1850.]

THE FOREIGN INVASION PANIC..

279

For there they taught that a great nation can consist, can advance, can grow, can become strong, can consolidate itself permanently, with perfect equality in its political, and perfect freedom in its religious, institutions." (Cheers.)

Both Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden had long formed the opinion that the material prosperity of nations was dependent on their mutual peace and good-will; and in their speeches they had pointed out the stupidity of the doctrine that teaches the necessity for a balance of power in Europe-a view which our country had maintained at such ruinous expenditure that peace had become nearly as costly as war. The working of the Corn Laws in shutting us off from the supplies of foreign countries had still further directed their attention to the European question; and they would often picture in their speeches at public meetings the happy results which would flow from a sense of the community of interest which existed between different peoples gradually overspreading the public mind—a sense that, as it deepened, would make quarrels less likely and war less possible.

Nothing more repelled their fine and accurate common sense than the overwhelming panics at some approaching foreign invasion which periodically swept the country. They saw distinctly that these panics were if not created, certainly fostered by the governing classes of this country, whose interests were bound up with the maintenance of a large military organisation, and a correspondingly large taxation and expenditure; and they saw as distinctly that the interweaving of commercial relations, the exchange of mutual products of different countries, and the consequent intercourse and knowledge of each other would be a better and infinitely cheaper guarantee for peace than any number of standing armies. They showed by speeches and pamphlets how the war with America had cost us millions of money, burdening the industry of the people with a mortgage of debt beyond the power of any single generation to pay-the result being that America was never of so much value to England as after she had secured her independence-so that we had really been spending all this money in the endeavour to cut the throat of our own prosperity. The wars with France were capable of still less defence. The wealth and manhood of the nation had been poured out like water for the purpose of propping up or restoring to that country a dynasty which had been cast off by its own subjects, and staying the march of conquest by which Napoleon was astonishing the world. little did all our efforts avail-though a "heaven-born" minister ruled our Cabinet, and the ablest and most successful of generals commanded our armies-that before that great soldier, full of

years and worldly honours, descended to the grave, he had seen the throne of France filled by the heir of his mighty rival whose dream of ambition he had dispelled at Waterloo. With such flagrant failures of national policy before their eyes, they became convinced of the futility of war. Nor was there wanting an opportunity for uttering their opinions, nor an occasion on which they were demanded.

In the years following the abolition of the Corn Laws Mr. Cobden had several times introduced motions into the House of Commons which affirmed that a reduction of the national expenditure might be undertaken without damage to the safety or honour of the country; but he still more prominently avowed his peace principles in 1853, when a panic of French invasion was running through the leading articles of all the newspapers. Prince de Joinville had alarmed us by a pamphlet, and the Duke of Wellington, then old and infirm, had lent the influence of his name to strengthen the fears of the public. Of course it really meant more ships, more soldiers, more taxation, less popular power, less prosperity, and Bright and Cobden set their faces against it from the beginning. In 1853 Mr. Cobden published a pamphlet, entitled, "1793 and 1853," and occupying itself with a comparison of public opinion in those two years in relation to a war with France. It is addressed in the form of three letters to a clergyman, or minister, who had preached a sermon on the death of the Duke of Wellington, in which the struggle terminating in 1815 had been characterised as one in defence of the liberties of Europe. This fallacy Mr. Cobden undertook to expose, and did so in a series of the most masterly and cogent arguments. Rising naturally with the swell of the theme from the familiar expressions of the friendly teller into fervours of diction which even Burke has not excelled, he concluded with an appeal to his clerical correspondent, which may well be pondered. "Will you pardon me," he says, "if before I lay down my pen I so far presume upon your forbearance as to express a doubt whether the eagerness with which the topic of the Duke of Wellington's career was so generally selected for pulpit manifestations was calculated to enhance the influence of ministers of the Gospel, or promote the interests of Christianity itself. Your case and that of public men are very dissimilar. The mere politician may plead the excuse, if he yields to the excitement of the day, that he lives and moves and has his being in the popular temper of the times. Flung as he is in the mid-current of passing events, he must swim with the stream, or be left upon its banks, for few have the strength or

1850.]

COBDEN'S PAMPHLET.

281

courage to breast the rising wave of public feeling. How different is your case. Set apart for the contemplation and promotion of eternal and unchanging principles of benevolence, peace, and charity, public opinion would not only tolerate but applaud your abstinence from all displays where martial enthusiasm and hostile passions are called into activity. But a far higher sanction than public opinion is to be found for such a course. When the Master whom you especially serve, and whose example and precepts are the sole credentials of your faith, mingled in the affairs of this life, it was not to join in the exaltation of military genius, or share in the warlike triumphs of nation over nation, but to preach Peace on earth and good-will to men."

CHAPTER XXX.

HOME LEGISLATION.

The Creation of Catholic Bishops-Freehold Land Societies-Invitation to represent Rochdale in Parliament-Disraeli's Attempt to assist Landowners— Bright and Kossuth-The Militia Bill of 1852-Re-elected for Manchester in 1852.

ABOUT the close of the year 1850 the Roman Pontiff created a furor in England by arranging a new division of dioceses, that should be ruled by bishops taking their titles from English towns, and Dr. Wiseman was appointed Archbishop of Westminster. The Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, at once expressed his indignation in a letter, and bishops of the Established Church induced their clergy to forward remonstrances and oppose papal pretensions. The Pope's decision afforded an excellent theme for controversy. "Great contests followed, and much learned dust," and there is no doubt that many sighed "for a forty-parson power," so as to be able to annihilate their adversary. The Reformers of the manufacturing district gathered in large numbers to a meeting in the Albion Hotel, Manchester, on the 23rd of January, 1851, to hear Mr. Bright express his views on the subject.

