The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-20 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, M

mooted by statesmen, they cannot expect that it
will not be discussed by e people. They are
no longer allowed to have ad reasoning to them-
selves. The game which they start will be
hunted down by others. The doctrines put forth
in the House of Commons will not fall on barren
ground when they reach the minds of the Dissen-
ters. We are much mistaken in that class of men
if they do not, one and all, prefer obedience to
their conscience to obedience to law. Amongst
them are to be found some of the most upright
and most sturdy of our citizens. Mr. BAINES
has been followed to his gaol by thousands, and
hundreds and thousands in every part of the
country will probably feel it their duty to follow
his example. When they reflect that the law
has no power but what men give it—that if they
did not enforce it, the Church party would have
neither the means nor the will to enforce it—
they will feel it to be their duty to declare that
they will not enforce and will not obey a law
which takes money out of their pockets against
their will, for the support of a form of worship
which they consider false, idolatrous, and lead-
ing to immorality. If this be correct, the Mem-
bers of the House of Commons who have refused to
agree to the resolution proposed by Mr. EAST-
110PE, will find that they have brought into ques-
tion and peril interests which they value far
above the Church and Church-rates.

We are by no means sorry to see the Post re-
turning to the controversy on free trade, and that

it has found a Correspondent to aid it in opposing
The Sun. To deal first with the letter-writer,

we must beg to treat as a misrepresentation his

assertion that we looked to any rapid improe-
ment in the public knowledge of the properties
of matter to keep up the rental of the country

were the Corn-laws abolished. No doubt some

increase of knowledge would accrue ; but the in-
crease of a town population would be the main

element for enhancing in future, as it has en-
hanced in past times, the rental of land. We are
not displeased to receive from the letter-writer
the title of the " Labourers' Representative," for

undoubtedly they constitute the great majority of
the nation, and in supporting them we support

the most numerous party. That the currency is
not what it should be we admit, but the regula-

tions of that are of a nature not so much to in-

terest the public as the gross and manifest in-

justice of ihe Corn-laws. We prefer, therefore,
dealing with the latter subject, at the same time

we are not averse, on seasonable occasions,
from discussing the currency question, and

we have stated more than once that we are for

a perfectly free trade in money as well

as in corn. When the abolition of the landlord's
tax is accomplished, we shall exert ourselves to

get rid of the Mint lie about gold and silver, and
the Bank of England fraud, as well as some other
nonsensical or roguish enactments; and then we

shall be happy to receive the aid of the Post and
its Correspondent. In the meantime, consider-
.

ing that the abolition of the Bread-tax is of the
most importance, we shall diNect our best exer-
tions to attain that object.
So much for the letter-writer in the Post ; now
we turn to the Editor's leader. He begins by ex-
pressing surprise at the one-sided view taken by
writers in favour of free trade, and before he
completes his paragraph he defines free trade to.
be " the unrestricted right to employ foreign
labour instead of British." Can any view be
more one-sided? Surely it is also the right to
employ the labour of , British seamen in bringing
home corn from the United States and from
Prussia, and in carrying out cotton cloth and
produce to exchange for it, which is now prohi-
bited, except under most disadvantageous terms.
Surely also, free trade is the right to employ,
which is now not allowed, the weavers of
Carlis!e and the cutlers of Sheffield in pro-
vidinc the cloth and cutlery which could be ex-
chang:d for the food of Prussia and the United
Stater. The one-sidedness belongs at least as
much to the Post as to the advocates of free
trade.

The Post assumes that labour is cheaper in the
countries with which the abolition of the Corn-
laws would allow our capitalists to trade. The
assumption is an error. One of those countries
is the United States, into which labour, because
it is more in demand and better paid than here,
is continually, lowing. From all the other countries
in question, Russia, Prussia, and Belgium, few or
no labourers come to England. We find a few
German tailors and French or Swiss confection-
ers, with a few sugar-bakers, come here, but at
present English artizans go abroad, showing that
labour—their labour, at least—is dearer and bet-
ter paid abroad than here. With Ireland at our
doors, where wages are not above 4d. or 6d. a
day—with the Irish coming over to England by
shoals, and with wages in every part of the coun-
try at the very lowest point at which a half-fed,
half-clothed, half-warmed existence can be sup-
ported, to talk of labour being cheaper in any
other part of the Continent of Europe, particu-
larly considering the skill and industry of our
labourers, betrays either great ignorance or a
mocking spirit which we do not find in the wri-

tings of the Post.
If we are not misinformed, some of the evi-
dence given before the Committee which is sit-
ting to inquire into the exportation of machinery,
will throw light on this question, and will prove
that the artizans of England would not go
abroad if the Corn-laws were repealed, but they
go now because they find their labour better re-
warded abroad than at home, and more in de-
mand. In fact, if we are to consider labour
performed within the political jurisdiction of fo-
reign countries as foreign labour, and labour
performed within the jurisdiction of our autho-
rities as home labour, and if the repeal of the
Corn-laws would keep our artizans at home
by finding employment for them here, it
follows that restriction on trade, including the
Corn-laws, diminish employment at home,
whether they do or do not encourage employment
abroad.
That disposes, we think, of the objection of
the Post, that " free trade," or in other words,
the unrestricted right to employ foreign labour
instead of British, is an injury to that great mass
of our population who have nothing but their
power of labouring for others to depend upon.
But we will add that the chief want of the la-
bourers is food, and the chief capital by which
the capitalists can obtain their services is food.
In'proportion, therefore, as food is augmented, in
proportion as the sources of its supplies are in-
creased, just so does the competition amongst ca-
pitalists to have the services of labourers, which
services are indispensable to their profit, increase;
and just so does employment extend and. wages rise.
The Past wouti confine us to one source for a sup-
ply of food, would limit the quantity, and both
limit the power of the capitalists to employ
labour and limit their competition against
one another to obtain labour, for the benevolent
purpose of improving the condition of the la-
bourer.

We arc unwilling, though at the expense of
being tedious, to allow any apparent fallacy to
escape notice and refutation. We must, there-
fore, observe that the Post implies that land,
as well as labour, is cheaper in foreign countries
than in England. If it be, whence does it arise ?
Our population is undoubtedly, with the excep-
tion, perhaps, of some of the small States of
Italy, of Wirtemberg, and Holland, the most
dense of Europe ; but it has the 'lre-eminent ad-
vantage of being surrounded by the sea, which
opens to our people an easy access to all other
countries.

As we have before observed, the fertile plains
of the Mississippi are, for practical purposes, as
near to Liverpool as they are to Boston. The in-
habitants of Cork or Lancashire can transport
themselves thither, or bring food from thence, at
as little cost nearly as the inhabitants of Massa-
chusetts.
The cause of land being much dearer in Eng-
land than in the United States, to say nothing of
Germany, which has not our command of the
great highway of nations, is mainly that law
which prevents the produce of the vast plains of
the Mississippi from being freely imported into
England, and of course prevents some portion of
the crowded and suffering population of Eng_
land from transporting. themselves thither to
cultivate those plains in order to feed their
countrymen who would remain here to prepare
them instruments and c'othing.
We say nothing of the monopoly of the