THE ROCHDALE DEMONSTRATION.

The great soirée given at Rochdale in honour of Mr. Cobden took place on Wednesday, in a marquee decorated with the flags of all nations and floral devices. Upwards of _2000 persons, including many ladies, were present. Two hours, it is stated, wore occupied in disposing of a "light repast," and a little before seven Mr. Cobden appeared on the platform. The chair was taken by the Mayor of Rochdale, and among the list of guests are the familiar names of Mr. John Bright, Mr. Frank Crossley, Mr. Titus Salt, Mr. Thomas Bazley, and Mr. Sharman Craw- ford. The first proceeding was to pass a resolution congratulating Mr. Cobden on his return. This led to the appearance of the Member for Rochdale.

Mr. Cobden began by remarking that he was rather out of practice, and went on to tender his long deferred personal homage for the kindness shown him in electing him when 4000 miles away. This remark naturally led to a dissertion upon the late general election, in the course of which Mr. Cobden dilated at great length on the corrupt practices which prevailed at that time. He expressed an opinion that it is the dearness of the tri- bunal, before which election petitions have to be tried, that prevents men from prosecuting petitions. If a man succeeds, his success does not give him a seat, and he has to go again before the very men who have sold their votes before and are willing to sell them again. If the House were in earnest they could easily put down this system. They might cheapen the tribunal, they might punish the corrupt boroughs, they might either inflict -the expense upon them, or upon the country at large. At all .events, let some punishment be inflicted on those who are guilty of these transactions. Criminal prosecutions would very soon put down bribery. Let-them have a few months at Nowgete, and if an ex-M.P. were sent -there and made to wear the prison dress, and have his hair shaved, it would do very much to put an end to bribery and corruption. Mr. Cob- den is of opinion that commissions appointed to inquire into bribery transactions result only in piles of blue-books, aud great expsese. These

inquiries are futile and valueless. Mr. Cobden voted against the issue of a commission to Gloucester because he would not lend himself any longer to.a delusion. In addition to these measures, he strongly recommended the-ballot as a means of preventing bribery, and declared that the elec- tions in America, Switzerland, 'France, Spain, and anywhere where the ballot is adopted, there is not that tumult, bloodshed, and hideous cor- ruption we witness at -home. He especially dwelt on the case of the United States, and quoted the opinion of Mr. Randall, a man of high standing in America, who said that for fifty years be had .been eonnoted with party movements in Philadelphia and had never known a vote bought or sold. Mr. Cobden said, that lie had been received with such hospitality and great kindness in America that he was not an impartial witness in the cause of that people and ought to say as little as-possible. On the subject of the late war, Mr. Cobden said he has seen with great satisfaction that public opinion has put an end to interference in continental affairs. For the first time in our history we have seen great armies march and great battles fought without talaug part in the strife. We have proved that our prestige was not lost thereby, and let public opinion only manifest itself and there can be more Congresses of Vienna. Ile thought Lord John Russell had laid down fair conditions of English participation in a Cengreas. The sole condition on which we should go into the Congress should be, that Italians should he left free to manage their own afftirs—they.should be as secure from intervention as any of the .great Powers themselves. Ie described the pretence of preserving order as a hypocritical pretence. liad the great Powers themselves preserved order? Hare there been no bloody quarrels in Prance and Austria within the last few years ? Mr. Cobden -would face the chance of disorder and say, if the Italians could n t settle-their own affairs without falling into disorder, they .should still be allowed to carry on a Civil tumult if they chose without the danger of intervention. "1 COU1CS8 that -I do speak with some strong sym- pathies on this question. I have -had the opportunity of mingling- mu& with Italians. I have travelled in all parts -of their country. .1 have watched with the greatest interest the proceedings of-their late elections. I have seen with admiration the orderly moderation with which they have carried on their elections, though plunged suddenly, as it were, into the

furnace of revolution, with all their old landmarks and old authorities dis- appearing, and I have been very much struck with this fact, and I mention it not merely for this meeting, but because our proceedings will be heard and read elsewhere. I have observed that both in Tuscany and among the Bolognese, the Legations of the Pope, as well as in other parts of Italy with which I am acquainted, the people have not only elected the very ablest

