/^ 
 
 [Publications of the National Union, No. XXIV.] 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 RIGHT. HON. B. DISRAELI, M.P., 
 
 TO THE 
 
 WORKING MEN'S 
 CONSERVATIVE ASSOCIATION 
 
 AT 
 
 GLASGOW, 
 
 On Saturday, NovembeVy 22ndy 1873. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THE 
 
 NATIONAL BUNION OF CONSERVATIVE AND CONSTITUTIONAL 
 
 ASSOCIATIONS, 
 53, PARLIAMENT STPvEET, WESTMINSTER, S.W. 
 
 November, 1873.
 
 LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BY THE CENTEAL PEESS COMPANY, LIMITED 
 
 112, Strand, W.C.
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF TUB 
 
 RIGHT HON. B. DISRAELI, M.R, 
 
 AT GLASGOW. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli, on rising to address the meeting, was received with, 
 the most enthusiastic cheers. He said : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, 
 — I am not using merely conventional language when I express to 
 you the high honour that I feel in receiving this address from the 
 Conservative Association of Glasgow. The gratification is increased 
 by the chair being filled this day by one who was formerly a colleague 
 of mine in Parliament, and whom, with others around me, I learnt to 
 respect, and more than respect, for he gained the heart of the House 
 of Comjnons while he sat there. "^ Gentlemen, I will not conceal from 
 you, and, indeed, many and most of you know it, that when it was 
 first suggested to me to receive this distinction and to meet you here, 
 after great reflection, I felt it my duty — though with pain — to refuse 
 the honour which was intended for me. I did so because I thought 
 that, upon the whole, as my visit to Glasgow was an academic or 
 neutral visit, it would be better that nothing should occur that 
 might in any way make an exception to that general sentiment of 
 respect which it is my pride and pleasure to say I have received 
 from all classes and all parties in this city. And I must take 
 this opportunity, as it may be the last I shall have, without 
 reference to any political opinions, of expressing to the citizens 
 of Glasgow my lively sense of the kind and considerate 
 manner in which they have received me, and I must say the too great 
 indulgence even of those who do not generally agree with me in 
 political opinion. But, gentlemen, when I had been here some little 
 time it was represented to me by those who spoke for a large body of 
 my fellow countrymen that it seemed very hard upon them who, from 
 their pursuits and other reasons, could take no part in august, 
 academical functions or in the splendour of civic banquets that, feel- 
 ing deeply as they did on political subjects, one whom, however 
 unworthy he may be of their confidence, they still regard as their 
 chief, should be resident for nearly a week in this great city, in com- 
 munication, apparently, with all but his humbler friends, who 
 perhaps looked on him with not less confidence and affection ; and I 
 
 * Mr, James Baird of Auchmedden.
 
 confess to you that although it had been my original hope that not a 
 word should have fallen from these lips during my visit to Glasgow 
 which should have been discordant to any individual in the city, I could 
 not resist this appeal. It did appear to me to be so unfair, I would say 
 so unkind and ungenerous, that I assented at once, though after due 
 consideration, to receive this address and meet you as we meet to-day, 
 on terms which will permit me to make some observations to you 
 on the present state of public affairs. And I will here say, that 
 there may be no misunderstanding with reference to some i)ara- 
 graphs I have seen in the public papers, that I never was asked and / 
 never assented to meet any separate body particularly styled " Conser- 
 vative working-men." I have never been myself at all favourable to 
 a system which would induce Conservatives who are working-men to 
 form societies confined merely to their class. In the Church and 
 at the polling-booth all are equal — and all that concerns Conser- 
 vative working-men and interests them concerns and interests 
 the great body of Conservatives of whom they form a portion. 
 Therefore, it is to the Conservative Association I see before 
 me, of whom a very considerable majority consists of working- 
 men — it is to that Association that I address myself. 
 
 Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, — I believe I may describe the 
 position of this country as one of very great prosperity. There is 
 no doubt that during the last three years prosperity has been 
 generally acknowledged. There are some who suppose that it may 
 have received a check at the time when I paid my visit to Glas- 
 gow. If it has received a check it will increase, I hope, our circum- 
 spection, but I must express my own opinion that no substantial 
 diminution in the sources of the prosperity so apparent during 
 the last three years has occurred. I think we may fairly say the 
 state of this country is one of great prosperity, and although I believe 
 and know that it is a prosperity for which we are not indebted either 
 to Whigs or Tories, although I know that it has been occasioned in a 
 considerable degree, under Providence, by fortuitous though felicitous 
 circumstances, I am perfectly ready, speaking to-day, as I hope to 
 speak, in the fairest terms on public affairs, which I believe to be 
 quite consistent with the position of the leader of a i^arty — I am 
 ready to give to her Majesty's Government credit for the prosperity 
 we feel and acknowledge. With regard to her Majesty's Ministers 
 themselves, I will be equally candid, equally fair — I wiU take them 
 at their own estimate. They have lost few opportunities of informing 
 the country that they are men distinguished for commanding 
 talent, admirable eloquence, and transcendent administrative 
 abilities. I dispute none of these propositions any more 
 
 
 ^ uiuc
 
 than I do the prosperity of the country. They also 
 tell us that the country being so prosperous, and they having all 
 these personal advantages, they have taken the opportunity during 
 the last few years of passing measures of immense magnitude, only 
 equalled by the benefit they have conferred upon the people. Now, 
 gentlemen, I will not question their own estimate of their ability, or 
 even for a moment their own description of their achievements : but I 
 ask this question, — What is the reason, when the country is so pros- 
 perous, when its affairs are administered by so gifted a Government, 
 and when they have suceeeded during five years in passing measures 
 of such a vast character and beneficence — what is the reason that Her 
 Majesty's Ministers are going about regretting that they are so un- 
 popular ? Now, gentlemen, I beg you to observe that I did not say 
 Her Majesty's Ministers are unpopular. I stated their own 
 case and their own position ; I say that under the circumstances I 
 have put fairly before you, it is a remarkable circumstance, 
 and the question must be inquired into — why persons in the 
 position of Her Majesty's Government should on every occasion de- 
 plore the unpopularity they have incurred. Now my opinion, gentle- 
 men, is that that is not a question of mere curiosity — it is one that, 
 as I think I shall show you, concerns the honour and the interests of 
 the country. If the country is so prosperous — if Her Majesty's 
 Ministers are so gifted — if they have had such an ample opportunity 
 of showing the talents which they possess — if they have done all this 
 good — if they have availed themselves of this signal opportunity to 
 effect such great results, then the only inference we can draw from 
 the unpopularity which they themselves deplore is that the people of 
 this country is a fickle and ungrateful people. Therefore, it is not 
 a question of mere curiosity. It is a question that ought to be 
 answered. If there be those who suppose that the people of this 
 country, as I hold, are not a fickle or ungrateful people — that they are 
 a people who may be mistaken — that they may be misled ; but that 
 they are a people who, on the whole, are steadfast in their convic- 
 tions, and especially in their political convictions, I cannot myself 
 for a moment doubt. I say, then, that as this question, if left un- 
 answered, would show that Her Majesty's Ministers have placed a 
 slur on the character of the people of this kingdom, it ought 
 to be answered ; and a short time since, some two months 
 ago, I answered it. It appeared to me, at that moment especially, 
 when all those circumstances to which I have referred were clearly 
 before the country, and when Her Majesty's Government, by their 
 ablest and most powerful representatives, were deploring their 
 unpopularity, and asking the reason why, or rather intimating by
 
