The Press.
London, England, 1858-04-24 00:00:00

MR. BRIGHT AND NATIONAL INTERESTS.

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PRESS."
Sir,—lt is the necessity of the successful political
agitator to be profuse in promises. He is, on the
whole, a very fair interpreter of human nature ; he
hopes to win on the ear of the multitude by raising
their expectations, and binding them by interest to
his special object. So long as the Anti-Corn-Law
League had something to promise, so long as
Mr. Bright could harangue in Manchester
about the blessings that would certainly follow
from free trade in corn, he was a popular
politician ; he asked only for the voices of the crowd,
and in exchange he promised them bread. The
temptation was so great, the sacrifice so small, that
it was next to impossible, on the part of the opera-
tives, not to shout " Bright for ever ! " For a brief
period, when gold from Australia, united with emigra-
tion and cheap bread, caused an excessive activity in
the labour market of the. north, Mr. Bright was in
" high feather." But times changed—the Russian
war and dear bread followed ; then came bread riots in
London, Manchester, Nottingham, itc. Peace, high
wages, cheap bread, promised by the prophet,
were followed by war, low wages, often no wages,
and dear bread. Mr. Bright's popularity faded,
antagonism followed, and though elected for
Manchester as a " Peace man," be was shamefully
hooted in her streets for the faithfulness with
which he adhered to his peace principles. That was
disgraceful to Manchester, and ought to have taught
Mr. Bright a lesson of value as to the worth of
popular applause. On all social quetions he has
been the opponent of the working men. He sneered
at the London bakers, who asked the House of
Commons to abolish night work in bakehouses by
law ; they worked sixteen and eighteen hours a day,
and many of those employed in the low-priced bake-
houses regularly spit blood. Mr. Bright ridiculed
their petitions; they were the victims of bread un-
fairly cheapened, and could hardly have hoped for
his support—but might well have been spared his
sarcasm. To factory regulation Mr. Bright was a
bitter opponent. The real object of his political life
was never, perhaps, more ingeniously and distinctly
revealed than in 1952, when, in a debate on the
Militia Bill, he assured " the right honourable
gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that
he did not seem to know the connection of capital
and labour. Taking the cotton manufacture, only
profitable by being kept constantly at work : to take
from the mills for the militia men engaged in this
difficult and delicate operation, would be ruin to
those manufacturers." This is the whole secret ;
land, funds, Church, and Crown, must all be sacri-
ficed to the one interest of cotton. More than all
these, the working men themselves roust sacrifice
their incomes—the wages of their labour—to one in-
terest, founded on a foreign plant, the profits on the
manufacture of which are so low, in the hey-day of
its prosperity, that only constant work can yield a
profit ! It is to this end that the fruit of the civiliza-
tion of ages is to be sacrificed. Yesterday the cry
was cheap bread—it has proved a rank delusion ; to.
day it is cheap government—which, if realized, would
prove to the working men, for whom it is specially
asked, a hollow mockery. The proportion of gain
from cheap government, when measured against the
actual loss arising from the operation of unrestricted
competition on wages, cannot possibly, to a great ex-
tent, improve the condition of the producing classes.
A judicious economy is much to be desired ; it
should, however, be made to rest on its own merits ;
and to put forth a reduction of taxes as a powerful
remedial measure is rank quackery. How it would
have fared with England had Lord Derby's Govern-
ment not carried their Militia Bill, is a question
worthy of the attention of Mr. Bnght's constituents.
Since the apotheosis of the triumph of the Free-trade
movement in Manchester, which followed the repeal
of the Corn Laws, the influence of the Free trade
leaders has gradually declined, and during the
Russian war was at the lowest. Hitherto, all attempts
to resuscitate the old spirit have failed. In 1852
Mr. Bright actually threatened war; yes, the apostle
of peace was in arms. Addressing the Derby
Cabinet, Mr. Bright said,—" We make war against
you ;" to prevent mistake as to his intension, be de-
clared that under certain circumstances there should
be" a tumult in this country, to which that of 1852
was but as a whisper to a hurricane." The past his-
tory and the present facts are instructive. Lord
Derby is in office ; the hurricane has still to come.
Birmingham, so famous in 1852, Bright, so success-
ful in 1840, ara united; but Downing street stands
where it dil, and Mr. Disraeli, the denounced of
1852, is again Chancellor of the Exchequer ! These
things considered, it is not remarkable that another
appeal should be made to the masses, and false pro-
ohecy should endeavour to hide its failure by any
means most likely to serve its present and pressing
necessities.—l am, sir, your obedient servant,
April 12, 185,. Tani Lunn.