men, but the men who by their wealth and position represent the property of their country. There are men—I have seen their names in the papers—

elected as their representatives, who are as fairly entitled to be taken as representing the great wealth and influence of the country as Lord Derby, Lord John Russell, or Lord Lansdowne would be, or any of our great names of historic family fame in this country." He further insisted, at great length, on the duty of non-intervention; and asked—what would have be- come of us if, during the :hundred years between 1645 and 1745, foreign in-

tervention had taken place in England As to the war in Italy, he thought that Austria could do no wiser than make an arrangement with Venetia for the abandonment of .her sovereignty altogether. "If Austria wei e wise

but Governments never are wise—she might have left Lombardy and re- ceived a large payment without all this bloodshed. From such a stupid Government as that it is useless to expect any wisdom. He would not blame Louis Napoleon for going to Italy ; he would not judge his motives." It is no business of Mr. Cobden's, for he " did not go there to do my business or to do my bidding." Mr. Cobden contended that our budget is framed with reference to our foreign and not to our domestic policy. He had never insisted on the prin- ciple of total disarmament, but he agreed with Sir Robert Peel that we should take some risks rather than undertake these ruinous precautions. Mr. Cobden ridiculed our invasion panics, which are the laughing-stock of the American newspapers, and are called in America " the English craze." He rebuked our own newspapers for so readily giving way to popular delu- sions. Ile thought that we should take the opinion of another country on the question, and listen to the profound pity with which the Americans

read our outcries about invasion. Ile employed figures to show that since 1848 for every vessel France has built we have added ten—referring to the gun-boats, and mentioning as his authority the most scientific minds of America. Ile described our line-of-battle ships as slaughter-houses, and recommended small steamers. He objected to our large naval expenditure. We have added 5,000,000/. to taxation—the expenditure is a perfect waste. -" Give me five millions of revenue to deal with, instead of voting that money by acclamation, as we do, for this useless and senseless expenditure, —give me that money to deal with in the modification of taxes, the reduc- tion of Customs-duties, the relief of trade from existing encumbrances and interferences—give it to me, and see what can be done with it—see how I could remove encumbrances and obstructions to your commerce ; see how I could reduce those duties which check our intercourse with France,—give me that money to deal with by reducing the duties on French commodities, and you will do far more to cement the bonds of peace between this king- dom and that, far more than will over be done by any preparation for war." He described England as always invading France when there is a war, and said, that the French read in their school, books of our descents upon their .coasts, and they "don't believe us to be a nation of Quakers, whatever some of us may 'be." Mr. Cobden said it had been found out that public opinion is not in favour of these wars. He believed the ruler of France has a perception of the altered times in which we live, and that his career is not to be the career of one who bore his name before him. If he should mis- take the character of the age and attempt a career of warlike ambition, he will realize soon in his Own person the truth of that divine precept that they that take the sword shall perish by the sword. At the close of his speech Mi.. Cobden gave an explanation why he had not joined Lord Palmerston's Government. "I need not tell you, then, that on my arrival in England, when I found myself your representative, I received a communication from Lord Palmerston, and also another from Lord John Russell. In his letter Lord Palmerston was good enough to urge inany reasons, kindly and frankly expressed, why I should accept a seat in his Cabinet as President of the Board of Trade. Gentlemen, I will not affect any modesty in the matter, but say that I think if I was fit for any post in the Cabinet I should have been fit for the one thus offered to me. If other circumstances had not intervened, probably the placing of me in that particular office would have been really putting a square peg in a square hole ; but I will give you my reasons, if you will have them, for declining to accept the honour which was offered to me; an honour which I beg to assure you is not a matter of indifference to me, and which would have been peculiarly inviting to rue if I had been a man of ambitious character, because, taking it for all in all, the probability is it would have been the first instance in which a man literally springing immediately from among you, and a man of business, had been offered a seat in the Cabinet. Neither office, then, nor any of its concomitants could have been indifferent to me, but I felt that it was a matter calling for Me' anxious consideration, all the more in pro- portion to the inducements which might have been held out to me in taking -a particular course. I went to London, and before calling upon or seeing any one I thought it better to wait upon Lord Palmerston and express to him exactly what were my views on the subject. I may tell you as frankly as I spoke to him what passed between us. To Lord Palmerston I stated my ease thus :—I have been for ten or fifteen years the systematic assailant of what I believe to be your foreign policy. I thought it warlike, not calculated to promote peace or harmony between this country and other States. I explained to him precisely what my feelings had been in those words. I said, "It is quite possible I may have been mistaken in all this. When a man takes an idea up and pursues it for ten or twelve years, very likely his first impression may have been exaggerated." But I put it to Lord Palmerston, and I put it to you, whether, having recorded those opinions, it was fit and becoming in me to step from an American steamer into his Cabinet, and there and then for the first time, after having received at his hands a post of high honour and great emolument, to discover I had undergone a change in my opinions, and whether I should not have been open to great misconstruction, by the public at least, if I had adopted such a proceeding. Gentlemen, I candidly confess to you that would have been a course inconsistent with my own self-respect. (Cheers.) . . . . While, therefore, my own feelings prevented me from taking the step which so many of you here wished me to take, and which so many of my friends in Liverpool and Lancashire generally pressed upon me, I am still very glad to find that my friend, Mr. Gibson, felt himself able to RC- tept office under Lord Palmerston. I was also pleased to see that my friend, Mr. Gilpin, had taken a subordinate office where he will have plenty of work ; for I tell you candidly I like to find men cropping up, as it were, from the lower strata, who have laboured as hard as any of you, and I am glad, therefore, to see a man stepping into public office from the very ranks of the people, because we want to show that you need not be born in certain regions in order to serve the Queen. (Cheers and laughter.) It is not necessary I hope for me to add that I had no personal feeling whatever in the course I took with regard to Lord Palmerston's offer. If I had cherished any personal hostility towards that noble lord—which I have never done, for he is of that happy nature that he cannot create a personal enemy—his kind and manly offer would at once have disarmed me. I think I am made of very yielding materials when anything like conciliation presents itself, but I really had no such feeling, and I should be sorry if it were thought I had, and if in any of my attacks upon our foreign policy I have said any- thing personally offensive to any public man I very much regret it."

