power, and at the same time touched the nadir of his
popularity. Public opinion was setting strongly against Russia. In
stemming the tide of war the so-called 'Manchester school' had a
difficult task, and was severely criticized. The idea of the 'balance of
power' made little appeal to Bright; and as a Quaker he was reluctant to
see England interfering in a quarrel which did not seem to concern her.
The satirists indeed scoffed unfairly at the doctrine of 'Peace at any
price'; for Bright was content to put aside the principle and to argue
the case on pure political expediency. But his attacks on the wars of
the last century were too often couched in an offensive tone with
personal references to the peerages won in them, and he spoke at times
too bitterly of the diplomatic profession and especially of our
ambassador at Constantinople. Nothing shows so clearly the danger of the
imperfect education which was forced on Bright by necessity, and which
he had done so much to remedy, as his attitude to foreign and imperial
politics. In his home he had too readily imbibed the crude notion that
our Empire existed to provide careers for the needy cadets of
aristocratic families, and that our foreign policy was inspired by
self-seeking officials who cared little for moral principles or for the
lives of their fellow countrymen. A few months spent with Lord Canning
at Calcutta, or with the Lawrences at Lahore, frequent intercourse with
men of the calibre of Lord Lyons or Lord Cromer, would have enlightened
him on the subject and prevented him from uttering the unwarranted
imputations which he did. Yet in his great parliamentary speeches of
1854 he rose high above all pettiness and made a deep impression on a
hostile house. Damaging though his speech of December 22 was to the
Government, no minister attempted to reply. Palmerston, Russell, and
Gladstone, with all their power, were unequal to the task. Disraeli told
Bright that a few more such speeches 'would break up the Government';
and Delane, the famous editor of _The Times_, wrote that 'Cobden and
Bright would be our ministers but for their principle of peace at any
price'.

But Bright was not thinking of office or of breaking up Governments: he
was thinking of the practical end in view. His next great speech was on
February 23, 1855, when a faint hope of peace appeared. It was most
conciliatory in tone, and was a solemn appeal to Palmerston to use his
influence in ending the war.