The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-06 00:00:00

TtiP, SUN, LONDON.- THETRDA V. MAY 6.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.'

FROM TIE: DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
CHRONL'LE.—Litre Melbourne, es we yesterday ob-
s -reed, h is Assays carefully avoided committing himself to an
opposition to a repeal of the Corn monepoly on grin iple. He
unifermly told the House, when opposing any motion for in-
quiry, that a time might corn?, and circumstance's might ari e,
which might render it absolutely necessary that the question,
with all its difficulties and inconveniences, should be consi-
dered and discussed. Like a clear-headed, practical States-
man, too, he declared that it would be inexpedient for the
Government to enter on the consideration of the question, un-
less " a decided opinion was expressed onthe subject by a large
majority of the people." Thatthis view of the import of his Lord-
ship's speeches, on the question of the Corn-laws, is not new, or
taken up by us for the occasion, we could easily show by a re-
ference to our file. On the 3d July, 18-38, for instance, in re-
viewing the discussion to which a petition gave rise which was
presented by Earl Fitzwilliam from the city of Glasgow, pray-
ing for the total repeal of the Corn-laws, we remarked, " How-
ever indefensible the Corn-laws may be on every sound prin-
ciple, they can only be altered by the determination of the
people not to submit to them. There was, therefore, sound
practical sense in what fell from Viscount Melbourne, when
he declared that he ought not to introduce a new system,
unless he was satisfied that lie was. acting with a great
majority of the people, and that he was decidedly and 'cer-
tainly acting right, arid for the benefit and advantage of the
country.' It may be true, as has been stated, that the land-
owners have a preponderance in the Legislature, and that it
would be useless for the commercial and manufacturing part of
the community to agitate questions to which the former are
decidedly opposed. Be this as it may, the opponents of the
Corn-laws know the terms en which alone they can be altered.
Nlinisters can only be reached through the Legislature ; 'and
if the people cannot move the House of Commons, they cannot
move the Government Fairly interpreted,
Lord Melbourne's observations mean, we think, merely this,
that a Ministry can only hope to be able to effect great
changes in matters of commercial policy and finance, when
the opinion of the the country has been decidedly expressed
in their favour When the people are de-
termined on any change, the Ministry must, of course, give
effect to the popular will." It remains with the people them-
selves to determine whether the Melbourne Cabinet have.cor-
rectly read the :signs of the times. Powerful interests ate
arrayed against the Ministry, and if the people themselves do
not make the question their own, the Corn-law monopoly
must continue to press them to the earth. We will not, how-
ever, believe that the people, who ten years ago had the sense
and the spirit to unite as one man, whereby they were enabled
to extort the Reform Bill, without the effusion of a drop or
blood, from the most powerful oligarchy in the world, are now so
stored as not to perceive the importance of making a great effort,
at this time, to extort from the same oligarchy a Com-
mercial Reform Bill, or so spiritless as to shrink from the ex-
ertions which may be necessary to ensure so great a blessing.
