round the entire circle of our foreign connexions and operations–there are one or two points to which we will briefly refer, as striking instances of the vigilant and indefatigable energy, and the powerful diplomatic influence of Lord Aberdeen, especially with reference to the securing commercial advantages to this country–and which has extorted the following testimony, during the present month (December,) from another French journal, by no means favourably disposed to this country:–“The English Government is incontestably the best served of all Governments in the means of obtaining new, and extending old markets, and in the rapid and complete knowledge of the course to be adopted to ensure the sale of the immense products of Great Britain in different parts of the globe.” Take for instance the case of Russia. We have actually succeeded in wringing from the tenacious and inflexible Cabinet of St Petersburg an important commercial advantage! On Lord Aberdeen’s accession to office, he found Russia in the act of aiming a fatal blow at a very important branch of our shipping trade, by levying a differential duty on all British vessels conveying to Russian ports any goods which were not the produce of the British dominions. After, however, a skilful and very arduous negotiation, our foreign secretary has succeeded in averting that blow–and we retain the great advantages of which we were about to be deprived. Nor has this signal advantage been purchased by any sacrifice on the part of Great Britain, but only by a permission, founded on most equitable principles, for Russian vessels arriving here from Russian ports with the produce of Russian Poland, to possess the same privileges as if they had come direct from Russian ports: Russian Poland being able to communicate effectively with the sea, only through the Prussian territory. Look again at Brazil–which has also been recently the object of persevering and energetic negotiation on the part of Lord Aberdeen. It is true that, at present, his exertions have been attended with no direct success; but we have doubts whether the importance of the proposed Brazilian treaty has not, after all, been greatly exaggerated. However this may be, Lord Aberdeen is, at this moment, as strenuously at work with the young emperor, as could be desired by the most eager advocate of a commercial treaty with Brazil. But, suppose the emperor’s advisers should be disposed to continue their obstinate and unreasonable opposition, observe the gentle pressure upon them, to be felt by and by, which Lord Aberdeen has contrived to effect by the commercial treaty which he has concluded with the contiguous republic of Monte Video, and other states on the right bank of the river Plata, for the admission (on most favourable terms) of British imports into these states. One of them is the Uruguay republic, which borders through a great extent of country on Brazil, the Government of which is utterly unable to prevent the transfer of merchandise across the border; whereby the exclusion of British goods from the Brazilian territory is rendered a matter of physical impossibility.
[21] Great Britain at the commencement of the 19th Century–January 1843–No. CCC.
It is true, that our efforts to enter into commercial treaties with
France and Portugal have not, as yet, been successful; but, formidable as are the obstacles at present in existence, we do not despair. Those least wonder at the present position of affairs who are best acquainted with the artificial and complicated positions of the respective countries, and their relations, and consequent policy, towards each other. Whatever can be done by man, is at this moment being done by Lord Aberdeen; and sooner than we have at present a right to expect, his indefatigable exertions may be crowned with success–not only in these, but in other quarters. All foreign Governments must be strongly influenced in such matters, by contemplating a steady and strong Government established in this country; and that object they see more nearly and distinctly every day. Such (without entering into details which would be inconsistent with either our space or our present object) is the general result–namely, the rapidly returning tide of prosperous commercial intercourse of the foreign policy of Conservative Government, which has raised Great Britain, within the short space of two years, to even a higher elevation among the nations of the world, than she had occupied before a “Liberal Ministry undertook the government of the country”–“a policy,” to adopt the equally strong and just language of an able writer, “replete with auspicious evidences of the efficacy of intellect, combined with firmness, activity, and integrity, in restoring to wholesome and honourable order a chaotic jumble of anomalies–of humiliations and dangers–of fears, hatred, and confusion thrice trebly confounded.”[22]
[22] Thoughts on Tenets of Ministerial Policy. By a Very Quiet Looker-on.–P. 22. Aylott, London, 1843.
While thus successfully active abroad, have Ministers been either idle or unsuccessful at home? Let us look at their two main measures–the _new tariff_ and the _new corn-law_.
The object of the first of these great measures was twofold–to give a healthy and speedy but permanent stimulus to trade and commerce; and, at the same time, to effect such a reduction of price in the leading articles of consumption as should greatly reduce the cost of living–a boon, of course, inexpressibly precious to the poorer classes. Mark the moment at which this bold and critical line of policy was conceived and carried into execution–namely, a moment when the nation was plunged into such a depth of gloom and distress as had very nearly induced utter despair! when there was a deficiency of _five millions sterling in_ the revenue of the two preceding years, and a certainty of greatly augmented expenditure for the future, owing to our wars in the East and elsewhere. We say–_mark this_, in order to appreciate a display of the true genius of statesmanship. Foreseeing one effect of such a measure, namely, a serious reduction in the revenue derived from the customs, and which would commence with the bare _announcement_ of such a measure, the Government had to consider whether it would prove a permanent or only a temporary reduction, and to act accordingly. After profound consideration, they satisfied themselves (whether justly or not remains to be seen) that the diminution of revenue would prove only temporary; and to secure the _immediate_ benefits of the measure, they imposed a temporary income-tax, the onerous pressure of which was to cease as soon as matters should have come round again. That period they fixed at the expiration of three years. After an interval of two years, do their calculations appear to have been well or ill founded? Let us see. Early in March 1842 they announced the proposed new tariff, (instantly producing the effect on the customs duties which had been anticipated;) and succeeded in bringing it into operation on the 9th of the ensuing July. The deficiency of revenue which ensued was so very serious that it would have alarmed the whole country, but for their confidence in the firmness and sagacity of Ministers, particularly as evidenced by their announced measures. We have not at the present moment before us the earliest _quarterly_ revenue returns of the period referred to; but it will suffice to state, that such had been the extent of the reductions effected, that the deficiency on the _year_ ending on the 5th October 1843, amounted to no less a sum than L.1,136,000; the decrease on the _quarter_ ending on that day being L.414,000. Still, however, each succeeding quarter–or at least the latter quarters–gave more satisfactory indications of a rallying revenue; and we are enabled to announce the highly gratifying fact that, up to the 8th of the present month (December,) the customs duties returns _are of the most decisively improving character_. The receipts of duties for the port of London alone, during that period, exceeds the receipt on the corresponding period of last year by L.206,000; while the returns from all the outports, especially from Liverpool, are of the same cheering character, and warrant us in predicting that the returns to be presented on the 5th of the ensuing month will afford a most triumphant proof of the accuracy of the Minister’s calculations and the success of his policy; for be it borne in mind, moreover, that his income-tax realized, in the year ending on the 5th October last, the immense sum of L.5,052,000. As far, therefore, as concerns the direct _financial_ effects of the new tariff and its counterbalancing income-tax, the results of Sir Robert Peel’s policy are such as may stagger and confound the boldest of his opponents.
Now, however, for the two great objects of the new tariff, which were declared by Sir Robert Peel[23] to be “the revival of commerce, and such an improvement in the manufacturing interest, as would react on every other interest in the country; and diminishing the prices of the articles of consumption and the cost of living.”
[23] Hansard, Vol. lxi. Col. 439.
With respect to the first of these objects, we had prepared a copious explanation of the highly satisfactory working of one great portion of the machine of the new tariff, viz. _the relaxation of the taxes on the raw materials of manufacture_; but it has occurred to us, that the necessity of our doing so has been entirely superseded by the following very remarkable admission, contained in a number of the _Morning Chronicle_ newspaper, published towards the close of September last; an invaluable admission, tending to prove, out of the mouth of the bitterest opponent of the present Ministry, the general success of their domestic policy:–“Notwithstanding insurrection in Wales and agitation in Ireland, there are various circumstances in the present aspect of our national affairs of an encouraging and cheering nature. The first and most prominent thing which strikes an observer, is, the undoubted general revival of trade and commerce. Every thing seems to indicate that the morning is breaking; that the dreary night of disaster and suffering, through which all our material interests have been passing since 1836, is now well-nigh over. The hum of busy industry is once more heard throughout our manufacturing districts; our seaports begin once more to stir with business; merchants on ‘Change have smiling faces; and the labouring population are once more finding employment easier of access; and wages are gently, slowly rising. This has not come upon us suddenly; it has been in operation since the end of last year; but so terrible was the depression, so gradual the improvement, that the effects of the revival could not be perceptible till within a recent period. Our exports of cotton and wool, during the present year, very considerably exceed those of a similar period in the preceding; and though there might be increase of export without increase of profit, the simple fact that the districts of our great manufacturing staples are now more active and busy than they have been for a very considerable period, coupled with the apparently well-founded belief that this increased activity is produced, not by speculative but genuine demand, are indications of the most pleasing and gratifying kind to all who are in the least concerned about the prosperity of the country. In addition to the improvement manifested in our staple articles of industry, other important interests are showing symptoms of decided improvement; even the iron-trade has got over its ‘crisis;’ and though we are very far indeed from having attained to a condition of prosperity, the steady, though slow, revival of every branch of industry, is a proof that the cause of the improvement must be a general one, operating universally.” May we venture to suggest, that the worthy editor of the _Morning Chronicle_ need not go about with a lantern to discover this _cause_?–that it is every where before his very eyes, under his very nose, in the form of the bold, but sagacious and consistent, policy pursued by the present Government?
