Granville, in reply, said Mr. Bright himself had told him, 'I made the mistake of not prefacing what I had to say by stating that, if I were left to myself, I should do so and so.' The explanation of Mr. Bright's language, added the noble Earl, was to be found in his habits as a popular speaker free from official restraint.

While frequent meetings, for and against the Government policy, were being held in the country, the Irish Church Bill was read a third time, and passed by the House of Commons on the 31st of May. On the 14th of June the debate on the second reading commenced in the House of Lords.

Just at this time, however, considerable excitement was created by the publication of the following letter, addressed by Mr. Bright to Mr. H. B. S. Thompson, Secretary to the Birmingham Liberal Association :—

'Dear Sir, I must ask my friends to excuse me if I am unable to accept their invitation for the meeting on Monday next. The Lords are not very wise, but there is sometimes profit to the people even in their innovations. If they should delay the passing of the Irish Church Bill for three months, they will stimulate discussion on important questions, which, but for their infatuation, might have slumbered for many years. It is possible that a good many people may ask what is the special value of a constitution which gives a majority of 100 in one House for a given policy, and a majority of 100 in another House against it. I may be asked also why the Crown, through its Ministers in the House of Commons, should be found in harmony with the nation, while the Lords are generally in direct opposition to it. Instead of doing a little childish tinkering about life peerages, it would be well if the Peers could bring themselves on a line with the opinions and necessities of our day. In harmony with the nation, they may go on for a long time; but, throwing themselves athwart its course, they may meet with accidents not pleasant for them to think of. But there are not a few good and wise men among

the Peers, and we will hope their counsels may prevail. I am sure you will forgive me if I cannot come to your meeting.

'Believe me always very truly yours,

'JOHN BRIGHT.'

Ministers were questioned in both Houses of Parliament respecting this letter. Earl Granville in the Lords, and Mr. Gladstone in the Commons, while disclaiming any official knowledge of the contents of the document, said they were compelled to declare that it was not more severe than the language which had been applied to the bill and its promoters. Mr. Gladstone added that both himself and Mr. Bright had declined to attend public meetings on the subject of the Irish Church, not being desirous of taking any extra-Parliamentary part in the agitation upon this question. We may add that the terms of Mr. Bright's letter were most moderate in comparison with the abuse showered upon the Premier at this juncture.

On the 18th of June, after a remarkable display of eloquence on both sides, the second reading of the Irish Church Bill was carried in the House of Lords by a majority of 33. The numbers were-For the bill, 179; against, 146. The division was the largest taken in the House of Lords within living memory325 peers having personally recorded their votes, while eighteen paired. Many eminent Conservative peers, being desirous of settling the question, supported the Government. During the subsequent progress of the bill through Committee, many important amendments were made. Some of these were accepted by the Commons, and a compromise being finally arranged

with regard to others, the bill passed, and received the royal assent by commission on the 26th of July.

The members for Birmingham addressed their constituents on the 11th of January, 1870, and Mr. Bright's speech was again mainly devoted to Ireland. The occasion was one of much public interest, as it was believed that Mr. Bright would indicate the nature of the Government policy on the land question. The right hon. gentleman began with some references to the past session. One great local measure, and one great measure of imperial importance, had been passed. By the former the large body of the ratepayers of Birmingham had been relieved from a grievance which had arisen by the abolition of the system of compounding for rates. The question of imperial importance was that of the Irish Church. The Peers had shown a great deal of wisdom in passing this Act, and had taught some people the lesson that no institution, however ancient, however dignified, however grand in its historical character, could be safe in this country if it permanently set itself against the convictions and the voice of a united people. Now that the Irish Church was disestablished, there was no Catholic grievance left, though there might be Irish grievances. There was yet one very important and awkward question, and that was the land question. But it was not an impossible problem. The land of Ireland was in the hands of very few proprietors; and the industry, the fortunes, the home, the very life of the cultivating

population, were at the mercy of the owner of the land, or of the agent who had the management of his property. But there was something else the owners were not of the same nation as the occupiers. The original grievance had been made ten times more bitter than it would otherwise have been by the folly of the proprietary class, working as they did through a corrupt Parliament in Ireland, and also through the governing power in Great Britain.

At last, continued Mr. Bright, Parliament was called on, not merely to give right and justice to the tenants, but to save the interests and protect the property of the proprietors. He did not know whether, if he were an Irishman, he should be more anxious for legislation as a tenant or as a landlord. But it was absolutely necessary to put an end to the reign of discord in Ireland. The land question was one of the greatest and most difficult that had ever been considered by an Administration or submitted to Parliament. But it was not a question for class and party conflict-it was one for conscientious patriotism, a question which every man should consider, because the prosperity, the peace, and the unity of the empire depended upon its wise solution.' He believed now that great results were about to follow from legislation for Ireland..

'What has been done already? In conjunction with her representatives we have already given to Ireland free churches and free schools, and I hope before long that we shall give them free land and a free vote. Ireland, as you know, is not the most wealthy island in the world, but we can buy from her all she wishes to sell at a higher price than any other nation can

give, and we can sell to her all she wishes to buy at a lower price than any other nation. We may fail, but I believe that we shall not fail. (Cheers.) Good and honest efforts generally succeed. We propose, then, a new conquest of Ireland, without confiscation and without blood—with only the holy weapon of a frank and a generous justice, which is everywhere potent to bring together nations which have been long alienated by oppression or neglect. (Loud cheers.) From such a new policy we hope for great changes in Ireland. We do not expect that Ireland is to be made a paradise, but that it will be greatly altered for the better. It may seem like the language of exaggeration when I quote the lines of Pope in one of the most exquisite poems in our language:

"Then crime shall cease, and ancient fraud shall fail,
Returning Justice lift aloft her scale;

Peace o'er the realm her olive wand extend,

And white-robed Innocence from Heaven descend."

(Loud cheers.) I say that this may appear like the language of exaggeration; but if we are able to suppress conspiracy, if we are able to banish agrarian crime (cheers)—if we can unbar the prison doors-(cheers)—if we can reduce all excess of military force, if we can make Ireland as tranquil as England and Scotland now are (cheers)—then, at least, I think we may have done something to justify the wisdom and the statesmanship of our time.' (Loud cheers.)

Dealing next with the question of education, with regard to which Birmingham had recently taken its right position and done itself so much honour, Mr. Bright said he was glad to think that the religious difficulty was diminishing in magnitude. Every child in every school might be taught the elementary parts of religion; and the denominational system had acquired strength because it endeavoured to do that which everybody saw must necessarily be done. He was persuaded that as this topic was more fully discussed there would come up a demand for national education from all the people, and then the religious question would gradually become smaller and smaller,