The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-29 00:00:00

4Z5 LONDON, THURSDAY, JULY 29 181:

'~IE

CAPTAIN CHAMIER'S NEW NAVAL STORY.
Now ready at all the Libraries, in 3 vols. post Svo.,
rrOM BOiVL IN G,
A TALE OF THE SEA.
Ey Captain FREDERICK UHAMIER, R.N.,
Author of " Ben Brace," " The Life of a Sailor," &c.
Henry Colburn, Publisher,l3, Great Nlarlborwigh-street.

NEW WORK EDITED BY BOZ.

ith the Magazines, on the Ist of August,_ will be published,

in 3 vas. post Bvo., with numerous Illustraans
By GEORGE CRUIKSHANK, PHIZ, &c.,
THE PIC NIC PAPERS.
By VARIOUS HANDS.

Edited by
CHARLES IMCKLNS, Esq. (BOZ.)
Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street.
Orders received by all Booksellers

NOW READY AT ALL THE LIBRARIES,
in 4 vol.. post Bvo.,
PLUMER WARD'S NEW
NOVEL.

".DR CLIFFORD ; or, the CONSTANT MAN."

. .
" A book of undoubted merit : aontaining passages of thought
and feeling equally creditable to the understanding and the
heart. The great charm of the book will be found in the love
scenes, which are uniformly remarkable for grace, delicacy,
and truth."—Edinburgh Review.

Henry Colburn, Publisher, 13, Great Marlborough-street.

MR. AINSWORTH'S NEW ROMANCE.

Now ready, in 3 vols. post Bvo., with numerous Illustrations
by George Cruilcsbank,
G " FAWK ES.
AN HISTORICAL ROMANCE.

By. W. HARRISON AINSWORTH, Esq.
Richard Bentley, New Burlington•street.
~* To be had at all the Libraries.

-1 I S MAJESTY the EMPEROR of
_E. AUSTRIA having AUTHORISED and GUA-
RANTEED several DISTRIBUTIONS of MONEY
DIVIDENDS, which (though they are NO LOTTERIESI
offer many possibilities of obtaining
LARGE FORTUNES,
HEINE BROTHERS, at HAMBURGH and at
LUBECK,
Are now SELLING BONDS for the said DISTIUBU TIONS.
Persons desirous to purchase for the Next Distributions
may reTeive, PREVIOUS to giving any orders, the PROS-
PE.CTUS and PARTICULARS, upon addressing, WITH-
DUT DELAY, a line to
HEINE BROTHERS, at HAMBURGH,
or to HEINE BROTHERS, at LUBECK.
The NEXT DISTRIBUTION contains DIVIDENDS of
£25,000 £6OO £l2O £5O
5,000 400 110 70
1,500 200 100 60
1,000 100 90 50
800 150
The largest Dividend of the Distribution of Ist March last,
TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS,
was remitted to London and vicinity by-_

HEINE BROTHERS,
who remitted, during a few years, 22 large Money Dividends,
from 6001. and upwards unto 25,0001., besides many Dividends
of smaller amounts to England, Ireland, and Scotland.

ROYAL SURREY THEATRE.

UNDER THE MANAGEMENT OF MR. DAVIDGE

AND MR. WILLIS TONES.

Continued overflows, never yet exceeded in the annals of thea-
tricals, imperatively demand a repetition of Shakspere's
" Macbeth," in conjunction with the Grand Operas, every
Evening. Mr. Graham as Macbeth, and the splendid sing-
ing of Miss Romer, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Leffler, &c., are un-
rivalled attractions.

THIS EVENING, JULY 29,
Will be acted BeHines Grand Opera,
LA SONNAMBULA.

Amine, Miss Romer; Lim, Mrs. Serie ; Rodolpho, Mr.
Leffler; Elvino, Mr. Wilson.

After which, Shakspere's Tragedy of
MACBETH.
Macbeth, Mr. Graham ; Hecate, Mr. Leffler ;

Singing Witches, Miss Rom-r, Mrs. Serle, Mr. 'Wilson, Mr.
Stoker, Mr. Roberts, and a powerful Chorus, conducted by
Mr. G. Stansbury.

