The Press. — London, England, 1858-03-27 00:00:00

" Think of that I " But what was the said Resolution, which the Leaguers 11'.)iY think so valuable? Here it is : That the improved condition of the country was mainly the result of the recent legislation that abolished taxes im posed for purposes of Protection, and that it was the opinion of the House that this policy, firmly maintained and pru lently extended, would, without inflicting injury on any important interest, best enable the industry of the country to bear its burdens, and most surely promote the welfire and contentment of the people. The House of Commons, in 1852, urged by the Leaguers and the Peelites, passed this Resolution. Well, the more's the pity. The House of Commons, at Various pea ids, has done many foolish things, and this said Reso lution may claim a prominent place among its follies. But fot a League journalist to think to choke us with a resolution of the House of Commons! Why, the House of Commons, in 1811, resolved, by a large in ijority, that a one pound note and a shilling were "equivalent" to a guinea—knowing, all the while, that at least twenty•eight c ne-pound notes would be required, in the City, to purchase twenty guineas ! An absurd resolution, truly, bat not more absurd than that of 1832 ; the whole design of which seemed to be to insult and humiliate the Protectionists. The Leaguers had their triumph, and they have since paid for it. Most those who were forward in urging the adoption of this resolution have sines been driven from Parliament by the people ; while those over whom they triumphed have kept th<Ar seats, and are now in posses sion of the Government. _ We have no idea, then, that plain and stub born facts are to be annihilated by a resolu tion of the House of Commons, whether passed in 1811 or in 1852. The guinea, all men know, was worth 28s. in paper money in 1811, although the House of Commons " re solved " that it was worth just a one-pound note and a shilling. And although, in 1852, the House of Commons " resolved " that the " improved stato of the country " was owing to Free Trade, we now know, by the unan swerable evidence of public returns, that the said " improved state of the country " was itself a fiction! The last demand of the Manchester mon is, that we would hit softly. Such hard words as "a cheat," and " a delusion," are painful to their feelings. They " hope that it is possible " for some people to advocate Protection " without ceasing to be gentlemen " In what language is it proper to denounce fraud ? How shall an untrue statement be designated? We desire to use not one hard word more than is needful; but we cannot stoop to describe a falsehood as . anything less than false. We retort the complaint by objecting, in turn, to the not harsh, but untrue statements applied to this very article of ours. We will give two instances of gross misrepresenta tion : 1. To show that pauperism has not diminished, the writer take* one year, twenty years ago, forgetting all about tile grow•cth of population in the interim, and compares it with 185,1. 2. That Free Trade has been of no service in extending our commerce abroad is a more daring assertion, and is supported in precisely the same way. Two years are fixed upon, a Protectionist year and a Free-trade year. Now, in both these cases our statements are wholly falsified ! As to Pauperism, we com pared 1E36 with 1856. But we also compared the ten years 1836-1845, with the ten years 1846- 1855. And as to foreign trade, as the only way of marking growth is by taking the guage at every tenth year or thereabouts, we looked at 1834, and 1844, and at 1814, and we found a larger increase between 1834 and 184/ than between 1844 and 1854. Hence we natu rally argued, that the opening of the ports in 1816 had produced no such increase of trade as the Leaguers constantly insisted it would produce. If, therefore, the League writers wish "to be treated as gentlemen," let them behave like gentlemen, and not garble and misstate our arguments to their readers. Enough, however, for the present Out• position remains wholly untouched. We re• marked the fallen state of the League party, and of the Peelites,—so dominant in 1846,—50 scattered and annihilated in 1857; and we sought for a reason for the change. We found it in the unquestionable fact, that THE PRESS, MARCH 27,1858. they made certain representations to the people in 1812 —lBis which have been since proved to be wholly false. They told the people that the aristocracy taxed the bread for their own personal profit. They told them that corn was selling at 28s. the quarter in other countries ; and that if our ports were opined, it must be greatly cheapened here. They lifted up, everywhere, a large loaf and a small one—the first, the Free-trade loaf, which they desired to give the people ; the other, the Bread-taxer's loaf. the loaf of the Protec tionists, which they generally represented as of about half the size of the other. By these representations, they raised a popular cry, and carried Free Trade. But these fictions now return upon themselves. The people have not forgotten the orations of 1842-1815; nor can they remember them without ob serving, at the same time, that nut one of those promises has been realized. The apologists of the League seem to imagine that we can have no other object in exposing the quackeries of 18-12-5, titan that of " pre " paring the way for a return to Protection." Now, we have again and again disclaimed any such view, and our arguments do not so " prepare the way." When we admit, and in fact assert, that the opening of the ports has not lowered prices, and has not ruined the farmers, is it not obvious that our statements are far more likely to make men content as they are, than to lead them to seek for a return to Protection? And if we are then asked what our object really is, we reply, " Simply to do justice." We have witnessed for several years past the false and unreal view of the results of Free Trade which almost everywhere prevails. The fact is, that the gold-mines of California and of Australia, discovered since the Corn law controversy, have so deranged all previous calculations, as to favour the pretence that even for the Australian