The Sun.
London, England, 1841-09-22 00:00:00

duction, or for the due maintenance and progressive
growth of the capitals by which their labour is called
into active exertion. lam aware that in this :tatemept
I have only said in other words, that the wages have
been too low and the profits of fructifying or produc
dye capital less than they ought to be but th re is an
advantage in a discussion like the present in desciibing
these evils, so as to trace them to their elementary
causes. Many concurrent circumstances have contri-
buted since the restoration of peace to produce this un-
satisfactory state of things.—Hansard's Debates, New
Series. Vol. 23.

Mr. HUSKISSON, then, was convinced in 1830
that the distress of the country arose from the
too great pressure on the springs of industry, and
from wages being habitually too low. That
lamentable effect took place under the Corn-
law; and it seems to have made such an impres-
sion on Mr. HUSKISSON'S mind, that in the same
speech he afterwards repeated and enforced the
statement as follows: .

In the views which I take of our present difficulties,
the main cause of them, in my opinion, as stated in the
outset of what I have now addressed to the House, and
which, that I may not be misunderstood, in substance I
repeat, is this—that in the distribution of the annual
wealth of the country, taking it according to the ordi
nary and admitted division into rent, profits of stock, and
wages of labour, the two litter, from a complication of con-
current circumstances, of which taxation is one, are now
in the receipt of less than their just share. I may fur-
ther state that such a condition of society cannot long
be considered without its laying the foundation of national
impoverishment.
From that time to this that state of society
which Mr. HUSKISSON described has existed, but
not without producing, as he predicted, great
national impoverishment. The masses have
become steeped in rags and wretchedness. In
the following passage Mr. HUSKiSSON clearly
traces the evils of that improper distribution of
wealth he so much deplored to the high price of
subsistence and to the Corn-laws :

For a long time we have been the greatest manufac-
turing and trading nation in the world. We export for
sale abroad in a manufactured state more or less of al-
most everything which we raise or produce. Of the
the raw materials of our soil the export is next to
nothing ; they are barely adequate, indeed, I may say,
inadequate, to the subsistence of our population. Upon
an average of years we cannot do without a supply of
foreign corn; and of cheese, butter, and other articles,
we have a large annual importation. OUR Com-Laws,
HOWEVER EXPEDIENT TO PREVENT OTHER EVILS, IN
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE COUNTRY ARE IN THEM-
SELVES A BURTHEN AND A RESTRAINT ON ITS MANU-
FACTURING AND COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY. Whilst the
products of that industry must descend to the level of
the general market of the world, the producers, as far as
food is concerned, are debarred from that level. If the
price of subsistence, that is, the price of those particular
articles which we never export and are frequently com-
pelled to import, be materially dearer here than any
where else, that dearness cannot be shifted to the arti-
cles which we do not export. It must fall in the way of
deduction either upon the wages and comforts of the LA-
BOURERS, or upon the profits of those who afford him em-
ployment. Here, then, is one inevitable cause constantlg
operating to keep alive a struggle between productive capital
and productive labour, with a constant tendency in both to
a bwer level, because the disadvantage under which they
have to contend, arising from a difference in the price of
the necessaries of life, is increased in proportion as the
progress in improvement of rival nations approximates
their manufacturing skill and industry more nearly to
our own. _ _

Mr. HumussoN, very unlike the Tories who
now quote his letter of 1814, to bolster up errors
which he had discarded, was a steady friend to
foreign trade, and expressly stated that our in-
dustrious millions, whom he cherished, would
perish if our foreign trade decayed. He was, in

1830, afraid that our foreign trade would decay,
and that England would be exposed to great
miseries if the Corn-laws were continued. What
he then foresaw has been, in a great measure,

realised. The high prices kept up have fallen
on the wages of labour and on the profit of the
employers, and have reduced both, according to
concurrent testimony from all the manufactur-
ing districts, to great distress. On a subsequent
occasion, namely, March 25, 1830, when Mr. P.
THOMSON, now Lord SYDENHAM, brought for-
ward a motion to equalise taxation, Mr. HUSKIS-
SON reiterated his opinions on the Corn-laws.