ROYAL VICTORIA THEATRE.

UNDER THE DIRECTION OF MR. OSBALDISTON.
Brilliant and splendid continuation of success in the unparalleled
combination and attraction of " Susan Hopley !" " Richard
the Third !" " Hamlet !" and " Pizarro !" supported by
Mr. Osbaldistori, Mr. E. F. Saville, Mrs. W. West, and
Miss Vincent!

THIS EVENING, JULY 29,
The splendidly successful Domestic Drama, in Three Acts, of
SUSAN HOPLEY ! OR, THE TRIALS AND VICISSI-
TUDES OF A SERVANT GIRL !
William Dean, Mr. E. F. Saville ; and Susan Hopley y
Hiss Vincent, the accepted Heroine of Domestic Drama.
After which Shakspere's Tragedy of
RICHARD THE THIRD.

Richard, Mr. Osbaldiston ; Richmond, Mr. E. F. Saville ;
Queen, Mrs. W. %Vest ; Lady Anne, Miss Vincent.
To conclude with the Laughable Farce of
THE • SLEEPING DRAUGHT.
Dr. Vincolo, Mr. James; Rinaldo, Mr. Seaman • Popolino,
Mr. Gardner; Gabriotto, Mr. Paul; Francisca, Mrs. G Lee;
Nonna, Mrs. Howard.

Boxes, 2s.—Pit, ls.—Gallery, 6d. Half-price to the Boxes
only, at Half-past Eight.

H
RAILWAY SUN

IS NOW PUBLISHING,
PRICE ONLY SIXPENCE.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE THIS DAY.
tiorning 49 minutes attsr 10. i Evening 27 minutes after 11.

