The Sun.
London, England, 1838-11-21 00:00:00

ANSWERS.

(Continued from The Sun of Monday.)

258. —Colbert adopted a different notion of policy. Esteem-
ing manufactures and commerce as the sinews of the state, he
gave all possible encouragement to the artizan and the mer-
chant. —ld.

A.—Colbert prohibited the exportation of corn, and the
importation of foreign manufactures ; both acts unde-
niably fooleries, and robberies of the agriculturists. But
he never perpetrated the robbery on the agriculturists which
is the counterpart of what they practise on the manufac-
turers ; he never laid a tax on the consumption of home-
grown corn. He therefore did not give " all possible"
encouragement to the artisan and the merchant ; for he
did not give the very kind of which the agriculturists have
supplied the specimen.

259. —The farmer being discouraged, the necessaries of life
became dear ;—the public granaries became ill stored ;—manu-
factures languished ; —commerce drooped ;—the harvest became
scanty ;—and in a short time, industry fell a sacrifice to the ill-
judged policy of the minister.—ld.
A.—So far as the agriculturists were oppressed, ill
consequences, no doubt, arose. But this does not warrant
the inference, that because ill consequences arose in France
from the oppression of the agriculturists, therefore good
ones will arise in England from the oppression of the
manufacturers.

260.—Tw0 systems are therefore recommended to our
adoption, the agricultural, and the commercial.
Let us consider the principles of both, and we shall soon be
able to judge which is entitled to a preference.—ld.
A.—Not quite so fast, perhaps, with the therefore. If
nothing is proved either from Sully or Colbert, as to the
propriety of oppressing the manufacturers, the therefore
falls to the ground.

261.—Principle of the Agricultural System.—That the
country shall not become too habitually or extensively depen-
dent for the subsistence of its people on foreign supply :
That as a check on such a ruinous dependence, no foreign
corn shall be admissible into the British market, until the
price of grain shall denote a risk of scarcity, and then, that
such foreign corn shall be liable to such duties as may se-
cure the British farmer from ruin, by his receiving a price
for the produce he has reaped, that will in some degree
compensate for the deficiency of his crop. Hence, that to a
certain point, (say 60s. per quarter), he ought to enjoy a
monopoly, and to a second point, (say from 60s. to 745. per
quarter), he shall receive protection.
This has for many years been the principle of the corn
laws of England, and, after much deliberation, has been
adopted in France.—/d.
A —All this is understood perfectly. Nothing can be
understood better. This is the Agricultural System.

262.—Principle of the commercial System.—That at all
times, and from all countries, corn shall be admissible into
Great Britain and Ireland : That there shall be no restraint
whatever, either in regard to the country whence the corn shall
be brought, or to the shipping in which it may be conveyed :
In short, that the trade shall be free, in regard to the mode
of conveyance, and shall not be liable to ally duty on impor-
tation.—ld.

A.—This is not the principle of the Commercial sys-
tem ; it is only the principle of the Let-me-alone sys-
tem. To make anything that could be justly called a Com-
mercial system in opposition to the other, there must be
introduced the principle of laying a tax on the consump-
tion of home-grown corn. The manufacturers will never
be able to hold their own, till they pluck up the spirit and
sense to see, that the fair contest is, not between lakefront
me and let me alone, but between take from me and take
from you.

263 —Arguments in favour cif Agriculture, and a Refuta-
tion of the reasons urged in favour of the Commercial System.
I. That the territory of a country, is the only sure and per-
manent basis of national prosperity, and the fund, which it is
both our duty, and our interest, as much as possible, to culti-
vate and to improve.—/d.

A.—Why f What is territory good for, but for what it
will produce? And if there happens to be another cow
that will give more milk, why should not it be milked?
These questions involve the whole of the case, except the
political.

264.-2. That if adequate protection and encouragement
he given to the cultivation of the soil, its produce, in Great
Britain and Ireland, (unless in seasons peculiarly unfavourable),
will be fully adequate to supply their inhabitants with food.
—ld.

A.—lf it can supply food as cheap as in other ways, lt-t
If it cannot, then it is not adequate.

265.-3. That if the principles of free trade are admis-
sible in regard to other articles, they ought not to be acted
upon in regard to corn ; because a dependence on other coun-
tries for food, is in the highest degree dangerous, and may be
productive of the most fatal calamities.—ld.

A.—All dependence upon foreign commerce of any
kind, is just as much a dependence for food, to those who
are concerned. " Have no foreign commerce," therefore,
should be the counsel of the counsellors.

