The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-03 00:00:00

Estal;lish;d 1820.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC 3OURNALQ.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
GLOBE.—The Post renews its outcry for Par-
liamentary animadversion on all who seek to
bring the majesty of the Corn-laws into hatred
and contempt. We are still left in doubt how far
this monopolist menace extends its objects. Whe-
ther the Post would begin with Lord John Rus-
sell's reply to the people of Plymouth ; or whether
the Post would confine Parliamentary vengeance
to its colleagues of the press. It is certain that
a portion of the press has done its best to
aggravate the dangerous discredit to the policy
of the Post's patrons which is too likely to flow
from the plain language of Lord John Russell.
But which portion? The Morning Chronicle?
The Globe? Pooh !—the Times and the Post.
Would it have been possible for ourselves or our
Liberal colleagues, how seditiously and blas-
phemously soever we might be minded towards
the Corn-laws, to inflict such heavy blows and
great discouragements on the upholders of those
laws, as the Times 41d, for example, yesterday,
in the following parlvrraph :
" Because former Conservative Governments
have carried the'..Catholic Emancipation Act,
which had always, under certain restrictions, been
advocated by themselves; and because they also
abolished the Test and Corporation Acts, which
they never were desirous of retaining for one hour
beyond the existence of a State I necessity,
his Lordship consoles himself with the reflection
that the whole pharmacopoeia ofWhiggery, so flat-
tering to his own vanity, will sootier or later be
adopted. Like a genuine empiric, he 'contends
that his favourite hygeian theory or homoeopa-
thic exhibitions can alone save the country ; and
he appears to be not a little enraged at the
plausible anticipation, that in the hands of a
Conservative Ministry the well-being of the
.na-
tion will be secured. A better testimony to the
Govern-
could hardly be desired."
uprightness of her Majesty's present
The rage of Lord John Russell is not so ap-
parent as that of the Times. Contempt of
place, and of his successors in place, is all his
expressions indicate. How curiously the latter
feeling is justified by the Times' advocacy, so far
as it must be considered an organ of the party in
power ! So then, it is a plausible antici-
pation that Ministers will rat on the
Corn-laws, as on Emancipation, Test Acts,
and every thing else, so soon as they see
State necessity for it. And what is State neces-
sity in their eyes ? The necessity of keeping
their places. We have a right to assume that it
cannot be any other necessity—first, from the
language of Sir Robert Peel himself, at the pe-
riod of his great former concession—when he
admitted that it was an act against his principles
—therefore simply to keep power—power for
himself or his party—(whichever face he might
put on it)—by acting on the views of opponents.
The same necessity, and no other, can bring
about the abandonment of the Corn-laws by a
Ministry which obtained office precisely by re-
sisting their repeal. The Corn-law repealers
have merely to see that State necessity enough
is administered.
STANDARD.—Lord John Russell's answer
to the Address of his few partisans at Plymouth
theme
etdiscontinued to
the Opposition Journals,
their sbtui
they
ypilliae tl
have
ea
prudently
refer-
ence to his Lordship's complaint that the revenue
has been defrauded by depriving it of the benefit
of a regular taxation of food. This complaint
was something too strong for the public taste.
At present our Liberal Contemporaries expa-
tiate upon the Noble Lord's prediction that Sir
Robert Peel will adopt the principle of the
food tax, when " he shall be summoned to do so
by the peaceful but powerful voice of the people
of England and Scotland." Yes ; but, as Person
said, " Not till then." We may ask, in passing,
why is Ireland left out—lreland which is a part
of the United Kingdom, and the part most deeply
interested in the protection of agriculture? Leav-
ing this case of " Justice to Ireland," however,
to be settled between Lord John Russell and
his late patron and master, the Lord Mayor, we
concede that Sir Robert Peel will substitute a
food tax law for the present protecting laws
when he shall be summned to do so by the
united voices of the counotry. It will then be
his duty to make the concession. This is a
fie.eseistcountry,
nou Minister is justified in
l e t
the unanimous de-
termination of the people ; nor, indeed,
will any Minister ever successfully attempt
resisting
for anda moment
to resist it. Lord John Russell's predic-
tion is, therefore, a prediction of the safest
kind. Give him but the condition (such virtue
is there in an "if"), and the conclusion is cer-
tain. Here, however, is the difficulty. Are the
people united and zealous in favour of the Noble
Lord's proposition ? First, as to the free corn trade
—is it a symptom of such union and zeal
that the mill-owners and money jobbers who
constitute the League are driven to the
somewhat degrading necessity of /limit/
men--incompetent newspaper reporters, de-
serted schoolmasters, and rejected strolling
players—to wander over the country to advocate