 Section 5 of the World's Famous Orations Volume 5. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. The World's Famous Orations Volume 5. On the Domestic and Foreign Affairs of England by William Everett Gladstone. 1809 to 1898. Born in 1809, died in 1898. The first elected to Parliament in 1832. Vice-President of the Board of Trade in 1841. And President in 1843. Colonial Secretary in 1846. Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1852. 1855 and 1859. Prime Minister in 1868. And three times subsequently until 1894. With the exception of a year and a half, sat continuously in the House from 1832 until 1895. Gentlemen. Footnote. Delivered during his Midlothian campaign, November 27th, 1879. And followed by his return to power as Prime Minister in the following spring. Succeeding Beaconsfield. Abridged. By kind permission of the London Times and Messier's GP Putnam's sons. End of footnote. I speak of agricultural distress as a matter now undoubtedly serious. Let none of us withhold our sympathy from the farmer, the cultivator of the soil and the struggle he has to undergo. His struggle is a struggle of competition with the United States. But I do not fully explain the case when I say the United States. It is not with the entire United States, it is with the western portion of these states, that portion removed from the seaboard. And I wish in the first place gentlemen to state to you all a fact of very great interest and importance as it seems to me. Relating to and defining the point at which the competition of the western states of America is most severely felt. Whatever be agriculture of distress in Scotland, whatever it be, where undoubtedly it is more felt in England, it is greater by much in the eastern states of America. In the states of New England, the soil has been to some extent exhausted by careless methods of agriculture. And these gentlemen are the greatest of all enemies with which the farmer has to contend. But the foundation of the statement I make, that the eastern states of America are those, that most feel the competition of the west is to be found in facts, in this fact above all, that not only they are not in America, as we are here, talking about the shortness of the annual returns, and in some places having much said on the subject of rents and of temporary remission or of permanent reduction. That is not the state of things. They have actually got to this point, that the capital values of land, as tested by sales in the market, have undergone an enormous diminution. There has been developed in the astonishing progressive power of the United States, there has been developed a faculty of producing corn, food not, used here in the English sense as meaning wheat, and food not, for the subsistence of man with a rapidity and to an extent unknown in the experience of mankind. There is nothing like it in history. Do not let us conceal gentlemen from ourselves the fact, I shall not stand divorced with any of you who are farmers, if I advance a vow that this greater and comparatively immense abundance of the prime article of subsistence of for mankind is a great blessing vouchsafed by providence to mankind. In part I believe that the cheapness has been increased by special causes. The lands from which the great abundance of American wheat comes are very thinly peopled as yet. They will become more thickly peopled, and as they become more thickly peopled, a larger proportion of their produce will be wanted for home consumption, and less of it will come to you and at a higher price. Again, if we are rightly informed, the price of American wheat has been unnaturally reduced by the extraordinary depression in recent times of trade in America and especially of the mineral trades upon which many railroads are dependent in America and with which these railroads are connected in America in a degree and manner that in this country we know but little of. With a revival of trade in America it is to be expected that the friars of corn will increase and all other friars because the employment of the railroads will be a great deal more abundant and they will not be content to carry corn at nominal rates. In some respects therefore you may expect a mitigation of the pressure, but in other respects it's likely to continue. How are you to meet that state of things? What are your fair claims? I will tell you. In my opinion your fair claims are in the main two. One is to be allowed to purchase every article that you require in the cheapest market and have no needless burden laid upon anything that comes to you and can assist you in the cultivation of your land, but that claim has been conceded and fulfilled. I do not know whether there is an object, an instrument, a tool of any kind, an auxiliary of any kind that you want for the business of the farmer which you do not buy at this moment in the cheapest market, but beyond that you want to be relieved from every unjust and unnecessary legislative restraint. I say every unnecessary legislative restraint because taxation gentlemen is unfortunately a restraint upon us all, but we cannot say that it is always unnecessary and we cannot say that it is always unjust. Yesterday I ventured to state and I will therefore not now return to the subject. A number of matters connected with the state of legislation in which it appears to me to be of vital importance, both to the agricultural interest and to the entire community, that the occupiers and cultivators of the land of this country should be relieved from restraints under the operation of which they now suffer considerably. Beyond those two great heads gentlemen, what you have to look to I believe is your own energy, your own energy of thought and action and your care not to undertake to pay rents greater than in reasonable calculation you think you can afford. There are some gentlemen and there are persons for whom I for one have very great respect who think that the difficulties of our agriculture may be got over by a fundamental change in the land holding system of this country. I do not mean now pray observe. I change as to the law of entail and settlement and all those restraints which I hope were tolerably well disposed of yesterday at Dalke's. But I mean those who think that if you can put up the land or a large part of it into a multitude of small properties that of itself will solve the difficulty and start everybody on a career prosperity. Now gentlemen, to a proposal of that kind I for one I'm not going to object upon the ground that it would be inconsistent with the privileges of landed proprietors. In my opinion, if it is known to be for the welfare of the community at large the legislature is perfectly entitled to buy out the landed proprietors. It is not intended probably to confiscate the property of a landed proprietor more than the property of any other man but the state is perfectly entitled if it please to buy out the landed proprietors as it may think fit for the purpose of dividing the property into small lots. I do not wish to recommend it because I will show you the doubts that to my mind hang about that proposal. But I admit that on principle no objection can be taken. Those persons who possess large portions of the spaces of the earth are not all together in the same position as the possessors of mere personality. That personality does not impose the same limitations upon the action and industry of man and upon the well-being of the community as does the position of land. And therefore I freely own that compulsory expropriation is a thing which for an adequate public object is in itself admissible and so far sound in principle. Now gentlemen, this idea about small proprietors however is one which very large bodies and parties in this country treat with the utmost contempt and they are accustomed to point to France and say look at France. In France you have got five millions. I'm not quite sure whether it is five millions or more. I do not wish to be beyond the mark in anything. You have five millions of small proprietors and you do not produce in France as many bushels of wheat per acre as you do in England. Well, now I am going to point out to you and every remarkable fact with regard to the condition of France. I will not say that France produces for I believe it does not produce as many bushels of wheat per acre as England does. But I should like to know whether the wheat of France is produced mainly upon the small properties of France. I believe that the wheat of France is produced mainly upon the large properties of France and I have not any doubt that the large properties of England are upon the whole better cultivated and more capital is put into the land than in the large properties of France. But it is fair that justice should be done to what is called the peasant proprietary. Peasant proprietary is an excellent thing if it can be had in many points of view. It interests an enormous number of the people in the soil of the country and in the stability of its institutions and its laws. But now look at the effect that it has upon the progressive value of the land. And I'm going to give you a very few figures which I will endeavor to relieve from all complication lest I should unnecessarily weary you. But what will you think when I tell you that the agricultural value of France, the taxable income derived from the land and therefore the income of the proprietors of that land has advanced during our lifetime far more rapidly than that of England? When I say England, I believe the same thing is applicable to Scotland, certainly to Ireland, but I shall take England for my test because the difference between England and Scotland, though great, does not touch the principle. And because it so happens that we have some means of illustration from former times for England which are not equally applicable for all of the three kingdoms. Here is the state of the case. I will not go back any further than 1851. I might go back much further. It would only strengthen my case. But for 1851, I have a statement made by French official authority of the Agricultural Income of France as well as the income of other real property with houses. In 1851, the Agricultural Income of France was 76 million pounds. It was greater in 1851 than the whole income from land and houses together had been in 1821. This is a tolerable evidence of progress but I will not enter into the detail of it because I have no means of dividing the two, the house income and the land income for the earlier year, namely 1821. In 1851, it was 76 million pounds, the agricultural income and in 1864 it had risen from 76 million pounds to 106 million pounds. That is to say, in the space of 13 years, the increase of agricultural values in France, annual values, was no less than 40% or 3% per annum. Now I go to England. Wishing to be quite accurate, I shall limit myself to that with respect to which we have positive figures. In England, the agricultural income in 1813-1814 was 37 million pounds. In 1842, it was 42 million pounds and that year is the one I will take as my starting point. I have given