Chapter XXV (6)

The evils which this wretched commercial system has brought both upon Great Britain and her Colonies, cannot be cured by a remedy applied solely to one injured interest. No such selfish cry has ever been raised on the part of the agriculturists; on the contrary, we have all along maintained that it is only by a deliberate revision of the whole system, with due consideration to the circumstances, of each particular interest, that the proper measure of justice to British industry can be ascertained. Lord Derby does not propose in any way to favour the agriculturist at the expense of the artisan. His object and his desire is to place British labour on its proper footing, and to secure it against being crushed by the weight of foreign competition. We are of those who firmly believe in the reciprocity of interests in this great country. We cannot understand how one large interest can be unduly prostrated for the benefit of another. We are convinced that partial legislation ever has been, and ever must be, disastrous; and we agree entirely in the sentiment expressed by an eminent orator, in a speech delivered in the House of Commons--"Let them but once diminish the consumption of British-grown corn, and from that moment the consumption of iron, of hardware, of cotton, and of woollens must decline. There would come a fresh displacement of labour, and a fresh lowering of wages; and discontent, disturbance, and misery, would prove its inevitable consequences." Now, although it may be rather out of place, in this part of our paper, to state any facts relating to the present condition of the country, we are tempted to give one instance, which fully corroborates the views of the said orator, and proves the justness of his remark. The wages of the iron miners and colliers in the west of Scotland, a numerous and important class, seeing that upwards of fifteen thousand persons are directly engaged in that branch of industry in the two counties of Lanark and Ayr, were in 1845, and previous years, from 5s. to 6s. per day--on the average _five and sixpence_. But now that the duty has been taken off foreign corn, and British agriculture has been depressed, their wages have fallen to 2s. 6d. or 3s. per day--on the average, _two and ninepence_. Now let us see what the miners have gained in exchange. The average price of wheat for the years 1842, 1843, 1844, and 1845, was 48s. 5½d. per quarter. If we assume the present price to be 38s., there is a diminution of about _one-fifth_. To that extent, therefore, we may presume that the miners have profited by the reduction of the price of bread; but we apprehend it would be difficult to persuade them that the benefit is at all commensurate to the loss. They may save a fifth upon one article of consumption, but their wages are reduced to _one-half_.

If it should be said that this is not a fair illustration, and that the depression in the iron districts arises from peculiar circumstances unconnected with the question of Free Trade, we reply, that to the iron trade, more perhaps than to any other in the kingdom, the most extravagant representations were made of the increased consumption which must follow on the opening of the ports. Not only have those promises utterly failed, but this most important branch of industry has been brought down to a point only short of absolute annihilation. The masters are not only realising no profit, but they are large annual losers by carrying on their works. The men, as we have already seen, are on half wages.

But who was the orator that, in 1839, predicted with such exceeding accuracy the decline of the iron and other trades as a necessary consequence of a diminution in the consumption of British corn? Hansard gives us the name: it is that of SIR JAMES GRAHAM.

In truth, unless an early and thorough revision of our whole commercial system is made, the mercantile interests of Great Britain will be placed in the greatest jeopardy. This may appear incredible to that portion of the public who are gulled by the political economists, and who are content to receive the Board of Trade returns of exports and imports as satisfactory proofs of prosperity. But there is not a merchant in one of our large towns who does not know that the case is otherwise. The present number of the Magazine contains a paper from a valued correspondent in Liverpool, giving a fearful account of the losses which have been sustained during the bygone year of prosperity and Free Trade; and we are enabled, on the very best authority, to state that Glasgow is at this moment suffering under the effects of extreme mercantile depression. This may, and undoubtedly does, conduce to cheapen commodities; but such cheapness will be dearly purchased by the sacrifice of capital, and the wholesale ruin of thousands. It is the knowledge of these facts, and, in many cases, the bitter experience of them, which has wrought such a change in the mercantile mind of the country. No one has profited--all have lost by Free Trade; and therefore it is no wonder if the resuscitated Anti-Corn-Law League should receive little countenance beyond its own particular domain. What the country most urgently requires, and what we expect to receive from the Government of Lord Derby, are measures calculated to secure the prosperity--not fictitious but real--of all the great interests of Britain; and it is to prevent the introduction of such measures that faction is exerting itself to the utmost. The Whigs cannot deny the fact that there has been a strong reaction throughout the country. They can assign that reaction to no other cause than a general conviction that the interests of the country have suffered, instead of being promoted, by the practical working of Free Trade; and the existence of that conviction is of itself a clear proof that Free Trade has not fulfilled the anticipations of those who promoted it. It has long ceased to be a theory. It has been presented in a practical shape to the people of Great Britain, who, moreover, had experience of the older system of legislation; and every individual has had the opportunity of testing its effects, and feeling its operation upon his own circumstances. Can any man believe that, if Free Trade had tended to promote the prosperity of the country, or even to maintain it in its former position, there could have been any reaction at all? In that case the opponents of Free Trade might have as well attempted to overthrow Atlas, as to assail any portion of the policy inaugurated by the late Sir Robert Peel. The educated classes of England are still what they were described by Milton--"a nation not slow nor dull, but of a quick, ingenious, and piercing spirit; acute to invent, subtile and sinewy to discourse, not beneath the reach of any point that human capacity can soar to." What effect could any arguments against Free Trade have had on their minds, if the system was daily and yearly vindicating itself by promoting the general prosperity? If the facts had been favourable to their side, our friends of the press, who, in the exuberance of their humour, were wont to accuse us of entertaining a scheme for the restoration of the Heptarchy, would have been fully justified in their banter. As it was, we managed to live on, even under the load of their ridicule, being fully convinced that the day must ere long arrive when stern experience would open the eyes of the public to the real posture of the country, in spite of every delusion which interest and ingenuity could devise.

