down plenty upon the human race? The Tories had invariably oppressed the people; they had won their confidence only to betray them; and yet, with an effrontery which was perfectly unmatched, they persisted in claiming credit for the best intentions. Reformers of Rochdale! you will in all probability soon have an opportunity of redeeming the character of your town, and of wiping off the disgrace of being misrepresented by a man whose inefficiency in Parliament is a fitting sequel to the foul and detestable means which were employed to send him there. If you neglect this opportunity, if from unyielding obstinacy on any one point you are content to sacrifice all the rest, then the deep stigma will cling to you as a poisoned garment, and the very stones of your streets will cry shame upon you.' Rochdale did not neglect its opportunities in the sense indicated by the address. At the previous election of 1835, Mr. Bright had addressed the electors on behalf of the Liberal candidate in vain. Now, in 1837, the position was reversed. Mr. Fenton, the Liberal candidate, was elected by 374 votes, or a majority of 25 over his opponent, Mr. Ramsay. Mr. Bright's early connection with the Corn Law agitation we shall reserve for separate treatment. It is interesting, however, to note here that in 1840 we find him taking the chair at a great open-air meeting held at Rochdale, when a congratulatory address to Her Majesty upon her marriage was adopted, and three enthusiastic cheers were given for the young Queen. It is not a little singular that although Mr. Bright has frequently been regarded as a Republican in many quarters, he has invariably spoken of his Sovereign with the greatest respect and esteem; and we have already seen that when a young man, and a member of the Rochdale Literary Society, he brought forward a motion in favour of a limited monarchy. The question of church-rates in Rochdale for many years led to scenes of excitement and agitation scarcely paralleled by those arising in connection with any other subject. In the month of June, 1834, the usual meeting of the parishioners was convened to pass the accounts of the retiring church wardens, and to consider the propriety of making a rate for the ensuing year. For some time before this a rate of one penny in the pound had been granted, which the wardens had applied to the repairs of the church. But as it was believed that churchrates were about to be abolished, it was resolved to collect this year a magnificent sum. The wardens boldly demanded twopence-halfpenny in the pound, and to make this extravagant demand appear less glaring they placed amongst the supposed expenses a sum of £90 for a hearse. This hearse was to be only free to the paupers, the rest of the parish having to pay for it when occasion demanded its use, though the wardens wished them to buy it in the first instance. This sum, together with the salaries of the ringers, organist, etc., absorbed almost the whole of the rate, leaving very little for the repairs of the church, for which only church-rates should be lawfully collected. The parishioners were determined not to submit to the rate, and a resolution was passed adjourning the meeting to the 23d of June, 1835. The wardens demanded a poll, which resulted in a majority of 147 against them, notwithstanding the efforts of the Church party, who spared no pains to bring the voters up, and who in some instances paid the rates due from individuals in order to qualify them to vote for the rate. But in defiance of the clearly expressed wishes of the parish, the wardens proceeded to lay a rate, which, by means of persuasion in some cases and threats in others, was paid in some instances. Many refused to pay, however, and these were summoned before the magistrates, who decided that they had no jurisdiction. The Consistory Court of Chester was then put into operation, but the defendants contended that the proceedings of the wardens were illegal, as only eight out of the ten wardens of the parish had joined in the suit. The Chancellor of the Court overruled the objection, and commanded the defendants to appear absolutely, upon which the latter appealed to the Archbishop's Court at York. The York Chancellor decided that all the wardens must join in the suit, and reversed the decision of the Chester court, discharging the defendants from the citations. To show the spirit in which the churchwardens conducted this contest, we need only refer to the case mentioned by Mr. Bright, in which they had seized upon, and actually sold, the Bible of a poor old man, then on his death-bed, to satisfy the rate. Bitter feelings were engendered in the town, and these were not allayed for years. We have cited the above facts in the church-rate controversy partly to show the spirit that prevailed amongst the official defenders of the rates, and partly because they lead up to one of the most spirited and able speeches delivered by Mr. Bright before taking his seat in the House of Commons. In July, 1840, a rate having been decided upon at a meeting of ratepayers, its opponents demanded a poll. At its close, it was found that 3,976 had voted for the rate, and 4,060 against it. The Church party immediately called another meeting for the 29th of July, for the purpose of laying another rate. On the day named St. Chad's Church was densely crowded. Mr. Bright and others took up a position in the reading-desk, amidst the cheers of their friends; but at length, on account of those not able to procure admittance, it was decided to hold the meeting in the church-yard. In a few moments about six thousand persons were assembled in this last resting-place of the dead. A rate of a halfpenny was proposed, a statement by the vicar's churchwarden to the effect that the foundations of the steeple and the church were unsafe, and giving way, not unnaturally causing some laughter. Mr. Bright then proposed an amendment 'That no churchrate be granted before the 30th day of July, 1841, and that this meeting stand adjourned to that day.'* Touching first upon the legal aspect of the question, the speaker showed that the law did not, and could not, compel the inhabitants of a parish to make a rate. Lord Denman and four other judges had unanimously decided that the power to make a church-rate existed only in the parishioners. With regard to the vicar's statement that it was the intention of the law that a rate should be laid, Mr. Bright first showed the groundlessness of this, and then effectively turned the tables upon Dr. Molesworth. 