because he understood it to apply to the whole of Indian administration. On a division, the motion was negatived by 139 to 100 votes.

On the House of Commons going into Committee of Supply on the 2nd of May, 1879, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre moved a resolution asserting the expediency of legislating without further delay to increase the facilities offered by the Purchase clauses of the Irish Land Act. He pointed out that though the Purchase clauses of the Church Act had succeeded, those of the Land Act had been to a great extent a failure. This he attributed in a great measure to the fact that the working of the Act had been placed in the hands of persons who had no interest in its success. The most effectual remedy was for the State to step in and take the management. Mr. Gladstone said he hoped this would not be made a party question, for it was a moral, social, and political claim, going to the heart of the Irish question. Many other members, chiefly Irish, having spoken, Mr. Bright rose and eulogized the Land Act, which he affirmed would never have been passed if both Houses had not been convinced of the dangerous condition of the country. At the same time he admitted that the Act had only been partial, and the remedy was incomplete, as it did not go to the origin of the evil. The disproportion between the numbers of the holders and owners of land in Ireland was so great as to be intolerable. The conse

quence was a growing claim for a greater security of tenure, and demands were made which were probably not altogether sound. This particular provision contained no new principle; it had been sanctioned by Parliament in 1870 without a division, and a measure might be carried this session which would tend to create a loyal and contented class of the population. Sir Stafford Northcote, on behalf of the Governmont, promised to make a proposal for removing some of the difficulties which impeded the operation of the Purchase clauses, and ultimately the resolution was agreed to.

On the 4th of July, in the same session, Mr, Chaplin moved for a Royal Commission to inquire into the depressed condition of the agricultural interest, and the causes to which it was owing; whether those causes were of a temporary or of a permanent character, and how far they had been created or could be remedied by legislation. Mr. T. Brassey seconded the motion, but said the exploded doctrines of Protection should be excluded from the discussion of the Commission. An animated debate arose, in the course of which Mr. Bright spoke. Without urging the Government to refuse the Commission, he charged

the Conservatives with standing in fear of the English-speaking nation on the other side of the Atlantic, He did not suppose, however, that they wished to see the agricultural labourer go back to the position from which he had been raised by Free Trade; and he believed, as he hoped, that those who desired to return to that refuge of cowardice, idleness, and greed-the protective system, would be disappointed. Having complained of the silence of the proposers of this investigation as to what they expected from it, Mr. Bright warned them that, the door being once opened, it could not be closed until complete inquiry had been made. If appointed, the Commission must inquire into the gigantic monopoly of the present ownership in land, and ascertain why landlords and farmers viewed with alarm, and even with terror, the arrival in this country of corn and cattle from places many thousand miles across the Atlantic. It would increase the price of land here, he was convinced, if the ancient, stupid, and mischievous legislation which embarrassed every step in dealing with it were abolished; and he demanded that this inquiry should be wide and open. Above all, he would break down the monopoly which had banished so much labour from the farms, and pauperized what remained. Ultimately, Mr. Chaplin's motion was agreed to without a division.

The question of the Irish franchise was yet again brought before the House of Commons on the 17th of February, 1880, when Mr. Meldon moved a resolution declaring that it deserved the immediate attention of Parliament. Mr. C. E. Lewis moved as an amendment that it was inexpedient to deal with the question. A prolonged debate ensued, in the course of which Sir W. Harcourt strongly condemned Mr. Lewis's attack upon the Irish people. The Attorney-General for Ireland said it was impossible to disturb the Irish franchise without raising the question of the redistribution of seats, and, on the whole, there was no urgency in this matter. Mr. Bright began a brief but spirited speech by remarking that these were the arguments by which household suffrage had been resisted in this country; and if there were no special agitation in Ireland on this question, it was one of a bundle of grievances which demanded redress. But the real reason why the party opposite resisted this extension of the franchise, was that they feared the opinions which would be represented, although those opinions, as he showed, were the natural result of long years of Conservative government. Mr. Meldon's motion did not, of course, commend itself to the Conservative party, and on a division it was negatived by 242 to 188.

Sir Wilfrid Lawson, who had frequently brought forward his Permissive Bill in the House of Commons, varied his course on the Temperance question on the 6th of March, 1880, by bringing forward a resolution in favour of local option. He acknowledged that he hoped to catch votes by his resolution, which simply meant that the people should be enabled to protect themselves from the evils of drinking. Mr. Burt seconded the motion; and Mr. Gladstone said he could not vote against it, though he had never yet heard of a plan to give effect to local option which it would not be premature at present to lay before Parliament. He regretted that the opportunity had been lost of trying the Gothenburg system. Amongst other speakers was Mr. Bright, who said he had always opposed the Permissive Bill, but it had disappeared, probably never to appear again; and he denied altogether that the House would be committed to that impossible measure by accepting this resolution. All that the House would do would be to express an opinion condemning the present system, suggesting a new one, and calling on the Government to submit a measure which would embody some kind of local control on the granting of licences. The present system was admitted to be deficient; the magistrates were irresponsible, and in towns at least he thought the power might be transferred to the corporations. When the House divided, the resolution was negatived by 248 to 134.

