A 476720
SPEECHES
BY
THE RT HON.
OHN BRIGHT
M.R.
WOROLD ROGERS
SIXTEENTH
THOUSAND
AUTHOR'S
'OPULAR EDITION

?
ARTES
318.7.
SCIENTIA
LIBRARY
VERITAS
OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
PLURIBUS
TCEBOR
I-QUÆRIS-PENINSULAM-AMŒNAM
CIRCUMSPICE
SPEECHES
BY THE
!
RIGHT HON. JOHN BRIGHT, M.P.

M

*
AUTHOR'S POPULAR EDITION
SPEECHES
On Questions of Public Policy
BY
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
JOHN BRIGHT, M.P.
Edited by
JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS
'Be Just and Fear not'
Bixteenth Thousand
London
MACMILLAN AND CO.
1880
[All rights reserved]
•
I
་

1
:
1
DA
565
B8
A25
1880
OXFORD:
BY E. PICKARD HALL AND J. H. STACY,
PRINTERS TO THE UNIVERSITY.
1
0955060-190
PREFACE.
THE speeches which have been selected for publication in this volume possess a
value, as examples of the art of public speaking, which no person will be likely to
underrate. Those who may differ from Mr. Bright's theory of the public good will
have no difficulty in acknowledging the clearness of his diction, the skill with
which he arranges his arguments. the vigour of his style, the persuasiveness of his
reasoning, and above all, the perfect candour and sincerity with which he expresses
his political convictions.
It seems likely that the course of events in this country will lead those, who
may desire to possess influence in the conduct of public affairs, to study the art of
public speaking. If so, nothing which can be found in English literature will aid
the aspirant after this great faculty more than the careful and reiterated perusal of
the speeches contained in this volume. Tried indeed by the effect produced
upon any audience by their easy flow and perfect clearness, or analysed by any of
those systems of criticism which under the name of rhetoric' have been saved to
us from the learning of the ancient world, these speeches would be admitted to
satisfy either process.
<
This is not the occasion on which to point out the causes which confer so great
an artistic value on these compositions; which give them now, and will give them
hereafter, so high a place in English literature. At the present time nearly a
hundred millions of the earth's inhabitants speak the English tongue. A century
hence, and it will probably be the speech of nearly half the inhabitants of the globe.
I think that no master of that language will occupy a loftier position than Mr.
Bright; that no speaker will teach with greater exactness the noblest and rarest of
the social arts, the art of clear and persuasive exposition. But before this art can
be attained (so said the greatest critic that the world has known), it is necessary
that the speaker should secure the sympathies of his audience, should convince
them of his statesmanship, should show that he is free from any taint of self-
interest or dissimulation. These conditions of public trust still form, as heretofore,
in every country of free thought and free speech, the foundation of a good reputation
b
vi
PREFACE.
!
•
and of personal influence. It is with the fact that such are the characteristics of
my friend's eloquence, that I have been strongly impressed in collecting and
editing the materials of this volume.
Since the days of those men of renown who lived through the first half of the
seventeenth century, when the liveliest religious feeling was joined to the loftiest
patriotism, and men laboured for their conscience and their country, England has
witnessed no political career like that of Cobden and Bright. Cobden's death was
a great loss to his country, for it occurred at a time when England could ill spare
a conscientious statesman. Nations, however, cannot be saved by the virtues, nor
need they be lost by the vices, of their public men. But Cobden's death was an
irreparable loss to his friends-most of all to the friend who had been, in an inces-
sant struggle for public duty and truth, of one heart and of one purpose with him.
Those who have been familiar with Cobden's mind know how wide was his
knowledge, how true was his judgment of political events. The vast majority of
those who followed his public career had but a scanty acquaintance with the
resources of his sagacity and foresight. He spoke to the people on a few subjects
only. The wisdom of Free Trade; the necessity of Parliamentary Reform ; the
dangerous tendency of those laws which favour the accumulation of land in few
hands; the urgent need for a system of national education; the mischief of the
mere military spirit; the prudence of uniting communities by the multiplication of
international interests; the abandonment of the policy of diplomatic and military
intermeddling; the advocacy, in short, of the common good in place of a spurious
patriotism, of selfish, local, or class aims; formed the subject of Cobden's public
utterances. But his intimate friends, and in particular his regular correspondents,
were aware that his political criticism was as general as it was accurate. The loss
then of his wise and lucid counsel was the greatest to the survivor of a personal
and a political friendship which was continued uninterruptedly through so long and
so active a career.
At the commencement of Mr. Bright's public life, the shortsighted selfishness of
a landlords' parliament was afflicting the United Kingdom with a continuous dearth.
Labour was starved, and capital was made unproductive by the Corn-laws. The
country was tied to a system by which Great Britain and her Colonies deliberately
chose the dearest market for their purchases. In the same spirit, the price of
freights was wilfully heightened by the Navigation-laws. Important branches of
home industry were crippled by prying, vexatious, and wasteful excises. And this
system was conceived to be the highest wisdom; or at any rate, to be so invincible
a necessity that it could not be avoided or altered without danger. The country, if
it were to make its way, could make it only because other nations were servile
imitators of our commercial policy, and, in the vain hope of retaliation, were
hindering their own progress.
The foreign policy of Great Britain was suspicious and irritating, for it was
secret, busy, and meddling, insolent to the weak, conciliatory, even truckling, to
PREFACE.
vii
the strong. The very name of diplomacy is and has been odious to English
Liberals, for by means of it a reactionary Government could check domestic
reforms, and hinder the community of nations indefinitely. The policy of the
Foreign Office was constantly directed towards embittering, if not embroiling,
the relations between this and other countries. It is difficult to account for these
intrigues, except on the ground that successive Governments were anxious to
maintain political and social anomalies at home, while they were affecting to
support the balance of power' abroad. The abandonment of intervention if
foreign politics was the beginning of agitation for domestic reforms.
Perhaps no part of the public administration was worse than that of India.
The great Company had lost its monopoly of trade in the Eastern seas, but
retained its administrative powers over the subject races and dependent princes of
India. Its system of finance was wasteful and oppressive. Its policy was that on
aggression and annexation. In practice, the Government was irresponsible.
Nobody listened to Indian affairs in Parliament, except on rare occasions, or for
party purposes. The Governor-General did as he pleased. The President of the
Board of Control did as he pleased. If the reader wishes to see how the former
acted, Mr. Cobden's pamphlet, 'How Wars are got up in India,' will enlighten
him. If it be necessary to inquire what the policy of the latter might be, the
disastrous and disgraceful Affghan War is an illustration. Never perhaps was
a war commenced more recklessly. It is certain that when loss and dishonour fell
on the English arms, the statesmen who recommended and insisted on the war
tried to screen themselves from just blame by the basest arts.
The internal resources of India were utterly neglected. The Company collected
part of its revenue from a land-tax, levied in the worst shape. In order to secure
an income through a monopoly, it constrained the cultivation of certain drugs for
which there was a foreign demand; and neglected to encourage the cultivation of
cotton, for which the home demand was wellnigh boundless, and to which the
Indian supply might be made to correspond. The Company constructed neither
road nor canal.' It did nothing towards maintaining the means of communication
which even the native governments had adopted. It suffered the ancient roads and
tanks to fall into decay. It neglected to educate the native gentry, much more the
people. In brief, the policy of the Company in dealing with India was the policy
of Old Spain with her Transatlantic possessions, only that it was more jealous and
illiberal.
Against these social and political evils, and many others which might be enu-
merated, a very small body of true and resolute statesmen arrayed themselves.
Among these statesmen the most eminent were the two chiefs of the Anti-Corn-
law agitation. Never did men lead a hope which seemed more forlorn. They had
as opponents nearly the whole Upper House of Parliament, a powerful and com-
pact party in the Lower. The Established Church was, of course, against them.
The London newspapers, at that time almost the only political power in the press,
viii
PREFACE.
were against them. The 'educated' classes were against them. Many of the
working people were unfriendly to them, for the Chartists believed that the repeal
of the Corn-laws would lower the price of labour. After a long struggle they
gained the day; for an accident, the Irish famine, rendered a change in the Corn-
laws inevitable. But had it not been for the organisation of the League, the
accident would have had no effect; for it is a rule in the philosophy of politics that
an accident is valuable only when the machinery for making use of the accident
is at hand. Calamities never teach wisdom to fools, they render it possible that
the wise should avail themselves of the emergency.
A similar calamity, long foreseen by prudent men, caused the political extinction
of the East India Company. The joint action of the Board of Control and the
Directors led to the Indian mutiny. The suppression of the Indian mutiny led to
the suppression of the Leadenhall Street Divan. Another calamity, also foreseen
by statesmen, the outbreak of the American Civil War, gave India commercial
hope, and retrieved the finances which the Company's rule had thrown into
hopeless disorder.
I have selected the speeches contained in this volume, with a view to
supplying the public with the evidence on which Mr. Bright's friends assert his
right to a place in the front rank of English statesmen. I suppose that there is no
better evidence of statesmanship than prescience; that no fuller confirmation of
this evidence can be found than in the popular acceptance of those principles
which were once unpopular and discredited. A short time since, Lord Derby said
that Mr. Bright was the real leader of the Opposition. It is true that he has given
great aid to that opposition which Lord Derby and his friends have often en-
countered, and by which, to their great discredit, but to their great advantage,
they have been constantly defeated. If Lord Derby is in the right, Mr. Bright is
the leader of the People, while his Lordship represents a party which is reckless
because it is desperate. The policy which Mr. Bright has advocated in these
pages, and throughout a quarter of a century, a policy from which he has never
swerved, has at last been accepted by the nation, despite the constant resistance of
Lord Derby and his friends. It embodies the national will, because it has attacked,
and in many cases vanquished, institutions and laws which have become unpopular,
because they have been manifestly mischievous and destructive. No one knows
better how conservative and tolerant is public opinion in England towards tradi-
tional institutions, than Mr. Bright does; or how indifferent the nation is to attacks
on an untenable practice and a bad law, until it awakens to the fact that the law or
the practice is ruinous.
Mr. Bright's political opinions have not been adopted because they were popular.
He was skilfully, and for a time successfully, maligned by Lord Palmerston, on
account of his persevering resistance to the policy of the Russian War. But it is
probable that the views he entertained at that time will find more enduring accept-
ance than those which Lord Palmerston and Lord Palmerston's colleagues promul-
PREFACE.
ix
}
gated, and that he has done more to deface that Moloch, the balance of power,'
than any other man living. Shortly after the beginning of the Planters' War,
almost all the upper, and many of the middle classes, sympathised with the Slave-
owners' conspiracy. Everybody knows which side Mr. Bright took, and how
judicious and far-sighted he was in taking it. But everybody should remember
also how, when Mr. Bright pointed out the consequences likely to ensue from the
cruise of the Alabama, he was insulted by Mr. Laird in the House of Commons;
the Mr. Laird who launched the Alabama, who has been the means of creating
bitter enmity between the people of this country and of the United States, and has
contrived to invest the unlawful speculation of a shipbuilder with the dignity
of an international difficulty, to make it the material for an unsettled diplomatic
question.
There are many social and political reforms, destined, it may be hoped, to
become matter of debate and action in a Reformed Parliament, towards the accom-
plishment of which Mr. Bright has powerfully contributed. There is that without
which Reform is a fraud, the redistribution of seats; that without which it is a
sham, the ballot; that without which it is possibly a danger, a system of national
education, which should be, if not compulsory, so cogently expedient that it cannot
be rejected. There is the great question of the distribution of land, its occupancy,
and its relief from that pestilent system of game-preserving which robs the farmer
of his profit and the people of their home supplies. There is the pacification of
Ireland. The only consolation which can be gathered from the condition of that
unhappy country is, that reforms, which are highly expedient in Great Britain, are
vital in Ireland, and that they therefore become familiar to the public mind.
There is the development of international amity and good-will, first between our-
selves and the people of our own race, next between all nations. There is the
recognition of public duty to inferior or subject races, a duty which was grievously
transgressed before and after the Indian mutiny, and has been still more atrociously
outraged in the Jamaica massacre. Upon these and similar matters, no man who
wishes to deserve the reputation of a just and wise statesman,-in other words, to
fulfil the highest and greatest function which man can render to man,—can find a
worthier study than the public career of an Englishman whose guiding principle
throughout his whole life has been his favourite motto, Be just and fear not.'
C
I have divided the speeches contained in this volume into groups. The materials
for selection are so abundant, that I have been constrained to omit many a speech
which is worthy of careful perusal. I have naturally given prominence to those
subjects with which Mr. Bright has been especially identified, as, for example, India,
America, Ireland, and Parliamentary Reform. But nearly every topic of great
public interest on which Mr. Bright has spoken is represented in this volume.
A statement of the views entertained by an eminent politician, who wields a vast
influence in the country, is always valuable. It is more valuable when the utter-
ances are profound, consistent, candid. It is most valuable at a crisis when the
X
PREFACE.
#
+
*
!
t.
people of these islands are invited to take part in a contest where the broad prin-
ciples of truth, honour, and justice are arrayed on one side, and their victory is
threatened by those false cries, those reckless calumnies, those impudent evasions
which form the party weapons of desperate and unscrupulous men.
All the speeches in this volume have been revised by Mr. Bright. The Editor is
responsible for their selection, for this Preface, and for the Index.
OXFORD, June 30, 1868.
JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS.
::
CONTENTS.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
INDIA.
House of Commons, June 3, 1853
House of Commons, June 24, 1858
House of Commons, May 20, 1858
House of Commons, August 1, 1859
House of Commons, March 19, 1861
I.
U.
III.
CANADA.
PAGE
Ι
18
33
45
•
59
House of Commons, March 13, 1865
The Canadian Fortifications. House of Commons, March 23, 1865
The Canadian Confederation Scheme. House of Commons, February 28,
1867
64
77
SI
AMERICA.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
The Trent' Affair. Rochdale, December 4, 1861
The War and the Supply of Cotton. Birmingham, December 18, 1862
Slavery and Secession. Rochdale, February 3, 1863
The Struggle in America. St. James's Hall, March 25, 1863
85
•
100
115
124
129
V.
London, June 16, 1863
VI.
135
144
Mr. Roebuck's Motion for Recognition of the Southern Confederacy.
House of Commons, June 30, 1863
VII. London, June 29, 1867
I.
•
IRELAND.
Maynoob Grant. House of Commons, April 16, 1845
Rate in Aid. House of Commons, April 2, 1849
1
149
II.
Crime and Outrage Bill.
III.
Employment of the Poor.
House of Commons, December 13, 1847
House of Commons, August 25, 1848
153
158
IV.
163
176
V.
VI.
Dublin, October 30, 1866
183
192
200
214
Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill. House of Commons, February 17, 1866
VII. Dublin, November 2, 1866
VIII. House of Commons, March 14. 1868
IX.
House of Commons, April 1, 1868 .
RUSSIA.
I.
War wi'b Russia-The Queen's Message.
March 31, 1854
House of Commons,
224
II.
Enlistment of Foreigners Bill. House of Commons, December 22,
1854
240
III.
IV.
Negotiations at Vienna. House of Commons, February 23, 1855
On the Prosecution of the Russian War. House of Commons, June 7,
1855
247
252
Letter of John Bright to Absalom Watkin on the Russian War
271
+
xii
CONTENTS.
ײן
I.
.
VI.
VII.
REFORM.
Birmingham, October 27, 1858
Manchester, December 10, 1858
Glasgow, December 21, 1858
Lord Derby's Bill. House of Commons, March 24, 1859
Birmingham, January 18, 1865
The Reform Bill of Lord Russell's Administration. On the Motion for
leave to bring in the Bill. House of Commons, March 13, 1866 .
The Representation of the People Bill-Debate on the Second Reading.
House of Commons, April 23, 1866 .
VIII. Birmingham, August 27, 1866 .
IX.
X.
Glasgow, October 16, 1866
Manchester, November 20, 1866
XI. London, December 4, 1866
XII. Voting-papers. House of Commons, June 20, 1867
XIII. House of Commons, August 8, 1867
Free Trade. Covent Garden Theatre, December 19, 1845
Burdens on Land. House of Commons, March 15, 1849
Agricultural Distress. House of Commons, April 11, 1851
Game Laws. St. Alban's, March 26, 1845
The Distribution of Land. Birmingham, January 26, 1864
Peace. Edinburgh, October 13, 1853
PAGE
277
292
304
318
329
343
353
371
378
385
392
400
406
415
422
430
437
445
459
Foreign Policy. Birmingham, October 29, 1858
466
Financial Policy. The Financial Policy of the late Government. House of
Commons, July 21, 1859
480
Tax Bills. Power of House of Lords. House of Commons, July 6, 1860
Punishment of Death. House of Commons, May 3, 1864
The Permissive Bill. House of Commons, June 8, 1864
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. House of Commons, May 12,
Admission of Jews to Parliament. House of Commons, April 15, 1853
The Government Scheme of Education. House of Commons, April 20,
1847
•
489
503
511
1851
516
524
529
Church Rates Abolition Bill. House of Commons, April 27, 1860
Letter to Dr. Gray on the Irish Church
538
547
Index
555
7
INDIA.
I.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 3, 1853.
From Hansard.
[The ministerial measure for the government of India was introduced by Sir Charles
Wood on June 3, 1853. The particulars of the Bill were as follows: The Government
proposed that for the future the relations between the Directors and the Board of
Control should be unchanged, but that the constitution of the former should be altered
and its patronage curtailed. It reduced the number of the Members of the Court
from twenty-four to eighteen, of whom twelve were to be elected as before, and six
nominated by the Crown from Indian servants who had been ten years in the service
of the Crown or the Company. One-third of this number was to go out every second
year, but to be re-eligible. Nominations by favour were to be abolished. The
governorship of Bengal was to be separated from the office of Governor-General.
The legislative council was to be improved and enlarged, the number to be twelve.
The Bill passed the House of Lords on June 13.]
I FEEL a considerable disadvantage in
rising to address the House after having
listened for upwards of five hours to
the speech of the right hon. Gentleman.
But the question is one, as the right
hon. Gentleman has said, of first-rate
importance; and as I happen from a
variety of circumstances to have paid
some attention to it, and to have formed
some strong opinions in regard to it,
I am unwilling even that the Bill should
be brought in, or that this opportunity
should pass, without saying something,
which will be partly in reply to the
speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and
partly by way of comment on the plan
which he has submitted to the House.
There is, as it appears to me, great
inconsistency between the speech of the
right hon. Gentleman, and that which
he proposes should be done; because,
really, if we take his speech as a true
and faithful statement of the condition
of India, and of the past proceedings
of the Government in that country, our
conviction must be that the right hon.
Gentleman will be greatly to be blamed
in making any alteration in that Go-
vernment. At the same time, if it be
not a faithful portraiture of the Govern-
ment, and of its transactions in India,
then what the right hon. Gentleman
proposes to do in regard to the home
administration of that country is alto-
gether insufficient for the occasion. I
cannot on the present occasion go into
many of the details on which the right
hon. Gentleman has touched; but the
observations which I have to make will
refer to matters of government, and
those will be confined chiefly to the
organisation of the home administra-
tion. I am not much surprised that the
Government should have taken what I
will call a very unsatisfactory course
with regard to the measure they have
propounded, because they evidently did
not seem exactly to know what they
I
2
JUNE 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I
ought to do from the very first moment
that this question was brought before
them. I do not allude to the whole
of the Treasury bench, but I refer
particularly to the noble Lord (Lord J.
Russell), because he was at the head
of the Government when this question
was first brought before them. Lord
Broughton, then Sir John. Hobhouse,
was at that time the President of the
Board of Control, and he was not in
favour of a Committee to inquire into
the past government and present con-
dition of India. Shortly afterwards,
however, it was considered by the noble
Lord (Lord J. Russell) that it would be
desirable to have such a Committee ap-
pointed. A Committee was appointed,
and it sat. But at the commencement
of the present Session the noble Lord
intimated very distinctly, in answer to
a question which I put to him, and
which seemed to make the noble Lord
unnecessarily angry, that it was the
intention of the Government to legis-
late, and in such a way as to leave the
Indian Government almost entirely the
same as it had hitherto been. ['No,
no!'] Well, I thought that the noble
Lord said so, and in corroboration of
that I may mention that the noble
Lord quoted-and I believe that it was
the noble Lord's only authority-the
opinion of the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries),
who considered that no material change
was required in the constitution of the
home Indian Government. Well, when
the noble Lord made that announce-
ment, considerable dissatisfaction was
manifested on both sides of the House,
some hon. Members speaking in favour
of a delay of one, two, or three years,
or declaring themselves strongly against
the present constitution of the Indian
Government. However, from that time
to this, various rumours were afloat,
and everybody was confident one week
that there would be no legislation, or
only a postponement; in another week
it was thought that there was to be a
very sweeping measure (which last re-
port, I must say, I never believed); and
the week after that people were again
led to the conclusion that there would
be a measure introduced such as the
one this night submitted to the House.
Again, it was understood so lately as
last Saturday that there would be no
legislation on the subject, excepting a
mere temporary measure for a post-
ponement. I confess that I was my-
self taken in by that announcement.
On Monday the hon. Member for
Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) gave notice
of a question on the same subject,
and he was requested not to ask it
till Tuesday. On Tuesday there was
a Cabinet Council, and whether there
was a change of opinion then I know
not, but I presume that there was. The
opinion that was confidently expressed
on Saturday gave way to a new opinion,
and the noble Lord announced that
legislation would be proceeded with im-
mediately. All this indicates that there
was a good deal of vacillation on the
part of the Government. At last, how-
ever, has come the speech of the right
hon. Gentleman the President of the
Board of Control. There were some
good things in it, no doubt. I do not
suppose that any man could stand up,
and go on speaking for five hours,
without saying something that was use-
ful. But as to the main question on
which this matter rests, I do not believe
that the plan which the Government
proposes to substitute will be one par-
ticle better than that which exists at
the present moment.
With regard to the question of pa-
tronage, I admit, so far as that goes,
that the plan proposed by the right
hon. Gentleman will be an improvement
on the present system. But I do not
understand that the particular arrange-
ment of the covenanted service is to
be broken up at all.
That is a very
important matter, because, although he
might throw open the nominations to
the Indian service to the free competition
of all persons in this country, yet if,
when these persons get out to India,
they are to become a covenanted ser-
vice, as that service now is constituted,
1853.
3
INDIA. I.
and are to go on from beginning to end
in a system of promotion by seniority-
and they are to be under pretty much
the same arrangement as at present-a
great deal of the evil now existing will
remain; and the continuance of such
a body as that will form a great bar
to what I am very anxious to see,
namely, a very much wider employment
of the most intelligent and able men
amongst the native population.
The right hon. Gentleman has, in
fact, made a long speech wholly in
defence of the Indian Government; and
I cannot avoid making some remarks
upon what he has stated, because I
wholly dissent from a large portion of
the observations which he has made.
But the right hon. Gentleman, above all
things, dreads that this matter should
be delayed. Now I will just touch
upon that point. The right hon. Gen-
tleman has said that he has not met any
one who does not consider it highly
desirable that the House should legis-
late upon the subject of the Government
of India this year; and that it will be
a great evil if such legislation is post-
poned. In support of this view he
produces a private letter from Lord
Dalhousie upon the subject. Now I
do not consider such evidence as by any
means conclusive, because the House
knows that Lord Dalhousie has been
connected with the system that now
exists. That noble Earl is also sur-
rounded by persons who are themselves
interested in maintaining the present
system.
From his elevated position
also in India-I do not mean his loca-
tion at Simlah-but from his being by
his station removed from the mass of
the European population, and still more
removed from the native population, I
do not think it at all likely that Lord
Dalhousie will be able to form a sounder
opinion upon this question than persons
who have never been in India. In my
opinion, no evil can possibly arise from
creating in the minds of the population
of India a feeling that the question. of
Indian Government is considered by
the House of Commons to be a grave
and solemn question; and I solemnly
believe that if the decision on the ques-
tion be delayed for two years, so as
to enable Parliament to make due in-
quiries as to the means of establishing
a better form of government in India,
it will create in the minds of all the
intelligent natives of India a feeling of
confidence and hope, and that whatever
may be done by them in the way of
agitation will be rather for the purpose
of offering information in the most
friendly and generous spirit, than of
creating opposition to any Government
legislation. However, the question of
delay is one which the House in all
probability will be called upon to de-
cide on another occasion.
But passing from that subject, I
now come to the principle upon which
the right hon. Gentleman founded his
Motion. The speech of the right hon.
Gentleman was throughout that of an
advocate of the Indian Government, as
at present constituted; and, if Mr.
Melville had said everything that could
possibly be dragged into the case, he
could not have made it more clearly
appear than the right hon. Gentleman
has done that the Government of India
has been uniformly worthy of the con-
fidence of the country. My view of
this matter, after a good deal of obser-
vation, is, that the Indian Government,
composed of two branches, which the
right hon. Gentleman does not propose
to amalgamate into one, is a Govern-
ment of secrecy and irresponsibility to
a degree that should not be tolerated in
a country like this, where we have a
constitutional and Parliamentary Go-
vernment. I have not the least idea
in any observations which I may make
either in this House or elsewhere of
bringing a charge against the East
India Company-that is to say, against
any individual member of the Board of
Directors, as if they were anxious to
misgovern India. I never had any such
suspicion. I believe that the twenty-
four gentlemen who constitute the Board
of Directors would act just about as
well as any other twenty-four persons
I-2
4
JUNE 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
1
·
elected by the same process, acting under
the same influences, and surrounded by
the same difficulties-having to act
with another and independent body-
the Board of Control. Neither am I
hostile to the Board of Control, because
I think that the duty imposed upon it is
greater than any such body can properly
perform. The right hon. Gentleman,
the enormous labours of whose office
could not be accomplished by any one
man, coming into office in December,
and having to propose a new Govern-
ment for India in the month of May or
June, must have found it extremely
difficult to make himself master of the
question. But beyond this the House
should bear in mind, that during the
last thirty years there has been a new
President of the Board of Control every
two years. Nay, in the course of last
year there were no less than three
Presidents of the Board of Control.
Thus that Board seems framed in such
a manner as to make it altogether
impossible that any one man should be
able to conduct it in the way in which
it ought to be conducted. Beyond this,
the President of that Board has to act in
conjunction with the Court of Directors.
Without saying anything which would
impute blame to any party, it must be
obvious that two such bodies combined
can never carry on the government of
India wisely, and in accordance with
those principles which have been found
necessary in the government of this
country. The right hon. Gentleman
has been obliged to admit that the
theory of the old Government of India
was one which could not be defended,
and that everybody considers it ridi-
culous and childish. I am not at all
certain that the one that is going to be
established is in any degree better. It
was in 1784 that this form of govern-
ment was established, amid the fight
of factions. In 1813 it was continued
for twenty years longer, during a time
when the country was involved in des-
perate hostilities with France. In 1833
another Bill, continuing that form of
government, passed through Parliament
immediately after the hurricane which
carried the Reform Bill. All these cir-
cumstances rendered it difficult for the
Government, however honestly disposed,
to pass the best measure for the govern-
ment of India. But all the difficulties
which then existed appear to me wholly
to have vanished. Never has any
question come before Parliament more
entirely free from a complication of that
nature, or one which the House has the
opportunity of more quietly and calmly
considering, than the question now be-
fore them.
1
I should have been pleased if the
right hon. Gentleman had given the
House the testimony of some two or
three persons on his own side of the
question. But, as he has not done so,
I will trouble the House by referring
to some authorities in support of my
own views. I will first refer to the
work of Mr. Campbell, which has
already been quoted by the right hon.
Gentleman. It is a very interesting
book, and gives a great deal of in-
formation. That writer says-
'The division of authority between the
Board of Control and the Court of Di-
rectors, the large number of directors, and
the peculiar system by which measures are
originated in the Court, sent for approval
to the Board, then back again to the Court,
and so on, render all deliverances very slow
and difficult; and when a measure is dis-
cussed in India, the announcement that it
has been referred to the Court of Directors
is often regarded as an indefinite postpone-
ment. In fact, it is evident that (able and
experienced as are many of the individual
directors) twenty-four directors in one place,
and a Board of Control in another, are not
likely very speedily to unite in one opinion
upon any doubtful point.'
That, I think, is likely to be the opinion
of any man on the Government of India.
There is another authority to which I
will refer, Mr. Kaye, who has also
written a very good book.
It was
actually distributed by the Court of
Directors; I have therefore a right to
consider it a fair representation of their
1853-
5
INDIA. I.
views of what was done, especially as
the Chairman of the Court has given
me a copy of the book. Mr. Kaye, in
referring to the double Government
which existed in Bengal in 1772, makes
use of these expressions. When I first
read them, I thought they were a quota-
tion from my own speeches:-
'But enlightened as were the instruc-
tions thus issued to the supervisors, the
supervision was wholly inadequate to the
requirements of the case. The double
Government, as I have shown, did not
work well. It was altogether a sham and
an imposture. It was soon to be de-
molished at a blow.
The double
Government had, by this time, fulfilled its
mission. It had introduced an incredible
amount of disorder and corruption into
the State, and of poverty and wretchedness
among the people; it had embarrassed our
finances, and soiled our character, and was
now to be openly recognised as a failure.'
This is only as to Bengal. The follow-
ing are the words he uses in respect to
the double Government at home:-
'In respect of all transactions with
foreign Powers-all matters bearing upon
questions of peace and war-the President
of the Board of Control has authority to
originate such measures as he and his
colleagues in the Ministry may consider
expedient. In such cases he acts pre-
sumedly in concert with the Secret Com-
mittee of the Court of Directors-a body
composed of the chairman, deputy-chair-
man, and senior member of the Court.
The Secret Committee sign the despatches
which emanate from the Board, but they
have no power to withhold or to alter
them. They have not even the power to
record their dissent. In fact, the functions
of the Committee are only those which, to
use the words of a distinguished member
of the Court (the late Mr. Tucker), who
deplored the mystery and the mockery of
a system which obscures responsibility and
deludes public opinion, could as well be
performed "by a secretary and a seal.”
Further on he says-
'In judging of responsibility, we should
remember that the whole foreign policy
of the East India Company is regulated by
the Board of Control; that in the solution
of the most vital questions-questions of
peace and war-affecting the finances of
the country, and, therefore, the means of
internal improvement, the Court of Di-
rectors have no more power than the
mayor and aldermen of any corporate
town. India depends less on the will of
the twenty-four than on one man's caprice
here to-day and gone to-morrow-
knocked over by a gust of Parliamentary
uncertainty--the mistaken tactics of a
leader, or negligence of a whipper-in. The
past history of India is a history of revenue
wasted and domestic improvement ob-
structed by war.'
This is very much what I complain of.
I admit the right of the East India
Company to complain of many things
done by the Board of Control; and I
am of opinion, that if the House left
the two bodies to combat one another,
they would at last come to an accurate
perception of what they both are. The
East India Company accused the Board
of Control of making wars and squan-
dering the revenue which the Company
collected. But Mr. Kaye said that Mr.
Tucker deplored the mystery and the
mockery of a system which obscured re-
sponsibility and deluded public opinion.
It is because of this concealment, of this
delusion practised upon public opinion,
of this evasion of public responsibility
and Parliamentary control, that you have
a state of things in India which the hon.
Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles)
has described, when he says that the
Company manages the revenues, collects
the taxes, and gets from 20,000,000l. to
30,000,000l. a-year, and nobody knows
how much more. But, whatever it is,
such is the system of foreign policy
pursued by the Board of Control-that
is to say, by the gentlemen who drop
down there for six or eight or twelve
months, never beyond two years—that,
whatever revenues are collected, they
are squandered on unnecessary and ruin-
ous wars, till the country is brought to
6
JUNE 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
a state of embarrassment and threatened
bankruptcy. That is the real point which
the House will have to consider.
With regard to some of the details
of the Government plan, we should no
doubt all agree: but this question of
divided responsibility, of concealed re-
sponsibility, and of no responsibility
whatever, that is the real pith of the
matter. The House should take care
not to be diverted from that question.
[Mr. Mangles: Produce your own
plan.'] An hon. Gentleman has asked
me to produce my plan. I will not
comply with that request, but will follow
the example of a right hon. Gentleman,
a great authority in this House, who
once said, when similarly challenged,
that he should produce his plan when
he was called in. I believe that the
plan before the House to-night was
concocted by the Board of Control and
the hon. Member for Guildford and his
Colleagues; I shall, therefore, confine
myself at present to the discussion of
that plan. Some persons are disposed
very much (at least I am afraid so) to
undervalue the particular point which
I am endeavouring to bring before the
House; and they seem to fancy that it
does not much matter what shall be the
form of government in India, since the
population of that country will always
be in a condition of great impoverish-
ment and much suffering; and that
whatever is done must be done there,
and that after all-after having con-
quered 100,000,000 of people—it is not
in our power to interfere for the improve-
ment of their condition. Mr. Kaye, in
his book, commences the first chapters
with a very depreciating account of the
character of the Mogul Princes, with a
view to show that the condition of the
people of India was at least as unfavour-
able under them as under British rule.
I will cite one or two cases from wit-
nesses for whose testimony the right
hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) must
have respect. Mr. Marshman is a gen-
tleman who is well known as possessing
a considerable amount of information on
Indian affairs, and has, I presume, come
over on purpose to give his evidence on
the subject. He was editor of a news-
paper which was generally considered
throughout India to be the organ of the
Government; in that newspaper, the
Friend of India, bearing the date Ist
April, 1852, the following statement
appears:
'No one has ever attempted to contra-
dict the fact that the condition of the
Bengal peasantry is almost as wretched
and degraded as it is possible to conceive
-living in the most miserable hovels,
scarcely fit for a dog-kennel, covered with
tattered rags, and unable, in too many
instances, to procure more than a single
meal a-day for himself and family. The
Bengal ryot knows nothing of the most
ordinary comforts of life. We speak with-
out exaggeration when we affirm, that if
the real condition of those who raise the
harvest, which yields between 3,000,000l.
and 4,000,000l. a-year, was fully known,
it would make the ears of one who heard
thereof tingle.'
It has been said that in the Bengal
Presidency the natives are in a better
condition than in the other Presidencies;
and I recollect that when I served on
the Cotton Committee, the evidence
taken before it being confined to the
Bombay and Madras Presidencies, it
was then said that if evidence had been
taken about the Bengal Presidency it
would have appeared that the condition
of the natives was better. But I believe
that it is very much the same in all the
Presidencies. I must say that it is my
belief that if a country be found possess-
ing a most fertile soil, and capable of
bearing every variety of production, and
that, notwithstanding, the people are
in a state of extreme destitution and
suffering, the chances are that there is
some fundamental error in the govern-
ment of that country. The people of
India have been subjected by us, and
how to govern them in an efficient and
beneficial manner is one of the most
important points for the consideration
of the House. From the Report of the
Indian Cotton Committee it appears that
1853.
7
INDIA. I.
nearly every witness-and the witnesses
were nearly all servants of the Company
-gave evidence as to the state of des-
titution in which the cultivators of the
soil lived. They were in such an abject
condition that they were obliged to give
40 or 50 per cent. to borrow money to
enable them to put seed into the ground.
I can, if it were necessary, bring any
amount of evidence to prove the miser-
able condition of the cultivators, and
that in many places they have been
compelled to part with their personal
ornaments. Gentlemen who have writ-
ten upon their condition have drawn a
frightful picture, and have represented
the persons employed to collect the
revenue as coming upon the unhappy
cultivators like locusts, and devouring
everything. With regard to the con-
sumption of salt, looking at the Friend
of India, of April 14, 1853, it appears
that it is on the decline. In the year
1849-50, the consumption was 205,517
tons; in 1850-51, 186,410 tons; and
in 1851-2, 146,069 tons. Thus, in the
short period of three years, there has
been a decrease in the consumption
amounting to 59,448 tons, which will in-
volve a loss to the revenue of 416,1367.1
Salt is one of those articles that people
in India will use as much of as they can
afford, and the diminution in the con-
sumption appears to me to be a decided
proof of the declining condition of the
population, and that must affect ad-
versely the revenue of the Indian Go-
vernment. Now there is another point
to which the right hon. Gentleman has
slightly alluded; it is connected with the
administration of justice, and I will read
from the Friend of India a case illustra-
tive of the efficiency of the police. The
statement is so extraordinary that it
would be incredible but for the circum-
stance of its having appeared in such a
respectable journal:
'The affair itself is sufficiently uninter-
esting. A native Zemindar had, or fancied
1 The Friend of India was incorrect in
this statement: the real decline in the con-
sumption of salt was about 12,000 tons.
he had, some paper rights over certain
lands occupied by a European planter, and,
as a necessary consequence, sent a body of
armed retainers to attack his factory. The
European resisted in the same fashion by
calling out his retainers. There was a
pitched battle, and several persons were
wounded, if not slain; while the Darogah,
the appointed guardian of the peace, sat
on the roof of a neighbouring hut and
looked on with an interest, the keenness
of which was probably not diminished by
the fact of his own immunity from the
pains and perils of the conflict. There
has been a judicial investigation, and some-
body will probably be punished, if not by
actual sentence, by the necessary disburse-
ment of fees and douceurs, but the evil
will not be thereby suppressed or even
abated. The incident, trifling as it may
appear and the fact that it is trifling is
no slight evidence of a disorganised state
of society is an epitome in small type of
our Bengal police history. On all sides,
and in every instance, we have the same
picture-great offences, the police indif-
ferent or inefficient, judicial investigations
protracted till the sufferers regret that they
did not patiently endure the injury, and
somebody punished, but no visible abate-
ment of the crime. The fact is, and it is
beginning at last to be acknowledged
everywhere, except perhaps at home, that
Bengal does not need so much a "reform'
or reorganisation of the police, as a police,
a body of some kind, specially organised
for the preservation of order. Why the
change is so long postponed, no one, not
familiar with the arcana of Leadenhall-
street and Cannon-row, can readily ex-
plain.'
""
Mr. Marshman uses the expression, 'the
incident, trifling as it may appear;' but
I will ask the House if they can conceive
a state of society in a country under the
Government of England where a scene
of violence such as has been described
could be considered trifling?
The right hon. Gentleman has, while
admitting that the want of roads in
some districts of India is a great evil,
endeavoured to show that a great deal
8
JUNE 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
has been done to remedy the deficiency,
and that on some roads the mails travel
as fast as ten miles an hour. Now, I
believe that if the speed were taken at
five miles an hour, it would be nearer
the truth; and I will beg the House to
excuse me if I read another extract from
the Friend of India of April 14, 1853:—
The Grand Trunk, however, is the
only road upon which a good speed has
been attained, remarks being attached to
all of the remainder strongly indicative of
the want of improved means of commu-
nication. From Shergotty to Gyah, and
Gyah to Patna, for instance, the pace is
four miles and a half an hour; but then
the road is cutcha, and the slightest
shower of rain renders it puddly and im-
practicable for speedy transit." From Patna
to Benares the official account is the same,
but the rate increases at one stage to five
miles and a half. The southern roads are,
however, in the worst condition, the mails
travelling to Jellasore at three miles an
hour, or less than a groom can walk; and
even between Calcutta and Baraset the rate
rises to only four miles and a half an hour,
while everywhere we have such notices as
“road intersected by numerous unbridged
rivers and nullahs," "road has not been
repaired for these many years,"
""road not
repaired for years," the "road in so bad a
state, and so much intersected by rivers
and nullahs, that no great improvement in
the speed of the mails can be effected.
And yet the surplus Ferry Funds might,
one would think, if economically admin-
istered, be sufficient to pay at least for the
maintenance of the roads already in exist-
ence.
"
New roads, we fear, are hopeless
until Parliament fixes a minimum, which
must be expended on them; and even then
it may be allowed to accumulate, as the
Parliamentary grant for education has done
at Madras.'
The right hon. Gentleman has referred
to the subject of irrigation; and I hold
in my hand an extract from the Report
of the Commission which inquired into
the subject. The Report states that
C
The loss of revenue by the famine of
1832-33 is estimated at least at 1,000,000l.
sterling; the loss of property at a far
greater amount; of life, at 200,000 or
300,000; and of cattle, at 200,000 at the
lowest, in Guntore alone, besides the ruin
of 70,000 houses. The famine of the
Northern Circars in 1833, and that of the
north-western provinces of India at a later
period, prove with irresistible force that
irrigation in this country is properly a
question, not of profit, but of existence.'
up-
The right hon. Gentleman has also
quoted from a Report by Colonel Cotton
on the subject of the embankment of the
Kistna. Now, the embankment of the
Kistna has been recommended as far
back as the year 1792, and from that
time has been repeatedly brought for-
ward. The whole estimate for it is
but 155,000l., and it was not until
September, 1852, that the preliminary
operations were commenced. I find this
officer stating with respect to the district
of Rajamundry, that if a particular im-
provement that had been recommended
above twenty years ago had been carried
out, it would have saved the lives of
wards of 100,000 persons who perished
in the famine of 1837. I say that such
facts as these are a justification of
stronger language than any in which I
have indulged in reference to the neglect
of the Indian Government whether in
this House or out of it. The right hon.
Gentleman candidly informs us that this
very embankment has been recently
stopped by order of the Madras Govern-
ment, because the money was wanted
for other purposes-the Burmese war,
no doubt. In the year 1849 it was re-
ported that Colonel Cotton wrote a
despatch to the Madras Government, in
which, after mentioning facts connected
with the famines, he insisted, in strong
and indignant language, that the im-
provements should go on. I believe
that there was an allusion in the letter
to the awkward look these things would
have, pending the discussions on the
Government of India, and I understand
that it was agreed that the original
letter, which countermanded the im-
provements, should be withdrawn, and
1853.
9
INDIA. I.
that then the remonstrance from Colonel
Cotton should also be withdrawn. A
gentleman who has been in the Com-
pany's service, and who has for some
time been engaged in improvements,
chiefly in irrigation, writes in a private
letter as follows:-
I
'From my late investigations on this
subject, I feel convinced that the state of
our communications is the most important
subject which calls for consideration.
reckon that India now pays, for want of
cheap transit, a sum equal to the whole of
the taxes; so that by reducing its cost to
a tenth, which might easily be done, we
should as good as abolish all taxes.
trust the Committees in England are going
on well, in spite of the unbecoming efforts
which have been made to circumscribe and
quash their proceedings. Woe be to India,
indeed, if this opportunity is lost! Much
will depend upon you—
I
(the letter was not addressed to my-
self)-
and others now in England, who know
India, and have a single eye to its welfare.
It behoves you to do your utmost to im-
prove this most critical time, and may God
in his mercy overrule all the efforts of man
for its good! What abominations, villa-
nies, and idiotcies there still are in our
system! Is there no hope, no possibility,
of infusing a little fresh blood from some
purer source into these bodies?
(the ruling authorities).
It is quite clear that no radical improve-
ment can take place till some influences
can be applied to stimulate our rulers to
more healthy, wholesome action; health
can never be looked for in a body con-
stituted as the Court of Directors now is
nothing but torpid disease can be expected
as matters now stand.'
With respect to the administration of
justice, I shall not go at any length
into that subject, because I hope it will
be taken up by some other Gentleman
much more competent than myself, and
I trust that a sufficient answer will be
given to what has been stated by the
right hon. Gentleman. However, as
far as I am able to understand, there
appears to be throughout the whole of
India, on the part of the European
population, an absolute terror of coming
under the Company's Courts for any
object whatever. Within the last fort-
night I have had a conversation with a
gentleman who has seen a long period
of service in India, and he declared it
was hopeless to expect that English-
men would ever invest their property in
India under any circumstances which
placed their interests at the disposal of
those courts of justice. That is one
reason why there appears no increase
in the number of Europeans or Eng-
lishmen who settle in the interior of
India for the purpose of investing their
capital there. The right hon. Gentle-
man endeavoured to make an excuse on
the ground that the Law Commission
had done nothing. I was not in the
House when the right hon. Member
for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) brought
forward the Bill of 1833, but I under-
stand it was stated that the Law Com-
mission was to do wonders; yet now
we have the evidence of the right hon.
Gentleman the President of the Board
of Control, that the Report of the Law
Commission has ever since been going
backwards and forwards, like an un-
settled spirit, between this country and
India. Mr. Cameron, in his evidence,
said (I suppose it is slumbering some-
where on the shelves in the East India
House) that the Court of Directors ac-
tually sneered at the propositions of
their officers for enactments of any kind,
and that it was evidently their object to
gradually extinguish the Commission
altogether. Yet the evidence of Mr.
Cameron went to show the extraor-
dinary complication and confusion of
the law and law administration over all
the British dominicns in India. The
right hon. Gentleman the President of
the Board of Control, also referred to
the statistics laid before the public; but
I want to know why Colonel Sykes'
statistical tables are not before the
House. They are at the India House;
1
1Ο
JUNE 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
but a journey to Leadenhall-street seems
to be as long as one to India, and one
can as soon get a communication by
the overland mail as any information
from the India House. What did Co-
lonel Sykes say, with respect to a sub-
ject referred to by the right hon. Gen-
tleman, who had given the House to
suppose that a great deal had been
done in respect to improvements in
India? Colonel Sykes stated that in
fifteen years, from 1838 to 1852, the
average expenditure throughout the
whole of India on public works, in-
cluding roads, bridges, tanks, and ca-
nals, was 299,7321. The north-west
appeared to be the pet district; and in
1851 the total expenditure was 334,000l.,
of which the north-west district had
240,000l. In 1852 the estimate was
693,000l., of which the north-west dis-
trict was to have 492,000l., leaving only
94,000l. in 1851, and 201,000l. in 1852,
for public works of all kinds in the
three Presidencies of Bengal, Madras,
and Bombay, with a population of
70,000,000 souls. The right hon. Gen-
tleman then referred to the exports from
this country, and the increase of trade
with India; and a kindred subject to
that was the mode in which Englishmen
settle in India. What I want to show
is, that the reason why so little is done
with India by Englishmen is, that there
does not exist in that country the same
security for their investments as in al-
most every other country in the world.
I recollect receiving from Mr. Mackay,
who was sent out by the Manchester
Chamber of Commerce, a letter ex-
pressing his amazement on finding that
in the interior of India an Englishman
was hardly known, unless he now and
then made his appearance as a tax col-
lector. The following Return shows in
what small numbers Europeans resort
to India :-
'British-born subjects in India not in the
service of the Queen or the Company :-
Bengal
Madras
Bombay
6,749
1,661
1,596
10,006
• In the interior of the country, engaged
in agriculture or manufactures :-
Bengal
Madras
Bombay
•
273
37
7
317
I cannot believe, if the United States
had been the possessors of India, but
that where there are tens of Europeans
now in that country there would have
been, not hundreds, but thousands of
the people of America. The right hon.
Gentleman spoke of the exports to
India, and wanted to show how large
they were. Certainly they have in-
creased very much, because they started
from nothing at all. Before the open-
ing of the trade, the Court of Pro-
prietors, by resolution, declared that it
was quite a delusion to suppose it pos-
sible to increase the trade with India.
In 1850 the total exports to India
from Great Britain and Ireland were
8,024,000l., of which cotton goods
alone amounted to 5,220,00ol., leaving
2,804,000l. for the total exports from
Great Britain and Ireland upon all
other branches of industry other than
cotton. Now, let the House make a
comparison with another country, one
with which a moderately fair compa-
rison might be made. Brazil has a
population of 7,500,000 souls, half of
whom are reckoned to be slaves, yet
the consumption of British goods is
greater in Brazil, in proportion to the
population, than in India-the former
country, with a population of 7,500,000,
taking British goods to the amount of
2,500,000l. If India took but half the
quantity of our exports that Brazil did
in proportion to her population, she
would take more than five times what
she now takes. Yet Brazil is a country
upon which we have imposed the pay-
ment of exorbitant duties, which we
have almost debarred from trading with
us by an absurd monopoly in sugar,
while India is a country entirely under
our own government, and which, we
are told, is enjoying the greatest pos-
sible blessings under the present ad-
1.2
ང་
T
1853.
II
INDIA. I.
ministration, compared with what it
enjoyed under its former rulers. Our
exports to India in 1814 were 826,000l.;
in 1832 they were 3,600,000l.; in 1843
they were 6,500,000l.; and in 1850
they were 8,000,000l. India consumes
our exports at the rate of Is. 3d. per
head; whilst in South America, in-
cluding the whole of the slave popu-
lation, the consumption per head is
8s. 8d. These are facts which the right
hon. Baronet is bound to pay serious
attention to. For myself, representing,
as I do, one of our great seats of manu-
facturing industry, I feel myself doubly
called upon to lose no opportunity of
bringing such facts before the House,
satisfied as I am that there is no Member
of this House so obtuse as not to com-
prehend how materially the great manu-
facturing interests of this country are
concerned in the question-what shall
be the future Government of India?
The
Another subject requiring close at-
tention on the part of Parliament is the
employment of the natives of India in
the service of the Government.
right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr.
Macaulay), in proposing the Indian Bill
of 1833, had dwelt on one of its clauses,
which provided that neither colour, nor
caste, nor religion, nor place of birth,
should be a bar to the employment of
persons by the Government; whereas,
as matter of fact, from that time to
this, no person in India has been so
employed, who might not have been
equally employed before that clause
was enacted; and, from the statement
of the right hon. Gentleman the Pre-
sident of the Board of Control, that it
is proposed to keep up the covenanted
service system, it is clear that this most
objectionable and most offensive state
of things is to continue. Mr. Cameron,
a gentleman thoroughly versed in the
subject, as fourth member of Council
in India, President of the Indian Law
Commission, and of the Council of
Education for Bengal-what does he
say on this point? He says-
'The statute of 1833 made the natives
of India eligible to all offices under the
Company. But during the twenty years
that have since elapsed, not one of the
natives has been appointed to any office
except such as they were eligible to before
the statute. It is not, however, of this
omission that I should feel justified in
complaining, if the Company had shown
any disposition to make the natives fit, by
the highest European education, for ad-
mission to their covenanted service. Their
disposition, as far as it can be devised, is
of the opposite kind.
'When four students (added Mr. Ca-
meron) were sent to London from the
Medical College of Calcutta, under the
sanction of Lord Hardinge, in Council, to
complete their professional education, the
Court of Directors expressed their dis-
satisfaction; and when a plan for estab-
lishing a University at Calcutta, which
had been prepared by the Council of
Education, was recommended to their
adoption by Lord Hardinge, in Council,
they answered that the project was pre-
mature. As to the Law Commission, I am
afraid that the Court of Directors have
been accustomed to think of it only with
the intention of procuring its abolition,'
No
Under the Act of 1833 the natives of
India were declared to be eligible to
any office under the Company.
native has, in the twenty years which
have since elapsed, been appointed to
any office in pursuance of that clause
which he might not have held before
the Bill passed, or had it never passed
at all. There might not, perhaps, have
been so much reason to complain of
this circumstance, had the Government
of India meanwhile shown a disposition
to qualify the natives for the covenanted
service; but the fact is that the Govern-
ment has, on the contrary, manifested
a disposition of a totally opposite cha-
racter. The House must be very cau-
tious not to adopt the glossed and
burnished statement of the right hon.
Gentleman as exhibiting the real state
of things in India; for it is essential, in
the highest degree, that in the present
critical juncture of things the whole
1
12
JUNE 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
truth should be known. The right
hon. Baronet, towards the close of his
speech, has gone into the subject of
education, and not so much into that
of ecclesiastical establishments in India,
but somewhat into that of religion.
Now, with reference to education, so
far as can be gathered from the Re-
turns before the House-I have sought
to obtain Returns of a more specific
character, but to no purpose, having
received the usual answer in these mat-
ters, that there was no time for preparing
them--but from the Returns we have
before us I find that while the Govern-
ment has overthrown almost entirely
that native education which had sub-
sisted throughout the country so uni-
versally that a schoolmaster was as
regular a feature in every village as the
'potail' or head man, it has done next
to nothing to supply the deficiency
which has been created, or to substitute
a better system. Out of a population
of 100,000,000 natives, we instruct but
25,000 children; out of a gross revenue
of 29,000,000l. sterling, extracted from
that population, we spend but 66,000l.
in their education. In India, let it be
borne in mind, the people are not in
the position with regard to providing
for their own education which the
people of this country enjoy, and the
education which they have provided
themselves with, the Government has
taken from them, supplying no adequate
system in its place. The people of
India are in a state of poverty, and of
decay, unexampled in the annals of the
country under their native rulers. From
their poverty the Government wrings a
gross revenue of more than 29,000,000l.
sterling, and out of that 29,000,000l.,
return to them 66,000l. per annum for
the purposes of education!
What is our ecclesiastical establish-
ment in India? Three bishops and a
proportionate number of clergy, costing
no less than 101,000l. a-year for the
sole use of between 50,000 and 60,000
Europeans, nearly one-half of whom,
moreover-taking the army-are Roman
Catholics. I might add, that in India,
the Government showed the same dis-
crimination of which the noble Member
for the City of London (Lord J. Russell)
seemed to approve so much the other
night, for, although they give to one
Protestant bishop 4,000l. a-year, with
1,200l. a-year more for expenses and a
ship at his disposal, and to two other
Protestant bishops between 2,cool. and
3,000l. a-year, they give to the Roman
Catholic bishop a paltry sum of about
250l. a-year. The East India Company
are not, perhaps, herein so much to
blame, seeing that they do but follow
the example of what is going on in this
country.
There is another question-perhaps
the most important of all-the question
of Indian finance, which, somehow or
other, the right hon. Baronet has got
over in so very lame a manner, in so
particularly confused a style, that, had
I not known something of the matter
previously, I should have learnt very
little from the right hon. Baronet's
statement. A former Director of the
East India Company has on this subject
issued a book-of course, in defence of
the Company. Here are two or three
facts extracted from this book:-From
1835 to 1851-sixteen years-the entire
net taxation of India has produced
340,756,000l.; the expenditure on the
Government in the same period having
been 341,676,000l.-an amount some-
what in excess of the revenue. During
these sixteen years there has been also
expended on public works of all kinds
5,000,000l., and there has been paid, in
dividends, to the proprietors of East
India stock, 10,080,000l.; making a
total expenditure of 356,756,000l. In
the same period the Company has
contracted loans to the extent of
16,000,000l.; every farthing of which
has gone to improvements, the stated
extent of which I believe to have been
greatly magnified, and to pay the ami-
able ladies and gentlemen whose votes
return to Leadenhall-street those im-
maculate Directors whom the Govern-
ment seems so desirous of cherishing.
All expenditure for improvements of
1853-
13
INDIA. I.
1
every kind, and all dividends to stock-
holders, have been paid from loans
contracted during the last sixteen years;
so that the whole revenue has been
expended, leaving nothing for improve-
ments and nothing for the Company's
dividends. This seems to me a formid-
able, an alarming state of things.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of
the Indian debt coming upon the people
of this country, expressing the opinion
that if the Government of India were
transferred to the Crown-which assu-
redly it ought to be the debt ought so
to be transferred. The debt is not in
the present Budget, indeed, but it will
certainly come before the House. I
have already referred to a memorable
speech of the late Sir Robert Peel on
this subject, in 1842, just after he had
come into office, and when, finding the
country left by the Whigs with an
Exchequer peculiarly discouraging to
a Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was
about to propose that temporary in-
come-tax which has since become per-
manent. He said, after referring to the
affairs of Canada and China—
'For the purpose of bringing before the
House a full and complete view of our
financial position, as I promised to do,
I feel it to be my duty to refer to a
subject which has of late occupied little
attention in the House, but which I think
might, with advantage to the public, have
attracted more of their regard-I refer to
the state of Indian finance, a subject
which formerly used to be thought not
unworthy of the consideration of this
House. I am quite aware that there may
appear to be no direct and immediate
connexion between the finances of India
and those of this country; but that would
be a superficial view of our relations with
India which should omit the consideration
of this subject. Depend upon it, if the
credit of India should become disordered,
if some great exertion should become
necessary, then the credit of England
must be brought forward to its support,
and the collateral and indirect effect of
disorders in Indian finances would be felt
extensively in this country. Sir, I am
sorry to say that Indian finance offers no
consolation for the state of finance in this
country. I hold in my hand an account
of the finances of India, which I have
every reason to believe is a correct one.
It is made up one month later than our
own accounts-to the 5th of May. It
states the gross revenue of India, with the
charges on it; the interest of the debt;
the surplus revenue, and the charges paid
on it in England; and there are two
columns which contain the net surplus
and the net deficit. In the year ending
May, 1836, there was a surplus of
1,520,000l. from the Indian revenue.
In the year ending the 5th of May,
1837, there was a surplus of 1,100,000l.,
which was reduced rapidly in the year
ending May, 1838, to one of 620,000l.
In the year ending the 5th of May, 1839,
the surplus fell to 29,000l.; in the year
ending the 5th of May, 1840, the balance
of the account changed, and so far from
there being any surplus, the deficit on the
Indian revenue was 2,414,000l. I am
afraid I cannot calculate the deficit for
the year ending May, 1841, though it
depends at present partly on estimate, at
much less than 2,334,000l. The House,
then, will bear in mind, that in fulfilment
of the duty I have undertaken, I present
to them the deficit in this country for the
current year to the amount of 2,350,000l.,
with a certain prospect of a deficit for
the next year to the amount of at least
2,470,000l., independently of the increase
to be expected on account of China and
Affghanistan, and that in India, that great
portion of our Empire, I show a deficit on
the two last years which will probably not
be less than 4,700,000l.'-[3 Hansard,
Ixi. 428–9.]
Now, this deficit has in the period since
1842 been growing every year, with the
exception of two years, when, from ac-
cidental and precarious circumstances,
a surplus of between 300,000l. and
400,000l. was made out. The course
of deficit has now, however, been re-
sumed, and there is probably no one in
this House or in the country but the
14
JUNE 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
right hon. President of the Board of
Control, who does not perceive that
the Burmese war will materially ag-
gravate the amount of that deficit.
Where is this to end? When the
Board of Control was first established,
the debt was 8,000,000l. ; in 1825
it was 25,000,000l.; in 1829 it was
34,000,000l.; in 1836, 37,000,000l.;
in 1843, 36,000,000l. ; in
in 1849,
44,000,000l. ; in 1853, 47,000,000l. ;
and now, including the bond debt at
home and the debt in India, it is
about 51,000,000l. The military ex-
penditure of India has increased since
the last Charter Act from 8,000,000l.
a-year to more than 12,000,000l. a-year,
and now forms no less than 56 per
cent. of the whole expenditure. I
believe that if the Indian Government
would endeavour to improve the con-
dition of the people by attending to
economic principles, by establishing
better means of communication, by
promoting irrigation, and by affording
facilities for education, the Indian
population would at once be convinced
that there was a feeling of sympathy
entertained towards them on the part of
their rulers and conquerors, and the
idea-which I believe prevails very
extensively that we held India more
with the object of extorting taxation
than of benefiting the people, would
speedily be removed.
When I come to consider the amount
of the revenue, and its pressure upon
the population, I think I can show a
state of things existing in India which
cannot be paralleled in any other country
in the world. The evidence of Mr.
Davies and Mr. Stewart, collectors in
Guzerat, shows that in that district the
actual taxation varies from 60 to 90 per
cent. upon the gross produce of the
soil. Mr. Campbell calculates the gross
revenue of India at about 27,000,000l.;
and Mr. Kaye, a recent authority, who,
I presume, wrote his book at the India
House, states that the gross revenue
was 29,000,00ol. The land revenue is
12,000,000l. or 13,000,000l.; and al-
though the Government took, or in-
I
tended to take, all the rent, it is not
half enough for them, and they are
obliged to take as much more from
other sources in order to enable them
to maintain their establishments.
mention this fact to show the enor-
mous expense of the Indian Govern-
ment, and the impossibility of avoiding
a great and dangerous financial crisis
unless some alteration is made in the
present system. Mr. Campbell, speak-
ing of the Indian revenues under the
Mogul Princes, says—
·
The value of food, labour, &c. seems
to have been much the same as now--
that is, infinitely cheaper than in Europe;
and, certainly, in comparison to the price
of labour and all articles of consumption,
the revenue of the Moguls must have
been more effective than that of
any
modern State-I mean that it enabled
them to command more men and luxuries,
and to have a greater surplus.'
I would ask the House to imagine that
all steam engines, and all applications
of mechanical power, were banished
from this country; that we were utterly
dependent upon mere manual labour.
What would you think if the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, under such circum-
stances, endeavoured to levy the same
taxation which is now borne by the
country? From one end of India to
the other, with very trifling exceptions,
there is no such thing as a steam en-
gine; but this poor population, without
a steam engine, without anything like
first-rate tools, are called upon to bear,
I will venture to say, the very heaviest
taxation under which any people ever
suffered with the same means of paying
it. Yet the whole of this money, raised
from so poor a population, which would
in India buy four times as much labour,
and four times as much of the pro-
ductions of the country, as it would
obtain in England, is not enough to
keep up the establishments of the
Government; for during the last six-
teen years the Indian Government has
borrowed 16,000,000l. to pay the divi-
dends to the proprietors in England.
1853.
15
INDIA. I.
The opium question has been alluded
to by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C.
Wood). I must say I do not know any
one connected with China, or at all
acquainted with the subject, who is not
of opinion that the opium revenue is
very near its termination. Even the
favourite authority of the President of
the Board of Control, Mr. Marshman,
declared his opinion that India was on
the verge of a great financial crisis.
Whether the present Chinese Govern-
ment, retains its power, or the insurgents
be successful and a new dynasty be
established, the scruple against the
importation of opium into China from
India having once been removed, the
transition to the growth of the drug in
China is very easy, and there can
scarcely be a doubt that opium will
soon be as extensively cultivated in that
country as ever it was in India. This
might very soon produce a loss of
3,000,000l. of revenue to the East India
Company. There has already been an
annual deficit in the revenues of the
East India Company for the last fifteen
years; they have to bear the cost of a
Burmese War; and the annexation of
new territory will only bring upon them
an increased charge, for Pegu will pro-
bably never repay its expenses, and
yet they have the prospect of losing
3,000,000l. of their. revenue within a
very few years. Now, what would the
Chancellor of the Exchequer say if the
President of the Board of Control came
to that House and proposed to raise
a loan upon the credit of this country
for the purpose of maintaining our
territory 'in India? Would it not be
better at once to ascertain whether the
principles and policy on which we have
hitherto proceeded have not been faulty?
Should we not rather endeavour to re-
duce our expenditure, to employ cheaper
labour, to increase the means of com-
munication in India, which would enable
us to dispense with a portion of our
troops, and to make it a rule that the
Governor-General should have more
honour when he came home, for not
having extended by an acre the territory
of our Indian possessions, than if he had
added a province or a kingdom to them?
The plan proposed by the President
of the Board of Control appears to me
very closely to resemble that which
exists at present. The result, so far as
regards the real question, about which
the public are most interested, is this,
that the twenty-four gentlemen who are
directors of the East India Company
are, by a process of self-immolation, to
be reduced to fifteen. I think this re-
duction will be one of the most affecting
scenes in the history of the Government
of India. As the East India Company
keep a writer to record their history,
I hope they also keep an artist to give
us an historical painting of this great
event. There we shall see the hon.
Member for Guildford (Mr. Mangles),
the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir J.
W. Hogg), one of the hon. Members
for the City of London, and the other
directors, meeting together, and looking
much like shipwrecked men in a boat
casting lots who should be thrown
overboard. To the fifteen directors
who are to remain, three others are to
be added, and the result will be that,
instead of having twenty-four gentlemen
sitting in Leadenhall-street, to manage
the affairs in India, there will be
eighteen. The present constituency is
so bad that nothing the President of
the Board of Control can do can make
it worse; but as that right hon. Gentle-
man finds it impossible to make it better,
he lets the constituency remain as it
was. The right hon. Baronet proposes
that the Crown should appoint six
members of the Board who have been
at least ten years in India, so that there
may at all events be that number of
gentlemen at the Board fit for the
responsible office in which they are
placed. But this is an admission that
the remaining twelve members of the
Board are not fit for their office. They
have two ingredients-the one whole-
some, the other poisonous; but there
are two drops of poison to one of
wholesome nutriment. The right hon.
Gentleman mixes them together, and
16
JUNE 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
then wants Parliament and the country
to believe that he has proposed a great
measure.
As regards the right hon. Gentleman's
speech, I must say that I have never
heard so great a one-I mean as to
length-where the result, so far as the
real thing about which people wish to
know, was so little. The twelve gentle-
men appointed by the present constitu-
ency are degraded already by the right
hon. Gentleman's declaration, that they
are not elected in a satisfactory manner,
and that they are not fit persons for the
government of India. They are, in fact,
bankers and brewers, and men of all
sorts, in the City of London, who find
it their interest to get into the Court of
Directors-no matter by what channel
--because it adds to the business of
their bank, or whatever else may be the
undertaking in which they are engaged;
but who have no special qualification
for the government of India. If the
Government thinks it right to have
six good directors, let them abolish the
twelve bad ones. Then it appears that
the Secret Department is to be retained.
Speaking of this, Mr. Kaye, quoting
the authority of Mr. Tucker, a distin-
guished director, said it was no more
than a secretary and a seal. Next
comes a most extraordinary proposition.
Hitherto the directors have undergone
all the hardship of governing India for
300l. a-year; but the right hon. Gentle-
man now proposes to raise their wages
by 41. per week each. I must say, that
if this body is to be salaried at all, and
is not to have the profit of the patronage
enjoyed by the present Government,
nothing can be worse economy than
this, with a view to obtaining a body
which shall command the respect, and
have the amount of influence, requisite
for conducting the Government of India.
Sixteen of the directors, receiving 500l.
a-year each-why, they would have to
pay their clerks much more!—and the
chairman and the deputy-chairman
1,000l. a-year each. The whole of the
right hon. Gentleman's scheme seems
to bear the marks of-I am almost
afraid to say what; but he seems to
have tried to please every one in
framing his great proposition, and at
last has landed the House in a sort of
half measure, which neither the East
India Company nor India wants. If I
had made a speech such as the right hon.
Gentleman has delivered, and believed
what I said, I would leave the Indian
Government as it is; but if I thought it
necessary to alter the Government, I
would do so on principle essentially.
The right hon. Gentleman is afraid of
bringing the Government of India under
the authority of the Crown. What, I
should like to know, would have been
done if India had been conquered by
the troops of the Crown? We should
then never have sent some thirty men
into a bye-street of London to distribute
patronage and govern a great country.
The Government of India would then
have been made a department of the
Government, with a Council and a
Minister of State. But it appears that
the old system of hocus-pocus is still to
be carried on.
This is no question of Manchester
against Essex-of town against country
of Church against Nonconformity. It
is a question in which we all have an
interest, and in which our children may
be more deeply interested than we are
ourselves. Should anything go wrong
with the finances, we must bear the
burden; or should the people of India
by our treatment be goaded into insur-
rection, we must reconquer the country,
or be ignominiously driven out of it. I
will not be a party to a state of things
which might lead to the writing of a
narrative like this on the history of our
relations with that empire. Let the
House utterly disregard the predictions
of mischief likely to result from such a
change in the Government of India as
that which I advocate. When the trade
was thrown open, and the Company was
deprived of the monopoly of carrying,
they said the Chinese would poison the
tea. There is nothing too outrageous
or ridiculous for the Company to say in
order to prevent the Legislature from
1853.
i
INDIA. I.
17
In
placing affairs on a more honest footing.
I object to the Bill, because--as the
right hon. Gentleman admitted—it
maintains a double Government.
the unstatesmanlike course which the
right hon. Gentleman is pursuing, he
will, no doubt, be especially backed by
the noble Lord the Member for London.
I only wish that some of the younger
blood in the Cabinet might have had
their way upon this question. Nothing
can induce me to believe, after the
evidence which is before the public,
that this measure has the approbation
of an united Cabinet. It is not possible
that thirteen sensible gentlemen, who
have any pretensions to form a Cabinet,
could agree to a measure of this nature.
I am more anxious than I can express
that Parliament should legislate rightly
in this matter. Let us act so at this
juncture that it may be said of us here-
after-that whatever crimes England
originally committed in conquering
India, she at least made the best of
her position by governing the country
as wisely as possible, and left the re-
cords and traces of a humane and liberal
sway.
I recollect having heard the noble
Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount
Palmerston) deliver in this House one
of the best speeches I ever listened to.
On that occasion the noble Lord gloried
in the proud name of England, and,
pointing to the security with which an
Englishman might travel abroad, he
triumphed in the idea that his country-
men might exclaim, in the spirit of the
ancient Roman, Civis Romanus sum.
Let us not resemble the Romans merely
in our national privileges and personal
security. The Romans were great con-
querors, but where they conquered, they
governed wisely. The nations they
conquered were impressed so indelibly
with the intellectual character of their
masters, that, after fourteen centuries of
decadence, the traces of civilization are
still distinguishable. Why should not
we act a similar part in India? There
never was a more docile people, never
a more tractable nation. The oppor-
tunity is present, and the power is not
wanting. Let us abandon the policy of
aggression, and confine ourselves to a
territory ten times the size of France,
with a population four times as numer-
ous as that of the United Kingdom.
Surely that is enough to satisfy the
most gluttonous appetite for glory and
supremacy. Educate the people of
India, govern them wisely, and gradually
the distinctions of caste will disappear,
and they will look upon us rather as
benefactors than as conquerors. And if
we desire to see Christianity, in some
form, professed in that country, we shall
sooner attain our object by setting the
example of a high-toned Christian mo-
rality, than by any other means we can
employ.
2
INDIA.
II.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 24, 1858.
From Hansard.
[After the suppression of the Indian mutiny, Lord Palmerston's Government determined
to introduce a Bill the object of which was to place the possessions of the East India
Company under the direct authority of the Crown. This Bill was introduced by
Lord Palmerston on February 12. But the Government fell a few days afterwards,
on the Conspiracy Bill, and Lord Palmerston's Bill was withdrawn. On March 26
the new Government introduced their own Bill, which was known as the India Bill
No. 2.
The chief peculiarity of this Bill was that five members in the proposed
council of eighteen should be chosen by the constituencies of the following cities :-
London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast. The scheme was unpopular,
and Lord Russell proposed that it should be withdrawn, and that resolutions should be
passed in a Committee of the whole House, the acceptance of which might prove a
guide to the proceedings of the Government. The suggestion was accepted by
Mr. Disraeli, and in consequence India Bill No. 3 was brought in, and read a second
time on June 24.]
-on
I Do not rise for the purpose of oppos-
ing the second reading of this Bill
the contrary, if any hon. Member thinks
proper to divide the House upon it, I
shall vote with the noble Lord. I must
say, however, that there are many clauses
in the Bill to which I entertain serious
objections. Some of them will, I hope,
be amended as the Bill passes through
Committee; but if that is not the case,
I can only hope that, as the Bill of 1853
is abandoned in 1858, within the next
five years the House of Commons will
take some further steps with regard to
this question, with the view of simplify-
ing the Government of India as carried
on in England. I wish to take this
opportunity of making some observa-
tions upon the general question of
Indian government, which it might have
been out of place to have made during
the discussion of the various Resolutions
which have been agreed to by the House.
I think it must have struck every
hon. Member that, while two Govern-
ments have proposed great changes with
regard to the government of India, no
good case has really been made out for
such changes in the speeches of the
noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman
by whom the two India Bills have been
introduced. That opinion, I know, will
meet with a response from two or three
hon. Gentlemen on this (the Opposition)
side of the House. It occurred to me
when the noble Lord at the head of the
late Government (Viscount Palmerston)
introduced his Bill-and I made the ob-
servation when the present Chancellor
of the Exchequer brought forward his
measure that if the House knew no
more of the question than they learned
1858.
19
INDIA. II.
from the speeches of the Ministers, they
could not form any clear notion why
it was proposed to overthrow the East
India Company. The hon. Member for
Guildford (Mr. Mangles) has expressed
a similar opinion several times during
the progress of these discussions. The
right hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir James
Graham) has also said that the East
India Company was being dealt with in
a manner in which animals intended for
sacrifice were treated in Eastern coun-
tries and in ancient times,-they were
decked with garlands when they were
led out for immolation. That is true;
but it does not therefore follow that the
House is not quite right in the course
it is taking. It must be clear that the
moment the House of Commons met
this Session there was only one course
which the then Government could adopt
with reference to this question. A feel-
ing existed throughout the country—I
believe I may say it was universal-that
for a long time past the government of
India had not been a good government;
that grave errors-if not grievous crimes
-had been committed in that country.
I think the conscience of the nation had
been touched on this question, and it
came by a leap, as it were-by an irre-
pressible instinct-to the conclusion
that the East India Company must be
abolished, and that another and, as the
nation hoped, a better government
should be established for that country.
There was a general impression, arising
from past discussion in Parliament, that
the industry of the people of India had
been grievously neglected; that there
was great reason for complaint with re-
spect to the administration of justice;
and that with regard to the wars entered
into by the Indian Government, there
was much of which the people of Eng-
land had reason to be ashamed.
It has been said by some that these
faults are to be attributed to the Board
of Control; but I have never defended
the Board of Control. I believe every-
thing the East India Company has said
of the Board of Control-to its dis-
credit; and I believe that everything
the Board of Control has said to the
discredit of the East India Company to
be perfectly true. There was also a
general impression that the expenditure
of the East India Government was ex-
cessive; and that it had been proved
before more than one Committee that
the taxes imposed upon the people of
India were onerous to the last degree.
These subjects were discussed in 1853,
at which time, in my opinion, the change
now proposed ought to have been
effected. Subsequently the calamitous
events of 1857 and 1858 occurred; and
the nation came at once to the con-
clusion-a conclusion which I think no
disinterested person could resist that
it was impossible that India and its vast
population could any longer be retained
under the form of government which
has existed up to this period. If, then,
a change was inevitable, the question
was how it should be accomplished and
what should be done. I think it is quite
clear that the course the noble Lord has
pursued is right—namely, that of in-
sisting that during this present Session,
and without delay, the foundation of
all reform in the government of India
should be commenced at home, because
we cannot take a single step in the
direction of any real and permanent
improvement in the Indian Government
until we have reformed what I may call
the basis of that Government by changes
to be effected in this country.
What, then, is the change which is
proposed, and which ought to be made?
For my own part, in considering these
questions, I cannot altogether approve
the Bill now before the House. What
we want with regard to the government
of India is that which in common con-
versation is called a little more day-
light.' We want more simplicity and
more responsibility. I objected to the
scheme originally proposed by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer because it did
not provide these requisites; that scheme
so closely resembled the system we were
about to overthrow that I could not
bring myself to regard it favourably.
In considering the subject before Parlia-

2-2
20
JUNE 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
C
ment met, I asked myself this question:-
Suppose there had never been an East
India Company or any such corporation,
-suppose India had been conquered by
the forces of the Crown, commanded by
generals acting under the authority of
the Crown,-how should we then have
proposed to govern distant dominions
of vast extent, and with a population
that could scarcely be counted?' I
believe such a system of government as
has hitherto existed would never have
been established; and if such a system
had not existed I am convinced that no
Minister would have proposed the plan
now submitted to the House.
I think the government would have
been placed in the hands of a Secretary
of State, with his secretaries, clerks, and
staffs of officers, or of a small Board, so
small as to prevent responsibility from
being diffused and divided, if not actually
destroyed. I suspect that the only rea-
son why the Country or Parliament can
be disposed to approve the large Council
now proposed is, that they have seen
something like a Council heretofore,
formerly of twenty-four, and subse-
quently of eighteen members, and I
believe there is something like timidity
on the part of the House, and probably
on the part of the Government, which
hinders them from making so great a
change as I have suggested to the
simple plan which would probably have
existed had no such body as the East
India Company ever been established.
I am willing to admit candidly that if
the government of India at home should
be so greatly simplified it will be neces-
sary that very important changes should
be made in the government in India. I
agree with the noble Lord (Lord Stanley)
that the representatives of the Crown
in India must have power as well as
responsibility; that they should be en-
abled to deal with emergencies, and to
settle the hundred or the thousand ques-
tions that must arise among 100,000,000
of people, without sending 10,000 miles
to this country to ask questions which
ought to be settled at once by some
competent authority on the spot.
There are two modes of governing
India, and the hon. Member for Leo-
minster (Mr. Willoughby), who has been
a very distinguished servant of the East
India Company, has publicly expressed
his views upon this question. I have
been very much struck with a note
attached to the published report of his
speech, referring to the multifarious
duties discharged by the Directors of
the East India Company. That note
states that-
'A despatch may be received, contain-
ing 60, or 100, or 200 cases; and the
despatch, in itself voluminous, is rendered
more so by collections attached to it, con-
taining copies of all former correspondence
on the subject or subjects, and of all letters
written thereon by various local officers,
and all papers relating thereto. There has
not long since been in the Revenue De-
partment a despatch with 16,263 pages of
collections. In 1845 there was one in the
same Department with 46,000 pages, and
it was stated that Mr. Canning, some years
since in the House of Commons, mentioned
a mflitary despatch to which were attached
13,511 pages of collections.'
The hon. Gentleman did not say in
his speech that anybody at the India
House ever read all these things. It
was quite clear that if the Directors
were to pretend to go through a waggon-
load of documents coming to Leaden-
hall-street every year it must be only a
pretence, and if they want to persuade
the House that they give attention to
only one-tenth part of these papers they
must think the House more credulous
than it is in matters of this kind. That
is one mode of governing India. It is
the mode which has been adopted and
the mode which has failed. If we are
to have the details settled here, I am
perfectly certain we can have no good
government in India. I have alluded on
a former occasion to a matter which
occurred in a Committee upstairs. A
gentleman who was examined stated that
he had undertaken to brew a wholesome
beer, and quite as good as that exported
for the supply of the troops, somewhere
1858.
21
INDIA. II.
in the Presidency of Madras, for one-
sixth of the price paid by Government
for that exported to India from England;
that the experiment was completely suc-
cessful; that the memorandum or record
with regard to it was sent home, no
doubt forming part of the thousands
of pages to which reference has been
made; and that it was buried in the
heap in which it came, because for years
nothing was heard of a proposition
which would have saved the Govern-
ment a very large amount annually and
opened a new industry to the population
and capital of India. I believe this
system of government is one of delay
and disappointment-one, actually, of
impossibility—one which can by no
means form a complete theory of go-
vernment as held by any persons in the
House; and that the other, the simpler
system, which I wish the House to
undertake, would be one of action, pro-
gress, and results, with regard to India,
such as we have never yet seen and never
can see until there is a complete simpli-
fication of the Indian Government in
this country.
I come now to the question-and it
is for this question that I have wished
principally to address the House-if at
any time we obtain the simplicity which
I contend for with regard to the govern-
ment at home, what changes will it be
desirable to make in the government in
India? And I would make one obser-
vation at this point, that in all the state-
ments and arguments which I hope to
use, I beg the House to believe that I
use them with the greatest possible
deference, with the feeling that this is
a question upon which no man is at
all entitled to dogmatize, that it is a
vast question which we all look at as
one we are scarcely capable of handling
and determining. I submit my views
to the House because I have considered
the subject more or less for many years,
and I believe I am actuated by the sim-
ple and honest desire of contributing
something to the information and know-
ledge of Parliament with regard to its
duty upon this great question.
What is it we have to complain of in
India? What is it that the people of
India, if they spoke by my mouth, have
to complain of? They would tell the
House that, as a rule, throughout al-
most all the Presidencies, and through-
out those Presidencies most which have
been longest under British rule, the
cultivators of the soil, the great body
of the population of India, are in a
condition of great impoverishment, of
great dejection, and of great suffering.
I have, on former occasions, quoted to
the House the report of a Committee
which I obtained ten years ago, upon
which sat several members of the Court
of Directors; and they all agreed to
report as much as I have now stated to
the House-the Report being confined
chiefly to the Presidencies of Bombay
and Madras. If I were now submitting
the case of the population of India I
would say that the taxes of India are
more onerous and oppressive than the
taxes of any other country in the world.
I think I could demonstrate that pro-
position to the House. I would show
that industry is neglected by the Go-
vernment to a greater extent probably
than is the case in any other country
in the world which has been for any
length of time under what is termed
a civilized and Christian government.
I should be able to show from the
notes and memoranda of eminent men
in India, of the Governor of Bengal,
Mr. Halliday, for example, that there is
not and never has been in any country
pretending to be civilized, a condition
of things to be compared with that
which exists under the police adminis-
tration of the province of Bengal. With
regard to the courts of justice I may
say the same thing. I could quote
passages from books written in favour
of the Company with all the bias which
the strongest friends of the Company
can have, in which the writers declare
that, precisely in proportion as English
courts of justice have extended, have
perjury and all the evils which perjury
introduces into the administration of
justice prevailed throughout the Pre-
22
JUNE 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
T
L
•
4.
sidencies of India. With regard to
public works, if I were speaking for
the Natives of India, I would state this
fact, that in a single English county
there are more roads-more travelable
roads-than are to be found in the
whole of India; and I would say also
that the single city of Manchester, in
the supply of its inhabitants with the
single article of water, has spent a
larger sum of money than the East
India Company has spent in the four-
teen years from 1834 to 1848 in public
works of every kind throughout the
whole of its vast dominions. I would
say that the real activity of the Indian
Government has been an activity of con-
quest and annexation-of conquest and
annexation which after a time has led
to a fearful catastrophe which has en-
forced on the House an attention to
the question of India, which but for
that catastrophe I fear the House would
not have given it.
If there were another charge to be
made against the past Government of
India, it would be with regard to the
state of its finances. Where was there
a bad Government whose finances were
in good order? Where was there a
really good Government whose finances
were in bad order? Is there a better
test in the long run of the condition of
a people and the merits of a Govern-
ment than the state of the finances?
And yet not in our own time, but going
back through all the pages of Mill or
of any other History of India we find
the normal condition of the finances of
India has been that of deficit and bank-
ruptcy. I maintain that if that be so,
the Government is a bad Government.
It has cost more to govern India than
the Government has been able to ex-
tract from the population of India. The
Government has not been scrupulous
as to the amount of taxes or the mode
in which they have been levied; but
still, to carry on the government of
India according to the system which
has heretofore prevailed, more has been
required than the Government has been
able to extract by any system of taxa-
tion known to them from the popu-
lation over which they have ruled. It
has cost more than 30,000,000l. a-year
to govern India, and the gross revenue
being somewhere about 30,000,000l.,
and there being a deficit, the deficit
has had to be made up by loans. The
Government has obtained all they could
from the population; it is not enough,
and they have had to borrow from the
population and from Europeans at a
high rate of interest to make up the
sum which has been found to be neces-
sary. They have a debt of 60,000,000l.;
and it is continually increasing; they
always have a loan open; and while
their debt is increasing their credit has
been falling, because they have not
treated their creditors very honourably
on one or two occasions, and chiefly,
of course, on account of the calamities
which have recently happened in India.
There is one point with regard to taxa-
tion which I wish to explain to the
House, and I hope that, in the reforms
to which the noble Lord is looking
forward, it will not be overlooked. I
have said that the gross revenue is
30,000,000l. Exclusive of the opium
revenue, which is not, strictly speaking,
and hardly at all, a tax upon the people,
I set down the taxation of the country at
something like 25,000,000l. Hon. Gen-
tlemen must not compare 25,000,000l.
of taxation in India with 60,000,000l.
of taxation in England. They must
bear in mind that in India they could
have twelve days' labour of a man for
the same sum in silver or gold which
they have to pay for one day's labour of
a man in England; that if, for example,
this 25,000,000l. were expended in pur-
chasing labour, that sum would pur-
chase twelve times as much in India
as in England-that is to say, that the
25,000,000l. would purchase as many
days' labour in India as 300,000,000l.
would purchase in England. [An Hon.
Member: How much is the labour
worth?'] That is precisely what I am
coming to. If the labour of a man is
only worth 2d. a-day, they could not
expect as much revenue from him as if
1858.
23
INDIA. II.
it were 2s. a-day. That is just the point
to which I wish the hon. Gentleman
would turn his attention. We have in
England a population which, for the
sake of argument, I will call 30,000,000.
We have in India a population of
150,000,000. Therefore, the population
of India is five times as great as the
population of England. We raise in
India, reckoning by the value of labour,
taxation equivalent to 300,000,000l.,
which is five times the English revenue.
Some one may probably say, therefore,
that the taxation in India and in Eng-
land appears to be about the same, and
no great injury is done. But it must
be borne in mind that in England we
have an incalculable power of steam, of
machinery, of modes of transit, roads,
canals, railways, and everything which
capital and human invention can bring
to help the industry of the people;
while in India there is nothing of the
kind. In India there is scarcely a decent
road, the rivers are not bridged, there
are comparatively no steam engines,
and none of those aids to industry that
meet us at every step in Great Britain
and Ireland. Suppose steam engines,
machinery, and modes of transit abo-
lished in England, how much revenue
would the Chancellor of the Exchequer
obtain from the people of England?
Instead of 60,000,000l. a-year, would
he get 10,000,000l.? I doubt it very
much. If the House will follow out
the argument, they will come to the
conclusion that the taxes of the people
of India are oppressive to the last de-
gree, and that the Government which
has thus taxed them can be tolerated
no longer, and must be put an end to
at once and for ever. I wish to say
something about the manner in which
these great expenses are incurred. The
extravagance of the East India Govern-
ment is notorious to all. I believe
there never was any other service under
the sun paid at so high a rate as the
exclusive Civil Service of the East India
Company. Clergymen and missionaries
can be got to go out to India for a
moderate sum-private soldiers and
officers of the army go out for a mode-
rate remuneration-merchants are con-
tent to live in the cities of India for a
percentage or profit not greatly exceed-
ing the ordinary profits of commerce.
But the Civil Service, because it is
bound up with those who were raised
by it and who dispense the patronage
of India, receive a rate of payment
which would be incredible if we did
not know it to be true, and which,
knowing it to be true, we must admit
to be monstrous. The East India Go-
vernment scatters salaries about at Bom-
bay, Calcutta, Madras, Agra, Lahore,
and half a dozen other cities, which
are up to the mark of those of the
Prime Minister and Secretaries of State
in this country.
These salaries are
framed upon the theory that India is a
mine of inexhaustible wealth, although
no one has found it to be so but the
members of the Civil Service of the
East India Company. The policy of
the Government is at the bottom of the
constant deficit. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer has twice recently de-
clared that expenditure depends upon
policy. That is as true in India as in
England, and it is the policy that has
been pursued there which renders the
revenue liable to this constantly re-
curring deficit.
I have come to the conclusion, which
many hon. Members probably share
with me, that the edifice we have reared
in India is too vast. There are few
men now, and least of all those con-
nected with the East India Company,
who, looking back to the policy that
has been pursued, will not be willing to
admit that it has not been judicious but
hazardous-that territories have been
annexed that had better have been left
independent, and that wars have been
undertaken which were as needless as
they were altogether unjustifiable. The
immense empire that has been con-
quered is too vast for management, its
base is in decay, and during the last
twelve months it has appeared to be
tottering to its fall. Who or what
is the instrument-the Cabinet, the
24
JUNE 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Government, or the person-by whom
this evil policy is carried on?
The greatest officer in India is the
Governor-General. He is the ruler of
about one-fifth-certainly more than
one-sixth of the human race. The
Emperors of France and Russia are
but the governors of provinces com-
pared with the power, the dignity, and
the high estate of the Governor-General
of India. Now, over this officer, almost
no real control is exercised. If I were
to appeal to the two hon. Gentlemen
who have frequently addressed the
House during these debates (Colonel
Sykes and Mr. Willoughby), they would
probably admit that the Governor-Ge-
neral of India is an officer of such high
position that scarcely any control can
be exercised over him either in India
or in England. Take the case of the
Marquess of Dalhousie for example. I
am not about to make an attack upon
him, for the occasion is too solemn for
personal controversies. But the annexa-
tion of Sattara, of the Punjab, of Nag-
pore, and of Oude occurred under his
rule. I will not go into the case of
Sattara; but one of its Princes, and
one of the most magnanimous Princes
that India ever produced, suffered and
died most unjustly in exile, either
through the mistakes or the crimes of
the Government of India. This, how-
ever, was not done under the Govern-
ment of Lord Dalhousie. As to the
annexation of Nagpore, the House has
never heard anything about it to this
hour. There has been no message from
the Crown or statement of the Govern-
ment relative to that annexation. Hon.
Members have indeed heard from India
that the dresses and wardrobes of the
ladies of its Court have been exposed
to sale, like a bankrupt's stock, in the
haberdashers' shops of Calcutta-a thing
likely to incense and horrify the people
of India who witnessed it.
Take, again, the case of the Burmese
war. The Governor-General entered
into it, and annexed the province of
Pegu, and to this day there has been no
treaty with the King of Burmah. If
that case had been brought before the
House, it is impossible that the war
with Burmah could have been entered
upon. I do not believe that there is
one man in England who, knowing the
facts, would say that this war was just
or necessary in any sense. The Gover-
nor-General has an army of 300,000
men under his command; he is a long
way from home; he is highly connected
with the governing classes at home;
there are certain reasons that make war
palatable to large classes in India; and
he is so powerful that he enters into
these great military operations almost
uncontrolled by the opinion of the Par-
liament and people of England. He
may commit any amount of blunders or
crimes against the moral law, and he
will still come home loaded with digni-
ties and in the enjoyment of pensions.
Does it not become the power and
character of this House to examine
narrowly the origin of the misfortunes
and disgraces of the grave catastrophe
which has just occurred? The place of
the Governor-General is too high-his
power is too great-and I believe that
this particular office and officer are very
much responsible-of course under the
Government at home-for the disasters
that have taken place.
Only think of a Governor-General of
India writing to an Indian Prince, the
ruler over many millions of men in the
heart of India, Remember you are but
as the dust under my feet.' Passages
like these are left out of despatches,
when laid on the table of the House of
Commons:-it would not do for the
Parliament or the Crown, or the people
of England to know that their officer
addressed language like this to a Native
Prince. The fact is that a Governor-
General of India, unless he be such a
man as is not found more than once
in a century, is very liable to have his
head turned, and to form ambitious
views, which are mainly to be gratified
by successful wars and the annexation
of province after province during the
period of his rule. The Services' are
always ready to help him in these plans.
•
1858.
25
INDIA. II.
•
<
I am not sure that the President of the
Board of Control could not give evidence
on this subject, for I have heard some-
thing of what happened when the noble
Lord was in India. When the Burmese
war broke out, the noble Lord could no
doubt tell the House that, without in-
quiring into the quarrel or its causes,
the press of India, which was devoted
to the Services,' and the Services'
themselves, united in universal appro-
bation of the course taken by the
Governor-General. Justice to Pegu and
Burmah and the taxes to be raised for
the support of the war were forgotten,
and nothing but visions of more terri-
tory and more patronage floated before
the eyes of the official English in India.
I contend that the power of the Gover-
nor-General is too great and the office
too high to be held by the subject of
any power whatsoever, and especially by
any subject of the Queen of England.
I should propose, if I were in a posi-
tion to offer a scheme in the shape of a
Bill to the House, as an indispensable
preliminary to the wise government of
India in future, such as would be credit-
able to Parliament and advantageous to
the people of India, that the office of
Governor-General should be abolished.
Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may think
this a very unreasonable proposition.
Many people thought it unreasonable in
1853 when it was proposed to abolish
the East India Company; but now
Parliament and the country believe it
to be highly reasonable and proper;
and I am not sure that I could not
bring before the House reasons to con-
vince them that the abolition of the
office of Governor-General is one of
the most sensible and one of the most
Conservative proposals ever brought
forward in connection with the Govern-
ment of India. I believe the duties of
the Governor-General are far greater
than any human being can adequately
fulfil. He has a power omnipotent to
crush anything that is good. If he so
wishes, he can overbear and overrule
whatever is proposed for the welfare of
India, while, as to doing anything that
is good, I could show that with regard
to the vast countries over which he
rules, he is really almost powerless to
effect anything that those countries re-
quire. The hon. Gentleman behind me
(Colonel Sykes) has told us there are
twenty nations in India, and that there
are twenty languages. Has it ever hap-
pened before that any one man governed
twenty nations, speaking twenty different
languages, and bound them together in
one great and compact empire? [An
hon. Member here made an observa-
tion.] My hon. Friend mentions a great
Parthian monarch. No doubt there
have been men strong in arm and in
head, and of stern resolution, who have
kept great empires together during their
lives; but as soon as they went the
way of all flesh, and descended, like the
meanest of their subjects, to the tomb,
the provinces they had ruled were
divided into several States, and their
great empires vanished. I might ask
the noble Lord below me (Lord John
Russell) and the noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Tiverton (the noble Lord the
Member for King's Lynn has not as
yet experience on this point), whether,
when they came to appoint a Governor-
General of India, they did not find it
one of the most serious and difficult
duties they could be called on to per-
form? I do not know at this moment,
and I never have known, a man com-
petent to govern India; and if any man
says he is competent, he sets himself up
at a much higher value than those who
are acquainted with him are likely to
set him. Let the House look at the
making of the laws for twenty nations
speaking twenty languages. Look at
the regulations of the police for twenty
nations speaking twenty languages.
Look at the question of public works
as it affects twenty nations speaking
twenty languages; where there is no
municipal power and no combinations
of any kind, such as facilitate the con-
struction of public works in this country.
Inevitably all those duties that devolve
on every good government must be
neglected by the Governor-General of
26
JUNE 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
India, however wise, capable, and honest
he may be in the performance of his,
duties, because the duties laid upon
him are such as no man now living or
who ever lived can or could properly
sustain.
It may be asked what I would sub-
stitute for the Governor-Generalship of
India. Now, I do not propose to abolish
the office of Governor-General of India
this Session. I am not proposing any
clause in the Bill, and if I were to pro-
pose one to carry out the idea I have
expressed, I might be answered by the
argument, that a great part of the popu-
lation of India is in a state of anarchy,
and that it would be most inconvenient,
if not dangerous, to abolish the office of
Governor-General at such a time. I do
not mean to propose such a thing now;
but I take this opportunity of stating
my views, in the hope that when we
come to 1863, we may perhaps be able
to consider the question more in the
light in which I am endeavouring to
present it to the House. I would propose
that, instead of having a Governor-
General and an Indian empire, we should
have neither the one nor the other. I
would propose that we should have
Presidencies, and not an Empire. If I
were a Minister-which the House will
admit is a bold figure of speech-and
if the House were to agree with me-
which is also an essential point-I would
propose to have at least five Presidencies
in India, and I would have the govern-
ments of those Presidencies perfectly
equal in rank and in salary.
capitals of those Presidencies would
probably be Calcutta, Madras, Bombay,
Agra, and Lahore. I will take the
Presidency of Madras as an illustra-
tion. Madras has a population of some
20,000,000. We all know its position
on the map, and that it has the ad-
vantage of being more compact, geo-
graphically speaking, than the other
Presidencies. It has a Governor and a
Council. I would give to it a Governor
and a Council still, but would confine all
their duties to the Presidency of Madras,
and I would treat it just as if Madras was
The
the only portion of India connected with
this country. I would have its finance,
its taxation, its justice, and its police
departments, as well as its public works
and military departments, precisely the
same as if it were a State having no
connection with any other part of India,
and recognized only as a dependency of
this country. I would propose that the
Government of every Presidency should
correspond with the Secretary for India
in England, and that there should be
telegraphic communications between all
the Presidencies in India, as I hope be-
fore long to see a telegraphic communi-
cation between the office of the noble
Lord (Lord Stanley) and every Presi-
dency over which he presides. I shall
no doubt be told that there are insuper-
able difficulties in the way of such an
arrangement, and I shall be sure to hear
of the military difficulty. Now, I do
not profess to be an authority on mili-
tary affairs, but I know that military
men often
often make great mistakes. I
would have the army divided, each
Presidency having its own army, just
as now, care being taken to have them
kept distinct; and I see no danger of
any confusion or misunderstanding,when
an emergency arose, in having them all
brought together to carry out the views
of the Government. There is one ques-
tion which it is important to bear in
mind, and that is with regard to the
Councils in India. I think every Go-
vernor of a Presidency should have an
assistant Council, but differently con-
stituted from what they now are. I
would have an open Council. The
noble Lord the Member for London
used some expressions the other night
which I interpreted to mean that it was
necessary to maintain in all its exclusive-
ness the system of the Civil Service in
India. In that I entirely differ from
the noble Lord. [Lord J. Russell here
indicated dissent.] The noble Lord
corrects me in that statement, and there-
fore I must have been mistaken. What
we want is to make the Governments
of the Presidencies governments for the
people of the Presidencies; not govern-
+
1858.
27
INDIA. II.
ments for the civil servants of the Crown,
but for the non-official mercantile classes
from England who settle there, and for
the 20,000,000 or 30,000,000 of Natives
in each Presidency.
I should propose to do that which
has been done with great advantage in
Ceylon. I have received a letter from
an officer who has been in the service
of the East India Company, and who
told me a fact which has gratified me
very much. He says-
'At a public dinner at Colombo, in 1835,
to the Governor, Sir Wilmot Horton, at
which I was present, the best speech of the
evening was made by a native nobleman
of Candy, and a member of Council. It
was remarkable for its appropriate expres-
sion, its sound sense, and the deliberation
and ease that marked the utterance of his
feelings. There was no repetition or use-
less phraseology or flattery, and it was
admitted by all who heard him to be the
soundest and neatest speech of the night.'
This was in Ceylon. It is not, of course,
always the best man who can make the
best speech; but if what I have read
could be said of a native of Ceylon, it
could be said of thousands in India.
We need not go beyond the walls of
this House to find a head bronzed by
an Indian sun equal to the ablest heads
of those who adorn its benches. And
in every part of India we all know that
it would be an insult to the people of
India to say that it is not the same.
There are thousands of persons in India
who are competent to take any position
to which the Government may choose
to advance them. If the Governor of
each Presidency were to have in his
Council some of the officials of his
Government, some of the non-official
Europeans resident in the Presidency,
and two or three at least of the intelli-
gent Natives of the Presidency in whom
the people would have some confidence,
you would have begun that which will
be of inestimable value hereafter-you
would have begun to unite the govern-
ment with the governed; and unless
you do that, no government will be safe,
and any hurricane may overturn it or
throw it into confusion.
Now, suppose the Governor-General
gone, the Presidencies established, the
Governors equal in rank and dignity,
and their Councils constituted in the
manner I have indicated, is it not
reasonable to suppose that the delay
which has hitherto been one of the
greatest curses of your Indian Govern-
ment would be almost altogether
avoided? Instead of a Governor-Ge-
ne al living in Calcutta, or at Simla,
never travelling over the whole of the
country, and knowing very little about
it, and that little only through other
official eyes, is it not reasonable to
suppose that the action of the Govern-
ment would be more direct in all its
duties and in every department of its
service than has been the case under
the system which has existed until now?
Your administration of the law, marked
by so much disgrace, could never have
lasted so long as it has done if the
Governors of your Presidencies had
been independent Governors. So with
regard to matters of police, education,
public works, and everything that can
stimulate industry, and so with regard
to your system of taxation. You would
have in every Presidency a constant
rivalry for good. The Governor of
Madras, when his term of office expired,
would be delighted to show that the
people of that Presidency were con-
tented, that the whole Presidency was
advancing in civilization, that roads and
all manner of useful public works were
extending, that industry was becoming
more and more a habit of the people,
and that the exports and imports were
constantly increasing. The Governors
of Bombay and the rest of the Presi-
dencies would be animated by the same
spirit, and so you would have all over
India, as I have said, a rivalry for
good; you would have placed a check
on that malignant spirit of ambition
which has worked so much evil-you
would have no Governor so great that
you could not control him, none who
might make war when he pleased;
28
JUNE 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
war and annexation would be greatly
checked, if not entirely prevented; and
I do in my conscience believe you
would have laid the foundation for a
better and more permanent form of
government for India than has ever
obtained since it came under the rule
of England.
But how long does England propose
to govern India? Nobody answers that
question, and nobody can answer it.
Be it 50, or 100, or 500 years, does any
man with the smallest glimmering of
common sense believe that so great
a country, with its twenty different
nations and its twenty languages, can
ever be bound up and consolidated into
one compact and enduring empire?
I believe such a thing to be utterly
impossible. We must fail in the attempt
if ever we make it, and we are bound
to look into the future with reference
to that point. The Presidency of Ma-
dras, for instance, having its own Go-
vernment, would in fifty years become
one compact State, and every part of
the Presidency would look to the city
of Madras as its capital, and to the
Government of Madras as its ruling
power. If that were to go on for a cen-
tury or more, there would be five or six
Presidencies of India built up into so
many compact States; and if at any
future period the sovereignty of Eng-
land should be withdrawn, we should
leave so many Presidencies built up and
firmly compacted together, each able to
support its own independence and its
own Government; and we should be
able to say we had not left the country
a prey to that anarchy and discord
which I believe to be inevitable if we
insist on holding those vast territories
with the idea of building them up into
one great empire. But I am obliged to
admit that mere machinery is not suf-
ficient in this case, either with respect
to my own scheme or to that of the
noble lord (Lord Stanley). We want
something else than mere clerks, sta-
tionery, despatches, and so forth. We
want what I shall designate as a new
feeling in England, and an entirely new
policy in India. We must in future have
India governed, not for a handful of
Englishmen, not for that Civil Service
whose praises are so constantly sounded
in this House. You may govern India,
if you like, for the good of England,
but the good of England must come
through the channels of the good of
India. There are but two modes of
gaining anything by our connection
with India. The one is by plundering
the people of India, and the other by
trading with them. I prefer to do it by
trading with them. But in order that
England may become rich by trading
with India, India itself must become
rich, and India can only become rich
through the honest administration of
justice and through entire security of
life and property.
Now, as to this new policy, I will
tell the House what I think the Prime
Minister should do. He ought, I think,
always to choose for his President of
the Board of Control or his Secretary
of State for India, a man who cannot
be excelled by any other man in his
Cabinet, or in his party, for capacity,
for honesty, for attention to his duties,
and for knowledge adapted to the parti-
cular office to which he is appointed.
If any Prime Minister appoint an in-
efficient man to such an office, he will
be a traitor to the Throne of England.
That officer, appointed for the qualities
I have just indicated, should, with equal
scrupulousness and conscientiousness,
make the appointments, whether of the
Governor-General, or (should that office
be abolished) of the Governors of the
Presidencies of India. Those appoint-
ments should not be rewards for old
men simply because such men have
done good service when in their prime,
nor should they be rewards for mere
party service, but they should be
appointments given under a feeling that
interests of the very highest moment,
connected with this country, depend on
those great offices in India being pro-
perly filled. The same principles should
run throughout the whole system of
government; for, unless there be a very
3
1858.
29
INDIA. II.
high degree of virtue in all these
appointments, and unless our great ob-
ject be to govern India well and to
exalt the name of England in the eyes
of the whole Native population, all
that we have recourse to in the way
of machinery will be of very little use
indeed.
I admit that this is a great work;
I admit, also, that the further I go into
the consideration of this question, the
more I feel that it is too large for me
to grapple with, and that every step
we take in it should be taken as if
we were men walking in the dark. We
have, however, certain great principles
to guide us, and by their light we may
make steps in advance, if not fast, at
any rate sure. But we start from an
unfortunate position. We start from
a platform of conquest by force of arms
extending over a hundred years. There
is nothing in the world worse than the
sort of foundation from which we start.
The greatest genius who has shed lustre
on the literature of this country has
said, 'There is no sure foundation set
on blood;' and it may be our unhappy
fate, in regard to India, to demonstrate
the truth of that saying. We are always
subjugators, and we must be viewed
with hatred and suspicion. I say we
must look at the thing as it is, if we are
to see our exact position, what our duty
is, and what chance there is of our
retaining India and of governing it for
the advantage of its people. Our diffi-
culties have been enormously increased
by the revolt. The people of India have
only seen England in its worst form
in that country. They have seen it in
its military power, its exclusive Civil
Service, and in the supremacy of a
handful of foreigners. When Natives of
India come to this country, they are
delighted with England and with Eng-
lishmen. They find themselves treated
with a kindness, a consideration, a re-
spect, to which they were wholly
strangers in their own country; and
they cannot understand how it is that
men who are so just, so attentive to
them here, sometimes, indeed too often,
appear to them in a different character
in India. I remember that the Hon.
Frederic Shore, who wrote some thirty
years since, stated, in his able and
instructive book, that even in his time
the conduct of the English in India
towards the Natives was less agreeable,
less kindly, less just than it had been in
former years; and in 1853, before the
Committee presided over by the hon.
Member for Huntingdon (Mr.T. Baring),
evidence was given that the feeling
between the rulers and the ruled in
India was becoming every year less like
what could be desired. It was only the
other day there appeared in a letter of
The Times' correspondent an anecdote
which illustrates what I am saying, and
which I feel it necessary to read to the
House. Mr. Russell, of The Times, says:-
'I went off to breakfast in a small
mosque, which has been turned into a
salle à manger by some officers stationed
here, and I confess I should have eaten
with more satisfaction had I not seen, as I
entered the enclosure of the mosque, a
native badly wounded on a charpoy, by
which was sitting a woman in deep
affliction. The explanation given of this
scene was, that "
[the name of the
Englishman was left blank] had been
licking two of his bearers (or servants),
and had nearly murdered them." This
was one of the servants, and, without
knowing or caring to know the causes of
such chastisement, I cannot but express
my disgust at the severity-to call it by
no harsher name-of some of our fellow-
countrymen towards their domestics.'
The reading of that paragraph gave
me extreme pain. People may fancy
that this does not matter much; but I
say it matters very much. Under any
system of government you will have
Englishmen scattered all over India,
and conduct like that I have just de-
scribed, in any district, must create ill
feeling towards England, to your rule,
to your supremacy; and when that
feeling has become sufficiently extensive,
any little accident may give fire to the
train, and you may have calamities
30
JUNE 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
more or less serious, such as we have
had during the last twelve months.
You must change all this if you mean
to keep India. I do not now make any
comment upon the mode in which this
country has been put into possession of
India. I accept that possession as a
fact.
There we are; we do not know
how to leave it, and therefore let us see
if we know how to govern it. It is
a problem such as, perhaps, no other
nation has had to solve. Let us see
whether there is enough of intelligence
and virtue in England to solve the diffi-
culty. In the first place, then, I say,
let us abandon all that system of
calumny against the Natives of India
which has lately prevailed. Had that
people not been docile, the most go-
vernable race in the world, how could
you have maintained your power for
100 years? Are they not industrious,
are they not intelligent, are they not-
upon the evidence of the most distin-
guished men the Indian Service ever
produced endowed with many qualities
which make them respected by all Eng-
lishmen who mix with them? I have
heard that from many men of the widest
experience, and have read the same in
the works of some of the best writers
upon India. Then let us not have
these constant calumnies against such a
people. Even now there are men who
go about the country speaking as if
such things had never been contra-
dicted, and talking of mutilations and
atrocities committed in India. The less
we say about atrocities the better.
Great political tumults are, I fear,
never brought about or subdued with-
out grievous acts on both sides deeply
to be regretted. At least, we are in the
position of invaders and conquerors-
they are in the position of the invaded
and the conquered. Whether I were a
native of India, or of England, or of
any other country, I would not the less
assert the great distinction between
their position and ours in that country,
and I would not permit any man in my
presence, without rebuke, to indulge
in the calumnies and expressions of
contempt which I have recently heard
poured forth without measure upon the
whole population of India.
•
There is one other point to which
I wish to address myself before I sit
down, and in touching upon it I address
myself especially to the noble Lord
(Lord Stanley) and his colleagues in the
Government. If I had the responsibility
of administering the affairs of India,
there are certain things I would do.
I would, immediately after this Bill
passes, issue a Proclamation in India
which should reach every subject of
the British Crown in that country, and
be heard of in the territories of every
Indian Prince or Rajah. I would offer
a general amnesty. It is all very well
to talk of issuing an amnesty to all who
have done nothing; but who is there
that has done nothing in such a state of
affairs as has prevailed during the past
twelve months? If you pursue your
vengeance until you have rooted out
and destroyed every one of those sol-
diers who have revolted, when will your
labour cease? If you are to punish
every non-military Native of India who
has given a piece of bread or a cup
of water to a revolted trooper, how
many Natives will escape your punish-
ment and your vengeance? I would
have a general amnesty, which should
be put forth as the first great act done
directly by the Queen of England in
the exercise of Sovereign power over
the territories of India. In this Pro-
clamation I would promise to the Na-
tives of India a security for their pro-
perty as complete as we have here at
home; and I would put an end to all
those mischievous and irritating in-
quiries which have been going on for
years in many parts of India as to the
title to landed estates, by which you tell
the people of that country that unless
each man can show an unimpeachable
title to his property for ninety years
you will dispossess him. What would
be the state of things here if such
a regulation were adopted?
I would also proclaim to the people
of India that we would hold sacred that
1858.
31
INDIA. II.
right of adoption which has prevailed
for centuries in that country. It was
only the other day that I had laid before
me the case of a Native Prince who has
been most faithful to England during
these latter trials. When he came to
the throne at ten years of age he was
made to sign a document, by which he
agreed that if he had no children his
territories should be at the disposal of
the British Government, or what was
called the paramount power. He has
been married; he has had one son and
two or three daughters; but within the
last few weeks his only son has died.
There is grief in the palace, and there
is consternation among the people, for
the fact of this agreement entered into
by the boy of ten years old is well
known to all the inhabitants of the
country. Representations have already
been made to this country in the hope
that the Government will cancel that
agreement, and allow the people of
that State to know that the right of
adoption would not be taken from their
Prince in case he should have no other
son. Let the Government do that, and
there is not a corner of India into which
that intelligence would not penetrate
with the rapidity of lightning. And
would not that calm the anxieties of
many of those independent Princes and
Rajahs who are only afraid that when
these troubles are over, the English
Government will recommence that sys-
tem of annexation out of which I
believe all these troubles have arisen?
I would tell them also in that Procla-
mation, that while the people of Eng-
land hold that their own, the Christian
religion, is true and the best for man-
kind, yet that it is consistent with that
religion that they who profess it should
hold inviolable the rights of conscience
and the rights of religion in others. I
would show, that whatever violent, over-
zealous, and fanatical men may have
said in this country, the Parliament of
England, the Ministers of the Queen,
and the Queen herself, are resolved that
upon this point no kind of wrong should
be done to the millions who profess
the religions held to be true in India.
I would do another thing. I would es-
tablish a Court of Appeal, the Judges of
which should be Judges of the highest
character in India, for the settlement of
those many disputes which have arisen
between the Government of India and
its subjects, some Native and some
European. I would not suffer these
questions to come upon the floor of this
House. I would not forbid them by
statute, but I would establish a Court
which should render it unnecessary for
any man in India to cross the ocean to
seek for that justice which he would
then be able to get in his own country
without corruption or secret bargain.
Then I would carry out the proposition
which the noble Lord has made to-
night, and which the right hon. Gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer
made when he introduced his Bill, that
a Commission should be issued to in-
quire into the question of finance. I
would have other commissions, one for
each Presidency, and I would tell the
people of India that there should be a
searching inquiry into their grievances,
and that it was the interest and the will
of the Queen of England that those
grievances should be redressed.
Now, perhaps I may be told that I
am proposing strange things, quite out
of the ordinary routine of government.
I admit it. We are in a position that
necessitates something out of the ordi-
nary routine. There are positions and
times in the history of every country, as
in the lives of individuals, when courage
and action are absolute salvation; and
now the Crown of England, acting by
the advice of the responsible Ministers,
must, in my opinion, have recourse to
a great and unusual measure in order
to allay the anxieties which prevail
throughout the whole of India. The
people of India do not like us, but they
scarcely know where to turn if we left
them. They are sheep literally without
a shepherd. They are people whom
you have subdued, and who have the
highest and strongest claims upon you
-claims which you cannot forget-
32
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
J
claims which, if you do not act upon,
you may rely upon it that, if there be a
judgment for nations-as I believe there
is-as for individuals, our children in
no distant generation must pay the
penalty which we have purchased by
neglecting our duty to the populations
of India.
I have now stated my views and
opinions on this question, not at all in
a manner, I feel, equal to the question
itself. I have felt the difficulty in
thinking of it; I feel the difficulty in
speaking of it-for there is far more in
it and about it than any man, however
much he may be accustomed to think
upon political questions, and to discuss
them, can comprise at all within the
compass of a speech of ordinary length.
I have described the measures which I
would at once adopt for the purpose of
soothing the agitation which now dis-
turbs and menaces every part of India,
and of inviting the submission of those
who are now in arms against you.
Now I believe-I speak in the most
perfect honesty-I believe that the an-
nouncement of these measures would
avail more in restoring tranquillity than
the presence of an additional army, and
I believe that their full and honest
adoption would enable you to retain
your power in India. I have sketched
the form of government which I would
establish in India and at home, with
the view of securing perfect responsi-
bility and an enlightened administra-
tion. I admit that these things can
only be obtained in degree, but I am
convinced that a Government such as
that which I have sketched would be
free from most of the errors and the
vices that have marked and marred
your past career in India. I have
given much study to this great and
solemn question. I entreat the House
to study it not only now, during the
passing of this Bill, but after the
Session is over, and till we meet again
next year, when in all probability there
must be further legislation upon this
great subject; for I believe that upon
this question depends very much, for
good or for evil, the future of this
country of which we are citizens, and
which we all regard and love so much.
You have had enough of military repu-
tation on Eastern fields; you have
gathered large harvests of that com-
modity, be it valuable or be it worth-
less. I invite you to something
better, and higher, and holier than
that; I invite you to
to a glory not
'fanned by conquest's crimson wing,'
but based upon the solid and lasting
benefits which I believe the Parliament
of England can, if it will, confer upon
the countless populations of India.
[
£
▸
:
INDIA.
III.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 20, 1858.
From Hansard.
[A despatch of Lord Ellenborough, the President of the Board of Control, to Lord
Canning, the Governor-General of India, had been laid before the two Houses. This
document severely censured the Governor-General's policy in dealing with the
talookdars of Oude. Immediate advantage was taken of this document by the
Opposition, and on the 10th of May Mr. Cardwell gave notice in the Commons of
a motion condemnatory of Lord Ellenborough's despatch. Lord Ellenborough
retired from the Government. On May 14, however, Mr. Cardwell brought
forward his motion in the House of Commons, but, after a lengthened debate,
consented to withdraw it, at the earnest entreaty of many from his own side of
the House.]
I AM afraid I shall hardly be able to
take part in this discussion in a manner
becoming the magnitude of the question
before us, and in any degree in accord-
ance with the long anxiety which I
have felt in regard to Indian affairs,
but I happen to have been unfortunately
and accidentally a good deal mixed up
with these matters, and my name has
frequently been mentioned in the course
of debate, not only in this but in the
other House of Parliament, and I am
unwilling, therefore, to vote without
expressing my opinion upon the matter
under discussion. First, I may be al-
lowed to explain that I think almost
everything that has been said and
imagined with regard to the part that I
have had in bringing on this discussion
has been altogether erroneous, and has
no foundation whatever. There was no
arrangement between the hon. Gentle-
man the Secretary of the Board of
Control and myself with regard to the
question that I thought it my duty to
put to him on the subject of Lord
Canning's Proclamation. I had spoken
two or three weeks before the date of.
that question to the hon. Gentleman,
because I had been informed by a re-
spected friend of mine, Mr. Dickinson,
the hon. secretary of the India Reform
Society, who has very great information
on Indian affairs, that he had received
communications to the effect that some
Proclamation of this character was in
preparation and was about to be issued.
I spoke to the hon. Member with regard
to that report; and he told me that he
had received no communication which
enabled him to give me any information
on the subject. I then intimated to
him that in case there was anything
of the kind I should certainly put a
question to the Government respecting
it. This was three weeks before the
date of my question. Well, I read the
Proclamation in The Times newspaper,
the same day that every one else read
it; and I came down to the House, not
3
34
MAY 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
having seen the hon. Gentleman in the
meantime. I met my hon. Friend the
Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith)
in Westminster Hall, and he told me
that having read the despatch, and
knowing my intention with regard to
it, he, having met the hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Baillie) that evening, said to him
he had no doubt that when I came
down to the House I should put a
question respecting it. When I came
down I put a question and received an
answer; both question and answer are
before the House and the country. But
I confess I did not anticipate that we
should lose a week from the discussion
of the Indian Resolutions on account of
the question which I then asked the
hon Gentleman the Secretary to the
Board of Control.
Now, Sir, with respect to the question
before the House, I should have been
content to let it end when the hon. and
learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General
sat down. I think, Sir, the House
might have come to a vote when the
Solicitor-General finished his speech. I
could not but compare that speech with
the speech of the right hon. Gentleman
who moved the Resolution now before
the House. I thought the right hon.
Gentleman raked together a great many
small things to make up a great case. It
appeared to me that he spoke as if his
manner indicated that he was not per-
fectly satisfied with the course he was
pursuing. I think he failed to stimulate
himself with the idea that he was per-
forming a great public duty; for if he
had been impressed with that idea I
think his subject would have enabled
him to deliver a more lively and im-
pressive speech than that which he has
made. But, Sir, I believe that every
one will admit that the speech of the
Solicitor-General was characterised by
the closest logic and the most complete
and exhaustive argument. There is
scarcely a Gentleman with whom I have
spoken with regard to that speech who
does not admit that the hon. and learned
Gentleman has seemed to have taken up
the whole question, and to have given a
complete answer to all serious charges
brought against the Government.
This Motion is an important one in
two aspects. First of all as respects
the interests of parties at home-which
some people, probably, think the more
important of the interests concerned;
and, secondly, as respects the effect
which will be produced in India when
this discussion, with the vote at which
we arrive, reaches that country and is
read there. The princes, the rajahs, and
intelligent landholders, whether under
the English Government or independent,
will know very little about what we
understand by party; and any cabal or
political conspiracy here will have no
influence on them. They know little of
the persons who conduct and take a part
in the debate in this House; and the
'loud cheers' which they will read of in
our discussions will be almost nothing
to them. The question to them will be,
What is the opinion of the Parliament of
England as to the policy announced to
India in the Proclamation?
Now, Sir, I complain of the right
hon. Gentleman, and I think the House
has reason to complain, that in his
Resolution he endeavours to evade the
real point of discussion. The noble
Lord who has just sat down (Viscount
Goderich) says he will not meet this
matter in any such indirect manner as
that proposed by the Amendment of
the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr.
Dillwyn); but what can be less direct
than the issue offered by the Resolution
of the right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Oxford? This is proved by the
fact that, throughout the course of this
discussion, every serious argument and
every serious expression has had refer-
ence to the character of the Proclama-
tion, and not to those little matters
which are mixed up in this Resolution.
Nobody, I believe, defends the Procla-
mation in the light in which it is viewed
by the Government, and censured by
the Government. All that has been
done is an endeavour to show that it is
not rightly understood by those who
censure it as announcing a policy of
1858.
35
INDIA. III.
confiscation. In fact, in endeavouring to
defend it, hon. Members insist that it
does not mean something which it says
it does mean, and which if any of us
understand the English language it
assuredly does mean. The right hon.
Gentleman asks us to do that which I
think is an absolute impossibility. He
wants us to condemn the censure, and
wishes at the same time-and I give him
credit for this-that we should pro-
nounce no approval of the thing cen-
sured. I do not think the right hon.
Gentleman, though unfortunately he has
been led into this movement, wishes the
House to pronounce an opinion in
favour of confiscation. I do not believe
that any Member of this House asks us
to come to a conclusion in such a way
as that our decision shall be an approval
of that which the Government has con-
demned in the despatch. But if we
affirm the Resolution of the right hon.
Gentleman, how is it possible for the
people of India to understand our deci-
sion in any other sense than as an ap-
proval of the policy of Lord Canning's
Proclamation? With regard to the
publication of the Government des-
patch, it is not a little remarkable how
men turn round and object to what they
formerly were so loud in demanding.
On this side of the House it has been
the commonest thing to hear hon.
Gentlemen say that all this secrecy on
the part of the Foreign Office and the
Board of Control is a cause of the
greatest mischief. Assume for a moment
that the publication of this despatch was
injudicious—after all, it was no high
crime and misdemeanour. We on this
side of the House, and hon. Gentlemen
below the gangway, ought to look with
kindness on this failing, which, if a
failing, leans to virtue's side. Then, Sir,
with regard to the language of the des-
patch, I do not know of any Govern-
ment or Minister who would not be open
to censure if we chose to take up every
word in a despatch. A man of firmer
texture, of stronger impulse, and more
indignant feelings will, on certain occa-
sions, write in stronger terms than other
men-and I confess I like those men
best who write and speak so that you can
really understand them. Now I say that
the proposition before the House is a
disingenuous one. It attempts to lead
the House into a very unfortunate
dilemma. I think that no judicial mind
seeing that the result of a decision in
favour of this Resolution will be the
establishment of the policy of the Pro-
clamation-will fail to be convinced
that we ought not to arrive at such a
decision without great hesitation, and
that we cannot do so without producing
a very injurious effect on the minds of the
people of India.
We now come to what all parties admit
to be the real question-the Proclama-
tion and the policy of confiscation
announced in it. There are certain
matters which I understand all sides of
the House to be agreed on. They agree
with the Government and the East India
Company that the people of Oude are
enemies but that they are not rebels.
[Cries of 'Yes, yes!'-'No, no!'] I
thought the supporters of the Resolution
of the right hon. Gentleman the Member
for Oxford told us that if the Govern-
ment had written a judicious despatch
like that of the East India Company,
they would have applauded and not
censured it. Well, the East India Di-
rectors—and they are likely to know, for
they were connected with the com-
mission of the Act that brought this
disturbance in Oude upon us —say that
the people of Oude are not rebels; that
they are not to be treated as rebels, but
as enemies. If so, the Government have
a right to treat them according to those
rules which are observed by nations
which are at war with each other. Will
the House accept that proposition?
['No, no!'-'Yes, yes!'] Well, if hon.
Gentlemen on this side will not accept it,
I hope the noble Lord the Member for
the West Riding (Viscount Goderich)
will not include them amongst those who
are in favour of clemency. I am quite
sure the people of England will accept
that definition-that civilised Europe will
accept it; and that history-history
3-2
36
MAY 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
which will record our proceedings this
night, and our vote on this Resolution-
will accept it. Sir, I do not see how any
one claiming to be an Englishman or a
Christian can by any possibility escape
from condemning the policy of this Pro-
clamation.
I now come-and on that point I will
be as brief as possible-to the question.
What is the meaning of confiscating the
proprietary rights in the soil? We have
heard from a noble Lord in another
place,' and it has been stated in the
course of the debate here, that this
sentence of confiscation refers only to
certain unpleasant persons who are
called talookdars, who are barons and
robber chiefs and oppressors of the
people. This is by no means the first
time that, after a great wrong has been
committed, the wrong-doer has at-
tempted to injure by calumny those
upon whom the wrong has been in-
flicted. Lord Shaftesbury, who is a sort
of leader in this great war, has told the
world that this Proclamation refers only
to 600 persons in the kingdom of Oude.
The kingdom of Oude has about five
millions of people, or one-sixth of the
population of the United Kingdom.
Applied to the United Kingdom in the
same rate of the population it would
apply to 3,600 persons. Now, in both
Houses of Parliament there are proba-
bly 700 landed proprietors. It would,
therefore, be an edict of confiscation to
the landed proprietors of the United
Kingdom equal to five times all the
landed proprietors in both Houses of
Parliament. An hon. Gentleman says
I am all wrong in my figures. I shall
be glad to hear his figures afterwards.
But that is not the fact; but if it were
the fact, it would amount not to a
political, but to an entire social revolu-
tion in this country. And surely, when
you live in a country where you have,
as in Scotland, a great province under
one Member of the House of Lords, and
seventy or eighty miles of territory
under another, and where you have
Dukes of Bedford and Dukes of Devon-
shire, as in England-surely, I say, we
ought to be a little careful, at any rate,
that we do not overturn, without just
cause, the proprietary rights of the
great talookdars and landowners in
India. It is a known fact, which any-
body may ascertain by referring to
books which have been written, and to
witnesses who cannot be mistaken, that
this edict would apply to more than
40,000 landowners in the kingdom of
Oude. And what is it that is meant
by these proprietary rights? We must
see what is the general course of the
policy of our government in India. If
you sweep away all proprietary rights in
the kingdom of Oude you will have this
result that there will be nobody con-
nected with the land but the Govern-
ment of India and the humble cultivator
who tills the soil. And you will have
this further result, that the whole pro-
duce of the land of Oude and of the
industry of its people will be divided
into two most unequal portions; the
larger share will go to the Govern-
ment in the shape of tax, and the
smaller share, which will be a handful
of rice per day, will go to the cultivator
of the soil. Now, this is the Indian
system. It is the grand theory of the
civilians, under whose advice, I very
much fear, Lord Canning has unfortu-
nately acted; and you will find in many
parts of India, especially in the Presi-
dency of Madras, that the population
consists entirely of the class of cultiva-
tors, and that the Government stands
over them with a screw which is per-
petually turned, leaving the handful of
rice per day to the ryot or the cultiva-
tor, and pouring all the rest of the pro-
duce of the soil into the Exchequer of
the East India Company. Now, I be-
lieve that this Proclamation sanctions
this policy; and I believe further that
the Resolution which the right hon.
Gentleman asks the House to adopt,
sanctions this Proclamation; that it
will be so read in India, and that what-
ever may be the influence, unfortunate as
I believe it will be, of the Proclamation
itself, when it is known throughout
India that this-the highest court of
}
1858.
37
INDIA. III.
Į
appeal-has pronounced in favour of
Lord Canning's policy, it will be one of
the most unfortunate declarations that
ever went forth from the Parliament
of this country to the people of that
empire.
Let me then for one minute-and it
shall be but for one minute-ask the
attention of the House to our pecuniary
dealings with Oude. A friend of mine
has extracted from a book on this sub-
ject two or three facts which I should
like to state to the House, as we are
now considering the policy of England
towards that afflicted country. It is
stated that, under the government of
Warren Hastings, to the arrival of
Lord Cornwallis in 1786, the East India
Company obtained from the kingdom of
Oude, and therefore from the Exchequer
of the people of Oude, the sum of
9,252,000l.; under Lord Cornwallis,
4,290,000l.; under Lord Teignmouth,
1,280,000l.; under Lord Wellesley,
10,358,000l. This includes, I ought to
observe, the Doab, taken in 1801 in lieu
of subsidy, the annual revenue of that
district being 1,352,000l. Coming down
to the year 1814, there was a loan of a
million; in 1815 a loan of a million;
in 1825 a loan of a million; in 1826 a
loan of a million; in 1829 a loan of
625,000l.; and in 1838 a loan of
1,700,000l. Some of these sums, the
House will observe, are loans, and in one
case the loan was repaid by a portion of
territory which the Company, in a very
few years, under an excuse which I
should not like to justify, re-annexed to
themselves, and therefore the debt was
virtually never repaid. The whole of
these sums comes to 31,500,000l.; in
addition to which Oude has paid vast
sums in salaries, pensions, and emolu-
ments of every kind to servants of the
Company engaged in the service of the
Government of Oude.
I am not going further into detail
with regard to that matter; but I say
that the history of our connection with
the country, whose interests we are now
discussing, is of a nature that ought to
make us pause before we consent to any
measure that shall fill up the cup of
injury which we have offered to the lips
of that people. After this, two years
ago, we deposed the Sovereign of Óude.
Everything that he had was seized-
much of it was sold. Indignities were
offered to his family. Their ruin was
accomplished, though they were the
governors of that kingdom. Some hon.
Gentleman, speaking on this side of the
House, has tried to persuade the House
that this confiscation policy only intends
that we should receive the taxes of Oude.
But that is altogether a delusion. That
is a statement so absurd that I am
astonished that any one, even of those
that support the Resolution, should offer
it to the House. In 1856, when you
dethroned the King of Oude, you
stepped into his place, and became the
recipients of all the legitimate national
taxes of the kingdom of Oude; and
now, having seized the 500,000l. a-year,
the revenue of that country, after a
solemn treaty which contained a clause
that if there were a surplus of revenue
it should be paid to the credit of the
kingdom of Oude; after having applied
that surplus, contrary to the clause of
that treaty, to the general purposes of
India; you now step in and you descend
below the King, to every talookdar, to
every landowner, large or small, to
every man who has proprietary rights
in the soil, to every man, the smallest
and humblest capitalist who cultivates
the soil-to every one of these you say
in language that cannot be mistaken-
Come down from the independence
and dignity you have held. As we have
done in other provinces of India we
shall do here. Two-thirds of you have
not been mixed up in this war; but in
this general confiscation the innocent
must suffer with the guilty, for such is
the misfortune of war, and such is the
penalty which we shall inflict upon you.'
Sir, if this Proclamation be not a Pro-
clamation of unheard-of severity, how
comes it that so many persons have
protested against it? Does any man
believe that the noble Lord the Member
for the West Riding (Viscount Goderich)
38
MAY 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
understands this Proclamation better
than the high military authorities who
have so long known India? Does he
suppose that the House of Commons
will take his authority upon a matter of
this kind in preference to the authority
of the whole united press of India?
['Oh! oh!'] Well, I dare say that
hon. Members who cry 'Oh!' have not
read the newspapers of India upon the
subject. Some of them uphold it be-
cause they say that at one fell swoop it
has done that which it took us twenty
years to do in other districts of India,
and destroys every man who could
influence the people against the British
Government. Others say that it is a
Proclamation of such a character that
it must cause 'war to the knife' against
the English, and that the Governor-
General who issued such a Proclamation
should have been prepared with a new
army at his back that he might have
power to enforce it.
The learned Gentleman the Attorney-
General for Ireland referred in his
speech the other night to what had
been said by the hon. and learned Mem-
ber for Devonport (Sir E. Perry) on the
occasion of a question that I had put
some two or three weeks ago. Now I
call the House to witness whether when
I put the question which brought out
this despatch, and when the right hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer rose in his place and gave the
answer that with respect to the policy
of confiscation-for that is the only
thing there is any dispute about in the
Proclamation the Government dis-
avowed it in every sense-I call the
House to witness whether every Gentle-
man present in this part of the House
did not cheer that sentiment. Of course,
every man cheered it. They would not
have been men; they would not have
been Englishmen; they would not have
been legislators; they would have been
men who had never heard of what was
just and right, if every instinct within
them, at the instant they heard the
declaration of the Government, did not
compel them to an enthusiastic assent.
And it was only when the fatal influ-
ence of party, and the arts which party
knows how to employ, were put in
motion, that hon. Gentlemen began to
discover that there was something
serious and something dangerous in this
memorable despatch. Now, I would
ask the House this question-are we
prepared to sanction the policy of that
despatch?
I am very sorry that I have not
done what only occurred to me after
this debate commenced, and after the
Amendment was proposed, or I should
have proposed another Amendment to
the House that went expressly upon
that point, because-and I speak it
without the smallest reference to the
influence which it may have on any
party in this House-I think it of the
very highest consequence that, whatever
decision we come to, it should be liable
to no misinterpretation when it arrives
in India. Then, Sir, we have been
treated to a good deal of eloquence
upon the manner of the despatch; and
with regard to that I must say a word
or two. The noble Lord the Member
for London, who sits below me, has,
I think, fallen into the error of most of
the speakers in favour of the Resolution;
that is, of treating some of the outside
circumstances of the case as if they were
the case itself. I do not think, however,
that he stated there was a word in the
despatch which was not true, although
he did express what I thought was
rather an immoral sentiment for so
eminent a statesman. The noble Lord
told us that after a crime had been com-
mitted, men in office were never to let
it be known or suspected that they
thought it was a crime. [Lord John
Russell: The hon. Gentleman is mis-
taken; I never said anything of the
kind.'] I did not hear it myself, but I
read it, and many of my friends came to
the same conclusion. ['Oh! oh!'] Well,
I understand, then, that he did not say
it; but what he did say was, that there
was a great deal of sarcasm and in-
vective in the despatch, and he read
a passage to show that such was the
C
1858.
39
INDIA. III.
..
case. But the fact is that a great deal
depends upon the reading. I could take
a despatch of the noble Lord himself
and read it in a manner that would per-
fectly astonish him. He said, if I am
not mistaken, that if the House were to
approve of that despatch as a proper
despatch, then Lord Canning was not
fit to occupy the meanest political or
official situation. Indian despatches
have, to my mind, never been very
gentle. I recollect having read in Mill's
History of British India, and in other
histories also, despatches that have
been sent from the President of the
Board of Control, the Secret Com-
mittee, and the Court of Directors, over
and over again; and I have thought
that they were written in a tone rather
more authoritative and rather more
dictatorial than I should have been dis-
posed to write, or than I should have
been pleased to receive. It arose from
this that in old times the magnates
sitting in Leadenhall-street were writing,
not to Lord Canning and men of that
altitude, but to merchants and agents
whom they had sent out, who were
entirely dependent upon them, and to
whom they could say just what they
liked; and for 100 years past, as far as
I have seen, their despatches have had
a character for severity, and that which
men call dictatorial,' which I think
might be very well dispensed with. But
that is a matter which should certainly
be taken into consideration, when a
large portion of this House are disposed
not only to censure Lord Ellenborough,
but to overturn the Government, be-
cause a despatch is not written precisely
in those gentle terms which some hon.
Gentlemen think to be right when
inditing a letter to a Governor-General
of India.
There is one other point which I
must notice, and that is the supposed
effect of this despatch upon the feelings
of Lord Canning. I am not so intimate
with Lord Canning as many Members
of this House, but I have had the
pleasure of his acquaintance, and have
always believed that he was one of the
last men who would knowingly do any-
thing that was inhuman or unjust, and
that is my opinion now. I think he is
to be commiserated, as any other man
would have been who happened to be
in India at such a time as this; and
I think we are bound also to take a
lenient view even of such errors as we
may think he has committed. If I had
gone to India, or into any service under
the State, I should expect that there
would be a general disposition to give
me fair play in the exercise of my office,
and that no strained construction to my
injury would be put upon anything
which I did. Well, that is the view
which I entertain with regard to Lord
Canning. I have never uttered a syl-
lable against him in public, although
I think that some of his acts have been
open to great objection; and I am not
about to say anything against him now.
I would not support a Resolution which
was intended to damage Lord Canning;
and I think the hon. Member for Swan-
sea (Mr. Dillwyn) has not done wrong
in offering to the House the Amendment
he has placed before us. But it is just
possible that Lord Canning is in the
midst of circumstances which have ren-
dered it very difficult, perhaps impos-
sible, for him to exercise his own calm
judgment on the great question which
forms the subject of this Proclamation.
I see in that Proclamation not so much
an emanation from the humane and just
mind of Lord Canning, as the offspring
of that mixture of red tape and ancient
tradition which is the foundation of the
policy of the old civilian Council of
Calcutta. But, Sir, if it were a question
of hurting Lord Canning's feelings and
denouncing this Proclamation, I could
have no hesitation as to the choice
which I should make. A man's private
and personal feelings are not a matter
of importance for the House when com-
pared with the vast and permanent in-
terests involved in the dangerous policy
which we are now discussing. And I
do not think the right hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Cardwell), the noble Lord the
Member for the West Riding (Viscount
40
MAY 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Goderich), and the noble Lord the
Member for London, have any right to
throw themselves into something like a
contortion of agony with regard to the
manner of this despatch; because, as
was stated to the House the other night
by the learned Attorney-General for
Ireland, they did not tell us much about
the feelings of another public servant,
acting on behalf of the Crown at a still
greater distance from England, when
last year they gave a vote on the China
question which pronounced a most em-
phatic condemnation on the conduct of
Sir John Bowring. Now, I like fair
play. I would treat Lord Canning as I
would treat Sir John Bowring; and I
would treat Sir John Bowring as I
would treat Lord Canning. Do not let
us have in the service of the State low-
caste men who may be trampled upon
at pleasure, and high-caste men whom
nobody dare criticise.
I said, when I began, that this Re-
solution is important in reference to
something else besides India; that it is
important with reference to the position
of parties in this House. I would ask
the attention of the House for a few
moments to that branch of the subject.
I am afraid—and I hope I am not slan-
dering anybody in saying it—that there
is quite as much zeal for what is called
'place' as there is for the good of India
in the proposition brought before us.
If that despatch had been published
three months ago, when we were all
sitting on that side of the House, it is
very probable that many Gentlemen
who now speak against it would have
thought it a noble despatch, containing
noble sentiments, expressed in noble
language. But now, Sir, there has been
for the last two months a growing
irritation observable, particularly in this
part of the House. There has been a
feeling which no ingenuity has been
able to disguise-a fear that if the pre-
sent Government should, by some means
or other, remain in office over the Ses-
sion, no small difficulty would be found
in displacing it-lest, like the tree,
which, when first planted, may be
easily pulled up, it should by-and-bye
strike its roots downwards and its
branches outwards, and after a year or
two no man would be able to get it out
of the ground. Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site know that I differ very widely from
them on many public questions, and
probably at some not distant day they
may find it out in some act of severe
hostility; but I put it to the House
whether, out of doors, the reputation of
the present Government is not, in many
respects, better than the last? Take,
for instance, the Gentlemen who come
up from the country on various deputa-
tions to the Ministers-the judgment of
these deputations, without an exception,
is in favour of the manner in which
they have been received by the present
Ministers, and of the way in which their
suggestions and requests have been
treated. Now, this may be no great
matter, and I do not say that it is; but
I make the observation for the benefit
of the Gentlemen who sit on these
benches, because it is just possible that
they may some time have to receive
deputations again. Then take their con-
duct in this House. Oh, yes,' hon.
Gentlemen may say, but they are a
weak Government; they have not a
majority, and they are obliged to be
very civil.' But what I maintain is,
that every Ministry ought to be very
civil, and what I am prepared to assert
is-and I ask every man on this side
of the House if he does not agree with
me, for I have heard dozens of them
say it out of the House-that when the
late Government were in office civility
was a thing unknown.
•
Take another point—for it is worthy
of consideration by Gentlemen on this
side of the House, and I ask hon. Gen-
tlemen who sit below the gangway es-
pecially to consider it-look at the
heritage of trouble with regard to our
foreign policy which the existing Go-
vernment found on their accession to
office. Three months of what was go-
ing on upon the Conspiracy Bill would
have landed you on the very verge of
a war, if not in a war, with France,
1858.
4I
INDIA. III.
and that danger has been avoided cer-
tainly by no concession which is inju-
rious to the honour of England. Take
the question which has agitated the
public mind with regard to Naples. I
am not going into any details; but so
far as a Government could act, this
Government appears to have acted with
judgment. I think the noble Lord be-
low me (Lord J. Russell) admitted that
himself. I did not say that the noble
Lord said anything against them. On
the contrary, I rejoice to have him with
me as a witness to what I am stating.
With regard, then, to these questions,
seeing the dilemma into which the
foreign affairs of the country were
brought under the last Administration,
I think it is but fair, just, and generous
that Members on this side of the House,
at least, should take no course which
wears the colour of faction, for the
purpose of throwing the present Go-
vernment out of office. Whenever I
join in a vote to put Gentlemen oppo-
site out of office, it shall be for some-
thing that the country will clearly un-
derstand-something that shall offer a
chance of good to some portion of the
British empire-something that shall
offer a chance of advancing distinctly
the great principles for which we-if
we are a party at all on this side of the
House-profess to care.
But there is another reason. Not
only is it feared that hon. Gentlemen
opposite will get firm in their seats,
but it is also feared that some hon.
Gentlemen near me will get less firm
in their alliance with the right hon.
Gentlemen on this side. I have heard
of mutinous meetings and discussions,
and of language of the most unpardon-
able character uttered, as Gentlemen
now say, in the heat of debate.
there was something more going on,
which was traced to a meeting of in-
dependent Members recently held in
Committee-room No. 11; and if a stop
were not put to it, the powerful ranks
on these benches might be broken up,
which, if united, it was believed, would
storm the Treasury benches and replace
But
the late Government in office. I believe
it was intended that a desperate effort
should be made to change the state of
things here before Whitsuntide. That
was a resolution which had been come
to long before any one knew anything
about Lord Ellenborough's despatch.
And the present seems to be a con-
venient opportunity, inasmuch as it has
this in its favour, that it appears to
be defending an absent servant of the
Crown; that it appears to be teaching
a lesson to the Government who have
acted injudiciously in publishing a des-
patch; altogether it has that about it
which makes it an excellent pretext on
which hon. Gentlemen may ride into
office. Now, I do not speak to Whigs
in office or to those Gentlemen who
have been in office and expect to be in
office again; but I should like to say
what I believe to be true to those Gen-
tlemen who call themselves independent
Members, who come here with no per-
sonal object to serve, not seeking place,
patronage, or favour, but with an honest
desire, as far as they are able, to serve
their country as Members of the House
of Commons. If this Resolution be
carried, it is supposed that the old Go-
vernment, or some hing very like it,
will come back again. Now, there was
great discontent with that old Govern-
ment before it went out; yet no pledge
whatever has been given that its conduct
will be better or different; no new
measures have been promised, no new
policy has been avowed, no new men,
that I have seen, have been held forth
to the public very distinctly as likely
to take high office in the State. There
have been some things which I should
think Members of this House must
have felt pain at witnessing. There
are newspapers in the interest of this
ex-Treasury bench which have, in the
most unblushing manner, published
articles emanating from the pen of
somebody who knew exactly what was
wanted to be done. In the case of a
gentleman, for example, who was en-
gaged in Committee-room No. 11-a
gentleman whom I need not mention,

42
MAY 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
because the House knows all the cir-
cumstances of this case, but a gentle-
man who took a most prominent part
in the proceedings in that Committee-
room-and no
and no one is probably more
indignant at what has been done than
himself those newspapers have posi-
tively fixed upon and designated him
for a certain office, if the present Go-
vernment go out and another comes
in; another gentleman who seconded a
Resolution on that occasion is also held
up for an office; but they do not state
exactly what his precise position is to
be; and the glittering bauble of some
place in the in-coming Government is
hung up before many hon. Gentlemen
who sit around me. It is not said,
C
It is for you,' and 'It is for you;' but
it is hung up dangling before them all,
and every man is expected to covet that
glittering bauble.
But this is not all. These are not the
only arts which are employed. Members
of this House sitting below the gang-
way, who have been here for years-
Gentlemen of the most independent
character-receive flattering and beau-
tifully engraved cards to great parties
at splendid mansions; and not later
than Friday last, of all times, those
invitations were scattered, if not with a
more liberal, no doubt with a much
more discriminating hand than they
ever were before. [An hon. Member:
Absurd!'] Of course it is
Of course it is very ab-
surd; there is no doubt about that, and
that is precisely why I am explaining it
to the House. Why, Sir, if those cards
of invitation contained a note with
them, giving the exact history of what
was really meant, it would say to hon.
Gentlemen, Sir, we have measured
your head, and we have gauged your
soul, and we know or believe'-for I
believe they do not know-' we believe
that your principles which you came
into Parliament to support-your cha-
racter in the House-your self-respect
will go for nothing if you have a miser-
able temptation like this held up before
you.' Sir, if we could see them taking
a course which is said to be taken by
·
the celebrated horse-tamer, who appeals,
as I am told, to the nobler and more
intelligent instincts of the animal which
he tames, then I should not complain.
But they appeal to instincts which every
honourable mind repudiates, and to as-
pirations which no hon. Gentleman on
this side of the House can for a moment
admit.
Well, then, if they succeed, what sort
of a Government shall we have? I am
as anxious for a Liberal Government as
any man in this House, but I cannot
believe that, in the present position of
things on this side of the House, a
Liberal and solid Government can be
formed. We are told, and the whole
country has been in a state of expecta-
tion and wonder upon it, that two
eminent statesmen have actually dined
together; and I am very glad to hear
that men engaged in the strife of poli-
tics can dine together without personal
hostility. I say nothing of the viands
that were eaten. I say nothing of the
beverage that was in the loving cup'
that went round. One of our oldest
and greatest poets has told us that—
Nepenthe is a drink of soverayne grace.'
He says that it was devised by the gods
to subdue contention, and subject the
passions; but that it was given only to
the aged and the wise, who were pre-
pared by it to take their places with
ancient heroes in a higher sphere. But
that could not have been the contents
of the 'loving cup' in this instance, for
these aged statesmen are still deter-
mined to cling to this world, and to
mix, as heretofore, with all the vigour
and the fire of youth in the turmoil and
contention of public life. But does the
fact of this dinner point to reconcilia-
tion, and to a firm and liberal adminis-
tration? I believe that any such Go-
vernment would be the worst of all
coalitions. I believe that it would be
built upon insincerity, and I suspect it
would be of no advantage to the coun-
try. Therefore I am not anxious to see
such a Government attempted.
I ask the House, then, are they pre-
1858.
43
INDIA. III.
pared to overthrow the existing Govern-
ment on the question which the right
hon. Gentleman has brought before us
-a question which he has put in such
ambiguous terms? Are they willing
in overthrowing that Government to
avow the policy of this Proclamation
for India? Are they willing to throw
the country into all the turmoil of a
general election-a general election at
a moment when the people are but just
slowly recovering from the effects of the
most tremendous commercial panic that
this country ever passed through? Are
they willing to delay all legislation for
India till next year, and all legislation
on the subject of Parliamentary reform
till the year after that? Are they willing,
above all, to take the responsibility
which will attach to them if they avow
the policy contained in this Proclama-
tion?
I confess, Sir, I am terrified for the
future of India when I look at the in-
discriminate slaughter which is now
going on there. I have seen a letter,
written, I believe, by a missionary, lately
inserted in a most respectable weekly
newspaper published in London, in
which the writer estimates that 10,000
men have been put to death by hanging
alone. I ask you, whether you approve
of having in India such expressions as
these, which I have taken this day from
a Calcutta newspaper, and which un-
doubtedly you will be held to approve
if you do anything which can be charged
with a confirmation of the tenor of this
Proclamation. Here is an extract from
The Englishman, which, speaking of the
men of the disarmed regiments, who
amount to some 20,000 or 30,000, or
even 40,000 men, says :-
There is no necessity to bring every
Sepoy to a court-martial, and convict him
of mutinous intentions before putting him
down as guilty. We do not advocate ex-
treme or harsh measures, nor are we of
those who would drench the land with
blood; but we have no hesitation in
saying, that, were the Government to
order the execution of all these Sepoys,
they would be legally and morally justified
in doing so. There would be no in-
justice done.'
No injustice would be done! I ask the
House to consider that these men have
committed no offence; their military
functions were suspended because it was
thought they were likely to be tempted
to commit an offence, and therefore
their arms were taken from them; and
now an Englishman-one of your own
countrymen-writing in a newspaper
published in Calcutta, utters sentiments
so atrocious as those which I have just
read to the House. I believe the whole
of India is now trembling under the
action of volcanic fires; and we shall
be guilty of the greatest recklessness,
and I will say of great crime against
the Monarchy of England, if we do
anything by which we shall own this
Proclamation. I am asked on this
question to overturn Her Majesty's Go-
vernment. The policy adopted by the
Government on this subject is the policy
that was cheered by hon. Members on
this side when it was first announced.
It is a policy of mercy and conciliation.
False-may I not say?-or blundering
leaders of this party would induce us,
contrary to all our associations and all
our principles, to support an opposite
policy. I am willing to avow that I am
in favour of justice and conciliation-
of the law of justice and of kindness.
Justice and mercy are the supreme at-
tributes of the perfection which we call
Deity, but all men everywhere compre-
hend them; there is no speech nor
language in which their voice is not
heard, and they cannot be vainly exer-
cised with regard to the docile and in-
telligent millions of India. You have
had the choice. You have tried the
sword. It has broken; it now rests
broken in your grasp; and you stand
humbled and rebuked. You stand
humbled and rebuked before the eyes of
civilised Europe. You may have an-
other. chance. You may, by possibility,
have another opportunity of governing
India. If you have, I beseech you to
44
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
"
make the best use of it. Do not let
us pursue such a policy as many men
in India, and some in England, have
advocated, but which hereafter you
will have to regret, which can end only,
as I believe, in something approaching
to the ruin of this country, and which
must, if it be persisted in, involve our
name and nation in everlasting dis-
grace.
I
1
INDIA.
IV.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 1, 1859.
From Hansard.
[On August 1 Sir Charles Wood made his financial statement on India to the House of
Commons. One of his proposals was that the Government should be empowered to
raise 5,000,000l. in the United Kingdom in order to meet the demands of the present
year. The Loan Bill passed through both Houses.]
I HAVE SO often addressed the House
upon the question of India that I feel
some hesitation in asking a portion of
the time of the Committee this evening.
But notwithstanding an observation of
the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary
for India that he does not see anything
gloomy in the future of India, I confess
that to my view the question assumes
yearly a greater magnitude, and I may
say a greater peril. I think, therefore,
that having given some attention to
this subject in years past, I may be per-
mitted to bring my share, be its value
more or less, to the attempt which we
are now making to confront this great
evil. When we recollect how insufficient
are the statements which he has from
India, the right hon. Gentleman has
given us as clear an account of the
finances of India as it was possible for
him to do, and looking at them in the
most favourable point of view we come
to this conclusion:-We have what we
have had for twenty years, only more
rapidly accumulating, deficit on deficit
and debt on debt.
The right hon. Gentleman told the
Committee that when he left the Go-
vernment of India, I think in 1855,
everything was in a most satisfactory
condition. Well, it did happen in that
year, perhaps by some of that kind of
management which I have observed
occasionally in Indian finance, that the
deficit was brought down to a sum not
exceeding 150,000l. [Sir C. Wood:
There was a surplus of 400,000l."]
The deficit, I believe, before the mutiny
was 143,000l. But, if the right hon.
Gentleman will allow me to take the
three years preceding the mutiny, I
think that will give a much fairer idea
of the real state of the case, and it is
not the least use shutting our eyes to
the real state of the case, because some
day or other it will find us out, or we
shall find it out. The real state of the
case in the three years preceding the
mutiny, 1855, 1856, and 1857, ending
the 30th of April, is a deficit of
2,823,000l., being an average not very
far short of 1,000,000l. a-year. That is
the state of things immediately after the
right hon. Gentleman left office. I do
not in the least find fault with him. He
did not make the deficit, but I merely
state this to show that things are not
at the moment in that favourable state
which the right hon. Gentleman would
---
46
AUGUST 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
induce the Committee to believe. Keep-
ing our attention to that period, there
is another point of view, which is also
very important. It appears to me that
any Government must be an excessively
bad Government which cannot defray
its expenses out of the taxes which it
levies on its people. We know, and
every one has for years known, that in
India there is a source of revenue, not
from taxes levied on the people, but
from opium, and which is very like the
revenue derived by the Peruvian Go-
vernment from guano. If we turn to
those three years and see what relation
the expenditure of the Government had
to taxes levied on the people of India,
we shall find, though we may hear that
the taxes are not so much as we im-
agine, or that the people are extremely
poor, or that the Government is very
extravagant—we shall find that the sum
levied for the sale of opium and transit
was no less than 10,500,000l., and if we
add that to the 2,800,000l., we get a
sum of 13,300,ocol., which is the exact
sum which the Government of India
cost in those three years over and above
what was raised from the people by
actual taxation. I say that this is a state
of things which ought to cause alarm,
because we know, and we find it stated
in the last despatches, that the income
derived from opium is of a precarious
character, and from the variation of cli-
mate in India, or from a variation of
policy in the Chinese Government, that
revenue may suddenly either be very
much impaired or be cut off altogether.
The right hon. Gentleman brings us
to the condition in which we are now,
and it may be stated in the fewest
possible words to be this,-that the
debt of India has been constantly rising,
and that it amounts now to 100,000,000l.
sterling. ['No, no!] The right hon.
Gentleman said 95,000,000l., but he
said there would be 5,000,000l. next
year, and I will undertake to say that
it is fair to argue on the basis that the
debt of India at this moment is about
100,000,000l., that there is a deficit of
12,000,000l. this year, and that there
may be expected to be a deficit of
10,000,000l. next year. It is not to be
wondered at that it should be difficult
to borrow money on Indian account.
I am not surprised at the hon. Mem-
ber for Kendal (Mr. Glyn) being so
lively in the House to-night, and other
hon. Gentlemen connected with the
City, who, I understand, have been
impressing on the Secretary of State
the fact that money cannot be had in
the City for the purpose for which he
wants it. I do not wonder that it is
difficult to raise money on Indian
account. I should think it extraordinary
if it could be borrowed without a high
rate of interest. That it can be bor-
rowed at all can only arise from the
fact that England, whatever disasters
she gets into, generally contrives, by
the blood of her soldiers or by the
taxation of her people, to scramble
through her difficulties, and to maintain
before the world, though by enormous
sacrifices, a character for good faith
which is scarcely held by any other
country in the world. With regard to
the question of an Imperial guarantee,
I take an opposite view from the noble
Lord (Lord Stanley) on that particular
point, though I agree with what he said
as to certain expenses thrown on the
Indian Government.
Last year I referred to the enormous
expense of the Affghan war— -about
15,000,000l.—the whole of which ought
to have been thrown on the taxation of
the people of England, because it was a
war commanded by the English Cabinet,
for objects supposed to be English, but
which, in my opinion, were of no advan-
tage either to England or India. It was
most unjust that this enormous burden
should have been thrown upon the
finances of the Indian Government. But
I do not oppose an Imperial guarantee
because I particularly sympathize with
the English taxpayers in this matter.
I think the English taxpayers have
generally neglected all the affairs of
India, and might be left to pay for it.
But there was no justice in imposing on
the unfortunate millions of India the
1859.
47
INDIA. IV.
burden of a policy with which they had
nothing to do, and which could not
bring any one of them a single handful
of rice more-it did bring them rather
less than more-than they would have
eaten without it. But I object to an
Imperial guarantee on this ground,—if
we let the Services of India, after ex-
hausting the resources of India, put
their hands into the pockets of the
English people, the people of England
having no control over the Indian ex-
penditure, it is impossible to say to
what lengths of unimagined extrava-
gance they would go; and in endea-
vouring to save India may we not go
far towards ruining England?
But look at this question of Indian
finance from another point of view.
The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and the
right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for
India have both referred to the enormous
amount of the whole taxation of India
taken by the Military Service. I believe
it has been shown that at this moment
almost, if not altogether, the whole of
the net revenue of India is being ab-
sorbed by the Military Service of that
empire; that not a farthing is left out
of the whole net revenue of India to
pay the expenses of the civil government
or the public creditor. If we leave out
the opium duty, perhaps we shall see
how far the Military Service bears on
the taxation of India; we shall see that
more than its net amount is absorbed
by the Military Service. That is a state
of things that has never existed in any
other country or among any other
people, for any considerable period,
without bringing that country to anarchy
and ruin. We have been told by the
Governor-General that the great bulk
of the revenue of India is not elastic;
that with regard to the land-tax there
has been for a long period no increase
in it; that, on the contrary, that large
source of income has decreased. He
tells us, further, that the army cannot,
at present, be largely reduced with safety.
If so, what is the end to which we must
come? Either the Government of India
must come to an end, or England itself
must become tributary to India. Seeing
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has within the last fortnight asked
70,000,000l. of the English taxpayer for
the expenses of the English Govern-
ment, to ask nine or ten millions more
for the Government of India would cer-
tainly cause great dissatisfaction in this
country. The picture is, to my mind,
an alarming one, notwithstanding the
cheerful view taken of it by the Secretary
for India; and it has filled many besides
myself with dismay.
Now, looking round for modes of
escape from this position, I believe they
exist, if we had the courage to adopt
them. An hon. Friend has asked me,
'Is there nobody to tell the House of
Commons the truth on this matter?'
I might ask why he has not done it
himself. I suppose he is afraid of being
thought rash; but his advice is, that
the Government should re-establish the
independence of the Punjab, recall the
Ameers of Scinde, restore the Govern-
ment of the King of Oude, giving to it
the dependency of Nagpore. I confess,
whether it be rash or not, that I think
it would be wise to restore the Govern-
ment of the Punjab and to give inde-
pendence to that province which is
called Scinde, because as no revenue
is received from that part of the country
in excess of the expense which its re-
tention causes to this country, we should
endeavour to bring our dominions in
India within a reasonable and manage-
able compass. No policy can be more
lunatic than the policy of annexation
we have pursued of late years in India,
and the calamity we are now meeting
is the natural and inevitable consequence
of the folly we have committed.` It is
not easy for great generals and states-
men who have been made earls and
marquesses and had bronze statues put
up in their honour in our public squares
-it is not easy for the statesmen who
have done all this to turn round and
reverse it all; they have not the moral
courage to do it; it might be an act of
peril; it might appear a descent from
the summit of empire and be wrongly

48
AUGUST I,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
1
construed throughout the world. But
as a question of finance and good go-
vernment we should, a few years hence,
admit that it was a sound policy. But
I will not pursue this subject, for I may
fairly take it for granted that the House
of Commons and the Government of
England are not likely to take such a
course till we are reduced to some
extremity even greater than that which
now meets us.
But there is another course that may
fairly be recommended. It is to take
India as it is, the empire with all your
annexations as it stands, and to see if
it is not possible to do something better
with it than you have done before, and
to give it a chance in future years of
redeeming not only the character of
the Government but its financial and
legislative position. The noble Lord
(Lord Stanley) says there cannot be
any great diminution in the expenditure
for the Civil Service of India; but I do
not in the least agree with the Secretary
for India when he says that the gentle-
men of the Civil Service in that country
are not overpaid. Every one knows
that they are overpaid; except some
very high-salaried bishops of whom we
have heard, no men are so grossly over-
paid as the officials of the Civil Service
in India. The proof of this may be
found everywhere. Look at the Island
of Ceylon; there the duties are as ar-
duous and the climate as unfavourable
as in India; yet the Government does
not pay its officials there more than
one-half or two-thirds of the salaries
they are paid in India. There are in
India itself many hundreds of Euro-
peans, the officers of the Indian army,
all the Indian clergy, and missionaries;
there are also English merchants, carry-
ing on their business at rates of profit
not much exceeding the profits made in
this country. But the Civil Service of
the Indian Government, like everything
privileged and exclusive, is a pampered
body; and, notwithstanding it has pro-
duced some few able men who have
worthily done their duty, I do not think
the Civil Service of India deserves the
loud praise we have so frequently heard
awarded to it by speakers in this House.
Now if you could reduce the
could reduce the expense of
the Civil Service by any considerable
amount, the best thing you could do
with the money would be to increase
the establishment by sending a greater
number of competent persons as magis-
trates, collectors, and officials into the
distant provinces, and thereby double
the facilities for good government in
those districts. If you could reduce
the income of the Civil Service one
half, you could for the same money
have a more efficient Service throughout
India than at present. You might not
save money, but you would get a more
complete Service for it.
But the military question the House
of Commons will certainly have to take
in hand; though Secretaries for India
are afraid to grapple with it. I am not
astonished that they feel some hesitation
in doing so, for from every one con-
nected with the Military Service they
would hear the strongest objections to
reducing the number of the troops. But
let me ask the Committee to consider
what it has just heard. Before the
Revolt the European troops in India
numbered 45,000 and the Native troops
250,000; now the 45,000 European
troops are 110,000, and the 250,000
Native soldiers are raised to 300,000.
What was it that we heard during the
Indian mutiny; what was the cause of
all the letters that appeared in the news-
papers? Every man said that the great
evil was having a Native army far larger
than was required. That has been the
source of peril, and that was the real
cause of the mutiny. Now we have
even a larger portion of this most pe-
rilous element than we had before. The
authorities of India do not appear to
have learnt anything from the mutiny,
or they have learnt that all that was
said in this House and in this country
was untrue, because they have 50,000
more Native troops than they had be-
fore the mutiny. Therefore, the mode
of argument appears to be this:—A
Native army was the cause of the
1859.
49
INDIA. IV.
mutiny, the cause of all our perils, and
now it is necessary to have more of it;
and, as that is the perilous element, of
course 45,000 troops are not sufficient
to keep them in check; therefore, you
have at present 110,000; and certain
officers who were examined, and the
Commissioners who reported, recom-
mended that you should always have
at least 80,000 Europeans there. If
we are only to have one body of troops
to watch another, it seems to me there
can be no hope of any diminution of
our military force, nor any real reduc-
tion in our expenditure. Why is it that
you require all this army? Let me ask
the Committee to look at the matter as
sensible men of business. The Revolt,
which has been such a terrible affair,
has been suppressed. It was suppressed
mainly by the 45,000 men in India, and
not by the 110,000 you have succeeded
in placing there at a later period. More
than that, there is not at the present
moment any alarming amount of dis-
satisfaction in India, or at least the
dissatisfied are dispirited, and have lost
all hope of resisting the power of Eng-
land, and must for a long period, I
think, remain wholly dispirited.
the same time, you have disarmed the
people over a vast province. There
are millions of people in India, a great
number of whom were previously in
possession of arms, who do not now
possess a single weapon.
At
I have seen
in the last accounts, only a day or two
since, a statement that not less than
1,400 forts in the kingdom of Oude
alone have been destroyed, and we
know that many more have been de-
stroyed in other parts. There is at
this moment no power for combined
organized armed resistance against you,
except that which is in the Native army,
which the Indian Government has been
building up of late to a greater extent
than ever.
The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) spoke
of one point-the great importance of
which I admit- the want of confidence
and sympathy that must have arisen
between the two races in consequence
of the transactions of the last two years.
The shock of revolt must have created
great suspicion and hatred and fear,
and there is nothing out of which panic
grows so easily as out of those con-
ditions. I believe that is the case in
India, and perhaps there are indications
of something of the kind at home.
There is a panic, therefore, and neither
the Governor-General nor the Civil Ser-
vice nor military officers can make up
their minds that they are safe, recol-
lecting the transactions of the past two
years, in having a less military force
than we now have in India. But if you
ask those gentlemen they will never say
they have enough. There are admirals
here, as we know, who are perfectly
wild about ships, with whom arithmetic
on such a question goes for nothing.
They would show you in the clearest
possible manner that you have not ships
enough. So also, although I am glad
to find not to the same extent, as to
troops. Some one said the other night,
in answer to an hon. Gentleman, about
an increased force of a particular kind,
'There is nothing like leather,' and it
is so.
I say naval officers and military
officers are not the men to whom the
Chancellor of the Exchequer should de-
pute the great and solemn duty of de-
termining what amount shall be ex-
pended for military purposes. There
is not a country in the world that would
not have been bankrupt long since, and
plunged into irretrievable ruin, if the
military authorities had been allowed
to determine the amount of military
force to be kept up, and the amount of
revenue to be devoted to that purpose.
I have another objection to this great
army, and I now come to the question
of policy, which, I am sorry to say for
India, has not been touched upon. I
do not think this is a question to be
merely settled by a very clever manner
of giving the figures of the case. Those
figures depend upon the course you in-
tend to pursue, upon the policy which
the Government intends to adopt, in
that country. With this great army
two things are certain-we can have
4
50
AUGUST 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
:
no reform of any kind in the Govern-
ment of India, nor an improved conduct
on the part of the English in India
towards the Natives of India. With a
power like this-110,000 English troops,
with an English regiment within an
hour's reach of each civil servant, you
will find that the supremacy of the con-
quering race will be displayed in the
most offensive manner.
Everybody connected with India-
the hon. Member for Devonport (Sir
Erskine Perry), the hon. Member for
Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes)—all who are
connected with India, know well that
when the English were feeble in India,
when they had not a great army in the
field or a great revenue to support it,
every Englishman treated the Natives
by whom he was surrounded rather with
the feeling that he was an intruder in
the country, and that it was not only
proper but absolutely necessary to deal
in a conciliatory and just manner with
the great body of the Natives of India ;
but precisely as our power increased
the conduct of our countrymen changed,
and I find in the excellent book of Mr.
Shore that thirty years ago he describes
this as the very source of the growing
ill feeling between the races in India.
It has grown from that time to this,
until we have an irritation and animo-
sity which in our time, it may be, we
shall see very little removed, and which
may perhaps never be wholly allayed.
A Government, then, with this vast
army, must always be in a difficulty.
Lord Canning-Lord anybody else—
cannot turn his attention to anything
but this wearing, exasperating question
of how money is to be got for the next
quarter to pay this army. He cannot
turn his attention in any way to reforms,
and I am convinced that this House
must insist upon the Government re-
ducing its army, whatever be the risk.
A large army will render it impossible
for you to hold the country, for you
will have a constantly increasing debt,
and anarchy must inevitably overwhelm
you in the end. A small army, a mo-
derate, conciliatory, and just Govern-
ment, with the finances in a prosperous
condition ;-and I know not but that
this country may possess for genera-
tions and centuries a share, and a large
share, in the government of those vast
territories which it has conquered.
As to measures of reduction, I admit
that it is of little use attempting them
unless they are accompanied by other
changes. Here I have a charge to bring
against the Indian Government. I did
hope when the noble Lord spoke to-night
that he would have told us something
which I am sure he must have known;
that there is no such thing as a real Go-
vernment in India at all; that there is no
responsibility either to a public opinion
there, or to a public opinion at home;
and that therefore we cannot expect a
better policy or happier results. Let hon.
Gentlemen imagine a Government like
that in India, over which the payers of
the taxes have not the slightest control;
for the great body of the people in
India have, as we all know, no control
in any way over the Government.
Neither is there any independent Eng-
lish opinion that has any control over
the Government, the only opinions be-
ing those of the Government itself, or
those of the Military and Civil Ser-
vices, and chiefly of the latter. They are
not the payers of taxes; they are the
spenders and the enjoyers of the taxes,
and therefore the Government in India
is in the most unfortunate position
possible for the fulfilment of the great
duties that must devolve upon every
wise and just Government. The Civil
Service, being privileged, is arrogant,
and I had almost said tyrannous, as
any one may see who reads the In-
dian papers, which mainly represent
the opinion of that Service and the
Military Service, which, as everywhere
else where it is not checked by the re-
solution of the taxpayers and civilians,
is clamorous and insatiable for greater
expenditure. The Governor-General
himself, and I do not make any at-
tack upon Lord Canning, although I
could conceive a Governor-General
more suited to his great and difficult
1859.
51
INDIA. IV.
position, he is a creature of these
very Services.
I now ask the noble Lord to re-
member a case which happened during
the time he held office, and if the Com-
mittee will allow me, for the sake of
illustration, to refer to it, I do not think
it will be any waste of time. Hon.
Gentlemen will recollect that during
the last year, my hon. Friend the
Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B.
Smith), who has paid great attention
to Indian subjects, put a question to
the noble Lord relating to the annexa-
tion of a small territory called Dhar.
What has been the course of events in
relation to that case? The news of the
annexation reached this country on the
20th of March last year. Upon the 23rd
the question was put in this House,
when the hon. Member for Inverness
(Mr. Baillie), then Under-Secretary, re-
plied, that the Government had just
been informed of it by the Governor-
General, and that he was solely re-
sponsible for the act, the Government
here having had no previous commu-
nication upon it. Upon the 11th of
June the noble Lord (Lord Stanley)
announced to the House, in answer to
a question, that he had disallowed the
annexation of Dhar. The despatch
disallowing it has since been laid upon
the table. It is dated June 22, and it
asks for information from the Governor-
General. In India they assumed this
unfortunate Rajah to be guilty of mis-
demeanour, because his troops had re-
volted, and the noble Lord in his
despatch said, as I think very sensibly,
If we cannot keep our own troops,
what argument is it for overturning the
independence of the territory of Dhar,
seeing that the Rajah himself has been
faithful towards us, but his troops have
rebelled?' The noble Lord asked for
further information. In the preceding
April the Ranee, the mother or step-
mother of the Rajah, a mere boy of
thirteen, sent two memorials to the
Governor-General, one by post, and the
other through the local British officer,
remonstrating against the annexation,
and proving, as far as she could, that
the Rajah had not been guilty of any
wrong against us. This memorial was
not acknowledged until August, when
the Secretary for the Government of
India desired the Ranee to forward the
memorial through the Governor-Gene-
ral's agent in Central India. In April
these papers were laid upon the table
of the House with one exception. The
Ranee's memorial was not included in
those papers.
Now, when those papers were laid
before the House, why was not that
memorial, relating to the annexed terri-
tory, sent home and printed with the
other papers, so that hon. Members of
this House might have read it? The
letter of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley)
was dated the 22nd of June, 1858, and
to this hour it has never been answered.
The noble Lord's despatch disallowed
the annexation; it condemned it, and
asked for information. From the date
of that despatch to this present Ist of
August, 1859, there has not come any
official information from the Governor-
General as to what he has done, or any
answer to the noble Lord's despatch,
although sixteen months have elapsed.
I say it is not fitting that the Secretary
of State for India should be treated
with utter disregard, if not with some-
thing like contempt, by any great satrap
who happens to be sent out to govern
any of the provinces of this country.
This very case shows, that in the midst
of the terrible hurricane of the mutiny,
the thirst for annexation was unslaked.
At the very moment, or just before,
that the Queen issued her gracious
Proclamation here, the Government in
India annexed the territory of this
Rajah, a boy of thirteen years of age,
manifesting at the same time an utter
disregard of the Government at home
and the just sentiments, if they could
have been ascertained, of the whole
body of the people of this country.
And this must be so as long as you
have a Government like that of Cal-
cutta. Procrastination is its very
nature.
4-2
52
AUGUST 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
The noble Lord opposite (Lord
Stanley) did an excellent thing. He
did honour to himself by appointing
a man of a new sort as Governor of
Madras. I have not much acquaint-
ance with Sir C. Trevelyan, but I be-
lieve him to be a very intelligent man
and very earnest for the good of India.
But he finds that at Madras he is like a
man who is manacled, as all the Gover-
nors are. He is able to do almost no-
thing. But he has a spirit above being
the passive instrument for doing nothing
in the hands of the Governor-General,
and he has been disposed to make
several changes which have looked ex-
ceedingly heterodox to those who are
connected with the old Government of
India, and which have shocked the
nerves of the fifteen old gentlemen who
meet in Leadenhall-street, and their
brethren in India. I find that among
the changes endeavoured to be effected
by Sir C. Trevelyan, the following are
enumerated:-He has endeavoured to
conciliate the Natives by abolishing
certain ceremonial distinctions which
were supposed to degrade them when
visiting the Government House; he has
shown that personal courtesy to them
which appears to be too much neglected
in India; he has conspicuously reward-
ed those who have rendered services to
the State; he has made one of the Na-
tives his aide-de-camp; he has endea-
voured to improve the land tenure, to
effect a settlement of the Enam, and
to abolish the impress of cattle and
carts. He has also abolished three-
fourths, or perhaps more, of the paper
work of the public servants. He also
began the great task of judicial reform,
than which none is more urgently press-
ing. But what is said of Sir C. Tre-
velyan for instituting these reforms?
He has raised a hornets' nest about
him. Those who surround the Gover-
nor-General at Calcutta say, 'We might
as well have the Governors of the Pre-
sidencies independent, if they are to do
as they like without consulting the Go-
vernor General as has been done ip
past times.' The Friend of India is a
journal not particularly scrupulous in
supporting the Calcutta Government,
but it has a horror of any Government
of India except that of the Governor-
General and the few individuals who
surround him. A writer in the Friend
of India says:—
'Sir C. Trevelyan relies doubtless on
Lord Stanley, and we do not dream of
denying that the Secretary of State has
provocation enough to excuse the unusual
course he seems obliged to pursue. To
send a reform to Calcutta is, at present,
simply to lay it aside. It will probably
not even be answered for two years, cer-
tainly not carried in five. Even when
sanctioned, it will have to pass through a
crucible through which no plan can escape
entire. That weary waiting for Calcutta,
of which all men, from Lord Stanley to
the people of Singapore, now bitterly com-
plain, may well tempt the Secretary to
carry on his plans by the first mode offered
to his hand.'
Here are only a dozen lines from a long
article, and there are other articles in
the same paper to the same purport. I
think, then, that I am justified in con-
demning any Secretary for India who
contents himself with giving us the
figures necessary to show the state of
the finances, which any clerk in the
office could have done, and abstains
from going into the questions of the
government of India and that policy
upon which alone you can base any
solid hope of an improvement in the
condition of that country.
There is another point I would men-
tion. The Governor-General of India
goes out knowing little or nothing of
India. I know exactly what he does
when he is appointed. He shuts him-
self up to study the first volumes of Mr.
Mill's History of India, and he reads
through this laborious work without
nearly so much effect in making him a
good Governor-General as a man might
ignorantly suppose. He goes to India,
a country of twenty nations, speaking
twenty languages. He knows none of
those nations, and he has not a glimmer

