which freedom itself would be only a name, or only a curse to mankind. And, Sir, I cherish the trust and belief, that when you rise in your place to-night to declare the numbers of the division from the chair which you adorn, the words which you speak will go forth as a message of mercy and of peace, as a message of prudence and wisdom, to the farthest corners of the world." (Loud cheering.)

Such speeches as these, marshalled by an array of incontrovertible facts, appealing powerfully to the sentiments of humanity, of justice, which dwells so securely in the breasts of Englishmen, appealed not in vain to the House of Commons, and when on the 14th of March, the division took place, the words of hope expressed by Mr Gladstone received their fulfilment, for a message went forth that a majority of the English Parliament refused to sanction the diabolical deeds committed against Canton, with which the names of Sir Michael Seymour, Sir John Bowring, Mr. Consul Parkes, and Lord Palmerston himself were associated, and by that message of condemnation, the responsible advisers of the Crown of England, defeated and disgraced, appealed from that decision to the electors throughout the country.

This dissolution of Parliament, and appeal to the Nation to ratify or nullify the decision of Parliament, brought Mr. Richard to the front, in the hope that by the issue of statements of facts on the whole case, drawn from official sources, and by appeals to the conscience of the electors against what he believed and shewed to be an outrage upon justice and humanity, of deeds committed in their name, the decision of Parliament might be the decision of the Nation, and result in the defeat of the confidence trick, which Lord Palmerston made the hustings cry.

Unhappily in spite of justice disgraced, the appeals of humanity outraged, the fair fame of England sullied, the electors of the Empire allowed themselves to be carried away, first by a blind and furious hatred of the "barbarians," whom they considered ought to be exterminated like wild beasts; and secondly, by a senseless clamour about the

honour of the British flag, which they considered of paramount importance to the eternal principles of truth and righteousness. The result was that not only the Government of Lord Palmerston secured a majority, not only the people of England pronounced against a policy of peace and in favour of a policy of war, but, humiliating fact, a majority which excluded from Parliament three at least of the foremost men of England, foremost for their political integrity, distinguished ability, and disinterested patriotism, such were Richard Cobden, John Bright, and Milner Gibson. No higher testimony was offered to these eminent men in their temporary exclusion from the senate by a temporary revulsion of feeling of the Nation, than the lofty language penned at the time by Mr. Richard:

66

'They have that light within which no outward reverses can darken. There is no cloud upon their consciences. There is no taint of blood on their hands. On the contrary, recalling the fidelity with which they have sought to promote the interest of humanity and peace, how steadfastly they sacrificed power and popularity rather than swerve from their loyalty to truth and conscience, how in the hour of their defeat, a willing and cordial homage has been paid by all classes to the purity of their motives, the integrity of their public character, it may truly be said whether there are any men living who occupy at this moment a position more honourable, or enviable than that of Richard Cobden and John Bright."

PERSIAN WAR, 1857.

Not only was Mr. Richard's anxiety and labours during the year 1857 directed to this miserable embroglio between England and China, but also near the close of the year, ere the troubles of that disgraceful war had come to a termination, his attention was turned to the outbreak of hostilities in Central Asia, wherein the British forces in India were moved without the knowledge and certainly without the sanction of Parliament on a filibustering expedition into the

Persian dominions, ostensibly for the occupation of the city of Herat. A brief reference to the causes, the objects, and results of that Asiatic war is necessary here, not only on account of the action taken by Mr. Richard in the matter, but also because herein was generally accepted at the time to be one of the ruling if not dominant causes which precipitated, as it preceded, the terrible mutiny in India, and the appalling massacre at Cawnpore, which so moved the English mind, and threatened to shake to its foundations the sway of the British sceptre in the Empire of India.

