ted that the Bishops had actually done more than was required. The result of their labours was four reports, after which it would be expected that any measure relating to the Church would be founded on such reports; instead of which, a measure which had been rejected by the Commissions, was introduced in Parliament, and under it all those estates which they said were inexpedient to touch were to be made away with. Lord Melbourne, it was said, had yielded to pressure, but the case was not much improved by his lordship not agreeing in his heart with that to which he had subscribed with his hand ...
Conservative Banquet & Speeches
Thus they consented to yield the property of the Church which they had just before determined to assign to the building of churches and filling them with useful ministers ... He would treat the conscience of Dissenters as tenderly as he would his own, but when it involved questions of taxation related to property and charges on property which had been purchased or inherited subject to this taxation, he thought the question of conscience somewhat absurd. He was expecting to be called upon in a few days for taxes to meet an expenditure many items of which he could conscientiously object to. The charge on Dissenters for church-rates was stated to be £30,000, and out of the proceeds of the general taxation this year there would be 17 times that amount, or 17 years' purchase of the Dissenters' rates paid towards the warfare now being carried on in Spain. [Hear, hear!] For the cold-blooded vanity of one individual, £500,000 was now going out of England to maintain a cruel, unmanly and un-English war. Seventeen times the purchase of the Dissenters' rates was to be spent for that purpose' and if exceptions were to be made on account of scruples of conscience, his own conscience forbade his giving one farthing[1] to the warfare of Col. Evans' yet he would obey the edict of the State, and pay his share of the money. - The reverend gentleman concluded his remarks with a telling peroration, and resumed his seat amidst a fervent round of applause.
Mr. Stonestreet's condemnation of the part taken by the English in the dynastic was of Spain reminds me of the satisfaction with which General Evans's achievement was received by Hastings and St. Leonards Liberals a few months previous to the Conserviative banquet. I have already alluded to this event, but I have omitted to state that whichst the Conservatives were almost to a man opposed to the part played by English Liberals in that sanguinary affair, there were also not a few even among the avowed supporters of a Liberal Government who openly denounced it. For myself I may say that, although not an absolute optimist, and having, moreover, strong peaceable proclivities, I am one, nevertheless, who believes that under certain conditions war is a dire necessity, and that it is mostly permitted by a higher Power than either monarchies or governments for ulterior benefits. I am also of opinion that during the last half-century at least, the majority of wars which have been entered upon by British Governments have not been wantonly nor revengefully undertaken, but that, after due consideration, they have been reluctantly engaged in as the only alternative to a prospective evil of greater magnitude. This I hold to have been the case as regards the late wars in Zululand and Afghanistan; and I can only look upon the merciless censures of a Conservative Government by Liberal partizans as less the outcome of serious reflection than as a political weapon to be used against opponents. Nor would I exclude the Conservatives from a similar practice when wars have been undertaken by Liberals - which, unfortunately for the "Peace and Retrenchment" shibboleth of the latter have been the most numerous and the most expensive. I have already shown that the Conservatives generally were opposed to the active sympathy shown by a Liberal Government towards the questionable rule of the spanish Queen and Ministry, it being contended that the cause of Don Carlos was one of legitimate right; and with the hope of dispelling some of the illusive mists in which historical facts are too often enshrouded, I must keep my readers waiting a short time for the other speeches which followed the Conservative dinner in 1837, among which was one of great historical interest by Mr. Reynolds, a personal friend of the chairman. When in 1840 the Melbourne Ministry proceeded by force of arms to settle a dispute with China, their war policy being supported in speeches by Mr. Gladstone, Lord Palmerston and others - that policy was warmly attacked by Sir James Graham, Sir robert Peel and other debaters on behalf of the Conservatives. Also in 1841 the debate on the Address evoked a strong protest against the interposition of the Melbourne Cabinet on behalf of turkey, which was even then denounced as the most depraved Government in Europe. That calamitous war with Russia in 1854-5 was a comparative exception in the attitude of political parties, the whole nation, exclusive of the Peace-at-any-price men, being nearly of one accord as to the necessity for such a conflict of forces. The chief complaint of the Conservatives was the unreadiness and lack of vigour exhibited by the Aberdeen Government in the prosecution of a war which cost the country fifty-three millions of money and twenty-two thousand men. During that administration, in addition to borrowing £16,000,000, Mr. Gladstone had to double the Income-tax and to impose other burthens. Two years after, fresh strictures emanated from the Conservatives in consequence of Lord Palmerston's Government having interfered with the domestic affairs of a foreign country by remonstrances addressed to the King of Naples for the manner in which he governed his subjects. In 1856, a second war was waged by Lord Palmerston's Government against the Chinese, the said war being supported by Mr. Gladstone and Lord John Russell. The war policy of the Government was again opposed, and by the help of the Tories, Mr. Cobden's proposal was carried for a Select Committee to enquire into the commercial relations of England and China. Lord Palmerston then appealed to the country, and the latter through the elections proved itself to be in favour of the Government policy - Messrs. Cobden, Bright, Fox and Gibson being among the defeated candidates. In 1859, under the Government of Lord Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone was obliged to propose an additional fourpence to the Income-tax. Five years later - aided by an abundant harvest and a greatly improved condition of the nation, the same finance Minister took a penny off the income-tax, in addition to other remissions. in 1867, after a serious financial panic, depression of industries, a bad harvest, and a war with the King of Abyssinia, during the Government of Lord Derby, a penny was again added to the Income-tax to meet the current expenditure.
