The Sun.
London, England, 1849-10-18 00:00:00

" Why, after all, it may be asked, should var!ations in
the quantity of food produce so great a difference in the
condition of the people, ,as to engender so fearful an
augmentation of crime? The answer lies in a nutshell.
The essential condition of all production is, that the
producer shall be fed. Fed on any diet—plain or luxu-
rious—but so fed that the cravings of hunger are satis-
fied, and health and strength are maintained. Food, too,
is the largest portion of a working man's expenditure.
A deficient harvest places him on short allowance—it
does more, it limits his employment. If the sole conse-
quence of a deficient harvest were that the food pro-
ducers took a larger share of what all the Other classes
produce—if, in one word, a part of that portion of a
weaver's earnings which, in a full supply and a low price
of food, he spent in clothing, or in foreign and colonial
produce, were taken by the food producer, in the shape
of increased price for his wheat and other grain, all that
happened would be this, that production of all kinds
(apart from agriculture) would go on as before, and the
difference to those other producers would be, that they
would have fewer new garments, less beer and spirits,
tobacco and sugar, &c. But this is an impossible case.
A rise in the price of food checks the consumption of all
other commodities by the mass of the people; hence the
stock of all commodities, apart from food, accumulates,
production is at once contracted, imports aro checked,
and wages diminish in absolute amount at one end of the
working man's income, whilst at the other, more goes
for food. Prices fall of course. Engagements are with
difficulty met; credit narrows; and, in one word, all the
phenomena of what is currently denominated a collapse
in trade, take place. And let it ba observed that all
this may take place, even though there may not be an
actual deficiency in the quantity of food to carry the
nation through the harvest year. It is enough that the
supply leaves no margin, or a smtll one, and these re-
sults are inevitable. And what is the pecuniary incidence
of a deficient harvest? It is a rough guess, but far from
an extravagant on., that every bushel per acre, ou all
kinds of grain, less than the average, is equivalent to a
million pounds sterling. Suppose, then, a deficiency of
five bushels, the loss to the producers is five millions; but
the effect of that deficiency is to enhance prices far more
than in the direct ratio of price. Mr. Tooke maintains
that a deficiency of one-fourth of the grain crop raises
prices above fifty per cent. Now, in 1838, the deficiency
of the crop of wheat was estimated at one-fourth, or
about four million quarters. The direct loss at the
prices of 1837 would be upwards of 12,000,0001., and
then follows the rise in price of the smaller quantity, and
Its mischievous action on the demands for all articles of
clothing, and of colonial produce, the ultimate results of
which have been already noticed."
The publication of Mr. Whiteside's work on Rome
bas afforded the reviewer an opportunity of discussing
at large the question of the Roman revolution, and of
the French intervention. With regard to the Roman
revolution, the reviewer says—
"lt is no part of our case to deny or palliate the ex-
cesses at Romo in November, 1848. We unhesitatingly
Condemn the murder of Rossi, haughty as Crear though
he may have been. Though the friend-assassin, Brutus,
has always been lauded in the themes of every pupil in
our classical schools, we can allow of no plausible apology
for the base Italian crime of assassination. Brutus never.
beard the sound of the sublime and blessed Gospel of
Jesus Christ. The murder of the Minister of Pius IX.,
hewever, is not, as we understand, traceable to conspi-
racy; but even if it were, the members of the Govern-
ment of Rome, in April last, have never been proved to
have been participators in the crime. The insurrection
of the 16th of November, 1848, was, upon the whole, a
glorious revolution;' and as such it will be recorded by
the impartial pen of the future historian. We not only
do not blame, we applaud, the conduct of the English
Government in offering to the venerable and unfortunate
Pontiff all courtesy and personal protection. But the
people had a right to depose him, as they did, from his
temporal power, and afterwards to proclaim Rome again
republic. It well connects the time present with the
past ages of Rome's imperishable glory. On the 24th
of November, the Pontiff quitted, perhaps for ever, the
sacred city, though it does not appear that he was in
actual personal danger. He flies to Gaeta, and puts
himself under the protection of the base Sicilian Bour-
bon, just reeking fresh from the bloody massacre of his
own Neapolitan subjects. The Pope makes a public
appeal to Europe, and more especially to the Catholic
powers. They promised assistance, and at first intended
to act together; but Austria, having regained her power
in Italy, excites the sateless pride and jealousy of the
would-be masters of the world."

With regard to the right of the Roman Catholic
Powers to intervene by force of arms for the restora-
tion of the Pope, the reviewer says—

"The Pope, as a temporal sovereign, or as the head
of the Church even, is no more entitled to be restored,
with force of arms, by what are called the Catholic
Powers of Europe, than have the Protestant powers a
right, availing themselves of the flight of the Pope, to
send an armed expedition to establish a republic at
Rome, in the interests of Protestantism. It may be, as
Lord Brougham and others think and say, that it is quite
ridiculous to suppose that the Pope, denuded of his tem-
poral sovereignty, no longer sating as a king among
...kings, would be a Pope at all. We. are much of the
opinion. What then is the inference? That
PoPery is essentially and neces:arily inimical to political
liberty and the law of nations. Is Europe never to
68e.,4Pe from priestly thraldom? Are the Papal decrees
Vu Political doctrines of Gregory VII. and B .niface
:I:lroinaote.b_easa,dmitted as a part of the public law of
abarqe io the nineteenth century? We dislike and
by a strange paradox of terminology,
assume have been called—religious wars. But the principle
theyrahe.d bY the republican cabinet of France, is, that
rep-nt
Cauto4
-y, or at least they will assume the right, as
es, to restore to his throne and temporal sove-
Ito:, it Pope, against the will of the people of the
rn„—aa States. We know not all that our ministers
din:gu,rithhavetsb:i3d. and done, and we will not utterly con-
• "nn them bast.' But we have no hesitation in say-
ataiUohy to guide the destinies of the
th,,,,tkrY of Elizabeth, Cromwell, and William 111., if
bale not distinctly protested against the pro-pap.l
ciple assumed by France, as if it were a permanent
tr.`e'andnecessary part of the law of nations. It may have
b,.rlipolitic, on the part of this country, not to interfere
roe to resist the evident breach of international law
is niraitted by the republican government of France. It
special moral duty of England, at the present time,
° that which no power can afford to do so well and so
61 fulls,4Ce
set a noble Christian exampld of the utmost
em Jule forbearance in order to avoid the unimaginable
givaenlities of war. Yet we have never, after having
to 41,,th? question our very best comhideration been atie
roc, eitier upon scriptural or other ground's, the. cor-
n- `lles4 of what is called the extreme peace-principle of
tie°lrl-resistance, or, in other words, the uolaw:ulness of
Itd,„el.lsive war. We are bound, therefore, in candour to
thjlt, that if we expect our ratesmen to maintain, in
_be le foreign policy, the principles favourable to the
r,tY independence of naticns, we must be pre-
-6" to justify and am to support them, iu vindicating