The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-01 00:00:00

Cbg tux,

LONDON:
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1841.

The Morning Post yesterday, in defence of the
Corn-laws, admitted that a law to make one class
pay more than they need in order to enrich
another class was wrong and without a just
foundation', but it defended such a supposed pro-
perty in the Corn-laws by an assertion that the
law gave to the class whom it made pay more
additional means of payment. A prettier mode
of conjuring is not to be met with in the booths
on Epsom race-course or at Bartholomew Fair.
Only pay one sixpence each, say the quacks,
only one little sixpence, to learn the whole art
of getting . rich. Plain men distrust all such
quacks, and keep their little sixpences in their
pockets as the surest means of having something.
The Post admits that the Corn-law takes away
the little sixpences from the people, and its skill
in conjuration fails to show how the people are
made wealthy by legislative plunder.
When men assert (says our Contemporary) that the
Corn-law makes them pay more than they would have
to pay if there were no Corn-law, they must mean that
in case of the law being abolished, they would not only
have less to pay, but they would have the same means of
payment. If by the abolition of the law both the price
of corn and the means-of paying for it were equally di-
minished, then the fact of having to pay a less amount of
money for corn would be no benefit.
Those who make the assertion mentioned by
the Post, mean that if they had to pay less for
corn, they would have more means of payment.
The co-relative of price is means of payment;
and to assert that price falls, is to assert that
means of payment increase. The Corn-law
avowedly compels the whole body of the con-
sumers to give more labour for their corn than
they would have to give if there were no Corn-
law. The abolition of the law, therefore, would
lessen the quantity of labour, or lower the na-
tural price of corn, and, at the same time, by
feeding more ,persons, increase the sum of la-
bour, or means of paying for corn and all other
things.
The money that is, to be exchanged for corn
will not be lessened by the abolition of the Corn-
laws. The same quantity will be in existence
afterwards as before. In fact, as most exchanges
are now made by credit, and as credit would be
increased by the abolition of the Corn-laws, the
means of payment would be increased in the same
ratio as price was lowered. The manufacturer,
after a large fall in the price of grain from the
abolition of the law, might be obliged to take a
penny a yard less for his cloth,but all that he sold
after the abolition more than he now sellS, would
be for him a means of paying for corn ; and the
abolition of the law, which made corn cheap,
would very much increase his means of payment.
The same reasoning applies to other classes,
such as labourers or professional men. There
would be more food obtained, more wealth com-
manded by less labour, and all would have their
means of payment increased as corn became
cheaper by the abolition of a restrictive law. We

except only the landowners, not the farmers, nor
their labourers; and the landlords have no more
right to that portion of their incomes which arises
from the Corn-laws, than. a highwayman has a
right to keep the property of the traveller he
has, by dint of threatening to take his li►fe,,
forced him to resign. We conclude by saying
that the learned Post has raised a great dust by
representing as contradictory two sets of phrases
which mean, under different relations, the same
fact. Lowering price by the seller is to increase
the means of payment by the buyer, and a reduc-
tion of price consequent on obtaining a commo-
dity in general use, like food, at a less cost of
production, is to increase the means of payment
in the whole community.

The meeting in the City yesterday, on the
subject of emigration, was a failure. No more
distinguished a person than Mr. MONTGOMERY
MARTIN could be found for the chair, while the
principal speaker was a gentleman from Paisley.
Cold water was thrown on the whole proceed-
ings by the LORD MAYOR refusing all co-opera•-
tion, because, " as he understands, the whole
subject is now under the review of her MA-
JESTY'S Cabinet." All that the public has gained
by the demonstration is this almost official an-
nouncement concerning the intentions of the
Government.

Dr. LUSHINGTON has pronounced for the va-
lidity of a Church-rate which had been resisted
in the parish of Hackney. We see no reason to
impugn the Learned Civilian's judgment, which
turned chiefly on some technical points, as whe-
ther the church in question was to be considered
a parish church, and whether the persons who
had levied the rates were the proper authorities
to levy them. These were some of the points in
dispute, subordinate to the great principle of the
parish being obliged to keep the church in re-
pair, which Dr. LUSHINGTON, in common with
other Judges, laid down as follows :
The parishioners of the whole parish were bound to re-
pair the ancient parish church ; that is, the body of it ;
and this obligation was imposed, not by ecclesiastical
law, but by custom—by the common law of England, re-
cognised by various statutes. It is not the ecclesiastical
law which imposes such burdens ; for, by the ancient
ecclesiastical law, it was to be defrayed out of the eccle-
siastical profits. Neither could the ecclesiastical law
have produced any such effect here. Unless recognised
by common law, or enacted as law by statute, it was and
is wholly inoperative in this country. This obligation to
repair, as imposed by common law, is recognised by all
the common law authorities, by Lord Coke, and indeed,
before his time, in other Courts ; but by Lord Ceke, and
by all authorities who followed him, down to and in-
cluding Lord Chief Justice Tindal, and the Judges of the
Court of Exchequer Chamber, as expressed in their
judgment in " Veley against Burder." The obligation is
further recognised by various statutes, from the time of
Edward the First down to the present day. It is again
recognised in all the Acta of Parliament of modern times.

