THE EDINBURGH INVITATION TO LORD BROUGHAM.
TO THE EDITOR 05' THE SPECTATOR.
Edinburgh, 10th October 1836.
SIR—It has pleased a considerable portion of the newspaper press to misre- present, in a very gross manner, the late proposal to give a public dinner in Edinburgh to Lord liiiouc irA at. The Tory misrepresentations I pass over, as unworthy of remark : misrepresentation of every Liberal movement is their regular occupation. But I cannot permit the errors (to use the mildest word applicable to the case) of the Ministerial papers to pass without instant aid positive contradiction. How came the Morning Chronicle and the Examiner to assert, that the in- vitation was from the Radicals of Edinburgh ? The former print, at least, must have seen a paragraph in the Scotsman of the 2Sth September, in which it is expressly mentioned that the proposal originated with the citizens; and the Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle had previously ascribed it to the Reformers. The 'fury papers of Edinburgh had indeed alleged that the Radicals were the originators of the invitation ; the Whigs only joining in it to prevent the ma- nagement falling into Radical bands. But surely the London Ministerial papers knew better than to take their information from the Tory prints ! Instead of being a scheme of the Edinburgh Radicals, as the Morning Chronicle alleges, the invitation to Lord 13Rorcria at proceeded from the cal- tens of Edinburgh of Liberal principles, without any distinction of Whig or Radical, of Churchman or Voluntary. Instead of being the work of " some Radicals hostile to the Ministry," as the Examiner presumes to say, the invi- tation does not bear the signature, so far as I know, of a single Radical hostile to the Ministry. Instead of entertaining an intention " to punish the Minis- try by bringing Lord Brougham into fashion," or " to play off his Lordship against the Government," as both the Morning Chronicle and the Examiner assume for truth, the inviters had no intention except what is expressed in their invitation (published, I presume, in another part of your paper). A simple denial is as much as the injurious assertions of those Ministerial prints deserve. The denial comes from one who knows every step that has been taken in this matter, and whose truth and honesty of purpose are as indu- bitable as the candour and iinpartiaiity of Mr. ALBANY FONELAN(ar E and Mr. JOHN BLACK. But to enable you to speak from your own knowledge, I send you a list of the signatures to the address and invitation, in the order in which they were obtained, and with a distinctive mark at the names of Whigs and Radicals, so far as my local knowledge enables me to distinguish adherents of the two parties. Look at that list, and say whether these men, speaking collectively, can be truly described as " the Edinburgh Radicals," or as " hos- tile to the present Ministry," or can be supposed capable of " intending to play off Lord Brougham against the Government." True, the address was written by a Radical ; and the proposal to invite Lord BROUGHAM to a public dinner of the Reformers of Scotland (not of the Radicals of Edinburgh only) originated with the same Radical. That Radi- cal, I am proud to say, was myself. But what right has Mr. FON BLANQUE to accuse me (by name ; see Examiner of last Sunday) of sinister design in ori- ginating the invitation to Lord BROUGHAM? To be blamed as a blunt, straightforward, impracticable Radical, who prefers aiming at the right to grasping at the expedient, is nothing new to me ; but to be accused of artifice to effect any purpose, good or ill, has :never before been may lot. And supposing that I were the deeply-designing person that Mr. FONELANQUE accuses me of being in this case, is it credible that I could obtain the cooperation of the per- sons who joined in this demonstration of regard to Lord BROUG II A M ? My influence is not so expensive, nor are the citizens of Edinburgh so blind as to be unable to detect an insidious design, if one had existed. The discovery of the Anti-Ministerial plot was reserved for eyes nearly four hundred miles distant from its scene. Such eyes must indeed be piercers. TITUS OATES himself could scarcely have discovered a pia-at at that distance. Attachment to Lord BROUGHAM, and gratitude for his eminent services to the popular cause, are no new sentiments with either the originator of the invitation to Lord BROUGHAM, or with the Liberal citizens of Edinburgh of both Whig and Radical principles. I could refer to numerous passages in Toir's Maga- zine for the last three years, where Lord BROUGHAM is spoken of in terms of regard ; where, without a defence of his errors, his public services are gratefully alluded to, and where trust is expressed in his disposition to aid the cause for which he has already done so much. And this is not the first time a purpose of inviting Lord BROUGHAM to a public dinner has been entertained in this city. So far back as the middle of the summer of last year, an invitation to Lord BROUGHAM was drawn up, and was in course of obtaining signatures. The invitation happened, on that occasion, to be penned by a gentleman who has no pretensions to the name of Radical ; and naturally enough took its tone from the draughtsman. It is so short that I may quote it entire.
" Edinburgh, July 1835.
" To the Right Honourable Lord Brougham—We. the undersigned, anxious to tes- tify our deep sense of coitr zealous and splendid efforts in the cars.. of education,—a cause identified with the best and highest interests of mankind.—have to request your Lordship will favour us with your presence at a public dinner, to be held is this city at such time as will be most suitable to your Lordship's convenience.
" We have the honour to be," &c. This address instantly got about fifty signatures ; and as its originator assures me, would have quickly obtained 1000, had it not been withdrawn from circu- lation : such is the respect, and even affection, with which Lord Boone IIAM is regarded by the Liberal citizens of Edinburgh. Several things are worthy of remark in reference to that invitation, and to the suspicions of the London Ministerial newspapers in regard to the recent in- vitation. It is first signed, like the second, by Liberals of all denominations; the names are to a considerable extent the same in both invitations ; and in the invitation of last year thine occur the signatures of three of the late deputation to Brougham Hall,—viz. of Bailie M•FARLAN, Mr. TimaiAs IRELAND, and myself. Our wish to see Lord BaorGlIAM publicly entertained in Edinburgh, is therefore proved to be no new sentiment ; and there could be no wish to play off Lord IhroucJIAM against the Ministry in July 1635. Had the festival taken place, I should not have thought it necessary to advert to the gross misrepresentations of the Morning Chronicle and the Examiner. The event would have refuted them abundantly. But as Lord BROUGHAM is not to come to Edinburgh this season, I could not keep silence and allow it to be believed in England that the account given of the source and purpose of the invitation to his Lordship is true. It was not the invitation of the Radicals alone, nor does the majority of signatures to it consist of Radical names, nor are the earlier signatures those of Radicals. And it was not intended to play off Lord BROUGHAM against the Ministry. The address contained the honest ex- pression of the sentiments entertained by those who signed it, and who may be taken as fair representatives of their Liberal fellow citizens. The same senti- ments, I firmly believe, prevail among the Liberals throughout Scotland, in-
cluding both Whigs and Radicals. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, cluding both Whigs and Radicals. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, W. TAIT.
[The appeal which Mr. TAIT makes to us is easily answered. In the list of name, appended to the requisition, we find Liberals of every shade, and of all ranks from the Peer to the mechanic. Of those whose politics are ascertained and decided, seventy are Whigs, and only forty-eight Radicals.—ED.]
Previous page