you the years 1851 to 1864 in France. I could only give you those 13 years with a certainty that I was not misleading you and I believe I have kept within the mark. I believe I might have put my case more strongly for France. In 1842 then, the agricultural income of England was 42 million pounds. In 1876, it was 52 million pounds. That is to say, while the agricultural income of France increased 40% in 13 years, the agricultural income of England increased 20% in 34 years. The increase of France was 3% per annum. The increase in England was about one-half or three-fifths percent per annum. Now gentlemen, I wish this justice to be done to a system where peasant proprietary prevails. It is of great importance. And will you allow me, you who are scotch agriculturalists, to assure you that I speak to you not only with the respect which is due from a candidate to a constituency, but with the deference which is due from a man knowing very little of agricultural matters to those who know a great deal. And there is one point at which the considerations that I have been opening up and this rapid increase of the value of the soil in France bear upon our discussions. Let me try to explain it. I believe myself that the operation of economic laws is what in the main dictates the distribution of landed property in this country. I doubt if those economic laws will allow it to remain cut up into a multitude of small properties like the small properties of France. As to small holdings, I am one of those who attach the utmost value to them. I say that in the Lothians, I say that in the portion of the country where almost beyond any other large holdings prevail, in some parts of which large holdings exclusively are to be found, I attack the utmost value to them. But it is not on that point I'm going to dwell for we have no time for what is unnecessary. What I do wish very respectfully to submit to you gentlemen is this. When you see this vast increase of agricultural value of France, you know at once it is perfectly certain that it has not been upon the large properties of France, which of anything are inferior in cultivation to the large properties of England. It has been upon those very peasant properties which some people are so ready to decry. What do the peasant properties mean? They mean that in France is called the small cultivation. That is to say cultivation of superior articles pursued upon a small scale, cultivation of flowers, cultivation of trees and shrubs, cultivation of fruits of every kind, and all that in fact, which rises above the ordinary character of farming produce and rather approaches the produce of the gardener. But I go on to another remedy which is proposed and I do it with a great deal less of respect. Nay, I now come to the region of what I have presumed to call quack remedies. There is a quack remedy which is called reciprocity and this quack remedy is under the special protection of quack doctors and among the quack doctors, I'm sorry to say, there appeared to be some in very high station indeed. And if I'm rightly informed, no less a person that Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has been moving about the country and indicating a very considerable expectation that possibly by reciprocity, agricultural distress will be relieved. Let me test gentlemen, the efficacy of this quack remedy for you. In some places, agricultural pressure and generally distress, the pressure that has been upon you, the struggle in which you are engaged. Pray watch its operation. Pray note what is said by the advocates of reciprocity. They always say, we are the soundest and best free traders. We recommend reciprocity because it is a truly effectual method of bringing about free trade. At present America imposes enormous duties upon our cotton goods and upon our iron goods. Put reciprocity into play and America will become a free trading country. Very well gentlemen, how would that operate upon you, agriculturalists in particular? Why it would operate thus? If your conditions is to be regretted in certain particulars and capable of amendment, I beg you to cast an eye of sympathy upon the condition of the American Agriculturist. It has been very well said and very truly said, though it is a smart aim to see this. The American Agriculturist has got to buy everything that he wants at prices which are fixed in Washington by the legislation of America. But he has got to sell everything that he produces at prices which are fixed in Liverpool, fixed by the free competition of the world. How would you like that gentlemen? To have protective prices to pay for everything that you use, for your manures, for your animals, for your implements, for all your farming stock and at the same time to have to sell what you produce in the free and open market of the world. But gentlemen, there is another set of men who are bolder still and who are not for reciprocity, who are not content with that milder form of quackery, but who recommend a reversion, pure and simple, to what I may fairly call, I think, the exploded doctrine of protection. Some of the members of Her Majesty's government, the minor members of Her Majesty's government, the handler luminaries of that great constellation have been going about the country and telling their farming constituents that they think the time has come when a return to protection might very wisely be tried. But gentlemen, what delusions have been practiced upon the unfortunate British farmer? When we go back for 20 years, what is now called the Tory party was never heard of as the Tory party. It was always heard of as the party of protection, as long as the chiefs of the protective party were not in office. As long as they were irresponsible, they recommended themselves to the goodwill of the farmers as protectionists and said they would set him up and put his interests on a firm foundation through protection. We brought them into office in the year 1852. I gave with pleasure a vote that assisted to bring them into office. I thought bringing them into office was the only way of putting their professions to the test. They came into office and before they had been six months in office, they had strong protection to the winds. And that is the way in which the British farmer's expectations are treated by those who claim for themselves in the special sense, the designation of his friends. But are we such children that, after spending 20 years, as I may say from 1840 to 1860, in breaking down the huge fabric of protection, in 1879 we are seriously to set about building it up again. If that be right, gentlemen, let it be done, but it will involve on our part a most humiliating confession. In my opinion, it is not right. Protection, however, let me point out, now is asked for in two forms. And I'm next going to quote Lord Beaconsfield for the purpose of expressing my concurrence with him. Since 1842 and down to the present time, we have had along with railways, always increasing their benefits, we have had successive adoption of free trade measures and what has been the state of the export business of the country? It has risen in this degree that that, which from 1840 to 1842 averaged 50 million pounds from 1873 to 1878 averaged 218 million pounds. Instead of increasing as it had done between 1830 and 1842, when railways only were at work at the rate of one million pounds a year, instead of remaining stagnant as it did, when the country was under protection, pure and simple, with no augmentation of the export trade to enlarge the means of those who buy our products, the total growth in a period of 35 years was no less than 168 million pounds, or taking it roughly, a growth in the export trade of the country to the extent of between four million pounds and five million pounds a year. But gentlemen, you know the fact, you know very well that while restriction was in force, you did not get the prices that you have been getting for the last 20 years. The price of wheat has been much the same as it had been before. The price of oats is a better price than was to be had on the average of protective times. But the price was the exception of wheat of almost every agricultural commodity, the price of wool, the price of meat, the price of cheese, the price of everything that the soil produces has been largely increased in a market free and open to the world. Because while the artificial advantage which you get through protection as it was supposed to be an advantage was removed, you were brought into that free and open market and the energy of free trade so enlarged the buying capacity of our customers that they were willing and able to give you and did give you a great deal more for your meat, your wool and your products in general that you would ever have got under the system of protection. Gentlemen, if that be true and it cannot, I believe, be impeached or impugned, if that be true, I do not think I need further discuss the matter, especially when so many other matters have to be discussed. Gentlemen, I ask you again to go with me beyond the seas and as I wish to do a full justice, I will tell you what I think, to be the right principles of foreign policy. The first thing is to foster the strength of the empire by just legislation and economy at home, thereby producing two of the great elements of national power, namely wealth, which is a physical element and union and contentment, which are moral elements and to reserve the strength of the empire, to reserve the expenditure of that strength for great and worthy occasions abroad. Here is my first principle of foreign policy, good government at home. My second principle of foreign policy is this, that its aim ought to be to preserve to the nations of the world and especially, where but for shame, when we recollect the sacred name we bear as Christians, especially to the Christian nations of the world, the blessings of peace, that is my second principle. My third principle in this, even gentlemen, when you do a good thing, you may do it in so bad a way that you may entirely spoil the beneficial effect and if we were to make ourselves the apostles of peace in the sense of conveying to the minds of other nations that we thought ourselves more entitled to an opinion on that subject than they are, or to deny their rights. Well, very likely we should destroy the whole value of our doctrines. In my opinion, the third sound principle is this, to strive to cultivate and maintain, a, to the very uttermost, what is called the concert of Europe, to keep the powers of Europe in union together. And why? Because by keeping all in union together, you neutralize and fetter and bind up the selfish aims of each. I'm not here to flatter either England or any of them. They have selfish aims, as unfortunately, we in later years have too sadly shown that we too have had selfish aims, but their common action is fatal to selfish aims. Common action means common objects and the only objects for which you can unite together the powers of Europe are objects connected with the common good of them all. That gentleman is my third principle of foreign