THE ASSASSINATION SPEECH.
LORD BROUGHAM has been abused both in and out of Parliament for his condemnation of language attributed to the Reverend Mr. BAYLEY of Sheffield, at a Free Trade Conference, on the 6th of last July. Out of doors, the vituperation consists, as usual, of a lavish im- putation of all kinds of bad motives : it is stale and pointless—with the exception, indeed, of the brilliant idea of raking up all the, dinners Lord BROUGHAM may have given to members of the League. Men have been accused before now of ingratitude for taking a different side in a public controversy from that patronized by men who have given them dinners ; but this view of the obligation incurred by him from whom any one accepts a dinner has at least novelty to recommend it. Lord BROUGHAM'S reprehension of Mr. BAYLEY'S language has subjected him in the House of Commons to the im- putation of having " an ill-regulated intellect." Mr. ROEBUCK undertook the defence of Lord BROUGHAM, but in the course of his remarks adverted to a conversation in the Library : the true charac- ter of that conversation became the principal question, and the merits of Lord BRouGHAsi's and Mr. BAYLEY'S speeches were left undecided.
Since Mr. BAYLEY'S words have attracted so much attention, it is desirable that a deliberate judgment should be pronounced upon them. They are certainly of a startling character. " It was not words would move Parliament, but force : this should have effect, if they did not change their system. He had heard of a gentle- man who in a private company said, that if a hundred persons cast lots among them, and the lot should fall upon him, he would take the lot to deprive Sir Robert Peel of life. He felt convinced no such attempt should be made, on any pretence whatever; but was persuaded of this, that when Sir Robert Peel went to his grave there would be but few to shed one tear over him." The first clause of the last sentence is scarcely so strong a remonstrance as the lines at- tributed to Sir DAVID LINDSAY on the murder of Cardinal BEATOUN, and quoted by the wilder Presbyterians of Scotland after the mur- der of Archbishop SHARPE-
" The sooth to say, Although the loon was weel away, The deed was foully done."
And the introductory remark, that force alone could influence Par- liament, combined with the concluding one that few would weep over Sir ROBERT if he were dead, entirely neutralize even that whispered doubt as to the propriety of ,assassination in any case. Mr. BAYLEY'S language on this occasion he-Bea never, to our know- ledge, attempted to retract or explain away :* a letter to Lord BROUGHAM, which he is said to have published in a provincial journal, is described as consisting merely of recrimination. On the other hand, it appears from Mr. COBDEN'S account of the conversa- tion in the Library, alluded to by Mr. ROEBUCK, that Mr. BAYLEY has partisans and coadjutors who will take in hand to punish any per- son who expresses public disapprobation of the sentiment of the reverend gentleman. " When I alluded to the Sabbath Bill," said Mr. COBDEN, " I drew attention to the fact, that in opposing that bill the honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Roebuck) had drawn upon him the hostility of Dissenting members. I then said to him, If you justify Lord Brougham in his attack upon the mi- Meters who attended the Anti-Corn-law meetings, you will get yourself into trouble at Bath. You will have members of the League visiting Bath, and Anti-Corn-law tea-parties there.' " This means, if there is meaning in words, that any attempt on the part of a Member of Parliament to blame Mr. BAYLEY'S language will draw down upon that Member the hostility of all the Dissenting ministers associated with Mr. BATLEY; that those ministers are determined to silence by a system of terrorism every marked con- demnation of Mr. BAYLEY'S language. This is making them a body organized to protect each other from censure even when it has been justly incurred. It is for the interest of the general public that the sentiment by no means unequivocally implied in Mr. BAYLEY'S speech should be as unequivocally repudiated. But especially it is for the interest of the Anti-Corn-law League that it should be disclaimed. It is true that no large body can fairly be held responsible for every indiscreet speech any of its members may make. It is true that no member of the League, so far as we know, expressed appro- bation of Mr. BAYLEY'S speech. But, since that speech became a subject of discussion, not one of them, we believe, with the excep- tion of Mr. COBDEN at a meeting held in the Crown and Anchor Tavern this week, has explicitly blamed or disavowed it: on the contrary, they have attacked every person who did. The League may disregard what enemies to the cause say, but the League cannot disregard the effect which this silence and soreness may have upon friends to the cause. The League cannot allow the impression to go abroad that it is a mere tool in the hands of that portion of the Dissenting mi- nisters who are resolved to use their influence to unseat any Member who may blame Mr. BAYLEY for his speech. Yet this inference from Mr. COBDEN'S warning to Mr. ROEBUCK is at pre- • Since the above was in type, we hate seen a letter by Mr. BAYLEY, in today's Thief; but it affords no new data bearing on this tiew. sent unavoidable. No one who knows Mr. COBDEN will suspect him of regarding a suggestion of assassination with levity. Mr. COBDEN, too, is anxious to retain Mr. ROEBUCK in Parliament- " he is the last man I should wish to see unseated." And yet it would appear that Mr. COBDEN could only, in the spirit of strict friendship, warn Mr. ROEBUCK not to incur the hostility of the Dissenting ministers who attended the meetings of the Anti- Corn-law League, for if he did, members of the League would be sent to Bath to canvass against him. This seems to imply that the Dissenting nrinisters who attend the meetings of the League are more powerful in that body than Mr. COBDEN and his friends ; and that they can use it to unseat a Member—an unqualified Free- trader—not for impeding Corn-law Repeal, but for blaming an im- moral sentiment uttered by one of their number.
It has been said that Lord BROUGHAM ought to have addressed a private remonstrance to his friends in the League. On such oc- casions private remonstrances seldom do any good : they but enable the maker of them to quiet his conscience with the idea that his hands have been washed clean, and are received in silence - as only made for that purpose. Where the blameable conduct of -"•• a member of a party is not spontaneously repudiated by his asso- ciates, the appeal to them to discharge their neglected duty is best made publicly. In the case of Mr. BAYLEY this has been done, and the appeal ought to be frankly and explicitly met : do those gentlemen who have taken advantage of his alliance approve of the sentiment he uttered, or do they not ? The question is not met as it ought to be, either with bitter vituperation of Lord BROUGHAM, or with bad jokes about the comparative degree of nerve with which a mature statesman and " a little girl" can " stand to be shot at."
Previous page
