The Sun.
London, England, 1838-10-24 00:00:00

required as population advances to procure the means
of subsistence, how doubly abominable does the land-
lord's law, which restricts the supply of food and
starves men out of existence, appear ! Before the la-
bourer can have the loaf his industry has created he
must pay a rent on all the corn he eats in creating it ;
and as that corn is advanced to him by the capitalist
he has also to pay the profit on the increase of capital
necessary to pay the rent. But the same circum-
stances operate in every department of industry. On
all the corn consumed by all labourers a tax in the
shape of rent must be paid ; more capital must be em-
ployed to advance it, and larger drafts to pay it are made
on the labourer. The consequence is, that while corn
is really produced at a less cost of labour in England
than in almost any country of the globe, the labourer
gets a less share. This is the work of the law-mak-
ing landlords, who deserve for this the public execra-
tion. We would venture to recommend those who
have gone to public meetings with a Russian loaf,
a French loaf, and an English loaf on their
flags to alter their device, and su!)stitute, for
comparison, Nature's loaf with the Landlord's loaf.
They can scarcely make the former too large, nor the
latter too small, for there is all the difference between
the bounties of Nature and the greediness of the
Lalnelle: Devil's laws.
rd which
s hichexists between the goodness of Provi-
and ti

We cannot join the Chronicle in exulting at Mr.
G. Sm It's election for High Wyconibt!. The
newly elected Member is, we presume, a staunch
Whig, and he takes his seat as a determined advo-
cate of the Corn-laws. While his conduct refutes the
notion that the Corn-law agitation is a Whig
device, it makes us regret the Honourable Mem-

hers success. As a commercial man, we ex-
pected other things from him ; but we begin to be
afraid that there are classes of commercial men, fa-
voured by one species of monopoly or atcother, who
would willinoly assent to the Landlords' plunder, if
they may be allowed also to plunder the community.
But however pleasing such compromises may be to the
classes who mutually profit by them, and by the
so•called protecting laws, they will not answer for the
public. A society can no more exist and flourish of
which the laws are based on a principle of plunder,
than could the Assassins of old ; and if we continue the
system we shall find nothing but discord at home and
enemies abroad. Mr. SMITH, therefore, witl not in
the end find it advantageous to defend the Corn-
laws, that the Bank or some other monopoly may be
untouched. His observations are as nonsensical,
too, as they are unprincipled. He talks of the la-
bourers suffering from repealing the Corn-laws : does

he not know that the mass of our labourers at present,
and particularly our agricultural labouras, are living
on the lowest possible quantity of subsistence—that
they get only potatoes, and those of the worst quality ;
that their condition has been gradually deteriorated since
the Corn-laws came into existence, and is becoming, as
far as possible, worse anti worse every day; and that culti-
vation will not be stopped, though high-rent-pay-
ing farmers may be bankrupts, and landowners be
obliged to live in less state ? The Hon. Member
brought together a great mass of fallacies to de-
fend one of the most scandalous invas:ons of pro-
perty and one of the most outrageous viola-
tions of right that any Legislature ever was guilty
of ; and all the manufacturing and commercial com-
munity, with such of the agriculturists as understand
the bearings of the Corn-laws on their own interests,
will regret to see such a man swelling the number of
those who already make laws to enrich a class at the
public cost.

We are happy to learn by communications from
Dover, that Lord Bitot3GitAm is in excellent health
and spirits. In fact he never enjoyed better health.
The rumours circulated in the City on Monday re-
specting his Lordship were evidently set afloat fur
maiiejoui purposes.

If we may judge from the alarm which the anti-tithe
proceed;ngs in Ireland have spread among the ranks
of Toryism, the Church faction have no great reason
to plume themselves on the success of their opposi-
tion to the " appropriation" principle. They are
now, when it is too late, beginning to discover that
those who brought forward that principle, and
would have acted upon it had they not been
thwarted by a purblind majority in the House
of Lords, were not the worst friends of the Esta-
blishment. Had the surplus of the revenues of
the Irish Church, after adequate provision had been
made, as was proposed, for the due performance of
religious worship wherever a congregation of Church-
goers could be mustered, been applied to the education
of the people at large, though the Irish Establishment,
possessing as it does in its very frame the seeds of
dissolution, could not have survived very long,
itsstill existence would, in all probability, have
been secured for another generation. It would have
been perm:tted to die a natural death—to expire by,
that gradual process of decay from the effects of
which no human power or policy could have saved
It. The " appropriation" would unquestionably have
disarmed the active hostility of the Irish people to a
system to which nothing on earth ever can or ought to
reconcile them.

It was in vain, however, that this consideration was
urged upon the opponents of appropriation—the friends
of the Church, as they claim to be designated.
In the fury of their party zeal they shut their eyes to
every other danger, but that arising from applying any
portion of the unemployed ecclesiastical funds to moral
and intellectual education I Nay, to such a pitch was
this no-appropriation frenzy carried, that Lord STAN-.
LEY declared in the House of Commons that were
there only one congregation of Protestants in Ireland,
he would insist upon the same Ecclesiastical Establish-
ment being kept up as if the whole population were
Protestant.
That Lord STANLEY was sincere in this declara-
tion, far be it from us to assert, for it is altogether in-
conceivable that he should, in the course of two or
three years, have forgotten that he had himself felt it
his duty to prune the luxuriance of the Irish Establish-
ment, by lopping off no fewer than TEN superfluous
mitres out of a total of twenty-two I We only recur to
the fact to show that the opposition to the appropriation
principle arose from no love for the Church, still less from
any love for the interests of religion, as so:ne had the

impudence to pretend, but was founded entirelywa
in
tosiacrifice the best interests
that party spirit to which the Tories have, in their
cop conduct
o onu )::e.eyr ya
r eg rreeaatdypublc question, given ample
'
Well, they have at last carried their point by a
dogged perseverance in opposition to the Government,
tiittr e l
to the representatives of the people, and to the people
themselves ; and what have they gained ? Is the
Irish Church more secure now that the Tithe Bill
has been passed without the appropriation clause ?
Has the bonus of 25 per cent., deducted from the
amount of the tithe, so completely' reconciled the
landed proprietors to the new system of rent.charge,
that they sit down quietly under the burden, without
an effort to shake it off ? Are the bulk of the Irish
people, those who have been relieved from the di-
rect, and, practically speaking, from all payment of
tithe, quite satisfied with the new arrangement ?
Let him who wishes an answer to these important
questions, turn his attention for a moment to what has
of late been passing, and is at this moment passinatt, in