With respect to the second great object of the new tariff, viz., the “Diminishing of the prices of the articles of consumption and the cost of living.”
Has _this_ great object, or has it not, been attained? Why, the reduced price of provisions is a matter of universal notoriety, and past all question. Unable to contest the existence of this most consolatory fact, the Opposition papers endeavoured to get up a diversion by frightening the farmers, whom they assured, that the admission of foreign live-stock would lead to a fearful depreciation in the value of British agricultural produce. The graziers and cattle-dealers were forthwith to find “their occupations gone.” British pasture farming was to be annihilated, and an immense stimulus given to that of our continental rivals. Hereat the farmers pricked up their ears, and began to consider for a moment whether they should not join in the outcry against the new tariff. But the poor beasts that have come, doubtless much to their own surprise, across the water to us, looked heartily ashamed of themselves, on catching a glimpse of their plump, sleek brother beasts in England–and the farmers burst out a-laughing at sight of _the lean kine that were to eat up the fat ones_! The practical result has been, that between the 9th of July 1842, and the present time, there have not come over foreign cattle enough to make one week’s show at Smithfield. But mark, _the power_ of admitting foreign cattle and poultry, (on payment, however, of a considerable duty,[24]) conferred by the new tariff, is one that must be attended with infinite permanent benefits to the public, in its _moderating influence upon the prices of animal food_. Its working is in beautiful harmony with that of the newly modeled corn-laws, as we shall presently explain. In years of abundance, when plenty of meat is produced at home, the new tariff will be inoperative, as far as regards the actual importations of foreign cattle; but in years of scarcity at home, the expectation of a good price will induce the foreigner to send us a sufficient supply; for he will then be, and then only, able to repay himself the duty, and the heavy cost of sea-carriage. As prices fall, the inducement to import also declines. In short, “the inducement to importation falls with the fall, and rises with the rise of price. The painful contingency of continued bad seasons has thus, in some measure, been provided against. The new tariff is so adjusted, that when prices threaten to mount to an unfair and extravagant height, unjust to consumers, and dangerous to producers, in such contingencies a mediating power steps in, and brings things to an equilibrium.”[25] These great and obvious advantages of the new tariff, the opponents of Ministers, and especially their reckless and discreditable allies called the “Anti-corn-law League,” see as plainly as we do; but their anxious aim is to conceal these advantages as much as possible from public view; and for this purpose they never willingly make _any allusion_ to the tariff, or if forced to do so, underrate its value, or grossly misrepresent its operation. But we are convinced that _this will not do_. Proofs of their humbug and falsehood are, as it were, daily forcing themselves into the very stomachs_ of those whom once, when an incompetent Ministry was in power, these heartless impostors were able to delude. “A single shove of the bayonet,” said Corporal Trim to Doctor Slop, “is worth all your fine discourses about the art of war;” and so the English operative may reply to the hireling “Leaguers,” “This good piece of cheap beef and mutton, now smoking daintily before me, is worth all your palaver.”
[24] Poultry L5 for every L100 value; oxen and bulls, L1 each; cows, 15s.; calves, 10s.; horses, mares, foals, colts, and geldings, L1 each; sheep, 3s. each; lambs, 2s. each; swine and hogs, 5s. each–(Stat. 5 and 6 Vict. c. 47, Table A.)
[25] Thoughts, &c., by a Quiet Looker-on, pp. 16, 17.
Before passing from the subject of the new tariff, let us observe, that the suddenness and vastness of its changes (some of which we consider to be of questionable propriety) for a time unavoidably deranged mercantile operations; and in doing so, as necessarily produced many cases of individual dissatisfaction and distress. Some of the persons thus situated angrily quitted the Conservative ranks for those of the Opposition; others, for a position of mortified neutrality: but we believe that many more, notwithstanding this sharp trial of their constancy, remained true to their principles, faithful to their party, and are now rewarded by seeing things coming rapidly round again, while unvarying and complete success has attended every other branch of the policy of Ministers. We know a good deal of the real state of opinion among the mercantile classes of the City of London; and believe we correctly represent it averse to further changes in our tariff-system, and coincident with the views expressed by Mr Baring in his address to the electors, when he deprecated “a constant change, unsettling men’s minds, baffling all combinations, destroying all calculations, paralysing trade, and continuing the stagnation from which we are recovering;” and declared his belief “that the minister who applies the principles of free-trade with the most caution, deliberation, and judgment, is the statesman who merits the confidence of the commercial world.” We now, however, quit the subject–interesting, indeed, and all-important–of the tariff, with the deliberate expression of our opinion, that it is, taken as a whole, a very bold, masterly, and successful stroke of policy. Now for the NEW CORN-LAW.
But how shall we deal with a topic with which the public has been so utterly sickened by the people calling themselves “The Anti-corn-law League?” We do not, nevertheless, despair of securing the attention of our readers to the few observations which we have to offer upon a subject which, however hackneyed, is one of paramount importance. We are satisfied that nine out of every ten even of newspaper readers turn with disgust from the columns headed “Anti-corn-law League,” “Doings of the League,” “Great Meeting of the Anti-corn-law League,” and so forth; and, (making every allowance for the exigencies occasioned by the dearth of topics while Parliament is not sitting,) we are exceedingly surprised, that the great London newspapers should inflict upon their readers so much of the slang and drivel of the gentry in question. In the due prosecution of our subject, we cannot avoid the topic of the new corn-law, even were we so disposed; and we shall at once proceed to our task, with two objects in view–to vindicate the course pursued by Sir Robert Peel, and set forth, briefly and distinctly, those truly admirable qualities of the existing Corn-laws, which are either most imprudently misrepresented, or artfully kept out of view, by those who are now making such desperate efforts to overthrow it. “Mark how a plain tale shall set them down!”
Whether foreign corn should be admitted into this country on payment of _fluctuating_ duties, or a _fixed_ duty, or free of all duties, are obviously questions of the highest importance, involving extensive and complicated considerations. Sir Robert Peel, Lord John Russell, and the persons banded together under the name of “The Anti-corn-law League,” may be taken as representing the classes of opinion which would respectively answer these three questions in the affirmative. All of them appealed to the nation at large on the last general election. The _form_ in which the question was proposed to the country, it fell to the lot of the advocates of a fixed duty to prescribe, and they shaped it thus in the Queen’s speech:–
“It will be for you to determine whether the corn-laws do not aggravate the natural fluctuations of supply; whether they do not embarrass trade, derange currency, and, by their operation, diminish the comforts and increase the privations of the great body of the community.”
To this question the country returned a deliberate and peremptory answer in the NEGATIVE; expressing thereby its will, that the existing system, which admits foreign corn on payment of _fluctuating_ duties, should continue. The country thus adopted the opinions of Sir Robert Peel, rejected those of Lord John Russell, and utterly scouted those of the “Anti-corn-law League,” in spite of all their frantic exertions.