If the people are now wanting to themselves, when the oppor-
tunity which they so long desired has at length arrived, they
may have to expiate their folly by long years of political de-
basement. For we are now arrived at a crisis when to
persist in our present commercial policy is certain de-
struction to the best interests of the nation. " The cir-
cumstances," said Lord Melbourne, " had, in his opinion,
now arisen—the time, in his mind, had now come when,
in order to meet the exigencies of the country, it was necessary
to take wide, large, and extensive financial measures, affect-
ing almost all our other interests of a commercial nature at
home and abroad ; and under such circumstances it was
n.anifestly impossible to leave this great, this main, this mas-
ter interest unaffected and unapproaehrsd." What are these
circumstances? exclaim the Tories. Need we refer to the ex-
piration of our treaty with Brazil, a country which has hitherto
been an extenslve market for our manufactures? The people
of Brazil say, we have nothing to give you in exchange but
our cotton and our sugars, ant you refuse to take them. We at
present send them to Germany, and with the proceeds buy bills,
which we remit to you. But this is an inconvenient way of
doing business. When our treaty with you is at an end, we
shall buy from the Germans as well as sell to them. In like
manner the United States of North America are about to en-
ter on the revision of their tariff. The United States are the
chief purchasers of our manufactures; and they, too, are indig-
nant that we exclude theie wheat and other agricultual
produce from our markets, and will certainly impose a con-
siderable additional duty on our manufactures. With Germany
we still carry on an extensive commerce, and the Germans are
a people differing little from ourselves in the capability of la-
bour, and in the perseverance which forms so essential a cha-
racteristic in all the Teutonic races. The Germans are
making rapid advances in every branch of industry. By re-
fusing to admit Lair productions, except by fits and starts,
and under a system of duties which defies all the calculations
of prudence we not only diminish our commercial transactions
with them (for all commerce iesolvea itself ultimately into
barter), but we give a bounty to their manufacturers,
and raise up rivals, who will meet us in every foreign
market. Other countries protest against our exclusive
commercial system, and the Government is pressed on all
hands for such a revision of our code as shall put it on a more
liberal footing. Now, a foreign market is essentially nsees-
sary to tee We export manufactures to an amount exceeding
fifty millions a year. To a large manufacturing population
the markets of the world are indispensable. To narrow these
markets by a refusal to take the commodities produced by
the nations with which we deal, is to condemn our great
manufacturing towns to ruin. Year after year our population
is increasing at a rapid rate, our towns becoming cities, and
our villages becoming large towns. What is to become of this
enormous population of manufactures if we persist in an exclu-
sive system, by which we clase the markets of the world
against us? Our merchants and manufacturers com-
plain bitterly that their investments are becoming less
and less profitable—that their returns are not what they used
to be, arid that if the present Corn-law be maintained the most
melancholy results must soon await them. We put out of con-
sideretion for the present the fact that our agricultural pros-
perity is dependent on our manufacturing prosperity, and we
ask the advocates of Corn monopoly how they mean to dispose
of the millions whom they are about to deprive of
employment? These millions will cling to life as
long as they can, and will not suffer themselves
to perish without a fearful struggle. From foreign
trade they at present derive the means of supplying! their
wants by purchase from the landowners ; b it their wares must,
in seme way or other, be supplied, should the means of purshase
he denied them. On the land they must come, as paupers or
purchasers, and it is for the landowners to choose in which
capacity. Rents will soon be swallowed up by poor-rates, and
the landowners will be compelled to partition out the soil to an
excessive population, from inability otherwise to dispose of it.
We are r.ot afraid of the people of England if justice be done to
than. All that they want is to have elbow room. We
have coals, and iron, and strong arms, and if the
corn monopolist will only let them alone, if the land-
owner wll only content himself with the immense
advantages which landowners necessarily possess in a country
which exports manufactures, and whence food must always be
dearer than in a country which exports food, we can see no
limits to the development of our industry, and to our com-
mercial prosperity. But if the monopolists should now sue•
seed, through the supineness of the people, we see nothing hut
calamity in store for us. We have no faith in the moderation
of the monopolists. but we place much reliance on their appre-
hensions. We know that, if the people exert themselves as
they ought, the monopolists trust give way. But again and
again we repeat, the people must do their own business.