1859.
53
INDIA. IV.
of the grammar and pronunciation or
meaning of those languages. He is
surrounded by half-a-dozen or a dozen
gentlemen who have been from fifteen
to forty years in that country, and who
have scrambled from the moderate but
sure allowance with which they began
in the Service to the positions they now
occupy. He knows nothing of the
country or the people, and they are
really unknown to the Government of
India. To this hour the present Gover-
nor-General has not travelled through
any considerable portion of the territory
of India. If he did, he would have to
pay an increased insurance upon his
life for travelling through a country in
which there are very few roads and no
bridges at all. Observe the position,
then, in which the Governor-General is
placed. He is surrounded by an official
circle, he breathes an official air, and
everything is dim or dark beyond it.
You lay duties upon him which are
utterly beyond the mental or bodily
strength of any man who ever existed,
and which he cannot therefore ade-
quately perform.
Turning from the Governor-General
to the Civil Service, see how short the
period is in which your servants in that
country remain in any particular office.
You are constantly criticising the bad
customs of the United States, where
every postmaster and many other officers
lose their situations, and where others
are appointed whenever a new President
is elected. You never make blunders
like the United States, and you will
therefore be surprised at a statement
given in evidence by Mr. Underhill, the
Secretary of the Baptist Missionary
Society. He says that in certain dis-
tricts in Bengal there are three or four
Englishmen to 1,000,000 inhabitants,
and that the magistrates are perpetu-
ally moving about. I have here the
names of several gentlemen cited. Mr.
Henry Lushington went to India in
1821, and remained till 1842. During
these twenty-one years he filled twenty-
one different offices; he went to Europe
twice, being absent from India not less
+
than four and a quarter years. Upon an
average, therefore, he held his twenty-
one offices not more than nine months
each. Mr. J. P. Grant was Governor
of Bengal. That was so good a place
that he remained stationary in it. But
he went to India in 1828 and remained
there until 1841. In those thirteen
years he held twenty-four different situ-
ations, being an average of less than
six months for each. Mr. Charles
Grant-and I may say that Grant is
a name which for three or four genera-
tions has been found everywhere in
India, he was in India from 1829 to
1842, and in those thirteen years he
filled seventeen offices, being an average
of only eight months for each office.
Mr. Halliday, Governor of Bengal, went
to India in 1825, and remained until
1843. In those eighteen years he held
twenty-one offices, and he did not be-
come stationary until he was accredited
to the lucrative and great office of Go-
vernor of Bengal.
I think these facts show that there is
something in the arrangements of the
Indian Government which makes it no
Government at all, except for the pur-
pose of raising money and spending
taxes. It is no Government for watching
over the people and conferring upon
them those blessings which we try to
silence our consciences by believing the
British Government is established in
India to promote. What can a Go-
vernor-General do with such a Council,
and with servants who are ever changing
in all the departments? I am not
stating my own opinion, but what is
proved by the blue-books. Mr. Halliday
stated that the police of Bengal were
more feared than the thieves and dacoits.
But how is this Government, so occu-
pied and so embarrassed, to be expected
to put the police on a satisfactory foot-
ing? With regard to justice, I might
appeal to any gentleman who has been
in India whether, for the most part,
the Judges in the Company's Courts are
not without training, and if they are
without training, whether they will not
probably be without law. The delay is
1
54
AUGUST 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
something of which we can have no
conception, even with our experience of
the Court of Chancery in this country.
Perjury and wrong are universal where-
ever the Courts of the Company's Ser-
vice have been established in India. Of
their taxation we hear enough to-night.
It is clumsy and unscientific. In their
finance there is such confusion that the
Government proposes to send out some-
body, not to raise revenue, not to spend
it, but somebody who will be able to
tell you how it is raised and spent, for
that is what you want to know. They
have no system of book-keeping what-
ever. The Secretary of State gives us
a statement of revenue and expenditure
up to the 30th of April, 1858, sixteen
months back, and even for the year pre-
ceding he can only furnish what he calls
an estimate.' Would
Would any other Legis-
lative Assembly in the whole world,
except this, tolerate such a state of
things? I did try myself several years
ago to get a statement of the accounts
up to a later period; but I found it was
of no use. They ought to be brought
up to a later period; the thing is quite
within the range of possibility; it is
simply not done because there is no
proper system of book-keeping, and no
one responsible for not doing it.
You have no Government in India;
you have no financial statement; you
have no system of book-keeping; no
responsibility; and everything goes to
confusion and ruin because there is
such a Government, or no Government,
and the English House of Commons
has not taken the pains to reform these
things. The Secretary of State to-night
points to the increase in the English
trade. In that trade I am myself inter-
ested, and I am delighted to see that
increase; but it should be borne in
mind that just now it is not a natural
increase, and therefore not certain to be
permanent. If you are spending so
many millions in railroads and in carry-
ing on war-that is, 22,000,000l. for
your armaments in India instead of
12,000,000l.—is not that likely to make
a great difference in your power to
import more largely from this country?
Do not we know that when the Go-
vernment of the day was pouring English
treasure into the Crimea the trade with
the Levant was most materially in-
creased? And, therefore, I say it will
be a delusion for the right hon. Gentle-
man to expect that the extraordinary
increase which has taken place within
the last three years will go on in future
in the same proportion.
Now, the point which I wish to bring
before the Committee and the Govern-
ment is this, because it is on this that I
rely mainly-I think I may say almost
entirely for any improvement in the
future of India. It would be impertinent
to take up the time of the Committee
by merely cavilling at what other people
have said, and pointing out their errors
and blunders, if I had no hope of being
able to suggest any improvement in the
existing state of things. I believe a
great improvement may be made, and
by a gradual progress that will dislocate
nothing. I dare say it may disappoint
some individuals, but where it will dis-
appoint one man in India it will please
a thousand. What you want is to de-
centralize your Government. I hold it
to be manifestly impossible to govern
150,000,000 of persons, composing
twenty different nations, speaking as
many different languages, by a man
who knows nothing of India, assisted
by half-a-dozen councillors belonging
to a privileged order, many of whom
have had very little experience in India,
except within narrow limits, and whose
experience never involved the consider-
ation and settlement of great questions
of statesmanship. If you could have an
independent Government in India for
every 20,000,000 of its people, I do not
hesitate to say, though we are so many
thousand miles away, that there are
Englishmen who, settling down among
those 20,000,000 of people, would be
able to conduct the Government of that
particular province on conditions wholly
different and immeasurably better than
anything in the way of administration
which we have ever seen in India.
1859.
55
INDIA. IV.
If I were Secretary of State for
India, but as I am not, I will recom-
mend the right hon. Gentleman to do
that which I would do myself, or I
would not hold his office for one month;
because, to hold office and come before
the House Session after Session with a
gloomy statement, and with no kind of
case to show that you are doing any-
thing for India, or that you are justified
in holding possession of it at all, is
nothing but to receive a salary and to
hold a dignity without any adequate
notion of the high responsibility attach-
ing to them. I am not blaming the
right hon. Gentleman in particular; he
is only doing what all his predecessors
before him have done. There has been
no real improvement since I have sat in
Parliament in the government of India,
and I believe the Bill of last year is not
one whit better for purposes of admin-
istration than any that has gone before.
But I would suggest to the right hon.
Gentleman, whether it would not be a
good thing to bring in a Bill to extend
and define the powers of the Governors
of the various Presidencies in India?
I do not ask the right hon. Gentleman
to turn out the fifteen gentlemen who
assist him in Leadenhall-street to vege-
tate on their pensions, but I ask him to
go to India and to take the Presidency
of Madras for an instance. Let arrange-
ments be made by which that Presidency
shall be in a position to correspond di-
rectly with him in this country, and let
every one connected with that Govern-
ment of Madras feel that, with regard
to the interests and the people of that
Presidency, they will be responsible for
their protection. At present there is no
sort of tie between the governors and
the governed. Why is it that we should
not do for Madras what has been done
for the Island of Ceylon? I am not
about to set up the Council of Ceylon
as a model institution-it is far from
that; but I will tell you what it is, and
you will see that it would not be a diffi-
cult thing to make the change I pro-
pose.
The other day I asked a gentle-
man holding an office in the Govern-
ment, and who had lived some years in
Ceylon, what was the state of the
Council? He said it was composed of
sixteen members, of whom six were
non-official and independent, and the
Governor had always a majority. He
added that at the present moment in
that Council there was one gentleman,
a pure Cingalese by birth and blood,
another a Brahmin, another a half-caste,
whose father was a Dutchman and
whose mother was a Native, and three
others who were either English mer-
chants or planters. The Council has
not much prestige, and therefore it is
not easy to induce merchants in the
interior to be members and to under-
take its moderate duties; but the result
is that this Cingalese, this Brahmin,
this half-caste, and these three English-
men, although they cannot out-vote Sir
H. Ward, the Governor, are able to
discuss questions of public interest in
the eye and the ear of the public, and
to tell what the independent population
want, and so to form a representation
of public opinion in the Council, which
I will undertake to say, although so
inefficient, is yet of high importance in
the satisfactory government of that
island. Why is it that we can have
nothing like this in the Councils of
Madras or Bombay? It would be an
easy thing to do, and I believe that an
Act of Parliament which would do it
would lay the foundation of the greatest
reform that has yet taken place in
India. At present all the Governors
are in fetters; and I see that blame has
been imputed to Sir Charles Trevelyan
for endeavouring to break through those
fetters. No doubt an attempt will be
made to have him recalled, but I hope
that the right hon. Gentleman, while he
moderates the ardour of the Governor
so far as to prevent a rebellion among
the civilians, will support him honestly
and faithfully in all those changes which
the right hon. Gentleman knows as well
as I do are essential to the improve-
ment of the government of that country.
There is yet another question, and
that is, what is to be done with regard
•
56
AUGUST 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
to the people of India on the subject of
education, and especially with reference
to the matter of religious instruction?
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to be
cautious how he takes the advice of any
gentleman in this country, who may
ask him to make changes in the estab-
lished order of things there by appear-
ing in the slightest degree to attempt
to overthrow the caste and religion of
the Natives of India. I have here an
extract from a letter written by a gen-
tleman who was present at one of
the ceremonies of reading the Queen's
Proclamation in November last. He
says:-
'Not less than 7,000 Natives of all
ranks and conditions and religions flocked
to the esplanade at Tellicherry, where
there was no show but the parading of a
company of Sepoys, who fired a feu de joie
very badly, to hear the Queen's Proclama-
tion read. All who heard, all who heard
not, manifested the deepest interest in it.
The pledged inviolability of their religion
and their lands spread like wildfire through
the crowd, and was soon in every man's
mouth. Their satisfaction was unbounded.
...I mentioned that I went to Tellicherry
to hear the Queen's Proclamation read. We
have since had it read here (Anjarakandy).
You will see an account of what took place
on the occasion in the accompanying copy
of an official report I addressed to the
assistant-magistrate. What I have described
understates the feeling manifested by the
people. They were all eyes and ears, listen-
ing breathlessly to what was being read.
You will observe that convening them for
any public purpose whatever, except here,
was a thing unknown, and would have
been a thing scouted under the Company's
Government. Here I always assemble
them, communicate everything they ought
to know and hear, and talk it over with
them. But a Queen's Proclamation is not
an every-day affair, so they came in crowds,
and I will venture to say that there is not
another place in the Queen's India where
it was so clearly explained to them or so
thoroughly understood. But the impartial
toleration of their religion and caste was
the be-all and end-all of their comments,
praise, and individual satisfaction. One
Mafitta said, They had had scores of
proclamations upon every conceivable sub-
ject, but never one so wise and sensible as
this."
There
The East India Company was a won-
derful Company for writing despatches.
There was nothing so Christian as their
doctrine, nothing so unchristian as their
conduct. That Proclamation has in it
the basis of all you should aim at in
future in India-a regard to the sacred-
ness of their property, and the sacred-
ness of their religion, and an extension
to them of as regular and full justice
as is shown to your own countrymen.
Depend upon it these Natives of India
can comprehend this as well as we
comprehend it; and, if you treat them
as we are treated, and as they ought to
be treated, you will not require 400,000
men to help you to govern a people
who are notoriously among the most
industrious and most peaceable to be
found on the face of the earth.
has lately been an act done by the
noble Lord (Lord Stanley) to which I
must allude. Why he did it I do not
know. I am sure the noble Lord did
not mean to do an act of injustice—
though very great injustice has been
done. A question was put the other
night about a Native of India who had
come to this country to qualify himself
for entering into competition for em-
ployment in the Civil Service of his
country. I have seen that young gen-
tleman, and conversed with him; and
when I state his case, it will be seen
whether he has been treated well or
wisely, though the regulation under
which he has suffered may have been
made without any reference to him in-
dividually. He arrived in this country
in June, 1856, and remained preparing
himself for competition for two years
and a-half till December, 1858, when a
new regulation came out, which made
twenty-two instead of twenty-three years
of
age the period for entering the Civil
Service. He might have been ready
1859.
57
INDIA. IV.
for competition in July, 1860, but he
could not be ready in July, 1859. Under
these circumstances he would be past
the age of twenty-two before he could
be able to present himself for examina-
tion. The consequence is, that he has
been obliged to turn himself to another
channel for employment. His father is
an assistant-builder in the Government
dockyard of Bombay, and has been in
England. There was great interest ex-
cited among the Natives when the young
man left India to come to England, and
there is great disappointment among
his friends at the result. He has been
laughed at for trusting the Government,
and it is said that while Government
go on changing their regulations in this
way no faith can be put in them. Now
this is the first case of this kind that
has happened. This young gentleman
(or his father) has expended 1,500l. in
coming here and in endeavouring to get
the best education, solely with a view
to be suited for the Civil Service. If
he had entered into that Civil Service
a great thing would have been accom-
plished. The result would have been
that the House and the Secretary for
India would have seen that it was very
unjust, while the son of any one here
could pursue his studies at home and
enter into competition for the Civil
Service, that the sons of the Natives of
India who wish to enter into the service
of their own country must come thou-
sands of miles at great expense, and
live apart from their families for years,
before they are able to accomplish their
object, and the result must have been
that you would have established in some
city in India the same mode of examina-
tion that you have established here.
You must have been led to do that
which would have enabled young men
in India to offer themselves for the
Civil Service of their country on as
favourable terms as could be done in
England. I am sure the noble Lord
never had the slightest idea of the regu-
lation having reference to this young
man, or of injuring him; yet it has
been done, and what has occurred leads
to the conclusion that either somebody
very deep in these matters has been at
the bottom of this change, or that
some combination of unfortunate cir-
cumstances has been at work, by which
that which we have all so much at
heart has been retarded. If the noble
Lord had struck out this regulation, or
made a new one, by which this young
man could have had a chance of going
home as a servant of the Civil Service,
the fact would have been worth many
regiments of soldiers in India.
In speaking on this subject I have
nothing new to offer to the attention
of the House. I have propounded the
very same theories and remedies years
ago. They are not my remedies and
theories. I am not the inventor of local
government for India; but the more 1
have considered the subject-the more
I have discussed it with the Members
of this House and with gentlemen con-
nected with India-the more I am con-
vinced that you will not make a single
step towards the improvement of India
unless you change your whole system
of government-unless you give to each
Presidency a government with more in-
dependent powers than are now pos-
sessed by it. What would be thought
if the whole of Europe was under one
governor, who knew only the language
of the Feejee Islands, and that his sub-
ordinates were like himself, only more
intelligent than the inhabitants of the
Feejee Islands are supposed to be?
You set a governor over 150,000,000
of human beings, in a climate where
the European cannot do the work he
has to do so well as here, where neither
the moral nor physical strength of the
individual is equal to what it is at home,
--and you do not even always furnish
the most powerful men for the office ;--
you seem to think that the atmosphere
will be always calm and the sea always
smooth. And so the government of
India goes on; there are promises with-
out number of beneficial changes, but
we never hear that India is much better
or worse than before. Now, that
is not the way to do justice to a great
58
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
empire like India. If there had been a
better government in India, the late
disturbances among your own troops
would not have happened; and I own
I tremble when I reflect that every post
may bring us, in the present temper of
the European troops in India, some
dire intelligence of acts which they may
have committed, because they may think
that this is a convenient opportunity
for pressing some great claim of their
own.
I beg the Committee to consider this
matter, notwithstanding that the right
hon. Gentleman is not disposed to take
a gloomy view of the state of India.
Look at your responsibilities. India is
ruled by Englishmen, but remember
that in that unfortunate country you
have destroyed every form of govern-
ment but your own; that you have
cast the thrones of the Natives to the
ground. Princely families, once the
rulers of India, are now either houseless
wanderers in the land they once called
their own, or are pensioners on the
bounty of those strangers by whom
their fortunes have been overthrown.
They who were noble and gentle for
ages are now merged in the common
mass of the people. All over those
vast regions there are countless millions,
helpless and defenceless, deprived of
their natural leaders and their ancient
chiefs, looking with only some small ray
of hope to that omnipresent and irre-
sistible Power by which they have been
subjected. I appeal to you on behalf
of that people. I have besought your
mercy and your justice for many a year
past; and if I speak to you earnestly
now, it is because the object for which
I plead is dear to my heart. Is it not
possible to touch a chord in the hearts
of Englishmen, to raise them to a sense
of the miseries inflicted on that unhappy
country by the crimes and the blunders
of our rulers here? If you have steeled
your hearts against the Natives, if no-
thing can stir you to sympathy with
their miseries, at least have pity upon
your own countrymen. Rely upon it
the state of things which now exists in
India must, before long, become most
serious. I hope that you will not show
to the world that, although your fathers
conquered the country, you have not
the ability to govern it. You had better
disencumber yourselves of the fatal gift
of empire than that the present genera-
tion should be punished for the sins of
the past.
I speak in condemnatory
language, because I believe it to be
deserved. I hope that no future his-
torian will have to say that the arms of
England in India were irresistible, and
that an ancient empire fell before their
victorious progress, yet that finally
India was avenged, because the power
of her conqueror was broken by the
intolerable burdens and evils which she
cast upon her victim, and that this
wrong was accomplished by a waste of
human life and a waste of wealth which
England, with all her power, was un-
able to bear.
INDIA.
V.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 19, 1861.
From Hansard.
[Mr. Dunlop brought forward a motion to inquire into the discrepancies between
certain sets of documents, relating to the Affghan war of 1837-8. It appeared
that some passages in the despatches of Sir Alexander Burnes had been mutilated,
in order to make it appear that he advised a policy which he really condemned.
Mr. Dunlop moved for a Committee to inquire into this alleged mutilation of
despatches presented to the House. The motion was negatived.]
WHEN the noble Lord rose, I ob-
served, from his countenance and from
his language, that he seemed to be
suffering from the passion of anger.
[Viscount Palmerston: Not much.']
Not much,' the noble Lord says.
admit that in the course of his speech
he calmed down; but he was so far led
from what I think was a fair course as
to charge the hon. and learned Gentle-
man who introduced this Motion with
making a violent and vituperative
speech, and he spoke of that voca-
bulary of abuse of which the hon.
Gentleman appeared to be master.'
Now, I will undertake to say that I
am only speaking the opinion of every
Gentleman in the House who heard
the speech which introduced this ques-
tion, when I say that there has rarely
been delivered here on any subject a
speech more strictly logical, more judi-
cially calm, and more admirable than
that which we have heard to-night
from the hon. and learned Member
for Greenock. But the fact is the
noble Lord felt himself hit.
The noble Lord is on his trial in this
case; and on that account I expect that
at the conclusion of the debate he will
not feel himself at liberty to object to
the appointment of this Committee.
After a few sentences the noble Lord
touched upon the case of Sir Alexander
Burnes, and he made a very faint denial
of the misrepresentations which are
charged against the Government of
that day in the case of that gentleman.
But he went on to say that, after all,
these things were of no importance;
that what was in, or what was left out,
was unimportant. But I should like to
ask the noble Lord what was the object
of the minute and ingenious, and I will
say unmatched care which was taken in
mutilating the despatches of a gentle-
man whose opinions were of no impor-
tance and whose writings could not
make the slightest difference either to
the question or to the opinions of any
person concerned? The noble Lord,
too, has stooped to conduct which, if I
were not in this House, I might describe
in language which I could not possibly
use here without being told that I was
transgressing the line usually observed
in discussions in this assembly. The
noble Lord has stooped so low as to
1
60
MARCH 19,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
heap insult, throughout the whole of
his speech, upon the memory of a man
who died in the execution of what he
believed to be his public duty—a duty
which was thrust upon him by the mad
and obstinate policy of the noble Lord;
and whilst his blood cries to Heaven
against that policy, the noble Lord,
during a three-quarters of an hour's
speech in this House, has scarcely
ceased to heap insult on his memory.
What the noble Lord told us through-
out his speech was that Sir Alexander
Burnes was a man of the greatest sim-
plicity of character. I could not, how-
ever complimentary I were disposed to
be, retort that upon the noble Lord.
He says that Sir Alexander Burnes-of
whom he spoke throughout in the most
contemptuous manner-an eminent po-
litical agent at the Court of Dost Ma-
hommed, was beguiled by the treachery
of that Asiatic ruler; that he took every-
thing for truth which he heard, and that,
in point of fact, he was utterly unfit for
the position which he held at Cabul.
But although the noble Lord had these
despatches before him, and knew all the
feelings of Sir Alexander Burnes, he
still continued Sir Alexander Burnes
there. He was there two years after
these despatches were written, in that
most perilous year when not only him-
self but the whole army-subjects of
the Queen-fell victims to the policy of
the noble Lord. Now, I must tell the
noble Lord what my hon. and learned
Friend, the Member for Greenock, did
not discuss, and what the Committee is
not to do-because every Member who
heard the speech of the hon. and learned
Member for Greenock, and those who
listened to the speech of the noble Lord,
must have seen that from the first the
noble Lord evaded the whole question.
He endeavoured to lead the House to
believe that my hon. and learned Friend
was going into some antiquarian re-
searches about the policy of the English
or the Indian Government twenty years
ago, and that it was proposed to have a
Committee to dig up all the particulars
of our supposed peril from the designs
of Russia at that time. But the fact is
that my hon. and learned Friend had no
such intention; and there was no man
in the House more cognizant of that
fact than the noble Lord when he inge-
niously endeavoured to convey a con-
trary impression to the House.
It is not proposed to go into the po-
licy of the war. And there is another
question that it is not proposed to go into.
It is not proposed to inquire whether
Sir Alexander Burnes or Lord Auckland
was Governor-General. We know that
Lord Auckland was Governor-General;
but we know that a Governor-General
who may be many hundreds, or in India,
perhaps, 2,000 miles away from the place
where particular events are transpiring,
must rely to a considerable extent on
the information he receives from the
political agent who is on the spot. If
this be so, clearly what Sir Alexander
Burnes thought, and what he said, and
what he wrote, is of some importance.
At least, if the House of Commons has
any evidence placed before it, the noble
Lord will agree that in a great question
like this-I am not speaking of the pre-
sent time, but of the time when these
events happened-it is of first-rate im-
portance that the House should have
evidence not on one side only, but on
both sides. There is another thing we
do not propose to inquire into, and that
is the policy of Russia at that time. I
cannot very well understand the course
which the noble Lord has taken on this
point; for I find that about twelve
months after the writing of these very
despatches, the mutilation of which is
now complained of, the noble Lord
made a reply to the Russian Minister
who had declared that there was no-
thing whatever hostile to England in
the instructions which were furnished
to Vicovich. He says-
"There has not existed the smallest de-
sign hostile to the English Government,
nor the smallest idea of endangering the
tranquillity of the British possessions in
India.'
The noble Lord, in reply to that, on the
1861.
61
INDIA. V.
20th December, 1838, just a year after
the writing of these despatches by Sir
Alexander Burnes, said:-
'Her Majesty's Government accept as
entirely satisfactory the declaration of the
Russian Government that it does not har-
bour any designs hostile to the interests of
Great Britain in India.'
I may leave that question there, be-
cause I can assure the noble Lord that
my hon. and learned Friend has not the
smallest intention-I judge so, at least,
from his speech-of bringing anybody
before the Committee to attack or de-
fend the policy of the Government in
the war which then unhappily took
place. Nor do I suppose it is intended
to arraign anybody for a policy that
sacrificed at least 20,000 human lives-
20,000 lives of the subjects of the
Queen of England. Nor is it intended
to inquire how far the loss of more
than 15,000,000l. sterling by that po-
licy has affected for all future time
the finances and the circumstances of
the Government of India. These are
crimes-the whole of that policy is a
crime-of a nature never to be answer-
ed for. No man can accurately mea-
sure it. No Committee of this House
could adequately punish those who were
the perpetrators of it. No, Sir, my hon.
and learned Friend has not the slightest
idea of going back twenty years for the
purpose of bringing the noble Lord, or
any one else who may be guilty of that
great crime, to the bar of public opinion
by this Committee.
But it is worth while that the House
should know whether the Government
in whom it placed confidence at that
time, and in whom the Queen placed
confidence-whether that Government
was worthy of their confidence, and
whether any members of the Govern-
ment of that day are members of the
Government at this day. It is worth
while knowing whether there was and
is a man in high position in the Go-
vernment here or in India who had so
low a sense of honour and of right that
he could offer to this House mutilated,
false, forged despatches and opinions of
a public servant, who lost his life in the
public service. Conceive any man at
this moment in India engaged, as many
have been during the last three years, in
perilous services-conceive that any
man should know that to-morrow, or
next week, or any time this year, he
may lay his bones in that distant land,
and that six months afterwards there
may be laid on the table of this House
by the noble Lord at the head of the
Government, or by the Secretary of
State for India, letters or despatches
of his from which passages have been
cut out, and into which passages have
been inserted, in which words have been
so twisted as wholly to divert and dis-
tort his meaning, and to give to him a
meaning, it may be, utterly the contrary
to that which his original despatch in-
tended to convey. I cannot conceive
any anticipation more painful or more
bitter, more likely to eat into the heart
of any man engaged in the service of
his country in a distant land.
It is admitted, and the noble Lord
has not flatly denied it-he cannot deny
it-he knows it as well as the hon.
and learned member for Greenock-
he knows it as well as the very man
whose hand did the evil-he knows
there have been garbling, mutilation,
practically and essentially falsehood and
forgery, in these despatches which have
been laid before the House. Why was
it refused to give the original despatches
when they were asked for in 1842 by
the hon. Member for Inverness-shire
(Mr. H. Baillie), and when they were
asked for at a later period by the hon.
Member for Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield)?
Why was it that the originals were so
consistently withheld? That they have
been given now, I suppose is because
those who were guilty of the outrage
on the faith of Parliament thought, as
twenty years had elapsed, that nobody
would give himself the trouble to go into
the question, and that no man would be
so earnest as my hon. Friend the Member
for Greenock in bringing the question
before the notice of Parliament.
62
MARCH 19,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Sheffield (Mr. Hadfield) informs me
that it was the noble Lord the Mem-
ber for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley)
who consented to the production of
the original despatches when he was
in office. I was not aware of that fact;
but I am free here to tender him my
thanks for the course which he took.
I am sure he is the last man whom any
one would suspect of being mixed up
in any transaction of this kind, except
with a view to give the House and the
country full information with regard to
it. I say, then, avoiding all the long
speech of the noble Lord, that the
object of the Committee is to find out
who did this evil thing-who placed
upon the table of the House informa-
tion which was knowingly false, and
despatches that were actually forged—
because if you add to or detract from,
or so change a coin, or note, or deed,
as to make any of them bear a mean-
ing contrary to its original and intended
meaning, of course you are guilty of
such an act as I have described, and
that is precisely what somebody has
done in the despatches which we are
now discussing. I say an odious offence
has been committed against the House,
and against the truth; and what we
want to know is, who did it?
Now, will the noble Lord be candid
enough-he does not think there is any-
thing wrong-he says there is not much
-it is very trifling-that Sir Alexauder
Burnes's opinions are not worth much-
supposing it to be so for the sake of
argument, let me grant it; but if it is a
matter of no importance, will the noble
Lord be so candid as to tell us who
did it? When Lord Broughton was
examined before the Official Salaries
Committee some years ago, he, as the
noble Lord is aware, said that he took
upon himself as President of the Board
of Control at the time the entire re-
sponsibility of the Affghan war. The
noble Lord now at the head of the
Government was then a member of the
India Board, and so I believe was the
noble Lord the Member for the City
of London. But the noble Lord at the
head of the Government was also Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs. Now, I do
not think I am wrong in supposing that
this question lies between the noble
Lord the Prime Minister and Lord
Broughton, once a Member of this
House. This thing was not done by
some subordinate who cannot be found
out.
My hon. and learned Friend says it
has been done with marvellous care,
and even with so much ability that it
must have been done by a man of
genius. Of course there are men of
genius in very objectionable walks of
life; but we know that the noble Lord
at the head of the Government is a man
of genius; if he had not been, he would
not have sat on that bench for the last
fifty years. And we know that Lord
Broughton is a man of many and varied
accomplishments. And once more I ask
the noble Lord to tell us who did it?
He knows who did it. Was it his own
right-hand, or was it Lord Broughton's
right-hand, or was it some clever secre-
tary in the Foreign Office or in the
India Office who did this work? I say
the House has a right to know. We
want to know that. We want to drag
the delinquent before the public. This
we want to know, because we wish to
deter other Ministers from committing
the like offence; and we want to know
it for that which most of all is neces-
sary-to vindicate the character and
honour of Parliament. Nothing can
sink Parliament to a lower state of
degradation and baseness than that it
should permit Ministers of the Crown
to lay upon the table, upon questions
involving the sacrifice of 20,000,000l. of
money and 20,000 lives, documents which
are not true-which slander our public
servants, and which slander them most
basely when they are dead and are not
here to answer. I do not believe that
the Gentlemen of England in this House
-upon that side of the House or upon
this-will ever consent to sit down with
a case proved so clearly as this is without
directing the omnipotent power and eye
1861.
63
INDIA.
V.
I say,
of Parliament into the matter.
seeing the charge, seeing that the noble
Lord was at the head of the Foreign
Office at the time, that the policy of the
Affghan war was always considered to
be his, that the responsibility of this
act must rest between him and Lord
Broughton,-I should not like to hold
the opinion, and I do not hold the
opinion, that the noble Lord will object
to a Committee to inquire into a matter
in which he is himself so directly con-
cerned.
1
t
CANADA.
I.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1865.
From Hansard.
[Delivered during the debate on Colonel Jervois' Report on the Defences of Canada.]
I AM not sure that I should have
addressed the House on this occasion
but for the observations which have
been made by the noble Lord. I think
he has been perhaps a little more frank
in his declarations on this occasion, and
in pointing out the real thing which I
suspect is passing in his mind, and in
the minds of very many Members of the
House who have made no statement of
their own opinions during this debate.
I hope the debate will be useful, al-
though I am obliged to say, while I
admit the importance of the question
that has been brought before us, that I
think it is one of some delicacy. That
it is important is clear, because it refers
to the possibility of war between this
country and the United States, and its
delicacy arises from this-that it is very
difficult to discuss this question without
saying things which tend rather in the
direction of war than in the direction of
peace.
The difficulty which is now before us
is this-that there is an extensive colony
or dependency of this country lying
adjacent to the United States, and if
there be a war party in the United
States-a party hostile to this country-
that circumstance affords to it a very
strong temptation to enter without
much hesitation into a war with Eng-
land, because it may feel that through
Canada it can inflict a great humiliation
upon this country. And at the same
time it is perfectly well known to all
intelligent men, especially to the states-
men and public men of the United
States-it is as well known to them as
it is to us-that there is no power what-
ever in this United Kingdom to defend
successfully the territory of Canada
against the power of the United States.
Now we ought to know that, in order to
put ourselves right upon this question,
and that we may not talk folly and be
called upon hereafter to act folly. The
noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment-or the Government, at any rate
-is responsible for having compelled
this discussion; because if a Vote is to
be asked for during this Session—and it
is only the beginning of other Votes-
it is clearly the duty of the House to
bring the subject under discussion.
I think the Vote now is particularly
inopportune for many reasons, but espe-
cially as we have heard from the Ġo-
vernor-General of Canada that they are
about, in the North-American Provinces,
to call into existence a new nationality;
and I, for one, shall certainly object to
the taxes of this country being heed-
lessly expended in behalf of any nation-
ality but our own.
Now, what I should like to ask the
House is this-first of all, will Canada
MARCH 13, 1865.
65
CANADA. I.
•
attack the States? Clearly not. Next,
will the States attack Canada-I am
keeping out of view England altogether?
Clearly not. There is not a man in the
United States, probably, whose voice or
whose opinion would have the smallest
influence in that country, who would
recommend or desire that an attack
should be made by the United States
upon Canada with a view to its forcible
annexation to the Union. There have
been lately, as we know, dangers on the
frontier. The Canadian people have
been no wiser than some Members of
this House-or than a great many men
amongst the richer classes in this coun-
try. And when the refugees from the
South-I am not speaking now of re-
spectable and honourable men from the
South, many of whom have left that
country during these troubles, and for
whom I feel the greatest commiseration,
but I mean the ruffians from the South
-who in large numbers have entered
Canada and have employed themselves
there in a course of policy likely to
embroil us with the United States--
I say that the people of Canada have
treated these men with far too much
consideration. They expressed very
openly opinions hostile to the United
States, whose power lay close to them.
I will not go into a detail of that
which we are all sufficiently well ac-
quainted with the seizing of American
ships on the Lakes, the raid into the
State of Vermont, the robbing of a
bank, the killing of a man in his own
shop, the stealing of horses in open
day, and another transaction of which
we have very strong proof, that men of
this class actually conspired to set fire
to the largest cities of the Union. All
these things have taken place and the
Canadian Government made scarcely
any sign. I believe that an application
was made to the noble Lord at the
head of the Foreign Office nearly a
year ago, that he should stimulate the
Canadian Government to some steps to
avoid the dangers that have since arisen;
but with that sort of negligence which
has been so much seen here, nothing
was done until the American Govern-
ment and people, aroused by the nature
of these transactions, showed that they
were no longer about to put up with
them. Then the Canadian Government
and people took a little notice. Now,
Lord Monck, the Governor-General of
Canada - about whose appointment I
have heard some people complain, say-
ing that he was a mere follower of the
noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment, who lost his election and was
therefore sent out to govern a pro-
vince-Lord Monck, I am bound to
say, from all I have heard from Canada,
has conducted himself in a manner very
serviceable to the colony, and with the
greatest possible propriety as represent-
ing the Sovereign there. Lord Monck
has been all along favourable to the
United States, and I believe his Cabinet
has also. I know that at least the most
important newspaper there has always
been favourable to the North. Still
nothing was done; but the moment
these troubles arose then everything
was done. Volunteers have been sent
to the frontier; the trial of the raiders
has been proceeded with, and possibly
they will be surrendered; and the Ca-
nadian Chancellor of the Exchequer has
proposed a vote in their House of Par-
liament to restore to the persons at
St. Albans, who were robbed by the
raiders, the 50,000 dollars that were
taken from them.
And what is the state of things now?
There is the greatest possible calm on
the frontier. The United States have not
a word to say against Canada. The Ca-
nadian people have found that they were
in the wrong and have now returned to
their right mind. There is not a man
in Canada at this moment, I believe,
who has any idea that the United States
Government has the smallest notion of
attacking them, now or at any future
time, on account of anything that has
transpired between the United States
and Ĉanada during these trials. But if
there comes a war in which Canada
shall suffer and be made a victim, it
will be a war got up between the Go-
5
66
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
vernment of Washington and the Go-
vernment of London. And it becomes
us to inquire whether that is at all pro-
bable. Is there anybody in this House
in favour of such a war? I notice with
great delight—and I was not a false
prophet when I said some time ago that
some day it would be so-I say I notice
with delight the changed tone mani-
fested here with regard to these Ameri-
can questions. Even the noble Lord
the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert
Cecil) can speak without anger, and with-
out any of that ill feeling which I am
sorry to say on past occasions he has
manifested in discussing these questions.
Now, I believe there are no men out
of Bedlam-or at least who ought to be
out of it—and I suspect there are very
few men in Bedlam, who are in favour
of our going to war with the United
States. And in taking this view I am
not arguing that it is because we see
the vast naval and military power and
apparently inexhaustible resources of
that country. I will not assume that
you or my countrymen have come to
the conclusion that it is better for us
not to make war with America, because
you and they find her with a strength
that you did not even suspect: I will
say that it is upon higher grounds that
we are all against a war with the
United States. Our history for the last
200 years, and farther back, is a record
of calamitous, and for the most part
unnecessary wars. We have had enough
of whatever a nation can gain by mili-
tary successes and military glory. I will
not turn to the disasters that might fol-
low to our commerce nor to the wide-
spread ruin that might be occasioned.
I will say that we are a wiser and a
better people than we were in these
respects, and that we should regard a
war with the United States as even
a greater crime, if needlessly entered
into, than war with almost any other
country in the world.
Looking at our Government, we have
preserved, with a good many blunders-
one or two of which I shall comment
upon by-and-by-neutrality during this
great struggle. We have had it stated
in this House, and we have had a
Motion in this House, that the blockade
was ineffective and ought to be broken.
Men of various classes, some of them
agents of the Richmond conspiracy-
persons, it is said, of influence from
France-all these are reported to have
brought their influence to bear on the
noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment and his colleagues, with a view
of inducing them to take part in this
quarrel, and all this has failed to break
our neutrality. Therefore, I should say,
we may clearly come to the conclusion
that England is not in favour of war;
and if there should be any act of war,
or any aggression whatever, out of
which Canada will suffer, I believe ho-
nestly that it will not come from this
country. That is a matter which gives
me great satisfaction, and I believe the
House will agree with me that I am
not misstating the case.
Now let us ask, Is the United States
for war? I know the noble Lord the
Member for Stamford (Lord Robert
Cecil) has a lurking idea that there is
some danger from that quarter; I am
not at all certain that it does not prevail
in other minds, and in many minds not
so acute as that with which the noble
Lord is gifted. If we had at the Bar of
the House, Lord Russell as representing
the English Government, and Mr. Adams
as the representative of the Government
of President Lincoln, and if we were to
ask their opinion, they would tell us
that which the Secretary for the Co-
lonies has this night told us-that the
relations between the two countries, so
far as it is possible to discover them,
are perfectly amicable; and I know
from the communications between the
Minister of the United States and our
Minister for Foreign Affairs that they
have been growing more and more ami-
cable for many months past. Now,
I take the liberty of expressing this
opinion that there has never been an
administration in the United States since
the time of the Revolutionary War, up
to this hour, more entirely favourable to
1865.
67
CANADA. I.
peace with all foreign countries, and
more especially favourable to peace with
England, than the Government of which
President Lincoln is the head. I will
undertake to say that the most exact
investigator of what has taken place
will not be able to point to a single
word he-President Lincoln-has said,
or a single line he has written, or a
single act he has done, since his first
accession to power, that betrays anger
against this country, or any of that
vindictive feeling which some persons
here may imagine to inflame the breasts
of the President and his Cabinet.
Then if Canada is not for war, if
England is not for war, and if the
United States are not for war, whence
is the war to come? That is what I
should like to ask. I wish the noble
Lord the Member for Stamford had
been a little more frank. I should like
to ask whence comes the anxiety, which
undoubtedly to some extent prevails?
It may be assumed even that the Go-
vernment is not wholly free from it;
for they have shown it in an almost
ludicrous manner by proposing a vote of
50,000l. It is said the newspapers have
got into a sort of panic. They can do
that any night between the hours of six
and twelve o'clock, when they write their
articles. They are either very coura-
geous or very panic-stricken.
It is said that the City' joins in this
feeling. We know what the City'
means the right hon. Gentleman allu-
ded to it to-night. It means that the
people who deal in shares-though that
does not describe the whole of them—
'the moneyed interest' of the City, are
alarmed. Well, I never knew the City
to be right. Men who are deep in great
monetary transactions, and who are
steeped to the lips sometimes in peril-
ous speculations, are not able to take
broad and dispassionate views of poli-
tical questions of this nature.
As to the newspapers, I agree with
my hon. Friend the Member for Brad-
ford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when, refer-
ring to one of them in particular, he
intimated that he thought its course
was indicated by a wish to cover its
own confusion. Surely, after four years'
uninterrupted publication of lies with
regard to America, I should think it
has done pretty much to destroy its in-
fluence on foreign questions for ever.
But there is a much higher authority
-that is the authority of the Peers. I
do not know why we should be so much
restricted with regard to the House of
Lords in this House. I think I have
observed that in their place they are not
so squeamish as to what they say about
us. It appeared to me that in this de-
bate the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Disraeli) felt it necessary to get up and
endeavour to defend his chief. Now, if
I were to give advice to the hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, it would be this-for
while stating that during the last four
years many noble Lords in the other
House have said foolish things, I think
I should be uncandid if I did not say
that you also have said foolish things
-learn from the example set you by
the right hon. Gentleman. He, with a
thoughtfulness and statesmanship which
you do not all acknowledge, he did not
say a word from that bench likely to
create difficulty with the United States.
I think his chief and his followers might
learn something from his example.
But I have discovered one reason why
in that other place mistakes of this
nature are so often made. Not long
ago there was a great panic raised,
very much by what was said in another
place about France. Now an attempt
is made there to create a panic upon
this question. In the hall of the Re-
form Club there is affixed to the wall a
paper which gives a telegraphic account
of what is being done in this House
every night, and what is also being
done in the other House, and I find
almost every night from the beginning
of the Session that the only words that
have appeared on the side which is de-
voted to a record of the proceedings of
the House of Lords are these, 'Lords
adjourned.' The noble Lord at the
head of the Government is responsible
for much of this. He has brought this
5-2
68
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
House into nearly the same condition.
We do very little, and they do abso-
lutely nothing. All of us in our younger
days, I am quite sure, were taught by
those who had the care of us a verse
which was intended to inculcate the
virtue of industry. One couplet was to
this effect-
'Satan still some mischief finds
For idle hands to do.'
And I do not believe that men, however
high in station, are exempt from that
unfortunate effect which arises to all of
us from a course of continued idleness.
But I should like to ask this House in
a most serious mood, what is the reason
that any man in this country has now
more anxiety with regard to the preser-
vation of peace with the United States
than he had a few years ago?. Is there
not a consciousness in our heart of
hearts that we have not during the last
five years behaved generously to our
neighbours? Do not we feel in some
sort a pricking of conscience, and are
we not sensible that conscience tends to
make us cowards at this particular
juncture?
+
I shall not review the past transac-
tions with anger, but with feelings of
sorrow; for I maintain, and I think
history will bear out what I say, that
there is no generous and high-minded
Englishman who can look back upon
the transactions of the last four years
without a feeling of sorrow at the course
we have pursued on some important
occasions. As I am wishful to speak
with a view to a better state of feeling,
both in this country and in the United
States, I shall take the liberty, if the
House will permit me for a few minutes,
to refer to two or three of these trans-
actions, where, I think, though perhaps
we were not in the main greatly wrong,
yet in some circumstances we were so
far unfortunate as to have created an
irritation which at this moment we wish
did not exist. The hon. Member for
Horsham (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald)
referred to the course taken by the Go-
vernment with regard to the acknow-
ledgment of the belligerent rights of the
South. Now I have never been one to
condemn the Government for acknow-
ledging those belligerent rights, except
upon this ground-I think it might be
logically contended that it might pos-
sibly have become necessary to take
that step-but I do think the time and
manner in which it was done were most
unfortunate, and could not but produce
very evil effects.
Going back nearly four years, we
recollect what occurred when the news
arrived of the first shot having been
fired at Fort Sumter. That, I think,
was about the 12th of April. Imme-
diately after that time it was announced
that a new Minister was coming to this
country. Mr. Dallas had intimated to the
Government that as he did not repre-
sent the new President he would rather
not undertake anything of importance;
but that his successor was on his way
and would arrive on such a day. When
a man leaves New York on a given day
you can calculate to about twelve hours
when he will be in London. Mr.
Adams, I think, arrived in London
about the 13th of May, and when he
opened his newspaper next morning he
found the Proclamation of neutrality,
acknowledging the belligerent rights of
the South. I say that the proper course
to have taken would have been to have
waited till Mr. Adams arrived here,
and to have discussed the matter with
him in a friendly manner, explaining
the ground upon which the English
Government had felt themselves bound
to issue that Proclamation, and repre-
senting that it was not done in any
manner as an unfriendly act towards the
United States Government. But no
precaution whatever was taken; it was
done with unfriendly haste; and it had
this effect, that it gave comfort and
courage to the conspiracy at Mont-
gomery and at Richmond, and caused
great grief and irritation amongst that
portion of the people of America who
were most strongly desirous of main-
taining friendly relations between their
country and England.
1865.
69
CANADA. I.
To illustrate this point allow me to
suppose a great revolt had taken place
in Ireland, and that we had sent over
within a fortnight of the occurrence of
such an unfortunate event a new Minister
to Washington, and that on the morn-
ing after arriving there he had found,
that without consulting him, the Go-
vernment had taken a hasty step by
which the belligerent rights of the
insurgents had been acknowledged, and
by which comfort and support had been
given them. I ask any man whether,
under such circumstances, the feeling
throughout the whole of Great Britain,
and in the mind of every man anxious
to preserve the unity of Great Britain
and Ireland, would not necessarily be
one of irritation and exasperation against
the United States?
I will not argue this matter further-
to do so would be simply to depreciate
the intellect of the hon. Gentlemen
listening to me. Seven or eight months
afterwards there happened another trans-
action of a very different but unfortunate
nature-that is the transaction arising
out of the seizure of two Southern
envoys on board an English ship-the
Trent. I recollect making a speech
down at Rochdale about the time of
that occurrence. It was a speech
entirely in favour of the United States
Government and people-but I did not
then undertake, as I do not undertake
now, in the slightest degree to defend
the seizure of those two envoys. I said
that although precedents for such an
action might possibly be found to have
occurred in what I will call some of the
evil days in our history, at any rate it
was opposed to the maxims and princi-
ples of the United States Government,
and was, as I thought, a bad act-an
act which should not have been done.
Well, I do not complain of the demand
that those men should be given up; but
I do complain of the manner in which
that demand was made, and the menaces
by which it was accompanied. I think
it was wrong and unstatesman-like that
at the moment we heard of the seizure,
when there was not the least foundation
for supposing that the United States Go-
vernment were aware of the act, or had
in the slightest degree sanctioned it, as
we since well know they did not, that we
should immediately get ships ready, and
send off troops, and incite the organs of
the press-who are always too ready to
inflame the passions of the people to
frenzy-to prepare their minds for war.
But that was not all; because before
the United States had heard a word
of the matter from this country their
Secretary of State had written to Mr.
Adams a despatch, which was com-
municated to our Government, and
in which it was stated that the
transaction had not taken place by
any orders of theirs, and that there-
fore, as far as they and we were con-
cerned, it was a pure accident, which
they should consider with the most
friendly disposition towards this coun-
try. How came it that this despatch
was never published for the information
of the people of this country? How hap-
pened it that during one whole month
the flame of war was fanned by the
newspapers, particularly by those sup-
posed to be devoted to the Government,
and that one of those newspapers, sup-
posed to be peculiarly devoted to the
Prime Minister, had the audacity—I do
not know whence it obtained its in-
structions-to deny that any such
despatch had been received? Now,
Sir, I am of opinion that it is not
possible to maintain amicable relations
with any great country-I think it is
not possible to do so with any little
one-unless Governments will manage
these transactions in what I will call a
more courteous and more honourable
manner. I happen to know-for I
received a letter from the United States,
from one of the most eminent men in
that country, dated only two days be-
fore those men were given up, in which
the writer said—that the real difficulty
in the course of the President was that
the menaces of the English Government
had made it almost impossible for them
to concede; and that the question they
asked themselves was whether the Eng-
70
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
{
lish Government was intending to seek
a cause of quarrel or not.
And I am
sure the noble Lord at the head of the
Government, if such a demand had
been made upon him with courtesy and
fairness, as should be between friendly
nations, would have been more disposed
to concede, and would have found it
much more easy to concede, than if the
demand had been accompanied by me-
naces such as his Government offered to
the Government of the United States.
Now the House will observe that I am
not condemning the Government of this
country on the main point of what they
did. I am only condemning them be-
cause they did not do what they had to
do in that manner which would be most
likely to remove difficulties and preserve a
friendly feeling between the two nations.
on
Then I come to the last thing I shall
mention-to the question of the ships
which have been preying upon the
commerce of the United States. I shall
confine myself to that one vessel, the
Alabama. She was built in this coun-
try; all her munitions of war were from
this country; almost every man
board her was a subject of Her Majesty.
She sailed from one of our chief ports.
She is known to have been built by a
firm in which a Member of this House
was, and I presume is, interested. Now,
Sir, I do not complain-I know that
once, when I referred to this question
two years ago, when my hon. Friend
the Member for Bradford brought it
forward in this House, the hon. Mem-
ber for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) was
excessively angry-I do not complain
that the Member for Birkenhead has
struck up a friendship with Captain
Semmes, who may probably be de-
scribed, as another sailor once was of
similar pursuits, as being the mildest
mannered man that ever scuttled ship.'
Therefore, I do not complain of a man
who has an acquaintance with that no-
torious person, and I do not complain,
and did not then, that the Member for
Birkenhead looks admiringly upon the
greatest example which men have ever
seen of the greatest crime which men
C
have ever committed. I do not complain
even that he should applaud that which
is founded upon a gigantic traffic in living
flesh and blood—a traffic into which
no subject of this realm can enter with-
out being deemed a felon in the eyes of
our law and punished as such. But
what I do complain of is this, that the
.hon. Gentleman the Member for Birken-
head, a magistrate of a county, a deputy-
lieutenant-whatever that may be-a
representative of a constituency, and
having a seat in this ancient and hon-
ourable Assembly-that he should, as
I believe he did, if concerned in the
building of this ship, break the law of
his country, by driving us into an in-
fraction of International Law, and treat-
ing with undeserved disrespect the Pro-
clamation of neutrality of the Queen.
I have another complaint to make,
and in allusion to that hon. Member.
It is within your recollection that when
on a former occasion he made that
speech and defended his course, he de-
clared that he would rather be the
builder of a dozen Alabamas than do
something which nobody has done.
That language was received with re-
peated cheering from the Opposition
side of the House. Well, Sir, I under-
take to say that that was at least a
most unfortunate circumstance, and I
beg to tell the hon. Gentleman that at
the end of last Session, when the great
debate took place on the question of
Denmark, there were many men on this
side of the House who had no objection
whatever to see the present Government
turned out of office, for they had many
grounds of complaint against them, but
they felt it impossible that they should
take the responsibility of bringing into
office the right hon. Member for Buck-
inghamshire or the party who could utter
such cheers on such a subject as that.
Turning from the Member for Birken-
head to the noble Lord at the head of
the Foreign Office, he, who in the case
of the acknowledgment of belligerent
rights had proceeded with such remark-
able celerity, such undue and unfriendly
haste, amply compensated for it when
1865.
71
CANADA. I.
he came to the question of the Alabama,
by his slowness of procedure. And this
is a strange circumstance, which even
the noble Lord's Colleagues have never
been able to explain, that although he
sent orders to Cork to stop the Alabama
if she arrived there, he allowed her
afterwards, when she had gone out of
the jurisdiction of the Crown in these
islands, to go into a dozen or a score
of ports belonging to this country in
different parts of the world. It seems
to me that this is rather a special in-
stance of that feebleness of purpose and
of action on the part of the noble Lord
which I regret to say has on many occa-
sions done much to mar what would
otherwise be a great political career.
I will not detain the House on the ques-
tion of the rams. The hon. Member for
Birkenhead, or the firm or the family,
or whoever the people are at Birken-
head who do these things, this firm at
Birkenhead, after they had seen the
peril into which the country was drift-
ing on account of the Alabama, pro-
ceeded most audaciously to build those
two rams; and it was only at the very
last moment, when on the eve of a war
with the United States on account of
those rams, that the Government happily
had the courage to seize them, and thus
the last danger was averted.
I suppose there are some shipowners
here. I know there are many in Lon-
don-there are many in Liverpool-
what would be the feeling in this
country if they suffered in this way
from ships built in the United States?
There is a shipowner in New York, Mr.
Lowe, a member of the Chamber of
Commerce of New York. He had
three large ships destroyed by the
Alabama; and the George Griswold,
which came to this country freighted
with a heavy cargo of provisions of
various kinds for the suffering people
of Lancashire, was destroyed on her
return passage, and the ship that de-
stroyed it may have been, and I believe
was, built by these patriotic ship-
builders of Birkenhead. These are
things that must rankle in the breast
of a country which is subjected to such
losses and indignities. Even to-day I
see in the newspapers that a vessel
that went out from this country has
destroyed ten or eleven ships between
the Cape of Good Hope and Australia.
I have thought it unnecessary to bring
continually American questions before
the House, as some Gentlemen have
done during the last two or three
Sessions. They should have asked a
few questions in regard to these ships;
but no, they asked no question upon
these points. They asked questions
upon every point on which they thought
they might embarrass the Government
and make the great difficulties of the
Government greater in all their trans-
actions with the United States.
But the Members of the Government
have not been wise. I hope it will not
be thought that I am unnecessarily
critical if I say that Governments are
not generally very wise.
Two years
ago the noble Lord at the head of the
Government and the Attorney-General
addressed the House. I asked the noble
Lord-I do not often ask him for any-
thing to speak, if only for five minutes,
words of generosity and sympathy to
the Government and people of the
United States. He did not do it.
Perhaps I was foolish to expect it.
The Attorney-General made a most
able speech. It was the only time that
I have listened to him, ever since I
have known him in this House, with
pain, for I thought his speech was full
of bad morals and bad law. I am quite
certain that he even gave an account of
the facts of the case which was not as
ingenuous and fair as the House had a
right to expect from him. Next Ses-
sion the noble Lord and the Attorney-
General turned quite round. They had
a different story about the same trans-
action, and gradually, as the aspect of
things has changed on the other side
of the Atlantic, there has been a gradual
return to good sense and fairness, not
only on the part of Members upon the
Treasury Bench, but on that of other
Members of the House.
72
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Now, Sir, I would not willingly say a
word that would wound either the noble
Lord at the head of the Foreign Office
or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be-
cause I do not know amongst the official
statesmen of this country two men for
whom I have greater sympathy or more
respect; but I have to complain of them.
I do not know why it is that they both
go down to Newcastle-a town in which
I feel a great interest-and there give
forth words of offence and unwisdom.
I know that what the noble Lord said
was all very smart, but really it was not
true, and I have not much respect for a
thing that is merely smart and is not
true. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
made, a statement too. The papers
made it appear that he did it with ex-
ultation; but that is a mistake. But he
made a statement, and though I do
not know what will be in his Budget,
I know his wishes in regard to that
statement—namely, that he had never
made it.
Those Gentlemen, bear in mind, sit,
as it were, on a hill; they are not
obscure men, making speeches in a
public-house or even at a respectable
mechanics' institution; they are men
whose voice is heard wherever the
English language is known. And
knowing that, and knowing what effect
their speeches will have, especially in
Lancashire, where men are in trade,
and where profits and losses are affected
by the words of statesmen, they use the
language of which I complain; and be-
yond this, for I can conceive some idea
of the irritation those statements must
have caused in the United States. I
might refer to the indiscriminating abuse
of the hon. and learned Gentleman the
Member for Sheffield; and I may add
to that the unsleeping ill-will of the
noble Lord the Member for Stamford.
I am not sure that these two Members
of the House are in the least degree
converted yet. I think I heard the
hon. Member for Sheffield utter to-
night some ejaculation that looked as
if he retained all his old sentiments.
[Mr. Roebuck: 'Exactly.'] I am sorry
it is so.
I did expect that these things
would be regretted and repented of;
and I must express my hope that if any
one of you who have been thus unge-
nerous shall ever fall into trouble of
any kind, that you will find your friends
more kind and more just than you have
been to your fellow-countrymen-for I
will still call them so-at the other side
of the Atlantic. And as to the press,
Sir, I think it is unnecessary to say
much about that, because every night
those unfortunate writers are now en-
deavouring to back out of everything
they have been saying; and I can only
hope that their power for evil in future
will be greatly lessened by the stupend-
ous exhibition of ignorance and folly
which they have made to the world.
Now, Sir, having made this state-
ment, I suppose the noble Lord the
Member for Stamford, if he were to
get up after me, would say: 'Well, if
all this be true-if we have done all
these injurious things, if we have created
all this irritation in the United States-
will it not be likely that this irritation
will provoke a desire for vengeance,
and that the chances of war are greatly
increased by it?' I do not know
whether the chances of war are in-
creased, but I will say that not only is
war not certain, but it is to the last
degree improbable.
But, Sir, there is another side to this
question. All England is not included
in the rather general condemnation
which I have thought it my duty to
express. There is another side. Look-
ing to our own population, what have
the millions been saying and doing—
the millions you are so much afraid of?
-especially the noble Lord the Member
for Stamford, who objects to the trans-
ference of power to those millions from
those who now hold it, and, from his
position, naturally objects. I beg leave
to tell the House that, taking the coun-
ties of Lancashire and Yorkshire-your
great counties of population-the mil-
lions of men there, whose industry has
not only created but sustains the fabric
of your national power, have had no
1865.
73
CANADA. I.
kind of sympathy with the views which
I have been condemning. They have
been more generous and more wise;
they have shown that magnanimity and
love of freedom are not extinct. And,
speaking of the county from which I
come the county of many sorrows,
whose griefs have hung like a dark
cloud over almost every heart during
the last three years-all the attempts
which the agents of the Confederacy
have made there by money, by printing,
by platform speeches, by agitation, have
utterly failed to get from that popula-
tion one expression of sympathy with
the American insurrection. And, Sir,
if the bond of union and friendship
between England and America shall
remain unbroken, we shall not have to
thank the wealthy and the cultivated,
but those laborious millions whom
statesmen and histories too frequently
take little account of. They know a
little of the United States, which Gen-
tlemen opposite and some on this side
the House do not appear to know.
They know that every man of them
would be better off on the American
continent, if he chose to go there, and
would be welcome to every right and
privilege that the people there are in
possession of. They know further that
every man may have from the United
States Government a free gift of 160
acres of the most fertile land in the
world. [A laugh.] I do not under-
stand that laugh, but the gift, under
the Homestead Act of America, of 160
acres of land is a great deal for a man
who has no land. I can tell you that
the Homestead Act and the liberality
of the American Government have had
a great effect upon the population of
the North of England, and I can tell
you further-that the labouring popula-
tion of this country- the artisans and
the mechanics—will never join heartily
in any policy which is intended to es-
trange the people of the United States
from the people of the United Kingdom.
But, Sir, we have other securities for
peace which are not less than these,
and I find them in the character of the
Government and people of the American
Union. I think the right hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Buckinghamshire
(Mr. Disraeli) referred to what must
reasonably be supposed to happen in
case this rebellion should be put down
-that when a nation is exhausted it
will not rush rashly into a new struggle.
The loss of life has been great, the loss
of treasure enormous. Happily for
them, this life and this treasure have ·
not been sacrificed to keep a Bour-
bon on the throne of France, or to
keep the Turks in Europe; the sacrifice
was for an object which every man
could comprehend, which every man
could examine by the light of his own
intelligence and his own conscience;
for if these men have given their lives
and their possessions, it was for the
attainment of a great end, the main-
tenance of the unity and integrity of a
great country. History in future time
must be written in a different spirit
from all history in the past, if it should
express any condemnation of that people.
Mr. Lincoln, who is now for the second
time President of the United States, was
elected exclusively by what was termed
the Republican party. He is now elected
by what may be called the Great Union
party of the nation. But Mr. Lincoln's
party has always been for peace. That
party in the North has never carried
on any war of aggression, and has never
desired one. I speak of the North
only, the Free States. And let the
House remember that in that country
landed property, property of all kind,
is more universally distributed than in
any other nation, that instruction and
school education are also more widely
diffused there than amongst any other
people. I say, they have never carried
on hitherto a war for aggrandizement
or for vengeance, and I believe they
will not begin one now.
Canada, I think the noble Lord will
admit, is a very tempting bait, not in-
deed for the purpose of annexation, but
for the purpose of humiliating this coun-
try. I agree with hon. Gentlemen who
have said that it would be discreditable
74
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
}
to England, in the light of her past
history, that she should leave any por-
tion of her Empire which she could
defend, undefended. But still it is ad-
mitted—and I think the speech of the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Calne (Mr. Lowe) produced a great
effect upon those who heard it-the
House admitted that in case of war
with the United States, Canada could
not be defended by any power on land
or at sea which this country could raise
or spare for that purpose. I am very
sorry, not that we cannot defend Ca-
nada, but that any portion of the do-
minions of the British Crown is in such
circumstances as to tempt evil-disposed
people to attack it with the view of
humiliating us, because I believe that
transactions which humiliate a Govern-
ment and a nation are not only dis-
agreeable, but a great national harm.
But, now, is there a war party in the
United States? I believe there is such
a party. It is that party which was a
war party eighty years ago. It is the
party represented by hon. Gentlemen
who sit on that bench-the Irish party.
They who are hostile to this country in
the United States are those who were
recently malcontent subjects of the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-
worth. It is these, and such as these,
to whom the noble Lord at the head of
the Government offers only such con-
solation as that of telling them that
'the rights of the tenants are the wrongs
of the landlords,' who constitute the
only war party in the United States;
and it was the war party there in the
days of Lord North. But the real power
of the United States does not rest on
that class. American mobs-and, ex-
cepting some portion of the population
of New York, I would not apply the
language even to them-for the sake
of forcing their Congress and their Ex-
ecutive to a particular course, are alto-
gether unknown. The real mob in
your sense, is that party of chivalrous
gentlemen in the South, who have re-
ceived, I am sorry to say, so much
sympathy from some persons in this
country and in this House.
But the
real power depends upon another class
-the landowners throughout the coun-
try, and there are millions of them. In
this last election for President of the
United States, I was told by a citizen
of New York, who was most active in
the election, that in the State of New
York alone 100,000 Irish votes were
given, as he expressed it, solidly-that
is, in one mass-for General M'Clellan,
and that not more than 2,000 were
given for President Lincoln. You see
the preponderance of that party in the
city of New York, and that is the feeling
amongst them throughout the State of
New York; but, throughout the whole
of the United States, it is merely a
small per-centage, which has no sensible
effect upon the constitution of Congress,
or upon legislation or government.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) referred
to a point which I suppose has really
been the cause of this debate, and that
is the temper of the United States in
making certain demands upon our Go-
vernment. I asked a question the other
night after the noble Lord had asked a
question upon the subject-I asked
whether we had not claims against
them. I understand that claims were
made upon us by the United States
amounting to 300,000l. or 400,000l. I
am afraid that we have claims against
them, amounting probably to as much
as that. If any man thinks he has a
right to go to law with another, and
that other has an answer to his claim,
the case must be heard. And so be-
tween two great nations and two free
Governments. If one has claims against
the other, and the other has counter
claims, clearly nothing can be more fair
than that those claims should be cour-
teously and honestly considered. It is
quite absurd to suppose that the Eng-
lish Government and the Government
at Washington can have a question
about half a million of money which
they cannot amicably settle. The noble
Lord, I believe, thinks it is not a ques-
tion for arbitration, but that it is a
1865.
75
CANADA. I.
question of principle. Well, all ques-
tions of property almost are questions
of law, and you go to a lawyer and
settle them if you can. In this case it
would be surely as easy to have the
matter settled by some impartial person
as it was to ask the Senate or other
authority at Hamburg to settle a ques-
tion between this country and the Em-
pire of Brazil. Our most perfect se-
curity is, that as the war in America
draws to a close-if it should happily
soon draw to a close-we shall become
more generous to them, and their Go-
vernment and people will probably be-
come less irritated against us. And
when the passions have cooled down,
I am quite sure that Mr. Seward on
that side and Earl Russell on this, Mr.
Adams here and Sir Frederick Bruce
there, will be able, without much diffi-
culty, to settle this, which is, after all,
an unimportant matter, as a question of
accounts between the two nations.
I have only one more observation to
make, and it is this-I suspect the root
of all the unfortunate circumstances that
have occurred is the feeling of jealousy
which we have cherished with regard
to the American nation. It was very
much shown at the beginning of this
war, when a Member whom I will not
name, for I am sure his wish is that his
name should not be mentioned in con-
nection with it now, spoke of the burst-
ing of the bubble republic. I recollect
that Lord John Russell, as he then was,
speaking from that bench, turned round
and rebuked him in language which
was worthy of his name, and character,
and position. I beg to tell that Gen-
tleman, and anybody else who talks
about a bubble republic, that I have a
strong suspicion he will see that a great
many bubbles will burst before that.
Why should we fear a great nation on
the American continent? Some people
fear that, should America become a
great nation, she will be arrogant and
aggressive. It does not follow that it
should be so. The character of a nation
does not depend altogether upon its
size, but upon the instruction, the civili-
·
zation, and the morals of its people.
You fancy the supremacy of the sea
will pass away from you; and the noble
Lord, who has had much experience,
and is supposed to be wiser on the sub-
ject than any other man in the House,
will say that Rule Britannia' may be-
come obsolete. Well, inasmuch as the
supremacy of the seas means arrogance
and the assumption of a dictatorial
power on the part of this country, the
sooner that becomes obsolete the better.
I do not believe that it is for the ad-
vantage of this country, or of any coun-
try in the world, that any one nation
should pride itself upon what is termed
the supremacy of the sea; and I hope
the time is coming-I believe the hour
is hastening-when we shall find that
law and justice will guide the councils
and will direct the policy of the Chris-
tian nations of the world. Nature will
not be baffled because we are jealous of
the United States-the decrees of Pro-
vidence will not be overthrown by aught
we can do.
The population of the United States
is now not less than 35,000,000. When
the next Parliament of England has
lived to the age which this has lived to,
that population will be 40,000,000, and
you may calculate the increase at the
rate of rather more than 1,000,000 of
persons per year. Who is to gainsay
it? Will constant snarling at a great re-
public alter this state of things, or swell
us up in these islands to 40,000,000 or
50,000,000,.or bring them down to our
30,000,000 ? Hon. Members and the
country at large should consider these
facts, and learn from them that it is the
interest of the nations to be at one-
and for us to be in perfect courtesy and
amity with the great English nation on
the other side of the Atlantic. I am
sure that the longer that nation exists
the less will our people be disposed to
sustain you in any needless hostility
against them or jealousy of them. And
I am the more convinced of this from
what I have seen of the conduct of the
people in the north of England during
the last four years. I believe, on the
76
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
other hand, that the American people,
when this excitement is over, will be
willing, so far as aggressive acts against
us are concerned, to bury in oblivion
transactions which have given them
much pain, and that they will make
the allowance which they may fairly
make, that the people of this country-
even those high in rank and distin-
guished in culture-have had a very
inadequate knowledge of the real state
of the events which have taken place
in that country since the beginning of
the war.
It is on record that when the author
of The Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire was about to begin his great
work, David Hume wrote a letter to
him urging him not to employ the
French but the English tongue, 'be-
cause,' he said, our establishments in
America promise superior stability and
duration to the English language.' How
far that promise has been in part ful-
filled we who are living now can see;
but how far it will be more largely and
6
more completely fulfilled in after times
we must leave after times to tell. I
believe that in the centuries which are
to come it will be the greatest pride
and the highest renown of England,
that from her loins have sprung a hun-
dred millions-it may be two hundred
millions of men who dwell and prosper
on that continent which the grand old
Genoese gave to Europe. Sir, if the
sentiments which I have uttered shall
become the sentiments of the Parlia-
ment and people of the United King-
dom-if the moderation which I have
described shall mark the course of the
Government and of the people of the
United States-then, notwithstanding
some present irritation and some pre-
sent distrust-and I have faith both in
us and in them-I believe that these
two great commonwealths will march
abreast, the parents and the guardians
of freedom and justice, wheresoever
their language shall be spoken and
their power shall extend.
CANADA.
II.
1
THE CANADIAN FORTIFICATIONS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 23, 1865.
I SHALL ask the attention of the House
for only a few moments. If the hon.
Member (Mr. Bentinck) divides, I shall
go into the same lobby with him. I
am afraid that, in making that an-
nouncement, I shall excite some little
alarm in the mind of the hon. Gentle-
man. I wish therefore to say, that I
shall not in going into the lobby agree
with him in many of the statements he
has made. The right hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) said, that he approached
the military question with great diffi-
dence, and I was very glad to see any
signs of diffidence in that quarter. After
that explanation, he asked the House
with a triumphant air whether there is
any difficulty in defending a frontier of
one thousand or fifteen hundred miles,
and whether the practicability of doing
so is a new doctrine in warfare. But
one thousand or fifteen hundred miles
of frontier to defend at the centre of
your power, is one thing; but at three
thousand or four thousand miles from
the centre, it is an entirely different
thing. I venture to say, that there is
not a man in this House, or a sensible
man out of it, who, apart from the
consideration of this vote, or some spe-
cial circumstances attending it, believes
that the people of this country could
attempt a successful defence of the fron-
tier of Canada against the whole power
of the United States. I said the other
night, that I hoped we should not now
talk folly, and hereafter, in the en-
deavour to be consistent, act folly. We
all know perfectly well that we are
talking folly when we say that the Go-
vernment of this country would send
either ships or men to make an effectual
defence of Canada against the power of
the United States, supposing war to
break out. Understand, I am not in
the least a believer in the probability of
war, but I will discuss the question for
one moment as if war were possible. I
suppose some men in this House think
it probable. But if it be possible or
probable, and if you have to look this
difficulty in the face, there is no extri-
cation from it but in the neutrality or
independence of Canada.
I agree with those Members who say
that it is the duty of a great empire to
defend every portion of it. I admit
that as a general proposition, though
hon. Gentlemen opposite, and some on
this side, do not apply that rule to the
United States. But, admitting that rule,
and supposing that we are at all points
unprepared for such a catastrophe, may
we not, as reasonable men, look ahead,
78
MARCH 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
•
and try if it be not possible to escape
from it? [An hon. Member: Run
away?'] No, not by running away,
though there are many circumstances in
which brave men run away; and you
may get into difficulty on this Canadian
question, which may make you look
back and wish that you had run away a
good time ago. I object to this vote on
a ground which, I believe, has not been
raised by any Member in the present
discussion. I am not going to say that
the expenditure of fifty thousand pounds
is a matter of great consequence to this
country, that the expenditure of this
money in the proposed way will be
taken as a menace by the United States.
I do not think that this can be fairly
said; for whether building fortifications
at Quebec be useless or not, such a
proceeding is not likely to enable the
Canadians to overrun the State of New
York. The United States, I think, will
have no right to complain of this ex-
penditure. The utmost it can do will
be to show them that some persons,
and perhaps the Government of this
country, have some little distrust of
them, and so far it may do injury. I
complain of the expenditure and the
policy announced by the Colonial Se-
cretary, on a ground which I thought
ought to have been urged by the noble
Lord the Member for Wick, who is a
sort of half-Canadian. He made a
speech which I listened to with great
pleasure, and told the House what some
of us, perhaps, did not know before;
but if I had been connected, as he is,
with Canada, I would have addressed
the House from a Canadian point of
view.
What is it that the Member for
Oxford says? He states, in reference
to the expenditure for the proposed
fortifications, that, though a portion of
the expenditure is to be borne by us,
the main portion is to be borne by
Canada; but I venture to tell him, that,
if there shall be any occasion to defend
Canada at all, it will not arise from
anything Canada does, but from what
England does; and therefore I protest
against the doctrine that the Cabinet in
London may get into difficulties, and
ultimately into war, with the Cabinet
at Washington; that because Canada
lies adjacent to the United States, and
may consequently become a great battle-
field, this United Kingdom has a right
to call on Canada for the main portion
of that expenditure. Who has asked
you to spend fifty thousand pounds,
and the hundreds of thousands which
may be supposed to follow, but which
perhaps Parliament may be indisposed
hereafter to grant? What is the pro-
portion which Canada is to bear? If
we are to spend two hundred thousand
pounds at Quebec, is Canada to spend
four hundred thousand pounds at Mont-
real? If Canada is to spend double
whatever we may spend, is it not
obvious that every Canadian will ask
himself what is the advantage of the
connection between Canada and Eng-
land?
Every Canadian knows perfectly well,
and nobody better than the noble Lord
the Member for Wick, that there is no
more prospect of a war between Canada
and the United States alone, than be-
tween the Empire of France and the
Isle of Man. If that is so, why should
the Canadians be taxed beyond all rea-
son, as the Colonial Secretary proposes
to tax them, for a policy not Canadian,
and for a calamity which,
if ever it
occurs, must occur from some trans-
actions between England and the United
States? There are Gentlemen here who
know a good deal of Canada, and I see
behind me one who knows perfectly well
what is the condition of the Canadian
finances. We complain that Canada
levies higher duties on British manufac-
tures than the United States did before
the present war, and much higher than
France does. But when we complain
to Canada of this, and say it is very
unpleasant usage from a part of our
empire, the Canadians reply that their
expenditure is so much, and their debt,
with the interest on it, so much, that
they are obliged to levy these heavy
duties. If the Canadian finances are in
1
1865.
79
CANADA. II.
the unfortunate position described; if
the credit of Canada is not very good
in the market of this country; if you see
what are the difficulties of the Canadians
during a period of peace; consider what
will be their difficulties if the doctrine
of the Colonial Secretary be carried out,
which is that whatever expenditure is
necessary for the defence of Canada,
though we bear a portion, the main
part must be borne by Canada.
We must then come to this inevitable
conclusion. Every Canadian will say,
• We are close alongside of a great na-
tion; our parent state is three thousand
miles away; there are litigious, and
there may be even warlike, people in
both nations, and they may occasion the
calamity of a great war; we are peace-
able people, having no foreign politics,
happily; we may be involved in war,
and while the cities of Great Britain are
not touched by a single shell, nor one
of its fields ravaged, there is not a city
or a village in this Canada in which we
live which will not be liable to the
ravages of war on the part of our power-
ful neighbour.' Therefore the Canadians
will say, unless they are unlike all other
Englishmen (who appear to have more
sense the farther they go from their own
country), that it would be better for
Canada to be disentangled from the
politics of England, and to assume the
position of an independent state.
I suspect from what has been stated
by official Gentlemen in the present
Government and in previous Govern-
ments, that there is no objection to the
independence of Canada whenever Ca-
nada may wish it. I have been glad to
hear those statements, because I think
they mark an extraordinary progress in
sound opinions in this country. I re-
collect the noble Lord at the head of the
Foreign Office on one occasion being
very angry with me, he said I wished
to make a great empire less; but a great
empire, territorially, may be lessened
without its power and authority in the
world being diminished. I believe if
Canada now, by a friendly separation
from this country, became an inde-
pendent state, choosing its own form of
government-monarchical, if it liked a
monarchy, or republican, if it preferred
a republic-it would not be less friendly
to England, and its tariff would not be
more adverse to our manufactures than
it is now. In the case of a war with
America, Canada would then be a neu-
tral country; and the population would
be in a state of greater security. Not
that I think there is any fear of war,
but the Government admit that it may
occur by their attempt to obtain money
for these fortifications. I object, there-
fore, to this vote, not on that account,
nor even because it causes some distrust,
or may cause it, in the United States;
but I object to it mainly because I think
we are commencing a policy which we
shall either have to abandon, because
Canada will not submit to it, or else
which will bring upon Canada a burden
in the shape of fortification expenditure
that will make her more and more dis-
satisfied with this country, and that will
lead rapidly to her separation from us.
I do not object to that separation in the
least; I believe it would be better for
us and better for her. But I think
that, of all the misfortunes which could
happen between us and Canada, this
would be the greatest, that her separa-
tion should take place after a period
of irritation and estrangement, and that
we should have on that continent to
meet another element in some degree
hostile to this country.
•
I am sorry, Sir, that the noble Lord
at the head of the Government, and his
colleagues, have taken this course; but
it appears to me to be wonderfully like
almost everything which the Government
does. It is a Government apparently of
two parts, the one part pulling one way
and the other part pulling another, and
the result generally is something which
does not please anybody, or produce any
good effect in any direction. They now
propose a scheme which has just enough
in it to create distrust and irritation,
enough to make it in some degree in-
jurious, and they do not do enough to
accomplish any of the objects for which
80
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
酆
​according to their statements, the pro-
position is made. Somebody asked the
other night whether the Administration
was to rule, or the House of Commons.
Well, I suspect from the course of the
debates, that on this occasion the Ad-
ministration will be allowed to rule.
We are accustomed to say that the Go-
vernment suggests a thing on its own
responsibility, and therefore we will
allow them to do it. But the fact is,
that the Government knows no more
of this matter than any other dozen
gentlemen in this House. They are not
a bit more competent to form an opinion
upon it. They throw it down on the
table, and ask us to discuss and vote it.
I should be happy to find the House,
disregarding all the intimations that war
is likely, anxious not to urge Canada
into incurring an expenditure which she
will not bear, and which, if she will not
bear, must end in one of two things-
either in throwing the whole burden
upon us, or in breaking up, perhaps
suddenly and in anger, the connection
between us and that colony, and in
making our future relations with her
most unsatisfactory. I do not place
much reliance on the speech of the right
hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, not
because he cannot judge of the question
just as well as I or any one of us can
do, but because I notice that in matters
of this kind Gentlemen on that (the
Opposition) bench, whatever may have
been their animosities towards the Gen-
tlemen on this (the Treasury) bench on
other questions, shake hands. They may
tell you that they have no connection
with the House over the way, but the
fact is, their connection is most intimate.
And if the right honourable Member
for Buckinghamshire were now sitting
on the Treasury bench, and the noble
Viscount were sitting opposite to him,
the noble Viscount, I have no doubt,
would give him the very same support
that he now receives from the right hon.
Gentleman.
This seems to me a question so plain,
so much on the surface, appealing so
much to our common sense, having in it
such great issues for the future, that I
am persuaded it is the duty of the House
of Commons on this occasion to take
the matter out of the hands of the exe-
cutive Government, and to determine
that, with regard to the future policy
of Canada, we will not ourselves expend
the money of the English tax-payers,
and not force upon the tax-payers of
Canada a burden which, I am satisfied,
they will not long continue to bear.
.
CANADA.
III.
THE CANADIAN CONFEDERATION SCHEME.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 28, 1867. .
ALTHOUGH this measure has not ex-
cited much interest in the House or in
the country, yet it appears to me to be
of such very great importance that it
should be treated rather differently, or
that the House should be treated rather
differently in respect to it. I have never
before known of any great measure
affecting any large portion of the empire
or its population which has been brought
in and attempted to be hurried through
Parliament in the manner in which this
bill is being dealt with. But the im-
portance of it is much greater to the
inhabitants of those provinces than it is
to us. It is on that account alone that
it might be expected we should examine
it closely, and see that we commit no
error in passing it.
The right hon. Gentleman has not
offered us, on one point, an explanation
which I think he will be bound to make.
This bill does not include the whole of
the British North American Provinces.
I presume the two left out have been
left out because it is quite clear they
did not wish to come in. [Mr. Adderley:
'I am glad I can inform the hon. Gen-
tleman that they are, one of them at
least, on the point of coming in.'] Yes;
the reason of their being left out is be-
cause they were not willing to come in.
They may hereafter become willing, and
if so the bill will admit them by a pro-
vision which appears reasonable. But
the province of Nova Scotia is also un-
willing to come in, and it is assumed
that because some time ago the Legis-
lature of that province voted a resolution
partly in favour of some such course,
therefore the population is in favour
of it.
For my part, I do not believe in the
propriety or wisdom of the Legislature
voting on a great question of this nature.
with reference to the Legislature of
Nova Scotia, if the people of Nova
Scotia have never had the question
directly put to them. I have heard
there is at present in London a petition
complaining of the hasty proceeding
of Parliament, and asking for delay,
signed by 31,000 adult males of the
province of Nova Scotia, and that that
petition is in reality signed by at least
half of all the male inhabitants of that
province. So far as I know, the peti-
tion does not protest absolutely against
union, but against the manner in which
it is being carried out by this scheme
and bill, and the hasty measures of the
Colonial Office. Now, whether the
scheme be a good or bad one, scarcely
anything can be more foolish, looking
to the future, than that any of the pro-
vinces should be dragged into it, either
perforce, by the pressure of the Colonial
Office, or by any hasty action on the
part of Parliament, in the hope of pro-
ducing a result which probably the
populations of those provinces may not
wish to see brought about.
6
82
FEB. 28,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I understand that the general election
for the Legislature of Nova Scotia,
according to the constitution of that
colony, will take place in the month of
May or June next; that this question
has never been fairly placed before the
people of that province at an election,
and that it has never been discussed and
decided by the people; and seeing that
only three months or not so much will
elapse before there will be an oppor-
tunity of ascertaining the opinions of
the population of Nova Scotia, I think
it is at least a hazardous proceeding to
pass
this bill through Parliament, bind-
ing Nova Scotia, until the clear opinion
of that province has been ascertained.
If, at a time like this, when you are
proposing a union which we all hope
is to last for ever, you create a little
sore, it will in all probability become
a great sore in a short time, and it may
be that the intentions of Parliament
will be almost entirely frustrated by the
haste with which this measure is being
pushed forward.
The right hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, I think, in the
early part of the evening, in answer to
a question from this side, spoke of this
matter as one of extreme urgency. Well,
I cannot discover any urgency in the
matter at all. What is urgent is this,
that when done it ought to be done
wisely, and with the full and free con-
sent of all those populations who are to
be bound by this Act and interested in
its results. Unless the good-will of
those populations is secured, in all
probability the Act itself will be a mis-
fortune rather than a blessing to the
provinces to which it refers.
The right hon. Gentleman amused me
in one part of his speech. He spoke of
the filial piety-rather a curious term-
of these provinces, and their great anxiety
to make everything suit the ideas of this
country; and this was said particularly
with reference to the proposition for a
Senate selected, not elected, for life, by
the Governor-General of Canada. He
said they were extremely anxious to
follow as far as possible the institutions
of the mother country. I have not the
smallest objection to any people on the
face of the earth following our insti-
tutions if they like them. Institutions
which suit one country, as we all know,
are not very likely to suit every other
country. With regard to this particular
case, the right hon. Gentleman said it is
to be observed that Canada has had a
nominated council, and has changed it
for an elected one, and that surely they
had a right if they pleased to go back
from an elected council to a nominated
council. Well, nobody denies that, but
nobody pretends that the people of Ca-
nada prefer a nominated council to an
elected council. And all the wisdom
of the wise men to whom the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Oxford has
referred in such glowing terms, unless
the experience of present and past times
goes for nothing, is but folly if they have
come to the conclusion that a nominated
council on that continent must be better
than an elected council. Still, if they
wish it, I should not interfere and try to
prevent it. But I venture to say that the
clause enabling the Governor-General
and his Cabinet to put seventy men in
that council for life inserts into the
whole scheme the germ of a malady
which will spread, and which before very
long will require an alteration of this
Act and of the constitution of this new
Confederation.
But the right hon. Gentleman went
on to say that with regard to the repre-
sentative assembly-which, I suppose,
is to be called according to his phrase
the House of Commons-they have
adopted a very different plan. There
they have not followed the course of
this country. They have established
their House of Representatives directly
upon the basis of population. They
have adopted the system which prevails
in the United States, which upon every
ten years' summing up of the census in
that country the number of members
may be changed, and is by law changed
in the different States and districts as
the rate of population may have changed.
Therefore, in that respect his friends in
1867.
83
CANADA. III.
Canada have not adopted the principle
which prevails in this country, but that
which prevails in the United States. I
believe they have done that which is
right, and which they have a right to
do, and which is inevitable there. I
regret very much that they have not
adopted another system with regard to
their council or senate, because I am
satisfied—I have not a particle of doubt
with regard to it-that we run a great
danger of making this Act work ill
almost from the beginning.
They have the example of thirty-six
States in the United States, in which the
Senate is elected, and no man, however
sanguine, can hope that seventy-two
stereotyped provincial peers in Canada
will work harmoniously with a body
elected upon a system so wide and so
general as that which prevails in the
States of the American Union. There
is one point about which the right hon.
Gentleman said nothing, and which I
think is so very important that the
Member for Oxford, his predecessor in
office, might have told us something
about it. We know that Canada is a
great country, and we know that the
population is, or very soon will be,
something like 4,000,000, and we may
hope that, united under one government,
the province may be more capable of
defence. But what is intended with
regard to the question of defence? Is
everything to be done for the province ?
Is it intended to garrison its fortresses
by English troops? At the present
moment there are, I believe, in the pro-
vince 12,000 or 15,000 men.
There are persons in this country,
and there are some also in the North
American provinces, who are ill-natured
enough to say that not a little of the
loyalty that is said to prevail in Canada
has its price. I think it is natural and
reasonable to hope that there is in that
country a very strong attachment to
this country. But if they are to be con-
stantly applying to us for guarantees for
railways, and for grants for fortresses,
and for works of defence, then I think
it would be far better for them and for
us-cheaper for us and less demoralising
for them-that they should become an
independent State, and maintain their
own fortresses, fight their own cause,
and build up their own future without
relying upon us. And when we know,
as everybody knows, that the population
of Canada is in a much better position
as regards the comforts of home, than
is the great bulk of the population of
this country, I say the time has come
when it ought to be clearly understood
that the taxes of England are no longer
to go across the ocean to defray expenses
of any kind within the Confederation
which is about to be formed.
The right hon. Gentleman has never
been an advocate for great expenditure
in the colonies by the mother country.
On the contrary, he has been one of the
members of this House who have dis-
tinguished themselves by what I will
call an honest system for the mother
country, and what I believe is a wise
system for the colonies. But I think
that when a measure of this kind is
being passed, having such stupendous
results upon the condition and the fu-
ture population of these great colonies,
we have a right to ask that there should
be some consideration for the revenue
and for the taxpayers of this country.
In discussing this Bill with the delegates
from the provinces, I think it was the
duty of the Colonial Secretary to have
gone fairly into this question, and, if
possible, to have arranged it to the
advantage of the colony and the mother
country.
I believe there is no delusion greater
than this-that there is any party in the
United States that wishes to commit any
aggression upon Canada, or to annex
Canada by force to the United States.
There is not a part of the world, in my
opinion, that runs less risk of aggression
than Canada, except with regard to that
foolish and impotent attempt of certain
discontented not-long-ago subjects of
the Queen, who have left this country.
America has no idea of anything of
the kind. No American statesman, no
American political party, dreams for a
6-2
I
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
84
moment of an aggression upon Canada,
or of annexing Canada by force. And
therefore, every farthing that you spend
on your fortresses, and all that you do
with the idea of shutting out American
aggression, is money squandered through
an hallucination which we ought to get
rid of. I have not risen for the purpose
of objecting to the second reading of
this Bill. Under the circumstances, I
presume it is well that we should do no
other than read it a second time. But
I think the Government ought to have
given a little more time. I think they
have not treated the province of Nova
Scotia with that tenderness, that ge-
nerosity, and that consideration which
is desirable when you are about to make
so great a change in its affairs and in
its future. For my share, I want the
population of these provinces to do that
which they believe best for their own
interests-to remain with this country
if they like it, in the most friendly man-
ner, or to become independent States if
they wish it. If they should prefer to
unite themselves with the United States,
I should not complain even of that.
But whatever be their course, there is
no man in this House or in those pro-
vinces who has a more sincere wish for
their greatness and their welfare than I
have who have taken the liberty thus to
criticise this Bill.
P
1
AMERICA.
I.
THE TRENT' AFFAIR.
ROCHDALE, DECEMBER 4, 1861.
[During the excitement caused by the seizure of Messrs. Mason and Slidell, the envoys
of the Slaveholders' Confederation, on board the Trent steamer, Mr. Bright's townsmen
invited him to a Public Banquet, that they might have the opportunity of hearing his
opinions on the American Civil War, and on the duty of England in regard to it.
This speech was delivered on the occasion of that Banquet.]
WHEN the Gentlemen who invited me
to this dinner called upon me, I felt
their kindness very sensibly, and now I
am deeply grateful to my friends around
me, and to you all, for the abundant
manifestations of kindness with which I
have been received to-night. I am, as
you all know, surrounded at this moment
by my neighbours and friends, and I
may say with the utmost truth, that I
value the good opinions of those who
now hear my voice far beyond the
opinions of any equal number of the
inhabitants of this country selected from
any other portion of it. You have, by
this act of kindness that you have shown
me, given proof that, in the main, you
do not disapprove of my course and
labours, that at least you are willing to
express an opinion that the motives by
which I have been actuated have been
honest and honourable to myself, and
that that course has not been entirely
without service to my country. Coming
to this meeting, or to any similar meet-
ing, I always find that the subjects for
discussion appear too many, and far
more than it is possible to treat at
length. In these times in which we
live, by the influence of the telegraph,
and the steamboat and the railroad, and
the multiplication of newspapers, we
seem continually to stand as on the top
of an exceeding high mountain, from
which we behold all the kingdoms of
the earth and all the glory of them,-
unhappily, also, not only their glory,
but their follies, and their crimes, and
their calamities.
Seven years ago, our eyes were turned
with anxious expectation to a remote
corner of Europe, where five nations
were contending in bloody strife for an
object which possibly hardly one of them
comprehended, and, if they did compre-
hend it, which all sensible men amongst
them must have known to be absolutely
impracticable. Four years ago, we were
looking still further to the East, where
there was a gigantic revolt in a great
dependency of the British Crown, arising
mainly from gross neglect, and from
the incapacity of England, up to that
moment, to govern the country which
it had known how to conquer. Two
years ago, we looked South, to the
plains of Lombardy, and saw a great
strife there, in which every man in Eng-
86
DEC, 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
land took a strong interest; and we
have welcomed, as the result of that
strife, the addition of a great kingdom
to the list of European States. Now,
our eyes are turned in a contrary direc-
tion, and we look to the West. There
we see a struggle in progress of the
very highest interest to England and to
humanity at large. We see there a
nation which I shall call the Trans-
atlantic English nation-the inheritor
and partaker of all the historic glories
of this country. We see it torn with
intestine broils, and suffering from ca-
lamities from which for more than a
century past—in fact, for more than two
centuries past-this country has been
exempt. That struggle is of especial
interest to us. We remember the de-
scription which one of our great poets
gives of Rome,——
• Lone mother of dead empires.'
But England is the living mother of
great nations on the American and on
the Australian continents, which promise
to endow the world with all her know-
ledge and all her civilization, and with
even something more than the freedom
she herself enjoys.
Eighty-five years ago, at the time when
some of our oldest townsmen were very
little children, there were, on the North
American continent, Colonies, mainly
of Englishmen, containing about three
millions of souls. These Colonies we
have seen a year ago constituting the
United States of North America, and
comprising a population of no less than
thirty millions of souls. We know that
in agriculture and manufactures, with
the exception of this kingdom, there is
no country in the world which in these
arts may be placed in advance of the
United States. With regard to inven-
tions, I believe, within the last thirty
years, we have received more useful
inventions from the United States than
from all the other countries of the earth.
In that country there are probably ten
times as many miles of telegraph as
there are in this country, and there are
at least five or six times as many miles
of railway. The tonnage of its shipping
is at least equal to ours, if it does not
exceed ours. The prisons of that coun-
try-for, even in countries the most
favoured, prisons are needful-have been
models for other nations of the earth;
and many European Governments have
sent missions at different times to in-
quire into the admirable system of
education so universally adopted in
their free schools throughout the Nor-
thern States.
If I were to speak of that country in
a religious aspect, I should say that,
considering the short space of time to
which their history goes back, there is
nothing on the face of the earth besides,
and never has been, to equal the mag-
nificent arrangement of churches and
ministers, and of all the appliances
which are thought necessary for a nation
to teach Christianity and morality to its
people. Besides all this, when I state
that for many years past the annual
public expenditure of the Government
of that country has been somewhere
between 10,000,000l. and 15,000,000l.,
I need not perhaps say further, that
there has always existed amongst all the
population an amount of comfort and
prosperity and abounding plenty such
as I believe no other country in the
world, in any age, has enjoyed.
This is a very fine, but a very true
picture; yet it has another side to which
I must advert. There has been one
great feature in that country, one great
contrast, which has been pointed to by
all who have commented upon the United
States as a feature of danger, as a con-
trast calculated to give pain. There
has been in that country the utmost
liberty to the white man, and bondage
and degradation to the black man.
Now rely upon it, that wherever Chris-
tianity lives and flourishes, there must
grow up from it, necessarily, a conscience
hostile to any oppression and to any
wrong; and therefore, from the hour
when the United States' Constitution was
formed, so long as it left there this great
evil-then comparatively small, but now
so great it left there seeds of that
1861.
87
AMERICA. I.
which an American statesman has so
happily described, of that 'irrepressible
conflict' of which now the whole world
is the witness.
It has been a common
thing for men disposed to carp at the
United States to point to this blot upon
their fair fame, and to compare it with
the boasted declaration of freedom in
their Deed and Declaration of Inde-
pendence. But we must recollect who
sowed this seed of trouble, and how and
by whom it has been cherished.
Without dwelling upon this stain any
longer, I should like to read to you a
paragraph from the instructions under-
stood to have been given to the Virginian
delegates to Congress, in the month of
August, 1774, by Mr. Jefferson, who
was perhaps the ablest man the United
States had produced up to that time,
and who was then actively engaged in
its affairs, and who afterwards for two.
periods filled the office of President. He
represented one of these very Slave States
the State of Virginia-and he says:—
'For the most trifling reasons, and some-
times for no conceivable reason at all, his
Majesty has rejected laws of the most salu-
tary tendency. The abolition of domestic
slavery is the great object of desire in those
Colonies where it was unhappily introduced
in their infant state. But previous to the
enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is
necessary to exclude all further importations
from Africa. Yet our repeated attempts to
affect this by prohibition, and by imposing
duties which might amount to prohibition,
have hitherto been defeated by his Majesty's
negative, thus preferring the immediate
advantages of a few British corsairs to the
lasting interests of the American States,
and to the rights of human nature, deeply
wounded by this infamous practice.'
I read this merely to show that, two
years before the Declaration of Inde-
pendence was signed, Mr. Jefferson, act-
ing on behalf of those he represented in
Virginia, wrote that protest against the
course of the English Government which
prevented the Colonists from abolishing
the slave trade, preparatory to the aboli-
tion of slavery itself.
Well, the United States' Constitution
left the slave question for every State to
manage for itself. It was a question
too difficult to settle then, and apparently
every man had the hope and belief that
in a few years slavery itself would be-
come extinct. Then there happened a
great event in the annals of manufactures
and commerce. It was discovered that
in those States that article which we in
this country now so much depend on,
could be produced of the best quality
necessary for manufacture, and at a
moderate price. From that day to this
the growth of cotton has increased there,
and its consumption has increased here,
and a value which no man dreamed of
when Jefferson wrote that paper has
been given to the slave and to slave
industry. Thus it has grown up to that.
gigantic institution which now threatens
either its own overthrow or the over-
throw of that which is a million times
more valuable-the United States of
America.
I
The crisis at which we have arrived-
say 'we,' for, after all, we are nearly
as much interested as if I was making
this speech in the city of Boston or the
city of New York-the crisis, I say,
which has now arrived, was inevitable.
I say that the conscience of the North,
never satisfied with the institution of
slavery, was constantly urging some men
forward to take a more extreme view of
the question; and there grew up natur-
ally a section-it may not have been a
very numerous one-in favour of the abo-
lition of slavery. A great and powerful
party resolved at least upon a restraint
and a control of slavery, so that it should
not extend beyond the States and the
area which it now occupies. But, if we
look at the Government of the United
States almost ever since the formation
of the Union, we shall find the Southern
power has been mostly dominant there.
If we take thirty-six years after the
formation of the present Constitution—
I think about 1787—we shall find that
for thirty-two of those years every Pre-
sident was a Southern man; and if we
take the period from 1828 until 1860,
88
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
we shall find that, on every election
for President, the South voted in the
majority.
We know what an election is in the
United States for President of the Re-
public. There is a most extensive suf-
frage, and there is the ballot-box. The
members of the House of Representatives
are elected by the same suffrage, and
generally they are elected at the same
time. It is thus therefore almost inevit-
able that the House of Representatives
is in accord in public policy with the
President for the time being. Every
four years there springs from the vote
created by the whole people a President
over that great nation. I think the
world offers no finer spectacle than this;
it offers no higher dignity; and there is
no greater object of ambition on the
political stage on which men are per-
mitted to move. You may point, if you
will, to hereditary rulers, to crowns
coming down through successive ge-
nerations of the same family, to thrones
based on prescription or on conquest,
to sceptres wielded over veteran legions
and subject realms, but to my mind
there is nothing more worthy of reve-
rence and obedience, and nothing more
sacred, than the authority of the freely
chosen magistrate of a great and free
people; and if there be on earth and
amongst men any right divine to govern,
surely it rests with a ruler so chosen
and so appointed.
Last year the ceremony of this great
election was gone through, and the
South, which had been so long success-
ful, found itself defeated. That defeat
was followed instantly by secession, and
insurrection, and war. In the multitude
of articles which have been before us
in the newspapers within the last few
months, I have no doubt you have seen
it stated, as I have seen it, that this
question was very much like that upon
which the Colonies originally revolted
against the Crown of England. It is
amazing how little some newspaper
writers know, or how little they think
you know. When the War of Indepen-
dence was begun in America, ninety years
ago, there were no representatives there
at all. The question then was, whether
a Ministry in Downing street, and a
corrupt and borough-mongering Par-
liament, should continue to impose taxes
upon three millions of English subjects,
who had left their native shores and
established themselves in North America.
But now the question is not the want of
representation, because, as is perfectly
notorious, the South is not only repre-
sented, but is represented in excess; for,
in distributing the number of represen-
tatives, which is done every ten years,
three out of every five slaves are counted
as freemen, and the number of repre-
sentatives from the Slave States is con-
sequently so much greater than if the
freemen, the white men only, were
counted. From this cause the Southern
States have twenty members more in
the House of Representatives than they
would have if the members were appor-
tioned on the same principle as in the
Northern Free States. Therefore you
will see at once that there is no com-
parison between the state of things when
the Colonies revolted, and the state of
things now, when this wicked insurrec-
tion has broken out.
It
There is another cause which is some-
times in England assigned for this great
misfortune, which is, the protective
theories in operation in the Union, and
the maintenance of a high tariff.
happens with regard to that, unfortunate-
ly, that no American, certainly no one
I ever met with, attributed the disasters
of the Union to that cause.
It is an
argument made use of by ignorant
Englishmen, but never by informed
Americans. I have already shown you
that the South, during almost the whole
existence of the Union, has been do-
minant at Washington; and during that
period the tariff has existed, and there
has been no general dissatisfaction with
it. Occasionally, there can be no doubt,
their tariff was higher than was thought
just, or reasonable, or necessary by some
of the States of the South. But the first
Act of the United States which levied
duties upon imports, passed immediately
1861.
89
AMERICA.
I.
after the Union was formed, recited that
'It is necessary for the encouragement
and protection of manufactures to levy
the duties which follow;' and during
the war with England from 1812 to
1815, the people of the United States
had to pay for all the articles they
brought from Europe many times over
the natural cost of those articles, on
account of the interruption to the traffic
by the English nation.
When the war was over, it was felt
by everybody desirable that they should
encourage manufactures in their own
country; and seeing that England at
that precise moment was passing a law
to prevent any wheat coming from
America until wheat in England had
risen to the price of 84s. per quarter, we
may be quite satisfied that the doctrine
of protection originally entertained did
not find less favour at the close of the
war in 1815.
There is one remarkable point with re-
gard to this matter which should not be
forgotten. Twelve months ago, at the
meeting of the Congress of the United
States, on the first Monday in December
-when the Congress met, you recollect
that there were various propositions of
compromise, committee meetings of
various kinds to try and devise some
mode of settling the question between
the North and the South, so that dis-
union might not go on-though I read
carefully everything published in the
English papers from the United States
on the subject, I do not recollect that
in a single instance the question of the
tariff was referred to, or any change
proposed or suggested in the matter as
likely to have any effect whatever upon
the question of Secession.
There is another point,-whatever
might be the influence of the tariff upon
the United States, it is as pernicious to
the West as it is to the South; and
further, that Louisiana, which is a
Southern State and a seceded State, has
always voted along with Pennsylvania
until last year in favour of protection-
protection for its sugar, whilst Penn-
sylvania wished protection for its coal
and iron. But if the tariff was onerous
and grievous, was that any reason for
this great insurrection? Was there ever
a country that had a tariff, especially in
the article of food, more onerous and
more cruel than that which we had in
this country twenty years ago? We did
not secede. We did not rebel. What
we did was to raise money for the pur-
pose of distributing among all the people
perfect information upon the question;
and many men, as you know, devoted
all their labours, for several years, to
teach the great and wise doctrine of free
trade to the people of England. The
price of a single gunboat, the equipment
of a single regiment, the garrisoning of
a single fort, the cessation of their trade
for a single day, cost more than it would
have cost to have spread among all the
intelligent people of the United States
the most complete statement of the
whole case; and the West and South
could easily have revised, or, if need had
been, have repealed the tariff altogether.
The question is a very different and a
far more grave question. It is a question
of slavery, and for thirty years it has
constantly been coming to the surface,
disturbing social life, and overthrow-
ing almost all political harmony in the
working of the United States. In the
North there is no secession; there is no
collision. These disturbances and this
insurrection are found wholly in the
South and in the Slave States; and
therefore I think that the man who says
otherwise, who contends that it is the
tariff, or anything whatsoever else than
slavery, is either himself deceived or
endeavours to deceive others. The ob-
ject of the South is this, to escape from
the majority who wish to limit the area
of slavery. They wish to found a Slave
State freed from the influence and opi-
nions of freedom. The Free States in
the North now stand before the world
as the advocates and defenders of free-
dom and civilization. The Slave States
offer themselves for the recognition of a
Christian nation, based upon the foun-
dation, the unchangeable foundation in
their eyes, of slavery and barbarism.
90
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I will not discuss the guilt of the
men who, ministers of a great nation
only last year, conspired to overthrow
it. I will not point out or recapitulate
the statements of the fraudulent manner
in which they disposed of the funds in
the national exchequer. I will not point
out by name any of the men, in this
conspiracy, whom history will designate
by titles they would not like to hear;
but I say that slavery has sought to
break up the most free government in
the world, and to found a new State, in
the nineteenth century, whose corner-
stone is the perpetual bondage of mil-
lions of men.
Having thus described what appears
to me briefly the literal truth of this
matter, what is the course that Eng-
land would be expected to pursue? We
should be neutral as far as regards
mingling in the strife. We were neutral
in the strife in Italy; but we were not
neutral in opinion or sympathy; and we
know perfectly well that throughout the
whole of Italy at this moment there is
a feeling that, though no shot was fired
from an English ship, and though no
English soldier trod their soil, yet still
the opinion of England was potent in
Europe, and did much for the creation
of the Italian kingdom.
With regard to the United States, you
know how much we hate slavery,—that
is, some years ago we thought we knew;
that we have given twenty millions ster-
ling,—a million a year, or nearly so, of
taxes for ever,—to free eight hundred
thousand slaves in the English colonies.
We knew, or thought we knew, how
much we were in love with free govern-
ment everywhere, although it might not
take precisely the same form as our own
government. We were for free govern-
ment in Italy; we were for free govern-
ment in Switzerland; and we were for
free government, even under a republican
form, in the United States of America;
and with all this, every man would have
said that England would wish the
American Union to be prosperous and
eternal.
Now, suppose we turn our eyes to
the East, to the empire of Russia, for
a moment. In Russia, as you all know,
there has been one of the most important
and magnificent changes of policy ever
seen in any country. Within the last
year or two, the present Emperor of
Russia, following the wishes of his
father, has insisted upon the abolition
of serfdom in that empire; and twenty-
three millions of human beings, lately
serfs, little better than real slaves, have
been raised to the ranks of freedom.
Now, suppose that the millions of the
serfs of Russia had been chiefly in the
South of Russia. We hear of the nobles
of Russia, to whom those serfs belonged
in a great measure, that they have been
hostile to this change; and there has
been some danger that the peace of
that empire might be disturbed during
the change. Suppose these nobles, for
the purpose of maintaining in perpetuity
the serfdom of Russia, and barring out
twenty-three millions of your fellow-
creatures from the rights of freedom,
had established a great and secret con-
spiracy, and that they had risen in great
and dangerous insurrection against the
Russian Government,-I say that you,
the people of England, although seven
years ago you were in mortal combat
with the Russians in the South of
Europe,-I believe at this moment you
would have prayed Heaven in all sin-
cerity and fervour to give strength to
the arm and success to the great wishes
of the Emperor, and that the vile and
atrocious insurrection might be sup-
pressed.
Well, but let us look a little at what
has been said and done in this country
since the period when Parliament rose
at the beginning of August. There have
been two speeches to which I wish to
refer, and in terms of approbation. The
Duke of Argyll, a member of the present
Government, and, though I have not
the smallest personal acquaintance with
him, I am free to say that I believe him
to be one of the most intelligent and
liberal of his order, -the Duke of Argyll
made a speech which was fair and
friendly to the Government of the
1861.
91
AMERICA. I.
United States. Lord Stanley, only a
fortnight ago, I think, made a speech
which it is impossible to read without
remarking the thought, the liberality,
and the wisdom by which it is distin-
guished. He doubted, it is true, whether
the Union could be restored. A man
need not be hostile, and must not
necessarily be unfriendly, to doubt that
or the contrary; but he spoke with
fairness and friendliness of the Govern-
ment of the United States; and he said
that they were right and justifiable in
the course they took; and he gave us
some advice,-which is now more im-
portant than at the moment when it
was given, that amid the various in-
cidents and accidents of a struggle of
this nature, it became a people like this
to be very moderate, very calm, and to
avoid, as much as possible, any feeling
of irritation, which sometimes arises,
and sometimes leads to danger.
I mention these two speeches as from
Englishmen of great distinction in this
country-speeches which I believe will
have a beneficial effect on the other side
of the Atlantic. Lord John Russell, in
the House of Commons, during the last
session, made a speech also, in which
he rebuked the impertinence of a young
Member of the House who had spoken
about the bursting of the
the bubble
republic.' It was a speech worthy of
the best days of Lord John Russell.
But at a later period he spoke at New-
castle on an occasion something like
this, when the inhabitants, or some
portion of the inhabitants, of the town
invited him to a public dinner. He de-
scribed the contest in words something
like these--I speak from memory only:
The North is contending for empire,
the South for independence.' Did he
mean contending for empire, as Eng-
land contends for it when making some
fresh conquest in India? If he meant
that, what he said was not true.
I recollect Lord John Russell, some
years ago, in the House of Commons,
on an occasion when I made some ob-
servation as to the unreasonable ex-
penditure of our colonies, and said that
But
the people of England should not be
taxed to defray expenses which the
colonies themselves were well able to
bear, turned to me with a sharpness
which was not necessary, and said, The
honourable Member has no objection
to make a great empire into a little
one; but I have.' Perhaps, if he had
lived in the United States, if he was
a member of the Senate or the House
of Representatives there, he would
doubt whether it was his duty to con-
sent at once to the destruction of a
great country by separation, it may be
into two hostile camps, or whether he
would not try all the means which were
open to him, and would be open to the
Government, to avert so unlooked-for
and so dire a calamity.
There are other speeches that have
been made. I will not refer to them by
any quotation,-I will not, out of pity'
to some of the men who uttered them.
I will not bring their names even before
you, to give them an endurance which
I hope they will not otherwise obtain.
I leave them in the obscurity which they
so richly merit. But you know as well
as I do, that, of all the speeches made
since the end of the last session of Par-
liament by public men, by politicians,
the majority of them have either dis-
played a strange ignorance of American
affairs, or a stranger absence of that
cordiality and friendship which, I main-
tain, our American kinsmen have a right
to look for at our hands.
And if we part from the speakers and
turn to the writers, what do we find
there? We find that which is reputed
abroad, and has hitherto been believed
in at home, as the most powerful re-
presentative of English opinion—at
least of the richer classes-we find in
that particular newspaper there has not
been since Mr. Lincoln took office, in
March last, as President of the United
States, one fair and honourable and
friendly article on American affairs.
Some of you, I dare say, read it; but,
fortunately, every district is now so
admirably supplied with local news-
papers, that I trust in all time to come
92
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
the people of England will drink of
purer streams nearer home, and not of
those streams which are muddled by
party feeling and political intrigue, and
by many motives that tend to anything
rather than the enlightenment and ad-
vantage of the people: It is said,-
that very paper has said over and over
again, Why this war? Why not
separate peaceably? Why this fratri-
cidal strife?' I hope it is equally
averse to fratricidal strife in other dis-
tricts; for if it be true that God made
of one blood all the families of man to
dwell on the face of all the earth, it
must be fratricidal strife whether we are
slaughtering Russians in the Crimea or
bombarding towns on the sea-coast of
the United States.
Now no one will expect that I should
stand forward as the advocate of war,
or as the defender of that great sum of
all crimes which is involved in war.
But when we are discussing a question
of this nature, it is only fair that we
should discuss it upon principles which
are acknowledged not only in the coun-
try where the strife is being carried on,
but are universally acknowledged in
this country.
When I discussed the
Russian war, seven or eight years ago,
I always condemned it, on principles
which were accepted by the Government
and people of England, and I took my
facts from the blue-books presented to
Parliament. I take the liberty, then, of
doing that in this case; and I say that,
looking at the principles avowed in
England, and at its policy, there is no
man, who is not absolutely a non-
resistant in every sense, who can fairly
challenge the conduct of the American
Government in this war. It would be
a curious thing to find that the party
in this country which on every public
question affecting England is in favour
of war at any cost, when they come to
speak of the duty of the Government of
the United States, is in favour of peace
at any price.'
6
I want to know whether it has ever
been admitted by politicians, or states-
men, or people, that a great nation can
be broken up at any time by any parti-
cular section of any part of that nation.
It has been tried occasionally in Ire-
land, and if it had succeeded history
would have said that it was with very
good cause. But if anybody tried now
to get up a secession or insurrection in
Ireland,—and it would be infinitely less
disturbing to everything than the seces-
sion in the United States, because there
is a boundary which nobody can dispute
-I am quite sure the Times would have
its Special Correspondent,' and would
describe with all the glee and exultation
in the world the manner in which the
Irish insurrectionists were cut down
and made an end of.
C
Let any man try in this country to
restore the heptarchy, do you think that
any portion of the people would think
that the project could be tolerated for
a moment? But if you look at a map
of the United States, you will see that
there is no country in the world, pro-
bably, at this moment, where any plan
of separation between the North and
the South, as far as the question of
boundary is concerned, is so surrounded
with insurmountable difficulties. For
example, Maryland is a Slave State;
but Maryland, by a large majority, voted
for the Union. Kentucky is a Slave
State, one of the finest in the Union,
and containing a fine people; Kentucky
has voted for the Union, but has been
invaded from the South. Missouri is
a Slave State; but Missouri has not
seceded, and has been invaded by the
South, and there is a secession party in
that State. There are parts of Virginia
which have formed themselves into a
new State, resolved to adhere to the
North; and there is no doubt a con-
siderable Northern and Union feeling
in the State of Tennessee. I have no
doubt there is in every other State. In
fact, I am not sure that there is not
now within the sound of my voice a
citizen of the State of Alabama, who
could tell you that in his State the
question of secession has never been
put to the vote; and that there are
great numbers of men, reasonable and
1861.
93
AMERICA. I.
thoughtful and just men, in that State,
who entirely deplore the condition of
things there existing.
Then, what would you do with all
those States, and with what we may call
the loyal portion of the people of those
States? Would you allow them to be
dragooned into this insurrection, and
into the formation or the becoming
parts of a new State, to which they
themselves are hostile ? And what
would you do with the City of Wash-
ington? Washington is in a Slave
State. Would anybody have advised
that President Lincoln and his Cabinet,
with all the members of Congress, of
the House of Representatives and the
Senate, from the North, with their
wives and children, and everybody else
who was not positively in favour of the
South, should have set off on their me-
lancholy pilgrimage northwards, leaving
that capital, hallowed to them by such
associations, having its name
from the father of their country,-
leaving Washington to the South, be-
cause Washington is situated in a Slave
State?
even
Again, what do you say to the Missis-
sippi River, as you see it upon the map,
the father of waters,' rolling its gigantic
stream to the ocean? Do you think that
the fifty millions which one day will
occupy the banks of that river north-
ward, will ever consent that its great
stream shall roll through a foreign, and
it
may be a hostile State? And more,
there are four millions of negroes in
subjection. For them the American
Union is directly responsible. They are
not secessionists; they are now, as they
always were, not citizens nor subjects,
but legally under the care and power of
the Government of the United States.
Would you consent that these should
be delivered up to the tender mercies
of their taskmasters, the defenders of
slavery as an everlasting institution?
But if all had been surrendered with-
out a struggle, what then? What would
the writers in this newspaper and other
newspapers have said? If a bare rock
in your empire, that would not keep a
goat-a single goat-alive, be touched
by any foreign power, the whole empire
is roused to resistance; and if there be,
from accident or passion, the smallest
insult to your flag, what do your news-
paper writers say upon the subject, and
what is said in all your towns and upon
all your Exchanges? I will tell you
what they would have said if the Go-
vernment of the Northern States had
taken their insidious and dishonest ad-
vice. They would have said the great
Republic was a failure, that democracy
had murdered patriotism, that history
afforded no example of such meanness
and of such cowardice; and they would
have heaped unmeasured obloquy and
contempt upon the people and Govern-
ment who had taken that course.
They tell you, these candid friends of
the United States,-they tell you that
all freedom is gone; that the Habeas
Corpus Act, if they ever had one, is
known no longer; and that any man
may be arrested at the dictum of the
President or of the Secretary of State.
Well, but in 1848 you recollect, many
of you, that there was a small insurrec-
tion in Ireland. It was an absurd thing
altogether; but what was done then?
I saw, in one night, in the House of
Commons, a bill for the suspension of
the Habeas Corpus Act passed through
all its stages. What more did I see?
I saw a bill brought in by the Whig
Government of that day, Lord John
Russell being the Premier, which made
speaking against the Government and
against the Crown-which up to that
time had been sedition—which proposed
to make it felony; and it was only by
the greatest exertions of a few of the
Members that the Act, in that particular,
was limited to a period of two years. In
the same session a bill was brought in
called an Alien Bill, which enabled the
Home Secretary to take any foreigner
whatsoever, not being a naturalized
Englishman, and in twenty-four hours
to send him out of the country. Al-
though a man might have committed no
crime, this might be done to him, appa-
rently only on suspicion.
J
94
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
But suppose that an insurgent army
had been so near to London that you
could see its outposts from every sub-
urb of your Capital, what then do you
think would have been the regard of the
Government of Great Britain for per-
sonal liberty, if it interfered with the
necessities, and, as they might think, the
salvation of the State? I recollect, in
1848, when the Habeas Corpus Act was
suspended in Ireland, that a number of
persons in Liverpool, men there of posi-
tion and of wealth, presented a petition
to the House of Commons, praying-
what? That the Habeas Corpus Act
should not be suspended? No. They
were not content with its suspension in
Ireland; and they prayed the House of
Commons to extend that suspension to
Liverpool. I recollect that at that time
and I am sure my friend Mr. Wilson
will bear me out in what I say-the
Mayor of Liverpool telegraphed to the
Mayor of Manchester, and that messages
were sent on to London nearly every
hour. The Mayor of Manchester heard
from the Mayor of Liverpool that cer-
tain Irishmen in Liverpool, conspirators,
or fellow-conspirators with those in
Ireland, were going to burn the cotton
warehouses in Liverpool and the cotton
mills of Lancashire. I read that petition
from Liverpool. I took it from the
table of the House of Commons, and
read it, and I handed it over to a states-
man of great eminence, who has been
but just removed from us-I refer to Sir
James Graham, a man not second to
any in the House of Commons for his
knowledge of affairs and for his great
capacity—I handed to him that petition.
He read it; and after he had read it, he
rose from his seat, and laid it upon the
table with a gesture of abhorrence and
disgust. Now that was a petition from
the town of Liverpool, in which some
persons have been making themselves
very ridiculous of late by reason of their
conduct on this American question.
6
There is one more point. It has been
said, How much better it would be'-
not for the United States, but-' for us,
that these States should be divided.' I
recollect meeting a gentleman in Bond-
street one day before the session was
over. He was a rich man, and one
whose voice is much heard in the House
of Commons; but his voice is not heard
when he is on his legs, but when he is
cheering other speakers; and he said to
me: 'After all, this is a sad business
about the United States; but still I
think it very much better that they
should be split up. In twenty years,'
or in fifty years, I forget which it was,
they will be so powerful that they will
bully all Europe.' And a distinguished
Member of the House of Commons→→→
distinguished there by his eloquence,
distinguished more by his many writings
-I mean Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton-
he did not exactly express a hope, but
he ventured on something like a predic-
tion, that the time would come when
there would be, I do not know how
many, but about as many independent
States on the American Continent as you
can count upon your fingers.
There cannot be a meaner motive than
this I am speaking of, in forming a judg
ment on this question,—that it is 'better
for us'-for whom? the people of Eng-
land, or the Government of England?—
that the United States should be severed,
and that the North American continent
should be as the continent of Europe is,
in many States, and subject to all the
contentions and disasters which have
accompanied the history of the States of
Europe. I should say that, if a man
had a great heart within him, he would
rather look forward to the day when,
from that point of land which is habit-
able nearest to the Pole, to the shores
of the Great Gulf, the whole of that
vast continent might become one great
confederation of States,-without a great
army, and without a great navy,-not
mixing itself up with the entanglements
of European politics.-without a custom-
house inside, through the whole length
and breadth of its territory,-and with
freedom everywhere, equality every-
where, law everywhere, peace every-
where, - such a confederation would
afford at least some hope that man is not

1861.
95
AMERICA. I.
forsaken of Heaven, and that the future
of our race may be better than the past.
It is a common observation, that our
friends in America are very irritable.
And I think it is very likely, of a con-
siderable number of them, to be quite
true. Our friends in America are in-
volved in a great struggle. There is
nothing like it before in their or in any
history. No country in the world was
ever more entitled, in my opinion, to the
sympathy and the forbearance of all
friendly nations, than are the United
States at this moment. They have there
some newspapers that are no wiser
than ours. They have there some
papers, which, up to the election
of Mr. Lincoln, were his bitterest and
most unrelenting foes, who, when the
war broke out, and it was not safe to
take the line of Southern support, were
obliged to turn round and to appear
to adopt the prevalent opinion of the
country. But they undertook to serve
the South in another way, and that was
by exaggerating every difficulty and
misstating every fact, if so doing could
serve their object of creating distrust
between the people of the Northern
States and the people of this United
Kingdom. If the Times in this country
has done all that it could do to poison
the minds of the people of England, and
to irritate the minds of the people of
America, the New York Herald, I am
sorry to say, has done, I think, all that
it could, or all that it dared to do, to
provoke mischief between the Govern-
ment in Washington and the Government
in London.
Now there is one thing which I must
state that I think they have a solid rea-
son to complain of; and I am very
sorry to have to mention it, because it
blames our present Foreign Minister,
against whom I am not anxious to say a
word, and, recollecting his speech in the
House of Commons, I should be slow
to conclude that he had any feeling hos-
tile to the United States' Government.
You recollect that during the session-
it was on the 14th of May-a Procla-
mation came out which acknowledged
the South as a belligerent power, and
proclaimed the neutrality of England.
A little time before that, I forget how
many days, Mr. Dallas, the late Minister
from the United States, had left London
for Liverpool and America. He did not
wish to undertake any affairs for his
Government, by which he was not
appointed, I mean that of President
Lincoln, and he left what had to be
done to his successor, who was on his
way, and whose arrival was daily
expected. Mr. Adams, the present
Minister from the United States, is a
man whom, if he lived in England, you
would speak of as belonging to one
of the noblest families of the country.
His father and his grandfather were
Presidents of the United States.
grandfather was one of the great men
who achieved the independence of the
United States. There is no family in
that country having more claims upon
what I should call the veneration and
the affection of the people than the
family of Mr. Adams.
His
Mr. Adams came to this country. He
arrived in London on the night of the
13th of May. On the 14th, that Pro-
clamation was issued. It was known
that he was coming; but he was not
consulted; the Proclamation was not
delayed for a day, although there was
nothing pressing, no reason why the
Proclamation should not have been
notified to him. If communications of
a friendly nature had taken place with
him and with the American Govern-
ment, they could have found no fault
with this step, because it was perhaps
inevitable, before the struggle had pro-
ceeded far, that this Proclamation would
be issued. But I have the best reasons
for knowing that there is no single thing
that has happened during the course of
these events which has created more
surprise, more irritation, and more dis-
trust in the United States, with respect
to this country, than the fact that that
Proclamation was not delayed one single
day, until the Minister from America
could come here, and until it could be
done, if not with his consent, or his
96
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
concurrence, yet in that friendly manner
that would probably have avoided all
the unpleasantness which has occurred.
Now I am obliged to say—and I say
it with the utmost pain--that if we
have not done things that are plainly
hostile to the North, and if we have
not expressed affection for slavery, and,
outwardly and openly, hatred for the
Union, I say that there has not been
that friendly and cordial neutrality which,
if I had been a citizen of the United
States, I should have expected; and I
say further, that, if there has existed
considerable irritation at that, it must
be taken as a measure of the high
appreciation which the people of those
States place upon the opinion of the
people of England. If I had been
addressing this audience ten days ago,
so far as I know, I should have said
just what I have said now; and although,
by an untoward event, circumstances are
somewhat, even considerably, altered,
yet I have thought it desirable to make
this statement, with a view, so far as I
am able to do it, to improve the opinion
of England, and to assuage feelings of
irritation in America, if there be any, so
that no further difficulties may arise in
the progress of this unhappy strife.
But there has occurred an event which
was announced to us only a week ago,
which is one of great importance,
and it may be one of some peril. It
is asserted that what is called 'inter-
national law' has been broken by the
seizure of the Southern Commissioners
on board an English trading steamer by
a steamer of war of the United States.
Now, what is international law? You
have heard that the opinions of the law
officers of the Crown are in favour of
this view of the case-that the law has
been broken. I am not at all going to
say that it has not. It would be im-
prudent in me to set my opinion on a
legal question which I have only par-
tially examined, against their opinion
on the same question, which I presume
they have carefully examined. But
this I say, that international law is not
to be found in an Act of Parliament-
it is not in so many clauses. You
know that it is difficult to find the law.
I can ask the Mayor, or any magistrate
around me, whether it is not very diffi-
cult to find the law, even when you
have found the Act of Parliament, and
found the clause. But when you have
no Act of Parliament, and no clause,
you may imagine that the case is still
more difficult.
In
Now, maritime law, or international
law, consists of opinions and precedents
for the most part, and it is very unset-
tled. The opinions are the opinions of
men of different countries, given at dif-
ferent times; and the precedents are
not always like each other. The law is
very unsettled, and, for the most part, I
believe it to be exceedingly bad.
past times, as you know from the his-
tories you read, this country has been
a fighting country; we have been belli-
gerents, and, as belligerents, we have
carried maritime law, by our own power-
ful hand, to a pitch that has been very
oppressive to foreign, and especially so
to neutral nations. Well, now, for
the first time, unhappily,—almost for
the first time in our history for the last
two hundred years, we are not bellige-
rents, but neutrals; and we are disposed
to take, perhaps, rather a different view
of maritime and international law.
Now, the act which has been com-
mitted by the American steamer, in my
opinion, whether it was legal or not,
was both impolitic and bad. That is
my opinion. I think it may turn out,
almost certainly, that, so far as the
taking of those men from that ship was
concerned, it was an act wholly un-
known to, and unauthorized by, the
American Government. And if the
American Government believe, on the
opinion of their law officers, that the
act is illegal, I have no doubt they will
make fitting reparation; for there is no
Government in the world that has so
strenuously insisted upon modifications
of international law, and been so anxious
to be guided always by the most mode-
rate and merciful interpretation of that
law.
1861.
97
AMERICA. I.
Now, our great advisers of the Times
newspaper have been persuading people
that this is merely one of a series of
acts which denote the determination of
the Washington Government to pick a
quarrel with the people of England.
Did you ever know anybody who was
not very nearly dead drunk, who, hav-
ing as much upon his hands as he could
manage, would offer to fight everybody
about him? Do you believe that the
United States' Government, presided
over by President Lincoln, so constitu-
tional in all his acts, so moderate as he
has been-representing at this moment
that great party in the United States,
happily now in the ascendancy, which
has always been especially in favour of
peace, and especially friendly to England
-do you believe that such a Govern-
ment, having now upon its hands an
insurrection of the most formidable
character in the South, would invite
the armies and the fleets of England to
combine with that insurrection, and, it
might be, to render it impossible that
the Union should ever again be re-
stored? I say, that single statement,
whether it came from a public writer
or a public speaker, is enough to stamp
him for ever with the character of being
an insidious enemy of both countries.
Well, now, what have we seen during
the last week? People have not been,
I am told-I have not seen much of it
-quite as calm as sensible men should
be. Here is a question of law. I will
undertake to say, that when you have
from the United States' Government-
if they think the act legal-a statement
of their view of the case, they will show
you that, fifty or sixty years ago, during
the wars of that time, there were scores
of cases that were at least as bad as this,
and some infinitely worse. And if it
were not so late to-night-and I am
not anxious now to go into the question
further-I could easily place before you
cases of extreme outrage committed by
us when we were at war, and for many
of which, I am afraid, little or no repa-
ration was offered. But let us bear
this in mind, that during this struggle
incidents and accidents will happen.
Bear in mind the advice of Lord
Stanley, so opportune and so judicious.
Do not let your newspapers, or your
public speakers, or any man, take you
off your guard, and bring you into that
frame of mind under which your Go-
vernment, if it desires war, may be
driven to engage in it; for one may be
almost as fatal and as evil as the other.
What can be more monstrous than
that we, as we call ourselves, to some
extent, an educated, a moral, and a
Christian nation-at a moment when
an accident of this kind occurs, before
we have made a representation to the
American Government, before we have
heard a word from it in reply-should
be all up in arms, every sword leaping
from its scabbard, and every man
looking about for his pistols and his
blunderbusses? I think the conduct
pursued and I have no doubt just
the same is pursued by a certain class
in America-is much more the conduct
of savages than of Christian and civilized
men. No, let us be calm. You recol-
lect how we were dragged into the
Russian war-how we drifted' into it.
You know that I, at least, have not
upon my head any of the guilt of that
fearful war. You know that it cost one
hundred millions of money to this coun-
try; that it cost at least the lives of
forty thousand Englishmen; that it
disturbed your trade; that it nearly
doubled the armies of Europe; that it
placed the relations of Europe on a
much less peaceful footing than before;
and that it did not effect one single
thing of all those that it was promised
to effect.
I recollect speaking on this subject,
within the last two years, to a man
whose name I have already mentioned,
Sir James Graham, in the House of
Commons. He was a Minister at the
time of that war. He was reminding
me of a severe onslaught which I had
made upon him and Lord Palmerston
for attending a dinner at the Reform
Club when Sir Charles Napier was
appointed to the command of the
T
03
7
98
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Baltic fleet; and he remarked, 'What
a severe thrashing' I had given them in
the House of Commons! I said, 'Sir
James, tell me candidly, did you not
deserve it?' He said, Well, you were
entirely right about that war; we were
entirely wrong, and we never should
have gone into it.' And this is exactly
what everybody will say, if you go
into a war about this business, when it
is over. When your sailors and sol-
diers, so many of them as may be
slaughtered, are gone to their last ac-
count; when your taxes are increased,
your business permanently-it may be
-injured; and when embittered feelings
for generations have been created be-
tween America and England — then
your statesmen will tell you that we
ought not to have gone into the war.'
But they will very likely say, as
many of them tell me,' What could we
do in the frenzy of the public mind?'
Let them not add to the frenzy, and
let us be careful that nobody drives us
into that frenzy. Remembering the
past, remembering at this moment the
perils of a friendly people, and seeing
the difficulties by which they are sur-
rounded, let us, I entreat of you, see
if there be any real moderation in the
people of England, and if magnanimity,
so often to be found amongst indi-
viduals, is absolutely wanting in a great
nation.
Now, Government may discuss this
matter-they may arrange it-they
may arbitrate it. I have received here,
since I came into the room, a despatch
from a friend of mine in London, refer-
ring to this matter. I believe some
portion of it is in the papers this even-
ing, but I have not seen them. He
states that General Scott, whom you
know by name, who has come over
from America to France, being in a
bad state of health-the General lately
of the American army, and a man
whose reputation in that country is
hardly second to that which the Duke
of Wellington held during his lifetime
in this country-General Scott has
written a letter on the American dif-
ficulty. He denies that the Cabinet of
Washington had ordered the seizure of
the Southern Commissioners, if found
under a neutral flag. The question of
legal right involved in the seizure, the
General thinks a very narrow ground
on which to force a quarrel with the
United States. As to Messrs. Slidell
and Mason being or not being contra-
band, the General answers for it, that,
if Mr. Seward cannot convince Earl
Russell that they bore that character,
Earl Russell will be able to convince
Mr. Seward that they did not.
pledges himself that, if this Government
cordially agreed with that of the United
States in establishing the immunity of
neutrals from the oppressive right of
search and seizure on suspicion, the
Cabinet of Washington will not hesi-
tate to purchase so great a boon to
peaceful trading-vessels.
He
Now, then, before I sit down, let me
ask you what is this people, about
which so many men in England at this
moment are writing, and speaking, and
thinking, with harshness, I think with
injustice, if not with great bitterness?
Two centuries ago, multitudes of the
people of this country found a refuge
on the North American continent, es-
caping from the tyranny of the Stuarts
and from the bigotry of Laud. Many
noble spirits from our country made
great experiments in favour of human
freedom on that continent. Bancroft,
the great historian of his own country,
has said, in his own graphic and em-
phatic language, 'The history of the
colonization of America is the history
of the crimes of Europe.' From that
time down to our own period, America
has admitted the wanderers from every
clime. Since 1815, a time which many
here remember, and which is within my
lifetime, more than three millions of
persons have emigrated from the Uni-
ted Kingdom to the United States.
During the fifteen years from 1845 or
1846 to 1859 or 1860-a period so
recent that we all remember the most
trivial circumstances that have happened
in that time-during those fifteen years
1861.
99
AMERICA. I.
more than two million three hundred and
twenty thousand persons left the shores
of the United Kingdom as emigrants
for the States of North America.
At this very moment, then, there are
millions in the United States who per-
sonally, or whose immediate parents,
have at one time been citizens of this
country. They found a home in the
Far West; they subdued the wilder-
ness; they met with plenty there,
which was not afforded them in their
native country; and they have become
a great people. There may be persons
in England who are jealous of those
States. There may be men who dislike
democracy, and who hate a republic;
there may be even those whose sym-
pathies warm towards the slave oli-
garchy of the South. But of this I am
certain, that only misrepresentation the
most gross or calumny the most wicked
can sever the tie which unites the great
mass of the people of this country with
their friends and brethren beyond the
Atlantic.
Now, whether the Union will be
restored or not, or the South achieve
an unhonoured independence or not, I
know not, and I predict not. But this
I think I know-that in a few years, a
very few years, the twenty millions of
freemen in the North will be thirty
millions, or even fifty millions-a popu-
lation equal to or exceeding that of this
kingdom. When that time comes, I
pray that it may not be said amongst
them, that, in the darkest hour of their
country's trials, England, the land of
their fathers, looked on with icy cold-
ness and saw unmoved the perils and
calamities of their children. As for me,
I have but this to say: I am but one
in this audience, and but one in the
citizenship of this country; but if all
other tongues are silent, mine shall
speak for that policy which gives hope
to the bondsmen of the South, and
which tends to generous thoughts, and
generous words, and generous deeds,
between the two great nations who
speak the English language, and from
their origin are alike entitled to the
English name.
GBIBIG
+
i
7-2
AMERICA.
II.
THE WAR AND THE SUPPLY OF COTTON.
BIRMINGHAM, DECEMBER 18, 1862.
I AM afraid there was a little excite-
ment during a part of my honourable
Colleague's speech, which was hardly
favourable to that impartial consider-
ation to which he appealed. He began
by referring to a question-or, I might
say, to two questions, for it was one
great question in two parts,—which at
this moment occupies the mind, and,
I think, must afflict the heart of every
thoughtful man in this country-the
calamity which has fallen upon the
county from which I come, and the
strife which is astonishing the world on
the other side of the Atlantic.
I shall not enter into details with
regard to that calamity, because you
have had already, I believe, meetings in
this town, many details have been pub-
lished, contributions of a generous cha-
racter have been made, and you are
doing—and especially, if I am rightly
informed, are your artisans doing their
duty with regard to the unfortunate
condition of the population amongst
which I live. But this I may state in
a sentence, that the greatest, probably
the most prosperous, manufacturing in-
dustry that this country or the world
has ever seen, has been suddenly and
unexpectedly stricken down, but by a
blow which has not been unforeseen or
unforetold. Nearly five hundred thou-
sand persons-men, women, and chil-
dren at this moment are saved from
the utmost extremes of famine, not a
few of them from death, by the con-
tributions which they are receiving from
all parts of the country. I will not
attempt here an elaborate eulogy of the
generosity of the givers, nor will I en-
deavour to paint the patience and the
gratitude of those who suffer and re-
ceive; but I believe the conduct of the
country, with regard to this great mis-
fortune, is an honour to all classes and
to every section of this people.
Some have remarked that there is
perfect order where there has been so
much anxiety and suffering. I believe
there is scarcely a thoughtful man in
Lancashire who will not admit that one
great cause of the patience and good con-
duct of the people, besides the fact that
they know so much is being done for
them, is to be found in the extensive
information they possess, and which
of late years, and now more than ever,
has been communicated to them through
the instrumentality of an untaxed press.
Noble Lords who have recently spoken,
official men, and public men, have taken
upon them to tell the people of Lanca-
shire that nobody has done wrong, and
that, in point of fact, if it had not been
for a family quarrel in that dreadful
Republic, everything would have gone
on smoothly, and that nobody can be
blamed for our present sufferings.
Now, if you will allow me, I should
DEC. 18, 1862.
ΙΟΙ
AMERICA. II.
like to examine for a few minutes
whether this be true. If you read the
papers with regard to this question, you
will find that, barring whatever chance
there may be of our again soon receiving
a supply of cotton from America, the
hopes of the whole country are directed
to India. Our Government of India
is not one of to-day. It is a Govern-
ment that has lasted as long as the
Government of the United States, and it
has had far more insurrections and se-
cessions, not one of which, I suppose
some in this meeting must regret, has
been tolerated by our Government or
recognised by France. Our Government
in India has existed for a hundred years
in some portion of the country where
cotton is a staple produce of the land.
But we have had under the name of a
Government what I have always de-
scribed as a piratical joint-stock com-
pany, beginning with Lord Clive, and
ending, as I now hope it has ended,
with Lord Dalhousie. And under that
Government I will undertake to say that
it was not in nature that you could have
such improvement as should ever give
you a fair supply of cotton.
Up to the year 1814, the whole trade
of India was a monopoly of the East
India Company. They took everything
there that went there; they brought
everything back that came here; they
did whatsoever they pleased in the ter-
ritories under their rule. I have here
an extract from a report of a Member of
Council in India, Mr. Richards, pub-
lished in the year 1812. He reports to
the Court of Directors, that the whole
cotton produce of the district was taken,
without leaving any portion of the
avowed share of the Ryots, that is, the
cultivators, at their own free disposal;
and he says that they are not suffered to
know what they shall get for it until
after it has been far removed from their
reach and from the country by exporta-
tion coastwise to Bombay; and he says
further, that the Company's servants
fixed the prices from ten to thirty per
cent. under the general market rate in
the districts that were not under the
Company's rule. During the three years
before the Company's monopoly was
abolished, in 1814, the whole cotton
that we received from India (I quote
from the brokers' returns from Liver-
pool), was only 17,000 bales; in the
three years afterwards, owing, no doubt,
partly to the great increase in price,
we received 551,000 bales, during which
same three years the United States only
sent us 611,000. Thus you see that in
1817, 1818, and 1819, more than forty
years ago, the quantity we received from
India was close upon, and in the year
1818 it actually exceeded, that which we
received from the United States.
Well, now I come down to the year
1832, and I have then the report of
another Member of Council, and beg
every working man here, every man who
is told that there is nobody to blame,
to listen to one or two extracts from the
report. Mr. Warden, Member of the
Council, gave evidence in 1832 that the
money-tax levied on Surat cotton was
56 rupees per candy, leaving the grower
only 24 rupees, or rather less than ad.
per pound. In 1846 there was so great
a decay of the cotton trade of Western
India, that a committee was appointed
in Bombay, partly of Members of the
Chamber of Commerce and partly of
servants of the Government, and they
made a report in which they stated that
from every candy of cotton-a candy
is 7 cwt. or 784 lbs.-costing 80 rupees,
which is 160 shillings in Bombay, the
Government had taken 48 rupees as
land-tax and sea-duty, leaving only 32
rupees, or less than 3d. per pound, to
be divided among all parties, from the
Bombay seller to the Surat grower.
In 1847 I was in the House of Com-
mons, and I brought forward a pro-
position for a select committee to inquire
into this whole question; for in that
year Lancashire was on the verge of
the calamity that has now overtaken
it; cotton was very scarce, for hun-
dreds of the mills were working short
time, and many were closed altogether.
That committee reported that, in all
the districts of Bombay and Madras
102
DEC. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
where cotton was cultivated, and gen-
erally over those agricultural regions,
the people were in a condition of the
most abject and degraded pauperism;
and I will ask you whether it is possible
for a people in that condition to produce
anything great, or anything good, or any-
thing constant, which the world requires?
It is not to be wondered at that the
quality of the cotton should be bad-so
bad that it is illustrated by an anecdote
which a very excellent man of the
Methodist body told me the other day.
He said that at a prayer-meeting, not
more than a dozen miles from where
I live, one of the ministers was earnest
in supplication to the Supreme; he de-
tailed, no doubt, a great many things
which he thought they were in want of,
and amongst the rest, a supply of cotton
for the famishing people in that district.
When he prayed for cotton, some man
with a keen sense of what he had suf-
fered, in response exclaimed, ‘O Lord!
but not Surat.'
Now, my argument is this, and my as-
sertion is this, that the growth of cotton
in India, the growth of an article which
was native and common in India before
America was discovered by Europeans,
-that the growth of that article has
been systematically injured, strangled,
and destroyed by the stupid and wicked
policy of the Indian Government.
I saw, the other day, a letter from
a gentleman as well acquainted with
Indian affairs, perhaps, as any man in
India, a letter written to a member of
the Madras Government,-in which he
stated his firm opinion that, if it had not
been for the Bombay Committee in 1846,
and for my Committee in 1848, there
would not have been any cotton sent
from India at this moment to be worked
up in Lancashire. Now, in 1846, the
quantity of cotton coming from India
had fallen to 94,000 bales. How has it
increased since then? In 1859 it had
reached 509,000 bales; in 1860, 562,000
bales; and last year, owing to the ex-
traordinarily high price, it had reached
986,000 bales, and I suppose this year
will be about the same as last year.
I think, in justification of myself and
of some of those with whom I have
acted, I am entitled to ask your time
for a few moments, to show you what
has been not so much done as attempted
to be done to improve this state of
things; and what has been the system-
atic opposition that we have had to
contend with. In the year 1847, I
moved for that committee, in a speech
from which I shall read one short
extract. I said that 'We ought not
to forget that the whole of the cotton
grown in America is produced by slave
labour, and this, I think, all will admit,
—that, no matter as to the period in
which slavery may have existed, abo-
lished it will ultimately be, either by
peaceable means or by violent means.
Whether it comes to an end by peace-
able means or otherwise, there will in
all probability be an interruption to the
production of cotton, and the calamity
which must in consequence fall upon a
part of the American Union will be felt
throughout the manufacturing districts
of this country.'
The committee was not refused;—
Governments do not always refuse com-
mittees; they do not much fear them on
matters of this kind; they put as many
men on as the mover of the committee
does, and sometimes more, and they
often consider a committee, as my hon-
ourable Colleague will tell you, rather
a convenient way of burying an un-
pleasant question, at least for another
session. The committee sat during the
session of 1848, and it made a report,
from which I shall quote, not an extract,
but the sense of an extract. The evi-
dence was very extensive, very com-
plete, and entirely condemnatory of the
whole system of the Indian Govern-
ment with regard to the land and agri-
cultural produce, and one might have
hoped that something would have arisen
from it, and probably something has
arisen from it, but so slowly that you
have no fruit,—nothing on which you
can calculate, even up to this hour.
Well, in 1850, as nothing more was
done, I thought it time to take another
1862.
103
AMERICA. II.
C
step, and I gave notice of a motion for
the appointment of a Royal Commission
to go to India for the express purpose of
ascertaining the truth of this matter.
I moved, That a Royal Commission
proceed to India to inquire into the
obstacles which prevent the increased
growth of cotton in India, and to re-
port upon any circumstance which may
injuriously affect the economical and in-
dustrial condition of the native popu-
lation, being cultivators of the soil,
within the Presidencies of Madras and
Bombay.'
Now I shall read you one extract
from my speech on that occasion, which
refers to this question of peril in Ame-
rica. I said, 'But there is another
point, that, whilst the production of
cotton in the United States results from
slave labour, whether we approve of any
particular mode of abolishing slavery in
any country or not, we are all convinced
that it will be impossible in any country,
and most of all in America, to keep
between two and three millions of the
population permanently in a state of
bondage. By whatever means that sys-
tem is to be abolished, whether by
insurrection,—which I should deplore,-
or by some great measure of justice
from the Government, -one thing is
certain, that the production of cotton
must be interfered with for a consider-
able time after such an event has taken
place; and it may happen that the
greatest measure of freedom that has
ever been conceded may be a measure
the consequence of which will inflict
mischief upon the greatest industrial
pursuit that engages the labour of the
operative population of this country.'
Now, it was not likely the Govern-
ment could pay much attention to this,
for at that precise moment the Foreign
Office-then presided over by Lord Pal-
merston was engaged with an English
fleet in the waters of Greece, in col-
lecting a bad debt for one Don Pacifico,
a Jew, who made a fraudulent demand
on the Greek Government for injuries
said to have been committed upon him
in Greece. Notwithstanding this, I
called upon Lord John Russell, who was
then the Prime Minister, and asked him
whether he would grant the Commission
I was going to move for. I will say
this for him, he appeared to agree with
me that it was a reasonable thing. I
believe he saw the peril, and that my
proposition was a proper one, but he
said he wished he could communicate
with Lord Dalhousie. But it was in the
month of June, and he could not do
that, and hear from him again before
the close of the session. He told me
that Sir John Hobhouse, then President
of the India Board, was very much
against it; and I answered, 'Doubtless
he is, because he speaks as the mouth-
piece of the East India Company, against
whom I am bringing this inquiry.'
Well, my proposition came before the
House, and, as some of you may re-
collect, it was opposed by the President
of the India Board, and the Commission
was consequently not granted. I had
seen Sir Robert Peel,-this was only
ten days before his death,-I had seen
Sir Robert Peel, acquainted as he was
with Lancashire interests, and had en-
deavoured to enlist him in my support.
He cordially and entirely approved of
my motion, and he remained in the
House during the whole of the time
I was speaking; but when Sir John
Hobhouse rose to resist the motion, and
he found the Government would not
consent to it, he then left his seat, and
left the House. The night after, or
two nights after, he met me in the
lobby; and he said he thought it was
but right he should explain why he left
the House after the conversation he
had held with me on this question
before. He said he had hoped the
Government would agree to the motion,
but when he found they would not, his
position was so delicate with regard
to them and his own old party, that
he was most anxious that nothing should
induce him, unless under the pressure
of some great extremity, to appear even
to oppose them on any matter before
the House. Therefore, from a very
delicate sense of honour, he did not
104
DEC. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
*
say what I am sure he would have been
glad to have said, and the proposition
did not receive from him that help
which, if it had received it, would have
surmounted all obstacles.
To show the sort of men who are
made ministers-Sir John Hobhouse
had on these occasions always a speech
of the same sort. He said this: With
respect to the peculiar urgency of the
time, he could not say the honourable
Gentleman had made out his case; for
he found that the importation of cotton
from all countries showed an immense
increase during the last three years.'
We know that the importation of cotton
has shown an 'immense increase' almost
every three years for the last fifty years.
But it was because that increase was
entirely, or nearly so, from one source,
and that source one of extreme peril,
that I asked for the inquiry for which
I moved. He said he had a letter
in his hand-and he shook it at me-
from the Secretary of the Commercial
Association of Manchester, in which
the di ectors of that body declared by
special resolution that my proposition
was not necessary, that an inquiry might
do harm, and that they were abundantly
satisfied with everything that these lords
of Leadenhall-street were doing.
said, 'Such was the letter of the Secre-
tary of the Association, and it was a
complete answer to the hon. Gentle-
man who had brought forward this
motion.'
He
At this moment one of these gentle-
men to whom I have referred, then
President of the Board of Control, Go-
vernor of India, author, as he told a
committee on which I sat, of the Affghan
war, is now decorated with a Norman
title-for our masters even after a lapse
of eight hundred years ape the Norman
style-sits in the House of Peers, and
legislates for you, having neglected in
regard to India every great duty which
appertained to his high office; and to
show that it is not only cabinets and
monarchs who thus distribute honours
and rewards, the President of that Com-
mercial Association through whose in-
stigation that letter was written is now
one of the representatives of Manchester,
the great centre of that manufacture
whose very foundation is now crumbling
into ruin.
But I was not, although discouraged,
baffled. I went down to the Chamber
of Commerce in Manchester, and along
with Mr. Bazley, then the President of
the Chamber, I believe, and Mr. Henry
Ashworth, who is now the President
of that Chamber, and many others, we
determined to have a Commission of In-
quiry of our own. We raised a subscrip-
tion of more than 2,000l.; we selected
a gentleman-Mr. Alexander Mackay,
the author of one of the very best books
ever written by an Englishman upon
America, The Western World—and we
invited him to become our Commis-
sioner, and, unfortunately for him, he
accepted the office. He went to India,
he made many inquiries, he wrote many
interesting reports; but, like many others
who go to India, his health declined;
he returned from Bombay, but he did
not live to reach home.
We were greatly disappointed at this
on public grounds, besides our regret
for the loss of one of so much private
worth. Some of us, Mr. Bazley par-
ticularly, undertook the charge of pub-
lishing these reports, and a friend of
Mr. Mackay's, now no longer living,
undertook the editorship of them, and
they were published in a volume called
Western India; and that volume received
such circulation as a work of that na-
ture is likely to have.
In the year 1853 there came the
proposition for the renewal of the East
India Company's charter. I opposed
that to the utmost of my power in the
House of Commons, and some of you
will recollect I came down here with
Mr. Danby Seymour, the Member for
Poole, a gentleman well acquainted with
Indian affairs, and attended a meeting
in this very hall, to denounce the policy
of conferring the government of that
great country for another twenty years
upon a Company which had so entirely
neglected every duty belonging to it
•
1862.
105
AMERICA. II.
except one-the duty of collecting taxes.
In 1854, Colonel Cotton now Sir
Arthur Cotton, one of the most dis-
tinguished engineers in India-came
down to Manchester. We had a meeting
at the Town Hall, and he gave an
address on the subject of opening the
Godavery River, in order that it might
form a mode of transit, cheap and ex-
peditious, from the cotton districts to
the north of that river; and it was
proposed to form a joint-stock company
to do it, but unfortunately the Russian
war came on and disturbed all com-
mercial projects, and made it impos-
sible to raise money for any-as some
might call it-speculative purpose, like
that of opening an Indian river.
Well, in 1857 there came the mutiny.
What did our rulers do then? Sir
Charles Wood, in 1853, had made a
speech five hours long, most of it in
praise of the government of the East
India Company. In 1858-at the open-
ing of the session in 1858, I think-the
Government brought in a Bill to abolish
that Company, and to establish a new
form of government for India. That
was exactly what we asked them to do
in 1853; but, as in everything else,
nothing is done until there comes an
overwhelming calamity, when the most
obtuse and perverse is driven from his
position. In 1858 that Bill passed,
under the auspices of Lord Stanley.
It was not a Bill such as I think Lord
Stanley approved when he was not a
Minister; it was not a Bill such as I
believe he would have brought in if he
had been permitted by the House and
the Cabinet to have brought in a better
Bill. It abolished the East India Com-
pany, established a new Council, and
left things to a great extent much in the
same state as they were.
During the discussion of that Bill, I
made a speech on Indian affairs, which
I believe goes to the root of the matter.
I protested then as now against the
notion of governing one hundred and
fifty millions of people-twenty different
nations, with twenty different langua-
ges-from a little coterie of rulers in the
city of Calcutta. I proposed that the
country should be divided into five or
six separate, and, as regards each other,
independent Presidencies of equal rank,
with a governor and council in each,
and each government corresponding
with, and dependent upon, and respon-
sible to, a Secretary of State in this
country. I am of opinion that if such
a Government were established, one in
each Presidency, and if there was a
first-class engineer, with an efficient
staff, whose business should be to deter-
mine what public works should be
carried on, some by the Government
and some by private companies - I
believe that ten years of such judicious
labours would work an entire revolution
in the condition of India; and if it had
been done when I first began to move
in this question, I have not the smallest
doubt we might have had at this
moment any quantity of cotton whatever
that the mills of Lancashire require.
Well, after this, I am afraid some of
my friends
may feel, and my opponents
will say, that it is very egotistical in me
to have entered into these details. But
I think, after this recapitulation, I am
at liberty to say I am guiltless of that
calamity which has fallen upon us.
And I may mention that some friends
of mine-Mr. John Dickinson, now
Chairman of the Indian Reform Asso-
ciation, Mr. Bazley, one of the Members
for Manchester, Mr. Ashworth, the
President of the Chamber of Commerce
of Manchester, and Mr. John Benjamin
Smith, the Member for Stockport-
present themselves at this moment to
my eyes as those who have been largely
instrumental in calling the attention of
Parliament and of the country to this
great question of the reform of our
Government in India.
But I have been asked twenty, fifty
times during the last twelve months,
'Why do you not come out and say
something? Why can you not tell us
something in this time of our great
need?' Well, I reply, 'I told you
something when speaking was of use;
all I can say now is this, or nearly all,
106
DEC. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
that a hundred years of crime against
the negro in America, and a hundred
years of crime against the docile natives
of our Indian empire, are not to be
washed away by the penitence and the
suffering of an hour.'
But what is our position? for you
who are subscribing your money here
have a right to know. I believe the
quantity of cotton in the United States
is at this moment much less than many
people here believe, and that it is in no
condition to be forwarded and exported.
And I suspect that it is far more pro-
bable than otherwise notwithstanding
some of the strange theories of my
honourable Colleague, that there never
will again be in America a crop of
cotton grown by slave labour. You
will understand-I hope so, at least
-that I am not undertaking the office
of prophet, I am not predicting; I
know that everything which is not
absolutely impossible may happen, and
therefore things may happen wholly
different to the course which appears to
me to be likely. But I say, taking the
facts as they are before us-with that
most limited vision which is given to
mortals-the high probability is that
there will never be another considera-
ble crop, or one available for our
manufactories, from slave labour in the
United States.
We read the American papers, or the
quotations from them in our own
papers, but I believe we can form no
adequate conception of the disorganiza-
tion and chaos that now prevail through-
out a great portion of the Southern
States. It is natural to a state of war
under the circumstances of society in
that region. But then we may be
asked, What are our sources of supply,
putting aside India? There is the
colony of Queensland, where enthusiastic
persons tell you cotton can be grown
worth 35. a pound. True enough; but,
when labour is probably worth Ios. a-
day, I am not sure you are likely to get
any large supply of that mate.ial we so
much want, at a rate so cheap that we
shall be likely to use it. Africa is
pointed to by a very zealous friend of
mine; but Africa is a land of savages,
and with its climate so much against
European constitutions, I should not
entertain the hope that any great relief
at any early period can be had from
that continent. Egypt will send us
30,000 or 40,000 bales more than last
year; in all probability Syria and Brazil,
with these high prices, will increase
their production to some considerable
extent; but I believe there is no country
at present from which you can derive
any very large supply, except you can
get it from your own dependencies in
India. Now if there be no more cotton
to be grown for two, or three, or four
years in America, for our supply, we
shall require, considering the smallness
of the bales and the loss in working up
the cotton-we shall require nearly
6,000,000 of additional bales to be
supplied from some source.
I want to put to you one question.
It has taken the United States twenty
years, from 1840 up to 1860, to increase
their growth of cotton from 2,000,000
bales to 4,000,000. How long will it
take any other country, with compa-
ratively little capital, with a thousand
disadvantages which America did not
suffer from-how long will it take any
other country, or all other countries, to
give us 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 addi-
tional bales of cotton? There is one
stimulus-the only one that I know of;
and although I have not recommended
it to the Government, and I know not
precisely what sacrifice it would entail,
yet I shall mention it, and I do it on
the authority of a gentleman to whom
I have referred, who is thoroughly
acquainted with Indian agriculture, and
whose family have been landowners and
cultivators in India for sixty years. He
says there is only one mode by which
you can rapidly stimulate the growth of
cotton in India, except that stimulus
coming from the high prices for the
time being, he says that, if the Govern-
ment would make a public declaration
that for five years they would exempt
from land-tax all land which during
1862.
107
AMERICA. II.
that time shall grow cotton, there would
be the most extraordinary increase in
the growth of that article which has
ever been seen in regard to any branch
of agriculture in the world.
I do not know how far that would
act, but I believe the stimulus would be
enormous, the loss to the Government
in revenue would be something, but the
deliverance to the industry of Lanca-
shire, if it succeeded, as my friend
thinks, would of course be speedy, and
perhaps complete. Short of this, I look
upon the restoration of the prosperity
of Lancashire as distant. I believe
this misfortune may entail ruin upon
the whole working population, and that
it may gradually engulf the smaller
traders and those possessing the least
capital. I do not say it will, because,
as I have said, what is not impossible
may happen, but it may for years
make the whole factory property of
Lancashire almost entirely worthless.
Well, this is a very dismal look-out
for a great many persons in this coun-
try; but it comes, as I have said,—it
comes from that utter neglect of their
opportunities and their duties which
has distinguished the Government of
India.
Now, Sir, before I sit down I shall
ask you to listen to me for a few
moments on the other branch of this
great question, which refers to that sad
tragedy which is passing before our
eyes in the United States of America.
I shall not, in consequence of anything
you have heard from my hon. Friend,
conceal from you any of the opinions
which I hold, and which I proposed to
lay before you if he had not spoken.
Having given to him, notwithstanding
some diversity of opinion, a fair and
candid hearing, I presume that I shall
receive the same favour from those who
may differ from me. If I had known
that my hon. Friend was going to make
an elaborate speech on this occasion,
one of two things I should have done:
I should either have prepared myself
entirely to answer him, or I should
have decided not to attend a meeting
where there could by any possibility
of chance have been anything like dis-
cord between so many-his friends and
my friends—in this room.
Since I have been Member for Bir-
mingham, Mr. Scholefield has treated
me with the kindness of a brother.
Nothing could possibly be more ge-
nerous and more disinterested in every
way than his conduct towards me during
these several years, and therefore I
would much rather-far rather-that I
lost any opportunity like this of speaking
on this question, than I would have
come here and appeared to be at vari-
ance with him. But I am happy to
say that this great question does not
depend upon the opinion of any man in
Birmingham, or in England. or anywhere
else. And therefore I could-anxious
always, unless imperative duty requires,
to avoid even a semblance of difference
-I could with a clear conscience have
abstained from coming to and speaking
at this meeting.
But I observe that my hon. Friend
endeavoured to avoid committing him-
self to what is called sympathy with the
South. He takes a political view of
this great question,-is disposed to deal
with the matter as he would have dealt
with the case of a colony of Spain or
Portugal revolting in South America, or
of Greece revolting from Turkey. I
should like to state here what I once
said to an eminent American. He asked
me if I could give him an idea of the
course of public opinion in this country
from the moment we heard of the seces-
sion of the Cotton States; and I en-
deavoured to trace it in this way,—and
I ask you to say whether it is a fair and
full description.
I said and my hon. Friend has
admitted this-that when the revolt
or secession was first announced, people
here were generally against the South.
Nobody thought then that the South
had any cause for breaking up the in-
tegrity of that great nation. Their
opinion was, and what people said, ac-
cording to their different politics in this
country was, 'They have a Government
108
DEC. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
which is mild, and not in any degree
oppressive; they have not what some
people love very much, and what some
people dislike, they have not a costly
monarchy, and an aristocracy, creating
and living on patronage. They have
not an expensive foreign policy; a great
army; a great navy; and they have no
suffering millions discontented and en-
deavouring to overthrow their Govern-
ment; all which things have been said
against Governments in this country
and in Europe a hundred times within
our own hearing,'-and therefore, they
said, 'Why should these men revolt?'
It
But for a moment the Washington
Government appeared paralyzed.
had no army and no navy; everybody
was traitor to it. It was paralyzed
and apparently helpless; and in the hour
when the government was transferred
from President Buchanan to President
Lincoln, many people-such was the
unprepared state of the North, such
was the apparent paralysis of everything
there-thought there would be no war;
and men shook hands with each other
pleasantly, and congratulated themselves
that the disaster of a great strife, and
the mischief to our own trade, might
be avoided. That was the opinion at
that moment, so far as I can recollect,
and could gather at the time, with my
opportunities of gathering such opinion.
They thought the North would acquiesce
in the rending of the Republic, and that
there would be no war.
Well, but there was another reason.
They were told by certain public writers
in this country that the contest was
entirely hopeless, as they have been told
lately by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. I am very happy that, though
the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able
to decide to a penny what shall be the
amount of taxes to meet public expendi-
ture in England, he cannot decide what
shall be the fate of a whole continent.
It was said that the contest was hope-
less, and why should the North continue
a contest at so much loss of blood and
treasure, and at so great a loss to the
commerce of the whole world? If a
man thought-if a man believed in his
heart that the contest was absolutely
hopeless-no man in this country had
probably any right to form a positive
opinion one way or the other but if
he had formed that opinion, he might
think, 'Well, the North can never
be successful; it would be much better
that they should not carry on the war
at all; and therefore I am rather glad
that the South should have success, for
by that the war will be the sooner put
an end to.' I think this was a feeling
that was abroad.
Now I am of opinion that, if we
judge a foreign nation in the circum-
stances in which we find America, we
ought to apply to it our own principles.
My hon. Friend has referred to the
question of the Trent. I was not here
last year, but I heard of a meeting-
I read in the papers of a meeting held
in reference to that affair in this very
hall, and that there was a great diversity
of opinion. But the majority were
supposed to indorse the policy of the
Government in making a great demon-
stration of force. And I think I read
that at least one minister of religion
took that view from this platform. I
am not complaining of it. But I say
that if you thought when the American
captain, even if he had acted under the
commands of his Government, which
he had not, had taken two men most
injurious and hostile to his country from
the deck of an English ship—if you
thought that on that ground you were
justified in going to war with the Re-
public of North America, then I say
you ought not to be very nice in judging
what America should do in circum-
stances much more onerous than those
in which you were placed.
Now, take as an illustration the Rock
of Gibraltar. Many of you have been
there, I dare say. I have; and among
the things that interested me were the
monkeys on the top of it, and a good
many people at the bottom, who were
living on English taxes. Well, the Rock
of Gibraltar was taken and retained
by this country when we were not at

1862.
109
AMERICA. II.
war with Spain, and it was retained
contrary to every law of morality and
honour. [A Voice: No! No!'] No
doubt the Gentleman below is much
better acquainted with the history of
it than I am, but I may suggest to
him that very likely we have read two
different histories. But I will let this
pass, and I will assume that it came
into the possession of England in the
most honourable way, which is, I sup-
pose, by regular and acknowledged na-
tional warfare.
Suppose, at this moment, you heard,
or the English Government heard, that
Spain was equipping expeditions, by land
and sea, for the purpose of retaking
that fortress and rock. Now, although
it is not of the slightest advantage to
any Englishman living, excepting to
those who have pensions and occupa-
tions upon it; although every Govern-
ment knows it, and although more than
one Government has been anxious to
give it up, and I hope this Government
will send my friend, Mr. Cobden, to
Madrid, with an offer that Gibraltar
shall be ceded to Spain, as being of no
use to this country, and only embitter-
ing, as statesmen have admitted, the
relations between Spain and England,—
and if he were to go to Madrid with an
offer of the Rock of Gibraltar, I believe
he might obtain a commercial treaty
with Spain, that would admit every
English manufacture and every article
of English produce into that country
at a duty of not more than ten per
cent.;-I say, do you not think that,
if you heard that Spain was about to
retake that useless rock, mustering her
legions and her fleets, the English Go-
vernment would combine all the power
of this country to resist it?
If that be so, then I think-seeing
that there was a fair election two years
ago, and that President Lincoln was
fairly and honestly elected-that when
the Southern leaders met at Montgo-
mery in Alabama, on the 6th of March,
and authorized the raising of a hundred
thousand men, and when, on the 15th
of April, they attacked Fort Sumter-
not a fort of South Carolina, but a fort
of the Union-then, upon all the prin-
ciples that Englishmen and English
Governments have ever acted upon,
President Lincoln was justified in calling
out seventy-five thousand men-which
was his first call-for the purpose
of maintaining the integrity of that
nation, which was the main purpose
of the oath which he had taken at his
election.
Now I shall not go into a long
argument upon this question, for the
reason that a year ago I said what I
thought it necessary to say upon it, and
because I believe the question is in the
hand, not of my hon. Friend, nor in
that of Lord Palmerston, nor in that
even of President Lincoln, but it is in
the hand of the Supreme Ruler, who is
bringing about one of those great trans-
actions in history which men often will
not regard when they are passing be-
fore them, but which they look back upon
with awe and astonishment some years
after they are past. So I shall content
myself with asking one or two questions.
I shall not discuss the question whether
the North is making war for the
Constitution, or making war for the
abolition of slavery.
If you come to a matter of sympathy
with the South, or recognition of the
South, or mediation or intervention for
the benefit of the South, you should con-
sider what are the ends of the South.
Surely the United States' Government
is a Government at amity with this
country. Its Minister is in London-a
man honourable by family, as you know,
in America, his father and his grand-
father having held the office of President
of the Republic. You have your own
Minister just returned to Washington.
Is this hypocrisy? Are you, because
you can cavil at certain things which
the North, the United States' Govern-
ment, has done or has not done, are
you eagerly to throw the influence of
your opinion into a movement which is
to dismember the great Republic?
Is there a man here that doubts for a
moment that the object of the war on
IIO
DEC. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
the part of the South-they began the
war-that the object of the war on the
part of the South is to maintain in
bondage four millions of human beings?
That is only a small part of it. The
further object is to perpetuate for ever
the bondage of all the posterity of those
four millions of slaves. [A few cries of
"No! No!'] You will hear that I am
not in a condition to contest vigorously
anything that may be opposed, for I am
suffering, as nearly everybody is, from
the state of the weather, and a hoarse-
ness that almost hinders me from
speaking. I could quote their own
documents till midnight in proof of
what I say; and if I found a man who
denied it, upon the evidence that had
been offered, I would not offend him, or
trouble myself by trying further to con-
vince him.
The object is, that a handful of white
men on that continent shall·lord it over
many millions of blacks, made black by
the very Hand that made us white.
The object is, that they should have
the power to breed negroes, to work
negroes, to lash negroes, to chain
negroes, to buy and sell negroes, to
deny them the commonest ties of family,
or to break their hearts by rending
them at their pleasure, to close their
mental eye to but a glimpse even of
that knowledge which separates us from
the brute-for in their laws it is cri-
minal and penal to teach the negro to
read-to seal from their hearts the Book
of our religion, and to make chattels and
things of men and women and children.
Now I want to ask whether this is to
be the foundation, as it is proposed, of
a new slave empire, and whether it is
intended that on this audacious and
infernal basis England's new ally is to
be built up.
It has been said that
Greece was recognized, and that other
countries had been recognized.
But
Greece was not recognized till after she
had fought Turkey for six years, and the
Republics of South America, some of
them, not till they had fought the
mother country for a score of years.
France did not recognize the United
States of America till some, I think, six
years, five certainly, after the beginning
of the War of Independence, and even
then it was received as a declaration of
war by the English Government. I
want to know who they are who speak
eagerly in favour of England becoming
the ally and friend of this great con-
spiracy against human nature.
Now I should have no kind of objec-
tion to recognize a country because it
was a country that held slaves-to
recognize the United States, or to be in
amity with it. The question of slavery
there, and in Cuba and in Brazil, is, as
far as respects the present generation,
an accident, and it would be unreason-
able that we should object to trade with
and have political relations with a
country, merely because it happened to
have within its borders the institution of
slavery, hateful as that institution is.
But in this case it is a new State intend-
ing to set itself up on the sole basis of
slavery. Slavery is blasphemously
declared to be its chief corner-stone.
I have heard that there are, in this
country, ministers of state who are in
favour of the South; that there are
members of the aristocracy who are
terrified at the shadow of the Great
Republic; that there are rich men on
our commercial exchanges, depraved, it
may be, by their riches, and thriving
unwholesomely within the atmosphere
of a privileged class; that there are
conductors of the public press who
would barter the rights of millions of
their fellow-creatures that they might
bask in the smiles of the great.
But I know that there are ministers
of state who do not wish that this
insurrection should break up the Ame-
rican nation; that there are members of
our aristocracy who are not afraid of
the shadow of the Republic; that there
are rich men, many, who are not de-
praved by their riches; and that there
are public writers of eminence and
honour who will not barter human
rights for the patronage of the great.
But most of all, and before all, I
believe,-I am sure it is true in Lanca-

1862.
III
AMERICA. II.
shire, where the working men have seen
themselves coming down from pros-
perity to ruin, from independence to a
subsistence on charity,-I say that I
believe that the unenfranchised but not
hopeless millions of this country will
never sympathize with a revolt which is
intended to destroy the liberty of a
continent, and to build on its ruins a
mighty fabric of human bondage.
When I speak to gentlemen in private
upon this matter, and hear their own
candid opinion,-I mean those who
differ from me on this question,—they
generally end by saying that the Re-
public is too great and too powerful,
and that it is better for us-not by 'us'
meaning you, but the governing classes
and the governing policy of England—
that it should be broken up. But we
will suppose that we are in New York
or in Boston, discussing the policy and
power of England. If any one there
were to point to England,-not to the
thirty-one millions of population in
these islands, but to her one hundred
and fifty millions in India, and nobody
knows how many millions more in every
other part of the globe,-might he not,
whilst boasting that America has not
covered the ocean with fleets of force,
or left the bones of her citizens to
blanch on a hundred European battle-
fields, might he not fairly say, that
England is great and powerful, and
that it is perilous for the world that she
is so great?
But bear in mind that every declara-
tion of this kind, whether from an
Englishman who professes to be strictly
English, or from an American strictly
American, or from a Frenchman strictly
French,-whether it asserts in arrogant
strains that Britannia rules the waves,
or speaks of manifest destiny' and the
supremacy of the 'Stars and Stripes,' or
boasts that the Eagles of one nation,
having once overrun Europe, may pos-
sibly repeat the experiment,-I say all
this is to be condemned. It is not truly
patriotic; it is not rational; it is not
moral. Then, I say, if any man wishes
the Great Republic to be severed on
that ground: in my opinion, he is doing
that which tends to keep alive jealousies
which, as far as he can prevent it, will
never die; though if they do not die,
wars must be eternal.
But then I shall be told that the
people of the North do not like us at
all. In fact, we have heard it to-night.
It is not reasonable that they should
like us.
If an American be in this room
to-night, will he feel that he likes my
honourable Friend? But if the North
does not like England, does anybody
believe the South does? It does not
appear to me to be a question of liking
or disliking. Everybody knows that
when the South was in power,—and it
has been in power for the last fifty
years,-everybody knows that hostility
to this country, wherever it existed in
America, was cherished and stimulated
to the utmost degree by some of those
very men who are now leaders of this
very insurrection.
My hon. Friend read a passage about
the Alabama. I undertake to say that
he is not acquainted with the facts
about the Alabama. That he will ac-
knowledge, I think. The Government
of this country have admitted that the
building of the Alabama, and her sailing
from the Mersey, was a violation of
international law. In America they say,
and they say here, that the Alabama is
a ship of war; that she was built in the
Mersey; that she was built, and I have
reason to believe it, by a member of the
British Parliament; that she is furnished
with guns of English manufacture; that
she is manned almost entirely by Eng-
lishmen; and that these facts were
represented, as I know they were repre-
sented, to the collector of customs in
Liverpool, who pooh-poohed them, and
said there was nothing in them. He
was requested to send the facts up
to London to the Customs' authorities,
and their solicitor, not a very wise man,
but probably in favour of breaking up
the Republic, did not think them of
much consequence; but afterwards the
opinion of an eminent counsel, Mr.
Collier, the Member for Plymouth, was
112
DEC. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
}
taken, and he stated distinctly that
what was being done in Liverpool was
a direct infringement of the Foreign
Enlistment Act, and that the Customs'
authorities of Liverpool would be re-
sponsible for anything that happened in
consequence.
When this opinion was taken to the
Foreign Office, the Foreign Office was a
little astonished and a little troubled;
and after they had consulted their own
law officers, whose opinions agreed with
that of Mr. Collier, they did what
Government officers generally do, and
as promptly, a telegraphic message
went down to Liverpool to order that
this vessel should be seized, and she
happened to sail an hour or two before
the message arrived. She has never
been into a Confederate port-they
have not got any ports; she hoists the
English flag when she wants to come
alongside a ship; she sets a ship on
fire in the night, and when, seeing fire,
another ship bears down to lend help,
she seizes it, and pillages and burns it.
I think that, if we were citizens of New
York, it would require a little more
calmness than is shown in this country
to look at all this as if it was a matter
with which we had no concern. And
therefore I do not so much blame the
language that has been used in Ame-
rica in reference to the question of the
Alabama.
But they do not know in America so
much as we know-the whole truth
about public opinion here. There are
ministers in our Cabinet as resolved to
be no traitors to freedom, on this ques-
tion, as I am; and there are members
of the English aristocracy, and in the
very highest rank, as I know for a
certainty, who hold the same opinion.
They do not know in America-at
least, there has been no indication of
it until the advices that have come to
hand within the last two days-what
is the opinion of the great body of the
working classes in England. There
has been every effort that money and
malice could make to stimulate in Lan-
cashire, amongst the suffering popula-
tion, an expression of opinion in favour
of the Slave States. They have not
been able to get it. And I honour that
population for their fidelity to princi-
ples and to freedom, and I say that the
course they have taken ought to atone
in the minds of the people of the United
States for miles of leading articles, writ-
ten by the London press,—by men who
would barter every human right,—that
they might serve the party with which
they are associated.
But now I shall ask you one other
question before I sit down,-How
comes it that on the Continent there is
not a liberal newspaper, nor a liberal
politician, that has said, or has thought
of saying, a word in favour of this por-
tentous and monstrous shape which now
asks to be received into the family of
nations? Take the great Italian Minis-
ter, Count Cavour. You read some
time ago in the papers part of a des-
patch which he wrote on the question
of America-he had no difficulty in
deciding. Ask Garibaldi. Is there in
Europe a more disinterested and ge-
nerous friend of freedom than Gari-
baldi? Ask that illustrious Hungarian,
to whose marvellous eloquence you
once listened in this hall. Will he tell
you that slavery has nothing to do with
it, and that the slaveholders of the
South will liberate the negroes sooner
than the North through the instru-
mentality of the war? Ask Victor
Hugo, the poet of freedom,—the expo-
nent, may I not call him, of the yearn-
ings of all mankind for a better time?
Ask any man in Europe who opens his
lips for freedom,-who dips his pen in
ink that he may indite a sentence for
freedom,—whoever has a sympathy for
freedom warm in his own heart,-ask
him, he will have no difficulty in
telling you on which side your sym-
pathies should lie.
Only a few days ago a German mer-
chant in Manchester was speaking to a
friend of mine, and said he had recently
travelled all through Germany. He
said, 'I am so surprised,-I don't find
one man in favour of the South.' That
•
1862.
113
AMERICA. II.
Our
is not true of Germany only, it is true
of all the world except this island,
famed for freedom, in which we dwell.
I will tell you what is the reason.
London press is mainly in the hands of
certain ruling West End classes; it acts
and writes in favour of those classes. I
will tell you what they mean. One of the
most eminent statesmen in this country,
-one who has rendered the greatest
services to the country, though, I must
say, not in an official capacity, in which
men very seldom confer such great ad-
vantages upon the country,-he told me
twice, at an interval of several months,
'I had no idea how much influence the
example of that Republic was having
upon opinion here, until I discovered
the universal congratulation that the
Republic was likely to be broken up.'
But, Sir, the Free States are the
home of the working man. Now, I
speak to working men particularly at
this moment. Do you know that in
fifteen years two million five hundred
thousand persons, men, women, and
children, have left the United Kingdom
to find a home in the Free States of
America? That is a population equal
to eight great cities of the size of Bir-
mingham. What would you think of
eight Birminghams being transplanted
from this country and set down in the
United States? Speaking generally,
every man of these two and a half
millions is in a position of much higher
comfort and prosperity than he would
have been if he had remained in this
country. I say it is the home of the
working man; as one of her poets has
recently said,
For her free latch-string never was
drawn in
Against the poorest child of Adam's
kin.'
And in that land there are no six
millions of grown men-I speak of the
Free States-excluded from the consti-
tution of their country and its electoral
franchise; there, you will find a free
Church, a free school, free land, a free
vote, and a free career for the child of
the humblest born in the land. My
countrymen who work for your living,
remember this: there will be one wild
shriek of freedom to startle all mankind
if that American Republic should be
overthrown.
I
Now for one moment let us lift
ourselves, if we can, above the narrow
circle in which we are all too apt to
live and think; let us put ourselves on
an historical eminence, and judge this
matter fairly. Slavery has been, as we
all know, the huge, foul blot upon the
fame of the American Republic; it is a
hideous outrage against human right
and against Divine law; but the pride,
the passion of man, will not permit its
peaceable extinction. The slave-owners
of our colonies, if they had been strong
enough, would have revolted too.
believe there was no mode short of a
miracle more stupendous than any re-
corded in Holy Writ that could in our
time, or in a century, or in any time,
have brought about the abolition of
slavery in America, but the suicide
which the South has committed and
the war which it has begun.
Sir, it is a measureless calamity,—
this war.
I said the Russian war was a
measureless calamity, and yet many of
your leaders and friends told you that it
was a just war to maintain the integrity
of Turkey, some thousands of miles off.
Surely the integrity of your own country
at your own doors must be worth as
much as the integrity of Turkey. Is
not this war the penalty which inex-
orable justice exacts from America,
North and South, for the enormous
guilt of cherishing that frightful iniquity
of slavery for the last eighty years? I
do not blame any man here who thinks
the cause of the North hopeless and the
restoration of the Union impossible.
It may be hopeless; the restoration
may be impossible. You have the
authority of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer on that point. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, as a speaker, is
not surpassed by any man in England,
and he is a great statesman; he believes
8
114
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
the cause of the North to be hopeless;
that their enterprise cannot succeed.
Well, he is quite welcome to that
opinion, and so is anybody else. I do
not hold the opinion; but the facts are
before us all, and, as far as we can
discard passion and sympathy, we are
all equally at liberty to form our own
opinion. But what I do blame is this.
I blame men who are eager to admit
into the family of nations a State which
offers itself to us, based upon a prin-
ciple, I will undertake to say, more
odious and more blasphemous than was
ever heretofore dreamed of in Christian
or Pagan, in civilized or in savage times.
The leaders of this revolt propose this
monstrous thing-that over a territory
forty times as large as England, the
blight and curse of slavery shall be for
ever perpetuated.
I cannot believe, for my part, that
such a fate will befall that fair land,
stricken though it now is with the
ravages of war. I cannot believe that
civilization, in its journey with the sun,
will sink into endless night in order to
gratify the ambition of the leaders of
this revolt, who seek to
'Wade through slaughter to a throne,
And shut the gates of mercy on man-
kind.'
I have another and a far brighter vision
before my gaze. It may be but a
vision, but I will cherish it. I see one
vast confederation stretching from the
frozen North in unbroken line to the
glowing South, and from the wild
billows of the Atlantic westward to the
calmer waters of the Pacific main,—and
I see one people, and one language, and
one law, and one faith, and, over all
that wide continent, the home of free-
dom, and a refuge for the oppressed of
every race and of every clime.
1
¿
AMERICA.
III.
SLAVERY AND SECESSION.
ROCHDALE, FEBRUARY 3, 1863.
[This speech was delivered at a public meeting held in the Public Hall, Rochdale, for
the purpose of passing a resolution of thanks to the merchants of New York, for
their generous contributions to the relief of the suffering population of the cotton
districts.]
I FEEL as if we were in our places to-
night, for we are met for the purpose of
considering, and, I doubt not, of agreeing
to a resolution expressive of our sense
of the generosity of the merchants of
New York, and other citizens of the
United States, who have, in the midst
of so many troubles and such great
sacrifices, contributed to the relief of
that appalling distress which has pre-
vailed, and does still prevail, in this
county.
I regard this transmission of assist-
ance from the United States as a proof
that the world moves onward in the
direction of a better time. It is an
evidence that, whatever may be the
faults of ambitious men, and sometimes,
may I not say, the crimes of Govern-
ments, the peoples are drawing together,
and beginning to learn that it never
was intended that they should be hos-
tile to each other, but that
every nation
should take a brotherly interest in every
other nation in the world. There has
been, as we all know, not a little
jealousy between some portions of the
people of this country and some por-
tions of the people of the United States.
Perhaps the jealousy has existed more
on this side. I think it has found more
expression here, probably through the
means of the public press, than has been
the case with them. I am not alluding
now to the last two years, but as long
as most of us have been readers of
newspapers and observers of what has
passed around us.
The establishment of independence,
eighty years ago; the war of 1812; it
may be, occasionally, the presump-
tuousness and the arrogance of a
growing and prosperous nation on the
other side of the Atlantic-these things
have stimulated ill feeling and jealousy
here, which have often found expression
in language which has not been of the
very kindest character. But why should
there be this jealousy between these two
nations? Mr Ashworth has said, and
said very truly,' Are they not our own
people?' I should think, as an En-
glishman, that to see that people so
numerous, so powerful, so great in so
many ways, should be to us a cause,
not of envy or of fear, but rather of
glory and rejoicing.
I have never visited the United States,
8-2
116
FEB. 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
but I can understand the pleasure with
which an Englishman lands in a country
three thousand miles off, and finds that
every man he meets speaks his own
language. I recollect some years ago
reading a most amusing speech delivered
by a Suffolk country gentleman, at a
Suffolk agricultural dinner, I think it
was, though I do not believe the
speeches of Suffolk country gentlemen
at Suffolk agricultural meetings are
generally very amusing. But this was
a very amusing speech. This gentleman
had travelled; he had been in the
United States, and being intelligent
enough to admire much that he saw
there, he gave to his audience a de-
scription of some things that he had
seen; but that which seemed to delight
him most was this, that when he stepped
from the steamer on to the quay at
New York, he found that everybody
spoke Suffolk.' Now, if anybody from
this neighbourhood should visit New
York, I am afraid that he will not find
everybody speaking Lancashire. Our
dialect, as you know, is vanishing into
the past. It will be preserved to future
times, partly in the works of Tim
Bobbin, but in a very much better and
more instructive form in the admirable
writings of one of my oldest and most
valued friends, who is now upon this
platform. But if we should not find the
people of New York speaking Lanca-
shire, we should find them speaking
English. And if we followed a little
further, and asked them what they read,
we should find that they read all the
books that we read that are worth
reading, and a good many of their own,
some of which have not yet reached us;
that there are probably more readers in
the United States of Milton, and Shake-
speare, and Dryden, and Pope, and
Byron, and Wordsworth, and Tennyson,
than are to be found in this country:
because, I think, it will probably be
admitted by everybody who understands
the facts of both countries, that out of
the twenty millions of population in the
Free States of America, there are more
persons who can read well than there
are in the thirty millions of popula-
tion of Great Britain and Ireland.
And if we leave their literature and
turn to their laws, we shall find that
their laws have the same basis as ours,
and that many of the great and memo-
rable judgments of our greatest judges
and lawyers are of high authority with
them. If we come to that priceless
possession which we have perhaps more
clearly established than any other people
in Europe, that of personal freedom, we
shall find that in the Free States of
America personal freedom is as much
known, as well established, as fully
appreciated, and as completely enjoyed
as it is now in this country. And if we
come to the form of their government,
we shall find that it is in its principle,
in its essence, not very dissimilar from
that which our Constitution professes in
this kingdom. The difference is this,
that our Constitution has never yet been
fully enjoyed by the people; the House
in which forty-eight hours hence I may
be sitting, is not as full and fair and free
a representation of the people as is the
House of Representatives that assembles
at Washington. But, if there be dif-
ferences, are there not great points of
agreement, and are there any of these
differences that justify us or them in re-
garding either nations as foreign or
hostile ?
Now, the people of Europe owe much
more than they are often aware of to
the Constitution of the United States of
America, and to the existence of that
great Republic. The United States
have been in point of fact an ark of
refuge to the people of Europe, when
fleeing from the storms and the revo-
lutions of the old continent. They
have been, as far as the artisans and
labouring population of this country are
concerned, a life-boat to them; and
they have saved hundreds of thousands
of men and of families from disastrous
shipwreck. The existence of that free
country and that free government has
had a prodigious influence upon freedom
in Europe and in England.
If you
could have before you a chart of the
1863.
117
AMERICA. III.
condition of Europe when the United
States became a nation, and another
chart of the condition of Europe now,
you would see the difference, the enor-
mous stride which has been made in
Europe; and you may rely upon it
that not a little of it has been occa-
sioned by the influence of the great
example of that country, free in its
political institutions beyond all other
countries, and yet maintaining its course
in peace, preserving order, and confer-
ring upon all its people a degree of
prosperity which in these old countries
is as yet unknown.
I should like now to speak specially
to the working men who are here, who
have no capital but their skill and their
industry and their bodily strength. In
fifteen years from 1845 to 1860-and
this is a fact which I stated in this room
more than a year ago, when speaking
on the question of America, but it is a
fact which every working man ought to
have in his mind always when he is
considering what America is—in fifteen
years there have emigrated to the United
States from Great Britain and Ireland
not less than two million four hundred
thousand persons. Millions are easily
spoken, not easily counted, with great
difficulty comprehended; but the twenty-
four hundred thousand persons that I
have described means a population
equal to not less than sixty towns, every
one of them of the size and population
of Rochdale. And every one of these
men who have emigrated, as he crossed
the Atlantic-if he went by steam, in a
fortnight, and if he went by sails, in a
month or five weeks-found himself in
a country where to his senses a vast
revolution had taken place, comprehend-
ing all that men anticipate from any
kind of revolution that shall advance
political and social equality in their
own land-a revolution which com-
menced in the War of Independence,
which has been going on, and which has
been confirmed by all that has transpired
in subsequent years.
He does not find that he belongs to
what are called the lower classes;' he
is not shut out from any of the rights of
citizenship; he is admitted to the full
enjoyment of all political privileges, as
far as they are extended to any portion
of the population; and he has there
advantages which the people of this
country have not yet gained, because
we are but gradually making our way
out of the darkness and the errors and
the tyrannies of past ages. But in
America he finds the land not cursed
with feudalism; it is free to every man
to buy and sell, and possess and trans-
mit. He finds in the town in which he
lives that the noblest buildings are the
school-houses to which his children are
freely admitted. And among those
twenty millions-for I am now confin-
ing my observations to the Free States
-the son of every man has easy ad-
mission to school, has fair opportunity
for improvement; and, if God has
gifted him with power of head and of
heart, there is nothing of usefulness,
nothing of greatness, nothing of success
in that country to which he may not
fairly aspire.
And, Sir, this makes a difference
between that country and this, on
which I must say another word. One
of the most painful things to my mind
to be seen in England is this, that
amongst the great body of those classes
which earn their living by their daily
labour-it is particularly observable in
the agricultural districts, and it is too
much to be observed even in our own
districts- there is an absence of that
hope which every man ought to have in
his soul that there is for him, if he be
industrious and frugal, a comfortable
independence as he advances in life.
In the United States that hope prevails
everywhere, because everywhere there is
an open career; there is no privileged
class; there is complete education ex-
tended to all, and every man feels that
he was not born to be in penury and
in suffering, but that there is no point
in the social ladder to which he may
not fairly hope to raise himself by his
honest efforts.
Well, looking at all this-and I have
1
118
FEB. 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
but touched on some very prominent
facts-I should say that it offers to us
every motive, not for fear, not for
jealousy, not for hatred, but rather for
admiration, gratitude, and friendship.
I am persuaded of this as much as I am
of anything that I know or believe,
that the more perfect the friendship
that is established between the people
of England and the free people of
America, the more you will find your
path of progress here made easy for
you, and the more will social and
political liberty advance amongst us.
But this country which I have been
in part describing is now the scene of
one of the greatest calamities that can
afflict mankind. After seventy years
of almost uninterrupted peace, it has
become the scene of a civil war, more
gigantic, perhaps, than any that we
have any record of with regard to any
other nation or any other people; for
the scene of this warfare is so extended
as to embrace a region almost equal in
size to the whole of Europe. At this
very moment military operations are
being undertaken at points as distant
from each other as Madrid is distant
from Moscow. But this great strife
cannot have arisen amongst an educa-
ted and intelligent people without some
great and overruling cause. Let us for
a moment examine that cause, and let
us ask ourselves whether it is possible
at such a time to stand neutral in
regard to the contending parties, and
to refuse our sympathy to one or the
other of them. I find men sometimes
who profess a strict neutrality; they
wish neither the one thing nor the
other. This arises either from the fact
that they are profoundly ignorant with
regard to this matter, or else that they
sympathise with the South, but are
rather ashamed to admit it.
There are two questions concerned in
this struggle. Hitherto, generally, one
only has been discussed. There is the
question whether negro slavery shall
continue to be upheld amongst Chris-
tian nations, or whether it shall be
entirely abolished. Because, bear in
mind that if the result of the struggle that
is now proceeding in America should
abolish slavery within the territories of
the United States, then soon after sla-
very in Brazil, and slavery in Cuba,
will also fall. I was speaking the other
day to a gentleman well acquainted
with Cuban affairs; he is often in the
habit of seeing persons who come
from Cuba to this country on business;
and I asked him what his Cuban friends
said of what was going on in America.
He said, 'They speak of it with the
greatest apprehension; all the property
of Cuba,' he said, 'is based on slavery;
and they say that if slavery comes to an
end in America, as they believe it will,
through this war, slavery will have a
very short life in Cuba.' Therefore,
the question which is being now tried
is, not merely whether four millions of
slaves in America shall be free, but
whether the vast number of slaves (I
know not the number) in Cuba and
Brazil shall also be liberated.
But there is another question besides
that of the negro, and which to you
whom I am now addressing is scarcely
less important. I say that the question
of freedom to men of all races is deeply
involved in this great strife in the
United States. I said I wanted the
working men of this audience to listen
to my statement, because it is to them
that I particularly wish to address
myself. I say, that not only is the
question of negro slavery concerned in
this struggle, but, if we are to take the
opinion of leading writers and men in
the Southern States of America, the
freedom of white men is not safe in
their hands. Now, I will not trouble
you with pages of extracts which would
confirm all that I am about to say, but
I shall read you two or three short ones
which will explain exactly what I mean.
The city of Richmond, as you know,
is the capital of what is called the
Southern Confederacy. In that city
a newspaper is published, called the
Richmond Examiner, which is one of
the most able, and perhaps about the
most influential, paper published in the
1863.
119
AMERICA. III.
Slave States.
Listen to what the Rich-
mond Examiner says:-
The experiment of universal liberty
has failed. The evils of free society are
insufferable. Free society in the long run
is impracticable; it is everywhere starving,
demoralizing, and insurrectionary. Policy
and humanity alike forbid the extension
of its evils to new peoples and to coming
generations; and therefore free society
must fall and give way to a slave society
-a social system old as the world, univer-
sal as man.'
Well, on another occasion, the same
paper treats the subject in this way.
The writer says:—
'Hitherto the defence of slavery has
encountered great difficulties, because its
apologists stopped half way. They con-
fined the defence of slavery to negro
slavery alone, abandoning the principle of
slavery, and admitting that every other
form of slavery was wrong. Now the line
of defence is changed. The South main-
tains that slavery is just, natural, and
necessary, and that it does not depend on
the difference of complexions.'
But following up this is an extract
from a speech by a Mr. Cobb, who is
an eminent man in Southern politics
and in Southern opinion. He says:-
"There is, perhaps, no solution of the
great problem of reconciling the interests
of labour and capital, so as to protect each
from the encroachments and oppressions
of the other, so simple and effective as
negro slavery. By making the labourer
himself capital, the conflict ceases, and
the interests become identical.'
Now, I do not know whether there is
any working man here who does not
fully or partly realize the meaning of
those extracts. They mean this, that if a
man in this neighbourhood (for they pity
us very much in our benighted condition
as regards capital and labour, and they
have an admirable way, from their view,
of putting an end to strikes)—they say
that, if a man in this neighbourhood
had ten thousand pounds sterling in
"
a cotton or woollen factory, and he em-
ployed a hundred men, women, and
children, that instead of paying them
whatever wages had been agreed upon,
allowing them to go to the other side
of the town, and work where they liked,
or to move to another county, or to
emigrate to America, or to have any
kind of will or wish whatever with
regard to their own disposal, that they
should be to him capital, just the same
as the horses are in his stable; that
he should sell the husband South,—
South' in America means something
very dreadful to the negro,—that he
should sell the wife if he liked, that he
should sell the children, that, in point
of fact, he should do whatsoever he
liked with them, and that, if any one
of them resisted any punishment which
the master chose to inflict, the master
should be held justified if he beat his
slave to death; and that not one of
those men should have the power to
give evidence in any court of justice,
in any case, against a white man, how-
ever much he might have suffered from
that white man.
You will observe that this most im-
portant paper in the South writes for
that principle, and this eminent Southern
politician indorses it, and thinks it a
cure for all the evils which exist in
the Old World and in the Northern and
Free States; and there is not a paper in
the South, nor is there a man as emi-
nent or more eminent than Mr. Cobb,
who has dared to write or speak in
condemnation of the atrocity of that
language. I believe this great. strife
to have had its origin in an infamous
conspiracy against the rights of human
nature. Those principles, which they
distinctly avow and proclaim, are not to
be found, as far as I know, in the pages
of any heathen writer of old times, nor
are they to be discovered in the teach-
ings or the practice of savage nations
in our times. It is the doctrine of
devils, and not of men; and all mankind
should shudder at the enormity of the
guilt which the leaders of this conspiracy
have brought upon that country.
120
FEB. 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Now, let us look at two or three
facts, which seem to me very remark-
able, on the surface of the case, but
which there are men in this country, and
I am told they may be found even in
this town, who altogether ignore and
deny. The war was not commenced by
those to whom your resolution refers;
it was commenced by the South; they
rebelled against the majority. It was
not a rebellion against a monarchy, or
an aristocracy, or some other form of
government which has its hold upon
people, sometimes by services, but often
from tradition; but it was against a
Government of their own, and a com-
pact of their own, that they violently
rebelled, and for the expressed and
avowed purpose of maintaining the in-
stitution of slavery, and for the purpose,
not disavowed, of re-opening the slave
trade, and, as these extracts show, if
their principles should be fully carried
out, of making bondage universal among
all classes of labourers and artisans.
When I say that their object was to
re-open the slave trade, do not for a
moment imagine that I am overstating
the case against them. They argue,
with a perfect logic, that, if slavery was
right, the slave trade could not be
wrong; if the slave trade be wrong,
slavery cannot be right; and that if it
be lawful and moral to go to the State
of Virginia and buy a slave for two
thousand dollars, and take him to Loui-
siana, it cannot be wrong to go to
Africa, and buy a slave for fifty dollars,
and take him to Louisiana. That was
their argument; it is an argument to
this day, and is an argument that in my
opinion no' man can controvert; and the
lawful existence of slavery is as a matter
of course to be followed, and would be
followed, wherever there was the power,
by the re-opening of the traffic in ne-
groes from Africa.
That is not all these people have
done. Reference has been made, in the
resolution and in the speeches, to the
distress which prevails in this district,
and you are told, and have been told
over and over again, that all this distress
has arisen from the blockade of the ports
of the Southern States. There is at
least one great port from which in past
times two millions of bales of cotton
a-year have found their way to Europe
-the port of New Orleans-which is
blockaded; and the United States' Go-
vernment has proclaimed that any cotton
that is sent from the interior to New
Orleans for shipment, although it be-
longs to persons in arms against the
Government, shall yet be permitted to
go to Europe, and they shall receive
unmolested the proceeds of the sale of
that cotton. But still the cotton does
not come. The reason why it does not
come is, not because it would do harm
to the United States' Government for it
to come, or that it would in any way
assist the United States' Government in
carrying on the war. The reason that
it does not come is, because its being
kept back is supposed to be a way of
influencing public opinion in England
and the course of the English Govern-
ment in reference to the American war.
They burn the cotton that they may
injure us, and they injure us because
they think that we cannot live even
for a year without their cotton; and
that to get it we should send ships of
war, break the blockade, make war
upon the North, and assist the slave-
owners to maintain, or to obtain, their
independence.
Now, with regard to the question of
American cotton, one or two extracts
will be sufficient; but I could give
you a whole pamphlet of them, if it
were necessary. Mr. Mann, an eminent
person in the State of Georgia, says:—
•With the failure of the cotton, England
fails. Stop her supply of Southern slave-
grown cotton, and her factories stop, her
commerce stops, the healthful normal cir-
culation of her life-blood stops.'
Again he says:—
'In one year from the stoppage of
England's supply of Southern slave-grown
cotton, the Chartists would be in all her
streets and fields, revolution would be
1863.
121
AMERICA. III.
rampant throughout the island, and no-
thing that is would exist.'
He also says, addressing an audience:-
"Why, Sirs, British lords hold their lands,
British bishops hold their revenues, Victoria
holds her sceptre, by the grace of cotton,
as surely as by the grace of God.'
Senator Wigfall says:—
'If we stop the supply of cotton for one
week, England would be starving. Queen
Victoria's crown would not stand on her
head one week, if the supply of cotton was
stopped; nor would her head stand on
her shoulders.'
Mr. Stephens, who is the Vice-President
of the Southern Confederacy, says :—
'There will be revolution in Europe,
there will be starvation there; our cotton
is the element that will do it.'
Now, I am not stating the mere result
of any discovery of my own, but it
would be impossible to read the papers
of the South, or the speeches made in
the South, before, and at the time of,
and after the secession, without seeing
that the universal opinion there was,
that the stoppage of the supply of cotton
would be our instantaneous ruin, and
that if they could only lay hold of it,
keep it back in the country, or burn it,
so that it never could be used, that
then the people of Lancashire, mer-
chants, manufacturers, and operatives in
mills-everybody dependent upon this
vast industry-would immediately arise
and protest against the English Govern-
ment abstaining for one moment from
the recognition of the South, from war
with the North, and from a resolution
to do the utmost that we could to create
a slave-holding independent republic in
the South.
And these very men who have been
wishing to drag us into a war that
would have covered us with everlasting
infamy, have sent their envoys to this
country, Mr. Yancey, Mr. Mann (I do
not know whether or not the same Mr.
Mann to whom I have been referring),
and Mr. Mason, the author of the Fugi-
tive Slave Law. These men have been
in this country,-one of them I believe
is here now,-envoys sent to offer
friendship to the Queen of England, to
be received at her Court, and to make
friends with the great men in London.
They come,-I have seen them under
the gallery of the House of Commons;
I have seen Members of the House
shaking hands with them and congratu-
lating them, if there has been some
military success on their side, and re-
ceiving them as if they were here from the
most honourable Government, and with
the most honourable mission. Why,
the thing which they have broken off
from the United States to maintain, is
felony by your law. They are not only
slave owners, slave buyers and sellers,
but that which out of Pandemonium
itself was never before conceived, they
are slave breeders for the slave market;
and these men have come to your
country, and are to be met with at
elegant tables in London, and are in fast
friendship with some of your public
men, and are constantly found in some
of your newspaper offices; and they are
here to ask Englishmen-Englishmen
with a history of freedom-to join
hands with their atrocious conspiracy.
We
I regret more than I have words to
express this painful fact, that of all the
countries in Europe this country is the
only one which has men in it who are
willing to take active steps in favour of
this intended slave government.
supply the ships; we supply the arms,
the munitions of war; we give aid and
comfort to this foulest of all crimes.
Englishmen only do it. I believe you
have not seen a single statement in the
newspapers that any French, or Belgian,
or Dutch, or Russian ship has been en-
gaged in, or seized whilst attempting
to violate the blockade and to carry
arms to the South. They are English
Liberal newspapers only which support
this stupendous iniquity. They are
English statesmen only, who profess
to be liberal, who have said a word
I.22
FEB. 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
to favour the authors of this now-
enacting revolution in America.
The other day, not a week since, a
member of the present Government,-
he is not a statesman-he is the son of
a great statesman, and occupies the
position of Secretary for Ireland,―he
dared to say to an English audience
that he wished the Republic to be
divided, and that the South should
become an independent State. If that
island which-I suppose in punishment
for some of its offences--has been com-
mitted to his care,-if that island were
to attempt to secede, not to set up a
slave kingdom, but a kingdom more
free than it has ever yet been, the
Government of which he is a member
would sack its cities and drench its soil
with blood before they would allow
such a kingdom to be established.
But the working men of England,
and I will say it too for the great body
of the middle classes of England, have
not been wrong upon this great question.
As for you,-men labouring from morn
till night that you may honourably and
honestly maintain your families, and
the independence of your households,—
you are too slowly emerging from a
condition of things far from independent
-far from free-for you to have sym-
pathy with this fearful crime which I
have been describing. You come, as it
were, from bonds yourselves, and you
can sympathize with them who are still
in bondage.
See that meeting that was held in
Manchester a month ago, in the Free
Trade Hall, of five or six thousand men.
See the address which they there carried
unanimously to the President of the
United States. See that meeting held
the other night in Exeter Hall, in
London; that vast room, the greatest
room, I suppose, in the Metropolis,
filled so much that its overflowings
filled another large room in the same
building, and when that was full, the
further overflowings filled the street;
and in both rooms, and in the street,
speeches were made on this great ques-
tion. But what is said by the writers
in this infamous Southern press in this
country with regard to that meeting?
Who was there? A gentleman who
who had written a novel, and two or
three Dissenting ministers.' I shall not
attempt any defence of those gentlemen.
What they do, they do openly, in the
face of day; and if they utter senti-
ments on this question, it is from a
public platform, with thousands of their
countrymen gazing into their faces.
These men who slander them write
behind a mask,-and, what is more,
they dare not tell in the open day that
which they write in the columns of their
journal. But if it be true that there is
nothing in the writer of a successful
novel, or in two or three pious and
noble-minded Dissenting ministers, to
collect a great audience, what does it
prove if there was a great audience?
It only proves that they were not col-
lected by the reputation of any orator
who was expected to address them, but
by their cordial and ardent sympathy
for the great cause which was pleaded
before them.
Everybody now that I meet says to
me, Public opinion seems to have
undergone a considerable change.' The
fact is, people do not know very much
about America. They are learning
more every day. They have been
greatly misled by what are called 'the
best public instructors.' Jefferson, who
was one of the greatest men that the
United States have produced, said that
newspapers should be divided into four
compartments: in one of them they
should print the true; in the next, the
probable; in the third, the possible;
and in the fourth, the lies. With regard
to some of these newspapers, I incline
to think, as far as their leading columns
go, that an equal division of space
would be found very inconvenient, and
that the last-named compartment, when
dealing with American questions, would
have to be at least four times as large
as the first.
Coming back to the question of this
war: I admit, of course-everybody
must admit that we are not responsi-
1863.
123
AMERICA. III.
ble for it, for its commencement, or for
the manner in which it is conducted;
nor can we be responsible for its result.
But there is one thing which we are
responsible for, and that is for our
sympathies, for the manner in which
we regard it, and for the tone in which
we discuss it. What shall we say, then,
with regard to it? On which side shall
we stand? I do not believe it is pos-
sible to be strictly, coldly neutral. The
question at issue is too great, the
contest is too grand in the eye of the
world. It is impossible for any man,
who can have an opinion worth any-
thing on any question, not to have
some kind of an opinion on the ques-
tion of this war. I am not ashamed of
my opinion, or of the sympathy which
I feel, and have over and over again
expressed, on the side of the free North.
I cannot understand how any man
witnessing what is enacting on the
American continent can indulge in
small cavils against the free people of
the North, and close his eye entirely to
the enormity of the purposes of the
South. I cannot understand how any
Englishman, who in past years has
been accustomed to say that 'there was
one foul blot upon the fair fame of the
American Republic,' can now express
any sympathy for those who would
perpetuate and extend that blot. And,
more, if we profess to be, though it be
with imperfect and faltering steps, the
followers of Him who declared it to be
His Divine mission to heal the broken-
hearted, to preach deliverance to the
captives and recovering of sight to the
blind, to set at liberty them that are
bruised,' must we not reject with indig-
nation and scorn the proffered alliance
and friendship with a power based on
human bondage, and which contem-
plates the overthrow and the extinction
of the dearest rights of the most
helpless of mankind?
If we are the friends of freedom, per-
sonal and political,-and we all profess
to be so, and most of us, more or less, are
striving after it more completely for
our own country,-how can we with-
hold our sympathy from a Government
and a people amongst whom white men
have always been free, and who are now
offering an equal freedom to the black?
I advise you not to believe in the
destruction' of the American nation.
If facts should happen by any chance to
force you to believe it, do not commit
the crime of wishing it. I do not blame
men who draw different conclusions
from mine from the facts, and who
believe that the restoration of the Union
is impossible. As the facts lie before
our senses, so must we form a judgment
on them. But I blame those men that
wish for such a catastrophe.
myself, I have never despaired, and I
will not despair. In the language of
one of our old poets, who wrote, I think,
more than three hundred years ago, I
will not despair,—
For
'For I have seen a ship in haven fall,
After the storm had broke both mast
and shroud.'
From the very outburst of this great
convulsion, I have had but one hope
and one faith, and it is this-that the
result of this stupendous strife may be
to make freedom the heritage for ever
of a whole continent, and that the
grandeur and the prosperity of the
American Union may never be im-
paired.
|
AMERICA.
IV.
THE STRUGGLE IN AMERICA.
:
ST. JAMES'S HALL, MARCH 26, 1863,
[The meeting at which this speech was delivered was convened by the Trades" Unions
of London to enable the working men to express their sentiments on the war in the
United States. Mr. Bright was Chairman of the meeting.]
WHEN the Committee did me the
honour to ask me to attend this meeting
to-night and to take the Chair, I felt
that I was not at liberty to refuse, for
Í considered that there was something
remarkable in the character of this
meeting; and I need not tell you that
the cause which we are assembled to
discuss is one which excites my warmest
sympathies. This meeting is remark-
able, inasmuch as it is not what is
commonly called a public meeting, but
it is a meeting, as you have seen from
the announcements and advertisements
by which it has been called-it is a
meeting of members of Trades' Unions
and Trades' Societies in London. The
members of these Societies have not
usually stepped out from their ordinary
business to take part in meetings of this
kind on public questions.
The subject which we have met to
discuss is one of surpassing interest-
which excites at this moment, and has
excited for two years past, the attention
and the astonishment of the civilized
world. We see a country which for
many years during the lifetime of the
oldest amongst us-has been the most
peaceful, and prosperous, and the most
free amongst the great nations of the
earth-we see it plunged at once into
the midst of a sanguinary revolution,
whose proportions are so gigantic as to
dwarf all other revolutionary records
and events of which we have any
knowledge. But I do not wonder at
this revolution. No man can read the
history of the United States from the
time when they ceased to be depen-
dent colonies of England, without
discovering that at the birth of that
great Republic there was sown the seed,
if not of its dissolution, at least of its
extreme peril; and the infant giant in
its cradle may be said to have been
rocked under the shadow of the cypress,
which is the symbol of mortality and of
the tomb.
Colonial weakness, when face to face
with British strength, made it impos-
sible to put an end to slavery, or to
1863.
125
AMERICA. IV.
►
establish a republic free from slavery.
To meet England, it was necessary to
be united, and to be united it was
necessary to tolerate slavery; and from
that hour to this—at least, to a period
within the last two or three years—the
love of the Union and the patriotism of
the American people have induced them
constantly to make concessions to sla-
very, because they knew that when they
ceased to make concessions they ran
the peril of that disruption which has
now arrived; and they dreaded the
destruction of their country even more
than they hated the evil of slavery.
But these concessions failed, as I believe
concessions to evil always do fail.
These concessions failed to secure safety
in that Union. There were principles
at war which were wholly irreconcila-
ble. The South, as you know, has been
engaged for fifty years in building fresh
ramparts by which it may defend its
institutions. The North has been
growing yearly greater in freedom; and
though the conflict might be postponed,
it was obviously inevitable.
In our day, then, that which the
statesmen of America have hoped per-
manently to postpone has arrived.
The great trial is now going on in the
sight of the world, and the verdict upon
this great question must at last be ren-
dered. But how much is at stake?
Some men of this country, some writers,
treat it as if, after all, it was no great
matter that had caused this contest in
the United States. I say that a whole
continent is at stake. It is not a ques-
tion of boundary; it is not a question
of tariff; it is not a question of supre-
macy of party, or even of the condition
of four millions of negroes. It is more
than that. It is a question of a whole
continent, with its teeming millions,
and what shall be their present and
their future fate. It is for these mil-
lions freedom or slavery, education or
ignorance, light or darkness, Christian
morality ever widening and all-blessing
in its influence, or an overshadowing
and all-blasting guilt.
There are men, good men, who say
that we in England, who are opposed
to war, should take no public part in
this great question. Only yesterday I
received from a friend of mine, whose
fidelity I honour, a letter, in which he
asked me whether I thought, with the
views which he supposed I entertain
on the question of war, it was fitting
that I should appear at such a meeting
as this. It is not our war; we did not
make it. We deeply lament it. It is
not in our power to bring it to a close;
but I know not that we are called upon
to shut our eyes and to close our hearts
to the great issues which are depending
upon it. Now we are met here, let us
ask each other some questions. Has
England any opinion with regard to
this American question? Has Eng-
land any sympathy, on one side or the
other, with either party in this great
struggle? But, to come nearer, I would
ask whether this meeting has any
opinion upon it, and whether our sym-
pathies have been stirred in relation to
it? It is true, to this meeting not many
rich, not many noble, have been called.
It is a meeting composed of artisans
and working men of the city of Lon-
don,-men whose labour, in combina-
tion with capital and directing skill,
has built this great city, and has made
England great. I address myself to
these men. I ask them-I ask you-
have you any special interest in this
contest?
Privilege thinks it has a great in-
terest in it, and every morning, with
blatant voice, it comes into your streets
and curses the American Republic.
Privilege has beheld an afflicting spec-
tacle for many years past. It has beheld
thirty millions of men, happy and pros-
perous, without emperor, without king,
without the surroundings of a court,
without nobles, except such as are made
by eminence in intellect and virtue,
without State bishops and State
priests,-
'Sole venders of the lore which works
salvation,'-
without great armies and great navies,
t
126
MARCH 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
But
without great debt and without great
taxes. Privilege has shuddered at what
might happen to old Europe if this
grand experiment should succeed.
you, the workers,-you, striving after a
better time,-you, struggling upwards
towards the light, with slow and pain-
ful steps,-you have no cause to look
with jealousy upon a country which,
amongst all the great nations of the
globe, is that one where labour has
met with the highest honour, and
where it has reaped its greatest reward.
Are you aware of the fact, that in
fifteen years, which is but as yesterday
when it is past, two and a half millions
of your countrymen have found a home
in the United States,-that a population
equal nearly, if not quite, to the popu-
lation of this great city-itself equal to
no mean kingdom-has emigrated from
these shores? In the United States
there has been, as you know, an open
door for every man,—and millions have
entered into it, and have found rest.
Now, take the two sections of the
country which are engaged in this fear-
ful struggle. In the one, labour is
honoured more than elsewhere in the
world; there, more than in any other
country, men rise to competence and
independence; a career is open; the
pursuit of happiness is not hopelessly
thwarted by the law. In the other
section of that country, labour is not
only not honoured, but it is degraded.
The labourer is made a chattel. He is
no more his own than the horse that
drags a carriage through the next street;
nor is his wife, nor is his child, nor is
anything that is his, his own. And if
you have not heard the astounding state-
ment, it may be as well for a moment
to refer to it,-that it is not black men
only who should be slaves. Only to-
day I read from one of the Southern
papers a statement that—
'Slavery in the Jewish times was not
the slavery of negroes; and therefore, if
you confine slavery to negroes, you lose
your sheet-anchor, which is the Bible-
argument in favour of slavery.'
I think nothing can be more fitting
for the discussion of the members of the
Trade Societies of London. You in
your Trade Societies help each other
when you are sick, or if you meet with
accidents. You do many kind acts
amongst each other. You have other
business also; you have to maintain
what you believe to be the just rights
of industry and of your separate trades;
and sometimes, as you know, you do
things which many people do not
approve, and which, probably, when
you come to think more coolly of them,
you may even doubt the wisdom of
yourselves. That is only saying that
you are not immaculate, and that your
wisdom, like the wisdom of other classes,
is not absolutely perfect. But they
have in the Southern States a specific
for all the differences between capital
and labour. They say,-
'Make the labourer capital; the free
system in Europe is a rotten system; let
us get rid of that, and make all the la-
bourers as much capital and as much the
property of the capitalist and employer as
the capitalist's cattle and horses are pro-
perty, and then the whole system will
move with that perfect ease and harmony
which the world admires so much in the
Southern States of America.'
I believe there never was a question
submitted to the public opinion of the
world which it was more becoming the
working men and members of Trades'
Unions and Trade Societies of every
kind in this country fully to consider,
than this great question.
But there may be some in this room,
and there are some who say to me,
'But what is to become of our trade,
what is to become of the capitalist and
the labourer of Lancashire ?" I am not
sure that much of the capital of Lan-
cashire will not be ruined. I am not
sure that very large numbers of its
population will not have to remove to
seek other employment, either in this
or some other country. I am not one
of those who underrate this great cala-
mity. On the contrary, I have scarcely
1863.
127
AMERICA. IV.
met with any man,-not more than
half a dozen, since this distress in our
county began, who has been willing to
measure the magnitude of this calamity
according to the scale with which I
have viewed it.
But let us examine this question.
The distress of Lancashire comes from
a failure of the supply of cotton. The
failure of the supply of cotton comes
from the war in the United States.
The war in the United States has ori-
ginated in the effort of the slaveholders
of that country to break up what they
themselves admit to be the freest and
best government that ever existed,
for the sole purpose of making per-
petual the institution of slavery. But
if the South began the war, and created
all the mischief, does it look reasonable
that we should pat them on the back,
and be their friends? If they have
destroyed cotton, or withheld it, shall
we therefore take them to our bosoms?
I have a letter written by an agent in
the City of Nashville, who had been
accustomed to buy cotton there before
the war, and who returned there imme-
diately after that city came into the
possession of the Northern forces. He
began his trade, and cotton came in.
Not Union planters only, but Secession
planters, began to bring in the produce
of their plantations, and he had a fair
chance of re-establishing his business;
but the moment this was discovered by
the commanders of the Southern forces
at some distance from the city, they
issued the most peremptory orders
that every boat-load of cotton on the
rivers, every waggon-load upon
roads, and every car-load upon the
railroads, that was leaving any plan-
tations for the purposes of sale, should
be immediately destroyed. The result
was, that the cotton trade was at once
again put an end to, and I believe only
to a very small extent has it been re-
opened, even to this hour.
the
Then take the City of New Orleans,
which, as you know, has been now for
many months in the possession of the
Northern forces. The Northern com-
manders there had issued announcements
that any cotton sent down to New
Orleans for exportation, even though it
came from the most resolved friends of
secession in the district, should still be
safe. It might be purchased to ship to
Europe, and the proceeds of that cotton
might be returned, and the trade be re-
opened. But you have not found cotton
come down to New Orleans, although
its coming there under those terms would
be of no particular advantage to the
North. It has been withheld with this
single object, to create in the manufac-
turing districts of France and England a
state of suffering that might at last be-
come unbearable, and thus might com-
pel the Governments of those countries,
in spite of all that international law may
teach, in spite of all that morality may
enjoin upon them, to take sides with the
South, and go to war with the North for
the sake of liberating whatever cotton
there is now in the plantations of the
Secession States.
At this moment, such of you as read
the City articles of the daily papers will
see that a loan has been contracted for
in the City, to the amount of three mil-
lions sterling, on behalf of the Southern
Confederacy. It is not brought into the
market by any firm with an English
name; but I am sorry to be obliged to
believe that many Englishmen have taken
portions of that loan. Now the one
great object of that loan is this, to pay
in this country for vessels which are
being built-Alabamas-from which it is
hoped that so much irritation will arise in
the minds of the people of the Northern
States, that England may be dragged
into war to take sides with the South
and with slavery. The South was natu-
rally hostile to England, because Eng-
land was hostile to slavery. Now the
great hope of the insurrection has been
from the beginning, that Englishmen
would not have fortitude to bear the
calamities which it has brought upon
us; but by some trick or by some acci-
dent we might be brought into a war
with the North, and thereby give strength
to the South.
128
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
,
I should hope that this question is now
so plain that most Englishmen must
understand it; and least of all do I ex-
pect that the six millions of men in the
United Kingdom who are not enfran-
chised can have any doubt upon it.
Their instincts are always right in the
main, and if they get the facts and infor-
mation, I can rely on their influence
being thrown into the right scale. I wish
I could state what would be as satisfac-
tory to myself with regard to some
others. There may be men outside,
there are men sitting amongst your legis-
lators, who will build and equip corsair
ships to prey upon the commerce of a
friendly power,-who will disregard the
laws and the honour of their country,-
who will trample on the Proclamation of
their sovereign,-and who, for the sake
of the glittering profit which sometimes
waits on crime, are content to cover them-
selves with everlasting infamy. There
may be men. too-rich men-in this
city of London, who will buy in the
slave-owners' loan, and who, for the
chance of more gain than honest dealing
will afford them, will help a conspiracy
whose fundamental institution, whose
corner-stone, is declared to be felony,
and infamous by the statutes of their
country.
I speak not to these men-I leave
them to their conscience in that hour
which comes to all of us, when conscience
speaks and the soul is no longer deaf to
her voice. I speak rather to you, the
working men of London, the representa-
tives, as you are here to-night, of the
feelings and the interests of the millions
who cannot hear my voice. I wish you
to be true to yourselves. Dynasties may
fall, aristocracies may perish, privilege
will vanish into the dim past; but
you, your children, and your children's
children, will remain, and from you the
English people will be continued to suc-
ceeding generations.
You
You wish the freedom of your country.
You wish it for yourselves. You strive
for it in many ways.
Do not then give
the hand of fellowship to the worst foes
of freedom that the world has ever seen,
and do not, I beseech you, bring down
a curse upon your cause which no after-
penitence can ever lift from it.
will not do this. I have faith in you.
Impartial history will tell that, when
your statesman were hostile or coldly
neutral, when many of your rich men
were corrupt, when your press—which
ought to have instructed and defended-
was mainly written to betray, the fate of
a continent and of its vast population
being in peril, you clung to freedom with
an unfaltering trust that God in His in-
finite mercy will yet make it the heritage
of all His children.
AMERICA.
V.
LONDON, JUNE 16, 1863.
[On June 16, 1863, a public meeting was held at the London Tavern, at the instance
of the Union and Emancipation Society, in order to hear an address from Mr. M. D.
Conway, of Eastern Virginia. Mr. Bright was in the Chair.]
If we look back a little over two
years-two years and a half-when the
question of secession was first raised in
a practical shape, I think we shall be
able to remember that, when the news
first arrived in England, there was but
one opinion with regard to it—that
every man condemned the folly and
the wickedness of the South, and pro-
tested against their plea that they had
any grievance which justified them in
revolt and every man hoped that some
mode might be discovered by which
the terrible calamity of war might be
avoided.
For a time, many thought that there
would be no war. Whilst the reins
were slipping from the hands-the too
feeble hands-of Mr. Buchanan into the
grasp of President Lincoln, there was a
moment when men thought that we
were about to see the wonderful ex-
ample of a great question, which in all
other countries would have involved a
war, settled perhaps by moderation—
some moderation on one side, and some
! concession on the other; and so long
as men believed that there would be no
war, so long everybody condemned the
South. We were afraid of a war in
America, because we knew that one of
the great industries of our country de-
pended upon the continuous reception
of its raw material from the Southern
States. But it was a folly—it was a
gross absurdity-for any man to believe,
with the history of the world before
him, that the people of the Northern
States, twenty millions, with their free
Government, would for one moment sit
down satisfied with the dismemberment
of their country, and make no answer
to the war which had been commenced
by the South.
I speak not in justification of war.
I am only treating this question upon
principles which are almost universally
acknowledged throughout the world,
and by an overwhelming majority even
of those men who accept the Christian
religion; and it is only upon those prin-
ciples, so almost universally acknow-
ledged, and acknowledged as much in
this country as anywhere else—it is
only just that we should judge the
United States upon those principles
:
n
130
JUNE 16,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
f
upon which we in this country would
be likely to act.
But the North did not yield to the
dismemberment of their country, and
they did not allow a conspiracy of
Southern politicians and slaveholders
to seize their forts and arsenals without
preparing for resistance. Then, when
the people of England found that the
North were about to resist, and that
war was inevitable, they turned their
eyes from the South, which was the
beginner of the war, and looked to the
North, saying that, if the North would
not resist, there could be no war, and
then we should get our cotton, and
trade would go on as before; and
therefore, from that hour to this, not
a few persons in this country, who at
first condemned the South, have been
incessant in their condemnation of the
North.
Now, I believe this is a fair state-
ment of the feeling which prevailed
when the first news of secession arrived,
and of the change of opinion which
took place in a few weeks, when it was
found that, by the resolution of the
North to maintain the integrity of their
country, war, and civil war, was un-
avoidable. The trade interests of the
country affected our opinion; and I
fear did then prevent, and have since
prevented, our doing justice to the
people of the North.
in
Now I am going to transport you,
mind, to Lancashire, and the interests
of Lancashire, which, after all, are the
interests of the whole United Kingdom,
and clearly of not a few in this metro-
polis. What was the condition of our
greatest manufacturing industry before
the war, and before secession had been
practically attempted? It was this:
that almost ninety per cent. of all our
cotton came from the Southern States
of the American Union, and was, at
least nine-tenths of it, the produce of
the uncompensated labour of the negro.
Everybody knew that we were carry-
ing on a prodigious industry upon a
most insecure foundation; and it was
the commonest thing in the world for
men who were discussing the present
and the future of the cotton trade,
whether in Parliament or out of it, to
point to the existence of slavery in the
United States of America as the one
dangerous thing in connection with that
great trade; and it was one of the
reasons which stimulated me on several
occasions to urge upon the Government
of this country to improve the Govern-
ment of India, and to give us a chance
of receiving a considerable portion of
our supply from India, so that we
might not be left in absolute want
when the calamity occurred, which all
thoughtful men knew must some day
come, in the United States.
Now, I maintain that with a supply
of cotton mainly derived from the
Southern States, and raised by slave
labour, two things are indisputable :
first, that the supply must always be
insufficient; and second, that it must
always be insecure. Perhaps many of
you are not aware that in the United
States-I am speaking of the Slave
States, and the cotton-growing States-
the quantity of land which is cultivated
for cotton is a mere garden, a mere
plot, in comparison with the whole
of the cotton region. I speak from
the authority of a report lately_pre-
sented to the Boston Chamber of Com-
merce, containing much important in-
formation on this question; and I
believe that the whole acreage, or the
whole breadth of the land on which
cotton is grown in America, does not
exceed ten thousand square miles-that
is, a space one hundred miles long and
one hundred miles broad, or the size of
two of our largest counties in England;
but the land of the ten chief cotton-
producing States is sixty times as much
as that, being, I believe, about twelve
times the size of England and Wales.
It cannot be, therefore, because there
has not been land enough that we have
not in former years had cotton enough;
it cannot be that there has not been a
demand for the produce of the land, for
the demand has constantly outstripped
the supply; it has not been because the
1863.
131
AMERICA. V.
price has not been sufficient, for, as is
well known, the price has been much
higher of late years, and the profit to
the planter much greater; and yet,
notwithstanding the land and the de-
mand, and the price and the profit, the
supply of cotton has not been sufficient
for the wants of the spinners and the
manufacturers of the world, and for the
wants of civilization.
The particular facts with regard to
this I need not, perhaps, enter into;
but I find, if I compare the prices of
cotton in Liverpool from 1856 to 1860
with the prices from 1841 to 1845,
that every pound of cotton_brought
from America and sold in Liverpool
fetched in the last five years more than
twenty per cent. in excess of what it
did in the former five years, notwith-
standing that we were every year in
greater difficulties through finding our
supply of cotton insufficient.
But what was the reason that we did
not get enough? It was because there
was not labour enough in the Southern
States. You see every day in the news-
papers that there are four millions of
slaves, but of those four millions of
slaves some are growing tobacco, some
rice, and some sugar; a very large
number are employed in domestic servi-
tude, and a large number in factories,
mechanical operations, and business in
towns; and there remain only about
one million negroes, or only one-quarter
of the whole number, who are regularly
engaged in the cultivation of cotton.
Now, you will see that the production
of cotton and its continued increase must
depend upon the constantly increasing
productiveness of the labour of those one
million negroes, and on the natural in-
crease of population from them. Well,
the increase of the population of the
slaves in the United States is rather
less than two and a-half per cent. per
annum, and the increase on the million
will be about twenty-five thousand
a-year; and the increased production of
cotton from that increased amount of
labour consisting of twenty-five thou-
sand more negroes every year will pro-
bably never exceed-I believe it has not
reached-one hundred and fifty thousand
bales per annum. The exact facts with
regard to this are these: that in the ten
years from 1841 to 1850 the average
crop was 2,173,000 bales, and in the ten
years from 1851 to 1860 it was 3,252,000,
being an increase of 1,079,000 bales in
the ten years, or only about 100,000
bales of increase per annum.
•
If in
I have shown that the increase of pro-
duction must depend upon the increase
of labour, because every other element
is in abundance-soil, climate, and so
forth. (A Voice: How about sugar?')
A Gentleman asks about sugar.
any particular year there was an extra-
vagant profit upon cotton, there might
be, and there probably would be, some
abstraction of labour from the cultivation
of tobacco, and rice, and sugar, in order
to apply it to cotton, and a larger tem-
porary increase of growth might take
place; but I have given you the facts
with regard to the last twenty years, and
I think you will see that my statement
is correct.
not.
Now, can this be remedied under
slavery? I will show you how it can-
And first of all, everybody who is
acquainted with American affairs knows
that there is not very much migration
of the population of the Northern States
into the Southern States to engage in
the ordinary occupations of agricultural
labour. Labour is not honourable and
is not honoured in the South, and there-
fore free labourers from the North are
not likely to go South. Again, of all
the emigration from this country-
amounting as it did, in the fifteen years
from 1846 to 1860, to two millions five
hundred thousand persons, being equal
to the whole of the population of this
great city-a mere trifle went South and
settled there to pursue the occupation
of agriculture; they remained in the
North, where labour is honourable and
honoured.
Whence, then, could the planters of
the South receive their increasing labour?
Only from the slave-ship and the coast
of Africa. But, fortunately for the
9-2
132
JUNE 16,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
world, the United States' Government
has never yet become so prostrate under
the heel of the slave-owner as to consent
to the reopening of the slave-trade.
Therefore the Southern planter was in
this unfortunate position: he could not
tempt, perhaps he did not want, free
labourers from the North; he could not
tempt, perhaps he did not want, free
labourers from Europe; and if he did
want, he was not permitted to fetch
slave labour from Africa. Well, that
being so, we arrive at this conclusion-
that whilst the cultivation of cotton was
performed by slave labour, you were
shut up for your hope of increased
growth to the small increase that was
possible with the increase of two and
a half per cent. per annum in the popu-
lation of the slaves, about one million
in number, that have been regularly
employed in the cultivation of cotton.
Then, if the growth was thus insuffi-
cient and I as one connected with the
trade can speak very clearly upon that
point-I ask you whether the production
and the supply were not necessarily in-
secure by reason of the institution of
slavery? It was perilous within the
Union. In this country we made one
mistake in our forecast of this question :
we did not believe that the South would
commit suicide; we thought it possible
that the slaves might revolt. They might
revolt, but their subjugation was inevit-
able, because the whole power of the
Union was pledged to the maintenance
of order in every part of its dominions.
But if there be men who think that
the cotton trade would be safer if the
South were an independent State, with
slavery established there in permanence,
they greatly mistake; because, what-
ever was the danger of revolt in the
Southern States whilst the Union was
complete, the possibility of revolt and
the possibility of success would surely
be greatly increased if the North were
separate from the South, and the negro
had only his Southern master, and not
the Northern power, to contend against.
But I believe there is little danger of
revolt, and no possibility of success.
When the revolt took place in the island
of St. Domingo, the blacks were far
superior in numbers to the whites. In
the Southern States it is not so. Igno-
rant, degraded, without organization,
without arms, and scarcely with any
faint hope of freedom for ever, except
the enthusiastic hope which they have
when they believe that God will some
day stretch out His arm for their deliver-
ance-I say that under these circum-
stances, to my mind, there was no reason-
able expectation of revolt, and that they
had no expectation whatever of success
in any attempt to gain their liberty by
force of arms.
But now we are in a different position.
Slavery itself has chosen its own issue,
and has chosen its own field. Slavery-
and when I say slavery, I mean the
slave power-has not trusted to the
future; but it has rushed into the battle-
field to settle this great question; and
having chosen war, it is from day to day
sinking to inevitable ruin under it. Now,
if we are agreed—and I am keeping you
still to Lancashire and to its interests
for a moment longer-that this vast in-
dustry with all its interests of capital and
labour has been standing on a menacing
volcano, is it not possible that hereafter
it may be placed upon a rock which no-
thing can disturb ?
Imagine what of course some people
will say I have no right to imagine--
imagine the war over, the Union re-
stored and slavery abolished-does any
man suppose that there would afterwards
be in the South one single negro fewer
than there are at present? On the
contrary, I believe there would be more.
I believe there is many a negro in the
Northern States, and even in Canada,
who, if the lash, and the chain, and
the branding-iron, and the despotism
against which even he dared not com-
plain, were abolished for ever, would
turn his face to the sunny lands of the
South, and would find himself happier
and more useful there than he can be in
a more Northern clime.
More than this, there would be a mi-
gration from the North to the South.
1863.
133
AMERICA.
Ꮴ .
You do not suppose that those beautiful
States, those regions than which earth
offers nothing to man more fertile and
more lovely, are shunned by the enter-
prising population of the North because
they like the rigours of a Northern
winter and the greater changeableness
of the Northern seasons? Once abolish
slavery in the South, and the whole of
the country will be open to the enter-
prise and to the industry of all. And
more than that, when you find that, only
the other day, not fewer than four thou-
sand emigrants, most of them from the
United Kingdom, landed in one day in
the city of New York, do you suppose
that all those men would go north and
west at once? Would not some of them
turn their faces southwards, and seek the
clime of the sun, which is so grateful to
all men; where they would find a soil
more fertile, rivers more abundant, and
everything that Nature offers more pro-
fusely given, but from which they are
now shut out by the accursed power
which slavery exerts? With freedom
you would have a gradual filling up of
the wildernesses of the Southern States;
you would have there, not population
only, but capital, and industry, and roads,
and schools, and everything which tends
to produce growth, and wealth, and
prosperity.
I maintain and I believe my opinion
will be supported by all those men who
are most conversant with American af-
fairs—that, with slavery abolished, with
freedom firmly established in the South,
you would find in ten years to come a
rapid increase in the growth of cotton;
and not only would its growth be rapid,
but its permanent increase. would be
secured.
I said that I was interested in this
great question of cotton. I come from
the midst of the great cotton industry
of Lancashire; much the largest por-
tion of anything I have in the world
depends upon it; not a little of it is
now utterly valueless, during the con-
tinuance of this war. My neighbours,
by thousands and scores of thousands,
are suffering, more or less, as I am suf-
fering; and many of them, as you know
-more than a quarter of a million of
them-have been driven from a sub-
sistence gained by their honourable
labour to the extremest poverty, and to
a dependence upon the charity of their
fellow-countrymen. My interest is the
interest of all the population.
My interest is against a mere enthu-
siasm, a mere sentiment, a mere vision-
ary fancy of freedom as against slavery.
I am speaking now as a matter of busi-
ness. I am glad when matters of busi-
ness go straight with matters of high
sentiment and morality, and from this
platform I declare my solemn convic-
tion that there is no greater enemy to
Lancashire, to its capital and to its
labour, than the man who wishes the
cotton agriculture of the Southern States
to be continued under the conditions of
slave labour.
One word more upon another branch
of the question, and I have done. I
would turn for a moment from com-
merce to politics. I believe that our
true commercial interests in this country
are very much in harmony with what I
think ought to be our true political
sympathies. There is no people in the
world, I think, that more fully and en-
tirely accepts the theory that one nation
acts very much upon the character and
upon the career of another, than Eng-
land; for our newspapers and our
statesmen, our writers and our speakers
of every class, are constantly telling us
of the wonderful influence which Eng-
lish constitutional government and Eng-
lish freedom have on the position and
career of every nation in Europe. I am
not about to deny that some such in-
fluence, and occasionally, I believe, a
beneficent influence, is thus exerted;
but if we exert any influence upon Eu-
rope-and we pride ourselves upon it-
perhaps it will not be a humiliation to
admit that we feel some influence ex-
erted upon us by the great American
Republic. American freedom acts upon
England, and there is nothing that is
better known, at the west end of this
great city-from which I have just
134
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
come-than the influence that has been,
and nothing more feared than the in-
fluence that may be, exerted by the
United States upon this country.
We all of us know that there has
been a great effect produced in Eng-
land by the career of the United States.
An emigration of three or four millions
of persons from the United Kingdom,
during the last forty years, has bound
us to them by thousands of family ties,
and therefore it follows that whatever
there is that is good, and whatever
there is that is free in America, which
we have not, we know something
about, and gradually may begin to
wish for, and some day may insist upon
having.
And when I speak of 'us,' I mean
the people of this country. When I
am asserting the fact that the people of
England have a great interest in the
well-being of the American Republic, I
mean the people of England. I do not
speak of the wearers of crowns or of
coronets, but of the twenty millions of
people in this country who live on their
labour, and who, having no votes, are
not counted in our political census, but
without whom there could be no British
nation at all. I say that these have an
interest, almost as great and direct as
though they were living in Massachu-
setts or New York, in the tremendous
struggle for freedom which is now shak-
ing the whole North American Con-
tinent.
During the last two years there has
been much said, and much written, and
some things done in this country, which
are calculated to gain us the hate of
both sections of the American Union.
I believe that a course of policy might
have been taken by the English press,
and by the English Government, and
by what are called the influential classes
in England, that would have bound
them to our hearts and us to their
hearts. I speak of the twenty millions
of the Free North. I believe we might
have been so thoroughly united with
that people, that all remembrance of
the war of the Revolution and of the
war of 1812 would have been oblite-
rated, and we should have been in heart
and spirit for all time forth but one
nation.
I can only hope that, as time passes,
and our people become better informed,
they will be more just, and that ill
feeling of every kind will pass away;
that in future all who love freedom here
will hold converse with all who love
freedom there, and that the two nations,
separated as they are by the ocean,
come as they are, notwithstanding, of
one stock, may be in future time united
in soul, and may work together for the
advancement of the liberties and the
happiness of mankind.
涨
​?
AMERICA.
VI.
MR. ROEBUCK'S MOTION FOR RECOGNITION OF THE
SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 30, 1863.
I WILL not attempt to follow the
noble Lord in the laboured attack
which he has made upon the Treasury
Bench, for these two reasons:-that he
did not appear to me very much to un-
derstand what it was he was condemn-
ing them for; and, again, I am not
in the habit of defending Gentlemen
who sit on that bench. I will address
myself to the question before the House,
which I think the House generally feels
to be very important, although I am
quite satisfied that they do not feel it to
be a practical one. Neither do I think
that the House will be disposed to take
any course in support of the hon. Gen-
tleman who introduced the resolution
now before us.
We sometimes are engaged in dis-
cussions, and have great difficulty to
know what we are about; but the hon.
Gentleman left us in no kind of doubt
when he sat down. He proposed a re-
solution, in words which, under certain
circumstances and addressed to certain
parties, might end in offensive or in-
jurious consequences. Taken in con-
nection with his character, and with the
speech he has made to-night, and with
the speech he has recently made else-
where on this subject, I may say that
he would have come to about the same
conclusion if he had proposed to ad-
dress the Crown inviting the Queen to
declare war against the United States of
America. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, who is known not to be very
zealous in the particular line of opinion
that I have adopted, addressed the hon.
Gentleman in the smoothest language
possible, but still he was obliged to
charge him with the tone of bitter hos-
tility which marked his speech.
On a recent occasion the hon. Mem-
ber addressed some members of his
constituency-I do not mean in his last
speech, I mean in the speech in August
last year-in which he entered upon
a course of prophecy which, like most
prophecies in our day, does not happen
to come true. But he said then what
he said to-night, that the American
people and Government were overbear-
ing. He did not tell his constituents
that the Government of the United
States had, almost during the whole of
his lifetime, been conducted by his
friends of the South. He said that, if
they were divided, they would not be
able to bully the whole world; and he
made use of these expressions: The
North will never be our friends; of the
South you can make friends,—they are
Englishmen, they are not the scum
and refuse of the world.'
Mr. Roebuck: Allow me to correct

136
JUNE 30,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
that statement. What I said I now
state to the House, that the men of the
South were Englishmen, but that the
army of the North was composed of
the scum of Europe.'
Mr. Bright: I take, of course, that
explanation of the hon. and learned
Gentleman, with this explanation from
me, that there is not, so far as I can
find, any mention near that paragraph,
and I think there is not in the speech
a single word, about the army.
Mr. Roebuck: 'I assure you I said
that.'
Mr. Bright: Then I take it for
granted that the hon. and learned
Gentleman said that, or that if he said
what I have read he greatly regrets it.
C
Mr. Roebuck: No, I did not say it.'
Mr. Bright: The hon. and learned
Gentleman in his resolution speaks of
other powers.
But he has unceremo-
niously got rid of all the powers but
France, and he comes here to-night
with a story of an interview with a man
whom he describes as the great ruler
of France-tells us of a conversation
with him-asks us to accept the lead of
the Emperor of the French on, I will
undertake to say, one of the greatest
questions that ever was submitted to
the British Parliament. But it is not
long since the hon. and learned Gentle-
man held very different language. I
recollect in this House, only about two
years ago, that the hon. and learned
Gentleman said: 'I hope I may be
permitted to express in respectful terms
my opinion, even though it should affect
so great a potentate as the Emperor of
the French. I have no faith in the
Emperor of the French.' On another
occasion the hon. and learned Gentle-
man said,-not, I believe, in this House,
-I am still of opinion that we have
nothing but animosity and bad faith to
look for from the French Emperor.'
And he went on to say that still, though
he had been laughed at, he adopted the
patriotic character of Tear-'em,' and
was still at his post.
C
And when the hon. and learned
Gentleman came back, I think from
his expedition to Cherbourg, does the
House recollect the language he used
on that occasion-language which, if it
expressed the sentiments which he felt,
at least I think he might have been
content to have withheld? If I am
not mistaken, referring to the salutation
between the Emperor of the French
and the Queen of these kingdoms, he
said, 'When I saw his perjured lips
touch that hallowed cheek.'
And now,
Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman
has been to Paris, introduced there by
the hon. Member for Sunderland, and
he has sought to become as it were in
the palace of the French Emperor a
co-conspirator with him to drag this
country into a policy which I maintain
is as hostile to its interests as it would
be degrading to its honour.
But then the high contracting parties,
I suspect, are not agreed, because I will
say this in justice to the French Em-
peror, that there has never come from
him in public, nor from any one of his
Ministers, nor is there anything to be
found in what they have written, that is
tinctured in the smallest degree with
that bitter hostility which the hon. and
learned Gentleman has constantly ex-
hibited to the United States of America
and their people. France, if not wise
in this matter, is at least not unfriendly.
The hon. and learned Member, in my
opinion—indeed I am sure is not
friendly, and I believe he is not wise.
sure
But now, on this subject, without
speaking disrespectfully of the great
potentate who has taken the hon. and
learned Gentleman into his confidence,
I must say that the Emperor runs the
risk of being far too much represented
in this House. We have now two-I will
not call them envoys extraordinary, but
most extraordinary. And, if report
speaks true, even they are not all. The
hon. Member for King's County (Mr.
Hennessy)-I do not see him in his
place-came back the other day from
Paris, and there were whispers that he
had seen the great ruler of France, and
that he could tell everybody in the most
confidential manner that the Emperor

1863.
137
AMERICA.
VI.
was ready to make a spring at Russia
for the sake of delivering Poland, and
that he only waited for a word from the
Prime Minister of England.
I do not understand the policy of the
Emperor if these new Ministers of his
tell the truth. For, Sir, if one Gentle-
man says that he is about to make war
with Russia, and another that he is
about to make war with America, I am
disposed to look at what he is already
doing. I find that he is holding Rome
against the opinion of all Italy. He is
conquering Mexico by painful steps,
every footstep marked by devastation
and blood. He is warring, in some
desultory manner, in China, and for
aught I know he may be about to do it
in Japan. I say that, if he is to en-
gage, at the same time, in dismember-
ing the greatest Eastern Empire and
the great Western Republic, he has
a greater ambition than Louis XIV,
a greater daring than the first of his
name; and that, if he endeavours to
grasp these great transactions, his dy-
nasty may fall and be buried in the
ruins of his own ambition.
I can say only one sentence upon the
question to which the noble Lord has
directed so much attention. I under-
stand that we have not heard all the
story from Paris, and further, that it is
not at all remarkable, seeing that the
secret has been confided to two persons,
that we have not heard it correctly. I
saw my hon. Friend, the Member for
Sunderland, near me, and his face un-
derwent remarkable contortions during
the speech of the hon. and learned
Gentleman, and I felt perfectly satisfied
that he did not agree with what his
colleague was saying. I am told there
is in existence a little memorandum
which contains an account of what was
said and done at that interview in Paris;
and before the discussion closes we shall
no doubt have that memorandum pro-
duced, and from it know how far these
two gentlemen are agreed.
I now come to the proposition which
the hon. and learned Gentleman has
submitted to the House, and which he
has already submitted to a meeting of his
constituents at Sheffield. At that meet-
ing, on the 27th of May, the hon. and
learned Gentleman used these words:
What I have to consider is, what are
the interests of England: what is for
her interests I believe to be for the in-
terests of the world.' Now, leaving
out of consideration the latter part of
that statement, if the hon. and learned
Gentleman will keep to the first part of
it, then what we have now to consider
in this question is, what is for the in-
terest of England. But the hon. and
learned Gentleman has put it to-night
in almost as offensive a way as he did
before at Sheffield, and has said that
the United States would not bully the
world if they were divided and sub-
divided; for he went so far as to con-
template division into more than two
independent sections. I say that the
whole of his case rests upon a miserable
jealousy of the United States, or on
what I may term a base fear. It is
a fear which appears to me just as
groundless as any of those panics by
which the hon. and learned Gentleman
has attempted to frighten the country.
There never was a State in the world
which was less capable of aggression
with regard to Europe than the United
States of America. I speak of its go-
vernment, of its confederation, of the
peculiarities of its organization; for the
House will agree with me, that nothing
is more peculiar than the fact of the
great power which the separate States,
both of the North and South, exercise
upon the policy and course of the
country. I will undertake to say, that,
unless in a question of overwhelming
magnitude, which would be able to
unite any people, it would be utterly
hopeless to expect that all the States
of the American Union would join to-
gether to support the central Govern-
ment in any plan of aggression on Eng-
land or any other country of Europe.
Besides, nothing can be more certain
than this, that the Government which
is now in power, and the party which
have elected Mr. Lincoln to office, is a
138
JUNE 30,
SPEECHES OF
JOHN BRIGHT.
moral and peaceable party, which has
been above all things anxious to cul-
tivate the best possible state of feeling
with regard to England. The hon. and
learned Gentleman, of all men, ought
not to entertain this fear of United
States' aggression, for he is always
boasting of his readiness to come into
the field himself. I grant that it would
be a great necessity indeed which would
justify a conscription in calling out the
hon. and learned Gentleman, but I say
he ought to consider well before he
spreads these alarms among the people.
For the sake of this miserable jealousy,
and that he may help to break up a
friendly nation, he would depart from
the usages of nations, and create an
everlasting breach between the people
of England and the people of the
United States of America. He would
do more; and, notwithstanding what
he has said to-night, I may put this as
my strongest argument against his case
-he would throw the weight of Eng-
land into the scale in favour of the
cause of slavery.
་
I want to show the hon. and learned
Gentleman that England is not in-
terested in the course he proposes we
should take; and when I speak of in-
terests, I mean the commercial interests,
the political interests, and the moral
interests of the country. And first,
with regard to the supply of cotton, in
which the noble Lord the Member for
Stamford takes such a prodigious in-
terest. I must explain to the noble
Lord that I know a little about cotton.
I happen to have been engaged in that
business,-not all my life, for the noble
Lord has seen me here for twenty years,
—but my interests have been in it; and
at this moment the firm of which I
am a member have no less than
six mills, which have been at a stand
for nearly a year, owing to the impos-
sibility of working under the present
conditions of the supply of cotton.
live among a people who live by this
trade; and there is no man in England
who has a more direct interest in it
than I have. Before the war, the sup-
I
ply of cotton was little and costly, and
every year it was becoming more costly,
for the supply did not keep pace with
the demand.
The point that I am about to argue
is this: I believe that the war which is
now raging in America is more likely
to abolish slavery than not, and more
likely to abolish it than any other thing
that can be proposed in the world. I
regret very much that the pride and
passion of men are such as to justify me
in making this statement. The supply
of cotton under slavery must always be
insecure. The House felt so in past
years; for at my recommendation they
appointed a committee, and but for the
folly of a foolish Minister they would
have appointed a special commission to
India at my request.
Is there any
gentleman in this House who will not
agree with me in this,-that it would
be far better for our great Lancashire
industry that our supply of cotton
should be grown by free labour than by
slave labour?
Before the war, the whole number of
negroes engaged in the production of
cotton was about one million, that is,
about a fourth of the whole of the
negroes in the Slave States. The an-
nual increase in the number of negroes
growing cotton was about twenty-five
thousand, only two and a-half per
cent. It was impossible for the Southern
States to keep up their growth of sugar,
rice, tobacco, and their ordinary slave
productions, and at the same time to in-
crease the growth of cotton more than
at a rate corresponding with the annual
increase of negroes. Therefore you
will find that the quantity of cotton
grown, taking ten years together, in-
creased only at the rate of about one
hundred thousand bales a-year. But
that was nothing like the quantity
which we required. That supply could
not be increased, because the South did
not cultivate more than probably one
and a-half per cent. of the land which
was capable of cultivation for cotton.
The great bulk of the land in the
Southern States is uncultivated. Ten
1863.
139
AMERICA.
VI.
thousand square miles are appropriated
to the cultivation of cotton; but there
are six hundred thousand square miles,
or sixty times as much land, which is
capable of being cultivated for cotton.
It was, however, impossible that the
land should be so cultivated, because,
although you had climate and sun, you
had no labour. The institution of
slavery forbade free-labour men in the
North to come to the South; and every
emigrant that landed in New York from
Europe knew that the Slave States were
no States for him, and therefore he
went North or West. The laws of the
United States, the sentiments of Eu-
rope and of the world, being against any
opening of the slave-trade, the planters
of the South were shut up, and the
annual increase in the supply of cotton
could increase only in the same pro-
portion as the annual increase in the
number of their negroes.
There is only one other point with
regard to that matter which is worth
mentioning. The hon. and learned
Gentleman the Member for Sheffield
will understand it, although on some
points he seems to be peculiarly dark.
If a planter in the Southern States
wanted to grow one thousand bales of
cotton a-year, he would require about
two hundred negroes. Taking them at
five hundred dollars, or one hundred
pounds each, which is not more than
half the price of a first-class hand, the
cost of the two hundred would be
twenty thousand pounds.
To grow
one thousand bales of cotton a-year you
require not only to possess an estate,
machinery, tools, and other things ne-
cessary to carry on the cotton-growing
business, but you must find a capital of
twenty thousand pounds to buy the
actual labourers by whom the planta-
tion is to be worked; and therefore, as
every gentleman will see at once, this
great trade, to a large extent, was shut
up in the hands of men who were re-
quired to be richer than would be ne-
cessary if slavery did not exist.
Thus the plantation business to a
large extent became a monopoly, and
therefore even on that account the pro-
duction of cotton was constantly limited
and controlled. I was speaking to a
gentleman the other day from Missis-
sippi. I believe no man in America or
in England is more acquainted with the
facts of this case. He has been for
many years a Senator from the State of
Mississippi. He told me that every
one of these facts was true, and said,
'I have no doubt whatever that in ten
years after freedom in the South, or
after freedom in conjunction with the
North, the production of cotton will
be doubled, and cotton will be for-
warded to the consumers of the world
at a much less price than we have had
it for many years past.'
I shall turn for a moment to the
political interest, to which the hon. and
learned Gentleman paid much more
attention than to the commercial. The
more I consider the course of this war,
the more I come to the conclusion that
it is improbable in future that the
United States will be broken into sepa-
rate republics. I do not come to the
conclusion that the North will conquer
the South. But I think the conclusion
to which I am more disposed to come
now than at any time since the breaking
out of the war is this,-that if a sepa-
ration should occur for a time, still the
interest, the sympathies, the sentiments,
the necessities of the whole continent,
and its ambition also, which, as hon.
Gentlemen have mentioned, seems to
some people to be a necessity, render
it highly probable that the continent
would still be united under one central
Government. I may be quite mistaken.
I do not express that opinion with any
more confidence than hon. Gentlemen
have expressed theirs in favour of a
permanent dissolution; but now is not
this possible, that the Union may be
again formed on the basis of the South?
There are persons who think that
possible. I hope it is not, but we
cannot say that it is absolusely im-
possible.
Is it not possible that the Northern
Government may be baffled in their
140
JUNE 30,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
military operations? Is it not possible
that, by their own incapacity, they may
be humiliated before their own people?
And is it not even possible that the
party which you please to call the
Peace party in the North, but which
is in no sense a peace party, should
unite with the South, and that the
Union should be reconstituted on the
basis of Southern opinions and of the
Southern social system? Is it not
possible, for example, that the South-
ern people, and those in their favour,
should appeal to the Irish population
of America against the negroes, between
whom there has been little sympathy
and little respect; and is it not possible
they should appeal to the commercial
classes of the North-and the rich
commercial classes in all countries,
from the uncertainty of their posses-
sions and the fluctuation of their in-
terests, are rendered always timid and
very often corrupt-is it not possible,
I say, that they might prefer the union
of their whole country upon the basis
of the South, rather than that union
which many Members of this House
look upon with so much apprehension?
If that should ever take place—but I
believe, with my hon. Friend below me
(Mr. Forster), in the moral government
of the world, and therefore I cannot
believe that it will take place; but if
it were to take place, with their great
armies, and with their great navy, and
their almost unlimited power, they
might seek to drive England out of
Canada, France out of Mexico, and
whatever nations are interested in them
out of the islands of the West Indies;
and you might then have a great State
built upon slavery and war, instead of
that free State to which I look, built
up upon an educated people, upon
general freedom, and upon morality
in government.
Now there is one more point to
which the hon. and learned Gentleman
will forgive me if I allude-he does not
appear to me to think it of great im-
portance-and that is, the morality of
this question. The right hon. Gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and the hon. Gentleman who spoke
from the bench behind-and I think
the noble Lord, if I am not mistaken-
referred to the carnage which is occa-
sioned by this lamentable strife. Well,
carnage, I presume, is the accompani-
ment of all war. Two years ago the
press of London ridiculed very much
the battles of the United States, in
which nobody was killed and few were
hurt. There was a time when I stood
up in this House, and pointed out the
dreadful horrors of war. There was a war
waged by this country in the Crimea ;
and the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
with an uneasy conscience, is con-
stantly striving to defend that strug-
gle. That war-for it lasted about the
same time that the American war has
lasted—at least destroyed as many lives
as are estimated to have been destroyed
in the United States.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Montrose, who, I think, is not in the
House, made a speech in Scotland some
time last year, in which he gave the.
numbers. which were lost by Russia in
that war. An hon. Friend near me
observes, that some people do not
reckon the Russians for anything. I
say, if you will add the Russians to
the English, and the two to the French,
and the three to the Sardinians, and the
four to the Turks, that more lives were
lost in the invasion of the Crimea, in
the two years that it lasted, than have
been lost hitherto in the American war.
That is no defence of the carnage of the
American war; but let hon. Gentlemen
bear in mind that, when I protested
against the carnage in the Crimea-for
an object which few could compre-
hend and nobody can fairly explain-I
was told that I was actuated by a
morbid sentimentality. Well, if I am
converted, if I view the mortality in
war with less horror than I did then,
it must be attributed to the arguments
of hon. Gentlemen opposite and on the
Treasury bench; but the fact is, I view
this carnage just as I viewed that, with
only this difference, that while our
1863.
141
AMERICA.
VI.
soldiers perished three thousand miles
from home in a worthless and indefen-
sible cause, these men were on their own
soil, and every man of them knew for
what he enlisted and for what purpose
he was to fight.
Now, I will ask the right hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, and those who are of opinion
with him on this question of slaughter
in the American war-a slaughter which
I hope there is no hon. Member here,
and no person out of this House, that
does not in his calm moments look
upon with grief and horror-to consider
what was the state of things before the
It was this: that every year
in
the Slave States of America there were
one hundred and fifty thousand children
born into the world-born with the
badge and the doom of slavery-born to
the liability by law, and by custom, and
by the devilish cupidity of man-to the
lash and to the chain and to the branding-
iron, and to be taken from their families
and carried they know not where.
war.
I want to know whether you feel as I
feel upon this question.
this question. When I can
get down to my home from this House,
I find half a dozen little children playing
upon my hearth. How many Members
are there who can say with me, that the
most innocent, the most pure, the most
holy joy which in their past years they
have felt, or in their future years they
have hoped for, has not arisen from
contact and association with our pre-
cious children? Well, then, if that be
so-if, when the hand of Death takes
one of those flowers from our dwelling,
our heart is overwhelmed with sorrow
and our household is covered with
gloom; what would it be if our chil-
dren were brought up to this infernal
system-one hundred and fifty thousand
of them every year brought into the
world in these Slave States, amongst
these 'gentlemen,' amongst this 'chi-
valry,' amongst these men that we can
make our friends?
Do you forget the thousand-fold griefs
and the countless agonies which belonged
to the silent conflict of slavery before
the war began? It is all very well for
the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell
me, to tell this House-he will not tell
the country with any satisfaction to it-
that slavery, after all, is not so bad a
thing. The brother of my hon. Friend
the Member for South Durham told me
that in North Carolina he himself saw
a woman whose every child, ten in
number, had been sold when they grew
up to the age at which they would fetch
a price to their master.
I have not heard a word to-night of
another matter-the Proclamation of the
President of the United States. The
hon. and learned Gentleman spoke
somewhere in the country, and he had
not the magnanimity to abstain from a
statement which I was going to say he
must have known had no real founda-
tion. I can make all allowance for the
passion-and I was going to say the
malice--but I will say the ill-will of the
hon. and learned Gentleman; but I
make no allowance for his ignorance.
I make no allowance for that, because
if he is ignorant it is his own fault, for
God has given him an intellect which
ought to keep him from ignorance on a
question of this magnitude. I now take
that Proclamation. What do you pro-
pose to do? You propose by your reso-
Îution to help the South, if possible, to
gain and sustain its independence. No-
body doubts that. The hon. and learned
Gentleman will not deny it. But what
becomes of the Proclamation? I should
like to ask any lawyer in what light we
stand as regards that Proclamation?
To us there is only one country in what
was called the United States; there is
only one President, there is only one
general Legislature, there is only one
law; and if that Proclamation be law-
ful anywhere, we are not in a condition
to deny its legality, because at present
we know no President Davis, nor do we
know the men who are about him. We
have our Cousuls in the South, but
recognizing only one Legislature, one
President, one law. So far as we are
concerned, that Proclamation is a legal
and effective document.
142
JUNE 30,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I want to know, to ask you, the
House of Commons, whether you have
turned back to your own proceedings in
1834, and traced the praises which
have been lavished upon you for thirty
years by the great and good men of
other countries,-and whether, after
what you did at that time, you believe
that you will meet the views of the
thoughtful, moral, and religious people
of England, when you propose to remit
to slavery three millions of negroes in
the Southern States, who in our views,
and regarding the Proclamation of the
only President of the United States as a
legal document, are certainly and to all
intents and purposes free? ['Oh !']
The hon. and learned Gentleman may
say 'Oh!' and shake his head lightly,
and be scornful at this. He has ma-
naged to get rid of all those feelings
under which all men, black and white,
like to be free. He has talked of the
cant and hypocrisy of these men. Was
Wilberforce, was Clarkson, was Buxton,
-I might run over the whole list,-
were these men hypocrites, and had
they nothing about them but cant?
I could state something about the
family of my hon. Friend below me
(Mr. Forster), which I almost fear to
state in his presence; but his revered
father—a man unsurpassed in character,
not equalled by many in intellect, and
approached by few in service-laid down
his life in a Slave State in America,
while carrying to the governors and
legislatures of every Slave State the pro-
test of himself and his sect against the
enormity of that odious system.
In conclusion, Sir, I have only this to
say, that I wish to take a generous
view of this question,-a view, I say,
generous with regard to the people with
whom we are in amity, whose Minister
we receive here, and who receive our
Minister in Washington. We see that
the Government of the United States has
for two years past been contending for its
life, and we know that it is contending
necessarily for human freedom. That
Government affords the remarkable ex-
ample-offered for the first time in the
history of the world-of a great Govern-
ment coming forward as the organized
defender of law, freedom, and equality.
Surely hon. Gentlemen opposite can-
not be so ill-informed as to say that the
revolt of the Southern States is in favour
of freedom and equality. In Europe
often, and in some parts of America,
when there has been insurrection, it has
generally been of the suffering against
the oppressor, and rarely has it been
found, and not more commonly in our
history than in the history of any other
country, that the Government has stepped
forward as the organized defender of
freedom of the wide and general free-
dom of those under its rule. With such
a Government, in such a contest, with
such a foe, the hon. and learned Gentle-
man the Member for Sheffield, who pro-
fesses to be more an Englishman than
most Englishmen, asks us to throw into
the scale against it the weight of the
hostility of England.
I have not said a word with regard
to what may happen to England if we
go into war with the United States. It
will be a war upon the ocean,-every
ship that belongs to the two nations
will, as far as possible, be swept from
the seas.
But when the troubles in
America are over,-be they ended by
the restoration of the Union, or by sepa-
ration, that great and free people, the
most instructed in the world,—there is
not an American to be found in the New
England States who cannot read and
write, and there are not three men in
one hundred in the whole Northern
States who cannot read and write,-and
those who cannot read and write are
those who have recently come from
Europe,-I say the most instructed
people in the world, and the most
wealthy, if you take the distribution
of wealth among the whole people,-
will have a wound in their hearts by
your act which a century may not heal;
and the posterity of some of those who
now hear my voice may look back with
amazement, and I will say with lamenta-
tion, at the course which was taken by
the hon. and learned Gentleman, and by
1863.
143
AMERICA.
VI.
€
such hon. Members as may choose to
follow his leading. [No! No!'] I
suppose the hon. Gentlemen who cry
No!' will admit that we sometimes
suffer from the errors of our ancestors.
There are few persons who will not
admit that, if their fathers had been
wiser, their children would have been
happier.
We know the cause of this revolt, its
purposes, and its aims. Those who
made it have not left us in darkness
respecting their intentions, but what
they are to accomplish is still hidden
from our sight; and I will abstain now,
as I have always abstained with regard
to it, from predicting what is to come. I
know what I hope for,-and what I shall
rejoice in,—but I know nothing of future
facts that will enable me to express a
confident opinion. Whether it will give
freedom to the race which white men
have trampled in the dust, and whether
the issue will purify a nation steeped in
crimes committed against that race, is
known only to the Supreme. In His
hands are alike the breath of man and
the life of States. I am willing to com-
mit to Him the issue of this dreaded
contest; but I implore of Him, and I
beseech this House, that my country
may lift nor hand nor voice in aid of the
most stupendous act of guilt that history
has recorded in the annals of mankind.
;
AMERICA.
VII,
LONDON, JUNE 29, 1867.
[The following speech was made at a public breakfast given to William Lloyd Garrison,
in St. James's Hall, at which Mr. Bright occupied the Chair.]
THE position in which I am placed
this morning is one very unusual for me,
and one that I find somewhat difficult;
but I consider it a signal distinction to
be permitted to take a prominent part
in the proceedings of this day, which
are intended to commemorate one of
the greatest of the great triumphs of
freedom, and to do honour to a most
eminent instrument in the achievement
of that freedom. There may be, per-
haps, those who ask what is this tri-
umph of which I speak. To put it
briefly, and, indeed, only to put one
part of it, I may say that it is a triumph
which has had the effect of raising
4,000,000 of human beings from the
very lowest depth of social and political
degradation to that lofty height which
men have attained when they possess
equality of rights in the first country on
the globe. More than this, it is a tri-
umph which has pronounced the irre-
versible doom of slavery in all countries
and for all time. Another question
suggests itself how has this great tri-
umph been accomplished? The answer
suggests itself in another question—
How is it that any great thing is ac-
complished? By love of justice, by
constant devotion to a great cause, and
by an unfaltering faith that what is
right will in the end succeed.
When I look at this hall, filled with
such an assembly-when I partake of
the sympathy which runs from heart to
heart at this moment in welcome to
our guest of to-day-I cannot but con-
trast his present position with that
which, not so far back but that many
of us can remember, he occupied in his
own country. It is not forty years ago,
I believe about the year 1829, when the
guest whom we honour this morning
was spending his solitary days in a
prison in the slave-owning city of Bal-
timore. I will not say that he was
languishing in prison, for that I do not
believe; he was sustained by a hope
that did not yield to the persecution of
those who thus maltreated him; and to
show that the effect of that imprison-
ment was of no avail to suppress or
extinguish his ardour, within two years
after that he had the courage, the au-
dacity--I dare say many of his country-
men used even a stronger phrase than
that he had the courage to commence
the publication, in the city of Boston,
of a newspaper devoted mainly to the
question of the abolition of slavery.
The first number of that paper, issued
on the 1st of January, 1831, contained
an address to the public, one passage
of which I have often read with the
greatest interest, and it is a key to the
JUNE 29, 1867.
145
AMERICA. VII.
future life of Mr. Garrison. He had
been complained of for having used
hard language-which is a very common
complaint indeed-and he said in his
first number :-
'I am aware that many object to the
severity of my language, but is there not
cause for such severity? I will be as
harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as
justice. I am in earnest, I will not equi-
vocate, I will not excuse, I will not retract
a single inch, and I will be heard.'
And that, after all, expresses to a great
extent the future course of his life.
But what was at that time the temper
of the people amongst whom he lived—
of the people who are glorying now,
as they well may glory, in the abolition
of slavery throughout their country?
At that time it was very little better in
the North than it was in the South. I
think it was in the year 1835 that riots
of the most serious character took place
in some of the Northern cities: during
that time Mr. Garrison's life was in im-
minent peril; and he has never ascer-
tained to this day how it was that he
was left alive on the earth to carry out
his great work. Turning to the South,
a State that has lately suffered from the
ravages of armies, the State of Georgia,
by its legislature of House, Senate, and
Governor, if my memory does not de-
ceive me, passed a bill, offering 10,000
dollars reward—[Mr. Garrison here said
* 5,000 ']—well, they seemed to think
there were people who would do it
cheap-offering 5,000 dollars, and zeal,
doubtless, would make up the difference,
for the capture of Mr. Garrison, or for
adequate proof of his death. Now,
these were menaces and perils such as
we have not in our time been accustomed
to in this country in any of our political
movements, and we shall take a very
poor measure indeed of the conduct of
the leaders of the Emancipation party in
the United States if we estimate them by
that of any of those who have been con-
cerned in political movements amongst
But, notwithstanding all draw-
backs, the cause was gathering strength,
us.
and Mr. Garrison found himself by-and-
by surrounded by a small but increasing
band of men and women who were
devoted to this cause, as he himself
was. We have in this country a very
noble woman, who taught the English
people much upon this question about
thirty years ago: I allude to Harriet
Martineau. I recollect well the impres-
sion with which I read a most powerful
and touching paper which she had
written, and which was published in
the number of the Westminster Review
for December, 1838. It was entitled
'The Martyr Age of the United States.'
The paper introduced to the English
public the great names which were ap-
pearing on the scene in connection with
this cause in America. There was, of
course I need hardly say, our eminent
guest of to-day; there was Arthur Tap-
pan, and Lewis Tappan, and James G.
Birney of Alabama, a planter and slave-
owner, who liberated his slaves and
came North, and became, I believe, the
first Presidential candidate upon Aboli-
tion principles in the United States.
There were besides them, Dr. Channing,
John Quincy Adams, a statesman and
President of the United States, and
father of the eminent man who is now
Minister from that people amongst us.
Then there was Wendell Phillips, ad-
mitted to be by all who knew him per-
haps the most powerful orator who
speaks the English language. I might
refer to others, to Charles Sumner, the
scholar and statesman, and Horace
Greeley, the first of journalists in the
United States, if not the first of journal-
ists in the world. But, besides these,
there were of noble women not a few.
There was Lydia Maria Child; there
were the two sisters, Sarah and Ange-
lina Grimke, ladies who came from
South Carolina, who liberated their
slaves, and devoted all they had to the
service of this just cause; and Maria
Weston Chapman, of whom Miss Mar-
tineau speaks in terms which, though I
do not exactly recollect them, yet I
know describe her as noble-minded,
beautiful, and good. It may be that
[:)
146
JUNE 29,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
there are some of her family who are
now within the sound of my voice. If
it be so, all I have to say is, that I hope
they will feel, in addition to all they
have felt heretofore as to the character
of their mother, that we who are here
can appreciate her services, and the
services of all who were united with
her as co-operators in this great and
worthy cause. But there was another
whose name must not be forgotten, a
man whose name must live for ever in
history, Elijah P. Lovejoy, who in the
free State of Illinois laid down his life
for the cause. When I read that article
by Harriet Martineau, and the descrip-
tion of those men and women there
given, I was led, I know not how, to
think of a very striking passage which I
am sure must be familiar to most here,
because it is to be found in the Epistle
to the Hebrews. After the writer of
that Epistle has described the great
men and fathers of the nation, he says:
"Time would fail me to tell of Gideon,
of Barak, of Samson, of Jephtha, of
David, of Samuel, and the Prophets,
who through faith subdued kingdoms,
wrought righteousness, obtained pro-
mises, stopped the mouths of lions,
quenched the violence of fire, escaped
the edge of the sword, out of weakness
were made strong, waxed valiant in
fight, turned to flight the armies of the
aliens.' I ask if this grand passage of
the inspired writer may not be applied
to that heroic band who have made
America the perpetual home of free-
dom?
Thus, in spite of all that persecutions
could do, opinion grew in the North in
favour of freedom; but in the South,
alas in favour of that most devilish
delusion that slavery was a Divine in-
stitution. The moment that idea took
possession of the South, war was in-
evitable. Neither fact, nor argument,
nor counsel, nor philosophy, nor re-
ligion, could by any possibility affect
the discussion of the question when
once the Church leaders of the South
had taught their people that slavery
was a Divine institution; for then they
•
took their stand on other and different,
and what they in their blindness thought
higher grounds, and they said, Evil!
be thou my good;' and so they ex-
changed light for darkness, and free-
dom for bondage, and good for evil,
and, if you like, heaven for hell. Of
course, unless there was some stu-
pendous miracle, greater than any that
IS on record even in the inspired
writings, it was impossible that war
should not spring out of that state of
things; and the political slaveholders,
that dreadful brotherhood, in whom
all turbulent passions were let loose,'
the moment they found that the pre-
sidential election of 1860 was adverse
to the cause of slavery, took up arms to
sustain their cherished and endangered
system. Then came the outbreak which
had been so often foretold, so often
menaced; and the ground reeled under
the nation during four years of agony,
until at last, after the smoke of the
battle-field had cleared away, the horrid
shape which had cast its shadow over
a whole continent had vanished, and
was gone for ever. An ancient and
renowned poet has said—
'Unholy is the voice
Of loud thanksgiving over slaughtered men.'
It becomes us not to rejoice, but to be
humbled, that a chastisement so terrible
should have fallen upon any of our race;
but we may be thankful for this—that
this chastisement was at least not sent in
vain. The great triumph in the field
was not all; there came after it another
great triumph-a triumph over passion,
and there came up before the world
the spectacle, not of armies and military
commanders, but of the magnanimity
and mercy of a powerful and victorious
nation. The vanquished were treated
as the vanquished, in the history of the
world, have never before been treated.
There was a universal feeling in the
North that every care should be taken
of those who had so recently and mar-
vellously been enfranchised. Imme-
diately we found that the privileges of
independent labour were open to them,
1867.
147
AMERICA.
VII.
schools were established in which their
sons might obtain an education that
would raise them to an intellectual
position never reached by their fathers;
and at length full political rights were
conferred upon those who a few short
years, or rather months before, had been
called chattels, and things, to be bought
and sold in any market. And we may
feel assured, that those persons in the
Northern States who befriended the
negro in his bondage will not now fail
to assist his struggles for a higher po-
sition. May we not say, reviewing
what has taken place-and I have only
glanced in the briefest possible way at
the chief aspects of this great question
—that probably history has no sadder,
and yet, if we take a different view, I
may say also probably no brighter
page? To Mr. Garrison more than to
any other man this is due; his is the
creation of that opinion which has made
slavery hateful, and which has made free-
dom possible in America. His name is
venerated in his own country-venerated
where not long ago it was a name of
obloquy and reproach. His name is
venerated in this country and in Europe
wheresoever Christianity softens the
hearts and lessens the sorrows of men ;
and I venture to say that in time to
come, near or remote I know not, his
name will become the herald and the
synonym of good to millions of men
who will dwell on the now almost un-
known continent of Africa.
But we must not allow our own land
to be forgotten or depreciated, even
whilst we are saying what our feelings
bid us say of our friend beside me and
of our other friends across the water.
We, too. can share in the triumph I have
described, and in the honours which the
world is willing to shower upon our
guest, and upon those who, like him,
are unwearied in doing good. We have
had slaves in the colonial territories
that owned the sway of this country.
Our position was different from that in
which the Americans stood towards
theirs; the negroes were far from being
so numerous, and they were not in our
We
midst, but 4,000 miles away.
had no prejudices of colour to over-
come, we had a Parliament that was
omnipotent in those colonies, and public
opinion acting upon that Parliament
was too powerful for the Englishmen
who were interested in the continuance
of slavery. We liberated our slaves;
for the English soil did not reject the
bondsman, but the moment he touched
it made him free. We have now in our
memory Clarkson, and Wilberforce, and
Buxton, and Sturge; and even now we
have within this hall the most eloquent
living English champion of the freedom
of the slave in my friend, and our friend,
George Thompson. Well, then, I may
presume to say that we are sharers in
that good work which has raised our
guest to eminence; and we may divide
it with the country from which he
comes. Our country is still his; for
did not his fathers bear allegiance to
our ancient monarchy, and were they
not at one time citizens of this common-
wealth? and may we not add that the
freedom which now overspreads his
noble nation first sprang into life
amongst our own ancestors? To Mr.
Garrison, as is stated in one of the
letters which has just been read, to
William Lloyd Garrison it has been
given, in a manner not often permitted
to those who do great things of this
kind, to see the ripe fruit of his vast
labours. Over a territory large enough
to make many realms, he has seen
hopeless toil supplanted by compen-
sated industry; and where the bond-
man dragged his chain, there freedom is
established for ever. We now welcome
him amongst us as a friend whom some
of us have known long; for I have
watched his career with no common
interest, even when I was too young to
take much part in public affairs; and
I have kept within my heart his name,
and the names of those who have been
associated with him in every step which
he has taken; and in public debates in
the halls of peace, and even on the
blood-soiled fields of war, my heart has
always been with those who were the
10—2
148
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
friends of freedom. We welcome him,
then, with a cordiality which knows no
stint and no limit for him and for his
noble associates, both men and women;
and we venture to speak a verdict
which, I believe, will be sanctioned by
all mankind, not only by those who live
now, but by those who shall come
after, to whom their perseverance and
their success shall be a lesson and a
help in the future struggles which re-
main for men to make. One of our
oldest and greatest poets has furnished
me with a line that well expresses that
verdict. Are not William Lloyd Gar-
rison and his fellow-labourers in that
world's work-are they not
'On Fame's eternal bead-roll worthy to
be filed?'
}
IRELAND.
I.
MAYNOOTH GRANT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 16, 1845.
[On April 3rd Sir Robert Peel proposed a Resolution for the improvement of Maynooth
College, the grant to consist of 26,000l. per annum. It was suggested by some
speakers, that the act would justify the endowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood,
and Lord John Russell asserted that such a plan would be a larger, more liberal, and
more statesmanlike measure. Others objected to the grant on theological grounds,
others for the reason that it was a step towards endowing another Church Establishment
in Ireland. The Resolution was carried by 216 to 114. The debate on the Bill
was resumed on April 10th, and was continued on April 14th and 16th. The second
reading was carried on the last day by 323 votes to 176; on May 2nd the Bill passed
through Committee. It was opposed again on bringing up the Report, on May 5th,
and was finally passed on May 21st, by 317 to 184. The Bill, after opposition,
passed in the Lords on June 10th.]
I AM anxious to make a few obser-
vations on the principle on which I shall
give my vote; because I shall be obliged
to pass into the lobby along with a
number of Members of the House from
whose principles I entirely dissent; and
after the speech of the noble Lord the
Member for Bandon, I think that any
one who votes with him has need to ex-
plain why he votes on his side, for any-
thing more unlike the principles of the
present day, more intolerant, or more
insane with respect to the policy to be
pursued towards Ireland, I have never
heard; and I could not have believed
that any man coming from that country
could have used such language in address-
ing this House. I do not think that this
question is to be looked at in a favour-
able or unfavourable light because of
the party from which it comes. Some
hon. Members have charged the right
hon. Baronet with inconsistency, and
have in some degree thrown the blame
of his conduct on the measure which he
has introduced. The right hon. Baronet
has, from unfortunate circumstances,
been connected in Opposition with a
party of such a nature, that he could
never promote any good measure whilst
in power without being charged, and
justly, with inconsistent conduct. But
I will look at the measure as a measure
by itself, and if it be a good measure I
will vote for it as willingly, coming from
the present Government, as if it came
from the Government which preceded
it. But I object to this measure on the
ground that it is proposed to vote some
of the public taxes for the purpose of
maintaining an institution purely eccle-
siastical, and for the rearing and edu-
150
APRIL 16,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
cating of the priests of a particular sect.
I am the more strongly against the Bill,
because, from all that has been said on
both sides of the House, and from all
that I can learn from the public papers,
and even from the organs of the Govern-
ment, I am convinced that there is no
argument which has been used in defence
of this measure, which would not be
just as valid for the defence of further
measures, not for the payment of Ca-
tholic priests of the College of Maynooth
only, but for the payment of all the
priests in Ireland or in England. I
admit that the principles and the argu-
ments which have justified the original
vote are good to some extent to justify
this vote. The right hon. Baronet in
his opening speech has stated that the
principle was conceded, that it is but
a matter of a few thousand pounds.
But if the principle were conceded now,
ten or twenty years hence some Prime
Minister might stand up and state that
in 1795 the principle was conceded, and
in 1845 that concession—or rather, that
principle-was again sanctioned; and
then, arguing from the two cases, it
would be easy to demonstrate that it
was no violation of principle whatever
to establish a new Church in Ireland,
and add thereby to the monstrous evils
which exist there now from the estab-
lishment of one in connection with the
State. The right hon. Baronet has paid
no great compliment to the Irish Catho-
lics in the possession of means and pro-
perty, when he has said that the 9,000l.
now voted is just sufficient to damp the
generosity of the people of that country.
If 9,000l. were enough in some degree
to check their generosity, I should think
that a sum of 26,000l. is sufficient to
destroy it altogether. When I consider
that the Catholic gentry of Ireland pay
no Income Tax and no Property Tax,
and no Assessed Taxes, I do not think
it would be a thing altogether impos-
sible, or to be unlooked for, that they
should have supported an establishment
for the rearing of priests to teach that
religion to which they profess to be
so much devoted.
I
But the object of this measure was just
as objectionable to me when I learned
that it was intended by this vote to
soothe the discontent which exists in
Ireland. I will look at the causes
whence this discontent arises. Does it
arise because the priests of Maynooth
are now insufficiently clad or fed? I
have always thought that it arose from
the fact that one-third of the people are
paupers that almost all of them are
not in regular employment at the very
lowest rate of wages-and that the state
of things amongst the bulk of the popu-
lation is most disastrous, and to be
deplored; but I cannot for the life of
me conceive how the grant of additional
money to Maynooth is to give addi-
tional employment, or food, or clothing
to the people of Ireland, or make them
more satisfied with their condition.
can easily see how, by the granting of
this sum, the Legislature may hear far
less in future times of the sufferings and
wrongs of the people of Ireland than
they have heard heretofore; for they
may discover than one large means of
influence, possessed by those who had
agitated for the redress of Irish wrongs,
is to be found in the support which the
Irish Catholic clergy has given to the
various associations for carrying on
political agitation; and the object of
this Bill is to tame down those agita-
tors-it is a sop given to the priests.
It is hush-money given, that they may
not proclaim to the whole country, to
Europe, and to the world, the sufferings
of the population to whom they ad-
minister the rites and the consolations
of religion. I assert that the Protestant
Church of Ireland is at the root of the
evils of that country. The Irish Catho-
lics would thank you infinitely more if
you were to wipe out that foul blot, than
they would even if Parliament were to
establish the Roman Catholic Church
alongside of it. They have had every-
thing Protestant—a Protestant clique
which has been dominant in the country;
a Protestant Viceroy to distribute places
and emoluments amongst that Protes-
tant clique; Protestant judges who have
1845.
151
IRELAND. I.
polluted the seats of justice; Protes-
tant magistrates, before whom the Ca-
tholic peasant could not hope for justice.
They have not only Protestant, but ex-
terminating landlords, and more than
that, a Protestant soldiery, who, at the
beck and command of a Protestant
priest, have butchered and killed a
Catholic peasant, even in the presence
of his widowed mother. All these things
are notorious; I merely state them. I
do not bring the proof of them: they
are patent to all the world, and that
man must have been unobservant indeed
who is not perfectly convinced of their
truth. The consequence of all this is,
the extreme discontent of the Irish peo-
ple; and because this House is not
prepared yet to take those measures
which would be really doing justice to
Ireland, and to wipe away that Pro-
testant Establishment which is the most
disgraceful institution in Christendom;
the next thing is, that they should drive
off the watch-dogs, if it be possible,
and take from Mr. O'Connell and the
Repeal Association that formidable or-
ganization which has been established
throughout the whole country, through
the sympathies of the Catholic priests
being bound up with the interests of
the people. Their object is to take
away the sympathy of the Catholic
priests from the people, and to give
them more Latin and Greek. The ob-
ject is to make the priests in Ireland
as tame as those of Suffolk and Dorset-
shire. The object is, that when the
horizon is brightened every night with
incendiary fires, no priest of the paid
Establishment shall ever tell of the
wrongs of the people against whom he
is living; and when the population is
starving, and pauperised by thousands,
as in the southern parts of England,
the priests shall not unite themselves
with any association for the purpose of
wresting from an oppressive Govern-
ment those rights to which the people
have a claim.
I am altogether against this system
for any purpose, under any circum-
stances, at any time whatever. No-
thing can be more disastrous to the
best interests of the community, nor
more dangerous to religion itself. If
the Government wants to make the
priests of Ireland as useless for all
practical purposes as the paid priests
of their own Establishment, they should
not give them 26,000l. merely, but
as much as they can persuade the
House to agree to. Ireland is suffer-
ing, not from the want of another
Church, but rather because she already
has one Church too many; for with
the present Church, having a small
community, overpaid ministers, a costly
Establishment, and little work, it is
quite impossible to have peace and
content in that country. If you give
the Catholic priests a portion of the
public funds, as the Government has
given the Regium Donum to the Pres-
byterians of the North, they will unite
with the Church as the Presbyterians
did against any attempt to overturn the
old system of Church and State alliance
in that country.
The experience of State Churches is
not of a character to warrant the House
in going further in that direction. In
this country there is a State Church,
and I do not deny that there are many
excellent ministers in it; but from time
immemorial it has been characterized
by a most deplorable and disastrous
spirit of persecution, which even at this
hour still exists; for that Church is
now persecuting a poor shoemaker at
Cambridge for non-payment of Church
rates, and pursuing him from court to
court. That Church has been upheld
as a bulwark against Catholicism, and
yet all the errors of Catholicism find a
home and a hearty welcome there. In
Lancashire and Yorkshire, and in other
counties, that Church is found to be too
unwieldy a machine, and altogether
unfitted to a population growing in
numbers and intelligence like that of
those parts of the kingdom. Even in
Scotland, where there is a model of the
most perfect Establishment which per-
haps could be raised, there are the
Secession Church, the Relief Church,
152
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
and the Free Church; that which the
State upholds being called by the com-
plimentary name of the Residuary
Church. After the experience of such
State Churches, which have done so
little good and so much evil, is this a
time for establishing another Church?
If I approved of Church endowments by
the State I would vote for this Bill with
all my heart, because it is calculated to
create a kinder feeling towards this
country amongst the people of Ireland.
Two parties opposed to the Bill are
represented by hon. Gentlemen on the
other side of the House. They state
that the Roman Catholic
Catholic religion
should not be established or helped by
the State. But when their Church is
absorbing millions of the public money,
while millions of their countrymen
refuse to enter its doors, how can they
for a moment object to the passing of a
measure which will give some sort of
show of assistance to that Church to
which millions of the Irish people
belong? The Nonconformist or Dis-
senting party in this country are op-
posed to the measure; but by some of
them a spirit is mixed up with their
agitation of this question which shows
that they do not understand, or do not
value, the great principles of Noncon-
formity, for which their forefathers strug-
gled and suffered. I allude more es-
pecially to a portion of the Wesleyan
body, which, I believe, does not alto-
gether repudiate the principle of en-
dowment.
But, with regard to the rest, I am
persuaded that their agitation against
this measure is honest. If the Dis-
senters look back to all that their fore-
fathers have suffered, aye, even within
a late period, they will be recreant to
their own principles, and merit the
contempt of the House and of the
world, if they do not come forward
manfully to uphold their own principles,
and dissent from and oppose the mea-
sure under the consideration of the
House. For myself, I shall oppose the
Bill in every stage, simply on one
ground, that I believe the principle of
endowment to be most unjust and in-
jurious to the country, and whatever
may be the effect on any Government,
whether that of the right hon. Baronet
or any that has preceded or will succeed
him, no strength of attachment to party
or Government will induce me to tam-
per with what I hold to be the greatest
and dearest principle which any man or
any body of men can assert. When I
look back to the history of this country,
and consider its present condition, I
must say, that all that the people pos-
sess of liberty has come, not through
the portals of the cathedrals and the
parish churches, but from the conven-
ticles, which are despised by hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite. When I know that if
a good measure is to be carried in this
House, it must be by men who are sent
hither by the Nonconformists of Great
Britain; when I read and see that the
past and present State alliance with re-
ligion is hostile to religious liberty, pre-
venting all growth and nearly destroying
all vitality in religion itself, then I shall
hold myself to have read, thought, and
lived in vain, if I vote for a measure
which in the smallest degree shall give
any further power or life to the princi-
ple of State endowment; and, in con-
clusion, I will only exhort the Dissenters
of England to act in the same way, and
to stand upon their own great, pure,
and unassailable principle; for, if they
stand by it manfully, and work for it
vigorously, the time may come, nay, it
will come, when that principle will be
adopted by the Legislature of the country.
BB
IRELAND.
II.
CRIME AND OUTRAGE BILL.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 13, 1847.
[Towards the conclusion of this year (1847) numerous crimes and outrages of a serious
character were committed in Ireland. They were chiefly agrarian. In order to in-
crease the powers of the Irish Executive, Parliament was invited in the Queen's Speech
(Nov. 23) to take further precautions against the perpetration of crime in certain
counties in Ireland. The Bill was moved by Sir George Grey on Nov. 29, and leave
was given, by 224 votes to 18, was read a second time (296 to 19) on Dec. 9, and
passed (174 to 14) on Dec. 13. It was passed in the House of Lords on Dec. 19. On
July 31, 1843, the Irish Government proclaimed certain districts in which rebellion
had broken out. Smith O'Brien and the other leaders of the insurgents were speedily
arrested, tried, and convicted.]
I FEEL very much in the position of
the hon. Member who has just ad-
dressed the House, for I am in some
degree compelled to speak before this
Bill is read a third time. I have pre-
sented a petition against the Bill, signed
by more than 20,000 persons, inhabit-
ants of the borough of Manchester, and
I am unwilling to vote without briefly
giving the reasons which make it im-
possible for me to oppose this Bill.
When I recollect the circumstances at-
tending the rejection of the Bill of 1846,
for the protection of life in Ireland, I
am convinced that the Government
would not have brought forward the
present measure if it had not appeared
to them absolutely necessary, and that,
but for this supposed necessity, it would
never have been heard of.
The case of the Government, so far
as the necessity for this Bill is con-
cerned, seems to me to be as clear and
as perfect as it can be. From the
speech of the right hon. Gentleman the
Secretary of the Home Department,
from the unanimous statements of all
the newspapers, and from the evidence
of all parties connected with Ireland, it
is placed beyond a doubt that in the
disturbed districts of Ireland the ordi-
nary law is utterly powerless. The
reason why the law is carried into effect
in England is, because the feeling of
the people is in favour of it, and every
man is willing to become and is in reality
a peace officer, in order to further the
ends of justice.
But in Ireland this state of things
does not exist. The public sentiment
154
DEC. 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
in certain districts is depraved and
thoroughly vitiated. [Mr. J. O'Connell :
'No! No!'] The hon. Member cries
'No, No;' but I maintain that in the
disturbed districts the public or popular
feeling is as I have described it. I do
not mean to assert that all which the
newspapers contain is true, or that they
contain all the truth; but I ask the
hon. Gentleman if he has not read ac-
counts which are not contradicted, from
which we learn that on the occurrence
of some recent cases of assassination,
whole districts have been in a state of
rejoicing and exultation? These assas-
sinations are not looked upon as mur-
ders, but rather as executions. Take
the case of Mr. Lloyd, a clergyman,
who was recently assassinated. There
was no show of vindictive feeling on
the part of his murderers; there was
little of the character of ordinary mur-
ders in it. The servant was allowed to
depart unharmed; a boy who was in
the carriage was removed that he might
not be injured; and the unhappy gentle-
man was shot with all the deliberation
and the calmness with which a man would
be made to suffer the extreme penalty
of the law. It is clear, then, that the
ordinary law fails, and that the Govern-
ment have a case for the demand they
make for an extension of the present
powers of the law.
I do not say the present Bill will cer-
tainly be effective, but it is the less to
be opposed because it does not greatly
exceed or infringe the ordinary law;
and it is the duty of the Legislature,
when called upon to strengthen the Ex-
ecutive, to do so by the smallest pos-
sible infringement of the law and the
constitution. But to leave the par-
ticular measure now before us, I am
bound to say that the case of the Go-
vernment with respect to their Irish
policy in general is not as good as could
be wished. The Government has not
shown the courage which is necessary
to deal effectually with the difficulties of
Ireland. They should remember what
passed when the Poor-law was pro-
posed for that country. They were
told it would be a failure-that it could
not be worked; but disregarding these
statements, they passed the Bill; and I
believe, since the Act of 1829, no mea-
sure has passed this House of equal
benefit to Ireland. The noble Lord at
the head of the Government has said
that all parties are to be blamed for
the misgovernment of Ireland; but he
should remember the responsibility
which is upon him, for he is now in the
position of dictator on Irish questions,
and whatever he proposes for that
country, I verily believe, will find no
successful opposition in this House.
There is another fact to which I
would call attention. The Irish Mem-
bers complain, and very justly, of the
past legislation of this House; but
when we call to mind that there are 105
of them here, of whom 60 or 70 are of
Liberal politics or opinions, and that
about 30 of them are Repealers, and hold
very strong views with regard to the
mismanagement of Irish affairs in the
Imperial Parliament, I think we have
a right to complain that they have not
laid on the table of the House any one
measure which they believe to be neces-
sary to the prosperity of their country.
I have been in this House more than
four years, and I have never yet seen
the Irish Members bringing forward
any proposition of a practical character
-nor am I aware that they have sup-
ported any measure they deemed neces-
sary for Ireland, with unanimity and
earnestness, or with anything like per-
severance and resolution. I am sure
that 105, or even 30 English Members,
sitting in a Parliament in Dublin, and
believing their country had suffered
from the effects of bad legislation,
would, by their knowledge of the case,
their business habits, activity, union,
and perseverance, have showed a power-
ful front, and by uniting together, and
working manfully in favour of any pro-
position they might think necessary to
remedy the evils of which they com-
plained, they would have forced it on
the attention of the House. But the
Irish Members have not done this. So
1847.
155
IRELAND.
II.
far then, they are and have been as
much to blame as any other Member of
this House for the absence of good
government in Ireland.
I will not, like them, complain of
bad legislation, and propose no remedy.
What is the condition of Ireland? Last
year we voted millions to keep its
population from starvation; and this
year we have been asked for a further
sum, but have not granted it.
We
maintain a large army in Ireland, and
an armed police, which is an army in
everything but in name, and yet we
have in that country a condition of
things which is not to be matched in
any other civilized country on the face
of the earth, and which is alike dis-
graceful to Ireland and to us. The
great cause of Ireland's calamities is,
that Ireland is idle. I believe it would
be found, on inquiry, that the popula-
tion of Ireland, as compared with that
of England, do not work more than two
days per week. Wherever a people are
not industrious and are not employed,
there is the greatest danger of crime
and outrage. Ireland is idle, and there-
fore she starves; Ireland starves, and
therefore she rebels. We must choose
between industry and anarchy: we must
have one or the other in Ireland. This
proposition I believe to be incontro-
vertible, and I defy the House to give
peace and prosperity to that country
until they set in motion her industry,
create and diffuse capital, and thus es-
tablish those gradations of rank and
condition by which the whole social
fabric can alone be held together.
But the idleness of the people of
Ireland is not wholly their fault. It is
for the most part a forced idleness, for
it is notorious that when the Irish come
to England, or remove to the United
States or the Colonies, they are about
the hardest working people in the world.
We employ them down in Lancashire,
and with the prospect of good pay they
work about as well, and are as trust-
worthy, and quiet, and well-disposed to
the law as the people of this country.
The great secret of their idleness at
home is, that there is little or no trade
in Ireland; there are few flourishing
towns to which the increasing popula-
tion can resort for employment, so that
there is a vast mass of people living on
the land; and the land itself is not half
so useful for their employment and sus-
tentation as it might be. A great pro-
portion of her skill, her strength, her
sinews, and her labour, is useless to
Ireland for the support of her popula-
tion. Every year they have a large
emigration, because there are a great
number of persons with just enough
means to transport themselves to other
countries, who, finding it impossible to
live at home in comfort, carry them-
selves and their capital out of Ireland;
so that, year after year, she loses a large
portion of those between the very poorest
and the more wealthy classes of society,
and with them many of the opportu-
nities for the employment of labour.
I do not believe that the Bill for
regulating the relations of landlord and
tenant, as recommended by the hon.
Member for the County of Limerick,
will restore prosperity to Ireland. Such
a measure may be passed with great
advantage; but if it be intended by a
Bill with this title to vest the owner-
ship of the land in the present occupiers,
I believe this House will never pass it,
and if it did, that it would prove most
fatal to the best interests of the country.
I think we have a right to blame the
Government that as yet we have not
seen the Bill for the sale of encumbered
estates in Ireland. I wish to ask why
such a Bill is not ready before this?
[Lord John Russell: The Bill has been
ready a long time.'] The noble Lord
says the Bill has been ready long ago;
but that statement only makes the
Government open to greater blame, for
if the Bill is ready, why has it not been
brought forward before this? Last
Session the Bill was withdrawn, and
the reason given was that landlords and
mortgagees did not like it, If the
Government wait till the landlords and
mortgagees like it, it will never be
brought forward at all. Had they
156
DEC. 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
waited till the Irish landlords asked for
the Poor-law, there would have been no
Poor-law in Ireland now.
The Government should disregard the
opposition of these parties, and should
take their stand above all class interests.
They must refuse to listen to the in-
terested suggestions of one class or the
other, and they must remember that
they are the Executive Government of
the country, and bound to act for the
public good. There is an unanimous
admission now that the misfortunes of
Ireland are connected with the question
of the management of the land. I have
a theory that, in England as well as in
Ireland, the proprietors of the soil are
chiefly responsible for whatever bad
legislation has been inflicted upon us.
The ownership of land confers more
political power than the possession of
any other description of property. The
Irish landowners have been willing
parties to the past legislation for Ireland,
and they have also had the administra-
tion and execution of the laws in that
country. The encumbered condition of
landed property in Ireland is at this
moment the most pressing question. I
am informed by a gentleman in Dublin,
of the best means of information and of
undoubted veracity, that in the province
of Connaught there is not five per cent.
of the land free from settlements of one
kind or other, and that probably not
one per cent. is free from mortgages. I
have asked Irish Members of all parties
if this be true, and not one of them is
disposed to deny it; and if it be true, I
say it is idle to seek elsewhere for the
source of the evils of Ireland; and every
day, nay, every hour we allow to go by
without taking instant measures
remedy this crying mischief, only adds
to the criminality which rests on us for
our past legislation.
to
Patchwork legislation will not now
succeed; speeches from the Lord Lieu-
tenant-articles in the newspapers-
lending to the landowners at 3½ per
cent. money raised by taxation from the
traders of England, who have recently
been paying 8 per cent.-all will fail to
revive the industry of Ireland. I will
now state what, in my opinion, is the
remedy, and I beg to ask the attention
of the Government to it, because,
though they may now think it an ex-
treme one, I am convinced that the time
will come when they will be compelled
to adopt it.
In the first place, it is their duty to
bring in a Sale of Estates Bill, and
make it easy for landowners who wish
to dispose of their estates to do so.
They should bring in a Bill to simplify
the titles to land in Ireland. I under-
stand that it is almost impossible to
transfer an estate now, the difficulties
in the way of a clear title being almost
insurmountable. In the next place,
they should diminish temporarily, if
not permanently, all stamp duties which
hinder the transfer of landed property,
and they should pass a law by which
the system of entailing estates should
for the future be prevented. [Laughter.]
I can assure hon. Gentlemen who laugh
at this, that at some not distant day
this must be done, and not in Ireland
only, but in England also. It is an ab-
surd and monstrous system, for it binds,
as it were, the living under the power
of the dead.
The principle on which the law
should proceed is this, that the owner
of property should be permitted to
leave it to whomsoever he will, pro-
vided the individual is living when the
will is made; but he should not be
suffered, after he is dead, and buried,
and forgotten, to speak and still to
direct the channel through which the
estate should pass. I shall be told that
the law of entail in Ireland is the same
as in England, and that in Scotland it
is even more strict. I admit it; but the
evil is great in England, and in Scotland
it has become intolerable, and must
soon be relaxed if not abolished. Per-
haps I shall be told that the laws of
entail and primogeniture are necessary
for the maintenance of our aristocratic
institutions; but if the evils of Ireland
spring from this source, I say, perish your
aristocratic institutions rather than that
1847.
157
IRELAND.
II.
a whole nation should be in this terrible
condition. If your aristocratic families
would rear up their children in habits.
of business, and with some notions of
duty and prudence, these mischievous
arrangements would not be required,
and they would retain in their posses-
sion estates at least as large as is com-
patible with the interests of the rest of
the community. If the laws of entail
and primogeniture are sound and just,
why not apply them to personal pro-
perty as well as to freehold? Imagine
them in force in the middle classes of the
community, and it will be seen at once
that the unnatural system, if universal,
would produce confusion; and confusion
would necessitate its total abolition.
the
I am thoroughly convinced that every-
thing the Government or Parliament
can do for Ireland will be unavailing,
unless the foundation of the work be
laid well and deep, by clearing away
fetters under which land is now held, so
that it may become the possession of
real owners, and be made instrumental
to the employment and sustentation of
the people. Hon. Gentlemen opposite
may fancy themselves interested in main-
taining the present system; but there is
surely no interest they can have in it
which they will weigh against the safety
and prosperity of Ireland? I speak as
a representative from a county which
suffers extremely from the condition of
Ireland. Lancashire is periodically over-
run by the pauperism of Ireland; for a
year past it has suffered most seriously
from the pestilence imported from Ire-
land; and many of the evils which in
times past have been attributed to the
extension of manufactures in that county
·
have arisen from the enormous immi-
gration of a suffering and pauperized
people driven for sustenance from their
own country.
As a Lancashire representative, I
protest most solemnly against a system
which drives the Irish population to seek
work and wages in this country and in
other countries, when both might be
afforded them at home. Parliament is
bound to remedy this state of things. The
present Parliament contains a larger num-
ber of men of business and of members
representing the middle classes than any
former Parliament. The present Govern-
ment is essentially of the middle class--
[a laugh]-and its Members have on
many occasions shown their sympathy
with it. Let the hon. Gentleman laugh;
but he will not deny that no Government
can long have a majority in this House
which does not sympathise with the
great middle class of this country. If
the Government will manfully and
courageously grapple with the question
of the condition of land in Ireland, they
will, I am convinced, be supported by a
majority of the Members of this House,
they will enable the strength and skill
of Irishmen to be expended on their own
soil, and lay the foundation of her
certain prosperity by giving that sti-
mulus and reward to industry which it
cannot have in the present circumstances
of that country. Sir, I feel it impos-
sible to refuse my vote in favour of the
Bill now before us; but I am compelled
to say that unless the Government will
zealously promote measures in the di-
rection I have indicated, they cannot
hope long to retain the confidence of
this House or of the country.
IRELAND.
III.
EMPLOYMENT OF THE POOR.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 25, 1848.
FROM the speeches that have been
delivered in this debate, and from what
we know of Ireland, it is clear that
Ireland is so entirely disorganised, that
it is extremely difficult to suggest any
means by which relief can be exten-
sively given without causing two evils:
first, the waste of a great portion of the
money which is granted; and next, the
demoralization of a large number of
those to whom the relief is given. It is
on account of these difficulties that I am
disposed to make great allowance for
the measures which the Government
have undertaken, as well as for any
propositions which may be made by
the hon. Member for Stroud, even when
they appear somewhat inconsistent with
correct economical principles.
As this is probably the last opportunity
during this Session when the question
of the condition of Ireland can be dis-
cussed, I am anxious to avail myself of
it to offer a few observations to the
House, and to explain briefly what I
conceive to be the course which ought
to be taken with regard to that country,
to enable its population to place them-
selves in a position of comfort and
independence. The past of Ireland is
known to us all; it is a tale of idleness,
and poverty, and periodical insurrection;
the present of Ireland is like the past,
except that at this moment all its ordi-
nary evils are exhibited in an aggravated
form. But there are one or two points
with regard to this subject to which I
wish especially to ask the attention of
the House. Have you ever fully con-
sidered the effect which this state of
things in Ireland has upon the con-
dition of certain districts in England?
We have had some threatenings of dis-
turbances in England, and of disaffec-
tion-I hope it is not widespread-here
and there in various parts of the country.
Take the county of Lancaster as an ex-
ample, and you will see something of
the consequences of a large influx of the
Irish population into that district. In
Liverpool and Manchester, and in all
the belt of towns which surround Man-
chester, there is a large Irish popula-
tion-in fact, there is an Irish quarter
in each of these towns. It is true that
a great number of these persons are
steady, respectable, and industrious, but
it is notorious that a portion of them
are, in some degree, the opposite of all
this. They bring to this country all the
vices which have prevailed so long in
Ireland; their influence on the people
AUG. 25, 1848.
159
IRELAND. III.
of Lancashire is often of an unfavourable
character, and the effect of their example
on the native population must neces-
sarily be injurious. We find that crimes
attended with violence prevail too ge-
nerally in Lancashire and Yorkshire.
These crimes to a large extent are com-
mitted by persons who are not natives
of those counties, but who come from
Ireland, because it is impossible for
them to find subsistence in that country.
There is another point which seems
to me important. Driven forth by
poverty, Irishmen emigrate in great
numbers, and in whatever quarter of
the world an Irishman sets his foot,
there stands a bitter, an implacable
enemy of England. That is one of
the results of the widespread disaffec-
tion that exists in Ireland. There are
hundreds of thousands-I suppose there
are millions of the population of the
United States of America who are Irish
by birth, or by immediate descent; and
be it remembered, Irishmen settled in
the United States have a large influence
in public affairs. They sometimes sway
the election of Members of the Legis-
lature, and may even affect the election
of the President of the Republic. There
may come a time when questions of a
critical nature will be agitated between
the Governments of Great Britain and
the United States; and it is certain
that at such a time the Irish in that
country will throw their whole weight
into the scale against this country, and
against peace with this country. These
are points which it is necessary to
consider, and which arise out of the
lamentable condition in which Ireland
is placed.
When we reflect for a moment upon
the destitution which millions of our
countrymen suffer in that unfortunate
island, the conclusion is inevitable that
either the Government or the people of
Ireland are in fault. I think both are
in fault. I think the Government has
been negligent of Ireland. I do not
mean the present Government in
par-
ticular; for they are fully as anxious
for the welfare of Ireland as any former
Administration has been-but I think
the Government generally has been neg-
ligent of Ireland. It is a common thing
to hear it said, and especially by Gen-
tlemen sitting on the Treasury bench,
that the remedy for Irish evils is dif-
ficult, and that the difficulty seems in-
surmountable; but the House may rest
assured that no difficulty can be so
great as that which must be met if no
remedy is applied. To do anything
that can be effectual, must be infinitely
less dangerous than to do nothing.
Now I believe the real difficulties
which beset this question do not arise
from anything in Ireland, so much as
from the constitution of the Govern-
ment. This House, and the other House
of Parliament, are almost exclusively
aristocratic in their character. The Ad-
ministration is therefore necessarily the
same, and on the Treasury benches
aristocracy reigns supreme. No fewer
than seven Members of the Cabinet are
Members of the House of Lords; and
every other Member of it is either a
Lord by title, or on the very threshold of
the peerage by birth or marriage. I am
not blaming them for this; it may even
be that from neither House of Parlia-
ment can fourteen better men be chosen
to fill their places. But I maintain that
in the present position of Ireland, and
looking at human nature as it is, it is
not possible that fourteen Gentlemen,
circumstanced as they are, can meet
round the Council table, and with un-
biassed minds fairly discuss the question
of Ireland, as it now presents itself to
this House, to the country, and to the
world.
The condition of Ireland requires two
kinds of remedies-one political, the
other social; and it is hard to tell
where the one ends and the other
begins. I will speak first of the political
remedies. At present, there prevails
throughout three-fourths of the Irish
people a total unbelief in the honesty
and integrity of the Government of this
country. There may or may not be
good grounds for all this ill feeling;
but that it exists, no man acquainted
160
AUGUST 25,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
with Ireland will deny. The first step
to be taken is to remove this feeling;
and, to do this, some great measure or
measures should be offered to the peo-
ple of Ireland, which will act as a com-
plete demonstration to them that by-
gones are to be bygones, with regard
to the administration of Irish affairs,
and that henceforth new, generous, and
equal principles of government are to
be adopted.
I have on a former occasion stated
my opinions on one or two subjects, and
I will venture again briefly to explain
them to the House. Ireland has long
been a country of jars and turmoil, and
its jars have arisen chiefly from religious
dissensions. In respect of matters of re-
ligion she has been governed in a man-
ner totally unknown in England and
Scotland. If Ireland has been rightly
governed-if it has been wise and just
to maintain the Protestant Church es-
tablished there, you ought, in order to
carry out your system, to establish Pre-
lacy in Scotland, and Catholicism in
England; though, if you were to at-
tempt to do either the one or the other,
it would not be a sham but a real insur-
rection that you would provoke. There
must be equality between the great
religious sects in Ireland-between Ca-
tholic and Protestant. It is impossible
that this equality can be much longer
denied.
It is suspected that it is the intention
of the Government to bring forward at
no distant day, if they can catch the
people of England napping, a propo-
sition for paying the Roman Catholic
priests of Ireland. On more than one
ground I should object to any such
scheme. In the first place, I believe
the Government cannot, from any funds
they possess, or from any they can
obtain, place the Catholic priests on an
equality with the ministers of the Pro-
testant Church; and if they cannot do
that in every respect, the thing is not
worth attempting. They will, I think,
find it infinitely more easy, and it will
certainly be much more in accordance
with political justice, and with the true
interests of religion, to withdraw from
Ireland the Church Establishment which
now exists there, and to bring about the
perfect equality which may be secured
by taking away so much of the funds
as are proved to be totally unnecessary
for the wants of the population. I do
not mean that you should withdraw
from the Protestant Church every six-
pence now in its possession; what I
mean is, that you should separate it
from the State, and appropriate all the
funds of which it might justly be de-
prived to some grand national object,
such as the support and extension of the
system of education now established in
Ireland; an appropriation of money
which would, I am sure, produce in the
minds of the people of Ireland an entire
change of feeling with regard to the
legislation of Parliament in relation to
their country.
With regard to the Parliamentary
representation of Ireland, having re-
cently spent seventy-three days in an
examination of the subject, whilst serv-
ing as a member of the Dublin Election
Committee, I assert most distinctly that
the representation which exists at this
moment is a fraud; and I believe it
would be far better if there were no
representation at all, because the people
would not then be deluded by the idea
that they had a representative Govern-
ment to protect their interests. The
number of taxes which the people have
to pay, in order to secure either the
municipal or Parliamentary franchise,
is so great that it is utterly impossible
for the constituencies to be maintained,
and for public opinion-the honest, real
opinion of intelligent classes in Ireland
-to obtain any common
any common or decent
degree of representation in the Imperial
Legislature. I feel quite confident that
in the next Session of Parliament, the
questions of religious equality in Ireland
and of Irish representation must receive
a much more serious attention than
they have obtained in any past Ses-
sion.
I come now to those social questions
which must also receive the attention

1848.
161
IRELAND. III.
of Parliament; for if they do not, the
political remedies will, after all, be of
very little permanent use. I advocate
these political changes on the ground,
not that they will feed the hungry or
employ the idle, but that they will be
as oil thrown upon the waters, and will
induce the people no longer to feel
themselves treated as a conquered race.
It is agreed on all sides that the social
remedies which are immediately pos-
sible to us, are those having reference to
the mode in which the land of Ireland
is owned, or held and cultivated-per-
haps not cultivated' would be a more
correct expression. The noble Lord at
the head of the Government has alluded
to parts of Ireland in which it is impos-
sible that the land as at present held,
or the rates which can be collected, can
find relief or sustentation for the people.
It is a notorious fact, that there are vast
tracts of land in Ireland, which, if left
in the hands of nominal and bankrupt
owners, will never to the end of time
support the population which ought to
live upon them. And it is on this
ground that I must question the policy
of measures for expending public money
with a view to the cultivation and recla-
mation of these lands.
The true solution of this matter is to
get the lands out of the hands of men
who are the nominal, and not the real,
possessors. But Parliament maintains
laws which act most injuriously in this
particular. The law and practice of
entails tends to keep the soil in large
properties, and in the hands of those
who cannot perform their duty to it.
It will be said that entails exist in Scot-
land and in England. Yes; but this
Session a law has passed, or is passing,
to modify the system as it has hereto-
fore existed in Scotland; and in Eng-
land many of its evils have been partially
overcome by the extraordinary, and, to
some degree, the accidental extension of
manufacturing industry among the peo-
ple. In Ireland there are no such miti-
gations; a code of laws exists, under
which it is impossible for the land and
the people to be brought, as it were,
together, and for industry to live in in-
dependence and comfort, instead of
crawling to this House, as it does
almost annually, to ask alms of the
hardworking people of England.
The law and practice of primogeni-
ture is another evil of the same character.
It is a law unnatural and unjust at all
times; but in the present condition of
Ireland it cannot much longer be en-
dured. Were I called upon-and it is a
bold figure of speech to mention such a
thing-but were I called upon to treat
this Irish question, I would establish,
for a limited period at least, a special
court in Ireland to adjudicate on all
questions connected with the titles and
transfers of landed property. This court
should finally decide questions of title;
it should prepare and enforce a simple
and short form of conveyance, as short
almost as that by which railway stock
is transferred; and, without regard to
the public revenue, I would abolish
every farthing of expense which is now
incurred in the duties on stamps, for the
purpose of facilitating the distribution
of land in Ireland, and of allowing the
capital and industry of the people to
work out its salvation. All this is pos-
sible; and, more than this, it is all
necessary. Well, now, what is the real
obstacle in our path? You have toiled
at this Irish difficulty Session after Ses-
sion, and some of you have grown
almost from boyhood to greyheaded old
men since it first met you in your legis-
lative career, and yet there is not in
ancient or modern history a picture so
humiliating as that which Ireland pre-
sents to the world at this moment; and
there is not an English gentleman who,
if he crossed the Channel in the present
autumn, and travelled in any foreign
country, would not wish to escape from
any conversation among foreigners in
which the question of the condition
of Ireland was mooted for a single
moment.
Let the House, if it can, regard Ire-
land as an English country. Let us
think of the eight millions of people,
and of the millions of them doomed to
II
¹162
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
,
this intolerable suffering. Let us think
of the half-million who, within two
years past, have perished miserably
in the workhouses, and on the high-
ways, and in their hovels-more, far
more than ever fell by the sword in any
war this country ever waged; let us
think of the crop of nameless horrors
which is even now growing up in Ire-
land, and whose disastrous fruit may be
gathered in years and generations to
come. Let us examine what are the
laws and the principles under which
alone God and nature have permitted
that nations should become industrious
and provident.
I hope the House will pardon me if
I have said a word that can offend any
one. But I feel conscious of a personal
humiliation when I consider the state of
Ireland. I do not wish to puff nostrums
of my own, though it may be thought I
am opposed to much that exists in the
present order of things; but whether it
tended to advance democracy, or to up-
'hold aristocracy, or any other system, I
would wish to fling to the winds any
prejudice I have entertained, and any
principle that may be questioned, if I
can thereby do one single thing to
hasten by a single day the time when
-Ireland shall be equal to England in
that comfort and that independence
which an industrious people may enjoy,
if the Government under which they
live is equal and just.

