TIIE DEFEAT OF THE MANCHESTER TARTY.
Manchester, 31st March 1857.
What is the moral of the general election ? Old politicians confess themselves at fault in looking over the returns, and a score of different opinions are uttered by as many individuals when they come to compare notes regarding the probable complexion of the new Parliament. Still, however, there is, I think, one predominant feature in the returns, so far as the Independent Liberal Opposition is concerned, which may throw some light on the character of the forthcoming House of Commons, while it ought to serve as a wholesome lesson to those who aspire to be the leaders of a popular party.
The foremost men of the Manchester School have been rejected by overwhelming majorities. That is the most notable fact which the election returns present, and it is one which does not require much explanation. A few months ago, the Metropolitan organ of the Peace party expressed a hope that no dissolution of Parliament wonld take place for two years at least, as a general election, in the present temper of the country regarding Russia, would leave those who had been opposed to the war -without seats in the new Parliament. The remark was prophetic of what has taken place. Messrs. Cobden, Bright, and Gibson, were the three most active anti-national members of the Opposition throughout the whole of the war with Russia, and that is the main cause of their rejection by the constituencies of Manchester and Huddersfield. Next to them in obstructiveness on that question was Mr. Samuel Laing, and he has not ventured to contest the Wick Burghs. The lesser members of the party experience the same fate. In Rochdale, Miall is displaced by Sir Alexander Ramsay. In Salford, Sir Elkanah Armytage, identified with the League as the treasurer of Bright and Gibson'e committee, is defeated by Mr. Massey. In Bolton, Barnes, the Peace candidate, is rejected in favour of Gray, the Liberal Conservative. Crook, the other Member for Bolton, is reelected in spite of his connection with the Manchester party, because of the strong sympathy he has always manifested for the working classes. In Stoke-upon-Trent, J. L. Ricardo, who voted with Bright and Cobden during the war, had a narrow escape. Instead of heading Copeland the Conservative candidate by 150 votes, as in 1862, he now stands upwards of 400 votes below Copeland.
On the other hand, Roebutik, although he voted with the majority on the China question, polled 1150 votes more than Overend the Conservative candidate for Sheffield, because he was known to be opposed to the peace crotchets of the Manchester party. In Bradford, General Thompson, who is as sound as Mr. Roebuck on foreign policy, was returned without opposition, although he expressed himself strongly against the recent conduct of Government in reference to China. Lord Goderich, who voted along with Mr. Cobden, has not been opposed in the West Riding, because he was always sound on foreign alihire during the war. The same cause, no doubt, left Mr. W. S. Lindsay without opposition in Tynemouth.
A great outcry will doubtless be made about the ingratitude of the men of Manchester, for refusing to reelect men who had served them so faithfully throughout the whole of the Anti-Corn-law agitation. But we have work of a very different kind before us now ; and why should so important a town as Manchester throw away all its influence in the Legislature, by electing men who are thoroughly anti-national in their opinions on foreign policy ? In a letter to the Spectator, in the autumn of 1858, I took the liberty of pointing out the evils arising from the obstructive policy pursued by the Members for Manchester, and recommended the electors to look out for men who would truly represent their opinions regarding the war with Russia. The following passage from that letter will show what the feelings of many ardent Liberals in this town were in 1855; and the large majority of votes for Sir John Potter and Mr. Turner on Saturday last 'must convince the most zealous member of the Peace party that the feeling which prevailed during the war has not died away. "If we are to have a dissolution of Parliament next spring, as is commonly rumoured, it is high time for the electors of this town to be organizing themselves for the struggle. Manchester is more to blame than any other borough in the kingdom for our not having a strong Government, and consequently for that want of vigour and definite purpose in the management of the war of which everybody complains. This being the ease, we are bound to atone for the apathy we have displayed hitherto, by our promptitude and zeal. It is useless to sit still and grumble about Ministers not doing their duty. The only way in which we can bring our influence to bear upon Government is through our representatives; only we must first be sure that we have men to represent us who are anxious that Ministers should do their duty, and not men who have predicted all manner of evils as certain to result from the war, and who have shown by the whole of their conduct that they would much rather see the Allies soundly beaten than see them victorious. "Whenever Manchester proclaims her determination to emancipate herself from the thraldom of the Peace Society, which means friendship with St. Petersburg, her example will be followed by every other borough represented by members of the Russian Brigade. There can be no doubt that this borough is the key of the position. So long as the Russian section of the Free-trade party, however small its numbers, can keep Manchester quiet, it prevents the formation or paralyzes the action of an independent party in Parliament, and influences Government accordingly. This is one of the inevitable evils resulting from the formation of the League. Power and influence were placed in the hands of a few men, leaving them to think and act for all w ho agreed with them on a single question. Now that the current of events has thrown that question far into the background, we find the men who hold power and influence unable to lead, and using that power and influence to thwart the wishes of s large majority of their constituents, and defy public opinion with impunity, trusting to personal influence, the want of organization among those opposed to them, and the chapter of accidents." I regret as much as any one that Messrs. Bright and Cobden have not obtained seats in the new Parliament ; but I am not sorry that they no longer represent the two largest and moat influential constituencies in the kingdom. The Manchester party is now fairly broken up, and there is not much probability of its being reconstituted. Now, therefore, is the time for the formation of an independent Liberal Arty, which shall sympathize with the people on foreign affairs as well as with regard to home policy-. I see that Mr. Jacob Bright, the brother of the late Member for Manchester, in addressing the friends of the defeated candidates, on Saturday, endeavoured to emnfort them by remarking, that "when men take up advanced principles which are not understood, they must expect defeat rather than victory." This is so far consolatory, no doubt, but why should men who wish to represent one of the largest boroughs in England take up principles regarding war and foreign affairs which are not understood ? By doing so they place themselves and the electors in a false position. So long as Free-trade was the most important question likely to come before the Legislature, Messrs. Bright and Gibson were the best men who could be selected to represent Manchester. Now that the Free-trade question is disposed of, and that the foreign policy of Great Britain is likely to come frequently under discussion, the electors are unwilling to choose men who hold "advanced principles" regarding war. Mr. Jacob Bright is of opinion that "in the struggle in which Manchester is now engaged, and which has more to do with the rectification of the foreign policy of England than anything else, there will be greater unpopularity,. opposition, misunderstanding, and more difficulties to encounter, than m the Free-trade contest." I entirely agree with him as to the "unpopularity," but not as to the " misunderstanding " of the doctrines of the Manchester School regarding foreign affairs. General Thompson is as sound a Reformer as either Mr. Bright or Mr. Cobden. He has devoted a much larger portion of his life to the promotion of the cause of freedom than either of those two leaders of the people has done, and has not been so well rewarded for his labours. Those who are making so loud an outcry about political ingratitude in 1857 ought to remember how shabbily Colonel Thompson was treated in 1852. Let Mr. Jacob Bright consult the Letters of a Representative and other writings of the author of the Corn-Law Catechism, and he will find that that veteran Reformer has laid down the principles which ought to guide our foreign policy so clearly as to leave no roam for misunderstanding, unless en the part of those who hold with Mr. Cobden that the rallying-cry of the Liberal party ought to be "No foreign policy."
AN OLD LEAGUER.
Previous page