TI 'A ES. —We never recollect a more profligate aban-
donment of principle itra the part of a public man than that
of which Lord Melbourne was guilty in the House cf Lords on
Monday night. If anything were wanting to stamp with in-
famy the course which the present Ministers have resolved
upon pursuing, it was this extraordinary exhibition of the roue
Premier. The declarations which this careless and very off-
hand person formerly made the sit ject of the Corn laws are
sell known to our readers. And yet in May, 1.441, Lord ;Mel-
bourne is not ashamed to come forward and assert, that " with
respect to the measure itself, he always carefully reserved his
opinion," because " he saw the time must come when it would
he necessary fir their Lord-hips to take this question
into their serious consideration, for the purpose of
placing the law upon another basis." He reminds the
House of Lords, that his former arguments against
change were " based upon particular and temporary grounds,"
and reasons of " expediency ; " and that on the occasion re-
ferred to by the Duke of Buckingham he expressly said,
" This is a question of circumstances ; because circumstances
connected with the state of the- country, considerations of
various kinds, of economy or policy, may arise, which would
not only justify, but would render it necessary to pursue, a
different course." And now, though " to the arguments
which he on those former occasions introduced," he still, even
" at the present moment," attributes " a great portion of
force and strength," yet he affirms that " those circumstances
have arisen. and that time, in his opinion, has come," when
it is in fact necessary to take into consideration this question,
" with all its difficulties, inconveniences, and disadvantages."
Whence, my Lord Melbourne, is this new necessity, this cri-
tical emergency in the present state of affairs ? What is that
weighty and uncontrollable pressure of circumstances in 1841,
which has reconciled you to the "great evil" of change ;
which has convinced you that a change in the Corn-
laws " will be not only for the better, but so much for
he better as to make it worth while 7 " worth
While to involve this country in " a most violent struggle,
stirring society to its foundations, and leaving behind every
sort of bitterness and animosity ?" What is the irresistible
force which has compelled you, in spite of your reluctance, to
add to the bitterness of " the deepest feelings of discord and
eemity, by rashly adventuring to stir and agitate them?" Is
it that the evil effects of the present Corn-law have become so
gigantie, so intolerable, as to make any sacrifice worth while
tor the sake of getting rid of this "master grievance?" Is it
!hat the people are perishing with famine, and that they dis-
turb your noon-day slumbers by clamouring for bread ? Not
so. By the blessing of Providence, the abundant harvest of
last summer has removed for the present all fear of distress
from a deficiency or an exorbitant price of corn. There
would have been infinitely greater reason to make the change
upon this account in either of the two former years
than in 1841. Yet even in 1840 Lord Jchn Rus-
sell declared that " the extent of the evil c :used
by the Corn-laws had been greatly exaggerated," and that,
such as it was, "it would continue to exist after an alteration
of those laws." But, perhaps, the time has arrived which was
eoutemplated by Lord John Russell when he addiessed the
House of Commons (on the 26th of May, 1840) in the follow-
ing manner :—" I think that if, in a question of this
there should be a general wish for an alteration—if there
were a settled opinion that some new measure of legislation
should be adopted, but, at the same time, there was a diffe-
rence of opinion as to the precise measure which should
be adopted—the Government might safely step in, and
propose such a measure as they should deem most con-
Aueive to the national interests. But when the majority of
the House, composed of Members of both sides, are of opinion
Mat at present there should not be any a,teration to the
Corn-laws—if in that case, the Government should introduce
any measure, they would only enhance the arguments, the in-
terests, and the prejudices of [lon. Members onboth sides ,the
itensity of party feelings, and the animost'scs of party dis-
cussions, and thus they would not promote but rather retard,
the settlement of the question. A few weeks, perhaps a few"
nights, will show whether there exists in the Howe of
Commons such a " general wish," such a "settled opi-
nion," or even such a bare majority in favour of any al-
teration in the Corn-laws, as, upon this view (in which
we entirely concur), would justify a Ministry in bring-
ing the question forward.r If not, We must conclude
that Lord John Russell, by throwing down ham the Treasury
benches the apple of Corn-law diseo-d. intends, with 4.5.