We cannot dispute or doubt such authority,
but we can point out on what it rests, and the
readers will judge of the justice, not of Dr.
LUSHINGTON'S decision, which we do not call in
question, but of the law itself. It is so decreed
by the common law, the expounder of which was
Lord COKE, and persons antecedent to him. The
common law, that which Dr. LUSHINGTON ad-
hered to, because he can only act by precedent
or statute, is the declaration of an opinion, or a
decree of a man, or some men, who lived between
two and three centuries ago. Lord COKE died
in 1634. The common law has no other or higher
authority than this, together with the sanction it
has since received from usage. Is it rational that
a declaration of opinion at that time by one man,
should be binding on society now under very
different circumstances ?

Lord COKE, and the able lawyers who went
before him, possessed a sort of equity jurisdic-
tion, and decided according to circumstances.
In his time there was comparatively little per-
sonal property, and that was scarcely assessed.
At that period the middle classes were just
gathering power, and becoming known, and at
that period the bulk of the land was in the hands
of a few great proprietors. Prior to that it had
been in the possession of still fewer, and the
middle classes were of still less importance. The
words parish and parishioners probably meant
rather the land than the people. The old law-
yers took a rational view when they declared
that the parish, meaning the great landowners,
must provide for the repairs of the churches in
which their vassals and the persons who
dwelt in the pirish worshipped. Circum-
stances are now altogether different. The pro-
perty of the people is more personal than landed,
and personal property is assessed to Church and
Poor-rates. Now also there are numbers of Dis-
senters, who are made, by such decisions as that
of Lord COKE and Dr. LUSHINGTON, to pay for
the support of a Church they never use. To
continue blindly to apply the old law may be
very legal, very proper, strictly according to pre-
cedent, but it is calculated to make all reflecting
men despise the law as a parcel of rubbish, if it
be not a nuisance. If Judges wish that the law
should remain respected, they should sometimes
throw precedents aside, and allow common sense
to have more sway than the decisions of pre-
vious Judges.

General WINFIELD SCOTT, Commander-in-
Chief of the United States' army, is among the
candidates for the Presidency ,of the Republic.
In this capacity he haS addressed a letter to the
people of the United States, explanatory of his
opinions on the important questions of party
politics, the judiciary, the executive veto,
rotation in office, Presidential term of
office, agency of the President in legis-
lation, and secret societies. The Gallant
General sets out by stating that, when a mere
youth, he felt the liveliest joy in the ex-
piration of the Alien and Sedition laws, and
the triumph of Mr. JEFFERSON. That from
1806 he was old enough to oppose, by speech
and pen, the British Order in Council, the attack
on the Chesapeake, the impressment by British
ships of American seamen, the insults of the
French Directory, and NAPOLEON'S Berlin and
Milan decrees ; that he supported the MADISON
and MUNROE Administrations in everything but
the dismasting of a part of the navy and the
gun-boat system of defence ; that, moreover
he is an old-fashioned, republican-democratic
Whig, as all his family have been. So much
for the General's politics. As respects the
J udiciary he has the deepest reverence for the
Bench State and Federal—and altogether con-
demns any appeal to Congress or elsewhere
against , the decision of•the Supreme Court,
which ought, in all cases to be final; op-
position to the decisions of that Court he re-
gards as revolutionary. With regard to the
PRESIDENT'S veto General SCOTT thinks it might
be set aside by the vote of a simple majority Of
Congress, ten days being allowed for reflection
after its exercise. Connected with the veto
power is that of patronage, and here we shall
quote the Gallant Candidate's own words. We
regret that it is impossible to question their
truth, coming as they do from so respectable a

