The Sun.
London, England, 1834-12-15 00:00:00

purposes enforcing. We wonder will the complaisant
Doctrinnaires submit to this audacious demand? We
should be glad to hear what the Citizen KING now
thinks of his non interference in behalf of bleeding
Poland. The cup of gall and wormwood which he
beheld without emotion drench the lips of others,
now passes to his own. So NICHOLAS is resolved
to break a lance in Europe, or to have his feet
kissed by a King of France,. before taking pos-
session of all Asia ! The submission of France
will frighten the PORTE, and induce the SUL-
TAN to give up the Dardanelles, without firing a
gun in defence of them. This is the whole secret of
the affair. How long will our Government tamely
submit to be the tools of such policy ?

Farmers deprived of their capital—agricultural la-
bourers thrown out of employment—the soil exhausted
and imperfectly cultivated—landlords losing diminished
rents, and in danger of losing tenants,—these are the
consequences which we have shown necessarily to re-
sult from the Corn Laws which have prevailed since
1815, and imperiously demonstrate that they ought to
be repealed. But, in order that we may not be sup-
posed to have been inattentive to any point touching
this important subject, we shall succinctly advert to
the arguments urged by the advocates of a restraining
corn law in its support.
The first is, that Great Britain should not be de-
pendant upon foreign countries for a supply of corn,
and that agriculture ought to be encouraged and pro-
tected. ,So we say too : but the encouragement and
protection of our agriculture consists in the increasing
demand of an increasing manufacturing population for
corn, which progressively raises its price, the advantages
resulting from which, in the natural course of things,
to the home grower, we have taken from him by an
an unnatural law, which has transferred them to the
dealer in foreign grain.
But it is said, corn can be grown cheaper abroad
than it can at home. We doubt the fact. For one
man employed in raising corn in Great Britain, at
least three arc employed in any other country, More-
over, implements of agricultttra 'better and cheaper
here than elsewhcrP, -and a greater quantity of work
can be lvttter done in a shorter time.
It is impossible ever to arrive at the actual cost of
production, and it is an idle inquiry, because the price
of corn is raised, not so much by the cost of production
as it is by the great demand of our increasing: popula-
Con for food, which, when not prevented by a restrain-
ing law from raising the price abroad as it does at
home, always presents, in the risk and expense of tran-
sport, a barrier which it is dangerous for the dealer in
foreign grain to attempt to pass, but which we have
broken down by the same unnatural law.
Next, there is the great amount of our taxes. Here
we ask, is there, with the exception of the land tax, a
single tax paid by receivers of rent or growers of corn
in Great Britain, that is not paid by every other con-
sumer ; whereas in grain-growing countries, in Prussia
for example, is not the bulk of the taxes laid upon the
land ? That taxes have nothing to do in the -,,,atter ;5
evident from the fact that,
years preceding
1815, during which in the. Len
:Jur 11014 culture notoriously flou-
rished, thea„. were more taxes, and a larger amount of
ta7tefi, paid than were exigible in the last ten years,
during which it has visibly declined. The high price
of corn is the heaviest burthen that a manufacturing
community has to sustain, and in proportion as that
burthen is increased by a restraining law, the power of
paying taxes is diminished.
Then there is the poor-rate. But the poor-rate is
not a public tax. It is a bad way of paying labour.
Moreover, the bulk of our population living in towns,
the bulk of the poor-rate falls on houses, shops,
ware-
houses, and manufactories, not to mention that there

arc poor to support in every country, who arc main-
tained by their kindecd, or by charity, in the ab-
sence of a compulsory provision. Further, the poor-rate
does not enter into the contrast between the operation
of a free with a restraining corn law, because it existed
equally before 1815, as it has done since. It is no
doubt true that, notwithstanding the continuing rise in
the exchangeable value of money, the poo r-rate has
progressively increased since 1815, but this increase
has arisen from the number of agricultural labourers
progressively thrown out of employment, since the year
1815, by the operation of the Corn Laws which have
since prevailed. As we have now set about correcting
the abuses of the Poor Laws, it is peculiarly neceasary
that this operation should be removed, and the culti-
vation of the soil restored to agricultural labourers,
as they enjoyed it for forty years previous to 1815.
Lastly, there is the tithe. But "tithe is not a tax,
though it is a practical hindrance to the improvement
of the soil. It too is beside the question, because it
existed equally before 1815, as it has done since. It
is of peculiar importance that it should be forthwith
commuted, in order that capital may be the more readily
induced to return to the cultivation of the soil, when
the Corn Laws shall, as we trust they also will be,
forthwith righted.
These, we believe, comprise all the arguments
urged in support of a restraining Corn Law. They
are all as untenable as the notions of its advocates
with regard to its operation are erroneous. No doubt
then can remain that the present law should be re-
paled, and the operation restored of the laws which
prevailed for forty years before 1813. That opera-
tion consisted in the absence of an importation price,
with a moderate duty. The duty should at all times
be moderate, because even when the price abroad,
from the absence of restraint, equalizes with the price
here, still besides the expense and risk of transport,
the price here will be raised above the price abroad by
all the amount of the duty, and if the duty enters ma •
terially into price, home-grown grain cannot be ex-
ported unless there shall be a commensurate drawback
of the duty. Now, no branch of domestic industry
can flourish, when by operation of law its products
cannot be exported. This is one mischief among
others, arising from the operation of the present Corn
Law, and this mischief must be removed. We do not
dwell upon the bounty granted as far back as 1689,
which, no doubt, while it operated, tended to promote
the exportation of British grain. But from the price
upon which it was payable, it ceased to have almost
any operation after 1800. The highest duty payable
on wheat before 1815, was 2s. 6d. per quarter, with a
proportionate amount upon other grain. The duty
should not exceed this amount now. It will be twelve
per cent. upon present prices ; and as the exchangeable
value of money continues to rise, this per centage

crease.

We pause here, for the present. We hare no uterit
in what we have written. The whole has bet,:i taken
from the fourth part of Mr. MuNDELL's " Philoso-
phy of Legislation," in which, t h out?, i Concentrated,
Cie.subject is treated more at large. We trust it will