The Express.
London, England, 1867-01-07 00:00:00

[STAMPED, 14. ADDITIONAL',]

cotton famine. I sincerely hope and trust that there was no
manufacturer in any of the cotton districts against whom
such a charge could justly be made. But I believe that I
am quite correct in supposing that at Rochdale, in the
month of January, 1862, you did propose or suggest that
instead of raising further subscriptions, th► poor-law
guardians, or the millowners, or both, should lend sums
of money to the distressed operatives, upon the under-
standing that such loans should be repaid out of their
earnings as soon as they should be restored to work.
It was this proposition of yours to which I alluded, and
upon which I animadverted in my speech at Guildford ; and
I certainly was of opinion then, and I am so still, that the
effect of such a scheme as yon proposed would have been
to entail a very heavy load of obligation upon the working
men, which would have placed them, possibly for years, in
great measure under the control of their employers, who
might have exercised that control, either in regulating the
amount of wages, or in other ways ; and I was, and sin
still further of opinion, that to have carried out your pro-
position at such a time, and under such circumstances,
would have been by no means a liberal or generous policy
towards the distressed operatives. It is almost unneces-
nary to add, that you are quite at liberty to make any use
you please of this letter,-1 am, sir, your obedient servant,
John Bright, Esq. RICHAILD GARTH.

Rochdale, Jan. 4, 1867.
Sir,—Your letter of yesterday has just arrived, and I
find it almost precisely what I expected. After a week's
search, you have not found a single fact to establish the
gross charges brought against me in your speech at Guild-
ford. Instead of facts and proofs, you fill three pages of your
letter with extracts from speeches of Mr. Ferrand and Mr.
Hennessy, which speeches have doubtless been spoken, but
which I have never read. I will give you an anecdote of
Mr. Ferrand. About 20 years ago he was in the House of
Commons, and on one occasion he made • ferocious and
vulgar attack on my lamented friend Mr. Cobden. At the
conclusion of his speech, Mr. Ryng, then member for Mid-
dlesex, one of the most respected members of the house,
came up to Mr. Cobden, and said to him, " Don't trouble
yourself about him—l have been in the ouge for 50 years,
and no such ruffian has been here before in my time."
Yoa will not be surprised, therefore, that I do not
trouble myself with what Mr. Ferrand may say. But in
what Mr. Ferrand and Mr. Hennessy have said I find no
proof of the truth of what you have said. You made three
charges of the most distinct character—that I had been
hooted from my own premises—that I had not given " a
halfpenny" to the relief of the distress in these districts—
and that I wished to support the suffering workmen by
loans, that I might have them at my " beck and call," " to
do what I pleased with," and to prevent their rising
when I chose "to put wages at whatever rate I liked.
Your authority for the first charge is evidently such that
you dare not produce it; it is not even equal to the autho-
rity of Mr. Ferrand and Mr. Hennessy, and therefore you
retract it. The second charge you escape from by denying
the accuracy of the report, without saying what you actu-
ally did say in place of what you are reported to have said.
With regard to the-third charge, you meek to avoid it by
expressing an opinion that if money were lent to families
in distress it would be burdensome to repay it, which no-
body doubts; but you express no regret that you
charged me with recommending a system of loans
in order that I might use them as • means of
oppressing the workmen during the period that
would be required for the repayment of the loans.
My object in suggesting loans was to give relief in such a
manner, to • large number of persons, as would not
bring them into the list of ordinary paupers, and would
not wound their honourable pride ; aml if the distress had
lasted only for • few months, as was then hoped would
be the CAW, the plan would have been practicable, and
might have been adopted with great advantage. On •
review of your speech and your letter, I cools to this
conclusion—that you wished to get into parliament,
and were not particular as to the path which might lead to
it. You threw dirt during your canvass, doubtless know-
ing that, if needful, you could sat it afterwards. There
are many men who go " through dirt to dignities," and I
suspect you have no objection to be one of them. I am,
with whatever respect is due to you, yours. Sc.,
JOHN BRIGHT.
Richard Garth, Esq., M.P., Temple, London.