The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-24 00:00:00

,§311.14,

LONDON:
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1841.

A controversy has arisen between the Morning
Chronicle and Morning Post, concerning Sir R.
PEEL'S impatience to have the Corn-law settled
in May, and his determination not to meddle
with it at present. The former journal thinks
the Premier inconsistent, the latter describes
him as perfectly consistent in language and
conduct. We are constrained to side with
the Post. In May the Whigs were agitating
that question in Parliament ; in September Sir
R. PEEL, backed by a large majority of both
Houses of Parliament, and backed by the majo-
rity of the electors, has decided that it shall not
be agitated in Parliament. So far as the Parlia-
ment is concerned, the qpe.stion was settled by
the accession of Sir R. PEEL to office. The law
is to remain unaltered. No language can be
clearer or more explicit than that used by the '
Prime Minister, Lord STANLEY, Sir J. GRAHAM,
and Sir E. KNATCHBULL. They will admit no
other alteration whatever than some petty modi-
fication of the mode of taking the averages, and
some very trifling alteration in the sliding-scale.
We repeat, then, that Sir ROBERT PEEL'S acces-
sion to office settled the Corn question, and his
impatience in May was only impatience to be in
power.

But will the manufacturing classes—will the
religious men who met at the Conference—allow
Sir ROBERT PEEL, the two Houses of Parlia-
ment, and the county electors, to settle the ques-
tion in their own way ? We know not. An
Evening Paper says "Sir ROBERT PEEL will not
have boldness enough, even though encouraged
by the proverbial bearing of the great Dux;,'
to risk
the consequences of proroguing the Par-
liament for six- months. We go further. We
do not
believe the QEEEN will act upcn such ad-
vice, even
though it should be:tendered to her."
Several Town Councils, several cities, parishes,
h bodies are holding meetings to me-
and Pu--1--ie,
rnorialize the QUEEN not to prorogue the Parlia-
ment till
the Corn-laws be altered. Will they
bend the
termination of the squires and their
man ? Wilde any
amount of distress influence
l
their judgment ? We are afraid not. Till there be
union amongst the
people, they can afford to de-
spise them, and they affirm—believing, of course
—that the distress is in nowise caused by the
Cora-laws. It is the result of over production,
or too much bank paper, they say. They will
not yield, therefore, to any demonstration which
can now possibly be made, and will disregard
all representations of distress. But if no distress,
and no expression of opinion in the manufactur-
ing districts will either frighten or soften the
the self-willed men, who are constituted a strong
Government, to continue a great oppression—it
they are determined, at all hazards, to starve
down population to nearly the level of the home
supply ; to run down commerce, till England
becomes, like Venice in its ruins, distinguished
for its palaces and its paupers—ifnothing short of
rebellion against the bread taxers will shake
them, and there be no chance of rebellion—then
we must conclude that Sir ROBERT PEEL is right,
his impatience is gratified, the Corn-law ques-
tion is settled by his- accession to office, and many
capitalists may, prepare themselves for decay,
and many labourers for starvation.

In the debate last Friday, Mr. COBDEN said—
The wages of labour were the rations of the poor ;
but the majority of that House, by diminishing the
market for labour, were lessening those rations. The
labouring classes should know it was that robbed
It was not the capitalists. He said solemnly
that he believed no calamity could be more deeply felt