harrowby, voted sums of money for the maintenance of the destitute exiles. In the course of three years, the sum of ,£87,000 was voted for the relief of these men. At first, the money was given temporarily ; ultimately, it was settled on the reci¬ pients as permanent pensions. During the last forty-two years, England, to her honour, has paid no less than ,£300,coo pounds in aid of the Polish exiles. This year £ 1,100 was voted for the purpose. What I wish to point out is this. These Polish refugees, for the most part, were men who THE RELEASE OF. THE EE AT AN PR 1 S 0 A T ERS. 299 had been in the service of Russia, and many of them—the leaders especially -—had taken the oath of allegiance to the Czar, in the same way as the Fenian soldiers have taken the oath of allegiance to Queen Victoria. They broke their oath to the Emperor, and led a rebellion against his authority. How can the Government, with any consistency, patronise and pension rebellious Russian soldiers, and at the same time punish with such severity a handful of Irish soldiers who have done identically the same thing as the Poles did? If the Home Secretary can explain the difference of treatment, it is more than I can do. Two reasons are assigned for keeping these unhappy men in captivity. It is said by some that they are detained because it is feared their release will produce renewed risings in Ireland. This was the reason alleged by the late Prime Minister for not granting a complete amnesty in 1869. I do not think, however, it can have any force now, as, according to the repeated declarations of the Government, Ireland is in a state of unwonted peace and prosperity. Surely, the nation that has recently made such a display of naval power in Besika Bay cannot be frightened by a dozen obscure and unknown Irish soldiers. I dismiss this reason for their de¬ tention, therefore, as unworthy of consideration. I know that there is a general belief amongst persons who sympathise with the amnesty move¬ ment that these men are detained in penal servitude by a power—a ducal and military power—that is supposed to exist behind the Government. I do not credit the statement, and I repeat it simply for the purpose of expressing my disbelief in it. There have been times in the history of this country when princes, royal dukes, and Court favourites have got men sent into exile, to prison, and to the scaffold, to gratify personal dislike or private animosity. That period, however, is past; and I believe that the only persons who are responsible for the detention of these men are her Majesty’s Constitutional advisers—the Government. I read within these last few days, in an influential American newspaper, that some of the Ministers have feelings of personal dislike towards Irish politicians, and that their harsh action in this matter may be attributed to these vindictive motives. I totally discredit such charges. Whatever may be said against the present Prime Minister, no one can, with justice, accuse him of cruelty. Few men in political life have shown so much consideration for their opponents, or have been so little disposed to press heavily upon beaten adversaries. And with respect to the Home Secre¬ tary, who has these prisoners under his special charge, he is a gentleman who would not needlessly set his foot upon a worm. The main reason why these men are kept in slavery is as an example. In the interests of the State, the Government doubtless consider that a prolonged incarceration is required. This is the opinion of the Cabinet, but I doubt its wisdom. Legitimate and moderate punishment acts as a warning and corrective, bnt when carried too far it becomes persecution, 300 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. and makes the offenders martyrs. This is certainly the case with these unfortunate Fenians. The Irish people believe—I think truly—that any offence they have committed against the State has been fully expiated. The longer they remain in penal servitude, the stronger and more fervent will become the demand for their release. If the Government wish to conciliate Irish political feeling, I know of no course they can take that will better accomplish that end than the release of these men. The Irish are a generous, an impulsive, and sympathetic race. I appeal to Minis¬ ters to act mercifully in this sad case ; and I feel satisfied that their concession will be repaid by increased regard for the Constitution, and by added attachment to England. When Hamlet told Polonius to see that the players were well cared for and properly bestowed, the garrulous old courtier replied that he would treat them “ according to their desert." The Prince of Denmark exclaimed in answer, “ Use every man after his desert, and who should ’scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity ; the less they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.” I commend the political philosophy conveyed in the quotation to the consideration of her Majesty’s Ministers. [The motion was defeated by the following vote :—For the motion, 51 ; against, 117. Majority against, 66.] XVI. SCHOOL BOARDS. [On motion for the third reading of the Education Bill made in the House of Commons, August 5, 1876.] The opponents of this Bill are accused of inconsistency, as some of them object to it because it is too feeble, and others because it is too stringent. The difference is more apparent than real. As an educational project, it is weak, but as a piece of legislative mechanism for strengthen¬ ing denominational schools, it is not deficient in power. The Government admit that it is impossible to secure universality of primary instruction except by compulsion. But instead of putting the principle in force directly by Boards specially appointed for the purpose, they have devised an indirect scheme, at once cumbersome and compli¬ cated. School Boards are not popular. But this unpopularity is largely owing to the manner in which they were established.. They were forced upon the country as a punishment. The framers of the Act of 1870 said in effect this : “We have no objection to sectarian schools, and if their supporters will cover the country with them, we will aid them by subsidies SCHOOL BOARDS. ;oi from the national exchequer ; but if they will not do this, we will compel them to form School Boards.” Called into existence by a threat, at a period when political excitement and sectarian passion ran high, we ought not to be surprised at the hostility they have evoked. The mode of electing their members is bad. It has emasculated them. By it, hos¬ tile candidates have been returned, and they have striven to weaken and impede the Boards. The cost of working Board Schools has been per¬ sistently exaggerated, and attempts made to rouse popular prejudice against them. They have been judged too unfairly. No large school can be got into good working order till it has been in existence six or seven years. Few School Board Schools have been fully at work three. Yet, we have had comparisons instituted between them and sectarian schools that have been in existence ten times as long. But notwith¬ standing these drawbacks, in spite of their unfortunate origin, of their more unfortunate mode of election, and the steady hostility and injustice that have been shown to them, School Boards, wherever they have had a moderately fair trial, have produced the most gratifying results. In some places they have increased the school attendance by sixty, in some by eighty, and in others by one hundred per cent. This, however, is not all. School Boards have given, in many places, a new and healthy impulse to instruction. Their formation has stimulated the managers of other schools to greater exertion ; and, as a consequence, the whole scope of our educational machinery has been broadened and bettered. This indi¬ rect influence for good has scarcely been second to the direct benefit they have conferred. Wherever Boards have got fairly into operation, they have done well. When opponents meet round the Board table to discuss the practical details of the work of education, they gradually rub down the corners of each other’s prejudices, and, in the process of contact, they all become fairer and more tolerant. I regret that the Government have consented to allow any of those useful and much-maligned institutions to be super- ceded. They mean, however, to entrust the compulsory powers to Municipal Councils, and discourage the formation of School Boards. Town Councils are elective institutions, and directly responsible to the ratepayers. My only objection to throwing upon them educational duties is that they already have as much work to do as they can do well. But if any other body, except such as is specifically elected for the purpose, has to control our educational agencies, Town Councils are to be preferred to any existing organizations. If Borough Councils have to apply compul¬ sion, the Government should have gone further, and committed to them all the power of School Boards. As well as making compulsory by-laws, the Councils ought also to have authority to build school-houses, and superintend the work of education in their boroughs. But while these bodies may, in default of other means, be entrusted with the supervision 302 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. of Borough Schools, there are grave objections to Boards of Guardians being empowered to do the same work. Poor-Law Guardians stand on a different footing from members of Town Councils. Popularly elected Guar¬ dians are often neutralised by ex-officio Guardians, while the application of Stourges Bourne’s Act to the Poor-Law systems gives large proprietors a preponderating influence. Guardians, in brief, represent property, not persons. And this is what was intended by the Poor-Law Amendment Act. It is a legalised system of charity—the forced contribution of the rich to the support of the destitute. But while the system of electing Guardians may be equitable enough when the administration of the Poor- Law only is concerned, it fails to meet national requirements when popular education is considered. Dispensing parochial relief is one thing, and regulating the education of a district is another and very dif¬ ferent thing. The qualifications for the offices differ. Men fitted for one task may be, and often must be, unfit for the other. It is undesirable, too, to accustom working men to take help from the poor-rates. The practice familiarises them with proceedings which cannot fail to weaken their spirit of independence, and possibly, in the end, degrade them. The less contact the workmen have with pauperising agencies, the better for themselves and the country. We are all apt to become parochial, and to assume that the habits and thoughts of the people in one part of the country are identical with the habits and thoughts of the people in other parts. Gentlemen opposite talk as though England consisted only of Lancashire and the agricultural districts. “ But there are hills beyond Pentland and lands beyond Forth.” In the mining North, independent working people shrink from contact with workhouses. They would starve before they would subject themselves to the humiliation and what they deem the disgrace of accepting the parish dole. The spirit of self-help ought to be sustained and not weak¬ ened, as I fear it will be when our pauper and educational machinery comes to be amalgamated. The first and main consideration with rural Guardians is how to keep the rates down. This may be all well enough for parish economists, but it is not the spirit in which enlightened educationists should pursue their labours. They should be distinguished by a generous and wise liberality which Guardians, by their training, instincts, and experience, are not capable of. The Guardians in a Midland county had recently to appoint a school¬ master. The man they selected was postmaster, farmer, butcher, assistant- overseer, road-surveyor, and organist. The object in appointing a person who already held so many offices was to get him at a lower salary, and thus save the rates. His efficiency as a teacher was not taken into account. The smallness of salary was his recommendation. We manage matters differently in large towns. A few days ago, the master of an unsectarian school in Newcastle was appointed, and the salary given to SCHOOL BOARDS. 303 him was ,£400 a-year. This school, even with, perhaps in some measure in consequence of, the liberal remuneration given to the teachers sustains itself without other support than is afforded by the children’s pence and Government grants. Farmers generally are not warm supporters of education. It is quite common even yet to hear it stated at agricultural meetings that the best workmen are the least educated, that when labourers get over well-informed they become discontented, insist on additional wages, and migrate or emigrate. Though these anti-educational opinions are not often advocated now, they have still a lingering attraction for many. The direct advocacy of ignorance, however, is not popular. It is fashionable to support education, and in this country when anything becomes fashionable it usually becomes despotic. Persons, however, who do not openly object to education do not hesitate to say that the smallest amount is sufficient for the working man. But if there is one order of men in the country more than another that requires it, it is workmen. A rich man can afford to be illiterate. He can pay an educated one to manage his affairs, but a poor man’s only capital is his intelligence. His stock-in-trade is his knowledge, and, instead of limiting, we should labour to enlarge it. I am opposed then to committing educa¬ tional duties to Poor-Law Guardians : first, because they represent property and not persons ; second, because the main consideration with them will be the rates and not educational efficiency ; and third, because they are lukewarm in the cause of popular instruction. It is said, in answer to these objections, that, practically, the work will revert to the parson, the squire, and their immediate friends. But the clergy and the squirearchy are not much more liberal. Clergymen support Church schools earnestly enough, but, in the general work of education apart from the Church, they take little interest. They, not unfrequently, use these schools as proselytising arenas. But secular instruction is national, not clerical work. The people, and not the parsons, should control it. You cannot teach religion in secular schools. You may teach dogmatic theology, but even that would be difficult. Teaching presupposes that the person who learns understands what he is taught ; and it is ridiculous to suppose that children can understand abstruse creeds, collects, and catechisms. They can get such formularies by rote, but that is not teaching. You cannot drive religion into children by three feet of cane, a birch rod, or a leather strap. Religion is not a system of manners, or a mere form of praise or prayer which evaporates with the repetition of a number of unfelt words. Religion is heart wor¬ ship, and its abiding principles are gentleness and love. It cannot be whipped into children any more than it can be beaten into men. Some of our methods of instruction are radically defective. Instead of teaching children what to think, we should teach them how to think. We should strive to improve their minds so that they could think for themselves, 304 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. rather than load their memories with the thoughts and ideas of other men. XVII THE PRISONS BILL. [The House being in Committee on the Prisons Bill, April 5, 1877, and Mr. Parnell having moved the insertion of a Clause providing that prisoners convicted of treason-felony, sedition, or seditious libel should be treated as misdemeanants of the first class, Mr. Cowen spoke as follows.] I OFFER no opinion on the technical point that has been raised by the Home Secretary. What I wish to direct the attention of the Committee to is not the phraseology, but the principle, of this clause. It proposes, to make a distinction between the treatment of ordinary criminals and that of men convicted of political offences. We all acknowledge the dif¬ ference in actual life. If a man steals another’s purse, he inflicts upon the individual robbed a palpable injury, but if an enthusiastic politician strives forcibly to alter the Constitution, he only offends against the laws of the State. In the former instance, the advantage sought is selfish and personal—the offender seeks to benefit himself at the expense of his neighbour. In the latter case, the offender is moved by generous, but perhaps mistaken, sentiments. He stakes his all on achieving a reform in which he would only participate as a member of the community, but for which he sacrifices much. There is a perceptible difference between the one class of offence and the other, and society recognises the distinc¬ tion. In this House, there are a dozen old political prisoners. We accept them as colleagues and treat them as equals. Some of them are men of marked ability, great attainments, and much popularity. A very different feeling would be manifested towards them, however, if, instead of having been imprisoned for political reasons, they had been imprisoned for embezzlement or theft. If persons tainted with dishonesty had been sent here, whatever might have been their intellectual qualifications, they would have been shunned and frowned on. By this different attitude, we mark the distinction between a political offence and a crime. The clause under consideration wishes us to recognise in prison the difference that we recognise in Parliament. The request is just and reasonable. Englishmen are often twitted with their inconsistency on this subject, and not unnaturally. They have a superabundance of sympathy for political prisoners abroad, but none for those at home. Distance to them lends enchantment, if not to the view, at least to the prisoner or the THE PRISONS BILL. 305 occasion. Our insular egotism will not permit us to perceive that in England harsher measures are dealt to politicians who make themselves amenable to the law than are meted out to those whose cases have excited interest in other countries. The late Prime Minister earned deserved approbation for the manner in which he pleaded for the release of Poerio and his compatriots. But the treatment of the Italian captives was in no sense worse than that of the Fenians by the Government of which the member for Greenwich was the head. It is easy to discover the defects of other nations, but it is not quite so easy to detect our own. While we have rendered the gaol life of common criminals more agreeable, we have heaped hardships upon erring politicians. We have no end of gushing philanthropy for pick-pockets, no want of sentimental commiseration for ordinary thieves, but none for the patriot who forfeits his liberty for the welfare of his fellows. England is the only country in Western Europe whose political' 1 prisoners are not separated, and treated differently, from ordinary convicts. And we get worse rather than better. This has been illus¬ trated by reference to the case of Mr. Cobbett. I will cite others which will bring the fact out still more forcibly. The late Mr. Leigh Hunt was imprisoned for commenting on the character of certain influential per¬ sonages in terms that were more correct than courtly. During his detention, he edited his newspaper, carried on his literary work, and directed his business without restraint. Contrast that treatment with that to which Mr. Ernest Jones was subjected. Mr. Jones, like Mr. Hunt, was an editor, a poet, and a man of letters. The offence of which he was proved guilty was declared by the judge to be one of the mildest he had ever had to adjudicate upon. Yet, notwithstanding, Mr. Jones was compelled to consort with thieves, burglars, and highwaymen. The severity of the punishment inflicted upon a delicate man amounted to little less than torture. Through the intervention of the late Mr. Joseph Hume and others, the treatment was relaxed. If it had not been so, Mr. Jones would have been killed by it. As it was, it laid the seeds of a disease that produced premature death. The bar thus lost, in the prime of life, a distinguished advocate, and literature a brilliant votary. Take another case. The late Mr. Richard Carlisle was imprisoned for ten years for publishing the works of Thomas Paine. So persistently did Mr. Carlisle pursue his propaganda, that at one time, not only himself, but his wife, two of his sons, and twenty of his shopmen, were all in custody together. Yet, during his prolonged incarceration he fulminated his denunciations against the Government unchecked. The very name of his paper, The Republican , was almost an incentive to prosecution. Contrast his treatment with that of Mr. Charles Kickham. He, too, is a poet and novelist as well as politician. He threw himself with ardour into the Fenian cause. Being arrested and condemned he was compelled 21 3 c 6 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. to horde with the vilest criminals, and to undergo the most revolting labour. Although a weakly and suffering man no sympathy was shown him. Mr. Kickham is a gentleman by birth, by education, and, what is better, by nature also, but none of the consideration that was extended to Mr. Hunt or Mr. Carlisle fell to his lot. Again. A fortnight ago the London workmen buried their leader. They did it kindly and reverently. Round the open grave in Brompton Cemetery, there were gathered the flower of the metropolitan artisans, some members of the House of Commons, and not a few distinguished literary men. Mr. Odger was what is called an “ extreme politician.” He was lately threatened with a prosecution. Accident alone prevented his arrest. Had he been taken, he would have been condemned, because, although murderers and thieves sometimes elude the meshes of the law, it is rare that a politician is allowed to escape. If Mr. Odger had been tried and found guilty, he would have been treated in the same way as Mr. Kickham and Mr. Ernest Jones. Compare the treatment that he would have got with that given recently in a notorious case. I will not dwell on the painful and unfortunate occurrence by which a brave, able, and distinguished officer has, by a half-hour’s folly, blasted a great reputation. When that gentle¬ man was being sentenced, the judge told him that his offence warranted the Court in sending him to penal servitude, and that, under ordinary circumstances, such would have been the sentence, but owing to his having been brought up delicately and educated with refinement, he was to be treated only as a first-class misdemeanant. I wish to know how the hon. members can, with any show of justice or sense of fairplay, justify the lenient treatment of such an offender, and at the same time defend our brutal punishment of political prisoners. What was there in the character of Mr. Jones or Mr. Kickham, to deprive them of the ■consideration that has been extended to a dashing cavalry officer? It is against this injustice, as well as against the folly of punishing so severely political offenders, that this clause provides. Englishmen do not like to be reminded that they still have political prisoners in their gaols. It is true that there are not many, but there are some. Let us hope in future there will be none. In Ireland, however, the possession of political prisoners for years to come is both possible and probable. To our shame be it said, the greater part of that country is under martia law. A man’s liberty is at the mercy of an ignorant police constable or the caprice of an officious Jack-in-office. As long as these repressive enactments remain in force, we may look for plots, conspiracies, and insurrections. Ireland, in this matter, re-acts upon England. In some of our mining and manufacturing centres, one-fourth of the population is Irish. They bring here the bitterness that has been generated by gene¬ rations of injustice. Their resentment towards England is intensified when they experience that they have greater liberty and larger privileges THE EASTERN QUESTION. 307 here than at home. The inequality embitters them. \\ e can discern this difference in the political sentiment prevalent here and in Ireland. There the feeling is for Home-Rule ; here it is for Fenianism. Like it or not as we choose, such are the facts. Our very harshness to the Fenians has contributed to produce the results we complain of. It is a maxim as old as Christianity that “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.” The Irish Nationalists sympathise with the sorrows, and emulate the example, of the men we treated so barbarously. And so it has always been. What is the history of this House but a record of successful sedition ? The proudest chapters in the lives of our patriots are those which chronicle their rebellion against abused authority. Such reflections ought to induce the Committee to assent to the clause. [The clause, in a modified form, and with the word “ treason-felony ’ struck out, was added to the Bill.] XVIII. THE EASTERN QUESTION. [On February 11, 1878, on the Report of the Committee of the whole House on the Supplementary Estimate for Six Millions for warlike preparations, in consequence of the Russian advance on Constanti¬ nople, Mr. Cowen spoke in favour of the Vote.] Except for a few minutes on Thursday last, I have not taken any part in the debates on this question. I would, however, be glad to be allowed the privilege, before the vote passes its final stage, of making a few remarks. There is no duty appertaining to the office of a representative that I approach with more hesitation, and undertake with greater reluct¬ ance, than that of appearing to interrupt the course of business by troubling members with any utterances of mine. I would not do so now if it had not been for some comments made by the right hon. gentleman the member for Greenwich (Mr. Gladstone) on Friday night. The right hon. gentleman misunderstood the observations I made the previous evening, and, quite unintentionally I am sure, misrepresented them. I was not present when he spoke, or I should have replied there and then. I do not profess to quote his precise words ; but, in effect, he said I held that the Government of the day should have uncontrolled authority in foreign affairs—that, while we might at all times fight over domestic politics, we had to accept implicitly, and without criticism, the action of the party in power on foreign questions. I think I have correctly repre¬ sented the right hon. gentleman’s statement. I do not think there is a member in this House who will subscribe to such political gospel. It may flourish in the arbitrary atmosphere of the Russian Court, but it 3oS SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, A/.P. cannot live in England. I, at least, repudiate it. I spoke on Thursday without premeditation. I uttered the feelings and the thoughts that came unbidden to my lips, on listening to the very grave statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They were only a poor reproduc¬ tion of the world-old sentiment which a Whig statesman, historian, and poet has put into the mouth of a Roman minstrel, who, when mourning the memories of a heroic past, sang regretfully of the time 1 When none was for a party, And all were for the State.” A man speaking under strong emotions ought not to be made an offender for a word. If that rule were applied to the right hon. gentleman, he would have a good deal to answer for. I claim no exemption, however, on that ground. The exact phrases I used did not bear, and certainly they were not intended to bear, the interpretation put upon them. I said that, while we might at all times discuss domestic questions fully and frankly, when national interests were imperilled — national existence possibly at stake—then we should close our ranks, forget that we are Whigs, Tories, or Radicals, remember only that we are Englishmen, and present a united front to the world. The time when the circum¬ stances under which this effacement of party landmarks is to take place, constituted the point of my sentences. I did not say—I do not think— it would have been unpardonable presumption if I had—that every one who agreed with me was a patriot, and every one who disagreed with me was not. But what I did say was, that patriotism and good sense re¬ quired that the course I indicated should be followed at this juncture. The general principles of national action—whether we are to try to put up a monarchy in one country, or destroy a republic in another—whether we are to be partisans in a strife or neutrals—must be decided by the people, and by them alone. But the policy having been assented to, its execution must be left to the Executive. If they blunder, you may censure them, dismiss them, or impeach them, but in a moment of national peril do not paralyse their movements by unnecessary compli¬ cations. In our foreign relations, there are matters that it is undesirable to publish, and that cannot, with justice to other nations, be known out¬ side the Foreign-Office. The right hon. gentleman himself admitted on Monday last that, when he asked for a vote of £ 2,000,000 at the time of the Franco-German war, he did not state all, or even the chief grounds, for making that demand. To have done so would, he said, have been attended with inconvenience, if not danger. Is it not possible that, in the present crisis, there are circumstances known only to Minis¬ ters that prevent them explaining fully the reasons for the course they are pursuing ? The confidence that Parliament gave the late Government may be THE EASTERN QUESTION. 309 fairly granted to the present one in such a crisis. We may always, with advantage, dilate on the broad principles, on the general issues that are at stake in foreign questions ; but, when the time for action comes, the details of diplomacy, the whispers of State, often supply the circum¬ stances that determine the course of Cabinets. Reasonable politicians recognise the position of men weighted with such responsibility. I regret that so much feeling has been thrown into this dispute. Good men, both in and out of Parliament, sincerely desirous of serving what they believe to be the interests of their country and freedom, have manifested in the discussion a somewhat intolerant temper. I honour their motives, I respect their intentions ; but I have not been able altogether to approve their attitude. While they have been keenly suspicious of our own Government, they have said, or insinuated, all manner of smooth things, and put the best interpretation on the doings, of foreign rulers. The Czar had his designs appraised by sympathising admirers ; but our own Ministers have been subjected to constant and undeserved innuendoes. There is no Member of this House, who, by training, instinct, and con¬ viction, is more anti-Tory than I am ; but I will trust my own country¬ men, whatever their politics, before the statesmen of either Russia or Germany. I have more faith in British Ministers, whether Whig or Tory, than I have in the Chancellors of any Imperial despotism, however pre¬ tentiously pious. In considering questions of foreign policy, we often inadequately estimate the position and antecedents of this country. Some see only gold, and coal, and cotton through every national arrangement. Trade is with them the measure of every standard. Production and consump¬ tion are the ends of being. I have no wish, certainly, to disparage com¬ merce ; but I do not believe in this Epicurean philosophy of barter. It is a low and sordid conception of human life. Man is higher than the beast, and requires something better than a stall well littered and a trough well filled. The maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire, which is now declared to be “ancient history,’’ was, for genera¬ tions, a settled principle of British policy. All parties in the State ac¬ knowledged, accepted, and acted upon it. Twenty-four years ago, we went to war, spent many millions of money and sacrificed some thousands of lives to uphold it. At the conclusion of the war we entered into treaties which guaranteed the right of Turkey to European existence, and bound this country to defend it. In 1871, the late Government re-endorsed that agreement, and, along with the other Powers, added to the contract a declaration that the arrangement should not be altered without general consent. No Government would have been warranted in reversing the uninterrupted current of national action without a mandate from the nation. I am not defending these treaties ; but what I say is, that 3 io SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. the maintenance of the independence of Turkey was as much a principle of our foreign, as the right of refuge is of our political, and as free-trade is of our commercial, policy. The Government would not have been justified in reversing this policy without some formal or informal expres¬ sion of public opinion. No one can deny that an expression of opinion has been got. A man must be either blind, or deaf, or both, who does not see and hear that a great change has taken place in the minds or a considerable section of the people on this subject. Many persons, and those highly influential, are averse from following our former policy. Opinion is in a state of transition. It has manifested itself on this side of the House, where there are not two, but three times two parties. It has been shown on the Ministerial benches, and has produced its effect within the close precincts of the Cabinet. When we are in such a state of political chaos, is it desirable to be so intolerant with each other? Some have gone forwards, others have gone back, and some have been stationary on this question. We shall best promote the interests of the nation by showing a liberal consideration for each others opinions and susceptibilities. The question before Europe is, Is Turkey to be strangled ; and, if so, is Russia to succeed to her possessions? We may hesitate to confront the inevitable issue, but we cannot either postpone or evade it. Are the Osmanli to be annihilated by those who murder for the love of God, and are their places to be filled by the Muscov ites and their satraps ? That is the problem to which all this diplomacy leads up. There are honour¬ able gentlemen who will answer the interrogatory in the affirmative—who will declare that Turkey’s throat should be cut. I cannot endorse that opinion. I admit that the rule of the Porte in the past has combined nearly every evil that can be covered by civil government. In times of peace, it has either been too weak or too apathetic to make its will respected. In times of excitement, it has enforced its edicts by a spas¬ modic exercise of authority—sometimes cruel, often capricious, and not unfrequently sanguinary. Industry has been discouraged, trade has been looked upon with contempt, taxation has been little better than legalised plunder, and the whole administration of the Pashas has been sys¬ tematically corrupt. But when all this has been said, we must say also that the Government of Turkey is no worse than that of other Asiatic and African States with whom we hold close, if not cordial relations. The Governments of China and Persia are as bad ; that of Egypt, which is propped up by English capitalists, is worse. Turkey has the vices common to all Oriental communities, and in her case those have been intensified by contact with a debased form of Christian civilization. When we remember the history-—the black history—of American and West India slavery ; when we recall the ferocity—for no other word will express it—with which Ireland was, and with which Poland is, ruled, we THE EASTERN QUESTION. 3ir should manifest some moderation in our denunciation of the Turks. I repeat that there are Governments as venal, as tyrannical, as lawless, and as lazy who are our allies ; and with our own record in Ireland in the past, and in India more recently, English politicians should not be so ready to rush into hysterics over Turkish delinquencies. It is either sectarian or partisan bigotry, or imperfect historical knowledge, that leads men to declare that every Mussulman is little better than a wild beast, an “ anti-human specimen of humanity,” and that the Ottoman Empire is the foulest political organization in existence. Such exaggera¬ tions are born either of ignorance or religious rancour. It is true that the Christians in Turkey have been denied participation in the civil administration, just as the Catholics and the Jews were in this country till recently, and as our Hindoo and Mahomedan fellow-subjects are in India to-day. But as a set-off to this exclusion, they have been relieved from the duty—the onerous duty—of bearing arms. No man is persecuted in Turkey because he is a Christian. There is there not only complete, but contemptuous toleration. The Mussulmans look with pity upon the different sects into which Christians are divided ; and while they refuse to treat them as civil equals, they scorn to persecute them as inferiors. The outcry about the material misery of Bulgaria has been exploded. It has been proved, by a cloud of witnesses, that the con¬ dition of the Bulgarian peasant is vastly superior to that of the Russian farmer, and is the equal of the same class in this country. This fact has been so well attested, that no one will attempt to gainsay it. It has been urged that, even if this statement is correct, it is not an answer to the demand of the Christians for civil and political equality. It is not suffi¬ cient that they should be commercially prosperous and freed from exclusion on the score of their religion. They require something further and more. I admit the justice of their claim. We are reminded that England sympathised with the Italians in their struggle for national existence, and we are asked, Why refuse to Bul¬ garia what we rejoice has been conceded to the countrymen of Garibaldi ? The circumstances are not analogous. In Italy, there were broadly marked natural features and boundaries—the sea on the one side, the mountains on the other. The people, too, were homogeneous. The Italians spoke the same language, held the same faith, shared the same glorious national memories. This is true too of the Sclavs in Montenegio and Servia, of the Latin races in Roumania, and of the Greeks ; but it is not the case with the inhabitants of Turkey-proper. One village there is Mahomedan, the next Christian, and the third partly Jewish. The people are dotted about in settlements like gipsies. Remove Turkish rule entirely from Roumelia, and you simply substitute a Christian for a Mahomedan despotism. Sclavs, Albanians, Greeks, adherents of the Latin Church, and of the Greek Church, Jews, Mussulmans, are all gathered together 312 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. in indescribable and unhappy confusion. Heretofore the Mahomedans in those districts have been the dominant race, because they have been the most numerous and the most tolerant. Supplant it by Christian ascen¬ dancy, and you only replace one form of exclusive rule by another. You put the boot on the other leg. If the Mahomedans have hitherto perse¬ cuted the Christians—which, as Christians, I deny, but as citizens I admit—it is certain that the Christians would in the future persecute the Mahomedans. Remove the restraints, and the fierce fanatical passions of hostile classes will be let loose, and they will fly at each other’s throats. We know how the Servians and the Roumanians persecute the Jews, how the Greek Church persecutes the Latin, how the Sclav hates the Greek and the Greek hates the Sclav. I do not say these difficulties ought to prevent the Christians from enjoying the freedom they are entitled to ; but I cite the facts for the purpose of showing that the creation of a nationality amongst the heterogeneous and conflicting creeds, races, and tribes in Turkey-proper is a very different thing from the creation of a nationality out of the homogeneous peoples of Hungary, Poland, and Italy. Persons well acquainted with the East maintain that the rule of the Turk, with all its drawbacks, would, in the districts where the Maho¬ medans predominate, be preferable to the constant struggle for mastery between the rival sects who hate each other more bitterly than any of them hate the Mussulman. The glowing but fictitious pictures that we have recently had drawn in this country of the magnanimous Monte¬ negrins, the chivalrous Servians, and the meek Bulgarians, have been rudely blurred by this year’s war. I fear an impartial historian will declare that the moral characteristics of the different races do not differ greatly. In a balance of virtues, the Mahomedan population are the equals, and in some respects the superiors, of their Christian neighbours. We have been often assured that they are dead or dying. But, in the blood-stained spurs and passes of the Balkans, they have given striking evidence that they live. Their courage and military skill were derided in the House last Session. It was declared that Turkey consisted only of a ring of corrupt Pashas, and a horde of semi-savage brigands. This war has shown that there is a Turkish nation beyond the sumptuous palaces on the Bosphorus, and outside the gathering-grounds of the Bashi-Bazouks. The memorable struggle before Plevna will be associated in history with the sieges of Saragossa, Londonderry, Antwerp, and Kars. The name of Osman will be linked with the foremost commanders of modern times. It was not the dinted, rusty scimitar of Mahomet that that gallant Moslem wielded. The skill that planned the fortifications, the dauntless courage that manned the deadly breach—the last crust consumed, the last cartridge gone—and that led the final charge, was the dazzling fire of genuine patriotism. A people capable of such intense THE EASTERN QUESTION. 3 1 3 energy, such generous and complete obedience, such utter self-sacrifice, and such heroic devotion have vindicated their right to live. The want of the Turks has been their inability to adapt themselves to the constant changes and the incessant movement going on around. Their traditions, their training, and their creed have kept them stationary. While other nations have been proselytising and progressing, the sons of Islam have stood still. They must move, or they will be swamped by the complex and competing forces that are surging around them. All intelligent Turks recognise this. And their efforts to improve their administration, to establish a Constitution, and their gallant struggle against their domineering enemies, ought to win for the remnants of the race another opportunity of assimilating themselves to the wants of modern life. The Turkish people are no worse to-day than when wefought for them in the Crimea, and the Turkish Government is better. All that has been said of their lust, cruelty, and oppression was as true in 1856, when we concluded two Treaties for their defence, or in 1871, when the late Government accentuated, endorsed, and confirmed that Treaty, as it is to-day. But if Turkey is dying, there is no reason why Russia should slay her before her time. Let her die in peace. If she is dying, that is no justifi¬ cation for the Northern vulture to prey upon the yet quivering body of his stricken victim. If the Osmanli are driven to the other side of the Bosphorus, their dominions will become the spoil of their relentless enemies, whose fierce hussars are now streaming into Roumelia for the double purpose of a war of conquest and a religious crusade. I am not now speaking of British interests, I am not thinking of the danger Russia may be to our Indian Empire ; but I ask English Liberals if they have ever seriously considered the consequences of an Imperial despotism bestriding Europe — reaching from the waters of the Neva to those of the Amoor — of the Head of the Greek Church, the Eastern Pope, the master of so many legions, having one foot on the Baltic, and planting the other on the Bosphorus. When icebergs float into southern latitudes, they freeze the air for miles around. Will not this political iceberg, when it descends upon the genial shores of the Mediterranean, wither the young shoots of liberty that are springing up between the crevices of the worn-out fabrics of despotism? Is it the part of Liberals to encourage these sanguinary apostles of Christianity, who are now swarming from “ Sar- matian swamps and Scythian wilds,” in their raid into South-eastern Europe, to plead for this coarsest phantom of social and political life? The Russian people are an inoffensive, unaggressive and kindly race— uneducated, superstitious, and somewhat intemperate. It is certainly not of them that I am afraid ; but there is a ring of Christian Pashas at St. Petersburg as corrupt and cruel as the ring of Mahomedan Pashas at Constantinople. They have always been the camp-followers of civiliza- 3U SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ., M.P. tion, as merciless and unscrupulous as camp-followers usually are. They have the ferocity of barbarism with the duplicity of civilization. Their first word is gold, the second the sword, the third Siberia. Bribery, bayonets, banishment, are the triple pillars upon which their politico- military-ecclesiastical system stands. I have no wish to generate anti¬ pathies towards either the Russian or any other people. But, in the presence of existing circumstances, it is necessary that every man should speak the honest convictions of his mind ; and I cannot regard this handing over of two-thirds of the Continent of Europe to an aggressive, military, ecclesiastical autocracy, otherwise than as dangerous to human freedom, peace, and civil progress. [The Resolution, after some debate, was carried unanimously.] XIX. LAW REFORM. [Mr. Cowen on Wednesday, May 8, 1878, moved in the House of Commons, the second reading of a Bill for establishing a series of Superior Courts in England and Wales.] Legal questions are too often left exclusively to the consideration of lawyers. This restriction frequently narrows the discussion to techni¬ calities. Professional men are apt to take a merely class or sectional view of such controversies. They approach the issues involved, unconsciously perhaps, through the medium of legal verbiage and formalities. I do not wish to disparage the importance of forms. They have their uses and their value. It not unfrequently happens, however, that persons looking on behold the game better than the players. Men engaged in business, whose experience of law is as acute, if not as minute, may see— certainly they are made to feel—the consequences of defective judicial arrangements more than men who, immersed in details, view the working of our law courts only from the inside. In the observations I purpose making, I shall speak more as the representative of the non-professional and business classes than the legal. Within the last quarter of a century, great improvements have been made in our judicial system. Causes are now settled more on their merits, and less on technicalities. Law proceedings are less artificial and more direct. Every fair and candid critic must admit this. The change has been long in coming—too long ; but, still, it has come. Our system is by no means perfect—net as good as it ought to be, nor as good as it might be made with a little effort ; but it is better than it was, and there are reasonable grounds for hoping that it will steadily, if slowly, LA IV REFORM. 315 improve. There is no country in the world where the administration of justice is purer than in England. There are few in which it is more simple and certain. The main cause of complaint is its dilatoriness, and, in the Superior Courts, its costliness. The reforms that have 01 recent years been effected, have been secured only at a great expenditure of time. The partial abandonment of the practice of taking evidence by affidavit, and the substitution of the better, but more tedious and prolonged, mode of abstracting it from witnesses verbally, has been a distinct gain to the cause of justice ; but it has been an equally distinct addition to the labour of the judges and the length of legal proceedings. A further addition has been made by the increase, not only in the amount, but in the complications of our trade. Our large and complex commerce affords more ground for contention than the simple mercantile transactions of past years. The greater clearness in the law, and the confidence felt by the commercial community that their cases will be tried on their merits, rather than frittered away by ingenious quibbles, have led men in business to have less hesitation in submitting matters in difference between them to the settlement of our courts. This, substan¬ tially, is the cause of the recent increase in litigation. I do not wish to detain the House by citing statistics to prove what all parties admit. No person denies the existence of a block of business in our Law-Courts. No one disputes that much inconvenience and serious loss are occasioned thereby to suitors. The delay and consequent expense and uncertainty amount, in many instances, to a denial of justice. The sittings after the long vacation last year commenced with 800 causes for trial at Nisi Prius in Middlesex, and with 500 in London. There were before the Court of Appeal and the Divisions of the High Court 330 appeals, and matters of an appellate nature ; and before the Chancery Division, the Common Law, and the Probate and Divorce, there were 1,709 causes for trial. It has been stated, on good authority, that there are more than 20,000 causes in the Chancery Division on which some order has been made, but which are dragging their weary way along, the costs growing in inverse proportion to the progress made. The appointment of a new judge to assist the judges in the Chancery Division has caused some relief there ; but, after making every allowance for the slight improvement effected, the hopes held out by the law- officers of the Crown last session, that the pressure of business would prove only temporary have not been realised. The Attorney-General thought the arrears would soon be wiped off. But it is not arrears alone that have to be dealt with. It is a steady and increasing stream of liti¬ gation that has to be kept flowing. By an effort, arrears may be cleared away ; but what is wanted is to prevent a recurrence of them. The fact that upwards of a thousand causes were entered for trial at London and Westminster at the last sittings after the Long Vacation, and that fully 3 1 6 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. that number remain still for trial, is sufficient to show that it is not a temporary accumulation that has to be removed, but a systematic increase of work that has to be provided for. Experience has shown that, since the new Judicature Act came into operation, new business has been set down faster than the old business has been disposed of. The full effect of the recent law reforms has not been realised in consequence of the delay in the courts, and the necessary, expenses attending that delay. We travel by steam, and transact a good deal of our business by telegraph ; but we still administer our law at a slow and antiquated pace. In no department of the public service would such arrears of business be tolerated, and certainly in none of them would they be allowed to be disposed of at such an expense to individuals. How is this evil to be remedied ? Eminent jurists have often maintained that the only remedy for this legal congestion is to be found in distributing the business. The Lord-Chancellor, in a speech he delivered at the Mansion House, in November last, condensed the question into a couple of sentences. He said, referring to law reform— “ We have got to grapple with the great problem of how to secure throughout every part of the country that which is already possessed by the city of London—a regular and speedy mode of trial for those who are accused of offences. We have also to solve the problem how, in those great centres of population in the provinces, we can afford more ready local means of disposing of their numerous civil causes.” Much of the business which now occupies the time of the Superior Courts is comparatively unimportant, and could be equally as well, and far more cheaply, tried locally. Distribution should be the principle applied to the administration of the law. Concentration is required for control, for uniformity", for appeal, and for the authoritative exposition and settlement of the law. In law, as in government, the authority which is most conversant with principles should be supreme over principles, while that which is most competent to deal with details should have details left it. A national court of justice could best be formed by establishing district courts of the High Courts, by dividing the country into circuits, in each of which there should be a resident judge of the High Court, with a sufficient staff, and where every branch of legal business might be transacted. But such a scheme should be proposed by the Govern¬ ment. It would be presumption on the part of a private member to initiate such a project. The Bill before the House points in that direction, but only in a tenta¬ tive and modified sense. It proposes to establish seven principal County Courts with districts assigned thereto, and those County Courts and those districts would together form a County Court circuit. The seven circuits are—i, Liverpool and Manchester ; 2, Leeds and Bradford ; 3, Newcastle and Durham; 4, York, Hull, and Stockton ; 5, Sheffield, Nottingham,and LA W REFORM. 3 1 7 Derby ; 6, Birmingham ; 7, Bristol and Gloucester. The two first— Liverpool and Manchester. Leeds and Bradford—it is proposed should have two judges each. The other five circuits would have one judge each. All the existing County Courts within these circuits would become sub¬ sidiary County Courts, and would be affiliated to the principal court as members of branches. There would be attached to each principal court one or more assistant-judges, and such number of registrars as the business might require. Power would be given to Her Majesty in Council from time to time, to alter, extend, or consolidate the old circuits, or to create new ones. Parliament would have the power of fixing the salary of the new judges, and thus be able to control the action of the Crown. The salaries of the judges of the principal County Courts would be ^3,000 per annum, which would include travelling expenses. The judges would rank next after the junior judge, for the time being, of the High Court of Justice; and amongst themselves according to the order of their appoint¬ ment. They may be placed on the Commission of Assize for the discharge of civil and criminal business on circuit, and would be qualified to be promoted to be judges of the High Court. The restrictions and the liberties accorded to the judges of the High Court, would be accorded and imposed upon the new judges. The salaries of the assistant-judges would be ,£1,200 a-year, with travelling expenses. They would be re¬ quired to reside in the district, and be prohibited from practising in any branch of the legal profession. Registrars would be paid by salary, and not by fee and salary as at present. The salaries would be fixed by the Lord-Chancellor; but in no case would they be more than _£i,ooo per annum. The principal County Court would have jurisdiction in Common Law, Equity, and Admiralty cases up to ,£500, and by consent to an unrestricted amount. Actions might be removed from the princi¬ pal County Court to the High Court, and from the High Court to the principal County Court. A judge of the High Court might send issues of fact to be tried in the principal County Court. Every principal County Court judge would be allowed to exercise within his circuit, in addition to the ordinary powers of a County Court judge and a judge of the Court of Bankruptcy, all the powers and jurisdiction of a judge of the High Court of J ustice. The precise manner in which the judicial work of the judges and assistant-judges is to be divided would be settled by rules ; but, practically, the assistant-judges would be confined to trying actions for money not exceeding £20 , unless with the consent of the parties, when the amount could be increased. They would, substantially, occupy the position that was intended to be occupied by the County Court judges appointed under the original Act in 1847. It is not necessary further to particularise the clauses of the Bill, as hon. members interested in it can familiarise themselves with it by refer¬ ence. The principle embodied in it is the localization of the administra- 318 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, AI.P. tion of justice. The mode in which this is sought to be put in operation would not involve any change in the Judicature Acts. It would only amplify and enlarge the authority of the judicial organization now in existence, and which, for thirty years, has worked with increasing satis¬ faction to the commercial community. If ever the project, so often discussed, and supported by such a weight of judicial authority, for establishing a uniform Legal Judicature be adopted, this Bill will have been found to clear the way for such an arrangement ; for, with little more than a change of name and an assimilation of the rules of practice, the machinery of the principal County Courts could be transferred to the Supreme Courts in full working order, without trouble, without incon¬ venience, and without cost. The new courts are intended to occupy an intermediate position between the present County Courts and the High Court. The judges would sit in the principal courts, and the assistant- judges would travel between the subsidiary courts. I know it is the custom for fashionable counsel to sneer at County Court judges and the work they perform ; but I make bold to affirm that no department of our judicial service has won for itself so large a measure of confidence as the County Court system. County Court jurisdiction was established in 1847, and limited to £20 . In 1850, it was raised to ,£50 in Common-Law, and ,£500 in Equity, and was made a concurrent jurisdic¬ tion. In Bankruptcy, they have unlimited jurisdiction. As showing the confidence of the commercial community in these courts, I may state the number of causes between ,£20 and ,£50 that have been during the last three years tried in them. In 1874, there were 15,202 actions ; in 1875, there were 17,273 actions ; and in 1876, there were 17,378 actions volun¬ tarily brought by suitors into the County Courts. The House should bear in mind that all these actions were optional. They might have been taken elsewhere ; but the litigants had confidence in these tribunals, and freely carried their contentions thither. The number of the causes is not the only point of importance. Their character is noteworthy. Many of them involve matters of great nicety in commercial law, and which, if debated in Westminster Hall, would have occupied hours, and not un- frequently the judges would have taken time to consider their decisions. Yet, the number of appeals from decisions in County Courts are compara¬ tively few, and they are affirmed as often as they are reversed. The total sum recovered in the courts at Westminster and upon circuits in 1871— the last year there are returns for—was ,£348,000 ; while in the County Courts, for the same year, the amount recovered was no less than ,£1,330,000. The following analysis of actions tried in the year 1876 in the County Courts, whose districts are proposed to be comprised in this Bill, will show the extent to which such courts are voluntarily resorted to by suitors in the different localities. The figures are compiled from a return presented to Parliament last year— LA W REFORM. 3i9 Fees of Court. 1 Circuits. Common law above £20. j Cquity. j Admiralty. Actions sent down. Totals. For each Judge. f Liverpool and Manchester. 7943 5 306 IO 3 15 11 7 6 532 7 56 23 10925 7 278 6 5 10350 8 3*7 13 40 4053 9 113 9 3 48388 1546 45 56 74 (2) 1721 860 (2) Leeds and Bradford. 7050 11 429 29 17 9601 12 412 21 12 19206 14 769 25 19 35S65 1610 75 48 (2) 1733 866 (3) Newcastle and Durham. 6766 1 5 12 11 24 16 8914 2 324 8 18 7 1338 15 67 3 17018 903 22 42 23 990 (4) £ York and Hull. 6648 15 466 4 4 8 6605 16 460 12 3i 5 >3253 926 16 35 13 990 (5) Sheffield and Nottingham. 10273 13 230 7 13 9142 18 321 6 5 8689 19 279 14 I I 28104 830 27 29 886 (6) Birmingham. 1724; 21 490 12 29 49c 22 12 1 318. 23 129 5 5 923: 25 259 19 5 3 OI 4 ( 890 37 39 966 320 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. Fees of Court. Circuits. Common law above £20. Equity. Admiralty. Actions sent Totals down. For each Judge. ( 7 ) Bristol and Gloucester. 2045 52 178 3 I 3258 53 242 12 5 I 9022 54 472 22 8 5 14325 892 37 13 7 949 It would certainly be difficult to quote statistics which show more clearly the reliance which the public place in the County Courts than this return reveals. The principle of the Bill is supported by very high legal authority, and embodies the recommendation of the Judicature Com¬ mission. The Judicature Commissioners presented two reports. The first dealt with the judicial and administrative powers of the Superior Courts, and the Judicature Acts of 1873 was founded on the suggestions contained in it. The second report dealt with the County and Local Courts, and it has never received the attention that it is entitled to from Parliament. The Commissioners classify the subject matters of litigation under three heads. Cases of great importance, cases of the simplest kind, and cases intermediate between these extremes. The Superior Courts, as reorganised under the Judicature Act, with their elaborate machinery, their judges and leading counsel, are intended and adapted for the first- class cases. County Courts, as established in 1S47, with their local tribunals and simple procedure, are fitted for the second class. Eut there exists a class of cases in litigation intermediate between cases of the highest importance and cases of the simplest kind ; and these frequently involve questions of complexity and difficulty. This is found as a fact by the Commissioners, who observe— “ That the expense of litigation, in cases of this class, in the Superior Courts of taking the parties and their witnesses to any considerable dis¬ tance from the place where the cause of action arose, and they probably dwell, is generally wholly disproportionate to the value of the matters in dispute.” I claim that the Bill before the House is covered by the recom¬ mendations of the Judicature Commission in the Report from which I have just read extracts. The Bill was printed last year, but there was not an opportunity of having a discussion on it. Before it was introduced this session, the Bill tvas brought under the consideration of the local Law Societies, Cham¬ bers of Commerce, and other commercial associations in the large pro¬ vincial towns. I have received resolutions approving of the principle from several bodies of this character, and also from many influential LA W-REFORM. 321 gentlemen connected with the law, who have taken the trouble to examine the Bill carefully. In nearly every instance—I do not remember an exception—the principle of the Bill has been warmly approved by these parties. Some of them have made suggestions as to the details, but they are unanimously in favour of the principle. The Annual Conference of the Associated Chambers of Commerce, last year, passed a resolution in its favour, and they did the same this at their meeting in London. I have no wish to trouble the House by reading the voluminous correspondence I have had with provincial solicitors and commercial men who have interested themselves in the Bill, but I may be permitted to read the opinions of two eminent legal gentlemen, whose names I do not feel at liberty to mention, but whose remarks are well worth the consideration of the House. One of these gentlemen says— “ I think it premature to discuss the details of particular clauses of the Bill, and it is sufficient for the present to say that I approve generally of it. You will not understand me to refer to the money clauses, as to which I reserve myself, nor to speak of the exact rank to be given to the County Court judges, as to which I have only got so far as to approve the prin¬ ciple of giving them some definite rank. I shall watch with much interest what takes place in the House of Commons, both on its introduction and in its later stages. I think it quite right to take this mode of feeling the pulse of the Government, the country, and the House of Commons upon the whole subject. Of course, its success and the ultimate attitude of the Government towards it, may depend much upon the way in which it is received by the public. I fear it will not find friends at Lincoln’s Inn or the Temple, which makes it more necessary, if possible, to find them elsewhere.” Another eminent legal authority writes— “ I agree generally both with the principle and the details of the scheme. I think you have not only put it in a form which will work, but also have so shaped it as to meet with the approval of lawyers, includ¬ ing the judges, the ministers, and laymen, many of whom keep an in¬ terested watch on the system. The default procedure is a clear gain, and hits a deficiency which I have often spoken of, and which is well known to Common Law Masters. As to the more important portions of the scheme, I entirely go along with you in principle. I am sure it is time to enlarge the jurisdiction of County Courts in actions for the recovery of money demands, and others now dealt with by the Common Law Divi¬ sions of the Superior Court, and I believe you will have the support of judges and others as to your jurisdiction clauses.” I could quote other letters of an equally approving character. I think I may claim, therefore, for the Bill, that the principle has behind it influential, judicial, legal, and commercial approval. There are three objections that have been taken to it. The first is, that some important 22 [22 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. provincial centres, and the metropolis, are left out of its operation. In reply to that, I have only to say that Schedule A, which specifies the districts which are included in the Bill, forms really no part of the scheme, and it could be altered in any way Parliament deems fit. With respect to the metropolitan courts, they could be admitted into the scheme on cer¬ tain conditions ; but the business transacted at the metropolitan County Courts is inferior in amount, and in character also, to that transacted in some of the large provincial towns. I have before me figures supplied by a recent return, which show the amount of business done in eight metro¬ politan County Courts and eight County Courts in the provinces. This analysis is instructive. It should be remembered, as well, that the metropo¬ litan County Courts have no jurisdiction in bankruptcy, which constitutes one of the most important departments in the work of provincial courts : — Courts. Cases above £20. Clauses sent down. Equity. Admiralty. Total. Leeds . 769 19 25 813 Newcastle 512 l6 II 24 563 York . 533 8 7 4 552 Birmingham ... 490 29 12 531 Hull . 460 5 12 31 508 Bristol . 472 5 22 8 5°7 Bradford 429 17 29 475 Halifax . 412 12 21 445 4077 hi 139 67 4394 Westminster ... 356 67 8 43 i Marylebone ... 297 40 13 350 Bow. 210 19 10 239 Clerkenwell ... 195 3 i 10 236 Bloomsburv ... 194 29 3 226 Lambeth. I92 IO 7 209 Southwark 158 25 10 193 Whitechapel ... 69 8 3 80 1,671 229 64 1,964 I have only to add that if the Bill gets into Committee, or the Govern¬ ment give it any support, there could be little difficulty in arranging, if it were thought well, to include the metropolitan courts in the scheme propounded by the Bill. The second objection is on the ground of cost. Considerable misappre¬ hension is abroad as to the cost of law-courts in this country. The cost LA IV-REFORM. 3 23 of law proceedings to the suitors is heavy, and, I think, excessive ; but the cost of the courts to the nation—that is, the amount of money the Exchequer pays for the administration of justice—is comparatively small. It is not generally known, but it is a fact, that many of the courts are more than self-supporting, and leave a margin in favour of the Exchequer. In other words, the fees received more than pay the salaries of the judges and officials and the working expenses of the court. It was a theory of Mr. Jeremy Bentham that the administration of justice should be free ; that the judges and courts should be supported by rates levied upon the inhabitants generally. According to that eminent jurist, a man should pay a legal rate just as he pays a police rate or a poor rate. Perhaps that principle will not get many adherents in the House, nor probably in the country. But, while most people might object to throwing open the courts of justice free of all charge, I think there are many who object to suitors being saddled with charges which go in mitigation of local or imperial taxation. And yet this is largely the case with respect to the County Courts. A return made to Parliament last session furnishes the following figures from the seven courts proposed to be raised into prin¬ cipal County Courts by this Bill. The amounts stated below were obtained and paid into the Exchequer :— Fees Paid into Exchequer. Fees taken by Re I. £48388 £5959 2. 35864 4325 3 - 17018 2395 4 - 13253 1697 5 - 28104 2205 6. 30149 3075 7 - 14325 2062 187,092 21,718 Existing Charges. Salaries of Registrars. Fees, &c., as I. £12600 £ >> 2. 8035 3 - 6875 >> 4 - 5 i 3 i ?> 5 - 9172 6. 3499 >> 7. 4708 50,020 21,71 ,£208,810 71,733 Surplus. £ 137,072 In round numbers, the receipts paid into the Exchequer as fees re¬ ceived from suitors for proceedings in the County Courts comprised in this Bill amounted in 1876 to ,£208,810. This includes the fees received by Registrars for their own use. It is a growing amount, and likely to be considerably increased. The account stands thus Received as fees, 324 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. £^208,810, paid to the Registrars for their own use, ,£21,718 ; leaving a balance that goes into the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of ,£187,092. The charge upon this sum, which, as I have said, is yearly increasing, would be as follows, according to the present Bill :—First, salaries of Registrars, ,£50,000; second, fees of Registrars, £^21,810; clerk hire, £j21,000; for Assistant-Judges, say £^21,000; in all, ,£113,810, which, taken from the ,£208,810, would leave a balance of .£95,000 for payment into the Exchequer as an actual surplus arising from the courts to be comprised in this Bill. Out of this .£95,000, there would be the salaries of nine principal judges, which would be £ 27,000. There would be a saving, further, of the travelling expenses, because the principal judges would only receive salaries, and not expenses, as the judges do at present. The saving effected in this way would be equal to fully £^4,000 per annum. It will be seen, therefore, that, according to the present revenue arising from the courts proposed to be dealt with, there is £j95,ooo a-year to meet little more than £ 23,000 ; so that the Bill could come into operation without imposing a single shilling in the shape of taxation upon the taxpayers. By simply using the revenues of the County Courts for County Court purposes, the scheme now proposed would be worked without any additional charge to the Exchequer. There is another point deserving consideration—the salaries that are at present received by the Registrars of the County Courts. The County Court judges each receive ,£1,500 a-year. That is their settled income. There are 11 Registrars, however, who receive a larger salary than the judges, and there are 10 others who receive upwards of ,£1,200. The following is an analysis of the salaries and fees paid to certain Registrars of County Courts, together with the fees received by them as District Registrars of the High Court of Justice, and their allowances for clerk hire in 1876 :— Courts. Salary and Fees as Registrar. Fees as District Registrar. Totals. Allow¬ ances for Clerk hire. Birmingham. £ 3566 £ 1584 £ 5150 £ 2451 Leeds . 2864 772 3 36 1365 Newcastle . 2832 739 3571 375 Sheffield .. 2672 676 3348 1091 Bristol . 2401 844 3245 1725 Manchester . 2768 ... 2768 1390 Bradford. 1987 609 2596 596 Stockton. 2080 124 2204 630 Liverpool . 2100 ... 2100 2605 Hudddersfield . 1622 297 1919 Nottingham. M 97 338 1835 ! 1130 LA W-REFORM. 