The Sun.
London, England, 1841-10-12 00:00:00

PUBLIC OPINION.

The Morning Post has the following remarks on the
Corn-law question, and the way in which it should be
discussed :—" The real quality of the Corn•law is mat-
ter of controversy. Large majorities in both Houses
of Parliament deem it to be a most salutary law, bene-
ficial to the landowners certainly, but absolutely essen-
tial to the well-being of the labouring classes. At all
events it is the law, and while it continues to be so
it ought to be spoken of in respectful language. They
who are doubtful of the policy of the law are, of course,
quite right to state the grounds of their doubt as em.
phatically as they can ; but they have no right to say
that those who think differently are criminals, and worse
than robbers and murderers. They who have made up
their minds that the law is bad, should, at least, have
some deference to the majorities of both Houses of Par-
liament who think that the law is good. No one objects
to their attempt to show that the law is bad, provided
those attempts be made with decency and temperance ;
but it is very gross effrontery to assume that their' oppo-
nents are utterly wrong, having, as they certainly have,
the law on their side."—This is sheer twaddle. Many
measures have been wrong--" utterly wrong," notwith-
standing that they had " law on their side." The Test
and Corporation Acts were wrong—wrong in spirit
as in policy—yet for years they had " law on their
side." The same may be said of the Catholic Penal
Code, which for many long years was the law of the
land. The boroughmongering system, too, was wrong
—and to a still more grievous extent—yet from the days
of Sir Robert Walpole, and long before, down to 1832,
it had " law on its side." Law, also, was ranged on the
side of the Gagging Bills of Castlereagh ; yet the good
sense and justice of the community decided that all
these various measures were wrong, and the Legislature
was, in consequence, compelled to repeal them ! If the
people generally had a share in making the laws, the
hypothesis would be correct that they were just ones ;
but when we know that for ages they have been made by
a party, and that the people have seldom or never been
consulted on the subject, the odds are that they are nar-
row in spirit and erroneous in policy. As for our Con-
temporary's remark that " deference should be paid to
the majorities of both Houses" on the subject of the
Corn-law, we repudiate it as the merest cant. Those
majorities are self-interested ones. The} support mono-
poly only because monopoly supports them, and deserve
no more " deference" than is manifested in speaking the
strict truth of them.

The Chronicle says, in reference to the present agita-
tion on the Corn-laws—" The great question of commer-
cial reform, and especially that important portion of it
which relates to the Corn-laws, has taken a deep and
permanent hold of the public mind, To fancy that the
agitation will subside is the supposition of a fond or
foolish brain. It cannot subside. The causes which
produced it are in full operation, and no temporary re-
vival of trade can abate their influence, though it may
slightly modify their effects. No statesman can airord
to despise that agitation. If he did, it would only prove
that he was utterly undeserving the character
which he assumed, though, at the same time, it
must be admitted that the character of a states-
man is one more frequently assumed than sustained."—
If, as our Contemporary asserts, it be a proof of indif-
ferent statesmanship to treat popular agitation with con-
tempt, then the present Ministers must be the veriest
noodles imaginable. Not only do they treat the clamours
of the starving thousands with contempt, but they act
just as if tkere were no clamour at all among the people !
To all but their own pleasures they resolutely turn a
deaf ear. Backed by an unscrupulous majority, they
are determined to let things take their own course.
Next February will be quite time enough to consider the
distresses of the country ; till then, people must wait.
Such is the language of Ministers, which, %i e suspect,
they will not alter, till enlightened by blazing hay-stacks,
and the fierce and ominous desperation of the half-
frenzied thousands in the manufacturing districts.
We quote the following from the Herald :—" The
capture and sale of Canton must have confirmed
the Chinese in their estimate of the British
character—that we are nothing better than pirates
and banditti, needy and greedy barbarians, snak-
ing war and slaughtering for the sake of ransom
and booty ; and regardless of every interest but that of
our treasury chest. To Europe these occurrences exhi-
bit a renewal of the warlike customs of the middle ages,
and revive a practice which was thought to have been
banished from civilisation when the buccaneers were
driven from the Spanish Main. The attack on Canton,
ending in this sale, has evidently been altogether thrown '
away on the Chinese, and it is clear that a true account
of the occurrence will never reach Pekin. The local
authorities at Canton had indeed scarcely got rid of the
expedition when they began to repair their forts and
prepare for another struggle : and they had at once
wholly misrepresented the nature of the attack to the
Emperor. The report sent to Pekin by the Emperor's
nephew, Yih Shan, is in this respect an important do-
cument."

Alluding to the present quarter's financial return, the
Tines says:—" It is the first under a Conservative Go-
vernment; and it is a favourable one. It affords
ground for hope that the tide of disquietude and dis-
trust has ceased to flow, and that confidence is about
to rettum. That is the chief thing wanting. Nothing
can be so injurious to the commercial and manu-
facturing interests as perpetual alarms and constant ru-
mours of change and contention. 'rho first desideratum,
so far as they are concerned, is tranquillity ; the
second, a sufficient, and not fluctuating, currency."—
The absurdity of the quarter's revenue being favour-
able because " it is the first under a Conservative Go-
vernment " is too obvious to escape notice. Equally
absurd is our Contemporary's recommendation to the
people to keep quiet, as if they would ever be otherwise
than quiet, when they had no serious grieyanses to MI-

plain of 1 But to keep quiet, seems to be the Times'
panacea for all sorts of distresses. " That is the chief
thing wanted," he says. Doubtless it is so by a Tory
Government ; but will keeping quiet fill the bellies of
the starving operatives ? Will it procure the repeal of
the Corn-laws, and shake off the chains that bind the
limbs of commerce ? Not a bit of it. To keep quiet
under distresses, is to show indifference to those dis-
tresses ; and thereby to furnish the Legislature with the
strongest of all possible reasons for doing nothing.