The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-15 00:00:00

ROYAL SURREY THEATRE.

Amazing attraction. Signal success, and brilliant overflows.
Re-engagement of Mr. T. P. Cooke, whose performance
of " Poor Jack " has surpassed all former efforts. The
Theatre Ells soon af•er the doors are opened.
THIS EVENING, MARCH 15.
Will be acted a Nautical Drama in Four Parts, called
POOR JACK : OR THE WIFE OF A SAILOR.
la which Mr. T. P. Cooke, and the entire strength of the

Company, will perform.
After which,
MY POLL AND MY PARTNER. JOE.

. -
Harry Haulyard by Mr. T. P. Cooke.
To conclude with

A DAY AFTER THE FAIR.
Yu which Mr. Buckingham and Miss Martin sustain S:a diffe-
rent Characters each.

HIGH WATER. AT LONDON BRIDGE THIS JAY.
minutes after 5 I Evening 5 minutes after 7.

f',
S • '4lj4*l
„col: Li I /r,
„

A.

-

M

'OWST

retie UAL

LONDON:
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1141.

We succeeded in showing on Friday, we think,
that the writer in the Morning Poe, who
measured the value of foreign trade Aiy the
amount of the exports, did us great injustice, as
if he had measured the utility, of religion by the
number of pulpits. That writer, and all those

statistical writers who indulge in similar compa-
risons between the different brandies of national

wealth, have not attained the smallest ele-
mental acquaintance with the phenomena of
the production of wealth. Those who have
looked at that are aware that territorial
division of labour is as necessary to its

progress as division of labour amongst indi-
viduals; that it would, for example, take several
times as much labour to produce cotton or sugar

in England as suffices to supply them front
America or the West India islands, even if they
could be produced here at all. Everybody who
has locked into the subject knows, too,
that the introduction of those and other
commodities from abroad serves to extend
tido division of labour at home, to call
new arts into existence, alnd to promote,
.n t merely the wealth, but the skill
,and
ingenuity of mankind. We may slfely assert
thcr..fore, thdt the writer who measures the
uti-
lity of foreign trade to the community by the
amount of the exports, is most lamentably igno-
rant of the whole science of the production of
wealth.

Where there is the greatest ignorance there is
genemly the greatest presumption, and accord-
we find the writer in the Post, on Friday
1. st :ndalging in a condemnation of freedom
of trade, and in an enlarged ambition of regu-
lating all the employments of society. He said—
There are two leading circumstances in the present condi-
tion of Great Britain which deserve the especial attention of
every patriotic politician. The first is the continual increase
of the pi eerie beyond the increase of opportunities for providing
them with piotitable empleymen'. This is coupled with a
greater impatience at a life of labour and poverty than ever
before existed, so that we have discontent continually spread-
ing from a double source. If the condition of the labouring
people were not growing better they would be dissatisfied, be-
cause they have becomc embucd with a general ambition fur a
better, or at least a more easy and refined, way of life. But
instead of growing better, so far as regards the m 4 ans of pro-
curing subsieence, their conchtiun grows one of m 4 re difficulty,
awing to the gradually increasing disproportion already men-
tioned.

The te old circumstance is the prevailing dogmatism in
fa
war of hat is unjustly called freedom of trade, but what-
may truly be called the selfish de-ire to employ the population
,or other countries rathertnhyoiethe population of our own, if the
can produce of their labour obtained at a cheaper rate.
It is tolerably plain that these two leading circumstances
have a very important connectionpo withui one another. If they
go on—that is to say, if the continues to over-
crowd, as it has latterly (kw, all itlitlawanv°lennues of remunerative
industry.? and if, at the same time,e7npioaws should be made or
toefthEen
England, tent of cheap foreign
ald ones_rJpecled, to ftaocitlhitaat
people Why,
and Ireland
sthey must
labour, in preference
irinrigble state of distress.
—what is to become of ouranwdortek
fall into the most pinching
The remedy for this want of employment
,
'which inspires him with so much alarm, is this
But when a nation becomes so th'ekly peopled that there are
enough, and more than enough, both to produce rnanufa
tures far beyond the consumption of the country, andcorn far
beyond what the country has ever consumed, then to econo-
mme labour is no longer a national object, though it may be a
source of great gain to individual capitalists. The great
danger of a nation in such a condition, as respects its popula-
tion, is th,t of the pcdpie being unemployed, and uncomfort-
able because they ate unemployed, or too slightly remunerated
for their labour. As the security of capital is owing to the
protection afforded by Government, it becomes the duty. of
Government, as a general protector both of property and in-
dustry, to make capital pay for its protection, by giving re-
munerative employment to the industry of the people, and to
hinder it from seeking a larger profit through the cheaper la-
bour of foreign people.
As specimens of the knowledge and the

