The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-14 00:00:00

gte e§ttlt

LONDON:
WEDNESDAY MORNING. SEPTEMBER 14, 1842.

We have for some time been of opinion that
the Editor of the Post is a most convinceable
man, and we assured the members of the. Anti-
Corn-law League, when they were in town, that
if they went on the right tack, on obtaining an
interview with him, they would certainly convert
him. • without their assistance, however, we
that he is, by his own reasoning, daily converting
imsel
By tins process, and a little help from
us, he has at length arrived at the conclusion

that the great error of our community is a faulty
distribution of wealth. Of course, therefore, he
gives up.the well stuffed and long paraded buga-
boo of over production. He is become, too, a
convert to the total and immediate repeal of the
Corn-law,one condition, that it. be proved to
Lim
theli repeal would give " people offering
tlilmeii "h b
aa
increased value for it," or distri-
bute a larger share of the national wealth to the
labourers. We can scarcely hope at once to sa-
tisfy him that this condition would be consequent
on the repeal ; but we must try, and we believe
his own suggestive fancy will help our endeavour.

The Post complains that Corn-law Repealers
only make assertions On this point ; but what
else can be made with reference to the unknown
future ? If the Post were to question whether
the sun will rise to-morrow, we could give no
proof other than that it has risen regularly since
man has existed. If it question on any similar
grounds the assertions of the free-traders, that
more employment would be immediately found
for our people by setting trade free, what proof
can they offer of their assertion other than that
such has generally been the consequence of the
removal of restrictions? In fact that is implied'
in the proposition. That restriction prevents
trade, and that there would be more trade were
there no restriction, is self-evident, for the two
statements are identical. The Manchester men
and the men of Sheffield have said aloud, give
us import food from wherever we
plealsibeer tyto
without subjecting it to a tax, and we will
ly set a great number of additional hands
itnosNtvaonrtk. Their assertion implies that they will
pay more wages—if not raise the rate of wages—
t
and
What moreoth wealth t.
oho re
aonn amongst t
ph eo
swt o
de-
sirer k-
ing
the Corn-laws would rea-
lialilisig:ed ettslcateasdstciesotstinre idbitl i repealo no 1.'4.1/1116 it declares the Legis-
lature ought to repeal the Corn-law ?

Will any other employer pay less wages ? Not
the generous and benevolent landlords, according
to the theory of the Post, for they are only
anxious to benefit the people. Not the farmers,
for they will and must sow and prepare the
ground for next year's crop. They will he wise
in doing-so, for the increased employment in the
manufacturing districts will infallibly cause an
increased demand for agricultural, produce, to
satisfy
which will remunerate them. Prices may
not he so high,
but they will have to give less for
what they use and consume, and they will be
benefited by the change. That they will em-
ploy fewer hands, and that land will go out
of cultivation as the manufacturers increase
and the towns-people multiply, is an assertion of
the Post, far more groundless, allow us to say,
than our assertion that the farmers will not pay
less wages, and that the master manufacturers
will pay a great deal more.
In truth every person is aware—is firmly con-
vinced without any reasoning—that the present
abundance will meliorate the condition of the
labouring classes, though not to that extentwhich
the benevolent ,post and the selfish Sun desire.
Why is this? Because the things mainly pur-
chased by Wages are, first food and next clothing.
When there is more food, then wages will buy
more. It is admitted that free trade would in-
crease the present abundance of food. It would
therefore raise the value of •wages; it would
give the whole labourers more wages, and enable
them to buy more goods, so that free trade
would immediately imprOve their condition.
Moreover the demand for labour is necessarily
determined by the quantity of food which
capitalists-can gat or can command. To increase
the quantity of food is to give the capitalists the
command of a greater quantity, and is to make
them seta greater number of hands to work.
The immediate and certain effect, therefore, of
totally abolishing the Corn-laws, would be, to
increase employment, to increase wages, and
give to the .labotiriDg classes ad increased share
of the abundance
with which the ALMIGHTY ap-
pears to have blessed almost the whole civilized