and judicially determined that the Territorial legislatures, authorities created by Congress, had not the power to exclude or confiscate slave property, I confess that I had not anticipated that the doctrine of "unfriendly legislation" would be set up. Hence, I need not say to you that I do not believe in the doctrine of unfriendly legislation; that I do not believe in the authority of the Territorial legislatures to do by indirection what they cannot do directly. I repose upon the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, as to the point that neither Congress. nor the Territorial legislature has the right to obstruct or confiscate the property of any citizen, slaves included, pending the Territorial condition. I do not see any escape from that decision, if you admit that the question was a judicial one; if you admit the decision of the Supreme Court; and if you stand by the decision of the highest court of the country.

JOHN BRIGHT

(1811-1889)

OHN BRIGHT has been called the most eloquent of the Liberal orators of his day, and he was certainly the most strenuous, the most forcible, as he was no doubt the most effective of them all.

To appreciate his relations to the England of his time, to the British empire, and to the movement of the world in general, it is necessary to keep in view the fact that he stood for the largest possible measure of free intercourse and uncoerced co-operation among all men in all countries, and conversely for the minimum of forcible interference of nation with nation, class with class, individual with individual.

This idea gave him his strength in politics, and it also fixed his limitations. The England of his day was engaging more and more actively in "world-politics," while he preached nonintervention. His opposition to the Crimean War defeated him for Parliament in 1857 when he sought re-election before a Manchester constituency. Vindicated by election from Birmingham, he remained in Parliament for more than thirty years. In 1882, when a member of the Gladstone cabinet, he had presented to him the question of the coercive extension of "spheres of influence," as it was involved in the bombardment of Alexandria. However easily other Liberals might find reasons reconciling such aggressive acts to their party principles and to their ideas of public policy, the habits and tendencies of his lifetime governed him and compelled his resignation from the cabinet.

If honesty, strength of purpose, and courage to hold a predetermined course regardless of the opinions of others, constitute the chief grounds for respecting the character of a public man, then John Bright, regardless of the nature of his opinions, is one of the most respectable public men of his century. Perhaps it is true that a party under his leadership would have been reduced to a mere balance of power, but it is probable that the force he stands for would make such a balance of power the controlling factor in every real crisis. Mr. Gladstone was an organizer, because with many of the same qualities which made Bright admirable, and illustrating the same tendencies almost to the point of parallelism, he was more capable of looking into the immediate future and seeing all that in

looking to the long run Bright was likely to pass over as immaterial or even as contemptible. It would not be just or historical to call Gladstone an opportunist, but he was a party leader, a great organizer, a man who, while he was directed throughout his life by principle, had that desire for immediate practical results which increases political effectiveness in a given case, but often works to prevent the most effective operation of principle in shaping the course of events in that higher domain of politics where the forces which govern are too manifold and involved to be comprehended by any mind, however great. It is in this domain that men like Bright are most effective. It is not the fault of Bright that a strong conservative reaction has overtaken the English world at the close of the nineteenth century. He asked no quarter, and on questions of principle conceded nothing; yet few men have been really more conservative in method than he. It is not necessary to assume him correct in his methods of applying his theories, but if we look into his general plan of work in public affairs we cannot fail to see that he is, above everything, the advocate of quiet and peaceful growth,-of development through natural processes of education and evolution. He most ardently desired that the world should grow better, and, being an optimist by nature, he was fully convinced that, if given an opportunity to do so in peace, it would develop to the extent of the removal of those oppressive restrictions which check its progress.

He was the son of a Quaker cotton spinner of Lancashire, and the influence of this heredity affected him deeply, showing itself constantly in his work for the peaceful extension of industrial helpfulness and coöperation throughout the world, regardless of national boundaries. Born near Rochdale, in Lancashire, in 1811, he grew up at a time when the condition of manufacturing operatives was often miserable in the extreme. From his entrance into public life, in 1843, when he took his seat in Parliament, until within a short time of his death, he was at the front in every fight for reform. He worked with Cobden against the corn laws, and was himself the moving spirit in the agitation against the game laws, under which a man's liberty, or even his life, had often been accounted less important than the security of a rabbit warren. In all questions which concerned the United States, his principles almost inevitably carried him to the defense of American institutions. He dissented from Gladstone on Irish Home Rule,- for the same reason, no doubt, which led him to sympathize with the side of the Union in the American Civil War. He died March 27th, 1889.

