The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-12 00:00:00

Vtie nu.

LONDON:
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1841.

Two of the Tory journals, the Quarterly Re-
view and the London Standard, have, within a
short period, expressed the unmitigated hostility
and hatred which the Tories continue to nourish
against the manufacturing and commercial popu-
lation. On Saturday, the Morning Post, follow-
ing their example, though more cautious in its
language, evinced a. similar aristocratic contempt
of the townspeople. On the nomination for the
West Riding of Yorkshire, Lord MORPETII used
language to this effect

Hostility is deprecated with America. I echo from
my heart that philanthropic prayer, But I wia,l ti de-
vise new and additional guarantees for the harmony of
nations : we have enough of fancied and trivial causes fi,r
war. Give real and solemn motives for keeping peace.
I fear that peace will. never be long secured by the argu-
ments of philosophers, or by the reasonings of political
economists, or by the praises of poets ; or even, I fear,
as the world goes now, by the precepts of divines. We
can't make the Boil lie down with the lamb, but we may
create a profitable trade between the woollens of Leeds
and the sugars of the tropics. We can't make mankind
beat their spears into ploughshares, but we can exchange.
the steel of Sheffield for the harvests of Poland and the
flour of America. I believe statesmen will never be so
safe as when they act on general and comprehensive
principles. I. believe that the most effectual way of
putting down the slave-trade, which we are •charged
with encouraging, will be proving to the slaare-owner•
that the labour of slaves is dearer than the lab Our of
freemen. I believe that the best mode of banishhig from.
k alt
the world the scourge of war, is to•
nit; eacchtnthri"s
wish for each other's good, and g
welfare. Commerce, which is madeal.snometimes. the sUb-.
ject of a sneer, is not in itself civilizatpris not in itself
Christianity ; but I belieVe it is destined, in a en-eat de-
gree, tci be the channel and pioneer of both.
On this the Morning Post observed—
Now, that we eau- exchange our manufactures for the.
produce of slave labour in America, or of serf labour
in Poland, although asserted so confidently, is a mere
assumption. lt.; is a ;begging of a considerable part .uf
the question in controversy-. But supposing it true, are
we to consider alone these matters of barter, anti to omit
altogether .the high moral and rational considerations
therewith connected ? Is this worthy of a statesman ?
Is it tit that a, man of high station should seek an op-
portunity, to sneer at philosophy and poetry, and even
“.the precepts of divines," in order to enhance by com-
parison the possible advantages of traffic in woollens
and in steel ? We grant the advantages of such traffic,
and no doubt• they will find sufficient advocates. But
when a Nobleman and a Minister speaks to the people,
we may well expect that while allowing to traffic its fair
share of importance, he should not be the mouthpiece
of vulgar and degrading sneers against the very noblest
things which occupy the minds of men, and without which
authority loses all its dignity, and subordination all its
virtue.

Our Contemporary, then, considers the contra-
dictory verbiage which goes under the name of
philosophy, the pretty prattle which youths lisp
and call it poetry, and the polemical sermons
which the ecclesiastical drum-thumpers shout
forth on Sundays, and at Exeter Hall meetings,
as the very noblest things which occupy the
minds of risen and compared to which the daily
tasks ;'of-Clotiiing and feeding mankind, and ce-
menting-peace 'between foreign inttions by corn,
ineree, ara.insignifieant and v,o;•tlikss.
That sentiment, or a sentiment like it, fills
the minds of most of time writers for the-
Tory }cress. They are 'the toadieS of the, aris-
toeracp.- 'They sit just - below the salt at the
siselal.reAst,and,are always pandering to the HE-
beral.sentiments. and-vices of•theso-called great,
that they way share their factitious- honours.
jl2lSe,lvs Iluttsr'-aets and quasi-phi-
-19/44114""141441t4k'tliiii11:-. t
lie their -own
pw
suits, licaievarixvortlaless v wOrld, as the
noblest of allthe
?%79.1,,,•them are di7laco or ha,ve been