We believe that this deliberate decision of the nation, is that to which it will come whenever again appealed to; and is supported by reasons of cogency. The nation is thoroughly aware of the immense importance of upholding and protecting the agriculture of the country, and that to secure this grand object, it is necessary to admit foreign corn into the country, only when our deficiencies absolutely require it. That _in_ the operation of the “_sliding-scale_ of duties,” and the exact distinction between its effect and that of the proposed _fixed_ duty, is demonstrably this: that the former would admit foreign corn in dear years, excluding it in seasons of abundance; while the latter would admit foreign corn in seasons of abundance, and exclude it in dear years. Our _present_ concern, however, is with the course taken by the present Government. Have they hitherto yielded to the clamour with which they have been assailed, and departed from the principle of affording efficient protection to the agriculture of the country? Not a hair’s breadth; _nor will they_. We have seen that Sir Robert Peel, previously to the general election, declared his determination to adhere to the existing system of corn-laws, regulating the admission of foreign corn by the power of the sliding-scale of duties; but both he and the leading members of his party, had distinctly stated in Parliament, just before its dissolution, that while resolved to adhere to the _principle_ of a sliding-scale, they would not pledge themselves to adhere to all the _details_ of that scale. And they said well and wisely, for there were grave objections to some of those details. These objections they have removed, and infinitely added to the efficiency of the sliding-scale; but in removing the principal objections, they stirred a hornet’s nest–they rendered furious a host of sleek gamblers in grain, who found their “occupation gone” suddenly! On the other hand, the Government conferred a great substantial benefit upon the country, by securing a just balance between protection to the British corn consumer and producer; removing, at the same time, from the latter, a long-existing source of jealousy and prejudice. A few words will suffice to explain the general scope of those alterations. Under they system established by statute 9 Geo. IV. c. 60, in the year 1828, the duty on foreign corn, up to the price of 68s. per quarter, was so high, and declined so very slowly, (L.1, 5s. 8d., L.1. 4s. 8d., L.1, 3s. 8d., L.1, 2s. 8d., L.1, 1s. 8d., L.1, 0s. 8d., 18s. 8d.,) as to amount to a virtual prohibition against importation. But when the price mounted from 68s. to 72s. per quarter, the duty declined with such great rapidity. (16s 8d., 13s. 8d., 10s. 8d., 6s. 8d., 2s. 8d.,) as to occasion the alarming and frequently recurring evils of glut and panic. Now the following was the mode in which these serious defects in the law of 1828 were taken advantage of by the aforesaid desperate and greedy “rogues in grain,” who are utterly prostrated by the new system; they entered into a combination, for the purpose of raising the apparent average price of corn, and forcing it up to the point at which they could import vast quantities of foreign corn at little or no duty. Thus the price of corn was rising in England–the people were starving–and turned with execration against those into whose pockets the high prices were supposed to go, viz., the poor farmers; whereas those high prices really were all the while flowing silently but rapidly into the pockets of the aforesaid “rogues in grain”–the gamblers of the Corn Exchange!–Ministers effected their salutary alterations, by statute 5 and 6 Vict. c. 14, in the following manner:–They substituted for the former duties of 10s. 8d. per quarter, when the price of corn was 70s. per quarter, and 1s. when the price was 73s.; a duty of 4s. when the price of corn is 70s. per quarter, and made the duty fall gradually, shilling by shilling, with the rise of price, to 3s., 2s., and 1s. Thus are at one blow destroyed all the inducements formerly existing for corn-dealers to “hold” their foreign corn, in the hopes of forcing up the price of corn to starvation-point, viz., the low duty, every inducement being now given them to _sell_, and none to speculate. Another important provision for preventing fraudulent combinations to raise the price of corn, was that of greatly extending the averages, and placing them under regulations of salutary stringency.
So far, then, from evincing a disposition to trifle with, or surrender, the principle of the sliding-scale, the Government have, with infinite pains and skill, applied themselves to effect such improvements in it as will secure its permanency, and a better appreciation of its value by the country at large, with every additional year’s experience of its admirable qualities. There is a perfect identity of principle, both working to the same good end, between the existing corn-law and the new tariff. Their combined effect is to oppose every barrier that human wisdom and foresight can devise, against dearth and famine in England: securing an abundant supply of corn and meat from abroad, whenever our own supply is deficient; but up to that point protecting our home producers, whose direct interest it will henceforth be to supply us at fair and moderate prices. It is the cunning policy of the heterogeneous opponents of the existing corn-laws, to speak of them as “doomed” by a sort of universal tacit consent; to familiarise the public with the notion that the recent remodeling of the system is to be regarded as constituting it into nothing more than a sort of transition-measure–a stepping-stone towards a great fundamental change, by the adoption of “a fixed duty,” some say–“a total repeal,” say the Anti-corn-law League. But those who think thus, must be shallow and short-sighted indeed, and have paid very little real attention to the subject, if they have failed to perceive in the existing system itself all the marks of completeness, solidity, and permanence; and, in the successful pains that have been taken to bring it to a higher degree of perfection than before, a determination to uphold it–a conviction that it will long continue the law of the land, and approved of as such by the vast majority of those who represent the wealth and intellect of the kingdom, and have the deepest stake in its well-being.
As for a total repeal of the corn-laws, no thinking man believes that there is the remotest prospect of such a thing; but many imagine that a fixed duty would be a great change for the better, and a safe sort of compromise between the two extreme parties. Can any thing be more fallacious? We hesitate not to express our opinion, that the idea of maintaining a fixed duty on corn is an utter absurdity, and that Lord John Russell and his friends know it to be so, and are guilty of political dishonesty in making such a proposal. They affect to be friends of the agricultural interest, and satisfied of the necessity for protection to that body; and yet they acknowledge that their “_fixity_” of duty is of precisely the same nature as the “finality” of the Reform bill, viz.–to last only till the first pressure shall call for an order in council. Does any one in his senses believe that any Minister could abide by a fixed duty with corn at the price of 70s., with a starving, and therefore an agitating and rebellious population? A fixed duty, under all times and circumstances, is a glaring impossibility; and, besides, is it not certain that the period for the issue of an order in council will be a grand object of speculation to the corn importer; and that he will hoard, and create distress, merely to force out that order? And the issuing of that order would depend entirely on the strength or the necessity of the Minister: on his “Squeezableness”–his anxiety for popularity. Does the experience of the last ten years justify the country in placing confidence, on such a point, in a _Whig_ Ministry? In every point of view, the project of a fixed duty is exposed to insuperable objections. It is plain that on the very first instant of there being a pressure upon the “fixed duty,” it must give way, and for ever. Once off, it is gone for ever; it can never be re-imposed. Again, what is to govern the _amount_ at which it is to be fixed? Must it be the additional burden on land? or the price at which foreign countries, with their increased facilities of transport, and improved cultivation of their soil, would be able to deliver it in the British markets? What _data_ have we, in either case, on which to decide? Let it, however, always be borne in mind, by those who are apt too easily to entertain the question as to either a fixed duty, or a total repeal of duty, that the advantages predicted by the respective advocates of those measures are _mere assumptions_. We have no experience by which to try the question. The doctrines of free trade are of very recent growth; the _data_ on which its laws are founded are few, and also uncertain. And does any one out of Bedlam imagine, that any Minister of this country would consent to run such tremendous risks–to try such experiments upon an article of such immense importance to its well-being? Let us never lose sight of Lord Melbourne’s memorable words:–“Whether the object be to have a fixed duty, or an alteration as to the ascending and descending scale, I see clearly and distinctly, that the object will not be carried without a most violent struggle–without causing much ill-blood, and a deep sense of grievance–without stirring society to its foundation, and leaving every sort of bitterness and animosity. I do not think the advantages to be gained by the change are worth the evils of the struggle.”[26]
[26] Debates, 11th June 1840.
To return, however. Under the joint operation of the three great measures of the Government–the income-tax, the new tariff, and the new corn-law, our domestic affairs exhibit, at this moment, such an aspect of steadily returning prosperity, as not the most sanguine person living could have imagined possible two years ago. For the first time after a miserable interval, we behold our revenue exceeding our expenditure; while every one feels satisfied of the fact, that our finances are now placed upon a sound and solid basis, and daily improving. Provisions are of unexampled cheapness, and the means of obtaining them are–thank Almighty God!–gradually increasing among the poorer classes. Trade and commerce are now, and have for the last six months been steadily improving; and we perceive that a new era of prosperity is beginning to dawn upon us. We have a strong and united Government, evidently as firmly fixed in the confidence of the Queen as in that of the country, and supported by a powerful majority in the House of Commons–an annihilating one in the House of Lords. The reign of order and tranquillity has been restored in Wales, and let us also add, in Ireland, after an unexampled display of mingled determination and forbearance on the part of the Government. Chartism is defunct, notwithstanding the efforts made by its dishonoured and discomfited leaders to revive it. When, in short, has Great Britain enjoyed a state of more complete internal calm and repose than that which at present exists, notwithstanding the systematic attempts made to diffuse alarm and agitation? Do the public funds exhibit the slightest symptoms of uneasiness or excitement? On the contrary, ever since the accession of the present Government, there has been scarce any variation in them, even when the disturbances in the manufacturing districts in the north of England, and in Wales, and in Ireland, were respectively at their height. Her Majesty moves calmly to and fro–even quitting England–her Ministers enjoy their usual intervals of relaxation and absence from town–all the movements of Government go on like clockwork–no symptoms visible any where of feverish uneasiness. But what say you, enquires a timid friend, or a bitter opponent, to the Repeal agitation in Ireland, and the Anti-corn-law agitation in England? Why, we say this–that we sincerely regret the mischief which the one has done, and is doing, in Ireland, and the other in England, among their ignorant and unthinking dupes; but with no degree of alarm for the stability of the Government, or the maintenance of public tranquillity and order. Ministers are perfectly competent to deal with both the one and the other of these two conspiracies, as the chief actors in the one have found already, and those in the other will find, perhaps, by and by; if, indeed, they should ever become important or successful enough to challenge the notice and interference of the Government. A word, however, about each, in its turn.
