OUR LITERARY CORNER.

Press, Volume LXVII, Issue 14204, 18 November 1911, Page 7

OUR LITERARY CORNER.

CENTENARY OF JOHN BRIGHT. (Br J. W. Joynt, M.A.) Ono by one we are passing in review, in the- form of centenary commemorations, the great figures 'vhioh made the Victorian epoch. To-day wo have to speak of a true Englishman, a wise statesman, a great orator, and an ardent lover of freedom. In tho evolution of modern British democracy the influence of John Bright was ono of the most potent factors. Moro, perhaps, than any other, hie voice rnou ded opinion on the great movements and problems, which marked the from the old to the new. John Bright was born at Rochdale, Lancashire, on November loth, 1811. His lather and mother were both Quakers, and ho was sent for a year's to the well-known' Friends' School, at Ackworth, in Yorkshire. He afterwards was at schooi for two years at York, and a year at Newton. This ended his education, in the direct or jchoi&st.c sense; co that, in the wider sense, ho may l»o called a self-educated man. In his sixteenth year ho entered his father's cotton mill. As a boy ho wa*> iond of cricket and swimming, and it may bo mentioned hero that he afterwards became an expert at fly-fishing, and at billiards. Rochdale was, oven at this early period, a placo of intellectual activity and energetic independence, and young Bright threw himself with zeal into the social and political movements of tho tr'wn. Two main questions exercised local public opinion at tho time: a struggle with the Established Cnurch on the question of church rates, and tho demand for parliamentary reform, including a seat for , Rcchdalo. So that thus early Bright was brought into contact with two of tho great issues which wore to ' figure so prominently in his later political life. But his first attempt at public speaking was at a temperance mooting. He got muddled with his ' notes, and sat down. The chairman gave out a song, and whispered Bright ; to discard his notes, and try again. ■ The experiment was successful. Ho ; had found tho dormant faculty, which i deepened and.expanded with his years, ' and only failed him when age brought ■ a general failure of his intellectual j powers. Wo may anticipate by saying ] that his general practice afterwards 1 was to carry very few notes, but to * commit to memory certain connecting ] passages, and especially perorations. In 1833 Bright, travelled on the Continent and in the East, and in 1838 £ ho for. tho first timo met Cobden, who ] had just returni.'d from travel an 1 tho East and in the United States. ' The meetiug inaugurated one of the I most reinarkublo co-operations 'in political history. Bright's first speech r against the corn laws was in, ltiOH c at Rochdale, and in the same t

year ho joined the Manchester Provisional Committee, which led to the foundation of the Anti-Corn Law League. It is needless here to tell tho story'of thia great agitation, which,- after seven years, with the assistance of a rainy season, led Sir Robert Peel to reverse his whole economic policy. The two leaders inado speeches at all the principal towns, Cobden in his quiet, persuasive style, Bright.with more passion and a trenchant power of analysis. In 1843 Bright stood for Durham> and was defeated; but, his opponent having been unseated on petition, he tried again, and was elected. Tho House of Commons was coldly hostile; it preferred Cobdon's quiet, argumentative manner to Bright's glowing enthusiasm and stately stylo. But his transparent sincerity and disinterestedness gradually won him a decisive influence in tho House. After the repeal of the Corn Laws in 18-16, his admirers presented him with a library of twelve hundred volumes. Tho questions on which he next took np a decided attitude were those relating to Ireland, tho Game Laws, and factory legislation. He opposed tho grant to the Roman Catholic Seminary at Maynooth, proposed by Poel and Gladstone, and supported by Cobden. Bright always consistently opposed State endowment of religion in any form. Probing Irish discontent to its causes, he found the source of th© mischief in tho absence of peasant ownership of iand, and the abuse of power by the landlords, in addition to the chronic sore of an Established Church. Against the Game Laws ho delivered

