difficulty, no obstacle, to daunt them. Three cheers for
the Queen, for the sculptor, the Mayor, and the chairman
of the committee, closed the ceremony.—The procession
returned from the statue to the Town-hall, there to
present three addresses to Mr. Gladstone; one from the
Corporation, one from the Chamber of Commerce, and
one from the Commercial Association. The Corporation
particularly stated that they were gratified to see among
them so distinguished a member of a cabinet "happily
formed of the most able and experienced statesmen of
the age, who, with a patriotic disregard of party
considerations, are, as we believe, united together for the
purpose of carrying out such measures as shall conduce
to the honour of the crown and the benefit of the
whole community." Having heard the addresses, Mr.
Gladstone made one reply to all. In his speech,
which was of great length, Mr. Gladstone took a
ministerial view of the leading topics of the day.
On the most interesting of these topics at the present
time, he spoke as follows:—"Gentlemen, you have been
pleased—I speak now of the address of the corporation,
which I know well represents the sentiments of the
inhabitants of Manchester—you have been pleased to
express your confidence that the government now in
charge of public affairs will endeavour to give effect to
such measures as shall most conduce to the honour of
the crown and the benefit of the whole community. I
value peculiarly, and I am quite sure that every other
member of the cabinet would value as I do, this expression
of your feelings. I am sure that I do not altogether
misconstrue this reference to the honour of the crown
when I interpret it with reference to that question in
which at the present moment the honour of the crown,
as well as other great interests, are deeply involved—to
that question of peace and war which holds the mind of
Europe in agitation and suspense, from one extremity to
the other. If, gentlemen, it is your persuasion that the
honour of the crown is safe in the hands of her Majesty's
advisers, I am quite sure no testimony can be conveyed
to them more gratifying to their feelings; and I am
quite sure no testimony can reach them which would more
contribute to strengthen their hands in the discharge of
public duty, and in bearing that conspicuous part which
must belong to England in the consideration of every
great European question. It was, perhaps, to be expected
that the delays and vexations incident to protracted
negociation should lead to some sentiments and emotions
in some portions of the community; it was undoubtedly
to be expected, in this free country, that the measures
and motives of government, especially while they are
covered in some degree by the necessary reserve, should
not from every man receive a like favourable construction.
It was to be expected that the general sentiment,
that in the present relation between Russia and Turkey
there had been overbearing aggression on the part of the
former power, should lead to some anxiety—with eager
minds especially—for marked and positive demonstrations
on the part of England against that aggression: but
I will venture to say that her Majesty's government
don't feel in the least disposed to shrink from any
portion of the responsibility which they have assumed in
making every effort,—or hoping, I would say, if it were
necessary, against hope and beyond hope, but happily it
is not necessary,—in hoping to the utmost that they might
be enabled to achieve the avoidance of that frightful
calamity a general war. No doubt, the blood of Englishmen
is up when they see oppression or aggression going
on; no doubt, the contest of stronger with weaker
appeals to those feelings which we feel to be eminently
national; no doubt, the lapse and consumption of time
without apparent result is trying to the patience of the
community: but let me venture to say this—that the
true, the truest measure of the real greatness of a people
lies in its power of self-command and self-restraint. That
self-command and self-restraint, whether in nations or
individuals, are always liable to be mistaken for, and
are also certain to be charged as indifference, as feebleness,
or as cowardice. We know, I trust, the difference—we
know that that dignified patience, and that sense of duty
as men and as Christians which makes us value peace,
does not mean a want of readiness to vindicate, when
the time comes, the honour of this country. What do
we mean when we speak of a general war? There is
a certain glare of glory about the operations of war
which appeals to some of the elements of human nature,
and makes us too little mindful of the fearful
accompaniments which it entails. When we speak of general
war, we don't mean real progress in the road of freedom,
the real, moral and social advancement of man, achieved
by force. This may be the intention, but how rarely is
it the result of general war! We mean this—that the
face of nature is stained with human gore; we mean
that bread is taken out of the mouth of the people; we
mean that taxation is increased and industry diminished;
we know that it means that burdens unreasonable and
untold are entailed on late posterity; we know that it
means that demoralisation is let loose, that families are
broken up, that lusts become unbridled in every country
to which the war is extended. If that be a true description,
then it is also true that it is the absolute duty of a
government to exercise for themselves that self-command
which they recommend to others, and to labour
to the very utmost for the adoption of any and every
available expedient for averting such a frightful scourge.
I am certain—I could have anticipated it before, but at
this moment I have no doubt, after the manifestation
you have given, that these are the sentiments which
animate the peaceful community of Great Britain. Those
who are associated together in the works of industry and
enterprise—those who, as practical men, come into close
relation and close observation with the working of a
public policy—those who know the dangers we are
encountering know the difficulties we have to meet, and
by their confidence we shall be supported. It has been
announced in Parliament more than once, by different
members of Government, that her Majesty's advisers are
well aware of their duty to maintain that which is called,
and which may truly be called, the integrity and
independence of the Ottoman Empire. But in speaking
of the integrity and independence of the Ottoman
Empire, we do not use those terms in the same sense as
we should speak of the integrity and independence of
England and France; because we know that the
independence of the Ottoman Empire describes a
sovereignty full of anomaly, full of misery, and full of
difficulty—a sovereignty whose affairs for five years to
five years, and ever since we were born, has commonly
been subject to European discussion and interference.
What I mean is, that we do not intend to settle this
important matter upon the deep questions which may
develop themselves out of the peculiar internal organisation
of the Ottoman Empire; for, so far as regards the
domination of the Sultan, we are presented with the
political solecism of the Mahometan faith exercising
what may be called a despotism, but which I will only
call a domination—a sovereignty—over twelve millions
of our fellow Christians. We don't mean to enter into
that question, growing out of the state of things; but
that there is a necessity for regulating the distribution
of power in Europe. Where there is a certain absorption
of power by one of the great potentates, which
would follow the fall of the Ottoman Empire, and which
would be dangerous to the peace of the world, it is the
duty of England, at whatever cost, to set itself against
such a result. Now that principle has been recognised
in all the discussions on which all the measures that
connect themselves with this great Eastern question
now depend. Having made that recognition, and
having laid down the principle that it is not right that
there should be an absorption of power, and that, in the
event of that taking place, it is the duty of the Government
to set themselves against it, I may express a trust,
that so long as a rational hope can be maintained, we
shall have a maintenance of peace. Now that is what
the Government have really done. There has grown
up in Europe of late years a principle to combine the
great Powers for the settlement of differences arising in
particular parts. Many benevolent persons have been
desirous of bringing about a system of international
negociation in the event of war. But it is an opportunity
on which I think we may observe, not without satisfaction,
that some degree of real progress has actually been
made and exemplified within the last twenty years in
the history of Europe towards the substitution of arbitration
for war. The miseries of war between Belgium
and Holland were saved by the intervention of