The Anti-corn-law League has in view a two-fold object–the overthrow of the present Ministry whom they abhor for their steadfast and powerful support of the agricultural interest;–and the depression of the wages of labour, to enable our manufacturers (of whom the league almost exclusively consists) to compete with the manufacturers on the Continent. Their engine for effecting their purposes, is the Repeal of the corn-laws; and they are working it with such a desperate energy, as satisfies any disinterested observer, that they themselves perceive the task to be all but utterly hopeless. They were confounded by the result of the general election, and dismayed at the accession to power of men whom they knew to be thoroughly acquainted with their true objects and intentions, and resolved to frustrate them, and able to carry their resolutions into effect. The ominous words of Sir Robert Peel–“I think that the connexion of the manufacturers in the north of England with the joint-stock banks, gave an undue and improper impulse to trade in that quarter of the country”–rang in their ears as a knell; and told them that they were _found out_ by a firm and sagacious Minister, whom, therefore, their sole object thenceforth must be to overthrow _per fas aut nefas_. For this purpose they adopted such an atrocious course of action, as instantly deprived them of the countenance of all their own moderate and reasoning friends, and earned for themselves the execration of the bulk of the community:–they resolved to inflame the starving thousands in the manufacturing districts into acts of outrage and rebellion. They felt it necessary, in the language of Mr Grey, one of their own principal men, in order “_to raise the stubborn enthusiasm of the people_,” (!) to resort to some desperate expedient–which was–immediately on Sir Robert Peel’s announcing his determination, early in 1842, to preserve, but improve, the existing system of the corn-laws–to reduce the wages of all their work-people to the amount of from ten to twenty per cent. This move originated with the _Stockport_ manufacturers. We have little doubt but it was the suggestion of Mr Cobden; and are quite prepared for a similar move during the ensuing session of Parliament. But was not–is not–this a species of moral arson? The Government calmly carried their measure: the outbreak (which we firmly believe to have been concerted by the Anti-corn-law League) in Lancashire arrived, and was promptly and resolutely, but mercifully repressed; and thus was extinguished the guilty hopes and expectations of its contrivers; and Ministers were left stronger at the close of the session than they had been at its commencement. They resolved to open a new campaign against Ministers and the Corn-laws–greatly to augment their numbers and pecuniary resources–to redouble their exertions, and immensely to extend the sphere of their operations. They _did_ augment their pecuniary resources, by large forced contributions among the few persons most deeply interested in the success of their schemes; namely, the Lancashire manufacturers–they _did_ redouble their exertions–they _did_ extend the sphere of their operations, spreading themselves over the whole length and breadth of the land, even as did the plague of lice over Egypt. But did they augment the number of their friends? Not a person of the least political or personal importance could be prevailed upon to join their discreditable ranks; it remained as before:–Cobden and Bright–Bright and Cobden–Wilson, Bright, and Cobden–Milner Gibson, Fox, Bright and Cobden–_ad nauseam usque_; but, like a band of travelling incendiaries, they presented themselves with indefatigable energy in places which had never known their presence before. And how comes it to pass that they have not long since kindled at least the manufacturing population into a blaze? Is it any fault of the aforesaid incendiaries? No–but because there is too much intelligence abroad, they could not do what they would–“_raise the stubborn enthusiasm_” of the people. In one quarter they were suspected–in another despised–in another hated; and it became a very general impression that they were, in fact, a knot of double dealers, who certainly contrived to make a great noise, and keep themselves perpetually before the public; but as for getting the steam “up,” in the nation at large, they found it impossible. In truth, the “Anti-corn-law League” would have long ago been dissolved amidst the indifference or contempt of the public, but for the countenance they received, from time to time, and on which they naturally calculated, from the party of the late Ministers, whose miserable object was to secure their own return to power by means of any agency that they could press into their service. But, to return to our sketch of the progress of the “League.” Admitting that, by dint of very great and incessant exertion, they kept their ground, they made little or no progress among the mercantile part of the community; and they resolved to try their fortune with the agricultural constituencies–to sow dissension between the landlords and the tenants, the farmers and their labourers, and combine as many of the disaffected as they could, in support of the clamour for free trade. This was distinctly avowed by Cobden, at a meeting of the Anti-corn-law deputies, in the following very significant terms: “_We can never carry the measure ourselves_: WE MUST HAVE THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS WITH US!!”[27]
[27] League Circular, No. xxx. p. 3.
They therefore proceeded to commence operations upon the agricultural constituencies. They knew they could always reckon upon a share of support wherever they went–it being hard to find any country without its cluster of bitter and reckless opponents of a Conservative government, who would willingly aid in any demonstration against it. With such aid, and indefatigable efforts to collect a crowd of noisy non-electors: with a judicious choice of localities, and profuse bribery of the local Radical newspapers, in order to procure copious accounts of their proceedings–they commenced their “grand series of country triumphs!” Their own organs, from time to time, gave out that in each and every county visited by the League, the _farmers_ attended their meetings, and joined in a vote condemnatory of the corn-laws, and pledged themselves to vote thereafter for none but the candidates of the Anti-corn-law League!
The following are specimens of the flattering appellations which had till now been bestowed, by their new friends, upon these selfsame farmers–“_Bull-frogs!”_ “_chaw-bacons!” _”_clod-poles!_” “_hair-bucks!_” “_deluded slaves!_” “_brute drudges!_”[28] Now, however, they and their labourers were addressed in terms of respectful sympathy and flattery, as the victims of the rapacity of their landlords–on whom were poured the full phials of Anti-corn-law wrath. The following are some of the scalding drops let fall upon their devoted heads–_”Monster of impiety!” “inhuman fiend!” “heartless brutes!” “rapacious harpies!” “relentless demons!” “plunderers of the people!” “merciless footpads!” “murderers!” “swindlers!” “insatiable!” “insolent!” “flesh-mongering!” “scoundrel!” “law-making landlords!” “a bread-taxing oligarchy!”_[29] Need we say that the authors of these very choice and elegant expressions were treated with utter contempt by both landlords and tenants–always making the few allowances above referred to? Was it very likely that the landlord or the farmer should quit their honourable and important avocations at the bidding of such creatures as had thus intruded themselves into their counties? should consent to be yoked to the car, or to follow in the train of these enlightened, disinterested, and philanthropic cotton-spinners and calico-printers? Absurd! It became, in fact, daily more obvious to even the most unreflecting, that these worthies were not likely to be engaged in their “labours of _love_;” were not _exactly_ the kind of persons to desert their own businesses, to attend out of pure benevolence that of others–to let succumb their own interest to promote those of others; to subscribe out of the gains which they had wrung from their unhappy factory slaves, their L.10, L.20, L.30, L.50, L.100, out of mere public spirit and philanthropy.
[28] League Circular, No. 10.
[29] Ibid. Nos. 26, 29, 44, 50, 71, 83, 94, 99, 100.
Still, we say, the whole thing was really a failure–the “steam,” even yet, could not be “got up,” in spite of all their multiplied agencies and machinery, incessantly at work–the unprecedented personal exertions of the members of the league–the large pecuniary sacrifices of the Lancashire subscribers to its funds. One more desperate exertion was therefore felt necessary–and they resolved to attempt getting up a _sensation_, by the sudden subscription of splendid sums of money, by way of starting a vast fund, with which to operate directly upon the entire electoral body–in what way, it is not very difficult to guess. Accordingly, they began–but where? At the old place–Manchester!–Manchester!–_Manchester!_ Many thousands were subscribed at an hour’s notice by a mere handful of manufacturers; the news came up to London–and the editor of the _Times_, in a transient fit of excitement, pronounced “the existence of the League” to be a GREAT FACT. Upon this phrase they have lived ever since–till somewhat roughly reminded the other day, by Mr Baring, that “great _facts_” are very “_great follies!_” Now let us once more ask the question–would all these desperate and long-continued exertions and sacrifices–(all proceeding, be it ever observed, from _one_ quarter, and from the same class of people–nay, the same individuals of that class)–be requisite, were there any _real movement of the public mind and feeling_ against the Corn-laws? Are they not requisite solely because of the _absence_ of any such movement? Nay, are they not evidence that the public feeling and opinion are against them? And that, perhaps, they will by and by succeed in rousing the “stubborn enthusiasm of the people” against themselves? Where has there been called one single spontaneous public meeting of any importance, and where exhibited a spark of enthusiasm, for the total repeal of the Corn-laws? Surely the _topic_ is capable of being handled in a sufficiently exciting manner! But no; wherever a “meeting,” or “demonstration,” is heard of–there, also, are the eternal Cobden, Bright and Wilson, and their miserable fellow-agitators, who alone have got up–who alone harangue the meetings. Was it so with Catholic Emancipation?–with the abolition of Negro Slavery?–with the Reform Bill? Right or wrong, the public feeling was then roused, and exhibited itself unequivocally, powerfully, and spontaneously; but _here_–bah! common sense revolts at the absurd supposition that even hundreds of thousands of pounds can of themselves get up a real demonstration of public feeling in favour of the object, for which so much Manchester money has been already subscribed.
