The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-11-10

The stump speech of John Bright to the
electors of Birmingham, which we published
yesterday, is q remarkable specimen of dema-
gogism-the more remarkable because it was
uttered by man who had obtained for himself
the reputation Of . reformer, and for whom
was claimed the character of q statesman. We
do him no injustice when we say that there is
more claptrap than craftsmanship developed in
the grafton referred to, or that, with all his
experience of the British masses, he must hold
their intelligence at very low estimate when
he could address them in such fashion in such
a crisis. In referring to the policy Of the two
parties, liberal and tory, he talks like Bour-
bon, remembering only the past and forgetful
of the prominent facts which the present has
realized in the new Reform bill and the preced-
ing legislation Of forty years. He goes back,
for instance, to the days before Catholic eman-
cipation in 1929, when neither Dissenters nor
Catholics could sit in Parliament. He repro
duces the time of the s'rotten boroughs, too,
wherewth to confront his adversaries. Doubt
less all these are historical facts, but they
belong to the dead past, and have no more to
do with the present crisis in England in
so far as Mr. Bright's recollection to Parliament
and prospective seat in a new Ministry are con-
cerned-than the notification laws of South
Carolina in Calhoun's day or the instruction
of Governor Dorr, of Rhode Island, have to do
with our political situation to-day.
But the greatest absurdity Of Mr.. Brights
speech is to be found in his illusions to this
country and our late war. The comparison
between the recently enfranchised voters of
England and the Southern negroes is most I'M
happy, because it is not only offensive to the
intelligence of British voters but it shows that
Mr.. Bright is ignorant of our AFFAIRS and
entirely off the track when he assumes that the
enfranchised negroes would not vote for the
democratic party. We know now that they
have done SO by thousands. When Mr..
Bright says that the Irish Church is griev-
ance, and one of the many obstacles in the
way of reconciliation between the empire and
her Irish province, he is quite correct; but per-
haps no one knows better than Mr.. Bright
himself that the Irish Church is not likely to be
dises.ablished, no matter whether Disraeli re-
tains power or Gladstone obtains it, even with
Mr. Bright in his Cabinet. The disestablish-
ment Of the Irish Church would be but the pre-
cursor OF the adjustment of the Established
Church Of England, of which the Queen is the
acknowledged head, and that once accom-
plished, the power and patronage and many Of
the rights and privileges of tho aristocracy
would be virtually given up; and we may be
assured that these will never be surrendered
except to the exigencies Of revolution. Is Mr..
Bright or Mr.. Gladstone, any more than
Disraeli, prepared for revolutionp As
suredly not, though Bright and Gladstone may
use party cry with some effect for electioneer-
ing purposes. Therefore we regard the stump
speech Of the eloquent Quaker and politician
at Birmingham as an ingenious sham, and Mn
Bright himself is perhaps entitled to be desig-
mated by no more dignified term.