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

Zilt :1-01,.+

WITH VIIICH
THE " TRUE SUN" IS NOW
INCORPORATED.

LONDON :
FRIDAY EVENING. JULY 6, 1838.

We are glad to find, by the returns fur the Quarter,
that the Revenue is again on the increase. Extending
itself as our population does on every side, sending off
large drafts to almost all quarters of the globe, who send
home produce and stimulate industry here, it would be
surprising if our Revenue were permanently to decline.
The amount of the Revenue for 1838 is less than that of
1837 by 1,102,6271., but that is owing to the reduction of
taxes, several of which contributed to swell the Revenue of
1837, and have not added a penny to that of 1838. On this
account we see the Revenue of thefirst quarters of 1837 much
more productive than the first quarters of 1838, while the
quarter of 1838 just expired yields 364,3821. more than the
corresponding quarter of last year. This tells well as a
sure indication that the reduction of taxes has enhanced
the productive power of the country.
The principal increase on the quarter is on the Customs,
339,0154, but the Excise is less by 226,4521. Trade has
thriven if the consumption of spirits, beer, &c. has de-
creased. The Stamps have yielded 45,095/. more this quar-
ter than the corresponding quarter of last year, but on the
whole year they have yielded 76,791/. less. The diminution is
owing to a reduction in the rate of taxation ; the increase in
the last quarter thews that the same rate of taxation now
produces more. The Post-office, in which no important
changes have been mado has yielded more,both on the quarter
and on the whole year, in 1838 than in 1837, also demonstrat-
ing that the productive power and traffic of the country are
continually on the increase. The Revenue returns last
quarter were not Fo satisfactory as the present ; and now
that the tide has changed, we hope that it will continue to
run towards prosperity. Nothing can mar our fair pros-
pects but a perseverance in such stiffing Legislation as
that of the Corn-laws.

A sentence of death has gone forth against the beer-
shops, said Lord BROUGHAM in the House of Lords ; and
if they be the source of all the evil attributed to them
it is unaccountable how they had not been condemned
and executed long ago. According to one Noble Lord
the beer shops caused the fires of 1830. According
the another authority they had completely changed
the character of the English peasantry. We have
beard also that they are the great cause of poach-
ing ; and as Thom and his mad followers drank beer
before their encounter with the military, we are only
astonished that that calamitous event is not attributed
to the same cause. Beer is the least intoxicating of all
liquors, and if it could raise such a blaze in England, we
are only astonished that Scotland and Ireland are not burnt
up. In these countries something stronger than beer is the
common beverage, and shops for the sale of it are much more
common than beer-shops in England ; yet no incendiary
fires took place there ; poaching is comparatively rare ;
and during the excitement of the Reform Bill no disgrace-
ful scenes occurred like the burning of Bristol and Not-
tingham Castle. One would therefore conclude that here
liquor is dangerous in the inverse proportion of its strength,
and that the present race of Englishmen have become so
degenerate that they cannot, without imminent danger, be
allowed the use of a beverage which Queen ELIZABETH
and her ladies drank at breakfast. We have always
thought that the evils imputed to these beer-shops
were greatly exaggerated, and that impression has not been
removed by anything like argument on the subject in the
House of Lords. The evil springs from another source—
ignorance. The steady, well-behaved Germans drink beer
from noon till night ; and if the English had the same
education, we know not why they should not do the same
with impunity. It is the Schoolmaster rather than the
Magistrate that is wanted ; and if more of their Lordships
than one were to try their hands at the former profession,
and every Clerical Magistrate were compelled to teach, in-
stead of punishing, the people I._ratis, the succeeding gene-
ration of Peers would wonder at the folly of their ances-
tors, in attributing so many crimes to any cause but the
right one.

