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

LONDON:
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1841.

It is the boast of the Tories that Sir R. PEEL'S
Government is stronger than any Government
since the days of Mr. PITT. We are not dis-
posed to deny that assertion, and the stronger it
is the more conspicuous will be the success of the
principles which will certainly triumph over it.
Sir H. has been placed in office by the
monopolists ; he is their creature, and he takes
power to uphold their monopolies. He cannot
succeed, and we hazard nothing in making the
assertion.

He and they aim at two incompatible things.
They want more wealth for themselves and for
the State, and more wealth for the people. At
the same time they will not allow cf that free
and strenuous exertion, by which alone the
wealth of the State or the people can be in-
creased. Greater burdens than industry now
bears it cannot sustain ; to feed the people,
satisfy the monoeoiists, ant: I;eep up the revenue
of the Ste one, and the same time, is not
possible ; e 7 the peo-ple uia. tbe fed, and as
industry cae Jot bear c.;:cli Clonal burdens, the
monopo:ls.23 must give way.

Sir ROBERT PEEL is in-fact already suspected
by them, because they are sensible of the neces-
sities of ;:is condition. He is said to be, though
we give no credit to the statement, preparing to
rat from .;he principles he took office to support.
We know that he will, and must rat ; but he mill
not as long as he can help it; and nothing has
yet happened to influence his mean and coward
soul. Generosity and magnanimity are strangers
to him. He will condescend to repeal the
Corn-laws when he finds them ruining the em-
pire. 1-le will give nothing, therefore, to justice
--nothing to the people, while they are
patient under a merciless law ; but he
will grant all to fear, and all to his love of
place and power. lie cannot yet be alarmed;
he is as yet quite secure in office, but he has
avowed impossible principles, and the time will
conic when Sir It. PEEL must again rat, or he
will pull down the whole fu.bzic of political

society.
Already there are symptoms of disputes
amongsthis followers.' The spoil, though large •
not sufficient to satisfy
and heavy, .is
them all. Rabid Irish Protestants to
whom Sir ROBERT owes so much of his suc-
cess, begin to complain of neglect. Neither
BEAUFORT nor LONDONDERRY are satisfied. At
the same time O'CoNNELL is rousing Ireland
against the Ministry. England is not still. The
distinction between obedience to the Royal
authority, and obedience to the Tories who usurp
it, and have obtained a mastership over the QUEEis:,
is very generally made. Fiercely assailed as the
Government soon will be on the one hand, and not
very powerfully supported by the contending
monopolists, who are arrayed around it, on the
other, it will soon, however strong it may be,
because it is not founded on justice, have to give
way, and Sir ROBERT, to maintain his piece':
must rat and become a free-trader. We
be ready to admit him into our ranks, and pro-
tect him against his present allies, when he shows
signs of `conversion ; but we do not look tbr
them till he begins to feel the vast difficulties of
now attempting to govern the country in oppo-
sition to political science and Christian inmulity.

Some r ova Ye ben c"--;cied to look to
Mr. RoEsuc.-.;-. es a
great: id eats :on :4eiable eloqc?..-.:ce, and. un-
:esoluiloa, the -_:,_on. Gentleman has
already (.lisp:;ued_ c. want of eli.eretion, that
people Ni1:1 =eve eonale in him. He might
have CP.AWFOE,D to p.'o-
ceed Ia slier.e3 A.meadrneat to the
Address, if he li:on2;:nt it was imp:.:Aent to sup-
port him. He mlg:Lt .aave Gu33ested an altera-
tion in the Pour-LW wiCno:lt making the propo-

I sition to place an its vast powers over the
' persons of paupers, and the property of rate-
payers, in the hands of the Home Seci.etary. He
might last night have shown his contempt for the
Times ; he might even have brought :the case oc
that journal before the House without losing his
temper, and might at least so have rne.-aa,-..,(1. :As
case as to ensure a seconder for his motioa.
Questions of privilege are generally attentively
i listened to by the House, and he must have
I failed very much in bringing his ceEe under
its notice, to make ititurn a deaf ear to his state-
ments.

Nobody can defend the attack of the Times.
It was wanton, uncalled for, and altogether per-
sonal. It was not dictated by any defence of a
principle. Mr. ROEBUCK offends the Times,
like every other person in a similar situation, by
possessing power. That is an unpardonable of-
fence. Mr. ROEBUCK has now only added to its
triumph, and strengthened his enemy. He has
given i t additional notoriety; he has paid a mortify-
ing homage to its power, and he has failed to inflict
the smallest wound on it. The Times will have
reason to-day to laugh at Mr. ROEBUCK. Such
indiscretion on the part of the Hon. Gentleman,
who seems, we are afraid, irritable from disease,
will have a considerable influence on his future
position, and prevent people placing that confi-
dence in him which in general they think they
must place in some one.