those restrictions, or their effects ; we must leave
that matter in abler hands; but we assert, with-
out fear of contradiction, that nearly all the
restrictions on agricultural industry whi.-h pre-
vail in England are imposed by the landowners
and land-occupiers themselves, and that the
State, while it imposes a vast number of restric-
tions on manufacturing industry—partly for the
purposes of revenueand partly for the presumed
preservation of morality and health—leaves the
industry of the agriculturist, except, perhaps,
in the article of hops, entirely free.
This is, however, not what the landoWners
mean. They mean that their just receipts from
the land, and the just profits of the farmer, are
more taxed by. the State than the just receipts of
the manufacturer and of professional men.
The national wealth is divided into rent, profit,
and wages; and the real subject of complaint is,
not that the wages of the agricultural labourer,
or the profit of the farmer, are unduly taxed by
the State, but that the rent, of which the land-
owners are the recipients, has to pay more of the
public charges than the profits of the manufac-
turer or the wages of the labourer. If the asser-
tion that the land bears more of the fiscal bur-
dens than manufactures, means any thing, it
means that and nothing but that.
There is another aspect, indeed, under which
the burdens on our land are considered, namely,
in relation to the burdens borne by the land of
other countries. But there is no country of Eu-
rope in which there are not more restrictions on
cultivation than in our country, and in which so
small a portion of the revenue of the State is
raised from the land. Whether we look, there-
fore, at the burdens borne by other branches of
industry, or in relation to the burdens borne by
the agricultural industry of other countries, there
does not exist the shadow of a reason for taxing
the bread of the people.
The wages of labour, to consider only the bur-
dens borne by the land in relation to other
sources of wealth, are settled between the farmer
and the labourer, and are temporarily regu-
lated by the demand and the supply, under the
natural law that the farmer must, in order to have
the services of labourers, pay each one enough
to feed himself and rear up the number of la-
bourers required. Again, the rent of land is
determined by a bargain between the tenant and
the landowner, the latter getting all he can, and
the former giving no more than whatremains of
the produce after he has paid all his expenses,
including the repairs of all his wear and tear,
and replacing all his sold or used stock, and in-
cluding his own wages and the profit of his
capital. None of the produce of the farmer, with
the exception of hops, is subject to a direct tax
in his hands, and, with the exception of malt and
cyder, to a direct tax shortly after it has left his
hands. But all those taxes ultimately are paid
by the consumer, and it is only as they operate
to diminish the consumption of the articles
grown by the fitrmer, that they diminish his re-
ceipts a farthing, or impose on him the smallest
burden whatever. The payment of wages, the
expense of cultivation, the profits of the farmer,
are all necessary charges arising out of the nature
of things, not imposed by the State; and, with
the trifling exception of hops and malt, the State
does not impose a single burden on agricultural
produce, which can in the smallest degree dimi-
nish the profit of the farmer or the rent of the
landowner. We make this assertion absolutely
and not relatively to the burdens borne by manu-
facturers, which, as our readers may at once
infer from what we have said of malting, dis-
tilling, and brewing, are enormous, and in some
cases unbearable.
These statements may be confirmed by a
glance at public taxation. The Customs and Ex-
cise duties, in 1837, amounted to 36,3,35,6771.,
of which the tax on malt and hops yielded
5,596,7741. These taxes, however, as we have
said, are paid by the consumer, and only indi-
rectly affect the aviculturist by diminishing
the demand for his produce. The amount of
stamps, in 1837, was 7,265,123/., of which the
legacy duties, not paid by the owners of rent,
was 2,185,8901. The Assessed Taxes together
amounted only to 3,890,1461., and of that sum the
land taxes amounted only to 1,192,638/., or very
little more than one half of the legacy duties,
from which the landowners are exempted. The
whole amount of the revenue was 50,592,653/.
From the fact, that of this whole sum only
1,192,6381. falls exlusively on rent, while it con-
tributes no part of 2,185,8901. paid by the legacy
duties; and from the fact, that the great bulk of
this sum is levied on articles imported, or worked
up for consumption ; that the landowners only
pay in proportion to their consumption or enjoy-
ment, like the rest of the community, and are
not subjected, as landowners, to any burden
from' which others are exempted,—from these
facts, it is plain that the complaint of the land
being heavily and exclusively taxed by the State,
is wholly unwarranted.
But the local burdens, what of them ? The
State undoubtedly makes the receivers of rent
and profit, though very scantily, support those
in sickness and age who produce all their wealth,
and as they produce it, are allowed to receive
but a very small part of it. But it is a complaint
of the great advocate of the rent-owners, that
they support their labourers much too scurvily,
and that instead of being relieved from any part
of the burden of poor-rates, it ought to be in-
crease d.

Again, the State imposes on landowners
and occupiers, the burden of keeping up high-
ways, but no persons profit by them so much as
the agriculturists. The landlords are well aware
of this, and last Session renewed an Act to apply
the highway-rates to the keeping up of turnpike
roads, or extend the taxation, because it is for
their advantage. The State, too, compels the
agriculturists to provide prisons for their crimi-
nals, and generally to pay the expense of a pre-
ventive police. Highway-rates, poor-rates, and
county-rates, however, so far as the amount is
concerned, are all self-imposed. The Vestries,
Guardians of the Poor, Justices in Session, &c.,
determine the amount of highway-rates, poor-
rates, and county-rates, and not a small portion
of all of them has been wasted by the unscrupu-
lous jobbing of the parties imposing them. Ma-
gistrates have built for their amusement spacious
palaces, and called them prisons ; they have
constructed splendid bastiles, and made fine
roads, sometimes for their own convenience ; but
however all these circumstances may be, the
fact that the amount of these taxes is determined
by themselves, and depends on their manage-
ment, takes from them every pretext fur com-
plaining of the State, or for taxing the food of
the people.

