The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-19 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1838.

A Russian merchant-vessel, the Peslevon, bound from
Odessa to Galatz, was recently driven on a bank in the
Black Sea. The crew, however, and passengers, 53 per-
sons in all, clung to the wreck, and subsisted for a short time
on a few provisions and a little brandy which they had
been able to save ; but on this stock being exhausted, they
found themselves reduced to all the extremities of thirst
and hunger. They were at length driven to the dreadful
expedient of casting lots as to who should die, and one of
the officers of the vessel, a young Greek, upon whom the
fatal lot fell, was making preparations for death by strangu-
lation, when a woman, one of the passengers, by her en-
treaties prevented the sad determination from being carried
into effect. While all the sufferers were remaining in a
state of stupor from the sudden revulsion thus caused in
their feelings, a sail was descried in the horizon ; signals
were immediately made, the vessel stood in towards them.
and the whole of the ship-wrecked perso.is were rescued
from a miserable death, and carried by the ship, which was
coming from Corfu, into Odessa.
A letter from Odessa of the 19th ult., quoted by the
France, says, that a Russian squadron, commanded by
Rear-Admiral Astiurhoff, reinforced by three vessels, had
that day sailed for Sebastopol, where it was to make only
a short stay, and was then to proceed, having been reinforced
by the division of Admiral Zazareff (Lazareff ?) to the Dar-
danelles, to observe the movements of the Turkish and
English fleets.

to starve, and that nothing fell to their lot as producers,
which could in any way be set off against the sufferings
which as consumers they felt from the lack of corn. And
that the ccrresponding inference held good in the enlarged
case of the Corn-laws. To this the Standard has offered no
reply.

It struck every person, that while Manchester was so
walled up, a statement that its continuance could be ren-
dered necessary by any circumstances of taxation or public
or private debt withi❑ the walls, would be voted by accla-
mation nugatory and absurd. And that there was the
same absence of reason, why any similar statements con-
nected with the continuance of the Corn-laws, should be re-
ceived with respect. To this also, the Standard has omitted
to make any answer.
It was an evidently necessary consequence, that if the
people within the walls had the ordinary tendency to multi-
plication, a large and increasing population must be from
time to time ground down, or else prevented from coming
into existence, by the combined operation of vice and misery;
and there was no visible reason why an effect of the same kind
should not equally be taking place, in the case of the Corn-
laws. To this inference the Standard has not attempted
any opposition.

If in a town so walled-up there were Poor-laws, it was
plain that to a certain extent, they gave at least the prospect
of some check to the system of starving the industrious
classes for the benefit of the owners of the flower-pots ; and
that the population which should consent to see the provi-
sion for the poor removed or reduced, while the shutting cf
the gates was persisted in, would offer an instance of abject
courtilg of injury, such as human nature might have been
deemed incompetent to furnish. And that an inference of
the like nature must present itself, when the poor are
" thrown on their own resources" by the New Poor-law,
and the landowners left to continue to find their resources
in the Corn-law. To this again, the Standard has not
attempted to reply. .
Itwas remarked as evident, that in a town so excluded from
supply from without, the labourers, and farmers if such there
were, employed in the cultivation of the flower-pots, must
in a short time be brought to the same state of depression
with the rest of the industrious classes. For so long as
the instinct of multiplication operates with them as with
the other classes, they must bring themselves by mutual
competition to the same scale of wages and of profits ; the
restrictions imposed acting equally upon all, to prevent the
finding employment for children in trade beyond the walls.
All of which appears to be directly transferable to the in-
stance of the Cara-laws. To this too, the Standard has
not produced the appearance of an answer.
If an arrangement was provided, for allowing the intro-
duction of corn from without the walls, on payment of duties
falling with the urgency of the moment, it would be plain that
this was only an invention of the:nature of a safety-valve, for
creating the maximum of safety to the general wrong ; and
the like inference appears inevitable in the case of the
Corn-laws, so long as no reason is offered to the contrary,
which by the Standard has not been attempted to be done.
The fallacy was equally palpable, of defending the closing
of the gates, on the pleas that it was necessary in \order to
have a resource against famine; to preserve independence ;
that prices outside would rise ; that the population in•
side would increase till prices were as high as before ; that
there could be no such thing as a permanently overflowing
supply ; that any benefit could only be temporary ; that the
trade outside would not produce so much home expenditure ;
that the manufacturers engaged in supplying the owners
of flower-pots, were among the classes interested in prevent-
ing a better market outside ; that the flower-pets were pro-
perty -; that they were part of our institutions ; that the
frame-work of society would be dissolved. And by parity
of reasoning, similar conclusions were indicated, on the
subject of the Corn-laws.
On all these' points, either expressed or readily under-
stood in the particular illustration or mode of argument
which the Standard has professed to oppose, it has allowed
judgment to go entirely by default. Friends and enemies
are invited to observe, that on the whole of the analogies and
conclusions thus advanced, it has attempted no defence
whatever, but instead, has put forward three unconnected
objections to the removal of the Corn-laws, the strength of
which it is now the time to examine.