Mr. Ashworth then moved, and Mr. Jacob Bright seconded, a re- solution stating that they saw another proof of Mr. Cobden's clear judgment and perfect honour in his explanation of why he declined a seat in the Cabinet. A very strong resolution in favour of Parliamentary reform was carried on the motion of Mr. Sharman Crawford, seconded by Mr. Frank Crossley.

Mr. Bright next addressed the meeting, congratulating Rochdale in having Mr. Cobden for a Member. He made a lengthened attack upon our representative system and asked why, when there are five out of six men in the country who have no votes, we should attack the systems of Austria, Russia, or France. He made an especial point of the corruptibility of the small boroughs, assailed the costliness of our Go- vernment generally, saying that this House of Lords and this second House of Lords that sits in the House of Commons, take 70,000,000/. annually from the industry of the people.

" If I did not think a Parliamentary Reform should enforce a greater responsibility in the House of Commons and the Cabinet, I would not go across the road to ask for it, and if I thought that after a Parliamentary Reform, which should give a real hold into the hands of the people upon the national expenditure and the national policy, we were to continue mounting up the expenditure from 70,000,0001., as it now hi, to some higher but indefinite sum, I would not spend my breath or my labour in asking my countrymen to obtain such a measure ; but I should think it a far wiser course to pack up everything I had and remove myself and my family to a country where the people did not only pretend to be but actually were in some degree sane. (Laughter.) Mr. Bright admitted that the present Go- vernment is an improvement on its predecessor, but hoped they would not be long in power if they walked in the footsteps of their recent Whig pre- decessors. " Take the question of Reform. Lord John Russell just before the dissolution, I think the very night when the dissolution was announced, explained what in his opinion if he were a Minister would be the measure of Reform, he would be willing to propose to Parliament. He said he should propose with regard to the suffrage that every occupier of a house of the value of 10/. in counties, and every occupier of the value of 61. rental in boroughs, should be enfranchised. No doubt, there are members of this Government who think that it is rather an extensive measure ; there are Members who will endeavour to persuade Lord John Russell that such a measure is not desired or necessary ; if there be such, I beg to give them this warning—they will not only fail of bringing forward a measure at all satisfactory to the Reform party throughout the country, but they will stamp upon the Government a trait of treachery which it cannot survive." (Cheers.)