325 I do not blame the Registrars for getting these salaries. The amounts come to them in accordance with Acts of Parliament, and no one would propose to deal with them without affording proper compensation ; but it was never intended that the Registrars should receive such incomes, and that their salaries should be so much in excess of the judges of the courts. It is a matter well worthy the consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whatever may be the fate of the Bill before the House, in future the salaries of Registrars might be made somewhat more in pro¬ portion to their work. The last objection to the Bill I have heard is a purely professional one, and comes exclusively from members of the Bar and London solicitors, These gentlemen are said to fear that, by the establishment of these courts, a considerable portion of the business that now gathers to the metropolis, or that is carried to the assize courts, would find its way to the County Courts, and that in this manner their gains would be lessened. I do not impute to legal gentlemen the vulgar charge of striving to oppose reforms for mere mercenary and personal objects. Lawyers, like other men, look reasonably enough to their own interests ; but I am sure that the members of the legal profession would not consciously allow any private interest of theirs to stand in the way of what they conceive to be a national benefit. Their views may be warped by constant contact with courts. They may not see the points at issue so clearly as commercial men do ; but the insinuation that their course is guided by motives of gain, I entirely repudiate. I am satisfied that the objects proposed by the Bill, although they might diminish the incomes of certain barristers, and perhaps of certain solicitors, would benefit the profession generally. The new courts would have a tendency to call into existence powerful local bars, and what the London solicitors lost, their brethren in the country would gain. The facilities afforded for settling disputes cheaply and rapidly has always, in the past, brought a larger amount of litigation ; and there is little doubt that the establishment of such courts as are pro¬ posed would have that effect again. If the fear, therefore, be entertained that the formation of these courts would injure the profession, I can only say I do not share it. As far as experience goes, it supports the very opposite opinion. But suppose the result dreaded was realised, and that the lawyers’ incomes were lessened, that would not be a valid argument against the Bill. There is an old saying that the man who pays the piper has a right to call the tune. The law-courts are established for the benefit of the community at large, and not for the aggrandisement of a ass. Their first, and indeed their only, object is to facilitate the settle¬ ment of disputes. Lawyers were not at first a part of the judicial system. They were an addition—some have been bold enough to say an excres¬ cence, that has grown on it. But, whatever may be men’s views on that point, this is a fact, that the law-courts are established for the benefit 326 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. of the inhabitants generally, and not for the benefit of the members of the legal profession. If the change the Bill proposed did lessen their incomes or curtail their influence, that would not be any argument against it. The interests of the nation ought always to be preferred to the interests of a section. With this statement of the principles of the Bill, and partial exposition of its details, I leave it to the consideration of the House. I start from two premisses which are all but universally conceded—first, that the metropolitan courts are over-taxed with litigation, and that in conse¬ quence of the pressure upon them, expense, inconvenience, and uncer¬ tainty is caused to suitors ; second, that it is desirable, in the interests of justice, and for the service of the Commonwealth, that a local judica¬ ture should be established, and that the constant tendency to centralise public offices is unwise. These are the points I base my argument upon. I maintain that the courts proposed to be established could be put into operation without entailing any additional taxation, or without disturbing the existing judicial system, that they would be not only a source of convenience, but a great saving in expense, to provincial suitors ; that they would lessen the strain that is now put upon metro¬ politan jurors, and that, by the establishment of the courts, a cautious but important step would be taken to realise the dream of law-reformers. They would also restrain the dangerous tendency to collect the business of the nation into the capital, and encourage and strengthen the principle not only of legal, but of political local control. [The Government promised to invite legislation on the subject in 1879; and the Bill, after a lengthened debate, was withdrawn.] XX. THE BISHOPRICS BILL. House of Commons, July 31, 1878. [Mr. Cowen moved, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair, to go into Committee on this Bill :— “That, in the opinion of this House, it is undesirable, so long as the Episcopal Church continues to be established by law, to increase the number of bishops.”] The Bill before the House proposes to deal with the internal arrange¬ ments of the Established Church. I am not a member of that Church. I do not believe in all the two hundred or three hundred pro¬ positions contained in the Thirty-nine Articles, and the rule of a Church by a hierarchy of archbishops and clergy does not commend itself to my judgment. I know that these views are not shared by many members THE BISHOPRICS BILL. 3 2 7 of this House. I am not arguing in their defence ; I am merely stating them to show how inconsiderate the law is which requires a person in my position to give an opinion upon the management of a Church to which, both on points of rule and doctrine, he is opposed. This is the penalty imposed upon Churchmen for maintaining the connection be¬ tween their communion and the State. If they take State patronage, they must submit to State control. The two are reciprocal — object and measure. If they surrender the power and the prestige that spring from a Government alliance, they will be free from that interference ; but as long as they retain it, the doctrines and government of their Church will be subject to the criticism and, to some extent, the con¬ trol of Jews as well as of Christians, and of adherents of the Pres¬ byterian, the Papal, and the Greek faiths, as well as of Episcopalians. They must endure the comments of all classes of Dissenters, from the orthodox Methodist to the latitudinarian Rationalist. I feel the incon¬ gruity of such a position so much, that I would have abstained from interfering in the discussion had it not been that the district in which I live is directly affected by the Bill. It does not propose to increase the number of bishops in the House of Lords, it is true ; but the bishops created by the measure may, and in some cases will, become members of the other branch of the Legislature. It is only right that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of passing in review a project which proposes a new mode of making Peers. But, while admitting the force of that demand, the absurdity of calling on a man holding my principles to pass judgment on the internal affairs of the Church is so palpable, that had it not been that the Bill proposed to fasten a bishop on the borough I represent, I would be content to give a silent opposition to it. My first objection to the measure is that there is no popular demand for it. The number of petitions that have been presented in its favour, the number of meetings that have been held in its support, are insignifi¬ cant. Through the ordinary avenues and agencies by which Parliament is made acquainted with the drift and strength of public opinion, no expression of feeling in its favour has been manifested. The only persons, so far as I know, who have concerned themselves for the Bill are women, clergymen, and that small but intelligent section of laymen who take an aesthetic and architectural interest in ecclesiastical affairs. The Govern¬ ment complain, and not without reason, of the backward state of public business. The session began three weeks sooner, and it is likely to continue a fortnight longer than is customary. There are still thirty Bills and Resolutions on the Order-Book promoted by the Ministry. Some of them are only formal, but others are of first importance. A Bill that was recommended in the Queen’s Speech—that for codifying the Criminal Law, and which reflects credit on the Administration, and redounds to the honour of the learned gentlemen who have introduced it—that Bill, 328 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. which I believe will, if carried, more intimately affect the ordinary life of the common people than any that has been passed in recent years, has been abandoned in consequence of the want of time to discuss it. Another measure that the Government are pledged in honour to promote—the principle of which has been discussed in this House for thirty or forty years, and which proposes to give representative Government to the coun¬ ties—has also been relegated to the limbo of Parliamentary “ innocents.” Other proposals submitted by the President of the Local Government Board, not of great importance, but still useful, have been dropped after their course in the House has been considerably advanced. The reason for these abandonments is that the Ministry have not sufficient time at their disposal to discuss them. Yet, we are called upon to debate a Bill to-day which there is no desire for. It interests only a fraction of the public, and only a fraction of that fraction are really anxious for the enactment. The Bill proposes to establish a bishopric in Northumberland. There was once a bishopric in that county, that of Lindisfarne. It existed in the mists of history, but records of the lives and labours of the Lindisfarne prelates have descended even to the present time. They were really pastors of their flocks. They busied themselves in the material and moral, as well as the spiritual, welfare of those amongst whom their lot was cast. They were the guides, philosophers, and friends of their neighbours. But they lived before the time when bishops had begun to “ raise their mitred fronts in Courts and Parliaments.” There is not one attribute in common between the ancient and apostolic bishops and the modern ecclesiastical creation of that name. No one, I believe, would object to an increase of such bishops as there once lived at Lindisfarne, but what we do resent is the increase of such State officials as the Bill before us seeks to create. There have been repeated attempts to found a bishopric in Newcastle. Edward the Sixth proposed to establish a See there, Queen Elizabeth revived the project, and that fierce old Pres¬ byter, John Knox, himself was once thought of as a prelate. When the bishopric of Ripon was founded, in 1836, and that of Manchester, in 1847, the idea of a bishopric in Newcastle was once more mooted. In 1851, and again in 1854, the scheme was submitted to the other House of the Legislature, and discussed in clerical gatherings by Dr. Phillpotts and others. Up to this time, however, the project has never resolved itself into practical shape. I recall these facts for the purpose of observing that all the schemes for establishing a bishopric have been made by monarchs, or ministers, or clerical bodies outside and away from Nor¬ thumberland ; by men, indeed, who are ignorant of the modes of thought and feeling of the population for whom they aspire to legislate. I am not ignorant of the history of Newcastle, and I cannot call to recollection a single occasion when any serious effort has been made, outside the THE BISHOPRICS BILL. 3 2 9 clergy, in favour of the establishment of a bishopric, except that initiated by the late Sir John Fife, three-and-twenty years ago. A petition in favour of a bishopric was moved by that gentleman in the Town Council, but it was drowned in a sea of good-natured banter and derision. We require many things in Newcastle. We want a purer atmosphere, and higher culture ; we wish to be free from the material contaminations consequent on our rough and energetic industries, and to have put before the people a more artistic and elevated ideal of life ; but we do not want a bishopric. It is somewhat remarkable that, although the Church of England has for generations drawn a larger measure of wealth from the diocese of Durham, considering its size and population, than from any district of like extent in the country, yet that body never had, and has not now, any strong hold on the affections and convictions of the people of the North. It is difficult to measure the strength of different religious bodies in the country. Statistics are at best misleading, and yet they are the only means by which an approximate estimate of the position of the Churches can be formed. When the census was taken in 1S51, an attempt was made to enumerate the adherents of all the sects in the country. On a given Sunday in March of that year, all the people who were found attending churches or chapels were counted. It was hoped that, by such means, some approximation could be formed of the relative strength of the competing bodies. On the day in question, there were found attending the places of worship in connection with the Church of England in the county of Northumberland 37,000 persons ; in the county of Durham 29,000 persons : in all 66,000. On the same day, there were attending the Dissenting chapels in Northumberland 65,000 persons, and in Durham 50,000, making a total of 115,000. In the two counties, there was an attendance in the Catholic churches of 15,000. In round numbers, therefore, on the day named, while there were only 66,000 persons attend¬ ing the Church of England in the diocese of Durham, there were 130,000 attending the Nonconformist and Catholic chapels. Or, to put it in another way, the attendance in the Church was a little more than one- half what it was at the other places of worship. But these figures do not represent correctly the relative strength of the various bodies. Knowing that the attendance was to be counted on that day, efforts were made by all parties to have as large a number present as could be obtained. To the church the children of the National Schools, the inmates of hospitals and asylums, and the poor people from the workhouse, were all drummed up with a view of augmenting those to be counted. If reasonable deduc¬ tions were made for such exceptional worshipers, and only independent men and women were reckoned, it would be found that the comparison between the Church and Dissent was more favourable to Nonconformity than those figures at first sight show. 330 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Other information was supplied by the census in that year, which I will quote. It has been estimated by clerical experts that no district is sufficiently supplied with church accommodation that does not provide sittings for at least 50 per cent, of the population. Some persons contend that, instead of being 50 per cent, of seats, there ought to be 75. But Dr. Chalmers, whose authority, I believe, will be accepted by all parties, split the difference, and said if the Churches had seats for 60 per cent, of the population, that would be enough. Now, at the census in 1851, the approximation of sittings to population provided by the Church in Dur¬ ham, was 17 per cent.; in Northumberland, 18 per cent.; and in Newcastle, 11 percent.; while the proportion of sittings to population provided by the Nonconformists in Durham, was 28 per cent.; in Northumberland, 30 per cent. ; and in Newcastle, 22 per cent. This return shows that the Dissenters and the Catholics not only attend places of worship in greater numbers than the members of the Established Church, but they provided at that time twice as many sittings. Hon. gentlemen will, no doubt, contend, that this information has reference to a time that is long since past. To use a well-worn phrase, much has happened since then. The population and wealth have both increased. Not only the character of the community, but the aspect of the country, has changed. I am free to admit that the Church of Eng¬ land has made great and honourable efforts during the last quarter of a century. We do not possess now similar official returns to those we had in 1851, but I am able to quote from a publication issued with the sanc¬ tion, and under the patronage of the Bishop and Clergy of Durham, figures that will show what has been recently done in that district by Churchmen, for the propagation of their faith. During the Episcopate of Dr. Baring, there has been expended in building new churches ,£267,723; in restoring and enlarging old churches ,£119,313; in establishing burial grounds ,£12,825 ; in building schools in connection with the Church ;£ 109,378. In all, there has been raised by Churchmen, for Church purposes, in the diocese of Durham, between 1863 and 1876, no less than ,£509,239. I quote these figures to the honour of the Church. I know that in the North of England cynical people are accustomed to explain this large expenditure by declaring that it was the product of the abnormal prosperity of the coal and iron trades. Coalowners and ironmasters have amassed wealth rapidly, and it has become a fashion with them either to build new churches or to improve old ones. Men who are not distinguished for their personal piety, strive to make up for their deficiencies by providing better church accommodation for their less affluent neighbours. This is the reason given by some hypercritical persons for this large expenditure. But I dismiss such an atrabilious way of accounting for what has been done, and I hold that it reflects the highest credit on the liberality of the Church in the North of England, THE BISHOPRICS BILL. 33 ' that, during the last thirteen or fourteen years, they have collected for it an annual sum of something like ^36,000. If I were to draw any deduc¬ tion from those figures, it would be this : the liberality which Churchmen have shown goes to prove that, when the necessity arises, they are not only willing but capable of providing for religious ordinances amongst themselves. It is a common argument with the opponents of volun¬ taryism, that the Church cannot sustain itself without State patronage. But the fact that the Church in the diocese of Durham can find men sufficiently free-handed to contribute yearly such a handsome sum for religious and ecclesiastical purposes is a conclusive answer to the objec¬ tion. It is surprising that members of the Church of England, who are continually complaining of the thraldom under which the Church has to live, do not throw themselves on the liberality of their associates, and sever their connection with the State at once and for ever. What has been done in Durham, is a proof that if Churchmen so desire they can easily sustain their body without extraneous aid. But if the Church has increased in numbers and in influence during the last five and twenty years, Dissent and Catholicism have not stood still. If it is difficult to get accurate statistics as to the state of the Established Church, it is much more difficult to get dependable figures showing the position of the various Nonconforming bodies. There is not one organization but several, and it is not easy to collect statistics showing their progress over a given period and area. But from the information I have been able to obtain, I am justified in saying that in the two counties of Durham and Northumberland, the Dissenters and the Catholics have, during the last quarter of a century, not only ex¬ pended as large a sum in building chapels and schools as the Church has done, but that they have absolutely expended one half-as-much again. The consequence is that the position of the different bodies to-day is not altered for the better, so far as the Church is concerned. On the con¬ trary, Dissent and Catholicism have increased, not only as fast and as much as the Church, but they have progressed fully one-half more. That is, so far as the erection of churches, of schools, and the attendance at them are concerned. It may be taken, therefore, that the position of the different sects has not substantially altered since 1851 ; and what altera¬ tion has been made has not been to the advantage of the Established Church. There are in the North of England, several old Catholic families, the representatives and descendants of the men who espoused the cause of the Stuarts, under the leadership of the ill-fated Lord Der- wentwater, Lord Widdrington, and General Forster. There has been, too, a large immigration of Irish workmen during the last twenty-five years. Wherever there are mines and factories, Irishmen settle. The Catholic Church has made great strides during the period to which I am referring. The Nonconformists are numerous, but probably not so 332 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. numerous proportionately as they are in other counties. The two most growing bodies are the Methodists and the Presbyterians. All persons concerned in mining operations owe a debt of gratitude to the Methodists, for the energy and devotion with which they have carried not only religious but secular instruction to distant pit villages and obscure manufacturing districts. When the Church was indolent and indifferent, they were active in this work of evangelization. The Church of England has recently attempted to follow in their foot¬ steps, but they are still a considerable distance in the rear. Episcopacy has never been popular in the North. When Jenny Geddes threw a three-legged stool at the head of a Church of England clergyman when he attempted to use the English Prayer Book in an Edinburgh kirk, she gave forcible expression to the popular aversion from prelacy. She typified and accentuated the Scotch dislike to Episcopacy. The feeling that existed two hundred years ago lives to-day, only its expression has been moderated. Large numbers of Scotchmen have settled in Northumber¬ land and Durham. They have brought with them their intelligence, their personal energy and enterprise, and, at the same time, their religious convictions and form of worship. We may explain it as we choose, but Episcopacy is an ecclesiastical autocracy. Presbyterianism is eccle¬ siastical constitutionalism. The latter method of church government is more adapted to the breezy independence of Tyneside than the former. Hon. gentlemen opposite will tell us, in reply, that the statistics that I have adduced and the arguments I have drawn from them, instead of making against the Bill, make in its favour. They will contend that if the Church occupies comparatively such an inferior position, instead of being an argument against making more bishops it is an argument in favour of creating them. I know that I shall be encountered by that mode of reasoning, and I will reply to it by anticipation. It is a settled principle of political economy that the supply should be regulated by the demand. What I maintain is, that there is no demand for another b ishop in the North of England ; and there is, therefore, no need to supply one. Hon. gentlemen resent the application of the fiscal principles to ecclesiastical questions. They hold that if there be no demand for churches or for bishops, the demand should be created and the State should be called in to assist in its creation. Such a procedure is unjust, and for this reason. The Government represent, or are supposed to represent, the entire people. There are upwards of thirty millions in the United Kingdom. Some are Jews and some Christians, some Protestants and some Catholics. There are men of all faiths, and men of no faith. The Government derive their strength and their authority from men of these varied religions, and I contend that it is unfair to use the power that the united body gives for the purpose of propagating the doctrine of one. Let hon. gentlemen realise their position by considering how they would THE BISHOPRICS BILL. 333 feel if they were dissenters from the Established Church. Suppose the doctrines of the Church were Unitarian, or suppose they were Papal, how would Episcopalians like to have the power of the State exerted for the purpose of propagating Unitarianism or Catholicism ? They should act upon the scriptural injunction, and do unto others as they would like to be done by. It is not part of the duty of a Government to proselytise in favour of any religion. The State has no right to undertake the work of religious revivalists. But we are assured that the Church is a cosmopolitan body. Men holding the doctrines of Dr. Colenso, or the doctrines of Dr. Pusey, can be equally accepted as members. No doubt this is true. The Church of England calls everything fish that comes to its net. It is organised in a way calculated to gain support from all quarters. It has a “ Papal ritual, a Calvinistic creed, an Armenian clergy, and an Erastian form of govern¬ ment.” Such a composite organization, it is contended, may be sustained without serious injury to the conscience of any one. Acting up to this idea, whenever Churchmen attempt to find arguments in favour of fresh bishops, they invariably reckon up the population, and base their demand on the fact of its increase. The population of the county of Northum¬ berland is 400,000, and of Durham, 700,000, in all about 1,100,000. This is nearly double what it was a few years ago. There is no part of the country that has increased more rapidly in population than the county of Durham. The argument of the supporters of the Bill is that if one bishop was necessary when the population was half what it is, two bishops are required now. This reasoning is based upon the assumption that the increase in population has gone entirely in favour of the Church ; but this is not the fact. The religion of the nation and the religion of the State are not one and the same. The religion of the nation is Christianity ; the religion of the State is Episcopacy. The Episcopalians, therefore, are not warranted, when calculating the necessity for a new bishop, in holding that the increase in population has gone to swell their numbers only. During the last two generations, the population of England has doubled, but the increase in the numbers of beneficed clergymen in the Established Church has been at the rate of only 15 per cent. Even in providing places of worship, the Church has not kept pace with the population. In 1725, the proportion of churches to population in England was one to every 760 persons. In 1851, there was one church to every 1,273 people. In 1875, there was one church for 1,497 people. In other words, while the income of the Church has steadily risen, and the population has largely augmented, its relative hold on the people has decreased. We are told by early ecclesiastical writers that when the Emperor Constantine proclaimed territorial jurisdiction for the bishops, a weird and wistful voice was heard declaring, through the stately chambers and corridors of 334 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, ALP. the Byzantine Palace, “ This day poison is poured into the Church ; this day poison is poured into the Church.” No one knew whence the strange warning came, and no answer was vouchsafed to it. A reply, however, might now be sent through the long vista of years, and the experience of the Church of England might be cited as proving the truth¬ fulness of the prediction that was uttered fifteen hundred years ago on the banks of the Bosphorus. The bane of the Church of England, the cankers that are eating its heart away, are its wealth and its poverty. At one and the same time, it is the richest and poorest Church in Christendom. It has huge heaps of money scraped up in favoured places, and the persons that possess it live in splendour and luxury ; while all around them are poverty, desolation, and often want. The revenue of the Church from realised property is £ 7 , 200,000 a-year. Of this .£530,000 are distributed amongst 172 men. These are the archbishops, bishops, deans, and other dignitaries. The average annual income of the older bishops is ,£6,000 a-year—£^5,600 in cash, and ,£400 a-year for the rent of the palaces that they live in. This is the average ; but some have incomes much in excess of it. The Arch¬ bishop of Canterbury has an annual income of ,£15,000 a-year and two palaces. In a recent ecclesiastical return, it was shown that his Grace had been allowed to lay down 500 acres of land for pleasure-ground. It is not easy to recognise any resemblance between a bishop with two palaces, an income of ,£15,000 a-year, and pleasure-grounds 500 acres in extent, and the humble fishermen of Galilee, whose principles he professes to teach, and whose lives he aspires to emulate. Contrast the incomes of these high authorities of the Church with the salaries of the work¬ ing clergy. There are some 13,300 clergymen in the Church of England, and their average incomes vary from £360 to ,£380 a-year. The average income of the clergymen in the county of Durham is ,£360 a-year. But these figures do not correctly describe the incomes of the clergy. Several of them have incomes of ,£1,000, ,£2,000, and ,£3,000 a-year, and others have much less than the average amount named. A few years ago, there were in England 297 clergymen receiving under ,£50 a-year, 1,629 receiving under ,£100 a-year, 1,602 receiving under ,£150 a-year, and 4,882 receiving under £200 a-year. This was disgraceful to the Church. Matters have somewhat improved of late by the action of the Ecclesiastical Commis¬ sioners. Things are not so bad as they were ; but still, even in 1873, there were 1,163 ministers in the Church of England receiving only ,£100 a-year ; and there were 3,189 receiving between .£150 and £200 a-year. The average income of the curates is betwwen £70 and ,£80 a-year— very little more than an ordinary mechanic or miner. There are societies in existence for the purpose of collecting funds for educating curates’ children, and for supplying them with increased incomes and clothes. The Bishop of Manchester, speaking recently, disclosed that there are THE DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS. 335 curates in the Established Church who get flesh meat for their dinners as seldom as the agricultural labourers of Wiltshire and Dorsetshire. Statements were recently made in clerical papers that there were clergy¬ men who are unable to provide firing in the cold weather. You may explain it, or apologise for it, or excuse it as you choose ; but the broad fact still remains that, while one section of the clergy receives incomes superior to that of the Prime Minister of England, the men who do the work are subsisting on salaries inadequate to maintain them in ordinary decency. If, instead of proposing to increase the number of bishops, the members of the Church of England would set about a redistribution of the vast funds which that corporation possesses, they would accom¬ plish both for their Church and country a much more useful and honour¬ able work. The Church will never have any hold on the affections of the people while these gross anomalies exist. It may wield a certain weight in special circles ; but it can never touch either the hearts or sympathies of the nation, while its resources are so unequally and so inequitably dis¬ pensed. The people ask for more light, more mental liberty. They require a better conception of their responsibilities as men and as citizens. They want a broader diffusion of the principles, and a more faithful practice of the teaching, of the Founder of Christianity ; and it is proposed to give them more bishops, more of a superficial and artificial ecclesiasticism. We want a Church, not of parsons, but of, and from, and for the people ; into which any man, however poor, and however ignorant he may be, can enter—take a heart to be purified, an intellect to be en¬ lightened, and a spirit to be elevated. We want a Church in which there are absolute intellectual freedom and complete Christian equality; which will be a place of refuge for the weary, of shelter for the poor, of solace for the sick, of help for the desolate, and of tribuneship for the oppressed—not a ring of dignitaries rolling in wealth and swaggering in the foretop of the State. [At the adjourned debate on going into Committee on August 9, Mr. Cowen’s amendment was rejected by 75 to 38 ; and the Bill received the Royal assent on the sixteenth of the same month.] XXI. THE DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS. [Mr. Cowen, on February 24, 1880, seconded the following resolution moved in the House of Commons by Mr. J. Holms : “ That, in the opinion of this House, the duration of any future Parliament should not exceed five years.”] The suggested change will have to encounter the stereotyped set of 336 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. adverse prophecies ; but its supporters need not, therefore, be discouraged. Evil forebodings as to the result of a new course of action are more easily found than sound arguments. There is no established custom in connection with our representative system, however anomalous, inde¬ fensible, or inconsistent, that has not found ardent champions to assert its value, to insist on its sacredness, and to predict the ruin that would inevitably ensue if profane reformers dared to touch it. Their repeated failures might have taught them the folly of attempting to foretell the future ; but prophets are not soon abashed. Whatever crops fail, there is always an abundant harvest of them. The proposition before the House is not an untried and dangerous novelty. It is not a wild “leap in the dark,” nor a heedless “ shooting of Niagara.” It is the adoption, in a modified form, of a time-honoured, constitutional practice. “Frequent and new Parliaments”—such was the ancient phrase—has been a point in every Reform programme for generations. Annual Par¬ liaments, or, to speak more correctly, “ sessional Parliaments,” is the principle of the Constitution ; and they were certainly the unquestionable practice of this country for centuries. Mr. Prynne, a plodding, painstak¬ ing, but somewhat verbose political antiquary, was appointed as keeper of the King’s records in the Tower after the Restoration. When put into that office, he collected all the parchments committed to his charge, and had them assorted, arranged, and tabulated. Some had been destroyed, some damaged ; but those that he could decipher he copied, and republished in a book, entitled, “ Parliamentary Writs Revived.” From the catalogue then printed, it is shown that, during the 143 years that immediately pre¬ ceded the accession of Charles I., there had been 103 new Parliaments. When we consider that kings frequently broke the law, and failed to call a Parliament ; that some of the writs were lost, and others of them were illegible, this catalogue of Mr. Prynne’s sustains my argument that Par¬ liaments—at least during that period—were frequent. Mr. Hakewell, a gentleman in a position to obtain correct information, published about the same time a book, entitled, “ The Manner of holding Parliaments in England.” In this volume, a list of the Speakers of the House of Com¬ mons was given. Every new House chose a fresh Speaker. The list of these functionaries given by Mr. Hakewell, and the list of writs given by Mr. Prynne, tally. During the last recess a Blue-book was issued, entitled, “The Roll of Parliament.” This contains the information got together by Prynne and Hakewell, with further details. The whole of these works combine to confirm and sustain my contention that Parlia¬ ments, up to the time of the Stuarts, were either sessional or annual. Lord Russell, in the last discussion on this question, maintained that the assertion that annual Parliaments were the principle of the English Constitution was a historical fallacy. A statement made by Earl Russell on this subject—or, indeed, on any subject—should be considered THE DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS. 337 with deference. But his lordship, on the occasion in question, gave his authority for his statement, and, unfortunately, that is not a dependable one. He justifies his argument by giving extracts from the writings of that not very scrupulous placeman and pensioner, Sir Richard Steele. I could occupy the House for hours by reading quotations having the very opposite meaning, and upholding the very opposite opinion, from eminent lawyers, distinguished statesmen, and influential political writers. I will not, however, weary members with such an infliction, but compress into a sentence or two the opinions of men worthier of confidence than the editor of the Taller. Two Acts passed in the reign of Edward the Third, declared that Parliaments ought to be held annually or oftener if need be. Mr. Prynne, in the preface to the book I have just quoted from, says— " The power of the representatives continued no longer in force than during the ses¬ sion of the particular Parliaments to which they were summoned, when they presently ceased to be knights, citizens, and burgesses in any succeeding Parliaments or Councils, unless newly elected and restored to serve in them by the King’s new writs. Mr. Samuel Johnson—not the lexicographer, but a writer of influence a the time of the Revolution in 1688, says— “ We will never be better from this revolution till we have a settlement of Parlia¬ ments. Our ancient right was anniversary Parliaments, and nothing else can set the Government to rights. I wish that all our rights were reduced to one line, which is our right to have a Parliament every Kalends of May.” In an essay by the same author, entitled, “ Concerning Parliaments,” he asserted that— “Our ancesters would no more have dreamt of having an old and stale Parliament cut into new sessions than of having an old moon cut into new stars." Mr. Wynne, a celebrated lawyer, in his dialogue, said— “The law formerly had as little idea of a member of Parliament being fixed for more than a year, than it had of a parish officer being chosen for more than twelve months.” Sir Robert Raymond, who was Solicitor-General to Queen Anne, Attorney- General to George I., and afterwards Chief-Justice of the King’s Bench— asserted in a discussion on this subject, that— “A 'prorogation ’ of Parliament was against the law of the land, and that every departure from annual elections was not only illegal, but mischievous.” Mr. Archibald Hutchinson, another Parliament man of distinction, said— “ That frequent and new Parliaments were a more valuable reform than all the other reforms claimed. The ancient Constitution (he added) was in favour of annual Parliaments, and not triennial.” Dean Swift, who was sent by Sir William Temple to see King William, with a view of inducing him to consent to reduce the duration of Parlia¬ ments, wrote— 23 338 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. "As to Parliaments, I adored the wisdom of that Gothic institution which made them annual. For who sees not that, while such assemblies are permitted to have a longer duration, there grows up a commerce of corruption between the Ministry and the deputies, wherein they both find their accounts to the manifest danger of liberty?’’ He further said that— “ Our liberty can never be placed upon a firm foundation till the ancient law is revived by which our Parliaments were made annual." Lord Somers, in his plan of reform, advocated biennial Parliaments ; and, in the famous petition presented by Lord Grey in 1793, from the “Friends of the People,” annual Parliaments constituted one of the main points. But if these authorities are not sufficient, I will quote one, the force of which even Lord Russell himself would have admitted if he had still been spared to us. At a famous meeting of Whig statesmen and politicians, held on the 20th of March, 1780, at the King’s Arms Tavern, the following resolution was unanimously adopted. Mr. Charles James Fox was in the chair on the occasion, and Mr. Sheridan submitted this motion— “ That annual Parliaments are the undoubted right of the people and law of England; and that the Act that prolonged their duration was subversive of the Constitution, and a violation on the part of the representatives of the sacred trust reposed in them by their constituents." I contend, from evidence supplied by Mr. Prynne, Mr. Hakewell, and the Blue-book recently published, that the custom of this country up to the time of the Stuarts, was to hold sessional or annual Parliaments. From the authorities I have submitted, I think I have a right also to say that they were a “principle of the Constitution.” Charles the First introduced a new system. He attempted to tax and govern the people without a Parliament. But in the sixteenth year of his reign a Bill was passed, requiring the king to call a Parliament every three years. If the king failed, neglected, or refused to do this, the Lord- Chancellor and the keeper of the Great Seal could summon the Peers, and issue writs for the election of members of the House of Commons. If,, for any reason, these officials neglected to discharge that duty, it could be undertaken by twelve Peers. If they failed, the sheriffs in the different counties could proceed to election without writs. But if the sheriffs, the peers, the great officers of the State, and the king, all evaded their re¬ sponsibility, the people themselves could undertake the work. The citizens in cities, the freeholders in counties, and the burgesses in boroughs could meet on their own motion, elect representatives ; and if any one so elected refused to obey the mandate of his constituents, he was liable to fine, if not imprisonment. It may not be generally known, but it is a fact of some interest, that this Act was copied from one passed by the Spaniards in the kingdom of Aragon and Castille some years previous,. THE DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS. 339 to meet an analogous position of affairs to the one that existed in England under the Stuart King. This Act, establishing triennial Parliaments, con¬ tinued in operation until the reign of Charles II. That monarch regarded it as an invasion of his Royal prerogative, and as lowering him in the estimation of his brother-sovereigns. He said that foreign princes refused to enter into treaties with this country as long as the Triennial Act remained in operation, because such treaties would be dependent for their existence on the temporary and transient impulses and caprices of the people. He appealed to Parliament to repeal the Act. The Parlia¬ ment then sitting was an obsequious one, and it did as it was desired. In 1694, at the instance of the Duke of Devonshire, a Bill re-establishing the system of triennial Parliaments, was introduced into the House of Lords. The King had put his veto on a Bill of a like purport that had passed both Houses of Parliament some years previously. At the time referred to, circumstances favoured his accepting it. There were special reasons why he should stand well in the opinion of the House of Commons. He had been engaged in expensive wars on the continent, and required at that moment five million pounds to pay the debts he had incurred. The Queen, too, was ill, and likely to die. The King knew that his position in the country would be greatly weakened by the death of his consort. For the double purpose, therefore, of obtaining the necessary money and securing the good opinion of the House of Commons, he assented to the Bill introduced by the Duke of Devonshire, although he had opposed a like measure so recently. The object of the Bill, broadly stated, was to curb the power of the Crown, to curtail the corrupting influence of the court, and to increase the authority of the constituents over their representatives. Nine Parliaments were elected under the Triennial Act; and the testimony of all historians goes to prove that the liberties of the people were strengthened by it, while the authority of the country abroad was sustained and augmented. It was repealed in 1716, in an extraordinary manner. At the General Election, held in 1714, the Whigs had obtained a majority ; but, during the year afterwards, the first Stuart rising occurred. This was put down with brutal severity by the Hanoverians. A natural, and, I am free to confess, in my judgment, an honourable and generous reaction was generated by the cruelties of the conquering party. The Hanoverians, feeling and knowing this, were afraid to appeal to their constituents at the time prescribed by law, and they passed an Act that not only increased the length of Parliaments in future, but the length of the one that was then in existence. A grosser and more outrageous Act of unconstitutional aggression we have no record of in modern history. The Septennial Act is the historical memorial of an unhappy era, and an evil event. It was opposed at the time by independent members of both the Whig and the Tory parties. There is recorded, on the books of 340 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. the House of Lords, an able, logical, even eloquent, protest against the Act, signed by thirty influential Peers, beginning with the Duke of Somerset and ending with Lord Salisbury. Lord Grosvenor, speaking and acting in the name of the Whig party in 1817, concluded an exhaus¬ tive and indignant speech against the Act, by declaring that it was a violation of the rights and liberties of the people. He said, further, that the Act repealed itself, and ought to be erased from the Statute-Book, which it disgraced. It repealed itself, because the Act cited the reason why it was passed, and that reason had ceased to operate. Its supporters apologised for—they did not attempt to defend it—on the ground that it was a temporary measure, passed in troublous times to meet exceptional circumstances. When these troubles terminated, and when these cir¬ cumstances ceased, it was promised that it should be repealed. That promise, however, has not been kept. By the preamble of the Bill, four purposes were sought to be served by it. First, it was designed to defeat the intrigues of the Pretender ; second, to circumvent the “ machinations of a powerful and restless Papist faction ” ; third, to lessen the heat and irritation—such was the language used—that attended elections ; and, fourth, to reduce the number of contests. There is now no pretender to the throne of England. The last of the Stuarts, like the last of the Capulets, or the last of the Mohicans, has long since gone the way of all flesh. The dreaded Papal faction has vanished into thin air. It exists only, if it exists at all, as a heated hallucination in the minds of weak women and weaker men. The disturbances that distinguished elections have not been destroyed, it is true, but they have been diminished. There is little of the roysterous rioting that once characterised those trials of party strength. Polls cannot now be kept open ten, twelve, or fifteen days, during which all the corrupt influences in a constituency are let loose. The law now prevents excessive expenditure for agency, for display, and for refreshments, and the votes are collected in a quiet and orderly manner by ballot. I do not contend that our electoral system is perfect. On the contrary, I think it is capable of great amend¬ ment. But I do contend that it is better than it was. There may be heat, and there may be irritation ; but these excesses are more charac¬ teristic of a period preceding the election than of the elections them¬ selves. The cost of contests has not been reduced by the Act. I do not say that they have been increased by it, but I do say that the electoral expenditure at present largely exceeds what it was a hundred years ago. In 1764, the average cost of an election was ,£500. From returns sup¬ plied to this House, we know that the average cost of a county contest at a General Election in 1874 was ,£11,000 ; while the average cost of a borough contest was ,£2,500. These figures, as everybody is aware, understate, rather than overstate, the reality. Three of the purposes for which the Septennial Act was passed have thus been accomplished, not THE DURATION OF PARLIAMENTS. 34i by it, but through circumstances that it did not influence, and the last one it has failed to answer. Some arguments that were used with effect against the Act at the time it passed, cannot now be upheld to its detriment. By the Revolution, the House of Commons gained the influence in the direction of affairs that the Crown lost. The Government soon found that they could not coerce members, but they could buy them. Sir Robert Walpole openly argued that the power and the means of Ministerial corruption were indispensable to Parliamentary government. Members bought their way into this House, and when here they sold their votes and influence to the party that paid them best. A room at one time was open in connection with the Treasury, where members regularly went, without shame, to receive remuneration for their services. Sometimes they got ,£100, sometimes £200, and at other times .£300, for help they had given to the men in power. An entry in Sir Samuel Romilly’s diary in 1807 throws a strange light over the traffic in seats, even at that comparatively late period. He says :— " I shall procure myself a seat in the new Parliament. Tierney, who manages this business for the friends of the late Administration, assures me he can hear of no seats to be disposed of. After a Parliament which has lived little more than four months, one would naturally suppose that those seats which are regularly sold by the pro¬ prietors of them would be very cheap ; they are, in fact, sold now at a higher price than was ever given for them before. Tierney tells me that he has offered ,£10,000 for the two seats at Westbury, the property of the late Lord Abingdon, and which are to be made the most of by the trustees for the creditors, and has met with a refusal. ,£6,000 and ,£5,500 have been given for seats, with no stipulation as to the time or against the event of a speedy dissolution by the king's death, or by any change of Administration." Many hard things are said against the House of Commons in these later days; but no one can with justice say that the votes of its members are bought and sold. It may have intellectually degenerated, but at least it is honest. It may be sometimes disorderly, and not unfrequently too loquacious ; but it can be affirmed, with satisfaction, that men of all parties would spurn bribes by whomsoever they might be offered. In this respect, the House of Commons presents a marked and honourable contrast to the House of Commons even sixty years ago. The historical argument in support of shortening the duration of Par¬ liaments is interesting, as it recalls memorable political struggles. It is instructive, as it shows how stoutly our constitutional rights were fought for, and how resolutely they were retained. But it is of less practical value than reasons that can be adduced from our changed social sur¬ roundings, and the different circumstances of our national life. The entire aspect of the country has altered since the days of the Pretender. The condition of existence has been changed, and the current of public affairs has been quickened. It took, in 1714, twelve days to travel between 342 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Edinburgh and London, and the journey could be accomplished only with difficulty and discomfort. Now, we can cover the same distance with ease and with security in less than as many hours. A man’s life is measured not by his years but by his sensations, his sufferings, his experience, and his knowledge. And, as with the life of man, so should it be with the life of a Parliament. Modern Parliaments accomplish as much work in a year as old ones aspired to perform in five. The opponents of the Septennial Act resisted it mainly because of the dread they had of the illegitimate influence which the Court and the Crown could bring to bear on members. There is no danger now to be anticipated from that quarter. It lies in an entirely opposite direction. We have extended the suffrage ; we have increased the constituencies ; and we have invented a complicated and complex system of elections. These changes have driven the supporters of all parties in the State to systematic and minute organization. Party managers think they can only develop and apply their strength through such channels. It looks as if we were going to be choked by excessive combination. It is possible that our enlarged con¬ stituencies may disappear before cliques and caucuses, as has not unfre- quently been the case in America. This has, however, not taken place yet, and 1 know no better means of preventing it than by making elections frequent. The best antidote to excessive organization is to bring the representatives and the represented into closer and more direct contact with each other. Shorter Parliaments would help to accomplish this. And if, along with such a change, the expenses of elections were thrown upon the constituents as they ought to be, and it were rendered illegal for candidates either to pay for canvassing, conveyances, or agency, the necessity for, and certainly the danger that will arise from the organising spirit of the time, would be avoided. If there were more appeals to the constituencies, the political intelligence of the people would be quickened, a healthy independence of thought would be generated, and the breath of national life would be sweetened. [On a division, there voted for the motion 60, against it I io ; majority 50.] XXII. URGENCY FOR IRISH COERCION. [Speech delivered on the afternoon of January 25, 1881, in the House of Commons, after an all-night sitting. The resolution before the House was one moved by Mr. Gladstone, to place all the time of the House at the disposal of the Government, so as to enable an Irish Coercion Bill to be passed quickly.] When I left the House last night, this discussion was proceeding in URGENCY FOR IRISH COERCION. 343 the humdrum style that is not uncommon in this Chamber. It was expected that it would be continued until after midnight, and then adjourned. Under this belief, I left, and only learnt that the House was still sitting after ten o’clock this morning. I have no stomach for such controversies. They unduly strain men’s strength and patience, and produce no good result. They are appeals, not to reason or good sense, but to endurance, and are better fitted for lads in a playground than for grave and stately legislators. This is the oldest and noblest legislative body in the world ; and men, jealous of its reputation and influence,should discountenance such vulgar struggles for physical supremacy. There are abundant ways of reaching conclusions on disputed points without resorting to such extreme and reprehensible tactics. I had it in my mind, if the business had followed its usual course, to present some arguments against the resolution of the Prime Minister, but both the strength and temper of the House are exhausted, and I fear it is in no humour to listen to a line of reasoning conceived in a different spirit from much of the speaking that has taken place. I would like, however, notwithstanding the disadvantage under which every one must speak who speaks at this hour, to place before hon. members my objec¬ tions to the course Ministers propose to pursue. I do not do this as a partisan, but as an independent Radical. There are few of that creed of politicians left ; but on behalf of those who still survive, I wish to lodge a dissent from the course the Government are taking. I object to this resolution, because it is an interference with the fast-diminishing privi¬ leges of private members, and because it will place at a disadvantage the Irish members while the liberties of their country are being confis¬ cated. It is customary for right hon. gentlemen, when securely seated on the Treasury Bench, to treat with indifference—sometimes with derision— the rights of non-official members that they have themselves when in Opposition lustily enough clamoured for. We have just been assured, with a lofty air of superiority, that our fears are superstitions. I institute no invidious comparison between official and non-official members. They have their places and their uses. Officials, from their position, get information that is not available to those who stand outside the Minis¬ terial barrier. But their superabundance of technical knowledge not unfrequently blunts their perception of principles. Immersed in routine, they are apt to lose the faculty of following the forces that underlie and regulate national movements. They become stereotyped administrators. Statesmen ought to be both philosophical and practical. They should be comprehensive enough to grasp great principles, and close enough to be able to apply them. Independent members, if they are deficient in their knowledge of detail, are unincumbered by official restraints, and they can bring to the discussion of constitutional questions a freshness 344 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. of thought that men in office are not always able to command. A private station is not only a post of freedom, but it is often also a post of honour. Many—indeed most—of the noblest enactments that grace our Statute- Book, were initiated by independent members. They advocated reforms during years of reproach and ridicule ; and when popular opinion had been educated up to the acceptance of their doctrines, they were em¬ braced, often without acknowledgment, by the official leaders. The history of Parliament is crowded with the records of men who have stood steadily and strictly on principle, who did not seek emolu¬ ments, and did not care for glitter and gold lace—men who kept the lamp of freedom burning when its more pretentious friends were sunning themselves amidst the seductive and somnolent pleasures of official life. I have no desire to applaud unduly the efforts of independent members ; but when there is so strong a disposition to disparage them, their sendees have a right to be recalled. The resolution before the House, taken by itself, is objection¬ able enough; but it is still more objectionable when taken in con¬ nection with other and covert assaults on the rights of non-official members. Liberties are seldom taken away all at once. They are abstracted stealthfully. The privileges, which years of precedent have accorded to independent members, are being systematically entrenched upon, while the time at the disposal of the Executive is being steadily increased. For full half of last session the Government had complete control of the time of the House. We are told that was exceptional; but when an exception is allowed to pass without protest, it becomes a precedent. Precedents are accustomed to increase, and an accumulation of them constitutes law. What was fact to-day, became doctrine to-morrow. This session began a month earlier than usual. The Government com¬ plain that, so far, little progress has been made with public busi¬ ness. That is true, but the inference they wish us to draw from the fact is not quite fair. The discussions on the Address have occupied eleven days ; but it is a mistake to suppose the Government have been the sole sufferers in consequence. Out of those eleven days, six have been taken from private members and only five from the Govern¬ ment. The first Order for to-day is a Bill designed to meet, in a moderate and temperate way, the demand of the Irish people for increased powers of local government. Yet, by this resolution that Bill will be supplanted by a Coercion Bill. Do hon. members think that the relations between the two peoples will be sweetened by such a procee ding ? But the action of the Ministry will affect other affairs besides those of Ireland. The Cabinet have stimulated the elements of danger and mis¬ chief in the East. Direct incentives and indirect promises have been URGENCY FOR IRISH COERCION. 345 given to some of the parties of the Eastern controversy. By absorbing the whole time of the House, we shall all be deprived of the opportunity of contesting the wisdom, the justice, or the necessity of the course Ministers have pursued. The late Government were indignantly de¬ nounced for refusing facilities for discussion ; yet the men who denounced them are doing the same thing in an aggravated form. What would Liberals have said if the Conservatives, when in office, had proposed such a resolution as that now before us ? It would have been denounced with indignant eloquence as the natural outcome of tyrannical Tory rule. It requires no stretch of imagination to conceive what embarrassing questions would have been asked, what inconvenient resolutions would have been moved. How the members for Swansea and Burnley would have declaimed ? Now they sit there mute and motionless. They have not a word to say in support of those unfortunate independent members, whose interests they were so jealous of, and whose rights they fought for so lustily last Parliament. What is legitimate when men on their own side are in office is illegitimate when their opponents are there. I cannot see the fairness of such inconsistency. It goes far to justify the poet’s censorious lines :— “ To place and power all public spirit tends, In place and power all public spirit ends ; Like hardy plants, that love the air and sky, When out 'twill thrive, but, taken in, 'twill die." The Government are about to suspend the liberties of the Irish people, to deprive them of the first, the commonest, but the most sacred right conferred by the Constitution. They are going to vest in a feeble and vacillating Executive, in a frightened and vindictive magistracy, powers such as are enjoyed by no despot in Christendom., Not content with that, they are going to curtail the limits of legislative resistance that the Irish representatives can offer to this odious policy. Is this either just or generous ? The Irish members in this House are in a minority—a hope¬ less minority. Is it wise for the majority so to strain their powers over them? “’Tis excellent to have a giant’s strength, but tyrannous to use it like a giant.” Let English Liberals ask themselves how they would feel, and think, and act if they were so placed. There is a line from an old Book, whose contents they profess to reverence, which counsels Christians to act unto others as they would that others should do unto them. Are they so acting towards their Irish colleagues ? They have just been told that the opponents of coercion were apologists for, or extenuators of crime. The statement is false. Where law terminates, tyranny begins. No Englishman can look with indifference at disorder or lawlessness. Thus far, I am entirely with the Government. But I differ from them entirely in the way they propose to suppress disorder and illegality. I am for punishing the guilty, and the guilty only. The Government, by 346 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. their new Bill, will punish guilty and innocent alike. But I know it is useless reasoning. Any measure the Ministry propose will be passed. They have the power of suspending the Irish members, or gag them, or send them to the Clock Tower, or to Newgate ; and they may do all these, things. But what will follow? If the agitation be stifled, what will be the result? Do they imagine discontent will thereby be annihilated? If they do, they will find themselves grievously mistaken. They may im¬ prison the agitators, they may make millions of mutes ; but the dreary silence, the gloomy taciturnity that will follow, will be, in its operations and its consequences, ten times more injurious, and twenty times more dangerous than legitimate agitation. XXIII. IRISH COERCION. [Speech delivered during the debate on the second reading of the Pro¬ tection of Life and Property (Ireland) Bill, February 8, 1881.] I am conscious that any appeal to the Government to abandon, or even to modify, the harsh and fatal course of policy they have entered upon, will be unavailing. I feel so keenly, and differ so widely from most of the gentlemen near whom I sit, that I would gladly be silent. But when a man is placed in a position in which he is compelled to give expression to his opinion, the fact that he is in a helpless and despised minority only renders the necessity for his speaking the more urgent. It is no pleasure to me to be in constant conflict with political associates. But neither fear of party, Boycotting, nor despair of success for the cause he pleads, frees a man from the honest utterance of unpalatable truths. It is a melancholy and mournful reflection, that the British Parliament, eighty years after the Union, which was to bring peace and prosperity to Ireland, should be occupied in formulating a ukase that will place the liberties of the Irish people at the caprice of a prejudiced police, a maddened magistracy, and a bewildered Executive. For seven sad centuries, English rule in Ireland has been a dreary round of starvation and agitation, conspiracy and insurrection, followed by brutal repressions and reprisals. We may not unprofitably preface the concession of the despotic powers that the Government are demanding, by inquiring why it is that a people endowed with so many splendid faculties, possessed of so many noble and attachable characteristics, and with whom we have lived in enforced connection so long, should repudiate our rule and rejoice at our disasters. Why is there this unending enmity, this enduring mistrust between the IRISH COERCION. 347 two peoples. There is never smoke but there is fire. The fire in Ire¬ land has smouldered for centuries, but every decade it bursts into a blaze. No people will risk their liberties, imperil their lives and their properties for political changes, if there are other and easier modes by which they can be obtained. Less than a hundred and fifty years ago, Scotland was in rebellion for the House of Stuart. Now, it is one of the most loyal, prosperous, and contented portions of the United King¬ dom. Ireland is distressed, disloyal, disaffected. Why is this? In that “why” lies the kernel of the question. The inhabitants of no part of the earth’s surface are more supremely wretched than the inhabitants of the west and south of Ireland. Destitution is their permanent condition. It is the classic land of misery. “ In a climate soft as a mother’s smile, on a soil fertile as God’s love,” the Irish peasant mourns. Thousands, or rather, tens of thousands of Irishmen have found material prosperity in other lands that has been denied them in their own. But they carry to their new homes the treasured wrongs of centuries. Neither absence nor distance can soften their hostility to those whom they regard as their oppressors. Englishmen wince when the sepulchres of history are un¬ earthed, and the winding-sheets and skeletons of buried crimes are revealed. There is a great man now lying dead at Chelsea 1 —no one was less of a revolutionist than he—-yet he often affirmed that England is righteously suffering for fifteen generations of wrong-doing to Ireland. The sins of the fathers have been visited upon the children. There are memories of the past that Irishmen cannot permit to sleep. The Government parade the offences that have recently been committed in that country—parade them, indeed, offensively and unnecessarily. But they ought to lay some of these outrages at the tombs of their prede¬ cessors rather than at the door of the much-derided Land League. We have inherited a legacy of hate, which we and our children will have to discharge. We are not guilty for the past, but we are responsible for it. The Government profess themselves to be anxious to deal generously with Irish grievances. I do not doubt their sincerity, but they go some¬ what strangely about their work. It is not the deed, but the spirit in which it is done ; it is not the gift, but the temper in which it is given, that makes it acceptable to those who receive it. The Ministerial pro¬ mise of ameliorative legislation has been preceded by one of the harshest and most hateful Coercion Bills that has ever been submitted to the legislature. Things, too, have been done and said during the progress of that measure that have grievously embittered the relations between the two peoples. The acrid speeches that have been made, and the atrabilious writings that have been published will rankle in the minds of Irishmen for years to come. Some honourable gentleman cries “ Oh ! Oh ! ” but he must have a very imperfect knowledge of the history of ' Thomas Carlyle. 348 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. mankind if he does not know that, for one conflict between nations that has arisen over material disputes, five have arisen out of sentiment or from a sense of offended honour. It is only a few years since England had to pay smartly to a friendly State for offensive comments made respecting that State when it was in the throes of civil war. Some, too, may recollect the experience of the second war between this country and America. An Englishman of distinction visited the United States after that lamentable event, and had an interview with one of the leading Republican statesmen. Our countryman inquired how it happened that America had commenced war with such precipitation. General Cushing assured him that the Americans went to war, not for so many square yards of territory or so many ounces of gold, but to vindicate their national reputation from the sneers of Mr. Canning and his colleagues in Parliament, and the rancorous comments of the English press. If the honourable member behind me still cares to call in question my contention, I can supply him with other historical illustrations that will uphold my argument, that people are influenced in their love or their dislike of each other by other than material interests. Englishmen either cannot, or will not, realise what the Irish people think and feel. The shout of savage satisfaction that went up from the Ministerial benches when the Home Secretary jauntily announced that he had sent an intrepid Irishman back to penal servitude, has sown a crop of animosity which the present generation will not see reaped. You may sneer at, you may denounce and deride, a dominant nation with impunity, but the same criticism addressed to a sensitive, suffering, and subject race cuts them to the quick. Until the English Parliament and people recognise this, the abyss between the two countries will never be bridged. Complaint is made of the severity of the speeches that have been delivered from the Irish benches. But Liberals ought to recollect the provocation under which these members speak. There are several there who have been in English prisons. They know what the tender mercies of a British rule are. The iron has entered into their souls. There are, too, the sons of men who were turned on to the bleak hillside landless, houseless, and homeless, with nothing before them but the highway or the workhouse. The snug, self-satisfied, well-to-do middle class English¬ man may talk of such events with complacency, and with affected moderation seek to underrate the extent of such suffering, but the men who have passed through it are not capable of referring to them in such dulcet strains. The Irish Secretary says that the Land League wields an authority greater than he does, although he is clothed with all the panoply of power. Has it never occurred to him to inquire how that authority has been won, and why that influence has been wielded ? The honourable IRISH COERCION. 349 gentlemen opposite are, most of them, young men, without great means, without the influence of social rank, and without material force. How is it that they are able to compete with the Castle and its constables ? It is because they personated the antipathies, the aspirations, the sufferings, and the hopes of their countrymen even when in rags. They can rule the pulse, cheer the sadness, and sweep the strings of the national harp. Until the English Government can win equal confidence, all their Coercion Bills will be unavailing, and all their persecution profitless. They base their demand for coercion on the number and character of the agrarian outrages that are alleged to have occurred in Ireland within the last twelve months. It is unnecessary to detain the House with a detailed examination of the voluminous Blue-Books that have been published on this subject. They have been riddled through and through by the criticisms of my honourable friends. The persons who have collected and tabulated these figures have manifestly done so with the view of pleasing the authorities, who, it is known, are anxious to have evidence to justify their application for coercion. Some of the cases stated are grossly exaggerated. There is the barest shred of fact for them to rest upon. Other cases have been split into three or four different offences, with a view to magnify the total. Some crimes, too, have been incorporated in the return that have about as much reference to agrarian disputes as the Nihilist movement in Russia has to the United Kingdom Alliance. The Irish Secretary and his agents have over-egged their pudding. In their anxiety to get data to justify their coercive legislation, they have strained the figures till they have become untrustworthy. Every candid man admits that there have been offences ; and if the Government had fairly and without animus presented a statement of them, their position would have been stronger. The position of affairs in Ireland is not new. It is but a repetition of what has occurred many times within the last couple of centuries. They have their perpetual differences. Every man who has been charged with the administration of Irish affairs knows, or ought to know, the untrust¬ worthiness of much of the information that is sent to the Castle. I could quote confirmatory testimony on this point from very different but equally reliable authorities, from Mr. Drummond, Lord Althorpe, Lord Normanby, and Lord Eglinton. But I will only read, for the edification of the Irish Secretary and his colleagues, the wise and weighty words of the Duke of Wellington who, in commenting on the unreliability of the evidence that was systematically sent to Dublin Castle, says in his correspondence, “ It frequently happens that disturbances happen only in a very small degree, and probably only partially, and that the civil power is fully adequate to get the better of them. At the same time, the desire to let a building to Government for a barrack — the desire to have troops in the country, either on account of the increased consumption 3 jo SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. of the necessaries of life, or because the increased security which they would give to that particular part of the country would occasion a general rise in the value and rent of land. Upon these occasions, letter after letter is written to the Government; the same fact is repeated through many different channels ; and the result of the inquiry is generally that the outrage complained of is by no means of the nature or of the extent which has been stated. The obvious remedy for this evil, and that which is generally resorted to, is to call for information on oath of the transac¬ tions complained of; but this remedy is not certain, for it frequently happens that informations on oath are equally false with the original representations.” The Irish Secretary may with advantage read further memoranda of the Duke of Wellington on this subject. They will dis¬ illusionise him. The Government have changed their ground since the Session began. When the House met, their case was built up entirely on the prevalence of outrages. After the exposures that have taken place, they feel they can no longer trust their returns. Their correctness has been shaken. Even admitted offences have largely decreased. During January', 439 cases are reported, 251 of which are threatening letters. There have, therefore, only 188 crimes occurred in thirty days. There has not been a single case of murder, or manslaughter, or assault, or of appearing armed, or of levying contributions, or of cutting and maiming. I will under¬ take to say that there is not another country of Europe that could present such a pure criminal bill as Ireland has presented during the last month. When you remember that the population is over five millions, and that all the offences scraped together by the industry of 12,000 police, by more than double that number of soldiers, and by no end of other agents, did not reach 200, exclusive of threatening letters, the position of the Government is absolutely untenable. But Mr. Forster says that crime has decreased because the people are frightened of him and his Coercion Bill. That, however is a matter of opinion. What we have to deal with are facts, and the facts show that there was less crime during January in Ireland, than there probably was during the same period in any other country of like extent and population in Christendom. The opinion of the Irish Secretary is just about the last opinion that I should take on an Irish subject. Such a remark may surprise some, but every man familiar with that country will admit its correctness. There are two nations in Ireland, between which a deep and bitter gulf runs. The Irish Secretary knows the opinion of the Castle officials, the constabulary, the detectives, and landlords, but he does not know—from his very position it is impossible for him to know—the opinion of the people who live outside that circle. The fact that he is Irish Secretary prevents ordinary people coming in contact with him. If he had been still an independent member of the House instead of a IRISH COERCION. 35i Minister, he would have been in possession of more trustworthy informa¬ tion respecting Ireland than he is now. Driven to abandon their original contention that the number of out¬ rages warrant their demand for coercion, they now allege that a general state of terror exists, and that it requires a system of lettres de cachet to put it down. This is a very indefinite accusation. Fear is a state of mind. It is a subjective condition. Very likely some of the Irish landlords are afraid. But the point for us to consider is whether they are justified in being afraid. Some people are afraid of speeches—political and social. Others are afraid of their constituents. I know men who are afraid of the Ministry, and others who are afraid of Mrs. Grundy. All these kinds of fear are explainable, but I cannot explain or understand how any one can be afraid of threatening letters. And the terror that exists in Ireland has chiefly been caused by those missives. A threatening letter will break no bones, and it need disturb no man’s sleep. Such stupid documents are circulated only by fools or cowards. No brave man will allow his equanimity to be upset by such miserable and con¬ temptible compositions. If the Government are to make good their accusation, that a system of terror exists, they will have to adduce better evidence than that supplied by the circulation of threatening letters. There is Boycotting, no doubt, and I regret it. I have no sympathy with any system of exclusive dealing. It is, however, remarkable that, whenever a people are passing through a crisis akin to that existing in Ireland, they always resort to a process of social excommunication. In the peasant war in Germany, when the cultivators of the soil resolved neither to pay tithe, tax, nor rent, they drove a stake before the house of the landlord who had refused to comply with their demand, and the house near which this stake stood had to be shunned. At the French Revolution, like practices were followed. The peasants cut a cross upon the trees, or broke branches in the hedges of an offending landlord. This acted as a warning. A man who lived near where such marks had been made was understood to be an enemy, and he and his had to be avoided as a leper. In this country, too, when artisans were engaged in a struggle, either to secure an advance of wages, or to resist a fall, like practices are fol¬ lowed. The most potent step a trades’ union can adopt to enforce its orders, is to “black-leg” members. Boycotting is only “black-legging” under another name. I am neither extenuating nor justifying the practice, but showing that the course which the Irish peasantry have pursued is neither new nor novel. Even men in other walks of life are not unaccustomed to ostracise offending colleagues or associates. There is not a more generous assembly of gentlemen in the world than the House of Com¬ mons, yet when it becomes exasperated it can send a man to Coventry, 352 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. and keep him there. There sat behind the front Opposition bench, in last Parliament, a man of some eminence as a poet, of greater distinc¬ tion as a scholar, and one who was not without ability as a lawyer. 1 He espoused, unwisely perhaps, certainly unfortunately for himself, a peculiar cause, and by its advocacy he made many enemies, and aroused much animosity. Though he was in the House, he was not of it. I remember an occurrence that took place just before the Dissolution. The gentleman to whom I am referring had risen from a bed of sickness to come here to move a resolution. Immediately his turn came the House cleared, and he was too weak and discouraged to proceed. I met him afterwards going downstairs a beaten, broken, bankrupt man. He mournfully recited to me what had occurred, and as he staggered into a cab, I felt the hand of death was upon him. If a tolerant and intelligent assembly like this can so Boycott one of its members, we ought not to be so hard upon starving Irish peasants Boycotting offending agents and unpopular landlords. The practice, under any circumstances, is unjust, and many times cruel; but when we all at times resort to it, we might show more consideration to men labouring under a sense of injury and desperation. The state of mind that leads to Boycotting cannot be removed by a Coercion Bill. If we are to eradicate it, it will be by friendly counsel, by genial demeanour, and by beneficent legislation. Coercion may confirm the practice ; it will certainly not annihilate it. It is said that the Irish people are lawless, and that they have no regard for constituted authority. Perhaps, there is some truth in the accusation, but the English Government are largely to blame for it. Law is sacred in the eyes of an Englishman, because it is systematically held and equitably administered. It is not sacred to Irishmen, because it is constantly broken by the Executive. During the eighty years the Union has existed there have been no less than forty-nine Coercion Acts ; that is, the ordi¬ nary law of the land has been suspended nearly fifty times during these years. What is, what must be, the inevitable consequence, of such a course of procedure ? It is that the people have lost their faith in law and their respect for it, as they know and see in their daily life that the Government can break or bend it at their own will and pleasure. Law in England is not based upon the bayonets of the soldiers or the batons of the policemen. It is founded upon a sense of confidence and trust in the authorities. Till a like condition of mind can be generated in Ireland, the lawlessness that you lament will continue. It is because this Coercion Bill will help to perpetuate the baneful feeling that I resist it. If the Government had acted upon the common law, they would by degrees have suppressed all illegal courses, and the moral effect of such a line of action would have been felt beneficially for years hence. The Cabinet allege that this measure is urgent, and they ask the House to 1 Dr. Kenealy. IRISH COERCION. 353 trust them. This is the common demand of despotic rulers. Every man can speak for himself. I would not trust them if their chief were an angel, and his colleagues all saints. I will not do so for their own sakes as well as for the sake of Ireland. The fact of their possessing this unlimited authority will tempt them into excesses. It is desirable, for the wisest and best men, to have reasonable restraints put upon them. But even if I had been disposed to rely on their humanity and generosity, their recent doings would have rudely shaken my confi¬ dence. Probably the meanest, crudest, and most cowardly act of an. English Government in modern times has been the recommittal of Mr. Davitt to Portland. The Prime Minister won deserved renown for the- manner in which he pleaded for the release of Neapolitan prisoners. I- know some of these gentlemen have listened to the recital of their suffer¬ ings from their own lips. I also know Mr. Davitt, and I am proud to say,, in the presence of this hostile House, that I count it a privilege to call that convict my friend. I have also heard from the Irish patriot what he saw and suffered in our convict establishment. I make bold to affirm that the treatment of the Irish Fenians is as severe as that of the victims of Neapolitan oppression. I invite the Prime Minister to exert his benevolent influence for the release of a man whose case is equally as deserving of his intercession as that of Poerio was. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was very angry when a com¬ parison was instituted between the action of the Anti-Corn-Law League and the action of the Irish Land League. He repudiated the imputation- that the body with which he was associated ever resorted to practices at all approximating to those that members of the Land League are accused of. The honourable gentleman, however, cannot be accepted as an im¬ partial witness. He was a friend of one, and an enemy of the other. If a fair comparison is to be instituted between the two bodies, we should take the opinion of the Protectionist landlords, the men who stood towards the English Association, much in the same way as the right honourable gentleman now stands towards the Irish members. The Anti-Corn-Law League were tempted into excesses just as members of the Land League have been. I will recall to the knowledge of the right honourable gentle-, man an incident he seems to have forgotten. His League strove to arouse the agricultural labourers against the farmers and landlords. They sent agents into the rural districts, and distributed broadcast Free-Trade literature. As the outcome of their agitation, a meeting was held at a place called Goatacre. It took place at midnight and by torchlight. The men who went to it brandished their flambeaux dangerously near the stacks of the neighbouring farmers and the houses of the neighbouring squires. At that meeting, an English labourer made a speech, in which he mentioned the amount of his wages, and how he disposed of them. He told his audience how many pence 24 354 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. went for bacon, and how many for bread. At the conclusion of his address, a man in the crowd cried out, “And where do you get your firing ? ” The speaker replied, “ I steal it, and I care not who knows it.” That meeting was organised by the Anti-Corn-Law League, and a report of its proceedings printed and circulated by that body. Now, whatever the Irish Land League have done, none of its speakers have openly advo¬ cated stealing. They have urged the withholding of rents until they obtained a reduction, but they have never deliberately proclaimed robbery from their platform. The right honourable gentleman says he has systematically opposed coercion. Some of the Bills that have been introduced he has spoken against, some he has voted against, but none has he supported. Well, if that be the case, I can confound the honourable member out of his own mouth. At the time one of the Coercion Bills was passed which he opposed, there were committed in Ireland in one year 172 ; in another 137; and in another 176 murders. He opposed coercion when these crimes were perpetrated, and he takes credit to himself for having done so. According to the statement of the Government of which he is a member, there were only eight murders in Ireland last year, and yet he now supports coercion. One of two things—he was either wrong in opposing exceptional legislation when the murders amounted to 176 in a year, or he is wrong in supporting it when they amount to only eight. He may take which horn of the dilemma he chooses, but upon one or other, by his own admission, he must be impaled. I can easily conceive what the right honourable gentleman would have said if any Tory Government had proposed a Coercion Bill when the aggregate agrarian murders in a year amounted to eight. How he would have lectured the other side ! The House knows his style:—“ You, you hereditary oppressors—grinders of the faces of the poor—with what conscience can you seek for such arbitrary authority in the midst of such suffering ? ” And then he would have turned to the Irish members and preached to them from the familiar text, “ Codlin is your friend, and not Short.” The Liberals behind me who are now going to vote for this Coercion Bill would have cheered to the echo such statements and accusations. Those generous gentlemen have no end of sympathy for people abroad. With them “dis¬ tance lends enchantment to the view.” Their political telescopes enable them to detect injustice on the other side of the globe, but prevents them discovering it at their own doors. They have a superabundance of sympathy for Boers and Bulgarians, for Montenegrins and Fijians, but they have very little, indeed, for the enduring efforts after national life of a people renowned in the archives of history, and whose memorials are traceable into antiquity by their virtue, their valour, and their suffering. The Government are refurbishing the rusty instruments of political AN APPEAL FOR CLEMENCY TO IRELAND. 355 oppression and torture. But the hateful apparatus will break in their hands and wound them. They are too fond of coercion. They hav r e been coercing the Turk, they are coercing the Basuto, and now they want to coerce the Irish. They have coerced the constituencies by their caucuses, and they would like to coerce Parliament by their cloture. Ministers in the past have earned for themselves nicknames. There was a “broad-bottomed Ministry,” a “ Ministry of all the talents,” and, some¬ what significantly, there was a “short-lived Ministry.” The present Government, if they do not alter their course, will be known in history as “ the Coercion Ministry.’’ [The Bill was read a second time by a majority of 303 ; the Ayes being 359, and the Noes 56.] XXIV. AN APPEAL FOR CLEMENCY TO IRELAND. [Speech delivered on third reading of the Protection of Life and Property (Ireland) Bill, February 25, 1881.] It is difficult for any one to give expression to a new idea, or even to lend emphasis to an old one, on the question before the House. But before the obnoxious measure passes its final stage, I wish to record once more my protest against it. Its passage into law will mark a pain¬ ful chapter in the history of this House. We have had, during its pro¬ gress, a Parliamentary coiip d'etat. We have witnessed a curtailment of some, and the suppression of other, liberties that were the cherished heritage of centuries, and we have experienced the establishment of a dictatorship. The Government, for the purpose of supplying them¬ selves with sufficient reasons for their policy, have had recourse to the practices of Paul Pry and of Fouche. They have opened private letters, and subjected the representatives of the people to a surveillance that has been unheard of, certainly unpractised, since the days of the Stuarts. I and a few others have persistently, consistently, and uncompromisingly opposed this Bill. We have fought it upon every inch of fighting ground furnished to us by the forms of the House. We have resisted it as a whole, and we have resisted it in detail. In doing this, we have done nothing more than sustain the traditions of English Radicalism. The course that we have pursued would have been pursued by hon. and right hon. gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench, and not by six, but more than sixty sitting behind me, if the position of parties had been re¬ versed, and a measure of a like character had come from the Opposition. According to the ethics of latter-day Liberalism, coercion, when sub¬ mitted by Tories, is a hateful enactment, but when proposed by Liberals 356 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. it is a “beneficent provision for the protection of life and property.” No doubt this inconsistency can be reconciled to the crooked morality of partisanship. But I am sufficiently obtuse neither to see its justice nor its wisdom. A proposition is right, or is wrong, upon its merits. It is matterless what man proposes it, or what party acts as its sponsors. The Bill before the House, in my judgment, is bad in principle, will be cruel in practice, and disastrous in its consequences. I make no appeal to the Government. I know that both appeal and remonstrance will be unheeded. But I should like to put before the House some reasons why the despotic provisions of this measure should be mildly and mercifully applied, not in the interests of Ireland, not for the convenience or the comfort of the unfortunate men who were to be imprisoned, but for the benefit and the credit of the nation. I differ, toto calo , from the Government, as to the necessity for such an Act. Wherever there is political disaffection amongst a people broadening to the verge of insurrection, the laws under which that people live, the Government by whom these laws are administered, are, by the very exist¬ ence of the disaffection, tried and condemned. It is a fallacy, a pitiable fallacy, which all history proclaims—that the unruly passions of a people can be stirred into activity by the impetuosity of agitators, however earnest or however able, if there is not just ground of grievance. When¬ ever the affairs of a country are honestly administered, and the laws equitably applied, you cannot convince the people that they are tyran¬ nised over, trampled on, or insulted. A prosperous and contented' population turn a deaf ear to the syren voice of sedition. You may pipe as lustily as you like, but they will not dance to revolutionary music. If a man’s boot pinches him, he does not punish his foot, but he alters his boot. In like manner, if the laws of a country pinch a people, and they give expression to their pain, it is the duty of the rulers to inquire- into their suffering and provide a remedy for it. This is not what the Government have done towards Ireland. For the third of a session, they have strained all their powers to manufacture whips by which to scourge the Irish people. This is not acting, in my opinion, wisely. Their course should have been to amend the laws complained of, and, if that had been done, there would have been no pretext, much less necessity,, for the suspension of the Constitution. I have a cardinal difference, therefore, with the Ministry. I deny the necessity for their coercive measures, and I question their efficacy. But dismissing that view of the matter for the nonce, let us, for argument’s sake, place ourselves in the position of the Government. Let us approach the subject from the standpoint of the Ministers, and having done that, I maintain that the lawlessness they lament, and the disorder they de¬ plore, might have been lessened, if not entirely avoided, if there had not been administrative vacillation and apathy. If, during last autumn 4 N APPEAL FOR CLEMENCY TO IRELAND. 