educated by divines, arid therefore they commit
the mistake of supposing that what divines say,
however little consonant to reason, however
alloyed with superstition, and however ineffica-
c►ous in improving or restraining statesmen, is
the highest human wisdom.
We cordially agree with Lord MORPETH, that
the " precepts of divines, as the world goes
now," are very little likely to influence the rela-
tions of States. In fact, divines are here the
servants of the State, and our statesmen never
consult them or their precepts on any question
of peace or war. But statesmen are the servants
of the industrious classes, the Government
is established in authority to protect the rights
of the people, and. the proudest of our rulers
must, and do continually consult the commercial
relations of the country whenever a great ques-
tion of war or peace arises.
Moreover, those commercial relations have al-
ready done more to knit together foreign people
in the bonds of peace, and extinguish national
hostility, than all the precepts of all the so-called
" divines," from GREGORY THE GREAT to the
Archbishop of CANTERBURY, that ever
Lord MORPETH is, therefore, correct in looking
to the extension of commerce as the means of
providing " additional guarantees of the har-
mony of nations ;" and the Post only evinces the
thorough contempt and disdain which it, and all its
party, entertain for manufactures and commerce
and for all their beneficial effects, more nume-
rous than we can recount, when it condemns
the Noble Lord, and exalts philosophy and
the precepts of divines into far higher import-
ance than " the traffic in wool and in steel."
Sentiments of hostility to trade are common
to the whole Tory party. They are equally
manifest in the contempt of the Post and in the
fierce hatred of the Quarterly Reriew and the
Standard. Too many commercial and manti-
s facturing communities, such as Leeds and Liver-
t pool, have, however, justified the hatred and
contempt of the Tories by electing Tories to re-
present them. If by their means manufactures
should go still more to decay, and commerce
should fail to increase, they may reflect, with
some self-reproach, that they have lent their
sanction to the doctrine that commerce and
manufactures may he despised and sacrificed by
statesmen, if they only encourage philosophy,
poetry, and priestcraft.

Lord STANLEY declared a short time before

the Parliament was dissolved, that he and Sir
ROBERT PEEL had for some time past freely
communicated all their views to each other, and
that they cordially agreed on all points. The
Noble Lord's speech at Lancaster was carefully
modelled, apparently, on Sir ROBERT PEEL'S
speech at Tamworth, and is to be considered of
additional importance as an index to the policy
which these political twins are to pursue. We
have their united authority for asserting that
they are bound firmly together, and though the
world thinks that difference of birth, of natural
inclination, and of bringing up, make them drag
different ways, they are now running down their
game in common.

All writers of any note on political economy,
and all persons who have reflected on the subject,
arc of opinion that trade should be perfectly
free ; and scientific men will learn with astonish-
ment and dismay, that, under the Tory Govern-
ment, according to Lord STANLEY, free trade will
be considered only " a clap-trap." Political
science will weep to find that her noble precepts,
the most pleasing of all her deductions, are to be
laughed at in the Tory Parliament as mere clap-
traps, like the scenes of a theatre, to catch the
applause of an audience.
Lord STANLEY, after he had ridiculed free
trade as a clap-trap, ridiculed the small reduc-
tion proposed in the Sugar duties. He did not
promise to make the reduction greater when he
is Colonial Secretary, but he would withhold it
altogether, because it is so very trifling. At
I the same time that he describes the reduction as
a saving of a Traction of a penny in a pound of
sugar, he also describes it as transferring the
entire trade in this article to foreigners, and
stopping the cultivation of sugar in our colonies.
The two conflicting statements are made to suit
separate purposes, and the Noble Lord is too
much carried away by the stream of his own
vituperation to attempt a reconciliation between
them. When he wishes to heap ridicule on the
Ministers, he asserts that the reduction is only
the fraction of a penny; when he wishes to
terrify his auditors, he describes the paltriest of
all changes as plunging in ruin our flourishing
colonies. He is one of the greatest masters of
assertion that ever spoke.