That such delusions have been practised, and that very largely, we have had frequent occasion to show. Dull statists like Mr Porter, shallow political pretenders like Mr Cardwell, and unscrupulous compilers like the Editor of the _Economist_, have done their utmost to persuade the public that the proofs of national prosperity are to be found in certain tables emanating periodically from the Board of Trade. For some time we are inclined to believe that their efforts were rather successful than otherwise. Most men have an antipathy to figures, and a fondness for general results; and when they were joyously told that both the exports and the imports of the nation were on the increase, they concluded that all was right, and that the mercantile interest was advancing. We are almost inclined to give the Whig Ministry credit for the same sincere belief, at least up to the commencement of the Session of 1850. We do this the more readily, because we feel convinced that none of them were at all conversant with the real practical working of the commerce of Great Britain. If we were to make an exception at all, it would be in the case of Mr Labouchere; but this we shall not do, as ignorance is his best excuse for the statement he made regarding the position of the shipping interest in February of that year. After that period, however, it is not uncharitable to suppose that the Whigs must have lost confidence in the accuracy of their oracles. It might, undoubtedly, be too much to expect that they should have denounced oracles so perpetually delphic and comfortable to their cause, or that they should not have availed themselves of their aid in repeating to the very last the cuckoo cry of prosperity; but we must conclude that the Trade Circulars were brought, occasionally at least, under the notice of Sir Charles Wood; and surely no man, holding the office of Chancellor of Her Majesty's Exchequer, could fail to perceive that there was something manifestly inconsistent with the deductions which hitherto had been drawn from the trade tables, in the uniformly lugubrious, and frequently despairing tone of these valuable publications. The fact is that these Trade Circulars are by far the most authentic documents we have for ascertaining the real state of the country. They give us, from month to month, an accurate account of our commercial position. They emanate alike from Free-Trader and Protectionist--reveal the actual state of the market, and the amount of demand and supply--and admit of no party colouring, except as regards anticipation of the future--rather a perilous commercial vaticination, as the result of each succeeding month is expected to justify the prediction of the previous issue. For nearly three years we have been unable to glean from these circulars a word of actual comfort. They are uniform in their accounts of depression and absolute want of profit in manufactures, and all of them confess that the home trade is most miserably contracted. This being the case, of what value are the tables of export? They are valuable simply as showing that the manufacturers _must_ export what cannot be used at home, unless they choose at once to shut up their mills, and square their accounts with the banking establishments which have given them credit--a process which, in nine cases out of ten, would lead to most unpleasant results. As to the imports upon which so much stress has been laid, let the importers of Liverpool, Glasgow, and Bristol, tell us what they have made of their speculations for the last couple of years. We sympathise, most deeply, with the valuable class of men who have so suffered. They were not the originators of the system which has proved so fearfully hostile to their interests; and we firmly believe that, in giving their support and countenance to it, they were not actuated by any selfish motive. Their mistake was this--that they believed the effect of the Free-Trade measures would be to extend the foreign market of Britain, and greatly to increase its value. They contemplated a reciprocity which has not taken place, and which never can be established, unless the governments of other states fail in their duty to their own people. And here we may remark that nothing can be more odious than the spite and rancour exhibited by the Free-Traders towards the states which have not reciprocated. If the views of some of their organs were to be carried into effect, this miserable lack of liberality would be made a _casus belli_, and we are not quite certain that some members of the Peace Congress would object to such a declaration. These gentlemen have no idea that any kind of manufacture, which can at all interfere with their own, ought to be permitted abroad. Since America has established her own cotton-factories, and applied herself to the working of her own mines, she has lost an amazing hold of the affections of Manchester. Sorry are we to say that Mr Cobden now seldom wafts his sighs across the Atlantic, and that apparently he has abandoned his scheme of rivetting together the valley of the Mississippi and Manchester "with hooks of steel." The smoke of an American factory is excessively nauseous to his nostrils. John Bright has ceased to take any active interest in Pennsylvania. He opines that it has denied the faith according to _his_ principles of brotherhood; and it may be that the charge is well founded. We hope our Transatlantic friends are prepared to stand the fearful consequences. Terrible as has been the denunciation of the Manchester men, launched against Russia, Austria, and every other non-reciprocating state of Europe which has made head against British calico, the Americans must expect a fuller volley of tenfold wrath for their unprincipled tergiversation. According to the views of Manchester, a Free-trading despotism is to be preferred to a Protectionist republic. Liberty is estimated according to the return which it brings, not to the children of the soil, but to the cottonocracy of Great Britain.

