Mr. Jacob Bright, M.P. for Manchester, and Mr. Baines, M.P.
for Leeds, both addressed political meetings late last week, and their speeches form a curious contrast. Mr. Jacob Bright, as usual, speaks like his brother minus his imagination, sagacity, and power, but not minus his wrath. "He would assist in the defence of the country, but no pretext should induce him to adopt in the slightest degree an intermeddling policy." " Inextricable confu- sion followed the moment the strict line of non-intervention was departed from. He for one, whatever might occur, would never be tempted, whether in defence of treaties or anything else, to depart from it. Of course he might be told that it was a mean and selfish policy, and he would admit that it was so, if any one could show him that it ever benefited the world to depart from such a policy." God forbid we should attempt to make Mr. Jacob Bright see what he has made up his mind not to see. It would be a hopeless task. But why does he vote the estimates for law and justice? Is there any distinction of principle between intervention between nation and nation, and intervention between individual and individual ? If it be a law of nature that it is pure mischief to prevent the con- quest of weak nations by strong, we should have supposed it to be equally a law of nature that it is pure mischief to prevent the thrashing of a woman by a man. Mr. Jacob Bright and his school have that sort of superstitious worship for non-interven- tion, that we almost wonder they do not recognize non-intervention between a falling body and the ground, as a new principle of duty.
Previous page
