In the June number of this magazine a review of the career of Richard
Cobden presented the lifelong activity and loftiness of purpose which
distinguished that great man, whom we have so recently been called to
mourn. It is our purpose to record something of his friend and ally, Mr.
Bright, whose devotion to America has led him for once to raise his
voice in vindication of war, as the only method of preserving liberty.
John Bright was born at Greenbank, near the thrifty town of Rochdale, on
the 16th of November, 1811. His father was Mr. Jacob Bright, a gentleman
who, by his own exertions, had risen from humble means to wealth, in the
vocation of a cotton manufacturer. John was the second of eleven
children, the oldest of whom died in infancy. The family were devoted
members of the Society of Friends, and the subject of this sketch still
adheres to the hereditary faith. John's health, during childhood, caused
much solicitude to his parents. His constitution was apparently feeble,
and it was found that study injured his already delicate system. At the
age of fifteen he was taken from school, and placed in his father's
counting-room. Mr. Jacob Bright was a shrewd, yet highly honorable man,
entirely engrossed in the superintendence of his business, and an adept
in the conduct of his manufactory. It was his ambition that his sons
should follow in his footsteps, and should become, like himself,
influential members of the commercial community. He doubtless
underrated, as the class to which he belonged are apt to do in England,
the value of a university education; and as soon as the boys reached the
suitable age, they were set to work in the mills. Had John Bright
received the culture which a residence at Oxford or Cambridge would have
afforded him, he would doubtless have occupied a place in the first rank
of that group of accomplished statesmen who now grace either House of
Parliament, and whose elegant erudition is as conspicuous as their
enlightened statecraft. As it was, we find him spending his youth at the
desk, learning how to buy and sell, and how to rule the miniature
commonwealth which an English manufactory presents. In the discharge of
these duties he proved himself skilful, prompt, and energetic.
As he grew to manhood, however, a new interest and a new ambition awoke
within him. He had always been more of a thinker than the other members
of his family. When scarcely twenty, he had addressed the people of
Rochdale in favor of the great Reform of 1832, and with the effect of
giving him at that early age a local popularity. He had seemingly thrown
his vigorous mind into the study of the complex elements of the
Constitution, with especial reference to those parts which affected
commerce and manufactures. From such studies he had become the confirmed
disciple of those doctrines which, with a narrower view to
self-interest, the commercial class almost universally adopted. When the
passage of the Reform Bill had quieted for a while the agitation on that
score, Mr. Bright, his interest being now thoroughly awakened to the
excitements of a public career, turned his attention to the Temperance
question, then much mooted in the larger towns. The idea of total
abstinence was at that time new to Englishmen, and Mr. Bright was one of
the earliest champions of that principle, which has since attracted so
many powerful orators, and which has reclaimed so many from the
debasement of the cup. In the year 1835, Mr. Bright, with a view to
extending his experience, and in order to observe the systems of other
nations, made the tour of the Continent, extending his travels to Athens
and Palestine. On his return, he was invited to lecture before the local
Institute at Rochdale, and he delivered a series of lectures, taking as
his subjects the observations he had made abroad. These he followed by
another series on questions more nearly connected with the practical
interests of his auditors,--putting before them with admirable
perspicuity the ideas he had formed on the commercial policy of England.
About this time contentions arose respecting the Church Rates, and Mr.
Bright took active ground for their abolition.
The sufferings of the manufacturing class now revived that agitation
against the Corn-Laws which had once before engaged the earnest
attention of the country. Mr. Bright had the patent evidence all around
him of the misery which the inequitable adjustment of the tariff had
created. The class over whom he had supervision were materially affected
by this injustice. With that promptness which is one of his conspicuous
qualities, he devoted himself to the study of the science which would
open to him the causes, consequences, and remedies of the evils which a
legalized monopoly had brought into existence. He found that the landed
proprietors, whose influence in Parliament had long continued paramount
through the protection of the Tory party, had secured laws which enabled
them to enjoy the monopoly of the corn trade, to the practical exclusion
of foreign competition. Prices were thus increased to such an extent, as
to put it beyond the power of factory hands, with the wages which their
employers could afford to pay them, to buy bread.