“‘Tis not in _thousands_ to command success.”
If the public opinion of this great country–this great enlightened nation–were _really_ roused against the Corn-laws, they would disappear like snow under sunshine. But, as the matter _now_ stands, if their dreary drivellers Cobden, Bright, Wilson, Acland, W.J. Fox, were withdrawn from the public scene in which they are so anxious to figure, and sent to enjoy the healthy exercise of the tread-mill for one single three months, would this eternal “_brutum fulmen_” about the repeal of the Corn-laws be heard of any more? We verily believe not. “But look at our triumphs!”–quoth Cobden–“Look at our glorious victories at Durham, London, and Kendal!–our virtual victory at Salisbury!” Moonshine, gentlemen, and you know it;–and that you have spent your money in vain. Let us see how the matter stands.
I. _Durham_. True, Mr Bright was returned; but to what is the House of Commons indebted for the acquisition of that distinguished senator, except the personal pique and caprice of that eccentric Tory peer, Lord Londonderry? This is notorious, and admitted by all parties; and these causes will not be in operation at another election.
II. _London_. And do you really call this a “great triumph?” Undoubtedly Mr Pattison was returned; but is it a matter of congratulation that this notorious political nonentity, who openly, we understand, entertains and will support _Chartist_ opinions, is returned instead of such a man as Mr Baring? What was the majority of Mr Pattison? One hundred and sixty-five, out of twelve thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine who actually voted. And how was even that majority secured? By the notorious absence from London–as is always the case at that period of the year (21st October 1843)–of vast numbers of the stanchest Conservative electors. There is no doubt whatever, that had the election happened one fortnight later than it did, Mr Baring would have been returned by a large majority, in spite of the desperate exertions of the Anti-corn-law League and Mr Rothschild and the Jews. As it was, Mr Baring polled more (6367) than had ever been polled by a Conservative candidate for London before; and had an immense majority over his competitor, among the superior classes of the constituency.[30] At another election, we can confidently predict that Mr Baring will be returned, and by a large majority, unless, indeed, the Charter should be the law of the land; in which case Mr Pattison will probably enjoy another ovation.
[30] Among the _Livery_, the numbers were–Baring, 3196; Pattison, 2367;–majority for Baring, 889!
Among the _Templars_–Baring, 258; Pattison, 78!!–majority for Baring, 180!
III. _Kendal_. Is this, too, a victory? “Another such, and you are undone.” Why? Till Mr Bentinck presented himself before that enlightened little constituency, no Conservative dared even to offer himself; ’twas a snug little stronghold of the Anti-corn-law League interest, and yet the gallant Conservative gave battle against the whole force of the League; and after a mortal struggle of some fourteen days, was defeated by a far smaller majority than either friends or enemies had expected, and has pledged himself to fight the battle again. Here, then, the League and their stanch friends have sustained an unexpected and serious shock.
IV. _Salisbury_.–We have not the least desire to magnify this into a mighty victory for the Conservative party; but the interference of the Anti-corn-law League certainly made the struggle a very critical and important one. We expected to succeed, but not by a large majority; for ever since 1832, the representation had (till within the last year) been divided between a Conservative and a Liberal. However, the Anti-corn-law League, flushed with their “triumphs” at London and Kendal, flung all their forces ostentatiously into the borough, and exhibited a disgusting and alarming specimen of the sort of interference which it seems we are to expect in all future elections, in all counties and boroughs. It was, however, in vain; the ambitious young gentleman who had the benefit of their services, and who is a law-student in London, but the son of the great Earl of Radnor, lost his election by a large majority, and the discomfited League retired ridiculously to Manchester. When we heard of their meditated descent upon Salisbury, we fancied we saw Cobden and his companions waddling back, geese-like, and exclaimed–
“Geese! if we had you but on Sarum plain, We’d drive you cackling back to Camelot!”
So much for the boasted electoral triumphs of the Anti-corn-law League–we repeat, that they are all mere moonshine, and challenge them to disprove our assertion.
They are now making another desperate effort to raise a further sum of a hundred thousand pounds; and beginning, as usual, at Manchester, have raised there alone, within a few days’ time, upwards of L.20,000! The fact (if _true_) is at once ludicrous and disgusting: ludicrous for its transparency of humbug–disgusting for its palpable selfishness. Will these proverbially hard-hearted men put down their L.100, L.200, L.300, L.400, L.500, for nothing? Alas, the great sums they have expended in this crusade against the Corn-laws, will have to be wrung out of their wretched and exhausted factory slaves! For how otherwise but by diminishing wages can they repay themselves for lost time, for trouble, and for expense?
Looked at in its proper light, the Corn-law League is nothing but _an abominable conspiracy against labour_. Cheap _bread_ means cheap _labour_; those who cannot see this, must be blind indeed! The melancholy fact of the continually-decreasing price of labour in this country, rests on undisputable authority–on, amongst others, that of Mr Fielding. In 1825, the price of labour was 51 per cent less than in 1815; in 1830 it was 65 per cent less than in 1815, though the consumption of cotton had increased from 80,000,000 lbs. to 240,000,000 lbs.! In 1835 it was 318,000,000 lbs., but the operative received 70 per cent less than in 1815. In 1840 the consumption of cotton was 415,000,000 lbs., and the unhappy operative received 75 per cent less than in 1815!
If proofs be required to show that in reality the deadly snake, _cheap labour_, lurks among the flourishing grass, _cheap bread_, we will select one or two out of very many now lying before us, and prepared to be presented to the reader.
“If grain be high,” said Mr Ricardo, in the House of Commons,[31] “the price of labour would necessarily be a deduction from the _profits of stock_.” “The Corn-laws raise the price of sustenance–that has _raised the price of labour_; which, of course, diminishes the profit in capital.”[32]
[31] Debates, May 30, 1820.
[32] Ib. Dec. 24, 1819.
“Until the price of food in this country,” said Mr Hume, in the House of Commons on the 12th of May last, in the presence of all the leading free-trade members, “is placed on a level with that on the Continent, it will be impossible for us to compete with the growing manufactures of Belgium, Germany, France, and America!!”
Hear a member of the League, and of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, Mr G. Sandars:–
“If three loaves instead of two could be got for 2s., in consequence of a repeal of the Corn-laws, another consequence would be, that the workman’s 2s. would be reduced to 1s. 4d., which would leave matters, as far as he was concerned, just as they were!!”[33]
[33] Authentic Discussions on the Corn-law, (Ridgway, 1839,) p. 86.
Hear a straightforward manufacturer–Mr Muntz, M.P.–in the debate on the 17th May last:–
“If the Corn-laws were repealed, the benefit which the manufacturer expected was, that he could produce at a lower price; and this he could do only by reducing wages to the continental level!!”
If the above fail to open the eyes of the duped workmen of this country, what will succeed in doing so? Let us conclude this portion of our subject–disgusting enough, but necessary to expose imposture–with the following tabular view, &c., of the gross contradiction of the men, whom we wish to hold up to universal and deserved contempt, on even the most vital points of the controversy in which they are engaged; and then let our readers say whether any thing proceeding from such a quarter is worthy of notice:–
* * * * *
The _League Oracle_ says–
1. “If we have free trade, the landlords’ rents will fall 100 per cent.”–(_League Circular_, No. 15. p. 3.)
2. “Provisions will fall one-third.”–(Ib. No. 34, p. 4.)
“The Corn-laws makes the labourer pay double the price for his food.”–(Ib. No. 15.)
3. “The Corn-law compels us to pay _three times the value for a loaf of bread_.”–(Ib. No. 13.)
