IT'S THE CORN LAW ALL OVER AGAIN

One of the great art museums of the world is the National Portrait Gallery in London. In its grand hall hang the colossal portraits of the great British figures you would well expect to be there -- Winston Churchill, the Duke of Wellington, Queen Victoria, and others. But wait a minute; who are these two men, John Bright and Richard Cobden, just a few feet away from Benjamin Disraeli and William Gladstone? Why are they here in this place of historic sanctification?

In the 1840s, Bright and Cobden staked their parliamentary careers on repealing Britain's protectionist Corn Laws that favored large landowners by keeping food prices artificially high. They were the great free traders of their time, believing that Britain's future as a manufacturing nation depended on the unrestricted exchange of goods and commodities -- to everyone's advantage. Bright and Cobden prevailed after an epic political battle. Repealing the Corn Laws was a turning point in British history and the harbinger of 50 years of British industrial supremacy.

A century and a half later, the world still frets and stews about today's version of the Corn Laws. In America, the government annually spends billions to subsidize farmers who produce corn, wheat, milk and a wide range of other agricultural produce.

American farmers are a gritty breed willing to challenge even the laws of nature if need be. They want "government off of their backs" -- well, except for those subsidies to which they claim to be entitled -- and, well, except for as much protection against imported products as they can induce the government to provide. America's pork producers want Polish hams to remain in Poland. America's dairymen abhor all those foreign dairy products on grocery shelves. America's wheat producers aren't enthused about that Canadian wheat coming into the U.S.

French farmers are just as gritty. They farm smaller amounts of land, are less mechanized and are less sophisticated in land usage. As a result they aren't nearly as efficient as their American counterparts. They are much more dependent on domestic preferences and protection from foreign agricultural imports.

They now are using their political clout to derail the Gatt agreement that has to be completed by a December 15 deadline. For seven long, tedious years, 116 nations have been in exhaustive negotiations seeking to reduce tariffs around the globe by as much as one third. Almost every major item has been agreed to. The one gigantic roadblock remaining is France's insistence on protecting its farmers.

President Bill Clinton understands the political clout of the agriculture lobby. In order to ensure enough votes to pass NAFTA, he had to make some deals with House members giving a little extra measure of protection to American growers of wheat, citrus, vegetables, peanuts and sugar. The highway to free trade within NAFTA was obstructed by a few old-fashioned protectionist detours.

The French government wants a huge detour. It full well understands all of this talk about a global economy, but when it comes to offering up its inefficient farmers on the altar of free trade, France draws the line. The French do not subscribe to such grandiose talk about how a successful conclusion of GATT will inject hundreds of billions of dollars into the world economy. The French view of the world is understandably pessimistic, one of "creeping despair." Its jobless rate is double that of the United States.

Just as with the Corn Laws in 1840s Britain, agriculture issues are the stickiest to resolve. We want to open up world markets to the magic of American production. There are manufactured items that Europe and Asia may produce at a price and quality superior to us. But no nation on earth can outproduce us in food. The French fear -- with some justification -- that if American agriculture is given unrestrained access to French markets, a whole way of life will be in jeopardy. So, too, with the Japanese, who worry about the survival of their rice farmers if unlimited American rice imports are allowed. Neither nation is about to let that happen.

Sometime between now and December 15, a GATT deal will be struck. The French government will delicately inform President Clinton that just as he had to detour from the free trade path in order to mollify some of his agricultural constituencies, so, too, must France be granted the same right of privileged self-interest.

It's the fight over the Corn Laws all over again. Bright and Cobden aren't around. Their dour portraits hang in the great gallery hall. There is silence. No one speaks about the lessons of the past. For the moment, today's Corn Laws will not be repealed.