He said :
It was his unalterable conviction that we could
not uphold the Corn-laws now in existence, toge-
ther with the present system of taxation, and at the same
time increase the national prosperity and preserve public
contentment. That those laws might be repealed without
affecting the landed interest, whilst at the same time the dis-
tress of the people might be relieved, he never had any doubt
whatever. A general feeling prevailed that some change ,
must be effected, and that speedily; nor were there any
individuals more thoughly persuaded of it than those
who moved in the humbler walks of life.
Immediately subsequent to that period, how-
ever, political excitement and political hope
made people think less of their distress; then
followed till 1836 a succession of abundant
harvests ; they were combined with succes-
sive reductions of taxation, and the coining
into operation of numerous railroads, which
enabled the country - to go without repeal-
ing the Corn-laws, and even without much com-
plaining of them, till 1838. Then ensued defi-
cient harvests; then further reductions of taxa-
tion became impracticable ; and then was
realised Mr. HUSKISSON'S prediction—though
taxation had, in the meantime, been reduced—
that we could not uphold the Corn- laws toge-
ther with the present system of taxation. Thus
Mr. HUSKISSON, from being a strong advocate
of the Corn-laws, became a strenuous advocate
for the repeal of those laws, and, as we have
seen, actually denounced them, as not to be
maintained, and as the cause of the impoverish-
ment of the people. Such great and consecu-
tive changes in his opinions, the result of much
experience, combined with the changes mentioned
in the opinions of other statesmen, not willingly
adopted, but forced on them by circumstances,
seem to us a clear indication of the course of
opinion. It is hostile to the continuance of Corn-
laws, and they can only be continued by un-
ceasing violence. If by that they are to be
maintained, the rent-ownees may rest assured
that violence will beget violence, and from their
injustice a system of disorder and misrule will
overspread the land.

Sir R. PEELS declaration on Monday night,
" that they could not by legislation at once im-
prove the condition of the people," is well worthy
of the serious consideration of the public.
" All," he said, " they could hope to do was to
lay the foundation for improvements, which
_would make a gradual amelioration in the state
of society." That is in truth the answer which
he gives to the complaints of the people. He
admits their distress, but he says Parliament is
unable to relieve it. They must, therefore, suf-
fer on—they must die of starvation--they must
rot out—the omnipotent law can do nothingifor
them.

This sort of language might be accepted by
the people if it were used at all times, but the
reverse is the case. Does an Orange landlord
complain of the perjury of the Catholic peasan-
try, there is no doubt entertained of the power
of Parliament to remedy the evil, and Lord
STANLEY will undertake the task at sight. Are
the Irish parsons obliged to sell their plate and
their libraries to get wine and roast beef, or to
lay down their carriages, Parliament will im-
mediately relieve them; and it takes a million
from the toil-worn people of England. and
chucks it into the lap of the Irish tithe owners.
Do the landlords whose estates are mortgaged
merely apprehend a foreclosure from falling
prices, the Legislature can prevent it; and a
Corn-law to raise prices and take away the bread
of the poor attests both its power and its will.
The Legislature is only impotent when the dis-
tress of the people is to be relieved ; it is power-
ful to coerce, 2nd powerful to plunder them.
Sir ROBERT PEEL, however, mistakes the case.
He is not asked to improve the condition of the
people by legislation, but by putting an end
to legislation. The Corn-law is the people's
curse. They ask him to remove it. Their dis-
tress is not owing to any natural causes, it is ex-
clusively owing to unjustlegislation. The people
humbly supplicate to have that removed. They
want a bad law abolished, not another bad law
enacted. Sir R. PEEL implies that the Legis-
lature cannot undo its own act. According to
him it is powerful only to work mischief, and so
impotent to effect good that it cannot even re-
dress the wrongs it inflicts.
If the people are not, therefore, to continue to
nail* they must help themselves. Self-pre-