The distress of the operatives from this cause was already great, and
was constantly becoming more serious and more alarming. The lower
classes of England have never been patient under unusual pressure. They
are prone to take redress by violent resistance to law. Thus the
agricultural ascendency threatened to drive the rival element to
desperation. The Tories, led by Wellington, already obnoxious from their
long opposition to Reform, steadily maintained the existing laws, and
continued to be the devoted partisans of the landed interest. The
aristocratic Whigs, who were in power under Viscount Melbourne, and who
were reaping the fruit of a reform carried by the cooperation of
popular leaders, were reluctant to do more than make slight
modifications,--modifications which still left the evil great and
dangerous. At this juncture, a new force sprang up, which from small
beginnings finally effected a total revolution in the economical policy
of the Government. This was the Anti-Corn-Law League. It was instituted
by a number of liberal noblemen and gentlemen in Parliament, who had the
sense to perceive, and the wisdom to provide for, the gloomy crisis
which seemed to be impending. Charles Pelham Villiers, a son of the Earl
of Clarendon, and one of the ablest of the younger generation of
statesmen, was the most prominent leader. The object of the association
was to organize a crusade against agricultural tyranny, and to effect
the abrogation of the odious laws by which farmers grew rich by starving
manufacturers. As usual with all organizations for reform, the League at
first met with clamorous denunciation from all quarters, was sneered at
in Parliament, and laughed at by the great proprietors. But it grew
rapidly. Every day people awakened more and more to the increasing
necessity. The champions of the League, spreading among the rural
communities, eloquently and convincingly pointed out the great evils
which they sought to eradicate. They were untiring in their exertions,
and their success was beyond their best hopes.
The great advantage to be gained by keeping their cause in constant
agitation before the public made the Leaguers desirous to employ active
and eloquent orators. John Bright, in his twenty-seventh year, began to
speak in advocacy of commercial reform in his own neighborhood. The
League heard of him, called him to their assistance, and he became one
of their authorized speakers. This was a triumph not a little flattering
to a young merchant whose training had been in a manufactory, and to
whom the field of forensic eloquence was entirely new. He was thoroughly
convinced, both from observation and from a naturally quick reason, that
the principles of which he was now to be a public advocate were just and
practical. His whole soul was in the effort to alleviate suffering, and
to find a balance between interests which had been, but were not of
necessity, conflicting. With that hearty zeal which has ever since
marked his public career, he entered the political arena, turned over to
his partners the affairs of the firm, and devoted himself to the study
and exposition of the new commercial theories. Through the influence of
the League, he obtained opportunities to speak in many considerable
places; and he every-day increased his reputation as a vigorous reasoner
and a pleasing speaker. He went boldly into the agricultural districts,
where the hard-headed old Tories who believed in Wellington formed his
audiences, and put to them unwelcome truths which they found it hard to
swallow. On one occasion he appeared before a large assemblage at
Drury-Lane Theatre, when the effect of his eloquence was such that his
name became immediately known throughout the kingdom. Copies of the
speech were distributed by order of the League, and Bright found himself
in demand from all quarters. Working in concert with Villiers, Morpeth,
and the other leaders, he assisted in instituting branches of the League
in the principal cities. Besides his unquestioned ability as an orator,
he had one advantage which most of his co-workers did not possess,--he
was emphatically a man of the people. He came out from the busy
community in which he was born and reared, to labor for the people.
Those who might distrust a Villiers or a Howard,--who might suspect that
an agitation set on foot by noblemen was designed for selfish ends,--who
might be indifferent to those whom they had been accustomed to regard as
political schemers,--would trust and follow one who threw aside his
commercial vocation and came forward to sustain that commercial interest
in which he himself was concerned. He could gain the ear and reason of
many who would not listen to one whose profession was political
agitation. Thus his influence became considerable; his origin reassuring
his hearers, his eloquence charming them, and his honesty and
earnestness commanding their sympathy and approval.
The rapid spread of Free-Trade principles, resulting from the organized
efforts of the League, and from the demonstration, which actual
occurrences confirmed, that the farming monopoly could not continue,
gave the leaders of the League much importance in Parliament. The Whigs,
nay, even the more moderate Tories, began to profess conversion to
Free-Trade doctrines. When Parliament was dissolved in 1841, both
parties went to the country on the issue of Free-Trade or Protection.