“If the Corn-laws were abolished, the working man WOULD SAVE 31/2d. UPON EVERY LOAF OF BREAD.”–(Ib. No. 75.)
“As a consequence of the repeal of the Corn-laws, _we promise cheaper food_, and our hand-loom weavers would get _double_ the rate of wages!”–(Ib. No. 7.)
“We shall have _cheap bread_, and its price will be reduced 33 per cent.”–(Ib. No. 34.)
4. Messrs Villiers, Muntz, Hume, Roche, Thornton, Rawson, Sandars, (all Leaguers,) say, and the oracle of the _League_ itself has said, that “We want free trade, to enable us to _reduce wages_, that we may compete with foreigners.”–(_Post_, pp. 13-16.)
5. The _League Oracle_ admits that “a repeal would _injure_ the farmer, but not so much as he fears.”–(_League Circular_, No. 58.)
Mr Cobden says–
1. “If we have free trade, the landlords will have as good rents as now.”–(Speech in the House of Commons, 15th May last.)
2. “Provisions will be no cheaper.”–(Speech at Bedford, _Hertford Reformer_, 10th June last.)
3. “THE ARGUMENT FOR CHEAP BREAD WAS NEVER MINE.”–(_Morning Chronicle_, 30th June 1843, Speech on Penenden Heath.)
“THE IDEA OF LOW-PRICED FOREIGN CORN IS ALL A DELUSION.”–SPEECH AT Winchester, _Salisbury Herald_, July 29, 1843, p. 3.
4. Messrs Cobden, Bright, and Moore, now affirm–“It is a base falsehood to say we want free trade, to enable us to reduce the rate of wages.”–(Mr Cobden on Penenden Heath. Messrs Bright and Moore at Huntingdon.)
5. Cobden, Moore, and Bright, say, that it is to the _interest_ of the farmer to have a total and _immediate_ repeal.–(Uxbridge, Bedford, Huntingdon.[34])
[34] Extracted from a very admirable speech by Mr Day of Huntingdon, (Ollivier, 1843,) and which we earnestly recommend for perusal.
* * * * *
The disgusting selfishness and hypocrisy of such men as Cobden and his companions, in veiling their real objects under a pretended enmity to “Monopoly” and “Class Legislation”–and disinterested anxiety to procure for the poor the blessings of “cheap bread”–fills us with a just indignation; and we never see an account of their hebdomadal proceedings, but we exclaim, in the language of our immortal bard–
“Oh, Heaven! that such impostors thoud’st unfold, And put in every honest hand a whip,
To lash the rascals naked through the land!”
While we repeat our deliberate opinion, that the Anti-corn-law League, as a body, is, in respect of actual present influence, infinitely less formidable than the vanity and selfish purposes of its members would lead them to wish the country to believe–we must add, that it is quite another question how long it will continue so. It may soon be converted–if indeed it has not already been secretly converted, into an engine of tremendous mischief, for other purposes than any ever contemplated by its originators. Suppose, in the next session of parliament, Ministers were to offer a law-fixed duty on corn: would that concession dissolve the League? Absurd–they have long ago scouted the idea of so ridiculous a compromise. Suppose they effected their avowed object of a total repeal of the Corn-laws–is any one weak enough to imagine that they would _then_ dissolve? No–nor do they _now_ dream of such a thing; but are at the present moment, as we are informed, “_fraternizing_” with other political societies of a very dangerous character, and on the eve of originating serious and revolutionary movements. Their present organization is precisely that of the French Jacobins; their plan of operation the same. Let any one turn to _The League Circular_ of the 18th November, and he will see announced a plan of action on the part of this Association, precisely analagous, in all its leading features, to that of the French Jacobins: and we would call the attention of the legislature to the question, whether the Anti-corn-law League, in its most recent form of organization and plan of action, be not clearly within the provisions of statutes 57 Geo. III., c. 19, Sec. 25 and 39; Geo. III., c. 79? What steps, if any, the legislature may take, is one thing; it is quite another, what course shall be adopted by the friends of the Conservative cause–the supporters of the British constitution. It is impossible to assign limits to the mischief which may be effected by the indefatigable and systematic exertions of the League to diffuse pernicious misrepresentations, and artful and popular fallacies, among all classes of society. That they entertain a fearfully envenomed hatred of the agricultural interest, is clear; and their evident object is to render the landed proprietors of this country objects of fierce hatred to the inferior orders of the community. “If a man tells me his story every morning of my life, by the year’s end he will be my master,” said Burke, “and I shall believe him, however untrue and improbable his story may be;” and if, whilst the Anti-corn-law League can display such perseverance, determination, and system, its opponents obstinately remain supine and silent, can any one wonder if such progress be not made by the League, in their demoralizing and revolutionary enterprize, that it will soon be too late to attempt even to arrest?
If this Journal has earned, during a quarter of a century’s career of unwavering consistency and independence, any title to the respect of the Conservative party, we desire now to rely upon that title for the purpose of adding weight to our solemn protest against the want of union and energy–against the apathy, from whatever cause arising–now but too visible. In vain do we and others exert ourselves to the uttermost to diffuse sound political principles by means of the press; in vain do the distinguished leaders of our party fight the battles of the constitution with consummate skill and energy in parliament–if their exertions be not supported by corresponding energy and activity on the part of the Conservative constituencies, and those persons of talent and influence professing the same principles, by whom they can, and ought to be, easily set in motion. It is true that persons of liberal education, of a high and generous tone of feeling, of intellectual refinement, are entitled to treat such men as Cobden, Bright, and Acland, with profound contempt, and dislike the notion of personal contact or collision with them, as representatives of the foulest state of ill feeling that can be generated in the worst manufacturing regions–of sordid avarice, selfishness, envy, and malignity; but they are active–ever up and doing, and steadily applying themselves, with palatable topics, to the corruption of the hearts of the working classes. So, unless the persons to whom we allude choose to cast aside their morbid aversions–to be “UP AND AT them,” in the language of the Duke of Waterloo–why then will be verified the observation of Burke–that “if, when bad men combine, the good do not associate, they will fall, one by one–an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Vast as are our forces, they can effect comparatively nothing without union, energy, and system: _with_ these, their power is tremendous and irresistible. What we would say, therefore, is–ORGANIZE! ORGANIZE! ORGANIZE! Let every existing Conservative club or association be stirred up into increased action, and _put into real working trim_ forthwith; and where none such clubs or associations exist, let them be immediately formed, and set into cheerful and spirited motion. Let them all be placed under the vigilant superintendence of one or two _real men of business_–of local knowledge, of ability, and influence. We would point out Conservative solicitors as auxiliaries of infinite value to those engaged in the good cause; men of high character, of business habits, extensive acquaintance with the character and circumstances of the electors–and capable of bringing legitimate influence to bear upon them in a far more direct and effective manner than any other class of persons. One such gentleman–say a young and active solicitor, with a moderate salary, as permanent secretary in order to secure and, in some measure, requite his services throughout the year–would be worth fifty _dilletante_ “friends of the good cause dropping in every now and then,” but whose “friendship” evaporates in mere _talk_. Let every local Conservative newspaper receive constant and substantial patronage; for they are worthy of the very highest consideration, on account of the ability with which they are generally conducted, and their great influence upon local society. Many of them, to our own knowledge, display a degree of talent and knowledge which would do honour to the very highest metropolitan journals. Let them, then, be vigorously supported, their circulation extended through the influence of the resident nobility and gentry, and the clergy of every particular district throughout the kingdom. Let no opportunity be missed of exposing the true character of the vile and selfish agitators of the Anti-corn-law league. Let not the league have all the “publishing” to themselves; but let their impudent fallacies and falsehoods be _instantly_ encountered and exposed on the spot, by means of small and cheap tracts and pamphlets, which shall bring plain, wholesome, and important truths home to the businesses and bosoms of the very humblest in the land. Again, let the resident gentry seek frequent opportunities of mingling with their humbler neighbours, friends, and dependents, by way of keeping up a cordial and hearty good understanding with them, so as to rely upon their effective co-operation whenever occasions may arise for political action.
Let all this be done, and we may defy a hundred Anti-corn-law Leagues. Let these objects be kept constantly in view, and the Anti-corn-law League will be utterly palsied, had it a hundred times its present funds–a thousand times its present members!
