ANTI CORN-LAW LEAGUE. (From the "Times," March 4.)

New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 650, 7 July 1852, Page 4

ANTI CORN-LAW LEAGUE. (From the "Times," March 4.)

Between Manchester and London there aro but two degrees of latitude and as many of longtitude, but if they were Antipodes they could not be more contrary. Whatever is right here, or generally in the rest of the world, is wrong in that favoured region between the Ribble and the Mersey. There they go by the rule of the road, of which the proverb says :—: — " The rule of the road is a paradox quite; " Fot 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 they decently can out of their creed, is, Si optas pacem, helium para. A declaration of w&v against this country from all the nations in Europe would not excite half the ectas>ies in the Army aud Navy Club that Lord Derby's simple acceptance of office lias at the head quarters of the League. We only hope that in the actual event of -war our tiiree-declceis will l)e got ready as quickly as ten of thousands are snlnscribed against the agricultural invasion. The arsenals of Free Trade are already teeming with manifestoes, candidates, motions, tracts, and all the materials of controversy. The plan is to seize the hostile fleet in the harbour at once, and burn it, before it can get room for its manoeuvres In the open sea. It is absolutely impossible, says Mr. Cobden, that any Frenchmen can be so little of a gentleman as to attack us unawares ; bnt from English gentlemen there is nothing too bad to be expected. His only policy is to foiee 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 picturing as the sister of Rubens, " Peace and Plenty," is cud-

denly transformed into a quant 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 greatest 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 or three years without sliding somehow or other into abuse of The Times, with some scheme for swamping The Times with a flood of penny papers containing nothing but news from Manchester, or Avith some allusion to the pos- j sibility of The Times being one. day suppressed. The liberty of the press is destroyed at Paris ; it may be at London ; and should that come to f)ass, Mr. Cobden intimates that he will neither )e surprised nor indignant, as it will, in his opinion, be no more than we deserve. One tiling is very clear, that we have far too 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 rcx-nn-mending forbearance and a fair trial. In order to establish a case so flattering 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 Opposi- | tion. Now, every lawyer knows that if you make out your own case you may have your own '■ opinion. Certainly, were all as Mr. Cobden j describes, there might be some grounds for his vituperation. But the case is far otherwise. In justice to Mr. Disraeli we are bound to say that, whatever abstract opinion he m.iv have admitted in favour of Protection, he h?s 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 have 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 at the risk of breaking with his 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 twelvemonth since it was anxiously debated in the agricultural world whether his Lordship had given up Protection or not ; and at one time there were so many examples of the same kind that we described it as a rot among the Protectionists, or something of that sort. Here, then, is our case. We have been for years urging upon the leaders of " the country party," as they called themselves, to give up all idea of a corn law, whether they wished 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 say, 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. The occasion on which they are summoned has no more to do with Protection than it has with Popery or with Protestantism. There is then nothing in che circumstances of their accession to power that should qualify their existing position, which we have described 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 whore's the 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 has already under — liberty to adhere to that policy which he had long ago urged on his party as the only possible one 2 Are we first to give advice, and then, when a man lias 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 ajs that policy is now very much what it has been for two years, and what we urged upon them, we don't see , why we, are suddenly to assxime that it is a fraud on the country. On the other hand, 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 illiberality, simply atrocious It may be politic, but it is false 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 betrays the falsity of the premises on which he founds these charges of immoralit)'', when he lets out, in a subsequent passage of his speech, " They arc all anxious to get rid of it (Protection), no doubt." So this high moral authority manufactures his facts just as it answers his purposes. When he wants to aw the country against the new Ministers, he says the)- 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 in July or August than this or next month, and that it will appeal on the ground of Protection, then compel the 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 Zollvci'ein 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, may bo rivived 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, lie 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 proceeds 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.