 6 
 
 inference that it was the fault of the people, not of the Government, 
 that someone should give an answer to that question. I gave it, and 
 in a veiy brief form — in the most condensed and the most severely- 
 accurate form. There is not an expression in that description of the 
 conduct of the Government which was not well weighed ; there was 
 not a word for which I had not warranty, for which I could not adduce 
 testimony ample and abounding. There was only one characteristic 
 of that description, which was not noticed at the time, and which I 
 will now confess— it was not original, for six months before in the 
 House of Commons I had used the same expressions and made the 
 same statement— not in a hole or comer, but on the most memorable 
 night of the Session, when there were 600 members of the House of 
 Commons present, when on the debate that took place avowedly 
 the fate of the Ministry depended. It was at midnight 
 that I rose to speak, and made the statement almost 
 similar in expression, though perhaps stronger and more 
 lengthened than the one which has become the cause of recent contro- 
 versy. The Prime Minister followed me in that debate. The House 
 of Commons knew what was depending upon the verdict about to 
 be taken, and with all that knowledge they came to a division, 
 and by a majority terminated the existence of the Government. 
 Gentlemen, it surprises me, then, that, having made that state- 
 ment six months after, with the advantage of six months' more 
 experience and observation, it should have so much offended Her 
 Majesty's Government. The Ministers sighed and their newspapers 
 screamed. The question I have to ask, and in this your interests are 
 vitally concerned — the question is, was the statement I made a true 
 and accurate one ? You cannot answer statements of this kind by 
 sayinfy, "Oh, fie! how very rude." You must at least adduce 
 arguments in order to prove that the statement which you 
 do not sanction is one that ought not to have been made. 
 And therefore I ask you to-day, in the first place, is it or is it not 
 true that the Irish Church has been despoiled ? Is it or is it 
 not true that the gentlemen of Ireland have been severely amerced? 
 Is it or is it not true that a Royal Commission has been issued which 
 has dealt with the ancient endowments of this country in so ruthless 
 a manner that Parliament has frequently been called upon to inter- 
 fere and has addressed the Crown to arrest their propositions ? Are 
 these facts or are they not ? Well, I did then venture to say that 
 they had "harassed trades and worried professions," as reasons 
 why men naturally become unpopular. Was that true or was it not ? 
 Because after all, everything depends on the facts of the statement. 
 I won't enter into a long catalogue of trades, commencing with the
 
 important trade of which we have heard so much, and which has 
 made itself felt at so many elections, down to the humblest trade — 
 the lucifer-match makers — who fell upon their knees in Palace- 
 yard. I suppose there are some Scotch farmers present, or, 
 at least, those who are intimately connected with them. I want to 
 know whether trade was harassed when a proposition was brought 
 before the House of Commons to tax their carts and horses, and all 
 the machinery of their cultivation ? I know how the proposition was 
 received in England, and I doubt not the Scotch farmers, like the 
 English, felt extremely harassed by it. I want to know what is the 
 reason why there is this crusade throughout the country against 
 Schedule D of the Income Tax. The Income Tax has been borne for 
 thirty years with great self-sacrifice and with great loyalty by 
 the people of this country. It is at this moment at the lowest pitch 
 it has ever reached ; how is it, then, that it is at this moment more un- 
 popular than it was at any time during the long period we endured it 
 at a much higher figure ? It is on account of the assessment of 
 the trades of England under that schedule. It is the vexatious and 
 severe assessment that has harassed tradesmen, who like all those who 
 come under that Act are not particularly pleased, when they are 
 paying five quarters of Income Tax in the year, to learn also that they 
 are in arrears. Then, have the professions been worried 1 Ask the 
 military profession — Is it not true that at this moment a 
 Royal Commission is examining in London in^o the griev- 
 ances of six thousand officers ? Ask the naval profession 
 whether they have not been worried. During the course of the pre- 
 sent Government the whole administrative system of the Admiralty, 
 the council that had always great influence in the management of the 
 navy, and the peculiar office of the Secretary were all swept away ; and 
 in spite I may say of the nightly warnings of a right hon. friend who 
 is now lost to us all and his country, the ablest Minister of the Admi- 
 ralty during the present reign— notwithstanding his nightly warnings 
 that they were so conducting the administration of the navy that they 
 would probably fall into some disaster, his remonstrances were in vain, 
 till soon the most costly vessel of the State was lost, and the perilous 
 voyage of the Megaera had been made, when the country would stand 
 it no longer. They rescinded the whole of this worrying arrangement, 
 and appointed a new First Lord to re-establish the old system. Is 
 that worrying a profession, or is it not? Well, gentlemen, 
 I can speak of another profession — a profession the most 
 important in the State — the Civil Service profession. Has 
 it been worried ? Is it now in a process of worrying, or is 
 it not ? There are many even in this room well acquainted with the
 