11 jlbi-
tual insincerity, "not to promote, but rasher to retard, the
settlement of this question ;" and we shall stili have, to search
for the natere of e exigency which has forced Lord Melbourne
matter er which'
.Melb.Melbourneb
upon his present twine. And, in truth, we shall not have
the
pfarrofteossesesarch
himselffor to
oitgive of
it. lli
nuerile and
profligate; being, in substance, that because the has,
under the misgovernment of himself and his colleagues, become
inyplved in financial difficulties, which require a revision of the
financial eystem, it is inipossibte to leave the Corn-laws untouch-
ed, while other eommee.eiel enestions are readjusted. This is
pituweraisled,
desirable
ee
tiot ilsomaviertitfbesenyccreeai,absurdly
while -the
timber duties and sugar duties.are . altered,' diltetetiduel
tion ; most indisputably it was possible. And to' allege (as
w
„, false.
cite, Whether
Loin M.elhonyee in substance cites) that financial embarrass-
ments, arisog from 14s Q-. 7 ruinous mismanagement of the
public resources, have imide4it rieeepary bring on "a most
violent struggle, stirring society to i.tsfoun'clalitings i,"(11 leaving
behind every sort of bitteimess and animosify,'! is progig.4o be;
yond expression; it is equivalent to a denunciation of himself

and his colleagues as worthy of impeachment. When then,
after all, is the peculiar a at pressing emergency of the present
moment? Plainly, that ford Melbourne and h's cuilcagues
have just now lost the confidence of Parliament andthe country,
and must resign, unless, by stirring society toils foundations,
arraying the commercial and agricultural interests its dewily
bitterness and animosity ayaitot each other, and taking intir
side with the forager, they can contrive, upon a dissoluton, to
gain such a majority as may enable them to fester on a few
years longer in the infamy of salaried contempt.
HERALD.—Our readers saw, in our Parliamentary report
of Monday, that Lord Stanley, in answer to a question put to
him by 31r. Smith O'Brien, said it was not his intention to
proceed with his Irish Registration Bill on Wednesday next
(this day)—he int,nded to postpone it for a fortnight. We
know not for what reason the Noble Lord has interposed a
fortnight's delay to the prosecution of so important and salutary
a measure—a measure intended to purify from one of the
foulest systems of fraud and perjury that ever existed the Par-
liamentai y registration of Ireland. We cannot believe, with
the Globe, that this is only a step to the abandonment of the
Bill altogether; we do not think that Lord Stanley is the man
to labour in the vain toil of a Silphus, by rolling the stone up
the hill only that it may roll down again. The Globe, indeed,
boldly as-erts that we shall hear no more of Lord Stanley's
Bill during the present Session; -nor in the next, except
sortie new source of dissatisfaction arise between Sir Robert
Peel and his party, and Lord Stanley be again prompted
to try his " 'prentiee hand" on Irish legislation, in order to
gratify his own restless ambition, and to show that he is pre-
pared to step into Peel's place so soon as an opportune occasion
presents itself. It is quite new- to us, as we believe it is to
moat people, that Lord Stanley's Bill was originally introduced
because of differences existing between that Noble Lord and
the acknowledged leader of the Conservative opposition. Our
friend of the Globe is not unaccustomed to exercise a poetic
faculty on historical subjects, and to draw from his imagination
the evidence of his facts; in the present instance lie has car-
ried that propensity to an inordinate length, as we believe that
it is perfectly well known that Lord Stanley originally intro-
duced his Irish Registration Bill with the perfect and cordial
concurrence of Sir Robert Peel. On the whole, we have no
doubt if Lord Stanley presses on his Bill with his usual energy
and determination, Ministers will meet the alarming exigency
of the case by, pressing on a dissolution ; but not until they have
got hold of the sinews of war by carrying, if they can, their
financial measures.

