^s,^'<fff. 
 
 mirm: 
 
 J 
 
 K 
 
 "*» 'lk'-1..^i."'fc^^ . 
 
 
 s.
 
 I E) RAR.Y 
 OF THE 
 U N I VLRSITY 
 Of ILLINOIS
 
 ,.£&;•
 
 ^ 
 
 THE 
 
 CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 IN SCOTLAND 
 
 BEING 
 
 TWO SPEECHES 
 
 DELIVERED BY HIM IN 
 
 THE CITY OF EDINBURGH 
 
 ON 29TH AND 30TH OCTOBER 1867 
 
 PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY 
 
 WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS 
 
 EDINBURGH AND LONDON 
 
 MDCCCLXVII
 
 A Banquet was given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 on Tuesday, October 29, 1867, in the Corn Exchange, Edin- 
 burgh, by upwards of twelve hundred of the leading members 
 of the Conservative Party in Scotland— Sir William Stirling 
 Maxwell, Bart., M.P., in the Chair — to congratulate Mr Disraeli 
 on the passing of the Eeform Bill for England, when the first 
 of the following Speeches was delivered. 
 
 The second was spoken in answer to an Address presented by 
 the Working Men of Edinburgh to the Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer, in the Music Hall, on the evening of the following day.
 
 UIUC
 
 SPEECH 
 
 AT 
 
 T H E BANQUET 
 
 THE COEN EXCHANGE, EDINBURGH, OCT. 29, 1867. 
 
 Mr Chairman, my Lords and Gentlemen, 
 
 I know nothing more gratifying in the life of a public man 
 — nothing in its toils and in its asperities more satisfactory and 
 soothing, than an expression of sympathy from a iDody of his 
 countrymen — nor is that gratification diminished if the sym- 
 pathy comes from those who are not connected with him by 
 any local sentiment. However much we may value the kind 
 feeling of our neighbours, we are conscious that their esti- 
 mate of our conduct may not be free from partiality. You may 
 therefore conceive, though I cannot express, what my feelings 
 are at this moment, greeted by this great assemblage of men dis- 
 tinguished by their rank, their character and their intelligence, 
 and representing all classes of the community — and that, too, 
 in the fair capital of a famous nation united to England on equal 
 terms, and in the spirit of honour — and by whose blended influ- 
 ence we have since that union consummated some of the greatest 
 feats of British valour, and achieved some of the most brilliant 
 results of British genius. 
 
 In thanking you, Mr Chairman, for the too kind manner in 
 which you have introduced my name to this assembly, I cannot 
 for a moment forget — for you have yourself expressed it with 
 frankness — that it is chiefly to be attributed to the passing of 
 
 A
 
 a memorable measure which has distinguished the present 
 session of Parliament, and with which I have in some degree 
 been connected. I am glad to hear that measure and its fate 
 have been received with favour and confidence in the city of 
 Edinburgh — and the more so because I might otherwise have 
 been deceived by some expressions which had reached me before 
 I visited the country, and supposed that a different opinion both 
 of the measure and of those who are responsible for it prevailed 
 in this city. I had heard, indeed— and the words came from a 
 person of considerable position — considerable if he were only the 
 representative of this great city, but still more so as one who has 
 held high office connected with the administration of the king- 
 dom of Scotland— I had heard that her Majesty's Ministers had 
 carried a measure for which they were entitled to no distinction, 
 since they had only carried a measure for which for more than 
 seventy years the Whig party had toiled in vain — since the 
 period when, in the year 1793, Lord Grey had been defeated 
 by the machinations of Mr Pitt. 
 
 ]^ow, my Lotds and Gentlemen, I should not take an occasion 
 like the present to treat of the pedigree of parties, though I 
 think myself, and have ever thought, it a subject not to be 
 despised, and full of very serious considerations and conse- 
 quences — but when a statement like this is made, and made in 
 this city, and upon it is founded a series of arguments which, if 
 left untouched and unnoticed, appear to me to have the tendency 
 of depreciating and misrepresenting the character and conduct of 
 public men, I cannot allow it to pass for a moment utterly uncon- 
 tradicted. It is important, my Lords and Gentlemen, because it 
 is in another form a revival and repetition of the old party dogma, 
 that upon the most important of political subjects — namely, the 
 question how power should be distributed in the State — one of 
 the great historical parties of England is to be forbidden ever to 
 touch it. My Lords and Gentlemen, on principle — on abstract 
 principle — I should protest against such a dogma — but when it 
 is introduced to us with historical illustrations, and recommended 
 to our notice by an appeal to the annals of our country, and to 
 the deeds of our statesmen, I cannot help pointing out to you 
 and to the country the entire error of the statement. Wliy, my 
 Lords and Gentlemen, the question of Parliamentary reform, if 
 we are to go to the origin of that question since the constitution 
 of this country was settled upon its present basis, was purely 
 and entirely a Tory question. The question of Parliamentary 
 reform was first introduced to public notice by the great states- 
 men who flourished at the beginning of the eighteenth century.
 
 What their motives might have been — what were the merits of 
 their measures — it is quite unnecessary for us now to consider 
 or to touch upon, but the fact, and the historical fact remains. 
 The great Tory leaders of that day, no doubt, were in a great 
 minority in the House of Commons ; and they believed, as has 
 since been established as a fact, that they were in a great majo- 
 rity in the nation, and therefore they were anxious to alter the 
 principles upon which the representation of the country should 
 take place. Why, you had then motions for shorter Parliaments 
 — motions for extending the suffrage far beyond the settlement 
 of this year. You had motions brought forward even for 
 secret voting, and that by men who, from their birth, their 
 rank, their possessions, and their eloquence, are second to few of 
 the great statesmen that ever flourished in this country. And 
 when we are told that it was by the machinations of Mr Pitt, 
 who defeated Lord Grey in 1793, that the Whigs had been baffled 
 in their perpetual efforts to carry household suffrage for seventy 
 years — and now have been deprived of their rightful heritage 
 by the manoeuvres of the Government of Lord Derby — allow 
 me to say that the great leaders at the commencement of the 
 eighteenth century who brought forward these measures for 
 Parliamentary reform, and for a number of years with signal 
 eloquence vindicated and recommended these measures, were 
 defeated by a powerful and no doubt a very intelligent oli- 
 garchy, through whose paramount influence for a great num- 
 ber of years these opinions were in abeyance. 'But reac- 
 tion is the law of life. A time came when, at a period of 
 public calamity, the country began to doubt whether it was 
 wise to intrust to an oligarchy the most considerable portion of 
 the power of the State, and began to believe that they ought to 
 trust more to the power of the Sovereign and the independence 
 of the nation ; and when these opinions became prevalent shortly 
 after the American war, and wlien the man, as always happens, 
 appeared to advocate these opinions, who was that man ? Why, 
 it was a youth who had formed his mind by studying the con- 
 duct of the great statesmen of the commencement of the century. 
 It is upon record that he gave up his days and nights to the 
 study of their eloquence. His principles of finance and com- 
 merce he found in that treaty of Utrecht which was baffled by 
 faction, and which would have given us the advantages of that 
 free trade, now so much vaunted, a century before or more. 
 There, too, he found those principles of religious toleration which 
 now have been adopted ; and among other matters — Parliamen- 
 tary reform — and he advocated it as the means by which alone
 
 he could control the oligarchy then predominant. And who 
 was that youthful statesman? It was the son of Chatham 
 — that very Mr Pitt who we are now told by his machinations 
 prevented Lord Grey, and has for seventy years prevented the 
 "Whig party, from conferring upon the English people the boon 
 of household suffrage. 
 
 My Lords and Gentlemen, no doubt in 1832 Lord Grey, per- 
 fectly entitled to take the line which he did — Lord Grey fairly 
 earned the leadership upon that question of Parliamentary 
 reform ; but when Lord Grey made his Government he never 
 pretended that in the policy which he recommended he was 
 recommending a policy peculiar to the Whig party. On the 
 contrary, he said from the first that it was impossible for him to 
 form a Government except it was upon a broad basis. He ap- 
 pealed, and successfully appealed, to the followers of Mr Can- 
 ning — brilliant men, experienced in administration ; but that 
 was not enough, though it gave him experienced colleagues. 
 He felt that he could not succeed in forming a Government 
 without a considerable support from the Tory party, and he ap- 
 pealed to the Duke of Eichmond, the father of one of my col- 
 leagues — a man whom you must all have known, and remember, 
 and love — he appealed to him to form a portion of his Cabinet, 
 and if the Duke of Eichmond had not become a member of 
 that Cabinet, I much doubt whether Lord Grey's Government 
 would have been established. Therefore, I say that nothing can 
 be more idle than this statement recently brought forward, that 
 we have invaded a land upon which we had no right to enter — 
 that they, our political opponents, had a vested interest in this 
 question of tlie representation of the people ; that for seventy 
 years they have been toiling in order to confer the boon of house- 
 hold suffrage upon the people of England, and that we have 
 come forward in a manner most unauthorised, at the last mo- 
 ment, and are claiming a reputation foi* a result to which we are 
 not entitled. I readily admit, and our excellent Chairman has 
 noticed it, that after the Eeform Bill of 1832 was passed, Sir 
 Eobert Peel, by that important political paper, the Tamworth 
 Manifesto, and by his speeches in the House of Commons, 
 pledged the Tory party not to disturb that settlement. It was 
 then the habit of those who passed the Eeform Bill of 1832, and 
 who, to their great surprise, found that only two or three years 
 afterwards there was a danger of a Tory Government being 
 formed — it was then their habit to circulate that the only object 
 of Sir Eobert Peel and his adherents, when they acceded to 
 ofl&ce, which they felt was impending, was to repeal the Ee- 
 form Bill, and Sir Eobert Peel, with what was universally
 
 deemed great prudence, entered into that compact, the deep wis- 
 dom of which I myself confess I have always had some doubts. 
 But whether it was a wise step on the part of Sir Eobert Peel or 
 not, no one will deny that that compact was religiously observed 
 by the Conservative party. Every man who ever acted with 
 them most scrupulously assisted Sir Eobert Peel in carrying that 
 compact into fulfilment; and I never heard it for a moment 
 whispered that we ever departed from that public engagement. 
 Well, but of course when the very Minister who brought for- 
 ward in the House of Commons the Bill of 1832 — Lord Grey's 
 Bill — announced only twenty years after it was passed, in the 
 year 1852, himself then in the high capacity of Prime Minister 
 of England, that that law was no longer adequate to the circum- 
 stances, and that he should himself introduce a measure which 
 would supersede it — the Tory party were immediately freed from 
 the engagement into which they had entered, and it was for them 
 to consider the course that they ought to pursue. I touch, my 
 Lords and Gentlemen, upon this point because it is a matter 
 which now has, for a very long time, circulated with impunity, 
 but with mischievous impunity, in the country. I want to 
 show to you that our title was clear, even historically, to deal 
 with the greatest and most important of political questions — 
 namely, the distribution of power in the State. After Lord 
 John Kussell had announced that he had retreated from his 
 doctrine of finality, and that he should take an opportunity of 
 introducing a new Eeform Bill, there was a meeting o'f the most 
 considerable men at that time connected with the Tory party. 
 Sir Eobert Peel had then unfortunately quitted this scene ; but 
 there were such men as Lord Derby himself — others, some of 
 whom are now in his Cabinet — there were men who have left 
 us like Sir Eobert Peel — there was Lord George Bentinck, 
 there were Mr Bankes and others, men associated in the public 
 mind with the maintenance of what are called high Tory opin- 
 ions, many of them — they met, they considered the circum- 
 stances of the case, they conferred with their adherents, they 
 arrived at a definite and determined conclusion, that under no 
 circumstances whatever was the Tory party ever to be induced 
 to oppose a new Eeform Bill — that they would always assist its 
 introduction, and then attempt to mould it into that form which 
 they believed would be most advantageous to the country. To 
 that resolution, passed nearly twenty years ago, they have in- 
 variably and religiously adhered ; and I can only say for myself, 
 that from the time I ever presumed at the request of my friends 
 to take any lead in public affairs, I have never omitted any 
 opportunity of claiming, whenever this question was brought
 
 forward, the right of the Tory party to deal with it, deeming 
 that historically we had as good and a better right than our 
 opponents, but that totally irrespective of these considerations it 
 was a fatal position that one of the great constitutional parties 
 of England should commence their programme by the admission, 
 that upon the most vital and interesting of public questions they 
 were to be considered to be debarred from ever interfering. 
 Well, then, I think, my Lords and Gentlemen, it must be agreed, 
 notwithstanding the speech which has recently been deliver- 
 ed in the city of Edinburgh, that the question of Parliamen- 
 tary reform was a question free to the Tory j)arty to deal 
 with if they deemed proper. I put it first upon the ab- 
 stract political ground ; secondly, if necessary — it is not neces- 
 sary — I vindicate it upon historical facts so totally opposed to 
 that perverted statement which recently has been made in this 
 city. 
 