357 and winter, the common law had been put in force firmly but tempe¬ rately, the agitation would have been shorn of many of its excrescences. No one denies that there have been excesses, and none regrets them more than the Irish members themselves. If there had been a vigorous ap¬ plication of the ordinary law of the country to the early deviations from order, the land movement would have been kept within legal channels, while its intensity would not have been reduced, or its success impaired. I do not believe it would have been possible for the Government to stay the agitation. That was beyond their power. The well-head of political and agrarian disorder is buried deep in the wrongs of ages, and no Coercion Bill that either this or any other Cabinet can introduce can stop its perennial overflow. But the Government really did not wish to allay the agitation. They regarded it, up to a point, with approval, and I do not blame them for it. They conceived that the movement would make to their advantage ; and, while they did not absolutely encourage it, they certainly regarded it without disapprobation when kept within given limits. It went beyond those limits, and became troublesome. That, however, did not get over the fact that the Ministers were at first not unfriendly to a circumscribed agitation. To appreciate the point of this remark, we require to carry our minds back for eighteen months or two years. It is necessary for us to recall circumstances that took place in the closing days of last Parliament. An alliance, offensive and defensive, was then entered into between the English Liberals and the popular Irish representatives. The belief was that the hereditary parties in this country were nearly balanced, and that at the General Election, the Irish voters in England might be able to cast the scale. It was the interest, then, of the Liberal party—and I make no complaint of what was done—to open up friendly relations with Irish members and Irish voters. I know this treaty was not engrossed on parchment. It was not “sealed, signed, and delivered” like a legal document. Such bargains are never put on paper with such precision. If they were, they might turn out to be troublesome to one or both the parties con¬ cerned. But that a combination of the character I describe did take place is unquestioned and unquestionable. We all remember how in¬ fluential Liberals were accustomed to come down to the House, in the last two sessions of last Parliament, and throw their protecting aegis over the Home-Rulers when they were struggling to exact some small con¬ cession from the then occupants of the Treasury Bench. The Home Secretary was always ready to shed the light of his countenance and his counsel upon benighted Irishmen when they were seeking possibly for an adjournment or delay. Articles appeared in magazines, over distin¬ guished signatures, contending for the preservation of that most powerful instrument of Parliamentary independence—obstruction, especially when wielded by a small party striving after great principles. Honourable 358 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. members on both sides contributed to the compact. My hon. friend the member for Meath, and others, went to Sheffield, to Liverpool, to York, and urged their countrymen to cast a solid vote for the Liberal party. He urged it, too, with effect, as, in the common cry against the Conservatives at the election, no voters were steadier than the Irish. The belief at the time was that the mild and harmless Coercion Act, which expired last year, would, if the Tories were returned, be renewed. The point was pressed with great earnestness upon Liberal candidates, whether they would or would not support its re-imposition. Not dozens, but scores of these said candidates, pledged themselves as solemnly as men could pledge themselves that they would resist any attempt at further coercion. It was declared by many that the re-enactment of the law would not only be unjustifiable, but criminal. And yet the men who made these declarations, and upon the strength of them got Irish votes, have been the most resolute supporters of the Bill before the House ! I leave these hon. gentlemen to justify to their consciences and their constituents these wholesale breaches of their solemnly recorded pledges. In Ireland, a like process went forward. Thousands of honest, law- abiding Irish farmers joined the land agitation under the distinct belief that when doing so they were aiding the Government. They entertained the opinion that the first measure proposed by the Government would be a Land Bill, and they were anxious to raise a wave of popular opinion sufficiently strong to carry the Bill steadily and safely over the bar of the House of Lords. Their settled belief was that from the Liberals they were to have immediate and drastic agrarian legislation. But the same men who engaged in this agitation, under the expectation that they were aiding the Government, are now being threatened with arrest. Every town and village in the south and west of Ireland is inundated with police-agents and informers. The sympathisers and supporters of the Land League are being closely watched. Everything they say is being chronicled, every¬ thing they do is being recorded, and the names of all with whom they came into contact are registered. This information is regularly sent to Dublin Castle. The Irish police have really established a reign of terror. For having taken part in what they regarded not only as a legal agita¬ tion, but an agitation favourable to the Ministry, men are being intimi¬ dated and warned that, on the slightest provocation, they will be thrown into prison—a punishment by which not only their own comfort would be greatly interfered with, but by which their business would be dis¬ organised. The result is a complete reversal of feeling. The men I have been describing regard themselves as having been deceived. They look upon the Ministry as having acted towards them treacherously. If they are cast into gaol, and if, when there, they are treated with the same inhu- AN APPEAL FOR CLEMENCY TO IRELAND. 359 inanity as the Fenians arrested under the last suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were treated, there will be an explosion of popular indignation such as the country does not anticipate, and is little prepared to meet. Despair drives men to reprisals. I do not give the slightest countenance to the fear of insurrection that seems to possess some persons. There is not a remote reason for supposing that any such movement is medi¬ tated. It exists only in the “heat-oppressed brain” of the Irish Secre¬ tary or his colleagues. Even the men who are in favour of the separa¬ tion of the two countries, and believe that war for that purpose would be justifiable, admit that at the present time such a task would be hope¬ less. It is not fear of an insurrection, therefore, that I point out. It is, however, something quite as serious—an embittered and almost vindic¬ tive feeling between the Irish and the English people. Should this feeling get vent, the relations between the two countries will be further strained, and the hope of better relationship will be sadly dashed. I urge, then, the desirability, in the interests of the State, apart alto¬ gether from party considerations, of using the tyrannical authority that the Irish Executive have now got mercifully and temperately. We are told to trust the Government, and especially to trust the Irish Secretary. The right hon. gentleman has made the same request repeatedly during these discussions. If it were a question of personal confidence, I should have no hesistation whatever in trusting him. I can say, with all candour and sincerity, that I have faith in the right hon. gentleman’s good intentions and kindly disposition. But while I have this regard for him as a man, I must say, with equal frankness, that I have not much confidence in him as a politician. Men do, in their collective capacity as members of a Ministry or of a company, what they would shrink with horror from doing in their capacity as simple citizens. We have had abundant evidence of this in the fact that many of the most tyrannical rulers were, as men, not only unobjectionable, but commendable as personages. That petty despot, a former king of Naples, whose name has several times turned up during these debates, while treating with so much cruelty his political prisoners, was, according to Mr. Dale Owen, constantly engaged in interesting discussions about spiritualism and the philosophy of a future state. Maximilian Robespierre was not only an incorruptible, but a generous and gentle man. He wrote one of the ablest arguments ever penned in favour of the abolition of capital punishment; yet, during his short tenure of office, hundreds of Frenchmen were sent to the guillotine. Endless examples of the same kind might be adduced to show how men’s character in public office and places of trust often conflicts with their private character. It is a dangerous doc¬ trine to entrust the public welfare to the exceptional virtues of any man. Highly though I esteem the Irish Secretary as a man, I shrink from committing either to him or any one the vast powers that are given by 360 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. this Bill. The right hon. gentleman can put it in operation only through the instrumentality of others, and those others are police-agents and informers. Of all created things, the most loathsome is a political spy. The creatures who can worm themselves into the confidence, can parti¬ cipate in the councils, of generous, ardent, patriotic, but possibly mis¬ taken men, and, when they have got a knowledge of their proceedings, or have tempted them into a course of political guilt, can turn and betray them for the wages of iniquity, are—why, there are no words that human language supplies sufficiently strong to anathematise such malefactors. And these are the men whom the Irish Secretary must of necessity employ and act with—men like Corydon and Talbot, the spies upon the Fenians, whose cup of life is drugged with treacheries to the brim, “ their country’s curse and their children’s shame.” I have no doubt the right hon. gentleman is solemnly resolving in his own mind that he will have no contact with such scoundrels. But Lord Mayo and Lord Car- lingford, equally far-seeing and liberal men, doubtless made like resolves. They were not aware, at the time, that such ruffians as Talbot were being employed ; yet, nevertheless, they were employed, and the knowledge of their employment was made apparent afterwards. As it has been before, it will be again. We have to forecast the future by the past. What has been done is the best index of what will be done. The right hon. gentleman has been a Minister of the Crown before, and in that capacity undertook, with jaunty confidence, the settlement of another difficulty. He told Parliament that he would “ canter over it.” Instead of cantering over it, however, he cantered into it. He dragged his colleagues and his party after him, and they wandered for six dreary years in the desert of Parliamentary Opposition. I do not say that alike result will follow from the right hon. gentleman’s treatment of the Irish difficulty. The latter question does not evoke the same feeling in this country as the former did. The mass of the middle-class Liberals, too, in England have made a fetish of the present Government. They believe it is infallible. They accept anything or all things at its hands without question. The nauseous draught that has lately been adminis¬ tered is being swallowed, with a wry face it is true, but still swallowed without complaint. But the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues may be assured of this—that excess of confidence will be succeeded by excessive distrust; that unmeasured laudations will be followed by un¬ measured and, in all probability, undeserved censure. As long as human nature exists as it is at present, such consequences will follow from such causes. Extremes on one side beget extremes on the other. The dis¬ integrating process that commenced in the Liberal party when the right hon. gentleman attempted to deal with the education question has again begun. It is impossible for any Ministry persistently to drive its party in a course of action that is distasteful to it without disaffection, and that AN APPEAL FOR CLEMENCY TO IRELAND. 361 disaffection will deepen into disunion. I say this with sincere regret, and all the more strongly because I believe that the result, which many saw was being foreshadowed, might, by an opposite policy, have been avoided. I know the course I and the few anti-coercionists in this House have taken towards this Bill has been a source of annoyance to members who are sitting behind me. Hateful though the measure is to these gentlemen, they would have been glad if its objectionable features could have been huddled up and kept from the public view. But I do not understand my duty as a representative in that light. With every impulse of my soul I hate this Bill ; and now, at the close of the struggle, it is to me a melan¬ choly satisfaction that I have done my best to defeat it. Looking back over the last six weeks, I experience a sensation of shame. When I read the comments of foreign critics, and the resolutions passed by foreign legislatures, I have a feeling of humiliation. The relationship between England and Ireland is a dishonour and a disgrace to us. It affects not only our interest and our honour, but our influence and our reputation amongst the nations of the world. It is impossible for us to expect that our counsel and authority on great international questions can be treated with the deference they deserve, so long as this chronic discontent exists in Ireland. It is a question that ought to be dealt with free from all party feeling, all angry passions, or unworthy prejudices. England is the richest nation in the world. Her annual savings amount to upwards of 240 mil¬ lion pounds sterling. Yet, within a few miles of our own shores, within a few hours’ ride of our own capital, the seat of refinement and of wealth, there are thousands living on the verge of starvation, only a few degrees removed from pauperism. Nearly every ten years they have a famine followed by an incipient insurrection, or an agitation almost equal in intensity to an insurrection. England, too, is the freest country in the world. There is no nation, either in ancient or modern times, whose people have the same measure of political and personal freedom as we possess. Englishmen have been the pioneers of industrial and social progress. We set the world a magnificent example of our attachment to freedom when we liberated our slaves at a cost of many millions. We have lifted our countrymen from the position of subjects to the rank ot citizens. Our laws are open to all, and are free to all. Yet, in an integral portion of the United Kingdom we have, during the last eighty years, suspended the first and most precious principle of the Constitution, over a lesser or larger area, for a shorter or a longer time, on nearly fifty occasions. We have made this country a storehouse, into which is car¬ ried the produce of every clime. We have covered the surface of the globe with colonics, and constituted these colonies, in their turn, the seats and centres of a general and ever-widening civilization. Yet, we have been unable to attach to us one of the most generous of races, or do more than extract from them a sullen acquiescence in our national partnership. SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ., M.P. We may reason as we like, we may apologise or extenuate it as we please, the simple recital of these facts is the most eloquent condemnation that can be uttered of the government of Ireland by England. “ By their fruits ye shall know them.” And the fruits of English rule in Ireland heretofore have been like Dead Sea apples—fair without, but full of lauseous bitterness within. I sincerely trust that this Coercion Bill, with all its hateful provisions and its humiliating accompaniments, will be the last measure of the kind that the British Parliament will ever be called upon to enact. I have said hard things, I know, of the Bill, and of the party who has submitted it ; but now that the discussion is closed, I hope the Government will see their way at once to introduce other measures of a remedial character, and that these will be urged forward with as much determination as they have applied to the Bill now about to pass its final stage. The gathering gloom of the days to come will, I hope, be relieved by proposals which may do something towards healing the many and angry wounds that the atrabilious discussions of the last six weeks have made amongst our struggling and suffering countrymen on the other side of the Irish Channel. XXV. THE IRISH COERCION ACT. [Mr. Cowen moved an amendment to the Order for going into Com¬ mittee on the Irish Coercion on May 23, 1882.] The mixed feelings of impatience and hopelessness with which the House entered upon the discussion of a fresh Irish Coercion Bill, the fiftieth in eighty years, are but natural. It is reasonable, too, that the wrath and horror excited by the tragedy in Phoenix Park should colour the discussion. The character of the victims, and the circumstances of the crime, combine to concentrate attention. But there have been mur¬ ders as detestable and as dastardly, if not as daring, that have excited small comment and provoked little protest. Painful though these assas¬ sinations were, they did not constitute the most disturbing element of the situation. They were but the outward and visible signs of the existence of an irritating virus. The Government expect that the Bill before the House will bring a temporary relief. I do not share that opinion. Its effect will be the very opposite. But of this we may be sure—that until the social suppuration is drained off, there will be a constant recur¬ rence of these eruptions. Few things in human history are more visibly related, as cause and effect, as Irish misery and Irish outrage. The one is the outcome of the other. Average Englishmen treat Irish THE IRISH COERCION ACT. |63 politics as a pest, Irish grievances as a nuisance, and Irish history as a myth ; but if we are to cure the evil, we shall have to probe it to the bottom. Irish customs are not singularities to be stared at, or extrava¬ gances to be ridiculed, but living and active forces, which have deeply and continuously affected national life. If the perennial discontent is to be appeased, these customs will have to be studied, and the drift of them understood. It is impossible to conceive that numbers of men would deliberately run the risk of being hanged for the sole purpose of gratify¬ ing personal dislike. To argue in support of such an opinion, is to sup¬ pose the existence of a diabolism in Irish character inconsistent with human nature. There must be a cause for these troubles. What is it ? It originated partly in the injustice of the past, and partly in the suffering of the pre¬ sent. According to the old Irish law, the land belonged, not to the individual, but to the tribe. The chiefs held their position as much by choice as by inheritance. Every Irish peasant had a share,—it might be a small share, but he had a share—in the land he tilled. That right was inviolate and indefeasible. It was recognised by law and acted upon by custom. W r e overturned the clan system, and established the landlord system. We drove the Irish chiefs into beggary and exile and the Irish peasants into the bogs and mountains. They were not sufficiently numerous to rebel, nor sufficiently influential to make their voice heard in the Legislature ; but they were powerful enough to combine, and they did so. They formed agrarian associations, after the model and accord¬ ing to principles of English trades unions. English workmen were ac¬ customed at one time to cut the driving bands and bellows of “ black-legs.” Irish peasants, in like manner, injured the property, and attacked the lives, of landlords or of tenants who refused to comply with their trade combinations. The Rapparees, the Levellers, the Whiteboys, and the Peep o’ Day Boys of past times in the south of Ireland ; the Hearts of Oak and the Hearts of Steel in the north ; and the Ribbonmen and Moonlighters of modern days, had all a common origin. The idea that animated them was identical; the purpose they sought to serve was the same. They were the trade societies of the peasantry. The excesses they committed did not originate in depravity of disposition, or in mere Celtic restiveness. They were wild and unregulated protests against personal injustice and public grievances. Hon. gentlemen talk as if the present state of Ireland were new. Unfortunately, there is no novelty in it. It is the normal condition of the country. Agitations and offences of the kind complained of are, I was going to say, as old as their round towers ; certainly, they are as old as the Conquest and the confiscations. Spenser and Payne, two of the adventurers planted in Munster at the Elizabethan settlement, described the state of Ireland in their day. If hon. members would take the trouble to refer to their works, SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 3$4 they would find the condition then was the counterpart of that now. If they took a chapter from Spenser’s book, and altered the dates and names, it could be read as a description of the south and west of Ireland to-day. Nothing has changed. There is the same bitter feeling be¬ tween landlord and tenant, the same complaints, the same disorder, and the same class of outrages. Sir William Petty, the founder of the House of Lansdowne, and one who was largely concerned in the Cromwellian settlement, Mr. Wakefield, Mr. Plowden. and Arthur Young, have also de¬ scribed Ireland at different periods ; and the descriptions they give tallies with those that are now being given from day to day. Even Mr. Thackeray, writing at a still more recent date, and with no special lean¬ ing towards the Irish people, accounts for the disturbances in the same way as the writers referred to have done. There is no difference of opinion amongst persons who have examined the subject amply and dis¬ passionately. Suffering produces discontent, and discontent crime. The evictions which are now being carried out upon such an extended scale feed the disorder. Evictions, indeed, are but spawning-ground for it. It is a striking circumstance, too, that there is no country in Europe whose people are mainly dependent on agriculture, where like troubles have not arisen. The peasant war in Germany, the conflict in France previous to the Revolution, the farmers’ disputes in Denmark and in Hungary, were but reproductions of the state of things that exists in Ireland. The people were divorced from the soil, ground down by their landlords, and engaged in a perpetual struggle between starvation and pauperism. They resorted to the same remedies to better their condition. The same class of crimes existed there that we find in Ireland—injuring landlords’ property, burning the produce of recal¬ citrant tenants and maiming their cattle. In Russia, at the present moment, a like state of affairs prevails. A few days ago, the continental papers contained an account of a struggle going forward in that country, which is, in character and design, exactly the same as that going on in the South-west of Ireland. The Russian peasants are shooting their landlords, burning their dwellings, and injuring their cattle, just as Irish peasants, unfortunately, are doing. I am not recalling these facts in justification or palliation, but to show that like conditions of social life produce like results. In the West of Europe, a beneficent change has taken place. The demands of the peasants have been complied with. There is now no agrarian discord in France, Germany, Denmark or Switzerland. The most turbulent populations have become the most conservative and law-abiding—the most poverty-stricken have become the most prosperous. A similar transformation will be wrought when we apply to Ireland the same remedies that have been applied in France and Germany. Ireland is suffering from a severe agricultural depression, amounting THE IRISH COERCION ACT. 365 almost to famine. The effect of that distress should be removed, and permanent security in their holdings, as well as reasonable encourage¬ ment to labour, should be given to tenants. With these conditions, a change like that which has taken place on the continent would be expe¬ rienced. Hon. gentlemen say there have been no troubles of this kind in England. That is true ; but things in England are exceptional. The people have been dissevered from the soil, but they have other and profitable outlets for their energy. They have mining, manufacturing, and shipping industries to fly to. But if we had not possessed these out¬ lets, we should have had troubles equivalent to those that exist in Ireland. Coercion will be utterly ineffectual in dealing with these grievances. If crime is to be prevented, its cause must be removed. Ministers will learn, as others have learned before them, that prosperity alone will banish crime, and that contentment is the best policeman. But there are other disturbing elements in Ireland besides agrarian injustice. There are political differences which are more difficult to deal with than the social differences. However unpleasant it may be to English¬ men, they will have to face this question, and the sooner they face it manfully, the better it will be. It is impossible to force laws from without upon another people, while we ignore the customs or traditions of that people. Look at the mode in which we treat the different sections of the United Kingdom, and learn from that one of the causes of the chronic disaffection of Ireland. We conquered Wales. We overturned their independent system of government, and planted in their midst our own. But, having done so, we endeavoured, with fair success, to remove from amongst them everything that could revive the recollec¬ tion of our invasion and their conquest. And we succeeded. Wales is, and has been now for centuries, as legitimately a part of England as Northumberland. We dealt differently with Scotland. There we made a bargain, and the bargain was not brought about by fraud or force, but was deliberately entered into, and freely and fairly discussed and settled. The Scotch people consented to surrender a certain measure of national independence in consideration of getting specified material advantages. They retained their Church, their law-courts, their educa¬ tional system, their local institutions—everything, in fact, which did not distinctly conflict with the union. Scotch affairs were administered according to Scotch ideas, Scotch principles, and Scotch prejudices. After the Union, affairs in Scotland were really more controlled by Scotch¬ men than immediately preceding it. And what has been the result? Scotland is one of the most loyal, contented, and prosperous sections of the British Empire. How have we acted in Ireland? We have neither fully conquered the country, nor have we really united it with us. We have set up an artificial uniformity, and we call it a Union ; but it is- 366 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO HEX, M.P. not one. We thrust upon the Irish people an alien Church, a hateful system of land tenure, and a mode of law that is opposed to their tradi¬ tions. and conflicts with their interest. We govern Ireland by English¬ men, in accordance with English ideas : and we have as much discontent there as we had content in Scotland. Every decade there is either an insurrection or an agitation broadening to the dimensions of an insurrec¬ tion. The government of Ireland resembles one of the fair cities on the slopes of Mount Vesuvius. It is a tenant-at-will to the volcano beneath. I do not question the good intentions of English statesmen. No one can be benefited by Irish disorder. But I do question the wisdom of English policy. Conservatives have tried to govern Ireland according to Conservative principles ; the Liberals have tried to govern her according to Liberal principles. Neither of them have succeeded, and for this simple reason—that the Irish people want to be governed according to their own principles. They desire to rule themselves. It is a commonplace in politics that men will submit to inconveniences inflicted by men of their own race and creed that they will not tolerate if forced upon them by strangers. Englishmen have a high idea of their own institutions : but all the world does not share their estimate. Even- one believes the Prime Minister and his colleagues are anxious to better the condition of Ireland, and to assimilate its institutions to popular aspirations. But what have they just done ? There have been four important offices in the Irish Administration vacant—the Vice- royalty. the Chief-Secretaryship, the Under-Secretaryship, and the head of the Constabulary. Even,- one of these places has been filled up by Englishmen ; and two, if not three, of the men appointed have never been in Ireland, and none of them have any knowledge of Irish life and customs derived from living in the country. The government, as a consequence, is vested in the hands of strangers. Why is that ? No one can say that there are not Irishmen qualified to fill these posts. For their numbers, the Irish race has produced more distinguished men than any other country in Europe. There is no nation of such limited extent that can count among its sons so many men notable in arms, arts, literature, and administration. In every walk of life, they have forced themselves into prominence. A few years ago, five English colonies were governed by Irishmen, and four out of these five were rebels who had been driven out into exile for their political opinions. The idea, therefore, that there are not capable Irishmen for filling these situations, cannot be entertained. Why, then, are they not se¬ lected ? The fact—the damaging and dishonouring fact—ought to be stated broadly and plainly. Irishmen are not selected because Liberal Irishmen cannot be trusted to hold high political offices in their own country. Hon. gentlemen may grumble at such an unpleasant statement, but it is true. Conservative Irishmen can be trusted, because they be- THE IRISH COERCION ACT. 367 long to the garrison ; but Liberal Irishmen, by their very liberality, are kept out of office in their own land by Liberal Englishmen. What should we have said, thought, or done if we had been treated as we have treated Ireland? Let us reverse the positions. Let us conceive England being the minor island and Ireland the major. What mode of speech should we have held if four Catholic Irishmen had been sent over from Dublin to rule Protestant Englishmen from the Horse Guards or Scotland Yard? It requires no stretch of imagination to conjure up the energetic protests that would have been made against such a proceeding. There are no members of the House who vote with so much alacrity and seeming relish for every measure of repression for Ireland as the Scotch members do. They never allow an opportunity to pass with¬ out giving both voice and vote for coercion. They are proud of their national history, and glowingly expatiate on their achievements ; but they have small sympathy with their struggling neighbours. How would they like to have Presbyterian Scotland governed by Irish Catholics ? The Bill before the House proposes to abolish trial by jury, to put down public meetings, to gag the press, and to establish a system of police surveillance and intimidation. It vests the liberty of Irish in the hands of one man and his myrmidons. The Bill has been drawn by a Government in which there is not a single Irishman except the law- officers, whose position is executive and not administrative. It has been adopted, or will be adopted, by a House of Commons in which Irish members are in an insignificant minority. It will be interpreted by English officials and enforced by English soldiers. Let hon. members dispassionately and calmly inquire of themselves what they would have said if such legislation had been initiated for, and carried into effect, in a like manner in Great Britain ? It needs neither eloquence nor argu¬ ment, but a plain statement of facts to revive all the race antipathies in the minds of the Irish peasants. The procedure of the Government over this Bill is more than sufficient to justify everything that is said about Ireland being a conquered country, and being ruled as such, rather than as an integral part of the United Kingdom. A cardinal defect in the government of Ireland has been the transitory and incomplete character of our system of administration. The present Ministry have followed a Penelope policy. They have unwoven one month what they had woven the previous month. They came last session to Parliament, and they said : “ Ireland is suffering, and in consequence of suffering she is disturbed. Give us powers to crush the disturbance and cure the suffering.” They got both. What have they done with them ? They promised a great deal. During the first three months of 1881, there were 769 agrarian offences, and during the first three months of 1882, there were 1,417. During the first three months of 1881, there were 350 families comprising 1,732 persons evicted. During the same period of 363 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 1882, there were 1,317 families evicted, comprising 7,020 persons. Or, to put these figures in a sentence, there have been double as many agrarian offences with the Coercion Act as there were without it ; and there have been nearly six times as many people evicted with the Land Act as with¬ out it. I do not wish to attach undue importance to statistics. They are capable of varied interpretations ; but if the figures quoted do not condemn the combined policy of coercion and concession which the Ministry had pursued, I know not what will. If these figures tell us anything, they tell us that coercion should be abandoned, and that the Land Act should be amended. There have been other political movements in Ireland of almost equal strength to the one now convulsing the country; but the present move¬ ment has features that none other possessed. It has resources that none of them had. It has behind it not only the Irish at home but the whole of the Irish abroad. Irishmen in America and in the Colonies are as deeply concerned in the agitation now going forward as Irish¬ men in Connemara. The strength of this new factor in Irish agitation has not been gauged. It is an uncertain quantity, and it is a dis¬ turbing one. And this the English people will discover. After a painful period of suffering and emigration, when thousands of Irish peasants sailed for America, it was said by a writer of influence that they had “ left with a vengeance.” That was true in a double sense. They had done for themselves, for their country, and their race, a noble work in a new world. They had got political power, civic equality, and social influence ; and the contrast between their improved position and the misery they had left only heightened their detestation of the injustice they had endured, and the destitution in which they had lived. They had resolved—and every honour to them for it—that their countrymen should not continue to oscillate between the poor-house and starvation. They aided them to start a rebellion sixteen years ago, and it failed. They had now aided them to initiate a revolution, and it bids fair to be successful. One of the objects of this new Bill is to stop intercourse between the Irish in America and the Irish in Ireland. You may as well try to stop the Gulf Stream. Irish politicians have had contact with other peoples before—with France and with Spain. But their intercourse was that of allies, and not of relatives. The Irish abroad are bound to those at home by the ties of kinship, interest, and affection, and these are strong enough to break any prison bars. The influences are both subtle and potent, and they will override and defy any Coercion Bill, however deftly drawn. The Irish in America and in the Colonies have made up their minds upon two things ; first, that their countrymen shall be lifted out of that pinching poverty in which they have for generations subsisted ; second, that the fact that a man is a Liberal and an Irishman shall not be the THE IRISH COERCION ACT. 369 greatest disqualification for office in the government of his country. Until there is a radical reform, both politically and socially, the connec¬ tion between the Irish in America and the Irish in Ireland will not be curtailed by any number of Coercion Bills. Ministers will not be warned by past failures. They are entering upon the same course of procedure that they followed last year. Their admixture of repression and conces¬ sion was condemned then by a small section of the House. Again and and again, we are told that the benefits of the Land Act will be neutralised by the exasperation engendered by the Coercion Act. But we will not listen. It is a satisfaction to one or two of us that we pertinaciously and determinedly opposed that Coercion Bill. I never, either directly or indirectly, gave a vote in its favour. The late Chief- Secretary scowled and scolded ; but I at least held on my course, unin¬ fluenced by either the protests or the sneers of Ministers or their sup¬ porters. And we were true prophets. The despised minority have turned out to be right. But the Government are going to repeat the old error. They are attempting a fresh Land Bill, and they are sending along with it another Coercion Bill. The same men who told them that their last Coercion Act would fail, are telling them that this will do so also. And we will be right again. I have always insisted that the administration of the Coercion code would not be left, as the Government promised it should be, to the respon sible men in Dublin or in London, but that it would drift into the hands of presumptuous officials who would use its powers vindictively. This has been the case. We have had scores of instances before the House to prove that. Take the case of Inspector Smith. That notorious constable issued a circular ordering those under his command to shoot men on suspicion, and that circular was six weeks in force before the late Chief- .Secretary knew of its existence. There has been a recent case that I have some personal knowledge of. It shows the utter inability of the Chief-Secretary, or of his responsible assistants in Dublin, to control the administration of a Coercion Act. No one man, or half a dozen men, can familiarise themselves with all the circumstances that justify the arrest of a thousand persons on suspicion. The case I wish to mention is this. There was a gentleman connected with Newcastle in Ireland during the latter months of last year. His name was Michael James Kelly. The Government wished to arrest a J. J. Kelly. Both the Mr. Kelly’s happened to have business in Newry. The warrant was issued for the arrest of Mr. J. J. Kelly, but he succeeded in leaving the country. The officers, however, took Mr. Michael J. Kelly instead, put him in Armagh gaol, and kept him there months. How would some of the ardent Liberal Coercionists behind me like to be lodged in prison, and kept there for four or five months by mistake ? And that is only one of scores of instances of the loose 'administration of the last Coercion 25 370 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Act. Cruelty of this kind is inseparable from the operation of such a measure. The brothers Lloyd—what have they not done ? I will under¬ take to say that if these gentlemen had made a tenth portion of the assaults upon personal liberty in England that they have made in Ireland, there would have been an insurrection. And yet they are permitted to pursue their high-handed, intolerant, and overbearing course, not only without check, but with absolute encouragement. This much for the old Coercion Act. The administration of the new one will be equally reprehensible, and equally out of the reach and control of the responsible Ministers. Another objection to the measure of last year was that it destroyed legitimate political agitation, and led to the establishment of secret societies. The Irish Viceroy candidly acknowledged that this had been the case. Earl Cowper affirmed that although they had not put down agitation, they had driven it under the surface. Physicians strive to bring diseases to the surface, because when they have them there they can measure them and master them much better than they can when beneath it. What applies to physical science applies to government. But the late Irish Viceroy seemed to think differently. The present Bill will operate in this direction even more than the last. No doubt, the speeches of the Irish members are inconvenient and sometimes trouble¬ some, but we had infinitely better have these gentlemen speaking openly in their committee-rooms in Sackville-street with a reporter at their elbows and a telegraph-wire at the door, than have secret societies overrunning the country. The Government have abolished open dis¬ cussion, and they have got assassination. The change is not for the better. It is impossible to put down secret societies by Coercion Bills. History is time teaching by example, but history gives us no hope for such an enterprise. There was great disorder in this country im¬ mediately after the war with France. Drastic legislation was attempted to restrain it. Parliament passed the odious Six Acts. And what did they lead to ? To the Cato-street conspiracy. A similarly disastrous result may follow from the Act that the Government are now going to put in force in Ireland. There is no country in the world so be¬ set with secret associations as Russia. Society is honeycombed by them. The Czar has unlimited power. He can frame a Coercion Bill every day—two if he likes—and yet what is his position ? He is a prisoner in his own palace. His life is a burden to him. His coronation, which ought to have taken place months ago, has been delayed indefinitely, because he is afraid that, wherever it is held, the building will be blown into the air. Do the Government seriously believe, after recent events, that they will be better able than the Emperor of Russia is to avoid assassinations and conspiracy by such a measure as the present. It will put down political agitation, that THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. 371 is clear enough. It will destroy the liberty of the Press, take away the right of public meeting, and create political silence throughout the south and west of Ireland. All that it will certainly do. But is that desirable ? Will the Bill terrify assassins—men like those who, taking their lives in their hands, committed the terrible deed which took place a fortnight ago in Phcenix Park ? Do the Government imagine any measure they can pass will intimidate men of that character ? The lessons of history seem to have very little effect upon Ministers. The Bourbons, the Bonapartes, and the Hapsburgs have carried out this policy of repression far more effectually than ever an English Ministry dared attempt to do. And what has come of it ? They sat upon the safety-valve and were blown to pieces. The last exemplar of the class has had a tragic experience in his efforts to put down public opinion. He gagged the Press, and shut up public meetings. He had at his command not 30,000, but 300,000 troops. He had a Senate crammed with servile courtiers, and a House of Deputies equally subservient. He had power almost superhuman, and it was backed by craft rivalling the power. Yet, the outraged rights of human liberty laughed them all to scorn. A sharp, clear stroke of popular indignation smote the keystone of the arch of European despotism and shattered it to fragments ; and our Government, and all Governments, may rest assured that their attempts to repress the legitimate and necessary expression of public opinion will end in equal disaster. They can win the Irish people’s hearts by just laws, by equitable administration, but they never can win them — never deserve to win them—by measures as hateful as that under consideration. I move :— “ That while this House is desirous of aiding Her Majesty’s Govern¬ ment in any measures which they can show to be necessary to adopt for preventing, detecting, and punishing crime, it disapproves of restric¬ tions being imposed on the free expression of public opinion in Ireland.” [After three nights’ debate, the amendment was rejected ; 344 voting against and 47 for it.] XXVI. THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. House of Commons, Nov. 10, 1882. [On Friday, November 10, 1882, when the adjourned debate on Mr. Gladstone’s resolution to give the majority the right of closing a debate in the House of Commons was resumed, Mr. Cowen spoke against the resolution. He said.] The speech of my hon. friend the member for Clare (Captain O’Shea) that SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 372 the House has just heard, was not an argument either for or against the Cloture, but a friendly appeal to his countrymen to vote for the Govern¬ ment. I hope it will not be successful. I do something more than hope; I feel sure it will not. Memories of coercion have not yet died out in this House nor in the country, and it will require more cogent reasons than have yet been adduced to induce the sufferers from coercion to vote for the coercionists. The ropes and irons of the party stage are too clearly seen through my hon. friend’s appeal. It is a supplement to that .of the Prime Minister the other day, but both supplement and sequel will fail in their purpose. The first rule has now been under considera¬ tion for nineteen nights. I am not foolish enough to fancy that I can .find any fresh arguments in a field of debate that has been so well trodden by so many experienced speakers. But as I belong to the section of members that the rule was designed to put to silence, I wish to record my reasons for resisting it. We want a full and free, but exact and temperate investigation of all questions by which the different angles and the diversified tints in this political kaleidoscope will be fairly pre¬ sented. The work of Parliament has been increased, and is increasing. The character of the work and the composition of the House have both changed. These changes necessitate a revision of the rules. We recog¬ nise this as clearly as the Government do, and are as desirous as they are of rubbing off the rust and adapting the forms to the ever-shifting conditions of the country and the times. But we seek to change for the better. It is to be feared the Government are about to change for the worse. Complaints have been made of the prolixity and irrelevance of much of the speaking that takes place. We are told in effect, if not in words, that the faculty of Parliament has run to talk, and that a good deal of the talk has degenerated into drivel. Desire is expressed for greater condensation and clearness. It is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But I suspect we are all offenders in that respect—some of us unconscious offenders. We mistake bulk for strength. We draw out “the thread of our verbosity finer than the staple of our arguments.” If the Government could secure—either by rule, by precept, or, better still, by example—more simplicity in statement, greater compression of argu¬ ment, and perspicuity of language, they would confer a blessing, not only on the House, but upon the nation. But will their plan do this ? They can call for brevity, but will it come when they do call ? The Cloture will impede the general action. Of that there can be no doubt. But if it is to act impartially, it will have to be imposed on individuals as well as on the House. If it be not so imposed, some speakers, Ministers, for example, will get a profusion of time, and others will get none. Yet, you cannot compel different minds to limit their treatment of the same subject to a Procrustean standard of a given number of minutes or hours. Some speakers are ornate and elaborate, others sententious and THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. 373 brief, others didactic, and others declamatory ; yet all may be equally effective and equally natural. Such a rule could not be equitably enforced. It would be relaxed for members possessing other advan¬ tages. Ministers would be allowed to transgress it with impunity, and favourites with the House would be indulged. But the habit of relaxa¬ tion once admitted, the exceptional practice will be frequently resorted to, and used by majorities to serve party ends, while obscure or ob¬ noxious members defending unpopular but useful causes will have it enforced against them with literal exactitude. A general Cloture , there¬ fore, will act unequally, and an individual Cloture will act unfairly. The purpose of the rule is to secure greater speed in legislation. The delay that now occurs is a weariness of the flesh—of Ministerial flesh especially. I am not sure whether this artificial craving for legislation is a healthy sign. We are being legislated out of our liberty. The whole population is being dragooned and driven out of all self-respect and self-reliance. That laws have profoundly affected national character, no one denies. I am willing to admit, too, that many of the measures the Government have in contemplation are necessary, and that some of them are urgent. But they are not everything. “ How small, of all that human hearts endure, The part which laws or kings can cause or cure.” The difference between a physician and a quack is this—a physician knows and admits that his powers are limited. He cannot aid Nature. He can help her to remove obstruction and clear away abnormal growths ; but he cannot re-create a broken constitution, or make a perforated lung do the work of a sound one. But a quack with his pills, and his plasters, and his potions, will undertake to cure “ all the ills that flesh is heir to.” In like manner, the genuine reformer knows that the living law is the thought of the people, and that all Parliament can do is to fit that thought to the life of the nation. Political empirics, on the other hand, will engage to cut out a social cancer by the ballot-box. With them, a bill’s a bill, “although there’s nothing in’t.” It is not so much speed in legislation that is wanted, as skill. It is not quantity, but quality, that is required. The highest interests of the State would often be better served by the wise and liberal administration of old laws than by the hot-pressure production of new and imperfect ones. A great part of the time of this House is spent in correcting previous mistakes. Like tilers, when mending one hole, legislators usually make another. The Govern¬ ment hold in one hand a batch of Bills, and in the other a bundle of fetters. Give us these gags, they say, and we will give you these Bills I would rather want the Bills than purchase them at such a price. Obstruction or no obstruction, necessary legislation will come in due time if people want it. Free speech is more precious than all the 374 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. measures in the Ministerial portfolio. Error of opinion may be tolerated as long as there is left the right to combat it. Discussion is a bulwark against oppression, and the sheet-anchor of liberty. Obstruction is of two kinds—purposeless and patriotic. The former is conceived in mischief, sustained by faction, and by whomsoever practised is indefensible. Futile and tautological talk, whether originated in malice, in vanity, or in ignorance, designed to obstruct necessary public business, is intoler¬ able. But patriotic obstruction is the protest of the minority against the arrogance of office and the intolerance of power. It is often useful, and sometimes essential. It is the reserve power—the last Parliamentary defence against the encroachments of Ministers or majorities. If the House parts with it, it parts with a weapon that has secured its liberties in the past and may be required to defend them in the future. The Prime Minister said, in introducing the resolutions—and he has repeated the remark often since—that obstruction, in an aggravated form, first showed itself last session. I wish to speak with all deference of any statement respecting the business of the House made by one with such varied and extensive knowledge ; still, I venture to contest the historical accuracy of that assertion. The existence of obstruction, as a Parliamen¬ tary practice, must not be reckoned by sessions, or decades, or generations, but by centuries. It is certainly older than the Reformation. Henry VIII. pleaded its existence in his day as a reason why certain changes promised to the Pope had not been made. He explained that unfettered discus¬ sion was the inalienable right of the British Parliament, which neither Crown nor Chancellor could restrain. Ministers might copy with advantage so unpromising an exemplar as the illiberal Tudor King. Queen Elizabeth, in whose reign the foundation of our present Parlia¬ mentary Government was laid, and in which some of the rules we are now about to destroy were adopted, chided a Speaker of the House with having spent a whole session in mere talk. But let me cite a later and more striking instance. After the Stuart rising in 1715, the House of Commons, by an unwarrantable stretch of authority, lengthened its life from three years to seven. The Bill for doing this was strenuously opposed by some of the Peers. In the quaint language of the historian of the day, “the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Nottingham, Lord Trevor, Lord Aylesford, and other noblemen, made repeated motions for adjournment, and numerous and long speeches with a view of putting off the passage of the Bill to another session.” Here we have, as far gone as 167 years ago, obstruction of the exact character complained of— talking to produce delay, in the hope that delay would ensure defeat. During the French war, the Whigs persistently and wilfully obstructed the Government of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Fox, who will be accepted as an authority on this side at least, boasted that for over a period of twenty years he never entered the House without speaking once and sometimes THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. 375 six times in a sitting. Similar instances could be multiplied indefinitely. But I put these cases rapidly before you to show that obstruction was coeval with the existence of Parliament. It is incidental to, and an invariable accompaniment of, government by public discussion. It has been resorted to in times very different from the present, by all parties, and by men of the greatest eminence in the State. It is not, as the Prime Minister contended, a recent Irish invention. The work of last session has been emphasised. But, according to the Government’s own showing, that was a hard and exceptional session. And hard and exceptional cases make bad laws. Last session one Bill—the hateful and humiliating Bill under whose arbitrary powers a thousand men were imprisoned without trial, without accusation, and without opportunity of defence or explanation—was obstructed. Yes, obstructed—justifiably obstructed ! Looking back upon that measure, the dishonouring memo¬ ries of which will be burnt into the reputation of its authors, the surprise is that it was not met with much more desperate resistance than mere Parliamentary obstruction. If one thousand men had been imprisoned in Turkey, or Austria, or Italy, we should have had unctuous appeals to the sacred right of insurrection, and covert incentives to rebellion, from our Liberal coercionists. If ever there was a measure which warranted resort to every form of resistance that the House supplied to defeat it, it was that infamous Coercion Bill—a Bill, too, that the Government, six months after its passage, had to admit was a hideous failure. But while we hear a good deal of the obstruction of last session, we hear little of the obstruction of last Parliament. The obstruction of last Pai'liament was very different from the obstruction of last session. Last session, there was obstruction to one measure, but last Parliament there was obstruction to all measures. It was not a specific policy that was obstructed, but the entire administrative and legislative action of the Government of the day. Liberals had reasoned themselves into the belief that the foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield was not only injurious, but immoral. They regarded him as an international mischief-maker, who, in the plenitude of his power, went roving round the world in search of opportunities for aggression and occasions for display. They believed it to be their duty, not only to their country, but to their consciences, to resist him. The Prime Minister declared, on a well-known occasion, that the set purpose of his life was to counter-work his rival’s designs ; and that to such end he laboured day by day and hour by hour. The opposition to his domestic policy was as determined, although less dis¬ played. The Government Bills were described as either bad or useless. If bad, they ought not to pass ; if useless, they need not pass. A barricade was thus drawn across the Parliamentary passage, and little allowed to escape except necessary measures, and these only after exhausting rebuffs. The Irish members were blamed. Yes, they got the 376 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. blame, but others got the benefit. They pulled the chesnuts out of the fire. Others ate them. Some of the Irish members who were in last Parliament might, if they were so minded, a tale unfold that would disturb the equanimity of their cantankerous critics. If the honourable member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) would recount a few passages from hi Parliamentary autobiography, they would be both interesting and instruc¬ tive. My hon. friend may probably remember a summer Wednesday, three years ago, when he was invited to give, by one of those processes in which he is an adept, the quietus to a Bankruptcy Bill. He acceded to the request, and fulfilled it. This was set down to Irish obstruction. The finger-points on the dial were Irish truly, but the mechanism that moved them was of another nationality. The Bill was defeated, and no like measure has since reached so advanced a stage. Now, mark the Nemesis. Bankruptcy is one of the questions that the Government are specially anxious to legislate upon, and Grand Committees are one of their remedies for Parliamentary congestion. Here was a Bankruptcy Bill drawn by Sir John Holker and Lord Cairns—two men who, whatever may be said of them as politicians, are uncontested authorities as lawyers ; and the late Ministry, with a view of hastening its passage, proposed to try experimentally the scheme of Grand Committees that the Government are now initiating. Yet, the Bill and the project for the Grand Committees were defeated at the instance and suggestion of Liberal Cloturists, who are now clamouring for both. When I listen to the daily diatribes against Irish obstructionists ; when I hear them described as men beyond the pale of decent politics, and recall how often obstruction has been made a ladder upon which aspiring partisans have climbed to office, any lingering respect I ever had for party ethics expires. It is needless to speculate on the arrival of American political practices. We have them already in operation amongst us. The remedy is said to be a Radical one. But it is radically wrong. It strikes at the system, and not at the offenders. It punishes the whole for the peccadilloes of a part. A man is talkative and troublesome ; therefore, they punish his neighbour, who is quiet and silent. That is the logic of the Government resolution. If a man voluntarily enters a society, he must work within its rules. It is folly for any one to join a body they intend to defy. If any man intentionally and deliberately breaks the rules, let them silence him, suspend him, or expel him. Do' any, do all of these things, if the circumstances warrant. But because one man, or a section of men, is guilty of offences, it is neither wise nor fair to impose galling restrictions upon those who fight fairly within the lists. Why is a majority to close a debate, and when is it to do so? Why ? Because the arguments of the Opposition are too strong to be answered. When ? When the majority want to go to bed, or to dinner, or to some more agreeable occupation. Then they will close it. THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. 377 Ministers are taking powers, not merely to regulate, but to annihilate discussion—not to curtail debate, but to strangle it. They would reduce the right of the minority to a nullity. If a discussion could be closed at any time the majority wished, it could be closed after two speeches had been delivered as easily as after ten. What is to prevent them thus closing it? Nothing save their weak sense of justice towards trouble¬ some opponents. And the sense of justice of an angry, impatient, and irritated majority, whether Liberal or Conservative, would be weak indeed. But it is said they will not use their power tyrannically. Will they not ? I, for one, will not trust them. It is not good for their health— their mental or moral health—to have such powers. Their bare possession will tempt them into excesses. Men do, as a body, things that, as individuals, they would shrink from and feel ashamed of. They have a convenient way of throwing the responsibility upon a party when that responsibility is inconvenient. They speak fair, and for the moment mean fair ; but when their passions are roused, their tempers ruffled, and their interests assailed—when the honours and emoluments of office are in the balance —it would be dangerous to trust the best-intentioned majority. English¬ men, whatever other differences divide them, are proud of their Parlia¬ ment. It is bound by a thousand bonds to their interests and affections. Through the darkening centuries, it has been a temple of law and liberty, of eloquence and history. In it the rights and dignities of the people have victoriously struggled against the absolute powers and omnipotence of any one. Here they have torn in tatters, they have trampled under foot, the humiliating theory of an autocracy, while it has found a lodgment, and taken root, in nearly every other country of Europe. We are now about to change its character—to degrade it from a deliberative assembly into a registry office, where the commands of the caucuses, and the Eliminations of the party press, may be chronicled. The doctrine of the advocates of the Cloture , when stripped of all surplusage, is this. They argue that, in recent years, the position of public affairs has greatly altered. Information that was once the exclusive possession of a favoured few is now the common property of all. News of events that transpire at the other side of the globe and in our most distant dependencies is flashed hither in a few hours. The world has become a vast whispering gallery. Reports of the business transacted in this House reach Cromarty and Cornwall, Dover and Donegal, almost as soon as they do the city. This rapidity of communication, and this multiplication of the means of pub¬ licity, have quickened public life and intensified discussion. Opinion, as a consequence, ripens more rapidly. The sentiments prevailing this year may not be entertained next. They wish to bring the Parliament into closer con¬ tact with the constituencies. They would have it reflect, not merely the convictions, but the caprices of the House. They would make it as sensi¬ tive to every passing breeze as the leaves of the aspen. That is their argu- 373 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. ment. I hope I have stated it fairly. But public opinion is a variable and fluctuating force. What is public opinion in one district is not public opinion in another. And what opinion is to guide us ? Is it to be the public opinion of the smug and cowardly respectability of Islington or Clapham, or of the Lothians, or the public opinion of the pinched and perishing peasantry of the West of Ireland ? Is it to be the opinion of the political lotus-eaters who doze away their days in sleepy Pall Mall clubs, or the opinion of the militant democracy in the North of England? Which— the opinion of “ society,” as they call it, or of the “ masses”—is to rule? In the vocabulary of genuine democracy “ the people ” means not a majority, but the entire body of the citizens. It means not merely the landless, but the landed—not only the leisured, but the labouring classes How are their opinions to be reached, and where can theyfind utterance How—but by the verdict of the constituent body, solemnly and deliber¬ ately given; and where—but in this assembly? If the machinery is faulty, mend it. If the electorate is too contracted, widen it. But, with all its defects, this House is the only place where the measured views of all classes and creeds, of all parties and interests, find legitimate expres¬ sion. If Parliament drift out of harmony with the electorate, dissolve it. Let elections be more frequent if you like ; but, while Parliament lasts, it is the organised expression of popular will ; and to supersede it or to override it by the desultory decisions of the platform, the club, or the market-place, is contrary to the spirit, if not to the letter, of the law. Legislation is a matter of reason and judgment. But how can there be reason where determination precedes discussion—when, as Mr. Burke worded it, one set of men deliberates and another set decides ? If we are merely to vote as we are told, which is the motto of the Caucuses, why are we sent here ? It is a great waste of power, of health, of time, and of temper. Instead of six hundred, sixty, or indeed six would suffice. All that is wanted is a body of experts to whom the decisions taken in the different constituencies might be sent. They might be tabulated, and formulated, and summarised, handed first to a draughtsman to embody in Bills, and then to an executive to put in operation. The Prime Mini¬ ster desires to lessen the amount of speaking. This is an easy plan of doing it. The work of legislation might be greatly simplified by such a course of procedure. The Government shrink from such a result, but it is the logical, inevitable, and irresistible outcome of their course of action. They may shut their eyes to it as they like, but it is to that end we are drifting steadily. Public opinion, if genuine and spontaneously expressed, I will defer to, although differing from it ; but public opinion, when it is manufactured, I disregard. I say “ manufactured,” for it is manufac¬ tured—cast, as they cast railway chairs, according to pattern. We are all familiar with the process. We know how resolutions are drawn by a head-centre and sent to the branches for adoption—how a dozen or a THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH. 379 score of self-appointed and irresponsible officials, with little discussion and less knowledge adopt them, and re-transmit them in petitions to Parliament or memorials to Ministers. The Prime Minister has received iSo of these deceptive documents in support of the Cloture. They are paraded as the decisions of the constituencies, but the constituency knows nothing either of the meetings, the men who called them, or the measures their support was pledged to. We have heard of an “organised hypocrisy,” but this certainly is an organised imposition. A further argument for the proposed change is the alteration that has come over another department of public life. The floor of the House of Commons, in the estimation of some, has ceased to be the exclusive or even the most effective platform from which to address the nation. In the great Council of the State, which holds its debates in the columns of the press, public questions are sifted and settled, and all that this assembly is required to do, or indeed can do, is to give force and form to the decisions thus arrived at. I have no wish to disparage the press nor undervalue its influence ; but I object to assign to it attributes it does not aspire to, or power it does not pos¬ sess. The press is primarily a record in which are outlined the salient features of our restless, diffuse, and fragmentary life. It is a panorama on which are photographed the swiftly moving incidents of a busy exis¬ tence. It is an expositor through whose agency confused and compli¬ cated reports are sifted, facts discovered, and then disseminated. It is, too, an educator whose influence reaches through all the ramifications of society—from the palace to the prison. But it is vested with no repre¬ sentative function, and only in a limited degree can it be called an organ of public opinion. Newspapers express, often in a discursive and cursory way, the opinion of their conductors, but it is gross exaggeration to assume that they express the opinion of the public. Men derive from newspapers the material for discussion, but it is ignorance on the part of politicians, and vanity on the part of journalists, to pretend that the opinion of the newspapers and the opinion of the public are always synonymous. More than once during these debates, what is termed the unbusiness-like character of our proceedings has been referred to ; and a hope has been expressed that the arrangements of the House should be assimilated to those of a board of directors. I have little respect for, and no sympathy with, such suggested perversion. To contemplate the lowering to the level of a mercantile company a historical assembly which has been the cradle of the liberties of modern Europe, and the political and legislative sanctuary of a great and free people, proves how the spirit and faith of a country, through a long course of prosperity and a sordid worship of success, can become unaspiring and materialistic—how the motives of nationality and patriotism, of reverence and courtesy, lose their force, and cease to be springs of action and guides of life. Never, I trust, will a British House of Commons degenerate into a shop or a counting-house ; 3S0 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. nor legislation, which, in its loftiest purposes, is the most solemn duty that man can discharge to his fellow-men ; which builds up the character and influences the destinies of a nation ; which secures the rights, the liberties, and the property of the people, become a trade. We may cut away a mouldering branch from our Parliamentary system, but we should remember that the trophies of the past are essential to elucidate and con¬ firm the wisdom of the present. Idolatry of the immediate, dwarfs and deforms national character. Let us recast our rules, brush the dust off them, adapt them to modern requirements, but preserve the spirit and continuity of their proudly-treasured historical traditions. I would not touch one of our old customs that does not stand in the way of necessary and urgent change. A breath blows the glory of ages away. The quaint call of “ Who goes home ? ” 1 when the House is up—what a vista of social vicissitude it summons to the memory ! The grating 2 on the doorway— what stalwart conflicts between the representative and the regal power it recalls 1 Some of the regulations we are now asked to rescind have historical significance which kindles generous emotions when we reflect on the efforts made to win them. Change we must have, but that now sought is excessive and bewildering. It involves momentous innovations amounting to a revolution of Parliamentary procedure, and is contrary to the temper, and inimical to the interests of the Legislature. [The Resolution, establishing the Cloture, which had been under discus¬ sion nineteen nights, was carried by a majority of 44 ; 304 voting for, and 260 against it.] XXVII. GENERAL GORDON’S MISSION TO THE SOUDAN. [A Resolution, censuring the Government for the “vacillating and in¬ consistent course ” pursued by them in the Soudan was moved in the House of Commons by Sir Stafford Northcote on February 12, 1884. Mr. Cowen, in supporting the Resolution, spoke as follows.] I am sorry to interpose between the House and the members who wish to speak, but I shall condense what I have to say into the fewest possible sentences. A graver issue is raised by this Resolution than the reputa¬ tion or even the fate of a Cabinet. It not only involves our honour as a 1 The cry of “Who goes home?" is raised immediately on the Speaker leaving the chair. It is a relic of the olden time when it was dangerous for members to go home alone, and when, for protection’s sake, all going in one direction used to leave the House together. 2 This refers to the grating on the outer door of the House of Commons, through which the representatives of the Sovereign have to ask permission to enter. GENERAL GORDON’S MISSION TO THE SOUDAN. 38 nation, but the highest interests of humanity and civilization. It is too serious for recrimination ; and, if the disturbing news received within the last twelve hours is reliable, it is too urgent for expatiatory disquisi¬ tion. No sophistry can reconcile the professions of Liberals when in Opposition, with their practice when in Office, on this and kindred ques¬ tions. The subtle art of Parliamentary manoeuvring furnishes few more flagrant instances of political tergiversation than the invasion of Egypt, at the instance of men who, four years ago, cried themselves hoarse in denouncing the sin of national acquisitiveness, and the danger of military adventure. But putting in juxtaposition the profuse contradictions of Ministers, although a tempting theme for partisan combatants, will serve no useful end. Ministers are assured, in advance, of absolution for any offence against consistency, either past or prospective. Anti- aggressionists and quondam-peace men will support them, whether they order an expedition to Gondokoro, or to Greenland—to the regions of everlasting snow, or the regions of everlasting sand. The Government turned their backs on their election speeches when they went to Egypt ; and they can just as easily, and with equal immunity, turn their backs on any subsequent pledges. They need have no scruple on this head. Party injury there will be none, whatever course they adopt. Speakers on this side of the House have assured us that Ministers want to leave Egypt. No one doubts it. The desire has been made plain in inter¬ minable speeches and by copious correspondence. The complaint is not that they wish to leave, but that they think it is possible to do so. It is their judgment, not their sincerity, that is impeached. They never tire of telling us that unexpected events have delayed their departure. But these events were inevitable. They were the pre-ordained outcome of their policy. They were foreseen by every one except the Ministry and their unreflecting friends. Any man with the most rudimentary knowledge of Eastern affairs ought to have known that the mongrel administrative machine we have stuck up at Cairo would not work. It required no political prescience to foretell that. We once tried a rickety apparatus of a like kind in India, under more promising conditions, and with abler men. The French, too, tried one in Algiers. But they both failed ; and, from their very nature, all such nondescript contrivances must fail. You cannot have a Government in which Eastern and Western ideas and influences have equal authority. Such a combination never was, and never will be, successful, unless the two races are radically changed. Wherever they meet, one must be master. Ministers have attempted an impossibility. They are very clever, but they are not wizards. They cannot overturn the institutions of a country one week, and, by a wave of the hand or a shake of General Gordon’s cane, recreate them the next. They cannot in a decade, much less in a day, develop amongst an ignorant and long-enslaved population the political wisdom SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. requisite to cope with the gravest difficulties. There will be disorganiza¬ tion : there must be delay. They should have calculated on this, and have prepared for it. Ministers went to Egypt to overthrow a military despotism. They remained there to re-establish order. That is their own version of the enterprise. They are as much masters there as they are in India or in Ireland—in some respects even more so. The Soudan was in revolt. They thought its retention a source of weakness and danger rather than of strength to Egypt. Yet, they acquiesced in Hicks Pasha’s effort to re-conquer it. When he was slain and his soldiers were slaughtered, they forbade further warfare. They possessed the same power before as they did after he was killed. They should either have pre¬ vented the expedition or seen that it was prosecuted with some prospect of success. They did neither. If they had interfered, they would have saved 11,000 lives and probably a million of money. They permitted the expedition ; they would have shared its glory if it had been success¬ ful ; and they must share in the humiliation of its defeat. They allowed Baker Pasha’s little army to be cut to pieces within sight of our ships, within sound of our guns. Not a shot was fired, not a man was landed. But after the rout we hurried forward Marines to Suakim—too late to help, too few to act independently. Can any word-spinning free us from responsibility for such callous and culpable neutrality ? After the mas¬ sacre of Kashgill, we counselled a resort to negotiations with the rebel¬ lious tribes. While the purchasing process was proceeding, we proclaimed our resolve to leave the Soudan to the slaveholders and the Madhi. Was ever folly more wanton ? Was every blabbing more cruel ? Arab chiefs, like more pretentious persons elsewhere, side with the strongest. This announcement blasted any chance General Baker ever had of buying them off. Notwithstanding their verbal repudiation of liability for the Soudan, they sent a British officer to organise the surrender of the Equatorial and Western Provinces. No Government can abandon i.ooo.ooo square miles of territory and 10,000,000 people unless it is sovereign of the country relinquished. And yet, in face of this self- evident fact, Ministers have the hardihood to insist on their unaccount¬ ability. The Government could have prevented, and ought to have pre¬ vented, the carnage before Sinkat. Where was the frothy sympathy that bubbled up over the Bulgarian insurrection, when the trusty Tewfik and his famishing comrades fought for freedom, home, and duty ? Where was the redundant rhetoric that descanted on Turkish horrors; where was the “ fiery grandeur of generous minds,” when every wind that blew wafted across the saddening plain the piteous wail of women and chil¬ dren who were perishing for their fathers’ and husbands’ fidelity to us, or to the cause we had made our own ? Where were the masters of England's puissant legions when the intrepid garrison, their last hope gone, spiked their guns, blew up their fortifications, and sallied forth to GENERAL GORDON'S MISSION TO THE SOUDAN. 383 desperate death ? Where ? Waiting—nervelessly waiting—for a need¬ less telegram from Berber, or, huckster like, counting the cost. There are crises in which vacillation is an offence and hesitation an atrocity. Revolving years will bring the day when murmuring discontent will demand reparation for interests endangered, honour tarnished, and humanity sacrificed. The same course of shuffle and pretence is held in Egypt-proper as in the Soudan. To cover the fiction of a native Government—for it is but a fiction—we have doubled every post in the Administration. At a cost of ,£15,000 a-year, we maintain a group of dummy Ministers, while we pay half as much more to supply these dummies with English Under-Secretaries who do the work, the dummies meanwhile intriguing against England and her agents. The Public Debt is administered by a Board which entails an annual expense of ,£11,000. This Board is merely a device for finding places for hungry European officials. Any banker would keep the accounts for nothing. In the same way, the railways have a Board whose members absorb between them nearly one per cent, of the net receipts. We have killed some thousands of the Egyptians, thrown their affairs into inextricable confusion, and immensely increased the cost of Govern¬ ment ; yet we, with usurious exactness, required payment of ,£250,000 a- year for the army of occupation. To meet the financial pressure, the Khedive and some of his Ministers have made creditable sacrifices in their salaries. Humbler employIs, legally entitled to pensions, have been dismissed without them. But we stick to the letter of our bond, and money borrowed at three per cent, we demand five per cent, for, the interest being wrung from the hard earnings of a wretched peasantry. We acquiesced in the abolition of the capitulations in Tunis by France, which have for this country existed for centuries ; but more recent and much less defensible concessions in Egypt we allow to continue. We have not courage to touch the liquidation scheme, although it is impos¬ sible to conceive anything more absurd, almost ludicrous, than the main¬ tenance of a sinking fund for the repayment of an old loan, when we are helping the country to contract new ones, and when upon a portion of the floating debt compound interest is accumulating. There never can be contentment in Egypt so long as the richest section of the population remains unamenable to the law of the land. There never can be pros¬ perity as long as the choicest soil is worked at a ruinous loss under the terms of a Convention which, if not projected, is protected by us. His¬ torians for ages have dwelt with sympathetic eloquence on the sufferings of the fellaheen ; but never, in all the dreary record of their wrongs, have they been more shamefully oppressed, plundered, and misgoverned than by the hybrid despotism we have placed over them. The Government have told us of many beneficent changes that are intended. But these as yet exist only, or mainly, on paper. They are not realities. Justice 3§4 SPEECHES OE JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. is still bought and sold ; corruption is still rampant ; the finances are in chaos ; trade is paralysed ; the population are sulky, turbulent, or despon¬ dent ; and the whole country is distracted by the distrust and uncer¬ tainty which our vacillation has produced. The Government should have realised their responsibilities, and, if the)- were frightened at them, should not have undertaken them. It is mean and cowardly to trot out once more the stale excuse of a “ Tory legacy.” That convenient legacy ! It is as inexhaustible as a conjuror’s bottle. The members of the Govern¬ ment live upon legacies. They come from all countries, and are of all kinds—Irish, Egyptian, Afghan, African. What would Ministerial speakers have done without them ? But mark how plain a tale will put this one down. France was more than our ally—she was our partner— in Egypt. She was, equally with us, responsible for the control. She pro¬ tested against Arabi’s action, but she was wise enough not to fight. If our Government disliked military intervention so much, why did they not follow France’s example ? Why ? Was it because they expected to reap a little cheap glory all to themselves ? Whether it was so or not, they got it. We beat the trembling, feeble rustics at Tel-el-Kebir. We are now paying for that easily-got victory. It is pusillanimous of Minis¬ ters to cry like timid schoolboys to their opponents—“ You did it.” No, sir (pointing to the Opposition Bench), you did not do it. They (point¬ ing to the Treasury Bench)— they did it. And let them stand like men to the consequences of their acts. It is just as unworthy for them to shelter themselves behind the shivering Khedive. He is a poor protec¬ tion. The only initiative we have left him is power to stagger into a mess, and to drag his country after him. Limited intervention anywhere or at any time, is difficult. In Egypt, it is an impossibility. The Govern¬ ment have been busy with an elaborate system of self-deception for months past. From the day the Prime Minister declared that the bom¬ bardment of Alexandria was not war, to the day when the Cabinet despatched an English officer first to rule, and then to surrender a country they ostentatiously proclaimed their irresponsibility for, they have been playing with words. Let us be done with this puerile pedantry. It deceives no one but those who practise it. The whole world sees through the flimsy subterfuge, and laughs at it. We must either rule Egypt openly and effectively, or leave it. We cannot, in my judgment, leave it. Interest, honour, and humanity forbid us. We carried all the horrors of war into their country, upset the Government, and destroyed the army. Mankind would execrate us if, having reduced the people to helplessness and stripped them of their means of defence, we left them a prey to ruthless invasion from without, and remorseless robbery and tyranny within. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bradford, my hon. friend the member for Oxfordshire, and others, have made speeches in favour of the Resolution ; but they all closed with the impo- THE EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM. 335 tent and contradictory intimation that they would not support it. I have not yet mastered the subtle political ethics which enable a man to think one way and act another, so I mean to sustain my opinions by my vote. [The Resolution, after five nights’ debate, was rejected by a majority of 49 ; 262 voting for, and 311 against it.] XXVIII. THE EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM. [Speech delivered in the House of Commons respecting the War in the Soudan (on Mr. Labouchere’s Amendment), March 15, 1S84..] There are two sets of opponents to the Government’s Egyptian policy. The objection of hon. gentlemen on the other side (the Conservative) is intelligible and consistent. That of some of my friends near me is scarcely so. Three weeks ago they voted, with alacrity and enthusiasm, confidence in the Cabinet, and approval of its policy. Now, they refuse to ratify that confidence, and they wanted, a day or two since, to deny Ministers the means of giving effect to their policy. When the Israelites were in Egypt they were required to make bricks without straw ; when the English are there, they are required by my friends to make war with¬ out money. My hon. friend the member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) detests war. So do most men. But war is often a voluntary self-sacri¬ fice for the holiest centres of human affection. I am for peace ; so are we all. So, too, to utilise my hon. friend’s simile, are thieves, provided they can retain possession of their plunder. There is something more sacred than life—justice ; something more precious than riches—freedom. And war is often requisite to win and maintain both. I abhor the cowardly selfishness that would wall out the circling world from our efforts and our sympathies, or that would fight only for the lowest needs of existence, and not for the nobler elements of national purpose. Honour is before interest, and duty before danger. But, to come to the resolution before the House. Are the operations referred to by the member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) necessary and commendable ? W’ar is honourable and indispensable when civiliza¬ tion has to be preserved, national rights upheld, and our native country defended. Do our doings on the shores of the Red Sea come under such a category ? W T hat are they for ? The Government have repeatedly pronounced the Soudan to be a costly and dangerous appendage to Egypt. They commanded—for no other word expresses their action— the Khedive to abandon [it to the unchecked dominion of the slave¬ holders and slave-hunters. They despatched General Gordon to Khar¬ toum to effect its evacuation, and to coax the tribes into allowing the 26 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. 386 garrisons to retire. Our emissary has confirmed the Mahdi’s conquests, and made him a Sultan at El Obeid. Yet, we slew the Mahdi’s men at El Teb and Tamai. By what process of political legerdemain do we reconcile scattering shot and shell amidst the Soudanese by General Graham, and peace proclamations by General Gordon ? If we mean to keep the country, our dual operations may be defensible. If we mean to leave it, the fighting a week past Friday, and on Thursday last, was unmitigated murder, the stain of which no party whitewashing will ever be able to erase. These dauntless Arabs are not our enemies. Accord¬ ing to the Ministerial hypothesis, they are our particular friends—men we wish to save and to serve. How, then, do we justify drenching their land with tears and manuring it with corpses ? Is there no blood-guilti¬ ness in this sanguinary carnage ? What avails our maudlin moralising if it cannot stop such tumultuous slaughter—“the heart-borne anguish” which, while we wrangle in wordy conflict, is “ stunning with the cries of death many a gentle home ? ” Has all our holy horror of fighting for prestige evaporated, or is it all cant—intolerable cant ? Attempting to rescue the beleaguered garrisons was right ; but when one was slaughtered, and the other had surrendered, what need was there for further bloodshed? To protect Suakirn, say the Ministers. But Suakirn was never seriously menaced. The tribes should have been told that we meant them no harm. The form of sending such a message was kept, but adequate opportunity for reply was not given. Bring every explanation of Ministers to the test of fact, and they are resolvable only under two heads—either they intend to keep the Soudan, and they have fought for that purpose ; or they intend to relinquish it, and they have fought for that illusory entity, military glory—a motive which, when the Liberals were in Opposition, was denounced by every adjective in the vocabulary of vituperation. The Government are desired to define their policy. That is almost a work of supererogation. The Prime Minister defined it years ago, when he foretold that the first site we secured in Egypt, be it by larceny or by emption, would be the certain egg of a North-African Empire. The right hon. gentleman is fulfilling his own prophecy. The site has been got—got by larceny ; and a new empire is being founded. Annex Egypt ! Why it is annexed as tightly as India. The marvel is that men versed in affairs should have ever dreamed, when we once went there, overthrew the Government, and destroyed its defences, that we could leave as easily as a crowd leaves a public meeting. Whenever England plants her authority amidst a semi-civilised people, she maintains it. Once there, every step she takes fastens her more firmly. From the character of the two races, retention and advance on our part are inevit¬ able. It is our destiny and theirs. We can no more escape from it than a man can escape from his shadow. Civilization marches at the rear of THE EXPEDITION TO SUAKIM. 387 conquest. This experience is as universal and unvarying as cause and effect. The Government are either deceiving themselves or deceiving the country, when they foster the hope of acting differently. Many Liberal members bemoan the situation. It has brought the Government embarrassments that are serious, and may prove fatal. They now realise the possibility that the Reform Bill may be strangled, not by the House of Lords, but by Egypt. But if such should be the case, who will be to blame ? They themselves would ; and for this reason. It is an open secret that at least thirty Liberal members were opposed to the original Egyptian enterprise ; but they had not the manliness to say so, when their saying so might have stopped it. They saw their friends drifting to the rapids, and they had not the courage to warn them of the danger. They were afraid to speak their minds. It might have disconcerted their chiefs, and that would have been party profanity. Or it might have displeased the Caucus, and that would have been treason. Now, all remonstrances are unavailing. The Govern¬ ment cannot recede. There is no armour against inexorable fate. Circumstances which they can neither create nor control will guide their course. The army of occupation may be diminished, or increased, or withdrawn : but British supremacy is as surely settled on the banks of the Nile as on the banks of the Ganges. Its form may vary, but its essence is assured. The Prime Minister’s metaphorical egg has been hatched, and the brood has taken wing. What the Government are desired to do is to acknowledge this — to shake themselves clear of the atmosphere of mystery and doubt, and apply plain words to palpable facts. Why all these Delphic deliverances and these equivocations, about obvious and self-evident truths ? If we are not the rulers of Egypt, who are ? The Khedive has no more initiatory power than the Mahdi — in some respects not so much. What do we do there ? or, rather, what do we not do ? We make and unmake Ministries, contract loans, control the exchequer, and decree constitutions. We wage war, surrender pro¬ vinces, break treaties, and abrogate conventions. We supersede judges, supervise courts, pardon prisoners, and pension rebels. We have raised, equipped, and officered a native army, organised a mercenary gendar¬ merie, and stiffened the two by British troops. We command the whole as directly and peremptorily as we do the garrison at Gibraltar or a brigade at Aldershot. We plan public works, construct roads, design irrigation, abandon railways, reorganise prisons, re-constitute schools, suspend newspapers, and appoint sanitary inspectors. In a word, we direct the external policy, regulate the internal administration, manipu¬ late the finances, constrain the judicature, requisition the military, enact laws, dictate the political, and devise the social mechanism of the country. There is not an official, from the meanest subaltern to the most preten- 388 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. tious pasha, who does not hold his post at our pleasure, and whom we could not order or admonish, coerce or command, at will. If that is not government, what is it ? But we do all this vicariously, by men in buckram, behind whose clumsy and forbidding lineaments we work like a showman moving marionettes. This duplex action is costly, confusing, complicating, and deceiving. Let the Government throw off their vizor, and frankly assume responsibility for what they have done, are doing, and propose to do. They, as my friend the member for King’s Lynn [Mr. Bourke] has said, have destroyed the dual control, and established a dual Administration, which is even more mischievous. They have unsettled every institution for no perceptible advantage, and produced a chronic irritation, which is only kept from warming into passion by the presence of English soldiers. Let them dispense with the hampering interference of sulky, incompetent, and corrupt intermediaries. Every irresolute and enigmatical utterance of Ministers only adds to the prevalent perturbation. Every rumour of remaining increases the stability. Men of ability would rally to our rule if this uncertainty were removed. They will not do so while it remains, as they fear they might suffer for supporting us. There are matters respecting General Gordon’s mission that require to be, but have not been, explained. No sensible man complains of his not having initiated a Quixotic crusade against slavery. Slavery is embedded into every fibre of the social life of the Soudan. It cannot be extirpated by an army—much less by a proclamation. But ignoring slavey is one thing, and according it plenary indulgence for the past, and open sanction for the future, is another and a very different thing. That General Gordon has done. The Prime Minister was, at first, so shocked by the proclamation, that he said he did not like to admit even to his own mind that it had been issued. Now, however, its publication is not only admitted, but endorsed. It may bring us untold troubles. It will surely be cited against us when we come to deal with other slave- patronising countries. It is trifling to tell us that the proclamation has reference only to domestic slavery. The words used are “ slave traffic.” There would be no traffic in slaves without there was slave-holding. By an incomprehensible, but common inconsistency, the Government are checking the slave trade at Suakim, and legalising it at Khartoum. The British people will endure a great deal from the Government, but they will not stand the instalment, at their instance, of a State at the junction of the two Niles based on the grossest and most degrading vices of civilised life. It would be a standing menace to Egypt and to liberty. What authority had General Gordon to tell the Soudanese that the exalted Sultan—these were his own words—was going to send an army of the faithful to the Soudan to reconquer the country? Had he, or had he not, warrant for making such a statement ? Was his announcement, THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT AND GEN. GORDON. 389 that English or Indian troops were to be sent to help him, untrue, or only premature ? Will the same reason that has driven us to hold Suakim not drive us to retain Khartoum, either as a protected State or an integral part of Egypt ? We may resist it, but events may again be too strong for us. Certainly they are setting in that direction. But whatever we may do, or we may not do, the worst thing that can be done is to drift into additional responsibilities. An English poet who travelled over Egypt a hundred and fifty years ago, and afterwards wrote a history of the country, which might be consulted even now with advantage, describes in homely verse, the danger of dallying. The Ministers may usefully apply the advice it conveys : ** Tender-handed, stroke a nettle, And it stings you for your pains ; Grasp it like a man of mettle, And it soft as silk remains." Let the Ministers grasp their nettle, and many of their difficulties will crumple up. [The amendment was rejected. The numbers for it were 94 ; against, in; majority, 17.] XXIX. THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL GORDON. [Speech during the debate on Sir Michael Hicks Beach’s Vote of Cen¬ sure on the Government with reference to General Gordon and Egypt, May 13, 1884.] Persistent efforts have been made all the session to frown down reference to Egyptian affairs. Timid and complacent members have been whipped into the traces of the party team and put to silence, while coteries of local wirepullers have been incited to brand as renegades or obstructionists all who trouble Ministerial equanimity. But the attempt has not succeeded. A throb of anxiety beats from one end of the country to the other. Those who have given voice to it are the truest interpreters of that public opinion which has been so often and so menacingly apos¬ trophised. The ebbing tide of national confidence bids fair to leave the cavillers stranded on the shore of the popular current. No one denies, no one doubts, that the Government are beset with difficulties. Which¬ ever way they turn there are troubles. Whether they go forward, or go back, or stand still, they are equally assailed by a raking fire of censure and criticism. But they have their own paralytic policy to blame for 39 ° SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, Af.P. this. There is no more desire, on the other side, to gain party advantage out of Ministerial embarrassment, than there is on this to evoke party sympathy out of administrative blunders. In such circumstances, both sides act very much alike. No Opposition, either Liberal or Conserva¬ tive, means mischief to the country. But neither will moan over just as much mischance as will serve to discredit their antagonists. The Prime Minister said that the resolution before the House needs little discussion. I agree with him. A bald recital of the facts ought to be, and would be, sufficient to carry it, were it not for party vassalage. Let the touching telegrams from General Gordon be placarded broad¬ cast ; let the cross of manliness and devotion he has raised in far Khar¬ toum be upheld at home, and it will arouse a spirit which will shatter the equivocating and huckstering state-craft, whose highest effort is to— " Promise, pause, prepare, postpone, And end by letting things alone.” We may dispute the wisdom of colonising the Soudan. But it was colonised at the instance of able men who knew more of Egypt and its requirements than we do. We found there thousands of settlers trading on the faith of Egyptian assurances. The Khedive was bound by ties of kinship, interest, and humanity to protect them, just as we are to pro¬ tect men of our race planted in the possessions we have dotted over the surface of the globe. We destroyed his means of doing so, and com¬ manded him to abandon the country. By that act we assumed his obli¬ gations. We acknowledged our responsibility when we requisitioned General Gordon, and despatched General Graham to Suakim. Their orders were to rescue the emigrants and soldiers, and retire. They have not been rescued, and are in more peril than ever. The task the Govern¬ ment took on themselves has not been executed. It cannot be parried ; it must not be repudiated. It is not the institutions, but the spirit of a people that protects its liberty and sustains its freedom. A moral inertness may have grown parasitically over popular energies ; but although it has cramped, it has not killed, their ancient vigour. If Ministers are unable to unloosen the Gordian knot that their own ineptitude has tied, they must follow Alexander’s example, and cut it. They desire to dissociate General Gordon from the garrisons. This is impossible. They sneakingly suggest that he should sacrifice his comrades and decamp. But they mistake their man. It was “ the helpless to help, and the hopeless to save,” that sent him on his forlorn and chivalrous mission, and he spurns such cowardly counsels. When the intrepid Blake was called on to capitulate at Taunton, he refused with the laconic reply that he had not yet eaten his boots. General Gordon has all the generous audacity of THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT AND GEN. GORDON. 391 the Commonwealth commander, and will be equally daring and tenacious. He may not have eaten his boots, but his ability or inability to hold out does not acquit us of our accountability for him, and for those with him. The Government say they cannot now despatch troops up the Nile. Perhaps not. That, however, is not the opinion of all experts. This is the hottest, but it is not the most unhealthy, season of the year. But they could have done so. They did not, or they would not, when they might ; and now they must bear the odium attaching to their supineness, or negligence, or both. Some lion, members do not trouble themselves about the difficulties of the expedition, only about its price. In the lugubrious and sombre pictures they have drawn, every line is a sovereign. The chink of coin and the dust of trade are ever present in their argu¬ ments and appeals. I, too, am an economist, but I do not approve of the niggard and ungenerous parsimony which looks only at the cost of the public service—not at the mode in which it is performed, and which would put the work of the State on the same footing as the supply of a workhouse, and have it done by tender, which is meanly mercantile, in¬ stead of being broadly national. Life is not existence, but effort. Men cannot vegetate like cabbages. When a nation halts to count the expense of doing its duty, it parts with the essence of virility. Other hon. members object to an expedition because scores of lives might be lost to save one. Very likely. But England’s amenability for the safety of her citizens and the redress of their wrongs, is no perfunctory engagement prescribed by charter. It is comprehensive and far-reaching, and cannot be measured with the arithmetical precision of a haberdasher’s yard-wand. There may be occasions when all the resources of the Empire must be staked on exacting reparation for a solitary act of injustice. Blood, it is too true, has often been spilt like water for a statesman’s place or a despot’s lust. Every sympathetic man longs for the time when intelligence will march over prostrate prejudices and animosities. But that has not yet arrived ; and the men who entered with so light a heart on the campaign of 1882 cannot, with any show of consistency, ply Parliament with pusillanimous appeals for peace at the price of national reputation and good faith. That there will be men slain if an English army goes to Khartoum, is incon¬ testable. But the number will be greater from the decrepitude and nervelessness of Ministers. If we had acted with decision at first, there would have been no war. If we had moved to the relief of Sinkat and Tokar sooner, we should have saved the slaughter—the purposeless slaughter—at El Teb and Tamai. If we had sent 500 sabres to Berber after General Graham’s victory, the road to Khartoum would now be open, and the refugees on their way to Cairo (A voice : “ That is your view.”) Of course, it is my view ! I am not accustomed to speak other people’s views. It is my practice to think for myself; and, when I have arrived at a conclusion, to express it. That, I understand, to be the 392 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. function of a representative. It is that, at least, I am here to discharge ; and I mean to discharge it. But the Government refused, and our envoy will only now be reached over hecatombs of valiant and fearless Arabs. In public, as in personal business, the first requisite of success is to have a clearly defined object. To know what you want, and to strive steadily to secure it, is half the battle. But the Cabinet have been shifty and infirm of purpose. The ends sought have been vaguely and am¬ biguously defined. There is scarcely a definition given by one Minister that has not been contradicted by another—sometimes by the same man himself. Like the chameleon, they take their hue from the air they breathe. Incidents have controlled their policy, when their policy should have controlled the incidents. This indecision and indefiniteness are easily explained. There are differences amongst themselves—they have to be compromised. There are compacts with other Powers—they have to be fulfilled. There are pledges to their supporters—they have to be kept. Their assurances to Europe, their promises to their friends, and their internal divergences have produced halting, spasmodic, and capricious action. If they move in one direction, they impinge on the susceptibilities of other States ; in another, on the peace predilections of their followers, or their own gratuitous and haphazard engagements. I do not cite all this to their disparagement. It is no discredit to a dozen intelligent men to say that they disagree over so complicated a question. As for their inability to adjust their performances to their professions, that was in¬ evitable. They stirred every passion, and pressed every prejudice into service against their opponents. The curses of ’78, ’79, and ’80 have come home to roost. But great national purposes should be superior to the prepossessions of politicians, and beyond the convenience of factions. There are times—and this is one of them—when minor considerations should yield to public security and honour—when the nation should be preferred before party. The position of the Government can only be rightly understood, and the guarantees they have given can only be gauged, by recalling the objects of the intervention. What were these ? Ignoring contradictions and verbal fencing, stripping the subject of superfluities and sophistry, and going straight down to the primal granite as proved by fact, why did they go to Egypt, and for what end do they remain ? Why? To protect British interests. And for no other reasons. They may tickle their self-conceit by protestations of their disinterestedness, but no one believes them. English statesmen are often illogical, but never idealistic. Yougather people’s convictions, not by their conversation, but by their acts. Our acts acclaim that we do not fight for the Soudanese, or the fellaheen, or for sentiment, but for self-interest—enlightened self-interest. I am not debating or defending, only stating, the doctrine. But, brushing aside the casuistry by which this vacillation has been shrouded, their deeds THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT AND GEN. GORDON 393 prove that it was not abstract sympathy with the Egyptians, or Platonic love of liberty, or even land-hunter; but a belief that interests vital to the Empire were imperilled by the nationalist rising, that sent our ships to Alexandria, and our troops to Tel-el-Kebir, our agents to Cairo, and our emissary to Khartoum. Egypt may remain under the Viceroyalty of Tewfik, or any other equally incompetent, illustrious, or ignoble pasha, provided our resources are assured. We do not want a stone of his pyramids, or a rood of his territory. But if our interests are not safe-guarded by him, we will pro¬ tect them ourselves. That is the philosophy of their policy—blurred, obscured, and inarticulate, perhaps, at times, but indubitable. Is there a partisan present so purblind as to argue that the disciplined inaction, the timorous irresolution, which have paralysed energy and destroyed hope, which have compromised property and imperilled lives we had stipulated to defend, would not impair our influence and damage our interest? Some hon. members contend that we should leave Egypt right out, pluck up the institutions we have tried to plant, and abandon General Gordon to the paws of the panther, or the spears of the Hadendowas. We could do so. But apart from the craven baseness of such a course w'hat would be the consequences ? What ? Rampant anarchy, usury, outrage, plunder. Blazing torch and gory scimitar would bathe in blood the verdure of the classic valley—a reign of desolation as desperate and as devastating as ever afflicted a long-suffering people. Are hon. members prepared to precipitate such chaos and such carnage, to add to the fury of fanaticism, the ravages of servile war ? They may disapprove— I certainly do so—of the strategy—diplomatic, political, and military— that has led up to the existing complications. But they cannot evade the consequences they entailed. Although statesmen’s views on speculative points may be wide as the poles asunder, they must accept the fatality of deeds done. If the Government leave Egypt amidst existing turmoils, not even the commanding personality of the Prime Minister would pre¬ vent its overthrow'. General Gordon is accused of inconsistency. The charge cannot, in equity, be sustained. He has never faltered in his purpose, though he has varied his suggestions to the exigencies. All his plans have been rejected. He has been systematically contravened, thwarted, restrained, and trammelled. Not a single request he has made has been complied with, not a solitary proposal has been acted upon ; and the Cabinet, after having committed every error the circumstances allowed, were shabby enough to attribute their own failure to their baulked, but sedulous and heroic agent. But whatever may have been General Gordon’s change- ablencss, the Government certainly have revised their original decision respecting the Soudan more than once, and they may, with advantage, do so again. At first, they disowned all liability for it, and ordered its 394 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. entire and immediate evacuation. That was found impracticable, as well as injudicious, and cruel. Then, the Red Sea ports were to be retained, as well as the country up to Wady-Halfa. But if the Delta is to be defended, General Gordon’s last advice must be adopted. It would be disastrous to Egypt if the centre of her trade with Central Africa, and the control of the river on which she depends for existence, were to pass into hostile hands. It would be fatal if she had to submit to the forma¬ tion of a powerful and aggressive State on her defenceless frontiers. The Mahdi may be master in Kordofan, but there must be a barrier to his advance on Upper Egypt, or Cairo might share the same fate as Berber. That barrier cannot be held by Egyptians, demoralised by defeat, and disaffected by superstition. Here, again, the Government are confronted with their initial difficulties —hampered with the dual authority and haunted by a morbid dread of incurring responsibility. There are two ways open to them. They can rule Egypt by Eastern methods—that,is, by the bastinado and bribery. But that would be repugnant to our traditions, trainings, and convictions. However faulty any plan they may sanction may be, it must conform in some measure to Western ways and ideas ; it must be just, law-abiding, and progressive. Ministers think they can attain this conformation by a bifarious bureaucracy, by a hierarchy of administrators, controlled by foreign advisers. They cannot. They may as well try to mix oil and water. A treble barrier of prejudice, aversion, and avarice is arrayed against them. They have lavished administrative ability and experience on the enterprise ; but neither genius nor devotion can work miracles, and only a miracle can evolve success out of the forced junction of Occidental and Oriental agencies. As the Government dare not leave Egypt, as they cannot legalise torture and corruption, and as their scheme of partial intervention and bipartite functionaries have broken down, they have no option but to avow the occult authority they have all along wielded. It is impossible to enjoy the advantages of a protecto¬ rate, and shirk its responsibilities. If we are to array intelligent and independent Egyptians on the side of the new institutions, we must give some guarantee for their permanence. If our interests are identified with the well-being of Egypt, if order at Cairo means safety at Suez, Ministers ought not to hesitate to take the measures that will ensure that well¬ being, and prevent a disorganised, distracted, and trouble-tossed country drifting from confusion to anarchy, and from anarchy to despair. [The resolution was defeated. The votes for it were, 275 ; against, 303 ; majority, 28.] THE RIGHT OF WOMEN TO THE SUFFRAGE. 395 XXX. THE RIGHT OF WOMEN TO THE SUFFRAGE. [Speech delivered on Mr. Woodall’s amendment in favour of the extension of the Franchise to Women, June 12, 1884.] I WILL not follow my hon. friend the member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick) through his legal subtleties. I believe the principle involved in the clause is sound, that its operation will be beneficial, and I mean to vote for it. I do not claim to be as orthodox a party man as my right hon. friend, the member for Halifax (Mr. Leatham), but no man in the House is more desirous of seeing the Bill become law than I am, and I have given it a cordial and undeviating support. I have invariably voted for it, never suggested an amendment, and never said a word. I do not think that the loyalest partisan in Parliament could have done more. I should regret extremely if any vote I gave should imperil the Bill; but I do not think the present one will do so, and I am certain that it ought not to do so. If the clause be lost, there is an end of the controversy. If it be carried, the Government will discover some means of adapting the Bill to the wishes of the majority. They have done this with other and equally important subjects ; and I cannot doubt that they will do so with this. They will never allow the work of the session to be sacrificed for an adverse vote of their supporters in committee. I agree with the Prime Minister that the progress of the Bill should not be delayed by the discussion of extraneous and irrelevant topics. But the proposal now before the House is in direct conformity with the objects of the Bill. All that is asked is that the Bill should fulfil its pro¬ fessions, and establish a uniform household suffrage throughout the United Kingdom. It will enfranchise two millions of men, irrespective of intelligence and morals, of character or capacity. Occupation is the only test of fitness it imposes. If this is to be the case with one set of householders, why should it not be with another? If we exact no per¬ sonal qualification for men, why should we do so for women ? The course of modern legislation has been to confirm the maxim that taxa¬ tion and representation should be co-extensive ; that rights and burdens should correspond ; and that before a person suffers under laws, he should assent to them. We admit women to the gallows and the gaol, to the income-tax list and the poor-rate book. By what right do we debar them from the ballot-box? The onus of proving their disqualifica¬ tion is thrown on the exclusionists. Let them produce it. They have not done so yet. \V e allow women to vote in all, and to be elected to most, 396 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. parochial and municipal bodies. In some of the American territories, woman is invested with the full rights of citizenship. Will any man have the hardihood to argue that any injurious results have arisen from the possession of such powers ? Her influence, whether exerted on a British School Board or in an election college or convention amidst the rough miners on the slopes and in the valleys of the Rocky Mountains, has been beneficent, and her authority salutary and elevating. Justice and logic, precedence and experience, are in favour of her inclusion in the roll of citizenship. What is against it? Two potent forces—prejudice and pride. The prejudice engendered by the organised selfishness o human nature, and the pride induced by ages of predominance. Nothing more. Woman, it is said, is inferior intellectually to man. Admit it. What then ? Do not the humblest and,feeblest, as well as the most gifted, enjoy the same civil rights ? The philosopher has no advantage legally over the ploughman. John Hodge is not, and never can be, a Herbert Spencer. But Hodge is not, therefore, kept in tutelage and forbidden to vote. On the contrary, we have taken exemplary care to provide machinery for enabling him to exercise his political functions. Ignorance or mental incapacity does not disfranchise him. If not, why does it disfranchise women, who are equally with Hodge taxed in their labour and their property ? The noble lord, the member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners), has cited the case of women-farmers. I know a district in which there are three women-farmers, who hold more than one-third of the land in it. They employ fifty or sixty workmen con¬ stantly, and many more occasionally. Though some of these workmen can neither read nor write, upwards of thirty of them will be enfran¬ chised by this Bill ; but the persons who supply the capital, intelligence, and enterprise, and find them with labour, will not. Does even the most credulous opponent believe that such an anomaly—or rather I should say absurdity—can continue ? Woman, however, is not intellectually man's inferior. History, reason, analogy, prove that her faculties—from diverse vocation and tendency, from perennial legal inequality and injustice—may be dissimilar ; but they are not inferior. Her position has been the gauge and the thermometer of civilization in every age and country. Some of the greatest philo¬ sophers—from Plato to Condercet, and from Condercet to Mill—have maintained that, though woman may not be identically, she is equally, endowed with man in all intellectual capacities. It is difficult to deter¬ mine whether the inconsistency that would deny Miss Nightingale and Miss Octavia Hill a vote, but would give one to the latest housebreaker or wife-beater fresh from prison, or the impertinence that affects to prescribe the circuit of duty for the Martineaus and the Somervilles, the Jane Austens and the Mrs. Brownings, is the more intolerable. THE RIGHT OF WOMEN TO THE SUFFRAGE. 397 Female sphere, forsooth ! Who endowed the members of this House with power to apportion the arena in which their fellow-countrywomen have to labour ? The proper sphere for all human beings is the largest and the loftiest to which they are able to attain ; and this can only be ascertained by complete liberty of choice. If women wish to be politicians, let us remove all legal impediments to the freest choice of career either in political or social life. Those who assert that the domestic is the only arena for which women are qualified evince great ignorance or great forgetfulness of history. Our parasitic conventionalities, our fantastic and fanciful modes of life, degrade woman while they profess to honour her. Our very homage contains a latent irony. It stimulates the culti¬ vation of her personal graces and lighter accomplishments to the neglect of her nobler powers. We make for her a world of dolls, and then com¬ plain that she is frivolous. We deprive her of the lessons and stimulus of practical outdoor life, and then we chide her with being flippant and undisciplined. But notwithstanding these disadvantages, the number of women who have shone as sovereigns, or have risen to renown in politics, literature, art, and ordinary life, is exceptionally large. Call the roll of the most distinguished rulers the world has known, keep in mind the predominance of man over woman, and will any one contend that the proportion of great queens has not been in excess of great kings? The three brightest eras in British history have been when the sceptre has been swayed by a woman—Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria. What does Austria owe to Maria Theresa; Sweden to the valiant daughter of Gustavus Adolphus ; and Spain to Isabella, who pawned her jewels to fit out a fleet for Columbus ? Can any one, in face of such instances, gainsay the fact that, the opportunity being given, woman, in spite of her artificial training, has risen to the responsibilities of rulership ? But we are told that the first qualification of a citizen is to be able to fight ; and that as woman cannot be a soldier or a policeman, therefore she cannot be an elector ; that as she cannot build ships, or make guns, or lead an army, therefore she should be deprived of her civil rights. Do we disfranchise all men who are below the military standard ? Are the weak, the aged, and the failing eliminated from the register? Is it fair to apply to woman a test that we do not apply to man ? We refuse to allow her to take a share in the work of the world. The enervating habits we impose upon her have impaired her physical powers, and then we cite to her detriment the weakness which our customs have created. Men with splendid natural endowments often die mute and inglorious for want of discipline and opportunity. Great commanders grow out of the circumstances in which their lives are cast. Open to woman the same scenes, immerse her in the same great pursuits and interests ; and if she fail, then, but not till then, will there be basis for argument against her on the ground of intellectual incapacity. 398 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. The men who use this fighting argument forget the martial energy of the Scandinavian woman. When my hon. friend the member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall) mentioned the names of Boadicea and Joan of Arc, a titter went up from hon. gentlemen who, in the hurried march of executive life, have allowed reflection to be submerged by locomotion, thought by action, and ideality by a narrow and soulless materialism. But the names of the gifted and the lost will live, and the lessons of their lives will stir the pulses of mankind when all our petty politics are forgotten. It is argued that domestic cares and political pursuits are incompatible. If so, why need there be any fear of conferring upon women this power ? No law is required to exclude either men or women from incompatible occupations. My contention is that women have as much right, and are as capable of busying themselves in State affairs as men ; and that it is unjust and unwise to exclude them from active life in all its higher departments. In every great reform the majority have always said that the claimants are not fit for the privilege sought. That is the stale argument that was used against the admission of the Jews, the Catholics, and the Dissenters to political powers. But we have tried these classes. Let us look around for the consequences. Let women be tried. Let the tools be for those who can use them, be they men or women. Let facts, not theories, settle woman’s capacity and, therefore, her sphere. I take my stand on the ground of justice and expediency, on the self-evident and indisputable principle that every class should be endowed with the power to protect itself; and I claim for women the same rights and privileges which men in like positions enjoy. [The motion was defeated by the following majority :—For the motion, 155 ; against, 271 ; majority against, 116.] THE HOUSE OF COM MOHS. 399 III. SPEECHES ON GENERAL SUBJECTS. XXXI. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS—GENERAL GRANT. AMERICA AND ENGLAND. [At a Banquet given by the Corporation of Newcastle-upon-Tyne to Ex-President Grant, September 22, 1877, Mr. Cowen responded for ‘ The Houses of Parliament.”] HE British Parliament is one of the oldest and most illustrious -*- examples of free government in the world. It is not a thing of yes¬ terday brought “brand new frae France” or elsewhere. It is a mass of traditional law and custom, consecrated by centuries, and trusted and venerated by an entire people. Whether it sprang from the Witenage- mot of our Saxon ancestors, or arose out of the feudal system, is matter¬ less. As it now exists, it is as much the creation of a high state of social development and of perfected political science as railways and the electric telegraph are developments of mechanical or chemical science. Its very incongruities, its quaint procedure, its cumbrous customs, have their attractions and their uses. They are often the historical vestiges of great events. They mark the conflict between the people and the pos¬ sessors of exclusive privileges. They are the monuments and memorials of victories which have been won over regal usurpation and aristocratic domination. It is for this reason that the House of Commons clings so tenaciously to ancient customs, and guards so jealously old forms which may appear at first sight to be inconsistent with business-like directness and efficiency. We have read recently gloomy anticipations of the future of England. I am not going to engage in the profitless and deceptive 400 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH COW EH, M.P. practice of political prophecy, but I think I may safely say, that whatever other changes this country may see, it will never part with its Parliamen¬ tary institutions. That form of rule is irrevocably fixed among us, and no modification of it is possible in any time to which we can fairly look forward. All national questions must rest for settlement with the nume¬ rical majority of the citizens, acting through their responsible representa¬ tives. It is long since we ceased to decide political differences by violence. There was a time when arbitrary rulers attempted to establish uniformity of political opinion by breaking the heads of those who differed from them. Now, instead of breaking our opponents’ heads, we count them, and all classes have benefited by the change. The House of Commons is one of the most patient of public bodies. It will listen for hours, almost without a murmur, to the dreariest of speeches—speeches unrelieved by a gleam of humour, unilluminated by a ray of wit or eloquence, undistinguished by correctness of diction, intellectual force, or precision of statement. I know of no body of men more tolerant of bores. Its fairness is only equalled by its patience. Whatever a man’s political principles may be, if they are stated in respectful language, and with due regard to the feelings and opinions of those who differ from him ; if he speaks within his right and observes the rules of debate—if, in a word, he fights fairly and within the ring, he will be listened to with attention, and his views receive fair consideration. There is an opinion that the House of Commons is only a little less aristocratic than the House of Peers. In one sense this is so. In another, although the statement may appear paradoxical, the House of Com¬ mons is essentially a democratic body. Wealth of itself confers no influence there. The absence of wealth is neither a detriment nor a drawback. It dislikes pretentious people—especially those who pretend to be what they are not ; and it has a contempt for conceited ones. It is restive even when “superior persons” attempt to lecture it. It resents being talked at or talked to by men who affect to stand outside. But any man who will comply with its regulations, and who defends his opinions with sincerity, will receive as fair and impartial a hearing in the British House of Commons as in any assembly in the world. Its greatest drawback is the time its proceedings occupy. We have just now closed a session that has been long, laborious, and, I fear I must add, unprofitable. The House has sat for twenty-eight weeks, and the sum of its labours is small. I have attended every meeting from the opening to the prorogation, and I can honestly say that I never gave an equal amount of mental and physical service for such meagre results. It is useless railing at the Government, or at any party, Irish or English, for this state of affairs. The truth is that Parliament has too much work. It will have to be distributed. Critics tell us that the House of Commons has declined, and is declining. There is necessarily a differ- GENERAL GRANT. 401 ence in the mental power of different Parliaments. We cannot always guarantee the same measure of capacity in every six hundred and odd men that are elected. The seasons vary—some are dry and some are wet; and so the character of Parliaments varies. But to argue that its faculty for law-making and governing is decaying, is to argue that the British nation is decaying. I do not believe that. The House of Commons, with all its inequalities, is really a reflex of the popular mind. The mode of speaking in Parliament has changed with its work. Rhetoric is discouraged, and eloquence is at a discount. Sunbeams cannot be extracted from cucumbers. It would have taxed the versatility of Sheridan to wax oratorical over a Valuation Bill. Even Grattan himself would have found it difficult to become pathetic over the technicalities of the Bankruptcy Law. ‘Whenever a number of distinguished men pass from public life, a chorus of literary Cassandras utter jeremiads over the decline of Parliament. These wails occur peri¬ odically. There is no more truth in them to-day than there was when our forefathers lost Pitt and Fox, Burke and Canning. There is no con¬ troversy stirring the nation just now. But when one arises, our politi¬ cians will be equal to its requirements. There are as good fish in the sea as have ever yet been taken, and there is in England to-day as much capacity for self-government as ever there was. Before sitting down, I would like to say a few words about our distin¬ guished guest. We honour him as a man, we welcome him as the representative of a great and friendly nation—that younger Britain on the other side of the broad Atlantic. In the day of his country’s danger and trial, he nobly did his duty. His highest honour is that during its darkest hour he did not despair of the Republic. General Grant’s achievements will fill a large and glowing page in the history of his native land, and no inconsiderable one in the history of our time. His. position as a soldier and a statesman is fixed, and this is not the occa¬ sion to dilate on it. He has won the confidence of his contemporaries, and secured the encomiums of posterity. The world has often spoken with, admiration of his valour and his resolution—of his courage and ability. I do not wish to underrate or overlook these virtues ; but to-night I would speak of his modesty and magnanimity. I know of nothing more touching than the gentleness with which General Grant conveyed a necessary, but hasty and unpleasant command, from the American War Minister to General Sherman, nor anything more generous and dignified than his treatment of the vanquished Confederate captain. These actions remind us of the fabled days of chivalry. The only incident in modern warfare to be compared to them is the conduct of our own Outram. towards the gallant Havelock, on the eve of the relief of Lucknow. On the questions involved in the great conflict in which our illustrious: visitor played so decisive a part, there were differences of opinion 27 402 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. amongst us ; but we all followed his career with interest and admiration —many of us, most of us indeed in this district, with sympathy. The divergent views existing in England found memorable expression on two occasions in Newcastle. In the midst of the war, at the banquet in our Town Hall, Earl Russell avowed that the North was fighting for empire and the South for independence. Mr. Gladstone, the year after, in the same place and on a like occasion, declared that the South had made an army, were making a navy, and would make a nation. I refer to these statements, not for the purpose of reviving an exhausted controversy, nor with the object of pointing out that the common people, when great principles are at stake, are often right when statesmen are in error. But I recall the circumstances, because it is but meet that the people of Tyne¬ side who did not share the sentiments of these two Liberal statesmen, should seize the opportunity of a visit from the great Republican com¬ mander to “ cull out a holiday,” to “ climb to walls and battlements, to towers and windows,” to greet the man who fought and won the greatest fight for human freedom that this century has seen. Lord Russell, with characteristic candour, not long after he made his speech in Newcastle, admitted that he had misapprehended the object of the American War, and acknowledged he had been wrong. Mr. Gladstone was scarcely so ready and frank with his recantation ; but he also ultimately confessed he had not understood the purposes of the Republican leaders. I trust that General Grant’s visit to this country will prevent a repetition of such misconceptions, help to draw still closer the bonds of amity between America and England, and tend to prevent the bellicose spirits in both nations plunging us into suffering and confu¬ sion for the gratification of unworthy passions. Our common interest is peace. We are streams from the same fountain, branches from the same tree. We spring from the same race, speak the same language, are moved by the same prejudices, animated by the same hopes. We sing the same songs, cherish the same political principles, and are imbued with the conviction that we have a common destiny to fulfil. We are bound by the treble ties of interest, duty, and affection to live together in concord. A war between America and England would be a war of brothers—a household martyrdom only less disastrous than war between Northumberland and Middlesex. The pioneers of the Republic were pre-eminently English. It was because they were so that they emigrated. They left us because England in that day had ceased to be England to them. They went in the asser¬ tion of the individual right of private judgment, and the national right of liberty of conscience. They carved out for themselves a new home in the wilderness, into which they carried all the industrial characteristics and intellectual energies of the mother-land. They did not leave us when England was in her infancy. Our national character was consolidated THE SPIRIT OF OUR TIME. 403 before they went. Shakespeare, Milton, Bacon, and the great men of the Elizabethan era, were not only figuratively but literally as much their countrymen as ours. They repudiated the rule of the English King, but, as they themselves declared, they never “ closed their partnership in the English Parnassus.” They would not own the authority of our corrupt Court, but they bowed before the majesty of our literary chiefs. They emigrated from Stuart tyranny, but not from the intellectual and moral glories of our philosophers and poets, any more than from the sunshine and dews of heaven. These literary ties have been extended and strengthened by years. The names of Longfellow and Lowell, Bryant and Whittier, are as much household words with us as those of Camp¬ bell and Coleridge, Byron and Burns. Dickens and Thackeray, Bulwer and Jerrold, wrote as much for America as for England. The works of Hawthorne and Cooper, Emerson and Irving, come to us across the sea bathed in the fragrance of the boundless prairies, redolent of the fresh¬ ness of their primeval pine-forests, and are read and admired as warmly on the banks of the Tyne and the Thames as on the shores of the Potomac and the Mississippi. But in addition to the intellectual, there are material ties intertwining the two nations. When the United States ceased to be a part of the English dominions, an increased commercial intercourse sprang up between us. Coincident with the close of the American War of Independence, the ingenuity and skill of our countrymen led to the discovery of the great mechanical invention which produced the cotton trade. While the spindles of the Lancashire mill- owners have been weaving wealth for themselves and power for their country,they have bound—in a web of interest and goodwill — the American planter and merchant and the English manufacturer and workmen. I trust that when our distinguished guest returns home, he will assure his fellow-countrymen that there is, amongst men of all classes, sects, and parties in England, only one feeling towards America, and that is of friendship — that we have only one rivalry with her, and that is to excel in the arts of peace and the works of civilization. XXXII. THE SPIRIT OF OUR TIME. [Address delivered at the opening of the Winter Session of the College of Physical Science, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, October 1, 1877.] This College can no longer be regarded as an experiment. It has been six years in existence, and in face of difficulties neither few nor insignifi¬ cant, it has fought its way to no mean position on the roll of modern 404 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. scientific seminaries. Newcastle, before all other towns in England, ought to possess an institution in which the teaching of physical science is made a chief feature. We owe our prosperity as a community to two circumstances—the possession of great natural resources, and to the power conferred by machinery. Nature has dowered us with vast deposits of coal ; and the intrepidity and enterprise of our people have devised the tools by which the contents of this buried storehouse have been reached and utilised. The commercial supremacy of this district has been built out of the remains of the vast forests and gigantic and luxuriant vegetation which flourished and decayed ages before the crea¬ tion of man, or even the mountains were upheaved. It was conceived in the mythical epoch of the Megatherium and Icthyosaurus. The gathering of people over and about the coal-measures, the transference, within the last two hundred years, of the seat of material prosperity from the South and West to the North and East—from Devon, in fact, to Durham—is to be ascribed mainly to the existence of coal in one dis¬ trict and its absence from another. The prodigious power conferred on man by the manifold agency of steam, has been more than equal to adding another continent to the sum of human knowledge. We have derived more advantage from the invention of the steam-engine than from the conquest of India, although that added upwards of two hundred millions of people to the British dominions ; or from the gold fields of Australia, although these have greatly increased the means of pleasurable existence. Our familiarity with this force leads us to overlook its marvellous capacity. The precision with which steam-power can be applied is only equalled by the ease with which it can be distributed. It is only sur¬ passed in regularity by the movements of the chronometer or the action of the heavenly bodies. As has been said by one of its most eloquent eulogists : “ It can crush the hardest metal into powder, and manipulate the most delicate tracery. It can draw a thread as fine as gossamer, and lift into the air the heaviest weight with all the ease and grace of the ascension of a balloon. It can embroider cambric, and it can cut steel into ribbons. There is no branch of commercial enterprise that has not been aided by it. It has compressed into the short compass of seventy or eighty years the improvements of centuries.” Its adoption in this country came at a time of great national distress, when the nation was just emerg¬ ing from a long and exhausting war, and it revived the drooping energies of our commerce. It enabled us to prosper under the pressure of a heavy debt and a crushing taxation. To it, more than to any mere mechanical invention, we are indebted for the material well-being we have enjoyed. One man now, with our existing machinery, can produce upwards of two hundred times the quantity of cotton goods which were produced a hundred years ago. Steam, indeed, does almost everything. THE SPIRIT OF OUR TIME. 405 It rows, pumps, excavates, digs, weaves, spins, hammers, and prints. It has added indefinitely to the sum of human enjoyment, and has carried comforts to the very confines of civilization. It has armed us with a power to which no limits have yet been assigned. If our great engineering pioneers could in spirit revisit this earth, they would be startled at the results which their improvements and inventions have achieved. But the possession of these two great agents—mineral treasures and mechanical power—would have been valueless without the capacity and will to utilise them. Industry has been the means through which the changes of which we boast have been achieved. It is the distinguishing trait of Western over Eastern races. The Asiatic leads the life of an opium-eater—splendid but slothful, gorgeous but unreal. His civilization is the civilization of luxury. Ours is the civilization of work. His temples are imposing, but amidst all his pomp, the people are sunk in slavery and ignorance, and human life is degraded. In a town whose sons have done so much to perfect the application, and to spread a knowledge of these achievements, often in the face of the doubts, the opposition, and the ridicule of an incredulous world, it is specially fitting that we should have ample provision for imparting organised and systematic tuition in mechanical philosophy. The great cities of Greece and Italy built into their civic life material embodiments of the distinguishing traits of their chief citizens. Florence, the birth¬ place of Michael Angelo and Dante, of Gallileo and Macchiavelli—the home of the early Medici, had a school for art, painting, and science. Syracuse, the birth-place of Archimedes, had a school for mathematics, and Athens for sculpture and philosophy. That modern people who have given birth to the four greatest composers—Handel, Hayden, Mozart, and Beethoven—have schools for music. In Newcastle, the home of modern engineering, and the capital of mining enterprise, the highest realised thought of physical science and of applied mechanics should find its most elevated, enlarged, and generous expression. Every age leaves behind it distinctive characteristics, which stand out in bold relief in its annals, and which are associated for ever by posterity with its memory. One era is notable for the invention of gunpowder, another for that of printing. One is signalised by a great political upheaval; another by religious reformation. One is marked by the publication of Shakespeare’s plays ; another by the discoveries of Newton. The distin¬ guishing characteristic of the age in which we live is the mastery achieved by mind over matter—the arranging, ordering, reproducing, and subjugating of the forces of the material universe to the uses and pleasures of mankind. To our Watts and Wedgewoods, to our Arkwrights and Hargreaves we are indebted, to a large extent, for our prosperity and for our security. Another feature of our age has been the growth of great cities. The 406 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. gathering of men into crowds has some drawbacks. It has, in the past, not contributed to the public health, and there are those who maintain that it has dwarfed and enervated our race. But the application of science to the wants of common life has minimised the evils complained of. London, the largest city in Europe, is now one of the healthiest. The concentration of citizens, like the concentration of soldiers, is a source of strength. The ancient boroughs were the arks and shrines of freedom. They put a bridle upon the war-steed of the haughty baron, who, although he might batter down their borough walls, could not destroy the principle of municipal combination which secured them their liberty. The din of their workshops and the clang of their hammers rise through the murky atmosphere over and above the dangling of war- harness and the shivering of lance and sword, like the muse of another age. Behind the dull roar of our machinery, the bellowing of our blast¬ furnaces, the panting of the locomotive, and the gentle ticking of the electric telegraph—that mysterious shadow of an unknown power which floats unseen amongst us—we can hear the songs of children who are fed and clad, and the acclaim of a world made free by these agencies. When people talk of trade institutions, when they declaim, in doleful numbers, against the noise and dirt of the busy centres of population, they should remember ihe liberty we enjoy as a consequence of the mental activity and enterprise which have been generated by the contact of mind with mind brought together in great towns. Science has passed from specu¬ lation ; it has now become a matter of life. It is no longer the toy of the dreamer, the schoolman, and ascetic. It belongs to the real and the active world. It is not locked up in dark phraseology or in close cote¬ ries. It is not now entombed in inaccessible volumes. It is thrown upon the whole world, and is as much the birthright of the plebeian as the patrician, of the artisan as of his employer. The master-minds of science do not bury their achievements in their studies. The leaders in literature do not now seek, as they did in former times, an aristocratic patron to whom to dedicate their books. The labours of the philosopher are designed for, and now find their way to, the humblest dwellings of the poor as well as the denizens of castles and halls. This tendency to expansion, this inroad upon the spirit of exclusiveness and monopoly in things of knowledge, is one of the most gratifying signs of the times. To it we owe such institutions as the one whose anniversary we are met to to celebrate. The advantages which this more enlightened view of the purposes of knowledge confers on the youth of our day, cannot be over¬ estimated. It is a matter of duty, it ought to be a question of pride, and I am sure it is one of interest, that this institution should receive the warmest support of all North-countrymen. ART IN TRADE. 407 XXXIII. ART IN TRADE. [Address at the presentation by Mrs. Lough of the models executed by her husband, the late Mr. Lough, sculptor, to the town of New¬ castle-upon-Tyne, October 24, 1877.] To-day’s proceedings are “twice honoured.” They honour her who gives and those who receive—the widow of the departed sculptor who carries into effect the long-cherished design of her husband, and the municipality of this ancient borough who have provided a fitting resting- place for the works of a distinguished Northumbrian. There are some who, having achieved fame at a distance, affect to forget the place from which they sprang. They aspire to occupy what they term a national position, and they look down, with something approaching to contempt, “ on the pettiness of provincial life.” This superciliousness is as paltry as the provincialism which it scorns is exclusive and contracted. Our ideas of life should not be bounded by the narrow borders of a town or country ; neither should they become so diffuse as to lead us to over¬ look the place where we were born. The charm of nature is its variety. Each man has special endowments and qualifications of his own which it is his duty to develop. All attempts to destroy his individuality of character and weaken his personality are injurious. We are not worse Englishmen because we are good Tynesiders, proud of the history of our county, and not displeased when reminded that some of our ancestors were “out with Derwentwater and Widdrington,” and that others fought with Hotspur or Collingwood. No one is a worse man because he rejoices in his descent as an Englishman, and claims national kinship with the heroes of song and story. The dying Spanish patriot, his battle over and victory won, breathed the prayer that his body might be buried in his native village “ beneath the orange grove,” and within the roar of the rushing Guadilquiver. Our Northern sculptor’s ever-present desire was that the creations of his genius should be collected in the capital of his county, near the murmurs of the river he loved so well, upon whose banks, and amid whose woods and braes, he imbibed his first artistic impulses. Through the generosity of her who shared his struggles and participated in his triumphs, and by the public spirit of our Town Council, this honourable project has been realised. A friendly foreigner has described an Englishman as a man full of coarse strength, rude exercise, butcher meat, and sound sleep, and as suspicious of all poetic insinuations as he would be of “ some one fumbling at the national umbilical cord with a view to stopping the supplies.” 408 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO IVEN ., M.P. This is an exaggerated view to take of our national character, but there is a substratum of truth in it. As a people, we are essentially economical and mercantile. An English mind, to be satisfied, must stand upon a fact. Even our poetry is often little better than inspired common sense. This mental materialism may lead our professional economists to inquire what profit can come from the cost here incurred. Calculating the expense, and remembering the commercial gloom through which we are groping, without a streak of blue in the sky, they may ask whether such an expenditure is warranted economy. There is not a word in the English language more misunderstood or misapplied than that. Economy, in the popular acceptation, means simply saving—hoarding. This is an entirely false conception. Economy means wise administra¬ tion, judicious stewardship, the arranging, preserving, and distributing the funds at our command, not meanly and niggardly, but intelligently, carefully, and rationally. I maintain, on the highest grounds of a wise economy, as well as on the lowest grounds of mere mercenary interest, that we are all individually and collectively benefited by pro¬ moting a taste for, and spreading a knowledge of, art. A cynical critic once described pictures as “ canvas spoiled.” Although that estimate was endorsed by the name of a distinguished man of letters, I do not believe it will receive the approval of this assemblage. All efforts of human ingenuity that excite the admiration, stimulate the mental facul¬ ties, and awaken the imagination, fulfil the first and some of the most important purposes of education. Works of art are so many contribu¬ tions to our experience. They extend our knowledge and endow us with an authority over a larger and more elevated domain of thought. In Greece, art was the great teacher of the people. Pictures and statuary spoke to them in language which required no interpretation. In the finished forms of the brightest era of Grecian history, their very marble glowed with life. Everything in Athens was sylph-like, elegant, graceful, and fascinating. The creations of the sculptors were not the property of individuals nor the appendages of wealth, but they were the property of the Commonwealth. They represented the heroes of their country, and were put before the citizens in the most attractive forms, so that they might imbibe their spirit and emulate their example. With us, literature has supplemented sculpture and painting. The printing press has in a measure superseded the painter’s pencil and the sculptor’s chisel. As Victor Hugo epigramatically words it, “ the book has de¬ stroyed the building.” Art now, in its highest departments, is not so much an instructor as an illustrator. But while it has embellished literature, it has enhanced its value. Art may be roughly divided into two parts—fine art and industrial art. The distinct mission of the former is to give idealised expression to the highest conceptions of great men. It imitates the effects of nature as ART IN TRADE. 409 seen in the glowing landscapes and rolling storm. Industrial art, on the other hand, aims only at embellishment. In England, which is so much indebted for its prosperity to the attractiveness of its manufactures, art, as applied to industrial produc¬ tions, is of palpable pecuniary value. Every day this country is be¬ coming more dependent on its manufactures. It is neither hyperbole nor metaphor to say England is the workshop of the world. Other countries are following quickly in our path ; and the only way we can maintain our supremacy is by surpassing our competitors not only in the quality, but in the beauty of our goods. Man, in an uncivilised state, is indifferent to his surroundings. Savages prefer Turkey red calico, loud patterns, flaming devices, big brass buttons. These may be ugly, but they suit the untutored market. As civilization advances, and education becomes more diffused, our merchants discover that their customers require a higher class of articles. Those goods gain the readiest sale which combine artistic with material excellence. If we are to maintain our position in the markets of the world for the products of our factories and our forges, we must train the artisans as well as the employer to understand art as applied to special trades. And I know of no means by which we can more efficiently accomplish that than by sur¬ rounding them with objects of beauty. The faculty must be developed The eye must be educated. All men possess to a larger or smaller extent artistic powers. These powers should be discovered, and, when found, refined. In promoting the formation of such noble collections as that before us, we shall indirectly, but surely, create the taste on the practical application of which to our manufactures we, in no small measure, depend for the maintenance of our mercantile supremacy. On purely commercial grounds, therefore, as well as a means of social and intellectual improvement, the work we have done to-day I hold to have been well done. To accustom the eye to the study of the beautiful is one way, and no inconsiderable way, of ennobling and beautifying the mind, as the mind imperceptibly, but surely, becomes that which it contemplates. It is unnecessary to recount the romantic story of Mr. Lough’s early life and struggles. His name and his achievements are familiar in the mouths of most North-countrymen as household words. His humble birth in the village of Greenhead, his apprenticeship to a builder at Shotley Field, his early artistic exercise as a young working mason, at Muggleswick, are all instances the future biographer of self-taught artists will recur to with pride, and dwell upon with encouragement. His career in London at first was an arduous one. He had more than his share of the trials and disappointments which attend a rising but unknown sculptor, but, by the force of his abilities, by his industry and perseverance, he won his way to the front rank in his profession ; and he has now long been l 4io SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. recognised as a worthy successor to Banks and Flaxman, to Chantroy and Westmacott. This is neither the place nor the occasion to enter into a critical estimate of Mr. Lough’s position in the world of British art. I may venture, however, to affirm that there is no provincial town which possesses a finer, a larger, or a more valuable gallery of statuary than that which Newcastle, through his genius and generosity, now owns. His works may be divided into four classes—the poetic, classic, religious, and historical. There are illustrations of the two first orders in this hall, which the works of no modern sculptor surpass in purity, in elegance, in simplicity, and in taste. His groups exhibit a high sense of the beautiful and harmonious in composition. This is equally conspicuous in the martial Knight Banneret, in the homely heroine of the “ Heart of Midlothian,” and the plaintive “ Mourners,” as fine an example of motionless poetry as is to be found in England. His statuary combines, in happy proportions, the heroic and the familiar, the imaginative and the real. We might say of Mr. Lough as Sir Thomas Lawrence said of another great artist, that the very solitude of such a man was made enjoy¬ ment by the possession of a fancy teeming with images of tenderness, of purity and of grandeur. Few things would have caused him more pleasure than to have been present to witness the proceedings of this day. Nothing in the life of a struggling, earnest man is more en¬ couraging and strengthening than a sympathetic wife and a happy home. It makes the difference between success and failure. Mr. Lough was blessed with a partner who, to a keen appreciation of and sympathy for his labour, added high artistic capacity and feeling of her own. The reverent manner in which she has carried into effect the well-known wishes of her husband, although only in keeping with her life-long devotion, none the less entitles her to our warmest acknowledgments. Her memory will be indissolubly associated with that of her husband in the grateful recollection of the people of this district, who owe to their double generosity the creation of a sculpture gallery which will mark the beginning of a brighter era for Tyneside. XXXIV. ART AND EDUCATION. [Speech delivered after laying the foundation stone of the Science and Art School, at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, November 21, 1877.] It is somewhat cruel to gather such a large assemblage on such an unpropitious day, so cold, raw, and miserable, to listen to my halting ART AND EDUCATION. 411 periods. I should have been glad to relieve you of the infliction, but our friends in charge of the arrangements say that the ceremony will be incomplete without a speech, however short or imperfect. There is, therefore, no alternative but to proceed. I have never laid a foundation- stone before. When my friend, Dr. Rutherford, asked me to lay this one, I inquired of a gentleman who has had some experience of such ceremonials, what I should say. “ Speak for a quarter of an hour,” he said, “ on art, science, literature, on anything in fact, except the general advantages of popular knowledge, because that subject is so hackneyed, that you can say nothing which will be either interesting or advan¬ tageous.” I do not know whether I can comply with the counsels of my friend, but I will endeavour to do so. The Bath Lane is not an old, but it has been an extremely prosperous, school. There are few like institu¬ tions in the North of England which have had equal success ; none which has had greater. The department for which the new building is intended is a branch of instruction which has not hitherto been associated with elementary tuition. Knowledge of the most rudimentary character was, until recently, all that was deemed necessary for the sons of tradesmen. Half a century ago, the common contention was that learning of any kind was unnecessary, and sometimes even injurious to those who gain their living by manual labour. When Lord John Russell proposed his first vote of national money in the House of Commons for public schools, all he asked for—and it was the highest aspirations of the reformers of the time—was a small grant to assist in bringing within the reach of the working classes some of the simplest forms of knowledge. The cry then was for the three R’s— reading, writing, and arithmetic. Since then, the country has been covered with schools, and the Legislature has decreed that it is as incumbent on the local authorities to see that every British child is educated as it is that it is fed. And if the parents will not, or cannot instruct it, the State must. This is the second great step in the path of educational progress. Now that we have secured the machinery, and possess the power to put it into operation, the struggle is to enlarge the design and elevate the scope of our tuition. The establishment of art and science classes is the practical outcome of the demand for higher education. It is now recognised that art is not only a necessary, an important, but an indispensable branch of popular education. Apart from its value to us as a country, standing in the van of civilization, and engaged in sustaining an intense and cumulative competition with other nations, its study has a humanising influence over its students. Food and raiment, fire and shelter, are all that a man’s animal nature requires. Painting and poetry, sculpture and music, will not till the earth, will not build a dwelling to live in, will not weave cloth or kindle coal fires, but they will add beauty to the structure of society, and contribute to the 412 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. innocent pleasures and happiness of man in his passage through this transitory life. The cultivation of art will wean mankind from viciously indulging his animal appetites and gratifying unduly his most dangerous passions. After oral communication, art is not only the obvious and simplest, but it is the oldest means of conveying thought. It would be more difficult to discover the country where it originated than to find a country where it never existed. Music, the art of expressing pathetic flow of feelings by the concord of sweet sounds, is said to have been invented by the man who, listening to the different tones produced by different strokes upon the anvil, composed musical notes. Drawing was discovered by the beautiful girl who, seeing the shadow of her lover as he sat still and silent, and pensive at the prospect of parting, sketched his figure upon a wall as a momento of their mutual affection. The course of civilization, in all probability proceeded from Ethiopia to Egypt, from Egypt to Greece, from Greece to Rome, and from Rome to Western Europe. Nineteen hundred years before the birth of Christ, nearly four thousand years from the present time—a period that it is difficult for ordinary minds to grasp —the temples and the palaces of Thebes were decorated with statuary and painting, commemorative of historical and personal events. When Columbus and his companions landed in South America, the natives conveyed intelligence of their arrival to King Montezuma by sketching the appearance, dress, and ships of the new comers. Art was, therefore, as widespread as, and only less ancient than, speech. Art was not, however, much indebted to the Egyptians. They had no “ light and shade,” little colour ; only some form and some character. Those vast and useless buildings which they constructed, their forests of granite columns, the avenues of Sphynxes, those colossal monolyths—a specimen of which is now on its way to this country—were the work of generations, and bore evidence that they could only have been con¬ structed by the despotic exercise of a power which compelled labour without granting it remuneration. The Greeks had a high sense of beauty. The worship of it was a principle of their religion. Every artist was a philosopher, and every philosopher relished art. The passion for the beautiful in nature led them to abhor the repulsive amusements of the Romans. To compete for fame by pictures, poetry, oratory, and music ; to race for the prize of swiftness, to wrestle for the crown of strength—such were the innocent objects of the Olympian games. While they contended, the battle-flag was furled, war between the different branches of the Greek race ceased, and the citizens of the various States lived together in peace and civic happiness. The Roman school of art and sculpture was vastly inferior to the Greek. The artistic spirit with them was destroyed in the constant call to battle, and the incessant and unappeasable demand for extended ART AND EDUCATION. 