POST.—Very justly has it been stated by a Morning Con-
temporary. posses,ing great influence in the mercantile world,
that the advocates of Corn-law repeal practise a gross delu-
sion upon the working man, when they tell him that the pro-
posed benefit to be derived from the repeal of the Coro-law
would find its way into his pocket. if, continues our Con-
temporary, " if this were so, we should hear very little of the
Corn-law grievance from its most active opponents, the hitro-
phants of the political economy school and the overgrown cot-
ton Lords." Most just, we say, are thesestatements, and they
are of the very highest importance to the great mass of the peo-
ple of this country. If they will consider the subject of Corn-
kis, repeal calmly and dispassionately, and as practical men
ought to do, whose daily comfort is concerned in the mat-
ter, they cannot, we think, come to any other conclusion
than that which has been pointed out. They cannot fail
to perceive that the clamour for Corn-law repeal is nothing
but the outcry of the grossest selfishness--the most heartless,
grasping cupidity, the object being to take a greater advar.-
tags of the poor and helpless than s.an be taken at present, and
to grind down the labourer to a more dependent conditio,-j than
he is in at present. Let it not be supposed that there is any
heat or exaggeration in this view of the case. We believe it
to be as capable of demonstration as any point can be which is
inferred from probabilities and general experience. The ca-
pitalists of the political economy school are jealous of the Bri-
tish labourers. They think these labourers take too large a
toll out of the capitaiist's profits. They believe they could
have the labour they require performed by foreigue.s at a
cheaper rate, or that by all swing foreign labour to come
into competition, the *British labourers would be forced
by hard necessity to accept a worse remuneration than
they now receive. Harshness, excessive harshness, to
all who have no capital is the rule of the political economy dis-
ciples. To make the utmost profit on capital is the so!e ob-
ject, and to do that labour must be ground down to the lowest
scale of remuneration. Those who are able to work must be
afforded but the lowest wages, and those who are not able, or
who cannot find work to do, must be allowed only the barest
possible amotint of subsistence by the public, and must he
!tightened from the acknowledgment of destitution by the
grinding severity of au ungenerous and inhuman poorhouse
discipline. This, we say, is an exaggerated, unimpassioned
statement of the philosophy;/ of those who are most clamorous
for Corn-law repeal. Such "philosophers" deserve the
abhorrence of the labouring multitude, and not their sup-
port. These cruel, heartless clamourers for repeal of
the Corn-laws, talk of the " monopoly which the land-
owners insist upon maintaining—the monopoly of sup-
plying this country with corn. But surely the labourers
must see that if there be any monopoly, the landowners have
but a small share of it. We grant they have a share, but by
far the largest share is that of the labourers. Who is there so
egregiously ignorant as to suppose that the rent which a farmer
pays his landlord is anything like the amount of the wages
he pays his labourers ? Every body knows that the farmers sell
the produce of their tillage lands for six times the amount of
the rent. What becomes of the rest? Why, it goes to pay
various expenses, of which labour is the chief. The effect,
then, of the Corn-laws is to give to British labourers the mo-
nopoly of supplying Great Britain with food, and this is rea-
sonable, because, if they had not this monopoly, the foreign
landowners and labourers would undersell them, and their em-
ployment would cease; and there is no ether existing means of
suppling them with remunerative employment.