This was the last of Mr. Bright's appearances in Opposition, for three days after this debate Parliament was dissolved, under circumstances which will be detailed in the ensuing chapter.

CHAPTER XV.

THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1880.

Causes which led to the Dissolution of 1880.-Opening of the Birmingham Liberal Club.-Speeches of Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Bright.-Brilliant Attack on the Government.-Meeting of the Birmingham Junior Liberal Association.-Address by Mr. Bright.-The Zulu and Afghan Wars.- Dissolution of Parliament.-Manifesto by the Premier.-English Ascendency in Europe.-The Liberal Leaders and Lord Beaconsfield's Letter to the Duke of Marlborough.-The General Election.-The Contest in Birmingham.-Reception and Speeches of Mr. Bright.-Interview with the Licensed Victuallers.-The County Franchise and the Land Question. -Result of the Fell at Birmingham.-Great Liberal Triumph.-Enormous Liberal Majority in the Country.-Mr. Gladstone called to power.Mr. Bright again accepts Office.-Re-election with Mr. Chamberlain at Birmingham.

A GENERAL belief in the early dissolution of Parliament had been current before this important step was formally announced by the Premier. The Beaconsfield Administration had been called to power ostensibly on two leading grounds-one of a negative and the other of a positive character. With regard to the former of these, it was understood that the new Ministry would abandon what had been described as the 'harassing domestic policy' of Mr. Gladstone's Government; while as to the second, it would assume a definite and spirited course on foreign affairs. The country, however, began to weary of our constant embroilment in foreign quarrels, and of the restless war policy which actuated the Ministry, and which had been pursued to the complete detriment of domestic legislation. Mr. Gladstone's campaign in Midlothian in the autumn of 1879-during which he exhibited marvellous powers of eloquence and physical endurance-was greatly instrumental in turning the tide of popular feeling against the Government; and by the beginning of 1880 it was admitted on all hands that the dissolution could not be much longer delayed.

Mr. Bright attended the opening of the Birmingham Liberal Club on the 20th of January, 1880, and in his speech made anticipatory allusions to the dissolution, which he also, in conjunction with the chief of the Liberal party, had for many months been looking forward to. The banquet in connection with the opening of the club was very brilliant and successful. It was held in the Town Hall, the Mayor, Mr. R. Chamberlain, presid

ing; and amongst those present were Mr. Bright (President of the Club), Sir William Harcourt, M.P., Mr. Chamberlain, M.P., Lord Lyttelton, the Earl of Camperdown, Sir J. Swinburne, and the following members of Parliament, in addition to those above named: Messrs. M. A. Bass, T. Lea, C. C. Cotes, H. Bass, R. Edge, T. P. Hill, C. Harrison, T. Blake, J. C. Clarke, and A. Brogden. Sir W. Harcourt proposed the toast of the evening, The Health of the new Liberal Club of Birmingham.' In the course of his speech he attacked the Government with great wit and sarcasm, his numerous points being received with continuous laughter and applause. He justified the opposition of the Liberal party to the foreign policy of the Government, and contended that during the administrations both of Lord Palmerston and of Mr. Gladstone the Conservatives exercised the right to criticise and condemn the policy of their opponents. He (Sir William) did not complain of them for this; what he did complain of was 'the impudent fiction that they had never done that which was their constant practice.' He had been taken to task for daring to jest at such virtuous and excellent men as the members of Her Majesty's Government-a charge which all must admit came with crushing force from the followers and admirers of Lord Beaconsfield; but the humour of the situation was their creation, not his. Ministers did the most absurd thing in the world, and then expected that they would not laugh at them because they were Ministers.

Mr. Bright spoke at some length in response to the toast proposed by Sir W. Harcourt, his speech consisting chiefly of a review of the political history of the last fifty years. In trenchant language he traced the course of the reforms which had been achieved; but as the substance of his inspiriting recital has been given in preceding chapters of this work, we do not propose to repeat it here. This review led up to the question, what part in bringing about all the reforms of the last fifty years had the Conservative party played? Had they not offered a strenuous hostility to each boon wrung from power on behalf of justice and freedom? 'I recollect,' said Mr. Bright -and this portion of his speech was received with much laughter-telling Mr. Disraeli in the House of Commons that when he required any illustrations from history in his speeches he made his history as he went along. He did not get it out of any books, or any authentic records, but from his own inner consciousness. It seems to me very much like what is done by an insect with which we are all familiar, that is very curious, but not very pleasant-I mean the spider. The spider, as