The Sun.
London, England, 1841-01-09 00:00:00

THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.

THE WALSALL ELECTION._
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Reform Club, Friday, January 8.

SlR,—The position at present occupied by the Anti-
Corn-law League has by no one been so forcibly and
laconically expressed as by yourself, when you said that
the election of Walsall was capable of being made for
Corn la.v repeal what the Clare election had been for
Catholic Emancipation.
I do not, with Mr. O'Connell, undervalue the ef-
forts of those liberal and accomplished men who for so
long a period fought the battle of Catholic Emancipa-
tion in the English House of Commons. But Iso far
agree with him, that I believe had not the Irish Catho-
lics taken the matter into their own hands, the exclusion
of Catholics from the rights of citizenship would still
have existed. The literary and Parliamentary advo-
cates of Catholic Emancipation were s sme of them men
who professed attachment to the cause merely to serve
their own ulterior purposes—some of them men who
sincerely wished to get what they asked for, but who
had also other objects to carry, many of them more
important in their estimation—.3oMB of them men who
would have postponed every thing to Catholic Emanci-
pation, but who were trammelled by party connections.
And all of this motley band were hampered by the legis-
lative forms by which they endeavoured to accomplish
Catholic Emancipation. The exclusion of Catholics
from the Legislature was part and parcel of that very
legislative system by which they sought to emancipate
the Catholics. Every form of Parliamentary proceed-
ings told for their antagonists and against them. They
fought with their hands tied ; they opposed buttoned
foils to the sharp points of their adversaries. But the
Catholic Association was hampered by no conventional
rules. Excluded from the pale of the Legislature, the
Irish Catholics did not need to conduct their movement
in consonance with the forms it had prescribed to itself.
As the Austrian General complained of Napoleon, the
Anti-Catholic party complained of the Associations, that
it " o'bserved none of the rules of war." Parliament
was for fencing according to the rules of art, like M.
Jourdain ;, but the Association, like M. Jourdain's
housemaid, laid the foil lustily about their cars, totally
regardless of quarte and tierce. The Parliamentary
and literary Liberals of those days were quite as much
shocked with the irregular proceedings of the Catholic
Association as the Tories ; they deprecated and de-
nounced its violence—they begged and prayed it to
proceed scion les.regles, and scolded it because it would
not. And yet the Catholic Association bullied King,
Lords, and • Commons into the grant of Catholic
emancipation.
The circumstances of the Anti-Corn-law League are
the exact counterpart of those of the Catholic Asso•
elation. The League has a strong minority favourable
to its views in the House of Commons—an accom-
plished, generous minority, containing among its mem-
bers many gentlemen well versed in public business.
But in Parliament, and conforming to Parliamentary
modes of transacting business, these gentlemen fight at
disadvantage. There is a conventional morality within
the walls of Parliament which prevents a man doing
what he could do out of it, and enabling a man to do
there without shame what would damn him everywhere
else. "We cannot expect Mr. this, or Lord that, to
vote with us on this question—he has a country con-
stituency to manage." "We must not push this ques-
tion too hard at present, it would endanger (or, as it
may be, confirm) the stability of Ministers." " Minis-
ters are not in the giving vein to-day—we must wait a
more favourable season." And then an insincere pro-
fessing friend, well acquainted with the forms of " the
House," can so easily keep pushing a question back all
the time that he seems to be eagerly urging it on, that no
reliance can be placed upon the Parliamentary attack on
the Corn-laws. The battle of the bread-lax repeaters,
i/ won at all, must be won out of doors.
It is acting upon this conviction that the Anti-Corn-
law League has taken up a position independent of all
political parties. It has turned a deaf ear to the in-
vitations of the Chartists. It has turned an equally
deaf car to the invitations of the advocates of House-
hold Suffrage. It has thrown its weight into the
scale against Tories, because they supported the
hread-tax. It is bound, in consistency, to
pursue the same course when a professing Mi•
nistcrialist comes forward and refuses to declare
against the Corn-laws. It is not quite cor-
rect to say, as some do, that the Corn-law question is
not a political question. More correctly, the Corn-law
question is a question of administrative, not of constitu-
tional politics. Now, party distinctions in this country,
Whig, Tory, and Radical (if, indeed, there be sach a
thing as a Radical party) turn upon constitutional
questions. Whig, Tory, and Radical differ irreconcila-
bly as to the extent to which popular control over
Government ought to be conceded ; but there are many
administrative questions upon which the Whig and the
Tory may agree, while Tory differs from Tory. Of
these the Corn-law question is one. The Tories con-
stitute the main body of Corn-law supporters at pre-
sent, but that is accidental, because the landed aristo-
cracy are at present the most important members of
the Tory party. The Corn-law could not be an article
of the Tory political creed before 1815, because, prior
to that time, the Corn-law did not exist. About the
time of the Revolution the majority of the landed aris-
tocracy was Whig ; had the Corn-law been invented
then, we should have had the Whigs out•and-out Corn-
law men, and a section of the Tories (at the least)
bawling against it. This is not a mere guess. Pitt
payed homage to the wisdom of Adam Smith, before
Fox recognised his merits, Tory Cabinets (Huskisson to
wit) Lave made large concessions to the principle of
(vet trade. On the other hand, we find both Whigs
and Radicals entertaining narrow and inconsistent
view sof that question. It is clear then that the aboli-
tion of the Corn-laws is a question upon which Whig,
'Fory, and Radical may co-operate without sacrificing
one iota of their principles. The bulk of the constituen-
cies may, and ought, to come to an agreement that
whatever their representatives may be in other respects,
they must be Corn-law repealers. It will be difficult to
bring matters to this pass, but it is not impos-
sible. Single constituencies, and even more than
one or two constituencies have been known
ere now to merge their political differences for
the purpose of carrying some local im'rovement,
some harbour, road, police, or railway bill. What
local improvements like these are to a town or county,
the repeal of the bread-tax is to the whole kingdom.
A majority of the electors may be brought to see this
truth. But somebody must begin—some sheep must
leap the fence first. The Anti-Corn-law League has
taken the plunge. Its members have declared that no
candidate, however he accord with their views on other
matters, shall have their support, unless he be pre•-
_oared to vote for the abolition of the Corn-laws.
When men deliberately undertake to carry into effect
a resolution so startling at first view to the prejudices
of many, they also make up their minds to be vilified,
sneered at, run down in every way. They know the
risk, and have no right to complain of suffering which
they have braved with their eyes open. At the same
time they arc entitled—nay, it is their duty—to de-
fend themselves against obloquy, because it injures
their cause, making the timid stand aloof, and weak
brethren fall cff. It is for this reason that I ask your
leave to add a few remarks to this already snore than
sufficiently lengthy epistle.
The points to which I advert are the accusations
against the League, of having been actuated in their
movement at Walsall by hostility to the Ministry ; and
of their having, by that movement, endangered the
Liberal cause.

