The Sun.
London, England, 1838-07-06 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The Evening Contemporary, to whose attacks on the
Corn-laws we replied at some length, yesterday, complains,
that in our article we attempted merely to point out cer-
tain discrepancies between the arguments employed by him,
and the arguments employed by other oracles of free trade
—instead of confining ourselves to a refutation of his own
peculiar reasonings. We, certainly, did advert to the dis-
crepancies in question ; but we, also, pointed out the utter
unsoundness of our Contemporary's views. If, however,
we are again called on to slay the slain, our consolation
must be, that the task is not a difficult one ! The follow-
ing is our Contemporary's case in his own words :
" The abolition of the Corn-laws would place a greater
quantity of food at the command of our capitalists and ma-
nufacturers than at present. They would enter with the fo-
reign manufacturer, into competition for corn in the cheapest
foreign market, and would enhance its price to him. If
it did not actually equalize the price which they and the
foreign manufacturer would have to pay for food, it would
have that tendency, and would place the two more nearly
on a level than at present. At the same time our manu-
facturers would compete with oae another for corn in the
borne market much less keenly, and they would in both mar-
kets get more corn for their money than at present. Obtain-
ing more corn for their money, they would have an increased
demand for labour, and would give more than at present of
the increased quantity of corn which they obtained to the
labourers. We do not pretend to conjecture in what propor-
tions the increased quantity of food at a lower price, which
would come under the command of the capitalist, would be
divided between profit and wages ; but we have no doubt
whatever that the abolition of the Corn-laws would augment
both. Supposing that the reduction in the price isf; corn
should only be 10 per cent., 2 or 3 per cent., or 5 per cent.,
would be a rich reward to a manufacturer on his large capital,
and an adeition of five per cent. to the wages of labour would
be a great boon to all the labouring classes."
Let us weigh these various propositions in succession.
" The abolition of the Corn-laws would place a greater
quantity of food at the command of our capitalists and ma-
nufacturers than at pr.ssent." The abolition of the Corn-laws
would place cheaper fund at the disposal of our capitalists,
than they can obtain at present—and, by consequence, " a
greater quantity." for their own personal purposes, of that
cheaper food ;—but if cur Contemporary means to insi-
nuate, that it is an object of the free traders to abolish the

Corn-laws, for the sake of securing " a greater quantity of
fiwd" to the British labourer, than the British labourer
now enjoys, our Contemporary must be suffering under
some sad confusion of ideas. Cheaper fwd fu• worimen,
is the great object of our free traders—but not a greater
quantity of that cheap food The price of labour, let it
be recollected, may be enhanced as much by increasing the
quantity of cheap food, as by increasing the price of the
customary quantity ;—and dear labour is an abomination
in the eyes of a free-trade philosopher. Cheaper food—
and not a larger, but a smaller quantity of it, as the reward
of labour :—these aee the results, to which the enemies of
native industry look from a repeal of the Corn-laws. IF the
quantity ofcheap food awarded to thelabourer should increase,
the repeal of theCorn-lews would not serve the purposes of the
parties who clamour fur their abolition ! Our Contemporary
proceeds :—" Our capitalists would enter with the foreign
manufacturer into competition for corn in the cheapest foreign
market,and would enhance its price to him." " At Me seine
time our manufacturers would. compete with another fin• coin
in the home market much less keenly, and they would in both
markets get snore corn for their money Man at present."
A repeal of the Corn-laws wou'd undoubtedly " enhance
the price" of corn to the foreiga manufacturer, until a
greater Lreadth of corn land could, in continental coun-
tries, be brought into cultivation. But how would such
" enhancement of price" benefit the labouring- classes of
England, for it is, be it recollected, of the labourer's in.
terest in this matter that we are now attempting to take
cognizance? The " enhancement of the price" of foreign
corn might undoubtedly increase the misery of the manu-
facturing- poor in foreign countries—might lead to a
diminution in their daily supplies of food—and
to an extension of the periods of their daily la-
bour—as well as to an increased use of that ma-
chinery, which neither hungers nor thirsts—but all
these changes could Lave no other effect upon the English
labourer's condition, than to make him more miserable, by
increasing the intensity of the competition, to which he
would be exposed. Not only would the increase of toil to
the fo•eign labourer, consequent on an " enhanced price"
of foreign Corn, act, directly, in a most unfavourable int-in-
ner, on the English iabourer ; but mark the concomitant
and indirect causes of misery, which are to be brought to
bear en his condition ! At the same time, our manufac-
turers would compete with one another for Corn, ig the
home market, much less keenly." But is English Corn
grown without the intervention of English labour ? Aad if
this competition for Eng!isli Coen is to become " much less

keen," must Lot the competition for Erlglisli labour, bezome
much less keen" also? And English labourers arecallcd on
to rejoice at this prospect' Tbey are called on to rejoice
at the prospect of being shut out from the field, where their
labour commands the bi;hest price, and at being compelled
to enter upon a career of boundless competition with fo-