 Well, my Lords and Gentlemen, if the question is one which 
 we had a right to deal with, the next question — and it is a much 
 more important one — is this : — Having a right to deal with it, 
 ought we to have dealt with it ? W^ell, now it does appear to 
 me that any man of sound mind — any man accustomed to con- 
 sider political affairs — must have felt it w^as absolutely necessary 
 for Lord Derby, in 1866, to deal with this question. Why, what 
 are the facts of the case ? They are these. For fifteen years — 
 from 1852 till the end of 1866 — the Government of the Queen, 
 not merely the House of Commons, had been dealing witli the 
 question of Parliamentary reform. It is a totally different thing 
 for the Government of the Queen to deal with a question, and a 
 mere Parliamentary party, who may endeavour to obtain the 
 public confidence and public applause by supporting a particular 
 line of policy. A question may be a Parliamentary question, 
 like the abolition of slavery and many other questions, and it 
 may be right that they should not be precipitated in their solu- 
 tion, and should be matured by frequent and continuous dis- 
 cussions — not merely of years, but if necessary in some ques- 
 tions of generations ; but the moment the Queen's Government 
 comes forward and says that a question ought to be settled, the 
 country has a right to suppose that the wisest men have given 
 their consideration to it, and that State necessity requires that 
 some settlement should be arrived at. You might say that it 
 was merely the Whig party who were of this opinion. But is 
 that the case ? Every Prime Minister during these fifteen j^ears, 
 and every party that has been in power during these fifteen 
 years, had announced from the Throne that the question of Par- 
 liamentary reform, which is the question of distribution of power
 
 in the State, was one which demanded consideration and settle- 
 ment. Every Prime Minister and every party had dealt with the 
 question, and had failed. Lord John Eussell had dealt with the 
 question, and had failed. Lord Aberdeen, at the head of one of 
 the most powerful Governments, so far as personal talent was 
 concerned, that ever existed in this country, had dealt with the 
 question, and had failed. Lord Palmerston had dealt with the 
 question, and had failed. Lord Derby had dealt with the 
 question, and had failed ; and afterwards Lord John Eussell 
 had dealt with the question again, and had failed. Well, you 
 talk about agitation in the country ; you talk of the unprin- 
 cipled conduct of men practising on the passions of the people 
 for their self-interests and private ends ; but what a premium 
 do you give for agitation when, year after year, the Ministry of 
 the Queen announce that the most important political question, 
 the one that concerns the rights of every individual in the coun- 
 try, requires settlement : and year after year. Ministry after 
 Ministry, the attempt is made and no settlement arrived at. 
 Why, what is the practical conclusion, under such circumstances, 
 at which every man would arrive ? Why, the practical conclu- 
 sion must be this, and everybody feels it, and everybody felt it, 
 in England, that the Government of the country — the great gov- 
 erning machine — was not adequate to the occasion, that it could 
 not meet the difficulty. Well, if the Government of the 
 country is not adequate to that which the Governm^ent of the 
 country says is necessary to be accomplished, why, what is 
 that but a premium to revolution ? W^ell, my Lords and Gentle- 
 men, I have ventured, I think, to show that we had a right as 
 a party to deal with this question of Parliamentary reform, that 
 this convenient creed that has been circulated of late through- 
 out the country, and has been preached so recently in this good 
 city of Edinburgh, that the treatment of Parliamentary reform 
 is the peculiar appanage of the Liberal party — is one that is 
 absurd in principle and is not true in historical fact. I think I 
 may take it to be admitted that we, as a party, had a right to 
 deal with the question. I have shown you it is equally clear 
 that, having the freedom of dealing with the question, it was 
 our duty to deal with it — that State necessity required that we 
 should deal with the question, and that we should not fulfil our 
 duty to our Sovereign or the country if we had evaded dealing 
 with the question. Now I come to tlie third point of this in- 
 quiry. Having a right to deal with the question, and feeling that 
 we ought to deal with it — both of which points I think you will 
 agree are proven, did we deal with the question in the right 
 manner ?
 
 8 
 
 Now, my Lords and Gentlemen, I say that no man can form 
 a fair and accurate opinion upon that momentous question unless 
 he clearly ascertains, in the first place, what were the relations 
 of Lord Derby and his party to this question of Parliamentary 
 reform. Lord Derby acceded to office as Prime Minister for 
 the first time in 1852, Lord John Paissell having then just failed 
 on the question of Parliamentary reform. It was not necessary 
 for Lord Derby in 1852 to deal with the question ; and every- 
 body felt that, however wise it might be to consider it with 
 regard to ultimate settlement, there was no pressure for imme- 
 diate solution. The measure of Lord John Eussell of 1852 was 
 generally considered even by his friends — though I think there 
 was much to vindicate his course, to which I may afterwards 
 advert — an immature movement. Well, when we came into 
 office in 1852, though it was not necessary to deal with the 
 question of reform, it was necessary in 1852 to make up our 
 minds as to the general policy we should adopt on that subject ; 
 because although we need not bring forward a measure, the 
 Opposition, who then for three years had agitated upon the sub- 
 ject, were quite certain to bring forward motions upon the 
 matter, and upon these motions the Government must be pre- 
 pared to express their general policy, ^nd so it turned out. 
 We had not been in office ten days before notice of motions 
 on Parliamentary reform — some complete and comprehen- 
 sive schemes, some of an isolated character — were showered 
 upon the table like a snow-storm. Mr Hume gave notice 
 of a motion which he had annually made for three or four 
 years, and the pressure of which motion had forced Lord 
 John Eussell to introduce a bill — of making the same motion 
 about a month after we acceded to office. The Government of 
 Lord Derby had therefore to consider the course they would 
 take, and the general policy they would announce. It fell to 
 my lot — I hope, my Lords and gentlemen, you will not think 
 me egotistic if I speak, in these few remarks I shall make, a 
 good deal of myself. It is convenient for narrative, but what I 
 did I did not merely with the sanction of my colleagues, but 
 ever with their counsel and advice. It fell to my lot, then, in 
 the year 1852, as leader of the House of Commons, to express 
 the policy of Lord Derby on the subject. It is upon record. It 
 is upon the authentic annals of what is done in the great 
 assembly at Westminster. I had to express the policy of Lord 
 Derby. We were not prepared, we told the House of Commons, 
 in answer to the motion of Mr Hume and those made by Mr 
 Locke King and others — we said we were not prepared to deal 
 with the question of Parliamentary reform ; but we claimed our
 
 9 
 
 right even then if we thought necessary to deal with it. But we 
 said, if it be necessary on any future occasion to deal with the 
 representation of the people, it is our opinion that a very great 
 mistake was made on that sulDJect in the year 1832. It was the 
 manner in which Parliament abolished the relations between the 
 labouring classes and the constitution of this country — and I 
 said then, on the part of Lord Derby, that if ever we felt it to 
 be our duty to deal with the question, we should endeavour to 
 remedy that great deficiency, as we believed it to be the real 
 cause of the discontent which prevailed upon this subject, and 
 which frequently expressed itself in a manner which no states- 
 man would despise, and might on future occasions prove incon- 
 venient and injurious. There was another great feature of policy 
 with regard to that question to which I also on that occasion in 
 that year called the attention of the House of Commons. I said 
 if there is ever to be another Eeform Bill, we can consent to no 
 new measure unless adequate justice is done to that majority 
 of the population who live in the counties. Now, those were 
 the two great points on the part of Lord Derby — the two great 
 conditions which we publicly announced as a party we should 
 insist upon if ever we had to deal with the question of reform. 
 Well, in 1852, after the retirement of Lord Derby, Lord Aber- 
 deen introduced a very considerable measure of reform and 
 failed. Then came the Government of Lord Palmerston. The 
 Government of Lord Palmerston was much employed with the 
 Crimean war, and that was supposed to be an excuse, and was a 
 fair excuse, for his not continuing to legislate on the subject of 
 reform ; but mark this important fact. When allusions are 
 made, and in a certain sense justly made, by my honourable 
 friend the Chairman to Lord Palmerston' s feeling on the subject 
 of reform. Lord Palmerston, after his successfully carrying to a 
 conclusion the Crimean w^ar, appealed to the country in a most 
 trium];jhant manner, and obtained the largest majority that any 
 Minister has had since the Reform Bill of 1832 was passed. 
 And what did he do ? The moment that Parliament met, he 
 advised her Majesty to recommend in the Speech from the Throne 
 that legislation on the subject of Parliamentary reform should 
 be introduced. Therefore you may say that Lord Palmerston 
 had failed in this matter when by an unexpected event Lord 
 Derby found himself in 1859 again Prime Minister ; and I am 
 bound to say this, that whatever the levity of Lord Palmerston 
 upon the subject of Parliamentary reform in public, he had none 
 in private. Because he communicated to his successor, the pre- 
 sent Prime Minister of England, that he thought it of the 
 greatest importance that this question should be settled. That 
 
 B
 
 10 
 
 it embarrassed the Crown, that it embarrassed Parliament, that 
 it might be a source of disorder to the State, and that if a tem- 
 perate and well-considered measure were introduced he would 
 give it a fair and candid consideration. Now, I have no doubt 
 that what my honourable friend said as to Lord Palmerston's 
 conduct on the subject of reform in the House is correct, for 
 I have often witnessed it. I remember the countenance of 
 Lord Palmerston when Mr Baines brought forward his motions 
 for reform. It would require a great artist to do justice to 
 it. But I have always drawn this inference from these cir- 
 cumstances, that Lord Palmerston wished the question of re- 
 form to be treated not by his own friends. 
 
 Lord Derby did make an effort in 1859. This is the next 
 connection of Lord Derby and his party with the question of 
 reform. He had to deal with that question. It was his 
 opinion, after the most deliberate thought, and after the most 
 painful investigation on the subject, that with regard to the 
 borough franchise, any degradation of the borough franchise 
 from £10 to £8, or £7, or £6, or so on, w^ould be utterly unsa- 
 tisfactory, that it would lead to no settlement, and that you 
 could arrive at no settlement unless you came to some house- 
 hold suffrage without the condition of rental value. He was 
 not prepared to recommend that ; he did not believe the 
 country would have supported him in such a course, and there- 
 fore he endeavoured to carry out the policy which he recom- 
 mended as to facilitating the admission of the working classes 
 into the constitution by a variety of franchises. I shall not go 
 into them now. The lodger franchise was one of them ; then 
 treated, of course, with contempt, but now, I understand, with- 
 out doubt the palladium of our liberties. Well, now, these are 
 the relations of Lord Derby to reform. He had from the begin- 
 ning laid it down as his view of the case that no bill which did 
 not revive the relation of the w^orking classes with the Constitu- 
 tion of the country, and at the same time did not do justice to 
 the population in the counties that were so feebly represented, 
 would be satisfactory. In 1859 you know what occurred. We 
 were expelled from power by a resolution of Lord John Eussell 
 that no settlement of the question of parliamentary reform 
 would be satisfactory which did not involve the lowering of the 
 borough franchise. We resisted that. We believed that it was 
 a policy which ought not to be sanctioned by the House of 
 Commons unless it was definitely brought forward, and feeling 
 confident that there was no mere degradation of tlie borough 
 franchise that could bring any satisfactory settlement, we re- 
 commended her Majesty to dissolve Parliament upon that issue. 
 AVe appealed to the country. The country did not give us a
 
 11 
 
 majority ; and therefore both Parliaraent and the country were 
 henceforth pledged to a lowering of the franchise in boroughs. 
 Well, now, what happened in the memorable seven years which 
 elapsed from 1859 to 1866, when Lord Derby was again called 
 to power, and when he did me the honour again to ask me to 
 attempt to lead the House of Commons ? Now, observe, my 
 Lords and Gentlemen, that from the year 1860, when Lord 
 Palmerston, in consequence of the pledge into which he had 
 
 been entrapped by the conduct of Lord John Eussell 
 
 because Lord Palmerston, in consequence of his engagement 
 to Lord Derby, was entirely opposed to the motion of Lord 
 John Ptussell, and it was with great difficulty that in 1859 
 he agreed to support it— see, I say, what has occurred in Par- 
 liament on the subject of reform in these seven years. They 
 commenced with the measure of Lord Palmerston in 1860. 
 That failed. Tliey concluded with the measure of Lord John 
 Eussell in 1866, which also failed ; and in the interval there 
 were all these separate motions of Mr Locke King and of Mr 
 Baines of which we have heard. Therefore, during these years 
 — from 1860 to 1866 — the question of Parliamentary reform was 
 constantly before the public mind and the examination of Par- 
 liament. During that period of seven years, with the advice — 
 I may say under the instruction of my colleagues in public life, 
 after constant communication with them — during these seven 
 years, I endeavoured continuously to lay down the. principles 
 upon which, in our opinion, a measure of Parliamentary reform 
 ought to be founded. JSTow, mark this — because these are things 
 which you may not have heard of in another speech which was 
 made in this city of Edinburgh. We had to prepare the mind 
 of the country — to educate, if it be not arrogant to use such a 
 phrase — to educate our party on this subject of reform. It is a 
 large party, and its attention can only be obtained to the consi- 
 deration of a great question by the pressure which is secured by 
 frequent discussion. Now, what were the points which, not 
 only with the concurrence of Lord Derby and my colleagues, 
 some of whom are in this room — what were the points that, dur- 
 ing the course of these seven years, I tried to impress upon the 
 conscience and conviction of the country ? They were these. 
 First of all, and by far the most important, that a measui-e of 
 Parliamentary reform, whenever it was adopted, should be a 
 complete and comprehensive one ; that all the branches of the 
 subject should be dealt with ; that we would not be seduced, as 
 was the habit of the Eadical party after the failure of Lord 
 Palmerston's comprehensive measure in 1860, into dealing with 
 the question in detail. And for this simple reason, that if you
 