In the debate in the House of Commons on this Persian war, which took place in the month of July 1857, we find some important particulars on the subject. It would appear that whilst the object of the war was to compel Persia to evacuate the city of Herat, and to render compensation for injuries inflicted there, yet owing to the haughtiness of the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston a demand was made that the Prime Minister of Persia, whom the English Government held responsible for that occupation should be summarily dismissed, and a Minister appointed more favourable to friendly relations with England. Herein was the sole cause of that war which involved a great sacrifice of men, and money,—and strange to say which was finally concluded by a Treaty of Peace in the same year, in reference to which, to quote the declaration of Lord John Russell and of Mr. Gladstone, who used these remarkable words:

66 It stands upon record, and is beyond all doubt, that we made peace upon terms decidedly less favourable to England, and less unfavourable to Persia, than those which Persia herself had offered before the war broke out."

In November and December 1858, Mr. Richard, accompanied by Joseph Sturge of Birmingham, and Edward Smith of Sheffield, visited Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds, and addressed conferences of the Friends of Peace, for the purpose of stimulating renewed activity and support, and at each of those important centres Mr. Richard sub

sequently delivered public lectures, choosing for his subject, "Does War tend to promote Christianity," and he also took part in several meetings on the " Anti-Opium Question."

WAR IN ITALY, 1859.

The War in Italy in 1859, between France and Sardinia on the one hand, and Austria on the other, was vigorously assailed by Mr. Richard, for he considered it had no reference to the well-being of nations, but was the offspring of diplomatic and dynastic intrigues, a sequence of the Crimean War of 1854, stimulated by the ambition of the Emperor of the French to play an imposing part in Europe, as well as by the ambition of Victor Emmanuel, King of Sardinia, in virtue of his alliance with France, England, and Turkey in the Crimean War, by which he hoped to obtain territorial aggrandisement, and thus enable Sardinia to enter into the family of European powers.

In this impending struggle on the Italian peninsula for the freedom of Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic from Austrian and Papal domination, Mr. Richard and the Peace Society lost no opportunity and spared no effort to create a powerful public opinion in favour of the absolute non-intervention of England; and within a few weeks after the outbreak of hostilities, an influential meeting in favour of non-intervention was held in Exeter Hall, under the presidency of Mr. Samuel Morley, at which Mr. Richard, Mr. Benjamin Scott, Rev. Newman Hall, Mr. H. E. Gurney, Mr. George Thompson, and others took part; and a Memorial was adopted to Lord Palmerston, which deplored the sanguinary War being waged by three professedly civilized and Christian nations, deplorable not only on account of the slaughter and misery involved, and

the international hatreds engendered, but on the ground of future disquietude and danger to the peace of Europe, and they therefore appealed to the Government to adhere strictly to the principle and practice of non-intervention, and that thus England might be enabled to fill the honorable office of friendly Mediator between the contending States.

In the following month Lord Palmerston received the Memorial at the hands of an influential deputation, introduced by Mr. Edward Baines, M.P., and after Mr. Richard had read it, the Prime Minister replied, concurring in the views expressed, and promising support of the policy recommended, but believed it would be better for Italy to be relieved from the power of Austria, and he hoped for a satisfactory solution by the emancipation of Italy.

The policy of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell strongly favoured the alliance of France and Sardinia, against the despotism of Austria, and the possession by Austria of any portion of the Italian peninsula; and their accession to power in 1859, on the defeat of Lord Derby after an appeal to the country, turned mainly if not entirely on Foreign Affairs, especially the respective opinions and policy of Conservative and Liberal statesmen on Italian affairs; Lord Derby having declared in favour of Austrian domination, and Lord Palmerston and Lord Russell in favour of the independence of Italy and of an Italian Kingdom under the rule of the House of Savoy.

The policy of Lord Palmerston, judged by his despatches to the Ministers at Foreign Courts, his correspondence with his colleagues in the Cabinet, and his public utterances, were unequivocally to give the moral support of England to the Franco-Sardinian alliance; and his declaration to the deputation, organised by Mr. Richard, at the Foreign Office in favour of England's neutrality was conditional, as his words imply the defeat of Austria, and the emancipation of Italy.

Fortunately for Italy and the general peace of Europe, the arms of France and Sardinia were victorious; and the