It was now the turn of the Liberals - an opportunity which had been a long time coming - to upbraid the Conservatives for their war policy. But in 1873 the tables were again turned by Mr. Gladstone's Government having to make war upon the King of Ashantee. After that, the Beaconsfield Government had two wars upon their hands, and carried them on with unparalleled vigour at a comparatively small cost; yet for their three wars, as against seven wars conducted by the opponents, the former were stigmatised by the latter as being a party "whose delight is in remorseless war." I think I shall be able to show before this history comes to an end that there has been, and still is, a great deal of what is vulgarly called "clap-trap" in all political creeds; and that the terms "Constitutional Party" and "Champions of Peace Retrenchment and Reform" are too often empty assumptions which have a tendency to mislead the unwary. I am of opinion (sic) that in these days of progressive enlightenment neither party is justified in arrogating (sic) to itself the exclusive right of pre-eminence either as constitutionalists or as the people's benefactors. Men do not usually attain to the exalted position of senators entrusted with the Executive of a nation like Great Britain without having first given proof of administrative capacity or worthy aspirations; and although there must be a diversity of talent even among the equally deserving, and mistakes may be made even by the wisest, the trust is too sacred for the holders thereof to trifle with their responsibilities; and the justification is entirely wanting when one party uses towards the other epithets of the most offensive character, as it too frequently done by one that is out of office to one that is in. But, to return to the Conservative banquet of 1837, over which, as before stated, Mr. Sutherland Graeme presided, the speech of Mr. Reynolds came next in order to that of the Rev. G. Stonestreet, and was as follows :-
"Gentlemen, I have obtained your excellent Chairman's permission to propose to you a toast, but I own that it is with unfeigned diffidence that I rise to address you, - standing here among you as I am, a stranger, unknown to most of you - unconnected with any of you, without property, interest, or influence among you, to entitle me to trespass upon your attention for a moment. Gentlemen, I have the honour to be here as the friend and guest of your most worth Chairman, who in the exercise of his duties this day, and especially by the able manner in which he has proposed to you the toast which you have drunk with so much enthusiasm, - the toast of the Church and State, - has (if I may be permitted so to say) exhibited those qualities which have so especially fitted him to be your Chairman, and the President of your Association, those sound and moderate constitutional principles, that zeal tempered by discretion, those kind and candid manners, so calculated to soften animosities, and to conciliate confidence. I am desirous, gentlemen, of relieving him from some part of that burthen which the duties of this day have imposed upon him, and of submitting to you a toast which I am sure that he would have been desirous to proposing to you, and you most willing to receive with honour. My toast, gentlemen, arises immediately out of that which you have already drunk - that of the Church and State. From the manner in which you have received the mention of that toast, I am persuaded that our Church in all its integrity is safe. You echoed in your enthusiasm, I am convinced, the sentiments of the whole British nation; your church is enshrined in your hearts; she shall be preserved inviolate! Still shall she raise her mitred brow on the summits of our British Lion, preserving in her sacred sanctuary whatsoever is pure, permanent, and holy; girt around protected and adorned by her triple fortresses of the King, the nobles, and the people. Gentlemen, in the second branch of that union, whose banner is displayed against your walls ``The State." The King as the executive; the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, as the legislative power in these realms. These constitute "The State." Gentlemen, it is the second name in this our constitutional unity that I now call upon you to honour. Gentlemen, - the Lords! The House of Lords!
But do not think that I could propose to you to do honour to that august assembly, if it were composed of men invested with peculiar privileges, immunities and rights distinct for those of the community, if those privileges, immunities and rights were held by them for their own benefit alone. No gentlemen, I am one of the people, and I address you as one of the people, and I call upon you to support the House of Lords, as established for the people - for the community - for us. The whole frame of our constitution is constituted with a view to the preservation of liberty; it is for this that our monarch has an hereditary throne, our nobles hereditary rights. The House of Lords is established to operate as a bulwark for the people against the encroachments of the Crown as a bulwark for the Crown against the encroachments of the people; as a protection for the people against themselves. The Peers form a connecting link, by means of which the King is united, by an insensible gradation, to the meanest peasant of the land. The King, the nobles, and the people form in their union a pyramid of which the nobles are the centre, of which the people are the basis, and the monarch the apex; the emblem of stability and strength!
Gentlemen I will beg of you to cast your eye back upon the ancient history of this country, and you will perceive that it is to the Peers we owe the possession of some of our dearest liberties. In the most early ages we find the nobles acting as the counsellors and advisers of the Crown in all matters of State emergency; and in those times when the Sovereigns of Europe were united in their endeavours for the establishment of arbitrary power it was here and by the nobles that our kings were resisted. It was by the nobles of the realm that on the banks of the Thames, at the famous field of Runnymede, a base and perjured tyrant was compelled to sign the first great charter of our liberties, by which the right was recognised to have -
- ↑ An explanation of old currency and coinage may be found at the following website Pre-decimal currency, accessdate: 16 June 2022
