MR. COBDEN ON THE "TIMES."

New Zealand Herald, Volume I, Issue 102, 11 March 1864, Page 4

MR. COBDEN ON THE "TIMES."

Tin: tiiemis of Mr. O.biien will iv.nl with much satisfaction the announcement that In- has closed u correspondence mi commenced, and »v v,ntmv to think, so iuaileipiat'cly n-i-minatt-il. Our duty will lie best perionucd if, without atteinpliii"; to introduce iiiiy new facts into the discussion, w.? oiler io inn- leaders such an appreciation ul' tlit- merits of the case on Air. I'ohden's own showint; as wo have boon al.loto'a.nn. Ofthc tone and niannerof Afr. Cobilui's letters it is quite unnecessary lor us to speak. Tocv j hav,. revived from tho press of all shades of opinion a condemnation mere unanimous than wo ever t'euicmj her to iiavi' .-.on on any subject buiilcriiiq- ,-o closely on tin' iloinain of party politics. Mr. I'obden ]ia"s learnt, hy an experience wiiieli ho is not likely soon ! n. fonrel, that the opinion i.f this country w'ill not , (of rate such a lone anil such expressions*.-!* he has , thought lit to adopt, ami that thou-h hemav not think j such 1 liiiiLT- unheenmintr for him in write, tho public ! consider iheiu unsnited lor the perusal of Lri-utleincn. j We gladly pa-- from tilis part of the subject. j liyau unexampled indulgence Mr. '('obden has I been permitted to appear in our minimis to defend himself against censures which ho has never read, and to complain of the anonymous attacks of a person porfcotiv well known in iiim. We invite our readers to observe where Mr. (..'obden, iiavin- had the freest, scop,- to argue his own ease, has contrived to laud himself. The facts are these : -Mr. I!ri:;bt complained at Kochdalcthat onc-haif of the people live i in houses of not more than live pounds yearly value, I thai with regard to the agiiciiltuml labo-urier fcui dalism exists, that po'.crtv and serfdom are his lot, ; that our laws are intended to hrin- vast tracts of land inlo the possession of one maii, and that this system is a curse to the country and dooms the agricultural labourer to perpetual poverty and degradation. If the 'people were tairlv represented," these evils, Mr. I.Vighl (l.inlcs. would cea-e. Tho.-e words arc clearly no invitation io agrarian outrage. They are an assertion id' the connexion e.xis'iiu; between the present restricted stale of the franchise and what Mr. ISriidit calls feudality ami serfdom.—that is. as we uuiler.-laud him, large estates of land in the hands of I he rich, no estates of laud in (he hands of i the poor. They are the asserlion of a second connexion, the connexion between a real rrprescntn- j lion —by which we understand something like man- i hood sulfrago—and the breaking up of "tin; presold | .-late of feudality and serfdom -that is. the cutting | up of the cstales of the rich and giving hind to the | poor. AW can understand these word.- in no other sense than as an invitnlimi lothe poor Io obtain ihe franchise with a view io Ihe divi-uui of landed property, to make a political in order to make an atirnrian revolution, and us such we alluded Io it, when wriiiugon another subject, as "Air. llrighl's plan for the division aiming the poor of (he land of the rich." Air. liright docs not. proceed to.show how Ihe reduction of the franchise w ill ili\ ide the large estates of the rich or place the ownership of land within ihe reach of the poor. Jle contents himself with, staling dogmatically the neccssaiy connexion between tho two Illinois, leaving every one to supply the connecting link'for himself. this is, we believe, a fair stalcniimt of Ihe fuels of Ihe case al Ihe time when Mr. (.'obden came forward to protect Air. liright. and incideniallv Io sav something for himself. Air. Cobdcu's observation's were much Io Ihe same el.'eei as Air. llrighl's, only that he was more explicit as to the gro-, ianees that j tho poor had not, a freehold intcro.-l, in the land, I and less explir.it as to the remei.lv to be allbrded bv j a Parliament lo be elected from' a greatly extended i franchi-e. We online ourselves to Air. | speech, and cannot, agree lo perplex Ihe question Ivy mixing that speech up with the similar remarks oY : Air. C'obden. The nalnral course for Air. (.'obdl-n I I lo adopt when he comes forward to reprove us for j ; misi-rproscmaling ihe speech of Air. 'Sh-h-Jit, will, | j which he coni].leiely idoulilicd himself, was to point j out to us not only what Mr. Jivr-rlif did not mean, I bid whal he did. That, somehow or other Air. j ! Jlright. considered tiiat lowering the franchise ; , would break up large cstales and give land lo Ihe | poor follows necessarily | n ,in Mr. lirmht's own j words. I'm- this no further proof is needed than ! the substance of these words, as riled above, lint . Air. ('obden seems to think that we have imt sulli- ' i-irutly proved that Air. Jhight meant what !,.• said > unless we can supply the emmee! in- link which he! has cither purposely or accidentally suppressed. AVo ; have done our best. AV C have subject to contradiction, that the means which JUiv.["right eontemplates is to seize ou the landof the rich, anddivide it gratuitously among the poor. This Air. C'obden denies, and bo even alfect.s to doubt whether such a I suggestion has been made. ](, h„ M been sn—c-tei' ! not as Air ( 'obden says, that '• We never imputed to | ' Al.'ssrs. liright and (,'obd( n any more violent means ( ot .lividin.- 11,..- i.-iif<l then bva'rhan-eiiilhclawof succession,- out that •• there are other ami more rflectnal. bceau-e more endurim:. means „( .lividing ill-- I>--A-- f'-.m. :im:m::: the ;„,,.,,- ;l ,. ,:.,;... i