policy. My fourth principle is that you should avoid needless and entangling engagements. You may boast about them, you may brag about them. You may say you are procuring consideration for the country. You may say that an Englishman can now hold up his head among the nations. You may say that he is now not in the hands of a liberal ministry who thought of nothing but pounds, shillings, and pens. But what does all this come to, gentlemen? It comes to this, that you are increasing your engagements without increasing your strength. And if you increase engagements without increasing strength, you diminish strength, you abolish strength, you really reduce the empire and do not increase it. You render it less capable of performing its duties. You render it an inheritance less precious to hand on to future generations. My fifth principle is this, gentlemen, to acknowledge the equal rights of all nations. You may sympathize with one nation more than another. Nay, you must sympathize in certain circumstances with one nation more than another. You sympathize most with those nations as a rule with which you have the closest connection in language, in blood, and in religion, or whose circumstances at the time seem to give the strongest claim to sympathy. But in point of right all are equal and you have no right to set up a system under which one of them is to be placed under moral suspicion or espionage or to be made the constant subject of invective. If you do that, but especially if you claim for yourself a superiority, a philosophical superiority, or the whole of them, then I say you may talk about your patriotism if you please, but you are a misjudging friend of your country. And in undermining the basis of the esteem and respect of other people for your country, you are in reality inflicting the severest injury upon it. I have now given you, gentlemen, five principles of foreign policy. Let me give you a sixth and then I have done. And that sixth is that in my opinion, foreign policy, subject to all the limitations that I have described, the foreign policy of England should always be inspired by the love of freedom. There should be a sympathy with freedom, a desire to give it scope, founded not upon visionary ideas, but upon the long experience of many generations within the shores of this happy isle, that in freedom you lay the firmest foundations, both of loyalty and order, the firmest foundations for the development of individual character, and the best provision for the happiness of the nation at large. In the foreign policy of this country, the name of Canning ever will be honored, the name of Russell, footnote, Lord John Russell, afterward Earl Russell and footnote, ever will be honored. The name of Palmerston ever will be honored by those who recollect the erection of the kingdom of Belgium and the union of the disjoint provinces, Italy. It is that sympathy, not a sympathy with this order, but on the contrary, founded upon the deepest and most profound love of order. It is that sympathy which in my opinion, ought to be the very atmosphere in which a foreign secretary of England ought to live and to move. I make it one of my charges against the foreign policy Her Majesty's government, that while they have completely estranged from this country, let us not conceal the fact, the feelings of a nation of 80 millions, for that is the number of the subjects of the Russian Empire, while they have contrived completely to estrange the feelings of that nation, they have aggrandized the power of Russia. They have aggrandized the power of Russia in two ways, which I will state with perfect distinctness. They have augmented her territory before the European powers met at Berlin, footnote, to formulate into a treaty the results of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877, 1878, and footnote. Lord Salisbury met with Count Chevalov and Lord Salisbury agreed that, unless he could convince Russia by his arguments in the open Congress of Berlin, he would support the restoration to the despotic power of Russia of that country north of the Danube, which at the moment, constituted a portion of the Free State of Romania. Why gentlemen, what had been done by the liberal government, which forsooth attended to nothing but pound shillings and pens? The liberal government had driven Russia back from the Danube. Russia, which was a Danubian power before the Crimean War, lost this position on the Danube by the Crimean War. And the Tory government, which has been incensing and inflaming you against Russia, yet nevertheless, by binding itself beforehand to support when the judgment was taken, the restoration of that country to Russia has aggrandized the power of Russia. It further aggrandized the power of Russia in Armenia, but I would not dwell upon that matter if it were not for a very strange circumstance. You know that the Armenian province was given to Russia after the war, but about that I own to you I have very much less feeling of objection. I have objected from the first vehemently and in every form to the granting of territory on the Danube to Russia and carrying back the population of a certain country from a free state to a despotic state. But with regard to the transfer of a certain portion of the Armenian people from the government of Turkey to the government of Russia, I must own that I contemplate that transfer with much greater equanimity. I have no fear myself of the territorial extensions of Russia in Asia, no fear of them whatever. I think the fears are no better than old woman's fears. And I do not wish to encourage her aggressive tendencies in Asia or anywhere else. But I admit it may be and probably is the case that there is some benefit attending upon the transfer of a portion of Armenia from Turkey to Russia. With respect to Russia, I take two views of the position of Russia. The position of Russia in Central Asia, I believe to be one that has in the main been forced upon her against her will. She has been compelled, and this is the impartial opinion of the world. She has been compelled to extend her frontier southward in Central Asia by the causes in some degree analogous too, but certainly more stringent and imperative than the causes which have commonly led us to extend in a far more important manner, our frontier in India. And I think it gentlemen, much to the credit of the late government, much to the honor of Lord Clarendon and Lord Granville, that when we were in office, we made a covenant with Russia, in which Russia bound herself to exercise no influence or interference whatever in Afghanistan. We on the other hand, making known our desire that Afghanistan should continue free and independent. Both the powers acted with uniform strictness and fidelity on this engagement until the day when we were removed from office. But Russia gentlemen has another position, her position in respect to Turkey. And here it is, that I have complained of the government of aggrandizing the power of Russia. It is on this point that I most complain. Gentlemen, the prime minister, food note, Lord Beaconsfield, and the food note, speaking out, I do not question for a moment his own sincere opinion, has made what I think one of the most unhappy and ominous allusions ever made by a minister of this country. He quoted certain words, easily rendered as empire and liberty, words he said of a Roman statesman, words descriptive of the state of Rome. And he quoted them as words which were capable of legitimate application to the position and circumstances of England. I join issue with the prime minister upon that subject and I affirm that nothing can be more fundamentally unsound, more practically ruinous than the establishment of Roman analogies for the guidance of British policy. What gentlemen was Rome? Rome was indeed an imperial state, you may tell me. I know not, I cannot read the councils of Providence, a state having a mission to subdue the world, but a state whose very basis it was to deny the equal rights, to prescribe the independent existence to other nations. That gentlemen was the Roman idea. It has been partially and not ill described in three lines of a translation from Virgil by our great poet Dryden, which runs as follows. Of Rome, design alone was awful sway to rule mankind and make the world obey, disposing peace and war than own majestic way. We are told to fall back upon this example. No doubt the word empire was qualified with the word liberty, but what did the two words liberty and empire mean in a Roman mouth? They meant simply this, liberty for ourselves, empire or the rest of mankind. I do not think gentlemen that this ministry or any other ministry is going to place us in the position of Rome. What I object to is the revival of the idea. I care not how feebly, I care not even how, from a philosophic or historical point of view, how ridiculous the attempt at this revival may be. I say it indicates an intention. I say it indicates a frame of mind and the frame of mind, unfortunately I find, has been consistent with the policy of which I have given you some illustrations. The policy of denying to others the rights that we claim ourselves. No doubt gentlemen, Rome may have had its work to do and Rome did its work, but modern times have brought a different state of things. Modern times have established a sisterhood of nations, equal, independent, each of them built up under that legitimate defense, which public law affords to every nation, living within its own borders and seeking to perform its own affairs. But if one thing more than another has been detestable to Europe, it has been the appearance upon the stage from time to time of men who, even in the times of the Christian civilization, have been sought to aim at universal dominion. It was this aggressive disposition on the part of Louis XIV, King of France, that led your forefathers gentlemen freely to spend their blood and treasure in a cause not immediately their own and to struggle against the method of policy which, having Paris for its center, seemed to aim at a universal monarchy. It was the very same thing, a century and a half later, which was the charge launched, unjustly launched against Napoleon, that under his dominion, France was not content, even with her extended limits, but Germany and Italy and Spain, apparently without any limit to this pestilent and pernicious process, were to be brought under the dominion or influence of France, and national equality was to be trampled under food and national rights denied. For that reason, England in the struggle almost exhausted herself, greatly impoverished her people brought upon herself in Scotland too, the consequences of a debt that nearly crossed their energies and poured forth their best blood without limit in order to resist and put down these intolerable pretensions. Gentlemen, it is bought in a pale and weak and almost despicable miniature that such ideas are now set up, but you will observe that the poison lies, that the poison and the mischief lie in the principle and not the scale. It is the opposite principle which I say has been uncompromised by the action of the ministry and which I call upon you and upon any who choose to hear my views to vindicate when the day of our election comes. I mean the sound and the sacred principle that Christendom is formed of a band of nations who are united to one another in the bonds of right, that they are without distinction of great and small. There is an absolute equality between them. The same sacredness defends the narrow limits of Belgium as attaches to the extended frontiers of Russia or Germany or France. I hold that he, who by act or word brings that principle into peril or disparagement, however honest his intentions may be, places himself in the position of one inflicting, I will not say intending to inflict, I scribe nothing of the sort, but inflicting injury upon his own country and endangering the peace and all the most fundamental interests of Christian society. End of Section 5. Section 6 of the World's Famous Orations, Volume 5. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. This is a LibriVox recording by Tom Mack, Tucson, Arizona. The World's Famous Orations, Volume 5. His Plee at the Bar of the House by Charles Bradlaw, born in 1833, died in 1891, served in the Army 1850 through 53, elected to Parliament in 1880, but not allowed to take his seat and refused to take the parliamentary oath, several times reelected but not allowed to sit until 1886. Two years later moved and carried a bill permitting members to sit if they chose by affirming instead of taking the oath. Footnote, after he had made this speech, Bradlaw was ordered to leave the house and on refusing to do so was placed in custody. He was reelected in the same year, 1881, and formally ejected after entering and then refusing to leave the house. Similar scenes occurred in 1882 and 1883. From Bradlaw's The True Story of My Parliamentary Struggle, by Kind Permission. End footnote. I have again to ask the indulgence of the house while I submit to it a few words in favor of my claim to do that which the law requires me to do. I now say I would not go through any form much as I value the right to sit in this house, much as I desire and believe that this house will accord me that right, that I did not mean to be binding upon me without mental reservation, without equivocation. I would go through no form unless it were fully and completely and thoroughly binding upon me as to what it expressed or promised. Mine has been no easy position for the last 12 months. I have been elected by the free votes of a free constituency. My return is untainted. There is no charge of bribery, no charge of corruption, nor of inducing men to come drunken to the polling booth. I come here with a pure untainted return, not one by accident. For 13 long years I have fought for this right through five contested elections, including this footnote. His first attempt to enter parliament was made in 1868, end footnote. It is now proposed to prevent me from fulfilling the duty my constituents have forced upon me. You have force on my side is the law. The Honorable and Learned Member for Plymouth, Mr. and afterward, Sir Edward Clark, spoke the truth when he said he did not ask the house to treat the matter as a question of law, but the constituencies asked me to treat it as a question of law. I for them ask you to treat it as a question of law. I could understand the feeling that seems to have been manifested were I some great and powerful personage. I could understand it had a large influence behind me. I am only one of the people and you propose to teach them that on a mere technical question you will put a barrier in the way of my doing, my duty, which you have never put in the way of anybody else. The question is, has my return on the ninth day of April, 1881, anything, whatever, to impeach it? There is no legal disqualification involved. If there were, it could be raised by petition. The Honorable Member for Plymouth says the dignity of this house is in question. Do you mean that I can injure the dignity of this house? This house which has stood unrivaled for centuries? This house supreme among the assemblies of the world? This house which represents the traditions of liberty? I should not have libeled you. How is the dignity of this house to be hurt? If what happened before the ninth day of April is less than a legal disqualification, it is a matter for the judgment of the constituency and not for you. The constituency has judged me, it has elected me. I stand here with no legal disqualification upon me. The right of the constituency to return me is an unimpeachable right. I know some gentlemen make light of constituencies, yet without the constituencies you are nothing. It is from them you derive your whole and sole authority. The Honorable and Learned Member for Plymouth treats lightly the legal question. It is dangerous to make light of the law. Dangerous because if you are only going to rely on your strength of force to override the law, you give a bad lesson to men whose morality you impeach as to what should be their duty if emergency ever came. Always outside the house I have advocated strenuous obedience to the law, and it is under that law that I claim my right. I claim to do that which the law says I must. Frankly, I would rather have affirmed. When I came to the table of the house, I deemed I had the legal right to do it. The courts have decided against me, and I am bound to their decision. I have the legal right to do what I propose to do. No resolution of yours can take away that legal right. But the force you invoke against the law today may tomorrow be used against you, and the use will be justified by your example. It is a fact that I have no remedy if you rely on your force. I can only be driven into a contest wearying even to a strong man well supported, ruinous and killing to one man standing by himself. A contest in which if I succeed, it will be injurious to you as well as to me. Injurious to me because I can only win by listening your repute, which I desire to maintain. The only court I have the power of appealing to is the court of public opinion, which I have no doubt in the end will do me justice. The honorable member for Plymouth said I had the manliness on a former occasion to make an avowal of opinions to this house. I did nothing of the kind. I have never directly or indirectly said one word about my opinions, and this house has no right to inquire what opinions I may hold outside its walls. The only right is that which the statute gives you. My opinions there is no right to inquire into. I shelter myself under the laws of my country. This is a political assembly meant to decide on the policy of the nation and not on the religious opinions of the citizens. While I had the honor of occupying a seat in the house when questions were raised which touched upon religious matters, I abstained from uttering one word. I did not desire to say one word, which might have hurt the feelings of even the most tender. But it is said, why not have taken the oath quietly? I did not take it then because I thought I had the right to do something else, and I have paid the penalty. I have been plunged in litigation fostered by men who had not the courage to put themselves forward. I, a penniless man, should have been ruined if it had not been for the men in the workshop, pit and factory, enabled me to fight this battle. And in eruption, I am sorry that the honorable members cannot have patience with one pleading as I plead here. It is no light task, even if you put it on the lowest personal grounds to risk the ambition of a life on such an issue. It is a right ambition to desire to take part in the councils of the nation if you bring no store of wisdom with you and can only learn from the great intellects that we have. What will you inquire into? The right honorable baronet would inquire into my opinions. Will you inquire into my conduct, or is it only my opinions you will try here? The honorable member for Plymouth frankly puts it opinions. If opinions, why not conduct? Why not examine into members conduct when they come to the table and see if there is no members in whose way you can put a barrier? Are members whose conduct may be obnoxious to vote my exclusion because to them my opinions are obnoxious? As to any obnoxious views supposed held by me, there is no duty imposed upon me to say a word. The right honorable baronet has said there has been no word of recantation. You have no right to ask me for any recantation. Since the 9th of April, you have no right to ask me for anything. If you have a legal disqualification petition, lay it before the judges. When you ask me to make a statement, you are guilty of impertinence to me, of treason to the traditions of this house and of impeachment of the liberties of the people. My difficulty is that those who have made the most better attacks upon me only made them when I was not here to deal with them. I have fought by myself. I have fought by my own hand. I have been hindered in every way that it was possible to hinder me and it is only by the help of the people, by the pence of the toilers in the mine and factory that I am here today after these five struggles right through 13 years. I have won my way with them, for I have won their hearts, and now I come to you. Will you send me back from here? Then how? You have the right, but it is the right of force and not of law. When I am once seated on these benches, then I am under your jurisdiction. At present I am under the protection of the writ from those who sent me here. I do not want to quote what has happened before, but if there be one lesson in which the house has recorded more solemnly than another, it is that there should be no interference with the judgment of a constituency in sending a man to this house, against whom there is no statutory disqualification. Let me appeal to the generosity of the house as well as to its strength. It has the traditions of liberty on both sides. I do not complain that members on that, the conservative, try to keep me out. They act according to their lights and think my poor services may be injurious to them. Cries of no. Then why not let me in? It must be either a political or a religious question. I must apologize to the house for trespassing upon its patients. I apologize because I know how generous in its listening it has been from the time of my first speech in it till now. But I ask you now, do not plunge with me into a struggle I would shun. The law gives me no remedy if the house decides against me. Do not mock at constituencies. If you place yourselves above the law, you leave me no course save lawless agitation instead of reasonable pleading. It is easy to begin such a strife, but none knows how it would end. I have no court, no tribunal to appeal to. You have the strength of your votes at the moment. You think I am an obnoxious man and that I have no one on my side. If that be so, then the more reason that this house grand in the strength of its centuries of liberty should now have that generosity in dealing with one who tomorrow may be forced into a struggle for public opinion against it. End of section six, recording by Tom Mack. Section seven of the world famous orations, volume five. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by W.L. Pritchard, Louisville, Kentucky. The world famous orations, volume five. Churchill, his trust the people speech. Footnote number one, from a speech delivered at Birmingham on April 16th, 1884, in aid of the formation of working men's clubs to support the conservative organization. These clubs have since become quite general in England by kind permission of the right honorable Winston Churchill, the London Times and Mr. Longmans Green and Company. Born in 1849, died in 1895, entered parliament in 1874, secretary for India in 1885, chancellor of the Exchequer in 1886. What is the great and wide difference which distinguishes the two great political parties who endeavor to attract the support of the English people? It has been well and wisely said, but I do not think it can be too often repeated that the Tory party cling with veneration and affection to the institutions of our country. The radicals regard them with aversion and distrust and will always give multitudinous and specious reasons for their destruction. But can we the Tory party give no good convincing reasons to the people for the faith which is in us? We do not defend the constitution from mere sentiment from the past or from any infatuated superstition about divine right or hereditary excellence. We defend the constitution solely on the ground of its utility to the people. It is on the ground of utility alone that we go forth to meet our foes. And if we fail to make good our ground with utilitarian arguments and for utilitarian ends, then let the present combination of thrones, lords and commons be forever swept away. An hereditary throne is the surest device which has ever been imagined or invented for the perpetuation of civil order and for that first necessity of civilized society, continuity of government. And he would be a bold man in argument who would assert that the hereditary character of the British throne is a vice or even a defect. When we remember that the English monarchy has endured for upwards of a thousand years, what device of the wisest philosopher or the most accurate mathematician could have discovered a monarch more perfect for all the purposes of a monarchy than the one whom an hereditary descent of a thousand years has provided for us. To those, and there are, I believe, many in this town who glibly tell you that the monarchy is too expensive and is not worth the price. To them, I reply that it would be impossible to devise a form of government as effectual and yet cheaper and more simple. And that if, in an evil hour, you were to listen to those silly tattlers, the sums of money that you would ultimately have to pay for police and military in times of administrative elong, the fluctuations of credit, the displacement of capital, the loss of the interests of industry and labor, which constant and inevitable administrative changes would produce, and the destruction to property which, in the absence of any recognized center of authority, those administrative changes would, at times, occasion instead of being counted by the few hundred thousands, which are the cost price of an hereditary throne, would be counted by millions and millions. So much for the first estate of the realm which the radical party gloomily threatened and darkly scowled at. It is as well to remind ourselves from time to time of its history, its nature, and its use. The more immediate object of the radical desistation is the house of lords in which they pretend to discover all of the most exerable forms of class prejudice and privilege. I have no doubt that much of the enthusiasm with which the radical party clamor for the reform bill is due to the hope which they entertain that the passage of that bill may possibly provoke a conflict between the lords and the commons in which the lords must forever go down. I am not concerned, nor need you be concerned, to defend all the actions of the house of lords in modern times. But I could, if I liked, point to many bright instances of statesmanship and liberality on their part. The house of lords makes mistakes at times. I have no doubt. But even in this respect they will compare very favorably with Mr. Gladstone's government or even with the radical party. I maintain that the house of lords should be preserved solely on the ground of its utility to the people. I do not put forward as an argument for its preservation its long history in order to show you that it possesses great merit as an institution. I do not argue, as some do, that it has acquired stability from the circumstance that by its composition it is rooted in the soil. I content myself with the fact of its existence at the present moment, and I find in it not only a powerful check on popular impulses arising from imperfect information, not only an aggregation of political wisdom and experience, such as no other country can produce, but above all, because I find in it literally the only effectual barrier against the most fatal foe to freedom, the one man power. That power which has more than once prostrated and enslaved the liberties of France, and which constantly gives anxiety to the citizens of the United States. From a national and imperial point of view, you need never be alarmed at the dangers of one man power so long as the house of lords endures. Be he minister, be he capitalist, be he demagogue, be he Mr. Gladstone, or Mr. Chamberlain, or even Mr. Schnanhorst. Against that bulwark of popular liberty and civil order he will dash himself in vain. The house of lords may perhaps move slowly. They may perhaps be over cautious about accepting the merits of the legislation of the House of Commons. They may perhaps at times regard with some exaggeration of sentiment the extreme rights of property. That is the price you have to pay, and a small price it is for so valuable a possession which guards you against so great a danger. There are essentially of the people. Year by year they are recruited from the people. Every privilege, every franchise, every liberty which is gained by the people is treasured up and guarded by those who animated by tradition and custom, by long descent and lofty name. Fear neither monarchs nor ministers nor men, but only the people whose trustees they are. It is recorded of the Sultan Saladin that he always had a shroud carried before him in state procession to remind him of the perils and the destiny of monarchs. In like manner I would advise the English people when speculating or deciding political questions to bear always before their minds this great constitutional fabric of the house of lords and to be continually questioning and inquiring the reasons for its existence and preservation in order that they may be perpetually reminded of the dangers to which democracies are prone. I cannot pass from the subject of the house of lords without alluding to the other bugbear of the radical party, the church of England and its connection with the state. This question will more or less be directly before you at the next election. Again, I adhere to my utilitarian line of defense and I would urge upon you not to lend yourselves too hastily to any project for the demolition of the established church. But I would also in dealing with this question mingle a little of the wine of sentiment with the cold, clear spring water of utilitarianism. I see in the church of England an immense and omnipresent ramification of machinery working without cost to the people and daily and hourly lifting the masses of the people, rich and poor alike from the dead and dreary level of the lowest and the most material cares of life, up to the comfortable contemplation of higher and serener forms of existence and of destiny. I see in the church of England a center and a source and a guide of charitable effort mitigating by its mendicant importunity the violence of human misery, whether mental or physical and contributing to the work of alleviation from its own, not superfluous resources. I urge upon you not to throw that source of charity upon the haphazard almsgiving of a busy and a selfish world. I view the church of England eagerly cooperating in the work of national education, not only benefiting your children, but saving your pockets. And I remember that it has been the work of the church to pour forth floods of knowledge, purely secular and scientific, even from the days when knowledge was not. And I warn you against hindering the diffusion of knowledge inspired by religion among those who will have devolved upon them the responsibility for the government of this wide empire. But I own that my chief reason for supporting the church of England I find in the fact that when compared with other creeds and other sects, it is essentially the church of religious liberty. Whether in one direction or another, it is continually possessed by the ambition not of excluding, but of including all shades of religious thought, all sorts of conditions of men and standing out like a lighthouse over a stormy ocean. It marks the entrance to a port where the millions and the masses of those who are weary at times with the woes of the world and troubled often by the trials of existence may search for and may find that peace which passeth all understanding. I cannot and will not allow myself to believe that the English people who are not only naturally religious but also imminently practical will ever consent for the petty purpose of gratifying sectarian animosity or for the wretched object of pandering to infidel proclivities will ever consent to deprive themselves of so abundant a fountain of aid and consolation or acquiesce in the demolition of an institution which elevates the life of a nation and consecrates the acts of the state. Last but not least, no rather first in the schemes of Tory politics comes the Commons of England with their marvelous history, their ancient descent combining the blood of many nations, their unequal liberties and I believe their splendid future. The social progress of the Commons by means of legislative reform under the lines and carried under the protection of institutions whose utility I have endeavored to describe to you. That must be the policy of the Tory party. Their industries must be stimulated and protected by lightening the taxation and by a large redistribution of the incidents of taxation. Their efforts to emancipate their brethren from the vices of an undeveloped civilization such as in temperance, crime and a weak standard of morality must be provoked, encouraged and facilitated. No class interest should be allowed to stand in the way of this mighty movement. And with this movement, the Tory party not only sympathize but identify themselves. Social reform producing direct and immediate benefit to the Commons, that must be our cry as opposed to the radicals who foolishly scream for organic change and waste their energies and their time in attacking institutions whose destruction would not only endanger popular freedom