LETTERS ON HOME RULE BY JOHN BRIGHT, THE PEOPLE’S TRIBUNE. BIRMINGHAM : THE DAILY GAZETTE COMPANY, LIMITED. 1892. INTRODUCTION. Death has robbed us of the man who above all others commanded the confidence of this country during the great political crisis of 1886. When Mr. Gladstone changed his whole attitude towards Irish Nationalism in order to obtain the support of Mr. Parnell and his followers, John Bright was one of the first to protest against the surrender of principle by the Liberal party. He had ever proved himself a generous friend to//the Irish people, had always held Mr. Gladstone in high esteem, and was one of his closest political associates. The whole country looked, therefore, with special anxiety for an indication of his views on the Home Rule Bill, and on the wild scheme of compulsory land purchase with which it was associated. He did not leave a doubt as to his opinion on either of the proposals, and his attitude exercised a profound influence upon the electorate when Mr. Gladstone, defeated in the House of Commons, appealed to the country for a mandate, which was absolutely refused. Had Mr. Bright been a younger man, his voice would have been raised against ‘‘the wild policy” which, to its lasting disgrace, had associated the Liberal party with “ the conspiracy half Irish and half American ” which was then and is now “ at open war with the Government of the Queen.” Compelled by physical weakness to lefrain from platform work, he proved his unimpaired mental vigour by issuing in rapid succession the letters collected in this pamphlet. They deal with every phase of the Irish controversy as it has never been dealt with by any other man. They form, as the editor of a collection published by theBirmingham Gazette Company in 1888 truly said, “ a statement of the case for the Union which for succinctness, precision, and patriotic force has no counterpart in Unionist literature.” They are a noble vindication of the course taken by Unionist Liberals, and a crushing censure of those who were willing to give up the unity of the three kingdoms in order to preserve the unity of a political party. “ I have not changed ” was Mr. Bright’s dignified answer to a critic in June, 1887 ; “ I have not changed” was the refrain of Mr. Chamberlain’s speech when asked to take the leadership of the Liberal Unionist party in the House of Commons in February, 1892. These letters reveal how “ others have changed,” and why consistency is offensive to them. They will suffice to show the thoughtful and fair-minded electors of this country how hollow and unwarranted are the gibes and sneers indulged in by Gladstonians at the expense of those Liberals who remain true to the Unionist principles which were held by the whole party, and, most strongly of all, by Mr. Gladstone himself, in 1885. If they do this, and if they also persuade some doubting electors who reverently cherish the memory of John Bright to take the fearless, patriotic course he pursued on the Home Rule question, their re-publication will not be in vain. “ The People s Tribune ” has passed away, but the counsel he freely gave to his countrymen remains for their guidance and encouragement in the great struggle which is impending. One word of thanks the Editor must express to all who have assisted him In making this collection of Mr. Bright’s letters on Home Rule as complete as possible. To give names would be invidious, and it is unnecessary, since all will be amply satisfied by the reflection that they have aided in preserving a series of letters which are not less an ornament to English literature than an invocation to loyalty and patriotism. Writing under date of February 23, 1888, from One Ash, Rochdale, Mr. Bright said :—“ I have had several suggestions that my letters should be published, and I am quite willing you should deal with them as you propose.I hope they may be sent into the house o f each, and voter that they may be useful.” It is our most earnest wish that Mr. Bright’s hope may be realised j and if some critics are disposed to urge that the pamphlet is unworthy of the treasures it contains, we pray them to remember that our great aim has been to place it within the reach of all who within the next Iwelve months may be called upon to give a vote on the question of Home Rule. Birmingham. Feb., 1892. JOHN BRIGHT’S LETTERS ON HOME RULE. I.—A ONE-MAN POLICY. war with you, and am sorrv to see it. They make no Mr. Bright addressed the following letter to a allowance for what they deem an error, even when member of the Council of the Central Division viewed in connection with many years of honest service. of Birmingham, who wrote the hon. gentleman In the future that which to them is an error may turn out to have been patriotism and wisdom. It is grievous on May 19th, 1886, urging him to do all in histo see with what bitterness Liberals can treat Liberals power to prevent the passing of the Irish Bills in whose fault is that they have consistently supported the the form which they then took principles which all Liberals accepted less than a year Reform Club, May 31st, 1836. af° ‘ Bonesty and capacity in a member are with some Dear Sir— . I think the Home Rule Bill of small value in comparison with the suppleness which should have been withdrawn before the second reading, permits or enables him to “ turn his back upon him self” and but for the fear of a dissolution, which decides th when a great political leader changes his mind and his votes of some scores of members, this would have been course. I am surprised that any real Liberal should be done. I hope the course I shall take will meet with the induced to oppose you. He cannot excel you in a faithful support of those I am permitted to represent. discharge of Parliamentary duty, and I think he should My sympathy with Ireland, north and south, compels rather admire than blame your steadfast adherence to me to condemn the proposed legislation. I believe the the policy on which you believed you were elected in united Parliament can be and will be more just to all November last. .—Believe me, sincerely yours, classes in Ireland than any Parliament that can meet in J o h n B r ig h t . Dublin under the provisions of Mr. Gladstone’s bill. If Mr. Gladstone’s great authority were withdrawn from IV.—MR. BRIGHT AND MR. GLADSTONE. these bills, I doubt if twenty members outside the Irish party in the House of Commons would support them. Mr. Bright forwarded to the Times tha -The more I consider them the more I lament that they following letter, which he addressed to Mr. have been offered to the Parliament of the country — Gladstone :— Yours very truly, J o h n B r ig h t *. __ , , Bath, July 4, 1806. My dear Gladstone—I am sorry my spéeoh has so greatly irritated you. It has been as great a grief to me II.—ABJECT PARTISANSHIP. to speak as I have spoken as it can have been to you to Mr. W. S. Caine, M.P. for Barrow, received listen or to read. the following letter from Mr. Bright at the time You say it is a gross charge to say that you concealed your thoughts last November. Surely, when you urged that he was soliciting the suffrages of the electors the constituencies to send you a Liberal majoritv large of that place :— enough to make you independent of Mr. Parnell and his T» , r _ . One Ash, Roohdale, June 22nd, 1886. party, the Liberal party and the country understood you Dear Mr Caine—I see you are engaged in a fight at to ask for a majority to enable you to resist Mr. Parnell, Barrow. I much hope you will win. It is not pleasant not to make a complete surrender to him. to see bow unforgiving some of our heretofore Liberal { You object to my quotations about a conspiracy friends are if their representatives refuse to surrender “ marching through rapine to the break-up of the United Judgment and conscience to the demands or the sudden Kingdom,” and you s'ay there is now no such conspiracy changes of their political leader. The action of our against the payment of rent and the union of the ítÍL ? f 8°ci*tions « raPÜly engaged in making countries. I believe there is now such a conspiracy, and delegates of their members and in insisting on their that it is expecting and seeking its further success forgetting all principles if the interests of a party or the through your measure. leader of a party are supposed to be at stake. What You complain that I charge you with want of frank­ will be the vaiue of a party when its whole power is ness in regard to the Land Purchase Bill. You must laid at the disposal of a leader from whose authority no know that a large number of your supporters are utterly appeal is allowed ? At this moment it is notorious that opposed to the bill. If you tie the two bills together their difficulty in dealing with them will be much JXïïhÎn erB *■ t H?Use of 0°mmons have voted t h JTri.hG™ mmTtn* w]*0 in private have condemned increased, and their liberty greatly fettered.