Mr. Bright concluded with a fierce attack upon war ; and shortly afterwards the meeting separated.

On Thursday night Mr. Cobden addressed a body of electors and non- electors on the subject of Parliamentary Reform.

In his opinion Reform is a compound rather than a simple question. Three or four things have been lumped together which should be separately dealt with. "In any future attempts at reform you should have one bill for the extension of the franchise, then another bill for the ballot, another for the shortening of Parliaments, and another for the redistribution of seats. My opinion is that the franchise being the one on which all the rest depends ought to be disposed of first." The present voters are the depositories of po- litical power, and they are naturally a little bit jealous and reluctant to diffuse their privilege over a greater number. They are afraid of the work- ing classes ; my first question to the present constituent body would be this, —" What interest have you, the middle class, which the working classes have not equally with yourselves ? " You cannot separate the interest of one from the interest of the other. The question then is, "Are we sure that if we let in a large infusion from another class they will see their own in- terest in the same way as we see ours ? People are generally pretty quick- sighted as to their own interests, and fortunately there i this in the con- stitution of human society, and all earthly things, that if a man doesn't pur- sue his own interest, but does wrong, he is soon reminded of it by the damage he inflicts on himself and on others. I don't think there is much danger likely to arise from a large enfranchisement of working men, owing to the probability of their following their own instincts and taking an unwise view of their own interest. But I would ask the middle classes now enjoying the franchise whether they may not involve themselves in some difficulty and danger if they keep shut out from the electoral pale that vast majority of the community which has now no share in the suffrage. The working classes and those who are not allowed to vote amount to from four to five millions of persons. Well, I say to those who have the franchise, take into partnership a portion of those now excluded from that right, and do so, if from no other motive but the selfish one of being secured in the possession of the power you hold." Our electoral system stands on a narrow basis. We have seen what hap- pened to Louis Philippe, who tried to govern by a minority of voters. We were sitting in the House of Commons, said Mr. Cobden, when the news of his overthrow arrived. "While the buzz of conversation ran round the House as this piece of intelligence passed from Member to Member, I remember well seeing my friend, the late Mr. Hume, who sat beside me, go across to Sir Robert Peel to tell him what had occurred. Sir R. Peel was then on the front seat of the Opposition side, having been repudiated by the large party he had lost by previously repeal- ing the corn laws. When Mr. Hume went beside him and whispered to him the news, I remember his immediate answer was this, This comes of trying to govern a country through a narrow representation in Parliament, without regard to the wishes of those outside ; and it is what this party behind me wanted me to do lathe matter of the corn laws, but I would not do it.' We stand here on a different basis. Instead of 250,000 we have about 1,000,000 voters. But recollect this,—that while France had been a con- stitutional country then only about twenty-five years, we have been go- verned upon constitutional maxims for centuries. Recollect that it is our boast that the people here do rule, and have ruled for many ages ; and, taking into account our great pretensions in regard to the freedom of the subject, and comparing our present state, having but 1,000,000 voters, with the state of France twelve years ago with her 250,000, I declare that our case is less defensible than that of Louis Philippe at the period I have named. Our representation is, no doubt, when contrasted with our pre- tensions, an enormous sham.' . . . I can imagine such a thing as our hearing some day within the next five years of the hurricane of revolution again passing over the Continent of Europe. We know what the effect of that was in this country in 1830. Well if, owing probably to some circum- stance happening in India or elsewhere for we are not without our outlying dangers), there were such a crisis, very great excitement prevalent in this country, and great sufferings, discontent, and consequent disaffection, I can imagine such a great change coming like a thunder-clap from the Continent and throwing up elements in England which might produce innovations far greater than anything which any of us now contemplate, and which would make the men who will have to settle this question look back with regret to the present tranquil times, and lament that they had not, as prudent statesmen, dealt with it in days of political prosperity." Mr. Cobden brought his American experience to bear. "I have found in America that everywhere the question of education lies at the foundation of every political question. Everywhere in America the influential and wealthier classes advocate education for the people as the means of enablirg them to govern themselves. Their reasoning is this :—the people govern for themselves; they govern us as well as themselves, and unless we educate the people our free institutions can't possibly exist. Their maxim, in fact, everywhere is, 'Educate, or we perish.' The consequence is that the influential classes in America devote themselves to the instruction of the whole community in a manner and to an extent of which no country in Europe can have any idea. I lately visited, during my travels, places where, when I was in America twenty- four years ago, the Red Indians were still encamped. Now, there were frequently found in those spots flourishing towns, and I discovered among all those new communities that