Sir Robert Peel, who afterward became the patriotic instrument by which
the Corn-Laws fell, represented those who adhered to Protection and the
agricultural interest. Lord Melbourne came forward as the advocate of
those principles which the League had been the first to avow, and which
as Premier he had not been anxious to put in practice. Notwithstanding
the Reform of 1832, the landed nobility still retained a large control
in the composition of the House of Commons. Peel had organized the
Conservatives with great tact, and the ministry of Melbourne was
suffering from the weakness of internal dissension. The result of the
election was, that Peel's candidates were so generally successful that
he gained a clear working majority in the House, and he consequently
became Prime-Minister.
It was soon after the Conservatives thus attained office that John
Bright came forward as a candidate for Parliament in the northern city
of Durham. The Free-Traders were wise enough to seek the assistance of
the best men their ranks could furnish. Bright, it was universally
thought, would be a valuable auxiliary, coming as he did from the
mercantile class, and possessing a clear mind and ready tongue. Durham
was conservative by tradition. In 1843 the city rejected Bright; but in
1844, so rapid was the growth of Liberalism, that the same constituency
returned him to the House of Commons by a handsome majority.
Meanwhile Sir Robert Peel, elected and supported by Protectionists, was
gradually turning his steps toward the more liberal policy which his
opponents had advocated. Soon after assuming office, he had proposed a
modification of the tariff. The Duke of Buckingham, representing the
extreme wing of the Protectionists, resigned in alarm. The Premier did
not falter, but approached still nearer the Free-Trade standard. Lord
Stanley, a stronger man than Buckingham, retired from the council-board.
When John Bright entered Parliament, Peel was rapidly coming to the
abolition of the Corn-Laws. Bright at once mingled in the debates, which
now daily absorbed the attention of the House, on the one question
before the country. The little band of Leaguers stood in the front rank
of the opposition. They were pressing Sir Robert, by steady and
oft-repeated appeals, to make the final concession. To the voices of
Villiers, Morpeth, Russell, Gibson, were added the sonorous tones of the
merchant-orator, and he maintained the debate with the best, whether of
friends or foes. He reasoned with such clearness, he brought the evils
of the corn monopoly so vividly before the minds of his auditors, he
pressed the necessity and justice of its abrogation with such power of
argument, that from that day he took rank as one of the first speakers
and logicians in the lower House.
Sir Robert soon threw aside all party and selfish considerations, and
did fearlessly what his judgment convinced him was urgently demanded by
the interests of the country. He proposed the repeal of the Corn-Laws.
He thus exhibited a rare spirit for an English statesman,--a spirit of
self-sacrifice for the public good. His old associates assailed him with
bitter, powerful eloquence. The Whigs, whose thunder he had stolen,
looked with the coldness of partisan selfishness upon his conversion to
their views. But in spite of every discouragement, he carried that
magnanimous measure through both Houses by his influence as First Lord
of the Treasury. Hardly ever during the present century has Parliament
been more electrified by stirring and splendid contests of forensic
genius than during these debates on the repeal. And in these debates
John Bright proved a worthy competitor to Disraeli, whose caustic
oratory was justly feared,--and to Stanley, whose excellence in
rejoinder made him to be regarded as the equal of Fox in extempore
debate.
The fall of Sir Robert Peel, who could not retain power whilst Tories
and Whigs were alike arrayed against him, was followed by the elevation
of Lord John Russell and his Whig friends to the ministry. Several of
the leaders of the League accepted office; but John Bright received no
overtures from the new Premier. No thought of personal ambition, indeed,
seems to have entered into his views. Possessing that independence and
fearlessness which men of his origin are apt to exhibit, and deeply
interested in the new field in which he found himself, his sole desire
seems to have been to arrive at a knowledge of what would most benefit
his country. In this search, he rejected all party creeds. He declined
to put himself under a pledge to abide by the will of a caucus. He
considered himself bound by no precedent which was unjust, committed to
no policy which did not have a present reason. He was ready to act with
the party that sustained, in each individual case, the measure which he
considered right; nor would he hesitate to vote with those with whom he
usually found himself at variance, if they brought forward measures
which his judgment approved.