IRELAND.
IV.
RATE IN AID.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 2, 1849.
[On February 7, 1849, a proposal was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a
sum of 50,000l. should be granted to certain Irish Unions, in which distress was more
than usually prevalent. The resolution was passed on March 3. On March 27 the
second reading of the Bill founded on this resolution was moved, and the debate con-
tinued till April 3, when the second reading was affirmed by 193 votes to 138. The
third reading was carried by 129 to 55, on April 30. The Bill passed the House of
Lords on May 18.]
I VENTURED to move the adjournment
of the debate on Friday night, because
I was anxious to have the opportunity
of expressing the opinions which I enter-
tain on this most important subject. I
am one of the Committee appointed by
this House to inquire into the working
of the Irish poor-law, and on that Com-
mittee I was one of the majority—the
large majority-by which the resolution
for a rate in aid was affirmed.
In the
division which took place on the same
proposition in the House, I also voted in
the majority. But I am not by any means
disposed to say that there are no reasons
against the course which I take, or
against the proposition which has been
submitted to the House by the Govern-
ment. On the whole, however, I am
prepared to-night to justify that propo-
sition, and the vote which I have given
for it.
As to the project of raising money for
the purpose of these distressed Unions,
I think there can be no doubt in the
mind of any Member of the House, that
money must come from some quarter.
It appears to be a question of life or
money. All the witnesses who were
examined before the Committee; the
concurrent testimony of all parties in
Ireland, of all the public papers, of all
the speeches which have been delivered
in the course of this debate, go to prove,
that unless additional funds be provided,
tens of thousands of our unfortunate
fellow-countrymen in Ireland must perish
of famine in the course of the present
year. If this be true, it is evident that
a great necessity is upon us; a grave
emergency, which we must meet. I am
not prepared to justify the proposition
of a rate in aid merely on the ground of
this necessity, because it will be said,
and justly, that the same amount of
funds might be raised by some other
mode; but I am prepared to justify the
proposition which restricts this rate in
+
•
II-2
164
APRIL 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
;
}
.
aid to Ireland, on the ground that the
rest of the United Kingdom has, during
the past three years, paid its own rate
in aid for Ireland; and this to a far
larger amount than any call' which the
Government now proposes to make on
the rateable property in Ireland.
We have taken from the general taxa-
tion of this country, in the last two or
three years, for the purposes of Ireland,
several millions, I may say not fewer
than from eight to ten millions sterling.
We have paid also very large subscrip-
tions from private resources, to the same
purpose; the sums expended by the
British Association were not less, in
the aggregate, than 600,000l., in addi-
tion to other large amounts contributed.
The Irish, certainly, gave something to
these funds; but by far the larger amount
was paid by the tax-paying classes of
Great Britain. In addition to this special
outlay for this purpose, very heavy local
taxation has been incurred by several of
the great communities of this island, for
the purpose of supporting the pauperism
which has escaped from Ireland to Great
Britain. In this metropolis, in Glasgow,
in Liverpool, and in the great manu-
facturing town which I have the honour
to represent, the overflow of Irish pau-
perism has, within the last two or three
years more especially, occasioned a vast
additional burden of taxation. I believe
the hon. Member for South Lancashire
made some statement in this House on
a former occasion with respect to the
burden which was inflicted upon Liver-
pool by the Irish paupers, who con-
stantly flow into that town. As to
Glasgow, the poor-rate levied last year
in the city parish alone, amounted to
70,000l.; and this year, owing to the
visitation of cholera and the poverty
thereby engendered, there will be an
additional assessment of 20,000l. The
city parish contains only about 120,000
or 130.000 of the 280,000 residents in
the mass of buildings known by the
general name of Glasgow. Of the sum
levied as poor-rate in the city parish, it
is estimated that, on an average, two-
thirds are spent upon Irish paupers.
The ranks of these Irish paupers are
recruited to a comparatively small extent
from the Irish workmen, who have been,
with their families, attracted by, and
who have found employment in, the
numerous manufactories of Glasgow.
The Irish paupers, upon whom two-
thirds of the Glasgow poor-rates are
spent, are principally squalid and desti-
tute creatures who are brought over as
deck passengers, clustering like bees to
the bulwarks and rigging, by almost
every steamer that sails from a northern
Irish port. With respect to the town
of Manchester, I am able to give some
more definite particulars as to the
burthen imposed upon the inhabitants
for the support of the Irish casual
poor. In the year 1848, the sum ex-
pended in the relief of the settled
poor, which term includes the resident
İrish who are not distinguished by
name from the English, amounted to
37,8471. The sum expended for the
relief of the non-settled English paupers
in the town of Manchester, in the year
1848, was 18,699l. The amount ex-
pended for the relief of casual Irish
poor alone was 28,0071. The total
assessment of Manchester is 647,5687.,
which, if divided by the amount required
to relieve the casual Irish poor, would
amount to a rate of 10žd. in the pound
upon every pound of rateable property
in the town of Manchester; but if esti-
mated according to the property really
rated (as there are great numbers of
persons who, from poverty, do not pay
the poor-rates on the property they
occupy), the amount of assessment for
the relief of the casual Irish poor alone
will be from 15d. to 18d. in the pound,
and the charge upon the ratepayers of
Manchester for the relief of the Irish
casual poor during the last year is not
less than 2s. Id. per head upon the whole
population of that town.
Now, during the last year, Manchester
had to struggle with very severe difficul-
ties, and the manufacturers there suffered
most acutely from various causes. The
failure of the cotton crop of 1846, the
panic in the financial and commercial
1849.
165
IRELAND. .IV.
world in 1847, the convulsions in the
European States in 1848-all these
contributed to bring upon Manchester
enormous evil; and in addition to this
we had to bear an additional burden of
28,000l. for the maintenance of the
casual Irish poor. I have here an ana-
lysis of the poor-rates collected in Man-
chester during the last four years, and I
will briefly state the results to the House.
In the year 1845 the amount of rates
collected expressly for the relief of the
casual Irish poor was 3,500l. In 1846 the
cost of the casual Irish poor imposed a
burden upon Manchester of 3,300l.; in
1847 of 6,5581.; and in 1848 this item
of expenditure reached the extraor-
dinary sum of 28,007l. The people of
Manchester have uttered no loud or
clamorous complaints respecting the
excessive burden borne by them for the
support of the Irish. They have sent
no urgent deputations to the Govern-
ment on the subject of this heavy
expense. But, seeing that they have
paid this money for the relief of Irish
paupers, and seeing also that the
smaller manufacturing and other towns
in England have also paid no small sums
for Irish paupers, they do think, and I
here express my conviction, that it will
be seen and admitted that we have paid
our rate in aid for the relief of Ireland,
and that it does become the landowners
and persons of property in that country
to make an effort during a temporary
period to supply that small sum which
is by this Bill demanded of them.
I will now say a few words regard-
ing the province of Ulster. An hon.
Gentleman opposite, the Member for
Londonderry, who made a not very
civil speech, so far as it regarded per-
sons who entertain the same opinions
generally which I profess, seemed to
allege that there was no party so
tyrannical as those who wished to carry
this rate in aid, and that no body of
men on earth were so oppressed as the
unfortunate proprietors of Ulster. [Mr.
Bateson: The farmers of Ulster.'] I
have made a calculation, the result of
which is, that, with the population of
Ulster, a 6d. rate would be 82,000l.
a-year, or 164,000l. for the two years
during which they will be required to
pay towards the support of their fellow-
countrymen in the south and west. If
I were an Ulster proprietor, I would
not have raised my voice against such
a proposition, because it is not a state
of things of an ordinary character, nor
are these proprietors called on to do
that which nobody else has done be-
fore them. Neither were they called
upon before other sources had been
applied to. Had I been an Ulster pro-
prietor, I would rather have left this
House than have taken the course they
have pursued in denouncing this mea-
sure. As to the farmers of Ulster, they
would not have raised this opposition
had they not been instigated to do so
by hon. Members in this House, and by
the proprietors in that province, whom
they represented. It appears by the
reports of the inspectors under the poor-
law, that where there has been a diffi-
culty in collecting rates, and the people
have refused to pay, they have followed
the example of the higher and landlord
class; and the conduct of that class in
many cases has been such as to render
the collection extremely difficult. [Mr.
Bateson: Not in Ulster.'] I do not
speak of Ulster particularly in this in-
stance, but the case has occurred in
other places; but happily for Ulster
the burden has not proved so serious in
that province.
I have heard a good deal said respect-
ing the resignation of Mr. Twisleton, who
preferred giving up his situation to sup-
porting the rate in aid. But the reasons
assigned by Mr. Twisleton destroy the
importance of his own act. He did not
insist upon the question whether Ulster
was able to bear the rate in aid; but
his objection was that Ulster was Ulster,
and more Ulster than it was Ireland.
He said Ulster preferred being united
with England, rather than with Lein-
ster, Connaught, and Munster; in short,
that Ulster was unwilling to be made
a part of Ireland. Now, if this Bill can
succeed in making Ulster a part of
166
APRIL 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
Ireland in interests and sympathies, I
think it will be attended with a very
happy result, and one that will com-
pensate for some portion of the present
misfortunes of Ireland.
But the hon. Member also, in another
part of his speech, charged the Govern-
ment with having caused the calamities
of Ireland. Now, if I were the hon.
Member, I would not have opened up
that question. My opinion is, that the
course which Parliament has taken with
respect to Ireland for upwards of a
century, and especially since the Union,
has been in accordance with the wishes
of the proprietors of the land of that
country. If, therefore, there has been
misgovernment in Ireland during that
period, it is the land which has influ-
enced Parliament, and the landowners
are responsible. I do not mean to say
that the House of Commons is not re-
sponsible for taking the evil advice
which the landowners of Ireland have
proffered; but what I mean to assert is,
that this advice has been almost invari-
ably acted upon by the Government.
This it is which has proved fatal to the
interests of Ireland; the Ulster men have
stood in the way of improvements in
the Franchise, in the Church, and in
the Land question; they have purchased
Protestant ascendency, and the price
paid for it is the ruin and degradation
of their country. So much for the vote
which I am about to give in support of
the rate in aid.
In the next place, I must observe that
if an income tax were to be substituted
for a rate in aid, I think I could show
substantial reasons why it would not be
satisfactory. In the first place, I take
an objection to the imposition of an
income tax for the express purpose of
supporting paupers. This, I apprehend,
is a fatal objection at the outset. I
understand that there has been a docu-
ment issued by a Committee in another
place, which has reported favourably
for the substitution of an income tax in
lieu of the rate in aid. I always find
that if a proposition is brought forward
by the Government to impose a new
tax, it is always for a tax which is dis-
liked, and I conclude, that if an income
tax for Ireland had been proposed in-
stead of the rate in aid, that would have
been repudiated with quite as much
vigour as the proposition now before
the House.
And now I will address a few words
to the general question of Ireland, which
I think may be fairly entered upon in
this debate after the speech of the right
hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth. What have we been doing all
the Session? With the exception of the
Jewish Oaths Bill, and the Navigation
Laws, our attention has been solely
taken up with Irish matters. From the
incessant recurrence of the Irish debate,
it would seem, either that the wrongs
and evils endured by the Irish people
are incurable, or else that we lack
statesmen. I always find that, whoever
happens to sit on the other side of the
table, he always has some scheme to
propose for the regeneration of Ireland.
The noble Lord on the Treasury bench
had his schemes for that purpose when
he was seated opposite. The right
hon. Baronet the Member for Tam-
worth now has his scheme to propose,
and if he can succeed in it, he will not
only have the universal wish of the
nation in his favour, but the noble Lord
also who is at the head of the Govern-
ment will not, I am sure, object to give
way to any man who will settle the
Irish question. But the treatment of
this Irish malady remains ever the same.
We have nothing for it still but force
and alms. You have an armed force
there of 50,000 men to keep the people
quiet, large votes are annually required
to keep the people quiet, and large
votes are annually required to keep the
people alive. I presume the govern-
ment by troops is easy, and that the
'Civil power may snore at ease,
While soldiers fire-to keep the peace.'
But the noble Lord at the head of the
Government has no policy to propose
for Ireland. If he had, he would have
told us what it is before now. The

1849.
167.
IRELAND, IV.
poor-law as a means of regenerating.
Ireland is a delusion. So is the rate in
aid. I do not believe in the regenerating
power either of the poor-law or of the
rate in aid. There may occur cases
where farmers will continue to em-
ploy labourers for the mere purpose of
preventing them from coming on the
poor-rates, but these are exceptions. If
the desire of gain will not cause the
employment of capital, assuredly poor-
rates will not. A poor-law adds to
pauperism, by inviting to idleness. It
drags down the man who pays, and de-
moralises him who receives. It may
expose, it may temporarily relieve, it
will increase, but it can never put an
end to pauperism. The poor-law and
the rate in aid are, therefore, utterly
unavailing for such a purpose.
It is the absence of all demand for
labour that constitutes the real evil of
Ireland. In the distressed Unions a
man's labour is absolutely worth no-
thing. It is not that the Irish people
will not work. I spoke to an Irish
navigator the other day respecting his
work, and I asked him why his country-
men did not work in their own country.
Give them 2s. 8d. a-day,' said he, ' and
you will find plenty who will work.'
There exists in Ireland a lamentable
want of employment. The land there
enjoys a perpetual sabbath. If the
people of Ireland were set to work,
they would gain their subsistence; but
if this course is not adopted, they must
either continue to be supported out of
the taxes, or else be left to starve. In
order to show how great is the general
poverty in Ireland, I will read a state-
ment of the comparative amount of
legacy duty paid in the two countries.
In England, in the year 1844, the
amount of capital on which legacy duty
was paid was 44,393,8871,; in Ireland,
in 1845, the amount of capital on which
legacy duty was paid was 2,140,021l.—
the population of the latter being nearly
one-half of the former, whilst the pro-
portion between the capital paying
legacy duty is only one-twentieth. In
1844, the legacy duty paid in England
was 1,124,435, with a population of
16,000,000; in Scotland it was 74,1161.,
with a population of 3,000,000; whilst
Ireland paid only 53,6187., with a popu-
lation of 8,oco,000. These facts offer
the strongest possible proof of the
poverty of Ireland.
On looking over the reports of the
Poor-law Inspectors, I find them teem-
ing with statements of the wretchedness
which prevails in the distressed districts,
of Ireland, The general character of
the reports is, that starvation is, lite-
rally speaking, gradually driving the
population into their graves. The peo-
ple cannot quit their hovels for want of
clothing, whilst others cannot be dis-
charged from the workhouses owing to
the same cause. Men are seen wearing
women's apparel, not being able to pro-
cure proper clothing; whilst, in other
instances, men, women, and children
are all huddled together under bundles
of rags, unable to rise for lack of cover-
ing; workhouses and prisons are crowded
beyond their capacity to contain, the
mortality being very great in them.
Persons of honest character commit
thefts in order to be sent to prison, and
some ask, as a favour, to be transported.
I know of nothing like this in the
history of modern times. The only
parallel I can find to it is in the work
of the great German author (Mosheim),
who, in his Institutes of the Christian
Religion, speaking of the inroads of the
barbarians into the Roman empire in
the fifth century, says that in Gaul, the
calamities of the times drove many to
such madness, that they wholly excluded
God from the government of the world,
and denied His providence over human
affairs. It would almost appear that
this state of things is now to be seen in
Ireland. The prisons are crowded, the
chapels deserted, society is disorganized
and ruined; labour is useless, for capital
is not to be had for its employment.
The reports of the Inspectors say that
this catastrophe has only been hastened,
and not originated, by the failure of the
potato crop during the last four years,
and that all men possessed of any intel-

168
APRIL 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
j
1
+
!
}
ligence must have foreseen what would
ultimately happen.
This being the case, in what manner
are the Irish people to subsist in future?
There is the land, and there is labour
enough to bring it into cultivation. But
such is the state in which the land is
placed, that capital cannot be employed
upon it. You have tied up the raw
material in such a manner-you have
created such a monopoly of land by
your laws and your mode of dealing
with it, as to render it alike a curse to
the people and to the owners of it.
Why, let me ask, should land be tied up
any more than any other raw material?
If the supply of cotton wool were limited
to the hands of the Browns and the
Barings, what would be the condition
of the Lancashire manufactories? What
the manufactories would be under such
a monopoly, the land in the county of
Mayo actually is under the system which
prevails with respect to it in Ireland.
But land carries with it territorial in-
fluence, which the Legislature will not
interfere with lest it should be disturbed.
Land is sacred, and must not be touched.
The right hon. Gentleman the Presi-
dent of the Board of Trade will under-
stand what I mean when I allude to the
Land Improvement Company which the
Legislature is ready to charter for Ire-
land, but which it fears to suffer to exist
in England, lest the territorial influence
which ever accompanies the possession
of landed estates should be lost or
diminished. But one of the difficulties
to which a remedy must be applied is
the defective titles, which cannot easily
be got rid of under the present system
of entails. This is one of the questions
to which the House of Commons must
very soon give its serious attention.
Then there comes the question of settle-
ments. Now, I do not say there ought
not to be any settlements; but what I
mean to say is, that they are so bound
up and entangled with the system of
entails as to present insuperable diffi-
culties in the way of dealing with land
as a marketable commodity. I have
here an Opinion which I will read to
the House, which I find recorded as
having been given by an eminent coun-
sel: it is quoted in Hayes' work on
Conveyancing, and the Opinion was
given on the occasion of a settlement
on the marriage of a gentleman having
a fee-simple estate :—
"The proposals extend to a strict settle-
ment by the gentleman upon the first
and other sons of the marriage. It will
appear from the preceding observations,
that where the relative circumstances are
such as in the present case, a strict settle-
ment of the gentleman's estate does not
ordinarily enter into the arrangement,
which begins and ends with his taking the
lady's fortune, and imposing an equivalent
pecuniary charge upon his estate (for her
personal benefit). The proposals seldom
go further, unless there is hereditary rank
or title to be supported, or it is in con-
templation to found a family. The former
of those two circumstances do not exist
in this case, and the latter would require
the settlement of the bulk of the estates.
The policy of such settlements is extremely
questionable. It is difficult to refer them,
in the absence of both the motives already
indicated, to any rational principle. The
present possessor has absolute dominion;
his character is known, his right unques-
tionable. He is asked to reduce himself
to a mere tenant for life in favour of an
unborn son, of whose character nothing
can be predicted, and who, if he can be
said to have any right, cannot possibly
have a preferable right. At no very
dis-
tant period the absolute dominion must be
confided to somebody-and why should
confidence be reposed in the unborn child
rather than the living parent? Such a
settlement has no tendency to protect or
benefit the father, whose advantage and
comfort ought first to be consulted. It
does not shield him from the consequences
of his own imprudence. On the contrary,
if his expenditure should in any instance
exceed his income, he-as a mere tenant
for life—is in danger of being obliged to
borrow on annuity, a process which, once
begun, proceeds generally and almost ne-
cessarily to the exhaustion of the life
1849.
169
IRELAND. IV.
income. The son may be an idiot or a
spendthrift. He may be tempted to raise
money by post obit. If to these not im-
probable results we add all the family feuds
generated between the tenant for life and
remainder-man, in regard to the manage-
ment and enjoyment by the former of
that estate which was once his own, par-
ticularly with reference to cutting timber,
the disadvantages of thus fettering the
dominion will appear greatly to preponde-
rate. At best, a settlement is a specula-
tion; at worst, it is the occasion of distress,
profligacy, and domestic discord, ending
not unfrequently, as the Chancery Reports
bear witness, in obstinate litigation, ruin-
ous alike to the peace and to the property
of the family. Sometimes the father effects
an arrangement with his eldest son on his
coming of age; the son stipulating for an
immediate provision in the shape of an
annuity, the father for a gross sum to
satisfy his creditors, or to portion his
younger children, and for a re-settlement
of the estate. This arrangement, perhaps,
is brought about by means, or imposes
terms, which, in the eye of equity, render
it a fraud upon the son; and here we have
another source of litigation.'
Now, what I have here read is exactly
that which everybody's experience tells
us is the fact, and we have recently had
a notable case which exactly answers to
that referred to in the last paragraph of
this Opinion. The practice of making
settlements of this description is mis-
chievous-leads to endless litigation-
and sooner or later the landed classes
must sink under it.
The Irish proprietors have also another
difficulty to contend with, and that is
their extravagance. It is said—for I
cannot vouch for the fact myself—that
they keep too many horses and dogs.
I do not mean to say that an Irish
gentleman may not spend his rents as
he pleases; but I can say that he can-
not both spend his money and have it
too. I think if they would cast their
pride on one side, and go honestly to
work-if, instead of their young men
spending their time waiting for a com-
mission,' they were to go into business,
they would be far better and more use-
fully employed, and they would find
that the less humiliating condition of
the two. Another bane of Ireland is
the prevalence of life interests in landed
property there. Under such a system
the land can neither be improved nor
sold. Now what has the noble Lord
at the head of the Government done to-
wards grappling with all these ques-
tions? Nothing-absolutely nothing.
I think him very unwise in not pro-
pounding to himself the momentous
question, What shall be done for Ire-
land? The right hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth has a plan.
He entered upon its outline on Friday
last. But I doubt whether it has yet
taken that distinct form which it must
assume in order that the House may
take cognisance of it. I admire some
of the measures which the right hon.
Baronet intimates he would carry into
effect, but there are other parts of his
proposals which are vague and imprac-
ticable. I think, if it is believed in
Ireland that a Commission is to be ap-
pointed to take charge of the distressed
Unions of the south and west-that the
whole thing is to be managed through
a new department of the Government,
and all without the slightest trouble to
the landlords-that there will be more
than ever a clinging to this wretched
property in bankrupt estates, and more
than ever an indisposition to adopt
those measures which are still open to
them, in the direction in which the
right hon. Baronet wishes to proceed.
Theright hon. Baronet stated in his first
speech on this topic, that he did not
wish the transfer of property to be by
individual barter; and on Friday he
stated that he was very much averse to
allowing matters to go on in their
natural course, for by that means land
would be unnaturally cheapened. Well,
but upon what conditions would the
right hon. Baronet buy land in Ireland?
would it be under the same circum-
stances, and at the same price, that he
would buy an estate in Yorkshire or
170
APRIL 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
C
Staffordshire? If any sane man goes
to the west or south of Ireland to pur-
chase an estate, he must go on account
of the cheapness of the bargain—a
cheapness which he hopes will com-
pensate him for all the disadvantages.
to which he must necessarily be sub-
jected in such a purchase. There can
be no redemption for that part of Ire-
land-if it is to be through the transfer
of land-except the land take its na-
tural course, and come so cheap into
the market that Englishmen and Scotch-
men, and Irishmen too having capital,
will be willing to purchase it, notwith-
standing all its disadvantages. [Colonel
Dunne: Hear, hear !' The hon.
hear!']
Member for Portarlington cheers that,
as if it were an extraordinary statement.
If the hon. Member prefers purchasing
what is dear to what is cheap, he is.
not a very sensible man to legis-
late for Ireland. If he thinks that a
man will go into Galway and pay as
much per acre for an estate as he would
in England, he is greatly mistaken;
but the fact is, I believe, that not only
English and Scotch capital, but that
much Irish capital also, would be
expended in the purchase of estates in
the south and west, if the ends which
the right hon. Baronet has in view were
facilitated by this House.
But we have a case in point which
affords us some guidance upon this.
question, and it is a case with which
the right hon. Baronet the Member for
Tamworth, and the right hon. Baronet
the Member for Ripon, are very fami-
liar. I allude to the case of Stockport
in 1842. Owing to a variety of circum-
stances-I will not go into the question
of the Corn-law, as that is settled-but
owing to a variety of circumstances,
from 1838 to 1842 there was a continued
sinking in the condition of Stockport-
its property depreciated to a lamentable
extent. One man left property, as he
thought, worth 80,000l. or 90,000l.
Within two years it sold for little
more than 20,000l. Since that time
the son of one man, then supposed to
be a person of large property, has had
relief from the parochial funds. In
1842 the amount of the poor-rate aver-
aged from 7s. to. 8s. in the pound.
From November 4, 1841, to May 30,
1842, the rates levied were 6s. in the
pound, realising the amount of 19,1447.
From January 28, 1843, to August 2. of
the same year, the rates levied were 7s.
in the pound, and the amount raised
was 21,9481, And bear in mind that
at that time Stockport was in process
of depopulation-many thousands quit-
ted the place whole streets were left
with scarcely a tenant in them—some
public-houses, previously doing a large
business, were let for little more than
their rates; in fact, Stockport was as
fair a representative of distress amongst
a manufacturing community as Mayo,
Galway, or any western county of Ire-
land can be at this moment of distress
amongst an agricultural community.
Now what was done in Stockport?
There was a Commission of Inquiry,
which the then Home Secretary ap-
pointed. They made an admirable report,
the last paragraph of which ought to be
read by every one who wishes to know
the character of the people of Stockport.
Mr Twisleton, speaking of them, said
that they were a noble people; and
truly the exertions which they made to
avoid becoming chargeable upon the
rates were heroic. Well now, all this
suffering was going on-the workhouses
were crowded, the people were emigra-
ting, there was a general desolation,
and if it had not been for the harvest
of 1842, which was a good one, and
the gradual recovery of trade which
followed, nothing in Ireland can be
worse than the condition of Stockport
would have been. What was the re-
sult? Property was greatly depre-
ciated, and much of it changed hands.
Something like half the manufacturers
failed, and, of course, gave up business
altogether. My hon. Friend the Mem-
ber for Stockport purchased property in
the borough at that period, and since
then he has laid out not far short of a
hundred thousand pounds, in a very
large manufacturing establishment in
1849.
I'71
IRELAND: IV.
that town. In fact, the persons who
are now carrying on the manufacturing
business in Stockport are of a more
substantial character than those who
were swept away by the calamities of
1842. This is a very sorrowful process.
I can feel as much for those persons as
any man; but we must all submit to cir-
cumstances such as these when they come.
There are vicissitudes in all classes of
society, and in all occupations in which
we may engage; and when we have,
as now in Ireland, a state of things-a
grievous calamity not equalled under
the sun,-it is the duty of this House
not to interfere with the ordinary and
natural course of remedy, and not to
flinch from what is necessary for the
safety of the people by reason of any
mistaken sympathy with the owners of
cotton mills or with the proprietors of
landed estates. Now, I want Parlia-
ment to remove every obstacle in the
way of the free sale of land. I believe
that in this policy lies the only security
you have for the restoration of the dis-
tressed districts of Ireland. The ques-
tion of a Parliamentary title is most
important; but I understand that the
difficulty of this arises from the system
of entails beyond persons now living,
and because you must go back through
a long search of sixty years before you
can make it quite clear that the title is
absolutely secure. The right hon.
Baronet the Member for Tamworth
suggested that the Lord Chancellor
should be ousted. I proposed last year
that there should be a new court estab-
lished in Ireland, for the adjudication of
cases connected with land, and for no
other purpose, and that it should thus
relieve the present courts from much of
the business with which they are now
encumbered. But I do not say that
even such a court would effect much
good, unless it were very much more
speedy in its operations than the exist-
ing courts. I believe that the present
Lord Chancellor is admitted to be as
good a Judge as ever sat in the Court
of Chancery; but he is rather timid as
a Minister, and inert as a statesman;
and, if I am not mistaken, he was in a
great measure responsible for the failure
of the Bill for facilitating the sale of
encumbered estates last Session. The
Government must have known, as well
as I do, that such a measure could not
succeed, and that the clause which
was introduced-on the third reading, I
believe-made it impossible to work it.
There is another point, with regard
to intestate estates. I feel how tenderly
one must speak, in this House, upon a
question like this. Even the right hon.
Member for Tamworth, with all his
authority, appeared, when touching on
this delicate question of the land, as if
he were walking upon eggs which he
was very much afraid of breaking. I
certainly never heard the right hon.
Gentleman steer through so many sinu-
osities in a case; and hardly, at last,
dared he come to the question, because
he was talking about land-this sacred
land! I believe land to have nothing
peculiar in its nature which does not
belong to other property; and every-
thing that we have done with the view
of treating land differently from other
property has been a blunder-a false
course which we must retrace—an error
which lies at the foundation of very
much of the pauperism and want of
employment which so generally prevail.
Now, with regard to intestate estates,
I am told that the House of Lords will
never repeal the law of primogeniture;
but I do not want them to repeal the
law of primogeniture in the sense enter-
tained by some people. I do not want
them to enact the system of France, by
which a division of property is com-
pelled. I think that to force the divi-
sion of property by law is just as con-
trary to sound principles and natural
rights as to prevent its division, as is
done by our law. If a man choose to
act the unnatural and absurd part of
leaving the whole of his property to
one child, I should not, certainly, look
with respect upon his memory; but I
would not interfere to prevent the free
exercise of his will. I think, however,
if a man die by chance without a will,

172
APRIL 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
that it is the duty of the Government to
set a high moral example, and to divide
the property equally among the children
of the former owner, or among those
who may be said to be his heirs-
among those, in fact, who would fairly
participate in his personal estate. If
that system of leaving all to the eldest
were followed out in the case of per-
sonalty, it would lead to immediate
confusion, and, by destroying the whole
social system, to a perfect anarchy of
property. Why, then, should that course
be followed with regard to land? The
repeal of the law would not of necessity
destroy the custom; but this House
would no longer give its sanction to a
practice which is bad; and I believe
that gradually there would be a more
just appreciation of their duties in this
respect by the great body of testators.
Then, with regard to life interests; I
would make an alteration there. I think
that life-owners should be allowed to
grant leases of course, only on such
terms as should ensure the successor
from fraud-and that estates should be
permitted to be charged with the sums
which were expended in their improve-
ment. Next, with regard to the registry
of land. In many European countries
this is done; and high legal authorities
affirm that it would not be difficult to
accomplish it in this country. You have
your Ordnance Survey. To make the
Survey necessary for a perfect registry
of deeds throughout the kingdom, would
not cost more than 9d, an acre; and if
you had your plans engraved, it would
be no great addition to the expense.
There can be no reason why the land-
owners should not have that advantage
conferred upon them, because, in addi-
tion to the public benefit, it would in-
crease the value of their lands by several
years' purchase. Mr. Senior has stated,
that if there were the same ready means
for the transfer of land as at present
exist for the transfer of personalty, the
value of land would be increased, if I
mistake not, by nine years' purchase.
This is a subject which I would recom-
mend to the hon. Member for Bucking-
hamshire, now distinguished as the ad-
vocate of the landed interest.
Then with regard to stamps, I think
that they might be reduced, at any rate
for a number of years, to a nominal
amount. In fact, I would make any
sacrifice for the purpose of changing
lands from the hands of insolvent and
embarrassed owners into those of sol-
vent persons, who would employ it in a
manner usefully and advantageously to
the country and themselves. There is
another proposition with regard to the
waste lands of Ireland. The Govern-
ment made a proposal last year for ob-
taining those waste lands, and bringing
them into cultivation. That I thought
injudicious. But they might take those
lands at a valuation, and, dividing them
into farms and estates of moderate size,
might tempt purchasers from different
parts of the United Kingdom. By such
means I believe that a large proportion
of the best of the waste lands might be
brought into cultivation. I believe that
these are the only means by which
capital can be attracted to that country.
The noble Lord at the head of the
Government proposes to attract capital
to Ireland by a maximum rate and a
charge upon the Unions. If that maxi-
mum rate be all you have to propose,
there will be no more probability of
capital flowing into those parts of Ire-
land where it is so much required, than
there was at the time when the poor-
rate was unknown. The right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Tamworth
spoke about emigration; and I think
that he was rather unjust, or at least
unwise, in his observations with regard
to voluntary emigration. Things that
are done voluntarily are not always
done well; neither are things that are
done by the Government; and I know
many cases where Government under-
takings have failed as eminently as any
that have been attempted by private
enterprise. But it does not appear
to me that there is much wisdom in the
project of emigration, although I know
that some hon. Gentlemen from Ireland
place great faith in it as a remedy. I
1849.
173
IRELAND. IV.
have endeavoured to ascertain what is
the relation of the population to the
land in Ireland, and this is what I find.
In speaking of the Clifden Union, the
Inspectors state—
'In conclusion, we beg to offer our
matured opinion that the resources of the
Union would, if made available, be amply
sufficient for the independent support of its
population.'
Mr. Hamilton, who was examined be-
fore the Committee of which I am a
member, said, speaking of the Unions of
Donegal and Glenties-
There is no over-population, if those
Unions, according to their capabilities,
were cultivated as the average of English
counties, with the same skill and capital.'
And Mr. Twisleton said-
'I did not speak of a redundant popula-
tion in reference to land, only to capital.
The land of Ireland could maintain double
its present population.'
Then, if that be the case, I am not
quite certain that we should be wise in
raising sums of money to enable the
people to emigrate. The cost of trans-
porting a family to Australia, or even to
Canada, is considerable; and the ques-
tion is, whether, with the means which
it would require to convey them to a
distant shore, they might not be more
profitably employed at home.
I probably shall be told that I pro-
pose schemes which are a great interfe-
rence with the rights of property. My
opinion is that nothing can be a greater
interference and infringement of the
rights of property than the laws which
regulate property now. I think that the
landowners are under an impression that
they have been maintaining great influ-
ence, political power, an hereditary aris-
tocracy, and all those other arrange-
ments which some think should never
be named without reverence and awe;
that they have been accustomed to look
at these things, and to fancy that they
are worth the price they pay for them.
I am of opinion that the disadvantages
under which those rights labour through-
out the United Kingdom are extreme;
but in Ireland the disadvantages are
followed by results not known in this
country.
You speak of interference with pro-
perty; but I ask what becomes of
the property of the poor man, which
consists of his labour? Take those
4,000,000 persons who live in the dis-
tressed districts, as described by the
right hon. Baronet the member for
Tamworth. Their property in labour
is almost totally destroyed. There they
are-men whom God made and per-
mitted to come into this world, en-
dowed with faculties like ourselves, but
who are unable to maintain themselves,
and must either starve or live upon
others. The interference with their
property has been enormous-so great
as absolutely to destroy it. Now, I
ask the landlords of Ireland, whether
living in the state in which they have
lived for years is not infinitely worse
than that which I have proposed for
them? Threatening letters by the post
at breakfast-time-now and then the
aim of the assassin-poor-rates which
are a grievous interference with the
rights of property, and this rate in aid,
which the gentlemen of Ulster declare
to be directly opposed to all the rights
of property-what can be worse?
I shall be told that I am injuring
aristocratical and territorial influence.
What is that in Ireland worth to you
now? What is Ireland worth to you
at all? Is she not the very symbol and
token of your disgrace and humiliation
to the whole world? Is she not an
incessant trouble to your Legislature,
and the source of increased expense to
your people, already over-taxed? Is
not your legislation all at fault in what
it has hitherto done for that country?
The people of Ulster say that we shall
weaken the Union. It has been one of
the misfortunes of the legislation of
this House that there has been no
honest attempt to make a union with
the whole people of Ireland up to this
time. We
We have had a union with
1
174
APRIL 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Ulster, but there has been no union
with the whole people of Ireland, and
there never can be a union between the
Government and the people whilst such
a state of things exists as has for many
years past prevailed in the south and
west of Ireland.
The condition of Ireland at this mo-
ment is this-the rich are menaced with
ruin, and ruin from which, in their
present course, they cannot escape;
whilst the poor are menaced with star-
vation and death. There are hon.
Gentlemen in this House, and there
are other landed proprietors in Ireland,
who are as admirable in the perform-
ance of all their social duties as any
men to be found in any part of the
world. We have had brilliant examples
mentioned in this House; but those
men themselves are suffering their cha-
racters to be damaged by the present
condition of Ireland, and are under-
going a process which must end in their
own ruin; because this demoralisation
and pauperisation will go on in an ex-
tending circle, and will engulf the whole
property of Ireland in one common ruin,
unless something more be done than
passing poor-laws and proposing rates
in aid.
Sir, if ever there were an opportunity
for a statesman, it is this. This is the
hour undoubtedly, and we want the
man. The noble Lord at the head of
the Government has done many things
for his country, for which I thank him
as heartily as any man-he has shown
on
some occasions as much moral
courage as it is necessary, in the state
of public opinion, upon any question,
for a statesman to show; but I have
been much disappointed that, upon this
Irish question, he has seemed to shrink
from a full consideration of the diffi-
culty, and from a resolution to meet it
fairly. The character of the present,
the character of any Government under
such circumstances, must be at stake.
The noble Lord cannot, in his position,
remain inactive. Let him be as inno-
cent as he may, he can never justify
himself to the country, or to the world,
or to posterity, if he remains at the head
of this Imperial Legislature and is still
unable, or unwilling, to bring forward
measures for the restoration of Ireland.
I would address the same language also
to the noble Lord at the head of the
Irish Government, who has won, I must
say, the admiration of the population of
this country for the temper and manner
in which he has administered the go-
vernment of Ireland. But he must
bear in mind that it is not the highest
effort of statesmanship to preserve the
peace in a country where there are very
few men anxious to go to war, and to
preserve the peace, too, with 50,000
armed men at his command, and the
whole power of this empire to back
him. All that may be necessary, and
peace at all hazards must be secured;
but if that distinguished Nobleman in-
tends to be known hereafter as a states-
man with regard to his rule in Ireland,
he must be prepared to suggest mea-
sures to the Government of a more
practical and directly operative cha-
racter than any he has yet initiated.
Sir, I am ashamed, I must say, of
the course which we have taken upon
this question. Look at that great sub-
scription that was raised three years
ago for Ireland. There was scarcely
a part of the globe from which sub-
scriptions did not come. The Pope, as
was very natural, subscribed - the head
of the great Mahometan empire, the
Grand Seignior, sent his thousand
pounds the uttermost parts of the
earth sent in their donations. A tribe
of Red Indians on the American con-
tinent sent their subscription; and I
have it on good authority that even the
slaves on a plantation in one of the
Carolinas subscribed their sorrowful
mite that the miseries of Ireland might
be relieved. The whole world looked
upon the condition of Ireland, and
helped to mitigate her miseries. What
can we say to all those contributors,
who, now that they have paid, must be
anxious to know if anything is done to
prevent a recurrence of these calamities?
We must tell them with blushes that
1849.
175
IRELAND. IV.
nothing has been done, but that we are
still going on with the poor-rates, and
that, having exhausted the patience of
the people of England in Parliamentary
grants, we are coming now with rates
in aid, restricted altogether to the pro-
perty of Ireland. That is what we
have to tell them; whilst we have to
acknowledge that our Constitution,
boasted of as it has been for genera-
tions past, utterly fails to grapple with
this great question.
Hon. Gentlemen turn with triumph
to neighbouring countries, and speak
in glowing terms of our glorious Con-
stitution. It is true, that abroad thrones
and dynasties have been overturned,
whilst in England peace has reigned
undisturbed. But take all the lives that
have been lost in the last twelve months
in Europe amidst the convulsions that
had occurred-take all the cessation of
trade, the destruction of industry, all
the crushing of hopes and hearts, and
they will not compare for an instant
with the agonies which have been en-
dured by the population of Ireland
under your glorious Constitution. And
there are those who now say that this
is the ordering of Providence. I met
an Irish gentleman the other night,
and, speaking upon the subject, he said
that he saw no remedy, but that it
seemed as if the present state of things
were the mode by which Providence
intended to solve the question of Irish
difficulties. But let us not lay these
calamities at the door of Providence;
it were sinful in us, of all men, to do so.
God has blessed Ireland-and does still
bless her-in position, in soil, in cli-
mate; He has not withdrawn His pro-
mises, nor are they unfulfilled; there is
still the sunshine and the shower; still
the seed-time and the harvest; and the
affluent bosom of the earth yet offers
sustenance for man. But man must do
his part-we must do our part-we
must retrace our steps-we must shun
the blunders, and, I would even say,
the crimes of our past legislation. We
must free the land, and then we shall
discover, and not till then, that in-
dustry, hopeful and remunerated — in-
dustry, free and inviolate, is the only
sure foundation on which can be reared
the enduring edifice of union and of
peace.
វ
IRELAND.
V.
HABEAS CORPUS SUSPENSION BILL.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 17, 1866.
[The Fenian Conspiracy and threatened Insurrection in Ireland compelled the Govern-
ment to introduce a Bill to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. It was brought in
suddenly, the House meeting on Saturday to consider it.]
I owe an apology to the Irish Mem-
bers for stepping in to make an obser-
vation to the House on this question.
My strong interest in the affairs of their
country, ever since I came into Parlia-
ment, will be my sufficient excuse. The
Secretary of State, on the part of the
Government of which he is a Member,
has called us together on an unusual
day and at an unusual hour, to consider
a proposition of the greatest magnitude,
and which we are informed is one of
extreme urgency. If it be so, I hope it
will not be understood that we are here
merely to carry out the behests of the
Administration; and that we are to be
permitted, if we choose, to discuss this
measure, and if possible to say some-
thing which may mitigate the apparent
harshness of the course which the
Government feels itself compelled to
pursue.
It is now more than twenty-two years
since I was first permitted to take my
seat in this House. During that time I
have on many occasions, with great
favour, been allowed to address it, but
I declare that during the whole of that
period I have never risen to speak here
under so strong a feeling, as a Member
of the House, of shame and of humilia-
tion, as that by which I find myself
oppressed at this moment. The Sec-
retary of State proposes-as the right
hon. Gentlemen himself has said-to
deprive no inconsiderable portion of the
subjects of the Queen-our countrymen,
within the United Kingdom-of the
commonest, of the most precious, and
of the most sacred right of the English
Constitution, the right to their personal
freedom. From the statement of the
Secretary of State it is clear that this is
not asked to be done, or required to be
done, with reference only to a small
section of the Irish people. He has
named great counties, wide districts,
whole provinces, over which this alleged
and undoubted disaffection has spread,
and has proposed that five or six mil-
lions of the inhabitants of the United
Kingdom shall suffer the loss of that
right of personal freedom that is
guaranteed to all Her Majesty's subjects
by the Constitution of these realms.
Now, I do not believe that the Sec-
retary of State has overstated his case
for the purpose of inducing the House
to consent to his proposition. I believe
that if the majority of the people of
FEB. 17, 1866.
177
IRELAND.
V.
Ireland, counted fairly out, had their
will, and if they had the power, they
would unmoor the island from its
fastenings in the deep, and move it at
least 2,000 miles to the West. And I
believe, further, that if by conspiracy,
or insurrection, or by that open agita-
tion to which alone I ever would give
any favour or consent, they could shake
off the authority, I will not say of the
English Crown, but of the Imperial
Parliament, they would gladly do so.
An hon. Member from Ireland a few
nights ago referred to the character of
the Irish people. He said, and I believe
it is true, that there is no Christian
nation with which we are acquainted
amongst the people of which crime of
the ordinary character, as we reckon it
in this country, is so rare as it is
amongst his countrymen. He might
have said, also, that there is no people
whatever they may be at home-more
industrious than his countrymen in every
other country but their own. He might
have said more; that they are a people
of a cheerful and joyous temperament.
He might have said more than this-
that they are singularly grateful for
kindnesses shown to them, and that of
all the people of our race they are
filled with the strongest sentiment of
veneration.
And yet, with such materials and
with such a people, after centuries of
government-after sixty-five years of
government by this House--you have
them embittered against your rule, and
anxious only to throw off the authority
of the Crown and Queen of these realms.
Now, this is not a single occasion we
are discussing. This is merely an access
of the complaint Ireland has been suf-
fering under during the lifetime of the
oldest man in this House, that of
chronic insurrection. No man can deny
this.
I dare say a large number of the
Members of this House, at the time to
which the right hon. Member for Buck-
inghamshire referred, heard the same
speech on the same subject, from the
same Minister to whom we have listened
to-day. [Sir G. Grey: 'No!'] I cer-
tainly thought I heard the right hon.
Gentleman the Secretary of State for
the Home Department make a speech
before on the same question, but he
was a Minister of the Government on
whose behalf a similar speech was
made on the occasion referred to, and
no doubt concurred in every word that
was uttered by his Colleague.
Sixty-five years ago this country and
this Parliament undertook to govern
Ireland. I will say nothing of the
manner in which that duty was brought
upon us-except this-that it was by
proceedings disgraceful and corrupt to
the last degree. I will say nothing of
the pretences under which it was brought
about but this-that the English Par-
liament and people, and the Irish people
too, were told, that if they once got rid
of the Irish Parliament they would de-
throne for ever Irish factions, and that
with a united Parliament we should
become a united, and stronger, and
happier people. During these sixty-
five years and on this point I ask for
the attention of the right hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Disraeli) who has just spoken
-there are only three considerable
measures which Parliament has passed
in the interests of Ireland. One of
them was the measure of 1829, for the
emancipation of the Catholics and to
permit them to have seats in this House.
But that measure, so just, so essential,
and which, of course, is not ever to be
recalled, was a measure which the chief
Minister of the day, a great soldier, and
a great judge of military matters, ad-
mitted was passed under the menace of,
and only because of, the danger of civil
war. The other two measures to which
I have referred are that for the relief of
the poor, and that for the sale of the
incumbered estates; and those measures
were introduced to the House and passed
through the House in the emergency of
a famine more severe than any that has
desolated any Christian country of the
world within the last four hundred
years.
Except on these two emergencies I
appeal to every Irish Member, and to
12
178
FEB. 17,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
every English Member who has paid
any attention to the matter, whether the
statement is not true that this Parlia-
ment has done nothing for the people
of Ireland. And, more than that, their
complaints have been met-complaints
of their sufferings have been met—often
by denial, often by insult, often by con-
tempt. And within the last few years
we have heard from this very Treasury
bench observations with regard to Ire-
land which no friend of Ireland or
of England, and no Minister of the
Crown, ought to have uttered with re-
gard to that country. Twice in my
Parliamentary life this thing has been
done at least by the close of this day
will have been done-and measures of
repression—measures for the suspension
of the civil rights of the Irish people—
have been brought into Parliament and
passed with extreme and unusual rapidity.
I have not risen to blame the Secre-
tary of State or to blame his Colleagues
for the act of to-day. There
There may be
circumstances to justify a proposition of
this kind, and I am not here to deny
that these circumstances now exist;
but what I complain of is this: there
is no statesmanship merely in acts of
force and acts of repression. And more
than that, I have not observed since I
have been in Parliament anything on
this Irish question that approaches to
the dignity of statesmanship.
There
has been, I admit, an improved ad-
ministration in Ireland. There have been
Lord-Lieutenants anxious to be just,
and there is one there now who is
probably as anxious to do justice as any
man. We have observed generally in
the recent Trials a better tone and
temper than were ever witnessed under
similar circumstances in Ireland before.
But if I go back to the Ministers who
have sat on the Treasury bench since I
first came into this House-Sir Robert
Peel first, then Lord John Russell, then
Lord Aberdeen, then Lord Derby, then
Lord Palmerston, then Lord Derby
again, then Lord Palmerston again, and
now Earl Russell-I say that with
regard to all these men, there has not
been any approach to anything that
history will describe as statesmanship
on the part of the English Government
towards Ireland. There were Coercion
Bills in abundance-Arms Bills Session
after Session-lamentations like that of
the right hon. Gentleman the Member
for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) that
the suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act was not made perpetual by a clause
which he laments was repealed.
There have been Acts for the sus-
pension of the Habeas Corpus Act, like
that which we are now discussing; but
there has been no statesmanship. Men,
the most clumsy and brutal, can do these
things; but we want men of higher temper
-men of higher genius-men of higher
patriotism to deal with the affairs of Ire-
land. I should like to know whether
those statesmen who hold great offices
havethemselves comprehended the nature
of this question. If they have not, they
have been manifestly ignorant; and if
they have comprehended it and have not
dealt with it, they have concealed that
which they knew from the people, and
evaded the duty they owed to their
Sovereign. I do not want to speak
disrespectfully of men in office. It is
not my custom in this House. I know
something of the worrying labours to
which they are subjected, and I know
not how from day to day they bear the
burden of the labour imposed upon
them; but still I lament that those who
wear the garb―enjoy the emoluments—
and I had almost said usurp the dignity
of statesmanship, sink themselves merely
into respectable and honourable admin-
istrators, when there is a whole nation
under the sovereignty of the Queen
calling for all their anxious thoughts
-calling for the highest exercise of the
highest qualities of the statesman.
I put the question to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. He is the only man
of this Government whom I have heard
of late years who has spoken as if he
comprehended this question, and he
made a speech in the last Session of
Parliament which was not without its
influence both in England and in Ire-
1866.
179
IRELAND.
V.
I
land. I should like to ask him whether
this Irish question is above the stature
of himself and of his Colleagues? If it
be, I ask them to come down from the
high places which they occupy, and try
to learn the art of legislation and gov-
ernment before they practise it.
myself believe, if we could divest our-
selves of the feelings engendered by
party strife, we might come to some
better result. Take the Chancellor of
the Exchequer. Is there in any legisla-
tive assembly in the world a man, as
the world judges, of more transcen-
dent capacity? I will say even, is there
a man with a more honest wish to do
good to the country in which he occu-
pies so conspicuous a place?
Take the right hon. Gentleman
opposite, the leader of the Opposition
is there in any legislative assembly in
the world, at this moment, a man lead-
ing an Opposition of more genius for
his position, who has given proof in
every way but one in which proof can
be given that he is competent to the
highest duties of the highest offices of
the State? Well, but these men-
great men whom we on this side and
you on that side, to a large extent,
admire and follow-fight for office, and
the result is they sit alternately, one on
this side and one on that. But suppose
it were possible for these men, with
their intellects, with their far-reaching
vision, to examine this question tho-
roughly, and to say for once, whether
this leads to office and to the miserable
notoriety that men call fame which
springs from office, or not, ‘If it be
possible, we will act with loyalty to the
Sovereign and justice to the people;
and if it be possible, we will make
Ireland a strength and not a weakness
to the British Empire.' It is from this
fighting with party, and for party, and
for the gains which party gives, that
there is so little result from the great
intellect of such men as there.
the captive Samson of old,—
Like
They grind in brazen fetters, under task,
With their Heaven-gifted strength-'
and the country and the world gain
little by those faculties which God has
given them for the blessing of the country
and the world.
The Secretary of State and the right
hon. Gentleman opposite have referred,
even in stronger language, to the un-
happy fact that much of what now
exists in Ireland has been brought there
from the United States of America.
That is not a fact for us to console
ourselves with; it only adds to the
gravity and the difficulty of this ques-
tion. You may depend upon it that if
the Irish in America, having left this
country, settled there with so strong a
hostility to us, they have had their
reasons-and if being there with that
feeling of affection for their native
country which in all other cases in
which we are not concerned we admire
and reverence, they interfere in Ireland
and stir up there the sedition that now
exists, depend upon it there is in the
condition of Ireland a state of things
which greatly favours their attempts.
There can be no continued fire without
fuel, and all the Irish in America, and
all the citizens of America, united to-
gether, with all their organization and
all their vast resources, would not raise
the very slightest flame of sedition or of
insurrectionary movement in England or
in Scotland. I want to know why they
can do it in Ireland? Are you to say,
as some people say in America and in
Jamaica when speaking of the black
man, that'Nothing can be made of the
Irishman'?
Everything can be made of him in
every country but his own. When he
has passed through the American school
-I speak of him as a child, or in the
second generation of the Irish emigrant
in that country-he is as industrious, as
frugal, as independent, as loyal, as good
a citizen of the American Republic, as
any man born within the dominions of
that Power. Why is it not so in Ire-
land? I have asked the question be-
fore, and I will ask it again-it is a
pertinent question, and it demands an
answer. Why is it that no Scotchman
1
1
.
12-2
180
FEB. 17,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
who leaves Scotland-and the Scotch
have been taunted and ridiculed for
being so ready to leave their country for
a better climate and a better soil-how
comes it, I ask, that no Scotchman who
emigrates to the United States, and no
Englishman who plants himself there,
cherishes the smallest hostility to the
people, to the institutions, or to the
Government of his native country?
Why does every Irishman who leaves
his country and goes to the United
States immediately settle himself down
there, resolved to better his condition in
life, but with a feeling of ineradicable
hatred to the laws and institutions of
the land of his birth? Is not this a fit
question for statesmanship?
If the Secretary of State, since his
last measure was brought in, now
eighteen years ago, had had time, in
the multiplicity of his duties, to con-
sider this question; instead of now
moving for the suspension of the Ha-
beas Corpus Act, he might possibly
have been rejoicing at the universal
loyalty which prevailed, not throughout
Great Britain only, but throughout the
whole population of Ireland. I spent
two autumns in Ireland in the years
1849 and 1852, and I recollect making
a speech in this House not long after-
wards, which some persons thought was
not very wide of the mark. I recom-
mended the Ministers of that time to
take an opportunity to hold an Irish
Session of the Imperial Parliament — to
have no great questions discussed con-
nected with the ordinary matters which
are brought before us, but to keep Par-
liament to the consideration of this Irish
question solely, and to deal with those
great matters which are constant sources
of complaint; and I said that a Session
that was so devoted to such a blessed
and holy work, would be a Session, if it
were successful, that would stand forth
in all our future history as one of the
noblest which had ever passed in the
annals of the Imperial Parliament.
Now, Sir, a few days ago everybody
in this House, with two or three excep-
tions, was taking an oath at that table.
It is called the Oath of Allegiance. It
is meant at once to express loyalty and
to keep men loyal. I do not think it
generally does bind men to loyalty, if
they have not loyalty without it. I
hold loyalty to consist, in a country like
this, as much in doing justice to the
people as in guarding the Crown; for I
believe there is no guardianship of the
Crown in a country like this, where the
Crown is not supposed to rest abso-
lutely upon force, so safe as that of
which we know more in our day pro-
bably than has been known in former
periods of our history, when the occu-
pant of the Throne is respected, admired,
and loved by the general people. Now,
how comes it that these great statesmen
whom I have named, with all their Col-
leagues, some of them as eminent almost
as their leaders, have never tried what
they could do-have never shown their
loyalty to the Crown by endeavouring
to make the Queen as safe in the hearts
of the people of Ireland as she is in the
hearts of the people of England and of
Scotland?
Bear in mind that the Queen of Eng-
land can do almost nothing in these
matters. By our Constitution the Crown
can take no direct part in them. The
Crown cannot direct the policy of the
Government; nay, the Crown cannot,
without the consent of this IIouse, even
select its Ministers; therefore the Crown
is helpless in this matter. And we have
in this country a Queen, who, in all the
civilized nations of the world, is looked
upon as a model of a Sovereign, and
yet her name and fame are discredited
and dishonoured by circumstances such
as those which have twice during her
reign called us together to agree to a
proposition like that which is brought
before us to-day.
There is an instructive anecdote to be
found in the annals of the Chinese Em-
pire. In a remote province there was
an insurrection. The Emperor put down
the insurrection, but he abased and
humbled himself before the people, and
said that if he had been guilty of neglect
he acknowledged his guilt, and he hum-
1866.
181
IRELAND. V.
bled himself before those on whom he
had brought the evil of an insurrection
in one of his provinces. The Queen of
these realms is not so responsible. She
cannot thus humble herself; but I say
that your statesmen for the last forty—
for the last sixty—years are thus guilty,
and that they ought to humble them-
selves before the people of this country
for their neglect. But I have heard
from Members in this House-I have
seen much writing in newspapers-and
I have heard of speeches elsewhere, in
which some of us, who advocate what
we believe to be a great and high mo-
rality in public affairs, are charged with
dislike to the institutions, and even dis-
loyalty to the dynasty which rules in
England. There can be, nothing more
offensive, nothing more unjust, nothing
more utterly false. We who ask Par-
liament, in dealing with Ireland, to deal
with it upon the unchangeable principles
of justice, are the friends of the people,
and the really loyal advisers and sup-
porters of the Throne.
All history teaches us that it is not in
human nature that men should be con-
tent under any system of legislation,
and of institutions such as exist in
Ireland. You may pass this Bill, you
may put the Home Secretary's five
hundred men into gaol-you may do
more than this, you may suppress the
conspiracy and put down the insurrec-
tion, but the moment it is suppressed
there will still remain the germs of this
malady, and from those germs will grow
up as heretofore another crop of insur-
rection and another harvest of misfor-
tune. And it may be that those who
sit here eighteen years after this moment
will find another Ministry and another
Secretary of State ready to propose to
you another administration of the same
ever-failing and ever-poisonous medicine.
I say there is a mode of making Ireland
loyal. I say that the Parliament of
England having abolished the Parlia-
ment of Ireland is doubly bound to ex-
amine what that mode is, and, if it can
discover it, to adopt it. I say that the
Minister who occupies office in this
country, merely that he may carry on
the daily routine of administration, who
dares not grapple with this question,
who dares not go into Opposition, and
who will sit anywhere except where he
can tell his mind freely to the House
and to the country, may have a high
position in the country, but he is not a
statesman, nor is he worthy of the
name.
Sir, I shall not oppose the proposition
of the right hon. Gentleman. The cir-
cumstances, I presume, are such that the
course which is about to be pursued is
perhaps the only merciful course for
Ireland. But I suppose it is not the
intention of the Government, in the
case of persons who are arrested, and
against whom any just complaint can
be made, to do anything more than that
which the ordinary law permits, and
that when men are brought to trial they
will be brought to trial with all the
fairness and all the advantages which
the ordinary law gives. I should say
what was most unjust to the Gentlemen
sitting on that (the Treasury) bench, if
I said aught else than that I believe
they are as honestly disposed to do
right in this matter as I am and as I
have ever been. I implore them, if they
can, to shake off the trammels of doubt
and fear with regard to this question,
and to say something that may be
soothing—something that may give
hope to Ireland.
I voted the other night with the hon.
Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue).
We were in a very small minority.
['Hear, hear.'] Yes, I have often been
in small minorities. The hon. Gentle-
man would have been content with a
word of kindness and of sympathy, not
for conspiracy, but for the people of
Ireland. That word was not inserted
in the Queen's speech, and to-night the
Home Secretary has made a speech
urging the House to the course which,
I presume, is about to be pursued; but
he did not in that speech utter a single
sentence with regard to a question
which lies behind, and is greater and
deeper than that which is discussed.
182
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I hope, Sir, that if Ministers feel
themselves bound to take this course of
suspending the common rights of per-
sonal freedom to a whole nation, at
least they will not allow this debate to
close without giving to us and to that
nation some hope that before long mea-
sures will be considered and will be
introduced which will tend to create the
same loyalty in Ireland that exists in
Great Britain. If every man outside
the walls of this House who has the
interest of the whole Empire at heart
were to speak here, what would he say
to this House? Let not one day elapse,
let not another Session pass, until you
have done something to wipe off this
blot-for blot it is upon the reign of
the Queen, and scandal it is to the civi-
lization and to the justice of the people
of this country.
IRELAND.
VI.
DUBLIN, OCTOBER 30, 1866.
A
[Mr. Bright was invited to a Public Banquet in Dublin. The invitation was signed by
more than twenty Members of Parliament, and by a large number of influential
Members of the Liberal Party in Ireland. This speech was spoken at the Banquet.
The O'Donoghue was in the Chair.]
I FEEL myself more embarrassed than
I can well describe at the difficult but
honourable position in which I find
myself to-night. I am profoundly
moved by the exceeding and generous
kindness with which you have received
me, and all I can do is to thank you for
it, and to say how grateful to my heart
it is that such a number as I see before
me--I will say of my countrymen —have
approved generally of the political
course which I have pursued. But I
may assure you that the difficulty of
this position is not at all of my seeking.
I heard during the last Session of Par-
liament that if I was likely to come to
Ireland during the autumn, it was not
improbable that I should be asked to
some banquet of this kind in this city.
I had an intention of coming, but being
moved by this kindness or menace, I
changed my mind, and spent some
weeks in Scotland instead of Ireland.
When I found from the newspapers
that an invitation was being signed,
asking me to come here, I wrote to my
honourable friend, Sir John Gray, to
ask him if he would be kind enough to
put an extinguisher upon the project,
inasmuch as I was not intending to
cross the Channel. He said that the
matter had proceeded so far that it was
impossible to interfere with it—that it
must take its natural course; and the
result was that I received an invitation
signed, I think, by about one hundred
and forty names, amongst whom there
were not less, I believe, than twenty-two
Members of the House of Commons.
Well, as you will probably imagine, I
felt that this invitation was of such a
nature that, although it was most
difficult to accede to it, it was impos-
sible to refuse it. This accounts for
my being here to-night, and is a simple
explanation of what has taken place.
I said amongst the signatures were
the names of not less than twenty-two
Members of the House of Commons.
I speak with grief when I say that one
of our friends who signed that invi-
tation is no longer with us. I had not
the pleasure of a long acquaintance
with Mr. Dillon, but I shall take this
opportunity of saying that during the
last Session of Parliament I formed a
very high opinion of his character.
There was that in his eye and in the
36
184
OCT. 30,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
tone of his voice-in his manner alto-
gether, which marked him for an hon-
ourable and a just man. I venture to
say that his sad and sudden removal is
a great loss to Ireland. I believe
amongst all her worthy sons, Ireland
has had no worthier and no nobler son
than John Blake Dillon.
I shall not be wrong if I assume that
the ground of my visit to Dublin is to
be found first in the sympathy which I
have always felt and expressed for the
condition, and for the wrongs, and for
the rights of the people of Ireland, and
probably also because I am supposed,
in some degree, to represent some
amount of the opinion in England,
which is also favourable to the true
interests of this island.
The Irish question is a question that
has often been discussed, and yet it
remains at this day as much a question.
as it has been for centuries past. The
Parliament of Kilkenny,-a Parliament
that sat a very long time ago, if indeed
it was a Parliament at all, it was a
Parliament that sat about five hundred
years ago, which proposed, I believe, to
inflict a very heavy penalty if any Irish-
man's horse was found grazing on any
Englishman's land, this Parliament
left on record a question, which it may
be worth our while to consider to-night.
It put this question to the King, 'How
comes it to pass that the King was
never the richer for Ireland?' We, five
hundred years afterwards, venture to
ask this question, 'Why is it that the
Queen, or the Crown, or the United
Kingdom, or the Empire, is never the
richer for Ireland?'-and if you will
permit me I will try to give you as
clearly as I can something like an
answer to that very old question.
What it may be followed by is this,
How is it that we, the Imperial Parlia-
ment, cannot act so as to bring about
in Ireland contentment and tranquillity,
and a solid union between Ireland
and Great Britain? And that means,
further, How can we improve the con-
dition and change the minds of the
people of Ireland? Some say (I have
heard many who say it in England, and
I am afraid there are Irishmen also who
would say it), that there is some radi-
cal defect in the Irish character which
prevents the condition of Ireland being
so satisfactory as is the condition of
England and of Scotland. Now, I am
inclined to believe that whatever there
is that is defective in any portion of the
Irish people comes not from their race,
but from their history, and from the
conditions to which they have been
subjected.
I am told by those in authority that
in Ireland there is a remarkable absence
of crime. I have heard since I came to
Dublin, from those well acquainted
with the facts, that there is probably no
great city in the world- in the civilized
and Christian world-of equal popula-
tion with the city in which we are now
assembled, where there is so little crime
committed. And I find that the por-
tion of the Irish people which has found
a home in the United States has in the
period of sixteen years-between 1848
and 1864-remitted about 13,000,000l.
sterling to their friends and relatives in
Ireland. I am bound to place these
facts in opposition to any statements
that I hear as to any radical de-
fects of the Irish character.
that it would be much more probable
that the defect lies in the Government
and in the law. But there are some
others who say that the great misfor-
tune of Ireland is in the existence of
the noxious race of political agitators.
Well, as to that I may state, that the
most distinguished political agitators
that have appeared during the last hun-
dred years in Ireland are Grattan and
O'Connell, and I should say that he
must be either a very stupid or a very
base Irishman who would wish to erase
the achievements of Grattan and O'Con-
nell from the annals of his country.
I say
But some say (and this is not an
uncommon thing)--some say that the
priests of the popular Church in Ireland
have been the cause of much discontent.
I believe there is no class of men in
Ireland who have a deeper interest in a
1866.
185
IRELAND.
VI.
prosperous and numerous community
than the priests of the Catholic Church;
and further, I believe that no men have
suffered more - have suffered more, I
mean, in mind and in feeling-from
witnessing the miseries and the desola-
tion which during the last century (to
go no farther back) have stricken and
afflicted the Irish people.
But some others say that there is no
ground of complaint, because the laws
and institutions of Ireland are, in the
main, the same as the laws and institu-
tions of England and Scotland. They
say, for example, that if there be an
Established Church in Ireland there is
one in England and one in Scotland,
and that Nonconformists are very nu-
merous both in England and in Scot-
land; but they seem to forget this fact,
that the Church in England or the
Church in Scotland is not in any sense
a foreign Church-that it has not been
imposed in past times, and is not main-
tained by force-that it is not in any
degree the symbol of conquest—that it
is not the Church of a small minority,
absorbing the ecclesiastical revenues
and endowments of a whole kingdom;
and they omit to remember or to ac-
knowledge that if any Government
attempted to plant by force the Epis-
copal Church in Scotland or the Catho-
lic Church in England, the disorders
and discontent which have prevailed in
Ireland would be witnessed with tenfold
intensity and violence in Great Britain.
And these persons whom I am describ-
ing also say that the land laws in Ireland
are the same as the land laws in Eng-
land. It would be easy to show that
the land laws in England are bad enough,
and that but for the outlet of the popu-
lation, afforded by our extraordinary
manufacturing industry, the condition
of England would in all probability
become quite as bad as the condition
of Ireland has been; but if the coun-
tries differ with regard to land and the
management of it in their customs, may
it not be reasonable that they should
also differ in their laws?
In Ireland the landowner is the crea-
ture of conquest, not of conquest of eight
hundred years ago, but of conquest
completed only two hundred years ago;
and it may be well for us to remember,
and for all Englishmen to remember,
that succeeding that transfer of the land
to the new-comers from Great Britain,
there followed a system of law, known
by the name of the Penal Code, of the
most ingenious cruelty, and such as, I
believe, has never in modern times been
inflicted on any Christian people. Un-
happily, on this account, the wound
which was opened by the conquest has
never been permitted to be closed, and
thus we have had landowners in Ireland
of a different race, of a different religion,
and of different ideas from the great
bulk of the people, and there has been
a constant and bitter war between the
owners and occupiers of the soil. Now,
up to this point I suppose that even the
gentlemen who were dining together
the other evening in Belfast would pro-
bably agree with me, because what I
have stated is mere matter of notorious
history, and to be found in every book
which has treated of the course of Irish
affairs during the last two hundred
years. But I think they would agree
with me even further than this. They
would say that Ireland is a land which
has been torn by religious factions, and
torn by these factions at least in the
North as much as in the South; and
I think they would be doing less than
justice to the inhabitants of the North
if they said that they had in any de-
gree come short of the people of the
South in the intensity of their passionate
feelings with regard to their Church.
But Ireland has been more than this
-it has been a land of evictions-a
word which, I suspect, is scarcely
known in any other civilized country.
It is a country from which thousands of
families have been driven by the will of
the landowners and the power of the law.
It is a country where have existed, to
a great extent, those dread tribunals
known by the name of common secret
societies, by which, in pursuit of what
some men have thought to be justice,
186
OCT. 30,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
there have been committed crimes of
appalling guilt in the eye of the whole
world. It is a country, too, in which—
and it is the only Christian country of
which it may be said for some centu-
ries past-it is a country in which a
famine of the most desolating character
has prevailed even during our own
time. I think I was told in 1849, as I
stood in the burial-ground at Skib-
bereen, that at least 400 people who
had died of famine were buried within
the quarter of an acre of ground on
which I was then looking. It is a
country, too, from which there has been
a greater emigration by sea within a
given time than has been known at any
time from any other country in the
world. It is a country where there has
been, for generations past, a general
sense of wrong, out of which has grown
a state of chronic insurrection; and at
this very moment when I speak, the
general safeguard of constitutional li-
berty is withdrawn, and we meet in
this hall, and I speak here to-night,
rather by the forbearance and permis-
sion of the Irish executive than under
the protection of the common safe-
guards of the rights and liberties of the
people of the United Kingdom.
I'venture to say that this is a miser-
able and a humiliating picture to draw
of this country. Bear in mind that I
am not speaking of Poland suffering
under the conquest of Russia. There
is a gentleman, now a candidate for an
Irish county, who is very great upon
the wrongs of Poland; but I have found
him always in the House of Commons
taking sides with that great party which
has systematically supported the wrongs
of Ireland. I am not speaking about Hun-
gary, or of Venice as she was under the
rule of Austria, or of the Greeks under
the dominion of the Turk, but I am
speaking of Ireland—part of the United
Kingdom — part of that which boasts
itself to be the most civilized and the
most Christian nation in the world. I
took the liberty recently, at a meeting
in Glasgow, to say that I believed it
was impossible for a class to govern
a great nation wisely and justly. Now,
in Ireland there has been a field in
which all the principles of the Tory
party have had their complete ex-
periment and development. You have
had the country.gentleman in all his
power. You have had any number of
Acts of Parliament which the ancient
Parliament of Ireland or the Parliament
of the United Kingdom could give him.
You have had the Established Church
supported by the law, even to the ex-
tent, not many years ago, of collecting
its revenues by the aid of military force.
In point of fact, I believe it would
be impossible to imagine a state of
things in which the principles of the
Tory party have had a more entire and
complete opportunity for their trial
than they have had within the limits of
this island. And yet what has hap-
pened? This, surely. That the king-
dom has been continually weakened—
that the harmony of the empire has
been disturbed, and that the mischief
has not been confined to the United
Kingdom, but has spread to the Colo-
nies. And at this moment, as we
know by every arrival from the United
States, the colony of Canada is ex-
posed to danger of invasion—that it is
forced to keep on foot soldiers which
it otherwise would not want, and
to involve itself in expenses which
threaten to be ruinous to its financial
condition, and all that it may defend
itself from Irishmen hostile to England
who are settled in the United States.
In fact, the Government of Lord
Derby at this moment is doing exactly
that which the Government of Lord
North did nearly a hundred years ago—
it is sending out troops across the
Atlantic to fight Irishmen who are the
bitter enemies of England on the
American continent. Now, I believe
every gentleman in this room will
admit that all that I have said is literally
true. And if it be true, what conclu-
sion are we to come to? Is it that the
law which rules in Ireland is bad, but
the people good; or that the law is
good, but the people bad? Now, let
1866.
187
IRELAND. VI.
us, if we can, get rid for a moment of
Episcopalianism, Presbyterianism, Pro-
testantism, and Orangeism on the one
hand, and of Catholicism, Romanism,
and Ultramontanism on the other,―let
us for a moment get beyond all these
'isms,' and try if we can discover what
it is that is the great evil in your
country. I shall ask you only to turn
your eye upon two points-the first is
the Established Church, and the second
is the tenure of land. The Church may
be said to affect the soul and sentiment
of the country, and the land question
may be said to affect the means of life
and the comforts of the people.
I shall not blame the bishops and
clergy of the Established Church. There
may be, and I doubt not there are
amongst them, many pious and devoted
men, who labour to the utmost of their
power to do good in the district which
is committed to their care; but I ven-
ture to say this, that if they were all
good and all pious, it would not in a
national point of view compensate for
this one fatal error-the error of their
existence as the ministers of an Es-
tablished Protestant Church in Ireland.
Every man of them is necessarily in
his district a symbol of the supremacy
of the few and of the subjection of the
many; and although the amount of the
revenue of the Established Church as
the sum payable by the whole nation
may not be considerable, yet bear in
mind that it is often the galling of the
chain which is more tormenting than
the weight of it. I believe that the
removal of the Established Church
would create a new political and social
atmosphere in Ireland-that it would
make the people feel that old things
had passed away-that all things had
become new-that an Irishman and his
faith were no longer to be condemned
in his own country-and that for the
first time the English people and the
English Parliament intended to do full
justice to Ireland.
Now, leaving the Established Church,
I come to the question of the land. I
have said that the ownership of the
land in Ireland came originally from
conquest and from confiscation, and,
as a matter of course, there was
created a great gulf between the
owner and the occupier, and from that
time to this doubtless there has been
wanting that sympathy which exists to
a large extent in Great Britain, and that
ought to exist in every country. I am
told-you can answer it if I am wrong
-that it is not common in Ireland now
to give leases to tenants, especially to
Catholic tenants. If that be so, then
the security for the property of the
tenant rests only upon the good feeling
and favour of the owner of the land, for
the laws, as we know, have been made
by the landowners, and many proposi-
tions for the advantage of the tenants
have unfortunately been too little con-
sidered by Parliament. The result is
that you have bad farming, bad dwell-
ing-houses, bad temper, and everything
bad connected with the occupation and
cultivation of land in Ireland. One of
the results—a result the most appalling
—is this, that your population are flee-
ing from your country and seeking a
refuge in a distant land. On this point
I wish to refer to a letter which I re-
ceived a few days ago from a most
esteemed citizen of Dublin. He told
me that he believed that a very large
portion of what he called the poor,
amongst Irishmen, sympathized with
any scheme or any proposition that was
adverse to the Imperial Government.
He said further, that the people here
are rather in the country than of it, and
that they are looking more to America
than they are looking to England. I think
there is a good deal in that. When we
consider how many Irishmen have found
a refuge in America, I do not know how
we can wonder at that statement.
You will recollect that when the
ancient Hebrew prophet prayed in his
captivity he prayed with his window
opened towards Jerusalem. You know
that the followers of Mahommed, when
they pray, turn their faces towards
Mecca. When the Irish peasant asks
for food, and freedom, and blessing, his
188
OCT. 30,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
eye follows the setting sun; the aspira-
tions of his heart reach beyond the wide
Atlantic, and in spirit he grasps hands
with the great Republic of the West.
If this be so, I say, then, that the disease
is not only serious, but it is even des-
perate; but desperate as it is, I believe
there is a certain remedy for it, if the
people and the Parliament of the United
Kingdom are willing to apply it. Now,
if it were possible, would it not be
worth while to change the sentiments
and improve the condition of the Irish
cultivators of the soil? If we were to
remove the State Church, there would
still be a Church, but it would not be a
supremacy Church. The Catholics of
Ireland have no idea of saying that
Protestantism in its various forms shall
not exist in their island. There would
still be a Church, but it would be a free
Church of a section of a free people. I
will not go into details about the change.
Doubtless every man would say that
the present occupants of the livings
should not, during their lifetime, be
disturbed; but if the principle of the
abolition of the State Church were once
fixed and accepted, it would not be diffi-
cult to arrange the details that would
be satisfactory to the people of Ireland.
Who objects to this? The men who
are in favour of supremacy, and the
men who have a fanatical hatred of
what they call Popery. To honest and
good men of the Protestant Church and
of the Protestant faith there is no reason
whatever to fear this change. What
has the voluntary system done in Scot-
land? What has it done amongst the
Nonconformists of England? What has
it done amongst the population of
Wales? and what has it done amongst
the Catholic population of your own
Ireland? In my opinion, the abolition
of the Established Church would give
Protestantism itself another chance. I
believe there has been in Ireland no
other enemy of Protestantism so inju-
rious as the Protestant State Establish-
ment.
It has been loaded for two
hundred years with the sins of bad
government and bad laws, and whatever
may have been the beauty and the holi-
ness of its doctrine or of its professors,
it has not been able to hold its ground,
loaded as it has been by the sins of a
bad government. One effect of the
Established Church has been this, the
making Catholicism in Ireland not only
a faith but a patriotism, for it was not
likely that any member of the Catholic
Church would incline in the slightest
degree to Protestantism so long as it
presented itself to his eyes as a wrong-
doer and full of injustice in connection
with the government of his country.
has
But if honest Protestantism
nothing to fear from the changes that I
would recommend, what has the honest
landowner to fear? The history of
Europe and America for the last one
hundred years affords scarcely any
picture more painful than that which
is afforded by the landowners of this
kingdom. The Irish landowner has
been different from every other land-
owner, for the bulk of his land has only
been about half cultivated, and he has
had to collect his rents by a process
approaching the evils of civil war. His
property has been very insecure-the
sale of it sometimes has been rendered
impossible. The landowner himself has
often been hated by those who ought to
have loved him. He has been banished
from his ancestral home by terror, and
not a few have lost their lives without
the sympathy of those who ought to
have been their protectors and their
friends. I would like to ask, what can
be much worse than this? If in this
country fifty years ago, as in Prussia,
there had arisen statesmen who would
have taken one-third or one-half the
land from the landowners of Ireland,
and made it over to their tenants, I
believe that the Irish landowner, great
as would have been the injustice of
which he might have complained, would
in all probability have been richer and
happier than he has been.
What is the first remedy which you
would propose Clearly this-that
which is the most easily applicable and
which would most speedily touch the
*
1866.
189
IRELAND. VI.
condition of the country. It is this
that the property which the tenant shall
invest or create in his farm shall be
secured to the tenant by law. I believe
that if Parliament were fairly to enact
this it would make a change in the
whole temper of the country. I recol-
lect in the year 1849 being down in the
county of Wexford. I called at the
house of an old farmer of the name of
Stafford, who lived in a very good house,
the best farm-house, I think, that I had
seen since leaving Dublin. He lived on
his own farm, which he had bought
fifteen years before. The house was a
house which he had himself built. He
was a venerable old man, and we had
some very interesting conversation with
him. I asked how it was he had so
good a house? He said the farm was
his own, and the house was his own,
and, as no man could disturb him, he
had made it a much better house than
was common for the farmers of Ireland.
I said to him, If all the farmers of
Ireland had the same security for the
capital they laid out on their farms,
what would be the result?' The old
man almost sprang out of his chair, and
said, 'Sir, if you will give us that en-
couragement, we will bate the hunger
out of Ireland.' It is said that all this
must be left to contract between the
landlord and the tenant; but the public,
which may be neither landlord nor
tenant, has a great interest in this ques-
tion; and I maintain that the interests
of the public require that Parliament
should secure to the tenant the property
which he has invested in his farm.
I would not stop here.
But
There is another, and what I should
call a more permanent and far-reaching
remedy for the evils of Ireland, and
those persons who stickle so much for
political economy I hope will follow
me in this. The great evil of Ireland is
this-that the Irish people-the Irish
nation—are dispossessed of the soil, and
what we ought to do is to provide for,
and aid in, their restoration to it by all
measures of justice. Why should we
tolerate in Ireland the law of primo-
geniture? Why should we tolerate the
system of entails? Why should the
object of the law be to accumulate land
in great masses in few hands, and to
make it almost impossible for persons
of small means, and tenant-farmers, to
become possessors of land? If you go
to other countries-for example, to
Norway, to Denmark, to Holland, to
Belgium, to France, to Germany, to
Italy, or to the United States, you will
find that in all these countries those
laws of which I complain have been
abolished, and the land is just as free to
buy and sell, and hold and cultivate, as
any other description of property in the
kingdom. No doubt your Landed Es-
tates Court and your Record of Titles Act
were good measures, but they were good
because they were in the direction that
I want to travel farther in.
But I would go farther than that; I
would deal with the question of absen-
teeism. I am not going to propose to
tax absentees; but if my advice were
taken, we should have a Parliamentary
Commission empowered to buy up the
large estates in Ireland belonging to
the English nobility, for the purpose of
selling them on easy terms to the occu-
piers of the farms and to the tenantry of
Ireland. Now, let me be fairly understood.
I am not proposing to tax absentees; I
am not proposing to take any of their
property from them; but I propose this,
that a Parliamentary Commission should
be empowered to treat for the purchase.
of those large estates with a view of
selling them to the tenantry of Ireland.
Now, here are some of them—the pre-
sent Prime Minister Lord Derby, Lord
Lansdowne, Lord Fitzwilliam, the Mar-
quis of Hertford, the Marquis of Bath,
the Duke of Bedford, the Duke of
Devonshire, and many others. They
have estates in Ireland; many of them,
I dare say, are just as well managed as
any other estates in the country; but
what you want is to restore to Ireland
a middle-class proprietary of the soil;
and I venture to say that if these estates
could be purchased and could be sold
out farm by farm to the tenant occupiers
190
OCT. 30,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
in Ireland, that it would be infinitely
better in a conservative sense, than that
they should belong to great proprietors
living out of the country.
I have said that the disease is des-
perate, and that the remedy must be
searching. I assert that the present
system of government with regard to
the Church and with regard to the land
has failed disastrously in Ireland. Under
it Ireland has become an object of com-
miseration to the whole world, and a
discredit to the United Kingdom, of
which it forms a part. It is a land of
many sorrows. Men fight for supre-
macy, and call it Protestantism; they
fight for evil and bad laws, and they
call it acting for the defence of property.
Now, are there no good men in Ireland
of those who are generally opposed to
us in politics—are there none who can
rise above the level of party? If there
be such, I wish my voice might reach
them. I have often asked myself whe-
ther patriotism is dead in Ireland. Can-
not all the people of Ireland see that
the calamities of their country are the
creatures of the law, and if that be so,
that just laws only can remove these
calamities?
If Irishmen were united-if your 105
Members were for the most part agreed,
you might do almost anything that you
liked-you might do it even in the
present Parliament; but if you are dis-
united, then I know not how you can
gain anything from a Parliament created
as the Imperial Parliament is now.
The classes who rule in Britain will
hear your cry as they have heard it
before, and will pay no attention to it.
They will see your people leaving your
shores, and they will think it no cala-
mity to the country. They know that
they have force to suppress insurrection,
and, therefore, you can gain nothing
from their fears. What, then, is your
hope? It is in a better Parliament,
representing fairly the United Kingdom
the movement which is now in force
in England and Scotland, and which is
your movement as much as ours. If
there were 100 more Members, the
representatives of large and free consti-
tuencies, then your cry would be heard,
and the people would give you that
justice which a class has so long denied
you. The great party that is now in
power-the Tory party-denies that
you have any just cause of complaint.
In a speech delivered the other day
in Belfast, much was said of the enforce-
ment of the law; but there was nothing
said about any change or amendment in
the law. With this party terror is their
only specific, they have no confidence
in allegiance except where there is no
power to rebel. Now, I differ from
these men entirely. I believe that at
the root of a general discontent there is
in all countries a general grievance and
general suffering. The surface of so-
ciety is not incessantly disturbed with-
out a cause. I recollect in the poem
of the greatest of Italian poets, he
tells us that as he saw in vision the
Stygian lake, and stood upon its banks,
he observed the constant commotion
upon the surface of the pool, and his
good instructor and guide explained to
him the cause of it-
'This, too, for certain know, that under-
neath
The water dwells a multitude, whose
sighs
Into these bubbles make the surface
heave,
As thine eye tells thee wheresoe'er it
turn.
And I say in Ireland for generations
back, that the misery and the wrongs
of the people have made their sign, and
have found a voice in constant insur-
rection and disorder. I have said that
Ireland is a country of many wrongs
and of many sorrows. Her past lies
almost all in shadow. Her present is
full of anxiety and peril. Her future
depends on the power of her people to
substitute equality and justice for supre-
macy, and a generous patriotism for the
spirit of faction. In the effort now
making in Great Britain to create a free
representation of the people you have
the deepest interest. The people never
1866.
191
IRELAND VI.
}
wish to suffer, and they never wish to
inflict injustice. They have no sym-
pathy with the wrong-doer, whether in
Great Britain or in Ireland; and when
they are fairly represented in the Im-
perial Parliament, as I hope they will
one day be, they will speedily give an
effective and final answer to that old
question of the Parliament of Kilkenny
How comes it to pass that the
King has never been the richer for
Ireland?'
1
#
IRELAND.
VII.
DUBLIN, NOVEMBER 2, 1866.
[This speech was spoken at a public meeting held in Dublin, at which an Address from
the Trades was presented to Mr. Bright. James Haughton, Esq., was in the Chair.]
WHEN I came to your city I was
asked if I would attend a public meet-
ing on the question of Parliamentary
Reform. I answered that I was not in
good order for much speaking, for I
have suffered, as I am afraid you will
find before I come to the end of my
speech, from much cold and hoarseness;
but it was urged upon me that there
were at least some, and not an incon-
siderable number, of the working men
of this city who would be glad if I
would meet them; and it was proposed
to offer me some address of friendship
and confidence such as that which has
been read. I have no complaint to
make of it but this, that whilst I do not
say it indicates too much kindness, yet
that it colours too highly the small
services which I have been able to ren-
der to any portion of my countrymen.
Your countrymen are reckoned gene-
rally to be a people of great gratitude
and of much enthusiasm, and, therefore,
I accept the Address with all the kind-
ness and feelings of friendship with
which it has been offered, and I hope it
will be, at least in some degree, a stimu-
lant to me, in whatever position of life
I am placed, to remember, as I have
ever in past times remembered, the
claims of the people of this island to
complete and equal justice with the
people of Great Britain.
Now, there may be persons in this
room, I should be surprised if there
were not, who doubt whether it is worth
their while even to hope for substantial
justice, as this address says, from a Par-
liament sitting in London. If there be
such a man in this room let him under-
stand that I am not the man to condemn
him or to express surprise at the opinion
at which he has arrived. But I would
ask him in return for that, that he
would give me at least for a few minutes
a patient hearing, and he will find that,
whether justice may come from the north
or the south, or the east or the west, I, at
any rate, stand as a friend of the most
complete justice to the people of this
island. When discussing the question
of Parliamentary Reform, I have often
heard it asserted that the people of Ire-
land, and I am not speaking of those
who are hopeless of good from a Par-
liament in London, but that the people
of Ireland generally.imagine that the
question of Parliamentary Reform has
very little importance for them. Now
I undertake to say, and I think I can
make it clear to this meeting, that what-
ever be the importance of that question
to any man in England or Scotland, if
the two islands are to continue under
Imperial Parliamentary Government, it
is of more importance to every Irish-
man. You know that the Parliament of
1866.
193
IRELAND. VII.
which I am a Member contains 658
Members, of whom 105 cross the Chan-
nel from Ireland, and when they go to
London they meet-supposing all the
Members of the House of Commons
are gathered together-553 Members
who are returned for Great Britain.
Now, suppose that all your 105 Mem-
bers were absolutely good and honour-
able representatives of the people of
IrelandI will not say Tories, or
Whigs, or Radicals, or Repealers, but
anything you like,-let every man ima-
gine that all these Members were ex-
actly the sort of men he would wish to
go from Ireland,-when the 105 arrive
in London they meet with the 553 who
are returned from Great Britain. Now,
suppose that the system of Parliament-
ary representation in Great Britain is
very bad, that it represents very few
persons in that great island, and that
those who appear to be represented are
distributed in the small boroughs over
different parts of the country, and in the
counties under the thumb and finger of
the landlords, it is clear that the whole
Parliament, although your 105 Mem-
bers may be very good men, must still
be a very bad Parliament. Therefore,
if any man imagines-and I should
think no man can imagine-that the
representation of the people in Ireland
is in a very good state-still, if he
fancies it is in a good state-unless the
representation of Great Britain were.
at least equally good, you might have
a hundred excellent Irish Members
in Parliament at Westminster; but
the whole 658 Members might be a
very bad Parliament for the United
Kingdom.
The Member for a borough or a
county in Ireland, when he goes to
London, votes for measures for the
whole kingdom; and a Member for
Lancashire or for Warwickshire, or for
any other county or borough in Great
Britain, votes for measures not only for
Great Britain but also for Ireland, and
therefore, all parts of the United King-
dom-every county, every borough,
every parish, every family, every man—
has a clear and distinct and undoubted
interest in a Parliament that shall fairly
and justly represent the whole nation.
Now, look for a moment at two or
three facts with regard to Ireland alone.
I have stated some facts with regard to
England and Scotland at recent meet-
ings held across the Channel.
Now for two or three facts with re-
gard to Ireland. In Ireland you have
five boroughs returning each one Mem-
ber, the average number of electors in
each of these boroughs being only 172.
You have 13 boroughs, the average
number being 316. You have 9 other
boroughs with an average number of
electors of 497. You have, therefore,
27 boroughs whose whole number of
electors, if they were all put together,
is only 9,453, or an average of 350
electors for each Member. I must tell
you further that you have a single
county with nearly twice as many voters
as the whole of those 27 boroughs.
Your 27 boroughs have only 9,453
electors, and the county of Cork has
16,107 electors, and returns but two
Members. But that is not the worst of
the case. It happens both in Great
Britain and Ireland, wherever the bo-
rough constituencies are so small, that
it is almost impossible that they should
be independent; a very acute lawyer,
for example, in one of those boroughs
-a very influential clergyman, whether
of your Church or ours-when I say
ours, I do not mean mine, but the
Church of England-half-a-dozen men
combining together, or a little corrup-
tion from candidates going with a well-
filled purse, these are the influences
brought to bear upon those small bo-
roughs both in England and Ireland.
A great many of them return their
Members by means of corruption, more
or less, and a free and real representa-
tion of the people is hardly ever possible
in a borough of that small size.
But if I were to compare your bo-
roughs with your counties, see how it
stands. You have thirty-nine borough
Members, with 30,000 electors, and you
have sixty-four county Members, with
13
194
NOV. 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
事
​172,000 electors. Therefore you see
that the Members are so distributed that
the great populations have not one
quarter of the influence in Parliament
which those small populations in the
small boroughs have. We come next to
another question which is of great con-
sequence. Not only are those small
boroughs altogether too small for inde-
pendence, but if we come to your large
county constituencies, we find that from
the peculiar circumstances and the rela-
tions which exist between the voter and
the owner of the land, there is scarcely
any freedom of election. Even in your
counties I should suppose that if there
was no compulsion from the landowners
or their agents, that in at least three-
fourths of this island the vote of the
county electors would be by a vast majo-
rity in favour of the Liberal candidates.
I am not speaking merely of men who
profess a sort of liberality which just
enables them to go with their party, but
I speak of men who would be thoroughly
in earnest in sustaining, as far as they
were able, in Parliament, the opinions
which they were sent to represent by the
large constituencies who elected them.
To
The question of the ballot is, in my
opinion, of the greatest importance in
Great Britain and Ireland, but is of
more importance in the counties than it
is in the large boroughs. For example:
in Great Britain, in such boroughs as
Edinburgh and Glasgow, and Manches-
ter and Birmingham, and the metropo-
litan boroughs, where the number of
electors runs from 10,000 to 25,000,
bribery is of no avail, because you
could not bribe thousands of men.
bribe 100 or 200 would not alter the
return at an election with so large a
constituency. But what you want with
the ballot is, that in the counties where
the tenant-farmers vote, and where they
live upon their land without the security
of a lease, or without the security of any
law to give them compensation for any
improvements they may have made upon
the land, the tenant-farmer feels himself
always liable to injury, and sometimes
to ruin, if he gets into a dispute with
the agent or the landowner with regard
to the manner in which he has exercised
his franchise. And what will be very
important also, if you have the ballot,
your elections will be tranquil, without
disorder and without riot. Last week,
or the week before, there was an election
in one of your great counties. Well,
making every allowance that can be
made for the exaggerations circulated
by the writers of the two parties, it is
quite clear to everybody that the cir-
cumstances of that election, though not
absolutely uncommon in Ireland, were
still such as to be utterly discreditable
to a real representative system. And
you must bear in mind that there is no
other people in the world that considers
that it has a fair representative system
unless it has the ballot. The ballot is
universal almost in the United States.
It is almost universal in the colonies, at
any rate in the Australian colonies; it
is almost universal on the continent of
Europe, and in the new Parliament of
North Germany, which is about soon to
be assembled, every man of twenty-five
years of age is to be allowed to vote,
and to vote by ballot.
Now, I hold, without any fear of con-
tradiction, that the intelligence and the
virtues of the people of Ireland are not
You
represented in the Parliament.
have your wrongs to complain of-
wrongs centuries old, and wrongs that
long ago the people of Ireland, and, I
venture to say, the people of Great
Britain united with Ireland- -My
friend up there will not listen to the
end of my sentence. I say that the
people of Great Britain, acting with the
people of Ireland, in a fair representa-
tion of the whole, would long ago have
remedied every just grievance of which
you could complain.
I will take two questions which I
treated upon the other evening. I will
ask about one question-that is, the
question of the supremacy of the Church
in Ireland. Half the people in England
are Nonconformists. They are not in
favour of an Established Church any-
where, and it is utterly impossible that
1866.
195
IRELAND.
VII.
they could be in favour of an Established
Church in an island like this-an Es-
tablished Church formed of a mere
handful of the population, in opposi-
tion to the wishes of the nation. Now
take the Principality of Wales.. I sup-
pose that four out of five of the popula-
tion there are Dissenters, and they are
not in favour of maintaining a religious
Protestant Establishment in Ireland.
The people of Scotland have also
seceded in such large numbers from
their Established Church, although of a
democratic character, that I suppose
those who have seceded are a consider-
able majority of the whole people—they
are not in favour of maintaining an
ecclesiastical Establishment in Ireland
in opposition to the views of the great
majority of your people. Take the
other question-that of land. There is
nobody in Great Britain of the great
town population, or of the middle class,
or of the still more numerous working
class, who has any sympathy with that
condition of the law and of the adminis-
tration of the law which has worked
such mischiefs in your country.
these Nonconformists, whether in Eng-
land, Wales, or Scotland, these great
middle classes, and still greater working
classes, are in the position that you are.
Only sixteen of every hundred have a
vote, and those sixteen are so arranged
that when their representatives get to
Parliament they turn out for the most
part to be no real representatives of the
people.
But
I will tell you fairly that you, as the
less populous and less powerful part of
this great nation-you of all the men in
the United Kingdom, have by far the
strongest interest in a thorough reform
of the Imperial Parliament, and I believe
that you yourselves could not do your-
selves such complete justice by your-
selves as you can do, by fairly acting
with the generous millions of my
countrymen in whose name I stand here.
You have on this platform two members
of the Reform League from London. I
received yesterday, or the day before, a
telegram from the Scottish Reform
League, from Glasgow. I am not sure
whether there is a copy of it in any of
the newspapers, but it was sent to me,
and I presume it was sent to me that I
might read it, if I had the opportunity
of meeting any of the unenfranchised
men of this city. It says:- The
Scottish Reform League request you to
convey to the Reformers in Ireland their
deep sympathy. They sincerely hope
that soon in Ireland, as in Scotland and
England, Reform Leagues may be
formed in every town to secure to the
people their political rights. Urge
upon our friends in Ireland their duty
to promote this great movement, and to
secure at home those benefits which
thousands of their fellow-countrymen
are forced to seek in other lands-where
land and State Church grievances are
unknown. We also seek co-operation,
knowing that our freedom, though se-
cure to-morrow, would not be safe so
long as one portion of the United King-
dom were less free than the other por-
tions.' There is the outspoken voice of
the representatives of that great multi-
tude that only a fortnight since I saw
passing through the streets of Glasgow.
For three hours the procession passed,
with all the emblems and symbols of
their various trades, and the streets for
two or three miles were enlivened by
banners, and the air was filled with the
sounds of music from their bands.
Those men but spoke the same language
that was heard in the West Riding, in
Manchester, in Birmingham, and in
London; and you men of Dublin, and
of Ireland, you never made a mistake
more grievous in your lives than when
you come to the conclusion that there
are not millions of men in Great Britain
willing to do you full justice.
I am very sorry that my voice is not
what it was, and when I think of the
work that is to be done sometimes I
feel it is a pity we grow old so fast.
But years ago, when I have thought of
the condition of Ireland, of its sorrows
and wrongs, of the discredit that its
condition has brought upon the English,
the Irish, and the British name, I have
13-2
196
NOV. 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
thought, if I could be in all other things
the same, but by birth an Irishman,
there is not a town in this island I
would not visit for the purpose of dis-
cussing the great Irish question, and of
rousing my countrymen to some great
and united action.
I do not believe in the necessity of
wide-spread and perpetual misery. I
do not believe that we are placed on
this island, and on this earth, that one
man may be great and wealthy, and
revel in every profuse indulgence, and
five, six, nine, or ten men shall suffer the
abject misery which we see so commonly
in the world. With your soil, your
climate, and your active and spirited
race, I know not what you might not
do. There have been reasons to my
mind why soil and climate, and the
labour of your population, have not
produced general comfort and compe-
tence for all.
one
The Address speaks of the friendly
feeling and the sympathy which I have
had for Ireland during my political
career. When I first went into the
House of Commons the most prominent
figure in it was Daniel O'Connell. I
have sat by his side for hours in that
House, and listened to observations
both amusing and instructive on what
was passing under discussion. I have
seen him, too, more than once upon
the platforms of the Anti-Corn-law
League. I recollect that on
occasion he sent to Ireland expressly
for a newspaper for me, which contained
a report of a speech which he made
against the Corn-law when the Corn-
law was passing through Parliament in
1815, and we owe much to his ever
tions in connection with that question,
for almost the whole Liberal-I suppose
the whole Liberal-party of the Irish
representatives in Parliament supported
the measure of free trade of which we
were the prominent advocates; and I
know of nothing that was favourable to
freedom, whether in connection with
Ireland or England, that O'Connell did
not support with all his great powers.
Why is it, now, that there should be
any kind of schism between the Liberal
people of Ireland and the Liberal people
of Great Britain? I do not ask you to
join hands with supremacy and oppres-
sion, whether in your island or ours.
What I ask you is, to open your heart
of hearts, and join hands for a real and
thorough working union for freedom
with the people of Great Britain.
Before I sit down, I must be allowed
to advert to a point which has been much
commented upon - a sentence in my
speech made the other night with
regard to the land. There are news-
papers in Dublin which I need not
name, because I am quite sure you can
find them out which do not feel any
strong desire to judge fairly anything I
may propose for the pacification and
redemption of the people of Ireland.
It was this I said: 'It is of the first
importance that the people of Ireland,
by some process or other, should have
the opportunity of being made the pos-
sessors of their own soil.' You will
know perfectly well that I am not
about to propose a copy of the villain-
ous crimes of two hundred years ago, to
confiscate the lands of the proprietors,
here or elsewhere. I propose to intro-
duce a system which would gradually,
no doubt rapidly and easily, without
injuring anybody, make many thousands
who are now tenant-farmers, without
lease and security, the owners of their
farms in this island. This is my plan,
and I want to restate it with a little
further explanation, in order that these
gentlemen to whom I have referred may
not repeat the very untrue, and I may
say dishonourable comments which
they have made upon me.
There are many large estates in
Ireland which belong to rich families in
England, families not only of the
highest rank, but of the highest cha-
racter,-because I will venture to say
there are not to be found amongst the
English nobility families of more perfect
honourableness and worth than some of
those to whom my plan would be
offered; and, therefore, I am not speak-
ing against the aristocracy, against those
1866.
197
IRELAND.
VII.
families, or against property, or against
anybody, or against anything that is
good. I say, that if Parliament were to
appoint a Commission, and give it, say,
at first up to the amount of five millions
sterling, the power to negotiate or treat
with those great families in England
who have estates in Ireland, it is pro-
bable that some of those great estates
might be bought at a not very unrea-
sonable price. I am of opinion that
this would be the cheapest money that
the Imperial Parliament ever expended,
even though it became possessed of
those estates at a price considerably
above the market price. But I propose
it should be worked in this way. I will
take a case. I will assume that this Com-
mission is in possession of a considerable
estate bought from some present owner
of it. I will take one farm, which I will
assume to be worth 1,000l., for which
the present tenant is paying a rent of
50l. a-year. He has no lease. He has
no security. He makes almost no im-
provement of any kind; and he is not
quite sure whether, when he has saved
a little more money, he will not take
his family off to the United States.
Now we will assume ourselves, if you
like, to be that Commission, and that
we have before us the farmer who is the
tenant on that particular farm, for
which he pays 50l. a-year, without
lease or security, and which I assume
to be worth 1,000l. The Government,
I believe, lends money to Irish land-
owners for drainage purposes at about
3½ per cent. per annum. Suppose the
Government were to say to this farmer,
You would not have any objection to
become possessed of this farm?' 'No,
not the slightest,' he might answer,
'but how is that to be done?'
way;-You may pay 50l. a-year, that is,
5 per cent. on one thousand pounds;
the Government can afford to do these
transactions for 3 per cent.; if you will
pay 6ol. a-year for a given number of
years, which any of the actuaries of the
insurance offices or any good arith-
metician may soon calculate, if you
will pay 6ol. for your rent, instead of
In this
50l., it may be for perhaps twenty years,
at the end of that time the farm
will be yours, without any further
payment.
I want you to understand how this is.
If the farmer paid ten pounds a-year
more than he now pays, towards buying
his farm, and if the 1,000l. the Govern-
ment would pay for the farm would not
cost the Government more than 351.,
the difference between 351. and 60l.
being 251., would be the sum which
that farmer, in his rent, would be paying
to the Commission, that is, to the
Government, for the redemption of his
farm. Thus, at the end of a very few
years, the farmer would possess his own
farm, having a perfect security in the
meantime. Nobody could turn him out
if he paid his rent, and nobody could
rob him for any improvement he made
on his land. The next morning after
he made that agreement, he would ex-
plain it to his wife and to his big boy,
who had perhaps been idling about for
a long time, and there would not be a
stone on the land that would not be
removed, not a weed that he would not
pull up, not a particle of manure that
he would not save; everything would
be done with a zeal and an enthusiasm
which he had never known before; and
by the time the few years had run on
when the farm should become his
without any further purchase, he would
have turned a dilapidated, miserable
little farm into a garden for himself and
family. Now, this statement may be
commented on by some of the news-
papers. You will understand that I do
not propose a forced purchase, or any
confiscation. I would undertake even
to give-if I were the Government-to
every one of these landlords twenty per
cent. more for his estate than it will
fetch in the market in London or in
Dublin, and I say that to do this would
produce a marvellous change in the
sentiments of the people, and in the
condition of agriculture in Ireland.
But I saw in one of the papers a
question to which I may give a reply.
It was said, How would you like to
198
NOV. 2,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
have a Commission come down into
Lancashire and insist on buying your
factories? I can only say that if they
will give me 20 per cent. or 10 per cent.
more than they are worth, they shall
have them to-morrow. But I do not
propose that the Commission should
come here and insist on buying these
estates. They say, further, Why should
a man in Ireland keep his estate, and
not a man in England who has an
estate in Ireland? There is this differ-
ence. A man in Ireland, if he has an
estate of 10,000 acres, has in it probably
his ancestral home. He has ties to
this which it would be monstrous to
think of severing in such a manner.
But a man living in England, who is
not an Irishman, and who never comes
over here except to receive his rents
(which, in fact, he generally receives
through his bankers in London), who
has no particular tie to this country,
and who comes over here occasionally
merely because he feels that, as a great
proprietor in Ireland, it would be scan-
dalous never to show his face on his
property and amongst his tenants-to
such a man there would be no hardship
if he should part with his land at a fair
price.
I have been charged with saying
severe things of the English aristocracy.
Now, this is not true in the sense in
which it is imputed to me. I have
always said that there are many men in
the English aristocracy who would be
noblemen in the sight of their fellow-
men although they had no titles and no
coronets. There are men amongst them
of as undoubted patriotism as any man
in this building, or in this island, and
there are men amongst them, who when
they saw that a great public object was
to be gained for the benefit of their
fellow-men, would make as great sacri-
fices as any one of us would be willing
to do. I am of opinion therefore-I
may be wrong, but I will not believe it
until it is proved-I am of opinion that
if this question were discussed in Par-
liament when next the Irish land ques-
tion is discussed, and if there was a
general sentiment in the House of
Commons that some measure like this
would be advantageous for Ireland,-
and if it were so expressed, it may be
assumed that it would be accepted to
a large extent by the people of the
United Kingdom,-then I think that
a Commission so appointed would find
no difficulty whatever in discovering
noblemen and rich men in England,
who are the possessors of great estates
in Ireland, who would be willing to
negotiate for their transfer, and that
Commission, by the process I have in-
dicated, might transfer them gradually
but speedily to the tenant-farmers of
this country.
ર
I am told that I have not been much
in Ireland, and do not know much of it.
I recollect a man in England during the
American war asking me a question
about America. When I
When I gave him an
answer which did not agree with his
opinion, he said, I think you have
never been in America, have you?'
I said I had not; and he replied, 'Well,
I have been there three times, and I
know something of them.' He was
asking me whether I thought the
Yankees would pay when they bor-
rowed money to carry on the war; and
I thought they would. But, as he had
been there, he thought his opinion was
worth more than mine. I told him I
knew several people who had lived in
England all their lives and yet knew
very little about England. I am told
that if I were to live in Ireland amongst
the people, I should have a different
opinion; that I should think the State
Church of a small minority was honest,
in the face of the great Church of the
majority; that I should think it was not
the fault of the landowners or of the
law in any degree, but the fault of the
tenants, that everything went wrong
with regard to the land; and that I
should find that it was the Government
that was mostly right, and the legisla-
tion right, and that it was the people
that were mostly wrong. There are
certain questions with regard to any
country that you may settle in your
1866.
199
IRELAND.
VII.
own house, never having seen that
country even upon a map. This you
may settle, that what is just is just
everywhere, and that men, from those of
the highest culture even to those of the
most moderate capacity, whatever may
be their race, whatever their colour,
have implanted in their hearts by their
Creator, wiser much than my critics,
the knowledge and the love of justice.
I will tell you that, since the day when
I sat beside O'Connell-and at an earlier
day-I have considered this question of
Ireland. In 1849, for several weeks in
the autumn, and for several weeks in
the autumn of 1852, I came to Ireland
expressly to examine this question by
consulting with all classes of the people
in every part of the island. I will un-
dertake to say that I believe there is no
man in England who has more fully
studied the evidence given before the
celebrated Devon Commission in regard
to Ireland than I have. Therefore I
dare stand up before any Irishman or
Englishman to discuss the Irish ques-
tion. I say that the plans, the theories,
the policy, the legislation of my op
ponents in this matter all have failed
signally, deplorably, disastrously, igno-
miniously, and, therefore, I say that I
have a right to come in and offer the
people of Ireland, as I would offer to
the people of Great Britain and the Im-
perial Parliament, a wise and just
policy upon this question.
You know that I have attended great
meetings in England within the last
two months, and in Scotland also. I
think I am at liberty to tender to you
from those hundreds of thousands of
men the hand of fellowship and good-
will. I wish I might be permitted
when I go back, as in fact I think by
this Address that I am permitted to
say to them, that amidst the factions
by which Ireland has been torn, amidst
the many errors that have been com-
mitted, amidst the passions that have
been excited, amidst the hopes that
have been blasted, and amidst the
misery that has been endured, there is
still in this island, and amongst its
people, a heart that can sympathise
with those who turn to them with a
fixed resolution to judge them fairly,
and to do them justice.
I have made my speech. I have said
my say. I have fulfilled my small mis-
sion to you. I thank you from my
heart for the kindness with which you
have received me, which I shall never
forget. And if I have in past times
felt an unquenchable sympathy with the
sufferings of your people, you may
rely upon it that if there be an Irish
Member to speak for Ireland, he will
find me heartily by his side.
J
IRELAND.
VIII.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 14, 1858.
From Hansard.
[This speech was spoken on the occasion of a proposition by Mr. Maguire, M.P. for
Cork, for a Committee of the whole House to consider the state of Ireland.']
WHEN this debate began it was not
my intention to take any part in it; for I
had very lately, in another place and to
a larger audience, added my contribution
to the great national deliberation upon
Irish affairs which is now in progress.
But the speech of the noble Lord the
Chief Secretary for Ireland, and some
misunderstanding that has arisen of what
I said elsewhere, have changed my in-
tention, and therefore I have to ask for
the indulgence of the House, in the hope
that I may make on this question a
more practical speech than that to which
we have just listened.
It is said by eminent censors of the
press that this debate will yield about
thirty hours of talk, and will end in no
result. I have observed that all great
questions in this country require thirty
hours of talk many times repeated before
they are settled. There is much shower
and much sunshine between the sowing
of the seed and the reaping of the
harvest, but the harvest is generally
reaped after all.
I was very much struck with what
happened on the first night of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cork,
in the opening portion of his address,
described the state of Ireland from his
point of view, and the facts he stated are
not and cannot be disputed. He said
that the Habeas Corpus Act had been
suspended for three years in his country
-that within the island there was a
large military force, amounting, as we
have heard to-night-besides 12,000 or
more of armed police-to an army of
20,000 men-that in the harbours of
Ireland there were ships of war, and in
her rivers there were gunboats; and that
throughout that country-as throughout
this-there has been and is yet consider-
able alarm with regard to the discontent
prevalent in Ireland.
All that is quite true; but when the
noble Lord the Chief Secretary opened
his speech, the first portion of it was
of a very different complexion. I am
willing to admit that to a large extent it
was equally true. He told us that the
condition of the people of Ireland was
considerably better now than it was at
MARCH 14, 1868.
201
IRELAND.
VIII.
the time of the Devon Commission.
At the time of the Devon Commission
the condition of that country had no
parallel in any civilized and Christian
nation. By the force of famine, pesti-
lence, and emigration, the population
was greatly diminished, and it would be
a very extraordinary thing indeed if with
such a diminution of the population
there was no improvement in the con-
dition of those who remained behind.
He showed that wages are higher, and
he pointed to the fact that in the trade
in and out of the Irish ports they had a
considerable increase, and though I will
not say that some of those comparisons
were quite accurate or fair, I am on the
whole ready to admit the truth of the
statement the noble Lord made.
But
now it seems to me that, admitting
the truth of what my hon. Friend the
Member for Cork said, and admitting
equally the truth of what the noble Lord
said, there remains before us a question
even more grave than any we have had
to discuss in past years with regard to
the condition of Ireland.
If and this has been already referred
to by more than one speaker-if it be
true that with a considerable improve-
ment in the physical condition of the
people-if it be true that with a univer-
sality of education much beyond that
which exists in this island-if it be true
that after the measures that have been
passed. and have been useful, there still
remains in Ireland, first of all, what is
called Fenianism, which is a reckless
and daring exhibition of feeling-be-
yond that a very wide discontent and
disloyalty—and beyond that, amongst
the whole of the Roman Catholic popu-
lation, universal dissatisfaction-and if
that be so, surely my hon. Friend the
Member for Cork-one of the most
useful and eminent of the representatives
of Ireland-is right in bringing this
question before the House. And there
is no question at this moment that we
could possibly discuss connected with
the interest or honour of the people that
approaches in gravity and magnitude to
that now before us. And if this state of
things be true-and remember I have
said nothing but what the hon. Mem-
ber for Cork has said, and I have given
my approval to nothing he has said
that was not confirmed by the speech
of the noble Lord-if this be true,
surely all this great effect must have
some cause.
We are unworthy of our position as
Members of this House, and representa-
tives of our countrymen, if we do not
endeavour at least to discover the cause,
and if we can discover it, speedily to
apply a remedy. The cause is perfectly
well known to both sides of the House.
The noble Lord, it is clear, knows it
even from the tenor of his own speech
-he spoke of the question of the land,
and of the Church. The noble Lord
the Member for King's Lynn-whose
observations in this debate, if he had
offered them, we should have been glad
to listen to-understands it, for he re-
ferred to the two questions in his speech
at the Bristol banquet. The right hon.
Gentleman at the head of the Govern-
ment understands it not only as well as
I do, but he understands it precisely in
the same sense-and more than twenty
years ago, when I stated in this House
the things, or nearly the things, I stated
recently and shall state to-night, he,
from your own benches, was making
speeches exactly of the same import.
And though there is many a thing he
seems at times not to recollect, yet I
am bound to say he recollects these
words, and the impressions, of which
these words were the expressions to the
House. He referred to an absentee
aristocracy and an alien Church. I
would not say a syllable about the
aristocracy in this matter; if I had to
choose a phrase, I would rather say
an absentee proprietary and an alien
Church.
What is the obvious remedy which
for this state of things has been found
to be sufficient in every other country?
If I could do so by any means that did
not violate the rights of property, I
should be happy to give to a consider-
able portion of the farmers of Ireland
202
MARCH 14,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
some proprietary rights, and to remove
from that country the sense of injustice,
and the sense-the strongest of all—of
the injustice caused by the existence of
an alien Church. Just for a moment
look at the proposition the noble Lord
is about to submit to the House. It is
very like the Bill of last year. I will
not enter into the details, except to say
that he proposes, as he proposed then,
that the Government should lend the
tenant-farmers of Ireland sums of money,
by which they would make improve-
ments, which sums of money were to be
repaid by some gradual process to the
Government authorities. He proposes
that the repayment should be spread
over a considerable number of years-
I do not know the exact number, and it
is not of importance for my argument.
These tenant-farmers are very numerous
-perhaps too numerous, it may be, for
the good of the country-but there they
are, and we must deal with them as we
find them. The number of them holding
under 15 acres is 250,000; holding be-
tween 15 acres and 30 acres, 136,000;
holding over 30 acres, 158,000-alto-
gether there are more than 540,000
holders of land. It is to these 540,000
land-holders or occupiers that the noble
Lord proposes to lend money, on the
condition that they make certain im-
provements, and repay after a certain
number of years the sums advanced to
them. I think I am right in saying that
there is no limitation in the Bill as to
the smallness of the holding to which
the advance of money will be refused;
and therefore the whole 540.000 tenants
will be in a position to come to the
Government, or to some Commission,
or to the Board of Works, or to some
authority in Ireland, and ask for money
to enable them to improve their farms.
The House will see that if this plan
is to produce any considerable result, it
will be the source of a number of trans-
actions such as the Government have
not had to deal with in any other mat-
ter
: and I expect that the difficulties
will be very great, and that the work-
ing out of the plan with any beneficial
results will be altogether impossible.
What I ask the House is this- if it be
right of the noble Lord, to enable him
to carry out his plan, to ask the House
to pass a measure like this-to lend all
these tenants the money for improve-
ments to be repaid after a series of
years, would it not be possible for us
by a somewhat similar process, and by
some step farther in the same direction,
to establish to some extent I am not
speaking of extending it all through
Ireland a farmer proprietary through-
out the country? If it be right and
proper to lend money to improve, it
surely may be proper, if it be on other
grounds judicious, to lend money to
buy. I do not know if the right hon.
Member for Calne is here; but very
likely he would spare me from the se-
vere criticisms he expended upon my hon.
Friend the Member for Westminster.
Now, I am as careful as any man can
be, I believe, of doing anything by law
that shall infringe what you think and
what I think are the rights of property.
I do not pretend to believe, if you ex-
amine the terms strictly, in what is
called the absolute property in land.
You may toss a sixpence into the sea if
you like, but there are things with
respect to land which you cannot, and
ought not, and dare not do. But I do
not want to argue the question of legis-
lation upon that ground. I am myself
of opinion that there is no class in the
community more interested in a strict
adherence to the principles of political
economy, worked out in a benevolent
and just manner, than the humblest and
poorest class in the country. I think
they have as much interest in it as the
rich, and the House has never known
me, and so long as I stand here will
never know me, I believe, to propose or
advocate anything which shall interfere
with what I believe to be, and what
if a landowner I would maintain to be,
the just right of property in the land.
But, then, I do not think, as some
persons seem to think, that the land is
really only intended to be in the hands
of the rich. I think that is a great mis-

1868.
203
1
VIII.
IRELAND.
en-
take. I am not speaking of the poor-
for the poor man, in the ordinary mean-
ing of the term, cannot be the possessor
of land; but what I wish is, that
farmers and men of moderate means
should become possessors of land and
of their farms. About two centuries
ago, two very celebrated men
deavoured to form a constitution for
Carolina, which was then one of the
colonies of this country in America.
Lord Shaftesbury, the statesman, and
Mr. Locke, the philosopher, framed a
constitution with the notion of having
great proprietors all over the country,
and men under them to cultivate it.
I recollect that Mr. Bancroft, the his-
torian of the United States, describing
the issue of that attempt and its utter
failure, says: The instinct of aristo-
cracy dreads the moral power of a pro-
prietary yeomanry, and therefore the
perpetual degradation of the cultivators
of the soil was enacted.' There is no
country in the world, in which there
are only great landowners and tenants,
with no large manufacturing interest
to absorb the population, in which
the degradation of the cultivating
tenant is not completely assured.
I hope that hon. Members opposite,
and hon. Gentlemen on this side who
may be disposed in some degree to
sympathise with them, will not for a
moment imagine that I am discussing
this question in any spirit of hostility to
the landowners of Ireland. I have al-
ways argued that the landowners of
Ireland, in their treatment of this ques-
tion, have grievously mistaken not
only the interests of the population, but
their own. I was told the other day
by a Member of this House, who comes
from Ireland, and is eminently capable
of giving a sound opinion upon the
point, that he believed the whole of
Ireland might be bought at about
twenty years' purchase; but you know
that the land of England is worth thirty
years' purchase, and I believe a great
deal of it much more,-and it is owing
to circumstances which legislation may
in a great degree remove that the land
of Ireland is worth at this moment so
much less than the land of England.
Coming back to the question of buying
farms, I put it to the House whether, if
it be right to lend to landlords for im-
provements, and to tenants for improv-
ing the farms of their landlords, to
those who propose to carry on public
works, and to repair the ravages of the
cattle plague, I ask whether it is not
also right for them to lend money in
cases where it may be advantageous
to landlords, and where they may be
very willing to consent to it, to estab-
lish a portion of the tenant-farmers of
Ireland as proprietors of their farms.
Now, bear in mind that I have never
spoken about peasant proprietors. I
do not care what name you give them;
I am in favour of more proprietors, and
some, of course, will be small and some
will be large; but it would be quite
possible for Parliament, if it thought fit
to attempt anything of this kind, to fix
a limit below which it would not assist
the owner to sell or the purchaser to
buy. I believe that you can establish a
class of moderate proprietors, who will
form a body intermediate between the
great owners of land and those who are
absolutely landless, which will be of
immense service in giving steadiness,
loyalty, and peace to the whole popula-
tion of the island. The noble Lord the
Chief Secretary, knows perfectly well at
what price he could lend that money,
and I will just state to the House one
fact which will show how the plan
would work. If you were to lend
money at 3 per cent., in thirty-five
years the tenant, paying 5 per cent.,
would have paid the whole money
back and all the interest due on it,
and would become the owner of his
farm; and if you were to take the rate
at which you have lent to the Harbour
Commissioners, and to repair the rava-
ges of the cattle plague, which is 34 per
cent., of course the whole sum would
be paid back in a shorter period. There-
fore, in a term which in former times
was not unusual in the length of leases
in Ireland, namely, thirty-one years, the
204
MARCH 14,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
tenant purchasing his farm, without his
present rent being raised, would repay
to the Government the principal and
interest of the sum borrowed for that
purpose, would become the owner of
his farm, and during the whole of that
time would have absolute fixity of tenure,
because every year he would be saving
more and more, adding field to field,
and at the end of the time he would be
the proprietor of the soil.
Let not the House imagine that I am
proposing to buy up the whole of
the land. I am proposing only to buy
it in cases where men are willing to sell,
and to transfer it only in cases where
men are able and willing to buy, and
you must know as well as I that there
will be many thousands of such cases in
a few years. Every Irish proprietor
opposite-the noble Lord the Member
for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton) himself,
who made so animated a speech, and
appeared so angry with me a short time
ago-must know perfectly well that
amongst the tenantry of Ireland there
is a considerable sum of saved money
not invested in farms. Well, that saved
money would all come out to carry into
effect transactions of this nature; and
you will find the most extraordinary
efforts made by thousands of tenants to
become possessors of their farms by
investing their savings in them, by ob-
taining it may be the assistance of their
friends, and by such an industrious and
energetic cultivation of the soil as has
scarcely ever been seen in Ireland. I
said there were landlords willing to sell,
and there are cases in which, probably,
Parliament might insist upon a sale-
for instance, the lands of the London
Companies. I never heard of much
good that was done by all the money
of the London Companies. I was once
invited to a dinner by one of these Com-
•panies, and certainly it was of a very
sumptuous and substantial character,
but I believe that, if the tenants of these
Companies were proprietors of the lands
they cultivate, it would be a great ad-
vantage to the counties in which they
are situated. I come then to this: I
would negotiate with landowners who
were willing to sell and tenants who
were willing to buy, and I would make
the land the great savings-bank for the
future tenantry of Ireland. If you like,
I would limit the point to which we
might go down in the transference of
farms, but I would do nothing in the
whole transaction which was not per-
fectly acquiesced in by both landlord and
tenant, and I would pay the landlord
every shilling he could fairly demand in
the market for. the estate he proposed
to sell.
Well, I hope every Gentleman pre-
sent will acquit me of intending confis-
cation, and that we shall have no
further misunderstanding upon that
point. I venture to say to the noble
Lord that this is a plan which would
be within compass and management, as
compared with that laid down in his
Bill, if it worked at all, and I believe
that it would do a hundred times as
much good, in putting the farmer upon
the footing of a holder of land in Ire-
land. What do hon. Gentlemen think
would become of an American Fenian
if he came over to Ireland and hap-
pened to spend an evening with a num-
ber of men who had got possession of
their farms. I remember my old friend
Mr. Stafford, in the county of Wexford,
whom I called upon in 1849, who had
bought his farm and had built upon it
the best farm-house which I saw in the
whole South of Ireland, and who told
me that if all the tenantry of Ireland
had security for their holdings-he was
an old man, and could not easily rise
from his chair, though he made an effort
to do so-'If they had the security
that I have,' said he, we'd bate the
hunger out of Ireland.' If the Fenian
spent his evening with such men as
these, and proposed his reckless schemes
to them, not a single farmer would
listen to him for a moment. Their first
impression would be that he was mad;
their second, perhaps, that the whisky
had been too strong for him; and it
would end, no doubt, if he persisted in
his efforts to seduce them from their
1868.
205
IRELAND. VIII.
allegiance to the Imperial Government,
by their turning him off the premises,
though perhaps, knowing that he could
do no harm, they might not hand him
over to the police.
6
The other day I passed through the
county of Somerset, and through vil-
lages that must be well known to many
Gentlemen here Rodney-Stoke and
Drayford, I think they were called-
and I noticed a great appearance of
life and activity about the neighbour-
hood. I asked the driver of the car-
riage which had brought me from Wells
what was the cause of it. Why,' he
said, 'don't you know that is the
place where the great sale took place?'
What sale?' I asked. 'Oh! the sale
of the Duke's property.' 'What Duke?'
'The Duke of Buckingham. Did you
never hear of it? About fifteen years
ago his property was sold in lots, and
the people bought all the farms. You
never saw such a stir in the world.'
He pointed out the houses on the hill-
side which had been built to replace old
tumble-down tenements, the red soil
appearing under the plough, and culti-
vation going on with such general ac-
tivity as had not been witnessed till
within these last few years. The ap-
pearance of these villages was such as
must strike every traveller from another
part of the country, and it was produced
by simple means. The great estate of
an embarrassed Duke had been divided
and sold off; he had not been robbed;
the old miserable hovels of the former
tenants had been pulled down, and new
life and activity had been given to the
whole district. If you could have such
a change as this in Ireland, you would
see such a progress and prosperity that
gentlemen would hardly know the dis-
trict from which they came.
I think it only fair to my hon. Friend
the Member for Westminster to say,
that I do not believe the time is come
in Ireland, and I do not believe it ever
will come, when it will be necessary
to have recourse to so vast and extra-
ordinary a scheme as that which he has
proposed to the House. It appears to
me that it is not necessary for Ireland.
There is the land- there is the owner
there is the tenant. If the land-
owners had been a little wiser we
might not have had before us to-night
the difficulty that now perplexes us.
Suppose, for example, they had not
been tempted to coerce or to make use
of the votes of their tenants; suppose
they had not been tempted to withhold
leases undoubtedly the condition of
Ireland would have been far superior to
what it now is. My hon. Friend the
Member for Westminster has some
scruples, I believe, on the question of
the ballot, but I believe even he would
not object to see that admirable ma-
chinery of election tried in that coun-
try. Do hon. Gentlemen think it not
necessary? I was talking, only two
days ago, to a Member of this House
who sat on one of the Irish election
committees the Waterford committee,
I think-and he said: We could not
unseat the Members, though the evi-
dence went to show a frightful state of
things; it was one of the most orderly
elections they have in that country-
only three men killed and twenty-eight
seriously wounded.' After all, we may
smile, and some of you may laugh at
this, but it is not a thing to be laughed
at. It is a very serious matter, but it
exists in no country in the world where
the ballot is in operation.
•
If
you were to try that mode of elec-
tion in Ireland it would have two results:
it would make your elections perfectly
tranquil, and at the same time it would
withdraw from the landowner-and a
most blessed thing for the landowner
himself this would be-it would with-
draw from him the great temptation to
make use of his tenant's vote for the
support of his own political party; and
if that temptation were withdrawn, you
would have much more inducement to
grant leases to many of your tenants,
and you would take a step highly
favourable, not to the prosperity of
your tenants only, but to your own
prosperity and your own honour. Now,
Sir, I shall say no more upon that
206
MARCH 14,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
question except this, that I feel myself
at a disadvantage in making a pro-
position of this nature to a House
where landowners are so numerous and
so powerful, but I have disarmed them
in so far that they will see that I mean
them no harm, and that what I propose
is not contrary to the principles of
political economy; and that if Govern-
ment is at liberty to lend money for all
the purposes to which I have referred,
Government must be equally at liberty
to lend money for this greater purpose;
and, further, I venture to express my
opinion, without the smallest hesitation
or doubt, that if this were done to the
extent of creating some few scores of
thousands of farmer proprietors in Ire-
land, you would find that their influ-
ence would be altogether loyal; that it
would extend around throughout the
whole country; that whilst you were
adding to the security of Government
you would awaken industry in Ireland
from its slumber, and you would have
the wealth which you have not had be-
fore, and, with wealth, contentment and
tranquillity in its train.
Now, Sir, it may appear egotistical
in me to make one remark more, but I
think if the House will not condemn
me I shall make it. Last year you did,
under the leadership of the right hon.
Gentleman, accept a proposition which
I had taken several years of trouble and
labour to convince you was wise. On
Wednesday last, only two days ago, by
an almost unanimous vote you accepted
a proposition with regard to another
matter, exactly in the form in which six
or seven years ago I had urged you to
accept it. You in this House recollect
when Mr. Speaker had to give the cast-
ing vote, amidst vast excitement in the
House, on the miserable question of
Church Rates; but now, on Wednesday
last, you accepted that Bill almost with-
out opposition; and I presume that, ex-
cept for the formality of a third reading,
we have done with the question for
ever. Now if you would kindly, I ask
it as a favour-if you would kindly for
a moment forget things that you read
of me which are not favourable, and
generally which are not true, and if you
would imagine that though I have not
an acre of land in Ireland, I can be as
honestly a friend of Ireland as the man
who owns half a county, it may be
worth your while to consider for your
own interest, the interests of your ten-
ants, the security of the country from
which you come, for the honour of the
United Kingdom, whether there is not
something in the proposition that I
have made to you.
Now, Sir, perhaps the House will
allow me to turn to that other question
which, on the authority of the noble
Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland,
and the noble Lord the Member for
King's Lynn, and indeed on the autho-
rity of the Prime Minister himself, is
considered the next greatest-perhaps I
ought to have said the greatest-ques-
tion we have to consider in connection
with Irish affairs; I mean the Irish Church
question. What is it that is offered
upon this matter by the Government?
The noble Lord himself said very little
about it, but he is not easy upon it; he
knows perfectly well, and cannot conceal
it, that the Irish Church question is at
the root of every other question in Ire-
land. The noble Lord the Member for
King's Lynn said also that it was, along
with the land, the great and solemn
question which we had to discuss, and
he turned round-I could discover it
from the report in the paper, because I
was not, as you may suppose, at the
Bristol banquet-he turned round almost
with a look of despair, and implored
somebody to come and tell us what
ought to be done on this Irish question.
And the Prime Minister himself, in
speaking of it, called it an Alien
Church.' Bear that phrase in mind.
It is a strong phrase, a phrase we can
all understand, and we know that the
right hon. Gentleman is a great master
of phrases-he says a word upon some
subject; it sticks; we all remember it,
and this is sometimes a great advantage.
6
Alien Church' is the name he gives it;
and now, what does the noble Lord,
1868.
207
IRELAND. VIII.
acting, no doubt, under the direction of
his Colleagues and the Prime Minister,
offer upon this question? He rather
offered a defence of it; he did not go
into any argument, but still, at the same
time, he rather defied anybody to make
an assault upon it; he believed that it
would not succeed, and that it was very
wrong; but what does he really pro-
pose? Only this: to add another but-
tress in the shape of another bribe. He
says that he will make an offer to the
Roman Catholic hierarchy and people
of Ireland-some say that the people
do not want it, and that the hierarchy
do want it, but I say nothing about that,
because I hope the Catholic people of
Ireland are at least able to defend them-
selves from the hierarchy, if the hier-
archy wish to cripple them too much
he says he will endow a Roman Catholic
University in Ireland. As the noble
Lord went on with his speech he touched
upon the question of the Presbyterian
Regium Donum, and spoke of it, I
think, as a miserable provision for
the Presbyterians of the North of Ire-
land; and evidently, if he had had the
courage, the desperate courage to do
it, he would have proposed, whilst he
was offering to endow a new Roman
Catholic University, to increase
double the Regium Donum. The noble
Lord does not express any dissent
from this, and I rather think he wishes
that it were safely done. The object of
this, and what he would like to have
said to the hon. Gentleman about him
who came from Ireland to represent
the Roman Catholic population, and to
the Presbyterians of the North of Ire-
land, was this: If you will continue to
support the Protestant Church in Ireland
and the Protestant supremacy, we will
endow you (the Roman Catholics) a
University, really, if not professedly,
under clerical rule; and as to you (the
Presbyterians), we will double your sti-
pend by doubling the amount of the
Regium Donum.”
or
Now, why do you offer anything?
Why is it we are discussing this ques-
tion? Why did the noble Lord think
it necessary to speak for three hours
and twenty minutes on the subject?
Because the state of Ireland is now very
different from the state which we have
sometimes seen, and very different, I
hope, from that which many of us may
live to see hereafter; because Ireland
has a certain portion of its population
rebellious, has a larger portion disloyal
and discontented, but has a still larger
portion dissatisfied with the Imperial
rule. Now I must say I hope the
noble Lord will not think I am saying
anything uncivil - but I must say that
his proposition appears to be at once
grotesque and imbecile, and I think at
the same time-though I do not like to
use unpleasant words-that to a certain
extent it must be held to be-in fact,
I think the hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for North Warwickshire hinted as
much-not only very wrong, but very
dishonest. At this moment it seems to
find no favour on either side of the
House, although I can understand the
Catholic Members of the House feeling
themselves bound to say nothing against
it, and perhaps, if it came to a division,
to vote for it; but I believe there is not
a Catholic Member on this side of the
House who could in his conscience say
that it was right in him to accept this
proposition as a bribe that he should
hereafter support Protestant supremacy.
In fact, it appears to me exactly in the
position now that the dual vote was in
this time twelve months, and there are
people who say that it has been brought
forward with the same object, and that
by-and-by, as nobody is for it, the right
hon. Gentleman will say that as nobody
is in favour of it they will not urge it
upon Parliament. Now, does anybody
believe that a Catholic University in Ire-
land could have the smallest effect upon
Fenianism, or upon the disloyalty, dis-
content, and dissatisfaction of which
Fenianism is the latest and the most
terrible expression? It is quite clear
that for the evil which we have to com-
bat, the remedy which the right hon.
Gentleman offers through the Chief
Secretary for Ireland is no remedy at all.
208
MARCH 14,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
It reminds me of an anecdote which
is related by Addison. He says that in
his time there was a man who made a
living by cheating the country people.
He was not a Cabinet Minister,-he
was only a mountebank,-and he set up
a stall, and sold pills that were very
good against the earthquake. Well,
that is about the state of things that we
are in now. There is an earthquake in
Ireland. Does anybody doubt it? I
will not go into the evidence of it, but
I will say that there has been a most
extraordinary alarm-some of it ex-
travagant, I will admit-throughout
the whole of the three kingdoms; and
although Fenianism may be but a low,
a reckless, and an ignorant conspiracy,
the noble Lord has admitted that there
is discontent and disaffection in the
country; and when the Member for one
of the great cities of Ireland comes for-
ward and asks the Imperial Parliament
to discuss this great question — this
social and political earthquake under
which Ireland is heaving-the noble
Lord comes forward and offers that
there shall be a clerical-governed en-
dowed University for the sons, I sup-
pose, of the Catholic gentlemen of Ire-
land. I have never heard a more un-
statesmanlike or more unsatisfactory
proposition; and I believe the entire
disfavour with which it has been re-
ceived in this House is only a proper
representation of the condemnation
which it will receive from the great
majority of the people of the three
kingdoms.
Do not let any one suppose that I
join in the terms which I regretted to
hear from the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Stroud, and still less that I
join in the, in my opinion, more offensive
terms which fell from the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Calne.
There can be no good in our attacking
either the Catholic population or the
Catholic hierarchy of Ireland. We have
our duty straight before us, which is to
do both the hierarchy and the people
justice. We are not called upon to
support the plan of the Government,
and I believe the people of Great Britain,
and a very large portion of the people
of Ireland, will rejoice when the House
of Commons shall reject a proposition
which is adverse to the course we have
taken for many years past, and a pro-
position which would have no better
effect in tranquillising Ireland in the
future than the increase of the grant to
Maynooth did more than twenty years
ago. Sir Robert Peel at that time, with
the most honourable and kindly feeling
to Ireland, proposed to increase the
grant to Maynooth, and it was passed,
I think, by a large majority of the
House, I being one of a very few per-
sons on this side of the House who
opposed the grant. I was as kindly
disposed to the Catholics of Ireland as
Sir Robert Peel, but I was satisfied that
was not the path of tranquillisation, and
that if he trod that path it would before
any long time have to be retraced; and
I think, if you now proceed upon the
course recommended by the right hon.
Gentleman, you will fail in the pacifica-
tion of Ireland, and the time will come
when you will have to retrace the steps
he invites you to tread in now.
Now, Sir, I think we have arrived at
this point of the question
that we
have absolutely arrived at it, and there
is no escape from it- that it does not
matter in the least whether the right
hon. Gentleman sits on the Treasury
Bench, or whether the right hon. Mem-
ber for South Lancashire takes his place,
or whether the two should unite-
which is a very bold figure of speech
but I say that if the two should unite,
it could not alter this fact, that the
Protestant supremacy, as represented by
a State Church in Ireland, is doomed,
and is, in fact, at an end. Whatever
are the details, and I admit that they
will be very difficult details in some
particulars, which may be introduced
into the measure which shall enact the
great change that the circumstances of
Ireland and the opinion of the United
Kingdom have declared to be necessary,
this, at least, we have come to, that
perfect religious equality henceforth,
:
1868.
209
IRELAND.
VIII.
and not only religious equality, but
equality on the voluntary principle,
must be granted.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have
spoken about a pamphlet which has
recently been written by Lord Russell.
I would speak of Lord Russell, as the
House knows, as I would always of a
man older than myself, and whose
services to the country have been so
long and so great; I speak of him with
great respect, and I say that the pam-
phlet is written with wonderful fire, that
it contains in it very much that is in-
teresting, and very much that is true,
but its one fault is that it should have
been published about forty years ago.
Lord Russell's proposition is politically
just in the division which he proposes
of the property of the Church in Ireland
and, if public opinion had not con-
demned the creation of new Established
Churches, it might have been possible
to have adopted his scheme as it is.
But I say the time has gone by for the
establishment of new State Churches.
They will never again be planted as an
institution in this country, and I sus-
pect there is no other country in the
world which has not an Established
Church that would wish to possess one.
But, if the House will allow me, I
should like to advert to a little scheme
on this matter which I was bold enough
to explain to my countrymen on the
occasion to which I have referred. It
is not a new scheme in my mind, for
the whole principle of it, with an elabo-
rate argument in its favour, were pub-
lished very widely in the year 1852, in
a letter which I wrote to my hon. Friend
the Member for Kilkenny (Sir John
Gray), who was one of certain persons,
Members of Parliament and others, who
met in conference in Dublin on the
question of religious equality in Ireland.
I only state this to show that it is no
new idea, and that I have had plenty of
time to consider it. There have been
great objections to the plan, and amongst
those who have objected to it, as might
possibly have been expected, were gentle-
men of the Liberation Society. Now, I
know many of the leading members of
that Society, and they are very good
Even those who may think they
men.
are mistaken would, if they knew them,
join with me in that opinion. One of
them, at least, who was once a Member
of this House, and, in all probability,
will be here again—Mr. Miall-is not
only a good man, but he is a great man.
I judge him by the nobleness of his
principles, and by the grand devotion
which he has manifested to the teaching
of what he believes to be a great truth.
I take criticisms from them kindly, as
we ought to take them from our friends
when they are honestly given.
What is the condition of Ireland at
this moment with which you have to
deal? There is not only the Church
which it is proposed to disestablish, but
you have the Regium Donum, which, if
the Church be disestablished, must
necessarily be withdrawn; and you
have, if these two things happen, a
grant to Maynooth, the Act conferring
which must necessarily be repealed.
Now, in doing these things the House
will observe that we shall disturb all the
three principal sects or Churches in
Ireland, and we can only do it, or
attempt to do it, on the ground that we
are about to accomplish some great
public good. Well, my proposal, which
some hon. Gentlemen, I dare say, will
have some vague idea of, was made with
the view of easing Parliament in the
great transaction, from which I believe
it cannot escape. It is a great thing in
statesmanship, when you are about to
make a change which is inevitable, and
which shocks some, disturbs more, and
makes hesitating people hesitate still
more—it is a great thing, I say, if you
can make the past slide into the future
without any great jar, and without any
great shock to the feelings of the people.
And in doing these things the Govern-
ment can always afford to be generous
and gracious to those whom they are
obliged to disturb.
We have found that this has been the
case when needful changes have been
proposed; for instance, hon. Gentlemen
14
210
MARCH 14,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
will recollect, when tithe commutation
for Ireland was passed, that there was
a certain concession made to the land-
owners of Ireland, to induce them to
acquiesce in the proposition of Parlia-
ment. We know that when slavery
was abolished a considerable sum of
money was voted. Lord Derby pro-
posed in this House that compensation
should be given to the slaveowners.
If it had not been for that, slavery
would before long have been abolished
by violence.
But Parliament thought
it was much better to take the step it
did take, and I am not, at this period of
time, about for a moment to dispute its
wisdom. In all these things we en-
deavour, if we are forced to make a
great change, to make it in such a man-
ner as that we shall obtain the acqui-
escence and the support, if possible, of
those who are most likely to be nearly
affected by it. Suppose we were going
to disestablish the Church of Scotland
-and I understand that there are a
great number belonging to the Estab-
lished Church of Scotland who are
coming round to the opinion that it
would be much to their benefit, and I
think for the benefit of their Church, if
it were disestablished-if we were going
to disestablish the Church of Scotland
or the Church of England, no person
for a moment would suppose that, after
having taken all the tithes and all the
income from these Churches, you would
also take all the churches and all the
parsonage-houses from the Presbyterian
people of Scotland, or from the Epis-
copal Church people in England. You
would not do anything of that kind.
You would do to them as we should
wish, if we were in their position, that
the Government and Parliament should
do to us. Do what you have to do
thoroughly for the good of the country,
but do it in such a manner as shall do
least harm, and as shall gain the largest
amount of acquiescence from those
whom you are about to affect. I ven-
ture to say that such is the course we
should take about Ireland.
I am very free in speaking on these
matters. I am not a Catholic in the
sense of Rome. I am not a Protestant
in the sense in which that word is used
in Ireland. I am not connected with a
powerful sect in England. I think, from
my training, and education, and associa-
tion, and thought on these questions, I
stand in a position which enables me to
take as fair and unimpassioned a view
of the matter as perhaps any man in the
House. Now, if I were asked to give
my advice, and if I am not asked I shall
give it—I should propose that where
there are congregations in Ireland — I
am speaking now, of course, of the
present Established Church-who would
undertake to keep in repair the church
in which they have been accustomed to
worship, and the parsonage-house in
which their ministers live, Parliament
should leave them in the possession of
their churches and of their parsonage-
houses. And I believe I speak the sen-
timent of every Catholic Member on
this side of the House, and probably of
every intelligent Catholic in Ireland,
not only of the laity but of the hierarchy
and the priesthood, when I say that
they would regard such a course as that
on the part of Parliament as just, under
the circumstances in which we are
placed. Well, then, of course there
would be no more bishops appointed by
the Crown, and that institution in Ire-
land would come to an end, except it
were continued upon the principle upon
which bishops are appointed in Scot-
land. All State connection would be
entirely abolished. You would then
have all alike. The Protestants would
have their churches and parsonage-
houses as they have now. But the re-
pairs of them, and the support of their
ministers, would be provided by their
congregations, or by such an organisa-
tion as they chose to form. The Catho-
lics would provide, as they have hitherto
done so meritoriously and with a re-
markable liberality, for themselves.
No greater instance of generosity and
fidelity to their Church can be seen in
the world than that which has been
manifested by the Catholic people of
1868.
211
IRELAND. VIII.
Ireland. They have their churches and
their priests' houses in many places.
There is no pretence for meddling with
them. In the north of Ireland, where
the Presbyterians are most numerous,
they would also have their places of
worship, and their ministers' houses as
they have now. All the Churches,
therefore, in that respect would be on
an equality. Well, now, the real point
of this question, and which will create
in all probability much feeling in Par-
liament and in the country, is, what
should be done on the question of the
Maynooth Grant, and on the question
of the Regium Donum? They must be
treated alike, I presume. If you pre-
serve the life interests of the ministers
and bishops of the Established Church,
it may be right to preserve the life
interests of the ministers of the Presby-
terian Church, and it may be right also
in some way or other to make some
provision that shall not in the least de-
gree bring them under the control of
the State. And some provision might
have to be made to the Catholic Church
in lieu of the Maynooth Grant, which,
of course, you would be obliged to with-
draw. These are points which I will
not discuss in detail. I merely indicate
them for the sake of showing to the
House, and to a great number of people
who are regarding it with even more
feeling than we do, what are some of
the difficulties of this question-difficul-
ties which must be met-difficulties
which it will require all the moderation,
all the Christian feeling, and all the
patriotism which this House can muster
on both sides of it, with the view of
settling this question permanently, and
to the general satisfaction of the three
kingdoms. Now, I will go no further,
but to say that whatever is done-if a
single sixpence is given by Parliament,
in lieu of the Maynooth Grant, or in
lieu of the Regium Donum, it must be
given on these terms only—and on that
matter I think Lord Russell has com-
mitted a great error-that it becomes
the absolute property of the Catholics
or of the Presbyterians-it must be as
completely their property as the pro-
perty of the great Wesleyan body in
this country, or of the Independents, or
of the Baptists, belongs to these bodies.
It must be property which Parliament
can never pretend to control, or regu-
late, or withdraw.
And having consented to that condi-
tion, the three Churches of Ireland
would be started as voluntary Churches,
and instead of fighting, as I am sorry to
say they have been fighting far longer
than within the memory of man, I hope
soon there would be a competition
among them which should do most for
the education, the morals, and the Chris-
tianity of the population who are with-
in their instruction and guidance. Now,
Protestants in this country-I think
almost all Protestants-object very
strongly to Rome. The Nonconform-
ists object to endowments. They some-
times, I think, confound establishments
with endowments. I think it absolutely
essential that establishments should
cease, and that there should be nothing
in the way of endowment unless it be
some small provision such as that which
I have indicated; which it might be
necessary to make when you are with-
drawing certain things which the
Churches in Ireland had supposed were
theirs in perpetuity.
Now, one word which I would say
to the Nonconformist people of Eng-
land and Scotland, if the House will
allow me to speak, is this-they should
bear in mind that the whole of this
property which is now in the possession
of the Established Church of Ireland
is Irish property. It does not belong to
Scotland or to England, and it would
be a measure intolerable and not to be
thought of, that it should be touched or
dealt with in any manner that is not in
accordance with the feelings and the
interests of the people of Ireland. Let
any man who to-morrow criticises this
part of my speech ask himself what an
Irish Parliament freely elected would
do with the ecclesiastical funds of Ire-
land. I think the Presbyterians of Scot-
land, the Churchmen and Nonconform-
14-2
212
MARCH 14,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
ists of England, have no right to suppose
themselves to be judges with regard to
religious matters in Ireland. They have
a perfect right to say to Parliament
through their representatives, 'We will
discontinue the State Church in Ireland,
and we will create no other State
Churches.' But that seems to be about
the extent of the interference which they
are entitled to in this matter.
I hope I have explained with tole-
rable clearness the views which I have
felt it my duty to lay before the House
on the occasion of this great ques-
tion. The House will see, and I think
hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit,
that I am at least disposed to treat it
as a great question which, if it be dealt
with, should be dealt with in the most
generous, gracious, and, if you like,
tender manner by Parliament, as re-
spects the feelings and interests of all
who are most directly concerned. The
right hon. Gentleman the Home Secre-
tary, in his speech last night, said that
this proposal to disestablish the Estab-
lished Church of Ireland, was, in point
of fact, in some sort a revolution. This,
at any rate, I am satisfied, would be
not only an entirely bloodless revolu-
tion, but a revolution full of blessing
to the Irish people.
I have not said a word-I never said
a word in this House, and, I believe,
never out of it, to depreciate the cha-
racter of the clergymen of the Estab-
lished Church in Ireland. I think no
religious ministers are placed in a more
unfortunate position, and I am satisfied
that many of them feel it to be so. I
have not the least doubt, when this
transaction is once accomplished, that
they will breathe more freely. I believe
they will be more potent in their minis-
trations, and that their influence, which
must, or ought to be, considerable, will
be far more extensive than it has been,
and far more beneficial in the districts
in which they live. But being so great
a question, as the Home Secretary de-
scribed it, it can only be settled by
mutual and reasonable concession. The
main principle being secured, that State
Church supremacy is abolished in Ire-
land, and that the Irish Churches are
henceforth to be free Churches upon
the voluntary principle, then I should
be willing, and I would recommend
every person in the country whom my
voice may reach, to make any reasonable
concession that can be suggested in the
case. So anxious am I that it should be
done, that I should be delighted to co-
operate with the right hon. Gentleman,
and with hon. Members on the opposite
side of the House, in support of any just
measure for settling this great question.
But I say, if it ever does come to be
dealt with by a great and powerful
Minister, let it be dealt with in a great
and generous spirit. I would counsel to
all men moderation and justice. It is
as necessary to Protestants as to Catho-
lics and to Nonconformists that they
should endeavour to get rid of passion
in discussing this question.
We are, after all, of one religion. I
imagine that there will come a time in
the history of the world when men will
be astonished that Catholics and Pro-
testants have had so much animosity
against and suspicion of each other. I
accept the belief in a grand passage,
which I once met with in the writings
of the illustrious founder of the colony
of Pennsylvania. He says that The
humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and
devout souls are everywhere of one re-
ligion, and when death has taken off
the mask they will know one another,
though the diverse liveries they wear
here make them strangers.' Now, may
I ask the House to act in this spirit,
and then our work will be easy. The
noble Lord, towards the conclusion of
his speech, spoke of the cloud which
rests at present over Ireland. It is a
dark and heavy cloud, and its darkness
extends over the feelings of men in all
parts of the British Empire. But there
is a consolation which we may all take
to ourselves. An inspired king and bard
and prophet has left us words which
are not only the expression of a fact,
but which we may take as the utter-
ance of a prophecy. He says, 'To the
1868.
213
IRELAND. VIII.
}
upright there ariseth light in the dark-
ness. Let us try in this matter to be
upright. Let us try to be just. That
cloud will be dispelled. The dangers
which surround us will vanish, and we
may yet have the happiness of leav-
ing to our children the heritage of an
honourable citizenship in a united and
prosperous Empire.

*།
Y
IRELAND.
IX.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 1, 1868.
[This speech was made in the debate on Mr. Gladstone's resolutions for disestablishing
the Irish Church.]
THE House will not expect me to
follow the legal argument of the hon.
and learned Member who has just sat
down. I entertain a firm belief that
those legal cobwebs which are spread,
and which are supposed to, and do in
the minds of many Gentlemen, inter-
pose between the completion of a great
act of justice, will be swept away before
long by the almost unanimous opinion
of the people of the three kingdoms.
During this debate, which has yet
lasted only two nights, there has been,
if not a remarkable change of opinion,
a remarkable change of expression.
Last night we had an interesting speech
from the noble Lord who generally sits
opposite me, the noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Stamford. I refer only to the
beginning of his speech, in which he
spoke of his affection for the principle
of a Church Establishment. There was
a hesitation in his manner; he had a
strong love for his principle, but it ap-
peared to me that he thought the time
was come when even that cherished
principle would have to be surren-
dered. From the Treasury bench we
had a speech from the noble Lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and
when he sat down it is difficult to say
what was the precise impression made
upon the House; but I think, on the
whole, the impression made on the
other side of the House-his own side
-was by no means a comfortable one.
Now to me it is, and I think to the
House it is, a misfortune that we have
a Government that speaks with a dif-
ferent voice from night to night. We
had it last year, and I presume, from
the example of the debate which lately
took place on the motion of the hon.
Member for Cork, and from the debate
on this motion, we are about to see a
repetition of it.
The fact is, that the position of the
Government is one of great difficulty
and perplexity; to speak plainly, it is
one which I should call, in our Con-
stitutional system, altogether unnatural.
They are the Ministers, the leaders of
a minority of the House, and whilst
they sat as leaders of the minority in
opposition they defended the principles
of their party, and they apparently re-
garded all their past career with satis-
faction; but the moment they are
transferred to the Treasury bench they
find themselves in this difficulty, that
although their party may still wish to
cling to their past opinions, there is
something in the very air, there is
something throughout the mind of the

APRIL 1, 1868.
215
IRELAND. IX.
whole kingdom, which teaches them
that their past opinions are impossible
in their new position.
The noble Lord the Member for
King's Lynn made a speech not long
ago at Bristol, and in that speech he
expressed what I am quite sure were
his honest opinions with regard to the
condition of Ireland. He stated that
the condition of Ireland was one painful
and dangerous, and to us, in appear-
ance at least, discreditable. He said
we had a strange and perplexing pro-
blem to solve; that in Ireland there
was a miserable state of things. Then
he said, 'If we look for a remedy, who
can give us an intelligible answer?
Ireland is the question of the hour.'
And that is not altogether at variance
-in fact, I should say not at all at
variance-with the speech of the Chief
Secretary for Ireland, who told us, as
far as he knew, the facts about his
country. But immediately afterwards
we had the description of the right hon.
Gentleman at the head of the Govern-
ment, to the effect that there was no
crisis at all-that, in point of fact, the
condition of Ireland was a normal con-
dition, and that there was no necessity
for anything remarkable or unusual in
the legislation that was required. Now,
to-night we have had a speech from the
Home Secretary. I may say that every
speaker on that side of the House has
admitted that his speech is entirely in
opposition, in its tone, its purpose, and
its principle, to the speech of the noble
Lord the Member for King's Lynn. It
seems to me that the Home Secretary
to-night answered the Foreign Secretary
of last night—and I suppose if the de-
bate goes on until Thursday, probably
the right hon. Gentleman at the head
of the Government, or perhaps the
Secretary of State for India, will answer
the speech of the Secretary of State for
the Home Department.
But all this shows us that the House
is in a wrong position. We have a mi-
nority in office which cannot assert its
own views with safety, nor can it with
any more safety adopt our views; and
thus, when, on that side of the House,
a Minister gets up and makes what
is called a liberal speech on this ques-
tion to us who are in opposition, that
creates discontent; and then another
Minister rises and makes a speech of
an exactly opposite character, to recon-
cile that discontent. There is, in fact,
confusion and chaos in the House. We
have a Government which is not a
Government—and we have an Oppo-
sition which is not an Opposition, be-
cause really we do not oppose anything
that you propose. Your propositions
are not based upon your own principles,
which you held when you sat on this
side of the House, but on our prin-
ciples, and therefore we are not in
opposition at all, but we help you as
much as possible to enforce, not your
own principles, but ours. Whatever
compensation it may be to right hon.
Gentlemen who sit on that bench and
enjoy the dignities and emoluments of
office, I think there are many honour-
able men on whom I am looking at
this moment who do not observe the
course of these proceedings with entire
satisfaction.
But now, notwithstanding these diffi-
culties, there remains this great question
which we must discuss, and which, if
possible, we must settle. I say, not-
withstanding some observations to the
contrary, that the people of the three
kingdoms are looking with anxious sus-
pense at the course which Parliament
may take on this question. The right
hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary on
one occasion spoke of this question, of
this proposition, as being something in
the nature of a revolution.. But, if it be
a revolution, after all it is not so great
a one as we might suppose from the
force and energy of the speech which
he has delivered to-night-a speech
which, although I differ from his views,
was, I must say, a very good speech-
in which he brought into the House a
good deal of the energy of the people
of that great county (Yorkshire) from
which he comes. But we are now about
to deal with a question which only
216
APRIL 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
affects, according to the census, some-
thing under 700,000 people. I observe
hon. Gentlemen talk of the Protestants
of Ireland as being one-fourth of the
whole population—of being a million
and a half. All that is fanciful exaggera-
tion. According to the census the Epis-
copalians are not more than 700,000,
and let hon. Gentlemen bear this in
mind-when the census enumerators go
round, if a man is not a Catholic or a
Presbyterian, he is put down, unless he
can state he is of some other sect, as an
Episcopalian. And judging from what
we know, there must be out of the
700,000 a considerable number who
never go to church, and, politically or
religiously, have no interest in it. There-
fore, I believe, speaking correctly, it
would not be possible to show that
there are Episcopalians in Ireland in in-
timate connection with the Established
Church to the amount of more than
from half a million to 600,000.
Now, this will not come to more than
100,000 families, that is, will not be
very much more than the population of
Liverpool, or Manchester, or Glasgow;
so that, in point of fact, this question,
which is held to be a revolution,—this
great question affects only a population
equal to that of the city of Glasgow, or
of Liverpool, or of Manchester. And
it is for a population so small as this,
I am told-for I am not versed in com-
putations of this kind—you have no less
than twelve bishops and archbishops,
and that you have devoted for their
services for their religious services-
not less than the annual income arising
from a capital sum estimated to be, at
least, ten or twelve millions sterling.
Now, if their system of teaching is really
very good, I must say there ought to be
in Ireland a more perfectly moral and
religious population among the Church
Protestants than there is in any other
country in the world.
What, then, are we about to do?
What is the House about to do if we
adopt the resolutions of the right hon.
Member for South Lancashire? If the
House accept the advice of the majority
sitting on this side, what will be done?
We are not going to commit any vital
wrong upon that one city population of
500,000 or 600,000. When we have
done everything that I have suggested
should be done, we shall leave them in
as comfortable a position as the ma-
jority of the people of Scotland are in at
this moment. We shall leave them as
well off as eight or nine-tenths of the
population of Wales are; we shall leave
them as well off as half, and not the least
religious half, of the people of England
are; we shall leave them as well off as
the English, Scotch, Welsh, and Irish
people who form the population in our
colonies, whether in North America or
Australia. And what can be more
monstrous than for Gentlemen to come
here from Ireland-and there may be
some from England-and tell us we
are bringing about a revolution, that we
are committing an enormous oppres-
sion, that we are hazarding the loyalty
of the people of the North of Ireland,
when, after all, the most and worst
which any of us proposes to do is that
the Church population of Ireland will
be left at least as well off as any of
the various populations of the Empire
I have just described? I hope hon.
Gentlemen opposite will be convinced
that it is not a bottomless abyss we are
going to plunge their friends into.
Although it is a very small question
for the Church in Ireland and for the
Church people, I hold it is an infinitely
larger question for the Catholic popu-
lation. The hon. and learned Gentle-
man who spoke last relies much upon
law. I suppose it will be admitted
that there are only two pretences on
which this State Church-the Protes-
tant Church-can exist in Ireland. The
one is religious-the other is political.
Now, has anybody been able to show
that, as a religious institution, it has
not been a deplorable failure? because
clearly, the original intention, the ori-
ginal hope was, that the people of Ire-
land would be drawn from the Church
of Rome and brought into harmony
with the Church of England. I under-
1868.
217
IRELAND. IX.
take to say, from the time of its first
establishment until now, reckoning up
all the Catholics on the one side and
the Protestants on the other, that it
could not be shown, and is not to be
believed, that it has ever added really
one person in every hundred persons to
the actual number of Protestants in the
kingdom of Ireland. It has been an
entire failure—a failure deplorable, and
almost ludicrous, as an engine for con-
verting the Catholic population. But
it has not only not made Catholics into
Protestants, but it has made Catholics
in Ireland more intensely Roman than
the members of that Church are found
to be in any other country in Europe or
in America. And what is more than
that, I think it can be demonstrated
that the existence of the Protestant
Church in Ireland, whether missionary
or not in pretence, has not only not
converted the Catholics themselves, but
has made it absolutely impossible that
anybody else, or any other Church,
should convert them. Because, if you
look how the Church has been con-
nected with the State, and with the poli-
tics of the country, with the supremacy
of the landed proprietors, with the su-
premacy of the Protestant party, with
all the dark records of the past, you
will
see the effect has been to make Catho-
licism in Ireland not only a faith, but
absolutely a patriotism.
I think I might appeal to every Mem-
ber of the House who now hears me
whether, if he had been placed in Ire-
land with his father before him among
the Catholic population-I might ask
him whether he would not have felt
that if he threw off his allegiance to his
Church, and if he entered the portals of
this garrison Church, that it would have
been to him not only a change of faith,
but a denial as it were of his birth and
of his country. I have felt always in
considering this question-and I have
considered it much for twenty-five years
past-that all the circumstances of that
Church in Ireland have been such as to
stimulate the heart of every Catholic to
a stronger adherence to his own faith,
and to a determined and unchangeable
rejection of the faith and of the Church
which were offered to him by the hands
of conquest. There is one point on
this, too, which is important, that the
more you have produced dissatisfaction
with Imperial rule in Ireland, the more
you have thrown the population into
the hands of Rome. Now, I hope I
shall offend no Catholic Member in this
House when I say that I consider it one
of the greatest calamities of the world
that there are in many countries millions
of Catholic population who are liable
to be directed in much of their conduct,
and often in their political conduct,
through their bishops and clergy from
the centre of the city of Rome. I
think that is a misfortune-I think it is
a misfortune to the freedom of the
world. And I think, moreover, that it
is a misfortune to every Catholic Church
in every country, for it tends to prevent
it from being wholly national, and it
prevents also such changes and such
reformations as, I believe, are necessary
in the progress of every Church. We
see some result of this in other countries
of Europe. Notably, at this moment,
in Austria, even in that country which
we lately thought was the very last in
the race of freedom, there is a contest
going on with Rome. But there pro-
bably is no country in Europe at this
moment in which the Catholic Church
and population are more entirely sub-
ject than in Ireland to the direct influ-
ence of a certain number of persons, of
whom most of us know nothing, who
pull the strings of the Catholic world
in the city of Rome. I attribute much
of this, which I think a great evil, to
the existence of the Protestant Church
in Ireland. You know perfectly well
that the great discontent of Ireland is
chiefly entertained by the Catholic po-
pulation, and you know that this popu-
lation is even at this moment, more than
it was some years ago, subject directly
to political influences from Rome. But
I am satisfied that it is for the interest
of the Catholic population, and that it
is for the interest of this great nation
218
APRIL 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
and of this Imperial Government, that
whatsoever be the tie between the
Catholic population of Ireland and the
Government in Ireland, we ought at
least to take away every obstacle that
can lessen in the smallest degree the
loyalty of that people to the Imperial
Crown.
C
And if this Church has failed as a
religious institution, how stands it as
a political institution? It was intended
not only to convert the Catholics, but
to secure the Union. An hon. Gentle-
man, with a courage that I should not
like to imitate, said that if the 5th
Article of the Act of Union should be
altered, then in point of fact the Union
is as good as abolished. I see the hon.
Gentleman up there, and I think he is
not the only one who has said it in
the course of this discussion. It is a
very old and not a very strange de-
vice to expect the people to be made
loyal through the instrumentality of
the clergy. I know that many centuries
ago a monk of some celebrity at the
Court of Louis of Bavaria told that
monarch, You defend me with the
sword, and I will defend you with the
pen.' We have been during all this
time defending this Church with the
sword. The sword has scarcely ever
been out of the hand of the governing
power in Ireland. And if a fair, simple,
and unadorned narrative were given of
the transactions of this Parliament with
Ireland, with regard to its different en-
actments, coercive restrictions, suspen-
sions of the Habeas Corpus Act, and
so forth, it would form a narrative
which would astonish the world and
would discredit us. Sir, I am afraid
it is not too much to say that, in sup-
port of this supremacy, many victims
have perished on the scaffold in Ire-
land, and that the fields of Ireland have
been more than once drenched with the
blood of her people. But, after all this
is done, we are not a bit more secure.
It is no matter what Government sits
on the bench opposite. The right hon.
Gentleman the Member for South Lan-
cashire was there two years ago, and
on that occasion, by the consent of his
Colleagues, the then Home Secretary
had to introduce the Bill for the sus-
pension of the Habeas Corpus Act.
Now you are on that side of the House,
and you have to do the same. Nobody
says it is not necessary. I am not pre-
pared to say it has not been necessary
at other times. But surely if this be ne-
cessary—and if there is this painful duty
to perform at various times-it shows
that the Union is not very secure in
Ireland. In fact, Sir, it is the most
painful thing that we have witnessed
lately, that the suspension of the
Habeas Corpus Act has become so
common that it causes almost no re-
mark. The measure is introduced into
the House. An Irish Member makes
a feeble protest against it, and it is
passed, and we suspend the liberties of
one of the three kingdoms from year to
year. And the Prime Minister has the
courage I might almost use another
word-he has the courage to say there
is no crisis, and that things are going
on very much as usual, and that the
House of Commons is not required to
do much or care much for that country.
What you have in Ireland is this.
There is anarchy, which is subdued by
force, and after centuries of rule-not
our rule, but that of our forefathers-
we have got no farther. We have not
reconciled Ireland to us, we have done
none of those things which the world
says we ought to have done; and at
this moment-in the year 1868- -we are
discussing the question whether it is
possible to make any change with re-
ference to the Established Church in
Ireland which will bring about a better
state of feeling between the people and
the Imperial Government. Sir, I am
afraid there has been very little states-
manship and very much neglect, and I
think we ought to take shame to our-
selves, and try to get rid of some of our
antiquated prejudices on this matter,
and look at it as men would look at it
from a distance, as men whose vision is
not impaired by the passionate feelings
which have so often prevailed in this
1868.
219
IRELAND. IX.
country with regard to this question.
What, then, is the remedy that is now
offered? What do people say of it?
Now, I challenge any hon. Gentleman
on the other side to deny this, that out
of half a million Episcopalians in Ire-
land there are many-there are some in
the Irish nobility, some landed pro-
prietors, some magistrates, even some
of the clergy, a great many Irishmen
-who believe at this moment that it is
of the very first importance that the
proposition of the right hon. Gentle-
man the Member for South Lancashire
should be carried.
I am not going to overstate my case.
I do not say that all of them are of
that opinion. Of that half-million, say
that one-fourth-I will state no number
-but of this I am quite certain, that
there is an influential, a considerable,
and, as I believe, a wise minority, who
are in favour of distinct and decided
action on the part of Parliament with
regard to this question. But if you ask
the whole Roman Catholic population
of Ireland, be they nobles, or landed
proprietors, or merchants, or farmers,
or labourers, the whole number of the
Catholic population in Ireland being,
I
suppose, eight or nine times the num-
ber of Episcopalians—these are pro-
bably, without exception, of opinion
that it would be greatly advantageous
and just to their country if the propo-
sition submitted on this side of the
House should receive the sanction of
Parliament. Now, if some Protestants
and all Catholics are agreed that we
should remove this Church, what would
happen if Ireland was 1,000 miles away,
and we were discussing it as we might dis-
cuss the same state of affairs in Canada?
If we were to have in Canada and in
Australia all this disloyalty among the
Roman Catholic population, owing to
the existence of a State Church there,
the House would be unanimous that
the State Church in 'those colonies
should be abolished, and that perfect
freedom in religion should be given.
But there is a fear in the mind of the
right hon. Gentleman the Home Secre-
tary that the malady which would exist
in Ireland might cross the Channel and
appear in England; that in fact the dis-
order of Voluntaryism, as he deems it,
in Ireland, like any other contagious dis-
order, might cross the Channel, by force
of the west wind, lodging first in Scot-
land, and then crossing the Tweed and
coming south to England. I think the
right hon. Gentleman went so far as to
say that he was so much in favour of re-
ligious equality, that if you went so far
as to disestablish the Church in Ireland,
he would recommend the same policy
for England. Now, with regard to that,
I will give you an anecdote which has
reference to Scotland. Some years ago
I had the pleasure of spending some
days in Scotland at the house of the late
Lord Aberdeen, after he had ceased to be
Prime Minister. He was talking of the
disruption of the Church of Scotland,
and he said that nothing in the course
of his public life had given him so much
pain as the disruption, and the establish-
ment of the Free Church in that country;
but he said he had lived long enough to
discover that it was one of the greatest
blessings that had ever come to Scotland.
He said that they had a vast increase in
the number of churches, a correspond-
ing increase in the number of manses or
ministers' houses, and that schools had
increased, also, to an extraordinary ex-
tent; that there had been imparted to
the Established Church a vitality and
energy which it had not known for a
long period; and that education, mo-
rality, and religion had received a great
advancement in Scotland in consequence
of that change. Therefore, after all, it
is not the most dreadful thing in the
world-not so bad as a great earth-
quake—or as many other things that
have happened. I am not quite sure
that the Scottish people themselves may
not some day ask you-if you do not
yourselves introduce and pass it with-
out their asking-to allow their State
Church to be disestablished.
I met only the other day a most
intelligent gentleman from the north
of Scotland, and he told me that the
:
220
APRIL 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
minister of the church he frequented
had 250l. a-year from the Establishment
Funds, which he thought very much too
little, and he felt certain that, if the
Establishment were abolished, and the
Church made into a Free Church, the
salary of the minister would be imme-
diately advanced to at least 500l. a-year.
That is a very good argument for the
ministers, and we shall see by-and-by,
if the conversion of Scotland proceeds
much further, that you may be asked to
disestablish their Church. The hon.
Member for Honiton last night quoted
something which, I dare say, he did not
recollect accurately-something which I
had said respecting the Church of Eng-
land; but the fact is that the Church of
England is not suffering from the as-
saults of the Liberation Society; it is
suffering from a very different complaint.
It is an internal complaint. You have
had it before one of the courts of law
within the last few days, and a very
curious decision has been given,-that
candles are lawful, but incense is some-
thing terrible, and cannot be allowed;
and then the newspapers tell you that
on the very next Sunday there is more
incense in that particular church which
has been complained of than there ever
had been before.
I will tell hon. Gentlemen opposite
what it is that endangers the State
Church now-I mean a State Church
like this in England, against which
there is no violent political assault.
It is the prevalence of zeal. When-
ever zeal creeps into a State Church,
it takes naturally different forms-one
strongly Evangelical, another strongly
High Church or Ritualist—and these
two species of zeal work on and on in
opposition, until finally there comes a
catastrophe, and it is found that it is
not Mr. Miall and the Liberation So-
ciety, although they have prepared
men's minds not to dread it, but it is
something wholly different, within the
Church itself, that causes the disruption
of the Church. The Scottish disruption
did not take place from any assaults
from without-it took place from zeal
and difficulties within; and if you could
keep the whole of the Church of England
perfectly harmonious within its own bor-
ders, it would take a very daring prophet
who would undertake to point out the
time when it would be disestablished.
We will confine ourselves, therefore,
to Ireland, and I will. ask hon. Gentle-
men this: I believe Gentlemen opposite
do not usually reject the view which we
entertain, that the abolition of the State
Church in Ireland would tend to lessen
the difficulties of governing that coun-
try. I think there is scarcely an hon.
Gentleman on the other side, who has
not some doubt of his previous opinions,
some slight misgiving on this point, and
some disposition to accept our view of
the case. Well, why should you be
afraid? Even children, we know, can
be induced, by repeated practice, to go
into a dark room without fear. You
have always, somebody said the other
night, lions in the path; but I will not
dignify them with the name of lions-
they are but hobgoblins. Now, when
you have seen and handled them, as you
have a great many times since I have
been in the habit of speaking face to
face with you, these things are found,
after all, to be only hobgoblins; you
have learned, after all, that they are per-
fectly harmless; and when you thought
we were doing you harm, and upsetting
the Constitution, you have found that,
after all, we were doing you good, and
that the Constitution was rather stronger
than it was before. Let me point out
for a moment some of these changes
that were found at the time to be of
great difficulty, but have been found to
be very wise and good afterwards.
When I came into this House, nearly
twenty-five years ago, our colonial sys-
tem was wholly different from what it is
now. It has been changed: Sir William
Molesworth and Joseph Hume were
mainly the authors in Parliament of that
change. Well, all our colonies, as we all
admit, are much more easily governed
and much more loyal than they were
in those days. Turning then to our
financial system-and I really do not
1868.
221
IRELAND. IX.
want to offend any one by mentioning
this you know that our financial sys-
tem, since Sir Robert Peel came into
office in 1841, has been completely
changed, and yet the revenue of the
country is larger, which I regard as a
misfortune—and not only larger, but
more secure by far, if Parliament re-
quires it, than it was at any previous
period of our history. Take the old
protective system, which the hon. Mem-
ber for North Warwickshire (Mr. New-
degate) and some others have not for-
gotten. Free-trade was a frightful
monster. But the protective system is
gone; and now every candid man
amongst you will admit that industry,
being more free throughout the coun-
try, is better rewarded, and that the
land, which you said would go out of
cultivation, and become of no value,
selis for a higher price in the market
than it ever brought before.
There are two other points on which
I wish to add a word. One was men-
tioned last night after many Members
had gone home. The balance of power
was once considered the beginning and
end of our foreign policy, and I am not
sure that there are not some old states-
men in the other House who believe in
it even yet. What was done last night?
The noble Lord the Member for Had-
dingtonshire, who comes up from
Scotland brimfull of enthusiasm for
impossible projects, proposed to put
in words which had been rejected from
the preamble of the Mutiny Bill relating
to the preservation of the balance of
power. What did one of your most
distinguished Ministers, the right hon.
Baronet the Secretary for War, say in
reference to the proposition? He said
he thought it singular that the hon.
Member for Chatham should have pro-
posed to omit the words, because they
really meant nothing, but he was still
more surprised that the noble Lord
should have asked to have them re-
placed. Well, thus you see that this
balance of power is gone, and yet Eng-
land, I will undertake to say, under
the rational and fair administration of
foreign affairs by the noble Lord the
Member for King's Lynn, is just as
much respected by all foreign Powers
as she was when we were ready to
meddle in every stupid quarrel that oc-
curred upon the Continent of Europe.
Now, there is only one other thing
to which I will advert-the question
of the representation. You know, in
1830, there was almost no representa-
tion. There were a few towns in which
there was almost universal suffrage, and
many scores of rotten boroughs; in
fact, the whole system was in such a
state of congestion that it could not be
tolerated any longer, and we had a
small, but which might have been a
very large revolution, in amending that
state of things. Last year you, who
had seen this hobgoblin for years,
who
had thought, I have no doubt, many of
you, that I was very unwise and very
rash in the mode in which I had pro-
posed to extend the suffrage; last year
you found out that it was not so
monstrous a thing after all, and you
became almost enthusiastic in support
of the right hon. Gentleman's Reform
Bill. Well, you believe now, and the
First Minister, if this was an occasion
on which he had to speak about it,
would tell you not to be afraid of what
was done, he would tell you that,
based on the suffrage of a larger por-
tion of your countrymen, Parliament
will henceforth be more strong and
more venerated by the people than
ever it has been before.
If that is true of Parliament, what
shall we say of the Throne itself after
all these changes? I will venture to
ask, whatever of convenience there may
be in hereditary monarchy, whatever
of historic grandeur in the kingly office,
whatever of nobleness in the possessor
of the Crown, in all these things is it
not true that everything is at least as
fully recognised by the nation as it ever
was at any previous period? I do not
mention these things to reproach any-
body here. We all have to learn. There
are many in this House who have been
in process of learning for a good while.
}
222
APRIL 1,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I am not sure that my right hon. Friend
the Member for South Lancashire would
not admit to us that on this very ques-
tion of the Irish Church his opinions
have been greatly expanded, and have
been ripening for a series of years.
That is greatly to the credit, not only
of his head, but of his heart.
We have
seen even amongst you a progress in
many things-a progress which is most
gratifying to me that is a very small
matter; but it is a very wholesome
indication that the minds of men are
becoming more open to the considera-
tion of great principles in connection
with great public questions. And this
gives us promise that in future we shall
have-as, no doubt, we shall have-a
Government more in accordance with
public opinion and public interests than
we have had in past times.
In my opinion, the changes that have
been made in our time, are the glory of
our time, and I believe that our posterity
will regard them as the natural and
blessed fruits of the growth of intelli-
gence in our day. I mention these things
to urge you not to close your ears to
the arguments nor to close your hearts
to the impressions of justice which must
assail you with regard to this question
which is now being debated so much
in Great Britain and Ireland. I might
appeal to a right hon. Gentleman who
perhaps is in the House-the Member
for the County of Limerick-who was
at a very remarkable meeting held the
other day in Limerick on this very
question. I have heard from sources
which cannot, I think, be questioned,
that it was one of the most remarkable
meetings held in Ireland within the
last twenty years, or, perhaps, I might
say for a longer period. There was a
far more healthy tone of mind, of con-
duct, of feeling, of expression, of every-
thing we wish for, but have not known
there for a very long period; and I
believe and know-because I am told
by witnesses who cannot be contradicted
that the change arose from the grow-
ing belief that there was a sufficient
majority in this House, that the general
opinion of Parliament was sufficiently
strong, to enable this measure of justice
and reconciliation to be passed. Now,
I ask you, if, after what has taken place,
you are able, unhappily able, to prevent
the progress of the movement which is
now on foot for the disestablishment of
the State Church in Ireland, are you
not of opinion that it will create great
dissatisfaction; that it will add to the
existing discontent; that it will make
those that are hopeful despair; and that
men-rash men, if you like-strong and
earnest men, will speak to those that
hitherto have not been rash, and have
not been earnest, and will say, 'You
see at last; is this not a proof con-
vincing and unanswerable, that the
Imperial Parliament sitting in London
is not capable of hearing our com-
plaints, and of doing that justice which.
we as a people require at its hands?'
Do not imagine that I am speaking
with personal hostility to the right hon.
Gentleman who is your Chief Minister
here. Do not imagine for a moment
that I am one of those, if there be any,
who are hoping to drive hon. Gentle-
men from that bench in order that I
may take one of the places occupied by
them. I would treat this subject as a
thing far beyond and far above party
differences. The question comes before
the House, of course, as all these great
questions must, as a great party ques-
tion, and I am one of the Members of
this party; but it does not follow that
all the Members of a party should be
actuated by a party spirit, or by a
miserable, low ambition to take the
place of a Minister of the Crown. I
say there is something far higher and
better than that; and if ever there was
a question presented to Parliament which
invited the exercise of the highest and
noblest feelings of Members of the
House, I say this is that question.
I say, then, do not be alarmed at
what is proposed. Let us take this
Irish State Church; let us take it, not
with a rude-I am against rudeness and
harshness in legislative action-but if
not with a rude, still with a resolute
1868.
223
IRELAND. IX.
>
grasp. If you adopt the policy we re-
commend, you will pluck up a weed
which pollutes the air. ['Oh! Oh!']
I will give hon. Gentlemen consolation
in the conclusion of the sentence-I say
you will pluck up a weed which pollutes
the air; but you will leave a free Pro-
testant Church, which will be hereafter
an ornament and a grace to all those
who may be brought within the range
of its influence. Sir, I said in the be-
ginning of my observations that there are
the people of three kingdoms who are
waiting with anxious suspense for the
solution of this question. "Ireland waits
and longs. I appeal to the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Limerick;
I appeal to that Meeting, the character
of which he can describe, and perhaps
may describe, to the House; and I say
that Ireland waits and longs for a great
act of reconciliation. I say, further,
that England and Scotland are eager to
make atonement for past crimes and
past errors; and I say, yet further, that
it depends upon us, this House of Com-
mons, this Imperial Parliament, whether
that reconciliation shall take place, and
whether that atonement shall at length
be made.
RUSSIA.
I.
WAR WITH RUSSIA-THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 31, 1854.
From Hansard.
[Mr. Bright was opposed to the war with Russia. This speech was spoken on the day
when the message from the Crown announcing the declaration of war was brought
down to the House.]
THERE are two reasons which may
induce a Member of this House to ad-
dress it he may hope to convince some
of those to whom he speaks, or he may
wish to clear himself from any partici-
pation in a course which he believes to
be evil. I presume I am one of that
small section of the House to whom the
hon. Gentleman who has just spoken
(Mr. Layard) has referred, when he
alluded to the small party who objected
to the policy by which this country has
arrived at the triumphant position
which it now occupies.' In coming for-
ward to speak on this occasion, I may be
told that I am like a physician proposing
to prescribe to-day for a man who died
yesterday, and that it is of no use to in-
sist upon views which the Government
and the House have already determined
to reject. I feel, however, that we are
entering upon a policy which may affect
the fortunes of this country for a long
time to come, and I am unwilling to lose
this opportunity of explaining wherein
I differ from the course which the Go-
vernment has pursued, and of clearing
myself from any portion of the responsi-
bility which attaches to those who sup-
port the policy which the Government
has adopted.
We are asked to give our confidence
to the Administration in voting the
Address to the Crown, which has been
moved by the noble Lord the Member
for London, and to pledge our support
to them in the war in which the country
is now to engage. The right hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Buckingham-
shire (Mr. Disraeli), on a recent occasion,
made use of a term which differed con-
siderably from what he said in a former
debate; he spoke of this war as a ‘just
and unnecessary war.' I shall not dis-
cuss the justice of the war. It may be
difficult to decide a point like this, see-
ing that every war undertaken since the
days of Nimrod has been declared to be
just by those in favour of it; but I may
at least question whether any war that is
MARCH 31, 1854-
225
RUSSIA. I.
unnecessary can be deemed to be just. I
shall not discuss this question on the
abstract principle of peace at any price,
as it is termed, which is held by a small
minority of persons in this country,
founded on religious opinions which are
not generally received, but I shall dis-
cuss it entirely on principles which are
accepted by all the Members of this
House. I shall maintain that when we
are deliberating on the question of war,
and endeavouring to prove its justice or
necessity, it becomes us to show that
the interests of the country are clearly
involved; that the objects for which the
war is undertaken are probable, or, at
least, possible of attainment; and, further,
that the end proposed to be accom-
plished is worth the cost and the sacri-
fices which we are about to incur.
think these are fair principles on which
to discuss the question, and I hope that
when the noble Lord the Member for
Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) rises during
this debate, he will not assume that I
have dealt with it on any other prin-
ciples than these.
I
The House should bear in mind that
at this moment we are in intimate
alliance with a neighbouring Govern-
ment, which was, at a recent period, the
originator of the troubles which have
arisen at Constantinople. I do not wish
to blame the French Government, be-
cause nothing could have been more
proper than the manner in which it
has retired from the difficulty it had
created; but it is nevertheless quite true
that France, having made certain de-
mands upon Turkey with regard to
concessions to the Latin Church, backed
by a threat of the appearance of a
French fleet in the Dardanelles, which
demands Turkey had wholly or partially
complied with; Russia, the powerful
neighbour of Turkey, being on the
watch, made certain other demands,
having reference to the Greek Church;
and Russia at the same time required
(and this I understand to be the real
ground of the quarrel) that Turkey
should define by treaty, or convention,
or by a simple note, or memorandum,
what was conceded, and what were the
rights of Russia, in order that the Govern-
ment of Russia might not suffer in future
from the varying policy and the vacilla-
tion of the Ottoman Government.
Now, it seems to me quite impossible
to discuss this question without con-
sidering the actual condition of Tur-
key. The hon. Member for Aylesbury
(Mr. Layard) assumes that they who do
not agree in the policy he advocates are
necessarily hostile to the Turks, and
have no sympathy for Turkey. I repu-
diate such an assumption altogether.
I can feel for a country like that, if it
be insulted or oppressed by a powerful
neighbour; but all that sympathy may
exist without my being able to convince
myself that it is the duty of this country
to enter into the serious obligation of
a war in defence of the rights of that
country. The noble Lord the Member
for Tiverton is one of the very few men
in this House, or out of it, who are bold
enough to insist upon it that there is a
growing strength in the Turkish Empire.
There was a Gentleman in this House,
sixty years ago, who, in the debates in
1791, expressed the singular opinion
which the noble Lord now holds. There
was a Mr. Stanley in the House at that
period, who insisted on the growing
power of Turkey, and asserted that the
Turks of that day 'were more and more
imitating our manners, and emerging
from their inactivity and indolence;
that improvements of every kind were
being introduced among them, and that
even printing-presses had been lately
established in their capital.' That was
the opinion of a Gentleman anxious to
defend Turkey, and speaking in this
House more than sixty years ago; we
are now living sixty years later, and no
one now, but the noble Lord, seems to
insist upon the fact of the great and
growing power of the Turkish Empire.
If any one thing is more apparent
than another, on the face of all the
documents furnished to the House by
the Government of which the noble
Lord is a Member, it is this, that the
Turkish Empire is falling, or has fallen,
15
226
MARCH 31,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
into a state of decay, and into anarchy
so permanent as to have assumed a
chronic character. The noble Lord
surely has not forgotten that Turkey
has lost the Crimea and Bessarabia, and
its control over the Danubian Princi-
palities; that the Kingdom of Greece
has been carved out of it; that it has
lost its authority over Algiers, and has
run great risk of being conquered by its
own vassal the Pasha of Egypt; and
from this he might have drawn the con-
clusion that the empire was gradually
falling into decay, and that to pledge
ourselves to effect its recovery and sus-
tentation, is to undertake what no human
power will be able to accomplish. I only
ask the House to turn to the statements
which will be found nearly at the end of
the first of the Blue Books recently placed
on the table of the House, and they
will find that there is scarcely any cala-
mity which can be described as afflicting
any country, which is not there proved
to be present, and actively at work, in
almost every province of the Turkish
Empire. And the House should bear
in mind, when reading these despatches
from the English Consuls in Turkey to
the English Ambassador at Constanti-
nople, that they give a very faint picture
of what really exists, because what are
submitted to us are but extracts of more
extended and important communications.
It may fairly be assumed that the parts
which are not published are those which
described the state of things to be so
bad, that the Government has been un-
willing to lay before the House, and
the country, and the world, that which
would be so offensive and so injurious
to its ally the Sultan of Turkey.
But, if other evidence be wanting, is
it not a fact that Constantinople is the
seat of intrigues and factions to a de-
gree not known in any other country or
capital in the world? France demands
one thing, Russia another, England a
third, and Austria something else. For
many years past our Ambassador at
Constantinople has been partly carrying
on the government of that country, and
influencing its policy, and it is the city
in which are fought the diplomatic con-
tests of the Great Powers of Europe.
And if I have accurately described the
state of Turkey, what is the position of
Russia? It is a powerful country, under
a strong Executive Government; it is
adjacent to a weak and falling nation;
it has in its history the evidences of a
succession of triumphs over Turkey; it
has religious affinities with a majority
of the population of European Turkey
which make it absolutely impossible
that its Government should not, more
or less, interfere, or have a strong in-
terest, in the internal policy of the
Ottoman Empire. Now, if we were
Russian-and I put the case to the
Members of this House is it not
likely, according to all the theories I
have heard explained when we have
been concerned in similar cases, that
a large majority of the House and the
country would be strongly in favour of
such intervention as Russia has at-
tempted? and if I opposed it, as I
certainly should oppose it, I should be
in a minority on that question more in-
significant than that in which I have
now the misfortune to find myself with
regard to the policy of the Government
on the grave question now before us.
The noble Lord the Member for Lon-
don has made a statement of the case
of the Government, and in favour of this
Address to the Crown; but I thought
it was a statement remarkably feeble in
fact and in argument, if intended as a
justification of the course he and his
Colleagues have taken. For the pur-
poses of the noble Lord's defence, the
Russian demand upon Turkey is as-
sumed to be something of far greater
importance than I have been able to
discover it to be from-a careful exami-
nation of the terms in which it was
couched. The noble Lord himself, in
one of his despatches, admits that Russia
had reason to complain, and that she
has certain rights and duties by treaty,
and by tradition, with regard to the
protection of the Christians in Turkey.
Russia asserted these rights, and wished
to have them defined in a particular
1854.
227
RUSSIA. I.
form; and it was on the question of
the form of the demand, and the man-
ner in which it should be conceded, that
the whole of this unfortunate difference
has arisen. Now, if Russia made cer-
tain demands on Turkey, this country
insisted that Turkey should not consent
to them; for although the noble Lord
has attempted to show that Turkey her-
self, acting for herself, had resolved to
resist, I defy any one to read the des-
patches of Lord Stratford de Redcliffe
without coming to the conclusion that,
from the beginning to the end of the
negotiations, the English Ambassador
had insisted, in the strongest manner,
that Turkey should refuse to make the
slightest concession on the real point at
issue in the demands of the Russian
Government. As a proof of that state-
ment, I may refer to the account given
by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, in his
despatch of the 5th of May, 1853, of
the private interview he had with the
Sultan, the Minister of the Sultan having
left him at the door, that the interview
might be strictly private. In describing
that interview, Lord Stratford says, "I
then endeavoured to give him a just idea
of the degree of danger to which his
Empire was exposed.' The Sultan was
not sufficiently aware of his danger, and
the English Ambassador endeavoured
to give him a just idea of it;' and it
was by means such as this that he urged
upon the Turkish Government the neces-
sity of resistance to any of the demands
of Russia, promising the armed assist-
ance of England, whatever consequences
might ensue. From the moment that
promise was made, or from the moment
it was sanctioned by the Cabinet at
home, war was all but inevitable; they
had entered into a partnership with the
Turkish Government (which, indeed,
could scarcely be called a Government
at all), to assist it by military force;
and Turkey, having old quarrels to
settle with Russia, and old wrongs to
avenge, was not slow to plunge into the
war, having secured the co-operation of
two powerful nations, England and
France, in her quarrel.
6
Now, I have no special sympathy
with Russia, and I refuse to discuss or
to decide this question on grounds of
sympathy with Russia or with Turkey;
I consider it simply as it affects the
duties and the interests of my own
country. I find that after the first pro-
position for a treaty had been made by
Prince Menchikoff, that envoy made
some concession, and asked only for a
Sened, or Convention; and when that
was disapproved of, he offered to accept
a note, or memorandum merely, that
should specify what should be agreed
upon. But the Turk was advised to
resist, first the treaty, then the conven-
tion, and then the note or memorandum;
and an armed force was promised on
behalf of this country. At the same
time he knew that he would incur the
high displeasure of England and France,
and especially of England, if he made
the slightest concession to Russia. It
was about the middle of May that
Prince Menchikoff left Constantinople,
not having succeeded in obtaining any
concession from the Porte; and it was
on the 3rd of July that the Russian
forces crossed the Pruth; thinking, I
believe, by making a dash at the Prin-
cipalities, to coerce Turkey, and deter
her allies from rendering her the pro-
mised support. It has been assumed
by some, that if England had declared
war last year, Russia would have been
deterred from any further step, and that
the whole matter would have been
settled at once. I, however, have no
belief that Russia on the one hand, or
England and France on the other, would
have been bullied into any change of
policy by means of that kind.
I come now to the celebrated ‘Vienna
note.' I am bound here to say, that no-
body has yet been able clearly to explain
the difference between the various notes
Turkey has been advised to reject, and
this and other notes she has been urged
to accept. With respect to this parti-
cular note, nobody seems to have under-
stood it. There were four Ambassadors
at Vienna, representing England, France,
Austria, and Prussia; and these four
15-2
228
MARCH 31,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
gentlemen drew up the Vienna note,
and recommended it to the Porte as one
which she might accept without injury
to her independence or her honour.
Louis Napoleon is a man knowing the
use of language, and able to compre-
hend the meaning of a document of
this nature, and his Minister of Foreign
Affairs is a man of eminent ability;
and Louis Napoleon and his Minister
agree with the Ambassadors at Vienna
as to the character of the Vienna note.
We have a Cabinet composed of men of
great individual capacity; a Cabinet,
too, including no less than five Gentle-
men who have filled the office of Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, and who may,
therefore, be presumed to understand
even the sometimes concealed meaning
of diplomatic phraseology. These five
Foreign Secretaries, backed by the whole
Cabinet, concurred with the Ambassa-
dors at Vienna, and with the Emperor
of the French and his Foreign Secre-
tary, in recommending the Vienna note
to the Sultan as a document which he
might accept consistently with his hon-
our, and with that integrity and that
independence which our Government is
so anxious to secure for him. What was
done with this note? Passing by the
marvellous stupidity, or something worse,
which caused that note not to be sub-
mitted to Turkey before it was sent to
St. Petersburg, he would merely state
that it was sent to St. Petersburg, and
was accepted in its integrity by the
Emperor of Russia in the most frank
and unreserved manner. We were then
told I was told by Members of the
Government-that the moment the
note was accepted by Russia we might
consider the affair to be settled, and
that the dispute would never be heard
of again. When, however, the note was
sent to Constantinople, after its accept-
ance by Russia, Turkey discovered, or
thought, or said she discovered, that it
was as bad as the original or modified
proposition of Prince Menchikoff, and
she refused the note as it was, and pro-
posed certain modifications. And what
are we to think of these arbitrators or
mediators-the four Ambassadors at
Vienna, and the Governments of France
and England-who, after discussing the
matter in three different cities, and at
three distinct and different periods, and
after agreeing that the proposition was
one which Turkey could assent to with-
out detriment to her honour and inde-
pendence, immediately afterwards turned
round, and declared that the note was
one which Turkey could not be asked to
accede to, and repudiated in the most
formal and express manner that which
they themselves had drawn up, and
which, only a few days before, they had
approved of as a combination of wis-
dom and diplomatic dexterity which had
never been excelled?
But it was said that the interpretation
which Count Nesselrode placed upon
this note made it impossible for Turkey
to accede to it. I very much doubt
whether Count Nesselrode placed any
meaning upon it which it did not fairly
warrant, and it is impossible to say
whether he really differed at all from
the actual intentions of the four Am-
bassadors at Vienna. But I can easily
understand the course taken by the
Russian Minister. It was this :-seeing
the note was rejected by the Turk, and
considering that its previous acceptance
by Russia was some concession from
the original demand, he issued a cir-
cular, giving such an explanation or
interpretation of the Vienna note as
might enable him to get back to his
original position, and might save Russia
from being committed and damaged by
the concession, which, for the sake of
peace, she had made. This circular,
however, could make no real difference
in the note itself; and notwithstanding
this circular, whatever the note really
meant, it would have been just as bind-
ing upon Russia as any other note will
be that may be drawn up and agreed to
at the end of the war. Although, how-
ever, this note was considered inadmis-
sible, negotiations were continued; and
at the Conference at Olmutz, at which
the Earl of Westmoreland was present,
the Emperor of Russia himself ex-
1854.
229
RUSSIA, I.
pressed his willingness to accept the
Vienna note-not in the sense that
Count Nesselrode had placed upon it,
but in that which the Ambassadors at
Vienna declared to be its real meaning,
and with such a clause as they should
attach to it, defining its real meaning.
It is impossible from this fairly to
doubt the sincerity of the desire for
peace manifested by the Emperor of
Russia. He would accept the note pre-
pared by the Conference at Vienna,
sanctioned by the Cabinets in London
and Paris, and according to the inter-
pretation put upon it by those by whom
it had been prepared-such interpreta-
tion to be defined in a clause, to be
by them attached to the original note.
But in the precise week in which these
negotiations were proceeding apparently
to a favourable conclusion, the Turkish
Council, consisting of a large number
of dignitaries of the Turkish Empire-
not one of whom, however, represented
the Christian majority of the population
of Turkey, but inspired by the fanati-
cism and desperation of the old Maho-
medan party-assembled; and, fearful
that peace would be established, and
that they would lose the great oppor-
tunity of dragging England and France
into a war with their ancient enemy
the Emperor of Russia, they came to a
sudden resolution in favour of war; and
in the very week in which Russia agreed
to the Vienna note in the sense of the
Vienna Conference, the Turks declared
war against Russia,-the Turkish forces
crossed the Danube, and began the war,
involving England in an inglorious and
costly struggle, from which this Govern-
ment and a succeeding Government may
fail to extricate us.
I differ very much from those Gentle-
men who condemn the Government for
the tardy nature of their proceedings.
I never said or thought that the Go-
vernment was not honestly anxious for
peace; but I believe, and indeed I
know, that at an early period they com-
mitted themselves and the country to
a policy which left the issue of peace or
war in other hands than their own—
namely, in the hands of the Turks, the
very last hands in which I am willing
to trust the interests and the future of
this country. In my opinion, the
original blunder was committed when
the Turks were advised to resist and
not to concede; and the second blunder
was made when the Turks were sup-
ported in their rejection of the Vienna
note; for the moment the four Powers
admitted that their recommendation
was not necessarily to be accepted by
the Porte, they put themselves entirely
into the hands of the Turk, and might
be dragged into any depth of confusion
and war in which that respectable indi-
vidual might wish to involve them.
The course taken by Turkey in be-
ginning the war was against the strong
advice of her allies; but, notwithstand-
ing this, the moment the step was taken,
they turned round again, as in the case
of the Vienna note, and justified and
defended her in the course she had
adopted, in defiance of the remon-
strances they had urged against it. In
his speech to-night, the noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell) has occupied some
time in showing that Turkey was fully
justified in declaring war. I should say
nothing against that view, if Turkey
were fighting on her own resources;
but I maintain that, if she is in alliance
with England and France, the opinions
of those Powers should at least have
been heard, and that, in case of her
refusal to listen to their counsel, they
would have been justified in saying to
her, 'If you persist in taking your own
course, we cannot be involved in the
difficulties to which it may give rise,
but must leave you to take the conse-
quences of your own acts.' But this
was not said, and the result is, that we
are dragged into a war by the madness
of the Turk, which, but for the fatal
blunders we have committed, we might
have avoided.
There have been three plans for deal-
ing with this Turkish question, advo-
cated by as many parties in this coun-
try. The first finds favour with two or
three Gentlemen who usually sit on the
230
MARCH 31,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
bench below me-with a considerable
number out of doors-and with a por-
tion of the public press. These per-
sons were anxious to have gone to war
during last summer. They seem ac-
tuated by a frantic and bitter hostility
to Russia, and, without considering the
calamities in which they might involve
this country, they have sought to urge
it into a great war, as they imagined,
on behalf of European freedom, and in
order to cripple the resources of Russia.
I need hardly say that I have not a
particle of sympathy with that party, or
with that policy. I think nothing can
be more unwise than that party, and
nothing more atrocious than their po-
licy. But there was another course
recommended, and which the Govern-
ment has followed. War delayed, but
still certain—arrangements made which
placed the issue of war in other hands
than in those of the Government of this
country-that is the policy which the
Government has pursued, and in my
opinion it is fatal to Turkey, and dis-
astrous to England. There is a third
course, and which I should have, and
indeed have all along recommended-
that war should have been avoided by
the acceptance on the part of Turkey
either of the last note of Prince Men-
chikoff, or of the Vienna note; or, if
Turkey would not consent to either,
that then she should have been allowed
to enter into the war alone, and Eng-
land and France-supposing they had
taken, and continued to take, the same
view of the interests of Western Europe
which they have hitherto taken-might
have stood aloof until the time when
there appeared some evident danger of
the war being settled on terms de-
structive of the balance of power; and
then they might have come in, and have
insisted on a different settlement. I
would either have allowed or compelled
Turkey to yield, or would have insisted
on her carrying on the war alone.
The question is, whether the advan-
tages both to Turkey and England of
avoiding war altogether, would have
been less than those which are likely to
arise from the policy which the Govern-
ment has pursued? Now, if the noble
Lord the Member for Tiverton is right
in saying that Turkey is a growing
Power, and that she has elements of
strength which unlearned persons like
myself know nothing about; surely no
immediate, or sensible, or permanent
mischief could have arisen to her from
the acceptance of the Vienna note,
which all the distinguished persons who
agreed to it have declared to be per-
fectly consistent with her honour and
independence. If she has been growing
stronger and stronger of late years,
surely she would have grown still
stronger in the future, and there might
have been a reasonable expectation
that, whatever disadvantages she might
have suffered for a time from that note,
her growing strength would have en-
abled her to overcome them, while the
peace of Europe might have been pre-
served. But suppose that Turkey is
not a growing Power, but that the
Ottoman rule in Europe is tottering to
its fall, I come to the conclusion that,
whatever advantages were afforded to
the Christian population of Turkey
would have enabled them to grow more
rapidly in numbers, in industry, in
wealth, in intelligence, and in political
power; and that, as they thus increased
in influence, they would have become
more able, in case any accident, which
might not be far distant, occurred, to
supplant the Mahomedan rule, and to
establish themselves in Constantinople
as a Christian State, which, I think,
every man who hears me will admit is
infinitely more to be desired than that
the Mahomedan power should be per-
manently sustained by the bayonets of
France and the fleets of England.
Europe would thus have been at peace;
for I do not think even the most bitter
enemies of Russia believe that the
Emperor of Russia intended last year,
if the Vienna note or Prince Men-
chikoff's last and most moderate pro-
position had been accepted, to have
marched on Constantinople. Indeed,
he had pledged himself in the most
1854.
231
RUSSIA. I.
distinct manner to withdraw his troops
at once from the Principalities, if the
Vienna note were accepted; and there-
fore in that case Turkey would have
been delivered from the presence of the
foe; peace would for a time have been
secured to Europe; and the whole
matter would have drifted on to its
natural solution—which is, that the
Mahomedan power in Europe should
eventually succumb to the growing
power of the Christian population of
the Turkish territories.
The noble Lord the Member for
London, and his colleague the noble
Lord the Member for Tiverton, when
they speak of the aggrandisement of
Russia relatively to the rest of Europe,
always speak of the balance of power,'
a term which it is not easy to define.
It is a hackneyed term-a phrase to
which it is difficult to attach any defi-
nite meaning. I wish the noble Lord
would explain what is meant by the
balance of power. In 1791, the whole
Whig party repudiated the proposition
that Turkey had anything to do with
the balance of power. Mr. Burke, in
1791, when speaking on that subject,
used the following language:—
'He had never heard it said before, that
the Turkish Empire was ever considered
as any part of the balance of power in
Europe. They had nothing to do with
European policy; they considered them-
selves as wholly Asiatic. What had these
worse than savages to do with the Powers
of Europe, but to spread war, destruction,
and pestilence among them? The Minis-
try and the policy which would give these
people any weight in Europe, would de-
serve all the bans and curses of posterity.
All that was holy in religion, all that was
moral and humane, demanded an abhor-
rence of everything which tended to ex-
tend the power of that cruel and wasteful
Empire. Any Christian Power was to be
preferred to these destructive savages.'
Mr. Whitbread, on the same occasion,
said:-
'Suppose the Empress at Constantinople,
and the Turks expelled from the European
provinces, would any unprejudiced man
contend that by such an event mankind
would not be largely benefited? Would
any man contend that the expulsion of a
race of beings whose abominable tyranny
proscribed the arts, and literature, and
everything that was good, and great, and
amiable, would not conduce to the pros-
perity and happiness of the world? He
was convinced it would. This was an
event with which the paltry consideration
of the nice adjustment of the balance in
Europe was not to be put in competition,
although he was a friend to that balance
on broad and liberal principles. He ab-
horred the wretched policy which could
entertain a wish that the most luxuriant
part of the earth should remain desolate
and miserable that a particular system
might be maintained.'
And Mr. Fox, when speaking of Mr.
Pitt's system, said-and be it remem-
bered that nobody is so great an autho-
rity with the noble Lord the Member
for London as Mr. Fox, whose words
I am now about to quote:-
His (Mr. Pitt's) defensive system was
wicked and absurd-that every country
which appeared, from whatever cause, to
be growing great, should be attacked;
that all the Powers of Europe should be
confined to the same precise situation in
which this defensive system found them.
Her (Russia's) extent of territory, scanty
revenue, and thin population made her
power by no means formidable to us-a
Power whom we could neither attack nor
be attacked by; and this was the Power
against which we were going to war.
Overturning the Ottoman Empire he con-
ceived to be an argument of no weight.
The event was not probable; and if it
should happen, it was more likely to be of
advantage than injurious to us.'
It will probably be said, that these
were opinions held by Gentlemen who
sat on that side of the House, and who
were ready to advocate any course that
might serve to damage the Ministers of
the day. I should be sorry to think
so, especially of a man whose public
232
MARCH 31,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
character is so much to be admired as
that of Mr. Fox; but I will come to a
much later period, and produce authority
of a very similar kind. Many hon.
Members now in the House recollect
the late Lord Holland, and they all
know his sagacity and what his au-
thority was with the party with which
he was connected. What did he say?
Why, so late as the year 1828, when
this question was mooted in the House
of Lords, he said :—
'No, my Lords, I hope I shall never
see
God forbid I ever should see-for
the proposition would be scouted from one
end of England to another-any prepara-
tions or any attempt to defend this our
"ancient ally" from the attacks of its
enemies. There was no arrangement
made in that treaty for preserving the
crumbling and hateful, or, as Mr. Burke
called it, that wasteful and disgusting Em-
pire of the Turks, from dismemberment
and destruction; and none of the Powers
who were parties to that treaty will ever,
I hope, save the falling Empire of Turkey
from ruin.'
I hope it will not be supposed that I
am animated by any hostility to Turkey,
in quoting sentiments and language such
as this, for I have as much sympathy
with what is just towards that country
as any other man can have; but the
question is, not what is just to Turkey,
but what is just to this country, and
what this House, as the depositary of
the power of this country, has a right
to do with regard to this most dangerous
question. I am, therefore, at liberty to
quote from the statesmen of 1791 and
1828, the political fathers and authorities
of the noble Lord the Member for
London, and to say, that if I hold
opinions different from those held by
the Government, I am, at least, not
singular in those opinions, for I can
quote great names and high authorities
in support of the course I am taking.
This balance of power' is in reality
the hinge on which the whole question
turns. But if that is so important as to
be worth a sanguinary war, why did you
not go to war with France when she
seized upon Algiers? That was a por-
tion of Turkey not quite so distinct, it is
true, as are the Danubian Principalities;
but still Turkey had sovereign rights
over Algiers. When, therefore, France
seized on a large portion of the northern
coast of Africa, might it not have been
said that such an act tended to convert
the Mediterranean into a French lake,
-that Algiers lay next to Tunis, and
that, having conquered Tunis, there
would remain only Tripoli between
France and Alexandria, and that the
'balance of power' was being destroyed
by the aggrandisement of France? All
this might have been said, and the
Government might easily have plunged
the country into war on that question.
But happily the Government of that
day had the good sense not to resist,
and the result had not been disadvan-
tageous to Europe; this country had
not suffered from the seizure of Algiers,
and England and France had continued
at peace.
Take another case-the case of the
United States. The United States waged
war with Mexico-a war with a weaker
State-in my opinion, an unjust and
unnecessary war. If I had been a citi-
zen of the American Republic, I should
have condemned that war; but might it
not have been as justly argued that, if
we allowed the aggressive attacks of
the United States upon Mexico, her in-
satiable appetite would soon be turned
towards the north-towards the depen-
dencies of this Empire-and that the
magnificent colonies of the Canadas
would soon fall a prey to the assaults of
their rapacious neighbour? But such
arguments were not used, and it was
not thought necessary to involve this
country in a war for the support of
Mexico, although the Power that was
attacking that country lay adjacent to
our own dominions.
If this phrase of the balance of
power' is to be always an argument for
war, the pretence for war will never be
wanting, and peace can never be secure.
Let any one compare the power of this
1854.
233
RUSSIA. I.
>
country with that of Austria now, and
forty years ago. Will any one say that
England, compared with Austria, is now
three times as powerful as she was
thirty or forty years ago? Austria has
a divided people, bankrupt finances, and
her credit is so low that she cannot
borrow a shilling out of her own terri-
tories; England has a united people,
national wealth rapidly increasing, and
a mechanical and productive power to
which that of Austria is as nothing.
Might not Austria complain that we
have disturbed the balance of power
because we are growing so much
stronger from better government, from
the greater union of our people, from
the wealth that is created by the hard
labour and skill of our population, and
from the wonderful development of the
mechanical resources of the kingdom,
which is seen on every side? If this
phrase of the balance of power,' the
meaning of which nobody can exactly
make out, is to be brought in on every
occasion to stimulate this country to
war, there is an end to all hope of
per-
manent peace.
C
There is, indeed, a question of a
'balance of power' which this country
might regard, if our statesmen had a
little less of those narrow views which
they sometimes arrogantly impute to
me and to those who think with me.
If they could get beyond those old
notions which belong to the traditions
of Europe, and cast their eyes as far
westward as they are now looking east-
ward, they might there see a power
growing up in its gigantic proportions,
which will teach us before very long
where the true balance of power' is to
be found. This struggle may indeed
begin with Russia, but it may end with
half the States of Europe; for Austria
and Prussia are just as likely to join
with Russia as with England and France,
and probably much more so; and we
know not how long alliances which now
appear very secure, may remain so; for
the circumstances in which the Govern-
ment has involved us are of the most
critical character, and we stand upon a
mine which may explode any day.
Give us seven years of this infatuated
struggle upon which we are now enter-
ing, and let the United States remain at
peace during that period, and who shall
say what will then be the relative posi-
tions of the two nations? Have you read
the Reports of your own Commissioners
to the New York Exhibition? Do you
comprehend what is the progress of that
country, as exhibited in its tonnage, and
exports, and imports, and manufactures,
and in the development of all its re-
sources, and the means of transit?
There has been nothing like it hitherto
under the sun. The United States may
profit to a large extent by the calamities
which will befall us; whilst we, under
the miserable and lunatic idea that we
are about to set the worn-out Turkish
Empire on its legs, and permanently to
sustain it against the aggressions of
Russia, are entangled in a war.
Our
trade will decay and diminish-our
people, suffering and discontented, as in
all former periods of war, will emigrate
in increasing numbers to a country
whose wise policy is to keep itself free
from the entanglement of European
politics-to a country with which rests
the great question, whether England
shall, for any long time, retain that which
she professes to value so highly—her
great superiority in industry and at sea.
This whole notion of the 'balance of
power' is a mischievous delusion which
has come down to us from past times;
we ought to drive it from our minds,
and to consider the solemn question of
peace or war on more clear, more definite,
and on far higher principles than any
that are involved in the phrase the
'balance of power.' What is it the
Government propose to do? Let us
examine their policy as described in
the message from the Crown, and in
the Address which has been moved to-
night. As I understand it, we are asked
to go to war to maintain the 'integrity
and independence of the Ottoman Em-
pire'-to curb the aggressive power of
Russia-and to defend the interests of
this country.
8
#
234
MARCH 31,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
C
These are the three great objects to
which the efforts and resources of this
country are to be directed. The noble
Lord the Member for London is, I
think, the author of the phrase the
integrity and independence' of Turkey.
If I am not mistaken, he pledged him-
self to this more than a year ago, when
he was Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, in a letter to somebody at New-
castle-on-Tyne, in answer to an Address
from certain enthusiasts in that town,
who exhorted the Government to step
in for the support of the Ottoman Em-
pire. But what is the condition of that
Empire at this moment? I have already
described to the House what it would
have been if my policy had been adopted
-if the thrice-modified note of Prince
Menchikoff had been accepted, or if the
Vienna note had been assented to by
the Porte. But what is it now under
the protection of the noble Lord and
his Colleagues? At the present mo-
ment there are no less than three
foreign armies on Turkish soil: there
are 100,000 Russian troops in Bulgaria;
there are armies from England and
France approaching the Dardanelles,
to entrench themselves on Turkish ter-
ritory, and to return nobody knows
when. All this can hardly contribute
to the 'independence' of any country.
But more than this: there are insur-
rections springing up in almost every
Turkish province, and insurrections
which must, from the nature of the
Turkish Government, widely extend;
and it is impossible to describe the
anarchy which must prevail, inasmuch
as the control heretofore exercised by
the Government to keep the peace is
now gone, by the withdrawal of its
troops to the banks of the Danube;
and the licence and demoralization en-
gendered by ages of bad government
will be altogether unchecked. In addi-
tion to these complicated horrors, there
are 200,000 men under arms; the state
of their finances is already past re-
covery; and the allies of Turkey are
making demands upon her far beyond
anything that was required by Russia
herself. Can anything be more de-
structive of the integrity and inde-
pendence' of Turkey than the policy of
the noble Lord?
I have seen only this day a letter in
the Times from its Correspondent at
Constantinople, which states that Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe and one of the
Pashas of the Porte had spent a whole
night in the attempt to arrange con-
cessions which her allies had required
on behalf of the Christian population
of Turkey. The Christians are to be
allowed to hold landed property; the
capitation tax is to be abolished-for
they are actually contending for the
abolition of that which the hon. Mem-
ber for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) says is
a positive benefit to those upon whom
it is imposed; and the evidence of
Christians is to be admitted into courts
of justice. But the Times' Correspondent
asks, what is the use of a decree at Con-
stantinople, which will have no effect
in the provinces ?-for the judges are
Turks of the old school, and they will
have little sympathy with a change
under which a Christian in a court of
justice is made equal with his master
the Turk. This Correspondent de-
scribes what Turkey really wants-not
three foreign armies on her soil, nor
any other thing which our Government
is about to give her, but a pure execu-
tive, a better financial administration,
and sensible laws;' and it must be
admitted that the true wants of
the country are not likely soon to be
supplied.
C
Now, so far as regards Turkey her-
self, and the integrity and indepen-
dence' of that Empire, I put it seriously
to the House-do you believe, that if
the Government and Lord Stratford de
Redcliffe had advised Turkey to accept
the last note of Prince Menchikoff, a
note so little different from the others,
offered before and since, that it was im-
possible to discover in what the distinc-
tion consisted; or if the Government
had insisted on Turkey accepting, as
the condition of their co-operation, the
Vienna note, either as at first proposed
1854.
235
RUSSIA. I.
6
by the Conference, or with the expla-
natory definitions with which the Em-
peror of Russia at Olmutz offered to
accept it, that they would have injured
the integrity and independence' of
Turkey? Nay, I will not insult you
by asking whether, under such circum-
stances, that integrity and indepen-
dence' would not have been a thousand
times more secure than it is at this hour?
If that be true, then the balance of
power' theory has been entirely over-
thrown by the policy of the Govern-
ment, for no one will argue that Turkey
will come out of her present difficulties
more able to cope with the power of
Russia than she was before. With her
finances hopelessly exhausted, will she
ever again be able to raise an army of
200,000 men? But there are men, and
I suspect there are statesmen, in this
country, and men in office, too, who
believe that Turkey will not be Turkey
at the end of this war-that she cannot
come out of it an Ottoman Power-
that such a convulsion has been created,
that while we are ready to contend with
half the world to support the 'integrity
and independence' of the Ottoman Em-
pire, there will shortly be no Ottoman
Empire to take the benefit of the
enormous sacrifices we are about to
make.
But we are undertaking to repress
and to curb Russian aggression. These
are catching words; they have been am-
plified in newspapers, and have passed
from mouth to mouth, and have served
to blind the eyes of multitudes wholly
ignorant of the details of this question.
If Turkey has been in danger from the
side of Russia heretofore, will she not
be in far greater danger when the war
is over? Russia is always there. You
do not propose to dismember Russia,
or to blot out her name from the map,
and her history from the records of
Europe. Russia will be always there-
always powerful, always watchful, and
actuated by the same motives of ambi-
tion, either of influence or of territory,
which are supposed to have moved her
in past times. What, then, do you pro-
pose to do? and how is Turkey to be
secured? Will you make a treaty with
Russia, and force conditions upon her?
But if so, what security have you that
one treaty will be more binding than
another? It is easy to find or make a
reason for breaking a treaty, when it is
the interest of a country to break it.
-he
I recollect reading a statement made
by the illustrious Washington, when it
was proposed to land a French army
in North America, to assist the colonies
in overthrowing the yoke of this country.
Washington was afraid of them-
did not know whether these allies once
landed might not be as difficult to get
rid of as the English troops he was en-
deavouring to expel; for, said he, 'what-
ever may be the convention entered into,
my experience teaches me that nations
and Governments rarely abide by con-
ventions or treaties longer than it is
their interest to do so.' So you may
make a treaty with Russia; but if
Russia is still powerful and ambitious-
as she certainly will be-and if Turkey
is exhausted and enfeebled by the war
-as she certainly will be-then I want
to know what guarantee you have, the
moment the resources of Russia have
recovered from the utmost degree of
humiliation and exhaustion to which
you may succeed in reducing her, that
she will not again insist on terms with
Turkey infinitely more perilous than
those who have ruined Turkey by urging
her to refuse? It is a delusion to sup-
pose you can dismember Russia-that
you can blot her from the map of Eu-
rope that you can take guarantees
from her, as some seem to imagine, as
easily as you take bail from an offender,
who would otherwise go to prison for
three months. England and France
cannot do this with a stroke of the pen,
and the sword will equally fail if the
attempt be made.
But I come now to another point.
How are the interests of England in-
volved in this question? This is, after
all, the great matter which we, the re-
presentatives of the people of England,
have to consider. It is not a question
I
236
MARCH 31,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
•
of sympathy with any other State. I
have sympathy with Turkey; I have
sympathy with the serfs of Russia; I
have sympathy with the people of Hun-
gary, whose envoy the noble Lord the
Member for Tiverton refused to see,
and the overthrow of whose struggle
for freedom by the armies of Russia
he needlessly justified in this House;
I have sympathy with the Italians, sub-
jects of Austria, Naples, and the Pope;
I have sympathy with the three millions
of slaves in the United States; but it is
not on a question of sympathy that I
dare involve this country, or any country,
in a war which must cost an incalculable
amount of treasure and of blood.
not my duty to make this country the
knight-errant of the human race, and to
take upon herself the protection of the
thousand millions of human beings who'
have been permitted by the Creator of
all things to people this planet.
It is
I hope no one will assume that I
would invite-that is the phrase which
has been used the aggressions of
Russia. If I were a Russian, speaking
in a Russian Parliament, I should de-
nounce any aggression upon Turkey, as
I now blame the policy of our own Go-
vernment; and I greatly fear I should
find myself in a minority, as I now find
myself in a minority on this question.
But it has never yet been explained how
the interests of this country are involved
in the present dispute. We are not
going to fight for tariffs, or for markets
for our exports. In 1791, Mr. Grey
argued that, as our imports from Russia
exceeded 1,000,000l. sterling, it was not
desirable that we should go to war with a
country trading with us to that amount.
In 1853, Russia exported to this country
at least 14,000,000l. sterling, and that
fact affords no proof of the increasing
barbarism of Russia, or of any disregard
of her own interests as respects the de-
velopment of her resources. What has
passed in this House since the opening
of the present Session? We had a large
surplus revenue, and our Chancellor of
the Exchequer is an ambitious Chan-
cellor. I have no hope in any states-
man who has no ambition; he can have
no great object before him, and his
career will be unmarked by any dis-
tinguished services to his country.
When the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer entered office, doubtless he
hoped, by great services to his country,
to build up a reputation such as a man
may labour for and live for. Every
man in this House, even those most
opposed to him, acknowledged the re-
markable capacity which he displayed
during the last session, and the country
has set its seal to this-that his financial
measures, in the remission and readjust-
ment of taxation, were worthy of the
approbation of the great body of the
people. The right hon. Gentleman has
been blamed for his speech at Man-
chester, not for making the speech, but
because it differed from the tone of the
speech made by the noble Lord, his
colleague in office, at Greenock. I ob-
served that difference. There can be
no doubt that there has been, and that
there is now, a great difference of opinion
in the Cabinet on this Eastern question.
It could not be otherwise; and Govern-
ment has gone on from one step to
another; they have drifted-to use the
happy expression of Lord Clarendon to
describe what is so truly unhappy-they
have drifted from a state of peace to a
state of war; and to no Member of the
Government could this state of things
be more distressing than to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, for it dashed
from him the hopes he entertained that
session after session, as trade extended
and the public revenue increased, he
would find himself the beneficent dis-
penser of blessings to the poor, and
indeed to all classes of the people of
this kingdom. Where is the surplus
now? No man dare even ask for it, or
for any portion of it.
Here is my right hon. Friend and
Colleague, who is resolved on the abo-
lition of the newspaper stamp. I can
hardly imagine a more important ques-
tion than that, if it be desirable for the
people to be instructed in their social
and political obligations; and yet my
ง
1854.
237
RUSSIA. I.
right hon. Friend has scarcely the cou-
rage to ask for the abolition of that
odious tax. I believe, indeed, that my
right hon. Friend has a plan to submit
to the Chancellor by which the aboli-
tion of the stamp may be accomplished
without sacrifice to the Exchequer, but
that I will not go into at present. But
this year's surplus is gone, and next
year's surplus is gone with it; and you
have already passed a Bill to double
the income-tax. And it is a mistake to
suppose that you will obtain double the
sum by simply doubling the tax. Many
persons make an average of their in-
comes, and make a return accordingly.
The average will not be sustained at the
bidding of Parliament; and profits that
were considerable last year, will hence-
forth show a great diminution, or will
have vanished altogether. I mention
this for the benefit of the country gentle-
men, because it is plain that real pro-
perty, lands and houses, must bear the
burden of this war; for I will undertake
to say, that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer will prefer to leave that bench,
and will take his seat in some other
quarter of the House, rather than re-
trace the steps which Sir Robert Peel
took in 1842. He is not the promoter
of this war; his speeches have shown
that he is anxious for peace, and that
he hoped to be a Minister who might
dispense blessings by the remission of
taxes to the people; and I do not be-
lieve the right hon. Gentleman will
consent to be made the instrument to
reimpose upon the country the Excise
duties which have been repealed, or the
Import duties which in past times in-
flicted such enormous injury upon trade.
The property-tax is the lever, or the
weapon, with which the proprietors of
lands and houses in this kingdom will
have to support the integrity and inde-
pendence' of the Ottoman Empire.
Gentlemen, I congratulate you, that
every man of you has a Turk upon his
shoulders.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr.
Layard) spoke of our triumphant posi-
tion'-the position in which the Go-
vernment has placed us by pledging
this country to support the Turks. I
see nothing like a triumph in the fact,
that in addition to our many duties to
our own country, we have accepted the
defence of twenty millions or more of
the people of Turkey, on whose behalf,
but, I believe, not for their benefit, we
are about to sacrifice the blood and
treasure of England. But there are
other penalties and other considerations.
I will say little about the Reform Bill,
because, as the noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) is aware, I do not regard it as
an unmixed blessing. But I think even
hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit
that it would be well if the representa-
tion of the people in this House were
in a more satisfactory state, and that it
is unfortunate that we are not permitted,
calmly and with mutual good feeling,
to consider the question, undisturbed by
the thunder of artillery and undismayed
by the disasters which are inseparable
from a state of war.
With regard to trade, I can speak
with some authority as to the state of
things in Lancashire. The Russian
trade is not only at an end, but it is
made an offence against the law to deal
with any of our customers in Russia.
The German trade is most injuriously
affected by the uncertainty which pre-
vails on the continent of Europe. The
Levant trade, a very important branch,
is almost extinguished in the present
state of affairs in Greece, Turkey in
Europe, and Syria. All property in
trade is diminishing in value, whilst its
burdens are increasing. The funds have
fallen in value to the amount of about
120,000,000l. sterling, and railway pro-
perty is quoted at about 80,000,000l.
less than was the case a year ago. I
do not pretend to ask the hon. Member
for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) to put these
losses, these great destructions of pro-
perty, against the satisfaction he feels
at the triumphant position' at which
we have arrived. He may content him-
self with the dream that we are sup-
porting the integrity and independence'
of Turkey, though I doubt whether
C
238
MARCH 31
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
bringing three foreign armies on her
soil, raising insurrections in her pro-
vinces, and hopelessly exhausting her
finances, is a rational mode of main-
taining her as an independent Power.
But we are sending out 30,000 troops
to Turkey, and in that number are not
included the men serving on board the
fleets. Here are 30,000 lives! There
is a thrill of horror sometimes when a
single life is lost, and we sigh at the
loss of a friend, or of a casual acquaint-
ance! But here we are in danger of
losing—and I give the opinions of
military men and not my own merely-
10,000, or it may be 20,000 lives, that
may be sacrificed in this struggle. I
have never pretended to any sympathy
for the military profession-but I have
sympathy for my fellow-men and fellow-
countrymen, wherever they may be. I
have heard very melancholy accounts of
the scenes which have been witnessed
in the separations from families occa-
sioned by this expedition to the East.
But it will be said, and probably the
noble Lord the Member for Tiverton
will say, that it is a just war, a glorious
war, and that I am full of morbid senti-
mentality, and have introduced topics
not worthy to be mentioned in Parlia-
ment.
But these are matters affecting
the happiness of the homes of England,
and we, who are the representatives and
guardians of those homes, when the
grand question of war is before us,
should know at least that we have a
case that success is probable-and
that an object is attainable, which may
be commensurate with the cost of war.
There is another point which gives
me some anxiety. You are boasting of
an alliance with France. Alliances are
dangerous things. It is an alliance with
Turkey that has drawn us into this war.
I would not advise alliances with any
nation, but I would cultivate friendship
with all nations. I would have no
alliance that might drag us into mea-
sures which it is neither our duty nor
our interest to undertake. By our pre-
sent alliance with Turkey, Turkey can-
not make peace without the consent of
England and France;. and by this
boasted alliance with France we may
find ourselves involved in great difficul-
ties at some future period of these
transactions.
I have endeavoured to look at the
whole of this question, and I declare,
after studying the correspondence which
has been laid on the table-knowing
what I know of Russia and of Turkey
-seeing what I see of Austria and of
Prussia-feeling the enormous perils to
which this country is now exposed, I
am amazed at the course which the
Government have pursued, and I am
horrified at the results to which their
policy must inevitably tend. I do not
say this in any spirit of hostility to the
Government. I have never been hos-
tile to them. I have once or twice felt
it my duty to speak, with some degree
of sharpness, of particular Members of
the Administration, but I suspect that
in private they would admit that my
censure was merited. But I have never
entertained a party hostility to the
Government. I know something of
the difficulties they have had to en-
counter, and I have no doubt that, in
taking office, they acted in as patriotic
a spirit as is generally expected from
Members of this House. So long as
their course was one which I could sup-
port, or even excuse, they have had my
support. But this is not an ordinary
question; it is not a question of re-
forming the University of Oxford, or
of abolishing 'ministers' money' in
Ireland; the matter now before us
affects the character, the policy, and the
vital interests of the Empire; and when
I think the Government have commit-
ted a grievous-it may be a fatal error
-I am bound to tell them so.
I am told indeed that the war is popu-
lar, and that it is foolish and eccentric to
oppose it. I doubt if the war is very
popular in this House. But as to what
is, or has been popular, I may ask, what
was more popular than the American
war? There were persons lately living
in Manchester who had seen the re-
cruiting party going through the prin-
1854.
239
RUSSIA. I.
+7
cipal streets of that city, accompanied
by the parochial clergy in full canoni-
cals, exhorting the people to enlist to
put down the rebels in the American
colonies. Where is now the popularity
of that disastrous and disgraceful war,
and who is the man to defend it? But
if hon. Members will turn to the corre-
spondence between George III and Lord
North on the subject of that war, they
will find that the King's chief argument
for continuing the war was, that it
would be dishonourable in him to make
peace so long as the war was popular
with the people. Again, what war
could be more popular than the French
war? Has not the noble Lord (Lord
John Russell) said, not long ago, in
this House, that peace was rendered
difficult if not impossible by the con-
duct of the English press in 1803? For
myself, I do not trouble myself whether
my conduct in Parliament is popular or
not. I care only that it shall be wise
and just as regards the permanent in-
terests of my country, and I despise
from the bottom of my heart the man
who speaks a word in favour of this
war, or of any war which he believes
might have been avoided, merely be-
cause the press and a portion of the
people urge the Government to enter
into it.
I recollect a passage of a distinguished
French writer and statesman which
bears strongly upon our present posi-
tion: he says,-
"The country which can comprehend and
act upon the lessons which God has given it
in the past events of its history, is secure
in the most imminent crises of its fate.'
The past events of our history have
taught me that the intervention of this
country in European wars is not only
unnecessary, but calamitous; that we
have rarely come out of such interven-
tion having succeeded in the objects we
fought for; that a debt of 800,000,000l.
sterling has been incurred by the policy
which the noble Lord approves, appa-
rently for no other reason than that it
dates from the time of William III; and
that, not debt alone has been incurred,
but that we have left Europe at least
as much in chains as before a single
effort was made by us to rescue her
from tyranny. I believe, if this country,
seventy years ago, had adopted the
principle of non-intervention in every
case where her interests were not di-
rectly and obviously assailed, that she
would have been saved from much of
the pauperism and brutal crimes by
which our Government and people have
alike been disgraced. This country
might have been a garden, every dwell-
ing might have been of marble, and
every person who treads its soil might
have been sufficiently educated.
should indeed have had less of military
glory. We might have had neither
Trafalgar nor Waterloo; but we should
have set the high example of a Chris-
tian nation, free in its institutions, cour-
teous and just in its conduct towards
all foreign States, and resting its policy
on the unchangeable foundation of
Christian morality.
We
•*•
:
RUSSIA.
II.
ENLISTMENT OF FOREIGNERS BILL.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, DECEMBER 22, 1854.
From Hansard.
Ar this hour of the night I shall not
make a speech; but I wish to say a few
things in answer to the noble Lord the
Member for the City of London, who
has very strangely misapprehended—
I am not allowed to say 'misrepre-
sented '-what fell from my hon. Friend
the Member for the West Riding. The
noble Lord began by saying that my
hon. Friend had charged the Govern-
ment with making war in something of
a propagandist spirit in favour of nation-
alities throughout the Continent; but
that was the exact contrary of what my
hon. Friend did say. What he said
was, that that portion of the people of
this country who had clamoured for
war, and whose opinion formed the
basis whereupon the Government
grounded their plea for the popularity
of the war, were in favour of the setting
up
of nationalities; but my hon. Friend
showed that the Government had no
such object, and the war no such
tendency. The next misrepresenta-
tion was, that my hon. Friend had
spoken in favour of the status quo;
but there is not the shadow of a shade
of truth in that statement. What my
hon. Friend said was precisely the
contrary; but the noble Lord, arguing
from his own misapprehension of my
hon. Friend's meaning, went on then to
show that it would not do to establish
a peace on the status quo terms, thus
knocking down a position which no-
body had set up. The noble Lord was
also guilty of another mistake with
reference to an observation of my hon.
Friend as to the character and position
of the Turks. We have referred over
and over again to a monstrous state-
ment made by the noble Lord the
Member for Tiverton as to the im-
provement of the Turks-a statement
which is contradicted by all facts. To-
night, with a disingenuousness which I
should be ashamed to use in argument
-[Cries of Oh!']—it is very well for
hon. Gentlemen who come down to
cheer a minister to cry Oh!' but is it
a fact, or is it not? Is there a man
who hears me who does not know per-
fectly well, when the noble Lord said
that the Turks had improved within the
last twenty years more than any other
nation in Europe, that the statement
referred not to the Christians, whose
rights and interests we were defending,
but to the character of the Mahometan
population? But to-night, with a dis-
ingenuousness which I could not con-
descend to be guilty of, the noble Lord
has assumed that the statement referred
1854.
241
RUSSIA. II.
to the condition of the Christian popu-
lation.
The real question was, as every hon.
Gentleman knows, What was the con-
dition of the Mahometan? and there is
not a Gentleman in this House who is
not aware that the Mahometan portion
of the population of the Turkish Em-
pire is in a decaying and dying con-
dition, and that the two great Empires
which have undertaken to set it on its
legs again will find it about the most
difficult task in which they ever were
engaged. What do your own officers
say? Here is an extract from a letter
which appeared in the papers the other
day:-
"They ought to set these rascally Turks
to mend them [the roads], which might
easily be done, as under the clay there is
plenty of capital stone. They are, I am
sorry to say, bringing more of these brutes
into the Crimea, which makes more
mouths to feed, without being of any
use.'
I have seen a private letter, too, from
an able and distinguished officer in the
Crimea, who says—
'Half of us do not know what we are
fighting for, and the other half only pray
that we may not be fighting for the
Turks.'
The only sign of improvement which
has been manifested that I know of is,
that on a great emergency, when their
Empire, under the advice of Her Majesty's
Government, and that of their Ambas-
sador, was placed in a situation of great
peril, the Turks managed to make an
expiring effort, and to get up an army
which the Government, so far as I can
hear, has since permitted to be almost
destroyed.
Another sign of improvement is,
perhaps, that they have begun to wear
trowsers; but as to their commerce,
their industry, or their revenue, nothing
can be in a worse condition. You have
now two Empires attempting to set the
Turkish Empire up again; and it is
said that a third great Empire is also
about to engage in the task. The Turk
wants to borrow money, but he cannot
borrow it to-day in the London market
at less than from eight to nine per cent.
Russia, on the other hand, is an Empire
against which three great Empires, if
Turkey can be counted one still, are
now combined, and it is said that
a fourth great Empire will soon join
the ranks of its enemies. But Russian
funds at this moment are very little
lower than the stock of the London
and North-Western Railway.
You
have engaged to set this Turkish Em-
pire up again—a task in which every-
body knows you must fail-and you
have persuaded the Turk to enter into
a contest, one of the very first proceed-
ings in which has forced him to mort-
gage to the English capitalist a very
large portion-and the securest portion,
too, of his revenues-namely, that
which he derives from Egypt, amount-
ing in fact, in a fiscal and financial
point of view, to an actual dismember-
ment of the Turkish Empire, by a sepa-
ration of Egypt from it. Why is it
that the noble Lord has to-night come
forward as the defender of the Greeks?
Is it that he has discovered, when this
war is over, that Turkey, which he
has undertaken to protect, the Empire
which he is to defend and sustain
against the Emperor of Russia, will
have been smothered under his affec-
tionate embrace? or, to quote the
powerful language of the Times, when
the Vienna note was refused, that what-
ever else may be the result of the war
in which Turkey has plunged Europe,
this one thing is certain, that at its
conclusion there may be no Turkish
Empire to talk about?
The noble Lord quoted a letter
which I wrote some time ago, and
which, like others who have discussed
it, he found it not easy to answer. In
that letter I referred to Don Pacifico's
case; and I am sure that the noble
Lord the Member for Tiverton will
remember a despatch which he received
through Baron Brunnow, from Count
Nesselrode, on that subject,-a despatch
16
242
DEC. 22,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
which I think the House will for-
give my reading to it on the present
occasion, as it gives the Russian Go-
vernment's estimation of that act of
' material guarantee' on the part of
England:
It remains to be seen whether Great
Britain, abusing the advantages which are
afforded her by her immense maritime
superiority, intends henceforth to pursue
an isolated policy, without caring for
those engagements which bind her to the
other Cabinets; whether she intends to
disengage herself from every obligation, as
well as from all community of action, and
to authorize all great Powers, on every
fitting opportunity, to recognize to the
weak no other rule but their own will, no
other right but their own physical strength.
Your Excellency will please to read this
despatch to Lord Palmerston, and to give
him a copy of it.'
If there had been no more temper-
no more sense-no more unity in the
negotiations which took place with
regard to this matter, in all probability
we might have had a war about it. It
was a case in which Russia might have
gone to war with this country, if she
had been so minded. But Russia did
not do that. Fortunately, the negotia-
tions that ensued settled that question
without bringing that disaster upon
Europe. But the noble Lord again
misinterpreted my hon. Friend (Mr.
Cobden). I appeal to every Gentleman
who heard my hon. Friend's speech
whether the drift of it was not this-
that in this quarrel, Prussia, and cer-
tainly Austria, had a nearer and
stronger interest than England, and
that he could not understand why the
terms which Austria might consider
fair and safe for herself and for Turkey,
might not be accepted with honour by
this country and by France? Now, I
am prepared to show that, from the
beginning of this dispute, there is not a
single thing which Austria wished to
do in the course of the negotiations, or
even which France wished to do, that
the Government of the noble Lord did
not systematically refuse its assent to,
and that the noble Lord's Government
is alone responsible for the failure in
every particular point which took place
in these negotiations. I will not trou-
ble the House by going into the history
of these negotiations now, further than
just to state two facts, which will not
take more than a few sentences. The
noble Lord referred to the note which
Russia wanted Turkey to sign, known
as the Menchikoff note; but the noble
Lord knows as well as I do, that when
the French Ambassador, M. De la
Cour, went to Constantinople,
whilst he was at Constantinople, he
received express instructions from the
Emperor of the French not to take
upon himself the responsibility of incit-
ing the Sultan to reject that note.
['No.'] I know this is the fact, be-
cause it is stated in Lord Cowley's
despatch to the noble Lord.
or
I am expressing no opinion on the
propriety of what was here done; I
simply state the fact and it was
through the interference of Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe-acting, I pre-
sume, in accordance with instructions
from our Cabinet, and promising the
intervention of the fleets-that the
rejection of that note was secured.
The next fact I have to mention is this.
When in September, last year, the last
propositions were drawn up by Counts
Buol and Nesselrode, and' offered at
Olmütz by the Emperor, as a final
settlement of the question, although
Austria and Prussia were in favour of
those propositions; though Lord West-
moreland himself said (I do not quote
his exact words, but their substance)
that they were of such a nature as
might be received; thus indicating his
favourable opinion of them; and
though, likewise, the Emperor of the
French himself declared that they
guarded all the points in which Eng-
land and France were concerned (for
this was stated by Count Walewski
when he said that the Emperor was
prepared to order his Ambassador at
Constantinople to sign them along
1854.
243
RUSSIA. IÌ.
with the other Ambassadors, and to
offer them to the Porte in exchange for
the Vienna note), nevertheless, the Earl
of Clarendon wrote, not in a very states-
manlike manner in such an emergency,
but in almost a contemptuous tone,
that our Government would not, upon
any consideration, have anything fur-
ther to do with the Vienna note. The
rejection, first of the amended Men-
chikoff note, and then of the Olmütz
note, was a policy adopted solely by
the Government of this country, and
only concurred in, but not recom-
mended, by the French Government
and the other Governments of Europe.
Whether this policy was right or wrong,
there can be no doubt of the fact;
and I am prepared to stake my reputa-
tion for accuracy and for a knowledge
of the English language on this inter-
pretation of the documents which have
been laid before us. That being so, on
what pretence could we expect that
Austria should go to war in company
with us for objects far beyond what she
thought satisfactory at the beginning?
or why should we ask the Emperor of
the French to go to war for objects
which he did not contemplate, and to
insist on conditions which, in the
month of September of last year, he
thought wholly unnecessary?
But one fact more, I hope the House
will allow me to state. There is a
despatch in existence which was never
produced to the people of this country,
but which made its first appearance in
a St. Petersburg newspaper, and was
afterwards published in the Paris
journals-a despatch in which the
Emperor of the French, or his Minister,
urged the Russian Government to
accept the Vienna note on the express
ground-I give the exact words that
'its general sense differed in nothing
from the sense of the original propo-
sitions of Prince Menchikoff.' Why,
Sir, can there be dissimulation more
extraordinary-can there be guilt more
conclusive than that this Government
should act as it did, after it had re-
commended the Emperor of Russia to
accept the Vienna note? For the
noble Lord has told us, over and over
again, that the Government of England
concurred in all the steps taken by the
French Government. The House will
allow me to read the very words of the
despatch, for, after all, this is no very
small matter. I have an English trans-
lation, but the French original is under-
neath, and any hon. Gentleman who
chooses may see it. The despatch is
from M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the French
Foreign Minister, who states:—
That which the Cabinet of St. Peters-
burg ought to desire is an act of the
Porte, which testifies that it has taken
into serious consideration the mission of
Prince Menchikoff, and that it renders
homage to the sympathies which an
identity of religion inspires in the Em-
peror Nicholas for all Christians of the
Eastern rite.
And farther on :-
They [the French Government] sub-
mit it to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg
with the hope that it will find that its
general sense differs in nothing from the
sense of the proposition presented by
Prince Menchikoff."
The French words are:-
Que son sens général ne diffère en
rien du sens du projet présenté par M. le
Prince Menchikoff."
It then goes on :—

