have added to his name. His sorrow would be, not that Manchester had rejected him, but because it seemed for the moment to trample upon his principles.

The news of his defeat reached Mr. Bright at Florence, and from that city he wrote his farewell address to the electors of Manchester, dated March 31st, 1857. As this address is really a defence of Mr. Bright's political career up to the time of his rejection at Manchester, and is consequently a document of considerable historical value and importance, we append it in full:

'Gentlemen, I have received a telegraphic despatch informing me of the result of the election contest in which you have been engaged. That result has not greatly surprised me, and, so far as I am personally concerned-inasmuch as it liberates me from public life in a manner which involves on my part no shrinking from any duty-I cannot seriously regret it. I lament it on public grounds, because it tells the world that many amongst you have abandoned the opinions you professed to hold in the year 1847, and even so recently as in the year 1852.

I believe that slander itself has not dared to charge me with having forsaken any of the principles, on the honest support of which I offered myself twice, and was twice accepted, as your representative. The charge against me has rather been that I have too warmly and too faithfully defended the political views that found so much favour with you at the two previous elections. If the change in the opinion of me has arisen from my course on the question of the war with Russia, I can only say that on a calm review of all the circumstances of the case-and during the past twelve months I have had ample time for such a review-I would not unsay or retract any one of the speeches I have spoken, or erase from the records of Parliament any one of the votes I have given upon it, if I could thereby reverse the decision to which you have come, or secure any other distinction which it is in the power of my countrymen to confer. I am free, and will remain free, from any share in the needless and guilty bloodshed of that melancholy chapter in the annals of my country.

'I cannot, however, forget that the leaders of the opposition in the recent contest have not been influenced by my conduct on this question. They were less successful, but not less bitter, in their hostility in 1852, and even in 1854, when my only public merit or demerit consisted in my labours in the cause of Free Trade. On each occasion, calling themselves Liberals, and calling their candidates Liberals also, they coalesced with the Conservatives, whilst now, doubtless, they have assailed Mr. Gibson and myself on the ground of a pretended coalition with the Conservatives in the House of Commons.

'I have esteemed it a high honour to be one of your representatives, and have given more of mental and physical labour to your service than was just to myself. I feel it scarcely less an honour to suffer in the cause of peace, and on behalf of what I believe to be the true interests of my country, though I could have wished that the blow had come from other hands, at a time when I could have been present to meet face to face those who dealt it. In taking my leave of you and of public life, let me assure you that I can never forget the many-the innumerable kindnesses I have received from my friends amongst you. No one will rejoice more than I shall in all that brings you prosperity and honour; and I am not without a hope that when a calmer hour shall come, you will say of Mr. Gibson and of me, that as colleagues in your representation for ten years, we have not sacrificed our principles to gain popularity, or bartered our independence for the emoluments of office or the

favours of the great. I feel that we have stood for the rights and interests and freedom of the people, and that we have not tarnished the honour, or lessened the renown, of your eminent city.

'I am now, as I have hitherto been, very faithfully yours,

'JOHN BRIGHT.'

In May, 1857, when Mr. Bright was staying at Geneva, there was forwarded to him an address passed at a public meeting in Ardwick, which, while expressive of goodwill towards the right hon. gentleman, also alluded to his defeat and that of Mr. Cobden, and expressed a determination to agitate for reform, free trade, and retrenchment. In reply, Mr. Bright wrote: 'I am very glad to find that in your town the cause of reform, free trade, and retrenchment has so many warm friends, and that you have understood and approved the policy which Mr. Cobden, Mr. M. Gibson, and myself have supported in the House of Commons. On the question of free trade, little progress has been made for some years past. As to retrenchment, the word has become almost obsolete, and the military expenditure of the country is now nearly double the amount which the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel thought necessary in 1835, although we have no more territory to defend, and although a large army is no longer necessary to maintain tranquillity in Ireland. As to reform, whilst almost everybody professes to be in favour of it in some shape, the preparation of the particular bill to be brought forward next year is left in the hands of a Minister whose hostility to every proposition for reform since the year 1832 is notorious and undeniable. Whether on these three points, to which your resolutions refer, the country is in a satisfactory position, I must leave the friends of free trade, reform, and retrenchment to decide; and with regard to the promised reform, let me warn you not to look more to the question of the franchise than to the other arrangement of the measure. It would be easy to double the number of electors, and at the same time increase the aristocratic influence in Parliament. To give votes, without giving representation in some fair degree in proportion to those votes, is to cheat the people; to give a large number of votes without the security of the ballot, will subject the increased numbers of our countrymen to the degrading influence which wealth and power now exercise so unscrupulously upon the existing electoral body.'