At the time Lord Russell came into power, Mr. Bright was regarded as
opposed to the Established Church and to the House of Lords, as
favorable to a system of general suffrage, and as decidedly
anti-monarchical in political theory. With opinions so radical the
aristocratic Whigs were the last to have any sympathy. They were much
less likely to encourage that class of politicians than their old
antagonists, the Tories. The reason is evident. Radicalism, by startling
the masses by the novelty of its doctrines, and thus driving a large
majority to seek certain safety under the protection of the Tories, had
kept the Whigs out of Whitehall for half a century. John Wilkes and
Horne Tooke secured Pitt in his power. Francis Burdett and his
confederates faithfully served Liverpool. If Lord Russell should
recognize the later Radicals by calling one of their leaders to his
counsels, he might well fear a defection far outweighing the
acquisition. Thus Mr. Bright, an active participant in the contest for
Free Trade, which had just resulted in a complete victory, cheerfully
continued to be simply an independent commoner, representing the
constituency of Durham,--free to judge, and to speak his honest
thought,--at liberty to advocate reforms more thorough than ministers
dared to propose,--ready to represent the feelings and wants of that
great multitude of Englishmen to whom the timeworn restrictions of the
franchise prohibited a voice in the Government,--anxious to keep ideas
in agitation which needed stout hearts and steady heads to maintain them
in existence.
In 1847, the ministers having caused his defeat as member for Durham, he
became the successful contestant for the seat for Manchester. This
metropolis of manufacture was then the centre, as it is now, of extreme
liberal notions. The fame of Mr. Bright, who had gone forth into public
life from its immediate neighborhood, was grateful to a district which
sorely needed such an advocate. He continued to represent Manchester
through the Parliament which sustained and finally ousted Lord John
Russell. In 1852, when the Premier, joining issue with Lord Derby,
(formerly Lord Stanley,) went to the country, Mr. Bright again stood for
Manchester, and was gratified by receiving a majority of eleven hundred.
It was the just reward of labors incessant and courageous, to keep the
interests of the constituency always before the legislature, and to
bring about that system of equality to which they were thoroughly
devoted. Mr. Bright continued to represent Manchester until 1857. During
the session of that year, the late Mr. Cobden, the earnest co-worker
with Mr. Bright, brought forward a motion condemnatory of the Chinese
War, then transpiring under the conduct of Lord Palmerston's Government.
The House divided against the minister. The Radicals and Conservatives
were in a majority. Palmerston dissolved Parliament, and appealed to the
nation. Bright once more went before his constituents, on the issue of
war or peace with China. His notions respecting the iniquity of war in
general, which resulted from his Quaker education, and his opinion that
this attack on the Celestial Empire was especially unjustifiable, were
not welcome to the electors of Manchester. His opponent, like himself a
radical Whig, but an advocate of the war, was returned by five thousand
votes. In 1859 Palmerston being again forced to the expedient of a new
election, Mr. Bright was invited to stand as a candidate for the
constituency of Birmingham, by whom he was returned to Parliament, where
he has since continued to represent them. Here he has been very active
in the advocacy of his own peculiar doctrines, some of which have within
a few years gained much in public estimation. Independent of all
parties, he votes usually with the ministry, but sometimes follows Mr.
Disraeli and Lord Stanley below the bar on a division of the House.
This record of eighteen years in the House of Commons is certainly a
remarkable one. While constantly opposing both of the great parties, Mr.
Bright has won the respect of all. His ability as a logician and as an
effective speaker, and his evident honesty and earnestness of purpose,
are conceded by every one. The courage and persistency with which he has
upheld unpopular doctrines compel the admiration of those who recoil
from the changes which he seeks to effect. It is not too much to say
that his character has greatly enhanced the influence of those for whom
he acts, and of whom he is the unquestioned leader. The Radicals were a
mere handful when Bright entered Parliament. They are now beginning to
be feared. Several of the largest and most prosperous cities regularly
send Radical members to Westminster. Some of the profoundest thinkers in
England are inclined to admit that the time is approaching when Radical
ideas shall become practical. Many of them already declare these ideas
to be abstractly just. The English are getting _accustomed_ to Radical
doctrines. In due time they will be ready to pass a fair judgment upon
them.
The progressive party in a nation too often possesses leaders who, being
low-born, are coarse and lawless, or who seek to foster discontent by an
artful demagoguism. A good cause is often discountenanced and rendered
futile by reason of the ignorance or wickedness of those who have been
prominent in its advocacy. John Wilkes and Thomas Paine scandalized the
cause of progress in their time by the profligacy of their lives and the
badness of their motives. So did Robespierre and Danton by the cruel
ambition which actuated them. The character of such men naturally
frightened people of honest intentions from their leadership; while the
extremities to which they carried their views deterred men of practical
sense from upholding them. The reformers of the present generation,
however, exhibit traits which command respect. They pursue a course
which, if not altogether moderate or suited to the times, is evidently
grounded upon deductions of thoughtful reason.