quarter :
The President is, under the checks of the Constitution
and law, rightfully invested with the power of the sword,
and he has again and again had that of the purse also. The
House of Congress it is true, lay taxes for imports, and regu-
late the sales of the public domain ; but it is he (through
his agents) who handles the proceeds. From 1833 to
1836 (to say nothing of the present) he alone nominated
and dismissed all the agents who kept, as well as those
who collected, distributed, and disbursed the public reve-
nue. The apothegm—make us your executor, we care
not who are your legislators—has a frightful application
to such small agents, and the immense treasure that an-
nually passes through their hands!
The rapid increase and spread of population ; the
growth of national wealth; the amount of revenue col-
lected and disbursed; the new relations (by the extension
of commerce) with foreign countries ; the additional ap-
pointments at home and abroad ; the number and va-
lue of contracts—all constantly and necessarily on the
increase ; a general decay in morals, perhaps as great
in Congress as elsewhere ; the habit that we have
seen prevail during the several Presidential terms—
of filling public offices with but 'little or no regard to
moral standing—have, taken together, already opened to
government elements of power and corruption which it
was impossible for the framers and adopters of the Con-
stitution to foresee or to conceive. Who, at that distant
day, for example, ever dreamed of the spectacles which
have recently disgusted every honest citizen : of post..
masters, mail-contractors, mail-agents, and census-
takers covering the land with government pamphlets,
hand-bills, and extra-gazettes, sufficient (if read) to sap
the morals, public and private, of an entire generation ?
Of the Custom-house mercenarieslin the large cities, liv-
ing on the public.neglecting every duty for party meetings

and the polls, and rendering to power the most bribe-
worthy services ? Of District Attorneys and Collec-
tors, rambling missionaries, defending every abuse of
office—their own the most indecent—or in order to
maintain power in the hands of their patron ? All who
have reflected on the foregoing facts must be ready to
affirm—that Executive patronage " has increased, is in-
creasing, and ought to diminished."
I hope, then, by an early amendment of the Con-
stitution, to see a reduction of the President's veto
The regulation of patronage would naturally follow.

Removal from subordinate offices General
SCOTT would confine to proven dishonesty or in-
capacity. He considers that to perform the
duties of subordinate offices well, long training
is required, and that continuance in office is but
the proper reward of merit. In the number of
officials not removable he includes Ambassadors,
Secretaries of Legation, Consuls, and Postmas-
ters, whose commissions do not exceed one thou-
sand dollars a-year. He is opposed to the re-
election of the President, and would support a
change in the Constitution to that effect. Re-
specting the leading measures of the late extra
session he says:—

If I had had the honour of a vote on the occasion, it
would have been given in favour of the Land Distribu-
tion Bill ; the Bankrupt Bill and the second Bill for a
creating of a fiscal corporation—having long been under a
conviction that, in peace, as in war, something efficient,
in the nature of a Bank of the United States, is not only

" necessary and proper," but indispensable to the success-
ful operations of the Treasury, as well as to many of the
wants of our commerce and currency.
General SCOTT has not been in a Masonic
Lodge but once in the course of thirty years,
and belongs to no other secret society whatever;
that once was more than sixteen years ago. His
principles, he says, are convictions which he
could not abandon for the Presidency; but,
if elected to carry them out, he will accept

that office.
Such is the substance of General SCOTT'S ad-
dress, which is dated " Washington, October
25th." It is curious that in such a document
he should say no more about the widely-agitated
question of a National Bank than what we have
given in the short paragraph immediately pre-
ceding. For our own part we should gladly
see General SCOTT President of the United
States. His conduct during the rebellion in Ca-
nada was upright and impartial, and no effort
of his was wanting to maintain the most friendly
relations between England and the United
States. The Sympathisers met with neither
sympathy nor encouragement at his hands. He is
also well acquainted with the merits of the
Boundary question, and remarkably well dis-
posed to promote its speedy and pacific ad-
justment. In private life we have always
beard General WINFIELD SCOTT spoken
of as an intelligent, amiable, good man
whom no traveller encountered without
increased respect for the American character.
The world knows him to be a chivalrous, high•
minded soldier, and fame, even in Europe,
proclaims him a patriot, a gentleman, and a
Christian, in the true and exalted sense of that
much-abused word.

We have published in The Sun this day a
short account of the entertainment given by
a numerous body of electors of Maryle-
bone to Mr. Kensett, who has long
taken an active part in the affairs of
that extensive borough, and has been of
some service to the cause of Reform. He was
presented at the same tune with a splendid ser-
vice of plate, a return fur his valuable labours
alike honourable to him and the inhabitants who
conferred it.

• 'if'. r
••• ' yr II Li
.34•N5i,40.100, ;„
, •
'431
0.