MR BRIGHT’S ILLNESS.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume II, Issue 229, 1 December 1888, Page 3

MR BRIGHT’S ILLNESS.

THE ROYAL SYMPATHY. DAILY BULLETINS TO BE FURNISHED. London, Nov 29. The Queen and the Dowager Empress Victoria, of Germany, have given orders that they shall be furnished daily with bulletins regarding the condition of Mr John Bright. A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.

The County of Lancaster enjoys the distinction of having given birth to three of the most eminent English statesmen of the nineteenth century, Sir Robert Peel, the late Lord Derby, and John Bright. The la«t named was born on the 16th of November. 1811, at Greenbank, then on the outskirts of the town of Rochdale, but now included in that busy centre of manufacturing industry, just two years after his life-long friend and colleague, Mr Gladstone, first saw light at Liverpool. His father, Mr Jacob Bright, was a well-to-do cotton spinner in the town of Rochdale and a member of the Society of Friends. John, was his Fecond son, and one of eleven children. As a child, he was extremely delicate, and it was only with great care that he was carried ovebthe most critical period of youth, and developed into a handsome and intelligent boy. , As a lad, ha was fairly studious, but he displayed no great precocity in learning. He was passionately fond of out-door pursuits and of country life, and before he was twelve had gained considerable skill in the art of fishing, a pursuit the strong love of which has remained with him

to the present hour. John Bright secured no higher education than was afforded by the ordinary country commercial schools to which he was sent. He had no classical training, and when little more than fif'een, whatever school education he enjoyed, ceased, and he came home to enter on the serious business of life as a clerk in his father’s mill. But it was only then, perhaps, when the routine of school life had ended, that his real education commenced with the constant study of the best English poets, and of the facts of English history, of which his speeches display so thorough and intimate an acquaintance. . He began also to take a lively interest in the various stirring public questions of the time, such as Catholic Emancipation, which was granted when he was a youth of but eighteen. But a contested election at Preston, near his home, when the late Lord Derby was defeated by a Mr Henry Hunt, better known as “ Radical Hunt,” or “ Orator Hunt,” seems first to have made him an enthusiast in the study of politics. He came of a Liberial stock : the religious society to which his family bad belonged for generations, hfcd, in by-gone days, been persecuted in the Arsons of some members of that family. His sympathies were naturally on the side of the Liberal candidate. To the political faith of his youth and his early training, he has been unvaryingly constant, and he has always maintained his place in the van of advanced Liberalism. In taking up this position he has, of course, constantly been found advocating views on many subjects, some of which are still opposed to the general sense of the country, and others for

which when he became their champion, the time was not yet ripe. Some of his earliest speeches were made in denouncing capital punishment, Church Establishments and Church Rates, and he was one of the earliest opponents of the Corn Laws. It was, however, the early death of his young wife after only two years of a married life of singular happiness, which seems to have thrown Mr Bright heart and soul into the Corn Law movement, and to have cemented that close and in'imate friendship with Mr Cobden, which influenced so deeply many years of his after life. The active and enthusiastic part which Mr Bright took in the Anti Corn Law agitation early pointed to a parliamentary career, aa most likely to advance the views, which in common with his friend Mr Cobden, he had advocated with so much eloquence and ability Early in March, 1843, a vacancy occurred at Durham, by the appointment nf the sitting member to the Governorship of New Zealand. Lord Dungannon, a Conservative and Protectionist, at once presented himself. He had been in the field a we- k when only a few hours before the nomination day Mr Bright came forward to oppose him on the Corn Law question. But the influence of Lord L mdonderry, of whom Lord Dungannon was the nominee, was so strong in the place that Mr Bright was beaten by 102 votes. The Protectionist member’s triumph, however, was but short lived. He was unseated for bribery, and a new election took place in the 'following July. Mr Bright again took the field, and this time was opposed by Mr Purvis, a Tory barrister, who, from all accounts, was a very poor crea’ ire indeed. Few of Mr Bright’s later politi -al sneeches are more distinguished by the warm’h and vigor of style, the clearness of argument, the aptness of illustration, or the genuine sympathy with the poor and the oppressed, than his principal election speech at Durham. One of his points, when insisting that the incidences of a deficient harvest were sure to fall with the greatest severity upon the laborer, is a happy example of the racy humor which has always brightened his public utterances. ‘ I have heard of a waiter,’ he remarked, ‘ who was so exceedingly clever, that it was said he could’ put a quart of wine into a pint bottle, but I never heard of anyone who was clever enough to get a quart of wine out of a pint bottle, and, don’t you know, that in the case of a deficient harvest, the landowner being the strongest, will get his share of what the farm produces as long as he can; that the tenant, being the next strongest, will get his share ; and that the laborer, being the weakest, must come in for the g r eatest share of the scarcity which is caused by the deficient harvest.’ Mr Bright was returned with a majority of 78, the full poll in Durham, with every nerve strained on both sides, only amounting in 1842 to 898 votes ! The poll closed amid tremendous excitement, and the new member was received with an enthusiasm which was strange and

new to Durham Market-place. He expressed, in returning thanks for his election, his belief that the result of that day’s contest would strike a deadlier blow to Protection than any it had yet received. Considerable interest was created by the appearance of “ the Quaker Bright ” in the House and his maiden speech. He rose to address the Commons for the first time on the 7th of August, 1843, in support of Mr Ewart’s motion for the removal or reduction of duties which bore heavily on the raw materials of manufacture, as well as on the means of subsistence of the people. His speech was a sp’endid pieie of oratory, rare indeed at the first effort of a man unfamiliar with the atmosphere of St. Stephen’s. A member wao was present has left on record his impression of the speech itself, and of the personal appearance of John Bright 43 years ago. “Mr Bright,” he says, “ is about the middle size, rather firmly and squarely built, with a fair, clear complexion, and an intelligent and pleasing expression of countenance. His voice is good, his enunciation distinct, and his delivery free from any uupleisant peculiarity or mannerism. He is young and has apparently a long career before him.” In those days he wore the usual Quaker costume, a broad brimmed hat, a black coat made like a footman’s, and a

white muslin neckcloth, and probably in the history of the Treasury Bench it hid never happened to its occupants to be so seriously taken to task by a young man in the garb of a Friend, wh > yet showed himself a thorough master of Parliamentary debate. The names of Richard Cobden and John Bright are so inseparably connected with the adoption of the policy of Free Trade by Great Britain, that a few words are necessary to describe the rise of the movement against

Protection, which placed Mr Bright before the country as one of the most prominent politicians who have ever filled the public stage in this century. Early in the century, and as one result of the war with France, the working classes of England suffered great privation. Taxes were enormous and food dear. In 1801 wheat stood at 115 s. lid. per quarter, and for seventeen years afterwards at 84s. On the fall of Napoleon, the ports were once more thrown open. The agricultural classes, that i is the landlords and tenants, became alarmed at the prospect of a heavy fall in the price of wheat, and the Corn Law of 1814, passed fin the interest of landlords and farmers, enacted that no wheat should be imported except ■ under enormous duty, till the home growth i reached 80s. per quarter. M The result was to raise IscU to war Io rtMfitf UNk 1* f

in 181(j, and 112 s. Bd. in 1817. The systematic effort for the Repeal of the Com Laws commenced shortly before Queen Victoria ascended the throne. But it was not till 1837, when wheat had risen to 775., double the price at which it stood in 1835, that the agitation became really serious. In the following year, the famous Anti-Corn Law League was founded, and excited among the Tory paity almost as much hatred and fear as the Land League of to-day. Towards the close of 1841, the League appointed commissioners to enquire into tne condition of the working classes, and the details of suffering and destitution they collected were most heart-rending. The League secured the countenance and sympathy of the liberalminded Duke of Sussex, the Queen’s uncle, and of other eminent persons. The disease demanded vigirous remedies, and the state of the poor more than excused the violent language in which the Corn Laws were denounced by the Leagueis. Speaking at Manchester, Mr Bright said, “ The time is now come when we must no longer regard this infamous law as a mistake on the part of the aristocracy and the landowners ; it was no mistake of the landowners, no accident, chance had nothing to do with it; it was a crime of the deepest dye against the rights and industry, and against the well-being of the British people; and “ Not all that heralds rake from coffi’nd clay, Nor florid prose, nor honied lines of rhyme,

