The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-25 00:00:00

(placards have been posted in Dublin of a most
atrocious character, denouncing Mr. Hughes, one of
the witnesses for the Crown, as " a spy and an in-
former." Every person who knows anythin; of the
feelings of the lower Irish must be awar that to
use these epithets respecting any individual, is to
make him the victim of gross insult, if not of assas-
sination ; but the miscreants who are guilty of such
a proceeding as posting these placards, ad lying to
their other iniquities. Mr. Hughes gave his evidence
in a most ingenuous and honest manner. At all the
meetings he was known and declared to be taking
notes for the Government. His testimony bore, with-
out the least injury, a searching cross-examination,
and in no one particular is the slightest impropriety
attributable to his conduct.

FROM THE MORNING PAPERS OF THIS DAY.
CHRONICLE.—What is called the Anti-League
movement appears really to get on a little, and, sin-
gularly enough, its progress seems to give entire sa-
tisfaction to the Government journals. It is true
that the oratory of the Anti-League meetings consists,
generally, of abuse of the League, and abuse of the
Government, in about equal portions ; but the advo-
cates of Ministers are willing to wink at much that
is disagreeable, in the hope that the new agitation
may counterbalance and check the League, which has
grown too strong for the Government to cope with.
We are happy to see the encouragement thus given
to organisation and discussion amongst the farmers ;
for we are satisfied that agricultural combinations,
even in favour of protection, will ultimately contri-
bute hardly less than the League itself to the triumph
of free trade. In the first place every one of these
meetings helps to damage the Government. Look at
the Conservative dinner at Buckingham, of which we
published a report yesterday, and at which even
the presence of Sir Thomas Fremantle, Member
for the borough, could not suppress the expressions
of distrust and discontent with regard to Ministers.
Mr. Pigott, indeed, felt it decent to propose their
healths, but prefaced the toast with a speech, in
which, after hinting that the honour of making such
a proposition was not sought, but thrust upon him,
he brought forward a number of reasons why no
man who cared a rush for the agricultural interests
should join in his pledge. He suggested that Sir
Thomas Fremantle should speak for the Government;
but Sir Thomas's modesty—a feeling not injured in
his case by over exercise—came to his aid, and saved
him from the task. Mr. Dayrell, who followed him,
was not to be deterred by the defencelessness of the
Cabinet from giving them a tart lecture on the Ca-
nada Corn Bill, and other similar misdeeds. In the
same spirit, at the Northampton meeting of Monday,
Lord Southampton declared, amidst the cheers of
the auditory, that the Ministers ought to be made
to declare themselves, and that all further shuffling
ought to be out of the question. The next advan-
tage of these agricultural meetings is, that they ex-
hibit the advocates of protection in the most absurd
and ridiculous light. As long as the squires re-
main silent, and rely upon the mere vis inertice
of the class, they can oppose a very formidable
resistance to any movement ; but when they
get up meetings, and form societies, and, above all,
make speeches, they are putting the rope about their
own necks. Monopoly is bad enough with the best
defence that can be made for it, but it becomes in-
tolerably absurd in the hands of such an advocate as
Lord Orkney, who figured at the Buckingham
dinner. Lord Orkney gave a deplorable picture of
the west of Scotland, which was desolated by the
tariff. Foreign cheese, let in by faithless Sir Robert,
had ruined that once prosperous region. It happens,
however, unfortunately for Lord Orkney's argument,
that foreign cheese is one of the few articles on which
the duty was not reduced by the new tariff. Another
proof, according to the Noble Lord, of the injury
done to the agricultural interest by free trade was,
that the tariff made meat dear; and so it is, he added,
with a felicitous illustration of the principle, "if
you change the uniform of a regiment, it is ex-
pensive. Changes are always expensive." Then,
passing from logic to invective, he attacked
the League—the standing topic in all the " pro-
tection" speeches—for want of charity. " They
won't Five a subscription," said he, "to
relieve distress ; but only kick up a bobbery about the
corn-laws, and then see how quickly the 5001. came
down." Sir Charles Knightley, in Northampton,
evinces a familiarity with language equally choice.