some powerful speeches, but his ardour ■was chilled by the apathy of the farmers. In connection with factory labour, it will probably surprise some readers to hear that Bright opposed tho humanitarian efforts of Ashley (afterwards Lord Shaft«sbnry).,for the limitation of hours of labour in the mills. His individualism was so intens 0 that ho repudiated State interference m such matters; though he was willing to concede legislative restriction in the case of child-labour. He denounced Ashley's harrowing pictures of the condition of the factory operatives, maintaining that the state of the agricultural labourers was far worse, which was true. He also spoke at this period against capital punishment, flogging in tho Army, and church rates. In 1847 he was returned for Manchester, and continued to represent that city for ten years. , Tb© period of the Crimean war was * tamo of great stress and strain for Bright. He opposed the whole policy of tho war with all the vehemence and all tho destructive analytical power of which he was such a master. Ho did not take op tho attitude of the mere ''peace at any price" man, but searchingly examined the wholo diplomacy of the situation, ant! showed that it was bad, wrong-headed, and projudicial to England's good name and interests. His • impassioned speeches against the war touch the high-water mark of the oratory of conviction, and iie wrote a letter going to tho root of tho matter, but the country was bitten with tho war-fever, and Bright found himself loft almost alone among the leaders of opinion, nis popularity ■UToeked, and himself refused a hearing on public platforms. He was even burnt in emgy. His courage did not fail, but his health broke down under the nervous strain of unpopularity, and he was absent from the House for two years. In 1857 he was rejected by Manchester; but in the same year, though ill and absent, he was elected by Birmingham without opposition, and the

ORIGINAL AND SELECTED MATTER.

wuiiib ON BUUKS AND AUTHORS.

him. I remember Bright in the latt 1 'seventies and early 'eighties, as well in the House of Commons ac on the platform of the Birmingham Town Hall. It was interesting then to compare him with Gladstone. His sturdy, thick-set frame contrasted strongly with Gladstone's lithe, sinuous figure; while his powerful head and face lacked the flashing eye and jove-like aspect of command, which, especially under intense excitement, made Gladstone's face almost terrible. IJright's voice was, perhaps, the more pleasing of the two. It was full and melodious, and had at times a strange, trembling pathos; but it bad not the trumpotring and extraordinary flexibility of intonation, with which Gladstone electrified his audiences. A few words may hero bo given to Bright s oratory. It was, in a manner, a new departure. It substituted the eloquence of common sense and clear vision for the old rhetorical and stilted declamation. Jt was a natural gift, and not the result of scholastic training; and Bright showed his wisdom in never forcing the gift, but letting it develop spontaneously with the expansion of his intellect and the deepening of his convictions. Under that quiet flow of unadorned English, with its rising and falling cadences, lay a massive force and a tremendous persuasive power. It used to be said that Oobden stated & case, and Bright pulverised opponents. It used to bo said also (with some exaggeration) that Gladstone and Bright were tho only persons in the House of Commons known to- have changed votes by their speeches. Probably to-day Bright'e speeches read better than Gladstone's. There is something more enduring about their texture,. and they are certainly better models for young debaters. 1 had thought of giving one or two specimen perorations; but, apart from the question of spnce> it would only give to that special and rather artificial feature of oratory a prominence which it does not deserve. A speaker once asserted as IHsraeli's chief claim to the gratitude of posterity the fact that ho made perorations an anachronism. The significance of Bright's life and ■work lies vi tho fact that he first recognised the rise and meaning of the industrial movement ac a force in the

tic thus formed was only severed by hia death. He was warmjy welcomed by the House of Commons on hie return. Ihiring these years, besides a number of subsidiary matters, there were two great questions which Bright made his own, and to which ac devoted many (speeches of wide grasp and close reasoning power. One was the condition of Ind.a under the administration of the East India Company, the other the necessity of a far-reaching 6cheme of parliamentary reform. In speech after speech he exposed the rottennr*s and stagnation of the company's rule, and propounded schemes of reconstruction. In speech after speech he showed ITiat the great measure of 1832 had only scratched the surface of parliamentary reform, and that something far more drastic was required. India Bills and Reform Bills rained on the House. The former question was settled by the State taking over the adminstration of India, and introducing many of Bright's proposed reforms, fhe other question continued to be the shuttlecock of parties for ten years, Bright standing outside Governments, and striving to play the card of true reform, between Lord Palmcreton on tho one side and Lord Derby on tho other. During these years Bright and Cobden were drifting apart. But when Cobden died in 1865, Bright, attempting to pay a tribute in the House, broke down, and buried his face in his hands. Tho shock of the American Civil War was profoundly felt in England; presently wo may say a word as to Bnght's attitude in tho matter. The remainder of Bright's political career wae mainly determined by his relations with Gladstone, relations whether of support or of opposition. Up to this period there had been no great cordiality between the two great Liberal leaders. In a correspondence with Palmoreton in «962 Gladstone had good-humouredly obi.cted to be classed with Bright and Cobden. And in 18D Bright had severely criticised Gladstone's Reform Bill. Bat now tho two men were gradually approximating; only it must b.3 clearJy understood that it was Gladstone who gravitated towards Brght, not Bright towards Gladstone. When forming hie Ministry in 18C8, Gladstone offered bright the India ittEce- He declined it on the ground that it was associated with a military Administration: but he accepted the Board of Trade. Gladstone was now entering on Jiis great campaign of Irish legislation. J< ot only did he receive enthusiastic support from Bright, but the latter was really the driving force in the whole movement. He tjad agitated against the Irish Established Church and tho Irish land system twenty years before Gladstone touched either question. Especially wae "the Land Act of 1870 due to Bright's instigation; though his original idea had been merely to tack a few land clauses on to the Irfsh Church BUI. The only 'branch of the upas-tree" which Bright did not touch was the Irish Un.vemity question, which practically wrecked Gladstone's Government. Bright's health broke down in 1870, and he only returned to the Cabinet in 1873 with the. minor office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He was much altered, and for a year or two he took little part in public affairs. When, on;his defeat in ls?4, Gladstone retired from the leadership of tne Liberal Party. Bright wae chairman of the committee which invited T«ord Hart'ngton (afterwards Duke of Devonshire) to