We aim much leis at achieving a triumph over the

Herald on the subject of tl e Corn-law,, than at convert-
"' .iFirtni sound opin'ons ; and, t! creforo, we pass wholly
Itnyinocd all the rnattcr tei :n its a: tide to-day. which

"
A::

is irrelevant to the point at issue between us—namely,
whether the abolition of the Corn-laws would be beneficial
or otherwise to the labourers. We maintain that the abo-
lition would increase the wages or rewards •f labour—our
Contemporary argues that it would have the reverse effect;
and, on this account, being the professed partizan of the
labourer, hating the capitalist, and indifferent to the inte-
rest of the landowner, be upholds the Corn-laws. We
refer our readers to the article of our Contemporary, which
we insert, and shall proceed to controvert, as far as we can
make them oat, the principles maintained by the Herald.
In reply to the first objecting paragraph, we say, that
what the advocates of free trade wish or desire, according
to our Contemporary's incorrect representation of their
desires, has nothing whatever to do with the effccts of the
abolition of the Corn Laws. Our proposition was, and is,
that the abolition would give more real wages to the
labourer, and it is no answer to that to assert that the free
trade philosophers do not desire that. Has the Herald,
then, nothing better to say, that it endeavours to mystify its
readers, by confounding the effects of the abolition with the
motives gratuitously and unjustly attributed to those who
seek it ?

The assertion in the next paragraph of the Herald
is, that the enhancement of the price of corn on the
continent would make the continental (manufacturing),
labourers labor more in conjunction with machinery, and
enhance the intensity of the competition to which the
English labourer is exposed. But the continental manu-
facturer is now in many cases only stimulated to rival us
by the dearness of food here, and its cheapness there, and
it is our refusal to take food from the Continent which
compels its inhabitants to become manufacturers instead
of corn growers. Has our Contemporary never heard of
the farmers of Prussia and Saxony feeding their sheep
with wheat, encouraging the manufacturers there to convert
the wool into cloth, because they could not exchange that
wheat for our woollens ? The peculiar advantages of Eng-
land arc on the side of manufactures; those of the continent
are comparatively agricultural; and consequently the aboli-
tion of the Corn-laws would diminish their advantages for
manufactures, and give freer scope to their agriculture.
The abolition would diminish the intensity of competition as
regards our manufacturing labourers (now the majority of
our population), and slightly increase it, we admit, as re-
gards our agricultural labourers.

We stated as much yesterday, when we said that our
own capitalists would compete less keenly for home-grown
food ; but then it is to be remembered that corn is a bulky
article, compared to manufactures, and that the expense of
transit would make the advantages of the competition be-
tween our labourers, both manufacturing and agricultural,
and those of the Continent, wholly on the side of the former.
We assert, therefore, in contradiction to the Herald, that
the competition for English agricultural labour, on the side
of the capitalists, having at their disposal a large increased
sul ply of corn, would not be dimini►hed in the same
ratio as their demand for manufacturing labour would
he increased. There would be, according to our
statement, a lore actual saving, by employing labour
move advantageously, which would be shared between
the labourers and capitalists ; there would bo also
something restored to both those classes, which is now un-
justly taken frcm them by the landowners and the tithe-
owners ; and the increased wealth which the capitalist
would get from these two sources, would create an increased
demand for labour, and imp; ova the condition of our
labourers.

