The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-13 00:00:00

allied themselves 'to the Whigs; whereas from
the first they totally repudiated such an alliance,
opposed the Whig nostrums, and on two or
three occasions put forward, in spite of the re-
monstrances and solicitations of the Whigs—as
at Walsall, on the resignation of Mr. Fistcx—
candidates of their own. If the League had pro-
posed to lower wages, they took the most suicidal
way to murder their own design that ever men
adopted; for nothing is more certain than that
an increased supply of food increases the compe-
tition amongst capitalists as against the work-
men, and raises wages. We cannot pretend to
vindicate the motives of any men but by their
conduct, and the conduct of the League flatly
contradicts the charges of the Reviewer.
We will venture to contradict, most positively,
the assertion of the Reviewer, that the old Re-
publican party and the Chartists have coalesced
with the League to pull down the aristocracy.
It is known personally to us, and is, we be-
lieve, known to the public generally, that indi-
viduals and public journals not connected with
the League did, at the commencement of the
Anti-Corn-law struggle in 1838, and frequently
since, recommend and labour to promote a union
between these bodies, which has never to this
day been effected. The Chartists and the Re-
publicans were expressly told that they could
not more certainly accomplish their own ends
than to unite with the League; that if they put
an end to the Corn-laws they would go a long
way to convert the landowners to their opinions;
that they would be certain to sow a death quar-
rel between the owners of rent and the owners
of tithes; and that they would be sure to have
the aid of the disappointed and discontented
landowners in opposing the power of the capi-
talists generally, and particularly of the monied
capitalists, the objects at all times of the aver-
sion of the landed interest. To all these, and
a great number of similar arguments, the
Chartists and the Republicans turned a deaf
ear. They spurned the idea of obtaining freedom
by means of filling the bellies of the people.
Their leaders expressly said that all their hopes
would be at an end the instant the people be-
came fat and contented ; they wanted hungry
instruments, not well-fed slaves; and they not
only refused to join the League, or even
go for a repeal of the Corn-laws, but
they from that time did all in their power
at Birmingham, Manchester, London, &c., to
interrupt the public meetings and proceedings of
the League, and of all the friends to Corn-law
repeal. So great was their hostility, that at
neither of the great cities mentioned were the
League able to hold a public meeting till within
a very short time, and the hostility of the
Chartists to the League was for the Tory jour-
nals a continued subject of rejoicing. The first
symptoms we have noticed, not of the alliance of
the Republicans and the Chartists with the
League, but of the relaxation of their hostility, is
the cessation of the interruption of Anti-Corn-
law meetings, and a formal resolution, only an-
nounced to be proposed, but not yet moved, at.
the Chartist Hall of the Old Bailey, that the
Chartists do no longer oppose the Anti-Corn-law
agitation. All these are perfectly well known
facts, and the only excuse for the three-monthly
journalist, who fully asserts that the zeal of the
Chartists and Republicans gave power to the
League, which we can find, we have already made.
The blubbering, passionate, beaten booby, knows
not what he says, and his anger throws fibs to his
pen as fast as words.
The Reviewer also refers the capture of Man-
chester, Stockport, and Bolton to Lord JOHN
RUSSELL'S unilateral nomination of Anti-Corn-
law Magistrates. Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not
a friend to Corn-law agitation; the pursuit of a
total repeal was as little pleasing to him and the
Whigs as to the Tories. It might have been
that the majority of the Magistrates of thoie
towns favoured the repeal of the Corn-laws be-
cause they were manufacturers, but it is false in
fact to assert that Lord JOHN RUSSELL made a
unilateral nomination of Anti-Corn-law Magis-
trates, and a false inference that the appointment
of such Magistrates led to the capture of Man-
chester. Mr. MAUDE, the Stipendiary Magis-
trate, was the person in command of the civil
power in Manchester at the time; he is not a
member of the League; he is not a manufac-
turer, and, we believe, was not appointed by the
Whigs. Coupling the false assertion of the first
paragraph with the false assertion of the second,
and with the false inference, it is plain that the
anger of the beaten booby is founded in malice,
and he seeks to wound a Whig statesman by
accusing him of being the author of evils which
spring from the starvation-laws. Our opinion
and judgment are worth something on this point,
for the Whigs and Lord JOHN RUSSELL, who
we think have lately sadly and shamefully
neglected their duties to the people, are no
favourites of ours, and our testimony is borne,
not from love of them, but from a love of truth

and justice.
• Another similarity between the Quarterly
and a beaten boy is to be found in its calls for
the strong arm of the law. When the youngster
has got his " bellyfull" he will threaten to com-
plain to the master; so the Quarterly, as the
organ of the monopolists, defeated in argument,
seeing their system overturned by facts, and
knowing that they must give in, is extremely
desirous to get his conqueror punished for
thrashing him. "It is not our province," it says,
" to pronounce whether this levying money for
the avowed purpose of forcing the Legislature to•
alter the law of the land be not, per se, criminally
punishable; but we will take upon ourselves to
say that, considered in connection with all the
previous proceedings of those associations, it is
illegal and in the highest degree unconstitu-
tional." That is the last resource of the mono-
polist champion; he runs from the field to im-
plore the help of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.
To one other point, extensive as are already our
remarks on this much elaborated article of abuse,
we must call attention. The Reviewer is greatly
indignant at the League for snaking the repeal of
the Corn-laws a religious question.
Our readers will have observed (he says) that this
last extract is prefaced by atextoffrtohm
League
; and
frequent similar instances of the profaneeea
throughout all the proceedings glauvned wheyfipond.
critical abuse of sacred texts and topics.e are re-
luctant to allude to such matters, ut the history of
the League would be incomplete if we did not
notice,
as feature in their prgoicteesetdioinn7
o
atnhe
d,
as a
attempt to make the repeal of the Corn-laws -to, use
their own language—" a religious
accordingly the League have incessantly laboured to
make religious feelings subservient to their political
agitation against the Corn-law. The law itself has
been declared to be "aractical blasphemy," sus-
tainedp and its supporters have
by satanic agency ;
been denounced, in fierce and unmeasured language,
as " impious and irreligious" men; " men to be ab-
horred and cursed." Scriptural quotations and allu-
sions, in prose and verse, with this object and ten-
dency, abound in their publications.
Why is the Reviewer angry with the League
for quoting Scripture, when the whose of his
party think it cannot be too frequently quoted
if the text serves to enjoin respect, honour,
and obedience, even towards those who inflict a

painful and lingering death on the people ? The
party of the Reviewer takes into pay, and pays
most enormously, a great body of priests, for the

very purpose of connecting politics with religion
. . . . .

—the legislation of man with the laws of God.
But when other men imitate that example, and

seek to overturn an iniquitous enactment by the

same agency that the Tories use to support it,
then the use of those meansbecomes hypocritical
and profane. If is be profane to quote a text of
Scripture against the Corn-laws, the union of the
Church and State to support laws is the greatest
profanity that Christian men ever consecrated.
The Reviewer is not serious, and earnest in this

objection ; he only wishes, by an appeal to a
somewhat antiquated prejudice, to throw from a
distance a little dirt on the boy who has de-
feated him.
On similar grounds the Reviewer should have
been silent about " satanic agency." The body
of priests whom the State pays continually, teach
us all that the " Devil" is here amongst us, go-
ing "about like a roaring lion seeking whom he
may devour." They represent all men as con-
tinually " tempted of the Devil." They do not,
and cannot dare to exempt, flatteringly, from
this general law of all mankind the lawgivers