 12 
 
 deal with it in detail you may indeed establish a democratic 
 constitution. Take Mr Baines's question of the reduction of the 
 borough franchise, which we have been accused of inconsistency 
 in having opi)osed. Had Mr Baines carried a very large reduc- 
 tion in the borough franchse without any reference to other 
 portions of the subject, what would have happened? You would 
 have had the next week, without any effective opposition — for it 
 was a part of the subject on which the opinion of the House of 
 Commons was matured— a great reduction in the county franchise. 
 Well, when you had got these two things they would have rested, 
 and in due time tliere would have been a dissolution of Parliament. 
 And the county members would have been returned by the 
 borough population that dwelt without the parliamentary boun- 
 daries^of the Act of 1832. Well, that was the first great point 
 which it was my duty always to impress upon Parliament ; that 
 we could listen to no measure that was not complete. We con- 
 tended that all the portions of Parliamentary reform should be 
 treated together, because we knew that in treating them all 
 together depended that political equilibrium which has hitherto 
 prevailed in this country. That was the first condition. What 
 was the second ? During these seven years 1 had to vindicate 
 the principles upon which disfranchisement and enfranchisement 
 should take place. I said for the party with which I acted, We 
 cannot sanction any proposal for grouping boroughs ; we contend 
 that the representation of no place shall be entirely abrogated, 
 and that if you want to increase representation, you must look 
 to a certain class of boroughs, and appeal to their patriotism — 
 which appeal will no doubt be successful if recommended by a 
 Ministry — to spare you one of their members. These were the 
 principles upon which for seven years we insisted that disfran- 
 chisement and enfranchisement should take place. What was 
 the third condition ? I said no settlement of this question of 
 Parliamentary reform can be satisfactory unless you have a real 
 and bona fide boundary commission — not a boundary commis- 
 sion that merely settles the boundaries of new boroughs, but 
 that examines the boundaries of all existing Parliamentary 
 boroughs, and takes care that people who are bona fide borough 
 occupiers shall not under your sweeping measures of reform be- 
 come suddenly county electors, and so change the whole charac- 
 ter of the constituencies. What was the fourth point during these 
 seven weary but not unprofitable years, I trust, that we insisted 
 on on the part of our friends ? The fourth point was this — that 
 justice should at last be done to the majority of the English nation 
 who live in counties, and that was to be done, not merely by giving 
 representation to the towns that had sprung into importance
 
 13 
 
 since Lord Grey's Act in 1832 — not merely by the issue of a boun- 
 dary commission of the effective character I have sketched, but by 
 adding a considerable number directly to their representatives. 
 Now, what was the fifth point that we insisted upon, and which we 
 supported by oiir vote ; and through which vote, though at the time 
 we had no anticipation of it, we became the responsible Ministers 
 of the Crown ? We insisted that the borough franchise should 
 be established upon the principle of rating. Now, these are the 
 five points that during seven weary and toilsome years I have, 
 with the entire concurrence of those who share your entire 
 confidence, endeavoured in the House of Commons to im- 
 press upon the conscience and the conviction of Parliament. 
 Now, my Lords and Gentlemen, what happened ? There was 
 a change of Government. Lord Derby came into power. 
 Lord Derby had to consider the state of the country, and 
 he resolved that in his opinion it was necessary to bring in 
 a Keform Bill. We brought in a Eeform Bill ; we passed a 
 Eeforni Bill ; and now we ask you to consider, were the 
 five points that during these seven years, on the part of Lord 
 Derby, I impressed upon Parliament and the country, were 
 they obtained or not ? Our Eeform Bill was a complete 
 and comprehensive measure. We did vindicate the principles 
 upon which enfranchisement and disfranchisement should take 
 place ; we did not abolish entirely the representation of any 
 borough ; we did successfully appeal to a certain class of 
 boroughs to spare their surplusage of representation to supply 
 the wants of the Constitution. We did do justice to the coun- 
 ties, by adding greatly to their direct representation and enfran- 
 chising the towns that had grown into importance since 1832. 
 We did issue a Boundary Commission, that has been and is now 
 examining the Parliamentary boundaries in every part of the 
 kingdom. And, fifth and lastly, we did establish a suffrage for 
 the boroughs founded on the principle of rating ; and then I 
 am told, when measures recommended to the country during 
 seven years have been so triumphantly carried into effect, that 
 we have done nothing, that it is our opponents who have sug- 
 gested the Bill. I can only say this, that if you had seen the 
 countenance of the gentleman who recently made a speech in 
 this city when we did carry that Bill, you would not have read 
 in those lineaments that triumph of the Liberal party after a 
 toil of seventy years of which we have heard so much. I must 
 say I never saw such a command over the exultation peculiar 
 to man when he succeeds in an object dear to his heart and his 
 friends. 
 
 1 hope that I have stated fairly the question. It may be
 
 14 
 
 said, and it will be said — " What you say is very true ; nobody 
 can deny you carried your five points; but your fifth point, 
 which you have adroitly expressed for your case, involves all 
 your treason. True it is, you have established the franchise of 
 boroughs on the principle of rating ; but you have established 
 a Democratic Government in England, because you have esta- 
 blished household suffrage, and you have gone much further 
 than the measures which you previous] y opposed." Well, now 
 let us see if there is anything in that. Now, my Lords and 
 Gentlemen, I am not at all prepared to admit that household 
 suffrage, with the constitutional conditions upon which we have 
 established it — namely, residence and rating — conditions which, 
 I believe, recommend themselves to the sense of propriety and 
 justice of this United Kingdom. I say I am not prepared to 
 admit that if we had established a household suffrage under 
 such conditions in England, we should have established a Demo- 
 cratic Government. But, my Lords and Gentlemen, it is unne- 
 cessary to enter into that consideration, because we have not 
 established household suffrage in England. There are, I think 
 I may say, probably four million houses in England. Under 
 our ancient laws, and under the Act of Lord Grey, about a mil- 
 lion of those householders possess the franchise. Under the 
 new Act of 1867, something more than 500,000 will be added 
 to that million. Well, then, I want to know if there are four 
 million householders, and a million and a half in round num- 
 bers have the suffrage, how can household suffrage be said to be 
 established in England ? You may question my estimates — I 
 do not give them as my own. I am perfectly prepared to offer 
 on such a subject estimates which ought to command the confi- 
 dence of the country and Parliament ; because they would be 
 drawn up by expert men in public office, masters of all the de- 
 tails and minutiae of the question ; and who, so far as politics 
 are concerned — if they have any — would be influenced by their 
 sympathies for the Liberal party who appointed them all to the 
 offices which they hold. But it is not necessary for me on this 
 occasion to appeal to them. You have had an estimate on the 
 subject offered you within these very few days. I daresay many 
 gentlemen present may have read it. It is by a member of 
 Parliament who is a man of advanced opinions — extreme opi- 
 nions — who, notwithstanding that, is a just as he is an able 
 man — I believe, one of the most impartial and intelligent mem- 
 bers of the House of Commons — who is a valuable member of 
 that society, and than whom no man is more acquainted with 
 the working classes, with their habits, with the accidents wdiich 
 would affect their electoral privileges, and Avho may be consi-
 
 15 
 
 dered as high an authority on the subject as any living man, 
 and that is the member for Oldham, Mr Hibbert. Mr Hibbert 
 has recently met his constituents, and addressed them on the 
 subject on which, with your indulgence,' I am speaking at too 
 great length at the present moment. Mr Hibbert supported the 
 Government Bill. He approves and praises the Government 
 Bill. He is not one of those men who praise the Government 
 Bill, and say they want something more. He says — " If some- 
 thing more will come, I will be equally grateful for it ; but this is 
 a good bill. I am grateful for it. I do not want to exaggerate or 
 depreciate what my friends will obtain by this increase of the suf- 
 frage, but I am perfectly content with it." Now this is a man of 
 extreme opinions — looked upon with feelings of confidence — even 
 of admiration — by those who work under him, an authority in 
 those densely -peopled districts of wdiich you have heard so 
 much. Well, he says, " I have analysed the whole matter, and 
 it is my opinion that the addition to the suffrage by the new 
 Act will be about 520,000, of which something under two-fifths 
 will be county electors, and that 355,000 or 360,000 will be 
 borough electors." Well, that is the opinion of Mr Hibbert. 
 He entirely confirms the knowledge the Government is in posses- 
 sion of, and on which the Government acted. Well, but is this a 
 Democratic measure ? Are we to be frightened at such a result 
 as this ? Are we really to believe that with a constituency of a 
 million and a half — one million of whom we knowj^f our own 
 knowledge for a considerable space of time have exercised that 
 suffrage according to the traditions of the country, and are now 
 assisted in the fulfilment of that public duty by some half- 
 million more equally influenced by the traditions of the country 
 — are we to believe that this is establishing a Democratic 
 Government in England ? If that can be maintained, even by 
 an ex-Lord Advocate, I should look upon it as one of the most 
 preposterous conclusions. But I say more than this. I say 
 Lord Derby could not have fixed upon any other solution of the 
 question of the borough franchise than the one that he did. 
 Kemember that every degradation of the franchise — I use the 
 term first — I don't shrink from it, it is correct language — I say 
 that whatever degradation of value you make, whether it be £8, 
 or £7, or £6, or £5, you are equally far from a principle and a 
 settlement. Why, what was the reason all these Eeform Bills 
 failed ? How is it — a thing utterly unknown in the history of 
 this country — how is it that five Prime Ministers consecutively 
 failed upon a question ? Look to the history of the country. 
 Those who live rapidly, in a rapid age, don't stop to think. But 
 think of five Prime Ministers — the wisest men in the country —
 
 16 
 
 the prime and chief men in the country, representing all the 
 great parties, failing consecutively in settling a question. There 
 must be some cause why they failed. The cause was this. 
 Every independent man in the House of Commons, Tory 
 and Eadical alike, felt there was no settlement in any of 
 these schemes because there was no principle in them. 
 When you try to settle any great question, there are two con- 
 siderations which statesmen ought not to forget. And, first of 
 all, let your plan be founded upon some principle. But that is 
 not enough. Let it also be a principle that is in harmony with 
 the maimers and customs of the people you are attempting to 
 legislate for. Now, I say, when you come to this question of 
 the suffrage for boroughs, there is a principle in saying a man 
 shall have a vote who has, by his residence and his contribution 
 to local taxation, proved that he is interested in the welfare of 
 his community. That man is a man whom you may trust in 
 preference to a migratory pauper. That is a principle, and then, 
 if you can apply that principle in harmony with the manners 
 and customs of your country, then I say that you have a chance 
 of a solution — a happy solution — of a great question. When 
 you find it was an old custom of the country that the house- 
 liolder should possess this suffrage— that the man who, by his 
 residence and his rate, proved he was one who on an average 
 might fairly be looked upon as a responsible and trustworthy 
 individual, you had your principle, and you had your tradition- 
 ary practice to consecrate your principle. A rating and residen- 
 tial borough franchise was not new even in modern times. It 
 had been tried in the Municipal Act, and for many years with 
 great success. Men were not elected under it hostile to the 
 institutions of the country; excellent measures of public im- 
 provement were passed. True it is, after many years' trial, the 
 elections under the Municipal Act have become in many instan- 
 ces corrupt and unsatisfactory. But the Committee of the 
 House of Lords that has investigated the subject, in their Eeport 
 drawn up by Lord Grey, attribute all these evil consequences to 
 an alteration in the law which allows men now to vote without 
 the condition of personal payment of rates. Well, then, I say 
 that in these circumstances the measure which we have carried 
 was tlie only measure which could have been passed. And that 
 seems now to be universally acknowledged even by those who 
 complain that we have been successful. 
 
