The Sun.
London, England, 1839-08-26 00:00:00

LONDON :
MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 1839.

The declaration made by the CHANCELLOR of
the ExcnEtzt.mt, on Friday evening, concerning
the Corn-laws, to which we said we should ad-
\ ert, seems to us of very great importance. Mr.
VILLIERS, that steady and enlightened advocate7of
the abolition, took a similar view to ours, and said—
Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that in his
opinion the confusion in our monetary system, and the state
nC ai:prehension which existed throughout the country, were
entirely attributable to the existing Corn-laws—(Cheers)
_and this he stated as the re,ult of his experience as a pub-
lic man, and of the knowledge he had acquired as a Cabi-
net Minister and as Chancellor of the Exchequer, and this
a is stated at the close of the Session when they were about
to retire for the purpose of reviewing the past and reflecting
on the prospects of the coming Session. He hoped the
attontiou of the country would be drawn to this most im-
portant statement.

This was the observation of the CHANCELLOR
Of the EXCHEQUER, which MR. VILLIERS re-
fcrre to :

There was at this if °trent a general rate of interest so
aitterent between England and the Continent. The Hon.
141emb,r for Kilkenny attributed the high rate of interest
a'tugether to the Bank. But the present state of the
Cora-laws was at the root of the question.—( Hear, hear.)
I' could not be expected that the country should make
payment for five millions of foreign corn, and that that
should not create an exchange against the country. What-
ever banks existed in this country the necessary cons°.
q ienee of that altered balance must be the production of
a 1 the phenomena which the Hon. Member attributed to
the existence of the Bank of England. He thought the
course pursued by the Hon. Member was very unjust. It
diverted the attention of the people of England, and of
the public, from the real cause of the whole matter. If
we had a more free trade in foreign corn, and it was paid
for by the manufactures of this country, we should not be
subject to casualties so great, uor dangers so pressing.
To the question of the influence of the Corn- i
laws on credit, on the rate of interest, and on the
current', we refer in a separate article. In this we
confine ourselves to the fact that the CH A NCEL-
LoR of the EXCHEQUER made a declaration that
the Corn-laws lie at the root of our present diffi-
culties. Whether the Right Honourable Gentle-
man remain in or go out of office, that declaration
will not be useless to our cause, and its influence
over his character will not be altered by his subse-
vent position. Mr. VILLIERS said—
The Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed in opinion
with a large minority of that House on this subject, and
yet when they looked at the constitution of that House,
I .chat chance did they imagine there was of any change
! bt ing made in those laws, which, according to that decla.
I ration, were the cause of all these disasters. This was a
most s 'ricus matter. Here was the cause of all the confu-
isi in pointed out, and yet no one could believe that any re-
, n rely could be applied. Did they really believe that
things ( o rld be suffered to go on in this manner ? Could
any Government be content, after this statement, with
m tking the Corn-law question merely an open question ?
At proaant their only choice was between a Government
opposed to any change in the Corn-laws, or one which left '
these laws an open question ; but he thought that after the
declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was the
duty of the Cabinet to stake their existence on the ques-
tion, and make it a Government measure."'
We think so too, and must add that such being'
the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER'S opinion
he has not done his duty to himself and the coun-
try by continuing a Member of a Cabinet in which
the abolition of the Corn-laws was not considered a
sine qua non of its existence.
We have of late had frequent occasion to think
meanly, and express ourselves unfavourably, of Mr.
RICE, but this declaration sinks him lower than
ever in our estimation. He is sensible that the
Corn-laws injure public credit, derange the cur-
rency, and impede trade ; he is sensible, therefore,
that they are, as we have frequently described them,
of a devilish nature. Notwithstanding that he has
consented to remain a Member of a Cabinet which
would take no pains to get rid of them. He has
j continued to be a Member of the Government and
a consenting party to inflicting this mass of evil on
1 society. The poet says—
" Ile who allows oppression shares the crime."
Mr. RICE has allowed it, and, more than that,
by not opposing has upheld it. He may, indeed,
plead that he is not worse than his fellows. Mr.
THottsoN, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Lord
HOWICK, and the majority of the Cabinet, have
consented to fasten this master iniquity on
the land, contrary to their own better judg-
ment. There is but one Member of the Cabinet,
as far as we know, who is heart and soul an advo-
cate of the Corn-laws. Viscount MELBOURNE
seems, on this point, equally ignorant and self-
willed. His remarks on LordFITZWILLIAM'S
motion, show that he has all the free-trade horror
of a stupid landlord. We are obliged, therefore, to
conclude that Lord MELBOURNE'S voice has pre-
vailed over all the rest of the Cabinet, and prevented
.the Corn-laws from being vigorously assailed by the
Government, and, in that case, assuredly overthrown.
Now, Lord MELBOURNE, except as the head of the
Liberal party, composed chiefly of the representatives
of the towns, is really a person of no political follow-
ing or influence. Till 1835, we doubt whether he
could have disposed of two votes of the House of
Commons. We are sure that he never, till he
was made Prime Minister by the Liberals, had as
large a tail as Mr. O'CONNELL. As a politician
he is the creature of the Liberal voters
of the towns, and with relentless or un-
• thinking ingratitude,
on hheimto has
thwart their
dearest interests. Perhaps, however, the faultis
,
theirs rather than his
1835 was no
s fror his political life up to
warrant fo
placing him at the head
i
of the Liberal party. he have deceived ex-
pectations, lie hail not been
followers must have been the inconsistent. His
dupes i
t of their own
imaginations. For a long time
was
mane e the
supposedGo-
that want of power, or want of vi ;our, m
Ivernment halt in the course of reform, but the
power it possesses at Court, and the vigour it has
I displayed against the Chartists and in Parliament
I since the 9th of July, have convinced the public
that the great want is want of inclination. If half
as much vigour had been displayed in
repealing the
bread tax as in forcing through Parliament the oh-1
noxious Dog-cart Bill, the country would not suffer
half its present calamities.
We cannot quit the subject without noticing the
assertion of the Morning Post that the abolition.
ists would rejoice in a bad harvest here, though
they wish for a good one in Hungary. No aboli-
tionist wishes for a bad harvest, for he knows that
a good harvest would as much promote the repeal
of the Corn-laws as a bad harvest. A good har-
vest, now that manufacturing industry is slack, and
money dear, would so lower prices that the CAYLEYS
and other patrons of Corn-laws would roar out for
a change as lustily as in 1835. It is in the nature
of the accursed system, that good harvests or bad
harves!s alike testify against it. An abundant
harvest ruins the cultivator, a scanty harvest starves
the manufacturer. The operation of the law is to