The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-05 00:00:00

Jund

LONDON, MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1846.

It must be confessed that the denunciations of
Noble Lords against the electoral efforts of the Anti-
Corn-law League as unconstitutional would lose none
of their force if Noble Lords paid more respect them-
selves to the constitution. When Lord SALISBURY
and the Duke of RICHMOND come forward as cham-
pions of the offended constitution, we are naturally
reminded of a certain order against interference of
Peers in elections, renewed every session by the
House of Commons, and violated at every election
for Hertford by Lord SALISBURY, and by the Duke
of RICHMOND at every election fur Sussex and Chi-
chester.

While the new-born zeal for the constitution of
bucolic aristocrats is at its height, we will show
them what a fine field there is for their knight-
errantry where they should begin—at home. There
is Lord LONDONDERRY openly threatening both city
and county of Durham with the influence of the
house of WYN YARD ; Mr. BRIGHT is to be driven
away from the city by a candidate of Lord LONDON.,
DERRY'S own choice, and Lord LONDONDERRY'S own
son, because be is his son, is to eject Mr. LIDDELL,
though be is a Conservative, from the county. Then
there is the Duke of MARLBOROUGH, as shamless in
acts as Lord LONDONDERRY in speeches. In less than
three years he has made three Members for Wood-
stock ; put in his heir and turned him out,--then put
up Lord LOFTIJS, writing an address for him, and
answering for his opinions on the Maynooth Bill
while Lord LOFTUS was in Italy; and within the
last month he has taken a younger son from the
Guards, and made him Member for Woodstock.
The new Secretary for the Colonies is at this mo-
ment in suspense whether the Duke of NEWCASTLE will
permit him to reappear at Newark ; and Lord LINCOLN,
had it pleased the Premier to offer him a higher office
than he holds, would have had to think what the
same Duke, his papa, would say to his re-election for
Nottingham. Sir THOMAM FREMANTLE knows not
from day to day, as the Government makes each new
step, whether the Duke of BUCKINGHAM will renew
the cong'i d'elire, by virtue of which he now sits for
Buckingham. An election to the other seat for Buck-
ingham is to take place in a few days, and every one
knows that the Duke has named the candidate. As
soon as the session begins, there will be a new elec-
tion for Midhurst, for which a relation, and of course
a nominee, of the Earl of EGMONT has offered him-
self. Sir GEORGE CLERK is enabled to give
the Government his invaluable services in
Parliament only by the grace of Lord
EXETER, who permits him to be returned for Stam-
ford. Then there is Lord BATHURST, at Cirencester;
and Lord SHAFTESBURY, at Dorchester; and Lord
SANDWICH, at Huntingdon ; and Lord AYLESBURY,
at Marlborough ; and Lord ASHBURTON, at Thetford;
and Lord Someas, at Reigate ; and the Duke of
" Curry Powder," at Arundel ; and Lord PEMBROKE,
at Wilton ; and the Duke of NORTHUMBERLAND, at
Launceston ; and Lord BRISTOL, at Bury St. Ed-
munds; and Lord WARWICK, at Warwick; and
again the Duke of BUCKINGHAM, at Winchester and
Aylesbury. There is never an election for any of
these places but a Peer violates the Constitution. Is
there, again, a county election without inter-
ference of Peers, and of bucolic Peers f Verily
the Duke of RICHMOND should look to the beam in
his own eye before meddling with other men's
motes.

But we have perhaps been wrong in saying that
the Duke of RICHMOND influences the Chichester
elections ; and, indeed, we should infer from the late
agricultural demonstration at Chichester that Lord
ARTHUR LENNOX, the Duke of RICHMOND'S brother,
and member of the Government abused by the Duke,
holds his seat in spite of the Duke and his agricul-
tural fuglemen. It is difficult to account in any
other way for the absence of Lord ARTHUR LENNOX,the
Member for Chichester, from so great a demonstration
in the borough which he represents. Of all the
LENNOXES, he was the LENNOX who should have
been there : but, non est inventNs, Lord MARCH wrote
a letter, Lord WILLIAM LENNOX spouted nonsense—
verse ; the Duke of RICHMOND maundered
nonsense—prose : but the LENNOX who is Member
for- the borough made no sign, neither went nor
Wrote. And what is more remarkable is, that not
one Word was said about him. We should then infer,
that the Duke of RICHMOND and the agricultural
strength of Chichester, not only find Lord ARTHUR
LENNOX seated in spite of them, but see no chance of
unseating him. Else, how no mention, on such
an occasion of the absent Member, whose
absence was unexplained?
The subject was
avoided, as if it were one of those mournful
subjects which cannot be spoken upon. They
bullied PEEL, burnt the 7'inzes, blackguarded
the League, but not one word of their own stray,
absent Member, Sir ROBERT PEEL'S Clerk of the
Ordnance :

