preached on earth for eighteen hundred years, such a scene as that could be enacted in our day in one of the most civilized and renowned cities of the country. And these were cases which would happen again if this law remained; and all the difficulties which the right hon. gentleman had alluded to that night and on previous occasions were difficulties inseparable from the continuance of the punishment. Parliament had unfortunately been very heedless upon this question; and Secretaries of State had gone on with their painful duties, never having the courage to ask Parliament to consider whether the system might not be entirely abolished. It was in opposition to the sentiment of the most moral and religious population of the country. Whenever the announcement of an impending execution was made, there was a feeling of doubt in almost every house in England as to whether the law was right, and a feeling of disgust and horror amongst hundreds of thousands of the best portion of the people.

None of us wished to go back to the state of barbarism of a century ago when so many men were hanged, not one of whom had been convicted of the crime of murder; but just the same class of arguments were used then in support of such barbarism as were used at the present time. He wondered that the Home Secretary had not been driven to propose to the House that this evil should be put an end to. Was the Englishman worse than any other man? Was the nation worse than other nations, that the same lenient laws could not be practised? For himself, he said we could wash vengeance and blood from our code without difficulty and without danger.

As to the composition of the proposed Commission, Mr. Bright said he hoped it would not be formed of Judges, for in all past times a majority of them had been opposed to the amelioration of the Criminal Code. With a Commission so constituted as to command the confidence of all, he believed that a great improvement of the law would be effected, though all might not be achieved that Mr. Ewart desired. But in time they might arrive unanimously at the opinion, that the security of public or private life in England did not depend upon the public strangling of three or four poor wretches every year. This Parliament is about to expire, I suppose, before very long -though some say it is to endure during another session; I should be glad indeed if it might be said of this Parliament at some future time, that it had dared to act upon the true lessons, and not upon the superstitions of the past; and that it might be declared to be the Parliament which destroyed the scaffold

and the gallows, in order that it might teach the people that human life is sacred, and that on that principle alone can human life be secured.'

At the close of the debate, the amendment and motion were withdrawn, and this substantive resolution, moved by Mr. Neate, was agreed to: 'That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to inquire into the provisions and operation of the laws under which the punishment of death is now inflicted in the United Kingdom, and the manner in which it is inflicted; and to report whether it is desirable to make any alteration therein.'

One other question, that relating to temperance and the Permissive Bill, remains to be dealt with here. Mr. Bright is well known to be an abstemious man, and in a speech made at the annual meeting of the Society of Friends a few years ago, he stated that he would not say he had abstained for so long a period as thirty-five years, but for thirty-four years-from the time he became a householder-he had not introduced into his house any wine or spirituous liquors whatsoever. He had in his house no decanters, and he thought he had no wineglasses, and had not had them since 1839, when he took to housekeeping. It had, perhaps, cost him some slight inconvenience, but altogether he had had no occasion to regret the step he then took.

Holding such views, and after so long a practice of personal abstinence, interest naturally attaches to the arguments which led Mr. Bright to oppose the Permissive Bill as he did in 1864. Mr. (now Sir Wilfrid) Lawson brought forward the bill in question, whereby it was proposed to make the issue of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors subject to the veto of a given. proportion of the ratepayers in a district. A good deal of interest was excited in the country over this proposition, and when the second reading came on in the House of Commons, on the 8th of June, a lengthy debate ensued. Captain Jervis moved the rejection of the bill.

Mr. Bright said that the question had now taken great hold upon the public mind, and it could not be spoken of as a scheme of wild enthusiasts. In dealing with the subject, we should look to the improved condition of the people or to special legislation: he preferred trusting to the former influence. He was old enough to remember when drunkenness amongst the upper classes was ten or twenty times more common than it was at present. Temperance had made great way amongst those classes who could obtain liquor at their will; and if it were possible to

make all classes in the country as temperate as those of whom he had spoken, we should be amongst the very soberest nations of the earth. But something might still be done by special legislation, for the condition of things was not satisfactory; and as regarded licences, in some cases the number of publichouses and beer-houses has been unnecessarily and mischievously increased. But the present proposal, that a majority of ratepayers should decide whether licences should be granted or renewed in their districts, was a novel experiment, and one which had never been proposed or sanctioned by the House, with regard to any other description of property, or any other interest. However desirous the mover might be to carry out his object, he (Mr. Bright) did not think it likely that the House of Commons would consent to such a proposition as that.