The Morning Post of yesterday places its de-
fence of the Corn-laws on a ground which is
worthy of notice. We quote the paragraph :
If it were true that no principles but the principles of
trade were fairly applicable to the Corn-law question,
then there would be an end of the controversy. The
Corn-laws are undoubtedly a restraint upon trade. They
are unquestionably a limitaticn, and a very important
limitation, of its freedom. But other things more im-
portant to this nation than absolute and universal free-
dom of trade demand that native agriculture should be,
up to a certain point, guarded from the probable effect
of unrestricted foreign competition.
Our party does not try the question of the Corn-laws
by the principles of free trade, for we admit that the
Corn-laws are in direct opposition to these principles.
It is not because we think we can reconcile the Corn-
laws with free trade that we support them, but it is be-
cause we have grounds of policy to urge in their ..iapport
which completely overbalance in their weight and co •
gency the disadvantage of making corn an exception to
the operation of free trade principles.
Free trade recognises nothing beyond the policy of
obtaining what you want, wherever you (the individua
engaged in traffic) can obtain it best and cheapest at the
moment. Upon merely mercantile principles there is
nothing to be said against the sound policy of this plan.
But they who have to watch over all the wants and in-
terests of a naziaa, and not only their immediate but
also their prospective wants and interests, must look to
something far more important than that which upon
mere mercantile principbs is best. They must look to
the employment of the people—to the security of a suffi-
cient supply of food in futuro as well as is p;.cesenti—
and to the guardianship of great capital vested in
concerns which are not purely mercantile. And be-
cause they hold these considerations in view, and deem
it politic to allow a greater weight of importance to
them than to the principles of free trade they uphold the
Corn-laws.

If the opponents of the laws will faiily meet the sti?-
porters of them, they are bound to show either that the
considerations above stated are less important than those
which belong to the universal maintenance of the prin-
ciples of free trade, or that the ebjects we have set forth,
namely, security as to the national supply of food, em-
ployment of the people, and guardianship of vested
capital, are as well promoted by free trade as by pro-
tection of native agriculture against foreign competition.
For these admissions this paragraph is valuable.
" The Corn-laws are a restraint upon trade."
" The Corn-laws cannot be reconciled with free
trade." " Upon merely mercantile principles
there is nothing to be said against the sound
policy. of free trade." So far the Post. Now no
one doubts that commerce is beneficial to man-
kind. It forms a great part of the natural order
of society. It is as much ordained by the GREAT
CREATOR of man as the appetites and wants to
which it owes its origin. Mercantile principles
are nothing but the principles or rules on which
beneficial commerce must be carried on. They,
therefore, are parts of creation, like commerce
itself, and are ordained by the wisdom of Pro-
vidence. But commerce concerns some of the
greatest and best interests of the human race.
The Post admits that the Corn-laws contravene
these interests, and we must therefore conclude,
were the other interests it refers to really in con-
tradiction with these important interests, which
they are not, that there is discord in the crea-

tion, and that the ALMIGHTY had given his
creatures contradictory rules to walk by, or had
imposed on them contradictory laws. We hold
the admission that the Corn-laws contravene
mercantile principles, which are admitted to be
sound policy, to be fatal to the Corn-laws.
But the Post flies from the solid interests of
mankind, which are connected `with commerce,
to principles of greater weight than the prin-
ciples of free trade. The Pro-Corn-law men
undertake to " watch over all the wants and
interests of a nation," and not only their imme-
diate but prospective wants. " They, therefore,
must look to the employment of the people—to
the security of a sufficient supply of food in
futuro, as well as in prcesenti, and to the
guardianship of great capital vested in concerns
which are not purely mercantile." On these
grounds the Corn-laws are defended. They
give employment and secure a supply of food
in future, and protect capital not mercantile.
We hope we may be indulged in examining
these assumptions, and if our examination should
go beyond the Corn-laws, it will be because the
statement of the Post naturally and necessarily
involves the general principles of legislation.