ADVERTISER.—Of all the considerations which weigh
with us in favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's bedget,
there is none more cogent. an the debt of justice which it dis-
charges to the poor. The Poor-law Amendment Act was a
severe but a necessary measure, intended alike for the protec-
thin of the capital and property of the country, and to throw
the people upon their own resources—their own steady industry
and prudence—as the best safeguard against destitution. But
it implied that the ct.annele of inilusiry should be free ; that
every shackle and impediment to the exertion of enterprise
should he removed; and that, if the people were riot to count
upon subsisting upon the resources of others, they should
be enabled, so far as righteous legislation could effect it, to
übsist upon their own. Owing to the predominance or class
interests in this country, the friends of free trade in the
Government were unable to carry into effect what ought
to have been the wings or riders of the Poor-law Amendment
Act ; they were compelled to await the time when the ne:fessi-
ties of the country should teach the les.on of honesty and jus-
tice. They saw the country gentlemen relieved to the extent
of mil ions, by the economy eniorced by the Poor-law ; the
oppressions of the tithe-system removed, and other measures
of relief afforded, and vet were doomed to behold the just
rice and compensation of these benefits withheld. More than
that, the very interests so largely benefited were found to
fraternise with Chartism ; to foster discontent with the Go-
vernment on account of the Poor-law, by which those bene-
fits had been secures', reckless of the consequence which
might follow to the peace and good order of the
State. Mr. Walter, and his late proceedings at Notting-
ham, typify this class of Toryism. So that the people
be excited, it matters not what may be the cause ; indeed, it
would seem to be better if, Machiavel-like, they could hatch
the mischief out of their own malignity, and then attribute it
to the enemy. During the period which has eloped since the
passing of the Poor-law Amendmeut Act, the Government
have been engaged in a continual effort to secure and enlarge
the political rights by which all other things can be secured ;
and a survey of the results of their untiring exertions will
' show that, in spite of their failures and disgraces, they have
realised to the nation immense benefits. That their work has
been arduous, and their success less than they might have
honed, are not causes of lotime to them, but to their oppo-
nents, who planted the obstacles, and made success impracti-
cable. At last, having conquered many political positions,
they have, with judicious skill, applied themselves to
secure the practical advantages and to make up lost ground,
which
,they could not contend for earlier with any chance of
success. In the release of the three great articles of corn,
sugar, and timber, in which the poor are so largely interested
as consumers. and net less as labourers, the Government will
provide some degree of compensation for the severities of the
Poor-law. It as tll no longer be a harsh injunction to go
elsewhere, and find relief by your own right hand," the means
being all the while denied ; but there will be opened to him
a field of exertion, es hich will, to a great extent, enable him to
protect himself from the necessity of hiving recourse to the poor-
rates. he demand which will grow up for English manufactures
to be exchanged for foreign corn, must give not an occasional im-
petus to trade, but. one constant and un ailing; and a result not
less favourable must flow from the relaxation of the duties on
the other articles of sugar and timber. Thus in both ways, by
an ad itional demand for the labour of the poor, and by a di-
minution in the price of the principle articles of their consump-
tion. the resources of the poor will be increased—events,
doubtless. to be deplored by the Tory and the Chartists, inas-
much as by producing contentment and prosperity they are
calculated to lessen the ranks of the friends to disorder and
faction ; but events which will bring joy and gladness to every
honest patriot, as realising the objects of his efforts to improve
the political condition of his c runtrymen. It pleased the
Tories, when political organization was the main object
of contention, to hold the doctrine that there were other
things to be contended for of far more value ; but now they
repudiate the e, and seem to think that political contention is
the end and aim of enlightened politicians. For political or-
ganization
the Whigs fought as the means to attain ameliora-
tion of the condition of the people, because the latter was hope- ,
less without it, Having attained the former as far as possible,
they now aim at the latter. Whip high, and whip low, how-
ever, the Whigs, like Sheridan's Drummer-boy, are incapaltle
of girl, tg satisfaction: to the Toms under the lash of defeat, fir
such it is in point of principle, notwithstanding majorities
gained by an appeal to every factious interest, or mortified ,
ally or renegade. We have addressed these remarks to the ,
poor, to the labouring clipses, as the parties most immediately
concerned in the measures propounded by the Chancellor itf the
Exchequer. It is emphatically a poor man's budg t ; not, indeed,
confined to the relief of !he poor—for as they are relieved so must
the rich be in like proportion—but making the improvement
of the condition of the poor--of the largest number of con-
sumers—the main object. of his care. This is enlightened
policy in all senses ; the best statesmanship both as a financier
and as is politician ; and albeit some classes may clamour, the
people at. large will have the wit to see their interest in it, and
will lend a less noisy, but more certain support. There
sh mid, however, be no delay in the expres-ion of popular sen-
timent. f t. should be immediate, clear, and unequivocal. Nor
is itmere party matter. Unless the people are disposed to
a
quarrel with their own bread and butter they should make the
advantage which the Chancellor
of the Exchequer offers a
i the contrary, tel l him a "bird in
common concern, and postpone party talk till they have ena-
bled him to carry his measures. If a Tory should counsel
the hind is better than two
in the bush;" and that what the Tories will give will be taken
when the Whigs will give no more.
