politics to act upon the golden rule that whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them. The election caused considerable excitement throughout the country, and it elevated greatly the hopes and the courage of the Anti-Corn Law League party. Addresses and resolutions of thanks poured in upon the electors of Durham from all parts of the country. In Mr. Bright's native town of Rochdale the rejoicing was naturally great, but the most important demonstration in connection with the election was held in London, at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, Strand. It was called 'for the purpose of congratulating the electors of the city of Durham on the recent victory they had so nobly achieved for the cause of Free Trade by returning John Bright, Esq., as their representative to Parliament.' Although the meeting had not been publicly announced for more than twenty-four hours, no less than from six to seven thousand persons entered the Crown and Anchor in the hope of being present, more than two-thirds of whom were compelled to retire as they came, under the dispiriting news that the place was crowded. The Hon. C. P. Villiers, M.P., took the chair, and in his opening speech said that the election had rendered a double service to the country. It had struck a blow at two great causes of the evil in this country, the abuse of property and the abuse of power. At the mention of Mr. Bright's name, the whole audience rose to their feet, cheering loudly and waving their hats. Dr. (afterwards Sir John) Bowring, parodying a well-known epigram upon Dr. Goodenough, who was once called upon to preach before the House of Commons, said—and the lines were received with tumultuous applause—

"Tis meet enough and fit enough the House should be enlightened,

For sure enough they're dull enough, and wanting to be Brightened!'

Mr. Bright made an earnest speech on the great question of the day, the repeal of the Corn Laws, and in the course of it expressed his disappointment over his first experience of the House of Commons on the previous evening. Lord John Russell opened a debate with a solemn warning to the Government; and then Sir Robert Peel got up. He looked as though he was going to attack Lord John Russell in a very effectual manner, for he seemed terribly indignant; but it was all smoke. 'He certainly did what man could do to defend the present Government, but it would have exceeded the powers of an angel to explain to the House, or to the country, how it was that with a majority in the House of Commons of more than a hundred,

with nearly all the House of Lords at its back, with a starving people before them, with decaying trade, with insurrection threatening them, more or less near, in Ireland, in Wales, in the north of England, with disease eating into the very heart's core of the empire, that, under all these circumstances, this long session should well-nigh have passed over, and the Government not be able to point to one single measure which could in the slightest degree ameliorate the condition of the people.'

The Parliamentary band of Free Traders—which,“ though small in numbers, was rapidly increasing in influence with the country-thus received a strong and valuable accession. None of those present in the House of Commons on the 28th of July, 1843, and who saw the young representative for Durham appear at the table, and make the declaration prescribed by the Act for members of the Society of Friends could for a moment imagine that the new member-canvassed though his advent had been -was destined to develope into an orator whose eloquence pales not before that of a Sheil, a Grattan, or a Canning, or before that of his own more immediate contemporary Gladstone.

FIRST SPEECH IN PARLIAMENT-FACTORY LEGISLATION, ETC.

The League triumph at Durham.-Mr. Bright's appearance in the House.-
His maiden Speech.-Import Duties.-An Appeal to Ministers.-The Corn
Laws the real grievance of the People.-The Chelsea Out-pensioners Bill.
-Commercial relations with the Brazils.-Factory Legislation.- Lord
Ashley and Mr. Bright.-Defence of the Operatives,-A dramatic incident.
-Distress in the Eastern Counties.-The evils of Protection.-Mr. Bright
on the Game Laws.-Speech on the Maynooth Grant.

WITH every disposition to minimise the triumph which the
League principles had achieved in Durham, those journals
which were strongly opposed to Mr. Bright and his friends
found the task impossible. Here was a candidate totally un-
known in the city three months before he wrested it out of the
hands of the monopolists. True, the Morning Herald had
given utterance to a feeling of uneasiness shortly before the
election when it remarked that 'the Quaker Bright had many
friends in Durham.' But it seemed scarcely likely, nay, highly
improbable, in the eyes of most people, that a young candidate,
appearing in Durham for only the second time in his life, and
contesting the representation on two such principles as purity
of election and the abrogation of the Corn Laws, could win a
seat hitherto regarded as the appanage of an aristocratic family,
and one which was supposed to be open only to the pressure of
the golden lever. Three or four days preceding the election
even, the correspondent of the Times wrote from Durham to
the effect that the seat might be regarded as safe for Mr. Pur-
vis. He had very good grounds for believing that he would
be returned by a substantial majority. The result defeated
this and many other prognostications. Commenting on the
moral of the victory, a contemporary writer observed, Greater
than the accession to the House of Commons of an additional
advocate of freedom of trade, freedom of conscience, freedom of
representation, and universal peace-able, vigorous, and eloquent
though he be-must be the results of John Bright's election.
It has proved that a principle is much more than a name.
has achieved a victory which could not have been attained by
any one even of the very elite of the Whig aristocracy. Lord

He

John Russell, Lord Morpeth, Lord Howick, would have failed where the Rochdale cotton-spinner was successful.' At the same time, though the cause was good, if the advocate had been bad, the result might still have been different. The candidate must not be robbed of his share of the triumph; the electors of Durham were quite unable to resist Mr. Bright's convincing and persuasive eloquence.

