We were so fortunate as to obtain through Mr. Lawrence’s attention, cards of admission to the Speaker’s gallery of the House of Commons, on the night of the debate of the proposed vote of approval of the foreign policy of the Government.

The hall used is intended to be occupied only temporarily; it has the appearance of a large, oblong school-room, and is very inadequate to the accommodation of the members. It is, however, most admirably lighted and ventilated. The Speaker has an easy seat at one end; before him is a table, at which three clerks sit. They are all in black gowns and long white horse hair wigs, which latter in my opinion rather detract from than add dignity to their appearance. There are galleries running all around the hall, those on the sides being occupied by the members. The seats are plain oak benches, with rails behind to rest the back upon. There are no desks. The benches on the Speaker’s right are occupied by the Ministers, and their supporters, the Whigs; the more advanced Liberals, with Cobden and Bright at their head, are nearer the door on the same side; opposite to them, on the other side of the Speaker, is Disraeli and the Tories; Sir Robert Peel and the Free Trade wing of the Conservatives being on the same side, nearest the Speaker. The gallery behind him is used by the Reporters.

The Speaker’s gallery is in front of him at the opposite end of the [344]hall and will seat about thirty persons; behind it is the Strangers’ gallery, which accommodates eighty. Behind this there is said to be a kind of closet, from which the debate may be heard through an aperture in the wall. Six persons can get into it, and on this night Lady Peel and Lady Russell are said to have been in it among others.

The privilege of a seat this evening was a most valuable one, the debate being considered the most important and interesting that has occurred for four years, or during the present Parliament. It was understood that if the Foreign policy which, as to Greece in particular, had been reproved in the Lords, should not be sustained, there would be a dissolution, and if a small majority only was obtained in their favor, the Ministry would resign. On the previous night it had been found, to the consternation of the Whigs, that a large party of their allies on the Free Trade field were preparing to desert them on this ground. The Hall was densely filled during much of the night, particularly during Sir Robert Peel’s speech—it is said there has rarely been so full an attendance. I liked the looks of the members of the House very well. There was no more aristocratic air about them than in our own Representatives. It seemed to me that those qualities which make a man most valued among his equals, such as generosity, frankness, tact, and good-fellowship, had been found of more importance at the hustings than all the influences of wealth and family importance.

I will not attempt to give you a sketch of the speeches; you will probably have their substance sent you from another source. They were all it seemed to me perfectly reported in the Times a few hours after, and we read them over at breakfast. There was in them all, four members of every party, a recognition of the most liberal ideas and principles of Government:—quite as liberal in their spirit though not as distinctly and loudly proclaimed as any thing that is usually heard in our assemblies. In proposing the Resolution (which was adopted) Mr. Roebuck said that by it the House of Commons declared that

“We are favorable to those efforts of man by which he endeavors to raise himself in the scale of nations, and by his own enlightenment and a confidence in his own power to govern himself and resist that tyranny which .under the name of legitimacy, has ever sought to crush him in all those powers which we as Englishmen consider to be the very birth right which nature has given us.”

Nor did Sir Robert Peel, in opposing this, object at all to the liberal sentiment, but only to the implication that England was prepared to assist the people of any other nation that chose to adopt it and act upon it.

It was gratifying to see how the whole tendency of the debate and of events connected with it was to encourage the adoption and profession of ideas of national duties which even with us might be considered ultra and [345]premature. Though not distinctly admitted, it seemed to me it was left as generally understood that the views of Cobden with regard to the disposition of questions of international dispute, were destined inevitably to be eventually adopted by the Government—a happy day that will be for England and the world. The desire expressed and practicability asserted by Cobden in his speech that the attitude of nations with regard to each other, should be changed, as that of individuals has been in the discontinuance of the practice of always being ready for violent quarrels, with arms worn on the person, was very loudly applauded by both sides of the House, and was received by the handful of “people” in the galleries with still more enthusiastic, though silent expressions of pleasure.

