personal as well as political, between Governor Eyre and William Gordon, the political leader of the blacks. Eyre arrested Gordon at Kingston, where martial law did not prevail; carried him into a district where martial law had been proclaimed and a court-martial was sitting; packed the court afresh; and when even that packed court hesitated to put the man to death without evidence, himself ordered the execution. "Murder," said John Bright, "is foul; and judicial murder is the foulest of all."

A Committee was formed in the interest of humanity and justice. We were not bloody-minded; we did not want to hang Governor Eyre or care to punish him, otherwise than by dismissal from his Governorship, from which in fact he was removed. But we did wish, by bringing him to the bar of justice, to prove that all British subjects, black or white, were under the protection of British law. We did want to vindicate humanity. In this we were defeated by the sympathy of the Tory upper classes with arbitrary and sanguinary violence. A member of the House of Lords told Governor Eyre publicly that if his case came before them he would find them a friendly tribunal. The Anglican clergy played their usual part, confirming and strengthening my opinion of them. Such was the natural consequence of Establishment. Carlyle, Kingsley, and Ruskin were of course for violence, which they took for strength. The calls of sentimental eunuchs like Ruskin for blood on this occasion, and at the time of the Indian

Mutiny, made an indelible impression on my mind. The best fruit of our movement was a memorable Charge of Chief-Justice Cockburn against the abuse of martial law. The Chief-Justice weakened in his practical conclusion, but to his declaration of principles justice and mercy could always appeal.

On the Jamaica Committee I met John Stuart Mill,2 the most strictly conscientious man, I think, that I ever knew. In an unhappy moment he allowed himself to be elected to the House of Commons, and sat night after night, like an image of patience, listening to debates on which the time of the great philosopher and economist was miserably wasted. His conscientiousness was carried into his habits as a speaker. His speeches were prepared, and he sometimes lost the thread. But he would not, like less scrupulous speakers, fill the gap with mere words; he would wait, however awkward the pause might be, till the thread was recovered. I have always looked upon him as a notable instance of the division which is taking place between the dogmas and the ethics of Christianity; the dogmas remaining with the orthodox, the ethics often going to the infidel.

[This Charge was afterwards printed in pamphlet form. See "Charge of the Lord Chief Justice of England to the Grand Jury at the Central Criminal Court in the case of The Queen against Nelson and Brand. Taken from the Shorthand Writer's Notes, Revised and Corrected by the Lord Chief Justice. With Occasional Notes." Edited by Frederick Cockburn, Esq., of the Crown Office. London: William Ridgway. 1867.]

[2 Author of "A System of Logic"; "Principles of Political Economy"; "Representative Government"; "Utilitarianism"; etc. 1806-1873.]

Upon the ethics it is to be hoped Christendom will reunite.

It was partly, I think, from respect to Mill that Bright and I signed his first petition in favour of Woman Suffrage. Afterwards we both withdrew; and I believe on the same ground, because we found that the best representatives of the sex among our acquaintance were opposed to the measure. Mill's enthusiasm on this subject, I have always suspected, had its source in his personal history. He had received from his father an arid and heart-withering education which developed his intellect intensely, at the expense of his affections. Later in life the affections asserted a power increased by their long suppression. He fell platonically in love with the wife of his friend Mr. Taylor, and consorted with her in a way which he sincerely supposed her husband to approve. His fancy invested her with extraordinary genius. But those who knew her told me that her genius consisted in the faculty of readily imbibing Mill's theories and giving them back to him as her own. In the parts of his works which he ascribes specially to her inspiration, no extraordinary power is shown. Had his book on the Subjection of Women' taken full effect, its exaggerations might have disturbed the peace and happiness of many homes. He did not know, or at least did not lay it to heart, that of the two unions that of the State and that of the family, that of the family is as essential and as sacred as that of the State. [ Published in 1869.]

Another leading member of the Jamaica Committee was Thomas Hughes. It is needless to say that he was Tom Brown grown up. Well did he deserve his statue at Rugby. In him all the manly, the robust, and even the fighting qualities of which Englishmen are proud were combined with perfect gentleness, tenderness, and humanity, as well as with the broadest liberality of mind. With all his vigour and courage, there was not the faintest odour of Jingoism about him. We became great friends, and I was his guest at Chester, when we were fighting together for the Union against Gladstone and Home Rule.

Hughes had been one of the Christian Socialists, who, sympathizing with the Socialist desire of substituting co-operation for competition, tried to give it effect on Christian principles, while the ordinary Socialists were agnostics. Their attempts to set on foot co-operative production were failures, labour not proving able to dispense with the guidance or the support of capital. Whether they had much to do with the brilliant success of co-operative distribution I cannot say. But they certainly did something towards the mitigation of class bitterness. Hughes towards the end of his life was led by his philanthropic zeal to become the founder of a model colony in Tennessee. It appears that he was deceived in the purchase of the land. But all model colonies, like model villages, such as Pullman and Saltaire, have failed. The people do not enter into the spirit of the foundation; their object is to make their

bread, and they fret under regulations. The matter caused Hughes some trouble for a time.

In the Jamaica case, as in the case of the Indian Mutiny, when the savage passion ruled the hour, it was not men like Thomas Hughes, but the weak and hysterical, that were clamouring for violence and blood.

The leader of the Christian Socialists was Frederick Maurice,' a most sincere lover and no mean benefactor of his kind. He formed a circle round him by his transparent sincerity of aim and goodness of soul. His excellence was practical and social. As a thinker he lacked clearness. I have heard him in Lincoln's Inn Chapel preach with the utmost fervour a sermon of which I could hardly understand one word. He was liberal in theology, and proscribed by orthodoxy accordingly. But he managed to persuade himself that the Anglican Articles and Creeds were in reality symbols of freedom.

The Honorary Secretary of the Jamaica Committee was Mr. Chesson,2 now no doubt forgotten, yet not unworthy of remembrance. His life had been devoted to the protection of the aborigines, clients who could not pay their advocates either in money or in fame, and of

[Frederick Denison Maurice. 1805-1872. Founded, with Sterling, the Apostles' Club at Cambridge; inaugurated, and Principal of, Working Men's College, London. Professor of Moral Philosophy at Cambridge, 1866; Incumbent of St. Edwards, Cambridge, 1870-1872.]

[2 Frederick William Chesson was "for many years the indefatigable Secretary to the Aborigines Protection Society." He died on April the 30th, 1888, aged 54.]