" Oh, no ! we never mention him,
His name is never heard."

is thecorn-lawf "coming
doomed. eventsocaesd.
cast their
The Lord Mayors shadows before,"s o
before,"
London and Dublin, on Saturday, presented Ad-
dresses to her MAJESTY against this iniquitous enact-
ment. The Address presented by the Lord Mayor of
London respectfully represents to her MAJNSTY
" That the blight which has fallen upon the potato
hits subjected your Majcsty's people to great anxiet t• and
distress, and to the danger of famine. That their suf-
' ferings are attributable to erroneous legislation, which,
by excluding the importation of food and restricting
commerce, shuts out from the nation the bounty of Pro-
, vidence. We therefore humbly pray that your Majesty
will be graciously pleased to use the means in our Ma-
jesty's power to open the ports of this kingdom for the
free importation of food."

EN
We feel, that had our gracious QuE been left
solely to the dictates of her own feelings, her bene-
volent heart would at once have accorded the prayer
of her suppliant and starving people. But, alas! our
QUEEN is not left solely to herself. She cannot
choose even her own friends; she, equally with her
people, must obey the dictators who can obtain a
" majority " in our Legislative Assemblies. The
duty thus imposed on her is oft-times a painful one,
but she performs it, and thus iets an admirable I
ex-
ample to her subjects, who feel with her and for her.

Her MAJESTY understands the Constitution, and

ruling as a Constitutional Sovereign, she sets an exam-
ple of obedience to the Constitution, which all her
subjects are bound to follow. And it is because her
MAJESTY rules in obedience to the Constitution, and
acts constitutionally only by the advice of her Ministers,
that we predicate the speedy repeal of the corn •laws.
The answer which her MAJESTY was advised by her
Ministers to make to this address, and which, there-
fore, may be considered as their answer, contains
the following passage:—

" The wants and sufferings of my people at all times
command my warmest sympathy ; and I deeply regret
the failure, in the present year, of a full supply of an ar-
ticle of food on which so many of my subjects are acculi-
towed to subsist.

"I have directed Parliament to assemble on an early
day, and I shall gladly sanction any measure which the
wisdom of the Legislature may suggest as conducive
to the alleviation of this temporary distress, and to the
permanent welfare of all classes of my people."
This is the answer of the Minister (for the answer
was dictated by him) to the Address. In it he ad-
mits the failure of a full supply of an article of food
on which many of the subjects of the QUEEN are accus-
tomed to subsist. In other words, he admits that there
is danger of a famine. Away, then, with all the
curry powder, and peas-pudding, and mangel-wurzel
nonsense of the protectionist landowners. These
men would turn the distress of the people to ac-
count; they would make their profit by a famine;
they would add to their ill-gotten gains by starving
the people. It is in vain for them now to contend
that the harvest has not been deficient—that the fear
of famine is a bugbear conjured up by the Anti-
Corn-law League. We have it from the QUEEN'S
own lips that there is a "failure of the full supply of
an article of food on which many of her subjects are
accustomed to subsist ;" and the natural deduction
from that proposition is, that if there be not an ad-
ditional supply of some other article of food, " many"
of her MAJESTY'S subjects must starve. On whom
will the guilt of the murder rest ? Clearly on those
who uphold a law which prevents the introduction
into the country of food for those whose full supply
of food has failed. Her MAJESTY has declared her
willingness to give her sanction to any measure
which the Legislature may suggest for the alleviation
of this distress. On the Legislature, and on the Le-
gislature alone, therefore, rests the responsibility of
providing food for a starving people. Let
them look to it, for the people will not
exonerate them. They are responsible collectively,
ay, and individually, for whatsoever may happen.
The QUEEN will sanction any measure which they
may suggest for the alleviation of the distresses of the
people. If they fail to suggest such a measure, the
guilt he on their own heads. And what measure can
they suggest, save the abrogation of that law which,
for thirty years past, has plundered the industrious
people of this country, to enrich " a miser-
able, monopolising," non-productive " minority"
of " foolish and of faded gentlemen ?" The
QUEEN has declared that she will " sanction any
measure that the Legislature may suggest as
conducive to the alleviation of this temporary distress,
and to the permanent welfare of all classes of her
people." The only measure which can alleviate the
present distress, and conduce to the permanent welfare
of all classes of the people, is the total and immediate
repeal of the corn-law. Will the oligarchy venture,
in opposition to the:clearly-expressed wishes of their
SOVEREIGN and her united people, to refuse their
assent to such a measure ? We give them credit for
the possession of common sense, and therefore we
opine that they will not. They dare not uphold
their monopoly against a starving people ; and the
time has at length arrived when this murderous law,
generated by avarice, brought forth by violence, bap-
tised in blood, and nurtured by fraud, must be anni-
hilated by the hands of justice.