The Herald assumes, without the least shadow of a rea-
son for the a.sumption, that to abash the Cora-laws
would throw half the agricultural population out of em-
ployment. We ask, as we have before asked, where in
that c:.se is the food which this It illproduces for I 2,000,000
people to be got ? Into the United States, f)od was
imported in considerable quantities last Sear. Accord-
ing to all the reports we have seen or heard, there may
be at most some six or seven hundred thousand quarters of
corn to spare for our market in all Europe, or about the
sixtieth part of our annual consumption ; so that if the
abolition of the Corn Laws put out of employment 2 per
cent. of the agricultural labourers, that would be the ex-
tent of its operation. It is something new to us to find
the Herald, a great opponent of the New Poor-law
because it starves the labourer, contending that our agri-
cultural labourers are better off than foreign " agricultu-
ral labourers, uhose pove,rty and degraded habits enable
them to undersell the labcurers of more civilized coun-
tries." Next to the Irish, the mass of whom labour
for cur market, and who are the very worst-
paid labourers in the world, the English agricul-
tural labourers, particularly of the Southern counties,
are amongst the worst paid of any agricultural labourers
in Europe. To diminish the demand for their cheap labour
by increasing the demand for the labour of our manu-
facturers, some of whom, such as engineers and spinners,
are comparatively well paid, would be, instead of an injury,
a great benefit to the agricultural labourers themselves.
Another principle stated by the Herald is, that the abo-
lition of the Corn-laws would destroy the English manu-
facturers' home market. We beg the Herald and the
Post, which has frequently put forth the same doctrine, to
explain how that would be brought about ? Home trade
like foreign trade is an exchange of commodities. All the
Corn which is now in the land will remain, and all the pro-
duce of next harvest which the agriculturists do not con-
sume will be offered in exchange to the manufacturers as
usual, though the Corn-law be repealed. The only way
in which the home markeewould be destroyed for the menu-
•facturers, would be the cessation of the productions of agri-
culture. Does any man really believe, notwithstanding
the bugaboos of the Herald and the Post, that the
productions of agriculture could be reduced two per
cent. ? The effect of lowering the price in the first
instance would be to stimulate increased production,
to make up by quantity for the lessened value. The next
effect would be to stimulate ingenuity to produce at a less
cost ; and both these effects producing more, with less ex-
pense, would extend, not diminish, the home market, If
there were neither more nor less produced, the quantity to be
exchanged would be the same, and unless it can be proved
that less would be produced by the agriculturists, it is an idle
assertion that, by the abolition of the Corn-laws, the home
market would be lessened to the extent of a single farthing
to our manufacturers.

What would happen were the Corn Laws abolished, and
what we believe our Contemporaries mean and dread,
would be this :—The quantity produced would be nearly
the same—but the landowners and the titheowners would
get a much smaller share. There might be a diminished
demand for claret, and port, and champagne, and fine
silks ; the Opera would be less encouraged ; danseuses and
singers would be less magnificently paid ; coaches and
chariots might be less splendedly gilt ; race-horses, yachts
and hells would be less in demand ; but more machinery
would be required by the capitalist, and more tea and fus-
tians and beer and coarse cottons by all the labouring
classes. The home trade would not be diminished one jot
in extent, but it would somewhat change its character.
The masses would command more comforts ; the plunder-
ing land owners and tithe owners would be obliged to content
themselves with fewer luxuries.

We believe we have now answered the principles on
which our Contemporary argues--we shall not wrangle
about phrases, and still less about words. We must
add, that we do not advocate the repeal of the Corn-
laws on behalf of the capitalists, but on behalf of so-
ciety at large. The Corn-laws are a great system of
robbery, ordained by the Legislature, striking at the
root of honesty, morality and property ; and we are glad
to know that they are as much a source of apprehension to
the landowner as they are of injury to the public. They
are now beginning to excite so much attention as to con-
vince us, that the day is not remote when they must be abo-
lished. A single very short harvest will destroy them, arid
the unjust landowning Legislators with them, root and branch.

We find that attempts are making to prevail upon the
Government to drop altogether the Bill for the conveyance
of the Mails on Railways. We have not the least fear
that such attempts will prove successful. The Go-
vernment has too much at stake, and has seen too much
of the grasping and tyrannical spirit of the London and
13irmioghain Railway Company to be diverted from its
wise purpose, by any profession, however fair, of modera-
t:on on the part of these avaricious monopolists.
Their power must be curbed. The evil spirit with
which they are posseesed, must be exorcised by a soingent
Act cf Parliament, and that too before this present ses-
sion comes to it close. If this be not done, not only will
the commercial interests of the country be placed in'