First, As to the alleged hostility to Ministers. If I
am walking quietly along the road, in the prosecution of
my lawful business, and find a man planted there, for
the purpose of making me turn back, am I to be ac-
cused of hostility towards him or his employers, be-
cause I lift him out of my way and pass on ? The Mi-
nisterialists placed Mr. Lyttelton in the position of
candidate for Walsall, to make the League turn back.
The Ministerialists knew that the League was resolved,
wherever it could, to oppose the return of candidates
not hostile to the Corn-laws. They brought forward
Mr. Lyttelton, friendly to the Corn laws, and thereby
challenged the opposition of the League. If there be
any hostility in the case, the first overt act proceeded
from the Ministerial supporters, who complain of the
hostility of the League. On the part of the League,
I have seen no indications of hostility either towards
Ministers, or their candidate, Mr. Lyttelton. The
League has only said to Ministers, if you set up
a candidate opposed to our principles, we cannot sup-
port him. To Mr. Lyttelton they merely said, Unless
you are at one with us regarding the Corn-laws, you
must look to find us against you. They have not
spoken angrily either of Mr. Lyttelton or Ministers.
But what have Mr. Lyttelton, and the newspapers un-
derstood to be the organs of Government, dine to the
League? They have misrepresented and vilified them.
Mr. Lyttelton represents the deputation from the
Council of the League as sent to oppose him, whereas
it was only sent to learn his sentiments regarding the
Corn-law, and to oppose any supporter of that law.
The language in which the Globe and Moiling Chro-
nicle of last week spoke of the League is too well
known to require repetition. What hostility there has
been, has been•entirely on the side of Ministerial sup-
porters—(l have no right to attribute it to Ministers
themselves): it is the old fable of the wolf picking a
quarrel with the lamb in a modern dress. The wolf
blames the lamb for occasioning the torrent of dirty
words that proceed out of its own mouth.
The allegation that the League has endangered the
return of a Liberal for Walsall, may be easily dispensed
with. It rests upon the assumption that Mr. Lyttelton
could have carried the borough. Mr. Lyttelton's
friends never ventured to assert that he could carry it,
till after he had withdrawn. In his retiring address
expectl‘lr . LL.
prompteo mpl a i nasn—d
either lukewarm neutrality or decided opposition,"
‘orlCVlihalerseu 2 Ip 0
rht
,a d I ehv
ao
vr
ey reasonm e t
with
i toti,
This was independent of the Anti-Corn-law opposition
3 to his claims, for he proceeds to say, "In addition to
these discourasing circumstances, I bad to encounter