The article on " Ministerial Resignations," in the
Quarterly Review, has attracted a great deal more no.

tice than it merits, and indeed is so utterly con

temptible as a defence of the present duties on corn,
that we are only astonished how persons professing to
be acquainted with the subject should have wasted
time in analysing its statements, or reporting what

the writer calls facts. It bears all the marks of a
writer who never was over scrupulous in his tactics,
provided they could injure an opponent, who with
the_most cool impudence would adduce falsehoods
for truths, and argue with the most apparent sin-
cerity on inventions of his own brain as if they
were facts. The RICHMONDS, and the BucKlivo-

HAMS, and SALISBUITS, probably thought such a

man might be of use at the present crisis, and hence
the violent mercenary production in defence of mono-

poly. Like all the papers on the Ministerial resigna-
tions, in the monthly and quarterly periodicals pub-
lished at the close of the year, it is out of date, and
consequently contains a ♦ariety of matter which pos-
sesses little interest now that the PEEL Cabinet is
remodelled and complete. But, nevertheless, the spirit
displayed by the writer, the acrimonious language
used towards the party,in opposition, who have served
Sir ROBERT PEEL so well, the bitter disappointment
manifested at the supposed downfal of the Conserva-
tive Ministry and the constructon of a Whig Cabinet,
teach some useful lessons, and show that the Tories
are still the same race, and when thrust from power
will again resort to that disgraceful policy which
marked the whole of their opposition to the AIELBOURNB
Government. Indeed, so rabid is the writer of the article,
and so completely has he been blinded by his rage at
the heavy blew and great discouragement, that he
has forgotten everything like justice and fair play, and
at the very outset—in the three first pages—has com-
pletely destroyed all confidence in his sincerity and
honour throughout the succeeding remarks. After
quoting from Lord Joust RUSSELL'S letter the para-
graph, in which the Noble Lord says that his views
had, in the course of twenty years, "undergone a
great alteration," and that "we ought to abstain
from all interference with the supply of food," the
reviewer triumphs as if he had already obtained a
great victory by convicting Lord JOHN of inconsis-
tency. "We need hardly point out," says he, "the

inconsistency of reproaching the Government with
not having taken violent measures to ensure a large
importation of food, and then, within ten lines, assert-
ing that a Government ought to abstain from all in-
terference whatever." It is impossible to mis-
take the meaning in the first paragraph
quoted. To "abstain from all interference with
the supply of food" signifies, in the plainest terms,

that there should be no duties on corn—no sliding.
scales—no interference whatever that could obstruct

the importation of grain, abd this view every reader
naturally takes of the expression ; but that view
would not suit the writer, for he delights in quibbles
and jesuitical deductions, such as those which distin-
guished Mr. CROKE& during the discussions on the
Reform Bill, and which, before they were brought to
a conclusion, rendered him of no authority whatever
in the Committee. Another grievous complaint is,
that the leader of the Opposition did not declare when
he had changed his opinion, or why he delayed it till
now, for "if stated in time, his opinion might have
had some effect on the Minister's determination."
But the writer himself admits that the fact had been
declared, not by words only, but by deeds, and proves
it by his own statements in 1841. " The truth is" (he
quotes from the Quarterly of that year), " that
neither Lord JOHN RUSSELL, nor Mr. M'CuLLocut
nor any one else, contemplates for a moment a fixed
duty ; and the proposition is, therefore, neither more
nor has than a wicked and delusive fraud." And, in
the following year, his language shows still more
strongly that Lord JOIIN RUSSELL had changed his
opinion, for he says, "It is notorious and avowed that
the enemies of all protection proposed a fixed duty
cnly because it would lead directly to the removal of
all protection." Thus he admits the fact was avowed
by Loid JOHN RUSSELL in 1841, yet asserts, in 1845
that up to that hour the change had been kept a pro-
found secret. But we have another striking instance of
the perversion of the plainest language in the third
page of the article. He charges Lord JOHN RUSSELL
"with a gross, and what looks like, a wilful mis-
representation," for stating that. by tho corn-law
of 1842 "grain of all kinds has been made subject to
very high duties on importation." This is called a
gross misrepresentation of the Minister's intentions,
yearsdß"becauseuttsi.
acsza.l:L: w e
Br everybodyeudt vweayt
considerablyhka
sn
that
t that
to
tdhot
eh
with
int athec
anterior
oorrodsf
JOHNat
lbe three
ist
be u assertion?rged a
s aor on what principle of fair-
ness
proof of gross misrepresenta-
tion ? He merely states a fact which the consumers
of bread know to their cost, that Sir ROBERT PEEL'S
Bill imposed the duty of 20s. on every quarter Of