 8 
 
 position of the Civil Service in all its departments. I might say the 
 same of the] legal profession, for I have heard lawyers on both 
 sides of the House in the debates of last session agree in imploring 
 the Government not to continue propositions which would infallibly 
 weaken the administration of justice in this country. It is not only 
 these professions and trades who are directly attacked, but it is 
 every one that is harassed, because no one knows whose turn wUI 
 come next. Well, I did say to the House of Commons — and I after- 
 wards expressed it in another form — I said they had attacked every 
 class and institution from the highest to the lowest in the country. 
 Is that true or is it not ? Is it not a fact that her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment on every occasion of which they could avail themselves during the 
 last three years attacked the authority of the House of Lords, scoflfed 
 at the existence of its high functions, and even defied its decisions, 
 until the result proved that the House of Lords was extremely popu- 
 lar in the country, and her Majesty's Government were obliged to con- 
 fess that they themselves were exceedingly unpopular ? But you must 
 remember this, that the same body who attacked the House of Lords also 
 brought in a Bill which would have attacked the poor inheritance 
 of the widow and the orphan. Now, I think I have shown from the 
 highest to the lowest the same system prevailed. What occurred in 
 the interval ? The Churches of England and Scotland have been 
 threatened. It has been publicly said by the highest authority in the 
 House of Commons that he did not believe that the House of Com- 
 mons would sanction the views of those who wished to pull down the 
 venerable establishments, but he recommended them to agitate out of 
 doors and endeavour to excite public opinion against them. Then, 
 again, I said jobs were perpetrated that outraged public opinion. Is 
 that true, or is it not ? Is it not a fact that two years ago the whole 
 country was outraged by persons being appointed to important offices 
 in Church and State in direct violation of the language of Acts of 
 Parliament? — that the Ministry in that respect exercised that dis- 
 pensing power which forfeited the crown of James II. Was not public 
 indignation roused to the highest degree wpon the Collier appointment 
 and a similar one ? Were these acts perpetrated, and did they outrage 
 public opinion ? Every one knows from his own individual experience 
 that public opinion was outraged. I have said, also, that they stumbled 
 into errors which were always discreditable and sometimes ruinous. 
 That was called violent language. Gentlemen, I never use violent 
 language ; violent language is generally weak language ; but I hope my 
 language is sometimes strong. Now, let us look at this state- 
 ment. I said that they stumbled into errors which were always dis- 
 creditable and sometimes ruinous. Was the Zanzibar contract not an
 
 9 
 
 ''error," and was it not ''discreditable?" Was the conduct of the 
 Treasury in allowing a subordinate ofl&cer to misappropriate nearly a 
 million of the public money not an " error " and was it not " discredit- 
 able ?" When the Government had referred the Alabama Claims to 
 the arbitrament of a third State, was not the change of the Law of 
 Nations by the Three Rules an "error?" Was that not "discredit- 
 able " and in its consequences was it not "ruinous ?" 
 
 I have now given an answer to the question why the Government 
 with transcendent abilities, as they tell us, with magnificent exploits 
 which they are always extolling, and with a country whose prosperity is 
 so palpable — they ask us why they are unpopular, and I tell them why. 
 They have harassed and worried the country, and there was no neces- 
 sity for any of the acts they have committed. I have put it in con- 
 densed and, I am sure, accurate language. There was an illustrious 
 writer, one of the greatest masters of our language, who wrote the 
 history of the last four years of the reign of Queen Anne, which was 
 the duration of an illustrious Ministry. I have written the history of 
 a Ministry that has lasted five years, and I have immortalised the 
 spirit of their policy in five lines. And now, gentlemen, I will tell 
 you what is the unfortunate cause of this political embarrassment, 
 why, with such favourable circumstances as the present Government 
 have encountered ; why, with the great ability which no man is more 
 conscious than myself that they possess ; why, with the most anxious and 
 earnest desire, for which I give them entire credit, to do their duty to 
 their Sovereign and their fellow-countrymen, the result has been so 
 mortifying. I told it two years ago to the assembled county of Lancaster, 
 when I met not only the greatest proprietors of the soil, but deputations 
 and delegations of the choicest citizens from every town and city of 
 that great county. I told them, speaking with the sense of the 
 deepest responsibility, which, I trust, also animates me now — I told 
 them that the cause was that this Government, unfortunately, in its 
 beginning, had been founded on a principle of violence, and that fatal 
 principle had necessarily vitiated their whole course. And what have 
 we gained by that principle of violence ? Let us consider it, here even, 
 with impartiality and j)erfect candour. I am now referring to the 
 Irish policy of the Ministry. I say it is quite possible for public men, 
 with the view of obtaining some great object advantageous to the 
 country, to devise and pass measures which may utterly fail in accom- 
 plishing their purpose, and yet, however mortifying to themselves, 
 however disappointing to the country, there would be no stain upon 
 their reputation. We cannot command, but we must endeavour in 
 public life to deserve, success. If, therefore, it is said that the 
 Government proposed the large measures which they did with respect
 
