The Sun.
London, England, 1838-08-23 00:00:00

season of scarcity, to that little surplus which our
neighbours may chance to be able to spare us.
We have now, with our Corn-laws, such a season,
and according to the statements published in our
Paper on Monday week, there is not above six weeks'
stock, including bonded corn and all, on hand. At
the same time it is stated, with a free trade in cotton,
that we have six months' consumption of cotton in
the country. Suppose that Russia and Prussia were
now to stop the supply, or suppose such another
season to come next year—which GOD forbid—and
suppose that in the mean time the angry tirades of the
Glasgow merchants, and of Mr. URQUHART spouted in
Parliament by my Lord LYNDHURST and other tools of
faction, should bring on a war with Russia, and Prussia
enter into an alliance with Russia, and the two to-
gether, should prevent to the utmost of their means,
any corn from reaching us during the next twelvemonth,
would not the country be in a far worse situation in
point of dependence for food, under the Corn-laws,
than with that free competition of all the nations in the
world to supply us, which the starvation-laws
prevent ? In fact, the Corn-laws make us de-
pendent on the bounties of one or two nations,
and on their chance surplus over their own
consumption ; and, but for those laws, almost the
whole world would grow corn expressly to offer us, and
would be dependent on us to take it. Should such
circumstances as those we have supposed inter-
vene—should a war begin before the Corn-laws
are abolished, and a season of scarcity follow,
our people, under the present short-sighted sys-
tem, would die of famine like the Hindoos when
their rice-crops fail, or they would have to beg
slavery and bread from the northern barbarians.
This would indeed be horrible dependence, and this
dependence is brought about by a law which, unable
to ward off blights and bad seasons, deprives us, when
they arrive, of all resource, except in the chance sur-
plus of one or two countries. If our words may be
tarried abroad, we would at once tell the people of
Poland and Prussia, " prepare your broad lands to sup-
ply us, for our Corn-laws must be annihilated, and our
people are determined no longer to spurn the bounties
of PROVIDENCE, and expose themselves by such
guilty conduct to the most distant chance of meeting
,he horrible fate of the starving Hindoos."

The proceedings at the nomination of the candi-
dates for the representation of Yarmouth, a report of
which will be found in another column, are not with-
out interest. Yarmouth, it is well known, had be-
come, next to Norwich, the greatest sink of corruption
in the kingdom, and an effort is now making by the
new constituency, and the better portion of the freemen,
to wipe off the stain which late events have cast upon the
political character of the borough. 'We sincerely trust it
will prove successful, and that there may be found
virtue enough among the electors to resist the tempta-
tion held out to them in the gold of Mr. THOMAS
BARING, which will of course be furnished in co-
pious supplies, according to the recognised principles
of Tory electioneering tactics. But be that as it may,
the attempt to bring the electoral body back to a
sense of their duty to themselves and their country, is
in the highest degree honourable to Mr. STEWARD,
and the other gentlemen on the Liberal side in
Yarmouth, who have taken the lead in this good work.

Mr. LOCKE, in his " Reasonableness of Christi-
anity," has the following passage, speaking of the
Priests of antiquity :
" All men indeed, under pain of displeasing the Gods,
were to frequent the temples ; every one went to their sacri-
fices and services ; but the priests nride it not their business to
teach them virtue. If they were diligent in their observations
and ceremonies—punctual in their feasts and solemnities and the
tricks of religion, the holy tribe assured them the Gods were
pleased, and they looked no further."
Now, we should like to know in what our present
Established Priests differ from the description given
by Mr. LOCKE of those of antiquity. Are we not
continually told that we must frequent the temples ?
Are they not anxious to have laws passed to make us
go thither ? Do not their poor slaves or tools endea-
vour to put an end to any kind of amusement and
employment on Sundays, that people may be driven

into the temple, and there wait on the sacrifices and
services and preachings of the Priests ? Do the Priests
make it their business to teach virtue ? Let the Ville of
Dunkirk and the Canterbury fanatics answer. What,
too; can we say of their continued anathemas against the
Catholics? What can be said, too, of the strife they
have stirred up, and the agitation they cause, aye, and
the blood they have shed, for their tithes' sake? Is not
diligent and punctual attendance in the temple,
and on " the tricks of religion," what they
chiefly demand ? If, in addition, a man pay
his rates and never disturb a vestry with op-
position, the Priesthood are satisfied. So it is with
the State. Our rulers may do what else they please,
if they only secure the Priests in:their revenues ; and
then the " Holy tribe," as Mr. LOCKE calls their
brethren of antiquity, assure our rulers that the Gods
are pleased. In fact, this class of men are unaltered.

The Manchester Guardian is exceedingly angry
with us for exposing the incompetency of Mr. Pou-
r. ETT THOMSON as President of the Board :of
Trade, in the strictures which we felt it our duty to
make upon the rejection, by the House of Lords, of
the " Young Baltic Merchant's" Trading Com-
panies Amendment Bill. We are really at a loss to
understand the ground of the Guardian's vexation.
Had our Contemporary attacked us for periling the
existence of the Cabinet, and so playing the game of
the Tories under the banner of Liberalism, we could
have appreciated his motives ; though we would have
had very little difficulty in proving that Mr. POLTLETT
THOMSON is not, and most likely never will be,
the corner stone of any Administration. But
the Guardian is too sensible a Journal to
fall into such an error. Even in Manchester
it is not supposed by any party that Mr.
POULETT THONISON'S retirement from the
Board, the business of which he so uniformly neglects
or mismanagea, would prove fatal to the MELBOURNE
Cabinet.
A
prove that,adThtehesuGniramrdigiahnt
allegeattempted to
to
gain ,
whateverhad
the
contrary, Mr. P. Tnomsori was really an efficient
Minister—a Statesman every way well qualified to
superintend the commercial relations of this great
country--we would have recognised in an instant the
existence of a misconception on the part of our Con-
temporary, which it would have cost us very little
trouble to correct. But instead of defending
Mr. POULETT THOMSON, the Guardian is con-
tent with a very silly, as well as a very lame, attack
upon us. Now we will put a couple of questions
to the Guardian, to which we shall be glad to receive
immediate answers. Is it not true, that on the 17th of
July, 1837, the Royal Assent was given to a Trading
Companies' Bill, passed at the instance of Mr. Pou•
LETT THONISON, but which was discovered in less
than a month after becoming the law of the land, to
be so absurd in its provisions, as to be incapable of
being carried into operation ? Is it not equally true,
that when the Act of last year was before Parliament,
the President of the Board of Trade stated, in his
place in the House of Commons, that the passing
of some such Bill was absolutely necessary to the
carrying on of the commercial relations of this
country ? Is it not a fact, that notwithstand-
ing the general outcry raised against the Act
of 1837, the President of the Board of Trade,
suffered eleven months to elapse before introduc-
ing an Amendment Bill ? And how, let us ask the