413 territory. Architecture was better suited to the savage vastness of the Romans than excellence in the highest departments of art. They excelled in aqueducts and in palaces. It was the boast of Augustus that he found Rome thatched, and he left it marbled. Art, in its lowest forms, was lost again in the vice and violence, the laziness and luxury, the intrigue and insincerity, of the Lower Empire. The degenerate Romans of that day were fonder of gold and glitter than they were of purity of design, pathos of expression, and perfection of form. The moral grandeur of ancient Greece had then departed. The passion for public glory had passed ; and the simple chaplet of wild olives, the adequate reward of genius, and once the highest of earthly honours, was sneered at and derided. The innocent and instructive competitive gatherings at Corinth and at Olympia had given place to the cruel gladiatorial fights, in which the Romans polluted and disgraced their amphitheatre. The national liberty, the personal security, and commercial pros¬ perity enjoyed by the citizens of the Free Cities of Italy ; the civic and classic rivalry which existed at one time between the artists of Venice and Florence, of Milan and Modena, and afterwards between the seats of art in Italy and those in Flanders, in Holland, in Germany, and in Spain, greatly favoured the promotion of both art and science in the middle ages. In a time of overwhelming gloom, when social life was, as has been well described, “given over to the worst evils which could afflict humanity, when on one side there was oppression, and on the other side superstition and ignorance, while the powerful inflicted, and the weak endured, all that could be conceived of the most revolting and intolerable tyranny, when, for one class, the aristocracy, there was only the fierce excitement of war, and on the other lay the hard and dreary monotony of stagnant existence,” the citizens of the Italian Republics and free towns in Germany and in the Netherlands developed and sustained a higher and loftier life, the influence of which has descended to the present time. What is technically called ancient art, terminated with the Roman Empire. Mediaeval art was retarded, somewhat strangely, by the Reformation. The Roman Catholic Church had used painting as a means of propagandism, and in consequence it fell under the severe denunciation of the early reformers, and its progress was for a time prevented. In this country, during the reign of Edward VI., a man was liable to imprisonment and fine for possessing what was termed a religious picture. The Recorder of Salisbury was fined ,£500, a sum equal to ,£2,000 of our money, and was imprisoned in the Fleet because he did not break a painted window in Salisbury Cathedral. In the reign of Charles, a law was passed requiring that every picture which contained a representation of the Second Person of the Trinity should be burnt; and afterwards, another edict was promulgated, requiring 4 H SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. that all pictures which contained representations of the Virgin, should share the same fate. None could accuse Cromwell of having any sympathy with Roman Catholicism, yet he put a stop to this barbarity. From the time of Elizabeth to the days of Hogarth, the progress of art in this country was neither great nor rapid. The belief abroad was that Englishmen were such an unsettled, volatile, mercurial race, so given to making revolutions, to killing kings, and overturning Parlia¬ ments, that they were incapable of producing an original art. The foreigner’s idea of Englishmen, at that time, was much the same as that held by us with respect to France during the last eighty or ninety years. Neither people, it was thought, were capable of engaging in settled Government, or enjoying representative institutions. The charge was just as untrue with respect to England two hundred years ago as it is with respect to France to-day. Hogarth first, after him Reynolds, since him Wilkie, West, Turner, Gainsborough, and many others, have laid the foundation of a national school of art, which in portraiture, landscape, or historical painting, is not inferior to that of any con¬ tinental nation either in power, variety, or finish. There are heroic periods in the history of a nation when it may be great, despite a general indifference to the cultivation of fine arts. When men’s hearts are throbbing with the instinct of self-preservation, when a nation’s destinies are hanging in the balance, as in France to-day, there may be found few who will seek intellectual retirement, the isolation from the cur¬ rent of the world which is necessary to generate the highest taste for the beautiful. But, even in the most troubled times, there have been illustrious and notable instances of popular regard shown for art. The Protector, amidst the distraction of our Revolution, purchased Raphael’s cartoons at the sale of King Charles’ effects ; and during the days of bitterest political passion in France, the national pictures have been saved. Art, however, prospers most in times of peace, and in condi¬ tions of freedom. It found its earliest home amongst the Republics of early Greece. It met with generous patrons and brilliant and famous exemplars amongst the citizens of the free States of Italy and on the Rhine in the middle ages. Poetry can flourish in the midst of excite¬ ment and of war. Under the most adverse, external influences, a poet can give expression to his thoughts. In obscurity and blindness, Milton wrote his “ Paradise Lost.” In poverty and wretchedness Savage composed his “Wanderer” and “Bastard.” In the throes of a terrible revolution, Rouged Lisle gave to the world the memorable ode which had moved more men to action than any political composition of modern times. It was when hardly pressed by cares and woes that Burns indicted his imperishable poems. But art requires for its culti¬ vation peace and pleasant surroundings. History testifies that whenever men have exhibited forbearance towards each other, and special gentleness ENGLISH AND FOREIGN ART. 415 to women, whenever personal and social virtues have flourished most, it has been in periods corresponding to the development of the highest form of human art. “ 'Tis to create, and in creating live A life more lofty, that man endows With form his fancy." XXXV. ENGLISH AND FOREIGN ART. [Speech delivered at a public meeting held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne in connection with the Bath Lane Science and Art School, November 21, 1877.] England is pre-eminently a mercantile country, and the spirit of com¬ merce is supposed to be opposed to the spirit of art. Abroad, the impres¬ sion is that art in England in its highest developments is neglected, that the people are given over to the exclusive pursuit of wealth. Ordinary Englishmen, by their speech and conduct, encourage this opinion. They pique themselves so much upon their care for “ English interests,” “ English trade,” “ English hardware,” and “ English engineering,” that they have come to believe they are incapable of attending to anything but what is technically useful and mechanical. Their special desire is to be considered “ good business men,” and they have a superstitious reverence for what they call the “ practical.” They have a sheepish dis¬ trust of themselves in every accomplishment whose purpose is simple beauty. About every branch of ornamental education, everything which cannot be woven into a loom, measured by an ell-wand, weighed by a steel-yard, or valued by an engineer, they distrust themselves and their powers. La Place relates a story illustrating this material idiosyncracy. The celebrated astronomer was told by an English merchant that he (the merchant) considered the discovery of a new planet was infinitely less important that the discovery of a new pudding, inasmuch as we had already more planets than we knew what to do with, but we would never have puddings sufficient. Our cardinal virtues are comfort, competency, cleanliness, decency, order; and the Bohemian spirit which often—per¬ haps too often—characterises the traditional artist, instinctively rebels against these necessary but commonplace qualities. The narrow prudence which despises beauty, abhors ideas, and judges everything by the lowest standard of utility, it is quite true, is incompa¬ tible with artistic attainments. But while admitting this, I think the artistic deficiencies of our countrymen are grossly exaggerated. Like 416 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. most generalizations, the cynical estimates of foreigners and high art- critics are only partially correct. The predominant features of our national character are, without doubt, force and strength rather than refinement. Still, our shortcomings are overdrawn. Mr. Gladstone, speaking at a recent meeting, adopted the conventional view ; and he instituted a com¬ parison between the artistic attainments of the English and French workmen, to the detriment of the former. There are others who never tire of telling us how far the German surpass us in education. I have no sympathy with the shallow and selfish patriotism which cries up its own country, whether right or wrong. But I have just as little for that disposition which some display to disparage everything English, and extol everything of foreign origin. The German public schools have many excellent features. I don’t undervalue them. But the German system of tuition is part of their colossal militarism. It is more drill than education. Its tendency is to harden and to crystallise, rather than to draw out and develop, the human character. It has converted Ger¬ many into a large parade-ground, and has sown seeds which have already wrought much mischief, and will, if not checked, bring great misery to that country. The mental elasticity, the spirit of self-dependence, the sense of personal freedom, the glow and fire of political life, the vivifying and invigorating influences of unfettered discussion which we have in England do not exist ; they could not, indeed, live under the heavy pressure of their military educationalism. It may be insular egotism, it may be national prejudice, but I prefer our free and partial system, with all its defects, to the depressing uniformity of the Germans. I have a sincere attachment to the French. Mankind is under lasting obligations to that brilliant and gifted people. The philosophical and political idedS which they formulated have revolutionised the thought and recast the legislation of the world. But to maintain that the average French citizen surpasses the English in the application of art to the common affairs of life, is very far from the fact. The French have a larger number of picture and sculpture galleries and museums than we have, and these are distributed over the country, not centralised, as in England, in the capital. Up to the Revolution, the National Art Galleries in France were under lock and key, and shown only to the privileged and exclusive few under special conditions. The Convention said : “ These works of art have been purchased by the people’s money. They are national property, and they ought to be opened to all, irrespective of their social status.” When Mr. C. I. Fox and other prominent Whigs visited Paris in 1802, after the treaty of Amiens, they were so struck with the noble frankness of the French Government, and so impressed by the intelligent and orderly interest shown by the Parisian workmen as they passed through the Louvre, that when they returned to England they induced the English Parliament to follow the example of the French Republicans. ENGLISH AND FOREIGN ART. 417 This was how, and why, and the time when the art-galleries in this country came to be opened. The wise liberality has been of vast advan¬ tage to the nation, and in no sense whatever an injury to the collections. Nofewer than eighty-two thousand persons visited the National Gallery, the British Museum, and Kensington Museum, on August 1st, and there was not a single article in the great buildings that was injured in conse¬ quence. More than half of the population of Newcastle spent their holiday amidst the works of art in these three noble institutions. Can the influence have been otherwise than elevating? In France, the Government, whether it is Imperialist, Monarchical, or Republican, always keep a number of artists in their employment. They consider it to be desirable to contribute out of the National Exchequer to the esta¬ blishment and maintenance of art collections in all parts of the country. England has not followed this example ; but, although we have not a direct Government patronage of art, we have, during the last quarter of a century, done much to propagate it. Fifty years ago, Mr. Haydon, an artist of genius, whose tragic death may be within the recollection of some here, presented a petition to Parliament, through the instrumentality of Lord Brougham, begging it to vote the sum of ,£4,000 a-year for the promotion of art. Mr. Flaydon’s petition, although couched in eloquent and striking language, was disregarded, if not derided. At that time, we had not got a National Gallery. The Kensington Museum had not been dreamt of, and the British Museum was only in its infancy. Indeed, the Government had just been higgling with Lord Elgin as to whether they should pay a trifling sum for the Elgin Marbles. That was in 1823. Since then, we have spent large sums in promotion of art; and this year the House of Commons has voted, unanimously, upwards of four millions in furtherance of education, art, and science—just one hundred times as much as Mr. Haydon asked for half a century ago. The Frcnch do not surpass the English in the artistic faculty they bring to bear in the construction, say, of implements of husbandry or articles of the household. Their carts, ploughs, shovels, and spades, the harness of horses, the tools of their workmen, their domestic appliances and fittings, their doors, windows, and the multiform utensils which are in common use in the humblest homes, are inferior in durability, not so well adapted to the purpose for which they are designed, and less artistic in construc¬ tion than those used in England. The French people are more sober than the English. In France, drunkenness is a badge of disgrace, a social stigma. It is not treated with the same indifference and levity with which Englishmen very often regard it. The French have universal suffrage. Every man has a vote, whether he lives in town or country ; but if he is convicted of being drunk, he loses his civil privileges for five years afterwards. This is one of the things that they really do manage better in France than we do here. The French, too, are more frugal and 28 418 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO IVEN ,, M.P. thrifty than the English. Property is more equitably distributed, and poverty is not so prevalent. There are not to be seen in France that abject squalor and wretchedness that we sometimes see in this country alongside of excessive wealth. The workmen labour longer hours, but they are slower, and do not produce in a day as much as English artisans do. There are districts on the continent distinguished for the production of peculiar goods. In Bohemia, they make beautiful glass, in Dresden elegant earthenware, in Switzerland clever toys and watches, in Paris exquisite trinkets and ornaments. There is like localization of industry in this country. Birmingham excels in hardware, Sheffield in cutlery, Lancashire in cotton fabrics, Yorkshire in woollen goods, Tyneside in machinery. But the entire artisans of Germany are not to be credited with high attainments because the men in a limited area of Bohemia or favoured spots in Saxony are skilful glass makers or potters. If we take the continental artisan all round, he is not superior to the English, whose artistic qualifications are so often decried. The reports published by the Commissioners of the International Exhibitions which have been held within the last twenty-five years in London, Paris, Vienna, and still more recently Philadelphia, all testify to the correctness of this statement. But in all directions, improvements are going forward. One nation benefits by the experience of others, and there is not wanting evidence to show that other countries besides England are venturing on untried paths. If we are to maintain our position, we must watch every advance and profit by every step taken by others. The great aim of this institution is to sustain and develop the ideas of our artisans, so that, while they don’t become worse mechanics, they become better artists. The greatest gifts do not supersede the necessity for constant and vigilant application, for great genius is only another word for great industry and great patience. Earnest men sincerely bent on advancing any cause often become impatient at the progress made. That is not a disposition to be censured. An ardent and hopeful, is preferable to a self-satisfied and egotistical, tone of mind. One encourages effort; the other depresses it. There is much yet for us all to do. The ignorance in our rural districts is both dense and wide¬ spread. I will not, even in appearance, throw a depressing influence over their more resolute and enthusiastic educationalists in their efforts to mend matters. But it is not wise perpetually to be looking at the ugly leg. It is not desirable to be constantly gazing on the gloomy side, always seeing a black star coursing through the light-coloured clouds in the sky overhead. The gayest castles in the air that ever were piled are better for comfort and for use than the dungeons in the air that are daily dug and caverned out by gloomy, grumbling, and discontented men. The progress we have made is greater than many think or know. During A EULOGY ON A LOCAL ORATOR. 419 the last twenty years, no country has done more for popular and art education than England. This ought not to discourage further effort, but to stimulate it. We have had one fight to get our schools ; we are having another to fill them. When filled, we must strive to raise the tuition to the loftiest standard. Let us reverse the old and illiberal maxim, that because a man is poor he only requires a poor education, and act upon the opposite doctrine, that as knowledge is both power and wealth, the poorer a man is the greater the need for his having the best education he can secure. XXXVI. A EULOGY ON A LOCAL ORATOR. [Address delivered on the occasion of unveiling a Memorial to the late Mr. Charles Larkin, at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, September 30, 1880.] OUR first duty to-day is to express our obligations to Mr. Kirton for procuring the erection of this beautiful monument to our departed towns¬ man. However strong may be the popular appreciation of a public man’s services, it requires thought and effort to secure for them material and artistic recognition. Meetings are to be called, circulars issued, and much technical labour transacted. Under all circumstances, this work is essential. But in the present instance, where most of the contemporaries of the man whose memory is to be commemorated have passed away, and when a generation has arisen that is either indifferent to, or ignorant of his achievements, the exertion required is necessarily greater. It should be said to Mr. Kirton’s honour that he helped to cheer the closing days of our friend by kindly offices. And when he was called to swell the great majority, Mr. Kirton resolved that his memory should neither go unmourned nor undistinguished. We are here this afternoon to give practical expression to that resolution. Few men pass out of popular recollection more rapidly than political orators ; their reputations are as evanescent and as intangible as that of great vocalists or actors. The engineer or the architect weaves himself a memorial in his works. The mechanician manufactures his in his machines. The painter perpetuates his name on canvas, the sculptor in marble, and the author by type. Statesmen have their names linked with beneficent changes that they have usually spent the greater part of their lives in opposing. But the propagandist, whose teaching has created the state of opinion that has made the passage of reforms possible, at the close of his career, drops into the stream, makes a momentary eddy, and in a few weeks or months all remembrance of him is rubbed out in the rushing tide of life. Such, In a large measure, has 420 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO l PEN, M.P. been the lot of Charles Larkin. Most of the great national problems, that “ stirred the pulses of the people ” when he entered the troubled arena of political strife, have been settled. The benefits conferred by their settlement we enjoy, but the names of the men who won them have slid into oblivion. At the time Mr. Larkin first raised his voice in our local forum, we, as a nation, were cruelly and wantonly trifling with, and trampling on, the first and clearest rights of man. In the West Indies, with the approval of the British Government and under the protection of the British law, human beings were manacled and scourged, outlawed and hunted, fed for the fleshpots, and sold on the shambles. Members of our Representative Chamber were chosen, or rather delegated, by a mere fraction of the population. “ The laws ground the poor, and the rich men ruled the laws.” Catholics, Jews, and Dissenters were denied participation in the legislation, administration, or judicial department of the State. Our municipal rule was equally, if not more, exclusive. Nearly every article of food and merchandise was taxed. Abuses, rank and foetid, were eating into the very vitals of the Commonwealth. To the uprooting of these corruptions, to the eradication of these iniquities, to the emancipation of men of every creed and the enfranchisement of men of every class, Mr. Larkin poured the full tide of his eloquence along, “ rapt with zeal pathetic, bold, and strong.” In the modern mental awakening, in the warfare of opinion, in the contest of competing prin¬ ciples, where every proposition of science and philosophy is being passed through a fresh alembic, he bravely played his part, proclaiming always and for every one untrammelled liberty of speech and speculation. He himself held true, through all iconoclastic vicissitudes, to the faith of his fathers. He never swerved from his conviction that religion was the cement of civil society, that the religious sentiment was the great creative influence of the world, the inspirer and sustainer of every prominent movement. He had an absolute and immutable belief in the principles of Christianity, and died as he lived, a conscientious Catholic. But he never allowed himself to be “ tethered to the stump of any old super¬ stition,” whether intellectual, ecclesiastical, or political. Mr. Larkin was, both by taste, temperament, and training, an orator. His speech, his form, his action, were all full of strength and grace. He lived at a period when a polished and forcible style of speaking was studiously cultivated by politicians, and w'hen all the power that argu¬ ment and eloquence, wit and art, and pathos could supply w r as evoked to awaken, to agitate, and to control the human mind. The influence of the revolution by which France burst the cerements that had bound her for centuries, and walked forth erect in all the majesty of freedom, w r as felt sharp and clear, when Mr. Larkin first essayed to address his countrymen. The tragic grandeur of the great French upheaval inflamed men’s souls ; they “ rushed to battle as to a banquet, and embraced death A EULOGY ON A LOCAL ORATOR. 421 with rapture.” Speakers breathed the temper and embodied the spirit of their times, and the echoes of their eloquence still lingered amidst the halls of history. The classic oratory of the Girondists, fire in every eye, inspiration on every brow, captivated the imagination, while the nervous declamations of the Jacobins aroused popular passions. The reverbera¬ tion of the voices that thundered from the tribune of the Convention rolled through Europe, stirred society to its centre, and coloured the course of even those who most traduced its teachings and dreaded its powers. Nowhere was its influence more felt than in this country. The oratory, sometimes denunciatory, sometimes sympathetic, common in England at the close of the last and at the commencement of the present century, was the answering echo to the combined appeals and defiance addressed by the Republican Prometheus to the coalesced and concerted kings. Its traditions passed from Chatham to Canning, from Sheridan^ to Shiel, and from Grattan to O’Connell. When Mr. Larkin was in the prime of his powers, the national heart was still heaving with excitement, and the men who had to control its- pulsations and direct its energies had to speak in the language of enthu¬ siasm. Sprung from the people, he understood their character, and he shared their aspirations. He could be figurative or logical, declamatory or didactic, vehement or gentle, mirthful or melancholy, as suited his temper, his theme, or his audience. He threw himself unreservedly into his subject. The gesture, the eye, the tone of the voice, the quiver of his muscles, all overflowed with the sentiment he was championising. The purpose of speaking is to persuade men. All attempts to regulate its form by formulas, or to strap it up by cut and dried rules, have failed. What is adapted to one set of circumstances, and appropriate to one- scene and natural to one man, would be inappropriate under other con¬ ditions, and unnatural in another man. The political economist and the poet are moved by different appeals. The first requisite is that language, style, and manner should be in harmony with the man, the occasion, and the subject. What may appear wild and extravagant at one time, may seem bold and commonplace at another. But speaking can never be successful that is not clear. If to perspicuity be added animation of style and elegance of language, the essentials of oratory are possessed. These three accomplishments Mr. Larkin pos¬ sessed in an eminent degree. The fervour that characterised the oratory of fifty years ago has died out, as the engrossing controversies that aroused it have subsided or become settled. With a quieter or more material¬ istic age we have lost the warmth and passion of the past. Written, also, has in a large measure superseded oral thought. Rhetoric is now dis¬ trusted. We are absorbed in details. We have substituted business¬ like instruction for eloquence, while enthusiasm has become sick and palsy-stricken. It is too ungenteel to be fashionable, and too bursting 422 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. to be popular. In most modern legislatures the struggle for party supremacy is more one of machinery and strategy than of effective advocacy. I doubt if a solitary vote, on any great occasion, is won in our householders’ Parliament by the most wonderful effort of speech. Men engaged in public affairs make small exertions after literary excel¬ lence. Indeed, some are known to pride themselves upon their indif¬ ference to it. They contemptuously disregard all attempts at elaboration and embellishment as evidences of feebleness of thought if not conceit. Commerce, it is true, is not calculated to call forth the loftiest class of speech, nor are figures and finance likely to awaken poetic outbursts. But the popular taste would be raised if speakers would more generally emulate the higher style of Mr. Larkin, rather than the verbosity of the law-courts, and the tame and colourless talk often practised elsewhere. We commend the care and assiduity with which the painter wields his pencil, the sculptor his chisel, the author his pen, or the artisan his hammer, while w T e are apt to disparage, if not disregard, the speaker who, however humble, or however high, puts his soul into the substance of his speech and his skill into its shape. We dwell on the struggles and triumphs of the departed, in the hope that we may glean from them guidance and encouragement. I cannot more usefully serve those who aspire to influence public opinion to-day than by holding up to them Mr. Larkin’s success as a speaker and point¬ ing out the secrets of it. If those who follow him cannot equal the melody and richness of his language, or the masculine beauty of his style, they may emulate the premeditation which he always bestowed on his public addresses, and the ardour with which he advocated every cause which he espoused. Mr. Larkin talked even better in private than in public. With half a dozen congenial friends around a homely table, with the troubles of the world shut out, and the feverish rivalries of partisans hushed, he could discourse on poetry and philosophy ; on art, on actors, on literature and science in a style that would have delighted Dr. Johnson or Godwin, Coleridge or Hazlitt, or any of the gifted con¬ versationalists of the past. I never saw him but my mind reverted to another and more widely-known leader of opinion, the great and genial Christopher North. When I was a boy in Edinburgh, the author of the “Noctes Ambrosianae” was the idol of the student. Mr. Larkin’s magnifi¬ cent presence, his elastic but steady step, his broad but brawny chest, his flashing but gentle eye, made up the form of a model man. Between the Newcastle orator and the Scotch Professor there was, both in body and mind, in taste and temper, a close resemblance. It is said that seven cities once contended for Homer dead— “Through which the living Homer begged his bread.” Mr. Larkin’s public services and high attainments never received ade- ART: ITS HISTORY AND TUITION. 423 quate recognition at the hands of his countrymen ; but the monument now unveiled will tell to coming generations that there was at least some who knew him, who appreciated his worth, honoured his attainments as a philosopher, and his power as an orator. XXXVII. ART : ITS HISTORY AND TUITION. [Speech delivered at the annual distribution of prizes in connection with the Bath Lane Science and Art School, October 12, 1880.] There is no institution in Newcastle whose progress I follow with more interest, and whose success I more rejoice in than the wonderful educa¬ tional establishment which the ability, energy, and self-devotion of my friend, Dr. Rutherford, and his colleagues have reared. It is an honour to them and a blessing to the borough. But I should have been glad if the committee had got some one else to discharge the duty they have committed to me to-night. I have a great aversion to presenting myself so frequently before my fellow-townsmen in the assumed and enforced capacity of an adviser or instructor. I can honestly assure you that I strive to lessen these appearances, but I am not always my own master. Partly from accident, partly from sense of duty, partly from weakness and incapacity to say “ no,” I often drift into positions which, if left to myself, I would gladly avoid, and the duties of which I feel myself incompetent adequately to perform. I have to address you for a short time on art, its history, and its tuition. In a somewhat utilitarian age, the cultivation of art genialised the national spirit, and throws a poetic glow over our otherwise prosaic existence. An American boasts of the extent of his country, of its primeval forests, its boundless prairies, its vast lakes, and great rivers. A Frenchman talks of the beauties of France, its vine¬ yards and its orchards ; and a German of the superiority of his drill, the strength of his army, and the subtilty of his philosophy. An English¬ man extols his industrial enterprise, which practically arms him with the sceptre of the seas. He recounts the number of mines he has sunk, the mills he has erected, the ships he has built, the trade he has done—how he has reinforced his native energy by his marvellous, if not magical, machinery. But vast though these material triumphs have been, the advance made in this country in recent years in art and education, although less known, is, under the circumstances, almost as surprising. At the commencement of the century, it was customary to deny the capacity of the English people for achieving excellence in fine art. They were held to have no perception of beauty, and no sense of design, even 424 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. in works of utility, while great historic painting was deemed to be as much beyond their powers as beyond their ambition. All Englishmen could do, it was said, was to imitate foreigners. They could not create, they could only copy, the works of the famous masters of France and Flanders, of Spain, Italy, and Germany. This was the common creed of the art-critics of the time. There were three causes assigned for this absence of artistic taste and deficiency of artistic faculty. First, our climate ; second, our modes of life, and the low level of our social ambitions ; and third, strange to say, our religion. The dull, damp, variable, and mournful atmosphere under which Englishmen lived, while it quickened and strengthened the physical powers, grew, what Mr. Emerson calls, “robust men and virtuous women;’ was held to deaden the imagination and unfit them to express “fine thoughts in beautiful forms.” The people, too, did obsequious homage to the god of riches. They were seized with a lust for gold which bound them in chains as strong as those which bound the serfs of the soil in former ages. Love of money, of stocks, of trade, outrode or overrode all concern for literature and art. Cottons and cutlery, carpets and calicoes, worsteds and woollens—care, in short, for corporeal civilization— reigned paramount. Our foreign commentators fixed on this as the dis¬ tinguishing trait of our national character, and they contended that this ceaseless toil after riches and power generated a taste too gross, and a passion too absorbing to allow of either time or temper for aesthetic pur¬ suits. The Reformation, also, which brought us so many blessings, political and social, it was argued, had a baneful, if not a deterring, effect on the progress of art. The Catholic Church had used art as a means of religious tuition. They appealed to popular intelligence through the popular imagination. The artist was a servant of the altar. The colossal frescoes on the walls and ceilings of churches tended, it was thought, to enlarge, to elevate, and strengthen the minds of artists. Through the denunciations of the evils existing in the Church, the people imbibed a dislike of everything connected with it, art and pictures included. Such, in a few sentences, was the substance of the accusation till recently brought against us as a nation by foreign men of letters, as well as by some of our own countrymen, and such were the grounds and the language by which it was supported. Our deficiencies were, doubtless, exaggerated. But two or three generations ago, there was unquestionably a large substratum of truth in the charge. Remembering the length of our history, and our great advance in material civilization, art had not, at the period referred to, made proportionate progress, nor did it stand on high ground. The debased style of architecture common in the early days of the Georges, its meanness and its uniformity, not incorrectly typified our dwarfed and dwindled artistic attainments. There was, how¬ ever, some excuse for it. The country had been for years embarrassed by ART: ITS HISTORY AND TUITION. 425 domestic discord, and embroiled in foreign conflicts ; and neither the fury of political factions, nor the storms of war, furnished conditions favourable to the promotion and growth of the gentle arts. With the close of the great war with France came the practical adaptation to the common pur¬ poses of life of the steam-engine—a social force to which no limits can be assigned, and which laid the foundation for all those further miracles of mechanical power that the ingenuity of man is daily unfolding. It increased indefinitely the sum of human comfort, it created the means of existence and enjoyment for myriads, and rendered the materials of prosperity accessible to the entire population. History shows that the progress of art is usually rapid when a people are roused from a state of intellectual torpor by some fortunate change of circumstances. Prosperity, contrasted with former abasement, gives to the mind a spring which is vigorously exerted in every new pursuit. When the Athenians, preferring tyranny to liberty, accepted the dictator¬ ship of Pisistratus, they made but a mean figure ; but upon regaining their independence they were converted into heroes, and their country became the Panopticon of freedom to all nations. With liberty and peace reconquered, Athens flourished, and the genius and enterprise of her sons made the wild waves of the yEgean tributary to her wants and to her valour. Like results accrued from like causes in England. With political freedom, won by the tools of industry, with improved and enlarged education, and added resources, we got larger leisure, more repose, and increased taste for artistic pursuits. It is the province of art and literature to lead and instruct the public mind, and both these agencies are, in turn, acted on by, and reflect the popular feelings and habits, aspirations and capacities. People see now no reason why our churches should be deprived of the element which the Greek sense of beauty contributed to art and poetry. Our public buildings are not now attenuated by the meagre, and sometimes almost repulsive surrounding of mediaeval imagination. There is everywhere an effort to dignify municipal life, and make our outward existence bright and more picturesqde. We see practical effect given to this desire in the increase of our public parks, and the opening of town libraries and picture-galleries. Early prejudices have softened, if they have not become extinct; and the change has had an elevating effect on popular feeling. Governments, in ancient times, were the chief patrons of art. In Greece and in Italy, the fame and fortunes of their great artists were not left, as Mr. Haydon has shown, to depend on the caprice of wealth and fashion, but on the performance of public works, for which their reward was a share of the national expenditure. In more recent days, the Italian Republics and the Governments of France and Germany have lent liberal encouragement to arts. England, till lately, was only noted for neglecting it. The energy that was in other countries devoted to art, was, with us, 426 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. turned to science and the development of commerce. But whatever grounds of complaint we had formerly, there can be, or ought to be, none now. Every year Parliament votes large sums for the promotion of art ; yet, such is the force of the old custom, England is the only highly civilised country that has not a special minister charged to preside over this source of national dignity and strength. We are the richest nation in Europe, and we should have the grandest art-galleries, not only in the metropolis, but in the provinces. We are the most practical, and we should have the best. As a counteracting influence to past State indifference, we can point with pride to the help rendered to art and to art education by many wealthy members of themiddle classes. They have shown their enthusiasm for it by generous and priceless gifts to the nation. But notwithstanding national inconsistencies and shortcomings, art has made, during the last forty years, unprecedented progress in this country. In spite of our fogs and our want of sunshine, in spite of our national infirmity—adoration of wealth—which, foreign critics still contend, commands all influence and all respect—a British School of Art, both vigorous and healthy, has arisen which, as one of its sharpest critics has said, for variety, dexterity, and power, for purity of design, brilliance of colouring, and truth to nature, is not surpassed by that of any modern nation. Its maintenance and extension will, however, depend as much on the cultivated tastes of the people as. on our artists. The effect of this progress is not so far very perceptible in the general public. But it is upon special classes, and it is spreading. It has not yet filtered down to the lowest social level, but it will do so. Shelley used to say that an ordinary Greek peasant, reared amidst the refulgent grandeur of the works of Phidias, was as good a judge of sculpture as a Royal Academician or a modern anatomist. In every Greek house, hall, in every public square and market-place, sculptured creations lived in stone. As has been eloquently noticed by Mr. Hood, the tenderness and sweetness of their scenes were enwoven into their articles of domestic furniture—their chairs and tables, their couches and their drinking vessels. The ancient Greek lived and moved amidst a perpetual retinue of beauties. The painting and the vase, the temple and the statue, all assumed novel forms of elegance. The whole atmosphere was alive with artistic life. It permeated and suffused their existence, and was a real and enduring national influence. Mr. Haydon, however, has pointed out that it is a mistake to suppose that Greece burst into this perfection all at once. It took her, not gene¬ rations, but centuries to do so. Allianus, the Roman rhetorician and historian, whom his contemporaries named the “ honey-tongued,” tells us that, in the early days of Greek art, the drawing was so imperfect, that the painters had to write underneath their works “ This is a horse,” This is a tree,” “ This is a house.” Without this information, people would not ART: ITS HISTORY A HD TUITION. 427 have been able to say what was intended. By degrees, they became capable of expressing their wishes more correctly and distinctly ; and ultimately they reached that ideal perfection that has made them the wonder and the worship of the world. If, by the establishment of art galleries—provincial as well as metropolitan—and schools of design, such as that in connection with which we are assembled, the English people have the same facilities furnished to them as the Greeks had, they will not fall far short of their attainments. There is abundance of ability—it only wants encouragement and instruction. But as you cannot expect a person who cannot read to instruct himself in literature, so you cannot expect people to have artistic taste and feeling unless they are taught their worth and appreciate their beauty. We are making earnest efforts towards that end ; and we need not despair to see this country achieve as great artistic as she has achieved scientific and mercantile fame. The germ of a nation’s civilization lies, M. Lamartine contends, in its educational institutions. While one generation grows up and dies, an¬ other comes into life. The tradition of the first becomes the patrimony of the second ; and thus society has always children to instruct and to educate. There is a difference between the two things. Instruction is the means ; education is the end. Education embraces the culture of the whole man, and subject his feelings, understanding, and passions, to discipline, reason and conscience. It qualifies him to fulfil with ability, exactness, and magnanimity, all public and private duties. In this noble institution, the pupils are not merely instructed, but the higher faculties of their nature are drawn out and cultivated. As yet, my young friends, you have not been called to put into practice the principles you have been taught, nor to apply the knowledge you have gleaned. But you will soon have to do so. You are now where the noise of the world’s warfare reaches you only like the dim murmur of the far-off ocean. You will, or some of you at least shortly will, have to descend into the dust and heat of the strife. It is your duty, and it ought to be your ambition, to use the knowledge acquired here, not merely for your own betterance, but for the improvement of the society in which your lot is cast. If the world is not made better, and wiser, and happier for your having lived and laboured in it, your teaching will have been a failure, and your scholarship will be unfruitful. Let each of you aim not to seem , but to be what you profess to be. Depend upon it, nothing but truth will last. Look to realities rather than to show and externals. Think for yourselves, and let your speech be ever the representative and outcome of thought. But when you have thought and reached, according to your lights, a given conclusion, speak it out modestly, bravely, and manfully. Unthinking clamour may drown your voices for the day, but earnestness and conviction cannot always be disregarded. Careless of conventionalism, and heedless of whether your opinions are the same as those around you, stand by your honest thought, 428 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. whatever ancient bulwarks or modern prejudices confront you. In the “ lexicon of youth there is no such word as fail.” But success depends upon the right use you make of your time. Its noiseless footfalls are inaudible, but steady and increasing. Your young hearts, “ though stout and brave,” “ still like muffled drums are beating funeral marches to the grave.” Use your youthful opportunities wisely ; use them well : “ And may you better reck the rede, Than ever did the adviser.’’ XXXVIII. THE RISE AND STRENGTH OF GREAT TOWNS. [Speech delivered at the Celebration of the Middlesbrough Jubilee, October 6, 1881.] Anyone called upon to speak to the toast assigned to me, would realise the difficulty experienced by the ancient orator when required to declaim in honour of Hercules. His renown was world-wide. None contested his powers, and none censured the exercise of them. This silence and unanimity were counted by his eulogist the most eloquent panegyric on his hero. Wherever the British flag flies, and to whatever corner of the world English enterprise has penetrated, Middlesbrough is known. The story—the marvellous story—of its rise is admiringly recited, and the fame of its factories is dwelt upon. The idea symbolised by its history is force—the physical, mental, and moral force, which enables communities to wrestle with, and overcome, the obstacles which circumstances cast in their way as they struggle upwards and onwards to a better state of being. It is superfluous to recall the figures which register its progress from a house to a hamlet, from a hamlet to a village, and from a village to a town, equipped with all the machinery of local government, and endowed with all the authority of Imperial representation. The tale is “familiar in our mouths as a household word,” and requires no repetition. There are those present who recollect when some portion of the ground covered by this day’s display was garnished with many-coloured flowers, and other por¬ tions were the neuclei of islets of reeds and osiers. Some remember when your dun hill-sides, now the scene of beneficent activity, resounded only at stated seasons to the cry of the hunter’s hounds, and the crack of the sportsman’s gun—when the whispering of the brooks and the waving of the woods were attuned to milder melodies than the heavy thud of the forge-hammer, and the screaming of the steam-engine. All this is history, and history, too, in which some round this festive board have played an honoured and historic part. Those who can only detect beauty in pas- THE RISE AND STRENGTH OF GREAT TOWNS. 4^9 toral and primitive pursuits, those who can only find sentiment in strug¬ gling streams and dreamy sunsets, will be unable to discover either in the incessant roar of the machinery that “ dirls ” in the ears of the men of Middlesbrough, or in the murky clouds that float above them. Yet, those whodip below the surface will be able to tracethebroad outlines of a mighty poem of moving human interest in those bellowing blast-furnaces and grimy workshops. They are carving out of raw materials the means of social elevation, amelioration, and enjoyment. They are breaking down old asperities, indefinitely adding to the usefulness of existence, linking town to town, uniting in the bonds of amity long-estranged and oft-em¬ battled lands, and binding all classes in the rough but genial poetry of real life. Middlesbrough owes something to its position, much to its possessions, but more to its people. Easy, expeditious, and economical means of transit, and an abundant supply of fuel and iron summarise its natural advantages, and these are neither few nor mean. Coal is to in¬ dustry what oxygen is to the lungs, water to plants, nourishment to animals—an indispensable aliment. But, with coal and without iron, Middlesbrough would not have achieved its proud pre-eminence. If, by one word, I had to express the characteristics of an age, I should say that gold typifies the past and iron the present. Its surpassing value was recognised by the far-seeing in the very dawn of history. When Crcesus ostentatiously displayed to Solon the ornaments in his palace and the gold in his treasury, the philosopher, with the prescience of a prophet, wisely remarked : “ If any other comes that has better iron than you he will be master of all this gold.” And the result has verified the prediction. The experience of centuries has shown that the surest, shortest, safest way to a gold-mine is often through and by an iron-mine. Iron accommodates itself to our wants, desires, enjoyments, and caprices more than any other metal. It can be hardened, and sharpened, and softened, at will. It is equally valuable in arms, in carts, and in agricul¬ ture ; in medicine, mechanics, and science. From it, are constructed the scythe, the spade, and the sword; the ploughshare, and the pruning- hook. It can be drawn into a thread as fine as gossamer, and it can be hammered into a floating fortress. It can be cast into colossal cannon, and cut into ribbons more flexible than whalebone. There is no walk in life where its utility and necessity are not recognised and felt. On a famous occasion the leader of a French convocation, with the sententious¬ ness of his race, declared from the tribune : “ The order of the day is Victory.” With equal terseness, we may declare in England that “ The order of the day is Iron.” It is woven and interwoven, as no other article is, with the lusty life of the nation, and it personifies more than any other product the achievements and ambitions of our country. But the site of your town might have remained a partial swamp, your minerals might have been unworked, if not undiscovered, and other 43 ° SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. schemes of social usefulness might have been undeveloped, if it had not been for the sagacious enterprise, the steadfast industry, plodding perse¬ verance, and high integrity of those six solid, broad-fronted, broad- bottomed, broad-brimmed Quakers—who prospected the place, and their associates and successors who were shrewd enough to avail themselves of the vantage-ground cleared by those pioneers. Middlesbrough is an epitome of modern times—of that irresistible and victorious civilization which has for its foundation, industry and freedom—freedom of thought, of labour, of sale and exchange, which is the guiding principle of com¬ mercial success, and which furnishes as complete a model of public and private prosperity, and as stable a fabric of social happiness and national grandeur as the world has ever seen. Many bemoan the Arcadian association and romantic solitude that has retreated before the era of hammers and anvils, of looms and furnaces. They tell us that all the true greatness that England ever won was won “while her fields were green and her faces ruddy.” I have a sneaking sympathy with the plaintive wail that Mr. Ruskin and others so often, so touchingly, and so eloquently raise over a vanished and irrecoverable past. But the Fates are against them. The minister of civilization preached from the railway- car and the telegraph. In the great battle between movement and stag¬ nation, the cry is ever onward ; and before that cry many cherished con¬ victions and many tender prejudices will have to go down. The towns of which Middlesbrough is a type are the indices of our advance : they record the rise of a nation. As the barons of Runnymede put a check on the arbitrary power of the king, so the burghers, in after years, curbed the pretensions of the barons. The boroughs built by these doughty traders were the citadels of freedom, the mansion-houses of liberty, into which feudalism drove its victims. The noise of the workshops rose, like the music of another epoch, over the embattled towers, the bastions, and the barbicans of the steel-clad chiefs, and proclaimed the dawn of the day when trade asserted its independence, and industry claimed its rights. Our towns are the backbone of the nation. They give it strength cohesion, vitality. Scattered populations are usually ignorant, and op pression is always most easily established over them. The power con ferred by concentration may be abused, has been abused, but when regulated by vigilantly supervised representative institutions there is no fear either for the liberty of the individual or the community. We owe, primarily, our system of local government to the Romans ; and the pro¬ tracted vitality which has carried it through centuries of vicissitudes, and left it now in a more vigorous state of development than it ever before attained to, is the strongest proof of its efficacy and value. It works freely and without friction between the Imperial and provincial authorities. It affords scope for voluntary and useful public services, and provides a THE RISE AND STRENGTH OF GREAT TOWNS. 431 convenient intervention between the Central Executive and the more domestic duties of civic life. In few towns, have the local powers been more judiciously and ener¬ getically exercised than in Middlesbrough. While mindful of your material interest, you have not forgotten the higher and more health¬ giving requirements of the population. While you have nobly upreared the stalwart structures of manufacturing greatness, you have not been indifferent to the dreary lot of the struggling thousands who have to spend most of their days in unaided and unavailing anxieties. In the glare of projected riches, your municipal rulers, to their honour, have looked below where the darker shades of humbler existences are too often obscured. They have their reward in a healthy, hopeful, and fairly con¬ tented community. There is a prevailing opinion that England has reached the zenith of her industrial strength, that her course hereafter will be downwards, that her trade is not merely declining, but decaying, and that America will be the future seat and centre of the Anglo-Saxon race. It is argued by those holding these opinions that no skill or activity can permanently compete with the prodigious natural advantages of that land while in the hands of the same race ; and that England, an old exhausted island, will some day, and that day soon, have to be content, like other parents, to be strong only in her children. There is plausibility in this contention, but nothing more. In common with the rest of the world, we have passed through a period of great and prolonged depression, and some economical Cassandras have utilised the occasion to utter jeremiads on the deca¬ dence of British trade. There is really no good ground for the doleful predictions indulged in as to the destiny that awaits our manufactories. The exceptional industrial development of these islands may, or may not, be permanent. That no one knows ; but we do know that the conditions are so altered, that no dependable calculations as to the future can be founded on the experience of the past. XXXIX. MECHANICS’ INSTITUTIONS AND ORATORY. [Address delivered to the members of the Working Men’s Club, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, September 18, 1882.] The institution in connection with which we are assembled has many claims upon popular support, but not the least are its independence and self-reliance. It has won its way without any emasculating or unmanly patronage. Quietly and modestly, it plods along its career of usefulness with a commendable absence of display. It started in 1862. For some 43 2 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. years its course was troubled, and the struggle to sustain it severe. It is now prosperous. The average number of members last year was 463 ; the average number this is 584. The library contains upwards of 2,500 volumes. In the reading-room, there are 30 daily and 36 weekly papers taken in, and nearly twenty magazines. The managers are not in debt, and they have a balance of £170 at the bank. Only those who have had practical experience of the management of such institutions can ade¬ quately realise the significance of these simple but suggestive figures. If these Societies are less scholastic than Mechanics’ Institutions, they are more clubable. Mechanics’ Institutes are a feature of a transition state of civilization. They would not have been possible last century, and they will probably be unnecessary next. There is a disposition to dis¬ parage them, and to under-estimate the work they have done. But those who do this forget the difficulties under which they were commenced. Education is fashionable now, and, as a consequence, every one supports it. But this was not always the case. We are not far removed from the time when the arts and sciences were confined to cloisters and colleges, and when they ministered exclusively to the sons of opulence and leisure. Enlightened men once doubted whether it would be possible, and if possible whether it would be desirable, to teach the people to read, write, and reckon. It is not forty years since politicians of authority boldly declared in the House of Commons, that if a knowledge of science and history were made universal, stable government would be impos¬ sible. We smile at such predictions now, but they were a reality when Mechanics’ Institutes were formed. The name of Dr. Birkbeck should be held in esteem by members of these societies. He was a medical man, born at Settle, in Yorkshire, and educated in Glasgow. He became a lecturer to the Andersonian Institu¬ tion in that city, which had been established by a benevolent Professor of that name for the purposes of doing for the trading, what the universities did for the upper and wealthier classes. Dr. Birkbeck, intending to deliver a course of lectures upon experimental philosophy, required new apparatus. He had difficulty in getting it made in Glasgow, and with a view to obtain it, he went to the workshops himself to superintend its construction. He was struck, while there, with the intelligence of the artisans and the interest manifested in his experiments. He conceived that if a knowledge of science were useful to shopkeepers, it would be equally if not more useful to workmen ; and with that view he proposed to deliver a series of free lectures to the artisans of Glasgow. The directors of the institution discouraged the project. Some of them ridiculed it as chimerical, others denounced it as dangerous. Nothing daunted, Dr. Birkbeck put his idea into practice. The first lecture was attended by seventy-five, the next by two hundred, the third by three hundred ; and before the course was over, the largest hall was too small MECHANICS' INSTITUTIONS AND ORATORY. 433 to hold all those who were anxious to attend. This was the first attempt to teach workmen the principles of the art they practised. The success attending it led to other efforts of a like kind being made in other places. While the novelty lasted they were successful, but in time the institu¬ tions somewhat languished, and they did not yield all the fruit that their promoters expected from them. This comparative failure was attributable to many causes. The managers of the institutions were too timid, and the mode of management was too frigid and formal. They excluded novels from the library, and newspapers from the reading-room. The first were deemed demoralising ; the second dangerous. The most vital subjects that could agitate mankind were prohibited—politics, theology, and speculative philosophy. Growing men were treated as children, either because their passions were too strong, or their reasoning powers too weak. But the main cause of the only partial success of Mechanics’ Institutes was the want of elementary education. Before a man became a member of an institute, a certain amount of instruction was presup¬ posed. The most entertaining books and lectures are of no value to those who cannot understand them. This difficulty has been, or is in the course of being, removed. Instruction is not universal, but it is widespread. None who wish for it need want it. The imposts on the raw materials of knowledge have been removed. The taxes have been taken from news and the duty off paper. Books have been cheapened, and publi¬ cations of all kinds multiplied. Mechanics’ Institutes, in many instances, have developed into people’s colleges, and others have been converted into free-libraries. But there is still room enough for societies like this to live and flourish. Knowledge is suggested by lectures, amplified in libraries, systematised in classes ; but it can be best tested and brought to trial in debating societies. The art of saying what you think pleasantly and impressively is a desirable accomplishment anywhere and at all times. It is especially useful, however, in a constitutional country and in a democratic state of society. There was a time, even in England, when “ war was the only trade, force the only teacher, and the battle-axe the only argument.” We now live under milder conditions. Ours is a government by public meeting. In our primary assemblies, the parish, and the municipality, as well as in the National Council, laws are framed and taxes levied' after discussion. Truth is elicited, and justice done, by debate. Those who are not called upon to take part in official assemblies will find the power of speaking well in public of service to them. In trades unions, benefit societies, and in open meetings men who can do so will be better able to advance their interests, or promote their principles, than those who cannot. I have no wish to exaggerate or over-estimate this power. It is possible to do so. In the most democratic commonwealth, men achieve eminence and influence without the gifts of rhetoric. 2 9 434 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Phocion, the contemporary and opponent of Demosthenes, had few gifts of speech. He treated all rhetorical arts with undisguised contempt. His manners were rude, his style severe, and his speech curt and cynical. Yet, he wielded great influence in Athens. He was forty-five times chosen general, and that without solicitation, and often in his absence. An amount of confidence was accorded to him that was not even extended to Pericles in the height of his popularity. Demosthenes described Phocion as the prince of his periods, and he feared him more than any other antagonist. His influence was got at a time when oratory was popularly regarded as not only the best, but the only road to eminence. The ablest, and certainly the most powerful statesman in Europe to¬ day is Prince Bismarck ; and he is as blunt and as brusque as Phocion. His composition is bad, and his style worse. When he speaks, he over¬ rides all the rules of rhetoric. If a proclamation appears containing a larger number of errors than usual, his countrymen know from that circumstance that it is Bismarck’s. General Grant is, perhaps, the most influential public man in the United States. He is their ablest General, has been twice President, and he is better known outside the Union than any American statesman. Yet, his faculty of expression is as defective as Bismarck’s. He is not so rude in his speeches, it is true ; but he is quite as inartistic. The Germans are one of the best-educated peoples in Europe, and they have a punctilious regard for the mechanism of instruction. Yet, the representative man of their nation flaunts their pedagogic practices and takes pleasure in ignoring them. The Americans are pre-eminently fond of talking. Their government and modes of election foster the practice ; and yet their representative man would experience less trepidation in setting an army in line of battle and head¬ ing a charge than in delivering a set address. These men and others have achieved authority in oratorical times and countries, notwithstand¬ ing their want of the power. Phocion got his influence because of his courage, his independence, his disinterestedness, and his incorruptibility. Prince Bismarck gets his by his character and capacity, and because he is, pre-eminently, a German. General Grant gets his because he repre¬ sents the best features of the American race. But these illustrations do not destroy the truth of the statement that effective speaking can be made a powerful instrument for good or evil. It is as true now as it was two thousand years ago, that “ the man who can converse better than another rules the minds of men wherever he goes.” If a man has imagination, he can nerve the energies, and stir the spirits, of his countrymen. If he has wit, he can temper despotism by epigram. A speech or a song has often played an important part in great events. Eloquence has, many a time and oft, turned the scale in war and peace. The history of Greece, at one time, was reduced to the history of two men—Philip, the king, and Demosthenes, the orator. MECHANICS IN SIT U TIONS AND ORATORY. 435 Oratory is the art of clothing thoughts in agreeable forms, so as to produce persuasion, excite feelings, communicate pleasures. Dr. Johnson describes it as the power of beating down your adversary’s arguments, and putting better ones in their place. The Greeks divided their dis¬ courses under three heads—precepts, manners, feelings. The Romans also made three divisions—demonstrative, deliberative, and judicial. But this is not the time nor the place for a dissertation on composition or the art and mystery of expression. For the present purpose, it is sufficient to say that men are variously moved ; and in appealing to them speakers should have regard to the subject, to the occasion, and, in a sense, to their audience. Barristers address juries and judges. They deal with facts and technicalities, and their addresses are mainly argumentative. Preachers appeal to religious sentiments, and they are chiefly emotional. Politicians seek to induce the people to abandon certain lines of national policy and adopt others, and they are in turn expository, argumentative, or declamatory. But whatever form a speaker may take, there are three requisites for success. First, knowledge ; second, style ; third, delivery. By far the most important of these is the first. If a man knows the facts and has the art of telling them well, he is in possession of the key to oratorical success. Before a man can inform others, he must inform himself. Before he can convince others, he must convince himself. Oratory, primarily, is a plain narrative, a simple statement. It ought to have for its basis a firm foundation of fact, and upon the facts, or by them, the argument should be reared. No man can conceive correctly, judge justly, think coherently, reason strictly, without premeditation and without practice. There is a popular belief that men can speak without study. It is a delusion. They may emit a copious stream of words, but it will be only words. There will be few ideas in them. When a speaker has convinced the judgment of his audience, he can then appeal to their passions, exhale symbols of every kind, and speak through the most poetic forms. He can paint the fancy and touch the heart. But the most prosaic narrative may be lighted up in its delivery. The speaker can group his figures as in a picture, breathe into them, and give them life. These embellishments, however, are all subsidiary. Sometimes they are not necessary, sometimes they are out of place. But a knowledge of the subject and a fall statement of the facts are always necessary. It is the first essential. Style is, to a large extent, a matter of taste. It may be ornate, it may be concise, or it may be epigrammatic, and be equally effective. But it must be, before every¬ thing, perspicuous. The language must not be ambiguous or obscure. The meaning must appear readily and clearly. It may be animated, or it may be elegant. Language may have perspicuity without animation and without elegance, but it cannot have elegance and animation without perspicuity. 436 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH COIVEN, M.P. As style is a matter of taste, so delivery is a matter of temperament. Demosthenes held that delivery constituted the first, second, and third requisites of successful speaking, and he practised what he preached. His utterance was rapid and his action impetuous. His hands, head, and body, were all in motion when he spoke. Pericles, on the other hand, spoke with his left hand in his tunic or folded in his robe, and the right hanging quietly by his side. This was the common manner of Athenian orators. Cicero adopted this course. Mirabeau spoke in tones of thunder and with superhuman energy. Lord Chatham had an animated but graceful delivery. Except on occasions, he was still and stately. Grattan, on the other hand, was unusually, and sometimes grotesquely, animated. He generally had a roll of paper in his hand which he used in the way that a harlequin uses his wand, striking the floor, or thumping his legs with it. His whole soul was aflame when he spoke. His manner of speech was often ridiculed by his opponents, and a source of amuse¬ ment to his friends. The first time he spoke at Westminster it was doubtful whether the House would laugh or cheer. The members had not been accustomed to such a profusion of action ; but their good man¬ ners prevented them expressing their feelings at first. Pitt, who was a generous man as well as a great one, paid marked attention to Grattan’s speech. It was against himself, but Grattan had not spoken many minutes before Pitt gave audible expression to his approval. This turned the tide. The House followed its leader as a pack of hounds follows its huntsman, and burst into rapturous cheering. Grattan was as successful in London as he had been in Dublin. Mr. William J. Fox was, probably, the most polished speaker we have had in modern times. His sentiment and style were, pre-eminently, Grecian. He spoke with very slight action, and so did Robert Hall, Macaulay, Thiers, and Jules Favre. An ardent and nervous man like Grattan throws great animation into his speech. A more lymphatic nature is less demonstrative. But whatever style a speaker adopts, he should be himself. He should be no man’s double. The conditions of successful speaking are ample knowledge, clear style, natural delivery. Greece was the birthplace of oratory. It is not sufficient to say that Grecian orators have never been excelled. They have never been equalled. They furnished the world with models of perfect eloquence. “The human soul was the instrument upon which they played, and every passion of our nature was but the tone that yielded to their master-hand.” Their character, language, government, all favoured their achieving excellency in the art. The Greeks had a passion for dialectics, and the language they spoke was the most harmonious that was ever spoken by man. It was strikingly flexible and versatile, capa¬ ble of giving easy expression to the nicest phase of passion or pathos. Their governments, for the most part—that of Athens especially—were purely democratic. The maxim of Solon, that the best form of govern- MECHANICS' INSTITUTIONS AND ORATORY. 437 ment is that where an injury to any one is the concern of all, was the basis of their jurisprudence. It is popularly supposed that trial by jury originated with King Alfred. This is a mistake. The author of it was the great Athenian lawgiver. The Dikastery of Athens was but an enlarged jury. Every citizen, if he required redress for wrongs offered to himself, or was accused of wrong by another, had to go before it without being able to send a paid advocate in his place. This applied to rich and poor alike. It was a humiliation only less painful than the loss of his case for an Athenian to stand before his friends and enemies, and be unable to carry on the thread of his discourse without halt or confusion. Oratory was carefully taught in their schools. It was their practice in daily life, and as much an accomplishment and an art as the profession of arms. Rome copied the higher arts of Greece, and amongst them the art of oratory. But it did not improve upon it. The Roman language was not so copious and versatile as the Greek, and the form of government was not so favourable to its cultivation. Advocacy among the Romans became a distinct profession, and a means of acquiring both influence and wealth. Cicero won a position only second to that of Demosthenes among the orators of antiquity. But although Cicero stood alone among the Romans, Demosthenes did not stand alone among the Greeks. The destruction of oratory and other arts did not so much begin with, as it was completed by, the removal of the seat of empire. Europe was at that time abandoned to blind chance and the brutal law of force. Public speaking, in the dark ages, was bombastical and inflated in the extreme. It consisted of little else than swollen sentences and strained thoughts. It was only a play upon words. But the art was revived in the later days of the last century in France. The Titanic power of Mirabeau, the Her¬ culean energy of Danton, the scholastic eloquence of Vergund and the Girondists recalled some of the oratorical glories of Greece. The French Republicans adopted the political principles, the philosophy, and the oratory of the Athenians. They did not equal them, it is true ; but, for a time, they did not fall far short. The example of France was contagious, and it reacted on other countries, England amongst the rest. The speak¬ ing in our Parliament, at the close of the last century, and at the begin¬ ning of this, was an echo of that of France. The elaborate eloquence of Pitt, Fox, and their contemporaries and immediate successors, however, was tame in the presence of the electric words and spoken signals that reverberated throughout the French Convention. Oratory, in its highest sense, we never have had in England. We have had eloquent speakers, and we have had skilful debaters. Eloquence, however, deals only with words. Oratory is the passion which fires them. The difference between the debater and the orator is the differ¬ ence between the poetaster and the poet. Lord Byron may be taken as 438 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. a competent and impartial witness of oratory. He lived when it was at its prime, and he has left on record his impressions of it. Byron himself might have been an orator had he cared to cultivate the art. He spoke only three times in the House of Lords, and on each occasion with success. It is pleasant to recollect that all his speeches were against oppression, and in support of the poor and of freedom. His first was against the application of coercion laws to the frame-breakers of Nottingham, and another was in presenting a petition from brave old Major Cartwright. He described Fox and Grey and Canning as good speakers, but not orators. Canning, however, was sometimes very like one. Wyndham he did not admire. His speaking was sad sophistry. Burdett was soft and silvery. Whitbread was a Demosthenes of bad tastes and vulgar vehemence, but strong and English. Wilberforce was nothing but a flow of words—“ words, and words alone.” He did not know what Erskine had been at the bar, but in the House he wished him at the bar once more. The only speakers that impressed Byron were Grattan and Sheridan, and neither of them even realised his ideal of an orator. Orators come not in decades or in generations, only in ages. It is somewhat strange that nearly all the men of oratorical powers who lived in the period referred to were Irishmen. Burke, Sheridan, Grattan, Curran, Flood, afterwards Plunkett, Shiel, O’Connell, were all Irishmen. If we take these names from the list of successful Parlia¬ mentary speakers, the number left will be small indeed. Even Canning was of Irish descent. It is difficult to assign a conclusive reason for this deficiency in oratorical powers in Englishmen. In literature, poetry, and art, we are more than abreast of other nations. No one has occupied in oratory a position like to that held by Shakespeare ; Milton or Byron in poetry, Bacon or Newton in philosophy ; Scott or Addison in literature. Two causes have contributed to our want of success in this department of art. First, we are so much immersed in detail. The discussion of a Patent Bill does not afford much opportunity for oratorical display. Eloquence is lost in the intricacies of a measure adjusting local taxation. Our public life is honourable, but humdrum and vestry-like. Our political efforts are regulated by personal and party considerations rather than by principles. The struggles are not over great doctrines, but whether the Tapers or the Tadpoles shall dispense the patronage of the Treasury. If, however, we ever should have a vast political upheaval such as they had in France a century ago, or if our independence as a nation is threatened, the case may be different. The hour may bring forth the men, and we may have orators like Denrosthenes or like Mirabeau, but at the present time there is no sign of them. The second reason is that we live too fast. We are always in a hurry. Our life is destitute of repose. Speakers will not take the time to care¬ fully prepare what they have to say. Indeed, requisite preparation is MECHANICS' INSTITUTIONS AND ORATORY. 439 deemed weakness. There is an absurd belief that oratory is intuitive, and that eloquence comes naturally. There never was a greater delusion. These accomplishments have always been the work of prolonged study. Demosthenes often took weeks for the preparation of his addresses. Every sentence was carefully written out, and committed to memory'. Pythias taunted him with his excessive premeditation, and told him his speeches “ smelt of the lamp.” Demosthenes not only admitted the accusation, but defended it. He said he had too much regard for his countrymen not to come prepared to the rostrum. Any one who does not do this has an exaggerated and conceited estimate of his powers. Cicero was equally studious in his preparations. Grattan vfrote every line he spoke, and carefully got it off. When he was sedulously preparing for his Parliamentary career, he took a residence near Windsor Forest, where he used to address imaginary audiences. His landlady was dis¬ turbed by these manifestations. “ What a sad thing,” she would say, “ to see the poor gentleman all day talking to somebody called Mr. Speaker, and there is no Mr. Speaker in the house except himself.”’ Burke, Sheridan, and Canning all bestowed excessive pains on the pre¬ paration of their speeches. Canning’s corrections of his manuscript were so elaborate and detailed, that it looked like a Chinese puzzle. When he got the proofs from the printer, he made so many alterations,, that it was always considered easier to set the speech up afresh than to attempt to make the corrections. Such has been the practice of every man who has had any oratorical success. There never was a man, and there never will be one, who will achieve distinction in oratory' who does not carefully weigh his arguments and study his style of expressing them. The prejudice in this country against preparation is so strong, that it is not uncommon to hear men of knowledge make a boast that they speak roughly and without deliberation. There is an idea that eloquence is a trick of speech, the art of glossing over weak arguments, and making the worse appear the better reason. Nothing can be more remote from the truth. If a man thinks a dozen times before he speaks once, he will speak a dozen times the better for it. The style of speaking in the House of Commons is not of a high order. It is too prolix and slipshod. Con¬ versation is taken as its basis, and not study. In the House of Lords, it is different and better. The speaking there is more elaborate and stately. Great questions are debated with more skill than they’ are in the other House. But until the impression that it is possible to be successful as a speaker without preparation is destroyed, there will never be many orators in England. If a man writes an essay, composes a poem, paints a picture, or studies a part for the stage, it is understood and acknowledged that he takes time to do all these things. But oratory, which embraces some of the 440 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. qualifications essential for an essayist, a poet, an artist, and actor, is expected to be produced without study and without effort. The belief that oratory is a natural gift is a delusion. Demosthenes’s success was the work of great labour and pain. He stammered, he had a lisp, he was short of breath, and feeble in body. He strengthened his voice by speaking against the waves of the sea. He strengthened his wind by speaking as he walked up mountains, and he improved his utterance by putting pebbles into his mouth. He shut himself in a cave for weeks together, and shaved one side of his head to prevent him being tempted to go out, so that he might cultivate his art. Curran gives an amusing account of his first failure as a speaker. He broke down hopelessly not once, but several times. Sheridan did the same ; so did Grattan. When M. Thiers first appeared in the French Tribune, they laughed at him, as the English Parliament laughed at Lord Beaconsfield when he first spoke there. But they both lived to make not only England and France, but the world, listen to them. In nearly all times, and with all men, oratory has been the outcome of patient, deliberate, and prolonged study. There have been exceptions, as in the case of Mirabeau, and, to some extent, in the case of O’Connell, but the exceptions only prove the rule. I hope the young men in this society will not be deterred, by any ignorant preju¬ dice, against prepared speeches. Study carefully and deliberately every¬ thing you have to say before you say it. In your discussions, seek for truth, and not for victory. The greatest victory you can achieve will be to raise the character of your discussions. You should strive for the improvement of those opposed to you. You should argue for your antagonist’s enlightenment rather than for your own gratification. Ex¬ plain your subject, rather than defend it. A man may be the opponent of your opinions, but he may be a friend of your improvement. Person¬ alities should always be avoided. They serve no good purpose. They are of two kinds. You may impugn a man’s judgment, which may be necessary, but not desirable. You may impugn a man’s character, which is neither necessary nor desirable. If a man’s character is of a kind you cannot respect, you need not debate with him. Recriminations and threats are of little avail. As a rule, men commit errors rather from want of knowledge than from bad intentions. It is possible for men to hold the most diverse opinions and have no personal antagonism. You cannot succeed in getting uniformity of opinion ; and even if you could get it, it would be undesirable. But what can be got is respect for the opinions of your opponents, however much they are against your own. Express your opinions, whether popular or unpopular, frankly and fear¬ lessly ; and while doing so you need not forfeit any of the goodwill of your fellow-citizens. THE CHANGE IN THE WORK OF PARLIAMENT. 441 XL. THE CHANGE IN THE WORK AND WAYS OF PARLIAMENT. Speech delivered on the House of Commons at a banquet in connection with the Sanitary Institute, in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, September 29, 1882.] The toast of the House of Commons, in gatherings like the present, has heretofore been as conventional as that of the “‘Bishop and Clergy.” It has usually been drunk with as good-natured unanimity as that of “ The Ladies.” Recently, however, it has become a somewhat ticklish topic. The character of the House of Commons, the work it does and the way it does it, have unhappily assumed the dimensions of a party conflict. The management of Parliament—its honour, its efficacy, and its influence —is not a question to be decided by men whose minds are flushed with passion or clouded by prejudice. It does not involve points of national policy, but it embraces details complicated, disputable, and far-reaching. It ought to be adjusted by appeals to knowledge and experience, and not to noise and numbers. The work of Parliament has increased, and is increasing. It has quadrupled within the last twenty years. We have pushed legislative interference into all the ramifications of social, and some of the intricacies of domestic life. We control not only classes but individuals. This extended supervision entails enlarged administration. Additional administration always begets additional legislation. This legislation is largely technical and parochial. It does not offer opportu¬ nities for the higher forms of debate, but it supplies material for much useful and some flabby and tautological talk. The work of the House, however, has not only increased and become more complicated, but its composition has changed. Formerly, the members were drawn almost exclusively from the same social strata. They moved in the same circles, met at the same houses, dined at the same clubs, and their families were interlaced. They belonged to the same class, and, except when party points were forced to the front, they thought very much alike. Then they followed their leaders as Highland clansmen follow their chiefs. A few forlorn philosophers, desirous of going to the root of things, occasionally strayed in amongst them. These men had learning, and patriotism, and principles, which were commonly called crotchets, but, like many such, they had little political and no voting strength. The Whigs and Tories constituted the governing oligarchy. The House of Commons has often, and correctly enough, been described 44 - SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. as a club. It is a theatre also. And it has its green-room as well as its stage. It has its heroes and its favourites—its mode of thought and its style of speech. Order is maintained, not by written rules but by un¬ written usages. Any member who violates these usages is subjected to a social ostracism more painful, by far, than the infliction of any legal penalties. These courtesies act as a lubricator. They enable the rum¬ bling and rusty Parliamentary mechanism to revolve without friction. But this order of affairs has latterly been somewhat disturbed. The constituencies have been democratised, and the House reflects the change. Plebeian clogs have found their way into the legislative gearing. They often disarrange, sometimes check, and occasionally stop it. There have entered Parliament members who never enter West-end dining-rooms, and who are as indifferent to the opinion of the habitues of Pall Mall clubs as a Turcoman freebooter is to the opinion of the Salvation Army. They move in an orbit of their own, and are influenced by unfashionable, heretical, if not antagonistic considerations. This unequal admixture of conflicting classes causes collisions, and has led to fresh combinations. The House of Commons was built, both architecturally and politically, upon the supposition that there are only two parties in the State—the “ ins” and the “outs.” But there is now a third party equipped with all the paraphernalia of Parliamentary warfare. And there are others in embryo. As long as opinion in the country is concentrated on one, or on a series, of great questions, the public may be kept in line. They will subordinate minor points, and range themselves for or against the contemplated reform. But when these questions are settled, or when they fail to excite the enthusiasm of their supporters or the dread of their opponents, party restraint relaxes, and men involuntarily give rein to their individualities and idiosyncrasies. Any attempt to perpetuate the orthodox divisions artificially will fail. The centrifugal is stronger than the centripetal force. Politicians, without potent pressure, more easily recede from the central authority than they gravitate to it. Artificial bonds may bind men where politics are a trade. But where, as in this country, fortunately, they are a duty, performed voluntarily and without hope, or in many instances possibility of payment, they will never hold. With the diminution, therefore, of constitutional controversies, we may expect to see Parliament further sub-divided. In the immediate future, we shall, probably, not have three parties only, but many. Members will be split into groups as is done in the French Chambers and the American Congress. But be that as it may, for the time-being, a change in proce¬ dure is necessary. The increase in legislation, its more detailed and complicated nature, the change in the composition of the House, and the altered position of parties, combine to call for it. What is that change to be ? In which direction is it to tend, and how far is it to go? Ay, there : s the rub. Upon that point, there hangs a controversy of both pith THE CHANGE IN THE WORK OF PARLIAMENT. 