but would leave the social condition of the people precisely where it was before. Apply this test to every legislative proposal, to every political movement, to every combination of circumstances and phenomena and you will know what course to take and what line of action to adopt. I was much struck the other day in the House of Commons by the sentence which fell from the Prime Minister when leaning over the table and addressing directly the Tory party. He said to them, trust the people. I have long tried to make that my motto but I know and will not conceal that there are still a few in our party who have that lesson yet to learn and who have yet to understand that the Tory party of today is no longer identified with that small and narrow class which is connected with the ownership of land but that its great strength can be found and must be developed in our large towns as well as in our country districts. Yes, trust the people. You who are ambitious and rightly ambitious of being the guardians of the British constitution, trust the people and they will trust you and they will follow you and join you in the defense of that constitution against any and every foe. I have no fear of democracy. I do not fear for minorities. I do not care for those checks and securities which Mr. Goshen seems to think of such importance. Modern checks and securities are not worth a brass farthing. Give me a fair arrangement of the constituencies and one part of England will correct and balance the other. I do not think that electoral reform is a matter of national emergency. I should have been glad to see Parliament to vote. It's attention and time to other matters such as finance, local taxation, commerce, Ireland and Egypt. But I think that electoral reform is a matter of ministerial urgency, of party urgency, and that it is being treated as a question of party tactics for the purpose of uniting and stimulating the shattered liberal majority. And it was for these reasons that I voted against the reform bill. But you may be sure that the English constitution will endure and thrive whether you add two millions of electors or 200 to the electoral roll. So long as the Tory party are true to their past, mindful of their history, faithful to the policy which was bequeathed to them by Lord Beaconsfield, the future of the constitution, the destinies of the empire are in the hands of the Tory party. And if only the leaders of the party in Parliament will have the courage of their convictions, grasp their responsibilities and adapt their policy to these responsibilities. And if they are supported and stimulated by you who are here tonight and by others like you in our large towns, that future and those destinies are great and assured. To rally the people around the throne, to unite the throne with the people, a loyal throne and a patriotic people that is our policy and that is our faith. End of section seven, recording by W. Al Pritchard, Louisville, Kentucky. Section eight of the world's famous orations, volume five. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by Jeffrey Wilson, Ames, Iowa. The world's famous orations, volume five. On the Desertion of Gordon in Egypt by Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoin Cecil, the third Marcus of Salisbury. Salisbury, born in 1830, died in 1903. Succeeded to the title of Marquis in 1868. Graduated from Oxford in 1850. Entered Parliament in 1854. Secretary for India in 1866. Chancellor of the University of Oxford in 1869. Secretary for India in 1874. Foreign Secretary in 1878. At the Congress of Berlin in 1878. Prime Minister during four terms. 1885, 1886, 1895, 1900. On the Desertion of Gordon in Egypt. Footnote, delivered in the House of Lords, July 26th, 1885. In support of a motion of censure on the Gladstone government. Abridged by kind permission of the London Times and Mr. Dent and Company London. End of footnote. The motion which I have the honor to lay before your Lordships has a double aspect. It passes judgment on the past and expresses an opinion with regard to the policy of the future. Some people receive with considerable impatience the idea that at the present crisis of our country's destiny we should examine into the past and spend our time in judging the future. And spend our time in judging of that which cannot be recalled. But I think that such objections are unreasonable. We depend in one of the greatest crises through which our country has ever passed on the wisdom and decision of those who guide our councils. And we can only judge of what dependence is rightly to be placed by examining their conduct in the past and seeing whether what they have done justifies us in continuing that confidence in the difficulties which are to come. Now, whatever else may be said of the conduct of Her Majesty's government, I think those who examine it carefully will find that it follows a certain rule and system and that in that sense, if in no other, it is consistent. Their conduct at the beginning of the Egyptian affair has been analogous to their conduct at the end. Throughout, there has been an unwillingness to come to any requisite decision till the last moment. There has been an absolute terror of fixing upon any settled course. And the result has been that when the time came that external pressure forced a decision on some definite course, the moment for satisfactory action had already passed and the measures that were taken were taken in haste with little preparation and often with little fitness for the emergencies with which they had to cope. The conduct of the government has been an alternation of periods of slumber and periods of rush. The rush, however vehement, has been too unprepared and too unintelligent to repair the damage which the period of slumber has affected. Now, my lords, these three things, the case of the bombardment of Alexandria, the abandonment of the Sudan and the mission of General Graham's force. They are all on the same plan and they all show that remarkable characteristic of torpor during the time that action was needed and of impulsive, hasty and ill-considered action when the moment for action had passed by. Their future conduct was modeled on their conduct in the past. So far was it modeled that we were able to put it to the test which establishes a scientific law. The proof of scientific law is when you can prophesy from previous experience what will happen in the future. It is exactly what took place in the present instance. We had these three instances of the mode of working of Her Majesty's government before us. We knew the laws that guided their action as astronomers observing the motions of a comet can discover by their observations the future path which that comet is to travel and we prophesied what would happen in the case of General Gordon. Footnote, Gordon was besieged at Khartoum on March 12th, 1884 and was killed at the storming of the city on January 26th, 1885. That is, six months previous to the date of the speech. End of footnote. At all events, this is clear that throughout those six months, the government knew perfectly well the danger in which General Gordon was placed. It has been said that General Gordon did not ask for troops. Well, I am surprised at that defense. One of the characteristics of General Gordon was the extreme abnegation of his nature. It was not to be expected that he should send home a telegram to say, I am in great danger, therefore send me troops. He would probably have cut off his right hand before he would have sent such a telegram. But he did send a telegram that the people of Khartoum were in danger and that the Maudi must win unless military sucker was sent forward and distinctly telling the government, and this is the main point, that unless they would consent to his views, the supremacy of the Maudi was assured. My lords, is it conceivable that after that, two months after that, in May, the prime minister should have said that the government was waiting to have reasonable proof that Gordon was in danger? By that time, Khartoum was surrounded and the governor of Berber had announced that his case was desperate, which was too surely proved by the massacre which took place in June. And yet in May, Mr. Gladstone was waiting for reasonable proof that they were in danger. Apparently, he did not get that proof till August. A general sent forward on a dangerous expedition does not like to go whining for assistance unless he is pressed by absolute peril. All those great qualities which go to make men heroes are such as are absolutely incompatible with such a course and lead them to shrink as from a great disgrace from any unnecessary appeal for exertion for their protection. It was the business of the government not to interpret General Gordon's telegrams as if they had been statutory declarations but to judge for themselves of the circumstances of the case and to see that those who were surrounded, who were the only three Englishmen among this vast body of Mohammedans, who were already cut off from all communication with the civilized world by the occupation of every important town upon the river, were in real danger. I do not know any other instance in which a man has been sent to maintain such a position without a certain number of British troops. If the British troops had been there, treachery would have been impossible but sending Gordon by himself to rely on the fidelity of Africans and Egyptians was an act of extreme rashness. And if the government succeed in proving, which I do not think they can, that treachery was inevitable, they only pile up an additional reason for their condemnation. I confess it is very difficult to separate this question from the personal matters involved. It is very difficult to argue it on purely abstract grounds without turning for a moment to the character of the man who was engaged and the terrible position in which he was placed. When we consider all he underwent, all that he sacrificed in order to serve the government in a moment of extreme exigency, there is something infinitely pathetic in reflecting on his feelings as day after day, week after week, month after month passed by, as he spared no exertions, no personal sacrifice to perform the duties that were placed upon him, as he lengthened out the siege by inconceivable prodigies of ingenuity, of activity, of resource, and as in spite of it all, in spite of the deep devotion to his country which had prompted him to this great risk and undertaking the conviction gradually grew upon him that his country had abandoned him. It is terrible to think what he must have suffered when at last, as a desperate measure to save those he loved, he parted with the only two Englishmen with whom during those long months he had any converse and sent steward and power down the river to escape from the fate which had become inevitable to himself. It is very painful to think of the reproaches to his country and to his country's government that must have passed through the mind of that devoted man during those months of unmerited desertion. In Gordon's letter of the 14th of December, he