The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-08 00:00:00

x~

• ", • T

TRAPS FOR ANTI-CORN'-LA:4V

REPE ALERS.

(From the Teti-Corii-law Circular.)
" 13 ware of steel traps and spring guns."

I

f•rt ••)%e

spread to e,..teh the elr.cary, thin it is to eautiou trt.s-
wssers of those invidious instruments, steel traps and
spring guns. •
The public mind has never before been so feelingly,
alive to the evils, the ijustice, and the oppressive cha-
racter of the existing Corn-laws as at present ; nor has
there ever been so general .a feeling that the time is
arrived when the interests of the 'country require that
they be totally and immediately abolished. We do not
disguise the fact, however, that there is a difference of
opinion as to the total and. immediate 'repeal of the
Corn-laws ; sonic few advocating a modification of tLe
existing laws, others a moderate fixed duty—(who can
tell .'vhat a moderate fixed duty means ?)—others, again,
a pre.ent duty of Ss. to 10s. a quarter, to decline Is. 'a
year till • corn be admitted free. We 'shall examine
each of these expedients.
First, as to the modification of the existing law. A
comparative statement has been circulated between the
Bill proposed by Mr. Canning, in 1827, but thrown
out by the House of Lords, an the present law pro-
rased by the Duke of Wellington, and passed in 1828.
of which the following is a copy :
Average Prices Duty accordinn• to Duty according to the
of Wheat. Canning's Bill. D. of Wellington's Bill.
73s
72s
71s
70z
69s
68s
67a ...... 6s
664
653
64s
63s
62s
61s • lB3
603
593
583
573
50s
858
54s'
533 -

