moters of a dangerous excitement. They say we are the source of the danger which threatens; they have absolutely the effrontery to charge me with being the friend of public disorder. I am one of the people. Surely, if there be one thing in a free country more clear than another, it is that any one of the people may speak openly to the people. If I speak to the people of their rights, and indicate to them the way to secure them --if I speak of their danger to the monopolists of power-am I not a wise counsellor, both to the people and to their rulers?

'Suppose I stood at the foot of Vesuvius or Etna, and, seeing a hamlet or a homestead planted on its slope, I said to the dwellers in that hamlet or in that homestead, You see that vapour which ascends from the summit of the mountain. That vapour may become a dense, black smoke that will obscure the sky. You see that trickling of lava from the crevices or fissures in the side of the mountain. That trickling of lava may become a river of fire. You hear that muttering in the bowels of the mountain. That muttering may become a bellowing thunder, the voice of a violent convulsion that may shake half a continent. You know that at your feet is the grave of great cities for which there is no resurrection, as history tells us that dynasties and aristocracies have passed away, and their name has been known no more for ever. If I say this to the dwellers upon the slope of the mountain, and if there comes hereafter a catastrophe which makes the world to shudder, am I responsible for that catastrophe? I did not build the mountain, or fill it with explosive materials. I merely warned the men that were in danger.

'So, now, it is not I who am stimulating men to the violent pursuit of their acknowledged constitutional rights. We are merely about our lawful business; and you are the citizens of a country that calls itself free, yet you are citizens to whom is denied the greatest and the first blessing of the constitution under which you live. If the truth must be told, the Tory party is the turbulent party of this nation.'

In 1832 the country was within twenty-four hours of revolution; and in 1846 a famine was necessary before the Corn Laws were abolished. If the Franchise Bill of the past session had been carried, henceforth the people in these islands would no longer have been two nations. All would have felt that henceforth they were one people. Who prevented this? Mr. Bright went on to ask. Lord Derby

and the party of which he was the acknowledged and trusted leader. Lord Derby now stood nearest to the Throne, and he ventured to say that he was not a strength but a weakness to that Throne. One would have supposed that the Government had troubles enough on hand in Ireland without urging the people to excitement in England. Mr. Bright then drew a picture of Ireland under the Tory Government, with the Habeas Corpus Act suspended, individual liberty abolished, etc.; and added that in the presence of all this, and that which had occurred the previous year in relation to Reform, it was Lord Derby himself who was the fomenter of discord, and his party the turbulent element in English political society.

Mr. Bright said he would tell that party that this question could not sleep. As a memorial forwarded. to the Government of the United States by a convention held in Switzerland said, 'Unfinished questions have no pity for the repose of nations.' That referred to the great question of negro slavery, but it was just as true when applied to Reform. They had been told to stand still and wait for the action of Parliament, but he could not put his confidence in the men who had already betrayed them. The duty of the working men-a duty from which they could not escape-was to go on as they had begun, and to perfect in every part of the country their organization in favour of their enfranchisement. Every one of their societies must give itself for a short time to the working out of

their political redemption. Give every man engaged in the work his due, and help by every honest endeavour to bring that great national question to such a solid and final issue that it should no longer disturb the repose of the nation. 'And, lastly, I beg of you,' said the speaker, 'to rise to something like a just contemplation of what the great issue is for which you are contending. It is to make you citizens of one of the noblest nations on the face of the earthof a nation which has a grand history in the past, and which I trust, partly through your help, will have a still grander history in the future. Let me beg of you that, in all you do, you may be animated by a great and noble spirit, for you have set your hands and hearts to a great and noble work.'

Several resolutions were proposed, and unanimously adopted by the meeting. In the course of the proceedings, Mr. Ayrton, M.P., remarked upon the Queen's infrequent appearance on public occasions, and censured her for not recognizing the people when they gathered in such numbers in front of one of her palaces. Before the vote of thanks to the chairman was put to the meeting, Mr. Bright interposed for a moment, and repudiated the insinuation contained in the speech of the member for the Tower Hamlets. 'I am not accustomed,' he said, 'to stand up in defence of those who are possessors of crowns. But I could not sit and hear that observation without a sensation of wonder and of pain. I think there has been, by many persons, a great injustice done to the

Queen in reference to her desolate and widowed position. And I venture to say this, that a woman -be she the Queen of a great realm, or the wife of one of your labouring men-who can keep alive in her heart a great sorrow for the lost object of her life and affection, is not at all likely to be wanting in a great and generous sympathy with you.'

These sentiments elicited loud and prolonged cheers from the audience, and the body of the people in the hall rose, and sang a verse of God save the Queen.' Mr. Ayrton sought to make an explanation, to the effect that the tenor of his observations had been misunderstood; but he could not obtain a hearing. The meeting then closed with the vote to the chairman.

Circumstances having now thrown Mr. Bright into great prominence as a political leader, he suffered that penalty of misrepresentation which at some period or other befalls every public man. Amongst his detractors was Mr. Garth, M.P., who, in an address to the electors of Guildford, charged Mr. Bright with never having dared to stand for his own town, with refusing to subscribe to the cotton famine relief fund, and with wishing to support the suffering workmen by loans, that he might have them as serfs at his beck and call. The complete groundlessness of these charges having been proved in a correspondence which took place, Mr. Garth endeavoured to explain them away. Upon this Mr. Bright wrote: 'On a review of your speech and your letter, I came

to this conclusion-that you wished to get into Parliament, and were not particular as to the path which might lead to it. You threw dirt during your canvass, doubtless knowing that if needful you could eat it afterwards. There are many men who go through dirt to dignities, and I suspect you have no objection to be one of them.' Amongst others who misrepresented Mr. Bright at this time was Mr. H. D. Seymour, who, in an article in the Fortnightly Review, founded certain political charges upon incorrect reports of Mr. Bright's speeches. Unlike some clerical and other libellers, however, Mr. Seymour at once made reparation for that which had really been done through inadvertence.

The best answer to Mr. Bright's detractors was furnished on the 25th of January, 1867, when twelve hundred of the workpeople of Messrs. John Bright and Brothers voluntarily assembled in the Public Hall at Rochdale, and presented an address to the hon. member for Birmingham, expressive of their entire sympathy with, and sincere respect for him, under the malignant slanders which had been urged against him as their employer. The address-which was moved, seconded, and supported by working men in Mr. Bright's employ-after speaking of the attacks on his private character as base and unfounded, said he had always endeavoured to improve their moral, social, and intellectual well-being, while as a public character his best endeavours had been made to raise the great wealth-producing class to the