 But then it is said that we have not treated our friends well — 
 that we may have been wise and statesmanlike — but that we 
 have betrayed our friends. It is said that we induced our friends 
 to support this Bill on the ground that we were going to intro- 
 duce certain securities by which this francliise could be exer-
 
 17 
 
 cised, not only with impunity, but with advantage to the State. 
 Now, trusting to the candour of the audience I am addressing, 
 I think it is worth while pausing a moment to see whether there 
 is the slightest foundation for that charge. I say there is none. 
 When Lord Derby made up his mind to deal with Parliamen- 
 tary reform, he had to deal with it definitely, because the 
 failure of another Eeform Bill would have been a disadvan- 
 tage to Lord Derby, but not merely a source of great danger to 
 the country. He had to look at the position in which he was 
 placed, a Minister about to deal with a question which had 
 baffled all these other Ministers, and he in a minority — for re- 
 member that every Minister who had attempted before to reform 
 Parliament had been in a majority. Well, then, Lord Derby, 
 after deep consideration, was of opinion that, in the spirit of the 
 constitution, and in perfect consonance and harmony with all 
 Parliamentary practice when such difficulties existed, when 
 it was a notorious and acknowledged fact that no Minister 
 and no party could settle a question which the Queen from her 
 throne five times had said was necessary to be settled, there 
 was a mode by which we could extricate ourselves from our 
 difficulties, and facilitate a settlement, and that was to proceed 
 by resolution. I believe a wiser and more constitutional, and, I 
 believe, a more practical decision had never been arrived at. 
 But we were very weak when we met Parliament. We met a 
 Parliament ready to devour us in a moment by an immense 
 majority. I endeavoured to introduce this question of resolu- 
 tions to the House of Commons. Well, our opponents at the 
 commencement of the session being more powerful than they 
 were at the end, induced the House to treat this plan of dealing 
 by resolutions with utter contumely, and we were obliged to 
 withdraw the resolutions. But what happened ? The House 
 of Commons, as time proceeded, and they saw they were deal- 
 ing with men who were determined to do their duty to their 
 Sovereign and their country, and, if possible, settle this question 
 — the common sense of the House of Commons vindicated our 
 original course, and though theoretically we did not propose the 
 Eeform Bill by resolutions, practically we did. Because, al- 
 though whether proceeding by resolution or by bill, we had a 
 general policy from which we would never deviate, there were 
 a hundred questions upon which the opinion of the House of 
 Commons might fairly under the circumstances decide the 
 course of the Government. But, of course, when we were 
 obliged to introduce a bill, these points appeared as clauses, 
 and though if they had figured as resolutions the decision of 
 the House might have been accepted by the Government with- 
 
 b
 
 18 
 
 out imperilling their measure, which is the advantage of pro- 
 ceeding by resolution, because we were obliged to place them 
 in our^bill we are charged with having entirely given up all the 
 conditions, what are called the securities, with which this 
 measure was first recommended. 
 
 Now, let us look at this. I will try to state the case as 
 strongly as I can against the Government. I won't take petty 
 pointi which it might be very easy to make ridiculous, but I 
 will take grave points. Well, there is the principle of plural 
 votino-. The Tory party would never have permitted the intro- 
 duction of your bill if they had known you were going to give 
 up the principle of plural voting. Well, the principle of plural 
 voting was introduced into the resolutions ; and if we had had a 
 fair and good discussion on the principle of plural voting, which 
 we had not, I think it might have been advantageous to the 
 House of Commons and instructive to the country. But, 
 gentlemen, the principle of plural voting is not a Tory principle. 
 No Tory ever wrote in favour of plural voting. No Tory ever 
 made a speech in favour of plural voting ; but after Lord John 
 Eussell, by that fatal act of faction in 1859, pledged Parliament 
 and the country to a reduction of the franchise, there was an 
 immense alarm in the Liberal party on the possible conse- 
 quences of such a course, and all the philosophers who belonged 
 to the Liberal party, and I have reason to believe there are 
 some in the city of Edinburgh, wrote books to show that they 
 could only save the State by allowing men to have more votes 
 than one. Well, there is no doubt the men who did this were 
 philosophers — all very clever men — Mr Mill and his disciples 
 ■ — men of great brain, of great intelligence, many of them, and 
 like him, masters of composition ; and no doubt they produced 
 a certain effect on the public mind. Not that the great mass of 
 the people had ever heard of such a thing, but these things 
 affected the public mind among the more intelligent and in- 
 fluential classes, and therefore, in our resolutions, knowing very 
 well that if a Tory could have more than one vote he would 
 have no objection to it, although he never invented the system, 
 we introduced the principle of plural voting in our bill, and we 
 are denounced by great authorities because we introduced our 
 measure with the recommendation of plural voting, and then 
 gave up that great security in a moment. 
 
 Now, what are the facts of the case ? When I introduced 
 the biU, 1 referred to the circumstances I have just noticed, and 
 said we had proposed there should be in certain circumstances 
 a dual vote. I did not particularly insist on it, but wished 
 to have the opinion of the House upon it. What happened
 
 19 
 
 next night ? A county member, a highly Conservative mem- 
 ber, I am sorry to say, although he is a very old friend of mine, 
 not now present, for he was a Scotch member, the member for 
 Inverness, gave notice of a motion denouncing plural voting 
 under any forms and circumstances. That was the first we£ 
 come of the principle of plural voting. Mr Henley, a remark- 
 able man, to whom the Chairman has referred — probably his 
 like has not been seen in the House of Commons since the 
 Parliaments of Walpole, and the days of Mr Shippen — wrote a 
 letter to the Government, and made a speech in the House of 
 Commons, in which he denounced plural voting ; and all, and 
 they are many, who are influenced by Mr Henley would have 
 acted with him. All that I know is, that I fixed one fortnight 
 before the second reading of the Bill, and before a week had 
 elapsed, those who had the best knowledge of our party — the 
 gentlemen who assist me by their acuteness and universal 
 acquaintance with the members — informed me they did not 
 believe there were ten men in the Tory party who would vote 
 in favour of plural voting; Mr Gladstone one week after 
 announcing his implacable hostility to plural voting — of course, 
 it was universally said that I immediately truckled to Mr 
 Gladstone. The fact is, the party would not stand plural 
 voting. They did not sympathise with the Liberal philoso- 
 phers, and I was obliged to give it up. Would you not have 
 done so in the same circumstances ? 
 
 The next thing is the condition of residence, and the amount 
 of its duration. That was a fair question for a resolution. The 
 condition of residence under the municipal franchise is about 
 three years. A great many of what are called the working- 
 classes communicated with us through a variety of bodies they 
 have, and they all said they were perfectly anxious and willing 
 to take a I'ating household suffrage with the municipal period 
 of three years' residence, and a great many gentlemen of our 
 party were in favour of two years. Well, we thought, under 
 these circumstances, that as we could not proceed by resolution, 
 and obtain the opinion of the House, we would feel our way ; 
 and we thought two years was a very fair proposal to try the 
 feeling of the House. The House was in favour of one year. 
 I thought two years was a reasonable term, and I divided the 
 House upon it. Many Tory members voted against me ; a 
 greater number kept away, and all that remained said they 
 only voted for me out of respect to their leader. Now that 
 is the encouragement I received in supporting what are called 
 securities, of wliich we have heard so much. 
 
 Well, then, there was a third security — for I won't go through
 
 20 
 
 the famous ten ; some of them are too absurd, and I only go 
 through the great ones — the reduction of the county franchise. 
 We proposed a £15 rating franchise. Mr Locke King proposed 
 one of £10. I went down to the House of Commons prepared 
 to support the proposition of the Government. The county 
 members of both sides had a meeting that afternoon, and they 
 came to a resolution. They decided that a £12 rating franchise 
 was in their opinion perfectly satisfactory, and when I got to 
 my seat in the House that resolution was put in my hands. 
 What was I to do ? Of course I thought myself fortunate in 
 preventing Mr Locke King from carrying his £1 0, and making 
 the arrangement which my own party desired. 
 
 And so it is on all the points of importance. I have already 
 trespassed too long on your attention, but there is one other 
 point which I must notice. I speak of an animal not known in 
 Scotland, and, thank God, no longer known in England— the 
 compound householder. The compound householder is a being 
 who wants a vote without paying rates. Well, that we opposed. 
 Nothing in the world would induce us to consent to any man 
 having a vote who did not personally pay his rates, and I 
 believe that is a sound principle. Of course we knew very well 
 it was a difficult thing to deal with, because no doubt there 
 were many men who were compound householders in spite of 
 themselves, and there was an apparent hardship. But we were 
 firm upon that point, and would have withdrawn the bill if that 
 had been insisted on. If we had attempted to do away with 
 the compound householder when Parliament first met, we should 
 have had all the vestries of London agitating the country ; and 
 Mr Gladstone himself, quite contemplating our difficulties, had 
 announced that the laws under which compound householding 
 existed were the result of the civilisation of the age. But as 
 the thing went on, we got a little stronger, and matters were 
 more understood ; and months afterwards the Liberal party them- 
 selves proposed to do away with the great result of civilisation. 
 What was our obvious course ? We had insisted that no man 
 should vote who did not pay rates. We had sympathised 
 with the compound householder by having prepared clauses by 
 which his vote might be facilitated, and if he chose to come for- 
 ward, and commit suicide, and say, " I will no longer be a com- 
 pound householder, but I will give up these privileges and pay 
 rates," what was our duty ? It would have been most inconsis- 
 tent in us to resist such a proposal. I say that the compound 
 householder bowing down, and giving up his peculiar position, 
 and saying, " In order to exercise the suffrage I wiU pay the 
 rate," was the very triumph of the principle of our Bill. So
 
 21 
 
 there was an end of the compound householder, but the benefit 
 did not rest there. That decision will restore the municipal 
 elections to their primitive order and purity, for it was the ad- 
 mission of the compound householder to the suffrage which dis- 
 ordered and degraded our corporation elections. 
 
 Now, my Lords and Gentlemen, you have, by what I have 
 told you, some notion of what a speech in detail is in the House 
 of Commons. There must be a commendable zeal to induce you 
 to listen with so much attention to a narrative of this descrip- 
 tion ; but yet, is it not expedient that statements of this kind 
 should be made by those who, however unworthily, occupy 
 great positions, upon this question especially, when week after 
 week and month after month, such enormous nonsense has been 
 circulated through the country ? And therefore I think, as you 
 have been so kind to me as to ask me to be your guest, and 
 offer me your congratulations and your encouragements for the 
 little that I have done, my observations are not altogether mis- 
 placed. I think I have shown to you— if you will allow me 
 briefly to summarise what I have said — that we were perfectly 
 justified as a party to deal with this question. I think I have 
 shown to you that it ought to have been dealt with. I venture 
 to say that I think I have shown to you, and proved to you, 
 that we have dealt with it in the proper manner. I think I 
 have shown to you that the story that we have democratised the 
 country by establishing household suffrage is a fable. I think 
 I have shown you that the assertion that we have * misled and 
 betrayed our friends by giving up all the securities which we 
 talked of, is an idle fabrication, and that, from the mistake of 
 the House of Commons — which every man in the House of 
 Commons now feels — of preventing us proceeding by resolution, 
 we were obliged to insert in our Bill all those points which 
 afterwards we relinquished, but that we have carried in our Bill 
 all the principles upon which we ever insisted. 
 
 But, if I am right in this last assertion, pardon some feeling 
 on my part, when I remember that it is in consequence of our 
 unprincipled withdrawal of those securities, and our treachery 
 to our friends, who insisted upon being betrayed — I say, pardon 
 my feelings, when 1 understand that it is in consequence of my 
 conduct in that respect that I miss to-day the presence of one 
 of my oldest and most valued friends. I should have liked to 
 have been welcomed by his cordial heart, and by that ripe 
 scholarship which no one appreciates more than myself. He has 
 commemorated the withdrawal of his confidence in a letter 
 which, strange to say, has not a quotation. No one would have 
 furnished a happier one. I can picture him to myself at this
 
 22 
 
 moment in tlie castellated shades of Thurso, with the ' Edin- 
 burgh Review ' on one side, and on the other, ' The Conservative 
 Surrender.' He who has written the summary of the session in 
 the ' Edinburgh ' is not mounted on the fiery barb of Erancis 
 Jeffrey ; it is rather on a prancing hearse-horse that he consum- 
 mates the entombment of Whig principles. ' The Conservative 
 Surrender,' to borrow an expression from the fascinating volumes 
 upon art of my friend the Chairman, is what you would call a 
 Eeplica. We find the same subject treated in speeches, in 
 articles, in reviews, and sometimes in manifestoes. The colour- 
 ing is not without charm, but the drawing is inaccurate, the 
 perspective is false, the subject monotonous. Far be it from me 
 to discover a man by his style. The wittiest of poets has com- 
 memorated for ever the character who knows you under those 
 circumstances. If, therefore, I make an observation on 'The 
 Conservative Surrender,' it is founded entirely upon abstract 
 principles. I would say that article was written by a very 
 clever man, who has made a very great mistake. It is a combi- 
 nation which, it is said, produces strange effects on the temper, 
 and sometimes even on the intellect. The leaders of the Con- 
 servative party are traitors ; the Conservative party are fools ; 
 they do not know that they have been abused ; they have not 
 recognised that their confidence has been betrayed and outraged. 
 I see many gentlemen here who, I have no doubt, have been in- 
 spectors like myself, as magistrates, of peculiar asylums. You 
 meet there some cases which I have always thought at the same 
 time the most absurd and the most distressing — it is when the 
 inmate believes that all the w^orld is mad, and that he himself 
 alone is sane. But, to pass from such gloomy images — really, as 
 to these ' Edinburgh ' and ' Quarterly Reviews,' no one admires 
 them more than myself, but I admire them as I do first-rate 
 posting-houses which, in old days, for half a century or so, to 
 use a Manchester phrase, carried on a roaring trade. Then there 
 comes some revolution of progress, which no person could ever 
 have contemplated. They find things are altered ; they do not 
 understand them ; and instead of the intense competition and 
 mutual vindictiveness which before distinguished them, they 
 suddenly agree — Boots of the Blue Boar and the chambermaid 
 of the Red Lion embrace, and they are quite of accord in de- 
 nouncing the infamy of railroads. 
 