44 3 and moment which may be alluded to, but cannot be entered on in a neutral and non-political assembly. The suggested changes may be roughly divided under two heads. They are either primitive or dis¬ tributive. No doubt, some further restrictions are required, but restric¬ tions alone will not accomplish the end sought after. Coercion, whether applied to persons, to peoples, or to Parliament, is at best a temporary and doubtful remedy. It may produce superficial uniformity and external harmony. But the coerced man is usually an aggrieved man, and he is seldom a convinced one. When coercion is removed, he relapses into his original position. If coercion is to be applied in the House of Commons, it should be accompanied by other measures. No change can be permanent that does not carry with it the general approval of Parliament. The reform of the House ought not to be the work of a section, but of the whole. In the end, all free assemblies are governed more by the good sense and good feeling of the members than by drastic and penal regulations. What is most wanted is a better division of work, and a further distribution of it. An engineer who found his main line blocked would divert the local, and thus prepare a clear way for the through- traffic. The congestion in the House of Commons should be cured by the local legislation being shunted and the road cleared for the national work, which is more than sufficient to occupy members’ time and absorb their energies. Why should the Newcastle Corporation be compelled to fight out the clauses of an Improvement Bill at Westminster when the same work could be done more quickly, better, and at less expense in their own Council Chamber? In this direction, rather than in that of restriction, I look for the longed-for improvement. We are told that the House of Commons is not to be made a debating society. I agree with that opinion. But when the philosophy of Burke, the magic fancy of Sheridan, the glittering declamation of Grattan, and the fervid patriotism of Fox agitated and controlled men’s minds, the English House of Commons was not only one of the greatest legislative assemblies in the world, but one of the most magnificent debating societies. But if Parliament is not to be a debating society, neither is it to be a counting-house where the loftier ends of the State are subordi¬ nated to a mercenary and mercantile standard of government, and where independence of character is sacrificed to a debasing uniformity. Neither should the House be a vestry, where the affairs of Little Peddlington displace and overshadow those of the British nation. Nor should it be a bill-foundry, where laws are cast as men cast water-pipes, the price of which is reckoned by the length. The British Parliament has other, and equally as important, functions as that of legislation to fulfil. It is the supreme court of appeal for many beyond the bounds of the United Kingdom. It is a tribunal where the suffering and the weak may secure, 444 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P if not redress, at least a hearing. We have dotted the surface of the globe with our settlements. The people in these distant places speak our language and share our sentiment. They benefit by our arts, and are enlightened by our science. The British Parliament ought to be the Areopagus of British civilization. Through its instrumentality, the ties of national sympathy can be drawn closer, asperities softened, jealousies allayed, prejudices abolished, and the vast aggregate of British power and resources wielded into a federated dominion. XLI. THE VALUE OF HEALTH TO A NATION. [Speech delivered at the Sanitary Science Congress, held at New¬ castle-upon-Tyne, September 30, 1882.] A Statesman of eminence, some time ago speaking on foreign affairs, gave it as his opinion that the greatest British interest abroad was peace. I will supplement that statement by saying that the greatest British interest at home is health. In its comprehensive sense, health implies something more than existence. It implies energy. The ancient desig¬ nation of the word covers that meaning. “ Health ” originally meant not merely the performance of the natural functions without pain, but it also meant vigour—the capacity for endurance, and the courage and character that comes from these powers. In this sense, health is the capital of a people. It furnishes them with the means of their present prosperity and of their future greatness. This applies to any people; but it pre-eminently applies to a country with such an elaborate and finely-strung social organization as ours. If science and accumulated experience have taught us how to cure our ailments, civilization has brought us diseases that men in a less artificial state do not experience. A savage rarely suffers from want of ventilation. He has fresh air— plenty. He need not drink bad water. He does not bring the stream to himself, but he goes to the stream. We, on the contrary, live in crowds; we get strength by this concentration, but we also get over¬ crowding. Unhealthiness prevails in proportion to the density of the population. Our atmosphere is polluted and our landscapes are defiled by ill-burnt coal escaping prematurely from furnaces in defiance of both economy and cleanliness. Pleasant rivers are converted into gigantic gutters, which are both an offence to the senses and a danger to life. The object of this Congress is to investigate these evils, and devise means to avert or evade, to disarm or prevent them. How far we can replace the abuses of civilization—how far we can secure at the same THE VALUE OF HEALTH TO A NATION. 445 time the force that comes from social combination with the health that usually accompanies pastoral pursuits, is the question we have to solve. Sanitary science is yet in its infancy. Although the rules of health were inculcated as long ago as the time of Moses and Hippocrates, it is only a few years since discoveries in chemistry, the improvements in mechanics, and the collection of vital statistics have enabled us to treat the subject scientifically. We now know that the purity of the air we breathe is as material to our existence as the purity of the food we eat or the water we drink. It consists of the same elements in different com¬ binations, and is equally capable of conveying poisons. We also know that nothing is more injurious than water which has percolated through soil which sewage has saturated. We have ascertained that, by proper appliances, some epidemic diseases may be made to disappear entirely, and that those which remain can be modified and rendered less destruc¬ tive. We have also learned that non-epidemic diseases often arise from ignorance and consequent disregard of physical laws. Many sanitarian problems that were formerly doubtful, have now been made certain. Others, whose existence was not suspected, are the subjects of investiga¬ tion and discussion. The progress made, although slow, has been steady; and already national results have begun to make themselves manifested. Mr. Chadwick, whose unrequited and almost unrecognised labours as a sanitary reformer extend over more than half a century now, said the other day, at Nottingham, that the death-rate of England and Wales has fallen during the last decade by four and a-half per cent. Or, to put his statement into other words, there are living to-day in this section ot the United Kingdom, 250,000 persons who would have been dead if the same death-rate had prevailed since 1872 that prevailed thirty years ago. The men who are killed in battle form a small proportion to the men who are wounded. So those who die are but a fraction of those who suffer. For every death, Mr. Chadwick reckons that there are twelve cases of serious and non-fatal sickness. According to that calculation, in ten years three million persons—one-ninth of our population—have been saved from more or less serious illness. These figures cannot but be encouraging to the public-spirited men who, through much opposition and more discouragement, have persistently and courageously preached the gospel of cleanliness and sobriety. There are two obstacles that the advocates of sanitary reform have had to combat — the general dislike to centralization, and the popular dread of taxation. I have the wholesome British prejudice against over¬ government. It is always enervating, and sometimes demoralising. But over-government and centralization are different things. Centralization, when it is only used to systematise, stimulate, and strengthen local authority, is beneficial. But centralization, when it is made the means 446 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN , M.P. of multiplying functionaries, and when it concentrates in government officials powers that should belong to the people, is highly objectionable. The former gives symmetry, cohesion, and force to national life. The latter emasculates it. It is right that the ratepayers should scrutinise local expenditure. But they should remember that economy does not consist in merely securing lower rates. The contrary is often the case. Low rates are not unfrequently the worst form of extravagance. People see and feel the rates they pay. They do not always feel or see the rates they save. A liberal sewerage rate or water rate may prevent an exces¬ sive poor-rate, as effective drainage and pure water may stop an epi¬ demic, and keep many a struggling family from the union. Gradually, more enlightened views of taxation, its. purposes and scope, are being entertained, and in time it will come to be acknowledged that from none of our imposts do we get better value than from that which secures us the essentials of healthy existence. Thirteen million pounds are calculated to have been lost through sickness by the wage-earning classes during the last thirty-six years. Scientific men may make discoveries, philanthropists may popularise them, municipal authorities may give them official recognition, but these will all labour in vain if the people do not second their efforts. It is to be regretted that sanitary subjects awaken such small popular interest. They certainly affect the well-being of workmen more intimately than the traditional encounters between the Tweedledums and the Tweedle- dees for domination in Downing-street. It is a matter of indifference to the masses of the people whether the same policy is carried out by a different set of politicians under different names. It is not a matter of indifference whether or not they have fresh air, pure water, good drain¬ age, unadulterated food, and open spaces for exercise. This is a patriotic as well as a philanthropic work. It touches the stability and the great¬ ness of the nation. The evils inflicted by unsanitary conditions are not limited to the lives that are lost, or the sickness that comes as a conse¬ quence. Great national injury is sustained by the deterioration of the race. The inhabitants of our slums and crowded courts are feeble, rickety, and stunted. They have about them all the signs of permanent debility and degeneracy. Their children inherit and perpetuate their shattered and enfeebled constitutions. If England is to remain the metropolis of her magnificent dependencies, if she is to transmit the princely heritage she holds in fee, her sons must have not only adventu¬ rous spirits, indomitable perseverance, and stout hearts, but athletic frames—qualities which can only be secured by a due observation of the laws of health. ST A TE OF ED UCA TION. 447 XLII. STATE OF EDUCATION. [Speech delivered in the Bath Lane Schools, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Oct. 4, 1882.] This is a wonderful institution, and one that Newcastle may well be proud of. I listened admiringly some years ago to Dr. Rutherford, when, in glowing colours, he outlined his scheme for it. I was incre¬ dulous, but I did not dissuade him. Callous utility hangs heavily enough upon us all, and it is not desirable to check or chill a single earnest sentiment. Once again, the doubters have been wrong, and the enthusiasts right. We have palpable evidence that our friend’s dreams live not only in stone, but in something more elastic and enduring—in quickened intellects, stirred spirits, and grateful memories. It is no easy task to establish a successful school of this class, even when the buildings are found and furnished by wealthy companies, corporations, or colleges. To get pupils and to keep them requires knowledge, skill, and labour. To have, with small external sympathy and less solid support, in the presence of much discouragement and some opposition, built these spacious premises and peopled them with such a succession of successful scholars, demonstrates the possession of tuitionaiy genius. The merely intellectual man criticises and speculates. The cautiously acquisitive man quotes authorities and hesitates. The sympathetic man, urged by internal impulses, acts. Impossibility is to him the mother- tongue of little souls. Dr. Rutherford and his colleagues have acted ; and we have before us the fruits of their labours. In 1878, 53 Queen’s prizes and 129 certificates were presented by Lord Ravensworth. The following year, Lord Hartington distributed 86 prizes and 163 certificates. In 1880, the prizes numbered 135, and the certifi¬ cates 127. Lord Percy presented 186 prizes and 227 certificates last year. And to-night I am about to give away 201 prizes and 425 certifi¬ cates. These figures not only show a healthy progression in the past, but they foreshadow greater success in the future. Time is required before the merits of such an institution can be fairly and fully realised. The British public are slow in taking to a cause. When they do take to it, they usually stick to it. All along Tyneside, there are hardworking mechanics, making self-denying and honourable efforts to send their sons here for a short time before they go to work. It is their college. They can render them no greater service. The best inheritance a youth can receive is a good education. With knowledge and health, he is equipped for the battle of life—adequately armed for all encounters. 448 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. Englishmen sometimes are tempted to assume a too self-satisfied tone when recounting their material and social success. They are apt, as most self-made men are, to swagger a little at their achievements. There are, however, good grounds for exultation ; and in no department of national life has the advance been more marked than in that of educa¬ tion. This is seen not only in the increase in the number of schools and scholars, but in the spirit and temper with which the question is now discussed. No better register of the change in the public mind can be found than that supplied by contrasting an educational discussion in Parliament to-day with the debate that took place in 1833, when the first insignificant grant for popular tuition was proposed by Lord John Russell. Member after member tried to prove that the innocence of the people was in proportion to their inability to read and write. The early educational controversies showed, in striking light, the utter blind¬ ness in which numbers of enlightened persons, forty years ago, were as to the rights of the human mind to knowledge and of the conscience to liberty. Prejudices, however, slowly softened. The fears of the re¬ actionists and alarmists died out. The national grants gradually rose, and the system under which they were administered was liberalised. In 1833, the amount voted for education was £20,000. In 1870, it was ,£900,000. This year, the total sum voted for education and art amounts to upwards of four millions-and-a-half; and this, too, is in addition to the sums levied locally. As proving how slow we were to learn the advantages of liberal expenditure for education, the struggles of the institution at South Kensington, in connection with which these prizes are distributed, to get adequate aid from Parliament, may be recalled. The late Mr. Bernal Osborne, a really clever man, and once the hope of the English Radicals, and others, systematically opposed the Kensington grants, declaring, amid assenting cheers, that whenever science and art were mentioned in Parliament it was time for them to button up the national pocket. “ They had no money to spare for such trumpery.” These prejudices have now given way, and South Kensington is rising both in reputation and resources. Twelve years ago, England made a fresh educational departure. The Act of 1870 was a compromise, and, in some respects, a clumsy compromise. But the Legislature had not clear ground to start on. It was hampered by existing institutions and interests. Under its care a semi-national and a semi-sectarian system has sprung up. The schools were partly voluntary and partly State-aided. To have ignored or over-ridden them, would have been unfair. To buy them out was impossible. The difficulty was bridged over by the existing schools being allowed to remain undisturbed, and by facilities being offered for the development of the new system. But if the facilities were not utilised in a given time, the local authorities were required to supply the deficient STATE OF EDUCATION. 449 school accommodation at the cost of the ratepayers. The purpose of Parliament was to provide teaching room, voluntarily, if possible, but if not voluntarily, then by the State. But by one way or the other, or by the two combined, schools for the entire population were to be found. And this has been accomplished. In 1870, we had 8,280 State-aided schools. In 1880, we had 14,370, and 3,692 Board-Schools. In other words, there have been built in England and Wales, either voluntarily or by School Boards, in the last eleven years, 10,000 schools. Twelve years ago, there was school accom¬ modation for 1,760,000 scholars, or under 8 per cent, of the population. Now, there is accommodation for 4,400,000 scholars, or nearly 16 per cent, of the population. The buildings having been found, the next requirement was teachers. These, too, have been supplied. The number of teachers of all classes—certificated, assistant, and pupil—in 1870, was 30,130. Now, it is 78,876, or more than double. Having secured the mechanism of tuition—the buildings and the men to work them—the children were to be got at. That has been accomplished,, partly by direct and partly by indirect compulsion. The School Board officers act as a spur on one side, and the factory inspectors as a barrier on the other. Appeals are thus made both to the fears and to the interests of parents. And they have partially succeeded. There were 1,225,000 children in school in 1870; and there are now 2,910,000 there. The rise in attendance is substantial, but there is still a considerable section of the population that either can not or will not educate their children. There are seats for 1,400,000 more scholars than attend. There are certainly 1,000,000 children that ought to go to school who do not go. The next drawback is the short school life of the scholars. Their education is discontinued immediately the prescribed standard has been passed, and they are freed from obligations to attend and entitled to go to work. Out of 276,737 children presented in Standard IV. in 1880, as many as 116,932 disappeared from school in 1881 ; while 139,227 scholars in Standard V. in 1880 fell in the course of the year to 61,000. We have, in our own county, a miniature of the country. There are, in Northumberland, 73,000 children of school age. For their education, there are provided 419 schools, containing accommodation for 74,000 scholars. There are 68,000 scholars on the register, but an average attendance of only 48,000. This leaves 24,000 children whose attendance at school is not accounted for. Last year, 24,600 were presented for examination in Standards I. to HI. In Standard IV. there were 5,398 ; in Standard V., 3,090; but there were only 1,506 presented in Standard VI. The exertions of educationalists should now be directed to getting children to school in larger numbers, and in keeping them there till their instruction is further advanced than the minimum laid down by the Factory Acts. 30 450 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. There is a desire, in some districts, to carry instruction further than formerly. Cookery is now taught in 300 schools, and military drill, as distinct from gymnastics, is taught in 1,172. There may be differences of opinion as to the utility of teaching drill, but there can be none about teaching cookery. Workmen often combine to secure small advances in their wages. They sometimes risk a strike for a rise of five per cent. But it is beyond dispute that they can effect a large saving in their incomes by a more skilful mode of preparing their food. To make a pound of meat secure the same nutritious and appetising result as a pound and a half would do, is, practically, to save the price of half a pound. There are few ways in which the income of a working man’s family can be more easily increased than by the general adoption of a more economical method of cooking; and their daughters cannot begin to learn it better than when at school. There are reasons for believing that England, after allowing for every drawback and all deficiencies, has made, during the last decade, a greater advance in primary instruction than any country in Europe. But in facilities for technical instruction we are still behind. I do not intend to institute an elaborate comparison between English and continental workmen. My opinion is that, both in natural ability and in energy of character, our artisans are unequalled. Their defects, as a class, are intemperance and extravagance. Thriftlessness may arise from indif¬ ference as much as from ignorance. Experience and instruction may cure it. But the debasing habit of taking drink to excess seems to defy both time and knowledge. What precious power is wasted in this baneful practice ! But let that pass. The point I wish to press on your attention is that, in most continental countries, greater facilities are now given to artisans for getting a technical acquaintance with their trades than are given in England. Workmen, like professional men, should be educated with special reference to their callings. A great change has, in recent years, come over the position of our skilled artisans. The old apprenticeship system has been all but abolished, and the division of labour has been carried to a length that was not formerly thought possible. A man does not now serve his time to a special trade, and during that time learn it in all its departments. He learns only a branch of it, and that branch is often worked mainly by a machine which he attends. This gives a one-sided and defective training. It may be economically advantageous to special manufacturers, but is nationally detrimental, as it tends to circumscribe the scope and fetter the artistic and inventive faculties of the workman. If a broad view of his work cannot be got in the shop, the artisan should get it at school. The man who builds a ship or an engine should have some knowledge of the principles he is applying. The scientific and detailed knowledge now required in all branches of manufacture has transferred to the science STATE OF EDUCATION. 45i teacher the key to the trade mysteries. In Germany, although the sub¬ division of work has not been carried so far as it has here, nor have they such a huge factory system as we have, the advantages of technical instruction are more generally recognised. And they support it by an expenditure which we would call not only liberal but extravagant. A detailed account of technical education in a Saxon town has recently been published by the Institute of City Guilds, from which it appears that in Chemnitz—a town of between 80,000 and 90,000 people, or half the population of Newcastle—there are greater facilities for the higher education of artisans than in any town in Great Britain. And Chemnitz is a typical and not an exceptional town. In France, too, where primary education is much behind ours, they do some things that we might copy with advantage. Objective instruction is more common there than it is with us. Manual education has been introduced into their elementary schools. Children of six and seven years of age have lessons given them one hour each week in some handicraft until they reach the age of ten. Then the instruction is given one hour in the day instead of one hour in the week. And it is continued for three years. During the first two years, every child is taught drawing, modelling, carving, joinering, or smith work. In the third year, his work is specialised, and each child during that time devotes himself to the trade he is about to select. He thus leaves school at thirteen or fourteen with a rough but useful idea of the principles of the trade he is about to live by. In all the large towns of France, there are now delivered each year courses of elementary and advanced lectures in every branch of art, science, and literature. The lecturers are often men of world-wide reputation. The lectures are free to every one, the sons of workmen equally with the sons of senators. Our University Extension Scheme is a step in this direction, and deserves every encouragement. But, even with it and other voluntary associations now in existence, the facilities for our workmen gaining a knowledge of their art in its advanced stages is now short of what it is abroad. I have now said more on a useful but unattractive theme than you probably cared to hear. But I wish to add a few sentences to the young people present. They are the men and women of the future. It may belong to them to play an important part in the theatre of life. Some may be destined to be actors on the national stage. Those who remain spectators will all have responsible duties to perform. You can no more acquire mental than you can acquire material riches by idleness and indulgence. Whatever position you are placed in, whatever circum¬ stances you are called to occupy, you should be yourselves, not counter¬ feits. Be men, sentient men, not pawns affected by mere externals, and controlled by every idle whiff of fashion or popular caprice. Be honest, not only to the world, but to your own consciences. No honours can ennoble charlatans, no privileges can serve them, and no possessions 452 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO IVEX , MP. enrich them. Worldly success is one end, but not the only end, and certainly not the highest end, for you to struggle for. When you seek for wealth, let it be— "Not for to hide it in a hedge, Nor for a train attendant, But for the glorious privilege Of being independent.” XU 11 . PARLIAMENTARY ORDER AND ORATORY. [Speech delivered at the tenth annual dinner of the Northern Counties Clerks’ Provident Association, held at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Decem¬ ber 27, 1882.] THE office of an ordinary member of Parliament must have attractions, or so many men would not incur such sacrifices to seem it. Yet, these attractions are sometimes difficult to discern. I'hen .re few public positions in which proportionately poorer results, either present or pro¬ spective, are obtained for the work done. The wearyii : uncertainty and indefiniteness of the attendance, the days and nights spent over un¬ attractive details, chill the enthusiasm of all but the most ardent. Englishmen are usually interested in only a few prominent questions, on the settlement of which they think great issues hang. They forget—and for their success it is fortunate they do forget—that all things born of the human mind have lived before, and to outward seeming died—that every age has its prototype, and every heresy its progenitor. Their zeal blinds them to such reflections, they follow the progress of their favourite cause closely, and get angry when anything impedes it. A member is judged by his seen service to such controversies, or by his party fidelity. But the unseen labour that falls to most representatn es of k rge and critical constituencies goes unrecognised. The life of a politick' 1 is a busy one, but his reputation is evanescent. Less exertion than - exacted of an averagely active member of the House of Common- ■ ould make a fortune on ’Change, and win fame at the Bar. A poet’s 1 emory is per¬ petuated in song, an artist’s on canvas, a sculptor - in marble, an author’s in books, but a politician’s is written in water, and the 1 -t-flowing waves of an ever-hurrying existence soon wash it into ob!i\ ion. How few re¬ member the names, much less the deeds, of the men who were in the thick of the turmoil a quarter of a century ago ! They flitted across the Parliamentary stage, spoke their few lines, played their little parts, and disappeared, without leaving behind them any permanent memorial either of their efforts or their personality. One of the pleasantest of our Tyne- parliamentary order and oratory. . 453 side poets, being risked to write the history of the life of a Newcastle Alderman, did so in a couplet: ■ l h:\t he was born, it cannot be deny'd, .'Jo me, drank, slept, talk'd politics, and dy'd." —an epitaph that tersely and truly records the fragility of political re¬ nown, and which may, not inappropriately, be inscribed over the tombs of some of that nameless Alderman’s successors. The House of < Ammons has come on hard days. It is decried in a chorus of condemnation. We are told that it is disorderly and obstructive, that its legislation has lost all energy, and its oratory all nerve, that it works too little and talks too much. Now, what truth is there in this string of accusations ? Are they, or are they not, only further illustrations of the proverb of the dog and the bad name ? Parliamentary proceedings tire frequently dull, sometimes depressing, often—too often—long-drawn- out ; but seldom very seldom—disorderly. Yet, from current criticism a stranger might take our National Council at Westminster to be a political Donnybrook Fair. Such has certainly not been my experience of it. The House, even during recent exasperating incidents, shows to advantage with former ones. To such as are sceptical I would prescribe a course of Hansard. Let them dip their literary diving-bells in that sea of print, dig up a sample of some buried debates, and they will modify their judgement. They will find the language used not only strong, but often coarse, and sometimes vulgar. Unnumbered examples of the offensive expressions applied approvingly to opponents could be adduced. Take a few. Mr. Fox long threatened Lord North with impeachment for his violation of Constitutional privileges and national right during the American War. Jim instead of impeaching, he coalesced with him, which was rather a wrench even from the low morality of party. Mr. Canning satirised the coalition in a song, in which he applied to the Whig leaders some of the epithet> they had applied to the Tories : “ In spite of ..is r il or fancied alarms, He took tit. fool' to his councils, the 1 beast ’ to his arms." “ He ” was Lord North, and the “ fool ” and the “ beast ” was Mr. Fox. Lord Macaulay describes a sitting in 1840 of seven hours’ continuous uproar, when the language used by noble lords and hon. gentlemen was scurrilous, and their demeanour disgraceful. They whistled, shook their fists at each other, made faces, and uttered noises as varied and confusing as those heard in a farm-yard. Many were unmistakably drunk. Mr. ()’Connell called the interruptions “ beastly bellowings.” When requested to retract, he refused, and counselled one of his assailants to carry his liquor meekly. This was a strong scene, but it was in keeping with others that took place at tlm same period. One great lawyer compared another 454 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. great lawyer to a bug—an uncomfortable companion, suggestive of both stinks and stings. A member called the Irish Secretary a political cut¬ throat. Mr. Shaw told Mr. O’Connell that he manifested a ferocity which was fitly symbolised by a death’s head and cross-bones. Mr. O’Connell retorted that a suitable escutcheon for Mr. Shaw would be a calf’s head and bloody bones. In one session, there was one duel and four differences that nearly ended in duels. In another session, there were three affairs of honour which were only compromised by the intercession of friends. Violent encounters were frequent. There are no such quarrels now as those between Mr. Canning and Lord Brougham, between Earl Grey and Mr. Canning, or between Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Disraeli. Whatever other change has come over Parliament, it has certainly lost much of its turbulence, personality, and bitterness. Its manners may not be faultless, but they are a vast improvement upon what they once were. The present need not, in this respect, fear comparison with the past. But obstruction — what of that? Well, the terrible offence, “ob¬ struction!” What is it ?—the tactics of Fabius applied to legislation— the effort of the weaker party to secure the defeat of objectional measures by delay. It is a practice that every party has resorted to—sometimes justifiably, sometimes unjustifiably. Mr. Burke obstructed the proposal to exclude reporters from the gallery. Mr. Fox obstructed votes of credit for the war against France. Sir Charles Wetherall, Mr. Croker, and the Tories obstructed the Reform Bill of 1832. The Liberals ob¬ structed the Education and other measures of the late Government, and the Home-Rulers have obstructed the Coercion Bill of this. As long as politicians continue to be moved by the common motives of mankind, and as long as a strip of Parliamentary fighting-ground remains, it will be utilised by the minority to postpone proposals they disapprove of. The majority will call this opposition factious, and the minority will call it patriotic. This has been, is, and will be the case till we reach that period of political beatitude where none is for a party, and all are for the State—a period that none present are likely to live to see. If Parliamentary disorder has not increased, Parliamentary talking, however, has. Yes, that’s true ! And, with an increase in the quantity, there has been a decrease in the quality of the talk. It flows more with words than ideas. But still, tedious and poverty-stricken speech is not a modern Parliamentary product. It has long flourished. More than a generation ago, it was scornfully castigated by the great high priest of force and silence. Writing of Parliament, Mr. Carlyle said : “ Loving life and time, which is the staff of life, I read no Parliamentary debates, and rarely any Parliamentary speeches. I have learned, by experience, that there is not, once in seven years, the smallest gleam of new intelli¬ gence thrown on any matter, earthly or divine, by an honourable gentle¬ man on his legs in the House of Commons. There is nothing offered PARLIAMENTARY ORDER AND ORATORY. 455 but wearisome, dreary, thrice-boiled colewort—a bad article at first, and served and again served in newspapers and periodicals and other litera¬ ture, till even the inferior animals recoiled from it.” This is rather hard on our Parliament men, but it is pungent, passionate, and picturesque. Perhaps, too, there is a spice of truth in it. At all events, it goes to show that, before most of the present members were elected, before, indeed, many of them were born, the talking in Parliament was neither distinguished by lofty thought nor polished diction. The first Reform Act really registered a new era. It marked the exit of the orators and the entrance of the man of business into Parliament. We passed with it from the ornamental and imaginative style of the Pitts, the Sheridans, and the Cannings, to the measured and matter-of- fact methods of the Peels and the Cobdens. The transition had its advantages. It had also its drawbacks. It intensified the red-tape tone in public life. We got better administrators, but worse speakers. It is unreasonable to expect from administrative Gradgrinds the flowing rhetoric of Macaulay, the elegant idealism of Shiel, or the classic beauty of Grattan. Every speaker is influenced—some unconsciously so—by his surroundings. He must embody the spirit of his time and audience. And our times and our audiences are materialistic, mechanical, and mercantile. Political success is secured by strategy more than by speaking ; by machinery more than by eloquence. The old faculty may exist as much as it ever did ; but the opportunity for its exercise does not. The occasions, in our unexciting days, are rare when great principles are discussed, and strong passions stirred. And these occasions alone call forth the highest order of manly, masculine, and courageous speaking. The figures, the technicalities, and details of modern legislation, while fatal to oratorical excellence, on the other hand incite and sustain talk— and talk of the very kind that is grumbled at—vapid, verbose, and colourless. It is not the men, so much as the task they have to perform, and the materials they have to deal with, that are at fault. Discussion, rather than oratory ; dialectics, rather than rhetoric, seem to fit modem taste. But discussion and dialectics are provocative of wordiness. We cannot have both the concentration of the orator and the copiousness ot the dialectician. The Government have patented a process by which they hope to lessen talking. It remains to be seen how it will work. But if they could have hit upon a plan by which every member would be compelled to think before he spoke, their purpose would have been sooner served. If men thought before they spoke, they would not speak so often, they would not speak so long, and they would speak better. 456 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. XLIV. SPRING—HORSES AND EXERCISE. [Address on the occasion of distributing the prizes in connection with the May-day Horse Procession, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, May 14,1883.] I have witnessed with interest the proceedings of this evening. My pleasure would have been complete, if the Committee had permitted me to remain a spectator. Among the numerous riddles propounded in this practical age, there is none more puzzling than the popular passion for speechifying. Busy Englishmen like to talk or to be talked to, and they seem to prefer what is trite and familiar to what is novel. With many the taste for it grows by what it feeds on. But members of Parliament get a surfeit of it. Doomed daily, for the greater part of the year, to listen to the diatribes of dubious politicians, I am always glad to escape from the presence of the public, and the din and “ dirl ” of inveterate wrangling. Every step taken from the carnival of politics and commerce carries us to a purer and freer atmosphere. I feel a relief as the hoarse contention dies away behind me. There is one recommendation to the speaking to-night, and it is a strong one. We are not to try to make the worse appear the better reason. We have to endeavour to evoke kindly affections, and urge the cultivation of gentleness and generosity in our intercourse with our inferiors and our fellows. The purpose is a worthy one, and the season is appropriate. It is said that, when the rays of the morning sun shone upon the image of Memnon, it gave forth music as if hailing the dawn of a day of enjoyment, rather than that of unremitting toil. Spring is the morning of the year. Its smiling entrance prefigures aspirations, and lends impulse, and buoyancy, and hope to existence. Pagans, Jews, and Christians have all dedicated festivals in its honour. Both the Greeks and the Romans held feasts of great beauty in honour of the Goddess of Flowers, and they signalised their appreciation of her character by marrying her to Zephyrus, the West wind, the most genial of all the mythical deities. At Pentecost, the Jews carried their first-fruits to the Temple as an offering to their Lord. The Christians preserved the festival, and the phrases, “ Whitsun lord,” “ Whitsun lady,” and “ Whit¬ sun ale,” which we find scattered through our literature, are reminders of the merrymaking, the revels, the wreaths, and the dances, once common at this season. If the songs of a people are the essence of its history, its pastimes are the free utterance of its character. Men are ruled more by custom than by law. Customs indicate the means and the processes whereby wants are met and ideas realised. “ They SPRING—HORSES AND EXERCISE. 457 stimulate and mould a country’s genius and its faith.” Amongst the least developed, as well as the most cultivated of races, what is expressed in a recreative manner often better illustrates the degree of civilization reached, and the direction of the national mind, than more solid achieve¬ ments. Nothing so well recalls to a traveller the salient characteristics of a people than their distinguishing amusements. In France the dance, in Germany the band, in Italy the opera, in Ireland the hilarity of the fair, mark popular gifts and peculiarities. No institution so much con¬ tributed to produce that unique type of physical and intellectual beauty which we see reflected in Greek art and literature as their classic games. When these great contests approached, heralds proclaimed peace throughout the land. For a time, “ grim-visaged war smoothed his wrinkled front.” A safe conduct was accorded to all—combatants and non-combatants—during the sacred month. So religiously was this observed, that the Spartans chose to risk the liberties of Greece, when the Persians were at the gates of Pylos, rather than march during the Holy Days. Few things, on the other hand, more correctly show the degeneracy of the times, and the coarseness and inhumanity that ran through the otherwise noble character of the Roman, than the brutalising conflicts of the circus and the amphitheatre. Distant provinces were ransacked to supply the arena with rare animals, and they were pitted against each other, or with men—captives, criminals, or gladiators—for the gratification of the populace. The gladiator butchered to make Rome a holiday! To commemorate Trajan’s Dacian victories, 11,000 beasts w’ere slain. The contrast between the graceful sports of Olympia and Corinth, and the loathsome spectacle presented in the Coliseum, brings out the character of the two people more vividly than pages of historic eulogy or disquisition. Festivals, too, have a conservative influence. Ages of dispersion and dislike, of isolation and injustice, have not lessened the sanction or diminished the observance of the Passover. By the shores of the Shannon and the Susquehanna, by the far off-Murray and Missis¬ sippi, Irishmen gather annually in honour of their patron saint. The patriotic Poles lay garlands on Kosciusko’s Mound. The melancholy Moslem makes a periodic pilgrimage to the tomb of the Prophet. Who can estimate how much these rites and celebrations have contributed to sustain the national sentiments of Irishmen, to keep alive the vast cata¬ logue of Polish sorrows, to aid in the survival, the marvellous survival, of the Jews, or to lend zeal and unity to Islam? The time and the objects of festival observances, whether of rest, rejoicing, or thanksgiving, are fixed. But the manner of their celebration changes. It grows out of, and is controlled by, the conditions of the time. A chart of these changes would be a more reliable index of the progress of the world than a record of its battles. The tournament was SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. the natural and appropriate pastime of an age of chivalry. “ It fostered knightly prowess, and made patent the twin-born inspirations of love and valour.” But although the tournament may be extinct, the spirit which distinguished it maybe preserved. We often discover, in vanished ages, merits that a closer survey of such records of them as we possess would dissipate. Our poets have sung of Merry England and her sylvan beauties, of the smiling homes and pastoral pursuits of the people, when every rood maintained its man. There is some truth in these pictures, but they are not all true. The steam-engine, the blast-furnace, and the coal-pit, have disfigured our landscapes, and a frigid and soulless utilita¬ rianism, for a season, seems to drive all light and freshness from social life. “ In Mammon’s mighty battle, man was immolating man.” We have had a revival, or, perhaps, more correctly speaking, a revolt against the ponderous and dreary exclusiveness of the laisses-faire system. An effort, partly religious, partly political, partly social, has been made to wed some of the better parts of romantic medievalism to modern habits. And with some success. To attempt to return to the old state of society would be impracticable, even if it were desirable. It would be like the boy running backwards to catch the rainbow. But within the last quarter of a century, there has been a gratifying advance made to brighter manners and gentler ways. We may not have replaced the May-pole on the village green, because the village green, unfortunately, in many cases, has been built over. But we have banished the bull-ring, the cockpit, and the prize-fight. We have shortened the hours of labour, opened public parks, founded public libraries, decreed additional public holidays, and done something to cheer the weary and repining life of the over¬ taxed and the over-worked in the mine, in the factor)', and in the workshop. Events move so quickly that changes are made and we do not know of them, or at least we do not notice them. In the lifetime of men now living, foaming boars fought for their heads, and lusty bulls were baited with dogs for sport. It is only recently that the posts and rings round which the poor beasts were flayed have been removed from some of the northern villages. So strong was the feeling in favour of the sport, that even so good a man as Mr. Wyndham, more than once, procured the rejection of a Bill intending to abolish it. And it is little over forty years since it was made illegal. Cock-fighting was once the chosen amusement for scholars in our public schools. Every Shrove-Tuesday, there was a cock-fight for the great schools in London, just as there is now in the week before Easter a boat-race between members of our two great Universities. The old exhibition was as popular in its day as the new one is. In my native village, it was customary to have at this season what is called a “ Crowdy Main.” Immediately before Whitsuntide, the farmers of the district were requisitioned for fowls. A main was fought, SPRING—HORSES AND EXERCISE. 459 and when all the birds were killed they were “ploated” and cooked, some¬ times not with much delicacy. A feast followed, and for a couple of days the population gave themselves over to unrestrained and roystering revelry and noisy license. It was a very saturnalia, ending usually in a free fight, sometimes between the inhabitants of different villages, and sometimes between factions in the village itself. One of the best of our local ballads recounts the incidents of such a contest. The ballad-maker tells how one party beat the other— We hammered their ribs like an anchor shank. They fan'd it six weeks efter O. We shouted some and some dung down Lobstrop’lus fellows, we kicked them O. Some culls went hyem, some crushed to toon, Some gat aboot by Whickham O ! ” This might be a very animated, but it was not a very aesthetic contest. But in 1849, cock-fighting followed bull-baiting into extinction. Prize¬ fighting lingered a little longer. Twenty years ago the last, and one of the best, of our boxers gave it a flickering revival. Many who had no conceivable sympathy with the brutal, odious, and stupidly sanguinary character of professional pugilism, pleaded guilty to the impeachment of having felt a sort of national pride when the tight little Sussex athlete, with the worst of the position, and with the sun in his face, fought so bravely a man so vastly his superior in height, bulk, and strength. But the prize-ring is now gone—gone beyond recall—out of the list of British sports. And the almost equally barbarous practice of shooting pigeons from traps will go, too, soon ; while cricketing, cycling, football, rowing, and other healthy forms of recreation were never more popular. If we present scenes of coarseness, vulgarity, and cruelty to the people, we insensibly deprave their manners, and harden and demoralise their dis¬ positions. Man is an imitative animal. Familiarity with a reprehensible pursuit generates first an indifference to it, and then often a sneaking sympathy with it. The aim of all who seek the elevation of their race should be to put before them examples of courage, devotion, and endu¬ rance, to colour their imaginations with objects of taste and beauty, to train them to sympathy with suffering, and stir them to heroic efforts and high resolves. The proceedings of to-day are calculated to contribute to some of these purposes. They are primarily an exhibition, and, as such, have been successful. The show confers a fourfold service. It benefits the employers, whose horses will live longer, and whose harness will wear longer, from the greater care bestowed upon them. It benefits the drivers by giving them increased interest in, and thereby shortening and sweeten¬ ing, their labour. It benefits the horses by improving their health, thus contributing both to their comfort and their strength. There is nothing 460 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. almost that a keeper, by coolness, consideration, and courage, cannot do with an animal. The Arab’s horse, the Laplander's reindeer, the Esqui- maux’s dog are not so much servants as companions and friends. It benefits, too, the public, as no person can have looked upon the speci¬ mens of equine strength and grace that have perambulated Newcastle streets to-day without imbibing a kindlier feeling for both beast and man. The man who is kind to his horse cannot well be unkind to his family or his neighbours. Such displays contribute to the diffusion of a sympathetic tone throughout society, rounding off its harshness, and cultivating tenderness and good fellowship to all human kind. Our cold, humid, and variable climate is not peculiarly favourable to the production of horses. But by great care and sedulous attention to breeding and feeding, and by good grooming, the English horse has been brought almost to a state of perfection. For size and strength, for elegance of shape and beauty of outline, for speed and staying power, he has never been surpassed. There is as great a contrast between the horses now in use in England and the small scraggy animals that Caesar found here, as between the natives of these islands then and now. Every incursion of foreigners to England or of Englishmen abroad, has in¬ fluenced and benefited our horses. The Romans improved them. So did the Normans, who brought with them Spanish horses, the finest then in Europe, and who also introduced the practice of shoeing. The Crusades sent us the fleet Saracen chargers. The Tudor and Stuart kings, whatever other shortcomings they had, laboured laudably, both by the example of their own stables, and by enactment, to improve the breed. But the British horse, especially the racehorse, as we now know him, dates from the beginning of the eighteenth century. The reign of Oueen Anne is remembered for many things, both good and bad, and amongst the rest for the introduction into this country by Mr. Darley, a Yorkshire squire, of an Arabian horse, known in history as " Darley’s Arabian,” from whom all our best horses are descended. Many here are very much better versed in the mysteries of the stud¬ book than I am. There are people who can carry in their memories the names and achievements of our great racers as correctly as some can carry the names of great warriors and kings, of poets, and men of science. The horsey man can run over the roll of racers from Flying Childers to Eclipse, from Eclipse to Waxy, from Waxy to Stockw elland Newminster, and then to Blink Bonny, Blair Althol, and Bend Or, as easily as a musician runs over his scales. Tyneside people get local racing as well as other favourites. Our fathers hurrahed lustily when X Y Z— “ That bonny steed Who banged them all for pitli and speed,” came in first so often for the Gold Cup. I have heard St. Nicholas’s MEDICAL STUDENTS: THEIR WORK AND POWER. 461 bells ring a merry peal when Beeswing was passing through the town ; and there are many who recollect the shouts of exultation with which Beeswing’s successor in popularity was welcomed, when he won suc¬ cessively so many Northumberland Plates. This is a healthy impulse, and one to be cultivated. Love of locality leads to love of country, and many other honourable attachments ; and whether we care for the occasion of their display or not, they are worthy of being retained. I trust that the yearly recurring show will keep green in our souls the love of nature and the law of kindness. Such of us, our young people especially, as are privileged on the opening days of spring, “ to brush the bright dew from the soft waving blade," to hear the thrush singing his morning hymn, or see the lark soaring t<» the sky, and who can follow the simple and pleasing ceremony of making wreaths and gathering garlands, will re¬ member that there are thousands of poor children barred up in stifling alleys, and close and crowded courts, for whom there is no such holiday, no such Jubilee of Nature. Let our possession of these pleasures spur us to help in securing them for others. Let the day be a new moral spring to us all, on which we dedicate anew our service to what is true and just, and beautiful and good. XLV. MEDICAL STUDENTS: THEIR WORK AND POWER. [Address at the opening of the Winter Session of the University of Durham College of Medicine, at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, October 1, 1883.] It would have been easy for the officers of the College to get some one to discharge the agreeable duty they have assigned to me better than I can do it, but it would have been difficult to get any one who has more sympathy with students, and more admiration for a profession in which science and benevolence are so intimately mingled. I dislike, even in appearance, lecturing any one. It is a distasteful task—distasteful alike to the lecturer and listeners. But without the least assumption of superiority, perhaps my young auditors will permit me to address a few friendly sentences to them, before proceeding to the more important duties of the day. They are at that age, “ between boy and youth, when thought is speech, and speech is truth.” They have done with the drudgery incidental to the initial stages of instruction, and are realising the first exhilarations of knowledge. The world is new to them. There is a delightful freshness about existence. Their years are longer — by many times longer — than the years of grown-up persons, which, as some in this assembly only too well know, slip through their fingers like knotless threads. In youth, generous emotions and inspiriting sentiments pre- 462 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. dominate. It would be little short of sacrilege to sacrifice these emotions and these sentiments to the scepticism and sensoriousness of mankind. If you do, you overleap the most fascinating period in life—a period rich in joys, and richer still in seeds for the future. Only he who has been a genuine youth can be a genuine and many-sided man. Every season has its essential significance, and ought to have its natural fruition. Something is contributed by one that cannot be supplied by any other. A youth can enlarge his store of knowledge and form his opinions with an independence which, during the immaturity of his faculties, was denied him, and which, in this hard-driving, bargain-making world he will never again possess. Student life is primarily a period of study, but it is also a period of enjoyment and expectancy. A young man at college meets his equals in age, and common studies and customs supply him with all that friendship and community of aspiration can offer. The memory of these attachments, excitements, and exertions will gild all his after exis¬ tence, whether that is passed in rural solitude or amidst the strife of war or politics—whether it flows on in placid comfort, or is tossed by misfor¬ tune. By colonial camp-fires, under Indian verandahs, in the tented field, on distant seas—wherever and whenever Englishmen congregate, hours of anxiety and danger will be robbed of their weariness and hard¬ ship by the recollection of the scenes, and the recital of the sayings, of their college days. Medical students have a peculiar repute. Their out¬ bursts of fun and frolic are historic. A ballad written over two hundred years ago, shows that, after making allowance for the difference in the times, they are much the same then as now—rollicking and good-natured. The old ballad-maker thus describes them— ' ' Queer chaps are these students, say folks everywhere ; Although you should have them but once in the year ; They make in the village such riot and reek, There’s nought else left for us but plague for a week.” Yet, out of these jocund and roystering youngsters are made sedate and sober practitioners and distinguished men of science. But while I put in a plea for students’ liberties, I would not overlook, or undervalue, their lessons. With them, industry and patience are the the only guarantees of success. A young man may have every physical and mental requisite. He may have a good constitution, a strong mind, a sound judgment, a vivid imagination, and a wide range of ideas ; but he will not succeed without plodding investigation and disciplined applica¬ tion. Everything you attain will be the result of untiring labour. This is a rule to which there is no exception. You can inherit wealth and titles, but you cannot inherit worth or knowledge. Besides being dili¬ gent, I would have my young friends be natural and self-reliant. The prevailing taste is imitation. The drift in all departments of life is to sameness and uniformity. This begets — necessarily begets — intellectual MEDICAL STUDENTS: THEIR WORN AND POWER. 463 sterility and weakness. Students, especially medical students, who will be called upon very often to make a diagnosis, should learn to think for themselves. They should be something more than mere imitators. Education includes, not only the aquisition of the knowledge of others, but the increase of it through your own exertions. It is more important to cultivate observation, reflection, and judgment, than to store the memory with ill-digested facts. Lord Bacon says a student ought not to be like an ant, who gathers merely, or like a spider who spins from its own bowels, but like the bee that both gathers and produces. Some of our systems of education are too stiff and formal ; too strict and narrow. Their effect is to crush, rather than to cherish and correct, thought. They take too small account of the dissimilar characteristics and capacities of the different pupils. Each must fit himself into the common mould, which, like the old giant’s bed, was appointed to be filled by big and little alike. A college is a microscope in which all the varieties of human character are to be found that subsequently display themselves in, and diversify, the larger stage. With all our advance, we have not much improved on Plato’s theory of tuition. According to the Greek philosopher, man was made up of three parts—intellect, appetite, and passions. The aim of education should be to produce in the appetite temperance, in the intel¬ lect wisdom, in the spirit courage, and in the whole that harmonious co-operation which is best described by the name “justice.” There is no department of knowledge where the improvement in teaching has been so marked and beneficial as in that which this institution is designed to promote. Medicine, using the word in its most comprehensive sense, has been well described by a high authority as the art and science of human nature applied to the wants of mankind. Its struggles constitute one of the most marvellous chapters in the biography of man. Created by necessity, the offspring of instinct and observation, of time and reflec¬ tion, it began before history, and has been influenced by every system of philosophy and religion, by every form of truth, prejudice, and supersti¬ tion, that the world has known. The Greeks and the Arabians cultivated surgery and medicine together, but afterwards surgery was forbidden to physicians. The Romans left operations to their slaves. In the middle ages, surgery was banished from the universities under the pretext that bloodshed was distasteful to the Church, that its pursuit was derogatory to the priesthood, and beneath the attention of men of learning. It was regarded as a mechanical if not a menial pursuit, and was relegated to bath-keepers and barbers. A very different estimate now obtains as to that branch of the profession. The whole range of medicine, whether external or internal, remedial or preventive, is regarded as a wide field of noble study and of beneficent activity. The conventional divisions, the shallow distinctions, the frivolous rivalries of old days have been laid SPEECHES OF JOSEPH COIVEN, M.P. 4*>4 asleep. Every medical man is now anxious to broaden the basis, and elevate the attainments, of his profession. A successful physician must have a knowledge of the principles, if not of the practice of surgery, and a successful surgeon must be qualified to assume the employment of a physician. A doctor looks at the human body much as an artificer looks at a complicated piece of mechanism, with whose construction he is not altogether acquainted, but which he has to keep in good working condi¬ tion. He studies to preserve it in health, to restore it if it gets out of order, and, if possible, to improve it. The prevention of disease, the cure of disease, and the improvement of the condition of man, are the three great purposes to which your profes¬ sion is dedicated. It concerns the dearest of earthly interests. It is humanising in its influence and its aims. It succours the weak and the suffering, intervening on the side of mercy in the wildest hours of savagery and horror. St. Luke and the Good Samaritan are still the favourite symbols of apothecaries, thus indicating the early charity of the art. From this profession, have sprung men whose prescient, comprehensive, and penetrating intellects will ensure for their memories the enduring homage of a grateful posterity. Modest, gentle, unselfish, yet fearless, they rank high amongst the benefactors of our race. The uncertainty that attaches to the practice of medicine pro¬ motes originality, and leads to large reliance on personal qualities. We estimate doctors more by their capacity of insight and their promptitude and resource in action, than by their collegiate attainments. A good physician should not only be able to reason justly from an individual case, but to apply, unhesitatingly and decisively, the latest results of science to the exigencies of his patients. Sympathy as well as intelli¬ gence, moral power as well as professional gifts, are potent coadjutors of a physician. Dr. John Brown, the genial author of “ Rab and his Friends,” said that while the main requisite of a young doctor was sense, he should also be able to make a joke, to set a good laugh a-going ; he should have a bright presence and cheerful step. Dr. John Armstrong, a Border physician, poet, and politician—the author of a remarkable, but now almost forgotten, didactic poem, entitled “ The Art of Preserving Health,” and I believe our own Dr. Akenside used like language—that a cheerful temper and hearty manner were valuable portions of the stock- in-trade of all medical men. Louis the Fourteenth, who was a confirmed hypochondriac, asked Molidre, who had always a warm side for the pro¬ fession, how he did with his doctor. The dramatist replied, “ When I am unwell, I send for him. He comes. We have a chat and enjoy our¬ selves. He prescribes. Sometimes I take it. Sometimes I don’t. I very often find that his conversations cure me.” It is upon a career where good sense, kind feeling, scientific knowledge, and practical skill, are so happily combined, that the young gentlemen here MEDICAL STUDENTS: THEIR WORK AND POWER. 465 are about to enter, li will involve great labour, heavy responsibility, and unending watchfulness. Yet, it has its compensations. There is no hon¬ ourable or rightful exertions in this world that has not. I know of no moments more enviable than when a weary explorer catches the first glimpse of a long-looked-for lake, mountain, or river ; or when a man of science, after years of patient research, discerns a fact which gives order and meaning to a number of scattered speculations and observations : or when a physician or a surgeon carries relief to the suffering and health to the afflicted. Such achievements give a joy that wealth cannot give, and that poverty cannot take away. We often describe this as an age of progress. And rightly so. But our estimate of it is not always adopted by others. One of the Chinese Ambassadors who was recently in London, when he returned, was asked what most impressed him in England. He replied, “ Their plagiarisms.” In his opinion, we were adapters and copyists, not originators. We ap¬ propriated other people's inventions and ideas, and ignorantly or egotis¬ tically called them our own. We got our ideas of art and philosophy from the Greeks, of empire from the Romans, of religion from the Jews, and of mechanics and morals from the Chinese. There is more of truth in this eccentric Oriental criticism than some of us would be disposed to admit; for we have not surpassed the Greeks in art ; we have not equalled them in mental speculation ; while, for our political theories— why, they are a bad copy of those of Athens. But whether we are copy¬ ists or originators, we have made substantial progress in medicine, although that progress has only recently been rapid. It was not until two thousand years after Hippocrates had elevated it to the dignity of a science, that we discov cred the circulation of the blood. A hundred and fifty, ay, fifty years ago, educated men were strangely ignorant and superstitious. No less a man than Dr. Johnson was taken to Queen Anne to be touched for the king’s evil, in accordance, as his biographer remarks, with a belief in its sovereign efficacy that had been unchallenged for centuries. Formerly, operations were often resorted to unnecessarily, and performed without skill. Rough instruments were employed reck¬ lessly if not cruelly. \ow, every surgeon tries to minimise and simplify the number of instruments he uses, and uses them only when they cannot be avoided. In medicine, there are alleviating and curative agents that were unknown fifty, or even twenty, years ago. There is scarcely a salubrious substance in nature that has not been analysed, refined, com¬ bined, and made subservient to the healing art with a skill which was never before conceived. Chloroform has exorcised the demon of physical pain without violating the integrity of nature. There are now at the com¬ mand of all means of detecting the character of most diseases by physical tests, and of assuaging, if not removing them, by ascertained processes. It is to the mastering of these means that our young friends are invited 31 466 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. to apply themselves; and it is for proficiency in this knowledge that I am now to give some of them prizes. I have urged you to be studious and self-reliant. Now, I may counsel you to show unvarying respect, obedi¬ ence, and gratitude to your professors. There is no office on earth more entitled to respect than the combined office of physician and teacher. They labour both to preserve the well-being and instruct their fellows. Statesmen devise means for protecting our property, but the teacher calls forth the powers that create it. The competition of industry has been converted into a competition of intellect. And it is our teachers who train us for the race. The teachers of this institution are specially en¬ titled to the sympathy of the public and the support of their pupils. They are certainly not hirelings, but men inspired with a love of their profes¬ sion. Most of their labour is unrequited, and it is all voluntary. Their services ought to evoke on behalf of the pupils a reciprocal enthusiasm and devotion. XLVI. THE CHANGE IN PARLIAMENTARY WORK. [Address delivered at the Twelfth Annual Dinner of the North of England Commercial Travellers’ Association, January 11, 1884.] Amidst the incessant criticism to which the House of Commons is subjected, little reference is made to the fundamental alterations that time and events have worked in its functions. Yet, these alterations are vital, and their effects far-reaching. Originally, Parliament was the adviser of the sovereign ; it is now sovereign itself. This difference, so soon and so easily stated, in reality represents a revolution. Much of the jarring you hear of is caused by the difficulty of combining the consul¬ tative and executive duties. These are not positively antagonistic, but they do not always harmonise. In a deliberative body, you want discus¬ sion ; in an executive, action. In the former diffusiveness is inevitable ; in the latter concentration is essential. History supplies few examples of supreme assemblies. There was one in Athens ; there is one in Swit¬ zerland. But the circumstances in the first case were, and in the last are, exceptional. Our Long Parliament was sovereign ; so was the French Convention. They both did their allotted work ; the one with Puritanic earnestness, and the other with Pythonic frenzy. But here, too, the parallels are incomplete. In neither was there any serious opposition. In England, it took to the war-path ; in France to flight ; so that not even from these two notable instances can any safe and large deductions be drawn. We have heard of a sovereign with two heads, but not of one with six hundred. It is not easy to transact business when half the heads . THE CHANGE IN PARLIAMENTARY WORK. 467 insist on talking—not to each other, but to Bunkum, or Birmingham, or some place else. How these incongruous duties will fuse, if they will fuse at all, is unforeseen, and at present unforeseeable. The change in the work of Parliament has lessened our statesmen’s power of initiative. They follow rather than lead. In an autocratic State, a Minister can, and in England formerly could, elaborate his plans and his policy in retirement, and, by the union of high office and indomit¬ able will, give them the force of law. By imperious and inexorable edicts, Colbert reconstructed the finances of France ; Stein raised the Prussian proletariat from serfdom to citizenship, and Richelieu curbed a haughty and powerful aristocracy. Sully, profound in policy and stern in purpose, imposed his decisions on an irresolute king and a lethargic people. Carnot organised victory out of defeat. Bismarck bound by blood and iron the German Fatherland. These ends were attained by the unswerving and imperturbable resolution of men who, although not despots, acted with despotic power. No English Minister can so act. He is powerless except he can carry the country with him. Discussion, which in Oriental languages is the synonym for justice, is the essence of our national existence. Nothing escapes the fire of an implacable pub¬ licity. Every subject must pass and re-pass through the popular sieve. The chief of a department may mature wise schemes, but before they can be put into operation, he has to persuade others of their excellence and urgency. He has not only to decide what he wishes to be done, and the wisest way of doing it, but he has to do it, in face of obstacles of which Machiavelli did not dream, and which would have baffled even Mazarin. The genius of Chatham, and the manoeuvring of Walpole, would have found the subtle political influences of to-day as hard to manipulate as an obstinate monarch or a corrupt administration. We are frequently told that the level of political capacity has been lowered, and that the constellation of orator-statesmen that adorned the Legislature during the closing years of last and the commencing years of this century has left nothing but a succession of uncertain echoes. But the statesmen of one generation are unsuited to the requirements of another ; and it is from forgetting this that we are sometimes led unduly to extol the past at the expense of the present. We cast admiring eyes to the times of Pitt and Fox, Burke and Sheridan ; but the men of their day looked back regretfully to Chatham and Bolingbroke, and their con¬ temporaries in turn drew disparaging comparisons between them and Halifax or Clarendon. These retrospects are alluring, but at times de¬ ceptive. It is true thatjthe faculties necessary now are less lofty than those required for constructing dazzling schemes of national expansion and regeneration. The men who succeed to the direction of affairs are com¬ promisers by necessity as well as by inclination. They must emasculate their manners to conciliate antagonists. Any generous enthusiasm they 468 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. may possess is deadened by the mass of details through which they have to plod. But in this they but symbolise the all-absorbing and frigid materiality of the age—an age that, with many noble features, is both sceptical and Epicurean, and in earnest mainly about the coarser methods ■of acquiring wealth and a specious form of seeming. The Spaniards say that every medal has its reverse, and even legisla¬ tive volubility and procrastination are not without their uses. They are educational. They ensure stability. We pass our measures not only through Parliament, but through the minds of the people. We worry and fret under the operation, but it has the inestimable advantage of being final. However wise a law may be, if it is in advance of national requirements or knowledge, it will be inefficient, if not inopera¬ tive. But when abreast of it, its action will be fertilising and beneficent. Every inch of ground patiently conquered from injustice and ignorance, is retained, and made the basis of a fresh advance. Socially, the House of Commons is not as agreeable as it once was. It can scarcely now be described as the pleasantest club in London. There is more friction, less friendship, more turmoil, less leisure, more drudgery, less results. It is more democratic, yet there is less equality. It is still the first assembly of gentlemen in Europe, although the happy gentleness of modern manners is sometimes rudely violated. But these changes, again, only reflect larger changes outside. The motives that actuate, and the influences that sway, men in the House, are the same as operate in the world. The restraints that custom imposes, and that comradeship incites, have been relaxed under the pressure of forces to which all of us are amenable, and of agencies that some are not strong enough to resist. There is no wisdom in bemoaning an irrecoverable past, or of pining for a distant, if not impossible, future. We have to take things as they are, and make the best of them, not lowering our ideal of what should be, but keeping close to what is. Men adjust their clothing to the seasons, and their diet to the climate ; and we must adjust our legislation to the ever-varying calls of our generation and country. One consequence, and a regretable one, I fear, may arise from the long hours and increasing acerbity of party strife. It is this. In England, a greater number of men of means, knowledge, and accomplishments, take part in public affairs than in any other nation. They don’t want office—would not take it if pressed upon them, but they have leisure and taste for Parliament. These impart to it solidity, stateliness, and ver¬ satility. They are, withal, taciturn and unpretending. They seldom appear on the stage when the curtain is up. They are the teachers at rehearsal—the prompters, whose presence is felt rather than seen. They do not rend the air and rattle the benches on parade-days, and when it is over betake themselves, one to his farm, and another to his mer¬ chandise, one to his pastimes, and another to his private business; TEMPERANCE. 469 but they stick to their posts, in fair weather and in foul. If the new and exacting electoral conditions, or the altercations and wranglings in Par¬ liament, drive these shrewd and dexterous men into retirement, it will be a grave misfortune. I hope my anticipation may not be realised. But it is amongst the probabilities. All who care for patriotism and progress would bewail if from any cause this reservoir of independent spirit and spontaneous exertion could no longer be drawn upon. The concourse of all to the common work is the foundation of national life. Voluntary labour, even if sometimes rugged, confusing, and irregular, is superior to the tiresome and enervating uniformity which is secured by our being tabulated and ticketed, like parcels in the post-office, by the minute solicitude of public functionaries. Our political and social mechanism, so complicated and yet so substantial, so robust and yet so flexible, is not everything that could be wished, but it has carried us safely through many storms, protected us against both external and internal assailants; and so long as its forms remain to inspire respect, and its principles to influence conduct, England will stand erect and secure. There will be gradual transformations, the mixing of tradition with movement, the blending of care for general interests with consideration for individual rights. But, although we may witness great re-adjustments of power, neither the man nor the party has arisen who will check England’s advance or hurry her into headlong courses. It is to the energy and character of individuals that, in times of perturbation, a nation must look for its protection. And there is still sufficient of these left to guide us through the gathering darkness that portentous oracles and gloomy pessimists assure us is impending. In Rome, the temple of fame was placed behind the temple of virtue, to denote that there was no entering one without going through the other. Let us act upon the moral con¬ veyed in this classic image. We find that the path of duty is now, as it always was, the way to glory. XL VII. TEMPERANCE. [Address delivered at a public meeting held in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, January 19, 1884, in support of the Blue-Ribbon Army.] The work of Parliament is ephemeral and superficial, but absorbing. Any man who gives himself seriously to it, will find time for little else. He will always be either fishing or mending his nets—either in attend¬ ance upon the House or preparing for it. From his enforced detention in London the greater part of the year, he is apt to lose touch of local ife. Before I was a member of the House of Commons, I knew all, or 470 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. nearly all, that was going forward publicly on Tyneside. Now, I fear, I am sometimes imperfectly informed of many things, and entirely ignorant of others. I learned only by accident, of the powerful moral movement, of which this hall has recently been made the centre. My friend, Mr. Stephens, told me what he and you were doing, and invited me to attend. When present, I would have preferred to remain a listener. But I am assured that a short speech is expected. That inevitable speech ! Earnest and incisive speech is powerful, sometimes all-powerful. It has overthrown strong Governments, and it can cir¬ cumvent the omnipotence of wealth. It is the armoury of the mind. It contains the trophies of the past, and the weapons of its future conquest. But when you are doomed to listen night after night, for months on end, to the tvphonic rhetoric of partisans, struggling for victory rather than for truth, it blunts the zest of the keenest auditor. What fresh condemnation can language apply to intemperance ? Every successive step of degradation and misery that it leads to, has been por¬ trayed many times and oft, in words of wisdom and of warning. It produces poverty, disease, and crime. It corrupts the morals, enfeebles the intellect, induces idleness, shortens life, and spreads the pall of grief over families and nations. The injuries it inflicts are not exceptional and irregular, but as uniform as the movements of the planets, and as deadly as the sirocco of the desert or the malaria of the marshes. There is not a profession around which the serpent has not thrown the spells of its sorcery. There is not a household that has not been despoiled by its leprous pollution. But all this is trite. It is a tale that has been told not thrice, but three thousand times. Yet, in face of the accumulated experience of ages, men persist in the practice. It is not ignorance. It is infatuation, or it is insanity. Human ingenuity is taxed to discover means for removing the evils that afflict mankind. Every reformer has his pet panacea. There is a very Babel of tongues—a positive labyrinth of perplexity. Rival politicians cry their nostrums in the national market-place. The Tories have a plaster and the Liberals have a pill — many pills indeed — for curing “ all the ills that flesh is heir to.” The Democrats want struc¬ tural, and the Socialists, functional alterations. There is something to be said for all their plans—much for many of them. But neither franchise nor education, nor social transformation, will, of themselves, keep people sober ; and sobriety must precede all moral, mental, and political reformation, if that reformation is to be real. There never was a time when greater efforts were made on behalf of temperance than now. When men’s minds are sighing for fresh realms to conquer in the universe of science, it is only natural that attention should be paid to the condition of those who form the foundation of the social fabric. Sub¬ stantial advance has been made, and greater is in store. The consumption TEMPERANCE. 