 10 
 
 to Ireland in order to terminate the grievances of years and the em- 
 barrassment to England, which the state of Ireland certainly was, 
 although they may have failed, their position was one which still might 
 be a position of respect. That they have failed in this instance no one 
 can doubt, A great portion of Ireland at this moment is in a state of 
 veiled rebellion. But what I charge upon the Government is this, 
 not that their measures fail — ^for all measures may fail — not that their 
 measures fail to prevent or to suppress this veiled rebellion in Ireland, 
 but that their measures, which they brought forward to appease and 
 settle, to tranquillise and consolidate Ireland, are the very cause that 
 this veiled rebellion is taking place. For, gentlemen, what was the 
 principle upon which the whole of their policy with respect to Ireland 
 was founded ? What was the principle upon which they induced Par- 
 liament to confiscate and to despoil Church and private property in 
 Ireland ? It was that Ireland must be governed on Irish principles — 
 the administration of Ireland must be carried on with reference to 
 Irish feeling. If that is a sound principle and a sound sentiment in 
 politics, it is a perfect vindication of what is occurring in the city of 
 Dublin at this moment — viz., an assembly of men whose great and 
 avowed object is to dissever the connexion between the two countries. 
 If we are not to legislate for Ireland with reference to Imperial feelings 
 and general and national interests — if we are only to legislate with 
 reference to Irish feelings, it is perfectly evident that if there is a 
 majority of the Irish people who may take any idea in the world 
 into their heads, however ruinous to themselves and however fatal to 
 the Empire, that policy must be recognised by this country. It is, 
 therefore, to that principle, avowedly and ostentatiously brought for- 
 ward by the Ministry as the basis of their Irish policy, that I trace the 
 dangerous condition in which Ireland is now placed. Well, then, I 
 say this policy of violence for which such sacrifices were made, for which 
 institutions and interests which were, at least, faithful to Britain were 
 sacrificed — this policy of violence has led only to a state of affairs, 
 unfortunately, more unsatisfactory than that which prevailed before. 
 Now, gentlemen, I observe in the paper that the day is fixed 
 for the re-assembling of Parliament. The time is not yet very 
 near, but when you find her Majesty has appointed the day for 
 our re-assembling, it is an intimation that we must begin to consider 
 the public business a little, and, therefore, it is not altogether incon- 
 venient that we should be talking upon these matters to-day. Now, 
 when we meet Parliament, I apprehend the first business that will be 
 brought before us will be the Ashantee war. Upon that subject my 
 mouth is closed. I will not even make an observation upon the rail- 
 way which I believe has been returned to England. Whenever this
 
 11 
 
 country is externally involved in a difficnlty, whatever I may think of 
 its cause or origin, those with whom I act, and myself, have no other 
 duty to fulfil but to support the existing Government in extricating 
 the country from its difficulties and vindicating the honour and inter- 
 ests of Great Britain. The time will come, gentlemen, no doubt, 
 when we shall know something of the secret history of that mysterious 
 mess of the Ashantee war, but we have now but one duty to fulfil, 
 which is to give every assistance to the Government in order that they 
 may take those steps which the interests of the country require . I 
 should, indeed, myself, from my own individual experience, be most 
 careful not to follow the example which one of the most distinguished 
 members of the present Administration pursued with respect to us 
 when we had to encounter the Abyssinian difficulty. Mr. Lowe 
 thought j)roper to rise in Parliament when I introduced the necessity 
 of interference in order to escape from difficulties which we had 
 inherited and not created. Mr. Lowe rose in Parliament and violently 
 attacked the Government of the day for the absurdity, the folly, the 
 extreme imprudence of attempting any interference in the affairs of 
 Abyssinia. He laughed at the honour of the country, he laughed at 
 the interests of a few enslaved subjects of the Queen of England being 
 compared, as he said, with the certain destruction and disaster which 
 must attend any interference on our part. He described the horrors 
 of the country and the terrors of the climate. He said there was no 
 possibility by which any success could be obtained, and the people of 
 England must prepare themselves for the most horrible catastrophe. 
 He described not only the fatal influences of the climate, but I 
 remember he described one pink fly alone, which he said would eat 
 up the whole British army. He was as vituperative of the insects of 
 Abyssinia as if they had been British workmen. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, there is a most interesting and important subject 
 which concerns us all, and which it is not impossible maybe submitted 
 to the consideration of Parliament by Her Majesty's Ministers, be- 
 cause I observe a letter published in a newspaper by the authority of 
 the Prime Minister, which is certainly calculated to arrest public 
 attention. That is a letter respecting the subject of Parliamentary 
 Reform. I think it is not undesirable that at a moment when letters 
 of this kind are circulated, and when there is a good deal of loose 
 talking prevalent in the country on the subject, that I should take this 
 opportunity of calling your attention to some considerations on this 
 subject which may occupy you after my visit to Glasgow has termi- 
 nated, and may not be, I think, unprofitable. Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment are not pledged, but after the letter of the Prime Minister 
 announcin his own opinion, and the indication of the i)robability#
 
