The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-04 00:00:00

Barcelona

Seville

.... 36

SIR. ROBERT PEEL AND HIS

CABINET.
• On Friday last Sir Robert said, whilst speaking of the
Corn-laws, " I held in 1830 that I would not bind myself
to the details of the existing law, but would reserve to
myself the unfettered discretion of considering and
amending that law. I hold the same language now; and
if you ask me whether I bind myself to the maintenance
of the existing law in its details, or if you say that this
is the condition on which the agricultural interest give
me their support, I say that in that condition I will not
accept their support."
The Duke of Buckingham said, in 1839, " What
alarms me most upon this subject is the difference of
opinion existing upon it in the Cabinet."
Sir Edward Knatchbull said, on the Bth of March,
1827 :—" The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that he
did not believe an import duty would be preferable to a
prohibitory price.' This was the opinion he also held.
... it was his opinion—an opinion in which he was
supported by eminent authority—that this country ought
to depend for its supply of grain on the soil of the United
,Kingdom. . . . He thought the principle which had
been laid down in 1815 the true one, and he should op-

pose every other."
To this mild speech, you, Sir, replied, that you
" thought that, when it was recollected that corn could
not be imported into this country under the law of 1815
until the price of it was above 80s., no gentleman who
called himself a friend to the agricultural interest would
seriously advise a rigid adherence to the law of
that date."
The Duke of Buckingham, no longer since than the
debate in the Lords of the 14th of March, 1839, took
" his firm stand in support of the Corn-law as it now
stands." His Grace then quoted a speech made in
1815, of which the following was the concluding para-
graph :—" Whether the restricting price should be 725.,
765., or 80s., was a matter of less moment ; although,
under all the circumstances, he was in favour of the
higher sum, as giving due encouragement to the farmer,
without which he coal not contend with rival and foreign
markets. These (said the Noble Duke) ARE MY EXACT
OPINIONS."
On the 18th of February in the same year, his Grace
likewise said (speaking of the existing Corn-laws), " I
adhere to these laws ; I wish for no alteration in them.
• • • • These essential laws—laws of which I have ever
been, and shall continue to he, a firm advocate."
Let us hear the Duke of Wellington on the 18th of
February, 1839. He also opposed the hearing of evi-
dence on the subject of the Corn-laws :—" Agriculture
—said his Grace in his usual pithy style of expression—
agriculture cannot yet do without protection, and there-
fore the law must be kept -up."
No longer ago than Thursday, the 12th of August,
Sir E. Knatchbull thus expressed himself :
" Nothing had been advanced within his hearing or
reading that induced him at the present moment
think an alteration in the Corn-laws, as they now stood,
advisable.—(Cheers.) When the matter came under
consideration, if any improvement affecting the farming
interest or the general interest of the country should be
suggested, he would give it his fullest consideration, and
'adopt it or not, according as he might or might not
think it beneficial. With respect to the general question
of protection, there was no doubt that protection must
be maintained in.oe existing state of things. Let, then,
the alteration of the law of tithe be considered in con-
nection with the conduct of Ministers on the subject of
the Corn-laws. Within the last feW years an Act had
been passed for the commutation of tithe, which was
compulsory on both parties, the clergy and the landed
interest. • It was his opinion, that the law was based on
equitable principles ; but if an alteration should take
place in the Corn-laws, and the price of Wheat' be re-
duced to 40s. from between 50s. and 60s. per.quarter,
how would it be poSsible for that law to be carried out ?
—(Hear, hear.) How would it then be possible'for the
land to bear the burden imposed on it by that law ?"
(Rear, hear.)
.The Duke of Buckingham has continually adjured the
farmers at ordinaries, and at extra ordinaries, to stick to
the entire Corn-law, and not allow a line of it to be al-
tered. With such colleagues, how can Sir Robert Peel
alter the law beneficially ? At Tamworth lie showed
that the present law does not give protection enough,
and we therefore have no doubt that the only alteration
he will make will be to increase the tax now levied on
the public by the rent- owners.

THE SPIRIT SELF-PROTECTING,--Vhat can
we see or acquire but what we are ? You have seen a
skilful man reading Virgil. Well, that author is a thou-
sand books to a thousand persons. Take the book into

your two hands, and read jour eyes out, you will never
Lind what I find. If any ingenious reader would have a
monopoly of'the wisdom or delight he gets, he is as se-
cure now the book is Engfished, as if it were imprisoned
in the Pelews' tongue. It is with a good book as with
good company. Introduce a base person among gentle-
men : it is all to no purpose ; he is not their fellow.
Every society protects itself. The company is perfectly
safe, and he is not one of them, though his body is in the
room,—Ernerson's Essay on Spiritual Laws.