The Pro-Corn-lawmen must look to the em-
ployment of the people." That is the fist
proposition. If it be valid, it applies to the
whole people, not merely to the few persons em-
ployed in agriculture. The Pro-Corn-law men
undertake, by adopting that principle, to pro-
vide employment for all the people, and they
are consequently to blame for the want of em-
ployment, which is at this moment felt in almost

every branch of society except that of manufac-
turing modern machinery. They are. responsible

on their own showing, for the condition of the

starving hand-loom weavers. Mr. MALTHUS
has clearly demonstrated the absurdity of
the State taking on itself to provide em-
ployment for all the people, though the
wisdom of the masters of political science
seems wholly unknown to the gentlemen
who write for the press. The vast responsibi-
lity which is involved in the Post's statement,

and the present condition of many labourers,
ought to make the Pro-Corn-law men start
back with affright from the load they have
most unthinkingly taken on themselves.

But when the Post says that the Legislature
is to, look to the employment of the people it can
have formed no correct notion of the knowledge
of the Legislature, arid of the means of employ-
ing the people. Much more than half our popu-
lation are now engaged, in manufactures, and
they find employment in them. frem the number-
less beautiful contrivances which facilitate human
labour. Before the steam-engine, the spinning
mules, or the locomotive engine were brought
into use, how was it possible for the legislator
to know any thing of the number of people he
would employ and feed How is it possible for
him even now, as the applications of mach'nery
are infinitely various, to form the least notion of
the quantity or the nature of the employment
they will provide in future for the population?
How, too, can he tell that there are not at this
moment machines coming forward which may
extend manufacturing employment as much
during the next fifty years as it has been emc.3 .1(1A
during the last fifty? He knows nothing NI,:
ever on the subject. And to make laws with a

_ -
view to provide employment for the peoire;
independently of numerous other objections to
it, is making laws in complete ignorance
of the subject on which the laws are lime-.
That, unfortunately, is a frequent error, or fre-
quent crime of legislators, who are far rro e
ignorant than the most wretched quacks, 17h0
exhibit at a village fair the vast phenom?-2e
they pretend at once to arrange and seale.
At the same time, supposing that the

had any knowledge of the weans of caiplo jiTg•
the people, and supposing that it wis his dcty
to
interfere in any way their emplo,-,':neat,
which we positively de:,v, how does inr;ee.-':?;
n getting food add to their employment?

Tate first c-,(1-immediate effect of the Corn-law
is to :at stop t) L 3 LI •LercL__.l4,-,-;e of tae cottons
of e:-.-;.!e-.-srof Sheffield
thc: CC-2. 0: Po.!;-_.:(1 ;he 17..:1Zed States. It
puts c etrp, therclze, to employment of
Cai.i:;DS and ceileay, and it will
require ingenuity -Caz:n the Post possesses,
to prove the Corr-law may at any future
time create a quz..-atity of employment equal to
that it interdict*. Supposing 1: has that effect,
by what right does a Legislature curtail employ-
ment in Sheffield Manchester, to add to it in
Sussex and Ke.:.t ? By what right does it take
away a day's labour Crom a hand-loom weaver or
'a knife-grinder, to give it to a. ploughman or a
ditcher It has no right so to act, particularly
wl:Ta it is ignorant of the consequences, and the
weave:. and grinder may properly -stigmatize it
as an unjust Legislature, which forfeits its claims
to their respect and obedience.
At the same time it is certain that the attempt
of the Legislature to add to the whole amount
of employment by Corn-laws has not had any
such effect. What may be the result of the pre-
sent census cannot yet be known ; but the last.
census showed that the increase of families em-
ployed in agriculture was as nothing compared
to the increase of families employed in manu-
factures. In fact, all the improvements of which
we hear so much from agricultural societies tend
' to diminish employment in agriculture, and con-
sequently, while the Corn-law obviously curtails
employment in the manufacturing districts, it
has not added, and does not add, to employment
in the agricultural districts. The produce of one
labourer is in all cases/;the market for another,
and unless it can be shown that by preventing
the growth of manufactures the amount of pro-
duce to be exchanged for the produce of the
agriculturist is increased, it is impossible that
stopping employment in the manufacturing dis-
tricts can stimulate agriculture, or increase in
the smalles degree the employment of the agri-
cultural labourers.