 12 
 
 of the Government considering the question of further Parliamen- 
 tary Reform, there are two points which the Government ought to 
 consider when they come to that question. The first is the expediency 
 of having any further Parliamentary Reform. They will have to 
 remember that very wise statesmen have been of opinion that there is 
 no more dangerous and feeble characteristic of a state than 
 perpetually to be dwelling on what is called organic change. The habit, 
 it has been said in politics, of perpetually considering your 
 political constitution can only be compared to that of the individual 
 who is always considering the state of his health and his physical 
 constitution. You know what occurs in such circumstances — he be- 
 comes infirm and valetudinarian. In fact, there is a school of politics 
 which looks at the English Constitution as valetudinarian. 
 They are always looking at its tongue and feeling its pulse, 
 and devising means by which they may give it a tonic. The 
 Government will have to consider that very important point, first of 
 all whether it is expedient. I am not giving any opinion upon it — 
 being only a private member of Parliament, that is quite unnecessary 
 — but I am indicating the consideration that would occur to a respon- 
 sible statesman. They will also have to consider this important point, 
 that whatever Minister embarks in a campaign of Parliamentary 
 Reform must make up his mind that he will necessarily arrest the 
 progress of all other public business in the country. I will show you 
 to what extent that consideration should prevail. Parliamentary 
 Reform, as a new question, was introduced in the House of Commons 
 in 1852 by Lord John Russell, and from 1852 to 1866, or the end of 
 1865, it was introduced annually ; four Prime Ministers had pledged 
 themselves to the expediency of Parliamentary Reform ; the subject 
 made no progress in Parliament, but took up a great deal of time ; a 
 great portion of the Parliamentary Sessions for these twelve or thirteen 
 years was taken up by discussions on Parliamentary Reform ; and the 
 country got very ill-tempered, finding that no reform was ever 
 advanced, and other and more important subjects were neglected. At 
 last it was taken up by men determined to carry it — first by Lord 
 Russell, who did not carry it, and afterwards by others ; but, observe, 
 the whole of 1866, 1867, and 1868 were entirely absorbed by the sub- 
 ject of Parliamentary Reform. Therefore, you will observe that when 
 important subjects in legislation are neglected you must be prepared 
 to discourage any further demand for Parliamentary Reform unless 
 you feel an insuperable necessity for it, because if you want Parlia- 
 mentary Reform you cannot have any of those great measures with 
 regard to local taxation or other subjects in which you are all so much 
 interested. That is the first consideration for the Government of the
 