From the conversation I have had with people of all classes here, I have been generally gratified in a similar manner. From the sentiments expressed among the people indiscriminately, you would suppose they were as much imbued with free and democratic ideas, as New Englanders. Indeed I do think that the relationship between us is more truly obvious in this respect than any other. We may differ greatly in forms, quarrel like brothers or theologians about details and words; we are both sadly recreant to our principles sometimes in practice, but in nothing, and nowhere else, can an American find greater sympathy if he is willing to meet it, than in his National and Patriotic sentiments here, among his Father’s sons.

Their loyal love to the queen, which is often manifested with absurd extravagance, is not servile respect to her person, or vulgar homage to a throne. The very fulsomeness of ceremony shows that a very different thing is meant from what is expressed, as one is often most polite to those he wishes to have least to do with . The true motive of their loyal demonstrations, is, rather the same zealous and proud patriotism that sometimes makes people a little ridiculous on our side the water; the queen being considered the impersonation of the spirit of their country, (as Henry Clay has been said to be “of Whig principles”). Added to this is the impulse of gallantry, or romantic respect to a very good lady who has been placed by circumstances in a position of trial and danger, which she may be supposed to endure, not only for the sake of gratifying ambition and avarice, but also from regard to the true honor of such responsibility and duty. It is some cause for gratitude too, that her Majesty has been “graciously pleased” not to abuse the right which law they are sworn to sustain gives her, to govern them. It seems to me, too, that the ideas of physical weakness and dependence, connected with the throne when occupied by a woman have not been without their value in soothing jealousy and rebellion towards the government in those, whom the love of freedom and of exercising the right of self-government might otherwise have excited into revolution during the republican stampede which lately untethered all Europe.

The whole aristocratic establishment of England, the estates, the [346]privileges, the decorations of the nobility are secured to their possessors by the same principles of law, and, as is yet understood, of justice, by which all other property is conveyed from man to man—from father to son. And all the cumbrous machinery of royalty and nobility is borne with, because it seems necessary to stability,—stability, not of ideas, not oppressions, not power; but of property. The Conservatism of England, (that is of England as a thinking people—not of a party, for the party to which the name is applied seems rather the exception to this,) may be then time-serving, cowardly, and selfish, and compared with the reckless spirit of the Socialist Republicans, I believe it is; but is in no other sense slavish or despotic.

The throne is the central tower of the old feudal castle they have had the misfortune to inherit from our ancestors. The less imposing and ostensible outworks in which its real strength consists, must be quietly and conservatively removed, and used for the foundations of a new edifice, better adapted to cope with the moral and intellectual engines of modern warfare, more appropriate and more convenient to modern and more enlightened life. When the new structure now rising incongruously among and out of the tottering bastions and crumbling buttresses, and which even now betrays its simple Republican style over the old battlements, shall be sufficiently complete and tried to sustain the shock, the old Royal stronghold may be expected to fall. Possibly when the present notable house-wife leaves it, its empty honors may be resigned peaceably and happily to inevitable fate.

The first speaker we heard was Mr. Cockburn (pronounced Co-burn.) His speech and his manner was characterized by great life, humour, and personality. It was quite like much of the better kind of speaking in our own House of Representatives. He is a rather small, thick-set man, has spoken noticeably but once before in Parliament, but has considerable reputation as a legal orator. (The sessions of the Courts and of Parliament are so arranged that they do not interfere with each other; though there is not the same proportion of lawyers in the political arena as there is with us.) While he was speaking the house was full. He was much applauded and sometimes groaned, and at his conclusion three-fourths of those present left the hall, a great many of the Whigs crowding around to thank and congratulate him.

The two following speakers—Mr. Walpole, and Mr. Moncton Milnes (pronounced Miles)—spoke to almost empty benches, the members-it being near seven o’clock-having gone I suppose to dinner. On this account, perhaps, they were not very animated or interesting.

Then followed Cobden, and though he was not loudly welcomed, it was immediately evident that he was listened to with the greatest interest. He seemed yet a young man, and his sentiments and delivery were full of energy and generous, fearless, independent progression. In leaving his friends (and for this occasion standing—and yet not sympathizing—with those who owed defeat of their favorite policy and their own everlasting position of political [347]decrepitude, mostly to his talent and activity) to refuse his approval to what he had always contended to be the unwise policy of interfering in the domestic concerns of other governments, he was pursuing a most unpopular course. At his conclusion, nevertheless, he received most hearty cheering from both sides of the House; an honorable testimony to the confidence he had obtained in his sincerity.