reigner 1 al;ourers, whose poverty and degraded habits enable
them easily to undersell the Labourers of more civilised
countries! The complaint urged, be it remembered, by the
free-traders against English agriculture is, that it is too
costly—in other words, that English agricultural labourers
are too highly paid ;—and the free-traders while
they are moving heaven and earth to close this
best of all possible markets against the English la-
bourer, have the modesty to require the English labourer's
thanks, for the kind service which they arc rendering to
Lim ! In the same spirit, our Contemporary proceeds to ob-
serve, that, " our capitalists obtaining more corn f;)r their
money, would have an increased demand for labour, and
would give more than at present of the increased quantity
of corn which they obtained, to the labourers." Let us
admit, for the moment, that the introduction of cheaper
corn might bring with it, in certain quarters, " an increased
demand for labour," is it not obvious, that the means by
which the cheaper corn in question is to be procured—the
repeal, viz., of the Corn-laws—will give to our manufac-
turers, at the same time, a grater command of labour,
inasmuch as one-half, at least, of our agricultural population
will be compelled to accept of employment in towns on any
terms. The increased demand for labour could not, in
fact, bear any proportion to the increased supply of labour ;
and the result would be, that the " increased demand for
labour" would resolve itself into the exaction of an in-
creased amount of daily toil from the labourer, in
exchange for a smaller daily quantity of cheapened
food! It may, here, be worth while to analyse the
meaning of some of the phrases employed by our Con-
temporary ! Our capitalists, he states, " obtaining more
corn for their money would have an increased demand for
labour, and would give more than at present, (f the in-
creased quantity of corn to the labourers." But capitalists
seek to obtain mare corn for their money, chiefly because
the " more corn" is convertible into a larger quantity of
labour ! The phrase, therefore, means, that in the circum-
stances supposed, capitalists would obtain more labour in
exchange for their money—and that seems but an indiffe-
rent reason (even assuming anincreased demand for labour)
'why labour should be paid a higher price. The statement,
in fact, is as purely logical as if it had taken this form :
The price of labour depends upon the price of food. The
price of food, will, -in certain circumstances, be cheap-
ened—and with the price of food, the price of labour ;
but, because the price of labour is sure to sink, there-
fore the buyers of labour will give more in exchange for
it ! Our Contemporary, it will be perceived, proceeds to
indulge in visions...of the prosperity, which must bless the
nation, as soon as the Corn-laws shall be repealed. The
manufacturer is to receive increased profits to the extent
of two or three per cent. ; whilst the labourer is to come
in for an increase of five per cent in the amount of his
wages Such anticipations may be pleasant, but they are
startling ! How strange to be told by free-traders that
the repeal of the Corn-laws will increase wages five per
cent.—when the alleged highness in the rate of wages is
the very reason for urging the repeal of these laws! Nor
less startling, is the prophecy of increased profits to manu-
facturers, when we bear in mind, that a repeal of the Corn-
laws—the measure from which these increased profits are to
flow—snust in the nature of things destroy the English manu-
facturer's home market—that market, which in a healthy
state of society, must be worth to him,all othermarkets taken
together! Want of space compels us from following our con-
temporary into his denunciations of landowners and tithe-
owners, beoause (as he alleges), these classes " live on the
labour of others"—and, because, therefore, there are no
two classes of men " more useless than these, or even more
noxious to the general welfare." We shall only observe, that
these are dangerous topics to be urged too 'far by an ad
vocate of manufacturing and commercial schemers ! Ca-
pital, we incline to believe, does not drop from the clouds
—and, if it is not derived from " the labour of others"
than the capitalist himself, we must confess ourselves at a
loss to account for its existence ! We have thus, we be-
lieve, shown (at greater length than we intended) that the
repeal of the Corn-laws would deeply injure the lot of the
English labourer—would ruin the English landowner and
farmer—and would not, in the long run, improve the con-
dition of the manufacturing capitalist himself, inasmuch
as a repeal of the Corn-laws would deprive the English
manufacturer of his most profitable customers.— Morning
Herald.

it was announced with ;refit pomp in the Times of
Werieesday, that. the Marquis of Queensberry had
" worthily illustrated the independence of his station and
character, by resigning the Lord Lieutenancy of Dumfries-
shire, from feeling it incompatiMe with his sense of honour
to continue to the Melbourne Ministry the benefit of his
cupport." This is certainly "a heavy Wow and great dis-
couragement" to the Liberal taus', and must produce a
great sensation all over Europe. The true version of the
story, yve unders!and, is, that his Lordship in a pet re-