Let us now, however, turn for a brief space to Ireland; the present condition of which we contemplate with profound concern and anxiety, but with neither surprise nor dismay. As far as regards the Government, the state of affairs in Ireland bears at this moment unquestionable testimony to the stability and strength of the Government; and no one know this better than the gigantic impostor, to whom so much of the misery of that afflicted portion of the empire is owing. He perceives, with inexpressible mortification, that neither he nor his present position awake any sympathy or excitement whatever in the kingdom at large, where the enormity of his misconduct is fully appreciated, and every movement of the Government against him sanctioned by public opinion. The general feeling is one of profound disgust towards him, sympathy and commiseration for his long-plundered dupes and of perfect confidence that the Government will deal firmly and wisely with both. As for a _Repeal of the Union_! Pshaw! Every child knows that it is a notion too absurd to be seriously dealt with; that Great Britain would rather plunge _instanter_ into the bloodiest civil war that ever desolated a country, than submit to the dismemberment of the empire by repealing the union between Great Britain and Ireland. This opinion has had, from time to time, every possible mode of authentic and solemn expression that can be given to the national will; in speeches from the Throne; in Parliamentary declarations by the leaders of both the Whig and Conservative Governments; the members of both Houses of Parliament are (with not a single exception worth noticing) unanimous upon the subject; the press, whether quarterly, monthly, weekly, or daily, of all classes and shades of political opinions, is unanimous upon the subject; in society, whether high or low, the subject is never broached, except to enquire whether any one can, for one moment, seriously believe the Repeal of the Union to be possible. In Ireland itself, the vast majority of the intellect, wealth, and respectability of the island, without distinction of religion or politics, entertains the same opinion and determination which prevail in Great Britain. Is Mr O’Connell ignorant of all this? He knows it as certainly as he knows that Queen Victoria occupies the throne of these realms; and yet, down to his very last appearance in public, he has solemnly and perseveringly asseverated that the Repeal of the Union is an absolutely certain and inevitable event, and one that will happen within a few months! _Is he in his senses?_ If so, he is speaking from his knowledge of some vast and dreadful conspiracy, which he has organized himself, which has hitherto escaped detection. The idea is too monstrous to be entertained for a moment. What, then, can Mr O’Connell be about? Our opinion is, that his sole object in setting on foot the Repeal agitation, was to increase his pecuniary resources, and at the same time overthrow Sir Robert Peel’s Government, by showing the Queen and the nation that his admitted “_chief_ difficulty”–Ireland–was one _insuperable_; and that he must consequently retire. We believe, moreover, that he is, to a certain extent, acting upon a secret understanding with the party of the late Government, who, however, never contemplated matters being carried to their present pitch; but that the Ministry would long ago have retired, terrified before the tremendous “demonstration” in Ireland. We feel as certain as if it were a past event, that, had the desperate experiment succeeded so far as to replace the present by the late Government, Mr O’Connell’s intention was to have announced his determination to “_give England_ ONE MORE trial”–to place Repeal once more in abeyance–in order to see whether England would really, at length, do “_justice_ to _Ireland_;” in other words, restore the halcyon days of Lord Normanby’s nominal, and Mr O’Connell’s real, rule in Ireland, and enable him, by these means, to provide for himself, his family, and dependents; for old age is creeping rapidly upon him–his physical powers are no longer equal to the task of vigorous agitation–and he is known to be in utterly desperate circumstances. The reckless character of his proceedings during the last fifteen months, is, in our opinion, fully accounted for, by his unexpected discovery, that the ministry were strong enough to defy any thing that he could do, and to continue calmly in their course of administering, not _pseudo_, but real “justice to Ireland,” supported in that course by the manifest favour and countenance of the Crown, overwhelming majorities in Parliament, and the decided and unequivocal expression of public opinion. His personal position was, in truth, inexpressibly galling and most critical, and he must have agitated, or sunk at once into ignominious obscurity and submission to a Government whom, individually and collectively, he loathed and abhorred. Vain were the hopes which, doubtless, he had entertained, that, as his agitation assumed a bolder form, it would provoke formidable demonstrations in England against Ministers and their policy; not a meeting could be got up to petition her Majesty for the dismissal of her Ministers! But it is quite conceivable that Mr O’Connell, in the course he was pursuing, forgot to consider the possibility of developing a power which might be too great for him, which would not be wielded by him, but carry _him_ along with _it_. The following remarkable expressions fell from the perplexed and terrified agitator, at a great dinner at Lismore in the county of Waterford, in the month of September last:–“Like the heavy school-boy on the ice, _my pupils are overtaking me_. It is now my duty to regulate the vigour and temper the energy of the people–to compress, as it were, the exuberance of both.”
We said that Mr O’Connell revived the Repeal agitation; and the fact was so. He first raised it in 1829–having, however, at various previous periods of his life, professed a desire to struggle for Repeal; but Mr Shiel, in his examination before the House of Commons in 1825, characterized such allusions as mere “rhetorical artifices.” “What were his real motives,” observes the able and impartial author of _Ireland and its Rulers_[35], “when he announced his new agitation in 1829, can be left only to him to determine.” It is probable that they were of so mixed a nature, that he himself could not accurately define them…. It is, however, quite possible, that, after having so long tasted of the luxuries of popularity, he could not consent that the chalice should pass from his lips. Agitation had, perhaps, begun to be necessary to his existence: a tranquil life would have been a hell to him.” It would seem that Mr O’Connell’s earliest recorded manifesto on Repeal was on the 3d June 1829, previous to the Clare election, on which occasion he said–“We want political excitement, in order that we may insist on our rights as Irishmen, but not as Catholics;” and on the 20th of the same month in the same year, 1829, he predicted–listen to this, ye his infatuated dupes!–“_that_ BEFORE THREE YEARS THERE WOULD BE A PARLIAMENT IN DUBLIN!!!” In the general elections of 1832, it was proclaimed by Mr O’Connell, that no member should be returned unless he solemnly pledged himself to vote for the Repeal of the Union; but it was at the same time hinted, that _if they would only enter the House as professed Repealers, they would never be required to_ VOTE _for Repeal_. On the hustings at the county of Waterford election, one of these gentry, Sir Richard Keave, on being closely questioned concerning the real nature of his opinion on Repeal, let out the whole truth:–“_I will hold it as an imposing weapon to get justice to Ireland_.” This has held true ever since, and completely exemplifies all the intervening operations of Mr O’Connell. It has been his practice ever since “to connect every grievance with the subject of Repeal–to convert every wrongful act of any Government into an argument for the necessity of an Irish Legislature.” Can it be wondered at that the present Government, thoroughly aware of the true state of the case–_knowing their man_–should regard the cry for Repeal simply as an imposture, its utterers as impostors? They did and do so regard it and its utterers–never allowing either the one or the other to disturb their administration of affairs with impartiality and firmness; but, nevertheless, keeping a most watchful eye upon all their movements.
[35] pp. 43, 50.
At length, whether emboldened by a conviction that the non-interference of the Government was occasioned solely by their incapacity to grapple with an agitation becoming hourly more formidable, and that thus his schemes were succeeding–or impelled onwards by those whom he had roused into action, but could no longer restrain–his movements became daily characterized by more astounding audacity–more vivid the glare of sedition, and even treason, which surrounded them: still the Government interfered not. Their apparent inaction most wondered, very many murmured, some were alarmed, and Mr O’Connell laughed at. Sir Robert Peel, on one occasion, when his attention was challenged to the subject in the House of Commons, replied, that “he was not in the least degree moved or disturbed by what was passing in Ireland.” This perfect calmness of the Government served to check the rising of any alarm in the country; which felt a confidence of the Ministry’s being equal to any exigency that could be contemplated. Thus stood matters till the 11th July last, when, at the close of the debate on the state of Ireland, Sir Robert Peel delivered a very remarkable speech. It consisted of a calm demonstration of the falsehood of all the charges brought by the Repealers against the imperial Parliament; of the impolicy and the impracticability of the various schemes for the relief of Ireland proposed by the Opposition; of the absolute impossibility of Parliament entertaining the question of a Repeal of the Union; and a distinct answer to the question–“What course do you intend to pursue?” That answer is worthy of being distinctly brought under the notice of the reader. “I am prepared to administer the law in Ireland upon principles of justice and impartiality. I am prepared to recognise the principle established by law–that there shall be equality in civil privileges. I am prepared to respect the franchise, to give substantially, although not nominally, equality. In respect to the social condition of Ireland–_as to the relation of landlord and tenant_[36]–I am prepared to give the most deliberate consideration to the important matters involved in those questions. With respect to the Established Church, I have already stated that we are not prepared to make an alteration in the law by which that Church is maintained.”
[36] In conformity with this declaration, has been issued the recent commission, for “enquiring into the state of the law and practice in respect to the occupation of land in Ireland, and in respect also to the burdens of county cess and other charges, which fall respectively on the landlord and occupying tenant, and for reporting as to the amendments, if any, of the existing laws, which, having due regard to the just rights of property, may be calculated to encourage the cultivation of the soil, to extend a better system of agriculture, and to improve the relation between landlord and tenant, in that part of the United Kingdom.”
