‘TRUE TO HIS priNCiplES’? JOHN Bright, LIBERAliSM AND IriSH HOME RULE 1886 – 1889 In his 2012 biography, Bill Cash suggests that John Bright’s behaviour during the home rule crisis of 1886 revealed him to have become a Conservative by the end of his life. Cash’s reasoning was that Bright had, by 1886, become more concerned with preserving the rule of law and the unity of Great Britain than with the abstract concepts of ‘freedom and liberty’ that had dominated his political philosophy in his earlier career.1 Ian Cawood examines Cash’s claims and concludes that, to the contrary, Bright remained the epitome of radical Victorian Liberalism to the end of his life. 10 Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 ‘TRUE TO HIS priNCiplES’? JOHN Bright, LIBERAliSM AND IriSH HOME RULE 1886 – 1889 f course, Bright was background, Bright blamed Ire- Nationalists in the Commons that famously poor at explain- land’s condition on the power of the they would win much greater sup- Oing his actions over the established Anglican church and the port if they confined themselves to home rule debate, rarely speaking wealth of the absentee Irish land- purely peaceful, constitutional lob- in public during these years and sel- lords. Bright had contributed to bying, which Cobden and Bright dom visiting Birmingham, where the eradication of the first of these had pioneered with the Anti-Corn his constituency was located. In problems when the Irish Church Law League between 1838 and this way, he allowed others, most was disestablished in 1869, but the 1846. He persisted in referring to notably Joseph Chamberlain and land problem remained intracta- the Nationalists as ‘rebels’ and he the nascent Liberal Unionist Asso- ble. Bright personally believed that attacked the Conservatives for flirt- ciation, to present his behaviour in the landed estates should be broken ing with Charles Stuart Parnell ways that benefitted their agenda. up, stating that he ‘would give Ire- between 1883 and 1886. His dis- Cash, in what is otherwise a very land to the Irish.’ He was however, like of Parnell’s character and his good biography, has, however, per- not sure that the landlords could or impractical and foolish solutions to haps not placed Bright’s opposition should be bought out, and favoured the Irish problem (in Bright’s eyes) in the broadest possible context the idea of building up the Irish would be a decisive factor when the of contemporary Liberal attitudes small landowners with the compul- issue was forced to the front of the towards the idea of home rule. sory purchase of land from corpo- political agenda in 1886. Bright’s position on Ireland was rations or of private land capable of While Bright’s position on land much the same as that of Millicent cultivation, but left to waste after reform was crystal clear, his atti- Fawcett, T. H. Huxley, Herbert the depopulation of Ireland in the tude towards Irish demands for Spencer, Leonard Courtney and Sir 1860s. Bright, together with his political autonomy was far more John Lubbock, none of whom, even political mentor, Richard Cobden, opaque. In 1868 he condemned after 1886, could be safely catego- believed that Ireland needed such the means whereby ‘the extinc- rised as ‘Conservative’. In contrast state intervention in order to cre- tion of the Irish Parliament’ in to Cash, who interprets Bright as ate the crucial feature for a stable 1800 was achieved as ‘force and shifting his position in 1886, Rob- and workable political system, a fraud and corruption’ but, in the ert Walling, who edited Bright’s strong middle class.3 Even before same speech, he claimed that he diaries, regards him as ‘a Unionist by 1886, Bright favoured policies that much preferred to find the policies absolute and lifelong conviction.’2 cannot be reconciled with either whereby Westminster could render Bright had long taken an inter- historical or with present-day ‘Ireland content to be a portion of est in Ireland and had visited the Conservatism. a greater nation.’4 In the same year, country in 1832, 1849 and again Bright had been disappointed he described the political condi- in 1852 in order to see for himself by the 1870 Irish Land Act, as it tion of Ireland as ‘anarchy, which the condition of the country, find- had failed to create an Irish class is subdued by force’ but was non- ing there conditions that ‘move the of small landowners, but he had committal on the solution to this hardest heart’. As the Fenian disor- been increasingly concerned by the problem.5 When he was named as a ders of the 1860s spread he returned willingness of the Irish National- supporter of home rule by national- to Ireland twice and reported to the ist leaders to endorse (or, at least, ists in 1872, he actively demurred, House of Commons in 1866 that fail to condemn) the violence and issuing a public denial in which he Ireland was the only part of the intimidation of the Irish Land condemned the idea of ‘two legisla- United Kingdom to have become League. He endorsed the 1881 tive assemblies in the United King- poorer since becoming part of the Land Act with its guarantees of fair dom’ as ‘an intolerable mischief.’ United Kingdom. Perhaps unsur- rent, fixity of tenure and free sale, John Bright This was a rejection of the federal prisingly given his radical Quaker but as he did so, he lectured the (1811-89) solution for the United Kingdom, Journal of Liberal History 85 Winter 2014–15 11 ‘TRUE TO hiS priNCiplES’? JOHN Bright, LIBERAliSM AND IriSH HOME RULE 1886 – 1889 rather than mere anti-Irish preju- the struggling British taxpayer. disposal of a leader from whose dice, however. Although Bright When Gladstone announced pre- authority no appeal is allowed?’11 shared Gladstone’s desire to reform cisely this on 16 June 1886, Bright This dislike of Gladstone’s per- Westminster, where the National- noted in his diary, ‘scheme, in my ceived dictatorial tendencies united ists carried out a policy of obstruc- judgement, not a wise one.’9 He the leader of the moderate Union- tion which disrupted his second was, however, far more alarmed by ists, Lord Hartington, with the administration between 1880 and the Irish Government Bill, which leader of the radical Unionists, 1885, Bright preferred to retain did exclude the Irish members, but Joseph Chamberlain. The authori- the issue within the institution.6 insisted that Ireland should con- tarian approach which Gladstone Although seriously tempted by the tinue to pay £4.5 million to cover appeared to be taking to the Irish idea of excluding the Irish members customs, bureaucracy and defence. question was regarded by many, from Westminster, in July 1886, he As the Irish would have no MPs such as Bright, as contradicting the suggested that a special ‘Commit- in Westminster to scrutinise how founding principle of the Liberal tee For Ireland’ should be formed this money was spent, this violated Party: to protect the right of indi- of the Irish MPs, which would be the Liberal commitment that there viduals to hold firm to their princi- given the role normally reserved should never be ‘taxation with- ples.12 A Liberal was distinguished, for the whole house, of approv- out representation.’ Furthermore, according to Andrew Reid, by his ing or rejecting the second read- the Irish were to have a parliament ‘love of his own conscience more ing of any Irish bill. For Bright, the in Dublin, not merely a council, than the approval of the conscience advantage of such a scheme would which, Bright told Gladstone to his of the people’ and Gladstone’s capit- be that: face, was ‘surrender all along the ulation to the demands of Nation- line’ to what he termed ‘the Rebel alist Ireland led many to reject their You get the absolute control of Party’, who had used violence revered leader.13 Bright therefore the Irish members in their own and intimidation to gain political opposed the Home Rule Bills, not chamber at Westminster to representation.10 merely for their content, but for the arrange the clauses of [a] bill … Although Bright disliked both manner of their adoption. would shape it exactly as they Bills for consistently Liberal rea- At first Bright attempted to liked, and then it would be sub- sons, Gladstone’s lack of considera- refrain from committing himself mitted to the whole Parliament tion for the stated principles of his in the home rule debate. When … [who] would be willing … to own party was probably crucial contacted by the former Attorney defer to the opinions of the Irish in provoking Bright to join the General, Henry James, he refused Committee, and to accept the Unionist rebellion. As he wrote to to join the Liberal Unionist Com- measures they had discussed and William Caine, a fellow radical, Fig 1. ‘Et tu, mittee being organised by George agreed upon.7 ‘what will be the value of a party Brighté!’ Punch, 1 Goschen.14 In his election address to when its whole power is laid at the May 1886 his constituents in 1885, Bright had Like many Liberals, John Bright was therefore horrified when Wil- liam Gladstone, after falling sev- enteen seats short of a majority in the December 1885 general elec- tion, announced his conversion to the principle of Irish home rule, without any consultation with his colleagues or party. Bright, in common with others in his party, favoured some limited measure of local government in Ireland, in much the same way that they wanted rural England to be con- trolled by elected councils.