The Sun.
London, England, 1838-09-06 00:00:00

that her Majesty should disapprove of those sound and scrip-
tural doctrines which be had advanced in his sermon. He
added that, if he was to be restricted in the pulpit, he could
not retain his office ; and the result of the interview was, that
Dr. Hook wrote a letter to the Queen, resigning the honour-
able situation of Chaplain to the Palace Royal, an office which
George IV. had bestowed upon him.
" The surprise of the Queen, on receiving this letter, we
are told, was excessive. It was shown by her Majesty to one
of the Ladies of Honour, Miss Dillon, who advised her Royal
Mistress to send for the Duke of Wellington. The advice
was followed: the Noble Duke took the letter home with him,
which we understand is one of the most beautiful compositions
ever penned, and carefully read that and the sermon. On his
next audience of the Queen his Grace told her there was not
a sentiment, not a line, in the sermon which ought to call
forth the displeasure of a British Queen, but the reverse ; and
he respectfully advised her Majesty to send for Dr. Hook.
The Queen commanded the attendance of the excellent and
honest defender of the Church, and was closeted with him
for half an hour. in that interview the Queen, we are in-
formed, expressed her surprise at receivio,-: Dr. Hook's resig-
nation, particularly on the ground stated,' as she had never
taken nor expressed any offence at the sermon in question ; and
Dr. Hook left the Royal closet Chaplait. to she Queen, retain-
ing the appointment at her Majesty's expra-ts request.'"
After reading this circumstantial fabricetion, we almost
feel inclined to exclaim, like Shaksp• re's mob hero,
" Knock me down that particular villai for more par-
ticularity in the narrative of an utte- ,-..bsolute false-
hood we never hanoened to meet with. "1.2 it is an utter
and absolute falsehood from b?giun.ng ,and is evident,
not only from the story it set'. > n -y in which it is
told (the inventor I:aeinz ct liz.s work most ridicu-
lously), but from the crie! :.a ~.equivocal terms of the
letter of Dr. Hook to the .O::or of the Times, desiring a
contradiction of all that unseenpal -es paper had previously
published on the subject. We sitould like to know who is
the "high authority" the writer in the Doncaster paper re-
fers to as having favoured him with these " facts" respect-
ing the excessive surprise of the Queen, and the advice she
first took from her Maid of Honour, and then, at the in-
stance of the said Maid of Honour, from the Duke of Wel-
lington. We should be especially curious also to see
the private epistle of Dr. Hook to her Majesty, which
is stated to have been " one of the most beautiful compo-
sitions ever penned." We dare say the editor of the
Doncaster Chronicle was of the same opinion respecting his
own lucubration. The whole story from first to last has
been nothing more nor less than an impudent, scandalous,
and disgraceful fiction, got up for the mere purpose of ex-
citing an unfounded prejudice against Ministers. Yet it
was put forth and reiterated with the utmost assurance ;
and when officially contradicted by us on Saturday last,
the Times had the cool effrontery on Monday to follow up
its first falsehood by another, that the Ministerial Journals
had adopted the story as true, and had vindicated the
course supposed to have been pursued by Lord Melbourne
towards Dr. Hook. When it made the assertion it knew
that it was totally without foundation, and it has not since
been able to produce a single instance in support of it.
Such is the mode in which the 7'imes carries on its hosti-
lity to Government, and such the mode in which it un-
dertakes to recommend the Tories to the respect and con-
fidence of the nation. It flatters itself (vide its leading
article of Monday last) that before the arrival of the next
Session of Parliament the people will have become quite
Tored—perfectly in love with the Conservatives. There
is no knowing what miracles maybe wrought in the interval
by such an advocate as the Times.—Morning Chronicle.
It has been often observed that the growers of corn in
this country have one great advantage over manufacturers,
that as we import food and export manufactures the price
of food is constantly dearer here than in other countries,
and the price of manufactures cheaper. The British corn-
grower receives the manufactures he requires at a lower
price than the foreign corn-grower can receive them, for the
price abroad determines the price at home, and the English
consumer pays less than the foreign consumer by all the
charges which must be added before the goods reach the
foreign market. On the other hand, corn must always
be dearer here than in the exporting countries by the
amount of charges of all sorts which must be added
to the price before it reaches our markets. In this
way the British agriculturists have, in the circum-
stance of this country manufacturing greatly beyond
the home consumption, the great advantage that
they sell what they raise themselves at a higher price,
and buy what is produced by others at a lower price,
than the agriculturists of any other country. In answer
to a question put by the Manchester Guardian, " Why
may not the English farmer compete with foreigners just
as well as the manufacturer ?" The Standard says, " Re-
verse the proposition---' Why may not the English manu-
facturer compete with foreigners just az well as the English
farmer?' We should like to hear the answer to this ques-
tion from the universal voice of Manchester, Leeds, Shef-
field, Macclesfield, &c. Does the Manchester Guardian
forget that the home and colenial markets are secured to
the English manufacturers—and properly so—by protecting
duties strictly analogous in all respects to those Corn-laws
of which it complains ?" The protecting duties on manu-
factured goods are not strictly analogous. The duties are
fixed, and in the case of the highest, that on silk, the only
manufacture in which we were inferior to foreigners, the
duty was fixed by Mr. Huskisson at 30 per cent. The
great staple manufactures of this country require no
protecting duty, for who would think of sending me-
nufactures to a country which itself sends its
cottons, its woollen!, its hardware, &c., to every
country from which they are not rigorously excluded? A
glance at our exports and imports %sill show that in spite of
the duties imposed on them in most countries of Europe,
they find their way to them notwithstanding ; but that,
except in the case of a few fancy articles, we really import
no manufactures into this country. What country would
think of sending manufactures to the country which is the
great exporting country of manufactures? It would be as
absurd as sending coals to Newcastle or corn to Poland.
