HC Deb 16 March 1860 vol 157 cc718-25
MR. BRIGHT

The House will, perhaps, permit me, before the regular business comes on, to occupy ifs attention for a few minutes, by referring to a matter of a personal nature—not personal, however, to myself, but to my hon. Friend, the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), who is now absent, and on whose behalf I wish to say a few words. The matter arises out of a statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) in a speech which he delivered to the House during the discussion on the Budget. In that speech—I quote from a slip which I have received from my hon. Friend, and to which he has called my attention—the hon. Gentleman is reported to have said that Mr. Cobden professed to be a Free-trader and Democrat, and yet when he went to Russia he wrote in favour of the despotic Government of that country, and that he was now— On such close terms of intimacy with the Emperor of the French that he had declared that, notwithstanding the restrictions on the liberty of the press, notwithstanding; the Chambers were what he (Mr. Newdegate) was afraid the House of Commons would become—a mere registry for the decrees of the Emperor of the French, that he could not understand that the people of France had anything to complain of. Therefore, said the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire, it would be little wondered at that Mr. Cobden should feel little interest in the people of this country, or in what he trusted would still continue to be an independent House of Commons. I understood from the hon. Gentleman that this statement was made by him on the authority of an anonymous letter printed in a paper published in Manchester, which notoriously has long been most unfriendly to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale. My hon. Friend has written me a letter in which he refers to this, and states that— The entire purport of the statement is utterly devoid of foundation; I never expressed the sentiment attributed to me, or anything like it, or the opposite of it, for I never uttered an opinion upon the subject to which it refers. The whole allegation is as pure a fiction as if the speaker had accused me of picking M. Guizot's pocket of his watch. Tray speak to Mr. Newdegate on the subject, and ask him to retract the statement as publicly as it was uttered; and pray tell him that I am lost in astonishment at his having been capable of propagating, without due inquiry, such a calumny on an absent Member of the House. I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman of my intention to make this statement, and I must say I am satisfied that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would not utter a calumny of this sort, but that this statement is probably a misconception to which we are all of us liable when preparing a matter to fulminate against our opponents. I think, however, after what has been stated, that the hon. Gentleman will at once express his regret at having been misled into making a statement so unfounded. I ask him to retract what he has stated, in order that there may be no misunderstanding on a matter of this character; because, from the position in which my hon. Friend now stands, it is most important that nothing of this kind should be published that is not strictly accurate; and this misrepresentation, however unintentional, should be retracted as publicly as it was made.

MR. NEWDEGATE

Sir, I fully acknowledge that the hon. Member for Birmingham has only done his duty by undertaking to call me to account for any statement I may have made with respect to Mr. Cobden in his absence, of which he and Mr. Cobden think that the latter has a right to complain, as unfounded or unfair. He has only obeyed the claims of friendship in so doing, and I honour him for it. The Reports of what I said and to which the hon. Member refers are to a considerable degree inaccurate. I find attributed to me in the leading organ of communication the following words which convey, though not exactly, still the general tenor of my meaning. Speaking of the hon. Member for Rochdale, I am supposed to have said— Perhaps he might say that Mr. Cobden was so intimate nowadays with the Emperor of the French that it would be dangerous to put any cause of dissension between them. In former times Mr. Cobden had been struck with the same democratic devotion for the Emperor of Russia, witness the pamphlet which he had written on his return from Russia. So complete was the admiration felt by Mr. Cobden, the advocate of democratic doctrines—so entirely was he Epris with the Emperor of France and his system, notwithstanding the restrictions on the liberty of the press, notwithstanding the Chambers were what he feared that House was on the point of becoming—mere registry offices for the decrees of the Emperor, that in Manchester, where, if anywhere, he was well spoken of, he had been represented in the newspapers as unable to understand what the French people had to complain of. Now, that Report is in some degree inaccurate, because I did not make this statement on my own authority, but stated that reports were current to the effect, which I indicated. I was speaking with a letter in my hand which had been sent me as extracted from The Manchester Guardian, and which was published in that paper on the 21st of February. With the permission of the House, as it is most painful to any man to be accused of misrepresenting a Member of the House, in his absence, I will read a portion of that letter. The letter appeared in The Manchester Guardian of the 21st of February. It is stated to have been from "Our Private Correspondent in London," and it says— I am sorry to hear reports in very general circulation by no means complimentary to the soundness of Mr. Cobden's judgment upon the internal affairs of France, or creditable to him as the citizen of a free country. In these reports, which are founded upon the statements of an M.P. who has just returned from Paris, where he has made good use of extensive opportunities of social observation, Mr. Cobden is represented as 'Napoleonized' to a higher degree than we can easily suppose a lover of free institutions could have been by ever so frank an acceptance of free-trading principles on the part of the Emperor. The Member for Rochdale is described as freely avowing his inability to discover what France had to complain of in the present régime, and as ignoring, in the most unaccountable manner, the importance of such elements in national happiness as free thought, free speech, free inquiry, and free institutions. Nay, so painfully, as I hear, have some of the Constitutionalists, now chafing in enforced silence under the iron hand of Imperial despotism, felt Mr. Cobden's utter want of sympathy with their position, that they declare their expectation that from his visit to Nice he will bring back to England nothing but assurances of the eagerness of the Nizzards for annexation to France. I dare say that much of this may be the exaggerations of irritated and not very scrupulous partizans, but I am afraid Mr. Cobden has laid himself open to the imputations of having manifested a zeal for free trade in the inverse ratio to his zeal for every other form of freedom. Now, Sir, I fully admit to the hon. Member for Birmingham, that if I had not ground for believing that there was some truth in these reports thus circulated in Manchester, it would have been exceedingly culpable on my part to have made any statement on the sole authority of this letter, which is anonymous; but the hon. Member for Birmingham must remember that few Members of this House have had more reason or more opportunities for close observation of the hon. Member for Rochdale, during the last eighteen years, than I have had, and I can assure the hon. Member that few have availed themselves of these opportunities more constantly. There is very little which that hon. Member has said, very little that he has written which has escaped my attention. ["Order!"]—