 13 
 
 present day to determine, whether they shall embark in the question 
 of Parliamentary Reform. Is it necessary ? Is the necessity of such 
 a character that it outweighs the immense inconvenience of sacrificing 
 all other public and progressive measures for the advancement of this 
 particular measure ? Then there comes another subject of considera- 
 tion. I dwell upon these subjects because I apprehend that one of the 
 reasons of our meeting this evening is that upon questions which are 
 likely to engage the public attention so far as those whom you honour 
 with your confidence can give you any guidance, it is as well that I 
 should indicate to you briefly my general views of the situation. 
 The next point, therefore, that Government will have to consider if 
 they make up their minds to bring forward a measure of Parliamentary 
 Reform, is the character of the measure, and that will be a most 
 anxious question for them to decide. I think I may say without con- 
 ceit that the subject of Parliamentary Reform is one that I am entitled 
 to speak upon at least with some degree of authority. I have given to 
 it the consideration of some forty years, and am responsible for the 
 most important measure on the subject that has been carried. I 
 would say this, that it is impossible to go further in the direction 
 of Parliamentary Reform than the Bill of 1867-68 without entirely 
 subverting the whole of the borough representation of this country. 
 I do not mean to say that if there was a place disfranchised 
 to-morrow for corruption, it would not be possible to enfran- 
 chise a very good place in its stead ; but, speaking 'generally, you 
 cannot go beyond the Act of 1867 without making up your mind 
 entirely to break up the borough representation of this country. The 
 people of Great Britain ought to be aware that that is the necessary 
 consequence. So far as I am concerned I never could view the matter 
 in a party light. If I were to accustom myself to view it in a party 
 light, I might look with unconcern on this difficulty, for the smaller 
 boroughs of the country are not, on the whole, favourable to our views. 
 I am proud to think our party is supported by the great counties, and 
 now to a great extent by great towns and cities ; but I do not consider 
 the smaller boroughs favourable to Conservative views. It is the 
 national sympathies and wide sentiments of those who live in our 
 great cities that are much more calculated to rally round the cause in 
 which we are deeply concerned — the greatness and glory of our country. 
 This ought to be known, that if those who intend to have a further mea- 
 sure of Parliamentary Reform, and have digested that large meal which 
 they had a few years ago, they should remember that there is no borough 
 in England with under 40,000 inhabitants that would have any claim to 
 be represented even by one member. Now that is a very important 
 consideration if, as we are told, the small boroughs of between ten and
 
 14 
 
 fifteen thousand inhabitants are the backbone of the Liberal party. 
 They may be, and I think they are, but I should be very sorry to see 
 them disfranchised, for they are centres of public spirit and intelli- 
 gence in the country, influencing very much the districts in which they 
 are situated, and affording a various representation of the mind and 
 life of the country. But it is inevitable that that would occur, and I 
 think, therefore, it ought to be well understood by the country 
 when you hear persons wdthout the slightest consideration saying they 
 are prepared to vote for this, or in favour of that, whereas they 
 have not really mastered the question in any degree whatever. 
 So far as I am concerned, any proposition to change the 
 representation of the people brought forward by her Majesty's 
 Government will receive my respectful and candid consideration. But 
 I say at once that I will vote for no measure of that kind, or of that 
 class which is brought forward by some irresponsible individual who, 
 on the eve of a General Election, wants to make a clap-trap career. 
 I think it is perfectly disgusting for individuals to jump up in the 
 House of Commons without the slightest responsibility, official or 
 moral, and make propositions which demand the gravest consideration 
 of prolonged and protracted Cabinets, with all the responsibility 
 attaching to experienced statesmen. Now, gentlemen, although I 
 have rather exceeded the time I had intended, there are one or two 
 more remarks I should like to make on subjects which interest us all. 
 And first, as the only feature in our domestic life that gives me un- 
 easiness, are the relations at present between capital and labour, and 
 between' the employers and employed. I must say one word upon 
 that subject. If there are any relations in the world which should 
 be those of sympathy and perfect confidence, they always appear to 
 be the relations which should subsist between employers and employed, 
 and especially in manufacturing life. They are, in fact, much more 
 intimate and more necessary relations than those which subsist 
 between landlords and tenants. It is an extremely painful thing that 
 of late years we so frequently hear of misunderstandings between the 
 employers and the employed — that they look upon each other with 
 suspicion — with mutual suspicion — as if each were rapaciously in- 
 clined either to obtain or retain the greater share of the profits 
 of their trade ; and those incidents with which you are all acquainted, 
 of a very painful nature, have been the consequence. I am not 
 talking of demands for an increase of wages when men are carrying 
 on what is called a roaring trade — I believe that is the classical 
 epithet taken from the Manchester school. When a roaring trade is 
 going on, I am not at all surprised that working men should ask for 
 an increase of wages. But a trade sometimes ceases to roar, when
 
