1857.] A FAREWELL ADDRESS. 339 acclamation of the populace. Yet his heart has not been destitute of ambition. Yes, his was the pure ambition to check the abuses of the executive, to urge a righteous and beneficent policy upon the Government, to stand forth as the dauntless champion of the rights of the people, to infuse into our dealings with other nations that justice and that generosity which alone becomes a Christian State, and to harmonise the interests of England with what is due to the welfare and progress of mankind. He has never deviated a hair's breadth from the accomplishment of these objects. The man whom God endows with the gifts of commanding intellect, noble susceptibilities, and persuasive eloquence, has a sacred trust committed to him which none of the accidents of life can set aside." While staying at Florence, Mr. Bright wrote his farewell address to the electors of Manchester, on the 31st of March, 1857. "Gentlemen,-I have received a telegraph despatch informing me of the result of the election contest in which you have been engaged. That result has not greatly surprised me, and so far as I am personally concerned-inasmuch as it liberates me from public life in a manner which involves on my part no shrinking from any duty— I cannot seriously regret it. I lament it on public grounds, because it tells the world that many amongst you have abandoned the opinions you professed to hold in the year 1847, and even so recently as in the year 1852. I believe that slander itself has not dared to charge me with having forsaken any of the principles, on the honest support of which I offered myself twice, and was twice accepted, as your representative. The charge against me has rather been that I have too warmly and too faithfully defended the political views which found so much favour with you at the two previous elections. If the change in the opinion of me has arisen from my course on the question of the war with Russia, I can only say that on a calm review of all the circumstances of the case-and during the past twelve months I have had ample time for such a review-I would not unsay or retract any one of the speeches I have spoken, or erase from the records of Parliament any one of the votes I have given upon it, if I could thereby reverse the decision to which you have come, or secure any other distinction which is in the power of my countrymen to confer. I am free, and will remain free, from any share in the needless and guilty bloodshed of that melancholy chapter in the annals of my country. I cannot, however, forget that the leaders of the opposition in the recent contest have not been influenced by my conduct on this question. They were less successful, but not less bitter, in their hostility in 1852, and even in 1847, when my only public merit or demerit consisted in my labours in the cause of Free-trade. On each occasion calling themselves Liberals, and calling their candidates Liberals also, they have coalesced with the Conservatives, whilst now, doubtless, they have assailed Mr. Gibson and myself on the ground of a pretended coalition with the Conservatives in the House of Commons. I have esteemed it a high honour to be one of your representatives, and have given more of mental and physical labour to your services than was just to myself. I feel it scarcely less an honour to suffer in the cause of peace, and on behalf of what I believe to be the true interests of the country, though I could have wished that the blow had come from other hands, and at a time when I could have been present to meet face to face those who dealt it. In taking my leave of you and of public life, let me assure you that I can never forget the many-the innumerable-kindnesses I have received from my friends amongst you. No one will rejoice more than I shall in all that brings you prosperity and honour; and I am not without a hope that, when a calmer hour shall come, you will say of Mr. Gibson and of me, that as colleagues in your representation for ten years, we have not sacrificed our principles to gain popularity, or bartered our independence for the emoluments of office or the favours of the great. I feel we have stood for the rights and interests and freedom of the people, and that we have not tarnished the honour or lessened the renown of your eminent city. w 2 "I am now, as I have hitherto been, very faithfully yours, CHAPTER XXXIV. MEMBER FOR BIRMINGHAM. Explanation of the Defeat-Utterances in favour of International ArbitrationThe Indian Mutiny-Mr. Bright returns Home-Invited to Contest Birmingham -Consents-Again returned to the House of Commons. THE tone of the foregoing letter leads one to think that at this time Mr. Bright's faith in the public had been somewhat shaken, for he had over-estimated the esteem of those who are of all beings the most subject to change; but he remembered those of his admirers whose opinions were uniform and fixed, and not built upon sandy foundations, and to them he looked for approbation for his past services. Still, he had intended to retire into private life, which would have been a great calamity in more respects than one, for his useful public services would have been lost, and the House of Commons deprived of one of its greatest orators; but "He was not for himself alone designed, He shared the fate of public favourites, and experienced that there is an ebb as well as a tide in the affairs of public men. This was a favourable moment, too, for forming a real estimate of his merits, when the first glowing sunshine of success had been sobered down by some clouds of neglect, and he came out of the criticism he went through revered and beloved, for he had stood upon the vantage ground of truth, humanity, and duty, which is a trophy nobler than the conqueror's sword. He had laboured for the prosperity of England and the good of mankind, and had endeavoured to save the nation from the shame and guilt of the Crimean war; but he was hooted and yelled at in the crowded streets of the ungrateful city for whose inhabitants he had worked hard. His bosom friend sympathised with him, and assuring him that in the