Ixy) HIS LETTER TO MR. DELANE. 891

published against both Mr. Bright and Mr. Cobden,—wonld it fail to
occur fo you that, in the eyes of an honest judge and jury, this defence
would be considered an aggravation of the offence P
But we will assume, for the sake of argument, that Mr. Bright and I
ire regular subscribers fo, and diligent readers of, your newspaper. Is
it seriously contended that as often as you choose to pervert the sense of
our speeches, and charge us with schemes of public robbery, the onus lies
with us to disprove the imputation, and that neglecting to do so, we have
Bo right to complain if we are thenceforth treated as felons? Would it not
cour to any one but an editor of the Times that, before we violate the
linth commandment, the obligation lies with us to know that we are not
bringing a false aconsation against our neighbour P
Now, a word upon the subject which has given rise to this correspondence.
 Nobody knows better than yourself, except the writer who
actually penned the scandalous passage in question, that this charge of
wishing to divide the land of the rich among the poor, when levelled at
Mr. Bright, is nothing but the resort to a stale rhetorical trick (though
the character of the libel is not on that account altered) to draw away
public attention from the real issue, and thus escape from the discussion
of a serious, but, for the moment, an inconvenient public topic. In order
to trail a red herring across the true scent the ery of spoliation was
raised. You and your writers cannot be ignorant that the laws and
political institutions of this country tend to promote the agglomeration of
agricultural land in a constantly lessening number of hands :—you and
[ know, by a joint experience, which neither of us is likely to have forgotten,
 how great are the obstacles which the law interposes to the free
transfer of landed property in this country. Now, the policy which
sustains this state of things is a public question, which is not only fairly
bpen to discussion, but invites the earnest attention and study of public
men, In this, as in every other human concern, we must bring the
matter to the test of experience, and in no way can this be more effectually
 done than by a comparison between the condition of the great
majority of the agricultural population in this and other countries. The
subject of our land laws has engaged the attention of eminent statesmen,
and of our highest legal authorities; but I will venture to add—and it
is all I shall condescend to say in refutation of your aspersions—that if
there are two persons, who beyond all others, have given pledges throughout
 an ardent discussion of kindred topics during a quarter of a century,
that in debating the question of the tenure and transfer of land they
would observe the restraints of law, justice, and political economy, they
are the men whom your journal has dared to charge with the advocacy of
a scheme for robbing the landowners of their property for tho benefit of
‘he poor,

1868.
2B. BO.