GLOBE.—The Tory
orgies ask, with an innocent
simplicity,
t
" What is the nature of the exigency which
has forced Mi• asters on their
r.seat course ?" And they
reply to their own question with a virtuous indignation__
that the nature of the exigency
is nothing but a party
neacgiiity imposed upon the Ministry by one or two ad-
vcrie votes, Mioitters, we are told, mean to array the
commercial and agritatur ai clusges in deadly enmity
nvainst each other, merely in order to keep their places.
In what way this internecine war between national
intsresto, rgtl.slle essential to the pros; e.-ity of the
country, should help Minister; to keep their places, we
are slot informed. Nut,
we are told by the same eon-
iirgi'A 'the IJO)l.l:27!"4,t:b:asin its
o
nc
e honest
°Pini"
sisteit journal whieh s4ch (-
ky this same journal that public men like piAt-
pockets for riarilg propose any change)—wee Are. trial
fixer upOn a 'tittle who cue 7.iolant Anti-Corn-law agi-
tators had sunk so tow, of soentireig destitute of pc,
" it would be impossible to have
poularity, influence,. or power." If this be so, it cannot be
unknown to Ministers. It cannot then be for the purpose of
pleasing the violent Anti-Corn-law agitators that Ministers
bring forward their project of Fiscal Reform. It clunrt be
for tlirieptaipeF.P c:sf pinAting by " the current ofpopulir
wilt not 1)6 piciteg wept it,y, large avid int.;
mediate Concesihihs,,i'. -Nd -410.1.1.044? g, lice°!o'a
Times, !'s at prv,,,e tv. !! 11Y tug "f
Prov;deuee, the abundant harvest of 1.4 sll'Prner
removed for the es tit all fear 111. giOrmiton q. that
flOency or an exowbitant pried ot eons, There would

have been infinitely greater reason to make tie chani:e
upon this account in citlier of the two formers years
than in 1841. It would appear, then, that it carrot be
aacr,bed to Ministers, with any plausibility, that they merely
mean to seize ti e occasion of a moinentary " pressuie
from with ,ut." What they mean to appeal to must be
the rational and deliberate public opinion on this subject.
And it is the Times that charges them with this as a
crime ! The Times, which professes to adhere to that same
opinion I It is very characteristic of an organ of Toryism
to create a crime out of not waiting for renewed famine-
agitati.m of this question. That is the sort of inspira-
tion its party arc in the habit of waiting for. A
Waterford or Clare election—or the actual beginnir g
of a bread war—thee are i's indispensable excuses for
Liberal measures—these are the topics it must plead in
mi igation of the crime of proposing them. Sir R. Peel
is the reverse of Sir John Falstaff'; he will do nothing
without compulsion ; at ha t he finds it necessary to plead
compulsion to the class interests whose support of him i;
conditional on his res'Aanee to measures of change. Th•.!
present Administration i 3 under no such necessity. Its
f. iends, in or out of .Parliament, are its friends on no sue')
condition.