But, the seat being gained, interest now centred in the new member's appearance in the House. Whatever be the cause, we suppose that no member, even the most fluent, ever yet rose for the first time in the House of Commons without confessing to a feeling of trepidation. He is conscious that he is addressing, not only one of the highest, but one of the most critical assemblies in the world. Eloquence at the bar and upon the platform is not the same thing as eloquence in the House of Commons. So, although Mr. Bright had addressed very large audiences out of doors, it was not without diffidence that he rose to make his maiden speech in Parliament, before the smallest audience he had probably ever addressed. This was on the 7th of August, during a discussion in a very thin House of Mr. Ewart's motion 'That it is expedient that the principles and suggestions contained in the evidence taken before the Import Duties Commission of session 1840 be carried into general effect; and that the trade and industry of the country require further and more effectual relief by the removal or reduction of duties which press upon the raw material of manufacture, and on articles of interchange with foreign nations, as well as on the means of subsistence of the people."

Mr. Bright began by expressing his reluctance to take up the time of the House, especially so soon after he had taken his seat there, but the strong interest he felt in the question, and the duty he owed to his constituents, called upon him for the expression of his opinion. He then went on to complain that on both sides of the House there had been too much reliance upon the miserable system of protection. He avowed his own opinions, pleading for the total abolition of the Corn Law, and the adoption of the principle of perfect freedom of trade. 'Crime,' he said, has often veiled itself under the name of virtue, but of all the crimes against the laws of God and the true interests of man, none has ever existed more odious and more destructive than that which has assumed the amiable term of Protection.' Then he proceeded:

The right hon. gentleman at the head of the Government (Sir R. Peel) has acknowledged the soundness of the policy of buying in the cheapest and selling

in the dearest market. The Secretary for the Home Department (Sir James Graham) says our principles are the principles of common sense; the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Gladstone) has written and spoken Free-trade doctrines; the opinions of the noble Lord the member for North Lancashire, and Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley), I should not value highly when I remember the profound ignorance on this question he manifested when last before his constituents; but of all the members of the Government, the one for whom I feel an especial affection, is the right hon. the Paymaster of the Forces (Sir E. Knatchbull). Unlike his colleague at the head of the Government, his words seem to have been given him for the purpose of expressing his ideas, and he has advanced the only tangible argument that has been uttered in this House in favour of the protection system. The house cannot, I am sure, have forgotten the argument of the right hon. baronet, that the Corn Law is necessary to enable the landowners to discharge or maintain the settlements made on the marriages of their daughters. I have, since this declaration was made, attended many large meetings of agriculturists, and I confess I have never found a single farmer who seemed to be aware that this House had ever bestowed any attention on the means of providing portions for farmers' daughters. And no labourer has ever asserted that Parliament has taken steps to enable him to give a sum of ten or twenty pounds to his daughters to provide furniture for their cottages on entering the marriage state. protest againsty the injustice of a law that enriches the rich and cares nothing for the poor; and if, during the period I may have a seat in this House, I should ever directly or indirectly give any support to a system so manifestly contrary to sound policy, and so destructive of the welfare of the great body of the people, I should be ashamed to hold up my head in any assembly of my countrymen.'

It may be assumed that by this time Mr. Bright had quite lost his nervousness. Having bearded the Treasury Bench all round, he went on to remark that this question was simply one of rent; and was rent a property more sacred than any other? To him the property in labour was a more sacred property than any right to the soil could ever be. Why was it that the past four years had been years of suffering? Because the protection given to one description of property prevented the application of another description of property to the relief of the wants of the country. Seeing the extreme discontent existing among the great body of the working classes, he put it to any gentleman enamoured of the Corn Law, What was it to which we were hastening? As regarded the Irish question, the great difficulty was how to give employment, and wages, and food to the two millions of paupers in Ireland. It is no petty legislation that can do this, no bringing in bills for the recovery of small debts, and making a boast of measures such as that. Landowners have been our law-makers, and yet everywhere there is suffering, and the landowners are everywhere charged with the mischief. You have been sowing curses, and you now wonder that curses have grown.'

Mr. Bright concluded his first speech with this personal appeal to Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone: