On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Aug. 18 18601] The Saturday Analyst and ...
-
MR. RIGHT'S PRETENTIOUS ASSAILANTS. SEVE...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Aug. 18 18601] The Saturday Analyst And ...
Aug . 18 18601 ] The Saturday Analyst and Leader . 731
Mr. Right's Pretentious Assailants. Seve...
MR . RIGHT'S PRETENTIOUS ASSAILANTS . SEVERAL of our contemporaries have been commenting upon a delicate bit of scandal concerning Mr . Bright and the Constitutional Defence Committee , which has been introduced to the world by Mr . Henry Brookes , late secretary of the aforesaid body . Mr . Brookes charges a section of the com > mittee—composed of officials of Mr . Bright ' s peculiar organ , the Morning Stai—with having first betrayed , and then deserted the cause committed to . their care . Mr . Bright himself comes in for an equal or superior share of the blame . Mr . Brookes verv iustly condemns Lord Palmerston ' s resolutions as utterly
inadequate to the occasion which called them forth , and he complains that Mr . Bright and his friends on the Executive Committee of the Defence Association accepted them either in bad faith or with culpable credulity . In the absence of any proof that deception was intended by Mr . Bright's friends , we must adopt the much more probable supposition , that they accepted the resolutions in full belief that the Government would place a liberal construction upon them , and supplement them by some action that would have the effect of reversing the unconstitutional decision of the Lords . At any rate , the resolutions which the Constitutional Defence Committee
published after Lord Palmerston had coolly handed over the rights of the Commons to the usurping Peers , go far to show that they did not , as Mr . Brookes supposes , abandon the question in obedience to the strange recommendations of Mr . Bright . Mr . Brookes is , however , quite right , when he says , " Mr . Bright used his utmost exertions and influence tp get all amendments withdrawn , and to prevent all opposition , and so not only failed to stand by the Constitution himself , but seduced and betrayed others into the same position . " The only justification open to Mr . Bright for this part of his conduct , is of a nature that must condemn his subsequent
behaviour . If he believed that Mr . Gladstone and Mr . Milner Gibson had consented to the resolutions as the basis of further action , he might not be blameable for his efforts to recommend them to the Liberal party ; but if so , his duty was clear the moment he found himself cheated and deceived , and he cannot escape from an alternative of condemnation . -Either he had no business ¦ whatever to have stood godfather to the resolutions , and he scandalously misled the Liberal party when lie begged off all opposition , or he was bound in common honesty to have been the first man to resent ana * fight against the treachery of which the Premier was the author ; Far from
this , he behaved in the manner explained by Mr . Brookes , who tells us " on the second night of the debate this Committee addressed Jetters to twenty members of the Liberal party , entreating them to use every means which the forms of the House would permit , to get the debate adjourned , so that the country "might have ^ meHia ^ xtM'egs ^ several members strenuously endeavoured to accomplish that object ; but again Mr . Bright exerted himself to the utmost to paralyze their action , and ultimately threatened to divide against them if any persisted . " We believe Mr . Bright did divide against them , and thus ended the first act of his betrayal of the popular cause .
Mr . Buookks continues the narrative in the following words : " Mr . Bright having first betrayed his followers , then deserted , and ultimately disowned them , his friends denying that he ever had been or wished to be their leader . Endeavours were made by this Committee , by Lord Fkrmoy , by Mr , Whalley , and others , to stimulate some action , but all of them were prostrated by the same party , and by similar means , under the pretence that any pressure might endanger the Ministry , and prevent the completion ot the French Treaty , in which the J ¦ ¦ — ' __' . _« ted ' f t ft i ^ n m
* Manchester party have a special and peculiar interest . " The excuse made by Mr , Buight ' s friends for his opposition to Lord Fermov ' s motion is , that he was afruid of a defeat—a piece of moral cowardice which they ought to be ashamed to confess . If Mr . Bright and the Manchester party had done their duty , they would have given no quarter to Lord Palmerston after the speech with which he introduced the resolutions . They would have fought the Government at every turn , have moved an amendment to every motion of Supply , and have been content to be defeated a thousand times ; in full confidence that
the-oountry-would-do justice-, to _ their . m . otivea , ^ and _ thatJn _ the end they must succeed . Instead of this , they adopted a paltering course , which can only be reconciled with integrity by an imputation of imbecility almost too gross to be conceived . On the llth , Mr . Bjeught told his own story in the Jlouae of Commons in one of the most ill-considered speeches which anysnne Member * ever delivered . Opinions will be divided as to the object of this strange utterance , but there can be no doubt os to its effect—that it afforded a fresh triumph to Lord
Palmerston , and rendered further action on the part of independent Members extremely difficult , if not impossible . Mr Bright began by condemning the Paper Duties ^ and criticising the Times . He then deplored the submission to the usurpation of the Peers , and pointed out a number of courses that might be pursued to vindicate the rights of the Commons ., He besought the Government to adopt them , but at the same time he deprecated any action against the Government , and ended with accusing Lord Palmerston of treason against the people . The Premier ' s answer to this strange harangue was as insulting as it deserved . He challenged Mr . Bright to
produce some action to prove the sincerity of his words , and added , . ' If there is pne thing more undignified than another , if there is one thing more humiliating and degrading than another , either in an individual or in an assembly , it is the indulging in puling lamentations and fruitless complaints ; knowing at the time of making these complaints and lamentations , that no practical result can follow . " Lord Palmerston is too shrewd a tactician to use such language if he were not sure of his own safety . He treats Mr . Bright and the Manchester party as his own property ~ people whom he has bought with the French Treaty , and whom he is entitled to scold and scorn if they presume to resist his will . It was disgrace enough for Mr . Bright to incur this castigation , but his ignominious submission to it is a still further
proof of moral degradation , Liberals who do not belong to the Manchester School , and who decline to eat dirt with them , must repudiate their leadership altogether . No party and no individual can be respected who acts upon such principles and submits to such humiliation . It is no part of dignity to bellow like a bull , standing tail foremost , —to assure the enemy that he need fear no thrust of horn . If comedy were the thing needful in a popular leader wecould give Mr . Bright the paling for he played the lion like Snug the joiner , and deserved to be alled a " very fox for his valour and a goose for his discretion . " That is , if the performance was honest , and not a niere piece of humbug to gain popularity with the Birmingham electors by an appearance of patriotism * and at the same time to keep his French Treaty bond with Lord Palmerston , and shield him from anv substantial opposition . _
Whatever view of Mr , Bright ' s conduct be adopted . Mr . Brookes has rendered a good service by publishing some important facts * and whether or not the public accept his opinions , they will now know that Mr . Bright instigated the formation of the Constitutional Defence Committee , and that , with one or two exceptions , the active members of the Executive Committee consisted of his personal jfriends and of the staff of his organ , the Morning Star ;¦ and yet that , at every stage of the agitation , he acted in direct opposition to the policy which the Committee recommended , and which the public at numerous -meetings , endorsed ; The tyletropolitan Boroughs , and all the and which
towns with which the Committee communicated , were represented at the conference held in Palace-yard , were unanimous in recommending that no supplies should be granted , unless with a condition' appended which reversed the decision of the Lords . All these steps were taken with the full concurrence of Mr . Bright ' s } friends on the Committee , and yet he was all the time doing his utmost to thwart their endeavours , and cause all the supplies the Government wanted to be obtained without even the shadow of a fight . This story would be incomplete without a moral , and its lessons are plain enough . The Liberals must definitely separate their cause from that of the Manchester School . When
that school chances to be right they can accept its aid , but its members can no longer be permitted to appear as leaders of anybody but themselves . In the long run . Englishmen will only be led by men of English views . We are proud of our country—proud , with all its failings , of the character of our race . The Manchester School have no country save Bargaindorci , and no sympathies that cannot be coined into cash . They fancy they are cosmopolitans when they are citizens of nowhere . At every step they outrage English feeling , depreciate English achievements , and detract from English motives . The very reverse of all thia is necessary for English leadership .
The country demands a just admiration of all its greatness . It loves peace , and will strive and suffer much , for it ; but it hates _ peace .. j | L ^ but _ _ wjM not believe a factory to be the final cause " of creation ; and ' feels that the heroism displayed at Crescy or Waterloo ha « done more for the happiness of the people than all the cotton mills that were ever set up . It sees the faults of the Country party , but is not so mad as to consent to replace an aristocracy by a plutocracy , or a millocracy . It desires a strong- Reform party ; but it is not so unjust , or so asinine , as to reject the aid of owners of the soil , who may be wrongheaded upon some
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Aug. 18, 1860, page 3, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_18081860/page/3/
-