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

THE RAILWAY SUN,

AND THE
PARLIAMENTARY SUN,
ARE NOW RE-PUBLISHED,
PRICE SIXPENCE EACH.
Sun Office, Aug. 30, 1841.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.
The communication of " P. P." will be attended to.
"E. F. G." Neither. The existing Corn-laws were
passed in 1828. The first Act was passed in 1815 ;
a new Act was passed in 1828, and that has continued
in force without any alteration up to the present time.
The Leeds Mercury of Saturday did not reach onr.office.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE THIS DAY.
Alernmg...... m►nutes after 6 I Evening 04 minutes after g.

LONDON:
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1841.

At his late election for Dorchester, Sir JAMES
GRAHAM gave au account of the changes in

opinion which have taken place in some of our
leading statesmen on the subject of the Corn-laws,
which is, we think, remarkable as an index to the
general change which is in progress, and which
will, by and by, reach even those who are now
the most urgent sticklers for those enactments
which starve the people. Sir JAMES GRAHAM
said—

" If my opinions have undergone a modification—and
I admit that they have, in consequence of my increased
Rxperience and the altered condition of the country—l
have changed in very excellent company. I changed my
opinion on the Corn-laws with Mr. Huskisson, who
brought forward a measure in 1815 which prohibited
the introduction of foreign corn if the price should be
less than 80s., and when he supported in 1827 a sliding
scale, I advocated the same views, and I can say that
nothing which has occurred since has induced me to
change my opinion. There was Sir H. Parnell, another
free-trader, the very pink of free trade philosophers.
That gentleman advanced a step further than Mr. Hus-
kisson, anti proposed that no foreign corn should be ad-
mitted until it ;.ad reached the price of 955. per quarter.
Then, again, have .1-,,ord J. Russell and Lord Melbourne
been quite consistent in their opinions on the subject of
the Corn-laws? What did T.ord Melbourne say in the
House of Lords when the propozl to alter the Corn-laws
was mooted in that House? He dec:ared that it would
be an evidence of absolute madness in any one to make
such a proposition. On the same subject Lord Melbourne
again said that the agitation of so great and important a
question would shake society to its very foundation,
-would array one great interest against another, and that
he looked forward to the consequences with considerable
alarm. These opinions were, however, expressed before
the Budget was brought forward. Lord ,T. Russell, also, in
an address to the electors of Huntingdonshire, expressed
very strong and unequivocal opinions in favour of the
present Corn-laws,.and against any alteration."
Here, then, is a list of five leading statesmen
—sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. HUSKISSON, Sir H.
PARNELL, Lord MELBOURNE, and Lord JOHN
RUSSELL—who have, within a few years, be-
come converts from absolute prohibition to pro-
tective duties, or to no duties at all. There are
few or no persons of eminence who have gone
the other way. Lord ASHBURTON being, we be-
lieve, the solitary exception ; and his change was
so clearly dictated by mercenary motives that,
from having been an authority, the man has be-
come pitiably despised.
Lord MELBOURNE and Lord JOHN RUSSELL,
from having been out-and-out Pro-Corn-law
men, have become converts, at least to a low fixed
duty, if they are not ready to embrace the prin-
ciple of a totally free trade in food. Sir HENRY
PARNELL, who is a studious, reflective man, " the
very pink of free trade philosophers," as Sir
JAMES GRAHAM says, is now a total repealer,
-whereas, in 1814, he was for a prohibitory duty
up to 95i. But Mr. HUSKISSON'S change, who
is yet most improperly spoken of by the Tories
as favourable to the Corn-laws, and was so de-
scribed by Lord SANDON on Friday night last, is
still more remarkable. In 1814, when he wrote
his celebrated letter to his constituents at Chi-
chester, he was for a prohibitory duty to a cer-
tain point, and then for admitting corn on pay-
ment of a high duty by a graduated scale. In
1827-28 he was for a graduated scale, much
lower than he contemplated in 1814, without any
prohibition ; and, in 1830, he had become of
opinion that the Corn-laws might be repealed
with advantage to the landowners. So much
has been said of his opinions, and so much weight
are attached to his early lucubrations, that we
must, in order to vindicate our. assertion doan sa-
tisfy the reader, quote Mr. HUSKISSON'S wn
-words. On the 18th of March, 1830, in a debate
on the state of the country, after the sliding
scale had been adopted, and after much experi-
ence in Parliament and in office, at a time when
he was unfettered by any considerations of what
was due to Government, and when he spoke, as
he himself said, as . an independent Member of
Parliament, Mr. HUSKISSON thus accounted for
the public distress which prevailed in 1830 ;
It appears to me, Sir—and it is well known to several
of my Right Hon. Friends that my opinion is of much
longer standing than the present emergency—that the
main difficulty, not an occasional, but rather a habitual
difficulty, ander which this country I.lbours, is the too
great pressure upon the springs and sources of productive
:ndrestry ; and that this pressure from the very circum-
stance of its being too great in ordinary tiqes, becomes
excessive and is subject to fits of exacerbation from any
Incidental casualty, such as an ungenial season, or any
temporary derangement in any considerable brunch of
our
manuf. tctures or trade. To a casualty of this descrip-
tion we mist always be liable ; but it ought not to re-
duce us to s offering like that which we now endure, if we
had been before in a robust and healthy condition. If I
am asked the cause of this habitual existence of this too
great pressure, I can only state the impression of my
pwn mind'. It is simply
\ I)6fi The annual this, that in the distribution
3riincomengva
lout' e thein
exc h
a country,ng e , b
thaty V
---T----__ tiOr thing; hi i\hisicrhailsedmaetaind
-- ~, prod ced by the labour of its inhabitants, and from
which fun d at e derived the subsistence, the comforts,
- and. I e . enjoy ments of all, fromthe Monarch to .the
pea 4 t I say
that, in its distribution, the portion of it
restt. ed f3r peproduction is now, and has been for some
i time,' less than it ought to be, either for the well being of the
t§thouring class. '.s, the immediate instrument of that repro-

4*,
4,1
4 A 0,1 ClUt p, 4
*I4KI ' '-r=i-W•(<
fr rA 4.
;N:.:.;

("Cbt ffilun.