“Sir Robert!” exclaimed several voices around me, as a fine, tall and venerable man rose and bowed with grace and dignity to the Speaker. After a burst of cheering, the still, fixed attention of all the House showed how much was expected from him. His speech was feeling, eloquent and impressive; his tone and manner, courtly, refined, and grave often almost to sadness, and though his popular reputation with all parties here seems to be for shrewdness, policy, and diplomatic talent, rather than for noble, far-reaching states-manship, I received the impression of a sincere, earnest, truthful man, which I shall have the pleasure of retaining and associating with the part he plays in history.

[It was the last scene in which Sir Robert Peel was to appear before the public in the Act of this world.—While every cabinet and crowned head in Europe was listening to him; he was called from the stage of history to appear before the “King of Kings.” It is remarkable that the very hour in which I was writing these words the great statesman to whom they referred was thrown to the ground in helpless prostration and that noble body, was soon all that was left of him here.]

There was one passage occurring at the very commencement of his speech which produced so great an effect on the house, and impressed me with such glowing admiration of the man at the time, and is now so honorable to his memory, that I must try to give you an idea of it.

Mr. Cockburn had been sneering at the policy which could have induced Sir Robert and his party to become the friends of the Protectionists in this debate. He could imagine but three courses they could have in view; two of these he showed to be impracticable or impolitic. The third was to obtain power by sacrifice of their old principles, by what he termed an unholy alliance with their common enemy. “I tell you,” said he, “that I believe that the compromise will involve a deviation from principle on your part.” There was no other course, he said, and he called upon “the right Honorable Baronet” with impertinent personality to “speak out.”—“Be for once frank and fair with us, give us an answer.” He demanded with reiterated sarcasm that they should know the conditions of what he “could not help calling a very pitiful and mean combination.”

I wish I could convey to you a conception of the almost sublime attitude, feeling, and spontaneous eloquence with which Sir Robert, looking down sternly upon him replied. Speaking very slowly and distinctly, he said—

“There has been no such compromise. He (Mr. Cockburn) demands [348] which of the three courses, which of the three combinations by which office may be obtained, we intend to pursue. Now is it not possible for the honorable gentleman to suppose there may be a fourth course? Is it not possible for him to speculate upon the possibility that men in this House may intend to give their votes without reference to political combinations? Does he exclude the possibility of that fourth course of action which arises from a conscientious conviction as to the truth? Is that excluded from his contemplation? Is it not possible that without reference to party or personal interests men may decline to affirm a resolution which deals with principles of greater importance to the welfare of this country than have ever been under consideration of this House?”

This was but the introduction to a logical defence of his position which, with an air of magnanimous superiority to such unworthy admissions as had been presumed upon, was well calculated to carry convictions of his sincerity and honest, catholic patriotism.

Lord John Russell followed, defending his Ministerial policy in a speech that commanded respectful and studious attention. He appeared a fine polished man, and spoke in a low and rather persuasive tone, and with a calm, deliberate, energetic, but self confident manner. I heard him somewhat indistinctly, and it was partly owing to this perhaps, and in part to fatigue, for we had not left our seats or had any refreshment for more than eight hours, that I was less interested by him, and he seemed to me much less of an orator than either of the great men that had preceded him. The moment he took his seat, Disraeli was on his feet and begged the generosity of the house to give him attention. He seemed to me a greater man than he is usually represented to be. He spoke with fluency and with almost impatient eagerness to carry his convictions to his audience, but without very vigorous or effective arguments.

When he had concluded, at 3 o’clock in the morning, after a few explanatory remarks from Mr. Roebuck, the House divided, (when the spectators are turned out from the galleries) and greatly to the relief and joy of the liberals, both within and without, a majority of forty-six was found to sustain the ministry. F.