. assume the position. Disraeli s Eastern policy roused him from his partial in- ' action, and drew from him some vehe- • ment attacks. He also denounced Homo ' Rule in uncompromising fashion, def daring that two legislative'bodies within" , the United Kingdom would bo an intolerable nuisance. In 1879 Gladstone 1 emerged from his retirement, and shook ' the country with his Midlothian speeches. Next year Bright was with , him again as. Chancellor of the Duohy; but in 1882, disapproving of, the Government's forward policy in Egypt, and especially of. the.bombardment of Alexandria, ho resigned.. In 1883 there wero enthusiastic demonstrations at Birmingham, to celebrate the twenty-fifth year of Bright's association with the town. About. this time he made some strong attacks on the Irish members led by Parnell, declaring (at a banquet to Lord Spencer) that they "exhibited a boundless sympathy with criminals and murderers." For. this he refused to apologise in the House, and was supported by both sides. In 1885 Lord Randolph Churchill tried a contest with Bright in his Birmingham stronghold, but was badly beaten. In 1886 came Gladstone's conversion to Home Rule, .and the great schism which followed. Bright refused to follow Gladstone, as did Goschen, Hartington, Derby, and (after some afcienipts at accommodation) Chamberlain. Gladstone felt Bright's defection keenly, and the correspondence between them showed some irritation. Ihiring the election which followed the defeat of tho Bill, Bright wrote some powerful letters against Home Rule, which produced a profound effect. But the end was near. His last speech at Birmingham was in 1888, at a banquet to Chamberlain on his return from a peace mission to the United States. In Octobei of that year he took to his bed, and in March, 1889, he died of diabetes and the disease which bears his name, though not named after