 Now, it occurs to me, as it may have occurred to you — and it 
 will be my only excuse for making another observation — that I 
 hitherto have been speaking upon the English Reform BiU ; but 
 in speaking upon the English Reform Bill, you must remember 
 as my excuse that I at least have been speaking upon an Act
 
 23 
 
 that has been passed ; and secondly, as I have already declared, 
 in a place even more public than this, that I thought, adapted 
 to such changes as the laws of the two countries required, the 
 same principles ought to be adopted in the Scottish as in the 
 English Eeform Bill. Now, my Lords and Gentlemen, with 
 regard to the Scottish Eeform Bill, there are two points of great 
 importance. I should, under any circumstances and at any 
 time, at a meeting like this, avoid unnecessary detail ; but hav- 
 ing unfortunately trespassed upon you so long, it is necessary 
 that I should curtail what little I have to say ; but with regard 
 to the Scottish Reform Bill there are two important points — the 
 one is the extension of the franchise, the other is the increase of 
 the representation. All other clauses in the Scottish Reform 
 Bill are really matters of detail ; but, with regard to these two 
 points I will, on the first, repeat what I have intimated here, 
 and stated in other places, that it is our intention to propose to 
 extend to Scotland that ample and considerable increase of the 
 franchise which we have established in England. But the next 
 point is one of much difficulty and delicacy, and I think it 
 requires your very earnest consideration, and that is, the increase 
 of the representation of Scotland. Now, gentlemen, I have ex- 
 pressed my opinion with a due consideration of the increase of 
 the population, and the wealth, the tax-paying power, and other 
 circumstances, the representation of Scotland ought to be in- 
 creased ; but when you come to the mode by which you can 
 increase it, you will find great difficulties ; and I say at once, 
 that unless the Scotch members can forget for a moment all 
 petty party feelings, and will support the Government, whatever 
 that Government may be, which is prepared to increase the re- 
 presentation of Scotland, no increase of the representation of 
 Scotland can possibly occur. Now, my opinion is, after having 
 given the most deliberate consideration to the subject, that you 
 cannot increase the representation of Scotland unless you in- 
 crease the number of the members of the House of Commons. 
 I do not express that as a mere abstract opinion formed by 
 reflection upon certain circumstances. T say that as one who is 
 and has been leader of the House of Commons, and knows 
 something of the character and disposition of the men who are 
 members of the House of Commons ; and I am perfectly certain 
 — as certain as that I am speaking now to you who are here 
 present — that there is no other mode by which the representa- 
 tion of Scotland can be increased. You will have fifty other 
 modes brought before you, and some of them proposed, I am 
 sorry to say, by members for Scotland. Nothing more easy than 
 to point to a class of English boroughs for example, with a small
 
 24 
 
 population, and contrast their circumstances socially, commer- 
 cially, and politically with those of some flourishing places in 
 Scotland, and frame an argument for their disfranchisement and 
 the enfranchisement of the places in Scotland ; but the people 
 of England, permit me to say, know that they are represented at 
 present by 500 members, and that their members have already 
 been diminished in order to increase the representation of Scot- 
 land. Various as the opinions of the people of England may be 
 as to the distribution of seats and the disposition of power, they 
 do not believe but what they can amply and completely dispose, 
 for their own uses, of those 500 members ; and they will never 
 let the people of Scotland have one. And permit me to say that 
 I cannot blame them. Therefore, if any members for Scotland 
 join in any motion to disfranchise boroughs in England with the 
 idea that they are obtaining them for grouped boroughs, or 
 single boroughs, or divided counties in Scotland, they will find 
 that in the last scene of the pantomime, all changes, and the 
 members from the disfranchised English boroughs will be ap- 
 portioned from the small English borough to the large English 
 city. Therefore, it will be necessary for the people of Scotland 
 next year to make up their minds upon this subject. So 
 far as the Government are concerned, they will at the earliest 
 opportunity, in the next session in February, bring forward 
 their Scotch Reform Bill. They will propose a considerable 
 increase of Scotch members which must be furnished by 
 increasing the number of members of the House of Commons, 
 and they will stand by that proposition if the Scotch members 
 support them. I do not mean to say that there is no incon- 
 venience in altering the number of the members of the House 
 of Commons. I am perfectly alive to the inconvenience that 
 may accrue from that course, but the number of the members 
 of the House of Commons has been changed before this; and 
 the question is not whether you are to increase the number of 
 the members of the House of Commons, but whether you are 
 to increase the number of the members of the House of Com- 
 mons for an adequate and proper purpose. It is said that if you 
 increase the number of members of the House of Commons, 
 every petty place that rises like a fungus in the night and gets 
 a population, God knows how, where they come from, or where 
 they go to, for they often disappear, will immediately clatter at 
 the door of the House of Commons, and ask to be admitted. 
 Well, my answer to that is, the good sense of the House of 
 Commons, which is the great quality upon which we ought 
 always to trust, will immediately put an end to such an appeal. 
 But when it comes to the question whether an intelligent nation
 
 25 
 
 that joined us, as I said before, on equal terms, should receive, 
 from its altered circumstances, increased representation, I believe 
 the good sense of the House of Commons will fairly consider 
 that question, and they will say — '' There is no cabalistical charm 
 in the number of 658." Who says there is ? There is no cabal- 
 istical charm in the number of 658 ; and it is only to the good 
 sense of the country that you can trust to prevent an increase 
 of the House of Commons for any unworthy and inadequate 
 purpose. Well, that is the course of her Majesty's Government, 
 which they will pursue with regard to the questions of the 
 Scotch Eeform Bill. They will propose a considerable increase 
 of Scotch members ; but if the Scotch members do not support 
 them, the Scotch members must take the consequences. 
 
 My Lords and Gentlemen, T should like to stop, because I 
 have already passed beyond the limits which your hospitality 
 justifies. I should just like to make one or two more remarks. 
 I should be sorry that any here present should suppose that I 
 was deficient in respect to them, and that I was not anxious, 
 meeting them here, frankly to communicate on public affairs, 
 having received an invitation under circumstances so flattering 
 to any individual, and which by me is very deeply felt. There 
 is another subject which greatly interests this country — and I 
 try to confine myself to those subjects which immediately 
 interest yourselves — that is, Education. It is a subject which 
 at the present moment is in everybody's mouth, I think for a 
 very inadequate cause ; and I think that the cant of announcing, 
 that because half a million of worthy Englishmen — two -fifths 
 of whom must be rated at, I believe, £12 a-year — are to be ad- 
 mitted to the suffrage, is a cause why we should suddenly be 
 educating the whole people of the country, or assuming that 
 they are perfectly ignorant, is rather absurd. But with regard 
 to the question of education — not with reference to the petty 
 party motives to which I have referred, but with regard to the 
 question of education generally, ever since I have been in public 
 life I have done everything I possibly could to promote the cause 
 of the education of the people generally. I have done so be- 
 cause I have always felt that with the limited population of 
 this United Kingdom, compared with the great imperial position 
 which it occupies with reference to other nations, it is not only 
 our duty, but it is an absolute necessity, that we should study 
 to make every man the most effective being that education can 
 possibly constitute him. In the old wars there used to be a 
 story that one Englishman could beat three members of some 
 other nation ; but I think if we want to maintain our power, we 
 ought to make one Englishman equal really in the business of 
 
 D
 
 26 
 
 life to three other men that any other nation can furnish. I do 
 not see how otherwise, with our limited population, we can ful- 
 fil the great destiny that I believe waits us, and the great posi- 
 tion we occupy. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, whether 
 it be a far greater advanced system of primary education- — 
 whether it be that system of competitive examination which I 
 have ever supported, though I am not unconscious of some ped- 
 antry with which it is accompanied, or whatever may be the 
 circumstances, I shall ever be its supporter. If I had wanted 
 an instance at any time to convince me of the advantage of 
 national education, I should have always referred to that coun- 
 try of which I am now the guest. It has been my lot, as it 
 has possibly been the lot of the great majority of those present, 
 to have found myself in many distant lands, but I have never 
 been in any one without finding a Scotchman, and I never 
 found a Scotchman who was not at the head of the poll — always 
 prosperous, always thriving, often the confidential adviser of 
 persons of the highest position, even of the rulers of States : 
 and although I myself am inclined to attribute much to organ- 
 isation and to race, I am bound to say that I never heard a 
 Scotchman yet, even if he was the confidential adviser of a 
 Pasha, who did not tell me he owed his rise to his parish school. 
 Well, under these circumstances you wiU not suppose for a 
 moment that I at all depreciate the system of your national 
 education ; but I think there is no person who has candidly 
 and completely examined its details but must acknowledge that 
 though the principles on which it is founded are admirable, the 
 application of these principles is not sufiiciently complete and 
 extensive. I can only say that since the report of the Com- 
 missioners on the subject of your schools was made, it has been 
 considered by the Government, and I hope that in this session 
 we shall bring forward a measure of national education, which 
 will succeed in passing the Legislature ; and if we can give you 
 a good Eeform BiU and a good Education Bill, I think you will 
 remember the last year of the old Parliament with feelings of 
 softness and regard. 
 
 Gentlemen, may I be allowed to say, in reference to the sub- 
 ject of education generally, not merely with reference to Scot- 
 land, because it now naturally occupies the attention of the 
 public. I think the issue that has been raised is in a certain 
 sense a false issue ; but as it touches very great principles and 
 affects the character of the nation, I w^ould say myself I do not 
 believe that in this United Kingdom any monotonous form of 
 education, founded on a compulsory principle of forcing every 
 part of the country to adopt the same system, will be successful.
 
 27 ■ 
 
 I am not prepared at this moment to agree tliat the same system 
 ought to be extended to every part of her Majesty's dominions, 
 and to admit that the British nation generally is an uneducated 
 one. So far as our primary education is' concerned, there is no 
 doubt that the multiplicity of our occupations and the value of 
 labour has prevented that complete education, in a primary 
 sense, which is to be desired. But if you look even to our pri- 
 mary education as compared with the primary education of other 
 countries for the last thirty years, though it may not reach, in 
 some respects, the alleged points which other nations have ac- 
 complished, still, as a whole, during these thirty years the ad- 
 vance of England has been greatest. But I deny that the educa- 
 tion of the people of England entirely depends — I am talking now 
 of the general population — on our system of primary education. 
 I say that the technical education of the English artizan — espe- 
 cially since what we may describe as the Albertine movement 
 took place — since Prince Albert first laid down those principles 
 and doctrines which have been carried into felicitous effect — 
 the technical education of the English artizan has been im- 
 mensely improved. But if you come to mere secular education, 
 there is an influence prevalent in England which exists in no 
 other country, and which forms in a very great degree the char- 
 acter and conduct of the English people, and that is the influ- 
 ence of a free press. That influence is never considered. The 
 press of this country, conducted by whatever party, Jbut, on the 
 whole, conducted with great knowledge, with great intelligence, 
 and with a high moral feeling, imparts a secular education to 
 the people of this country, which none of the boasted countries 
 which are brought forward as models, and which we are called 
 upon to make great efforts to equal, can for a moment compete 
 with. And, gentlemen, I care not what may be the opinions 
 and feelings of those who conduct the press in this country. It 
 is to me immaterial whether the persons who conduct it are 
 animated by a high moral feeling or not ; but it is quite clear 
 they cannot successfully direct their labours to any great class 
 in this country unless they give that class credit for that high 
 moral feeling. And, therefore, without indulging in any cant 
 on the subject, I say the condition of our press, which for know- 
 ledge, general intelligence, information, and moral feeling, can- 
 not be easily excelled, is a proof of the sound condition of the 
 country in a very extensive class, and of a process of secular 
 education highly profitable which is at present going on. 
 