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to an explanation of the statement he made.

MR. NEWDEGATE

Forgive me, Sir, I was explaining the reason for my having adverted to that letter, which I admit to the House, had the substance of it been contrary to the opinions I myself entertain, would have been unjustifiable. I am vindicating my conduct, being called on to do so, by a Member of this House. I am vindicating my honour as a Member of this House. I have, as I said before, observed the career of the hon. Member for Rochdale for a very considerable period; I have observed in him a tendency to favour institutions very different from what I understand by the term "free Institutions," and this induced me to believe that there might be some ground for the assertions in the letter I have read. Let me first clear the ground by explaining what I mean by free institutions. The House will, I am sure, excuse me if I trespass on its time for a few moments in a matter of this nature. I mean by free institutions, such institutions as this country has the happiness to possess—institutions, embodying, as I believe ours do, a far greater amount of social, and personal, and political freedom than any institutions in the world. I mean by free institutions, the constitution of England, which is the great type of free institutions, as contradistinguished from the despotic democracy of America, as contradistinguished from the democratic despotism of France, as contradistinguished from the despotism of Austria, as contradistinguished from the autocracy of Russia. How that is what I mean by free institutions; and it is to these institutions that I am of opinion that the career of the hon. Member for Rochdale does not show that he is firmly attached. I find that early in 1854 the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham were present at a meeting at the Albion Hotel. It was a meeting of the League, and Mr. Cobden there declared that the origin of his first appearance in public life was his having written a pamphlet, I believe in 1835, but which was published in 1836, on the subject of Russia, entitled Russia Cure for Russophobia, to which pamphlet I referred on the occasion to which this explanation relates. That was the substance of those observations, with which I will not again trouble the House in detail. Mr. Cobden applauded the institutions of Russia, and declared that he thought the encouragement given to the trading classes ought to be most satisfactory, because persons of a certain capital were exempted from corporal punishment. He went on to declare that he thought it for the interest of Europe that Russia should become possessed of Constantinople. Further, he declared that he had moved a Resolution in a debating society—a Literary Society in Manchester—to that effect, and that there this proposition was decidedly affirmed by that society. Well, Sir, there was a declaration in the pamphlet to which I referred. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen will excuse me, for I am called to account for a statement which might appear to be a calumny.

SIR CHARLES DOUGLAS

I rise to Order. I put it to the House whether the hon. Member is to go on in this strain. I understood that the hon. Gentleman had risen to explain a statement which he had made on a former occasion, and which is denied to be a fact. It is competent to the hon. Gentleman to persevere in what he has stated, or to retract it; but not to go on with a new statement which has nothing whatever to do with the original statement.

