a subject the appalling consequences of which might come home to individuals and to the nation.

Then came Mr. Bright's peroration, as follows:

'I recollect when Sir Robert Peel addressed the House on a dispute which threatened hostilities with the United States,-I recollect the gravity of his countenance, the solemnity of his tone, his whole demeanour showing that he felt in his soul the responsibility that rested on him. I have seen this, and I have seen the present Ministry. There was the buffoonery at the Reform Club. Was that becoming a matter of this grave nature? Has there been a solemnity of manner in the speeches heard in connection with this war, and have Ministers shown themselves statesmen and Christian men when speaking on a subject of this nature?

'It is very easy for the noble lord the member for Tiverton to rise and say that I am against war under all circumstances; and that if an enemy were to land on our shores, I should make a calculation as to whether it would be cheaper to take him in or keep him out, and that my opinion on this question is not to be considered either by Parliament or the country. I am not afraid of discussing the war with the noble lord on his own principles. I understand the Blue Books as well as he; and, leaving out all fantastic and visionary notions about what will become of us if something is not done to destroy or to cripple Russia, I say—and I say it with as much confidence as I ever said anything in my life-that the war cannot be justified out of these documents; and that impartial history will teach this to posterity if we do not comprehend it now.

'I am not, nor did I ever pretend to be, a statesman; and that character is so tainted and so equivocal in our day, that I am not sure that a pure and honourable ambition would aspire to it. I have not enjoyed, for thirty years, like these noble lords, the honours and emoluments of office. I have not set my sails to every passing breeze. I am a plain and simple citizen, sent here by one of the foremost constituencies of the empire, representing feebly, perhaps, but honestly, I dare aver, the opinions of very many, and the true interests of all those who have sent me here. Let it not be said that I am alone in my condemnation of this war, and of this incapable and guilty Administration. And even if I were alone, if mine were a solitary voice, raised amid the din of arms and the clamours of a venal press, I should have the consolation I have to-night-and which I trust will be mine to the last moment of my existence the priceless consolation that no word of mine has tended to promote the squandering of my country's treasure or the spilling of one single drop of my country's blood.'

This speech was spoken under many disadvantages, but its effect was electrical. Mr. Bright was not only suffering from a severe cold, but he rose at one o'clock in the morning to address an audience holding in the main opposite views to his own. Several members interrupted him in his opening remarks, but these were at once silenced when the orator told them that although their functions were to cheer a Minister, they might at least have the decency not to interrupt a man giving honest expression to convictions of his own. The House was against him, but one who was present at the debate, says that Mr. Bright succeeded in securing the most deferential attention, deepening every instant, until it reached a climax

probably unparalleled in the recollection of any individual present, at least since the great affair between Canning and Brougham.' This extraordinary philippic was as superior to any mere Parliamentary vituperation as the subject itself— deep, solemn, momentous, and universal-was superior to the trivial and evanescent personalities that impart piquancy to individual exhibitors in the public arena. It was in vain that official callousness assumed an unconsciousness of its force. Before he had got half into the speech, every man on the Ministerial bench was in a state of acuteness such as is not witnessed in a lifetime in the same place. Almost all of them had turned round in their seats, and kept gazing at their terrible assailant with fatuous immobility. Lord John Russell tried desperately to be dignified, and covered his face with his hands, which he occasionally removed to attempt a spasmodic laugh; but when Mr. Bright came to talk of Colonel Boyle, and the widow and the five little orphans, the tears started to the eyes of many a brave man who heard him, and Lord John laughed no more.'

Lord Palmerston, at the outset of the speech, had pulled his hat over his eyes, folded his arms, and thrown himself back in his seat- -a favourite attitude with him towards the end of a long sitting. But he was so completely roused by his antagonist, that he could not even feign an indifference which he did not feel. He tried to laugh when the speaker alluded to himself as upsetting the New Testament in a couple of sentences at an agricultural dinner. 'Short-lived, however, was the merriment. For presently Bright passed on to the "buffooneries at the Reform Club," and contrasted the general flippant levity of this Ministry, amidst the grief and mourning that then filled the land, with the grave decorum of Peel, even in the shadow of an anticipated war; and he laughed no more. As for Mr. Gladstone, he seemed much distressed. With the two exceptions, Disraeli and Graham, everybody was deeply affected. O'Connell's great test of his own speeches was the effect they produced on the reporters, and according to this test the speech of Mr. Bright was superlative, for the longest-lived of the shortlived gentry vowed that anything equal to it was quite out of his recollection.' . . . . 'It was strictly a debating speech, and all the Coalition could not furnish a debater to reply to it. The consternation of Ministers as they hurriedly whispered when Bright sat down, the painful silence (far more significant than the most tumultuous applause) that pervaded the benches, as if there had been affirmed some dread calamity for which there

was neither denial nor remedy-all told emphatically that Bright's point was the point.' It was beyond the power of any of the Ministers to make an effective reply to such a speech at the moment, and the House went to a division at once.

