A love for what is just
Howard Gregg reflects on the impact of the Quaker faith on John Bright
John Bright was educated at several Quaker schools before he entered his father’s cotton mill in Rochdale at the age of fifteen. Between 1839-1889 the firm bore the name of ‘John Bright and Brothers’, although from 1840 his brother Thomas managed the mill. Bright was thus enabled to pursue a political career, reflecting the political emergence of the industrial and commercial class after 1832.
A Quaker background
Bright’s Quaker faith was essential to his life and politics. He never gave vocal ministry in Meeting for Worship whilst becoming one of the greatest parliamentary orators of the Victorian period. Possessed of a deep spiritual humility he could be sensitive to others’ religious difficulties. Essentially, Bright expressed his religion in action, largely in the context of national politics where, inevitably, there would be a conflict between principles and practice.
Bright traced his political Liberalism and his belief ‘in the equality of all men in the sight of heaven and in the equal rights of all men before earthly governments’ to his Quakerism. To this could be added his concept of freedom, which he cherished and promoted, in economic, religious and political contexts.
Entering the politics arena
Bright’s election for Durham in 1843 made him the second Quaker member of parliament. London Yearly Meeting’s epistle of 1843 urged Friends to be ‘quiet in the land’ but Bright’s spirited protest in Yearly Meeting supporting action against ‘unjust laws’ won him polite applause from Friends present. He and Cobden led the Anti-Corn Law League to win cheaper bread for the working class by the removal of agricultural protection, which restrained freedom of trade with other countries. Success came in 1846 when Peel removed the Corn Laws from the statute book.
Bright continued his father’s active interest in the material well-being and education of his work force, who rallied to his defence when unjust allegations were made about his treatment of them. He did not oppose restriction of children’s hours but a deep belief in laissez-faire – that government should not interfere in the economy – led him to aggressively oppose limits on the working hours of factory workers. In doing so he ignored the economic power of the employer and seriously misunderstood the motives of the reformer and peer, Anthony Ashley Cooper. As an independent member of parliament Bright made his mark in 1846-1868, but he was unable to find an alternative power base to the existing political parties. Victorian Quakerism could not provide an alternative, whilst his outspoken criticism of the political establishment kept him out of government.
An independent voice
John Bright would often prove more effective in an independent role – but not in his courageous opposition to the Crimean War of 1854-1856. His non-interventionist stand seemed too pro-Russian and concerned with trade to his contemporaries. He persisted in his views, despite the opposition of his constituents in Manchester, and the clear support for the war in the country. His celebrated ‘Angel of Death’ speech on 23 February 1855, appealing for a negotiated peace, moved the House of Commons but at no time could Bright influence or direct policy. He suffered a nervous breakdown in 1856 and lost his Manchester seat in 1857.
A pragmatic approach
Elected for Birmingham in 1857, Bright thereafter became more pragmatic in his political activities. He was not an absolutist pacifist and could support violence ‘if it rests on a moral basis’. Thus, he supported the north in the American Civil War, especially when Abraham Lincoln identified the Union cause with the abolition of slavery in 1862.
He used his oratory very effectively between 1865-1867 to help secure a modest admission of the working class to the vote. He became the first Quaker cabinet minister in 1868 as president of the board of trade, but found government stressful and demanding. A second breakdown occured in 1870. He resigned from the second Gladstone government in 1882, opposing the British naval bombardment of Alexandria – ‘a manifest violation of international law, and of the moral law’.
The promptings of love
Writing to JB Braithwaite, the leading Quaker evangelical, in 1859 Bright declared, ‘I believe I am not moved by ambition or the desire for personal advantage. I feel a strong love for what is just and strong sympathy with those who suffer. I endeavour to base our government and policy on morality and truth’. In practice this was to prove no easy undertaking but, whenever principle emerged or a deep and strongly held point of view required it, Bright usually held firm to his individual position.
Bright could be a vigorous champion of specific causes combined with a moral vision grounded in Quakerism. He consistently supported the effort to give Jewish MPs their full parliamentary rights and opposed the anti-Catholic Ecclesiastical Titles Act of 1851. He supported remedial measures for Ireland, but not Home Rule. He firmly supported the atheist Bradlaugh’s efforts to take his seat in parliament by affirmation between 1880 and 1885. On 12 June 1877 he succinctly expressed his rejection of the deterrence argument for capital punishment: ‘They strangle in private human life, that human life may have greater reverence among men.’
Politics and faith
Bright’s political career saw him move from the outspoken radical of 1843–60 to a senior member of the Liberal governing elite. Seen as aggressive and dogmatic by some of his contemporaries, he was valued by others for his emphasis on ‘loyalty to conscience’ in political action. His oratory, a command of spoken English that could both move and impress all who heard him, gave him a pre-eminence in parliament and the country. Underlying his politics was his quiet Quaker faith, which played a vital and creative role in his life’s work. In 1875 he told the American Quaker, Allen Jay, that he thought ‘the Lord had led him in the course that he pursued’.
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.