 15 
 
 wages naturally, on the same principle, assume a form more adapted 
 to the circumstances. No doubt, during the last twenty years 
 there appears to have been, not a passing and temporary cause of dis- 
 turbance like the incidents of trade being very active or reduced, but 
 some permanent cause disturbing prices, which alike confuses the 
 employer in his calculations as to profits and embarrasses the employed 
 from the greater expenditure which they find it necessary to make. 
 Now, I cannot but feel myself — having given to the subject as much 
 consideration as I could — I cannot help feeling that the large and 
 continuous increase of the precious metals, especially during the last 
 twenty years, has certainly produced no inconsiderable effect — not 
 only in trade, but no inconsiderable effect in prices. I will not, on an 
 occasion like this, enter into anything like an abstruse discussion. 
 I confine myself to giving my opinion and the results which I draw 
 from it ; and this moral, which I think is worthy of consideration. If 
 it can be shown accurately and scientifically that there is a cause 
 affecting a prominent class, reducing the average remuneration of 
 the employed, and confusing and confounding the employer in his 
 calculations as to profits — if that can be shown, and if it is 
 proved to be the result of inexorable laws, far beyond the 
 reach of legislation, and of circumstances over which human beings 
 have no control — I think if that could be shown, and employers and 
 employed had suflicient acuteness and knowledge — and I am sure that 
 in Scotland both will have to acknowledge that result— It would very 
 much change those mutual feelings of suspicion and sentiments of a 
 not pleasant character which occasionally prevail when they find that 
 they are both of them the victims, as it were, of some inexorable law 
 of political economy which cannot be resisted. I think, instead of 
 sujDposing that each wanted to take advantage of the other, they 
 would feel inclined to put their shoulders to the wheel, accurately 
 ascertain whether this be true, and come to some understanding 
 which would very much mitigate the relations which subsist between 
 them, and I have little doubt the effect would be to increase the averasre 
 rate of wages, with my views as to the effect of the continuous 
 increase of the precious metals. But, at the same time, I have not 
 the slightest doubt the employer would, in the nature of things, find 
 adequate compensation for the new position in which he would find 
 himself. There is one point before I sit down to which I wish to 
 call your attention, because if I am correct in saying that the 
 question of the relations between the employer and employed is 
 the only one that gives me anxiety at home, there is a subject abroad to 
 which, Ithink, I ought, on an occasion like this, to draw your notice; and 
 that is the contest that is commencing in Europe between the spiritual
 
 16 
 
 ^nd temporal powers. Gentlemen, I look upon it as very grave, as 
 pregnant with circumstances which may greatly embarrass Europe. 
 The religious sentiment is often and generally taken advantage of by 
 political classes who use it as a pretext ; and there is much going on 
 in Europe at the present moment which, it appears to me, may 
 occasion us soon much anxiety in this community. I should myself 
 look upon it as the greatest danger to civilisation if, in the struggle 
 that is going on between faith and free thought, the respective sides 
 should only be represented by the Papacy and the Red Republic ; 
 and here I must say that if we have before us the prospect of/ 
 struggles — perhaps of wars and anarchy, ultimately — caused by the 
 great question that is now rising in Europe, it will not easily be 
 in the power of England entirely to withhold herself from such cir- 
 cumstances. Our connection with Ireland will then be brought pain- 
 fully to our consciousness, and I should not be at all surprised 
 if the visor of Home Rule should fall off some day, and you beheld 
 a very different countenance. Now, gentlemen, I think we 
 ought to be prepared for those circumstances. The position of 
 England is one which is indicative of dangers arising from holding a 
 middle course upon those matters. It may be open to England again 
 to take a stand upon the Reformation which 300 years ago was the 
 source of her greatness and her glory, and it may be her proud destiny 
 to guard civilisation alike from the withering blast of atheism and 
 from the simoom of sacerdotal usurpation. These things may be far 
 off, but we live in a rapid age, and my apprehension is that they are 
 nearer than some suppose. If that struggle comes we must look to 
 Scotland to aid us. It was once, and I hope is still, a land of liberty, 
 of patriotism, and of religion. I think the time has come when it 
 really should leave off mumbling the dry bones of political economy 
 and munching the remainder biscuit of an effete Liberalism. We all 
 know that a general election is at hand. I do not ask you to consider 
 on such an occasion the fate of parties or of Ministers. But I ask 
 you to consider this, that it is very probable that the future of Europe 
 depends greatly on the character of the next Parliament of Eng- 
 land. I ask you, when the occasion comes, to act as becomes an 
 ancient and famous nation, and give all your energies for the cause 
 of faith and freedom.
 
 'ii'',:-,- :' .■-!«' tir .i-.
 
 rjAW 
 
 t 
 
 
 -y -^r^ ^i^.'> 
 
 \ } 
 
 \^^ 
 
 •K-^ 
 
 ,^\ 
 
 M^j^^JK 
 
 ^'^<^ 
 
 '^^■'k.