his firm had been at a stand for nearly a year (speech of 30 June 1863). It was the crisis of the war. In the darkest hours of disaster, when even the North's well-wishers despaired, Bright invariably anticipated a reunion. The value of his speech on 30 June was recognised' by a formal tribute of thanks from the New York Chamber of Commerce.
Cobden, it has been seen, had practically abandoned expectation of an effective parliamentary reform, at least during Palmerston's lifetime. He hoped, however, to arouse popular interest in finance and land-reform. On 24 Nov. he met his constituents at Rochdale and delivered an address on the subject of the laws as affecting agricultural labourers. Bright was present, and spoke on the same topic. The 'Times' newspaper, which from the first had described them habitually as the 'anti-corn-law incendiaries' and had pursued them with 'virulent, pertinacious, and unscrupulous opposition' (Cobden to Delane, 9 Dec. 1863), fastened upon Bright's argument in favour of a greater distribution of land and increased facilities for land transfer as a 'proposition for a division among them (the poor) of the lands of the rich' (3 Dec.) Cobden, who had also been assailed (26 Nov.), rushed to his friend's defence, and an acrimonious controversy ensued [see Delane, John Thadeus]. The attack upon Bright, Cobden had no difficulty in showing to be a calumnious misrepresentation. Bright's defence of himself was made in a speech on the land question at Birmingham on 26 Jan. 1864. A contemptible example of the malignancy with which Bright was at this time assailed will be found in an anonymous pamphlet, dated 1864, entitled 'Remarks on certain Anonymous Articles designed to render Queen Victoria unpopular, with an Exposure of their Authorship.' The writer selected passages from articles in the 'Manchester Examiner' and 'London Review,' which, with the assistance of innuendo and leaded type, were distorted into reflections upon the queen imputing them to Bright as the author of a plot to render the queen unpopular and thereby to undermine the throne. The ephemeral literature of the day supplies abundant evidence that it was a settled belief on the part of Bright's political opponents that he designed to supplant the monarchy by a republic. While Bright was in favour of the removal by the state of legislative impediments to the acquisition of land, he remained, here as elsewhere, a consistent individualist. He did not propose the creation by the state of a peasant proprietary, still less did he countenance schemes for land nationalisation (Letter of 27 Feb. 1884). Similarly, on the drink question, he opposed (8 June 1864) Mr. (afterwards Sir) Wilfrid Lawson's permissive bill, on the ground that the remedy for drunkenness is not parental legislation but the improvement and instruction of the people.'
Meanwhile Cobden's health continued to wane. On 4 March 1865 Bright went to visit him at Midhurst. Bright had expressed a wish that he would come to London to oppose the government's scheme for fortifying Quebec. He came on 21 March, and died at his lodgings in Suffolk Street on 2 April, Bright being at his bedside. On the day after Cobden's death Bright uttered a short but pathetic tribute to his memory. On 7 April he was present at the funeral at West Lavington. One of his last great speeches before Cobden's death, that demolishing the current schemes for minority representation (Birmingham, 18 Jan. 1865), was the outcome of a suggestion from his friend (Cobden to Bright, 16 Jan.) During Cobden's illness he took up the question of Canadian defences, and spoke in the House of Commons against the vote for the fortifications at Quebec (29 March). The dissolution of parliament took place on 6 July, and on the 12th Bright was returned for Birmingham unopposed.
The radical party had long felt Palmerston to be an incubus on their energy. Bright, writing on 10 Sept., declared that he was not anxious that reform 'should be dealt with during his (Palmerston's) official life.' On 18 Oct. Palmerston died. Bright at once renewed his activity, feeling there was now some hope of influencing the policy of the liberal ministry. The public mind was exercised by disaffection in Ireland and reports of fenian conspiracies. On 13 Dec. at Birmingham Town Hall, he denounced the established church as a source of discontent. When government proposed the suspension of the habeas corpus in Ireland, he yielded a reluctant assent, but he took occasion to review and condemn the administration of Ireland since the union. He was active in promoting the trial of Governor Eyre for the execution of Gordon, being one of the Jamaica committee constituted for that purpose.
On 12 March 1866 Gladstone moved for leave to bring in the government reform bill. Bright delivered on the following night an attack, replete with humour, upon Messrs. Horsman and Lowe, the leading opponents of the measure. He compared them and their friends, the whigs adverse to reform, to the refugees of the cave of Adullam, thereby introducing the party nickname 'Adullamites' to political history. In his
