TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE TASK OF THE DAY.
" NEMO mortalium," as Partridge says, "omnibus hone sapit" : nobody among the Free-traders is at all times infallible, not even Mr. Cobden. In his Bristol speech, last Friday, he was betrayed into two acts of indiscretion. Of all things, one would suppose Mr. Cobden most desirous to make repeal of the Corn-laws facile and harmless in aspect to those who are likely to dread it, and to encourage those who seem likely to make the change ; but at Bristol he acted as if he wished to magnify terrors of repeal by raising needless alarms on matters not now in issue, and as if he wished to discourage and disgust the most likely man to carry the measure. Mr. Cobden is far too important a person to make these mistakes with impunity to the interests that he represents with so much general ability. He lately wrote a letter to a French journal, to explain that the League sought repeal of the Corn-laws as a step towards abolishing all other "monopolies." The Times, alarmed for so important a section of the revenue, infers that Mr. Cobden would abolish all customs-duties ; which is indeed rather a wide con- struction, and it has been formally disavowed by Mr. Cobden. Meanwhile, the Morning Chronicle protested against the infer- ence as " a stale and worn-out fallacy," a "trick," a "flagrant and barefaced fallacy," an imputation utterly inapplicable to the designs of the Free-traders. At Bristol, Mr. Cobden alluded to this very point ; and it is remarkable that there he said much to revive the "flagrant fallacy." He said, indeed, that "the League" does not seek to abolish customs-duties ; but "it might be the object of a future League to do away with all indirect tax- ation at the Customhouse." Possibly ; but why mix up the remote contingency with the instant business in hand ? Is this the way to smooth the passage of the measure through Par- liament; or is that passage so smooth and certain that it is safe to indulge in wanton sallies of defiance or alarm ? Quite the re- verse. We, who have always advocated Corn-law repeal, have always admitted that there are difficulties of detail, to be looked at more closely the nearer we come to a real settlement—difficulties in moving the Legislature, difficulties inherent in the measure ; and the enterprise is not to be furthered by making light of the real difficulties, or conjuring up others that have no business in the path. The foreshadowed abolition of the Customs-duties is one of those supererogatory difficulties. We know, and others know, that some of the more ardent Free-traders do not account it quite so remote a consequence of Corn-law repeal as the Chronicle or even Mr. Cobden professes to do. Some would not delay to abolish all customs-duties except for revenue ; and they would carry out the letter of that principle to such an extreme, that if a customs-duty, though imposed for revenue, had a protective effect even incidentally, they would not endure it, but would impose an equivalent excise-duty on the same article produced at home, so as to neutralize the import-duty. We suspect that John Bull would not much relish that refinement of Free-trade nicety ; that if he did not go the length of abolishing both the duties, he would sooner be a certain sum out of pocket by the casual "pro- tection," than bear so odious an impost as any kind of excise- duty—his favourite aversion. But there are a world of questions to be settled before we come to that stage,—such as, what is a duty for revenue ? what is the best kind of taxation? are the public arrived at that pitch of intelligence to prefer to pay di- rect taxation ; and are they prepared, by the same token, to stand by the Income-tax as a thing to be amended, not abolished? In sooth, we have not yet entered upon that class of questions with any practical bearing ; since the changes of the tariff that are in progress relate to a far anterior stage of freer commerce ; and the allusion to the subject can only hamper the question that reahy is in issue. For, besides the ardent Free-traders just men- tioned, the only people who regard absolute free trade as a thing not so very far behind in the rear of the Corn-laws, are the Pro- tectionists; and the vision is calculated to make their fears, how- ever unreasonable, more violent and obstinate. There are indeed consequences of the repeal which are imme- diate, and which will have to be dealt with at no long distance of time afterwards. In the case of other great articles of con- sumption, of which the price is largely and manifestly enhanced by a customs-duty, the public will begin to feel much impatience ; and it will not be long before there will be a cry for total repeal of the differential Sugar-duties. The price of an important ingre- dient in the daily food of the people, or at least of that influential section the middle classes, is obviously and largely increased by a differential duty which does nothing for the revenue : it has been continued on sufferance for several years, out of considera- tion for the West Indian interests ; but the people will soon say that it has continued long enough ; and they will say so justly. Yet neither the Government nor the colonists are yet prepared for the repeal. That subject too is full of its own inherent difficul- ties; difficulties which our rulers, as they so often do, have made for themselves by former bad legislation. The delay which was asked for the West Indian to "turn round in" has not been im- proved; Government have employed it to obtain no better position In respect of the joint question of sugar and slavery ; but the delay must soon end. To escape from the consequent embarrass- ment, some very summary processes must be resorted to. The West Indians must do the best they can ; and the more free labour they shall have imported in the interval, the better for them. Government will only be further involved in inconsisten- cies unless they turn to the wisest and boldest policy, and abso- lutely withdraw from the hopeless armed crusade against slavery; abandoning all slave-trade treaties, and limiting their surveillance as a police to their legitimate province, the control of their own subjects. England would then, disentangled from the squabbles and heartburnings of prize-taking, right of visit, and such Mi8- takes as the seizure of the Echo and Felicidade, stand out more prominently as being in her own lands and dependencies the great conservatrix and exemplar of liberty for all human kind ; and the example would be most convincing to slave- owning countries, if England could make free labour manifestly a successful substitute for slave labour. To do so, implies the abandonment of a whole policy and system of conduct ; but it is a fruitless, thankless, and costly system, whose abandonment will cause nothing but satisfaction at home and abroad, except to a comparatively small and now insignificant sect in this country. The Sugar version of "total repeal" will undoubtedly precipitate that crisis.