'And that it gives it satisfaction on all
the essential points of its demands. The
slight variation in the form of it will not
be observed by the masses of the people,
either in Russia or in Turkey. To their
eyes, the step taken by the Porte [that is,
in accepting it] will preserve all the sig-
nification which the Cabinet of St. Peters-
burg wishes to give it; and His Majesty
the Emperor Nicholas will appear to them
always as the powerful and respected pro-
tector of their religious faith.'
This despatch was written, recom-
mending la note Française; which is the
basis of, and is in reality and substance
16-2
244
DEC. 22,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
!
the same thing with, the Vienna note;
but, up to this moment, neither the
Government of France nor the Govern-
ment of which the noble Lord is a
Member has for an instant denied the
justice-I do not say the extent or de-
gree-but the justice of the claim made
on the part of the Russian Government
against the Turks; and now they turn
round upon their own note and tell you
that there was a different construction
put upon it. Was there any construc-
tion put upon it, which was different
from the recommendation here made
and the argument used by the French
Government? No; and the whole of
that statement is a statement that is
delusive, and if I were not in this
House I would characterise it by a
harsher epithet. I say now what I
stated in March last, and what I have
since said and written to the country,
that you are making war against the
Government which accepted your own
terms of peace; and I state this now
only for the purpose of urging upon
the House and upon the Government
that you are bound at least, after making
war for many months, to exact
further terms from the State with which
you are at war, than such as will give
that security which at first you believed
to be necessary; and that if you carry
on a war for vengeance-if you carry on
a war for conquest-if you carry on a
war for purposes of Government at
home, as many wars have been carried
on in past times, I say you will be
guilty of a heinous crime, alike in the
eyes of God and of man.
no
One other remark perhaps the House
will permit me to make. The noble
Lord spoke very confidently to-night;
and a very considerable portion of his
speech-hoping, as I do, for the resto-
ration of peace at some time or another
-was to me not very satisfactory. I
think that he would only be acting a
more statesmanlike part if, in his
speeches, he were at least to abstain
from those trifling but still irritating
charges which he is constantly making
against the Russian Government.
can conceive one nation going to war
with another nation; but why should
the noble Lord say, 'The Sovereign of
that State does not allow Bibles to be
circulated he suppressed this thing
here, and he put down something else
there'? What did one of the noble
Lord's present colleagues say of the
Government of our ally? Did he not
thank God that his despotism could not
suppress or gag our newspaper press,
and declare that the people of France
were subject to the worst tyranny in
Europe? These statements from a
Minister from one who has been
Prime Minister, and who, for aught I
know, may be again Prime Minister-
show a littleness that I did not expect
from a statesman of this country, whose
fate and whose interests hang on every
word the noble Lord utters, and when
the fate of thousands, aye, and of tens of
thousands, may depend on whether the
noble Lord should make one false step
in the position in which he is now
placed.
And when terrible calamities were
coming upon your army, where was
this Government? One Minister was
in Scotland, another at the sea-side,
and for six weeks no meeting of the
Cabinet took place. I do not note
when Cabinets are held-I sometimes
observe that they. sit for four or five
hours at a time, and then I think some-
thing is wrong-but for six weeks, or
two months, it is said no meeting of
the Ministers was held. The noble
Lord President was making a small
speech on a great subject somewhere in
Cumberland. At Bedford he descanted
on the fate of empires, forgetting that
there was nothing so likely to destroy
an empire as unnecessary wars.
Bristol he was advocating a new His-
tory of England, which, if impartially
written, I know not how the noble
Lord's policy for the last few months
will show to posterity. The noble Lord
the Member for Tiverton undertook a
more difficult task-a labour left un-
accomplished by Voltaire-and, when
he addressed the Hampshire peasantry,
At
1854.
245
RUSSIA. II.
in one short sentence he overturned
the New Testament and destroyed the
foundations of the Christian religion.
Now, Sir, I have only to speak on
one more point. My hon. Friend the
Member for the West Riding, in what
he said about the condition of the Eng-
lish army in the Crimea, I believe ex-
pressed only that which all in this
House feel, and which, I trust, every
person in this country capable of think-
ing feels. When I look at Gentlemen
on that bench, and consider all their
policy has brought about within the
past twelve months, I scarcely dare
trust myself to speak of them, either in
or out of their presence. We all know
what we have lost in this House.
Here, sitting near me, very often sat
the Member for Frome (Colonel Boyle).
I met him a short time before he went
out, at Mr. Westerton's, the bookseller,
near Hyde Park Corner. I asked him
whether he was going out? He an-
swered, he was afraid he was; not
afraid in the sense of personal fear-he
knew not that; but he said, with a look
and a tone I shall never forget, 'It is
no light matter for a man who has a
wife and five little children.' The
stormy Euxine is his grave; his wife is
a widow, his children fatherless. On the
other side of the House sat a Member,
with whom I was not acquainted, who
has lost his life, and another of whom I
knew something (Colonel Blair). Who
is there that does not recollect his
frank, amiable, and manly countenance?
I doubt whether there were any men on
either side of the House who were more
capable of fixing the goodwill and af-
fection of those with whom they were
associated. Well, but the place that
knew them shall know them no more
for ever.
I have specified only two; but there
are a hundred officers who have been
killed in battle, or who have died of
their wounds; forty have died of dis-
ease; and more than two hundred
others have been wounded more or less
severely. This has been a terribly
destructive war to officers. They have
been, as one would have expected them
to be, the first in valour as the first in
place; they have suffered more in pro-
portion to their numbers than the com-
monest soldiers in the ranks. This has
spread sorrow over the whole country.
was in the House of Lords when the
vote of thanks was moved. In the
gallery were many ladies, three-fourths
of whom were dressed in the deepest
mourning. Is this nothing? And in
every village, cottages are to be found
into which sorrow has entered, and. as I
believe, through the policy of the Minis-
try, which might have been avoided.
No one supposes that the Government
wished to spread the pall of sorrow
over the land; but this we had a right
to expect, that they would at least
show becoming gravity in discussing a
subject the appalling consequences of
which may come home to individuals
and to the nation. I recollect when
Sir Robert Peel addressed the House
on a dispute which threatened hostili-
ties with the United States,-I recollect
the gravity of his countenance, the so-
lemnity of his tone, his whole de-
meanour showing that he felt in his
soul the responsibility that rested on
him.
I have seen this, and I have seen the
present Ministry. There was the buf-
foonery at the Reform Club. Was
that becoming a matter of this grave
nature? Has there been a solemnity
of manner in the speeches heard in con-
nection with this war-and have Minis-
ters shown themselves statesmen and
Christian men when speaking on a
subject of this nature? It is very easy
for the noble Lord the Member for
Tiverton to rise and say that I am
against war under all circumstances;
and that if an enemy were to land on
our shores, I should make a calculation
as to whether it would be cheaper to
take him in or keep him out, and that
my opinion on this question is not to
be considered either by Parliament or
the country. I am not afraid of dis-
cussing the war with the noble Lord
on his own principles. I understand
246
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
the Blue Books as well as he; and,
leaving out all fantastic and visionary
notions about what will become of us
if something is not done to destroy or to
cripple Russia, I say-and I say it with
as much confidence as I ever said any-
thing in my life-that the war cannot
be justified out of these documents; and
that impartial history will teach this to
posterity if we do not comprehend it
now.
I am not, nor did I ever pretend to
be, a statesman; and that character is
so tainted and so equivocal in our day,
that I am not sure that a pure and
honourable ambition would aspire to
it. I have not enjoyed for thirty years,
like these noble Lords, the honours and
emoluments of office. I have not set
my sails to every passing breeze. I am
a plain and simple citizen, sent here by
one of the foremost constituencies of
the Empire, representing feebly, per-
haps, but honestly, I dare aver, the
opinions of very many, and the true
interests of all those who have sent me
here. Let it not be said that I am
alone in my condemnation of this war,
and of this incapable and guilty Ad-
ministration. And, even if I were alone,
if mine were a solitary voice, raised
amid the din of arms and the clamours
of a venal press, I should have the con-
solation I have to-night-and which I
trust will be mine to the last moment
of my existence-the priceless consola-
tion that no word of mine has tended
to promote the squandering of my
country's treasure or the spilling of one
single drop of my country's blood.
:
RUSSIA.
III.
NEGOTIATIONS AT VIENNA.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, FEBRUARY 23, 1855.
From Hansard.
[On February 22 Lord Palmerston announced in the House of Commons that Mr. Glad-
stone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Sidney Herbert, the Colonial Secretary,
Mr. Cardwell, the President of the Board of Trade, and Sir James Graham, the First
Lord of the Admiralty, had resigned the offices which they had accepted a fortnight
before. The ground of this secession was the impression entertained by the above-
named personages that the Committee of Inquiry moved for by Mr. Roebuck was
equivalent to a vote of censure on them, as they had formed part of the Government
of Lord Aberdeen, whose conduct of the Russian war was impugned by the appoint-
ment of the Committee. The places vacated by these secessions were filled up on
February 28.]
I AM One of those forming the majority
of the House, I suspect, who are dis-
posed to look upon our present position
as one of more than ordinary gravity.
I am one, also, of those, not probably
constituting so great a majority of the
House, who regret extremely the cir-
cumstances which have obliged the right
hon. Gentlemen who are now upon this
bench to secede from the Government
of the noble Lord the Member for Tiver-
ton. I do not take upon me for a
moment to condemn them; because I
think, if there be anything in which a
man must judge for himself, it is whether
he should take office if it be offered to
him, whether he should secede from
office, whether he should serve under a
particular leader, or engage in the ser-
vice of the Crown, or retain office in a
particular emergency. In such cases I
think that the decision must be left to
his own conscience and his own judg-
ment; and I should be the last person
to condemn any one for the decision to
which he might come. I think, how-
ever, that the speech of the right hon.
Gentleman is one which the House
cannot have listened to without being
convinced that he and his retiring Col-
leagues have been moved to the course
which they have taken by a deliberate
judgment upon this question, which,
whether it be right or wrong, is fully
explained, and is honest to the House
and to the country.
Now, Sir, I said that I regretted their
secession, because I am one of those
who do not wish to see the Government
of the noble Lord the Member for
248
FEB. 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Tiverton overthrown. The House knows
well, and nobody knows better than the
noble Lord, that I have never been one
of his ardent and enthusiastic supporters.
I have often disapproved of his policy
both at home and abroad; but I hope that
I do not bear to him, as I can honestly
say that I do not bear to any man in
this House-for from all I have received
unnumbered courtesies-any feeling that
takes even the tinge of personal ani-
mosity; and even if I did, at a moment
so grave as this, no feeling of a personal
character whatever should prevent me
from doing that which I think now, of
all times, we are called upon to do—that
which we honestly and conscientiously
believe to be for the permanent interests
of the country. We are in this position,
that for a month past, at least, there has
been a chaos in the regions of the Ad-
ministration. Nothing can be more
embarrassing-I had almost said nothing
can be more humiliating-than the posi-
tion which we offer to the country; and
I am afraid that the knowledge of our
position is not confined to the limits of
these islands.
It will be admitted that we want a
Government; that if the country is to
be saved from the breakers which now
surround it, there must be a Govern-
ment; and it devolves upon the House
of Commons to rise to the gravity of
the occasion, and to support any man
who is conscious of his responsibility,
and who is honestly offering and en-
deavouring to deliver the country from
the embarrassment in which we now
find it. We are at war, and I shall not
say one single sentence with regard to
the policy of the war or its origin, and
I know not that I shall say a single
sentence with regard to the conduct of
it; but the fact is that we are at war
with the greatest military Power, pro-
bably, of the world, and that we are
carrying on our operations at a distance
of 3,000 miles from home, and in the
neighbourhood of the strongest fortifi-
cations of that great military Empire.
I will not stop to criticise-though it
really invites me-the fact that some
who have told us that we were in danger
from the aggressions of that Empire, at
the same time told us that that Empire
was powerless for aggression, and also
that it was impregnable to attack. By
some means, however, the public have
been alarmed as if that aggressive power
were unbounded, and they have been
induced to undertake an expedition, as if
the invasion of an impregnable country
were a matter of holiday-making rather
than of war.
But we are now in a peculiar position
with regard to that war; for, if I am
not mistaken-and I think I gathered
as much from the language of the right
hon. Gentleman-at this very moment
terms have been agreed upon-agreed
upon by the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen ;
consented to by the noble Lord the
Member for Tiverton when he was in
that Cabinet; and ratified and confirmed
by him upon the formation of his own
Government-and that those terms are
now specifically known and understood;
and that they have been offered to the
Government with which this country is
at war, and in conjunction with France
and Austria-one, certainly, and the
other supposed to be-an ally of this
country. Now, those terms consist of
four propositions, which I shall neither
describe nor discuss, because they are
known to the House; but three of them
are not matters of dispute; and with
regard to the other, I think that the
noble Lord the Member for the City of
of London stated, upon a recent occasion,
that it was involved in this proposition,
-that the preponderant power of Russia
in the Black Sea should cease, and that
Russia had accepted it with that inter-
pretation. Therefore, whatever differ-
ence arises is merely as to the mode in
which that 'preponderant power' shall
be understood or made to cease. Now,
there are some Gentlemen not far from
me-there are men who write in the
public press-there are thousands of
persons in the United Kingdom at this
moment-and I learn with astonishment
and dismay that there are persons even
in that grave assembly which we are not
1855.
249
RUSSIA. III.
allowed to specify by a name in this
House-who have entertained dreams—
impracticable theories-expectations of
vast European and Asiatic changes, of
revived nationalities, and of a new map
of Europe, if not of the world, as a re-
sult or an object of this war. And it is
from those Gentlemen that we hear con-
tinually, addressed to the noble Lord
the Member for Tiverton, language
which I cannot well understand. They
call upon him to act, to carry on the
war with vigour, and to prosecute enter-
prises which neither his Government
nor any other Government has ever
seriously entertained; but I would
appeal to those Gentlemen whether it
does not become us—regarding the true
interests and the true honour of the
country-if our Government have offered
terms of peace to Russia, not to draw
back from those terms, not to cause
any unnecessary delay, not to adopt any
subterfuge to prevent those terms being
accepted, not to attempt shuffles of any
kind, not to endeavour to insist upon
harder terms, and thus make the ap-
proach of peace even still more distant
than it is at present?
Whatever may be said about the
honour of the country in any other re-
lation involved in this affair, this, at
least, I expect every man who hears me
to admit that if terms of peace have
been offered they have been offered in
good faith, and shall be in honour and
good faith adhered to; so that if, un-
fortunately for Europe and humanity,
there should be any failure at Vienna,
no man should point to the English
Government and to the authorities and
rulers of this Christian country, and say
that we have prolonged the war and the
infinite calamities of which it is the cause.
I have said that I was anxious that
the Government of the noble Lord
should not be overthrown. Will the
House allow me to say why I am so?
The noble Lord at the head of the
Government has long been a great
authority with many persons in this
country upon foreign policy. His late
colleague, and present envoy to Vienna,
has long been a great authority with
a large portion of the people of this
country upon almost all political ques-
tions. With the exception of that un-
happy selection of an ambassador at
Constantinople, I hold that there are
no men in this country more truly re-
sponsible for our present position in
this war than the noble Lord who now
fills the highest office in the State and
the noble Lord who is now, I trust,
rapidly approaching the scene of his
labours in Vienna. I do not say this
now to throw blame upon those noble
Lords, because their policy, which I
hold to be wrong, they, without doubt,
as firmly believe to be right; but I am
only stating facts. It has been their
policy that they have entered into war
for certain objects, and I am sure that
neither the noble Lord at the head of
the Government nor his late colleague
the noble Lord the Member for London
will shrink from the responsibility which
attaches to them. Well, Sir, now we
have those noble Lords in a position
which is, in my humble opinion, favour-
able to the termination of the troubles
which exist. I think that the noble
Lord at the head of the Government
himself would have more influence in
stilling whatever may exist of clamour
in this country than any other Member
of this House. I think, also, that the
noble Lord the Member for London
would not have undertaken the mission
to Vienna if he had not entertained
some strong belief that, by so doing, he
might bring the war to an end. No-
body gains reputation by a failure in
negotiation, and as that noble Lord is
well acquainted with the whole question
from the beginning to end, I enter-
tain a hope I will not say a sanguine
hope that the result of that mission to
Vienna will be to bring about a peace,
to extricate this country from some of
those difficulties inseparable from a
state of war.
There is one subject upon which I
should like to put a question to the
noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment. I shall not say one word here
+
E
250
FEB. 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
督
​about the state of the army in the
Crimea, or one word about its numbers
or its condition. Every Member of this
House, every inhabitant of this country,
has been sufficiently harrowed with de-
tails regarding it. To my solemn be-
lief, thousands-nay, scores of thousands
of persons have retired to rest, night
after night, whose slumbers have been
disturbed or whose dreams have been
based upon the sufferings and agonies
of our soldiers in the Crimea. I should
like to ask the noble Lord at the head
of the Government—although I am not
sure if he will feel that he can or ought
to answer the question-whether the
noble Lord the Member for London has
power, after discussions have com-
menced, and as soon as there shall be
established good grounds for believing
that the negotiations for peace will prove
successful, to enter into any armistice?
['No! no!']
I know not, Sir, who it is that says
'No, no,' but I should like to see any
man get up and say that the destruc-
tion of 200,000 human lives lost on all
sides during the course of this unhappy
conflict is not a sufficient sacrifice. You
are not pretending to conquer territory
-you are not pretending to hold forti-
fied or unfortified towns; you have
offered terms of peace which, as I
understand them, I do not say are not
moderate; and breathes there a man in
this House or in this country whose
appetite for blood is so insatiable that,
even when terms of peace have been
offered and accepted, he pines for that
assault in which of Russian, Turk,
French, and English, as sure as one
man dies, 20,000 corpses will strew the
streets of Sebastopol? I say I should
like to ask the noble Lord and I am
sure that he will feel, and that this
House will feel, that I am speaking_in
no unfriendly manner towards the Go-
vernment of which he is at the head-
I should like to know, and I venture to
hope that it is so, if the noble Lord the
Member for London has power, at the
earliest stage of these proceedings at
Vienna, at which it can properly be
done-and I should think that it might
properly be done at a very early stage
-to adopt a course by which all further
waste of human life may be put an end
to, and further animosity, between three
great nations be, as far as possible,
prevented?
I appeal to the noble Lord at the
head of the Government and to this
House; I am not now complaining of
the war-I am not now complaining of
the terms of peace, nor, indeed, of
anything that has been done-but I
wish to suggest to this House what, I
believe, thousands and tens of thousands
of the most educated and of the most
Christian portion of the people of this
country are feeling upon this subject,
although, indeed, in the midst of a
certain clamour in the country, they do
not give public expression to their
feelings. Your country is not in an
advantageous state at this moment;
from one end of the kingdom to the
other there is a general collapse of in-
dustry. Those Members of this House
not intimately acquainted with the trade
and commerce of the country do not
fully comprehend our position as to the
diminution of employment and the
lessening of wages. An increase in
the cost of living is finding its way to
the homes and hearts of a vast number
of the labouring population.
At the same time there is growing up
—and, notwithstanding what some hon.
Members of this House may think of
me, no man regrets it more than I do-
a bitter and angry feeling against that
class which has for a long period con-
ducted the public affairs of this country.
I like political changes when such
changes are made as the result, not
of passion, but of deliberation and
reason. Changes so made are safe, but
changes made under the influence of
violent exaggeration, or of the violent
passions of public meetings, are not
changes usually approved by this House
or advantageous to the country. I can-
not but notice, in speaking to Gentle-
men who sit on either side of this
House, or in speaking to any one I
1
1855.
RUSSIA. III.
meet between this House and any of
those localities we frequent when this
House is up-I cannot, I say, but
notice that an uneasy feeling exists as
to the news which may arrive by the
very next mail from the East. I do not
suppose that your troops are to be
beaten in actual conflict with the foe,
or that they will be driven into the sea;
but I am certain that many homes in
England in which there now exists a
fond hope that the distant one may
return-many such homes may be
rendered desolate when the next mail
shall arrive. The Angel of Death has
been abroad throughout the land; you
may almost hear the beating of his
wings. There is no one, as when the
first-born were slain of old, to sprinkle
with blood the lintel and the two side-
posts of our doors, that he may spare
and pass on; he takes his victims from
the castle of the noble, the mansion of
the wealthy, and the cottage of the poor
and the lowly, and it is on behalf of all
these classes that I make this solemn
appeal.
I tell the noble Lord, that if he be
ready honestly and frankly to endea-
vour, by the negotiations about to be
opened at Vienna, to put an end to this
war, no word of mine, no vote of mine,
will be given to shake his power for one
251
single moment, or to change his posi-
tion in this House. I am sure that the
noble Lord is not inaccessible to ap-
peals made to him from honest motives
and with no unfriendly feeling. The
noble Lord has been for more than
forty years a Member of this House.
Before I was born, he sat upon the
Treasury bench, and he has spent his
life in the service of his country. He
is no longer young, and his life has
extended almost to the term allotted to
man. I would ask, I would entreat the
noble Lord to take a course which,
when he looks back upon his whole
political career—whatever
he may
therein find to be pleased with, what-
ever to regret-cannot but be a source
of gratification to him. By adopting
that course he would have the satisfac-
tion of reflecting that, having obtained
the object of his laudable ambition-
having become the foremost subject of
the Crown, the director of, it may be,
the destinies of his country, and the
presiding genius in her councils-he
had achieved a still higher and nobler
ambition: that he had returned the
sword to the scabbard that at his
word torrents of blood had ceased to
flow-that he had restored tranquillity
to Europe, and saved this country from
the indescribable calamities of war.
1

RUSSIA.
IV.
ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE RUSSIAN WAR.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 7, 1855.
From Hansard.
[On May 22 Mr. Disraeli moved, That this House cannot adjourn for the Recess
without expressing its dissatisfaction with the ambiguous language and uncertain
conduct of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the great question of peace or
war, and that, under these circumstances, the House feels it a duty to declare that it
will continue to give every support to Her Majesty in the prosecution of the war,
until Her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain for the country a safe
and honourable peace.' This was met by an amendment from Sir Francis Baring,
"That this House, having seen with regret that the Conferences at Vienna have not
led to a termination of hostilities, feels it to be a duty to declare that it will continue
to give every support to Her Majesty in the prosecution of the war until Her Majesty
shall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain for this country a safe and honourable
peace.' Mr. Disraeli's resolution was rejected by 319 votes to 219. Sir F. Baring's
motion having become substantive, was met by an amendment of Mr. Lowe, to the
effect, That this House having seen with regret, owing to the refusal of Russia to
restrict the strength of her navy in the Black Sea, that the Conferences at Vienna
have not led to a termination of hostilities, feels it to be a duty to declare that the
means of coming to an agreement on the third basis of negotiation being by that
refusal exhausted, it will continue,' &c. Mr. Lowe's amendment was negatived and
Sir F. Baring's motion carried without a division on June 8.]
•
LAST year, when the declaration of
war was brought down to the House,
I took the opportunity of addressing the
House in opposition to the policy of the
Gove:nment of that day. I was told I
was too late; and it has been also said
repeatedly in this debate that those who
take the views which I take are too
late on this occasion. It seems to be
one of the consequences of the, I would
say, irresponsible system of diplomacy
in this country with regard to foreign
affairs, that we are never allowed to
discuss a mischief when it is growing,
but only when it is completed, and when
no remedy can be applied. And now
we are at liberty to discuss the conduct
of the Government in the Conferences
JUNE 7, 1855.
253
RUSSIA. IV.
at Vienna; and, though we were re-
peatedly told from the Treasury bench
that it might be injurious to the public
service to discuss what was going on
till the affair was concluded, I suspect
the House has come to the conclusion
that we have been pursuing our true
duty to the country in the debate that
has taken place.
We are indebted to the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Bucking-
hamshire (Mr. Disraeli). for having
placed his notice on the table of the
House, and not less to my right hon.
Friend and Colleague that he, before
the recess, moved the adjournment of
the debate. I am satisfied myself that
the people of this country have no
intention to go wrong either in home
or foreign affairs, and it requires only
that questions of this nature should be
frequently discussed by the intelligent
men of which this House is composed
to set before them the true state of
affairs, and to bring them to a wise
opinion with regard to the policy which
is being pursued. Now, we are not
discussing the policy of the war-that
is, of the origin of the war.
If we
were, I should lay claim to some degree
of foresight in the opinion which I
expressed a year ago, for there seems to
be a general feeling that the sacrifices
that have already been made are some-
what greater than the results that have
been obtained. I am anxious, in the
observations I may have to address to
the House, to impress my opinions on
them, if it be possible to do so, and to
lay before my countrymen out of the
House that which I believe involves
their true interests with regard to this
question. It is necessary, therefore, to
have a basis for our discussion-to fix
what were the objects of the war-to
ascertain, if that be possible, whether
those objects have been secured and
accomplished-and whether there can
be anything in prospect which we are
likely to gain that will justify the
Government and the House in pro-
ceeding further with the war.
Now, in my observations I am not
about to carry on this discussion with
the Gentlemen below me, who are
interested in a question which is not
the question before the House. They
are interested in some vast, and, as it
seems to me, imaginary scheme that
would involve Europe in protracted and
widely-extended hostilities; and I think
that, so far as the House is concerned
in discussing the question with the Go-
vernment, these Gentlemen are almost,
if not altogether, out of court. It ap-
pears to me, if they were logical in their
course, finding that the objects of the
Government and the objects of the Go-
vernment of France were entirely dif-
ferent from those which they have at
heart, and believing, as they do, that the
objects of the allied Governments are
not worth a war, that they ought rather
to join us on this bench, and, instead of
there being one Peace bench in the
House, there would be two Peace
benches, and the Peace party would
clearly gain a considerable accession of
strength. The noble Lord the Secre-
tary of State for the Colonies has stated
over and over again-and, amid the
confusion of statements which he and
his Colleagues have made, I think he
will not find fault if I assume that the
object of the war is simply the security
of the Turkish territory from the grasp
of Russia, and probably from the grasp
of any other Power-the noble Lord has
stated that he apprehends that if Russia
were to extend her empire by the pos-
session of Turkey, it would give her a
power that would be unsafe with regard
to the other nations of Europe. When
the noble Lord speaks in that vague,
and, if I were not speaking of a man so
eminent, I should say, absurd language
of the liberties of Europe and the civili-
zation of the world, I should say he
means by that merely those great ob-
jects, so far as they can be conserved
by the conservation of the Turkish
territory.
The noble Lord tells us-we are now
getting out of some of the mystifica-
tions that he has no kind of sympathy
that would lead him into war for the
254
JUNE 7,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
oppressed nationalities of Europe. The
noble Lord the Member for Tiverton
(Viscount Palmerston) a few nights ago
turned the cold shoulder to the people
of Hungary. He said he thought there
could be no greater calamity to Europe
than that Hungary should be separated
from the Austrian Empire. Well, then,
we have got rid of Hungary; and, next,
the noble Lord the Member for the City
of London (Lord John Russell) tells us
it is quite a mistake to suppose that he
ever intended to go to war for Poland.
In fact, he stated-what will be very
disheartening to hon. Gentlemen below
me -that he never supposed we were
going to war for such a Quixotic object;
that the case of Poland is one that is
hopeless, and therefore it would be mad-
ness in England and France-not indis-
cretion-not a doubtful undertaking—
but positive madness in England and
France to take any part in promoting
resistance in that country.
Having now got rid of Hungary and
Poland, we only require that some Mem-
ber of the Cabinet should get up later
in the evening-and that I have no
doubt will be the case-to state that
it is utterly impossible for this country
to involve itself in hostilities with a
view to the regeneration of any part
of Italy. The noble Lord the Member
for London tells us we are not going to
war for the sake of conquest; and that,
I think, is a matter which ought to be
kept in mind by hon. Gentlemen who
are urging the Government on to a pro-
longed war. He stated on Tuesday
night, 'Be it always remembered that
we are seeking no object of our own;'-
it would be a very odd thing if we were
to go to war for the objects of some-
body else that we are seeking no ob-
ject of our own; that when peace is
concluded we shall not have acquired
one ell of new territory, or secured any
advantage whatever for ourselves. It is
for Turkey and the general system of
Europe that we are struggling.' In
fact, the whole matter always resolves
itself into some general mystification,
and at this moment we are, every man
of us, almost entirely in the dark as to
what are the ultimate objects of the war.
One other point that I ought to men-
tion is the question of crippling and
humbling Russia. I am, of course,
willing to admit that when people go
to war they are not expected to be very
nice in their treatment of each other,
and, if the taking of Sebastopol be an
object of those who are in favour of the
war, to take Sebastopol they will in-
flict any injury they can upon Russia.
But the noble Lord told us last year
that he still intended to leave Russia a
great empire. I thought that exceed-
ingly considerate of the noble Lord, and
I understand-I think it has been stated
in the public papers-that it is con-
sidered at St. Petersburg a great conde-
scension on the part of so eminent a
statesman. Well, then, if we are not
going to war for nationalities, nor for
conquest, nor for any such crippling of
Russia as would be effected by her dis-
memberment, we come to this simple
question-in the condition in which
Turkey has long existed, what are the
means by which the security of Turkey
can be best guaranteed? No man as-
serts that the security of Turkey can be
absolute, but that it must be partial and
conditional. As it is well to have high
authority for these statements, I have
here an extract from a speech made by
Lord Clarendon a few nights ago on the
Resolution moved by Lord Grey. The
noble Lord then stated:-
'My noble Friend says, and says truly,
that the attainment of all this would offer
no security to Turkey. The value of a
treaty must always depend upon the spirit
in which it is agreed to, and the good faith
with which it is entered into. No treaty
can make a weak Power like Turkey per-
fectly safe against a powerful neighbour
immediately in contact with her, if that
neighbour is determined to act the aggres-
sive towards her.'—[3 Hansard, cxxxviii.
1152.]
Thus Lord Clarendon admits, what is
perfectly obvious to the common sense
of all who have heard anything of
1855.
255
RUSSIA. IV.
Russia or Turkey, except from the lips
of the Prime Minister, that what we
are seeking to obtain is not an absolute
security for Turkey, but a conditional
security, such as her circumstances, her
population, her government, and geo-
graphical position render attainable by
her friends and allies. We have now
been fourteen months at war, and two
Cabinets-the Cabinets of Lord Aber-
deen and of the present First Minister-
I might say four Cabinets, for the Cabi-
nets of France and Austria must have
agreed to the same thing-have agreed
to certain terms, and have offered them
to Russia. They have been accepted as
the basis of negotiations, conferences
have been opened, and certain proceed-
ings towards a settlement have taken
place; and now I should like to know
whether the terms which were offered
were offered in earnest. Judging of the
Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen by the con-
duct of some of its Members, and espe-
cially of Lord Aberdeen himself, I am
certain that they were sincere in the
terms they offered. But the Times
newspaper, which now in its many
changes has become the organ and
great stimulant of the present Cabinet,
expresses its astonishment that any per-
son should think that peace was in-
tended by the Conferences at Vienna.
The Times states that the object of the
Conferences was not to bring about a
peace, but to shame Austria into be-
coming a faithful and warlike ally.
Now, when the noble Lord the Mem-
ber for London was sent to Vienna to
negotiate, I confess I was one of those
who formed the opinion that the noble
Lord, amid the many eccentricities of
his career, would not have undertaken
that mission unless he himself had been
honest with regard to the terms to be
offered, and anxious, if possible, to con-
solidate a peace. There were, however,
certain persons-malicious people, of
course -who found out that it would
be convenient to the First Minister to
have the noble Lord at a distance, at
least for a time. But I never adopted
that idea. I did not believe that the
noble Lord's journey to Vienna, with a
retinue that required him to occupy no
less than thirty-two rooms in one hotel,
would have been undertaken unless the
noble Lord considered that the object
was a reality, on which the interests of
the country and of Europe depended.
I think he would have been the last
man in the country to lend himself to
such a miserable hoax as going to
Vienna, not to make peace, but to
shame Austria into becoming a faith-
ful and warlike ally. I assume, there-
fore, that terms were sincerely offered,
and that those terms gave guarantees
which were sufficient, and a security
which was as ample as the circum-
stances admitted for the integrity and
independence of the Ottoman Empire.
It is from that starting-point that I
would discuss this question.

In-
There are hon. Members in this House
who think that even if those terms were
obtained they would still be in no de-
gree a compensation for the enormous
sacrifices which the country has made.
I happen to hold the same opinion, and
it was with that conviction that I pro-
tested against going into the war.
deed, I think that the argument I used
a year ago, that nothing to be obtained
in the war could at all approach a com-
pensation for the enormous sacrifices the
country would be called upon to make,
has been greatly strengthened. Well,
Sir, the terms offered are called bases :'
from which one understands, not that
they are everything, but that they are
something capable of what diplomatists
call 'development.' I recollect a ques-
tion asked of a child at school, in one
of those lessons called 'object lessons,'
What is the basis of a batter pudding?'
It was obvious that flour was the basis,
but the eggs and the butter and the rest
were developments and additions. But
if the bases are capable of development,
so I take it for granted that the mean-
ing of negotiation is not the offering of
an ultimatum, but the word involves to
every man's sense the probability of con-
cession -butter, it may be-but con-.
cession of one sort or another.
C
256
JUNE 7,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I will not go through all the Four
Points, because the attention of the
House ought really to be centred upon
the third article and the matters con-
nected with it. The House must re-
member that this article involves two
most important subjects-first, the terri-
torial guarantee, which if it were suffi-
ciently secured would be everything the
House and the country required from
the war-namely, that the territories of
Turkey shall never be molested, so long
as the treaty shall continue, by any of
the great Powers who are parties to
such treaty; and, secondly, that the pre-
ponderance of Russia in the Black Sea
shall cease. Now, the territorial gua-
rantee was granted without difficulty.
[An hon. Member: 'No.'] Well, no
difficulty was made about the territorial
guarantee but this:- Prince Gortchakoff
said, very wisely, that he would not enter
into an absolute pledge to go to war in
case of any infraction of the treaty, and
the noble Lord who said 'No' will find,
when he has examined the question a
little more closely, that it does not
make the slightest difference as to the
actual results of a treaty whether a
Power guarantees in the mode proposed
by Russia, or in the manner proposed
by the noble Lord the Member for the
City of London, because, when an in-
fraction of a treaty occurs, the power
of judging whether any of the Govern-
ments who are parties to such treaty
should go to war or not, is left with
each individual Government. If, for ex-
ample, France stretched her dominions
westward towards Morocco, or eastward
towards Tunis or Tripoli, it would, of
course, have been the duty, and would
have been in the power of Russia, even
had she accepted the exact terms pro-
posed by the allies, to judge for herself
whether a case had arisen which re-
quired her to go to war, or which justi-
fied her in doing so.
Such a case arose very lately with
reference to Schleswig-Holstein. We
were bound, under an ancient treaty, to
go to war in the event of the infraction
of certain treaties affecting Schleswig-
Holstein; but when this case occurred
the subject was considered by the Go-
vernment, the noble Lord (Lord Pal-
merston) being at the time, I believe,
Foreign Secretary-who most wisely
and properly, not only for this country,
but for the interests of Schleswig-
Holstein and of Europe, declined to
act upon what was represented to be
the strict letter of the treaty, and Eng-
land did not engage in war in conse-
quence of the disputes which then took
place. I must say that what seems to
as the most statesmanlike and
elevated declaration in the protocols is
the statement of Prince Gortchakoff,
that the blood of Russia is the property
of Russia, and that he will not pledge
himself that years hence-it may be
even a century hence--the blood of
Russia shall be shed in a cause which,
when the time arrives, may be one
which would be altogether unworthy
of such a sacrifice.
me
With respect to the question of the
Christian protectorate, the House will
probably recollect that it was repre-
sented over and over again by Ministers
in this House-it was stated in the
speeches of Lord Clarendon in another
place-that the proposition of Russia,
as conveyed in the Menchikoff note,
was intended to transfer the virtual
sovereignty of 10,000,000 or 12,000,000
of Ottoman subjects to the Czar. If
that were so, the Menchikoff note and
all the old protectorate treaties being
abolished, surely the House will con-
sider whether the combination of the
three propositions-the territorial guar-
antees, the Christian protectorate, and
the Black Sea project-do not give such
securities to Turkey as the condition of
Turkey will permit. Now the prepon-
derance of Russia in the Black Sea, as
I think my hon. Friend the Member for
the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) showed
very clearly the other evening, is in a
certain sense a fact which all the nego-
tiations in the world cannot write off.
I see that one of the public journals this
morning, commenting upon my hon.
Friend's speech, says, 'Yes, truly, the
1855.
257
RUSSIA. IV.
commercial preponderance of Russia in
the Black Sea is a fact which cannot be
denied;' and then proceeds to argue
that it does not follow that Russia
should have a political and naval pre-
ponderance. But I do not know any
case in which there is a commercial
supremacy in a sea like the Black Sea
that is not followed by a preponderance
of every other kind. The question now
is, however, how is that preponderance
to cease?
The noble Lord the Member for the
City of London referred the other night
to a proposition made by the French
Government, but which, I think, does
not appear at all distinctly in the pro-
tocols, with regard to making the Black
Sea a neutral sea. I conceive that was
so monstrous a proposition, in the pre-
sent condition of Europe, that I am
surprised it should have been enter-
tained for a moment by any sensible
man. I supposed it was found so utterly
indefensible that it does not appear as
a distinct proposition in the protocols.
This proposal of making the Black Sea
a neutral sea gave place to another pro-
ject, and it appears to me very like ask-
ing Russia, voluntarily or by compulsion,
to perform the operation of amputation
upon herself. I maintain that the third
article as offered to Russia in December
last could not mean what the noble
Lord offered to Russia at Vienna, be-
cause the cessation of preponderance
does not mean the transfer of prepon-
derance, but rather the establishment
of an equilibrium-not the destruction
of an equilibrium and the establishment
of preponderance on the other side.
Some hon. Gentlemen talk as if Russia
were a Power which you could take to
Bow Street, and bind over before some
stipendiary magistrate to keep the peace
for six months. Russia is a great Power,
as England is, and in treating with her
you must consider that the Russian
Government has to consult its own
dignity, its own interests, and public
opinion, just as much at least as the Go-
vernment of this country. Now, what
was the proposition of this third article?
The proposal was, that Russia should
have eight ships; but what was the
proposition with regard to her present
antagonists? That Turkey should also
have eight ships, that France should
have four, and that England should
have four; and I believe that in
a preceding protocol, which has not
been alluded to in this debate, it is
proposed that the contracting Powers
should have two ships each at the
mouth of the Danube, so that if these
terms had been agreed upon, Russia
would have had eight ships in the Black
Sea, while Turkey, France, and Eng-
land would have had twenty. Now,
that is not a mere cessation of a prepon-
derance; it is not the establishment of
an equilibrium; it is a transfer of the
supremacy of the Black Sea from that
country which, if any country should be
supreme there, has the best claim-
namely, Russia. Besides this, however,
Turkey would have had whatever ships
she liked in the Bosphorus, and the
allies would also have had as many
ships as they chose in the Mediterra-
nean and the Levant.
Now, let us for a moment consider
the offer with which Russia met this
proposal. The first proposition was
that of the open Straits, which is dis-
approved by the hon. Baronet opposite.
I am not about to say that this propo-
sition should have been accepted in
preference to the other, but I think it is
the true interest of Europe, and also of
Turkey itself, that the Straits should be
thrown open. At any rate, it must be
admitted that the preponderance of
Russia, in the sense in which we now
understand it, would be absolutely de-
stroyed if the Straits were thrown open.
Russia made a proposition which appears
to me to be highly satisfactory—that
such regulations should be made by the
Sultan and his Government with regard
to the position and duration of the
anchorages of ships between the Me-
diterranean and the Black Sea as would
preclude the possibility, so far as there
were means of doing so, of any incon-
venience or danger to Constantinople
17
258
JUNE 7,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
from the opening of the Straits. If that
had been agreed to, all nations would
have been entitled to the passage of the
Straits, and I believe that all nations
would equally have respected the privi-
lege thus granted to them. Now, sup-
pose these Straits, instead of being one
mile wide, had been ten miles wide,
what difference would it make to Tur-
key? If the Straits were ten miles wide
they would be open. Turkey would
have no right to close them, and Euro-
pean nations would not permit her to
pretend to, or to exercise, any such
power; but Constantinople would be no
more secure then than it would be now
with the Straits open, whether they were
ten miles wide or one mile wide. If the
Straits were open, the consequences to
Constantinople and to Turkey appear to
me to be precisely the same. Turkey
would be equally safe; Turkey would
be equally menaced. Our fleets would
visit the Black Sea in the course of the
season, and the Russian Black Sea fleet,
if it chose, would visit the Mediterra-
nean.
There would be no sort of pre-
tence for wrangling about the Straits;
and the balance of power-if I may use
the term-between the fleets of Russia,
France, and England, would be pro-
bably the best guarantee that could be
offered for the security of Constantinople
and Turkey, so far as they are in danger
of aggression either from the Black Sea
or the Mediterranean.
But it is said, the Sultan's sovereignty
would be menaced-that he has an un-
doubted right to close the Straits. I
doubt whether that right will be very
long maintained; but if it be main-
tained, and if you are to reject any
proposition which interferes with the
Sultan's sovereignty, I ask you whether
the sovereignty of the Czar is not as dear
to him? and whether, if, in negotiations
of this kind, you can find any mode of
attaining your object without inflicting
injury upon either the sovereignty of
the Sultan or the Czar, it would not be
much more statesmanlike to adopt it,
and so to frame your treaties that
neither should feel that it was sub-
jected to an indignity, and therefore
seek to violate such treaties at the first
opportunity? Well, but the second
proposition, which I think the hon. Ba-
ronet approved, and which I think the
noble Lord proposed, was, that the
Sultan should open the Straits at will.
I ask the House whether that proposi-
tion, if accepted, would not imply that
the Sultan could have no other enemy
than Russia ?--which I think is doubt-
ful. If the Black Sea were open to the
West, and the Mediterranean closed to
the East, surely that is assuming that
the Sultan could have no enemy but
Russia. The Sultan could close the
Straits to Russia, but the Western
Powers could always proceed to the
Black Sea. The French plan, in my
opinion, exposed Turkey far more to
the West than the Russian plan exposed
her to the East. Nothing can be more
short-sighted than the notion which the
noble Lord the Member for London
started at the conferences, that Turkey
could have no enemy but Russia. In
fact, everybody there seemed to be on
exceedingly good terms with himself.
The Austrian Minister said nobody
would suspect Austria-no one could
be suspected but Russia. But our ex-
perience for many years will tell us that
there has been just as much menace from
the West as from the East-the rapa-
city of the West is not less perceptible
than that of the East. ['Hear.'] Some
one expresses a sentiment in opposition
-it is a gentleman who has never read
the Blue Books-he does not know that
almost the whole of this business began
in a threat of the most audacious and
insulting character from the Ambas-
sador of France-a threat to order up
the French fleet to the Dardanelles, and
further to land an expedition in Syria
to take possession of Jerusalem and the
whole of the Holy Places. Do you
mean to tell me, you and the noble
Lord himself, who tried to frighten the
country with the notion of the French
fleet coming to invade England, that the
fleet which three years ago threatened
England, and more recently threatened
1855.
259
RUSSIA. IV.
the Dardanelles, has for ever abandoned
rapacious desires, and that therefore
there will never again be a menace
against Turkey from France?
I understand, however, there is a very
different opinion prevalent upon the
southern shores of the Mediterranean.
The Emperor of Morocco, a potentate
somewhat allied to this country, as I
am told his empress is an Irish lady—
the Emperor of Morocco, who is not
very well versed in what is going on in
this House, has been making inquiries
of the most anxious character, as to
whether the particular guarantee which
the noble Lord was going to enter into
included the territory of Morocco; and
I understand he has not been able to
find it out from the most assiduous study
of the Gibraltar newspapers.
It so
happens that the Governor of Gibraltar
-the noble Lord at the head of the
Government corrected me the other
night when I called him an irrational
man-has issued an ordinance by which
he has entirely suppressed the news-
paper press in that town and garrison.
Now we come to the question, which
of the propositions would be most
secure? I was very much struck by an
observation which fell from my hon.
Colleague (Mr. M. Gibson) in the course
of his speech the other night-a point I
think very worthy of the attention of the
House and of the Government; he said
the limitation plan was one which must
depend for its efficacy on the will and
fidelity of Russia. I am not one of
those who believe Russia to be the
treacherous and felonious Power which
she is described to be by the press of
this country, as she is described by the
noble Lord to be. I believe the right
hon. Baronet the Member for South-
wark gave her the same character.
Although Russia may not be more
treacherous than other Powers, when
you are making a bargain with her, it
is better you should make the efficacy
of the terms depend more on your own
vigilance than on her good faith. The
noble Lord the Member for London has
admitted that the limitation plan is,
after all, an inefficient one. He said
that Russia might get another ship-
perhaps three or four-and when she
had doubled the navy permitted to her,
perhaps the noble Lord would be writ-
ing despatches about it, although I am
not sure he would do that. I think it
would be holding out a temptation to
buy Mr. Scott Russell's great ship as one
of the eight ships she is to be allowed
to keep by the treaty.
My hon. Friend the Member for the
West Riding remarked that Russia
might purchase vessels of large size
from the United States, and still keep
within the prescribed limit; but if this
great ship, now building in the Thames,
should succeed, as I hope she will,
Russia might buy her and send her into
the Black Sea. Somebody says she
could not go there without passing the
Straits, but, as she is built for mer-
cantile purposes, that monster vessel
might freely be taken up, and then form
one of the eight ships allowed to Russia.
Another proposition has been alluded
to by the hon. Member for the Tower
Hamlets (Sir W. Clay)—that pointed
out by the Russian Plenipotentiary—
that Russia and Turkey should enter
into a friendly treaty between them-
selves and arrange that point; but the
other diplomatists would not allow it,
unless it were done under the eyes of
the conference and bearing the same
features of force and compulsion as
their proposal of the limitation pos-
sessed. I was astonished to hear the
hon. Baronet, as I understood him, say
that, even although it could be shown
that the Russian propositions were
better than our own, he thought the
proposition which bore on its face co-
ercion of Russia was most desirable.
A more unstatesmanlike and immoral
view upon a great question between
nations I have rarely heard of. [Sir
William Clay rose, and was understood
to deny the sentiments imputed to him
by the hon. Member.] I understood
my hon. Friend so. Perhaps he did
not mean what I thought he did mean,
but that was the conclusion I came to
17-2
260
JUNE 7,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
+
from his argument, and I do not think
he will say I entirely misrepresented
him. It has, however, been said by the
press that, whether we were sincere or
not at the conference, Russia was not.
Hon. Gentlemen have read in the Times
and other papers blowing the flames of
war, that from first to last Russia was
treacherous and insincere. I would put
it to the noble Lord the Member for
London whether he can say that was
the case, for I observe he said, in his
speech in this House on the 23rd of
January last, in answer to a question
from the hon. Member for Aylesbury,
or some other Member-
My hon. Friend will see that by that
act the Russian Plenipotentiary accepted
this interpretation as the basis of negoti-
ation, of course reserving to himself the
power, when this basis shall have been
laid down in a definite article, of making
any observations on the part of his Go-
vernment which he should think proper.'-
[3 Hansard, cxxxvi. 911.]
Of course the Russian Plenipotentiary,
when he accepted it, did so upon the
understanding that it was the basis of
negotiation and discussion, as no one
will deny it was a question capable
of being solved in more ways than one,
and it was no indication of insincerity
for him to refuse the precise mode pro-
posed by the Plenipotentiary for Eng-
land. With regard to the terms pro-
posed, I should like to read to the
House a statement I have on very good
authority as to the language which
Prince Gortchakoff held at Vienna.
The statement I have is not to be found
in the protocols, but I believe it may
be relied upon as the precise words he
used. The noble Lord insisted, as I
understand, that it was no indignity to
ask Russia to limit the number of her
ships in the Black Sea; but I would
submit it is precisely the same in prin-
ciple as if she were asked to limit the
amount of her force in the Crimea to
four or six regiments. Prince Gort-
chakoff said-
'To ask from an independent Power
that it should limit its force, is to assail
its rights of sovereignty on its own terri-
tory. It is with a bad grace that they
would sustain the rights of the Sultan and
wish to attack those of the Emperor of
Russia. The proposition to render the
Black Sea inaccessible to vessels of war of
all nations is so strange (si bizarre) that
one is astonished to see the fate of nations
confided to men such as those who have
conceived it. How could it be believed
that Russia would consent to give herself
up disarmed at the good pleasure of the
Napoleons and the Palmerstons, who will
be able themselves to have armed forces
in the Mediterranean ?'
There was no answer to that. If any
diplomatist from this country, under
the same circumstances as Russia was
placed in, had consented to terms such
as the noble Lord had endeavoured to
force upon Russia-I say, that if he
entered the door of this House, he
would be met by one universal shout
of execration, and, as a public man,
would be ruined for ever.
I wish to ask the House this question
--whether it has deliberately made up
its mind that this was a proposition
which ought to have been imposed upon
Russia? If they have ascertained which
is the best-and I rather think the
general opinion is that the proposition
of the Government is the worst; but,
assuming that it is not so, and that
there may be some little difference-
I want to know what that difference is,
and if there is any difference which can
be measured even by the finest diplo-
matic and statesmanlike instrument
ever invented, I ask, is that difference
worth to this country the incalculable
calamities which a prolonged war must
bring upon us? I am of opinion that,
with the territorial guarantee and the
abolition of the Christian protectorate,
either the terms proposed by the noble
Lord or by Prince Gortchakoff would
have been as secure for Turkey as it is
possible under existing circumstances
for Turkey to be by any treaty between

1855.
261
RUSSIA. IV.
the great Powers of Europe. And,
recollect that we have been thrown a
little off the original proposition, for
when that proposition was first agreed
to in the Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen I
am satisfied in my own mind that it
meant something very like that which
the Russians themselves have proposed.
If we take this first protocol of the
conference, and look to the speech made
by Count Buol and to the proposition
he made, you will find the third article
runs in this language: 'The treaty of
July 13, 1841, shall be revised with the
double object,' and so on. But what is
the meaning of revising the treaty of
1841? The treaty has only one object,
which is to guarantee to the Turk the
right he has claimed since his posses-
sion of Constantinople-namely, that
the Straits should be closed under the
guarantee of the Powers, except in case
of war. Therefore, when the Aberdeen
Government, of which the noble Lords
were Members, originally agreed upon
these terms, their object was that the
Black Sea should be thrown open,
or, at least, that the closing of the
Straits should be relaxed; and I pre-
sume that it was not until after it was
known that, while Russia had no ob-
jection to the opening of the Straits,
Turkey was very much opposed to it,
that it was found necessary to change
the terms and bring them forward in
another form. But, surely, if this be
so, the House and the Government
should be chary indeed of carrying on
a prolonged war with Russia, Russia
having been willing to accept a propo-
sition made originally by us, and which
I believe to be the best for Turkey and
for the interests of Europe. If, I say,
this be so, was the Government justified
in breaking off these negotiations, be-
cause that really is the issue which this
House is called upon to try? Can they
obtain better terms? If the terms are
sufficient for Turkey they ought not to
ask for better ones. I do not say they
may not get better terms.
I agree
with my hon. Friend the Member for
the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) that
England and France, if they choose to
sacrifice 500,000 men, and to throw
away 200,000,000l. or 300,000,000l. of
treasure, may dismember the Russian
Empire. But I doubt whether this
would give better terms for Turkey—I
am sure it would not give better terms
for England and France. Now, what
has it cost to obtain all this?
And here I must be permitted to say
one word with regard to the course
taken by those right hon. Gentlemen
who have recently taken their seats on
this bench, and whose conduct on this
question has been the cause of great
debate, and of language which I think
the state of the case has not wholly
justified. I presume it will be admitted
that these right hon. Gentlemen at
least know the object of the war as
well as any other men in this House.
I presume, too, that, entertaining as
they do a very serious idea of the re-
sults of a prolonged war, they are at
liberty to come to the conclusion that
certain terms, to which they themselves
were parties, are sufficient; and if this
be the conviction at which they have
arrived, surely no Member of this
House will say that, because they were
Members of a Cabinet some time ago
which went into this war, therefore they
should be forbidden to endeavour to
avert the incalculable calamities which
threaten their country, but should be
expected to maintain a show of con-
sistency, for which they must sacrifice
everything that an honest man would
hold dear. Have these men gained
anything in popularity with the coun-
try, or even with the Members of this
House, by the course they have taken?
I am almost ashamed to say any-
thing in the defence of those who are so
capable of explaining and defending
their own conduct in this matter; but
I
may be pardoned if I rejoice that men
ranking high as statesmen, powerful by
their oratory, distinguished by their
long services, have separated them-
selves from that rash, that inexcusable
recklessness which, I say, marks the
present Government, and are anxious

262
JUNE 7,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
to deliver their country from the dan-
gers which surround it. My hon.
Friends below me-and I am quite
sure not one of them will suppose that
I speak from the mere wish to oppose
them in any way; they are personal
friends of mine, and it pains me now to
differ from them; but hon. Members
seem to think, when they are looking
a long way off for the objects to be
gained by war, that a man who looks
at home is not a friend to his country.
Is war the only thing a nation enters
upon in which the cost is never to be
reckoned? Is it nothing that in twelve
months you have sacrificed 20,000 or
30,000 men, who a year ago were
your own fellow-citizens, living in your
midst, and interested, as you are, in all
the social and political occurrences of
the day? Is it nothing that, in addition
to those lives, a sum of-I am almost
afraid to say how much, but 30,000,000l.
or 40,000,000l. will not be beyond the
mark has already been expended?
And let the House bear in mind this
solemn fact-that the four nations en-
gaged in this war have already lost so
many men, that if you were to go from
Chelsea to Blackwall, and from High-
gate and Hampstead to Norwood, and
take every man of a fighting age and
put him to death-if you did this you
would not sacrifice a larger number of
lives than have already been sacrificed
in these twelve months of war.
Your own troops, as you know, have
suffered, during a Crimean winter, tor-
tures and horrors which the great Flo-
rentine hardly imagined when he wrote
his immortal epic. Hon. Members are
ready, I know, to say, 'Whose fault is
that?' But if our loss has been less
than that of the French, less than that
of the Turks, and less than that of the
Russians, it is fair to assume that,
whatever mistakes may have been com-
mitted by the Government, the loss in
the aggregate would, even under other
circumstances, have fallen very little
short of that which I have attempted to
describe. Are these things to be ac-
counted nothing? We have had for
twelve years past a gradual reduction
of taxation, and there has been an im-
mense improvement in the physical,
intellectual, and moral condition of the
people of this country; while for the
last two years we have commenced a
career of reimposing taxes, have had to
apply for a loan, and no doubt, if this
war goes on, extensive loans are still in
prospect.
Hon. Members may think this is
nothing. They say it is a 'low' view
of the case. But, these things are the
foundation of your national greatness,
and of your national duration; and you
may be following visionary phantoms
in all parts of the world while your
own country is becoming rotten within,
and calamities may be in store for the
monarchy and the nation of which now,
it appears, you take no heed. Every
man connected with trade knows how
much trade has suffered, how much
profits in every branch of trade-except
in contracts arising out of the war-
have diminished, how industry is be-
coming more precarious and the reward
for industry less, how the price of food
is raised, and how much there is of a
growing pressure of all classes, espe-
cially upon the poorest of the people—
a pressure which by-and-by-not just
now, when the popular frenzy is lashed
into fury morning after morning by the
newspapers-[Murmurs]-but I say by-
and-by this discontent will grow rapidly,
and you (pointing to the Ministerial
bench) who now fancy you are fulfilling
the behests of the national will, will
find yourselves pointed to as the men
who ought to have taught the nation
better.
I will not enter into the question of
the harvest. That is in the hand of
Providence, and may Providence grant
that the harvest may be as bountiful as
it was last year! But the House must
recollect that in 1853, only two years
ago, there was the worst harvest that
had been known for forty years. Prices
were very high in consequence. Last
year the harvest was the greatest ever
known, yet prices have been scarcely
1855.
263
RUSSIA. IV.
lower, and there are not wanting men
of great information and of sound judg-
ment who look with much alarm to
what may come-I trust it may not
come-if we should have, in addition to
the calamities of war, calamities arising
from a scarcity of food, which may be
scarcely less destructive of the peace
and comfort of the population of this
country.
I will ask the House in this state of
things whether they are disposed to
place implicit confidence in her Majesty's
Ministers? On that (the Opposition)
side of the House there is not, I believe,
much confidence in the Government;
and on this side I suspect there are
many men who are wishful that at this
critical moment the affairs of the country
should be under the guidance of men of
greater solidity and of better judgment.
I will now point out one or two causes
which I think show that I am justified
in placing no confidence whatever in
her Majesty's Government. Take for
example what they have been doing
with Austria. The noble Lord at the
head of the Government has stated to
us that it was of European importance
that Hungary should be connected with
Austria. The noble Lord the Member
for the City of London said the other
night it was of essential importance that
Austria should be preserved as she is—
a great conservative Power in the midst
of Europe. Well, but at the same time
this Government has been urging Aus-
tria, month after month, to enter into
the same ruinous course which they
themselves are disposed to pursue. They
know perfectly well that if Austria were
to join either with Russia on the one
hand, or with the Western Powers on
the other, in all human probability this
great Empire would no longer remain
that great conservative Power in the
midst of Europe,' but would be stripped
on the one side of her Italian provinces,
and of Hungary on the other; or, if not
stripped of these two portions of the
Empire, would be plunged into an inter-
minable anarchy which would prove
destructive of her power.
What can be more inconsistent than
for Ministers to tell us that they
wish Austria to be preserved, and, at
the same time, to urge her upon a
course which they know perfectly well
must end in her disruption, and in the
destruction of that which they think
essential to the balance of power in
Europe? We are told, with regard to
our other alliance, that it is a very deli-
cate topic. It is a very delicate and
a very important topic; but there is
another topic still more delicate and
important-namely, the future of this
country with regard to that alliance.
I think we have before now spent
1,000,000,000l. sterling, more or less,
for the sake of a French dynasty. At
this moment there are French armies in
Rome, in Athens, in Gallipoli, in Con-
stantinople, and in the Crimea, and the
end of all this, I fear, is not yet. It has
been repeatedly stated in this House
that the people of France are not them-
selves enthusiastic in favour of this war.
I would fain hope, whatever else may
happen, that between the people of
England and of France an improved
and friendly feeling has grown up. But,
as far as the war is concerned, your
alliance depends on one life. The pre-
sent dynasty may be a permanent, but
it may be an ephemeral one, and I can-
not but think that when men are looking
forward to prolonged warfare they
should at least take into consideration
the ground on which they are standing.
·
Lord Clarendon has told us, with re-
gard to Russia, that Europe was stand-
ing on a mine, and did not know it. I
do not know that he is much more acute
than other people, but I can fancy that
Lord Clarendon, by the blunders of his
negotiations and the alliances he has
endeavoured to form, has placed this
country on a mine far more dangerous
and destructive than that upon which he
thinks Europe was placed by the colos-
sal power of Russia. There is another
point I have to touch upon. To me it
was really frightful to hear the noble
Lord the Member for London (Lord
John Russell) tell the House that we
1
JUNE 7,
264
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
are not fighting for ourselves, but for
Germany. I recollect one passage among
many in the noble Lord's speeches upon
this point; and, in looking over what
has been said by Ministers, one really
wonders that they should have allowed
anything of the kind to appear in Han-
sard. On the 17th of February last
year the noble Lord said,—
C
•
'They (England and France) feel that
the cause is one, in the first place, of the
independence of Turkey.
It is to
maintain the independence, not only of
Turkey, but of Germany and of all Euro-
pean nations.'-[3 Hansard, cxxx. 906.]
['Hear, hear !']
An hon. Member
cheers. What a notion a man must
have of the duties of the 27,000,000 of
people living in these islands if he
thinks they ought to come forward as
the defenders of the 60,000,000 of peo-
ple in Germany, that the blood of Eng-
land is not the property of the people
of England, and that the sacred treasure
of the bravery, resolution, and unfalter-
ing courage of the people of England
is to be squandered in a contest in
which the noble Lord says we have no
interest, for the preservation of the in-
dependence of Germany, and of the
integrity, civilization, and something
else, of all Europe!
The noble Lord takes a much better
view, as I presume many of us do, of
things past than of things present. The
noble Lord knows that we once did go
to war for all Europe, but then we went
to war with nearly all Europe, whereas
now we are going to war in alliance
with France only, except the little State
of Sardinia, which we have cajoled or
coerced into a course which I believe
every friend to the freedom of Italy and
to Sardinia will live to regret. All the
rest of Europe-Spain, Portugal, Italy,
Austria, Prussia, Switzerland, Holland,
Denmark, and Sweden-take no part in
the war, and yet our Ministers have-
what I should call, if I were not in this
House, the effrontery and audacity to
get up and tell us that they are fighting
the battle of all Europe, and that all
Europe is leagued with us against the
colossal power of Russia. Europe in
the last war did, for the most part, unite
with us. We went to Spain because
we were called to go by the patriot
Spaniards, but I think the Duke of
Wellington has stated, in his despatches,
that if he had known how little assist-
ance would be received from them he
would not have recommended even that
expedition.
But now, not only has all Europe not
united with you, but other countries will
not even allow their men to fight with
you. You pay the Turks to fight their
own battles, you enlist men in Germany
to fight the battles of Germany, and
the persons engaged in Switzerland and
Hamburg in enlisting men for you are
looked upon with suspicion by the
authorities, and I am not sure that
some of them have not even been taken
into custody. Why, then, should you
pretend that all Europe is leagued
against Russia, and that you have au-
thority to fight the battles of all Europe
against Russia, when the greater part
of Europe is standing by apathetically
wondering at the folly you are com-
mitting? I would appeal to the noble
Lord the Member for the Colonies-I
beg his pardon, the Member for London
-but he has been in so many different
positions lately that it is extremely dif-
ficult to identify him. I would appeal
to the noble Lord, because, however
much I differ from him, I have never
yet come to the conclusion that he has
not at heart the interest of his country,
that he is not capable of appreciating
a fair argument when it is laid before
him, and that he has not some sense
of the responsibility as to the political
course he takes, and I would ask him if
there be no other world of kingdoms
and of nations but that old world of
Europe with which the noble Lord is so
disposed to entangle this country?
I wish the noble Lord could blot out
from his recollection, for a little time,
William III, and all the remembrance
of what has been called by the right
hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
1855.
265
RUSSIA. IV.
(Mr. Disraeli) 'the Dutch conquest,' which
is supposed to have enthroned the Whig
aristocracy in this country. I would
ask the noble Lord to do this for to-
night-for an hour-for five minutes.
There is a country called the United
States of America. Only on Tuesday
night the very remarkable circumstance
occurred--and I think the House will
be of opinion that it is one worth notice
of two of those distinguished men
being present and listening to the de-
bates in this House who have occupied
the position of President of the United
States; a position, I venture to say, not
lower in honour and dignity than that
of any crowned monarch on the surface
of the globe. The United States is
precisely the country which is running
with us the race of power and of great-
ness. Its population will, I believe, at
the next census exceed the population
of the United Kingdom; in its manu-
factures and general industry it is by
far the most formidable rival that the
great manufacturers of this country now
have to contend with; it has, I suppose,
ten steamers for one steamer of this
country; its magnificent steamships have
crossed the Atlantic in a shorter time
than the steamships of this country; the
finest vessels which are at this moment
performing the voyage between England
and the Australian colonies have been
built in the United States; therefore, in
shipbuilding industry the United States
not only compete with, but in some
respects even excel, this country. Look
at our present position and that of the
United States.
May I entreat the attention of this
House, for I am not declaiming, I am
not making a party attack, I am treating
of that which, in my mind, is of vital
importance to every family in the king-
dom. This year the Chancellor of the
Exchequer told you that he must have
a sum of 86,000,000l. in order to carry
on the various departments of your
Government, and to defray your vast
military expenditure. The United States
has at this moment in her Treasury
enough, I think, to pay off all her debt.
Deduct the whole amount of the ex-
penses of the Government of the United
States, not only of the general Govern-
ment, but also of the thirty independent
sovereign States, from the 86,000,000l.
we are spending, and you will find that
at least 70,000,000l. will be left, which
is, therefore, the sum of taxation that
we are paying this year more than the
people of the United States.
Some hon. Gentlemen know what it
is to run a horse that has been weighted.
I heard, the other day, of a horse that
won every race in which it started, up
to a certain period when it was for the
first time weighted. It then lost the race,
and it is reported in the annals of the
turf that it never won a race afterwards.
If that be the case with regard to a
horse, it is much more true with regard
to a nation. When a nation has gone a
step backwards it is difficult to restore
it to its position; if another nation has
passed it in the race, it is almost impos-
sible for it to regain the ground it has
lost. I now speak particularly to hon.
Members opposite, for there are, per-
haps, more Gentlemen upon that than
upon this side of the House in the
happy position of owners of vast, pro-
ductive, beautiful, and, I hope, unen-
cumbered estates in the various parts of
the kingdom. We are now about ten
days' voyage from the United States, and
within ten years we shall probably com-
municate with that country by tele-
graph as quickly as we now do with
the Crimea. I hope it will be for a
much better object. The people of the
United States are our people, and there
are few families in England which have
not friends and relatives connected with
or settled in that country. The induce-
ments for men to remain at home and
their attachment to the place of their
birth are necessarily to some extent
weakened by the facility with which
they can now travel almost round the
world in a few weeks.
Do you believe that when the capital
of the greatest banking-house in Lom-
bard-street can be transferred to the
United States on a small piece of paper
266
JUNE 7,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
in one post, that the imposition of
70,000,000l. of taxation over and above
the taxation of an equal population in
the United States will not have the effect
of transferring capital from this country
to the United States, and, if capital,
then trade, population, and all that
forms the bone and sinew of this great
Empire? I ask hon. Members to re-
member what fell on a previous evening
from the right hon. Gentleman the Pre-
sident of the Board of Works. The
right hon. Gentleman talked of the war
lasting, perhaps, six years with our re-
sources undiminished. Now, nothing
is easier than for a Cornish Baronet,
possessing I am afraid to say how many
thousands a year, a Member of a Cabi-
net, or for all those who are surrounded
with every comfort, to look with the ut-
most complacency upon the calamities
which may befall others not so fortu-
nately situated as themselves. Six years
of this war, and our resources undimi-
nished! Why, Sir, six years of this war,
at an annual expenditure of 70 000,000l.,
give 420,000,000l. to the side of the
United States as against the condition
of the people of this country.
Am I, then, talking of trifles? Am
I talking to sane men, that it is neces-
sary to bring forward facts like these?
I am amazed, when the newspaper press,
when public speakers, when Gentlemen
on both sides of this House are so ready
to listen and to speak upon questions
relating to Turkey, to Servia, or to
Schamyl, that I cannot get the House
of Commons to consider a question so
great as the expenditure of 420,000,000l.,
and when we have to consider if we
shall trust that vast issue in the hands
of the noble Lords and right hon.
Gentlemen on the Treasury bench.
I have stated that I have no con-
fidence in the Government, and I will
now tell the House another reason for
that want of confidence. My hon.
Friend the Member for the West Riding,
on a previous occasion, treated the right
hon. President of the Board of Works
very summarily; but I wish to call the
attention of the House to what was
said by the right hon. Gentleman in
1850, in the debate which then took
place upon the foreign policy of the
noble Lord now his chief. On that
occasion the right hon. Gentleman told
the House that the foreign policy of the
noble Lord now at the head of the
Government had made us hated by
every party in every nation in Europe;
he said that the noble Lord had excited
the disaffected to revolt, and, having
brought upon them the vengeance of
the Governments under which they
lived, had then betrayed them. I do
not say that this is true, but I state it
upon the authority of a Minister now in
the Cabinet of the noble Lord; but,
whether true or not, I cannot have con-
fidence in the right hon. Gentleman
when sitting in a Cabinet to carry out
the foreign policy of the noble Lord.
I will take the case of another
Minister, and I do not think that when
he speaks he will call my observa-
tions undeserved. A most distinguished
Member of the Government-the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer-has been twice
elected within a very short period, once
before and once since his acceptance of
office,-I must say that I do not like to
see these changes, when a man one night
sits on one bench and another night
on another, on the 8th of February,
1855, the right hon. Gentleman, ad-
dressing his constituents at Radnor,
said:-
'I am not prepared to give my vote in
favour of any change in our policy which
would attempt to make England a first-rate
military Power. It seems to me that it
would be little short of madness to attempt
any such gigantic undertaking. It is our
true wisdom to limit ourselves to that
amount of military force which shall en-
able us to defend our own shores, and to
protect our great dependencies abroad.
If we can completely defend our own
coasts, it appears to me that the objects of
our national policy have been fulfilled.'
And then, as if he had in view the
language of the noble Lord at the head
of the Government and that of his
1855.
RUSSIA. IV.
267
colleague the Member for London, he
proceeded to say :-
'I wish to see a cessation of that in-
ordinate and senseless desire which has
been sometimes expressed of late, almost
usurping the functions of Providence, that
we should go to almost all parts of the
world to redress wrong and to see that
right is done.'
I say that the right hon. Gentleman
had the language of his colleagues in
view, and when he speaks he will no
doubt admit that such was the case.
For what did the noble Lord the Secre-
tary for the Colonies say when he ad-
dressed the baillies and the enthusiastic
citizens of Greenock? He said,—
'It is likewise to be considered, and I
trust we shall none of us forget it, that
this country holds an important position
among
the nations of the world—that not
once, but many times, she has stood forward
to resist oppression, to maintain the in-
dependence of weaker nations, to preserve
to the general family of nations that free-
dom, that power of governing themselves,
of which others have sought to deprive
them. I trust that character will not be
forgotten, will not be abandoned by a
people which is now stronger in means,
which is more populous and more wealthy
than it ever has been at any former period.
This then, you will agree with me,
is not
the period to abandon any of those duties
towards the world, towards the whole of
mankind, which Great Britain has hitherto
performed.'
Now let us see what the right hon.
Gentleman said, after having accepted
the office of Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. The right hon. Gentleman
made a speech, and it was just after the
death of the late Emperor of Russia,
and, in referring to the new Emperor,
he said,—
'If, however, it should please this mighty
Potentate to continue in the course of
aggression upon which his father had
entered, and if our reasonable hopes of a
more pacific policy should be disappointed,
then let him know that in England he will
find a country prepared to maintain its own
rights and the rights of other nations.'
Observe, the rights of other nations;'
and he goes on,—
C
'A country which, although its army
has been placed in a perilous position, and
has had to undergo the rigours of a Rus-
sian winter, has its resources unimpaired,
has its revenue flourishing, has its trade
substantially undiminished, has its spirit
unbroken, and will be prepared, in case of ne-
cessity, to vindicate its own honour, and to
maintain the rights and liberties of Europe.'
I wish the House to observe what
a complete change there is in the lan-
guage of the right hon. Gentleman upon
these two occasions. Either of the two
opinions which he expressed may be
right, but both of them cannot be so,
and I confess that when I find that a
Gentleman says one thing one day, and
a month later, when he comes into
office, the exact opposite, I do not think
that I can be expected to have that
confidence in him as to be willing to
entrust him with the vast issues, de-
pending on the war.
I will now refer to a colleague of the
right hon. Gentleman-one who has
also distinguished himself—I mean the
First Lord of the Admiralty. That
right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) has
said nothing upon the subject of the
war, and I have felt that he must enter-
tain great doubts as to its policy; but,
not very long ago, he also addressed his
constituents, and indulged in very hostile
and insulting language towards 'our
great and magnanimous ally;' but he,
too, has changed his mind; and not
long ago he went down by express train
to Folkestone or Dover-I forget which
-to meet in the most friendly, and
probably in the most humble manner,
the very potentate whom he had for-
merly abused.
If I have disposed of these Gentle-
men and shown why I can have no
confidence in them, are there any better
reasons why I should have confidence
in those two noble Lords who were the
active and restless spirits in the Cabinet
1
268
JUNE 7,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
which the noble Lord the Member for
London overthrew? I regard those
noble Lords as responsible for the policy
of this war. I am bound to suppose
that they acted in accordance with their
conscientious convictions; but, still, the
fact of their having embarked in that
policy is no reason why I should have
confidence in them. But, are those two
noble Lords men in whom the House
and country ought to place implicit
confidence? What of late could be
more remarkable than the caprices of
the noble Lord the Member for London?
When that noble Lord was in the
Government of Lord Aberdeen he went
to Greenock, I think to Bedford, and
certainly to Bristol-and, in fact, he
took every opportunity which offered
itself of bringing himself before the
public; and, with his power of speech,
his long experience, and eminent cha-
racter, did his utmost to stimulate the
feelings of the people to a policy which
I believe to be destructive, and which I
think the majority of this House in calm
moments does not believe to have been
the wisest which could have been pur-
sued. It certainly appears to me to be
unjustifiable that, while Lord Aberdeen
was honestly endeavouring to bring the
negotiations to a peaceful conclusion,
the noble Lord was taking a course
which rendered statesmanship valueless
in conducting the foreign policy of the
nation. The noble Lord, however, at
last brought his conduct to a climax.
The hon. and learned Member for
Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) came forward
as a little David with sling and stone-
weapons which he did not even use, but
at the sight of which the Whig Goliah
went howling and vanquished to the
.back benches.
I am afraid, Sir, to trust myself to
speak of the conduct of the noble Lord
on that occasion. I presume that we
shall have to wait for the advent of that
Somersetshire historian, whose coming
the noble Lord expects, before we know
whether his conduct on that occasion
was, what some persons still call it,
treachery to his chief, or whether it
arose from that description of moral
cowardice which in every man is the
death of all true statesmanship. But
in the year 1852 the noble Lord the
Member for London gave me a strong
reason why I should feel no confidence
in his present chief. The House will
remember that he then ejected the pre-
sent First Minister under whom he now
serves from the Cabinet of which he
himself was then the head, and in the
explanation which he made to the
House, he told us that men like Lord
Grey and Lord Melbourne, men of age,
of authority, and experience, had been
able in some degree to control his noble
Friend, but, that he being younger than
the noble Lord, and having been a
shorter time on the political stage, had
found it difficult to control him.
description which the noble Lord might
give of his colleague is a little like that
which we occasionally see given of a
runaway horse-that he got the bit
between his teeth, and there was no
holding him.
The
The noble Lord the Member for
London was the captain of the State
vessel, and the noble Lord the Member
for Tiverton was the mate. But how is
it now? The noble Lord the Member
for the City of London has accepted the
position of mate in the most perilous
times, in the most tempestuous weather,
and he goes to sea with no chart on
most dangerous and interminable
voyage, and with the very reckless cap-
tain whom he would not trust as mate.
Sir, the noble Lord the Member for
London has made a defence of his con-
duct at the Conferences at Vienna. I
am willing to give him credit that he
did then honestly intend peace; but I
do think that when he goes again, and
on such a journey, he will do well to
leave some of his historic knowledge
behind him. They were indeed historic
fancies. There is nothing to me so out
of place as the comparison which the
noble Lord made between the limitation
of the Russian fleet in the Black Sea
and the destruction of Dunkirk, or be-
tween the condition of the Black Sea
1855-
269
RUSSIA. IV.
and that of the lakes of North America.
The noble Lord can never have heard
of the Falls of Niagara. If there were
Falls like them between the Black Sea
and the Mediterranean the cases would
be somewhat similar, for the Russian
fleet in the Black Sea would not then
be exposed to the assaults of the vast
navies of England or France. When I
allude to this subject, I am reminded
of that Welshman whom Shakspeare
immortalised, who found some analogy
between a river in Macedon and a river
in Monmouth. He knew the name of the
river in Monmouth, and he did not know
the name of the river in Macedon, but he
insisted upon the analogy between them
because there were salmon in both.
Well, Sir, I now come to the noble
Lord at the head of the Government.
I do not complain that he is at the head
of the Government. The noble Lord
the Member for the City of London had
thrown everything into such inextricable
and unlooked-for confusion that any one
next door to him must necessarily occupy
the place. But I cannot have confidence
in the noble Viscount, because I cannot
but recollect that in 1850 he received
the condemnation of his foreign policy
in the other House of Parliament; and
in a speech which I shall never forget,
the last and one of the best ever de-
livered by the greatest statesman of the
time, he received a similar condemna-
tion, and the noble Viscount only es-
caped condemnation by a direct vote of
this House by the energetic defence of
the noble Lord the Member for the
City of London, and by the stress laid
upon many Members on this side of
the House. But only six weeks after
this the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell)
presented to the noble Viscount a letter
from his Sovereign, which I cannot but
think must have cost him much pain,
and to which I will not refer further,
except to say that I do not know how it
is possible, if the contents of that letter
were true, that either the noble Lord
or the House can be called upon to
place implicit confidence in the noble
Lord the leader of the Government.
I have observed the noble Viscount's
conduct ever since I have had the
honour of a seat in this House, and the
noble Viscount will excuse me if I state
the reason why I have often opposed
him. The reason is, that the noble
Viscount treats all these questions, and
the House itself, with such a want of
seriousness that it has appeared to me
that he has no serious, or sufficiently
serious, conviction of the important
business that so constantly comes be-
fore this House. I regard the noble
Viscount as a man who has experi-
ence, but who with experience has not
gained wisdom-as a man who has age,
but who, with age, has not the gravity
of age, and who, now occupying the
highest seat of power, has-and I say it
with pain-not appeared influenced by
a due sense of the responsibility that
belongs to that elevated position.
We are now in the hands of these
two noble Lords. They are the authors
of the war. It lies between them that
peace was not made at Vienna upon
some proper terms. And whatever dis-
asters may be in store for this country
or for Europe, they will lie at the doors
of these noble Lords. Their influence in
the Cabinet must be supreme; their
influence in this House is necessarily
great; and their influence with the
country is greater than that of any
other two statesmen now upon
now upon the
stage of political life in England. They
have carried on the war. They have,
however, not yet crippled Russia, al-
though it is generally admitted that
they have almost destroyed Turkey.
They have not yet saved Europe in its
independence and civilization, they
have only succeeded in convulsing it.
They have not added to the honour and
renown of England, but they have
placed the honour and renown of this
country in peril. The country has
been, I am afraid, the sport of their
ancient rivalry, and I should be very
sorry if it should be the victim of the
policy which they have so long advo-
cated.
There is only one other point upon
270
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
}
which I will trouble the House, if it
will give me its attention. These Mi-
nisters the right hon. Member for
Southwark, the Commissioner of the
Board of Works, especially, and evi-
dently the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and I am afraid many other Members
of this House-seem to think little of
taxes. Some Members of this House
seem to have no patience with me if I
speak of the cost of the war; but I am
obliged to ask its attention to this
point. I recollect reading in the life
of Necker, that an aristocratic lady
came to him when he was Finance
Minister of Louis XVI, and asked him
to give her 1,000 crowns from the
public treasury-not an unusual demand
in those days. Necker refused to give
the money. The lady started with
astonishment-she had an eye to the
vast funds of the State, and she asked,
'What can 1,000 crowns be to the
King?' Necker's answer was, ' Madam!
1,000 crowns are the taxes of a whole
village !'
I ask hon. Gentlemen what are the
taxes of a whole village, and what they
mean? They mean bareness of furni-
ture, of clothing, and of the table in
many a cottage in Lancashire, in Suf-
folk, and in Dorsetshire. They mean
an absence of medical attendance for a
sick wife, an absence of the school
pence of three or four little children-
hopeless toil to the father of a family,
penury through his life, a cheerless old
age, and, if I may quote the language
of a poet of humble life, at last-the
little bell tolled hastily for the pauper's
funeral.' That is what taxes mean.
The hon. Member for Dorsetshire spoke
the other night in a manner rather
flippant and hardly respectful to some
of us on this question. But the labour-
ers of Dorsetshire as well as the
weavers and spinners of Lancashire are
toiling, and must toil harder, longer,
and with smaller remuneration for every
single 100l. that you extract in taxes
from the people in excess of what is
necessary for the just requirements of
the Exchequer of the country. I hope
I may be permitted to treat the ques-
tion on this ground, and I ask the
House to recollect that when you strike
down the children in the cottage you
attack also the children in the palace.
If you darken the lives and destroy the
hopes of the humble dwellers of the
country, you also darken the prospects
of those children the offspring of your
Queen, in whom are bound up so much
of the interests and so much of the
hopes of the people of this country.
If I defend, therefore, the interests of
the people on this point, I do not the
less defend the permanence of the dig-
nity of the Crown.
We on this bench are not willing to
place ourselves alongside of noble Lords
who are for carrying on this war with
no definite object and for an indefinite
period, but are ready to take our chance
of the verdict of posterity whether they
or we more deserve the character of
statesmen in the course we have taken
on this question. The House must
know that the people are misled and
bewildered, and that if every man in
this House, who doubts the policy that
is being pursued, would boldly say so in
this House and out of it, it would not
be in the power of the press to mislead
the people as it has done for the last
twelve months. If they are thus misled
and bewildered, is it not the duty of
this House to speak with the voice of
authority in this hour of peril? We are
the depositaries of the power and the
guardians of the interests of a great
nation and of an ancient monarchy.
Why should we not fully measure our
responsibility? Why should we not dis-
regard the small-minded ambition that
struggles for place? and why should
we not, by a faithful, just, and earnest
policy, restore, as I believe we may,
tranquillity to Europe and prosperity to
the country so dear to us?
LETTER OF JOHN BRIGHT
TO ABSALOM WATKIN
ON THE RUSSIAN WAR.
[This letter was originally published with notes containing extracts from those au-
thorities which confirmed the writer's views. The text of these notes has been
omitted, but the references have been retained. It has been thought desirable to re-
print this letter, as explaining the policy which Mr. Bright thought it his duty to
recommend a policy which was as wise and just as it was unfortunately un-
popular.-J. E. T. R.]
[Mr. Absalom Watkin, of Manchester, having invited Mr. Bright to a meeting about to
be held in that city on behalf of the Patriotic Fund, and having stated that in his
opinion the present war was justified by the authority of Vattel, Mr. Bright replied in
the subjoined letter.]
I THINK, on further consideration, you
will perceive that the meeting on Thurs-
day next would be a most improper
occasion for a discussion as to the jus-
tice of the war. Just or unjust, the war
is a fact, and the men whose lives are
miserably thrown away in it have clearly
a claim upon the country, and especially
upon those who, by the expression of
opinions favourable to the war, have
made themselves responsible for it. I
cannot, therefore, for a moment appear
to discourage the liberality of those who
believe the war to be just, and whose
utmost generosity,, in my opinion, will
make but a wretched return for the ruin
they have brought upon hundreds of
families.
With regard to the war itself, I am
€
not surprised at the difference between
your opinion and mine, if you decide a
question of this nature by an appeal to
Vattel. The law of nations' is not my
law, and at best it is a code full of con-
fusion and contradictions, having its
foundation on custom, and not on a
higher morality; and on custom which
has always been determined by the will
of the strongest. It may be a question
of some interest whether the first cru-
sade was in accordance with the law
and principles of Vattel; but whether
the first crusade was just, and whether
the policy of the crusades was a wise
policy, is a totally different question.
I have no doubt that the American war
was a just war according to the prin-
ciples laid down by writers on the law
272
OCT. 29,
LETTER OF JOHN BRIGHT.
of nations,' and yet no man in his senses
in this country will now say that the
policy of George III towards the
American colonies was a wise policy,
or that war a righteous war.
The
French war, too, was doubtless just
according to the same authorities; for
there were fears and anticipated dan-
gers to be combatted, and law and
order to be sustained in Europe; and
yet few intelligent men now believe the
French war to have been either neces-
sary or just. You must excuse me if I
refuse altogether to pin my faith upon
Vattel. There have been writers on
international law who have attempted
to show that private assassination and
the poisoning of wells were justifiable in
war; and perhaps it would be difficult
to demonstrate wherein these horrors
differ from some of the practices which
are now in vogue. I will not ask you
to mould your opinion on these points
by such writers, nor shall I submit my
judgment to that of Vattel.
The question of this present war is
in two parts-first, was it necessary for
us to interfere by arms in a dispute be-
tween the Russians and the Turks; and
secondly, having determined to inter-
fere, under certain circumstances, why
was not the whole question terminated
when Russia accepted the Vienna note?
The seat of war is three thousand miles
away from us. We had not been at-
tacked-not even insulted in any way.
Two independent Governments had a
dispute, and we thrust ourselves into
the quarrel. That there was
ground for the dispute is admitted by
the four Powers in the proposition of
some
1 Colonel Rose to Lord John Russell,
March 7, 1853-Blue Book, part i. p. 87.
Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to the Earl of
Clarendon, April 9 and May 22, 1853-
Ibid. part i. pp. 127 and 235. Lord John
Russell to Sir G. H. Seymour, February 9,
1853-Eastern Papers, part v. p. 8. Earl
of Clarendon to Sir G. H. Seymour, April 5,
1853-Ibid. part v. p. 22. Lord Carlisle's
Diary in Turkish and Greek Waters, p. 181.
the Vienna note¹. But for the English
Minister at Constantinople and the
Cabinet at home, the dispute would
have settled itself, and the last note of
Prince Menchikoff would have been
accepted, and no human being can point
out any material difference between that
note and the Vienna note, afterwards
agreed upon and recommended by the
Governments of England, France, Aus-
tria, and Prussia. But our Government
would not allow the dispute to be
settled. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe
held private inferviews with the Sultan
-did his utmost to alarm him-in-
sisted on his rejection of all terms of
accommodation with Russia, and pro-
mised him the armed assistance of
England if war should arise².
The Turks rejected the Russian note,
and the Russians crossed the Pruth,
occupying the Principalities as a 'mate-
rial guarantee.' I do not defend this
act of Russia: it has always appeared
to me impolitic and immoral; but I
think it likely it could be well defended
out of Vattel, and it is at least as justi-
fiable as the conduct of Lord John
Russell and Lord Palmerston in 1850,
when they sent ten or twelve ships of
war to the Piræus, menacing the town
with a bombardment if the dishonest
pecuniary claims made by Don Pacifico
were not at once satisfied³.
But the passage of the Pruth was
declared by England and France and
Turkey not to be a casus belli. Nego-
tiations were commenced at Vienna,
and the celebrated Vienna note was
drawn up. This note had its origin in
Paris*, was agreed to by the Conference
2 Lord Stratford to the Earl of Claren-
don, May 19, 1853. See, however, a
despatch of May 10-Blue Book, part i.
P. 213.
3 Count Nesselrode to Baron Brunnow,
February, 1850.
* Earl of Westmoreland to Lord Claren-
don, July 25, 1853-Blue Book, part ii.
P. 19.
1854.
273
TO ABSALOM WATKIN.
at Vienna, ratified and approved by the
Cabinets of Paris and London¹, and
pronounced by all these authorities to
be such as would satisfy the honour of
Russia, and at the same time be com-
patible with the 'independence and in-
tegrity' of Turkey and the honour of
the Sultan. Russia accepted this note
at once²,-accepted it, I believe, by
telegraph, even before the precise
words of it had been received in St.
Petersburgh³. Everybody thought the
question now settled; a Cabinet Mi-
nister assured me we should never hear
another word about it; the whole
thing is at an end,' he said, and so it
appeared for a moment. But the Turk
refused the note which had been drawn
up by his own arbitrators, and which
Russia had accepted. And what did
the Ministers say then, and what did
their organ, the Times, say? They
said it was merely a difference about
words; it was a pity the Turk made
any difficulty, but it would soon be
settled. But it was not settled, and
why not? It is said that the Russian
Government put an improper construc-
tion on the Vienna note. But it is un-
fortunate for those who say this, that
the Turk placed precisely the same
1 Earl of Clarendon to Lord Stratford
de Redcliffe, August 2, 1853-Blue Book,
part ii. p. 27. Lord Cowley to Lord Cla-
rendon, August 4, 1853-Ibid. part ii. p. 37.
2 Sir G. H. Seymour to the Earl of
Clarendon, August 5, 1853-Blue Book,
part ii. p. 43. Count Nesselrode, August 6,
1853-Ibid. part ii. p. 46.
3 Sir G. H. Seymour to Lord Clarendon,
August 12,1853-Blue Book, part ii. p. 50.
Count Nesselrode to Baron Meyendorff,
September 7, 1853-Ibid. part ii. p. 101.
* Lord Stratford de Redcliffe to the Earl
of Clarendon, August 13, 1853-Blue
Book, part iv. p. 69. Lord Stratford to
the Earl of Clarendon, August 14, 1853—
Ibid. part ii. p. 71.
5 Lord Cowley to Lord Clarendon, from
Paris, September 2, 1853-Blue Book,
part iv. p. 87. Lord Clarendon to Lord
Stratford de Redcliffe, September 10, 1853
construction upon it; and further, it is
upon record that the French Govern-
ment advised the Russian Government
to accept it, on the ground that its
general sense differed in nothing from
the sense of the proposition of Prince
Menchikoff".' It is, however, easy to
see why the Russian Government should,
when the Turks refused the award of
their own arbitrators, re-state its original
claim, that it might not be damaged
by whatever concession it had made in
accepting the award; and this is evi-
dently the explanation of the document
issued by Count Nesselrode, and about
which so much has been said. But,
after this, the Emperor of Russia spoke
to Lord Westmoreland on the subject
at Olmütz, and expressed his readiness
to accept the Vienna note, with any
clause which the Conference might add
to it, explaining and restricting its
meaning7; and he urged that this
should be done at once, as he was
anxious that his troops should re-cross
the Pruth before winter. It was in
this very week that the Turks sum-
moned a grand council, and, contrary
to the advice of England and France,
determined on a declaration of war⁹.
Now, observe the course taken by
-Ibid. part iv. p. 95. The Times, Sep-
tember 17, 1853.
6 Earl of Clarendon to the Earl of
Westmoreland, July 25, 1853-Blue Book,
part ii. p. I. Count Nesselrode's Memo-
randum of March 2, 1854, in the Journal
des Débats.
7 Lord Westmoreland to Lord Claren-
don, September 28, 1853-Blue Book,
part ii. p. 129. Lord Cowley to Lord
Clarendon, October 4, 1853-Ibid. part ii.
p. 131. Lord Clarendon to Lord Cowley,
October 7, 1853-Ibid. part ii. p. 140.
Lord Clarendon to Lord A. Loftus-Ibid.
part ii. p. 132.
8 Earl of Westmoreland, September 14,
1853-Blue Book, part ii. P. 106.
9 Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Septem-
ber 26, 1853-Blue Book, part ii. p. 130.
M. Drouyn de Lhuys to Count Walewski,
October 4, 1853—Ibid. part ii. p. 136.
18
274
OCT. 29,
LETTER OF JOHN BRIGHT
our Government. They agreed to the
Vienna note; not fewer than five Mem-
bers of this Cabinet have filled the
office of Foreign Secretary, and there-
fore may be supposed capable of com-
prehending its meaning: it was a note
drawn up by the friends of Turkey, and
by arbitrators self-constituted on behalf
of Turkey; they urged its acceptance
on the Russian Government, and the
Russian Government accepted it; there
was then a dispute about its precise
meaning, and Russia agreed, and even
proposed that the arbitrators at Vienna
should amend it, by explaining it, and
limiting its meaning, so that no question
of its intention should henceforth exist.
But, the Turks having rejected it, our
Government turned round, and declared
the Vienna note, their own note, entirely
inadmissible, and defended the conduct
of the Turks in having rejected it. The
Turks declared war, against the advice
of the English and French Governments¹
-so, at least, it appears from the Blue
Books; but the moment war was de-
clared by Turkey, our Government
openly applauded it. England, then,
was committed to the war. She had
promised armed assistance to Turkey—
a country without government2, and
whose administration was at the mercy
of contending factions; and incapable
of fixing a policy for herself, she allowed
herself to be dragged on by the cur-
rent of events at Constantinople. She
'drifted,' as Lord Clarendon said, ex-
actly describing his own position, into
the war, apparently without rudder and
without compass.
The whole policy of our Government
in this matter is marked with an imbeci-
lity perhaps without example. I will not
say they intended a war from the first,
though there are not wanting many evi-
1 Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, Septem-
ber 20, 1853-Blue Book, part ii. pp. 149,
151. Lord Clarendon, October 24, 1853
-Ibid. part ii. p. 131. Lord Stratford,
November 17, 1853-Ibid. part ii. pp.
271, 281. Lord Stratford-Ibid. part ii.
p. 288. Lord Clarendon to Lord Strat-
6
dences that war was the object of at least
a section of the Cabinet. A distinguished
Member of the House of Commons said
to a friend of mine, immediately after the
accession of the present Government to
office, You have a war Ministry, and
you will have a war.' But I leave this
question to point out the disgraceful
feebleness of the Cabinet, if I am to
absolve them from the guilt of having
sought occasion for war. They pro-
mised the Turk armed assistance on
conditions, or without conditions. They,
in concert with France, Austria, and
Prussia, took the original dispute out
of the hands of Russia and Turkey, and
formed themselves into a court of arbi-
tration in the interests of Turkey; they
made an award, which they declared to
be safe and honourable for both parties;
this award was accepted by Russia and
rejected by Turkey; and they then
turned round upon their own award,
declared it to be totally inadmissible,'
and made war upon the very country
whose Government, at their suggestion
and urgent recommendation, had frankly
accepted it. At this moment England
is engaged in a murderous warfare with
Russia, although the Russian Govern-
ment accepted her own terms of peace,
and has been willing to accept them in
the sense of England's own interpre-
tation of them ever since they were
offered; and at the same time England
is allied with Turkey, whose Govern-
ment rejected the award of England,
and who entered into the war in oppo-
sition to the advice of England. Surely,
when the Vienna note was accepted by
Russia, the Turks should have been
prevented from going to war, or should
have been allowed to go to war at their
own risk.
I have said nothing here of the fact
ford, November 8, 1853-Ibid. part ii.
p. 219.
2 Lord Clarendon to Lord Stratford-
Blue Book, part i. pp. 81, 82. Lord
Stratford to M. E. Pisani, June 22, 1853
-Ibid. part i. p. 383. The same to the
same, July 4-Ibid. part i. pp. 383, 384.
1854.
275
TO ABSALOM WATKIN.
that all these troubles have sprung out
of the demands made by France upon
the Turkish Government, and urged in
language more insulting than any which
has been shown to have been used by
Prince Menchikoff¹. I have said no-
thing of the diplomatic war which has
been raging for many years past in Con-
stantinople, and in which England has
been behind no other Power in attempt-
ing to subject the Porte to foreign in-
fluences2. I have said nothing of the
abundant evidence there is that we are
not only at war with Russia, but with
all the Christian population of the Turk-
ish Empire, and that we are building
up our Eastern policy on a false foun-
dation—namely, on the perpetual main-
tenance of the most immoral and filthy
of all despotisms over one of the fairest
portions of the earth which it has deso-
lated, and over a population it has
degraded but has not been able to
destroy. I have said nothing of the
wretched delusion that we are fighting
for civilization in supporting the Turk
against the Russian and against the
subject Christian population of Turkey.
I have said nothing about our pre-
tended sacrifices for freedom in this
war, in which our great and now do-
minant ally is a monarch who, last in
Europe, struck down a free constitution,
and dispersed by military violence a
national Representative Assembly.
My doctrine would have been non-
intervention in this case. The danger
of the Russian power was a phantom3;
the necessity of permanently upholding
the Mahometan rule in Europe is an ab-
surdity. Our love for civilization, when
we subject the Greeks and Christians to
the Turks, is a sham; and our sacrifices
for freedom, when working out the
behests of the Emperor of the French
1 Col. Rose to the Earl of Malmesbury,
November 20, 1852-Blue Book, part i.
p. 49. Lord J. Russell to Lord Cowley,
January 28, 1853-Ibid. part i. p. 67..
2 Blue Book-Correspondence respect-
ing the Condition of Protestants in Turkey,
1841-51, pp. 5-8.
and coaxing Austria to help us, is a
pitiful imposture. The evils of non-
intervention were remote and vague,
and could neither be weighed nor de-
scribed in any accurate terms. The good
we can judge something of already, by
estimating the cost of a contrary policy.
And what is that cost? War in the
north and south of Europe, threatening
to involve every country of Europe.
Many, perhaps fifty millions sterling,
in the course of expenditure by this
country alone, to be raised from the
taxes of a people whose extrication
from ignorance and poverty can only be
hoped for from the continuance of peace.
The disturbance of trade throughout
the world, the derangement of monetary
affairs, and difficulties and ruin to
thousands of families.
Another year
of high prices of food, notwithstanding
a full harvest in England, chiefly be-
cause war interferes with imports, and
we have declared our principal foreign
food-growers to be our enemies. The
loss of human life to an enormous extent.
Many thousands of our own country-
men have already perished of pestilence
and in the field; and hundreds, perhaps
thousands, of English families will be
plunged into sorrow, as a part of the
penalty to be paid for the folly of the
nation and its rulers.
When the time comes for the 'inqui-
sition for blood,' who shall answer for
these things? You have read the ti-
dings from the Crimea; you have, per-
haps, shuddered at the slaughter; you
remember the terrific picture-I speak
not of the battle, and the charge, and
the tumultuous excitement of the con-
flict, but of the field after the battle-
Russians, in their frenzy or their terror,
shooting Englishmen who would have
offered them water to quench their
3 There never has been a great State
whose power for external aggression has
been more overrated than Russia. She
may be impregnable within her own
boundaries, BUT SHE IS NEARLY POWERLESS
FOR ANY PURPOSE OF OFFENCE.'-Lord Pal-
merston, in the House of Commons, 1853.
1
•
18-2
*
-
F
276
LETTER OF JOHN BRIGHT.
agony of thirst; Englishmen, in crowds,
rifling the pockets of the men they had
slain or wounded, taking their few
shillings or roubles, and discovering
among the plunder of the stiffening
corpses images of the Virgin and the
Child.' You have read this, and your
imagination has followed the fearful
details. This is war,-every crime which
human nature can commit or imagine,
every horror it can perpetrate or suffer;
and this it is which our Christian Go-
vernment recklessly plunges into, and
which so many of our countrymen at
this moment think it patriotic to
applaud! You must excuse me if I
cannot go with you. I will have no
part in this terrible crime. My hands
shall be unstained with the blood which
is being shed. The necessity of main-
taining themselves in office may influ-
ence an administration; delusions may
mislead a people; Vattel may afford you
a law and a defence; but no respect
for men who form a Government, no
regard I have for 'going with the
stream,' and no fear of being deemed
wanting in patriotism, shall influence
me in favour of a policy which, in my
conscience, I believe to be as criminal
before God as it is destructive of the
true interest of my country.
I have only to ask you to forgive me
for writing so long a letter. You have
forced it from me, and I would not have
written it did I not so much appreciate
your sincerity and your good intentions
towards me.
Believe me to be,
October 29.
Very sincerely yours,
JOHN BRIGHT.
REFORM.
I.
BIRMINGHAM, OCTOBER 27, 1858.
[In the autumn of the year 1858, Mr. Bright, having recovered from a serious illness
which had compelled his absence from the House of Commons during the sessions of
1856 and 1857, visited some of the principal towns in Great Britain, and made
several important speeches on Parliamentary Reform. In the spring of the next year
Lord Derby introduced his scheme. It was rejected, and a dissolution followed,
which put Lord Palmerston at the head of affairs. During his life the question slept.
On Lord Russell's accession to office in the latter part of the year 1865 the question
was revived, and the Bill of 1866 was produced. This was lost, through a coalition
of the Tories and the Adullamites,' and Lord Derby came into office again. In
1867 a Reform Bill was carried.]
IF I exhibit embarrassment in rising
to address you, I must ask for your for-
bearance, for, in truth, as I cast my
eyes over this great assembly, I feel
myself almost bewildered and oppressed
with a consciousness of my incapacity
to fulfil properly the duty which de-
volves upon me to-night. It is now
nearly three years since I was permitted,
and, indeed, since I was able, to stand
upon any public platform to address
any public meeting of my countrymen ;
and during that period I have passed
through a new and a great experience.
From apparent health I have been
brought down to a condition of weak-
ness exceeding the weakness of a little
child, in which I could neither read nor
write, nor converse for more than a few
minutes without distress and without
peril; and from that condition, by de-
grees so fine as to be imperceptible even
to myself, I have been restored to the
comparative health in which you now
behold me. In remembrance of all
this, is it wrong in me to acknowledge
here, in the presence of you all, with
reverent and thankful heart, the signal
favour which has been extended to me
by the great Supreme? Is it wrong
that I should take this opportunity of
expressing the gratitude which I feel to
all classes of my countrymen for the num-
berless kindnesses which I have received
from them during this period-from
those high in rank and abounding in
wealth and influence, to the dweller on
one of our Lancashire moors, who sent
me a most kind message to say that he
believed where he lived was the health-
iest spot in England, and that if I
would come and take up my abode
with him for a time, though his means
were limited and his dwelling humble,
he would contrive to let me have a
room to myself? I say, looking back
to all this, that if I have ever done any-
thing for my countrymen, or for their

278
ост. 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
interests in any shape, I am amply com-
pensated by the abundant kindness they
have shown to me during the last three
years. And if there be any colour of
shade to this picture, if there be men
who subjected me to a passionate and
ungenerous treatment, when I was
stricken down and was enduring a te-
dious exile, though the best years of
my life were engaged in the defence of
their interests, I have the consolation
of knowing that their act was not ap-
proved by the country, and that when
my cause came up, by appeal, to a
superior, because an impartial tribunal,
their verdict was condemned and set
aside by the unanimous judgment of
the electors and population of this great
central city of the kingdom.
I shall not attempt, by the employ-
ment of any elaborate phrases, to ex-
press to you what I felt at the time
when you conferred upon me the signal
honour of returning me as one of your
representatives to the House of Com-
mons. I am not sufficiently master of
the English language to discover words
which shall express what I then felt,
and what I feel now towards you, for
what you did then, and for the recep-
tion which you have given me to-night.
I never imagined for a moment that
you were prepared to endorse all my
opinions, or to sanction every political
act with which I have been connected;
but I accepted your resolution in choos-
ing me as meaning this, that you had
watched my political career; that you
believed it had been an honest one;
that you were satisfied I had not swerved
knowingly to the right hand or to the
left; that the attractions of power had
not turned me aside; that I had not
changed my course from any view of
courting a fleeting popularity; and, fur-
ther, that you are of this opinion-an
opinion which I religiously hold—that
the man whose political career is on a
line with his conscientious convictions,
can never be unfaithful to his constitu-
ents or to his country.
At the time of my election, you will
remember that some newspapers which
commented upon it, took the liberty of
saying that I had had a good deal of
time for reflection; that I had been
taught a wholesome lesson; and that I
had changed or modified my views with
respect to recent public policy. I have
had no proper opportunity before to-
night to refer to that statement, and I
beg leave to tell those gentlemen that
they were, and are, if they still hold the
same opinion, entirely mistaken; that
whether I was wrong or right, I acted
according to what I believed to be
right, and that all the facts and all the
information which I have since received
have only served to confirm me in the
opinions which I had previously ex-
pressed. I wish now, too—and all this
is rather preliminary-to refer to one
ingenious misrepresentation, which it
was of no use attempting to meet when
passion was at its height, and when
public clamour prevented any calm ar-
gument upon the question then before
the country. All who read the news-
papers at the time will recollect that it
was said of me, and of others who
thought and acted with me-but more
of me than of any other person-that
my opinion upon such a question as the
right or wisdom of any particular war
in which the country might be engaged
was, after all, of no kind of value,
because whatever was the war, what-
ever were the circumstances, I should
have taken exactly the same course,
and therefore that argument upon a
particular war was of no avail, and was
totally unnecessary. Now I beg leave
to say that this was a misrepresentation
which no person had a right to make.
I shall not trouble you more than a
moment or two on this point; but per-
mit me to say that the first time I spoke
in the House of Commons on the sub-
ject of the Russian war, was on the 31st
of March, 1854, when a message from
the Crown came down announcing that
the calamity of war was about to befall
the country. In the very opening of
my speech were these short sentences,
which, if you will allow me, I will read
to you. I said:-'I shall not discuss

1858.
279
REFORM. I.
this question on the abstract principle
of peace at all price, as it is termed,
which is held by a small minority of
persons in this country, founded on
religious opinions which are not gene-
rally received; but I shall discuss it
entirely on principles that are held
unanimously by the Members of this
House. When we are deliberating on
the question of war, and endeavouring
to prove its justice or necessity, it be-
comes us to show that the interests of
the country are clearly involved; that
the objects for which the war is about
to be undertaken are probable, or, at
least, possible of attainment, and that
the end proposed to be accomplished is
worth the cost and the sacrifices which
we are about to incur.' And I went on
to say that I hoped if a noble Lord,
who was then a Member of the Govern-
ment, rose to make any reply to my
observations, he would not run away
from the subject before the House, but
would meet me fairly as having dis-
cussed the question in that way, and
that way only. Well, I now tell you,
what it ought not to be necessary to
say, that from that time until the time
when I last spoke on the subject of the
Russian war, I confined myself entirely
to those points; my facts, my argu-
ments, and my case were drawn from
the despatches and Blue Books which
the Government for their justification
laid before Parliament; and therefore,
I repeat, it was not open to any one
who opposed me to oppose me on the
ground that my opinion on the Russian
war was worth nothing, because what-
ever might have been the cause of war,
I should have held exactly the same
language.
Now, after all is over except the tax-
gatherer, and the sorrows of those who
have lost their friends in the war, I will
just in one sentence say that I am still
unable to discover what compensation
England has for the hundred millions
of money she expended, or what com-
pensation Europe has for the three
hundred millions squandered by all the
parties engaged in that frightful contest.
It is not easy to say how much; but of
this we may be sure, that the squander-
ing of 300,000,000l. sterling by the
nations of Europe in that struggle has
had a great influence on the enhanced
price of money during the last few years,
and greatly aggravated the pressure of
the panic through which we passed
twelve months ago. The 40,000 lives
which we lost in the Russian war some
persons hold cheap; I do not. I think
that the grown men of Birmingham
from eighteen years of age to fifty (and
there are, probably, not more than
40,000 of them) are something worth
looking at by the statesman and the
Christian; and I say that the 400,000
lives which were lost to Europe deserved
to be considered before we rushed
blindly into a war with Russia. For
myself, therefore, all I wish to point out
to you is this, that the man who hesi-
tates before he squanders so much blood
and so much treasure has at least a
right to be received with a moderate
amount of tolerance and forbearance.
I shall say no more now on this subject,
for I intend to take an early opportunity
of going into the general question of
foreign policy at a greater length than
would be proper this evening.
I am afraid to say how many persons
I now see before me who are by the
present constitution of this country shut
out from any participation in political
power. I shall take this opportunity of
discussing, and, as far as I am able,
with brevity and distinctness, what I
think we ought to aim at now, when
the great question of Parliamentary Re-
form is before the country. I think we
may fairly say that that question occu-
pies now something like a triumphant
position, and at the same time a position
of great peril- triumphant, inasmuch
as it has now no open enemies-peril-
ous, inasmuch as, for the moment, it is
taken up by those who, up to this hour,
have been, for the most part, the un-
compromising opponents of Reform.
We have had four Governments pledged
to Parliamentary Reform within the
last few years. Lord J. Russell, as
280
ост. 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Prime Minister, introduced a Reform
Bill, and afterwards, in the Government
of Lord Aberdeen, Lord J. Russell in-
troduced another Reform Bill, and the
least said of these two Bills, especially
of the latter, the better. The Govern-
ment which has recently been over-
thrown pledged itself to the country
and the House of Commons to bring
in a Reform Bill, but at the time when
it came to an unexpected, but a not un-
deserved end, no Bill had been prepared,
so that we knew nothing of the parti-
culars of which it was to be composed.
We have now a Government under the
chieftainship of Lord Derby, who,
during his short term of office in 1852,
stated, if I remember right, that one of
the chief objects of his Government
would be to stem the tide of democracy.
Now, it may be that Lord Derby has
entirely changed his mind, that he is as
much converted to Parliamentary Re-
form as Sir R. Peel, in 1856, was con-
verted to Corn-law repeal. If he is so
converted, then our question may be in
good hands, but if he is not (and he has
never yet acknowledged his conversion),
then I think it is but reasonable of us
to view his course with some suspicion,
and to look upon the position of the
question in his hands with some alarm.
All parties now pretend to be in love
with the question of Reform, but still
they do not tell us much about it. They
remind me, in the few speeches which
they have made upon the question, of
the condition of that deplorable Atlantic
cable, of which I read the other day in
the newspapers, that 'the currents were
visible, but the signals were wholly
indistinct.'
But having admitted that Parlia-
mentary Reform is necessary, they
thereby admit that the present House
of Commons does not satisfactorily re-
present the nation, and it is one step in
advance to receive that admission from
all those persons, from among whom it
has hitherto been supposed that Go-
vernment could alone be formed in this
country. Now, I do not believe that
the Parliament, as at present consti-
6
tuted, does fairly represent the nation,
and I think it is capable of most dis-
tinct proof that it does not. Before I
proceed to figures, I will mention one
or two general proofs of that assertion.
In the year 1846, when the great ques-
tion of the repeal of the Corn-laws was
under discussion, it required something
like an earthquake to obtain for the peo-
ple the right to buy their bread in the
world's markets; it required a famine
in Ireland, which from 1845 to 1851
lessened the population of that country
by 3,000,000; it required the conversion
of a great Minister, the break-up of a
great party, the endangering of the
Constitution,' and all those mysterious
evils which official statesmen discovered
when the poor artisan of Birmingham
or Manchester, or the poor half-starved
farm-labourer, asked this only, that
where bread could be had best and
cheapest in return for his labour, he
might be permitted to buy it. But
coming down to 1852, when Lord Derby
was in office, he dissolved the Parlia-
ment, and the great question proposed
to the constituencies was Protection.
Parliament re-assembled, and Protection
and Lord Derby were defeated by a ma-
jority of nineteen; but when you had
only a majority of nineteen in the House
of Commons against the re-establish-
ment of Protection, nineteen-twentieths
of the people of England were deter-
mined that they never would have any-
thing of the sort again.
Take again the questions which affect
the Established Church. Probably
many persons in this meeting are not
aware that, according to the return of
the Registrar-General, only one-third of
the people of this country have any
connection with the Established Church.
In Scotland, one-third only of the popu
lation are connected with the Establish-
ment; in Ireland, five out of six, in
Wales, eight out of ten, have no con-
nection at all with it. And yet the
Established Church is paramount in
both Houses. If the House of Com-
mons fairly represented all the people of
the United Kingdom, the Established
1858.
281
REFORM. I.
7
Church (it is as a political institution
that I speak of it, I say nothing of it as
a religious institution) would be much
more modest, and we should probably
get some changes much more readily
than we have ever got any before.
Again, you are aware, probably, that
up to 1853, if a man received landed
property by inheritance, if it were left to
him by will, or came to him as heir-at-
law, it paid no legacy duty—I speak of
freehold property. In 1853, Mr. Glad-
stone, by an effort which was considered
superhuman, prevailed upon the House
of Commons to pass a law to impose
a succession-tax, as it was called, or a
legacy-duty on real property. I will
tell you how they did it. You know
that if a man in Birmingham comes
into possession of leasehold houses, or
machinery, or shares in the North-
Western Railway, or shipping, or any
other property not called real property
-though, by the way, when a man gets
hold of it, it is surprising how real he
finds it-if he be no relation to the
person who left it to him, he has to
pay a legacy-duty of ten per cent., and
a different degree of per-centage ac-
cording to the degree of relationship
in which he may stand to the testator.
In the case of land-the best of all
property, with regard to its durability
and certainty, for a man to have left
to him or to possess the law is of a
different kind. A friend of mine, a
Member of the House of Commons,
was fortunate enough to have left to
him by a person who was in no way
related to him a landed estate of about
700l. a-year. This was worth in the
market thirty years' purchase, or 21,000l.
There was timber on the estate to the
value of 11,000l., which, added to
21,000l., made the whole bequest
32,000l. If it had been leasehold
houses, or stock-in-trade, or machinery,
or shares, or shipping, or in the funds,
my friend would have had to pay 10l.
per cent. on it, that is to say, 3,2001.
But what did he pay? The calculation
was this:-My friend is of a certain
age-I do not know what, and it is not
material; the tax-gatherer or the people
at Somerset House look into a table,
which shows the probable length of
life of a man of that particular age, and
instead of paying 10l. per cent. on
32,000l., he is taxed upon the annual
income of the estate multiplied by the
number of years which according to the
tables he may be expected to live. It
ended in this way, that instead of pay-
ing 3,200l. to the State, to bear your
burdens and to pay for your wars,
he
paid 700l., or rather less than one-
quarter of that sum. Do you think
that if the House of Commons fairly
represented the lawyers, merchants,
manufacturers, shopkeepers, artisans,
and all the rest of the population,
such an Act as that could have passed
that House, or that if it had existed
it could continue to exist for a single
session?
I could show you inequalities as great
and scandalous in the manner in which
the income-tax, so grievously felt by
owners of certain property in Birming-
ham, is imposed and presses upon the
owners of the soil and those engaged
in professions and trades chiefly carried
on in towns, but I will not enter into
that matter. Your own experience
must have shown you how unequal
that tax is. You know how entirely
every Government has swept aside all
proposals to make it more equal and
just.
And now we come to the question of
figures. I will not trouble you with a
heap of statistics which you cannot re-
member, but will give you as a proof
one or two cases. Take the greatest
county in England. Yorkshire shows
you an existing inequality which is ab-
solutely fatal to all fair representation.
There are in Yorkshire 10 small bo-
roughs which return to Parliament 16
Members-there are other 8 boroughs
in Yorkshire whose Members altogether
are 14. Now, the 10 boroughs return-
ing the 16 Members have not more than
a population of 80,000, while the 8
boroughs with the 14 Members have a
population of 620,000. Now, whether
282
ост. 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
4
you take the amount of population, the
number of houses, the sum at which
they are rated to the income-tax, or the
number of electors, the proportion is in
the same way, the large boroughs with
the smaller number of Members have
seven times the population, seven times
the number of houses, seven times the
amount of income-tax to pay, and seven
times the number of electors. I must
ask your attention to one other com-
parison, and it relates to your own town.
The present Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, you know, represents the county
of Bucks. That county has a population
of 164,000, which is not much more
than half the population of Birmingham,
and yet, Bucks with its boroughs has
not less than II Members in the House
of Commons. 164,000 persons in Bucks
return 11 Members, while Birmingham,
with not less than 250,000, and pro-
bably much more, only returns two
Members. I will give you another
illustration, which refers to your own
town. In Dorsetshire, Devonshire, and
Wiltshire there are 22 boroughs, which
return 34 Members to Parliament.
Compare the population and political
power of those 22 boroughs, returning
34 Members to Parliament, with the
population and political power of Bir-
mingham. You have nearly twice
the population, but you have only
have only
two Members to represent you in
Parliament.
I could furnish you with pages of
illustrations of this kind to show you
that our whole system of representation
is unequal and dishonest. But one
more proof only, and then I will quit
the figures, for I think the case will
be sufficiently clear. There are in the
House of Commons at present 330
Members (more than half the House)
whose whole number of constituents do
not amount to more than 180,000, and
there are at the same time in Parliament
24 Members, whose constituents are
upwards of 200,000 in number, and,
while the constituents of 330 Members
are assessed to the property-tax at
15,000,000l., the constituents of the
24 Members are assessed to the same
tax at more than 24,000,000l. There is,
besides, this great significant fact, that
wherever you go in Great Britain or
Ireland, five out of every six men you
meet have no vote. The Reform Bill,
which I am not about to depreciate,
since I know what it cost to get it, and
I know something of what it has done
-was so drawn as purposely to exclude
from the list of electors the great body
of the working classes of this kingdom.
But supposing that out of the 6,000,000
of grown-up men in the United Kingdom
1,000,000 had the suffrage, as is now
the case, and supposing that 1,000,000
returned the House of Commons by a
fair distribution of Members according
to numbers, there would, in all proba-
bility, be a fair representation of the
opinions of the 6,000,000, because the
opinions of the 1,000,000 would to a
considerable extent reflect and represent
the opinions of their fellow-countrymen.
But that is not the case. The law has
selected 1,000,000 to be the electors of
Members of Parliament, but, having got
that 1,000,000, it has contrived-partly
by accident it may be, but very much
by intention-that the political power
of the majority of that 1,000,000 is
frittered away, is fraudulently disposed
of and destroyed by the manner in which
Members are
Members are distributed among the
1,000,000 electors composing the elec-
toral body. Now, I wish to ask this
meeting-and let us try to take a judicial
and dispassionate view of the question
when we talk of Reform-What is it
that we really want? I hold it to be
this-that we want to substitute a real
and honest representation of the people
for that fraudulent thing which we call
a representation now.
But there is a very serious question
to be decided before we can almost take
a step. When you are about to reform
the House of Commons, are your eyes
to be turned to the House of Peers, or
to the great body of the nation? The
House of Peers, as you know, does not
travel very fast-even what is called a
Parliamentary train is too fast for its
1858.
283
REFORM. I.
$
nerves; in fact, it never travels at all
unless somebody shoves it. If any man
proposes to reform the House of Com-
mons just so much as and no more than
will allow it to keep pace with the wishes
of the House of Lords, I would ask him
not to take any trouble in the matter,
but just to leave it exactly where it is.
If you want it to represent the nation,
then it is another question; and, having
come to that conclusion, if we have
come to it, there is no great mystery,
I think, as to the manner in which it
can be brought about. The question
between the Peers and the people is
one which cannot be evaded. It is the
great difficulty in the way of our friends
at head-quarters who are for Reform,
but do not know how to meet it. It
was the difficulty which Lord John
Russell felt. Lord John Russell-I
believe you may take my word for it—
has probably, from association, from
tradition, from his own reading and
study, and from his own just and honest
sympathies, a more friendly feeling
towards this question of Parliamentary
Reform than any other man of his order
as a statesman. But, having said this,
I must also say-what he, too, would
say if he thought it prudent to tell all
he knew-that this is the great diffi-
culty with him-How can I reconcile
a free representation of the people
in the House of Commons with the
inevitable disposition which rests in a
hereditary House of Peers? Now, we
must decide this question. Choose you
this day whom you will serve. If the
Peers are to be your masters, as they
boast that their ancestors were the con-
querors of yours, serve them. But if
you will serve only the laws, the laws
of your country, the laws in making
which you have been consulted, you
may go on straight to discuss this great
question of Parliamentary Reform.
I am not going to attack the House
of Lords. Some people tell us that the
House of Lords has in its time done
great things for freedom. It may be so,
though I have not been so successful in
finding out how or when, as some people
have been. At least since 1690, or
thereabouts, when the Peers became
the dominant power in this country,
I am scarcely able to discover one
single measure important to human or
English freedom which has come from
the voluntary consent and good-will of
their House. And, really, how should
it? You know what a Peer is. He is
one of those fortunate individuals who
are described as coming into the world
'with a silver spoon in their mouths.'
Or, to use the more polished and
elaborate phraseology of the poet, it
may be said of him-
'Fortune came smiling to his youth and
woo'd it,
And purpled greatness met his ripened
years.'
When he is a boy, among his brothers
and sisters he is pre-eminent: he is the
eldest son; he will be My Lord;'
this fine mansion, this beautiful park,
these countless farms, this vast political
influence, will one day centre on this
innocent boy. The servants know it,
and pay him greater deference on ac-
count of it. He grows up and goes to
school and college; his future position
is known; he has no great incitement
to work hard, because whatever he does
it is very difficult for him to improve
his fortune in any way. When he
leaves college he has a secure position
ready-made for him, and there seems to
be no reason why he should follow
ardently any of those occupations which
make men great among their fellow-
men. He takes his seat in the House
of Peers; whatever be his character,
whatever his intellect, whatever his
previous life, whether he be in England
or ten thousand miles away, be he
tottering down the steep of age, or be
he passing through the imbecility of
sccond childhood, yet by means of that
charming contrivance-made only for
Peers-vote by proxy, he gives his vote
for or against, and, unfortunately, too
often against, all those great measures
on which you and the country have set
your hearts. There is another kind of
284
ост. 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Peer which I am afraid to touch upon
that creature of what shall I say?
of monstrous, nay, even of adulterous
birth-the spiritual Peer. I assure you
with the utmost frankness and sincerity
that it is not in the nature of things
that men in these positions should
become willing fountains from which
can flow great things for the freedom
of any country. We are always told
that the Peers are necessary as a check.
If that is so, I must say they answer
their purpose admirably.
But when we come to consider the
question of a reform of the House of
Commons, which the Constitution does
not recognise as the House of Com-
mons belonging to the Peers, but to the
nation, we will allow the House of
Peers to go for awhile into something
like obscurity, and discuss it as if our
sole object were to make it what the
Constitution supposes it to be--a com-
plete representation of the people in
Parliament. With regard to the ques-
tion of the Suffrage, which is one of the
chief points on which I should insist,
I have no doubt there are persons who,
on reading my speech, will say, 'Sub-
versive doctrine, violent language this.
The change which you propose would
endanger many things which we highly
value. Now, I beg to assure all those
timid people that I do not wish to
endanger or to move any of the ancient
landmarks of our Constitution. I do
not want to disturb this question of the
franchise beyond what has been already
sanctioned by Parliament and the
country. I do not want to introduce
any new principle or theoretical opinion
which it may be found difficult to
adopt. There are many men probably
among those whom I see before me
who are of opinion that every man
should have a vote. They are for what
is called universal suffrage,' or 'man-
hood suffrage-something which means
that every man of twenty-one years of
age who has not forfeited his right by
any misconduct, should have a vote.
Let me say that, personally, I have not
the smallest objection to the widest
·
possible suffrage that the ingenuity of
man can devise. At the same time, if
I were now a member of a Government,
and had to arrange a Reform Bill for
next session, I should not act upon that
principle. I will tell you upon what
principle I would act. I find in the
country great diversities of opinion.
There are the Peers, of whom I have
already spoken. They are citizens with
ourselves, and have therefore a right to
be considered. There are the rich and
influential classes, who, as wealthy men
are generally found to be, are a little
timid of the great bulk of the people
who have not many riches. There are
thousands-scores of thousands-who
imagine that they could not sleep safely
in their beds if every man had a vote.
We are surprised that children some-
times cannot sleep in the dark—that
they fancy something dreadful will hap-
pen to them, and there are actually rich
people in this country who believe that
if every man had a vote it would give
him a weapon wherewith to attack their
property. There being all these diver-
sities of opinion, it clearly is the duty
of Government, and of Parliament too,
to frame a measure which shall fairly
represent what may be called the Reform
opinion of the whole country. What
have we at present in the way of
franchises? We have the parish fran-
chise. For generations, for ages past,
there has been an extensive franchise in
all our parishes. We have poor-law
unions which have worked, on the
whole, satisfactorily to the country.
We have a franchise in our poor-law
unions. We have a corporation fran-
chise, and that franchise may be said to
have worked to the satisfaction of the
country. I will ask any man here
whether he believes that in all the
parishes, all the poor-law unions, and
all the corporations, men have not con-
ducted themselves with great propriety,
and managed the affairs of their parishes,
unions, and corporations satisfactorily?
And I should like to ask him whether
he would object to have the same
franchise conferred upon them for the
1858.
285
REFORM. I.
election of Members to the House of
Commons. There is one great point
gained in such a franchise-your regis-
tration would be easy and inexpensive.
There is another point-that whatever
its omissions, whatever its exclusions,
they would not be directed against any
one particular class. It would admit
the working people to electoral power
just as fully as it would admit the
middle, or what may be called the
higher and richer classes. Therefore,
as regards class and class, it would
remove a great defect of the Reform
Bill, and would give a suffrage so wide
that I believe no one would suppose
it did not afford a fair representation
of all classes. I do not want anybody
for a moment to suppose that this
particular franchise is better than man-
hood suffrage. I am only speaking of
what Government might do, of what it
ought to do, and of what it might do,
moreover, in accordance with the vast
majority of opinion which exists in this
country on this question.
With regard to the counties I shall
say little. I know no good reason why
the franchise should not be as extensive
there as in the boroughs; but there
appears to be a general understanding
that the next step in counties shall be
one short of that. But I think it
is of great importance that the 40s.
franchise should be extended to all
parts of the United Kingdom as fully
as it is to the people of England and
Wales.
I now come to the question which I
believe all persons who have studied the
matter will readily agree is one of great
importance to the country-how your
Members shall be allotted to the various
constituent bodies. I will ask you this
simple question. What is the obvious
rule which would recommend itself to
every man when first about to arrange
this allotment? Would he not argue
in this way? The law has given certain
persons the right of voting, and it
presumes that every person who has
that right is capable of deciding how
he shall vote. Every elector, therefore,
is of the same importance in the eye of
the law, and why then should not every
elector vote for the same portion of the
whole Parliament? I shall be told
that I am not to go to the United
States for an illustration of this. I
will not. I will go a little nearer home.
Take the kingdom of Sardinia. I was
in Turin last year, and I made inquiries
as to the mode of election and the
distribution of Members there; and I
found that Genoa, with a population
of 140,000, returned seven Members to
the Sardinian Parliament. Sardinia is
not a Republic, it is a limited Monarchy
like our own. Let us go to the colonies
of Australia. Take New South Wales.
The capital-Sydney-returns eight
Members to the New South Wales
Parliament. In Victoria, the city of
Melbourne returns thirteen Members to
Parliament, and by the Bill now in-
troduced by the Ministry of that colony,
the number thirteen is about to be
increased to eighteen. I believe that in
Belgium and in Canada, both countries
under a limited Monarchy, the same
rule applies, and we know that through-
out the whole of the United States, the
number of Members is allotted according
to the population, and that once in
every ten years this scale is re-arranged;
in fact, it works itself.
I do not for a moment argue that it
is necessary that we should get an
actuary to apportion the number of
Members exactly according to his cal-
culations of the number of the popula-
tion, but we have a fair right to an
honest approximation, and without it
there can be no fair representation of
the people. Look at London, putting
aside the City. If you were to divide
the six boroughs of which the metro-
polis is made up, you would still have
12 boroughs with 300,000 population
each (larger than the population of
Birmingham), and constituencies of
10,000. Divide them again, and you
would have 24 boroughs, each of
150,000 population, with 5000 electors;
and when the franchise is extended, the
number will be still greater.
I say
286
ост. 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
}
that the metropolitan boroughs and all
large boroughs ought to be divided, or
subdivided; they ought to have double,
or treble, or quadruple their present
number of Members. What a miser-
able delusion it is that this great capital
of your midland industry, with its
250,000 or 300,000 inhabitants, sends
only two Members to the House of
Commons! But if every man I see
here before me had a vote, or if every
man outside had a vote, how will he be
better off if he sends only two Members
to the House of Commons, while some
boroughs of 10,000 inhabitants, equal
to one of the small corners of your city,
have a right to return the same number?
The whole thing, as at present arranged,
is a disgraceful fraud. It ought to be
put an end to, and, if it is not put an
end to, your representation will remain
for the future very little better than a
farce.
If you look at the county seats you
will find that the object of the present
Government, and, in fact, of any
Government in which the aristocracy
has so great a power, and where land-
owners are so predominant, must be to
greatly increase the number of Members
for counties in the distribution of seats.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a
very ingenious gentleman. At this very
moment in all probability he has got
before him rows of figures which he
hopes may enable him to prove that
the proper way of reforming Parliament
is to increase the number of landed
gentry in the House of Commons. I
recollect, on one occasion, that he
referred to the county of Chester, and
showed that there were three boroughs
in that county which returned six
Members, while the two divisions of
the county only returned four, and that
the four Members represented far more
electors and population than the six
Members of the towns. Now, it will
be unfortunate for the Chancellor of
the Exchequer if he ventures upon the
ground of arithmetic in connection with
this question. We are for arithmetic
in connection with Reform, and if he
proposes to deal with it in that way,
we have no objection to carry out the
principle fully.
But now let me turn your attention
once more to the House of Peers. You
know that the House of Peers is a body
composed entirely of landowners, with
the exception of a few lawyers and a
few successful soldiers. Have you ever
been to the botanical gardens in some
of our towns, where a board is put up
with the words, 'No dogs admitted
here'? There is a similar board at the
door of the House of Peers, though you
cannot see it with the outward eye, and
it says,
'No traders admitted here.'
The House of Peers is a house for the
great proprietors of the soil. The
county of Chester, to which Mr. Dis-
raeli referred, is very strongly repre-
sented in the House of Lords. There
are the Marquis of Westminster, Lord
Combermere, Lord Stanley of Alderley,
and, no doubt, another peer or two, if
our acquaintance with them was only a
little more extensive. Take Lancashire.
We have the Earl of Burlington, now
the Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of
Derby, the Earl of Sefton, and the Earl
of Wilton. They come up from their
great landed properties in Lancashire,
and sit in the House of Lords. Let us
come to your own county. You have
the Earl of Warwick, Lord Leigh, Lord
Craven I think, Lord Calthorpe, and
one or two others, for in a county so
charming as this, there are sure to be
many estates and mansions belonging
to the aristocracy of England.
time was when both Houses of Parlia-
ment sat together. They meet together
now, but in different chambers, under
the same roof, and no law can pass,
not the smallest modicum of freedom
or of justice come to you, until it has
gone through the very fine meshes of
the net of the House of Lords. Well,
then, I say that if the landed proprietors
of England insist upon a great addition
to their power in the House of Com-
mons, the inhabitants of the towns and
the traders of the country will be
obliged to ask, 'How is that we have
The
1858.
287
REFORM. I.
not our share of power in the House of
Lords?'
Only one word more on the question
of distribution of Members. When-
ever a Reform Bill is brought into the
House of Commons by any Govern-
ment, be as watchful and exacting as
you like on the subject of the franchise,
but never, I beg, take your eye for one
moment from the question of the distri-
bution of the Members, for in it lies the
great subject of dispute, and unless you
guard your rights you will have to fight
your battle over again, and to begin it
the very day after the next Bill has
passed.
There is one other point to which I
must refer, and it is one upon which
I presume I shall have the cordial
assent of this meeting. I believe it
is the opinion of the great body of the
Reformers of the United Kingdom, that
any Reform Bill which pretends to be
generally satisfactory to Reformers must
concede the shelter and protection of
the ballot. I shall not discuss that
question or argue now in its favour.
I am quite sure that in the minds of the
electors of England it has long been
decided, and it has also been decided in
the House of Commons. Those who
are for the ballot are for it mainly be-
cause they wish free elections. Those
who are opposed to it, are opposed to
it chiefly because they believe it would
liberate the great body of the constitu-
encies from the control and influence of
the rich. The Times newspaper and
others, but particularly the Times, in
discussing this question, treat it as if it
were a question to be despised, and tell
us that it is mean and unmanly to ask
that men should go to the poll and give
their votes in secret. The very man
who writes thus in the Times, writes his
article in secret, and publishes it in
secret, and if any person says that he
ought to affix his name to it-which,
mind, I do not say at all-what is his
answer? He replies, I am performing
a great public duty; I am obliged, in
the discharge of that duty, to comment
with great severity upon Ministers and
public men, and to expose abuses, and
in doing this it is necessary that I
should have the shelter of anonymous
writing.' Well, I do not dispute that;
but if it is wise and just for a writer in
the Times to have that shelter in the
performance of a public duty, I say it is
especially wise and just that the humble
elector in every county and every bo-
rough should have from the law, if the
law can give it, an equal protection in
the exercise of his franchise. I believe
that when the franchise is thus extended,
when the apportionment of Members to
the constituencies approximates to a
just arrangement, and when you have
the protection of the ballot, you will
have that kind of representation in the
House of Commons which will give to
every man who sits there a real con-
stituency, and will fix him with a real
responsibility.
-
You
I believe there is no country in the
world that pretends to regular govern-
ment where there is less of real respon-
sibility among high officials than there
is in England. There is one case which
I cannot resist the temptation of citing
as an illustration of what I mean.
During the Russian war, there were two
points on which the interest of Europe
was centered; one was Sebastopol, the
other the city of Kars. I hope we have
not forgotten all the geography we
learnt during those calamitous times,
for I believe it is the only really valu-
able thing we got by the war.
recollect that the city of Kars was be-
sieged by the Russians, and that it was
defended by Turkish troops, assisted
and commanded. I think, by an English-
man Colonel Williams. You have
heard, and I am not at all prepared to
dispute it, that Colonel Williams be-
haved, I do not say with great bravery,
for that is common to almost all Eng-
lishmen-and, indeed, to the majority
of men everywhere- but with great
sagacity and prudence, and showed the
qualities of a commander. Eventually
he was obliged to capitulate, and those
who capitulated were treated in the
most honourable manner by the Rus-
L
1
288
OCT. 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
sians, who obtained possession of the
town. At that time a nobleman of
very high rank -
-no less a personage
than Lord Stratford de Redcliffe-was
Ambassador from the Queen of Eng-
land at the city of the Sultan. He had
been there for nearly twenty years.
During the siege of Kars Colonel Wil-
liams wrote and forwarded to Lord
Stratford at Constantinople more than
sixty letters or despatches with reference
to his position, stating how they were
worn out with sorties and the attacks of
the enemy; how long their provisions
and ammunition might last, and urging
him to take any steps which might be
possible for the purpose of making a
diversion in his favour, or of sending
relief. All that was proper for Colonel
Williams to write and communicate to
the Ambassador of the Queen at Con-
stantinople, he did write and communi-
cate; but do you recollect the striking
fact that Lord Stratford de Redcliffe
did not reply to-did not acknowledge
or take the smallest notice of any one
of these sixty or seventy despatches?
He treated them as waste paper.
had been years at Constantinople, quar-
relling with every European minister
there, and bullying the ministers of the
Sultan; but when his own countrymen
and their allies were shut up in the
fortified town of Kars, besieged by a
powerful and overwhelming force, driven
at length to starvation, and finally to
capitulation, this great official treated
the whole thing as utterly beneath his
notice. Subsequently, Colonel Williams
came to England and was made a
baronet; Parliament passed an Act
granting him a pension of 1000l. a-
year, and the Marquis of Lansdowne,
one of the Cabinet Ministers of the day,
brought him into the House of Com-
mons for his pocket borough of Calne,
in Wiltshire. Colonel Williams has
never opened his mouth in public in
England on the subject of his treatment
by Lord Stratford de Redcliffe; while
that nobleman, who had been guilty of
this great neglect-I say this enormous
crime-has since taken his seat in the
He
House of Lords, has become a great
authority, and has now been sent by the
Government on a special mission to
Constantinople.
**
❤
I need not tell you that I was not in
favour of any of that Eastern policy,
but I presume Lord Stratford was; he
was one of the great authors of it, and
I say that any man who takes office
from his sovereign and his country as he
took it, with a salary of 10,000l. a-year,
and expenses of almost an equal amount,
for the Embassy at Constantinople, is
guilty of a scandalous abandonment of
the duty he owes to the Queen and to
the country if he pays no attention to
such letters as those which Lord Strat-
ford received from an officer of the
Queen shut up with our allies in Kars.
If Lord Stratford had been a Russian
noble and had so behaved, before
taking his seat in the House of Peers
and going on a special mission to
Constantinople, he would have had
the advantage of being sent on a
special mission to Siberia; while if
he had been an Ambassador of the
United States of America-but I can-
not follow out the illustration, because
in the United States there is no family
influence, there is no power such as that
wielded by our great territorial poten-
tates: there is nothing in that country
to shield an officer of the State from
public reprobation, and therefore I am
quite certain that no person deputed
from the United States could by any
possibility be guilty of the abandon-
ment of duty which was manifested by
Lord Stratford de Redcliffe. Whenever
you get a House of Commons that
fairly represents the nation, with a
Cabinet that fairly represents the House
of Commons-if there be any other
Lord Stratford I would not like to pre-
dict precisely what will befall him; but
I believe that such a man, with such a
temper-for it was a question of temper
-will not receive under such circum-
stances high and continuous employ-
ment from the Government of this
country. I say we have a right, be it
in peace, be it in war, when we employ
1858.
289
REFORM. I.
望
​men in the service of the Crown and
of the State, and pay them for their
labour, to all their energies and to all
their devotion.¹
This question of Parliamentary Re-
form, then, is a great and serious ques-
tion. I want to give a word of warning
to those persons who are now engaged,
if there be any engaged, in constructing
a Reform Bill for the next session. Let
them not bring in a delusive and sham
measure. Universal suffrage, equal dis-
tribution, vote by ballot-any of these
points may or may not be perilous; but if
there be one thing more distinctly perilous
than another to the ruling classes in this
country, it is that now, when they are
committed to at least a temporary (I
wish it were a permanent) settlement of
this great question, they should bring
forward and pass a Bill which, while it
pretends to offer you something great
in the way of constitutional freedom, is
found immediately after it has passed
to be nothing but a delusion and a
sham. It will disappoint everybody;
it will exasperate all the Reformers; it
will render a feeling, which is now not
bitter, both bitter and malignant, and
within twelve months after the Bill has
passed, and the cheat is discovered, we
shall be entered in all probability upon
another agitation, but an agitation of a
very different character from any we
have yet seen. Let us have a real Bill,
a good Bill, or no Bill at all.
The question at this moment is in the
hands of the enemy. We stand the risk
of having brought before us what I will
describe as a country gentlemen's Re-
form Bill.' The country gentlemen have
not been notorious for their sympathies
in favour of Reform. We have always
been carrying on, for the last thirty
years and more, a steady and perpetual
war against the predominance and the
power of the country gentlemen in
1 Mr. Bright discovered that he was in
error in describing Colonel Williams's let-
ters as having been written during the
siege of Kars. They were written before
the siege began, and during Colonel Wil-
Parliament.
Parliament. If we look at their past
policy we shall not have much confi-
dence in their proposed measure. Their
wars their debts, their taxes, placed
upon the bulk of the people, their stout
opposition to the Reform Bill of 1832—
all this leads us greatly to suspect them;
and I confess for my own part I wish
the question of Reform were in the
hands of Reformers-in the hands of
men of whose sympathies with respect
to it we could not have, from their past
lives, the shadow of a doubt. I have
great fears that until you have a Minis-
try in which there are men who are really
in favour of Reform, and of an honest
Reform, you are not likely to get any such
measure as the most moderate among us
ought to be in the least satisfied with.
I must warn you against one phrase
which I find our friends (we cannot
now call any of them our opponents),
the bewildered Reformers, are begin-
ning to use. They say we must not on
any account • Americanize' our insti-
tutions. Now, I know only one insti-
tution in America of which the Ameri-
cans need to be very greatly ashamed;
and that institution was established
under the monarchy, although unfor-
tunately it has lived and flourished
under the republic. They tell us in
America numbers overwhelm property
and education. Well, but numbers
have not overwhelmed property and
education in England, and yet look at
legislation in England. Look at our
wars, look at our debt, look at our
taxes, look at this great fact that
every improvement of the last forty
years has been an improvement which
numbers, and numbers only, have
wrested from the property, and what
they call the education of the country.
Our education is fairly represented by
our Universities; but I say now, as I
have said before, that if the Legislature
liams's preparations to resist the progress
of the Russians in Asia. The facts are
not literally exact, but the charge against
Lord Stratford loses none of its gravity
when the correction is made.
1
19
290
OCT. 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
}
2
of England, if the Parliament of Eng-
land, had been guided for thirty years
past according to the counsels of the
representatives from the Universities,
England, instead of being a country of
law and of order, would have been long
before this a country of anarchy and of
revolution. America is a strange bug-
bear. There are thirty-two at least,
if not thirty-three, independent and
sovereign States in the United States
of America. Now, I am not one of
those who believe that you cannot be
free and happy under a monarchy such
as ours. I am not proposing-I am
the last person to propose that the
institutions of this country should be
modelled upon the plan of some other
country, because it is the plan of some
other country; but I say, that if we
are at liberty to draw science, products
for our manufactures, and literature
from every country in the world, why
should we not, if we see anything good
in the politics of another country, be
equally at liberty to take a lesson in
that respect also?
Speaking generally, in all the sove-
reign and independent States of America
there is a franchise as wide as that
which I have proposed to-night; there
is an exact and equal allotment of
members to the electors; and there is,
throughout most of the States, the pro-
tection of the ballot. Yet in America
we find law, order, property secure,
and a population in the enjoyment of
physical comforts and abundance, such
as are not known to the great body of
the people in this country, and which
never have been known in any country
in any age of the world before. Will
any man dare to tell me, in the pre-
sence of this audience, that the English
nation in England is a worse nation than
the English nation in America? Are
we less educated, are we less industrious,
are we less moral, are we less subject
to the law, are we less disposed to sub-
mit to all the just requirements of the
Government? If we are so, and if the
English nation in America excels us in
all these particulars, does it not look
very likely that the institutions in Eng-
land are not as good in the training
and rearing of a nation as the institu-
tions in the United States? I do not`
say that; but those persons who say
that the franchise, the distribution, and
the ballot, which operate so well in
America, would be perilous in England,
do what I will not do-they libel the
people of this country, and they libel
our institutions.
Now, I have a suggestion to make,
which I hope somebody will act upon.
The Reformers now are more numer-
ous than ever they were before. Why
should they not, by some arrangement,
have their own Reform Bill; have it
introduced into Parliament, and sup-
ported with all the strength of this
great national party; and if it be a Bill
sensibly better than the Bill that is
being prepared for us in Downing
Street, why should we not, with all the
unanimity of which we are capable, by
public meetings, by petitions, and,
when the proper time comes, by pre-
senting ourselves at the polling-booths,
do everything in our power to pass
that measure into law? I say that we
are great in numbers; that, united, we
are great in strength; that we are in-
vincible in the solidity of our argu-
ments; that we are altogether unas-
sailable in the justice of our cause.
Shall we then, I ask you, even for a
moment, be hopeless of our great cause?
I feel almost ashamed even to argue it
to such a meeting as this. I call to
mind where I am, and who are those
whom I see before me. Am I not in
the town of Birmingham - England's
central capital; and do not these eyes
look upon the sons of those who, not
thirty years ago, shook the fabric of
privilege to its base? Not a few of the
strong men of that time are now white
with age. They approach the confines
of their mortal day. Its evening is
cheered with the remembrance of that
great contest, and they rejoice in the
freedom they have won. Shall their
sons be less noble than they? Shall
the fire which they kindled be extin-
1858.
291
REFORM. I.
1
guished with you? I see your answer
in every face. You are resolved that
the legacy which they bequeathed to
you, you will hand down in an accu-
mulated wealth of freedom to your
children. As for me, my voice is feeble.
I feel now sensibly and painfully that
I am not what I was. I speak with
diminished fire; I act with a lessened
force; but as I am, my countrymen
and my constituents, I will, if you will
let me, be found in your ranks in the
impending struggle.
¡
1
Į
મ
י
-
19-2
!
1
REFORM.
II.
MANCHESTER, DECEMBER 10, 1858.
[At the general election in 1857, the Right Hon. T. Milner Gibson and Mr. Bright
were defeated in the contest at Manchester. This speech was delivered at a great
meeting in the Free-trade Hall, to which they were invited by their old friends and
supporters in the Manchester constituency.]
I CANNOT tell you how much I re-
joice in being permitted to meet so
large a number of those whom I must
describe as my old and dear friends
in the Liberal cause. I fear, however,
that the reception which you have
granted to us to-night, and which you
have but at this instant given to me,
is calculated in some degree to disturb
the balance of the mind, and to inter-
fere with that calm judgment which is
demanded by the circumstances under
which we are met together, and by the
gravity of that great question which is
now being discussed in every part of
the United Kingdom. I know not whe-
ther there be persons who will look
upon this meeting in the light of the
commemoration of a defeat which we
have sustained. To me, it wears far
more the aspect of the celebration of
some great success. And may we not
say that we are successful-that not-
withstanding the vicissitudes which wait
upon the career of public men, and
upon the progress of public questions
in a free country, we find as we look
back over a term of years, that those
beneficent principles which we have so
often expounded and defended on this
ground, are constantly making progress
and obtaining more and more influence
on the minds of all our countrymen?
Forty years ago, the spot where we are
now assembled became famous. Thou-
sands of the population of Manchester
and its neighbourhood assembled here
-not in this magnificent building, but
under the wide canopy of heaven.
They met only to plead with the Go-
vernment and the Parliament of that
day, that they might be permitted some
share in the government of their
country, and that they might be per-
mitted further to possess that natural
right which one would think no man
would ever deny to another-the right
of disposing of the produce of their
labour in the open market of the world,
in purchase for their daily bread. That
meeting was dispersed by the rude arm
of military power. The tragedy of that
day proved at once the tyranny and
brutality of the Government, and the
helplessness and humiliation of the
people. Now, you have seen a Ministry
representing and supported by the
political party that committed that
iniquity-you have seen such a Ministry
voting in the House of Commons in
+
1858.
293
REFORM. II.
favour of a resolution which declared
that the repeal of the Corn-laws had
been a great blessing to the country;
and after having twenty-six years ago
obtained one instalment of Reform,
you have now the amazing spectacle of
a Ministry representing and supported
by that same political party, engaged
at this very hour in the arrangement of
the clauses of another Bill, which shall
still further extend political rights to
the great mass of the population of
this country. Seeing this, then, who
will despair? Since I have been able
to think maturely upon public ques-
tions, since I have been able and have
been permitted to open my mouth in
these the open councils of my country-
men, I have never for one moment
despaired; and when I look around
me, and see this magnificent-I will
say this all-powerful assembly, my
hopes, my faith, all are confirmed, and
I gather fresh strength for whatever
struggle is before us.
My right honourable Friend in his
speech has almost entirely abstained
from entering into details connected
with the question of Parliamentary
Reform. Now, I think that at this
moment, wherever men assemble to
discuss political questions, it would be
a great misfortune if some one present
did not go into some portion of the
detail connected with that question.
And perhaps in the peculiar position
which I am now placed in with regard
to it, you will not expect that I should
leave it altogether untouched. Let us
recollect that whatever is said upon this
question will meet with much hostile
criticism from those who are not pre-
sent with us. You know that I have
recently, a few weeks ago, addressed
large audiences of my constituents in
Birmingham, upon this question; and
you know to what kind of hostile criti-
cism my speech or speeches on that
occasion have been subjected. It is
not in human wisdom to make speeches
to please everybody; and it is not in
human wisdom to attempt to do it. I
shall take the course of addressing my-
self to that question, according to the
light I have with regard to it from
great study, from much consultation
with others, and from an honest wish
that I have, that the subject of Reform
should be rightly viewed by every in-
telligent man amongst my countrymen.
Now we will mention two or three
things that we do not want. We do
not propose in the smallest degree to
call in question or to limit the preroga-
tives of the Crown. I believe we are
prepared to say that if the throne of
England be filled with so much dignity
and so much purity as we have known
it in our time, and as we know it now
to be, we hope that the venerable mo-
narchy may be perpetual. We do not
propose to discuss even, much less to
limit, the legal and constitutional privi-
leges or prerogatives of the House of
Peers. We know, everybody knows,
nobody knows it better than the Peers,
that a house of hereditary legislation
cannot be a permanent institution in a
free country. For we believe that such
an institution must in the course of time
require essential modification. Last
year, or the year before, the Queen her-
self proposed to nominate persons to
life peerages. That was deemed an
essential change by the present mem-
bers of the House of Peers, and in a
manner that was not gracious to the
Queen, that was not respectful to the
nation, they almost insolently rejected
the attempt of the Crown, and the
Ministers of the Crown, to introduce
into the House of Lords a member
whose peerage should exist only so
long as his life.
now.
I do not want to discuss that question
We want to discuss the question
which is immediately before the coun-
try—which the Government has brought
before the country-for we do not bring
it before the country on this occasion
and a question in which we are deeply
and closely interested. The House of
Commons is so called, I presume, be-
cause it is understood and intended to
represent all those portions of the peo-
ple-the vast majority of the people—
+
294
DEC. IO,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
who are not included in the privileged
and titled classes. The constitution, if
I know anything about it, intends that
that House should fairly, openly, and
widely represent all the vast interests of
all the vast population who are called
upon to obey the legislation which is
mainly enacted by that House. Now,
I wish to ask you this simple question.
Do you believe, after examining the
figures that have been placed before you
for months and for years past, that the
House of Commons does at present
fulfil honestly its intended place in the
Constitution, or is the organ of the ex-
pression of the opinions of all classes
of the population of Great Britain and
Ireland? You may have a shadow and
form of representation, as of anything
else. You know very well that you
may have gorgeous temples-you may
have in wonderful ostentation all the
outward semblance of religion-yet
there may be wholly wanting the life
of Christianity itself. And you may
have electors, a million or more, and
you may have canvassing, and nomina-
tions, and polls, and returns, and houses
of legislation, and speeches, and the
contention of parties, and divisions, and
laws enacted, and yet there may be only
the form of representation, and its life
and spirit and reality may be altogether
absent. All this we had previous to
1832; yet nobody says now that we
had representation before then. All
this existed, or nearly all, in France,
previous to the year 1848. A great
deal of it exists there at this moment,
and yet there is a general impression
that representation is not free there.
There is a general belief that it was
not free here previous to the passing
of the Reform Act.
I should like to put, in as few words
as I can, exactly what we think the
House of Commons should be. It
should be a House composed of men
sent by the free election of so many
of the people, voting with such an
equality of power as shall give a real
expression to the opinions of the
| people. If anybody says that we
are for levelling doctrines-that we
intend to have a President instead of
a Queen-which is a favourite theory
with some few people, you at least will
not believe them. I ask them again
and again, if they choose to read once,
to read again, that they may not mis-
represent that which I am now pro-
posing. Now, what is the British Ĉon-
stitution? I never saw it. I never
heard of anybody who had handled it.
It is not, in very few words, in any of
the books. But there is, notwithstand-
ing, something that we all understand
by the British Constitution. It is not
a thing meant entirely for the Crown.
The Crown has its limits by Act of
Parliament, and by custom. Nor is it
intended entirely for the hereditary peer-
age. The House of Lords has its pre-
rogatives and its privileges well defined.
But the Constitution does not confine
itself to care for the monarch on the
throne, or for the peer in his gilded
chamber. The Constitution regards the
House of Commons as well. It regards
you and me, and all the people of the
United Kingdom. And it professes to
take within its pale all these populations
and these interests, and to give them as
complete a shelter and as complete a
voice as it gives to the Queen or to the
peerage. But if you want the House
of Commons elected by so many of the
people as shall give a fair expression of
the people's wishes, can any living man
say that we possess it when five out of six
of all the men he will find if he traverse
every county from John O'Groat's to the
Land's End, and from Cape Clear to the
Giant's Causeway,-when five out of
every six of these men have no more
vote at the poll for a Member of Parlia-
ment than if they lived in some foreign
land; when their utmost privilege at an
election is to look on, to hold up their
hands, and to shout for one candidate
or the other?
But if you think it necessary that
your Members should be elected by
some fair number of votes, that votes
should be given with something like an
equality of power, how far are you from
1858.
295
REFORM. II.
this, when you hear that 330 Members
of the House of Commons-more than
one-half of the whole number-are re-
turned by less than one-sixth even of
that small number of persons to whom
the franchise is entrusted? You give
votes to a million out of six millions,
and half the House of Commons is
elected by less than 200,000 of those
electors! And then, if bribery be somo-
what common, and if intimidation,
wherever it can be practised, is almost
universal, how can you come to the
conclusion that there is any real free-
dom of election whatsoever, when you
survey the whole representation of the
counties and boroughs of the kingdom?
I would ask your attention for a mo-
ment to those counties, to which your
attention has been already turned by my
right hon. Friend. The counties, as you
know, return their Members by the votes,
chiefly, of two classes-freeholders, and
occupiers of lands or houses of the value
of 50l. and upwards. Of these 5ol. occu-
piers and upwards, there are about
200,000; but of occupiers between 10l.
and 50l., I see by a return recently made
to the House of Commons, not less than
400,000. But the 400,000, by the pre-
sent law, are entirely ignored and ex-
cluded; and the 200,000, being to a
very large extent occupiers of land, and
occupiers for the most part without
leases, are to a large extent dependent
upon the good-will of their landlords,
and their votes, speaking generally, are
employed to swell the power of the
great landed proprietors in all the
county elections of the kingdom. Now,
Lord Derby, the present Prime Minis-
ter, is a man who has the power of ex-
pressing very accurately what he means;
he is a great master of the English
language; and he once gave us an
illustration of what is understood in
England by county representation.
He
said that, if anybody would tell him
what were the politics of three or four
of the great landed proprietors of any
county, he could tell at once what were
the politics of the Members for that
county. We might fancy, if we did not
know something about it ourselves, that
this was some conjuring trick, but it is
in point of fact nothing but that which
we all know. The three or four great
proprietors' are the constituents of the
county, and the Members are the repre-
sentatives of those great proprietors.
They have, as you know, unfortunately
for us, small sympathy with commerce,
and they have never manifested, at least
for the last sixty years, any sympathy
whatever with Reform of any kind.
How should they? They are connected
with the peerage, and with the great
territorial power. The members of
their families, generally speaking, do
not come into the operations of trade.
They find employment- at least they
find salaries—in the military or naval
service, or some other service of the
country; or they take shelter from the
storms of life in some snug family living
in the Church.
I venture to say that, if it were possi-
ble to have an accurate account of the
receipts and payments of those families,
there are many hundreds of them-I
believe there are some thousands-who
receive more in the way of emolument,
and salaries of one kind or other, from
the public revenues, from the sixty or
seventy millions of taxes which you
annually raise, or from that portion of
the public estate which for the time is
entrusted to the Established Church
I believe they receive far more than the
whole of the taxes which they annually
pay to the expenditure of the State.
·
But we do not find fault only with the
counties; the boroughs are not at all in
a satisfactory state. I was looking down
a list, the other night, beginning with
the Tower Hamlets, the largest popula-
tion, and coming down to some one
which is the smallest, I forget its name;
but I found that there were 71 boroughs,
not one of which had a population of
10,000 persons. I think 10,coo is about
one-third the average size of the several
wards in Manchester. The whole po-
pulation of the 71 boroughs is only
467,000, which is not very much more
than the present population of Man-
1
1
296
DEC. 10,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
T
chester and Salford; and yet these 71
boroughs return 117 Members to the
House of Commons, while Manchester
and Salford return only three Members.
But if you go a little lower, to 8,000 as
a standard, you will find not less than
54 boroughs, and their whole popula-
tion is exactly 316,000, which is also
exactly the population of the city of
Manchester at the census of 1851; but
these 54 boroughs return 89 Members,
while Manchester returns only two. If
Manchester and Salford, by some tradi-
tion of the past, or by some accident or
other, returned 117 Members, or if Man-
chester returned 89 Members-if the
conditions which I have stated, were
just reversed-do you not think that
we should have from other parts of the
country-probably from the landed
gentry-a very violent assertion that
we were favoured in the representation,
and that the condition of things was
monstrous and intolerable, and must be
put an end to?
6
But there is another point which you
do not find out from the population
tables. That is this-that whereas the
boroughs of Manchester and Salford
can do as they like, acting wisely at one
time and foolishly at another—at least
they are free to follow their own infor-
mation, their own light, their own con-
victions; these little boroughs are not
so free, being, I dare to say, very little
better than what we used to describe by
the unpleasant term of rotten.' They
are under influence of some kind or
other. A very little clique, indeed, two
or three persons, in a very small borough,
can have a great influence. A neigh-
bouring landowner-some subtle and
not very scrupulous lawyer-by turn-
ing the screw,' can, if he likes, turn
the scale. But these boroughs are not
only so small in population, but for the
most part they cannot pretend to the
power of free election in any way
whatsoever.
I come now to the result of all this-
that a House of Commons so formed,
becomes for the most part, as we know
it is, a sort of deputy to the House of
Lords, and an organ of the great terri-
torial interest of the country. It hates
changes, with an animosity that nothing
can assuage. It hates economy. Let
any man propose in the House of Com-
mons that there shall be a fair com-
mittee appointed, to which shall be
submitted those enormous estimates of
which we have so much reason to com-
plain, and you will find that very few
persons in the House will vote for such
a committee, and it will be stoutly
resisted by the Government, whether
formed from the Conservative or the
Whig section of the House. The House
hates equality of taxation. The suc-
cession-duty is a glaring instance of it.
The income-tax is another instance
scarcely less glaring. It gives to pro-
perty vast influence in the government
of the country, and it perpetually shields
property from its fair burden of taxation.
It was the same before the Reform Bill
as it is now.
Some people are of opinion that we
have had much better legislation since
the Reform Bill than we had before. I do
not deny it; but I believe it is owing
much more to the general intelligence
of the people, an intelligence which has
penetrated even into the House of Com-
mons and into the House of Lords, than
to any more exact representation of the
influence of the constituencies, or to
any change that took place by the
Reform Act. You know that before
the Reform Bill, Catholic Emancipation
was granted, when a civil war was
about to break out in Ireland. You
know that the Reform Bill itself was
granted when an insurrection, perhaps
a revolution, was at the door. And
you know that in 1846 the repeal of
the Corn-laws was granted, not because
the House of Commons or the House
of Lords wished to grant it. By no
means. For I believe that not more
than one hundred Members had ever
voted for Mr. Villiers' motion for the
repeal, until it was granted in 1846, be-
cause a portion of the kingdom was
visited with a famine so intense, that
Lord John Russell, in order to describe
1858.
297
REFORM. II.
its magnitude and its severity, compared
it to the famines which are recorded to
have desolated parts of Europe during
the thirteenth century. It required a
famine, not a scarcity. There had been
many scarcities, as you know. There
had been a scarcity for years.
On
more than one occasion thousands and
hundreds of thousands of families had
been pressed into penury, and not a
few into premature graves.
And yet
the Corn-law was not repealed. To
quote two lines of the unhappy Chat-
terton—
The civil power then snored at ease,
While soldiers fired to keep the peace.'
And it was not till the famine became
so sore in the land that all Europe and
the civilized world were startled with
the horrors that floated across every
ocean and in every gale, that the Par-
liament of England at last consented to
take their hand from the food of the
people. And you know that a large
party-a party who are now in posses-
sion of the Government-assailed and
denounced Sir Robert Peel as a traitor
and a coward, because he did not make
a still greater fight on behalf of the
most odious monopoly that ever existed
in any country.
And now they do not give you the
Ballot; not because they do not under-
stand it as well as you do, but precisely
because they do understand it. Do you
suppose there would be such a whip in
the House, such a steady and powerful
phalanx of Members brought up, county
Members especially, to vote against the
Ballot, if they did not believe all we
say in favour of the Ballot? You have
had it discussed since the Reform Bill.
The argument has been already ex-
hausted for twenty years, yet for all
that they do not give you the Ballot.
Take the question of Church Rates.
A Bill to repeal the Church Rates has
just passed the House of Commons.
But how many years has it been dis-
cussed? The arguments were the same
before I went into the House of Com-
mons that they were last session. Take
the question of the Game Laws. Would
it be tolerated-would it be tolerated
by the people of this country, if they
were fairly polled, that there should
exist laws whose object is to promote,
to the greatest possible extent, the pre-
servation of wild animals for the sport
of the territorial and wealthy classes?
The law has never yet said that game
was property. It treats it as something
else. It dare not say that game is pro-
perty, and it cannot say so.
But we
have several Acts of Parliament
clauses of the utmost complication-
traps of every kind, as many to catch
the poacher as the poacher has to catch
the game.
And you have in this
civilized and Christian country—we are
not at all discussing the United States
-in this civilized and Christian coun-
try, with an ancient monarchy, an he-
reditary peerage, an Established Church,
and all that can be necessary to pre-
serve law and order, according to the
opinion of some of those who criticise
what I say; yet you have, in the months
of November and December particularly,
in every year, men going out armed,
not to protect cows, and sheep, and
poultry, which are recognised and un-
derstood as property-for nobody at-
tempts to meddle with them- but to
preserve that which the law dare not
designate as property, and the pre-
servation of which it dare not commit
to the ordinary guardians of the public
peace. And you have further from your
towns and from your villages, and from
your country parishes, bands of men
armed to the teeth, instigated it may
be occasionally by want, more often
probably by the love of adventure-
you have bands of men of this kind
prowling about in almost every county
endeavouring to destroy this game; and
you have outrages such as we have
had described to us within the last
month, in which several of our fellow-
creatures have fallen victims, and have
been murdered. No; the dukes, and
lords, and county Members, and great
men of any name, must not tell me that
a Parliament and a House of Commons

2
298
DEC. IO,
SPEECHES OF
JOHN BRIGHT.
I
$
that perpetuates this enormity repre-
sents the intelligence and the morality
of the Christian population of this
country. And to show you how little
a Prime Minister even is master of his
own actions in the face of that great
territorial interest, let me tell you that
when I, some years ago, and before I
had any political connection even with
Manchester, when I gave notice of a
motion in the House of Commons for
a Select Committee to inquire into the
operation of the Game Law-to inquire
merely-such was the anxiety, such was
the trembling terror of these gentlemen,
that Sir Robert Peel was obliged to
call his followers together in Downing-
street, and there to reason with them,
and to obtain their co-operation in the
course which he felt himself bound
to pursue, which was to consent to the
Committee for which I was about to
move. I need not tell you that the
Committee produced very little result.
Committees of the House of Commons
very seldom do yield much result.
For what the House is, Committees
generally are; and if a Committee does
happen to stumble upon something
valuable, it is generally distasteful to
the House, and is immediately rejected
by it. I believe that no great measure
passes the House of Commons merely
because it is just. It passes sometimes
because the people are restive; some-
times because the exigencies of party
require that something should be done.
But it does not pass-I state it fearlessly
after fifteen years' sitting in that House
- a great measure of justice does not
pass because it is just.
Then I come to the conclusion that
Reform is necessary. But I can show
you further that it is inevitable. The
Government is at a dead lock without
Parliamentary Reform. The only great
result of the Reform Bill, in the House,
has been this, that it has introduced
about one hundred men who do at
times show some amount of inde-
pendence, and they act free from the
shackles of the Tory or Whig sections
of the aristocracy. And it is we-it is
by our work, it is by our speeches, by
our votes, that we transfer the Govern-
ment from one party to the other. But
we make it impossible for either of them
to conduct the Government upon those
antiquated principles which we and the
people of England are ready to abolish.
Now I will ask you another question.
What is the obvious, the simple, in fact
the only mode by which you can reform
the House of Commons? If a man is
hungry, he eats; if he is thirsty, he
drinks; and if he is cold, he puts on an
extra coat, or goes nearer to the fire.
If the number of electors is too small,
extend the suffrage. If it be intolerable
that more than half the House of Com-
mons shall be returned by one-sixth of
the electors, or that a population equal
to that of Manchester should return 89
Members in other parts of the country,
while here it only returns two, the ob-
vious remedy is to take from one scale
and put into the other. And if there
be this bribery and this intimidation,
the remedy which every man who has
considered the question, and who wishes
for freedom of election, the remedy
which he points to, is the remedy of the
Ballot.
You have read, I have no doubt,
some, I hope not all, of those inter-
minable leading articles which have
been written since I was at Birming-
ham. You have read some speeches,
probably, which have commented on
what I said. I was charged with wish-
ing to adopt republican institutions,
levelling principles, introducing some-
thing or other wholly destructive of
everything good, and noble, and ad-
mirable in this country. Well, I find
the suffrage in the boroughs is 10l.
What did I propose? I did not pro-
pose to put it to gl. That would have
been to be laughed at.
These very
writers and speakers would have said,
'What a lame thing this is-dissatis-
fied with 10l., happy with 97.!' I did
not ask for 81., nor for 71., nor for 61.
The Reform Bill, stopping at 10l., drew
a line, on one side of which were the
constituencies as we now have them,
1858.
299
REFORM. II.
and on the other side the great body
of the working classes. The working
classes were purposely excluded by the
adoption of the Iol. franchise. But the
91. would not have admitted them, nor
the 87., nor the 71. The 67. would have
admitted a considerable number, and
the 51. probably would admit nearly
all of them that can be admitted. I
felt that it was not worth while making,
as the saying is, 'two bites at a cherry.'
If you wish to admit the working classes
-for that is the question-if you wish
to admit them, you must bring your
suffrage down to the point that will
admit them, or else you are only prac-
tising upon them precisely the same
sort of legislation that they complain
of with regard to the Bill of 1832.
But then I find a most admirable
thing all ready at my hands. I find in
all our parishes from the time of Queen
Elizabeth, and for anything I know
from the time of Alfred-I do not know
how many hundred years it has lasted
-a franchise which everybody has been
contented with, and nobody has con-
demned, and which has done no harm
to law, or order, or security of property.
I find that when Parliament came to
legislate for Poor-law unions, it adopted
this same franchise as the basis of
the union franchise. When it came to
legislate for corporations, it adopted,
with some restrictions, the same fran-
chise as the basis. Why tell me that
this franchise does not act properly in
the United States? For my argument,
I do not care a farthing whether it does
or not.
We have tried it here, in our
parishes, our unions, our corporations;
and I say, if it acts on the whole justly,
in those three departments of representa-
tion, it may be trusted, without danger,
in that more important representation
which concerns our Imperial Legisla-
ture. I am in favour of authority, par-
ticularly when it agrees with my own
opinion. I will read from an authority
which is not one that the Whig party
ought to think lightly of. In the year
1797-sixty-one years ago-Mr. Grey
(afterwards Lord Grey of the Reform
Bill) brought forward a motion in the
House of Commons for a Bill to es-
tablish household suffrage in all the
boroughs of the kingdom. I will not
give you what Mr. Grey said about it,
for I do not happen to have any por-
tion of his speech with me; but I will
give you the words of Mr. Fox-Charles
James Fox-the greatest light, I pre-
sume, which the Whig party has ever
offered to the country. Charles James
Fox said this:-
'I think that to extend the representa-
tion to housekeepers is the best and most
justifiable plan of Reform. I think also
that it is a most perfect recurrence to first
principles-I do not mean to the first
principles of society, nor to the abstract
principles of representation, but to the
first known and recorded principles of
our constitution. According to the early
history of England, and the highest au-
thorities in our parliamentary constitution,
I find this to be the case. It is the opinion
of the celebrated Glanville, that in all cases
where no particular right intervenes, the
common law right of paying scot and lot
was the right of election in the land. This
was the opinion of Serjeant Glanville, and
of one of the most celebrated committees
of which our parliamentary history has to
boast; and this, in my opinion, is the
safest line of conduct that you can adopt.'
Now, what is it that I propose? That
every householder, of course, because
every householder is rated to the poor,
shall have a vote; and if a man be not
a householder strictly, but if he have an
office, or a warehouse, or a stable, or
land-if he shall have any property
in his occupation which the Poor-law
taxes, out of which he must contribute
to the support of the poor, then I say
I would give that man a vote. Now,
sixty years is a long time. We have
members of the aristocracy of this
country exhibiting themselves frequently
upon platforms on various occasions.
They tell the people how wonderfully
education has advanced; how much
Parliament grants every year, and how
much voluntary effort does; what a
#
6
"
300
DEC. 10,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
<
great step the people have taken for-
ward. I wish they would come to
the legitimate conclusion after all this
praise of the people. Your statisticians
tell you that two millions of the people
are subscribers to benefit societies, and
that their funds amount to more than
nine millions sterling. Is that no proof
of providence? Is that no proof of
improvement and advancement? Who
is the man that dare stand before any
considerable number of his countrymen,
and libel them by saying that the right
which Mr. Grey, and which Charles
James Fox, advocated for you in 1797,
you are still so degraded that you
are not fit to be trusted with in the
year 1858? And of course with regard
to your small boroughs, you must take
some point of population, and you must
cut off all those below it. You must
allow their present electors to merge,
as they would necessarily merge, in the
10l. franchise, which in all probability
you will establish for your counties.
But still I know exactly how we
shall be met-'You are going to
Americanise us.' Nothing is so dread-
ful to an Englishman who is thinking
of emigrating across the Atlantic, as
that we should be Americanised in
England. That is a phrase invented
by some cunning knave, intended to
catch a good many very simple dupes,
and no doubt it will catch some of
them. But I should like to ask these
gentlemen, whether representation is
not an English custom and an English
principle? They were Englishmen who
first took it to the United States. It is
said that wherever an Englishman goes,
just as he takes with him his white
skin, he takes with him the foundation
of representative institutions.
He has
taken them already to the Cape; he is
already as busy as possible in building
up four or five monarchical republics in
Australia: he has carried the repre-
sentative system to Canada; he carries
it wherever he goes. The Bill of 1832
was a desperate measure in the direction
of Americanising us. It took some
boroughs, where twelve members of
a corporation returned the Members
to Parliament, and it gave the suffrage
to 5,000 of the people. That was
Americanising such boroughs with a
vengeance. The more you extend your
representation, the more, of course, you
become like that systematic and theo-
retically perfect representation which
exists in the United States of America.
He
It is curious how free countries, and
countries that we deem not free, often
exhibit the same kind of thing at the
same time. You know that lately a
most distinguished Frenchman wrote
a pamphlet about England-about a
debate in the English Parliament.
was charmed with the freedom of de-
bate; he was charmed with the absence
of all kind of difficulty in expressing
our opinions, and he went away full of
this impression; and he wrote a pam-
phlet in burning words, describing what
he had seen in England, and by infer-
ence, of course, saying something that
was not palatable to those who are the
present directors of the Government in
France. Well, what was done? It was
found out that it was an indictable
offence, and the advocate for the pro-
secution said in so many words, 'You
praised England, and in doing so you
humiliated France.' An humble indi-
vidual like myself comes before his con-
stituents, and he finds a nation of twenty
or thirty millions, chiefly of English-
men, on the other side of the Atlantic.
He finds that with some small excep-
tions, in two or three of the transatlantic
cities, which are more German and
Irish than American, he finds there in
all the Free States law and order and
security of property, equal to that which
is found in the course of years in any
other country in the world. And he
says that to his constituents. He is
not indicted for it; they do not give
him so many pounds' fine, and so many
months' imprisonment; but some scores
of writers for the press, men who, or
some of them, pretend to be in favour
of liberty in England, but men who, if
they were dressed in the garb that most
becomes them, would be dressed in
1858.
301
REFORM. II.
}
plush-these men assail me; and, pro-
bably, if I were in France, and they
were in France, they would do their
best to indict and prosecute me.
One word more upon this. I have
said over and over again, that, perhaps,
I am the very last man in England who
would propose any institution here be-
cause I found it elsewhere. I am not
insensible to some things that appear
to me to be errors in principle, some
that are errors in practice, in the con-
stitution and the customs of the United
States. But I protest against our being
shut up to take nothing from America
but cotton, and rice, and tobacco. And,
in fact, we do take a good many other
things. I am told that my friend
Mr. Platt, a member of a very eminent
firm, has a wonderful machine from
America with which to make bricks.
We know that the agriculture of this
country has been greatly advantaged
by the importation of reaping machines
from America. We know that those
persons who are going about so ap-
prehensive of an invasion, have par-
ticular reason to be delighted with
America, because they have received
from that country the invention of the
revolver. At this moment, in the
Government small-arms establishment
at Enfield, they have patent machinery
from America for making gun-stocks.
They can turn out a gun-stock, I am
told, in twenty-two minutes, fit for the
barrel. What a dreadful thing to think
of! And I am sure that Mr. Miles, if
his Protectionist principles have not
long ago deserted him, will be horrified
to hear that they have actually brought
Americans over to show the English
how to work them. But there is much
more behind. The Times, the Morning
Star, the Daily Telegraph, and the lead-
ing newspaper in this district, the
Manchester Daily Examiner, with, I
believe, two or three of the widely-
circulated London weekly papers, are
all printed on machines which were
either made in America, or, being made
in this country, were made on the
American patent. And further than
this, do you not remember that the
West Enders, including even ladies, have
been subscribing ten guineas apiece to
invite a clever farmer from Ohio to
show them how to tame a horse? Any-
thing but politics. You may delight
yourself with their charming poets-
with Bryant, and Whittier, and Long-
fellow; you may interest and instruct
yourself by their great historians-Ban-
croft, and Prescott, and Motley: but
if you ask how free popular institutions
are working among your own country-
men on the American continent, you are
denounced as unpatriotic, and charged
with treason to the House of Lords.
I will read a passage that was par-
ticularly galling to those gentlemen,
from the report of my speech at Bir-
mingham. It is very short. I said:-
Generally, in all the sovereign and
independent States of America, there is
a franchise as wide as that which I have
proposed to-night. There is an exact
and equal limit of Members to the
electors; and there is, throughout many
of the States, the protection of the
ballot; yet in America we find law,
order, and property secure, and a popu-
lation in the enjoyment of physical com-
forts and abundance such as are not
known to the great body of the people
of this country, and which have never
been known in any country in any age
of the world before.' Now, Lord John
Russell a short time ago was at Liver-
pool, at a meeting of the Social Science
Association, and he made a speech,
many parts of which, I think, were
admirable and instructive. He referred
to America in two particulars, and
showed how, in the States of New
York and Louisiana, the laws had been
codified and simplified. He said that
with a few days' study a man might
make himself perfectly acquainted with
the laws with regard to land and landed
property. He did not see (and Lord
John Russell is not afraid to look abroad
on a matter of this kind) why an old
country-I do not quote his exact
words-should be compelled to con-
tinue a system which was not necessary,
302
DEC. IO,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
and which it was found so advantageous
to dispense with in a new country. But
he said this:-
C
It is education which enables the
United States of America to proceed in
their wonderful career, upheld by the most
popular institutions, without serious dis-
turbance of law and order.'
a most
I quote another nobleman
estimable man too—a man who has
done in his time great justice to the
people and the institutions of the United
States the Earl of Carlisle. Eight
years ago, when the state of America
was fresh in his mind, he delivered a
lecture, from which I have taken two
extracts. Speaking of their elections,
he says:-
Elections may seem the universal busi-
ness, the topic and passion of life; but
these are, at least with but few excep-
tions, carried on without any approach to
tumult, rudeness, or disorder; those which
I happened to see were the most sedate,
unimpassioned processes I can imagine.
In the Free States, at least, the people
at large bear an active, and I believe, on
the whole, a useful part in all the con-
cerns of internal government and practical
daily life.'
And then speaking of the condition of
the people he said—and you will know
how far it corroborates, how far it
exceeds even, what I said:-
The feature which is the most obvious
and, probably, the most inevitable, is the
nearly entire absence, certainly of the
appearance, in a great degree of the
reality, of poverty. In no part of the
world, I imagine, is there so much general
comfort amongst the great bulk of the
people; and a gushing abundance struck
me as the permanent character of the
land.'
And then with his own generous sym-
pathy, he went on to say:—
'It is not easy to describe how far this
consideration goes to brighten the face of
nature, and give room for its undisturbed
enjoyment.'
I cannot, of course, help the fact that
Lord Carlisle for a moment has fallen
into rather a foolish panic since I un-
dertook to address my constituents at
Birmingham. I can assure him I do
not wish to introduce American insti-
tutions here. But I want to argue this
point-that the people of England are
now in a condition wherein it would be
just to them, and safe for all classes in
the country, that they should be widely
entrusted with the possession of the
elective franchise.
Now I want to ask you, before I sit
down, whether we can realise, or whether
we can do anything towards realising,
such a project of reform as that of
which I have given you the very faintest
sketch to-night? There is a danger
awaiting us. It is quite possible, I
think it is not wholly improbable, if the
present Government should introduce a
Bill very ineffectual, wholly falling short
of what we have a right to expect, that
there should be some combination of
the most unworthy portion of the Whig
party with the present Government, for
the sake of carrying that Bill. It would
be a great misfortune to us if any such
thing should happen. But that mis-
fortune would be but temporary.
would be a fatal act on the part of the
Whig party to take any such course as
that.
It
They would bring about this
great result, that the aristocracy who
were wholly opposed to free Parlia-
ments in this country, would sit on one
side of the House, and that we, who
may be considered of the more Demo-
cratic party, would take our seats on the
other side of the House. But I will
undertake to say that if that division
should once take place in Parliament,
every election would increase the power
of the Democratic section; and that the
remembrance of the treason to the peo-
ple which would be effected by conduct
such as this would create an animosity
towards the ruling class, against which
I believe they would be wholly unable
to contend.
I have come to the conclusion of
the observations I intended to offer you
1858.
303
REFORM. II.
upon these questions. Of myself I
must add one or two words. My posi-
tion in reference to this question is just
now, as you know, one of heavy respon-
sibility. I feel it to be so. I know it
to be so. I have been requested by
those who believed they represented a
large amount of public opinion, to un-
dertake the preparation of a Bill to be
submitted to the House of Commons
during the coming session. I have not
sought the office. I did everything I
could to decline it, without being guilty
of an absolute desertion of what ap-
peared to be my duty. I am told-
some that are not friends of mine and
some that are my friends tell me that
I hazard whatever little reputation I
have with the public in taking this
course. If it be so, I can only say that
the creation or the sustaining of a repu-
tation has never been the great motive
in my political life. I have said before,
and every day I am more sensible of it,
how ill qualified I am, in many respects,
for the work which I have undertaken,
and I am more and more sensible of the
almost insurmountable obstacles which
lie in the path before me. But I know
that the cause is a just cause. I know
that its success is necessary to the great
future of this country; and I am per-
fectly certain that, sooner or later, it
must prevail. From this platform I do
not speak to you only-I speak to all
my countrymen. If they wish for Reform,
-if they think me honest, informed, ca-
pable on this question-if they have
any confidence in those with whom I am
associated, then let them meet in their
cities, their towns, their villages,-in
country parishes even, where free speech
is not forbidden,-let them meet and
speak; let them resolve, and let them
petition. If they do this, I think I can
promise them that before long they will
be in full possession and in free exercise
of those political rights, which are not
more necessary to their national inte-
rests than they are consistent with the
principles of their boasted Constitu-
tion.
7
#
1
*
REFORM.
III.
GLASGOW, DECEMBER 21, 1858.
[Mr. Bright visited Scotland, and spoke at Edinburgh and Glasgow in the winter of
1858, on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. At the same time he drew up a
Bill, for the amendment of the representation, the main features of which were—
the borough franchise was conferred on all who were rated to the relief of the poor,
and on all lodgers who paid a rent of ten pounds; no more freemen were to be
created; and the county franchise was reduced to Iol. rental. The Bill put the
returning officer's expenses on the county or borough rate; prescribed that votes
should be taken by ballot; disfranchised fifty-six English, twenty-one Scotch, and
nine Irish boroughs; and took away one Member from thirty-four other boroughs.
The seats obtained by these disfranchisements were to be distributed according to
population among the larger towns, counties, and divisions of counties in the United
Kingdom. The Bill was not brought into Parliament, but the provisions of it were
well known, and discussed at the time.]
WHEN I look upon these great meet-
ings, at several of which I have been
permitted recently to be present, I can-
not help asking myself, What is the
question-what is the matter-which
appears to be stirring to their very in-
nermost depths the hearts of my coun-
trymen? Is it some sudden frenzy, some
fanaticism which wise men must rather
be sorry for than rejoice over? Is it
some phantom which you pursue and
never overtake? Judging by the looks
of expectation and hope-even of assur-
ance of success-which light up the
countenances of so many before me, I
must believe you have at least some
great and worthy object which has
brought us together. I believe no more
worthy object can assemble the citizens
of any free nation; for here we are met
to discuss the great question of Consti-
tutional Reform, and to consider how
far it may be possible to confirm and
give greater permanence and security
to whatsoever portion of liberty we have
derived from our forefathers. Let me
remind you that when you discuss ques-
tions connected with the House of Com-
mons, you are discussing that branch
of the Legislature which is far the most
important to liberty-without which, in
fact, liberty cannot exist.
You may
have liberty with a monarchy, as you
have in this country, but you may have
a monarchy without liberty, as you see
in many
other countries of Europe. You
may have liberty, as we have here, even
with a portion of the legislative power
in the hand of hereditary legislators;
but you might have hereditary legis-
lators and no liberty whatever. But
that branch of the Legislature which
1858.
305
REFORM. III.
1
we are about to discuss is not only con-
sistent with the existence of liberty, but
it is inseparable in this country from
the existence of liberty.
One of the greatest men, one of the
brightest names in the muster-roll of
English worthies-the illustrious founder
of the colony and province of Pennsyl-
vania-gives this definition of freedom.
He says, 'That is a free country where
the laws rule, and where the people are
parties to the making of the laws.' And
we are assembled to-night, I hope, in
the full understanding of the magnitude
of the question before us, and with the
resolve in our hearts that we will, if we
can, by the extension and improvement
of our representative system, confirm
and secure permanently, as far as lies
in our power, that which is the greatest
guarantee of freedom which we in this
country possess. Now, in the discussion
of this question, we are in a very dif-
ferent position from that in which we
found ourselves when I was here before.
It is generally conceded that the figures
are all on our side. You recollect that,
twelve or fourteen years ago, there were
orators almost innumerable going about
the country-there were some scores of
them-who attacked us with figures
without end on the policy of Protec-
tion. I do not intend to dig up these
from the oblivion which the orators
themselves now wish they should be
buried in, but I turn to them for the pur-
pose of pointing out that nobody gets up
to tell us, and to prove from the multi-
plication table, that the people are fairly
represented in the House of Commons.
But there is one charge brought
against us that it is difficult to escape
from. I am told that I use the same
figures and facts in my various speeches.
What should I be told if I used different
figures and facts each time I spoke? It
is the same case and the same grievance,
and I speak to men of the same order
on each occasion, and who are to be
appealed to and roused by the same
facts and statements, and therefore I
cannot be expected to say something
wholly different to that which I have
said on other occasions. For instance,
if I tell you that the whole body of
electors of the United Kingdom amounts
only to one-sixth portion of the whole
adult men of the United Kingdom, and
if I tell you that one-sixth of these
electors—that is, one thirty-sixth of the
adult men of the United Kingdom-
return more than one-half of the Mem-
bers of the House of Commons, I shall
find it difficult to convey a clear idea of
that fact, unless I make that statement;
and although I may grieve our terrible
critics, who watch over everything which
I say, yet I am bound to explain this
matter to my countrymen, wherever I
meet them, and whenever they are will-
ing to hear. Putting that statement
into another form, we have at least six
millions of grown men in the United
Kingdom, yet we have not more than
one million who have votes, and I find
by the Parliamentary returns that
200,000 electors of that million return
more than half of the Members who
sit in the House of Commons. The
fact is, that it is easy to show that the
electoral body is so grouped and man-
aged, and the whole machine is so
ingeniously contrived, that almost the
whole objects for which such an as-
sembly should exist are frustrated under
the system which prevails among us.
There is another illustration which
has occurred to me. I have imagined
that all the men over twenty-one years
of age of the United Kingdom were as-
sembled on Salisbury Plain, or, not to
go so far, in some wild and desolate
part of your own country, although I
should hesitate to take you there even
in imagination, for fear we should be
charged with disturbing those sacred
animals, the grouse and the deer. But
for the sake of this illustration, we will
imagine ourselves so assembled, and
that the framers of our Parliamentary
arrangements address these six millions
of men, and say to five millions of them
-comprising almost the whole body of
the working classes, and a large portion
of the middle classes-they say to them,
'We don't want you, you may return to
20
306
DEC. 21,
SPEECHES OF
JOHN BRIGHT.
your homes, and then we who are left
will do your business for you.' Well,
there would remain a million who would
Let us
compose the electoral body.
make another separation. Take all
the boroughs which compose the me-
tropolis of the kingdom, seven great
boroughs, and their seven great con-
stituencies; then add to them the con-
stituencies of the seven next largest
boroughs - Liverpool, Glasgow, Man-
chester, Birmingham, Leeds, Dublin,
and Edinburgh. It would require you
to take 200,000 from this million to
form the constituencies of London and
the other great constituencies. And
when you have formed them, you would
find they were permitted to return thirty
Members to the English Parliament.
But in another part of the plain you
find 200,000 men taken out of the group,
and they are permitted to return one
hundred and twenty-six Members to the
House of Commons.
We see at a glance that although
Parliament must do something when it
is sitting, and must pass, sometimes
bad and sometimes good measures,
and the good ones with difficulty, we
cannot but be sensible that, not as a
machine for carrying out views on par-
ticular questions, but for sustaining the
character of the country in the Legisla-
ture, it would be impossible to devise
any plan more clumsy and more un-
trustworthy with reference to the pur-
pose for which it exists. Those
boroughs which I have mentioned,
namely, Manchester and the other
seven great cities, have a population of
nearly 3,000,000, and yet they only
return thirty Members to the House of
Commons. Of these 200,000 electors
you have not heard the last. You do
not know so much of it in Scotland as
we do in England. Those 200,000 we
left together are in groups, and are
scattered up and down the country-
many in Ireland-very many in Eng-
land-with constituencies as low as
eighty-six in number, and others, a con-
siderable number, with two hundred
and three hundred electors. The bulk
of these have only a small body of
electors compared with the large towns
and constituencies. Now, when you
have a small number of men together
they can hardly keep themselves warm,
and they cannot preserve their indepen-
dence; and the nobles or landholders,
and two or three lawyers, or two or
three anybodies, who choose to combine
and act with a fair amount of unity
and subtlety, will control the representa-
tion of these small boroughs-and the
Members who go up to the House of
Commons from them are often, and
generally, not earnest men, not anxious
to carry out any great public principle,
or any principle at all; for the House
of Commons is a convenient club, and
a nice lounge, and affords a pleasant
means of filling up their time; and the
most of them being men of no business,
they still want something respectable
to be engaged in, that they may pretend
not to be absolutely idle.
Well, it follows from all this that
the general result of what we call our
Parliamentary representation is not found
efficient as the guard of our national
interests. It does not respond. with
any heartiness or any willingness to the
aspirations of the people for better
government, but it is found to be in
sympathy-not with you, but-with
the ruling class, and is infinitely more
careful to preserve monopolies and
privileges than the general rights of
the great body of the nation.
But to-morrow morning, somebody
who is probably now, or will soon be
sitting pen in hand, will say, with a
show of reason, that I am arguing en-
tirely upon the question of the magni-
tude of populations. That is not true;
but still he may assert, that, in a coun-
try like this, numbers simply should
not decide this great question, and he
will say that property ought to be taken
into consideration as well as popula-
tion. Well, let us test the worth of
that appeal. Take your two foremost
cities, and compare them with other
cities which enjoy an unfair share of
the representation. Let us take our
1858.
307
REFORM.
III.
two cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow.
I have the taxable property of these two
cities. Take Schedule A of the income
and property tax, which means lands
and buildings, things which you can
see, and take Schedule D, which means
profits on trades and the income of
professions-then the taxable property
of these two cities is 7,800,000l., leaving
out odd sums. There are one hundred
and one boroughs in Great Britain and
Ireland, whose taxable property is
7,434,000l., some 350,000l. less than
the taxable property of Edinburgh and
Glasgow. But, then, which has most of
the representation? The larger amount
of that taxable property returns alto-
gether only four Members to the House
of Commons, and those other boroughs,
with the smaller amount of taxable pro-
perty, no less than one hundred and
twenty-six Members to that House.
Let me make this explanation on the
Bill which Lord John Russell, acting in
Lord Aberdeen's Government, brought
before Parliament in 1854, and which
did not become law. He proposed to
disfranchise all boroughs with popu-
lations less than 5000, and where the
number of electors was less than three
hundred. Now, I believe if the line is
drawn at 7000, it will leave this amazing
disparity, that 7,800,000l. of taxable
property will be represented by four
Members, and that a smaller amount
of taxable property will be still repre-
sented by one hundred and twenty-six
Members in the present House of Com-
mons. Take another illustration on
that point, namely, the annual sums
paid by the people of Edinburgh and
Glasgow in taxes, including income-tax
and property-tax in the two Schedules
referred to; including also house-duty,
assessed taxes, land-tax, and the whole
of those direct taxes paid by the popu-
lation of Edinburgh and Glasgow,-the
amount is 556,000l., represented by
four Members; while the sum which
the one hundred and twenty-six Mem-
bers represent in the annual direct taxes
paid by their constituents is 568,000l.,
being 11,000l. more than is paid by the
populations of Edinburgh and Glasgow.
In short, my investigations lead me to
this conclusion, that whether we take
numbers, or industry and wealth, or
what we comprehend as political in-
dependence-I do not care by what
test you try it-you come to the same
startling, the same impressive result,
that these great populations and great
interests are most inadequately repre-
sented in the House of Commons under
our present system of representation.
L
Well, having got thus far, we must
have a change; and the question is,
what change? I have a great suspicion
of those men who profess great anxiety
for something to be done, but who con-
stantly assail those who are attempting
to do something. You are aware that
less than two months ago I had the
privilege of addressing on two occasions
very large meetings of the constituency
of Birmingham. You remember the
howl of astonishment which arose. I
do not complain of the Tory papers,
because they are labouring in their
always unsuccessful vocation; but of
that which was set up by papers calling
themselves Liberal, but which are
written by men who seem to be
manacled by the triumph of 1832, but
who are not so far advanced now as at
the time of the Reform Bill. I say to
any of you who read leading articles,
and who invariably believe them-and
I have not the slightest doubt that this
kind of faith may be prevalent among
some here-it is impossible, I believe,
for anybody to compare the speech at
Birmingham with that at Manchester,
or the two speeches with the speech in
Edinburgh, and to discover the slightest
possible abandonment of any one single
sentiment that I uttered on the first
occasion. Do these men suppose that
I have the effrontery to stand before
many thousands of my countrymen,
after days and weeks of notice that I am
to appear before them, and that I come,
then, to speak merely the temper, the
passion, and the sentiments of the hour?
They little know, if they dream of this,
the sense of responsibility under which, I
20-2
308
DEC. 21,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
t
think, every man should speak who offers
himself on any occasion as the expounder
of the opinions, or to be the guide of the
deliberations, of his countrymen.
Nearly thirty years ago the senti-
ments that I have uttered upon this
great question of Parliamentary Reform
were proclaimed to thousands of our
countrymen by Lord Durham. My
opinions with regard to the franchise
are not novel. I stated in Manchester
that they were but the opinions which
Mr. Fox and Lord Grey proposed to
the House of Commons in 1797. I am
no conjuror, I have no specific for
national happiness, I offer you nothing
made up of conundrums and tricks, but
I bring before you what I believe to be
a rational and substantial project for
the arrangement of our representation,
which, I venture to say, has had, during
the last sixty years, the sanction and
approval of many of the greatest minds
and of the greatest patriots of our
country. Well, then, what is this
change which is to swamp everybody,
and that men stand aghast at? Is it
that the elective franchise, which is
now, both in England and Scotland,
confined, in boroughs, to occupiers of a
house valued at rol., should be lowered
so as to take in, in reality, all the per-
sons who are householders and occupiers
of premises which are rated to the
relief of the poor? Your system of
rating is much more modern in Scotland
than ours in England, but I learn that,
with two or three inconsiderable ex-
ceptions, it is now become uniform
throughout the whole of your country.
The main reason that I propose this
franchise is this. Unfortunately in this
country-I mean in Great Britain and
Ireland - there is a very large class,
which constantly requires the assistance
of their fellow-men. There must needs
be levied throughout the kingdom, a
rate that does not amount to less
least, in 1856, it amounted to more
than the enormous sum of 7,000,000l.,
raised for the express purpose of giving
relief to the poor. Now, I think there
is not one of your artisans who, in his
at
walk of life, works hard from morning
till night, six days in the week, who
may have heavy demands at home in
his own family, who is called upon to
perform all the duties of citizenship,
who is called upon also to contribute
from his own earnings to the support
of some feeble, some sick, it may be
some dissolute and profligate man, who
is not able to support himself,—I think
there is not one of these who is thus
called upon to be taxed on his weekly
and annual earnings for such purposes,
that has not some claim to be con-
sidered a citizen, and to be admitted to
the rights of citizenship.
I have been attacked, I am told-for
I have not had time to read half of the
attacks which I understand have been
made upon me-I have been attacked
as having been guilty of misrepresen-
tation in stating the custom in England
with regard to the question of the fran-
chise. I have said that in England, in
our parochial government, in Poor-law
Unions, and in our municipal govern-
ments, the system of rating forms the
basis of the elective franchise; and I
could see no reason why it should not
also form the basis of the franchise in the
election of Members of Parliament. I am
told that with regard to Poor-law Unions,
and in some cases of parishes, but not
universally, there is a mode of voting by
which men give votes somewhat in pro-
portion to their property in the parish;
where one man can give one vote, and
another four or six votes. This is not
very pleasant, wherever it is practised,
to those having a smaller number of
votes; but the defence and the pre-
tended justification of it is that this is
a question of expenditure in the imme-
diate locality, in the making of roads,
in a variety of objects which are re-
quired to be attended to by our various
local governments, and that it might
possibly end in throwing a great in-
equality of expenditure and taxation
upon a particular number, or on a few
individuals in parishes or districts: but
when you come to the question of Par-
liamentary Reform, where not only taxes