He calls the Leaguers "ragamuffins," and enlarges
upon the resemblance between them and a " scratched
pack of hounds." The reverend speakers who take
part in these meetings lean rather to deliberate
calumny than to foul-mouthed abuse. We find,
within a few days, two of them—one named Fisher,
at Newport Pagnel, and the other named Lichfield,
at Northampton—coolly charging the League with
incendiarism. It is notable that if a peculiarly
shocking and unchristian imputation is made on any
of these occasions, it is sure to come from some poli-
tical
parson. Others may use weapons as sharp ;
but they like to add a touch of poison. But the
speeches of all these agitators, whether they be silly
or malicious, will only excite the minds of the
farmers to lditional reflection, and increase that
feeling of uneasiness which will lead, at no distant
period, to a settlement on which all can rely.
And this brings us to the greatest benefit which,
as we think, the agricultural agitation will help to
confer on the country. Public men will be com-
pelled to declare themselves. Ministerial shuffling
will soon become impossible. Farmers and Leaguers
will agree in insisting upon a plain straightforward
answer to the question, "Is the present corn-law to
be maintained or not ?" The more farmers are in-
duced to reflection, the clearer and stronger will their
conviction become that security is the main point.
They will see that with no corn-law, or a bad corn-
law, they may be prosperous • but that with a corn-
law which no Minister will bind himself to, and no
man in his senses ensure for a twelvemonth, the
thing is wholly impossible. From both sides of the
House, therefore we expect that Sir Robert Peel
will be told, "We want to know the permanent
policy of the Government, not its general intention,
or what it will do or refrain from doing during the
present session. Tell us, therefore, frankly, whe-
ther you will uphold this corn-law or not ?" A
Minister who knew his own mind, and who knew
that the agricultural interest was in a fever of
anxiety, could not hesitate a moment in such a
case. If he were satisfied that the present protection
ought to be maintained, he would at once say, " I
have revised the corn-law, and placed it on what I
think a good footing. It may have some defects, but
I will not cast into the lottery of , legislation' fJr
another which may have as many. I will not, for
the sake of minor improvements, keep alive the ap-
prehensions of indefinite change. I will abide by the
corn-law of 1842, and stake the Government upon its
continuance." This would be not only manly and
honest, but even statesmanlike in a Minister who was
really favourable to protection. But no such declara-
tion will be made. The paltry evasions which sig-
nalised the commencement of last session will, we
verily believe, be repeated next week. We should
not by any means regret, however, to find ourselves
mistaken in this respect. A bold and honest decla-
ration by Sir Robert Peel, that he would stand by
the corn-law, would recover in some degree the
character he has lost, but it would also simplify the
the business of getting rid of both law and Minister
together.

TIMES.—The Buckinghamshire Conservatives have
dined and spoken. The speeches were a various in
flavour as the dishes. Sir T. Fremantle, who repre-
sented Ministers on the occasion, may report that
their censure seasoned the curry, and their praise_
iced the champagne. But it is not to the general po-
litical aspect of the, dinner, nor to its bearings on the
present state of parties, that we wish to advert. Our
attention has been drawn to a seemingly unimportant
passage in the speech of a Mr. Pigott. This gentle-
man, in proposing " the health of her Majesty's Mi-
nisters," diverged from the hacknied road of Minis-
terial eulogy, not only into something very like con-
demnation and suspicion, but also into the suggestion
of certain plans, the relevancy of which to the sub-
ject-matter of his speech can only be explained by
the association of ideas. He had alluded to the Anti-
Corn-law League, and had expressed his satisfaction
that the " lion of England had roused itself and
shaken its mane." But in the next sentence—at least
in the next reported sentence—he seems to entertain
a serious doubt whether the aforesaid lion had really
aroused itself in earnest, and whether the shaking of
the mane was likely to frighten the objects of its
wrath ; for, by a rhetorical figure, which skips over
two terms of a proposition at once, he jumps at once
to an inference :
" There are one or two points on which I wish to add a few words.