future there would be a prolonged peace, and that the English people in time would see the folly of war, made sunshine in his heart when all was gloom around. The experience he gained was of great value, for it enabled him to look no longer at everything through the genial atmosphere of his own existence, but to grow more literal-not only to feel the warmth of summer, but the winter's cold as well. He was in his retirement, however, cheered by the tone of the still small voice which comes out of futurity, assuring him that the storm will pass away, and the sun shine forth. It was a triumph of moral principle over the love of popular applause. And he was a greater man when public meetings would not listen to him because he advocated peace than when he stood on the very pinnacle of fame after having assisted to break the fetters of monopoly. It was Mr. Bright's happy destiny to be permitted to outlive this time of trial, and to occupy again a supreme place in the esteem and affection of his countrymen. Many years after, Mr. Bright said in one of his speeches :— "I do not know why I differed from other people so much, but sometimes I have thought it happened from the education I had received in the religious sect with which I am connected. We have no creed which monarchs and statesmen and high priests have written out for us. Our creed, so far as we comprehend it, comes pure and direct from the New Testament. We have no thirty-seven Articles to declare that it is lawful for Christian men, at the command of the civil magistrate, to wear weapons and to serve in wars-which means, of course, and was intended to mean, that it is lawful for a Christian man to engage in any part of the world, in any cause, at the command of a monarch, or of a prime minister, or of a parliament, or of a commander-in-chief, in the slaughter of his fellow-men, whom he might never have seen before, and from whom he had not received the smallest injury, and against whom he had no reason to feel the smallest touch of anger or resentment. Now, my having been brought up as I was would lead me naturally to think that going 3,000 miles off, for it is nearly as far as that by sea, to carry on the war with Russia in the Crimea, was a matter that required very distinct evidence to show that it was lawful, or that it was in any way politic or desirable. Well, I studied the Blue Books with great care. I had at that time the advantage of constant daily and hourly communication with our lamented friend Mr. Cobden, of whom I say not too much when I say that no man in our time has shown greater sagacity than he did on this question, and that no man was a wiser counseller to a private friend, as I was-to a Government or a nation-than he was during the whole course of his political life. Well, I came to the conclusion-it was impossible that I should come to any otherthat the war of 1854, not only upon the principle of sect, but upon the ordinary prin ciples of all moral and Christian men, was unnecessary, that it was impolitical, and that it was unjust." While sojourning at Venice, on the 16th of April, 1857, Mr. Bright wrote again to Mr. Cobden, and stated :— "I have been intending to write to you from day to day since I received your letter. It was most refreshing to me to read it, although its topics were not of the most pleasing, but it came at the right time, and it said the right thing, and was just such as I needed. In the sudden break-up of the School' of which we have been the chief professors, we may learn how far we have been, and are, ahead of the public opinion of our time. We purpose not to make a trade of politics, and not to use as may best suit us the ignorance and the prejudices of our countrymen for our own advantage, but rather to try to square the policy of the country with the maxims of common sense and of a plain morality. The country is not yet ripe for this, but it is far nearer being so than at any former period; and I shall not despair of a revolution in opinion which shall within a few years greatly change the aspect of affairs with reference to our foreign policy. During the comparatively short period since we entered public life, see what has been done. Through our labours mainly the whole creed of millions of people, and of the statesmen of our day, has been totally changed on all the questions which affect commerce, and customs duties, and taxation. They now agree to repudiate as folly what, twenty years ago, they accepted as wisdom. Look again at our colonial policy. Through the labours of Molesworth, Roebuck, and Hume, more recently supported by us, and by Gladstone, every article in the creed which directed our colonial policy has been abandoned, and now men actually abhor the notion of undertaking the government of the colonies; on the contrary, they give to every colony that asks for it a Constitution as democratic as that which exists in the United States. Turn to the question of Parliamentary Reform. Finality' stoutly repudiated, not by Lord John Russell alone, but by the Tories. I observe that at the recent elections, Tories have repeatedly admitted that there must be Parliamentary Reform, and that they will not oppose a moderate dose of it; and I suppose something before long will be done, not so real as we wish, but something that will make things move a little. But if on commercial legislation, on colonial policy, on questions of suffrage-and I might have added on questions of Church, for a revolution in opinion is apparent there also we see this remarkable change, why should we despair of bringing about an equally great change in the sentiments of the people with regard to foreign affairs? Palmerston and his press are at the bottom of the excitement that has lately prevailed; he will not last long as Minister or as man. I see no one ready to accept his mantle when it drops from him. Ten years hence, those who live so long may see a complete change on the questions on which the public mind has been recently so active and so much mistaken. This is bringing philosophy to comfort us in our misfortunes, you will say, and does not mend the