said, all is up. I expect a catastrophe in 10 days' time. It would not have been so if our people had kept me better informed as to their intentions. They had no intentions to inform him of. They were merely acting from hand to mouth to avert the parliamentary censure with which they were threatened. They had no plan. They had no intentions to carry out. If they could have known their intentions, a great hero would have been saved to the British army, a great disgrace would not have fallen on the English government. Now, by the light of this sad history, what are the prospects for the future? Was there ever a time when clearness of plan and distinctness of policy were more required than they are now? I am not going to say that the policy of the government is bad. It would be paying them an extravagant compliment if I said so. They have no policy. On one point only do they put down their foot and that is the Egyptians shall not keep the Sudan. We were told that they were going to smash the Madi but now we are to make peace with the smashed Madi. If you smash the Madi thoroughly, he will be of no use to you and if you do not smash him thoroughly, he may maintain at the bottom of his heart a certain resentment against the process of being smashed. Now let us examine what are the interests of England in this matter? With Mediterranean politics as such, we have no great interest to concern ourselves but Egypt stands in a peculiar position. It is the road to India. The condition of Egypt can never be indifferent to us and more than that, we have a duty to insist that our influence shall be predominant there. I do not care by what technical arrangements that result is to be obtained but with all due regard to the rights of the Souserain, the influence of England in Egypt must be supreme. Now the influence of England in Egypt is threatened from two sides. It is threatened from the North diplomatically. I do not think it is necessary that the powers should have taken up the position they have done and I believe that with decent steering, it might have been avoided. But unfortunately, we have to face incoate schemes which will demand the utmost jealousy and vigilance of parliament. I do not know what arrangement the government has arrived at but I greatly fear that it may include a multiple control and to that, I believe this country will be persistently and resolutely hostile. But we have to face a danger of another kind. We have forces of fanatical barbarians let loose upon the South of Egypt and owing to the blunders that have been committed, this danger has reached a terrible height. Unless we intend to give over Egypt to barbarism and anarchy, we must contrive to check this inroad of barbarian fanaticism which is personified in the character and action of the Madi. General Gordon never said a truer thing than that you will do this by simply drawing a military line. If the insurgent Mohammedans reach the north of Egypt, it will not be so much by their military force as by the moral power of their example. We have therefore to check this advance of the Madi's power. Her Majesty's government in the glimpses of policy which they occasionally afford us have alluded to the possibility of setting up a good government in the Sudan. I quite agree that a good government is essential to us in the Sudan. It is the only dyke we can really erect to keep out this inundation of barbarism and fanatical forces. All those advantages can be obtained if England will lay down a definite policy and will adhere to it, but consistency of policy is absolutely necessary. We have to assure our friends that we shall stand by them. We have to assure our enemies that we are permanently to be feared. The blunders of the last three years have placed us in the presence of terrible problems and difficulties. We have great sacrifices to make. This railway will be an enormous benefit to Africa, but do not let us conceal from ourselves that it is a task of no small magnitude. If you are to carry this railway forward, you will not only have to smash the muddy, but Osmondigna also. All this will involve great sacrifices and the expenditure not only of much money, but of more of the English blood of which the noblest has already been poured forth. And we are not so strong as we were. At first, all nations sympathized with us, but now they look on us coldly and even with hostility. Those who were our friends have become indifferent. Those who were indifferent have become our adversaries. And if our misfortunes and disasters go on much longer, we shall have Europe saying that they cannot trust us, that we are too weak, that our prestige is too low to justify us in undertaking this task. My Lords, those great dangers can only be faced by a consistent policy, which can only be conducted by a ministry capable of unity of counsel and decision of purpose. I have shown you that from this ministry, we can expect no such results. They can only produce after their kind. They will only do what they have already done. You cannot look for unity of counsel from an administration that is hopelessly divided. You cannot expect a resolute policy from those whose purpose is hopelessly halting. It is for this reason, my Lords, that I ask you to record your opinion that from a ministry in whom the first of all, the quality of decision of purpose is wanting, you can hope no good in this crisis of our country's fate. And if you continue to trust them, if for any party reasons, Parliament continues to abandon to their care the affairs which they have hitherto so hopelessly mismanaged, you must expect to go on from bad to worse. You must expect to lose the little prestige which you retain. You must expect to find in other portions of the world the results of the lower consideration that you occupy in the eyes of mankind. You must expect to be drawn on, degree by degree, step by step, under the cover of plausible excuses, under the cover of highly philanthropic sentiments, to irreparable disasters, and to disgrace that it will be impossible to efface. End of section eight. Recording by Jeffrey Wilson, Ames, Iowa. Section nine of the World Famous Orations, volume five. This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibriVox.org. Recording by W. Al Pritchard, Louisville, Kentucky. The World Famous Orations, volume five. Men Made Rich by the Poverty of Christ, by Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Spurgeon, Men Made Rich by the Poverty of Christ. Footnote number one. From a sermon sometimes known under the title of The Condescension of Christ. Born in 1834, died in 1892, pastor of a church near Cambridge in 1851, pastor in London in 1853, removed to the new tabernacle in 1864, founder of a pastor's college, as well as of schools, almshouses, and an orphan asylum. Think not that our savior began to live when he was born of the Virgin Mary. Imagine not that he dates his existence from the manger at Bethlehem. Remember, he is eternal. He is before all things and by him all things consist. There was never a time in which there was not God, and just so there was never a period in which there was not Christ Jesus our Lord. He is self-existent, has no beginning of days, neither end of years. He is the immortal, invisible, the only wise God, our savior. Now in the past eternity, which had elapsed before his mission to this world, we are told that Jesus Christ was rich, and to those of us who believe his glories and trust in his divinity, it is not hard to see how he was so. Jesus was rich in possessions. Lift up thine eye-believer, and for a moment review the riches of my Lord Jesus, before he condescended to become poor for thee, behold him sitting upon his throne and declaring his own all sufficiency. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee for the cattle on a thousand hills are mine. Mine are the hidden treasures of gold. Mine are the pearls that the diver cannot reach. Mine every precious thing that earth has seen, but he had besides that which makes men richer still. We have heard of kings in olden times who were fabulously rich, and when their riches were summed, we read in their old romances, and this man was possessed of the philosopher's stone, whereby he turned all things into gold. Surely all the treasures that he had before were as nothing compared with this precious stone that brought up the rear. Now whatever might be the wealth of Christ in things created, he had the power of creation, and therein lay his boundless wealth. If he had been pleased, he could have spoken worlds into existence. He had but to lift his finger, and a new universe as boundless as the present would have leapt into existence. At the will of his mind, millions of angels would have stood before him. Legions of bright spirits would have flashed into being. He spake, and it was done. He commanded, and it stood fast. He who said, light be, and light was, had power to say all things be, and they should be. Herein lay his riches. This creating power was one of the brightest jewels of his crown. We call men rich too, who have honor, and though men have never so much wealth, yet if they be in disgrace and shame, they must not reckon themselves among the rich. But our Lord Jesus had honor, honor such as none but a divine being could receive. When he sat upon his throne, before he relinquished the glorious mantle of his sovereignty to become a man, all earth was filled with his glory. He could look both beneath and all around him, and the inscription, glory be unto God, was written all over space. Day and night, the smoking incense of praise, ascended before him from golden vials, held by spirits who bowed in reverence. The harps of myriads of cherubim and seraphim continually thrilled with his praise, and the voices of all those mighty hosts were ever eloquent in adoration. It may be that on set days, the princes from the far off realms, the kings, the mighty ones of his boundless realms, came to the court of Christ and brought each his annual revenue. Oh, who can tell, but that in the vast eternity at certain grand eras, the great bell was rung, and all the mighty hosts that were created gathered together in solemn review before his throne. Who can tell the mighty holiday that was kept in the court of heaven when these bright spirits bowed before his throne in joy and gladness, and all united raised their voices in shouts and hallelujahs such as mortal ear has never heard. Oh, can you tell the depths of the rivers of the praise that flowed hard by the city of God? Can you imagine to yourselves the sweetness of that harmony that perpetually poured into the ear of Jesus, Messiah, King, Eternal, equal with God his Father? No, at the thought of the glory of his kingdom and the riches and majesty of his power, our souls are spent within us, our words fail, we cannot utter the tithe of his glories. Nor was he poor in any other sense. He that hath wealth on earth and honor too is poor if he hath not love. I would rather be the pauper depended upon charity and have love than I would be the prince despised and hated whose death is looked for as a