471 of intoxicating drinks was once deemed absolutely essential to health. That belief has gone. It is now known that men can live, and do live, better without them than with them. Total abstainers were formerly regarded as social monstrosities, fit only to be exhibited in a caravan, like Barnum’s white elephant. That prejudice has gone, too. Abstinence, if not popular, is deemed honourable. You find it now amongst all classes. Drinking pleads high prescription in its favour. It is still encompassed by the world’s respectability. Nobles were its votaries—honour and wealth its portion. Literature owned its sway, and learning enforced its claims. Art dressed it in its most fascinating forms, and poetry encircled it in pleasant images and undying verse. But many of the forces that were formerly arrayed on its side, are now arrayed against it. Its hold, however, on the people is still fixed and firm. Forty years ago, the annual expenditure on intoxicating drinks in the United Kingdom was 71^ millions of pounds, or an average of £2 12s. 1 id. per head. Twenty years ago, the gross expenditure was ,£106,500,000, or £} ns. 3d. per head. In 1876, when the drink-register touched its highest level, the expenditure was ,£147,300,000, or £4 9s. per head. In 1882, it was 126,252,000, or^3 12s. per head. The expenditure is now about 175. a head less than it was in 1876, but it is nearly £ 1 per head more than it was forty years ago ; and it is in excess of what it was in 1880. The complete tables for last year have not yet been published, but they show a tendency to rise. We are told that figures are misleading. And it is true. There are innumerable modifying circumstances attending all statistics. One circumstance may be left out, and it may be a vital one. Its omission will vitiate all deductions drawn from such data. A crabbed satirist once remarked that a judicious man looked at statistics, not to get knowledge, but to save himself from having ignorance foisted upon him. It is said that although the sum of 126 millions appears large, when divided it only amounts to about 2%d. a-day. If children are left out and adults simply counted, it would be but 4}4d. a-day for each person. I allow that, but against it I set these facts. If we expend only 4>id. each a-day on drink, we spend but 2d. each a-day on bread, id. a-day on butter and cheese, and less than a id. a-day on milk. We expend five times as much on drink as we do on sugar, and nearly seven times as much as we do on tea, coffee, and cocoa. Shuffle the figures as you please, you cannot get clear of the fact that the daily consumption of what, at best, can only be described as a luxury, exceeds what is expended on these prime necessaries of life—bread, butter, cheese, and milk. That, surely, is not a trifle. No good cause is ever served by exaggera¬ tion ; and I have no desire to deal in sensational statistics, or to whip the surface of society into a spasmodic froth. Reform, to be genuine, must be based upon something more stable than stimulants, or else like Jonah’s gourd, having grown in a night, it will 472 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. perish in a night. But, apart from prejudice, partiality, and partisanship, is not our intemperance a national dishonour ? We are one of the most enlightened and prosperous people in Europe. Yet, we are one of the most intemperate. This is an unenviable distinction. It was not always so. In the early Tudor times, Englishmen were noted for their sobriety. Historians attribute the change to the taste for liquor our soldiers im¬ bibed, when engaged in the old Dutch wars. Gin and rum were cheap ; they drank their fill, and when they returned home they popularised the baneful practice. We beat the Dutch in those conflicts, but the victory was dearly bought if the price paid for it was this demoralising custom. The French are a sober people. With them, too, there has been a change, but a change for the better. Two hundred years ago, they were as much distinguished for their drunkenness as they are now for their sobriety. Their Statute-Book was then crowded with penalties against drunkards. They were fined, imprisoned, whipped ; but all the enactments were useless, as there was no public opinion to sustain them. The Ministers of Louis XIV. tried another policy. They strove to fix a stigma on intoxication, and to brand it as infamous. They created a taste for gentle pastimes and refined amusements. The results—the gratifying but slowly evolved results—are before the world. Intemperance is so degrading, its approaches so insidious, its fas¬ cinations so horrible, its consequences so dire, that almost any course may be welcomed that will lessen it. I do not wish to utter a word against any honest effort to that end, but 1 own I have more faith in appeals to the minds and consciences of individuals than to the operation of laws, however drastic, or however clever. What is the cause of drunkenness? Is it not the dominance of sensual appetites and depraved tastes? If these are to be destroyed we must appeal to the moral sense, the reason, and the enlightened self-interest of the victim. We must endeavour to develop in him the faculty of self- restraint. We must not only amend his surroundings, but elevate his aspirations. When a man has learned to deny himself of intoxicating drinks from conviction or choice, he has got the germs of other virtues besides abstinence. But if we forcibly deprive a man of stimulants with¬ out implanting in him higher tastes, the deprivation will only sharpen his desires. He will chafe against the restraints and devise stratagems for defeating them, or he will create new forms of indulgence. You may close public-houses, but you do not propose to close clubs, and you can¬ not prohibit drinking at home. When we have dri\ en it from one strong¬ hold, it will find lodgment in another. But if we convince a man of its folly, we shall make him proof against the treble temptation of tavern, club, or family circle. Unless all our theories of morals are false, unless philosophy and history are delusions, all virtue rests in the heart of the individual. Laws are the result and not the cause of the moral senti- TEMPERANCE. 473 merits which prevail. We are sometimes astonished at the failure of favourite reforming schemes. But the reason of failure is not far to seek. We begin at the wrong end. It is man we want to mend, not society— the individual we want to re-adjust, not the fanciful framework that separates him into classes, sects, or parties. The narrower we define the limits of Government, the more sinewy, manly, and enterprising we shall make the spirit of the people. Let us labour to inspire our country¬ men with feelings of their moral worth — with a sense of their personal responsibility—make them sober, self-centred, and reflecting beings, and we shall find evidence of the efficacy of such exertions in the increasing elasticity and robustness of their national character. We can best destroy custom by custom. Drinking has enlisted music on its side. You are w'isely trying to win it to the side of temperance. You can call no more potent agency to your aid. Men, in every age and in every clime, have felt the power of song. It unbinds the sweetest influences in the firmament of time. The fabled Orpheus made the rocks and stones dance to the music of his lyre. Patriots sing to animate their courage, exiles to soothe their despair, and oppressors to drown the pangs of conscience. The wild notes of the border minstrelsy kindled the hearts of our old warriors. Mothers rock their children to repose on the waves of melody. Saint and savage, swain and sage, youth and manhood, alike, arc moved by the concord of sweet sounds. Desde- mona could sing the savageness out of a bear. Cannot abstainers sing the sensuality out of drunkards? If you place an yEolian harp in certain positions, its tones v ill be harsh and muffled, but if you put it free to the breeze - if you place it where the wind blows athwart the strings—there issues forth a chord of music, sweetly mingling all the harmonic notes. Song, when wedded to ribaldry and licentiousness, is like “ sweet bells jangled out of tune and harsh.” When consecrated to noble sentiment, and allied to beautiful and inspiriting incentives, it will soften the heart, elevate the feelings, and chasten and purify manners. Weigh drinking in the balance, weigh it honestly — all its alleged advan¬ tages and all its admitted ills — and pronounce whether it is not wanting. Put on one scale all the much-prized conviviality it produces, and the doubtful medical testimony that is quoted in its support. Put on the other the material and moral, the individual and national, loss that it in¬ flicts ; the criminality, the pauperism, the woes which cannot be measured by arithmetic, the tears of broken-hearted wives, the cries of perishing children, and the w recks of noble intellects. Can any mar. doubt which scale will ascend ? In our warfare with vice and error, the outlook may be overclouded and the combatants discouraged. But all clouds have sunshine behind them. Even the darkest has a silver lining. The vanquished to-day may be the victors to-morrow. There is much in the drift of affairs 474 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH COWEN, M.P. that is inexplicable—much to depress, even to dishearten. But there is also something to inspire hope and stimulate endeavour. Like other and better men, I have had my disappointments and despondencies, but I cannot lose faith in the principles I have treasured for years. We are at the beginning of important changes. The signs may be too small to attract general attention, but they exist, nevertheless. Reforms rise like rivers. Their course is typified by that of our native Tyne whose grateful waters wash to us both health and wealth. A child must stoop and gather away the pebbles to find its source ; but it soon swells broader and deeper, until it can bear on its ample bosom the leviathans of the deep and the expanding commerce of two prosperous counties. XLVIII. PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS [At the annual meeting of the Newcastle Branch of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, April 16, 1884.] We are accustomed to describe this as an age of progress, and to dwell with complacency on our advance on, and advantages over, other eras. Perhaps, we occasionally over-do this self-laudation. Nothing in life is an unmixed benefit. The highest interests of mankind are often forced to yield before a fierce and unregulated competition for gain. Pressure of material prosperity and mercenary ambition sometimes pervert the moral elements which constitute the latent forces of civil society. En¬ during power is not to be found in outward circumstances and conditions, but in inward vitality and being. Our adoration of the immediate has dwarfed aspiration, and discouraged speculation. In our yearning after the practical, we neglect the ideal. But however far we may have subordinated the higher to the lower forms of progress, it is undeniable that unremitting efforts are being made to secure more humane treatment for animals. And with gratify¬ ing success. These labours may not unfairly be counted as a set-off to other shortcomings. By putting in juxtaposition the opinions prevalent at the commencement of the century, and those which now obtain, we get a rough, but not untrustworthy register of the advance made. The law then, as expounded by Justice Heath in a historic case, conferred no rights on animals. The only way a person guilty of cruelty could be punished was by proving that he perpetrated it out of malice to the owner. The law now, as laid down by the late Chief-Baron Kelly, holds that mutilations performed not for the good of the animal, but out of caprice, are offences punishable by fine and imprisonment. The past law and the present mark the distance travelled. PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. 475 The transition was not wrought without effort. Repeated attempts were made to abolish bull-baiting, but they failed — mainly through the powerful opposition of Mr. Wyndham. It is difficult, at this day, to conceive of a patriot, philanthropist, and patron of art and literature, championising so brutal a game. But he did so. And the incident may be taken as an index of the times. The bull, he said, was his Majesty’s best recruiting-sergeant, and beating the beast made its flesh more palatable and tender. Those, however, were days when pugilism was patronised by the allied sovereigns, and when the heir- apparent to the British throne could, without offence to popular taste, drive a champion boxer—arrayed in flesh-coloured silk stockings and yellow cassimir breeches—to the prize-ring. In stagnant periods, a great mind, anchored in error, may snag the slow-moving current of society. But the accumulated power of the people, when arrayed on the side of justice and mercy, is greater than the power of any single man, however strong, or of any section of men, however compact. “ Everybody,” said Talleyrand, “ is cleverer than anybody.” And neither the oratory of Mr. Wyndham nor the sheen of official position could arrest the peremptory demand for the abandonment of a savage and sanguinary sport. In 1822, Mr. Martin, in the face of much ridicule and abuse, secured after successive failures, the adoption of the Magna Charta of animals It has been the forerunner of many like measures. Originally, it was limited in its scope, but it has been broadened and strengthened by subsequent enactments. Ten years after, a bill to put down dog-fighting, bull-baiting, and cock-fighting within the metropolitan area was passed. In 1835, it was proposed to extend the Act to the United Kingdom. The controversies then current are both instructive and encouraging. They show better than any description how far we have got since. Mr. Cobbett fulminated his sharpest satires, and Mr. O’Connell plied his most caustic raillery, against the bill. It was described as absurd and Utopian—the spawn of a sickly sentimentality. One opponent asked how they could expect to get men to uphold the honour and interests of their country on the battle-field if the maudlin doctrinarianism of its advocates became prevalent. “If they do,” ejaculated another, with unquestionable prescience, “ the time will come when a couple of brave fellows will be denied the use of a few score yards of fresh turf on which to try their strength and science.” That time has come, and the world is the better for it. Even so unexceptional a member as the late Mr. Joseph Pease supported the bill with many misgivings, and only in the hope that it would not unduly interfere with what he called the “amuse¬ ments of the populace.” Well, that Bill and others much more drastic have found their way to the Statute Book, and Englishmen have not become nerveless and effeminate milksops. They have not lost their 476 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. fibre or elasticity, their daring or endurance. They are as capable now as ever of swaying the sceptre of the globe. Sixty years ago, the “ Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ” was started. Its promoters were mercilessly scoffed at, but they held on their way undaunted. Their earnestness, in time, flashed persuasion home to the consciences of the community. Now, the institution has troops of friends. Its mission is to marshal the convictions of the enlightened, and apply the law against the ruffians who delight in maltreating unoffending creatures. It has a revenue of over ,£17,000 a-year. Its officers are to be found in every country. They have secured nearly 60,000 convictions. It not only punishes, but it warns and educates. Its admirable publica¬ tions are circulated broadcast. There is none of our benevolent institu¬ tions that labours more indefatigably, and, with such comparatively limited means, performs such a large public service. Its example has stimulated others. There are now seventy sister- societies in Europe and America, and over three hundred branches of the parent body in the United Kingdom. Juvenile societies have recently been formed under various names—Bands of Mercy, Guilds of Humanity, and the like—whose little members pledge themselves to refrain from cruelty, and to prevail on their fellows to follow their example. There is, in London, a sanatorium where injured and ailing animals are taken for advice and treatment, which is given gratuitously. Nearly five thousand cases are treated annually in this institution, which owes its foundation to the benevolence of the late Mr. Brown, of Dublin. A temporary home for lost and starving dogs, into which fifteen thousand animals are brought in a year, has also been established. Drinking troughs and fountains have been placed in most large towns ; and in an increasing number of localities there are May-Day processions after the Newcastle model. Horse, cattle, and dog shows have largely promoted the better treatment of animals, as success can only be secured by bestowing care and kind¬ ness on the competitors. Cattle diseases, too, have, strangely enough, helped the cause. They have inflicted a heavy loss on the nation— almost equal to the cost of a great war—-but they have induced improve¬ ments in the transit of stock. The higher status and increased number of qualified veterinary surgeons have also been beneficial. Skilled veterinarians are now to be found in districts where, until recently, there was only that odd compound of superstition, prejudice, and mother- wit—the cow-doctor and his infallible bottle. Exertions made by private individuals have had the effect of securing a more rational method of shoeing, and of discountenancing the docking of horses. Professor Pritchard, the highest known veterinary authority, and Dr. Fleming, the president of the College of Veterinary Surgeons, have both testified on oath that docking is unnecessary, painful, and sometimes dangerous. They, and other influential members of the profession, have refused to PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. 477 perform such operations. Let us hope that their example will be largely followed. The persistent and courageous efforts of the late Mr. Flowers to abolish the tight gag bearing-rein and cruel bits have been attended with much, although not complete, success. The life-long and untiring labours of the Baroness Burdett-Coutts—for man, and bird, and beast—but especially for the most defenceless—have ensured for her the undying esteem and gratitude of all lovers of their kind. There is now a close time for wild birds, and there will soon be one for wild animals. The abolition of trap-shooting is delayed, but the pursuit is doomed. Stables are now better built and ventilated, harness is lighter, and carts and carriages are of more easy traction. Dogs’ tails and ears are still cut, though not so generally as they once were. This stupid custom is followed out of deference to a freak of fashion—as if maiming could beautify nature. The famous dog Cappy, the pride of the pit village, was not so shorn : “ His tail pitcher-handled, his cullor jet black, Just a foot and a half was the length of his back ; His legs seven inches frev shoulders to paws, And his lugs, like twe dockens, hung ower his jaws.” The dog thus described was surely prettier than the croppies that dog- fanciers fondle. Modern literature abounds in books and magazines designed for the promotion of softer manners and gentler ways in dealing with all our dumb companions. We have, also, frequent lectures, sermons, and speeches to the same end. The Government inspectors of schools have been instructed to encourage children to cultivate kindness, and point out to them the relationship that exists amongst all animated beings. These agencies, collective and individual, punitive and educa¬ tional, legal and customary, constitute together a strength of opinion that has already worn down the most wanton forms of cruelty, and will even¬ tually create a more benign spirit in the treatment of our common creaturehood. The pulse of every humane man beats against practices that entail torment, and these pulses in time will beat them down. Cruelty is caused by ignorance, thoughtlessness, and indifference— largely by ignorance. There are persons who still cut the hawks out of dogs’ and pigs’ eyes, and worms out of cows’ tails. These operations are not meant to be cruel, but they are so. They inflict great pain, sometimes produce disease, and occasionally end fatally. Such cruelty is the out¬ come of illiterate tradition. The hawks, which are a third covering of the eye, such as owls have, are supposed to injure the sight ; but they do not do so. Extracting a nerve from the tail of a cow is supposed to free her from suffering, as curtailing a horse was once supposed to strengthen his back. If people are to deal intelligently with animals, 47§ SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. they should be acquainted with their habits and manners. This would * prevent such barbarous practices, and lead to more rational relations being kept up between the first of all animals—man—and the rest of animated creation. Harshness and neglect are both costly and risky. Over-driving, over-loading, unsuitable gear, inattention to ailments, exposure, insufficient shelter, all depreciate the value of animals. Well- tended cattle bring the highest prices ; well-groomed horses work the longest. Kindness pays best. This mercenary motive is not the highest—not so high as that which leads the Arab to treat his horse as a companion, or the Soudanese to treat his cow as a friend. But it is effective in an age when the sin of not being rich is only atoned for by the effort to become so. Many animals are highly sensitive; and this sensitive¬ ness should be treated gently, and not by blows. They warmly recipro¬ cate kindliness. Cowper tamed hares, and Goldsmith trained a spider. Mazzini had a couple of canaries which he said could do anything but talk, and which he vowed were wiser than many European potentates. Every schoolboy knows of Baron Trenck’s mouse. But instances, with¬ out end, could be cited of the sagacity of animals. All observant men are constantly having experience of it. There are some popular and some unpopular animals. Their [unpopularity arises from erroneous notions concerning them. They are often treated harshly in consequence. The pig is one of these sufferers, yet there are few more useful animals to man. Every part of it is turned to profit—from the bristles to the blood ; and it is quite a mistake to suppose it is stupid. Children stone toads because they are ugly, and are incorrectly believed to be poisonous. Gardeners kill hedgehogs because they are alleged to eat apples, and farmers because they milk cows. But they do neither. They feed on rodents, snails, and other creatures injurious to agriculture. Toads, too, help the farmers, as one of them can destroy from twenty to thirty insects in an hour. All living things have their uses. They prey upon each other, and thus preserve the balance of nature. On the continent, the wholesale destruction of wild birds has caused serious loss to the cultivators of the soil. The Austrian and French Legislatures are just now passing Acts for their special protection. In Australia, on the other hand, parts of the country are being overrun with rabbits ; and there the authorities are encouraging the breed of polecats, ferrets, and weasels — animals which are ruthlessly destroyed in England. Our hope for wiser ways in the treatment of animals rests in the young —in informing their minds, and instilling into them generous, tender, and compassionate ideas. As the twig is bent the tree inclines. Cruelty is mean and cowardly, demoralising and degrading, unnatural and abhorrent. Familiarity with it renders all of us less susceptible of sympathy—it hardens MODERN PREACHING AND PREACHERS. 479 all within, and petrifies the feelings. If you implant in a child sentiments of generosity, they will never, in all life’s labyrinth, leave them. Happiness and selfishness are incompatible. If a man would enjoy his own being, he must look beyond it. His private satisfaction increases in the same proportion as he pursues that of others. The strongest proof of the improvement of man is furnished by the increase of humanity and the decrease of cruelty. One folly disappears, and another takes its place. One vice dies, and another is born. Literature has its ebbs and flows. So, too, has art—sometimes prosperous, sometimes depressed. Star¬ eyed science, the steadiest of all intellectual pursuits, has its cycles of progression and stagnation. Even freedom, the foe of tyrants and the friend of man, has “ for a season bid the world farewell.” But take the history of our race, not over years but generations, and it will show that humanity has slowly, perhaps, but continually been on the increase. War, with all its desolations, its horrors, and havoc, is waged less bar¬ barously than it once was. Whatever can create a taste for higher pur¬ suits, and dispose men to seek with, “ eager heart and kindlier hand,” purely innocent and elevating gratification, will help to “ Ring out old shapes and foul disease,” and “Ring in the Christ that is to be.” Life will be solemnised, consciousness deepened, and we will feel, above the tyrannous present, and see through the casual occupation of the hour, “the elastic chain wherewith we are darkly bound.” Nature, with her many-tongued creatures, speaking with such fervid eloquence in the theatre of creation—with the earth for a platform, and its living occupants for actors—suggests something more than meal-times and sleep, and leads us to hope that the future of both men and beasts shall be brighte* than the past. XLIX. MODERN PREACHING AND PREACHERS. [Speech delivered at a public breakfast given in honour of the Jubilee of the Rev. George Bell, in the hall of the Barras Bridge Presby¬ terian Church, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, May 26, 1884.] It would have been easy to secure some one better fitted to preside over this interesting gathering, and more entitled than I am to submit this sentiment; but the committee could have got no person who would do either more cordially. I have an unfeigned respect for Mr. Bell as a man, a minister, and a citizen, and I am glad to have had an opportunity of expressing it. In the fifty stirring, pregnant, and event¬ ful years of his pastorate what changes have taken place ! How many thrones have been shaken ! What hopes have been blighted, and what 480 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN. M.P. magnificent enterprises achieved! What new domains won to knowledge, and new liberties for man ! He has walked with cheerful seriousness, calm and unperturbed amidst the multiplying vicissitudes, faithfully doing the duty that lay nearest to him—a true speaker and an actor at all times, never attempting to deceive himself or others with unreality or sem¬ blance. Newcastle now is very different from what it was when he took up his abode in it. It was then a quiet county capital, with less than a third of its present population. It was picturesque—“ every mouldering stone was a chronicle.” Its streams were not so stained, nor its atmosphere so murky. But sanitation was unknown. There were no railways. Tele¬ graphy was undiscovered, and tramways and telephones undreamt of. Mr. Grainger’s beneficent transformations had been projected, but not accomplished. There was neither a representative, municipal council, a board of guardians, nor a school board. I don’t know if there are any of Mr. Bell’s first flock left with him, and, if any, how many. But there are only three men connected with Northumberland now living who were prominent in public affairs half a century ago—Earl Grey, who was Home Secretary ; Mr. John Clayton, who was Town Clerk of Newcastle; and Ur. Bruce, who had just suceeded his father at the head of the Percy Street Academy. Although life with all of them has gently “wanedto its evening calm,” we may cherish the hope that in each case its close may be long delayed. The Barras Bridge Church was founded by Mr. Stoddart, who, in 1722, to use the quaint language of the annalist, “ opened a preaching-house for the poor and adventurous Scotch living in and around Sandgate.” A glimpse of those times is got from an incident that occurred in the same year. The Bishop of the diocese appeared on horseback at a review in the train of King George I., attired in a habit of purple and gold, with jack-boots, cocked hat, a sword, and a black wig tied behind like a general officer. The Bishop of that day and of this is separated by some¬ thing more than the span of 162 years. The congregation migrated from the Garth Heads, its first location, to a place, not now distinguishable, called Wall Knoll, then to Sallyport, and afterwards to Carliol Street, where Mr. Bell found it struggling against debt, difficulties, and dissen¬ sions. By his energy and devotion the debt was reduced, the members increased, and their vitality quickened. During a period of preternatural activity and enterprise, the Church has kept pace with its surroundings, and this commodious edifice, and the various agencies at work within it, are proofs of its zeal and success. There is no more precious legacy a man can leave to his fellows than that of an unspotted example. Mr. Bell can do this. His life has illustrated his faith. There is harmony between what he designed and what he has done. Looking back through the vista of the “ past and MODERN PREACHING AND PREACHERS. 481 the perishable,” it must be a satisfaction to him to know that he can bequeath to his congregation the memory of a long, honourable, and unselfish career, the influence of which will abide with them, and the remembrance of which will stimulate them to sustained and higher effort. All real elevation, all true dignity of character, is to be found in sincerity and simplicity. Straining to produce exaggerated ideas of their abilities and acquirements, their influence or possessions, is but the turmoil of little souls. They offer false appearances to procure false opinions, and they miss the first elements of moral worth. There has been an entire absence of such artifice in Mr. Bell. He is exactly what he professes to be—nothing more, nothing less. He has not been guilty of the sin of seeming. It redounds to the good sense and good feeling of minister and members alike, that through so many years and such varying cir¬ cumstances, their friendly relations should have continued unbroken. There must have arisen occasions when, without mutual forbearance, honest differences of opinion might easily have been ruffled into irrita¬ tion, and when irritation might have swollen into discontent if not disunion. That confidence and kindliness have been maintained, is the merit of both. From the restraints of temper we practise towards each other, springs the goodwill which is the cement and charm of social life. It is not a Christian spirit which prompts a man to magnify another’s failings, and to overlook his virtues. When we uncover a neighbour’s sores, it should be to cure them. Gently to hear and kindly to judge, has been Mr. Bell’s rule ; and while ever true to his own convictions, never chopping them into threads and patches to satisfy a temporising expedi¬ ency, he has not obtruded them upon others. While sturdy in the defence of his own doctrines, he has avoided cause of quarrel with all men. It is a moot question—and one on which Mr. Bell from his experience could enlighten us — whether the pulpit has suffered, or been served, by the bewildering intellectual appliances now in operation. It is certain that its position has been influenced by the hurry, impatience, and temerity of the times. Christianity, in the romantic ages, signified culture. Kings were concerned only with acts. Ideas belonged to the clergy. They were the chief scholars—expositors of secular as well as of religious themes. Learning was not less their distinction than sanctity. But that pre-eminence is now shared with men of letters. Writing has supple¬ mented, if it has not in some measure superseded, oral discussion. Half the community are readers, and the necessity for listening to learn no longer exists. Speaking, however, will always be a force, though there is a certain range of thought- and expression beyond the regular rhetorical routine. The tent-preaching of the Covenanters, and the camp-meeting of the Methodists were potent propaganda. The ecstatic earnestness of the speakers often melodiously peopled the solitude, and awakened the 32 482 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. echoes of the hills, brought men’s minds back to the lapsing ages, and sent them upward with immortal longings. Spirit kindles spirit, and hearts are touched and minds are moved by genuine impulses from a speaker’s own nature. The voice of true feeling, though “ from illiterate lips, and the grasp of honest affection, though from unconventional hands,” yields more of the balm of consolation than formal intercessions prompted by the cold dictates of duty. Whether the modern spirit has, or has not, modified the authority of the pulpit, or made the mysteries of life less impressive, it has surely helped the cause with whose history the Presbyterian Church is indis¬ solubly identified. Law may restrain men, custom may bind them, opinion may drive them, but Christianity must win them. It rules where no other power can rule—over men’s hearts. Legislators exceed their province when they attempt to fix the religion of the country. The rights of conscience are inalienable. The State never gave them—never can give them. The right of believing when he sees evidence of truth, and of worshipping when he finds characteristics of divinity, is inherent in man. Human authority may inflict penalties for disbelief; but these only make martyrs of the firm, and hypocrites of the fearful. Nothing more. We have got a partial, and will soon secure a complete, legisla¬ tive recognition of this principle. It will not come as a gift from a master, or as a party victory, but as the inevitable result of events—the conquest of opinion. Few have laboured more earnestly to promote the growth of this opinion than Mr. Bell. He has seen, during his ministry, the boundaries of sects narrowed, and a more tolerant and less polemical sentiment filtering through society. There may be little external re¬ semblance between the hierarchical magnificence of some, the austere centralization, the individual energy, or the representative independence of other churches ; but the thought that underlies them, that is manifest in the bare walls of a dissenters’ chapel, or under the gorgeous decorations of a cathedral, has a common origin. Religion is a soul, not a skeleton. Worship is as diversified in its forms as in any other human need or activity. Philosophy reconciles us to the apparent incongruity, and reveals beneath the surplice and the Geneva gown, the drab coat and the silken robe, “hearts that pulsate to an identical measure.” In material creation, there is no stolid monotonous uniformity. Perpetual sameness would be stagnation. So, in the world of mind, there are broad divergencies. But there is one influence that harmonises all differences and binds the end with the beginning, and which, to quote the Hindoo Bible, is “ The smallest of the least, the largest of the large, which hears ■without ears, sees without eyes, and moves without feet—that is charity.” A heart of deep sympathy solves all fractional theology, in the flame of its love and its justice. It endures no shackles, tolerates no ties, and finds true men and good men beyond the measuring line of party or the THE INDUSTRIES OF TYNESIDE. 483 compass of a creed. Mr. Bell impersonates the best feature of the old and the modern ministry. The lines of Bishop Ken apply to him—- 1 ‘ He is all that he would have others be. From wilful sin, though not from frailty, free." We will express the hope that his mental and moral freshness may long continue green and unabated. L. THE INDUSTRIES OF TYNESIDE. [Speech at the banquet in honour of the visit of the Prince of Wales, August 20, 1S84, when proposing the toast of “ The Industries of Tyneside.”] Ax ancient author, in a somewhat mixed metaphor, described Newcastle as “the eye of the North, and the hearth that warmeth the South with fire.” The North has got other eyes, and the South other hearths since that was written. But the panorama of population and industry pre¬ sented on Tyneside has lost none of its prominence and interest. In few districts, is the continuity of English history better exemplified. There are places, rich in renown, which the ceaseless but shifting currents of commerce have stranded. There are others that only embody the hurried and evanescent life of the day. Here, tradition and movement, ihe sentiment of reverence and the spirit of enterprise—links in an in¬ ternal chain reaching before and after—harmonise. We live both with antiquity and posterity; with antiquity in our charters, immunities, and monuments ; with posterity in our aspirations after further development. The doughty Newcastle burghers in olden times oft rolled back the ■tide of war. Their sons contribute to the national defence weapons of unrivalled precision and potency. Three centuries ago, the Tyne was the •eighth port of the kingdom. Now, it ranks second in the number of ships that enter it, third in the bulk of its exports, and first in the universality of its trade. From its valley coal was first dug. The same measures still supply more of that mineral—the mainspring of material civiliza¬ tion, the source of mechanical motion and chemical change—than any other. This, too, was the birthplace of the locomotive, and the nursery of the railway system. It is seldom that modern industrialism so closely confronts the crumbling relics of a legendary and turbulent, but memo¬ rable past. The suggestive contrasts have not been without influence on the inhabitants. A Northumbrian’s character is pre-eminently his own. He impresses his ancestral individuality on his surroundings. He was cradled in adventures, and is trained to sturdy work. The disposition 484 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN ,, M.P. that once made him a reviver, and sent him on forays across the borders, makes him now a rover, and sends him to far savannahs, where he fights a brave battle for himself, his family, and his race. The impulse insti¬ gates adventure, promotes the mental flexibility and physical hardihood which constitute at once the supremacy and the safeguard of British mercantile speculation. We do not attempt to extract from uncongenial soil and climate incongruous products. Nor do we fashion inefficacious ores into inefficient instruments. We purchase the crude material wherever it is best, and bestow upon it that which gives it value—labour. Civilization multiplies pursuits. Success is most assured when the largest number of persons are thrivingly employed in the greatest diver¬ sity of ways. We make an approach to that condition on Tyneside. The variety of our occupations is our security and strength. When one suffers, all suffer, but not equally or alike. We are passing through a period of acute depression, but it will only be transient. Depression is not decay. All storms, commercial as well as atmospheric, rock themselves to rest. Eclipses surprise children only, and alarm none but savages. Refine¬ ment and culture create fresh wants. To gratify them, intellect is awakened and effort stimulated and disciplined. The keener the want, the sharper the spur and the lustier the growth. Therein lies the incen¬ tive to, and the guarantee of, progress. Its course may be fitful, but it is incessant and immutable. Spectral competitors affright the timid. But they need not. Work always seeks the best hands ; and as long as English artisans retain their skill, and English merchants their integrity —and there is no evidence of decadence in either—they need never knuckle under to foreign craftsmen or capitalists. With all her shortcomings, the world has not seen so fair a model of public and private prosperity—of liberty chastened by law, and law softened by liberty—or so magnificent, yet so solid, a fabric of national contentment and grandeur as England furnishes. There have been nations which have equalled, some which have excelled her, in the arts of elegant expression and imagination, in the exact sciences, and in abstract philosophy ; but in that concentrated power and resource which give man dominion over other creatures, and enable him to wield the ele¬ ments and arm himself with the force of all their legions, she is unsur¬ passed. But while we chant paeans to imperial stability and dignity, and pronounce panegyrics on aggregate opulence, we are not oblivious to the lot of the stricken and the desolate—apparitions of the underlying forces of society—who are doomed to endure the pangs of poverty and the strings of unavailing care. In common with others more favourably found, they are throwing their shuttles across the loom of Time, and who can say what web they are weaving ? No name can be more appositely associated with Northern industry and public spirit than that of the founder and master-mind of Elswick. THIRTY YEARS’ PROGRESS. 485 He has cast his thoughts into iron, invested them with all the romance of mechanical art, and achieved wealth almost beyond the dreams of avarice. But he does not live for himself alone. He is happy when others can share in his bounty. Self-promoted, self-sustained, and, to his present profession, self-taught, he has worked his irresistible way through a thousand obstacles, and become one of the ornaments of his country when his country is one of the ornaments of the world. He has interwoven the history of his life with the history of his native place, and has made one of the foundations of its fame the monument of his virtues. He has shown how the lofty aims of science and the eager demands of business can be assimilated ; how the graces of social taste and ernble- lishment need not be sullied by vulgar prodigality. A man who has won renown in wider scenes, feels, when his spirit wearies and his strength fails, that there is no admiration so acceptable, no applause so sweet, as that which springs from those who have followed his career, sympathised with his struggles, and exulted in his triumphs. At such times, and in such circumstances, his heart warms to his own people, and their hearts warm to him. There is this laudable reciprocity of sentiment between the citizens of Newcastle and Sir William Armstrong. LI. THIRTY YEARS’ PROGRESS. [Opening Address, as President, at the Annual Meeting of the Northern Union of Mechanics’ Institutions, Blaydon-on-Tyne, September 17, 1884.] The Northern Union of Mechanics’ Institutions was established in 1848. I attended the first meeting, and until public duties required me to live largely in London, I was a member of the executive, and seldom absent from the annual gatherings. The thirty-six years—a long stretch in the life of an individual, but an insignificant one in that of a nation—that cover the Union’s operations have been eventful, and will be memorable. In few periods of our history, has the knowledge of man been so enriched by scientific discoveries, or his power so aug¬ mented by mechanical inventions. Some find the golden age in the distant and shadowy past. But if we chase their ideal backwards, it recedes, like a mirage, into the regions of fabulous antiquity. Nature is ever in the process of evolution. This globe, once a mass of molten granite, now blossoms almost a garden. Swamps and forests, which erewhile only gave back echo to the cawing rook or the screaming curlew, have been converted into scenes of peaceful industry. Savage wilder- 486 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. nesses, where the she-wolf howled over her whelps, now wave with golden corn. We may not mark the advance made in our own day, but place cycles side by side, and it is easy to detect the difference. The shadow on the dial may seem motionless, but it touches noon at last. The face of Tyneside, the course of its trade, and the habits of its in¬ habitants have, in the last third of a century, undergone unceasing and impressive changes. How far have these changes tended to heighten human happiness ? Our population has quadrupled, and our aggregate wealth, estimated on the contributions to local and national taxation, has multiplied fifteen times. But hoarded gold is not riches. The capacity to procure the necessaries and the rational enjoyment of existence is the true test of national well-being ; and money, except as a means of procuring these, or facilitating their exchange, is mere dross. In the lottery of life, all cannot draw prizes. This new wealth has been un¬ equally and somewhat capriciously distributed. The very rich have become richer, and the poorest remain as poor as they ever were. But the number of moderately well-to-do persons has increased. Whether the remuneration of labour, in cash or in kind, has risen in proportion to the growth of the country in prosperity, is too abstruse and complex an inquiry to be entered upon in the cursory observations that the occasion permits of being offered. But the following is a summary—succinct, but I think accurate—of the results secured in this district during the last three decades to that section of the community which these institutions were designed to benefit. After many remark¬ able mutations, wages have settled into a general advance—in some trades of ten, and others of twenty-five per cent.—and the working hours have been shortened. Bread is cheaper, but meat and milk are dearer. Clothing "has diminished in price and also in durability. Rents are higher, but houses are more commodious. Sugar, tea, and coffee are lower, less adulterated, and more largely consumed. The sanitary condition of both villages and towns, notwithstanding the atmosphere is impregnated with insalubrious fumes, the streams stained with re¬ fuse, and vegetation begrimed with soot, is better. Although there is more friction, life has lengthened, and the public health improved. Locomotion has been accelerated, and men’s minds have been expanded by travel. Public parks, libraries, picture galleries, and museums have helped to brighten the artisan’s lot, brought him into pleasant com¬ munion with nature and enlightened intercourse with his fellows. The bane of his existence—the credit system—has been broken. It is to be hoped that the craving for dividends will not degenerate into sordidness. Enlarged facilities for acquiring information may not have added to the number of students, but it has attracted widespread at¬ tention to passing events. Reading is more common, but the habit and faculty of continuous mental application amongst all orders is, I fear. THIRTY YEARS’ PROGRESS. 487 becoming rarer. Intemperance is still our besetting vice, but whether growing or receding beyond the fluctuations due to the greater or lesser earnings of the drinking classes, it is difficult to decide. Popular pas¬ times are neither so cruel nor so coarse as they formerly were, and crime is less prevalent. The development of benefit, building, and co-operative societies, and the steadily accumulating deposits in savings banks, attest the fact that the wage-earning classes have both the will and the means to save. But when we have balanced all these gains and losses, given full weight to every advantage, and made allowance for every drawback, we are far from having found that simple and sovereign remedy philosophers have depicted, by which poverty is to be abolished, morals, taste, and intel¬ ligence beautified, and government transformed into a political Elysium. The light of day dissolves the dreams of dawn, and most reformers have to mournfully own that there is a wide divergence between their pro¬ grammes and their performances. All the ingenious reasoning of optimistic statisticians does not dispose of the fact that whilst our incomes have risen, so have our wants. Every epoch has its standard of comfort. We all know that living daily becomes dearer, and that expenditure, with labourers as well as capitalists, in despite of them¬ selves, gradually ascends. We have many things which our ancestors had not. But it takes them all in our delicatelv-strung, over-strained, and intricate society to enable us to discharge our newly-acquired obligations. Men are influenced by the way in which their neighbours live. They desire to share the pleasures, or conjectural pleasures, they see others enjoying. The active and ambitious struggle to be some¬ thing more than they are. The lethargic and self-indulgent murmur because a better fate has not befallen them. Perhaps it is well that this is so. If it had been otherwise, the race would have ere this died of inanition. Our attainments and possessions have not satisfied us, and it is to be hoped never will. We have conquered the asperities of physical nature and moulded the universe to our use. The magnificent achievements of to-day lead but to grander projects for to-morrow. “ On, on for ever,” is the battle cry which the invisible destinies of man vociferate in the ears of time. There is truth in Mr. Spencer’s dic¬ tum, that every fresh force produces more than one change, and every cause produces more than one effect. But while allowing for, and rejoicing at, having secured these out¬ ward benefits — easy travelling, cheap food and raiment, early news, more coals and iron — their value will be depreciated unless they carry with them corresponding inward progress. All such agencies are means to an end, and that end moral elevation and mental expansion. There is no feature in the character of the North-country workman more striking than the growth of a sense of independence. This may be the conse- 488 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. quence of combination, of larger resources, ampler instruction, and of political power. But, whatever the cause, it exists. It has been asserted with dignity and is maintained without ostentation. It is the most gratifying and hopeful of our social omens. There need be no fear of material retrogression when the mass of our countrymen are modest, manly, resolute citizens, who, standing straight up upon their own legs, can fight for their own hand in this confused and scrambling world. Having won personal, they should strive for intellectual, enfranchise¬ ment. Let them do their thinking for themselves, and not be led in swaithes and strings by the adroitest of advisers. It is easier for all of us to take our opinions ready made and attractively served up, than to work them out for ourselves from scattered facts and varied exper¬ iences. But such dependence debauches the mind, weakens its pro¬ ductiveness, and prevents freshness of conception. The people should aim at a masculine boldness of thought that will regard nothing sacred but truth, and at a vigour of pursuit that will shrink from no inquiry. They need not quarrel because they do not agree, but with the brave sincerity that ought to stamp the intercourse of free men, each should respect the light the other has, and wait further developments. Along¬ side of this self-relying spirit, and seemingly although not really antagonistic to it, there has been developed a sentiment of natural—not partisan—conservatism. Life is very much a battle between the “haves” and the “have-nots.” No aristocrat stands up more stiffly for his vested interests than do the shrewd, cautious, careful share¬ holders in stores and building societies. They are as tenacious of their little as territorial magnates are of their great estates. Experience has instructed and disappointment warned them, and they make allowance for the risks and vicissitudes of trade. They were irritated under ex¬ clusion and restive under injustice ; but as their chief grievances either have been, or are under process of being removed, the class acerbity which dolorous Cassandras foretold would germinate when workmen became possessed of political power and a margin of material means, has not manifested itself. The opposite effect seems as if it would super¬ vene ; for, with the wider diffusion of property, there is displayed a disposition to popular inertia. Success has acted as a social anodyne. But in such supineness there lurks a snare, and, may be, a danger. When a community ceases to aspire—when they break the bonds that should connect power with usefulness and opulence with mercy—when they luxuriate rather than live, become miser stricken and gold enchanted, peril is impending. The danger-signal should be shown. This is the beaten road to ruin, marked in every hand-book of history, along which many have posted to destruction. A charge of apathetic egoism cannot be sustained against a nation still pre-eminent for the extent and variety of its voluntary enterprises. But there are sections who require to be JUVENILE CRIME. 489 roused from the monotony created by wealth, reminded of their responsi¬ bilities, retaught the importance of first principles and the worth of great ideas. We trouble the waters that there may be health in their flow, and motion is as necessary for moral as for physical vigour. These remarks apply only to the classes connected with, or reached by, these institutions. There is outside of their ranks a hybrid class, doomed to eat the bread of penury and drink the cup of misery. Pre¬ carious labour provides them with subsistence for the day, but the slightest interruption throws them destitute. A week of broken weather brings thousands of these industrial nomads to the brink of starvation. The winter wind blows keenly through their “ looped and windowed ragged¬ ness.” Little share of our flaunting wealth has reached them. Few rays of our growing refinement has illumined their course. They scarcely catch the crumbs that fall from the table of national pro¬ fusion. An inscrutable influence, too, seems to sink them as it elevates those around and above them. Society, ashamed and despairing, sweeps them, like refuse, into dismal receptacles, where, seething in their wretchedness, they constitute at once our weakness and reproach. How to sweeten these receptacles, and to help their forlorn occupants to help themselves, is the problem of the hour. If society does not settle it, it will, in time, settle society. LII. JUVENILE CRIME. [Speech delivered on the occasion of opening a Bazaar, in aid of the funds of the Chadwick Memorial Industrial School, Newcastle-upon- Tyne, September 25, 1884.] I HOPE I shall not lay myself open to the suspicion of aping humility when I express doubts as to my fitness to discharge the pleasing task which you have invited me to undertake. I yielded with “ coy submis¬ sion ” to your lordship’s (Dr. Bewick, Bishop of Hexham and Newcastle) request more from sympathy with your cause than from belief in my ability to serve it. Men’s gifts are very diverse, but, whether exalted or humble, we are equally charged with the obligation of laying them, as a reverend offering, on the altar of humanity, if not to burn and elighten, then to ascend in incense to heaven. We are surrounded to-day by the symbols of municipal authority, and the hall is bright with the trophies of gentle art. Authority is never more ennobled—art never more embellished than when aiding this beneficent enterprise. The methods of commemorating the virtues of the dead have been as varied as the world’s eras and creeds. By pyres, processions, requiems ; by 490 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. cairns, columns, crosses, hatchments, the broken spirit consoles itself - and the human heart utters its undying regret and its immortal prophe¬ cies for the loved and the lost. Monuments themselves sometimes need memorials. Pathos often expires under the slow labour of the chisel,, and is chilled among the cold conceits of sculptured marble. But the living tribute you have raised will survive the flight of seasons, and the sentiment it enshrines will be sustained by the works of righteousness- performed within its walls. Meek and unostentatious, Bishop Chadwick made no blaze of what he did. With a father’s tenderness and a shep¬ herd’s care, he wrote his history in deeds and in words which can never be effaced from the recollection of his people. More pleased to “raise the wretched than to rise himself,” his life was a consistent preface to eternity. If he could have resuscitated utterance, he would use it to pronounce a benison on a project which will entomb his memory, better that ever did the Pyramids a mummied Pharaoh, in an edifice dedicated to reclaiming those in whom neglect has nourished unruly passions. I say neglect, for has not society been wanting in duty to its outcasts? Has not apathy made us accessory to some of their transgressions ? The homely axiom is as old as Socrates—when the herd deteriorates the the herdsmen are to blame. As the same sun ripens the sweetest fruit and the deadliest poisons, so our material splendour nurtures a class so decrepit in form, so worn in feature, and so cankered in mind, that we might doubt whether we are all of the same lineage. Huddled together in squalid hovels, in which the physical and moral atmosphere is alike- noxious ; where the boundaries of races and species are abrogated, men and animals, age and sex, health and disease being mingled, con¬ founded and confused ; sparsely clad in tattered garments, the garbage that sustains them precarious, and their wretchedness so familiar that it has destroyed their sense of degradation, can we marvel that the lofty lineaments of a nobler nature gradually fade away ? The intercourse of miser)' with misery and vice with vice is not calculated to generate virtue. It transmits further deterioration to their progeny, stamping decrepitude upon posterity in a downward ratio. The chequered biographies of the illegitimate children of civilization—from the day when they are carried out into sloppy streets, helpless babies, to be pinched that they may squall a copper out of the pockets of the passers-by, till the day when they stand beetle-browed malefactors in the dock — are sad and humili¬ ating—sad to the sufferers, humiliating to society. If rescued from perverse influences when young and impressionable, they could have been kneaded into any form we chose. They have been lost because they had not the means of emerging from the darkness in which circum¬ stances have enveloped them. Vicious examples decide wavering dis¬ positions. Crime is the product of training, ignorance, and privation. The thriftless plan of allowing our juvenile pariahs to harden into JUVENILE CRIME. 491 criminals, and then lavishing money upon them in hospitals and gaols, if not supplanted, has been supplemented. Metaphysicians and jurists may dispute whether the primary duty of the State is punitive or preven¬ tive. But while they wrangle, problems insoluble by argument have been settled by practice. The moral pharmacopoeia includes eradicating and reformative, as well as coercive remedies. Kindness is one of these. It takes the wrinkles out of resentment and the moroseness out of distrust. Generations of indifference, rebuff, and suffering, have not quenched the sparks of divinity that glimmer in the hearts of even the most obdurate and impious. Their feelings vibrate to compassion as readily as do the strings of a harp to the touch of the finger. There is a tender chord in every soul, which, when swept by the breath of sympathy, wakes angels 1 melodies. Those who do not allow for this responsive and sublimating force, who do not recognise sentiment, as distinguished from interest, as a potent factor in all government, take a partial and distorted view of human nature. This revivifying ideal underlies your design which is to save those in peril from falling, and restore to the community those who have fallen, not merely healed and harmless, but fitted for honourable service—not to be hornets or drones, but bees in the national hive. Our lapsed classes are costly. They entail heavy charges on honest industry. They are dangerous too. The existence, within bow-shot of modern villadom, of a caste, partly despairing and partly desperate, whose hands are against every man, and who think every man’s hand is against them, is not re¬ assuring. One day, like the servile orders in Rome, discovering each other by their rags—the badge of the tribe—they may begin to count their numbers, and organise resistance if not retaliation. Prosperity, like electricity, gives a brighter, but it also casts darker shadows. Corroding contrasts are drawn between the inmates of the lazarettos of society and those whom fortune has favoured. Fear alone is an unsafe counsellor. We should act from the prompt¬ ings of higher motives. But those who think they see far down the coming centuries, descry danger in these rankling and festering dispari¬ ties. While acknowledging, there is, however, no wisdom in exaggerating our ills, and still less in hugging the paralysing delusion that they are all incurable. Without being Utopian, we may work in the confident assurance that evils, incident to one and not to another section, are removable. To succeed, we must pursue our labours in a hopeful spirit. Coleridge described hope as “the bridal-chamber of productiveness.” Wanting it, toil would be irksome and existence a burden. It is faith in helpful effort that inspires benevolent men in their warfare with wrong, that cheers them amidst difficulties, fortifies them under temptations, sustains them in the hours of trial. And there is no reason for despair or even for despondency. With all our drawbacks, we are not worse than 492 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. we were. There is nothing new, either, in our vices. They are only belter known. We have ceased to plant flowers and train creepers to hide our social upases. We have found it sounder policy, and truer economy, to uproot the noxious weeds than to pluck the poisonous berries. That is the work to which this institution is committed. It will attack the source, not the symptoms of the disease. It will kill crime in the chrysalis. When all of us are mute and most of us forgotten, it will live, a lasting eulogy on a good man’s worth, and an enduring record of his contemporaries, esteem, and of Catholic gratitude. LI 11 . RELIGIOUS LIBERALITY AND TOLERANCE. [Speech delivered when presiding at a lecture by the Rev. Mr. Macrae, in the Congregational Church, Gateshead, Oct. 13, 1884.] I HAVE been trying to account for my occupying this, to me, unusual position. To apply a colloquialism once familiar on Tyneside, “ Gates¬ head is not in my parish.” A modern essayist has divided clergymen into seven orders—the devout, the ascetic, the jovial, the belligerent, the finical, the shrewd, and the ingenious. How far this classification is correct or exhaustive, I don’t undertake to say ; but I will undertake to express dissonance from the common belief that a minister should confine himself to preaching and visiting—that theology should be his only study, and gossip his main recreation. The man who aspires to be a shepherd of souls, to give his fellows glimpses of the hidden purport of life, must, if he hopes for inspiration and claims authority, be armed with diversified attainments. Amidst a blaze of devotional enthusiasm, it is customary to exclaim against such luminous accessories as literature and art. It is true we are not necessarily made better by our skill in science, happier from our acquaintance with metaphysics, or more tolerant by familiarity with politics. But to feel the ethical worthlessness, to realise the intellectual value of such auxiliaries, and to utilise them all as occa¬ sions arise, is the part of a wise teacher. Touching existence at all points, comprehending it in all its complexities, he will derive from his knowledge the faculty of ministering to minds diseased, and the power to act as a herald of truth and right, of faith and hope. Mr. Macrae labours in this way and to that end. He does not hide his convictions, or go mechanically through his prescribed duties. There is soul in his speech. But .although his zeal is glowing, it is not austere. Anyone conscious of serious doubt can go to him for sympathy. He who smites, however, will smart. When a man is in advance of his time, or when an inward monitor impels him to stray from the beaten RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND TOLERANCE. 493 track, he may prepare for misunderstanding and detraction. The uncharitableness of ignorance, the malice of mediocrity, and the un¬ easiness of disturbed indolence, concentrate prejudice around him. But if he fearlessly follow truth to the end, time will bring him consolation, if not justice. Two of our latter-day shortcomings are want of faith and courage, and a hankering after superficial success. We believe in chemistry and mechanics, in wine and wealth, in steam and electricity, in noise and in numbers, but we are sceptical about diviner incentives and aims. Principles are smothered, aspirations chilled, imagination nipped by the mass of details incidental to our materialised activity. The growing taste for sensation, for the l ' hurrah for our side,” and for the “ what others may say of us,” is not wholesome or elevating. It’s showman’s business. What is wanted is simple natural sincerity— nothing more, nothing less. In matters of thought, a man should neither drag nor be dragged. Neither policy, nor fear, nor expediency, should influence him. They are surfs of an evil sea. Why should he be afraid ? What he thinks let him speak, not boast¬ fully nor haughtily, but modestly and manfully. If he does not,he will die little by little, for the intellect, equally with the bod)', requires exercise to keep it in health. And as for externals, they are mere dross. A true man cares not for the world’s badges of honour. Its garments of crimson and gold—what are they? What but the rags which the weak wear to hide their feebleness. He who has a self-reliant soul within him can afford to walk, as Emerson says, in his skin, and needs no ornament beyond the integrity of his own character. Every man must work out his own mental emancipation. No one can do it for him. It is seldom begun in the bustle of big meetings, and with the accompaniment of banners, drums, and trumpets. The still small voice of truth and freedom comes silently, often unperceived, to those who wait for it faith¬ fully and trustfully. It is deferential and restrained, not boisterous and dogmatic. Lord Bacon wisely remarks : “ If an inquirer commences with certainties, he will end in doubt; but if he begins in doubt, he will end in certainties.” Liberty, too, shows itself more in the spirit in which tenets that others venerate are rejected than in their rejection itself. Some think themselves free because they are free in their censures, looking down with scorn upon this as a prejudice, and that as an error, when they are themselves the unconscious slaves of great delusions, lost in the fogs of murky loquacity. Free-speaking is not always a sure indication of free-thinking. There are those to whom the suggestive language of the poet Crabbe applies : “ They talk their minds ; we wish they’d also mind their talk.” But whatever its defects, individual or collective, the epoch in which we live is tending to renovation and reconstruction. Never was there a presentiment more intense, or a conviction more general. But to progress 494 SPEECHES OF JOSEPH CO WEN, M.P. is not to change. It is to grow, to unfold. In a word, to live for life without progress is impossible. The butterfly is not the image, but the development, of the grub. A harmonious chain of cause and effect, of connection and dependence, runs through both time and nature. The past is full of beauty and wisdom. It is entitled to our deference. No thoughtless iconoclasm should be permitted to scatter its pleasant illu¬ sions. They are part of our being, and exercise on all reflecting minds a guiding and sustaining influence. There is a sentiment in all of us deeper than the laws of fact and utility. The vista of departed time ought not, therefore, to be cut off from our moral perspective. But the ghosts of obsolete opinions, and worn-out ceremonials, ought not to frighten us out of conclusions that riper thought and wider experience may have wrought. Forms which were once a solace to the mind may now fetter it; and what may now be acceptable may be hereafter discarded. Rites which suit one period lose their significance and efficacy in another. A man need not quarrel with another’s belief because it is not his own, although upon his own belief alone he is bound to act. Most sensible men have one religion—the religion of well-doing. They may be divided by creeds, but they harmonise in faith and feeling. Instead of fastening on differences, they strive to find agreements and identities. Mystic voices chant the coming of the day when our obstinate polemics will be shrivelled up and forgotten in the ambition to excel in good deeds. INDEX. Abdul Aziz, Russian policy towards, 160 Abolitionists, American, 2 Adams, W. E., Ed. Newcastle Weekly Chronicle , 30 Adelaide, Queen of England, warned by C. Larkin, of Newcastle, 7 Administration, the Wellington-Peel, Expenditure of, 127 Adriatic, Naval expedition to the, 61, l8 5 Adrianople, Russian troops marching on, 46 Addison and part}', 145 Address presented to Garibaldi by Mr. Cowen, 17 Address by Mr. Cowen, on Art in Trade, 407 ; on the late Charles Larkin, 419 ; on Mechanics’ Institu¬ tions and Oratory, 431 ; on Spring —Horses, and Exercise, 456 ; on Medical Students : their Work and Power, 461 ; on Temperance, 469; on Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 474 ; at Annual Meeting of Northern Union of Mechanics’ Institutions, 485. [See also “ Speech.”] Afghan war, Russia and the, 172 Afghanistan, and the scientific frontier, 169 ; independence of, [?] 260 Agitation, 294 Agrarian system, 202 Agrarian offences in Ireland, 367 Agricultural produce imported in 1870 and 1881, 202 Agricultural labourers and the Fran¬ chise, 140 Agricultural Holdings Bill, 134 ; land¬ lords and the, 134 Alabama Claims, 38, 113 Albanians resist execution of Treaty of Berlin, 61 Alexandria, Bombardment of, by British fleet, 68, 266 Ali Pasha, Policy of, 163 Ameer of Afghanistan and England, 246 ; his subsidy, 260 America and England, Air. Cowen on, 399 America, Local Option in, 290 American Abolitionists, 2 American Civil Service, 2S9 American diplomatic service approved by Mr. Cowen, 63 American flag, Garibaldi’s ship Com¬ monwealth under the, iS American politics, Mr. Cowen on, 252 American war, 38 ; Mr. Cowen and the, 2i ; T. B. Potter and the, 38 ; John Bright and the, 38; Richard Cobden and the, 38 ; Henry Richard and the, 38 ; W. E. Forster and the, 3 8 . Americans and the power of speech, 434 Ancestors of the Cowen family, 8 Ancient boroughs, Mr. Cowen on the, 406 Andrassy, Count, and Herzegovina, 44 Anglo-Turkish Convention, 167 Annual Parliaments and Lord Russell, 336 Arabi Pasha, a leader in Egypt ; is obeyed by the army ; England and France demand resignation of; sur¬ render of, 68; and Egyptian troubles, 232 Architecture, Roman, 413 Arcot, Nabob of, 5 Aristocracy, The, 257 Aristotle and large States, 263 Army, The, Lord Beaconsfield’s Govern¬ ment and, 121 ; right of discharge from, 135 ; freedom of contract in, 136 ; Cardwell and, 136 Army Regulations Act, Effect of the— the work of both parties, 135 Appeal for clemency to Ireland, 355 496 INDEX. A political “job,” 132 Art, in trade, 407 ; and education, 410 ; influence of cultivation of, 412 ; and speech, 412; in Egypt, 412; its history and tuition, 423 Artisans’ Dwellings Act, 116 Arrears Act, The, 227 Asiatics and Englishmen, 244 Asiatics, Life of, 405 Asylums and the drink traffic, 293 Athens, “liberty’s first home,” 264; and philosophy, 405 Athenian heroism, 279 Australia, Local Option in, 290 Austria, and Turkish armistice and reforms, 44 ; troops of, resisted by Bosnia and Herzegovina, 161 ; and the Danube, 165 ; a barrier to Russia, 183 ; policy of, after Koniggriitz, 244 ; and the Eastern Question, 245 ; must collide with Russia, 246 Authors, Difficulties of, 414 Baker Pasha’s expedition, 382 Bakunin and Emperor Nicholas, 159 Balkan Peninsula, Russia and the, 166 Ballot Act, The, 38 Bankruptcy, 74, 207 ; in France, 207 ; Mr. Cowen’s views on, 74, 240 Beaconsfield, Lord, and the Russo- Turkish war, 47 ; opposes San Stefano Treaty, 49 ; his Government introduce South African Bill, 52; and “Peace with Honour,” 56 ; his popularity after Berlin Conference ; dissolves Parliament March 8, 1880; his letter to the Duke of Marlborough, 57 ; defeat of his party, 59 ; bye- elections during Premiership of, 120 ; his Government and the army, 121 ; and the First Commissioner, 131 ; his Government, 133 Belgium, English obligations to, 167 Belshazzar’s tire, Lesson of, 255 Bell, Sir Isaac Lowthian, and the Newcastle constituency, 32 Bell, Rev. George, Public breakfast in honour of, 479 ; Mr. Cowen’s speech at, 479 Bengal, Cyclone in, 115 Benlham, Jeremy, declaration by, 22S Berkley, Mr., and the ballot, 225 Berlin Note, The, 44, 172 Berlin, Treaty of, ratified August 3, 1S78, 50 Bewdley, M.P. for, and Liberal Asso¬ ciation, 58, 179 Black Sea, Neutrality of the, 160 Black Republicans in America, 2 Blanc, Louis, his visits to Mr. Cowen, 17 ; referred to, 125 Blaydon, Democracy of, 4 ; Orsini at, 17 ; Louis Blanc at, 17 ; address by Mr. Cowen to Mechanics’ Institu¬ tions at, 4S5 Blue-Ribbon Movement, Mr. Cowen’s speech in support of, 469 Bombay, Famine in, 115 Bonapartes, Tyranny of the, 371 Bosnia, joins the Herzegovinian insur¬ rection, 44 ; ceded to Austria, 165 Boston mob and Garrison, 2 Borough and County Franchise, 78 ; the Act of 1S67, 78 ; Anomalies of, 78 ; G. O. Trevelyan and the, 78; John Morley and the, 79 Borough Magistrates, Number of, 288 “Boycotting,” 192 Bourbons, Repressive policy of the, 371 Bishoprics Bill, Mr. Cowen’s opposi¬ tion to, 54, 326 Bishopric, in Northumberland, 328 ; of Lindisfarne, 328 ; of Newcastle, 328 ; Queen Elizabeth and, 329; John Knox and, 329 ; of Ripon, 329 Birkbeck, Dr., and Mechanics’ Insti¬ tutions, 432 Bismarck, and colonising, 265 ; Orato¬ rical style and composition of, 434 Bradlaugh, Charles, member for North¬ ampton ; deprived of his functions ; Mr. Cowen concerning; Mr. Glad¬ stone and conduct of Parliament, 67 Brehon laws, 210 Bright, John, on Political Reform ; on the American War, 38 ; his language on Geneva award, 38 ; and the Irish Land League, 353, ; and Anti-Corn Law League, 353 British Constitution, Characteristics of, 146 British dominions, Parliaments of, 250 British Empire, Additions to, under Liberal rule, 259; area of, 261 British fleet, enters the Dardanelles, Feb. 13, 187S, 49; sent to Alexan¬ dria, 68 British rule, established on the Nile, 387; under Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria, 397 British Parliament, Mr. Cowen on the, 399 British Radicalism, 123 Brougham, and the Eastern Question, 51 ; a promoter of art, 417 Bruce, Mr. Gainsford,Q.C.,76 ; contests Newcastle against J. Morley, 76 ; and the Franchise and Redistribution, 79 INDEX. 497 Bruce, T. Collingwood, LL.D., Refer¬ ence to, 76 Budget of 1S30 and education, 131 ; of 1S34 and education, 131 Bulgaria, Russian plots in, 160 Bulgaria joins the Herzegovinian insur¬ rection, 44 Bulgarians, Characteristics of, 165 Burke, T. H., Permanent Under Secretary of State for Ireland ; his murder at Phoenix Park, 69 Burke, Edmund, and party, 145 Butt, Isaac, and Irish leaders, 248 Byron referred to, 1S1 Canada, Government of, 250 Candahnr, Communication with, 91 Candidate for Lancashire constituency, Speech of, 151 Candidates and Liberal Associations, *74 Candidates for Parliament,Qualifications of, 151 Candlish, Dr., referred to, 11 Candlish, John, and the Northern Reform League, 26 Capital of the United Kingdom, 130 ; Mr. Porter and, 130; Mr. Giffen and, 130 Captain , The ss., Loss of, 11S Cardwell, Lord, and army reform, 136 Carnarvon, Lord, and the Tory Govern¬ ment, 173 Cartwright, John, his political faith, 3 Carpet-baggers, 274 Carlisle, Richard, and Paine’s works, 305 ; imprisonment of, 305 Castelar, Senor, referred to, 106 Catholic emancipation, 4 ; 190 Catholics in Northumberland and Durham, 329 Caucus, Mr. Covven and the, 387 Caucus, The American, 123 Cavagnari, Sir Louis, Murder of, 170 Cavendish, Lord F., made Chief Secre¬ tary for Ireland, 69 ; his murder at Phoenix Park, 69 Central Asia, Russian advance in, 168 ; 264 Chalmers, Dr., referred to, 11 Chamberlain, Joseph, President of the Board of Trade, 73; introduces Patent Bill, and Bankruptcy Bill, 73 ; intro¬ duces Merchant Shipping Bill of 1884, 91 Chambers, Robert, and scepticism, II ; “ Vestiges of Creation,” 11 Channel Islands, Home Rule in the, 250 Channel Tunnel, Mr. Cowen's opinion of, 100; Col. Beaumont and the, 100; Sir Edward Watkin and the, 100 ; Duke of Cambridge and the, 100, 101 ; Lord Wolseley and the, 101 Charlatans and cheats, 144 Charles I. and Parliament, 147 ; Charles II. and Parliament, 147 Charlatans, Political, 1 Chartist leaders, The demands of, 22 ; favour resort to arms, 22; move¬ ment, 22; collapse of, 23; Feargus O'Connor and, 22; Ernest Jones and, 22 Chartists viewed as rebels by Metro¬ politan traders, 23 Chatham, Earl of, as an orator, 107 Christians of Turkish provinces rescued from Mahomedan rule by Russo- Turkish war, 49 Church of Scotland practically dis¬ established, 116 Church Disestablishment demanded, 124 Circassia, Fate of, 158 Cicero and oratory, 104 Cleopatra’s nose, Pascal’s theory of, 266 | Clergymen and the bad harvests, 117 Cloture, Introduction of, 71 ; Mr. Cowen’s opposition to, 71 ; his speech against the, 71 ; adoption of the, 72 ; the, 221, 241 Cobbett, J. P., his political work in the North of England, 24 Cobbett, William, and his gridiron, 243 Cobden, Richard, and the American war, 38 ; and the electors, 122 ; and national expenditure, 127 ; and Free Trade, 225 Cockburn, Sir Alexander, and the Alabama Claims, 38 Coercion Acts, Abandonment of, 69 ; resignation of Mr. Forster and Lord Lieutenant in consequence of, 69; re-enactment of, because of Phoenix Park murders, 69; Mr. Cowen op¬ poses, 70 ; the two great parties and, in 1885, 71 ; since the Union, 193; urgency for, 342, 346 Coercion, Measure for, introduced, 63 ; urgency claimed for, 63; all-night sitting over, 64 ; Mr. Cowen’s speech against, 64 Colonial, Empire, Mr. Cowen and the, r 55. Colonial policy of England, 261 ; feder¬ ation, 266 33 49S INDEX. Colonies, Tariffs of, 261 ; population of, 277 Commissioner, First, Beaconsfield’s appointment of 132 Commonwealth defined, 262 Commonwealth, American ship, com¬ manded by Garibaldi, 17 ; address to Garibaldi presented on board of, 17 Concert of Europe, Gladstone s foreign policy, 60 Conservative Administration and Coer¬ cion, 66 Conservative Government for three 1 years, 114 Conservative Reform Bill, 174; Radicals and the, 174 Conservatives and the American war, 33 Constantinople Conference, December, 1876, to urge Turkish reforms ; reforms declined by Turkey, 45, 172 Constantinople, and the Russians, 142; Russian designs on, 161 Constitution, British, 146 Consuls, Foreign, their prayers to Tur- . key on behalf of Herzegovina, 44 Co-operative Society at Blaydon, 96 ; 1 at Rochdale, 96 Co-operative Congress in Newcastle, 97 ; Mr. Cowen’s welcome to, 97 Co-operative Societies, 257 Co-operation on the North-East Coast, , 96 Coombe, George, his philosophical j scepticism, 11 ; Andrew, 11 Cost of elections, 150 Cowardice, Political, 122 Cowen, Joseph, and Reform times, 7 ; birth of, 8 ; ancestors of, 8, 11 ; ' his education, 11 ; at Edinburgh E T niversity, II; anecdote concerning his education, 12; enters his father’s firm ; commercial capacity of, 12, 13; enters Parliament, 14; coal-owner, manufacturer, landed proprietor, far¬ mer, 14 ; lord of the Manor of Win- laton, 15 ; and the Bandieri letters, 15 ; writes to Mazzini, 15 ; denounces Sir James Graham, 15 ; his friendship with Mazzini, 16; Democratic leanings of, 16; and European revolutionists, 16 ; followed by Continental spies, 17 ; his meetings with refugees, 17 ; visited by Kossuth, Louis Blanc, and Garibaldi, 17 ; presents address to Garibaldi, 17, 18; warrant against him applied for re Foreign Enlist¬ ment Act, 19; assists European refugees, 20 ; on the Czar of Russia, 20 ; organises political agitation, 23 ; and Northern Reform Union, 24; and Northern Reform League, 26 ; and Newcastle Town Moor demon¬ stration, 26 ; defends working classes, 27 ; organises movement for Fran¬ chise, 28 ; welcomes Co-operators to Newcastle, 29; establishes Northern Tribune, 29 ; the Newcastle Chronicle, 29 ; his “ Politics and Parliament ” to Chronicle, 30 ; his knowledge of politics, 31 ; antipathy to Parliamen¬ tary life, 31 ; educational and social efforts of, 32 ; becomes candidate for Parliament, 32 ; popularity among working classes, 33 ; his first appear¬ ance as Parliamentary candidate, 33 ; his political platform, 34 ; his election, 37 ; second election, 39 ; serious illness, 40 ; opposes Queen’s Titles Bill, 41-2 ; introduces Licensing Boards Bill, 43 ; on Turkish atrocities, 44 ; and the Eastern Question, 44 ; disapproves of armed intervention in Turkey, 45 ; distrusts Russia, 46 ; supports Beaconsfield’s Vote of Credit for six millions, 47 ; defends Turkey against Russia, 48 ; supports Govern¬ ment during Berlin Conference, 50 ; on Russia at Constantinople, and the Eastern Question, 51 ; his County Courts Jurisdiction Bill, 53 ; opposes Bishoprics Bill of 1878, 54 ; favours Disestablishment, 55 ; endorses candi¬ dature of Mr. Dilke, 57 ; severs con¬ nection with Liberal Association, 58 ; member of Royal Commission on Agriculture, 58 ; seriously injured when entering public meeting New¬ castle Tow-n Hall, 59 ; long illness. 59; defends Turkey rc cession of Dulcigno, 61 ; defends M. Challemel- Lacour, 62 ; and General Roberts, 63 ; approves diplomatic service of the United States, 63 ; on Irish Coer¬ cion, 63 ; defends privileges of private members, 64 ; letter to Junior Liberal Club, Newcastle, 65 ; supports Irish Land Bill, 66 ; writes to Mr. Parnell, 66; on Mr. Bradlaugh’s case, 67 ; opposes Government policy in Egypt, 68; opposes Coercion after Phoenix Park murders, 70 ; opposes the Cloture, 71 ; on Corrupt Practices Bill, 73 ; and Bankruptcy, 73 ; sup¬ ports the Wolseley-Alcester rewards, 75 ; and John Morley, 77 ; and Re¬ form Bill of 1SS4—“Never said a INDEX. 