and to regard it as became an Englishman loving justice and freedom, anxious for the tranquillity of Ireland, the welfare of the empire, and the honour of the Imperial Government.

'Some experience and much reflection,' Mr. Bright added, 'have convinced me that all efforts on behalf of industry and peace in Ireland will be in great part unavailing until we eradicate the sentiment which is universal among her Catholic population-that the Imperial Government is partial, and that to belong 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 sentiment; and Catholics, whether priests or laymen, would feel that the last link of their fetters was at length broken. Supremacy on the one hand, and a degrading 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 persecuting 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 gratitude of three kingdoms, and build up for himself a lasting renown.'

The position assumed in Mr. Bright's letter, that the Irish Church was an anomaly and an iniquity, was not denied, or at least only by interested bodies. As was said at the time, the Church was in the position of the Rois Fainéans of the Merovingian race in France, who were universally recognized as an evil, but who maintained their position simply because, before an experiment was made, no one could calculate the consequences of getting rid of them. The difficulty was a practical one, and one of great magnitude. Nevertheless, the statesman was living who actually brought the Irish Church question to an issue and a settlement some years later, though not, as regards details, on the lines indicated by Mr. Bright. But perfect religious equality was achieved, and Mr. Bright could little have anticipated that he would be a member of the Government which, under Mr. Gladstone's guidance, accomplished the task.

CHAPTER X.

GENERAL LEGISLATION-1846-53.

Mr. Bright on Questions of General Legislation.-Factory Labour.-Lord Ashley's Ten Hours' Bill.-Arguments of Mr. Bright and his Friends.The Factory Acts of 1847 and 1850.-Flogging in the Army.-Lord John Russell's Education Scheme of 1847.-It is opposed by Mr. Bright.-His Speeches on the Cultivation of Cotton in India.-Excessive Public Expenditure. Mr. Cobden's Motion thereon.-The Hastings-Cobden Correspondence. Mr. Bright attacks the Derby Government of 1852.-Further Speeches on Free Trade and Protection.-Capital Punishment.-Evidence on the Game Laws.-Bill for their Repeal introduced.-The Burdens on Land.-Mr. Disraeli's Proposal to relieve the Landowners.-It is opposed by Mr. Bright, and defeated.—Second Resolution on Agricultural Distress. It is lost by a narrow majority.--Mr. Hume's Bill to Amend the National Representation.-Supported by Mr. Bright.-The County Franchise.-Lord John Russell's Reform Bill of 1852-The Ballot.-Mr. Bright on Church Rates.-Taxes on Knowledge and the Freedom of the Press-Speeches of Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden.-Government Defeat on the Advertisement Duty.-Mr. Bright on Parliamentary Oaths.-The case of Alderman Salomons.-Papal Aggression. -Mr. Bright eloquently opposes the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.-Public Addresses at Manchester and other places.-Mr. Bright invited to stand for Rochdale.-The Kossuth Reception at Manchester.-Defence of the Manchester PartyMr. Bright at Belfast.-The Manchester Election of 1852.—Mr. Bright on the War Panic of 1853

DURING the earlier years of his Parliamentary career—that is, when he was in the prime of his physical strength-the member for Manchester furnished abundant evidence of the deep interest he took in all great public questions. As one proof of this, we find that in the period above-named, the eight years extending from 1846 to 1853 inclusive, he addressed the House on no fewer than forty-four occasions, all in connection with subjects of moment. Most of these speeches were of considerable length, and many of them were of representative importance. And in these addresses we take here no note of the many Parliamentary and extra-Parliamentary speeches Mr. Bright delivered in the course of the year 1846 on the Free Trade question.

The session of 1846 had scarcely opened when the subject of factory labour was again brought before the House of Commons. The large party in favour of a reduction in the hours of labour included very heterogeneous elements. Those like Lord Ashley, who least understood the question from its prac

tical point of view, but were yet the most numerous body in favour of reduction, were perhaps the most sincere in their advocacy. There were some, too, like John Fielden and Richard Oastler, who were also sincere, but few in numbers; while there were others who regarded factory legislation as a kind of retaliation upon the manufacturers for the powerful part they had played in the Free Trade campaign. Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, Mr. Joseph Hume, and those who thought with them, opposed compulsory measures in connection with the hours of labour from the standpoint of free trade. The workman had the utmost right of freedom in this respect, and they claimed that any alteration of the hours of labour ought to be left for settlement as between employer and employed. The Protectionists, of course, threw in their influence with those who were in favour of compulsory legislation, and against the Freetraders; and there were many Radicals who, on grounds of supposed humanitarianism, followed the same course.