present; and it is true enough; but it is just the line of reasoning, I doubt not, which has presented itself to your mind when free from the momentary vexation caused by recent events. I am the least unfortunate of our small section, for a year of idleness and of ill-health has made absence from Parliament familiar to me, and I have contemplated resigning my seat since the beginning of 1856. Personally, therefore, to be out is neither strange nor unpleasant, and I am surprised how very little I have cared about the matter on my own account. hope you can feel somewhat as I do-conscious that we are ostracised because our political creed is in advance of, and our political morality higher than, that of the people for whom we have given up the incessant labour of nearly twenty years. Time will show, and a long time will not be needed to show, the hollowness of the imposture which now rules. Its face may be of brass, but its feet are of clay. It is strange after so much experience that we should be disappointed that opinion goes on so slowly. We have taught what is true in our School,' but the discipline was a little too severe for the scholars. Disraeli will say he was right; we are hardly of the English type, and success, political and personal success, cannot afford to reject the use which may be made of ignorance and prejudice among a people. This is his doctrine, and with his views it is true; but as we did not seek personal objects it is not true of us. If we are rejected for peace and for truth, we stand higher before the world and for the future than if we mingled with the patient mediocrities which compose the present Cabinet. I hope the clouds may break, and that sunshine may come again.' Mr. Samuel Morley, M.P., has collected several striking utterances in favour of international arbitration. They include the following: President Grant, on his return to America, after his voyage round the world, used these words: "Though I have been trained as a soldier and participated in many battles, there never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found of preventing the drawing of the sword. I look forward to an epoch when a great recognised Committee of Nations will settle international differences instead of keeping large standing armies as they do in Europe." And the Secretary of State under President Hayes said: "It is the deliberate purpose of this Administration to arbitrate every case of difficulty or difference that may arise between this country and any other." Mr. Gladstone said upon one occasion: "The proposal to submit international differences to arbitration is in itself a very great triumph-a powerful engine on behalf of civilisation and 1857.] INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION. 343 humanity." Earl Russell said: "On looking at all the wars that have been carried on during the last century, and examining into the causes of them, I do not see one of these wars in which, if there had been a proper temper between the parties, the questions in dispute might not have been settled without recourse to arms." The Marquis of Ripon, in reference to the Treaty of Washington, said: "You have here, in a public instrument between two great countries, the first important consecration—absolutely the first consecration as far as I know— of the great principle that nations, like men, are bad judges of their own quarrels. I believe in that treaty may be found principles which, if I do not deceive myself, are likely to have a large influence in the cause of the greatest of earthly blessingsthe cause of peace." Mr. Morley himself adds: "I have great pleasure in expressing my deep sympathy with the work of the Peace Society. I have had the privilege of more than once expressing my adherence to its principles, besides being a subscriber to its funds. I do hope that great success will attend its efforts." Mr. Bright experienced but a brief leisure from public cares, for while staying at Geneva, in May, 1857, a public meeting, held in Ardwick, sent him an expression of goodwill, giving an opinion as to the result of the Manchester and Huddersfield elections, and their determination to agitate for reform, free trade, and retrenchment. Mr. Bright, in the course of his reply, wrote: "I lose no time in replying to say I am very glad to find that in your town the cause of reform, free trade, and retrenchment has so many warm friends, and that you have understood and approved the policy which Mr. Cobden, Mr. M. Gibson, and myself have supported in the House of Commons. On the question of Freetrade little progress has been made for some years past. As to retrenchment, the word has become almost obsolete, and the military expenditure of the country is now nearly double the amount which the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel thought necessary in 1835, although we have no more territory to defend, and although a large army is no longer necessary to maintain tranquillity in Ireland. As to Reform, whilst almost everybody professes to be in favour of it in some shape, the preparation of the particular Bill to be brought forward next year is left in the hands of a minister whose hostility to every proposition for Reform since the year 1832 is notorious and undeniable. Whether on these three points, to which your resolutions refer, the country is in a satisfactory position I must leave the friends of free trade, reform, and retrenchment to decide; and with regard to the promised reform, let me warn you to look more to the question of the franchise than to the other arrangement of the measure. It would be easy to double the number of electors, and at the same time increase the aristocratic influence in Parliament. To give votes, without giving representation in some fair degree in proportion to the votes, is to cheat the people; to give a large number of votes without security of the ballot will subject the increased numbers of our countrymen to the degrading influence which wealth and power now exercise so unscrupulously upon the existing electoral body." Mr. Cobden was disgusted with the treatment Mr. Bright |