499 word,” 81; supports Women’s Suf¬ frage, 84; on the House of Lords, 84 ; his political teachings, 86 ; supports Voteof Censureon conduct of Govern¬ ment in the Soudan, 87 ; supports Sir M. H. Beach’s Voteof Censure, 89 ; on functions of representatives, 89 ; on Government policy in Egypt and the Soudan, 91 ; on Russian encroach¬ ments, 91 ; and Shipping Bill of 1884, 92 ; and Royal Commission on Ship¬ ping) 93 > his conduct defined, 94 ; as a worker, 95 ; on Mechanics’ In¬ stitutions, 95 ; and Co-operation, 96; welcomes Co-operative Congress to Newcastle, 97 ; public services of, 97 ; ex-Parliamentary speeches of, 97 ; at the Grant banquet, 98 ; opens Public Library of Newcastle, 99; unveils monument to Larkin, 99; receives address from his Irish constituents, 99; his Irish policy, 99; and the Liberation Society, 99 ; on temper¬ ance, education, and social reform, 100; his annual speeches in New¬ castle, 100 ; on “ gerrymandering,” 101 ; as an orator, 103 ; cha¬ racteristics of, 103 ; his mode of com¬ position, 104; his alliteration, 105; compared with Grattan, 107 ; cha¬ racteristics as an orator, 108 ; his place among contemporaries, 109 ; j his speech on Tories and Liberals— a contrast, 113 ; compares the Glad¬ stone and Disraeli Ministries, 114; commends P'riendly Societies Act, Artisans’ Dwellings Act, and Labour Laws Act, 116; and Permissive Legislation, 118; his epitome of Dis¬ raeli’s political character, 118; his “liking for the Prime Minister,” 119; presides over National Reform Union, December 19th, 1S77, 120 ; and political organisation, 123; and the American Caucus, 123 ; and party shibboleth, 123 ; and the Fran¬ chise, 124; and Municipal institu¬ tions, 124 ; and Disestablishment, 124 ; his speech on Finance and Centralisation, 126 ; and the charges against Gladstone’s Government of 1S68, 126; on National Expenditure, 127 ; and the National Debt, 12S ; his contrasts ’of expenditures, 128 ; on the foreign trade, 129 ; and taxa¬ tion, 129 ; and national capital, 130 ; his complaint against Beaconsfield’s Government, 132 ; onapolitical “job,” 132 ; his County Courts Bill, 132; on corruption, 133; and feeble govern¬ ment, 133 ; and the Prisons Bill, 136 ; and Army Regulations, 135 ; and a Public Prosecutor, 137; and the work of Ministry of 1874, 137; his political programme, 140; on the Eastern Question, 142 ; and party dis¬ cipline, 141; and Russian aggression, 142 ; and Constantinople, 142 ; and party allegiance, 142; his critics, 143 ; offers to “make way,” 143 ; and the valley of the Tyne, 143; his speech on Party Government, Shorter Parlia¬ ments, and Payment of .Members, 144; and speechifying, 144 ; his dislike of public speaking, 144 ; his reference to Eustace Smith, M.P., 144 ; on party discipline and party principles, 145 ; and shorter Parliaments, 147 ; and payment of members, 151 ; and the foreign policy of England, 153 ; and the Manchester School, 153 ; and political sincerity, 154; Greece his model, 155 ; his ideal State, 155; on the Colonies, 155 ; and the power of Britain 155; and the integrity of the Empire, 155; and the duty of England, 155; and Russian designs, 160; andthe Treaty of Berlin, 164 ; and the Island of Cyprus, 166 ; and the Suez Canal, 168 ; and the Euphrates Valley, 168 ; and Central Asia, 168 ; and “ our Ex¬ ternal empire,” 168 ; and Afghanistan, 168-9; and the “scientific frontier,” 169; and foreign relations, 172; and party government, 172 ; and the philosophic Radicals, 174; a “life¬ long Radical,” 175 ; his speech on political organisation, Montenegro, Greece, and Irish grievances, 177 ; serious injury to, 177 ; and elec¬ tioneering, 180; and party, 180 ; Apostle of Democracy, 182 ; and the Treaty of Berlin, 1S3 ; and Cyprus, 1S3 ; and Asia Minor, 183 ; and Irish affairs, 1S7 ; language of an Irishman to, 1S9 ; receives threatening letters, 192; and “Boycotting,” 192; and Coercion Acts, Irish, since the Union, 193 ; and exclusion of Irishmen from Ministries, 193 ; on Irish drainage, 194; on peasant proprietor¬ ship, 195 ; on Irish legislation of 1881, 196; on Coercion, 199 ; on the Land, Cloture, Coercion, 201-219 ; on Parliamentary procedure, Ire¬ land, Egypt, 220 ; and work¬ men members, 236; and payment of M.P.’s, 238 ; his speech on oo IXDEX. Egypt’ Home Rule, Reform, 240 ; on Bankruptcy, 240; and the Corrupt Practices Act, 241 ; on Par¬ liamentary Procedure, Grand Com¬ mittees, the ClOture, 241 ; and Par¬ liamentary work, 242 ; and British control in Egypt, 243 ; and the Balkan Peninsula problem, 246 ; and Russian aggression, 246 ; and the “ scientific frontier,” 246 ; and the Irish problem, 247 ; and Irish agitators, 247 ; and Irish leaders, past and present, 24S ; and the government of Ireland, 249 ; and Home Rule, 250 ; and the Suff¬ rage Bill, 250 ; on “ tempest in a tea¬ pot,” 250 ; and Redistribution, 250 ; and Proportional Representation, 251; and American politics, 252 ; and the U. S. Senate and the 1 louse of Lords, 254 ; and Disestablishment, 255 ; and society, 255 ; and English workmen, 255 ; on the State and the individual, 256 ; on the purpose of government, 256 ; and social reform, 257 ; and democracy, 257 ; and the aristocracy, 257 ; and individual duty, 25S ; and pretence, 258 ; his speech on Home Rule, Federation, the Soudan, the new Democracy, 259 ; his colonial policy, 261 ; on British imports, 262 ; on a Commonwealth, 262 ; on the Empire, 263 ; on Athens, 264 ; on the Italian Republics, 264 ; on Teu¬ tonic cities, 264 ; and Imperial ex¬ pansion, 264; and Bismarck’s colonial policy, 265 ; and colonial federation, 266 ; and faction, 266 ; on the wars in Egypt and the Soudan, 266 ; on France and Frenchmen, 269 ; and difficulties of Gladstone’s Govern¬ ment, 270 : and the Government’s duty in the Soudan, 270 ; and Irish affairs, 271 ; on Dublin Castle autho¬ rities, 271; on “ Erin-go-bragh,” 271 ; on the ideals of nations, 272 ; on Home Rule, 273 ; his trust in the people, 273 ; on the Gladstone- Salisbury compromise, 273 ; on ma¬ jority rule, 274 ; and electoral divi¬ sions, 274; and “Carpet-baggers,” 274 ; on Reform, 275 ; on the charac¬ teristics of Englishmen, 275 ; and Reformers, 275 ; and Democracy of the future, 278 ; on “our country,” 278 ; on the duties of citizens, 278 ; on the ruin of Rome, 277 ; his speech on the Queen’s title, 2S0 ; on the Hindoo mind, 2S3 ; and “ Divine right of kings,” 285 ; his speech on Licensing Boards, 2S5 ; partisan appointments, 287 ; on the Permis¬ sive Bill, 293 ; his speech on release of the Fenian prisoners, 296 ; on the allegiance of generals, 29S ; compares Irish and Polish refugees, 299 ; his speech on School Boards, 300; his speech on the Prisons Bill, 304 ; on political offences, 304 ; on political prisoners, 305-6; on “ Jack in office,” 306 ; his speech on the Eastern Question, 307 : replies to Mr. Glad¬ stone, 307 ; supports Vote of Credit for six millions, 307 ; on Turkey and Russia, 310 ; his eulogy of Osman, 312; on the “Northern Vulture,” 313; on Russian aggression, 313; and ferocity, 314 : and punishment, 314 ; on law reform, 314 ; his speech against the Bishoprics Bill, 326 ; on the Church of England, her creed and government, 333 ; her revenue, her clergy, 334 ; and Christian equality, 335 ; on duration of Parlia¬ ments, 335; on the advantages of shorter Parliaments, 342 ; on Irish Coercion, 342, 346 ; his appeal for clemency to Ireland, 355 ; and the Irish Secretary, 359 ; and Robes¬ pierre, 359 ; on the King of Naples, 359 ; his hatred of Coercion, 361 : sense of shame, 361 ; on right of free speech, 371 ; on the House of Com¬ mons, 379 ; supports Vote of Censure on the Government policy in the Soudan, 3S0 ; on Government culpa¬ bility in Egypt, 3S2 ; on Tory legacy in Egypt, 384 ; and British policy in Egypt, 3S4; on Expedition to Suakim, 3S5 ; and Reform Bill of 1SS4, 387 ; on the Caucus, 3S7 ; and Gordon’s slave circular, 3SS ; on the Liberal Government and Gordon, 3S9 ; sup¬ ports Sir Michael Hicks-Beach’s Vote of Censure, 389 ; on party vassalage, 390; on Government parsimony, 391; on the functions of a representative, 392 ; on means of success, 392 ; his speech in favour of Women’s Suffrage, 395 ; on British rule under Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria, 397 ; claims equal rights for women, 39S ; on the House of Commons, General Grant, America and England, 399 ; on the British Parliament, 399 ; on Grant’s conduct towards Lee and Sherman, 401 ; on a “ war of brothers,” 402 ; on the spirit of our time, 403 ; speech at College of Physical Science, 403; INDEX. 5 or on the application of steam power, 404 ; on ancient boroughs, 406 ; un¬ veils memorial to Charles Larkin, 419 ; his address, 419 ; on the rise and strength of great towns at Mid¬ dlesbrough jubilee,428 ; on Mechanics’ Institutions, 431 ; on oratory, 431 ; on knowledge, 433 ; on the work and ways of Parliament, 441 ; on the value of health to a nation, 441 ; on thestate of education, 447 ; on Parlia¬ mentary order and oratory, 452 ; on spring—horses and exercise, 456 ; on medical students : their work and power, 461 ; on Parliamentary work, 466 ; on temperance, 469 ; on cruelty to animals, 474 ; on preaching and preachers, 479 ; on Sir William Arm¬ strong, 485 ; on thirty years’ progress, 4S5 ; his address as President of the Northern Union of Mechanics’Institu¬ tions, Blaydon,4S5; and the Chadwick Memorial School, 489 ; on religious liberality and tolerance, 492 ; and the mystic voices of a better era, 494 Cowen, Sir Joseph, at Town Moor demonstration, 1819, 4 ; and Re¬ form Movement, 6 ; and democracy, S ; “at the forge,” 9 ; a coal-owner, 9; and landed proprietor, 9; and Mr. Gladstone, 10 ; and River Tyne Commissioners, 10; becomes a manu¬ facturer, 13 ; and inventions, 13; and Northern Reform League, 26 ; his death, 31 Cowen family, and Holy Isle, 8 Cowen, Colonel John A., with his brother, succeeds to the business of his father, 14 ; becomes manager of the firm of Cowen and Co., 14 ; his commercial and sporting pursuits, 14; with his brother a landed pro- rietor, 14 ; a large farmer, 14 : car¬ ries his injured brother into Town Hall, and home, 59 Cowen and Company, manufacturers, coal-owners, Ac., 13 Cowen, Mrs. Joseph, corrects misrepre¬ sentation of Mr. Cowen’s education, 12 Corrupt Practices Bill, The, 208 ; Mr. Cowen and the, 241 Corruption, Absence of, 133 County Courts, Mr. Cowen’s Bill deal¬ ing with; outline of, 53, 132 County Government, Lord Beacons- fieldand, 138 ; measure to reform, 138 Cranbourne, Lord (Marquis of Salis¬ bury), and the working classes, 26 Criminal law, Bill to codify, 138 Crowley, Sir Ambrose, his factory at Winlaton, 8 ; the forerunner of Robert Owen, 8 ; his crew, 8 ; his socialism, 9 ; and Mr. Cowen’s grand¬ father, 9 ; his factory closed after French war, 9 Cunningham. Dr., referred to, 11 Cyprus, and the Suez Canal, 166; a depot for arms, 167 Czar, his professions before Russo- Turkish war, 49, 161 ; proposes to divide Turkey with England, 164 Co-operatives, Conservatism of, 275 Christianity, Supporters of, 293 Charles V., Titles of, 282 Charles I. and Divine right of kings, 285 ; and Parliament, 338 Christians in Turkey, 311 Chadwick, Bishop, Memorial Industrial School, 4S9 ; speech by Mr. Cowen at bazaar in aid of, 489 Chatham’s oratory, 436 Charles's, Raphael’s cartoons purchased by Cromwell, 414 Christian equality, 335 Chalmers, Dr., and Church sittings, 330 Church of England cosmopolitan (?), 333 ; I’usey and Colenso, members of, 333 ; her revenue ; pay of bishops and curates, 334 Church, of and from and for the people wanted, 335 Church of England, Attendance at the, 3 2 9 Church accommodation, 330 Citizens, Duty of, 277 Cicero’s oratory, 436 Commonwealth, Supporters of the, 29S County Courts Bill, Mr. Cowen’s, 314 College of Physical Science, New¬ castle, Speech by Mr. Cowen before the, 403 County, Local Option in, 290 County Bench and Game Laws, 28S College of Medicine, University of Durham, Newcastle, Address by Mr. Cowen at opening of Winter Session of, 461 Commercial Travellers’ Dinner, New¬ castle, Speech by Mr. Cowen at, 466 Cruelty to animals, 474 Cromwell’s purchase of King Charles’s Raphaels, 414 Crime, Intemperance and, 290; and its cause, 365 ; juvenile, 485 Culpable neutrality of Government in Egypt, 382 502 INDEX. Czar of Russia the Eastern Pope, 313 Dardanelles, Entrance of British fleet to, during Russo-Turkish war, 47 Dalkeith, Lord, defeated by Gladstone in Midlothian, General Election, 1880, 59 Danubian States and Russia, 1S3 Danaides’ sieve, 255 Danube, The, a German stream, 165 ; German policy regarding, 165 Davy, Sir Humphrey, and London gas, 101 Davitt, Michael, his return for Meath, Eeb. 22, 1S82, 68 ; Mr. Cowen’s speech on behalf of, 68; Attorney- General’s motion against admission of, 68 ; release of, 69 ; referred to, 217 Demonstration, Radical, at Newcastle, in 1819, 6 ; Sir Joseph Cowen and, 6 ; Northern Political Union, 6 ; at Kennington Common, 23 ; of Northern Reform League at New¬ castle, 26 ; of miners on Town Moor, Newcastle, 28 Democracy, Sir Joseph Cowen and, 8 ; Mr. Cowen and, 182, 257 ; the new, 259; of the future, 278 Demosthenes, referred to, 106; and Phocion, 434 ; his definition of oratory, 436 Defoe, Daniel, and party, 145 Devonshire, Duke of, and Parliament, 148, 339 Derwentwater, Earl of, 14S Despotism, Russian, 162 Derby, Lord, and the Tory Govern¬ ment, 173 ; and Ireland, 215 Dead Sea apples, 362 Debate, The right to close, 371 Disestablishment of the Irish Church, 38 ; Dissenters and, 254 Dissolution of Parliament, Jan. 23, 1874, 39 Disraeli, Mr., Queen sends for, to form Government, 39; carries General Election of 1874, and becomes Prime Minister, 40 ; proposes to add to the Queen’s title, 41 ; Administration of, carry the Friendly Societies Act, the Employers and Workmen’s Act, the Public Health Act, and the Artisans’ Dwellings Act, 41 ; his Government compared with Gladstone’s, 114; and the “Young Englanders,” 118 ; novels of, 118; his address at Wy¬ combe, 118 ; Mr. Cowen’s liking for, 119 ; and Ireland, 247; and “Em¬ press of India,” 280; Mr. Cowen’s reply to, 2S0; and the Throne, 284 Dilke, Ashton W. , selected Liberal candidate for Newcastle, 57 ; to speak with Cowen, March 18, 1880, 58 ; his return, 59 ; resignation of, 76 Dilke, Sir Charles, his reply to Mr. Cowen re Naval Expedition, 61 ; complains of the member for New¬ castle, 61 ; his answer satisfactory to Mr. Cowen, 62 Divine right of kings, 285 Dissenting chapels, Attendance at, 329 Doubleday, Thomas, his political agitation, 24 Douglas, Stephen A., referred to, 103 Drunkenness, Indirect cost of, 286; and crime, 287, 290; expenditure 1 on, 471 Durham, Lord, on the Eastern Ques¬ tion, 51 Dulcigno, Cession of, to Montenegro, 61 ; Turkish difficulty about, 1S5 Dublin, Murders at Phoenix Park, 69 Dublin Castle, Authorities of, 271 Duelling, Influence of law on, 48 Duty of citizens, 277 Durham, speech by Mr. Cowen on workmen members at, 236 ; diocese of, 329 ; Church of England in, 329 ; Catholics in, 329 ; Dissenting chapels in, 329 : Church sittings in, 330 ; Nonconformist sittings in, 330 ; population of, 333 Duration of Parliaments, 335 Dummy Ministers in Egypt, 3S3 Earl Grey, 6 Eastern Question, The, 49, 305 ; Mr. Cowen and the, 50, 63, 142 ; policy of Mackintosh, Brougham, Durham, and Mill on the, 51 ; England and the, 142 ; Turkey and the, 245 ; Aus¬ tria and the, 245 ; Eastern and Western ideas, 381 Eastern Belgium, Talk of, 244 Edinburgh University, Joseph Cowen, jun., at, 11 ; and Lord Palmerston, 12; and Lord John Russell, 12; Professors at, 12 Edinburgh represented in Parliament by Macaulay, 12 Edward VI. and licenses, 290; and the Bishopric of Newcastle, 329 Education Budgets, of 1830 and 1S34, 131 ; Lord John Russell and expendi¬ ture for, 131, 411 Egypt, Foreigners in, 62 ; Arabi Tasha's INDEX. 503 influence in, 67 ; revolution in, 67 ; the Khedive’s predicament, 68 ; Air. Cowen on, 88, 229; taxation in, 230 ; war in, 231 ; future of, 232 ; Dual Control in, 233 ; annexation of, 233 ; Lord Dufferin, ruler of, 233 ; and the Eastern Question, 234 ; British domination in, 243; conse¬ quences of withdrawal from, 244 ; policy in, 266, 381 ; French and English rivalry in, 269 ; plan for governing, 394 ; art in, 412 Egypt, Home Rule, Reform, Speech on, 240 Eighty thousand persons attend miners’ demonstration on Town Moor, New¬ castle, 28 Elementary Education Act, 38 Eloquence, of Mr. Cowen for American liberty, 21 ; power of, 434 Electoral Limited Liability Company, 124 Electioneering, 1S0 Electoral corruption, 20S ; 238 Elections, Cost of, 23S ; canvassing at, 238 Elswick, Mr. Cowen’s reference to, 484 Empress of India, Bill opposed by Mr. Cowen, 2S0 ; The Queen proclaimed, May 1, 1876, 42 Emperors, Russian, 159 Emperor, Nicholas and Bakunin, 159 ; and Sir H. Seymour, 164; Russian, and neutrality of Black Sea, 160 Emirs of Bokhara and Khiva, 260 Emigration, 262 “ Emperor” defined, 2S4 Empire, integrity of the, 157 Emmett compared with Washington, 296 England, supports Count Andrassy’s Note on behalf of Turkish provinces, 44 ; and America, 99, 399; duty of, 157; and Eastern Question, 142; changes in, since days of Walpole, 149 ; and the Berlin Note, 172; differ¬ ences with France, 190 ; and Oregon boundary, 190 ; and dependencies, 260; imports of, 262; colonial policy of, 263, 264 ; a limited mon¬ archy, 284 ; and political prisoners, 305 ; harmony of, with Scotland, 365 ; annual savings of, 361 ; and semi-civilized people, 3S6 English, relief to Polish refugees, 298 ; rule in Ireland, “Dead Sea apples,” 362, 366 ; pioneers of America, 402 ; art from Elizabeth to Gainsborough, 414 ; and foreign art, 415; and Continental artisans compared, 418 ; orators, 436-7 English Parliaments, Length of, 149 ; compared with Legislatures of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Greece, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, and America, 149 English, fleet protects Constantinople, 161 ; troops at Malta during Russo- Turkish war, 161 Englishmen and Asiatics, 244 English workmen, past and present, 255 ; Mr. Cowen on, 275 English character, Salient features of, 262 Englishmen and Irish offices, 366 ; and sobriety, 472 Episcopacy in the North, 332 “ Erin-go-bragh,” Sydney Smith on, 271 ; Mr. Cowen on, 271 European Conference at Constanti¬ nople, 45 ; recommendations of, declined by Turkey, 45 European despotism, 371 Europe, Disturbed state of, 201 Euphrates Valley Railway, 168 ; length of ; estimated cost of, 168 Eulogy on a local orator, 419 Evictions, 364 ; in Ireland, 368 External Empire, should be maintained, 16S Expedition to Suakim, Mr. Cowen and the, 3S5 Farming, our staple trade, 203 Farming, Disadvantage of British, 117 Farming considered, 117 Farmers and Conservatism, 134; and compensation, 140 Fathers of the Radical faith, 1S1 Fenian prisoners, Mr. Cowen on the, 296 Fenians and Irish independence, 297 Fenian leaders, Punishment of, 199 Fife, Sir John, Chairman of Reform demonstration at Newcastle, 6 ; and the Bishopric of Newcastle, 329 Finance and Centralisation, Mr. Cowen’s speech on, 126 Finance and disestablishment of the Irish Church, 190 Fish, Hamilton, and the Alabama Claims, 38 Fletcher, Andrew, Expression of, 118 Florence and her School of Art, 405 Forster, W. E., and the American war, 3S ; Chief Secretary for Ireland, 5°4 INDEX. 63 ; his Protection of Persons and Property, &c., Bills, 63; claims urgency, 63; Mr. Cowen’s attitude towards, 63; resignation of, 69; on crime in Ireland, 350, 359 ; and the Irish Question, 360 Foreign Enlistment Act, Warrant against Mr. Cowen applied for, for violating, 19 Foreign policy, Gladstone’s, Mr. Cowen’s views on, 143 ; Philosophic Radicals and, 174 Foreign policy of England, 152 Fox, W. J., his oratory, 436 Food supplies, Importation of, 117 “ Fools’ paradise,” Mr. Cowen’s defi¬ nition of, 121 Franchise, Equalisation of, demanded, 124 France, Public debt of, 130 ; military expenditure of, 131 ; and the island of Otaheite, 190; and the Suez Canal, 245 ; and the Berlin Con¬ gress, 245 ; English attachment to, 245 ; and equality, 245 ; and coloni¬ sation, 265 ; and the Polish refugees, 298; and Algeria, 381 ; drunken¬ ness in, 417 Free Kirk, Secession of the, 11 French Republic, Restlessness of the, 245 French, war, Close of, 9 ; revolution, 184S, 16 ; refugees and Mr. Cowen, 19; revolution of 1831, 125; Re¬ public, restlessness of the, 245 ; government and art, 417 Friendly Societies’ Act, passed by Par¬ liament of 1874, 116 Free government versus despotism, 162 Free speech, The right of, 37' Fuad Pasha, Policy of, 163 Functions of a representative, 392 Gambetta referred to, 125 Gateshead, speech by Mr. Cowen on “ Religious Tolerance ” at, 492 Garrison, William Lloyd, reference to, 1 Garibaldi, visits Tyneside, 17; receives address from friends of European freedom, 17; declines popular de¬ monstration, 17; presentation made to, 17; his speech, 18; his letter to Joseph Cowen, 18 General Elections, Cost of, 150; Elec¬ tion of 1874, Expenses of, 151 Geneva award, Unpopularity of, 38 ; language of Mr. Bright concerning. 38 General Election, Conservative majority, I 56, 40 Germany, supports Count Andrassy’s Note on behalf of Turkish provinces, 44 ; joins in urging armistice and reform upon Turkey, 44; military expenditure of, 131 ; and music, 405 Germans and education, 434 German emigrants and America, 265 “Gerrymandering,” Mr. Cowen’s defi¬ nition of, 101 ; Mr. Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, and, 102 Giffen, Mr., and Capital of the United Kingdom, 130 Gladstone, Right Hon. W. E., at New¬ castle, 10 ; and Sir Joseph Cowen, 10 ; becomes Leader of the Liberal party, 25 ; work of his Government, 38 ; and the Alabama Claims, 38 ; announces resignation of his Cabinet, March 13, 1873, 39; resumes the Premiership, 39 ; remodels his Cabi¬ net, 39; dissolves Parliament, Jan. 23, 1874, 39 ; retires from party leadership and parliamentary work, 44 ; protests against Turkish outrages, 44 ; criticises Mr. Cowen’s speech during Russo-Turkish war, 47 ; reply of Mr. Cowen to, 4S ; his Midlothian campaign, 59 ; defeats Lord Dalkeith, 59; wishes Hartington to take the Premiership, 59 ; Cowen’s letter to Burt concerning, 60 ; his return to office, 60 ; policy of his Administra¬ tion, 60 ; “ Concert of Europe,” 60 ; his reply to Mr. Cowen on duty of Turkey under Treaty of Berlin, 62 ; sends, conjointly with France, squadron to Alexandria, demands resignation of Arabi, 68 ; his Go¬ vernment recommends Coercion after Phoenix Park murders, 70; intro¬ duces new Procedure Rules, 71 ; his Reform Bill of 1S84, 79 ; and the American Republic, 79 ; his speech explanatory of his Reform Bill, 80 ; his Government and the Penjdeh in¬ cident, 91 ; supported by Mr. Cowen, 91 ; his Government of 1868 com¬ pared with Disraeli’s Government of 1874, 114 ;v his first Government, haughtiness of, 114 ; legislative work of, 114 ; reduces income tax, 117 ; and party organisation, 123 ; charges against his Government, 126; and Ireland, 247 ; and the Reform Bill of 1884, 273 ; and the Eastern Question, 307 ; his resolution to close a debate, 371 ; and Gordon’s slave circular, 388 ; his Government and General Gordon, 392 ; and the Ame¬ rican war, 402 IXDEX. 505 Glover, John, and the Shipping Bill, 93 Godwin referred to, 181 Gortschakoff, Prince, and Turkey, 1S6 Gordon, General, referred to by Mr. Cowen, 89 ; killed at Khartoum, 89 ; his character, 90 ; his expedition con¬ sidered, 90 ; compared with Lincoln, 90 ; his mission to the Soudan, 380; his slave proclamation, 388; and the Liberal Government, 3S9; his con¬ duct in Khartoum, 393 Government, Advantages of change in, 114; Conservative, Three years of, 114; Work of, 115, 116 ; passage of Friendly Societies Act, Artisans’ Dwellings Act, Labour Laws Act by, 116; expenditure, 127; contrasts, 128; of Lord Beaconsfield, Mr. Cowen’s complaint against, 132; feebleness of Beaconsfield’s, 133 ; of 1S74 and domestic legislation, 133; of Lord Beaconsfield, permissive, con¬ solidating, and centralising, 134 ; legislative work of, 137 ; policy to¬ wards Ireland, 193 ; of 1874, Elec¬ tion professions of the, 234 ; control in Egypt, 243 ; Government, purpose of, 256 ; promises and performances of, 259 ; and the Fenian prisoners, - 297 : embarrassment in Egypt and the Soudan, 387 ; and Gordon, 390, , 393 Gcethe and the English, 250 Grant, General, his visit to Newcastle, 98’ 399 » banquet given to, 98, 399 ; and Mr. Cowen’s speech, 98, 399; Mr. Cowen’s eulogy of, 399 ; his conduct towards Lee and Sherman, 401 ; as a speaker, 434 Grant, President, and the Alabama Claims, 3S Granville, Earl, and the Alabama Claims, 38 Graham, Sir James, Home Secretary, and Mazzini's letters, 15 ; denounced by Joseph Cowen, 15, 190 Grand Committees [Parliamentary], Constitution of, 71, 241 Grattan, Henry, referred to, 103; his methods as an orator, 107 ; compared with Mr. Cowen, 107 Great towns, Rise and strength of, 428 Great Britain, Expenditure of, 130; Income of, 130; Power of, 155 Grevy, President, referred to, 125 Grey, Earl, his Reform Bill, 6, 84 ; re¬ signation of, 6 ; his recall to office, 7 ; and Municipal Reform Bill, 291 Greece, Mr. Cowen’s political model, 155 ; mission of, 164 ; and the Treaty of Berlin, 164 ; English obli¬ gations to, 167 ; French policy to¬ wards, 187 ; Independence, War of, English sympathy with, 199 ; in¬ fluence of oratory on, 434 ; oratory of, 436 Greek, Church, Czar head of the, 164 ; art, 412, Greeley, Horace, compared with Mr. Cowen, 103 Guthrie, James, his reference to Sir Joseph Cowen, 10; Guthrie, Dr., referred to, 11 Grote, Mr., and the ballot, 225 Hamlet quoted, 300 Hamilton, Sir William, at Edinburgh University, 12 Harnond, Charles Frederic, Conserva¬ tive candidate against Mr. Cowen, 34; election of, 39, 59 ; is defeated by Mr. A. W. Dilke, 59 Ilartington, Lord, and the Premiership, 59 ; Mr. Gladstone’s feelings towards, 59 ; and party organisation, 123 Hare, Mr., his scheme of representa¬ tion, 252 Hapsburgs, Tyranny of the, 371 Headlam, Mr., candidate for New¬ castle, Defeat of, 39 Health, Value of, to a nation, 444 Herzen, Alexander, and Mr. Cowen, 19 ; and Russian aggression, 159 Herzegovina, Insurrection in ; causes of 43. 44 Herat, Mr. Cowen’s view of, 91 ; Russian advance towards, 264 Hicks-Beach, Sir Michael, on Mr. Cowen’s speech against the Cloture, 71 ; moves Vote of Censure against the Government, 89 ; supported by Mr. Cowen, 89 Hicks Pasha, his expedition, 88, 3S2 Hindoo mind a sealed book, 283 Hill, Miss Octavia, referred to by Mr. Cowen, 82 History and tuition of art, 423 Hogarth and English art, 414 Holy Isle, ancestral home of the Cowens, S Home Rule for Ireland, Lord Beacons¬ field’s manifesto against, 57 Home Rule, Mr. Cowen on, 273 House of Lords, Reform Bill blocked by, 83 ; demonstrations against, 84 ; John Morley says it must be “ mended or ended,” 84 ; and the Irish Land 506 INDEX. Act, 197 ; and the American Senate, 2 54 House of Commons, Constitution of, before the Reform Act of 1S32, 5 ; its functions, 140 ; Mr. Pitt and the, 147; Earl Russell and the, 147; two classes in, 223 ; and private members, 224; and workmen members, 236 ; constitution of the, 236 ; artisans re¬ presented in, 237 ; payment of mem¬ bers of the, 23S ; effect of Reform on the, 254 ; declamation against, 254 ; and the Reform Bill, 254; and the American Senate, 254; [Mr. Cowen’s speech against the Queen’s Title Bill in, 27S; his speech on Licensing Boards, 2S5 ; speech on the release of the Fenian prisoners, 296 ; speech on School Boards, 300 ; on the Prisons Bill, 304 ; speech in support c>f Superior Courts in England and Wales, 314 ; against the Bishoprics Bill, 326 ; on the duration of Parlia¬ ments, 335 ; Irish Coercion Bill op¬ posed by Mr. Cowen in, 342 ; speech against Third Reading of Protection of Life and Property (Ireland) Bill, 355 ; speech against Coercion, 362 ; on the right of free speech, 371 ; speech in support of Vote of Censure on Government policy in the Soudan, 3S0 ; speech in support of Mr. Labouchere’s motion re war in Soudan, 3S5 ; speech on Liberal Government and General Gordon, 3S9 ; speech in favour of extending the franchise to women, 395 ;] en¬ couragement to art, education, and science by the, 417 Household suffrage, Radicals and, 174 Howick, Lord, and Municipal Reform Bill, 291 Hume, David, and party, 145 Hume, Joseph, and financial reform, 225 ; and political prisoners, 305 Hungary, Movement for independence of, 16 Hungarian leaders and Mr. Cowen, 16 Hungarians exiled to Siberia, 20 Hunt, Leigh, his prison life, 305 “Imperator” defined, 2S4 Imperial, federation, 259; despotism, 3 J 3 Imports of the United Kingdom, 262 Income Tax reduced during Gladstone’s first Administration, n 7 India, The Queen proclaimed Empress of, 115; destructive cyclone in, 115; extent and population of, 155, 282; results of withdrawal from, 156; railways of, 156; canals of, 156; English capital in, 156 ; the road to, 157 ; Indian princes, Characteristics of, 283 Individual effort and co-operation, 257 Idolatry of the immediate, 380 Industry, Localisation of, 418 Industries of Tyneside, 485 Industry and freedom, 245 International Arbitration, Mr. Cowen favours, 35 ; Henry Richard and, 35 International peace, Grant and, 98 Ireland,Tauntsabout, I4i;crimein, 1S9, 210; two modes of governing, 219; Mr. Cowen on, 247 ; British policy in, 247 ; law and the people in, 24S ; present and past leaders of, compared, 24S; government of, 249 ; a crown colony, 249; self-government for, 250 ; failure of the English to govern, 361 ; under English rule, 366 Irish-Americans, and Irish independence, 199 ; influence of, 250; and Ireland, 368 Irish, Church, Disestablishment of the, 38 ; Land Act, 38 ; University Bill, Defeat of Mr. Gladstone’s Govern¬ ment on the, 39 ; policy of Liberal Government, Mr. Cowen and the, 63 ; Chief Secretary’s Bill for Pre¬ servation of Peace, &c., 63: Land Bill, Mr. Cowen’s support of, 66; prisoners, Mr. Cowen’s appeal for release of, 6S ; prisons overflowing, 69 ; members’ opposition to Coer¬ cion, 71; members and the Reform Bill of 1SS4, 81 ; Sunday Closing Bill referred to, 83 ; residents of New¬ castle present address to Mr. Cowen, 99 ; policy, Mr. Cowen’s, 99 ; griev¬ ances, 177 ; affairs, 1S7 ; peasants’ life, 188, 198; heroes, 189; Church, Finance and the, 190 ; Coercion Acts, 193; drainage, 94; tenants at will, 194 ; complaints of the, 194 ; legisla¬ tion of 1SS1, Conference at New¬ castle, Speech by Mr. Cowen at, 196; Coercion, Administration of, 196 ; Land Act, Objects of, 194, 196 ; Disturbance Bill, 213; Executive, 216; prisoners, 216; agitation, Mr. Cowen on, 247; race, 300; The Pope and the, 248; affairs, 271 ; Irish and Polish insurgents compared, 299 ; Coercion, 342, 346, 362; Secret Societies, 363; evictions, 364, 36S; INDEX. 507 Irish-Americans and Ireland, 368; suspects, Arrest of, 369 ; orators, 438 Irishmen, excluded from the Liberal Ministry, 193 ; and English opinion, 218; exclusion of, from office, 249, 366 Isabella of Spain referred to by Mr. Cowen, S3 Isle of Man, Home Rule in the, 250 Italian Republics, 264 Italian, unity, English aid towards, 19; warrant issued against Mr. Cowen for aiding, 19; patriots and Mr. Cowen, 20 Italy, Programme for uniting, 16 Jacobites, Plans of the, 148 “ Jack in office,” 306 Jenny Geddes and the clergyman, 332 Jews, Civil disabilities of, 12 John Cartwright, his political faith, 3 Johnson, Dr., and oratory, 435 Jones, Ernest, and the Chartist Move¬ ment, 23 ; reduced to poverty, 23, 305 Judges, Patronage of, 2SS Juvenile crime, 489 Kennington Common, Chartist de¬ monstration at, 23 Khartoum, Expedition to, S9 : fall of, 89 ; Gordon killed at, 89 ; his mes¬ sages from, 390 Khedive, a prisonerin his own palace, 68 ; and his Pashas, 243 ; work of the, 243; without power, 3S9 Kickham, Charles, Prison treatment of, 3°S King \\ illiam and Reform, 6 “ King,” of Saxon origin, 2S4 Kingsley, Mr., and the north-east wind, 113 Koniggratz, Austrian policy after, 2S4 Kossuth and wife visit Mr. Cowen, 17 j Knowledge, how attained, 433 Knox, John, and the Bishopric of New¬ castle, 338 Kushk, Russian advance to the, 91 Labouchere, Henry, M.P. for Northampton, 75 ; opposes bounty to Lords Wolseley and Alcester, 75 ; moves amendment against the Go¬ vernment, 88 ; his resolution re war in the Soudan, 385 Labour Laws Act passed by Parliament of 1S74, 114 Lacour, Challemcl, French Minister to the English Court, 62 ; Mr. Cowen’s defence of, 62 Lambton, 2 Lancashire before the Reform of 1832, 5 Land Bill, Mr. Gladstone’s Irish, 66 ; Mr. Cowen and the, 66 Land, bought up by merchants, 116; price of, increasing, 116 ; the, 203 ; laws, 203; Act, Irish, 211; and the Irish people, 212 Land League, Michael Davitt, founder of the, 68 ; suppression of the, 213 ; sympathy of the people with the, 214; contributions to the, 214 J Land Registry Office, 134 Landlords and the Agricultural Hold¬ ings Bill, 134 Lands Transfer Bill, 134 Larkin, Charles, his speech at Reform demonstration, Newcastle, 7; violent language of, 7 ; warns Queen of Eng¬ land, 7; and the Northern Reform Union, 24 ; monument unveiled to, by Mr. Cowen, 99, 414 Law of nations, Object of, 162 Law and the people in Ireland, 24S ; law reform, 314 League, Northern Reform, 23 Lecture by Rev. Mr. Macrae at Gates¬ head, speech by Mr. Cowen at, 492 Legislation, Permissive, 118; domestic, 133 Lee, General Grant’s treatment of, 401 Lee, Dr., of Edinburgh University, 12 Lewis, Sir Cornewall, and amuse¬ ments, 144 Liberal Associations, established, 57 ; Mr. Cowen’s objections to, 58, 177 ; he declines to act with, 58 ; and Shipping Bill of 1884, 92 Liberal Association and John Morley, 76 ; and Mr. Cowen, 177 Liberal Club, Junior, Newcastle, 65 ; give complimentary dinner to John Morley, 77 ; Mr. Cowen’s letter to Secretary of, 77 ; Mr. Cowen’s letter to, re Coercion, 65 Liberal Government, abandon coercion, 66 ; bring forward Reform Bill of 1884, 79 ; annexations under the, 259 ; difficulties of the, 270 Liberal legislation, Advantages of, to trade, 117 Liberal, Government, [Grey’s]. Stand taken by the, 26 ; and Parliamentary Reform, 26 ; demonstrations in favour of, 26 ; Northern Reform League and the, 26; position and pro- 50S IXDEX. gramme, speech delivered by Mr. Cowen at Manchester, 120; party, why it was defeated in 1S74, 121 ; Ministers, Unpopularity of, 121 ; programme (1S79), equal suffrage, redistribution of seats, land law reform, 140-1, 221 ; principles, 146 ; vote of the North of England in 1874, 113; loss in Northumber land in 1S74, 113 ; gain in Durham, 113 ; Government of 186S, Haughti¬ ness of, 114; legislative work of, 114; expenditures, 115 Liberals, gain during election of 1SS0 100 seats, 59 ; majority over Con¬ servatives and Home Rulers, 46, 59 ; and Tories contrasted, 113 ; routed in 1S74, 113; home policy of, 119 ; foreign policy of, 119 ; effect of re¬ form on, 139 ; and the Eastern Question, 142 ; and Irishmen, 218 Liberation Society, Mr. Cowen pre¬ sides at meeting of, 99 Library, Mr. Cowen’s, at Stella ; de¬ corations of, 104 Licensed Victuallers and Conservatives, 116 Licensing Boards, Bill, Mr. Cowen’s ; its objects; jurisdiction of the Board; mode of election; qualification of voters ; cost of election under, 43, 285, 2S9 ; an ancient custom, 290 ; supporters of, 293, 296 ; cost of, 293 Licensing system in Sweden, 290 Licenses, Value of, 289 Life and experience, 342 Lincoln, Abraham, 2; and General Gordon compared, 90 Lindisfarne, Ancient borough of, 338 Literature and art, 407 Load Line Committee, 92 Local taxation, 205 Local Option in America, 290; in Canada, 290 ; in Australia, 290 Londonderry, Marquis of, and Reform, 6 Lowe, Mr. Robert (Lord Sherbrooke), and the working classes, 26 Lough, Mr., the sculptor, 407; Mrs., Presentation of models to Newcastle by, 407 Macaulay, Thomas Babington, M.P. for Edinburgh, 12; frequently heard by Joseph Cowen, 12 ; his defeat in 1847, 12 Mackintosh and the Eastern Question, 51 MacMahon, Marshal, Career of, 29S Macrae, Rev. Mr., at Gateshead, Lecture by, 492 ; Mr. Cowen’s speech as chairman of the meeting, 492 Madras, Famine in, 115 Magistrates, and licenses, 2S7 ; partisan appointment of, 2S7; and public- houses, 2S9 Magocra, Loss of the, 118 Mahomedans, Strength of, 156 Majority rule, 274 Manchester Radicals, 4 Manchester School and foreign affairs, 153 Manchester, Mr. Cowen s speech on the Liberal programme at, 120 Manners, Lord John, and the “Voung Englanders,” 11S Marlborough, Duke of, Lord Lieu¬ tenant of Ireland, 57 ; letter from Lord Beaconsfield on Home Rule to, 57 Marquis of Londonderry, 6 Maria Theresa referred to by Mr. Cowen, S3, 269 Martineau, Harriet, referred to by Mr. Cowen, 82 Massachusetts, Mr. Gerry, Governor of, 102 May-day horse procession ; distribution ofprizesbyMr. Cowen, 456; address by Mr. Cowen in connection with, 456 Maynooth College, 190 Mazzini, Joseph, and Italian revolu¬ tion, 15; and the brothers Ban- dieri, 15 ; and Joseph Cowen, 15, 16 Mechanics’ Institutes as established by Dr. Birkbeck, 95; Mr. Cowen and, 95' 43 1 Medical students: their work and power, 461 Mehemet Ali, Murder of, by Albanians, 61 Melbourne, Lord, work of his Ministry, 137 ; his Administration and Muni- , cipal Reforms, 290 Member of Parliament, not a delegate, 144 Members of Parliament, Payment of, 151, 23S ; qualifications of, 152 Members of Parliament increased from 652 to 670 under Reform Bill of 1884, S5 Merchants and tradesmen who “run a gig ” anti-Liberal, 117 Middle-class scepticism, 122 Middlesborough jubilee, Speech by Mr. Cowen at the, 42S Midlothian Election, Gladstone defeats Dalkeith in, 59 INDEX. Midhat Pasha, Policy of, 163 Mieroslowski and Mr. Cowen, 19 Mill and the Eastern Question, 51 ; and proportional representation, 251 ; and large States, 263 Ministerial mission to Egypt, 3S2 Mineral treasures, 405 Miners and the Franchise, 140 Mirabeau as an orator, 107, 436 Models of Mr. Lough, the sculptor, presented to Newcastle, 407 Modern Parliaments, how composed, 152 Molesworth and the Eastern Question, Si Montenegro and Greece, 170 ; and the Treaty of Berlin, 1S5 Morley, John, becomes candidate for Newcastle, 76 ; his return, 77 ; Mr. Cowen’s sentiments towards, 77; dinner of Newcastle Liberal Club to, 77 > public opinion concerning, 78; and the Franchise, 79; and the House of Lords, 84 Morpeth, status of the miners of the borough under Reform Bill of 1S67, 28 ; agitation by the miners of the district, 28 Municipal Institutions, Enlargement of, demanded, 124 ; Corporation Reform Bill, 290 Municipal suffrage in Ireland, 214 Murderers, thieves, and political of¬ fenders, 306 Mussulmans and Christians, 311 Nabob of Arcot’s Parliamentary seats, 5 Napoleon, Louis, Coup d'Etat by, 16; regime of, to be overthrown, 16 Napoleon III., Collapse of, 20 National Reform Union, Manchester, Mr. Cowen presides over, 120 National, Reform Union, Mission of, 124 ; expenditure, 127 ; National debt, 128-30 Naval Expedition of Great Powers to the Adriatic to coerce the Sultan under Treaty of Berlin, 61 Newark, Meeting of Joseph Cowen and revolutionary leaders at, 17 Newcastle, Reform demonstration at, 6 ; General Grant’s visit to, 98 ; open¬ ing of public library of, 99 ; Working Men’s Club of, 99 ; speech by Mr. Cowen at, 126 ; electors and Mr. Cowen, 143; electoral history of, 151 ; speech by Mr. Cowen on foreign policy of England at, 153, on poli¬ tical organisation ; Montenegro and 509 Greece ; Irish grievances, 177, on Irish Legislation, 196, on the Land ; Cloture and Coercion, 201, on Im¬ perial federation ; the Soudan ; the New Democracy, 259, Bishopric of, 328 ; Town Council and Fife’s Bishopric motion, 329 ; Church sittings in, 330; Nonconformist sit¬ tings in, 330; banquet to General Grant at, 399 ; address by Mr. Cowen before the College of Phy¬ sical Science of, 403 ; address by Mr. Cowen on art in trade at, 407 ; speech by Mr. Cowen after laying the foundation-stone of the Science and Art School in, 410 ; speech by Mr.Cowen on English and foreign art, 415 ; address by Mr. Cowen when unveiling a memorial to Charles Larkin at, 419 ; speech by' Mr. Cow'en on art — its history' and tuition, in, 423 ; address by Mr. Cowen on Mechanics’ Institutions and oratory at, 431 ; speech by Mr. Cowen on the work and ways of Parliament at, 441 ; Sanitary' Science Congress at, speech by' Mr. Cowen, 444 ; speech on value of health to a nation at, 444, on the state of edu¬ cation at, 447, on Parliamentary order and oratory', 452, on spring —horses and exercise, 256 ; open¬ ing of Winter Session of College of Medicine and address by Mr. Cowen at, 461 ; speech by Mr. Cowen on Parliamentary work at annual dinner of Commercial Travellers’ Associ¬ ation, 466 ; speech by Mr. Cowen in support of the Blue-Ribbon move¬ ment in, 469; address by Mr. Cowen before Society for the Prevention of Cruelly to Animals, 474 ; speech by Mr. Cow'en on preaching and preachers at breakfast to Rev. George Bell, 479 ; Prince of Wales’s visit to ; Mr. Cowen’s speech at banquet in honour of the Royal visit to, 4S3 Newcastle Chronicle and the American war, 21 ; the property of Joseph Cowen, 29 ; an independent Radical journal, 29 ; editorial staff of the, 29; R. B. Reed, manager of the, 30 ; R. Ruddock, editor of the, 30; cele¬ brated its centennial, 1S64, 30 ; com¬ mercial success of the, 30 Ne^ocastlc Weekly Chronicle properly of Joseph Cowen ; a new departure in weekly journalism, 30 ; edited by W. E. Adams, 31 5io INDEX. Newton, Miss, mother of Joseph Cowen, 11 Nightingale, Miss, referred to by Mr. Cowen, 82 Nonconformists, 121 North Durham elections, Cost of, 150 North-East Coast, Political reform and activity on the, promoted by Mr. Cowen, 23 North Shields, Speech by Mr. Cowen at, 144 Northern Reform Union, Organisation of, 23 ; its political programme, 23 Northern Political Union, education of the people by the, 25 ; demon¬ strations resulting from the work of the, 25 Northern Reform League, Re-organi- sation of the, 6th Nov., 1866, 26 ; organises agitation for reform, 26 ; Mr. Cowen and the, 26 Northern Tribune, 3 Northern Tribune founded by Joseph Cowen, 29 North of England, People of, 3 Northern Political Union, Demonstra¬ tion by, 6 Northern Union of Mechanics’ Institu¬ tions, 96 ; Mr. Cowen and the, 96 Northcote, Sir Stafford, moves Vote of Censure on the Government, S7 Northumberland M.P.’s, 1714, 149; election, Cost of, 151 O’Connell, Daniel, 4 ; and Irish leaders, 248 O'Connor, Feargus, and the Chartist Movement, 23 O’Brien, Smith, and Fenianism, 297 Odger, George, 306 Orator, Mr. Cowen as an, 103 Orators, of Ireland, 438 ; methods of, 439 ; difficulties of, 440 ; success of, 440 ; Parliamentary, 452 Oratory, Mr. Cowen on Demosthenes, Pericles, Cicero, Mirabeau,Chatham, Grattan, Pitt, Fox, Macaulay,Thiers, Favre’s, 436 ; in England, 438 Organisation, Political,Mr. Cowen and, 123 Oregon boundary, The, 190 Orsini, lectures on Tyneside, 17 Osman Pasha, Heroism of, 48, 312 Owen, Robert, his Socialistic views, 118 Owen, Robert Dale, on the King of Naples, 359 Tall Mali, and North of England, 37S Paine, Thomas, and party, 145 ; his works referred to, 305 Palmer, Charles Mark, and the Shipping Bill of 1884, 92 Palmerston, Lord, and Edinburgh University, 12 ; death of, 25 ; chief of the “ old men ” ; want of political sincerity during his regime , 25 ; Mr. Bright on, 25 Parliament, divided over Reform of 1S32, 5; of 1S68, Work of, 38; assembles January 17, 1877 ; Govern¬ ment of Lord Beaconsfield asks for Vote of Credit of six millions; support of motion by Mr. Cowen, 47 ; mem¬ bers of, 86; of 1874 defined, 127 ; modern, how composed, 152 ; pau¬ city of measures by, 127 ; of 1868, 1S1 ; of 1S74, 181 ; of the first Reform Bill, 181 ; and rivers, 253 ; and the popular will, 275 ; duration °f, 335 Parliamentary, order and oratory, 452 ; work, 466 Parliamentary Reform, 208 Parliamentary work of session, 1878 : Factories and Workshops Act, Con¬ tagious Diseases (Animals) Act, In¬ termediate Education (Ireland) Act, Irish Sunday Closing Act, prepara¬ tion for General Election of 18S0, 55 j Parliamentary Reform, Political union towards, 25 Parliamentary seats of Nabob of Arcot, 5 Parnell, Mr., Letter of Mr. Cowen to, rc Land Act, 66 ; arrest of, 69 ; release of, 69 ; testimonial to, 248 Partisan accusations against Mr. Cowen, 36 ; answer to, 37 Party allegiance, Mr. Cowen and, 142 “ Party Government, Shorter Parlia¬ ments, Payment of Members,” Speech by Mr. Cowen on, 144 Party, Mr. Cowen and, 51 ; organ¬ isation, Lord Hartington and, 123 ; Mr. Gladstone and, 123 ; shibboleth, Mr. Cowen and, 124; Pope’s defini¬ tion of, 145 ; Defoe on, 145 ; David Hume on, 145 ; Thomas Paine on, 145 ; Edmund Burke on, 145 ; Author of Junius’ letters on, 145 ; Addison and, 145 ; government, 145; discipline, 181 ; vassalage, 390 Party leaders in the past and present, 146 Pascal and Cleopatra’s nose, 266 Patent Law, Enactment of, 73 Patriotism and effort, 257 INDEX. 5” Payment of members, 151 Peasant wars in Germany, 364 ; France, 364 ; Denmark, 364 ; Plungary, 364 ; Russia, 364 Peel, Sir Robert, 190 ; his message of peace to Ireland, 190; and higher education, 190; and peasant propri¬ etorship, 195 Penny Postage, Introduction of, 13S Pensioners’ parliament, 147 Penjdeh incident, The, 91 “ People’s Charter,” 2 ; agitation for the, 22 ; six points of the, 22 ; popu¬ lar movement for, 22 ; decline of movement for, 22 People of the North of England, 3 Permissive Bill, 293 Pericles and speech, 242 Peterloo, Bloody work at, 4 Philippopolis, Russian army marching on, 46 Thoenix Park, Murders at, 69, 362 Pitt, Mr., in the House of Commons, 147 Plato and the ruin of States, 243 Plevna, Fighting at, Osman’s defence of, 46 Poland, Fate of, 15S; Movement for re-establishment of, 16 Poles exiled to Siberia, 20 Polish, chieftains and Mr. Cowen, 19 ; refugees, 29S; England and the, 29S ; France and the, 298 Polish and Irish insurgents compared, 299 Political cowardice, Wealth and, 122 ; Polypi, 123 Political charlatans, 1, 144 Political Union, Northern, demonstra¬ tion by, 6 Political refugees, Mr. Cowen and, 15 ; their programme, 16 Political, lying, Mr. Cowen a victim of, 36; his letter regarding, 37 ; machinery, 123 ; gratitude, 139 ; liberty, 141 ; honesty, 143 ; sincerity, 154; organisation, 177 “ Politics and Parliament,” title of letters by Mr. Cowen to the New¬ castle Chronicle , 30 Pope, Alexander, his definition of party, 145 Population, and national expenditure, 129 ; of the United Kingdom, 129 Popular taste for art, 417 Popular demonstration, Newcastle Town Moor, 1819, 4 Porter, Mr., and population of the United Kingdom, 130 Portugal, English obligations to, 167 Potter, T. B., and the American war, 3 s Preaching and preachers, 479 Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Mr. Cowen’s speech on, 474 Presbyterianism, 332 Prime Minister and the Cloture, 379 ; and bombardment of Alexandria, 384 Primogeniture, 204 Prince Nicholas and Russia, 1S5 Prince of Wales, reference to his visit to Ireland, 66 ; his illness, 260 ; his visit to Newcastle, 483 : banquet given to, 483 ; speech by Mr. Cowen at banquet, 483 Princess of Wales, reference to her visit to Ireland, 66 Prisons Bill, The, 136, 304 Private life, Mr. Cowen offers to return to, 143 Private members, Privileges of, 64 Procedure Rules monopolise session of 1S82, 67; introduction of, by Mr. Gladstone, 71 Programme of political refugees, 16 Promises and performances of Govern¬ ment, 259 Property and licenses, 289 Proportional representation, 251 ; J. S. Mill and, 251 Prosperity and crime in Ireland, 365 | Prussia, Reform in, 245 ; rise of, 264 Public Library of Newcastle opened by Mr. Cowen Sept. 13, 1S80, 99 Public Speaking, Address on, by Mr. Cowen, 99 Public Prosecutor, 137 Public opinion, Change in, 276 Public-houses and drunkenness, 286 Public debt of Egypt, 383 ; administra¬ tion of, 383 Queen Victoria, her efforts for peace in Russo-Turkish war, 46, England under, 397 Queen Elizabeth and British history, 83 ; and Mr. Speaker, 242; and Spencer, 280; vanity of, 280; and the Bishopric of Newcastle, 328 ; England under, 397 ; art during reign of, 414 Queen, Anne, England under, 397 ; Isabella of Spain referred to, 397 Queen’s title, 280 ; and Empress, dual title irreconcilable, 282 Radicals of Manchester, 4 Radical Associations of Tyneside, De¬ monstration by, 4 INDEX. Radicals and Tories defined. 122 Radicals and the Reform Bill of 1S67, 174 Railways of India, 156 Ratepayers and county expenditure, 140 Rebellion, The Stuart, 14S Rebellion of 1698, The, 29S Recorder of Salisbury fined for not breaking painted window, 414 Redistribution Bill read a third time, May 22, 1885, 85 Reform movement, 5 Reform, debates, and Old Sarum, 5 ; anomalies existing prior to, 5 ; House of Commons previous to, 5 ; Earl Grey’s, 5 ; Sir Joseph Cowen and, 6; Bill introduced, 6; demonstration by Northern Political Union at New¬ castle, 6 ; Bill of 1S32, 23 ; Bill of | 1S67, Position of Northern miners | under, 2S ; Bill of 1SS4 introduced, 79 ; alterations and extensions made under, So; addition to the register under, Si ; blocked by the House of Lords, 83 ; read third time Nov. II, 1SS4 ; increase of seats under, S5 ; in¬ creases members of Parliament to 670, 86 ; its probable effect on the Church and the Lords, 254 ; the Gladstone-Salisbury compromise on, 274; imperilled by war in the Soudan, 387 ; Bill of 1S32, increase of trade since, 117 ; effects of, on parties, 122; Bill of Lord Russell, 173 Reform Union, Northern, 23 Reform League, Northern, 23 Reform demonstrations, S4 Reform Acts, 273 ; Bills, their effect on legislation, 277 Reforms, Promoters of, 293 Refugees, Political, their flight to Eng¬ land and America, 16 Regal encroachments, 2S1 Release of the Fenian prisoners, 296 ; vote on Mr. Cowen’s motion, 300 Religious liberty and tolerance, 492 Religious pictures during reign of Edward VI., 413 Rhetoric, 433 Right of free speech, 371 Rise and strength of great towns, 42S Republican, The, Imprisonment of Car¬ lisle and family for publishing, 305 Representation of Newcastle, Sir Isaac Lowthian Bell and the, 32 ; Joseph Cowen and the, 32 Representation of the People Bill intro¬ duced, 79 Repeal agitation, 190 Revolutionary leaders,their programme, 16; and JosephCowen, 16 ; followed by spies, 16 ; success of, 19 Revolution in course of law, 273 Rents, 205-6 Reed, R. B., and Northern Reform Union, 24 ; manager of the Newcastle Chronicle , 30; his political labours, .24 Richard, Henry, Mr. Cowen favours his scheme of arbitration; and the American war, 38 Roberts, General, Mr. Cowen’s defence of, 63 Robespierre, Maximilian, Character¬ istics of, 359 Rochdale Co-operative Society, 96, 97 Rollin Ledru and Mr. Cowen, 19 Roman Catholic, Relief Bill and Macau¬ lay, 12 ; Church, Use of pictures by, 4 r 3 Rome, how ruined, 277 Roman Generals, Titles of, 284 Roman art, 412 ; architecture, 413 Rome and Greece, Art and oratory in, 437 Roumanians and Russian influence, l6 5 Royal Commission on Loss of Life and Ships at Sea, 92 ; Mr. Cowen and the, 93 “ Root and branch ” Radicals, 225 Ruddock, R., editor of Newcastle Chronicle, 30 Russian revolutionary party and Mr. Cowen, 19 Russia, supports Count Andrassy’s Note on behalf of provinces, 44 ; joins in urging armistice and reform upon Turkey, 44; declares war against Turkey, April 24, 1877, 46; and the Treaty of Paris, 142 ; and India, 156; and the Suez Canal, 158; harmless north of the Danube, 158; a danger to liberty, 15S; not a nation, 158; a crushing political mechanism, 15S ; Asiatic rule of, 158 ; and neighbouring States, 160; and Poland, 160; and Bulgaria, 160; versus Austria on the Balkans, 245 ; and Austria must collide, 246 ; her aggression, 246 ; and Turkey, 313 Russian, army crosses the Danube, June, 1S77, 46; troops, their prowess in forcing the Schipka Pass ; troops marching on Philippopolis, Mr. Cowen’s suspicion of, 61 ; advance to the Kushk, 91 ; Mr. Cowen’s view INDEX. 513 of, 91 ; emperors, Mission 159; aggression in Central Asia, 159 ; cry of “To Constantinople,” 159; Liberals and Constantinople, 159; designs on India and China, 160; advance in Central Asia, 168 ; ag¬ gression, 246 ; vassals, 260 ; secret societies, 370 Russell, Lord John, reference to, by Mr. Gladstone, 79, 103 ; and edu¬ cational expenditure, 131 ; re¬ moval of civil disabilities by, 138; penny postage introduced under, 138 ; his Reform Bill, 173 ; his poli¬ tical services, 174 ; and Mr. Glad¬ stone, 175 ; and municipal reform, 291 ; and Annual Parliaments, 336 ; and the American war, 402; and education appropriation, 411; and the representative system, 147 Ryton-on Tyne, Joseph Covven edu¬ cated at, 11 Sandon, Lord, and the publicans, 292 San Stefano Treat)', Opposition to, by Lord Beaconsfield and European statesmen, 49; superseded by Treaty of Berlin, 50 Salisbury, Lord, and the Reform Bill of 1S84, 85, 273 ; and the Redistri¬ bution scheme, 85 Sanitary Institute, Newcastle, Speech by Mr. Cowen at, 441 Science and Art School, Newcastle, foundation-stone laid and speech by Mr. Cowen, 410 Scientific frontier, 246 School Boards, 300 Scotchmen and Church Establishments, 332 Scotch, Church and State, 254 ; dukes, 282 Sclav and Teuton, the coming contest, 246 Scotland, Political reaction in, 123; governed by Scotch principles, 365 Scotland and the Reform Bill, 81 Schipka Pass, Russian troops at, 47 Secret Societies in Ireland, Government and the, 69, 363 Select Committee to consider Shipping Bill proposed, 92 Servia joins in the Herzegovinian in¬ surrection, 44 Sentiments in human life, 284 Session, Parliamentary, of 1882, 220 Seymour, Sir Hamilton, and the Czar, 164 Shakespeare and Queen Elizabeth, 2S0 Shere Ali and the British Government, 170 ; flight of, 170 Shelley referred to, 181 Sherman, General, Grant’s treatment of, 401 Shields, ship Commonwealth and Gari¬ baldi at, 17 Shipping Bill of 1SS4, opposed by British shipowners, 91 Shipowners’ Associations and Royal Commissions, 93 Shorter Parliaments, 147 ; advantage of, 342 Siberia, Hungarians and Poles exiled to, 20 Six millions, Vote of Credit for, sup¬ ported by Mr. Cowen, 307 Slavery in the Soudan, 3S8 Smith, T. E., and the Northern Re¬ form League, 26; Mr. Cowen’s. re¬ ferences to, 144 Small States, Mill on, 263 ; Aristotle on, 263 Social reform, Mr. Cowen on, 236 Somerville, Mrs., referred to by Mr. Cowen, 82 Soudan, 259 ; Conduct of the Govern¬ ment in the, 87 ; expeditions to the, 266 ; General Gordon’s mission to the, 380, 388 ; slavery in the, 388 South Africa, Discontent in, 247 South Africa and the Government, 156 South African Bill, Mr. Cowen sup¬ ports the, 52 Spencer’s “ Faerie Queene,” 280 Spencer and Queen Elizabeth, 280 Spencer, Herbert, on the best mechan¬ ism, 256 Spencer, Earl, Election expenses of, 151 Spencer, Earl, made Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, 69 Speeches, Ex-Parliamentary, by Mr. Cowen, 98 ; political, out of Parlia¬ ment, 113; in Parliament, 280; on general subjects, 399 Si'EECH by Mr. Cowen at the Grant banquet, 1877, 98, 399 ; on Tories and Liberals—a contrast, 113 ; on the Liberal position and programme, 120; on finance and centralisation, 126 ; on party Government, shorter Parliaments, and payment of mem¬ bers, 144 ; on the Foreign Policy of England, 153; political organisation ; Montenegro and Greece ; Irish griev¬ ances, 177; the Irish legislation of 1881, 196; the land; the cloture; coercion, 201 ; Parliamentary pro- 34 1 XDEX. 5i4 cedure ; Ireland ; Egypt, 220 ; work¬ men members, 236; Egypt, Home Rule ; Reform, 240 ; Imperial federa¬ tion ; the Soudan ; the new Demo¬ cracy, 259 ; the Queen’s title, 280 ; Licensing Boards, 285 ; the release of the Fenian prisoners, 296 ; School Boards, 300 ; the Prisons Bill, 304 ; the Eastern Question, 307 ; Law Reform, 314; the Bishoprics Bill, 326 ; the duration of Parliaments, 335 ! urgency for Irish coercion, 342 ; Irish coercion, 346 ; an appeal for clemency to Ireland, 355 ; on the Irish Coercion Act, 362 ; the right of free speech, 371 ; General Gordon’s mission to the Soudan, 380; the expedition to Suakim, 385 ; the Liberal Government and General Gordon, 389 ; the right of women to the suffrage, 395 ; the House of Commons, General Grant, America and England, 399 ; the spirit of our time, 403 ; art in trade, 407 ; art and education, 410 ; English and foreign art, 415 ; a eulogy on a local orator, 419 ; on art—its history and tradition, 423 ; the rise and strength of great towns, 428 ; Mechanics’ Institutions and oratory, 431 ; the change in the work and ways of Parliament, 441 ; the value of health to a nation, 444 ; state of education, 447 ; Parlia¬ mentary order and oratory, 452 ; spring—horses and exercise, 456 ; medical students: their work and power, 461 ; the change in Parlia¬ mentary work, 466 ; temperance, 469 ; prevention of cruelty to ani¬ mals, 474 ; modern preaching and preachers, 479; the industries of Tyneside, 483 ; thirty years progress, 4S5 ; juvenile crime, 489 ; religious liberty and tolerance, 492 Spital, Newcastle, Reform demonstra¬ tion at, 6 Spirit of our time, 403 Spring—horses and exercise, 456 St. Hilaire, M. Bartholomew, and Greece, 187 St. Nicholas Square, Newcastle, Re¬ formers assemble at, 6 Stansfield, James, his political work in the North of England, 24 Stanley, Colonel, and the Army Regu¬ lation Act, 135 State, Mr. Cowen’s ideal, 155 States, Russia and the safety of smaller, 162 State trials in Dublin, The, 215 State versus individual action, 256 Steam power, its capabilities, 404 Stella Hall, Mr. Cowen’s home, 59; library at, 104 Stuart Rebellion, The, 148 Stuarts, Supporters of, 298 “ Suet-pudding legislation,” 118 Suez Canal, Eminent engineers and the, 101 ; Mr. Disraeli and the, 119; historical references to, 157 ; import¬ ance of, to the British Empire, 158 ; Robert Stephenson and the, 168; Lord Palmerston and the, 168 Suffrage Bill, 250 Sumner, Charles, 2 Suspects, Arrest of, 369 [167 Sweden and Norway, Independence of, Sweden, Licensing system in, 290 Swift, Dean, and Annual Parliaments, 338 Sydney Smith and “ Erin-go-bragh,” Syracuse and mathematics, 405 271 Taylor, P. A., his political work in the North of England, 24 ; Radical candidate for Newcastle, 24 [68 Tel-el-Kebir, Battle of, Sept. 13, 1882, Temperance, Mr. Cowen’s advocacy of, 100, 469 Tempest in a tea-pot, 250 Teutonic States, 264 Teynham, Lord, and the Northern Reform League, 26 The Whigs and Parliament, 1714, 148 Thiers, M., on foreign relations, 172 Threatening letters sent to Mr. Cowen, 192 [the, 326 Thirty-nine Articles, Mr. Cowen and Thirty years progress, 485 Thunderer, loss of the, 118 Title, Worship of, 239 Tolerance, 492 Town Moor, Newcastle, Popular de¬ monstration at, 1S19; Sir Joseph Cowen at ; resolutions adopted at, 4 ; great gathering of miners on the, 2S Town Hall, Newcastle, Mr. Cowen appointed to speak at, 58 ; is jammed against balustrade of, 59 Town Councils and licenses, 294 Tories contrasted with Liberals, 113 Tory Government of 1S74, 115 Tories oppose abolition of slavery, repeal of the Corn Laws, and change in Licensing Laws, 116 Tories and Radicals defined, 122 Tories and the clergy, 123; and pub¬ licans, 123 INDEX. SIS Transvaal, British policy in the, 247 Trade, Increasing volume of, 239 ; de¬ creasing value of, 239 ; Societies, 257 Trade, Development of, in forty years, ll 7 Treaty of Berlin, ratified Aug. 3, 1S7S, 50 ; terms of the ; duties of Turkey under the, 50; a victory for England, 56; executive work left to Turkey under the. 60; and Russian plots, 166 Treaty of Tilsit, 245 ; Prussian policy after, 245 [160 Treaty of Paris, Russia and the, 142, Treaty of San Stefano, Terms of the, Treaty of Berlin, 162 [161 Treaty of Gandamuk, 170 Trevelyan, George Otto, and the Nor¬ thern Reform League, 26 ; and the Franchise, 86 ; is admitted into the Cabinet, 86 Triennial elections, 148 Turgot’s aphorism re Colonies 265 Turkey, Officials of, impose and exact heavy taxes on Herzegovinians, 43 ; rejects reforms proposed by European Conference through National Council, Jan. 18, 1877, 45 ; reformed constitu¬ tion of, 45 ; in the power of Alex¬ ander, 49 ; its duties under Treaty of Berlin ; attitude of Great Powers to¬ wards ; Identic Note to, 60 ; moral coercion of, 61 ; and the Powers, 1S4 ; and the Eastern Question, 245 ; and Russia, 310 ; Christians in, 310 Turkish Government routine, 163 Ulster Custom, The, 194 University of Edinburgh, Jos. Cowen at, il; Lord Palmerston at, 12; Lord John Russell at, 12 ; Dr. Lee at, 12 ; John Wilson (Christopher North) at, 12 ; Sir William Hamilton at, 12 United States Senate, and the House of Lords, 254 ; expansion of the, 265 United Kingdom, Population of, 281 Vanguard, Loss of the, 118 “Vivian Grey ” referred to, 119 Vote of Censure, moved by Sir S. Northcote, 87 ; supported by Mr. Cowen, 87 ; moved by Sir M. Hicks-Beach, 89 ; supported by Mr. Cowen, 89 War between England and America “ a war of brothers,” 402 Wady Haifa, Arrival of troops at, 89 Walpole, Progress since the days of, 149 War, of 1S66, Effect of, on Austria, 245: in Egypt and the Soudan, Cost of, 267 War and the national faith, 391 Washington Treaty, The, 38 Watson, R. S., asked to contest New¬ castle in the Liberal interest, 76 Washington, referred to, 90; and Emmett compared, 296 Watkin, Sir Edward, and the Channel Tunnel, 100 Wealth and population, 129 Webster, Daniel, as an orator, 107 Wellington, Duke of, and Govern¬ ment, 6; failure of, to form a ministry, 1832,6 ; succeeded by Earl Grey, 7 ; referred to, 90 ; his definition of Re¬ form, 273 ; unpopularity of his Minis¬ try, 276 ; and Irish disturbances, 349 Wellington-Peel Administration, Ex¬ penditure of the, 127 Whigs and Radicals of Tyneside, united for Reform, 1S32, 7 [tion, 225 Whitbread, Mr., and national educa- “ Who goes home,” 3S0 Wilson, John (Christopher North), at Edinburgh University, 12 Winlaton, Sir Joseph Cowen, lord of the manor of, 14 ; Joseph Cowen, lord of the manor of, 14 William III. and Parliament, 148 Wilberforce, Mr., and abolition of slavery, 225 Wilson, Sir Charles, sails to within i,Soo yards of Khartoum, 89 Wilks, Washington, his political tour in the North of England, 24 Wolseley, Lord, proposal to reward for conduct in Egypt, 75 ; arrives at Wady Haifa, 89 ; and the Channel Tunnel, lot Women’s suffrage, 395 Worcell and Mr. Cowen, 19 Working Class representatives, Mr. Cowen’s views on, 35 ; 236 Working Men’s Club, Newcastle, Ad¬ dress by Mr. Cowen on public speaking at, 99 Workmen, Annual savings of, 237 Work and ways of Parliament, 441 Wysocki, his acquaintance with Mr. Cowen, 19 “Yankee Doodle,” Ex-President Grant and, 98 Yakoob Khan, Treaty with, 170 “ Young Irelanders,” 227 “Young Englanders,” 118 ; Mr. Dis¬ raeli and the, 11S; Lord John Manners and the, 118 ; theory of, 118 UNWIN BROTHERS, THE GRESHAM PRESS, CHILWORTH AND LONDON. A Catalogue of American and Foreign Books Published or Imported by Messrs. Sampson Low & Co. can be had on application. Crown Buildings, iSS, Fleet Street, London, October, 18S5. SI Selection from tlje £u?t of Books? PUBLISHED BY SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, SEARLE, & RIVINGTON. ALPHABETICAL LIST. ABOUT Some Fellows. By an Eton Boy, Author of “A Day of my Life.” Cloth limp, square i6mo, 2s. 6 d. Adams (C. K.) Manual of Historical Literature. Cr. 8vo, 1 2s. 6d. Alcott (.Louisa M.) fack and fill. i6mo, 5 s. - Old-Fashioned Thanksgiving Day. $s. 6d. - Proverb Stories. i6mo, 31. 6 d. - Spinning-Wheel Stories. i6mo, 5^. -See also “ Rose Library.” Alden ( W. Li) Adventures of Jimmy Brown, written by himself. Illustrated. Small crown Svo, cloth, 2s. 6 d. Aldrich (T. B.) Friar Jerome's Beautiful Book, ALD WIN (/.) Story of Siegfried. 6s. - Story of Roland. Crown 8vo, 6s. Baltin (Ada S., Lecturer to the National Health Society) Science of Dress in Theory and Practice. Illustrated, 6 s. Barlow ( Alfred) Wearing by Hand and by Power. With several hundred Illustrations. Third Edition, royal Svo, 1 /. $s. Barlow {William) New Theories of Matter and Force. 2Vols., 8 vo, _ THE BAYARD SERIES. Edited by the late J. Hain Friswell. Comprising Pleasure Books of Literature produced in the Choicest Style as Companionable Volumes at Home and Abroad. “We can hardly imagine better books for boys to read or for men to ponder over.”— Times . Price is. 6 d. each Volume , complete •with silk Headbands and Registers. The Story of the Chevalier Bayard. By M. De Berville. De Joinville’s St. Louis, King of France. The Essays of Abraham Cowley, in¬ cluding all his Prose Works. Abdallah; or, The Four Leaves. By Edouard Laboullaye. Table-Talk and Opinions of Na¬ poleon Buonaparte. Yathek : An Oriental Romance. By William Beckford. Words of Wellington : Maxims and Opinions of the Great Duke. in itself, flexible cloth extra, gilt edges. Dr. Johnson’s Rasselas, Prince of Abyssinia. With Notes. Hazlitt’s Round Table. With Bio¬ graphical Introduction. The Religio Medici, Ilydriotaphia, and the Letter to a Friend. By Sir Thomas Browne, Knt. Ballad Poetry of the Affections. By Robert Buchanan. Coleridge’s Christabel, and other Imaginative Poems. With Preface by Algernon C. Swinburne. Lord Chesterfield’s Letters, Sen¬ tences, and Maxims. With In¬ troduction by the Editor, and List of Publications. 3 Bayard Series ( continued ) :— Essay on Chesterfield by M. de Ste.-Beuve, of the French Aca¬ demy. The King and the Commons. A Selection of Cavalier and Puritan Songs. Edited by ProfessorMorley. Essays in Mosaic. By Thos. Ballan- tyne. My Uncle Toby ; his Story and A Case containing 12 Volumes, price 3 is, his Friends. Edited by P. Fitz¬ gerald. Reflections; or, Moral Sentences and Maxims of the Duke de la Roche¬ foucauld. Socrates : Memoirs for English Readers from Xenophon’s Memo¬ rabilia. By Edw. Levien. Prince Albert’s Golden Precepts. 6 d.; or the Case separately, price 3s. 61 i. Behnke and Browne. Child’s Voice. Small 8vo, $s. 6 d. Bickersteth (.Bishop E. II.) The Clergyman in his Home. Small post Svo, ir. - Evangelical Churchmanshif and Evangelical Eclecticism. Svo, is. - From Year to Year: Original Poetical Pieces. Small post Svo, 3-r. 61/. ; roan, 6 s. and 51.; calf or morocco, 10s. 6 d. - Hymnal Companion to the Book of Common Prayer. May be had in various styles and bindings from id. to 31s, 6d. Price List and Prospectus wilt be forwarded on application. - The Master's Home-Call; or, Brief Memorials of Alice Frances Bickersteth. 20th Thousand. 32mo, cloth gilt, is. - The Master's Will. A Funeral Sermon preached on the Death of Mrs. S. Gurney Buxton. Sewn, 6 d. ; cloth gilt, is. - The Beef and other Parables. Crown 8vo, 2 s. 6 d. - The Shadow of the Rock. A Selection of Religious Poetry. 181110, cloth extra, 2s. 6d. - The Shadowed Home and the Light Beyond. New Edition, crown Svo, cloth extra, 51-. Biographies of the Great Artists ( Illustrated). Crown 8vo, emblematical binding, 3a. 6 d. per volume, except where the price is given. Claude Lorrain. * Correggio, by M. E. Heaton, 2 s. 6d. Della Robbia and Cellini, 2 s. 6d. Albrecht Dlirer, by R. F. Heath. Figure Painters of Holland. FraAngelico,Masaccio,andBotticelli. Fra Bartolommeo, Albertinelli, and Andrea del Sarto. Gainsborough and Constable. Ghiberti and Donatello, 2 s. 6d. Giotto, by Plarry Quilter. Hans Holbein, by Joseph Cundall. Hogarth, by Austin Dobson. Landseer, by F. G. Stevens. Lawrence and Romney, by Lord Ronald Gower, 2s. 6 d. * Not yet published. A 2 4 Sampson Lore, Mansion, &-= Co.’s Biographies of the Great Artists (continued ) :— Leonardo da Vinci. Little Masters of Germany, by \V. B. Scott. Mantegna and Francia. Meissonier, by J. \V. Mollett, 2 s. 6d. Michelangelo Buonarotti.by Clement. Murillo, by Ellen E. Minor, 2s. 6 d. Overbeck, by J. B. Atkinson. Raphael, by N. D’Anvers. Rembrandt, by J. \V. Mollett. Reynolds, by F. S. Pulling. Rubens, by C. W. Kett. Tintoretto, by W. R. Osier. Titian, by R. F. Heath. Turner, by Cosmo Monkhouse. Vandyck and Hals, by P. R. Head Velasquez, by E. Stowe. Vernet and Delaroche, by J. Rees. Watteau, by J. W. Mollett, 2s. 6 d. Wilkie, by J. W. Mollett. Bird (F. J.) American Practical Dyer’s Companion. 8vo, 42 s. Bird (Id. E.) Chess Practice. 8vo, 2 s. 6d. Black ( Wmi) Novels. See “ Low’s Standard Library.” Blackburn (Charles F.) Hints on Catalogue Titles and Index Entries, with a Vocabulary of Terms and Abbreviations, chiefly from Foreign Catalogues. Royal 8vo, 14s. Blackburn (Henry) Breton Folk. With 171 Illust. by Randolph Caldecott. Imperial 8vo, gilt edges, 2ir.; plainer binding, tor. 6 d. - Pyrenees (The). With 100 Illustrations by Gustave Dor£, corrected to 1881. Crown 8vo, 7 s. 6 d. Blackmore (R. D.) Lorna Doone. Edition deluxe. Crowr. 4to, very numerous Illustrations, cloth, gilt edges, 315. 6 d.\ parchment, uncut, top gilt, 35^. Cheap Edition, small post 8vo, 6 s. - Novels. See “ Low’s Standard Library.” Blaikie (William) How to get Strong and how to Stay so. Rational, Physical, Gymnastic, &c., Exercises. Illust., sm.post8vo, 51. -- Sound Bodies for our Boys arid Girls. 16mo, 2 s. 6 d. Bonwich (Jos.) British Colonies and their Resources. 1 vol., cloth, 5-r. Sewn—I. Asia, is. ; II. Africa, Ir.; III. America, is.; IV. Australasia, it. Bosanquet (Rev. C.) Blossoms from the King’s Garden : Sermons for Children. 2nd Edition, small post 8vo, doth extra, 6 s. Boussenard (L.) Crusoes of Guiana. Illustrated. 5J. - Gold-seekers, a Sequel. Illustrated. i6mo, 5*. Boy’s Froissart. King Arthur. Mabinogion. Percy. See Lanier. Bradshaw (J.) Nav Zealand as it is. 8vo, 12 s. 6d. Brassey (Lady) Tahiti. With 31 Autotype Illustrations after Photos, by Colonel Stuart-Wortley. Fcap. 4to, 21 s. Bright (John) Public Letters. Crown 8vo, 7 s. 6 d. List of Publications. 5 Brisse {Baron) Menus (366). A menu, in French and English, for every Day in the Year. Translated by Mrs. Matthew Clarke. 2nd Edition. Crown Svo, 5.?. British Fisheries Directory, 1883-84. Small Svo, 2 s. (d. Brittany. See Blackburn. Brown. Life and Letters of John Brown, Liberator of Kansas, and Martyr of Virginia. By F. B. Sanborn. Illustrated. 8vo, 12a 6 d. Browne (G. Lennox) Voice Use and Stimulants. Sm. Svo, y. 6 d. - and Behtike {Emil) Voice, Song, and Speech. Illus¬ trated, 3rd Edition, medium Svo, I 5 a Bryant (I V. C.) and Gay (S. H.) ILislory of the United States. 4 vols., royal 8vo, profusely Illustrated, 60s. Bryce (Rev. Professor) Manitoba. With Illustrations and Maps. Crown 8vo, Js. 6 d. Banyan's Pilgrim's Progress. With 138 original Woodcuts. Small post Svo, cloth gilt, 3A 6 Co.'s Franc {Maud Jeanne). The following form one Series, small post Svo, in uniform cloth bindings, with gilt edges :— Emily’s Choice. Sr. Hall’s Vineyard. 4 s. John’s Wife : A Story of Life in South Australia. 4s. Marian; or, The Light of Some One’s Home. 5J. Silken Cords and Iron Fetters. 4?. Into the Light. 4?. Vermont Vale. 5r. Minnie’s Mission. 4?. Little Mercy. 4 s. Beatrice Melton’s Discipline. 4 s. No Longer a Child. 4s-. Golden Gifts. 4r. Two Sides to Ever}' Question. 4r. Master of Ralston, 4?. Francis {Frances') Elric and Ethel: a Fairy Tale. Illustrated. Crown 8vo, 3.?. 6d. French. See “ Julien.” Froissart. See “ Lanier.” hi A LE {F. ; the Old Buffer) Modern English Sports: their Use and Abuse. Crown 8vo, 6s. ; a few large paper copies, ior. 6 d. Garth {Philip) Ballads and Poems from the Pacific. Small post Svo, 6s. Gentle Life (Queen Edition). 2 vols. in 1, small 4to, 6r. THE GENTLE LIFE SERIES. Price 6s. each ; or in calf extra, price ior. 6 d .; Smaller Edition, cloth extra, 2s. 6d., except where price is named. The Gentle Life. Essays in aid of the Formation of Character of Gentlemen and Gentlewomen. About in the World. Essays by Author of “ The Gentle Life.” Like unto Christ. A New Translation of Thomas a Kempis’ “ De Imitatione Christi.” Familiar JVords. An Index Verborum, or Quotation Hand¬ book. 6r. Essays by Montaigne. Edited and Annotated by the Author of “The Gentle Life.” The Gentle Life. 2nd Series. The Silent Hour: Essays, Original and Selected. By the Author of “The Gentle Life.” Half-Length Portraits. Short Studies of Notable Persons. By J. Hain Friswell. List of Publications. ii Essays on English Writers, for the Self-improvement of Students in English Literature. Other People's Windows. By J. Hain Friswell. 6 s. A Man's Thoughts. By J. Hain Friswell. The Countess of Pembroke's Arcadia. By Sir Philip Sidney. New Edition, 6 s. George Eliot: a Critical Study of her Life. By G. W, Cooke, Crown Svo, los. 6d. Germany. By S. Baring-Gould. Crown 8vo, 3^. 6 d. Gilder (W. H.) Ice-Pack and Tundra. An Account of the Search for the “Jeannette.” Svo, iSr. - Sclnuatka's Search. Sledging in quest of the Franklin Records. Illustrated, 8vo, 12s. 6 ci. Gilpin's Forest Scenery. Edited by F. G. Heath. Post 8vo, 7 s. 6cl. Gisborne ( W.) New Zealand Rulers and Statesmen. With Portraits. Crown Svo, Gordon (General) Private Diary in China. Edited by S. Mossman. Crown 8vo, Js. 6 J. Gordon (f. E. II., B.A. Cantab.) Four Lectures on Electric Induction at the Royal Institution, 1878-9. Ulust., square i6mo, 3r. - Electric Lighting. Illustrated, 8vo, i8l - Physical Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. 2nd Edition, enlarged, with coloured, full-page, &c., Illust. 2 vols., 8vo, 42J. - Electricity for Schools. Illustrated. Crown Svo, 51. Goujfe (fules) Royal Cookery Book. Translated and adapted for English use by Alphonse Gouff£, Head Pastrycook to the Queen. New Edition, with plates in colours, Woodcuts, &c., Svo, s gilt edges, 421. -Domestic Edition, half-bound, 105. 6 d. Grant (General , U.S.) Personal Memoirs. With numerous Illustrations, Maps, &c. 2 vols., Svo, 2Sr. Great Artists. See “Biographies.” 12 Sampson Low, Marston, Co.'s Pinto (Major Serpa) Hoiv I Crossed Africa. With 24 full-page and 118 lialf-page and smaller Illustrations, 13 small Maps, and 1 large one. 2 vols., 8vo, 42r. Plunkeit (Major G. P.) Primer of Orthographic Projection. Elementary Practical Solid Geometry clearly explained. With Pro¬ blems and Exercises. Specially adapted for Science and Art Classes, and for Students who have not the aid of a Teacher. Poe (E. A.) The Raven. Illustr. by Dore. Imperial folio, 63.L Poems of the Inner Life. Chiefly from Modern Authors. Small 8vo, 51. Polar Expeditions. See Gilder, Markham, McCormick. Porter (Noali) Elements of Moral Science. 1 os. 6d. Powell (IV.) Wanderings in a Wild Country; or, Three Years among the Cannibals of New Britain. Illustr., 8vo, i8r.; cr. 8vo, 5 -f- Power (Frank) Letters from Khartoum during the Siege. Fcap. 8vo, boards, ir. Poynter (Edward f, R.A.). See “ Illustrated Text-books.” Publisherd Circular (The), and General Record of British and Foreign Literature. Published on the 1st and 15th of every Month, 3 d. History of Ancient Art. 8vo, iSr. Redford (G.) Ancient Sculpture. Crown 8vo, 55. Richter (Dr. Jean Paul) Italian Art in the National Gallery. 4to. Illustrated. Cloth gilt, 2/. 2 s.; half-morocco, uncut, 2 1 . I2r. 6 d. -See also Leonardo da Vinci. Riddell (Mrs. J. H.) See Low’s Standard Novels. Robin Hood; Merry Adventures of. Written and illustrated by Howard Pyle. Imperial 8vo, 1 Sr. Robinson (Phil.) In my Indian Garden. Crown Svo, limp cloth, 3-r. 6 d. List of Publications. 23 Robinson ( Phil.) Indian Garden Series, is 6d.; boards, it. each. I. Chasing a Fortune, &c. : Stories. II. Tigers at Large. —- Noah's Ark. A Contribution to the Study of Unnatural History. Small post 8vo, 12 s. 6d. - Sinners and Saints : a Tour across the United States of America, and Round them. Crown 8vo, I or. 6< 1 . - Under the Punkah. Crown 8vo, limp cloth, 5 s. Rocksiro ( IV. S.) History of Music. Rodrigues (f. C.) The Panama Canal. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, $s. “A series of remarkable articles ... a mine of valuable data for editors and diplomatists."— Nezu York Nation. Roland; the Story of. Crown 8vo, illustrated, 6s. Rose (f.) Complete Practical Machinist. New Ed., x 2mo, 12 s. 6 d. - Mechanical Drawing. Hlustrated, small 4to, i6j. Rose Library {The). Popular Literature of all Countries. Each volume, ir.; cloth, 2s. 6 d. Many of the Volumes are Illustrated— Little Women. By Louisa M. Alcott. Little Women Wedded. Forming a Sequel to “ Little Women.” Little Women and Little Women Wedded. 1 vol., cloth gilt,3r. 6 a. Little Men. By L. M. Alcott. 2s. ; cloth gilt, 3r. 6d. An Old-Fashioned Girl. By Louisa M. Alcott. 2 s. ; cloth, 3 -r. 6d. Work. A Story of Experience. By L. M. Alcott. 2 s - 6d. ; 2 vols. ir. each. Stowe (Mrs. H. B.) The Pearl of Orr’s Island. - The Minister’s Wooing-. -We and our Neighbours. 2s. • cloth gilt, 6s. -My Wife and I. 2s .; cloth gilt, 6s. Hans Brinker ; or, the Silver Skates. By Mrs. Dodge. My Study Windows. By J. R. Lowell. The Guardian Angel. By Oliver Wendell Holmes. My Summer in a Garden. By C. D. Warner. Dred. By Mrs. Beecher Stowe. 2 s.; cloth gilt, 3 s.6d. Farm Ballads. By Will Carleton. Farm Festivals. By Will Carleton. 24 Sampson Low , Mars ton, Sr Co.’s Lose Library ( The )— continued. Farm Legends. By Will Carleton. The Clients of Dr. Bernagius. 3.?. 6cf. ; 2 parts, is. each. The Undiscovered Country. By W. D. Howells. 3f. 6.Y. and if. Baby Rue. By C. M. Clay. 3.1. 6 d. and Is. The Rose in Bloom. By L. M. Alcott. 2s. ; cloth gilt, 3f. 6 d. Eight Cousins. By L. M. Alcott. 2 s.; cloth gilt, 3f. 6 d. Under the Lilacs. By L. M. Alcott. 2 s .; also 3r. 6d. Silver Pitchers. By Louisa M. Alcott. 3 s. 6d. and is. Jimmy’s Cruise in the “Pinafore,” and other Tales. By Louisa M. Alcott. 2 s.; cloth gilt, 35. 6 J. Jack and Jill. By Louisa M. Alcott. 5f.; 2 s. Hitherto. By the Author of the “ Gayworthys.” 2 vols., if. each; 1 vol., cloth gilt, 2 s - 6d. Friends : a Duet. By E. Stuart Phelps. 3r. 6 d. A Gentleman of Leisure. A Novel. By Edgar Fawcett. 3f. 6a'.; if. The Story of Helen Troy. 3r. 6d.; also If. Loss (Mars ; and Stoncliewer Cooper) Highlands of Cantabria ; or, Three Days from England. Illustrations and Map, 8vo, 2 if. Lound the Yule Log: Norwegian Folk and Fairy Tales. Translated from the Norwegian of P. Chr. Asbjornsen. With 100 Illustrations after drawings by Norwegian Artists, and an Introduction by E. W Gosse. Impl. i6mo, cloth extra, gilt edges, 7 s. 6 d. and 5r. Lousselct (Louis) Son of the Constable of France. Small post 8vo, numerous Illustrations, 5f. .- King of the Tigers : a Story of Central India. Illus¬ trated. Small post 8vo, gilt, 6f.; plainer, 5r. - Drummer Boy. Illustrated. Small post 8vo, 5f. Rowbotham (F.) Trip to Prairie Land. The Shady Side of Emigration. 5r. Lussell ( W. Clark) English Channel Ports and the Estate of the East and West India Dock Company. Crown 8vo, if. - Jack’s Courtship. 3 vols., 31 s. 6d.; 1 vol., 6s. List of Publications. 25 Russell (IF. Clark) The Lady Maud. 3 vols., 3 it. 6 d.; 1 vol., 6 s. - Little Loo. New Edition, small post 8vo, 6 s. - My Watch Below; or, Yarns Spini when off Duty. Small post 8vo, 6 s. - Sailor’s Language. Illustrated. Crown 8vo, $s. 6d. - 1 Sea Queen. 3 vols., 3 it. 6 d.; 1 vol., 6 s. - Strange Voyage. Nautical Novel. 3 vols., crown 8vo, 31 s. 6d. - Wreck of the Grosvenor. 4to, sewed, 6 d. -See also Low’s Standard Novels. Co.’s Sullivan ( A. Ml) Nutshell History of Ireland. Paper boards, 6 d. Sutton (.A. Kl) A B C Digest of the Bankruptcy Law. 8vo, 3-f. and 2 s. 6 d. 'T'ALNE (H. A.) “ Les Origines de la France C.ontemporaine.” Translated by John Durand. I. The Ancient Regime. Demy 8vo, cloth, i6j. II. The French Revolution. Vol. I. do. III. Do. do. Vol. 2. do. IV. Do. do. Vol. 3. do. Talbot {Hon. El) A Letter on Emigration, is. Tauelinitz’s English Editions of German Authors. Each volume, cloth flexible, 2 s. ; or sewed, is. 61/. (Catalogues post free.) Tauchnitz (B.) German and English Dictionary. 2s .; paper, Is. 6 c f. ; roan, 2s. 6 it. - French and English Dictionary. 2s.; paper, ij. 6 d .; roan, 2 s. 6d. - Italian and English Dictionary. 2s. ; paper, is. 6d .; roan, 2 s. 6d. - Spanish and English. 2 s.; paper, if. 6 d .; roan, 2 s. 6 d. 1 'aylor {IV. Ml) Paul the Missionary. Crown 8vo, js. 6 d. Thausing {Prof.) Malt and the Fabrication of Beer. 8vo, 45J. Theakston {Ml) British Angling Flies. Illustrated. Cr. 8vo, 51. Thomson {IV.) Algebra for Colleges and Schools. With nu¬ merous Examples. 8vo, 5 s., Key, is. 6.r. Thomson {Jos.) Through Masai Land. Illustrations and Maps. 2\s. Thoreau. American Men of Letters. Crown 8vo, 2 s. 6d. Tolliausen {Alexandre) Grand Supplement du Dictionnaire Technologique. 3-r. 6 d. Tristram {Rev. Canon) Pathways of Palestine: A Descriptive Tour through the Holy Land. First Series. Illustrated by 44 Per¬ manent Photographs. 2 vols., folio, cloth extra, gilt edges, 31 s. 6 d. each. List of Publications. 29 Trollope (.Anthony ) Thompson Hall. ir. Tromholt (S.) Under the Rays of the Aurora Borealis. By C. SlEWERS. Photographs and Portraits. 2 vols., 8vo, 30 s. Tunis. See Reid. Turner (Edward) Studies in Russian Literature. Cr. 8vo, 8x. 6 d. T JNION Jack (The). Every Boy's Paper. Edited by G. A. G' Henty. Profusely Illustrated with Coloured and other Plates. Vol. I., 6s. Vols. II., III., IV., 7s. 6 d. each. J/ASIL 1 (Count) Berlin Society. Translated. Cown 8vo, - World of London (La Societe de Londres). Translated. Crown 8vo, 6 s. Velazquez and Murillo. By C. B. Curtis. With Original Etchings. Royal 8vo, 31J. 6 d .; large paper, 631. Victoria (Queen) Life of. By Grace Greenwood. With numerous Illustrations. Small post 8vo, 6 s. Vincent (Mrs. Howard) Forty Thousand Miles over Land and Water. With Illustrations engraved under the direction of Mr. II. Blackburn. 2 vols, crown Svo, 21 s. Viollet-le-Duc (E.) Lectures on Architecture. Translated by Beniamin Bucknai.l, Architect. With 33 Steel Plates and 200 Wood Engravings. Super-royal 8vo, leatherback, gilt top, 2 vols., 3/. 3*. Vivian (A. P.) Wanderings in the Western Land. 3rd Ed ., 1 os.Gd. BOOKS BY JULES VEBNE Laege Crown Svo. ( Containing350 to 600 pp. ■j and from 50 to 100 l full-page illustrations. Containing the whole of the text with some illustrations. In very In In cloth handsome plainer binding gilt WORKS. cloth bind- binding. edges. Coloured boards. ing, gilt plain smaller edges. edges. type. 20,000 Leagues under the Sea. Parts I. and II. > 5 . 10 d. 6 s. d. 5 0 s. 3 d. 6 2 vols., Is. each. Hector Servadac. 10 6 5 0 3 6 2 vols., Is. each. The Fur Country. 10 6 5 0 3 6 2 vols., Is. each. The Earth to the Moon and a Trip round it. 10 G 5 0 i 2 vols., 2s. ea. S 2 vols., Is. each. Michael Strogoft. 10 6 5 0 3 G 2 vols., Is. each. Lick Sands, the Boy Captain . . 10 G 5 0 3 G 2 vols., Is. each. Five Wesks in a Ealloon . . . 7 6 3 6 2 0 Is. Od. Adventures of Three Englishmen } 7 6 3 6 2 0 £ 0 and Three Russians .... j F.ound the World in Eighty Lays 7 G 3 6 2 0 1 0 A Floating City. 7 0 3 6 c <> 0 1 0 The Blockade Runners .... j l 2 0 1 0 Er. Ox’s Experiment. — 2 0 1 0 A Winter amid the Ice .... — 2 0 1 0 Survivors of the “ Chancellor ” . } 3 6 f 2 0 2 vols , Is. each. Martin Paz. ) l O 0 Is. 0 J. The Mysterious Island, 3 vols.:— 22 6 10 6 6 0 3 0 I. Propped from the Clouds . ( 7 6 3 6 O 0 1 0 II. Abandoned. 7 6 3 6 2 0 1 0 III. Secret of the Island . . . ) 7 6 3 6 O 0 1 0 The Child of the Cavern .... 7 6 3 6 2 0 1 0 The Begum’s Fortune .... 7 G 3 6 2 0 1 0 The Tribulations of a Chinaman , The Steam House, 2 vols.: — 7 6 3 6 o 0 1 0 I. Demon of Cawnpore « . . 7 6 3 G 2 0 1 0 II. Tigers and Traitors . . . The Giant Raft, 2 vols. : — ( ) 7 6 3 6 2 0 1 0 I. 800 Leagues on the Amazon [ 7 6 3 6 2 0 1 0 II. The Cryptogram .... ) 7 6 3 6 2 0 1 0 The Green Ray. 6 0 5 0 1 0 Godfrey Morgan. Keraban the Inflexible: — ) 7 6 3 6 2 0 1 0 I. Captain of the “Guidara” . [ 7 6 II. Scarpante the Spy. . . . ) 7 6 The Archipelago on Fire.... 7 6 The Vanished Diamond .... 7 6 1 Celebrated Travels and Tbavellebs. 3 vols. 8vo, 600 pp., 100 full-page illustrations, 12». G d. ; gilt edges, H*. each:—(1) The Exploration of the World. (2) The Great Navigators of the Eighteenth Century. (3) The Great Exflobebs of the Nineteenth Century- Sampson Low, Mansion, &■= Co.’s List of Publications. 31 J/JPALLL ( IV. H.) Galvanoplastic Manipulation for the ' ' Electro-Plater. 8vo, 35^. Wallace (L.) Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ. Crown Svo, 6 s. Waller (Rev. C. II ) The Names on the Gates of Pearl, and other Studies. New Edition. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, 3r. 6 cl. -- A Grammar and Analytical Vocabulary of the Words in the Greek Testament. Compiled from Briider’s Concordance. For the use of Divinity Students and Greek Testament Classes. Tart I. Grammar. Small post 8vo, cloth, 2 s. 6d. Part II. Vocabulary, 2s. 6 cl. - Adoption and the Covenant. Some Thoughts on Confirmation. Super-royal i6mo, cloth limp, 2 s. 6 d. - Silver Sockets; and other Shadows of Redemption. Sermons at Christ Church, Hampstead. Small post 8vo, 6 s. Walton (Lz.) Wallet Book, CI3I3LXXXV. 21s. ; 1 . p. 42 s. Walton (T. II.) Coal Mining. With Illustrations. 4to, 251. Warder (G. W.) Utopian Dreams and Lotus Leaves. Crown 8vo, 6 s. Warner (C. D.) My Summer in a Garden. Boards, ir.; leatherette, is. 6d. ; cloth, 2 s. Warren (JV. F.) Paradise Found; the North Pole the Cradle of the Human Race. Illustrated. Crown 8vo, I2r. 6 d. Washington Lrving's Little Britain. Square crown 8vo, 6 s. Watson (P. B.) Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Portr. Svo, 15^ Webster. (American Men of Letters.) iSmo, 2 s. 6d. Weir (Harrison) Animal Stories, Old and New, told in Pic- tures and Prose. Coloured, &c., Illustrations. 56 pp., 4to, Sr. Wells (H. P.) Fly Rods and Fly Tackle. Illustrated, ior. 6 d. Wheatley (H. B.) and Delatnotte (P. H.) Art Work in Porce- lain. Large Svo, 2s. 6d. - Art Work in Gold and Silver. Modern. Large Svo, 2 s. 6 d. -— Handbook of Decorative Art. 10s. 6d. Whisperings. Poems. Small post 8vo, cloth extra, gilt edges, 3 s - 6 d. White (R. Grant) England Without and Within. Crown 8vo, 1 or. 6 d. — Every-day English. Crown 8vo, 10s. 6 d. — Studies in Shakespeare. Crown 8vo, ior. 6 d. 32 Sampson Low , Mansion, 6° Co.’s List of Publications. White (R. Grant) Fate of Mansfield Humphreys , the Episode of Mr. Washington Adams in England, an Apology, &c. Crown 8vo, 6 s. - Words and their uses. New Edit., crown 8vo, ioj. 6 d. Whittier (f. G.) The King’s Missive, and later Poems. 181110, choice parchment cover, 31. 6 d. - The Whittier Birthday Book. Extracts from the Author’s writings, with Portrait and Illustrations. Uniform with the “Emerson Birthday Book.” Square i6mo, very choice binding, 31. 6 d. - Life of. By R. A. Underwood. Cr. 8vo, cloth, ioj. 6 d. Williams (C. F.) Tariff Laws of the United States. 8 vo, iol 6 d. Williams (H ]V.) Diseases of the Eye. 8 vo, 215. Wills, A Few Hints on Proving , without Professional Assistance. By a Probate Court Official. 8th Edition, revised, with Forms of Wills, Residuary Accounts, &c. Fcap. 8vo, cloth limp, is. Wimbledon (Viscount) Life and Times, 1628-38. By C. Dalton. 2 vols., 8vo, 30 s . Witthaus (R. A.) Medical Student's Chemistry. 8vo, i6j. Woodbury , History of Wood Engraving. Illustrated. 8vo, i8j. Woolsey ( C. D-, LL.Dl) Introduction to the Study of Inter- national Law. 5th Edition, demy 8vo, 18 s. Woolson (Constance F) See “ Low’s Standard Novels.” Wright (Hi) Friendship of God. Portrait, &c. Crown 8vo, 6 s. Written to Order; the fourneyings of an Irrespojisible Egotist. Crown Svo, 6s. ‘ W"RIARTE (Charles) Florence: its History. Translated by C. B. Pitman. Illustrated with 500 Engravings. Large imperial 4to, extra binding, gilt edges, 63L; or 12 Parts, 5r. each. History ; the Medici; the Humanists; letters; arts; the Renaissance; illustrious Florentines; Etruscan art; monuments; sculpture; painting. fLontion: SAMPSON LOW, MARSTON, SEARLE, & RIVINGTON, CROWN BUILDINGS, 188 , FLEET STREET, E.C.