 Gentlemen, I will detain you no longer, for I daresay few of 
 you have ever listened to a longer speech, and perhaps you will 
 hesitate before you issue such an invitation again. I cannot
 
 28 
 
 deny that the great measure which has been passed this year 
 will give in some degree a new character to the constitution, 
 and introduce some new powers and influences into its play and 
 action. Indeed, to accomplish these ends was the object of 
 those who brought it forward. I am told, at least I hear every 
 day, that in consequence of the change which has been effected, 
 one must expect great questions to arise. Well, great questions 
 no doubt will arise, and. Gentlemen, I shall be very sorry if 
 great questions should not arise. Great questions are a proof 
 that a country is progressing. If there were no great questions, 
 it would only show that we were in a stagnant state. But I say, 
 my Lords and Gentlemen, contrast the present state of affairs 
 when this Eeform Bill of 1867 has been passed, with what my 
 noble friend near me, his Grace the Duke of Buccleuch, remem- 
 bers when the Reform Bill for 1832 was passed, what a different 
 feeling there was in the country ! No one can believe now 
 that the wise and experienced men of those days were afraid of 
 the Reform Bill. It was not the Reform Bill that was brought 
 forward by Lord Grey, and the eminent statesmen who supported 
 him, that produced that alarm. It was the way in which the 
 Reform Bill was passed ; it was the bludgeons and brickbats ; 
 it was Nottingham Castle in flames ; it was cities like Bristol 
 nearly sacked. But contrast that state of affairs, and the conse- 
 quences of it, with the state of affairs which we are now experi- 
 encing. We have had our riot — " A little riot, just to show we 
 are freemen." We have had, as in 1832, opinions of revolution- 
 ary violence expressed, but they were expressed in 1832 by men 
 of mark, by men who influenced opinion. By whom are these 
 violent opinions expressed now ? By the nincompoops of poli- 
 tics — ^by persons more absurd than Hudibras. Now, if you con- 
 sider the different positions of the country at those two periods, 
 it is very remarkable. You passed a Reform Bill then, and every- 
 body was frightened. They were so frightened that they col- 
 lected together and believed that the only security against 
 further danger was associating together to prevent further 
 change. Now, we all feel what an error that was. It is as fal- 
 lacious a principle in politics as in science to suppose that you 
 can establish a party upon resistance to change, and for this 
 reason, that change is inevitable. In a progressive country 
 change is constant ; and the great question is, not whether you 
 should resist change which is inevitable, but whether that change 
 should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, 
 the laws, and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be 
 carried out in deference to abstract principles, and arbitrary 
 and general doctrines. The one is a national system ; the other.
 
 29 
 
 to give it an epithet, a noble epithet — which, perhaps, it may 
 deserve — is a philosophic system. Both have great advantages : 
 the national party is supported by the fervour of patriotism ; the 
 philosophical party has a singular exemption from the force of 
 prejudice. The national party, representing sometimes the pre- 
 judices of a nation, may retard its advancement, but will never 
 weaken the national character : the philosophic party, though it 
 may occasionally improve, by its advanced views, the condition 
 of a country, often precipitates, and sometimes perverts, progress, 
 and thus may occasion revolutions and destroy States. 
 
 Now, my Lords and Gentlemen, I have always considered that 
 the Tory party was the national party of England. It is not 
 formed of a combination of oligarchs and philosophers who prac- 
 tise on the sectarian prejudices of a portion of the people. It is 
 formed of all classes, from the highest to the most homely, and 
 it upholds a series of institutions that are in theory, and ought 
 to be in practice, an embodiment of the national requirements 
 and the security of the national rights. Whenever the Tory 
 party degenerates into an oligarchy, it becomes unpopular ; 
 whenever the national institutions do not fulfil their original 
 intention, the Tory party becomes odious ; but when the people 
 are led by their natural leaders, and when, by their united influ- 
 ence, the national institutions fulfil their original intention, the 
 Tory party is triumphant : and then, under Providence, will 
 secure the prosperity and the power of the country. . 
 
 My Lords and Gentlemen, the times in which we happen to 
 meet are no doubt serious. At this moment events may be 
 occurring which may influence the destiny of Europe, and affect 
 the position of this country, though, for my own part, I should 
 not be doing my duty if I did not express my conviction that it 
 is not only the interest but the intention of the great Powers of 
 Europe not only to favour, but to favour permanently, the cause 
 of peace. But, no doubt, whatever Ministry may have to re- 
 gulate the fortunes of this country, whatever may be their 
 abilities, whatever may be the favouring circumstances they can 
 command, they are nothing without the confidence of the great 
 body of the nation, and without the encouragement which 
 assemblies like this one must give to them. Eor myself, I 
 assure you. Gentlemen, encouraged as I have been to-day by the 
 cordial kindness with which you have greeted me — a thing to 
 be remembered — which I have not merited — which I do not 
 accept as a reward, but which I do accept as encouragement. I 
 am the last man who would for a moment affect to depreciate 
 the difficulties which a British Minister has now to meet, or 
 would attempt for a moment to exaggerate the qualities which
 
 30 
 
 I, or even my colleagues better than myself, possess to encounter 
 them. Indeed, when I remember the elements and interests of 
 these British Isles, so vast, so various, and so complicated ; 
 when I even call to recollection the difference of race which, 
 however blended, leaves significant characteristics ; when I re- 
 collect that the great majority of the population of the United 
 Kingdom rise every day and depend for their subsistence — their 
 daily subsistence — on their daily labour ; when I recollect the 
 delicate marvel of our credit — more wonderful, in my opinion, 
 than our accumulated capital — the constant collision between 
 those ancient institutions that give permanence to the State, 
 and the requirements of the new populations that arise, and 
 which they do not completely or adequately meet — when I re- 
 member that it is upon the common sense, the prudence, and the 
 courage of the community thus circumstanced that depends the 
 fate of uncounted millions in Asian provinces, and that around 
 the globe there is a circle of domestic settlements that watch us 
 for example and inspiration. When I know that not a sun rises 
 upon a British Minister that does not bring him care, and often 
 inexpressible anxiety — some unexpected war, a disturbed or 
 discontented colony, a pestilence, a famine, a mutiny, a collapse 
 of credit, a declining trade, a decaying revenue, perhaps some 
 insensate and fantastic conspiracy, I declare I often wonder 
 where is the strength of thought and the fund of feeling that are 
 adequate to cope with such colossal circumstances. But when 
 I withdraw from the pressure of individual interests and take a 
 larger and deeper view of human affairs, I recognise that in this 
 country, whatever may have been the tumult and the turmoil of 
 now many generations, there have ever been three master in- 
 fluences that have at all times guided and controlled all other 
 powers and passions. And these are Industry, Liberty, and 
 Eeligion. So long as this sacred combination influences the 
 destiny of this country it will not die. History will recognise 
 its life, not record its decline and fall. It will say — This is a 
 great and understanding people, and it is from such materials we 
 make the magnificence of nations and establish the splendour of 
 terrestrial thrones.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 IN ANSWER TO AN ADDRESS PRESENTED BY 
 
 THE WOEKING MEN OF EDINBTJKGH, 
 IN THE MUSIC HALL, OCT. 30, 1867. 
 
 Gentlemen, and my good friends, I thank you heartily for the 
 kind manner in which you have received this Address, and the 
 attempt I am now going to make to answer to the suggestions 
 contained in it. I am the more grateful to you for the manner 
 in which you have received me, because I alone am. responsible 
 for the indiscretion, if it be one, of appearing before you this 
 evening and becoming your guest. I was told that it would be 
 on my part a great mistake and grievous error ; that I had been 
 misled and misinformed as to the sentiments and opinions of 
 the working classes of Edinburgh, and that it was on my part 
 an act most rash and unconsidered ; and coming to this city to 
 receive, as I have received, one of the greatest compliments that 
 any individual has yet had proffered to him, that I should go 
 out of my way, and unnecessarily, to destroy the effect of a de- 
 monstration so distinguished, would be an act of folly unparal- 
 leled. I was told that I should be met to-night, not by the 
 working classes of Edinburgh, but only by some working men 
 in that city. My answer was that I knew of no corporate body 
 that could arrogate to itself the right of representing all the 
 working classes of Edinburgh, and that if I believed there was 
 any considerable portion of my fellow-countrymen in a position 
 of life more homely than those who welcomed me last night, 
 who, on an occasion like the present, on a visit to a city of this 
 importance by one who, however unworthily, is still a Minister 
 of the Crown, desired to have an opportunity of communing
 
 with me, I did think I would not be doing my duty to my 
 Sovereign, to my country, and to my fellow-subjects, if I churl- 
 ishly refused to them the communication which they desired. 
 
 Gentlemen, if I had considered my personal convenience I 
 certainly should not have been present at this moment, and I 
 am physically incapable of addressing you in the manner you 
 deserve. But when I was appealed to in London upon this sub- 
 ject, and appealed to by men who I believed then, and I now 
 know, rightfully represented the feelings and opinions of a con- 
 siderable portion of the working classes of this city, I could 
 not refuse to them, though I was then surrounded by all the 
 state of a Minister — I could not refuse to receive these honest 
 men who had travelled up to London, and unkindly say 
 that I would not listen to their representations. I wish to 
 make you fully acquainted with the feelings under which we 
 meet to-night, that you should not suppose it, on my part, an 
 act of arrogance in seeking this interview. On the contrary, I 
 have only been influenced by a feeling which I am sure would 
 be common in all men when I shrunk from doing an act which, 
 if I had refused to come, would, in my mind, have been unkind 
 and ungentlemanly. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, I must express to you my thanks for the 
 Address which you have just read and offered to my acceptance. 
 There is one portion of that Address which you will easily 
 believe I entirely sympathise with. Probably there is no man 
 living who more entirely agrees with you that it is an act upon 
 which the country may generally be congratulated — that the 
 Bill we introduced for the representation of the people in Eng- 
 land has passed into a law. I am glad to find that so consider- 
 able an assembly, and one formed, I think no one now will 
 deny, mainly of the working classes of this metropolis — I am 
 glad to find that they so entirely approve of that measure ; that 
 they believe it was one conceived in a spirit adequate to the 
 occasion, and calculated to lead to the settlement of a question 
 which had too long agitated the commonwealth, and distracted 
 and disturbed that application of the popular energies to other 
 questions which, if carried into effect, would have tended to 
 improve the condition and advance the fortunes of the people 
 and the country. This is most gratifying to me, and I am sure 
 will be to every member of her Majesty's Government. The 
 personal allusions which you have made in that Address I accept 
 as an indication of your kindness to me individually, but in a 
 great degree, I must admit, they are undeserved. It is not to 
 my individual exertions peculiarly that you are indebted for 
 the passing of the Keform Act. I was supported by colleagues
 
 33 
 
 who entirely concurred with me. I served under a, Prime Min- 
 ister who is the leading spirit of his Cabinet — between whom 
 and myself there is perfect and entire sympathy— and who 
 resolved upon this question from the first, that nothing should 
 deter us if possible from bringing to a happy conclusion the 
 settlement of a question upon which vitally depended the great- 
 ness of the empire and the happiness of her Majesty's subjects. 
 But, Gentlemen, you are also indebted, not merely to the Min- 
 istry, but you are indebted to the high feeling of the existing 
 House of Commons — to the party with which I am con- 
 nected, who upon that occasion evinced a devotion and an 
 energy rarely to be equalled in the history of the Constitu- 
 tion of our country. They gave no churlish support ; they gave 
 no limited devotion to their leaders ; but, impelled by the con- 
 viction that the settlement of this question was one of vital 
 necessity, they determined that it should be settled in a manner 
 which should produce concord among all classes of her Majesty's 
 subjects. Gentlemen, you have given me credit individually 
 for the possession and exercise of some happy qualities in the 
 carrying of this measure. If I have shown patience, it became 
 my position. If I have listened to the suggestions of my oppon- 
 ents with deference, I only fulfilled the duty of a British Minis- 
 ter. But believe me that I am not entitled to those compliments 
 which I sometimes receive upon my marvellous dexterity. I 
 will explain to you to-night all the arts by which I" contrived to 
 achieve this great success. All the black arts imputed to me are 
 simply these — that on all important questions I took my own 
 party into confidence, and when I had to appeal to an indepen- 
 dent Opposition, I remembered at all times that they were men 
 of sense and gentlemen. And it was by these two means, and 
 these only, that I succeeded at last, as the organ of a unanimous 
 Government, in carrying a measure which I believe will add 
 stability to the State and spirit to the community. 
 
