I was myself present as an invited guest at that dinner, and when I found
the gentleman rather going out of his way to make an ambiguous allusion
to the United States, I was in great doubt whether it was possible for
me to avoid noticing it when called up in my turn, according to the
usual custom. Having very short time for reflection, I ultimately
decided upon putting in a caveat against any presumption of acquiescence
in his conclusions. Without wounding the pride of the Englishmen around
me, I advanced a claim of traditions common to both countries, in behalf
of all efforts for the application of the principles of liberty to the
political advancement of the human race. Disclaiming all desire to
approximate the differing institutions of the two countries, I yet
trusted both might work in their respective positions with equal
fidelity to this same end. The few remarks I made were not unfavorably
received, so that I infer that though not absolutely palatable they gave
no offence.
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
[Untitled]
[From the
London Times, June 12,
1867.]
The next toast was that of the House of Lords, which was
appropriately responded to by the Marquis of Salisbury.
The master, in proposing the health of her Majesty’s ministers, said
that it was a toast which unfortunately they had not been enabled to
give on late occasions in that hall with entire satisfaction,
(cheers;) but he was delighted to find, from the way in which the
slightest reference to the toast was received, that they were
prepared to do honor to the toast of “her Majesty’s ministers.”
(Hear, hear.) They were honored by the presence of the leading
minister of the Crown—at least, he might say, the leading minister
in the House of Commons (cheers,) who had shown such consummate
knowledge, tact, and ability in his management of the business
before the House of Commons, as he believed no other member of that
body could have displayed. (Loud cheers.) The result was, that by
his extraordinary ability, tact, and adroitness, a measure which had
baffled the exertions of his opponents during many years had been
brought within half a session to a conclusion which he hoped and
believed would be satisfactory to the country. (Loud cheers.) He
begged to propose the health of “her Majesty’s ministers coupled
with the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.”
The toast was drank with all the honors. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in rising to return thanks, was loudly cheered. The right
honorable gentleman said: I beg, on the part of “her Majesty’s
ministers,” to acknowledge with feelings of gratification and
gratitude the honor you have done them on this occasion. Next to the
favor of their sovereign, they most prize the approbation of their
fellow-citizens. (Cheers.) And that approbation can never be offered
to them under circumstances more agreeable than in a hall memorable
as this is for its political and parliamentary history, (cheers;) in
connection with which the fortunes of that party with which I have
the honor to act are inseparably united, and which are now
represented by the ministers of the Crown. You, sir, have originated
what I should not have volunteered. I should have been most
unwilling to notice anything which could lead to political
controversy, but you have referred to a most important political
measure with which, from my position in the House of Commons, I am
in some degree connected. (Cheers.) Sir, I can say this on that
subject, that it is one which has now for a number of years
perplexed and interested the country, and hitherto no attempt at the
solution of the difficulties connected with it has recommended
itself to public approbation. Hitherto it has been considered that,
by raising a certain section of the working classes in a manner, we
think, was scarcely consistent with national dignity, by declaring a
limited portion of them skilled mechanics, and loading them with
epithets from which good taste sometimes recoiled, an effort was
made to establish a body which should have the command of the
constituents of the country. Í think that is a policy the most
dangerous and the most disastrous, and to which we have offered an
undeviating opposition. Called upon ourselves to deal with the
question, we have endeavored to take a larger view of it. We have
endeavored to consider it as one in the management of which we must
not merely look at the means of discountenancing
[Page 105]
the influence of a rival party, but
rather of establishing some system which might conduce to the
permanent contentment and greatness of the nation. (Cheers.) We have
sometimes been asked why we, who oppose a measure that was brought
forward last year, that in some respects was limited in its
character, can now conscientiously introduce and uphold a measure
much wider in its consequences and in its arrangements. Sir, it
appears to me that the answer to that is extremely easy, and one
which is perfectly consistent, not only with our sense of duty, but
with the nature of the circumstances that surround us. We looked
upon the measure of last year as one which, if carried, would have
seriously injured, if not destroyed, the conservative party, and
which at the same time would not nave satisfied the requirements of
the state. We believe that the measure we have brought forward is
one which will not injure the conservative party, but will satisfy
the requirements of the state. (Loud cheers.) We have endeavored to
found our measure upon a broad and deep foundation, and in our
opinion we must err in our estimate of the character of the English
people if the consequences of the measure we have proposed are such
as some think, based upon too limited and contracted a view of the
institutions of this country. What, I should like to ask, are the
institutions that will be endangered by it? Is it the monarchy of
England? Can we believe that the great body of the people of this
country are hostile to the monarchy of England? I believe that from
those days of splendor when large bodies of her Majesty’s subjects,
covered with stars and ribands, assembled around her Majesty, she
has not been surrounded by subjects more devoted than those she will
find among the toiling millions of this country at the present
moment. (Cheers.) Is it then the Parliament of England that is
endangered? Why, what is all this agitation about but a desire on
the part of a great portion of the people to become more intimately
acquainted with one of the houses of Parliament, the House of
Commons? For let me remind you, and it is important at the present
day, although the House of Commons is about to undergo a great
change, that change is not occasioned by any feeling of discontent
with the constitution of the House of Commons, but, on the contrary,
it arises from a certain degree of estimation, even of admiration of
that institution and its effects. (Cheers.) So far as the other
house of Parliament is concerned he must indeed have mistaken the
character of the English people who supposes that an assembly,
consisting of the greatest champions of freedom, connected with the
great lineage and influenced so much by the traditions of England,
would be injuriously affected by this measure. (Cheers.) Why, the
only criticism I ever heard with reference to the House of Lords is,
that they are not more forward to take part in public affairs.