"There has been an attempt to frighten the country out of its propriety," said Mr. Bright. "I believe the cockneys have been very much frightened (laughter)— I mean the parochial mind of the various divisions in London. (Laughter.) But let us look at what has been the state of feeling in Lancashire and Yorkshire. (Applause.) Beginning with Hull, the most eastern of the large towns of this district-the most important and widely-circulated papers in that town have altogether repudiated the attempt to raise up a bigoted and fanatical cry against the free exercise of the Catholic religion in this country. Go to Leeds; a paper there of the largest influence and circulation has given no countenance to this attempt. (Hear, hear.) And I must say that of all the speeches that have been delivered upon this question, think a speech delivered by Mr. Baines, the editor of that paper, at the meeting of the ministers and friends of the Baptist and Independent churches, was the most true to the point of any that I have read. (Applause.) Well, then cross the borders of Yorkshire, and come to Manchester. You have two papers here of large circulation, and, in their respective walks, no doubt of great influence; neither of them has given any countenance to this intolerant cry, and one of them has very boldly and resolutely opposed it. (Applause.) Go on to Liverpool, and you find the papers there, of chief circulation and of chief influence, have taken the same tone that has been taken by the papers of Manchester. Well, I am free to argue from this, and do argue from it, that all this attempt to distract the public mind-all this attempt to point the finger of scorn at millions of our fellow-countrymen that differ from us in religion (applause)—that all this has failed amongst the three millions of the population of this kingdom we inhabit, the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire. (Loud applause.) I do not know how it is, but there is some fatality about two things that the people of this country have

1851.]

PAPAL AGGRESSION.

283

been discussing for generations past-Corn and Catholics. (Laughter.) This time last year there was almost terror about corn. Some people down here were afraid that corn was going to be shut out, and the squires were making a great disturbance about, not the papal, but the corn aggression. It is about 500 years ago that there was a sort of Parliament-not I believe a very regular one-held at Kilkenny, where English interests very much preponderated. They passed what has been called the Statute of Kilkenny-a law by which they made it penal, in a high degree, for an Irishman's horse to graze upon an Englishman's land. (Laughter.) Now from that time to this there has hardly been a Session of Parliament when this question of Catholics has not been brought up; and old women of both sexes (laughter), in all parts of the country, have been frightening themselves to death about this papal aggression." (Hear, hear, and laughter.)

Lord John Russell, on the 7th of February, in pursuance of a notice he had given, moved in the House of Commons for leave to bring in a Bill "To prevent the assumption of Ecclesiastical Titles in respect of places in the United Kingdom.' Mr. J. Bright on that occasion said :

:

"Well, the Catholic religion triumphs, and the territorial system you adopted, and which is now breaking down by the dispersion of landed property under the Encumbered Estates Act-that territorial system oppressed the peasantry, and has so greatly impoverished them that annually for some years great numbers of them have been forced to exile themselves from Ireland. Lancashire and all the great towns and other districts where employment is to be had are now crowded with a population which, but for the Government of this country with regard to Ireland, would have been living comfortably and industriously and prosperously in their own land. (Cheers.) Well, this is a fitting retribution. I wish some one capable of such a work would write a history of the retributive justice which has overtaken this country in relation to its dealings with Catholic Ireland. Catholicism, we are told, is spreading, and I admit that it does appear to be spreading; but I believe those appearances arise from circumstances I have before referred to. Our legislation has borne fruit to Rome both in Ireland and England. (Hear, hear.) Let us inquire as to England. England shows symptoms of returning to Rome. But where are those symptoms? In the people or in the clergy? (Hear, hear.) Why, the noble lord's letter tells where it is. The noble lord has discovered that the great institutions which were supposed to be the bulwarks of Protestantism turn out to be a large manufactory of a national or home-made popery. (Cheers and laughter.) I do not mean to say that those who are retrograding are willing to recognise the supremacy of the Pope; but it is a fact that they do adopt the principles of the papal religion, such as a sacramental Church, the special powers of the priest, and the subjugation of the mind to priestly influence. It has had votes of money from Parliament to almost an unknown amount; and it has a revenue of millions of which the Parliamentary plummet has never sounded the depth. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Well, where now is this Church? In the year 1850, after an existence of three centuries, it has not only not saved the country from the Pope, but, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, it is deeply infected with popery itself. (Hear, hear.) Now, I ask you, if machinery in any other department had as totally failed in effecting the purposes for which it was established, would you not entirely get rid of it? This Church takes its origin from Henry VIII. It was fixed where it is by Elizabeth, she hating the Pope at Rome because she was herself a pope at home. (Laughter.) And it was to her imperious and tyrannical disposition more than anything else that we owe the fact that what she called the Reformed Church of England is not really reformed. (Hear, hear.) I do not blame this Church as being worse than any other Church. I say any other Church, under similar circumstances, would have brought about the same result. In the reign of James I. it urged the monarchy to tyranny and persecution. In the reign of Charles I. it did much to overturn the monarchy; for prelacy united with the Crown was so heavy that it sank the Crown. In the time of Charles II. Dissenters were prosecuted right and left, and almost all the members of the sect to which I belong were, I believe, at one time in prison. This went on to the time of the Toleration Act. I will neither legislate against the Catholics nor in support of the Establishment; and however much the noble lord may succeed in gratifying the passions or in satisfying the prejudices of his followers out of doors,