The Post further says" that the Legislature
must look to the security of a sufficient supply
of food in futuro as well as in prcesenti." To
that doctrine similar objections apply. What
does the Legislature know about supplying the
people with food, either now or hereafter ?
Chemistry is continually revealing new princi-
ples of cultivation, and the mechanic arts are
continually bringing new powers to bear even in
agriculture. What did the Legislature of the
year 1790 know of many of the processes now
employed in agriculture ; such as the use of
bone-dust as a manure? But those processes,
and diligence in applying them, with skill to
invent improved processes, are the great means
of securing our ever-increasing people a supply
of food in future. If the Legislature now know
nothing of the processes that will be invented
within the next fifty years, how can it make
laws to promote. them? The supposition that
blind groupings in the dark can in any way
tend to the national welfare, is an insult to
rational beings. It is one of those routine or
traditional opinions which are received from
generation to generation, and are no sooner sub-
jected to examination than they are discovered
to be plain and palpable errors.
There is an idea lurking in the doctrine of
the Post which must be dragged into day. What
does it mean by security ? Not the continuance
of the skill of agriculturists, and of their never-
failing desire to apply it. To have any appre-
hensions on that score would be to violate the in-
structive belief, by which one class of producers
continually labour in perfect confidence that what
they require and do not themselves produce,
will, in the meantime, be produced by another
class.. What the Pest is afraid of, or pretends
to be afraid of, is that at some time or other some
rival politicians here ana. abroad—some TRIERS
and PALMERSTON, some ABERDEEN and NES..
SELRODE, may quarrel and choose tointerdict the
exchange of spun and woven or forged ar-
ticles for bread. To be provided against that
future possibility they interdict the exchange
now. They treat man, with all his feelings and
interests, as made for their stupid system, and
they crush the commerce which would knit na-
tions together in the bonds of peace, and thus
annihilate the wealth which would make nations
happy, in o rder to maintain their own power.
Let them take care lest, by pushing to extremes
the power which men have hitherto respected,
and the systems they have rather obeyed than
understood, they destroy themselves. If men
must be enslaved to give a fancied security to
politicians, men will doubt whether politicians be
not injurious rather than beneficial, and they will
ask themselves can they be dispensed with?
The third statement of the Post is, that free
trade, which it admits to be a wise policy, must
be sacrificed to give security to capital not vested
in concerns purely mercantile. What does the
Pro-Corn-law writer mean? How will any kind
of capital not mercantile be rendered insecure by
the abolition of the Corn-laws ? The capital in-
vested in land consists in the farm buildings
erected on it, and the labour invested in it. How
will any alteration of the Corn-laws destroy farm-
houses or stop up drains ? Not one particle of
the capital invested in land would be destroyed
by a perfectly feee trade in corn. It might become
of less exchangeable value. At present that
value, of which we complain, is raised by the
Corn-law, which is expressly passed to enable
the owners of capital invested in land to obtain
more of other things in exchange for it, and for
its produce, than other men would freely give.
The diminution of the exchangeable value which
would result from the abolition of the Corn-law
is only the consequence of the fictitious value
given by that law. To assert that the Legisla-
ture must maintain this fictitious value under the
fine phrase guardianship of capital, is to assert
that it must maintain the unjust Corn-law. If
the Post have no other reason to give than that,
it ends where it began, and merely echoes the
landlords' arrogant words, " I will have the
Corn-laws because I will."
When the legislators set blindly about regu-
lating employment, securing a supply of food,
and guarding capital, they and the public seem
to forget that they are subject to passions and
impure desires, like the meanest of the people.
It is very true, though very trite, that when they
debate and argue, they are no more under
the influence of pure reason than a com-
pany of ladies at Billingsgate. The victo-
rious party in a legislative conflict, when it
blindly plunges, with its dictum engrossed
on parchment, into the unknown future, essaying
to bind the yet unborn and unknown, only
follows the dictate of its own desires and passions.
It endeavours to make them the rule for the
conduct of future generations. In the present
case the fact is palpable. The law-making land-
owners knew nothing whatever, when they passed
the law ; they know nothing now about finding
employment and securing food for the peo-
ple. What they knew was, that they wanted
higher rents, or wanted to prevent rents from
falling; they wanted to maintain a superiority
over other men, and to gratify that want they
passed the Corn-law. It had no other origin ; it
has no other justification. It is their avarice
engrossed on parchment, and is no more deserving
the public respect than the lust which led Mr.
FAUNTLEROY to the gallows. The Post must
find some other grounds on which he defends a
law opposed to the wise policy of free trade, than
propriety of looking to employment, looking
`o the means of securely feeding the people, and
be maintenance of the landowners' rents at their
present level.

The dut:T on foi.ei,ja wheat, according to
the • wit:i September 3, pub-
C: to-day, is 2s. ?d. The average
of reeks is 725. 3d., and
avera-m of the week ending as
above is 745. ld., so C.:at there is no-longer any
d:;ti:;.;; whatever fil,t all the foreign corn now in
Wad, ant' c:,.1 be in the meantime im-
ported, ma::: _:.eat week be -JVC.:STrZ into consump-
tion at the n7,rninal duty of ls. Had the agricul-
turiSts accepted Lord J. RUSSELL'S plan, which we
are thankful they did not, the duty now would