Rent is the surplus which the farmer gives
the landowner, after paying all his expenses,
and no doubt rent would be higher were his ex-
penses less; but the proportion of them caused
by the State is almost inconceivably small com-
pared to the expense of wages, seed-corn, &c,
The chief cause of his expenses is much enhanced,
in the price of all articles consumed and used by
himself and his labourers, by the laws which
raise the price, not for the benefit of the State,
but for the benefit of the landlords. The land-
lords' tax, in fact, leaves less for rent than there
would be were there no such tax ; and not only
are restrictions on agricultural industry, but taxes
on agricultural produce, imposed by the land-
lords.

Up to a recent period the tithes, being a de-
duction from the crop, were properly included
in the expenses of the farmer ; now they arc
abstracted from the landlord's rent. By the
change a great increase was made in the value
of the land, which the landowners promoted
for their own exclusive benefit. Whatever
may be the amount of the tithe rent-charge,
it never belonged to the landowner. It was a
part of the property of the cultivator, which the
law took from him. The landlords have no right
to it whatever; and the same law which secures

him in possession of his estate, secures the
tithe-owner in possession of his reat-charge. It
now forms no part of the cost of •production ; it

was properly fixed on the surplus produce, or
rent ; and however that inay be divided by the
idle landlord and the worse than idle priest, is
of little consequence to the community, though
it affords us no reason whatever for levying a tax
on the bread of the people.

If tithes be considered a burden on land which
justifies the Corn-law, the latter ought to be so
constructed as to give relief- only-to that land
which pays tithes, and land lithe-free one-
fourth of England—has, not theJeast claim.
MoreoVer, when the tithes are'ln the hands of
the landowners, when they are bOth tithelords
and landlords, as they are on' nearly half the
land of England, they have not the least shadow
of a pretext to levy a Corn-tax, because tithes
are a burden on rent. We know very well that
the produce of tithe-free land, and of land ( f
which the tithes belong to the owner, cannot be
distinguished from other produce in the market;
but on the principle laid down by the landlords,
of compensating those who are burdened, jus-
tice requires that it should be, and that it can-
not be is the condemnation of the pretext on
which they tax the people.
In considering this question, however, we
must not forget- Scotland, where there are no
tithes, hardly any poor-rates, and the smallest
possible amount of highway-rates. Why should
the owners of land in Scotland, not subject to
the same burdens, be equally protected with the
landowners of England? Justice' requires that
only the latter should be protected: the Corn-
law Confers as great a proteetion on the rent-
owners of Scotland as those of England. What
can be said, too, of Ireland, where the tithes do
not amount to one-fourth of the tithes of Eng-
land? .

" Landed property in . Ireland," says Mr. M'CUlloch,
" is placed under what would be considered in England
very advantageous circumstances. There is neither
land-tax nor poor's-rate to pay ; the landlord, as has
been seen, rarely lays out a sixpence on farm-buildings
or repairs ; even the agent, instead of receiving a salary,
is frequently allowed to indemnify himself by extorting
fees from the tenants ; so that the rent-roll, and the free
income, are identical."—Statistics, vol. i., p. 549.
If the landlords and the Legislature meant, as
they and their partizans assert, to do justice,
they would, on their own principles, only give
an advantage to the land of England which is
subjected to the payment of tithes to the priest-
hood, and would not have given it to the land
of Scotland or Ireland ; but they give it to all
the soil of the empire, and thereby show that
they do not pay the least regard to justice. In
fact, the whole of the assertions that the landis
subject to exclusive burdens is a mere pretext for
plundering the people.

But supposing that all which is said were true,
supposing it were ascertained that the land
were taxed to the extent of five shillings or six
shiilingr per quarter more than manufactures,
there would still re.nain two powerful reasons
why that would be no justification of Corn-
laws. First, the landlords have the power of
legislation in their hands, and have imposed
these burdens on them. Let them take them off.
Secondly, the comparison is between land and
manufactures--between rent and profit; and to
equalize the burden profit alone ought to be
taxed. The tax on corn, however, does not fall
exclusively on profits, it tills mainly on wages ;
and the landlords equalize themselves to
the manufacturers by plundering all the eaters
of bread. Such a proceeding is monstrous in
practice, and it is still more monstrous in theory,
but it is all of a piece with the conduct of the
landlords. Our conclusion is that the land is
subjected to no exclusive burdens, and that, if i t
were, the remedy for the inequality is the remo-
val of the injustice from the land, not the inflic-
tion of a much greater injustice to the bulk of
the people..