If Mr. Bright cherished for a time the idea of not entering again upon public life, as would seem to be implied by a phrase

in his address to the electors of Manchester, it was to the honour of the town of Birmingham, as we now shall see, and to the great gain of Parliament and the country, that before the close of the year 1857 he was induced to abandon such in

tention.

CHAPTER XIV.

RETURNED FOR BIRMINGHAM.

Vacancy in the Representation of Birmingham.-Meetings to select a Candidate.-Mr. Bright nominated.-He issues his Address.-Observations on Indian Legislation and the Mutiny.-Election of Mr. Bright.-Speech in acknowledgment by Mr. Duncan Maclaren.-Letter from Mr.Bright. -Birmingham and the Reform Question.

THE prolonged exclusion of Mr. Bright from the House of Commons would have been viewed by all parties with extreme regret. Fortunately, as we have already intimated, his absence from the House was of very brief duration. Birmingham stepped forward, and in his enforced absence elected the great popular leader, thus atoning for the temporary ingratitude shown to Mr. Bright at Manchester.

By the death of Mr. G. F. Muntz, a vacancy had arisen in the representation of Birmingham; and on the 1st of August, 1857, a meeting of Liberals was held to select a candidate in the place of the deceased member. Mr. Hodgson, the exMayor, presided. Mr. Ald. Lloyd, who proposed Mr. Bright, said he was of that courageous and manly disposition that peculiarly fitted him to become their representative. Mr. Bright was well versed in national and foreign affairs, and as there was no man in the House of Commons who had given so much attention to the affairs of England's great tributary, India, his counsel would be especially valuable at the present crisis. He placed the name of Mr. Bright before the meeting as that of a man whose election would do them honour. Mr. Ald. Manton seconded the proposition, but it was opposed by Mr. Councillor Stinton on the ground of Mr. Bright's peace principles. Some discussion ensued, and the meeting was adjourned until the evening. Mr. Ald. Hodgson presided also at the second meeting. Mr. J. S. Wright now nominated Mr. Bright, and his observations evoked much enthusiasm. He stated that Lord John Russell had paused in the middle of a great speech in the House of Commons, to utter his profound regret that Mr. John Bright was not in the House of Commons, so that his trenchant mind might enlighten them by its counsels. Upon Reform questions, Mr. Bright was eminently fitted

to be their representative. He would extend the suffrage, and give a strong and an enlightened support to the principles of civil and religious liberty. Mr. Bright was also much wanted in the House at the existing crisis in Indian affairs; and if there was any man fully capable of contributing to the real glory of the British people, and who was desirous of developing the resources and energies of the Indian empire, and of raising the sleeping capacities of the Hindoo, that man was Mr. Bright. Mr. Ald. Manton seconded the proposition. The names of one or two other gentlemen were mentioned at the meeting as probable candidates, and it was finally arranged that the matter should be settled at a great public meeting to be called for the 4th of August.

On that evening the Town Hall was crowded with an audience numbering five or six thousand persons. Mr. W. Lucy occupied the chair. Mr. Bright was proposed for the vacant seat by Mr. George Edmonds, and seconded by Mr. Ald. Manton. Mr. T. A. Attwood proposed, and Mr. J. Goodman seconded, the nomination of Mr. Baron Webster as a candidate. Mr. M. A. Dalzell, while acknowledging the high character and abilities of Mr. Bright, said that the man who had for fourteen years fought the battle of democracy in Birmingham, and almost single-handed, was Mr. George Dawson. He had youth on his side, brilliant talents, and everything requisite to make a senator. Mr. Dawson, however, came forward and said that he was unable to stand as a candidate. He expressed his conviction that Mr. Bright was the only man on whom there was any chance of their agreeing. Although he differed from Mr. Bright on the subject of the Russian war, and on some other questions, these differences would not incline him to prefer a mere respectable Birmingham man, untried in politics, and who had done little service, to a man who was foremost in the House of Commons, and who was one of the most straightforward and honest of Englishmen. This generous tribute to Mr. Bright, coming from one who had himself been asked to come forward as a candidate, elicited loud applause. Mr. Dawson added that he had a peculiar reason for liking Mr. Bright-he believed him to be a right honest and able enemy of Lord Palmerston. He considered that Lord Palmerston's rule in this country was disastrous and disgraceful, and there was not a man in England who could meet him like John. Bright.

When the show of hands was taken, scarcely a hundred hands were held up for Mr. Webster, while six thousand persons