'Once on a time,' he said, 'it was ordered by law that whenever a clergyman came into possession of a living, he was to pay over the first year's income to a fund for extending the usefulness of the Church. At that time the vicarage of Rochdale was worth under £100 per year, and the first-fruits were paid on that amount. Now, was it not the intention of the law that in all future time the first year's income should be devoted to the purpose I have just mentioned? Certainly it was. But what does the vicar, and the rest of his brethren, in the Church? Has he paid, or does he intend to pay, his first year's income; or will he content himself by paying under £100 to that useful fund? How does he satisfy his conscience that he is obeying the intention of the law?' Mr. Bright then alluded to the coercion which had been used towards workmen to make them vote for the rate, and asked what language could express his indignation at such conduct. 'You have the form of man, you may have the faculties of man, you may claim the right which your Creator has conferred upon you; but if you are thus coerced, if your judgment and your conscience are thus violated, if your own and your neighbours' interests are struck at and wounded through the There is a copy of this speech by Mr. Bright, printed on a crown folio sheet, and corrected from the Manchester Times, in the Rochdale Free Public Library. very privileges which the law has guaranteed you for their defence, then you are no longer men; you may crouch and confess yourselves slaves.' The speaker next touched upon the vicar's policy. Notwithstanding his great income, he and his brother-clergymen generally unblushingly charged for administering the sacraments of their Church. Ebenezer Elliott, the impassioned bard of a great movement, was then pressed into his service by Mr. Bright. The vicar has published a handbill, a copy of which I hold in my hands; he quotes Scripture in favor of a rate, and a greater piece of hardihood cannot be imagined: "Render unto Cæsar the things that are Caesar's," leaving out the latter part of the sentence. I will give you my opinion of the applicability of this passage in a quotation from our excellent friend, the people's poet, Ebenezer Elliott. He says: "When palaced paupers, sneering, beard the town, I hold that to quote Scripture in defence of church-rate is the very height of rashness. The New Testament teems with passages inculcating peace, brotherly love, mutual forbearance, charity, disregard of filthy lucre, and devotedness to the welfare of our fellow-men. In the exaction of church-rates, in the seizure of the goods of the members of his flock, in the imprisonment of those who refuse to pay, in the harassing process of law and injustice in the Church courts, in the stirrings-up of strife and bitterness among the parishioners,-in all this a clergyman violates the precepts he is paid to preach, and affords a mournful proof of the infirmity or wickedness of human nature. Pointing to the church near, Mr. Bright thus concluded his address: 'Fellow-townsmen, I look on that old building-that venerable building, for its antiquity gives it a venerable air-with a feeling of pain. I behold it as a witness of ages gone by, as one of the numberless monuments of the piety or zeal of our ancestors, as a connecting link between this and former ages. I could look on it with a feeling of affection, did I not know that it forms the centre of that source of discord with which our neighbourhood has for years been afflicted, and did it not seem the genial bed wherein strife and bitter jarrings were perpetually produced to spread their baneful influence over this densely-peopled parish! I would that that venerable fabric were the representative of a really reformed Church-of a Church separated from the foul connection with the State-of a Church depending upon her own resources, upon the zeal of her people, upon the truthfulness of her principles, and upon the blessings of her spiritual Head! Then would the Church be really free from her old vices; then would she run a career of brighter and still brightening glory; then would she unite heart and hand with her sister Churches in this kingdom, in the great and glorious work of evangelizing the people of this great empire, and of every clime throughout the world. My friends, the time is coming when a State Church will be unknown in England, and it rests with you to accelerate or retard that happy consummation. I call upon you to gird yourselves for the contest which is impending, for the hour of conflict is approaching when the people of England will be arbiters of their own fate,when they will have to choose between civil and religious liberty, or the iron hoof, the mental thraldom of a hireling State priesthood. Men of Rochdale, do your duty! You know what becomes you! Maintain the great principles you profess to hold dear; unite with me in a firm resolve that under no possible circumstances will you ever pay a church-rate; and whatever may await you, prove that good and holy prínciples can nerve the heart; and ultimately our cause, your cause, the world's cause, shall triumph gloriously.' Mr. Bright's amendment was carried by a large majority. The Church party demanded a poll. The contest lasted many days; acrimonious attacks were indulged in by both parties; and the most strenuous exertions were made by each. At the close of the last day's poll but one, there appeared 5,216 for the rate, and 5,212 against. The excitement, consequently, on the following day was completely unexampled in the history of Rochdale. It is stated that votes were on sale to the highest bidder. The 79th Highlanders appeared with fixed bayonets in front of the National School, and this military demonstration led to stone-throwing by the crowd. Mr. Bright, fearful of a rupture between the people and the troops, endeavoured to dissuade the former from violence, but could not be heard. The vicar announced that he should prolong the polling for an hour, but Mr. Bright protested against this, and said that he should object to certain votes which had been taken from persons who had not paid their rates. Dr. Molesworth read the result of the poll as follows: For the rate, 6,694; against, 6,581-majority, 113. This was disputed by the anti-rate party, who claimed a majority of seven. More meetings were held, and at one of them Mr. Bright asked what a savage would think of the religion of the English people, if he had seen one of its ministers, on the previous Saturday night, conducted through the streets by a civil magistrate and the police, amidst the shouts and yells, hissing and hooting, of the insulted people? The very man who should have been the minister of peace, and inculcated goodwill towards men, had embroiled this extensive parish in almost civil war. At this time there were some in Mr. Bright's employ who had voted in favour of the rate, when some of their fellowworkmen attempted to coerce them; but Mr. Bright interfered, and said that Churchmen had a right to their own opinions, and to vote as they liked. Ultimately, after legal and other pro |