Part 1

Uniform with British Orations

AMERICAN ORATIONS, to illustrate American Political History, edited, with introductions, by ALEXANDER JOHNSTON, Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Economy in the College of New Jersey. 3 vols., 16 mo, $3.75.

PROSE MASTERPIECES FROM MODERN ESSAYISTS, comprising single specimen essays from IRVING, LEIGH HUNT, LAMB, DE QUINCEY, LANDOR, SYDNEY SMITH, THACKERAY, EMERSON, ARNOLD, MORLEY, HELPS, KINGSLEY, RUSKIN, LOWELL, CARLYLE, MACAULAY, FROUDE, FREEMAN, GLADSTONE, NEWMAN, LESLIE STEPHEN. 3 vols., 16 mo, bevelled boards, $3.75 and $4.50.

G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS, NEW YORK AND LONDON

REPRESENTATIVE BRITISH ORATIONS

WITH INTRODUCTIONS AND EXPLANATORY NOTES

BY CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS.

_Videtisne quantum munus sit oratoris historia?_ —CICERO, _DeOratore_, ii, 15

✩✩✩

NEW YORK & LONDON G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS The Knickerbocker Press 1884

COPYRIGHT G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS 1884.

Press of G. P. PUTNAM’S SONS New York

CONTENTS.

PAGE GEORGE CANNING 1

GEORGE CANNING 13 ON THE POLICY OF GRANTING AID TO PORTUGAL WHEN INVADED BY SPAIN; HOUSE OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 12, 1826.

LORD MACAULAY 50

LORD MACAULAY 62 ON THE REFORM BILL OF 1832; HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 2, 1831.

RICHARD COBDEN 95

RICHARD COBDEN 109 ON THE EFFECTS OF PROTECTION ON THE AGRICULTURAL INTERESTS OF THE COUNTRY; HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1845.

JOHN BRIGHT 155

JOHN BRIGHT 159 ON THE FOREIGN POLICY OF ENGLAND; DELIVERED AT A BANQUET GIVEN IN HONOR OF MR. BRIGHT, AT BIRMINGHAM, OCTOBER 29, 1858.

LORD BEACONSFIELD 204

LORD BEACONSFIELD 216 ON THE PRINCIPLES OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY; DELIVERED AT MANCHESTER, APRIL 3, 1872.

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE 277

WILLIAM EWART GLADSTONE 287 ON DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS; DELIVERED AT WEST CALDER, NOVEMBER 27, 1879.

GEORGE CANNING.

The subject of this sketch was born in London in 1770. When he was only one year old, the death of his father threw the responsibility of his training and education upon his mother. Dependent upon her own energies for the support of herself and her child, she at first established a small school in London, and a little later fitted herself for the stage, where she achieved considerable success.

As soon as George entered school, he began to show remarkable proficiency in the study of Latin and Greek, as well as in English literature. Mr. Stapleton, his biographer, tells us that when still a child, young Canning was incidentally called upon to recite some verses, when he began with one of the poems of Gray, and did not stop or falter till he repeated the contents of the entire volume. At the age of fifteen he went to Eton, where he was at once recognized as a boy of surpassing abilities and attainments. In the following year some of his school-fellows joined him in starting a weekly paper, called the _Microcosm_, to which he acted the part of editor and chief contributor. The brilliancy and wit of the paper were such as to attract even the attention of the leading reviews. He also paid great attention to the art of extemporaneous speaking. A society had been established in the school in which all the forms and methods of the House of Commons were rigidly observed. The Speaker, the Cabinet, and the Opposition played their mimic parts with all the energy and interest so many of the members afterward displayed in Parliament itself. George became “Captain” of the school, and, when in 1788 he went up to Oxford, he carried with him a reputation for accuracy and maturity of scholarship which at once drew the eyes of the whole university upon him. Even in his first year he entered the list of competitors for the Chancellor’s Prize offered for the best Latin poem, and was successful over all the upper classmen. Throughout his course his attention was absorbed with the study of literature and the practice of writing and speaking.

He left the University at the age of twenty-two, and at once began the study of law. His great reputation, however, had already attracted the attention of Pitt, who now invited him to take a seat in the House of Commons from one of the Government boroughs. With this request Canning complied; and, accordingly, he became a member of the House in 1793 in the twenty-fourth year of his age.

His maiden speech, delivered some two months after he entered the House, was brilliant, but was generally thought to be somewhat lacking in the qualities of solidity and good judgment. His tastes were so eminently rhetorical in their nature, that, for some years to come, he was inclined to excess of ornamentation. Joined to this peculiarity was an irresistible inclination to indulge in wit and badinage at the expense of his fellow-members. This tendency was so predominant that for a long time it was said that he never made what he called a successful speech without making an enemy for life.

