'I am surprised at the course pursued by the right hon. baronet. I should be glad to see him, not the Minister of the Queen merely, but the Minister of the people also. I should rejoice to see him disconnect himself from the party whose principles he declares to be unsound. I should be glad to see him bearing in mind the source from which he has sprung, the source of his power and wealth, as it is the source of much of the power, and wealth, and greatness of this empire. He may have a laudable ambition-he may seek renown, but no man can be truly great who is content to serve an oligarchy who regard no interest but their own, and whose legislation proves that they have no sympathy with the wants of the great body of their countrymen. I live in the manufacturing districts; I am well acquainted with the wishes and feelings of the population; and I do not hesitate to say, when I view the disregard with which they are treated by this House, that the dangers which impend are greater than those which now surround us. I can assure the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, that his flimsy excuses will not avail him at the bar of public opinion. He knows what is right, and he refuses to do it; and whether the session be at the beginning or near its close, it is his duty to propose measures of relief to the commerce of the country. That this is not the time is an excuse which is as untrue as it is insulting. When will the time come? Will monopoly resign its hold of the subsistence of the people? "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" The Government knows what is right, the people demand it to be done; and the Ministry who refuse to act incur an awful responsibility. I have been anxious thus briefly to express my opinions;-I grieve that the country should be thus trifled with, and that it should have grounds for despairing of relief from this House. Nothing but danger can come from persisting in our present policy.'

The motion for which Mr. Bright spoke was lost by 52 to 25. The hon. member's address excited a good deal of interest, and it was admitted to have many telling points. One who was in the House of Commons at the time observed that 'as a speaker Mr. Bright is far superior to many who are listened to in that assembly; but those who know the constitution of the House know also the great influence of station, name, and wealth, and how much dulness will be tolerated from one of a good family. Mr. Bright is about the middle size, rather firmly and squarely built, with a fair, clear complexion, and an intelligent and pleasing expression of countenance. His voice is good, his enunciation distinct, and his delivery free from any unpleasant peculiarity or mannerism. He is young, and has apparently a long career before him. His dress is rather more recherché than that of the Friends of a generation back, differing but slightly from the ordinary costume of the day.' Mr. Bright's earnestness and energy were proverbial, and it speedily became apparent that whatever might have been the case as regards the past, in the future the representation of Durham would be no dead-letter.

The Government, too, had acquired another sleepless critic -though that was an acquisition for which they were not anxious. A few days after the delivery of his maiden speech,

and just before the prorogation, Mr. Bright again addressed the House, and put in a stirring if indirect plea for the AntiCorn Law cause. The hon. member supported a motion for the rejection of the Chelsea out-pensioners bill-a measure which rendered old veterans liable to be called on to serve again, or to lose the pensions which they had been awarded for long service. He began by combating the assertion of the War Secretary (Sir H. Hardinge) that a standing army was one of the greatest safe-guards of constitutional freedom, and said he trusted so monstrous a doctrine would never again be uttered. He read a letter showing that the bill before the House was not regarded favourably by the pensioners. The circumstances of the manufacturing districts were put forward as a reason for demanding the passing of this bill. But the question was, should they grant to the Government greater powers of repression whilst that Government refused all redress of the heavy grievances of the people.' Mr. Bright then detailed the sufferings which prevailed in the manufacturing districts, and added, The distress exists still; the laws which destroyed the trade of a rapidly increasing population exist still; and what do the Government now propose? To do tardy justice? To remove the restrictions? To let the people work who want to work, and who would have work if the law did not prevent it? Nothing of the kind. There is no sign of repentance on the part of the Ministers: justice and relief are asked for, and the people are answered by a bill to raise a new body of military to keep the discontent of the suffering and the oppressed from becoming dangerous to hon. members opposite.' The people had assembled together, but they had assembled peaceably. After referring also to our treatment of Ireland, the hon. member in this forcible passage indicated the lessons of the past;—

The people of the United Kingdom asked for a reform of this House-for a better representation of the people; and their prayer was for a long period despised and neglected. They asked that stumps of trees and old walls should no longer send members to this House, but that the thousands who inhabit Manchester, and Leeds, and Birmingham should have a voice in your deliberations. You refused it. It was a just demand, but there was no clamour. It was needful for the good of the people, but it was not then needful to secure you from violence. You dared to refuse it. But the usual results followed; a storm arose before which you quailed, and you were for a time swept almost from before the sight of the public. Now we have grievances; we have a law which prevents our trade-which denies the right to labour, for themselves and their families, to multitudes of honest and industrious individuals. The people ask you for nothing that is yours, but for that which is their own, and which you have taken from them for a time. The population increases, and trade does not increase with it, and therefore suffering and competition

increase. If monopoly be right and wise, let us have it, fully and without stint; but if Free Trade be the policy for this country, then let us have Free Trade. The question for this House to determine appears to me to be a very simple one indeed. Shall we give the people the means to live comfortably by their honest labour, or shall we afford to the Government which refuses them justice, the power to coerce them, and to render it safe to be unjust? Is this policy to go on for ever?'

Warning the Government that the middle classes would not for ever go on supporting the aristocracy against the rights of the most numerous class, Mr. Bright said that for himself he would be no party to giving increased power to a Government which gave no evidence of a disposition to redress the wrongs they had admitted; but he would cordially support any proposition which might serve to prevent the passing of that most unnecessary and coercive bill. The Government, however, had a large majority on the measure.