Even if it could be shown that the commercial policy at present in operation had tended to the prosperity of particular interests, and the realisation of individual fortunes, it would by no means follow, as a necessary consequence, that it is a desirable one for the nation at large. What are the symptoms which we find coincident with the increase of exports and imports? First, there is the wholesale depopulation of Ireland, and the great abandonment of tillage in that country, to the amount, we believe, of many millions of quarters of grain. Secondly, there is the ruin of the colonies, not in a metaphorical, but in the literal sense of the term. We have lying before us a copy of a Jamaica paper, _The Daily Advertiser_, of date 19th January last, containing a full report of a meeting in the parish of Saint George, convened for the purpose of taking into consideration the present deplorable state of the colony. We regret much that we are precluded from commenting in this article upon the statements made by the several able speakers; but we may give, as a proof of the decline of the produce of the island, the following statement by Mr Hosack:--"The past history of Jamaica shows a crop and export of 150,000 hhds. of sugar, and 34,000,000 lb. of coffee. The present shows a crop and export of 36,000 hhds. of sugar, and 5,000,000 lb. of coffee." Another gentleman, Mr Dunbar, thus described the appearance of the island:--

"The present crisis of affairs is fearfully appalling, and cannot be
viewed by those immediately concerned without the greatest dismay.
Within the recollection of the youngest among us, but a few years
ago, our fields wore the garb of luxuriant culture; our population
was active and cheerful; our homes were easy, comfortable, and
hospitable; and our towns and villages presented the appearance of
busy lives. Now the scene is all changed. There is a widespread
desolation; the din of industry is no longer heard; we have been
driven by distress from our long-cherished homes; the jungle has
taken possession of the fields where, but lately, the waving canes
met the eyes; our costly buildings are mouldering into decay; and we
ourselves are now suspended on the brink of a precipice, created by
the unwise and heartless policy of the mother country, in the lowest
abyss of which we must ere long be engulfed, unless some kind
protecting angel should come to the rescue."

Still more significant, perhaps, of the state of the colony is the account given by the collecting constable of the parish. We insert it here in order to show the effect of Liberal legislation upon British capital invested in a British colony:--

"I will show that properties which formerly paid £1400 taxes are
now, if not entirely abandoned, very nearly so. Let the most
favourable supporter of Free Trade policy ride over the Buff Bay
River district, and at one glance he will see the awful, lamentable,
miserably fallen state of our once valuable and flourishing coffee
properties. Let him continue his ride through the sugar district,
and I envy not the heart of that man who can look on approvingly
when he beholds so many valuable estates grown up in common
brushwood; the residences of many falling into decay, and scarce
affording shelter to the watchman. Let him ask how long has all this
been brought about, and I will tell him--that by the list I now hold
in my hand, and about to submit to you, sir, it will be found that
twenty-six of these coffee properties were valued in 1841 by the
assessors of the parish, appointed by the House of Assembly, at a
total of £53,060; that these properties paid £619 public and parish
taxes; that fourteen of these sugar estates, now nearly all
abandoned, were then valued for £83,600, and they then paid £782
taxes; that in 1850 the whole of the taxes of the twenty-six coffee
properties amounted to, and were reduced to £147!--and of the
fourteen sugar estates, £144. Are these not damning evidences of the
destructive policy? Mr Sollas then laid before the meeting the
following statement, which he had prepared for the occasion:--

+------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
| -Sugar Estates.- | Assessor's| Public and | Public and |
| | Value, |Parish Taxes,|Parish Taxes,|
| | 1841. | 1841. | 1850. |
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+
|Eden,[R] | £4,500 | £45 14 9 | £5 0 1 |
|Paradise,[S] | 7,000 | 60 18 9 | 12 3 11 |
|Lenox,[R] | 10,000 | 94 8 9 | 13 19 0 |
|Hart Hill,[R] | 6,000 | 59 16 0 | 12 13 10 |
|By Brook,[R] | 1,000 | 18 19 6 | 2 14 6 |
|Hope,[R] | 1,600 | 22 4 0 | 3 5 11 |
|Spring Garden,[S] | 20,000 | 181 3 1 | 36 5 8 |
|Cainwood,[R] | 6,000 | 56 10 0 | 8 1 10 |
|Buff-Bay River,[R]| 3,000 | 33 2 6 | 6 13 4 |
|Elysium,[R] | 8,000 | 72 4 0 | 15 16 7 |
|Craigmill,[R] | 3,500 | 35 14 0 | 4 9 10 |
|Skibo,[R] | 3,000 | 32 13 1 | 6 11 5 |
|Chepstow,[R] | 8,000 | 39 4 0 | 9 13 4 |
|White River,[R] | 2,000 | 29 15 9 | 7 8 8 |
| +-----------+-------------+-------------+
| | £83,600 | £782 8 2 | £144 17 11 |
+------------------+-----------+-------------+-------------+

[R] Abandoned.