In the first place, there must be an alteration of the law of settle-
ment; for the manufacturers, after having drawn the agricultural
population into the towns, are now threatening to turn them, unfitted
any longer for agricultural pursuits, back again upon the country, and
thus swamp the agricultural interest."

So there must be a new law of settlement, must
there ? The country gentlemen are now beginning
to
find that out. And the poor are to be ejected from the
factories, wherein they have grown old, feeble, and
worthless, and turned adrift upon their own hamlets
by the task-masters they can no longer serve. It is
a hard case, involving much suffering, and no small
oppression. It is indeed enough to make any man
exclaim, "Alter the law of settlement:' But stop a
moment, gentlemen, stop a moment. You complain
of the rural population having been seduced by the
allurements of speculating manufacturers into a
course of employment which, at its termination, left
them destitute, infirm, to have enjoyedfirin,thaend a
fruits boufrthdeeirn
labour
those
hourm. who
the
season of unimpaired vigour. We agree
with you
that it is an oppressive burden to support
ot thosea the
decline of life from whom you
never
labour in their prime. But how stands the case ?ayls
the burden which you bear, or are apprehensive Of
bearing, oppressive though it be, wholly unmerited ?
Or is it not rather of your own imposition? Let us
see. You complain of the manufacturers having se-
duced the rural population into the towns. Has

this been the case universally, or even generally ?
Recollect yourselves, and answer this question as best
you may—Have not the agricultural poor been
tricked by the misrepresentations of their natural
protectors into a migration contrary to their wishes,
and duped into a drudgery uncongenial to their
habits ? Have not landowners and farmers con-
spired to clear the land of its superfluous population,
and carted whole families into the factory districts of
the north? Have not fraud and falsehood been too
often employed to swell the mass of spinners and
weavers from the ranks of a credulous peasantry ?
We beg leave to offer the following' extract from a
Manchester paper, quoted in the House of Commons
on the 24th of February, 1843 :

" Yesterday afternoon, shortly before the sitting magistrates at the
New Bailey left the Court, a case of extraordinary novelty and hard-
ship was brought before them. Two healthy, fresh-countenanced,
but somewhat emaciated agricultural labourers, presented them-
selves in the witness-box, whilst at the extremity of the Court
were ranged in view of the magistrates 16 individuals, one of them
a female, about 30, with two infants in arms, eight children, ap-
parently all of them under 10 years of age, and three whose
ages might be from 13 to 16 years, two of them girls, and the third
a boy. There were two others whom we did not see, making
up a party of 18. One.of the men stated that they came from Tower-
sky, in Buckinghamshire. The farmers, he said, called a meeting to
know if any of the parishioners would go down to Manchester, as
everybody there was doing well. Several of us said we would go.
They told us that they thought our families would do well to oome
down. They said there would be houses for us to go into when we
got there, and everything provided for our use. They employed a
man named Clark to see after people who would go down, and we
went to him. He asked what families we had got, and said we
-should do well indeed to come. We started accordingly to Mr.
Waterhouse's, at Glossop. In answer to questions, the man said, six
of the children whom the magistrate saw belonged to him, and two
were his brother's. The other man said, two of the rest were his
own, and four belonged to another person; but he had promised to
-take charge of them to bring them down, and do the best for them he
could. The first speaker then continued his story We were
brought,' he said, ' from our own county to Glossop in a boat, and
from Glossop Mr. Waterhouse sent us forward in a cart. When we
got there, there were 43 of us. We were put in a bit of a warehouse,
and I have been there with my family three weeks lying on a bit of
straw, which is the only bed I have had. The parish,' he said, in
answer to questions, ' paid the expenses of our journey down.