1858.
·309
REFORM. III.
are to be considered, but interests and
personal rights, and not taxes only and
personal rights only, but all questions
affecting the great policy of the country
both at home and abroad, I say it
would be to cast a most deadly and in-
eradicable insult upon the working
classes of this country if anybody, for
one single moment, urged that I should
propose to give, six votes at the poll
for a Member of Parliament, while an
operative at my side should be only
allowed to give one vote. Until you
are prepared to do full justice to the
great portion of the unenfranchised
classes, I would advise you to allow
matters to remain as they are. I am
sure that opinion is growing, intelligence
is growing, power is growing, com-
bination is growing, and before long it
will be seen to be the interest of all
those who value the tranquillity of the
country and the contentment of the
people, that political rights should be
widely and honestly distributed among
all classes of our countrymen.
There is one other question of the
suffrage which, I believe, I have never
yet touched upon in any preceding
speech, that is, with regard to the pos-
sibility of conferring the franchise, in
some shape or other, upon those who
are not householders, and are not rated,
but are what are called lodgers. In
England we have no such franchise;
in Scotland you have. A person may
live in lodgings, for which he pays, when
unfurnished, the sum of 10l. per annum,
which is the rental required for houses to
give a vote. In such a case that lodger
can claim to have his name put upon the
register, and I am told that in Edinburgh
about thirty persons are enrolled who are
in that condition. If that be so,
I sup-
pose there cannot be a difficulty in re-
ducing the sum to some smaller amount,
which shall become in some degree ac-
cordant with the principle of a general
franchise, so based as to place persons of
this description on the electoral register.
We come now to the question of the
county franchise, in which we have in
England a great advantage over you in
Scotland. Here the limit is a Iol.
property and a 50l. occupation fran-
chise; but in England we have freehold
franchise as low as 40s. a-year. I think
he would be a most fastidious mortal
indeed who thought that the constitu-
tion of the British Empire and the safety
of anybody would, in the smallest de-
gree, be jeopardised by extending the
40s. franchise to Scotland.
One has to go with remarkable pre-
cision over the various topics of this
great question, for if, by any chance, I
say anything that is not fully explained,
it is sure to be explained in a manner
favourable to some inconsistency, and
if any point is omitted it is generally
insinuated that I have seen reason to
change my opinions. In Edinburgh,
my voice was very bad and the room
was densely crowded, and I was anxious
not to make a long speech, and I said
nothing on the question of the Ballot.
It was instantly supposed that I did
not hold the same opinions in Edinburgh
that I did in Manchester and Birming-
ham. We will not altogether leave
out the Ballot to-night. If the franchise
in your boroughs be reduced so much
as to double the whole number of your
electors, and if it be reduced so much
in your counties as to increase by, pro-
bably, more than one-half all the num-
ber of electors in those counties, I
think, if there be any call now for the
adoption of the Ballot, that call will be
more strong and imperative after such
a change in the franchise has been made.
I am quite certain that in the district I
came from, the county of Lancaster,
there is but one opinion on this point
amongst the great body of those persons
who are hoping, by any Reform Bill, to
be admitted within the pale of the Con-
stitution of this country. I think that
they would to a very large extent im-
plore the House of Commons not to
confer upon them the right of the fran-
chise, unless they conferred upon them
also the power which, I believe, the
Ballot alone would give them, of ex-
ercising that franchise in accordance
with their own convictions.
310
DEC. 21,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I cannot comprehend why any man
should oppose the Ballot. I can under-
stand its importance being exaggerated,
but I cannot understand the man who
thinks it would be likely to inflict injury
upon the country. Every good influ-
ence, every legitimate influence, would
still exist. The rich man would still
be rich and would still be powerful; in
the nature of things it must be so. The
educated man, the intellectual man, the
benevolent man, the man of religious
and saintly life, would continue to ex-
ercise a most beneficent influence, which
the Ballot, I believe, would not in the
slightest degree impair; but the in-
fluence of the landlord, of the creditor,
of the customer-the influence of the
strong and unscrupulous mind over the
feeble and the fearful-that influence
would be as effectually excluded as I
believe it could be by any human con-
trivance whatsoever.
But there is another aspect of the
question of the Ballot, which I think is
more important than its political one,
that is, its moral aspect. How would
canvassing be conducted under the
Ballot? I do not know how you con-
duct the canvassing of electors in this
great city; I suppose it is not accurately
conducted at all; but I will tell you
how it is managed in small and mo-
derate boroughs in England.
The
candidate goes to see as many electors
as possible. In calling on any particu-
lar elector, the canvassers endeavour to
find out his employer, his landlord,
some one who has lent him money, or
done a kindness to some of his friends,
or who has some influence over him,
and half a dozen meet together, and
though there may be nothing said, the
elector knows very well there is some-
body in that small number who has
done him a benefit for which he expects
a return, somebody who has power over
him and who expects to be obeyed, and
while the object is professedly that of a
canvass, it is little better than a demon-
stration of force and tyranny. Every
man who, for want of the Ballot, votes
contrary to his convictions, is a demo-
If not so
ralized and degraded man.
before, he would feel it necessary, for
the sustaining of his character, that he
should turn round and belie the princi-
ples that he has up to that moment
held and declared-and assert that he
holds contrary principles now, and
therefore did not vote against the con-
victions of his conscience. There is no
portion-I can assure this meeting
there is not one of the propositions for
Reform that have been submitted to
the public-there is no other portion
that is received with such unanimity,
such enthusiasm of resolution, through-
out all the meetings in England, as the
proposition that the Ballot shall form
a portion of the coming Reform.
We come now to that question which,
after all, is more difficult than any to
which I have referred, and much more
difficult of obtaining or carrying through
Parliament-viz. the determination as
to the mode in which Members shall in
future be allotted to electors and con-
stituencies. I presume that any Re-
form Bill will draw some line, and
below that line will disfranchise a num-
ber of boroughs, assuming their popu-
lation to be too small, and the number
of electors too limited, and the interests
too circumscribed, to justify them in
returning a Member to Parliament, and
the more of these boroughs that are
thus cut off, the larger number of mem-
bers or seats will Parliament have to
distribute among other constituencies.
Now, what shall be done with such a
borough as Glasgow? Are you con-
tent to go on with your brethren in
Edinburgh, with a population approach-
ing to half a million-will you go on
contentedly returning only four Mem-
bers to the House of Commons to
represent your vast and annually in-
creasing interests and population, whilst
a population no greater than yours
shall return, as the case may be, fifty,
eighty, or a hundred Members else-
where? You are not the lovers of
freedom I take you to be-you do not
understand the question as well as I am
satisfied you do you have not resolved
do-you

1858.
311
REFORM. III.
to brace yourselves up for this great
contest, as I hope this night you will
- if you are content to go on in the
same condition of things under which
you have been for some time past. I
am not about to state what I think is
the limit that ought to be taken. Lord
John Russell would not continue repre-
sentation to boroughs with a population
under 5000.
Others have proposed
I will
that in the case of boroughs with a
population under 10,000 they should be
merged in the counties, and the electors
in boroughs become electors in counties,
-which would be a vast improvement
to the county representation.
leave this point, for I believe that with
regard to my Bill it is not a settled
question, and I do not know the inten-
tions of the Government or of anybody
else who may take a prominent part in
introducing any measure to the House
of Commons and the country.
Now, bear in mind, it is possible to
make great changes in the representa-
tion without the smallest improvement.
At a dinner you may go from one bad
dish to another; you may go from one
unpleasant street to another, from one
unprofitable business to another; you
may make a very important change in
respect to the franchise without any
sensible relief; and it is precisely thus
we must warn each other about these
points of Reform, because it is quite
possible that the Government, hampered
by their own prejudices and dispositions,
hampered by their followers, and con-
scious that there are some of their
opponents who do not want much Re-
form; it is quite possible that Govern-
ment may attempt a measure which,
while seeming to reform, will leave
the state of the representation quite as
unsatisfactory as at present. Thus, I
maintain, there can be no Reform ex-
cept on such, or on something like the
basis which I have endeavoured to lay
down; and I state this the more par-
ticularly because I am anxious that all
my countrymen who have not investi-
gated the question shall, when any
measure is really before them, be in a
condition to form an intelligent opinion
of it. At present the great body of the
working classes of the country are ex-
cluded, and I have shown you, from the
mode in which electors are crippled
and managed, that the great body of
the middle classes, if not excluded, are
so arranged that they may be said to
be almost altogether defrauded. I want
to know why the working classes and
the middle classes and I wish we had
no such terms, or that we had some
better terms, but I mean by them all
those persons who compose the vast
population of the country below the
great privileged and titled classes of
society- I want to know why they
should not all unite fairly in behalf of
the great measure of political Reform
to which we are looking forward? De-
pend upon it a real measure of Reform
is as much wanted for the security and
for the welfare of the middle classes of
society as it is for the operative classes.
There is a great attempt constantly
made to frighten the middle classes.
They are told that working-men will
not be inclined to listen to the advice
of those above them in condition, cir-
cumstances, and education. Some of
you recollect forty years ago, when such
a thing as a public political meeting
could not be held in Scotland. The
ruling classes then held that political
meetings were dangerous, that they
were absolutely treasonable, that public
tranquillity and the security of Govern-
ment were impossible if Englishmen
and Scotchmen were permitted to meet
and discuss public affairs. But Reform
was carried, and after many years' ex-
perience of it, we find that public tran-
quillity is more firmly established now
than at any former period of the history
of this country. Twenty-seven years
ago the Reform Bill passed.
What
said the great peers then, some of whom
appear to have been recently startled
from their somnolent security? What
did they say? They said the King's
Government could not be carried on,
and that from the time when that
moderate but great measure of Reform
I
DEC. 21,
312
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
was passed there would be an end of
the greatness and glory of this powerful
nation. But what has been the result?
Every one of these predictions has been
utterly falsified. Twelve or fourteen
years ago, when I was here last, what
did they tell us of that simple measure
of the repeal of the Corn-laws? One
great Peer told us that he should leave
the country; and one of the labourers
who was at the meeting asked, would
his lordship take his land along with
him? And we are told that not agri-
culture alone, but manufactures, and all
the commerce of the country would be
crippled if not destroyed, and that your
splendid river, bearing the leviathans of
noble architecture constructed on its
banks, would return to its former state
of a small and pleasant stream,— and, I
suppose, that men could catch trout and
salmon from the bridge that crossed it.
This kind of argument is what Jeremy
Bentham has happily described as the
hobgoblin argument, a great trick now-
a-days to frighten people, lest they
should do themselves some good.
.
Yet to the middle classes to you,
who twenty-seven years ago were pro-
nounced utterly unworthy of the fran-
chise, to you they now say, 'You are
the bulwark of our constitution.' You
can live in a Iol. house, but if you go
below to gl., if you go to 8., if you go
to 71., the case is considered bad, but it
becomes more desperate at 61. and 51.,
and the rating franchise is positively
revolutionary. I confess I do not
believe this. The number of electors
under this rating franchise has been
very much exaggerated by those who
have not examined it. It was stated at
a meeting in Edinburgh the other night,
by a gentleman whose authority will
not be disputed, that the franchise that
I propose would raise the number of
electors in Edinburgh from 8,000 to
nearly 17,000. I presume that in your
city you have a greater population than
Edinburgh has; but whatever it be, I
am satisfied that if we are to take any
step, if we are ever to change our re-
presentation, I say to every man of the
middle classes, to every man who wishes
for the stability of institutions,—I say,
let us treat the great body of the popu-
lation with a magnanimous generosity;
that our fellow-countrymen of twenty
years hence may make an unanimous
acknowledgment that generosity in the
year 1859 was the path of true states-
manship and of wisdom.
But I observe in some newspaper, I-
am not sure whether it was one in your
city, it is said that I have failed to
show to the working classes how giving
them a vote could be of the smallest
advantage to them. I believe that it
would be of one advantage to them in
the way of raising their self-respect. I
have seen thousands of men who have
no votes, at the nomination of candi-
dates, attending polling-booths, with
looks of great anxiety, and often with
looks of great dejection. I believe that
if the major part of those men were
enfranchised, the effect upon their minds
and morals and general condition would
be obvious and signal. The great secret
of raising any man who has been brought
up to what may be called the inferior
occupations of life, is to find out some-
thing to increase his self-respect. If a
man becomes possessed with that feeling
-if a man sees any way among his
fellow-workmen, and in your numerous
societies, benevolent or otherwise, by
which he can make himself of use-you
will at once see the change in the cha-
racter of the man, and that what was
before either stupid or low in his nature
seems to be removed or diminished, and
you will find that the man has become
wiser, and nobler, and happier. I be-
lieve that when you admit the general
body of our artisans upon the roll of
electors, when they can not only attend
nominations and hold up their hands
and cheer for the successful or popular
candidate, but can also go one by one
to the polling-booth, and register their
votes for the man who shall represent
the great interests of Glasgow; my
honest, conscientious opinion is, that
you will do as much to raise their self-
respect, to give them at least the rudi-
1858.
313
REFORM. III.
'
ments and elements of the higher class
of citizenship, as you can do by all
the other means that you now have in
operation with a view of improving
the condition of the working classes.
But there are other results that will
come to this country in case you ever
obtain a fair representation of the people.
I have been in Scotland a good deal for
the last three or four years, and often
before then. I have found, in travelling
over your country, that your land is not
the land of the people of Scotland, but
that it is in a position-in a manner
exclusive-which is not found to be the
case with regard to any other property.
It is found in the possession - in
comparison to the whole body of the
people-of a small handful of proprie-
tors.
Let no man say that I am about
to assail any landed proprietors in Scot-
land. I have received many courtesies
from them, and not a few courtesies
from the most eminent and distinguished
among them; I speak only of the system
which arises from a Legislature that is
diametrically opposed to all the great
principles of political economy, which
we and you struggled for so many years
to place on our statute books in the
shape of a wiser legislation in matters of
trade. Land is the basis of your indus-
try. Is there any reason why land should
not be as free as machinery, or ships,
or household furniture, or cattle, or the
goods and manufactures in your ware-
houses? If freedom be the law of right
and of wisdom with respect to all these
kinds of property, how should the re-
verse of freedom be any other than the
law of mischief and injury when applied
to land? You may travel-I was going
to say, 'from the rising of the sun to
the going down thereof'- on some
single estate in Scotland, north or south,
east or west-wherever you go you ask
whose land you are on, and you are
told that it belongs to some marquis or
some duke. They are happy mortals,
it will be said, who possess this great
territory; and so, probably, they would
be, if it were possible for any man, how-
ever well disposed, to adequately answer
the responsibilities which such posses-
sions lay upon him. You find on these
vast estates very few tenants, and gene-
rally very few of an agricultural popu-
lation at all. There is little social
freedom, there is little industrial free-
dom, and there is still less political
freedom in districts such as those which
I am describing. I do not know very
well how men can breathe freely when
they find themselves continually on a
soil not one morsel of which they can
call their own, or can ever hope to call
their own, until they take their last long
sleep in that portion of it which shall
finally be allotted to them.
I am no advocate for a law to force
the division of land. I do not want
any landlord to be compelled to have
a greater or smaller number of tenants;
but I say that the system of legislation
in regard to primogeniture, and on en-
tails and settlements, which is intended
to keep vast estates in one hand through
successive generations, to prevent that
economical disposition and change of
property which is found so advantageous
in every other kind of property-I say
this state of things is full of the most
pernicious consequences, not only to the
agricultural classes, but to all other
classes of our countrymen, since all are
affected by it. I recollect one evening
seeing a farmer ride away from an
hotel in the Highlands, and I asked his
name. I was told that he was a farmer
in some neighbouring glen, where he
had a prodigious farm; and my inform-
ant said that there were once fourteen
good farms on what is now one farm,
and that each of the fourteen families
always managed to send at least one of
its sons to obtain a first-class University
education. Now, I do not want any
law to strip that one farmer of his
farm; but the law which interferes with
the free course of transactions in land,
which multiplies and keeps up these
vast estates, which gives to one man
power over a whole territory, whereby
he has at his disposal tenant and
labourer alike, is not such a law as is
consistent with that freedom to which
314
DEC. 21,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
the people of England and Scotland are
entitled. Your agricultural labouring
population have no chance of rising in
the world. They can come to Glasgow,
as scores of thousands of men have
come from the Highlands and from
Ireland, or, forced by the unfavourable
circumstances in which they find them-
selves, they may become exiles from
their native country, and form colonies
in the far Pacific, or beyond the wide
Atlantic. But I think we are bound as
free men-and we townsmen are espe-
cially bound, for we only have the
power to take the initiative in this great
question-we are bound, so far as we
are able, by our representatives in Par-
liament (and I have no doubt it will be
one of the consequences of a real Reform
Bill), to apply those great principles of
political economy, which are the gospel
and the charter of industry, as fully to
property in land as we have already
applied them to property engaged in
trade.
There is another point to which I
must call your attention in answer to
the question, What is the good which
the working classes, or any other class,
can hope for from a wide extension of
the franchise?' Now there is one great
question over which the public has no
great hold, and that is the question of the
public expenditure. The present Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli,
an eminent member of the House of
Commons, a leading member of the
Government, and a man of genius,
whose present position, I must say, is a
proclamation to the world of the incom-
petency of the Conservative aristocracy
and country gentlemen of the United
Kingdom; and, what is still more to be
remarked, is an evidence of the humility
which adorns their character in thus
admitting it,—Mr. Disraeli said, on
more than one recent occasion, that
expenditure depended on policy-by
which he meant that our public expen-
diture depended on our foreign policy.
Now, our past foreign policy has been
of a very questionable character. It has
entailed upon us the permanent pay-
ment, from which there is no honour-
able escape, of a sum of 28,000,000l.
per annum; and our present foreign
policy, and matters connected with it,
involve us in the present payment of
22,000,000l. per annum for our great
military and naval preparations and
expenses. I am not about for a mo-
ment to discuss the question, whether
our foreign policy has been, or is now,
good, bad, or indifferent, because that
does not very much affect the question
to which I wish to call your attention.
In our home affairs we have a very open
system of government. If the Home
Office is about to do anything, some-
body hears of it, and somebody approves
of it, or somebody objects to it. In
all matters connected with our personal
freedom, with the administration of
justice, in all things which may be
called internal, we have the freest
opportunity of obtaining information,
expressing our opinion, and enforcing
our views on the Government.
But when you come to our foreign
policy, you are no longer Englishmen ;
you are no longer free; you are recom-
mended not to inquire. If you do, you
are told you cannot understand it; you
are snubbed, you are hustled aside.
We are told that the matter is too deep
for common understandings like ours-
that there is great mystery about it. We
have what is called diplomacy. We
have a great many lords engaged in
what they call diplomacy. We have a
lord in Paris, we have another in
Madrid, another in Berlin, another (at
least we had till very lately) in Vienna,
and another lord in Constantinople;
and we have another at Washington;
in fact, almost all over the world; par-
ticularly where the society is most
pleasant, and the climate most agree-
able, there is almost certain to be an
English nobleman to represent the
English Foreign Office, but you never
know what he is doing. You have
three or four columns every other day
in most of the leading London papers-
not a little of which is copied into
the provincial journals-all about our
J
1858.
315
REFORM. III.
foreign affairs, and yet, notwithstanding
this, you are not a bit better acquainted
with the matter when you read it, if
you do read it at all, than you were
before. Yet you have the great fact,
that you have paid 28,000,000l. a-year
for more than forty years, and, since the
year 1815, more than 1,000,000,000l.
out of the industry of the population.
And out of all this comes the supposed
necessity of armaments twice as large
as were necessary twenty-five years ago;
and yet you have no control over, and
know nothing of the matter. There is
not a population equal to this in Russia,
Austria, or France, that knows less of
the foreign affairs of any of those
countries than this meeting probably
knows of the foreign affairs of England.
Lately, our Minister for Foreign
Affairs was candid enough to tell you
that Government drifted into war, and
you know what is meant when a ship
drifts. And other Foreign Ministers
have drifted us into a great many wars;
and I expect, if some change be not
made with regard to this question, that
they will either find it convenient, or
that they cannot avoid it, from some
cause or other, to allow us to drift into
a war at some future period. I will not
talk of what war is-we have had a
specimen of it. Be it necessary or be
it unnecessary-be the quarrel just or
be it unjust-be it for the rights of the
nation or to gratify the stupidity of a
monarch or the intrigues of a minister
-war, nevertheless, is one of the
greatest calamities that can afflict any
kingdom or the human race; and you,
the people, are ignorant of the steps
by which you are drawn into war.
Scotch Duke-and, by the way, rather
a sprightly Duke he is too-lately took
me to task for something that I had said.
I had called in question the wisdom of
the policy which compels this vast
expenditure abroad, while the people
of Ireland were working at one shilling
a day for wages, and the people of your
own Highlands were living upon three
meals of oatmeal a day! What was
the triumphant refutation of my argu-
A
ment? This only, that oatmeal was a
most wholesome article of diet. If I had
said that the Duke's dogs, at Inverary
Castle, had been fed upon oatmeal three
times a day, the answer would have
been perfectly satisfactory.
But I am told further by these autho-
rities, though the country does occa-
sionally become involved in war, that
the people desire it, that they are as
fond of it as their rulers. Well, if the
Peers did sorrow for the late war, they
never told their grief. Are the people,
are the nation, to have the blame of
those calamities thrown upon them
when they do occur? Who form your
Cabinet? Not the merchants of Glas-
gow-not the shopkeepers nor the
artisans-no, but the members of the
peerage of the United Kingdom. Half
of your Cabinets are formed from the
House of Lords, and the other half from
the House of Commons are so directly
connected with the peerage that they
may be regarded as belonging to that
class. Do not let the conduct of public
affairs remain with a few leading fami-
lies, who enjoy all the emoluments and
all the power; and when such an one
as myself steps forward to point out the
blunders they commit, and the crimes
they are guilty of, if I tell them of the
sufferings which my countrymen have
endured, sufferings, the full measure of
which never will be known or revealed
to us, and which will be known only in
eternity, do not let us have it said that
the people are in favour of wars, when
they have in reality so little to do with
them.
It is a curious thing to observe the
evils which nations live under, and the
submissive spirit with which they yield
to them. I have often compared, in my
own mind, the people of England with
the people of ancient Egypt, and the
Foreign Office of this country with the
temples of the Egyptians. We are told
by those who pass up and down the
Nile, that on its banks are grand temples
with stately statues and massive and
lofty columns-statues each one of which
would have appeared almost to have
316
DEC. 21,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
J
exhausted a quarry in its production.
You have, further, vast chambers, and
gloomy passages; and some innermost
recess, some holy of holies, in which,
when you arrive at it, you find some
loathsome reptile which a nation rever-
enced and revered, and bowed itself
down to worship. In our Foreign
Office we have no massive columns;
we have no statues; but we have a
mystery as profound; and in the inner-
most recesses of it we find some miser-
able intrigue, in defence of which your
fleets are traversing every ocean, your
armies are perishing in every clime, and
the precious blood of our country's chil-
dren is squandered as though it had no
price. I hope that an improved repre-
sentation will change all this; that the
great portion of our expenditure which
is incurred in carrying out the secret
and irresponsible doings of our Foreign
Office will be placed directly under the
free control of a Parliament elected by
the great body of the people of the United
Kingdom. And then, and not till then,
will your industry be secured from that
gigantic taxation to which it has been
subjected during the last hundred and
fifty years.
There is much in this country, not-
withstanding, of which we may be
proud. We can write freely, we can
meet as we are met now, and we can
speak freely of our political wishes and
our grievances. The ruling classes, with
a wise sagacity, have yielded these points
without further struggle; but we are so
delighted with our personal freedom, we
are so pleased that we can move about
without passports, and speak, write, and
act as freely as a free man requires to
do, we are so delighted with all this,
that we are unconscious of the fact that
our rulers extract from our industry a
far larger amount than any other Go-
vernment does, or ever did, from an
equal number of people. Dr. Living-
stone, the African traveller, if I am not
mistaken, is a native of this neighbour-
hood, and you no doubt identify his
reputation in some degree with your
own. He gives, in his interesting and
charming book, many anecdotes of the
various creatures which he saw and
heard of during his travels. He de-
scribes in one place, I remember, a
bird, which he calls a dull, stupid bird,
a kind of pelican, which occupies itself
with its own affairs on the river side.
This pelican catches fish, and when it
has secured them it puts them into a
pouch or purse under its bill, instead
of the ordinary accommodation which
anglers have in Scotland for their prizes.
Dr. Livingstone tells of another bird
which is neither dull nor stupid, which
he calls the fish-hawk. This hawk
hovers over the pelican, and waiting
patiently until the latter has secured
the fish, he comes down upon him with
a swoop and takes the fish from the
purse, leaving the pelican delighted that
the hawk has not taken him bodily
away, and setting to work at once to
catch another fish.
I ask of you whether you can apply
this anecdote to your own case? You
are told that your Government is a
Government which allows you to meet,
and that it lets every man say anything
short of absolute treason, at least in
times of tranquillity; it permits your
leading-article writers to denounce, at
will, every member of the Government;
and like the pelican, you are so de-
lighted that you are not absolutely
eaten up by it, that you allow it to ex-
tract from your pockets an incalculable
amount of your industry, and you go to
work just as the pelican does, until this
great Government fish-hawk comes down
again upon you. What I want is, that
all the people should examine the ques-
tion thoroughly for themselves. Rely
upon it, your present and future wel-
fare as a nation are bound up with it.
Many persons suppose that because some
people pay but little in the shape of
taxation, that it matters nothing to them
what taxes the Government imposes
upon the nation. Every man who drinks
tea, or consumes any exciseable articles,
pays taxes; but apart from this view
of the question, I would have you to
understand that everything which the
1858.
317
REFORM. III.
Government expends, supposing it was
all to come from the employers' pocket,
would be a diminution of that great
fund of capital out of which wages were
paid. Every man, therefore, whether he
pays taxes or not—more so, of course,
if he does-every man, if he is not
mainly living upon the taxes, has a
most direct interest in establishing that
representation of the people that will
give the nation a firm control over the
expenditure of its money.
I have devoted many years of my life,
I have spent much labour in advocating
a greater freedom of the soil. I believe
that it would work better and prove
more profitable to the landed proprietors
themselves. I think that free land,
greater economy in the public expen-
diture, with the growing intelligence
which we see all around us, and the im-
provement which is taking place in the
more temperate habits of the people,
all these things together fill me with
the hope that whatever we have in
the annals of the past of which we can
boast, there is still a brighter future in
store for this country. I come amongst
you not to stir up animosity between
class and class; that is the charge
brought against me by men who wish
that one class may permanently rule
over every other class. I come amongst
you that we may deliberate on those
great questions on which our success
and our prosperity depend. You know,
at least if you do not know it I will tell
you, that I am no frequenter of Courts.
I have never sought for office or the
emoluments of place. I have no craving
for popularity. I think I have little of
that which may be called the lust for
fame. I am a citizen of a free country.
I love my country, I love its freedom;
but I believe that freedom can only be
extended and retained by a fair and
honest representation of the people;
and it is because I believe this, that I
am here to-night to ask you, through
the power of your intelligence and your
numbers, to step into the position which
now opens up before you.
+
J
REFORM.
IV.
vote.
LORD DERBY'S BILL.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 24, 1859.
From Hansard.
[The Bill proposed by Lord Derby's Government in 1859 introduced certain fancy
franchises' in boroughs, giving a vote to persons having 10l. per annum in the Public
Funds, Bank Stock, or India Stock, or 6ol. in a Savings Bank; and to recipients of
pensions in the Naval, Military, and Civil Services, amounting to 20l. a-year.
Dwellers in a portion of a house whose aggregate rent was 20l. a-year could have a
The suffrage was also to be given to graduates of the Universities, ministers
of religion, members of the legal and medical professions, and to certain school-
masters. The Government recommended an identity of franchise in counties and
boroughs, and therefore proposed to reduce the occupation franchise in counties to
Iol. The Bill proposed the use of voting-papers, and the disfranchisement of such
freeholders in towns as voted for counties. The Government Bill was defeated on
April 1 by a majority of 39 (291 votes for the second reading, 330 against), and a
dissolution followed.]
IN the observations which I am
anxious to address to the House I shall
endeavour to keep myself strictly to the
question before it. I shall not attempt
any answer to some, perhaps well-
intended, but rather feeble, assaults
which have been made upon me during
this debate, and I shall not attempt any
explanation in answer to what was said
by the hon. and learned Gentleman the
Solicitor-General the other night when
he spoke of an alliance between the
noble Lord (J. Russell) and myself.
That which is purely imaginary is not
easy to explain. The House I believe
will give me credit when I say that if
I am found acting with the noble Lord
it is because I think the course he is
taking is advantageous to the country,
and I hope if I have hereafter occasion
to differ from him they will give me
credit also, and will presume that I
differ from him only because my con-
victions lead me to do so.
There are two questions before us—
the Bill of the Government and the
resolution of the noble Lord, and in
addition to these the great question of
Parliamentary Reform, which has been
more or less discussed by every Member
who has addressed the House. With
regard to the Bill there is a singular
unanimity of feeling. With the excep-
tion of Gentlemen on the Treasury
MARCH 24, 1859.
319
REFORM. IV.
bench, who may be considered in the
light of professional witnesses, I believe
there is no single Member who has
spoken who has not expressed strong
repugnance to some main point or prin-
ciple of the measure. A remarkable
speech has been delivered by a right hon.
Gentleman on this side of the House.
He denounced the Bill as much as if
he had been the greatest opponent of
hon. Gentlemen opposite, but he was
vehemently cheered by the other side
of the House throughout almost the
whole of that speech. Seeing that he
turned the measure inside out, it was
rather remarkable that his speech
should be so relished by hon. Gentlemen
opposite, and considering some of the
observations which he made, the right
hon. Gentleman certainly suggested a
course the most extraordinary. He
denounced the Bill as treason, not to
the Crown, but to the people, and he
proposed to inflict upon it something
like the barbarous punishment with
which our law, I believe, still visits
those who are guilty of this great crime;
and yet, after calling on the House to
go with him in taking out the heart of
the measure, and, for aught I know, in
disembowelling it, he comforted him-
self with the belief that the Government
would accept and assist in carrying
the Bill. He appeared to forget that
the Government had parted with two
eminent Colleagues on the very points
of difference which he was discussing.
He seemed to forget that if the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer adopted this
proposal he would lay himself open to
the unfortunate suspicion that a sug-
gestion, to which he would not consent
at the instance of two of his late dis-
tinguished Colleagues, he would accept
rather than have a vote of this House
against the Government with the conse-
quences which are likely to follow. I
certainly was astonished that a man so
acute as the right hon. Gentleman, after
having spoken in such glowing lan-
guage, and with an eloquence rarely
heard in this House, of the priceless
honour of our public men, should
suggest such a course to the Govern-
ment.
I shall not follow the right hon.
Gentleman who has just spoken on the
details of the Bill to the extent to which
he has entered upon them. I shall
confine myself to the two principles
which, after all, are at this stage of the
Bill only before us, being brought spe-
cifically under discussion by the reso-
lution proposed as an amendment by
the noble Lord. I should like to ask
the House-because I think there is
some disposition to evade this question
-what is it that people understand by
a measure of Parliamentary Reform? I
mean people out of doors, of whom
hon. Gentlemen are likely to hear a
good deal before this matter is settled.
They understand it should mean two
things-first, an extension of the fran-
chise to considerable classes, not now
enfranchised; and, at the same time,
that it should give to the country larger
and freer and more independent con-
stituencies. Now, I want to ask how
this Bill meets such a demand, because
if it does not it is no Reform Bill, the
Government had no right to propose it
in answer to that demand, and the House
of Commons will fail in its duty if it
gives any countenance to such a measure,
or passes it into a law.
In the counties at this moment, con-
fining myself to England and Wales, to
which alone this Bill refers, there are,
in round numbers, 500,000 electors,
400,000 of whom are freeholders and
100,000 occupying tenants above the
value of 50l. Now, is there any doubt
upon this point-that if any gentleman
were asked to put his finger upon that
description of elector in the counties
which is most independent, he would
say the freeholder; if upon the least
independent, he would say of necessity
the 50l. occupier? Without saying
anything against tenant-farmers or the
owners of farms themselves, I think this
is a description which the House will
admit to be fair. Well, the Bill pro-
poses first of all to get rid from the
counties of one-fourth, 100,000, of the
320
MARCH 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
most independent class, the freeholders.
I am not now speaking of disfranchising
them, but of getting rid of them from
the counties, and mixing them up with
another class of electors. Everybody
will see at a glance that if 100,000 of
the most independent class of electors
are taken from the counties, the less
independent class must necessarily be
made more powerful.
—>>>
The Bill makes, to my mind, another
proposal of a most insidious character.
The boundaries of boroughs are to be
altered in a very remarkable fashion.
The framers of the Bill seem to imagine
that it is necessary for some object of
theirs to include within the boundaries
of boroughs every individual whom by
any pretence they can lay hold of and
separate from the county, if they suspect
him to be infected with the prevalent
opinions of the towns. By this means,
of course, they would after the passing
of their Bill diminish still more what-
ever there may be of the independent
element in the county constituencies.
But now observe the cunning will
right hon. Gentlemen forgive me the
expression?-perhaps it was a mistake,
like the disfranchisement of 50,000 men
-observe the mistake, then, involved
in the plan which is to be referred to
our intelligent and impartial friend
Mr. Darby. I understood that Mr.
Darby, the head of the Enclosure Com-
mission, is to appoint a Commission
for this object. The question, then,
will be referred to him or to somebody.
I will admit, if you like, that the Com-
mission is as good as I or anybody in
this House could wish. This Commis-
sion is not to examine the case of all bo-
roughs. It is merely intended, as I un-
derstand it, to shut up within the borough
boundaries all the suburbs of our cities
and towns, and all immediately con-
tiguous villages. But the Commissioners
have no charge to go to another de-
scription of borough, and shut up the
country parishes within the boundaries
of counties. Now, surely, if it was a
fair thing to go to any large town and
say, 'All these streets and villages shall
be comprised within the borough; none
of these rol. occupiers shall vote for the
county,' it would be a fair thing to go
to agricultural boroughs and to say,
'My good fellows, farmers, and so forth,
in all these country parishes we are
about to make a clear distinction
perpetual enmity between town and
county; everybody near a town is to
be shut into that town; you must be
shut out of the borough, and into the
county.'
I will tell the House what will be the
result of the proposal in one or two
cases. There are at this moment,
within the limits of boroughs, farms
the rental of which exceeds 2,500,000l.,
and yet these are called boroughs. We
will take the borough represented by
the First Lord of the Admiralty. He
will speak in this debate, and can cor-
rect me if I am wrong. In Droitwich
there is an assessment to the income-
tax under Schedule A of land and
buildings to the amount of 56,000l.
a-year, of which 39,600l. is an assess-
ment of land and farms. There are four
town parishes and twelve rural parishes.
The town parishes contain one hundred
and sixty electors, the rural two hundred
and thirty-two electors. In point of fact,
therefore, the right hon. Gentleman does
not represent a town at all. No, the
large majority of his supporters and
constituents are farmers and persons as
much connected with rural affairs as if
they were in the centre of the county
and miles away from any towns or vil-
lages. I say, if this line is to be drawn,
it must be drawn in all cases. Take
the case of the borough of Petersfield,
which is also represented by an hon.
Baronet on the Treasury bench. In
that town the case is still more glaring.
There is 31,000l. assessed in land and
buildings in the borough, but of that,
24,000l., or more than four-fifths, is in
respect of land and buildings in agri-
cultural parishes. I am not now com-
plaining of those parishes being added
to the town; but the Government has
no right to propose, and Parliament
will never pass, a Bill the only object
1859.
321
REFORM. IV.
of which will be to shut as many as
possible in the borough in the one case,
but not to interfere in the other, and
thus to diminish that great variety of
suffrages and of interests which it is
desirable that every Member in this
House shall represent.
The noble Lord the Secretary of State
for India said with regard to the great
measure of disfranchisement, that it was
a mistake, and that he was sorry the
clause was not originally introduced into
the Bill which was afterwards laid on
the table of the House by his hon. Friend.
Again, the Secretary of State for the
Colonies, when he was charged with the
faulty character of the clause extending
the iol. franchise to counties, made rather
a staggering admission that this was
also in the nature of a mistake, and if
it was wrong, that we could likewise go
into the question in Committee. But I
find everything that has been done has
one direction, and one only. I cannot
understand the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer, when speaking of the painful
anxiety with which this Bill has been
brought forward, he has not, in all that
anxiety and deliberation, discovered that
he was going to disfranchise 50,000 of
the best electors of the kingdom.
Now, what is the main object of this
measure? It is evidently to make the
representation of the counties, if possi-
ble, more exclusively territorial than it
is at present. I ask the House to con-
sider whether that is a desirable object
for us to attempt? Ask Lord Lyndhurst
-long a leading statesman, acting with
Gentlemen opposite; ask Lord Aberdeen.
Sir Robert Peel is not here, and you can-
not ask him; but you can ask the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle,
and the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer could add his
impressive testimony, whether it has not
always been the chief difficulty of the
Cabinet sitting on that side of the
House-I mean with Gentlemen oppo-
site, for many years, far longer than I
have been a politician-that they were
supported by one hundred and fifty or
more Gentlemen representing the coun-
ties, and elected very much in the way
described by Lord Derby, and, being
supported by that party, whether they
have not found it utterly impossible,
without doing that which was very un-
pleasant, or without ruining themselves,
which is unpleasant to a Government,
to propose or carry any of those mea-
sures which were made necessary by the
opinions and demands of the country.
Do not let Gentlemen opposite sup-
pose that I am finding fault individually
with any one of them in this matter.
From 1842 to 1846, what was the diffi-
culty which the Government of Sir
Robert Peel constantly found in its
way? Of that, I dare say, the right
hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle
could give us a graphic and instructive
description. What became of that Go-
vernment of 1846? There was a dis-
ruption which resulted in years of
anarchy in this House. But go back
to the experience of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer in 1852. The then
Government was broken up by a ma-
jority of nineteen votes in this House
after a general election, because it was
necessary, in order to satisfy the expec-
tations and demands of that same party
sitting behind them, to propose a Bill
with regard to the malt-tax, for which,
on the whole, the country certainly
made no demand, and to which the
House was not willing to consent.
I was then very sorry for Lord Derby,
and I never, except once, gave a vote
which I more regretted to have to
record than on that occasion; but the
Government could not alter or with-
draw their proposition, because the one
hundred and fifty Gentlemen behind
them thought it necessary that such a
measure should pass, and now we find the
right hon. Gentleman in the same position.
Does any man believe that this is the
sort of Bill that the Chancellor of the
Exchequer thinks best for the country?
Does any one suppose that a man with
his intellect, and who understands all
the bearings of this question, approves
of- I will not say the deplorable rub-
bish,' but the grievous and fatal mis-
C
21
322
MARCH 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
takes to be found in the clauses of this
Bill? He knows that this Bill in its
present shape is a Bill framed to satisfy
the prejudices, the scruples, the con-
victions, if you like, and the fears of
the one hundred and fifty country Gen-
tlemen who sit behind him. I should
think it a great misfortune to have
one hundred and fifty Gentlemen here,
representing only ironworks, or only
ships, or only the cotton and woollen
factories of Lancashire and Yorkshire.
I believe it is almost essential to a good
Member of this House, so far as it
depends on external circumstances, that
he should have among his constituents
a variety of what the Chancellor of the
Exchequer would call interests,' per-
sons of various classes, occupations,
and opinions. I think they keep him
better to his duty, modify his opinions,
and make him a more valuable Member
of the House than he is likely to be if he
represented only some special interest.
I must say one word about that
charming part of our institutions of
which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Walpole) has spoken in such affectionate
terms. I mean the small boroughs.
They are the jewels of our representa-
tive system. Putting the case in the
smallest number of words, you say that
they send men into Parliament who
cannot get in anywhere else. In one
of them a boy was put in at nineteen.
That is considered a great argument
for perpetuating such a system. These
boroughs form, in point of fact, a refuge
for the politically destitute; and all that
I have heard in their favour is that the
persons who find shelter in them are
what would be called 'deserving ob-
jects.' Now, the right hon. Gentleman,
I dare say, reads the papers as well and
as studiously as I do; and he will per-
haps recollect a case or two which I
will state to the House. There was an
election at Harwich the other day. It
is not long since there was an election
there, and I remember a statement made
at the time. It was said that Mr. Bag-
shaw-not now a member of this House
--had discharged a drunken gardener.
There were two free-traders who had
carried out their principles further than
the law sanctioned, and were impri-
soned for smuggling. A respectable
parson of the parish, who had not been
out of his room for two years, was
brought down (by the aid of cordials,
stimulants, and a sedan-chair) to the
poll, and those four individuals influ-
enced the result of the election. Now,
go to another borough. I recollect an
election for the borough of Carlow.
There were two troops of dragoons, two
companies of infantry, and one hundred
and fifty police; the whole of this force
having, during the period of the elec-
tion, been engaged in keeping the peace
in a town which comprised only two
hundred electors. Now, notwithstand-
ing the picture which I have drawn of
these small boroughs, I must not be
understood as saying that virtuous elec-
tions do not take place in some of this
class, and that they do not still retain
some remnant of freedom. But if there
be any virtue or freedom left in them,
the right hon. Gentleman the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer, not content with
corrupting and maltreating them in
every way, defaces the fair form of your
county representation, and lays his
sacrilegious hands upon those very
spots about which everybody but my-
self just now speaks in such very high
terms.
I should like to give the House an
instance of the justice of what I state.
There has been an election at Banbury.
It is but the other day that the hon.
Gentleman who represents that place
took his seat in this House. Banbury
is a borough which I do not propose
to disfranchise, but it is one which
everybody who knows its size must
admit to be possessed of singular inde-
pendence of action in political affairs.
I believe the hon. Gentleman who at
present represents it will admit that to
be the fact. Now, just imagine what
the proposition of the right hon. Gen-
tleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will lead to in the case of Banbury.
Imagine, if you can, the people of that
1859.
323
REFORM. IV.
borough making speeches, canvassing,
explaining their political views, and
resolving upon the proper fulfilment
of their political duties. Well, all
this is taking place, but at the criti-
cal moment you may see a man-for
aught I know he may be the concocter
of this Bill-for it appears to me to be
not so much the Bill of a statesman as
of some party electioneering agent-
you may see, I repeat, a man of this
description, emerging after dark from
the Carlton Club, proceeding to a pillar
letter-box which stands quite near it
upon the opposite side of the street,
and dropping into it-unless, indeed,
he should find it necessary to go as far
as Charing Cross for the purpose of
registering them-some ten or twenty
letters about nine or ten o'clock in the
evening, while the unfortunate people
of Banbury are labouring under the de-
lusion that they are carrying on a great
constitutional contest. Unhappy men,
they little know that the resistless loco-
motive engine has been set to work;
that it is rushing down through county
after county; and that they will awake
the next morning only to find out that,
through the instrumentality of a leathern
bag, which has just been deposited at
the post-office, somebody is returned as
their representative who has not the
slightest sympathy with their interests.
·
But this is no new thing. If anybody
will turn to the report of the Municipal
Corporation Commissioners in 1834,
he will there find a statement made by
Mr. Austin in reference to the borough
of Carmarthen; in which he gives the
number of resident and non-resident
freeholders not of the value of 40s., but
of 41., and, in addition, the number of
Iol. occupiers. The number of bur-
gesses in the borough he sets down at
646; resident in the borough, 178;
outside the borough, but still within
the county, 257; in the county of Pem-
broke, 108; in Glamorgan, 31; in Car-
digan, 25; in Brecon, 12; and outside
the limits of South Wales altogether,
35: so that, while the number of resi-
dent was 178, the number of non-resi-
dent electors was 468. Mr. Austin then
gives a list of voters at a contest which
had taken place for the election of
sheriffs, when 131 votes were recorded
in favour of the corporation candidates,
against them 51; thus giving a majority
in their favour of 80, of which majority
75 were non-resident electors. The
commissioner then goes on to say, 'In
effect, therefore, the constant majority
is a majority of non-residents, who, with
rare exceptions, are supporters of the
corporation party.' Now, let me ask
if this system prevailed in the case of
a 4., is it not likely to prevail in the
case of a 21. freehold? It must also be
observed that in the former instance the
votes could not be recorded by letter.
The voter had to appear in person at
the place of election; but if this system
of voting-papers be adopted in addition
to non-residence, I know no limit what-
ever to the amount of corruption which
it may occasion. You cannot therefore,
in my opinion, too strongly express
your sense of the entire extinction of
freedom which this scheme is calculated
to produce in all the small boroughs of
the country.
There is also another point which a
large portion of our fellow-countrymen
regard as of the utmost importance,
and to which I may be permitted briefly
to refer. I allude to the borough fran-
chise. I have endeavoured to show
that the effect of the Bill as it now
stands will be to render counties more
exclusive, and to hand over the small
boroughs to rottenness and complete
dependence; for the only independence
they could possess must rest upon the
opinions and wishes of non-resident
electors. I am not going to discuss
this question in any different tone from
that which has hitherto marked this
debate; but I would ask the House
whence comes it that we are here to-
night discussing the question of Reform
at all? There are plenty of other things
for us to do. Why, then, is this ques-
tion thrust upon us by Minister after
Minister? Some persons say that the
noble Lord the Member for London is
21-2
324
MARCH 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
#
+
entirely in fault. Hon. Gentlemen may
say whatever they like, but such an as-
sertion as that goes but a very little way
indeed. The noble Lord has no par-
ticular desire, any more than I have,
to disturb the great question. Its set-
tlement, however, has become a neces-
sity, and will continue to be a necessity
to the existence of every Government,
until it is set. at rest in a manner that
will be satisfactory to the country.
[Cheers.] Do hon. Gentlemen by their
cheers mean to show us that they do
not want Reform? The Government
have not touched this question simply
in obedience to the commands of their
followers, although they have brought
in this Bill in accordance with their
prejudices and their fears. The farmers
do not ask you for Reform, although
there are, no doubt, some respects in
which they desire it. The farm-labourer
does not press it upon your attention.
No, the demand for Reform comes from
all your towns and cities; nor is the cry
heard from the mouths of the unenfran-
chised alone, but, in point of fact, from the
great majority of the electors themselves.
It is not an uncommon thing to hear
it asserted-as several hon. Members
have asserted in this House-that the
electors of this country do not care for
Reform. [Hear, hear.'] Those hon.
Gentlemen who cry Hear, hear,' do
not know quite so much as I do about
the sentiments of people residing in
towns. When the electoral power was
in the hands of a few corrupt cor-
porations the case may have been other-
wise, for they turned their electoral
privileges into a means of annual profit,
and did not like to share them with
their fellow-townsmen. But I never
heard it made a charge against the
electors in boroughs, at the present day,
that they were anxious to retain the
franchise for fear of admitting others of
their fellow-countrymen to be sharers,
or ivals, or participators with them in
the advantages which it comprises. The
Government, it seems, do not think it
necessary to make any change in the
borough franchise. We all know that
the line which was drawn in 1832 was
drawn in direct and almost absolute ex-
clusion of all that class of persons who
live by wages. Has it been a source
of satisfaction to them? Have there
not, upon the contrary, been constant
protests against it? Have we not seen
and heard-when there was great de-
pression in trade, and a great scarcity
of food, which now, happily, is not the
case these constant protests aggra-
vated into something like incipient in-
surrection? That such has been the
case is not to be denied. Well, and
what is that you now do? Twenty-
seven years after the passing of the
great Reform Bill, and after a whole
generation has passed away, you pro-
pose to continue, it may be for twenty-
seven years longer, that exclusion against
which the great body of the unenfran-
chised population of the country have
been lifting up their voices ever since 1832.
What is it that Her Majesty's Minis-
ters say to us in introducing this mea-
sure? What will this House in effect
say if it passes it into a law in its pre-
sent shape? You proclaim, in a voice
which will reach the farthest corner of
the land, that will enter not only into
the ear but into the heart of the inha-
bitants of every home of the class of
which I am speaking in England—that
we have something in our legislature
which they cannot comprehend and
must not intermeddle with. You will
in effect say to them, ' We do not trust
you, you are as ignorant, as dangerous,
as little to be relied upon now as you
were twenty-seven years ago.' And
what will be the result? They will
come to the conclusion that upon the
same principle upon which you now act
you will act for the next twenty-seven
years, using precisely the same argu-
ments and pursuing the same course.
And now let me pause for one mo-
ment to ask what sort of a generation
that has been which is just passing, or
has passed, away? My answer is, such
a one as was never known before. You
have had under its auspices a longer
period of peace than you ever previ-
1859.
325
REFORM. IV.
ously enjoyed.
The humbler classes
have had a larger proportion of the
comforts and necessaries of life than
at a preceding period. They have im-
proved at a rate of which your grand-
fathers scarcely dared to dream. You
have a free press-though there may be
something still to be done in order that
it may become completely unfettered—
a subject to which the right hon. Gentle-
man the Chancellor of the Exchequer
will be good enough to turn his atten-
tion when he gets out of the little dif-
ficulty in which he is now placed. You
have not only the ordinary number of
public journals, but you have 300 news-
papers published at the price of Id., cir-
culating all over the country. All this
has been accomplished; yet you propose
to exclude the members of that class to
whom you are indebted for much of
your prosperity-with the exception of
the trifling numbers whom the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in his small
mercy, proposes to admit under the
savings-bank clause-from the exercise
of the franchise.
I saw a statement the other day, to
the effect that the operation of such a
clause applied to Scotland would be to
give Edinburgh about 300, and all Scot-
land not more than 600 additional vo-
ters. The borough electors are 50,000,
and this extraordinary extension of the
franchise will admit 2 per cent. in-
crease, and that is all the small dole
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
and his friends offer to the great body
of the working classes of that country.
Scotland is a frugal country; its people
are industrious and saving to a degree
which is hardly comprehended here, and
yet this boon will only enfranchise some
1200 persons there. I am prepared to
assert that this is not a Bill of Reform
at all. It is, in point of fact, that which,
in electioneering phrase, is considered a
complete case of personation. It is not
the genius of Liberty that comes before
us in the shape of this Bill, but it is
something which the people of this
country had hoped they had seen and
heard of for the last time in our history.
I think if it were to pass, that it would
be held by the whole population of the
country to be nothing better than a com-
plete delusion, disappointing every class,
and tending to create discontent, which
this House would have great difficulty
hereafter in allaying.
There is one point which has been
dwelt upon by the right hon. Gentle-
man opposite and others, in which I do
not feel the same extraordinary interest
which some Members appear to feel,
and that is as to the uniformity of fran-
chise. I do not say that it is necessary
-I do not say that there is any ad-
vantage in it—but I do not see the great
disadvantages which have been ascribed
to it. It has been represented to me as
a very democratic proceeding. I am
not myself very democratic-therefore
I can assure the House the scheme has
not on that account any charms for me.
I think it would have been just as well
not to have had this uniformity; but I
do not see any harm there is in it. There
is only one reason why we should com-
plain of it, and that is, that it would not
be so easy again to move the whole
franchise hereafter as it would be if the
county franchise were different from that
of the boroughs. But I can assure hon.
Members that if they tie the two toge-
ther, there is no power in this House to
keep the borough franchise at Icl., and
unless they give up the idea of unifor-
mity the county franchise must come
down with that of the boroughs. How-
ever, that is a matter for hon. Gentle-
men opposite to consider, and no doubt
it has been considered by Her Majesty's
Government.
But if I have no alarm about that,
there is one thing that I have some
alarm about, and that is the manner in
which some Members of the House
seem disposed to treat this question. I
refer particularly to my hon. Friend near
me (Mr. Horsman), the right hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Wilts (Mr. S.
Herbert), and the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice),
who has not spoken in this debate, but
who wrote a letter to his constituents
326
MARCH 24,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
upon the subject. The right hon. Gen-
tleman is an extraordinary instance of
what I may call hallucination. He re-
presents the greatest number of work-
ing-men to be found in any constitu-
ency-out of a population of 40,000
there are 6ooo electors, which is a far
larger number than I thought of pro-
posing to the House. My right hon.
Friend says there is no constituency
that he knows which equals his in in-
dependence, in intelligence, in virtue.
I cannot admit all that. I know some-
thing of Coventry-my father was born
there-but I never heard nor ever ob-
served that the people of that town
were upon the whole very superior. I
believe they are in no degree inferior to
the same classes in other manufacturing
towns. My right hon. Friend says he
is in favour of household suffrage, but
as the people are not ready for that, he
will do nothing, he will have house-
hold suffrage or nothing; which, after
all, is very much like the suffrage pro-
posed in what was called the People's
Charter.'
•
I am alarmed that the right hon.
Gentleman, like the Members for Wilts
and Devonport, should, in the face of
a hundred meetings held spontaneously
within the last month, delude himself
with the idea that nobody, beyond the
650 Gentlemen in this House, cares
anything about this question, and that
we may comfortably get rid of it in
some way here, by digging a hole in
the floor of the House and burying it,
as nobody cares about it. The right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam-
bridge University (Mr. Walpole) has
'the same notion. He thinks it must be
settled this session-that it can be-that
it is necessary that it should be settled.
Why? For this reason, because you
know that the form in which you pro-
pose to settle it will not be satisfactory
to the people. You know well-I think
the right hon. Gentleman has confessed
it, as some have-that during the autumn
you may have meetings-during the win-
ter you may have agitation. And, what
would this country have been without
meetings, without agitation? We boast
that we have abolished our ancient and
barbarous mode of making extensive re-
volutions and changes in our political
system, but if you have done with war
and bloodshed for these purposes, do
not imagine that those changes which
become necessary from time to time can
be accomplished without the healthy
operation, in some cases perhaps of a
rude, but still a refreshing and strength-
ening agitation.
Some Gentlemen opposite seem to
forget some things that happened fif-
teen years ago. Then their organiza-
tion was complete. They had farmers'
meetings everywhere. And, not content
with farmers' meetings, they had an
office in Old Bond-street, and a Publi-
cation Committee, and they had every
description of instrument for an irri-
tating and exasperating agitation which
they could possibly devise. I do not
imagine for a moment that this question
can, in the present temper of the House,
be settled satisfactorily to the people.
Are you quite sure that there is nothing
in what is going on out of doors? I
met a right hon. Gentleman the other
day near the House, and he said to me
as a great secret, 'You know, of course,
that nobody does care about Reform?'
I did not agree with him upon that
point. I happen to have been to some
of the largest towns of this country, and
I have seen meetings exceeding in num-
ber and exceeding in influence, I believe,
almost every meeting that was held by
the Anti-Corn-law League during the agi-
tation for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
The populations you are about to
disappoint and defy,-what have they
done? They have conquered every-
thing they have grappled with hitherto.
I do not speak of distant realms con-
quered under your banners, but of arts
and manufactures, and all that tends to
wealth and civilization. Do you think
that this population will not also con-
quer a much larger share of their poli-
tical rights than in your present mood
you appear disposed to give them?
There was a speech made by the hon.
1859.
327
REFORM. IV.
Member for Dorset, and I agree with
those who have expressed regret that
that Gentleman does not speak more
frequently; but, in that speech the hon.
Gentleman said, 'I am not afraid of
the people of this country.' And he
gave a very powerful, and eloquent, and
just rebuke to a Gentleman who, in a
thoughtless moment, cheered his obser-
vation in a sneering manner. I tell the
House frankly that they do not well
understand the great populations of this
country, especially of the manufacturing
towns.
I have seen great mistakes made. I
remember, in 1848, when the right hon.
Gentleman above me (Sir G. Grey) was
Home Secretary, there was a great panic
on the 10th of April-or rather before
the 10th of April, for by that day the
panic was laughed at. And, what was
done? I do not know what was done
at the Bank, but I am told that at the
British Museum that institution was
actually garrisoned. There were no
Minié rifles or Armstrong guns, per-
haps, but there were a hundred or two
hundred tons of paving-stones, or boul-
ders, taken up to the roof of the Mu-
seum. Not only was it garrisoned, but,
very properly, the commissariat was at-
tended to, and provisions for three days
were, laid in, and I am told the steps
leading to the rooms where the medals
and most precious articles are kept were
cut away.
The British Museum was
not assaulted, but the garrison, I believe,
managed to consume the three days'
provisions before Sunday.
Now come to a later time-the period
of the Exhibition in Hyde Park in 1851.
There was then alive a man who stood
pre-eminent in this country, the Duke
of Wellington. He was terrified—a
man who was supposed never to have
been alarmed, he was alarmed at the
people of his own country. He urged
upon the Government, who of course
agreed with him, to draw near the me-
tropolis a large number of troops in
case of emergency. If half-a-dozen
foreigners had attempted to get up an
insurrection in London they would have
been put into the reservoirs in Trafal-
gar Square by the people themselves,
and yet it was considered necessary to
bring these troops near to London, to
be ready in case of disturbance. I re-
member the noble Lord the Member for
Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) once gave
us an account of what some foreigner
told him as to the conduct and deport-
ment of the masses of the people. The
noble Lord knows a good deal of the
character of the people, and he said,
• All this order is the result of a sense
among the people that they have a Go-
vernment which, upon the whole, does
not intend to oppress them; that they
are a people good in themselves, intelli-
gent, and orderly, and that a policeman
among them is an authority of high dig-
nity, whom they at once obey.'
remark is creditable to the noble Lord's
good taste, and is perfectly just to the
people of this country.
The
I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite why
they are so afraid of the people? The
manufacturing, the employing class,
does not fear them. At the Bradford
meeting there were present when I
moved the resolution, Mr. Titus Salt
and Mr. Crossley, the brother of the
Member for Halifax. Those Gentle-
men conduct vast manufacturing and
commercial undertakings. There are
no men more prosperous, and none
have more confidence in the people.
Those two Gentlemen agreed cordially
with every proposition I made as to an
extension of the suffrage. The meetings
at Rochdale, Bury, Blackburn, and Bol-
ton were attended by Gentlemen almost
equally eminent; at the meeting at
Bolton there were four Gentlemen who
employ not less than 6000 or 7000
people, and who own property of not
less than a million sterling; one of
those Gentlemen thought my proposal
as to the suffrage was not sufficiently
extensive. Why is it they do not re-
gard the people with the same fears
that you do?
do? They must know what
they are about; they know that any
convulsion or disturbance in society
would touch them first. Your landed
328
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
estates are much more permanent as
property than our manufactories. Any
disturbance or violent action of a demo-
cratic nature would be more dangerous
to us than to you. Yet a large propor-
tion of the employers of labour favour
a large extension of the suffrage, and
believe it would prove for the safety of
their property; for the working-men, in
thinking over this question, feel they
are distrusted, that they are marked as
inferiors, that they are a sort of pariahs.
In that position, should there be an op-
portunity, great discontent and turbu-
lence might arise; but if you give them
a vote they will have more self-respect,
more elevation of mind.
I will read an extract from a letter I
have received from a working man —
I believe a stonemason-on the ques-
tion whether or not working-men have
any interest in the country. He says:—
But some say that we, as working-
men, have no stake and no interest in the
country. I hardly know what is meant by
these assertions; but if to make sacrifices
for the good of our country be any proof
of an interest, I believe the working classes
can clearly show greater sacrifices, and
fairly claim to have greater stake and
interest both in the country and in good
government. I had three uncles who all
lost their lives fighting for their country;
I had three brothers, two of whom served
under Lord Wellington throughout the
Peninsular campaign; and my third and
youngest brother lost his life in the Indian
war, and now lies buried at Kurnaul.
had two nephews, one of whom died of
the cholera at Varna, and the other, after
serving throughout the Crimean war, was
raised from the ranks, and is now a lieu-
tenant. No doubt but very many work-
ing-men could tell of even greater sacrifices
and similar tales of their families, except
the last. To these statements I would
only add, that if the working classes have
no stake and no interest in their country,
they must be wonderful lovers of their
country for nothing.'
There is only one other point to
which I will allude; it was touched
I
upon by the Solicitor-General when he
referred to the state of Europe; he
warned the House to beware what it was
about to do in regard to this question.
I draw quite a different lesson, a differ-
ent conclusion, from what he said of the
state of Europe. In 1830 there was
also a state of Europe and especially of
France that was not satisfactory, and it
had great effect on the legislation of this
House, in the course of the two suc-
ceeding_years, on the question of Re-
form. In 1848 the state of Europe was
again unsatisfactory, and was it not a
subject of congratulation that two years
before the Corn-laws had been abol-
ished, and one great cause of discontent
removed? I assure you that resistance
is not always Conservative. I profess
to be, in intention, as Conservative as
you, I believe, infinitely more so, if
you look forward twenty or thirty years
into the future. Was not Free-trade
Conservative? And yet you resisted it
to the last. I recollect occasions when
the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us
of the cruelty practised on the ruined
and betrayed agriculturist. I recollect
he addressed us on the condition of the
farm-labourer two or three years after-
wards; and since that time his condi-
tion has been improving rapidly. Is not
prosperity Conservative? Is not peace
Conservative? Any energies I possess
I have devoted to their advance; I have
endeavoured to stand on the rules of
Political Economy, and to be guided by
the higher rules of true Morality; and
when advocating a measure of Reform
larger than some are prepared to grant,
I appear in that character, for I believe
a substantial measure of Reform would
elevate and strengthen the character of
our population; that, in the language
of the beautiful prayer read here every
day, it would tend to knit together the
hearts of all persons and estates within
this realm.' I believe it would add to
the authority of the decisions of Parlia-
ment; and I feel satisfied it would
confer a lustre, which time could never
dim, on that benignant reign under
which we have the happiness to live.
C
3
REFORM.
V.
BIRMINGHAM, JANUARY 18, 1865.
[This speech was spoken in the Town Hall of Birmingham at a meeting when, according
to annual custom, the Members for Birmingham met their constituents to discuss the
political questions of the day.]
WHEN my honourable Colleague and
myself had the pleasure last year of
meeting you in this hall, there was one
subject which was pressing upon the
minds of all of us, and causing us great
disquietude. We were encompassed by
rumours of war. A small State in the
North of Europe was surrounded by
difficulties-mainly, I am afraid, of its
own creation-and it was assailed with
what, in this country, we thought al-
most a savage vindictiveness by a power-
ful people comprising one vast empire
and several kingdoms. We were not
disposed to go into the contest, and to
mingle in that war; and you will re-
collect that my honourable Colleague
spoke in the most emphatic language
against the idea that we should enter
into a war-first, with Germany, and
perhaps, afterwards, with some other
States of Europe, on behalf of Den-
mark. And, following him, I used these
words-speaking now from my recol-
lection of them-I said that any Govern-
ment in England that plunged us into
war for the sake of Denmark would
deserve not only the condemnation but
the execration of the people.
But still, although we took so de-
cided a view, we cannot conceal from
ourselves that there was a certain rest-
lessness in the public mind; it was
observed that those newspapers in Lon-
don particularly which are supposed to
represent the Government, were strongly
urging the country to war, and the
papers which are supposed to represent
the Opposition were urging the Govern-
ment to the same course, no doubt with
the kindly intention of embarrassing and
destroying the Ministry. But we had
to recollect that at the head of the
Government, as it exists, are two very
ancient statesmen-the Prime Minister
and the head of the Foreign Office; and,
remembering that but ten years ago
they were the Ministers mainly respon-
sible for the war with Russia, we could
not but feel that the danger which im-
pended over us was not wholly imagin-
How we escaped the war people
seem hardly to know. Some say that
the Queen was very much opposed to a
war with Germany-as doubtless she
would be opposed to any war which
she believed could possibly be avoided
—and, if we owe our chances of peace
to the opinion of the Queen, for my
part, I say with gladness that I am
ary.
ر هما
1

330
JAN. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
grateful to the Queen. Some say that
we owe peace to the younger members
of the Cabinet, led chiefly by Mr. Glad-
stone, who were opposed to the war.
If that be true, I tender my thanks to
the majority of the Cabinet. And some
say that the unusual speculative mone-
tary engagements and investments of last
year made all the moneyed interests of
the country look on the prospect of
war as something absolutely appalling
and ruinous. If that be so, I tender
my thanks to the moneyed interests of
the country.
If a
But, during the session, this question
was incessantly discussed, and the Go-
vernment exhibited its usual feebleness,
and the Opposition its usual folly. No-
body could get the Government to say
whether it was for peace or war.
question was asked about the station, or
movements, or destination of the fleet,
an answer was given which might be
read one way or the other; and if the
Opposition was not in favour of war-
as they afterwards declared they were
not-they showed it by an incessant
attempt to drive the Government to
some act which should make hostilities
inevitable. Towards the end of the
session, if you are readers of the debates
in Parliament-and I hope you do not
wholly neglect them-you would see
that there was a very long, and what
was called a great debate, and then the
feebleness of the Government and the
folly of the Opposition were manifest,
and the two sides of the House had to
make some ridiculous recantations of
all the policy that in past times they
have appeared to advocate. There were
remarkable speeches on the Opposition
side, one made by General Peel, another
made by Lord Stanley; and there was
a speech of remarkable ability, and
in every way admirable, made by Mr.
Hardy, the Member for Leominster.
Now, I am not charging General Peel,
or Lord Stanley, or Mr. Hardy with
recanting as far as regards their indi-
vidual opinions; but speaking-if they
did speak-on behalf of their party, I
say that their speeches contained a
general and wholesale repudiation of
the whole foreign policy of this country,
as regards the continent of Europe, from
the time of William III to the reign of
Victoria.
They did not say, perhaps, as I once
said in this hall-and some men criti-
cised what I had said with a severity
that would have been perfectly just if
what I had said had been untrue—they
did not say, as I had said, that the
foreign policy of this country for the
last 170 years has been a system of
gigantic out-door relief to the English
aristocracy, but they admitted this-and
I am willing to accept it, if they will, in
place of my statement-that it had been
a cause of enormous burdens and sacri-
fices to the people of England. I could
not help, during these discussions-in
which I took no part, for this reason,
that, finding it my duty to vote against
the Opposition, I hardly trusted myself
to make the speech which, if I had risen
to address the House, I must have made
against the policy and the conduct of
the Government. I thought of the
position of those ancient statesmen to
whom I have referred. Now, do not
imagine that I am speaking disrespect-
fully of Lord Palmerston or of Lord
Russell, but I am speaking to my fellow-
countrymen on a question of the most
stupendous importance to their present
and future interests. I say that these
two statesmen have in past times held
or professed opinions which I think
altogether unsound, and pernicious to
the nation.
Going back to the time just before
the Russian war-to the year 1853-I
will give you an extract from a speech
made by Lord Russell at the town of
Greenock, in Scotland, on the duty of
England with regard to its foreign rela-
tions, and I will show you what a change
has taken place from that day to this.
Bear in mind this was just before the
opening of the Russian war, and when
that question was being discussed, and
when that horrid shape of carnage was
appearing above the horizon, and every
thoughtful man looked at it with dread,
1865.
331
REFORM. V.
Lord Russell said this to the Baillies and
other sensible inhabitants of Greenock.
He said:
'It is likewise to be considered-and
I trust we shall none of us forget it—that
this country holds an important position
among the nations of the world; that not
once, but many times, she has stood for-
ward to resist oppression, to maintain the
independence of weaker nations, and to
preserve to the general family of nations
that freedom, that power of governing
themselves, of which others have sought
to deprive them. I trust that character
will not be forgotten, will not be aban-
doned by a people which is now stronger
in means, which is more populous, and
more wealthy, than it ever has been at
any former period. This then, you will
agree with me, is not a period to abandon
any of those duties towards the world,
towards the whole of mankind, which
Great Britain has hitherto performed.'
Now you see what Lord John Rus-
sell at that day proposed for us to do.
You, hard-working men- and every
man who receives his wages at the end
of the week, be his labour what it may
-were here pledged by Lord John
Russell not to abandon any of those
duties towards the world, towards the
whole of mankind, which Great Britain
has hitherto performed. We were to
defend all weaker nations, and to take
care that nobody was molested in any
part of the globe.
I read this passage in order that you
may see the sort of thing which, only
twelve years ago, was spoken by a
Cabinet Minister, to a meeting of what
are generally reputed to be sensible
Scotch people. But if I were to take
Lord Palmerston's speeches, I dare say
I could find a cartload of rhetorical
rubbish of exactly the same character.
During many years these statesmen
have been making their popularity upon
such a theory as that, and their news-
papers have been reviling Mr. Cobden
and myself for a different view, and
now you find that Parliament, by an
unanimous vote, has discarded and
abandoned and overturned the whole
of this policy, and has sent the whole
thing-lie and superstition and all-into
that receptacle to which all lies and
superstitions will ultimately go.
I think myself that Lord Palmerston
and Lord Russell, in their now mature
age, must feel that either they have
been themselves greatly deceived, or
they have done much to deceive their
countrymen; and I think my country-
men will derive from what I have said
this lesson, which they may learn on
many pages of history,-that it is not
always certain that men are great states-
men because they happen to fill great
offices.
But now if Denmark was allowed to
be dismembered, I do not know why
Holland, or Belgium, or Portugal,_or
Turkey-[A Voice: 'Or America ']-
I am confining myself, as you will ob-
serve, to Europe-I cannot see the pro-
bability of that state of things arising
to which my honourable Colleague has
referred, when the principle of non-
intervention will require to be departed
from. I agree with him that the coun-
try has other interests than its com-
mercial interests, and that it would be
a mean and a base thing for the people
of England to do, as I am sorry to say
our Government has often done, to
determine what was the exact gain or
loss commercially in the conquest of
an island, or upon the opportunity of
trade, before it determined to go to
war or to maintain peace. My own
opinion is that, taking the events of the
last few years- the war in Italy, in
which we took no part, the war in Den-
mark, which we abstained from med-
dling in-the debate of last Session-
and the great division which took place
upon this question,-I think I am not
much mistaken in pronouncing the
theory of the balance of power to be
pretty nearly dead and buried. You
cannot comprehend at a thought what
is meant by that balance of power. If
the record could be brought before you
-but it is not possible to the eye of
humanity to scan the scroll upon which
332
JAN. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
are recorded the sufferings which the
theory of the balance of power has
entailed upon this country. It rises up
before me when I think of it as a ghastly
phantom which during one hundred and
seventy years, whilst it has been wor-
shipped in this country, has loaded the
nation with debt and with taxes, has
sacrificed the lives of hundreds of thou-
sands of Englishmen, has desolated the
homes of millions of families, and has
left us, as the great result of the pro-
fligate expenditure which it has caused,
a doubled peerage at one end of the
social scale, and far more than a doubled
pauperism at the other. I am very glad
to be here to-night, amongst other
things, to be able to say that we may
rejoice that this foul idol-fouler than
any heathen tribe ever worshipped-has
at last been thrown down, and that
there is one superstition less which has
its hold upon the minds of English
statesmen and of the English people.
And if this be true, surely my hon.
Friend need not be so very careful to
guard his observations with regard to
the diminution of armaments; for if it
be now determined that we are not to
send armies to the continent of Europe,
and fleets to blockade ports and people
with whom we have no concern, and if
the British North American Colonies
are about to make themselves into a
great and powerful confederation still in
friendly alliance with this country, and
if the colonies of Australia are so dis-
tant and so powerful that nobody can
molest them, and if the people of these
islands are better fed - -as I believe they
are better fed than they have been for
the last eighty years-I say, that if they
are more loyal to the law and more
friendly to every good institution of the
country, there is no necessity whatso-
ever to extend the annual military ex-
penditure, which is double that which
the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert
Peel thought necessary five and twenty
years ago.
There is one other thing to say. If
we are not this next session to discuss
the question of Denmark, the question
of Italy, and the question of America,
what are we to discuss? It is quite
clear to me that whether we have more
disposition or not, we shall have a good
deal more time to discuss our home
affairs. Now what is the question
which some gentlemen who have been
eating a very good dinner and making
very foolish speeches at Torquay,
what is the question which I think Lord
Devon says-copying the language of
his leader Mr. Disraeli-is 'looming in
the not distant future?' what is the
question that will not go to sleep?
And, let me remind you of this, that
really great questions that affect the
true and lasting interests and rights of
men, never can be laid fast asleep; they
always, somehow or other, wake up
again. There is a startling exemplifica-
tion of this in what is now taking place
in the United States. You know that
for thirty years past the statesmen of
the United States have voted the negro
a very great nuisance; they said they
would not talk about him; some of
them would not have petitions about
him in Congress; they swore each
other to silence; the negro's business
was to grow rice, and sugar, and tobacco,
and cotton, but not to make his ap-
pearance on the floor of Congress, and
therefore they determined to have done
with him and to bury the question, and
they congratulated the country that it
was buried. And now after a few years
you see North and South-both re-
sponsible for the oppression of the
negro-in the most deadly conflict, and
the negro stands forth in vast p:o-
portions before the world. He is rub-
bing the marks of the branding-iron
from his forehead, the shackles which
have bound him so long are dropping
from his limbs, and the chattel which
was bought and sold by these states-
men is now becoming every day a free
man before the world.
Well, then, there is this question that
will not sleep-the question of the ad-
mission of the people of this country to
the rights which are guaranteed to them,
and promised to them by everything
1865.
333
REFORM. V.
>
that we comprehend as the constitution
of this United Kingdom. In 1861, as
my hon. Friend has described to you—
and I listened to his observations with
very great pleasure, because some per-
sons may suppose that he takes a
calmer view of this question than I do
-that great question of Parliamentary
Reform was also voted a nuisance; and
it was betrayed, and it was slain, and
they thought it was buried. And, when
I use the word 'betrayed,' do not sup-
pose I am using a word of improper
harshness to the Minister or the Minis-
ters concerned. My hon. Friend said
truly enough that a measure of that
kind being submitted to Parliament, the
Minister or Ministers by whom it was
presented should be prepared to stand
or fall by it. I was reading only within
the last few days a very interesting
book, The History of the Passing of the
Reform Bill, written by an estimable
clergyman in my neighbourhood – Mr.
Molesworth, son of the Vicar of Roch-
dale-a book which you would do well
to look at if it comes in your way; and
there I find that Lord Grey-the Lord
Grey of the time-did not stand before
the House of Lords, with a smirk, and
that kind of look about him which led
them to believe that he did not mean
it, but told them, in language as distinct
and emphatic as our English tongue
affords, that the Ministry would stand
or fall by that measure; and, more,
if it were their business and duty to
bring in another Bill, if that should be
rejected, it would not be less efficient
than that which they were then dis-
cussing.
that
There is not a man in the House of
Commons who was there in 1860, who
knows anything at all of the manner
in which Bills and questions are treated
there, and there is not a man in the
present Cabinet, who does not know
perfectly well that if Lord Palmerston
had said on some one evening in the
year 1860, that his Government would
stand or fall by the Reform Bill then
before the House, that Bill would have
passed through the House of Commons
without one single effective hostile di-
vision; nay, I have heard it from an
authority, that I believe cannot err upon
this question, that the sagacious leaders
of the House of Lords had resolved
that if the Bill did come up from the
Commons they would not take the re-
sponsibility of rejecting it.
That Bill or question is not dead; it
takes shape again, and you perceive
that the Tories, and those Whigs who
are like Tories-all Whigs are not like
Tories, therefore I make the distinction
-the Tories, and those Whigs who are
like Tories, have an uncomfortable feel-
ing which approaches almost to a shiver.
What is this apparition which alarms
them? If I were not wishful to say
something different from that to which
it would lead me, I should be tempted
to read you those speeches at the Tor-
quay dinner to show you what it is that
they are afraid of. I will tell you what
it is. They are afraid of the five or six
millions of Englishmen, grown-up men
who are allowed to marry, to keep
house, to rear children, who are expected
to earn their living, who pay taxes, who
must obey the law, who must be citi-
zens in all honourable conduct- they
are afraid of the five or six millions who
by the present system of representation
are shut out, and insultingly shut out,
from the commonest rights of citizen-
ship.
We are proud of our country; and
there are many things in it which, as
far as men may rightly be proud, we
may be proud of. We may be proud
of this, that England is the ancient
country of Parliaments. We have had
here, with scarcely an intermission, Par-
liaments meeting constantly for six hun-
dred years; and doubtless there was
something of a Parliament even before
the Conquest. England is the mother
of Parliaments. I will undertake to
say, with a little latitude of expression,
that Lord John Russell, before he aban-
doned the cause of Reform—perhaps
even since-talked very much in the
daytime, and in all probability dreamt
in the night, of the time when all
1
334
JAN. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
countries in Europe would be strictly
constitutional, and there would be a
representative assembly after his own
heart. If this be so, I ask you, men of
Birmingham here-a fair representation
of the great mass of the five millions
throughout the United Kingdom-I ask
you why you should be thus treated
in your own land? You know the boast
we have of what takes place when
negro-slaves land in England; you know
what one of our best poets has said,
that if their lungs but breathe our air,
that moment they are free; they touch
our country, and their shackles fall.
But how is it with an Englishman? An
Englishman, if he goes to the Cape, can
vote; if he goes further, to Australia, to
the nascent empires of the New World,
he can vote; if he goes to the Canadian
Confederation, he can vote; and if he
goes to those grandest colonies of
England not now dependent upon the
English Crown, there, in twenty free,
and, in the whole, in thirty-five different
States, he can give his free and inde-
pendent vote. It is only in his own
country, on his own soil, where he was
born, the very soil which he has en-
riched with his labour and with the
sweat of his brow, that he is denied this
right which in every other community
of Englishmen in the world would be
freely accorded to him.
I agree very much with the gentle-
men of the Torquay dinner, not as to
the quality of the dinner, but as to that
apparition which seemed to alarm even
their formidable and robust digestion.
This apparition is not a pleasant one.
This state of things I hold to be dan-
gerous, and one that cannot last. It
may happen, as it happened thirty years
ago, that the eyes of the five millions all
through the United Kingdom may be
fixed with an intense glare upon the
doors of Parliament; it was so in the
years 1831-32. There are men in this
room who felt then, and know now,
that it required but an accident—but
one spark to the train, and this country
would have been in the throes of revo-
lution; and these gentlemen who are so
alarmed now lest a man who lives in
a fol. house in a county, and a 61.
house in a borough, should have a vote,
would have repented in sackcloth and
ashes that they had ever said one word
or given one vote against Lord Grey's
Reform Bill. I say that accidents always
are happening, not to individuals only,
but to nations. It was the accident of
the French Revolution of 1830 that
preceded that great movement in this
country. You may have accidents again,
but I do not hold that to be statesman-
ship which allows the security, the tran-
quillity, the loyalty of a people to be
disturbed by any accident which they
are able to control. If the five millions
should once unitedly fix their eyes with
an intense look upon the door of that
House where my hon. Friend and I ex-
pect so soon to enter, I would ask who
shall say them nay? Not the mace
upon the table of the House; not the
four hundred easy gentlemen of the
House of Lords who lounge in and out
of that decorated chamber; not the
dozen gentlemen who call themselves
statesmen, and who meet in Downing-
street; perhaps not even those more
appalling and more menacing person-
ages who have their lodgment higher up
Whitehall. I say there is no power in
this country, as opinion now stands, and
as combination is now possible, there is
no power in this country that can say
'Nay' for one single week to the five
millions, if they are intent upon making
their way within the doors of Parlia-
ment. This is the apparition which
frightens the gentlemen at Torquay-
the climate of Torquay, I have always
heard, is somewhat relaxing, and we
may make a little allowance for that
nervous excitement which was exhibited
last week.
But it gives trouble, this apparition
gives trouble in other quarters, to which
I would pay more respect. It is evident
from the books, and the pamphlets, and
the letters that are written, and the
speeches that are made upon it. Every-
body who does not want Reform says
that nobody wants Reform, and though
1865.
335
REFORM. V.
this is a subject which they say the
people do not care about, they imme-
diately begin upon it and make it the
staple of their own speeches. Two gen-
tlemen have recently come before the
public on this subject, whom I would
not class with those of whom I have
been speaking. One is Mr. Charles
Buxton, the Member for Maidstone; he
is a very honest and excellent person,
but, after the proposition he has made,
I should be slow to affirm that he is a
robust politician. Mr. Buxton has put
forward a scheme which I will pass from
after one sentence, and that is that two
of your townsmen shall go up to the poll
at the next election, and one of them
shall give one vote to Mr. Scholefield
and myself, or to any two candidates he
may prefer; and the other shall give
two votes to each of such candidates as
he shall prefer; and the only justifica-
tion is that one lives in a house above
Iol. rental, and the other in a house
below 10l. I was very much surprised
that any man in political life should
have propounded such a scheme. He
found, what he ought to have thought
of before, that no one was in favour
of it.
The other gentleman on whom I
would make an observation is a Mem-
ber of the House of Lords, the son of
that Lord Grey of whom I have been
speaking the Lord Grey of the present
time. Now Lord Grey is an eminent
and a very capable man; everything
that he says at least demands an ex-
amination. I have a great respect for
Lord Grey for two special reasons. I
heard him make a speech in the House
of Commons, when he was there as
Lord Howick, against the Corn-law, and
he quoted a grand and solemn passage
of Scripture against that atrocious law
--and the Protectionists said that it was
very vulgar to quote Scripture on such a
subject. Lord Grey again made a great
speech in the House of Lords against
the Russian war, and that showed some
moral courage, and from my view of
that question, I think it showed both
intelligence and patriotism. Therefore
I come to the consideration of anything
he says with the most favourable feeling
towards him.
Lord Grey, I said, is very capable—
that is, capable with things that are
possible; but like myself, or like you, he
is not capable with the impossible—and
his undertaking is this, to reconcile
something which he thinks will be, or
will appear like justice to the people,
with the non-disturbance of the existing
supremacy of his order. Now, it is no
use attempting great political changes
without disturbance; the object is to
disturb something. The Reform Bill
which his father brought in, and which
will make him renowned through all
English history, disturbed the borough-
mongers to a remarkable degree. And
the Bill which repealed the Corn-law
which Lord Grey so honourably ap-
proved, disturbed landlords and farmers,
and did them nearly as much good as it
did the people. Therefore, I do not
care a bit about political change. I
have no hostility to it because it makes
some disturbance; that is precisely what
we want.
What then do you think Lord Grey
has proposed? I wish you to observe
it minutely, to see what it is that one of
the most acute minds in the country can
propose in opposition to the plain and
simple proposition to which my hon.
Friend has given his warm approval to-
day, and so often before. Lord Grey—
I am quoting, not from his book, but
from a friendly criticism in the Spectator,
which newspaper proposes that votes
should be given after the cumulative
fashion. Now I must explain that—
[Uproar in the hall]—and if the gentle-
man there, who is rather pressed in the
crowd, will only listen, he will hear the
most amusing proposition he has ever
heard in his life. Lord Grey, as I
understand, proposes that when there
are two candidates to be elected, or
three, or any number-(I will take two
for the sake of the simplest illustration)
-that any man coming to vote, instead
of giving one vote for Mr. Scholefield
and another to me, might give both to
336
JAN. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Mr. Scholefield or both to me. Now,
let us see how it would work. Take
your last election: there were three can-
didates, and two Members to be elected.
I will assume, for the sake of illustration,
that this borough had a number of elec-
tors equal to 10,000, and that 6,500
were Liberal, and would support us,
and 3,500 would have been disposed to
support Mr. Acland, when he was a
candidate, though that, as you know, is
a very wild supposition. Look how it
would work. The 3,500, we will sup-
pose, kept well together, and instead of
giving 3,500 votes, which we now call
plumpers, each man would give him
(Mr. Acland) two, which would make
7,coo; so Mr. Acland would stand on
the poll with 7,000 votes. If the re-
maining 6,500 who were Liberal kept
together, and had an equal regard for
Mr. Scholefield and myself and voted
steadily for him and for me, we should
have 6,500 each, and if one more voted
for Mr. Scholefield than for me, of
course Mr. Scholefield would be at the
head of the poll as regards myself, and
Mr. Acland would be at the head of the
poll as regards both; and thus the gen-
tleman who came into your town upon
principles which are repudiated by two-
thirds or the vast majority of the electors
would, under this ingenious scheme, be
returned by our worthy Mayor the next
day at the head of the poll. That is
what they call, I suppose, not disturbing
anything. We have heard of races
I have heard of donkey-races, where
the last wins. So in this case, the slow-
est animal would run off with the prize.
That is not all, because Lord Grey
has several other propositions. One is
that Members should be given to Uni-
versities. I happen to know that the
Universities which are now represented
could not at any time during the last
sixty years during which Lord Grey
and his father (one or the other) have
been statesmen-have been induced to
return either of them to Parliament.
Lord Grey proposes, further, that pro-
fessions, such as lawyers and doctors,
should have representatives in Parlia-
ment; not from them as citizens, as we
have now, but from them as lawyers
and doctors. I have had the misfortune
of late years to fall very unfortunately
into the hands of the lawyers, and
hardly anything, I assure you, can be
more painful or more costly. Then,
occasionally, we all of us have to fall
into the hands of the doctor; and,
though we feel grateful to him, we
would much rather see him in our
houses as a friend than in his profes-
sional character. If I wanted law I
should go the lawyer, and if I wanted
medicine or surgery I should go to the
physician or the surgeon; but I should
not like the public and political interests
of the people of this country to go into
the hands of a class of men because
they were lawyers or because they were
doctors. In fact, there is nothing like
this that I recollect, except the propo-
sition of old Mr. Weller, who, when his
son was engaged in some legal business,
recommended him to consult a friend
of his because he was a very good judge
of a horse.
But I have not done with Lord Grey's
proposition. He proposes that the
House of Commons itself should have
the authority on certain occasions to
nominate as Members of its own body
certain prominent men from amongst
its number. For example, if a Member
of the House, a prominent man, from
some cause or other had failed of his
election, that the House of Commons
should have the right to give him the
nomination of a perpetual seat in that
House, in order that the House might
be sure to have a Member whom some
great constituency had rejected. But
now to you men-to the working-men
of Birmingham-he offers another pro-
position, which is that there should be
a register of trades, and that a certain
number of Members should be elected
by certain trades, enough to allow them
to speak in the House of Commons;
but rely upon it, not enough seriously
to affect the decision of that House.
have always thought that it was one of
the great objects of statesmen in our
I
1865.
337
REFORM.
V.
time not to separate the people into
sections and classes, but rather to unite
them all in one firm and compact body
of citizenship, equally treated by the
law, and equally loyal to the law and to
the Government of the country.
But Lord Grey proposes some things
that are right. He would extend the
suffrage, and he would abolish many, if
not all, the very small boroughs. But
having made these concessions, he adds
to them the propositions which I have
described, and which more than neu-
tralise the gifts which he would confer
upon you; and I beg you to take the
warning which my hon. Friend has given
you, and which I will venture to repeat
-to look with the greatest possible
suspicion upon any of these fancy pro-
positions of Reform. The question is
a great question, and a simple question,
and if any man comes before you with
a complex and involved scheme which
is difficult to understand, take note of
this, that he does not offer you solid
coin in payment of your claim, with the
impress of the English Constitution
upon it, but he offers you flash notes
or coin of an inferior or worthless
metal.
I am often charged, as you know,
with having too little reverence for au-
thority in this country. Some have even
dared in public newspapers to charge
me with disloyalty to the head of the
executive in this country. There is one
disloyalty which I hold to be worse than
all other-worse than that which turns
its back upon the Crown, or turns its
back upon
the peerage, and that is
disloyalty to freedom and to the people.
If representation be not an evil—and
who in this country shall say it is?—
what is the use of all these tricks not
to complete representation, but to avoid
it and escape it? I want to ask what
is this representation that we consider
the foundation of liberty in this king-
dom? If all the men in England,
Wales, Scotland, and Ireland-6,000,000
or 7,000,000-were assembled on Salis-
bury Plain to determine on great public
questions, the crowd would be too great
for business, and chaos would come.
It is therefore resolved, and has been
resolved for six hundred years, that
counties and boroughs and districts,
and the people in their different locali-
ties, shall send up men in whom they
have confidence, to meet at a certain
time and place, and having the fear and
the regard which I trust we all have for
those who send us there, to act honour-
ably in the face of God and of our
conscience, and honourably in the face
of our country, on behalf of the true
and solid interests of the nation. But
if you did decide on Salisbury Plain with
that vast multitude, clearly the majority
must carry the day; and if you split the
nation up into constituencies, clearly if
you are to have any representation at
all, the majority must carry the day.
There is a great fear of majorities
amongst these people. The people of
Torquay did not go into much detail,
and therefore they did not say much on
that point, but they have a great fear of
what they call 'numbers,' and of election
and legislation by majorities. What is
a majority in Birmingham? It holds
one opinion, and we are supposed to
represent it; but the majority in Liver-
pool-a town bigger than Birmingham
-in the present state of the consti-
tuencies, holds a different opinion, and
it sends one man who agrees with us,
and another man who always contradicts
him. The minority in Birmingham is
in a certain sense represented by the
majority of Liverpool, and taking the
majorities in some districts, and the
minorities in others, if there be an
opinion that is worth anything which
is held by any constituency, as a matter
of course it has its rep: esentative, who
can speak on its behalf in that House;
but surely nobody in his senses would
ask that in a representative country
the minorities in all the constituencies
should send Members to Parliament,
and that their business when they got
there should be always to say 'No'
when the majority said 'Ay.'
I want to know whence this fear of
the people is. Will somebody under-
22
338
JAN. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
take to tell us why is this fear of the
people? It does not exist elsewhere.
It does not exist in the various countries
of Europe, where representative systems
are being daily established. It does not
exist anywhere amongst Englishmen,
except in these two islands.
I have
spoken to you already of Australia.
The franchise in Australia, doubtless,
is lower than it is in this country: but
Australian Governments legislate in
accordance with the opinions of the
Australian people. As to Canada, I
have here a little extract which I will
read to you. You know that the pro-
vince of Canada-of the two Canadas-
New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island,
Nova Scotia, and I suppose Newfound-
land and all the British North American
provinces, are about to make a Confede-
ration-a State of considerable magni-
tude and they wish our Parliament,
this present session, to pass a measure
which shall be the foundation and con-
stitution of that future Confederacy.
Here is an extract from the speech of
Mr. George Brown, who is at this pre-
sent moment the most prominent of
Canadian Ministers, explaining the
scheme :-
C
The duration of Parliament will pro-
bably be limited to five years, and of
course it will be composed of two branches
—a legislative Council appointed by the
Government of the day on the principle of
equality of the sections, and a House of
Commons, in which we are to obtain that
so long desired, so long earnestly contended
for Reform-Representation by Population.'
Therefore our Parliament is this session
about to pass a Bill affecting the British
North American provinces which these
gentlemen tell us will be wholly de-
structive if applied to this country. I
want to ask you, the men of Birming-
ham, who have recently been reading
the papers a good deal, especially with
regard to what is taking place in the
United States-and I shall, like my
hon. Friend, avoid any allusion to that
terrible revolution which is taking place
there-if you have observed that in the
State of New York alone 700,000 men
voted at the last Presidential election,
and that throughout the whole of the
Free States not less than 4,000,000
votes were given, and that they were
all given with the most perfect order
and tranquillity throughout the whole
of the States?
·
But perhaps our friends who oppose
us will say, We do not fear about
elections and order. What we fear is
this-the legislative results of this wide
extension of the franchise.' I am ready
to test it in any country by the results
of legislation. I say, whether you go
to South Africa, or to Australia, or to
the British North American provinces,
or to the States of the American Union,
you will find-excluding always those
States where slavery injures the state
of society-you will find that life and
property are as secure, you will find
that education is much more extended
amongst the people, that there is quite
as wide a provision for their religious
interests, that the laws are as merciful
and just, that taxes are imposed and
levied with as great equality, and that
the millions of your countrymen who
are now established in those countries
are at least as well off in all the cir-
cumstances of life as are the people of
this country whom they have left behind
them. I confess that I never yet heard
of a man who returned to this country
from any of those countries under the
impression that he would be more
secure here than he would be there.
I have a very intelligent friend in
London-he is an eminent man, whose
friendship I consider a great honour
and advantage to myself who wrote to
me the other day, and said, 'I do not
think it is good tactics at present, in
discussing the question of Reform, to
make any reference to the United States.'
But I am not asking you to follow the
example of the United States. I am
only showing you that there, and in the
Canadian provinces, and in Australia,
Englishmen can vote in perfect order
in vast numbers, and that they can
legislate with all the justness, and all
1865.
339
REFORM. V.
'
the fairness, and all the good to their
people which we, even speaking in the
most favourable language, can ever gain
from the legislation of the Government
of this country. But still, I ask you to
answer me this question if you can.
There is something-tell me what it is
-that these people at Torquay are
afraid of. They talk about our insti-
tutions; and if I were to read you the
report of one of these speeches which I
have here, you would find in every sen-
tence that there was something said
about our institutions,' and it comes
out that the 'institutions' are what they
call Church and State. It is not very
distinct, but because we have heard it
for fifty years-some of us—we begin to
have a kind of glimpse of what it means.
It does not mean the House of Com-
mons, and it does not mean chapels,
and what is more, it does not mean
churches in any other sense than the
political sense, for a man must be a fool
who supposes that any extension of the
suffrage in this country, or any demo-
cratic form of government, would lessen
by one single brick or stone or piece of
timber or scantling any place of worship
of any sect or church in this country;
and more than that, he must be a block-
head beyond all power of argument to
suppose that in this great community
the ministers of your various free
churches and dissenting sects would be
less thought of than they are at present,
or that the gentleman whom I saw on
this platform to-night (Dr. Miller) would
have less respect or influence here than
he has at this moment.
But this, I suspect, is what they fear.
I have sought a good deal into this
question, and it seems to me as if they
had a notion that in this country we
have some institutions which have come
down to us from the middle ages-from
what some people call the dark ages—
and that these institutions may not
permanently harmonize with the intel-
ligence and the necessities of the nine-
teenth century in which we live. The
'institutions' are truly safe enough if
the Government be in the hands of
the institution; and if the Peerage and
the Established Church are to rule
in England, then I presume that the
Peerage and the Established Church,
in their present condition, will be per-
manently safe; and if the great patronage
of our vast expenditure is to be dispensed
perpetually amongst the ruling class,
the ruling class as a matter of course
will take extreme care of the patronage.
There is something very sacred in that
patronage. There are many families
in this country with long lines of ances-
try, who, if patronage were curtailed,
would feel very much as some of us
feel in Lancashire when the American
war has stopped our supplies of cotton.
They look upon patronage as a holy
thing, not to be touched by profane
hands. I have no doubt they have in
their minds the saying of a great friend
of mine, though he is an imaginary
character-I mean Hosea Bigelow, the
author of the Bigelow Papers. He says—
It is something like a fulfilling the pro-
phecies,
When all the first families have all the
best offices.'
But, Sir, I protest against this theory.
I protest against the theory that the
people of this country have an unreason-
able and violent desire to shake or
overturn institutions which they may
not theoretically approve of. What are
these people admitting by making these
statements and expressing these fears?
Are the people really against the House
of Lords? [A Voice: 'No.'] They
say- I am constantly told the people
like the Lords very much. I never
think it worth my while to deny it; for
I am perfectly content to live under the
institutions which the intelligence, and
the virtue, and the experience of my
countrymen fairly represented in Parlia-
ment shall determine upon. I was told
when this Government was formed-
you must recollect that some people did
me the honour to suppose that I should
be asked to take office in Lord Palmer-
ston's Government, along with my
friends Mr. Gibson and Mr. Cobden.
22-2
340
JAN. 18,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Mr. Cobden was in America at the
time, I suppose they did not like him
much better than they liked me, but it
is possible they disliked him rather less.
Mr. Cobden did not take the seat
which was offered him for reasons which
were then made public, but the state-
ment which was made to me--which
came from Lord Palmerston to be con-
veyed to me---was this, that I had ex-
pressed opinions in recent speeches with
regard to institutions, or an institution,
which the majority of Englishmen
deemed essential, which would make it
impossible for him to offer me a seat
in his Government.
I had attended meetings-you must
recollect-in fact, the first I attended
here after I was elected one of your
representatives. I afterwards went to
Glasgow, and to Edinburgh, and to
Manchester, and to Bradford, and the
largest room in all these places could
not contain one-half of those who
wished to come to hear something said
on the question which I was discussing,
and the speeches which were then made
were supposed to be tainted with rather
less reverence for the House of Lords
than some persons think proper; and
therefore, though I was fit to be your
representative, and was applauded by
listening thousands of my countrymen,
I was not qualified to take office in her
Majesty's Government.
But is it true that the people are
against the Church? Do they ever, in
the slightest degree, abstain from giving
respect and honour to any minister of
that Church who acts even though it
be with the feebleness which belongs
to all efforts in that character-who
acts in any degree consistent with the
position of a Christian minister? Be-
sides, if the Church is the poor man's
Church, surely the poor man must
know it; and, therefore, who could
imagine for a moment that the people
of this country, acting fairly through
their representatives, would do anything
as regards that Church which would
damage its usefulness as a Christian in-
stitution, or make it less honoured or
less influential in the spread of Chris-
tianity amongst the population of these
islands? Why are they, then, afraid of
the people? If a million more electors
- I believe the last Bill only proposed
to add half a million-were admitted,
is there any single interest that deserves
one moment's consideration that this
million of new electors, joined with the
present million of electors, would com-
bine in Parliament to uproot and de-
stroy? I am not one called upon to
defend our institutions. It is not my
business, because they are not attacked;
but I will assert this, that the Crown-
which is the most venerable of the
institutions to which it is supposed
democracy could be hostile-that the
Crown is not opposed to the admission
of this million or half million, and that
the Queen of these realms has more
than once from her own lips declared to
Parliament her free consent to the
admission of this number of people to
the franchise.
It follows, then, I say, that the insti-
tutions which people are so much afraid
of are in themselves unpopular or hurt-
ful, or else that the people themselves
are grossly slandered. I would insist
on this; since the power of the Crown
was limited two hundred years ago,
and since the power of the nobles was
limited thirty years ago, good govern-
ment has gained greatly in this country,
and the people are in all circumstances
better, and I am quite sure that the
respect shown to the Crown is more
general by far than it was at an earlier
period. But our Constitution involves
necessarily the representation of the
people, and in calling for this represen-
tation we stand upon a foundation from
which no argument and no sophistry
can ever remove us. The House of Com-
mons is in reality the only guarantee
we have for freedom. If you looked
at any other country, and saw nothing
but a monarch, he might be a good
king and might do his best, but you
would see that there is no guarantee
for freedom-you know not who will
be his successor. If you saw a country
1865.
34I
REFORM. V.
with no Crown, but with a handful of
nobles, administering the government
of the country, you would say there is
no guarantee there for freedom, be-
cause a number of individuals acting
together have not the responsibility, or
the feeling of responsibility, that one
man has, and they do things which one
man would not dare to do. If there be
a man here who feels himself and his
prejudices rise up against the statements
I am making, he, at least, will admit
that the real and only permanent foun-
dation for political freedom in any
country is in the establishment and
maintenance of a system of political
representation-in your Houses of
Parliament.
At that dinner at Torquay, a noble-
man presided whom I had the pleasure
of knowing a little when he was a
Member of the House of Commons,
and another nobleman whom I have
also known there made the principal
speech, and what do you think they did?
They had a number of toasts-which is
a thing I do not recommend, because
they do not drink them in cold water—
and they proposed, first, what are called
the ceremonial toasts-though one
would hope they are not altogether
ceremonial-and amongst them the
House of Lords. The toast was re-
sponded to in a long speech by Lord
Devon. And what did they propose
next? Not the House of Commons,
but The Conservative Party in the
House of Commons.' They did not
propose 'The Conservative Party in the
House of Lords.' Perhaps they thought
the whole House of Lords was a Con-
servative party, or else they thought
that the Liberal party in the House of
Commons was really not worth remem-
bering, except it may be to wish that it
did not exist. These gentlemen do not
comprehend our Constitution at all.
They do not know, apparently, that it
is only because there is something
which the people still believe to be in
some degree a representative body, and
which stands between them and monar-
chical and aristocratic despotism-that
it is only the existence of that House
which makes the institution they are so
fond of safe and permanent at all—and
they are afraid that the five millions
somehow or other will get into it.
Now, I beg to tell them that the five
millions will get into it, though they
may not get into it all at once; and
perhaps few men desire that they should,
for I am opposed myself to great and
violent changes, which create needless
shocks, and which are accepted, if they
are accepted, with great alarm.
But I will undertake to say that some
portion, a considerable and effective
portion, of those five millions will
before many years are passed be freely
allowed to vote for Members of the
House of Commons. It is not the
democracy which these gentlemen are
always afraid of that is the peril of this
country. It was not democracy in
1832 that was the peril. It was the
desperate antagonism of the class that
then had power to the just claims and
rights of the people. And at this mo-
ment, when they dine and when I speak,
I tell them that Conservatism—they
give it that name, but it is worthy of a
very different name-that Conservatism,
be it Tory or be it Whig, is the true
national peril which we have to face.
They may dam the stream, they may
keep back the waters, but the volume is
ever increasing, and it descends with
accelerated force, and the time will
come when, in all probability, and to a
certainty, if wisdom does not take the
place of folly, the waters will burst
their banks, and these men, who fancy
they are stemming this imaginary appa-
rition of democracy, will be swept away
by the resolute will of a united and
determined people.
For one moment cast your eyes over
the face of Europe. You will find that
there are now only two considerable
States that have not representative in-
stitutions-Turkey and Russia; and
Russia is making progress in freedom
equal at least to the progress of any
other State in Europe. Representation
is found in Italy, in Austria even, in
I
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
342
almost all the German States, in the
Northern States, in Belgium, Holland,
France, Portugal, and Spain. It is
found also, as I have said, and as you
know, all over the American continent.
It is found, also, firmly settled as an
institution in Australia. Englishmen,
everywhere but at home, are received
into the bosom of this great permanent
undying institution, this safeguard for
national, for human freedom. But here
they are slandered, they are insulted,
they are reviled, they are shut out.
They are invited to half a hundred
ways of amusing themselves; but if
they stand at the hustings or at the
poll, and see their richer brethren come
up to vote, they are not allowed to
register their names in favour of prin-
ciples for which their fathers before
them, and themselves, have sighed in
many a bitter hour of disappointment.
Now, Sir, I would change all this. I
speak out of no hostility to any class,
or any institution. That man who
proposes to exclude permanently five
millions of his countrymen from the
right which the Constitution of his
country makes sacred in his eyes, I say
that is the man that separates English-
men into two nations, and makes it
impossible that we should be wholly
or permanently a contented people. I
demand, then, this, which is but the
right of our Constitution, that the House
of Commons shall be made freely and
fairly to represent the Commons and
the people of the United Kingdom.
England has long been famous for the
enjoyment of personal freedom by her
people. They are free to think, they
are free to speak, they are free to write;
and England has been famed of late
years, and is famed now the world over,
for the freedom of her industry and the
greatness and the freedom of her com-
merce. I want to know then why it is
that her people should not be free to
vote. Who is there that will meet me
on this platform, or will stand upon
any platform, and will dare to say, in
the hearing of an open meeting of his
countrymen, that these millions for
whom I am now pleading are too de-
graded, too vicious, and too destructive
to be entrusted with the elective fran-
chise? I at least will never thus slander
my countrymen. I claim for them the
right of admission, through their repre-
sentatives, into the most ancient and
the most venerable Parliament which at
this hour exists among men; and when
they are thus admitted, and_not_till
then, it may be truly said that England,
the august mother of free nations, her-
self is free.
I
+
•
REFORM.
VI.
THE REFORM BILL OF LORD RUSSELL'S ADMINISTRATION.
ON THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO BRING IN THE BILL.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 13, 1866.
[On the death of Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell became Prime Minister, and on the
meeting of Parliament, a Bill for the improvement of the Representation of the People
was introduced by Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the Government. The Bill did not
pass, and the Russell Administration retired from office in June, 1866.]
ALTHOUGH in the course of this de-
bate I have been the subject of much
remark, and of not a little that may be
fairly termed unusual attack, I beg to
assure the House that I have not risen
for the purpose of defending myself,
since I am ready to leave my course in
this House and my political character
to the impartial view of Members of the
House, and to the just judgment of my
countrymen outside the House. Nor
have I risen for the purpose of entering
into an elaborate defence of the Bill
introduced by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. I think, however, that there
has been so much said which is not to
the point, that it may be advantageous
if I endeavour to explain to the House
what I understand the Bill to be-to
state some of the grounds on which it
appeals to us for support, and to ask
the House whether, under the circum-
stances of this question, and in the ex-
isting condition of the country, it is
the duty of Parliament to permit it to
pass into a law.
One thing in the Bill is highly satis-
factory to me-that both in what it
does and the manner in which it pro-
poses to do it, it is distinct, clear, with-
out any tricks-without semblance of
giving something in one clause, and
then under a feeling of alarm withdraw-
ing that something in the clause that
follows. I have always been in favour
of meeting this question and dealing
with it in such a manner that every
person in the country who is now an
elector, or who is to be included in the
Bill, should comprehend that it was a
measure, so far as it went, fair and
generous to the people whom it was
intended to enfranchise.
I think I can show reasons-if we
I
彝
​344
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
ኁ
can for a moment get rid of the notion
of party combination—why this House
should readily, and without hesitation,
agree to this Bill. One portion of it
will recommend itself, I am quite cer-
tain, to all Gentlemen who are enthusi-
astic admirers of the Bill of 1832-and
on this point I can confidently ask for
the support of the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Calne-that is the por-
tion of the Bill which is intended to re-
move all legal obstacles or difficulties
by which many persons who were in-
tended to be enfranchised by the Reform
Bill have been up to this time deprived
of their votes. The Reform Bill pro-
posed to give a vote to every occupier
of a 1ol. house in a borough. It is
shown, partly it may be by the wording
of the Act, partly by the decisions of
judges and courts, that this extension of
the franchise was never complete; that
by the operation of clauses which made
it necessary to pay rates, and which
made it necessary almost in effect that
the occupier himself should pay the
rates, many thousands-I know not the
number-will have been disfranchised
from 1832 up to the very hour at which
this Bill shall pass into law. In Scot-
land there is no such disqualification as
that which this Bill proposes to remove,
for there they have no rate-paying
clauses, and they have no system of
compounding which would juggle men
out of their franchise; and the object
of this Bill is to assimilate our law in
this respect to the law of Scotland, and
to give to the Reform Act of 1832 the
same efficacy which the people expected
from it when it passed both Houses of
Parliament. I suppose, although Gen-
tlemen may not admit it by any out-
ward expression of opinion, they are not
against such an improvement of the
Reform Act as will give the vote which
this part of the Bill is intended to give.
The right hon. Member for Calne can
certainly not refuse his assent, because
if there be one thing except the classical
times of antiquity to which he is more
devoted than another, it is clearly the
Bill of 1832.
The next point to which I shall ask
the attention of the House is that which
the Bill proposes to do in respect to the
county franchise. Here I must say, at
the risk of saying what is not compli-
mentary to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and his colleagues, that I think
the Government have shown a remark-
able feebleness, which lays them open
to great blame, not only on the part of
the House, but of almost every person
in the country who has expected a Bill
on the subject of Reform. They pro-
pose to bring the franchise down from
a 50l. occupation to one of 147. The
occupation franchise in counties was a
measure of your own carrying in 1832.
I do not say that to touch it would not
have been necessary now, if you had
not then disturbed the ancient franchise
of the counties; but when the county
occupation franchise was fixed at 50l.
and the franchise in boroughs at 10l.,
he must have been a very dull man in-
deed who could not have foreseen that
the county franchise must at some time
not remote be greatly reduced. The
right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of
the Exchequer spoke encouragingly in
that Reform discussion many years ago,
when the House carried the third read-
ing of the Bill introduced by my hon.
Friend the Member for East Surrey;
but from that time to this there has
been a good deal more done on this
question. The right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Buckinghamshire, and
his Cabinet-the noble Lord the Mem-
ber for King's Lynn being very inti-
mately concerned with the then leader
of the House in manufacturing a Reform
Bill-had not had much experience, and
it was not to be wondered at that they
made mistakes. They brought in their
Bill -a Bill containing some good
things and some bad things — and
among other things proposed a Iol.
franchise in counties. They took, how-
ever, a considerable compensation by
attempting to withdraw all freeholders
within the limits of boroughs from the
county franchise-transferring them to
the electoral body within the limits of
1866.
345
REFORM. VI.
**
boroughs. But that does not in the
slightest degree change this fact that
they did with due deliberation come to
the opinion that Iol. occupiers in coun-
ties were fit and proper persons to ex-
ercise the elective franchise. You do
not suppose that they proposed to put
persons on the county lists of whose
fitness they were not well assured, and
then endeavoured to compensate for
this by their proposal with regard to the
freeholders in the boroughs. They be-
lieved, and believe now, no doubt, that
Iol. was a proper and fitting franchise
for the counties in England and Wales;
and I should be glad to find them, when
the House shall be in Committee on
this Bill, proposing to reduce the sum
of a 141. franchise to a Iol. one. If they
wish to have an easy victory over the
Government, and to prove themselves
consistent, and to extend the range of the
county registration, I and a good many
Members in this part of the House will
be extremely happy to give them our
cordial support; and I can promise
them the support of the right hon.
Gentleman behind me (Mr. Lowe), be-
cause he has fixed his affections on a
Iol. rental franchise. If he were to say
he approved a 10l. household franchise
in boroughs he must do so also in the
counties, because we all know that
the Iol. householders in counties are
generally men in better pecuniary cir-
cumstances than those of equal rental
in boroughs.
So far as I have gone, I hope I have
persuaded Gentlemen opposite, and the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Calne, from any opposition to the Bill
of the Government with regard to these
two portions of it. I may say further,
with respect to this proposition of the
Government, that there was one illus-
tration the learned Gentleman (Mr.
Whiteside) might have made in his
amusing speech, for however much the
country is going to ruin, he can always
be amusing in this House-there is one
illustration he might have given us. He
said that in Ireland they had a 12l.
rating franchise for the counties, and
that is as near as may be in value to
a 147. rental franchise. Therefore, the
proposition of the Government — al-
though I disapprove it-still has the
sanction of the course which has been
taken in Ireland, and this, I have heard
from Irish Members, is considered
a not unsatisfactory condition of the
county franchise. But, with the expe-
rience of a great number of years of
this franchise in Ireland, I think the
Member for Calne may screw up his
courage to support this proposition of
the Bill.
I now come to the only point on
which there is any great difference of
opinion. I think the world has never
shown an instance of a legislative as-
sembly such as this making a great
disturbance among themselves, exciting
themselves, getting into a violent pas-
sion, pouring out cataracts of declama-
tion like those we heard last night, and
all upon the simple question whether
the franchise in boroughs shall remain
as now at Iol. or shall be fixed for a
time at 71. Hon. Gentlemen opposite
appear to be surprised at the frankness
with which I speak. The head of the
present Government was laughed at
for years because he spoke of finality
in connection with the Bill of 1832.
should be very happy if it should so
happen, as the right hon. Gentleman
has suggested in his fervid imagination,
that the working classes would in great
numbers surmount the barrier of 71.,
and that ultimately it should be even
equal to a household suffrage in the
country. But does any Gentleman op-
posite believe that he is carrying a Bill
I
did any Gentleman sitting in this
House ever vote upon any measure of
arrangement and organisation like this,
and confidently assure himself that the
measure should be final ? He must
have a very poor notion of what our
children will be if he thinks them less
competent to decide such questions for
themselves than we are at present to
decide them. Therefore do not think
that because I use the phrase 'for a
time,' I am not of opinion that this Bill,
346
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
if it be carried, will in all probability
put an end to Bills having reference to
the suffrage-for such portion of time,
at least, as this Bill will be found to
meet the views of the intelligent-[loud
laughter and cheers]-allow me to finish
the sentence of the intelligent popula-
tion of this country.
The Bill of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer proposes, in addition to the
71. franchise, what he calls a lodger
franchise. The Member for Bucking-
hamshire in his Bill proposed something
of the same kind, but with a 207. quali-
fication, while the present Bill proposes
a 10l. qualification
10l. being very
nearly the same for a holding of this
kind as 77. would be for a house. But
the right hon. Gentleman opposite pro-
posed provisions in his measure which
would be extremely difficult, and I
think would lead to great perplexity.
I have no doubt that the proposition
now made by the Government is simpler
than his, and likely to be carried out
with less difficulty and more satisfaction
to that class of persons in this metro-
polis who are chiefly interested in this
part of the Bill. With regard to the 71.
franchise, let us examine it for one
moment. Somebody has said, and many
persons have written, that this Bill is my
Bill-that the Government made this
Bill at my recommendation. [Hear.]
I thought somebody would say this.
have not been able to find a point of the
Bill which I have recommended. I never
was in favour of a 61. franchise, and I
should never have proposed it. I be-
lieve in a household franchise for the
boroughs of this country. But when I
found a powerful Government like the
last-and it was not as honest as it was
powerful - proposing a 61. franchise,
with the expectation that it would carry
it, I was not to stand in the way of
a considerable enfranchisement of the
people merely because I had an idea
that household suffrage would be better.
A 71. franchise is a proposition I have
never said one syllable in favour of, and
it never entered into my mind that the
Government would split hairs in this
fashion, and would leave the 61. fran-
chise, their own former proposition, and
which nearly everybody in the country
who has asked for a Reform Bill has
expressed himself ready to accept, and
would offer the House a 71. franchise.
But here it is offered, and unfortunately,
beggars in the House of Commons,
like beggars outside of it, cannot be
choosers, and we are sometimes in a
position to take only what is given.
When the Bill of the right hon.
Gentleman opposite was brought in, a
very remarkable thing happened. Two
eminent Members of the Government
seceded from it, and took their seats
on the third bench behind, and I think
I see one of them sitting there at this
moment. They both made what we
call a personal explanation to the
House, and the explanation was that
they differed from their colleagues on
this question of the suffrage. They
did not approve that the suffrage in
counties should be brought down to
the rate of the boroughs, and that the
suffrage in the boroughs should be con-
tinued at the same rate which was fixed
at the time of the Reform Act. I am
not sure whether these right hon. Gen-
tlemen coincide in the opinion that the
county franchise should be brought
down to rol. I think the right hon.
Gentlemen expressed some dissent-
at least they were of opinion that the
franchise in the boroughs ought to be
reduced; and I know the Member for
Oxfordshire, in the words which have
often been quoted since, expressed him-
self in favour of establishing a borough
franchise at 81. Now when the Go-
vernment have been splitting hairs with
regard to 61. and 77., I hope the right
hon. Gentlemen on that side of the
House will not split hairs between 81.
and 71., because surely after the discus-
sion this question has undergone—after
the mode and manner the House has
been brought into difficulty by past
transactions—after the great expecta-
tions which have been raised through-
out the country, I think it would show
very ill statesmanship on the part of
1866.
347
REFORM. VI.
those right hon. Gentlemen and a mere
obedience to the cause of party-it
would hardly be becoming in them-
if they were not willing to make the
small concession of Il. in answer to the
concession of 1l. which I am willing or
forced to make, and join with me in
giving at least a friendly if not an
enthusiastic support to the Bill of the
Government.
And, after all, this 3l., what is it?
The right hon. Gentleman behind me
has conjured up a frightful apparition.
The rol. is the salvation of the country.
For thirty-four years its operation has
been such as to extort from him un-
limited approval. I do not know
whether he will think 97. perilous or
81. in any degree of doubtful utility,
but 77. he considers to be actually
destructive to the interests of the coun-
try; and he has shown moreover that
it would destroy the connection be-
tween the Executive Government and
the House-that it would add greatly
to all the evils which are supposed to
exist in connection with the present
Bill, without any of its advantages;
in fact, I know not whether a more
gloomy, discouraging, and appalling
picture of the future of the House and
the country was ever drawn by any
Member of the House. And all the
foundation of these horrors is that it
is proposed to reduce the franchise in
the boroughs by 1l. lower than was re-
commended by the Member for Oxford-
shire and by his colleague the Member
for the University of Cambridge. Now,
I appeal to Gentlemen opposite whether
they will allow themselves, considering
the position of this question, to make
it impossible that the question of the
suffrage should be got out of our way
during this present session of Parlia-
ment. If they do make it impossible—
I am not much given to prophesy, but I
venture to predict that there are many
on those benches now who will live to
regret the course they are about to take.
There is one other proposition-it is
made in this Bill-which I hope the
House will not listen to for a moment,
and that is the Savings-bank franchise.
I think the Member for Buckingham-
shire had something like it—perhaps
the very same thing-in his Bill. I
disapproved of it then. I have no ob-
jection to enfranchise those who may
be enfranchised by it; but I think it is
the very worst of all the fancy fran-
chises ever proposed. It will be unequal
to the last degree, and it will be, I be-
lieve, the source of every kind of fraud.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Wick, who, I think, in
speaking of it said he did not see why
the investment of 50l.-the saving of it
in a Savings-bank-should give a man
a higher social and political position
than the investment or saving of an
equal sum in any other description of
property where the investment could be
fairly ascertained. I object altogether
to giving the franchise to one man and
shutting it out from another—that
second man, it may be, being far more
heroic than the other. For example, a
man may have to provide a humble
equipment for a daughter's marriage, a
small sum for a son's apprenticeship-
something may be taken out of his
earnings for the education of his chil-
dren, he may have under his roof an
aged parent, and he may be performing
to that parent the most sacred and most
holy of duties, and these may cause him
to withdraw 51. or 10l. from his little
fund in the Savings-bank, or may pre-
vent his having any fund there at all,
and the law steps in, and for doing so
much, which in every rank of life is so
honourable and so exemplary, his name
is to be erased from the electoral list
of the town in which he lives. I pro-
test against this Savings-bank franchise.
I think also it would be liable to great
fraud, because three or four members of
a family may invest in a Savings-bank
in one name and so give to that one
I do not in the least
person a vote.
object to any one person having a vote,
but I do object to giving it under a
system which, altogether apart from
the general processes of our enfran-
chisement, is liable to the utmost in-
348
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
equality, and to a species of fraud
which cannot be prevented.
Now I have gone through the Bill
in its main provisions, and I would ask
the House what they think of it. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us-
in fact, we well know-that we have in
England and Wales about five and a
half millions of men. Under this Bill
he further tells us we should have
900,000 electors. [A Voice from the
Treasury Benches: 1,300,000.'] But
not 1,300,000 when the double qualifi-
cations are taken off. Whatever that
be, it will place within the franchise
perhaps a little more than one in five,
leaving out four millions of grown men
in England and Wales who will still not
have the franchise. Of those he says
there will be 330,000 working-men.
This is a very—as I am quite confident
whenever the matter is fairly looked
into will be found out-exaggerated
estimate. The right hon. Gentleman
included 60,000 who now live in Iol.
houses besides those referred to in the
Blue Books. And more than that, he
included every man between 10l. and
71., although the experience of every
one tells us that is not correct; and as
to all these working-men brought for-
ward in these Blue Books, except the
Members for Coventry, I will undertake
to say that there is scarcely a single
Member of the House, looking to his
own canvass and his own constituency,
who is not prepared to say that the esti-
mate is a delusion and a snare.
I should only be too glad if it could
be honestly ascertained that so many
working-men would be placed upon the
register; at least I think it would do
something towards confirming hon.
Gentlemen in the view they entertain
that the conduct of so many of those
men as possess the franchise has hither-
to been most exemplary in their exercise
of it. Now, I appeal to hon. Gentle-
men-I am very earnest in my wishes
upon this question, because, notwith-
standing the unkind allusion and impu-
tation thrown upon me some time ago
by a right hon. Gentleman on this side
of the House, there is nobody who has
a greater interest than I have, in a cer-
tain sense, in a fair and early settlement
of this question. I have had as much
to do with it as any one, I think, in
discussing it publicly out of the House
and in the House. I have discussed it
frankly, and whatever hon. Gentlemen
may think to the contrary, I never spoke
on any question in which I took a
greater interest, or with a deeper con-
viction that I was serving the true in-
terests of their class as well as those of
my countrymen at large.
I do not know whether I can appeal
to certain Members of the House. The
right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Calne has shown that nearly everything
the Bill proposes is really that which is
bound up in some shape with the Bill
of 1832, or with the propositions in
which he has been concerned. I have
got here it is really curious how things
drop into your hands when you want
them-here is a paper, the Norfolk
News, of the year 1859, and I have
certain extracts which I have taken
from the paper. These are extracts
from election addresses. The first is
from the election address of Lord Pal-
merston, who said there must be a Bill
to alter the law regulating the repre-
sentation of the people in Parliament.
Then Lord John Russell said we should
have to consider the great question of
the amendment of the representation of
the people in Parliament. Sir George
Grey said that at the earliest period
consistent with duty, the Government
would be prepared to deal with the ques-
tion of Parliamentary Reform. Then
there were similar extracts from the
speeches of my right hon. Friend the
President of the Board of Trade, from
the speeches of the Attorney-General
of that day, and of the Solicitor-General.
There is then an extract headed, 'Right
Hon. Robert Lowe, Vice-President of
the Committee of Council on Educa-
tion.' And what does he say in 1859,
before the Government of the right
hon. Gentleman opposite was discharged
from the service of the House and of
1866.
349
REFORM.
VI.
the country? The Right Hon. Robert
Lowe says:-
'It will be the duty of the Government
to prepare a measure of Reform, and I
have every confidence that it will be one
which if not fully satisfying men of ex-
treme opinions, will be acceptable to the
great body of the people.'
I think the right hon. Gentleman has a
very short memory, or else he trifles
with this House. Is it conceivable that
a man who wrote that in his election
address in 1859 should stand up to-
night and deliver such a speech as we
have heard from him for an hour and
a half? I am afraid, Sir, that when
under these circumstances men change
their opinions after they are fifty years
of age, there is not much expectation
of turning them back again. I feel that
I could not with much hope appeal to
the right hon. Member for Calne, or to
his colleague the right hon. Member for
Stroud; I do not know that I should
appeal to the noble Lord the Member
for Haddington (Lord Elcho), who,
with the exception of the hon. Member
for Salisbury, is the only Member at
this side of the House who cheers the
sentiments of either of the right hon.
Gentlemen.
What is the reason, I ask, that Gen-
tlemen who have been holders of office
take this course with regard to the Bill
of the Government? I will not deal in
any insinuations, but I will say that,
from Gentlemen who have held office,
but who happen to have been left out
of what may be called the daily minis-
trations, we have a right to expect a
very minute account of the reasons why
they change their opinions before we
can turn round and change with them.
These are the Gentlemen who all at
once start up as the great teachers of
statesmanship to the House and the
country. Are they what the right
hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich
spoke of in the recess are they the
foremost statesmen in the country? and
if so, is there to be a bid for them to
take the place of Gentlemen who have
not much succeeded as statesmen when
in office? In office these right hon.
Gentlemen are as docile as any other
Gentlemen in office, but I fear, notwith-
standing the ideas some people have of
my influence with Earl Russell, that I
am not able to offer them any argu-
ments on his part that will tell upon
them. I do not object for a moment
to a Member of this House being fond
of office. The Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer probably lives much more
happily in office than he would live if
he were out of it, though I do not
think he will live quite so long. I do
not complain of men who are fond of
office, though I could never compre-
hend the reason they like it so much.
If I may parody, or if I may make an
alteration in a line or two of one of the
most beautiful poems in our language,
I might ask—
'For who, to dumb forgetfulness a prey,
That pleasing, anxious office e'er re-
signed,
Left the warm precincts of the Treasury,
Nor cast one last, long, lingering look
behind.'
What I complain of is this, that when
place recedes into the somewhat dim
past, that which in office was deemed
patriotism vanishes with it; and we
have one howl of despair from these
right hon. Gentlemen because it is
proposed to diminish the franchise in
boroughs from 10l. to 7l., and to add
by so small a proposition as that some-
thing to the freedom of the people of
this country.
The right hon. Gentleman below me
(Mr. Horsman) said a little against the
Government and a little against the
Bill, but had last night a field night for
an attack upon so humble an individual
as I am. The right hon. Gentleman is
the first of the new party who has ex-
pressed his great grief, who has retired
into what may be called his political
cave of Adullam, and he has called
about him every one that was in distress
and every one that was discontented.
The right hon. Gentleman has been
J
•
350
MARCH 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
7
anxious to form a party in this House.
There is scarcely any one on this side
of the House who is able to address the
House with effect or to take much part
in our debates, whom he has not tried
to bring over to his party or cabal; and
at last the right hon. Gentleman has
succeeded in hooking the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Calne. I
know there was an opinion expressed
many years ago by a Member of the
Treasury bench and of the Cabinet, that
two men would make a party. When a
party is formed of two men so amiable
-so discreet-as the two right hon.
Gentlemen, we may hope to see for the
first time in Parliament a party perfectly
harmonious and distinguished by mutual
and unbroken trust. But there is one
difficulty which it is impossible to re-
move. This party of two reminds me
of the Scotch terrier, which was so
covered with hair that you could not
tell which was the head and which was
the tail of it.
The right hon. Member for Calne
told us that he had some peculiar
election experiences. There are men
who make discord wherever they appear.
The right hon. Gentleman on going
down to Kidderminster got into some
unpleasing altercation with somebody,
and it ended with his having his head
broken. But I am happy to say, and
the House will bear witness, that with
regard to its power, that head is pro-
bably as strong now as before he took
his leave of Kidderminster and went to
Calne-a village in the West of England.
The right hon. Gentleman found on the
list of electors at Calne, one hundred
and seventy-four names, of whom, ac-
cording to the Blue Book, about seven
were working-men. I suppose three or
four of them were probably keepers of
shops, and some of those whom the
Chancellor of the Exchequer I think
improperly included in his list. When
the right hon. Member went down there
he found a tumult even more aggravated
than at Kidderminster. They did not
break his head, but they did something
that in the eye of the law was much
worse, for they shut up the police in the
Town Hall, and the little mob of this
little place had the whole game to
themselves. The right hon. Gentleman
told us of the polypus, which takes its
colour from the rock on which it lives,
and he said that some hon. Members
take their colours from their consti-
tuencies. The constituency which the
right hon. Gentleman represents consists
of one hundred and seventy-four men,
seven of whom are working-men; but
the real constituent of the right hon.
Gentleman is a Member of the other
House of Parliament, and he could send
in his butler or his groom, instead of
the right hon. Gentleman, to represent
the borough. I think in one sense-
regarding the right hon. Gentleman as
an intellectual gladiator in this House
--we are much indebted to the Marquis
of Lansdowne that he did not do that.
And now, Sir, I said that I wanted
to explain the particulars of this Bill,
and to appeal to the good sense and
patriotism of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
I ask them not to take that disparaging
view of their countrymen which has
been presented to them by the right
hon. Member for Calne and the hon.
Member for Salisbury, who-I presume
from their residence at the antipodes-
seem to take a Botany Bay impression,
and a Botany Bay view, of the character
of the great bulk of their countrymen.
The right hon. Gentleman some nights
ago, when I was not here, said that I,
even in the matter of the cattle plague,
set class against class. ['Hear, hear!'
from the Opposition benches, and
laughter.] The hon. Gentlemen op-
posite, who from the ease with which
they are amused must be a most ami-
able party, laugh at this observation.
I ask any man in this House, is it
possible to do a thing more perilous
than that which is done by the right
hon. Gentleman and his Australian col-
league the hon. Member for Salisbury-
namely, to make it appear that there
is a gulf that shall not be passed by
legislation between the highest and
most powerful and a portion of the
1866.
35I
REFORM. VI.
middle classes, and the great body of
the working-people who are really the
heart of this great nation?
The right hon. Gentleman tells us
that by-and-by, if everybody will wait
long enough, everybody will get over
this barrier and be inside the franchise.
But that is no great consolation, because
he said that by the Bill of the Govern-
ment we, or our children, shall be eaten
up at some future time. Would it not
be infinitely better to show our trust in
the people now? Of all the follies and
crimes which Governments commit, that
of a constant distrust of their subjects,
of their citizens, of their country, is about
the wildest and most foolish. But the
right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Stroud and somebody else who followed
him tell us that the people are very indif-
ferent about this matter. I think I just
caught the Member for Salisbury in the
hubbub of the House as he rose to
speak, making an observation about the
number of petitions; and the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Calne said
he thought their number was not more
than four. But how many petitions
were there previous to 1831? Bear in
mind that Lord John Russell had for
some time discontinued bringing for-
ward his motion for Parliamentary
Reform. In 1821 one petition was
presented to the House in favour of
Parliamentary Reform. In 1822 there
were twelve, in 1823 there were twenty-
nine; in the six years that passed between
1824 and 1829 there was not a single
petition presented to this House in
favour of Parliamentary Reform; and
in 1830 there were fourteen petitions—
ten more than those with which the
right hon. Gentleman made himself
merry to-night. And what took place
in 1831-2? This, some of you were
fleeing for your lives in the midst of a
storm which you had not foreseen, but
which was as inevitable as any storm
that arises in the heavens. It was an
accident that brought it about-the
French Revolution. Well, there are
always accidents. A great portion of
the things that happen in our lives,
so far as we can judge, have the ap-
pearance of accidents. But with the
accident there was material for a con-
flagration, and a conflagration arose.
I recollect that the late Francis Place
and two or three others went to the
Duke of Wellington as a deputation
when he took office after the fall of
Lord Grey's Government, and that they
remonstrated with the Duke. He was
not a man that liked remonstrances
very much, but they told him what was
going on, how dissatisfied the people
were, and how perilous they thought
the course of the Government in op-
posing Reform. And what did the
Duke say? He was standing warming
himself at the fire. He said to these
gentlemen, You have got heads on
your shoulders, and I would advise you
to keep them there.' Two or three
days afterwards the Duke of Wellington
was driven from office. The popular
feeling in the country and in the metro-
polis was such that this great soldier
that knew no fear was obliged to resign,
and Lord Grey was permitted to come
back, and the Reform Bill was eventu-
ally carried.
Now I ask hon. Gentlemen if they
think any accident will ever happen
again. That accident was in Paris.
But in 1848, only eighteen years after-
wards, there was another accident in
Paris, which was followed by a suc-
cession of accidents in other parts
of Europe. I recollect at the time a
noble Lord who was then a Member
of this House was greatly alarmed.
He came to me from that side of the
House, and assured me that he had
always been in favour of a great ex-
tension of the suffrage. I believe that
he was not quite sure that I should
not soon be a member of a Provisional
Government. I ask hon. Gentlemen
whether it is not better to accept a
measure so moderate, and if
you like,
as may be said by many in the country,
so inadequate, but still to some extent
so good? Is it not. better to accept
this measure, and show your confidence
in the people, than to take the advice
352
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
+
of the Member for Calne-the most
revolutionary advice that was ever given
in this House-and shut your doors
against five millions of people, and tell
them that unless they can scramble over
this Iol, barrier none of them shall ever
find a direct representation in this House?
The Member for Stroud talked loudly
last night about constitutional rights
and constitutional principles. But who
was it that made the present constitution
of England more than any other men
in our history? Surely the men of the
first and second Parliaments in the reign
of Charles the First. Is it not in the
very journals of your House? The Clerk
of the House could easily find and read
to you the resolutions of the House, that
wherever there is not some direct inter-
diction or contradiction of it, the ancient
and common franchise of the people of
this country in the towns is the house-
holding franchise. And do you mean
to tell me that Lord Somers, who was
himself a great authority, and to a large
extent one of the builders of our exist-
ing Constitution, was wrong when he
said that though no man by birth had
any right to office, yet that by birth he
had a right to vote, and that the pos-
session of a vote was the only true
security which an Englishman had for
the protection of his life and property?
I am not stating that as my opinion, I
am giving you the opinion of one of the
greatest men in the Parliamentary annals
of this nation, and therefore I say you
will not act constitutionally or wisely if
you put any obstacle in the path of a
Bill that is so moderate as this, and
that may give great satisfaction to vast
multitudes of the people.
If this Bill be rejected you will show
that you are against all Reform, you
will show that you have no confidence
whatever even in that portion of the
population which lives in houses be-
tween 10l. and 71. rental. And if you
pass this Bill you will show that you
are not cut off altogether from sympathy
with multitudes of your fellow-country-
men. I say there is peril in the present
state of things. You have a population
divorced almost entirely from the land,
and shut out from the possession of the
franchise. My hon. Friend the Member
for Brighton touched upon the question
of emigration. The right hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Calne spoke of the
intelligence of the people in this way—
of their combinations and associations.
We all know that they are reading,
debating, thinking, and combining, and
they know that in all our colonies, and
in the United States, the position of
their class is very different. I believe
that if you do not moderate your tone
and your views with regard to the great
bulk of the working classes, you will
find your country gradually weakened
by a constantly increasing emigration,
or you will find some accident happen-
ing, when you will have something to
do more than you are asked to do to-
night, under the threat, and it may be
under the infliction, of violence.
Now, Sir, I said at the beginning that
I did not rise to defend this Bill. I rose
for the purpose of explaining it. It is
not a Bill which, if I had been consulted
by its framers, I should have recom-
mended. If I had been a Minister it is
not a Bill which I should have consented
to present to the House. I think it is
not adequate to the occasion, and that
its concessions are not sufficient. But
I know the difficulties under which
Ministries labour, and I know the dis-
inclination of Parliament to do much in
the direction of this question. I shall
give it my support because, as far as it
goes, it is a simple and honest measure,
and because I believe, if it becomes law,
it will give more solidity and duration
to everything that is good in the Con-
stitution, and to everything that is noble
in the character of the people of these
realms.
REFORM.
VII.
THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL.-DEBATE ON
THE SECOND READING.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 23, 1866.
From Hansard.
BEFORE I address myself to the ques-
tion which is before the House, there
are two matters of a personal character
which I wish to dispose of. The right
hon. Member for Calne, on the first
night of this debate, made a complaint
to the House that, in a speech out of
this House, I had imputed to him, or
quoted as from him, words which he
had not uttered. The right hon. Gen-
tleman was quite right to make that
complaint, if he thought it worth while
to make it, because there is no doubt
--and I am sorry it so happened-that
some three or four words which he had
not spoken in that connection were
added to the passage which he had
spoken. I regret the inaccuracy very
much. I have the satisfaction, how-
ever, of knowing or believing that I
did the right hon. Gentleman no sub-
stantial injustice.
The other point refers to the speech
of the noble Lord the Member for
King's Lynn (Lord Stanley). He re-
torted on me a charge of conspiracy
with reference to two divisions which
took place some years ago in this House,
one on the China War, and the other
on the Conspiracy Bill. In neither of
these cases did the mover of the reso-
lution obtain a seconder from the op-
posite side of the House. But with
regard to the first case, that of the
China War, I was not in Parliament
during that session. I was in bad
health, out of the country; and the
first thing I knew of it was from read-
ing an account of what had taken place
in this House in a public news-room in
the city of Rome. With regard to the
other case, that of the Conspiracy Bill,
Members who were then in the House
will recollect that on the first division,
on the first reading of the Bill, nearly
100 Members-I think that was the
exact number, I am not sure-or 99,
voted in the division against the intro-
duction or first reading of the Bill, in-
cluding Lord John Russell, the President
of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gibson),
myself, and many others. The noble
Lord's friends warmly welcomed and
supported that Bill. Before the second
reading came on, my right hon. Friend
the President of the Board of Trade
gave notice of a resolution, which was
carried by the House; the noble Lord
23
354
APRIL 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
截
​with several of his friends, departing
altogether from their votes on the first
reading, turned completely round upon
their own policy, supported my right
hon. Friend, went into the same lobby
with him, and made a majority against
the Government of Lord Palmerston.
If there was any conspiracy then, it was
owing to the other side of the House;
and if it was a dirty conspiracy, the dirt
was imported into it by the noble Lord
and his friends. Now, these are inac-
curacies which may occur in debate,
but I think it was necessary to make
an apology to the right hon. Gentle-
man, and to explain the charge which
the noble Lord had inadvertently
brought against me.
I come now to the question before
the House, and the resolution which
has been moved by the Member for
Chester. Whatever are the words in
which a resolution or design is wrapped
up in this House, the true meaning of
it generally comes out during the de-
bate; but the noble Lord the Member
for Chester did not in the slightest de-
gree leave us in difficulty with respect
to his view; and there can be nothing
more clear than this-I do not in the
slightest degree blame him for it-he
has a perfect right to his opinion—that
he stands as the principal opponent of
this measure, on the ground either that
he is opposed to all Reform, or to such
an extension of the franchise as the
Government propose in this Bill; and
I presume, if the truth were known, and
judging from his speech, that if the
Government would lay on the table of
the House the Seats Bill, which may be
as extensive with respect to that part
of the subject as this measure of the
franchise is on another part, it would
meet with the strenuous opposition of
the noble Lord. Thus the Bill that is
not before us is made an excuse and
weapon for destroying the Bill that is
before us. That, I think, as far as I
can judge, is a fair statement of the
position of the noble Lord; but when
the Seats Bill is laid on the table of the
House we shall have an opportunity of
knowing what is the course which the
noble Lord will take upon it.
I come now to the speech made by
the Member for King's Lynn, in second-
ing the amendment. His speech was
much more ingenious, and it was much
less candid; it was much less straight-
forward, but it lands us in the same
position; and the noble Lord during his
speech, twice at least, if not oftener,
used the words the balance of power
in reference to the representation of the
people in this House. We have done
now pretty much with the balance of
power on the Continent of Europe. I
hope the time will come when we shall
have no such phrase as the balance of
power' in this House.
C
Sir, I think that this House should be
a fair representation of the people of
this country, and though it may not be
desirable, and even if desirable it may
not be attainable, that all persons should
vote, yet, far short of that, I am per-
suaded that the representation may be
so arranged that every person of every
class will feel that his interests are
fairly represented, and will be fairly
consulted by the House. But the noble
Lord is afflicted with a species of terror,
or perhaps I should rather call it a
feeling of no confidence, such as I have
hardly ever seen before in this House.
He has no confidence in the Govern-
ment. That I have very often seen,
and I have seen him in a Government
in which the majority of the House had
no confidence; but he has no confidence
in the House. First of all the Govern-
ment, through the Prime Minister and
through the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, have given the most distinct pro-
mise with regard to the Bill for the
re-arrangement of seats; but the noble
Lord has no confidence in that promise.
The noble Lord has no confidence in
the House, because if this Franchise.
Bill should pass, he thinks the House
might do something very unwise in the
matter of the Seats Bill. He has no
confidence in the people, because the
object of this Bill is to admit them to
the franchise; and he has special terror
1
#
355
1866.
REFORM. VII.
of what might happen if the Franchise
Bill should pass and the Seats Bill fail,
and we should all be sent back to en-
larged constituencies to be returned to
a future Parliament. The noble Lord
must know that, whatever be the re-
arrangements of seats, it must lead to
greater popular power in the House;
and that whatever be the extension of
the franchise, it must lead to the same
result; and we all know that henceforth
the Parliament which shall be elected
on an extended franchise, or after a re-
distribution of seats, will be a Parlia-
ment of full authority in the country--
that it will have power still further to
extend the franchise, and still further
to alter the distribution of seats, and to
conduct all matters connected with the
legislation of the Empire. And there-
fore the noble Lord, who was in such
extraordinary tremor with regard to
what may happen if this Bill pass or if
the other fail, appears to me to present
the most singular exhibition of political
anxiety I have ever seen.
I thought that when the noble Lord
concluded his speech, everything in it
that was true was unimportant, and
everything that seemed to be the least
important was not true. But there is
one thing important, and that is the
opposition of the noble Lord to this
Bill; and I hope that he and his col-
league in proposing this resolution will
forgive me if I say that I think it is a
perilous thing when the heirs of two of
the most ancient and the most wealthy
and powerful of the houses of the Eng-
lish nobility oppose themselves to this
moderate and just Bill, and have set
themselves by a coalition in this House
to drive Lord Russell from power-for
this, and this only, offence-that he
wields the authority of his great office
to extend in what I believe to be a
moderate and conservative degree the
franchises of his countrymen.
The noble Lord the Member for
Chester blames the Government be-
cause it took advice from this end of
this side of the House [below the gang-
way of the Ministerial side], and did
not confine itself to the advice of power-
ful persons of the Whig party. I should
think that a measure which is sup-
ported by the House of Bedford, by
the House of Devonshire, that has
among its supporters the Howards, the
Sutherlands, the Duke of Somerset, the
Duke of Argyll, Lord Clarendon, Lord
Granville, Lord Stanley the Postmaster-
General, and the right hon. Gentleman
the Secretary of State for the Home
Department-I think a measure that is
supported by the Peers that I have
mentioned cannot be said to be intro-
duced to this House without some con-
sultation with the Whig party. Now,
if the noble Lord will allow me in a
perfectly friendly manner to give him
a little advice, I will do it in one sen-
tence. The course that he is taking is
a course which tends to separate im-
portant persons of the Whig party from
the Liberal and popular party in this
House and in the country, and if he
should succeed in dissevering the most
intelligent of the Whig nobility from
the great popular party in the country,
if he should transfer them to the other
side, and put all the dukes and the
nobles on one side of Parliament, and
the popular party on the other-if the
noble Lord knows anything whatever
of history, he will know this, that
when the great popular party of a
country are fighting by themselves
against the nobles of a country, what-
ever their virtues and whatever their
power-speaking of many of them-
you may rely upon it that the popular
party will win, and the nobles will go
down.
The noble Lord and many hon.
Members of the House during this de-
bate have referred to the supposed
influence I have had as to the mode in
which this question has been brought
before Parliament. Seven years ago,
just about the time when the Govern-
ment of Lord Derby was thrown out,
in an accidental or incidental conver-
sation with Lord Russell, I suggested
to him that whenever this question was
brought again before Parliament, the
+
23-2
356
APRIL 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
J
proper course to take was to introduce
the Franchise Bill by itself. From
1860 until this hour I have only had
one interview-a very short interview—
and only one conversation of a political
character with Lord Russell, and until
he mentioned the matter at the meeting
of his supporters the other day in
Downing-street, I must confess to the
House that I was totally in ignorance
of the fact that the course of the Go-
vernment in this matter had been in
any degree influenced by anything I
have said. It was at a meeting at
Rochdale in January last that I ad-
vised not only the Government to take
this course, but that I advised all per-
sons who were in favour of Reform in
the kingdom to consider the question
and to support this course if it should
be taken by the Government. I will
tell the House with the most complete
candour and fairness what were the
reasons which led me to give this ad-
vice. I will assume that the House is
in favour of Reform. I know what a
stretch of imagination is necessary_in
order to come to that conclusion. But
as I am speaking not only to Gentle-
men in this House, but to some who
are outside this House, I shall treat
the question just as if we were all in
favour of some measure of Reform, but
differed a little as to the mode and
extent.
When I suggested to Earl Russell six
years ago that he should bring in a
Franchise Bill first, he replied that if he
did so the opponents of Reform would
make use of that plan of action to op-
pose the Government altogether. They
would submit a resolution to the House,
in all probability, to the effect that they
will not proceed with any measure to
extend the franchise till they see be-
fore them everything that the Govern-
ment has to propose on the subject of
Reform. The noble Lord knows per-
fectly well the tactics of hon. Gentle-
men opposite, but, notwithstanding that
knowledge, he has thought it his duty
to introduce the Franchise Bill first, and
ask the House to take the question of
the redistribution of seats at a later
period. Now let us consider why he
should do that. If you will carry back
your recollection to the year 1848, when
a resolution was proposed by Mr. Hume,
and come down step by step from that
period until the occasion of the intro-
duction of the Bill of my hon. Friend
the Member for Leeds last year, you
will see that the great question, so far
as it is to be regarded as a great popu-
lar question, and as it was discussed at
public meetings, has all along been
much more a question of the franchise
than of the seats. The pledges of Go-
vernments and of Parliament have been
not so much pledges to the middle
classes that their share of political power
should be rendered more equal by a re-
distribution of seats, but more distinctly
and fully they have been pledged to the
working classes, which are now ex-
cluded, that they should at some early
day be admitted in some fair numbers
to the franchise.
I agree with my hon. Friend the
Member for Westminster (Mr. Mill),
and I think all within this House will
agree, that apart from any effect in re-
spect to the choice of Members which
you may hope to produce by any mea-
sure for the extension of the franchise,
it is a thing desirable in the highest de-
gree that there should be an extension
of the franchise so far that the working-
people might feel that they were not
purposely excluded. What I want is to
give the sense of justice to a great class
now labouring under a sense of long-
continued injustice. And that is essen-
tial to be done, although that might not
change the seat of any Member in this
House, and although the distribution
were as equal as it can be made, and
there were no other Reform necessary
but on this single measure of the fran-
chise. The House will see that there
is an essential difference between the
two questions. The extension of the
franchise affects a peculiar portion of
the population, and the redistribution
of seats does not; it affects all-the
higher, the middle, and the lower classes

1866.
357
REFORM.
VII.
(as to a portion of them) alike. It is
not a class question, and therefore is
not pressed with the same force and
resolution, as a great measure of justice,
which the question of the franchise has
received.
An hon. Gentleman who once sat on
the other side is of opinion that when
you come to consider the redistribution
of the seats you will find that a larger
amount of power ought to be given to
the counties. No doubt the counties
ought to receive more Members, and so
ought some of the largest boroughs, and
some new boroughs ought to be created.
All that is necessary for the fair repre-
sentation of all classes, but not as mat-
ter of justice to any special and peculiar
class. The other matter comes before
us with a claim far more pressing. I
will not say far more righteous, but
certainly far more urgent.
Then an-
other reason why this course should be
adopted is one which any Member of
the Government would see at once;
and as a supporter of the Government
I will take the liberty of stating it. It
is very much more simple than if this
measure were mixed up with another
great question. We all know perfectly
well whether in our view it is desirable
to reduce the franchise or not, from 10l.
to 81. or to 71. We can form an opinion
on that point; and it does not matter
for that purpose whether there is any
redistribution of seats or not. I could
frame a measure, and so could the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Buck-
inghamshire, which would give a vote
to every man in the kingdom, and yet
the redistribution of seats could be so
made that the representation should be
infinitely worse than it is at present.
When you have argued the question of
the suffrage and settled it, you stand and
will stand free to deal with the question
of the redistribution of seats. And if
you think to juggle the public by giving
the suffrage with the one hand and with
the other preventing the fair represen-
tation of the people by an unjust redis-
tribution, you will not be reforming the
constitution of this House, but you will
be making the people more dissatisfied
with Parliament than they have been
in past times.
Another reason why I think the Go-
vernment were justified in the course
which they have taken, is that they did
not wish to combine the various classes
of opponents to the different branches
of Reform into an opposition of the ex-
tension of the franchise. They thought
that a Bill which would get rid of ten,
twenty, thirty, or forty seats, would be
a matter of great difficulty to those
Members who represented seats that
would be disfranchised by such a Bill.
But yet they felt they might fairly ask
the aid of the Members for the small
boroughs to do justice to the excluded
class, and open the franchise fully and
fairly to the people. I have heard a
rumour that amongst those who are
likely to vote upon the amendment of
the Member for Chester, with only one
exception, there will not be a single
representative of any small boroughs
which are likely to be disfranchised by
the Bill which the Government have
promised to lay upon the table. There-
fore, the Members for the small bo-
roughs, wherever they sit, and whosoever
they are on this side of the House, have
not shown any hostility to an extension
of the franchise, whatever may be their
course when the Distribution of Seats
Bill makes its appearance on the table.
I shall have to appeal to the right
hon. Gentleman opposite on a point to
which I am about to address myself. I
think that a Franchise Bill which does
not adjust this question for a period at
least as long as the Bill of 1832 settled
the question of Reform, is a Franchise
Bill which it is not desirable for this
House to consent to. I think, further,
that a Distribution of Seats Bill which
will not settle that question as long as
the Franchise Bill will settle the ques-
tion of franchise, is not a desirable Bill
for this House to pass. It seems to me
that after you have settled the franchise
and come to discuss the question of
seats, Parliament and the public direct-
ing its eye to that one question, it would
358
APRIL 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
་
+
be much more likely that the question
of seats could be settled so far, that for
thirty, and it may be for fifty, years no
further change would be required. I
believe that if Parliament were honestly
disposed to amend the representation,
they could do it infinitely better, more
solidly, more satisfactorily to the people,
with greater duration to our legislation,
by taking the course proposed by the
Government, than by taking that pro-
posed by the amendment of the Member
for Chester or the course proposed by
hon. Gentlemen opposite, which, I sup-
pose, is to get rid of this Bill and the
Government by the same vote. I be-
lieve that the argument which I have
laid before the House-not so clearly
as I could have wished-had the effect
of inducing a great number of Reform-
ers in the country to approve of the
course which the Government has taken;
and I believe now, that if I were ad-
dressing the hon. Gentlemen opposite
as friends of Reform, and if they were
its friends, that argument would be con-
clusive. But if they are not friends of
Reform, of course I must content my-
self with saying what I have to say, and
with leaving it to make a very small
impression upon understandings not
prepared, I fear, to receive the truth in
this matter.
I
I said I must quote the right hon.
Gentleman that I see opposite me. My
own honest opinion is that the course
which has been pursued by the Govern-
ment is one of true Conservatism.
think nothing can be less Conservative
than that Parliament should have these
questions of representation, questions
affecting the basis of power, discussed
in this House during every session,
and discussed throughout the coun-
try during every Parliamentary recess.
There were some striking things said
in this House on the 1st of March
in the year 1859, when two right
hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Henley and Mr.
Walpole) who sit opposite withdrew
from the Government of Lord Derby
and explained to the House the grounds
of that withdrawal. The Member for
Oxfordshire made use of these obser-
vations:
'If one thing can be more destructive
to our Constitution than another it will be
to have a Reform Bill every few years;
and that will be the case if you cannot
settle your system upon such grounds that
you can reasonably hope that it will stand,
I do not say for a long time-finality is
out of the question-but for a decent num-
ber of years. If you cannot do that, you
will lay the foundation for revolution.
The foundation for revolution in almost
every country, unless history lies dread-
fully, has been laid by those who have
pretended to be specially Conservative.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
I say there never was a sentence uttered
in this House of more undoubted wis-
dom than that which he spoke on that
occasion. I should like to ask the
House why it is that we are now in-
volved in this question of Reform. [De-
risive cries from the Opposition.] Yes,
I will answer hon. Gentlemen imme-
diately. The reason is this-because
there is a feeling universal throughout
the country that the whole number of
electors is much too small to afford a
satisfactory representation of the people,
and that the largest class in the country,
that class which makes the nation, is
specially excluded.
I shall show hon. Gentlemen opposite
that this is so by referring to a Bill of
their own leaders and of their own
Ministry. It was on the twenty-eighth
of February, 1859, that the Member for
Buckinghamshire stood up at this table
to propose a Reform Bill on behalf of
the Conservative party, of which he is
the leader in this House. He quoted
on that occasion no less than three
Queen's speeches, and he told us that
three Prime Ministers had stated dis-
tinctly that it was necessary to do some-
thing on this question. And that there
may be no mistake, for there is a pecu-
liarity in the way the right hon. Gentle-
man has put it, I will read to you the
question he asked of the House. After
descanting on the previous attempts,
1866.
359
REFORM. VII.
#
which every Minister thinks it necessary
to do-after quoting three Queen's
speeches-he says:—
'Were you to allow this question, which
the Sovereign had three times announced
was one that ought to be dealt with, which
three Prime Ministers, among the most
skilful and authoritative of our statesmen,
have declared it was their intention to
deal with, to remain in abeyance?'
The answer he would give of course
is-No; we could not let it remain in
abeyance. But since then there have been
three other Royal speeches in which the
same thing has been said with increased
emphasis, and three other Prime Minis-
ters have declared their intention to deal
with it.
What is the subject to which the
right hon. Gentleman refers when he
puts in this form the inquiry' Are you
to allow this question to remain in
- abeyance ?' I maintain that it is the
question of the suffrage-the question
of the franchise. What did the right
What did the right
hon. Gentleman deal with? He gave,
according to his own statement, a Fran-
chise Bill of the largest proportions-
so largely proportioned that it dwarfs
the measure of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. What did the right hon.
Gentleman do with regard to the seats?
He altered fifteen seats. It was no re-
distribution at all. It was a ludicrous
attempt to arrange the question of the
redistribution of seats. Gentlemen op-
posite have forgotten these words of the
right hon. Gentleman. They would be
a great deal wiser if they remembered
some of the things which the Member
for Buckinghamshire tells them. The
right hon. Gentleman proposed that
the county franchise should be reduced
to 10l., and he said it would extend the
franchise in counties by not fewer than
200,000 electors. And 200,000 is the
exact number which the Chancellor of
the Exchequer expects to be added to
the county electors by the Bill now be-
fore the House. What did the right
hon. Gentleman do with regard to the
borough franchise? He proposed that
everybody who had an income of 10l.
a-year from the Funds, from Bank
Stock, or from East India Stock, or
Bonds, should be enfranchised. It would
be easy to show what a very foolish idea
of enfranchisement that was; because it
is capable of distinct proof that any man
who chose to invest 5,000l., or 6,000l.,
for which he would receive a steady in-
terest, might enfranchise all his family,
from his grandfather to his youngest
son, and even include all his uncles,
nephews, and first cousins. And those
persons would be enfranchised by a
fraud it would be impossible to detect.
He proposed that every person who had
invested 60l. in a Savings-bank, even for
one year, should have a vote. Thirdly,
he proposed that pensioners in receipt
of 2ol. should have a vote. Fourthly,
he proposed that persons occupying part
of a house-that is, lodgers paying a
sum of 201.-should have a vote.
right hon. Gentleman also proposed that
graduates of universities, ministers of re-
ligion, members of the various branches
of the legal profession, medical men and
schoolmasters having certificates, should
have votes.
The
We will not discuss whether that was
a proper extension of the suffrage. If
you like I will admit that every person
included there-barring cases of fraud-
would be suitable for the franchises.
I am afraid of using the word 'suitable,'
the hon. and learned Member for Belfast
objects altogether to that-but I will
admit that, according to my notion, and
according to the notion of the majority
of the House, all such persons, with
the exception I have mentioned, would
be proper persons to have votes. At
what did the right hon. Gentleman
estimate the number that would be
added to the borough electors? At
no less than 300,000. That is fifty per
cent. more than is proposed to be added
to the borough electors by the Bill now
on the table-perhaps not exactly of the
same class of persons. But whether
you give the franchise to A or to B, it
is equally an extension of the franchise.
And when the Member for Buckingham-
+
360
APRIL 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
shire was asked, towards the close of
the discussion on the first night, what
he thought would be the total addition
to the number of electors in England
and Wales, he said the increase, no
doubt, would be very considerable—
exceeding half a million, he had no
hesitation in saying. In answer to the
Royal speeches, in deference to what
three Prime Ministers had said, and in
accordance with the inquiry 'Can the
question any longer be left in abeyance?'
what did the Government of Lord Derby
do? They introduced a Franchise Bill,
which I do not here undertake to
approve or condemn-that is not neces-
sary for my argument-they introduced
a Franchise Bill that would increase
the electoral body by not less than half
a million-100,000 more than the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer proposes to
admit by the Bill which he has laid on
the table. Am I not therefore justified
in saying that the Bill of the Member
for Buckinghamshire was in fact a
Franchise Bill?
What did the right hon. Gentleman
do with regard to the seats? He was
very chary in telling the House what
he wished to do with regard to the
seats. He did not wish, I suppose, to
shock the Members who represented
boroughs he was going to disfranchise.
He did not disfranchise the borough of
Calne. He did not even disfranchise
the borough of Portarlington, for which,
after a very exhaustive poll of forty-six
votes, my right hon. Friend the Attorney-
General for Ireland has been returned
to this House. Nay, the right hon. Gen-
tleman defended the borough of Arundel
in several sentences of his speech. He
said that the noble Lord who represents
the borough of Arundel sits here as the
representative of 900,000 Catholics in
England and Wales. But the borough
of Arundel is as much a nomination
borough as any in Schedule A of the
Reform Bill.
The right hon. Gentleman touched
the question of seats so gently that he
took only fifteen seats of small boroughs
having now two seats, and he made a
distribution of them which I need not
detail to the House. He distributed
them in a way which I am willing to
admit was a very fair and satisfactory
distribution of them, because he gave
four seats to the West Riding of York-
shire, two seats to South Lancashire,
two seats to Middlesex, and he proposed
to create seven new boroughs from
towns that have a population entitling
them to representatives. Therefore I
do not complain at all of the way in
which he distributed the seats; but my
argument goes to show that the Go-
vernment of Lord Derby felt that the
real question involved in their Reform
measure was the question of the fran-
chise, and accordingly Lord Derby's
Government proposed by their Bill to
admit 500,000 new electors and to dis-
tribute fifteen seats. I think then that
nothing could be more absurd than to
suppose that theirs was not a great Fran-
chise Bill-or that it was a Bill for the
settlement of the distribution of seats.
Now, if I were to ask the right hon.
Gentleman why he touched the seats
with so delicate a hand, and if he were
to give me a candid and an honest
answer, he would say that the difficul-
ties attending the question of the dis-
tribution are very much greater than the
difficulties attending the question of the
franchise; and he would say, I am quite
sure, that a Goyernment having to deal
with the question, than which none can
be more important, and perhaps none
can be more difficult, would be justified
in taking that course which avoids diffi-
culties as much as possible, and enables
Parliament to deal fairly and simply at
once with one important branch of it.
I will ask hon. Gentlemen opposite
and the House-I will ask those Gen-
tlemen on this (the Liberal) side of the
House, who are supposed, I hope un-
truly, to be about to vote with the
Member for Chester-do they believe
that if the right hon. Gentleman had
passed his Bill admitting 500,000 elec-
tors, new voters, and distributing fifteen
seats, the question of the arrangement
of seats would have been settled for
1866.
361
REFORM. VII.
We
twenty, or ten, or for five years? Is
not every man in the House convinced,
and is not the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Oxfordshire convinced,
that in the very next Parliament elected
after the passing of that Bill there would
have been propositions submitted to
the House declaring that those small
boroughs, which had not been touched,
were not proper boroughs to return
Members to this House, and that a
certain number of them should be ex-
tinguished and their Members turned
over to the populous counties and to
the great and populous cities? We
should have had exactly what the Mem-
ber for Oxfordshire wants to avoid.
should have had every year a debate on
a new Reform Bill, and a debate on the
basis of power; and there would have
been contentions between the land-
owners and the rest of the population
who are represented, and probably the
right hon. Gentleman who sits on that
bench and I, both wishing to do fairly
to all parts of the country in this
matter, might not have seen distinctly
whether more Members should be given
to counties or more to boroughs. If
the Chancellor of the Exchequer were
to add to this Bill those fifteen seats of
the Member for Buckinghamshire—that
little clause of his in that very short
Schedule-do you think the House
would agree to pass it?
Will the noble Lord the Member
for Chester (Earl Grosvenor) and his
colleague who seconded the amend-
ment (Lord Stanley) frankly tell the
House that if the distribution clauses
of Lord Derby's Bill were added to the
Bill of Lord Russell, they would give
that Bill their support? If they will
undertake to do that, although it might
ruin the Government if I said it-still
I would give them a little advice, and
I would counsel them to take it. You
know perfectly well that all this clamour
you have been making about the dis-
tribution of seats-I am afraid, Sir,
there is not exactly a parliamentary term
that will enable me to express it with
sufficient delicacy-but, at least, one
thing you know, you do not impose
upon us with that cry. I do not think
I felt the slightest satisfaction when the
Government proposed to lay upon the
table of the House their Bill for the
distribution of seats. If I had been a
Minister, I think I should have recom-
mended that the Member for Calne, for
example, and the Member for Stamford
-both of whom must know a good
deal about the small boroughs-should
have been requested to prepare clauses
of disfranchisement for the fair consi-
deration of the House.
It is obvious that if the arguments on
which you have opposed this Bill are
your honest arguments, you would not
support the Bill, though the Chancellor
of the Exchequer were to propose to
add to it the distribution clauses of the
Bill of Lord Derby. And I think you
would be wise in refusing it; because
although that distribution is, I believe,
perfectly satisfactory and fair as far as
it goes, yet it would not in any degree
settle that question; and I am con-
vinced that the greatest error the House
can commit is to agree to something on
the question of the franchise and some-
thing on the question of the distribution
of seats, by which neither the one ques-
tion nor the other shall be settled. But,
Sir, at this moment the Government is
assailed by a united party on the other
side of the House, with a few recruits
from this side. I tell hon. Gentlemen
opposite that they are not in very good
hands. The Member for Buckingham-
shire and the Member for King's Lynn
are not, in my opinion, councillors to
be followed implicitly on this question
of Reform; and if anybody doubts it I
should call as witnesses the two right
hon. Gentlemen to whom I have already
referred.
You have before you the Bill of Lord
Russell's Government, and you know
exactly what it is. You may think
quite honestly that the reduction of the
franchise is something more than is
necessary, and you may even think it is
something more than is safe; but you
know exactly what it is. [No, no.']
362
t
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
APRIL 23,
You have listened with very small atten-
tion to the speakers on this side of the
House if you do not, at least, know the
worst of it. What was the Bill brought
in by the Member for Buckingham-
shire?—and it had upon every clause
of it the impress of his subtle under-
standing. I will tell you what was said
of it by the Member for the University
of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) on that
night when he explained to us why he
had withdrawn from the Government.
He said that their scheme of suffrage
was-
'A most dangerous innovation, by giving
to temporary and fluctuating occupations
a prepondering influence over property and
intelligence, while it throws large masses.
into the constituencies who are almost ex-
empt from direct taxation.'
That is exactly what your friends have
been saying of the Bill of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. And, again, the
Member for the University said, and
this, I think, was in a letter which he
wrote to Lord Derby, and which he read
to the House :—
'The measure which the Cabinet are
prepared to recommend [and in which he
did not, as you know, concur] is one
which we should all of us have strongly
opposed if either Lord Palmerston or Lord
Russell had ventured to bring it forward.'
The right hon. Gentleman knew exactly
the character of his colleagues. It was
prophetic of the course which they
would take, and which they have taken
now,
in opposition to a Bill which only
proposes to admit 400,000 electors,
while their own Bill proposed to admit
500,000. Now, the Member for Oxford-
shire on the same evening, with regard
to the same question, used these remark-
able words:-
'I believe that identity of suffrage,
which is the principle of the Government
Bill, is fatal to the constitution of this
country.'
I do not think that anybody in the
House during this discussion has gone
so far as to say that the reduction of
37. in the borough franchise would be
absolutely fatal to the constitution of
this country, seeing that five hundred
years ago, and less, every freeman being
a householder in every borough had a
vote for Members to sit in this House.
But the two right hon. Gentlemen ex-
pressed these opinions of the Bill intro-
duced by the Member for Buckingham-
shire, and I say, therefore, that the right
hon. Gentleman and his colleagues,
especially the noble Lord the Member
for King's Lynn, are condemned out of
the mouths of their former colleagues,
and ought to be put out of court as
advisers on this question.
I shall now ask the attention of the
House for a little time to the Bill itself.
Hitherto I have been speaking as to the
mode in which the Government have
proposed to deal with this question.
As to the Bill itself, almost everything
that has been said has been said in con-
nection with the question of the borough
franchise. I omit altogether the sort of
frenzy into which the Member for North
Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) worked
himself the other night when discussing
the question of the county franchise.
For aught that I know, a 141. rental
franchise in counties may have a very
fatal effect in North Staffordshire.
like to take the advice and opinion of
men of great experience and great mo-
deration, and it is for this reason that
I ask the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Oxfordshire to step for one
moment into the witness-box on this
matter. He said in the speech to which
I have referred:
I
Ever since the Reform Act of 1832
the working-people have been having a
less and less share in the representation.
They had considerable representation be-
fore 1832 through the scot and lot voters
and the freemen. They are gradually
dying out.'
And turning to those about him he
said:-
'I ask my honourable friends near me
to consider, if they draw a hard line, and
1866.
363
REFORM. VII.
leave the working-people behind it, how
long they think it will stand?'
That was a wise saying, a pertinent ques-
tion in the year 1859, and it is not less wise
and worth considering in the year 1866.
But then the greater part of it is exactly
what the Chancellor of the Exchequer
has said. The right hon. Gentleman
has told the House that the propor-
tionate power of the working-classes in
the constituencies has been diminishing
since 1832. I believe there can be no
doubt of it; and here I must tell the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that my
opinion is-and I think every Member
of the House who represents a borough,
excepting the borough of Coventry and
perhaps one or two others, must know
-that the figures which have been laid
before the House by which the per-
centage of working-men electors is put
down at 25 or 26 per cent., are not in
any degree to be relied upon, nor are
they in any degree accurate. Now,
hon. Gentlemen have a perfect right,
of course, in assailing the Government,
to fight upon the figures which they
have laid before them, and the Govern-
ment would find it very difficult to re-
treat from the position they have taken
up upon those figures. I am not one
of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and am
not one of a Government responsible
for those figures. I am here as an ad-
vocate, an honest advocate of a mode-
rate and just reform, and, therefore, I
must deal with this question from my
own point of view, and speak of it in
language based on the convictions which
I hold. I will give the House only two
cases, and I have not sought for them
in the Blue Book or written about the
country for them. The first has been
presented to this House, I believe, in
a petition by the hon. Member for
Stoke-upon-Trent. Stoke-upon-Trent,
as hon. Gentlemen know, is a borough
consisting of three or four neighbouring
towns. One of them is the town of
Burslem. The Blue Book says that
Burslem is a constituency with 680
electors. Of that number 197 are
represented to be working-men or arti-
sans, and that they form 29 per cent.
of the whole number. But what does
this petition, which has been accurately
prepared, and which gives the analysis
of the register for Burslem, say? It
says this: that of the 197 which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures
represent to be working-men there is
I publican and 40 beersellers. That
is 41 to begin with. I would rather
have 40 really hard-working, indus-
trious artisans in any borough than 40
beersellers. But there are grocers and
other shopkeepers to the number of 48.
There are persons who are put down
as cartowners, cowkeepers, tradesmen
with assistants, having profits from their
capital in their trade, numbering 33;
and adding these together and deduct-
ing them from the 197, there remain in
the town of Burslem not 197 working-
men on the register, but 75. You may
bring if you like the whole staff of the
Poor-law Board, but they cannot alter
these figures, and it shall not be my
fault if the House discusses this ques-
tion and decides upon figures that are
deceptive and delusive.
Next I will take one other town, and
that is the borough of Wakefield. The
Blue Book says there are 122 working-
men, or rather over II per cent. in the
borough of Wakefield. But if you will
deduct the various classes to which I
have referred with regard to Burslem,
you will bring the number of 122 in
Wakefield down to 35, so that instead
of there being II per cent. of the pre-
sent constituency working-men, there
are not more than 3 per cent. I was
talking the other day to a Member on
this side of the House, the Member for
Newark. I will not give the figures, for
I have not them in my recollection, but I
hope he will take some opportunity of
stating them to the House. But the re-
turn from Newark was sent back, I think,
twice, if not three times, for correction,
and I think at least one county magistrate
was put down amongst the working-men.
The only figures with which I shall
trouble the House are these. We have
"
364
APRIL 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
had the figures of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and quite as many more
from Gentlemen opposite, and I wish
to give the House my figures in a
single sentence. The Blue Book says
that there are 126,000 working-men
upon the register. Some bring these
down to one-third that number; but,
for the sake of being within the mark,
I will call them half. The 126,000 is
then brought down to 63,000. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer calculated
that by the repeal of the rate-paying
clauses and the system of compounding,
persons who pay 10l. a-year rent, who
are now excluded, would be admitted to
the number of 60,000. He put all these
60,000 as working-men. There is not
a man in any borough in England that
believes that is an accurate calculation.
I put these down at one-third that
number-namely, 20,000. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer says that be-
tween Iol. and 71. there will be ad-
mitted 144,000, and he estimates these
as being all working-men. We all know
that these persons within 71. and 10l.
are not, cannot, and never have been
all working-men, and I reckon that if
two-thirds are admitted as working-
men that will be as fair a calculation
as can be made.
Look at the result. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer says when this Bill is
passed there will be 330,000 working-
men upon the register. I say there will be
179,000. Call them, for easier recollec-
tion, 180,000. The newly admitted by
this Bill will be 116,000. What will be
the gross effect? The whole number of
borough electors in England and Wales,
if this Bill should pass, upon the calcu-
lation of the Blue Book will be 691,000,
of whom 180,000 only, or about one-
fourth, will be working-men, and there-
fore that portion of the people which
forms at least three-fourths of the whole
population will only have one-fourth of
the electoral power in the boroughs,
and no power whatever worth reckon-
ing in the constituencies of the counties.
I shall say no more about these statis-
tics. Having made my calculations,
they are as proper to be placed before
the House as those of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer or any hon. Gentle-
man opposite. But, after all, there
will be in England and Wales more
than 4,000,000 of men left out.
I think so much political trepidation-
I will say so much political cowardice,
if I may be allowed the use of that
word-never was exhibited before as
in the terror shown by the mover and
seconder of this amendment, because
116,000 new voters amongst working-
men will be admitted, while more than
4,000,000 will be left out. I am aston-
ished at these alarmist speeches. The
right hon. Baronet the Member for
Hertfordshire (Sir E. B. Lytton) deals
in alarmist speeches. He comes down
once or twice during the session, and
makes a speech, which gives great satis-
faction to the House, provided you do
not pay the least attention to what
there is in it. I mean that in tone,
manner, and imagery we are pleased,
but I am grieved when I find the side
to which the right hon. Baronet gives
his great influence. In the year 1860,
the right hon. Gentleman made a speech
of a much more alarmist character than
the one which he made last week, and
therefore we may reckon upon some
amendment in his condition. In 1860
he said the Bill that was introduced by
Lord John Russell, as a member of Lord
Palmerston's Government, was a Bill to
admit 'poverty and passion' to the fran-
chise. This is one of his passages :—
'Though we are willing to admit
poverty and passion into the franchise,
we are not willing to give poverty and
passion the lion's share of political power
over capital and knowledge.'
That is very much like what the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Cam-
bridge University said of the Bill of the
Member for Buckinghamshire. He did
not use the words 'poverty and passion,'
but he spoke of things that were fatal
to the Constitution as being likely to be
enacted by the Bill.
The right hon. Baronet once held
1866.
365
REFORM. VII.
C
very different opinions from these.
Many years ago he published a book
called England and the English.' This
is not a very profound, but a very
amusing book, and I should like to
read to the House a sentence which
the right hon. Gentleman put as a
motto to the book, which motto, I
think, he took from Ben Jonson. The
words are-
'I am he
Have measured all the shires of England
over,
For to these savages I was addicted
To search their nature and make odd dis-
coveries.'
The discovery which he had made up to
1860 was this: if you introduce artisans
and working-men between a Iol. and 61.
rental, you give the lion's share of the
power of representation to the poverty
and passion of the country. In his
speech last week he did not treat the
working-men as if they were made up
of poverty and passion, but he used
generous words of them, and he told
us how there was a tie not only of
interest, but of respect and affection,
between the rich and the labouring
poor; and doubtless this language far
more accurately stated his real opinion
than when he said that between 67. and
Iol. the working-men were represented
by 'poverty and passion.' But to give
them compliments of this kind, and not
votes, seems to me to be a thing which
will not be well received by the great
body of the people, who are asking that
at least some of them may be admitted
to a representation in this House. It
reminds me very much of that couplet
which I am sure the right hon. Gentle-
man will remember from Shenstone-
He kicked them down stairs with such a
sweet grace,
They may think he was handing them
up.'
How is it to be conceived that after a
speech full of such noble and generous
sympathy the right hon. Gentleman
concludes to throw all the weight of his
character and influence into the side
of a party which says little that is kind
and generous of this class? [Loud
Opposition cries of 'No, no.'] I will
say, then, of a party which sometimes
does say something generous of the
working-class, but never shows the
slightest disposition to confer upon it
any portion of political rights.
I now ask the attention of the right
hon. Gentleman and the House to one
point which he touched with great force
and great beauty of language in refer-
ring to some friends and neighbours of
mine the members of the co-operative
societies of Rochdale. When I heard his
words I thought he was going back
unconsciously to the year 1832, when
he was a most enthusiastic supporter of
the Reform Bill of that day, and when
he was a member of the Parliamentary
Candidate Society, with the hon. and
learned Member for Sheffield, with
Jeremy Bentham, Daniel O'Connell,
Francis Place, Charles Buller, and
many others. I thought he was going
back to that time, but if not so far, that
he was at least going back to 1847 and
1848, in both which years he was in
favour of an extension of the franchise.
Now, what did he say of my neighbours
and friends? He said,-
'To artisans of that class, whatever
their political creed, I am willing to grant
the franchise. Willing, do I say?— that
word is much too cold. I wish that, like
some old commonwealth of Greece, we
could admit them to the franchise by accla-
mation, to be proud of such fellow-citizens,
without asking what rent they pay for
their houses.'
I happen to live amongst all these
persons of whom the right hon. Gentle-
man has spoken with so much enthu-
siasm, and, therefore, if the House will
permit me, I will state a little of their
case, and I have no objection to rest
my case upon theirs. In 1860, in the
discussion of the Bill of the Government,
I laid some facts connected with these
co-operation societies before the House.
There are three bodies or companies
366
APRIL 23,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
managed by three committees. One is
called the Rochdale Equitable Pioneers
Society, which chiefly concerns itself in
the retail business, and the facts which
I am about to give have been supplied
to me by the secretary of the society.
He says that there are 5,500 members,
chiefly heads of families. It has a
capital of 85,000l., and it is selling
goods and receiving money at the rate
of 230,000l. per annum. Let the House
bear in mind that there is not one of
these 5,500 members can have one sin-
gle farthing of credit. The business is
managed by a committee of eleven, of
whom two have a borough vote, and
one of them is a book-keeper, and is
treasurer of the society, and therefore,
in a certain sense, he is not exactly
what we understand by a working-man.
He and another have borough votes,
while the president and secretary of
this great establishment have no votes.
We now come to the Rochdale District
Co-operative Corn Mill Society, which
does a large business. It has a capital
of 60,000l., and turns over 164,000l. per
annum. It has also a committee of
eleven; but neither the president, nor
treasurer, nor secretary, nor any one of
this committee has a borough vote.
One of the committee has a county vote,
being probably the owner of a cottage
in the neighbourhood. Then there is
the Rochdale Co-operative Manufacturing
Society, which has more than 1,500
members, or shareholders, and a capital
of 109,000l. It has built two of the
largest and handsomest factories in the
neighbourhood, and the meeting in sup-
port of this Bill was held in one of
them which has not yet received its
machinery. This society is also managed
by a committee of eleven, of whom
three have borough votes, and two
have county votes. But of these five
voters only one is 'a working-man' in
the usual sense. The voters are thus
described-one is a manager, one a
manufacturer, one a draper, one out of
business, and one only is a mechanic.
Now, the total capital of these societies
is 227,2461., the whole of which has
been contributed, or nearly so, by the
working-men of Rochdale, of whom the
right hon. Gentleman spoke the other
night in such glowing language. The
secretary writes :—
The present writer has seen members
of the Pioneers' Society, who had scarcely
any work or income for the family during
the famine, come for 5s. or 10s. from their
investments of previous savings, just to
help them on with their small earnings.
They did not ask or receive relief. This
does not show improvidence or want of
forethought. Now that the cotton famine
is nearly over, the members are again
saving money. In June, 1865, their in-
vestments were: In the Pioneers' Society,
59,000l.; in September, 1865, 63.000l.;
in December, 1865, 69,000l.; and in
March, 1866, they reached 76,6021.'
I hope the right hon. Member for Calne
will forgive me for reading the next
line-This does not agree with the
Lowe theory.'
Now, what is taking place in the
Rochdale societies is occurring in greater
or less degree in all the societies, of
which there are five or six hundred
throughout the country. What is the
answer which anybody has given to
these men? Will you give the same
answer which the right hon. Baronet
the Member for Hertfordshire gave?
Will you receive them with open arms
and not ask them whether they pay 71. or
61. for their rental? If hon. Gentlemen
are in favour of the extension of the
franchise-I exclude the hon. and learned
Member for Belfast altogether to those
who are so worthy of it, upon the descrip-
tion of one of your own eminent leaders,
will you allow these 5,500 men to have
the franchise now in Rochdale ?
I beg
to tell them it would be a great mistake
to think that the men in Rochdale are
better than those in the other manufactu-
ring towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire.
They would altogether scout the idea,
and I, who know them as well as most
men-and I know a good deal of the
working-men of Lancashire and York-
shire-should say that those at Roch-
1866.
367
REFORM. VII.
$
dale are a fair sample of the great mass
of the industrious, intelligent, and inde-
pendent population amongst whom we
live.
The hon. Member for Wick is terrified
at the idea of the votes of these men.
Northern breezes and long experience
have done nothing for him. He de-
scribed all the good things which have
been done in Parliament during the last
twenty years, and he does not seem to
be aware that there is not one of those
good things which the working-men
of Lancashire and Yorkshire did not
heartily support. I know not half a
dozen Gentlemen opposite who gave any
continuous support whatsoever to those
good things. The hon. Gentleman puts
it to the credit of Parliament that it
repealed the Corn-law. If he had
consulted my right hon. Friend the
President of the Poor Law Board, I
think he would have been told that,
until Sir Robert Peel abandoned Pro-
tection, there never were a hundred
Members in the House who gave a vote
in favour of the repeal of the Corn-law,
and that it was done, as everybody
knows now, by an agitation of enormous
cost both in money and labour, and by
the occurrence of a famine which threw
disgrace upon the Government of this
country, not because potatoes should
have decayed, but that when they did
decay a whole population should have
run the risk of being destroyed by it.
The same men who both out of doors
and in Parliament asked for these good
measures are the very men who ask for
this Bill, and I venture to tell the
House that if they do not get this Bill
they will get one very much like it.
I shall not ask the attention of the
House to more figures, or endeavour to
show the inconsistency of any Members
on the other side of the House; but I
will ask them, if they can, calmly to
consider the present position of this
question. Look all over the country,
and you will find that in a week or a
fortnight there have been held more
than a hundred public meetings which
were unanimous in favour of this Bill.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not pursue
a policy which enables them to hold
public meetings. You have had pre-
sented many hundred petitions in its
favour, with nearly 500,000 signatures
appended to them. If the Bill were so de-
structive, if it struck such terror into the
hearts of the people as it seems to have
done in the case of the noble Lord the
Member for King's Lynn-and I believe,
there was a petition from Lynn signed
by a hundred of his constituents in sup-
port of his views--if the people felt that
the Government were going on a wrong
course, that the middle class were to be
swamped, and all kinds of evil to follow
the passing of this Bill, is it conceivable
that numbers of public meetings would
not have been held, and that numbers
of petitions would not have been signed,
praying that the Bill should not pass?
Look at the moderate and reasonable
tone of the meetings that have been
held. I appeal particularly to the two
right hon. Gentlemen I see before me—
they are not so stiff as some in the un-
teachable prejudices of their party, and
the tone of their remarks shows that
they have a real conviction, and are
desirous of acting upon it. Look, then,
at the attitude of the people. Suppose
when Lord John Russell, in the years
previous to 1830, was bringing forward
year after year measures for the reform
of Parliament-suppose you had ac-
cepted some of those propositions, and
that Parliament had been to a certain
extent reformed, do you not think that
would have been a course as wise as to
go on heedlessly step by step until you
came to the edge of that terrible abyss
over which you could not bear to look
in 1832? You may always pass a mea-
sure with more honour to yourselves
and more good to the country in times
of peace and tranquillity than in times
of force and compulsion; and times of
peace and tranquillity are invariably, if
not immediately, followed in matters of
this description by times of force and
compulsion. The right hon. Member
for Oxfordshire told you what must
happen if you chose to set up a barrier
$
}
·
}
I
368
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
and thrust the working classes behind
it and tell them that that line must for
ever separate them from you. You have
1,000,000 electors now, and there are
8,000,000 of grown men in the United
Kingdom; can you say that only
1,000,000 shall have votes and that all
the rest are to remain excluded? Is the
thing possible? The right hon. Mem-
ber for Huntingdonshire (Gen. Peel)
seems to think it is possible; but he
knows it is not possible. He has before
him the example of an illustrious mem-
ber of his own family, who thought it
possible to maintain the principle of
Protection by the Corn-law, and who,
finally, after doing everything he could,
after violating his own convictions for
years in fighting the battles of his party,
was compelled at last to surrender, and
to admit to the humblest man in the
country, and the poorest weaver, that
he, the great Minister of State in this
country, had not comprehended the
question of the Corn-laws so well as
the working-men of England compre-
hended it.
Are you resolved-and this is the
question we are in fact now discussing
that the bolts shall be kept in that
door, and that the mass of the people
shall be forced to remain on the other
side of it? The hon. and learned
Member for Belfast told us that there
should be, not a representation of the
people, but a representation of classes.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman gave
opinions in a court of law no sounder
than he gives us here on the question
of the Constitution, depend upon it he
never would have been enabled to reach
the high position he now holds in his
profession. He knows perfectly well
there never was such a thing as a repre-
sentation of classes in the Commons
House of Parliament; we should have
been called the House of Classes, or
something equally absurd, if anything so
absurd ever had existed. He knows per-
fectly well that in the times previous to
the usurpations of the Tudors and the
Stuarts, every freeman resident, being a
householder in a borough, had a vote
APRIL 23,
for a representative in that House. He
knows, also, that the first Parliament
of Charles I. declared-and it is now
on record in the journals that the
franchise of common right rested with
the inhabitant householders of boroughs.
Though he contended that the quotation
I made from Lord Somers did not bear
the meaning I attached to it, yet if we
come down to the men of fifty or sixty
years ago, he will not deny that all the
leading Liberal men of that period were
in favour of the extension of the suffrage
far beyond that which is proposed in
this Bill.
There is much that I think shows
you are hurrying to times of difficulty
and peril. If you look at what is pass-
ing in the United States you will see
that there is a question which is causing
great difficulties, just as this question is
causing them here. It is proposed that
the 4,000,000 negroes of the United
States shall have these rights granted
to them; that they shall no longer be
bought and sold; that they may change
their employment and their master;
that they may sue or be sued in a court
of law, and may give evidence in a court
of justice. Beyond that their rights are
not at present to go, and those who
were their masters not two years ago,
and who bought and sold them, are not
willing, for reasons which they think
sufficient, to grant them the franchise,
which is universal in that country. The
franchise never has been universal in
this country. It is not necessary that
it should be; but we have a repre-
sentative Constitution, and we are the
House of Commons, and if the Throne
be sacred in its dignity, and if the Peers
be unmolested in their privileges, the
House of Commons remains the safe-
guard of the Constitution, and those
who are sent here sit by right of free
election by the commonalty of this
kingdom.
You may defeat this Bill. I am not
at all learned in Parliamentary com-
putations, but there are hon. Gentlemen
on both sides who can tell exactly what
the majority for or against this Bill will
1866.
369
REFORM. VII.
1
be. I will admit fully that you can
reject this Bill, defeat the Government,
and drive Lord Russell from office. The
right hon. Gentleman has no doubt
somewhere a Parliamentary Bradshaw
-all his lines converge to Downing-
street. We have let him in once or
twice, indeed, but had very soon after-
wards to expel him from that paradise
of official men. If the right hon. Gen-
tleman goes to Downing-street, are you
prepared to say that there shall be no
Reform, or that the right hon. Gentle-
man and his friends, who in 1859
proposed measures which their most
experienced colleagues declared to be
fatal to the Constitution, shall again
deal with this question? Does not
conduct like this always break up a
party? When you come to deal with
the question of Reform you will find
difficulties; if you resolve not to deal
with it, your difficulties will not be less.
Whatever is said in this House, whether
the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor
of the Exchequer carries this Bill or not,
there still remains the nation outside
this House, and there still remains the
great question of Parliamentary Reform.
I believe there never was a Bill sub-
mitted to this House by a Government
connected with the Liberal party which
it was more clearly the duty and the
interest of what is called the Conservative
party to support. In 1832 the then
Tory party opposed the Bill; they went
to their constituencies and were mostly
destroyed for a time. If this Bill passes,
the enlarged constituencies will not look
very favourably upon Gentlemen who
tried to prevent the Bill from passing.
When you see a man like Lord Russell,
who was the chief supporter of the Bill
of 1832, who promoted it years before
it made its appearance, and who pro-
posed it on behalf of the Government-
when you see him, knowing certainly as
much of this question as any man in
this House-when you see him con-
vinced of the necessity of doing some-
thing on this question, and offering a
Bill so reasonable as this, I cannot help
saying, either that hon. Gentlemen are
never was
misled by their leaders, or that they
have driven their leaders into a course
which I think is pernicious to the true
interests of their party. Perhaps there
a Bill which more fairly
accommodated itself to the advancing
intelligence of the people. There is
not a whisper of dissatisfaction with
it. [Cries of 'Oh!'] I speak of those
persons who are in favour of any im-
provement of the representation; and
so far as I have been able to learn
or gather, even those who are called
Conservatives throughout the country,
are weary of the perpetual discussion
of this question, and would be glad that
it could be settled on the terms which
the Government has proposed.
I did not rise with the expectation
that I should convince hon. Gentlemen
that they are wrong and that I am
right; the most that I can hope for is
that some fact or some argument may
find a lodgment in some mind, and may
moderate hostility to a proposal which
I think the country requires, and the
country is anxious to receive. I have
not spoken in favour of the Government.
I have said that I think their figures
are wrong and untrue-injurious to
their own Bill and their own case.
Now, will the House believe for once
that I am speaking to them from no
party spirit, from no desire to do any-
thing in the country or to the country
more than they would wish? My view
of the public interest is at least as
conscientious and as honest as theirs
can be. I have been misrepresented,
and condemned, and denounced by hon.
Gentlemen opposite, and by not a few
writers in their press. My conscience
tells me that I have laboured honestly
only to destroy that which is evil, and
to build up that which is good. The
political gains of the last twenty-five
years, as they were summed up the other
night by the hon. Member for Wick
(Mr. Laing), are my political gains, if
they can be called the gains in any
degree of any living Englishman.
And if now, in all the great centres
of our population-in Birmingham with
24
370
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
५
its busy district-in Manchester with
its encircling towns-in the population
of the West Riding of Yorkshire-in
Glasgow and amidst the vast industries
of the West of Scotland-and in this
great Babylon in which we are assem-
bled-if we do not find ourselves sur-
rounded by hungry and exasperated
multitudes-if now, more than at any
time during the last hundred years, it
may be said, quoting the beautiful
words of Mr. Sheridan, that-
'Content sits basking on the cheek of
toil'
if this House, and if its statesmen glory
in the change, have I not as much as
any living man some claim to partake
of that glory? I know, and every
thoughtful man among you knows, and
those Gentlemen who sit on that bench
and who are leading you to this enter-
prise, they know that the policy I have
urged upon the House and upon the
country, so far as it has hitherto been
accepted by Parliament, is a policy
conservative of the public welfare,
strengthening the just authority of Par-
liament, and adding from day to day
fresh lustre and dignity to the Crown.
And now, when I speak to you and ask
this Bill-when I plead on
you to
pass
behalf of those who are not allowed to
speak themselves in this House—if you
could raise yourselves for this night,
for this hour, above the region of party
strife—if you could free yourselves from
the pestilent atmosphere of passion and
prejudice which so often surrounds us
here, I feel confident that at this
moment I should not plead in vain
before this Imperial Parliament on be-
half of the English constitution and the
English people.
REFORM.
VIII.
BIRMINGHAM, AUGUST 27, 1866.
[A great open-air meeting was held in Birmingham on the 27th of August, 1866, to pass
resolutions in favour of Reform. It was calculated that more than 150,000 men
were present at it. In the evening a great meeting was held in the Town Hall of
Birmingham, at which an Address of confidence was presented to Mr. Bright, and at
which this speech was spoken.]
I ACCEPT the Address which has
just been presented to me with feelings
which I shall not attempt to express.
I accept it as ample compensation for
whatsoever labours I have expended in
your service, and I shall take it from
this meeting, and hold it as a constant
stimulus to whatsoever labours may lie
in my path in your service for the future.
There are times when I feel no little
despondency at the small result of many
years of public labour; but to look upon
a meeting like that assembled here, and
to look upon that vast gathering which
your town has exhibited to the country
and to the world to-day, is enough to
dispel every feeling of fear or of de-
spondency, and to fill the heart and
nerve the arm to new and greater labours
for the future.
During the last session of Parliament,
in the debate on the second reading of
the Franchise Bill, I took the oppor-
tunity of offering a word of counsel and
of warning to the powerful party in the
House which opposed that Bill. In
those words of warning and of counsel
I asked them to remember that if they
should succeed in defeating that Bill
and overthrowing the Government, there
would still remain the people of England
to be met, and the claims of the great
question of Reform to be considered and
settled. We have not had to wait long
before that which I foretold has come
to pass.
In London we have seen
assemblies of the people such as for a
generation past have not been witnessed.
In many other parts of the country there
have been meetings greater than have
been seen for thirty years, and notably
to-day there has been a voice given forth
from the very centre and heart of Eng-
land which will reach at least to the
circumference of the three kingdoms.
There has been an attempt to measure
the numbers that are present in this
Hall at this moment. There are pro-
bably six thousand persons here. I ask
any who were present to-day to reckon
how many times this Hall could have
been filled from that multitudinous con-
gregation upon which our eyes rested,
but to the full extent of which they could
scarcely reach. It is highly probable
that it might have been filled forty times
from that vast number. Yes, and at this
moment I am told that outside there
is an audience far greater than that I
now address; whilst to-morrow morning
24-2
372
August 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
t
1
there will be millions of an audience
throughout the whole of the United
Kingdom, anxious to know what has
been done and what has been said on
this 27th day of August in this great
town of Birmingham.
We are not here to-night to discuss
the question of Reform, because that is
a question which we have already settled.
What we have to do is to discuss calmly
our present position and our future
work in reference to this great question.
My hon. Colleague has said that the
Bill of the late Government was one
of singular moderation. It was also a
Bill-I speak now only of the Franchise
Bill—of a singular and most honest sim-
plicity; and that was the great reason
that I felt it my duty, and that you felt
it yours, to give it an honest support.
I will just tell you how much and how
little it proposed to give, or would have
given, to the working-classes of this
country; and I think it necessary to
state this because of the argument which
I intend to raise upon it. The Govern-
ment produced to the House of Com-
mons a Blue Book, most elaborately
compiled, and as far as I know, with
the exception of one point, correct
and trustworthy; but they proposed to
inform the House of the number of
working-men who are now upon the
register, and what addition would be
made to that number if the Bill passed.
I differed entirely from their estimate,
which I believe to have been to a very
great extent erroneous, and I think I
produced facts in the House of Commons
which sustained my opinion.
Mr. Gladstone told us that at present
there are on the borough registers in
England and Wales working-men to
the number of 126,000. He showed,
further, that by the abolition of the
rate-paying clauses, if there was no
alteration in the 10l. suffrage, there
would be an addition of 60,000 electors,
who, he reckoned, would all be working-
men; and then he said that if the fran-
chise was reduced from rol. to 7.,
there would be a further addition of
144,000, all of whom he estimated as
working-men. Therefore he stated that
when that Bill passed there would be
on the borough registers of England
and Wales 330,000 working-men, of
whom 204,000 would be new voters
added by that Bill. I believe that esti-
mate was made with perfect honesty by
Mr. Gladstone, but that it was to a
very large extent erroneous. I showed
several boroughs, and I believe I might
have gone through almost every borough
in the United Kingdom, where the num-
ber of working-men stated in the returns
was at least double, and in many cases
far more than double, the actual num-
ber upon the register. I estimated,
also, that although the abolition of the
rate-paying clauses might add 60,000
new votes, it would be very unfair to
expect that more than one-third, or
20,000 of them—-being ten-pounders and
upwards — would be of the class of
working-men. I said, further, that it
was absurd to reckon that every man
between 10l. and 71. was of the class of
working-men, and I supposed that at
least no more than two-thirds of them
could be placed in that list. My esti-
mate differed, therefore, from Mr. Glad-
stone's thus far. I said that of the
126,000 now upon the register there
were not more than the half, or 63,000;
instead of there being 60,000 admitted
by the abolition of the rate-paying clause,
there would not be more than 20,000;
and that, instead of there being 144,000
working-men admitted by the reduction
of the franchise from 10l. to 71., it was
a fair estimate to take two-thirds of that
number, or 96,000. My opinion there-
fore was, that when that Bill passed, if
it should pass, there would be upon the
borough registers of England and Wales,
not 330,000 of working-men, but 179,000,
and that the Bill would not admit
204.000, but only 116,000 of that class.
Take either my estimate of 116,000 or
Mr. Gladstone's estimate of 204,000 as
the number of working-men to be added
by the late Bill to the register, and I
will ask you what, after all, does it all
come to? 204,000 working-men ac-
cording to the Government estimate,
1866.
373
REFORM. VIII.
|
116,000 according to mine, and in ad-
dition about 200,000 new voters added
to the counties under a 147. franchise,
who must of necessity be almost al-
together outside the working-classes.
That was the Bill which my hon. Col-
league has described as one of singular
moderation. Out of five or six millions
of men in the United Kingdom who are
not now enfranchised, the whole num-
ber of the working-classes to be admit-
ted in the boroughs of England and
Wales was only 200,000.
Now that Bill, so moderate that I
confess I had entertained the hope that
it would pass through Parliament with-
out any great difficulty, was resisted as
if it had been charged with all the dan-
gerous matter which the Tory party
actually attributed to it. It was intrigued
against in a manner-I had almost said
more base, but I will say more hateful,
than any measure I have seen opposed
during the twenty-three years that I
have sat in the House of Commons;
and, finally, under every kind of false
pretence, it was rejected by a small
majority, and fell, and with it the
Government which had proposed it also
fell. The reason I have given you
these figures is that I want to show you
the desperate resolution of the present
Government, and of the party which it
represents, to deny to the working-
classes of this country any share in its
government. I am not confined to the
votes of the House and the destruction
of the Bill, but I am able, I think, to
show you by the arguments on which
the Tory party proceeded that such is
their determination, and it may be their
unchangeable resolution.
Several of the speakers to-night have
referred to the slanders heaped upon
the great body of the people during the
discussions of the last session; and, no
doubt, although his name was not men-
tioned, the speakers had in their minds
one Member of the House who virtually
has no constituency-whose sole con-
stituent, at any rate at that time, is now
no longer here to partake of the strife
or the contests of politics, though I
presume another constituent acts and
reigns in his stead. If I quote anything
that Mr. Lowe said, understand me that
I wish to bring no charge against him
whatsoever. He has spent some years
in Australia, and probably has voyaged
round the world; and I do not deny
him the right to voyage round the world
of politics, and to cast anchor in any
port that may be pleasant to him. I
merely intend to quote something that
he said, because when it was said it was
received with rapturous enthusiasm by
that great party in the House who are
the supporters of Lord Derby and of
Mr. Disraeli. This is extracted from the
Times newspaper, a paper in which, as
is well known, the speaker has been for
many years an eminent writer, and over
which, unless reports speak untruly, he
has no small degree of control. He
says:-
'I have had opportunities of knowing
some of the constituencies of this coun-
try, and I ask if you want venality,
ignorance, drunkenness, and the means of
intimidating-if you want impulsive, un-
reflecting, violent people-where would
you go to look for them? To the top
or to the bottom? It is ridiculous to
blink the fact that since the Reform Act
the great corruption has been among the
voters between 20l. and 1ol. rental-the
lodging-house and beerhouse keepers;
but it is said, Only give the franchise to
the artisan and then see the difference.'
• •
He goes on-passing a sentence con-
taining a classical illustration which
amused the House, but which it is not
necessary to quote here. He said :—
'You know what sort of persons live
in these small houses' [houses, of course,
between 10l. and 71.] 'We have long had
experience of them under the name of
freemen, and it would be a good thing if
they were disfranchised altogether. They
were dying out of themselves, but the
Government propose to bring them back
again under another name, so that the
effect of passing this Bill would be—first,
to increase corruption, intimidation, and
J
}
374
AUGUST 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
}
3
all the evils that happen usually in elec-
tion; and next that the working-men of
England, finding themselves in a full
majority of the whole constituency, will
awake to a full sense of their power, and
say, "We can do better for ourselves.
Don't let us any longer be cajoled at
elections. Let us set up shop for our-
selves. We have objects to carry as well
as our neighbours, and let us unite to
carry those objects. We have the ma-
chinery. We have our trades-unions. We
have our leaders ready. We have the
power of combination as we have shown
over and over again, and when we have
a prize to fight for we will bring it to
bear with tenfold more force than ever
before.""
These are the sentiments which, ut-
tered in my hearing, were received with
enthusiastic approbation by the great
body. of the Tory party and by the
supporters of the present Government.
Observe what it really means. It is
that voters now between 20%. rental and
Iol. are so bad that if you go lower
something like ruin will ensue. That
there will be more venality, ignorance,
and drunkenness; and then, speaking to
the House of Commons in which the
landed proprietors, or the bulk of them,
have always acted as a general trades-
union, where they raised the price of
bread and diminished the size of the
loaf as long as the people would let
them he says there will be combina-
tions of working-men for their special
objects, and therefore-mind, this is his
conclusion-shut them out for ever;
bolt the door; say, loudly and boldly,
you, the Parliament of England, to the
5,000,000 or 6,000,000 men who have
now no vote, and whom we pretend to
represent, ‘No one
It is
"No one of you who cannot
pay a rental of 1ol. shall ever speak by
his direct representative within the walls
of this House.' That is the policy
which Mr. Lowe recommends.
not important at all because Mr. Lowe
recommends it. It is important only
because it has been accepted and ap-
proved by the great Tory party in
Parliament. However, I say-I who
am charged with designs against the
safety of the institutions of this country
-I say it is a dangerous policy—a policy
which enforced in other countries has
done great things. Through it crowns
and coronets have sometimes been lost,
and I am not sure that it is a policy
which can be safely maintained with us.
I asked one of the most intelligent
and excellent Frenchmen with whom
I am acquainted, one of the most con-
fidential friends of the dynasty of Louis
Philippe and of the Orleans family,
what it was that drove that family from
France, and I referred to stories of
corruption among ministers and other
things which had been circulated in
public and in private. He said: 'None
of these things did it. It was the at-
tempt of the King to govern France by
a parliament that represented an in-
significant minority of the people, and
which parliament he thought he could
perpetually manage by a judicious dis-
tribution of patronage.' On the principle
of governing this country by a Parlia-
ment elected by an insignificant minority
of the people, Lord Derby comes into
office, and judging from the speeches
and the votes of the last session of
Parliament, his party intends as long as
possible to govern upon that principle
and that policy.
Working-men in this hall, I wish my
voice had been loud enough to have
said what I am about to say to the vast
multitude which we looked on this day;
but I say it to them through the press,
and to all the working-men of this king-
dom, I say that the accession to office
of Lord Derby is a declaration of war
against the working-classes. The course
taken in London the other day by the
police, and it had almost been by the
military, is an illustration of the doc-
trines and the principles of the Derby
administration. They reckon nothing
of the Constitution of their country-a
Constitution which has no more regard
to the Crown or to the aristocracy than
it has to the people-a Constitution
which regards the House of Commons,
1866.
375
REFORM.
VIII.
ร
fairly representing all the nation, as
important a part of the governmental
system of this kingdom as either the
House of Lords or the Throne itself.
If they thus despise the Constitution
they likewise despise the claims of five
or six millions who are unrepresented.
You may work, you may pay taxes,
you may serve in the army, and fight;
70,000 or more of your brethren
are now living under the burning sun
of India, and twice as many more
are serving in the ranks in different
parts of the world; and you, the great
body of the people from whom these
men are drawn, are not considered
worthy to do so simple an act as to
give a vote in your great town for your
present or any future Members. You
are to have no vote, no share in the
government; the country you live in is
not to be your country. You are like
the Coolies or the Chinese who are
imported into the West Indies or Cali-
fornia. You are to work, but you are
not to take root in the country, or to
consider the country as your country;
and, worse than all this, in addition to
this refusal of the commonest right of
the Constitution, you are insulted by
the cheers which a great party have
given to the language which I have
read to you to-night. You are to be
told that you are so ignorant and so
venal, so drunken, so impulsive, so un-
reflecting, and so disorderly, that it is
not even safe to skim off as it were the
very cream of you to the number of
116,000, or it may be of 204,000, and
to admit them to a vote for Members
of the House of Commons.
This is the Tory theory. This is the
faith of Lord Derby and his party, and
I maintain that I am not saying a word
that is an exaggeration of the truth, for
I have heard that party over and over
again vociferously cheer sentiments
such as I have described. The Govern-
ment which has been overturned was a
very different Government. Ļord Rus-
sell had no fear of freedom. He could
much more easily be persuaded to give
up, and he would much more willingly
abandon for ever the name of Russell
than he would give up his hereditary
love of freedom. The Government,
which was led by Earl Russell in one
House and by Mr. Gladstone in the
other, was founded and acted upon the
principle of trust and confidence in the
people. Some said there was not much
difference between the Derby Govern-
ment and the Russell Government.
Lord Derby asked Lord Clarendon to
take office in his Government. There
was something charming in the very
audacity of Lord Derby's effrontery.
Lord Clarendon was an eminent Minis-
ter of the Government that brought in
a Bill which the Tory party declared to
be subversive of the Constitution; and
Lord Derby asks Lord Clarendon to
keep the Foreign Office in the new
Government!
The Government of Lord Derby in
the House of Commons sitting all in a
row reminds me very much of a number
of amusing and ingenious gentlemen
whom I dare say some of you have seen
and listened to. I mean the Christy
Minstrels. The Christy Minstrels, if I
am not misinformed, are, when they
are clean-washed, white men; but they
come before the audience as black as
the blackest negroes, and by this trans-
formation it is expected that their jokes
and songs will be more amusing. The
Derby minstrels pretend to be Liberal
and white; but the fact is if you come
nearer and examine them closely you
will find them to be just as black and
curly as the Tories have ever been. I
do not know, and I will not pretend to
say, which of them it is that plays the
banjo and which the bones. But I
have no doubt that, in their manœuvres
to keep in office during the coming
session, we shall know something more
about them than we do at present;
they are in point of fact, when they pre-
tend to be Liberal, mere usurpers and
impostors. Their party will not allow
them to be Liberal, and they exist only
upon the principle upon which they
have acted in all their past history, of
resisting and rejecting every proposition
•
376
AUGUST 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
of a Liberal character that has been
submitted to them.
What is this Derby principle of
shutting out more than five-sixths of
all the people from the exercise of con-
stitutional rights? If any of you take
ship to Canada you will find the Derby
principle utterly repudiated. But in
Canada there is no uprooting of insti-
tutions, and no destruction of property,
and there is no absence of order or of
loyalty. If you go to Australia you
will find there that the Derby principle
is unknown, and yet there reigns order
as in this country, and contentment with
the institutions of the colonies, and a
regard for law and property. If you
go to those greatest and most glorious
colonies of this country, the United
States of America, there you find a
people exhibiting all the virtues which
belong to the greatest nations on the
face of the earth; there you find a
people passing through a great war and
a great revolution with a conduct and
success, with a generosity and a magna-
nimity which have attracted and aroused
the admiration of the world. And if
you go to Europe, you find in the Re-
public of Switzerland, in the kingdoms
of Holland and Belgium, in Norway
and Sweden, in France, and now you
are about to witness it in Germany, a
wide extension of the franchise, hitherto
in this country, in our time, unknown;
and neither emperor, king, nor noble
believes that his authority or his in-
terests, or the greatness or happiness
of any one of those countries, will be
jeopardised by the free admission of
the people to constitutional rights. In
Germany, the vote is to be given to
every man of twenty-five years of age
and upwards. Let them propose to do
the same here, and then we shall not be
in advance of the great State of North
Germany which is now being esta-
blished. But what is it we are coming
to in this country? To this, that the
thing which is being rapidly accepted
in almost all parts of the world is being
persistently and obstinately refused here
in England, the home of freedom, the
For in this
mother of parliaments.
England, five millions of grown men,
representing more than twenty millions
of our population, are to be permanently
denied that which makes the only dif-
ference between despotism and freedom
all the world over.
I venture to say that this cannot last
very long. How do we stand at this
moment? The noble and illustrious
Lady who sits upon the throne—she
whose gentle hand wields the sceptre
over that wide empire of which we are
the heart and centre-she was not
afraid of the Franchise Bill which the
Government introduced last session.
Seven times, I think, by her own lips
or by her pen she has recommended to
Parliament the admission of a large
number of working-men to the Parlia-
mentary franchise. If this proposition
was destructive, would not the Queen
discover that fact? If the Bill of the
last session had been a pernicious Bill,
would the thirty millions of people of
the United Kingdom not have been able
to produce one single public meeting in
condemnation of it? The middle class
in our towns are by a vast majority in
favour of it. All the middle class of
Birmingham have sympathised with the
great proceedings of this day, and I
doubt not that by-and-by we shall see
in the populous districts of Lancashire
and Yorkshire assemblies rivalling those
which have been held in London and
Birmingham. And if we go to the
House of Commons that House
elected so much by landlord compulsion
in the counties, and by corruption, in-
timidation, and tumult in the boroughs,
what do we find? Do not suppose that
I am charging that House of Commons
with faults that it does not itself under-
stand and acknowledge :-have you
read the report of the proceedings at
the Commission for Yarmouth? Did
you read that a late Member for that
borough is said to have spent 70,000l.
to maintain his seat? Did you read
that one gentleman, an inferior partner
in a brewery, contributed 4000l. for the
election of his partner, and that another
1866.
377
REFORM.
VIII.
T
gentleman, knowing nothing of that
borough, went down there and supplied
6000l. to fight a contest spread only
over a few days? And remember that
when Yarmouth or any other borough
is thus brought before the public it is
only a sample of a very considerable
sack-and that for every borough which
is thus exposed there are probably ten
or twenty other boroughs which are to
a very large extent liable to the very
same condemnation. Notwithstanding
this, if we go to the House of Com-
mons, we find the Parliament of England
at this moment about equally divided,
and that half the House was in favour
of the late Bill. If that be so, what is
wanted in this poising and balancing of
the scale? It only wants this, that the
working-men of England should heartily
throw their influence into that side
which is for their interests, and that
side will prevail.
You know I have preferred that
the franchise should be established
upon what I consider to be the ancient
practice of the country. I am not
afraid of the principles of the Reform
League. I have no fear of manhood
suffrage, and no man is more a friend
of the ballot than I am. It is a great
cause which is offered to your notice
to-night. It is a grand and noble flag
under which you are asked to enlist
yourselves. What I would recommend
you to do is this-and I imagine myself
at this moment to be speaking in the
ear of every intelligent, sober, and
thoughtful working-man in the three
kingdoms-let us try to move on toge-
ther; let us not split hairs on this
question; let us do as our fathers did
thirty-four years ago; let us have asso-
ciations everywhere; let every work-
shop and factory be a Reform Asso-
ciation; let there be in every one of
them a correspondent, or a secretary,
who shall enrol members and assist
this great and noble cause. I would
recommend that the passages I have
read from that celebrated and unhappy
speech should be printed upon cards,
and should be hung up in every room in
every factory, workshop, and club-house,
and in every place where working-men are
accustomed to assemble. Let us rouse
the spirit of the people against these slan-
derers of a great and noble nation.
There will soon come another elec-
tion. The working-men may not be
able to vote, but they can form them-
selves into a powerful body, and they
can throw their influence in every
borough on the side of the candidates
who pledge themselves to the question
of Reform. If they do this, you may
depend upon it they will change many
seats, and give a certain majority for
Reform in the next Parliament. It may
be necessary and desirable to meet
Parliament again with petitions from all
parts of the country, signed by number-
less names. There is no effort which
the Constitution, which morality permits
us to use, that we should leave unused
and unmade for the purpose of furthering
this great cause; and let us be sure of
this, that we demand only that the ques-
tion of Reform shall be dealt with by a
Government honestly in favour of Reform.
The Address which has been pre-
sented to me has referred to 1832. I
remember that time well. My young
heart then was stirred with the trumpet-
blast that sounded from your midst.
There was no part of this kingdom
where your voice was not heard. Let
it sound again. Stretch out your hands
to your countrymen in every part of the
three kingdoms, and ask them to join
you in a great and righteous effort on
behalf of that freedom which has been
so long the boast of Englishmen, but
which the majority of Englishmen have
never yet possessed. I shall esteem it
an honour which my words cannot
describe, and which even in thought I
cannot measure, if the population which
I am permitted to represent should do
its full duty in the great struggle which
is before us. Remember the great ob-
ject for which we strive. Care not for
calumnies and lies. Our object is this
to restore the British Constitution in
all its fulness, with all its freedom, to
the British people.
+
REFORM.
IX.
GLASGOW, OCTOBER 16, 1866.
[On the 16th of October, 1866, a procession of many thousands of the friends of
Reform passed through the streets of the city of Glasgow, and formed in a great
meeting on Glasgow Green. The numbers present have been variously estimated,
the male population of the city were there. In the
evening a great meeting was held in the City Hall, and Mr. Bright was presented
with an Address, in answer to which this speech was spoken.]
but it seemed as if nearly all
MR. CHAIRMAN, AND CITIZENS OF NO
MEAN CITY, I accept this Address
which has been read in your hearing
and presented to me, with a feeling of
deep gratitude to those who have ex-
pressed such friendly feelings towards
me, but with a deep anxiety when I
consider the intent and purport of. the
document. I am consoled by regarding
it as in some degree a compact or cove-
nant entered into to-night by you and
those whom you represent, with me
and those whom I may be supposed in
some degree to represent, and that we
covenant together that whatsoever is
moral for us to do we engage to do
in the prosecution of that great cause
which has stirred the heart of Glasgow
to-day. I can do but little-any one
man can do but little; but you in your
vast numbers can do much, by uniting
with numbers, not smaller, in other
parts of the kingdom.
I have a strong sense that the day
is fast approaching which will see the
triumph of our cause, and I think he
must be blind and foolish indeed who
is not willing to admit that it is a great
issue which is now submitted to the
people of the United Kingdom. Gather-
ings of scores of thousands of men,
extending from south to north, must
have some great cause. Men do not
leave their daily labour, the necessary
occupations of their lives, thus to meet,
unless they believe that there is some
great question submitted to them in
which they have a deep and overpower-
ing interest. And the question is this-
Whether in future the government and
the legislation of this country shall be
conducted by a privileged class in a
sham Parliament, or on the principles
of the constitution of the nation, through
its representatives, fairly and freely
chosen?
There are persons who will think that
I am speaking harshly of the existing
Parliament. Some probably in this
meeting may think that Mr. Beales was
indiscriminate in the term which he
used when he spoke of our representa-
tion as being steeped in corruption;
but I am certain that if the representa-
OCT. 16, 1866.
379
REFORM. IX.
tion of this country existed in any other
country, and that its details were ex-
plained to Englishmen, there are not
five Englishmen within the bounds of
England, or five Britons within the
bounds of this island, who would not
admit that the language he has applied
to the Parliament was correct.
What we charge against the Parlia-
ment is this-that it is chosen from
constituencies not only so small that
they do not and cannot adequately re-
present the nation, but from constitu-
encies so small as to be influenced by
corruption, and by all kinds of motives
that are neither national nor patriotic.
In our boroughs, for example, the num-
bers for the most part are very small.
There are, I think, 254 boroughs in the
United Kingdom, but there are only 54
of these that possess a constituency of
2,000 electors and upwards, large and
fair constituencies being always the
exception. In Scotland, your borough
constituencies, though not generally
very large, are larger than those in
England, and to your honour it must
be said that they are far more incorrupt
than English constituencies.
In the
counties the freeholders-those who
hold land for cultivation-are constantly
diminishing in numbers, and that por-
tion of the constituencies which is not
composed of freeholders is composed
of tenant-farmers-the most dependent
class of occupiers, probably, in the
nation.
But now, let me point to one or two
facts which should sink deep in the
minds of all men. Out of every hun-
dred grown men in the United King-
dom eighty-four have no votes. Those
eighty-four might just as well, for all
purposes of constitutional government,
so far as they are directly concerned-
those eighty-four might as well live in
Russia, where there is no electoral
system of government, or in those other
countries, now very few indeed, in which
Parliaments and representations are un-
known. If it be the fact that only sixteen
men out of every hundred have votes, it
is also the fact that those sixteen are so
arranged, and so placed, that their re-
presentation is in reality almost entirely
destroyed. If the electors were fairly
divided amongst all the Members, there
would be nearly 2,000 electors to every
Member; but what is the state of
things? It is this, that one-third of
the House of Commons, or 220 Mem-
bers, are actually elected by 70,000
votes-that is to say, that 220 Members
of the House of Commons are chosen
by a number of men scattered over the
country, who are fewer by almost one-
half than the number of grown men in
this city of Glasgow alone. And fur-
ther, one-half of the House of Commons
is chosen by about 180,000 electors, being
only one-seventh of the whole number
of electors, and much below the number
of men who are to be found in the cities
of Edinburgh and Glasgow. And if
we come to that great event which
excites so much interest, but which is
generally of so little value-a general
election-we find, I believe, that not
more than 10 in 100, not more than ten
per cent. of the whole grown-up male
population of the United Kingdom, ever
come to the poll and give their vote for
the election of a new Parliament.
With regard to a general election,
some of you have read, and many of
you know something of the cost and
corruption of a general election. I will
give you one instance and one proof of
it. It has been my opinion all along
that it was the duty of the Government
of Lord Russell, after the defeat of their
Reform Bill during the last session, to
have dissolved the Parliament. I have
no reason to disbelieve what is asserted,
that Lord Russell himself was of that
opinion. But a general election was a
burden which the Members of Parlia-
ment did not wish to bear. I was
speaking to a Member of the Govern-
ment on this question about the time
when the resignation of the late Go-
vernment was just about to be sub-
mitted to the Queen, and I was telling
him that I thought the true policy, the
constitutional policy, of the Government
was to dissolve the Parliament. A por-
380
ост. 16,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
6
tion of his answer was this:-A Mem-
ber who sits on our side of the House
had spoken to him about it. He said,
My election has already cost me
9,000l.'-and he added, I have, be-
sides, 3,000l. more to pay.' He said
further, what was very reasonable, that
this was a heavy burden, that it was
grievous to be borne, that it put him to
exceeding inconvenience, and, if the
Parliament were dissolved, he could not
afford to fight his county or his bo-
rough, as the case might be, but would
be obliged to retire from the field, and
leave the contest, if there should be a
contest, to some one else. You will
believe, then, that the Government were
greatly pressed by this consideration ;
and this consideration, added, it may
be, to others, induced them to resign
office rather than to dissolve Parlia-
ment. Thus you have a proof that
whereas general corruption and putridity
are the destruction of most bodies which
they affect, the corruption of the present
Parliament was, and is, the cause of its
present existence.
Now bear in mind that this state of
things which I have been describing
obtains at the present moment, thirty-
four years after the passing of the great
Reform Bill. What the Government
must have been before that Bill was
passed it is scarcely possible to describe
or to imagine; but I have no doubt of
this, that it was one of the worst Go-
vernments in civilized countries, and in
Europe; and I think this may be fairly
argued from the fact of the incessant
wars in which the country was engaged
for 150 years before that Reform; from
the enormous debt that was created;
from the crushing taxes that were fixed
upon the people; and, worse almost
than that, from that most infamous law
which ever passed a Parliament of civi-
lized men the law which limited the
supply of bread to the people.
Now, if the Clerk of the House of
Commons were placed at Temple Bar,
and if he had orders to tap upon the
shoulder every well-dressed and appa-
rently cleanly-washed man who passed
through that ancient bar, until he had
numbered six hundred and fifty-eight;
and if the Crown summoned these six
hundred and fifty-eight to be the Parlia-
ment of the United Kingdom, my honest
conviction is that you would have a
better Parliament than now exists. This
assertion will stagger some timid and
some good men; but let me explain
myself to you. It would be a Parlia-
ment, every member of which would
have no direct constituency, but it
would be a Parliament that would act
as a jury that would take some heed of
the facts and arguments laid before it.
It would be free, at any rate, from the
class prejudices which weigh upon the
present House of Commons. It would
be free from the overshadowing presence
of what are called noble families. It
would owe no allegiance to great land-
owners, and I hope it would have fewer
men amongst it seeking their own gains
by entering Parliament.
With the Parliament which we have
now and have had, facts and arguments
go for very little.
little. Take that question
to which I have referred, of limiting the
supply of bread to the people. The
Corn-law was on the Statute-book for
thirty-one years-sixteen years before
the Reform Bill, and fifteen years after
the passing of that Bill-but from the
first hour of its enactment until the
hour of its destruction the facts and the
arguments against it were equally clear
and equally conclusive. They would
not be convinced though one arose from
the dead, and that which convinced
them at last was the occurrence of a
great famine in Ireland, which destroyed
or drove from the country hundreds of
thousands of the citizens of the empire.
I maintain with the most perfect con-
viction that the House of Commons,
representing as it now does counties
and boroughs such as I have described,
does not represent the intelligence and
the justice of the nation, but the preju-
dices, the privileges, and the selfishness
of a class.
What are the results of this system of
legislation? Some of them have been
1866.
381
REFORM. IX.
touched upon in that Address which
has been so kindly presented to me.
You refer to the laws affecting_land.
Are you aware of a fact which I saw
stated the other day in an essay on this
subject that half the land of England
is in the possession of fewer than one
hundred and fifty men? Are you aware
of the fact that half the land in Scot-
land is in the possession of not more
than ten or twelve men?
Are you
aware of the fact that the monopoly in
land in the United Kingdom is growing
constantly more and more close? And
the result of it is this-the gradual ex-
tirpation of the middle-class as owners
of land, and the constant degradation
of the tillers of the soil. Take a matter
about which many Scotch farmers know
something—take the perpetual griev-
ance of the Game-laws. In the House
of Commons that question can scarcely
be discussed. The landed interest, as it
did in the late cattle-plague debate,
tramples down Government and bo-
rough Members and everybody and
everything that thwarts its inclination.
Take the general-I am sorry to say
the too general — subserviency of the
tenant-farmers in the matter of elections
in your country-in Scotland. I enter-
tain the hope that you will lead the way
to the deliverance of the farmers from
this slavery. In the last elections for
Kincardineshire and for Aberdeenshire,
the tenant-farmers have taken the poli-
tics of those counties into their own
hands. I hope, and I believe, that the
tenant-farmers of Scotland-the most
enlightened agriculturists that live on
the face of the earth-I hope they, with
perfect justice, and perfect courtesy to
their landowners, will still exert their
legitimate and right influence in the
election of Members for the counties of
Scotland.
But take-what some of you cannot
comprehend—take the helpless poverty
of the farm-labourers in the southern
counties of England. Their wages are
very low.
Their helplessness is ex-
treme. Their power to deliver them-
selves, their power to combine, seems
at the lowest ebb. Look at their igno-
rance! A friend of mine-a Member
of the House of Commons, who lives
within six miles of the royal town and
castle of Windsor, told me only the
other day that he knew the case of a
family near his house in which there
had grown up eleven children, not one
of whom could read or write at all.
And he said that he had lately had in
his employ upon his property seven
men, of whom four could neither read
nor write, two of them could read most
imperfectly, and one of them could
read and write about as well as the
other two could read. Bear in mind
that all this exists within six miles of
the royal castle of Windsor. It exists
in a neighbourhood where lords and
squires and established clergymen
swarm. Such is the state of ignorance
of that population at this moment. In
the county from which I come, girls
of the age of from fifteen to twenty
years are earning, many of them, I
believe, double the weekly wages of the
able-bodied farm-labourer, the head and
father of a family, in some of the south-
western counties of England. But what
must be the ignorance of that popula-
tion, that when such wages are offering
to them in Lancashire and Yorkshire
they scarcely hear of them! They seem
to have no aspiration to better their
condition, and there is no sensible emi-
gration from these wretched counties
to the more prosperous counties of the
north.
Your Address refers to pauperism-
the gulf of pauperism. In the United
Kingdom at this moment there are
more than 1.200,000 paupers. The
pauperism of the United Kingdom last
year-and it will not cost less, I be-
lieve, this year-cost the rate-payers-
those who pay taxes for the relief of
the
poor-more than seven and a half
millions sterling, and this does not in-
clude the cost of many thousands of
vagrants who also come occasionally
under the name of paupers. Now look,
I beg of you, to this mass of misery.
It is so great a mass that benevolence
382
ост. 16,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
4
1
}
cannot reach it. If benevolence could
do it, there would be no pauperism in
England, for in no country do I believe
that there is more benevolence than
there is in the United Kingdom. The
kindness of the women of England is
beyond all measure and beyond all
praise of mine. There does not exist
among created beings, beneath the an-
gelic ranks, those who are more kind
and charitable than the women of the
United Kingdom. But benevolence
can touch scarcely the fringe of this
vast disorder. There is another virtue
we could add, and that virtue and that
quality is justice. It is not benevolence
but justice that can deal with giant
evils. It was not benevolence that gave
the people bread twenty years ago, but
it was justice embodied in the aboli-
tion of a cruel and a guilty law. But
justice is impossible from a class. It is
most certain and easy from a nation;
and I believe we can only reach the
depths of ignorance and misery and
crime in this country by an appeal to
the justice, the intelligence, and the
virtues of the entire people.
That Address has mentioned another
question—the question of your national
expenditure, of your army and navy;
and I will state only one fact with
regard to the navy. I believe since the
great war, since 1815, that the navy of
this country has cost more than four
hundred millions sterling. I believe
that during the last six years it has
cost as much as the United States navy
during the same time: we have been in
a condition of profound peace; the
United States have had to build or buy
six hundred ships, to man them, to fur-
nish them with munitions of war, and to
fight them during the greatest struggle
that any nation ever waged. And yet
at this moment, after spending so much,
we have Sir John Pakington, the great
reconstructor, coming into office, and
promising, not to extend the liberties
of the people, but to reconstruct a navy
on which such enormous and countless
sums have already been sunk.
Then, take the taxes. Something has
been done to make the taxes more
equal; but take the taxes which are
levied under the name of probate and
legacy and succession duties; and I
will give you a case which it is just
possible you have heard before from
my lips. A Member of the House of
Commons-at least he was so when he
gave me this fact, though I am sorry to
say
he is not one now-a Member of
the House of Commons told me he had
had left to him by a person not related
to him by blood an estate in land worth
21,000l.; the timber upon it was worth
11,000l.; altogether 32,000l. The tax,
when the property is left to a person
who is not a relation of the man who
leaves it, is ten per cent.; the tax there-
fore on 32,000l. would be 3,200l.; and
if any one of you received a legacy like
that in cash, in shares, in ships, in
stock-in-trade, in any of those things
which are not lands and houses, he
would pay 3,200l. But my friend re-
ceiving his legacy in land, and the
timber upon it, paid just 700l. And
why? For this reason only, that the
law was made by a landed and pro-
pertied Parliament, and the owners and
inheritors of lands and houses were con-
sidered specially worthy of its regard.
But I may be asked-and no doubt
some man who, after this meeting, will
take up his pen to write a criticism on
my speech, or upon this meeting, will
ask-how comes it, if Parliament is so
bad, that so many good things have
been done by Parliament during the
last thirty or forty years? I acknow-
ledge that good things have been done,
and I ought to know, because I have
been concerned in the doing of some
of them. But by whom were they done?
Mainly by that force in Parliament
which is sent there by the great and
free borough constituencies of the king-
dom. The Members for the great
towns--although but a minority, and
not a very large minority are the
moving force by which these good
things have been done. It has not
been the policy of the Tories to do
good things-and I have seen the time
1866.
383
REFORM. IX.
!
when the Whigs have been much less
zealous about them than I could have
wished. They have sprung from the
people, and the people have carried
them. What there has been of real
representation in Parliament has urged
these measures forward. What there
has been of sham representation has
uniformly opposed these measures.
C
I am of opinion that the rich people
of a country, invested with power, and
speaking generally for rich people alone,
cannot sufficiently care for the multi-
tude and the poor. They are personally
kind enough, but they do not care for
the people in the bulk. They have
read a passage in Holy Writ that The
poor ye have always with you '—and
therefore they imagine that it is a pro-
vidential arrangement that a small sec-
tion of the people should be rich and
powerful, and that the great mass of
the people should be hardworking and
poor. It is a long distance from cas-
tles, and mansions, and great houses,
and abounding luxuries, to the condition
of the great mass of the people who
have no property, and too many of
whom are always on the verge of po-
verty. We know very well all of us
how much we are influenced by the im-
mediate circumstances by which we are
surrounded. The rich find everything
just as they like. The country needs
no reform. There is no other country
in the world so pleasant for rich people
as this country. But I deny altogether
that the rich alone are qualified to legis-
late for the poor, any more than that
the poor alone would be qualified to
legislate for the rich. My honest belief
is, that if we could be all called upon
to legislate for all, that all would be
more justly treated, and would be more
happy than we are now. We should
have then an average; we should have
the influence of wealth and of high cul-
ture, and of those qualities that come
from leisure, and the influence of those
more robust qualities that come from
industry and from labour.
Suppose now, without arguing for
this or that particular measure of Re-
form, that we could add another million
to the existing constituencies, what
would be the result? We should mo-
dify the constituencies. Instead of the
people coming to the hustings at the
nomination and holding up their hands
for this candidate or that, and having
for the most part no power in the elec-
tion, the inhabitants of the town would
have a much greater power than they
have now. The constituency would be
less open to management than it is at
present; majorities on one side or the
other would be larger and less open to
corruption; and we should have Mem-
bers whose opinions and whose conduct
would be modified by this infusion of
new and fresh blood into the constitu-
encies which send them to Parliament.
We should do this further-we should
bring the rich and the great more into
contact with the people, and into a
better acquaintance with human wants
and with the necessities and feelings of
their countrymen. What other thing
would happen? I dare venture to assert
this, that Parliament then would not
revile and slander the people as it does
now. Nor would it cheer with frantic
violence when their countrymen are de-
scribed in hideous and hateful colours.
Probably what I call the Botany Bay
view of their countrymen would be got
rid of, and we should have a sense of
greater justice and generosity in the
feeling with which they regard the bulk
of the nation. And if there was more
knowledge of the people, there would
assuredly be more sympathy with them;
and I believe the legislation of the
House, being more in accordance with
the public sentiment, would be wiser
and better in every respect. The nation
would be changed. There would be
amongst us a greater growth of every-
thing that is good.
May I ask if there are any ministers
of religion in this audience? I have
sometimes thought that I should like
to have an audience of four or five thou-
sand of them, to whom I could preach
a political sermon, and to whom I could
tell something which I fear their theo-
384
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
logical schools have failed to teach
them. An eminent man of your coun-
try, the late Dr. Chalmers, in speaking
of the question of free-trade, and par-
ticularly of the struggle for the abolition
of the Corn-laws, uttered some memo-
rable words. He said he thought there
was nothing that would tend so much
to sweeten the breath of British society
as the abolition of the Corn-laws. I
believe now that there is nothing which
would tend so much to sweeten the
breath of British society as the admis-
sion of a large and generous number of
the working-classes to citizenship and
the exercise of the franchise. Now, if
my words should reach the ears and
reach the heart of any man who is in-
terested in the advancement of religion
in this country, I ask him to consider
whether there are not great political
obstacles to the extension of civilization
and morality and religion within the
bounds of the United Kingdom. We
believe these ministers, you, and I—
we believe in a Supreme Ruler of the
Universe. We believe in His omnipo-
tence; we believe and we humbly trust
in His mercy.
We know that the
strongest argument which is used
against that belief, by those who reject
it, is an argument drawn from the
misery, and the helplessness, and the
darkness of so many of our race, even in
countries which call themselves civilized
→
and Christian. Is not that the fact?
If I believed that this misery, and this
helplessness, and this darkness could
not be touched or transformed, I myself
should be driven to admit the almost
overwhelming force of that argument ;
but I am convinced that just laws, and
an enlightened administration of them,
would change the face of the country.
I believe that ignorance and suffering
might be lessened to an incalculable
extent, and that many an Eden, beau-
teous in flowers and rich in fruits,
might be raised up in the waste wilder-
ness which spreads before us. But no
class can do that. The class which
has hitherto ruled in this country has
failed miserably. It revels in power
and wealth, whilst at its feet, a terrible
peril for its future, lies the multitude
which it has neglected. If a class has
failed, let us try the nation. That is
our faith, that is our purpose, that is
our cry-Let us try the nation. This it
is which has called together these count-
less numbers of the people to demand
a change; and, as I think of it, and of
these gatherings, sublime in their vast-
ness and in their resolution, I think I
see, as it were, above the hill-tops of
time, the glimmerings of the dawn of
a better and a nobler day for the coun-
try and for the people that I love so
well.
REFORM.
X.
MANCHESTER, NOVEMBER 20, 1866.
Several Members of the Liberal Party
[The following speech was made in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, at a Banquet
organized by the National Reform Union.
were invited to the gathering.]
ALTHOUGH, perhaps, this is one of the
most striking and important meetings
which have been held in this country
during the last few years, you will, per-
haps, be surprised to learn that I came
to it with a sense almost of indifference:
not indifference as to its importance;
but with an absence of that feeling of
responsibility which has pressed so
much upon me on some recent occa-
sions. For the committee were kind
enough to send round to their guests
a list of the speakers who were ex-
pected to address the meeting. I found
them much more numerous than is
common, and I found my name about
half way down the list. I took it,.
therefore, for granted that I could come,
for once, in some degree as a spectator
and a listener, rather than as a pro-
minent actor at the meeting. Some
gentlemen who were expected to be
here are not here-Mr. Stansfeld, be-
cause he is ill; Mr. Layard, because he
has not returned from the Continent.
And Mr. Forster, who seems less able
to occupy the time of an audience when
he comes into Lancashire than he is in
Yorkshire, has spoken, I may say, ut-
tering the feeling of the whole meeting,
for a very much shorter time than we
had a right to expect. I shall trust,
therefore, to those who come after me
to say a good deal which I shall not
take up your time in attempting to say
to-night.
During the last memorable session of
Parliament you will probably recollect
that it was a very common thing in the
mouths of the opponents of the Govern-
ment Bill to say that the working-men—
the aggrieved party-felt no grievance;
for they scarcely expressed any favour-
able opinion on the Bill, or, indeed, any
opinion at all on the question of their
own admission to the franchise. I was
repeatedly charged with being in the
position of a leader in a case, in which
it was said that, after all, I had no clients
and no following. There was a general
taunt uttered that we were very much
exaggerating the case of the working-
men, and that the condition of that
large class was so comfortable and so
prosperous that they were perfectly con-
tent with the Government as it is carried
on by a Parliament so inadequately re-
presenting the whole nation.
25
386
NOV. 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I suspect that the argument, so far
as it was uttered, and had any force,
has now been fully and satisfactorily
answered. But these gentlemen have
turned right round, and have now
another thing to say about our meet-
ings. They say that the middle class
stands entirely aloof, that nobody really
cares for Reform but the working-men,
and that no great question can be car-
ried, or sensibly affected, in this country
by the opinions and action of working-
men alone. They point to the great
meetings that have been held, and after
dividing the notorious and proved mag-
nitude of the meetings by four or six,
they then conclude that there were a
few thousands of working-men present;
but Members of Parliament, manufac-
turers, merchants, and what they call
the respectable and influential classes,
were found to be entirely absent. But
they forget that these meetings at which
they say working-men only attended
were meetings called expressly by work-
ing-men and for working-men. If they
want to know, or wanted to know, how
far the main objects of those meetings
receive sympathy from a more powerful
class, they might have come to those
meetings to have learned. In Birming-
ham, as you know, the Mayor was in
the procession, and the Chief Constable
of the town took charge of all the ar-
rangements for it; and in the great
Town-hall of that city, the Mayor took
the chair at the evening meeting, and I
venture to say that it would be impos-
sible in any town in this kingdom to
assemble upon the platform a greater
amount of what these gentlemen call
respectability, wealth, and station in the
town, than were assembled there and
then. If they had come to this hall on
the evening of the great meeting in
Manchester, and if they had gone to
the Town-hall of Leeds, or to the City-
hall of Glasgow, they would have found
that after the scores of thousands that
had attended the great open-air meeting
in the daytime, there was a meeting
most important, most influential, om-
nipotent indeed, within that town in
which it was held. In the town of
Leeds, I was told nearly 1,000 persons
paid 5s. each to attend the meeting in
the Town-hall, and I think that is some
sign of the class of persons who at-
tended.
But if there was any question on this
matter, I would ask those gentlemen to
come on this platform to-night. Here
is the largest and finest hall in Britain,
the largest and finest hall in Europe, I
believe the largest and finest hall in the
world, and yet this hall is crowded with
persons to whom our opponents, I think
generally, unless they were very fas-
tidious, would admit the term respect-
able and influential. I doubt if there
has ever been held in this kingdom,
within our time, a political banquet
more numerous, more influential, more
unanimous, more grand in every re-
spect than that which is held here to-
night. Just now, it is the fashion to
flatter and to court the middle class.
The middle class are told that since the
Reform Bill of 1832 political power has
been in their hands; before 1832 it was
with the lords and great landowners,
but since 1832 it has been in the hands.
of the middle class; and now the
middle class are asked whether they are
willing to surrender that power into the
hands of a more numerous, and, as
these persons assert, a dangerous class,
who would swamp, not only the exalted
class of lords and great landowners, the
highest in social position, but would
swamp also the great middle class with
whom power is now said to rest.
they try to teach the middle class that
there is an essentially different interest
between them and the great body of
the people who are not yet admitted
into that class. They say the one
class is in power, and the other class is
outside, and out of power, and they
warn the middle class against admitting
the outsiders into partnership with them,
for fear they should dethrone the middle
class and set up an unintelligent, un-
reasoning, and selfish power of their
own.
And
That is the sort of argument which
1866.
387
REFORM. X.
is used to the middle class to induce
them to take no part in any measure
that shall admit the working class to a
participation in political power. I should
be ashamed to stand on any platform
and to employ such an argument as
this. Is there to be found in the writings
or the speaking of any public man con-
nected with the Liberal or the Reform
party so dangerous and so outrageous
a policy as that which these men pur-
sue? When separating the great body
of the people into the middle and the
working class, they set class against
class, and ask you to join with the past
and present monopolists of power in
the miserable and perilous determina-
tion to exclude for ever the great body
of your countrymen from the common
rights of the glorious English Constitu-
tion. There is no greater fallacy than
this-that the middle classes are in pos-
session of power. The real state of the
case, if it were put in simple language,
would be this-that the working-men
are almost universally excluded, roughly
and insolently, from political power,
and that the middle class, whilst they
have the semblance of it, are defrauded
of the reality. The difference and the
resemblance is this, that the working-
men come to the hustings at an elec-
tion, and when the returning-officer asks
for the show of hands, every man can
hold up his hand although his name is
not upon the register of voters; every
working-man can vote at that show of
hands, but the show of hands is of no
avail. The middle class have votes,
but those votes are rendered harmless
and nugatory by the unfair distribution
of them, and there is placed in the
voter's hand a weapon which has neither
temper nor edge, by which he can
neither fight for further freedom, nor
defend that which his ancestors have
gained.
On a recent occasion, perhaps it was
when I last stood on this platform, I
stated certain facts which have not,
from that day to this, been contradicted
-I stated that out of every 100 men
throughout the United Kingdom, grown-
up men, liable to taxes, expected to per-
form all the duties of life, responsible to
the laws, 84 were excluded from the
franchise, and that 16 only were in-
cluded. I want to ask whether the 16
out of the 100 may be said to include
all the middle class? But there is
another fact, if possible more astonish-
ing still, and that is that three men out
of every 100 throughout the United
Kingdom do apparently by their votes
return an actual majority of the present
House of Commons. But if a majority
of the House of Commons be returned
by a number so small as three out of
every 100 of the men of the United
Kingdom, and if the other House of
Parliament asks for no votes at all, I
ask you whether it is not a fact of the
most transparent character that power,
legislative and governing, in this country
does not rest with the middle classes?
What Mr. Forster says is quite true.
You may have suffrage-this or that,
but you may have such a distribution of
power that even your present represen-
tation, bad as it is, may be made some-
thing even worse.
Take the case of your boroughs, in
which alone may be said to rest every-
thing that exists in the United King-
dom of a free election. Divide the
boroughs, 254 in number, into two
classes, those under 20,000 inhabitants
and those over that number. Under
20,000 there are 145 boroughs; over it
109. But the boroughs under 20,000 re-
turn 215 Members, against 181 that are
returned by the boroughs over 20,000.
But that gives only a very misty idea of
the state of the case. Those boroughs
over 20,000 inhabitants, having 39
Members fewer than the boroughs under
20,000, still are in this position—their
Members represent six times as many
electors, seven times as much popula-
tion, and fourteen times as much pay-
ment of income-tax as the larger num-
ber of Members represent. It is clear
beyond all cavil-for figures, after all,
are difficult things to meet and contro-
vert if they are correct-that your repre-
sentative system, even in the boroughs
25-2
388
NOV. 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
where alone it exists in any life at all,
is a representative system almost wholly
delusive, and defrauds the middle classes
of the power which the Act of 1832
professed to give them.
Your county representation is almost
too sad a subject to dwell upon. Every
man who occupies a house or land of
an annual value less than 50l. is ex-
cluded; the number of freeholders on
the whole diminishes, and really there
remains scarcely anything of indepen-
dent power and freedom of election
within the majority of the counties of
the United Kingdom. So, then, I come
to this conclusion, that the working
classes are excluded and insulted, and
that the middle classes are defrauded;
and I presume that those who really do
wield the power despise the middle
classes for their silence under this system.
When I look at the great middle class of
this country, and see all that it has done,
and see the political position in which
it has been to some extent content to
rest, I cannot help saying that it re-
minds me very much of the language
which the ancient Hebrew patriarch
addressed to one of his sons. He said,
'Issachar is a strong ass, couching down
between two burdens.' On the one side
there is the burden of seven and a half
millions per annum, raised by way of
tax, to keep from starvation more than
1,200,000 paupers within the United
Kingdom-and on the other hand, and
higher up in the scale, there is mis-
management the most gross, there is
extravagance the most reckless, and
there is waste the most appalling and
disgraceful which has ever been seen in
the government of any country. And
this is the grand result of a system
which systematically shuts out the mil-
lions, and which cajoles the middle
class by the hocus-pocus of a Parlia-
mentary Government.
Sir, I am delighted beyond measure,
after many years of discussion, of con-
templation, of labour-in connection
with this great question-I say I am
delighted to believe that the great body
of the people, call them middle class
or call them working class, are resolved
that this state of things shall exist no
longer. During the last session of
Parliament there has been an honest
attempt made by an honest Government
to tinker the existing system. For,
after all, the Bill of the last session,
honest and well intended and valuable
as it was, was still but a tinkering
of a very bad system. But the Tory
party refused even to have it tinkered.
They remind me of a wealthy but a
most penurious old gentleman, who
lived some years ago in my neighbour-
hood, and who objected very much to
a tailor's bill; he said that he had found
out that a hole would last longer than
a patch. I am not sure that this is
not the case with Lord Derby and his
friends; for it was one of their great
arguments that if the Bill of the Go-
vernment passed it would inevitably
follow that something more would al-
most immediately be demanded. They
were so anxious that things should
remain as they are that they refused to
admit 200,000 more of the middle class
by the lowering of the county franchise,
and they refused with equal, perhaps
with greater pertinacity, to admit
200,000, but, as I believe, not much
more than 100,000 working-men, to
electoral rights.
They would not suppress nor allow
the suppression of one single rotten
borough, and in fact there was no abuse,
however foul, however intolerable, how-
ever putrid, to which they would allow
the legislative reforming knife to be
applied; and they determined to keep
everything just as it is. And now these
gentlemen, with whom we were obliged,
to our great misfortune, to contend so
much last session, are in office. They
call themselves Her Majesty's servants;
but they have not yet dared to proclaim
that they are the executive servants of
the people. Some of their papers, and
some papers which are not theirs, give
us to understand-for the papers are
often understanding a great many things
of which they know nothing-that the
Cabinet meetings held during the last
1866.
389
REFORM. X.
fortnight have landed us in this strange
position, that the men who were
against all Reform six months ago, are
now warmly engaged in concocting a
measure which shall be satisfactory to
the great body of the Reformers of this
country.
My opinion is this:-first of all, that
the papers know nothing about it;
secondly, that the Government (we are
obliged to call them a Government)
has not made up its mind at all whether
it will bring in a Reform Bill or not.
In point of fact, Lord Derby is waiting
to see what the weather will be. And I
suppose they will postpone their decision
perhaps for some few weeks to come.
Who knows but that they will wait till
this day fortnight-or yesterday fort-
night?
Yesterday fortnight, on Monday, the
3rd of December, it is said that, fol-
lowing the example of Birmingham,
and the West Riding, and Glasgow, and
Manchester, and Edinburgh, the men
concerned in the trades in London will
make what they call a demonstration,
that is, that on behalf of the question
of Reform they will assemble and will
peacefully walk through some of the
main streets of the West End of London,
for the purpose of showing that they
take an interest in this great question.
I know nothing of the arrangements,
except what I see in the papers; but it
is said that more than 200,000 men
have arranged to walk in that procession.
I hear on no mean authority that certain
persons at the West End are getting up
a little alarm at what may happen on
the 3rd of December.
What will happen we all know. If
the police do not interfere to break the
peace, the peace will not be broken.
And, probably, what happened on the
last occasion may be of some use in
teaching the Home Secretary his duty
on this occasion. There are persons,
doubtless, so credulous and so willing
to wish well of everybody, as to imagine
that Lord Derby's Government will
bring in a satisfactory Reform Bill.
They say that Sir Robert Peel and the
Duke of Wellington carried Catholic
Emancipation; that Sir Robert Peel
and the Duke of Wellington repealed
the Corn-law; and why should not
Lord Derby pass a Reform Bill? Lord
Derby is neither the Duke of Wellington
nor Sir Robert Peel. He deserted both
those eminent men in 1846, rather than
unite with them to repeal the Corn-law;
and he has never shown, from that hour
to this, one atom of statesmanship or
one spark of patriotism that would lead
us to expect that, on this occasion, he
would turn round, and, neglecting his
party, do something for his country.
It is all very well to say that if the
Government bring in a very good Bill,
we who want a very good Bill, will sup-
port it. But it is no use dealing in
phraseology and platitudes of that kind.
Look at the Cabinet of Lord Derby;
look what the members of it have said
and done during late years, and during
the late Parliamentary session. Lord
Derby has told us that it was his mission
to stem democracy; his friends in the
House of Commons declared last session
that the passing of that Bill of the late
Government would be to hand over the
country to the democracy of the working
classes. Mr. Disraeli, in his speeches,
was ingenious beyond his fellows, as
indeed he generally is, for if he had not
been so, he would not have reached the
position in which we find him. But
Mr. Disraeli was anxious to cut off all
free election in counties. He is of
opinion, so far as I gather from his
speeches, that the more entirely the
county representation can be made con-
terminous with the great estates of the
peers and the great landowners, the
more entirely it will be after his own
fashion and his own wishes. No more
perilous idea can be entertained by any
statesman; if you once get the nominees
of the great landowners and the lords
on the one side of the House, and the
representatives of everybody else on the
other side of the House, the beginning
of the end will have come. And whilst
Mr. Disraeli is tickling the ears and the
fancy of the country gentlemen behind
f
1
390
NOV. 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
*
him, he is propounding a plan which,
if it were carried into effect, would end
in the utter extinction of the political
power of the country gentlemen and
the peerage of England.
Mr. Disraeli and Lord Stanley were
the men in the last Derby Government
who proposed to disfranchise 70,000
county voters whose property was
within the limits of the boroughs, and
I cannot believe that men who made
such a proposition seven or eight years
ago can produce a good honest Reform
Bill now. Lord Stanley made a speech
during the discussions on the late Bill
which his party and their press said
was unanswerable. It was a speech
leading to this conclusion, that he
would give no votes to any of the
working class until he saw, by the dis-
tribution of seats, that those votes could
be made of no use to them. And Lord
Stanley lent himself to an unhappy
trick, intended, as it appeared to us, to
take the Government and the House by
surprise, and by which, by gaining a
sudden and accidental division, he might
have destroyed both the Bill and the
Government. Lord Cranborne is a
member of this Cabinet-Lord Robert
Cecil that was a short time ago. Lord
Cranborne quarrelled violently with
Mr. Gladstone because Mr. Gladstone
said the working-men were of our own
flesh and blood. He treated that ob-
servation very much in the same way
that the Carolinian planter and slave-
holder in the Senate of the United
States would have replied to my friend
Mr. Sumner if he had said that the
black and white were equal in the eye
of God, and of one flesh and blood.
General Peel is a member of this Go-
vernment, and he protested violently
against any reduction of the franchise,
as indeed did Sir Stafford Northcote,
who is, I think, now the President of
the Board of Trade.
I want to ask you whether from these
men you are to expect, you are to wait
for, with anxious and hopeful looking
forward, any Reform Bill? And, after
all these speeches had been made, Lord
Derby did his utmost to prevail upon
Mr. Lowe to become a member of his
Cabinet. If, after all this, they were to
attempt to manufacture and introduce
a Reform Bill, they would cover them-
selves and their party with humiliation.
I know that in this country politicians
change sides; office has a wonderful
effect upon men. I suppose there are
men here such as were described by
our witty friend, Mr. Hosea Bigelow,
in painting the character of some poli-
ticians in America. He said of them
as we perhaps may say of Lord Derby
and his party,—
'A merciful Providence fashioned them
hollow,
On purpose that they might their princi-
ples swallow.'
But, notwithstanding that provision,
that merciful provision, for statesmen,
I confess that I do not believe that the
Government have determined to bring
in a Reform Bill, or that they can by
any possibility bring in a Bill which
the Reformers of this country can
accept. They have done everything
during the past session by fraudulent
statements-by insults to the people—
by the most evident baseness of party
action to destroy the moderate and
honest attempt of Lord Russell to im-
prove the representation. And I do
not believe that in one short year they
can turn round; and, capacious as may
be the internal cavity of the Tory Go-
vernment, I think they cannot in one
short year swallow all their Conservative
principles.
If a man were to tell me that he had
a broth composed of half-a-dozen
poisonous ingredients, and that he
could make of it a wholesome dish,
I should not believe him. And if he
tells me that Derby, and Disraeli, and
Stanley, and Cranborne, and General
Peel, and the rest of them, after the
speeches to which I listened six months
ago, are about to produce a wholesome,
and salutary, and liberal Reform Bill,
I must ask him not to impose for a
moment on my understanding. The
1866.
391
REFORM. X.
enemies of the Bill of 1866 cannot
become the honest friends of Reform in
1867-and the conspirators of the ses-
sion which has just expired cannot
become honourable statesmen in the
session which is about to open. My
opinion may be no better than that of
any other man. This, however, may be
good advice-that all Reformers should
be on the watch, for there are enemies
enough to our cause, and false friends
enough to convince us that it is by no
means out of danger.
But the next Bill-what must it be?
One thing I think we have a right to
insist upon, that the next Bill which
is introduced by a Liberal and Reform
Government shall be in its suffrage
based upon the ancient borough_fran-
chise of the country. Household or
rating suffrage has existed for centuries
in our parishes. It has existed for
many years in our municipal corpora-
tions. It has never been found either
in parish or corporation to be destructive
of the interests of the people of those
circumscribed districts of the country. I
say, therefore, that we ought to stand by
the ancient Constitution of England. I
believe Lord Russell, speaking of him
in his private capacity, would be in
favour of extending the borough fran-
chise, at least to the limits of the
municipal franchise. There is reason
to believe that Mr. Gladstone himself
would approve of such a measure.
know that the late Attorney-General,
one of the most eminent lawyers and
We
one of the most accomplished Members
of the House of Commons, publicly and
openly expressed himself in favour of
that change. I believe the middle class,
as a rule, the Liberal portion of the
middle class, would have no objection
to see the franchise extended to all
householders in boroughs.
I believe that, if it were so extended,
we should arrive at a point at which,
so long as any of us are permitted to
meddle with the politics of our country,
no further change would be demanded.
I therefore am entirely in favour of it,
because I believe it to be wise in itself,
and because it is the ancient borough
franchise of this kingdom. I am in
accord with our ancient Constitution. I
would stand by it; wherever it afforded
support for freedom I would march in
its track. That track is so plain that
the wayfaring man, though a fool, need
not err therein. I would be guided by
its lights. They have been kept burn-
ing by great men among our forefathers
for many generations. Our only safety
in this warfare is in adhering to the
ancient and noble Constitution of our
country. And when we have restored
it to its bygone strength, and invited
the great body of the people to take
part in political power, then the House
of Commons will be the servant of the
nation and not its master, and it will
do the bidding, not of a small, a limited,
often an ignorant, necessarily a selfish
class, but the bidding of a great and
noble people.
1
REFORM.
XI.
LONDON, DECEMBER
4, 1866.
[Mr. Bright was invited to preside over a great meeting of the Members of the various
Trades' Unions and Trade Societies in St. James's Hall. The following speech was
spoken on that occasion.]
Ir is about eight years since, in a
speech which I delivered on the question
of Parliamentary Reform, that I took
the opportunity of giving what I thought
was somewhat wholesome counsel to
the unenfranchised working-men of this
country. I told them that the mono-
polists of political power in this country
would not willingly surrender that power
or any portion of it; and further, that
no class which was excluded could rely
upon the generosity of any other class
for that justice which it could demand,
and that, therefore, although large
numbers of the middle class were then,
and are now, in favour of the enfran-
chisement of a large number of the
working class, yet that they would not
make that great effort which is necessary
to wring political power from those who
now hold it, and to extend it to those
who are now and were then excluded
from it. I said that if the working-men
wished for political power they had only
to ask for it in a manner to show the
universality of their desire, and the union
and the power which they were able to
bear upon it; and I recollect particularly
making a suggestion that involved me
in a good deal of unfriendly criticism,
namely, that I thought the time had
come, or would soon come, when it
would be the duty of the working class
to make use of that great organisation
of theirs which extends over the whole
country-the organisation of trades' and
friendly societies for the purpose of
bringing to bear upon the Government
the entire power of their just demand.
I said, further, that I believed one year
only of the united action of the working
class through this existing organisation
would wholly change the aspect of the
question of Reform.
Now it appears that the wholesome
counsel which I gave eight years ago
has become the counsel of all those who
are in favour of the enfranchisement of
the working-man, and that counsel has
been adopted recently to a large extent,
and every man in the kingdom feels that
the aspect of the question has been
wholly changed. But, as has been al-
ready said to-night, it is very difficult to
please those by whom we are opposed;
and, as was said eight years ago, so it is
said now, that it is very undesirable that
associations like these, that were not
formed for political purposes, should be
worked for political ends. That is a
matter of which the members of these
societies must be held to be the best
judges. We have known other societies
which do not profess to be political, but
DEC. 4, 1866.
393
REFORM. XI.
:
which have entered largely into political
controversy. I know that some years
ago nearly all the agricultural societies
of the country were converted into poli-
tical societies, for the purpose of sus-
taining an Act of Parliament which
denied an honest and fair supply of food
to the people of this country; and even
now, when the agricultural societies and
farmers' clubs meet, we have the oppor-
tunity of reading that curious and con-
fused political discussion which takes
place when the country gentlemen and
the county Members make speeches to
their tenantry and county supporters.
But these critics of ours say that this
measure-the combination of trades'
unions for political purposes-is one
that excites their fears, and is of a very
formidable nature. It was precisely be-
cause it would be of a formidable nature
that I first recommended it. The fact
is, that the millions can scarcely move,
but the few who are timid and in some
degree ungenerous in this matter, feel
themselves alarmed. You cannot help
being numerous; if you had had better
government during the last hundred
years-if the land had been more in
the hands of the people and less in the
hands of a small class-if you had had
fewer wars, lighter taxes, better instruc-
tion, and a freer trade, one-half of those
in this country who are now called the
working class would have been, in com-
fort and position, equal to those whom
we call the middle class. But this is
your great difficulty now, and it is the
great difficulty of our opponents — you
are too numerous, they think, to be
let in with safety, and they are finding
out that you are too numerous to be
kept out without danger.
But if these associations and the
combinations of these societies are
formidable, who have made them for-
midable? These societies took no part
in political movements until they were
challenged to it by the speeches, the
resolutions, the divisions, and the acts
of a great party in the Parliament of the
kingdom. Did they fail to have fact
and argument in favour of the change
proposed last session? No; but fact
and argument had no effect upon what-
ever there is of reasoning power in the
ranks of the Tory party. Did they
think that the working-men of this
country-who built this great city—
who have covered this country with
great cities—who have cultivated every
acre of its cultivated area-who have
made this country a name of power
through all time and throughout the
whole world-did they for one moment
imagine that you would lie down and
submit, without raising your voice against
them, to the scandalous and unjust im-
putations that were heaped upon you?
Did they think that you would be silent
for ever,
and patient for ever, under a
perpetual exclusion from the benefits of
the constitution of your country? If
they are dissatisfied with this movement,
what would they have? Would they
wish that, as men did fifty or sixty
years ago, instead of making open de-
monstration of your opinions, you should
conspire with the view of changing the
political constitution of your country?
Would they like that you should meet
in secret societies, that you should ad-
minister to each other illegal oaths, that
you should undertake the task of mid-
night drilling, that you should purchase
throughout London and the provinces a
supply of arms, that you should in this
frightful and terrible manner endeavour
to menace the Government, and to wring
from them a concession of your rights?
But surely one of two modes must be
taken. If there be a deep and wide-
spread sentiment, that injustice is no
longer tolerable, then, judging from all
past history of all people, one of two
modes will be taken, either that mode
so sad and so odious of secret con-
spiracy, or that mode so grand and so
noble which you have adopted. You
have at this moment across the Channel,
if the reports which the Government
sanction are true, an exhibition of a
plan which I deplore and condemn.
You have there secret societies, and
oaths, and drillings, and arms, and me-
naces of violence and insurrection. Is
394
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I
there any man in England who would
like to see the working-men of Great
Britain driven to any such course in de-
fence or in maintenance of their rights?
Well, I hold, then, that all men in
this country, whatever be their abstract
opinions on this question of a wide ex-
tension of the suffrage, should really
rejoice at the noble exhibition, the
orderly and grand exhibition of opinion
which has been made by the working-
men of England and Scotland during
the past three months.
I said that if there be a grievance—
a deep-seated sentiment that there is a
grievance-there must necessarily be a
voice to express and to proclaim it.
What is the grievance of which you
complain? You are the citizens, the
native inhabitants of a country which
is called constitutional; and what is
meant by that is that your government
is not the despotic government of a mon-
arch, nor the oligarchical government of
an oligarchy; but that it is a government,
a large and essential portion of which is
conducted by honestly-elected represen-
tatives of the people; and the grievance
is this-that this constitution, so noble
in its outline and so noble in its purpose,
is defaced and deformed, and that when
you look at it it seems in this respect
absolutely worse than any other repre-
sentative constitution existing in the
world. For I believe there is no repre-
sentation whatsoever at this moment in
America or in Europe that is so entirely
deformed from its natural, just, and
beautiful proportions, as is the repre-
sentative system of this country. What
can be more clear than this-that the
aristocracy of land and of wealth usurp
the power in both Houses of Parliament?
The Lords represent themselves, and
generally the great landowners, with
great fidelity. But, at the same time,
we must admit and deplore that at least
one-half of the House of Commons is in
fast alliance with the majority of the
House of Lords.
Now, I have said before-I repeat it
again--that there is no security whatso-
ever for liberty under any government
unless there be an essential power in
a fair representation of the nation. An
illustrious man, the founder of the great
province, and now the great State of
Pennsylvania-William Penn-in the
preface to his Constitution for that
province-a Constitution of the widest
and most generous freedom-uses these
words :-'Any government is free to the
people under it, whatever be the frame,
where the laws rule, and the people are
a party to the laws; and more than this
is tyranny, oligarchy, or confusion.'
Now, let us ask ourselves, can it be
fairly said, can it be said without the
most direct falsehood, that the people
of this country, through the House of
Commons, are really a party to the
laws that are made? It is not at all
disputed that only sixteen out of every
hundred men are now on the electoral
rolls, and are able, all other circum-
stances favouring, to give their vote at
a general election; and it is not dis-
puted that half the House of Commons
that an absolute majority of that
House is elected by a number of
electors not exceeding altogether three
men out of every hundred in the United
Kingdom.
I have taken the trouble to make a
little calculation from the facts contained
in a very useful book, published by a
very old friend of mine, Mr. Acland,
called the Imperial Poll-Book,' from
which a great amount of valuable in-
formation may be had upon this question.
I have taken out the number of votes
given at the last contested election that
has been held for every borough and
county in the United Kingdom since the
passing of the Reform Bill, and I find
that there being, so far as I know, at
least one contest in every place since
that time, the whole number of votes
given at the contest in every borough
and county is short of the number of
900,000, which is about one in eight
of the men in the country; and if you
deduct from that number the double
votes, that is the men who vote for
more than one county, or who vote for
a county and a borough, in all proba-
1866.
395
REFORM. XI.
6
bility there would not be registered
more than 800,000 votes at a general
election in the United Kingdom where
there was a contest in every county
and in every borough. But I take the
election of 1859, which is the last the
particulars of which are given in the
Imperial Poll-Book,' and I find there
that the whole number of votes regis-
tered, so far as I could make them
out, at the general election of 1859,
was under 370,000. Now, deduct the
double votes from this, and probably
there would not be at that general
election, or at the general election of
last year, more than 300,000 or 320,000
men who recorded their votes. Some
other allowances must be made. There
are boroughs, and there may be counties,
in which the opinion falls so much on
one side that there could be no chance
of a contest. For example, in the bo-
rough which I am permitted to represent
there would be no contest, and there-
fore that borough would not supply
any figures to those figures which I am
quoting. But there are many boroughs,
as we all know, in which there is no
contest; in some boroughs there is no
contest because there is no freedom of
election. And there are many counties
in which there is no contest because
there is no freedom of election in those
counties. But I quote these numbers
to show to you that when the Queen
orders through her Ministers what is
generally called an appeal to the
country, it is at the very utmost an
appeal to 800,000 electors, and in
all probability the appeal is answered
by registered voters numbering from
300,000 to 400,000.
After this, then, I undertake to say
that the people are not, in the sense of
our Constitution, a party to the laws,
and that the government of the United
Kingdom, in the sense indicated in the
quotation that I have made from Wil-
liam Penn's preface to his Constitution,
is not free to this people. And let me
tell you, what doubtless many men have
not thought of, that there is no form of
government much worse than the govern-
ment of a sham representation. A Par-
liament like our Parliament has Mem-
bers enough, and just enough of the
semblance of representation, to make it
safe for it to do almost anything it likes
against the true interests of the nation.
There is nothing so safe as a Parliament
like this for the commission of what is
evil. There is not representation enough
to make it truly responsible to the
intelligence, and the virtue, and the
opinions of the nation.
Take a case which is in the recollec-
tion of all of us. Is there any man in
the world who believes for a moment
that any monarch that ever sat on the
English throne would have dared in
1815 to have passed the Corn-law-to
have brought into action in this city of
London, horse, foot, and artillery—to
have surrounded his own palace-and
to have beaten off the people who were
protesting against the enactment of that
law? But the Parliament of England
did that, and a Parliament of land-
owners, for the express and only pur-
pose of increasing their own rents by
the sacrifice of the comfort, the plenty,
the health, and the life of the great
body of the people.
But to come only to the last session
of Parliament. We will not go back to
the time before the Reform Act. We
will only go to the last session of Par-
liament. Look at their responsibility
then, and their sense of responsibility.
Look at the moderation of that Bill
which was brought in by the late
Government. Was it possible to have
proposed a more moderate measure
than that of the late Government?
Well, but what happened? A Parlia-
ment of landowners and of rich men,
who have wholly despised that great na-
tional opinion which has been exhibited
during the last three or four months,
resisted that measure with a pertinacity
never exceeded, and with an amount of
intrigue, and I say of unfairness to the
Government, which they durst not for
one single night have attempted if they
had felt any real responsibility to the
people of this country. And now they
396
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
}
resist up to this moment, and for aught
I know may resist when they meet at
the beginning of February next, and
they may possibly resist until the dis-
content which is now so general shall
become universal, and that which is
now only a great exhibition of opinion
may become necessarily and inevitably
a great and menacing exhibition of
force.
These opponents of ours, many of
them in Parliament openly, and many
of them secretly in the press, have
charged us with being the promoters of
a dangerous excitement. They say we
are the source of the danger which
threatens; they have absolutely the
effrontery to charge me with being the
friend of public disorder. I am one of
the people. Surely, if there be one
thing in a free country more clear than
another, it is that any one of the peo-
ple may speak openly to the people.
If I speak to the people of their rights,
and indicate to them the way to secure
them-if I speak of their danger to the
monopolists of power-am I not a wise
counsellor, both to the people and to
their rulers? Suppose I stood at the
foot of Vesuvius or Etna, and, seeing a
hamlet or a homestead planted on its
slope, I said to the dwellers in that
hamlet or in that homestead, You see
that vapour which ascends from the
summit of the mountain. That vapour
may become a dense, black smoke that
will obscure the sky. You see that
trickling of lava from the crevices or
fissures in the side of the mountain.
That trickling of lava may become a
river of fire. You hear that muttering
in the bowels of the mountain. That
muttering may become a bellowing
thunder, the voice of a violent con-
vulsion that may shake half a continent.
You know that at your feet is the grave
of great cities for which there is no
resurrection, as history tells us that
dynasties and aristocracies have passed
away and their name has been known
no more for ever. If I say this to the
dwellers upon the slope of the moun-
tain, and if there comes hereafter a
catastrophe which makes the world to
shudder, am I responsible for that
catastrophe? I did not build the moun-
tain, or fill it with explosive materials.
I merely warned the men that were in
danger.
So, now, it is not I who am stimu-
lating men to the violent pursuit of
their acknowledged constitutional rights.
We are merely about our lawful busi-
ness-and you are the citizens of a
country that calls itself free, yet you
are citizens to whom is denied the
greatest and the first blessing of the
constitution under which you live. If
the truth must be told, the Tory party
is the turbulent party of this nation.
left the last session of Parliament
just about the time when the present
Ministers, successful in their intrigues,
acceded to office-I left the Parliament
with a feeling of sadness, of disgust,
and of apprehension. I said to myself,
I
may as well judge of the future by the
past. The Parliament of England will
not do justice to the people until there
happens something that will suddenly
open their eyes. I remember what took
place in the year 1829 when the Duke
of Wellington said: Either give po-
litical power and representation through
Catholic Members to the Catholics of
the United Kingdom, or encounter the
peril and loss of civil war in Ireland.'
Up to that moment Parliament had
refused to do it. Then Parliament con-
sented and the thing was done.
In
1832 you were within twenty-four hours
of revolution in this country. This
great class which sits omnipotent in one
House, and hardly less so in the other,
might then, and probably would have
been extinguished, and what there would
have been left except the people it is
difficult to imagine.
In 1846, although every intelligent
man in every country throughout the
world admitted the justice and force of
our arguments against the Corn-law, it
still required the occurrence of a crush-
ing and desolating famine in Ireland-a
famine which destroyed as many lives
in that country as would have been
1866.
397
REFORM. XI.
destroyed by a great war, and which
drove into exile as many of the people
of that island as would have been
driven into exile by the most cruel and
relentless conquest-it required all that
before the Parliament of England, the
men amongst whom I sit, and whose
faces are as familiar to me as those of
any person whom I know in life—I say
that it required all that before Parlia-
ment would consent to give up that
intolerable wrong of taxing the bread
of an industrious people. Now, sup-
pose that the Bill which was brought
into the House last session as a Fran-
chise Bill only-which was done, as was
admitted by Lord Russell, in adoption
of advice which I had publicly given to
the Government, and which advice I
believe was eminently sound, and ought
to be followed whenever this question
is dealt with again by a Liberal and
honest Government I say, suppose
that that Bill, instead of being met with
every kind of unfair and ungenerous
opposition, had been. wisely accepted
by the House of Commons and become
law, what would have been the state of
the country during the present autumn
and winter? It would have been one
of rejoicing and congratulation every-
where; not because the Bill included
everybody and satisfied everybody, but
all working-men would have felt that
the barrier created at the Reform Bill,
if not absolutely broken down, was at
least so much lowered that the exclusion
was much less general and less offensive.
You would have had this result, that
we, the people in these islands, would
have been no longer two nations. We
should have felt more-that henceforth
we are one people. Every element of
strength in the country would have
been immeasurably strengthened, and
there would have been given even to
the humblest of the unenfranchised a
feeling of hope which would have led
him to believe in, and to strive after,
something higher and better than that
to which he had hitherto been able to
attain.
Now, who prevented this? Surely
we did not prevent it. We who thought
we were speaking for the general good
of the people, we accepted the measure
with an honourable sincerity and fidelity.
We said that it is good to the point to
which it steps forward. It is perfectly
honest; it is no trick or subterfuge. It
will give satisfaction to some hundreds
of thousands, and it will give that
which is as great a boon-it will give
hope to millions whom it does not
include- and therefore, in perfect hon-
ourableness, we accepted that measure.
And who opposed it? None other
could effectually oppose it than Lord
Derby and the party of which he is the
acknowledged and trusted leader. They
and he opposed and rejected that Bill,
and they and he are responsible for
what has been done since in the coun-
try as a necessary and inevitable con-
sequence of that rejection. Lord Derby
now stands nearest to the Throne, and
I venture to say that he is not a strength
but a weakness to that Throne. By his
conduct and by the conduct of his
party, which he adopts-he thwarted at
once the benevolent intentions of the
Crown and the just expectations of the
people.
I confess that I am astonished at the
conduct of the Tory party in this mat-
ter. When the Bill was introduced
into the House of Commons, it ap-
peared to me to be the very last that
any statesman with a spark of sense or
honesty could offer any opposition to,
and I did not believe that on the other
side of the House there was, I will say,
if you like, bitter partisanship or stupi-
dity enough to induce them to fight
a combined battle with all who would
join them for the purpose of rejecting
that Bill. One would suppose that the
present Government had troubles enough
on hand in what is called the sister
country without urging the people to
excitement here. Ireland, as I have
described it before Irishmen, is the
favoured field on which all the policy
of the Tory party has been exhibited,
displayed, and tried. In Ireland the
Habeas Corpus Act is suspended. In-
"
398
DEC. 4,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
dividual liberty, except by consent of
the Executive, is abolished; troops are
pouring into the country; iron-clads, it
is said, are ordered to the coast to meet
some, I hope and believe, imaginary
foe; and the country gentlemen and their
families are reported to be fleeing from
their ancestral homes to find refuge in
garrison towns; and all this is the mag-
nificent result of the policy of that party
whose head and hope is Lord Derby.
And even now, up to this very last
session of Parliament, that party has
had no remedy for this state of things
but that ancient, and rude, and savage
remedy, the remedy of military force.
But with all this in Ireland, greatly
exaggerated, as I hope and believe, by
some public writers, yet still with enough
to cause pain and anxiety, was it a judi-
cious course for the present party in
power to create a great excitement in
Great Britain? I say that Lord Derby,
as the representative of his party in
Parliament, is himself the fomentor of
discord, and that his party, and not our
party, is at this moment the turbulent
element in English political society.
And let me tell this party-I tell them
nothing from this platform that I have
not told them upon the floor of the
House of Commons-let me tell them
that this question will not sleep. Some
months ago there was a remarkable
convention held in Switzerland com-
posed of men of eminence and character,
by which an address or memorial was
prepared and forwarded to the Govern-
ment of the United States, congratulating
them upon the close of their gigantic
struggle, and upon the establishment of
universal freedom throughout the wide
bounds of the republic. There was a
passage in that memorial, an expression
of true philosophy and true statesman-
ship, to this effect: Unfinished ques-
tions have no pity for the repose of
nations.' That referred to the great
question of negro slavery; but it is just
as true when it is applied to the ques-
tion before us, where from five to six
millions of grown men in this United
Kingdom, under a Constitutional Go-
vernment and with a representative
system, are shut out directly and pur-
posely from that Constitution and
Representation. This great question
which we are debating to-night is an
unfinished question, and, as the Swiss
express it, it will have no pity for the
repose of this nation until it is a finished
question.
I observed to-day, in a newspaper
considered by some to be of great
authority, that the working-men are
supposed by what are called our betters
for that paper only writes for our
betters-they are supposed to have now
done enough, and they are exhorted
by the very hand, probably, which
during the whole of the last session of
Parliament was doing all it could against
them to stand still and wait for the
action of Parliament. But it is the
same Parliament, it is the same House
of Commons which I left with sadness
and apprehension in July last. There
are in it yet the men who, on our side
of the House, betrayed the cause which
they were supposed to sit there to
defend, and the only change that we
know of is, that the men who threw
out with all terms of ignominy the Bill
which we wished to pass last session,
are now and will be in February next-
if they do not break in pieces before—
they will be then on the Treasury
bench, and will take that leading and
authoritative position in the House
which belongs to the Ministers of the
Crown.
I differ from this writer altogether;
I would not put any confidence in the
course to be taken by this House of
Commons if I were a man unenfran-
chised and asking for a vote. I should
like them to tell me that they had
wholly repented of the cheers with
which they met all those vile and
violent imputations upon your character.
My opinion is this: that your duty,
your obvious duty- a duty from which
you cannot escape-is to go on as you
have begun, to perfect in every part of
the country your organisation in favour
of your enfranchisement. It is to bring
1866.
399
REFORM XI.
every society with which you are con-
nected, to give itself for a time—it will
only be a short time-to the working
out of your political redemption. I
should advise you, whether you are
supporters of the Reform League in
London, or are connected in any way
with the Reform Union of Manchester
or any similar association, to establish
a system of small, but weekly or
monthly contributions. Do not allow
my friend Mr. Beales-or my ancient
friend and political brother, Mr. George
Wilson of Manchester-do not allow
them to want the means to carry on and
direct the great societies of which they
are chiefs. And let me beg of you,
more than all else, to have no jealousies
amongst each other. Give our Chair-
man his due; give Mr. Beales and the
council their due; give every man who,
with a single eye to this great question,
is working zealously in your cause, his
due, and help in every way you can
every honest endeavour to bring this
great national question to such a solid
and final issue, that it shall no longer
disturb the repose of this nation.
And lastly, I beg of you to rise to
something like a just contemplation of
what the great issue is for which you
are contending. It is to make you
citizens of one of the noblest nations
on the face of the earth-of a nation
which has a grand history in the past,
and which I trust, partly through your
help, will have a still grander history
in the future. Let me beg of you;
then, and it is the last word I may
speak to you to-night, that, in all
you do, you may be animated by a
great and noble spirit, for you have
set your hands and hearts to a great
and noble work.
L
*
។
་ ་ ན
REFORM.
XII.
VOTING-PAPERS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 20, 1867.
From Hansard.
€
[The Government Reform Bill proposed to permit the vote to be given by Voting-
papers,' and not to require personal attendance at the Poll. This was objected to by
the Opposition on the ground that it would afford opportunity for fraud and for
practices inconsistent with freedom of election. The Government proposition was
rejected.]
I THINK the right hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has con-
cluded his speech with perfect fairness,
and left the decision to the House in
a way worthy of the position he oc-
cupies. The debate has been one of
considerable satisfaction to me, for
whatever I may think of the proposition
as it now stands, I cannot conceal from
myself the fact that the arguments both
on this and on that side of the House
lead us a great deal further than the
proposition itself; and should end, after
this wide extension of the suffrage, in a
change which in almost every other
country has been made-namely, in
establishing the vote by ballot. There
are two divisions of this question, and
to one of them the right hon. Gentle-
man applied himself; and other Mem-
bers also touched upon the same—
- that
is, with regard to out-voters.
I believe, if we were establishing a
system of representation for the first
time, that we should do in counties
what we do in boroughs-we should
take care that all the electors of the
counties should be resident in the
counties. A different system prevails,
and I do not recommend that it should
be interfered with; but I suggest that
you should not, for the purpose of aid-
ing the extension of the present system
by adding to the non-resident voters,
make a substantial change for which
no substantial reason has been given.
If a
The hon. Member for the Tower
Hamlets has made a speech-one of
the best and the most convincing that I
have heard on the subject. He referred
to what might be done by certain per-
sons at certain Clubs. The Reform
Club is very near the Carlton.
man wants to go to one he is driven,
not invariably, but occasionally, to the
other. What the hon. Gentleman says
might be done at the Reform Club
might also be done at the Carlton. But
what has been done? Take the case
of a small Scotch county in which there