Some of our Contemporaries seem strongly
oblivious of facts. Ministers are accused by the'
Tory Journals of not having brought forward at
an earlier period their measures of free trade, and
of having done nothing to meet the deficiencies
in the revenue.

To reply to the last statement first : we must
remind the public that Ministers, no longer ago
than 1840, proposed an additional per centage
on all Customs and Excise duties, and all Assessed
Taxes, calculated to yield upwards of 2,000,0001.
Their measure had the complete approbation of
the Tories; and had it realised expectations,
there would have been no deficiency in the re-
venue. It (lid not realise expectations; on the
contrary, the revenue fell off, and hence the
necessity this year of trying free trade measures.
But, till the present year, that unfortunate con-
dition and resources of the country could not
possibly be known, and could form no ground
fbr introducing a measure into Parliament.
Why were not the free trade mew tires tried
sooner ? When, till the revenue became deficient,
let us ask in return, did any person find out
the utility of such measures; or when, till that
deficiency time to light, would tho,se measures
have been for one moment tolerated ? The Corn-
law, which was passed in 1828, was not severely
felt during the fertile seasons of 1831 to 1836,
and it was only with the year 1838, when prices
had risen very high, that a general de-
mand for the repeal of the Corn-law arose. Till
1838 or 1839, there was no ground on which
any minority, knowing the sentiments of the
landlords, could dare to propose a modification
of the Act of 1828 ; and any Ministry would
have brought ,instant ruin on itself by making
the proposition. The same may be said of sugar,
which only reached an excessive price in 1840.
Until the present year, when the revenue, in
spite of the increased taxation, first began to fall
off, there was no pretext for practical states-
men adopting the deductions of science and abo-
lishing the Act of 1828. The two charges of
taking no measures to meet the deficiency, and
of having delayed to bring forward free trade,
which the Tories now bring against the Minis-
ters, are wholly unfounded and false, like the
majority of the assertions of the Tories.

A most astounding discovery has just been
made, which must at once put an end to all
alarm and apprehension for the future fate of the
country. It has within itself the means of safety,
susceptible, by the piety of our statesmen and
the contributions of the people, of indefinite ex •
tension. •- Compared to this wonderful machine,
our armies and navies are impotent to defend,
and our commerce to enrich us. Even our agri-
culture, the delight of the Tories, is worthless to
thiS sublime invention, of which nothing is so ex-
traordinary as the blindness of our people to its
prodigious merits. We, however, want words to
describe them, and, therefore, we must borrow
the language of the Standard :
Where lies the strength of England ! In her fleets,
her armies, her wealth, her fortresses and palaces ? No,
all these would be the prey of the enemy, but for one
shrine of transcendant power. The strength of England
lies in her morality and her religion—her parish churches
are her real bulwarks, worth thousands of even her fleets
and armies. And where lies the strength of the Conserva-
tive party in England ? In clubs, and cameras, and lit-
tle cabals ? These are drawbacks, aye, and fearful
drawbacks, too, upon the strength of the Conservative
party. The urch of England it is, and the Church of
_England only, which has righted the country.
Of a similar description is the language of the
Dublin University Magazine, which has kindled
the holy fire in our Contemporary. Here is a
little specimen :
And now, reader, what is the instrument by which
God, in his mercy, has been graciously pleased to achieve
for us this great deliverance? Ponder well that question.
Was it the monarchy ? No. Owing to the most artful
misrepresentations, all the power and the influence of
our gracious and amiable, but most deluded Sovereign,
was exerted against the Conservative cause. Was it the
corrupted portion of tile aristocracy ? No ; they were
aiders and abettors in that criminal delusion.