In 1797, in connection with a few friends, Canning projected the journal known as the _Anti-Jacobin Review_. Its object was to counteract those peculiar doctrines of the French Revolution which its contributors thought dangerous. Many of Canning’s articles were satires, and were so admirable in their way as to be worthy of a place among the most noted extravaganzas of English literature. The “Knife Grinder,” and the drama entitled “The Rovers,” are perhaps the most successful. “The Rovers” was written to ridicule the German drama then prevailing, and it was regarded as of so much consequence that Niebuhr in one of his gravest works has devoted nearly a page to a refutation of it.[A] A good impression of Canning’s peculiar wit will be conveyed by “Rogers’ Song,” taken from “The Rovers.” Mr. Hayward[B] informs us that Canning had written the first five stanzas of the song, when Pitt, coming into his room and accidentally seeing it, was so amused that he took up a pen and added the fifth stanza on the spot. The following is the song entire:—

[A] “Geschichte des Zeitalters der Revolution,” ii., 242.

[B] “Biographical Essays,” i., 211.

I.

“When’er with haggard eyes I view This dungeon that I’m rotting in, I think of those companions true Who studied with me at the U— —niversity of Gottingen, —niversity of Gottingen.

II.

“Sweet kerchief, checked with heavenly blue, Which once my love sat knotting in! Alas! Matilda then was true, At least I thought so at the U— —niversity of Gottingen, —niversity of Gottingen.

III.

“Barbs! Barbs! alas! how swift you flew, Her neat post-wagon trotting in; Ye bore Matilda from my view; Forlorn I languished at the U— —niversity of Gottingen— —niversity of Gottingen.

IV.

“This faded form! this pallid hue! This blood my veins is clotting in My years are many—they were few When first I entered at the U— —niversity of Gottingen— —niversity of Gottingen.

V.

“There first for thee my passion grew, Sweet! sweet Matilda Pottingen! Thou wast the daughter of my tu— —tor, law professor at the U— —niversity of Gottingen— —niversity of Gottingen.

VI.

“Sun, moon, and thou, vain world, adieu, That kings and priests are plotting in: Here doomed to starve on water-gru— el, never shall I see the U— —niversity of Gottingen— —niversity of Gottingen.”

Unfortunately for his influence, Canning could not limit his wit or his pasquinades to the Germans and French. The _Anti-Jacobin_ contained many ludicrous satires on the personal peculiarities of men like Erskine, Mackintosh, and Coleridge. Some of these made bitter complaints that the Government should lend its influence to and should reward the authors of these atrocious calumnies. There is evidence that the publication was discontinued at the suggestion of the Prime-Minister in consequence of these complaints, and it is very probable that Canning’s advancement was retarded by his utter lack of self-restraint.

On the accession of the Duke of Portland, in 1807, Canning became Secretary of Foreign Affairs, an office which he held for two years, till he had a quarrel with Lord Castlereagh, which resulted in a duel, and not only drove them both out of office, but overthrew the Portland Ministry. During the next seven years he was out of power, though he was regular in his parliamentary duties, and it was to him especially that Lord Wellington was indebted for the firm and even enthusiastic support of England during his military career.

Canning always regarded himself as the political disciple of Pitt. To his constituents at Liverpool he said: “In the grave of Mr. Pitt my political allegiance lies buried.” He owned no other master, and all his energies were devoted to carrying out Pitt’s policy of foreign affairs. The part of England in the protection of the smaller nationalities against the larger ones,—that policy which has preserved Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, Portugal, and Turkey,—was but a continuance of the policy of Pitt, though it took definite form under the influence of Canning, and is quite as often associated with his name. The doctrine was strongly put forward on three important occasions. The first was in his speech urging England to join her fortunes with those of Spain in driving Bonaparte from the Peninsula. This, as Mr. Seeley, in his “Life of Stein” has shown, was the turning point in Napoleon’s career, and it is the peculiar glory of Canning that England was brought into the alliance by his influence. With pardonable exultation he once said: “If there is any part of my political conduct in which I _glory_, it is that in the face of every difficulty, discouragement, and prophecy of failure, _mine_ was the hand that committed England to an alliance with Spain.” The second occasion was when, in 1822, he was a second time Minister of Foreign Affairs, and when France was collecting troops to overthrow constitutional government in Spain, and urging the other foreign powers, assembled at Verona, to unite in the same purpose, he despatched Wellington to Verona with so energetic a protest that even France was dissuaded from the course she had intended to pursue. Again, in 1826, Canning took a similar course in giving aid to Portugal when invaded by Spain. His continental policy might be said to consist of two parts: England should insist that the small governments should not be disturbed by the larger, and that each nation should be allowed to regulate its own internal affairs.