If we were to compress the description of Mr. Bright's character into a
few words, we should say he was honest, earnest, fearless, eloquent. He
is honest; for he casts aside the objects of personal ambition in a life
devotion to an unpopular cause. He is earnest; for he is constant to his
faith, untiring in the effort to instil it into the community. He is
fearless,--morally fearless; for he permits no obstacle, no obloquy, no
powerful antagonism, to check him in the expression of unwelcome
thoughts. He is eloquent; inasmuch as he stands up amid the silence of
the most critical and restless legislature in the world, and compels
members to listen, without interruption, to ideas which in the opinion
of the vast majority are hateful and destructive. His character, as it
has been displayed by a consistent public record, bears the stamp of
truth and ingenuousness. He is candid, almost to a fault. He has no
subtle statecraft; he recognizes no code of expediency. He is impatient
of that spirit which actuates statesmen as a class to sacrifice
something of good for the practical attainment even of a worthy end,--a
spirit which, for our own part, we cannot wholly disapprove. While as a
business man his integrity is perfectly unimpeachable, as a legislator
his opponents have only to fear his strong and indignant eloquence: they
are safe from any thrust which is not open and manly. He was not
destined to become a great statesman: he is too rash, too little
tolerant of antagonistic opinion, too much inclined to absolute
conclusions, too open by nature in giving expression to his thoughts. In
the demolishing process which properly precedes, in a long-established
polity, the constructing process, he has every quality which would fit
him to be a leader. His Quaker blood is of little avail in making him
sit in patience whilst deep social wrongs stare him in the face on every
side. The uprising of the people, especially that peaceable uprising to
which the English people are by nature and precedent inclined to resort,
seeking to cure by prompt action what statesmanship has failed to mend,
would give him the best of opportunities. Quaker though he is, he would
revel in taking the van of a lawful reformation aimed at the abuses he
hates so heartily. So far as the expunging of an iniquitous law from the
statute-book goes, his work would be well done; but when the time came
to fill up the page with a new and just enactment, it would be his part
to yield to more deliberate and judicious counsels. Like Lord Brougham,
he is great in opposition. He can defend well; he can attack far better.
Aggressive warfare is his forte. He is as positive in his theological
and social as in his political opinions. He is a practical
philanthropist, leads a life of strict probity and temperance, and seeks
his pleasure, as well as his duty, in benefiting the human race. He
carries the nervousness and enthusiasm of his public displays into the
amenities of private life. Hearty in his friendships, and affable in
social intercourse, he is liked by most persons and respected by all. He
possesses in a remarkable degree that faculty which is considered as the
trait of an accomplished gentleman,--the faculty of putting you at once
at your ease. In temperament impulsive, he is perhaps too little mindful
of the feelings of others, and somewhat careless of his expressions when
pursuing a subject in which his attention is engrossed. In his manner
there is a blunt sincerity which one who is in his company for the first
time is apt to mistake almost for ill-temper. It, however, results from
his entirely candid disposition, his rigidly practical and business
education, and his carelessness of forms,--by no means from a want of
kindliness or an intention to be discourteous.
A first glance gives one a very good impression of Mr. Bright's
character. He is of medium height, a little inclined to corpulency,
and quick and nervous in his movements. His eye is full of
intelligence,--small, bright, and sharp, apparently powerful to read
another through the countenance. Its expression is, perhaps, a little
hard; it seems to search your thought, and to detect the bent of your
mind. His face is a true British face,--round and full, with firmly set
mouth, positive chin, and that peculiar sort of _hauteur_ which is a
national characteristic. His hair, somewhat gray, is brushed off his
forehead, which is broad and admirably proportioned; and he wears
whiskers on the side of his face, like most middle-aged Englishmen. His
voice is clear, his enunciation rapid, yet distinct, and his choice of
words exact,--excellent, indeed, for one self-educated in the correct
use of language.