JUNE 20, 1867.
401
REFORM. XII.
was a contest at the last election. The
losing candidate had a decided majority
of the resident voters in the county, and
yet he did not take his seat in this
House, and this through the influence
of large proprietors-and of strangers
whose votes might be called in question
as contrary, if not to the letter, to the
spirit of the law. These voters over-
ruled the votes of the resident con-
stituency, and the candidate who had
the majority of the resident votes was
defeated, and his opponent is, I pre-
sume, at this moment sitting somewhere
in this House. [Cries of Name.'] Let
any
Gentleman who wants to know the
name ask the Scotch Member who sits
nearest him.
6
I trust that the decision of the House
this session, and the passage of this
Bill, will lead to a more satisfactory
representation of the country. I there-
fore hope that there is no Member of
the House who would wish to see the
system I have just described indefinitely
extended. And I am not speaking as
against the influence of landed pro-
prietors alone; there are other in-
fluences that can play this game. I
recollect some years ago, during the
discussion on the Corn-laws, that the
friends of the Anti-Corn-law League
resolved to purchase freeholds in some
counties, and threatened to change the
representation of those counties. In a
case like that it would be a great bar
to such a movement, that every voter,
at the time of an election, should travel
to the county where his freehold was
situate. It is not the true policy of
the country-it is contrary to the in-
terests of the country-it is opposed to
the purity and reality of the electoral
system, that you should give even to an
eminent lawyer like the hon. and learned
Gentleman on the front bench, or to
any landlord or club, any greater induce-
ment than now exists to obtain votes in
counties where people do not reside, for
the purpose of interfering with the real
and honest representation of the resi-
dents of the county.
There are many small counties-some
in England, some in Wales, and several
in Scotland-in which there would be no
difficulty, under this system, of placing
as many persons on the register as would
defeat the honest rights of the electors
of those counties. The right hon.
Gentleman dwelt on the success of the
system as tried in the Universities; and
some Gentlemen smiled because they
thought he meant-what I am sure he
did not mean-that it had proved suc-
cessful in dislodging a late Member for
the University of Oxford. But that is
a small matter; and, if England were
appealed to, England would say that it
is of great advantage to the country that
that dislodgement has taken place. But
while the right hon. Gentleman defends
the measure on account of its success
at Oxford University, the right hon.
Baronet the Member for Droitwich
admitted that the case was so entirely
different that he would not base his
argument in favour of the Bill on any-
thing that had happened, or could
happen, in connection with the learned
Universities of the country. The Com-
mittee on which the hon. Member for
the Tower Hamlets sat, had the whole
of the matter before it; and that Com-
mittee saw the great difference between
the circumstances of the Universities
and of the great constituencies of the
country; and they distinctly-I know
not if they were unanimous-rejected the
proposition in regard to the country at
large, and decided on special grounds
that the plan might only be safely
adopted in regard to the Universities.
I now pass to the other branch of the
subject. My own belief is that it is
bad. It seems to me that it has not
the good effect- and I have never
denied that there is some good in the
system-of open voting.
It escapes
from that which you have always
claimed as the great advantage of open
voting, that is, the general publicity
and influence of public opinion, and
what you call the salutary effect of a
man performing a great public duty in
the face of his fellow-men. It is clear
that the whole of that is got rid of by
1
-
26
402
JUNE 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
3
1
his system. [Cheers and cries of 'No.']
It is clearly got rid of so far as this
system will work.
The right hon. Gentleman calls it a
permissive Bill. Of course, to indi-
viduals it is permissive, but on the
whole country it can hardly be so
styled. Wherever, being permissive,
it is employed, it will entirely secure
the voter from that public opinion under
which every man in some degree acts
when he goes to the poll and gives his
vote in the face of his fellow-electors
and townsmen. On the other hand, I
complain of it very much, on this
ground: that whilst it altogether
shelters him from public opinion, it
does not in the least give him the ad-
vantages of secret voting. The advan-
tages of the really secret vote are these.
You may estimate them at less than I
do, but I think they are these that
when a man votes there is no power
on earth to interfere with him but his
own conviction as to what he ought
to do, and he has a perfect freedom to
carry out these convictions in his vote.
Now, a proposition which is so great
a change that it repudiates all which
you have said to be good in open voting,
and does not accept a single particle of
the good which we have said belongs
to secret voting, at least is not a pro-
position which should be accepted
hastily by the House. The right hon.
Gentleman, following the example of
many hon. Members, dwelt upon the
expenses of county elections. I think
those expenses are most deplorable.
I was speaking to a Gentleman in
this House the other day who said
he was a candidate for ten days in
a county which is neither very large
nor very populous, and in those ten
days his expenses were 4,000l. I know
another candidate-I think I am not
mis-stating the facts-who polled 2,000
votes, and they cost him 8,000l. But
that expense is by no means all con-
nected with the carriage of voters; a
very large portion is connected with
that hateful and intolerable system of
legal agency, which is, I believe, all
but universal in the counties, and which
unfortunately prevails to a very large
extent in a great number of boroughs.
But there cannot be the smallest doubt
that it is possible to cure that evil with-
out this clause. With regard to the
resident voters of a county, you might
establish and establish cheaply-poll-
ing-booths in so many districts that no
man will have to go farther than he
has to go every week to market, and
very often he would have to go no
farther than he goes on Sunday to
church.
The noble Lord the Member for
Stamford (Lord Cranborne), who made
as good a speech as could be made in
favour of this clause, spoke of persons
who could not get to the poll-sick
people and nervous people. I am not
speaking of the sick, because we ought
not to make special laws for a compa-
ratively small portion of the people,
and those who are sick are much better
in their rooms and in bed, than taking
any part whatever in the excitement of
a contested election at a time when
they are suffering mental and bodily
depression. The noble Lord said there
are many who do not go to the poll.
I think he is entirely mistaken. I have
had several contests in the course of
my political career. Two contests in
the city of Durham, two or three in the
city of Manchester, and one at least in
the town of Birmingham. I do not
believe that any appreciable number-
I cannot say that I ever heard of ten,
nor even five, in the whole of these
three constituencies who could not
go to the poll for any of the reasons
stated by the noble Lord.
P
There is not the slightest doubt that
his argument does not apply to the
metropolitan boroughs, because if there
are any boroughs which are free from
confusion and riot it is those boroughs.
Therefore, I hold that as regards this
safeguard there is nothing in it. But
there is this in it. The noble Lord
appears to be wishful-I will not im-
pute that, but I will say that it will be
understood that he would establish a
+
1867.
REFORM. XII.
system which would very nearly give
the security of the Ballot to the rich
people, and that it is for them that
this system is mainly devised. I must
leave hon. Gentlemen opposite to ima-
gine how long it will be, if this class
is adopted, before the Ballot itself will
be established amongst all other classes.
Now, as regards the poorer electors.
My hon. Friend (Mr. Ayrton) described
what would take place with agents.
There is a wonderful fertility of inven-
tion at election times, and clever agents
would busy themselves in the streets of
our boroughs, and in some parts of the
counties, with a view of obtaining these
polling-papers.
And what happens when they have
been signed and sent in? You establish
one of the most hateful and most un-
heard-of things that can be imagined,
which is the giving of votes by proxy.
I understand that lately there has been
a discussion in another place on the
subject of voting by proxy, and there
is a general impression that this system
-which no man defends upon any prin-
ciple--will not last long. Therefore,
I hope the House of Commons will
not now attempt to establish in any
shape anything so unprincipled and
hateful with regard to our parliamen-
tary elections as this would prove to
be. Because, when any person has re-
ceived a number of voting-papers from
any borough or part of a county, it is
quite clear that he can either poll them
or not, as he thinks fit. He can hold
them back, or make a traffic of them.
They are not exactly bank notes; but
as he holds them in his hand, he may
traffic with them as if they were bank
notes. Now, I think it
'Better to bear the ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of."
I think the noble Lord, or at all events
some hon. Members, have spoken of the
character of magistrates. I am not a
magistrate myself, and I should be sorry
to depreciate or lower their character in
this House or in the country; but there
is nothing that stands, as I can see,
403
between the present system of voting for
Poor-law guardians, and this, but the
magistrates. The magistrates are not
infallible. I have known many magis-
trates who were not at all too acute to
be taken in. And I think the security
is not sufficient to justify the House in
making the great change proposed.
The noble Lord made another obser-
vation, which was very unfortunate for
him, and I am surprised that it should
have escaped his lips. He went so far
as to say that the drawing-room of the
magistrate would be the place of the
polling-booth. If I am not very much
mistaken in the opinion of my country-
men, I think that observation will sink
very deep into their minds and hearts;
and if they thought such a thing were
possible and we have the authority of
the noble Lord that it is advisable, and
that he admires it-I say that is enough
to condemn the Bill. The question is
this-whether our whole system of poll-
ing should be changed to what is right,
or whether it should be a general system
of voting through the Post Office. My
own impression is, that every man who
gives a vote should appear before the
recognised authority by whom that vote
shall be recorded-whether he gives it
openly, by saying, 'I am So-and-so, and
I have voted for A, B, C, or D,' or
whether he should vote as Englishmen
do in the Australian colonies, by de-
positing a card or ticket.
I saw one hon. Member anticipating
what I was going to say by the radiant
smile which came over his countenance.
But I am not now asking for the Ballot.
What I say is this. I prefer what now
exists to what you propose. Either let
us have the open voting which we have,
and which we all understand, and which
we have had from time immemorial, so
that we understand the good and evil
of it, or let us go to that more excellent
way of polling by the Ballot. At least,
do not let us make a change, the results
of which would, in my opinion, lead to
very great danger in the corrupt exercise
of the franchise throughout the country.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for
རྩྭ

#
26-2
404
JUNE 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
W
Middlesex has to-night made a curious
speech-and he treated very lightly the
argument which had been used, that if
a man had given his voting-paper seven
days before an election in the county,
and three days before in the borough,
he should not be at liberty to change
his mind. No doubt in the borough
he could try to outwit his proxy, by
being at the poll when it opened at
eight o'clock in the morning, and then
it would be a scuffle between him and
his proxy as to the vote to be given;
but generally speaking, there are many
persons who honestly change their
minds between the time when the elec-
tion is proclaimed and the time that it
takes place. ['Oh!'] Hon. Members
do not appear to believe that there is
any honest change of opinion. I differ
from them very much, and if Members
of the House of Commons by vast
bodies can change their opinions at
once on a question, there can be no
doubt whatever that electors are equally
open to proper arguments.
Take a
case. Between the time when an elec-
tion is proclaimed and the day fixed
for the polling, very often a new candi-
date comes into the field. Then, there
is often something found out about a
candidate in the field which makes him
unsatisfactory to the constituency; or
some person comes into the field, and
by a speech of great power affects the
votes of many electors. Yet by this
system a man may have within seven
days of the election in the county, and
three days of the election in the borough,
signed this fatal voting-paper; he is
committed to it, and he is not even
open to the discussion for which I
understand your hustings are erected
and maintained. I say hon. Gentle-
men opposite ought by reason of their
ancient principles not to support this
proposition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
concluded his speech by saying that he
would take the decision of the House
on this matter, and I thought that I
observed on the countenance of his sup-
porters a feeling of satisfaction, as if
probably they would be glad to relieve
the Government of the clause altogether.
Hon. Gentlemen have often said that
they do not like anything un-English.
I shall not use that phrase, because if I
were to reiterate it, I might say with
great force that hardly anything can be
more un-English than to have a system
of this kind which is to be permissive.
Some have argued in favour of the per-
missive Ballot. I must say that I have
always been opposed to the permissive
Ballot. Let a question of this kind
work in the public and parliamentary
mind, and do not change until you are
determined to do the thing honestly and
well. Then let it be made legal and
imperative — and do not let us have
anything like permissive action on a
great and solemn question like this.
The noble Lord below me (Lord
Elcho) made a suggestion to the right
hon. Gentleman; I should be very glad
to see the clause negatived, and I should
not be opposed at any future time to
the appointment of a committee to con-
sider the whole question of our electoral
system. There are many alterations
which might be made in that system,
and to which I think the House might
agree with very great advantage. At
present, however, it seems to me quite
clear, and beyond all doubt, that in
this Bill we ought not, and I believe
we shall not, insert a clause which will
make this great change, on which there
has been no inquiry except that in 1860,
which inquiry resulted in an emphatic
condemnation of the system. I say that
the country has not asked for this.
The right hon. Gentleman says he
thinks that it will be received with very
great favour. He is so fond of his own
children that he supposes everybody
will admire the political offspring he
introduces into this House. I think I
have met a good many persons during
the past four or five months who know
something about Reform; but I declare
that I never met with a single person
outside this House who did not speak
of this proposal-I am afraid to use the
term, because I do not wish to deny
1867.
405
REFORM. XII.
that the clause has been very fairly in-
troduced-who have not spoken of the
proposition with contempt; and I be-
lieve if it were adopted, that it would
create amazement and consternation
throughout the country.
I shall say no more. I admit that the
right hon. Gentleman has argued the
question fairly from his point of view,
and has put it before the committee in
a manner that became him. The matter
is one of very grave importance. The
only result will be, if we reject the
clause, that the question will stand
where it is, and it will be open to the
Government, or to any Member of the
House who differs from me, to propose,
either this session or next session, a
select committee to inquire into the
whole question. In conclusion, there-
fore, I beg the committee not to commit
itself to a thing which nobody asks for,
which is entirely novel with regard to
the great constituencies of the country,
and which I, from no party view what-
soever ['Oh, Oh!'-I do not think
there has been a single argument or fact
used to-night to show that it would be
advantageous to hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site more than it would be to this side
of the House; therefore, I declare
solemnly I have no feeling of that kind;
-but I believe it would introduce a
very evil system into a system which is
now, in some respects, very good; and
therefore I entreat the House to reject
the clause which the right hon. Gentle-
man has submitted to them.
T
REFORM.
XIII.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, AUGUST 8, 1867.
From Hansard.
[An attempt was made during the passing of the Reform Bill through the House of
Commons to insert in it a clause interfering with the ancient rights of majorities in
the constituencies. It was rejected by a large majority, Mr. Disraeli and the Govern-
ment party opposing it. A somewhat similar clause was inserted by the House of
Lords, and was agreed to by the Commons, Mr. Disraeli and his friends now support-
ing what they had before strenuously opposed. This speech was delivered in the
debate on the Lords' Amendments.]
I was rather surprised at the speech
of the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer upon this point,
when I recollected the speech which he
delivered when the same matter was
before the House some few weeks ago.
He concluded his speech by admitting
that his views had not changed. That
I knew without his saying it. It would
be impossible for any person holding
the view he held on a former occasion,
and seeing the subject so clearly, to have
changed his mind upon the matter.
If the House will permit me-though,
perhaps, I am leading a forlorn hope
after the desertion of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer-I will recall for a mo-
ment to the House what has taken place
on this point. The right hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe)
proposed a mode of giving Members in
these large boroughs to that minority
which is alleged now to be unrepre-
sented. The proposal of the right hon.
Gentleman was different from that which
has come down from the House of
Lords; but although it was different it
really had the same object, and, doing
it in a different way, would have brought
about the same result. [Mr. Lowe:
"No!'] The right hon. Gentleman says
'No.' I do not say it would bring
about the same result with the same
amount of minority in any borough.
But the general result would have been
the same. Whether you take Liver-
pool, Manchester, Birmingham, or Leeds,
the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman
would have given to minorities a re-
presentation in this House, which is
precisely what in all probability will be
done by the clause which has come
down from the House of Lords.
The right hon. Gentleman-and I
ask hon. Members on this side of the
House to bear this in mind-acting in
precise accordance with the noble and
learned Lord in the Upper House by
whom this change was proposed, sug-
gested his change as a corrective of the
August 8, 1867.
407
REFORM. XIII.
مود نام
liberal, or probably he would have said
democratic, character of the Bill before
the House. He did not propose it as a
portion of a grand scheme to give to
every person in the country, whether
one of a minority or one of a majority,
a representative in this House, but as a
proposal made necessary by the ex-
travagant and perilous character of the
Bill which the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer has introduced, and which has
been supported with so much good-will
by hon. Gentlemen on that as well as
on this side of the House. That pro-
posal was supported by the noble Lord
the Member for Stamford (Viscount
Cranborne), who has been perfectly
consistent in everything he has done on
this question, and by all those Gentle-
men opposite who differ from the Go-
vernment with regard to the question
of Parliamentary Reform. It was also
supported by certain Members on this
side who are in favour of representing
minorities -not because it is the correc-
tive of a democratic measure, but be-
cause they think that everybody should
be represented. I understood that the
hon. Member for Westminster (Mr.
Mill) took that view. He, in a long
and very able, though I must say,
arising probably from the nature of the
subject, in a somewhat intricate speech,
explained it as the plan proposed by
Mr. Hare. But that plan is by no
means a plan of representing minorities.
It is a plan for representing everybody,
in a peculiar way, and probably could
not be accomplished by any other plan
offered to the country.
I think we have a right to complain
of the hon. Member for Westminster
and his friends, not that they are in
favour of representing everybody, but
that they are in favour of a proposal
like this, which really does not represent
everybody, but strikes off a large por-
tion of the representative power which
the population of this country enjoys;
and does not effect in any degree that
which my hon. Friend and his friends
wish to be done by the establishment
of Mr. Hare's system. It appears to
me that they have been taken-I want
a suitable word to express my contempt
for the proposal without expressing in
the slightest degree anything offensive
to hon. Members on this side; no man
can conceive for a single moment that
the hon. Member for Westminster, in
the view he has held on this question,
has been actuated by any but the most
honourable motives, perfectly consistent
with everything he has written or said
on the subject-but I say they have
been taken by the phrase that in these
four great boroughs you are about to
give to the minorities a power which
they do not now possess. They there-
fore see in it, in some small degree, an
approach to, or the admission of, a prin-
ciple or of a plan which my hon. Friend
and his friends support, in which every-
body would be represented, and such
things as majorities and minorities no
longer known.
I think those Gentlemen who are in
favour of Mr. Hare's plan are not in
the slightest degree bound to support
this plan. There is no intention at
present on the part of the Government,
or on the part of this House, or of the
House of Lords, or of any one in the
country, to establish Mr. Hare's plan
in this country. Carrying therefore
this proposal only, or anything likely to
follow this, is an unmixed injustice to
the boroughs thus treated, is not likely
to lead to the plan of Mr. Hare being
adopted, and in all probability will
create so much ill-will in a large
borough to which it may be applied,
that we may be farther than ever from
taking Mr. Hare's plan into considera-
tion. When this question was formerly
before the House of Commons the
division was one of a very remarkable
character. There were some Members
on this side voted with some Members on
the other side. There was a majority of
140 against the proposal. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer made a speech
on that occasion more earnest and full
of feeling than any other speech he has
made during the protracted discussion
on this Bill. But the right hon. Gentle-
•
1
"
1
408
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
man now says the proposal was carried
by a great majority in the House of
Lords. The majority there was but 90
-here it was 140. A majority so large
on a question which so particularly
affects us and our constituencies-a
majority of 140-is much more import-
ant in a matter of this kind than a
majority of 90 in the other House.
I do not recollect the precise words
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
but I think he said it was a scheme to
introduce into the House all sorts of
crotchety people. I have no objection
to crotchety people. I believe there
must be all sorts of people in this
House. I have never been in any Par-
liament in which there has not been at
least one Member generally believed by
the rest of the Members to be not quite
strong - and excuses were made for his
eccentric conduct because he was not as
responsible as others. That, probably,
will always be the case in the House
of Commons. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer said he did not want the
introduction of crotchety people, but
he condemned the proposal on stronger
grounds, on grounds of the highest
policy and constitutional principles.
The Gentlemen I see opposite, and
those not before convinced-as the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Ŏx-
fordshire (Mr. Henley) was-accepted
the arguments of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. I cannot presume to say
that they were influenced by my argu-
ments, although I offered them with as
much force as I could. I think the
arguments of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer were unanswerable.
Then what did Lord Derby say in
the House of Lords? I presume we can
speak of exalted persons who send
Amendments down here from an exalted
place. Lord Derby said the principle
was entirely unconstitutional, and that
'its mischief would only be bounded
by the extent or the narrowness of its
operation.' I shall not pretend to have
a greater reverence for Lord Derby
than hon. Gentlemen opposite have; I
have often thought him rash; I have
AUGUST 8,
often thought him unwise; and I have
often had occasion during twenty-four
years of political life to be in opposition
to his views. But I think when he, as
Prime Minister, having considered this
question of Reform minutely since last
session, expresses so strong an opinion
on a point of this nature, is backed by
the opinion of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer and of his friends, and is
backed by a vote of more than 300-I
forget how many voted, but the ma-
jority was 140-I have a right to state
that his opinion as Prime Minister on a
matter of this nature is one we should
not lightly pass by. I think hon.
Gentlemen opposite, if they will bear
in mind the tone of the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, will feel that he adhered
to his original opinion, and would have
preferred that the House of Lords had
not made the alteration. I think they
may feel that they will only be carrying
out what is for the true interest of the
country, and what is the true wish of
the Government, if they adhere to the
vote they gave when the question was
before us on a former occasion.
I said I thought our vote of more
importance than that of the House of
Lords. I do not pretend to say the
House of Lords has not full power to
consider this Bill and pass amendments
upon it. They have the legal and the
constitutional power to do that, and we
have no right to call it in question.
But in a matter affecting the funda-
mental principles of our representation,
affecting the power of our representa-
tives of a considerable number of the
Members of this House-affecting the
status of Members of this House-the
opinion and vote of the House of Com-
mons is necessarily and must be of
more weight than the vote of the House
of Lords. It is a question of delicacy.
It is possible that the House of Lords
would not enter into any contest with
regard to this, and that whatever the
House of Commons may decide to do
will be accepted with that moderation
and dignity to which the right hon.
Gentleman has paid-as he believes,
1867.
409
REFORM. XIII.
and as I hope-so just a tribute.
What
is the change you are about to make?
It is a fundamental change. There is
no precedent for it in our Parliamentary
history. You affect by it the very foun-
dation of what I may call the constitu-
tion of your constituencies.
At
I have said elsewhere that the altera-
tion proposed has never been asked for.
The hon. Member for North Warwick-
shire (Mr. Newdegate), I understand,
presented a petition in favour of it from
Birmingham. I am sorry it should
come from Birmingham-that there
should be a petition from Birmingham
signed by a number of persons in fa-
vour of the change. [Mr. Newdegate :
'4,000!'] Well, I will not dispute
about numbers in regard to a town of
400,000 inhabitants. That is not an
overwhelming consideration, especially
as the 4,000 have just smarted from a
defeat-I will not say an ignominious
one, for it was not ignominious.
all events they have not been able to
seat a Member for the minority, having
been outvoted by their fellow-townsmen.
I am sorry that men who were unable
to return their candidate for Birming-
ham by a fair majority should come
and ask this House, in obedience to
the mandate of the House of Lords, to
allow him to take his seat by the votes
of the minority. With the exception
of that case this proposal has never
been asked for from the House of Com-
mons, by any constituency, by petition,
or at any public meeting. Never has
there been a minority defeated fairly—
I speak not of drink, or coercion, or
bribery, and corruption-who did not
accept that defeat in a fair spirit, and
look forward to the time when, by the
growth of their opinions and of their
numbers, that minority would ultimately
become a majority.
For six hundred years—as far as our
Parliamentary annals go back, and one
of the learned Clerks at the table can
tell us how far they go back-the prin-
ciple of Parliamentary election has been
this, that the majority of the voices of
a constituency to which the writ of the
Crown has issued should elect a Mem-
ber or Members to sit in this House,
and no others. Bear this in mind.
You are urged to accept a proposal of
a most important character, which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer has de-
nounced in the strongest language, of
which Lord Derby says the mischief
can only be bounded by the narrowness
of its operation-when it has never
come before the public for discussion.
In all the discussions which have taken
place this year or last year, at all the
meetings which have been held, under
roof or the open sky, there has been no
debate, discussion, or consideration of
the principle now offered to us in this
clause as it has come down to this
House. I would suggest, without un-
fairly urging my views, that the House
of Commons should at least suspend its
judgment in favour of this proposal
until it has been a longer period before
the country, and the constituencies have
had an opportunity of considering it
and making up their minds upon it.
It is often said that we are not dele-
gates; but if we are not delegates, we
are not rulers. We are sent here to
represent the general views of our con-
stituents. We have morally no power
to cut off the influence of those con-
stituents-to make fundamental changes
in the Constitution, and to vary, alter,
and overthrow the practice of six hun-
dred years. This House is not in
favour of it; a majority of 140 voted
against it. You have no moral right,
therefore, to agree to such a proposal,
because a House which is not represen-
tative, which has no direct influence in
the matter, and no Member of which
can vote for a Member of this House,
or without the infringement of our rules
influence a vote at his election, chooses
to suggest it. It is an unintelligible
and unbelievable thing that this House
should under these circumstances agree
to a proposal which makes this funda-
mental change in our Constitution,
which alters and cripples the power of
four of the largest constituencies in the
kingdom. What are these four con-
+
410
AUGUST 8,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
:
}
stituencies you are asked thus to treat?
I appeal to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer; I know some of the difficulties
of his position. Still he is accessible
to reason, and he has been disposed to
take the House very much into his con-
fidence. If a census were taken, those
four boroughs would be found to con-
tain a population of nearly, if not quite,
1,500,000. What was done when the
Bill was passing through Committee?
It was proposed that an additional
Member should be given to several
boroughs. First of all, six boroughs
were proposed for this honour. The
number was afterwards limited to four.
The hon. Member for Liverpool pro-
posed that three should have an addi-
tional Member. The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, in a moment of very good
humour, got up at the table and said,
'Not three, but four additional Mem-
bers shall be given.' He not only re-
ceived the proposal handsomely, but he
dealt with it generously, and gave four
Members to four of the largest boroughs.
Look at those four boroughs. There
is Liverpool, with its commercial inter-
ests, and with perhaps the largest port
in the world. Look at Manchester,
with its 400,000 population, and vast
manufacturing interests. Look at Bir-
mingham, the very centre and heart of
the island, also with a population of
400,000, and with interests which I
need not describe, because they are well
known to the House. Look at Leeds,
the centre and capital of the county of
York. [Mr. Leeman: 'No, no!'] My
hon. Friend the Member for York is
quite at liberty to dispute that; still the
House will not say that I have over-
charged the picture in describing these
four boroughs. They asked the House
to grant them additional representation.
They wanted more than one new Mem-
ber. They said that their population
was great, their interests beyond arith-
metical computation, and their influence
in the country large. They asked the
House for greater representation. The
House unanimously consented, for I
will undertake to say there was as much
satisfaction on that side as there was on
this, when the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said that he would give these
additional Members to the four boroughs
I have named. If it were a question of
minorities, I might say to my hon.
Friend behind me and to others, There
are these 1,500,000 in those four
boroughs who are now represented by
eight Members only, and if this Bill
passes they will have twelve Members
only-I am not speaking whether they
sit on that side of the House or this
-I believe my opinion would be ex-
actly the same, and just as strong, if I
represented any other of the boroughs,
as it is representing Birmingham.
As the Bill comes from the Upper
House these four boroughs would have
twelve representatives, and when there
was a great question before the country
-as for example the question of the
character of the administration, or the
question of a further change in Parlia-
mentary representation, or the condition
of Ireland and I might mention many
other questions in which the case would
arise these twelve Members would be
eight on one side of the House and four
on the other, and the four on the one
side would, of course, neutralize four
out of the eight sitting on the other. So
that, assuming party ties to be adhered
to, these four boroughs with a million
and a half of population would be so
entirely emasculated and crippled by
the proposal now submitted to the
House, that really only four names
would be found affecting any of those
great questions to which I have referred.
I do not think anybody is prepared to
deny that statement.
I put it the other day at Manchester
in this way that the borough of Sal-
ford, which is only part of Manchester,
is to return two Members under this
Bill, and that Manchester itself is to
return three Members. But nothing
can be more clear than this-that in all
great divisions in this House henceforth,
if this proposal be admitted, the voice
of Manchester will be less potent than
the voice of Salford. I say that is
1867.
411
REFORM. XIII.
1
utterly at variance with all the prin-
ciples of representation, and with the
whole practice of the Constitution of
this country. But what can the House
say to these boroughs? When the
Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted
the proposal of the hon. Member for
Liverpool, and when the House entirely
agreed with him, and when these bo-
roughs expressed the great satisfaction
which they felt at the mode in which
they had been treated, there was not a
single syllable said that in giving these
new Members you were to give them in
such a manner as should not increase,
but should actually diminish their power
in this House. There is no case on
record in the annals of Parliament in
which a borough, however small in
point of Members and contemptible in
influence in comparison with these I
have mentioned, has ever been treated
in a manner so unfair, so ungenerous,
and so unjust. I can speak for Man-
chester, and I can speak for Birming-
ham, and I say that the great majority
of the present, and the proposed future
constituents-nay, a great majority of
the population of these two great towns,
would have rejected, as I certainly
should have voted against, the proposal
that additional Members were to be
given to them-if I had believed the
House would only consent to give more
Members under this crippling and in-
jurious clause.
There is one other point before I
have done, and I put this to hon. Mem-
bers. We have a preliminary elec-
tion which is called the nomination.
We have the hustings, the candidates,
the electors, and the population all
gathered round. The name of every
candidate is submitted to the electors,
and every elector who is present is
called upon by the returning officer to
hold up his hand in favour of the can-
didate of his choice. If there be no
contest, and nobody demands a poll,
the lifting up of the hand is made the
actual and conclusive election of the
Members. How are you to reconcile
that constitutional practice with this
unconstitutional innovation?
Here is
a man who can vote in Birmingham,
Manchester, Liverpool, or Leeds at the
hustings for three candidates-three
Liberals or three Conservatives-I have
nothing to do with party in this matter,
and I should think it contemptible to
introduce a question of party into it.
That man at the hustings will hold up his
hand for the three candidates he wishes
to be elected. When he goes to the
poll, should one be demanded, following
out the constitutional process already
began, he ought to be able to vote for
all the Members to be elected, but
under this system he is only to vote for
two. Therefore, you establish an ex-
traordinary and entirely novel and uncon-
stitutional difference and discrepancy
between the preliminary election at the
hustings and the subsequent and final
election at the poll.
What you are wanting to do is a
thing which is absurd upon the face of
it. You take a constituency which has
always hitherto been held to be a united
and compact body, and you propose
that it should return two voices at one
election, and that by an arrangement
ordered, not by this House, but recom-
mended by the other House of Parlia-
ment, this constituency is to speak in
two voices-one end of the constituency
shall be allowed to say this, and the
other end shall be allowed to say that.
There are jugglers whom we have seen
exhibiting their clever tricks-pouring
out port, champagne, milk, and water
from one and the same bottle.
proposal resembles this. The scheme
is, that an electoral body, by a peculiar
contrivance hitherto unknown, and I
will undertake to say, if ever heard of,
only despised, shall not be asked, but
shall be made to do this-to return
two Members to sit on this side and
one on the other, or vice versâ.
The
We are told that the result will be
admirable, because we shall put an end
to animosities, contests, and the expen-
diture of elections-in fact, nothing is
to be so charming as the tranquillity
and good-humour to prevail in all these
412
AUGUST 8,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
་
:
boroughs. But look at Huntingdon.
There has been the greatest tranquillity
in that borough for the last thirty years.
Ever since the right hon. Gentleman
(General Peel) went there, I believe
there has been hardly a single contest.
In all that time nothing can be more
admirable than the way things have
been managed. But Huntingdon is not
a centre of political life. If all the
boroughs of England were like Hunt-
ingdon, the political life of the country
would be extinguished - its freedom
would be extinguished-and when once
England's freedom has gone, I wonder
what there would be left in the country
worth preserving.
One word of caution, if the House
will permit me, before I close. You
are about to give to many hundred
thousands of your countrymen, not
hitherto possessing it, a vote for
a representative in Parliament. Lord
Derby said last night, or a night or
two ago, in the House of Lords, that
you were taking a leap in the dark, and
he trusts somehow or other that the
ground upon which you are about to
alight will be soft, and that you will
not be much injured. But you are ad-
mitting this number of persons who
have never hitherto had a vote in bo-
roughs, and you ought to be guided by
the ancient principles of the Constitu-
tion, by those principles which have
been laid down for us by our ancestors
and forefathers. You want those you
are admitting to the franchise to be
guided by the ancient principles of the
Constitution in all that they do when
they have power, in order that they
may not depart from that great chart
which I hope in some degree they have
studied, and which was laid down by our
forefathers in this House. Suppose you
depart from it in this matter that we are
now discussing, and introduce some-
thing entirely novel, something that
cannot be defended by argument-for
nobody in my opinion has ever attempted
to defend it-the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer never heard of an argument
about it which he thought worth answer-
ing-if you introduce something so en-
tirely novel and so offensive, is it not
possible that those who will have the
power after this Bill passes may think
also that there are many fantastic things
which they might do, and doing them
would be as much justified as the House
is now in doing this?
When I have addressed great meet-
ings of my countrymen I have always
advised them to adhere strongly to that
which is constitutionally and morally
right. If they at any future time,
whilst I am in Parliament or in any
degree of prominence before the country,
attempt to do things with regard to
your class or order which I believe to
be morally or constitutionally wrong,
I shall be as firm in opposing them as
I have been in supporting the rights
which they have demanded. And I
lament over the possibility of such a
proposal as this being acceded to,
because I am certain that it will afford
an example hereafter to those who may
wish to follow, not in this precise direc-
tion, but in some other direction which
they may equally justify, but which may
be very perilous and injurious to the
country. I enter my protest against
this proposal on all grounds. I enter
it as one of the Members for a great
constituency to which the other day you
offered an additional Member, and from
which you are now about to take one-
half of their present political power.
I say that constituency would prefer
that the Member you are about to give it
had been given to Keighley, St. Helen's,
Barnsley, or Luton, as first proposed,
than that it should be given under such
conditions as you now wish to impose.
I saw 5,000 men only two nights ago
in the Free Trade Hall in Manchester.
It was not a packed meeting. Every-
body in Manchester had a right to go.
I believe about 1,000 paid to do so,
and 4,000 or 5,000 went in free. They
unanimously passed a Petition that has
been presented to-night by my hon.
Friend the Member for Manchester, and
in it they prayed the House to do one
of three things. They asked that either
1867.
413
REFORM. XIII.
the borough might be divided as in the
case of Glasgow-and why should Glas-
gow be in a better position as to its
third Member than Liverpool, or Bir-
mingham, or Manchester, or Leeds?—
or that the majority should decide the
election as at present, or, failing either
of these courses, that the House should
withdraw the fatal gift of an additional
Member who is merely to be paired off
against one of their present Members.
Will you refuse that Petition?
Has
there ever been a case like this in the
annals of the English Parliament, where
a great constituency besought you not
to confer upon them additional represen-
tation because you were going to give
it in a manner notoriously destructive of
their existing political power?
I say, then, as one of the Members
for Birmingham, I wholly protest against
this proposal. What will you do with
my Colleague if I should be humiliated
to sit for a borough in which I cannot
say that I have been elected by the
majority of the voices of the consti-
tuency? What will you say to the
Member for the minority of Birming-
ham? Suppose we had had within
the last few months three Members for
Birmingham, and suppose, which is an
impossible supposition, that my lamented
Friend and late Colleague had been the
Member for the minority. At his death
there must have been a new writ issued
for a Member for Birmingham. Would
you, by any clause in this Bill, or in any
future Bill, prevent the majority of that
constituency from voting for his suc-
cessor? What could
What could you do in such a
case? Or suppose that my hon. Col-
league the Member for the minority
in a future Parliament, if I should be
unfortunate enough to be associated
with such an one, proved to be service-
able to the right hon. Gentleman the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord
Derby invited him to take a seat in his
Government. Under this very Bill you
have enacted that those who take certain
offices shall be re-elected. But if he
went down as Member for the minority
of Birmingham, who is to elect him?
Do you think the two-thirds who sup-
port myself and Colleague would be
so condescending as to return your mi-
nority Member to sit as a part of a
Government to which they are opposed?
The whole matter is so monstrous
and so unconstitutional, that I feel that
I am humiliating you and myself in dis-
cussing it. No, I am not humiliating
you, because you do not believe in it-
you believe in the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Well, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, in one of the most im-
pressive speeches ever made in this
House-and no man speaks more im-
pressively than he does when he speaks
from his heart-opposed this scheme.
You believed him, and voted with him.
He thinks now as he thought then. He
has followed my speech from beginning
to end, and there is not a single word
which he is prepared at this moment to
contradict. This is not a question of
mere convenience to the Government or
of acquiescence with the House of Lords.
The House of Lords has done what it
thought was right, and if you should
disagree, the House of Lords will con-
sult, not only the interests of the country
and the dignity of the House of Com-
mons, but its own dignity, in acqui-
escing in the view you take.
You are a responsible and represen-
tative body. You have powers-though
they cannot be written exactly; and
though you cannot take a clause from
the Constitution which shall strictly de-
fine them, you have powers that are far
above the powers of the Monarchy or
of the aristocracy in the House of Peers.
Of those powers you cannot divest
yourself. They spring from the very
source of your existence, for you come
from the people throughout the length
and breadth of the country. You can-
not and you dare not-I say you dare
not-betray their rights and desert their
interests. I am afraid the right hon.
Gentleman will say I am speaking
strongly and passionately, because I am
one of the Members whose constituents
are interested specially in this matter.
I do not deny it. I should be ashamed
414
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
of myself if I did not admit that it made
some difference in the earnestness and
warmth of my feelings with regard to
it. But if I went out of the House to-
night-and I would rather go out of it
to-night than vote for this proposal or
sit for a constituency as the representa-
tive of the minority-if I were to leave
the House to-night and never to return
to it, I should entertain the same feel-
ing, and should express it with the same
warmth and earnestness with which I
submit my views at this moment to the
House.
May I ask the House to lift them-
selves just for a moment from any nar-
row view of party? It is not a question
of party; let us put that aside alto-
gether. Let us not suppose for a mo-
ment that we are going to injure or aid
the Government-there is nothing of
that kind in it. It will be greatly to
the credit of Lord Derby and of the
right hon. Gentleman in regard to the
historic character of their measure that
it should not be defaced by a great evil
like this. I am speaking in their inte-
rest as much as any can do who have
supported this Bill. Let us, therefore,
get rid of the feeling of party—of the
feeling that we are going to vote for or
against the Government.
Let us get
rid of all feeling except that this change
has been recommended to us by the
House of Lords, in which there cannot
be either the same knowledge or the
same interest in the matter which exists
in this House. Let us look at this sim-
ply as it refers to the great body in
whose names we sit and speak here.
Let us look at it in reference to that
grand old freedom which our forefathers
struggled for and secured, and main-
tained, and the advantages of which,
from the day of our birth till this hour,
we have been constantly enjoying. If
this proposal had come before this
House at the time when the great men,
the giants of the English Constitution,
sat in this House, they would have
, treated it in a manner far less decorous
than we shall treat it. There is no
name that appears among the great men
of that day, parents of English freedom,
which would not have been found among
the names of those who shall this day
say' No!' to the mischievous proposition
sent down to us by the House of Lords.
+
FREE TRADE.
COVENT GARDEN THEATRE, DECEMBER 19, 1845.
[During the agitation for the repeal of the Corn-laws, the Anti-Corn-law League held
many great meetings in Covent Garden Theatre, at which Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright,
Mr. C. P. Villiers, and other prominent advocates of Free Trade, spoke on the great
question of the day. The following speech was delivered at one of these celebrated
Covent Garden meetings, held immediately after the temporary resignation of Sir
Robert Peel.]
DURING the last month, I have visited,
as one of a deputation from the Council
of the League, many towns in this coun-
try.
I have been present at meetings
in Lancashire, Cheshire, Yorkshire, Not-
tinghamshire, Derbyshire, Gloucester-
shire, Staffordshire, Somersetshire, and
now in Middlesex; and I am forced to
the conclusion that the agitation now
in progress throughout this kingdom is
one of no common or trivial charac-
ter. Notwithstanding the hope that my
Friend who has just addressed you has
expressed, that it may not become a
strife of classes, I am not sure that it
has not already become such, and I
doubt whether it can have any other
character. I believe this to be a move-
ment of the commercial and industrious
classes against the lords and great pro-
prietors of the soil.
Within the last fifty years trade has
done much for the people of England.
Our population has greatly increased;
our villages have become towns, and
our small towns large cities. The con-
temned class of manufacturers and
traders has assumed another and a very
different position, and the great pro-
prietors of the soil now find that there
are other men and interests to be con-
sulted in this kingdom besides those of
whom they have taken such great care
through the legislation which they have
controlled. In the varying fortunes of
this contest we have already seen one
feeble and attenuated Administration
overthrown, and now we see another,
which every man thought powerful and
robust, prostrate in the dust. It is
worth while that the people, and that
statesmen, should regard this result, and
learn from it a lesson. What was it
that brought the Whig Government
down in 1841, and what is it that has
brought down Sir Robert Peel now?
Have not we good grounds for asserting
that the Corn-law makes it impossible
for any party longer to govern England
during its continuance? No statesman
dare now take office upon the under-
standing that he is to maintain the
system which the Protectionists have
asserted to be a fundamental principle
in the Constitution of the kingdom.
We have heard that the Whig
416
DEC. 19,.
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
Government left the country in great dis-
tress, and its financial affairs in much
embarrassment. But no one has ever
pointed out the particular acts of that
Government which made the revenue
deficient. It was not the taking off of
taxes injudiciously-it was not a more
than ordinarily extravagant expenditure
of the public funds which produced that
effect; but it was the collapse of the
national industry-it was the failure of
the sources whence flow the prosperity
of our trade, a calamity which arose
from deficient harvests, those deficient
harvests being destructive to our trade
and industry, because the Corn-law de-
nied to us the power of repairing the
mischief by means of foreign supplies.
Great landed proprietors may fancy that
trade is of small importance; but of
this we are at present assured, that no
Government can maintain its popularity
or keep up its power so long as we have
deficient harvests and restrictions on the
importation of foreign food.
Under such a state of things, how is
social order to be preserved? When
prices are high the revenue invariably
declines, and higher taxes must be im-
posed; general discontent prevails, be-
cause there is general suffering; and the
Government, whatever be its party name,
or however numerous may be its sup-
porters in either House of Parliament,
must, under these circumstances, first
become unpopular, and then, finally,
become extinct. We are now brought
to this conclusion, that the continuous
government of this country by any ad-
ministration is totally incompatible with
the maintenance of the Corn-laws. Lord
John Russell acknowledges it, and Sir
Robert Peel, by his sudden retirement
from office, has given his testimony to
the fact. But there are men who deny
it; such men, for example, as Sir John
Tyrrell and Mr. Bramston, the latter
celebrated, I believe, as the leader in
the great land debate. These men, down
in Essex, speak of Sir Robert Peel in
the most opprobrious language. They
say they are glad that the organised
hypocrisy' is at an end-that they are
6
delighted that the reign of humbug is
over;' that they are astounded at the
perfidy and treachery of the men whom
they lifted into office. It is neither per-
fidy nor treachery of which they have to
complain. Sir Robert Peel cannot, any
more than other men, do impossibili-
ties; and it is an impossibility to govern
this country with the Corn-law in exist-
ence. Sir John Tyrrell, and the like of
him, do not shrink from the heavy re-
sponsibility of attempting this impos-
sible task; but Sir Robert Peel does
shrink from it. Sir Robert Peel is in
a very different position from that which
they occupy. The country has a hold
upon him; he is responsible, and as
Prime Minister he knows that he must
be held responsible. But, further, he
is responsible also to posterity, and no
man more than Sir Robert Peel wishes
to stand well upon the page of his coun-
try's history. But as for the squires,
the country has no hold upon them; it
expects nothing from them, and will
make them responsible for nothing. The
Tyrrells and the Bramstons are lost
amid the herd of squires, and nobody
can lay hold of them to make them atone
for national calamities. And if the
country has no hold upon them, cer-
tainly posterity has none. No man who
records the history of this period will
ever write long paragraphs about the
Tyrrells and the Bramstons. All that
posterity will know of these, and of such
as these, will be communicated to them
upon a marble tablet in some obscure
parish church.
This contest has now been waged for
seven years; it was a serious one when
commenced, but it is a far more serious
one now. Since the time when we first
came to London to ask the attention
of Parliament to the question of the
Corn-law, two millions of human beings
have been added to the population of
the United Kingdom. The table is here
as before; the food is spread in about
the same quantity as before; but two
millions of fresh guests have arrived,
and that circumstance makes the ques-
tion a serious one, both for the Govern-
1845.
417
FREE TRADE.
ment and for us. These two millions
are so many arguments for the Anti-
Corn-law League-so many emphatic
condemnations of the policy of this
iniquitous law. I see them now in my
mind's eye ranged before me, old men
and young children, all looking to the
*Government for bread; some endea-
vouring to resist the stroke of famine,
clamorous and turbulent, but still argu-
ing with us; some dying mute and un-
complaining. Multitudes have died of
hunger in the United Kingdom since we
first asked the Government to repeal
the Corn-law, and although the great
and powerful may not regard those who
suffer mutely and die in silence, yet the
recording angel will note down their
patient endurance and the heavy guilt
of those by whom they have been sacri-
ficed.
We have had a succession of skir-
mishes; we now approach the final
conflict. It may be worth while to
inquire who and what are the com-
batants in this great battle? Looking
in the columns of the newspapers, and
attending, as I have attended, hundreds
of meetings held to support the prin-
ciples of Free Trade, we must conclude,
that on the face of it the struggle is that
of the many against the few. It is a
struggle between the numbers, wealth,
comforts, the all in fact, of the middle
and industrious classes, and the wealth,
the union, and sordidness of a large
section of the aristocracy of this empire;
and we have to decide,—for it may be
that this meeting itself may to no little
extent be the arbiter in this great con-
test, we have to decide now in this
great struggle, whether in this land in
which we live, we will longer bear the
wicked legislation to which we have
been subjected, or whether we will
make one effort to right the vessel, to
keep her in her true course, and, if pos-
sible, to bring her safely to a secure
haven. Our object, as the people, can
only be, that we should have good and
impartial government for everybody.
As the whole people, we can by no
possibility have the smallest interest
in any partial or unjust legislation: we
do not wish to sacrifice any right of the
richest or most powerful class, but we
are resolved that that class shall not
sacrifice the rights of a whole people.
We have had landlord rule longer,
far longer than the life of the oldest
man in this vast assembly, and I would
ask you to look at the results of that
rule, and then decide whether it be not
necessary to interpose some check to
the extravagance of such legislation.
The landowners have had unlimited
sway in Parliament and in the pro-
vinces. Abroad, the history of our
country is the history of war and rapine:
at home, of debt, taxes, and rapine too.
In all the great contests in which we
have been engaged we have found that
this ruling class have taken all the
honours, while the people have taken
all the scars. No sooner was the country
freed from the horrible contest which
was so long carried on with the powers
of Europe, than this law, by their partial
legislation, was enacted-far more hos-
tile to British interests than any com-
bination of foreign powers has ever
proved. We find them legislating cor-
ruptly: they pray daily that in their
legislation they may discard all private
ends and partial affections, and after
prayers they sit down to make a law
for the purpose of extorting from all the
consumers of food a higher price than
it is worth, that the extra price may
find its way into the pockets of the
proprietors of land, these proprietors
being the very men by whom this in-
famous law is sustained.
In their other legislation we find
great inequality. For example, they deal
very leniently with high gaming on the
turf, and very severely with chuck-
farthing and pitch and toss. We find
them enacting a merciless code for the
preservation of wild animals and vermin
kept for their own sport; and, as if to
make this law still more odious, we
find them entrusting its administration,
for the most part, to sporting gentle-
men and game preservers. We find
throughout England and Wales, that
27
418
DEC. 19,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
the proportion of one in eleven of our
whole population consists of paupers;
and that in the south and south-western
counties of England, where squiredom
has never been much interfered with,
the pauperism is as one to seven of the
whole population. We find, moreover,
that in Scotland there is an amount of
suffering no less, perhaps, though not
so accurately set down in figures. We
find the cottages of the peasantry pulled
down in thousands of cases, that the
population on the landed estates may
be thinned, and the unfortunate wretches
driven into the towns to procure a preca-
rious support, or beyond the ocean, to
find a refuge in a foreign land. But in
that country across the Channel, whence
we now hear the wail of lamentation,
where trade is almost unknown, where
landowners are predominant and omni-
potent, we find not one in seven, but at
least half the population reduced to a
state which may be termed a condition
of pauperism.
The men who write for Protectionist
newspapers sometimes heap their scorn
upon the inhabitants of the American
republic. New York is that State of
the Union in which there is the most
pauperism, for to that State the stream
of emigration from this country and
from Ireland flows; and yet in that
State, the most pauperised in the whole
republic, there is only one pauper to
every 184 of the population. It is true
that they have not an hereditary peerage
to trust to. They know nothing there
of a House of Lords, seventy or eighty
Members of which deposit their legisla-
tive power in the hands of one old man.
It is not a wise thing for the hereditary
peerage and the Protectionist party to
direct the attention of the people of this
country to the condition of the American
republic. We do not expect perfection
either in the New World or in the Old;
all we ask is, that when an abuse is
pointed out, it may be fairly and openly
inquired into, and, if it be proved to be
an abuse, honestly abated.
I am always fearful of entering upon
the question of the condition of that
portion of our working population
amongst whom these squires and lords
principally live; but I find that those
newspapers which stand in a very ambi-
guous character before the public, which
sometimes are, and sometimes are not,
the organs of the Government, but are
always organs which play a tune that
jars upon the nerves of the people-I
find those papers are now endeavouring
to play the old game of raising hostile
feelings in the manufacturing districts
between the employers and the em-
ployed. Let them write; bread has
risen too much within the last six
months, and within the last two months
trade has suffered too sad a reverse, for
their writing to have any effect now.
There is the most cordial, complete,
and, I believe I may add, lasting union
amongst all classes in the manufactur-
ing districts in reference to this cause.
But how stands the case in the rural
districts? Can the Protectionists call a
meeting in any town or village in the
kingdom, giving a week's notice of their
intention to call their tenants together,
and imagine that they will have a vote
in favour of Protection?
They sometimes think we are hard
upon the aristocracy. They think
that the vast population of Lancashire
and Yorkshire are democratic and tur-
bulent. But there are no elements
there, except that of great numbers,
which are to be compared in their
dangerous character with the elements
of disaffection and insubordination which
exist round about the halls and castles
of this proud and arrogant aristocracy.
You have seen in the papers, within the
last fortnight, that the foul and frightful
crime of incendiarism has again ap-
peared. It always shows itself when
we have had for some short time a high
price of bread. The Corn-law is as
great a robbery of the man who follows
the plough as it is of him who minds
the loom, with this difference, that the
man who follows the plough is, of the
two, nearest the earth, and it takes less
power to press him into it. Mr. Benett,
one of the Members for Wiltshire, at
*
!
ด
·
-
1845-
FREE TRADE.
an agricultural meeting held not long
since, made a very long speech, in which
he said some remarkable things-the
most remarkable being, that if he had
again to come into the world, and had
the option of choosing the particular
rank or class in society to which he
would belong, after reviewing, I believe,
a period of about seventy years, he con-
fessed that he would choose to be an
agricultural labourer. Now, this senti-
ment is certainly of a very novel cha-
racter; and it is one worth examining,
coming, as it did, from a man who had
at one time, I am told, a property of
eight or ten thousand a-year in land.
The
Now, what is the condition of this
agricultural labourer, for whom they
tell us Protection is necessary? He
lives in a parish whose owner, it may
be, has deeply mortgaged it.
estate is let to farmers without capital,
whose land grows almost as much rushes
as wheat. The bad cultivation of the
land provides scarcely any employment
for the labourers, who become more
and more numerous in the parish; the
competition which there is amongst
these labourers for the little employ-
ment to be had, bringing down the
wages to the very lowest point at which
their lives can be kept in them. They
are heart-broken, spirit-broken, despair-
ing men. They have been accustomed
to this from their youth, and they see
nothing in the future which affords a
single ray of hope. We have attended
meetings in those districts, and have
been received with the utmost enthu-
siasm by these round-frocked labourers.
They would have carried us from the
carriage which we had travelled in, to
the hustings; and if a silly squire or
a foolish farmer attempted any disturb-
ance or improper interference, these
round-frocked men were all around us
in an instant, ready to defend us; and
I have seen them hustle many a powerful
man from the field in which the meet-
ing was being held.
If there be one view of this question
which stimulates me to harder work
in this cause than another, it is the
419
fearful sufferings which I know to exist
amongst the rural labourers in almost
every part of this kingdom. How can
they be men under the circumstances in
which they live? During the period
of their growing up to manhood, they
are employed at odd jobs about the
farm or the farm-yard, for wages which
are merely those of little children in
Lancashire. Every man who marries
is considered an enemy to the parish;
every child who is born into the world,
instead of being a subject of rejoicing to
its parents and to the community, is
considered as an intruder come to com-
pete for the little work and the small
quantity of food which is left to the
population. And then comes toil, year
after year, long years of labour, with
little remuneration; but perhaps at
sixty or seventy, a gift of 20s. and a
coat, or of 2l., from the Agricultural
Society, because they have brought up
a large family, and have not committed
that worst of all sins, taken money from
the parochial rates. One of their own
poets has well expressed their condi-
tion:-
• A blessed prospect—
To slave while there is strength-in age
the workhouse,
A parish shell at last, and the little bell
Toll'd hastily for a pauper's funeral !'
But the crowning offence of the
system of legislation under which we
have been living is, that a law has been
enacted, in which it is altogether un-
avoidable that these industrious and
deserving men should be brought down
to so helpless and despairing a condi-
tion. By withdrawing the stimulus of
competition, the law prevents the good
cultivation of the land of our country,
and therefore diminishes the supply of
food which we might derive from it.
It prevents, at the same time, the im-
portation of foreign food from abroad,
and it also prevents the growth of sup-
plies abroad, so that when we are forced
to go there for them they are not to be
found. The law is, in fact, a law of
the most ingeniously malignant cha-
*
27-2
420.
DEC. 19,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
گر
racter. It is fenced about in every pos-
sible way. The most demoniacal in-
genuity could not have invented a scheme
more calculated to bring millions of the
working classes of this country to a
state of pauperism, suffering, discontent,
and insubordination than the Corn-law
which we are now opposing.
And then a fat and sleek dean, a dig-
nitary of the Church and a great philo-
sopher, recommends for the consumption
of the people-he did not read a paper
about the supplies that were to be had
in the great valley of the Mississippi,
but he said that there were Swede
turnips and mangel-wurzel ;-and the
Hereditary Earl Marshal of England,
as if to out-herod Herod himself, re-
commends hot water and a pinch of
curry-powder. I was rejoiced, not for
the sake of the Duke of Norfolk, for I
pitied him, but still I was in my heart
rejoiced when I saw the speech which
he had made in Sussex. The people of
England have not, even under thirty
years of Corn-law influence, been sunk
so low as to submit tamely to this in-
sult and wrong. It is enough that a
law should have been passed to make
your toil valueless, to make your skill
and labour unavailing to procure for
you a fair supply of the common neces-
saries of life-but when to this grievous
iniquity they add the insult of telling
you to go, like beasts that perish, to
mangel-wurzel, or to something which
even the beasts themselves cannot
eat, then I believe the people of Eng-
land will rise, and with one voice pro-
claim the downfall of this odious system.
This law is the parent of many of
those grievous fluctuations in trade
under which so much suffering is created
in this commercial kingdom. There is
a period coming-it may be as bad or
worse than the last-when many a man,
now feeling himself independent and
comfortable in his circumstances, will
find himself swept away by the torrent,
and his goodly ship made a complete
wreck. Capital avails almost nothing;
fluctuations in trade we have, such as no
prudence can guard against. We are in
|
despair one year, and in a state of great
excitement in the next. At one time
ruin stares us in the face, at another
we fancy that we are getting rich in a
moment. Not only is trade sacrificed,
but the moral character of the country
is injured by the violent fluctuations
created by this law. And now have we
a scarcity coming or not? They say
that to be forewarned is to be fore-
armed, and that a famine foretold never
comes. And so this famine could not
have come if the moment we saw it to
be coming we had had power to relieve
ourselves by supplies of food from
abroad. The reason why a famine fore-
told never comes, is because when it is
foreseen and foretold, men prepare for
it, and thus it never comes.
But here,
though it has been both foreseen and
foretold, there is a law passed by a
paternal legislature, remaining on the
statute-book, which says to twenty-seven
millions of people, 'Scramble for what
there is, and if the poorest and the
weakest starve, foreign supplies shall
not come in for fear some injury should
be done to the mortgaged landowners.'
Well, if this class of whom I have
spoken have maintained this law for
thirty years-if they continued it from
1838 to 1842-be assured that no feel-
ing of mercy, no relenting, no sympathy
for the sufferings of the people, will
weigh one atom in the scale in making
them give up the law now. They have
no one to whom they can look for a
promise to maintain it; but we have
some one to whom to look for a pro-
mise to repeal it. But the promises of
Lord John Russell, or any other min-
ister, are entirely conditional. He knows
that he alone cannot repeal the Corn-
law. I had almost said that the over-
turning of the monarchy would be a
trifle compared with the touching of
the pockets of the squires. Lord
John Russell himself has said that it
can only be done by the unequivocal
expression of the public will. How is
this expression to be made? By meet-
ings such as this, and by the meetings
which myself and others have seen in
1845.
42I
FREE TRADE,
all parts of the kingdom; and also by
preparations of the most active character
for that general election which, in all
human probability, is near upon us.
I believe you have heard that we had
a meeting in Manchester the other day,
which was attended by more of the
wealth and influence of that district than
I have ever seen assembled at a meeting
of the same numbers before. It was
resolved on Tuesday to have a general
meeting of all those who are wishful
to support the League in this great
and final struggle. It has been an-
nounced that the Council of the League
are calling upon their friends through-
out the country to raise a fund of
250,000l. for the purpose of being
ready in any emergency, and for the
sake of maintaining before the ranks
of the Protectionists, at least, as bold
and resolute a character as we have
maintained for the past seven years.
Now, that money will be subscribed as
it is required, and that large sum will
be paid, and I can promise this meeting
and the country that it will be honestly
and judiciously applied to carry out the
great national object for which the
League has been established. If the
Protectionists like to defer the settle-
ment of this question till the warm
weather comes, we will not trouble our
friends to tear themselves half to pieces
in getting within the walls of this theatre,
but we will ask them to meet here, in
Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow, Sheffield,
Birmingham, and other towns, in num-
bers so great, in unanimity so remark-
able, and in resolution so undaunted,
that the aristocracy of this country, with
all their pride of ancestry and their
boasted valour, will quail before the
demonstration that will then be made.
Two centuries ago the people of this
country were engaged in a fearful
conflict with the Crown. A despotic
and treacherous monarch assumed to
himself the right to levy taxes without
the consent of Parliament and the peo-
ple. That assumption was resisted. This
fair island became a battle-field, the
kingdom was convulsed, and an ancient
throne overturned. And, if our fore-
fathers two hundred years ago resisted
that attempt-if they refused to be the
bondmen of a king, shall we be the
born thralls of an aristocracy like ours?
Shall we, who struck the lion down,
shall we pay the wolf homage? or shall
we not, by a manly and united expres-
sion of public opinion, at once, and for
ever, put an end to this giant wrong?
Our cause is at least as good as theirs.
We stand on higher vantage-ground;
we have large numbers at our back; we
have more of wealth, intelligence, union,
and knowledge of the political rights
and the true interests of the country;
and, what is more than all this-we have
a weapon, a power, and machinery, which
is a thousand times better than that of
force, were it employed-I refer to the
registration, and especially to the 40s.
freehold, for that is the great constitu-
tional weapon which we intend to wield,
and by means of which we are sure to
conquer, our laurels being gained, not
in bloody fields, but upon the hustings
and in the registration courts. Now, I
do hope, that if this law be repealed
within the next six months, and if it
should then be necessary that this
League should disperse, I do trust that
the people of England will bear in mind
how great a panic has been created
among the monopolist rulers by this
small weapon, which we have discovered
hid in the Reform Act, and in the Con-
stitution of the country. I would im-
plore the middle and working classes to
regard it as the portal of their deliver-
ance, as the strong and irresistible
weapon before which the domination of
this hereditary peerage must at length
be laid in the dust.
i
;
1
1
+
BURDENS ON LAND.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 15, 1849.
From Hansard.
[On March 8, 1849, Mr. Disraeli submitted a resolution to the effect that the whole of
the local taxation of the country falls mainly, and presses with undue severity, on real
property. He suggested that one-half of these local rates should be paid out of the
Consolidated Fund. The debate was adjourned to March 15, when the resolution
was negatived by 280 votes to 189.]
It seems to me that a great deal of
misapprehension exists among hon. Gen-
tlemen on the benches opposite with
regard to the proposition of the hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire. We were
originally given to understand, if I mis-
take not, that the basis or groundwork
of that proposition was the prevalence
of great distress among all classes of the
community connected with agriculture
in this country. But the speech of the
hon. Mover of the proposition described
a case of a very different description,
whilst the speech of the hon. Member
for Somersetshire, who has just sat
down, has apprised you that none of
the distress resulting from the burdens
on land complained of falls on that class
whom the hon. Mover would induce
you to relieve by adopting his propo-
sition.
The hon. Member for Buckingham-
shire, in his speech on introducing this
question, quoted something which I am
said to have stated on a former occa-
sion, admitting the great distress pre-
vailing among the agricultural classes.
He misquoted what I then said; very
unintentionally I am quite sure, but
very strangely. I never expressed my-
self to the effect--and, if I had done so,
I should have betrayed great ignorance
of that which must be within the cog-
nisance or experience of almost every
man-that, generally speaking, the dis-
tress of the times has been very severely
felt by the agricultural community. I
said that little had been said about the
pressure of agricultural distress farther
northwards than Cambridge or Suffolk,
and that in the south of England the
cry of agricultural distress had scarcely
been heard of. And I say further, that
hardly anything has been ever asserted
of late in the north as to the depression
of agricultural prices.
Well, Sir, I can only assure the House
that I met but a few days ago with
some gentlemen who had lately come
up from the southern counties of Scot-
land, and who told me that they had
been selling their wheat in the markets
there at from 47s. to 48s. per quarter on
an average. They had a fair crop last
year of good quality, and they are satis-
fied with the prices they have received.
They must be subject to the same vicis-
situdes, for example, as men are in every
other trade. Farmers, no more than
any other traders, can expect to be
always lucky. Just prior to the harvest
of last year, the rain fell exactly at the
critical moment for the farmers of the
south, and just before the critical mo-

MARCH 15, 1849.
423
BURDENS ON LAND.
ment for the farmers of the north. What
has been the consequence? The farmers
of the northern counties have harvested
their produce in good condition, and
obtain good prices; those of the south
have been less fortunate, and realise less
encouraging returns. This is simply the
reason why we have great complaints
from the one, and few or none from the
other class of tenant-farmers. If any of
these parties, however, seek a ground
upon which to found his appeal to
Parliament for legislative relief, he must
look for it in the speech of the hon.
Member for Somersetshire, whose for-
tune it has been to make such an appeal
in vain.
I shall not enter into those questions
connected with the general condition of
the trade and finances, and of the agri-
cultural classes of this country, which
have been already, in my opinion, dis-
posed of by the speech of the right
hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. But the hon. Gentleman who
has just sat down made one statement
upon which I must be allowed to offer
a word or two. That hon. Member
told us that he had lately been selling
some wheat. He told us that his wheat
was only of inferior.quality, yet that he
realised, I think, 42s. per quarter for it.
Now, I think if he could get such prices
for an inferior wheat, wheat of ordinary
average goodness must be fetching very
fair prices just now. There are other
Gentlemen, Sir, in this House who are
themselves manufacturers of other ar-
ticles. I should like to ask the hon.
Member for Somersetshire what he
thinks is the scale of prices they obtain
when they carry into the market that
which they admit to be a damaged or an
inferior article. They will obtain, of
course, only the lowest scale of prices
for such goods. They will not get
after the rate of 42s., which the hon.
Member who complains of unremune-
rating prices can obtain for his inferior
article-a wheat of inferior quality. But
as for better wheats, I met with a gen-
tleman a few days since who told me
that Dantzic wheat was worth now, in
London, from 53s. to 54s. per quarter.
He added, that other foreign wheats of
fair quality were obtaining, on an aver-
age, about 48s. per quarter. I tell the
hon. Gentlemen opposite to me, that
their home-grown wheat, of the same
quality, will now fetch the same prices.
I say, then, that the pretences on
which this motion has been brought
forward have totally failed-that no
ground has been laid for any change in
the existing burdens upon the land,
which can be justified, either by the
present condition of the tenant-farmer,
or by the prices of agricultural produce
in our markets. I do not intend to
enter into any elaborate array of figures
in following the statements which have
been made by the hon. Gentleman the
Member for Buckinghamshire, in the
speech with which he introduced his
motion; because, all that could be said
in reference to them was said, last night,
by the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, certainly in the
best speech which I have ever heard
from these benches since the accession
of the right hon. Gentleman and of his
Colleagues to power. But the right
hon. Gentleman did not, as it appeared
to me, notice some points in the case
or plea on which the hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire rested his case for our
adoption of such a proposal as he has
brought forward, or at least did not
regard them in all the lights under
which they might have been viewed.
The hon. Gentleman seems to adopt
for his principle the notion that all
classes of the community ought to bear,
collectively, certain burdens which he
assumes to be, at present, borne ex-
clusively by the landed proprietary and
real property of this country. Is this
so? If such be really the proposition
of the hon. Member for Buckingham-
shire-and that it is, I must presume
from the statement of the hon. Member
for Somersetshire-how does the speech
we have just heard support it? The
hon. Member for Buckinghamshire ad-
Imits that he is opposed to, and would
not vote for, a national rate of this
424
MARCH 15,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I
7
kind. And I think he is very wise in
coming to this conclusion. The argu-
ments against a national rate are, in my
mind, of insuperable force. I am firmly
persuaded that the various expenses con-
nected with it would run up these rates,
of which the burden is already said to
be oppressive, at least five-fold within
five years.
But I think the original objects and
working of these local rates have been
a good deal misunderstood. A Report
of the Poor Law Commissioners on
Local Taxation was printed in 1843.
I will read one remarkable passage
from this Report; a passage which
clearly defines the period at and the
circumstances under which the practice
of rating stock in trade for the relief of
the poor was first resorted to in this
country :-
"The practice of rating stock in trade
never prevailed in the greater part of Eng-
land and Wales. It was, with compara-
tively few exceptions, confined to the old
clothing district of the south and west of
England. It gained ground just as the
stock of the woolstaplers and clothiers
increased, so as to make it an object with
the farmers and other ratepayers, who
still constituted a majority in their parishes,
to bring so considerable a property within
the rate. They succeeded by degrees, and
there followed upon their success a more
improvident practice in giving relief than
had ever prevailed before in England. It
was in this district, and at this time, that
relief by head-money had its origin, and
produced its most conspicuous effects in
deteriorating the habits and depreciating
the wages of the agricultural labourer.
When the practice of rating stock in trade
was fully established in this district, the
staple trade rapidly declined there, and
withdrew itself still more rapidly into the
northern clothing districts, where no such
burden was ever cast upon the trade.'
Now, the hon. Gentleman appears to
contend that these burdens should be
imposed on all classes of the com-
munity, instead of one particular class,
and that by such a redistribution a
great good would be effected, so far as
the landlord and tenant-farmer are con-
cerned. But, unless he could devise some
means for getting at the same principle
of rating all property equally, he would
accomplish nothing towards effecting
his own purpose. I happen to be con-
nected with the local administration of
a township in which the proportion of
local rating actually expended on the
relief of the poor does not exceed, per-
haps, 7d. in the pound. There are
townships and districts in its immediate
neighbourhood in which the rate for
the same purpose is not less than 7s. or
8s. in the pound. Now, it is quite clear
that any manufacturer or capitalist who
is largely engaged in trade, and has
built a mill or a factory in such a dis-
trict, would be anxious, under a general
rate, to come within such a township,
and thus so much enhance the charge
for the relief of the poor, under any
pressure of trade that should throw
labour largely out of employment, as to
drive away particular trades, as well
as capitalists, from the locality. All
rates would, under such a state of
things, be enormously increased, and
you would thus, by supporting the
proposition before the House, be ac-
cessory to the ruin of both the landed
and the commercial interests of the
kingdom.
It has been said that the proposition
of the hon. Gentleman the Member for
Buckinghamshire is enveloped in a great
deal of mystery and confusion. I have
endeavoured to penetrate the veil by
which it is surrounded; and I will
endeavour to explain the conclusions
at which I have arrived upon it. It
appears, then, to me that it is a pro-
position intended to withdraw burdens
to the amount of some 6,000,000l. per
annum from certain shoulders on which
they are now saddled, and to impose
them upon others—to relieve, in short,
those who now carry them, by trans-
ferring them to those who hitherto have
not borne them. The hon. Gentleman's
scheme of redistribution would pro-
bably reimpose 3,000,000l. on those
1849.
425
BURDENS ON LAND.
from whom he would take the present
aggregate of 6,000,000l., and apportion
the other 3,000,000l. to other classes
of the community. Well; but the
3,000,000l. that he would so withdraw
from those who at present pay 6,000,000l.,
would by no means represent the real
proportion in which hon. Gentlemen
opposite desire to relieve the land from
its present liabilities, or of the enhanced
value which their scheme would prac-
tically confer upon the land generally.
Assuming the whole aggregate of land
in this kingdom capable of cultivation
to represent an increase equal to what
it has been stated at by Gentlemen
opposite, a rise in the value of the fee-
simple of an acre, consequent on the
remission of three millions of taxation
on that aggregate, would be equivalent
to 2 per cent., or 60,000,000l. sterling.
An increased value of 21. per cent.
would represent 120,000,000l. as the
increased value of the land, supposing
it to be brought for sale into the mar-
ket, or that the Legislature sanctioned
such a proposition as that which is now
before it.
I, for one, do not think that these
are times in which the Legislature
could be brought to listen to any
such proposition. It is not likely, I
trust, to meet with much favour from
this House. The hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire and his friends seem
altogether to forget the ultimate effect
if Parliament entertains so exclusive a
proposition as he has brought before it
with a view of benefiting the landlord.
If I am not mistaken, the whole cul-
tivable lands of all England and Wales
amount to more than twenty-five-per-
haps, indeed, to thirty-millions of
acres. Every acre you would thus re-
lieve, I must repeat, would rise in value
in the proportion of from 51. to 10l.
['No.'] Well, I will be content to say
51. only. This increase would represent
an extension of capital invested in the
lands held by tenant-farmers and others
of not less than 150,000,000l. sterling.
Would not this be to perpetrate a great
injustice to all other descriptions of
property for the sake of an exclusive
benefit to the land? I ask hon. Gentle-
men opposite whether or not they them-
selves consider that this would be right
or proper?
I do think, however, that the propo-
sition now before the House is not
less extraordinary than it is unjust. It
has for its ostensible object to relieve
the present pressure of that which I
believe to be the temporary distress of
the landed interest. But then the hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire is so
very discriminating in his views of that
question, that the case of the agricul-
turists of Scotland did not elicit even
a single word in his speech. And as for
the agriculturists, or any other classes
of the unhappy community of the sister
island, he turned the cold shoulder to
the Irish, and all his sympathy for
them extended to that which is pro-
verbially said to be the alms of those
who have no money in their pockets
wherewith to afford more substantial
relief. He gave them-advice.
the hon. Gentleman said that many
schemes had been brought forward for
the amelioration of the condition of
Ireland, but that nothing effectual had
been done for her for some sessions
past. And here his admission left her.
Sir,
do not think that Ireland will derive
any great benefit from the advocacy of
the hon. Gentleman. She will have
little to thank him for, if he is prepared
to tender her no other consolation for
her sufferings but-his advice.
It has been contended that the pro-
position of the hon. Member would, if
carried into effect, remove a great cause
of dissatisfaction among the tenant-
farmers. But I am convinced that it
would create very great discontent a-
mong the people. [Laughter.] I repeat
this is my conviction-notwithstanding
the laughter which it has occasioned.
The hon. Member who spoke last has
quoted largely from a paper well known
to most of those who hear me—a print
of great authority in all agricultural
society, and of great respectability—I
mean the Mark Lane Express. The

426
MARCH 15,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
:
article from which the hon. Gentleman
read, indulges in stronger language,
perhaps, than I should desire to em-
ploy it stigmatises certain official
documents, the authenticity of which
it challenges, as the most deceiving
statements ever concocted by the dupli-
city of man. It also expresses great
dissatisfaction at the proposition of the
hon. Member for Buckinghamshire. I
really think that the proposition of
the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
is founded on fallacies which are in-
tended to beguile the House into its
adoption, but which are amenable to a
censure scarcely less severe.
That pro-
position, indeed, reminds me of a story
which many hon. Gentlemen have per-
haps heard before, yet which I will
venture to tell the House in very few
words. It happened once, in a country
town, and an agricultural district, that
a company of strolling players proposed
to get up a performance for the benefit
of the poor' of the neighbourhood. It
was calculated by those who announced
this intention that the object of con-
tributing towards the relief of the poor
would certainly induce the gentry to
come forward generously in supporting
the performance; and the event proved
the soundness of this anticipation. But
when it came to a question as to how
the proceeds were to be appropriated,
the strolling company claimed them all
for themselves, on the principle that
they themselves were the poor' in-
tended.
This is just the case with the pro-
posal of the hon. Member, if you look
at its real tendencies. He would pro-
cure this boon for the tenant-farmers—
of relief from local rates; but he does
not go nor any of his hon. friends near
go-nor
him for the repeal of the Malt-tax.
'We,' he says, 'do not ask for that at
present. It is not the time to ask
this relief for you; for we don't go for
a revision of the whole scheme of exist-
ing taxation.' As to the Malt-tax, I am
not altogether prepared to embrace all
the views entertained by some of my
hon. friends on that subject. I am not
one of those who think that the people
at large will be much the happier for
being relieved from the Malt-tax. As
little do I think you will make the
people generally more satisfied by taxing
malt; or that you will ever succeed in
getting rid of drunkenness, or any other
vice, simply by rendering its indulgence
dear. But I do think that if by repeal-
ing the duty on malt, you leave more
money in the poor man's pocket for the
purchase of other articles of more profit,
or value, or convenience to him than
that into the cost of which this tax
enters, you do well; and notwithstand-
ing what an hon. Baronet has said in
the course of this debate, I believe what
has fallen from the hon. Member for
Lincolnshire, that the Malt-tax is one
injurious to agriculture, and oppressive
upon the working labourer and con-
sumer. I own that I am astonished at
the conduct of hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site on this question, after hearing them
both in this House and at public meet-
ings out of doors advocate the repeal of
the Malt-tax. The same parties who
on this side of the House were its most
strenuous advocates, have ceased to
mention it now that they have crossed
to the benches opposite.
Their lips are now forbid to speak
That once familiar word.'
Not one voice now calls for that fa-
vourite act of justice, but we are told to
wait till the proper time shall arrive.
The hon. Member for Buckingham-
shire holds this language, but he has
not indicated when the time will come.
I wish the hon. Gentleman would look
a little into the real state of the coun-
try; if he would consult the feelings of
the people, he would find that nothing
more displeases them than to have
their representatives hold one lan-
guage here, and another before their
constituents. Sir, hon. Gentlemen know,
that at meetings in the country, even
tithes are permitted in their presence to
be spoken of in the most violent and in-
temperate language. They encourage, by
their own conduct, the people to expect

1849.
427
BURDENS ON LAND.
-

must
remissions of burdens which
diminish the public revenues, and leave
it to Parliament to provide the substi-
tute as best it may. I am astonished
at the conduct of hon. Gentlemen. If
I were myself an owner of land, I should
say this to my tenant-farmers: Men,
you have got the land, and it must be
your object to work it to the best of
your ability with the capital you have.
Parliament, like the landlord, must deal
with those on whose behalf this propo-
sition is said to be made, on the same
principles on which it would deal with
trades of all other descriptions. You
must exert the same virtues of per-
severance, industry, and frugality which
others possess, and in which you are
not wanting; you must look to the ex-
ercise of these means for your profit and
success, not to external aid or exclusive
assistance, which can only be rendered
at the cost of gross injustice to others.'
But the speech of the hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire was so purely
agricultural, that he did not enter into
any such considerations.
He recog-
nised no such principle of dealing with
the interests of all classes, instead of
addressing ourselves to the benefit of
one only. He himself quoted from the
Standard, a newspaper of high authority
with his party, and so exclusively agri-
cultural in its predilections, that in one
of its leaders a few years ago it con-
tended that if the whole of the manufac-
tures of England were destroyed to-
morrow, England would not be a less
great country by one iota, or the
English a less happy people. But the
Standard now takes up different ground.
It announced in a recent number that
unions were now formed in most of the
southern counties of England, the object
of which was carefully to exclude all
the products of the mills of the north,
so that the cloths of Cheshire and
Yorkshire would not be allowed to
come into competition with the produc-
tions of Wiltshire. If this is to be the
spirit in which hon. Gentlemen are dis-
posed to make common cause against
the manufacturing interest, I wonder
they do not carry out their principle to
its full extent, and, as their ancestors
once wandered over the country clothed
in skins and with their bodies painted,
that they do not come down here in
that way. They might come at last to
clothe themselves in thatch, by which
means I trust the farmers will obtain a
remunerative price for their straw.
I am not at all disposed to dispute
the meritorious and industrious cha-
racter of the tenant-farmers; on the
contrary, I believe them well entitled to
the praise of possessing those qualities
in a high degree. But I protest against
a proposition on their behalf which
would certainly prejudice the interests of
all other classes for the doubtful benefit
of one. I am opposed to all these partial
experiments. I would willingly sup-
port any proposition which went to the
reduction of those taxes on raw mate-
rial which stand in the way of manu-
facturing labour and close the market
on the industry of our artisans. This
proposition was recommended to our
sympathy on behalf of farmers who
have small or no capital; but what
would be said of any similar propo-
sition by which it should be proposed
to mulct the manufacturers of the north
for the benefit of manufacturers without
capital in the south? You ought to
endeavour to secure to your farms men
who have capital and great spirit in
agriculture. But you do not do this.
If a farmer comes to you, and asks for
a farm, wishing to make stipulations-
which may be called stipulations of a
commercial character-such as that he
shall plough and grow as he likes, that
he shall have every creature that lives
upon the land, and that he must not
have it infested with game; if such a
man comes to you, you do not like him
as a tenant: but it is the consequence
of free trade that you must introduce
such principles in your future arrange-
ments between landlord and tenant. It
is impossible that this great country,
with its large and increasing interests,
and its dense population, should stand
still or rest under the baneful influence
1
·
428
MARCH 15,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
of protection to agriculture, simply be-
cause you are unwilling to adopt those
principles with relation to your tenants
which are adopted in every other branch
of industry throughout this country.
Now our proposition is admitted on
all hands, I believe, to be more distinct
and intelligible than that of the hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire. He has
come forward as a Chancellor of the
Exchequer as the framer of a budget-
but it is clear that he is only a novice
in his new work, because he has not
shown where he is going to obtain the
money which he is wishing to remit
in the shape of taxation. I suppose,
judging from what slight hints fell from
the hon. Gentleman, that he means to
increase the income-tax; or the hon.
Baronet the Member for Lincolnshire
(Sir M. Cholmeley) says that a fixed
duty upon corn will serve the purpose
as well. But let hon. Gentlemen be-
ware how they turn their attention to
the question of the reimposition of the
duties upon corn. If you do so, you
are attempting that which, I believe, is
as impossible as the repeal of any Act
which has passed this House in former
times. You might probably effect the
repeal of the Reform Bill or the Catholic
Emancipation Act in the same session
as that in which you reimpose the duty
upon corn. Take care what you are
about. Hon. Gentlemen fancy that
there is a lull in the public mind; that
events abroad have frightened people at
home. Bear in mind that in all the
European capitals a system is being
established which will have a strange
effect upon the minds of people in this
country, who are looking, and wisely
looking, to great and permanent changes
in the constitution of Parliament; and
that whilst your conduct is encouraging
such ideas, you are leading the farmers
of England in the pursuit of that false
and uncertain light which must land
them hereafter in the midst of difficulties
much greater than those which en-
compass them at present.
You talk of the experiment of Free
Trade as though it had failed, or was
but an experiment. I ask, have you not
legislated, since the oldest amongst you
first came here, in favour of Protection,
and with the view of keeping up the
price of corn; and do you not recollect
that under protective laws in 1836 the
whole average price of the year for good
wheat-not sprouted wheat-was but
39s. 4d. per quarter? whilst now, as we
are told, sprouted wheat is sold at 42s.
a quarter. Because that system was
abolished, you have wreaked your ven-
geance upon a Minister. You have
scattered a powerful party-you have
shown an anger which political parties
in this country have scarcely ever ex-
hibited, because through the power, and
I will say the patriotism, of the Minis-
ter whom you discarded, the industry
of this great and growing population
has escaped from the pressure of that
screw which, through the medium of the
Corn-laws, you had laid upon the ne-
cessaries of life.
I fear that hon. Gentlemen opposite
are not aware of what is passing in this
country. Throughout the great towns,
that question of the reduction of expen-
diture which we have placed before you
is exciting the intensest interest; whilst
in every meeting of farmers the same
cry
is echoed. The men who thought
us their greatest enemies, are now ready
to shake hands with my hon. Friend
the Member for the West Riding. They
are anxious that the great justice which
we advocate should be done to this
country, and that you should force upon
the Executive Government the greatest
possible economy, compatible with the
public exigencies. You say, tauntingly,
that the Government is about to follow
the advice of my hon. Friend. The fact
is, that you will make my hon. Friend
a most extraordinary man. The right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-
worth followed the advice of my hon.
Friend; and now you say the present
Government are about to do so too.
And why is this? It is because we live
amongst the people--because we have
travelled in every county amongst them,
and know 'their feelings and wishes-
1849.
429
BURDENS ON LAND.
because we are identified with their de-
sires, and have been returned to this
House by great and free constituencies.
It is on this account you find that the
measures which my hon. Friend pro-
poses have the sympathy of millions in
this country; and I warn you that not
many sessions will pass, before you,
powerful as you are, will vote for the
measure which he recommends.
:
1
I
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 11, 1851.
From Hansard.
[On this day, Mr. Disraeli brought forward an Amendment on the motion that the
Speaker do leave the Chair, to the effect that in any relief to be granted by the omis-
sion or adjustment of taxation, due regard should be paid to the distressed condition
of the owners and occupiers of land in the United Kingdom. The Amendment was
negatived by 263 to 250.]
I SHALL endeavour, in the observa-
tions I intend to offer to the House, to
address myself closely to the question
brought before us by the hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire. I do not think
the hon. Gentleman intends by his mo-
tion to lead us into a discussion on the
various parts of the Budget brought
forward by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer; on the contrary, he seems to
agree for the most part that this Budget
is acceptable to the country, and that it
must pass the House. I shall not be
tempted to go into the question of the
Corn-law to an extent which might be
justified by the speeches of the hon.
Member for Northamptonshire (Mr.
Stafford), and the noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Colchester (Lord J. Manners).
I must say that those hon. Gentle-
men and others do their leaders great
damage by the course they take in this
and similar discussions. If I under-
stand the object of the hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire - taking it from his
speeches in this House-I come to the
conclusion that the hon. Gentleman is
convinced that any project of returning
to Protection is the merest delusion;
and that he (Mr. Disraeli) knows per-
fectly well--every man who considers
the subject must know-that so long as
hon. Gentlemen opposite will have this
question of Protection as the main part
of their policy, their leaders are destined
to sit on the shady side of the House,
and could never cross the table and sit
on the Ministerial benches. I therefore
will advise all those who support the
hon. Member for Buckinghamshire to
avoid the question of Protection alto-
gether, as one which has been finally
and irrevocably settled.
The hon. Gentleman has made this
proposition to the House, that the agri-
cultural interest (the labourers, who
were once a part of the agricultural
interest, are now left out)-that the
agricultural interest, consisting of the
owners and occupiers of land, have some
special claim to some special relief. He
has assumed that they are suffering
generally, if not universally, throughout
the United Kingdom; but he has not
brought anything like proof, first of all,
that the owners and occupiers of land
are suffering much, or, indeed, that they
are suffering at all; and, secondly, the
APRIL 11, 1851.
431
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
hon. Gentleman has failed, I think, to
show that they have any special claim
to relief, even if they are suffering.
I admit that the hon. Member has a
right to assume the fact of the alleged
distress, when arguing with the noble
Lord at the head of the Government,
because the noble Lord, with that want
of caution which not unfrequently dis-
tinguishes him, has admitted into the
Queen's Speech a paragraph which was
a direct invitation to the hon. Member
for Buckingham to get up a discussion
on this topic in the first week of the
session; and then the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, committing another blunder,
has brought forward a proposition in
his first Budget which he ought not to
have made, but to which, if he has
brought it forward, hon. Gentlemen
opposite have a right to expect he will
adhere. That paragraph and proposi-
tion have caused the hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire to get up this interest-
ing discussion on a subject which I had
hoped was worn threadbare. Now, I
am prepared at once to dispute half their
case-that is, that the owners of land
are suffering distress, or that they have
any claim on such a ground to come to
this House for relief.
The hon. Member for Herefordshire
(Mr. Booker) said the other night that
there had been a fall of rent to the
amount of 25 per cent.; but though
that hon. Gentleman's oratory may be
applauded in Herefordshire, yet I be-
lieve that he durst not assert that to be
a fact in the face of the farmers of that
county. Again, the hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire has admitted this
night, or rather he has assumed, that
the reduction of rent may be taken to
be 10 per cent. I do not believe it
is 10 per cent. I have never seen a
single authenticated case which went
beyond 15 per cent. I have found many
cases in which no reduction has been
made; and where there has been a re-
duction, it is very often made not by
permanent agreement with the landlord,
but is merely a temporary remission,
precisely such as I have known to be
given by landlords on several distinct
occasions. I take it for granted, there-
fore, that the fall of rent is to a very
small extent; and that, in point of fact,
it is not worth comparing with the
losses which those who have property
invested in other ways, except in land,
are constantly liable to in all parts of
the kingdom.
There may be, and I believe there
are, cases of difficulty among land-
owners, and particularly among the
landowners in Ireland. There are land-
owners who have small net incomes
and large rent-rolls, and from extrava-
gance and other causes have engaged
to give to their creditors, or to annui-
tants of one kind or another, nine-tenths
of their actual rent-roll. Of course a
fall of 10 per cent. in such cases is
equal to the destruction of the whole
income. But this is no fault of free
trade or of the free-traders; the Man-
chester school are not to be blamed for
anything of this kind. We have never
admired settlements and entails.
the contrary, we should prefer to see
landed property free. We have never
recommended gentlemen, who cannot
afford it, to keep a great house in the
country and a great house in town, or
that so many packs of hounds and other
sources of enjoyment should be main-
tained. I confess that if I were a landed
proprietor-and I am very sorry that I
am not-I should feel humiliated if my
advocate in this House made such a
speech as the hon. Member for Buck-
inghamshire has made to-night and on
former occasions.
On
Now, let me ask if there is any class
that passes so triumphantly through
every commercial hurricane and disaster
as the class of landed proprietors does?
I see that the candidate at Aylesbury
has stated, as a proof of the distressed
condition of the landed proprietors, that
money invested in land only returns 2
But that in itself is a proof
per cent.
of the security of the return from land,
and that it is not subjected to the vicis-
situdes to which other property is liable.
There are some in this House who
f
1
1
3.
432
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I
could tell a different tale respecting in-
vestments of another character-invest-
ments, for instance, in the manufacture
of iron during the last four years. They
could tell of the extraordinary revulsion
which has taken place in that time,
consequent on the demand for iron for
railway purposes having declined.
can speak of my own trade, although
I cannot confirm the view taken of it
by the noble Lord the Member for
Colchester. Yet I can state that a very
large portion of that trade during the
last five years, when there were three
failures in the American cotton crop-
that during these years all the coarse
departments of the trade have been of
the most unprofitable character.
The noble Lord (Lord J. Manners)
has read from Mr. Littledale's circular
the parts which suited him—not the
parts which suited another view of the
question-not the statement which that
circular contained that the trade ap-
peared to be settled on a solid and
sound basis. The noble Lord ought to
know that trade has been so good in
Yorkshire for the last two years, and
the increase in the consumption of wool
so great, that the price of wool has be-
come extremely high, and that it is the
price of the raw material at this mo-
ment which is interfering with profits in
Yorkshire. It was only yesterday that
I came from the Hatfield station on the
Great Northern Railway to London in
company with a buyer of wool, who
told me that his trade was bad at pre-
sent; that wool was so dear, and so
little of it to be had, that, as a buyer of
wool from the farmers, and a seller of
it to the Yorkshire manufacturers, he
found his trade entirely unprofitable. I
gathered from that fact, that the farmers
were enjoying a considerable profit on
their wool, and that it had been a pros-
perous article for a very long period.
But the hon. Member for Bucking-
hamshire has made an admission which
is worth something. He said he calcu-
lated that the landowners, losing ten per
! cent. of rental, were losing 6,000,000l.
per annum; but he added that the fall
APRIL. II,
of rent gave them no claim whatever to
come to that House for relief. I was
very glad to hear that fact asserted by
the hon. Member. But then a great num-
ber of his followers hold a very different
opinion, and I have heard even from the
Ministerial benches in former times that
it was necessary to keep up the price
of corn in order to keep up the rent.
But if the hon. Member for Bucking-
hamshire would now look at this fact,
that the labouring population are com-
fortably off, and generally in a state of
prosperity—if that prosperity has been
caused by the transfer of the 6,000,000l.
of rent from the landed proprietors,
who never ought to have possessed it,
if given to them by the Corn-law-if
labourers are prosperous by the transfer
of that 6,000,000l. to them, they are
enjoying that of which they have been
deprived for thirty-five years by the
operation of a law, the repeal of which
is so much regretted by some hon.
Gentlemen opposite. I deny altogether
that the landowners are suffering, or
that they suffering to an extent which
requires that they should be pointed out
as an ill-used class.
I now come to the question of the
occupiers. Now, it is affirmed broadly
that the occupiers of land are suffering
great distress. I believe that some dis-
tress must necessarily arise from the
circumstance that the prices of farm
produce are temporarily depressed. · But
this distress is not a rare malady with
the occupiers of land. Violent speeches
have been made in this House from
1815 onwards, in favour of relief to the
distressed occupiers of land. Mr. Pres-
ton, a distinguished gentleman con-
nected with the law, wrote a pamphlet
two or three years after the Corn-law
was enacted, in which he showed that
the distress of the occupiers was most
agonising, and that they had lost
100,000,000l. of their capital, which
was transferred to other classes. There
is nothing to show that any consider-
able portion of what they suffered now,
arose directly or indirectly from the
legislation of that House. But, if it
185T.
433
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
did, what is the remedy proposed,
stripped of anything like delusion?
The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
does not propose to remedy the griev-
ance by raising the price of corn; but
his proposition is this- the making
some small transfer of a certain rate,
now paid by a certain description of
property, to the Consolidated Fund, by
which that description of property now
paying the rate should henceforth only
pay a portion of it, and the rest might
be distributed over the tax-payers of the
United Kingdom generally.
In connection with the poor-rate there
are some facts to which I wish to call
the attention of hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site. I will refer to and quote from a
return moved for by the right hon.
Baronet the Member for Ripon (Sir J.
Graham) in 1846, showing the propor-
tions in which this rate has been levied
on land, houses, and other property. I
am sorry that there is no return down
to the present year, because I believe
the facts proved by it will be found to
be the most conclusive argument against
any proposition based upon the assump-
tion that the landed interest suffers un-
duly from the incidence of the poor-rate.
In 1826, it appears the land alone paid
69 per cent. of all the poor-rate. In
1833 the land paid 63 per cent. only.
In 1841 it paid 52 per cent. only. Thus,
it will be observed, that in the period
from 1826 to 1841, being a period of
fifteen years, the share which the land
alone paid of the whole poor-rate of
the country, fell from 69 per cent. to
52 per cent., that is to say, from two-
thirds to about one-half of the whole
amount. And I think we may fairly
take for granted, seeing the fall in those
fifteen years, that a return made out to
the last year would show that the land
is not now paying more than forty per
cent. of the whole amount. [Mr. Wil-
son: Forty-five per cent.'] The hon.
Member for Westbury suggests that
forty-five per cent. will be the correct
estimate. Well, let us look at the
whole poor-rate levied. In 1833 the
whole amount was 8,600,000l.; in 1842
the amount had fallen to 6,500,000l.; in
1850, last year, it had fallen to 5,395,000l.
Now, here we have the broad fact, that,
within the eight years during which we
have had that legislation of which hon.
Gentlemen opposite complain, the poor-
rate of England and Wales has fallen
in amount more than a million sterling.
The calculations which I have made in
reference to these figures are upon the
assumption that the land now paid only
40 per cent., and not 45 per cent., and
of course the House will make all allow-
ance for that circumstance. I take the
year 1833, and find the land paying 63
per cent., that is to say, 5,434,000l.;
and then, taking 1850, and assuming
the land pays 40 per cent., you will find
that in amount the land now pays only
2,158,000l. In other words, the land
of England and Wales paid, in 1833,
double the poor-rate which it paid in
1850.
This is an important element in the
question we are now considering. The
right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr.
Herries) shakes his head; but I do not
mind that, for the right hon. Gentleman
has been in the habit of shaking his
head at everything from this side ever
since he has entered this House. Does
the right hon. Gentleman mean to say,
for example, that the condition of the
landed proprietary has not been affected
by the hundreds of millions expended
on railways in this country, and which
now pay 300,ocol. per annum to the
poor-rate on parishes to which they
have never contributed a pauper? Does
he mean to assert that manufacturing
towns and villages could be springing
up in every direction, and the moment
they spring up be taxed for the poor-
rate, without to that extent relieving
the land from the burdens to which it
has been subjected? If the right hon.
Gentleman means this, he certainly
could never have been fit for the post
of Chancellor of the Exchequer. At
any rate, these are facts to which I
think it not inappropriate to call the
attention of the House. But the argu-
ment is, that, notwithstanding this dimi-
*
28
434
APRIL II,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
r
nution in the poor-rates, the farmers are
still distressed. That, after all, is an
argument in favour of that view of the
question which I and my friends take;
our conviction being, that the trans-
ference of the rate from the occupying
farmer to the occupying householder,
by means of taxing his tea or his sugar,
will not prove permanently beneficial to
the tenant-farmers. For all the reduc-
tions in the poor-rate to which I have
alluded have not in the slightest degree
affected the interest of the tenant-
farmers, those cases of course excepted
in which the farm has been held con-
tinuously at the same rent during those
years over which the reductions have
extended; and any transference which
the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) can
make, in the event of his obtaining a ma-
jority, will have no effect whatever on the
tenant-farmer-for if there is any truth
in economical science, the tenant-farmer
will be compelled in the end to pay an
increased rent for the land he holds.
Undoubtedly, however, at this mo-
ment the condition of the tenant-farmer
is one which every man must regard
with sympathy. I defy any one to say,
looking to the course which I and my
friends have pursued as free-traders in
this House, that we have ever mani-
fested any want of sympathy for any
one class of the tax-payers of this coun-
try. At least there can be no denial of
the assertion that we have always advo-
cated diminished expenditure and dimi-
nished taxation; and that we have urged
a diminution of taxation in that parti-
cular direction which would have alike
affected all classes, inasmuch as our
object has been to remove taxes from
articles of general and universal con-
sumption, where the farmer would have
obviously benefited not less than the
weaver. But the farmers are in an un-
fortunate position; they are the victims
of a vicious system. That, however, is
not our system. It is the system of hon.
Gentlemen opposite. They created it
for their own purposes in 1815, and
they maintained it for their own pur-
poses up to 1846. They led the farmers
to believe that there could be no path
to prosperity but through the county
Members and the House of Commons.
I, for one, should be very sorry to be
connected with any trade or manufac-
ture if I had no reliance but on the
Members for Manchester. I should be
extremely sorry to entrust my interests
either to the impartiality of political
parties in this House, or to its intelli-
gence on commercial subjects. The un-
fortunate position of those among the
tenant-farmers who suffer most, con-
sists in this—that they notoriously hold
more land than they have capital to
cultivate. Their case is precisely the
same as that of many landowners, who
own extents of land on which they can-
not pay all that is due. All this is very
sad. If landowners buy land only to
obtain political influence, they are on
the road to ruin. If a tenant-farmer
takes more land than he can properly
cultivate in reference to his capital, he
is also on the road to ruin.
There are, no doubt, other questions
which ought to be considered in speak-
ing of the condition of the tenant-farmer.
There is, in particular, one question, in
which I took great interest in former
years, but the advocacy of which I have
been compelled to relinquish in conse-
quence of my not having received that
aid from the farmers which their private
representations had induced me to ex-
pect. I allude to the question of the
Game-laws. [Ironical cheers from the
Protectionists.] Surely that question is
as pertinent to this discussion as the
question of lunatic asylums. I men-
tioned the fact before, and I will again
call attention to it, as a most important
circumstance, that every witness exa-
mined by the Game-laws Committee
(and no Member of that Committee
would be found to dispute the respect-
ability or credibility of these witnesses)
declared that, whenever game was even
moderately preserved, greater injury was
done to the farmer occupying the land
than was inflicted by the whole amount
of his general and local taxes. I am
satisfied that hon. Gentlemen who
}
:
1851.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
preserve game, who indulge in sporting,
have no conception of the evils which
their tastes inflict on the community.
I should, however, be ashamed of my-
self if, while advocating the cause of
the tenant-farmers in this House, I did
not appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite,
supposing them to be the true friends of
the occupiers of the land, either to alter
the Game-laws, which they certainly
ought to do, or, if they will not do
that, at least to alter their practices,
and to discontinue that system which is
abhorrent to the civilization of our day,
and which, at all events, is most cruelly
injurious to those whom hon. Gentlemen
opposite profess to represent. [Cries of
Question!'] I am sorry some hon.
Gentlemen do not think that this is
speaking to the question. There are
those out of doors who do think that
it is very near the question.
But what are the remedies for the
difficulties of the tenant-farmers? You
have your set of remedies. We have
our set of remedies. I am free at once
to admit that I have no expectation, in
passing from the system of the last forty
years to that sound system which now
prevails, and must henceforth prevail,
that we shall find the tenant-farmers,
one and all, and immediately, by any
kind of contrivance on the part of this
House, jumping into a state of unequi-
vocal prosperity. As they now are, they
have been before. I heard but yester-
day of a farm in Hertfordshire which
has had six tenants in eighteen years.
Their prosperity was not universal in
past years, and it is not now. But if
they do get into a better position, it can
only be by paths which are very evident;
in some cases, by reductions in the rents;
in other cases, by increase of produce;
and in most cases, by a more successful
adaptation of the powers of their farms
to the production of those articles which
the markets would be most willing to
take from them.
There is no doubt whatever that there
are great numbers of tenant-farmers who
are not complaining, and who have no
reason for complaint. And I firmly
435
believe that if all were like the few, and
possessed the same energy, the same
skill in the adaptation of the resources
of their land to the requirements of the
markets-above all, if they asserted their
independence in making terms with their
landlords, they would all overcome their
difficulties, and overcome them more
speedily, more certainly, and more per-
manently, than can be looked for from
any assistance likely to be extended to
them by the House of Commons.
The noble Lord the Member for Col-
chester (Lord J. Manners) has adverted
at some length to the present state of
crime. In reference to this, I wish to
state to the House some facts to which
I desired to call attention the other
night, in the discussion on the income-
tax, but which are quite applicable on
this occasion. Probably these statistics
will be consolatory to the noble Lord,
who is not wanting in benevolence. I
hold in my hand a return of the number
of persons taken into custody in Man-
chester since 1842, the return being for
every two years. In 1842, the number
was 13,801; and I believe the number
was 12,000 in the two years preceding.
In 1844, the number fell to 10,700; in
1846, to 7,600; in 1848, to 6,200; in
1849, to 4,600; and in 1850, the num-
ber was only 4,578. Thus, in 1850, not
one-third of the number of persons were
taken into custody in Manchester who
were found to have been taken into
custody in the year 1842. If we take
the general facts as to England and
Wales (not taking last year into ac-
count, as to which there is no return),
we shall find a great reduction of com-
mittals from 1842 down to 1849. The
diminution was from 31,000 to 27,000;
and thus, although the population has
increased ten per cent., the committals
have decreased not less than 12 per cent.
I have now stated, in detail, what I
regard as the reasons why the proposi-
tion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli)
would be of no value if it were agreed
to. It can only serve to delude-not
the owners of the land, for they under-
stand all these tricks-but the occupying
J
28-2
436
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
farmers throughout the country. It
will serve but to delude these men into
a belief that the thing which is really
intended as a measure to cement a party
in Parliament, is intended to do some-
thing for their benefit. One great re-
sult of the alteration in our commercial
system with regard to corn is, I hope,
this-it has not come yet, but it is in
process of coming about-that the far-
mers will no longer conceive themselves
to be a class having special privileges,
special rights, and special claims upon
the House of Commons. They will now
know that their only chance is precisely
that chance which all the rest of the
community enjoy-a good education for
their children for the next generation,
and for themselves, their intelligence,
such as they have, and their industry,
such as they can employ. And I will
add, especially, the more they make
themselves independent of their land-
lords as respects the old retainer and
chieftain theory, the more they enable
themselves to make bargains with their
landlords, just as they would with other
persons with whom they do business,
the sooner will they find themselves out
of their present undoubted difficulties.
And I believe in my conscience, that if
you talk here for ever of agricultural
distress, you will still find that there is
no remedy which it is in the power of
Parliament to give. The only possible
chance for the farmers is in the exercise
of those virtues and those talents by
which the rest of their countrymen
thrive; and if they exercise their own
energies, and cultivate the quality of
self-reliance, I am convinced that this
country, with the finest roads, with the
best markets, and with a favourable
climate, will be found to triumph not
only in her manufactures, but also in
her agriculture.
DI BID
GAME LAWS.
ST. ALBAN'S, MARCH 26, 1845.
[A public dinner was given to Mr. Horncastle, a respectable farmer in Hertfordshire, as
a testimony of the approbation felt by his brother farmers at his courage in exposing
the grievance of the Game-laws. Mr. Bright was invited to the dinner, and
delivered the following speech on the occasion.]
I NEED Scarcely say that when I re-
ceived the invitation to be present at this
meeting I felt it as an exceedingly gratify-
ing proof that the trouble I have recently
taken in connection with the question
of game-preserving had not passed un-
noticed by the farmers of this district of
the country. But, whatever pleasure I
felt at receiving the invitation, I may
acknowledge with the utmost sincerity,
that it has been far surpassed by the
gratification I have had in being present
here to-night. I have been delighted
to see so many of the farmers from this
part of the country assembled for the
purpose of expressing their opinion
upon the conduct of one of their brother
farmers in connection with one of the
most important questions which can
bear upon the prosperity of the agri-
cultural portion of the community.
I was delighted to see, from the public
papers, the spirited manner in which
Mr. Horncastle came forward for the
purpose of speaking what was known
to be the opinions of nineteen out of
every twenty farmers in the kingdom;
and not to the public only, but in direct
opposition, and with personal appli-
cation, to the very man upon whom
a farmer is generally supposed to be
most dependent. But it must now be a
matter of satisfaction of the very highest
kind that the effort which he then made
and which hundreds of farmers ought
to have made, and which, I believe,
hundreds will soon be prepared to fol-
low-that the efforts which he has
made have been so highly appreciated
by his brother farmers. I think a
farmer ought not so much to cultivate
the good opinion of landowners as that
of farmers; and though I have no wish
that there should be that class spirit
amongst us which would lead to the
supposition that we hold together for
peculiar privileges or party interests of
our own class, yet I do think that a
man is craven-hearted and mean-spirited
who, when his own class is attacked, as
the farmers have been through the
operation of this system of game-pre-
serving, would not come forward and
speak on behalf of his own class and of
that vast body of men with whom he is
constantly associated, and whose in-
terests are so bound up with his own.
It is well that you should testify your
high estimation of such men as your
brother farmer whom you have met
to-night to honour. Independent far-
mers, men who dare speak and dare
come out, are not so abundant in this
country as that you can afford to think
t
•
438
MARCH 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
lightly of any of them. Probably under
no conceivable circumstances can it be
expected that there should not be some-
what more dependence between the oc-
cupiers and the owners of land than
there is between some other classes in
society; but it is of the utmost conse-
quence that a system like this — which
wars against the prosperity of the far-
mers, which blights all their hopes, and
makes it utterly impossible that their
industry should procure its reward — it
is, I say, of the utmost possible conse-
quence that there should be men who
dare speak out, and that when such in-
dividuals are found they should receive
honour, and be repaid with the gratitude
of their brother farmers in every part of
the kingdom.
We have heard a good deal within
the last year or two of farmers' friends;
but I take it that Mr. Horncastle is a
true farmers' friend, and, if it were not
that fortunate circumstances have made
him in some degree independent of
those who would be likely to injure
him, he would not only be the farmers'
friend, but he would be likely to become
a martyr for farmers. I am delighted
to see this meeting, because I take it to
be a sign of the times, and a sign of
better times-an evidence that farmers
are about to think, act, and do some-
thing for themselves. I conceive there
is no delusion so great as that of be-
lieving that the great and the mighty of
the earth will ever be the true, sincere, and
disinterested friends of the middle classes,
either in this or any other kingdom.
I have heard men say that there is
no spirit amongst farmers. I never be-
lieved that statement. I have felt that
there has always been spirit, but that it
has been slumbering. It has not been
dead, but it has been less active on ac-
count of many circumstances; but cir-
cumstances may arise, and now I believe
have arisen, to make that spirit appear
not only existent, but to show it active,
resolute, and determined.
The real object of this meeting is to
give an expression to the opinions of
the farmers in this district with respect
to what is now commonly called the
game nuisance. It is a protest against
a mischievous and unjust system. The
time will come, and that too before the
children of some now present are as old
as we are, when people will look back
with astonishment at what farmers have
suffered in connection with this question
of game. Look at the position in which
you now stand. The landowner lets
his land, and the farmer, a capitalist to
some amount, takes it. Well, every-
body who is not acquainted with the
circumstances of this country, and who
is not puzzled with the extraordinary
things he sees round him, would suppose
that, when the landowner lets his land,
he gave up its ownership during the
term for which it was let. That is, he
lets the land to the tenant, the tenant
having the right to possess fully all the
produce of the land, and the whole of
the animals and stock which live upon
it. Now, look at the position of the
farmer when he takes his farm. It is
said he himself makes half his bargain;
he is uncommonly fortunate if he does
Is it not notorious that in every
county of Great Britain there is, and
has been for years past, a competition
for land so fierce that nearly all the
bargain is in the hands of the landlord?
The effect of this competition is to bid
up rent to the very highest point at
which it can be hoped to be paid, and
to bear down every covenant and right
which, under other circumstances, the
farmer might reasonably expect to be
granted to him for the preservation of
his interests.
So.
Now, the farmer gets possession of
his land; it becomes the centre of the
hopes of himself and his family; his
capital is more or less invested in it
some sunk in permanent improvements,
and some in the stock, implements, and
materials upon the surface of the farm.
He hopes that it may turn out well for
him; he gets up early, works hard and
late-thousands of farmers with their
hands, and thousands more with their
heads. He gives his skill, industry, and
perseverance to the soil; he is subject
1845.
439
GAME LAWS.
to the vicissitudes of seasons, against
which no human foresight can altogether
prevail, and he stands the chance and
hazard of the markets. He has to con-
tend also against the effect of the igno-
rance of landowning legislators, in
which ignorance, unfortunately for him,
there are no vicissitudes. The result
is but a very moderate compensation
for his expenditure and labour, and that
compensation is in many cases alto-
gether destroyed, and in very many
more cases much lessened, by a system
which does no good to any human being
whatever, which exists solely for the
amusement of the rich and powerful
class at the expense of the interests of
the tenantry and peasantry, and at a
very great and enormous sacrifice to
the whole community. There can be
no success to the farmer under a system
of game-preserving.
In moving for a committee in the
House of Commons, two or three weeks
ago, I brought forward cases which
were laughed at in that assembly, and
which I was told were not true. I did
not bring before them my worst cases,
for I was afraid that had I done so
they would not have believed them;
but, now we have obtained that com-
mittee, I will produce cases infinitely
worse than the very worst of those I
then cited. I shall call before them
farmers, who will prove, on oath were
it necessary-which it is not before a
committee of the House of Commons-
that they had sacrificed at least 500l.
a-year for a succession of years. I
can bring forward a tenant who can
show that for a number of years he has
expended 1,000l. annually in the pur-
chase of artificial manure, and yet so
completely was his farm ravaged by
game that he found it useless to toil
and sacrifice his capital and to farm in
this manner, and he therefore discon-
tinued this large purchase of artificial
manure, and thus to a very great extent
diminished the employment of labourers,
and consequently lessened their chance
of a fair remuneration in the parish in
which that farm was situate.
By this system of game-preserving
the landlords are made the greatest
enemies of a class in whose real well-
being they have the truest and greatest
interest; for of all men in the world
the landlord is the most interested in
having his tenants contented and pros-
perous: not only because he lives among
them, occasionally meets them, and
hears from and about them, but because
his own pocket interest is involved in it,
if he could but see it in its true light;
for where you find the tenants most
prosperous, enlightened, and satisfied,
there you find the soil best cultivated,
the amount of its produce the greatest,
poor-rates the lowest, and rent in-
variably highest, and paid with the
But
greatest certainty and security.
the landlords take extraordinary means
to make their farmers suspect them. I
maintain that there is not, and never
has been since the time when man first
peopled this earth, if history may be
relied on, any race of beings so unsus-
pecting and confiding as the tenantry of
this country. During the last year the
landlords have been asking the farmers
-nay, in some cases threatening to com-
pel them -to employ more labourers.
A landed proprietor, a Member of the
House of Commons, told me only a
week ago, when discussing this very
question, that he forced all his tenants
to employ a certain amount of labour
upon each of his farms. If a man pre-
serves game, refuses security of tenure,
talks all sorts of nonsense to his tenants
if ever he gets them round him, and dis-
courses about everything but their real
grievances and the true way by which a
man can become prosperous, and then,
when he finds that some labourers are
not employed, and that there are not
sufficient means for the farmer whereby
he can pay a high rent and a high rate
of wages also-if he comes and forces
them by covenants in their leases, that
they shall employ an amount of labour
over and above that which they would
otherwise be willing to employ - I say
that all this introduces a system which
is most destructive to the interests of
•
440
MARCH 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Į
the landowners themselves, and most
degrading and ruinous to the indepen-
dence and interests of the tenantry.
Capital must yield profit, or labour will
not thrive. Men do not take farms
merely for the pleasure of paying rents
or employing labourers. I am a manu-
facturer in a considerable way of busi-
ness, but I never professed to keep on
my manufactory for the benefit of my
work-people, or for the sake of clothing
my customers. My object is, by the
expenditure of capital and by giving
labour to a business, to procure for
myself and family a comfortable income,
with a hope of realising something like
a competency at a late period of my
life. I apprehend that the tenant-farmer
takes his farm with a precisely similar
view; and yet I am convinced that there
is no class of capitalists in this country
who, for the last thirty years, have ob-
tained so small a return for the amount
of capital and labour they have em-
ployed as have the cultivators of the
soil.
If the landowners are interested in
the well-being of their tenantry, the
tenantry are also interested in the pros-
perity of the labourers. I have been
in some of the northern parts of this
kingdom, where I have seen a very dif-
ferent condition of the agricultural
labourers from that which is to be
noticed in the southern counties: a
state in which the labourers seem to
be interested in the success of the
farmer and the prosperity of the soil.
The same condition might exist all over
the kingdom. Get rid of this infamous
trifling with the interests of the farmer;
do not let the amusements of a small
class be put in competition not only
with the prosperity, but with the very
existence of a much larger class. Let
us, if possible-I say 'us,' for, although
I am not a farmer, I am deeply in-
terested, as every man must be, in the
prosperity of agriculture-I say, let us
get a system of farming, of agreements,
of management, from one end of it to
the other, placed on some intelligible,
rational, business-like footing, and then
we shall have landowners respected
because they are just, and tenants inde-
pendent because they are prosperous.
I have said that by this system the
amusements of the rich are put in the
balance, and actually weigh down con-
siderations of much greater importance
-the prosperity of farmers, the well-
being of the labourers, and the true
interests of the community. Who does
not know that from 1838 to 1842 we
had, for nearly five years, harvests
which were under the average; that the
consequence was great scarcity of pro-
visions, with very high prices? Some
men may think that this is a very desira-
ble state of things. I will not argue for
a moment with any individual who
maintains that scarcity can be beneficial
either for individuals or nations. During
that period we had an importation from
abroad to a considerable extent, such as
the law allowed; but we had at the
same time millions of heads of game of
every description-game which, in a
country densely peopled like this, must
soon come to be considered as vermin;
and yet there they were throughout the
whole of that period devouring probably
as large a quantity of the produce of
the soil of England as the whole amount
that we imported from abroad.
The community, then, have a claim
upon the landowners, if not upon the
tenant-farmers. They have made them-
selves by law, though we are not here
to discuss that law, and we should very
likely greatly differ, and you might not
agree with us, on that question; but
they have made themselves the pur-
veyors-general-that is, they supply the
food, or profess to do so for the
27,000,000 of people who inhabit Great
Britain and Ireland. If they do thus
think it desirable for State purposes
that the population should be restricted
to the food they are willing to supply
them with, they are not to deem it un-
reasonable if some portion of the popu-
lation, who sometimes do not get
enough, should ask them why it is that
while they maintain this system of re-
striction they also maintain a practice
1845.
44I
GAME LAWS.
by which a large portion of the produce
is devoured by game kept solely for
their own amusement? I believe-
indeed, I know-that at the end of last
session, when I gave notice of my in-
tention to bring forward this question
of the Game-laws in Parliament, it
was thought to be rather an odd and
somewhat impertinent meddling with
matter not precisely within my
province.
a
I remember, when I read the notice
that I should move the House upon the
subject at the commencement of the
present session, that there was a little
titter, a little derisive laughter from the
opposite side of the House. The land-
owners were not well acquainted with
the condition of the farmers, or the state
of the country in which they live. I
believe they do not know much about
the mischief which game does to their
tenants and themselves. I think I may
venture to say that I know more about
the state of the tenantry of this country
than the majority of those to whom the
tenants pay their rents. When
When this
case was brought forward, unless my
statements could have been altogether
denied, it was utterly impossible for the
House to refuse the committee. There
were the cases of damage well authenti-
cated-injury to the tenant, destruction
to the allotments of the labourers, the
insolence, depredations, and irritation
caused by gamekeepers, the demoraliza-
tion of the labourers, the thousands in
gaol, the hundreds transported, and the
scores murdered-the House of Com-
mons would have been infinitely worse
than its greatest calumniator or enemy
has ever dared to brand it, had it
refused the investigation which I de-
manded, founded upon the cases which
I was then able to submit to it.
The committee which has been ap-
pointed, I believe, will be a tolerably
fair one. I chose seven of its members
myself, and the Government selected
the remaining eight. I am bound to
acknowledge that throughout the whole
of this matter Ministers have behaved
in the most honourable and handsome
manner; that there was not the slightest
objection to any one person proposed
by me as a member of that committee;
and I believe that, if the Government
had dared to have done it, they would
have put upon it from their side of the
House men more favourable to the in-
terests of the tenantry than those who
were eventually placed there. We are
about to meet next week, for the first
time, for evidence. I have had an
amount of correspondence which it is
almost impossible to get through. I
have written for the last fortnight or
three weeks not unfrequently from thirty
to fifty letters a-day, nearly all of which
have been to persons connected, more
or less, with the cultivation of the soil,
and having reference to the question of
game. I have here a large number of
names of persons who will come up and
give evidence before the committee. I
do not think the other party will call
many witnesses; for he would be a very
bold man who would come up and say
that game-preserving was advantageous,
or not positively injurious, to agricul-
ture. They will probably content them-
selves by cross-examining the witnesses
that we shall bring up. But what we
want is specific and accurate statements
of damage, and opinions formed upon
experience of the past, by men who
have had the best possible opportunities
of judging.
I do hope, when this evidence is
brought out to the public, as it will be
before or about the close of this session,
that we shall then have this grievous
abuse fairly exposed; and when that is
once done we may be certain that there
is no man out of Bedlam, no individual
who does not wish to bring down upon
himself the ridicule or, what is worse,
the execration of the public, will ever
say another word in favour of this
grievance of preserving game, which has
been practised for so many years past
by a great portion of the landed pro-
prietors in most parts of the kingdom.
But what I want is, that farmers every-
where should seriously consider their
position. There are farmers who yet
442
MARCH 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
believe that I am their enemy, inasmuch
as I have been prominently connected
with the agitation of another question.
It may be that those farmers are right,
and that I am wrong. I believe they
are honest; I am quite sure that I am.
Upon that question we must agree to
differ until one or the other be con-
verted. I trust that all discussion upon
it may be carried on in a rational and
kindly spirit, such as becomes men who
wish only for the truth, and then I be-
lieve the time cannot be far distant when
that which is true will be discovered,
and not only discovered, but esta-
blished.
But upon this question of game
ninety-nine farmers out of every hun-
dred would shake hands and agree with
me entirely. I had a letter from Wilt-
shire the other day, from a gentleman
connected very closely with farmers, and
whose family are all similarly situated.
He says,
'Your name is a household
word with the farmers in this district;
and they literally swear by you!' If
we agree upon this point we will work
harmoniously; we will go together as
far as we can, and do all the good we
can in company. I wish the farmers in
this county-and there are some who
are well able to do it-would put them-
selves still more in communication with
me upon this question. Let us have
from every county where game-preserving
has been carried to any serious extent,
a body of witnesses who shall for ever
settle the question, as respects the par-
ticular county. It is not sufficient that
I should prove that game-preserving has
done alarming mischief in Suffolk or in
Wiltshire, for to prove that there is a
local malady would not perhaps justify
Parliament in applying that which may
be termed a general remedy; but what
I want is to bring out as much as
possible the truth from every county
where this nuisance has been oppressive.
They should come up now before the
committee, and that will be infinitely
better than petitioning Parliament. Let
them come up now and state before the
committee what they know and what
they have seen, and you may rely upon
it, such is the intelligence and deter-
mination in the public mind of England,
that when an abuse is fairly exposed
and brought out to demonstration so
that nobody can deny that it is an
abuse, the time is near at hand when
Parliament will be forced to abate it.
It will be a fine thing for this country
when farmers lose a little bit of that
overweening confidence they have in the
farmers' friends. I would not to-night
say a syllable against any landed pro-
prietor-I believe in my conscience that
many of their errors are errors of judg-
ment and not of heart. I believe that
they have been living amongst circum-
stances the most unfavourable to a dis-
covery of what is their true interests;
and their ignorance of their own affairs
has made them most officious in offering
advice, which was wholly valueless to
their tenants when assembled at dinners
and meetings of various kinds. What
I want farmers to do henceforth is this,
to take nothing upon credit. I would
not take anything for granted. Do not
believe anything that I say, or which my
friend Mr. Cobden may utter; do not,
for a moment, think it worth anything,
until you have reasoned it out and
examined the facts, and made yourselves
sure. But apply the same rule to the
landowners. I want you to apply it to
all. Candidates come before you at the
hustings, and they pledge themselves to
all sorts of impossible things. It is
notorious that half the things which
men say they will do when they go to
Parliament, that assembly has no more
power to perform than it has to prevent
the sun rising to-morrow. These men
come, and they promise a variety of
impossible things; they go to Parlia-
ment and cannot perform them, and
then those who sent them there are
disappointed, and fancy they are be-
trayed.
If the tenantry of this country, power-
ful as they are now in numbers on the
county registers, would look a little to
their own rank, and not quite so much
to another rank and order, they would
1845.
443
GAME LAWS.
find more real attention to their true
interests on behalf of county representa-
tives than they do at present. I bought
the Times newspaper at the station as
I was coming down, and I find a para-
graph in it which may be worth reading.
It is extracted from the Western Times,
a Devonshire paper. It states-
'A requisition is actually determined on,
to invite three eminent renting farmers to
stand as candidates for the next Parliamen-
tary election. The farmers of Devon are
determined to have men who pay rent to
look after their interests in the House of
Commons. We do not anticipate much
immediate success from such a step, but it
will teach the aristocracy a lesson, and open
the eyes of the tenant-farmers to their
power, if they choose to act in concert.'
How would it be if a tenant-farmer
were to put up for some county? In
my neighbourhood there used to be a
little jealousy about manufacturers.
They had a notion that nobody should
go to Parliament but a man who had
no other occupation to fill up his time,
and who had moreover a great deal of
money to bear the expense of a life in
London, which was supposed to be
enormous. But now they have found
out their mistake, and they take a man
here and another there, who is not a
lord, and whose ancestors we do not
know exactly what they were, but a man
who has common sense and common
honesty-which two things I suppose
are called 'common' for the very reason
that they are so rarely to be met with.
We have heard frequently-I have
read repeatedly, at the proceedings of
agricultural meetings of various kinds-
that the toast has been proposed of
'agriculture and commerce' by men
who despise commerce but yet sell
game-they have had the audacity to
toast commerce and agriculture to-
gether. There is and ought ever to be
a real union between these two great
branches, by which nations subsist, but
heretofore it has been only nominal, and
never real: legislation has prevented its
being so, for legislation has been foolish
in commerce as it has been in agri-
culture. Speeches made at meetings
such as I have referred to have also had
the effect of making this union unreal.
I hope that to-night is the beginning
of a new era. No man here will believe
for a moment that I can have personally
the smallest interest in injuring any
individual in this country who is the
possessor or the cultivator of a single
acre of its soil. There never can be
prosperity in any country while all the
numerous cultivators of the soil are
permanently depressed and injured;
there can be no doubt that under all
circumstances the vast bulk of the sub-
sistence of our people must be derived
from our own soil, and from the direct
labour, as cultivators, of a vast portion
of our own countrymen.
There can be no doubt whatever that
any law passed in Parliament for any
particular benefit of commerce, unless
it be a just law,-and being just, which
can be permanent,-must be injurious
to the prosperity of agriculture itself.
In the county from which I come, Lan-
cashire, the most prominent in the world
for manufactures and commerce, there
is at this time a condition of prosperity,
when contrasted with what we saw
three years ago, so remarkable that it
appears to be nothing less than a
miracle. I say it is that miracle which
we see every day, and yet are unob-
servant of it: the miracle that the sun
shines, and that the showers fall in due
season, the earth is prolific, and the
great and bountiful Benefactor of our
species gives abundance to the people;
and that abundance having come for
two or three years in succession, the
prostrate millions of working-men who
were idle and pauperised are now stand-
ing erect, and are employed, and well
paid, and independent, as much so as
I have ever seen them at any former
period. Whilst I see that with this
abundance there is that prosperity in the
most numerous classes of the people,
I cannot for a moment suppose that the
prosperity of a nation can in any degree
depend upon the foolish fallacies which
J
444
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
;
ignorant men of all parties have spread
in connection with these subjects.
But with reference to this game move-
ment I must ask this meeting to bear
in mind that when a man connected
with the district which I come from-
having no claim by long standing in the
House of Commons, nor by lengthened
service anywhere-when he comes for-
ward upon a question like this, you must
be certain that to carry it to a successful
issue it needs far more than my own
individual efforts: it requires the as-
sistance of intelligent, independent, and
experienced men in all parts of the
country. There are some in this meeting
who within the next month will give
evidence on your behalf before the Game
Committee, and I trust that the names
I already have down here will be in-
creased before that time, so that—at
least-half a dozen good witnesses may
go from this district, I mean from this
particular county. So far with respect
to this Game Committee.
There is one more topic to which I
would call your attention. An attempt
was made only a fortnight ago to pro-
cure a committee to inquire into other
complaints of the agricultural portion
of the community; that committee was
refused; but from the altered tone
which I have seen in the House, even
within the very short time that I have
been a Member of it, I am persuaded
that the time is hastening on when all
parties in that House-the highest
Protectionist and the most active and
prominent Free-trader, with all that are
between those points-will be anxious
to come to a real and honest investi-
gation into the circumstances which do
affect the prosperity of the cultivators
of the soil. When once there comes
that spirit over the minds of men,
a spirit which repudiates party--which
seeks not to gain advantage here by the
spoliation of somebody there-but a
spirit which wishes the truth to be fully
discovered and established,-when once
that spirit prevails upon both sides of
the House, as I believe it will before
long with reference to some of these
matters, then the farmers of this country,
and every class, may look upon that day
as the dawning of a better era, when the
cultivators of the soil, the honourable,
ancient, numerous, and most necessary
of all classes of the community, shall no
longer be made the shuttlecock of poli-
tical parties, but be treated as rational
men, and their interests considered in a
rational manner.
I will say, in conclusion, that I am
delighted with this meeting. I have
met now, for two years past, with large
bodies of farmers in different parts of
the country; many have been friendly
and others hostile to my views; I have
always gone from them with this con-
viction, that wherever they have erred,
as I believe they have often done, it has
been from mistaking their way, and
because either they have followed blind
leaders, or are themselves unsuspectingly
blind. But I come more and more to
this conviction, that there is no class of
men in this country who, if they know
what is right, and have the power to
follow their convictions, will make a
more unanimous and determined effort
for the attainment of that right than
will the tenant-farmers of this king-
dom. When I see what my friend Mr.
Horncastle has done, and the manner
in which you have received his services,
and expressed your approbation of his
conduct, I cannot but think that, as
there are thousands who can applaud
his conduct, there must be great num-
bers ready to imitate it.
:
!
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND.
BIRMINGHAM, JANUARY 26, 1864.
[In November, 1863, Mr. Cobden and Mr. Bright spoke at a meeting at Rochdale, on
the subject of the English laws affecting Land and Labourers. These speeches were
grossly misrepresented by the Times newspaper, and Mr. Cobden charged Mr. Delane,
the Editor of that Journal, with intentional and scandalous misrepresentation in his
comments upon them. The correspondence between the Statesman and the Editor
was instructive, and created much interest at the time. The following speech was
delivered as a comment on the conduct of Mr. Delane, and as a defence of the
opinions expressed at the meeting at Rochdale.]
ALTHOUGH I have often stood before
you on this platform, yet I can assure
you that on no former occasion have I
felt it necessary so much to ask your
forbearance and your silent attention as
on this occasion. I had no hope a
week ago that I should be able to attend
here to-night, and to address this large
audience, but being here in the per-
formance of my duty as one of your
representatives, I shall endeavour to
lay before you the thoughts which are
uppermost in my mind, and which bear
upon the questions in which we are all
deeply interested.
There are two subjects which have
been treated upon by my hon. Colleague,
about which I would say a few words
before I come to that which I had in-
tended to speak about. The first is the
question which now keeps Europe in
suspense, which may end in a war, or
may end in some diplomatic accom-
modation of a long-standing quarrel.
I will not go into the history of the
Danish and German dispute. I have
received since I came here a long and
most able letter from a German Professor
resident in this country on behalf of the
German view of that question-pro-
bably he is now within the sound of my
voice. I can only tell him, in telling
you, that I agree entirely, and from my
heart, with every word that my hon.
Colleague spoke upon that question;
and I will say further, that if there be a
Government possible in our day that
will plunge this country into war under
the pretence of maintaining the balance
of power in Europe and sustaining any
kingdom there, be it little or great, I
say that Government not only is not
worthy of the confidence of the people
of England, but deserves our execration
and abhorrence.
There is one other question to which
my hon. Colleague has devoted a con-
siderable portion of his speech. He
said, and I believe it, that a year ago
he felt it a painful thing to stand here
and to avow opinions contrary to those
of many of his friends, and contrary to
those which I had avowed before. I
told you then how painful a thing it
was for me to stand up and to contro-
vert on this platform any of the state-
ments which he had made. I came
here to-night intending to say no single
1
1
+
!
446
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
word as to the question between North
and South in the United States. My
opinion is that the unanimous judgment
of the people of England, so far as that
is ever shown upon any public question,
is in favour of the course which her
Majesty's Government have publicly
declared it to be their intention to
pursue. I believe that my hon. Friend
is mistaken in the view he takes of the
meaning of the result of what he calls
a recognition of the South. I have
seen it stated by authority, North as
well as South, and by authority which
I may term English, and by authority
from France, that in the present con-
dition of that quarrel, recognition, by
all the usages of nations, must neces-
sarily lead to something more. And,
therefore, although there were no ques-
tion of slavery, even though it were
simply a political revolt, and though
there were no special moral question
connected with it, I believe, looking to
the past usage of this country with
regard to the rebellion of the Greeks
against Turkey, and with regard to the
revolt of the colonies of South America
against Spain, that it can be demon-
strated that these cases afford no
support whatever to the argument that
we are permitted now to recognise the
South, and that if such recognition did
take place now, it could only exasperate
still more the terrible strife which exists
on the North American continent, and
would spread that strife even to Europe
itself.
I am myself of opinion, as I have
been from the first, that the people of
America-so numerous, so powerful, so
instructed, so capable in every way—
will settle the difficulties of that conti-
nent without asking the old countries of
Europe to take any share in them. I
believe that in the providence of the
Supreme, the slaveholder-untaught,
unteachable by fact or argument, or
Christian precept-has been permitted
to commit-I will not call it the crime
-but the act of suicide. Whether
President Lincoln be in favour of aboli-
tion; whether the Northerners are unani-
JAN. 26,
mous against slavery; whatever may
be said or thought with regard to the
transactions on that continent, he must
be deaf and blind-and worse than deaf
and blind-who does not perceive that,
through the instrumentality of this
strife, that most odious and most inde-
scribable offence against man and
against heaven-the slavery of man,
the bondage of four millions of our
fellow-creatures-is coming to a certain
and rapid end.
Sir, I will say of this question that I
look forward to the time when I shall
stand on this platform with my honour-
able Colleague, and when he will join
with me-for he is honest enough and
frank enough to do that-when he will
join with me in rejoicing that there does
not breathe a slave on the North Ameri-
can Continent, and that the Union has
been completely restored. And not
only so, but he will rejoice that England
did not in the remotest manner, by a
word or a breath, or the raising of a
finger, or the setting of a type, do one
single thing to promote the atrocious
object of the leaders of this accursed
insurrection.
Now, Sir, I must ask you to listen to
me for a little on matters less exciting
—and our friends down below here who
are enduring a sort of purgatory,-I
must ask them to be as compassionate
to me as they can, and I will com-
miserate them as much as possible.
About two months ago, on the twenty-
fourth of November, I had the opportu-
nity of making a speech in the town of
Rochdale, where I live. The meeting
was, I suppose, nearly as large as this.
It was called for the purpose of afford-
ing an opportunity to our distinguished
representative, Mr. Cobden, to address
his constituents. There are very few
meetings of that kind at Rochdale to
which I am not invited, and in which I
am not expected to take part. On that
occasion I took the opportunity of
objecting to those persons who think
that everything is done in this country
that needs to be done that everybody
is so happy that politics are at an end.
1864.
447
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND.
I spoke particularly of the question of
the million or million and a half of our
labouring population who are employed
in cultivating the soil. I need not tell
you that from that time to this there
has been rather a lively discussion in
the newspapers about what was said at
that meeting.
I have had no opportunity of speak-
ing since, and I have not thought it
necessary to write anything on the
matter, but if you will give me your
attention for a short time I should like
to say a little about it. What I said at
that meeting on the subject of the land
was this:-
'I should say, if we were fairly repre-
sented, that feudalism, with regard to the
land of England, would perish, and that
the agricultural labourer throughout the
United Kingdom would be redeemed from
that poverty and serfdom which, up to
this time, have been his lot. It would
take a night, it would take a long speech,
to go into the question of the condition of
that unfortunate class; but with laws such
as we have, which are intended to bring
vast tracks of land into the possession of
one man, that one man may exercise
great political power, that system is a
curse to the country, and dooms the
agricultural labourer, I say, to perpetual
poverty and degradation.'
There were comments on that speech,
but I will only refer to the comments
of one paper, the Times. The Times,
in an article upon foreign politics, and
speaking of small States in Europe who
may have something to gain by change,
said that they might look upon these
changes with something of that satis-
faction with which the poor might
regard Mr. Bright's proposition for the
division among them of the lands of
the rich. Well, you know that a cor-
respondence took place almost imme-
diately, and in consequence of that
passage, between my friend Mr. Cobden
and Mr. John Delane, the editor of the
Times. Now, this is what the Times
had said, that I am now about to read,
two days after the speech :-
'This language'
that is, the language of Mr. Cobden;
and yet my language, I am free to say,
was more strong upon the general
question, I think, than Mr. Cobden's-
'so often repeated and so often calculated
to excite discontent among the poor and
half-informed, has really only one intelli-
gible meaning. "Reduce the electoral
franchise; for when you have done so you
will obtain an assembly which will seize
on the estates of proprietors of land and
divide them gratuitously among the
poor."
Well, Sir, when this notable newspaper
editor was brought to book, what did
he say? On the same day he wrote a
letter to Mr. Cobden, the 18th Decem-
ber, and also published an article in his
In his letter he says:
newspaper.
'You seem to assume that I charged
you with proposing that this division
should be accomplished by violence.'
Does anybody believe that any one
without violence can seize upon the
lands of the rich, and distribute them
gratuitously, that is, for nothing, amongst
the poor? On the same day, in an
article, he made this statement :-
66 a-
Nobody was likely to charge those
two gentlemen with recommending
grarian" outrages, for their interest is as
much bound up with social order, the
rights of property, and the Queen's peace
as that of the whole peerage."
Which is true; but why did not he find
that out before he had made that
charge? He says,—
'Nobody who read the single line
which Mr. Cobden has seized for à peg to
hang his defence upon could imagine for
a moment that it pointed to violence.'
Now,
This is the gentleman who professes to
counsel and lead the nation.
suppose he had charged Adam Smith,
the great apostle of political economy,
with approving piracy, or if he had
charged John Wesley with being an
encourager of drunkenness and pro-
↓
·

448
JAN. 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
-
fanity, would it have been more extra-
ordinary than that he should charge
Mr. Cobden and myself with instigating
agrarian outrages and the seizure of the
estates of those who now hold them,
for the purpose of dividing them among
the people, of course taking nothing
from the people for them, and therefore
giving nothing to the rich for them? If
there be two men in England, I will un-
dertake to say, who have more conscien-
tiously and more faithfully preached for
twenty-five years the doctrines of ab-
solute honesty with regard to poli-
tical questions in England, those two
men are Mr. Cobden and myself. But
Mr. Cobden came forward to assail
Mr. Delane when he made this charge
against me. He found a man in a
mask endeavouring to stab me in the
back, for he had not seen that the
same man had been, in a previous
article, also stabbing him, and he
came forward, and dragged his mask
from him, and he showed him to the
gaze of the whole nation and of the
world. And at last, after denial and
equivocation of every kind, this un-
masked editor of this great journal was
obliged to retire from the personal part
of this controversy, and to skulk back
into his anonymous hiding-place, which
suits him better.
Neither
I will tell you how it was.
Mr. Cobden nor I have ever said any-
thing to show that we thought it desir-
able to abolish by force of law anony-
mous writing in our newspapers; but
Mr. Cobden laments, as I do, and as
you all do, that the anonymous system
is inevitably a shelter for a man who
has no sense of honour. I recollect a
description which I am sure will suit
Mr. Delane admirably. It was pub-
lished some time ago in the city of New
York, and described a notorious poli-
tician there who, if I am not mistaken,
has been at the elbow of the New York
correspondent of the Times for the last
twelve months-with what happy suc-
cess to the forecast and the honesty of
that paper we all know. It was said of
him that he was a just man and a
righteous man, and that he walked up-
rightly before the world, but when he
was not before the world his walk was
slantindicular.' Sir, the Times news-
paper, notwithstanding all this, is a
power in this country, and a power in
Europe. No man laments more than
I do that so much power should be
associated with what I will call a god-
less intellect and a practical atheism.
No one laments more than I do that a
paper which was once great in its inde-
pendence has become now-what shall
I say?-domesticated, for the editor of
the Times is now domesticated in the
houses of Cabinet Ministers and mem-
bers of high families in London. He
has learned now, in this day, when
that paper might have been more useful
than ever,-to fetch and carry for Cam-
bridge House. And, Sir, for aught I
know, looking at what is said in the
clubs in London about the dispensation
of patronage to men who have been
writers for that journal, I am not sure,
unless what I say now may make it
difficult, that some day or other some
proprietor (or chief proprietor) of that
paper may not find himself placed in
the House of Peers as compensation
for the services offered to the present
Prime Minister of England.
But now, passing from that subject,
you will remember that my argument
at Rochdale was that the agricultural
labouring population of this country
were in a deplorable condition, and that
I believed that to a large extent it was
to be attributed to the unsound and un-
just laws which regulate the possession
and distribution of land. Now you
know, of course, living in Birmingham,
as well as we know, that, contrary to
what exists in some countries, we have
three great classes connected with land.
We have the landowner first, who is
always becoming richer-that is if he
does not spend too much. His land is
always becoming more valuable. You
find him living in a better house, with
more gorgeous fittings, with a more
splendid equipage, and following more
expensive amusements. [A Voice: I
الله
1864.
449
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND.
thought the cotton lords did that.']
No doubt. If you pursue it further,
you find the tenant-farmers occupying
larger farms, and in connection with
the tenant-farmers there is a much
greater apparent wealth. But if you
come to the labourers, who cultivate
the land, by whose toil and whose
sweat your tables are furnished with
bread and with beef, and with many
other things that they produce, you find
these labourers at this moment, I
believe, at a comparatively greater dis-
tance from the landlord, and from the
tenant probably, than they were at any
former period. ['No, no.'] There is
a gentleman present who differs from
me; I am glad he is in the meeting.
I will ask you whether, during past
years, you have read any letters in the
Times newspaper signed by the initials
'S. G. O.' These letters were written
by a gentleman of rare intelligence and
of great benevolence. His descriptions
I believe may be entirely relied upon.
If any of you have read some letters
written three or four months ago from
parts of Buckinghamshire and published
in the Star newspaper, with regard to
the condition of that population,—you
will know what it is that I mean,-but
if you are unwilling to take their evi-
dence, let us take the evidence of a
witness that nobody here will call in
question, and that is the evidence of
the Saturday Review. On the 26th of
September last there was an article in
that journal on Agricultural La-
bourers,' in which it said-and I beg
you to listen to it, for, in point of fact,
it is the great part of my speech. The
extract from the article reads thus:-
When the dull season of the year
comes round [it is between October and
the meeting of Parliament] all sorts of
odd persons and things have their share
of public attention, and even agricultural
labourers are pitied and discussed.
other times they live on with no one
much to care for them-the farmer look-
ing on them as his natural enemies, the
parson's kindly soul getting weary of his
At
long combat with their helpless stolid
ignorance, and the squire not knowing
what he can do for them further than
build two or three Elizabethan cottages,
covered with honeysuckle, close to his
gates.'
And then the writer of the article pro-
ceeds to say that when foreigners come
here and read of the condition of agri-
cultural labourers they must be much
shocked, for he adds:
'We are moved to a languid shame and
sadness by thinking how true the picture
is, and what wretched, uncared-for, un-
taught brutes the people are who raise the
crops on which we live.'
And then :-
There is a wailing over the dirt and
vice and misery that must prevail in
houses where seven or eight persons, of
both sexes and all ages, are penned up
together for the night in the one rickety,
foul, vermin-haunted bedroom. The pic-
ture of agricultural life unrolls itself before
us as it is painted by those who know it
best. We see the dull clouded mind, the
bovine gaze, the brutality and recklessness,
the simple audacity of vice, the confused
hatred of his betters, which mark the
English peasant, unless some happy fortune
has saved him from the general lot, and
persuaded him that life has something
besides beer that the poor man may have
and may relish.”’
He then goes on to declare that the
old feudalism'-feudalism is precisely
the thing I mentioned—
'The old feudalism of England—the
state of things when there yet were serfs,
and when the lords of the soil were almost
a different order of beings-still colours
the relations of the rich and the poor.'
And perhaps you would like to know
what he says an agricultural labourer
should be. The writer states:-
'It is looked on as the duty and place
of the poor man to stay in his native
village for ever; to work hard for ten or
•
29
450
JAN. 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
J
3
twelve shillings a-week, and bring up a
large family respectably on the money;
to touch his hat to the gentry, to go to
church regularly, and to make out as
much as he can of the service; to hate
the public-house, and feel no longing for
company and a bright fire or gossip, and
to be guided towards heaven by the curate
and the young ladies. This is the poor
man which modern feudalism actually pro-
duces, and who may be seen by any one
who stands opposite the door of the
village beershop on a Saturday evening.'
Now this is the testimony of the
Saturday Review, and what do you
think the writer of the article from
which I have just quoted proposes?
he proposes that instead of a man re-
ceiving parochial relief from the parish,
he shall be allowed to receive it from
that larger area, namely, from the
Union; and that a law which he says.
is hardly ever put in practice should
be repealed, by which a working-man
breaking a contract to work is treated
as a felon. I do not believe those
remedies would be sufficient for the
terrible malady which he has described
in such powerful language. May I ask
you this question? Is it the unchange-
able law of Heaven that the agricul-
tural population of this country shall
continue in that condition? Writers
tell you, that your agriculture is far
better than any other agriculture, that
you produce a larger quantity of wheat
or any other produce over a given sur-
face. We know that there is the greatest
market in the world close at their doors,
and the means of conveyance to every
part of the kingdom. Then I want to
know why it is that the labouring popu-
lation upon the farms of this country are
in the condition I have just described.
Is it so in the most civilized parts of
Europe; is it so in the United States
of America? No. I could give you,
if it were not that reading evidence
from books is not suited to a speech,
and to a great meeting like this-I
could read you evidence from every
kind of man-from the highest in rank
-from the most cultivated in mind-
from the most extensively known in
public affairs-I could prove to you,
beyond all doubt, that in all these
countries in Europe where the land is
divided and the people have a chance
of having some of it-those in fact who
are industrious and frugal-that the
condition of the agricultural and pea-
sant population is infinitely superior to
anything that is to be seen in Great
Britain and Ireland.
Well, then, you may ask me very
reasonably,—what is the difference be-
tween the laws of these countries and
the laws of ours, and what changes do
you propose? I will tell you in as few
words as I can. In the greatest por-
tion of the Continent of Europe-in
France, in Germany, in Belgium, in
Holland and in Norway, and in point
of fact it is likely to become general
throughout Europe, the law follows
what is believed to be the natural law
of affection and justice between parent
and children. The large portion of the
property of the parent must be by will
(or if not by will the law will so order
it) divided amongst the children; not
land alone, but all the property of the
parent, according to the number of his
children. And you are to be frightened
by this law of bequests as if it were
something very dreadful. It only fol-
lows the rule which the majority of
your merchants, your manufacturers,
and of all the people in the world have
followed in these later days, of treating
their children with equal affection and
with equal justice. On going to the
United States, you find a very different
state of the law. There a man may
leave his property as he likes amongst
his children, because the United States'
law believes that natural affection and
justice are of themselves a sufficient law
in the majority of cases, and therefore
that it is not necessary to enforce these
moral duties by any statute. But if a
man dies without leaving a will, the
law of the United States takes his pro-
perty, and looking upon his children
with equal affection and equal justice,
1864.
451
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND.
makes that distribution which it believes
the just and living parent would have
made.
But if you come to this country what
do you find?
find? You find this, that with
regard to all kinds of property, except
what is called real property, (meaning
the land of the country and the houses
upon it,) the law does exactly the same
thing. It divides it equally amongst
the children, because it knows that this
is what the parent should have done,
and would have done, if he had been a
just parent. But when it comes to the
question of the land, our law is con-
trary to the European law which makes
a statute according to natural justice,
contrary to the United States' law,
which, when there is no will, makes a
distribution also in accordance with
natural justice. Thus our law steps in
and does that which natural justice
would forbid. Now I should like to
know if anybody is prepared to deny
this. Personalty, that is, property which
is not land, is divided equally; the pro-
perty which is land is not divided
equally, but is given to the eldest son
in one lump. Now, tell me whether
the principle which the law of Europe
for the most part wishes to enforce,
that which the law of America enforces
when there is no will, that which we
enforce when land is not in question-
whether that is not a more just law,
does not approve itself more to the
hearts of men, and before the eye of
Heaven, than a law by which we send
beggars into the world,-it may be
half-a-dozen children, that we may
make one rich in the possession of un-
necessary abundance?
What are the reasons-these things
are not done without reasons-ask any-
body what are the reasons, and you are
told, perhaps, that they are high political
reasons. These high political reasons are
often very curious. In some countries-
in Turkey, for example-it has been the
custom for a long time, and is hardly
abandoned yet, that the wielder of the
sceptre should destroy his younger
brothers, lest they should become com-
petitors with him for the throne. What
would you think if the law of this
country doomed all the younger chil-
dren to a want of freedom and to a
total want of education,-if it conferred
all the freedom and all the education
on the eldest sons, and left the others
to go to the streets? It would be as
reasonable to cut off all the younger
boys and girls from all education and
all freedom, as it is to cut them off from
their share of their father's property.
But you will find to-morrow morning,
in all probability, that the editor in this
town, who does not generally, as I
have noticed, serve you up very strong
meat,—will say, if he comments on this
part of my speech, what use would it
be to make a law that the property shall
be divided in cases where there is no
will, when men die so seldom without
making a will, and will argue that the
difference will be very small. I will
tell you what difference it would make.
It would take the tremendous sanction
of the law from the side of evil, and put
it on the side of good.
Mr.
There is a case-it is the only one
which occurs to me-bearing upon this
point. About the time when the Ame-
rican colonies were severed from this
country, the laws of primogeniture and
entail were enforced in the State of Vir-
ginia in the most rigid manner.
Jefferson, who was afterwards President
of the Republic, considered it one of the
greatest acts of his life that he prevailed
upon the Legislature of Virginia to
abolish these laws. You will find this
statement in his Life, 'The class
which thus provided for the perpetua-
tion of its wealth also monopolized the
civil honours of the colony.' You will
be able to judge whether that is not
very much the case in this country.
Amongst the reasons which he gave
for abolishing the law of entails was
that he wished to make an opening
for the aristocracy of virtue and talent,
which nature has wisely provided for
the direction of the interests of society,
and scattered with equal hand through-
out all its conditions." And when he
29-2
452
JAN. 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
|
came to the abolition of the law and
custom of primogeniture, that is, by
the enactment of a law that property
should be equally divided whenever the
parents did not leave a will, it is said
by his biographer that these laws-
'Have not merely altered the distribu-
tion of that part of the landed property
which is transmitted to surviving relatives
by the silent operation of law, but they
have also operated on public opinion so
as to influence the testamentary disposi-
tion of it by the proprietors, without
which last effect the purpose of the Legis-
lature might have been readily defeated.
The cases are now very rare in which a
parent makes, by his will, a much more.
unequal distribution of his property among
his children than the law itself would
make. It is thus that laws, themselves
the creatures of public opinion, often
powerfully re-act on it.'
And he goes on to show that the effect
of the distribution was to lessen the
chances of a man being so enormously
rich, and to give an opportunity to a
large number to become moderately so.
He said further, that if there were fewer
coaches and six in the State of Virginia,
there were twenty times as many car-
riages and pairs.
I have thus briefly touched upon the
question of primogeniture. The ques-
tion of entails is much of the same kind,
and with regard to its effect upon the
public I shall only say a sentence or
two. The object of entailing land is
to keep great estates together, and to
keep them in one family. Upon this
system land in this country is some-
times tied up for fifty, or eighty, or a
hundred years, no person having power
to sell it, however advantageous it
might be to the proprietors that the
land should be sold. And then, if you
come to the question of the difficulties
of transfer, I might ask gentlemen near
me connected with the law-and they
will tell you that it always takes
months, and it sometimes takes years,
to prove a title; and the cost of this
in money comes to no inconsiderable
portion of the purchase money of the
property.
Now, may I ask you what is the
political reason for which this state of
things is maintained? It is for the
very reason for which this system was
established eight hundred years ago—
that there may be in this country a
handful of persons, three or four times
as many as there are here-twice as
many perhaps who are the owners of
nearly all the land, in whose hand is
concentrated nearly all the power, by
whom the Government of the country
is mainly conducted, and amongst whom
the patronage of the Government is
mainly distributed. In every country
in the world, as far as I know, the
possessors of land are the possessors of
power. In France, at this moment, we
all know perfectly well that, notwith-
standing there may be a revolution now
and then in the streets of Paris, if you
come to the question of voting, the ma-
jority of the voting population at this
moment are found in the number of the
proprietors of the land. Ten or twelve
years ago it was their suffrages which
conferred the supreme power on the
present Emperor of the French.
you go across the Atlantic, and study
the political system of the United States,
where almost all the farmers are owners
of their farms, you will find that they
are the holders of political power. The
city of New York may denounce the
policy of the Government at Washing-
ton; but it is the land-owning farmers
-the cultivators of the great States in
the interior of the country-who are
the real holders of political power, and
by whose will alone the President of
the United States is able to carry on
the great matters which belong to his
exalted station. It is the same in the
Southern States, for the great planting
population the owners of immense
plantations are the life and soul of
Southern politics. And if you come to
our own country-to your own county,
Warwickshire, or any county you choose
to walk into-you will find that two or
three great landowners can sit down
If
1864.
453
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND.
together and determine who shall or
who shall not go to Parliament, as
the pretended representative of the
population in that county.
I believe that with these vast pro-
perties, which are of no real advantage
to those who hold them-for 100,000l.
a-year, or 200,000l. a-year, can give no
man greater real happiness than 10,00cl.
or 5,000l. a-year,-I say these great
properties, with great political power,
form what we call our great territorial
system-a system which prevails to an
extent in this country which is probably
unknown in any other, but which leaves
the cultivator of the soil ignorant, and
hopeless, and dependent, and degraded.
There is, as you know, a great tendency
to increase the size of farms throughout
the country, a practice which makes it
still more difficult for the labourer ever
to become a tenant, or to rise from the
condition in which he is. You see a
ladder-the social ladder-upon which
you wish to see the poor, and depressed,
and unfortunate nine-or-ten-shillings-a-
week-labourer ascend gradually. You
would rejoice to see him get up a few
steps and become a farmer, although
but in a small way; or the owner of
a small piece of land. But you find
that for six or eight, or ten feet up the
ladder, the steps are broken out; and,
in his low position, he has not a chance
of beginning the ascent. Let there be
steps in the shape of small farms and
small estates, and land freely bought
and sold, and then he will have some-
thing to hope for, something to save
even his small earnings for, that he may
be enabled to purchase or to occupy
one of these small farms and get away
from the humble and melancholy posi-
tion in which he is now, to one which
I wish, from my soul, every labourer in
this country could find himself placed in.
Now, Sir, for fear that the Man in the
Mask-he has got his mask on again
for a time-for fear that the Man in
the Mask should misrepresent me to-
morrow, let me tell you that I am not
against great estates, or great farms, or
great factories, but I have a very great
liking for small estates, small farms,
and small factories. In this country,
where there is such a rapid creation of
wealth, there is always a great power
urging to the accumulation of land. I
know the case of a nobleman now, in
a southern county, from report, who is
stated to have an income of 120,000l.
a-year; and being a wise man, as re-
gards his expenditure compared with
his income, he only spends--though it
is a mystery to me how he spends it-
he only spends 40,000l. a-year, and he
has 80,00cl. a-year left. What does he
do with this? He buys up every farm,
every estate, big or little, all over the
district, and the consequence is that his
immense estate is constantly becoming
larger. I do not blame him for that.
I applaud him so far, that he is a man
who does not waste his property, and
I have heard that among those with
whom he lives he is a man of excellent
character. There are persons who come
from Manchester, from Leeds, and there
are some in Birmingham who are able
to purchase large estates. There is a
tendency to this in this country, where
we have so much manufacturing and
commercial industry, and wealth to buy
estates with. In addition to this, their
possession gives great social position and
great political influence. I am not com-
plaining of this. It is a natural, and
advantageous, and healthy thing; for it
is desirable that farmers should have
the stimulus of ambition to have a
larger farm, and that the men who have
an estate should have an ambition-if
they can entertain it honestly—to have
a larger estate. The stimulus by which
men strive at something honourable is
useful to the country; but at the same
time, to add to this the force of a most
intricate and complicated system of law,
to give to this force greater force, is, in
my opinion, contrary to all the true
interests of England; and I believe if it
goes on for another half-century, as it
has for the last .half-century, it will
cause great discontent and great em-
barrassment within this now peaceful
kingdom.
454
JAN. 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
What I propose is this-it is nothing
this-it is nothing
that I have not stated before-it is the
most moderate thing that can be pro-
posed. If you want to see an admirable
description of what I think it would be
wise to do, you will find it in a paper
which certainly is not very Radical-is
rather, in my opinion, though conducted
with considerable ability, conceited in
some of its criticisms upon us—I mean
the Spectator. There was an article on
Saturday last in this paper on the sub-
ject of land laws in New York, and
although there are only three or four
lines about New York in theʻ article,
that does not matter, for it is admirably
written. In one place it reads as fol-
lows:- No doubt Mr. Bright would
consider this not sufficient change for
the purposes he wishes.' He is quite
mistaken. The changes which he pro-
poses are more extensive than any
changes I have ever proposed, either
in public or in private. What are these
changes? First of all, that the law
shall declare that when any person
owning property dies without making
a distribution of it by will, the law shall
distribute it upon the same principle
that it now adopts when it divides-I
am now speaking of landed property—
any other kind of property. For ex-
ample: Suppose a man has got money
in the bank-I wish everybody had-
suppose he has machinery in his mill,
merchandise in his warehouse, ships
upon the ocean, or that he has shares,
or the parchments for them in his safe
-if he dies, the Government by the
law, or rather the law itself, makes a
distribution of all that property amongst
all his children, in accordance with the
great universal law of natural parental
affection and justice. Then, I say, let
that principle be extended to all the
property which a man may die pos-
sessed of; and, so far as that goes, I
want no further change. Then, with
regard to the question of entails, I
would say this: the Spectator proposes
that a man, by entailing his property-
so far as I can understand-shall only
prevent himself and his next heir from
disposing of it-that there shall be, in
point of fact, only two persons in the
entail. Now, what I propose is, that
a man may leave his property to as
many persons as he likes, to A, B, C, D,
and E and F, and so on all through the
alphabet, if they are all alive at the
time he makes his will, and he can put
all their names into it. But at present
he can leave it to these people, and to
a child then unborn, and who shall not
be born, it may be, till twenty years
after he has made his will. I would
cut that off. I contend that it should
be left to persons who are in existence,
and whose names are in the will, and
you will find that as A, B, and C
died it would finally come into the
hands of a man who would have the
absolute disposal of, and who could
keep, or sell, or give, or waste it as he
pleased.
And I believe it will be much better
for the public when that freedom of
transfer is given to the possessors of
land which is given to the possessors
of every other kind of property. If I
were to sit down for ten minutes and
a lawyer were to take my place, he
could tell you what a trouble our law is;
and-although I am sorry that some of
them think that they make a good thing
out of it-what a curse it is to a man who
buys landed property or who sells it.
Everything which I am proposing is
carried out, I believe, through most of
the States in the American Union, and
to a greater extent on the Continent of
Europe, and is being adopted in the
Australian colonies. It is the most
curious thing in the world, that when-
ever an Englishman leaves these shores
whether it is the effect of the salt air,
or of sea-sickness, or the result of that
prolonged meditation which a voyage
of some weeks' duration invites, I do
not know-but whenever an English-
man leaves these shores, the effect is to
peel off, not the rags of his body, but
the verminous rags from his intellect and
soul. He leaves behind him in Eng-
land all the stupidity which some of us
cherish, and he lands in Australia with
1864.
455
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND.
his vision so clear, that he can see
things in a common-sense manner.
I want to ask you as reasonable men,
as. men of business-there is not a man
who cannot understand this question
moderately well—is this spoliation? Is
this agrarian outrage? Is this stimulat-
ing the working-man and the agricul-
tural labourer to-what shall I say?-
to, it may be, incendiarism or to some-
thing worse? It is nothing of the kind;
it is but laying before them those just
principles of law and practice which
are admitted to be just in every other
country in the world than this, and
which we admit to be just with regard
to everything else, except the single
article of land.
We are charged with all sorts of
dreadful things by that gentleman in
the Mask. On the 27th of November
he wrote this of Mr. Cobden. He
said:-
"He [Mr. Cobden] stoops down and picks
up a weapon which has never yet been
used but for anarchy and revolution. Is
it not in fact to tell the labourer and the
workman to look over the fence of the
neighbouring proprietor, and learn to think
that they have a natural right to a slice of
the soil ?'
Surely, if they are industrious and frugal,
and can save the means to purchase,
and there be anybody who would wish
to sell, and the law steps in and makes
it difficult to sell and to buy, then, I
say, that labourer has a right to look
over the hedge, and to feel that the law
deals a grievous injustice to him.
And it is this gentleman in the Mask
that frightens the landed proprietors.
I met the other day with a gentleman
connected with one of the largest pro-
perties in the kingdom. He said to me,
-and he is a very liberal and thoughtful
man, he said to me, 'You have no
idea of the terror which your speeches
create amongst landed gentlemen. Now,
I never frighten any of my neighbours.
I do not know why I should be so
alarming to those gentlemen who live
in their great houses and castles. But
the fact is the landed gentlemen are not
a wise class. There are brilliant excep-
tions. There are men amongst them,
many of whom cannot be surpassed by
any of their own class, or of any other
class in the world. But as a class, and,
perhaps, one might say it of nearly
every class-I believe it is true of that
to which I belong in Lancashire—they
are not a wise class. They know some-
thing of agriculture-county Members
have to get it up for agricultural dinners
-and they know something of horses-
and they know all that can be known
on the subject of game. But on the
principles of law and of government,
speaking of them as a whole, and judg-
ing of them by their past course, they
are dark as night itself. Would you
believe it-young men here do not re-
collect it-that the landed proprietors
could never find out, till Mr. Cobden
and a few others told them, that the
Corn-law was a great injury to them?
They did not know that it actually
lowered the value of their land, and
diminished the security of their rents,
and that it loaded them with an in-
conceivable amount of public odium;
whilst, at the same time, it beggared
hundreds and thousands of the people,
and it menaced this nation with re-
bellion.
Mr. Cobden and I, and others who
acted with us, but we chiefly, because
perhaps we were the most prominent,
were slandered then by the gentleman
in the Mask, just as we have been now.
The Times was as foul-mouthed upon us
twenty years ago as it is at this moment.
It said that we went about the country
setting class against class. It said that
our views led to the confiscation of
landed property. It said everything
that was spiteful and untrue, as it says
now. And yet, is there any man in
this country who will not admit that
property is more secure in consequence
of the abolition of that law, which land-
owners believed to be the anchor of
their safety, and that animosities be-
tween class and class have been allayed
And who shall tell how much it is
"
*
$
456
JAN. 26,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
owing to this reform that our Queen
at this moment wields an unchallenged
sceptre over a tranquil realm? A land-
owner in the House of Commons, an
old Member of the House, a repre-
sentative of a south-western county, a
man of excellent character, for whom
I have always had the greatest respect,
even when he was most in the wrong,-
he told me not long ago, speaking about
the Corn-law, that they did not then
know the good we were doing to his
class. I smiled and said to him, 'If
you would only have faith, I could tell
one or two other things that would do
you just as much good if you would let
us try them.' But he had no faith.
Now, I will just say to the land-
owners that I was never more their
friend than when discussing this question
which I am occupied with to-night,
without the least animosity to them,
and with a belief as firm as I ever had
on the question of the Corn-law, that
their interests are bound up with the
interests of the people in the right
solution of this question. I would ask,
then, to what are they tending under
the operation of these laws? They
are becoming every year smaller and
smaller in number. The large owners
are rapidly eating up the smaller ones.
The census returns show that the
number of landed proprietors is but a
handful in the nation, and every day
becoming fewer and fewer. Their
labourers remain at the gs. or 10s. a-
week. Somebody will write to the
paper to-morrow and say they get 12s.;
but bear in mind that they do not
always receive wages on wet days, and
I believe the average money-income of
the agricultural labourer throughout the
United Kingdom will not exceed-and
many persons will say it will not reach
-IOS. a-week. Now the smaller in
number these landed proprietors become,
the more, it may be, these labourers will
become discontented. There may arise
some political accident, and political
accidents are almost as unlooked-for as
other accidents. You do not hear the
tread of the earthquake which topples
down your firmest architecture, and you
do not see-the country gentlemen do
not see-the tread of that danger, it may
be that catastrophe, which inevitably
follows upon prolonged unjust legis-
lation. There may come a time, and
I dare prophesy that it will come if
there be an obstinate retention of our
present system, when there will be a
movement in this country to establish
here, not what I believe to be the just
and moderate and sufficient plan which
I recommend, but a plan which shall
be in accordance with that which is
established by the Code Napoleon in
France, and which is spreading rapidly
over the whole of the Continent of
Europe. And I would ask them again
how do they purpose to keep their popu-
lation, if this system is to be main-
tained?
And now, addressing you working-
men who are here, I beg your attention
to two or three observations on this
point. America, though three thousand
miles off, is not so far off but that people
may go there in about twelve days, and
may go there for a sum varying from
21. to 51. You know that in this very
year-I mean the year which is just
passed-150,000 or 160,000 persons
have sailed from this country to New
York. Every man who settles there is
not blinded by the mystifications and
the falsities uttered by the New York
correspondent of the Times. He is
there and can see what the working-
man earns, and how he is treated, and
what he is, and he writes over to his
friends in this country-as has been the
case for years in Ireland-and the result
is that Ireland is being drained, not of
its surplus population, but of the popu-
lation absolutely necessary to the proper
cultivation of the soil.
Let me tell you a fact, and if you
do not treasure it up in your minds,
I hope some of those gentlemen, the
landowners, who think I am very hostile
to them, will just consider it, if they
have time, as they eat their breakfast
and read the paper to-morrow, or
the next day. In America there are
1864.
457
THE DISTRIBUTION OF LAND.
Z.
140,000,000 of acres of land, surveyed,
mapped out, set apart for those who
are ready to settle upon them. In the
year 1861 (that was the first year before
the war attained its present proportions),
there were not less than 40,000 new
farms, averaging eighty acres each,
occupied in the Western States. But
the Government of the United States,
not content with that measure of pro-
gress, framed an Act which came into
operation on the 1st of January, 1863,
called the Homestead Act. I have a
copy of the Act here, and the circular
which was issued from the Department
of State, giving directions as to how
this Act should be worked throughout
the Union. What is the Homestead
any man
Act? It is this. It says that
of twenty-one years of age, or younger,
if he has been for a fortnight or a little
more in the service of the United States,
whether in the army or navy-any man
of twenty-one years of age may come
into these territories, may choose what
is called a section, which is 160 acres
of land, being one-fourth of a square
mile, and on payment of a fee of ten
dollars, which is equal to two pounds
English, may apply to have this land
conveyed to him for no other payment
for a term of five years. It cannot be
alienated, he is not allowed to sell it,
it remains in his possession. At the
end of five years, he having done to it
what the Government requires, that is,
settled upon it and begun cultivation
and so forth, the law gives him what is
called a patent, but what we should call
a Parliamentary title, and the land is his
own absolute freehold for ever. Now it
would not take more than 157. for a man
to go from Birmingham to the territory
where this land is to be disposed of.
If he had not got any money by which
he could take up 160 acres, he might
engage himself to a neighbouring farmer,
and would get, I believe, now, about
twenty shillings a-week wages, besides
his board and lodgings, and if he worked
as a labourer for two or three years he
would be able to save a sum sufficient
for him to commence the cultivation
of a portion of his farm, and would be
settled down there as a farmer and free-
holder on his own estate.
Do not let me leave you with the
idea that there is no rough and rugged
career in this. There is much that is
rough and much that is rugged, but
there is a good deal of that sort in this
country now. And when a man looks
upon those children that create even in
the poorest house, sometimes, a gleam
of joy,-when he thinks what those
boys and girls must be in this country,
that they can never rise one step
higher than that which he occupies
now as an agricultural labourer, and
when he looks abroad and he sees them,
not labourers in the sense in which we
speak here, not tenants even, but free-
holders, and landowners, and farmers
of their own property-then, I say, that
the temptation held out to men here
to emigrate, if men knew all the facts,
would be irresistible to hundreds of
thousands who have now no thought
of moving to another country. But the
agricultural labourer is not as he once
was, in one respect. There are some
feeble efforts made to give him some
little instruction. There are newspapers
published at a price which at one time
was deemed impossible, and these find
their way into agricultural villages.
And the labourers will gradually begin
to open their eyes, and to see that a
change of their position is not so
impossible as once they thought it was.
What is it the United States offer more?
They offer social equality-they offer
political equality-they offer to every
child of every man in whose face I am
now looking, education-from the learn-
ing of his alphabet to, if he has the
capacity to travel so far, the highest
knowledge of classics and mathematics
which are offered to the best students in
the colleges of this country. And all
this without the payment of one single
farthing, except that general payment
in which all the people participate in
the school-rate of the various States of
the Union.
I ask you if I am wrong in saying to
458
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
"
the rich and the great, that I believe,
if they knew their own interests, that it
would be worth their while to try to
make this country a more desirable
country for the labourer to live in. If
they disregard this great question, we,
who are of the middle, and not abso-
lutely powerless class, shall have to
decide between the claims of territorial
magnates and the just rights of millions
of our countrymen. Some men I meet
with- and now and then I wonder
where they were born, and why they
came into the world-regard these ter-
ritorial magnates as idols before whom
we are all to bow down in humble sub-
mission. Travellers tell us there is a
tribe in Africa so entirely given up to
superstition that they fill their huts and
hovels with so many idols that they do
not even leave room for their families.
It may be so in this country. We build
up a system which is injurious to our
political freedom, and is destructive of
the intelligence, and the comfort, and
the morality, and the best interests of
our producing and working classes.
Now, am I the enemy of any class,
when I come forward to state facts like
these, and to explain principles such as
these? Shall we go on groping con-
tinually in the dark, and make no effort
to strengthen our position? Do not sup-
pose because I stand here oftener to find
fault with the laws of my country than
to praise them, that I am less English or
less patriotic, or that I have less sym-
pathy for my country or my countrymen
than other men have. I want our country
to be populous, to be powerful, and to
be happy. But this can only be done—
it never has been done in any country—
but by just laws justly administered.
I plead only for what I believe to be
just. I wish to do wrong to no man.
For twenty-five years I have stood be-
fore audiences-great meetings of my
countrymen-pleading only for justice.
During that time, as you know, I have
endured measureless insult, and have
passed through hurricanes of abuse. I
need not tell you that my clients have
not been generally the rich and the
great, but rather the poor and the lowly.
They cannot give me place and dignities
and wealth; but honourable service in
their cause yields me that which is of
far higher and more lasting value-the
'consciousness that I have laboured to
expound and uphold laws, which, though
they were not given amid the thunders
of Sinai, are not less the commandments
of God, and not less intended to promote
and secure the happiness of men.
PEACE.
EDINBURGH, OCTOBER 13, 1853.
[This speech was spoken at the Conference of the Peace Society, held at Edinburgh in the
autumn of 1853. The relation of this meeting to the Russian war, then impending,
made the gathering more than ordinarily important.]
Ir is a great advantage in this country,
I think, that we have no want of ample
criticism. Whatever we may have said
yesterday and to-day will form the sub-
ject of criticism, not of the most friendly
character, in very many newspapers
throughout the United Kingdom. I
recollect when we met in Manchester,
that papers disposed to be friendly,
warned us as to the course we were
taking, and that the time was ill-chosen
for a peace meeting. It was said that
the people were excited against France,
and were alarmed at their almost total
defencelessness, and that there was no
use in endeavouring to place before
them the facts which the peace men
offered to their audience. The result
showed that they were mistaken, for
you will recollect that, while up to that
meeting there was a constantly swelling
tide of alarm and hostility with regard
to France, from the day the Conference
was held there was a gradual receding
of the tide, that the alarm and appre-
hension rapidly diminished, and that by
the time the House of Commons met in
February we were willing to receive
from Lord John Russell and other
statesmen the most positive assurances
that France was not increasing her force,
and that there was not the slightest
reason to believe that the Government
of France entertained anything but the
most friendly feeling towards the Go-
vernment of this country.
The right time to oppose the errors
and prejudices of the people never comes
to the eyes of those writers in the public
press who pander to these prejudices.
They say, We must not do so and so,
we shall embarrass the Government.
But iumour says the Government has
been pretty well embarrassed already.
They say that we shall complicate the
question if we interfere; but it cannot
well be more complicated than it is; for
hardly anybody but the peace men can
tell how to unravel it. Next, they tell
us that we shall impair the harmony
of opinion which there appears to be in
the country, from the fact of there
having been three or four insignificant
meetings, by which the Government is
to be impelled to more active and ener-
getic measures. Now, what is it that
we really want here? We wish to pro-
test against the maintenance of great
armaments in time of peace; we wish
to protest against the spirit which is not
only willing for war, but eager for war;
and we wish to protest, with all the em-
phasis of which we are capable, against
the mischievous policy pursued so long
by this country, of interfering with the
internal affairs of other countries, and
thereby leading to disputes, and often to
disastrous wars.
460
OCT. 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
I mentioned last night what it was
we were annually spending on our arma-
ments. Admiral Napier says that the
hon. Member for the West Riding, who
can do everything, had persuaded a
feeble Government to reduce the arma-
ments of this country to nothing.'
What is nothing' in the Admiral's
estimation? Fifteen millions a-year!
Was all that money thrown away?
We have it in the estimates, we pay it
out of the taxes-it is appropriated by
Parliament, it sustains your dockyards,
wages
pays the
of your men, and main-
tains your ships. Fifteen millions ster-
ling paid in the very year when the
Admiral says that my hon. Friend re-
duced the armaments of the country to
nothing! But take the sums which we
spent for the past year in warlike pre-
parations-seventeen millions, and the
interest on debt caused by war-twenty-
eight millions sterling; and it amounts
to 45,000,000l. What are our whole
exports? Even this year, far the largest
year of exports we have ever known,
they may amount to 80,000,000l. Well,
then, plant some one at the mouth of
every port and harbour in the United
Kingdom, and let him take every alter-
nate ship that leaves your rivers and
your harbours with all its valuable
cargo on board, and let him carry it off
as tribute, and it will not amount to the
cost that you pay every year for a war,
that fifty years ago was justified as
much as it is attempted to justify this
impending war, and for the preparations
which you now make after a peace which
has lasted for thirty-eight years.
Every twenty years-in a nation's life
nothing, in a person's life something-
every twenty years a thousand millions
sterling out of the industry of the hard-
working people of this United King-
dom, are extorted, appropriated, and ex-
pended to pay for that unnecessary and
unjust war, and for the absurd and ruinous
expenditure which you now incur.
A
thousand millions every twenty years!
Apply a thousand millions, not every
twenty years, but for one period of
twenty years, to objects of good in this
country, and it would be rendered more
like a paradise than anything that his-*
tory records of man's condition, and
would make so great a change in these
islands, that a man having seen them
as they are now, and seeing them as
they might then be, would not recognise
them as the same country, nor our
population as the same people. But
what do we expend all this for? Bear
in mind that admirals, and generals,
and statesmen defended that great war,
and that your newspapers, with scarcely
an exception, were in favour of it, and
denounced and ostracised hundreds of
good men who dared, as we dare now,
to denounce the spirit which would
again lead this country into war. We
went to war that France should not
choose its own Government; the grand
conclusion was that no Bonaparte should
sit on the throne of France; yet France
has all along been changing its Govern-
ment from that time to this, and now
we find ourselves with a Bonaparte on
the throne of France, and, for anything
I know to the contrary, likely to remain
there a good while. So far, therefore,
for the calculations of our forefathers,
and for the results of that enormous
expenditure which they have saddled
upon us.
We object to these great armaments
as provoking a war spirit. I should
like to ask, what was the object of the
Chobham exhibition? There were spe-
cial trains at the disposal of Members
of Parliament, to go down to Chobham
the one day, and to Spithead the other.
What was the use of our pointing to
the President of the French Republic
two years ago, who is the Emperor
now, and saying that he was spending
his time at playing at soldiers in his
great camp at Satory, and in making
great circuses for the amusement of his
soldiers? We, too, are getting into the
way of playing at soldiers, and camps,
and fleets, and the object of this is to
raise up in the spirit of the people a
feeling antagonistic to peace, and to
render the people-the deluded, hard-
working, toiling people-satisfied with
1853.
461
PEACE.
the extortion of 17,000,000l. annually,
when, upon the very principles of the men
who take it, it might be demonstrated
that one-half of the money would be
amply sufficient for the purpose to which
it is devoted. What observation has
been more common during the discus-
sion upon Turkey than this-' Why are
we to keep up these great fleets if we
are not to use them? Why have we
our Mediterranean fleet lying at Besika
Bay, when it might be earning glory,
and adding to the warlike renown of
the country?' This is just what comes
from the maintenance of great fleets
and armies. There grows up an esprit
de corps-there grows a passion for
these things, a powerful opinion in their
favour, that smothers the immorality of
the whole thing, and leads the people
to tolerate, under those excited feelings,
that which, under feelings of greater
temperance and moderation, they would
know was hostile to their country, as it
is opposed to everything which we re-
cognise as the spirit of the Christian
religion.
Then, we are against intervention.
Now, this question of intervention is a
most important one, for this reason,
that it comes before us sometimes in a
form so attractive that it invites us to
embrace it, and asks us by all our love
of freedom, by all our respect for men
struggling for their rights, to interfere in
the affairs of some other country. And
we find now in this country that a great
number of those who are calling out
loudest for interference are those who,
being very liberal in their politics, are
bitterly hostile to the despotism and
exclusiveness of the Russian Govern-
ment. But I should like to ask this
meeting what sort of intervention we
are to have? There are three kinds
one for despotism, one for liberty; and
you may have an intervention like that
now proposed, from a vague sense of
danger which cannot be accurately de-
scribed. What have our interventions
been up to this time? I will come to
that of which Admiral Napier spoke
by-and-by. It is not long since we
intervened in the case of Spain. The
foreign enlistment laws were suspended;
and English soldiers went to join the
Spanish legion, and the Government of
Spain was fixed in the present Queen of
that country; and yet Spain has the
most exclusive tariff against this country
in the world, and a dead Englishman is
there reckoned little better than a dead
dog. Then take the case of Portugal.
We interfered, and Admiral Napier was
one of those employed in that inter-
ference, to place the Queen of Portugal
on the throne, and yet she has violated
every clause of the charter which she
had sworn to the people; and in 1849,
under the Government of Lord John
Russell, and with Lord Palmerston in
the Foreign Office, our fleet entered the
Tagus and destroyed the Liberal party,
by allowing the Queen to escape from
their hands, when they would have
driven her to give additional guarantees
for liberty; and from that time to this
she has still continued to violate every
clause of the charter of the country.
Now, let us come to Syria; what has
Admiral Napier said about the Syrian^
war? He told us that the English fleet
was scattered all about the Mediter-
ranean, and that if the French fleet had
come to Cherbourg, and had taken on
board 50,000 men and landed them on
our coasts, all sorts of things would
have befallen us. But how happened it
that Admiral Napier and his friends got
up the quarrel with the French? Be-
cause we interfered in the Syrian ques-
tion when we had no business to interfere
whatever. The Egyptian Pasha, the vas-
sal of the Sultan, became more powerful
than the Sultan, and threatened to de-
pose him and place himself as monarch
upon the throne of Constantinople; and
but for England, he would assuredly
have done it. Why did we interfere?
What advantage was it to us to have a
feeble monarch in Constantinople, when
you might have had an energetic and
powerful one in Mehemet Ali? We
interfered, however, and quarrelled with
France, although she neither declared
war nor landed men upon our coast.