CORN-LAW FALLACIES, WITH THE

ANSWERS.

( Continued from The Sun of Wednesday.)
254. —" Suppose," says Colonel Thompson, in one of his
late anti-corn lectures, " Manchester surrounded with a well
of brass, and the people condemned to subsist upon the corn
produced within that wall, and you have a type of the Corn-
laws." Give me a footing, and I will move the world, said the
mathematician. If Colonel Thompson is to suppose for us,
he can have no difficulty in proving what he pleases for us, but
we can suppos.7,no such thing as he bids us to suppose, and
therefore we will come to the fact—we cannot suppose a self-
existent, self-peopled. self-defended, self-supported manufac-
turing town, such as Manchester.—Standard, Oct. 2, 1838.
ANSWER.—The argument was, not that Manchester
would hold out a greater or less time against the infliction
of such a regimen ; but that evils would arise, which by
parity of reasoning must also arise in the case of the Corn-
laws, and that one set is illustrative of the other. And this
it was, which the opponent was to disprove if he could.

255.—We know that, shut up in the Colonel's brazen wall
—and no matter how abundantly rupplied with food of every
kind—Manchester would be on-3
-half depopulated, and the
other half pauperised, in five years, and that at any time
during that five years, its brazen wall would form but a feeble
defence against any enemy that should think it worth conquer-
ing.—ld.
A.—lt had been stated, that if Manchester were walled
up, certain ill effects would arise within the year from the
diminution of food ; and reply is made, that if Manchester
were walled up, it would be impoverished within five years
from other causes. Whether true or not, this is nothing
to the argument.
256.—Defence and population are supplied by the rural
districts, And by the rural districts, too, arc the worn-out manu-
facturers maintained, while the Corn-laws supply to the manu-
facturing towns the only means of even in part repaying the
benefits that they receive. This trash of Colonel hompson
is, however, not one jot worse than that usually employed by
the anti- Corn-law agitators.—ld.

A.—lnstead of answering the argument in hand, three
new reasons are brought forward, why walled-up Manches-
ter should be uncomfortable ;—which will be answered ire
their turn.

But what had been argued was, that if Manchester was
eenfined to the corn grown in flower-pots within its walls,
it would be useless to try to persuade the inhabitants in
general, that the high prices thus created for the owners of
the flower-pots were an advantage to the community, on
the ground that when one portion of the community is be-
nefited the carters must benefit along with it. And that
by parity of reasoning, the like may be inferred in the case
of the prohibition of foreign corn. To this the Standard
has given no reply.
It had been urged, that it would be vain to try to con.
vince the manufacturers in particular, that the increased
prices given for the corn of flower-pots were afterwards
laid out by the owners of the flower-pots upon the manu-
facturers, to their great gain and advantage. Because the
manufacturers would see clearly, that the process amounted
only to inviting them to give the price of two yards of
cloth for a bushel of corn instead of one yard, on the pro-
mise that the increased price should afterwards be laid out
upon themselves,—in other words, that they should. be in-
dulged with giving two yards of cloth for a bushel of corn,
instead of one yard. And that by parity a reasoning, the
like may be inferred in the cam of the prohibition of foreign
corn. To this the Standard has offered nothing in op-
Position.
It had been pointed out, that to tell the inhabitants of
Manchester that by opening their gates they would only
exchange one set of agricultural customers for another,
and that any quantity of corn obtained from without, must
be balanced by the cessation of an equal quantity from
within, would be unreasonable and beyond the bounds of
what human credulity can be expected to receive. Inas-
much as it would be notorious and palpable, that the ob-
ject was to exchange the worse set of customers for the
better,—the customers who gave a bushel of corn for two
yards of cloth, for the customers who gave it for one. And
that by parity of reasoning, the like may be inferred in the
case of foreign corn. To this also, the Standard has offered
noth'ng in reply.
It had been stated, that to tell the people of Manchester
of the superior value of the home market, would be met
by the assertion, that the proof of this rested on experiment,
and that whenever they had the evidence of prices, that the
home market was not the best hut the worst, they must be
excused for preferring that which gave most. And that by
parity of reasoning, the like may be advanced in answer to
the alleged importance of the home market in the case of
foreign trade in corn. To this again, the Standard has
stated nothing in the way of refutation.
It had been advanced, that it would be useless to attempt
to deter the manufacturers of Manchester from opening
their gates, by the representation that their wages must
fall. Because they would immediately answer, that they
knew their wages must fall, but not so much as the'price of
corn, and therefore the end would be, that they would
obtain a bushel of corn for the labour that made one yard
of cloth, instead of the labour that made two, which was
that they wanted. And that by parity ef reasoning, the
like would hold good in respect of any fall of wages that
was to arise from access to foreign corn. To this too, the
Standard has presented no disproof.
It had been noticed, that it would be an equally bootless
errand, to persuade the manufacturers to keep fast their
gates, for fear of the influx of hands from the cultivation of
flower-pots, which would be thrown upon manuf.ctures if
the flowe--pot system were put an end to. Because the ma-
nufactuters would know full well, that for every additional
hand thus thrown on manufactures for employment, a call
for ten would be created in consequence of the general
freedom given to industry. And that by parity of reasoning,
the like is to be inferred in the case of removing the prohibi-
tions on the trade in foreign corn. To this moreover, the
Standard has not advanced any objection or reply.
It had been observed, that it would be totally useless to
expect to induce the manufacturers to keep fast their gates,
by the promise of a protection in turn to each of their respec-
tive branches, consisting in preventing the introduction. of
any manufactures of the same kind from without the walls.
Because it would be plain that this was no cure of the great
internal evil, consisting in being confined to the use of the
smaller quantity of food instead of the greater. And that
the like inference immediately presents itself, in consi lering
the question of foreign corn. To this the Standard has
suggested no reply.

