The period embraced is a very interesting one, both in regard to social progress and the rapid development of popular principles in connection with Parliamentary Reform, Irish legislation, and other great subjects. These addresses are, moreover, not only very valuable for the side-lights which they throw upon the 'burning questions' of the time, but for their exposition of those ideas of Mr. Bright which have for a generation past been bearing fruit in the shape of practical legislation. The first of these addresses was delivered at Rochdale on the 23rd of December, 1867. On the 26th of the preceding month there had been an election for the city of Manchester, when Mr. Jacob Bright was returned by the large majority of 1,850 votes over Alderman Bennett. The numbers were-Bright, 8,260; Bennett, 6,409. A third candidate, Mr. Mitchell Henry, had practically withdrawn. The numbers polled for the successful Liberal candidate were larger than had ever been recorded at a contest in Manchester before. Although Mr. Bennett received the support of the Conservatives, his proposer disclaimed the idea that the candidate himself was a Conservative. The meeting held at Rochdale was called for the purpose of welcoming Mr. Jacob Bright after his election. Beginning by congratulating his brother, and also the city of Manchester, on the recovery of its rightful position as regards the Liberal party, Mr. Bright went on to speak of the work of the Liberals. Madame de Staël had defined happiness as constant occupation for a desirable object, and with a sense of continual progress. Politically speaking, therefore, Liberals were amongst the happiest of mortals, for they had constant occupation with a sense of continual progress. The Tories were unhappily in a very different position. They had had constant employment, for during the last twenty-five years the Liberals had found them a great deal to do, but they had no desirable end in view, nor had they aided in any continual progress. Mr. Bright illustrated this by the attitude and action of the Tories at three memorable periods, 1832, 1846, and 1867. Mr. Mill had said the Tory party were naturally the stupid party; and unless they were so stupid that they could not easily feel, the retrospect must be exceedingly humiliating to them, and the future equally gloomy. But their last humiliation on Reform appeared to him to be the deepest of all. Lord Derby had always been regarded as the most faithful of Tories, though the proprietor of a Tory journal had once said to Mr. Bright that his lordship was not a thoroughbred Tory, he was only a 'broken-hair'd 'un.' From his career he was apparently a man to be trusted by his party; but if it were not melancholy, there could hardly be anything more amusing than the transformation scene which had just taken place in Parliament. Amid great cheering, Mr. Bright went on to say: 'Even now, the insolence which Lord Derby has sometimes manifested in his speeches, the invective of Mr. Disraeli, the scurrilous vituperation of the Tory press-all this, poured upon me and others for years, has now been proved to be entirely a mistake. In point of fact, it is discovered in the year 1867and I think it ought to be chronicled with other great discoveries of the century, certainly of the year—that my principles all along have been entirely constitutional, and my course perfectly patriotic. It has been found this year that the man who alone was considered faithful to his party has hauled down his flag.' The right hon. gentleman proceeded to remark that when we had a satisfactory distribution of seats, and the machinery of the ballot, we should have a really democratic and popular House of Commons. When Lord Derby and his party acceded to office, they did not propose a Reform measure because they liked it, but to keep the party together, and to prevent their opponents from ejecting them from office. 'Their conduct in the pursuit of office reminds me of some lines which were published a good many years ago, and which never had a more exact application than when they describe the course of the Tory party last year. The poet in the Rejected Addresses says— "So when dogs'-meat re-echoes thro1 the street, (Loud laughter.) Just so the gentlemen of the front Opposition benches, and such of them behind who thought that there was something to be had, were sure to act. Especially, and above all, was it the case with the lawyers, who have since been gorged with patronage, and for the sake of that patronage and plunder, which in India is called loot, formed a combination to overthrow the bill of 1866. To place themselves in office, and .... to keep themselves there, they consented to pass a bill infinitely worse on all the points for which they condemned the bill of 1866. I venture to say their conduct on this occasion leads to the conclusion that there is scarcely any institution of the country, however honourable and ancient, that they would not sell for the permanent possession of office. (Cheers.) To crown the whole thing, we have seen Lord Derby, the last defender of Protection, the last and firmest bulwark against democracy,we have seen him exhibiting himself in defence of free trade and household suffrage on the platform of the Free Trade Hall in Manchester. Notwithstanding this, I suppose that our friends the Tories will still have faith, for their credulity is without limit, and still believe in him-they must believe in somebody,—and that Lord Derby will stand as a sort of saint in the political calendar of the Conservative party.' (Cheers.) Mr. Bright next observed that the work of Reform was not yet completed; they must have what he had already mentioned-Redistribution and the Ballot. Then there was the question of Ireland to settle, which had remained unsettled for two hundred years. If the English Government had been a Government of statesmen, things could never have come to their present terrible pass. Ireland might have been tranquil, and the kingdom might long ago have been united. If Ireland is to be made content, if her wounds are to be healed, if there is to be henceforth what there never yet has been a united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,-if the sceptre of the Queen, representing the majesty of the law, shall ever be of equal authority east and west of the Channel, this must be done, and this can only be done, by measures of great statesmanship and of justice. The morals of the turf, whether adopted on the floor of Parliament or in the secrecy of the Cabinet, will fail here. The disease which we are discussing is one of a different character. There are remedies, unless it be that the remedies are too late. Has this country fallen so low that it can produce no statesman equal to these things? I say the man who, leading the counsels of the Queen's Government, shall grasp this great question and conclude it—who shall comprehend the remedies, shall administer them, and shall make them law-will do that which in future time the pen of history will delight to trace. He will to the very full gratify the noblest ambition of his mind, and he will build up for himself a lasting memorial in the happiness and the gratitude of a regenerated nation.' On the 5th of February, 1868, Mr. Bright attended a breakfast given by Mr. J. S. Wright, the Chairman of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, to the artisans who had, at the instance of the Society of Arts, visited the Paris Exhibition. The Mayor of Birmingham presided. In the course of the proceedings, some of the speakers expressed their alarm at the risks which they believed English manufacturers were running from the rivalry of foreigners, and they urged that Government should give assistance, by public grants, to technical education. Mr. Bright said he had always predicted that with a fair representation of the people there would come a demand for national education, and his prediction had been verified, for there was an excitement on the subject greater than had existed in any previous time. He was afraid he should have to throw a little cold water |