 Gentlemen, our Chairman has referred to my career, some- 
 what longer now than I care to recollect. But whatever its 
 length, and whatever its labours, believe me that I have a 
 reward for them to-night in the reception which I have met 
 from a meeting, not only so numerous as that which I now 
 address, but influenced, as no one can deny, by feelings so 
 cordial, so friendly, and, I hope, so just. Gentlemen, when I 
 hear of this war among classes, I must say, taking, I hope, an 
 impartial view of my public career, which has now lasted longer 
 than the lives of many men tliat are now present — throwing my 
 eye over a Parliamentary career alone that continuously has
 
 34 
 
 prevailed for upwards of thirty years, I cannot find that I have 
 ever taken any part hostile, or intentionally hostile, to the 
 interests of the working classes, or that 1 have ever been con- 
 nected with those who ought to be or who intended to be in 
 antagonism with them. Now, gentlemen, during those thirty 
 years there has been a great mass of legislation which has been 
 carried in Parliament affecting the interests of the working 
 classes — measures in which they were deeply interested them- 
 selves, which they promoted by their presence, and which they 
 showed by their conduct were dear in every sense to the innermost 
 sentiments of their hearts and hearths. I have remarked, in look- 
 ing over that period, that during that time, T think, if I recollect 
 correctly — of course, upon an occasion like the present I must 
 speak with that indulgence which I am sure you will afford to one 
 who has no blue-books to refer to, but I think there have been 
 thirty-two Acts passed relative to the condition of the people, 
 and especially of the working classes in this country, in which 
 they took the deepest interest — laws affecting their wages, their 
 education, their hours of toil, their means of self-improvement 
 — laws the object of which was to elevate their condition and 
 soften the asperities which are the inevitable consequence of 
 probably any state of society that may exist. Now, Gentlemen, 
 I can say this, it is some gratification to me, and I think it will 
 be fairly admitted, it is some trial of the disposition and career 
 of a public man, that of those thirty-two Acts passed during 
 those thirty years, I have invariably supported every one. 
 Gentlemen, allow me to tell you that though that legislation is 
 now considered as the result of a philosophy the propriety and 
 justice of which cannot be questioned, there was not one of 
 those Acts that was not bitterly and ably opposed. I will not 
 say now by whom they were opposed, or by what party they 
 were opposed, because it is neither my wish, nor is it in any way 
 necessary to a meeting like the present, that we dwell upon 
 those circumstances. But this I will say, they were not opposed 
 by the political party with which I am intimately connected. 
 And only yesterday evening, when I dined with a very large 
 body of your fellow-citizens, though not comparable in numbers 
 with those I now address, 1 had the pleasure of meeting a gentle- 
 man who is my colleague, but who was present there as a pro- 
 prietor and dweller in Scotland— not only my colleague, but my 
 dearest fiiend, Lord John Manners— and he then recalled to my 
 recollection that a quarter of a century ago and more, when 
 neither of us thought that we should probably be advisers of the 
 Crown, we were working together for the very objects which are 
 dearest to the majority of those that I am now addressing, many
 
 35 
 
 of which, mainly by his influence, much more than by my own, 
 have been carried into active legislation, and all of which in 
 their effects are now universally acknowledged to have elevated 
 and improved the condition of the great mass of the population. 
 Well, Gentlemen, on this subject I may be perhaps permitted 
 to remind you that the present session of Parliament has given, 
 I think, some evidence that the feelings of her Majesty's Minis- 
 ters are unchanged upon this subject, and that we have not for- 
 gotten that which is one of the first and principal duties of any 
 Minister, which is to consider whether, by legislation, the con- 
 dition of the great body of the people can be improved. Al- 
 though our time has been engrossed by that great measure which, 
 followed, as I hope it will be followed with regard to Scotland, 
 by identical legislation, has greatly increased the popular pri- 
 vileges of the people of England — notwithstanding the engross- 
 ing nature of that great labour, which would have been an excuse 
 for any neglect of any subject by any Ministry — I am glad to re- 
 collect that the present Government have carried two measures 
 even in this session of Parliament of vital importance to the in- 
 terests of the people. One is a measure with which you no doubt 
 are well acquainted, which has extended the principles and the con- 
 ditions of the Factory Act to all the trades of the United Kingdom. 
 That was a measure of no mean importance, and which very con- 
 siderably, and for the better, affects the condition of the people — 
 and the other is that Act which limits the hours o£ labour up to 
 eighteen years of age, and which, with reference to that provi- 
 sion, has established a system of compulsory education. Well, 
 then, I think. Gentlemen, under these circumstances — remember- 
 ing that this was a session of all others in which, if there were any 
 insincerity in our feelings, we might easily have refrained from 
 exerting ourselves on the subject — I think we may, with satis- 
 faction and just pride, appeal to those two measures which have 
 passed, and by the influence of the Government alone have 
 passed, as some evidence that her Majesty's Ministers are mind- 
 ful of what the Government of the Queen should never forget. 
 But, gentlemen, when I say that I have from my earliest public 
 life been of opinion that this assumed and affected antagonism 
 between the interests of what are called the Conservative classes 
 and the labouring classes is utterly unfounded. I say that if I 
 had to adduce a further proof of that, I would appeal to a 
 measure, also passed in the present session of Parliament, w^hich 
 I am bound to say, even at the expense of the reputation of the 
 Government, is even more valuable than those two considerable 
 measures to which I have referred, and that is the measure 
 which Lord Elcho introduced and passed through Parliament,
 
 36 
 
 which altered the state of the law as respects contracts between 
 master and servant. In my opinion, a more beneficial law, and 
 one which more sensibly improves the condition of the great body 
 of the people, was never introduced and passed through Parlia- 
 ment ; and I say that there is no language which can express, in my 
 opinion, the debt of gratitude which the country owes to Lord 
 Elcho for the untiring patience, the admirable ability, the courage, 
 and the determination with which he succeeded in carrying that 
 important measure — because, Gentlemen, allow me to remind 
 you that it is very easy to talk at meetings like the present of 
 introducing Bills into Parliament, and passing them, but the 
 fact is that it is very difficult even for a Minister to pass a Bill. 
 But no human imagination can conceive the labours, the 
 difficulties, the discountenancing perplexities, of the private 
 member who attempts to legislate on any subject of importance, 
 and therefore I have always myself considered that the conduct 
 of Lord Elcho in this matter cannot be too highly praised. Ee- 
 member that by the old law of contract between master and 
 servant, the servant who broke the contract was guilty of a cri- 
 minal act, while the master was exempt from all such conse- 
 quences. It is difficult, now that the change is made, now that 
 we have broken the chain of custom which reconciles us to many 
 anomalies, it is difficult to conceive that such a law could sub- 
 sist in Great Britain. Yet that law did exist in Great Britain 
 — I won't say unchallenged — but certainly not amended — only 
 twelve months ago. I say then that the man who could have 
 the courage and the determination and the happiness to carry 
 such an improvement of the laws of his country deserves the 
 gratitude and approbation of his countrymen. But with refer- 
 ence to the observation with which I started. I may say that I 
 never heard that Lord Elcho was looked upon as what is called 
 an advanced Liberal, or that it was in consequence of his very 
 profound conviction of opinions that bear that colour that he 
 was induced to come forward and make that triumphant effort, 
 in which he succeeded. 
 
 Well, Gentlemen, I think I have shown you that there are 
 good grounds to believe that my opinion is just — that there is 
 no necessary antagonism between the interests of those classes 
 that are popularly described as the Conservative classes and the 
 labouring classes of this country. My opinions on this subject 
 have been expressed not only in Parliament, but by other modes, 
 not so important, to which the Chairman has referred. I have 
 always looked on the interests of the labouring classes as essen- 
 tially the most conservative interests of the country. The rights 
 of labour have been to me always as sacred as the rights of pro-
 
 37 
 
 perty, and I have always thought that those who were most in- 
 terested in the stability and even in the glory of a State are the 
 great mass of the population, happy to enjoy the privileges of 
 freemen under good laws, and proud at the same time of the 
 country which confers on its inhabitants a name of honour and 
 of glorious reputation in every quarter of the globe. So much, 
 then, with reference to that measure which we have passed last 
 session, and which you, I am glad to see, so fully appreciate — 
 so much with reference to my individual influence in the carry- 
 ing of that measure, which you see was much simpler than it is 
 described in the newspapers, and so much with reference to the 
 general sentiments and principles of the party which for thirty 
 years I have acted with in Parliament, with regard to the in- 
 terest which we take in the general welfare of our countrymen 
 — ^those countrymen, I am proud to say, who, by the united 
 influence of that party, are soon about to exercise the noblest 
 privileges of freemen. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, I ought not to forget that in the Address 
 which you have presented to me, and for w^hich I feel, I can 
 assure you from the bottom of my heart, most deeply gratified, 
 you have not only referred to the pass, but have thrown a pro- 
 phetic eye over the impending future. Gentlemen, you have 
 enumerated in the concluding paragraphs of your Address the 
 various questions which may, which must, attract the attention 
 of senates, and may agitate the fortunes of realms and empires. 
 You appear, many of you, from the tone which you have adopted, 
 to have very decided opinions on these questions. Allow me, 
 as a practical man, without wishing to offend anybody present, 
 to say that in the catalogue of questions which you have referred 
 to are contained all those important political problems which 
 the wisest statesmen and the most powerful Ministers have 
 hitherto not been able to solve. Whether your confidence would 
 be increased in me on this occasion if I came forward with a 
 solution, I will not attempt to decide. But having a great 
 respect for the opinions of Scotchmen, believing that not merely 
 from their education but from their race they are a very shrewd 
 and discriminating people, I am rather inclined to conclude 
 that if I were to offer a solution of all these questions on the 
 instant — even if it agreed with the opinions and prejudices of 
 the large majority present — instead of their confidence being 
 increased in their guest they would say this man is much too 
 quick for us — we would rather trust our fortunes and the 
 interests of the country to one who pondered and hesitated a 
 little before he gave such definite opinions. I take it for 
 granted that, like all prudent men, you are fond of detail ;
 
 38 
 
 because, after all, upon the perfect knowledge and right apprecia- 
 tion of detail the settlement of great questions mainly depends. 
 And, Gentlemen, I think I may venture to say that upon none 
 of the questions which you have introduced in these last para- 
 graphs of your Address — although you may have arrived at cer- 
 tain conclusions, which so far govern your conduct that you 
 have a right to call upon those who regulate your affairs to give 
 their earnest consideration to the subjects, in order that anom- 
 alies may be removed, and injurious consequences remedied. 
 Still I very much doubt whether there is anybody present who 
 is prepared upon any of these questions to suggest measures 
 which practically and completely would realise the somewhat 
 vague conclusion which influences his general opinion. Well, 
 Gentlemen, there are one or two of these subjects on which I 
 may speak with more confidence. You express a desire that a 
 Eeform Bill should be introduced into next session of Parliament 
 in which franchises of not less importance should be secured 
 for the people of Scotland than I am happy to say have been 
 secured to the people of England. Upon that subject. Gentle- 
 men, I can speak with confidence, because it is one which I 
 have entered into and mastered, and my colleagues have duly 
 considered it. It is their intention to introduce, and at the 
 earliest possible occasion, a Bill to improve the representation 
 of the people in Scotland, and certainly I shall be no party to 
 the introduction of that Bill if it offers to the people of Scotland 
 less franchises than have been secured to the people of England. 
 Gentlemen, the question of the Irish Church, to which you have 
 referred, engages, no doubt, the attention of the public mind ; 
 but I should think that you cannot forget that even at this mo- 
 ment there is a Commission just appointed to inquire into the 
 condition of that Establishment : and I should think such prac- 
 tical men as those whom I am now addressing would look upon 
 a Minister with little confidence who left London, having sanc- 
 tioned a commission of inquiry into the Irish Church, and then 
 came to Edinburgh to inform those whom he is addressing of 
 the policy which her Majesty's Ministers intended to pursue. 
 Gentlemen, I will say nothing now upon the laws which affect 
 the combination of workmen. I entirely agree with Lord Derby 
 that it would be a most impolitic and unjust course to support 
 any laws which would oppose the combination of workmen, or 
 at all affect those unions which they have thought fit to estab- 
 lish for the preservation and protection of their interests. But 
 if the workmen come forward and ask Parliament to consider 
 their case, because they have not the means under the existing 
 law of asserting their rights, why then I say that we are per-
 
 39 
 
 fectly justified in suggesting that the whole subject should be in- 
 vestigated, and that the workman should not only be secured his 
 rights, but called upon to fulfil his duties. , Gentlemen, I will not 
 touch upon the condition of the working classes which you have 
 brought under my consideration — though I might do so, I think, 
 with some advantage at the present moment — because I have 
 already trespassed too long upon your time. But when you call 
 the attention of her Majesty's Government to the condition of 
 our workhouses, and the absolute necessity of Government in- 
 terference and improvement, I would say that I don't accept 
 that as a censorious intimation on the part of my friends who 
 have submitted to me this Address ; but rather as availing them- 
 selves of an adroit opportunity of introducing a subject which, 
 I think, the present Government may look to with some self- 
 complacency. Because I think no one will deny that we are 
 the first Government that have attempted — successfully at- 
 tempted — to deal with the condition of the workhouses, and the 
 condition of the workhouses in that portion of the kingdom 
 where it is most difficult to grapple with the local powers who 
 produce those consequences which have been so much depre- 
 cated. I say we are the first Government that vigorously, com- 
 pletely, and efficiently dealt with the deplorable condition of 
 the workhouses in the great metropolis of the empire — a mea- 
 sure which has obtained those advantageous consequences and 
 results which you desire. Therefore, upon that subject. Gentle- 
 men, I will only observe that this expression of opinion upon 
 it by a meeting so influential and so spontaneous as the present, 
 is one which will encourage and embolden us to pursue that 
 course which we have hitherto pursued with so much success, 
 and which you have ratified by your approbation. 
 