The first is, that the rural districts supply the &fence
of the rest of the community, and therefore should have the
Corn-laws. In other words, that the military prowess of a
thousand recruits from the class of clod-hoppers, is so de-
cidedly more useful and available for the defence of a mari-
time country than the services of two thousand manufac-
turers and seatnen, that it is imperiously necessary to put
down the latter by law, as the means of securing the other.
The second, that the population of the manufacturing
towns cannot be kept up without assistance from the
rural districts. Which is only sa3izlg that the condition of
the manufacturers is made s;.-bad, that they cannot keep up
their numbers ; a condition worse than the average condi-
tion of slaves in the European colonies.
The third, that the manufacturers when worn out, must
be maintained by the agriculturists. Which people thought
a good deal had been clone to do away, by what the inven-
tors of the New Poor-law call " throwing the poor upon
their own resources."

If the three new reasons are naught, then the Standard
has given a specimen of what its side can do in the way of
argument for the Corn-laws.
(TO BE CONTINUED.)

Notice had been taken, of the inutility of endeavouring to
frighten the inhabitants of Manchester, by the threat that
if they opened their gates, capital would migrate into the
surrounding country. For they would reply, that if it did
migrate, it would be no worse than that all should be ruin-
ously shut up at home by the invention of confining men to
town-grown corn. And that the like inference leaps into
men's faces, on the subject of the actual Corn-laws. To
this the Standard has attempted no answer.
It was palpable, that it would be a flagrant absurdity to
threaten the people of Manchester, that if they opened
their gates, the consequence would be the establishment of
rival manufactures outside. Because they would reply, that
supposing this done to the fullest extent, their condition
would at all events be no worse than while they were
penned within their gates ; but that the last way, in their
eyes, to make people establish manufactures for themselves,
was to manufacture for them, and that all they asked was,
to be allowed to supply manufactures to such as would wil-
lingly receive them. And the like inference appeared ine-
vitable in the case connected with foreign corn. To this
the Standard has not made any reply.
It had been noted as evidently useless, to try to persuade
the people of Manchester to keep fast their gates, by the
fear that corn would be bought, outside with their gold.
For they would reply, that the gold could go no longer than
it was more profitable that it should go than stay, and there-
fore the practice must stop of itself, unless a way was con-
temporaneously found out of purchasing gold with Man-
chester goods in some other direction, which would be
the very thing they most desired. And that the like
answer holds, in t he case of any corresponding danger threat-
ened from the removal of the Corn-laws. To this again,
the Standard has offered nothing in the way of objection.
It was clear, that there would be no use in asking the
manufacturers to believe, that as producers they had some
interest distinct from that of consumers, which should in-
duce them to keep up high prices by keeping fast their
gates. Because they would answer that they had the
lamentable experience, that as consumers they were driven