'wisdom which aspire to govern society, these

Passages are, we think, remarkable. The increase
of the people is; at setting out, acknowledged to
be natural, something beyond the controliof
Catesmen. At least it is not implied that it is
under the regulation of the State. But imme-

_ - -- -----
diately afterwards we are told that " this in-
- -

crease is beyond the increase of opportunities for
providing them with profitable employment," im-
plying that the employment is to be provided by
som2 other persons than the People, and making,
in fact, the State responsible for their einployment.
That error
lies at the foundation of our Con-
temporary's reasoning. He knows that the State
does not create the population ; bu t, nevertheless,
he would have the State find employment for the
population. The least acquaintance with the
writings of Mr. MAtirgus would have informed
our Contemporary that he requires the State to

perform an impossibility.
At the same time, as the whole of wealth is
the produce of labour, and, as labour really pro-
duces more than the labourers consume—for an im-
mense number of idle and unproductive persons are
maintained by the produce of labour—there is no
reason whatever to suppose, if the Government
do not interfere with employment, that the people
will not find profitable employment for them-
seh e,. In fact, one labourer is, by his produce,

ice.

s

X/

the market or employment for another labourer.
The more the agriculturists are multiplied, the-
greater is the demand for cotton cloth, and the
more the employment for cotton spinners is in-
creased. In like manner, the more the cotton
spinners are multiplied., the greater is the
demand for agricultural produce, and the more
the employment of agricultural labourers is in-
creased. This is only the example of what takes
place through the whole of the productive classes
—one is the market for the other. It is clear,
therefore, that the more the people are multi-
plied the greater is naturally the demand for
labour, and the more does employment increase.
Ultimately, and as the last result of analysis, the
demand for labour is always to supply human
wants; consequently, the more the wants are in-
creased, the more mouths that are to feed, and
backs to clothe, the more employment there
will be. In the system of nature, we beg the
Post to remember that the appetite of hunger,
and the means of gratifying it, are, as the rule,
conjoined in the same person ; mouths are gene-
rally accompanied by hands, and consequently
the faculties of production, and of profitable em-
ployment, keep pace with the increase of the
people.
We admit to the Post, and we complain of the
Post for advocating the system which causes it,
that the people do not now find profitable em-
ployment. It is true, as the Quarterly Review,
which the Post quotes, says, "Our manufactur-
ing towns, which formerly drew off such large
swarms from our agricultural districts, have pro-
bably ceased to do so to any great extent." It is
true that " every avenue to fortune—every opening
to employment—is instantaneously thronged with
competitors. From the highest to the lowest—
from literature and the arts, the learned profes-
sions, law, medicine, and the clergy, with their
multiplying churches, commerce in all its
branches, from the merchant princes of the City
down to the small grocer and hardwareman, there
is a busy, vehement emulation, in which many
must fail, and many drag on with but a precari-
ous livelihood." It is true that profitable em-
ployment cannot now be extensively found in
agriculture, in commerce, or in manufactures,
and much we thank the Post for acknowledging
that truth. But how and why is it, when the in-
crease of population necessarily carries with it
its own demands and its own increase of employ-
ment, that this terrible restraint is felt, this ham-
pering in all directions, this great want—while
the faculties of man are in full vigour—of
the means of gratifying them ? Ask this
question at Manchester, at Birmingham, at
Sheffield, at Glasgow, at Leeds, at Hull, and
what will be the answer? "We could employ
hundreds, thousands more," the manufacturers,
and merchants, and ship-builders of these
places would instantly say, " if the Corn and
Provision-laws, the timber duties, the sugar
and coffee duties were abolished." But if
they could employ thousands more, there
would be a corresponding demand for
the labours of the agriculturist, the phy-
sician, the lawyer, the engineer, and of
every other profession. All would be alive,
active, and enterprising. It is, then, the re-
strictive system, the accursed bread-tax, the
abominable discriminating duties on sugar, and
coffee, and timber, which prevent the people
from labouring, and so enabling them to gratify
their own wants, and which makes the whole
Government, including the Legislature, a great
curse to the people.
The Post imagines that it all arises from em-
