897
DER,
'S VIRTUAL SURRBEN
Ixxv.] MR. DELANE'S

desire to enfranchise, because they would then “ have a better chance of
having property,” would in two or three generations not only check the
accumulation of land in few hands, but would break up all existing
ostates, great or small, and thus largely increase the number of proprietors.
In another generation, probably, the peasant himself would “turn up
the furrow on his own freehold,” and be no longer divorced from the
land,”
You suggest so obviously that it is by legislative measures—rendered
possible by giving political power to the peasantry—you propose to“ amend
the unequal distribution of the land between the * rich and the poor,” that
10 one would think of charging you with endeavouring to effect this great
change by violence.

1863,
Ar. 59.

It was clear that Mr. Delane had now surrendered himself
into the hands of his adversary. Cobden did not allow him
to escape. “ For the first time,” he replied (Dec. 18), * you
now disavow having imputed to Mr. Bright and myself the
design of promoting by violent, illegal, or immoral means
4 redistribution of the land of this country.” Grammar,
logic, and common sense, he said, all revolted against the
Editor's attempt to show the connexion between his former
language and his new accusation.

You now profess only to impute to us the design of favouring the
equal division of landed property among all the children at the death of a
proprietor. But this will not correspond with your reiterated charge
that we contemplated a division * among the poor of the land of the rich.”
What you now affect to consider to be our object is the division of the
land of the rich equally among the children of the rich. I must bring
the question to the test of your own language.
In your leading article of December 3, you alleged that the small
states of the continent regarded a congress with the * satisfaction with
which the poor might regard Mr. Bright's proposition for dividing among
them the lands of the rich.” I now infer, from your new interpretation,
that I am asked to construe this as meaning only the satisfaction with
which the children of rich landowners would regard a proposition for
dividing among them the lands of their fathers.
Again, in your letter to me of December 7 you stated * These
speeches are discussed elaborately in two leading articles on successive days,
and in each of them certain passages are interpreted ss recommending
& repartition of the land among the poor” Now, the word partition
SM