school-houses were the largest and most conspicuous buildings ; that even while the streets were unpaved and most of the citizens were dwelling in wooden tenements, there were large brick or stone structures run up, each containing; eight, ten, or twelve large rooms, and every room from the floor to the roof was filled with children, all receiving, without a farthing of charge to their parents, as good an education as could be given in the time to the sons of the middle classes in England. I have no hesitation in say- ing that this system of education in America has gone hand in hand with the extension of the elective franchise, and that the strong and pervading motive with the citizens of that country in instructing their youthful population, is to enable them to exercise the political power they pos- sess for their own benefit, and that of the entire community. . . . What is it that some people are afraid of ? They say if you give the vote to the people they will tax property, and they will relieve themselves of taxation. I cannot follow the subject into all its details, but I am not at all alarmed at this threat, even if all that is predicted in that direction should be fulfilled, and if the votes of the people removed, to a large extent, the taxes that now press upon articles of consumption, such as tea, sugar, paper, and other articles taxed at our customs and excise-offices, still I do not believe that would prove injurious to the country. If the working people who are added to our electoral list should instinctively replace a large portion of our indirect taxes by taxes on property or income, it would have a beneficial effect on the commerce of this country, and the working classes, urged, you may say, by their natural instincts of selfishness, would in fact be carrying out the most enlightened principles of political economy. . . . I therefore see in the fear of ignorance a greater change of improved education for the people, and in the prospective transfer of taxation I cannot see that the working class could possibly do that which woeld be injurious to the other classes of the community." Mr. Cobden said that other ciasses had used power for their own selfish purposes, and he thought that working men would not be likely to come to conclusions inimical to the rest of the community. "With regard to the particular measure with which we shall probably have to deal, I am very sorry to say that I don't think the country or the House of Commons is in the mood for a very strong measure of Par- liamentary Reform. I know not.whether to blame the House of Commons or the country. I rather think there is quite as much agitation about po- litical reform in the House of Commons as in the country. It has got into the House, and they don't know what to do with it." Mr. Cobden discussed some of the details of Reform in a general way, such as the rate of the suffrage, the ballot, the redistribution of seats, and short Parliaments.

After a vote of confidence had been passed in Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright made a speech, which was mainly directed to an attack upon oligarchical government, and to show that Government in general does very little but oppose reforms and spend money in waste. His conclusion was in the following terms.

"Shall we repudiate, shall we reject or neglect the hopes and interests of the millions of our fellow-countrymen who are represented by the thousands I see before me ? Let us make up our minds that we are not only people of the same country, brethren of the same soil, living under the same Go- vernment, but that we are all men in common,—that the highest interest of every poor man is the same as the true and highest interest of every rich man ; that the Government shall be a just Government, faithful to its trust and to its responsibilities, dispensing that which is equal fairly among all classes of the people. If we believe thin, as I do firmly believe it, let us be- come as though our interests were the same. Let us petition, let us resolve. Let us, by returning suitable Members to Parliament, where we have the power, by the creation and the organization of opinion, show to our fellow- countrymen and to the Government that we know what it is we want, that we comprehend the justice of that we demand; let us support the members of this Government, all of them, if they be in favour of a real and substan- tial measure of reform ; let us, between this and February next, unite with our countrymen everywhere in such an expression of opinion as shall con- vince Parliament that, whether they like the question or not, the people of England like it ; and, liking it, are determined that it shall be settled at an early period in a manner consistent with justice, and with their true and universal interests."