MR. BRIGHT.

Otago Witness, Issue 925, 21 August 1869, Page 2

MR. BRIGHT.

Mr Bright Ihw begun to mako his friend* in the Cabinet feel very uneasy. On two recent occasions he has suooeoded in seriously compromising them. The difficulty in eaoh instanco has been smoothed over by means of an apology— not from Mr Bmoiit, but from Mr Gladstone on ono occasion, «sd Bad Grakvilli on the other. As it i? quit* clear that Mr Bwowj mwA

'comiawtting Himself while "he re--inal^i^ .wh.at«, . lie lias* .always- been,,. iF,is~ a reasonable inference that ttie. resignation 'b'f'vnisloffice as President of' the-Board^of' -Trade 'is -not- very far,ofL\ •It is' not to ; be- supposed *hat his colleagues wiil consent to appear from time to time 1 in* the character of. his apologists, or to tolerate such unparall-t eled breaches of official etiquette t as those of which he has; been, guilty. Nor is it to be supposed that Mr Bright -will allow any; restriction to be .placed on his expressions, of opinion, or .consent, »to hold office for a, moment, wherithe condition of doingso looks yery like- a sacrifice of- his opinions. „Yettbe position of affairs is clearly such that Mr Height must eithe^ allow himself to be ' muzzled/ or he must resign. To, retain office, he must not only submit himself to official rules in the ordinary conduct of, affairs, but he must refrain from expressing , his very advanced opinions on inconvenient occasions., The, dilemma „ is inevitable. ■ > That suoh« a dilemma would arise could hardly fail to have been foreseen by Mr Gladstone, when he offered a seat in the Cabinet to the great poptilar orator. It could never have been supposed that a politician who ha s d passed his life in the midst of popular agitation — who had distinguished himself by his extreme views on every, question of the day — would sxibmit bis energies to the fetters of precedents and routine. The letter to the Birmingham Liberal Association with reference to the Peers and the Irish Church Bill, is a remarkable instance of indiscretion on the part of a Cabinet Minister. Under the special circumstances of the case, it would have been highly indiscreet on the part of a Cabinet Minister to mix himself up in any way with the proceedings of a political association. But Mi" Bright not only consented to identify himself with the ' Birmingham Liberal Association,' but took the of portunity to use language with reference to the House of Lords which was not unfairly construed into a deliberate threat. The President of the Board of Trade undertook to tell the House of Lords — in the shape, of a letter to the Secretary of a Birmingham Association — that the alternative of their not passing the Irish Church Bill was the abolition of their House. It was impossible to offer any defence of such a proceeding. All that could bo said was, that Mr. Bright wrote on his own responsibility. But no one can suppose that a Cabinet Minister is at liberty to act in that manner, and to escape the consequences on a plea of personal responsibility. The Cabinet is responsible to the House for the acts of its individual members ; and in such a case aa the present, it can meot that responsibility in no other way than by calling on the Minister at fault to resign. If such a stop has not boen adopted with reference to Mr Bkigiit, it is because he holds an exceptional position. In that respect, he is privileged to do many things which ordinary Ministers would not dream of doing. He may make inflammatory speeches, or write revolutionary letters, But obviously there is a limit ovon to his privileges as a Miniator, Whon the limit is reached, thoro can bo no doubt as to the result — Mr Bright must be sacrificed to the necessities of official 'life, or the Cabinet of which he is a member must accept the full responsibility of his acts.

Perhaps a greater indiscretion, howover, on tho part of Mr Biuout occurred at an earlier period of tho session. The state of Ireland had given rise to tho gravest apprehensions in political circles. Agrarian outrages of tho most atrocious character were reported from day to day, and Feuianism appeared to be again in the ascendant. It was considered that Ireland had nover boen in a more dangerous state since 1798. Tho subject wan brought under discussion, in the House of Commons on tho lost day of April; and in the courso of the debate, which ensued, Mr BnioiiT was warmly denounced by Lord Claud Hamilton §« ono who bad made hjwdf rapoa-

order w£ichip^^a^e^^al i relanj3»'3if | w ? " ILo/dlnip^naeWouVeU' f o Tffio^^atf Mr , ix£ that country J%, ,3^TP«fiW*yL e W. w.q'uotedv. passages; <fiwa,aJ/heM^great orator's speeches in support' <;- off his. /'■ a'sseYtMTaftd' *#' *«s*' «£ ?*, , f "*? ?;',' a^c^Mrfß right Jpf syriip^Kißing]yit^ . rthesEenians' .r i In*<reply > -to , this attack;, ! Mr Bright ' did'f«notf- content --himself ai with' 'repudiating 1 "tKe special charges braugliib j^aiiist him.' Me w'as'mooff- 1 siderate enough- ito touch upon, ai far nmbre'delicat/e question't nan that of* his supposed Fenian, "sympatliiesi and: to ' c,o,mnut.himsplf to abatement of .Minis- \ terial^policy which could, not fail to excite attention. He remarked : — ' I - don't pretend to say that any particular. ' landlords, or any particular t "number of landlords, are responsible for the miseries

of Ireland; but I. said before, andd say now, thafc there ' ca"n be ho peace iin , that country, and no settlement in* that , '. country, ; r t,i)li the/ population by; S 9*rie, means or other-— I am prepared to |>ro'pose a means, and ' I believe it cat} be done' without injustice to any man— are^put in. possession, in. greater numbers than they are, of the soil of their

own country.' ■ At the' same time, he gave" the House to understand that ' a Land' Bill, would be introduced by the • Government next session. A week after this speech was made, the Marquist of Salisbury rose in the House of Lords and took Earl CS-ran-

villb to task ia reference to Mr .■Bright's speech on the Land question. He wanted to know how it was that, while so much reticence was displayed on that question before the Peers, the intentions of the Government should be ' blurted out ' by a member of the other House. He then quoted the passage we have given above frora Mr Bright's speech, and commented on it. Earl Grafyille, as might have

been expected, was not .. very happy in his. reply. He began by fencing with his . antagonist as to his constitutional right to raise such a question ; and he then proceeded to fence with the question itself. He explained Mr Bbight's views on the Land question

— contrasted them with those of the late Government — and concluded by Baying that he could give no information with reference to the policy of the

Government. Mr B right's policy on this subject, is not likely to bo the policy of his colleagues. He proposes the purchase of land by the State from the landlords, for the purpose of Belling it to the peasantry, — thus displacing large landowners to make room for small ones. Whatever the policy of the Cabinet may be, there can be no doubt as to tho indiscretion displayed by Mr Bright, not only in anticipating the discussion, but in putting forward hia own views of the matter from the Ministerial benches.