signed his Lieutenancy, because he was not made a British I
Peer ! The Noble Marquis will now look to the Tories
for promotion. Ho holds, we believe, a pension of
6001. or 8001. a year—no doubt for some great services
performed in one of the revenue departments ; and
when he attains his Peerage, our Contemporary,
we hope, will agree with us in recommending to his Lord-
ship worthily to continue to illustrate the independence of
his station and character by resigning his pension : par-
ticularly so, as we are happy to larn that his Lordship
lately succeeded to a good fortune in Dumfriesshire. It is
reported, and we hope truly, that General Sharpe, a con-
sistent and steady supporter of the Queen's Government,
is likely to be appointed Lord-Lieutenant of Dumfriesshire.
—Morning Chronicle.
One of the most characteristic productions of the time,
" A Letter to the Bishop of Exeter by Richard Oastler,"
—the Right Rev. Prelate must rejoice in being associated
with his correspondent—is now before us. A more trucu-
lent and egotistical production has seldom come under
our notice. Richard Oastler and Bishop Philpots are no
doubt in their own estimation the most distinguished cha-
racters of the age—the Gog and Magog of Conservatism ;
but in the opinion of the public, they stand merely as ob-
jects of derision and contempt. The present letter was, as
it is stated, written by Gog—Richard Oastler—at the
desire of Magog—Bishop Philpots, who requested
from his lay compeer some information respecting the
state of feeling in the northern counties. Gog com-
plies with the request, and representing himself as the
great leader of the northern movement, tells of " his hair-
breadth escapes i' the imminent deadly breach," his pacifi-
cation of tumultuous excitements, his protection of those
whom the civil and military authorities could not protect,
his supreme controul over the military and the people, his
influence amongst the clergy, and indulges in a vast deal of
vaunting rigmarole, of which some idea may be formed from
the following extract :
" On all occasions, my Lord (and I have had a many),
when I have been in company with soldiers, either officers or
privates, I have found that their hatred to the new Poor-law
is as strobg and as bitter as my own. The men say, and they
say with truth, that no portion of her Majesty's subjects
are so likely to come under its operation as their parents,
their wives, their children, their brothers and sisters, and
them selves.'

" When they were last in Huddersfield, I was with about
a dozen of them in one room ; and I said to them—' What
has brought you here to-day ? You ought to have been at
Church at Leeds, and not marching through all this stormy
weather to Huddersfield.' One of them, very good bu-
mourodly, answered for himself and his comrades—' An't
please your Majesty (I am generdly celled King in these
parts, both by the troops and the people), an express ar-
rived at our barracks last night, informing our Commander
that your Majesty was going to hold a levee in the Market-
place, at Huddersfield, to-morrow morning, and so he has
dispatched two troops of us ( Sunday though it be) to take
care that your Majesty's enemies don't injure your royal
person.' I merely mention this little crcumstance, my Lord,
to show the kind of feeling there is between the troops and
ourselves.

" My boys (as the people here call themeelves) are now
quite fond of the soldiers. I ern never afraid of the soldiers
coming amongst the people now. The Whigs have found it
out, and they now say—. It is of no use bringing the soldiers
any mere, because the people will not provohe them.' "
We suppose wo shall next hear of Harry of Exeter
pouring the sacred oil on the head of the Oastkr, and
enoleting him " Cock of the North," under the title of
Richard the Fourth. This crack-brained incendiary is
certainly more an ohject of pity than of disgust. It i 3 im-
pussibie, however, to forbear from smiling on seeing him
mistake his " cap and bells" for a diadem—the sneer which
the sHeastie soldier levelled at him for the homage offered
to a Sovereign, and in Royal phraseology acknowledge the
compliment as an illustration "of the kind of feeling between
the troops and ourselves." How gratifying it must be to
the Reverend Prelate of Exeter to hear from his liege
Oastler the announcement, " My boys Os the people here
call themselves) are now quite fond of the soldiers."
This is very Ithlieroue ; but with the melancholy e,iso
of the maniac Thorns before us, and the outcry which the
Tor'es raised aga;nst Ain'sters for not having kept him
under restraint, we think it is a question for serious con-
sideration whether or not the mageanimous Richard Oast-
ler should be longer suffered to remain at large. As the
King remarks in Hamlet, " Madness in great ones must
not unwatched be,"—Oastler is no doubt, by his own
showing, " a great one," the other contingency of the
apho,ism is a matter oFopin7on ; but, for the sake of the
publie peace, willing as we are to give him the benefit of
the doubt, the Government should " have an eye on
him." It is impossible to read this man's account of
his " long interviews with the Duke of Wellington"
—of his " introduction by the Duke of Rutland"—of
his interesting conversation with " the late venerable Earl
Eldon"—of thanking God that Yorkshire, and Birming-
ham, and the destinies of the country generally, were rescued
from the hands of Lord Brougham and placed in those of
Richard Oastler —of these, end of his other extraordinary
statements, it is impossible to read without being convinced
Of the writer's political hallucination. With this conviction
ere commit his pamphlet to the flames, and recommend the
writer to follow our example, by a similar presentation of
any copies which may remain in the hands of his booksellers.
—Morning Advertiser.