Mr. Bright is very attractive as an orator. When it is known that he is
to speak, the galleries are insufficient to hold the multitude which
gathers to hear him. His delivery is prompt and easy. He has none of
that hesitation and apparent timidity which mark the address of many
English orators; but neither, on the other hand, does he possess that
rich and fascinating intonation which forces us to concede the forensic
palm to Mr. Gladstone of all contemporary Englishmen. He expresses
himself with boldness, sometimes almost with rudeness. His declamation
is fresh, vigorous, and almost always even. At times he is unable to
preserve the moderation of language and manner which retains the mastery
over impulse; his indignation carries him away; his denunciation becomes
overwhelming; his full voice rings out, trembling with agitation, as he
exposes some wrongful or defends some good measure: then his vigorous
nature appears, unadorned by cultivated graces, but admirable for its
manliness and strength. This impetuosity, which is so prominent a
characteristic of his oratory, is in marked contrast with the manner of
the late Mr. Cobden, his friend and cooperator. Mr. Cobden was always
guarded, cautious, and studiously accurate, in his language. Mr. Bright
often says things, in the excitement of controversy, which exaggerate
his real sentiments, and which may be used to misrepresent his opinions.
Mr. Cobden, whose temperament was more phlegmatic, was careful to avoid
any undue heat of speech, and hence often passed, erroneously, for a
more moderate thinker than Mr. Bright.
It is with pleasure that we turn for a moment to speak of Mr. Bright's
course towards America, and especially while we were suffering under the
plague of civil war. Ever since he entered public life, his admiration
of our institutions and history has been frequently the subject of his
discourse. He has not hesitated to declare that feeling when he must
have been aware how unwelcome it was to the greater part of his
countrymen. He has, indeed, recognized in our success the practical
attainment of those views to which he has so long been devoted, and
which his experience as a public man seems only to have confirmed. His
magnanimous mind has scornfully rejected that too prevalent English
characteristic,--envy at the growing power of a sister nation. He has
only seen in our progress a benefit and an example to mankind. As such
he has gloried in it, and not the less because we are a kindred race and
an offshoot from British civilization. The fact that we have been the
inheritors and partakers of the glories of the English nation, which
seems to increase the asperity with which many English statesmen now
regard us, is to Mr. Bright a greater reason why sympathy should be
extended to us. His speeches on America manifest a thorough knowledge of
our history and of the spirit of our Constitution. He has studied us in
the earnest desire to know and believe the truth, and faithfully to
present to others the results of his study. We do not think it
extravagant to say that few of our own public men evince a more
intelligent knowledge of our record than Mr. Bright: certainly in this
respect he is far in advance of the leading English statesmen. When in
1861 the Rebellion broke out, Mr. Bright raised his voice boldly against
the non-committal policy of England, in declaring herself neutral. He
seemed to comprehend at once the causes of the war. He correctly
regarded the North as really on the defensive,--defending the integrity
of the nation. He saw the cause of republican liberty trembling in the
balance. From that day to this,--at times when public indignation ran so
high in England that it was almost dangerous to justify the North,--at
times when to avow Northern sentiments was to be met with a howl from
Spithead to the Frith of Forth,--at times when his own supporters, the
manufacturing and commercial classes, feeling sore over the want of
cotton, bitterly complained and pleaded for intervention,--John Bright
has been our constant, zealous, and fearless champion, braving all
England in our cause, and never silent when we were to be vindicated. In
the issue of the war Mr. Bright will see the fruition of the hopes of
the lovers of liberty everywhere. He will rejoice in it as the
successful assertion by national power of those principles which he has
devoted his life to advocating. To his mind the assassination of Lincoln
will appear as the legitimate fruit of Southern treason. We may be sure,
that, whilst the press of England endeavors to divert the guilt of this
atrocity from the heads which gave birth to it, there is one Englishman
at least--that Englishman, John Bright--who will be bold to trace it to
its proper source.
We can do no better than to close this notice by quoting the conclusion
of a speech made by Mr. Bright in December, 1861, to which our attention
has been called during the preparation of this article.
"Whether the Union will be restored or not, or the South will achieve an
unhonored independence or not, I know not and I predict not. But this I
think I know, that in a few years, a very few years, the twenty millions
of freemen in the North will be thirty millions or fifty millions,--a
population equal to or exceeding that of this kingdom. When that time
comes, I pray it may not be said among them, that, in the darkest hour
of their country's trials, England, the land of their fathers, looked on
with icy coldness, and saw, unmoved, the perils and calamities of her
children. As for me, I have but this to say: I am one in this audience,
and but one in the citizenship of this country; but if all other tongues
are silent, mine shall speak for that policy which gives hope to the
bondsmen of the South, and tends to generous thoughts and generous words
and generous deeds between the two great nations who speak the English
language, and from their origin are alike entitled to the English name."
Let Americans honor the Englishman who spoke thus nobly!