The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-24 00:00:00

(Li-)1N
-__ ,

ITII WHICH
111 E " TRUE SUN - IS NOW
INCORPORATED.

LONDON :
FRIDAY EVENING. AUGUST 24, 1838.

The Morning Chronicle of yesterday contained a
short letter on the subject of the Corn-laws, of which
the following is the substance :
" During the last twenty years, what additional quantity of
wheat land has been brought into cultivation, and what propor-
tion does its produce bear to the great increase of population
during the same period. If the one has not, in some degree,
kept pace with the other, it is quite obvious we must become
more or less dependant upon the foreign grower ; and if so,
how unwise does our present system appear, which does not
admit of foreign grain being imported at a reasonable duty
until bread is a shilling the quartern loaf."

Without pretending to say in what proportion the
increase of cultivation has kept pace with the in-
crease of population, we can decide without the
slightest hesitation that it has been impeded by
the Corn-laws. There is no doubt of the continual
tendency of population to increase fully up to means
of subsistence ; and no doubt that the practical check
on the production of food in this and every country is
the cost of producing food. If, for example, Bag-
shot-heath or Blackheath, would pay the expense of
cultivating it with wheat, either of them might be
cultivated. Whatever, therefore, enhances the cost of
producing food, limits the supply.
Now the effect of the Corn-laws is to raise the price
of every thing grown on the soil of England. It raises
the price of all corn used for seed, for feeding draught
cattle, for feeding the labourers, and for feeding the
capitalists who cultivate tl ground. It raises the price
also of all the instruments they are obliged to use—
such as carts, ploughs, &c. &c., for the price of corn
enters into all these—and of all the commodities they
and their labourers consume. Now, the increase of
price increases pro Undo the cost of cultivation, and
in that proportion impedes the cultivation of England.
But with the Corn-laws, and for the sake of which
they are preserved, the tithes are conjoined, and all
the expense and all the impediment which they lay in
the way of extending cultivation, may be justly charged
to the Corn-laws. If there were no tithes there would
be no shadow of a pretext for Corn-laws, and how
much the tithes embarrass the cultivator and impede
cultivation, though it cannot be accurately measured,
requires not to be told.
It may be said that the increased price caused by
the Corn-laws compensates the increased expense of
cultivation. But this is not so. The whole expense
of cultivating the soil is incurred by the labourer and
the capitalist ; the landowners and the titheowners
are at no expense, and do not contribute one hand's
turn to the production. But the increase of price goes
mainly or wholly into the pockets of the useless land-
owner and the mischievous titheowner, and whatever
amount, therefore, of the increase goes to the landowner
and to the titheowner is a deduction from that increased
price which it is supposed compensates the capitalist
and the labourer for the increased expense of pro-
ducing corn, and limits far within its natural bounds
the increase of profitable production.
The Corn-laws, it is well known, lower the rate of
profit generally. They cause the cost of subsistence to
be increased. But it is from profit in the majority of
cases, and seldom or never from rent, that capital is
accumulated. Whatever lowers the rate of profit im-
pedes the accumulation:of capital, lessens the compe-
tition amongst capitalists, and impedes its applica-
tion to land. Wherever that competition is extensive
great ingenuity is called into existence ; and
thus the Corn-laws, by lowering profit, and
impeding the application of capital to land
also prevents the improvement of agriculture. We
hold it to be demonstrable and demonstrated that the
Corn-laws and the Tithe-laws, of which the Corn-laws
are the pilfering adjunct, by raising the cost of produc-
tion, in a far greater proportion than they raise the
rewards of the agricultural capitalists, do impede and
have much impeded the increase of cultivation in
England. At the same time, therefore, as they place
the nation, in a season of scarcity like the present,
comple):-ely at the mercy of one or two foreign countries,
as we yesterday showed, they actually check the growth
of corn at home.
Having shown that the Corn-laws limit the supply of
our food, both by checking cultivation at home
and preventing other countries from growing corn for
ins, we must now remind our readers generally, but
chiefly our law-makers, particularly the Bishops, and
more particularly still such of them—CHARLES
JAMES of London, for example—as supported the
New Poor-law—the arguments for which, and for a
number of unwholesome restrictions, and for the en-
couragement given to emigration, rest on the principle
.of a surplus population—that great disparagement has in
snodern times been thrownonthe attributes of the AL-