Early in the session of 1844, attention was directed to the condition of our commercial relations with the Brazils, and Mr. Labouchere moved an address to Her Majesty, praying her to adopt such measures as might prove best calculated to maintain and improve those relations. Mr. Gladstone opposed the motion, on the ground of its embarrassing nature, while he admitted the great importance of our trade with the Brazils. Mr. Bright spoke upon the motion, and declared that he could only express disgust and amazement at the manner in which noble lords and hon. gentlemen spoke of the Africans in the Brazils, while entirely overlooking the famishing population in their own manufacturing counties and agricultural districts. They had already almost an open market with the Brazils, and yet our trade with that country for many years past had been diminishing. The benefit of the existing treaty had been destroyed by sacrificing the national good to class and selfish interests. As regarded the sugar supply, the West India planters derived the same advantage from that monopoly which the landed proprietors of England sought from the Corn Laws. The Government knew that this was merely a question of selfinterest, and the country knew it too. But they might depend upon it there was intelligence and virtue enough in the country to put an end, not only to this, but to every other monopoly by which the people were suffering. Mr. Gladstone had evaded the real question at issue. The monopolists, whether Whigs or Tories, all hung together. They were then discussing the question of sugar, but it was the same interest, whether corn, sugar, or timber. Referring to the prevalent distress, Mr. Bright said that no state of agricultural prosperity ever yet

maintained the revenue of the kingdom; and unless the Government regarded those districts with a more favourable feeling, he could tell them that consequences would some day come, for which they would have received but a small compensation from the Corn Law or the Sugar Law. With upwards of two millions of paupers in Ireland-with a million paupers in England and Wales-and with an enormous mass of poverty in Scotland, it was astonishing that a Government which professed to feel for the sufferings of the people would aggravate, instead of seeking to alleviate, those sufferings, by still further depressing that trade which could alone afford them employment.

Lord Palmerston followed on the same side, affirming that the line of argument which Government used to justify them in refusing to let in foreign sugar, was no more than declaring that this monopoly should be everlasting. If they were to wait until they could induce the Brazilians to abolish slavery and the slave trade, no person in that House would live to see the day when foreign sugar would be admitted into the home markets of this country. There voted for Mr. Labouchere's motion, 132; against, 205; so that the Government had a majority of 73.

We shall pass over at present Mr. Bright's early speeches in the House connected directly with the Corn Laws, reserving them for another chapter, and deal here only with miscellaneous questions. Of these latter questions, one of the most important related to the hours of factory labour-a subject discussed at length and with much warmth in the session of 1844. It gave rise to considerable misunderstanding between Mr. Bright and Lord Ashley-now the Earl of Shaftesbury, a nobleman imbued with true feelings of philanthropy, though these feelings may not always have been under the control of the highest wisdom. The working classes have been largely indebted both to Mr. Bright and Lord Shaftesbury, and the difference of opinion which arose between them, culminating in more than one passage of arms, was naturally therefore viewed with regret. We turn to these debates now for the purpose of showing Mr. Bright's true position in regard to factory legislation, and of disentangling it from that which is frequently assigned to him. It is also due to him to state, as between himself and Lord Ashley, that the latter was very largely dependent upon hearsay for many of his facts, and could not possibly be so intimately acquainted with the subject as those who had spent all their lives amongst the factory operatives, and were perfectly conversant with everything concerning them and their work.

So much by way of preliminary. Sir James Graham having brought forward in the House of Commons the Government Bill for the regulation of labour in Factories, Lord Ashley proposed, in committee, the following amendment to Clause 2. That the word "night" shall be taken to mean from six o'clock in the evening to six o'clock in the following morning; and the word "mealtime" shall be taken to mean an interval of cessation from work for the purpose of rest and refreshment, at the rate of two hours a day, with a view to effect a limitation of the hours of labour to ten in the day.' The noble mover dwelt upon the physical and moral evils attending the factory system, and asked ‘in behalf of the poor, a time to live and a time to die, a time for the duties of life, and a time for its comforts.'

Mr. Bright rose during the debate and delivered a lengthy and important speech. He complained in the outset that Lord Ashley had taken a most unfair and most unjust view of the question, and one which the reports of the factory inspectors did not corroborate. This the hon. member illustrated by extracts referring to the comparatively healthy condition of the workers in factories. It was also proved in evidence of the Factory Commission that the height of boys and girls employed in agriculture, while exceeding that of those employed in mines, showed no sensible difference from that of those employed in mills. There was hardly a complaint made by Lord Ashley against the manufacturing towns of the North which might not be equally well alleged against London or Birmingham. He cited cases to prove that the labour of the London milliners and dressmakers, during the season, was much worse than the severest toil in any of the factories. Besides prolonged hours, there was also such a thing as starving to death. Let not the House suppose that if they passed the clause before them they would do more than plaister over the sores which their own most unjust legislation had created, instead of endeavouring to renovate the constitution and going to the root of the disease, which was well known to the Queen's ministers and hon. members. Mr. Bright further denied the truth of the terrible picture of the loss of limbs and of life in the factories. Amongst the cases adduced to prove this was that of Mr. Samuel Ashton, a large manufacturer and employer of labour. From 1819 to 1830 he employed 400 hands; from 1830 to 1835, 900 hands; from 1835 to 1844, 1,200 hands; and yet amongst all these no fatal accident had occurred during the whole of the period. Cases of accident taken into the infirmaries were frequently described as happening to factory hands when it was