MR. BRIGHT ON HOME RULE.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 110, 5 June 1875, Page 7

MR. BRIGHT ON HOME RULE.

Mb. Bright's letter on the subject of Home Rule, of which we ptiblished a copy last week, is a, remarkable illustration of the. difference between a demagogue -when seeking power and using his dupes as a means to gain his end, and the same man who has at last entered the charmed circle of the Ministry, and is now basking' in the sunshine of royalty. When Jeames de la, Pluche was a flunkey, he cringed before his master, and made love to Mary Ann ; when the tables were turned, he forgot Mary Ann and wooed LadyJuliana. Until Mr. Gladstone admitted Mr. Bright into his Ministry, he had been known only as the extreme democrat of the House. What would he not do for the people if only he had the power, and they would support him ? There would be no man who should not have vote for Parliament. The will of the people should be the Supreme power of the State. All such worn-out institutions as the House of Lords, the laws of entail, and the existence of privileged classes should be utterly abolished. All men should be equal, all men should be free, and justice should be done between man and man where ever tyranny reigns supreme.. In the sister country, whose "history is one long tale of cruel oppression," England should be given to understand that " the only way to do justice to Ireland is to give her back those liberties and rights which were hers before the Act of Union, and which ought to be the birth-right of every British subject." Such was John Bright at Rochdale in 1861. We can understand now how his tongue was poked into his cheek as he heard ihe "burst of applause which his majestic periods brought down. He was "Your obedient servant, John Bright,'- 1 in those days ; he is " the Eight Honorable John Bright," he dines with the Queen, and attends her Court, now — aye, that very Court which he spent the best part of his life in denouncing, He can afford to appear in - his true colors now ; and accordingly when Father O'Malley, the originator of the Home Rule movement, asks Mr. Bright for his opinion and advice, the successful democrat tells him, that, in his opinion, the project ia so hopelessly absurd and impossible that " only men partly mad and wicked would urge Irishmen to attempt it." It is " absurd and monstrous ; " it has been prepared, with " childish sympathy and enthusiasm," to allay the discontent of a portion of the people of Ireland who have never been able to make a clear statement of their grievances, and are totally unable to agree upon any remedy for them." When the people whose "history "in 1861 was "one long tale of cruel oppression" seek some recognition from then* old friend, Jeames makes them to understand that he rides in Ms carriage now, and that they are either fools or knaves for carrying out a policy which he himself advocated fourteen years ago. Mr. Bright's letter is an excellent specimen of the way in, which the English people regard the complaints and the appeals of their fellow-countrymen, but with this difference, that the indifference of the English people is the result of ignorance, whereas Mr. Bright's indifference is the result of baseness. It is true that the English have such a distaste for the Irish question that they really do not know what their grievances are, however clearly and constantly they may be laid before them ; but, if this can be considered as an excuse, Mr. Bright cannot plead it. No one knows better than he does how the Act of Union was procured j how the Government of the day strained every nerve to procure a packed House of Commons ; how the peers "were bribed ; howplaces of emolument were found for refractory members of the Lower House. No one knows better than Mr. Bright how, twentyfive years ago, the heavy hand of the English G-ovemment was weighed down upon a people half-maddened by starvation, and exasperated by years of coercive legislation. No demagogue made a more powerful use of this knowledge when he was seeking to arouse the worst passions of the mob. And yet this is the man who, when he had got everything his dupes had to give him, looks • the other way when one of old supporters expects a nod of recognition. But it would be impossible to measure the extent of Mr. Bright's duplicity without considering the nature of the Irish Coercion Act, with which his name is officially connected. Mr. Bright was a member of the Ministry when it was renewed, and he voted with his party for its renewal. Now, however anxious he might be to forget his old friends, one hardly expects to see him taking a part in persecuting them. When Jeames was riding with Lady Juliana, we can understand his cutting Mary Ann ; but we can hardly expect that he will go across the road and kick her. We have only to consider some o£ the clauses of that Act to know the injustice Mr. Bright has helped to inflict on those whose "history is one long tale of cruel oppression," Imagine the liberty and security enjoyed under such laws as these : — "Any person or persons rising, assembling, or appearing by day or night, aimed or disguised, or wearing any unusual badge, dress, or uniform, or assuming any unusual name or denomination, are declared guilty of a misdemeanor and liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment, and to give such security for future good "behaviour as the Court should order." And further : — " Any person or persons rising or assembling as above or otherwise (save peaceably), and willfully shooting at, maiming or disfiguring any person, or sending a demanding or threatening letter to any person, are declared guilty of a capital felony." In the face of such a law as this, Mr. Bright is offering nothing 1 more nor less than a taunt to the Irish people when he urges that "in Great Britain no one wants new Parliaments of Lords and Commons, nobody wants a third Imperial Parliament." We should think not : they are comfortable enough. But how would it be if an Englishman could be imprisoned for "wearing any unusual badge, dress, or uniform/ or if he could be hanged for sending a threatening letter ? Why a howl would be heard from { end to end of the island, and Mr. Bright would return to his old

trade of abusing respectable people, unless indeed [he could be bought off by a seat in the Cabinet. Mr. Blight's letter is calculated to defeat the very end for which it was written. In Ireland there are two extreme parties — those who regard the Union as their charter, and who are mostly of Saxon descent, and those who demand complete separation at any cost, and who may be called Fenians. Mr. Bright's letter will touch neither of these parties, and with neither of them have we anything to do. But between these lies a third party, who are willing to accept a compromise, and who will be satisfied if England accords to Ireland the same privileges that she has accorded to her colonies. It was to the Home Rule 'party that his letter was addressed, and we can easily imagine what its effect will be. "If John Bright calls us knaves and fools directly he has nothing to gain by our support, what have we to expect from other Englishmen ? We have pleaded our cause for many yeaTs, our complaints have been poured upon our oppressors like water on a stone ; but the heart of man has proved harder than the stone. It will never melt. Let us give up our complaints, which have been thrown away, and go over to the enemy." This is not a fanciful expresssion of what will pass through many an untutored mind. It is the expression of a real and practical danger. Mr. Bright's letter may turn many a loyal Home Ruler into a conspirator, but it will never bring him to submit his neck to the heavy yoke of the oppressor. — ' Sydney Freeman.'