(Cheers.) Is it, then, the church of England that is in danger in
consequence of the change we have introduced? It is not for me to
criticize the conduct of the House of Commons, but I hope there is
no member of that House who will be found to express a belief that
in consequence of the measures we have introduced the church of
England will be in more danger than it is at present. (Cheers.) Am I
told in this hall, in the centre of the great commercial metropolis
of England, that great damage will arise from the new constituency
with reference to the system of taxation, and that an attempt will
be made to throw the burden of taxation on property which will end
in recurrence to the old protective system? Why, these two objects
destroy each other. (Cheers.) It would be quite impossible to
re-enact the old protective system, and at the same time to throw
the whole burden of taxation on property. So far from having these
results, the measure we have proposed will, according to the
unanimous opinions of my colleagues, add to the strength and spirit
of the community. (Cheers.) There is one point on which I would
venture to touch before I sit down. It has sometimes been said that
the conservative party is always to do nothing. That appears to me a
great mistake. I have always protested against that opinion. I
believe that in this great country there must be two great bodies in
the state, conscientiously performing their duties, and I am quite
sure that if the conservative party act upon the dogma to which I
have referred, it will end in the gradual decline and decrepitude of
that party. These were not the opinions of the tory party in better
days; these were not the opinions of Mr. Pitt. He was not content to
be in the drag-chain of a party. He felt it his duty to originate
those great opinions and advise those great measures which never
were followed without adding to the strength, the glory and the
greatness of the country. (Cheers.) Those were not the opinions of
the great statesmen of the reign of Queen Anne, on which Mr. Pitt
modelled his commercial and political opinions. (Cheers.) True we
are on the eve of a great change. Believe me that the elements of
democracy do not exist in England. England is a country of classes,
and the change that is impending in this country will only make
these classes more united, more complete, and more cordial.
(Cheers.) I am warned by the example of America, but there is no
similarity between the United States and the United Kingdom. The
United states are still colonies, because colonies do not cease to
be colonies because they become independent. They have all the
elements of democracy, they have the unbounded possession of land
and no tradition: we have a very limited possession of land and a
vast and enormous artificial and complicated system entirely
consistent with and sustained by traditionary influences. Therefore,
I believe that the nation, after a long period pondering on its
state, and feeling that there should be some great change in its
political system, has resolved and determined upon the course that
ought to be pursued, and, although I hope I am as sensible to the
feeling of patriotism as any man of this country, I own I am proud
and happy that the conduct of this great change, which I believe
will add to the greatness and glory of our country, has fallen to
the tory party. (Cheers.)
[Page 106]
The House of Commons was briefly responded to by Sir Stafford
Northcote.,
The chairman next proposed “the Bench of Bishops.”
The Lord Bishop of Ripon. In behalf of my right reverend brethren and
for myself 1 return our hearty thanks for the honor you have done us
in drinking our healths. The bishops of the church of England are
not insensible to the value and importance of public opinion; for
while it is our high responsibility to go forward in the fulfilment
of our duties regardless of human smile or frown, yet we are well
aware that the efficiency of the church materially depends, under
Divine Providence, on the cordial co-operation of all classes of her
members. That co-operation could not exist without a spirit of
confidence among the lay members of the church in those who are
called to be rulers in that church. Therefore it is that the bishops
set a high value on the expression of public confidence and esteem.
It is not to be expected that the bishops of the church should all
be of one mind. The national church itself is constructed on a
comprehensive basis. It was intended to include many varieties of
thought and feeling and opinion. But one point is to my mind
unmistakably clear, and that is the distinctively Protestant
character of the church of England. That church has no locus standi in this country except as the
church of the Reformation. I trust the bishops of the church will
never be wanting to maintain the Protestant principles of the
church, and then I am confident they will never lack the confidence
of the church and the country.
The chairman next proposed “the Merchant Tailors’ School.”
The Rev. Dr. Hessey, in acknowledging the compliment, said that for
one whose duty it was to encourage others it was a most gratifying
and consoling thing to be encouraged himself. He alluded, in most
feeling terms, to the munificient mark of confidence which had
recently been conferred upon him by the Merchant Tailors’ Company,
to the terms of eulogy in which he had been spoken of by his old
college friend, Sir Stafford Northcote, and by the president of St.
John’s, and hoped that the Merchant Tailors’ School would ever
maintain its position among the public institutions of the country.
The other toasts were “the Minister of the United States,” which his
excellency Mr. Adams very briefly acknowledged; “The health of the
master of the company,” “The governor and deputy governor of the
Bank of England,” and “The visitors; which having been briefly
acknowledged, the company broke up.