[S] In partial cultivation.

| |Assessor's| Public and | Public and |
| COFFEE PROPERTIES. | value, |Parish Taxes,|Parish Taxes,|
| | 1841. | 1841. | 1850. |
| +----------+-------------+-------------+
|Wallenford, [S] | £2,500| £23 16 0| £55 77 11|
|Ashcott, [R] | 300| 6 15 0| 2 1 8|
|Glengyle, [S] | 1,500| 16 0 0| 4 3 3|
|Cascade, [S] | 2,500| 23 4 1| 7 5 6|
|Birnamwood, [R] | 5,000| 51 0 0| 8 17 9|
|Spring Hill, [R] | 5,000| 45 4 0| 8 14 4|
|Smithfield, [R] | 1,500| 15 11 6| 4 3 11|
|Orange Vale, [R] | 2,500| 39 15 0| 11 18 5|
|Wakefield, [S] | 1,500| 15 0 0| 2 10 4|
|Ellerslie, [S] | 1,500| 14 5 0| 1 3 1|
|Middleton, [R] | 1,500| 23 3 0| 6 3 9|
|Corsham, [R] | 1,000| 12 3 0| 4 5 3|
|Green Hills, [R] | 800| 8 19 6| 1 3 11|
|Galloway, [R] | 1,000| 12 15 6| 3 12 7|
|Leighfield, [R] | 2,500| 27 15 0| 7 3 6|
|Silver Hill, [R] | 3,000| 37 1 3| 9 1 4|
|New Haven, [R] | 1,500| 23 5 3| 4 2 6|
|Mount Pleasant, [R] | 3,500| 25 1 4| 6 11 6|
|Cherry Hill, [R] | 360| 5 3 11| 2 3 6|
|Pleasant Mount, [R] | 3,000| 27 19 0| 7 15 10|
|Balcarres, [R] | 5,000| 50 1 0| 9 19 7|
|Prior Park, [S] | 1,500| 38 3 0| 7 0 1|
|Trafalgar, [S] | 2,000| 41 0 0| 11 10 4|
|Dry River Retreat, [R] | 1,600| 22 10 0| 5 13 6|
|Rectory, [R] | 500| 7 4 11| 1 0 11|
|Mount St Bernard, | 500| 6 16 0| 3 13 6|
| +----------+-------------+-------------+
| | £53,060| £619 12 3| £147 16 11|

[R] Abandoned.

[S] In partial cultivation.

--I feel, Sir, that I assert the truth when I add, that my predecessors in office collected these heavy sums within the walls of their office, and the proprietors were then in a position to pay sufficiently early, to avail themselves of the ten per cent discount allowed by law for prompt payment. How different is it with me, sir? I am necessitated not only to keep my hands constantly at the pump, but in too many cases I have been obliged to give the finishing stroke of destruction by levying upon the stock of these properties; and but for much forbearance on my part, heaven knows if others might not be hurried as quickly to ruin. These are truths patent to all; and I assert that this very fact of the taxes being so much reduced, so insignificant by comparison, and yet unable to be met, or met with the greatest difficulty, is an undeniable evidence of the total prostration of the island."

The third symptom to which we would refer is one of marked importance. We mean the enormous increase of emigrants from the British islands. The emigration from the United Kingdom, which, in 1843, amounted only to 57,212, rose in 1849 to the astounding number of 299,498, _being 22,000 more than the entire combined population of the large counties of Perth and Fife_, according to the census of 1841! How is that fact reconcilable with the professed prosperity of the country? Fourth, and last, because we need not here multiply examples, we have the returns of the Income-tax, which must be accepted, if anything is to be accepted, as a sure index of the state of the nation, and regarding which there can be no delusion, as in the case of export and import tables. Well, then, what do we find from these? Why, that in 1843 the amount of property assessed for trades and professions amounted to £63,021,904. That was under a protective policy. But in 1850, with Free Trade in full operation, that property, which, be it remarked, includes the entire profits arising from the commerce and manufactures of Great Britain, was estimated only at £54,977,566. Where, then, are the increased profits? Let the oracles of Free Trade explain.

Surely these are no wholesome symptoms of the state of the country. Taken singly, each of them implies an enormous amount of misery and decline; taken together, they furnish clear evidence of general national decay. They show us that trade, commerce, and manufactures are far less profitable than before. They show us that emigration from the mother country has multiplied five or six fold, and that the great stream of it is directed to America, a country which is flourishing under protective laws. They show us that agriculture, the only great staple of Irish industry, is largely on the decline. They show us that some of our once richest colonies--because the case of Jamaica is precisely that of several others--are prostrated, and the capital invested in them lost. And all this has taken place under the new commercial system!

Is this a policy to be pursued? Is it one which we are justified in pursuing? Is it one which can afford the slightest pretext for agitation? The answer to these questions must ere long be given by the country on the occasion of the general election. In the mean time, we would entreat the constituencies to consider what interests are at stake, and how much of the national welfare depends upon the nature of their decision. The symptoms of general decadence which we have just referred to cannot be gainsayed nor denied. They are clear ascertained facts, which we have, over and over again, defied the Free-Traders to account for or explain, consistently with their prosperity theories; but in no one instance yet has the challenge been accepted. We are not surprised at this backwardness. Reckless as are the champions of the League--unscrupulous as are their advocates--cunning and sophistical as are the compilers of returns--slippery as are the Whig officials--it would require more courage, craft, and ingenuity than belong to the whole body, to account satisfactorily for the one fact of the diminution of the value of the property assessed for trades and professions. While this fact remains unimpeached--and we have it on Parliamentary authority--it is absolute trash and childish babble to tell us about increased exports and imports. Here are the detailed returns. They comprise, as we have already said, the whole commercial profits of the kingdom; and if we should seem to insist, more strongly than is our wont, upon this point, our apology lies in its paramount importance.