We went by the boat to Marple, where they told us there
was to be a cart to meet us, and take us forward to
Mr. Waterhouse's. We did not know to what person in Glossop we
were coming when we left our own parish. We were sent from our
own parish to Codrington, where we met with a gentleman named
William Clark. We travelled nearly forty miles, partly in a wag-
gon, to the boat to where we embarked. Clark came back with us
to the boat, and when we had embarked he told us that we were
going to Mr. Waterhouse's at Glossop. Two other families came
with us. I cannot tell whether Mr. Waterhouse had desired our
overseer to send any hands. I worked at Mr. Waterhouse's three
weeks, but yesterday he hired a cart, and sent us in it to Manches-
ter. The carter put us down in the street, and left us. Ile has sent
another cart-load this morning. I have seen them in town, and he
would have senlithem yesterday, but the cart would not hold us all ;
so he told one of the women he would send them this morning in his
own cart. I don't know what has become of them. I saw them in
town this morning, and they said they were going to the boat. We
two (the men) are farmers, and the children are lacemakers ; we
were in work at the time we left Buckinghamshire.' "

And this piece of flagrant imposition upon the
credulity of poor and ignorant men, women, and
children, was enacted in the very county where we
hear these indignant denunciations of the seductive
charms by which the manufacturers have allured the
peasantry into their mills, only to return them, worn
out and starving, upon their native villages. We
know not which to admire most, the senseless policy
which first prompted the fraud, or the convenient
misstatement which now falsifies its authors. But,
at all events, " 'tis sport to see the engineer hoist
with his own petard." We have for years denounced
and deplored the suicidal infatuation which signalised
the conduct of the landed gentry in legislating for,
or rather against, the poor. Our predictions are
being fulfilled. The enemy is at the gate. The an-
cient territorial lords are assailed by a force, conspi-
cuous neither for its gallant bearing, its chivalrous
gait, its high courage, nor its resources. Perseverance,
energy, and money it has ; but not more than many
other confederations. And perhaps it is more defi-
cient than any previous political association in- one
important weapon of political warfare—we mean the
sympathy of the lowest classes. And yet it advances,
slowly indeed, but not without show of growing
strength; and the position of the assailed becomes
daily more perilous. Why is this ? Because, al-
though the feelings of the poor are not with the
League, still they are not with the League's enemies.
They stand neutral in a contest wherein their active
and hearty co-operation might have turned the battle
as they listed. The foul juggle between the upper
and the middle classes has frozen the heart of the
poor into stubborn indifference. They look upon the
conflict between the landlords and cotton-lords, mut-
tering moodily, " A plague on both your houses,"
and—they bide their time. History may be ran-
sacked in vain for a parallel to the wretched infatua-
tion by which the ancient aristocracy of the realm
flung the cards of the political game from their hands.
They might have retained a reserve-corps of stal-
worth and vigorous dependents ; but they preferred
selling them for the most sordid purpose. into the
power of their. joint and inveterate enemies—men
whose hatred of ancestral wealth is only equalled by
their oppression of indigence, and now they wonder
that they are themselves helpless in the day of need.
POST.—Mr. Muntz, as will be seen by the letter
from him, which we publish in another column, re-
turns to-the defence of his position, that a reform of
our money laws would enable the agriculturists of
Great Britain to dispense with a stringent corn-law.
Mr. Muntz observes that the Post has "repeatedly
admitted that an abstract corn-law cannot alone
protect even the landed interest." Such, undoubt-
edly, has been the doctrine of the Post. Let that
doctrine, -however, be fairly understood. We have
contended that the agriculturists of Great Britain
require a twofold protection. They require a law re-
strictive, or prohibitive, of the importation of those
commodities which British industry is able to pro-
duce. They require, moreover, another law supple-
mentary to the former—a law protective of the wages
of British labour. British agriculturists require, in
short, to be directly protected from the rivalry of fo-
reign corn growers ; they require, at the same time,
the benefit of protection, indirectly, in the persons of
their best customers. It is possible to conceive a
corn-law that shall be effective in securing the exclu-
sion of foreign grain from our markets. It is possi-
ble to conceive the establishment in England, at the
same time, of a system of '-production, under the in-
fluence of which the value of manual labour shall be