462
OCT. 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
France is not a country of savages and
banditti. The Admiral's whole theory
goes upon this, that there is a total
want of public morality in France, and
that something which no nation in Eu-
rope would dare to do, or think of doing,
which even Russia would scorn to do,
would be done without any warning
by the polished, civilised, and intelligent
nation across the Channel.
But if they are the friends of freedom
who think we ought to go to war with
Russia because Russia is a despotic
country, what do you say to the inter-
ference with the Roman Republic three
or four years ago? What do you say
to Lord John Russell's Government,—
Lord Palmerston with his own hand
writing the despatch, declaring that the
Government of her Majesty, the Queen
of England, entirely concurred with the
Government of the French Republic in
believing that it was desirable and
necessary to re-establish the Pope upon
his throne? The French army, with
the full concurrence of the English Go-
vernment, crossed over to Italy, invaded
Rome, destroyed the Republic, banished
its leading men, and restored the Pope;
and on that throne he sits still, main-
tained only by the army of France.
My hon. Friend has referred to the time
when Russia crossed through the very
Principalities we hear so much about, and
entered Hungary. I myself heard Lord
Palmerston in the House of Commons
go out of his way needlessly, but inten-
tionally, to express a sort of approba-
tion of the intervention of Russia in the
case of Hungary. I heard him say, in
a most unnecessary parenthesis, that it
was not contrary to international law,
or to the law of Europe, for Russia to
send an army into Hungary to assist
Austria in putting down the Hungarian
insurrection. I should like to know
whether Hungary had not constitu-
tional rights as sacred as ever any
country had-as sacred, surely, as the
Sovereign of Turkey can have upon his
throne. If it were not contrary to in-
ternational law and to the law of Europe
for a Russian army to invade Hungary,
to suppress there a struggle which
called for, and obtained too, the sym-
pathy of every man in favour of freedom
in every part of the world, I say, how
can it be contrary to international law
and the law of Europe for Russia to
threaten the Sultan of Turkey, and to
endeavour to annex Turkey to the
Russian Empire?
I want our policy to be consistent.
Do not let us interfere now, or concur
in or encourage the interference of any-
body else, and then get up a hypocritical
pretence on some other occasion that
we are against interference. If you want
war, let it be for something that has at
least the features of grandeur and of
nobility about it, but not for the miser-
able, decrepit, moribund Government
which is now enthroned, but which
cannot long last, in the city of Con-
stantinople. But Admiral Napier is
alarmed lest, if Russia was possessed of
Turkey, she would, somehow or other,
embrace all Europe-that we all should
be in the embrace of the Bear-and we
know very well what that is. I believe
that is all a vague and imaginary dan-
ger; and I am not for going to war for
imaginary dangers. War is much too
serious a matter. I recollect when
France endeavoured to lay hold on
Algeria, it was said that the Mediter-
ranean was about to become a French
lake. I do not believe that France is
a bit more powerful in possessing it.
It requires 100,000 French soldiers to
maintain Algeria; and if a balance-
sheet could be shown of what Algeria
has cost France, and what France has
gained from it, I believe you would
have no difficulty whatever in discover-
ing the reason why the French finances
show a deficit, and why there is a
rumour that another French loan is
about to be created.
But they tell us that if Russia gets to
Constantinople, Englishmen will not be
able to get to India by the overland
journey. Mehemet Ali, even when Ad-
miral Napier was battering down his
towns, did not interfere with the car-
riage of our mails through his territory.
1853.
463
PEACE.
We bring our overland mails at pre-
sent partly through Austria, and partly
through France, and the mails from
Canada pass through the United States;
and though I do not think there is the
remotest possibility or probability of
anything of the kind happening, yet I
do not think that, in the event of war
with these countries, we should have
our mails stopped or our persons ar-
rested in passing through these coun-
tries. At any rate it would be a much
more definite danger that would drive
me to incur the ruin, guilt, and suffering
of war.
But they tell us, further, that the
Emperor of Russia would get India.
That is a still more remote contingency.
If I were asked as to the probabilities
of it, I should say that, judging from our
past and present policy in Asia, we are
more likely to invade Russia from
India than Russia is to invade us in
India. The policy we pursue in Asia
is much more aggressive, aggrandising,
and warlike than any that Russia has
pursued or threatened during our time.
But it is just possible that Russia may
be more powerful by acquiring Turkey.
I give the Admiral the benefit of that
admission. But I should like to ask
whether, even if that be true, it is a
sufficient reason for our going to war,
and entering on what perhaps may be
a long, ruinous, and sanguinary struggle,
with a powerful empire like Russia?
What is war? I believe that half the
people that talk about war have not
the slightest idea of what it is. In a
short sentence it may be summed up
to be the combination and concentra-
tion of all the horrors, atrocities, crimes,
and sufferings of which human nature
on this globe is capable. But what is
even a rumour of war? Is there any-
body here who has anything in the
funds, or who is the owner of any rail-
way stock, or anybody who has a large
stock of raw material or manufactured
goods? The funds have recently gone
down 10 per cent. I do not say that
the fall is all on account of this danger
of war, but a great proportion of it
undoubtedly is. A fall of 10 per cent. in
the funds is nearly 80,000,000l. sterling
of value, and railway stock having gone
down 20 per cent. makes a difference
of 60,000,000l. in the value of the rail-
way property of this country. Add
the two-140,000,000l.—and take the
diminished prosperity and value of
manufactures of all kinds during the
last few months, and you will under-
state the actual loss to the country now
if you put it down at 200,000,000l.
sterling. But that is merely a rumour
of war. That is war a long way off-
the small cloud, no bigger than a man's
hand-what will it be if it comes nearer
and becomes a fact? And surely sane
men ought to consider whether the case
is a good one, the ground fair, the ne-
cessity clear, before they drag a nation
of nearly 30,000,000 of people into a
long and bloody struggle, for a decrepit
and tottering empire, which all the
nations in Europe cannot long sustain.
And, mind, war now would take a dif-
ferent aspect from what it did formerly.
It is not only that you send out men
who submit to be slaughtered, and that
you pay a large amount of taxes-the
amount of taxes would be but a feeble
indication of what you would suffer.
Our trade is now much more extensive
than it was; our commerce is more ex-
panded, our undertakings are more vast,
and war will find you all out at home
by withering up the resources of the
prosperity enjoyed by the middle and
working classes of the country. You
would find that war in 1853 would be
infinitely more perilous and destructive
to our country than it has ever yet been
at any former period of our history.
There is another question which comes
home to my mind with a gravity and
seriousness which I can scarcely hope
to communicate to you. You who lived
during the period from 1815 to 1822
may remember that this country was
probably never in a more uneasy posi-
tion. The sufferings of the working
classes were beyond description, and
the difficulties, and struggles, and bank-
ruptcies of the middle classes were such
464
OCT. 13,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
as few persons have a just idea of.
There was scarcely a year in which
there was not an incipient insurrection
in some parts of the country, arising
from the sufferings which the working
classes endured. You know very well
that the Government of the day em-
ployed spies to create plots, and to get
ignorant men to combine to take un-
lawful oaths; and you know that in the
town of Stirling, two men who, but for
this diabolical agency, might have lived
good and honest citizens, paid the pe-
nalty of their lives for their connection
with unlawful combinations of this kind.
Well, if you go into war now you
will have more banners to decorate your
cathedrals and churches. Englishmen
will fight now as well as they ever did,
and there is ample power to back them,
if the country can be but sufficiently
excited and deluded. You may raise
up great generals. You may have an-
other Wellington, and another Nelson
too; for this country can grow men
capable for every enterprise. Then
there may be titles, and pensions, and
marble monuments to eternise the men
who have thus become great; but what
becomes of you and your country, and
your children? For there is more than
this in store. That seven years to
which I have referred was a period
dangerous to the existence of Govern-
ment in this country, for the whole sub-
stratum, the whole foundations of society
were discontented, suffering intolerable
evils, and hostile in the bitterest degree
to the institutions and the Government
of the country.
·
Precisely the same things will come
again. Rely on it, that injustice of any
kind, be it bad laws, or be it a bloody,
unjust, and unnecessary war, of neces-
sity creates perils to every institution in
the country. If the Corn-law had con-
tinued, if it had been impossible, by
peaceful agitation, to abolish it, the
monarchy itself would not have sur-
vived the ruin and disaster that it must
have wrought. And if you go into a
war now, with a doubled population,
with a vast commerce, with extended
credit, and a wider diffusion of partial
education among the people, let there
ever come a time like the period be-
tween 1815 and 1822, when the whole
basis of society is upheaving with a
sense of intolerable suffering, I ask you,
how many years' purchase would you
give even for the venerable and mild
monarchy under which you have the
happiness to live? I confess when I
think of the tremendous perils into
which unthinking men-men who do
not intend to fight themselves—are wil-
ling to drag or to hurry this country,
I am amazed how they can trifle with
interests so vast, and consequences so
much beyond their calculation.
But, speaking here in Edinburgh to
such an audience-an audience probably
for its numbers as intelligent and as
influential as ever was assembled within
the walls of any hall in this kingdom-
I think I may put before you higher
considerations even than those of pro-
perty and the institutions of your
country. I may remind you of duties
more solemn, and of obligations more
imperative. You profess to be a Chris-
tian nation. You make it your boast
even-though boasting is somewhat out
of place in such questions-you make
it your boast that you are a Protestant
people, and that you draw your rule of
doctrine and practice, as from a well
pure and undefiled, from the living
oracles of God, and from the direct reve-
lation of the Omnipotent. You have
even conceived the magnificent project
of illuminating the whole earth, even to
its remotest and darkest recesses, by the
dissemination of the volume of the New
Testament, in whose every page are
written for ever the words of peace.
Within the limits of this island alone,
on every Sabbath, 20,000, yes, far more
than 20,000 temples are thrown open,
in which devout men and women as-
semble that they may worship Him
who is the Prince of Peace.'
Is this a reality? or is your Chris-
tianity a romance? is your profession
a dream? No, I am sure that your
Christianity is not a romance, and I am
1853.
465
PEACE.
t
equally sure that your profession is not
a dream. It is because I believe this
that I appeal to you with confidence,
and that I have hope and faith in the
future. I believe that we shall see, and
at no very distant time, sound economic
principles spreading much more widely
amongst the people; a sense of justice
growing up in a soil which hitherto has
been deemed unfruitful; and, which
will be better than all-the churches of
the United Kingdom-the churches of
Britain awaking, as it were, from their
slumbers, and girding up their loins to
more glorious work, when they shall
not only accept and believe in the pro-
phecy, but labour earnestly for its ful-
filment, that there shall come a time-
a blessed time-a time which shall last
for ever-when nation shall not lift
up sword against nation, neither shall
they learn war any more.'
:--3-
1

30
1
FOREIGN POLICY.
BIRMINGHAM, OCTOBER 29, 1858.
[This speech was spoken at a banquet given to Mr. Bright in the Town Hall of
Birmingham, on the occasion of his first visit to his constituents there. It treats
of the Foreign Policy of the country since the Revolution of 1688, and defends
the Foreign Policy advocated by Mr. Cobden and himself.]
THE frequent and far too complimen-
tary manner in which my name has been
mentioned to-night, and the most kind
way in which you have received me,
have placed me in a position somewhat
humiliating, and really painful; for to
receive laudation which one feels one
cannot possibly have merited, is much
more painful than to be passed by in a
distribution of commendation to which
possibly one might lay some claim. If
one-twentieth part of what has been
said is true, if I am entitled to any
measure of your approbation, I may
begin to think that my public_career
and my opinions are not so un-English
and so anti-national as some of those
who profess to be the best of our public
instructors have sometimes assumed.
How, indeed, can I, any more than any
of you, be un-English and anti-national?
Was I not born upon the same soil?
Do I not come of the same English
stock? Are not my family committed
irrevocably to the fortunes of this coun-
try? Is not whatever property I may
have depending as much as yours is
depending upon the good government
of our common fatherland? Then how
shall any man dare to say to any one of
his countrymen, because he happens to
hold a different opinion on questions of
great public policy, that therefore he is
un-English, and is to be condemned as
anti-national? There are those who
would assume that between my coun-
trymen and me, and between my con-
stituents and me, there has been, and
there is now, a great gulf fixed, and
that if I cannot pass over to them and
to you, they and you can by no possi-
bility pass over to me.
Now, I take the liberty here, in the
presence of an audience as intelligent
as can be collected within the limits of
this island, and of those who have the
strongest claims to know what opinions
I do entertain relative to certain great
questions of public policy, to assert that
I hold no views, that I have never pro-
mulgated any views on those contro-
verted questions with respect to which I
cannot bring as witnesses in my favour,
and as fellow-believers with myself, some
of the best and most revered names in
the history of English statesmanship.
About 120 years ago, the Government
of this country was directed by Sir
Robert Walpole, a great Minister, who
for a long period preserved the country
OCT. 29, 1858.
467
FOREIGN POLICY.
in peace, and whose pride it was that
during those years he had done so. Un-
fortunately, towards the close of his
career, he was driven by faction into a
policy which was the ruin of his political
position. Sir Robert Walpole declared,
when speaking of the question of war as
affecting this country, that nothing could
be so foolish, nothing so mad as a policy
of war for a trading nation. And he
went so far as to say, that any peace
was better than the most successful war.
I do not give you the precise language
made use of by the Minister, for I speak
only from memory; but I am satisfied
I am not misrepresenting him in what I
have now stated.
Come down fifty years nearer to our
own time, and you find a statesman, not
long in office, but still strong in the
affections of all persons of Liberal prin-
ciples in this country, and in his time
representing fully the sentiments of the
Liberal party-Charles James Fox.
Mr. Fox, referring to the policy of the
Government of his time, which was one
of constant interference in the affairs of
Europe, and by which the country was
continually involved in the calamities of
war, said that although he would not
assert or maintain the principle, that
under no circumstances could England
have any cause of interference with the
affairs of the continent of Europe, yet
he would prefer the policy of positive
non-interference and of perfect isolation
rather than the constant intermeddling
to which our recent policy had subjected
us, and which brought so much trouble
and suffering upon the country. In this
case also I am not prepared to give you
his exact words, but I am sure that I
fairly describe the sentiments which he
expressed.
Come down fifty years later, and to a
time within the recollection of most of
us, and you find another statesman, once
the most popular man in England, and
still remembered in this town and else-
where with respect and affection. I
allude to Earl Grey. When Earl Grey
came into office for the purpose of carry-
ing the question of Parliamentary Re-
form, he unfurled the banner of Peace,
retrenchment, and reform,' and that
sentiment was received in every part of
the United Kingdom, by every man who
was or had been in favour of Liberal
principles, as predicting the advent of a
new era which should save his country
from many of the calamities of the
past.
Come down still nearer, and to a time
that seems but the other day, and you
find another Minister, second to none of
those whom I have mentioned-the late
Sir Robert Peel. I had the opportunity
of observing the conduct of Sir Robert
Peel, from the time when he took office
in 1841; I watched his proceedings par--
ticularly from the year 1843, when I
entered Parliament, up to the time of
his lamented death; and during the
whole of that period, I venture to say,
his principles, if they were to be dis-
covered from his conduct and his
speeches, were precisely those which I
have held, and which I have always
endeavoured to press upon the atten-
tion of my countrymen. If you have
any
doubt upon that point I would refer
you to that last, that beautiful, that
most solemn speech, which he delivered
with an earnestness and a sense of re-
sponsibility as if he had known he was
leaving a legacy to his country. If you
refer to that speech, delivered on the
morning of the very day on which
occurred the accident which terminated
his life, you will find that its whole
tenor is in conformity with all the
doctrines that I have urged upon my
countrymen for years past with respect
to our policy in foreign affairs. When
Sir Robert Peel went home just before
the dawn of day, upon the last occasion
that he passed from the House of Com-
mons, the scene of so many of his
triumphs, I have heard, from what I
think a good authority, that after he
entered his own house, he expressed
the exceeding relief which he expe-
rienced at having delivered himself of
a speech which he had been reluctantly
obliged to make against a Ministry
which he was anxious to support, and
1
30-2
468
ост. 29,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
}
he added, if I am not mistaken, ‘I have
made a speech of peace.'
Well, if this be so, if I can give you
four names like these,-if there were
time I could make a longer list of still
eminent, if inferior men,-I should like
to know why I, as one of a small party,
am to be set down as teaching some
new doctrine which it is not fit for my
countrymen to hear, and why I am to
be assailed in every form of language,
as if there was one great department of
governmental affairs on which I was in-
competent to offer any opinion to my
countrymen. But leaving the opinions
of individuals, I appeal to this audience,
to every man who knows anything of
the views and policy of the Liberal
party in past years, whether it is not
the fact that up to 1832, and indeed to
a much later period, probably to the
year 1850, those sentiments of Sir
Robert Walpole, of Mr. Fox, of Earl
Grey, and of Sir Robert Peel, the
sentiments which I in humbler mode
have propounded, were not received
unanimously by the Liberal party as
their fixed and unchangeable creed?
And why should they not? Are they
not founded upon reason? Do not all
statesmen know, as you know, that
upon peace, and peace alone, can be
based the successful industry of a na-
tion, and that by successful industry
alone can be created that wealth which,
permeating all classes of the people,
not confined to great proprietors, great
merchants, and great speculators, not
running in a stream merely down your
principal streets, but turning fertilizing
rivulets into every bye-lane and every
alley, tends so powerfully to promote
the comfort, happiness, and content-
ment of a nation? Do you not know
that all progress comes from successful
and peaceful industry, and that upon it
is based your superstructure of educa-
tion, of morals, of self-respect among
your people, as well as every measure
for extending and consolidating freedom
in your public institutions? I am not
afraid to acknowledge that I do op-
pose that I do utterly condemn and
denounce a great part of the foreign
policy which is practised and adhered
to by the Government of this country.
You know, of course, that about 170
years ago there happened in this country
what we have always been accustomed
to call a Glorious Revolution'—a Re-
volution which had this effect: that it
put a bit into the mouth of the monarch,
so that he was not able of his own free-
will to do, and he dared no longer at-
tempt to do, the things which his pre-
decessors had done without fear. But
if at the Revolution the monarchy of
England was bridled and bitted, at the
same time the great territorial families
of England were enthroned; and from
that period, until the year 1831 or
1832-until the time when Birmingham
politically became famous-those terri-
torial families reigned with an almost
undisputed sway over the destinies and
the industry of the people of these king-
doms. If you turn to the history of
England, from the period of the Revo-
lution to the present, you will find that
an entirely new policy was adopted, and
that while we had endeavoured in former
times to keep ourselves free from Euro-
pean complications, we now began to
act upon a system of constant entangle-
ment in the affairs of foreign countries,
as if there was neither property nor
honours, nor anything worth striving
for, to be acquired in any other field.
The language coined and used then, has
continued to our day. Lord Somers, in
writing for William III, speaks of the
endless and sanguinary wars of that
period as wars to maintain the liber-
ties of Europe.' There were wars 'to
support the Protestant interest,' and
there were many wars to preserve our
old friend the balance of power.'
C
C
We have been at war since that time,
I believe, with, for, and against every
considerable nation in Europe. We
fought to put down a pretended French
supremacy under Louis XIV. We fought
to prevent France and Spain coming
under the sceptre of one monarch, al-
though, if we had not fought, it would
have been impossible in the course of
1858.
469
FOREIGN POLICY.
things that they should have become so
united. We fought to maintain the
Italian provinces in connection with the
House of Austria. We fought to put
down the supremacy of Napoleon Bona-
parte; and the Minister who was em-
ployed by this country at Vienna, after
the great war, when it was determined
that no Bonaparte should ever again sit
on the throne of France, was the very
man to make an alliance with another
Bonaparte for the purpose of carrying
on a war to prevent the supremacy of
the late Emperor of Russia. So that
we have been all round Europe, and
across it over and over again, and after
a policy so distinguished, so pre-eminent,
so long-continued, and so costly, I think
we have a fair right-I have, at least-
to ask those who are in favour of it to
show us its visible result. Europe is
not at this moment, so far as I know,
speaking of it broadly, and making
allowance for certain improvements in
its general civilisation, more free politi-
cally than it was before. The balance
of power is like perpetual motion, or
any of those impossible things which
some men are always racking their
brains and spending their time and
money to accomplish.
We all know and deplore that at the
present moment a large number of the
grown men of Europe are employed,
and a large portion of the industry of
Europe is absorbed, to provide for,
and maintain, the enormous armaments
which are now on foot in every con-
siderable Continental State. Assuming,
then, that Europe is not much better in
consequence of the sacrifices we have
made, let us inquire what has been the
result in England, because, after all,
that is the question which it becomes
us most to consider. I believe that I
understate the sum when I say that, in
pursuit of this Will-o'-the-wisp, (the
liberties of Europe and the balance of
power,) there has been extracted from
the industry of the people of this
small island no less an amount than
2,000,000,000l. sterling. I cannot ima-
gine how much 2,000,000,000l. is, and
therefore I shall not attempt to make
you comprehend it. I presume it is
something like those vast and incom-
prehensible astronomical distances with
which we have been lately made fa-
miliar; but, however familiar, we feel
that we do not know one bit more about
them than we did before. When I try
to think of that sum of 2,000,000,000l.,
there is a sort of vision passes before
my mind's eye. I see your peasant
labourer delve and plough, sow and reap,
sweat beneath the summer's sun, or
grow prematurely old before the win-
ter's blast. I see your noble mechanic,
with his manly countenance and his
matchless skill, toiling at his bench or
his forge. I see one of the workers in
our factories in the north, a woman—
a girl, it may be gentle and good, as
many of them are, as your sisters and
daughters are-I see her intent upon
the spindle, whose revolutions are so
rapid that the eye fails altogether to de-
tect them, or watching the alternating
flight of the unresting shuttle. I turn
again to another portion of your popu-
lation, which, 'plunged in mines, forgets
a sun was made,' and I see the man who
brings up from the secret chambers of
the earth the elements of the riches and
greatness of his country. When I see
all this, I have before me a mass of
produce and of wealth which I am no
more able to comprehend than I am
that 2,000,000,000l. of which I have
spoken, but I behold in its full propor-
tions the hideous error of your Govern-
ments, whose fatal policy consumes in
some cases a half, never less than a
third, of all the results of that industry
which God intended should fertilise and
bless every home in England, but the
fruits of which are squandered in every
part of the surface of the globe, without
producing the smallest good to the
people of England.
We have, it is true, some visible re-
sults that are of a more positive character.
We have that which some people call a
great advantage-the National Debt-
a debt which is now so large that the
most prudent, the most economical, and

470
ост. 29,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
the most honest have given up all hope,
not of its being paid off, but of its being
diminished in amount. We have, too,
taxes which have been during many
years so onerous that there have been
times when the patient beasts of burden
threatened to revolt-so onerous that it
has been utterly impossible to levy them
with any kind of honest equality, accord-
ing to the means of the people to pay
them. We have that, moreover, which
is a standing wonder to all foreigners
who consider our condition--an amount
of apparently immovable pauperism,
which to strangers is wholly irrecon-
cileable with the fact that we, as a na-
tion, produce more of what should make
us all comfortable, than is produced by
any other nation of similar numbers on
the face of the globe. Let us likewise
remember that during the period of
those great and so-called glorious con-
tests on the continent of Europe, every
description of home reform was not only
delayed, but actually crushed out of the
minds of the great bulk of the people.
There can be no doubt whatever that in
1793 England was about to realise politi-
cal changes and reforms, such as did not
appear again until 1830; and during the
period of that war, which now almost
all men agree to have been wholly un-
necessary, we were passing through a
period which may be described as the
dark age of English politics; when
there was no more freedom to write or
speak, or politically to act, than there is
now in the most despotic country of
Europe.
But, it may be asked, did nobody
gain? If Europe is no better, and the
people of England have been so much
worse, who has benefited by the new
system of foreign policy? What has
been the fate of those who were en-
throned at the Revolution, and whose
supremacy has been for so long a period
undisputed among us? Mr. Kinglake,
the author of an interesting book on
Eastern Travel, describing the habits of
some acquaintances that he made in the
Syrian Deserts, says, that the jackals of
the Desert follow their prey in families
like the place-hunters of Europe. I
will reverse, if you like, the comparison,
and say that the great territorial families
of England, which were enthroned at
the Revolution, have followed their prey
like the jackals of the Desert. Do you
not observe at a glance, that, from the
time of William III, by reason of the
foreign policy which I denounce, wars
have been multiplied, taxes increased,
loans made, and the sums of money
which every year the Government has
to expend augmented, and that so the
patronage at the disposal of Ministers
must have increased also, and the
families who were enthroned and made
powerful in the legislation and adminis-
tration of the country must have had
the first pull at, and the largest profit
out of, that patronage? There is no
actuary in existence who can calculate
how much of the wealth, of the strength,
of the supremacy of the territorial fami-
lies of England has been derived from
an unholy participation in the fruits of
the industry of the people, which have
been wrested from them by every de-
vice of taxation, and squandered_in
every conceivable crime of which a Go-
vernment could possibly be guilty.
C
The more you examine this matter
the more you will come to the conclu-
sion which I have arrived at, that this
foreign policy, this regard for the
liberties of Europe,' this care at one
time for the Protestant interests,' this
excessive love for the 'balance of power,'
is neither more nor less than a gigantic
system of out-door relief for the aristo-
cracy of Great Britain. [Great laughter.]
I observe that you receive that decla-
ration as if it were some new and im-
portant discovery. In 1815, when the
great war with France was ended,
every Liberal in England, whose politics,
whose hopes, and whose faith had not
been crushed out of him by the tyranny
of the time of that war, was fully aware
of this, and openly admitted it, and up
to 1832, and for some years afterwards,
it was the fixed and undoubted creed of
the great Liberal party. But somehow
all is changed. We who stand upon
*1858.
471
FOREIGN POLICY.
the old landmarks, who walk in the old
paths, who would conserve what is
wise and prudent, are hustled and
shoved about as if we were come to
turn the world upside down. The
change which has taken place seems to
confirm the opinion of a lamented friend
of mine, who, not having succeeded in
all his hopes, thought that men made
no progress whatever, but went round
and round like a squirrel in a cage.
The idea is now so general that it is
our duty to meddle everywhere, that
it really seems as if we had pushed the
Tories from the field, expelling them
by our competition.
I should like to lay before you a list
of the treaties which we have made,
and of the responsibilities under which
we have laid ourselves with respect to
the various countries of Europe. I do
not know where such an enumeration is
to be found, but I suppose it would be
possible for antiquaries and men of in-
vestigating minds to dig them out from
the recesses of the Foreign Office, and
perhaps to make some of them intel-
ligible to the country. I believe, how-
ever, that if we go to the Baltic we
shall find that we have a treaty to de-
fend Sweden, and the only thing which
Sweden agrees to do in return is not to
give up any portion of her territories
to Russia. Coming down a little south,
we have a treaty which invites us, en-
ables us, and perhaps, if we acted fully
up to our duty with regard to it, would
compel us to interfere in the question
between Denmark and the Duchies.
If I mistake not, we have a treaty which
binds us down to the maintenance of
the little kingdom of Belgium, as es-
tablished after its separation from Hol-
land. We have numerous treaties with
France. We are understood to be bound
by treaty to maintain constitutional go-
vernment in Spain and Portugal. If we
go round into the Mediterranean, we
find the little kingdom of Sardinia, to
which we have lent some millions of
money, and with which we have entered
into important treaties for preserving
the balance of power in Europe. If we
go beyond the kingdoms of Italy, and
cross the Adriatic, we come to the small
kingdom of Greece, against which we
have a nice account that will never be
settled; while we have engagements to
maintain that respectable but diminutive
country under its present constitutional
government. Then, leaving the king-
dom of Greece, we pass up the eastern
end of the Mediterranean, and from
Greece to the Red Sea, wherever the
authority of the Sultan is more or less
admitted, the blood and the industry of
England are pledged to the permanent
sustentation of the independence and
integrity' of the Ottoman Empire.
I confess that as a citizen of this
country, wishing to live peaceably among
my fellow-countrymen, and wishing to
see my countrymen free, and able to
enjoy the fruits of their labour, I pro-
test against a system which binds us in
all these networks and complications,
from which it is impossible that we can
gain one single atom of advantage for
this country. It is not all glory, after
all. Glory may be worth something,
but it is not always glory. We have
had within the last few years despatches
from Vienna and from St. Petersburg,
which, if we had not deserved them,
would have been very offensive and not
a little insolent. We have had the Am-
bassador of the Queen expelled sum-
marily from Madrid, and we have had
an Ambassador driven almost with ig-
nominy from Washington. We have
blockaded Athens for a claim which
was known to be false. We have quar-
relled with Naples, for we chose to give
advice to Naples, which was not re-
ceived in the submissive spirit expected
from her, and our Minister was there-
fore withdrawn. Not three years ago,
too, we seized a considerable kingdom
in India, with which our Government
had but recently entered into the most
solemn treaty, which every lawyer in
England and in Europe, I believe, would
consider binding before God and the
world. We deposed its monarch; we
committed a great immorality and a
great crime, and we have reaped an
472
OCT. 29,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
almost instantaneous retribution in the
most gigantic and sanguinary revolt
which probably any nation ever made
against its conquerors. Within the last
few years we have had two wars with a
great Empire, which we are told con-
tains at least one-third of the whole
human race. The first war was called,
and appropriately called, the Opium
War. No man, I believe, with a spark
of morality in his composition, no man
who cares anything for the opinion of
his fellow-countrymen, has dared to
justify that war. The war which has just
been concluded, if it has been con-
cluded, had its origin in the first war;
for the enormities committed in the
first war are the foundation of the im-
placable hostility which it is said the
inhabitants of Canton bear to all per-
sons connected with the English name.
Yet, though we have these troubles in
India-a vast country which we do not
know how to govern-and a war with
China-a country with which, though
everybody else can remain at peace, we
cannot-such is the inveterate habit of
conquest, such is the insatiable lust of
territory, such is, in my view, the de-
praved, unhappy state of opinion of the
country on this subject, that there are
not a few persons, Chambers of Com-
merce to wit, in different parts of the
kingdom (though I am glad to say it
has not been so with the Chamber of
Commerce at Birmingham), who have
been urging our Government to take
possession of a province of the greatest
island in the Eastern seas; a possession
which must at once necessitate increased
estimates and increased taxation, and
which would probably lead us into mer-
ciless and disgraceful wars with the half-
savage tribes who inhabit that island.
I will not dwell upon that question.
The gentleman who is principally con-
cerned in it is at this moment, as you
know, stricken down with affliction, and
I am unwilling to enter here into any
considerable discussion of the case
which he is urging upon the public;
but I say that we have territory enough
in India; and if we have not troubles
enough there, if we have not difficulties
enough in China, if we have not taxa-
tion enough, by all means gratify your
wishes for more; but I hope that what-
ever may be the shortcomings of the
Government with regard to any other
questions in which we are all interested
-and may they be few !-they will
shut their eyes, they will turn their
backs obstinately from adding in this
mode, or in any mode, to the English
possessions in the East. I suppose that
if any ingenious person were to prepare
a large map of the world, as far as it is
known, and were to mark upon it, in
any colour that he liked, the spots where
Englishmen have fought and English
blood has been poured forth, and the
treasure of England squandered, scarcely
a country, scarcely a province of the
vast expanse of the habitable globe
would be thus undistinguished.
Perhaps there are in this room,
I am
sure there are in the country, many per-
sons who hold a superstitious tradition-
ary belief that, somehow or other, our
vast trade is to be attributed to what we
have done in this way, that it is thus we
have opened markets and advanced com-
merce, that English greatness depends
upon the extent of English conquests
and English military renown.
But I
am inclined to think that, with the
exception of Australia, there is not a
single dependency of the Crown which,
if we come to reckon what it has cost
in war and protection, would not be
found to be a positive loss to the peo-
ple of this country. Take the United
States, with which we have such an
enormous and constantly increasing
trade. The wise statesmen of the last
generation, men whom your school his-
tories tell you were statesmen, serving
under a monarch who they tell you was
a patriotic monarch, spent 130,000,000l.
of the fruits of the industry of the peo-
ple in a vain-happily a vain-endeavour
to retain the colonies of the United
States in subjection to the Monarchy of
England. Add up the interest of that
130,000,000l. for all this time, and how
long do you think it will be before

1858.
.473
FOREIGN POLICY.
there will be a profit on the trade with
the United States which will repay the
enormous sum we invested in a war
to retain those States as colonies of this
Empire? It never will be paid off.
Wherever you turn, you will find that
the opening of markets, developing of
new countries, introducing cotton cloth
with cannon balls, are vain, foolish, and
wretched excuses for wars, and ought
not to be listened to for a moment by
any man who understands the multipli-
cation table, or who can do the simplest
sum in arithmetic.
Since the 'Glorious Revolution,' since
the enthronisation of the great Norman
territorial families, they have spent in
wars, and we have worked for, about
2,000,000,000l. The interest on that is
100,000,000l. per annum, which alone,
to say nothing of the principal sum, is
three or four times as much as the
whole amount of your annual export
trade from that time to this. Therefore,
if war has provided you with a trade, it
has been at an enormous cost; but I
think it is by no means doubtful that
your trade would have been no less in
amount and no less profitable had
peace and justice been inscribed on
your flag instead of conquest and the
love of military renown. But even in
this year, 1858-we have got a long
way into the century-we find that
within the last seven years our public
debt has greatly increased. Whatever
be the increase of our population, of
our machinery, of our industry, of our
wealth, still our national debt goes on
increasing. Although we have not a
foot more territory to conserve, or an
enemy in the world who dreams of
attacking us, we find that our annual
military expenses during the last twenty
years have risen from 12,000,000l. to
22,000,000%.
Some people believe that it is a good
thing to pay a great revenue to the
State. Even so eminent a man as Lord
John Russell is not without a delusion
of this sort. Lord John Russell, as you
have heard, while speaking of me in
flattering and friendly terms, says he is
unfortunately obliged to differ from me
frequently; therefore, I suppose, there
is no particular harm in my saying that
I am sometimes obliged to differ from
him. Some time ago he was a great
star in the northern hemisphere, shin-
ing, not with unaccustomed, but with
his usual brilliancy at Liverpool. He
made a speech, in which there was a
great deal to be admired, to a meeting
composed, it was said, to a great extent
of working-men; and in it he stimulated
them to a feeling of pride in the great-
ness of their country and in being
citizens of a State which enjoyed a re-
venue of 100,000,000l. a-year, which
included the revenues of the United
Kingdom and of British India. But
I think it would have been far more to
the purpose if he could have congratu-
lated the working-men of Liverpool on
this vast Empire being conducted in an
orderly manner, on its laws being well
administered and well obeyed, its shores
sufficiently defended, its people pros-
perous and happy, on a revenue of
20,000,000l. The State indeed, of
which Lord John Russell is a part, may
enjoy a revenue of 100,000,000l., but I
am afraid the working-men can only be
said to enjoy it in the sense in which
men not very choice in their expressions
say that for a long time they have en-
joyed 'very bad health.'
I am prepared to admit that it is a
subject of congratulation that there is
a people so great, so free, and so in-
dustrious, that it can produce a sufficient
income out of which 100,000,000l. a-year,
if need absolutely were, could be spared
for some great and noble object; but it
is not a thing to be proud of that our Go-
vernment should require us to pay that
enormous sum for the simple purposes
of government and defence. Nothing
can by any possibility tend more to the
corruption of a Government than enor-
mous revenues. We have heard lately
of instances of certain joint-stock in-
stitutions with very great capital col-
lapsing suddenly, bringing disgrace upon
their managers, and ruin upon hundreds
of families. A great deal of that has
474
OCT. 29,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
4
1
1
arisen, not so much from intentional
fraud, as from the fact that weak and
incapable men have found themselves
tumbling about in an ocean of bank-
notes and gold, and they appear to have
lost all sight of where it came from, to
whom it belonged, and whether it was
possible by any maladministration ever
to come to an end of it. That is abso-
lutely what is done by Governments.
You have read in the papers lately some
accounts of the proceedings before a
Commission appointed to inquire into
alleged maladministration with reference
to the supply of clothing to the army,
but if anybody had said anything in the
time of the late Government about any
such maladministration, there is not one
of those great statesmen, of whom we
are told we ought always to speak
with so much reverence, who would not
have got up and declared that nothing
could be more admirable than the sys-
tem of book-keeping at Weedon, nothing
more economical than the manner in
which the War Department spent the
money provided by public taxation. But
we know that it is not so. I have heard
a gentleman-one who is as competent
as any man in England to give an
opinion about it-a man of business,
and not surpassed by any one as a man
of business, declare, after a long ex-
amination of the details of the question,
that he would undertake to do every-
thing that is done not only for the
defence of the country, but for many
other things which are done by your
navy, and which are not necessary for
that purpose, for half the annual cost
that is voted in the estimates!
I think the expenditure of these vast
sums, and especially of those which we
spend for military purposes, leads us to
adopt a defiant and insolent tone to-
wards foreign countries. We have the
freest press in Europe, and the freest
platform in Europe, but every man who
writes an article in a newspaper, and
every man who stands on a platform,
ought to do it under a solemn sense of
responsibility. Every word he writes,
every word I utter, passes with a
rapidity, of which our forefathers were
utterly ignorant, to the very ends of the
earth; the words become things and
acts, and they produce on the minds of
other nations effects which a man may
never have intended. Take a recent
case; take the case of France. I am
not expected to defend, and I shall cer-
tainly not attack, the present Govern-
ment of France. The instant that it
appeared in its present shape, the Min-
ister of England conducting your foreign
affairs, speaking ostensibly for the
Cabinet, for his Sovereign, and for the
English nation, offered his congratula-
tions, and the support of England was
at once accorded to the re-created
French Empire. Soon after this an
intimate alliance was entered into be-
tween the Queen of England, through
her Ministers, and the Emperor of the
French. I am not about to defend the
policy which flowed from that alliance,
nor shall I take up your time by mak-
ing any attack upon it. An alliance was
entered into, and a war was entered
into. English and French soldiers
fought on the same field, and they
suffered, I fear, from the same neglect.
They now lie buried on the bleak
heights of the Crimea, and except by
their mothers, who do not soon forget
their children, I suppose they are mostly
forgotten. I have never heard it sug-
gested that the French Government did
not behave with the most perfect honour
to this Government and this country all
through these grave transactions; but
I have heard it stated by those who
must know, that nothing could be more
honourable, nothing more just, than
the conduct of the French Emperor to
this Government throughout the whole
of that struggle. More recently, when
the war in China was begun by a Go-
vernment which I have condemned and
denounced in the House of Commons,
the Emperor of the French sent his
ships and troops to co-operate with us,
but I never heard that anything was
done there to create a suspicion of a
feeling of hostility on his part towards

us.
The Emperor of the French came
1858.
475
FOREIGN POLICY.
1
to London, and some of those powerful
organs of the press who have since
taken the line of which I am complain-
ing, did all but invite the people of
London to prostrate themselves under
the wheels of the chariot which con-
veyed along our streets the revived
monarchy of France. The Queen of
England went to Paris, and was she not
received there with as much affection
and as much respect as her high po-
sition and her honourable character
entitled her to?
What has occurred since? If there
was a momentary unpleasantness, I am
quite sure that every impartial man will
agree that, under the peculiarly irritat-
ing circumstances of the time, there was
at least as much forbearance shown on
one side of the Channel as on the other.
Then we have had much said lately
about a naval fortification recently com-
pleted in France, which has been more
than one hundred years in progress,
which was not devised by the present
Emperor of the French. For one hun-
dred years great sums had been spent
on it, and at last, like every other great
work, it was brought to an end. The
English Queen and others were invited
over, and many went who were not in-
vited. And yet in all this we are told
that there is something to create extreme
alarm and suspicion; we, who have
never fortified any places; we, who
have not a greater than Sebastopol at
Gibraltar; we, who have not an im-
pregnable fortress at Malta, who have
not spent the fortune of a nation almost
in the Ionian Islands; we, who are
doing nothing at Alderney; we are to
take offence at the fortifications of
Cherbourg! There are few persons
who at some time or other have not
been brought into contact with a poor
unhappy fellow-creature who has some
peculiar delusion or suspicion pressing
on his mind. I recollect a friend of
mine going down from Derby to Leeds
in the train with a very quiet and re-
spectable-looking gentleman sitting op-
posite to him. They had both been
staying at the Midland Hotel, and they
began talking about it. All at once
the gentleman said, 'Did you notice
anything particular about the bread at
breakfast?' 'No,' said my friend, 'I
did not.' 'Oh! but I did,' said the
poor gentleman, and I am convinced
there was an attempt made to poison
me, and it is a very curious thing that
I never go to an hotel without I dis-
cover some attempt to do me mischief.'
The unfortunate man was labouring
under one of the greatest calamities
which can befall a human creature. But
what are we to say of a nation which
lives under a perpetual delusion that it
is about to be attacked-a nation which
is the most combined on the face of the
earth, with little less than 30,000,000
of people all united under a Govern-
ment which, though we intend to reform
it, we do not the less respect it, and
which has mechanical power and wealth
to which no other country offers any
parallel? There is no causeway to
Britain; the free waves of the sea flow
day and night for ever round her shores,
and yet there are people going about
with whom this hallucination is so
strong that they do not merely discover
it quietly to their friends, but they write
it down in double-leaded columns, in
leading articles,―nay, some of them
actually get up on platforms and pro-
claim it to hundreds and thousands of
their fellow-countrymen. I should like
to ask you whether these delusions are
to last for ever, whether this policy is
to be the perpetual policy of England,
whether these results are to go on
gathering and gathering until there
come, as come there must inevitably, some
dreadful catastrophe on our country?
I should like to-night, if I could, to
inaugurate one of the best and holiest
revolutions that ever took place in this
country. We have had a dozen revo-
lutions since some of us were chil-
dren. We have had one revolution in
which you had a great share, a great
revolution of opinion on the question of
the suffrage. Does it not read like
madness that men, thirty years ago,
were frantic at the idea of the people of
476
ост. 29,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
Birmingham having a 10l. franchise?
Does it not seem something like idiotcy
to be told that a banker in Leeds, when
it was proposed to transfer the seats of
one rotten borough to the town of
Leeds, should say (and it was repeated
in the House of Commons on his autho-
rity) that if the people of Leeds had the
franchise conferred upon them it would
not be possible to keep the bank doors
open with safety, and that he should
remove his business to some quiet place
out of danger from the savage race that
peopled that town? But now all con-
fess that the people are perfectly com-
petent to have votes, and nobody dreams
of arguing that the privilege will make
them less orderly.
Take the question of colonial govern-
ment. Twenty years ago the govern-
ment of our colonies was a huge job.
A small family party in each, in con-
nection with the Colonial Office, ruled
our colonies. We had then discontent,
and, now and then, a little wholesome
insurrection, especially in Canada. The
result was that we have given up the
colonial policy which had hitherto been
held sacred, and since that time not only
have our colonies greatly advanced in
wealth and material resources, but no
parts of the Empire are more tranquil
and loyal.
Take also the question of Protection.
Not thirty years ago, but twelve years
ago, there was a great party in Parlia-
ment, led by a Duke in one House, and
by the son and brother of a Duke in
the other, which declared that utter
ruin must come, not only on the agri-
cultural interest, but upon the manu-
factures and commerce of England, if
we departed from our old theories upon
this subject of Protection. They told
us that the labourer-the unhappy
labourer-of whom it may be said in
this country,-
Here landless labourers hopeless toil and
strive,
But taste no portion of the sweets they
hive,'
- that the labourer was to be ruined;
that is, that the paupers were to be
pauperised. These gentlemen were
overthrown. The plain, honest, com-
mon sense of the country swept away
their cobweb theories, and they are gone.
What is the result? From 1846 to
1857 we have received into this country
of grain of all kinds, including flour,
maize, or Indian corn-all objects
heretofore not of absolute prohibition,
but which were intended to be pro-
hibited until it was not safe for people
to be starved any more-not less than an
amount equal in value to 224,000,000l.
That is equal to 18,700,000l. per annum
on the average of twelve years. During
that period, too, your home growth has
been stimulated to an enormous extent.
You have imported annually 200,000
tons of guano, and the result has been
a proportionate increase in the produc-
tions of the soil, for 200,000 tons of
guano will grow an equal weight and
value of wheat. With all this, agricul-
ture was never more prosperous, while
manufactures were never, at the same
time, more extensively exported; and
with all this the labourers, for whom
the tears of the Protectionist were shed,
have, according to the admission of the
most violent of the class, never been in
a better state since the beginning of the
great French war.
One other revolution of opinion has
been in regard to our criminal law. I
have lately been reading a book which
I would advise every man to read-the
Life of Sir Samuel Romilly. He tells
us in simple language of the almost in-
superable difficulties he had to contend
with to persuade the Legislature of this
country to abolish the punishment of
death for stealing from a dwelling-
house to the value of 5s., an offence
which now is punished by a few weeks'
imprisonment. Lords, bishops, and
statesmen opposed these efforts year
after year, and there have been some
thousands of persons put to death pub-
licly for offences which are not now
punishable with death.
Now, every
man and woman in the kingdom would
feel a thrill of horror if told that a
1858.
477
FOREIGN POLICY.
fellow-creature was to be put to death
for such a cause.
These are revolutions in opinion; and
let me tell you that when you accom-
plish a revolution in opinion upon a
great question, when you alter it from
bad to good, it is not like charitably
giving a beggar 6d. and seeing him no
more, but it is a great beneficent act,
which affects not merely the rich and
the powerful, but penetrates every lane,
every cottage in the land, and wherever
it goes brings blessings and happiness.
It is not from statesmen that these
things come. It is not from them that
have proceeded these great revolutions
of opinion on the questions of Reform,
Protection, Colonial Government, and
Criminal Law-it was from public
meetings such as this, from the intelli-
gence and conscience of the great body
of the people who have no interest in
wrong, and who never go from the
right but by temporary error and under
momentary passion.
It is for you to decide whether our
greatness shall be only temporary or
whether it shall be enduring. When
I am told that the greatness of our
country is shown by the 100,000,000l.
of revenue produced, may I not also
ask how it is that we have 1,100,000
paupers in this kingdom, and why it is
that 7,000,000l. should be taken from
the industry chiefly of the labouring
classes to support a small nation, as it
were, of paupers? Since your legis-
lation upon the Corn-laws you have
not only had nearly 20,000,000l. of food
brought into the country annually, but
such an extraordinary increase of trade
that your exports are about doubled,
and yet I understand that in the year
1856, for I have no later return, there
were no less than 1,100,000 paupers in
the United Kingdom, and the sum
raised in poor-rates was not less than
7,200,000l. And that cost of pauperism
is not the full amount; for there is a
vast amount of temporary, casual, and
vagrant pauperism that does not come
in to swell that sum.
Then do not you well know-I know
it, because I live among the population
of Lancashire, and I doubt not the same
may be said of the population of this
city and county-that just above the
level of the 1,100,000 there is at least
an equal number who are ever oscillating
between independence and pauperism,
who, with a heroism which is not the
less heroic because it is secret and un-
recorded, are doing their very utmost to
maintain an honourable and independent
position before their fellow-men? While
Irish labour, notwithstanding the im-
provement which has taken place in
Ireland, is only paid at the rate of about
Is. a-day; while in the straths and glens
of Scotland there are hundreds of
shepherd families whose whole food
almost consists of oatmeal porridge
from day to day, and from week to
week; while these things continue, I
say that we have no reason to be self-
satisfied and contented with our posi-
tion; but that we who are in Parliament
and are more directly responsible for
affairs, and you who are also responsible,
though in a lower degree, are bound by
the sacred duty which we owe our
country to examine why it is that with
all this trade, all this industry, and all
this personal freedom, there is still so
much that is unsound at the base of our
social fabric?
Let me direct your attention now to
another point, which I never think of
without feelings which words would
altogether fail to express. You hear
constantly, that woman, the helpmate of
man, who adorns, dignifies, and blesses
our lives, that woman in this country is
cheap; that vast numbers whose names
ought to be synonyms for purity and
virtue are plunged into profligacy and
infamy. But do you not know that
you sent 40,000 men to perish on the
bleak heights of the Crimea, and that
the revolt in India, caused, in part at
least, by the grievous iniquity of the
seizure of Oude, may tax your country
to the extent of 100,000 lives before it
is extinguished; and do you not know
that for the 140,000 men thus draughted
off and consigned to premature graves,
478
OCT. 29,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
nature provided in your country 140,000
women? If you have taken the men
who should have been the husbands of
these women, and if you have sacrificed
100,000,000l., which as capital reserved
in the country would have been an
ample fund for their employment and
for the sustentation of their families,
are you not guilty of a great sin in in-
volving yourselves in such a loss of life
and of money in war, except on grounds
and under circumstances which, accord-
ing to the opinions of every man in the
country, should leave no kind of option
whatever for your choice?
I know perfectly well the kind of
observations which a certain class of
critics will make upon this speech. I
have been already told by a very emi-
nent newspaper publisher in Calcutta,
who, commenting on a speech I made
at the close of the session with regard
to the condition of India and our future
policy in that country, said, that the
policy I recommended was intended to
strike at the root of the advancement of
the British Empire, and that its advance-
ment did not necessarily involve the
calamities which I pointed out as likely
to occur. My Calcutta critic assured
me that Rome pursued a similar policy
for a period of eight centuries, and that
for those eight centuries she remained
great. Now, I do not think that ex-
amples taken from pagan, sanguinary
Rome, are proper models for the imi-
tation of a Christian country, nor would
I limit my hopes of the greatness of
England even to the long duration of
800 years. But what is Rome now?
The great city is dead. A poet has
described her as the lone mother of
dead empires.' Her language even is
dead. Her very tombs are empty; the
ashes of her most illustrious citizens are
dispersed-
The Scipios' tomb contains no ashes now.'
Yet I am asked, I, who am one of the
legislators of a Christian country, to
measure my policy by the policy of
ancient and pagan Rome!
I believe there is no permanent great-
ness to a nation except it be based upon
morality. I do not care for military
greatness or military renown. I care
for the condition of the people among
whom I live. There is no man in Eng-
land who is less likely to speak irreve-
rently of the Crown and Monarchy of
England than I am; but crowns, coro-
nets, mitres, military display, the pomp
of war, wide colonies, and a huge em-
pire, are, in my view, all trifles light as
air, and not worth considering, unless
with them you can have a fair share of
comfort, contentment, and happiness
among the great body of the people.
Palaces, baronial castles, great halls,
stately mansions, do not make a nation.
The nation in every country dwells in
the cottage; and unless the light of
your Constitution can shine there, unless
the beauty of your legislation and the
excellence of your statesmanship are
impressed there on the feelings and
condition of the people, rely upon it
you have yet to learn the duties of
government.
I have not, as you have observed,
pleaded that this country should remain
without adequate and scientific means
of defence. I acknowledge it to be the
duty of your statesmen, acting upon the
known opinions and principles of ninety-
nine out of every hundred persons in
the country, at all times, with all pos-
sible moderation, but with all possible
efficiency, to take steps which shall
preserve order within and on the con-
fines of your kingdom. But I shall
repudiate and denounce the expenditure
of every shilling, the engagement of
every man, the employment of every
ship which has no object but inter-
meddling in the affairs of other coun-
tries, and endeavouring to extend the
boundaries of an Empire which is al-
ready large enough to satisfy the
greatest ambition, and I fear is much
too large for the highest statesmanship
to which any man has yet attained.
The most ancient of profane histo-
rians has told us that the Scythians of
his time were a very warlike people,
and that they elevated an old cimeter
1859.
479
FOREIGN POLICY.
upon a platform as a symbol of Mars,
for to Mars alone, I believe, they built
altars and offered sacrifices. To this
cimeter they offered sacrifices of horses
and cattle, the main wealth of the
country, and more costly sacrifices than
to all the rest of their gods. I often
ask myself whether we are at all ad-
vanced in one respect beyond those
Scythians. What are our contributions
to charity, to education, to morality, to
religion, to justice, and to civil govern-
ment, when compared with the wealth
we expend in sacrifices to the old
cimeter? Two nights ago I addressed
in this hall a vast assembly composed
to a great extent of your countrymen
who have no political power, who are
at work from the dawn of the day to
the evening, and who have therefore
limited means of informing themselves
on these great subjects. Now I am
privileged to speak to a somewhat
different audience. You represent those
of your great community who have a
more complete education, who have on
some points greater intelligence, and in
whose hands reside the power and in-
fluence of the district. I am speaking,
too, within the hearing of those whose
gentle nature, whose finer instincts,
whose purer minds, have not suffered as
some of us have suffered in the turmoil
and strife of life. You can mould
opinion, you can create political power,
-you cannot think a good thought on
this subject and communicate it to your
neighbours, you cannot make these
points topics of discussion in your social
circles and more general meetings, with-
out affecting sensibly and speedily the
course which the Government of your
country will pursue. May I ask you,
then, to believe, as I do most devoutly
believe, that the moral law was not
written for men alone in their individual
character, but that it was written as
well for nations, and for nations great
as this of which we are citizens. If
nations reject and deride that moral
law, there is a penalty which will in-
evitably follow. It may not come at
once, it may not come in our lifetime;
but, rely upon it, the great Italian is
not a poet only, but a prophet, when he
says,-
'The sword of heaven is not in haste to
smite,
Nor yet doth linger.'
We have experience, we have beacons,
we have landmarks enough. We know
what the past has cost us, we know
how much and how far we have wan-
dered, but we are not left without a
guide. It is true we have not, as an
ancient people had, Urim and Thummim
those oraculous gems on Aaron's
breast-from which to take counsel,
but we have the unchangeable and
eternal principles of the moral law to
guide us, and only so far as we walk by
that guidance can we be permanently a
great nation, or our people a happy
people.
FINANCIAL POLICY.
THE FINANCIAL POLICY OF THE LATE GOVERNMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 21, 1859.
From Hansard.
[Mr. Disraeli took occasion to give an elaborate defence of the financial policy of the
late Government, and to criticise the position which the income-tax assumed in the
scheme of the existing Administration. He recommended that the additional income-
tax, instead of being collected in six months, should be extended over a year. But
he assumed that the public expenditure of the country could not be diminished. It
was to this point especially that Mr. Bright directed himself. When the report of this
speech arrived in Paris, it attracted the attention of M. Chevalier, the distinguished
French Economist. He wrote at once to Mr. Cobden, expressing his belief that a
Commercial Treaty between England and France might be negotiated, and urged him
to come to Paris during the autumn to make the attempt. Mr. Cobden went to Paris
during the autumn, having received the sanction of the leading Members of the
Government, and sought an interview with the Emperor of the French. Negotiations
were at once entered into, and the Treaty of Commerce with France was the result.
This was the crowning labour of the public life of Mr. Cobden, and with it his name
and fame will be for ever associated.]
I AM not sorry that I had the oppor-
tunity of hearing the speech of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer before I
was permitted to address the House.
I am sure the House will understand
me when I say that I have listened to
large portions of his speech, and of that
of his predecessor in office, with great
satisfaction. As far as the right hon.
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) is
concerned, I think that my hon. Friend
the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden),
myself, and others who have generally
acted with us, may consider him a con-
vert to the views which we have very
often expressed in this House. I recol-
lect that Sir Robert Peel on one occasion
made a speech of very much the same
tenor, and hon. Gentleman opposite
charged him with being a convert to
our views. I believe that any man of
intellect and genius who may lead that
party to which the right hon. Gentleman
belongs, and none other can lead it
with any success, will, as time rolls on,
more and more adopt those principles
of political economy and of foreign
policy which we have felt it our duty
to propound to the House and the
country.
The speech of the right hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Bucks (and in
JULY 21, 1859.
481.
FINANCIAL POLICY.
fact, also that of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer), was a speech upon two
subjects, the first part being devoted to
finance, and the second to the question
of foreign policy; and perhaps the
House will allow me to make a few
observations in the same order. The
budget of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer has, I think, met with general
satisfaction at least with as much
satisfaction as generally falls to the lot
of unpleasant propositions of this nature;
but I may say for myself that whatever
approbation of it I have to express
arises from the fact that it is a propo-
sition confined to a single year, and that
the right hon. Gentleman himself has
suggested to the House that next year
it will be necessary to take a general
and more comprehensive review of the
whole question of our finances and
taxation.
I shall, if the House will permit me,
state one or two reasons why I feel
particular satisfaction at the tempo-
rary nature of the plan which the
right hon. Gentleman has proposed.
I believe that, notwithstanding all that
Chancellors of the Exchequer may say
with regard to the advantages of the
income-tax, it is as hateful as ever it
has been to the people, and I believe
it to be hateful chiefly because it is
unjust. I shall not now enter into the
question which has been so often de-
bated, whether the tax ought to con-
tinue to be levied at the same rate upon
fixed and precarious incomes, because I
think that, whatever we may say, every
one feels that there is a fixed injustice
and a fixed wrong which it is utterly
impossible that you should ever work
out of the minds of the people of this
country by whom the tax is paid. Just
before coming into the House I had in
the lobby an interview with some
gentlemen who have come up to town
to protest against the continuance of this
injustice. I made this answer to their re-
presentations: 'I agree with you entirely.
I think the tax odious beyond all others
that I know of, and odious beyond all
others because it is unjust beyond all
others; and I will never consent that in
its present shape it should be made a
permanent tax. But the Chancellor of
the Exchequer proposes it for one year,
under an emergency which some people
suppose to have arisen. Therefore, I
am obliged to consent to it this year;
but if I am here next year, and any pro-
position is made for its continuance in
its present shape, it shall receive no
countenance from me.'
But there is another ground on which
I should have to object to this tax, and
at which I will now only just hint. It
is not a pleasant view of the case for
hon. Gentlemen opposite or for those
whom they chiefly represent. When the
time comes I am prepared to show that
the income-tax presses upon all capital
employed in shops or manufactures with
double the weight that it does upon
that which is employed strictly in the
cultivation of the land. I am sure that
hon. Gentlemen opposite will see the
injustice in one particular-namely, that
farmers in England, if I am not mis-
taken, pay on a rate of income calcu-
lated upon half their rent, while farmers
in Scotland pay only upon an income
calculated upon one-third of their rent.
I know no reason for differences of that
kind. I do not think they should exist.
You may tolerate them for a single year
-we can tolerate a great deal, if we
think it necessary to maintain the
honour or interests of the country, or
even for the convenience of Parliament
at times-but you cannot tolerate them
as representing the permanent settle-
ment of a question in taxation.
There is another ground upon which
I should wholly object to the course
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
is taking if he was making his arrange-
ments for more than a year, and in
adverting to this I must call his atten-
tion to measures of great importance,
which were much boasted of at the
time, and to which he prevailed upon
Parliament to assent in the year 1853.
I hold that, whatever be our taxes-let
us have 50,000,000l., or 70,000,000l., or
100,000,000l. a-year-and I know not
3I
482
JULY 21,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
+
but we may live to see taxation grow
up to 100,000,000l. a-year as heed-
lessly as we have seen it, grow up to
70,000,000l.—whatever be the amount
of our taxes, let us endeavour to do
honestly by our countrymen; not press-
ing the poor, whether our taxes be
heavy or light in the main; laying
them on with a stronger and more
resolute hand upon property, but in
dealing with property, dealing just as
honestly with its owners as we should
deal with the poorest subjects of the
realm. I take the taxes on successions
of every kind-probate-duty, legacy-
duty, and the tax levied under the Act
of 1853-to be strictly in their nature
property taxes. They are taxes which
are collected or intended to be collected
as part of every man's possessions and
property which change hands on the
death of their owner. Those who are
poor-those whose means are nothing—
of whom there are unfortunately many in
this country-who make no wills, for
whom no one takes out letters of ad-
ministration, who have nothing to leave
as a fortune or a little property to
their children, are not directly interested
in this matter; but all other classes
of society are directly interested in it;
and I say that, whether a man be
employed in manufactures, or have pro-
perty in land, in the Funds, or in Stocks
and shares of any kind, he has a fair
right to appeal to this House that in
the imposition of taxes of this nature
there should be the most just regard
that is possible for the interests of all
those whom the law is intended to affect.
I shall tell the House in a few words
of what I complain, and what I shall
move next year before anything be done
to re-impose the income-tax. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer in his
budget speech of 1853, where he intro-
duced that not very welcome guest to
hon. Members opposite, the succession-
tax, adverted to the probate-duty, which
he said ought fairly to be levied upon
all kinds of property, and not confined
to one description alone. The hon.
Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams)
has brought that duty repeatedly be-
fore the House, and has shown that
40,000,000l. or 50,000,000l., if not more,
have been paid into the Exchequer by
taxes upon probates and legacies, all of
which has been collected by taxes on
personal property, but from which real
and freehold property has been entirely
exempted. I do not believe that any
hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of
the House feels that there ought to be
this gross inequality. The probate-duty
in 1858 raised to the Exchequer a sum
of 1,338,000l., and next session I shall
ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer
why it is not extended, as it ought to
be, to all property which passes by
death from one owner to another.
It was curious to observe that the
right hon. Gentleman in his speech
the other night-it was not quite so
long as one he made before, but it was
none the worse for that-did not refer
to what was said to be the greatest
effort of his financial genius. In 1853
everybody said there never was such a
Chancellor of the Exchequer. He per-
suaded the country gentlemen to pass
a Bill which inflicted upon them, as
they allege, the very same succession-
duty as the law imposed upon personal
property. What did the right hon.
Gentleman say upon that occasion?
He calculated that in the following
year, 1854, the succession-tax would
produce 500,000l. to the Exchequer; in
1855 an additional 700,000l.; in 1856
an additional 400,000l.; and in 1857 an
additional 400,000l. It will thus be
seen that he anticipated the annual
produce of this tax to amount in 1857
to 2,000,000l. If his calculation had
turned out to be correct, the succession-
duty would have yielded up to the
present time no less a sum than
9,300,000l. What has been the actual
result? I cannot give the exact figures,
because the Board of Inland Revenue
say they cannot separate that which
has been received from the succession-
tax of 1853 from that which has been
received from the old legacy-duty. But,
adopting the mode which was pursued
1859.
483
FINANCIAL POLICY.
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the
other night, I can inform the House
that the legacy-duty in 1852, before the
succession-tax came into existence, pro-
duced 1,380,000l., whereas the legacy
and succession duties combined yielded
in 1859 the sum of 2,211,000l., being an
increase of 831,000l. From that sum,
however, I must deduct the increase of
the ancient legacy-duty in the interval
between 1853 and 1859, and I ought
also to deduct something, but unfor-
tunately I have no means of ascertaining
what, for that description of property
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
in 1853 called rateable property, and
which he withdrew from the legacy-
duty, and put under the succession-tax
at a much smaller amount. Passing
that by, however, and deducting only
50,000l. for the increase of the old
legacy-duty, I find that the succession-
tax, from which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer expected two years ago to
receive 2,000,oool. a-year, brought in
last year no more than 781,000l.
How came the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, he that understands his
business so well, to make so grievous
a mistake as this? I shall tell the
House how it was. It is an odd thing
that he could make such a mistake, but
it is still more odd how any one could
be taken in by such a mistake when
made. The tax was not what it pre-
tended to be; it was not a succession-
tax upon the value of property passing
from one person to another, but some-
thing very different; and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, while he undertook
to adjust a great inequality, established
another just as great and as offensive.
I do not blame him for what he did;
perhaps it was all he could do at the
time; but surely he was deficient in
acuteness when he supposed that his
new tax would in 1857 produce
2,000,000l., whereas in 1859 it yielded
only 781,000l. How the tax has been
so unproductive is easily explained. If
a man dies and leaves 10,0ool., which
is in the Funds, or in the North-
Western Railway, or in ships, or in
༄
machinery, or employed in trade-what
is done in reference to that 10,000l.?
I will take the case of the 10 per cent.
duty-that is where there is no kin-
dred; 10,oool. left by one man to
another, where there is no relationship,
would have to pay a tax of 1000l. to
the Exchequer. But, supposing the
10,000l. were invested in land, or in
that rateable property which is the new
distinction that the right hon. Gentle-
man establishes, what would be the
result? Take two men, one twenty-two
and the other eighty years of age. You
would find that the Inland Revenue
Board would turn to a table, which
would say the man of eighty has
a life worth three or four years only,
and the man of twenty-two has a life
worth twenty or twenty-five years; and
they would then take the income from
the 10,000l. and multiply it by the
number of years supposed to remain to
the young man and to the old man, and
thus come to the sum on which each
would have to pay.
I was fortunate enough to have a
small property left to me by a person
of whom I had no knowledge. I never
saw him. He was an old gentleman,
a great friend of peace, and opposed to
the Russian war, and seeing that my
hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale
and myself were very strenuous in our
opposition to that war, he did what was
in his power to mark his opinion of the
course we had taken. I sold the pro-
perty for 1400l. or 1500l.; and when I
came to pay my legacy-duty—that is,
the succession-tax-I was greatly aston-
ished at the small sum I had to pay.
My age was taken; an estimate of the
annual value of the property was made;
and I was told that I had to pay some-
thing like 40%. or 50l. If the property
had been in the Funds, or invested in
any other of the modes to which I have
referred, I should have had to pay 1401.
at least. Take the case of an hon.
Gentleman on this side of the House
who has been more fortunate than my-
self. A property worth 32,000l. was
left to him by a person who was not
31-2
484
JULY 21,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
*
a blood relation. If it had been in the
Funds, or in ships, or in railways, or
employed in trade, the succession-duty
would have amounted to 3,200l. What
did he pay? He is not an old man-
younger probably than the average of
Members in this House-and yet, upon
the property being valued and a calcu-
lation made of the number of years he
might live, he found that he had to pay,
not 3,200l., but 700l. Is it consistent
with fairness-with our personal honour
-for, after all, that is a quality which
enters into these questions-with our
duty to the public, that we, sitting here
as a representative body, should take
one class of property, the most solid
and durable, attracting to it the largest
social and political advantages, having
in it the greatest certainty of accumu-
lation and improvement from the general
improvement in the condition of the
people, and charge it to the extent of
700l., while at the same time we impose
3,200l. upon another class of property
not more valuable and far more fleeting
in its character?
I think the reason why I should ob-
ject to a permanent re-imposition of the
income-tax will now be obvious to the
House. I should object to it with all
the force I am capable of until the taxes
which now exist are put on a satisfac-
tory and honest footing, so that every
man and every description of property
may be called upon by the State in its
just proportion to support the burdens
and the necessities of the State. I do
not intend beyond this to refer to the
proposition which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer has made. I have only now
referred to it that I may lay the ground
for the course which I shall take in
another session of Parliament, if this
question comes before the House again;
and I believe that this course will be
sanctioned by a large number of Mem-
bers here, and will meet with almost
unanimous approval from all the honest
men who are taxpayers in the kingdom.
But this question of the mode of levy-
ing taxes is apart from a very serious
question referred to by the right hon.
Gentleman that of our growing and
frightful expenditure. The Chancellor
of the Exchequer said, and very justly,
that up to 1853, in the great depart-
ments of the expenditure, there had been
no great increase for many years. I
confess that, although I have been pro-
testing session after session against this
growing expenditure, I was not fully
aware of the enormous increase which
has taken place until I compared the
present year with 1853 and some pre-
ceding years. I find that in 1853, on the
estimate of the right hon. Gentleman,
the expenditure was only 50,782,000l.,
while the expenditure in the current year
is 69,207,000l. The House must bear
in mind that this is somewhat of an
unfair picture, because since 1853 there
has been a sum of money charged
to the expenditure which formerly went
in the collection of the revenue. Mak-
ing every allowance, however, for the
4,740,000l. which is disposed of in this
way, the expenditure has positively in-
creased in the interval by 13,685,000l.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite
(Mr. Disraeli) was not, I think, quite
correct in his statement respecting the
Miscellaneous Estimates; but there can
be no doubt that the great and serious
item in our outgoings is that of arma-
ments, for I find that the military and
naval expenditure of the country has
risen from 17,000,000l. in 1853 to up-
wards of 26,000,000l. in 1860.
Now, I should like to ask the House
two or three quiet, serious questions, on
this matter. The hon. Member sitting
here just now (Sir Charles Napier) who
commanded the Baltic fleet, and who re-
presents the borough of Southwark, has
left his place, and I am very sorry for it,
because I should have liked to ask him
two or three questions. Does the House
believe that we are now more or less
safe from a foreign war, and particularly
from an invasion of this country, than
we were in 1853? We have men-the
right hon. Gentleman has referred to
them-who are afflicted with a periodical
panic. There is no complaint, I believe,
so incurable as that. One fit begets an-
1859.
#
FINANCIAL POLICY.
485
*
other, and every fit seems so to enfeeble
the constitution of the patient that each
succeeding attack becomes more alarm-
ing than the last. We have two or
three newspapers in this city, which
appear to suffer in this way. One,
which is supposed to represent a parti-
cular trading interest, pours forth from
day to day, from week to week, from
month to month-I know not at whose
instigation, I know not if at the instigation
of any man save the editor-the most
foolish but the most bitter invectives
against the French Government, and by
that means against the French nation.
I say against the French nation, because
I hold that, no matter whether we
approve the Government now existing
in France or not, if we had such a
Government, and some foreign nation
through its press were constantly insult-
ing that Government, we should take
not a small portion of those insults
to ourselves, and we should become pro-
portionately irritated against that nation.
Take another paper, the Times, which,
unfortunately and untruly, is believed
on the Continent to represent the opi-
nions of the English people. Who is
there on that paper-let him stand for-
ward if there be such a man-who has
a bitter personal animosity against the
Emperor of the French? Day after
day, every form into which the English
language can be pressed is made use
of for the purpose of stirring up the
bitterest animosity between two of the
greatest nations on the face of the earth.
Have these men published letters from
Italy in vain? Have they told us of
acres of bloody and mangled human
bodies over which guns have been
dragged and cavalry have galloped-
have they told us of such scenes until
a shudder has passed, I may almost
say, through universal human nature—
and yet have they learnt for one single
moment to restrain that animosity which,
if it continues many months longer, will
place it beyond the power of this or
any Government to prevent our being
embroiled in a war with France?
And it is not only the Member for
Southwark and such as he, it is not only
the editors of newspapers, who suffer
from and create these panics; but go
into another and what is generally sup-
posed to be a higher place, and what do
you find there? Why, you hear some aged
Peer turning back as it were to the con-
victions and the facts of his early youth,
and delivering speeches which might
have been somewhat in character with
the barbarism of sixty years ago, but
which are very unfit for our time and
for our opinions. We find another
Peer [Order!']-another Gentleman,
then, making a speech. I believe I am
transgressing by the mention of certain
things which are too sacred for allusion
here; but really I do not wish to go
into detail and point to particular per-
sons in connection with this matter.
What I say is, that throughout Europe
every intelligent man who reads speeches
of that character, whether made in this
House or in another place, can only
arrive at one conclusion, thoroughly
false as I believe in my conscience it
would be-namely, that these persons
represent a very large amount of public
opinion in this country, and that we
have forgotten the disasters and the
ruin entailed by the great Revolutionary
War of which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer has spoken, and are ready to
engage in another conflict of equal du-
ration and equal cost in blood and trea-
sure, with a result as utterly bootless to
England and to Europe.
Look at our position with regard to
France at this moment. One of our
wars is just over. I do not know that
I use the exact words of the right hon.
Gentleman opposite, but I agree with
him that there can be no peace in Italy
between those two great Powers which
can compare for evil with the war which
that peace has terminated. When I
read of peace being concluded, I felt as
if I could breathe more freely since the
species to which I belong is no longer
engaged in the fiend-like destruction of
its fellow-creatures. What do we now
find in the Manifesto of the Emperor of
the French just received in this country?
4
}
486
JULY 21,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
He said he discovered-I am not now
using his exact words-that he was
making war against the mind of Europe.
That is a most important and valuable
admission, and I only wish the Emperor
had found this out three or six months
ago. He says, further, that the war
was assuming dimensions with which
the interests which France had in the
struggle were not commensurate. I am
surprised that a man reputed to be so
acute did not perceive that he would be
exposed to this great danger before he
entered upon the war.
But the two ad-
missions made in this remarkable and
memorable address prove to me that
the suspicions which have been so
studiously raised in this country as to
the future objects of the Emperor of the
French are altogether unfounded. I do
not believe it possible for either the
Emperor of the French or the Emperor
of Austria to have returned home with
all those scenes of horror, such as we
have read of, flitting before their eyes,
and I hope before their consciences, and
to be now prepared to enter into another
struggle-least of all a struggle with a
nation like ours, containing 30,000,000
of united people, the most powerful, the
richest, and, all things considered, per-
haps the best satisfied with their Govern-
ment of any nation in Europe.
Besides this, have they not learnt some-
thing from the improvements effected in
weapons of warfare, and the increased
destructiveness of life of which those
weapons are now capable? They see
now how costly war is in money, how
destructive in human life. Success in
war no longer depends on those cir-
cumstances that formerly decided it.
Soldiers used to look down on trade,
and machine-making was, with them,
a despised craft. No stars or garters,
no ribbons or baubles bedecked the
makers and workers of machinery. But
what is war becoming now? It depends,
not as heretofore, on individual bravery,
on the power of a man's nerves, the
keenness of his eye, the strength of his
body, or the power of his soul, if one
may so speak; but it is a mere mecha-
men.
nical mode of slaughtering your fellow-
This sort of thing cannot last.
It will break down by its own weight.
Its costliness, its destructiveness, its sa-
vagery will break it down; and it re-
mains but for some Government-I pray
that it may be ours!-to set the great
example to Europe of proposing a mu-
tual reduction of armaments.
Our po-
licy in past times—and the right hon.
Gentleman did not go so far into this
question as I could have wished-has
been one of perpetual meddling, with
perpetually no result except that which is
evil. We have maintained great arma-
ments, not, I sincerely believe, because
we wanted to conquer or to annex any
territory in Europe, but in order that
whenever anything happens in Europe
we may negotiate, intervene, advise, do
something or other becoming what is
called the dignity of this great country.
Do not you suppose this is precisely
the language of the French Emperor at
this moment? The Emperor of the
French builds great fleets because you
build great fleets; and then you build
greater fleets because he builds great
fleets. What does France want with
great fleets? Precisely that which you
have always wanted with yours. If there
be any disturbance between any countries
in Europe, do you not think it would be
beneath the dignity of France not to take
a part in it, and, taking a part in it, not
to take a part with that influence and suc-
cess which becomes a great country like
France? And, therefore, without wish-
ing any more than England wishes to
make conquests or to annex territory,
France wishes to have great influence
in Europe because it suits its dignity,
and will add to the glory and historical
renown of its Emperor. Well, now,
that is exactly the position in which we
are, and we have no more right to
blame the Emperor of the French than
he has a right to blame us.
We are
both very silly, and I hope; from what
I have heard to-night, that at last we
on our side the water are beginning to
find this out.
I shall not go into the question
1859.
487
FINANCIAL POLICY.
whether we are really about to be in-
vaded. I am told that so much has
been said about it that the French
really believe we are making this out-
cry to cover our designs of invading
them. I saw a letter in one of their
newspapers this morning in which it is
stated that from Dunkirk to some other
town there are mounds and fortifications
and guns all ready, though concealed
from the eye by grassy banks, to repress
and to frustrate our designs. Recollect
that the French Government went into
the Russian war because they were
anxious to associate themselves with
the foreign policy of England. Subse-
quently they went into another war with
us with a more distant nation-they
went into the war with China. They took
part with the noble Viscount now at the
head of the Government in the inter-
ference which he promoted in Italy with
regard to Naples some two or three
years ago. It appears to me, that look-
ing at it from every point of view, read-
ing the newspapers, and hearing what
everybody has to say, if there be one
thing which is more distinctly marked
in the policy of the Emperor of the
French since his accession to the throne
of France than another, it is his per-
petual anxiety, by every means con-
sistent with his own safety, and with
the interests as he believes of France,
to ally himself with England and with
the foreign policy of England. Well, if
that be so, why should we perpetually
create these suspicions, and generate
in the minds of the people, nine-tenths
of whom have small opportunity of as-
certaining the facts, alarms which give
colour and justification to this enormous
increase of our armaments, of which we
have heard such loud complaints from
both sides of that table to-night?
I shall not go into the question of
this Conference. At the first view my
opinion would go very much with the
right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli).
I doubt very much-indeed, I ought to
say, I do not doubt, but I feel sure
-that if England is to go into the
Conference merely to put its name to
documents which are of no advantage
to Italy, which do not engage the sym-
pathies of this nation, England had
much better have nothing to do with it.
But there is another course which I
should like to recommend to the noble
Lord who now holds the seals of the
Foreign Office. I cannot believe that
Frenchmen in matters of this nature are
so very different from ourselves as some
people wish to teach us. I do be-
lieve that the 36,000,000 Frenchmen
engaged in all the honest occupations
of their country, as our people are en-
gaged here, are as anxious for perpetual
peace with England as the most intel-
ligent and Christian Englishmen can
be for a perpetual peace with France.
I believe, too, because I am convinced
that it is his wisest course and his
truest interest, that the Emperor of the
French is also anxious to remain at
peace with us, and the people in France
are utterly amazed and lost in bewilder-
ment when they see the course taken
by the press, and by certain Statesmen
in this country.
With that belief what would I do if
I were in that responsible position?—
for which, however, I know that I am
thought to be altogether unfit—but if
I were sitting on that bench and were
in the position of the noble Lord, I
would try to emancipate myself from
those old, ragged, worthless, and bloody
traditions which are found in every
pigeon-hole and almost on every docu-
ment in the Foreign Office. I would
emancipate myself from all that, and
I would approach the French nation
and the French Government in what I
would call a sensible, a moral, and a
Christian spirit. I do not say that
I would send a special envoy to Paris
to sue for peace. I would not com-
mission Lord Cowley to make a great
demonstration of what he was about to
do; but I would make this offer to the
French Government, and I would make
it with a frankness that could not be
misunderstood; if it were accepted on
the other side it would be received with
enthusiasm in England, and would be
+
1
488
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
marked as the commencement of a new
era in Europe. I would say to the
French Government, 'We are but twenty
miles apart, the trade between us is
nothing like what it ought to be, con-
sidering the population of the two
countries, their vast increase of pro-
ductive power, and their great wealth.
We have certain things on this side,
which now bar the intercourse between
the two nations. We have some re-
maining duties which are of no con-
sequence either to the Revenue or to
Protection, which everybody has given
up here, but they still interrupt the
trade between you and us. We will
reconsider these and remove them. We
have also an extraordinarily heavy duty
upon one of the greatest products of the
soil of France-upon the light wines of
your country.' The Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and perhaps the right hon.
Gentleman opposite, may start at once,
and say that involves a revenue of
1,500,000l., or at least of 1,200,000l.
The right hon. Gentleman talked of the
national debt being a flea-bite. What
is 1,200,000l.—what is 1,500,000l., if it
be so much as that--what is 2,000,000l.
for the abolition of the wine duties or
their reduction to a very low scale, if
by such an offer as this we should en-
able the Emperor of the French to do
that which he is most anxious to do?
The only persons whom the French
Emperor cannot cope with are the mono-
polists of his own country. If he could
offer to his nation 30,000,000 of the
English people as customers, would not
that give him an irresistible power to
make changes in the French tariff which
would be as advantageous to us as they
would be to his own country? I do
believe that if that were honestly done,
done without any diplomatic finesse,
and without obstacles being attached
to it that would make its acceptance
impossible, it would bring about a state
of things which history would pronounce
to be glorious.
The tone taken to-night by the right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Buck-
inghamshire and by the right hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer will find a response in the
country. I am not accustomed to com-
pliment the noble Lord at the head of
the Government. I have always con-
demned the policy which I thought
wrong, but which, I have no doubt,
the noble Lord thought was best calcu-
lated to promote the interests of the
country. I believe he was mistaken,
and that he was importing into this
century the politics of the last; but
I do not think it would be possible to
select a Minister who could better carry
out a policy which would be just to
France, and beneficial to ourselves, than
the noble Lord. Blood shines more,
and attracts the vision of man more
than beneficent measures. But the glory
of such measures is far more lasting,
and that glory the noble Lord can
achieve. I live among the people. I
know their toils and their sorrows, and
I see their pauperism-for little better
than pauperism is the lot of vast num-
bers of our countrymen from their
cradles to their graves. It is for them
I speak; for them I give my time in
this assembly; and in heartfelt sorrow
for their sufferings I pray that some
statesman may take the steps which
I have indicated. He who can establish
such a state of things between France
and England will do much to promote
the future prosperity of two great
nations, and will show that eighteen
hundred years of Christian professions
are at length to be followed by some-
thing like Christian practice.
TAX BILLS.
POWER OF HOUSE OF LORDS.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 6, 1860.
From Hansard.
[Mr. Gladstone's Budget of 1860 provided for the repeal of the Paper-duty. This por-
tion of the Budget was rejected by the House of Lords. Subsequently, a Committee
of the House of Commons was appointed to inquire for precedents as to the power
of the Lords to deal with Money Bills. Mr. Bright served on that Committee,
and drew up a report. The following speech was spoken on the Resolutions which
were submitted to the House in pursuance of the report ultimately adopted by the
Committee.]
I CANNOT help being struck with an
inconsistency in the right hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Horsman) who has just re-
sumed his seat. I am surprised that he
has not concluded by moving that cer-
tain words in the first Resolution should
be omitted, and in point of fact that the
declaration which the House is about
to make should be reversed. That
would be in accordance with the speech
of the right hon. Gentleman, and with
the sentiments which many Members
opposite have most vociferously cheered.
I confess I do not know what a number
of hon. Gentlemen opposite thought of
the statements of the right hon. Gentle-
man about the headlong, precipitate,
and reckless Budget of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, because I think there
were some fifty of them who were more
enthusiastic supporters of that Budget
than a great number of the Members
on this side of the House.
I shall not follow the right hon.
Gentleman in his endeavours to support
his theories with regard to the extreme
value of the House of Lords, nor shall
I attempt to controvert them, because,
in reality, that is not the question which
is before the House. But, if the House
will permit me, I will endeavour to
keep as close to the question as I can,
and I will state the grounds on which
I am not satisfied with the course which
this House is invited to take. I will
not attack the Resolutions of the noble
Lord, and I will not defend them, for
I am not responsible for them. They
appear to me unworthy of the occasion
which is before us. I think they bear
marks of having been prepared by more
than one hand, and if they pass, and
constitute the sole expression of our
mind on this occasion, posterity will
hardly fail to pronounce them the Reso-
lutions of a somewhat degenerate House
of Commons. The first Resolution is
a very good one, but it is very old. It
is none the worse for that; and I am
glad the noble Viscount did not think
it necessary to endeavour to amend it.
The other two Resolutions are, to my
490
JULY 6,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
mind, somewhat ambiguous and feeble,
and are not in their expression of what
I believe is constitutional usage, any
more than as examples of composition
in the English language, to be compared
to the first and oldest.
Last night we had two speeches
from that. side of the House after
long silence-speeches which, I con-
fess, I heard with some surprise and
with some pain. They appeared to me
marked-to use a favourite phrase of
the right hon. Gentleman below me-
by great recklessness, and, if I may so
speak, with great levity. Whatever
may be the opinion of hon. Members
on this question, it is not one to be
treated in that manner. It is a serious
question whether the powers of this
House have been infringed or not, and
whether the other House of Parliament
shall hereafter exercise powers which
it has never heretofore exercised. I
confess I was compelled to think of the
truth we learn from history, that there
is no greater sign of the decadence of
a people than when we find the leaders
of parties and eminent statesmen treat-
ing great questions as if they were not
great, and solemn realities as if they
were not real at all. I think I could
observe in those speeches the triumph
of men who had found an advocate in
the Prime Minister, whom they expected
to meet as an opponent, and who were
delighted that, acting with their con-
federates in the other House of Parlia-
ment, they were likely to obtain a signal
party advantage.
Is there anybody who has denied in
point blank terms, except the right hon.
Gentleman, that the House of Lords, in
the course it has taken, has violated-I
will not say the privileges of this House,
for privilege is a word not easily de-
fined- but has broken in upon the
usages of many centuries old-usages
which our predecessors in this House
have acknowledged to be of the utmost
importance to our own powers and to
the liberties of those whom we repre-
sent? If there was nothing wrong, then
why was there a committee? The right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks
neglected to answer that question. He
made no opposition at the time; but
three weeks afterwards he thinks that it
would have been better if the committee
had not been appointed. I will, how-
ever, undertake to affirm that, when the
noble Viscount proposed that committee,
every Member of this House thought the
proposition a reasonable one. Why did
we ransack the journals unless some-
thing had happened which jarred upon
every man's sense of the rights and privi-
leges of this House and the usages of
the House of Lords? And why, having
this committee, and instituting these
researches, have we these Resolutions
moved, not by a young, inexperienced,
and unknown Member-if any such
there be in the House of Commons-
but by one of the oldest Members of
this House, one of the ablest statesmen
of the day, and at this moment the chief
Minister of the Crown? Surely every
one will admit that the circumstances
were such as to justify the course that
was taken in appointing the committee.
Then I have another reason to give
to hon. Gentlemen opposite, notwith-
standing their spasmodic cheering-I
do not intend the word offensively-
why we should have these very Reso-
lutions which you are about to agree
to, which the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for Bucks, as far as I could
understand, entirely approves, and which
you all feel delighted should be proposed
by the noble Viscount, because they re-
lieve you from a considerable difficulty.
I say that these Resolutions are a proof
that the course which has been taken by
the other House has been unusual, if not
wrong; because the Resolutions by im-
plication condemn what the Lords have
done, and although they do not revoke
the Act, or pledge this House to any
particular course, yet, when those Reso-
Îutions come to be considered, it will
never be denied that the House of Com-
mons does by them express a unanimous
opinion that the course which has been
taken by the other House is contrary to
usage, and is calculated to excite the
1860.
491
TAX BILLS.
م
jealousy and alarm of the Members of
this House.
I have been a member of that com-
mittee, and the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for the University of Cam-
bridge knows my opinion of the com-
mittee and its labours. I think that
committee fell wonderfully below its
duties that the course which it pur-
sued was poor and spiritless; and at a
future time when the course it has taken
is contrasted with the course taken by
the House of Commons on previous
occasions, it will be justly said that
there has been a real and melancholy
declension in the spirit of this House.
That which I complain of in the pro-
ceedings of the committee, I also com-
plain of in respect to the manner in
which some hon. Members have dis-
cussed this question. Half of the com-
mittee appeared to me to go into that
committee as much the advocates of
the House of Lords as of the House of
Commons, and I find that some Mem-
bers of this House are of the same
character. Speeches have been de-
livered here that very few Members
of the House of Lords would make
on this question, and I will undertake
to say that not one Member of that
House, who is known to the public by
his political influence, legal knowledge,
high character, or extensive learning,
would dare to make the speech that has
been made to-night by the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Stroud. I
went into the committee with the ut-
most frankness in order that I might
ascertain, not altogether in what man-
ner the Lords had asserted their privi-
leges, but what our predecessors had
done with regard to theirs. We have
no right to let go one single particle
of the privileges and powers which the
House of Commons have gained in past
times; and I took it for granted that if
I examined for some centuries back the
course which the House of Commons
had pursued-if I read their Resolu-
tions, if I read the reasons adduced at
their conferences, if I observed the Acts
which they passed, and the result of the
discussions between the two Houses-
we should be justified in concluding
that we have rights to maintain for
which our predecessors have contended.
Now, several Members, following the
example of the committee, have taken
the House back for a long period of
time. I will not go into those prece-
dents with the view of contending
whether they do or do not refer to
this particular case; but the House
will permit me to mention two or three
facts which I brought out of the Jour-
nals, and which convinced me that we
should not take a sufficiently bold or
decided course if we merely agree to
the Resolutions of the noble Viscount..
I will first refer to that very case which
the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
the University of Cambridge and myself
fixed upon as the starting-point of our
precedents-the precedents of the year
1407; and I trust every hon. Member
has read it, either in the translation, or
in the old Norman-French. It is worth
reading, for it is a very curious case,
and there is no other so like the recent
action of the House of Lords as that
which took place 453 years ago; for
the House of Lords then proposed to
continue a tax to which the Commons
had not assented, and the House of
Commons were greatly disturbed at the
House of Lords prolonging a tax to
which the House of Commons had not
given its assent. We then made a great
leap, and from the year 1407 came down
to the year 1628. We then found the
House of Commons insisting upon the
initiation of Bills of Supply. They
would not permit the name of the
Lords to be inserted in the preamble
of a Bill of Supply, neither would they
agree to the compromise that neither the
Lords nor the Commons should be in-
troduced, but that the High Court of
Parliament should be mentioned.
House of Commons refused to pass the
Bill in that shape, and submitted that
the Commons should be named alone
in the grant. This was done, and that
has been the practice ever since in the
preamble of Supply Bills.
The
}
492
JULY 6,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
"
Then we come to 1640, when the
House of Lords were much more mo-
dest than they ought to have been,
according to the right hon. Gentleman,
who maintains that they ought to check,
alter, amend, improve, and if necessary
overthrow, all the financial arrange-
ments of the year that this House may
agree to. The Declaration of 1640 set
forth that the Lords stated at the Con-
ference that—
·
'My Lords would not meddle with mat-
ters of subsidy, which belong naturally and
properly to you-no, not to give you advice
therein, but have utterly declined it.'
Then the House of Lords in 1640, we
are asked to suppose, knew nothing of
their constitutional rights, and the House
of Commons of that day were less able
than they are at present to judge of what
is necessary for the performance of their
proper functions in the State, and for the
liberties of those whom they represent.
Mr. Pym told their Lordships that they
had not only meddled with matters of
Supply, but that they had
'Both concluded the matter and order of
proceeding, which the House of Commons
takes to be a breach of their privilege, for
which I was commanded to desire repara-
tion from your Lordships.'
The Lords made reparation by de-
claring that they did not know they
were breaking a right of the Commons
in merely suggesting that Supply should
have precedence over the consideration
of grievances. I am not sure that even
now, notwithstanding what has been
said, the House of Lords have ever
admitted by any Resolution that they
have not the power to originate Sup-
plies. They have not the power, of
course, to carry such a Bill, because if
it came to this House it would fall down
dead, unless that unhappy time should
come when the theories of the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for Stroud are
carried out.
Then comes the question of Amend-
ments. The Lords endeavoured to
amend a Bill of Supply. I do not
6
wonder that they did so, because the
theories of the right hon. Gentleman
must have been palatable to a good
many of them. În 1671 it was pro-
posed not to continue a tax, but to
reduce a tax-the duty on white sugar.
The Lords proposed to reduce the duty
from one penny per pound to five-
eighths of a penny, and the House of
Commons came to a Resolution that
'in all aids given to the King by the
Commons the rate or tax ought not to
be altered by the Lords.' A conference
was held with the House of Lords, and
the House of Commons then declared
that the right which they claimed was
a fundamental right, both as to the
matter, the measure, and the time.'
Then, what followed in the House of
Lords? They replied by the very same
Resolution which the House of Com-
mons had passed in its own favour.
The Resolution they passed asserting
their power to make Amendments was
just as strong, and in the same words as
the Resolution which had been passed
in a contrary sense by this House. They
said, with reason, for if they cannot
amend, or abate, or revise a Bill in
Parliament'-they said this, mind, in
answer to the Commons, who declared
that they could not amend, but might
negative the whole-they said, if we
cannot amend, or abate, or alter in
part, by what consequence of reason
can we enjoy the liberty to reject the
whole?"
The right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for the University of Dublin last
night showed himself a most unhappy
critic. He called our attention to the
condition of things in the United States.
In fact, he proved himself-only he did
not exactly understand what he was say-
ing-he showed himself to be strongly
in favour of Americanising our institu-
tions in one respect. He said the Senate
of the United States has the power not
only of rejecting but of amending-
which is quite true. When the founders
of the American Republic were binding
together the thirteen sovereign States in
one great-and to be still greater
1860.
493
TAX BILLS.
combination, they looked back natu-
rally to the practice of the country from
which they were separating, to deter-
mine, or at least to learn, something
from our Parliamentary practice. They
found that in England the Lords could
not begin Money Bills, could not alter
or amend them; but that theoretically
-because the matter had never been
decided-theoretically they had power
to reject. But, then, what was the con-
clusion which they came to? They
said the very same thing that the House
of Lords had said in the year 1671-
'It is perfectly childish to say that the
House of Lords cannot alter, abate, or
increase, but yet shall be able to reject.'
They knew well that, although there was
that theoretical right in England, yet,
practically, it had never been enforced,
and they came to the conclusion that
if they should give to their own Senate
power to reject, it would be necessary
also to give them the power to amend;
and at this very moment the Senate of
the United States might, not with that
sort of responsibility of which the right
hon. Gentleman is so fond, but with a
real responsibility, every two members
being the representatives of a particular
sovereign State-that elected Senate does
amend, and does reject, and does deal
with finance in a manner which has
never been permitted, nor even proposed
in this country, except in the extra-
ordinary speech to which we have just
listened.
Seven years after the last date to which
I have referred there arose another
contest, in the course of which a Reso-
lution was passed. It is the strongest
and most comprehensive Resolution that
the House of Commons has ever passed
in relation to this subject. I will not
go
into any
elaborate argument upon it,
but I will just read it, because it makes
the argument I am about to bring
before the House more continuous and
clear. The House of Commons de-
clared this; and it was not one of those
sudden acts which the House of Com-
mons is now alleged to continually com-
but it was a Resolution drawn up
mit;
by a committee specially appointed for
that purpose-a Resolution specially
considered and solemnly entered in the
Journals of the House. It was in these
words,-
'All Aids and Supplies, and Aids to His
Majesty from Parliament, are the sole
gifts of the Commons, and all Bills for
granting such Aids and Supplies are to
begin with the Commons; and it is the
undoubted and sole right of the Commons
to direct, limit, and appoint in such Bills
the ends, purposes, considerations, condi-
tions, limitations, and qualifications of
such grants, which ought not to be changed
or altered by the House of Lords.'
At this time, when the Lords had
never pretended to reject a Bill, it is
probable that such a proposition was a
thing that never entered into the head
of any Member of the House of Peers.
I will undertake to say it would be
difficult for any Member of this House
to draw up a Resolution more compre-
hensive and conclusive as to the abso-
lute control of the House of Commons
than that of the year 1678, which I have
just now read.
Shortly afterwards, in the year 1691,
there is another Resolution which goes
minutely to the case before the House,
and I beg the right hon. Gentlemen's
attention to it. In that year a Bill was
passed for appointing Commissioners
to Examine the Public Accounts of the
Kingdom. The House
House of Lords
amended, the House of Commons dis-
sented; and among the reasons which
the House of Commons gave was this-
That in aids, and supplies, and grants,
the Commons only do judge of the ne-
cessities of the Crown.' What are we
asked now? We are asked to take into
partnership another judge of the neces-
sities of the Crown. The House of
Commons which for five hundred years,
which, since the Revolution at least,
has never withheld adequate Supplies
from the Crown, is now to be depre-
ciated and defamed, as if it had been
guilty of scantily supplying the wants
of the Crown, and the House of Lords
1
L
494
JULY 6,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
is to be asked to do that which the
House of Commons alone did in 1691,
namely, to judge of the necessities of
the Crown, and to make the Supply
greater than that which the House of
Commons have believed to be sufficient.
And, referring to that famous record of
Henry the Fourth, we find it stated
there that all grants and aids are made
by the Commons, and are only assented
to by the Lords.'
'
A few years afterwards, our fore-
fathers were concerned in a question
about the paper duties, just as we are
at this time; only they managed it
better than we are doing now. In the
year 1699 they declared :—
'It is an undoubted right and privilege
of the Commons, that such aids are to be
given by such methods, and with such
provisions, as the Commons only shall
think proper.'
But now we are told that aids and pro-
visions for the Crown are to be raised
by methods, not which the Commons
think proper, but which the Lords
think proper in opposition to the
Commons.
The House will perceive that I am
very hoarse, and I am sorry to trouble
them with other cases. In the year
1700 there was another question raised
between the two Houses: and the Com-
mons told the Lords that they could
not agree with their Amendment, and
they again affirmed that
'All the Aids and Supplies granted to
His Majesty in Parliament are the sole
and entire gift of the Commons; and that
it is the sole and undoubted right of the
Commons to direct, limit, and appoint the
ends, purposes, considerations, limitations,
and qualifications of such grants.'
C
And in 1702 there was another state-
ment that the granting and disposing
of all public moneys is the undoubted
right of the Commons alone.'
In the year 1719 they objected to a
clause which the Lords had introduced;
on the ground that it levied a new sub-
sidy not granted by the Commons,
which is the undoubted and sole right
of the Commons to grant, and from
which they will never depart.' I want
to ask the House, or any reasonable
man, if we were discussing this question
between the American Senate and the
House of Representatives, or between
the two Chambers of any foreign country,
to what conclusion would each one of
us necessarily come as to the purpose
and object of all these declarations, to
which I have referred, and which are
only a portion of those which are to be
found in the Journals of this House for
the last five hundred years? Would
you say that they lead to the conclusion
that the House of Lords could throw
out a Bill repealing a tax of the value
and magnitude of 1,300,000l. a-year?
Would you say that if they could not
abate a tax, or continue a tax, or limit
a tax, or dispose of a tax, or control in
any way a tax, or even give advice to
the Commons in respect of a tax-could
you say that notwithstanding all that
which is clear and undeniable, they
could, in the face of this House, reject
a Bill which repealed a tax of 1,300,000l.
a-year, without violating Parliamentary
usage, and running contrary to all the
declarations of this House for many
centuries? I think—and I put it be-
fore the Committee-and if any hon.
Gentleman has done me the honour to
read the draft Report which I prepared,
he will see that I put before the Com-
mittee this long string of Cases, and
Resolutions, and Declarations, couched
in language not ambiguous, not feeble,
but in language clear and forcible,
which could not be mistaken; and then
I wished to ask the Committee-as 1
now ask the House-what was the end
and object which the House of Com-
mons had in view in these repeated
declarations of their rights and opinions
touching the granting of Supplies, and
the imposition of taxes upon the people?
I should say that it was this-they con-
firm and consecrate a practice of five
hundred years, the principle which, till
within the last hour, I thought every
1860.
495
TAX BILLS.
man in England admitted-the funda-
mental and unchangeable principle of
the Government and Constitution of
the English people, that taxation and
representation are inseparable in this
kingdom.
·
Let us look and see how these De-
clarations and Resolutions apply to this
case. We are now in the year 1865,
and for a long period we have had no
question of importance of this nature;
and we begin to fancy that, after all,
there is no great importance in such a
question. We have long had our per-
sonal liberties in this country—longer
almost, in some classes of society, than
history can tell; but people perhaps
fancy that their personal liberty cannot
be endangered by this matter. No; in
this case we were so confident of our
right and our power that we could not
comprehend any infringement of our
rights. These paper-duties, I believe,
were granted in the reign of Queen
Anne; partly for revenue, and partly for
other purposes; which purposes, I pre-
sume, had some effect in procuring the
rejection of this Bill by the Lords. It
was a tax to prevent the publication
and spread of political information. I
see an hon. Gentleman up there in the
gallery who is very much astonished at
this; but he is not aware, probably,
that all which I have stated is, if I am
not misinformed, in the Preamble of
the Bill. Public opinion in those days
allowed of very bad reasons being given.
They can be acted on now even when
they are not given. From the time of
Queen Anne, to the present time, this
paper-duty has crippled a very important
industry. It has taxed all the trades
which required large quantities of paper
-such as those of Manchester, of Shef-
field, of Nottingham, of Birmingham,
and elsewhere; but more than that, it
has very successfully done what Queen
Anne's Ministers wanted; it has
threatened, and, to a large extent, it has
strangled the press of this country.
Within the last thirty years—and hon.
Members on the opposite side of the
House I presume by this time are be-
coming conscious of it-new principles
have become established in this country
with regard to taxation on industry.
New and wiser principles have been
adopted, and not only adopted but es-
tablished; and there are some very
powerful defenders of these new princi-
ples whom I have the pleasure to see
opposite me to-night.
The right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Stroud has proceeded on the old
mode of discussion when arguments are
not plentiful and facts are entirely
wanting. He has raised his old friend,
the hobgoblin argument, and has tried
to show us that some frightful calamity
must come upon us if this paper-duty be
repealed: it is but a million-and-a-
quarter. Does any hon. Gentleman
believe that our prosperity or success-
or that any vast interest of this country
-can possibly depend on a million,
more or less, in the general revenue of
the empire? A million is a million.
['Hear.'] I am glad to have said some-
thing in which the hon. Gentleman the
Member for Leicestershire can coincide.
There is no Member who has laid more
stress on the importance of a million
in the taxation of the people than I
have done; it is the tax of many
villages, of many towns; and it makes
the difference sometimes between com-
fort and desolation; and therefore I am
the last person who would undervalue
the amount of a million of the public
revenue. But still I should be only
making myself foolish, if I were to say
that a million sterling-whether our
taxation be 50,000,000l. as it was twenty
years ago, or 70,000,000l. as it is now
was of the gigantic importance attri-
buted to it by the right hon. Gentleman;
for on this million, which we had pro-
vided a substitute for, before we relieved
the people of that million, he founds his
argument as to our recklessness, pre-
cipitancy, and madness, and drunken-
ness-I think he added—at least it was
to be inferred from what he said; for
he made use of the converse, and spoke
of sobriety.
The noble Lord the Member for the
496
JULY 6,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
City of London in his speech last night
reviewed the course of events, and told
us what we all knew, that within the
recollection, I suppose, of almost the
youngest Member of the House, there
have been Excise duties on many other
articles; I think, at one time, on
candles; certainly at a later period on
leather; I believe, since I came into
this House, on glass; and, still more
recently, on soap. Well, all these Ex-
cise duties have been abolished. Can
you find a man, from John O'Groat's
to the Land's End, who will not tell
you that these reckless principles,
applied to the repeal of these Excise
duties, were not of essential benefit, not
only to the particular trades most inte-
rested, but to the great mass of the
people, and to the industry by which
your people live?
Well, then, having followed for many
years a course so beneficial, we come at
length, in the year 1860, to the repeal
of the paper-duty, which was promised
by the House; which was recommended
by the Government officers; which was
called for by innumerable petitions;
which was hoped for, I believe, by
every person in the country who took
an intelligent view of what was essential
to aid the efforts which Government
are making, by liberal grants every
year, to promote the instruction of the
people. This tax was 1,300,000l. It
was a question whether sugar should be
relieved to the extent of a million, tea.
of a million, or paper of a million: I
am speaking in round numbers. The
hon. Gentleman, not caring in the least
about this reckless deficit, would evi-
dently have preferred sugar or tea; but
surely, as regards the question of the
Supplies of the year, it was equally a
matter of indifference to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer whether the duty were
taken off tea, or sugar, or paper. But
the conclusion to which he necessarily
came was, that while in the cases of
tea and sugar the relief was to the ex-
tent of a million of taxation, in the case
of paper it was not only a relief to that
amount in money, but it was a relief to
a great industry, and to several other
industries, whose prosperity must de-
pend on an abundant and cheap supply
of paper. I speak with some know-
ledge of the subject, and I have not the
least doubt that the abolition of the
paper-duty was a positive relief to the
whole people of the country equal to
double the relief which would have
been afforded by a reduction equal in
amount to the duty on the articles of
tea and sugar.
But the question may be still more
narrowed; and I beg the right hon.
Gentleman's particular attention—for it
appears now that his hostility to the
Chancellor of the Exchequer renders
him unable to understand the multipli-
cation table, or anything else that is
plain. If the paper-duty expired on the
15th of August, the reduction of revenue
between that time and the end of the
financial year would probably not be
more than 600,000l., but certainly would
not exceed 700,000l. I am sorry the
House did not take more economical
advice in past years. But we are now
come, according to the right hon. Gen-
tleman, to this extremity of our re-
sources, that you cannot take 700,000l.
this year from an Excise which is stran-
gling a great trade, and put an addi-
tional halfpenny or penny on the in-
come-tax, without bringing about such
a frightful state of things, that the Con-
stitution itself and the usage of Parlia-
ment must be violated, and we must
bring in a foreign power to check us in
our precipitous, reckless, and headlong
career.
It may be very far from the modesty
which becomes a Member of this House,
but I confess I am of opinion that the
House of Commons is the best judge in
this country of what is necessary for the
trade, and also what is required by the
financial condition of the country. First
of all, there are among us a good many
sagacious men of all sorts. There are,
as I know, some very sagacious land-
owners; we found it very hard to beat
them, even when they had a very
bad case. We have a very sagacious
1860.
497
TAX BILLS.
Gentleman down here who spoke to-
night, and who, whatever be the ques-
tion which comes before us, always finds
some very fitting object for his merci-
less and unscrupulous vituperation. We
know, many of us intimately, all the
details connected with these questions;
in fact, I suppose, there is not a trade
in this country of any importance or
note that cannot find its representatives
in this House. For many years past
we have had the absolute control of
questions of finance, and I undertake to
declare, notwithstanding what the right
hon. Gentleman has stated, that there
is not a representative body in the world
which during the last twenty years has
done more in the way of financial and
fiscal reforms with greater advantage
to the people. And yet, at the end of
that period, when the triumphs of this
House are to be found not in granite
and bronze monuments, but, in the added
comforts of the population, and in the
increased and undoubted loyalty of the
people, you are now, forsooth, asked by
the right hon. Gentleman to abdicate
your functions, and to invite 400 gentle-
men, who are not traders, who have
never been financiers, who do not pos-
sess means in any degree equalling your
own of understanding the question-you
are to ask them to join your councils,
and not only to advise, but to check,
and even to control.
It is one of the points which gave me
most, grief in regard to this question,
that I have seen the House of Lords
taking, of all cases, perhaps the worst
that could possibly come before them,
and inflicting suddenly, unexpectedly,
and, in my opinion, groundlessly, most
harsh and cruel treatment on all the
persons who were interested directly in
this question of the paper-excise. We
are asked now, in terms not ambiguous,
to overthrow the fabric which has grown
up in this country, which has existed,
and existed without damage, for at least
500 years. By the Report of the right
hon. Gentleman we find that as far back
as the year 1640 the House of Com-
mons made this declaration, to which
I ask the particular attention of Mem-
bers of the present House. They said :—
'We have had uninterrupted possession
of this privilege' [the privilege of the un-
disputed control over the taxation and
finances of the country] 'ever since the
year 1407, confirmed by a multitude of
precedents both before and after, not
shaken by one precedent for these 300
years.'
If that be so, it carries us back for a
period of 520 years; and yet we are
asked to-night, in the most unblushing
and audacious manner, to overthrow
this magnificent and time-honoured
fabric, and admit to powers, to which
they have hitherto been unaccustomed,
the hereditary branch of the Legislature.
Now, I say that the House of Lords
in the course they have taken have com-
mitted two offences, which I had much
rather they had not committed, because
I am not anxious that they should de-
preciate themselves in the eyes of the
people of this country. [A laugh.] If
hon. Gentlemen opposite were as anxious
that they should continue limited to
their proper functions, doing all the
good that it is possible for them to do,
and as little harm as possible, they
would not laugh with an apparent un-
belief in what I have just stated. I say
the House of Lords have not behaved
even with fair honour towards the House
of Commons in this matter. Every man
of them who knew anything about what
he was voting for knew that the House
of Commons repealed the paper-excise,
not merely because it wished to remit
a million of taxes, but because it thought
that to strangle a great industry was an
injurious mode of raising revenue, and,
therefore, it transferred that amount of
taxation from the paper-excise to the
income-tax. Then, I say if that were
known in the House of Lords, although
they might have disapproved the change,
and might have thought it better if it
had not been made, it was not an
honourable treatment of this House;
and further, if they had the power which
the American Senate has, and which the
1
32
498
JULY 6,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
5
right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes
them to have, still it would not have
been fair to this House to enact the ad-
ditional penny on income, and to refuse
to repeal the tax on paper. That is a
question which every man can under-
stand; and I cannot believe that there is
any Member of this House who does not
comprehend it when put in that shape.
But there is another thing in which
the House of Lords have done wrong.
They have trampled on the confidence
and taken advantage of the faith of the
House of Commons. The right hon.
Gentleman last night made a very curi-
ous statement on this subject, which, if
I were a Member of the House of Lords,
I should be disposed to find fault with.
He said: Why, what can you expect?
It was the lâches of the House of Com-
mons that gave the House of Lords the
opportunity of doing what they have
done.' But, surely, if for 500 years the
House of Lords has never done this,-
if since the Revolution, even with the
search into precedents made by the
Committee, not a single case which ap-
proaches this can be discovered,—is the
House of Commons blameable for think-
ing that it was at least dealing with a
House which would abide by the usages
of the Constitution, and would not take
advantage of the change which the
House of Commons made for the public
interest in the mode of imposing taxa-
tion? Instead of certain taxes being
imposed annually, or for short periods,
by which the House held a constant
control over them, they were made per-
manent. The West India interest said
they did not want their trade to be
troubled and disturbed every year; and
the sugar duties were made perpetual.
But then are we always to treat the
Lords as political burglars, and invent
bolts, bars, locks, everything which may
keep them from a possible encroach-
ment on our rights? Must we treat
them as men who, if you give them the
smallest opportunity, will come down
upon you and do that which you wish
them not to do? If that be so, you
must assuredly take certain precautions
to prevent them from continuing such
a course.
It is said that the Paper Duty Abo-
lition Bill was thrown out in the Upper
House by a great majority. That is a
fact with which we are all well ac-
quainted. I was talking recently to a
Peer who gave an explanation of this,
which I will venture to repeat. If,' he
said, 'the regular House of Lords, that
is to say, the hundred Members who
during the session really do transact the
business, if they only had been in the
House, the Paper Duties Repeal Bill
would certainly have passed.' That,
however, happened which we all under-
stand, and I have no objection to repeat
the exact words used to me. • About
two hundred Members, who hardly ever
come there, were let loose for the occa-
sion.' Most of them are unknown to
the country as politicians, and they
voted out this Bill by a large majority,
with a chuckle, thinking that by doing
so they were making a violent attack
on the Ministry, and especially on the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. That is
a House, recollect, in which three Mem-
bers form a quorum. I sometimes hear
complaints in this House that Ministers
pass measures very late at night, when,
perhaps, only fifty Members are present,
of whom thirty are connected with the
Government; but in the House of Lords
three form a quorum. Proxies may be
used too; and these three Peers forming
a quorum, with proxies in their pockets,
are to dispose of great questions involv-
ing 70,000,000l. of taxes raised from the
industry of the people of this country.
At all events, if the two hundred Peers
who voted that night choose to come
down on other occasions, there is no
single measure of finance, however libe-
ral or however much for the advantage
of the people, that they would not re-
ject, and thus frustrate the beneficial
intentions of this House.
But after all I have said I am going
to make this admission, that the Lords
of course can reject a Bill, and can also
initiate a Bill if they like. If it were
not so late (and the Lords like to get
1860.
499
TAX BILLS.
away about seven)—if it were not
so late, the Lords might to-night
bring in a Bill levying a tax or voting
money for the service of the year, and
they can also reject any Bill you may
send up to them. They are omnipotent
within the four walls of their House,
just as we are within the four walls of
this House. But if they take their
course, one contrary to the general
practice of that House and of Parlia-
ment, it becomes us to consider what
course we will take. We cannot com-
pel them to make any change; but we
may ourselves take any course that we
please, and we may at least offer them
the opportunity of altering the course
they have taken.
My opinion is that it would have
been consonant with the dignity of this
House, wholly apart from the ques-
tion of 1,300,000l. a-year, or of 700,000l.
the sum for this year, to have passed
another Bill to repeal the paper-duty.
If that had been a duty which I con-
sidered not the best to repeal, I still
should have laid aside all partiality for
a particular tax. The question before
us is of far more importance than the
maintenance or abolition of any parti-
cular tax. There can be nothing more
perilous to the country, or more fatal
to the future character of this House,
than that we should do anything to
impair and lessen the powers we have
received from our predecessors. I un-
derstand there are other sums amount-
ing to about 1,500,000l. or 2,000,000l.
which have yet to go up to the House
of Lords. Now, if the noble Lord at
the head of the Government, acting up
to his position, which I think he has
failed to do in this matter, had asked
us, not on the ground (for that is a low
ground) that the paper-duty was the
best duty to repeal, but on the ground
that as the House of Commons have
come to that decision they should abide
by it; but if he had asked us to pass an-
other Bill, with an altered date, per-
haps, and sent it up again to the House
of Lords, he would have given them the
opportunity of reconsidering their deci-
sion; and my full belief is that a course
like this, taken without passion and
without collision, would have been met
in a proper temper by that House; this
difficulty would have been got over, and
in all probability both Houses for the
future would have proceeded more regu-
larly and easily than they are likely to
do under the plan proposed by the
noble Lord.
Having stated that I shall leave the
questions of these Resolutions, I say
there is no reason whatever in the argu-
ments which have been used why this
duty should have been maintained, or
why it was perilous to remit it. Its
repeal was consistent with the policy of
the Whigs before Sir Robert Peel came
into power, with the policy of Sir Robert
Peel's Government, of Lord Derby's
Government, of Lord John Russell's
Government, of Lord Aberdeen's Go-
vernment, of Lord Palmerston's Govern-
ment, of Lord Derby's last Government,
and of the existing Government. The
policy of the repeal of the paper-duty
is the recognized policy of this House,
and it is the admitted interest of this
country. Then, why, unless it be for a
party triumph, unless it be to attack a
particular Minister, why is this question
of 700,000l. this year, and less than
double that sum in future years, raised
to an importance which does not belong
to it? and why, for the sake of a party
triumph, are the great interests con-
nected with it to be damaged and tor-
tured, as they now are, by the action of
one House of Parliament? I am told
there are Members of this House who
would not support the Government in
this course, and I should certainly
hardly expect that all the Gentlemen
on the benches opposite would lend it
their sanction. Yet I doubt whether if
the noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment were to act in the manner I
have indicated, the great majority of
them would be induced, upon reflection,
to adopt the policy which they have
pursued with respect to these Resolu-
tions, and whether the House of Com-
mons would not have passed a second
1
*1
}
ין
*
32-2
500
JULY 6,
SPEECHES OF
JOHN BRIGHT.
P
Bill even by a larger majority than that
by which we passed the last.
There is a rumour that some Gentle-
men on this side of the House object to
such a course of proceeding, and hon.
Gentlemen opposite have, perhaps, on
that account been led to take up a line
of action upon this question in which
they otherwise could not hope to suc-
ceed. An hon. Gentleman behind me,
from whom I should have expected
something better, said only last night,
in speaking of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, that he was a reckless and
unsafe Finance Minister. That obser-
vation he no doubt confined to the
question of the repeal of the paper-duty;
but I cannot forget that in 1853 we had
the same Chancellor of the Exchequer
as to-day, and that it was asserted then
also that he had committed great errors.
[Cheers from the Opposition.] Yes;
but your Chancellor of the Exchequer
was not in office long enough to per-
petrate any great mistakes. Not long
after that right hon. Gentleman acceded
to office, he brought in a Budget which
the House of Commons rejected; and
upon the next occasion on which he
proposed one, he found it necessary to
shift the burden of responsibility to the
shoulders of his successor. But in 1853,
when the right hon. Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford
was Chancellor of the Exchequer, I put
it to those among us who were then
Members of this House, whether it is
not the fact that the strength of the
Government of Lord Aberdeen, of which
he was a Member, was not mainly to
be attributed to his dealing with the
taxation of the country in a manner
which met with universal approbation
out of doors?
We come now to the present year,
and while I do not wish to depreciate
the popularity, or the character, or the
ability of the noble Lord at the head
of the Government, or any of his col-
leagues, still I undertake to say that the
power and authority which his Ad-
ministration has acquired during the
present session, it has gained mainly as
the consequence of the beneficial pro-
positions which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer has made. I heard some-
body last night—I am not quite sure it
was not the right hon. Gentleman below
me to-night talk of the House of
Commons having been partly charmed
and partly coerced into the acceptance
of these propositions. But if that be so,
and if we have proved ourselves to be
soft-headed children who could be so
swayed, I must say it appears to me
very strange that such should be the
case; for I think the House of Com-
mons has upon the contrary shown
wonderful independence, and has proved
itself to be extremely free from all those
ties, the acting in accordance with which
usually enables a Government to con-
duct the business of a session with
success. Be that, however, as it may,
I repeat that the Budget of the right
hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, when it was laid before the
country, was received throughout all
the great seats of industry, and among
the farmers too-for it tended to benefit
them as well as the inhabitants of
towns-with universal approbation.
The right hon. Gentleman below me
has been indulging himself to-night, in
accordance with his custom, in con-
demning the French Treaty, and I must
say we have heard a great deal upon
that subject since it was first mooted in
this House. We have had it com-
mented upon by a great journal in this
country, whose motives I will not at-
tempt to divine, but whose motto must,
I think, be that which Pascal said ought
to have been adopted by one of the
ancients — ‘Omnia pro tempore, sed
nihil pro veritate,'-which being trans-
lated, may be rendered- Everything
for the Times, but nothing for truth.'
We have had, in short, every description
of falsehood propounded with respect
to this Treaty. The right hon. Ġen-
tleman below me has not hesitated
to-night to give currency to representa-
tions with respect to it which are wholly
inaccurate, and to which, if I were not
here, I would apply a still stronger
1860.
501.
TAX BILLS.
term. Did not the right hon. Gentle-
man say our manufacturers were-I
forget the word-plaintiffs-no, sup-
pliants in the antechamber of the Em-
peror of the French? The statement
is one, I can tell him, which is wholly
untrue; nay, more,-and I may say
that with the exception of some right
hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury
bench, there is no one more competent
to give an opinion on the subject than
myself, for reasons with which the
House is of course acquainted,—I tell
the right hon. Gentleman that nothing
can exceed the good faith and the
liberality with which that whole ques-
tion is being treated by the Commis-
sioners of the French Government.
I would have him know that they are
as anxious as our Commissioners that
a great trade between England and
France should spring up; and I will
add that in the case of nations and Go-
vernments in amity one with the other,
whose representatives are endeavouring
in all fairness and frankness to extend
the commerce between both, he is neither
a statesman nor a patriot who seeks to
depreciate in the eyes of his countrymen
the instrument by which it is hoped
these results will be accomplished, and
who thus does his utmost to prevent its
success.
I come now to ask the House what
is this reform in the tariff introduced by
the right hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, by which you
are so frightened? Is it something
novel? The right hon. Gentleman
below me says it is a scheme both new
and gigantic in its proportions, and
fatal in its principle. I was speaking
last week to an hon. Member for a
south-western county who sits on the
benches opposite, and he spoke in terms
of exultation to me of the success of
late years of that branch of industry in
which you are peculiarly interested.
Is it honest, then, that you should make
such acknowledgments and not consent
to extend further the principles which
the whole country has pronounced to
be sound and beneficial? We boast of
That
the freedom of our commerce.
commerce has more than doubled since
I had first the honour of a seat in this
House. When, therefore, you now
attack, through the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, principles, the adoption of
which has wrought this great good,
you are not, in my opinion, pursuing a
course which will enhance your reputa-
tion with the country which you pro-
fess to represent. There is not, I con-
tend, a man who labours and sweats
for his daily bread; there is not a
woman living in a cottage, who strives
to make her humble home happy and
comfortable for her husband and her
children, to whom the words of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer have not
brought hope, and to whom his mea-
sures, which have been defended with
an eloquence few can equal, and with a
logic none can contest, have not ad-
ministered consolation. I appeal to the
past and present condition of the
country, and I ask you, solemnly, to
oppose no obstacle to the realization of
those great and good principles of legis-
lation.
I will not enter further into this ques-
tion. I am unable from physical causes
to speak with clearness, and I am afraid
I must have somewhat pained those
who have heard me. I must, however,
repeat my regret that the noble Vis-
count at the head of the Government
has not shown more courage in this
matter than he appears to me to have
exhibited, and that the House of Com-
mons has not evinced more self-respect.
I fear this session may as a consequence
become memorable as that in which,
for the first time, the Commons of
England has surrendered a right which
for 500 years they had maintained un-
impaired. I, at least, and those who
act with me, will be clear from any
participation in this; we shall be free
from the shame which must indelibly
attach to the chief actors in these pro-
ceedings. I protested against the order
of reference which the noble Lord pro-
posed, though I sat and laboured on
the Committee with earnest fidelity on
1
502
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
f
behalf of the House of Commons. I
have felt it an honour to sit in this
House up to this time, and I hope that
hereafter the character of this House
will not be impaired by the course
which is about to be taken. I have
endeavoured to show to my country-
men what I consider to be almost the
treason which is about to be committed
against them. I have refused to dis-
honour the memory of such Members
as Coke and Selden, and Glanville and
Pym; and, if defeated in this struggle,
I shall have this consolation, that I have
done all I can to maintain the honour
of this House, and that I have not
sacrificed the interests which my con-
stituents committed to my care.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 3, 1864.
From Hansard.
[Spoken on Mr. Ewart's Motion for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death.]
I SHALL not, after the discussion which
has taken place, and which has been,
I think, almost all on one side, take up
the time of the House by making a
speech. But the right hon. Gentleman
(Sir George Grey) has said something
which I am obliged to contest to some
extent. He has quoted the opinions of
Judges upon this question, and he has
laid, I think, more stress upon those
opinions than they generally deserve.
I think, if there is one thing more
certain than another, it is this — that
every amelioration of the criminal code
of this country has been carried against
the opinion of the majority of the Judges.
And I may on this point quote the
opinion of an eminent Irish Judge, who,
I believe, is still living, and with whom
I had some conversation in Ireland
about fifteen years ago.
The con-
versation turned on this very question.
He said, 'Beware of the Judges. If
Parliament had acted on the opinion
of the Judges, we should have been
hanging now for forgery, for horse-
stealing, and for I know not how many
other offences for which capital punish-
ment has long been abolished.'
Now the right hon. Gentleman pro-
poses to have a Commission, as I under-
stand, instead of a Committee. There
was an inconsistency in his speech, I
thought, on that point; for at first he
seemed to say that the question, whether
capital punishment should be continued
or be abolished, was not one which a
Committee of this House was fitted to
consider; but towards the close of his
speech he moderated that by admitting
that some of the points referred to in
the Amendment, which is, I suppose, to
be agreed to, might be considered by a
Commission. I will undertake to say
that if he were to inquire in every civi-
lized country in the world where there
is a representative legislative assembly,
he would find that the changes which
had been made in their laws have been
made invariably in consequence of in-
quiries instituted by those Chambers and
carried on by means of Committees
formed amongst their members.
I admit that the bulk of the Com-
mittees of this House are not fairly con-
stituted. I served very assiduously on
Committees for the first ten or fifteen
years after I became a Member of this
House, and I did not find out till about
the year 1850 or 1853 that a Committee
was generally of no use; and from that
time to this I have avoided, in nine
cases out of ten, when I have been
applied to, sitting upon a Committee.
But that observation refers principally
to questions where political interests are
concerned. When, however, you come
to a question of this nature, where we
}
504
MAY 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
should necessarily take the opinion of
Judges, to whom the right hon. Gentle-
man pays so much attention, and of
those men of whose great authority he
has spoken, and of a great many other
men who are not wedded to existing
systems, and of men who could give
us the facts with regard to other coun-
tries, I say that a Committee of this
House, so far at any rate as obtaining
evidence is concerned, I think would be
equal to any tribunal, or any court of
inquiry, which the right hon. Gentleman
could establish.
The right hon. Gentleman has led
the House away a little from the main
question. The main question proposed
by my hon. Friend the Member for
Dumfries is whether capital punishment
should be retained or abolished. The
right hon. Gentleman has led the House
into a discussion of a question some-
what personal to himself-in connection
with recent cases. I know the right
hon. Gentleman was justified in what
he said in reference to the position
which he holds in the performance of
his painful duties with regard to the
execution of the criminal law. But
that is not exactly what is wanted-this
Motion was not brought forward for
that purpose.
I think the House would agree with
great unanimity if the right hon. Gentle-
man would introduce a Bill proposing
certain changes at which he has hinted.
This country has always been the most
barbarous of all civilized nations in its
punishments; and at this moment is the
most barbarous still, notwithstanding
what the right hon. Gentleman said
about the punishment of death being
inflicted only for the crime of mur-
der. But did he not afterwards tell
the House that this crime of murder is
a net which includes cases as different
in their quality as in their guilt and in
their consequences to society, as the
difference between the lowest class of
murder which the law now includes and
the pettiest larceny which is punishable
before a single magistrate. Yet all these
are part of the same list of crimes, and
if a jury does its duty-that is what is
always said, as if a jury had no other
duty but inexorably to send a man to
the scaffold-if a jury will find a ver-
dict of guilty, the punishment is death,
unless the right hon. Gentleman, impor-
tuned by a number of persons, or having
examined into the case himself, will
interfere to save the unfortunate wretch
from the gallows.
There can be no doubt whatever that
if capital punishment be retained, and
if it be absolutely necessary that there
should be a crime called murder to
which capital punishment attaches, it is
no less necessary that there should be,
as there are in some other countries,
three or four degrees of manslaughter,
and that for the highest degree of man-
slaughter there should be the highest
kind of secondary punishment, and that
the power should be placed in the hands
of the jury of determining what should
be the particular class in which the
criminal should be placed. There is
no doubt that this is necessary to be
done. I think Voltaire-who said a
good many things that were worth re-
membering remarked that the English
were the only people who murdered
by law. And Mirabeau, when in this
country, hearing of a number of persons
who had been hanged on a certain
morning, said, 'The English nation is
the most merciless of any that I have
heard or read of.' And at this very
moment, when we have struck off
within the last fifty years at least a
hundred offences which were then
capital, we remain still in this matter
the most merciless of Christian countries.
If anybody wishes to satisfy himself
upon this point let him take those late
cases in which the right hon. Gentleman
has had so much trouble. Take the
case of Townley; take the case of
Wright; take the case of Hall at War-
wick; and I will take the liberty of
repeating—what I said to the right hon.
Gentleman when I was permitted to see
him on the case of the convict Hall—
that there is not a country in Europe,
nor a State among the Free States of
1864,
505
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
America, in which either of those
criminals would have been punished
with death. Yet we have gone on
leaving the law as it is; and the right
hon. Gentleman, to my utter astonish-
ment, every time this question has been
discussed, has given us very much the
same speech as he has addressed to us
to-night: he has repeated the same
arguments for continuing a law which
drives him to distraction almost every
time he has to administer it.
I am surprised that the right hon.
Gentleman, who has had to face the
suffering which has been brought on
him by this law, has never had the
courage to come to this House and ask
it fairly to consider, in the light of the
evidence which all other Governments
and the laws of all other countries afford,
whether the time has not come when
this fearful punishment may be abolished.
The right hon. Gentleman says the
punishment is so terrible that it will
deter offenders from the commission of
crime. Of course it is terrible to one
just standing upon the verge of the
grave; but months before, when the
crime is committed, when the passion
is upon the criminal, the punishment is
of no avail whatsoever. I do not think
it is possible to say too much against
the argument that because this is a
dreadful punishment, it is very efficient
to deter a criminal from the commission
of crime.
As the right hon. Gentleman proposes
to give a Commission, I shall not trouble
the House with some observations that
I had intended to make. There are,
however, two or three cases which have
not been mentioned, and which I should
like to bring under the notice of the
House. My hon. Friend the Member
for Dumfries referred to Russia.
Russia
is a country in which capital punish-
ments have for almost a hundred years
been unknown. I was reading yesterday
a very remarkable Report of a Com-
mittee of the Legislature of the State
of New York, written in the year 1841.
It states that the Empress Elizabeth
determined that for twenty years there
should be no capital punishments in
Russia. The Empress Catherine, in
giving her instructions for the new
Grand Code, stated her opinion upon
the subject in these words:
'Experience shows that the frequent re-
petition of capital punishment has never
yet made men better. If, therefore, I can
show that in the ordinary state of society
the death of a citizen is neither useful nor
necessary, I shall have pleaded the cause
of humanity with success.'
She then says what I think is worthy
of hearing :-
When the laws bear quiet and peaceful
sway, and under a form of government
approved by the united voices of the
nation, in such a state there can be no
necessity for taking away the life of a
citizen.
The exception is in the case of some
great political offender whose incarcera-
tion might not destroy his power of
doing mischief; and I believe that since
the enactment of this law there have
been only two cases of persons who have
been put to death by law in Russia, and
that these have been cases arising out
of circumstances of a political and in-
surrectionary character. Count Ségur,
the French Ambassador at St. Peters-
burgh, states that the Empress Catherine
said to him-
'We must punish crime without imitating
it. The punishment of death is rarely any-
thing but a useless barbarity.'
In reporting this to the French Govern-
ment, Count Ségur stated that under the
mildness of the law murders were very
rare in Russia.
My hon. Friend the Member for
Dumfries referred to the case of Tus-
cany, where it is well known that for a
lifetime capital punishment has never
been inflicted. In the case of Belgium,
to which reference was made by the
learned Member for Tiverton, as one
of the most remarkable, I think the
right hon. Gentleman was not successful
in getting rid of his figures. It happens,
566
MAY 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
as I understand, that the law in Belgium
does not prohibit capital punishments;
but the result of omitting to inflict
capital punishment has been so satis-
factory that now the law is literally
obsolete, and that capital punishment
is never inflicted. Take then the case
of Bombay, which is of a very striking
character. We have the evidence from
the pen of Sir James Mackintosh, who
says,-
"It will appear that the capital crimes
committed during the last seven years
(1804 to 1811) with no capital executions,
have in proportion to the population not
been much more than a third of those
committed in the first seven years (1756
to 1763) when forty-seven persons suffered
death.'
He adds,-
"The intermediate periods lead to the
same results.'
The House ought to bear in mind,
that to us who have examined this ques-
tion for many years, no fact is more
clearly demonstrated than this- there
is no country in the world, be it a great
empire or be it a small state, where the
law has been made milder and capital
punishment has been abolished, in which
there is any proof that murders have
been more frequent, and the security of
life in the slightest degree endangered.
If that be so-if I could convince every
Member of this House that the abolition
of capital punishment would not cause
more murders than the average of the
last ten years-if all that would be
left would be that those ten or twelve
wretches who are publicly strangled
every year would be living in some
prison, or engaged in some labour with
a chance of penitence, and with life not
suddenly cut off by law-is there a man
in this House-I speak not of party, or
to one side or the other-who would
dare to demand that we should still
continue these terrible punishments?
There was, not long ago, in this
House, a venerable old Gentleman
who represented the University of
of
Oxford, who constantly quoted in the
discussion on this subject a certain
verse of a certain chapter in the Book
of Genesis. I am very glad that in the
seven or eight years that have elapsed
since this question was last discussed,
we have advanced so far that nobody
has now brought forward that argu-
ment. We have discussed it to-night
by the light of proved experiments, of
facts, and of reason. Seeing what has
been done in this country by the ameli-
oration of the Criminal Code, and what
has been done in all other countries, is
there any man with one particle of
sense or the power of reason who
believes that human life in this country
is made more secure because ten or
twelve men are publicly put to death
every year?
The security of human life does not
depend upon any such miserable and
barbarous provision as that. The secu-
rity for human life depends upon the
reverence for human life; and unless
you can inculcate in the minds of your
people a veneration for that which God
only has given, you do little by the
most severe and barbarous penalties to
preserve the safety of your citizens. If
you could put down what it is that
secures human life in figures and esti-
mate it at 100, how much of it is to
be attributed to your savage law, and
how much of it to the reverence for
human life implanted or existing in the
human soul? No doubt 5 or 10 out
of the 100 may be owing, for aught I
know, to the influence of the law; but
go or 95 per cent. is owing to that
feeling of reverence for human life.
Whenever you hang a man in the face
of the public under the circumstances
to which we are so accustomed in this
country, if you do in the slightest degree
deter from crime by the shocking nature
of the punishment, I will undertake to
say that you by so much-nay, by much
more-weaken that other and greater
security which arises from the reverence
with which human life is regarded.
Since the notice of this Motion was
given by my hon. Friend I took the
1864.
507
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
liberty of writing to the Governors of
three of the States of America in which
capital punishment has for several years
been abolished; and, with the permis-
sion of the House, I will read extracts
from the answers which I have re-
ceived. I think they are important in
a discussion of this nature when we are
attempting to persuade doubtful and
timid people that we are not proposing
a rash or dangerous change. În the
State of Rhode Island, one of the small
States of America, with a population of
not more than 200,000, capital punish-
ment has been abolished. The Go-
vernor, the Hon. J. Pye Smith, writing
from the Executive Department, March
21, 1864, says:—
'I. The death penalty was abolished
in this State in the year 1852. 2. I do
not think its abolition has had any effect
upon the security of life. 3. Is the law
against the death penalty sustained by the
public opinion of the State? Very de-
cidedly. 4. Are convictions and punish-
ments more certain than before the change
was made? I think they are. 5. What
is the punishment now inflicted on such
criminals as were formerly punished with
death? Imprisonment for life at hard
labour. I have conversed with our Supreme
Judge, State attorney, and warden of the
State prison, and they support my own
established views upon the subject.'
In a second letter, dated April 4, and
which I received a few days ago, he
says:-
Our present able Chief Justice says:-
Although opposed to the present law
when passed, I am equally opposed to a
change in it until the experiment has been
tried long enough to satisfy us that it has
failed. I am clearly of opinion that the
present state of the law is sustained by
public opinion, and I believe it will con-
tinue to be until it is satisfactorily shown
that crimes against life have been consider-
ably increased in consequence of it. My
observation fully justifies me in saying that
conviction for murder is far more certain
now in proper cases than when death was
the punishment of it."'
Here is the answer which I received
from the Hon. Austin Blair, the Go-
vernor of the State of Michigan :—
'Executive Office, Lancing,
March 23, 1864.
•
1. The death penalty for murder was
abolished March 1, 1847, when the re-
vised statutes of 1846 went into effect.
2. Life is not considered less secure than
before; murders are probably less frequent
in proportion to population. Twenty years
ago the population of the State was
300,000, and we have now a population
of about 900,000. Then it was chiefly
agricultural, and now we have mines of
copper, iron, coal, &c., bringing into
proximity dissimilar classes, and increasing
the probabilities of frequent crime. Before
the abolition of the death penalty, murders
were not unfrequent, but convictions were
rarely or never obtained. It became the
common belief that no jury could be found
(the prisoner availing himself of the com-
mon law right of challenge) which would
convict. Since the abolition there have
been in seventeen years thirty-seven con-
victions. 3. There can be no doubt that
public opinion sustains the present law and
is against the restoration of the death
penalty. 4. Conviction and punishment
are now much more certain than before
the change was made. Murder requires
a greater amount of proof than any other
crime, and it is found practically that a
trial for murder excites no very unusual
interest.'
It, therefore, does not make a hero of
the criminal. The letter proceeds :-
C
5. The punishment now is solitary
confinement at hard labour for life. Since
1861 this class of prisoners have been em-
ployed as other prisoners, as it was found
difficult to keep them at work in cells with-
out giving them tools, and there was danger
of their becoming insane. The reform has
been successfully tried, and is no longer an
experiment.'
The last letter is from the Hon. J. S.
Lewis, the Governor of Wisconsin, and
is dated Madison, March 29, 1864:
'The evil tendency of public executions,
508
MAY 3,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
the great aversion of many to the taking
of life rendering it almost impossible to
obtain jurors from the more intelligent
portion of the community, the liability of
the innocent to suffer so extreme a penalty
and be placed beyond the reach of the
pardoning power, and the disposition of
courts and juries not to convict, fearing
the innocent might suffer, convinced me
that this relic of barbarism should be
abolished. The death penalty was re-
pealed in 1853. No legislation has since
re-established it, and the people find them-
selves equally secure, and the public more
certain than before. The population in
1850 was 305,000; in 1860 it was
775,000. With this large increase of
population we might expect a large in-
crease of criminal cases, but this does not
appear to be the case.'
If you take these two States of Wis-
consin and Michigan, which have been
settled at a comparatively recent date,
you will see that it was highly probable,
as they are on the outskirts of advanc-
ing civilization, that crimes of violence
would not be uncommon. But here,
with the abolition of this punishment,
crimes and violence are not more com-
mon than before; people are just as
secure, the law is upheld by public
opinion, and the elected Governors of
three States, after the experience of
these years, are enabled to write me
letters like these, so satisfactory and so
conclusive with regard to the effect of
the experiment as it has been tried with
them.
The special cases that have been men-
tioned to-night with regard to execu-
tions have not been by any means the
most fearful that have occurred. There
was a case last year at Chester of so
revolting a nature that I should be
afraid to state the details to the House.
I think it is hardly conceivable that a
Christian gentleman, a governor of a
gaol, and a clergyman, another Chris-
tian gentleman, should be concerned in
such a dreadful catastrophe as then took
place. Sir, if there be fiends below,
how it must rejoice them to discover
that, after the law of gentleness and
love has been preached on earth for
eighteen hundred years, such a scene
as that could be enacted in our day in
one of the most civilized and renowned
cities of this country. And these are
cases which will happen again if this
law remains; and all the difficulties
which the right hon. Gentleman has
alluded to to-night and on previous oc-
casions are difficulties inseparable from
the continuance of this punishment.
The right hon. Gentleman has re-
ferred to one or two cases; the noble
Lord opposite (Lord Henry Lennox)
has likewise referred to one or two.
The case at Glasgow, the case at Derby,
the recent case in London, and the
recent case at Warwick, are cases which
move whole populations; and, if that
be so, how can any man argue that this
law is in a satisfactory state, or that
this punishment can be wisely and bene-
ficially administered and executed in this
country? Parliament, unfortunately-
we need not disguise it, and I will not
at any rate conceal it-Parliament has
been very heedless upon this question.
Secretaries of State have gone on from
year to year in the performance of their
duties with great pain to themselves,
and yet they have never had the courage
to ask Parliament to consider whether the
system might not be entirely abolished.
Does not every man now feel that it is
in opposition to the sentiment of what
I will call-and I think I may say it
without disparaging anybody-the most
moral and religious population of this
country, the men who have led the ad-
vance during the past century in every
contest that we have had with ignorance,
and crime, and cruelty, in whatsoever
shape it has shown itself? And every
day they are becoming more and more
estranged from the spirit and operation
of this law.
Whenever there are paragraphs float-
ing about in the newspapers that on the
15th or the 25th of such a month such
an one is to meet his doom for some
crime, however foul, there is in every
city, in every parish, and in almost
1864.
509
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
every house in this country where there
is any regard to humanity and to Chris-
tianity, a feeling of doubt as to whether
this law is right, and a feeling of disgust
and horror amongst hundreds of thou-
sands of the best portion of our people.
Now, merciful laws are, in my opinion,
the very highest testimony to any Go-
vernment, as I likewise think that they
are the highest blessing a people can
enjoy. I believe they give security to
a Government, and they soften and
humanise the people. All the steps
that have been taken in this direction
have been so successful, that I wonder
that even the hon. gentleman the late
Lord Mayor of London should not him-
self have come to the conclusion that
after all we could still sleep comfort-
ably in our beds if men were not
hanged; and that, if the law were
gentle and merciful whilst it was just,
we should find gradually growing up
in the minds of all classes a greater dis-
like to crime and violence, and a greater
reverence for human life.
Benjamin Franklin, a great authority
on matters of this nature, said that the
virtues are all parts of a circle; that
whatever is humane is wise; whatever
is wise is just; and whatever is wise,
just, and humane, will be found to be
the true interests of States, whether
criminals or foreign enemies are the
objects of their legislation. Would any
one of us like to go back to the bar-
barism of that time when Charles
Wesley wrote a note to the celebrated
and excellent John Fletcher, the Vicar
of Madeley, in 1776? We were then
trying to keep the empire together, and
neglecting this great work at home.
He says:-
A fortnight ago I preached a con-
demned sermon to about twenty criminals,
and every one of them, I had good grounds
to believe, died penitent. Twenty more
must die next week.'
And there were then occasions on which
twenty were hanged, not one of whom
had been convicted of the crime of
murder. Have we not from that time
made great and salutary and satisfactory
advances in this question? Is there any
man who wants to turn back to the
barbarism of that day? But if you
turn back to the Secretaries of State of
that day, or to the Judges of that day,
or even to the Bishops of that day, you
will find that they had just the same
sort of arguments in favour of the bar-
barism in which they were then con-
cerned that the right hon. Gentleman,
I suppose forced by the necessities of his
office, has offered to the House to-night.
I confess I wonder that all the right
hon. Gentleman has gone through in
these painful cases has not almost
driven him stark mad many times. I
wonder that it has not driven him to
the table of this House to propose,
under the solemn feelings with which
he must often have been impressed,
that the House should take into con-
sideration whether this vast evil-as I
believe it to be-might not be put an
end to. Is the Englishman worse than
every other man? Is this nation worse
than other nations? Cannot the lenient
laws practised with perfect safety in
every other-not every other, but in
many other of the nations of the world
-be practised in this nation, and at
the same time leave us perfectly secure
-at least as much so as we are at pre-
sent? I say we may wash vengeance
and blood from our code without diffi-
culty and without danger.
The right hon. Gentleman is willing
to appoint a Commission-he prefers it
to a Committee, and I will not contest
the point with him if the Commission
be a fair Commission; but I should not
like to see it a Commission of Judges.
I do not wish to speak disrespectfully
of Judges. I agree with what the right
hon. Gentleman has said, that with the
exception of a case or two, perhaps, in
one's lifetime, we notice nothing on the
bench but that which is honourable to
the Judges of this country; and I would
say that the Judges of this country may
be compared with advantage probably
with the Judges of any other country.
But Judges are but men. Several of
•
510
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
them, as a proof of that, have been
Members of this House. And I am
free to confess that the feelings I had
when I was a schoolboy at York, and
first went to an Assize trial, and saw a
venerable old gentleman on the bench,
and in his wig, were those of utter awe
and astonishment; but those feelings
have been considerably modified by my
experience of many of the present
Judges when they were Members of this
House. But we know that Judges are
like other men in this-they have trod-
den a certain path which has led them
to the honourable position which they
hold. They are there, not to make
law, but to administer it; and they are
disposed to adhere to the law, as they
have studied it and administered it.
Some of them are not desirous, perhaps,
to express an opinion, like the noble
Lord the father of the hon. and learned
Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman).
They are strongly attached to that
system which they have been adminis-
tering; and, as I said at the beginning
of the observations I have offered to the
House, they have been in all past times
-not all of them, but a majority of
them-generally opposed to the amelio-
ration of our Criminal Code.
Although, therefore, I believe that at
this moment there are more Judges on
the bench who are in favour of the
abolition of capital punishment, yet I
should not like the right hon. Gentle-
man to leave the inquiry into this ques-
tion entirely or even to a majority of
the members of the bench. There is no
reason to believe that a Judge is more
competent to give an opinion on this
question than any other intelligent, edu-
cated, and observing man; nor would I
admit that the right hon. Gentleman
himself, who is in his person the whole
bench of Judges, is more capable of
giving an opinion than any other Mem-
ber of this House who has paid long
and careful attention to this subject.
Therefore, I hope that if the right hon.
Gentleman does appoint a Commission
he will put upon it-I do not say men
who have not an opinion on one side or
the other, for men who have no opinion
at all are not likely to give any worth
hearing-but men in whom the House
and the country, and those in the House
who are against capital punishment, may
have confidence, feeling that they will
take evidence from every source whence
it could be fairly offered to them, and
that they will give to the House and
the Government a fair opinion on that
evidence in their report.
But I
If that be done, I am quite certain
that the result will be a great improve-
ment of the law, although it may not
carry it to the point which my hon.
Friend the Member for Dumfries has
so long desired to carry it.
should be very thankful if so much is
accomplished; and if ever we come to
that point, I have confidence too that
even you Gentlemen opposite, who are
so very timid, always fancying that the
ice is going to break under you, will be
induced to go further than you seem
inclined to do now; and, perhaps the
ten or twelve wretched men who are
now hanged annually may be brought
down to three or four, and at last we
may come unanimously to the opinion,
that the security of public or private
life in England does not depend upon
the public strangling of three or four
poor wretches every year. This Parlia-
ment is about to expire, I suppose,
before very long-though some say it is
to endure during another session; I
should be glad indeed if it might be
said of this Parliament at some future
time, that it had dared to act upon the
true lessons, and not upon the supersti-
tions of the past; and that it might be
declared to be the Parliament which
destroyed the scaffold and the gallows,
in order that it might teach the people
that human life is sacred, and that on
that principle alone can human life be
secured.
C
THE PERMISSIVE BILL.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 8, 1864.
From Hansard.
[The Permissive Bill' was a measure introduced by some of the friends of Temperance,.
to enable a certain proportion of the population of a parish, by vote, to shut up Public-
houses, and to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors within the parish.]
I THINK my hon. Friend the Member
for Carlisle (Mr. Lawson) has at least
no reason to complain of the manner in
which the House has listened to the
statement which he has made on behalf
of his clients throughout the country.
The House has listened to his speech
in a manner which proves that this is a
question which is getting more hold of
the mind of the country than it had
some time ago, and that it cannot be
treated as the vision of a few wild en-
thusiasts. Everybody will agree that
the evil which the hon. Member has to
some extent explained is a very grievous
one in almost every part of the country;
and more-I believe every Member will
say that if any measures could be taken
that did not violate any of the recog-
nised principles on which this House
acts, to help those who are making
great exertions to change the people of
this country from their past and, I fear,
their present condition into a happier
state, such measures ought to be sanc-
tioned.
I believe there are only two modes of
remedy; the first of which is the im-
provement and instruction of the people,
and the second, the special legislation
of this House. I am one of those who
look rather to the improvement and
education of the people for a permanent
remedy-and I think that it is quite
conclusive that this must be the sheet-
anchor, as it were, of this question.
There are hon. Members of this House
older than I am, but I am old enough
to remember when among those classes
with which we are more familiar than
with the working-people, drunkenness
was ten or twenty times more common
than it is at present. I have been in
this House twenty years, and during
that time I have often partaken of the
hospitality of various Members of the
House, and I may assert that during
the whole of those twenty years I have
no recollection of having seen one
single person at any gentleman's table
who has been in the condition which
would be at all fairly described by
saying that he was drunk. And I
And I may
say more-that I do not recollect more
than two or three occasions during that
time in which I have observed, by the
thickness of utterance, rapidity of talk-
ing, or perhaps a somewhat recklessness
of conversation, that any gentleman had
taken so much as to impair his judg-
}
I
512
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
ment. That is not the state of things
which prevailed in this country fifty or
sixty years ago. We know, therefore,
as respects this class of persons, who
can always obtain as much of these
pernicious articles as they desire to have,
because price to them is no object, that
temperance has made great way, and if
it were possible now to make all classes
in this country as temperate as those of
whom I have just spoken, we should be
amongst the very soberest nations of
the earth.
But it may be said after all this, that
there is something still to be done by
special legislation-and I am not dis-
posed to contradict that; and if any
Member were to contradict it, it would
be going in the face of experience, and
certainly in the face of the opinion which
has been universally held by this House.
All our legislation on this question has
been special. My hon. Friend says he
thinks no one would dare to propose to
make the sale of intoxicating drinks free
-as free for example as the sale of
bread, potatoes, or any of the articles
of ordinary consumption. If we re-
quired no taxes, I do not know how we
should treat this question; but, requiring
taxes as we do, it has been thought in
this country, and I suspect in most
other countries too-certainly in many
-that there is nothing upon which
taxes can be levied with greater advan-
tage (if I may use the term advantage'
in connection with the levying of any
taxes) as upon articles of an intoxicating
quality. But having levied these taxes,
and finding the consumption is large,
the Government finds it also necessary
to provide certain superintendence by
the police; because, unfortunately,
wherever the sale of these articles is
considerable, there is found to be a
state of things which is not favourable
to obedience to the law, and which
magistrates, policemen, and the law are
called in to avert and prevent.
6
We have this special legislation now,
and my hon. Friend says that not less
than four hundred Acts of Parliament
dealing with this question have been
JUNE 8,
before the House: not all of them with
a view of preventing the consumption of
intoxicating liquors, but all showing
what a constant and incessant attention
Parliament has been obliged to pay to
this subject. Now we come to the
system as we find it, and ask ourselves,
Can anything more be done? Under
the present system, if a man wishes to
sell beer only, he gets six of his neigh-
bours to sign a recommendation that he
is a suitable and respectable man.
I
believe also the rent of his house
has something to do with it, as indi-
cating that he is a man not absolutely
without means and character. But if
he wishes to sell wine and spirits he
must ask the magistrates for a licence,
and the licence is renewable from year
to year. I think it may be generally
said that this system is not satisfactory
to people throughout the country. There
are many magistrates who condemn the
system of which they are a part; and in
many towns it is said—and I think upon
inquiry we should find it to be true-
that the magistrates give licences too
freely; and men who live in quiet streets
of a town are angry with the magis-
trates for giving licences to houses
which are not needed. We also find
that there is a great diversity of action,
for in some villages, towns, and districts,
public houses are much more numerous
than in others; and at the same time
there is a complaint that in giving
licences for the sale of beer the recom-
mendation of six benevolent neighbours
is given more through kindness to the
applicant than kindness to the great
bulk of the neighbourhood. In some
cases the number of beer-houses has
been unnecessarily and mischievously
increased.
And now what does my hon. Friend
propose? He proposes something that
is entirely distinct, and to some extent
a revolutionary measure, with regard to
this system. He proposes that two-
thirds of the rate-payers of any district,
parish, or town shall have the power to
decide the whole of this question; and
I think when the hon. Gentleman stated
1864:
513
THE PERMISSIVE BILL.
that proposal, an hon. Gentleman on
the other side of the House, and an hon.
Gentleman sitting near me, made ges-
tures as if they thought the rate-payers
did not represent the working-classes.
But the working-classes are rate-payers
in a larger number than any other class,
for they are generally married and have
families, and live in houses that pay
taxes; and therefore if you take the
opinion of the rate-payers of this country
on any question, you take in as clear a
manner as possible the opinion of the
people of the country. Well, my hon.
Friend proposes that two-thirds shall
decide; but decide what? By this
Bill, they are to decide first of all
whether any new licences shall be
granted in the district to which the vote
applies—that is, whether this Act shall
be in force in the district-and they are
to decide further whether any of the
persons now licensed shall have those
licences renewed at the expiration of the
present year. [No, no!' Hear, hear !']
·
That is what I understand by the
Bill. I believe all licences are merely
granted for selling drink from year to
year. I think it was one of the state-
ments of the licensed victuallers that
the magistrates had the absolute control
over them, and that there was no appeal
from their decision, and every year they
could refuse to renew any licences if
they thought fit. It will thus be seen
that my hon. Friend proposes a Bill
which affects some scores of thousands
of persons and some millions of pro-
perty, the measure which he proposes
being entirely different, I think, from
anything which has ever been proposed
or sanctioned by the House with regard
to any other description of property or
any other interest. Therefore, however
sanguine I may be as to what I must
call the violent success of his measure,
and however desirous I may be to carry
out his object, I do not think it likely
that the House of Commons will con-
sent to such a proposition as that.
What is meant by the representative
system is not that you should have the
vote of thousands of persons taken upon
a particular question of legislation, but
that you should have men selected from
those thousands having the confidence
of the majority of the thousands, and that
they should meet and should discuss ques-
tions for legislation, and should decide
what measures should be enacted; and
therefore in this particular question I
should object altogether to disposing of
the interest of a great many men, and of
a great many families, and of a great
amount of property-I should object
altogether to allow such a matter to
be decided by the vote of two-thirds of
the rate-payers of any parish or town.
By this Bill they would have the power
to shut up at once, or rather at the end
of the current year, as far as the sale
of these articles is concerned, every
hotel, inn, public-house, and beer-shop
throughout the country. I say through-
out the country, but of course I allude
to such subdivisions of the country as
the Bill may indicate. There would of
course be a difference, for some parishes
would shut them up, and some would
not; but that is not very much an argu-
ment against the Bill. But there might
be, and I think there would be, in all
probability, sudden, capricious, and un-
just action under this Bill, which would
have a very unfortunate effect upon the
interests of those immediately concerned;
and I think it might also create through-
out the country violent discussions on
the question, and I am afraid might
even produce a great and pernicious re-
action against the very honest and good
objects which my hon. Friend desires
to carry out. For that reason, as a
Member of this House, representing a
very large constituency, and having my
sympathies entirely with those who are
endeavouring to promote temperance
amongst the people, and after much
consideration on this subject, I have
never yet seen my way at all to give a
vote which would tend to pass a mea-
sure such as that now proposed to the
House.
But then if there be persons who think
that the sale of these articles is in itself
absolutely evil and immoral-and I did
33
1
JUNE 8,
514
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
not understand my hon. Friend to hold
that opinion, or to have stated it to the
House-but if there be persons of that
opinion, they, of course, will not be
influenced by any arguments of mine.
I do not hold that opinion - and I
think the friends of temperance through-
out this country make a great mistake
when they argue their cause on that
ground. There is abundant ground on
which to argue this question on which
no man can assail or controvert them,
and it is unfortunate for a great and
good cause that any of its enthusiastic
but illogical advocates should select
arguments which cannot fairly be sus-
tained.
Now, the question comes, if this Bill
were disposed of,- is there nothing
which the House could do to meet the
growing opinion in many parts of the
country that public-houses and beer-
shops are often established with per-
nicious influence upon the district, and
in far greater numbers than the fair
wants of the people demand? I bring
no charge against the magistrates. So
far as I have seen, with some few ex-
ceptions of which we have heard, they
perform their duty, and a disagreeable
duty it is, as well as any body of men
to whom you could intrust it. With
regard to the householders, they are
very likely to give recommendations
with more regard to the persons them-
selves than to the wants of the public.
Judging from the evidence brought be-
fore the committees of this House, it
must be admitted that public opinion
does not entirely agree with the mode
which is at present in existence for the
granting of licences, whether they be
for public-houses or beer-houses; and
looking at the course which the Govern-
ment has taken-I do not mean this
Government in particular, but the course
Parliament has taken in past times-I
do not see any reason why the public
opinion of every city, town, and district
should not have something to say with
regard to this matter.
Some time ago, when I was down at
Birmingham, a large number of persons
connected with this question had an
interview with me and my hon. Col-
league. We had a long discussion on
the question, and I explained to them
what I now wish to explain to the
House-that although objecting to the
Bill on the grounds which I have stated,
yet it does appear to me that the House
might proceed a step further than it has
already done, and intrust to the ordinary
local governing bodies of the cities,
towns, and boroughs throughout the
kingdom the decision of this question,
with regard to the opening of public-
houses and beer-shops, and the granting
of licences within the limits of their
jurisdiction. You cannot put this power
into the hands of the Secretary of State
or the Lord Chancellor, as you do the
appointment of magistrates; and you
cannot remove it from twenty magis-
trates and put it into the hands of some
half-dozen men in the same neighbour-
hood. You can make no change from
where you are, unless you intrust to the
municipal council, or some committee
of the municipal council, in the various
boroughs, the power of determining the
number of licences for the sale of wine
and spirits or beer.
If you were to intrust it to the Coun-
cil, instead of to the full vote of the
rate-payers, as proposed by the Bill, I
think you would avoid everything like
a sudden and violent interference with
property, and you would also avoid the
capricious action which might take
place if two-thirds of the rate-payers
were to judge this question, and you
would give to the whole body of the
rate-payers through their representa-
tives in their municipal councils, the
determination of a question which every
day is becoming more important with
the great masses of the people of this
country. I know no proposal which
could be made from the point where we
now stand to the point of the Bill of
my hon. Friend except the one which I
have suggested. Generally, the muni-
cipal councils in this country perform
their duties with admirable success, and
there is no Bill passed in this century
1864.
515
THE PERMISSIVE BILL.
·
which has been more successful than
the one which the House passed to
reform the corporations. If they had
this further power, I think it would add
to their influence and dignity; and, in
all probability, the opinions of the
people would be fairly carried out in
reference to this question. But there
is another question. Hon. Gentlemen
opposite may say that this could not be
done in the rural districts, where there
are no corporations, and therefore my
suggestion could not apply. But I
think if it were attempted in the towns,
and it was found more advantageous
and successful than the present system,
something could be found before long
to extend the new system to the agri-
cultural districts as well: but if that
should be found impracticable, it is no
reason for debarring the towns from
the benefit.
I should not have brought such a
question as this before the House, and
I am not so sanguine of the result of
these changes as what I may call the
Temperance party in this House. I
have not that faith in any act of the
Legislature on this subject which my
hon. Friend has. I believe in the effects
of the instruction of the people, and of
the improvement which is gradually
taking place amongst them. I think
that drunkenness is not on the increase,
but rather is declining; and I hope,
whether the law be altered or not, we
shall find our working-classes becoming
more and more sober than in past
times. But as I have on many occa-
sions been before the public favouring
the efforts of the advocates of temper-
ance, I have felt bound to state the
reasons why I cannot give my vote in
favour of this Bill, and to suggest what
the House might do by way of giving
to the people through their municipal
councils control over this question. By
doing this you might promote temper-
ance among the people, and at the same
time avoid a great and manifest injus-
tice to thousands of persons now en-
gaged in this trade, whose property
would be rendered uncertain if not alto-
gether destroyed if the Bill of the hon.
Gentleman should receive the sanction
of the House.
1
33-2
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, MAY 12, 1851.
From Hansard.
[The Ecclesiastical Titles Bill was a measure to prohibit Catholic Bishops from assuming
any title from any place or territory within the United Kingdom. A Papal Edict
had recently created an Archbishop of Westminster, and this caused a ferment or
panic in the country, which was much stimulated by a letter from Lord John Russell,
then Prime Minister, to the Bishop of Durham. The Bill passed by large majorities,
but it has been wholly ineffectual, is now obsolete, and will probably shortly be
repealed.]
I AM exceedingly glad that the dis-
cussion has taken the turn which it has
now assumed; for as the proposition
before the House is that the Speaker
should leave the Chair, this appears to
me a very fitting time to discuss the
principle of the Bill, and the propriety
of taking any further steps with regard
to it. I was much struck with an ob-
servation of the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for Ripon in a former de-
bate, that it is an extremely dangerous
thing for a Government to be legislating
upon the idea that it is forced to do some-
thing with regard to a particular ques-
tion, without knowing either exactly
what it has to do, or how it ought to
do it. There is great practical wisdom
in that observation.
I will turn back to some of the pro-
ceedings connected with this question.
The noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment commenced the fray by his
celebrated letter; and any stranger to
the country who read that letter must
have come to the conclusion that some
great outrage had been committed.
Within a week after the publication of
that letter, the noble Lord, the chief
officers of the Crown, and some of the
principal Judges, including the Lord
High Chancellor and the Lord Chief
Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench,
assembled round the festive board of
the chief magistrate of the City of
London; and there language was used
which, to say the least, should not have
been employed by sedate and learned
men accustomed to administer justice,
whether it was used in seriousness or
in joke.
I must here remark, however, that I
am not at all astonished at anything
which takes place in connection with
such a question at the Mansion House
of the City of London, for, if I am not
misinformed, the Mansion House was
built out of fines extorted from Non-
jurors, from Protestant Dissenters, and,
to a large extent, from the society of
which I am a member, between the
passing of the Act of Uniformity and
MAY 12, 1851.
517
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
the passing of the Act of Toleration.
There is another curious fact connected
with that building. One hundred and
ten years ago, when a proposition was
made to build it, the Earl of Burlington
of that day presented to the Common
Council an admirable design by an
Italian architect; but the architect be-
ing an Italian, and his name, ‘Palladio,'
possibly suggesting Rome, his design,
which was the best offered, was rejected
by the Corporation, though he had been
dead 150 years.
I have observed almost all that has
appeared in the papers during the agi-
tation of this question, and I have no
hesitation in saying that as yet there
has been no logical definition of the
injury that has been inflicted on this
country, and no agreement as to any
remedy which Parliament could provide.
I may say the same for the leading
articles in the newspapers, from the
Times down to the humblest country
paper. Not one has proposed an in-
telligible remedy for the grievance.
Certain specifics, indeed, have been pro-
posed out of doors; but the noble Lord
has not been so imprudent as to accept
them. The celebrated Dr. Cumming,
among the rest, proposed that Cardinal
Wiseman should be packed off to Italy
in a man-of-war, with Admiral Har-
court as commander. The choice was
perhaps happy, because Admiral Har-
court is the son of a man who, while a
bishop in the dominant Church, received
no less than three quarters of a million
of money; and therefore it is no wonder
that his son should be hostile to any
rival in so profitable a calling.
I will not allude particularly to the
speeches made by certain distinguished
individuals, to the burnings in effigy or
to the threats of serving Cardinal Wise-
man as a certain Austrian general has
been served. I give the noble Lord
credit for being too wise to follow such
counsel. But after the noble Lord
wrote his celebrated letter, he has had
three months for quiet deliberation,
whether in Downing-street or Windsor;
and at the end of that three months we
have the noble Lord's speech, which is
not about the Papal rescript, the real
matter in hand, but about various mat-
ters that have occurred on the other
side of the Channel. The noble Lord
is now conscious of the difficulty, and
cannot withdraw Ireland without over-
throwing the whole speech upon which
his legislation is founded.
The noble Lord objects to the synod
of Thurles. I do not wish to see such
synods, or anything else which inter-
feres with education; but if the two
Churches are compared, we must be
driven to the conclusion that the Pro-
testant bishops and clergy are quite as
meddlesome in politics as the Catholics,
and more especially upon this very
question of national education. I have,
while in the south of Ireland, spoken to
a gentleman who is a county magistrate
and a chairman of a board of guardians,
and that gentleman has said that the
Established clergy have committed a
great mistake in so universally rejecting
the national schools, as they have by
such conduct thrown them wholly into
the hands of the priests. We should
not then judge too harshly of the synod
of Thurles for taking a different view
of education from them, more especially
as at that synod the votes were equally
divided, which is more than could be
said of the Established clergy either in
Ireland or in England. But the noble
Lord will have no bishops but his own
bishops, of whom he is by turns the
tyrant and the vassal; while the bishops
of Ireland, in whom the people have
confidence, are not to have any opinion
on this question of education, or, if they
have, they are not to express it. But
the noble Lord has not been able clearly
to define the matter upon which he is
going to legislate. He has had to cite
a great number of Acts, to garnish with
references to history and menaces from
other countries, and to make up what
lawyers call a cumulative case, in order
to establish even the slightest reason for
legislation.
The noble Lord admits that the law
has not been broken; he cannot cite

518
MAY 12,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
any instance in which the Catholic
bishops of Ireland have broken the law.
I thought that the noble Lord was
going to admit that as the law has not
been broken, no offence has been com-
mitted, instead of which he is about to
ask for a stringent law to put down an
offence which has never been committed.
There is one point on which the law
has been broken, and that is in the im-
portation of the Bull; but with that
offence the noble Lord will not inter-
fere. The language of the Pope is
complained of as offensive; but have
priests in power ever used any other?
The language is offensive-such lan-
guage as might have been used by
Hildebrand, and very like what is used
in our own legal documents. I recollect
a charge of libel being brought against
an unfortunate newspaper editor, in
which he was charged with every ima-
ginable offence; but that was the mere
formal wording of the legal document.
So it is with the language of the Pope.
Offensive, aggressive it is-such as I
despise and loathe; it is rather a form
than a substance-but it is not a justifi-
cation for the present attempt at legis-
lation. But the noble Lord says that
there is an attack by a foreign Power
on the supremacy of the Crown. The
hon. Member for Oldham has truly ob-
served that the Pope's being a temporal
power is merely an accident.
The
Pope is a priest, and it happens unfortu-
nately that he is also a temporal prince;
but if he were at Avignon, or Naples,
or Brazil, or even in the town of Gal-
way, still he would be Pope and priest,
and would have precisely the same
power over the Catholic world as he
has at present.
The supremacy of the Queen is, in
the sense used by the noble Lord, no
better than a fiction. There might
have been such a supremacy down to
the times of James II, but now there
is no supremacy but that of the three
estates of the realm, and the supre-
macy of the law. The Queen is the
chief of the Established Church; but
that Church has not been assailed either
in its wealth or power. The Queen has
not the power of making Roman Ca-
tholic bishops, and therefore the making
of them by the only Power on earth
that has authority to make them, is no
invasion of the prerogative of the Crown.
The noble Lord says that the Pope has
ignored the Established Church of this
country, and has abolished the see of
Canterbury. But the Pope has always
done so; he looks upon the Church of
England as an usurping Church, pretty
much as the Church of England looks
upon congregations of Dissenters. Does
not that Church, when appealing to the
House on the plea of religious destitution,
reckon up the population in a district,
and the number of Church sittings,
without taking into account the number
of dissenting teachers, or of dissenting
places of worship? It is thus that
one Church always treats another; and
it is one of the unfortunate proofs that,
so much as we have of Churches and of
religions, the true spirit of Christianity
has made very little way amongst the
Churches of the world. I am not one
of those who think there is any strength
in the argument which is used so often,
that bishops in ordinary are not neces-
sary for the effectual working of the
Roman Catholic Church. I am no
friend to the bishops of any Church.
But my individual opinion has nothing
whatever to do with legislation on this
question. I am not so presumptuous as
to say to another Church that bishops
are not necessary for that Church; and
if bishops are necessary for the Anglican
Church, who can say they are not neces-
sary for the Church of Rome?
have heard much of the changing of
vicars-apostolic to bishops in ordinary,
and I wish on this subject to read an
extract from a letter which I have re-
ceived from a constituent who is a
learned ecclesiastic of the Romish
Church. I believe that in that letter
it is conclusively urged that the change
from vicars-apostolic to bishops in ordi-
nary went far to free the bishops from
the arbitrary supremacy of the Pope,
and to place them under the control of
We
1851.
519
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
a regularly-organised code of laws. My
correspondent says that the principal
argument against the bishoprics was
founded on the assumption that the
bishops would be more under the con-
trol of the Pope than the vicars-apo-
stolic. That is wholly erroneous. The
bishop exercises his authority in virtue
of his office, while the vicar-apostolic
acts as the mere delegate of the Pope,
who is the immediate bishop of the
district. In both cases the territory is
marked out. In one case it is called a
diocese, and in the other a district, and
in both cases the Pope confers the
jurisdiction. In both cases the juris-
diction extends to all who belong to
the Church, which includes, in the esti-
mation of the Church, all baptized per-
sons; but it is not to be exercised
except over those who choose to submit
to it. In the case of the bishops, they
are governed by laws regularly enacted;
while the vicars-apostolic are controlled
solely by the will of the Pope, who
exercises as much power as he thinks
proper. The difference is this, a vicar-
apostolic is alone responsible to the
Pope and to his will, whatever it might
determine; but when a bishop in ordi-
nary is appointed, he is relieved from
the caprice-if I may say so of the
Pope, and is subject alone to those por-
tions of the canon law that can be
exercised in any country in accordance
with the permission of the civil law of
that country. It is asserted that the
Roman Catholics of this country have
suffered no grievance in being driven
back again to the rule of vicars-apo-
stolic. I beg to ask the people of this
country, whether they would prefer to
live under the ordinary constitution of
the country, administered by its recog-
nised tribunals, or under some special
commission, with some exceptional state
of the law, where liberty may be less
secure than under the ordinary and re-
cognised law of the State? I do not
intend quoting further from the docu-
ment I hold in my hand; but I think it
only fairness to the gentleman who sent
it that I should make use of it to this
:
extent. I maintain that the course that
has been taken in making these bishops
in ordinary of vicars-apostolic is calcu-
lated to relieve the Roman Catholics in
England from much of that ultramon-
tane influence of which the House has
heard so much for if the bishops are
natives here, and appointed with the
consent of those over whom they will
subsequently exercise control, it is rea-
sonable to suppose that the Roman
Catholic Church will become more
national in character, than when ruled
over by the Pope and the statutes of
his council.
The noble Lord has designated the
proceeding as an insult to the Crown,
and an attack on the independence of
the nation. I wish he could get rid of the
silly and groundless fears he entertains
on these points. To talk of this nation,
its Crown and independence, being
menaced by a petty sovereign or prince
at Rome, is really too ludicrous. If
England had not concurred in the in-
vasion of Rome by the French, that
temporal prince, the Pope, would pro-
bably be now no prince, there would be
a republic established at Rome, and,
perhaps, the religious separated from
the political power for ever.
But the
country is misled by these phrases,
which are so misused by the noble Lord
the First Minister of the Crown. A
foreign power has endangered the supre-
macy of the Crown, and attacked the
independence of the country.' The
whole matter is one of idea, of senti-
ment, of such fine material that it is
impossible for an Act of Parliament to
grapple with the case before us. I admit
the insult and offensiveness of the lan-
guage-it is repulsive to our feelings
that such language should be employed.
But, admitting all that, I am at a loss
to discover how legislation can affect
the question beneficially at all. The
noble Lord (Lord John Russell) has
told us that this Bill will meet the emer-
gency, and no more. I think the noble
Lord is wise and prudent in not making
it more stringent than it is. Of course
the noble Lord consulted the law officers
520
MAY 12,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
of the Crown. It is well known that
he consulted the bishops; and I doubt
not he consulted the noble Earl who
fills the office of Lord Lieutenant of
Ireland.
The noble Lord informs the House
that the Bill will meet the emergency,
and that he has proposed nothing that
is not required for the precise evil com-
plained of; and yet, within a few days
after its first appearance, three-fourths
of the Bill are given up. After three
months of discussion and consultation
with all these able and learned and
pious men, with whom the noble Lord
has been conferring, he admits that he
knows nothing of the nature of his own
Bill; and upon the occasion of the
second reading, consequently withdraws
three-fourths of it. I then argued that
the noble Lord did not know where he
was hit, or the remedy for the wound of
which he complained; and the fact of
the withdrawal of three-fourths of the
measure supports my argument. The
noble Lord has retained the clause for-
bidding the assumption of titles. Well,
assuming titles will be illegal by the
Bill, what is the result? At present the
assumption is not legal, and titles as-
sumed by Roman Catholic ecclesiastics
are looked upon as mere matters of
courtesy, which give no status, or rank,
or precedence over any other subject of
the realm. But in any case the Roman
Catholics only will submit to the autho-
rities of these dignitaries-no matter
whether bishops, cardinals, or arch-
bishops.
But is there no effect produced by the
Bill? Already the noble Lord has
thrown over the Protestant feeling of
the country, the sentiments of the Cum-
mings, the M'Neiles, and the Stowells.
It is not a question of Protestantism at
present; it is a question of politics. I
beg to ask the noble Lord, then, as a
question of politics, who is injured by
the Bill? The noble Lord does not
touch the Pope. I believe the Pope
acted very foolishly, and that Cardinal
Wiseman also acted foolishly; but both
will go unscathed. The true sufferers
will be the wearer of the Crown, and
the millions of subjects professing the
Roman Catholic religion. Look at the
speeches, the writings, and the denun-
ciations of the last six months. Is it
possible that all these could have oc-
curred in the United Kingdom without
producing a permanent evil as regards
the harmony and the well-being and
strength of the nation? Then take Ire-
land alone. There has been a great
gulf heretofore existing between Eng-
land and Ireland, a gulf created by past
legislation. The noble Lord has helped
to widen and deepen that gulf, and
there is now a more marked separation
between the countries than has existed
at any period in the last twenty years.
We have by our legislation taught
8,000,000 of our fellow-subjects that
their priests are hated by the British
Legislature, and that they themselves
are treated with disrespect, and their
loyalty denied by this House and the
leading Minister of the country. That
is an evil of great magnitude, and one
which we are bound to take into con-
sideration.
We were informed not long since that
at the Thurles synod, half the prelates
assembled were in favour of the col-
leges, and the other half against them. I
doubt not, if a second synod were to
take place, there will be an unanimous
feeling against them. The noble Lord
heretofore had a party amongst the
ecclesiastics of the Church of Rome:
but he has destroyed that party by his
policy, and rendered them unanimous
against the Protestant Government of
that country. I ask any Gentleman here,
not a Roman Catholic, what would be
the effect of the recent proceedings on
him if he were a member of that
Church? Does the House suppose
there is a Roman Catholic family in
the empire, when assembled round the
hearth, that does not entertain a greater
reverence for the Pope now, than be-
fore these mischievous proceedings com-
menced? And does it not stand to
reason that the missionary agencies of
that Church, scattered over the kingdom
1.
1851.
521
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
for the conversion of Protestants, will
take fresh hope from the paroxysm of
terror and alarm into which the Pro-
testants of England have thrown them-
selves? The apostles overthrew the
Pagan worship of Rome; Luther, single-
handed, wrested whole empires from the
Pope; whilst here is a Church, endowed
with millions, and having 15,000 learned
clergymen for its guidance and control,
thrown into a paroxysm of terror, and
all that by a Church which, in these
realms, has not the thousandth part of
the advantages possessed by its oppo-
nents.
I wish the noble Lord had told the
House where the gain lies. Is it in the
Preamble of the Bill, which refers to the
inviolable character of the Established
Church in Ireland? Every one is aware
that the Established Church in Ireland
is not worth one good man raising his
voice in its support; and the noble Lord
well knows that it only waits the lifting
of his own finger to ensure such a ma-
jority in that House as would suppress
by Act of Parliament that Church for
ever, notwithstanding its inviolable cha-
racter. Is it as a matter of gratifica-
tion to the ministers of the Established
Church that the noble Lord introduced
the measure-a matter of strife and ri-
valry between the Bishop of St. James's-
square and the Archbishop of Golden-
square? Is one to be suppressed for
the satisfaction of the other? In such
a case, there will be no great gain to
the people, to political freedom, or to
the Christianity of this country in sup-
pressing one ecclesiastic, and conferring
domination and power on the other.
In my opinion the noble Lord has
made a great mistake. In the first
place, he wrote a letter to the Bishop of
Durham, and then consulted with the
Bishop of London. A more unsafe man
than the Bishop of London he could not
have selected. Look at his character.
He is an amphibious creature, reported
by one to be a Puseyite, whilst another
says he is on the high road to Rome.
I am sorry to hear the amount of abuse
that is lavished upon him; and yet the
noble Lord 'rejoiced that he had the
consent of that prelate.' That eccle-
siastic, with twenty thousand excellent
consolations, shed tears in presence of
a deputation that waited on him. But
doubtless they resembled the tears shed
by the Syrian monk, who declared, ac-
cording to the historian, that' tears were
as natural to him as perspiration.' How-
ever, it would appear that the said monk
was less wise than the Bishop of Lon-
don in one respect, for another historian
relates of him that he feigned insanity
that he might escape being made a
bishop.
It is evident that the noble Lord at
the head of Her Majesty's Government
is in a quagmire, and he knows it well.
It would be far better for the interests
'of the Crown, of the Kingdom, of this
House, and of Christianity, if the Bill
were withdrawn, instead of being pro-
ceeded with. There is no one in favour
of the Bill except the noble Lord him-
self, for not one of his colleagues has
really made a good fight for it. The
Government supporters disagree; and
even the law officers of the Crown give
different accounts of the measure. The
hon. Member for Midhurst made an
excellent speech, not in favour of the
Bill, but against Papal aggression; and
concluded his speech with a request,
that he should be permitted to substi-
tute a new preamble and new clauses,
which he was perfectly ready and willing
to do. I doubt not when we go into
Committee the hon. Gentleman will sub-
mit those clauses. But the Bill of the
noble Lord is repudiated by all classes;
and the press also repudiates it. It is
well understood that the noble Lord is
practising a cheat, a delusion on the
people of England. The people have
been clamouring for a resistance to the
aggression of the Pope, but not for
such resistance as this measure affords.
They expect something that will be felt;
but not the pretence of a measure, which,
whilst it insults Roman Catholics, offers
no defence to Protestants.
There is another remarkable point in
this matter. I do not find any of the
522
MAY 12,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
holy men of this House in favour of the
Bill-men who are really attached to
the Church of England. The hon.
Members for Oxford University, for
Kent, for Midhurst, not overlooking
the Solicitor-General,—not one of them
is to be found struggling in favour of
the Bill. It has been said Multæ terri-
colis linguæ, cœlestibus una.' But it
does not appear that the celestials in
this House are more agreed about the
matter than any of those who feel little
regard for Protestantism or Catholicism.
If the noble Lord cannot show a united
Cabinet or party-if out of doors no-
body is in favour of the Bill, and the
press is almost unanimously against it
—it is a fair ground for asking the House
to proceed no further with the measure.
If legislation be necessary at all, let it
be substantial and to the purpose; if we
are to obey the clamour out of doors,
let us satisfy it by some substantial
measure of legislation. It is said that
there is a cry out of doors for a disso-
lution of Parliament, and I rather think
some hon. Members are afraid of that.
The hon. Member for Salford (Mr.
Brotherton) has said that I and my
Colleague do not speak the senti-
ments of our constituents; but, at least,
we speak our sincere conviction. A
reverend gentleman (the Rev. Hugh
Stowell), one of the constituents of the
hon. Member for Salford, whose Pro-
testantism seems to be vituperation, and
whose Christian charity clamour, has
thanked God that he is represented by
the hon. Member for Salford.
sure my hon. Friend must feel it humili-
ating to be patronised in such a manner.
I am
But I will admit that many Members
act in a manner opposed to the senti-
ments of a large number of their con-
stituents. What of that? If there be
any truth in the representative system,
the 656 men returned to this House
may be considered as of the foremost
men of the country. It is not their duty
to be the victims, subjects, and tools of
a cry, but manfully and boldly to with-
stand it, if they believe it to be a hollow
one. Of course, this language will not
apply to hon. Members who conscien-
tiously differ from me on this question;
but they must be very blind who do not
know that the force of this cry, for which
the noble Lord is largely responsible,
is one not a few Members are disposed
to yield to. We ought to resist the cry,
to stem the torrent; and it will be in-
finitely more honourable to go home to
our avocations, if we have any, and
abandon public life for ever, in defence
of principles we have always held to be
true, rather than be instruments of a cry
to create discord between the Irish and
English nations, and to perpetuate ani-
mosities which the last twenty-five
years have done much to lessen.
are here to legislate calmly and de-
liberately, without reference to the pas-
sions and contending factions that may
rage out of doors; we are in a position
to see that the course in which the
noble Lord has been so recklessly drag-
ging us is fruitful in discord, hatred,
religious animosities-that it has sepa-
rated Ireland from this country, has
withdrawn her national sympathies from
us, and has done an amount of mischief
which the legislation of the next ten
years cannot entirely, if at all, abate.
We
No one would have touched this Bill
-certainly not the noble Lord-could
he have foreseen all the difficulties that
have arisen out of it. First of all, the
Government has been broken up, though
probably the noble Lord is patriotic
enough to believe that that is not a
national calamity. But the business
of Parliament has been stopped for half
a session; and we are not at the end of
it yet; the Speaker has not left the
chair; we are only on the brink, and
about to plunge in. An hon. Gentle-
man has a proposition, to be supported
by a large number, for a measure infi-
nitely more stringent. The noble Lord
will not carry his own measure but by
the support of those who want one
much more stringent. But they who
want persecution will rather take a little
than be entirely baffled. The noble
Lord will not withdraw the Bill, because
it will be humiliating to do so. But is
1851.
523
ECCLESIASTICAL TITLES BILL.
↓
it not very humiliating to go on with it;
to be legislating for no practical good
result; to pass a measure which the
noble Lord knows will not satisfy those
to appease whose clamour it is pro-
posed, and which must produce the
worst effects between England and Ire-
land? In 1829 a measure was passed-
long delayed-which professed to give
Roman Catholics all the liberty we our-
selves enjoy. I will stand upon that
Act. It is far better to have faith in
the population of this country, to bind
them to the Legislature and the Crown
by a generous and confiding treatment,
than to proceed in such a course as the
House is now invited to enter on.
The noble Lord, I repeat, thinks
there is great danger in this aggression
of the Pope. How is there any danger?
The Pope can have no authority, except
over the Catholics. It is said there are
8,000,000 in England and Ireland; and
should the number in England and Ire-
land increase to 20,000,000, there will
be great danger of the Roman Catholic
religion becoming the established reli-
gion of the country-should an Esta-
blished Church exist so long. There-
fore, the argument of danger supposes
the conversion of the people; for it is
only by this means that the country can,
to any considerable degree, come under
the rule of the Pope. The noble Lord
has drawn up an indictment against
8,000,000 of his countrymen; he has
increased the power of the Pope over
the Roman Catholics, for he has drawn
closer the bonds between them and their
Church and the head of their Church.
The noble Lord has quoted Queen Eliza-
beth and the great men of the Common-
wealth, as though it were necessary now
to adopt the principles which prevailed
almost universally two hundred years
ago. Does the noble Lord forget that
we are the true ancients, that we stand
on the shoulders of our forefathers, and
can see farther? We have seen the
working of these principles, and their
result, and have concluded to abandon
them.
I have not touched on any matter
purely religious; this House is not
the place for religious questions. But
reflecting on the deep mysteries of
religion, on my own doubts and frail-
ties, on the shortness of the present
time, and on the awful and unknown
future-I ask what am I that I should
judge another in religious things, and
condemn him to exclusion and perse-
cution? I fear not for the country on
questions like this. England, with a
united population-though the noble
Lord has done much to disunite them-
cares nothing for foreign potentates,
be their combinations what they may.
England, with her free press, her ad-
vancing civilisation, her daily and hourly
progress in the arts, sciences, industry,
and morals, will withstand any priestly
attempts to subjugate the mind, and
successfully resist any menaces, whether
coming from Lambeth or from Rome.
I am one of a sect which has invariably
held the principles I now advocate,
which has in past years suffered greatly
from those principles which the noble
Lord now wishes to introduce into our
Legislature. I cannot do otherwise than
raise my voice against such an attempt,
and ask the noble Lord to proceed no
further.
ADMISSION OF JEWS TO
PARLIAMENT.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 15, 1853.
From Hansard.
ALTHOUGH this question has been dis-
cussed almost every session since I have
had a seat in Parliament, I have never
ventured to trouble the House with any
observations upon it, and hoping, as I
do most unfeignedly, that this may be
the very last occasion on which it may
be necessary to discuss it, I will ask the
attention of the House for a very few
moments while I state the opinions
which I entertain upon it. I was once
asked by an hon. Member on that (the
Opposition) side of the House why I
had not spoken upon the Jew Bill, and
I gave him a candid answer. I told
him that I had never heard anything in
the shape of a fact or argument from
the opponents of this measure, which,
like facts and arguments on a great
many questions which come before us,
could be fairly grappled with, and which
a man could undertake to lay hold of
in the hope of answering it. I told him
further, that it appeared to me that the
opponents of this measure were actuated,
I believed very honestly, by what was
rather a sentiment than anything else;
and the hon. Gentleman to whom I
have alluded, not by any means one of
the least distinguished amongst you,
admitted that I was perfectly right, and
that it was more a sentiment than any-
thing else. A sentiment is, of course,
difficult to argue against. This sen-
timent has gradually sunk down into a
phrase, and we understand now that
what is meant by that phrase is that we,
on this side, are about to unchristianise
the House of Commons.
Now I have endeavoured, in the
course of these discussions, to trace
whence this notion or feeling of un-
christianising springs, and I think I
can trace it backwards through the
changes of the law, by which successive
parties and sects, and sections of the
people of this country, have, during the
last 160 years, been admitted to full par-
ticipation in the rights of citizenship.
The very same feeling, though it was
called something else, was in operation
when you excluded the Roman Catholics
from Parliament. The very same feel-
ing under a somewhat different title was
in operation when the Unitarians were
subjected to oppressive statutes; and it
was the very same spirit, however much
you may attempt to disguise it, under
which, previous to the repeal of the
Test and Corporation Acts, the Dis-
senters of this country were excluded
from municipal and other offices. It
always seems to me to come from that
appetite for supremacy which springs
from the fact that we have had in
this country a powerful and dominant

APRIL 15, 1853. ADMISSION OF JEWS TO PARLIAMENT.
525
Church, connected chiefly with a power-
ful ruling class, and that step by step
the people of this country, one section
after another, have wrested from that
Church, and from that class, the rights
of citizenship which we have claimed,
and which we now enjoy.
Now what can be more marvellous
than that any sane man should propose
that doctrinal differences in religion
should be made the test of citizenship
and political rights? Doctrinal differ-
ences in religion, in all human proba-
bility, will last for many generations to
come, and may possibly last so long as
man shall inhabit this globe; but if
you permit these differences to be the
tests of citizenship, what is it but to
admit into your system this fatal con-
clusion, that social and political differ-
ences in all nations can never be era-
dicated, but must be eternal?
The
hon. Baronet the Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) may
be taken probably for as honest and
consistent a representative of the oppo-
nents of this Bill as can be found in
this House. I should like to ask whe-
ther there is any difference between the
hon. Baronet the Member for the Uni-
versity of Oxford and Baron Rothschild
in any matter which can affect citizen-
ship or the duties of citizens, or in any-
thing whatsoever of which the laws of
this country can justly take cognizance
as relating to the actions of the subjects
of the Crown. I have watched the
hon. Baronet for many years with great
admiration-not with admiration for the
principles which he holds, but with ad-
miration for the manner in which he
always maintains them. If all men who
hold what I regard as sound principles
in this House were to take the hon.
Baronet for their model, sound prin-
ciples would march on much faster
than they do.
Take, for instance, what may be called
the morality of politics, and you will
find that the hon. Baronet draws nearly
all his opinions from the very same
source that Baron Rothschild draws
his. We have discussed in this House
the question of capital punishment. I
find the hon. Baronet, with his accus-
tomed bland dignity, quoting against
me with perfect confidence the ninth
chapter of the book of Genesis; and I
have a strong suspicion that he takes
his notions of the priesthood from the
times of the book of Exodus. I think
I have a distinct recollection that when
the question of marriage with a deceased
wife's sister was under discussion, the
hon. Baronet referred the House with
perfect confidence to the book of Levi-
ticus. The hon. Baronet too, I think,
will not dispute that his law of tithes
comes from the very same book. If it
be a question of oaths, although it has
been said by the highest authority, 'Ye
have heard that it hath been said in old
times, Thou shalt not forswear thyself,
but shall perform unto the Lord thy
vows,' the 'swear not at all' is disre-
garded, and the practice of the hon.
Baronet-a practice approved by his
Church, and approved, I presume, by a
majority of this House-is precisely
that which existed in the time of the
Old Testament Scriptures. If the hon.
Baronet does not defend the practice of
war, yet I know writers who profess the
same faith as the hon. Baronet who have
defended the practice of war, because
they say it was, if not inculcated, at
least permitted, in the Old Testament.
I cannot see, if the hon. Baronet takes
his public morality from these writings,
and if Baron Rothschild takes his from
the same source, and if the question of
citizenship be not a matter of doctrinal
religion, but of the due performance of
our duties to each other and to the State
-I cannot see why the hon. Baronet
should, for thirty or forty years, have
sat in this House, and Baron Rothschild,
elected by the first constituency of the
kingdom, be shut out.
It would be as reasonable for a man
to quarrel with his own shadow, as for
the hon. Baronet to quarrel with Baron
Rothschild on these grounds. But what
a ridiculous position the House is placed
in! You have had not only Baron Roths-
child, but another Member of his per-
526
APRIL 15,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
suasion at that bar, and, assuming he
was a Christian, you allowed him to
begin to take the oath upon the Old
Testament. You made no objection to
him until he came to the words 'on the
true faith of a Christian.' If the oath
had been taken with the words on the
faith of a Christian,' as you interpret
them, on the Old Testament, it could
not possibly be a legal oath. If it was
necessary for a man who took an oath
in a court of law to be a Christian, no
Judge would allow an oath to be taken
on the Old Testament; but would re-
quire it to be taken on the New Testa-
ment, because the book must be the
symbol of the faith by which he affirmed.
Well, you passed a Resolution that the
seat for the City of London was full,
and you put yourselves out of court with
regard to the issuing of a new writ. If
a man was an alien, and had been elected
by a constituency, I presume that it
would be competent for the House to
appoint a Committee to examine into
the petition charging him with being an
alien, and upon the Report of the Com-
mittee that he was such, he would be
excluded from the House, and a new
writ would issue. But here you have
no means of appointing a Committee
for the purpose of interrogating Baron
Rothschild as to whether he is a Jew or
a Christian. He took one oath, and
part of another. This House declared
that the seat was full, and that a new
writ for the City of London could not
be issued; and then this House ex-
cluded the Member who was elected
from his seat.
These facts lead me to the consider-
ation of a second question, of as great
importance as the original question
which we are now discussing. This
question has been discussed and decided
upon within a very recent period in
a great many divisions in this House,
not less, I believe, than fourteen times.
Whether it was before or after dinner-
whatever the circumstances under which
we were assembled-there was always
a very large majority in favour of this
Bill, from twenty-six, at the lowest, to
more than one hundred at the highest.
I want to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite
whether they think, after the House of
Commons in two, if not three Parlia-
ments, within very recent years, has
decided fourteen times in favour of the
candidate elected by the City of Lon-
don, that it is constitutional, after these
incessant and oft-repeated expressions of
opinion on the part of the constituencies
of this country, that this question should
longer remain unsettled?
I am told there is an awful power in
another place. I do not, mean Lords
Temporal so much as Lords Spiritual.
I have no great opinion of Bishops in
any case. But of all subjects, this is
about the very last on which I should
like to take the opinion of the Bishops
of the Church of England. High titles,
vast revenues, great power, conferred
upon Christian ministers, are as without
warrant to my mind in Scripture as in
reason. I do not expect that they should
be able to give an unbiassed, impartial
judgment on a question like this. I
understand that the noble Lord at the
head of the Government-coming from
the north may possibly account for it—
is alarmed at the power of the Bishops.
I would not suggest how it is to be over-
come; but probably there are means by
which the Government can procure the
passing of this Bill through the other
House of Parliament. Now, that ap-
pears to be a question of some impor-
tance. Though hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site have insisted on discussing this
question, night after night, every ses-
sion, for years past, let us have the
subject thoroughly probed, if this is to
be the last night.
The House of Commons has decided
in favour of this Bill. Does any hon.
Gentleman deny it? If the House of
Commons represents the country, the
country is in favour of this Bill. There
is another estate of this realm, the most
dignified of all, represented in this House
by the Gentlemen who sit on that (the
Ministerial) bench; that estate of the
realm unites cordially with the House
of Commons and with the people in
1853.
527
ADMISSION OF JEWS TO PARLIAMENT:
this Bill. Fourteen times has this mea-
sure been carried by large majorities;
repeatedly has it been sent to the other
House, and each time has it been re-
jected, and on some occasions rejected
in a manner which seemed to indicate
contempt. Now, I ask the noble Lord
the Member for the City of London if
there is any remedy in the Constitution
for this state of things? The noble
Lord had the opportunity of admitting
the Jews by a Resolution of this House
—he had a precedent of the most con-
clusive kind in the case of Mr. Pease-
and although the law officers were not
clear upon the law on that occasion,
still the House of Commons, having
once established a precedent of that
nature, any person wishing to sustain
the power of this House, and of one
great branch of the Legislature, would
have done wisely to have maintained the
precedent, and to have relied on it in
this case.
The noble Lord preferred what he
thought a more constitutional course,
and he asks this House to pass Bills
for the purpose. Year after year this
House has passed this measure, and I
ask the noble Lord whether he thinks
we are to go on year after year bom-
barding the Lords with this Jew Bill,
with no other result than that it should
be sent down again? If the British
Constitution affords no remedy for this
state of things, it is not worth all the
boasting which the noble Lord and
others have heaped upon it. There are
two remedies for this evil. The one is
the creation of new Peers. [Hear!']
Do not for a moment imagine that I
should recommend it. I think the
remedy might be worse than the dis-
ease; but that is one of the remedies,
as I understand it, which the Con-
stitution offers to the Crown in cases
of this nature, provided the case be
of sufficient magnitude. We know
that this remedy has been threatened
in our day, and threatened with some
success.
There is another remedy. Some Gen-
tlemen say, 'How can you expect the
6
House of Lords to pass this Bill, when
there is no ferment in the country?' I
thought noblemen in that assembly
were in an atmosphere so serene, that
though disturbed occasionally by the
contentions of prelates and the dispu-
tations of rival lawyers, they might be
judged to be in that one place on the
earth where the wicked cease from
troubling, and the weary are at rest.'
But we are told there is no ferment in
the country. I have seen ferments in
this country, and many others have. I
do not much admire them. I would
rather see the Houses of Legislature,
whether the one or the other, taking these
questions up in a broad, philosophic,
generous spirit, and discussing and set-
tling them in that spirit, than that they
should wait until there is a ferment in
the country approaching to confusion,
and then surrender, upon terms that
shall be humiliating to them, prejudices
which, if given up in time, might have
been forgotten in the gratitude and the
applause of their countrymen.
It is
assumed, and properly and wisely, that
you will get no ferment up about the
Jew Bill. I have no objection to admit
that the Jews, not being great in num-
bers, and not free from some disadvan-
tage, consequent upon that prejudice so
prevalent on the benches opposite, will
give occasion to no ferment before which
those benches will quail. ['Oh, oh!']
They will quail soon enough when
there is a ferment. ['Oh, oh!'] If
that is doubted, I refer you to the
history of the last twenty-five years in
proof of what I say. But I want no
ferment. I want argument and sound
principles of legislation to prevail within
the Houses of Parliament, and not the
fear of anything that may take place
outside.
But now comes the case of the noble
Lord who leads the Government in this
House. The noble Lord has worked
at this Bill for many years; he has in-
duced this House to abdicate the power
which it possessed, by precedent, of
admitting the Jews to this House by a
Resolution of this House. He has re-
528
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
commended the constitutional course-
a good course if it should succeed-but
I think he is bound to take all the mea-
sures which are open to his Government
for the purpose of ensuring the success
of this Bill; and I claim it as one of
those who have voted with him, I be-
lieve, on every occasion, and done all
that I could for the purpose of securing
the success of this measure. Now, if
the Government would make up their
minds that unless this Bill passes during
this session they would treat a defeat in
the House of Lords precisely as they
would treat an important defeat in this
House; then no person could say here-
after that the noble Lord and his Col-
leagues did not make every effort they
could be called on to make for the pur-
pose of passing this Bill. I cannot say
whether there is any other remedy than
the creation of Peers, and agitation out
of doors; but let it be a resolution on
the part of the Government that this
Bill shall pass-that they will make it
a matter on which their existence, as a
Government, shall be staked-and if it
should not be passed, upon those per-
sons be the responsibility of forming a
Government who shall prevent this mea-
sure of justice to the Jewish population
of this country.
I should have been glad if the noble
Lord, with the great influence which he
exercises in this House, had endeavoured
to prevail on the House to abolish the
whole system of oaths at the bar, and
to have substituted some declaration
which every honest man could take in an
honest and conscientious spirit. These
oaths are of no use-we know they are
of no use; you make us affirm some-
thing that does not exist-and every
man who takes an oath at the table,
which I am happy to say I have never
done, knows he is performing a farce
which is ludicrous. ['Oh, oh!'] The
fact is, that you are called on to affirm
that you will not do something_which
it is impossible for you to do. Let us,
then, get rid of this question, which has
been discussed and decided year after
year; and, above all, let us see that the
Commons House of England is open
to the Commons of England, and that.
every man, be his creed what it may, if
elected by a constituency of his country-
men, may sit in this House, and vote on
all matters which affect the legislation
of this kingdom.
THE GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF
EDUCATION.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 20, 1847.
From Hansard.
In rising to offer a few observations
on this most interesting question, I am
sensible that I have to defend men and
principles which are not popular in this
assembly. Nevertheless, being myself
one of the Nonconformist body of this
country, and being by birth, education,
observation, and conviction, fully es-
tablished in the opinions I hold, I am
bound, though it may be in opposition
to a Government sitting on the same
side of the House as myself, to protest
against the policy and principles now
offered for the adoption of the House.
I listened with pleased attention to
the speech of the right hon. Member
for Edinburgh; and I read with due
respect that of the noble Lord at the
head of the Government. I admit the
ability of those speeches; but there is
nothing in which that ability is more
displayed than in the skill with which
they have evaded the question really in
dispute between the Dissenting bodies
and the Government by which this
scheme of education is proposed. It is
not the question before the House, in
the scheme proposed, or in the Amend-
ment moved by the hon. Gentleman
the Member for Finsbury, whether the
State has any right or power to interfere
with education in this country; it is not
the question whether it is with secular
education only that they have a right to
interfere. The question is this-what
Minutes of Council are before us, what
is their object, their tendency, and the
effect they will produce upon the posi-
tion of the Established Church and
the Dissenting bodies in the United
Kingdom?
The right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Edinburgh spent three-fourths
of the time he was on his legs in prov-
ing that the State has the power and
the right, and that it is the duty of the
State, to see to the education of its sub-
jects. Judging from his speech, it was
one of the simplest things imaginable;
the proposition appeared to be so clear
that he was astonished any one should
doubt it; and with the right hon.
Gentleman's opinions I was astonished
he should take so much pains to enforce
it. But if it be so clear a proposition
that Government has the plain right to
educate its subjects, it is somewhat ex-
traordinary that with all the eminent
statesmen in this country for some
generations past, there has never been
34
530
APRIL 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
any bold and determined attempt to
interfere with the education of the
common people of England and Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman appeared
to me to prove too much. He tried to
prove that it was the duty of the
Government to educate the people; but
if it be the duty of Government to
educate them, it must be the duty of
the Government to enforce education.
I do not know where the line can be
drawn. If it be its solemn duty to
afford opportunity for education, and to
see that all the people are educated, it
appears to me we must come inevitably
to the conclusion, that Government has
the power, and that it is also its right
and its duty, to enforce education on
all the people subject to its rule.
The noble Lord at the head of the
Government objected to the Dissenters
that they had supported the Committee
of Privy Council in 1839, whilst they
oppose it in 1847; that they were then
in favour of this interference, and are
now against it. I admit that many, or
at least, that some of the Dissenters
were in favour of it eight years ago.
But we have had some experience from
1839 to 1847. At that time the Dis-
senters regarded the institution of the
Committee of Privy Council as a step
leading away from that power which
the Church of England wished to usurp,
of educating the whole people; and the
Dissenters hoped we were on the road
at last to overcome the pretensions
which the Church of England had so
long asserted, that she was called upon
and bound to undertake the business of
education, and that she ought to be en-
trusted with the education of the people.
But from 1839 to this year we have
found no step taken by the Government
which has not had a tendency to ag-
grandize the Established Church. In
1839 the noble Lord proposed a scheme
which, from the opposition of the Es-
tablished Church and the Wesleyans,
was withdrawn. In 1843, the right
hon. Baronet the late Secretary for the
Home Department (Sir James Graham)
proposed a scheme of education in
connection with the Factories Bill-a
scheme which was thought by everybody
to give undue power to the Established
Church, and which, in consequence of
the opposition of the Dissenters, was
withdrawn. In 1847, the noble Lord
comes forward with another scheme.
It has the same defect; its object, ten-
dency, and result will be to give increased
and enormous power to the clergy of
the Established Church. It is a scheme
of which the Dissenters cannot avail
themselves, in accordance with the
principles by which they are Dissenters;
and, therefore, they are bound now to
step forward and protest against this
as against the former schemes. And I
wonder not they have come to the con-
clusion that it is dangerous to them
as members of Dissenting bodies, and
dangerous also to the civil liberty of the
people, that the State should interfere
with education, since the Government,
it appears, is not able to interfere with-
out giving increased power to the clergy
of an already dominant Church.
The right hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Edinburgh, and the noble Lord
who has just sat down, have both failed
to convey to the House any intimation
that there is much doing in the cause of
education by voluntary effort throughout
the kingdom. If a man came to this
House from any other country, and
knew nothing of what was going on in
England, he would have come to the
conclusion that voluntary efforts had
not only not succeeded, but had never
even been attempted-so little would
appear to have been done from the
statements they made to the House. If
these efforts have succeeded, few Mem-
bers will say that any interference by
the Government is desirable. If there
be one principle more certain than
another, I suppose it is this, that what
a people is able to do for itself, that
the Government should not attempt to
do for it. For nothing tends so much
to strengthen a people-to make them
great and good-as the constant exercise
of all their faculties for public objects,
and the carrying on of all public works
1847.
531
GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF EDUCATION.
#
and objects by voluntary contributions
among themselves.
I will just ask the attention of the
House for a moment to what has been
done during the last few years. The
right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Edinburgh said, we had been trying the
voluntary principle ever since the Hep-
tarchy; that the voluntary principle had
been, in fact, for generations and ages
on its trial; and the result was, that
we had an enormous amount of intel-
lectual destitution in the country. But
it is not a fair statement to say, that we
have been trying the voluntary system
since the Heptarchy. We have not
been trying the voluntary system to
make railroads since the Heptarchy,
but since the year 1830; and it would
be as fair a statement to say that the
voluntary system would never make
railroads for this country, because it
had not made railroads in fifteen or six-
teen years, as to say that the voluntary
system will not educate the people be-
cause it has not provided full means of
education since 1790; many archbishops,
bishops, and other distinguished mem-
bers of the Established Church having
opposed themselves to the effective
education of the common people.
The House is not very fond, and I
admire its judgment in this respect, of
hearing statistics on a question of this
kind; but it is a matter of figures as to
what has been done. Looking to the
statistics given by the friends and oppo-
nents of this measure, by Dr. Hook and
Mr. Baines, and others who have made
calculations on the subject, it appears
that from the year 1818 to this time the
progress has been something extraordi-
nary. In 1818 there were 674,000 day-
scholars in England and Wales; in
1833, there were 1,276,000; in 1847,
there were 2,147,000. Thus, in 1818,
the proportion was I in 17 to the popu-
lation; in 1833, it was I in 11; in
1847, it was 1 in 8. The population
has increased only 49 per cent. since
that time, whilst the scholars in our
day-schools have increased at least 210
per cent.; that is, leaving out of view
II;
the numbers who are Sunday scholars.
I agree with the noble Lord who spoke
last, that Sunday-school education is not
all the children should have: but when
you are complaining of the want, the des-
titution of education, it is fair that should
be taken into account. In 1818, the
Sunday scholars numbered 477,000; in
1833, they were more than 1,000,000;
and from that time to this there has
been a very rapid increase.
Now, look at Scotland. The right
hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War,
I think, is not in his place, or he could
tell us something about the Church
with which he is so honourably con-
nected, I mean the Free Church of
Scotland. If within three or four years
they have raised more than 1,000,000l.
sterling, if they have built or offered
to build schools in some 600 or 700
parishes, what will the right hon. Mem-
ber for Edinburgh say to this? I have
been in their churches and chapels; and
if there be one thing more honourable
to the Scotchmen of this generation
than another, it is the magnanimous
and wonderful efforts which the mem-
bers of that communion have made
to constitute themselves a Church free
from the trammels and embarrassments
attendant on a connection with the
State.
We will take Wales, and see what
has been done there. In the Carnarvon
and Denbigh Herald of the 21st of March,
1846, I find it stated, that
'About seven or eight years ago, in the
seventy-three parishes of Anglesea, in
which there were churches, there was not
one Sunday-school connected with the
Established Church, whilst there were in
the county no fewer than 156 Sunday-
schools kept by the various denominations
of Dissenters.'
And the statement went on--
C
There are now in the six counties of
North Wales alone 1,022 places of public
worship, in which Sunday-schools are
regularly kept by Dissenters, and well
attended, viz.-
·
34-2
532
APRIL 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
1
Calvinistic Methodists. 479 schools.
Independents
Baptists
Wesleyans
260
81
202
""
which were attended by upwards of
140,000 children altogether.'
With respect to Wales, there is this re-
markable fact, that the education of the
common people-of the labouring classes
-has been altogether the work of the
Dissenting communities in that part of
the kingdom. There is not a Member
of this House from Wales, on whatever
side of the House he sits, who will
deny that something like nine out of ten
of the labouring classes in Wales who
have received education within the last
fifty years, have received that education
at the hands of the Dissenting bodies.
There is, I believe, a Commission of
educational inquiry now at work in
Wales. We have not their report yet;
but I venture to foretell that when that
report is printed it will establish the
fact I have stated-that of late years,
where the Church has educated one
child in this part of the country, the
Dissenting Churches have educated from
eight to ten.
The noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment appears to differ from his right
hon. Colleague the Member for Edin-
burgh. From what he states, I under-
stand he is of opinion that the voluntary
principle has done a good deal-namely,
it has provided schools sufficient for the
wants of the population. The noble
Lord said, speaking of his coming back
to office-
'When, however, we came, being newly-
appointed members of the Committee, to
consider the state of education, it ap-
peared to us that a very great number of
schools had been built, and that there was
no longer such a demand as there had
been for money to build schools; and that
as various deficiencies in the management
and conduct of the schools had been ob-
served, it would be advisable to make
Minutes, proposing a different distribution
of the sum which might be voted by
Parliament, and laying down in those
Minutes what the application of that sum
should be.'
So that we have the authority of the
noble Lord for this fact, that the system
hitherto pursued, the voluntary system,
has provided schools in about sufficient
abundance; and it is because the Go-
vernment actually did not find that they
had the means of distributing their
grants for the building of schools, that
they now come before the House and
ask for powers to be allowed to spend
the grants in improving the quality of
the education. Is it likely, I ask, that
the system which has built their schools
for many of the population of this coun-
try, will be very long in improving the
quality of the education given in them?
is it likely that we shall have to wait
long before it will be no more neces-
sary to pay and pension the school-
masters out of the public funds, than it
is now to build schools for the accom-
modation of the children taught?
The noble Lord says-
'I do not understand, then, why any
Dissenter should refuse to partake of this
grant on the ground that part of this
money is given to Church of England
schools, these Church schools being sup-
ported by the subscriptions of individuals
who are members of that Church.'
I think it was not very ingenuous of the
noble Lord to make such a statement as
this in his speech. He must know it is
not because the Church of England re-
ceives money from this grant that Non-
conformists object to the grant; but it
is because Nonconformists themselves,
in accordance with the principles by
which they are so, cannot receive public
money for the teaching of religion in
their schools; and, therefore, they ob-
ject to the State giving money as an
advantage to the Church schools-an
advantage by which they must profit,
and which will certainly be most damag-
ing to the Dissenting schools.
The right hon. Member for Edin-
burgh does not generally speak with
great courtesy of Dissenters and Non-
1847.
533
GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF EDUCATION.
conformists. I have heard him speak
in this House, I think, of the braying
of Exeter Hall; and last night he spoke
frequently of the clamour made out of
doors. It is a very old story for Gentle-
men in office-and there must be many
comforts, conveniences, and pleasures,
no doubt, connected with office, or men
would not seek it so much-it is a com-
mon thing for men in office to say that
any opposition to their plans made out
of doors is clamour. But I ask whether
it is likely that five hundred men, from
all parts of the country, would come up
to London, and take the trouble they
have done, meeting all the hostility and
obloquy heaped upon them, if they did
not believe that there was something
important in the Minutes to the in-
terests of the different religious com-
munities with which they are connected?
And I think that the right hon. Gentle-
man is one of the last men in this
House who should treat this movement
as clamour, and condemn it as if it came
from an unreasonable class of persons.
The right hon. Gentleman tells us
that they are abandoning all the prin-
ciples which the Nonconformists of past
times ever taught; he tells us what re-
publican statesmen and leaders in the
United States have said, what has been
done or held by Washington, Jefferson,
and the commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts. But is there any comparison
between the United States and the
United Kingdom? Is there
Is there any Esta-
blished Church in the United States?
Has the commonwealth of Massachu-
setts, in every one of its parishes, a
gentleman highly educated, well paid,
connected by birth or standing with the
aristocratic and privileged class, not in-
fluenced by the popular sentiment and
the popular mind, but acting always in
unison and conformity with the privi-
leged class to which he is attached?
Give us, if you please, the state of things
which exists in the United States, and
particularly in that State of Massa-
chusetts. Free us from the trammels of
your Church-set religion apart from
the interference of the State-if you will
make public provision for education, let
it not depend upon the doctrines of a
particular creed-and then you will find
the various sects in this country will be
as harmonious on the question of educa-
tion as are the people of the United
States of America.
Just recollect, when the whole of the
Nonconformists are charged with cla-
mour, what they mean by being Non-
conformists. They object, as I under-
stand, at least I object, to the principle
by which the Government seizes public
funds in order to give salaries and sup-
port to the teachers of all sects of
religion, or of one sect of religion, for I
think the one plan nearly as unjust as
the other. Either the Nonconformists
hold this opinion, or they are a great
imposture. They object to any portion
of the public money going to teachers
of religion belonging either to the
Established Church or to Dissenting
bodies; they object to the receiving it
for themselves. They find certain Min-
utes infringing on this principle. You
wish to establish a system by which the
young persons of this country shall be
trained to certain religious tenets. In
your Church schools, we are to have
the Catechism taught, and the Liturgy
taught, as well as the Scriptures read.
All this is to be done under the cog-
nizance and supervision of the clergy-
man of the parish. The children are to
be examined by the clergymen and by
inspectors appointed by the Govern-
ment, who are also to be clergymen of
the Church of England. The Minutes
do not say so; but under the compact
entered into by the Government with
the Church, they can appoint no in-
spector who is not palatable to the
Archbishop of Canterbury. The in-
spector must be discharged if the Arch-
bishop expresses an opinion unfavour-
able to him. Of course this is in Church
of England schools only.
I admit that the noble Lord will not
carry it the length of proposing this for
Dissenting schools; he will not venture
to do so. We are not yet sufficiently
humiliated for that. No Government
4
+
7
534
APRIL 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
in this country durst attempt to carry
that into effect. But if you had the
power to carry out the spirit expressed
in the Minutes, I say the Dissenting
schools would not be free from inter-
ference by the clergymen of the State
Church. I am prepared to contend
that the powers given by these Minutes to
the clergymen examiners are calculated
to give a great increase of power to all
the clergymen of the Established Church.
They are made public officers with
respect to schools. Now, the vicar of
the parish enters the schools, and in-
quires about the children; but he has
no more power than any other gentle-
man who may choose to visit it and do
the same. But by your Minutes you
empower him to enter under the au-
thority of an inspector, who, by your
compact with the Church, can only be
a clergyman of the Established Church.
I say these clergymen and inspectors
are prone to meddle with everything.
They will go there and examine the
children in their books; they will inter-
rogate the teachers as to their methods
and their learning. Do you think,
if they find a child whose brother or
sister goes to a Dissenting chapel, the
clergyman will not be zealous enough
to use his influence to induce him to
attend the church?
It is notorious that, in all parts of
England, charities, never intended to be
used for the promotion of particular
religious opinions, but which are in the
hands of the Established Church, are
distributed with a view to the effect they
may have in bringing an increase of
attendance to the National schools or
the churches of the Establishment. I
know numbers of these cases myself;
and I know that a child who did not
bow down to the Church, or who refused
to go to a National school, would find
himself placed under the ban of the
clergyman. All the inducements to
him, which you boast of, to rise in the
world and gain an honourable station
in society, would be merely as the idle
wind that blows, and would be of no
avail whatever to obtain for him an
honourable place in life. If anything
were wanted to show the effect of these
Minutes, look at the triumph your pro-
positions have excited among the mem-
bers of the Established Church, and
the clergy especially. Was there ever
a good measure for Nonconformists
proposed that was received with an
exulting shout of gratulation by the hon.
Baronet below me (Sir R. H. Inglis), by
the Bishops, and by all the clergy of
the kingdom? I am wrong, perhaps,
as regards the hon. Baronet; he did not
loudly exult, but he took the measure
meekly, he took it very thankfully.
I acknowledge that the Church is
thankful for everything it can get, and
it never loses anything for want of ask-
ing for it. I confess I am astonished
that Churchmen throughout the country
-I do not speak of the clergy, but the
laity-have supported this measure, be-
cause I think they are as much interested
as the Dissenters in opposing any ex-
tension of power on the part of the
clergy. Nothing tends more to impede
the progress of liberty, nothing is more
fatal to independence of spirit in the
public, than to add to the powers of the
priesthood in matters of education. If
you give them such increased powers by
legislative enactment, you do more than
you could effect by any other means to
enslave and degrade a people subject
to their influence.
There is yet another point to which I
must advert. In the speech of the right
hon. Member for Edinburgh, who dwelt
with great emphasis on the impartiality
which he attributed to this proposed
system, the right hon. Gentleman said:-
'I do wish that, instead of using phrases
of disparagement against the scheme pro-
posed, hon. Gentlemen would just answer
me this plain question :-Supposing in any
one city there should be a school con-
nected with the Church, another connected
with the Wesleyans, and another with the
Presbyterians—will any Gentleman dis-
tinctly point out to me what share of the
public money or what patronage is that
which the school connected with the