I

WILL THE UNITED STATES SUBJUGATE CANADA ? (Delivered in the House of Commons on the Defense of Canada in 1865)

HOPE the debate on the defense of Canada will be useful, though I am obliged to say, while I admit the importance of the question brought before the House, that I think it is one of some delicacy. Its importance is great, because it refers to the possibility of a war with the United States, and its delicacy arises from this, that it is difficult to discuss the question without saying things which tend rather in the direction of war than of peace. The difficulty now before us is that there is an extensive colony or dependency of this country adjacent to the United States, and if there be a war party in the United States,— a party hostile to this country,- that circumstance affords it a very strong temptation to enter without much hesitation into a war with England, because it feels that through Canada it can inflict a great humiliation on this country. At the same time, it is perfectly well known to all intelligent men, and especially to all statesmen and public men of the United States,-it is as well known to them as it is to us, that there is no power whatever in this United Kingdom to defend successfully the territory of Canada against the United States. We ought to know that in order to put ourselves right upon the question, and that we may not be called upon to talk folly and to act folly. The noble lord at the head of the government—or his government, at least—is responsible for having compelled this discussion; because if a vote is to be asked from the House of Commons- -and it will only be the beginning of votes-it is clearly the duty of the House to bring the matter under discussion. That is perfectly clear for many reasons, but especially since we have heard from the GovernorGeneral of Canada that in the North American provinces they are about to call into existence a new nationality; and I, for one, should certainly object to the taxation of this country being expended needlessly on behalf of any nationality but our own. What I should like to ask the House first of all is this: Will Canada attack the States? Certainly not. Next, will the States attack Canada, keeping England out of view altogether? Certainly not. There is not a man in the United States, probably, whose voice or opinion would have the smallest influence, who

would recommend or desire that an attack should be made by the United States on Canada with a view to its forcible annexation to the Union. There have been dangers, as we know, on the frontier lately. The Canadian people have been no wiser than some Members of this House, or a great many men among the richer classes in this country. When the refugees from the South,—I am not speaking of the respectable, honorable men from the South, many of whom have left that country during their troubles, and for whom I feel the greatest commiseration, but I mean the ruffians from the South, who in large numbers have entered Canada, and who have employed themselves there in a course of policy likely to embroil us with the United States,when they entered Canada the Canadians treated them with far too much consideration. They expressed very openly opinions hostile to the United States, whose power lay close to them. I will not go into details with which we are all acquainted: the seizing of the American ships on the lakes, the raid into the State of Vermont, the robbery of a bank, the killing of a man in his own shop, the stealing of horses in open day, nor the transaction, of which there is strong proof, that men of this class conspired to set fire to the greatest cities of the Union. All these things have taken place, and the Canadian government made scarcely any sign. I believe an application was made to the noble lord at the head of the foreign office a year ago to stimulate the Canadian government to take some steps to avoid the dangers which have since arisen; but with that sort of negligence which has been seen so much here, nothing was done until the American government, roused by these transactions, showed that they were no longer going to put up with them. Then the Canadian government and people took a little notice. I have heard a good many people complain of Lord Monck's appointment; that he was a follower of the noble lord who had lost his election, and therefore must be sent out to govern a province; but I will say of him that from all I have heard from Canada he has conducted himself there in a manner very serviceable to the colony, and with the greatest possible propriety as representing the sovereign. He was all along favorable to the United States; his cabinet, I believe, has always been favorable, and I know that at least the most important newspaper there has always been favorable to the North. But still nothing was done until these troubles began, and then everything was done. Volunteers were