The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-25 00:00:00

A " B itish Farmer," advocating the Corn-laws,
in the Morning Pose of Saturday, makes the fol-
lowing statement
7.:ey who compare the increased production of our
country with the increased population for the last twenty
years, will find that the latter has more than kept pace
with the former, nay far exceeded it. Let those men, al -o,
take the growth of wheat in this country for the 14,n. four
;ears, end they will find that the surplus of the three first,
user and above the demand, was more than equal to the
Cedeleney of the last. But what has become of that. sue-
I his? Why, from the ruinous low prices of 1835 and 1836,
rho farmers were compelled (from want of the power of
I:..eping it) to turn it to the best account, which was, feed-
i ig beasts and sheep to an amazing extent, rather than sub-
mit to tle price. of 355. cr .405. par qu-xter. It has been
sifted from good =hority that a million and a half of
qu4rters cif wheat were given to cattle in the years 183.5
nod 1636 ; which quantity being a surplus over and above
the consumption of those years, might, had the farmers
b,•ri in a condition to have kept it, been advantageously
e ripleyed to meet the deficiency of 1835, which was pro-
duced by as unpropitious season."
This is rather a remarkable statement, which,
supposing it correct, as we believe it is, leads to
more inferences than the " British Farmer" is aware
of. At the time when the farmers of England were
•obliged to give their wheat to beasts and sheep, the
haiidloom weavers and other artizans in the manu-
facturing districts were suffering severe distress,
petitions to fix a minimum rate of wages, Cont.
mittees, and Commissions in 1835 and in 1836,
all attest the conjunct existence under the Corn-
laws of distress in the manufacturing districts, and
low prices, when the farmers gave corn to their
hogs. On the night of the opening of Parliament
the Earl of WINCIIILSEA also stated that
in the years 1822 and 1823, when the price
of agricultural produce was also extremely
low, there was great distress in the manufacturing
districts. Now, what is the cause of the co-
existence- of these two states ? The hand-loom
weavers it is plain had nothing to give the
farmers for their wheat, or they would have been
as glad to purchase as the others to sell. Why had
the hand-loom weavers nothing to give ? Their
trade, their productive power, and the trade gene-
rally of the manufacturing districts, and the in-
crease of people there, had been checked by the
Corn-laws which prohibited the manufacturers fro.n
exchanging their produce with whomsoever they
liked ; they could have got something to give
in exchange for the farmer's corn if they had been al-
lowed to sell their cloth in Russia or Prussia ; but
their industry having been hampered and checked by
restrictions, they could get nothing, and however
much they might want, the farmers would not give
them a grain of wheat without payment. But why
did not the farmers and the landlords, who had this
large increase of produce amongst tfn m, set the
manufacturers to work for them ? Why, the
farmers had already as much of the ma'nufac-
timers' goods as they wanted or could pay for.
The landlords have no particular penchant for the
productions of Manchester ; they prefer those of
Bordeaux, or Florence, or Rome, and, if they had
any surplus income they bought wines, articles of
vertu, or hired opera singers and dancers. But a
a great increase of agricultural produce, with a
restriction on the industry of manufacturers, is pre-
cisely the condition of things intended to be brought
about by the Corn-laws ; and the result is misery
and distress to both farmers and manufacturers.
We may draw two important inferences from this
statement. The first is, that abundance is a curse
to the farmer, unless the manufacturers be allowed
free scope to their industry to obtain wherewithal
tit purchase the farmer's crops. Such restrictions
as the Corn-laws prevent enterprize, prevent the gra-
dual increase of people, and when abundaneecomes it
finds no market. After prices have fallen verylow, as
in 1822 and 1835, a stimulusatise,s to manufacturing
enterprize, speculation becomes excessive, no cor-
responding production of corn can suddenly take
place to keep foil up to population ; the low prices
of the abundant year check cultivation, and in a
year or two, as in 1826 and 1827, as in 1838 and
1839, distress, and something like famine, approach.
The second is, that the forced increase of agricul-
tnral productioe by a Corn-law,:while the restrictions
!isept on the manufactiner'sindustrv, does trot ex-
tend their home market for manufactures. The far-
mi.rs and landlords are already supplied with all they
want of the produce of our manufacturers, and till the
Prices of their crops fall ruinously low, no advantage Ass
and no extension of the market accrue to the menu- In another part of our Paper will be found the
facturer. The corollary is, that the notion of ex- whole of the extract from Capt. MARRYAT S
%tiding the home market for our manufacturers by forthcoming work, to which we alluded on Saturday.
'e'4triction, like the Corn-laws, on their foreign It is just now especially deserving the attention of
trade, is a palpable delusion. The sad conclusion all naval men and of ail well-wishers to the Navy.
'rom the whole is, that by the stupid or mad inter- Our aristocratic and monarchical Tories, who are
Terence of the Legislature with the trade in perpetually vaunting the great liberality, generosity,
(ern, which is as much a part of the or- and high-mindedness of our Government in con-
er of nature d, as the seasons themselves, or trast with the parsitnonious Government of the
tiorencos of soil and climate. loth years of United States, are respectfully requested to cast
'utticlance, which in the course of nature hying their eyes over the comparison which Captain
.ade es-
. to the heart of titan, and years of scaresty, MAR itYAT draws between the pay of American
•'a..it "wee Eogli•it naval offict-r5, and 'Jeri/ups they may