ANTI-CORN LAW LEAGUE. [From the Times, March 4.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 733, 11 August 1852, Page 3

ANTI- CORN LAW LEAGUE. [From the Times, March 4.]

Between Manchester and London there are buttwo degrees of latitude and as many of longitude, but if they were antipodes they could not be more contrary. Whatever is right here, or geneially in the rest of the world, is wrong in that favoured region between the Rihble and the Mersey. Th*ere they go by the rule of the road, of which the pro* verb says : — " The rule of the road is a paradox quite; " For whichever side you are on, " If you go to the left you are sure to be right, " If you go to the right you are wrong." When the country is threatened with, invasion Manchester recommends* an immediate disarmament, while its maxim against the' Protectionists at home, who are wriggling as fast as thpy decently can out of their creed, is, Si optas parent, bellumpara. A declaration of war against this country from all the nations in Europe would not excite half the ectasies in the Army and Navy Club that Lord Derby's simple acceptance 'of office has at the head of the League. We only hope that in the actual event of war our three deckers will be got ready as quickly as tens of thousands are subscribed against the agricultural invasion. The arsenals of free tra-le "are already teeming- with manifestos, candidates, motions, tracts, and all the materials of controversy. The plan is to seize the hostile fleet in the harbour^at oncf, and burn it, before it can got room for. its

manoeuvres in the open sea. It is absolutely impossible, says Mr. Cobden, that any Frenchman can be so little of a gentleman as to attack us unawares ; but from English gentlemen there is nothing too bad to be expected. His only policy is to force them, will or nill, into fighting at once ; and no challenge is too provocative, no insult too gross, no taunt too cutting for this purpose. Free Trade, which we have, all been picluiing as the sister of Rubens, "Peace and Plenty,"^ is suddenly transformed into a guanc virago, mouthing shrill defiance, and shaking her fist in the very face of the object of her suspicion. - We have been roundly lectured of late for'admitting the speculations of soldiers and sailors as to the" defence of this country — as if we were already at war? The very same peaceable gentlemen, "whose good taste is offended with a supposition so uncomplimentary to the neighbouring autocrat, is proclaiming irreconcilable war with some of our own statesmen, whose great offence, on his own admission, is that they disclaim the attempt ' to bring back the Corn Laws. And of course we come in for our share of these" amenities. To the best of our recollection Mr. Cobden has scarcely opened -his mouth for the last two years without sliding -somehow or other into the abase of the The Times, with some scheme for swamping The Times with a flood of penny papers containing "nothing but news from Manchester, or with some allusion to the possibility of The Times being one day suppressed. The liberty of the press is destroyed at Paris ; it may he at London ; and should that time come to pass, Mr. Cobden intimates that be will neither be surprised nor indignant, as it will, in his opinion, be no more than we deserve. One thing is very clear, that we have far 100 much liberty for Mr. Cobden, and that if, after helping to destroy half-a-dozen governments in succession, he should one morning find himself President of the British Republic, we may expect an early communication from him, of course of a friendly character. On the present occasion Mr. Cobden takes not the peaceable, but the high moral line, and denounces our " immorality" in recommending forbearance and a fair trial. In order to establish a case so fluttering to his own pretensions, and so little to ours, he assumes that the new Ministers came into power by being pledged to Protection, and ~that they were so pledged up to their acceptance of office, and argues that they are bound, for the sake of public morality, to propose in office what they advocated in opposition. Now, every lawyer knows that if you make out your own case you may have your own opinion. Certainly^ were all as Mr. Cobdeu describes, there might be some grounds for his vitupeiation. Bat the case is far otherwise. In jusdee to Mr. Disraeli we are bound to say that, whatever abstract opinion he may have admitted in favour of protection, he has for two or three years strongly urged upon agriculturists the wisdom of dropping that demand. His predecessor in office, and Mr. Cobden himself, cannot but remember that when they had to reply to him, it has been on'the claim to some relief from the burdens alleged to press unequally on the landed interest. - He did so et ihe risk of breaking with bis more bigotted friends, and, in fact, did lose ground by doing^ so. The same may be said, in a less degree, of Lord Derby ; and all must remember that more than a twelvemomh since it was anxiously debated in the agricultural world whether his lordship had given up Protection or not ; and at one lime there were so many examples of the same kind that we described it as a rot among the Protectionists, or somethig of that sort. Here, then, is our case. We have been for years urging upon the ltaders of • the country party,' as they called themselves, to give up all idea of a corn law, whether they W'shed it or not, simply because it was impossible, and to address themselves to objects of a more practicable character. Some of them, particularly Mr. Disraeli, did what we advised, most probably because their own common sense told them it was the only course. While in this position, that is to soy, while holding Protection as an opinion, but having surrendered it for some time as a demand, Mr. Disraeli and his friends are summoned to form an administration, if they can, simply in default of others. Th£ occasion on which they are summoned has no more to do with Protection than it has with Pppery or with Protestantism. There is then nothing in the circumstances of their accession to power that should qu&lify their existing position, which we have desciibed to be Protection as- an opinion, but not as a demand, and as clear of pledges as two or three years' silence could make them. Now, in this case, we should like to know where'slhe immorality of demanding for the new Chancellor of the Exchequer liberty to stand where he stood before he accepted office — liberty to do what he has been doing these two years — liberty to -make no more pledges than he is already under — liberty to adhere to that policy which he ha 3 long ago urged on bis party as the only possible one ? Are we first to give advice, and then, when a'man has been taking it for two years, to turn round and abuse him for doing so? Our political duties relate not to the " country party," though the men themselves have as much claim to consideration as the men of Manchester, or any other men, but to their policy ; and as that policy is now very much what it has been for two years, and what we urgefl upon them, we don't see why we are suddenly to assume that it is a fraud on the country. On the other Land, where is the virtue, the high morality, of trying with all the force of speech-making, multitudes, and money, to drive these men to resume demands which they have long ceased to make? We can see a certain policy in pressing hard on an antagonist party, in irritating it, in piquing it, in goading it, -in maddening it, and making it forget all-the wisdom which experience may have taught. It' is the policy which Mr. Cobden has adopted- in this instance : but so far from its being the policy of morality, it seems to us, besides its intense illiberahty, simply atrocious, ft may be politic, but it is fake and foul, for it proceeds on a false assumption as to the facts of the case, and appeals to the most deplorable weaknesses of humanity. What-elSe is it but, simple wickedness to pique and taunt a man back into an error from which he has long since been struggling to escape? Mr. Cobden himself betfays the falbity of the premises on which he founds these charges of immorality, when he lets out, in, a substquent passage of his speech, "They are all anxious to get rid of it (Protection) no dcub,t." So ibis high moral authority manufactures his facts just ,aa it answers his, purposes. Wheu he wants to

stir the country against tbe new Ministers, he says they are really practising to bring' back Protection ; when he wants to make them out contemptible, he calls Protection a tin kettle tied to their tails which they wish to get rid of. Of course we are not objecting to any decided and vigorous policy if cause can be- shown" for it. Should it appear that the Government will gain ground by forbearance, and will appeal to the country with a better chance of success ia July or August than this or next month, and that it will appeal on the ground of Protection, then compel tbe earliest possible appeal. We have already given it as our opinion that the brightening prospects of agriculture will every month weaken the case for Protection, and we now find the scarcity so great in the States of the Zollverein, that the duties,' on the importation of corn, flour, and vegetables are suspended by decree till August 31. But this policy, mainly compelling an early appeal, should not be entertained without some thought of the consequences, and what Government we are to have in the place of the present, and, possibly also, of the past. Nor should it be overlooked that if the appeal be precipitated by violence, the war of classes, which has been almost slumbering for these two years, tnty be 'revived into dangerous activity. These considerations enter into the question of policy, for it is not at all clear that .when Mr. Cobden urges an immediate settlement of the controversy, be is not taking the very course to revive and perpetuate it. We object to no policy which can be^ proved to be ~ such, so' as it be honest. But we do object to a policy which pToceeds upon falsehood, which plays upon weakness, which panders to malignity, and which, under the disguise of patriotism, seeks only the 'incidental advantages which strife and confusion may possibly bring to its particular authors.