A Bright genius.
Mr. John Bright has been, of late, illuminating his friends at Manchester upon the subject of cotton, the American war, and other matters too tedious to mention. He tells them to recollect what ‘"breaking the blockade means."’ ‘"It means,"’ says he, ‘"war with the United States; and I don't think myself it would be cheap to break the blockade, at the cost of a war with the United States. I think that the cost of a war with the United States would be, probably, half wages, for a very considerable time, to those persons in Lancashire who would be out of work if there were no cotton,"’ &c.Now, there is an old proverb which teaches that a half loaf is better than no bread, and we presume that when a man's bread depends upon his work, half work is better than no work at all. Here, then, is the dilemma, the corns of which Mr. B. presents to his constituents for their choice of the one or the other. Either they must starve outright, it the blockade be not broken, or they must half starve if it be. Neither alternative is very pleasant, we admit; but we know nothing of mankind, if there was any hesitation on the part of his audience. We are convinced there was not a man among them all who did not think that, dear as a war with the United States may be, it is cheaper than wholesale starvation.
Mr. Bright denounces all interference with the blockade as a manifest injustice. We do not regard it in that light. Necessity is superior to all law. Let us suppose that there was but one country in the world in which articles of food were produced, and that all the human race were supplied from that source. Let us suppose that some other country should undertake to blockade that country. Can it be supposed that any nation, merely cut of respect for the law of nations, would respect such a blockade? Certainly not. The whole outside world would conspire to break it. We consider the example directly in point. The welfare of England and France--their commercial safety --the food of millions of their subjects — are all dependent upon this blockade. The law of nations may be a strong bond, although it has appeared to be in each individual instance of its application, only a chain to restrain such nations as are too weak to break it with impunity. It may be a strong law, but it is not half so strong as the law of Nature, out of which it is said to spring, and self-preservation is the first article in the Natural code. Will a man dying of starvation, with arms in his hand, abstain from seizing bread by violence, from respect for the municipal law? Just as soon as England and France will abstain from forcing their way to our marts, when their people are starving, because they have not our cotton.
Mr. Bright, not content with giving his views upon the cotton question, enlightens his constituents upon the Constitution of the United States. He seems to have derived his notions from President Lincoln. He says: ‘"Well, what is the pith of this question? Do you suppose that if Lancashire or Yorkshire thought they could break off from the United Kingdoms, that these newspapers that are now preaching every kind of moderation to the American Government of Washington would advise the Government in London to allow these two counties to set up a separate Government for themselves? When the people of Ireland asked that they should secede, was it proposed in London that they should be allowed to secede peaceably?" ’
Evidently Mr. Bright has been reading Lincoln's inaugural and speeches by the wayside, or he never could have confounded a sovereign State, entering into a treaty of Union with another State, for the accomplishment of certain objects clearly and specifically defined, with a county in England. Let not Mr. Bright follow even such a luminary as the Yankee President too far, lest he find the rupture of the blockade justified upon his authority. He tells us constantly that he is justified in all his usurpations of power by necessity. Might not the British Government plead the same excuse for breaking the blockade.
Bennett congratulates his readers upon the fact that there is one man in England opposed to breaking the blockade. We suspect there are not many.