ploying cheap foreign labour. What does the
Post mean ? Where did it learn that the un-
unskilled, slothful, vacillating labour of other
people is cheaper than the steady, skilled labour
of the English? The remedy it proposes is
worthy of its knowledge of the disease.
While the exertions of all men are directed
to encourage labour, it would find more employ-
intent for the people by restricting improve-
ment and by taxing capital. It would by law
hinder capital from seeking a larger profit. The
Post, as it is wonderfully clever, may hold water
in a sieve; but if it knew that cotton cloth may
be capital, that skilled labour is capital, that a
multitude of other things are capital, of which the
exportation is allowed or cannot be prevented, it
would never have talked of preventing capital
from seeking larger profits through the cheaper
labour of foreign people.
At present when the skilled labourer of Man-
chester or Birmingham carries his talents to
Belgium or Germany, because he is not allowed
by the barbarous law to Employ them at home, he
carries capital abroad to profit, not by cheap
labour, but by the market which a com-
parative abundance of food there constitutes
fur his peculiar labour. If the capitalist or
the corn-merchant could buy the food abroad
and bring it here, the capital, the skilled
labour, would be kept in the country, and the
capitalist would gain a larger profit by setting
more of the skilled labour of England in motion.
The real source of the greater profit which
would accrue to the capitalists, as the Post cor-
rectly supposes, by the abolition of the Corn-law,
is the greater adaptation of two sets of people to the
work they would then be employed in. The in-
genious population of England would be more'
extensively employed in manufactures, and the
unskilled population of the Continent would
prepare them food. Labour would be economized,
yet more people would be employed, and profit
would be greater.
If the Post can say nothing more against free
trade than that it would increase the profits of
c.;pital, we would recommend it to hold itspeace,
for that. increase—the increase of the fund
which sets labour in motion—is really
what the Post benevolently desires, though
it is ignorant of the means of obtaining
its own object. In this it resembles the Legisla-
ture. It has benevolently desired, we presume,
to promote the public happiness, but it has been
ignorant of the means, and it has embodied its
ignorance into a multitude of laws, which
are now the curse of the country. We
feel' it in every path of life. Every parent
feels it in the difficulty he experiences
to provide for his offspring ; every industrious
man feels it in the difficulty to obtain subsist-
ence. Whatever may be the vices and follies of
individuals, the community can only have been
brought to its present hampered and diseased
condition by the errors or crimes of the law-
makers.

If the public are not amused we beg to state
that w e are, by the contest which has arisen in the
bosom of the Church, and which is known tinder
the name of Puseyism. Those who really love
Ilke Church, and the political hypocrites who pre-
tend to love it, may weep and moan over this
schism ; we own that we delight in it, as calcu-
lated to set the merits of the Establishment in a
clear light. When those who are members of
it and reap a large reward from professing its
doctrines begin to impugn them and expose its
practices, there is a great probability that the pub-
lic, however obtuse it may be, will ere long be made
to comprehend the exact amount of the public
utility
in a r kdamb
te about t hi
ne t
eP_guisietyy,
ts a
TOise toihflietnhFre
iCsophvpueoryrnclerine.
ites.
while
theyare t
honest, blame their enthusiasm. In fact,
have be he
logical, consistent priests, who
bred up in the principles of the
e
Church, have adopted them, and seek zealously
to carry them out to their just conclusions. Be-
Church, ,which the Anglica
lieving in the dogmas of onnecChauthreohliccilianiiinvesrstaol
he, honestly believing that its principles are true,
they claim obedience and reverenceisfsoernt asit, a and,sia
properly, on those principles, treat Dissent
or a crime. Zealous advocates of the principles
for which the Bishop of EXETER is a great
stickler, and which the whole Church adopts, of
the apostolical succession in the Anglican, or
universal Catholic Church, they logically and
necessarily deny to every other Church, whether
Presbyterian* or Methodist, the possession of the
real priestly power, and, of course, deny
to their sacraments any saving or healing
grace. On the same principle of apostolic
succession, it is impossible to deny that
the writings of the first Fathers, or those
more immediately next in succession to the
Apostles, and who collected and preserved their
writings, and transmitted them to us, are works
of very great authority, even if it be admitted