To what, then, are we indebted for our escape, at the
magnitude of which we are even still astounded ? We
say, emphatically, to the Church of England. Yes ! That
was the blessed instrument, prepared aforetime for this
great work. It is by the spirit of the Church of Eng-
land we have been saved. Even the Church of Scot-
land, towards which we at least have no invidious feel-
inss, can claim no share in the averting of this mighty
calamity ; as she was more intent upon her own crotchet
of church-government, than regardful of the general
safety. In achieving this our great deliverance, the Church
of England stands alone. Upon the present occasion the
Church of Scotland has adopted the spirit and dwindled
into the insignificance of a sect ; and if she is safe, it is

only because she may repoze under the shadow of ilia
mighty spiritual mother, without whose influence? upo:
the understandings and consciences of the British peopH
the whole framework of our Constitution, both civi.
and ecclesiastical, would have been, ere this, consigned
to ruin.

With such an instrument of national safety;
always more easily worked by the Arclibisho!'
of CANTERBURY than the House of Lords by the
Duke of WELLINGTON, what need can there be
of tear? The Tories have of course long been
aware of all the healing powers of the noble con-
trivance, and hence they have snapped their
fingers at picturers of commercial distress and
dying artisans, conscious that the facts could no.
be, as stated, with this blessed means of nationai
salvation in full working condition. As it eon•
fers such inestimable benefits on society, Messrs.
THOROGOOD and BAINES, with all their friends
and supporters, are ignoble men to repine at
being made martyrs for the welfare of the whole
human race. The Catholics, too, as well as the
grumblers at Church. rates, must at once confe,t
the sin of their antipathy, and ask pardon for
their unpatriotic conduct towards this most use-
ful of all possible inventions. We have no
doubt of the sincerity of those who thus eulogise
the Church, and we fully accord with the Stan-
dard, which we trust will be always remem-
bered by the bulk of our population hungering
for food, that the Church of England has been
the main instrument for securing to the country
a monopolist House of Commons, determined to
maintain the starvation laws.

The Tories are great idolators, and the pre-
sent object of their worship is PEEL. Eleven
years ago he gave them not the cruel domina-
tion they prayed. for, ,and they threw him down
and spat on him, and turned him out of their
Oxford temple, just as the black idolators of
Africa maul their fetiehe biocks` when their
enemies defeat them, or the harvest is blighted.
In truth, there is a much closer resemblance be-
tween the man and the worship of the Tories
and the stock worship of the heathen, than is at
first sight apparent, and both will be sure, in
the end, to sufferfrom, their superstition, and to
quarrel with their idols. We see, in an excep
tion to the rule. we have just adverted to, the
certain commencement of disappointment and
desecration. The Times is a sort of free thinker
amongst the Tories ; it begins to flout their
idolatry, and proposes to substitute for it the
Whig creed. It said, yesterday—
The fluctuations of price and supply, the vicissitudes
of seasons, the state of the producing countries, and our
moral, social, and political relations with them, the re-
venue laws and commercial systems of foreion. States, the
prospects of peace and war, the state of creditb and cur-
rency at home and abroad, 'the exigencies 'of the Ex-
chequer—these are all circumstances which must Im
taken into account in settling thetiMe, the manner, the
direction, and the degree, in which those commercial
maxims on which all parties are agreed, and which were
first acted upon under the Tory Governments before
1830, are to be practically applied. To facilitate the
operations of trade, and to provide for the necessities of
.the public service in the manner least burdensome to the
community, are objects which recommend themselves so
plainly to the ordinary sense of mankind, that no Minis-
ter, however stupid, could avoid appreciating them, or,
however dishonest, could have any motive for disregard-
ing them. There can never be any fundamental differ-
ence between Whigs and Conservatives upon points like
these ; and it is idle for either party to seek to invent
one. A stationary policy is impossible ; and even if it
were possible, it would be not conservative, but destruc-
tive. Advance, we must ; the only question is, in what
direction ? and when means, not ends, the physical and
not the moral department of politics, are under discus-
sion, all must agree to answer—in the direction of the
greatest practicable utility.
Ali this is what the Whigs say, and the Times
can find no language better suited to its own
views than that which has been employed by the
Whig Ministers. Their whole budget was
founded on the principle of providing for the
" necessities of the public service in the manner
the least burdensome to the community." The
Tories never attempted to show that such would not
be the result, they kicked out the budget because
as they said it would impede the success of our
project for abolishing slavery; and they after-
wards censure the Ministers, and mean to kick
them out, because they were unable to carry
their budget.- The Tories might, perhaps, have
proved, but they did not, that the necessities of
the State could be still better provided for by a
farther reduction of the duties on sugar and tim-
ber, and by the abolition of the Corn-laws, than
by the budget of the Ministers; and they kicked
out that budget, because it was an approximation
to a principle which the Times now implies all