COURIER.—The zealous Ministerial print, with not
unaccountable anxiety, proceeds, but progresses nor, this
morning, in the hopeless task of vindicating the truth and
consistency of its patron the Premier, as thus :—" Lord
Melbourne, as we yesterday observed, has always
carefully avoided committing himself to an opposition
to a repeal of the corn monopoly on principle. He uni-
formly told the House, when opposing any motion for
inquiry, that a time might come, and circumstances
might arise, which might render it absolutely necessary
that the question, with all its difficulties and inconve-
niences, should be considered and discussed. Like a
ciear-headed, practical statesman, too, he declared that
it would be inexpedient for the Government to enter on
the consideration of the question, unless " a decided
opinion was expressed on the subject by a large majority of
the people." The care with which Lord Melbourne " al-
ways avoided committing himself to an opposition" to
Corn-law sera', and the " uniformity" with whicn his pre-
eat practice squares with past opinions, will be best evi-
denced by leaving his Fght-minded Lordship to speak for
himself. Thus, on the 4‘h of March, 1839, when opposing
the Corn-law abolition crotchets of his noble ally, Lord
Fitzwilliam, the Premier took occasion energetically to
declare that, even if no great existing interests stood in
the way, " he should much doubt the wisdom of esta-
blishing laws which must make a large manufacturing
population dependent upon foreign countries for a
supply of corn. But in the actual position of the
question," he said, " when I consider the ruinous
and complicated interests which we have to protect,
and find my Noble Friend proposing to leave the
whole agricultural interest without protection, 'I
declare before God that 1 think it the wildest
and maddest scheme that ever entered into the imagi-
nation of min to conceive." Again, he proceeded :
"In my opinion, it is not wise to depend upon foreign
countries for a supply of food ; and I think that, even
at the sacrifice of some portion of our manufactur-
ing prosperity, we ought first to provide for the na-
tional safety and the national independence.
am not, in any respect, bigoted to the existing Corn-
laws ; but it must be felt and admitted on all hands,
that change is in itself a great evil. Therefore, I for
one am not ready to make any change, unless it can be
plainly shown me that the change would be for the
better ; and so much the better as to make it worth
while.- So much for the truth of the latest statements
recklessly asseverated by his Lordship in Parliament, and
impudently re-asserted by his prcfligate apologists out of
doors, to the effect that he had never compromised himself
to any opinion upon the Core-law question, or in his own
words, on Monday, as follows: " But at the same time, I
beg to call to the recollection of your Lordships that on
every occasion it, which I addressed the House on the
subject, and whenever I opposed its discussion and con-
sideration, it has always been on particular and tempo-
rary grounds. And on the measure itself, I have always
reserved my opinion. I have always stated that I would
never pledgo myself to the law as it at present stands,
seeing that the time might come when it would be ne-
cessary to take the question into consideration, and to
settle it on another basis from that on which it at pre-
sent rests." By the foregoing extracts from his own
firmer speeches, as well as those cited yesterday from
the same authority, it may be readily deduced with what
tegard to decercy it is now pretended that " opinion"
wa " reserved," or subject to be qualified by " particu-
lar circumstances," &c.

STANDARD.—The permanent interest to English-
men of the Corn-laws has caused us to nrgl,ct the attack
of the Budget upon our commercial and colonial interests
and we arc ashamed to say upon the interests of
humanity. A petition in course of signature at Bath,
which we have received this morning, reminds us of
this last neglect. The petition in question reclaims
against the encouragement of slavery is its most
savage form, by the introduction of sl ae-made
sugar. Let men read Sir Thomas Fowell Bux -
ton's account of the atroci.ms system of Spanish and
Brazilian slavery, with its pi eparatory and accompanying
murders of nearly half a million of our fellow-creatures an-
nually. Let any man, we say, read that frightful history of
soft!: ing and crime, and then, if he can, withhold his vcice
from the protest of the B :th petitioners. Out upon the
hypocrites who clamoured for the abolition of the
mild system of slavery in our own colonies, but
would now remain silent when Ministers call upon the
country to give its aid to a system of slavery the must
cruel that ever the infernal spirit suggested to depraved
man. We respct those who hate all slavery, and we
have ever sympa Isi,cd, and, to the extent of our
small power, co-operate] with them ; but words
cannot express the loathing and contempt wilt
which all honest men must regard the hypocrites who
raised their voices so high against the !lavety in our oLt n
colonies, and are now silent whe i we are to be male the
auxilia.ies of an infini ely wore slavery.. Where is Sir
Thomas Fowt.:ll Buxton ? Where are they all who took
the lead in the Abolition law of 1832?

FOREIGN SLAVE SUGAR DU CY.