1847.
535
GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF EDUCATION.
Church will get, and which the other
schools will not get?'
That is the question to which the right
hon. Gentleman asked for an answer.
If the right hon. Gentleman had looked
over the grants that have already been
made, he would have found that out of
the sum of 149,000l., which during the
last three years has been distributed by
the Committee of the Privy Council, the
Church has received 141,000l. There
never was anything so impartial.
['Hear, hear!'] No doubt hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, who cheer, will say
that the Dissenters might have had it if
they had asked for it. True, but the
Dissenters were of a different temper
from that. They did not separate from
the Established Church that they should
afterwards come whining and asking
the Government to support their educa-
tional system. Their very principle is
that the Government has no right to
appropriate public funds for the pur-
pose of religious instruction. The right
hon. Gentleman the Member for Edin-
burgh knows right well that in times
past they have refused the public money
for such a purpose, and that in times to
come they are likely to come still less
forward than hitherto to avail them-
selves of such support.
The right hon. Gentleman took us to
the United States last night, and I will
ask him to accompany me there now
for a moment. The impartiality of
your plan is like this. Suppose at the
present time in the United States-
there being no Established Church there
-the Government were to offer an en-
dowment to the religious sects, and
nine-tenths having refused to accept it,
the Government were to persist in en-
dowing the remaining one-tenth, while
the others protested against the prin-
ciple of endowment altogether; in that
condition of things the plea of impar-
tiality would be as just and fair as that
put forward in the present case by the
right hon. Gentleman. The Dissenters
have not taken, and they will not take,
this money; and it must be clear to
those who know the history and under-
stand anything of the principles of Non-
conformity, that any Nonconformist who
takes one sixpence of this grant for the
purpose of teaching the tenets of his
particular sect, can never afterwards,
with any show of consistency and good
faith, say one syllable against the domi-
nation and usurpation of the Esta-
blished Church.
I think that in this year 1847 the
time may be said to have come, when,
although the members of the Established
Church may not consider such scruples
wise and prudent, the scruples which do
exist and are conscientiously entertained
by thousands and millions of our coun-
trymen should be respected, and when
the Government should pause before it
holds out a great temptation to men
to abandon their principles; and, in
the event of their refusing to abandon
them, offers an enormous advantage to
the members of the Established Church.
With respect to the Roman Catholics,
the right hon. Gentleman did not give
a direct reply to the statement of the
hon. Member for Finsbury on that part
of the subject, when he read an extract
from a speech of the noble Lord in 1839;
and, as there has been some talk of the
negotiations which have been going on
with the Wesleyans during the last fort-
night, I should be glad, if the right
hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for
the Home Department should think it
worth while to notice anything I say,
to receive an answer to this question-
Have the Privy Council communicated
with the authorities and dignitaries of
the Roman Catholic Church with re-
spect to the appointment of inspectors
of Roman Catholic schools, or have they
not? If they have, then it follows of
course that they must have had the
intention, when these Minutes were
laid upon the tables of both Houses of
Parliament, to make grants to Roman
Catholic schools. That would be some-
thing noble, something great, something
to be admired, in coming forward to
offer this great boon to all classes of
the people without favour or distinction.
536
APRIL 20,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
In this House I have often heard
men taunt the Dissenters with bigotry
in their conduct towards the Roman
Catholic population; but let it be said
that those Dissenters have ever ac-
corded and been willing to accord to
their Roman Catholic brethren all and
everything they sought and could con-
scientiously accept for themselves. Civil
rights and privileges the Dissenters have
been willing to grant to Catholics.
Many of them who have had seats in
this House since 1829 would never have
found admittance here had it not been
for the assistance they received in their
struggle for civil liberty at the hands
of the Dissenting body. My honest
opinion is this, that when these Minutes
were laid upon the table, the Government
intended, and most wisely, to open these
grants to all persons of all religious
persuasions whatsoever.
The Government had no idea that
there would be a disturbance about
these Minutes. They were drawn up
by a very clever secretary, who, like
other secretaries, is disposed to magnify
the importance of his office, and when
drawn up they were, no doubt, submitted
to the oversight of the bishops in the
other House. The whole thing was
comfortably concocted, and it was
supposed the Dissenters would take it
without asking any questions. But the
moment the Wesleyans evinced a dis-
position to join other Dissenters in
resisting the measure, it was feared that
the opposition might grow too formid-
able, and negotiations were entered into.
Possibly the Government did not make
the first overture in this negotiation; but
it often happens in these cases, as every-
body knows, that there is some con-
venient friend to make the primary
advance, and put the negotiation in
train. At this time the Wesleyans are
supposed to be under the delusion that
the Roman Catholics are to be excluded;
and if they are, I am reminded of what
has been said by a well-known writer,
that it is sometimes as pleasant to be
cheated as to cheat.
I am not now going to detain the
House with any observations as to the
construction of the Committee of the
Privy Council, nor will I enter into
particulars of the expenditure to be
incurred, or of the bribes to be offered.
This only I will remark, that I believe
the last thing any reasonable man would
do to elevate his fellow-man, is to make
him a pensioner or recipient of the
bounty of the Government. But the
question is, whether the Nonconformists,
forming so large a part of the population
of this country, are to have their feelings
and principles disregarded in the course
of legislation you adopt-whether a new
system of education is to be introduced
which you teach everybody's religion
at everybody's expense? The Noncon-
formists deny your right to do this:
they will not receive your money. You
offer them that which is of no value to
them; and the Church, less scrupulous,
receives the gift. The consequence is
that the schools of the Dissenters will
stand at a great disadvantage as com-
pared with the Church schools—the one
class depending solely upon voluntary
contributions, the other having certain
bribes attached to it of provision for
life, and for the maintenance of which
the House is asked to vote at the ex-
pense of all.
I will say nothing now of the wonder-
ful statesmanship which has chosen this
particular season to open an arena of
strife, and throw down an apple of dis-
cord amongst us when there was an
appearance of concord and unanimity.
I am sorry it has come to this; I am
sorry, not because of the particular
effect it may have upon this Government
or that Government, but because I must
ever regret to see discord and bitterness
introduced upon religious subjects, and
because I know that when once this strife
begins, real interests, useful matters, are
neglected; and men separate and stray
aside from paths which they might tread
together to the advantage of their com-
mon country.
I will now conclude; and if I have
been betrayed into some warmth of ex-
pression, let it be remembered that I am
1847.
537
GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF EDUCATION.
a member of the Nonconformist body.
My forefathers languished in prison by
the acts of that Church which you now
ask me to aggrandise. Within two years
places of worship of the sect to which
I belong have been despoiled of their
furniture to pay the salary of a minister
of the Established Church; and when I
look back and see how that Church has
been uniformly hostile to the progress
of public liberty, it is impossible for me
to withhold my protest against the out-
rage committed by the Government on
the Nonconformist body for the sake of
increasing the power of a political insti-
tution, which I believe is destined to fall
before the growing Christianity and the
extending freedom of the people.
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
HOUSE OF COMMONS, APRIL 27, 1860.
From Hansard.
I FEEL Somewhat indebted to the
right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr.
Whiteside) for having come forward as
a new advocate upon this question, for he
has thrown, by that physical force ora-
tory of which he is so great a master,
some new light upon a question which
has been worn almost threadbare. But
I do not think that when his speech
is read to-morrow it will persuade that
great portion of the people who object
to Church-rates that the system now
existing should be permanently con-
tinued. I was not present at the open-
ing of the learned Gentleman's speech,
but when I entered the House he was
telling us that the Nonconformists of
the olden time were a much better class
of men than the Dissenters of the present
day; that they made no objections to
the equity of Church-rates. That was
a sentiment which was received with
great enthusiasm by hon. Gentlemen
opposite, who for the first time have
appeared as decided admirers of the
Nonconformists of the past. In answer
to that it may be said that from the
time of Queen Elizabeth down to the
Act of Toleration the principles of reli-
gious freedom were little understood in
this country. We know that not the
Church only when it had the power,
but many of the Nonconformists them-
selves, admitted that it was right not
only to raise taxes for the support of a
particular Church-their own Church
-but that it was positively right to
coerce those persons who held religious
opinions differing from their own. They
had not advanced as far as the great
body of the English people, including
hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the party
they represent, have now advanced, and
therefore the learned Gentleman's argu-
ment goes for very little. But he has
treated the House to a public reading
of a large portion of the evidence of,
I think, two gentlemen who were
witnesses before the Committee of the
House of Lords. I shall refer only to
the evidence of one of these gentlemen
--Mr. Bunting. I suspect that when
the name of Bunting was mentioned
there was a general impression that this
was the evidence of a very distinguished
man who, although not nominally, yet
actually, was Bishop or Archbishop,
and almost Pope, in the sect of which
he was so distinguished a Member. But
that is not the case. The learned Gen-
tleman, not for the first time in his
life as a counsel learned in the law,
has been beholden for his brief to an
attorney practising in Manchester. Mr.
Bunting is not a minister of the Metho-
dist Church, as I understand, but is in
the profession of the law, and therefore
I must strip him of any authority he
has upon this matter in connection with
the Methodist Church in consequence
APRIL 27, 1860.
539
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
of his bearing the name of Bunting. I
must say, further, that this Gentleman,
although in some sort a Nonconformist,
inasmuch as I presume he attends a
Methodist Chapel, is a politician of a
peculiar kind, such as is not found very
frequently among the Dissenting body.
I dare say he agrees with the most ob-
structive, if I may use the term, Con-
servative or Tory among hon. Gentlemen
opposite, and if we had taken his opinion
upon all those questions of policy which
this House has decided in favour of
popular rights and justice to the people
of this country during the last twenty
years, I have not the least doubt that
Mr. Bunting would have been as con-
clusive in his evidence against all those
concessions as he appears to have been
upon the question of Church-rates. But
the learned Gentleman did not treat the
House quite fairly in stating the evidence
of this Gentleman, because even he did
not feel himself courageous enough to
say that the Wesleyan body was in
favour of Church-rates. I find he says,
in answer to a question whether there
was any likelihood of petitions being
sent by them :—
No: from a fear on the part of those
who sympathize with the Church of Eng-
land of eliciting an opinion to the contrary.
There is among us a general agreement
not to disturb questions which we do not
consider essential. The opposition would,
I believe, be from a minority in our own
body.'
A distinct minority?—I think I should
call it so.'
The House will see from this, that
although Mr. Bunting is not remarkable
for great hesitation generally in his
opinions upon this matter, yet he does
hesitate to say that the Wesleyan body
was with any sort of unanimity in favour
of Church-rates. And I can give my
testimony, living as I do in a neighbour-
hood where they are very numerous,
and where their services have been very
great, to the fact that when the question
of Church-rates is mooted and contests
take place, although a few leading men
are anxious to keep the question quiet,
because it is one which might disturb
their body, as far as my observation
goes, a very large number-I think a
majority- who attend their chapels
have generally acted with the party by
which Church-rates were opposed.
But it must be borne in mind that
the Wesleyan body is of a peculiar
character, that its government is more
strictly priestly than anything that exists
in the Church of England, and almost
beyond anything outside the Church of
Rome. The Conference, composed of
one hundred ministers, dominates to a
large extent not only over the private
opinions and individual action of the
members, but also over what I may
call the corporate or sect action, and
throughout their numerous chapels in
this country, unless the Conference were
to give the order or its permission, we
should probably not find from any of
these congregations petitions presented
to this House. But from this fact may
be traced an important series of circum-
stances that there have been from that
body numerous secessions of very note-
worthy character, secessions which have
not arisen from any difference as to the
doctrine, but simply as to the absolute
government of the Conference. Not-
withstanding all this, as I have said,
great numbers of them-I believe a very
great majority-vote in opposition to
Church-rates whenever a contest takes
place, and do unite in sympathy upon
this question with the great body of
Dissenters belonging to other sects.
I should not have said so much about
this particular body had it not been for
the extraordinary importance which the
learned Gentleman has given to this
part of the subject. I find, however,
that even from the Conference Metho-
dists there have been 135 petitions pre-
sented, from the Methodist New Con-
nection 97, from the Methodist Free
Church 164, from the Primitive Metho-
dists 265, from the Calvinistic Methodists
108, from the United Methodists, the
Methodist Reformers, and the Wesleyan
Association 47; making a total of more
540
APRIL 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
+
4
1
than 800 petitions which have been
presented from the whole body of
Methodists in favour of this Bill. Now,
as to the other sects of Dissenters, I
believe the learned Gentleman has not
been able to make out any kind of case,
or show any difference of opinion among
them upon this question. I think he
will admit that they are, with as much
unanimity as can ever be expected upon
public questions, in favour of a repeal
of Church-rates. But if it be, as he
says, that this movement is merely the
movement of a few busy, meddling agi-
tators belonging to those sects—whose
numbers, by the way, he has not given
very accurately-if that be so, how
comes it that throughout the country
and in this House they have obtained
so large a share of support? That fact
is a very ugly one, and the right hon.
and learned Gentleman passed it over.
Even the Church, on whose behalf the
learned Gentleman professes to speak,
is itself not unanimous upon this ques-
tion, and in all the parishes in towns
and cities where Church-rates have been
abolished, every Member who has been
engaged in this question will admit that
no inconsiderable number of those who
regularly attend the services of the
Church have joined those agitating,
meddling Dissenters in their attempt to
put an end to the system of Church-
rates. I should say in those districts a
large minority-I will not say a ma-
jority of Churchmen have been as
willing to get Church-rates abolished
as Dissenters themselves.
I live in a town in which contests
about Church-rates have been carried
on in past years with a vigour and
determination, and, if you like it, with
an animosity which has not been sur-
passed in any other part of the kingdom.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who profess
to be in favour of what is called a stand-
up fight, will be glad to hear that
nothing could exceed the activity of
their friends in that parish, nothing
could exceed the profuseness with which
they were willing to pay for a contest,
in order that all might have to contri-
bute to a Church which at that time
they themselves were not willing ade-
quately to support. The very last
contest of this kind cost the Church
party in the parish as much money as,
if invested at the common rate of in-
terest, would have supported the fabric
of the Church for ever. [A cry of
'How much?"] I can tell the hon. Gen-
tleman what was the estimate formed,
which I believe was never disputed,
and which, judging from the expenditure
on the other side, was not, I should say,
very inaccurate. I believe that the
expenditure would not be less than from
3000l. to 4000l. It is a large parish,
probably ten miles square, and contains
nearly 100,000 inhabitants; and I need
not tell hon. Members that there is no
class of people in England more deter-
mined and more unconquerable, which-
ever side they take, than are the people
of the county from which I come.
What was the result of that struggle?
The result was that the Church-rate
was for ever entirely abolished in that
parish. I have since seen several lists
of candidates for the churchwardenship
put forth by Churchmen, each of which
claimed support upon the ground that
they would never consent to the re-
imposition of a Church-rate; and the
parish has been for many years upon
this question a model of tranquillity.
It would not be enough that it should
be a model of tranquillity if the result
had followed which the learned Gentle-
man foretold in such dolorous language,
that religion would be uncared for, and
that the Gospel would no longer be
preached to the poor; but I will under-
take to say that since that contest that
venerable old parish church has had
laid out upon it, in repairing and beauti-
fying it, from money subscribed not
altogether, but mainly by Churchmen,
ten times, ay, twenty times as much as
was ever expended upon it during a far
longer period of years in which Church-
rates were levied. During that period
there were discussions about the grave-
yard, about the hearses, about the
washing of the surplices, about some-
1
1860.
541
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
body who had to sweep out the church.
There were discussions of all sorts, of
a most irritating and offensive character.
The clock which was there for the
benefit of the public no longer told the
time, and, in fact, there was evidence of
that sort of decay to which the learned
Gentleman has pointed as the inevitable
result of the abolition of Church-rates.
Since the rate ceased to be levied the
clock has kept time with admirable
fidelity, and to such an extent has the
liberality of Churchmen gone, that very
lately they have put up another clock
in a neighbouring church.
I believe
that in the parish of Rochdale the
Church people have received far more
benefit from the abolition of the Church-
rate than the Dissenters have. They
have found out, what they never knew
before, that when placed upon the same
platform as Dissenters, and obliged to
depend upon their own resources, they
are as liberal and zealous as other
sects.
I wish that the learned Gentleman
had told us, and I hope that some one
who may follow him will do so, how it
happens that year by year there has been
growing in this House a power in oppo-
sition to Church-rates, while at the
same time there has been less animosity
throughout the country upon this ques-
tion. I believe it has arisen from the
growth of a better feeling on both
sides, and from the fact that year by
year there have been secessions from
the supporters of Church-rates through-
out the country, and that more and
more without the action of Parliament
the principle embodied in the clauses
of the Bill of my hon. Friend has come
to be acted upon. Now what is the
real point between us?- because I
believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite
will agree with me, that if it could be
done it would be better that this ques-
tion should be for ever disposed of.
What is the question at issue between
us? Does any man dispute the evils
that have arisen? The right hon. and
learned Gentleman has, in a speech of
great vigour, endeavoured to throw
ridicule and contempt upon the great
body of the Dissenting population of
this country. ['No, no?'] Well, at
any rate, he has not refrained from ex-
pressions of harshness towards those
whom he charges with being the movers
in this question. But does he believe,
or do any of you believe, that if those
persons did not in the main possess the
confidence of the great body of the
Dissenters, they could in a week, a fort-
night, or a month, stir them up from
one end of the country to the other,
and bring to your table the signatures
of 500,000 of your countrymen? [Cries
of '600,000.'] I am reminded that the
number is 600,000, but in a matter of
this kind I am not particular to 100,000
or less. I say, then, is there any one
here who disputes the evils which have
arisen from these discussions? I con-
fess that I have sometimes wished that
I could speak in this House, even if it
were for only one half hour, in the
character of a member of the Church
of England. If I could have done that
I should have appealed to the House
in language far more emphatic and
impressive than I have ever been able
to use as a Dissenter, in favour of the
abolition of this most mischievous and
obnoxious impost.
The right hon. and learned Gentle-
man has no plan. I think he was right
in making that admission. I believe
there are only two courses which can
be pursued. One is to leave the law
exactly as it is, a course which, if this
matter did not touch a question of reli-
gion, I should not complain of, because
it leaves the majority in every parish to
decide for itself. The other plan is
that of my hon. Friend the Member for
Tavistock. You have tried every kind
of contrivance. The right hon. Gentle-
man the Member for the University of
Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) proposed a
plan. The right hon. and learned
Member for the University of Dublin
was a Member of the Government by
which that plan was proposed; and, as
he now says that he has no plan, I
presume that he has abandoned the
542
APRIL 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
plan of the right hon. Gentleman oppo-
site. The right hon. Baronet the
Home Secretary, and the right hon.
Baronet the Chancellor of the Duchy
of Lancaster, also tried plans. Indeed,
there are in the House many who have
aspired to legislate upon this subject,
but have failed in these attempts at
conciliation; and I think we must all
feel conscious that we must either
remain as we are, or adopt the Bill
which is now before us. I confess that
I am altogether against any kind of
dodge by which this matter may be
even temporarily settled. I think that
if this Church be a national establish-
ment, you cannot by law insist that its
support shall be drawn from only a
portion of the population.
I agree
with you altogether in that. If I were
a Churchman I would never consent to
it, and, not being a Churchman, I
wholly repudiate it. The dissensions
to which I have referred have prevailed,
prevail still, and cannot terminate as
long as this impost exists. What is its
natural and inevitable result? It must
be to create and stimulate the pride of
supremacy in the dominant Church,
and at the same time produce what I
shall call the irritation of subjugation
and injustice on the part of that great
portion of the people who support their
own ministers and places of worship,
and who think that they ought not to
be called upon to support those of any
other sect or Church. Now, is it neces-
sary that this should continue? I often
have occasion in this House to give
hope to hon. Gentlemen opposite. They
are probably the most despairing poli-
tical party that any country ever had
within its borders. They despair of
almost everything. They despaired of
agriculture. Agriculture triumphs. They
despair of their Church, yet whenever
that Church has been left to its own
resources and to the zeal of its members
its triumph has been manifest to the
country and to the world. Are you
made of different material from the five
millions of people who go to the Dis-
senting chapels of England and Wales?
You have your churches,-I speak of
the old ones, not of those recently
erected by means of voluntary contri-
butions, you have your churches, which
you call national, and you have them
for nothing. You have
You have your ministers
paid out of property anciently be-
queathed or intrusted to the State for
their use. In that respect you stand
in a far better position for undertaking
what, if Church-rates are abolished,
you must undertake, than do the great
body of your Dissenting brethren. Have
you less zeal, have you less liberality,
than they have? Do not you con-
tinually boast in this House that you
are the owners of the great bulk of the
landed property of the country? Are
you not the depositaries of political
power, and do you not tell us that when
a Dissenter becomes rich he always
walks away from the chapel into your
church? If this be so, am I appealing
in vain to you, or reasoning in vain
with you, when I try to encourage you
to believe that if there were no Church-
rates the members of your church and
your congregations would be greatly
improved, and that, as has taken place
in the parish in which I live, your
churches would be better supported by
your own voluntary and liberal contri-
butions, than they can ever be by the
penny per pound issuing from the
pockets of men who do not attend your
church, and who are rendered ten times
more hostile to it by the very effort to
make them contribute to its support.
I believe that Church-rates must
before long be abolished. Hence, I
wish to afford some hope and consola-
tion, if I can, to hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site. Mr. Osborne and Mr. Bunting,
from whom the right hon. and learned
Member so largely quoted, themselves
belong to a body that has done marvels
in this country in erecting chapels,
paying ministers, establishing schools,
raising the dead, if you like-for men
who were dead to religion have been
made Christians; and they have preached
the Gospel to the poor in every county,
I might almost say in every parish, in
1860.
543
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
the kingdom. Yet they have not come
to Parliament for grants of money; and,
although they have often come to me
and others for contributions to their
chapels and schools, they have never
had any force of law to enable them
to raise their funds. Throughout Eng-
land and Wales what would be the con-
dition of your population, your religious
establishments, your education, if it
were not for the liberality of those sects
of whom the right hon. and learned
Gentleman thinks fit to speak in dis-
paraging terms?
But I pass to his own country, and
though I should like to see Irish Mem-
bers more frequently taking part in the
discussion of questions affecting England
and Wales than they do, I was surprised
to find that the right hon. and learned
Gentleman made no reference whatever
to what has taken place in the island
from which he himself comes. In the
year 1833 you abolished the vestry cess,
the Church-rate of Ireland; you abol-
ished one-fourth of the tithe-that is,
you took it from the Church and gave
it to the landlord; you did many things
which the Irish Church at that time,
which many Gentlemen of the same
party as the right hon. and learned
Member denounced, just as you de-
nounce the present Bill. Of course it
will be said that the Earl of Derby has
since then changed his opinions, and
therefore the views he held at that
period will have no authority with his
followers now. But what has been the
effect on that Church? Is there a man
in this House with the slightest know-
ledge of what has occurred in Ireland
during the last thirty years, who will
not admit that the Irish Protestant
Establishment would have been abso-
lutely uprooted and separated from the
State for ever long before now but for
the large measure of change-I will say
of reform-to which the Earl of Derby,
as a Minister of that day, was a party?
If that be true, what right has anybody
to charge the hon. Member for Tavistock
with a deadly hostility to the Church of
England? I do not believe there is a
man in this country at this moment
who has any hostility to the Church of
England as a Church. I never met
with such a man. The right hon. and
learned Gentleman has referred to a
friend of mine who not long ago had
a seat in this House, although he did
not mention him by name. allude to
Mr. Miall. There is no man in Eng-
land whose character for religion, mo-
rality, intelligence, or a persistent
devotion to what he believes to be right
stands higher than that of Mr. Miall.
But Mr. Miall has not the smallest
objection to the Church of England as
a religious body, any more than he has
to the Methodist Conference or any
other denomination which teaches its
own peculiar views of Christianity.
What he objects to is that the Church
should be, as it has been, so much of
a political institution. And there can
be no doubt but that among the clergy
of the Establishment and the most
thoughtful of her sons there is through-
out the kingdom at this moment a deep
sentiment at work which, altogether
apart from Mr. Miall and the Liberation
Society, is destined before many years
are over to make great changes in
the constitution and condition of that
Church. And I undertake to say that,
if their views, or those of Mr. Miall,
were carried out by Parliament, the
Church would still be a Church at least
as great, as powerful, and as respected
as it ever was at any period of its his-
tory. I believe it would, as effectually
as it ever has done, raise to life those
who are religiously dead, and at the
same time, more extensively than it does
now, preach the Gospel to the poor.
But the right hon. and learned Gen-
tleman might have given us another
lesson from Ireland. There the great
body of the people-not the possessors
of wealth- -are in connection with the
Roman Catholic Church. Many of us
have been in Ireland. I have myself
spent several weeks there, travelling
from one part of the country to another.
I saw chapels everywhere, that great
cathedrals had been built, that there
544
APRIL 27,
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
were evidences of great zeal and won-
derful liberality among a people at that
time poor and dejected, and in a lower
physical condition, I undertake to say,
than could have been found in any other
population in any Christian country of
Europe. The Irish Catholics, without
any assistance from the State except a
paltry grant, which I believe many of
them would gladly forego, have pro-
vided for all the religious wants of their
people. And I venture to assert that
religion-not now speaking of particular
doctrines or forms-has there permeated
even to the lowest class of society in
a manner that is not equalled in this
part of the kingdom, where your Church
Establishment has for ages reigned al-
most supreme.
But if you are not satisfied with the
case of Ireland, let us go to Wales.
There you have a poor population who
are mainly Dissenters. The Welsh Dis-
senters do not own the great estates.
They have no ancient endowments, no
grants from Parliament. They do not
even send representatives to this House
-['Oh!']—representatives I mean of
their peculiar views. Eight-tenths of
the people of Wales have no connection
with the Established Church. Yet,
poor as they are, compared with the
population of England, there is not a
nook or corner of the Principality in
which there are not a chapel, a school,
and a minister, or in which you do not
constantly see the influence of religious
teaching on the character and habits of
the people.
But go a little farther north, to a land
where men are not supposed to mis-
understand their own interests. I refer
to the country on the other side of
the Tweed. You have an Established
Church there. Many years ago you had
two considerable secessions from its
pale which became powerful sects.
They have since united themselves, and
their power has proportionately in-
creased. But lately, within the recol-
lection of every Member of this House,
for it is but seventeen years ago, there
was another great secession; and from
what men fancied was the ruin of the
Established Church of Scotland there
arose a new Church, offering, I will say,
to the world, an example of zeal and
munificence such as has not been wit-
nessed in this country during the life-
time of the present generation. Not
long ago, while in Scotland—a country
to which I am very glad to flee when
we are liberated from attendance in this
House-I took the pains to make some
inquiry upon this question; and I found
that the Free Church, which comprises
probably not more than one-third of
that portion of the population who pay
any attention to religious matters, raised
voluntarily, during the year when I
made the inquiry, a larger sum than
the whole annual emoluments of the
Established Church of Scotland. It has
built, I think, something like seven
hundred churches throughout that part
of the kingdom, and as many manses
or dwellings for its ministers. It has
also established schools in almost every
parish. And I tell the House with the
utmost sincerity that I believe I never
questioned any man in Scotland as to
the effect of the disruption who did not
admit that, painful as it was, and utterly
as he and many others might have
opposed it, still it has been full of
blessings to the people of that country.
I believe the number of persons who
frequent places of worship, the number
of schools, and the number of scholars
who attend them, are all far larger than
ever they were before the last great
secession. Bear in mind that, with the
exception of a very few persons of high
station in society, including one or two
Members of the other House and two
or three of this, the property of Scot-
land, as far as property is to be mea-
sured by the possession of the soil, has
not gone with the Free Church at all.
Yet you find throughout the whole of
that country those vast results from a
zeal, a religious fervour, a munificence,
which are not a whit greater than would
be exhibited under the same circum-
stances by members of the Church of
England. But such a state of things,
·
8%
:
1860.
CHURCH RATES ABOLITION BILL.
I say, must raise the character of the
people of Scotland, high as it was
before, still higher in the estimation of
the Christian world.
Only one other point with regard to
this voluntary question. Apart from
the discussions and divisions, from Bills
and clauses in this House, if I were to
ask any hon. Member on the other side
whether he believed that the Church of
England was not, or would not, become
as liberal as any other sect, I have no
doubt he would at once say that to
assert the contrary would be to slander
and misrepresent the members of that
Church. Well, I think so too, and the
evidence lies in what the Church has
been doing of late years. If you stand
upon any eminence in the neighbour-
hood of any large town or city in
England, you will see everywhere
towers and spires indicating the tem-
ples that have been raised in recent
days for the worship of God; and so
also, if you travel over the country, as
you now rapidly do, you will see through
the glass of the railway carriage one
spire here, another there, and a third
yonder. I do not always admire their
architecture, but some of them are beau-
tiful objects in the landscape of which
they form part. Well, this has all been
achieved, not by the votes of Parliament,
for they have ceased, but by exactly the
same religious zeal, the same Christian
benevolence, which have distinguished
the rest of your countrymen, and which
you, the richest and proudest of them
all, would surely, under the like cir-
cumstances, equally display. I want to
persuade you that this is a good Bill for
the Established Church. I am not
about to try to take you in by allow-
ing you to suppose that I agree with
you as to a State Establishment for
teaching religion. I agree on that ab-
stract question with Mr. Miall and the
Liberation Society. I believe it is an
evil to the State and to religion; but
that is not a question for us to discuss
how, or one which probably this gene-
ration will ever be called on to decide.
I say, the abolition of these irritating
545
levies of money in Ireland has been of
great advantage to the Established
Church of Ireland. I say, the more
you remove your question of an Estab-
lishment from that constant and irri-
tating contest and discussion which are
inseparable from the continuance of
these rates, the more probably, for a
long period of time, you will consolidate
your Church; and I am inclined to be-
lieve that its fall as a State Establish-
ment will never come from the assaults
of those who are without it, but will
rather come from the strong differences
of doctrine among those within its
pale.
I should like to ask hon. Gentlemen
opposite to look to a point in respect to
which their Church is at a great disad-
vantage as compared with Dissenting
congregations. I am in a position to
observe both of them with great im-
partiality, because I belong to a sect
which is very small, which some people
say is decaying, although I believe its
main principles are always spreading.
I have no particular sympathy with
Wesleyans, Independents, or Baptists,
any more than I have with the congre-
gations which assemble in your churches.
But have you not observed in London,
and more particularly in the country,
where you are more intimately ac-
quainted with the circumstances-have
you not observed, that among the con-
gregations of Dissenting bodies there is
a greater activity in all matters which
belong to their churches, and to objects
which they unite together in promoting
as a religious community? Do not you
find that from the richest and the most
influential man who enters a chapel on
a Sunday to the humblest of the congre-
gation there is, as it were, a chain of
sympathy running through them all,
which gives to them a great strength,
which combines them together, which
influences the humblest and the highest
for good, and which gives to the con-
gregation a power which is found to be
greatly less existent in a congregation
of the Established Church? I have
spoken of this to many persons who
35
546
SPEECHES OF JOHN BRIGHT.
differ from me on all these questions
of Church establishments, Church-rates,
and the like; but I never spoke to any
man in the habit of attending the Es-
tablished Church who did not admit to
me that it is one of the things they
most deplore, that among the five hun-
dred persons more or less who attend
any particular church there is infinitely
less sympathy, co-operation, union, and
power of action than is evinced among
the various Dissenting communities in
this country almost without exception.
But if you had none of these rates to
levy by law you would be placed—and
it would be a most material advantage
-in the same position as are the con-
gregations of Dissenting bodies. You
would be obliged, of course, in the
management of your congregational
affairs, to consult the members in gene-
ral; you would have your monthly or
quarterly meetings; and thus you would
know who were your neighbours in
church, and you would be united to-
gether, as Dissenting congregations are.
And I maintain that your religious
activity and life for all purposes of mis-
sionary work at home and abroad
would be greatly increased and strength-
ened; and so far your congregations,
your ministers, and your churches would
be great gainers. Some hon. Gentle-
men will say that I am a violent parti-
san on this question, and that I have
partaken of the animosity which I
stated to have existed in the parish in
which I live. I do not deny that in
times past I have taken a warm, and
it may be occasionally, a too heated
part in the contests and discussions on
this question; but, so far as I am con-
cerned, the feelings engendered by these
strifes have been swept away; I am
older than I was then; I make great
allowance for men's passions, as I ask
that they should make allowance for
mine.
This question has now come to a
crisis; and I ask the House to consider
whether it would not be to the advan-
tage of the Church, of morality, religion,
and the public peace, that it should
now be set at rest once and for ever.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman
He
-it is one of the faults of a high
classical education-following the ex-
ample of the right hon. Gentleman who
delighted us all with a brilliant but
most illogical speech last night, af-
frighted us with an account of what
took place under the democracies of
Greece, and asks us to follow the ex-
ample of those who were believers in
the paganism of ancient Rome.
says, Did not the Roman emperors,
consuls, and people go in procession
after the vile gods and goddesses which
they worshipped? It is true they did,
and I hope the right hon. and learned
Gentleman regrets by this time that he
asked us to follow an example of that
kind. Rome has perished, and the re-
ligion which it professed has perished
with it. The Christian religion is
wholly different, and if there be one
thing written more legibly than another
in every page of that Book on which
you profess that your Church is founded,
it is that men should be just one to
another, kind and brotherly one to
another, and should not ask of each
other to do that which they are not
willing themselves to do. I say that
this law of Church-rates is a law which
violates, and violates most obviously
and outrageously, every law of justice
and of mercy which is written in that
Book, and it is because I believe it
does so that I am certain that it never
can be of advantage to your Church, if
your Church be a true Church; and,
believing that, and feeling how much
the interests and sympathies and wishes
of millions of our countrymen are in
favour of the abolition of this impost,
I ask you to do what I am now ready
to do to give a cordial support to
the third reading of this Bill of my
hon. Friend.
*
LETTER TO DR. GRAY.
[The following letter on the Irish Church question was addressed to Dr. Gray, Editor of
the Freeman's Journal, now Sir John Gray, M.P., October 25, 1852. The estimate
of the property of the Irish Church is probably much too low, but this does not affect
the argument, or the principle of the proposed arrangement.]
MY DEAR DR. GRAY,-I observe from
the newspapers that the friends of ‘reli-
gious equality' in Ireland are about to
hold a conference in the city of Dublin
with a view to consider the existing
ecclesiastical arrangements of your
country. My engagements will not
permit me to be present at your de-
liberations, and, indeed, I am not sure
that your invitations extend further
than to Irishmen and Irish representa-
tives; but I feel strongly disposed to
address you on the great question you
are about to discuss-a question affect-
ing the policy and interests of the
United Kingdom, but of vital import-
ance to Ireland.
Let me say, in the first place, that I
am heartily glad that any number of
the Irish representatives should have
resolved to grapple with a question
which, in my opinion, must be settled
on some just basis, if Ireland is ever to
become tranquil and content. The case
of the Catholic population of Ireland—
and, in truth, it is scarcely more their
case than that of every intelligent and
just Protestant in the three kingdoms-
is so strong, so unanswerable, and so
generally admitted, that nothing is
wanted to insure its complete success
but the combination of a few able and
honest men to concentrate and direct
the opinion which exists. If such men
are to be found among you-resolute,
persevering, and disinterested-a great
work is before them, and as certainly a
great result. They will meet with in-
sult and calumny in abundance; every
engine of the supremacy' party will be
in motion against them; they will be
denounced as 'conspirators' against the
institutions of the country, when, in
fact, they combine only against a griev-
ance which it is hard to say whether it
is more humiliating in Ireland to endure,
or disgraceful in England to inflict; but
against all this, having a right cause,
and working it by right means, they
will certainly succeed.
C
It would be to insult your under-
standing were I to imagine that you
demand anything more or less than a
perfect equality' before the law for
the religious sects which exist in Ire-
land- that is, for the members or ad-
herents of the Protestant Episcopalian,
the Presbyterian, and the Roman Catho-
lic Churches. So entirely is it felt that
you are in the right in making this
demand, that with regard to it your
opponents dare not attempt an argu-
ment with you; they prefer to say that
you claim something else-namely, a
supremacy as hateful as their own, and
then they find it easy to contest the
matter with you, writing and speaking,
as they do, chiefly to a Protestant
audience. On this point there should be
no possibility of mistake; and not only
should the demand for 'equality' be
unequivocal, but it appears to me most
desirable that some mode of attaining it
should be distinctly pointed out. We
६
35-2
548
OCT. 25,
LETTER OF JOHN BRIGHT
C
may, perhaps, imagine an equality
which would allow the Protestant Es-
tablishment to remain as it is, or, at
least, to continue to be a State Church,
building up at its side a Catholic Es-
tablishment; and, to complete the
scheme, a Presbyterian Establishment
also, having a batch of Catholic pre-
lates and of Presbyterian divines in the
House of Lords; but, in my opinion,
any scheme of 'equality' of this descrip-
tion would be, and must necessarily be,
altogether impracticable.
6
Lord John Russell, I think in 1843,
expressed an opinion that the Protestant
Church in Ireland should not be sub-
verted, but that the Roman Catholic
Church, with its bishops and clergy,
should be placed by the State on a
footing of equality with that Church.'
He adopted the term 'equality,' and
said that any plan he should propose
would be to follow out that principle
of equality, with all its consequences.'
Lord Grey, in 1845, was, if possible,
still more explicit, for he said, after ex-
pressing his opinion that the Catholics
have the first claim' on the funds ap-
plied to ecclesiastical purposes in Ire-
land, 'you must give the Catholic clergy
an equality also in social rank and
position; and he went even further
than this, and said, 'I carry my view
on this subject as far as to wish to see
the prelates of the Roman Catholic
Church take their places in this House
on the episcopal bench.' From this it
appears that Lord John Russell and
Lord Grey, seeing the enormous evil
of the existing system, were ready to
justify almost any measure that pro-
mised political and ecclesiastical equality
to the Irish Catholics; but they wished
that equality to be obtained without the
subversion of the Protestant Established
Church in Ireland.
Of course, if all parties among the
statesmen and the public of the United
Kingdom were agreed, funds might be
provided for the perpetual endowment
and subjection to State control of the
Irish Catholic and Presbyterian Churches,
and some plan might be devised to secure
them a representation in the House of
Lords; but, happily for sound prin-
ciples in civil government, and happily
for religion itself, all parties are not
agreed to do this, but are rather agreed
that it shall not be done. The' equality'
which Lord John Russell would follow
out with all its consequences' is a
dream, and Lord Grey's bold idea of
giving the Irish Catholics 'the first
claim to the funds' and of placing their
bishops in the House of Lords is not
less impracticable. To have two Es-
tablished Churches in Ireland, the one
Protestant and the other Catholic; to
have in the House of Lords Protestant
and Catholic bishops, elbowing each
other on the 'right reverend bench,'
guarding the temporal and spiritual
interests of two Churches which de-
nounce each other as idolatrous or
heretical, would be an inconsistency so
glaring, that it would go far to over-
throw all reverence for Governments or
Churches, if not for Christianity itself.
The scheme is surely too absurd to be
seriously thought of, and if there be a
statesman bold enough to propose it, he
will find no support in the opinion of
the English public, except from that
small section with whom religion goes
for nothing, and Churches and priests
are tolerated as machinery in the pay
and service of the Government.
But there is an 'equality' which is
attainable without inconsistency, which
would meet with favour among large
classes in every part of Great Britain,
and which, I think, if fairly proposed,
would be well received by many of the
more enlightened and just Protestants
in Ireland. It is an equality' which
must start from this point, that hence-
forth there must be no Church in Ireland
in connection with the State. The whole
body of English Dissenters, the United
Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and
the Catholic population of the United
Kingdom, might be expected cordially
to welcome such a proposition; and it
is difficult to understand how the Pres-
byterians of the North of Ireland, or
the Free Church of Scotland, or the
1852.
549
TO DR. GRAY.
1
adherents of the Wesleyan Conference
in England, could, with any consistency
or decency, oppose it; and I am confi-
dent that a large number of persons con-
nected with the Established Churches
in the three kingdoms, who are enlight-
ened enough to see what is right, and
just enough to wish it to be done, would
give their support to any Minister who
had the courage to make such a measure
the great distinguishing act of his ad-
ministration. But, if this principle were
adopted that is, the principle that
henceforth there must be no Church in
Ireland in connection with the State-
there would still be a question as to the
appropriation of the large funds now
in the hands of the Irish Established
Church.
There are two modes of dealing with
these funds, either of which may be de-
fended, but one of them seems to offer
facilities which do not belong to the
other. The most simple plan would be
to absorb the revenues of the Estab-
lished Church as the livings become
vacant, and to apply them in some
channel not ecclesiastical, in which the
whole population of Ireland could par-
ticipate. The objections to this plan
are, that it would be hard upon the
Protestant Episcopalians, after having
pampered them so long with a munifi-
cent support, to throw them at once on
their resources, and that to withdraw
the Regium Donum from the Presby-
terians of the North, when they have
no other provision made for their reli-
gious wants, would be to create a just
discontent among them. There is some
force in this, inasmuch as upon one
generation would be thrown the burden
of the creation and support of a reli-
gious organisation which, in voluntary
churches, is commonly the work of suc-
cessive generations of their adherents,
and the argument may be considered
almost irresistible when it is offered to a
Government which does not repudiate,
but rather cherishes, the principle of
a State Church. But whatever may be
the inconveniences of this plan, they
are, in my estimation, infinitely less than
those which are inseparable from a con-
tinuance of the present system.
There is, however, another mode of
settlement which, though open to some
objection, is probably more likely to
obtain a general concurrence of opinion
in its favour in Ireland, and to which, I
think, a great amount of consent might
be obtained in England and Scotland.
Your present ecclesiastical arrangements
are briefly these:-The Protestant Epis-
copal Church has 500,000l. per annum
entrusted to it, or a principal sum, at
twenty years' purchase, of 10,000,000l.
sterling. The Presbyterian Church or
Churches have 40,000l. per annum, or,
estimated at the same rate, a principal
sum of 800,ocol. The Roman Catholic
Church has 26,000l. per annum, or a
principal sum of 520,000l. I will say
nothing about the exact proportions of
population belonging to each Church,
for I do not wish to give opportunity
for dispute about figures. It is suffi-
cient to say, what everybody knows to
be true, that the Irish population is
Catholic, and that the Protestants,
whether of the Episcopalian or Presby-
terian Church, or of both united, are
a small minority of the Irish people.
I will admit the temporary hardship of
at once withdrawing from the Pro-
testant sects all the resources which
the State has hitherto provided for
them; but, at the same time, no one
can deny, and I cannot forget, the hard-
ship to which the Catholics have been
subjected, inasmuch as they, the poorest
portion of the people, and by many
times the most numerous, have been
shut out from almost all participation
in the public funds applied to eccle-
siastical purposes in Ireland. Is it not
possible to make an arrangement by
which the menaced hardship to the
Protestants may be avoided, and that
so long endured by the Catholics, in
part at least, redressed? And can this
be done without departing from the
principle, that henceforth there must
be no Church in Ireland in connection
with the State?' Let an Act be passed
to establish a 'Church Property Com-
•
"
550
OCT. 25,
LETTER OF JOHN BRIGHT
mission' for Ireland, and let this Com-
mission hold in trust, for certain pur-
poses, all the tithes and other property
now enjoyed by the Established Church;
let it, in fact, become possessed of the
10,000,000l. sterling, the income from
which now forms the revenues of that
Church, as the livings and benefices
become vacant. It would be desirable
to offer facilities to the landed pro-
prietors to purchase the tithes at an
easy rate, in order that funds might
be in hand to carry out the other ar-
rangements of the scheme.
I have estimated the total value at
10,000,000l.; it might not reach that
sum if the tithes were sold at a low
rate; but whether it were 10,000,000l.
or only 8,000,000l. would not affect the
practicability or the justice of this pro-
position. Let this Commission be em-
powered and directed to appropriate
certain portions of this fund as a free
gift to each of the three Churches in
Ireland-to the Protestant Episcopa-
lian, the Presbyterian, and the Roman
Catholic Church. Whatever is thus
given must be a free gift, and become
as much the private property of the
respective sects or churches as is the
property of the Free Church in Scot-
land, or that of the Wesleyan Method-
ists in England. It must no longer
be a trust from the State, liable to in-
terference or recall by the State, or the
'equality' and independence of the Irish
sects will not be secured.
There comes now the question of the
amounts to be thus given. From some
inquiries I have made I have arrived at
the conclusion that if in each parish in
Ireland there was a house and a small
piece of land, say from ten to twenty
acres, in the possession of the Roman
Catholic Church, that would be all the
provision that would be required or
wished for, as the general support of
its ministers would be derived, as at
present, from the voluntary contribu-
tions of their flocks. There are in
round numbers about 1,000 parishes in
Ireland. In many of them there is
now a provision up to the standard
above stated in the possession of the
Roman Catholic Church, but I will
assume that in all of them such provi-
sion would have to be made. 1,000l.
for each parish, taking one parish with
another, would amply make up any de-
ficiency, and this amount throughout
the parishes of Ireland would require
the sum of 1,000,000l. sterling to be
appropriated from the general fund;
and this should be made over abso-
lutely and for ever to the Roman
Catholics of Ireland, in such hands and
in such manner as the funds of their
Church raised by voluntary effort are
usually secured.
Under an arrangement of this kind, of
course, the special grant to the college
of Maynooth would be withdrawn. The
Presbyterians, under the operation of
this Act, would lose their annual grant
of 40,000l.; but, in place of it, assum-
ing that they have an organisation and
a system of government which would
enable them to hold and administer
funds for the use of their Church, a
portion of the general fund should be
set apart for them, equal to the produc-
tion of a revenue of like amount with
that they now receive by grant from
Parliament. This should also be given
to them absolutely and for ever, and
they should become henceforth a volun-
tary and independent Church.
The Protestant Episcopalians should
be treated as liberally as the Presby-
terians, with whom, it is estimated,
they are about on a par in point of
numbers. Assuming that they could
and would form themselves into a
Free Episcopal Church, the Commis-
sion would be empowered to grant
them a sum equal to that granted to
the Presbyterians, and which would be
about the same in amount as that
granted to the Catholics. And fur-
ther, so long as they undertook to keep
the churches in repair, they might be
permitted to retain possession of them
at a nominal rent, for their own use
only; and that when or where they had
no congregation sufficient to maintain
the church, then the buildings should
1852.
551
TO DR. GRAY.

be at the disposal of the Commission
to let or sell, as might be thought best.
In the case of the Protestant Episcopa-
lians, as with the Presbyterians and the
Catholics, whatever sum is given to
them must be given absolutely and for
ever, that henceforth they may rely on
their own resources and become a volun-
tary and independent Church.
The State would thus have distri-
buted about 3,000,000l. of the original
fund, and would have relinquished all
claims upon it for ever; and it would
be the duty of the Commission to take
care that those grants were applied, in
the first instance, for the purposes and in
the manner intended by the Act. The
remaining 5,000,000l. or 7,000,000l., as
the case might be, might, and in my
opinion ought, to be reserved for pur-
poses strictly Irish, and directed to the
educational and moral improvement of
the people, without respect to class or
creed. This fund would extend and
perfect the educational institutions of
the country; it would establish and
endow free libraries in all the chief
towns of Ireland, and would dispense
blessings in many channels for the free
and equal enjoyment of the whole popu-
lation. Of course there will be objec-
tions started to this scheme, as there
will be to any scheme which attempts
to remedy an injustice which has lasted
for centuries. The Church party' may,
and probably will, denounce it as a plan
of spoliation most cruel and unholy;
but no man who proposes to remedy
Irish ecclesiastical wrongs can expect to
find favour with the sect whose supre-
macy he is compelled to assail. We
must hope that State patronage has not
so entirely demoralised the members of
the Protestant Episcopalian sect, either
in England or Ireland, as to leave none
among them who are able to see what
is just on this question, and who are
willing that what is just should be done.
I believe there are many intelligent and
earnest Churchmen, and some eminent
politicians connected with the Estab-
lished Church, who would welcome
almost any proposition which afforded
a hope of a final settlement of this
question.
From Scotland, and probably from
certain quarters in England, we may
hear of the great crime of handing
over 1,000,000l. sterling to the Roman
Catholics of Ireland. It will, perhaps,
be insisted upon, that to add to the
means of a Church whose teaching is
held to be erroneous' is a grievous
national sin; and many will honestly
doubt the wisdom of a scheme which
proposes such an appropriation of a
portion of a great public fund. Now,
there is not a man in the United King-
dom more averse to religious endow-
ments by the State than I am. I object
to the compulsory levying of a tax from
any man to teach any religion, and still
more to teach a religion in which he
does not believe; and I am of opinion
that, to take a Church into the pay of
the State, and to place it under the con-
trol of the State, is to deaden and cor-
rupt the Church, and to enlist its influ-
ence on the side of all that is evil in the
civil government. But in the plan now
suggested the Irish sects or Churches
would be left entirely free, as is the
Free Church in Scotland, or the Wes-
leyan Methodist Church in England.
The grants once made, each Church
would possess absolutely its own funds,
just as much as if they were the accu-
mulations of the voluntary contributions
and liberality of past generations of its
members, and thus would be avoided
the damage to religion and to civil go-
vernment which is inseparable from
what is called the union of Church
and State; whilst the sum granted to
each Church, being equal to a provi-
sion of about 40,000l. per annum, would
be too small to create any important
corporate influence adverse to the pub-
lic interest.
As to the complaint that the sum of
1,000,000l. is proposed to be given to
the Irish Catholics, I will ask any man
with a head to comprehend and a heart
to feel, to read the history of Ireland,
not from the time of Henry VIII, but
from the accession of William III, and
ז
552
OCT. 25,
LETTER OF JOHN BRIGHT
if he insists upon a settlement of this
question by grants to the Protestant
sects, and by the refusal of any corre-
sponding grant to the Roman Catholics,
I can only say that his statesmanship is
as wanting in wisdom as his Protest-
antism lacks the spirit of Christianity.
If, for generations, a portion of the Pro-
testants of Ireland, few in number but
possessing much wealth, have enjoyed
the large ecclesiastical revenues of a
whole kingdom; and if, during the
same period, the Roman Catholics, the
bulk of the population, but possessing
little wealth, have been thrown entirely
on their own limited resources, and
under circumstances of political and
social inferiority, can it be possible,
when an attempt shall be made to re-
medy some of the manifold injustice of
past times, that any Englishman or any
Scotchman will be found to complain
of the impartiality of the Government,
and, in his zeal for Protestantism, to
forget the simple obligations of justice?
But it may be objected that it is con-
trary to sound policy to make grants of
public money to any public body, or
corporation, or sect, not submitting to
State control-that, in fact, a Church
receiving anything from the State should
be a State Church. No one is more
sensible of the weight and soundness of
this argument than I am; but observe
the peculiarities of this case. I start
from the point that henceforth there
shall be no Church in Ireland in con-
nection with the State.' I have to free
the Protestant Episcopalian sect and the
Presbyterians from their State connec-
tion; and to make the Irish sects volun-
tary Churches for the future. I propose
an appropriation of about one-third of
existing ecclesiastical property in Ire-
land, with a view to soften the apparent
severity of the change to the sects here-
tofore paid by the State, and to make
some amends to that majority of the
Irish population, the injustice of whose
past treatment is admitted by all the
world. The Protestants of Ireland have
done hitherto little for themselves, be-
cause the bounty of the State has para-
lysed their exertions, or made exertion
unnecessary. The Catholics have done
much for themselves; but they are in
great poverty, and our existing eccle-
siastical legislation has been felt, and is
now felt, by them to be grievously un-
just. Would it not be worth the con-
cession of the sum I have suggested,
and of the deviation from ordinary rule
which I venture to recommend, to ob-
tain the grand result which is contem-
plated by the change now proposed? I
have said that there will be objections
to this scheme and to every scheme.
The grievance is centuries old, and
around it are entwined interests, pre-
judices, fanaticism, animosities, and con-
victions. It is a desperate evil, and
whoever waits till the remedy is plea-
sant to everybody may and will wait
for ever. The object in view is the
tranquillity of Ireland. The means are
simple, but altogether novel in that un-
happy country-to do full and impar-
tial justice to her whole population. I
propose to leave the Presbyterians as
well circumstanced as they are now,
with this exception, that all future ex-
tension of their organisation must be
made at their own cost; and I would
place the Protestant Episcopalians in as
good a position as the Presbyterians.
The Catholics only could have any
ground of complaint, owing to their
numbers so far exceeding those of the
Protestant sects; but in the application
of the remainder, and much the largest
portion of the funds, for educational or
other purposes, they would participate
exactly in proportion to their numbers;
and I have a strong belief that, so far
as they are concerned, such an arrange-
ment as is now suggested would be
accepted as a final settlement of a most
difficult and irritating question.
As you know, I am neither Roman
Catholic, Protestant Episcopalian, nor
Presbyterian, nor am I an Irishman.
My interest in this matter is not local
or sectarian. I have endeavoured to
study it, and to regard it as becomes
an Englishman loving justice and free-
dom, anxious for the tranquillity of
1852.
553
TO DR. GRAY.
Ireland, the welfare of the Empire, and
the honour of the Imperial Govern-
ment. I believe that statesmanship
does not consist merely in preserving
institutions, but rather in adapting them
to the wants of nations, and that it is
possible so to adapt the institutions of
Ireland to the wants and circumstances
of Ireland, that her people may become
as content as the people of England and
Scotland are, with the mild monarchy
under which we live. Some experience
and much reflection have convinced me
that all efforts on behalf of industry and
peace in Ireland will be in great part
unavailing until we eradicate the senti-
ment which is universal among her
Catholic population-that the Imperial
Government is partial, and that to be-
long to the Roman Catholic Church is
to incur the suspicion or the hostility of
the law. A true 'equality' established
among the Irish sects would put an end
to this pernicious but all-pervading senti-
ment; and Catholics, whether priests or
laymen, would feel that the last link of
their fetters was at length broken. Su-
premacy on the one hand, and a degrad-
ing inferiority on the other, would be
abolished, and the whole atmosphere of
Irish social and political life would be
purified. Then, too, Christianity would
appeal to the population, not as a per-
secuting or a persecuted faith, with her
features disfigured by the violence of
political conflict, but radiant with the
divine beauty which belongs to her, and
speaking with irresistible force to the
hearts and consciences of men.
I know not if the statesman be among
us who is destined to settle this great
question, but whoever he may be he will
strengthen the monarchy, earn the grati-
tude of three kingdoms, and build up for
himself a lasting renown. I am sensible
that in writing this letter, and in ex-
pressing the views it contains, I run the
risk of being misunderstood by some
honest men, and may subject myself to
misrepresentation and abuse. It is under
a solemn sense of duty to my country,
and to the interests of justice and reli-
gion, that I have ventured to write it.
I have endeavoured to divest myself of
all feeling of preference for, or hostility
to, any of the Churches or sects in
Ireland, and to form my judgment in
this matter upon principles admitted by
all true statesmanship, and based on the
foundations of Christian justice. If I
should succeed in directing the atten-
tion of any portion of those most deeply
interested to some mode of escape from
the difficulties with which this question
is surrounded, I shall willingly submit
to the suspicions or condemnation of
those who cannot concur with me in
opinion. I wish this long letter were
more worthy of its purpose. As it is, I
send it to you, and you may make what-
ever use of it you think will be likely to
serve the cause of 'religious equality' in
Ireland.
Believe me to be, very truly yours,
JOHN BRIGHT.
ROCHDALE,
October 25, 1852.
ཏྭཱ?
1
A.
INDEX.
ABERDEEN, LORD, anecdote of, 219.
Abolitionists in England, 147.
Absenteeism, remedy for, 189.
Accidents, how they happen to nations,
334; political nature of, 355-
Acland, Mr., his 'Imperial Poll-Book,'
394.
Acland, Mr. T. D., his candidature at
Birmingham, 336.
Adams, J. Q., abolitionist, 145.
Adams, Mr., his appointment as Minis-
ter for the United States, 68; his
arrival, 95.
Adderley, Mr., his statement about two
provinces in British North America,
81; his objections to a 147. franchise,
362.
Addison, anecdote related by, 208.
Administrations, what rules them in
the House of Commons, 80; succes-
sive, have shown no statesmanship
about Ireland, 178.
Adullam, cave of, 349.
Affghan war, costs of, should have been
borne by England, 46; conduct of,
60; author of, 104.
Africa, supply of cotton from, 106;
tribes in, and their idols, 458.
Agency, legal, hateful system, 402.
Agitation, political, patriotism in Ire-
land, 184; substitute for revolution,
326; for reform, what it is, 399.
Agricultural distress, Mr. Disraeli's
comments on, 422; Committee for,
refused, 444.
"
Agricultural interest,' does not include
labourers, 430; is said to suffer dis-
tress, 431; doubtfully, ib.
Agricultural labourer, low condition of,
in England, 117; condition of, 449-50.
Agricultural meetings, language held at,
443.
Agricultural Society, its gifts, 419.
Agricultural Societies, long since politi-
cal, 393.
Alabama,' case of the, 70, III.
Alabamas,' builders and abettors of,
127.
Alarms, of those who hear the speaker
advocate extension of the franchise,
284.
Alban's, St., raid on, 65.
Algiers, occupation of, by France, as
violent as that of Principalities by
Russia, 232.
Alien Bill, proposed, 93.
Aliens, proceeding of House of Com-
mons in case of, 526.
Allegiance, Oath of, taken by House of
Commons, 180.
Alliances dangerous, friendships prefer-
able, 238.
Ambition, when honest, valuable, 453.
Amendments, in Bills of Supply, power
of Lords to make, 492.
America, future prospects of, 139.
American colonies, population of, before
War of Independence, 86.
American lakes and Black Sea, no
analogy between, 268.-
American nation, jealousy of, in Great
Britain, 75; not likely to be ‘de-
stroyed,' 123.
American people, naturally irritable,
95; their irritation indicates their
appreciation of English opinion, 96;
hopes and future of, 114.
American Union, high aims of, in the
sacrifices of the war, 73.
American war, opinions on, divided in
England, 110; impossible to enter-
tain mere neutrality on, 122.
556
INDEX.
Americanizing, fear of, by bewildered
Reformers, 289.
Americanizing institutions, phrase of
some cunning knave, intended to
catch simple dupes, 300.
Amphibious, reports of the Bishop of
London being, 521.
Annexation, policy of, 47.
Annexations in India, 24.
Anonymous writing, speaker's opinions
on, 448.
April 10, 1848, panic on, or before,
327.
Arbitration, should be adopted in claims
of the United States, 74.
Argyll, Duke of, his speech fair and
friendly, 90.
Aristocracy, not be thralls of, 421.
Aristocracy, absentee, an expression of
Mr. Disraeli, 201.
Aristocracy, British, some members of
the, not traitors to freedom, 112.
Aristocracy, English, contains worthy
men, 198.
Aristocracy of land and wealth, usurp
power in England, 394.
Aristocratical influence, worth nothing
in Ireland, 173.
Arithmetic, in relation to Reform, dan-
gerous to Mr. Disraeli, 286.
Arundel, representation of, according to
Mr. Disraeli, 360.
Ashworth, Henry, President of the
Chamber of Commerce, Manchester,
104.
Astonishment, howl of, at proposals for
Reform, 307.
Atlantic cable, utterances on Reform
like the condition of, 280.
Attorney-General, the (Sir R. Palmer),
his speech about the Alabama,' 71.
Auckland, Lord, Governor-General of
India, 60.
Audience, magnitude of, at Birmingham,
37I.
Austin, Mr., his statements about Car-
marthen in 1834, 323.
Austria, declining strength of (1853),
232; consequences of her joining
Russia (1855), 263.
Ayrton, Mr., his Committee rejected
voting-papers, 401; his opinion on
agents, 403.
B.
Baines, Mr., his statistics on education,
53I.
Balance of power, omission of, from
Mutiny Bill, 221; hackneyed term
Turkey has nothing to do with it,
231; fruitful cause of war, 232;
nearly (1865) dead and buried, 331;
in representation, a phrase of Lord
Stanley, 354.
Ballot, importance of, in Ireland, 194;
Mr. Mill's scruples about, 205; ad-
vantages of, in Ireland, ib.; necessity
of, 287; objections to, from County
Members, 297; value of, political and
moral, 309, 310; to be adopted, after
proposal of voting-papers, 400; per-
missive, speaker opposed to, 404.
Banbury, election at, 322.
Bancroft, Mr., his opinion on the his-
tory of America, 98; his description
of a failure in providing a constitu-
tion for Carolina, 202.
Basis, diplomatic, meaning of, 255.
Bateson, Mr., his views on the contri-
bution of Ulster, 165.
Bazley, Mr., President of the Chamber
of Commerce, Manchester, 104.
Beales, Mr., his description of existing
representation, 378.
Beer-houses, how licensed, 512.
Belfast orators, advised enforcement of
law, not amendment, 190.
Belgium, criminal law of, 505.
Benefit of the poor, strolling players
acted for, 426.
Benett, Mr., his desire that he had been
born an agricultural labourer, 419.
Benevolence in politics, not worth any-
thing beside justice, 381.
Ben Jonson, quotation from, 365.
Bentham, hobgoblin argument, 312.
Bentinck, Mr., in the same lobby with
the speaker, 77.
Bigelow papers quoted, 339, 390.
Bill, Reform, speaker has prepared one,
302.
Birmingham, Mr. Bright's election at,
the speaker's acknowledgment of,
278; scanty representation of, 285;
action of, in 1832, 377; minority
vote in, 409; speaker humiliated by
INDEX.
557
sitting for, except by the majority,
413.
Birney, Mr., of Alabama, 145.
Birth, monstrous and adulterous, a
spiritual peer, 284.
Bishops, Lord J. Russell alternately
tyrant and vassal of, 517; value of
their opinions, 526; their congratu-
lations on the Government scheme of
education, 534.
Black Sea, preponderance of Russia in,
256; neutral sea, 257.
Blair, Mr. Austin, his opinion on capital
punishment, 507.
Blair, Colonel, his death in the war,
245.
Blockade, character of, 120.
Blood, English, what, if marked on map
of world, 472.
Blue Book of Government in 1866, 372.
Board of Control, frequent changes in
Presidents of, 4.
Boasts, uttered by nations, not patriotic,
rational, or moral, III.
Bond Street, sentiment expressed by a
Member of the House in, 94.
Bond Street, Old, office in, 326.
Booker, Mr., his theories on the fall of
rent, 431.
Borough franchise, the Bill of 1865,
344; should be on a household basis,
391.
Boroughs, state of representation of,
295; rotten character of, 296; dis-
tribution of representation in, 387.
Boroughs, small, scandals of; refuge
for political destitutes, 322.
Boroughs, Welsh, character of, 323.
Boroughs with three Members, 410.
Boston (U.S.), report of Chamber of
Commerce in, 130.
Botanical gardens, notices on, 286.
Botany Bay, impression taken by Mr.
Lowe and Mr. Marsh, 350; view of
Englishmen, should be got rid of,
383.
Boundaries, alterations of, suggested by
Bill of 1859, 320.
Boyle, Colonel, anecdote of; his death,
245.
Bradshaw, a Parliamentary, the lines of
which converge in Downing Street,
369.
Brazil, supply of cotton from, 106;
slavery in, threatened, 118.
Bribe to another Church, a buttress to
Irish, 207.
Bright, Mr., his scheme of Indian Go-
vernment, 105; his policy in Par-
liament, 246.
Bristol Banquet, Lord Stanley at, on
Irish affairs, 201, 215.
British Association, sums expended by
the, in Irish relief, 164.
Broth, containing half-a-dozen poisonous
ingredients, will not make a whole-
some dish, 390.
Brotherton, Mr., his representation of
Salford, 522.
Broughton, Lord, averse to a Committee
on Indian affairs, 2; President of
Board of Control in Affghan war, 62.
Brown, Mr. G., Canadian Minister, 338.
Buchanan, Mr., expiry of his office, 129.
Buckingham, Duke of, sale of his land
in Somerset and consequent benefit,
205.
Budget, of 1859, satisfactory, 481.
Buffoonery, the, at the Reform Club,
245.
Bunting, Mr., his evidence, his politics,
538.
Buol, Count, his proposition, 261.
Burke, Mr., his opinion in 1791, about
Turkey, 231.
Burmese war, criticism of, 24.
Burnes, Sir Alex., mutilation of his
despatches, 59.
Buttress to Irish Church in bribe to
another Church, 207.
Buxton, Mr. C., his scheme, 335.
C.
Cabinet, the, some Members of, not
traitors to freedom, 112; composition
of, 315.
Cairns, Sir H. (Lord), his project of
Reform, 368.
Calamity, political value of, in Great
Britain, 105; measureless, the Ame-
rican war, 113.
Calcutta, newspapers of, 478.
Calne, Mr. Lowe's experiences at, 350;
retained by Mr. Disraeli in 1859, 360.
Cameron, Mr., evidence of, as to Indian
558
INDEX.
law, 9; as to the employment of
natives, II.
Campbell, Mr., quotation from his work
on India, 4; on revenue of India,
14.
Canada, relations with United States,
65; an opportunity for humiliating
Great Britain, 73; cannot be pro-
tected against the United States in
war, 77; no risk of war between the
United States and, 78; protective
system of, ib.; representation of, based
on population, 82; defence of, who is
to find it, 83; cheapness of living in,
greater than in England, ib.; exposed
to danger by Irish, 186.
Canadian Confederation, magnitude of
the scheme, 81.
Canadian fortifications, partly to be
borne by Canada, 78.
Canadian life peerage, not likely to
work well, 82.
Candidates, pledges of, at hustings, what
they are worth, 442.
Canning, Lord, proclamation of, 35;
not likely to do knowingly what was
unjust, 39; his relations to the Civil
Service, 50.
Capital, large amount of, necessary in
slave labour, 139; amount of, paying
legacy duty, in England and Ireland,
167; easy migration of, 265.
Cardwell, Mr., motion of, regarding the
despatch of Lord Ellenborough, 34.
Carlisle, Earl of, his lecture quoted, 302.
Carlow borough, election at, 322.
Carlton Club, its agencies, 323.
Carmarthen, borough of, 323.
Carnage, accompaniment of war, 140.
Carnarvon and Denbigh Herald, quota-
tions from, 531.
Catharine, Empress, her Grand Code,
505.
Catholic emancipation, the Duke of
Wellington's concession of, 396.
Catholic priests, suggestions for paying,
160.
Catholic University, proposal to endow,
207.
Catholics, Irish, should support their
own clergy, 150; independence of,
and success of voluntary principle
among, 543.
Cavour, his opinion on the American
question, 112.
Cecil, Lord Robert, his policy towards
United States, 66. See Cranborne,
Lord.
Ceylon, a precedent for Indian govern-
ment, 27; cost of officials in, low, 48;
council of, how composed, 55.
Chalmers, Dr., his opinion of Corn-
laws, 384.
Chambers of Commerce, urging Go-
vernment to take possession of Bor-
neo, 472.
Chancellor, Lord, Irish, in 1849, per-
sonal worthiness of, but timid and
inert, 171.
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Glad-
stone), his speech at Newcastle, 72;
believed that chances of success to
the Northern arms were hopeless,
108; his opinion on American war,
113; did understand Irish question
in 1865, 178. See Gladstone, Mr.
Change, political, induces disturbance,
335; no more demanded, if ancient
franchise were accorded, 391.
Change of opinion, may take place be-
tween promise and election, 404.
Changes, within fifty years (1845), of
a material character, 415.
Changes, political, within twenty-five
years (1843-68), 220.
Channing, Dr., in favour of freedom, 145.
Chapman, Maria W., her efforts, 145.
Charities, how perverted, 534.
Chatterton, quotation from, 297.
Cheated, sometimes as pleasant to be,
as to cheat, 536.
Child, Lydia Maria, her efforts, 145.
Children, chief pleasure of domestic
life, 141.
China, Emperor of, anecdote of, in re-
lation towards his people, 180.
China war, motion on, Mr. Bright not
in Parliament during, 353.
'Chivalrous_gentlemen,' real mob in
the United States, 74.
Chobham, camp at, 460.
Christianity, unfriendly to war, 464.
Christy minstrels, like Lord Derby's
Government, 375.
Church, is it true that people are against
the? 340.

INDEX.
559
Church, alien, an expression of Mr.
Disraeli, 201.
Church, Established, paroxysm of terror
of, at 'Papal aggression,' 521; influ-
ence of, favoured by Government plan
of education, 534; likelihood of her
members in England supporting their
own worship, 544-
Church established in Ireland, case of
England and Wales, 194.
Church Establishment, Irish, marvel
that it is not uprooted (1860), 543.
Church, Irish, a fo:eign Church, 185;
Lord Stanley's opinion about, 206;
Lord Mayo would give it a buttress
by another bribe, 207; doomed, 208;
not worth one good man raising his
voice in support of, 521.
Church rates, persecution for, in Cam-
bridge, 151; repeal of, accepted in
the speaker's own terms, 206; course
of motion to repeal, 297; effect of
contests for, in Rochdale, 540; plans
for abolishing, 541.
Church, Scotch, many wish it disestab-
lished, 210.
Cimeter, worship of, among Scythians,
478-9.
'City,' the, its opinion on political
questions, 67.
Civil Service, rate of paying, 23.
Civil Service of India, facilities for na-
tives entering, little, 56; overpaid,
48; arrogant, 50.
Civil war in America, 118; infamous
conspiracy against rights of human
nature, 119; what may follow after
it has ceased, 132; character of, 146.
Clamour, out of doors, how to be satis-
fied, 522; charged by officials on their
opponents, 533.
Clarendon, Lord, his expression that the
Government 'drifted into' the Rus-
sian war, 236; extract from speech
of, 254; said that Europe was stand-
ing on a mine, i. e. Russia, 263; invited
to take office under Lord Derby, 375.
Class against class, much more set by
Mr. Lowe and Mr. Marsh, 350.
Classes, no such thing as House of, 368.
Clay, Sir William, his opinions criticised,
259.
Clergy, Irish, may be good and pious,
but an evil as established, 187; in an
unfortunate position, 212.
Clive, Lord, origin of Indian Govern-
ment with him, 101.
Cobb, Mr., his opinions on reducing all
labourers to slavery, 119.
Cobden, Mr., the drift of his speech
misinterpreted by Lord Palmerston,
242; his opinion on the President of
the Board of Works (Sir W. Moles-
worth), 266; reviled for his theory of
non-intervention, 331; his offer of
office, 339; his speech at Rochdale,
446; his power with Government,
according to Admiral Napier, 460.
Coercion Bills, Irish, in abundance, 178.
Collier, Mr. (Sir R.), opinion of, on the
'Alabama,' II2.
Colonial Government, improvements in,
476.
Colonial Office, hastiness of, in the Con-
federation, 81.
Colonies, Lord Russell found fault with
Mr. Bright for objecting to expense
of colonies, 91; franchise in, 338; ex-
perience of, effects on emigrants, 454.
Commercial preponderance, followed by
every other, 257.
Commission, comparison of, with Com-
mittee, 503.
Commission, Devon, speaker's study of,
199; improvement of Ireland since,
200.
Commission, Indian, report of, 8.
Commission on Punishment of Death,
how it should be constituted, 510.
Commission, Royal, of 1850, to inquire
into India, not granted, 102 seq.
Commissioners, Southern, seizure of,
96.
Committee on Game Laws, hopes of
speaker that it may be useful, 441.
Committee of House of Commons on
Cotton in 1847, 101.
Committees of House of Commons,
value of, 102; what their worth is,
298; rarely constituted with fairness,
503.
Common sense and common honesty,
so called because they are rare, 443.
Commons, House of, disavowed the
policy of confiscation, 38; why so
called, 293; what it should be, 294;
560
INDEX.
guarantee of freedom, 340; best judge
of what is necessary for trade, 496;
its opinion on the Jew Bill, 526.
Company, East India, character of their
despatches, 56; renewal of charter in
1853, 104.
Companies, London, not much good;
might be constrained to sell their
land in Ireland, 204.
Concession, no use in making, to a bad
cause, 125-
Confederate loan, character and ends of,
127.
Confiscation in Oude, 35.
Conquest, belief of some that it pro-
motes trade, 472.
Conscription, necessity of, which should
call out Mr. Roebuck, 138.
Conservatism, national peril, 341.
Conservative, resistance not always, 328;
foundation of revolution has been
laid by those who pretend to be spe-
cially, 358.
Conservative party, in House of Com-
mons, toast at Torquay, 341; bound
to support the Bill of 1866, 369;
always despairing, 542.
Conservatives, incompetency and hu-
mility of, 314.
Consolidated fund, proposed to put
local taxation on, 433.
Conspiracy, if dirty, the dirt was that of
Lord Stanley and his friends, 354;
alternative to, open demonstration,
393.
Conspiracy Bill, voting on, 353.
Constantinople, focus of intrigues and
factions, 226.
Constituencies, great borough, have
effected reforms, 383.
Constitution, of England, not enjoyed
by the people, 116; security of in
England, but sorrows under in Ire-
land, 175; who were real framers of
it, 352; has no more regard to Crown
and aristocracy than it has to the
people, 374
Constitution, British, what is it? 294.
Continental war, effects of, 463.
Control, Board of, mischievous charac-
ter of, 19.
Corn-laws, repeal of, how brought
about, 296; why repealed, 367; how
treated by Parliament, 380; circum-
stances of, 396; attempt to re-impose,
impracticable, 428; action of the
Times about, 455.
Corruption of existing representation,
379.
Cotton, growth of, cause why slavery
was maintained, 87; could not have
been produced under Indian govern-
ment, IoI; supply of, from United
States, ib.; that in the United States
(1862) less than expected, 106; no
more will be grown by slave labour,
ib.; deficiency of, ib.; slow growth of
supply, ib.; permission given by
United States to export, 120; de-
struction of, by Southern commanders,
127; nearly ninety per cent. of, from
Southern States, 130; increase of, in
America, when slavery is abolished,
133; Mr. Bright's interest in it, Lord
R. Cecil's prodigious interest in it,
138; supply of, insecure under slavery,
ib.
Cotton district, area of, small, 130.
Cotton famine, extent of, 100.
Cotton industry an insecure foundation,
131.
Cotton supply, prospects of, under free
labour, 139.
Cotton, Colonel, despatch of, in 1849, 9.
Cotton, Sir Arthur, his suggestions in
Manchester, 105.
Council, nominated by Governor-Gene-
ral in Canada, 82.
Counties, franchise in, no reason why
not as extensive as in boroughs, 285;
increase should be given to, 357.
County elections, costs of, 402.
County franchise, in the Bill of 1865,
344; deplorable condition of, 3×8.
County voters, should be resident in
them, 400.
Country, the, capable of producing great
warriors, 464.
Country party, difficult for them to
frame a Reform Bill, 321.
Covenanted service of India, nature
of, 2.
Coventry, borough of, 326.
Cranborne, Lord, his unsleeping ill-will,
72; his objection to working-men
being called our own flesh and blood,
INDEX.
561
390; his defence of voting-papers,
402; virtually gives a ballot for rich
people, 403; said the magistrate's
drawing-room would be the polling-
booth, ib.; perfectly consistent, 407.
Crime, absence of, in Ireland, 184;
state of (1851), 435.
Crimea, destructive character of war in,
140; sufferings of soldiers in the,
249.
Crimean war characterized, 85.
Crimes, national, for a long period, not
to be washed away by an hour's re-
pentance, 106.
Criminal law, improvements in the,
476.
Criticism, hostile, of speaker's views on
Reform, 293.
Crotchety people, introduction of, to
House of Commons, 408.
Crown, can take no direct part in affairs,
180; convenience, dignity, nobleness
of, more fully recognized, 220; re-
spect entertained for, 293; conflict
with, 145; independence of, not at-
tacked by Papal Bull, 519.
Cuba, slavery in, threatened, 118.
Cumming, Dr., his advice, 517.
Curry powder, commended by Duke of
Norfolk, 420.
D.
Dalhousie, Earl of (Governor-General
of India), value of his opinion on
India, 3; end of Indian policy with,
101.
Dallas, Mr., his resignation, 68; his de-
parture, 95.
Daniel the prophet, turned to Jerusalem,
187.
Danish question, English Government
ought not to meddle with, 190.
Dante, quotation from, 190, 479.
Darby, Mr., head of Enclosure Commis-
sion, 319.
Davies, Mr., evidence of, as to Guzerat,
14.
Davis, Mr. (President of Southern States),
no knowledge of him, 141.
Debt, Indian, 13.
Debt, National, some consider an ad-
vantage, 469.
Declamation, cataracts of, in House of
Commons, 345.
Deer, sacred animal, 305.
Defence, public duty of, 478.
Deficit in Indian revenue, 13.
De la Cour, French Ambassador at Con-
stantinople, his instructions, 242.
Delane, Mr. John, editor of the Times,
his controversy with Mr. Cobden, 447.
Delusion, devilish, that slavery is divine,
146; of war panic, 475.
Democracy, no fear of, but of claims of
people, 341.
Demonstrations in London in favour of
Reform, 389.
Demonstrations, open, alternative to
conspiracy, 393.
Denmark, policy of Government about,
unsatisfactory to many Liberals, 70;
risks of war on behalf of, 329.
' Deplorable rubbish,' Bill of 1859 de-
scribed as, by a speaker, 321.
Derby, Lord, doing what Lord North
did, 186; his opinion on county re-
presentation, 295; his accession to
office a declaration of war against
the working classes, 374; asked Lord
Clarendon to take office under him,
375; his statesmanship and patriotism,
389; his mission to stem democracy,
ib.; he and his rejected the Reform
Bill, 397; fomenter of discord, 398;
his opinion of minority representation,
408; his 'leap in the dark,' 412.
Derby principle, repudiated in the Co-
lonies, &c., 376.
Development, diplomatic meaning of,
255.
Devise, power of, extent it should be,
454.
Devon, Lord, his imitation of Mr.
Disraeli's language, 332.
Dhar, facts in relation to, 50.
Dickinson, Mr., Secretary of the Indian
Reform Society, referred to, 33.
Digestion, formidable and robust, of
Torquay gentlemen, 334.
Dillon, Mr., his death a loss to Ireland,
183.
Diplomacy, what it is, 314.
Directors, India, future number of, by
Act of 1853, 15.
Disaffection, Irish, is wide-spread, 159;
36
562
INDEX,
}
}
f
would be cured by possession of land,
204.
>
Disestablishment, speaker's plan of, 210.
Disraeli, Mr., his sensible judgment on
the American war, 73; his diffidence,
77; spoke of 'Confederation' as a
matter of extreme urgency, 82; la-
mented that suspension of Habeas
Corpus was not perpetual in Ireland,
178; his description of Irish society,
201; differs from Lord Stanley, 215;
his courage, or some other quality, in
saying there is no crisis in Ireland,
218; his belief that the Russian was
a 'just and unnecessary war,' 224;
his phrase, the Dutch conquest,'
265; his genius, 314; his opinion on
public expenditure, ib.; quotation from
his speech of February 28, 1859, 359;
his subtle understanding, 362; expec-
tations as to his Reform policy, 389;
his change of vote without change of
views, 406; thinks that whole com-
munity should bear part of the bur-
dens of agriculture, 423; his proposal
shrouded in mystery and confusion,
424; has abandoned Protection, 430 ;
admits that fall of rent is no claim for
relief, 432; convert to Free Trade in
1859, 480; his rejected Budget, 500.
Dissenters, why unfriendly to grants for
religious purposes, 152; their rela-
tions to education, 530.
Dissolution, should have taken place in
1866, 379.
Distribution, Mr. Disraeli's scheme of,
in 1859, 359-60; of voters to repre-
sentation, 379.
Distribution and representation, 282.
Distribution of Seats, under Bill of
1865, 354.
Division of United States, desired by
Mr. Roebuck, 137.
Divisions, number of, on Jew Bill, 526.
Doctrine, difference of, probably per-
manent, 525.
Dorsetshire, labourers of, as interested
in peace as those of Lancashire or
Suffolk, 270.
Dost Mahommed, Sir A. Burnes, agent
at court of, 60.
Doubled peerage, and more than doubled
pauperism, 332.
Drawing-room of magistrates, polling-
booth, 403.
Drayford, should be Draycot, changes in,
205.
Drifted into war with Russia, 97, 315.
Droitwich, description of borough of,
320.
Drouyn de Lhuys, despatch of, 243.
Drunkenness, remedies for, 511; habits
of, among gentlemen, passed away,
512.
Dublin election, committee for, in-
ferences supplied by, 160.
Dunkirk, fortifications of, 487.
Dunlop, Mr., motion of, on Affghan
war, 54.
Dunne, Colonel, his opinion on Irish
matters, 169.
Durham letter, effects of Lord J. Russell's
writing the, 516.
Durham, Lord, his opinions on Reform,
308.
'Dutch conquest, the,' phrase of Mr.
Disraeli, 265.
E.
Earthquake, pills good against, 207;
its tread inaudible, 456.
Eastern question, difference in Cabinet
on, 236.
Ecclesiastical establishments, extent of,
in India, 12.
Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, repudiated by
all classes, 521.
Education, effect of priesthood on liberty
when it interferes with, 534.
Education in India, extent of, 12.
Egypt, supply of cotton from, 106;
temples of, for worship of reptiles,
315.
Elcho, Lord, 'brimful of enthusiasm for
impossible projects,' 221.
Election, mode of, in United States, 88.
Elections, cost of, 380.
Electors, number of, 305; number of,
introduced by Lord Derby in 1859,
360; number of, who poll, 395.
Elizabeth, Empress, her edict on capital
punishment, 505.
Elizabeth, Queen, her principles not to
be adopted, 523.
Ellenborough, Lord, despatch of, 33.
INDEX.
563
Ellice, Mr., an extraordinary hallucina-
tion of his, 326.
Emigration, ties of, and amount of, 134;
voluntary, its character, 172; amount
of (1863), 456.
Emigration to free America, amount of,
113; amount of, in fifteen years, 117.
Emperor of France, his present engage-
ments (1863), 136.
Empire, British, not diminished as to
power and authority by being made
less, 79.
Employers of labour, favour extension
of suffrage, 328.
Encumbered Estates Bill, delayed, 155.
England, general policy of, friendly to
the United States, 73; duty of, in
American war, to be neutral, 90;
professes to hate slavery and love
free government, ib.; would certainly
fight for Gibraltar, 109; causes why
some people in, veered round during
American war, 129; law of entail
less mischievous in, than in Ireland,
161; ancient country of Parliaments,
333; under no danger from priest-
craft, 523.
English army in India, when small, con-
siderate to natives, 49.
English language, durability of, 76.
English people, consanguinity of, with
United States, 76.
English troops, number of, in Canada, 83.
Englishman, he can always vote except
in England, 334.
Englishman newspaper, quotation from,
43.
'Enjoyment' of great revenue, like en-
joyment of bad health, 473.
Entail and settlement, principles of, 157.
Entails, mischievous character of, in
Ireland, 161, 189.
Established Church, relations of people
to, 280.
Establishment, Irish, absurdity of, 160;
disendowment of, to what extent, ib.;
a chain, the galling of which is more
tormenting than its weight, 187. See
Church.
Europe, state of, has its bearing on
domestic reforms, 328.
European population in India, num-
bers of, 10.
Evictions, Ireland land of, 185.
Evils of Ireland, two, Establishment
and tenure of land, 185.
Excises, abolition of, 496.
Exeter Hall, bray of, a phrase of Mr.
Macaulay, 533.
Exhibition of 1851, fears of Duke of
Wellington at, 327.
Exodus, theories of Sir R. Inglis de-
rived from, 525.
Expenditure, public extent of, 382;
public attention given to, 428; mag-
nitude of, 484.
Exports, relation of taxation to, 460,
F.
Failure, Irish Church a, whether con-
sidered as a political or religious
institution, 217.
Families, great, the patronage they
enjoy, 295.
Famine, Irish, urgency of the, 163.
Fancy propositions of Reform, like
flash notes, 337.
Farm labourers, condition of, 381.
Farmers, their organization, 326; not
in a vicious position by action of
free-traders, 434; independent, should
be encouraged, 438; some have lost
500l. a-year by game-preserving, 439;
pressure of income-tax on, 481.
Farmers' friends, false and true, 438;
good for farmer when he loses con-
fidence in, 442.
Farmers, Irish, bestowal of proprietary
rights on, 202.
Fenianism, existence of, a justification
for remedial measures, 201; would
get no sympathy if occupiers in Ire-
land were owners, 204.
Ferment, what causes it, in the country,
527.
Feudalism unknown in United States,
117; force of, in England, 449.
'Filial piety' of North American pro-
vinces, 82.
Finance, Indian, 12.
Fish-hawk, activity of, 316.
Fitzgerald, Mr. Seymour, his criticism
on government, 68.
Fleets, rivalry in building, 486.
Fletcher, John (of Madeley), his corre-
spondence with Wesley, 509.
$
36-2
564
INDEX.
Fluctuation in trade caused by Corn-
laws, 420.
Food, supply of, hindered by game,
440.
Foreign Office, character of, 315; its
traditions, 487.
Foreign policy, out-door relief to English
aristocracy, 330; nugatory character
of, 460; advantage of, to aristocracy,
470; calamities of, 471–2.
Foreign Secretary, the (Lord Russell),
negligence of, about the Alabama,'
70; his speech at Newcastle, 72.
Formidable, associations of working-
men would be, and therefore recom-
mended, 392.
Forster, Mr. W. E., his opinion of
newspapers, 67; reference of, to
temper of the United States, 74; his
father's self-sacrifice, 142.
Fortifications, naval, in France, 475.
Forty shilling freehold, franchise of,
should be extended to Scotland, 309.
Fox, Chas. Jas., his opinion of Pitt's
policy as regards Turkey in 1791,
231; his theory of Reform in 1797,
299; his Bill of 1797, 308; policy of,
467.
France, slow recognition of United
States by, 110; not bitter to Ameri-
can republic, 137; the originator of
troubles at Constantinople, 225; her
seizure of Algiers, 232; alliance with
Great Britain, 474; trade with, its
importance, 488.
France, Emperor of, his wars, and the
opinion of Europe on them, 486.
Franchise, borough, effect of Bill of
1859 on, 324.
Franchise, lodger, of Bill of 1865, 345;
necessity of settling it for a long
time, 357; never universal in Eng-
land, 368; proportion who possess
it, 387.
Franchise, parochial, antiquity of, 299.
Franchise Bill, brought in first in 1865,
356.
Franchises, in Bill of 1865, 344.
Franklin, Benjamin, his opinion on
virtue, 509.
Free Church in Scotland, effects of,
220; success of, 531.
Freedom to all men, involved in United
States contest, 118; in America, its
action on England, 133.
Freedom, personal, Irish to be deprived
of, by suspending Habeas Corpus,
176; in England, 342.
Freeholders, in towns, excluded from
county representation by Bill of 1859,
319; a diminishing number, 379.
Free-trade, meetings in support of, 417.
French, the, their desire of peace with
England, 487.
French dynasties, cost of, to England,
263.
French Government, the, its good faith
in the Commercial Treaty, 501.
Frenchman (Montalembert), his opinion
on English Parliament, 300.
Frenzy, popular, how to deal with, 98.
Friend of India, quotations from, 6, 7, 52.
Friendship with nations, preferable to
alliances, 238.
Frontier, Canadian, power of defending
it, 77.
G.
Game-laws, cause of attacks on, 297;
grievance of, 381; mischief of, 434;
Committee on, moved for by speaker,
439.
Garibaldi, opinion of, on American
question, 112.
Garrison, Mr. Lloyd, his public career,
145; his services, 146.
Gaul, misery of, in fifth century, drove
many to disbelieve in God's provi-
dence, 167.
Genesis, quotations from, by Sir R.
Inglis, 525.
George Griswold,' the, ship destroyed
by the Alabama,' 71.
Germany, sympathy of, for North, 112;
fighting for, according to Lord J.
Russell, in Russian war, 263.
Gibbon, advice given him by Hume,
76.
Gibraltar, seizure and retention of,
indefensible, 108; Governor of, an
irrational man, 259.
Gladiator, intellectual, Mr. Lowe, 350.
Gladstone, Mr., his hopes frustrated by
the Russian war, 236; will not re-
verse the policy of Sir R. Peel in 1842,
237; supposed to have resisted war
INDEX.
565
with Germany, 339; his statement
that the power of the working-classes
was diminishing, 363; his calculation
as to addition of working-men, 372;
his financial policy satisfactory, 481;
charges against him as a finance min-
ister, 500; the benefits of his financial
policy, 501.
Glasgow, poor-rate in (1848), 164;
sympathy of, with Ireland, 195.
Goderich, Lord, referred to, 34, 37.
Golden-square, Archbishop of, 521.
Gortchakoff, Prince, his arguments
about the guarantee, 256; his words
at Vienna, 260.
Government, seldom defender of free-
dom, 142; negligent of Ireland, 159;
speaks with a different voice from
night to night, 214; its statement
(1854) delusive, and worthy of a
harsher word, 244; necessity of
strong one in 1855, 248; of 1852,
how broken up, 321; present (Nov.
1866), reputed to be engaged with
Reform, 389; corrupted by enormous
revenues, 473; embarrassment of
(1853), 459.
Government, English, unfriendly feel-
ing of, to the United States, 69;
mischievous action of, 134.
Government and Opposition, reciprocal
kind offices of, 80.
Government which is not a govern-
ment, 215.
Governor-General, reasons for abolish-
ing office of, 24; unable to really
comprehend India, 53.
Governor-General of Canada, nominates
Senate, 82.
Governors of dependencies, how they are
to be considered and treated, 40.
Graham, Sir James, his opinion of
Indian reform, 19; his contempt
for the Liverpool petitioners of
1848, 94; his candour about the
Russian war, 97.
Grants, amount of, for education, 535-
Gray, Dr. (Sir John), letter to, on Irish
Church, 547 sqq.; see 209.
Great Britain, condition of industry in
(1855), 250.
Great ruler of France,' phrase of Mr.
Roebuck, 136.
Greatness, national, what constitutes,
75.
Greece, claim on, on behalf of Don
Pacifico, 103; recognition of, slow,
IIO.
Greeley, Horace, his career, 145.
Grey, Lord, his theory of Reform in
1797, 299; his Bill of 1797, 308;
his demeanour, when dealing with
Reform, 333; policy of, 467.
Grey, Lord (the younger), his plan, 335.
Grey, Sir G., spoken before to same
effect as now (on Ireland), 177;
when Secretary in 1848, a great
panic, 327.
Grievance of working-men, what is
it? 394-
Grimke, Sarah and Angelina, their
labours against slavery, 145.
Grosvenor, Lord, scope of his motion,
354.
Grouse, sacred animal, 305.
Guarantee, territorial, what was the, in
the Russian war, 256.
H.
Habeas Corpus, suspended, but also in
Ireland, 93; suspended for three years
in Ireland (March, 1868), 200; sus
pended in Ireland by successive Go-
vernments, 218.
Halliday, Mr., his authority quoted as
to Indian police, 21; his opinion on
the police of Bengal, 53.
Hamilton, Lord C., animated and angry,
204.
Hamilton, Mr., says no over-population
in Ireland, 173.
Harcourt, Admiral, selection of, as
person to transport Cardinal Wise-
man, 517.
Hardy, Mr. G., differs from Lord
Stanley, 215; his fears of volun-
taryism, 219; able and admirable
speech of, about Danish war, 330.
Hare, Mr., his scheme for representing
minorities, 407.
Harwich, borough of, election at, 322.
Hayes, Mr., his statements about the
settlement of land, 163.
Hebrews, Epistle to, quoted, 146.
Henley, Mr., his opinion on numerous
+
566
INDEX.
Reform Bills, 358; quotation from
his speech, 362.
Hennessy, Mr., is in confidence of the
Emperor and acquainted with his
plans, 136.
Heptarchy, no one would restore, why
then should the United States its
parallel? 92; not the commencement
of the voluntary system, 531.
Herald, New York, mischievous aims
of, 95.
Herries, Mr., opinions of, quoted by
Lord J. Russell, 2; shakes his head
at everything said on Liberal side of
the House, 433.
Hobgoblin argument, the, 220, 495.
Hobhouse, Sir J. (Lord Broughton),
opposed a Commission to inquire into
India, 103; the kind of man who is
made a Minister, illustrated in him,
104.
Hole in coat, lasts longer than patch,
388.
Holland, Lord, his opinion about Tur-
key in 1828, 232.
Homestead Act, the, of the United
States, 73, 457.
Hook, Dr., his statistics on education,
53I.
Horncastle, Mr., his efforts against
game-preserving, 437.
Horsman, Mr., his alliance with Mr.
Lowe, 350; on constitutional rights,
352; his inconsistency in dealing with
the Budget of 1860, 489; his opinion
as to the extreme value of the House
of Lords, ib.
Hour and man, present and needed,
172.
House of Commons, which rule, it or
Administration? 80; more than one-
half elected by one-sixth of enfran-
chised, 294; becomes deputy of
House of Lords, 296; motives which
induce people to seek a seat in, 306;
how elected, 376; that of 1866, not
to be trusted, 398; its vote of more
importance than that of House of
Lords, 408; duties and responsibili-
ties of, 413. See Commons.
House of Lords, toast at Torquay, not
Conservative party in, 341; its action
on minority scheme, 413; their action
on the paper-duty, harsh, 497. See
Lords, Peers.
Household franchise, ancient, of the
people, 352; basis of a Reform Bill,
391.
Hume, David, his advice to Gibbon, 76.
Hume, Mr., his resolution of 1848, 256.
Hungary, received no sympathy from
Lord Palmerston, 254; Lord Pal-
merston's treatment of, 462.
Huntingdon, not centre of political life,
412.
I.
Idleness, of Irish, forced, 155.
Idols, numerous, in African tribes, 458.
Ill feeling between England and Ame-
rica, causes of, 115.
Imperial Government, object of hatred
to Irish, 187.
Income-tax, not to be substituted for
rate in aid, 166; doubled during
Russian war but not doubled result,
236; incidence of, 281; hateful and
unjust, 481.
Independence, War of, what was the
question in it, 88.
Independence of Canada, more digni-
fied position, 83.
India, speech of Sir Charles Wood, 1;
vacillation of Government on mea-
sures for, ib.; legislation on, proposed
by Lord J. Russell in 1853, 2; pa-
tionage system and covenanted ser-
vice, character of, ib.; state of, on the
evidence of a private letter, 9; justice,
administration of, in, ib.; European
population of, 10; trade of, with
Great Britain, ib.; education in, 12;
ecclesiastical establishments in, ib.;
finance of, loans of, ib.; debt of, 13;
deficit in revenue of, ib.; results of
the Government policy predicted, 16;
Bill of 1858, 18; deficiency of roads
in, 22; finances of, ib.; loans of, ib.;
population of, 23; languages in, 25;
impossible to always retain it, 28;
proper policy towards, 30; native
princes of, tricked out of their terri-
tories, 31; Court of Appeal for,
necessary, ib.; commission of inquiry
into, necessary, ib.; people of, know
INDEX.
567
t
H
little of parliamentary debates, 34;
executions in, 43; Loan Bill of 1859,
45 seq.; deficits in revenue of, ib.;
debt of, 46; cost of army in, great,
47; amount of troops in (1859), 48;
want of confidence between Euro-
peans and natives, 49; magistrates
in, always moving, 53; police of,
worthless, ib.; policy for, to de-
centralize government, 54; scheme
for government of, ib.; effect of read-
ing Queen's proclamation in, 56;
duty of England to, 58; origin of
our government in, 101; hopes of
cotton from, ib.; plan of stimulating
supply of cotton from, 106; commis-
sion to, on cotton supply, thwarted
by the folly of a foolish Minister,
138; risks of, from Russia, 462; king-
doms in, seized, 471.
India, Government of, irresponsible
in its character, 3; changes of, from
1784 to 1853, 4; what it should be,
19; policy of, fatal to cotton grow-
ing, 101.
C
Indian mutiny, characterized, 85.
Indian reform, real authors of, 105.
Indian trade, monopoly of, 101.
Indians, Red, tribe of, subscribed to
Irish relief, 174.
Influential classes,' mischievous action
of, 134.
Inglis, Sir R., his quotations from
Genesis, 506; his honesty and con-
sistency, 525; origin of his political
morality, ib.; his feelings towards
the Government scheme of educa-
tion, 534.
Inheritance, law of, 281.
Insanity feigned by the Syrian monk,
521.
Inspectors, School, how appointed, 533.
Institutions, how rendered safe, 339.
Insurrection, chronic in Ireland, 177.
Insurrection of slaves, impossible in
Southern States, 132.
Interest on money invested in land, 432.
Intervention, generally calamitous, 239;
Peace Society hostile to, 461; various
kinds of, ib.; futility of, ib.
Intestacy, division of estates under, 450.
Intestate estates, how to deal with, 171.
Intrigues against Bill of 1866, 373.
Invasion of Rome agreed to by Great
Britain, 519.
Inventions introduced from America,
301.
Ireland, crime and outrage in, action of
Government towards, justified, 153;
public sentiment in, degraded, ib.;
misgovernment, all parties culpable
for, 154; difficulty of giving relief to,
158; remedies for, 159; tenure of
land in, how to be reformed, 161;
should be treated as part of England,
ib.; Committee on, recommended rate
in aid, 163; amount of aid contri-
buted to, 164; calamities of, true
authors of, if existent, 166; wretched-
ness of, 167; evils of, extravagance of
proprietors, life interests in, 169; how
to buy land in, 170; state of, 172;
overpopulation of, denied by Messrs.
Hamilton and Twisleton, 173; in-
terest of speaker in, 176; people of
would, if they could, unmoor it, and
take it 2,000 miles away, 177; for
sixty-five years only three Irish re-
forms effected, ib.; constantly insulted
for sixty-five years, 178; suspension
of Habeas Corpus in, no remedy for
disaffection, 181; wrongs of, support-
ed by one who is great on wrongs of
Poland, 186; future of, in obedience
to justice, 190; representation of, de-
scribed, 193-4; acknowledgment of
speaker's sympathy for, 196; earth-
quake in, in Fenianism, 208; accord-
ing to Lord Stanley, in a painful and
dangerous condition, 215; improved
feeling in (1868), 222; condition of,
not desirable for imitation in Eng-
land, 394; favoured field for policy
of Tory party, 397; no sympathy of
Mr. Disraeli with, 425; Ecclesiastical
Titles Bill widened gulf between, and
England, 520.
Irish, the, war party in the United
States, 74; influence of, in United
States, 159; generosity and fidelity
of people to their Church, 210.
Irish in America, influence of, 179; edu-
cation of, ib.; hatred to England of,
180; remittances of, to Ireland, 184.
Irish Church, religious or political insti-
tution, 216.
0
1
568
INDEX.
Irish difficulty, permanent character of
the, 161.
Irish Episcopalians, some favourable
to disestablishment, 219.
Irish Establishment, root of all evils, 150.
Irish matters occupied session of 1849,
166.
Irish Members fail to bring forward
remedies, 154; seldom discuss ques-
tions affecting Great Britain, 543.
Irish people, idle and starving, 155; free
from crime, industrious, joyous, cheer-
ful, grateful, 177; turn to America,
187.
Irish policy of Lord Mayo, grotesque
and imbecile, 207.
Irish proprietors, extravagant, 169.
Irish question, treatment of, force and
alms, 166.
Irish representation, a fraud, 160.
Irish session of Parliament should be
held, 180.
Issachar, the middle class in position of,
388.
Italian war, alluded to, 85.
J.
Jackals, like place-hunters, 470.
Jefferson, Mr., his opinion of slavery,
and the causes which kept it up, 87;
his opinion on newspapers, 122; his
abolition of primogeniture and entail,
45I.
Jervois, Colonel, his report on defences
of Canada, 64.
Jew Bill, why the speaker did not earlier
address the House on, 524.
Judges, opinions of the, in relation to
punishment of death, 503; their par-
liamentary antecedents, 509; their
attachment to existing laws, 510.
Jugglers, minority representation like
tricks of, 411.
Justice, duty to do, by the people and
priests in Ireland, 208; worth more
than benevolence, 382; impossible
from a class, ib.
K.
Kars, defence of, 287.
Kaye, Mr., quotations from his work on
India, 4, 5; on revenue of India, 14.
Kidderminster, Mr. Lowe at, 350.
Kilkenny, Parliament of, 184.
Kinglake, Mr., his travels, 470.
Kistna embankment, 8.
Kossuth, his opinion on the American
question, 112.
L.
Labour, plan recommended for, by
Southern politicians, 119; contrast
between, in Free and Slave States,
126; not honourable in Southern
States, 131; low wages of, in Ireland,
167; property of poor man, 173.
Labour, free, could not go to Southern
States, 139.
Labourer, agricultural, his condition,
419; farmers interested in prosperity
of, 440; wages of, 456.
Laird, Mr., language of, about the
'Alabama,' 70; violated neutrality
of the country, ib.
Lake, French, the Mediterranean, by
occupation of Algiers, might have
been said to have become by alarm-
ists, 232.
Lancashire, orderly conduct of people
in, during cotton famine, 100; effects
on, of war, 127; supply of cotton to,
from Southern States, 130; cotton in-
dustry in, sufferings of, 133; overrun
with Irish pauperism, 157; state of
trade in (1854), 237; endurance of
people in, 477.
Land, proprietorship of, confers poli-
tical power, 156; reforms in convey-
ance of, ib.; tying up of, cause of
Irish misery, 168; sale of, difficulties
in, should be removed, 171; owner-
ship of, in Ireland, by confiscation,
187; mistake to think it should be
property of rich only, 202; in Eng-
land and Scotland, how distributed,
381; interest on money invested in,
431; succession to, duties on, 483.
Land Improvement Company, legisla-
ture ready to charter in Ireland, not
in England, 168.
Land laws, alterations in, 313.
Land question, Irish, how to be settled,
161; never yet before English nation,
195.
?
:
INDEX.
569
Land system, Irish, plan to modify,
196-7.
Landed gentlemen, terror of, not wise,
455.
Landlord rule, effects of, 417.
Landlord and tenant in Ireland, rela-
tions of, 155.
Landlords, Irish, have mistaken their
own interest, 203.
Landowner, his fortunate condition, 448.
Landowner, Irish, creature of conquest,
185; hated, 188.
Landowners, difficulties among, how
accounted for, 431; by limiting the
supply of food, responsible for evil of
Game-laws, 440.
Languages in India, numerous, 25.
Lansdowne, Lord, his nomination of
Mr. Lowe, 350.
Land debate, Mr. Bramston's part in,
416.
Law, international, what is it? 96.
Laws in America based on those of
United Kingdom, 116.
Lawson, Mr., proposals of, in his Per-
missive Bill, 512.
Layard, Mr., his belief that the country
was in a 'triumphant position' in de-
claring war against Russia, 224.
League, Anti Corn-law, O'Connell's
assistance to, 196; threatened to
purchase freeholds, 401; Council of,
its agency, 415; funds of, 421.
Leases, uncommon in Ireland, especially
to Catholics, 187; customary dura-
tion of Irish, 203.
Legacy duty, different on real and per-
sonal property, 281.
Legacy duties, unfairness in, incidence
of, 482.
Legislation, should not be of rich for
poor, or poor for rich, but all for all,
383; inequalities of, 417; special, on
intoxicating liquors, 512.
Legislature, unworthy of trust, if it
cannot discover remedy for evils,
201.
Leviticus, opinions of Sir R. Inglis de-
rived from, 525.
Lewis, Mr. J. S., his opinion on capital
punishment, 507.
Lewis, Sir G. C., his address to his
Radnor constituents, 266.
Liberal party, in Ireland and England
should be united, 196; creed of, the
speaker's sentiments, 468.
Liberation Society, assaults of, do not
cause suffering to English Church,
220.
Liberty, representative institutions ne--
cessary to, 304; invaded by adding
to powers of a priesthood in educa-
tion, 534.
Licences for selling drink yearly, 513.
Life interests, how to deal with, 172.
Lincoln, President, favourable to peace,
67; his unchanging wish to continue
friendly relations, ib.; his second
election, 73; his newspaper enemies,
95; unlikelihood that he would quarrel
with England, 97; justification of his
policy of war, 109; accession of, 129;
his party peaceable, 138.
Line drawn by Reform Bill, no line
drawn by speaker, 298.
Literature of England in United States,
116.
Littledale, Mr., his circular, 432.
Liverpool, petition from, in 1848, 94;
burden of Irish pauperism on, 164.
Livingstone, Dr., story told by him,
316.
Lloyd. Mr., murder of, proof that Ire-
land is demoralized, 154.
Loans, if right in order to improve,
may be judicious in order to buy,
202; to Irish landlords, nature of,
156.
Loans, Indian, 12, 22; high rate of in-
terest for, 46.
Locke, his constitution for Carolina,
203.
Lodger franchise in Bill of 1865, 346.
Lodgers, franchise of, in Scotland, 309.
London, Bishop of (Dr. Blomfield), re-
ported to be amphibious, 521.
London press, written for West End
people, 113.
Looming in the future, imitated from
Mr. Disraeli, by Lord Devon, 332.
Lords, House of, inactivity of, 68;
its furtherance of freedom, 283;
Mr. Horsman's opinion of its value,
489; its serenity, 527.
Lords Lieutenant, some anxious to be
just, 178.
570
INDEX.
1
Losses of life, the, in the Crimean war,
251.
Louis of Bavaria, reply of a monk to,
218.
Louis Philippe, cause of downfall of,
374.
Lovejoy, Elijah P., his self-devotion,
146.
'Low' view of war, what is it? 262.
Lowe, Mr., his opinion on the defences
of Canada, 74; his severe criticisms,
202; his offensive terms, 208; appeal
to, for his support of Lord Russell's
Reform Bill, 344; his opinions on
Reform in 1859, 349; his alliance
with Mr. Horsman, 350; sketch of
his political experiences, ib.; expla-
nation made to, 353; had no con-
stituency, 373; quotations from his
speeches, ib.; passage from his speech
should be before all workmen, 377;
invited to join Lord Derby, 390; his
minority plan, 406.
'Lowe theory,' disagreement of facts
from, 366.
Lowe, Mr., of New York, his losses by
•
the Alabama,' 71.
Lower classes, term not understood in
United States, 117.
Loyalty, origin of, 180; of Canada,
suspected by some to have its price,
83.
Lunatic, delusion of, at Derby, 475.
Lytton, Sir E., his prediction, 94; his
alarmist speeches, 364; quotation
from, ib.
M.
Macaulay, Mr. (Lord), Bill of, in 1833,
9, 11; his advocacy of the Govern-
ment scheme of education, 529; his
courtesies towards Nonconformists,
532.
Macclellan, Irish vote for, 74.
Mackay, Mr., sent out by Manchester
Chamber of Commerce to India, 10,
104.
Mackintosh, Sir James, his evidence as
to capital punishment, 506.
Magistrate, drawing-room of the, poll-
ing-booth, 403.
Magistrates, grant of licences by, 514.
Mahometans, condition of the, 516.
Majority, election by, for last six hun-
dred years, 409.
Majority in the Lords against abolishing
paper-duty, how obtained, 498.
Malt-tax, suggestion for repeal of,
426.
Manchester, poor-rate in (1848), 164;
assessment of, ib.; incidental charges
on, 165; under minority represen-
tation worse off than Salford, 410;
resolutions of meeting at, 412.
Mangel-wurzel, recommended to la-
bourers by some dean, 420.
Mangles, Mr., his statements as to the
nature of the Indian Government, 5;
opinions on Indian reform, 18.
Mann, Mr., opinions of, 120.
Manners, Lord J., his quotations, cha-
racter of, 432.
Mansion House, built from fines levied
on Nonjurors and Dissenters, 516.
Manufactures, pressure of income-tax
on, 481.
Mark-lane Express, its dissatisfaction at
Mr. Disraeli's proposals, 426.
Marshall, Mr., editor of the Friend of
India, 6.
Martineau, Harriet, her article of Dec.
1838. 145.
Mask, Man in the, misrepresentations
of, 453.
Mason, Mr., envoy to Great Britain,
121; author of Fugitive Slave Law,
ib.
Maynooth, grant to, speaker's objection
to, 149, 208; grant to, does not cure
discontent, 150; grant to, act of,
must be repealed, 209.
Meanness, characterises opinions which
suppose England would be greater,
if other nations were divided, 94.
Mediterranean, a French lake, 462.
Meetings, public, friendly to the North,
122; Reform, by whom attended in
1858, 327.
Members, Irish, disunited, 190.
Menchikoff, Prince, his negotiations
with Turkey, 227.
Merchants of United States, gifts of, to
Lancashire, 115.
Metropolitan boroughs, free from riot,
402.
INDEX.
571
Mexico, war of United States with, un-
just and unnecessary, 232.
Miall, Mr., his great merits, 209, 543;
no real cause of catastrophe to the
Church, 220.
Middle class, it is said, indifferent to
Reform, 386; now flattered, ib.
Miles, Mr., is probably horrified, 301.
Military authorities unfit to be trusted
to determine amount of necessary
forces, 49.
Military service in India, cost of, 47.
Mill, Mr., his History of British India
referred to, 39, 52.
Mill, Mr. J. S., his Irish scheme vast
and extraordinary, 205; his view, in
relation to introduction of working-
men, 356; his support of the mino-
rity voting, 407.
Millions, difficulty of realising such
numbers, 117; impossible to conceive,
469.
Ministry, Lord Derby's, of 1858; just to
give it a fair trial, 41.
Minority, speaker often in, 181; Mr.
Disraeli's Government leaders of a,
214; how represented, 337; member
for taking office, case of, 413.
Minority representation, bad precedent
to electors, 412.
Minority voting, Mr. Lowe's plan of, 406.
Minorities, representation of, majority
against and for, 407.
Mirabeau, his opinion of English cri-
minal law, 504.
Miracle, daily, of nature, and industry,
443.
Misery, no necessity for, 195-
Mississippi river in Slave States, 93;
senator from, his opinion of cotton
supply under free labour, 139.
Mob in America unknown, except among
the 'chivalry,' 74-
Mogul princes, nature of government
by, according to Mr. Kaye, 6.
Mohammedans turn to Mecca, 187.
Molesworth, Mr., his History of the
Reform Bill, 333-
Monck, Lord, Governor-General of
Canada, 65.
Monk, the Syrian, story of, 521.
Moral government of the world, the
speaker believes in, 140.
Moral law, in place of Urim and Thum-
mim, 479.
Morality, basis of national greatness,
478.
Morality of recognition, not apparently
of much interest to Mr. Roebuck, 140.
Morocco, Emperor of, married to an
Irish lady, 259; his interests in the
diplomatic negotiations, ib.
Mosheim, his account of calamities in
Gaul, 167.
Mountebank selling pills, 208.
Multiplication table, hostility of political
opponents renders them unable to
understand, 496.
Municipal councils, advantage of grant-
ing licences at discretion of, 514.
Murder, many degrees of, 504.
Museum, British, defence of, on April
10, 1848, 327.
Mutilation of Burnes' despatches, 61.
Mutiny Bill, omission of words 'balance
of power' from, 221.
N.
Napier, Admiral Sir Charles, dinner to,
on occasion of his appointment to
Baltic fleet, 97; his theory of Mr. Cob-
den's power, 460; his war panics, 484.
Nashville, correspondent from, 127.
Nation, what constitutes, 478.
Nationalities, view of this question, as
entertained by the people and the
Government, 240; attempts to revive,
by war, 249.
Natives of India, not employed by Go-
vernment, II.
Necker, story of, 270.
Negroes in United States, 332; not se-
cessionists, duty towards them, 93.
Nesselrode, Count, his interpretation of
the Vienna note, 228; his despatch
quoted, 242.
Newdegate, Mr., his petition about mi-
nority voting, 409.
New Orleans, condition of, 127.
Newspaper stamp, proposal to abolish,
236.
Newspapers, opinion of the, its value,
67; utter ignorance of, in discovering
a resemblance between secession and
the War of Independence, 88; the most
572
INDEX.
powerful representative of wealthy
opinion, unfair to America and its
statesmen, 91; what they would have
said if the North had acquiesced in
secession, 93; English Liberal, some
of, friendly to slavery, 121; Jefferson's
opinions on, 122; printed by American
machines, 301; London, urged war
on behalf of Denmark, 329; Protec-
tionist, abuse United States, 418.
New York, people of, speak and read
English, 116; politician of, described,
448.
Nobility, position of, if they go against
the popular party, 355.
Nomination, if no polling, settles elec-
tion, 411.
Nonconformists, generally opposed to
Maynooth grant, 152; why people
are so, 533.
Nonjurors, fines levied on the, 516.
Norfolk, Duke of, his curry powder
plan, 420.
Norfolk News of 1859, quotation from,
348.
Norman families, cost of maintaining,
473.
North, Lord, what he did, now being
done by Lord Derby, 186.
Northcote, Sir Stafford, his dislike to
extending the franchise, 390.
Northern States, conscientiously opposed
to slavery, 87; wholly unprepared for
war, 108; impossible that they should
acquiesce in secession, 129.
Nova Scotia, unwilling to come into the
Confederation, 81.
0.
Oaths, taken in House of Commons,
525; use of, 528.
Oatmeal, dogs fed on, and no doubt
wholesome, 315.
Occupier at 50l., the least independent
elector, 319.
O'Connell, desire to deprive him of his
organization, 151; his powers em-
ployed in defence of freedom, 196.
O'Donoghue, The, speaker voted with,
181.
Office, retention of, or secession from,
a matter of individual conscience or
judgment, 247; effect of, on states-
men, 349; people in, charge their
opponents with clamour, 533.
Officers, great loss of, in Crimean war,
245.
Olmütz note, rejected by our Govern-
ment, 243.
Opium, question and revenue of, 15;
tax on, 45.
Opium war, incapable of justification,
472.
Opposition, which is not an Opposi-
tion, 215; to Bill of 1865, would be
strengthened by small boroughs, 357.
Otway, Mr., his motion to avoid the
words balance of power,' 221.
Oude, King of, deposed, and indignities
offered to his family, 37; kingdom of,
36; taxes taken from, 37; 1,400 forts
destroyed in, 49.
Owners, large, devouring small ones,
456.
Oxford, Member for (Mr. Cardwell), his
defence of the Canadian fortifications,
78; his glowing language' about wise
men, 82.
C
P.
Pacifico, Don, a fraudulent Jew, sup-
ported in his claims by Lord Palmer-
ston, 103; case of, allusion to, 241.
Pakington, Sir J., his projects, 382.
Palladio, his design for the Mansion
House rejected, 517.
Palmerston, Lord, speech of, in which
he boasted of name of England, 17;
India, Bill of, 18; his responsibility in
relation to Burnes' despatches, 62; his
policy in relation to his Cabinet, 79;
his relations towards Don Pacifico,
103; his belief in the growing strength
of Turkey, 225; a monstrous state-
ment of his, as to the improvement of
the Turks, 240; achieved a victory in
Hampshire which Voltaire failed in,
244; the speaker has no wish to see
his Government overthrown (1855),
247; reasons for this feeling, 249;
showed no sympathy for Hungary,
ib.; his want of seriousness, 269;
just and sensible observation of, 327;
cartloads of rhetorical rubbish by, on
INDEX.
573
proper duties of England, 331; might
have passed a Reform Bill, 333; his
not offering the speaker office, 340;
his treatment of Roman Republic,
462; of Hungary, ib.
Pandemonium, excelled by slaveholding
America, 121.
Paper-duties, origin of, 495.
Paper-duty, remission of, its advantages,
496.
Paradise of official men, Downing-street,
369.
Paris, accidents in, in 1848, 351.
Parliament, Imperial, Irish anxious to
shake off rule of, 176; sitting in Lon-
don, some Irish have no hope in, 192;
proof that it does not represent the
nation, 280; before 1832, as bad as
could be, 380; how has it done any
good things, 382; unreformed, com-
mitted more outrages than absolute
monarchs, 395; necessity of maintain-
ing its privileges, 501; Member of,
his duty, 522.
Parliamentary Candidate Society, Sir
E. Lytton a member of, 365.
Parliamentary Reform, in England,
would aid Ireland, 190; what the
Public means by it, 319.
Parliaments, England ancient country
of, 333.
Parochial franchise, ancient and reason-
able basis for parliamentary suffrage,
284.
Party, Irish question should be above,
179; may be made by two men, 350.
Patch, does not last as long as a hole,
388.
Patriarch, Hebrew, his language about
Issachar, 388.
Patronage, holy thing, 339.
Pauperism, Irish in English towns, 164;
more than doubled, 332; extent of,
381; magnitude of, 388; growth of,
418; amount of, 477.
Peace, words of, written in every page
of the New Testament, 464.
Peace at any price, advocated as the
duty of the United States; war at any
cost when England is affected, 92;
speaker does not discuss, 224.
Peace party in United States, what it
is, 139.
Peasant proprietors, the speaker has no
opinion on, 203.
Pease, Mr., his experiences of slavery,
141.
Peel, General, speech of, about Danish
war, 330; his view of a rigid line an
error, 368; his objection to reduction
of the franchise, 390.
Peel, Sir Robert, speech of, in 1842, 13;
his behaviour in relation to the Com-
mission moved for in 1850, 103; his
scheme for Ireland, 166; suggested
that the Lord Chancellor should be
ousted, 171; his gravity, and solem-
nity, when hostilities with the United
States were threatening, 245; his
difficulties in 1845, 416; policy of,
467; his last speech, ib.
Peer, what is his birth and education,
283.
Peer, spiritual, of monstrous, of adul-
terous birth, 284.
Peerage, doubled, 332.
Peerages, life, rejection of, by the House
of Lords, 293.
Peers, freely criticise the House of Com-
mons, 67; House of, slowness of the,
282; exclusive, and influential, 286;
cannot be permanent, as an hereditary
House, 293; their speeches, 485;
creation of new, 527. See Lords,
House of Lords.
Pelican, stupidity of, 316.
Penn, quotation from, 212; his defini-
tion of freedom, 305, 394.
People, exclusion of, from representa-
tion, 324; progress of, up to 1865,
332; if they fix their eyes on House
of Commons, who can refuse their
demand? 334; intelligence of, ad-
mitted by Mr. Lowe, 352.
Permissive Bill, voting-papers said to
be a, but a fallacy, 402.
Persecution, advocates of, what they
want, 522; of Society of Friends, 537.
Perspiration, tears of Syrian monk as
natural as, 521.
Petersfield, case of borough of, 320.
Petitions, number of, on Reform Bills,
351.
Pills good against the earthquake, 208.
Place, Mr. Francis, anecdote of, 351.
Place-hunters, like jackals of desert, 470.
574
INDEX.
Platt, Mr., introduced a machine from
America, 301.
Players, strolling, their performance for
benefit of the poor, 426.
Plurality of voting, parochial, for reasons
which do not apply to parliamentary,
308.
Poland, wrongs of, 186; Lord Russell
has no mind to go to war for, 253.
Political gains of last twenty-five years
(1866) are speaker's political gains,
369.
Political meetings, once not allowed in
Scotland, 311.
Political reasons, high, are curious,
45I.
Poll, number of electors who, 394.
Polling-booth, magistrate's drawing-
room the, 403.
Poor-law, Irish, effect of, 154.
Poor-rate, decreasing proporuon of,
borne by land, 433.
Pope, the, subscribed to Irish relief, 174;
language of, offensive, but official,
518; the extent of his authority, 523.
Popery, haters of, support supremacy of
Irish Church, 188.
Popularity not to be considered, but
wisdom and justice, 238.
Population, increase of, from slaves,
131; growth of, in Slave States, 138;
growth of, and Corn-laws, 416;
effects of war on, 478.
Population and representation, 281.
Portarlington, retained by Mr. Disraeli
in 1859, 360.
'Poverty and passion,' phrase of Sir E.
Lytton, 364.
Power, false to say the middle class
have it, 386.
Powerful, assertion that states are too,
liable to retaliation, III.
Precedents, of privilege of the House of
Commons, 491; of 1407, ib.; of
1640, 492; of 1671, ib.; of 1678,
493; of 1691, ib.; of 1700, 494; of
1702-1719, ib.
Presidencies in India, sketch of, ac-
cording to speaker, 26.
President of United States, his position,
265.
Presidential election, highest object of
ambition, and reasonably so, 88.
Press, mischievous action of, 134; its
view about thirty hours of talk, 200.
Preston, Mr., his evidence as to effect
of the Corn-laws, 432.
Pretences on behalf of Irish Church,
religious or political, 216.
Priesthood, exercised on education, its
effects on liberty, 534.
Priests, Irish, desire to tame them, 151;
charged with causing discontent,
falsely, 184.
Primogeniture, law of, unnatural and
unjust, 161; to be abolished, 171;
mischievous in Ireland, 189.
Privilege, has sympathies in American
war, 125; of House of Commons, 490.
Privy Council, grants of, for education,
and their distribution, 535.
Probate-duty, not extended to land, 482.
Proclamation, of neutrality, effects of,
68; that of the 14th of May, circum-
stances attending, 95; of President
Lincoln, 141; legal and effective, ib.
Progress of people, argument in favour
of Reform, 299.
Property, interference with, in distress,
necessary, for labour is property of
poor man, 173; test of, in represen-
tation, 306.
Property in land, qualified, 202.
Proprietors, Court of, absurd resolution
of, 10.
Prosperity, increase of, during a genera-
tion (1859), 324.
Protection, delusions of, 476.
Protectionist papers, stock-in-trade of,
418.
Protectorate, Christian, the, 256.
Protestantism, best hopes of, in dis-
establishing Irish Church, 188.
Protestants, ascendant in Ireland, 150;
number of, in Ireland, 216.
Providence, not the cause of Irish
misery, 175; strongest cause of dis-
belief in, the misery of so many, 384.
Provisional government, some noble
lord perhaps thought the speaker
might be a member of, 351.
Proxy, use of, in the House of Lords,
283; votes by, hateful system, 403.
Prussia, changes of land laws in, 188.
Pruth, passage of the, 227.
Psalms, quotation from, 212.
"
4.4
INDEX.
575
}
F
Public meetings, perhaps not attracted
by speakers, but by sympathy, 122;
cannot be held by Conservative party,
367.
Punishment of Death, doubtful whether
it be deterrent, 505.
Punishments, barbarous in England,
540.
Pym, Mr., his statement as to privilege,
492.
Q.
Queen, the, believed to have been op-
posed to war with Germany, 329;
favourable to Reform, 376.
Queensland, supply of cotton from, 106.
Questions, unfinished, have no pity for
repose of nations, 398.
Quorum, in House of Lords, three, 498.
R.
Race, no theory of, will account for
Irish discontent, 184; horse weighted
in, his risks, 265; donkey, cumulative
vote like, 336.
Ram, steam, built by Mr. Laird, 70.
Rebellion, American, origin and cha-
racter of, 119.
Recognition of revolted States, in prac-
tice, dilatory, 110; of Southern States,
must lead to war, 446.
Reform, Parliamentary, interest of Irish
in, 195; Governments successively
pledged to, 279; of House of Com-
mons, why necessary, 298; indiffer-
ence of people to, 324; voted a
nuisance, and people tried to bury it,
333; why imperative, 358; before
1830, the wisdom of accepting instead
of rejecting it, 367.
Reform Bill, of no value, unless it be
good, 289; difficulty for country party
to frame one, 321; Lord Russell's,
its fairness, 343; Lord Russell's,
said to be the speaker's recommenda-
tion, 346; of 1859, character of, 344;
referred to in three Queen's speeches
before 1859, 358; provisions of, 359;
of 1866, honest, but needed improve-
ment, 388; of 1866, circumstances of
its rejection, 395; effect of passing
that of 1866, what it would have
been, 397.
Reform Club, buffoonery at the, 245.
Reformers should prepare their own
Reform Bill, 290.
Regium Donum, in Lord Stanley's
opinion, a miserable provision, 207;
must be withdrawn, 209.
Relief, out-door, to aristocracy, foreign
policy was, 330; gigantic for aris-
tocracy, 470.
Religion, all Christians of one, 212;
ministers of, their duty to people, 383.
Rent, fall of, no claim for parliamentary
relief, 432.
Representation, character of English,
hindrance to Irish reforms, 193;
changes in system of, 221; in other
countries, 285; enlarged, its effects
on constituencies, 383; essential to
liberty, 394.
Representation and distribution, anoma-
lies of, 282.
Representation and population, anoma-
lies of, 281.
Representation and taxation, anomalies
of, 282.
Representative institutions in Europe,
growth of, 341.
Reptiles, worship of, in Egypt, analogy
to, in Foreign Office, 315.
Republic, American, overthrow of,
would be fatal to freedom, 113;
Roman, treatment of, 462.
Republicans, in the United States,
anxious for peace, 73.
Residuary Church, term applied to
Scotch Establishment, 152.
Resistance not always Conservative,
328.
Resolutions of Lord Palmerston (1860),
character of, 489.
Responsibility, little of, in high officials,
287.
Revenue, vastness of, no proof of public
good, 473.
Revolution, disestablishment of Irish
Church, but bloodless, and full of
blessing, 212; proposition to dis-
establish Irish Church is, according
to Mr. Hardy, 215; French, an acci-
dent, 351; of 1688, character of, 468;
Glorious, cost of, since, 473; good
and boly, if foreign policy could be
changed, 475.
576
INDEX.
Rich, reasons why they cannot properly
care for poor, 383.
Richards, Mr., report of, as regards
India in 1812, 101.
Richmond, capital of Southern Con-
federacy, 118.
Richmond Examiner, chief paper in
Southern Confederacy, 118.
Rochdale, co-operative societies of, 365;
speech of Mr. Cobden at, 446.
Rodney Stoke, or Stoke Rodney, changes
in, 205.
Roebuck, Mr., his indiscriminating abuse,
72; his bitter hostility, 135; his pre-
vious language about the Emperor of
the French, 136; allowances for his
passion or malice, not for his igno-
rance, 141; has got rid of feelings
under which men like to be free, 142;
as a little David, who vanquished a
Whig Goliah, 268.
Roman Catholics, conduct of Dissenters
towards their claims, 536.
Roman Church, assisted by Irish Esta-
blishment, 217.
Roman Empire, no analogy to be drawn
from, 546.
Rome, influence of, weakened in all
Catholic countries at present, 217;
pagan, its history, no model to a
Christian people, 478; invasion of,
agreed to by Great Britain, 519.
Romilly, Sir J., Life of, valuable, 476.
Russell, Lord John (Earl Russell), favour-
able to an inquiry into Indian affairs,
2; allusion to Ecclesiastical Titles
Bill of, 12; opinions of, on the Pro-
clamation of Lord Canning, 39; his
rebuke to a young Member of the
House, 91; his statement at New-
castle, ib.; proposed to make speak-
ing against Government and Crown
felony in Ireland, 93; his Irish pro-
ject, 209; his defence of the Russian
war, 226; his mission to Vienna, and
the motives attributed to those who
sent him, 255; his speech of January
23, 1855, 260; said that Russian war
was fighting for Germany, 264; his
caprices, 268; his sympathies with
Reform, 283; his statements at Liver-
pool, 301; the speaker's supposed
relations with, in 1859, 318; his
speech at Greenock (1853), 330; the
speaker's interviews with, 356; has
no fear of freedom, 375; ought, in
1866, to have dissolved, 379; his dif-
ficulties in 1845, 416; his promises
conditional, 420; his speech at Liver-
pool, delusion therein, 473; his mis-
take in choosing an adviser on the
Ecclesiastical Titles Act, 521; his
opinions on education, 532.
Russell, Mr., quoted as to behaviour of
English to natives of India, 29.
Russia, emancipation of serfs in, 90;
losses of, not counted for anything by
some people, 140; has reasons to com-
plain of Turkey, 226; still to be left
a great empire, which is considerate
on the part of Lord Palmerston, 254;
blood of, is property of, statement
of Gortchakoff, 256; cannot be taken
to Bow-street, 257; proposals and
concessions of, ib.; a mine' to
Europe, according to Lord Claren-
don, 263; its presumed projects, 462;
capital punishments almost unknown
in, 505.
Russia, Emperor of, his sincere desire
for peace, 229:
Russian aggression, will not really be
controlled by the war, 235.
Russian funds, price of, in 1854, 241.
Russian war, popular, but this no proof
of its wisdom, 238; policy and objects
of the, 252-3; losses in the, 262;
opinions of the speaker on the, 279.
S.
Salford, under minority representation
better off than Manchester, 410.
Salisbury Plain, assembly of people on,
337.
Salt, consumption of, in India, 7.
Samson Agonistes, quotation from, 179.
Saturday Review, on agricultural la-
bourers, 449.
Savings, large amount of, among Irish
tenants, 204.
Savings-bank franchise, mischievous,
and criticism of, 347-
Scarcity, held by some to be beneficial,
440.
Schleswig-Holstein, difficulty of, 256.
i
1
INDEX.
Scholefield, Mr., his relations to Mr.
Bright very friendly, 107.
Schools and school-houses in the United
States, 117.
Scipio's tomb, 478.
Scotch county, election at, residents
beaten by non-residents, 401.
Scotch Establishment, view of Lord
Aberdeen about, 219.
Scotland, churches in, 151; law of entail
less mischievous in, 161; political
meetings forbidden in, 311; land in,
accumulated in few hands, 313; in-
crease of electors to, by Bill of 1859,
325; no sympathy of Mr. Disraeli
with, 425; voluntary principle in, 531,
544.
Scott, General, his opinion on the
• Trent' affair, 98.
Scripture, Protectionists said it was
vulgar to quote, 335.
Scythians, worship of cimeter among,
478.
Search, right of, willingness of the
United States to abandon, 98.
Sebastopol, taking of, to humble Russia,
254.
Secret department, India, character of, 16.
Secretary, the Home, his duties, 508.
Secretary of Ireland (Sir R. Peel the
younger), dared to wish the division
of the Republic, 122.
Sect, that to which speaker belongs has
suffered persecution, 523.
Ségur, Count, his report of a conversa-
tion with the Empress Catherine, 505.
Seignior, Grand, the, subscribed to Irish
relief, 174.
Self-respect, means of raising a man,
312.
Semmes, Captain, friend of Mr. Laird,
70.
Senate for life, in Canada, 82.
Senate of United States, compared to
House of Lords; its origin, 492.
Senior, Mr., his view of the effects of
abolishing hindrances to transfer of
land, 172.
Sentiment, operation of, in Parliament,
524.
Separation, impossible under the geo-
graphical and political condition of
the United States, 92.
577
Sepoy army, numbers of (1859), 48.
Services,' the, assist the policy of the
Governor-General, 25.
Session of 1840, almost entirely occupied
with Irish matters, 166.
Settlements, effect of, upon land, 168.
Seymour, Mr. Danby, gave notice of a
question on Indian affairs, 2; his speech
on the East India Company, 104.
S. G. O., excellent letters of, 449.
Shaftesbury, Lord, his constitution for
Carolina, 203.
Shakspeare, his Welshman, 269.
Shenstone, quotation from, 365.
Sheridan, quotation from, 370.
Ships, European, none besides English
engaged in breaking blockade, 121.
Shore, Mr., quoted as to the deteriora-
tion of manner of English to natives
in India, 29; referred to in relation
to feelings of India, 50.
Shoulders, every Englishman has a Turk
on his, 237.
Sickness of speaker, the serious, 277.
Skibbereen, famine and deaths in, 186.
Slanders on people, authors of, 373.
Slave labour, of no longer avail for cot-
ton growing, 106; supply of cotton
from, insufficient and insecure, 130.
Slave States, not all in favour of seces-
sion, 92.
Slave trade, United States have repu
diated it, 132.
Slaveholders, have committed an act of
suicide, 446.
Slavery, cause of an irrepressible con-
flict, 86; left to each State to settle
for itself, 87; real question in the
war, 89; characteristics of, 110;
no apology for refusing to hold com-
munication with States adopting it,
ib.; blot on the American Republic,
113; destruction of, in
of, in United
States; destruction elsewhere, 118;
atrocities of, 121; the seed of peril
at the institution of the Republic,
124; atrocious character of, 141;
irreversibly doomed, 144; that it
was a divine institution, a devilish
delusion, 146; in British dependen-
cies, 147; compensation for, intro-
duced by Lord Derby, 210.
Slaves, numbers of, in United States,
37
578
INDEX.
131; labour engaged in, ib.; numbers
of, engaged in producing cotton,
138; political rights conferred on,
147; some, in South Carolina, sub-
scribed for Irish relief, 174.
Smith, Adam, hypothesis of his being
charged with approving piracy, 447.
Smith, Mr. J. B., referred to, 34.
Smith, Mr. J. Pye, his opinion on capital
punishment, 507.
Social influences, used to conciliate
Members of the House of Commons,
42.
Societies, secret, have existed in Ireland,
185.
Society never disturbed incessantly with-
out cause, 190.
Somers, Lord, authority of, 352; his
view about foreign policy, 468.
Sorrows, Ireland a land of many, 190.
South American republics, recognition
of, 110.
Southern Confederation, admission of
belligerent rights of, hasty, 68.
Southern papers, their view of slavery,
126.
Southern States, represented in excess
in Congress, 88; defeated in election,
and seceded, ib. ; wished to widen area
of slavery, 89; disorganisation of,
106; people in England generally
against at first, 107; end of, slavery
and its extension, 110; sympathy for,
the origin of, 113; committed suicide,
and destroyed slavery, ib.; land in,
uncultivated, 138; not in favour of
freedom or equality, 142; inexpe-
dient to hastily recognise, 446.
Spaniards, patriot, character of, accord-
ing to Duke of Wellington, 264.
Spectator newspaper, the, 335; its criti-
cisms. able but conceited, 454.
Spiritual lords, opinions of the, 526.
Squires, herd of, 416.
Stafford, Mr., of Wexford, story of,
189; his opinion on permanent tenure,
204.
Stamps, how to deal with, 172.
Standard newspaper, suggestions of,
299.
Stanley, Lord, his speech on American
affairs judicious, 91; his statements
at the Bristol banquet, 201; his plan
about the Irish Church, 206; speech
of, about Danish war, 330; refutation
of his inadvertent mis-statements,
353; his reference to balance of
power in representation, 354; every-
thing in Lord Stanley's speech unim-
portant, everything important not true,
355; his speech on Reform said by
his party to be unanswerable, 390.
Stanley, Mr., in 1791 believed in the
growing strength of Turkey, 225.
State Churches, experience of, 151.
Statesman, time for, in Ireland, 174.
Statesmanship does not consist in force
and repression, 178; art of, to make
the least possible jar, 209.
St. Domingo, revolt of slaves in, 132.
Stephens, Mr., opinions of, 121.
Stewart, Mr., evidence of, as to Guzerat,
14.
Stirling, execution at, 464.
Stockport, state of, in 1842, 170.
Stoke-upon-Trent, borough of, 363.
Stowell, Rev. Hugh, his views, 522.
Straits (Dardanelles), opening of, effect
of, 258.
Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord, his inter-
views with the Sultan, 226; secured
the rejection of the Menchikoff note,
242; his mismanagement in the case
of Kars, 287 seq.
Subscription in 1846 for Ireland, sources
of, 174.
Succession-duty, proceeds of, 482.
Suffrage, extent of, which speaker ad-
vocates, 284.
Suffolk, agricultural dinners in, do not
produce amusing speeches generally,
116.
Suitable, a word objected to by Mr.
Cairns, 359.
Sumner, Mr., scholar and statesman,
145; his statement that Black and
White are equal in eye of God, 390.
Sumter, Fort, attack on, 109.
Supremacy, advocates of, support Irish
Church, 188; Royal, what is it? 518.
Supreme Ruler, in the Providence of,
the causes and progress of American
war, 109.
Surat cotton, anecdote describing its
quality, 102.
Switzerland, convention held in, 398.
INDEX.
579
Sykes, Colonel, Indian statistics of, 9;
speeches of, in House, 24; referred
to, 25.
Sympathy, character of the speakers, 236.
Sympathy with South, real blame of,
I14.
Syria, supply of cotton from, 106.
T.
Talookdars of Oude, confiscation of
their estates, 36.
Tappan, Arthur and Louis, 145.
Tariff in United States, high, but no
plea for war, 88; origin and history
of, ib.; equally inconvenient to West-
ern States, 89; not contained in the
causes of American war, 125.
Taxation, not to be treated merely as a
sum, but in its proportion to wages
and incomes, 22; effects of, on poor,
270; test of, in representation, 306;
inequality of, 382; amount of, an ex-
travagance, 388; what is its relation
to value of exports, 460; its amount,
ib.; on intoxicating liquors, 512.
Taxation, local, report on, 424.
Taxation and representation, 282.
Taxes, taken from Oude, amount of, 37.
Taxes, Indian, character of, 22; amount
of, as regards cotton, 101.
Tear-'em, Mr. Roebuck adopts this
patriotic character, 136.
Tears of the Syrian monk, as natural as
perspiration, 521.
Temple Bar, select six hundred and
fifty-eight men at it, and get a better
Parliament, 380.
Tenancy, ridiculous and mischievous
stipulations in, 427.
Tenant, unsatisfactory position of, 438.
Tenant-farmers, deluded by Mr. Disraeli,
427.
Tenantry, unsuspecting and confiding,
439.
Terrier, Scotch, comparison of, to a
party of two, 350.
Territorial families, enthroned by Revo-
lution of 1688, 468.
Thompson, George, advocate of freedom
to slaves, 147.
Throne, Lord Derby a weakness to,
397.
Thurles, Synod of, Lord J. Russell's ob-
jections to, 517.
Tim Bobbin, works of, 116.
Times, the, would not countenance a
secession or insurrection in Ireland,
92; its attempt to poison minds, 95;
absurdly argues that the Washington
Government wishes to quarrel with
England, 97; powerful language of,
about Turkey, 241; its views on the
Vienna Conferences, 255; blew the
flames of war, 260; on the ballot, its
inconsistency, 287; Mr. Lowe's con-
nection with, 373; approves of Mr.
Lowe's theory, 374; comment on Mr.
Bright's speech at Rochdale, 447; de-
scribed, 448; abused Messrs. Cobden
and Bright before the Corn-laws were
repealed, 455; its attacks on the
French Emperor, 485,
Tithes, spoken of in county meetings
in violent language, 426.
Titles of land in Ireland, should be sim-
plified, 156.
Tories, their fear of Reform, 333.
Torquay dinner, toasts at, 332, 341;
climate of, relaxing, 334.
Tory Government, capacious internal
cavity of, 390.
Tory party, the turbulent party, 396.
Trade Societies, purposes of, 126.
Trades and Friendly Societies, organi-
zation of, would be eminently suc-
cessful, 392.
Trades' Unions, meeting of, 124.
Travel, not necessary always in order to
know needs of a country, 198.
Treaties, number of, 471.
Treaty, French, the way it was traduced,
500.
'Trent,' the affair of the, 69; its effect
on English mind, 108; seizure of
Commissioners in, impolitic and bad,
96.
Trevelyan, Sir C., his appointment good,
52.
Triumph, of North, what its value is,
144; of United States over passion,
146.
Trowsers, Turks have begun to wear,
and the only sign of their improve-
ment, 241.
Turbulent party, the Tory party is, 396.
37-2
580
INDEX.
Turk, every Englishman has a Turk on
his shoulders, 237.
Turkey, sympathy with, 225; successive
losses of, 226; how they came to de-
clare war, 228; independence of, how
affected, 234; conservation of, cause
of Russian war, 253; custom in, 451.
Turkish question, three plans for dealing
with, 229.
Turks, last persons to whom the speaker
would trust the interests of England,
229.
Tuscany, punishment of death in, 505.
Twisleton, Mr., his opinion on the
Stockport people, 165; resignation
of, ib.; denies that there is over-
population in Ireland, 173.
Two-thirds vote, on Permissive Bill, ob-
jections to, 513.
Tyrrell, Sir J., his language, 416.
U.
Ulster, condition of, 165; has opposed
Reform, 166; people of, say that we
shall weaken the Union, 173.
Unchristianising Parliament, origin of
the phrase, 524.
Underhill, Mr., his evidence on the
changes of officials in India, 53.
Unenfranchised, condition of the, 375.
Un-English, abuse of word, 466.
Unfinished questions have no pity on
repose of nations,' 398.
Uniformity of franchise not necessarily
desirable, 325.
Union, of Great Britain and Ireland, no
advantage gained to, by Establish-
ment, 217; with Ulster, not really
with Ireland, 174; obtained by worst
means, 177.
Unions in southern counties, to abstain
from northern produce, absurd state-
ment of Standard, 427.
C
United States, relation of, to Canada
and the United Kingdom, 65; des-
patch of, about the Trent' affair,
69; good-will of the English people
to, 72; war party in, the Irish, 74;
pecuniary claims of, ib.; jealousy of
English politicians toward, 75; popu-
lation of, ib.; system of representation
in, 82; contains no party anxious to
annex Canada, 83; Transatlantic Eng-
lish nation, 85; great social progress
of, 86; religious tone of, ib.; officials
of, conspired against the Union, 90;
division of, desired by some, 94; ori-
gin of, 98; advantages in, 113; ark
of refuge to Europe, 116; incapable
of aggression, 137; war of, with Mex-
ico, to be condemned, 232; great
growth of, 233; position of President
of, 265; condition of things in, 290;
importations from, welcomed, except
politics, 301; dislike of allusion to,
338; negroes will have privileges in,
368; abuse of, by Protectionists, 418;
what do they offer? 457; position of
religious bodies in, 533.
United States Minister, Mr. Adams, his
family in the United States, 109.
Universities, representatives of, their
counsels, 290; system of voting-
papers at, success of the, 401.
Urini and Thummim, moral law in
place of, 479-
V.
Vicars-apostolic, change from, to
bishops, character of, 518.
Vicovich, instructed by Russian Govern-
ment, 60.
Victor Hugo, his opinion of the Ame-
rican question, 112.
Vienna, negotiations at, basis of the,
248.
Vienna note, criticism of the, 227.
Voice, different from night to night, of
Mr. Disraeli's Government, 214.
Volcano, speaker warns them that the
claims of the people are like, 396.
Voltaire, his opinion of English criminal
law, 504.
Voluntary Churches, three in Ireland
simultaneously, 211.
Voluntary effort in education, extent of,
530 sqq.
Voluntary principle, advantages of, 545-
Voluntaryism, its progress alarms Mr.
Hardy, 219.
Voters, proportion of, to grown men,
379.
Voting, open, the value of, 401.
Voting-papers, traffic in, 403.
INDEX.
581
W.
Wakefield, borough of, 363.
Wales, voluntary principle in, 544.
Walpole, Mr., his affection for small
boroughs, 322; his desire to get rid
of Reform, 326; his speech and letter
to Lord Derby, 362.
Walpole, Sir R., policy of, 467.
War, always discussed by the speaker
on grounds universally acknowledged,
92; opinions on the wickedness of,
not compromised in advocacy of the
North, 125; speaker does not justify,
but treats it on generally received
principles, 129; description of, 463;
its modern character and its costliness,
486.
War at any cost, advocated by writers
when England is concerned, 'peace
at any price' when United States are,
92.
War panics, frequent, the, 484.
War with United States, effects of, 142.
Warnings uttered by speaker on the
second reading of Bill of 1866, 371.
Wars, British, character of, 468.
Washington, city of, in a Slave State,
93.
Washington, Gen., his opinion of foreign
allies, 235.
Waste lands, how to deal with, 172.
Waterford, election for, disorderly, 205.
Watkin, Mr. Absalom, letter of Mr.
Bright to, 271 sqq.
Weed that pollutes the air, Irish Church
a, 223.
Weedon, book-keeping at, 474.
Weller, Mr., his proposition like that of
Lord Grey, 336.
Wellington, Duke of, his opinion of the
Spanish patriots, 264; his alarms
during the Exhibition of 1851, 327;
his answer to Mr. Place, 351; his
concession in 1829, 396.
Wesley, Charles, his letter to Fletcher
of Madeley, 509.
Wesley, John, hypothesis of his en-
couraging drunkenness and profanity,
447.
Wesleyans, negotiations with, 535; pe-
culiarities of, 539; statistics of, ib.
Western Times, quoted, 443.
Western World, The, by Mr. Mackay,
104.
Westminster Review, article in, for De-
cember 1838, 145.
Wheat, price of, in 1849, 422.
Whig peers, supporters of Reform Bill
of 1866, 355.
Whigs, in 1791, said that Turkey had
nothing to do with balance of power
231; traditions of, on Reform, 299;
union of them with Tory party, fatal
to themselves, 302; some, like Tories,
fear a Reform Bill, 333; Government
of, up to that of Sir R. Peel, 415.
Whitbread, Mr., his opinion of Turkey
in 1791, 231.
Whiteside, Mr., amusing, even when
the country is going to ruin, 345; his
defence of Church rates, 538.
Wigfall, Mr., opinions of, 121.
Will, power of making, should not be
interfered with, 171.
Williams, Colonel, defender of Kars,
neglect of, by Lord Stratford de Red-
cliffe, 288.
Williams, Mr., his endeavours to remedy
the unfairness of the legacy-duty, 482.
Will-o'-the-Wisp, political, 469.
Willoughby, Mr., quotation from a note
to his speech, 20; speeches of, on
India, 24.
Wilson, Mr., his theory of the propor-
tion of poor-rate borne by land-
owners, 433.
Windsor, farm-labourers near, 381.
Wine and spirit licences, how obtained,
512.
Wiseman, Cardinal, advice of persons
as to treatment of, 517.
Wolf, shall we pay him homage, 421.
Wood, Sir Charles, long speech on
Indian affairs, 2; views of, on Indian
finance, 45; his Indian policy, 105;
his altered demeanour to the Emperor
of the French, 267.
Wool, price of (1851), 432.
Working-man, opinion of, on the fran-
chise, quoted, 328.
Working-men,
Free
home of, in
States, 112; in the right on American
question, 122; addition to franchise
of, by Bill of 1865, 348; their dimi-
nution of power in constituencies, 363 ;
582
INDEX.
"
numbers of, computed, by Mr. Glad-
stone (1866), 364; if they have no
Reform, how they should act at the
next election. 377; alleged that they
had no grievance, 385; how they
should demand and secure political
power, 392; unreasonable to think
that they would be silent for ever,
and acquiesce in the scandals put on
them, 393; advised to wait for action
of Parliament, 398.
Y.
Yancy, Mr., envoy to Great Britain,
121.
Yarmouth, elections at, 376.
Z.
Zeal, danger of, to a State Church,
215.
تم
་
THE LIBRARY EDITION.
In Two Volumes, 8vo., with Portrait, price 25s.
SPEECHES
On Questions of Public Policy
BY
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
JOHN BRIGHT, M.P.
Edited by
JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS
SECOND EDITION.
London
MACMILLAN AND CO.
1
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
1
HISTORICAL GLEANINGS. A Series of
A Series of Sketches.
MONTAGU. WALPOLE. ADAM SMITH.
ADAM SMITH.
By JAMES E. THOROLD ROGERS. Crown 8vo.
COBBETT.
4s. 6d.
THREE ENGLISH STATESMEN:- PYM, CROMWELL,
Lectures on the Political History of England.
AND PITT.
By GOLDWIN SMITH. Second Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 5s.
THE LIFE AND ADMINISTRATION OF ROBERT
BANKS, SECOND EARL OF LIVERPOOL.
Com-
piled from Original Documents. By PROFESSOR YONGE. With
Portrait. 3 vols. 8vo. 425.
ESSAYS ON REFORM. By the Hon. G. C. BRODRICK, R. H.
HUTTON, LORD HOUGHTON, A. V. DICEY, LESLIE STEPHEN,
J. B. KINNEAR, B. CRACROFT, C. H. PEARSON, GOLDWIN SMITH,
JAMES BRYCE, A. L. RUTSON, and Sir GEORGE YOUNG. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
QUESTIONS FOR A REFORMED PARLIAMENT. By
F. H. HILL, GODFREY LUSHINGTON, MEREDITH TOWNSEND,
W. L. NEWMAN, C. S. PARKER, J. B. KINNEAR, G. HOOPER,
F. HARRISON, J. E. T. ROGERS, J. M. LUDLOW, and LLOYD JONES.
10s. 6d.
8vo.
MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON.
Bedford StrEET, STRAND, LONDON, W.C.
May, 1881.
MACMILLAN & Co.'s CATALOGUE of Works in the Depart-
ments of History, Biography, Travels, Critical and
Literary Essays, Politics, Political and Social Economy,
Law, etc.; and Works connected with Language.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, &c.
ADDISON.-ESSAYS OF JOSEPH ADDISON. Chosen and edited by JOHN
RICHARD GREEN, M.A., LL.D., Honorary Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.
18mo. 4s. 6d. (Golden Treasury Series.)
ALBEMARLE.-FIFTY YEARS OF MY LIFE. BY GEORGE THOMAS,
Earl of Albemarle. With Steel Portrait of the First Earl of Albemarle, engraved
by JEENS. Third and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 78. 6d.
ALFRED THE GREAT.—BY THOMAS HUGHES, Q.C. Crown 8vo. 6s.
(Biographical Series.)
ANDERSON.-MANDALAY TO MOMIEN; a Narrative of the Two
Expeditions to Western China, of 1868 and 1875, under Colonel E. B. Sladen and
Colonel Horace Browne. By Dr. ANDERSON, F.R.S.E., Medical and Scientific
Officer to the Expeditions. With numerous Maps and Illustrations. 8vo.
APPLETON.—Works by T. G. APPLETON:-
A NILE JOURNAL. Illustrated by EUGENE BENSON. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SYRIAN SUNSHINE. Crown 8vo. 6s.
215.
ARNOLD (M.)-ESSAYS IN CRITICISM. BY MATTHEW ARNOLD. New
Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Crown 8vo. gs.
ARNOLD (W. T.)-THE ROMAN SYSTEM OF PROVINCIAL AD-
MINISTRATION TO THE ACCESSION OF CONSTANTINE THE
GREAT. Being the Arnold Prize Essay for 1879. By W. T. ARNOLD, B.A
Crown 8vo. 65.
ART.
THE YEAR'S ART: A concise Epitome of all Matters relating to the
Arts of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture, which have occurred during the
Year 1880, together with Information respecting the Events of the Year 1881.
2s. 6d.
Compiled by MARCUS B. HUISH. Crown 8vo.
2s. 6d.
THE SAME, 1879-1880. Crown 8vo.
ATKINSON.-AN ART TOUR TO NORTHERN CAPITALS OF
EUROPE, including Descriptions of the Towns, the Museums, and other Art
Treasures of Copenhagen, Christiana, Stockholm, Abo, Helsingfors, Wiborg, St.
Petersburg, Moscow, and Kief. By J. BEAVINGTON ATKINSON. 8vo.
May 81, 5,000.
a
125.
t
2
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN
BAILEY.—THE SUCCESSION TO THE ENGLISH CROWN. A His-
torical Sketch. By A. BAILEY, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
BAKER (SIR SAMUEL W.)-Works by Sir SAMUEL BAKER, Pacha,
M.A., F.R.S., F.R.G S. :—
CYPRUS AS I SAW IT IN 1879. With Frontispiece. 8vo.
125. 6d.
ISMAILÏA: A Narrative of the Expedition to Central Africa for the Suppresion
of the Slave Trade, organised by Ismail, Khedive of Egypt. With Portraits,
Map, and numerous Illustrations. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE ALBERT N'YANZA, Great Basin of the Nile, and Exploration of the Nile
Sources. With Maps and Illustrations. Fifth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE NILE TRIBUTARIES OF ABYSSINIA, and the Sword Hunters of the
Hamran Arabs. With Maps and Illustrations. Sixth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
BANCROFT.-THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, FROM THE DISCOVERY OF THE CONTINENT. By
GEORGE BANCROFT. New and thoroughly Revised Edition. Six Vols. Crown
8vo. 545.
BARKER (LADY).—A YEAR'S
HOUSEKEEPING IN SOUTH
AFRICA. By LADY BARKER. With Illustrations. New and Cheaper Edi-
tion. Crown 8vo. 6s.
BATH.-OBSERVATIONS ON BULGARIAN AFFAIRS. By the Mar-
QUIS OF BATH. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
BEESLY.-STORIES FROM THE HISTORY OF ROME. By Mrs.
BEESLY. Extra fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d.
BECKER.-DISTURBED IRELAND, being the Letters Written during the
Winter of 1880-1881. By Bernard H. BECKER, Special Commissioner of the
Daily News. With Route Maps. Crown 8vo. 6s.
BERNARD (ST.)-THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ST. BERNAND,
Abbot of Clairvaux. By J. C. MORISON, M.A. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
(Biographical Series.)
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES, 1852-1875. By HARRIET MAR-
With four Additional Sketches, and Autobiographical Sketch. Fifth
Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. (Biographical Series.)
TINEAU.
BISMARCK-IN THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR. An Authorized Trans-
lation from the German of Dr. MORITZ BUSCH. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 185.
BLACKBURNE.-BIOGRAPHY OF THE RIGHT HON. FRANCIS
BLACKBURNE, Late Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Chiefly in connection with
his Public and Political Career. By his Son, EDWARD BLACKBURNE, Q.C.
With Portrait engraved by JEENS. 8vo. 125.
BLAKE.—LIFE OF WILLIAM BLAKE. With Selections from his Poems
and other Writings. Illustrated from Blake's own Works. By ALEXANDER
GILCHRIST. A new and Enlarged Edition, with additional Letters, and a
Memoir of the Author. Printed on hand-made paper, the Illustrations on India
paper, and mounted in the text. 2 vols. Cloth elegant, gilt, with Designs after
Blake by FREDERICK J. SHIELDS. Medium 8vo. £2 25.
BLANDFORD (W. T.)—GEOLOGY AND ZOOLOGY OF ABYS.
SINIA. By W. T. Blandford. 8vo. 21S.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
3
BRONTË.—CHARLOTTE BRONTË. A Monograph. By T. WEMYSS REID.
With Illustrations. Third Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. (Biographical Series.)
BROOKE. THE RAJA OF SARAWAK: an Account of Sir James Brooke,
K.C.B., LL.D. Given chiefly through Letters or Journals. By GERTRUDE L.
JACOB. With Portrait and Maps. Two Vols. 8vo. 255.
BRYCE.-Works by JAMES BRYCE, M.P., D.C.L., Regius Professor of Civil
Law, Oxford :-
THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE. Sixth Edition, Revised and Enlarged. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d.
TRANSCAUCASIA AND ARARAT: being notes of a Vacation Tour in the
Autumn of 1876. With an Illustration and Map. Third Edition. Crown
8vo. gs.
BURGOYNE.-POLITICAL AND MILITARY EPISODES DURING
THE FIRST HALF OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE III. Derived from the
Life and Correspondence of the Right Hon. J. Burgoyne, Lieut.-General in his
Majesty's Army, and M.P. for Preston. By E. B. DE FON BLANQUE. With
Portrait, Heliotype Plate, and Maps. 8vo. 16s.
BURKE.—EDMUND BURKE, a Historical Study. By JOHN Morley, B.A.,
Oxon. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
BURROWS.-WORTHIES OF ALL SOULS: Four Centuries of English
History. Illustrated from the College Archives. By MONTAGU BURROWs,
Chichele Professor of Modern History at Oxford, Fellow of All Souls. 8vo.
T45.
CAMBRIDGE.-MEMORIALS OF CAMBRIDGE. Greatly Enlarged and
partly Rewritten (1851-66). By CHARLES HENRY COOPER, F.S.A. With
Seventy-four Views of the Colleges, Churches, and other Public Buildings of the
University and Town, engraved on steel by J. LE KEUX, together with about
Forty-five of those engraved on Copper by STORER, and a few Lithographs, with
Twenty additional Etchings on Copper by ROBERT FARren. 8vo. 3 vols. 255.
each. Also a Large Paper Edition. The Engravings and Etchings, Proofs on
India Paper. 3 vols. 4to. half-morocco, £10 10S. Fifty copies of the Etchings,
by R. FARREN, from the "Memorials of Cambridge," proofs signed in portfolio.
£3 35.
CAMERON.-OUR FUTURE HIGHWAY. By V. LOVETT CAMERON,
C. B., Commander, R. N. With Illustrations. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 215.
CAMPBELL.~LOG-LETTERS FROM THE CHALLENGER.” By
LORD GEORGE Campbell. With Map. Fifth and Cheaper Edition. Crown
8vo. 6s.
CAMPBELL.-MY CIRCULAR NOTES; Extracts from Journals; Letters
sent Home; Geological and other Notes, written while Travelling Westwards
round the World, from July 6th, 1874, to July 6th, 1875. By J. F. CAMPbell,
Author of Frost and Fire." Cheaper Issue. Crown 8vo. 6s.
CAMPBELL,-TURKS AND GREEKS. Notes of a recent Excursion.
By the Hon. DUDLEY CAMPBELL, M.A. With Coloured Map. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
CARPENTER.—THE LIFE AND WORK OF MARY CARPENTER.
By J. ESTLIN CARPENTER, M.A. With Steel Portrait. Crown 8vo. 6s.
(Biographical Series.)
a 2
{
1
4
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN
J
CARSTARES.-WILLIAM CARSTARES: a Character and Career of the
Revolutionary Epoch (1649-1715). By ROBERT STORY, Minister of Rosneath.
8vo.
125.
CHATTERTON: A BIOGRAPHICAL STUDY. BY DANIEL WILSON,
LL.D., Professor of History and English Literature in University College,
Toronto. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
CHATTERTON: A STORY OF THE YEAR 1770. By Professor MASSON,
LL.D. Crown 8vo. 5s.
CICERO.-THE
LIFE AND LETTERS OF MARCUS TULLIUS
CICERO: being a New Translation of the Letters included in Mr. Watson's
Selection. With Historical and Critical Notes, by Rev. G. E. JEANS, M.A.,
Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford, Assistant-Master in Haileybury College,
8vo. 105. 6d.
CLARK.—MEMORIALS FROM JOURNALS AND LETTERS OF
SAMUEL CLARK, M.A., formerly Principal of the National Society's Train-
ing College, Battersea. Edited with Introduction by his WIFE. With Portrait.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
CLIFFORD (W. K.)—LECTURES AND ESSAYS. Edited by LESLIE
STEPHEN and FREDERICK POLLOCK, with Introduction by F. POLLOCK. Two
Portraits. 2 vols. 8vo. 255.
COMBE.
1
THE LIFE OF GEORGE COMBE, Author of "The Constitution
By CHARLES GIBBON. With Three Portraits engraved by JEENS.
Two Vols. 8vo. 325.
of Man.'
COOPER.-ATHENÆ CANTABRIGIENSES.
By CHARLES HENRY
COOPER, F.S.A., and THOMPSON COOPER, F.S.A. Vol. I. 8vo., 1500-1585, 185.;
Vol. II., 1586-1609, 185.
CORREGIO.-ANTONIO ALLEGRI DA CORREGIO. From the German.
of Dr. JULIUS MEYER, Director of the Royal Gallery, Berlin. Edited, with an
Introduction, by Mrs. HEATON. Containing Twenty Woodbury-type Illustra-
tions. Royal 8vo. Cloth elegant. 31s. 6d.
COX (G. V.)—RECOLLECTIONS OF OXFORD. By G. V. Cox. M.A.,
New College, late Esquire Bedel and Coroner in the University of Oxford.
Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
CUNYNGHAME (SIR A. T.)-MY COMMAND IN SOUTH
AFRICA, 1874-1878. Comprising Experiences of Travel in the Colonies of
South Africa and the Independent States. By Sir ARTHUR THURLOW CUNYNG-
HAME, G.C. B., then Lieutenant-Governor and Commander of the Forces in South
Africa. Third Edition. 8vo.
12s. 6d.
"DAILY NEWS."-THE DAILY NEWS' CORRESPONDENCE of the
War between Russia and Turkey, to the fall of Kars. Including the letters of
Mr. Archibald Forbes, Mr. J. E. McGahan, and other Special_Correspondents
in Europe and Asia. Second Edition, Enlarged. Cheaper Edition. Crown
8vo. 6s.
FROM THE FALL OF KARS TO THE CONCLUSION OF PEACE
Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
1
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
5
DAVIDSON.-THE LIFE OF A SCOTTISH PROBATIONER; being a
Memoir of Thomas Davidson, with his Poems and Letters. By JAMES BROWN,
Minister of St. James's Street Church, Paisley. Second Edition, revised and
enlarged, with Portrait. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
DEAK.-FRANCIS DEAK, HUNGARIAN STATESMAN: A Memoir
With a Preface, by the Right Hon. M. E. Grant Duff, M.P. With Por-
trait. 8vo. 12s. 6d.
DEAS. THE RIVER CLYDE. An Historical Description of the Rise and
Progress of the Harbour of Glasgow, and of the Improvement of the River
from Glasgow to Port Glasgow. By J. DEAS, M. Inst. Č.E. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
DELANE.-LIFE AND LETTERS OF JOHN T. DELANE, late Editor
of the Times. By Sir GEORGE W. DasenT, D.C.L. 8vo. [In the Press.
DENISON.-A HISTORY OF CAVALRY FROM THE EARLIEST
TIMES. With Lessons for the Future. By Lieut.-Colonel GEORGE Denison,
Commanding the Governor-General's Body Guard, Canada, Author of "Modern
Cavalry." With Maps and Plans. 8vo. 18s.
DILKE.-GREATER BRITAIN. A Record of Travel in English-speaking
Countries during 1866-67. (America, Australia, India.) By Sir CHARLES
Wentworth DILKE, M.P. Sixth Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
DOLET.-ETIENNE DOLET: the Martyr of the Renaissance. A Biography.
With a Biographical Appendix, containing a Descriptive Catalogue of the Books
written, printed, or edited by Dolet. By RICHARD COPLEY CHRISTIE, Lincoln
College, Oxford, Chancellor of the Diocese of Manchester. With Illustrations.
8vo. 18s.
DOYLE.-HISTORY OF AMERICA. By J. A. DOYLE. With Maps. 18mo.
45. 6а.
[Historical Course.
DRUMMOND OF HAWTHORNDEN: THE STORY OF HIS
LIFE AND WRITINGS. By Professor MASSON. With Portrait and Vignette
engraved by C. H. JEENS. Crown 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
DUFF.-Works by the Right Hon. M. E. GRANT DUFF, M.P., late Under Secre-
tary of State for India:
IOS. 6d.
8vo. IOS. 6d.
NOTES OF AN INDIAN JOURNEY. With Map. 8vo.
MISCELLANIES, POLITICAL AND LITERARY.
EADIE.—LIFE OF JOHN EADIE, D.D., LL.D.
BY JAMES BROWN, D.D.,
Second Edi-
Author of "The Life of a Scottish Probationer.” With Portrait.
tion. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
ELLIOTT.-LIFE OF HENRY VENN ELLIOTT, of Brighton. By
JOSIAH BATEMAN, M.A. With Portrait, engraved by JEENS.
Cheaper Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s.
Third and
ELZE.-ESSAYS ON SHAKESPEARE. By Dr. KARL ELZE. Translated
with the Author's sanction by L. Dora SCHMITZ. 8vo. 125.
ENGLISH MEN OF LETTERS.-Edited by JOHN MORLEY.
Series of Short Books to tell people what is best worth knowing as to the Life,
Character, and Works of some of the great English Writers. In crown 8vo.
price 2s. 6d. each.
I. DR. JOHNSON. By LESLIE STEPHEN.
A
T
I
6
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN
ENGLISH MEN OF LETTERS-continued.
II. SIR WALTER SCOTT. By R. H. HUTTON.
III. GIBBON. By J. C. MORISON.
IV. SHELLEY. By J. A. SYMONDS.
V. HUME. By Professor HUXLEY.
VI. GOLDSMITH. By WILLIAM BLACK.
VII. DEFOE. By W. MInto.
Shairp.
VIII. BURNS. By Principal SHAIRP.
IX. SPENSER. By the Very Rev. the Dean of St. Paul's.
X. THACKERAY. By ANHONY TRollope.
XI. BURKE. By JOHN Morley.
XII. MILTON. By MARK PATTISON.
XIII. HAWTHORNE. BY HENRY JAMES, Jun.
By
XIV. SOUTHEY. By Professor DowDEN.
XV. BUNYAN. By J. A. FROUDE.
XVI. CHAUCER. By Professor A. W. Ward.
XVII. COWPER. By GOLDWIN SMITH.
XVIII. POPE. BY LESLie Stephen.
XIX. BYRON. By Professor NICHOL.
XX. LOCKE. By Professor FOWLER.
XXI. WORDSWORTH. By F. W. H. MYERS.
XXII. DRYDEN. By G. SAINTSBURY.
•
In Preparation :·
SWIFT. By JOHN MORLEY.
ADAM SMITH. BY LEONARD H. COURTNEY, M.P.
BENTLEY. By Professor R. C. JEBB.
LANDOR. By Professor SIDNEY COLVIN.
DICKENS. By Professor A. W. WARD.
DE QUINCEY. By Professor MASSON.
BERKELEY. By Professor HUXLEY.
CHARLES LAMB. By Rev. Alfred Ainger.
STERNE. By H. D. TRAILL.
SIR PHILIP SIDNEY. By J. A. SYMONDS.
Other Volumes to follow.
ENGLISH POETS: SELECTIONS, with Critical Introductions by various
Writers, and a General Introduction by MATTHEW ARNOLD, Edited by T. H.
WARD, M.A., late Fellow of Brasenose College, Oxford. 4 vols. Crown 8vo.
75. 6d. each.
Vol. I. CHAUCER to DONNE.
Vol. II. BEN JOHNSON to DRYDEN.
Vol. III.
ADDISON to BLAKE.
Vol. IV. WORDSWORTH to SYDNEY DOBELL.
ETON COLLEGE, HISTORY OF. By H. C. MAXWELL LYTE,
M.A. With numerous Illustrations by Professor DELAMOTTE, Coloured Plates,
and a Steel Portrait of the Founder, engraved by C. H. JEENS. New and
Cheaper Issue, with Corrections. Medium 8vo. Cloth elegant. 215.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
7
EUROPEAN HISTORY, Narrated in a Series of Historical Selections
from the best Authorities. Edited and arranged by E. M. SEWELL, and C. M.
YONGE. First Series, crown 8vo. 6s. ; Second Series, 1088-1228, crown 8vo. 6s.
Third Edition.
FARADAY.—MICHAEL FARADAY.
By J. H. GLADSTONE, Ph.D.,
F.R.S. Second Edition, with Portrait engraved by JEENS from a photograph
by J. WATKINS. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
PORTRAIT. Artist's Proof. 5s.
FISON AND HOWITT.-KAMILAROI AND KURNAI GROUP.
Marriage and Relationship, and Marriage by Elopement, drawn chiefly from
the usage of the Australian Aborigines. Also THE KURNAI TRIBE, their
Customs in Peace and War. By LORIMER FISON, M.A., and A. W. HOWITT,
F.G.S., with an Introduction by LEWIS H. MORGAN, LL.D., Author of "System
of Consanguinity,"
¸” “Ancient Society," &c. Demy 8vo. 15s.
FORBES.-LIFE AND LETTERS OF JAMES DAVID FORBES, F.R.S.,
late Principal of the United College in the University of St. Andrews. By
J. C. SHAIRP, LL.D., Principal of the United College in the University of St.
Andrews; P. G. TAIT, M.A., Professor of Natural Philosophy in the University
of Edinburgh; and A. ADAMS-REILLY, F.R.G.S. 8vo. With Portraits, Map,
and Illustrations. 16s.
FRANCIS OF ASSISI.
ASSISI. By Mrs. OLIPHANT. New Edition. Crown 8vo.
6s. (Biographical Series.)
FREEMAN.-Works by EDWARD A. FREEMAN, D.C.L., LL.D. :-HIS
TORICAL ESSAYS. Third Edition. 8vo.
105. 6d.
"CONTENTS:-I. "The Mythical and Romantic Elements in Early English
History;" II. "The Continuity of English History; " III. "The Relations between
the Crowns of England and Scotland;' IV. "St. Thomas of Canterbury and his
Biographers; "V. "The Reign of Edward the Third; VI. "The Holy Roman
Empire; " VII. "The Franks and the Gauls;
"The Early Sieges of
Paris;" IX. "Frederick the First, King of Italy:" X. "The Emperor Frederick
the Second;" XI. Charles the Bold; XII. Presidential Government."
Second Series.
66
VIII.
Second Edition, Enlarged. 8vo.
Mr.
""
HISTORICAL ESSAYS.
IOS. 6d.
The principal Essays are:-"Ancient Greece and Medieval Italy:
Gladstone's Homer and the Homeric Ages:" "The Historians of Athens: "
Athenian Democracy:" "Alexander the Great: Greece during the Macedonian
Period: "Mommsen's History of Rome: 'Lucius Cornelius Sulla :"
Flavian Cæsars."
**
""
""
"The
"The
HISTORICAL ESSAYS. Third Series. 8vo. I25.
CONTENTS:-"First Impressions of Rome." "The Illyrian Emperors and their
Land.' Augusta Treverorum.' "The Goths of Ravenna."
guage."
"The Byzantine Empire." "First Impressions of Athens."
and Modern Greece.' "The Southern Slaves.' "Sicilian Cycles."
mans at Palermo.
"
"Race and Lan-
"Mediæval
"The Nor-
COMPARATIVE POLITICS.-Lectures at the Royal Institution. To which is
added the "Unity of History," the Rede Lecture at Cambridge, 1872. 8vo. 14s.
THE HISTORY AND CONQUESTS OF THE SARACENS. Six Lectures.
Third Edition, with New Preface. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SKETCHES: chiefly Italian.
With Illustrations by the Author. Crown 8vo.
10s. 6d.
8
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN
FREEMAN-continued.
HISTORY OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, from the Foundation of the Achaian
League to the Disruption of the United States. Vol. I. General Introduction.
History of the Greek Federations. 8vo. 215.
OLD ENGLISH HISTORY. With Five Coloured Maps. New Edition.
Extra fcap. 8vo., half-bound. 6s.
HISTORY OF THE CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF WELLS, as illustrating
the History of the Cathedral Churches of the Old Foundation. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
THE GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH CONSTITUTION FROM THE
EARLIEST TIMES. Third Edition, revised. Crown 8vo. 5s.
GENERAL SKETCH OF EUROPEAN HISTORY. Being Vol. I. of a
Historical Course for Schools, edited by:E. A. FREEMAN. New Edition, en-
larged with Maps, Chronological Table, Index, &c. 18mo. 35. 6d.
THE OTTOMAN POWER IN EUROPE: its Nature, its Growth, and its
Decline. With Three Coloured Maps. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
GALILEO.-THE PRIVATE LIFE OF GALILEO. Compiled principally
from his Correspondence and that of his eldest daughter, Sister Maria Celeste,
Nun in the Franciscan Convent of S. Matthew in Arcetri. With Portrait.
Crown 8vo. 75. 6d.
GALLOWAY.-THE STEAM-ENGINE AND ITS INVENTORS: a
Historical Sketch. By ROBERT L. GALLOWAY, Mining Engineer. With
numerous Illustrations. Crown 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
GEDDES. THE PROBLEM OF THE HOMERIC POEMS. By W. D.
Geddes, LL.D., Professor of Greek in the University of Aberdeen. 8vo. 148.
GLADSTONE.-Works by the Right Hon. W. E. GLADSTONE, M.P. :—
JUVENTUS MUNDI. The Gods and Men of the Heroic Age. Crown 8vo.
cloth. With Map. 10s. 6d.
IOS. 6d. Second Edition.
HOMERIC SYNCHRONISM. An inquiry into the Time and Place of Homer.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
GOETHE AND MENDELSSOHN (1821-1831). Translated from
the German of Dr. KARL Mendelssohn, Son of the Composer, by M. E. VON
GLEHN. From the Private Diaries and Home Letters of Mendelssohn, with
Poems and Letters of Goethe never before printed. Also with two New and
Original Portraits, Fac-similes, and Appendix of Twenty Letters hitherto
unpublished. Second Edition, enlarged. "Crown 8vo. 5s.
GOLDSMID.-TELEGRAPH AND TRAVEL. A Narrative of the For-
mation and Development of Telegraphic Communication between England and
India, under the orders of Her Majesty's Government, with incidental Notices
of the Countries traversed by the Lines. By Colonel SIR Frederick GOLDSMID,
FREDERICK
C.B., K.C.S.I., late Director of the Government Indo-European Telegraph.
With numerous Illustrations and Maps. 8vo. 215.
GORDON.-LAST LETTERS FROM EGYPT, to which are added Letters
from the Cape. By LADY DUFF Gordon. With a Memoir by her Daughter,
Mrs. Ross, and Portrait engraved by JEENS. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. 9s.
GRAY.-CHINA. A History of the Laws, Manners, and Customs of the People.
By the VENERABLE JOHN HENRY GRAY, LL.D., Archdeacon of Hong Kong.
formerly H.B.M. Consular Chaplain at Canton. Edited by W. Gow Gregor,
With 150 Full-page Illustrations, being Fac-similes of Drawings by a Chinese
Artist.
2 vols. Demy 8vo.
325.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
.9
GRAY (MRS.)—FOURTEEN MONTHS IN CANTON. By Mrs. GRAY.
With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. gs.
GREAT CHRISTIANS OF FRANCE : ST. LOUIS and
CALVIN. By M. GUIZOT, Member of the Institute of France. Crown 8vo. 6s.
(Biographical Series.)
GREEN.-Works by JOHN RICHARD GREEN, M.A., LL.D. :—
HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE. Vol. I.-Early England-
Foreign Kings-The Charter-The Parliament. With 8 Coloured Maps. 8vo.
16s. Vol. II.-The Monarchy, 1461-1540: The Restoration, 1540-1603. 8vo.
165. Vol. III.-Puritan England, 1603-1660; the Revolution, 1660-1688.
With 4 Maps. 8vo. 16s. Vol. IV.-The Revolution, 1683-1760; Modern
England, 1760-1815. With Maps and Index. 8vo. 16s.
With Coloured
Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH PEOPLE.
Maps, Genealogical Tables, and Chronological Annals. Crown 8vo.
Seventy-fifth Thousand.
STRAY STUDIES FROM ENGLAND AND ITALY. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.
Containing: Lambeth and the Archbishops-The Florence of Dante-Venice and
Rome-Early History of Oxford-The District Visitor-Capri-Hotels in the
Clouds-Sketches in Sunshine, &c.
READINGS FROM ENGLISH HISTORY. Selected and Edited by JOHN
RICHARD GREEN. In Three Parts. Fcap. 8vo. IS. 6d. each. Part I.-From
Hengest to Cressy. Part. II.-From Cressy to Cromwell, Part III.-From
Cromwell to Balaklava.
GUEST.-LECTURES ON THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By M. J.
GUEST. With Maps. Crown 8vo. 6s.
HAMERTON.-Works by P. G. HAMERton:-
ETCHINGS AND ETCHERS. Third Edition, revised, with Forty-eight new
Plates. Columbier 8vo.
THE INTELLECTUAL LIFE. With a Portrait of Leonardo da Vinci, etched
by LEOPOLD FLAMENG. Second Edition. Crown 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
THOUGHTS ABOUT ART. New Edition, revised, with an Introduction,
Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.
HILL. THE RECORDER OF BIRMINGHAM. A Memoir of Matthew
Davenport-Hill, with Selections from his Correspondence. By his daughters
ROSAMOND and FLORENCE Davenport-HILL. With Portrait engraved by C.
H. JEENS. 8vo. 16s.
HILL.-WHAT WE SAW IN AUSTRALIA. By ROSAMOND and FLORENCE
HILL. Crown 8vo. 10s. 6d.
HODGSON.-MEMOIR OF REV. FRANCIS HODGSON, B.D., Scholar,
Poet, and Divine. By his son, the Rev. JAMES T. HODGSON, M.A. Containing
numerous Letters from Lord Byron and others. With Portrait engraved by
JEENS. Two vols. Crown 8vo. 18s.
HOLE.—A GENEALOGICAL STEMMA OF THE KINGS OF ENGLAND
AND FRANCE. By the Rev. C. HOLE, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge.
On Sheet, IS.
A BRIEF BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY.
the Rev. CHArles Hole, M.A. Second Edition.
Compiled and Arranged by
18mo. 4s. 6d.
IO
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN
HOLIDAY RAMBLES BY A WIFE WITH HER HUS-
Republished from the Spectator. New and Cheaper Edition.
BAND.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
HOOKER AND BALL. MOROCCO AND THE GREAT ATLAS:
Journal of a Tour in. By Sir JOSEPH D. HOOKER, K.C.S.I., C.B., F.R.S.,
&c., and JOHN BALL, F.R.S. With an Appendix, including a Sketch of the
Geology of Morocco, by G. MAW, F.L.S., F.G.S. With Illustrations and Map.
8vo. 215.
HOZIER (H. M.)—Works by CAPTAIN HENRY M. Hozier, late Assistant
Military Secretary to Lord Napier of Magdala :-
THE SEVEN WEEKS' WAR; Its Antecedents and Incidents. New and
Cheaper Edition. With New Preface, Maps, and Plans. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE INVASIONS OF ENGLAND: a History of the Past, with Lessons for
the Future. Two Vols. 8vo. 28s.
HÜBNER.—A RAMBLE ROUND THE WORLD IN 1871. By M. LE
BARON HÜBNER, formerly Ambassador and Minister. Translated by LADY
HERBERT. New and Cheaper Edition. With numerous Illustrations. Crown
8vo. 6s.
HUGHES.-MEMOIR OF A BROTHER. BY THOMAS HUGHES, Q.C.,
Author of "Tom Brown's School Days." With Portrait of GEORGE HUGHES,
after WATTS Engraved by JEENS. Crown 8vo. 5s. Sixth Edition.
HUNT.-HISTORY OF ITALY. By the Rev. W. HUNT, M.A. Being the
Fourth Volume of the Historical Course for Schools. Edited by Edward A.
FREEMAN, D.C.L. 18mo. 35.
HUTTON.-ESSAYS THEOLOGICAL AND LITERARY. By R. H.
HUTTON, M.A. Cheaper issue. 2 vols. 8vo. 18s.
Contents of VOL. I. :-The moral significance of Atheism-The Atheistic Ex-
planation of Religion-Science and Theism-Popular Pantheism-What is Revela-
tion?-Christian Evidences, Popular and Critical-The Historical Problems of the
Fourth Gospel-The Incarnation and Principles of Evidence-M. Renan's "Christ "
-M. Renan's "St. Paul"-The Hard Church-Romanism, Protestantism, and
Anglicanism.
CONTENTS OF VOL. II.:-Goethe and his Influence-Wordsworth and his genius
-Shelley's Poetical Mysticism-Mr. Browning-The Poetry of the Old Testament
-Arthur Hugh Clough-The Poetry of Matthew Arnold-Tennyson-Nathaniel
Hawthorne.
INGLIS (JAMES) ("MAORI").-Works by JAMES INGLIS ("Maori”):—
OUR AUSTRLIAN COUSINS. 8vo. 145.
SPORT AND WORK ON THE NEPAUL FRONTIER; or, Twelve Years'
Sporting Reminiscences of an Indigo Planter. By "MAORI.” With Illustra-
tions. 8vo. 145.
IRVING. THE ANNALS OF OUR TIME. A Diurnal of Events, Social
and Political, Home and Foreign, from the Accession of Queen Victoria to the
Peace of Versailles. By JOSEPH IRVING. New Edition, revised. 8vo. half-
bound. 18s.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
IRVING-continued.
II
ANNALS OF OUR TIME. Supplement. From Feb. 28, 1871, to March 19,
1874. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
Second Supplement. From March, 1874, to the
ANNALS OF OUR TIME.
Occupation of Cyprus. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
JAMES.-FRENCH POETS AND NOVELISTS. BY HENRY JAMES, Jun.
Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.
CONTENTS:-Alfred de Musset; Théophile Gautier; Baudelaire; Honoré de
Balzac ; George Sand: The Two Ampères; Turgénieff, &c.
JEBB.-MODERN GREECE.
Two Lectures delivered before the Philo-
sophical Institution of Edinburgh. With papers on "The Progress of Greece,'
and "Byron in Greece." By R. C. JEBB, M.A., LL.D., Edin. Professor of
Greek in the University of Glasgow. Crown 8vo. 5s.
JOHNSON'S LIVES OF THE POETS.-The Six Chief Lives
-Milton, Dryden, Swift, Addison, Pope, Gray. With Macaulay's "Life of
Johnson." Edited, with Preface, by MATTHEW ARNOLD. Crown 8vo. 6s.
JONES.—THE LIFE'S WORK IN IRELAND OF A LANDLORD WHO
TRIED TO DO HIS DUTY. By W. BENCE JONES, of Lisselan. Crown
8vo. 6s.
KILLEN.-ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF IRELAND, from the
Earliest Date to the Present Time. By W. D. KILLEN, D.D., President of
Assembly's-College, Belfast, and Professor of Ecclesiastical History. Two Vols.
8vo. 255.
KINGSLEY (CHARLES).-Works by the Rev. CHARLES Kingsley,
M.A., Rector of Eversley and Canon of Westminster. (For other Works by
the same Author, see THEOLOGICAL and BELLES LETTRES Catalogues.)
AT LAST: A CHRISTMAS in the WEST INDIES. With nearly Fifty
Illustrations. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
THE ROMAN AND THE TEUTON. A Series of Lectures delivered before
the University of Cambridge. New and Cheaper Edition, with Preface by
Professor MAX MÜLLER. Crown 8vo. 6s.
PLAYS AND PURITANS, and other Historical Essays. With Portrait of Sir
WALTER RALEIGH. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s.
History of
In addition to the Essay mentioned in the title, this volume contains other two-
one on "Sir Walter Raleigh and his Time," and one on Froude's
England.'
"
HISTORICAL LECTURES AND ESSAYS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SANITARY AND SOCIAL LECTURES AND ESSAYS. Crown 8vo. 6s.
SCIENTIFIC LECTURES AND ESSAYS. Crown 8vo. 6s
LITERARY; AND GENERAL LECTURES. Crown 8vo. 6s.
KINGSLEY (HENRY).—TALES OF OLD TRAVEL. Re-narrated by
HENRY KINGSLEY, F.R.G.S. With Eight Illustrations by HUARD. Fifth
Edition. Crown 8vo. 58.
LANG.—CYPRUS: Its History, its Present Resources and Future Prospects.
By R. HAMILTON LANG, late H.M. Consul for the Island of Cyprus. With Two
Illustrations and Four Maps. 8vo. 145.
1
12
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN
LAOCOON.-Translated from the Text of Lessing, with Preface and Notes by
the Right Hon. Sir ROBERT J. PHILLIMORE, D.C.L. With Photographs. 8vo.
125.
LEONARDO DA VINCI AND HIS WORKS.-Consisting of a
Life of Leonardo Da Vinci, by Mrs. CHARLES W. HEATON, Author of “Albrecht
Dürer of Nürnberg." &c., an Essay on his Scientific and Literary Works, by
CHARLES CHRISTOPHER BLACK, M.A., and an account of his more important
Paintings and Drawings. Illustrated with Permanent Photographs. Royal 8vo.,
cloth, extra gilt. 31s. 6d.
LETHBRIDGE.—A SHORT MANUAL OF THE HISTORY OF
INDIA, with an account of INDIA AS IT IS. The Soil, Climate, and Pro-
ductions; the People-their Races, Religions, Public Works, and Industries;
the Civil Services and System of Administration. By ROPER LETHBRIDGE, M.A.,
C.I.E., Press Commissioner with the Government of India, late Scholar of Exeter
College, &c. &c. With Maps. Crown 8vo. 55.
LIECHTENSTEIN.-HOLLAND HOUSE. By Princess MARIE LEICH-
TENSTEIN. With Five Steel Engravings by C. H. JEENS, after paintings by
WATTS and other celebrated Artists, and numerous Illustrations drawn by Pro-
fessor P. H. DELAMOTTE, and engraved on Wood by J. D. COOPER, W. Palmer,
and JEWITT & Co., about 40 Illustrations by the Woodbury-type process, and
India Proofs of the Steel Engravings. Two vols. Medium 4to., half morocco
elegant. 41. 45.
LLOYD.—THE AGE OF PERICLES. A History of the Arts and Politics of
Greece from the Persian to the Peloponnesian War. By W. WATKIss Lloyd.
Two Vols. 8vo. 21s.
LOCH ETIVE AND THE SONS OF UISNACH.-With
Illustrations. 8vo. 14s.
LOFTIE.-A RIDE IN EGYPT FROM SIOOT TO LUXOR, IN 1879;
with Notes on the Present State and Ancient History of the Nile Valley, and
some account of the various ways of making the voyage out and home. By the
Rev. W. J. LOFTIE. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
LUBBOCK.—ADDRESSES, POLITICAL AND EDUCATIONAL. By
Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, 3art., M.P., D.C.L., F.R.S. 8vo. 8s. 6d.
MACDONELL.-FRANCE SINCE THE FIRST EMPIRE. BY JAMES
MACDONELL. Edited with Preface by his Wife. Crown 8vo. 6s.
MACARTHUR.-HISTORY OF SCOTLAND. By MARGARET Mac-
ARTHUR. Being the Third Volume of the Historical Course for Schools, Edited
by EDWARD A. FREEMAN, D.C.L. Second Edition. 18mo. 25.
MACMILLAN (REV. HUGH).-For other Works by 'same Author,
see THEOLOGICAL and Scientific Catalogues.
L
HOLIDAYS ON HIGH LANDS; or, Rambles and Incidents in search of
Alpine Plants. Second Edition, revised and enlarged. Globe 8vo. 6s.
MACREADY.-MACREADY'S REMINISCENCES AND SELECTIONS
FROM HIS DIARIES AND LETTERS. Edited by Sir F. POLLOCK, Bart.,
one of his Executors. With Four Portraits engraved by JEENS. New and
Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
13
MAHAFFY.-Works by the Rev. J. P. MAHAFFY, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College, Dublin :-
SOCIAL LIFE IN GREECE FROM HOMER TO MENANDER. Fourth
Edition, revised and enlarged, with a new chapter on Greek Art. Crown 8vo.
95.
RAMBLES AND STUDIES IN GREECE. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo.
IOS. 6d. New and enlarged Edition, with Map and Illustrations.
MARGARY.-THE JOURNEY OF AUGUSTUS RAYMOND MAR-
GARY FROM SHANGHAE TO BHAMO AND BACK TO MANWYNE.
From his Journals and Letters, with a brief Biographical Preface, a concluding
chapter by Sir RUTHERFORD ALCOCK, K.C.B., and a Steel Portrait engraved by
JEENS, and Map. 8vo. IOS. 6d.
MARKHAM.-NORTHWARD HO! By Captain ALBERT H. MARKHAM,
R.N., Author of "The Great Frozen Sea," &c. Including a narrative of Captain
Phipps's Expedition, by a Midshipman. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 1os. 6d.
MARTIN. THE HISTORY OF LLOYD'S, AND OF MARINE IN-
SURANCE IN GREAT BRITAIN. With an Appendix containing Statistics
relating to Marine Insurance. By FREDERICK MARTIN, Author of "The
Statesman's Year Book." 8vo. 14s.
MASSON (DAVID).—For other Works by same Author, see PHILOSOPHICAL
and BELLES LETTRES Catalogues.
CHATTERTON: A Story of the Year 1770. By DAVID MASSON, LL.D.,
Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature in the University of Edinburgh.
Crown 8vo.
55.
THE THREE DEVILS: Luther's, Goethe's, and Milton's; and other Essays.
Crown 8vo. 55.
WORDSWORTH, SHELLEY, AND KEATS; and other Essays. Crown 8vo.
5S.
MATHEWS.-life oF CHARLES J. MATHEWS, Chiefly Autobio-
graphical. With Selections from his Correspondence and Speeches. Edited by
CHARLES DICKENS. Two Vols. 8vo. 255.
MAURICE. THE FRIENDSHIP OF BOOKS; AND OTHER LEC-
TURES. By the Rev. F. D. MAURICE. Edited with Preface, by THOMAS
HUGHES, Q.C. Crown 8vo. IOS. 6d.
MAYOR (J. E. B.)-WORKS edited by JOHN E. B. MAYOR, M.A., Kennedy
Professor of Latin at Cambridge :-
"CAMBRIDGE IN THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY. Part II. Auto-
biography of Matthew Robinson. Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 6d.
LIFE OF BISHOP BEDELL. By his SON. Fcap. 8vo.
3s. 6d.
MELBOURNE.-MEMOIRS OF THE RT. HON. WILLIAM, SECOND
With Portrait
VISCOUNT MELBOURNE. By W. M. TORRENS, M.P.
after Sir T. Lawrence. Second Edition. Two Vols. 8vo. 32s.
MENDELSSOHN.-LETTERS AND RECOLLECTIONS. BY FERDI-
With Portrait from a
NAND HILLER. Translated by M. E. VON GLehn.
Drawing by KARL MÜLLER, never before published. Second Edition. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d.
14
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN
MEREWETHER.—BY SEA AND BY LAND. Being a Trip through
Egypt, India, Ceylon, Australia, New Zealand, and America-All Round the
World. By HENRY ÁLWORTH MEREWETHER, one of Her Majesty's Counsel.
Crown 8vo. 8s. Ed.
MICHAEL ANGELO BUONAROTTI; Sculptor, Painter, Archi-
tect. The Story of his Life and Labours. By C. C. BLACK, M.A. Illustrated
by 20 Permanent Photographs. Royal 8vo. cloth elegant. 31s. 6d.
MICHELET.-A SUMMARY OF MODERN HISTORY. Translated
from the French of M. MICHELET, and continued to the present time by M. C. M.
SIMPSON. Globe 8vo. 4s. 6d.
MILLET.-JEAN FRANÇOIS MILLET; Peasant and Painter. Trans-
With numerous Illustrations.
lated from the French of ALFRED SENSIER.
Globe 4to. 165.
MILTON.-LIFE OF JOHN MILTON. Narrated in connection with the
Political, Ecclesiastical, and Literary History of his Time. By David Masson,
M.A., LL.D., Professor of Rhetoric and English Literature in the University
of Edinburgh. With Portraits. Vol. I. 1608-1639. New and Revised Edition.
8vo. 21S. Vol. II. 1638-1643. 8vo. 16s. Vol. III. 1643—1649. 8vo. 18s.
Vols. IV. and V. 1649–1660. 325. Vol. VI. 1660–1674. With Portrait.
[Index Volume in preparation.
This work is not only a Biography, but also a continuous Political, Ecclesiastical,
and Literary History of England through Milton's whole time.
215.
MITFORD (A. B.)-TALES OF OLD JAPAN. By A. B. MITFORD,
Second Secretary to the British Legation in Japan. With upwards of 30 Illus-
trations, drawn and cut on Wood by Japanese Artists. New and Cheaper
Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s..
MONTEIRO.-ANGOLA AND THE RIVER CONGO. BY JOACHIM
MONTEIRO. With numerous Illustrations from Sketches taken on the spot, and
a Map. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 215.
MOSELEY.-NOTES BY A NATURALIST ON THE CHALLENGER:
being an Account of various Observations made during the Voyage of H.M.S.
Challenger Round the World in 1872-76. By H. N. MOSELEY, F.R.S.,
Member of the Scientific Staff of the Challenger. With Maps, Coloured Plates,
and Woodcuts. 8vo. 21S.
MURRAY.-ROUND ABOUT FRANCE. By E. C. GRENVILLE MURRAY.
Crown 8vo.
75. 6d.
MUSIC.-DICTIONARY OF MUSIC AND MUSICIANS (A.D. 1450-
1881). By Eminent Writers, English and Foreign.
and Foreign. Edited by George
GROVE, D.C.L. Three Vols. 8vo. With Illustrations and Woodcuts. Parts
I. to XIII., 35. 6d. each. Vols. I. and II. 8vo. 21s. each.
Vol. I.—A to Impromptu. Vol. II.—Improperia to Plain Song.
NAPIER.--MACVEY NAPIER'S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE.
Edited by his Son, MACVEY NAPIER. 8vo. 145.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
15
NAPOLEON. THE HISTORY OF NAPOLEON I. By P. LAnfrey.
A Translation with the sanction of the Author. Four Vols. 8vo. Vols. I. II.
and III. price 125. each. Vol. IV. With Index. 6s.
NEWTON.-ESSAYS ON ART AND ARCHEOLOGY. BY CHARLES
THOMAS NEWTON, C. B., Ph.D., D.C.L., LL.D., Keeper of Greek and Roman
Antiquities at the British Museum, &c. 8vo.
12s. 6d.
NICHOL.-TABLES OF EUROPEAN LITERATURE AND HISTORY,
A.D. 200-1876. By J. NICHOL, LL.D., Professor of English Language and
Literature, Glasgow. 4to. 6s. 6d.
TABLES OF ANCIENT LITERATURE AND HISTORY, B.C. 1500-A.D.
200. By the same Author. 4to. 4s. 6d.
NORDENSKIÖLD'S ARCTIC VOYAGES, 1858-79.-With
Maps and numerous Illustrations. 8vo. Iбs.
VOYAGE OF THE VEGA. By ADOLF ERIK NORDENSKIÖLD. With numerous
Illustrations. Medium 8vo.
[In the press.
OLIPHANT (MRS.).—THE MAKERS OF FLORENCE: Dante, Giotto,
Savonarola, and their City. By Mrs. OLIPHANT. With numerous Illustrations
from drawings by Professor DELAMOTTE, and portrait of Savonarola, engraved.
by JEENS. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown 8vo.
10s. 6d.
OLIPHANT.-THE DUKE AND THE SCHOLAR; and other Essays
By T. L. KINGTON OLIPHANT. 8vo. 78. 6d.
OTTE.-SCANDINAVIAN HISTORY. By E. C. OTTE.
Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s.
With Maps,
OWENS COLLEGE ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES.
BY PRO-
FESSORS AND LECTURERS of Owens College, MancHESTER. Published in
Commemoration of the Opening of the New College Buildings, October 7th,
1873. 8vo. 145.
PALGRAVE (R. F. D.)-THE HOUSE OF COMMONS; Illustrations
of its History and Practice. By REGINALD F. D. PALGRAVE, Clerk Assistant
of the House of Commons. New and Revised Edition. Crown 8vo.
2s. 6d.
PALGRAVE (SIR F.)-HISTORY OF NORMANDY AND OF
ENGLAND. By Sir FRANCIS PALGRAVE, Deputy Keeper of Her Majesty's
Public Records. Completing the History to the Death of William Rufus. 4
Vols. 8vo. 42. 45.
PALGRAVE (W. G.)—A NARRATIVE OF A YEAR'S JOURNEY
THROUGH CENTRAL AND EASTERN ARABIA, 1862-3. BY WILLIAM
Gifford PalGRAVE, late of the Eighth Regiment Bombay N.I. Sixth Edition.
With Maps, Plans, and Portrait of Author, engraved on steel by JEENS. Crown
8vo. 6s.
ESSAYS ON EASTERN QUESTIONS. By W. Gifford PALGRAVE. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
DUTCH GUIANA. With Maps and Plans. 8vo. 95.
16
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF WORKS IN
PATTESON.-LIFE AND LETTERS OF JOHN COLERIDGE PAT-
TESON, D.D., Missionary Bishop of the Melanesian Islands. By CHARLOTTE
M. YONGE, Author of "The Heir of Redclyffe." With Portraits after
RICHMOND and from Photograph, engraved by JEENS. With Map. Fifth
Edition. Two Vols. Crown 8vo. 125.
PAULI.—PICTURES OF OLD ENGLAND. By Dr. REINHOLD PAULI
Translated with the approval of the Author, by E. C. OTTE. Cheaper Edition
Crown 8vo. 6s.
PAYNE.— A HISTORY OF EUROPEAN COLONIES. By E. J. PAYNE,
M.A. With Maps. 18mo.
18mo. 45. 6d.
[Historical Course.
PERSIA.-EASTERN PERSIA. An Account of the Journeys of the Persian
Boundary Commission, 1870-1-2.-Vol. I. The Geography, with Narratives by
Majors ST. JOHN, LOVETT, and EUAN SMITH, and an Introduction by Major-
General Sir Frederic GoLDSMID, C.B., K.C.S.I., British Commissioner and
Arbitrator. With Maps and Illustrations.-Vol. II. The Zoology and Geology.
By W. T. BLANDFORD, A.R.S.M., F.R.S. With; Coloured Illustrations. Two
Vols. 8vo. 425.
PHEAR. THE ARYAN VILLAGE IN INDIA AND CEYLON. By Sir
JOHN B. PHEAR. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
POOLE.-A HISTORY OF THE HUGUENOTS OF THE DISPERSION
AT THE RECALL OF THE EDICT OF NANTES. By REGINALD
LANE POOLE. Crown 8vo. 6s.
PRICHARD.-THE ADMINISTRATION OF INDIA. From 1859 to
1868. The First Ten Years of Administration under the Crown. By I. T.
PRICHARD, Barrister-at-Law. Two Vols. Demy 8vo. With Map. 215.
RAPHAEL.-RAPHAEL OF URBINO AND HIS FATHER GIOVANNI
SANTI. By J. D. PASSAVANT, formerly Director of the Museum at Frank-
fort. With Twenty Permanent Photographs. Royal 8vo. Handsomely bound.
31s. 6d.
REMBRANDT.-THE ETCHED WORK OF REMBRANDT.
REMBRANDT.
MONOGRAPH. By FRAncis Seymour HADEN. With three Plates.
75. 6d.
A
8vo.
ROGERS (JAMES E. THOROLD).-HISTORICAL GLEAN-
INGS:-A Series of Sketches. Montague, Walpole, Adam Smith, Cobbett.
By Prof. ROGERS, M.P. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d. Second Series. Wiklif, Laud,
Wilkes, and Horne Tooke. Crown 8vo. 6s.
ROUTLEDGE.-CHAPTERS IN THE HISTORY OF POPULAR
PROGRESS IN ENGLAND, chiefly in Relation to the Freedom of the
Press and Trial by Jury, 1660-1820. With application to later years. By J.
RoutledgE. 8vo. 165.
RUMFORD.-COUNT RUMFORD'S COMPLETE
Memoir, and Notices of his Daughter. By GEORGE ELLIS.
47. 14s. 6d.
RUSSELL.-NEW VIEWS ON IRELAND,
WORKS, with
Five Vols. 8vo.
OR IRISH LAND
GRIEVANCES AND REMEDIES. By CHARLES RUSSELL, Q.C., M.P.
Third Edition. Crown 8vo.
25. 6d.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
17
SEELEY (PROFESSOR).-LECTURES AND ESSAYS. By J. R,
SEELEY, M.A., Professor of Modern History in the University of Cambridge.
8vo. IOS. 6d.
CONTENTS:-Roman Imperialism: 1. The Great Roman Revolution; 2. The
Proximate Cause of the Fall of the Roman Empire; The Later Empire.-Milton's
Political Opinions-Milton's Poetry-Elementary Principles in Art-Liberal Educa
tion in Universities-English in Schools-The Church as a Teacher of Morality-The
Teaching of Polítics: an Inaugural Lecture delivered at Cambridge.
SHELBURNE.-LIFE OF WILLIAM, EARL OF SHELBURNE,
AFTERWARDS FIRST MARQUIS OF LANDSDOWNE. With Extracts
from his Papers and Correspondence. By Lord EDMOND FITZMAURICE. In
Three Vols. 8vo. Vol. I. 1737—1766, 125.; Vol. II. 1766—1776, 125.; Vol.
III. 1776-1805. 165.
SIBSON.-COLLECTED WORKS OF FRANCIS SIBSON, M.D., Lond.,
Fellow of the Royal Society, Honorary M.D. Trinity College, Dublin, and
D.C.L. Durham, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, &c. Edited by
WILLIAM M. ORD, M.D. With Illustrations. Four Volumes. 8vo. 36. 35.
SIME. HISTORY OF GERMANY. By 'JAMES SIME, M.A. 18mo. 35.
Being Vol. V. of the Historical Course for Schools. Edited by EDWARD A.
FREEMAN, D.C.L.
SQUIER. PERU: INCIDENTS OF TRAVEL AND EXPLORATION
IN THE LAND OF THE INCAS. By E. G. SQUIER, M.A., F.S.A.,
late U.S. Commissioner to Peru. With 300 Illustrations. Second Edition.
8vo. 215.
ST. ANSELM.-By the Very Rev. R. W. CHURCH, M.A., Dean of St. Paul's.
New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. (Biographical Series.)
STATHAM.-BLACKS,
-BLACKS, BOERS, AND BRITISH: A Three-Cornered
Problem. By F. R. STATHAM. Crown 8vo. 6s.
STEVENSON.-HOUSE ARCHITECTURE.
By J. J. STEVENSON,
Fellow of the Royal Institution of British Architects. With numerous Illustra-
tions. Royal 8vo. 2 Vols. 18s. each. Vol. I. Architecture. Vol. II. House
Planning.
STRANGFORD.- ·EGYPTIAN SHRINES AND SYRIAN SEPUL-
CHRES, including a Visit to Palmyra. By EMILY A. BEAUFORT (Viscountess
Strangford), Author of "The Eastern Shores of the Adriatic.' New Edition.
Crown 8vo.
78. 6d.
27
TAIT.-AN ANALYSIS OF ENGLISH HISTORY, based upon Green's
"Short History of the English People. By C. W. A. TAIT, M.A., Assistant
Master, Clifton College. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
TAIT.-CATHARINE AND CRAUFURD TAIT, WIFE AND SON OF
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY:
Memoir, Edited, at the request of the Archbishop, by the Rev. W. BENHAM,
B.D., Vicar of Marden, and One of the Six Preachers of Canterbury Cathedral.
With Two Portraits engraved by JEENS. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown
8vo. 6s. (Biographical Series.)
a
THOMAS. THE LIFE OF JOHN THOMAS, Surgeon of the "Earl of
Oxford" East Indiaman, and First Baptist Missionary to Bengal. By C. B.
LEWIS, Baptist Missionary. 8vo. ros. 6d.
་་
b
IS
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF
THOMPSON.-A HANDBOOK TO THE PUBLIC PICTURE GAL-
LERIES OF EUROPE. With a Brief Sketch of the History of the various
Schools of painting. From the Thirteenth Century to the Eighteenth inclusive.
By KATE THOMPSON. Third Edition. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
THOMPSON.-HISTORY OF ENGLAND. By EDITH THOMPSON.
Being Vol. II. of the Historical Course for Schools, Edited by EDWARD A.
FREEMAN, D.C.L. New Edition, revised and enlarged, with Coloured Maps.
18mo. 2s. 6d.
THROUGH THE RANKS TO A COMMISSION.-Crown
8vo. 6s.
TODHUNTER.-THE CONFLICT OF STUDIES; AND OTHER
ESSAYS ON SUBJECTS CONECTED WITH EDUCATION. BY ISAAC
TODHUNTER, M.A., F.R.S., late Fellow and Principal Mathematical Lecturer
of St. John's College, Cambridge. 8vo. IOS. 6d.
TRENCH (ARCHBISHOP).-For other Works by the same Author,
see THEOLOGICAL and BELLES LETTRES CATALOGUES, and page 27 of this
Catalogue.
GUSTAVUS ADOLPHUS IN GERMANY, and other Lectures on the Thirty
Years' War. Second Edition, revised and enlarged. Fcap. 8vo. 45.
PLUTARCH, HIS LIFE, HIS LIVES, AND HIS MORALS.
tures. Second Edition, enlarged. Fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Five Lec-
LECTURES ON MEDIEVAL CHURCH HISTORY. Being the substance
of Lectures delivered in Queen's College, London. Second Edition, revised.
8vo. 125.
AN ESSAY ON THE LIFE AND GENIUS OF CALDERON. With
Translations from his "Life's a Dream" and "Great Theatre of the World."
Second Edition, revised and improved. Fcap. 8vo. 55.
TRENCH (MARIA).-
(MARIA).—THE LIFE OF ST. TERESA. By MARIA
TRENCH. With Portrait engraved by JEENS. Crown 8vo, cloth extra. 8s. 6d.
TRENCH (MRS. R.).—REMAINS OF THE LATE MRS. RICHARD
TRENCH. Being Selections from her Journals, Letters, and other Papers.
Edited by ARCHBISHOP TRENCH. New and Cheaper Issue, with Portrait. 8vo.
6s.
TREVELYAN.-THE IRISH CRISIS. Being a Narrative of the Measures
for the Relief of the Distress caused by the Great Irish Famine of 1846-7. By
Sir CHARLES TREVELYAN, Bart., K.C.B. 8vo.
2s. 6d.
TROLLOPE.
A HISTORY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF
FLORENCE FROM THE EARLIEST INDEPENDENCE OF THE
COMMUNE TO THE FALL OF THE REPUBLIC IN 1831. By T.
ADOLPHUS TROLLOPE. 4 Vols. 8vo. Cloth. 215.
TYLOR. ANTHROPOLOGY: an Introduction to the Study of Man and
Civilisation. By E. B. TYLOR, D.C.L., F.R.S. With Illustrations. Crown
8vo. 7s. 6d.
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, TRAVELS, ETC.
19
UPPINGHAM BY THE SEA.-A NARRATIVE OF THE YEAR
AT BORTH. By J. H. S. Crown 8vo.
3s. 6d.
VICTOR EMMANUEL II., FIRST KING OF ITALY.
By G. S. GODKIN. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. (Biographical Series.)
WALLACE. THE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO: the Land of the Orang
Utan and the Bird of Paradise. By ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE. A Narra-
tive of Travel with Studies of Man and Nature. With Maps 'and numerous
Illustrations. Sixth Edition. Crown 8vo.
Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
WARD.-A HISTORY OF ENGLISH DRAMATIC LITERATURE TO
THE DEATH OF QUEEN ANNE. By A. W. WARD, M.A., Professor of
History and English Literature in Owens College, Manchester. Two Vols.
8vo. 325.
WARD (J.)—EXPERIENCES OF A DIPLOMATIST. Being recollec-
tions of Germany founded on Diaries kept during the years 1840-1870. By
JOHN WARD, C.B., late H.M. Minister-Resident to the Hanse Towns. 8vo.
ICS. 6d.
WARD.-ENGLISH POETS. Selections, with Critical Introductions by
various writers, and a General Introduction by MATTHEW ARNOLD.
by T. H. WARD, M.A. 4 vols. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. each.
Vol. I. CHAUCER to DONNE.
Vol. II. BEN JONSON to DRYDEN.
Vol. III. ADDISON to BLAKE.
Vol. IV. WORDSWORTH to SYDNEY DOBELL.
Edited
WATERTON (C.)-WANDERINGS IN SOUTH AMERICA, THE
NORTH-WEST OF THE UNITED STATES, AND THE ANTILLES
IN 1812, 1816, 1820, and 1824. With Original Instructions for the perfect Preser-
vation of Birds, etc., for Cabinets of Natural History. By CHARLES WATERTON.
New Edition, edited with Biographical Introduction and Explanatory Index
by the Rev. J. G. Wood. M.A. With 100 Illustrations. Cheaper Edition.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
WATSON.—A VISIT TO WAZAN, THE SACRED CITY OF MOROCCO
By ROBERT Spence WatSON. With Illustrations. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
WEDGWOOD.-JOHN WESLEY AND THE EVANGELICAL RE-
ACTION of the Eighteenth Century. By JULIA WEDGWOOD. Crown 8vo.
8s. 6d.
WHEELER.-A SHORT HISTORY OF INDIA, AND OF THE
FRONTIER STATES OF AFGHANISTAN, NEPAUL, AND BURMA.
By J. TALBOYS WHEELER, late Assistant-Secretary to the Government of
India, Foreign Department, and late Secretary to the Government of British
Burma. With Maps and Tables. Crown 8vo. 125.
WHEWELL.-WILLIAM WHEWELL, D.D., late Master of Trinity
College, Cambridge. An account of his Writings, with Selections from his
Literary and Scientific correspondence. By I. TODHUNTER, M.A., F.R.S.
Two Vols. 8vo. 253.
b 2
20
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF
WHITE. THE NATURAL HISTORY AND ANTIQUITIES OF_SEL-
BORNE. By GILBERT WHITE. Edited, with Memoir and Notes, by FRANK
BUCKLAND, A Chapter on Antiquities by LORD SELBORNE, and numerous Il-
lustrations by P. H. DELAMOTTE. New and Cheaper Edition. Crown Svo. 6s.
Also a Large Paper Edition, containing, in addition to the above, upwards of
Thirty Woodburytype Illustrations from Drawings by Prof. DELAMOTTE. Two
Vols. 4to. Half morocco, elegant. 47. 45.
WILSON.—A MEMOIR OF GEORGE WILSON, M.D., F.R.S.E., Regius
Professor of Technology in the University of Edinburgh. By his SISTER. New
Edition. Crown 8vo. 65.
WILSON (DANIEL,
(DANIEL, LL.D.)-Works by DANIEL WILSON, LL.D.,
Professor of History and English Literature in University College, Toronto :-
PREHISTORIC ANNALS OF SCOTLAND. New Edition, with numerous
Illustrations. Two Vols. Demy 8vo. 365.
PREHISTORIC MAN: Researches into the Origin of Civilization in the Old
and New World. New Edition, revised and enlarged throughout, with numerous
Illustrations and Two Coloured Plates. Two Vols. 8vo. 36s.
CHATTERTON: A Biographical Study. By DANIEL WILSON, LL.D. Professor
of History and English Literature in University College, Toronto. Crown 8vo.
6s. 6d.
YONGE (CHARLOTTE M.)-Works by CHARLOTTE M. YONGE,
Author of the "Heir of Redclyffe," &c. &c. :—
A PARALLEL HISTORY OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND: Consisting of
Outlines and Dates. Oblong 4to. 35. 6d.
CAMEOS FROM ENGLISH HISTORY. From Rollo to Edward II. Extra
Fcap. 8vo. Third Edition. 55.
SECOND SERIES, THE WARS IN FRANCE.
Edition. 5s.
Extra fcap. 8vo. Third
THIRD SERIES, THE WARS OF THE ROSES. Extra fcap. 8vo. 55.
Fourth Series, REFORMATION TIMES. Extra fcap. 8vo. 55.
HISTORY OF FRANCE. Maps. 18mo. 3s. 6d.
[Historical Course for Schools.
WORKS IN POLITICS, ETC.
21
POLITICS, POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ECONOMY,
LAW, AND KINDRED SUBJECTS.
ANGLO-SAXON LAW.-ESSAYS IN. Contents: Law Courts-Land
and Family Laws and Legal Procedure generally. With Select cases.
Medium 8vo. 185.
ARNOLD.-THE ROMAN SYSTEM OF PROVINCIAL ADMINIS
TRATION TO THE ACCESSION OF CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
Being the Arnold Prize Essay for 1879. By W. T. ARNOLD, B.A. Crown
8vo. 6s.
BALL. THE STUDENT'S GUIDE TO THE BAR. By Walter W.
Ball, M.A., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Crown. 8vo.
2s. 6d.
BERNARD.—FOUR LECTURES ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH
DIPLOMACY. BY MONTAGUE BERNARD, M. A., Chichele Professor of
International Law and Diplomacy, Oxford. 8vo. gs.
BIGELOW.-HISTORY OF PROCEDURE IN ENGLAND, FROM
THE NORMAN CONQUEST. The Norman Period, 1066-1204.
MELVILLE MADISON BIGELOW, Ph.D., Harvard University. 8vo. 16s.
BRIGHT (JOHN, M.P.)-Works by the Right Hon. JOHN Bright,
M.P.
3s. 6d.
By
SPEECHES ON QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC POLICY. Edited by Professor,
THOROLD ROGERS, M.P. Author's Popular Edition. Globe 8vo.
LIBRARY EDITION. Two Vols. 8vo. With Portrait. 255.
PUBLIC ADDRESSES. Edited by J. Tнorold Rogers, M.P. 8vo. 145.
BUCKNILL.-Works by J. C. BUCKNILL, M.D., F.R.S., late Lord Chan-
cellor's Visitor of Lunatics :-
HABITUAL DRUNKENNESS AND INSANE DRUNKARDS. Crown 8vo.
2s. 6d.
THE CARE OF THE INSANE, AND THEIR LEGAL CONTROL. Crown
8vo. 35. 6d.
CAIRNES.-Works by J. E. Cairnes, M.A., Emeritus Professor of Political
Economy in University College, London:-
POLITICAL ESSAYS. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
THE CHARACTER AND LOGICAL METHOD OF POLITICAL ECO-
NOMY. New Edition, enlarged. 8vo. 75. 6d.
COBDEN (RICHARD).-SPEECHES ON QUESTIONS OF PUBLIC
POLICY. By RICHARD COBDEN. Edited by the Right Hon John Bright,
M.P., and J. E. Thorold Rogers, M.P. Popular Edition. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
COSSA.—GUIDE TO THE STUDY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. By
Dr. LUIGI Cossa, Professor of Political Economy in the University of Pavia.
Translated from the Second Italian Edition. With a Preface by W. Stanley
JEVONS, F.R.S. Crown 8vo. 4s. 6d.
FAWCETT.—Works by Right Hon. HENry Fawcett, M.A., M.P., Fello
of Trinity Hall, and Professor of Political Economy in the University of Cam-
bridge:-
THE ECONOMIC POSITION OF THE BRITISH LABOURER. Extra
fcap 8vo. 55.
1
22
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF
FAWCETT—continued.
MANUAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. Fifth Edition, with New Chapters
on the Depreciation of Silver, etc. Crown 8vo. 125.
PAUPERISM: ITS CAUSES AND REMEDIES. Crown 8vo. 5s. 6d.
SPEECHES ON SOME CURRENT POLITICAL QUESTIONS.
IOS. 6d.
8vo.
FREE TRADE AND PROTECTION: and Inquiry into the Causes which have
retarded the general adoption of Free Trade since its introduction into England.
Third Edition. 8vo. 7s. 6d.
INDIAN FINANCE. Three Essays, with Introduction and Appendix. 8vo.
7s. 6d.
IOS. 6d
ESSAYS ON POLITICAL AND SOCIAL SUBJECTS. By Right Hon.
HENRY FAWCETT, M.P., and MILLICENt Garrett FAWCETT. 8vo.
FAWCETT (MRS.)-Works by MILLICENT Garrett Fawcett:—
POLITICAL ECONOMY FOR BEGINNERS. WITH QUESTIONS. New
Edition. 18mo.
2s. 6d.
TALES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY. Crown 8vo. 35.
GOSCHEN.-REPORTS AND SPEECHES ON LOCAL TAXATION.
By GEORGE J. GOSCHEN, M.P. Royal 8vo. 5s.
GUIDE TO THE UNPROTECTED, in Every Day Matters Relating
to Property and Income. By a Banker's Daughter. Fifth Edition, Revised.
Extra fcap. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
HAMILTON.-MONEY AND VALUE: an Inquiry into the Means and
Ends of Economic Production, with an Appendix on the Depreciation of Silver
and Indian Currency. By ROWLAND HAMILTON. 8vo. 125.
HARWOOD.-DISESTABLISHMENT: a Defence of the Principle of a
National Church. By GEORGE Harwogd, M.A. 8vo. 125.
HILL.-OUR COMMON LAND;" and other Short Essays. By OCTAVIA
HILL. Extra fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d.
Contents:-Our Common Land. District Visiting. A more Excellent Way of
Charity. A Word on Good Citizenship. Open Spaces. Effectual Charity. The
Future of our Commons.
HOLLAND.-Works by T. E. HOLLAND, D.C.L., Professor of International
Law and Diplomacy, Oxford.
THE TREATY RELATIONS OF RUSSIA AND TURKEY FROM 1774 TO
1853. A Lecture delivered at Oxford, April 1877. Crown 8vo. 25.
HUGHES (THOS.)—THE OLD CHURCH: WHAT SHALL WE DO
WITH IT? BY THOMAS HUGHES, Q.C. Crown 8vo. 6s.
JEVONS.-Works by W. Stanley Jevons, LL.D., M.A., F.R.S. (For other
Works by the same Author, see Educational and Philosophical Cata-
LOGUES.):-
THE THEORY OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. Second Edition, revised, with
new Preface and Appendices. 8vo. 10s. 6d.
PRIMER OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 18m0.
IS.
1
WORKS IN POLITICS, ETC.
23
LAVELEYE.-PRIMITIVE PROPERTY. By EMILE DE LAVELEYE.
Translated by G. R. L. MARRIOTT, LL.B., with an Introduction by T. E.
CLIFFE LESLIE. LL.B. 8vo. 125.
2s. 6d.
LEADING CASES DONE INTO ENGLISH.-By an APPR EN-
TICE OF LINCOLN'S INN. Third Edition. Crown 8vo.
LUBBOCK.-ADDRESSES, POLITICAL AND EDUCATIONAL. By
Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Bart., M.P., &c., &c. 8vo. 8s. 6d.
MACDONELL.-THE LAND QUESTION,
REFERENCE TO ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND.
Barrister-at-Law. 8vo.
IOS. 6d.
WITH SPECIAL
By JOHN MACDONEL,
MARSHALL.—THE ECONOMICS OF INDUSTRY. By A. Marshall,
MARSHALL,
M.A., Principal of University College Bristol, and MARY PALEY MARSHALL,
late Lecturer at Newnham Hall, Cambridge. Extra fcap. 8vo.
2s. 6d.
MARTIN.-THE STATESMAN'S YEAR-BOOK: A Statistical and Histori-
cal Annual of the States of the Civilized World, for the year 1881. By_FREDE-
RICK MARTIN. Eighteenth Annual Publication. Revised after Official Returns.
Crown 8vo. IOS. 6d.
MONAHAN.-THE METHOD OF LAW: an Essay on the Statement and
Arrangement of the Legal Standard of Conduct. By J. H. MONAHAN, Q.C.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
PATERSON.-Works by JAMES PATERSON, M.A., Barrister-at-Law, sometime
Commissioner for English and Irish Fisheries, &c.
THE LIBERTY OF THE SUBJECT AND THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
RELATING TO THE SECURITY OF THE PERSON. Commentaries on.
Cheaper issue. Crown 8vo.
215.
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS, OF SPEECH, AND OF PUBLIC WOR-
SHIP. Being Commentaries on the Liberty of the Subject and the Laws of
England. Crown 8vo.
I25.
PHILLIMORE.-PRIVATE LAW AMONG THE ROMANS, from the
Pandects. By JOHN GEORGE PHILLIMORE, Q.C. 8vo. 165.
PRACTICAL POLITICS.-ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL LIBERAL
FEDERATION:-
I. THE TENANT FARMER: Land Laws and Landlords. By JAMES HOWARD.
8vo.
IS.
II. FOREIGN POLICY. By Right Hon. M. E. GRANT DUFF, M.P. 8vo. IS.
III. FREEDOM OF LAND. By G. SHAW LEFEVRE, M.P. 8vo.
2s. 6d.
IV. BRITISH COLONIAL POLICY. By Sir DAVID WEdderburn, Bart.,
M.P. Demy 8vo. IS.
RICHEY.—THE IRISH LAND LAWS. BY ALEXANDER G. RICHEY, Q.C.,
LL.D., Deputy Regius Professor of Feudal and English Law in the University
of Dublin. Crown 8vo. 3s. 6d.
~
STEPHEN (C. E.)—THE SERVICE OF THE POOR; Being an Inquiry
into the Reasons for and against the Establishment of Religious Sisterhoods
for Charitable Purposes. By CAROLINE EMILIA STEPHEN. Crown 8vo.
6s. 6d.
24
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF
STEPHEN.-Works by Sir JAMES F. STEPHEN, K. C.S.I., Q.C.:—
A DIGEST OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE. Third Edition, with new Preface.
Crown 8vo. 6s.
A DIGEST OF THE CRIMINAL LAW. (Crimes and Punishments.) 8vo,
165.
A GENERAL VIEW OF THE CRIMINAL LAW OF ENGLAND. Two
Vols. Crown 8vo.
[New edition in the press.
STUBBS.-VILLAGE POLITICS. Addresses and Sermons on the Labour
Question. By C. W. STUBBS, M.A., Vicar of Granborough, Bucks. Extra
fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d.
T
THORNTON.-Works by W. T. THORNTON, C.B., Secretary for Public
Works in the India Office :-
A PLEA FOR PEASANT PROPRIETORS: With the Outlines of a Plan for
their Establishment in Ireland. New Edition, revised. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d.
INDIAN PUBLIC WORKS AND COGNATE INDIAN TOPICS. With
Map of Indian Railways. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d.
WALKER.—Works by F. A. WALKER, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of Political
Economy and History, Yale College:-
THE WAGES QUESTION. A Treatise on Wages and the Wages Class. 8vo.
145.
MONEY. 8vo. 16s.
MONEY IN ITS RELATIONS TO TRADE AND INDUSTRY. Crown 8vo.
75. 6d.
WILSON.-RECIPROCITY, BI-METALLISM, AND LAND-TENURE
REFORM. By A. J. WILSON, Author of "The Resources of Modern
Countries." 8vo. 7s. 6d.
WORKS ON LANGUAGE.
25
L
}
WORKS CONNECTED WITH THE SCIENCE OR THE
HISTORY OF LANGUAGE.
ABBOTT.-A SHAKESPERIAN GRAMMAR: An Attempt to illustrate
some of the Differences between Elizabethan and Modern English. By the
Rev. E. A. Abbott, D.D., Head Master of the City of London School. New
and Enlarged Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s.
BREYMANN.—A FRENCH GRAMMAR BASED ON PHILOLOGICAL
PRINCIPLES. BY HERMANN BREYMANN, Ph.D., Professor of Philology in
the University of Munich, late Lecturer on French Language and Literature at
Owens College, Manchester, Extra fcap. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
ELLIS.—PRACTICAL HINTS ON THE QUANTITATIVE PRO-
NUNCIATION OF LATIN, FOR THE USE OF CLASSICAL
TEACHERS AND LINGUISTS. By A. J. ELLIS, B.A., F.R.S.. &c.
Extra fcap. 8vo. 4s. 6d.
FLEAY.-A SHAKESPEARE MANUAL. By the Rev. F. G. FLEAY:
M.A., Head Master of Skipton Grammar School. Extra fcap. 8vo.
4s. 6d.
GOODWIN.-Works by W. W. GOODWIN, Professor of Greek Literature in
Harvard University:-
SYNTAX OF THE GREEK MOODS AND TENSES.
Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d.
AN ELEMENTARY GREEK GRAMMAR. Crown 8vo. 65.
New Edition.
Selected from
HADLEY.-ESSAYS PHILOLOGICAL AND CRITICAL.
the Papers of JAMES HADLEY, LL.D., Professor of Greek in Yale College, &c.
8vo. 16s.
45. 6а.
HALES.-LONGER ENGLISH POEMS. With Notes, Philological and
Explanatory, and an Introduction on the Teaching of English. Chiefly for use
in Schools. Edited by J. W. HALES, M.A., Professor of English Literature at
King's College, London, &c. &c. Fifth Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo.
HELFENSTEIN (JAMES).—A COMPARATIVE GRAMMAR OF
THE TEUTONIC LANGUAGES: Being at the same time a Historical
Grammar of the English Language, and comprising Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Early
English, Modern English, Icelandic (Old Norse), Danish, Swedish, Old High
German, Middle High German, Modern German, Old Saxon, Old Frisian, and
Dutch. By JAMES HELFENSTEIN, Ph.D. 8vo. 18s.
LEWIS AND SHORT.—A LATIN DICTIONARY. Founded on
Andrew's Edition of Freund's Latin Dictionary. Revised, enlarged, and in
great part re-written. By CHARLTON T. LEWIS, Ph.D., and Charles Short,
LL.D., Professor of Latin in Columbia College, New York. 4to. 31s. 6d.
LIDDELL AND SCOTT.—A GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON. Com-
piled by Henry George Liddell, D.D., Dean of Christ Church, and Robert
SCOTT, D.D., Master of Balliol College. Sixth Edition, revised and augmented.
4to. 368.
GREEK-ENGLISH LEXICON FOR SCHOOLS. By the Same. Seventeenth-
Edition. Square 12m0.
75. 6d.
26
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF
MASSON (GUSTAVE).-A COMPENDIOUS DICTIONARY OF
THE FRENCH LANGUAGE (French-English and English-French). Adapted
from the Dictionaries of Professor ALFRED ELWALL. Followed by a List of the
Principal Diverging Derivations, and preceded by Chronological and Historical
Tables. By GUSTAVE MASSON, Assistant-Master and Librarian, Harrow
School. Fourth Edition. Crown 8vo. Half-bound. 6s.
IOS. 6d.
MAYOR.—A BIBLIOGRAPHICAL CLUE TO LATIN LITERATURE.
Edited after Dr. E. HUBNER. With large Additions by JOHN E. B. Mayor,
M.A., Professor of Latin in the University of Cambridge. Crown 8vo.
MORRIS.-Works by the Rev. RICHARD MORRIS, LL.D., Member of the
Council of the Philol. Soc., Lecturer on English Language and Literature in
King's College School, Editor of "Specimens of Early English," &c., &c. :-
HISTORICAL OUTLINES OF ENGLISH ACCIDENCE, comprising
Chapters on the History and Development of the Language, and on Word-
formation. Sixth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 65.
ELEMENTARY LESSONS IN HISTORICAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR,
containing Accidence and Wood-formation. Third Edition. 18mo. 28.. 6d.
OLIPHANT.-THE OLD AND MIDDLE ENGLISH.
By T. L.
KINGTON OLIPHANT, M.A., of Balliol College, Oxford. A New Edition,
revised and greatly enlarged, of "The Sources of Standard English.' Extra
fcap. 8vo. 9s.
PEILE (JOHN, M.A.)-AN INTRODUCTION TO GREEK AND
LATIN ETYMOLOGY. BY JOHN PEILE, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Christ's
College, Cambridge. Third and revised Edition. Crown 8vo.
4s. 6d.
IOS. 6d.
Edited by JOHN E. B.
(Half-yearly.)
PHILOLOGY.-THE JOURNAL OF SACRED AND CLASSICAL
PHILOLOGY. Four Vols. 8vo. 12s. 6d. each.
THE JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. New Series.
MAYOR, M.A., and W. ALdis Wright, M.A. 4s. 6d.
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. Edited by BASIL L.
GILDERSLEEVE, Professor of Greek in the John Hopkins University.
4s. 6d. (Quarterly.)
ROBY (H. J.)-Works by HENRY JOHN ROBY, M.A., late Fellow of St.
John's College, Cambridge.
8vo.
A GRAMMAR OF THE LATIN LANGUAGE, FROM PLAUTUS TO
SUETONIUS. In Two Parts. Second Edition. Part I. containing:-Book
I. Sounds. Book II. Inflexions. Book III. Word Formation. Appendices.
Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. Part II.-Syntax, Prepositions, &c. Crown 8vo.
10s. 6d.
A LATIN GRAMMAR FOR SCHOOLS. Crown 8vo. 55.
SCHMIDT.-THE RYTHMIC AND METRIC OF THE CLASSICAL
LANGUAGES. To which are added, the Lyric Parts of the "Medea" of
Euripides and the Antigone" of Sophocles; with Rhythmical Scheme and
Commentary. By Dr. J. H. SCHMIDT. Translated from the German by J. W.
WHITE, D.D. 8vo. IOS. 6d.
64
TAYLOR.—Works by the Rev. Isaac Taylor, M.A.:
ETRUSCAN RESEARCHES. With Woodcuts. 8vo. 145.
WORDS AND PLACES; or, Etymological Illustrations of History, Ethnology,
and Geography. By the Rev. ISAAC TAYLOR. Third Edition, revised and
compressed. With Maps. Globe 8vo. 6s.
GREEKS AND GOTHS: a Study on the Runes. 8vo. gs.
WORKS ON LANGUAGE.
27
TRENCH.-Works by R. CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D., Archbishop of Dublin.
(For other Works by the same Author, see Theological Catalogue.)
SYNONYMS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Ninth Edition, enlarged. 8vo.
cloth. 125.
ON THE STUDY OF WORDS. Lectures Addressed (originally) to the Pupils
at the Diocesan Training School, Winchester. Seventeenth Edition, enlarged.
Fcap. 8vo.
55.
ENGLISH PAST AND PRESENT. Eleventh Edition, revised and improved.
Fcap. 8vo. 55.
A SELECT GLOSSARY OF ENGLISH WORDS USED FORMERLY IN
SENSES DIFFERENT FROM THEIR PRESENT. Fifth Edition,
enlarged. Fcap. 8vo. 55.
VINCENT AND DICKSON.-
DICKSON.-A HANDBOOK TO MODERN
GREEK. By EDGAR VINCENT and T. G. DICKSON. Extra fcap. 8vo.
8vo. 5s.
WHITNEY.-A COMPENDIOUS GERMAN GRAMMAR. By W. D.
WHITNEY, Professor of Sanskrit and Instructor in Modern Languages in Vale
College. Crown 8vo. 6s.
WHITNEY AND EDGREN.- -A COMPENDIOUS GERMA
AND ENGLISH DICTIONARY, with Notation of Correspondences and
Brief Etymologies. By Professor W. D. WHITNEY, assisted by A. H. EDGREN.
Crown 8vo. 78. 6d.
The GERMAN-ENGLISH Part may be had separately. Price
•
ན
-
ד
:
28
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF
THE GOLDEN TREASURY
TREASURY SERIES.
UNIFORMLY printed in 18mo, with Vignette Titles by J. E. MILLAIS, T. Woolner,
W. HOLMAN HUNT, SIR NOEL PATON, ARTHUR HUGHES, &c. Engraved on Steel
by JEENS. Bound in extra cloth, 4s. 62. each volume. Also kept in morocco and
calf bindings.
"Messrs. Macmillan have, in their Golden Treasury Series, especially provided
editions of standard works, volumes of selected poetry, and original compo-
sitions, which entitle this series to be called classical. Nothing can be better
than the literary execution, nothing more elegant than the material workman-
ship."-BRITISH QUARTERLY Review.
THE GOLDEN TREASURY OF THE Best sonGS
AND LYRICAL POEMS IN THE ENGLISH LAN-
GUAGE. Selected and arranged, with Notes, by FRANCIS TURNER
PALGRAVE.
THE
*
CHILDREN'S GARLAND FROM THE BEST
POETS. Selected and arranged by COVENTRY PATMORE.
THE BOOK OF PRAISE. From the best English Hymn Writers.
Selected and arranged by LORD SELBORNE. A New and Enlarged Edition.
THE FAIRY BOOK; the Best Popular Fairy Stories. Selected and ren-
dered anew by the Author of "JOHN HALIFAX, ĠENTLEMAN.
"A delightful selection, in a delightful external form; full of the physical splen-
dour and vast opulence of proper fairy tales."-Spectator.
THE BALLAD BOOK. A Selection of the Choicest British Ballads.
Edited by William AllingHAM.
THE JEST BOOK. The Choicest Anecdotes and Sayings. Selected and
arranged by MARK LEMON.
"The fullest and best jest book that has yet appeared.”—Saturday RevIEW,
BACON'S ESSAYS AND COLOURS OF GOOD AND
EVIL. With Notes and Glossarial Index. By W. ALDIS WRIGHT, M.A.
"The beautiful little edition of Bacon's Essays, now before us, does credit to
the taste and scholarship of Mr. Aldis Wright."-SPECTator.
THE GOLDEN TREASURY SERIES.
29
THE PILGRIM'S PROGRESS from this World to that which is to
come. By John Bunyan.
"A beautiful and scholarly reprint."-SPECTATOR.
THE
SUNDAY BOOK OF POETRY FOR THE
YOUNG. Selected and arranged by C. F. ALEXANDER.
"A well-selected volume of sacred poetry.”—Spectator.
"
A BOOK Of golden DEEDS of All Times and All Countries.
Gathered and Narrated Anew. By the Author of "THE HEIR OF REDCLYFFE.
"... To the 'young, for whom it is especially intended, as a most interesting
collection of thrilling tales well told; and to their elders as a useful handbook
of reference, and a pleasant one to take up when their wish is to while away
a weary half-hour. We have seen no prettier gift-book for a long time.”.
ATHENAUM.
THE
ADVENTURES
OF ROBINSON CRUSOE.
Edited, from the Original Edition, by J. W. CLARK, M.A., Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge.
THE REPUBLIC OF PLATO, TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH, with
Notes by J. LL. DAVIES, M.A., and D. J. VAUGHAN, M.A.
“A dainty and cheap little edition.”—EXAMINER.
THE SONG BOOK. Words and tunes from the best Poets and Musicians.
Selected and arranged by JOHN HULLAH, Professor of Vocal Music in King's
College, London.
"A choice collection of the sterling songs of England, Scotland, and Ireland,
with the music of each prefixed to the words. How much true wholesome
pleasure such a book can diffuse, and will diffuse, we trust, through many
thousand families."-EXAMINER.
LA LYRE FRANÇAISE. Selected and arranged, with Notes, by
GUSTAVE MASSON, French Master in Harrow School.
"We doubt whether even in France itself so interesting and complete a repertory
of the best French Lyrics could be found.”—Notes and QUERIES.
TOM BROWN'S SCHOOL DAYS. BY AN OLD BOY.
"A 'perfect gem of a book. The best and most healthy book about boys for
boys that ever was written."-ILLUSTRATED TIMES.
A BOOK OF WORTHIES. Gathered from the Old Histories and written
anew by the Author of "THE Heir of Redclyffe."
22
“An admirable addition to an admirable series."-WESTMINSTter Review.
30
MACMILLAN'S CATALOGUE OF
A BOOK OF
OF GOLDEN THOUGHTS. BY HENRY Attwell,
Knight of the Order of the Oak Crown.
"Mr. Attwell has produced a work of rare value.
•
•
Happily it is small enough
to be carried about in the pocket, and of such a companion it would be difficult
to weary."-PALL MALL GAZETTE.
GUESSES AT TRUTH. By Two BROTHERS. New Edition.
THE CAVALIER AND HIS LADY. Selections from the Works of
the First Duke and Duchess of Newcastle. With an Introductory Essay by
EDWARD JENKINS, M.P., Author of "Ginx's Baby," &c.
"A charming little volume."-STANDARD.
THEOLOGIA GERMANICA.
Edited by Dr. PFEIFFER, from the
only complete manuscript yet known. Translated from the German by Susanna
WINKWORTH. With a Preface by the Rev. CHARLES KINGSLEY, and a Letter
to the Translator by the Chevalier BUNSEN, D.D.
SCOTCH SONG. A Selection of the Choicest Lyrics of Scotland Com-
piled and arranged, with brief Notes, by MARY Carlyle AITKIN.
The book is one that should find a place in every library, we had almost said in
every pocket."-SPECTAtor.
MILTON'S POETICAL WORKS. Edited, with Introduction, Notes,
and Memoir, by Professor MASSON. With Two Portraits. Two Vols.
"By far the best and handiest edition of Milton yet published."-DAILY News.
DEUTSCHE LYRIK: The Golden Treasury of the best German Lyrical
Poems. Selected and arranged, with Notes and Literary Introduction, by Dr.
BUCHHEIM.
"A book which all lovers of German poetry will welcome."-WESTMINSTER
REVIEW.
HERRICK; Selections from the Lyrical Poems. Arranged, with Notes, by F.
T. PALGRAVE.
"For the first time the sweetest of English pastoral poets is placed within the
range of the great world of readers."-Academy.
POEMS OF PLACES. Edited by H. W. LONGFELLOW. England and
Wales. Two Vols..
"A very happy idea, thoroughly worked out by an editor who possesses every
qualification for the task."-SPECTATOR.
MATTHEW ARNOLD'S SELECTED POEMS.
selected poems.
(Also a Large Paper Edition. Crown 8vo. 12s. 6d.)
A volume which is a thing of beauty in itself."-Pall Mall Gazette.
THE GOLDEN TREASURY SERIES.
31
*
THE
STORY OF THE
CHRISTIANS AND MOORS
IN SPAIN. By C. M. YONGE, Author of the "Heir of Redclyffe.'
With Vignette by HOLMAN HUNT.
LAMB'S TALES FROM SHAKESPEARE. Edited by the
Rev. A. AINGER, M.A., Reader at the Temple.
POEMS OF WORDSWORTH. Chosen and Edited, with Preface
by Matthew Arnold. (Also a Large Paper Edition. Crown 8vo. 95.)
"A volume, every page of which is weighted with the golden fruit of poetry."
PALL MALL GAZETTE.
SHAKESPEARE'S SONNETS. Edited by F. T. PALGRave.
POEMS FROM SHELLEY. Selected and arranged by STOPFORD
A. BROOKE, M.A. (Also a Large Paper Edition. Crown 8vo. 12s. 6d.)
"Full of power and true appreciation of Shelley."-SPECTator.
ESSAYS OF JOSEPH ADDISON.
Richard GREEN, M.A., LL.D.
Chosen and Edited by JOHN
"This is a most welcome addition to a most excellent series."-EXAMINER.
POETRY OF BYRON. Edited, with an Introduction, by Matthew
ARNOLD. (Also a Large Paper Edition, Crown 8vo.)
32
MACMILLAN'S BIOGRAPHICAL SERIES.
MACMILLAN'S BIOGRAPHICAL SERIES.
Crown 8vo, uniformly bound, price 6s. each.
CATHERINE AND CRAUFURD TAIT, Wife and Son of
Archibald CAMPBELL, Archbishop of Canterbury: a Memoir, Edited, at the
request of the Archbishop, by the Rev. W. BENHAM, B.D.. Vicar of Marden,
and one of the Six Preachers of Canterbury Cathedral. With two Portraits
engraved by JEENS. New and Cheaper Edition.
By
THE LIFE AND WORK OF MARY CARPENTER
J. ESTLIN CARPENTER, M.A., with Steel Portrait.
BERNARD (ST.)—THE LIFE AND TIMES OF ST.
BERNARD, Abbot of Clairvaux. By J. C. MORISON, M.A. New Edition.
CHARLOTTE BRONTË: a Monograph. By T. WEMYSS REID.
Third Edition.
ST. ANSELM. By the Very Rev. R. W. CHURCH, M.A. Dean of St.
Paul's. New Edition.
GREAT CHRISTIANS OF FRANCE: ST. LOUIS and CALVIN.
By M. GUIZOT, Member of the Institute of France.
ALFRED THE GREAT. By THOMAS HUGHES, Q.C.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES, 1852-75. By HARRIET
MARTINEAU. With Four Additional Sketches, and Autobiographical Sketch
Fifth Edition.
FRANCIS OF ASSISI. By Mrs. OLIPHANT. New Edition,
VICTOR EMMANUEL II., First King of Italy. By G. S. GODKIN.
New Edition.
LONDON: R. CLAY, SONS, AND TAYLOR, PRINTERS.
1