We recollect being greatly struck with the ominous calmness perceptible in the tone of this speech. It seemed characterised by a solemn declaration to place the agitation of Ireland for ever in the _wrong_–to deprive them of all pretence for accusing England of having misgoverned Ireland since the Union. It appeared to us as if that speech had been designed to lay the basis of a contemplated movement against the agitation of the most decisive kind. The Government acted up to the spirit of the declaration, on that occasion, of Sir Robert Peel, with perfect dignity and resolution, unmoved by the taunts, the threats, the expostulations, or fears of either enemies or friends. Mr O’Connell’s tone increased in audacity; but we greatly doubt whether in his heart he had not frequent misgivings as to the real nature of the “_frightful silence_”–“_cette affreuse silence_”–of a Government in whose councils the Duke of Wellington took a decided part, and which was actually at that moment taking complete military occupation of Ireland. On what information they were acting, no one knew; but their preparations were _for the worst_. During all this time nothing could exceed the tranquillity which prevailed in England. None of these threatening appearances, these tremendous preparations, caused the least excitement or alarm; the funds did not vary a farthing per cent in consequence of them; and to what could all this be ascribed but to the strength of public confidence in the Government? At length the harvest in Ireland had been got in; ships of war surrounded the coast; thirty thousand picked and chosen troops, ready for instant action, were disposed in the most masterly manner all over Ireland. With an almost insane audacity, Mr O’Connell appointed his crowning monster meeting to take place at Clontarf, in the immediate vicinity of the residence and presence of the Queen’s representative, and of such a military force as rendered the bare possibility of encountering it appalling. The critical moment, however, for the interference of Government had at length arrived, and it spoke out in a voice of thunder, prohibiting the monster meeting. The rest is matter of history. The monster demagogue fell prostrate and confounded among his panic-stricken confederates; and, in an agony of consternation, declared their implicit obedience to the proclamation, and set about dispersing the myriad dupes, as fast as they arrived to attend the prohibited meeting. Thus was the Queen’s peace preserved, her crown and dignity vindicated, without one sword being drawn or one shot being fired. Mr O’Connell had repeatedly “defied the Government to go to law with him.” They _have_ gone to law with him; and by this time we suspect that he finds himself in an infinitely more serious position than he has ever been in, during the whole of a long and prosperous career of agitation. Here, however, we leave him and his fellow defendants.
We may, however, take this opportunity of expressing our opinion, that there is not a shadow of foundation for the charges of blundering and incompetency which have been so liberally brought against the Irish Attorney-General. He certainly appears, in the earlier stages of the proceedings, to have evinced some little irritability–but, only consider, under what unprecedented provocation! His conduct has since, however, been characterised by calmness and dignity; and as for his legal capabilities, all competent judges who have attended to the case, will pronounce them to be first-rate; and we feel perfectly confident that his future conduct of the proceedings will convince the public of the justness of our eulogium.
The selection by the Government of the moment for interference with Mr O’Connell’s proceedings, was unquestionably characterised by consummate prudence. When the meetings commenced in March or April, this year, they had nothing of outward character which could well be noticed. They professed to be meetings to petition Parliament for Repeal; and, undoubtedly, no lawyer could say that such a meeting would _per se_ be illegal, any more than a meeting to complain of Catholic relief, or to pray for its repeal–or for any other matter which is considered a settled part of the established constitution. The mere numbers were certainly alarming, but the meetings quietly dispersed without any breach of the peace: and after two or three such meetings, without any disturbance attending them, no one could with truth swear that he expected a breach of the peace as a _direct_ consequence of such a meeting, though many thought they saw a civil war as a _remote_ consequence. The meetings went on: some ten, twelve, fifteen occurred,–still no breach of the peace, no disturbance. The language, indeed, became gradually more seditious–more daring and ferocious: but, as an attempt to put down the first meeting by _force_ would have been considered a wanton act of oppression, and a direct interference with the subject’s right to petition, it became a very difficult _practical_ question, at what moment any _legal_ notice could be taken by prosecution, or _executive_ notice by proclamation, to put down such meetings. Notwithstanding several confident opinions to the contrary advanced by the newspaper press at the time, a greater mistake–indeed a grosser blunder–could not have been made, than to have prosecuted those who attended the early meetings, or to have sent the police or the military to put those meetings down. An acquittal in the one case, or a conflict in the other, would have been attended with most mischievous consequences; and, as to the latter, it is clear that the executive never ought to interfere unless with a _force which renders all resistance useless_. It appears perfectly clear to us, _even now_, that a prosecution for the earlier meetings must have failed; for there existed then none of that evidence which would prove the object and the nature of the association: and to proclaim a meeting, without using force to prevent or disperse it if it defied the proclamation; and to use force without being certain that the extent of the illegality would carry public opinion along with the use of force; further, to begin to use force without being sure that you have enough to use–would be acts of madness, and, at least, of great and criminal disregard of consequences. Now, when meeting after meeting had taken place, and the general design, and its mischief, were unfolded, it became necessary that _some new feature should occur_ to justify the interference of Government; and that occurred at the Clontarf meeting. No meeting had, before that, ventured to call itself “_Repeal infantry_;” and to Clontarf _horsemen_ also were summoned, and were designated “_Repeal cavalry_;” and, in the orders for their assembling, marching, and conducting themselves, _military directions were given_; and the meeting, had it been permitted to assemble, would have been a parade of cavalry, ready for civil war. It would have been a sort of review–in the face of the city of Dublin, in open defiance of all order and government. Let us add, that, just at that time, Mr O’Connell had published his “Address to all her Majesty’s subjects, in all parts of her dominions,” (a most libellous and treasonable publication;) and the arrangements to secure the peace were more complete, and could be brought to bear more easily, on the Clontarf than on any of the preceding meetings. The occasion presented itself, and as soon as possible the Irish authorities assembled at Dublin; the proclamation appeared; the ground was pre-occupied, and a force that was irresistible went out to keep the peace, and prevent the meeting. The result showed the perfect success of the Government’s enterprise.
As the foregoing topics will doubtless occupy much of the attention of parliament during the ensuing session, we were anxious to place on record our own opinions, as the result of much reflection, during a period when events were transpiring which threw upon the Government an awful responsibility, and rendered their course one of almost unprecedented difficulty. Modern times, we are convinced, have witnessed but few instances of such a masterly policy, combined with signal self-reliance.
One or two general topics connected with Ireland, we have time only to glance at. First.–From the faint reluctant disavowal and discouragement of Mr O’Connell and his Repeal agitation, by the leading ex-Ministers during the last session, when emphatically challenged by Sir Robert Peel to join him in denouncing the attempted dismemberment of the empire, irrespective and independent of all party consideration, we are prepared to expect that in the ensuing session, the Opposition will, to a great extent, make common cause with Mr O’Connell, out of mingled fear, and gratitude, and hope towards their late friend and patron. Such a course will immensely strengthen the hands of the Queen’s Government.
Secondly.–To any thoughtful and independent politician, the present Sovereign state of Ireland demonstrates the utter impossibility of governing it upon the principle of breaking down or disparaging the Protestant interest. Such a course would tend only to bloody and interminable anarchy.
Thirdly.–Ireland’s misery springs from social more than political evils; and the greatest boon that Providence could give her, would be a powerful government inflexibly resolved to _put down agitation_.
Lastly.–Can we wonder at the exasperation of the peasantry, who have for so many years had their money extorted from them, without ever having had, up to this moment, the shadow of an equivalent? And how long is this disgraceful pillage to go on? But we must conclude. The ensuing session of parliament may, and probably will, be a stormy one, and harassing to the Government; but they may prepare to encounter it with cheerful confidence. Their measures, during their brief tenure of office, have been attended with extraordinary success–and of that both the sovereign and the country are thoroughly aware, and we entertain high hopes concerning the future. We expect to see their strong majority in the House of Commons rather augmented than diminished by reason of the events which have happened during the recess. If the Ministers remain firm in their determination–and who doubts it?–to support the agricultural interests of the country, and persevere in their present vigorous policy towards Ireland, the Government is impregnable, and the surges of Repeal agitation in Ireland, and Anti-corn-law agitation in England, will dash against it in vain. So long as they pursue this course, they will be cheered by augmented indications of the national good-will, and of that implicit and affectionate confidence in their councils, which, we rejoice to know, is vouchsafed to her Ministers by our gracious Sovereign.