boon. Without love, man is poor. Give him all the diamonds and pearls and gold that mortal hath conceived. But Jesus was not poor in love. When he came to earth, he did not come to get our love because his soul was solitary. Oh no, his Father hath of full delight in him from all eternity. The heart of Jehovah, the first person of the sacred Trinity was divinely, immutably linked to him. He was beloved of the Father and of the Holy Spirit. The three persons took a sacred complacency and delight in each other. And besides that, how was he loved by those bright spirits who had not fallen? I cannot tell what countless orders and creatures there are created who still stand fast in obedience to God. It is not possible for us to know whether there are or not as many races of created beings as we know there are created men on earth. We cannot tell, but that in the boundless regions of space there are worlds inhabited by beings infinitely superior to us. But certain it is, there were the holy angels and they loved our Savior. They stood day and night with wings outstretched, waiting for his commands, hearkening to the voice of his word. And when he bathed them, fly, there was love in their countenance and joy in their hearts. They loved to serve him and it is not all fiction that when there was war in heaven and when God cast out the devil and his legions, then the elect angels showed their love to him, being valiant in fight and strong in power. He wanted not our love to make him happy, he was rich enough in love without us. What, was it true that he whose crown was all bedight with stars would lay that crown aside? What, was it certain that he about whose shoulders was cast the purple of the universe would become a man dressed in a peasant's garment? Could it be true that he who was everlasting and immortal would one day be nailed to a cross? Oh, how their wonderment increased. They desired to look into it and when he descended from on high, they followed him, for Jesus was seen of angels and seen in a special sense for they looked upon him in rapturous amazement, wondering what it all could mean. He, for our sakes, became poor. And now wonder ye angels, the infinite has become an infant. He upon whose shoulders the universe does hang, hangs at his mother's breast. He who created all things and bears up the pillars of creation have now become so weak that he must be carried by a woman. And oh wonder ye that knew him and his riches while ye admire his poverty. Where sleeps the newborn king? Had he the best room in Caesar's palace? Have a cradle of gold been prepared for him and pillows of down on which to rest his head? No, where the ox fed in the dilapidated stable, in the manger there the savior lies, swathed in the swaddling bands of the children of poverty. Nor there doth he rest long. On a sudden mother must carry him to Egypt. He goeth there and becomeeth a stranger in a strange land. When he comes back, see him that made the worlds, handle the hammer and the nails, assisting his father in the trade of a carpenter. Never was there a poorer man than Christ. He was the prince of poverty. He was the reverse of croise. He might be on top of the hills of riches. Christ stood in the lowest veil of poverty. Look at his dress. It is woven from the top throughout the garment of the poor. As for his food, he oftentimes did hunger and always was dependent upon the charity of others for the relief of his wants. He who scattered the harvest or the broad acres of the world had not sometimes wherewithal to stay the pangs of hunger. He who digged the springs of the ocean sat upon a well and said to a Samaritan woman, give me to drink. He rode in no chariot. He walked his weary way, foot sore, or the flints of Galilee. He had not where to lay his head. He looked upon the fox as it hurried to its burrow and the fowl as it went to its resting place. And he said, foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests. But I, the son of man, have not where to lay my head. He who had once been weighted on by angels becomes the servant of servants, takes a towel, girds himself and washes his disciples feet. He who was once honored with the hallelujahs of ages is now spit upon and despised. He who was loved by his father and had abundance of wealth of affection could say, he that Edith bred with me hath lifted up his heel against me. Follow him along his via Dolorosa until at last you meet him among the olives of Gethsemane. See him sweating great drops of blood. Follow him to the pavement of Gabatha. See him pouring out rivers of gore beneath the cruel whips of Roman soldiers. With weeping eye, follow him to the cross of Calvary. See him nailed there, mark his poverty, so poor that they have stripped him naked from head to foot and exposed him to the face of the sun. So poor that when he asked them for water they gave him vinegar to drink. So poor that his unpillowed head is girt with thorns in death. Methinks when he was tempted of the devil in the wilderness it must have been hard in him to have restrained himself from dashing the devil into pieces. If I had been the son of God, Methinks, feeling as I do now, if that devil had tempted me I should have dashed him into the nethermost hell in the twinkling of an eye and then conceived the patience of our Lord must have had standing on the pinnacle of the temple when the devil said, fall down and worship me. He would not touch him, the vile deceiver, but let him do what he pleased. Oh, what might of misery and love there must have been in the Saviour's heart when he was spit upon by the men he had created when the eye he himself had filled with vision looked on him with scorn and when the tongues to which he himself had given utterance hissed and blasphemed him. The reason why Christ died was that we through his poverty might be rich. He became poor from his riches that our poverty might become rich out of his poverty. Brethren, we have now a joyful theme before us. Those who are partakers of the Lord's blood are rich. All those for whom the Saviour died, having believed in his name and given themselves to him are this day rich. And yet I have some of you here who cannot call a foot of land your own. You have nothing to call your own today. You know not how you will be supported through another week. You are poor and yet if you be a child of God I do know that Christ's end is answered in you. You are rich. No, I did not mock you when I said you were rich. I did not taunt you. You are. You are really rich. You are rich in his possessions. You have in your possession now things more costly than gems, more valuable than gold and silver. Ah, Egypt. Thou worked rich when thy granaries were full but the granaries might be emptied. Israel was far richer when they could not see their granaries but only saw the man I dropped from heaven day by day. Now, Christian, that is thy portion, the portion of the fountain always flowing and not of the cistern full and soon to be emptied. But remember, O saint, that thy wealth does not all lie in thy possession just now. Remember, thou art rich in promises. Let a man be never so poor as the metal that he hath. Let him have in his possession promissory notes from rich and true men and he says, I have no gold in my purse. But here is a note for such and such a sum. I know the signature. I can trust the firm. I am rich, though I have no metal in hand. And now, Christian, in heaven there is a crown of gold which is thine today. It will be no more thine when thou hast it on thy head than it is now. I remember to have heard it reported that I once spoke in metaphor and bade Christians look at all the crowns hanging in rows in heaven. Very likely I did say it. But if not, I will say it now. Up, Christian, see the crowns already and mark thine own, stand thou and wonder at it, see with what pearls it is bedight and how heavy it is with gold. And that it is for thy head, thy poor aching head, thy poor tortured brain shall yet have that crown for its arraying. And see that garment, it is stiff with gems and white like snow, and that it is for thee. When thy weekday garment shall be done with, this shall be the raiment of thy everlasting Sabbath. When thou hast worn out this poor body, there remaineth for thee a house not made with hands eternal in the heavens. Up to the summit, Christian, and survey thine inheritance. And when thou hast surveyed it all, when thou hast seen thy present possessions, thy promised possessions, thine entailed possessions, then remember that all these were bought by the poverty of thy Savior. Look thou upon all thy hast and say Christ brought them for me. Look thou on every promise and see the bloodstains on it. Yea, look too on the harps and crowns of heaven and read the bloody purchase. Remember, thou couldst never have been anything but a damned sinner unless Christ had bought thee. Remember, if he had remained in heaven, thou wouldst forever have remained in hell. Unless he had shrouded and eclipsed his own honor, thou wouldst never have had a ray of light to shine upon thee. Therefore, bless his dear name, extol him, trace every stream to the fountain and bless him who is the source and the fountain of everything thou hast. Brethren, ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich. Remember, Christ came to make those rich that have nothing of their own. My Savior is a physician. If you can heal yourself, he will have nothing to do with you. Remember, my Savior came to clothe the naked. He will clothe you if you have not a rag of your own, but unless you let him do it from head to foot, he will have nothing to do with you. Christ says he will never have a partner. He will do all or none. Come then, hast thou given up all to Christ? Hast thou no reliance and trust save in the cross of Jesus? Then thou hast answered the question well. Be happy, be joyous. If death should surprise thee the next hour, thou art secure. Go on thy way and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. Remember, Christ will not reject thee. Thou mayest reject him. Remember now, there is the cup of mercy put to thy lip by the hand of Jesus. I know if thou feelest thy need, Satan may tempt thee not to drink, but he will not prevail. Thou wilt put thy lip feebly and faintly, perhaps to it. But oh, do but sip it, and the first draught shall give thee bliss, and the deeper thou shalt drink, the more heaven thou shalt know. Sinner, believe on Jesus Christ. Hear the whole gospel preach to thee. It is written in God's word. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Hear me translate it. He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved. Believe thou, trust thyself on the Savior. Make a profession of thy faith in baptism, and then thou mayest rejoice in Jesus. That he hath saved thee. But remember not to make a profession till thou hast believed. Remember, baptism is nothing until thou hast faith. Remember it is a farce and a falsehood until thou hast first believed, and afterward it is nothing but the profession of thy faith. End of section 9, recording by W. L. Prichard Louisville, Kentucky.