perpetually lessening. The best corn-law imagin-
able will, in such circumstances be, to a great extent,
neutralised by those causes which abase the English
labourer's condition. A stringent corn-law appears
to us an indispensable portion of an effectiye system
of protection. An effective system of protection,
again, must be based on the axiom that " labour is the
source of all wealth ;" but unlike the system which our
" Liberal" economists recommend, a system that is
truly protective of labour, must regard the enhance-
ment of the labourer's reward as the only sure
evidence of the prosperity of the community. Our
" Liberal " economists babble about " wealth," as de-
rived exclusively from "labour," and then lend
themselves to every scheme for robbing the labourer
of a fair measure of reward—the pretext being a
desire to increase the national wealth. Laws
directly protective of British labour seem to us,
in short, the most sure and comprehensive basis
of British corn-laws. Our remote forefathers
possessed laws, of which the object was to raise
the value of labour. They enjoyed and enforced,
at the same time, laws prohibitive of usury—pro-
hibitive of the action of that principle to which the
daily money power owes its existence. We, less
wise and less happy than our remote forefathers,
give unlimited scope to usury, while we leave
labour unprotected by law ; nay, we pass laws, like
the New Poor-law, with the view of lessening the
market value of labour. Laws tending to lessen the
value of labour—laws which stimulate and ex-
tend the practice of usury—are laws antagonistic of
the spirit of our corn-laws. Labour-cheapening
laws, and usury-favouring laws, undermine and ren-
der nugatory that system of protection of which the
corn-laws are the expression. In this point of view
we have, as Mr. Muntz observes, repeatedly declared
that "the corn-laws alone are insufficient to protect
the agricultural interest of England." Nor do we
admit that a reform of our currency-laws--even in
addition to a sound corn-law—would yield to labour
that full measure of protection which labour requires.
A sound system of currency is, doubtless, protective
of labour—so is a sound system of corn-laws—yet
both systems are only indirectly protective of that
creative power which is the exclusive source of na-
tional wealth. Labour-laws—laws directly pro-
tective of labour against the encroachments of capital
—are necessary to secure to the labourer his fair mea-
sure of reward, and so to impart efficiency to a sound
system of corn-laws.

We find the following amusing story in the
Journal du iitiore of Thursday One day last week, at
Caen, a young and pretty Englishwoman, with long auburn
hair, fresh - complexion, rosy lips, and airy step, and with a
pleasing smile upon her countenance, entered the shop of one
of the principal muchands sic nouveautes. On seeing her, the
shopmen passed their hands through their hair, stereotyped
their most fascinating smile, and each did everything
_ in his
power to attract the notice of the pretty customer. The lady
addressed herself as if by chance, to the master, who was not
a little flattered at the preference. I.le 'mule avoir une chi's,'
said the lady, with her pleasing English accent, and the gal-
lant tradesman immediately began to display his choicest ar-
ticles. Yes, yes,' said the pretty lady, with a smile, Vous
etc. profondement aimable, Monsieur le merchandise,'
on examining one, and finding the colour tan light. Another
was presented to her, which she found of teo large a pattern.
At length, one of the most beautiful seemed to please her, and
the price was soon agreed upon. The handsome Miss was
about to take it, when suddenly, as if recollecting herself, she
said, 'Je aller lai6ser 11 volts la petite chile, je avois oubli4
Ic bourse a moi dans le hotel.' The polite tradesman could
not allow this, and compelled the lady to take away the shawl.
Mais,' said she, archly, si je allais sauver moi sans payer
vow.' The tradesman said he was perfectly easy on that head,
as it was impossible for so beautiful a lady to be guilty of de-
ception. Yes, yes,' exclaimed the daughter of Albion, and
disappeared, with the step of a fairy. On the following day
the tradesman went to the hotel, and discovered that his beau-
tiful customer bad left by the Havre steamer, taking with her
the shawl, but forgetting to leave the money. He imme-
diately set off in pursuit, and, arriving at Havre, was fortu-
nate enough to find her. On seeing him, she said, ' Yes, yes,
je avais nubile de payer vous, la France it &tilt pas bon pour le
m4morie A moi, voila le argent, je demande bien pardon pour
la petite disagrement.' This time the tradesman forgot all
his gallantry, and leaving the lady, without even taking off
his hat, returned home with a resolutiop to be on his guard in
future against /a perfide Albion."
• Sir James Graham and Sir
Edward Knatchbpll .rapsacted
business yesterday, at the Foreign-office,