On the death of Lord Liverpool, in 1827, Canning became Prime-Minister. The great question then before the country was the political emancipation of the Roman Catholics. The Test Act, adopted in the reign of Charles II., had excluded Catholics from political rights—from seats in Parliament and from the privilege of voting—and the act was still in force. With the agitation that was now endeavoring to secure the emancipation of the Catholics from political disabilities, Canning was in hearty sympathy. When he was called into supreme power, therefore, the inference was natural that Catholic emancipation was to be carried through. Wellington, Peel, and nearly all the Tories in the ministry threw up their places. Their purpose was to compel Canning to resign; for knowing his views on the question of emancipation, they were unwilling to hold office under him. Unfortunately, while the struggle involved in their resignation was going on, Canning’s health suddenly gave way, and sinking rapidly, he expired on the 8th of August, 1827, in the fifty-eighth year of his age. It is a singular and an interesting fact that the very men who, in 1827, refused to follow Canning in the work of emancipation, were driven two years later by public opinion to put themselves at the head of the movement.

By many excellent judges Canning is regarded as one of the foremost of English orators. Brougham speaks of him in terms of almost the highest praise, and so judicious a critic as Sir James Mackintosh says that “Mr. Canning seems to have been the best model among our orators of the adorned style. In some qualities,” he continues, “Mr. Canning surpassed Mr. Pitt. His diction was more various—sometimes more simple—more idiomatical, even in its more elevated parts. It sparkled with imagery, and was brightened by illustration, in both of which Mr. Pitt, for so great an orator, was defective. Had he been a dry and meagre speaker, Mr. Canning would have been universally allowed to have been one of the greatest masters of argument; but his hearers were so dazzled by the splendor of his diction that they did not perceive the acuteness and the occasional excessive refinement of his reasoning; a consequence which, as it shows the injurious effects of a seductive fault, can with the less justness be overlooked in the estimate of his understanding.”

GEORGE CANNING.

ON THE POLICY OF GRANTING AID TO PORTUGAL WHEN INVADED BY SPAIN; HOUSE OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 12, 1826.

When Mr. Canning was Minister of Foreign Affairs in 1826, a body of Absolutists attempted to destroy the existing Portuguese Government, which had been founded on the basis of a liberal constitution, and had been acknowledged by England, France, Austria, and Russia. This government was obnoxious to Ferdinand, King of Spain; and, accordingly, supported by the sympathy of Austria and Russia, as well as by the active assistance of Spain, the Portuguese Absolutists organized a military expedition on Spanish soil for the overthrow of the Portuguese Government. Portugal asked for the protection of England. Five thousand troops were instantly ordered to Lisbon. This action was in strict accordance with what is sometimes known as “Mr. Canning’s Foreign Policy,”—that of allowing every nation to manage its own internal affairs, and of allowing no interference with the smaller nations by the larger.

The following speech in explanation of his reasons for prompt action is the masterpiece of his eloquence.

MR. SPEAKER:

In proposing to the House of Commons to acknowledge, by an humble and dutiful address, his Majesty’s most gracious message, and to reply to it in terms which will be, in effect, an echo of the sentiments and a fulfilment of the anticipations of that message, I feel that, however confident I may be in the justice, and however clear as to the policy of the measures therein announced, it becomes me, as a British minister, recommending to Parliament any step which may approximate this country even to the hazard of a war, while I explain the grounds of that proposal, to accompany my explanation with expressions of regret.

I can assure the House, that there is not within its walls any set of men more deeply convinced than his Majesty’s ministers—nor any individual more intimately persuaded than he who has now the honor of addressing you—of the vital importance of the continuance of peace to this country and to the world. So strongly am I impressed with this opinion—and for reasons of which I will put the House more fully in possession before I sit down—that I declare there is no question of doubtful or controverted policy—no opportunity of present national advantage—no precaution against remote difficulty—which I would not gladly compromise, pass over, or adjourn, rather than call on Parliament to sanction, at this moment, any measure which had a tendency to involve the country in war. But, at the same time, sir, I feel that which has been felt, in the best times of English history, by the best statesmen of this country, and by the Parliaments by whom those statesmen were supported—I feel that there are two causes, and but two causes, which can not be either compromised, passed over, or adjourned. These causes are: adherence to the national faith, and regard for the national honor.

Sir, if I did not consider both these causes as involved in the proposition which I have this day to make to you, I should not address the House, as I now do, in the full and entire confidence that the gracious communication of his Majesty will be met by the House with the concurrence of which his Majesty has declared his expectation.

In order to bring the matter which I have to submit to you, under the cognizance of the House, in the shortest and clearest manner, I beg leave to state it, in the first instance, divested of any collateral considerations. It is a case of law and of fact: of national law on the one hand, and of notorious fact on the other; such as it must be, in my opinion as impossible for Parliament, as it was for the government, to regard in any but one light, or to come to any but one conclusion upon it.