a law, not, as Mr. Cobden inaccurately calls it, of equal testamentary division of land among children, but rather of a division by force of law which no testator is allowed to alter. Such a law is not fairly represented as "dividing- the land of rich equally among the children of the rich," since it applies to small estates as well as largo, and might in some parts of the country immediately, and in others after one or two descents, succeed in creating a class of peasant proprietors. This suggestion Mr. Cobden is at much pains to repudiate, lie need not troublehim-SL-If with argument ; his denial isquitesufficient. "We presume that people mean what they say, and wo, at least, shall not be guilty of the discourtesy of trying to fix upon Mr. Bright a meaning which Mr. C/jbdeti, who claims to speak on his behalf, repudiates. Mr. Cobden appears to think that by saving that it is not by an adoption of the law of France, that Mr. V.rigbt proposes to break up large estate.? and give land to the poor, ho has shown that Mr. Bright has no such intention. But that he will not h /ve done till he informs us what it was that Mr. Bright really did mean. Mr. Cobden tolls us every thing else exeep*. this ; ho calls evidence to character, he denies what he is not accuses of—incitements to agrarian outrage : he di.ca.-ses the Coal Duty, and the Baper Duty, and the cause which led him to read one newspaper instead of another: he is ready to answer every question except this —what vas'the law to be passed by a House of Commons, really- representing the people, the effect of which would be to destroy large properties in land and create small i-:i«s ? We cannot answer this question. "We are not in Mr. Cobden's confidence ; we have never asserted that a Legislature so elected would pass such a law. Mr. Bright has as.-crted it, and Mr. Cobden, writing on his behalf, obviously shrinks from saying what the provisions of that law would be. Of its end and object we are already informed.

Such being our estimate of "Mr. Cobden's position we are led to review the conclusion at which we ha.l arrived. We assumed that before announcing that a reduction of the franchise would lend to the breaking up of large estates, .Mr. Cohdeu and Mr. Bright hud formed to themselves the idea of a law for this purpose, which could not be passed in the existing House of Commons, but which could be passed j M the sort of.House of Commons they wished to create. \\ e fear tint we did them too much honour; we believe that if they had any such scheme they would produce it. Denied any inlormatiou on this point, we em hardly caeapo the conclusion that if Mr. Cobden does notgive us this information, it is because lie has not got iltogive. Mr. Bright was addressing ameeling of lUOU persons in favourof reform. In the present state of the countiy, topics of discontent were not easily found, but there remained, as there always will remain in the happiest societies, the never-failing eonlra-t between rich and poor, between the palace and the garret, between luxury and want, between the great landowner and the precarious tenant of a coilagc and a garden. These things lay in Mr. Briitht'.- way and he found Ihem, and he allowed himself to hold out hopes that a greater approach to political equality would tend to redress (he inequality of conditions. If Iks be so, we may acquit .Messrs. Bright and Cobden of any deliberate plan worked out and matured J o'the division of the lands of the rich among the pior, but it will only be to charge them with the much heavier oilenee of employing the position which they occupy to work upon the passions, excite the envy, and stimulate the cupidity of :v large meeting of working men ; to sow discord between class and class : to attribute to bad laws ami selfish interests the inevitable dispensations of frovilience ; and to lead their audience to seek in violent political change that uny.roveinenf of circumstances which (an only come to the poor by thrill, by industry, and by temperance.