politicians must act. on.
• The passage in our Contemporary is very re-
markable on several accounts. It is not written
in a party spirit ; it is, therefore, a genuine ho-
mage to truth. It is a great honour conferred
on the Ministers. It admits, as they assert, the
impossibility of a stationary policy. The Times

asserts that Sir ROBERT PEEL'S must be a Re-
forming Government, and it must facilitate the
operations of trade. The Times is already a con-
vert to the Whig creed, and attacks the idolatry
of its coteries.
We do not notice this matter with any refer-
ence to the character of the Times, which cannot
be damaged by its
.conduct, whatever that may
be, but to set the tactics of its party fairly before
the public. The Tories, urged on by the Times,
have made a furious attack on Ministers for walk-

in by those principles which that Journal now

says, because they are consistent with reason and
justice, must guide the Tories. At the same time
that Journal condemns the Whigs for "recently
endeavouring to draw subjects relating to trade
and commerce into the category of party
questions." The Times and the Tories have
actually made party questions of such subjects,
have defeated the Ministers on them, and now,
adopting the principles of the Ministers, plainly
prove that :hey opposed them six tseeks ago on
a trade question solely for a party purpose. To
the pure Tories, the holy Church-loving Tories, all
things are pure, and they may turn out the

Whigs on a question of trade or Commerce which
the Whigs must never make a party matter of.
The Tories may steal a horse, but the less
'Church-loving Whigs must not look over the
hedge. Such is the morality of that party of
monopolists which boasts of its purity, and
which is now to govern this great country.
Such, too, are the despicable arts by which ho-
nest and intelligent electors have been led by
the Times to give a verdict against providing for
the " necessities of the public service in the
manner the least burdensome to the community."
There is another part of our Contemporary's
leader deserving of notice, because it carries with
it a forcible condemnation of the policy of his
party. " Our institutions," it says, " have bound
together the different classes of British society
by a thousand links of mutual duties, mutual
good offices, and mutual affection, which cannot
be paralleled in the past history or present con-
dition of any other nation." In the main that
is true, and in those institutions there must be
some principle of honesty and of generous li-
berty to work such effects. No Englishman will
deny the great merit of these institutions, at
least in times past; but no reasonable person will
say that the Corn-law of 1815, or the Corn-law
of 1828, was one of them. It is a thing of yes-
terday, and is, both in its moral nature, as in-

fringing on the property of the subject, and as an
encroachment on liberty of trade, a gross viola-
tion of the principles which linked the different
classes of society together by mutual affection
and good offices. That law sets class against
class—that law sets the aristocracy against the
democracy, the manufacturers against the land-
lords—and that law has, during the few years it
has been suffered to exist, wiped clean out of the
minds of the people all those effects which our
honest and free institutions had produced.
We are unacquainted with any similar dis

honest legislation in the whole course of history.
It will be recollected that our Corn-laws were
passed after the protecting theory of Govern-
ment had been completely demolished. They
were passed with a full knowledge of the evil
consequences of acting on that theory. At the
time the manufacturers were protected by law
the effects of such a system were not known ; and
those who prohibited the importation of
silk and iron, held a bona fide opinion that
the prohibition would be of public benefit.

41
73,), $1
.
O AO 1