PROPERTY ASSESSED FOR TRADES AND PROFESSIONS.

1843, £63,021,904
1848, 60,068,090
1850, 54,977,566

Can there be a more bitter commentary on the working of Free Trade--a more decisive summary of its effects--than is contained in the above three simple lines?

These are the results of that policy, to secure the adoption of which Sir Robert Peel broke up the great Conservative party, leaving the government of Great Britain, and the welfare of so many millions of human beings, in the hands of an incompetent faction, powerless of themselves, and depending mainly for support on the capricious votes of the democracy. What wonder if that democracy took due advantage of their position? Without them the Russell Cabinet was nothing; and each successive month the tone of the Minister became less firm and determined. Radicalism, in our day, has assumed an entirely new form. It affects a community of interest with the prosperity of British manufactures, though rather abroad than at home. Its focus is Manchester; its apostles are the men of the League. Brimful of hate and envy towards the aristocracy of Great Britain, these men are determined to leave no stone unturned whereby they may scramble upwards into power; and they calculate on the possible reconstruction of a Russell Cabinet as their most probable means of ascent. Their actual ulterior objects, after they have attained power, are best known to themselves: we hope never to see them placed in such a situation as shall admit of their broad development. In the mean time they are vociferously demanding an enlargement of the suffrage, and a reconstruction of the whole electoral system, by means of which additional power may be given to the large manufacturing towns, and a huge mass of urban ignorance added to the constituencies. It is full time that their progress should be checked. Unless a stand be now made--unless the country shall rally around Lord Derby, and give him the means of stopping those perpetual inroads on the Constitution, it is by no means impossible that the revolutionary party may soon achieve a triumph. Henceforward, in any Liberal Administration, Lord John Russell can be little better than a cipher. Already there has been talk of deposing him--of electing new leaders for the conduct of the Opposition--of putting forward to the van men who are beset with less scruple, and unencumbered with aristocratic connection. The private history of Liberalism affords more than one instance of such depositions. Lord John must abdicate, or march onward at the head of the progressive democracy.

We are glad to perceive that this position of affairs is appreciated, not only at home but abroad. The advance of Radicalism, under the cover of Free-Trade opinions, has not escaped the notice of the French journalists: indeed it would be strange if it were otherwise, seeing that no long time has elapsed since the same movement was made in France by the acknowledged friends of Mr Cobden. The result of that movement is matter of common notoriety. We copy from the _Standard_ of 20th March the following extract:--

"The _Assemblée Nationale_, in its remarks upon the new English
Administration, makes the following just observations:--'Lord Derby,
with that elevation of sentiment, and that boldness of language,
which give him a patrician superiority among English statesmen and
orators, throws down a challenge to his adversaries upon the
_ensemble_ of Conservative policy. In this point of view we look on
Lord Derby's speech as the inauguration of a new phase in English
policy. For several years back the agitators, Radicals, and English
statesmen, have too much materialised the policy of England. Lord
Derby is right in reacting against this tendency, which has caused
the English constitution to lean too much to the side of democracy.
It was by subordinating his policy to economical questions that Sir
Robert Peel threw parties into that state of mobility and confusion,
which now raises such serious difficulties in the way of
parliamentary government. The evil reached its extreme limits under
Lord John Russell. For the honour and safety of the British
Constitution, it is time to put an end to it. Thus Lord Derby does
not accept the battle on the sole ground of Free Trade. He promises
to disembarrass the political life of England of that struggle of
economical interests which has for ten years absorbed it. He aims at
reconstituting in the country and the Parliament a Conservative
majority, to defend traditional interests, old national
institutions, and social and political principles, against
disquietude and revolutionary tendencies. The English people,
endowed with admirable good sense, will comprehend that power ought
to be in the hands of a united and disciplined party, and of a
compact and homogeneous majority; and not at the mercy of two or
three factions, which can neither govern or allow others to govern;
and will feel that, in the actual situation of Europe, England ought
to have at its head a Ministry firmly and loyally Conservative.'"

Mr Cobden, in his speeches both at Manchester and Leeds, has thought fit to be quite explicit as to the avowed connection of the impending contest with ulterior political objects. At Leeds, he made use of the following language:--

"You feel, as all will now feel, that this is the critical time of
this question. _Other questions are not so ripe as this._ You feel
that this must be settled now and for ever, and therefore you come
forward in all your strength, in order that you may put the
finishing stroke upon it. But it is not merely the Corn-Law question
which is involved in what we are now doing. If you settle the Corn
question now, once and for ever, _it leaves the field open for other
questions_."

