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

THE RESULTS OF FREE TRADE.

No. 11.
WE could ;lot expect, nor did we desire, that
our article of last week, on the utter failure of
the Free Trade prophecies, should pass un-
noticed. We knew that the plain, undeniable
facts which we had brought together, consti-
tuted a case so utterly crushing, as almost to
compel a groan or an exclamation from any
Leaguer upon whom they fell. It has not
surprised us, therefore, to witness contortions
and other signs of pain, both in the Whig
daily organ, the usually calm and " cucumber
journal" the Globe, and also in the latest of
the newspapers of Manchester origin, which
naturally feels bound to do battle for its
creators and patrons.
The Globe's answer is a very simple one.
" We never held out any exaggerated hopes;
"we did not promise low prices, reduction of
" pauperism,' &c. We are quite aware of that.
The Whigs and their organ cry out before they
are touched. Our censure fell upon the
League and the Peelites ; and the Globe has
therefore rushed needlessly into the fray.
The Whigs, left to themselves, would never
have repealed the Corn Laws. Mr. BAINES of
Leeds, himself one of the League, has left on
record the narrative of a visit to Lord NIEL-
BOURNE, in which the Whig Premier asked the
deputation,—" Well, gentlemen, and what is
"it you really want ?" And when the men of
Manchester answered, " Total repeal," his
Lordship replied, with an inward chuckle of
derision, " That, you know, is wholly out of the
" question."
The Whigs, left to themselves, would never
have repealed the Corn Laws. Lord JOHN
RUSSELL only declared for total repeal at the
eleventh hour, and when he had good reason
to know that Sir ROBERT PEEL was himself
meditating a similarly-wonderful conversion.
The truth is, that the Anti-Corn-Law League
dragged both PEEL and RUSSELL after them—
made use of them, and then cast them off. So
much the more needful is it to show, as we
have already partly done, that the whole
League game was a-delusion and a fraud.
" We never said," complains the Globe, " that
" bread would be cheaper, or that trade would
"be increased." The charge is not, that the
Globe or the Whigs did say so ; but that they
winked at the devices and frauds of the
League, and when a convenient time came,
took advantage of the clamour created by
them.

As to the facts which we alleged, they are
quite notorious and undeniable. The large
loaf of Free Trade and the little loaf of Pro-
tection were paraded at every contested elec-
tion for four years consecutively. That the
bread of the labourer was " taxed " and made
dear, for the advantage of a bloated aristo-
cracy," was the doctrine preached throughout
England. That the people of the Continent
were longing to take our manufactures, if only
we would take their corn, was urged with
equal industry. And that pauperism must
almost wholly disappear, if we had but "cheap
bread,' and " more trade," was considered to
be almost a truism. Any one who doubts the
fact that these were the standard arguments
of the Free-traders, need only get Mr. BAPTIST
NOEL's " Plea for the Poor," and there he will
find them at full length.
The daily organ of the League, however,
has a conclusive argument, which he seems to
think must settle the whole question. He
does not deny—he cannot deny—that bread is
not cheaper, that our trade with the Continent
shows little or no increase, or that pauperism
has augmented rather than diminished. These.,
facts are beyond contradiction. " But then,"
says the advocate of the League, " there is
" one little piece of political history which
" Tux Passs has entirely forgotten." And
what is that' Why, forsooth, that the House
of Commons, in 1852, actually paned a &sag-
tion

" 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