gold we are indebted to Free Trade. Amidst all this, the perpetrators of all the folly of 1840 have boasted fur twelve years past of their absolute wisdom, and of their vast superiority to " the blinded advocates of Pro tection." During all these years have we sub mitted to the constant assumption, that because the Protectionist party was beaten in 1846, it must, be taken to be certain that that party was in the wrong; and that the success of the Leaguers proved them to be the only " enlightened statesmen of their day." Now, why should we submit to all this as sumption of superiority, when the facts are on our own side; and when it is only necessary to take a little trouble, in order to show that the whole case of the Free-traders was hollow and unreal? The practical usefulness of the exposure can hardly be questioned. Many of the actors in this delusion are still alive and amongst us. Nay, we sometimes are insulted by the impudent pretence, that the having taken a part in abolishing Protection must b a suffi cient title to public confidence ! Does not such an outrage on common sense justify all that we have done, and show it is, even now, advisable to let the truth be fully seen? Does it not teach us the necessity of estaldishing the important fact that Lord DERBY and his friends, when they withstood Sir ROBERT PEEL in 1846, were not the senseless bigots that they are often represented ; but were, in fact, nothing more or less than Eng lish gentlemen, honestly contending, in their proper spheres, for that which is now abun dantly proved, by twelve years' experience, to have been the TRUTH? THE CABINET AND THE HOUSE OF CONINIONS. IN the present state of affairs a Con servative Cabinet has a most useful public duty to discharge. It asks the House of Commons for support on the broadest public grounds. I: promises measures, and seeks to be tried by its performances, and seeks only as a favour that due time may be given for the preparation of ito plans for legis lation. Members of the Cabinet who were 298 decried in 1852 have since then proved the sagacity with which they had been chosen by Lord DERBY. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. WAL. rocs, and Mr. HENLEY have all taken high places in Parliamentary estimation, and the most hardened factionist would not impugn their ctuinent fitness for their posts. General PEEL is universally respected, and in recent years the new Secretary for War has given repeated proofs that the Gallant General had many of the qualities required for Parlia mentary life. The Premier is aided also by his most accomplished son, and there is no doubt but that Lord STANLEY is hailed by a great mass of opinion as being the most remarkable of the young statesmen of the age. At once philanthropic and uractical, with benevolent instincts and a keenly practical turn of mind, the desires of Lord STANLEY will nut exhale in speculative dreams or senti mental aspirations, but will be concentrated on solid purposes. Many of the qualities which marked Lord GRENVILLE are to be found in Lord STANLEY. The same strong love of public labour, the same facility in acquiring solid knowledge, arid the same tendency to try public questions by the standard of severely intellectual law rather than a mere routine, are characteristics common to Lord GRENVILLE and to Lord STANLEY. A Cabinet so composed cannot but have special fitness for dealing with the social questions of the time It is n6t a clique, nor a coterie, nor a cousinhood. It represents the active talents of the Conservative party. " I " am free to say," said AL. OSBORNE, " that the " Noble Earl has constructed an Administra " tion which, as far as the personal characters " and abilities of the Members of the Govern• " ment are concerned, is equal to any Adnai " nistration I have seen in this House," and the Member fur Dover has sat in Parliament since 1841. Here is a severe censor admitting the just pretensions of Lord DERBY'S Cabinet to conduct public affairs, while the Observer calls aloud fur the sacrifice of most of the members of the late Liberal Ministry, and demands that the Liberal party should look out for new chiefs to aid Lord PALMERSTON. The Liberals, it is no secret, have no desire that they should be used fur the purpose of exalting Lord PAL mEasroN or Lord JOHN RUSSELL until the prin ciple of a Liberal Cabinet, and an understand ing about its future construction, be agreed upon. Tho Liberals desire " progress," and they believe that " Cabinet Reform" is a sub ject on which Lord JOHN RUSSELL entertains perverse and narrow views. They know well that the talents of their connection have never received fair play from Lord JOHN RussELL, and that it is a recognised scandal that gentle men like Mr HORSMAN and others have been excluded from the Cabinet because they were not qualified by matrimonial connection with " the families ;" and they are also aware that " the Fox Club " has been specially reor ganised for the purpose of rnaintainiug an ascendancy over the independent Liberals who haunt the Reform Club. Under such circumstances the Derby Cabinet is a positive necessity foi the country. The exclusive system of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from 1846 to 1351, was tried and broke down twice ; and when Lord DERBY took office in 1852 his Cabinet received no fair trial. The Coalition next broke down ; and we have seen the fall of Lord PALMERSTON. Anomalous con nections have melted one after the other. Unity of party and congenial sympathies exist in a greater degree amongst the Conservatives than amongst the Liberals. What these latter gentlemen may do towards the reorga nisation of their party, and towards a new system for constructing Liberal Cabinets, we cannot say; but, as things are at present, it is plain that England expects most benefit from a Conservative Cabinet being in office. The Queen most deliberately committed the management of her affairs to Lord DERBYS Cabinet, and the tone of the great masa of the Liberals, and the patriotic feeling of the House of Commons, are all fs.vourable to giving a just treatment to Lord DERBY'S Cabinet; and all that has occurred since their entrance to office has shown how beneficial has been the change.