COLONEL NORTHI beg leave to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the letter read at a public meeting at Birmingham on Monday the 14th instant, signed John Bright, and which has appeared in the public journals, was written by the President of the Board of Trade; and, if so, whether the Government concur in the opinions therein expressed?
MR. GLADSTONESir, in answer to the inquiry of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that the letter which has been published in the journals as having been addressed by my right hon. Friend to some of his constituents at Birmingham, and as having been read at a public meeting there, is—his production. Further, Sir, I have to state that letter was written by my right hon. Friend without communication with his Colleagues, upon his own responsibility, as, in fact, also was a letter I myself wrote to a gentleman at Bradford, acknowledging the receipt of a Resolution passed at a town meeting on the Irish Church two days before; and that letter of mine was published in the same paper with the letter of my right hon. Friend, but it was not dignified with the same large and clear type, nor with the same prominent position in the newspaper, and it attracted, I feel somewhat mortified in saying, no notice whatever. With respect to the latter part of the Question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, that is, as to whether the Government agree in the opinions expressed in that letter, I must say that the Government have not thought it their duty, and will not think it their duty, to consider in detail the particulars of those opinions, and for a reason which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will readily perceive to be just. There may be many things with which, in the abstract, as propositions the Government would agree, and yet with which as a Government they might not think themselves justified or 122 warranted in stating with regard to the action of a branch of the Legislature. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I think, perfectly entitled to ask from me is—Whether the Government themselves in any manner approve, or desire in appearance to approve, any interference, by threat, dictation, or otherwise, the perfectly free action of the House of Lords? Now, Sir, upon that subject I hope I may appeal to the tone that has been preserved in debate both here and elsewhere to sustain me when I say that nothing can be further from our intentions. Each branch of the Legislature in this country is not only naturally, but justly, jealous of the slightest attempt to interfere with its liberty of discussion, and most of all would it feel that jealousy when sentiments, which might be in themselves possibly defensible, just, or wholesome, were propounded with a quasi authority of the Ministers of the Crown. And, Sir, I may presume to state, as the question has been raised—I do not say unjustifiably raised—that these are not mere words upon our part; for I can say for myself that within the last week or ten days overtures have been made to me from largo centres of population with respect to the holding of great meetings on the subject now under discussion in the House of Lords. I have, as far as I could presume to do so, steadily discouraged such meetings, and, perhaps, I may be permitted to say also, on the part of my right hon. Friend, though again without concert with me, and upon his own responsibility, that he has met similar overtures by pursuing a similar course to that I deemed it right to adopt, and he has been anxious to avert any popular action of that kind which may interfere, or seem to interfere, with the free action of the House of Peers.