 But, Gentlemen, you remark there is one subject of paramount 
 importance, far beyond any of those to which you have referred 
 and I have noticed, which demands the consideration of the 
 State — that is, the education of the people. Now, Gentlemen, I 
 may be permitted to say it required no addresses to be offered 
 to me, even by meetings so numerous and influential as the 
 present — representing, as I think will now fairly be admitted, 
 the opinions of a great body of the working classes of the city 
 of Edinburgh — I say that there required no addresses to be pre- 
 sented to me to enlist my best feelings and my utmost energies 
 in a cause which I have ever deemed so paramount and sacred. 
 T have ever considered that the education of the people of the 
 United Kingdom could not be too much developed. Looking to 
 the immense empire which depends on the qualities of so 
 limited a population, comparatively, as inhabit the united isles.
 
 40 
 
 I have felt that it is the first duty of a statesman to take care 
 that the most responsible man in the world — and that is a 
 British citizen — should be capable of fulfilling the august duties 
 that by our constitution and our imperial fate have devolved 
 upon him. I maintain, when you have only at the most a 
 population of thirty millions to support the untiring efforts and 
 the almost incredible intelligence which are necessary to main- 
 tain an empire of the magnitude of that which Queen Victoria 
 presides over — I maintain it is absolutely necessary that your 
 British subject should be a man who exceeds in his resources 
 and power more than one man of any other country. Well, 
 Gentlemen, how is that to be fulfilled ? How is that great end 
 to be obtained but by the education of the people ? Now, I 
 learn that there is at the present moment a fashion on the sub- 
 ject. A great many people who never thought much of the 
 education of the people are all for education as the only means 
 of escaping the dreadful consequences that must result from the 
 passing of the Eeform Bill. Now, Gentlemen, I cannot promise 
 you to make greater exertions in the cause of education than I 
 have hitlierto made ; and I think I may say on the part of her 
 Majesty's Government that, totally irrespective of the Eeform 
 Bill, they consider popular education is one of the greatest 
 duties which can possibly interest and command the considera- 
 tion of a Government. Gentlemen, I cannot believe that the 
 men who will be called upon to exercise the franchise are not 
 sufficiently educated at the present moment to fulfil that trust. 
 I have no doubt that the generations who follow them with the 
 advantages which are preparing for them may fulfil the trust in 
 a manner more complete and more adapted to the exigencies 
 of coming times ; but as a broad principle, I am bound to 
 say that I believe every man who will exercise the franchise 
 under the new law will be, speaking generally, perfectly com- 
 petent, so far as his general information and his means of forming 
 an opinion are concerned, to fulfil that trust — or if I did not, I 
 should have been unpardonable in introducing such a Bill to 
 the consideration of Parliament. It is not to depreciate the im- 
 portance of popular education, but rather to warn you against the 
 designs of those who are taking advantage of a moment of agita- 
 tion — of fear and alarm in some quarters perhaps — to induce you 
 to enter into arrangements which you may afterwards have to 
 regret, that I make this remark. The subject of education must 
 be dealt with with the greatest thought and consideration. It 
 would be most unwise at once to blot out from the slate all that 
 in the last thirty years we have with such pains and such diffi- 
 culty accomplished. We must utilise as far as possible all exist-
 
 41 
 
 ing machinery and all influences that are acting in favour of the 
 great and sacred cause of popular education. We must supple- 
 ment, we must invigorate, we must add to those powers ; but it 
 would be most unwise on your part if you agree rashly to ter- 
 minate all that exists, without securing an equivalent and even 
 superior arrangement. I am not prepared, Gentlemen, to say 
 that in a civilisation so very various and complicated as that 
 which prevails among the population of the United Kingdom, an 
 identical system would suit all parts of the empire. But with 
 regard to Scotland, I think your course is clear. You have had 
 in old days, and to a certain degree you enjoy, the advantage of 
 a system of national education. After all, whatever they may 
 say, it has prevailed for two centuries, and you would be the 
 most ungrateful of men if you did not recognise the advantages 
 which have resulted from it, and which have marked you out 
 among the nations of the world as men who have been most 
 favoured by that wise institution of your country. So far as I 
 can form an opinion, the general principles upon which your 
 national system of education in Scotland is founded are wise, 
 and I think durable principles. But no doubt that, as time has 
 flown on, the course of two centuries has so altered the circum- 
 stances of your country that the application of these principles 
 is no longer satisfactory or adequate. And in my opinion the 
 time has arrived when, without confounding yourselves and 
 complicating your position by connecting your necessities and 
 claims with those of other people and other places — the time 
 has come when, practically considering the question, you ought 
 to achieve some great improvement in that respect. You are 
 aware the subject has engaged the attention of a Eoyal Com- 
 mission. The report of that Commission, distinguished by 
 much ability, has now for some time been under the con- 
 sideration of the Government; and I shall be disappointed, 
 if it be not in the power of her Majesty's Government during the 
 next session of Parliament to introduce a measure with respect 
 to national education in Scotland which will render adequate 
 and complete that ancient and famous system to which this 
 country owes so much of its benefits and its success. 
 
 Gentlemen, on the subject of education there are one or two 
 points that I have noticed perhaps in other places, but I hardly 
 think it is inappropriate that I should touch upon them here, 
 because they most concern the class of men I am addressing to- 
 night. Now, all those great measures which are somewhat cloud- 
 ily brought forward with regard to national education, univer- 
 sally refer to primary education. There is no doubt the difficulty 
 of national education is involved in that question of elementary 
 
 F
 
 42 
 
 or primary education. I cannot say that the condition of our 
 primary education is at all satisfactory in any of the countries 
 which form the United Kingdom of the Queen ; but we must 
 remember this, that the condition of affairs thirty years ago, 
 when the 'great movement commenced with regard to the im- 
 provement of our primary education, was infinitely more griev- 
 ous ; and although there are great wants and deficiencies at pre- 
 sent' still a greater advance has been made with regard to the 
 subject of elementary and primary education in this country 
 than in any other country I can refer to. But that part of the 
 subject I now dismiss. There is, however, one other portion of 
 the subject which does not refer to elementary or primary edu- 
 cation, which refers to the condition, the interests, the fortunes 
 of adults, of the men I am addressing, and that is technical edu- 
 cation — education in the arts you practise, upon which your 
 welfare depends, in which your prosperity is involved, and in 
 which, if you do not achieve excellence, you will deteriorate not 
 merely as citizens but as human beings. That is a ques- 
 tion of vast importance, and it depends much upon your- 
 selves and upon the state of public opinion in this country. 
 Now, it is utterly impossible that the British artisan can 
 maintain the position he has hitherto occupied by a mere tradi- 
 tionary following of the methods and manners which those who 
 have preceded have delivered to him. The Prince Consort, one 
 of the wisest and most accomplished of men, was the first to 
 call the attention of the country to this subject. His views 
 were received at first with great incredulity, with that arro- 
 gance which ignorance always assumes ; but the Prince Consort 
 was right — he knew he was right — and he knew that the course 
 of coming events would prove that he was right. He knew 
 that the foreign mechanic in the arts which he practised was 
 fast rivalling, and if rivalling must ultimately excel, the British 
 artisan. Well, he took steps to arrest that course of deteriora- 
 tion ; he was the first man who encouraged and established an 
 universal exhibition, which, without painfully offending the feel- 
 ings of any British artizan, would place him in amicable but 
 evident competition with the productions of other mechanics. 
 You know the consequences of that ; and since that movement 
 took place, which I call the Albertine movement, from the 
 extraordinary beneficial effect it had on the condition of the 
 English mechanic, there has been a conviction which I think 
 has now entered the mind of the public, and of mechanics 
 themselves, that this subject is one much too serious to be 
 neglected ; that the fate and fortunes of a great body of her 
 Majesty's subjects depend upon rightly understanding it ; and
 
 43 
 
 that it becomes the duty of the State, as well as of those men 
 themselves, to take such measures as shall greatly improve the 
 technical education of the British people; You must have, as 
 you have had in some degree, schools of art promoted and 
 established in this country. Your manufactures will languish 
 and disappear if you fail in the arts of design ; and those who 
 practise those of metallurgy must be conscious that it requires 
 at the present moment on their part the utmost energy and 
 enterprise to maintain the position which Britain has hitherto 
 filled in the markets of the world. This is a portion of public 
 education in which the Government can assist the British work- 
 man. It is one in which the Goverment has to a certain 
 degree already assisted ; but in which, in my opinion, there 
 ought to be a greater development of public assistance and 
 attention. 
 
 Gentlemen, I will now touch upon a point I have alluded to 
 in another place, but which on the matter of education I cannot 
 here pass unnoticed. When I hear that the British people are 
 not educated, that they will be incapable of exercising what is 
 very natural to a Briton, whether he possessed it before or 
 now — namely, the suffrage — I say that we forget that in this 
 country there is a source of education perpetually going on — of 
 secular education of the highest class, which fits men, more 
 than any other means I know, for the performance of public 
 and political duties, and that is the influence, thank God, of a 
 free press. When the condition of the people and the education 
 of the people is brought forward, and the statistics of Conti- 
 nental nations are adduced to prove the advantageous position 
 which the population in those countries fill, and the compara- 
 tively disadvantageous one occupied by the people of the United 
 Kingdom, I always recollect that these philosophers and statis- 
 ticians forget in their views the influence of the great power, 
 the great educating power, to which I have referred, and I 
 remember with pride and with consolation that England, and 
 England alone, is the country in which a free press practically 
 and really exists. That is an educational power of the highest 
 influence. It is maintained and is exercised in this country 
 under, I believe, the highest responsibility. But whether it be 
 the conduct of those who exercise it, or whether it be the 
 temper of the people to whom it is addressed, I care not — the 
 influence of the press in England ceases if it is not a moral 
 influence, and if it is not exercised upon those principles which 
 you have been taught to look upon as necessary, not merely for 
 the preservation of society, but for the highest considerations 
 that can influence man.
 
 44 
 
 Gentlemen, I have too long trespassed upon you, but permit 
 me to say, as you have offered me this Address, that it is not 
 the least gratifying circumstance which has attended my visit 
 to Edinburgh. I am happy, particularly after the rumours and 
 reports that reached me — I am happy to have had an oppor- 
 tunity of addressing, I hope you will acknowledge with frank- 
 ness, so numerous and so intelligent an assembly. I will now 
 merely revert, in conclusion, to the original cause that this 
 Address has been presented to me — namely, that of your com- 
 plete sympathy with the Government of her Majesty in passing 
 a great measure of Parliamentary reform, and your sympathy 
 with the difficulties which they had to encounter in carrying 
 that important Act. Let me, not in advice or admonition, but 
 as one who is really your friend, express my conviction that — 
 possessing those great privileges which will soon be yours, as 
 they now are of the people of England, you will exercise them 
 in a manner becoming intelligent and patriotic men. Disap- 
 point all the forebodings of your foes or of your false friends. 
 Prove that you are Britons influenced by the same feelings, the 
 same passions, the same interests, the same high and noble 
 aspirations that influence all other classes of Britons. Prove 
 that you love your country ; prove that you are proud of belong- 
 ing to an ancient kingdom which possesses the noblest of con- 
 stitutions, and do not listen to those who pretend to you that 
 society is to be revolutionised because the people are trusted. 
 Do not listen to those who tell you that you have been invested 
 with democratic rights, and that, therefore, you must effect 
 great changes in the fortunes and form of one of the most con- 
 siderable nations and Governments that ever existed. Be 
 proud of the confidence which the constituted authorities of 
 the country have reposed in you, by investing you with popular 
 privileges ; prove that you know the value of such privileges ; 
 and that you will exercise them to maintain the institutions 
 of your country, and to increase its power, its glory, and its 
 fame. 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKAVOOD AND SONS, KDINBUKGH.

 
 -^-c ^^^^p_