The Noble Lord having so satisfactorily to

himself disposed of the Sugar question, and de-
monstrated that the Tories will not lower the
discriminating duty, proceeded to attack the
Corn-law abolitionists. Here are some of his
words :

You are told that you are to 'get the same quantity
of bread for a shilling for which you now pay 18d.,
that you will purchase the 41b. loaf for 6d. for which
you now pay 9d., and that this will be affected by the
reduction in the price of corn. Now, the price of corn
is by no means the single element in the price of bread.
I don't suppose that the miller will work for less than
he did before—(Hear)—that the baker will work for
less than he (lid before, or that the shopkeeper will
content himself with a smaller profit. All these items
remain the same as bek,re, and they constitute one-third
of the entire amount. Suppose four quarters of corn
at 60s. a quarter, cost 12/., they will cost something
more than 18/. when made into bread. As, then, the
whole reduction must be effected in the price of the
corn in the first instance, or in the 12/. item, if they
reduce the price of bread one-third, it follows as a ne-
necessary consequence, that it must be effected by a re-
duction of fully one-half in the price of corn, or a re-
duction from 60s. to 30s. per quarter.—(Loud cries of
"Hear.") Suppose the farmer and landlord to have
this commodity, so reduced in price, produce an income
reduced by one-half, without any alteration in the quan-
tity of land under cultivation, how can the predictions of
these " free trade" prophets be fulfilled,—" 50 per cent.
reduction in the price of corn, and neither landlord nor
farmer injured !"—(Hear.)

Of course, all Lord STANLEY'S hearers laughed
and roared prodigiously at this fluent wit. A
more candid man would have guarded them from
an erroneous coneusion, by adding, that as the
price of corn fell less capital would be required
by the miller and the baker to carry on their
business, and that a less sum of profit, though
not a lower rate, would come out of every loaf.
At the same time, both the miller and the baker
would gain on the whole by carrying on a much
larger' business with the same capital. Strange
as it may seem to Lord STANLEY'S party optics,
it is true that if the food of the community, which
influencesthe price of many other things, be ob-
tained at a less cost, whether that arise from im-
proved methods of cultivation, or from bringing
food from more fertile countries, the price may
be reduced, even as much as 50 per cent., and
both the landlord and farmer, far from suffering,
may benefit by the reduction. Since 181.3, the
price of food has fallen in this country 40 per
cent. in spite of the law that was made to keep
up wheat to 80s. per quarter. With that fall
cultivation has been much extended, and both
landlords and farmers have benefited by the
reduction. The obvious reason is, that the food
is obtained at a less cost, which is a benefit to the
whole nation. It is quite plain that there are
many more things in a Corn-law than ever were
dreamed of by Lord STANLEY. But listen again
to the Noble Lord :

Suppose the rent paid for a farm to be 1001. a-year, and
the produce 5001. The produce becomes reduced to 2501.
by the proposed change. The landlord may lose 501. out
of his rent—nay, he may lose 75/. ; but who is it that
must lose the difference in the value of the prOduce, re-
duced from 500/. to 2501.?—(Enthusiastic cheering.)
Who is to make up this loss of positive value in fixed ca-
pital embarked by the firmer?—(Hear, hear.)
Whoi ndeed ? What fixed capital does the farmer
invest in the land? He invests only the labour he
extorts from the half-starved labourer, against
whom, by having the supply of food, he has a
monopoly. But suppose that all the farther's ex-
penses be lowered in the same ratio as the fall
in the price ofproduce, 'suppose that the 250/.
will buy as much as the 5001., will the situation
of the farmer be deteriorated? Now,
.it is. as
easy to make one assertion as the other, and we
assert,-.on,vn. good lutbority that, by tbe-re-'
ductio:l of expense for seed-Corn, feeit Of working
the farmer will gain more by the

1
Q,
,- • ....,•••-••, z •
* •
,•--