Can blazon evil deeds, or consecrate a rime I’ The final and triumphant victory of Free Trade is too trite and familiar a subject to need more than this passing allusion. Everyone remembers how it was the gaunt spectre of famine which brooded over Ireland in 1846 which suddenly forced the hand of Peel, already a convert to the principles of Free Trade. But the honor of the victory rested with those noble men who had fought the battle against the old giant Protection in England and laid him low. The names of Cobden and Bright will be remembered with honor as two of the ablest and most conspicuous leaders in the contest as long as English history remains, and there is no episode in Mr Bright’s career, which, in the eyes of posterity, will reflect greater lustre on his name. Parliament was dissolved in 1347, but nearly a year before, the Liberals of Manchester had resolved, if possible, upon secur ing Mr Bright as their member. Some of his election speeches in the centre of the great cotton industry express many of the extreme views wliichhe then held and, indeed, still holds—not, perhaps, with such general approval as hi? Free Trade opinions. Alluding to the recent creation of a bishopric of M. mchester, he said he regretted that it was not in his power to give a vote in opposition to that “ calamity ” which had befallen the town “My right honorable colleague, Mr Gibson, eays he should sleep conifoitably if no more bishops had been made. My slumbers would be unbroken if the bishops that are made were to be unmade. I never yet saw ar.y thing good that the bishops did. I have seen the multitudinous mischiefs that the bishops have done. I believe that hierarchies, state manufactured clergies, are in themselves evils, a d that the time will come when they will be no more known on the face of the earth than some of those great creatures, of which we have remnants left, which lived before the flood. Mr Bright was returned without opposition for Manchester. The early years of the session were > marked by the appearance of several ques/ tions, which at the time excifed bitter u’-ql angry feelings beC'veea opponents, verdict of time has deliberately coude mne j the decision to ’ n severaljgf them, the Legislature came. s Mr Bright Condemned the principle of Pari when the case of Aiderman arose in the House. He was inminority then. He is probably m*3 or * c y UOWI saw through to religious panic and bigotry. Titles Bill. He proved to Zhe j®t, for the measure was quietly repealed a wj* years afterwards when the “ No Popery ” scarce han vanished and catholic prelates remained free to cull themselves bishops of any place they pleased in this country. He denounced the Crimean War not only as a foolish and useless enterprise, but as an act of moral wrong. He in-

curred much public odium by this course, but there are to be found now few, if any, defenders of a campaign which lost to England tens of thousands of brave men, caused her to pour out treasure like water, and in the end brought her a bitter, bairen victory. In 1856 Mr Bright became seriously ill. He was broken down by the progress of many years of fierce political warfare, and especially by the excitement consequent on the war with Russia. He came up for the opening of Parliament, but he was compelled to return home. Lord Brougham offered him his villa, at Cannes, but he preferred to s; end a couple of months at Ben Rhydding, in Yorkshire, after which he went abroad. At Nice the Empress of Russia requested him to call upon her, and thanked him for the part he had taken in the war with Russia. At Turin he had a long interview with Cavour. By the advice of his physicians he determined to take a prolonged rest from public life, and offered to resign his seat for Manchester. The offer was declined by his constituents. A general election however was impending in 1856, and Mr Bright was again put in nomination. But the views on the subject of wir which had been expressed by the Quaker statesman caused his great services to the town and to the country to be disreg irded, even beneath the shadow of that magnificient Free Trade Hall which had been erected as a monument of his own and his colleague’s services for the relief from so much suffering and distress of the labouring population throughout the and the marked and general revival of trade which followed the repeal of the Corn Laws. Lord Palmerston was just then very popular in the country, which wag enamoured by what they called his high spirited foreign policy. Mr Bright had opposed that policy in principle, and he now paid the penalty in the loss of a seat he had held for ten years. His temporary exclusion from Parliament was regarded by the country an 1 the press as a national loss. ■ For a time he seemed inclined to retire from public life, Out if so, he was the close c-f 1857 to be put in nomination for Birmingham, which has the honour of having given back to Parliament a public servant, whom the country could ill afford to lose. Mr Bright, who was still suffering from ill-health, was re-elected for Birmingham without appearing before his constituents. The great midland town soon began to stir in the question of Reform, aa it had done upon the great bill of 1832. A large meeting was held there on the subject on the second of February, 1858. Mr Bright was unable to be present, but he pointed out in writing with great force the glaring inequalities of representation, some towns of no greater population or property than Birmingham sending twenty members to Parliament, against her two. Any reform, he urged, was valueless which did not more than double the representation of London and the great cities of the Kingdom, and that further, the true goal of reform was the ballot. (TO BE CONTINUED).