And again more enigmatically, but perhaps not less significantly--

"I have said that it is for the interest of the people that this one
thing should be done, though, in saying this, I do not say that it
is to be carried on to the exclusion of other important
questions--_as reform in Parliament_, OR WHAT OTHER MOVEMENT MAY BE
BEFORE YOU--but I say you will be better able to do those things
when you have obtained this charter of the bread of life. When you
have received abundant food, with its chances of abundant labour,
_you will be better able_ TO ENTER UPON THAT NEW CAMPAIGN YOU HAVE
CONCEDED _well drilled_; and, having beaten your opponents in one
thing, you will find it is just the same party you have to beat in
the other; for the monopolists in corn are, after all, the
monopolists in political power. We may have in our ranks men who go
various lengths in political reform and the question of the
suffrage, but, at all events, I scarcely know anybody who voted in
favour of the total repeal of the Corn Laws that is not willing to
go onward also in the path of reform; whilst, on the other hand,
they who would deprive you of the privilege of eating an untaxed
loaf, they are the very men who will keep you out of the pale of the
Constitution, and who will take advantage of their power to tax you
in other things pretty roundly as well as the loaf. By settling this
question, and securing for the working classes freedom for their
industry, and the greatest abundance, under the laws of nature, in
the supplies of food, we are placing them in the best possible
position to fight any other battle."

We quote these passages simply for the purpose of showing that Mr Cobden considers the defeat of Lord Derby's Ministry as a necessary preliminary to ulterior objects, the nature of which may be interpreted according to the will of the reader. We have no leisure to make remarks upon the alteration of tone visible in these speeches, from that exhibited in others delivered in former years. Mr Cobden now admits that the question is not settled; and that is undoubtedly a very considerable concession. Also, he is not quite so minatory or threatening in his language as he used to be, which possibly may arise from a prudent conviction that certain acts, relating to sedition, which are contained in the statute-book, are not yet altogether in abeyance. He wisely confines himself to inuendo, trusting to the intelligence of his audience to supply the lack of direct speech. Only on one occasion does he transgress the limits of prudence; and we quote it, as reported in the _Times_, as an instance of that kind of suggestive oratory, of which the late Mr Hunt was esteemed a consummate master.

"I don't like to see a London newspaper saying we have not the
working classes with us on this question, because it is a great
libel on the working classes to say so. And another thing too; it is
trying to discredit the working classes with those who have at
present political power, in order that, by-and-by, it may be turned
against them, and enable them to say they did not, by their
petitions, contribute to the repeal of the Corn Laws. Now, when the
Corn Law was laid on in its most unmitigated severity in 1815, the
loudest protests against it were made by the working classes. The
working men of London made the loudest protests against it, though
rather rudely I admit, for they tore the members' coats from their
backs. (Cries of 'They did right.') They pulled them out of their
carriages, soldiers had to be called up to protect the members of
parliament, and the Houses of Parliament were surrounded by infantry
and cavalry to enable them to pass this infamous corn law. The
middle classes and the working classes then thoroughly co-operated
in opposing this law; but the middle classes had not then the
political power they have now. The working people _did their duty
then, and I hope they will do it again_. (Shouts of 'We will, we
will,' and loud cheers.) I hope they will do it not only in
Yorkshire, where it is well said 'we are safe,' but elsewhere."

Far be it from us to put strained interpretations on the language of Mr Cobden. We do not care one rush what he says, considering the blatant absurdities of his speech on more than fifty occasions. No jack-pudding alive has exhibited himself to greater disadvantage, although jack-pudding exhibitions can always command an audience. But what we wish to bring out is this--that Mr Cobden, _the individual expressly consulted by_ LORD JOHN RUSSELL _before the Chesham Place meeting was held_, refers uniformly to "ulterior objects" as the consequence of the defeat of Lord Derby's Ministry, and does not hesitate to express his hope that, in the event of the parliamentary majority being returned hostile to his notions, the working classes may proceed to acts of overt violence, similar to those which were committed on a previous occasion. If we misconstrue Mr Cobden's meaning, we ask his pardon; and, on a disclaimer of such being his intention, we shall make ready reparation. But we judge of words according to their ordinary significance, and we can gather no other meaning from his language.