He would object altogether to allow such a matter as this to be decided by the vote of two-thirds of the ratepayers of any parish or town. 'I think there would be, in all probability, sudden, capricious, and unjust action under this bill, which would have a very unfortunate effect upon the interests of those immediately concerned; and I think it might also create throughout the country violent discussions on the question, and I am afraid might even produce a great and pernicious reaction against the very honest and good objects which my hon. friend desires to carry out. For that reason, as a member of this House representing a very large constituency, and having my sympathies entirely with those who are endeavouring to promote temperance amongst the people, and after much consideration on this subject, I have never yet seen my way at all to give a vote which would tend to pass a measure such as that now proposed to the House.' Those friends of temperance made a great mistake who argued that the sale of these articles was in itself absolutely evil and immoral. There is abundant ground on which to argue this question on which no man can assail or controvert them, and it is unfortunate for a great and good cause that any of its enthusiastic but illogical advocates should select arguments which cannot fairly be sustained.'

But if this Bill were disposed of, was there nothing else which the House could do to meet the growing opinion of the country on the question? He thought that the municipal councils of boroughs might be entrusted with the decision of how many licences should be granted in their districts, thus avoiding that capriciousness of action which would exist if the matter were left to the decision of a majority of ratepayers. In conclusion, Mr. Bright remarked: 'I have not that faith in any act of the

Legislature on this subject which my hon. friend has. I believe in the effects of the instruction of the people, and of the improvement which is gradually taking place amongst them. I think that drunkenness is not on the increase, but rather is declining; and I hope, whether the law be altered or not, we shall find our working classes becoming more and more sober than in past times. But as I have on many occasions been before the public favouring the efforts of the advocates of temperance, I have felt bound to state the reasons why I cannot give my vote in favour of this bill, and to suggest what the House might do by way of giving to the people through their municipal councils control over this question. By doing this you might promote temperance among the people, and at the same time avoid a great and manifest injustice to thousands of persons now engaged in this trade, whose property would be rendered uncertain, if not altogether destroyed, if the bill of the hon. gentleman should receive the sanction of the House.'

The bill was also strongly opposed by Mr. Roebuck, who described it as the most mischievous measure he had ever heard proposed. Sir George Grey objected to the proposal on grounds somewhat similar to those advanced by Mr. Bright; and after further discussion the second reading of the bill was negatived by a large majority, the dissentients being 292, and the supporters only 35.

The measure was reintroduced by its author in many subsequent sessions, but it was invariably rejected, in many instances by very decisive majorities.

CHAPTER V.

MR. BRIGHT ON CANADA.-GOVERNOR EYRE. THE DEATH OF

COBDEN.

Relations between England and the United States in 1865-Excitement in England. The Defences of Canada.-Debates in the House of Commons.-Speech of Mr. Bright.-Causes of the Panic.-Mr. Laird and the Alabama-Our attitude towards the American Republic.-Mr. Bright on the Defence of the Canadian Frontier.-The Storm blows over.Canadian Affairs in 1867.-Nova Scotia and the Confederation Scheme.The Jamaica Massacre.-Governor Eyre condemned.-Mr. Bright on the Murder of Mr. Gordon.-Report of the Commission on the Massacre.Prosecution of Governor Eyre.-Charge of the Lord Chief Justice.Mr. Carlyle's Vindication of Mr. Eyre.-Death of Mr. Cobden.-Sketch of his Career.-His Character.-Tributes to the Deceased in the House of Commons. Mr. Bright's Speech on unveiling the Statue at Bradford.— Funeral of Mr. Cobden at West Lavington.-Scene at the Grave.

THE relations between England and the United States were somewhat strained at the opening of the year 1865. There was a suspicion in this country that our hostility during the war might cause retaliation on the part of the States, and the attention of English statesmen was directed to our Canadian possessions. A portion of the American press, moreover, was very active in endeavouring to foment discord. Previous to the meeting of Parliament, the American Government gave formal notice of their intention to terminate the Convention under which England and the United States had mutually agreed not to fit out naval armaments upon the Canadian lakes. There were also some indications that America desired to terminate the Treaty of Commerce between the States and the vinces of British North America. The Fenian rising at this time added another disquieting element in the situation, and one which it was believed would result in great embarrassment in case of a rupture between England and the United States. Something of a panic ensued in the public mind in England, and the defences of Canada became one of the leading topics of the session. Mr. Bright endeavoured to calm the feelings of the people on this question, and when the danger blew over it was seen that his advice from the first had been right and

wise.

pro