t'iat they are not quite equal to the Gospels and
the Epistles. For the value of those writings, or
for the necessity of tradition to understand the

Scriptures, the Puseyites are great sticklers; and
to us they only seem to follow out the doctrines
of the• Church to their legitimate conclusion.
In like manner, when they contend for more
candlesticks at the altar, further genuflexions oa
approaching it, more bowings of the head, and
more reverences by the priest, they only carry
out the present practices of the Church of Eng-
land, and revive the traditions of the fathers.
In truth, the logical, upright, and honest Pusey-
ites know that the Church of England—in intc-
lerance, in the substitution of dead forms for
the living spirit, in an idle worship of
names, arid in a disregard of things, in
its claim of infallibility, in its substitution of
the word of the priest for the word of GOD, and
in its preference of the book of tradition for the
book of nature, they know that in all the essen-
tials, except having a young woman for its head,
instead of a venerable priest, the Church of
England is in truth and substance a Papist
Church, and seeing its decay in public esteem,
they naturally essay to restore its power by car-
rying out its principles. The Popery of Puseyism
cannot be doubted; the only doubt is how far
that accords with the genuine principles of the
Church of England. Those who wish to bolster
up the Church assert that it does not, while we
recognise the agreement, and rejoice to see the
honest Puseyites, backed by some of the Tory
Journals, carrying out the true principles of the
Church.

The doctrines of the Church imply that man
needs something for his mind to rest on beyond
the power of his own observation to obtain.
They imply that he must have something to
gratify the cravings of his heart beyond the
suggestions of his own appetites and passions,
or his own reason, which are deceitful and full
of evil. Vanity, self-love, pride, and other pas-
sions, misinterpret what has been made known
41lid preserved, and that which was given for
guidance and consolation, thus becomes, it is
said, a temptation and a sorrow. Hence the
necessity of recognised interpreters ; hence the
claims of an infallible priesthood; hence the
assurance—not to gratify their ambition, but to
soothe the heart of man—that they received or
inherited a Divine commission to under-
stand and explain all things ; hence in
former times the success of Rome ; and
hence the hopes now formed by the Pusey-
ites, by insisting on her doctrines, of obtaining
success in England. In this hard and sceptical
age, intent only on making money or on getting
bread, the Puseyites are not likely to succeed;
but they are sure to rend (which is not what
they wish) the Church to its foundations. The
Bishops, it is said, are going to inquire into the
doctrines of Puseyism, and happily they will be
unable to keep the profane press from being
made acquainted with all their investigations.
Some proceedings have of late taken place at
York, and charges of simony have been bandied
about, which will by no means exalt the priest-
hood in public estimation ; the other proposed
investigation will bring to light some similar
conduct ; so that we can inform the priesthood
that the first step to the recovery of their do-
minion is to retrieve their character.

Mr. LABOUCHERE'S resolutions relative to our
Colonial Customs Duties, which we publish, go
to effect a considerable reduction on the duties
now payable on several articles when imported
into the colonies. They also authorise the intro-
duction of tea into Canada, and the other North
American colonies, from the United States,
on payment 'of the same duty as if brought
from England, enhanced 10 per cent. To a
trifling extent they will liberate the trade of the
colonies and be an advantage to them. But when
the colonies are so worthy of consideration, is,
let us ask, the mother-country to be neglected ?
Al Carlisle, as well as at Manchester, Liverpool,
Glasgow, and Edinburgh, a strong opinion has
been expressed against the present tariff, and in
favour of a revision of the import duties. Will
Ministers neglect or slight these towns? Though
London still sleeps, they are awake, and make
themselves heard. The metropolis, formerly so
active on all such questions, is now so dull and
stupid that it seems to have been hocussed by the
Tories.