Parliament, having accomplished the special objects for which it was called together, adjourned on the 23d of December, for the Christmas holidays. But the festivities of the English Christmas of that melancholy year were overshadowed by gloom. Thousands of weary hearts were turned to the far-distant Crimea, where beloved relatives had either already perished, the victims of a sanguinary war, or were now dying of neglect, the result of mismanagement so gross and so terrible as probably to be unparalleled in the annals of the British empire.

CHAPTER XII.

RUSSIA AND THE CRIMEAN WAR (concluded).

The War at the beginning of 1855.-Condition of the English Army before Sebastopol.-Mr. Roebuck's Motion for a Select Committee.--Resignation of the Aberdeen Government.-A Palmerston Ministry formed.-Resignation of Mr. Gladstone, Sir J. Graham, and Mr. S. Herbert.-Ministerial Explanations. Mr. Bright's eloquent appeal to Lord Palmerston to stay the War.-The struggle continues.-Mr. Bright defends the Peace Party.Debates in the House of Commons on the prosecution of the War.-Important Speech by Mr. Bright.-Preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea-Policy of the Government.--Attack on Lord John Russell.-Proposed Vote of Censure upon Ministers.-Animated Speech by Mr. Bright. -His extra-Parliamentary utterances on the War Question.--Close of the Crimean Campaign.—General Remarks upon Mr. Bright's attitude on the War.

PARLIAMENT met on the 23d of January, 1855, amidst much excitement and anxiety on the part of the nation. All were anxious to hear what was being done towards ameliorating the lot of our soldiers in the Crimea, and the whole conduct of the war was canvassed from various points of view. The general feeling, nevertheless, was still in favour of prosecuting the struggle with energy; and when Mr. Cobden addressed his constituents at Leeds, so strong was this sentiment that a resolution was carried against him. Neither the member for the West Riding, however, nor Mr. Bright, swerved from his opinions in consequence of such ebullitions of popular feeling. Speaking at Manchester at a soiree held in honour of himself and Mr. Gibson, Mr. Bright said, 'I behold the abyss into which multitudes would plunge the country. If I cannot save them from it, if they will not save themselves, at least I will warn them of their danger, and I will be no partner in the deeds which I am convinced in my conscience will receive, as they well merit, the condemnation of posterity.' Alluding at the annual meeting of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce to the general commercial consequences of the war, he showed that pauperism was increasing at a frightful rate, and that trade itself was not flourishing. He illustrated this by a humorous comparison. Some men,' he said, 'because they have got Gov-. ernment contracts, fancy that trade is good, and that war is good for trade. Why, it is but carrying on the trade of Roch

dale, or Dewsbury, or anywhere else, by the taxation of the country at large; and it is just like somebody described it, endeavouring to keep a dog alive by feeding him with his own tail.'

Meanwhile the scandalous condition of things in the Crimea was brought formally under the attention of the House of Commons. Mr. Roebuck moved for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the condition of our army before Sebastopol, and into the conduct of those departments of the Government whose duty it has been to minister to the wants of the army.' Lord John Russell resigned office because he could not see how this motion was to be resisted. Mr. Gladstone, in an eloquent speech, opposed the inquiry because it would never take place as a real inquiry; or, if it did, because it would lead to nothing but confusion and disturbance, increased disaster, shame at home, and weakness abroad; because it could convey no consolation to those whom they sought to aid, while it would carry malignant joy to the hearts of the enemies of England. Ministers, however, found arrayed against them the large majority of 157 in a House of 453 members. The result of the division took every one by surprise, and instead of the usual cheering after the numbers were announced, a murmur of amazement was heard culminating in loud and derisive laughter.

The Aberdeen Government resigned in consequence of this vote, and Lord John Russell and Lord Derby having respectively failed to form a Ministry, on the 6th of February Lord Palmerston succeeded in this difficult task. His Administration, however, was chiefly composed of the members of the old Cabinet. The new Premier tried to stave off the action of the Sebastopol Inquiry Committee by promising a most stringent investigation into the conduct of the war. Sir James Graham, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Sidney Herbert shortly afterwards resigned office, and on the 23rd of February explained in the House of Commons why the appointment of the Crimean Inquiry Committee led to their withdrawal from Lord Palmerston's Ministry.

During the debate which arose out of these Ministerial explanations, Mr. Bright delivered another brief but earnest and eloquent speech, and one which contains a passage that is perhaps now more famous, and more frequently referred to, than any other in his public and Parliamentary addresses.

He began by observing that he was one of a majority of the House who looked upon our present position as one of more