It will be observed, that the principles of Mr. Can
ning's and the Duke of Wellington's . Bills are, alike,
viz., those of. a fluctuating duty, with thi.i difference,
that the avowed object of Mr. Canning's Bill was to
keep wheat at an average price of 635., whilst that of
the Duke of Wellington's was to keep it at 68s. a
quarter.* The evils of the present system would not,
Now, as to the project of " a moderate fixed duty,"
there is greater need of warning Corn-law repealers,
beessuae it is urged with a speciousness which is calcu-
latee'anore than any other to mislead, and by a class of
pergolas who, affecting great moderation, wish to pass
themseivea off to the public as " very good sort .of
men," The se men profess, with us, great hostility to
the present Corn-law, but do not approve of its total
and immediate repeal. They agree with us in thinking
-that it is rapidly- injuring the manufacturing and com-
mercial interests of the country, and that, unless re-
pealed, the ruin .of the nation will inevitably be the
consequence. They agree with us also that the want
of employment, and the consequent deficiency of food
and 'clothing under which our labourers suffer, are
evils to be fairly attributed to the Corn-laws. They
concur, in fact, entirely with us, as to the extent and
nature of the disease under which the body-politic is
groaning ; but they disagree as to the plan which we
would recommend for effecting a cure. " Your mode
of proceeding," say they, " is much too violent ; you
will shock moderate people." But they must have
strange notions of justice, who, whilst 'they admit that
millions of their fellow-creatures are robbed of a por-
tion of the fruits of their hard labour, can yet turn
aside from them and bestow all their sympathy upon
their oppressors and plunderers. These moderate men
would have us approach the landlords with "beaded
knee and bated breath," and humbly pray that they
will be graciously pleased to be a little more just ; to
rob the poor with moderation ! They seem to have a
1 netion that with some show of address and tact, but
with plenty of deference, the landlords may be wheedled
into the practice of a little honesty.
The plan- recommended by this party is, to advocate
a moderate fixed duty in place of the present fluc-
tuating scale. Not that they would justify a tax upon
bread in
,the abstract ; they condemn, as unjust, such a
. 'node of raising a revenue ; but it is to conciliate " mo-
d lerate men of all parties. Leaving, then, the question
j• astice, about which we are agreed, let us examine how
f. sr, ecrun as a matter of expediency, it would be good
policy for us to advocate a moderate fixed duty, instead
of the total and immediate repeal .of the Corn laws ?
Let us suppose that the Anti-Corn-law Delegates, at
their= first meeting in Manchester, had come to a reso-
lution to petition Parliament for a fixed duty of eight
41.;11ings a quarter on wheat; a shilling a bushel would
be a ~ moderate" robbery when compared with the pre-
sent system. Does anybody suppose that half a million
of people would have petitioned in favour of such a
sclens e ? Nay, would not our lecturers, if employed
to advocate such a plan, have been hooted at by every
succeerEng audience ? But, leaving the public out of the
question (and with the public we include the populace,
the multitude, without whose sympathy no great.
political change has ever been effected), let us fol-
low the Delegates to London, where their petition for
a fixed duty had. we will- suppose, come under discus-
, sion in Parliament, and been made the theme of the
Writers and speakers of the day. The matter to be de-
cided upon would then have involved no question of the
1 great principles—the truth or falsehood, the justice or
injustice, the right or wrong of the' .Corn-laws. The
point to determine would have been whether a fixed
duty, or the present fluctuating one, be preferable ; a
most convenient mode of raising the question for the
landlords and their party, inasmuch as there is quite as
much justice in the principle of a fluctuating, as a fixed
duty, whilst there is the appearance of a great deal more.
The vote would at length have been taken on the
location ; but do any of our readers suppose'it would
have been in favour of the supposed petition for an
eight-shilling fixed duty ? Let us call their attention
to the vote of the previous session, when Colonel Seale's
proposal to allow foreign corn to be ground in bead for
exportation, was rejected by a great majority, by the
eery Members who constitute the present House cf
Commons. It was proposed that not a pound of the
flour` so ground should be used at home, but they would'
not allow foreign wheat to be ground here at all, lest the
bran from it should be used to feed pigs and poultry ! !
What, then, had happened in the meantime to induce
the:self same men to pass a measate infinitely more
opposed to their prejudices and interests ? We shall
be told that the proceedings in Manchester, the forma-
tion at that time of nearly forty anti-Corn-law associa-
tions (there are now neerly three hundred), and the
oresentation of petitions signed by upwards of half a
nallion of people, had all contributed to alarm the land-
lore's, and induce them'to agree to a compromise, But
these great demonstrations were bought about by the
example of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce,
which d ecided in favour of the principle of total and
immediate repeal. Had the decision been in favour of
a fixed duty, there would have been none of that en-
thusiastic cc-operation which afterwards gave such force
to the proceeding of the delegates in London.
It must be clear, then, that bad the Anti-Corn-law
party identified itself with the principle of a fixed duty'
it would have justly failed in carrying out its object ;
and it would have, besides defeat, suffered the still worse
disaster of losing the sympathy and support of the public.
A.t present the organization and character of the Anti-
Col-11-law League are felt to be formidable by the land-
lor.'ls. They are so beetiuse they arc launder( upon the
principle of justice, and not expediency.
There is'another class of objectors to which we shall
briefly allude. They are in favour of the total abolition
of the Corn-laws, but they advocate the gradual in pre-
ference, to the immediate repeal. The question admits
of easy solution if submitted to the test of true principle.
It is admitted that the Corn-law is unjust, yet it is con-
tended that it ought to be continued a little longer. If
it be good to retain an. injustice for a day, it must be
equally so to tolerate it for twenty years, or 'even a
hundred. Once admit the right of legislating upon any
other principle than that of strict justice, and we place
ourselves, to an indefinite extent, at the mercy tf
Mel tvrongdoer. We contend that if an injustice be
acknowledged to exist, it ought to be at once removed.
It is not a valid argument in favour of continuing the
evil even for a day, to tell us that vested interests would'
suffer (torn a total and immediate repeal of the Corn- 1
laws. Our answer is, that there are a thousand times
as many !persons suffering from the operation of the
laws. as there are benefiting by them, and the former
have a" vested" right to the enjoyment of the fruits of
their industry, which must claim precedence of any
vested interests which the landlords or their tenants
may have appropriated to themselves at the expense of
the rest of the community. We have reason to believe,
moreover, that the plan of total and immediate would
be preferable to gradual repeal, even as far as the in-
terests Of the agricultural tenants are concerned, espe-
cially if the tenants be released from their leases in all
cases where they desire it, a measure strictly just, inas-
-1,1u4 as the landlords, having unjustly availed thenz-
se:ces el their power to make" laws for their own ex-
.,_ WhO
CIUS ire benefit, are bound to make reparation it, all
are ired'ured by the repeal of such laws.
Bew,cre then of pretended moderados and moderate