We publish in another part of The Sun a Re-
port of the Committee on South Australia, on
which a Bill is to be founded for taking out of
the pockets of the public 210,0001. to provide
for that colony. This is the result of the first
specimen of the self-supporting scheme. Several
others are in progress, and we must wait the re-
sult of them before forming a definite and certain
opinion of what has been puffed off as the grand-
est discovery of economical science.

We stated on Saturday, in answer to a remark
in the columns of the Quotidienne of Wednesday,
that injustice was done to Lord PALMERSTON in
attributing to him any sanction of the article in
the firman of the Porte, which claimed for the
SULTAN the right of nominating to the Pachalic
of Egypt any of MEHEMETALI'S children, who was
willing to pay the highest price for the suffrages
of the eunuchs of the Imperial Seraglio. It is
with pleasure we repeat that statement, to the
truth of which the Noble Lord himself bore
testimony lust night in the House of Commons.
In answer to questions put to him by Lord F.
EGERTON, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Mr. EWARTj
the Noble Foreign Secretary assured the House
that he knew nothing of the firman before
the date of its appearance in the English
Journals, when a copy of it was sent to him by
the Turkish Ambassador—that it was the sole act
of the SULTAN himself without the interposition
of his Allies—and, what was still more to the
purpose; the Noble Lord distinctly avowed that
in guaranteeing to MEHEMET ALI the hereditary
Pachalic of Egypt, the Four Powers understood
the investiture to be a bona fide transaction.
Now although the Noble Lord declined, during
the pending of the negotiations, to say what the
Four Powers thought of the finnan, or what they
would do in the event of an appeal to them by
the VICEROY, it is quite clear that lie is of
opinion that the SULTAN was not only wanting in
courtesy to his Allies, but that he has tried to
steal a march upon them. Common courtesy
required that they should have been consulted
upon the terms of concluding a dispute which,
but for them, would have terminated in the dis-
solution of the Ottoman dynasty. The Allies re-
stored to the SULTAN his fleet, they compelled
the VICEROY to evacuate Syria, and now that
MEHEMET ALI is no longer formidable, the Divan
assumes the state and pretensions of an absolute,
irresponsibie,andself-subsistingGovernment. This
will not do. TheFourPowers will not be thus coolly
and insolently stripped of everything bearing the
semblance of a recognition of their services.
In reducing MEHEMET ALI to a degree of power
compatible with the safety of the Ottoman
throne, it was never the intention of the Four
Powers to place his deep-thinking head, and the
heads of his family, at the disposal .of the
Padischah. The very attempt, therefore,
on the part of the Divan to entrap him into a
submission, which would enable it to decide at
any time upon his utter extermination, is dis-
courteous and unfair towards the Four Powers,
and dishonest towards the VICEROY.
oen
iacrlereally
e Nvhwhich
surprisedoccasionally
so
some
Morning
claim
intelligencet o a
Nvi
ChW7
participationilaiin
fatte efrruommbstio): confidential
tables in Downing-street, gravely attempting to
defend the claim of the SULTAN to nominate
whom he pleases of the VICEROY'S descen-
dants to the Pachalic. As a set-off against
the constant temptation to rebellion, civil war,
parricide, and fratricide, the Chronicle is
satisfied with a provision being made to
obviate the almost impossible difficulty of a
minority ! Yes, the grand evil which the
Chronicle would be prepared for is a minority—
a minority in which some person besides the heir
must be entrusted with the Provisional Govern-
ment.eur But
ee
in supposing the possibility of such an
ren
East, where the law sanctions
the adoption of offspring of any age, cannot a
occurrence
remedy be provided without permanently inter-
fering
with the rights and perilling the existence
of the PACHA and his family ? Cannot the
simple case of a minority be stated as the only