national life. He round this movement inarticulate and amorphous, ahd he gave it voice and form. H e was the opokceiuan of tho new middle classes. 'I ue old aristocratic ruling class had had its day. It had entangled England in foreign complications, and had deluded and debaucued the national consciousness with grandiose scheme.-,. Bright had no personal antipathy to the aristocracy. —with the exception, perhaps, of Paimerstoii —and he was obsolutt'ly free from party bitterness or • rancour. But he regarded it as a 113 militant order, which lud worked harm 5y to England. Foolisn people have condemned Bright tor not being a strong er party man. On the coiuraiy, his de- ''.° ' tachinent from parties and Govern!lS ments during his best and strongest 1V years was ot the greatest help to n.ni a " in developing his own ideals, and niouid>n ing public opinion in a cr.tical period °f oi transition. >c I And the extent of his influence it »f j would be diilicult to exaggerate. On er j meet great queotions he was in adn- vance of the average party stand-point; i- I but h<. kt'pt haniiiK.i;i.,g at them till ;d Ihe had the satisiaction of teeing his :h i views prevail. Let us sco a tow oxit ! amples. Ho battered at the Corn Laws io j through years ot sc irn and vituperaid ' tion. Tht-n came the fulfilment ol his is anticipation tiiat tho Anti-Ccrn-Law Is attitude must expand into Free Trade s- i generally. He saw that the rise of fj the great town must lead to I a vast scheme of parliamentary reform ; but ho had to battle for twenty years hen-ie tuore nriv <i on the statute bcok the first of tho mier ser.<_'S or lucuoiircb, wu.cli iu.ve revolutionised parliamentary representation. Four years before th-e Indian Alut.ny he denounced the East India Company, as a piratical company, a greedy, unprogressive monopoly, which had no regatd for the welfare of India. And at the isame time bo laid down the lines on which reform must proceed, and on wnich mainly t d.d proceed:—The transference of the government to the Ciovvn; the establishment of ' provincial Governments; the encouragement of the growth of cotton ; irrigation ; canals, roads, railways, etc.; in fact, the substitution of a sound system of administration for a rotten ono. When the American Civil War broke out, the predominant feeling in England was in favour of tho Southern States. It was said that three-fourths of tho House of Commons wished the break-un of the Union. Even Gladstone wobbled. But Bright, Cobden, and a clear-sighted minority held fast by the Union. In one of his finest speeches, Bright succeeded in defeating Roebuck's motion for recognition of the Southern Confederacy. He also wrote a noble letter to Lincoln, urging him on no account to play into the hands of tho enemies ot the Union by going to war with England, however arrogant hor attitude. And the difficulty of Bright's position will be appreciated when it is pointed out that the recognition of the South would have meant the consolidation ot slave-labour, abundance of cotton, tho end of tho Lancashire famine, ana the re-starting of his own mills, which had been standing idle for a year. But he saw the degradation of slavery, and he foresaw the future greatness of America; and he stands justified to-day befdro tho bar of history and humanity. In foreign and colonial policy Bright was a Little Englander of the most pronounced type. He had no conception of a world-wide Brit : sh Empire, such as even tho elder Pitt had dreamed of a hundred beiore tiie federation of Canada. He called Imperial Federation "a dream and an absurdity." Towards the colonies, and especially Canada, ho carried the docxine of "laissez-aller" to its extreme ogical issue. So in foreign affairs, the; key-stone of his policy was non-in- j tervention. He ridiculed the whole conception of a balance of power, and England's supposed responsibility in connection with it. He was willing togive back Gibraltar to Spain, and opposed giving guarantees for Belgian independence, in view of the possibility of a resort to force. But ho laboured hurd for commercial treaties. All this may seem very unheroic, but Bright's idea was that England nad had more nan enough of the swaggering Ercles vein," so forcibly, not to say truculently, embodied in Lord Pain: Breton, and that her main business was to look after her own internal affairs. -In a concluding paragraph wo will ■ irow put some detached observations. < Bright s passion for religious liberty ™»s Part of his individualism. He would have no State grant to any religious body; no State-endowed system i I national education; no Stnte con vol of liquor traffic or factory-labour. The . mention of land nationalisation used to make him angry. He thought deeply on the larger economic problems, and he was a great reader of history, eco- ! nomics, and tho best English "litera- ' jure. He said that the Bible and i Milton were the chief influences in 1 moulding his style. It will probably A be admitted now that his prose is i much more like the prose of the Bible ] than tho prose of Milton. Superior « critics sneered at his literary iud"- * ments, as, for example, when he exalted Lewis Morris to a pedestal in poetry. Bright's virtues were those supposed to be typical of the best type of Englishman. He held fast to the doctrine that "righteousness exalteth a nation, and often, when urging his view on come large question, he appealed in the last resort to the teachings of Christianity. He had a passion for domestic life, and this leu to the one single instance of his changing I his mind on a great question on which I it had once been made up. In 1867 be voted with J. S. Mill on a woman's ! 1 rights' motion; in 1876 ho voted V against a similar motion. He had a quiet turn of humour, and some of his phrases have become familiar. "A free breakfast-table" was his; so, too force is no remedy" (in reference to Forster s land policy); "the worst of E great thinkers is that they so often v think wrong" (in reference to Mill's opposition to the ballot). When Hor- A sham and Lowe formed a sort of party in themselves in the reform debate, A Bright likened them to a hairy dog, of F which one could not tell which was The head and which the tail. And when the same pair began to gather a few malcontents round them, he at once dubbed their corner in tho House "the Cave of Adullum." in allusion to the David incident I n his later years Bright mellowed and softened. When he visited Ha warden in 1871, during w his break-down, Gladstone was greatly 'b< touched by his gentleness and tender- T ness, especially with children. Statues st and. portraits of Bright are numerous. : u The best statues are in Manchester and Birmingham, the best portrait is in the Ol National Portrait Galfery in London tl Hβ was a great Englishman, brave and it strong, manly, upright and sincere, st: Whether such men are free-traders or br protectionists, Little Engenders cr Im- sci penalists. matters little in comparison in fvith character. And in all that con- su :erns character in life and statesman- bu ship Britons all over the world can is JohnßriSt b,ermOdelthaQth - «™ £