MR. NEWDEGATE

If I make a statement of this kind in this House I have ever observed one rule, that I will cither retract that statement in the House, or will confirm it in the House when called upon. And now, Sir, with your permission, detaining the House the fewest possible moments, I will show that in 1854 not only did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale avow his authorship of that pamphlet, but he proceeded to say at that meeting, at which the hon. Member for Birmingham was present, that in accordance with his long entertained opinions he would take means to prevent the prosecution of the Russian war, and I will give the House a description of the means he suggested. ["Oh!"] These are Mr. Cobden's words. He said, "If we are to have a war, let there be no accumulating of debt, and no taxes in the shape of Customs or Excise duties. Increase the income tax 20 per cent or more if necessary, and lower the amount down to £50 rather than revert to the old system of indirect taxes." And the hon. Member for Birmingham, who followed him, said he "sincerely hoped with Mr. Cobden, that if this war, which he called insane, should break out, the income tax would be doubled, and that it would be brought down to almost so low a rate as to catch every man who could make a speech from a platform, or who was in favour of it." Therefore the hon. Member for Birmingham [Order, order!]—

MR. SPEAKER

said, what had been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham on that occasion was not relevant to the explanation now proposed to be made by the hon. Gentleman.

MR. NEWDEGATE

I will not further advert to it. I would beg the House to remember that at the close of the year 1852 ["Oh, oh!"], soon after the death of the late Duke of Wellington, the hon. Member for Rochdale wrote and in 1853 published a series of letters in which he manifested anger at the universal regret felt by the people of this country at that which they considered a national loss, and reprobated the conduct of certain clergymen, who had preached sermons on the occasion with reference to the career of that great man, who had been an honour to this country, and one of her greatest defenders. Mr. Cobden was offended, that the memory of the late Duke of Wellington had been, to use his own words, "so generally selected for pulpit manifestations," and expressed a doubt as to whether such manifestations were calculated to enhance the influence of the ministers of the Gospel, or to promote the interests of Christianity. He went on to say that the wars concluded in 1815 were unjustifiable, and he condemned that great commander because the war was undertaken in opposition to the principles of the first French Revolution. And, Sir, here is the point with regard to the institutions of this country. He went further in his letter. ["Question."] I am coming to the point. He praised the institutions of France, and compared them with the institutions of this country, and to the disparagement of our institutions; and this is my justification. Perhaps the House will permit me to read the words. This is no hasty statement. This is a public document, widely circulated by the hon. Member for Rochdale himself. He says— When told that the present Emperor possesses absolute and irresponsible power, I answer by citing three things which he could not, if he would, accomplish: he could not endow with lands and tithes one religion, as the exclusively paid religion of the State, although he selected for the privilege the Roman Catholic Church, which comprises more than nine-tenths of the French people; he could not create an hereditary peerage with estates entailed by a law of primogeniture; and he could not impose a tax on successions, which would apply to personal property only, and leave the real estate free. Public opinion in France is an insuperable obstacle to any of these measures becoming law; because they outrage that spirit of equality which is the sacred and inviolable principle of 1789. Now, if Louis Napoleon were to declare his determination to carry these three measures, which are all in full force in England, as part of his Imperial regime, his throne would not he worth twenty-four hours' purchase; and nobody knows this better than he and they who surround him. Now I have quoted this extract as a sample of the contents of these letters to show the general tenor of these letters, which is to impugn our own institutions and exalt those of France, expressing admiration for the tendency and effects of the first French Revolution, because it was a social revolution and overturned the rights of property, and condemning the Revolution of 1688, upon which our institutions are founded, because it left the rights of property untouched—because it was a religious and a political, but not a social revolution. The tenor of these letters is throughout in disparagement of the institutions of England, and in exaltation of the principles of the first French Revolution.

I thank the House for having allowed me to vindicate myself from the imputation of having uttered an unfounded calumny, and I think I have said enough to justify the opinion to which I gave expression in the statement which has been called in question. Sir, a man who is for ever endeavouring to prevent this House from taking means to defend the free institutions under which we live cannot, I think, be considered as justly valuing free institutions. A man who for a long course of years has systematically vilified our institutions, cannot be classed among the best friends of those institutions. A man who during a long series of years holds up the institutions of despotic States in comparison with, and to the disparagement of the institutions under which we live, cannot be considered as a true friend to our institutions, but must be held, at best, indifferent to the continuance of free institutions, the benefits of which he may, nevertheless, have no objection to enjoy.

MR. BRIGHT

I asked the hon. Member for North Warwickshire whether he was prepared to maintain the accuracy of what he had stated, or was disposed to retract it. I cannot exactly ascertain from what he has stated that any retractation was made. But perhaps the House will allow me to say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, that he utterly denies it from beginning to end. There is not a word of truth in the statement; and, as he must be the best judge of it, I think it has been the general custom of Members of this House to accept an express statement of another Member; and, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire admits that the only foundation for his statement is an anonymous letter in a newspaper known to be hostile to my hon. Friend, I leave the House to judge between the hon. Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.

MR. NEWDEGATE

Excuse me for one moment; I did not retract my statement; I did not found my statement entirely on an anonymous letter, but I broadly stated to the House the grounds of the opinion I entertain and had expressed.

Subject dropped.

Back to