We have lived too long in the world to attach much importance to an agitation of so exceedingly equivocal a kind. Even Mr Cobden, who has had more experience in the agitating trade than any other man alive, and who has materially profited thereby, admitted the other day at Manchester that it would be no easy matter to maintain a popular ferment. "Leave this question," said he, "in suspense during a whole session of Parliament, and what will be the result? In the first place, we all know from experience that it will not be very easy to keep popular enthusiasm in that high and fervid state to which you can probably bring it in the course of a few weeks. You cannot keep the same enthusiasm alive for a number of months;" and, accordingly, he counselled immediate action. From what we can gather of the opinions of the working classes, we believe that he is right to this extent, that it would be impossible to keep up a prolonged agitation: we question much whether it is in his power to get up an agitation at all. The real objects of the League are as well known to the working classes as the characters of the men who compose it. One of the speakers at a late meeting of the "National Reform Association" in London, expressed the sentiments of the great majority of the operatives when he stated, "that they should not seek for the mere advancement of the manufacturing capitalist. He (the speaker) was a Chartist, but he would not support a mere manufacturing aristocracy, (cheers); he would never consent to turn the woolsack into a cotton bag, (cheers); and he thought there were now arising daily questions deeply affecting the working man, which should be left to some one to decide not quite so deeply interested as his master." Another speaker at the same meeting observed that, "for his own part, he did not see what great good it would do the people if the Financial Reformers were in power. The people would not be in power, but the manufacturing capitalists; and, as to that, he believed many of the aristocracy had more chivalry, love of country, and fine generous feeling about them, than most of your mercantile classes." (Loud cheers.) It is only by separating the question of free importation of corn from that of a revision of our whole commercial system, and by addressing himself exclusively to the former, that Mr Cobden hopes to succeed. The truth is, that he dare not go into the question of a revision of the commercial system. There is nothing which the members of the League dread more than the broaching of that subject; for the fact is, that a large number of our manufacturers depend for their existence upon the continuance of that Protection which has been withdrawn from other kinds of industry. Let every branch of manufacture which is at present protected by a duty, varying from 15 to 10 per cent, be subjected to the operation of Free Trade, or even protected only to the extent of 2½ per cent--as is the case with wheat, if we assume its average price to be 40s. per quarter--and six months will not elapse before a howl for manufacturing protection will be heard from one end of the country to the other. With this before them, it is not surprising if the members of the League should sedulously abstain from touching upon the question of a general commercial revision. More than two years ago, when we first drew the attention of the public to this subject, a letter, purporting to be written by Mr Cobden, went the round of the newspapers, in which it was averred that, with the exception of a small duty upon silks, there were no duties levied on foreign manufactures. In answer to that we gave a list of no less than sixty-six different kinds of manufactures upon which import duties of 10 per cent and upwards are levied. If our memory serves us right, Mr Cobden afterwards declared that he, for one, had no objection whatever that those import duties should be taken off; and we have, since then, more than once both requested and defied him to make such a proposition in the House of Commons. If those duties really are so trifling as some maintain them to be--if the remission of them would cause but little loss to the revenue, and not affect the manufacturers at all, why are they not removed? If we belonged to the Free-trading camp, and really were of opinion that the continuance of these "fragments of protection," as we once heard them termed, were intrinsically of no importance, certainly we should make an effort to strengthen our position, and prevent the possibility of hostile attack or retort, by getting rid of them at once. We happen, however, to know that the manufacturers dare not make any such proposition. Let Mr Cobden go down to Paisley or Sheffield and try it, and we answer for it he will not be anxious to repeat the experiment again.

We rejoice to find that the "ulterior objects" of the Manchester men are well understood by the intelligent classes throughout the country, and that their insolent attitude and attempts at dictation have excited general and profound disgust. To do Mr Cobden justice, he has materially contributed towards this feeling. His conduct in the House of Commons on the 19th of March, and his coarse and vulgar contradiction of the statement of the Earl of March, deserved and received the unqualified disapprobation of every gentleman in the House; and we doubt not that, at the moment, Lord John Russell cursed the fatality which brought him into contact with such a counsellor. Bitter must have been the humiliation of the aristocratic Whigs to find themselves incorporated with a squadron under the command of so polished a leader! But, even without the able assistance of Mr Cobden, the League is likely to be obnoxious enough, especially among the mercantile community. A week or two ago a meeting of Leaguers was announced to be held in Liverpool, for the purpose, doubtless, of aiding the ten per cent subscription so auspiciously begun in Manchester. But, somehow or other, nobody thought proper to attend; or, at all events, the number of the self-sacrificers was so small that it was not deemed expedient to admit those dangerous gentlemen, the reporters, to their confidence and privacy. Accordingly, the meeting was "postponed"--_sine die_, we presume--but, in place of it, a numerous meeting of the Conservatives of Liverpool was held. The object of that meeting was essentially practical. A large number of the electors of Liverpool, being convinced of the inefficiency of Sir T. B. Birch, and sick of the flippancy of Mr Cardwell, the present members for the borough, met together for the purpose of adopting a formal requisition to Mr Forbes Mackenzie, M.P., and Mr Charles Turner, chairman of the Dock Committee, to stand for Liverpool at next election. The following extract from the newspapers will show the tone which was adopted at that meeting, and the estimation in which the efforts of the League are held by the mercantile portion of the community:--

"Mr Samuel Holme, who moved the adoption of the requisition, in the
course of his remarks, said he would not occupy time by going into
any of those great questions which were agitating the public mind at
this moment--questions which must be definitively settled, not so
much mere fiscal questions--or whether there should be a duty of a
few shillings imposed upon wheat. The question at issue was a more
extended one, and must be treated at a larger meeting. The question
was--Are the men of Manchester to be the rulers of England? (Loud
cheers, and cries of 'No, never!') Are they, a number of them, to
shake their purses in the faces of the aristocracy of
England--(hear, hear)--in the faces of the commercial men of
England--(hear, hear, and prolonged cheers)--in the faces of the
agriculturists of England, and then to say, 'With a subscription of
£47,000 at our back'--how much of it is paid I know not or care
not--'we will become the dictators of England; we will destroy the
balance of the British Constitution; and we will dictate to you the
principles upon which England shall be governed; and you shall do as
we bid you, but shall have no voice in the matter.' (Laughter, and
loud cheering.) A gentleman recently stood up at a public meeting,
and threatened the aristocracy of England 'to look to their order,'
but he (the speaker) asked any gentleman who had read the debates in
the House of Lords, whether there was not a larger amount of talent
and ability displayed there upon commercial questions than in the
House of Commons? (Cheers.) He said with Cobbett, 'Thank God, we
have a House of Lords;' and he trusted the people of England looked
upon the Peers as a component part of the British Constitution--that
Constitution which had been a blessing to mankind at large, and
which had given strength and security to England when the thrones of
Europe were tumbling. He asked, were they to barter these invaluable
privileges away? Were they longer, by their unhappy divisions, which
at the last election they had such reason to regret--(hear,
hear)--to suffer two gentlemen (Mr Cardwell and Sir T. Birch) to
represent a great commercial community in Parliament, gentlemen both
of them amiable in private life, but utterly unfit to have placed in
their hands so great a trust? (Cheers.)