In truth, the duties which exist on most of our manufac-
tures are more a matter of antiquarian curiosity than any
thing else. Even in the case of silk, on which the duty
was once prohibitory, it has been proposed to lower the pro-
tecting duty as absurdly high. Manufacturers are entitled
to the benefit of a countervailing duty where the article
produced by them is subject to a particular tax:and an equi-
valent drawback on exportation ; and Mr. Ricardo, who
propcsed a protecting duty to the farmer, to the extent of
the duties peculiarly affecting agriculture, proposed also
an equivalent drawback. With respect to the taxes pecu-
liarly affecting agriculture for which a countervailing duty
ought to he imprFe,i en exportation, Mr. i'sl‘Culloch in his
" Commercial Dictionary" observes,

" If it be really true that agriculture is more heavily taxed
than any other branch of industry, the agriculturists are en-
titled to demand that a duty be laid on foreign corn, when
imported, corresponding to the excess of burdens affecting
them. It has been doubted, however, whether they are in
this predicament. But though the question be by no means
free from difficulty, we should be disposed to decide it in the
affirmative, being pretty well satisfied that, owing to the local
and other burdens laid on the land, those occupying it are
really subjected to heavier taxes than any other class. It is
difficult, or rather perhaps, impossible, to estimate with any
degree of precision what the excess of taxes laid on the agri_
culturists beyond those laid on manufacturers and merchants
may amount to; but we have elsewhere shown that if we esti-
mate it as making an addition of five or six shillings to the
quarter of wheat, we shall certainly be beyond the mark (see
my edition of ' the Wealth of Nations,' vol. iv., p. 369).
However, we should in a case of this sort reckon it safer to
err on the side of too much protection than of too little, and
ould not, therefore, object to a fixed duty of six shillings or
seven shillings a quarter being laid on wheat, and a propor-
tionate duty being laid on other species of grain. Under
such a system the ports would be always open. The duty
would not be so great as to interpose any very formidable ob.
stacle to importation. Every one would know beforehand the
extent to which it would operate, at the same time that the
just rights and interests of the agriculturists and of every
other class would be maintained unimpaired."
The protecting duties on manufactures are not strictly
analogous to the duty on corn ; for the duty on corn
amounts substantially to a prohibition, except when the
prices in this country have almost reached the starvation
point. Manufactures may be imported at any time into
Great Britain—the duty is fixed and known ; but corn is
subject to a fluctuating duty, which, except in years of ab-
solute scarcity, amounts to a prohibition. There is, there-
fore, no analogy, as the Standard pretends. As to the
other arguments, " national independence—security against
famine—the preservation of capital in the country—the
sustaining the condition of the labouring classes, whether in
the field, the forge, or the mill—the safety of our manufac-
turers themselves," strung together by the Standard, they
may be safely diseegarded. No one believes that the Corn-
laws have any other object than to raise the rents of the
landlords ; and still less can any man of the least sense
believe that they are not injurious to all the indus-
trious classes. That the manufacturers are injured by
them is almost a self-evident proposition. No manufac-
turer would export what he manufactures if he could have
a market for all that he produces at home ; and as no man
will sell cheaper abroad the be can sell at home, the price
of our manufactures in the foreign market determines their
price at home. The manufacturer cannot obtain a higher
price than he otherwise would on account of the high price
of food, and, therefore, what he pays beyond what foreign
corn would sell for in our market, were there a fixed duty
of ss. or 6s. the quarter on wheat, is a tax levied on him in
order to raise the rents of landlords. The Standard wishes
that regard may be had to the landlord's incumbrances ;
that is, he must give the lie to the old proverb, and both
have his cake and eat it. But, as Lord Melbourne said,
the people cannot expect the Government to propose an
alteration of the Corn-laws if they themselves do not seem
in earnest on the subject. The landlords are not men to
give way to mere demonstrations of the injustice of their
pretensions.—Morning Chronicle.
Modern times have afforded no instance of retributive
justice
more striking than that exhibited in the fear and