The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-22 00:00:00

was in this case, with marked attention. Sir ROBERT
PEEL must hasten to bring the Corn-law debates to a
close, or he will have a flame kindled in the empire,
running from the House of Commons.
His friends help it on. Mr. MONCHTON MILNER told
the house, and through the House told the people, that
all rights of property were settled and arranged by the
Legislature—a most dangerous doctrine to hold. It at
once brands the Legislature as the cause of the opu-
lence of the few and the poverty of the many, and whets
the desire of the many to get hold of the power of
making the laws, in order to rectify this terrible in-
equality. If Sir ROBERT PEEL can muzzle neither
friends nor foes, cannot inspire the former with discre-
tion, nor make the latter afraid, the sooner he shuts
up the House of Commons the better for him.

The Debate was adjourned a little before Twelve
o'Clock, and Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD is in possession
of the House.

It is now asserted on behalf of the landlords that the
Malt-tax is a direct tax on agriculture. How can
that be made out ? If the Excise went into the
barley-field,as they do into the hop-garden, there might
be some pretext for the assertion, though not much
when the wants of the people were so great in propor-
tion to the supply of hops, that the tax could be re-
covered from the consumer. Such a tax, however, is
rather acceptable than otherwise to the large farmer,
for they say it keeps men of little capital from growing
hops and lessens the competition. Whether the malt-tax be
acceptable or not on this ground to agriculturists, as it is
levied, not on the barley-field, but on the maltster's pre-
mises, we cannot see how it falls on agricultural pro-
duce any more than the tax on gin, or on •starch, or
on soap, which is made from the fat of British fed stock.
It is a tax on the consumers of beer, and as their means
of consumption are lessened—as the supply of barley
outruns or falls short of their means, so the tax, like
all taxes, by diminishing the power of consump-
tion, must be injurious to the agriculturist. The
remedy for such an evil is not to tax the
people's bread, which diminishes consumption, nor to
prohibit or tax the importation of barley, but to tax
malt imported at as high a sum as is levied on malt made
at home, and, of course, to tax all malt made from
foreign grown, as well as from English grown barley.
To tax the people's bread because there is a tax on their
beer, levied by the malt-tax, is a specimen of that street
logic which justifies taking away a man's wig because
another person has stolen his hat, and he cannot escape
the clutches of either thief, nor procure assistance to
bring him to justice.
Our adversaries' cause rests on such fallacies, and the
great master of the art of dressing up cases abounds in
them. " Think," exclaimed Sir ROBERT PEEL, "of the
amount of capital engaged in the production of 45,000,000
of quarters of grain." " Think of the pecuniary interests
involved. Think of the social interests of how many
families depend for their subsistence and their com-
fort on this production." Think, indeed! it makes one's
hair stand on end to think that every jot of the
land and of the capital vested in it, of the skill em-
ployed in producing the 45,000,000 quarters, all the
cattle and implements which aid in the production,
would be in existence after the Corn-laws were totally
repealed, just as they are now. Why, the celebrated
Marquis of TAMBOF, with 30,000,000 quarters of wheat
ready to be made into bread and chucked for nothing
into the mouths of the people, does not more excite the
wondering horror of the nation than does Sir ROBERT
PEEL by his emphatic " Think !"
Think, indeed ! that function in him is confined to
securing the ascendancy of his party, and the preserva-
tion of his own power. Think ! if he thought of the
public, he would have stated, on the authority of Mr.
MEEK, Mr. JACOB, and scores of travellers, that we
can suddenly get no great supplies of food from any
quarter, and that consequently the effect of the total
abolition of the Corn-laws would only cause a very small
reduction in the price of corn, if it did not, in the first
instance, cause, by the great additional demand for
food, a rise in the price. It is, however, utterly im-
possible that the total abolition of the Corn-law can
lower the price of food to its level in 1835 and 1836.

Sir ROBERT PEEL, with his emphatic "think," cannot
suppose that wheat will fall for a year or two, if the
law be abolished, below 40s. When it did so fall, what
was the consequence ? Were those mighty social and
pecuniary interests, about which Sir ROBERT tells us to
think, destroyed ? Were they injured ? Were they
convulsed ? Rents were lowered ; a few farmers suf-
fered distress ; but the bulk of the labourers flourished.
Mr. CAYLEY, indeed, and the barley growers, threatened
to stop the supplies; but that convulsion of these great
social interests is wholly overlooked by all historians,
and wholly forgotten, except by a few persons who take
a particular interest in watching this question.
The emphatic think" of Sir ROBERT PEEL implies a
gross exaggeration which is quite worthy of the man
who sought to influence the House of Commons to pass
the Irish Coercion Act, by recounting a well dressed
up tale of horror that had occurred thirty years
before. In the present situation of this country, it is the
duty of the Prime Minister to calm fears, to dispel
apprehensions, and to disabuse the landlords of
those prejudices which stand in the way of doing justice
to the people. Very much to Sir R. PEEL'S discredit, he
most mischievously takes a directly opposite course, and
excites the fears, increases the apprehensions, and
strengthens the prejudices of the landlords. Having a
case to make out for them he acted as an advocate, and
by trumpeting forth gross exaggerations, rallied them
all by a war cry to the banner of protection. He
is at once the opponent of truth and of the people.