266.-4. That if we depended upon foreign governments
for food, they would naturally be induced to imposs taxes on
the exportation of grain, to enrich their own exchequers,
which Prussia actually did in the year 1801 ;See the Re.
port of the Agricultural Committee, p. 479.)—1d.
A.—Suppose they do impose taxes, what then ? If they
impose them till they stop the trade, the agriculturists
have what they want, no trade. And if they do not, we
have the benefit of the difference. Imagine somebody say-
ing to foreigners, " Do not trade with England, she may
lay duties on her exports." With what a roar of mirth
would the counsel be received, in all the counting-houses
from Bremen to Odessa.
How long will the manufacturers and commercial men
of England consent to go grubbing on, among such rem-
nants of trade as it suits their rivals and enemies to leave
them ?

267. and that those foreign countries whence we
derive our supplies, may have deficient harvests, in which
case, the governments of those countries, may be compelled to
prohibit exportation, to prevent their own subjects from being
reduced to distress, in which case Great Britain would suffer
all the calamities of famine.—ld.
A.—That all the countries in the world should have
deficient harvests at once, is out of the range of possibility.
It would be just as likely, that they should all have defi-
cient harvests at once and we too ; which floors the agri-
culturists in their plan for keeping us alive in scarcity at all.
268.-6. [So numbered in the original] That any great
dependence on foreign countries for food, would be highly
dangerous if a war broke out, by which any regular
supply of corn might be prevented and even if we pre-
served our naval superiority, we might be unable to pro-
tect our trading ships in all quarters of the. globe, more
especially since the discovery of steam navigation, for it
would necessarily become a most important object to our
enemies, to prevent our being supplied with grain, as a sure
means of reducing us to submission. It was a famine in
France, that compelled the government of that country, to
agree to an unfavourable peace at Aix-la- Chapelle, on terms,
to which otherwise it would never have acceded.—ld.
A.—Why not stop all foreign trade for the same reason,
—to wit, lest we should he unable to protect our trading
ships in all quarters of the globe ? And does not every
body know that we must lose some and save others, and
that on this, and not on saving everything, the use of com-
merce depends ? If doubtful, inquire at Lloyd's.

269.-7. That although an insular situation is favourable to
a supply by navigation, yet it is exposed to many hazards, in
particular to tempests, and "the caprice of the winds and the
waves ;" so that a regular supply, for many ,seeks and even for
months, might be retarded.—ld.
A.—lt never blows contrary winds from all ways at once.
Just as well tell our water-borne people to eschew naviga-
tion altogether, lest some time, for weeks or months, there
should be nothing doing by reason of all foreign trade being
wind-bound. What are corn-merchants for, but to keep a
stock on hand, on the watch for an increased demand ?
(To BE CONTINUED.)

----- -
NATIONAL RENT.—Last night a public meeting
of the working classes was held at the Lecture Room,
Thcobald's-road, to take into consideration the resolutions
agreed to at the Birmingnam meeting, respecting• the col-
lection of the national rent to be placed at the disposal of
the convention of 49 delegates appointed to meet in Lon-
don on the Ist of January, to watch the progress of the
national petition and the people's charter. After some dis-
cussion a committee of 23 was appointed to collect the rent
in the district of St. Giles's-in-the-Fields and St. George,
Bloomsbury,

RIOT AT HUDDERSFIELD.—A riot took place at
Huddersfield last week in consequence of a gentleman
named Acland having lectured ill the town in favour of the
New Poor-law. The pooul^•ce made an attack upon the
place of meetii,,
brcakini windows, &c.
and did damage to the extent of 401. by

CORN-LAW FALLACIES, WITH THE

257.—The celebrated Sully, calls agriculture one of the
breasts from which the state must draw its nourishment. That
great man, could not po3sibly have given us a more happy
simile. Instructing by precepts, and stimulating by rewards,
he prevailed upon his countrymen to cultivate the art. • But
their attention to this branch of industry was of short duration.
Public troubles arose, which soon put au end to arts, agricul.
tore, and commerce. —On the Corn Laws, by the Right Hon.
Sir John Sinclair, Bart. Oct. 1, 1832.—Addenda to " The
Code of Agriculture," No. xr.
ANSWER.—The simile would not have been a happyone,
if it had implied that in some way or other the state was to
have the smaller quantity of nourishment instead of the
greater. And here is the splitting-point. With the state
or the reasonable part of it, " agriculture" means having
corn. With the food-monopolists it means procuring a
smaller quantity of corn from the grounds of the said mo-
nopolists, at the expense of a larger quantity which might
be had in other ways. It is not proved that the celebrated
Sully meant anything of this kind.