THE LATE JOHN BRIGHT ON WAR.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."] SIR,—At pro-slavery, otherwise called pro-Boer, meetings, the principles of Bright, Gladstone, Cobden, &c., are con- stantly referred to, the implication being that those states- men, if they were living, would disapprove of the present war in South Africa. But of the great Mr. Bright's sentiments there can be no doubt whatever. "There are some things worse than war," he said, when twitted as a Quaker and a man of peace with his sympathy with the Northern States in the American Civil War. Slavery and the rupture of the Union would, in his opinion, be worse than war. In the case of the American Civil War I was among the minority who followed Mr. Bright. On the grounds on which I then sup- ported the Northern States, I now support the English Government. The victory of the Boers would mean slavery and disunion. But still I am not surprised that the civilised world should vociferously support the weaker side, as it did in the great contest of the "sixties." Have our pro-slavery friends any better ground for thinking Mr. Gladstone would be on their side? It is true he strongly sympathised with the Southern States—the weaker party—in the great Civil War. As he sympathised then with slavery and dis- union, he might now sympathise with the Boers. But it must be remembered that he was responsible for what is now called the Majuba Hill surrender. The Boers were, no doubt, averse to annexation, and he was magnanimous enough to think they should have another chance. I was entirely in accord with this surrender. And it is precisely on that ground that I am now against the Boers. We gave them their chance, and they have abused our forbearance. Who can say that Mr. Gladstone, if ho were alive, would not agree with me in thinking that the cup of their iniquity is full? I believe that he would, if alive, be the protagonist of the anti-Boer cause. Returning to Mr. Bright, I note that the Convention of 1881, to which he was a party, left no doubt as to the suzerainty of England. I cannot recall Mr. Cobden's views in the " sixties," but I cannot think he could ever have supported a people with whom slavery is a religious dogma. It is notorious that another great Liberal leader, Mr. W. E. Forster, was very strongly opposed to giving the Boer a free hand in dealing with the natives. Mr. Statham, one of Mr. Kruger's supporters, attri- butes strong anti-Boer prejudices to the great states- man. Who can doubt that he would be a strong anti. Boer if he were alive now ? I have been a Liberal—noi to say a Radical—all my life. I sat as a young man at the feet of Bright, Cobden, Forster, and Gladstone, and in the prin- ciples I learned from these statesmen I am a strong supporter of the present war. We should have gone to war to uphold these principles when first we learned for certain that the Boers had not accepted Mr. Gladstone's "surrender " in the sense in which its author intended and hoped it would be accepted. Still, better late than never.—I am, Sir, &c., OLD LIBERAL.