But though a candid regard prevents our excluding some ulterior consequences as involved in the repeal of the Corn-laws, it is not for the active promoters of that measure to suffer their attention to be distracted by other subjects. The inherent diffi- culties of that one question will give the Repealers quite enough to do. Is it to be supposed that the Corn-laws will be surrendered without a struggle ? On the contrary, there will be a new com- bination of parties to uphold them. The Country interests, Whig or Tory, will combine. That fact teaches how impolitic it is to rebuff or discourage the aid of any influence that offers itself ; but how culpable and absurd does that rebuff appear when it is directed against the man who of all others could have done the most to dis- arm our antagonists! The Pro-Corn-law party in the House of Commons, perhaps in the constituencies, certainly in the Lords, are still strong enough to defeat the repeal, if their energies be unparalyzed by doubts among themselves. It is true that the de- feat would be only temporary ; that the interval would really be one of unceasing disturbance and mortification to agricultural in- terests; and that for their own sake it is well to end the contest. So much the more absurd any conduct which weakens the strength of the Repealers. Now, of all men in the country, Sir Robert Peel is really the only one that could, if all went well, so neutralize the Corn-law party, check its spontaneous action, turn it in part against itself, and carry the repeal of the Corn-laws in a House with a Pro-Corn-law majority. Mr. Cobden once remembered these things, when he talked of preferring Peel to Russell as an instrument for the policy of the League : but he seems to have forgotten his own avowals ; and while an idle ovation was prepared at Anti-Corn-law meetings for the trite phrases of Lord John's letter,—as if its transmission to London by the penny-post had been the great historical event of the day,—the reputed accession of Sir Robert Peel, which was really the great event, and the one desiderated by speakers of the League, was treated with disparagement. Surely every effort should have been made to improve that event. And even supposing that party opposition were overcome, still the embarrassment would not have ceased. New difficulties would appear : the repeal of the Corn-laws will probably: inflict real hardships on many ; and at the present day the Legislature is not fond of making martyrs to principle. The dislike to do so is reasonable. Bentham's dogma, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number," is imperfect and fallacious : the greatest number may be content with something short of the greatest happiness, if that involve destruction or misery for a smaller number, or even for a single individual ; and there is no civilized and intelligent community in the world that would not be so con- tent. Martyrdom, if ever desirable, must be spontaneous ; and it cannot at all events be fairly demanded or compelled. The true object of the statesman is the greatest possible sum of hap- piness; and that is to be attained as well by minimizing the of of the minority as by maximizing the direct happiness of the favoured majority. We do not believe in the prediction of "lands thrown permanently out of cultivation" by repeal, nor in injury to the labouring classes, nor even in permanent injury to any class. But we do believe that the farming and landowning classes may suffer considerably in the transition, and that their suffer- ings might be greatly mitigated by judicious arrangements. Panic, especially—the greatest source of danger—might be Featly soothed by carefully-devised methods of proceeding. And individuals, still less fortunate, will suffer still more tangibly. Take the case suggested by a correspondent, of persons whose lands are mortgaged so that the income of the nominal landowner is but a fraction of the rental—no imaginary or singular case : suppose the value of the rental depreciated to the extent of that fraction : now, without asking the public to pay his mortgages, he may justly ask whether that abatement, imposed by the State, should fall on him alone, or whether all who have a beneficial interest in the same estate should not sustain it in due share ? This is but one out of many kinds of cases. Indeed, the Corn-laws are not to be wisely and fairly disposed of merely by a bill repealing all restrictions. It never can be for the true welfare of a great nation to attain its ends with the infliction, even in carelessness, of wanton injury. On the con- trary, it is the interest of all who have free trade at heart, to make this great initiatory act as free from harm as full of benefit to all classes whatsoever.
Previous page