"Mr Adam Hodgson said that he was present there to a great extent as
a Free-Trader, but that he would throw Free Trade and everything
else to the winds when the Constitution of the country was
endangered. Referring to the recent meeting at Lord John Russell's,
Mr Hodgson said that he gathered, from what there took place, that
Lord John Russell was prepared to bid higher now, and to give a more
indefinite extension to that franchise which many of them thought
had been already carried quite far enough. (Loud cheers.) This was
one reason why he deemed the present a most important crisis. The
fundamental principles of our Constitution were, however, safe in
the keeping of Lord Derby. What, again, he asked, was Free Trade,
compared with a resolute determination that Protestant England
should be Protestant England still?--(Loud cheers, and the 'Kentish
fire;')--and that, whether she carried on her traffic under what was
called a restrictive or a free system, she should carry to the
remotest nations of the world, with whom she had intercourse, her
Scriptural principles and attachments?

"Many other speeches were delivered, and the requisition to Mr
Mackenzie and Mr Turner was most heartily and most unanimously
agreed to; after which three cheers were given for Lord Derby, three
cheers for the Queen, and three for the Church."

This is in the right spirit; and we trust that the example so well set by Liverpool will be followed generally throughout the country.

Is it not time that the ascendency of mere faction should be brought to a close? Is it consistent with the honour and dignity of Great Britain, and with the welfare of the many millions of men who owe allegiance to the British Crown, that the government of the nation should be scrambled for, on account of the perquisites of office, as ignobly as a prize exposed for competition at a village fair? Is it seemly that the interests of the Empire should be put up to auction, to be knocked down to the largest bidder for popular support, with the most expansive conscience?--or that compacts for a prospective division of the spoil should be entered into by the leaders of factions hitherto irreconcilable on principle? Why is it that Mr Cobden, since the Whigs resigned, has become the confidant of Lord John Russell? He has not, we are well assured, abandoned one iota of his opinions. He is of the same mind as when he proposed the reduction of the army and navy, and the abandonment of national defences. He is the same Cobden who threatened the aristocracy with overthrow if they dared to oppose his will in a fiscal question. He is the identical senator who at Covent Garden, in December 1845, talked of "the Noodles and Doodles of the aristocracy," and stated that, "before we have done with them, they shall be as insignificant and more contemptible than the round-frocked peasantry on his Grace's estate." He remains the unvarnished democrat. And yet this is the man from whom the ex-Premier of Britain craves counsel in preference to all others, within a fortnight of his abdication of office! What new tie was between them? None. Why should this scion of the house of Bedford have condescended to court so extraordinary an alliance, which Whigs of other and better days would have shunned with instinctive shuddering? What imaginable reason can be assigned, except that frightful craving for office, which sometimes is a positive disease?

We write strongly, because we feel strongly. Far be it from us to decry that noble ambition which, for hundreds of years, has inspired the most gifted men of the nation to take part in public affairs, and to act for the public benefit. Often has the occupancy of office been to those who filled the highest and most influential situations a burden rather than a benefit; often, but for the sake of their country and their sovereign, would they have been disposed to resign their trust, and resume their simple habits and congenial pursuits in that private sphere which they were so well calculated to adorn. But the sense of duty prevailed over inclination, and they remained as STATESMEN, not as precarious politicians. Principle was to them all in all. Their pole-star was honour. They guided the vessel of the State with a firm hand, conscious of their great responsibility, and of the magnitude of their trust. They were no blundering navigators. They did not run the ship upon the reef and forsake her; and then, when better and bolder men were engaged in extricating her from the danger, attempt to embarrass their efforts for the sake of regaining their position. But we live in different times. One eye of Palinurus may be directed to the stars, but the other is gloating on his perquisites. The great question is not the safety of the ship, but the permanency of the appointed helmsman.

Setting aside those who are directly interested in his success--the members of the family compact, the officials, and those who expected to become officials--who are the uncompromising vindicators of Lord John Russell's past policy? We can find them nowhere. One short month ago, the Radicals had no confidence in him. To the Chartists--if we except Mr Feargus O'Connor, who lately manifested some unrequited marks of affection--he was peculiarly obnoxious. The Country party were in direct opposition to him. The Peelites rejected his overtures. The Church regarded him with dislike. The Protestant Dissenters put no faith in him. The Irish Roman Catholics denounced him with more than usual fervour. The colonists abhorred him. The shipping interest stood afar off. Even the Jews mistrusted the genuineness of his efforts in their behalf. Such was the situation of "the child of expediency," towards the end of his official career; and can he now make it better? Only in one way. By carrying into full effect the alliance which he has already commenced, and by becoming, as we said before, a bold and uncompromising democrat.