Among the alliances by which, at different periods of our history, this country has been connected with the other nations of Europe, none is so ancient in origin, and so precise in obligation—none has continued so long, and been observed so faithfully—of none is the memory so intimately interwoven with the most brilliant records of our triumphs, as that by which Great Britain is connected with Portugal. It dates back to distant centuries; it has survived an endless variety of fortunes. Anterior in existence to the accession of the House of Braganza to the throne of Portugal—it derived, however, fresh vigor from that event; and never from that epoch to the present hour, has the independent monarchy of Portugal ceased to be nurtured by the friendship of Great Britain. This alliance has never been seriously interrupted; but it has been renewed by repeated sanctions. It has been maintained under difficulties by which the fidelity of other alliances was shaken, and has been vindicated in fields of blood and of glory.

That the alliance with Portugal has been always unqualifiedly advantageous to this country—that it has not been sometimes inconvenient and sometimes burdensome—I am not bound nor prepared to maintain. But no British statesman, so far as I know, has ever suggested the expediency of shaking it off; and it is assuredly not at a moment of need that honor and what I may be allowed to call national sympathy would permit us to weigh, with an over-scrupulous exactness, the amount of difficulties and dangers attendant upon its faithful and steadfast observance. What feelings of national honor would forbid, is forbidden alike by the plain dictates of national faith.

It is not at distant periods of history, and in by-gone ages only, that the traces of the union between Great Britain and Portugal are to be found. In the last compact of modern Europe, the compact which forms the basis of its present international law—I mean the treaty of Vienna of 1815,—this country, with its eyes open to the possible inconveniences of the connection, but with a memory awake to its past benefits, solemnly renewed the previously existing obligations of alliance and amity with Portugal. I will take leave to read to the House the third article of the treaty concluded at Vienna, in 1815, between Great Britain on the one hand and Portugal on the other. It is couched in the following terms: “The treaty of Alliance, concluded at Rio de Janeiro, on the 19th of February, 1810, being founded on circumstances of a temporary nature, which have happily ceased to exist, the said treaty is hereby declared to be void in all its parts, and of no effect; _without prejudice, however, to the ancient treaties of alliance, friendship, and guarantee, which have so long and so happily subsisted between the two Crowns, and which are hereby renewed by the high contracting parties, and acknowledged to be of full force and effect_.”

In order to appreciate the force of this stipulation—recent in point of time, recent, also, in the sanction of Parliament—the House will, perhaps, allow me to explain shortly the circumstances in reference to which it was contracted. In the year 1807, when, upon the declaration of Bonaparte, that the House of Braganza had ceased to reign, the King of Portugal, by the advice of Great Britain, was induced to set sail for the Brazils; almost at the very moment of his most faithful Majesty’s embarkation, a secret convention was signed between his Majesty and the King of Portugal, stipulating that, in the event of his most faithful Majesty’s establishing the seat of his government in Brazil, Great Britain would never acknowledge any other dynasty than that of the House of Braganza on the throne of Portugal. That convention, I say, was contemporaneous with the migration to the Brazils; a step of great importance at the time, as removing from the grasp of Bonaparte the sovereign family of Braganza. Afterward, in the year 1810, when the seat of the King of Portugal’s government was established at Rio de Janeiro, and when it seemed probable, in the then apparently hopeless condition of the affairs of Europe, that it was likely long to continue there, the secret convention of 1807, of which the main object was accomplished by the fact of the emigration to Brazil, was abrogated, and a new and public treaty was concluded, into which was transferred the stipulation of 1807, binding Great Britain, so long as his faithful Majesty should be compelled to reside in Brazil, not to acknowledge any other sovereign of Portugal than a member of the House of Braganza. That stipulation, which had hitherto been _secret_, thus became _patent_, and part of the known law of nations.

In the year 1814, in consequence of the happy conclusion of the war, the option was afforded to the King of Portugal of returning to his European dominions. It was then felt that, as the necessity of his most faithful Majesty’s absence from Portugal had ceased, the ground for the obligation originally contracted in the secret convention of 1807, and afterward transferred to the patent treaty of 1810, was removed. The treaty of 1810 was, therefore, annulled at the Congress of Vienna; and in lieu of the stipulation not to acknowledge any other sovereign of Portugal than a member of the House of Braganza, was substituted that which I have just read to the House.

Annulling the treaty of 1810, the treaty of Vienna renews and confirms (as the House will have seen) all _former_ treaties between Great Britain and Portugal, describing them as “ancient treaties of alliance, friendship, and guarantee”; as having “long and happily subsisted between the two Crowns”; and as being allowed, by the two high contracting parties, to remain “in full force and effect.”