On the 29th of January, 1846, Lord Ashley brought in his bill for limiting the hours of labour of young persons in factories to ten hours. Sir James Graham, the Home Secretary, did not oppose the introduction of the bill, although he intimated that no decision with respect to the Corn Laws could ever alter his opinion with regard to the propriety of interfering with adult labour in the manufacturing districts. Mr. Hume contended that industry and capital ought to be free, and the real effect of Lord Ashley's measure would be to throw large numbers of men out of employment, for their labour was dependent upon that of the children. Mr. Bright said they were all anxious that the labouring population should work less, and have better wages; but the noble lord looked at one side of the question, and attributed evils to the working of mills which in reality arose from the circumstance of large towns and the labourers being left by their more powerful neighbours in a state of very great neglect. These evils were now diminishing, and there was a unanimous endeavour to improve as far as possible the condition of factory workers. He did not believe that a majority of the working classes were in favour of the proposed measure; but he believed that a large number were in favour of it, and he was extremely sorry to give his vote or to speak in opposition to the wishes of a number of honest men. He did not oppose a reduction in the hours of labour, which he believed would come with greater prosperity, and a feeling of harmony between masters and workmen, but he did oppose this compulsory bill.

The favourite argument of the promoters of the Ten Hours' Bill, that as much could be earned in ten hours as in twelve, was strongly combated by Mr. Bright in the debate on the second reading. But even if it were so, the loss of two hours' pay would be a more serious injury than the saving of two hours' work. In the cotton districts, people were generally paid by the piece, and how then could such legislation affect them favourably, so far as wages were concerned? The speed of machinery could not be increased so as to make up the difference in time lost. He reiterated his conviction that when the free-trade measures of the Government were carried out, and the manufacturers became actuated, as they would be, by feelings more and more kindly towards their workpeople, all that they could hope to achieve by the bill would be attained by voluntary arrangement, and without the mischief that invariably attended the interference of the Legislature in such ques

tions.

Lord Ashley's bill was lost by a majority of ten; and those who have charged Mr. Bright with opposing this legislation from interested motives may be reminded that there also voted against Lord Ashley the following distinguished members, many of whom were well entitled to be considered the friends of the working classes: Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Bouverie, Dr. Bowring, Mr. Cobden, Sir A. Cockburn, Mr. J. Evelyn Denison, Mr. Goulburn, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. H. Labouchere, Mr. Fox Maule, Lord Morpeth, Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Ricardo, Sir F. Thesiger (Lord Chelmsford), and Mr. Walpole.

This measure for limiting the hours of labour in factories was reintroduced in the following session. During the debate on the second reading, Mr. Bright entered still more fully into the question, his speech being to some extent necessitated by the frequent allusions made to him. He said that he had lived all his life amid the population for whom they were called upon to legislate; that he had been largely, and was now very largely, connected with this particular trade; and that he had not a farthing in the world that was not invested in it. He had therefore a right to speak of the feelings and wishes of the working classes in Lancashire. But let it not be supposed for a moment-for he would deny it altogether-that in his opposition to this Ten Hours' Bill he was influenced by a belief that it would in any degree, if passed, injure his property or his personal prospects. If this measure were calculated to advance the interests of the twelve hundred thousand persons who were

more or less interested in the cotton trade, then his interests must be consulted in that which would advance the interests of by far the largest proportion of those who were in any way connected with those trades. The accusation of inhumanity he repelled, and reminded the House that already no child under thirteen was allowed to work more than six hours a day. The real object of the promoters of the measure was not to take care of children under eighteen, and women of all ages, but to interfere by law with the labour of all persons, of whatever age and whatever sex they might be, who were engaged in the manufactures of this country, and to give to all these classes that measure of legislative protection-he used the word protection in the sense in which it had been used by all who were in favour of monopolies a protection that would diminish the hours of labour; while it would continue a rate of wages which, from the days of Sadler till the present time, was clearly a rate higher than labour in a free market could command.

Mr. Bright adduced evidence to prove the incorrectness of the statements respecting the unhealthiness of factory life. In the following passage he gave some interesting personal reminiscences, and then demonstrated the morality of the factory operatives:

The hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes) spoke of the impossibility of persons obtaining education under the system of twelve hours' labour. The hon. member should understand that he (Mr. Bright) was not defending the principle that these persons should work for twelve hours a day. He was merely meeting the argument which had been advanced in favour of the bill. Did the hon. member for Dorsetshire forget that those children did not work more than six hours a day until they were thirteen years old? For himself, he could say that he had never been at school after he was fifteen years of age. It was true there were, no doubt, many things which hon. members knew or learned by remaining at college until they were twenty or twenty-one, of which he was ignorant; but still, he considered his own case to be in some degree a proof that a man might get some education by remaining at school only until he was fifteen, and that he might do something by remaining there even if he was thirteen. But what could be more ludicrous than to say that a person could get no education under thirteen? The old system was to bind apprentices at the age of fourteen; but he would maintain that the degree of education among factory labourers was not inferior to that to be found among all other classes of this country. He had no doubt whatever but that their consumption of books, their purchase of newspapers, and their general devotion to literature, which the present age afforded so many opportunities of encouraging, was as pure and as extensive at least as that of any other class of the labouring population of Great Britain. If the hon. gentleman the member for Dorsetshire was not yet convinced on this point, he would beg to bring before him the evidence of the Rev. Mr. Clay, who had compiled a list of the extent of criminality existing in various classes in Lancashire. He began with No. 1, and went up to No. 20, the first number showing the class among which crime was highest, and the last the class in which there was the smallest number of criminals. Now, No. 19 in that list was the class of do