The Sun.
London, England, 1845-09-22 00:00:00

Al totwinki :::7'--- Int

LONDON, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1845,

Since the commencement of the agitation for the repeal of
the corn-laws the prospects of the manufacturers and the
labouring classes in general, with regard to that obnoxious
tax, have not been's° favourable as at the present moment.
We have blamed Sir R. PEEL for not urging the question on
at an earlier period, knowing well that he would be backed
by the whole of the Liberal party of all shades of
politics, and supported, too, by not a few of
his own adherents. Possibly he thought the Maynooth
question, the Irish Colleges Bill, and the new tariff quite
enough for one session, and did not wish to presume too
much on the pliancy of the agricultural repre-
sentatives. Possibly, also, he saw that the tide
was turning, that the landlords, who complained
of low prices for wheat, and every other species of grain,
were beginning to open their eyes to the folly and wicked-
ness of monopoly, and that, in a very brief period, they
would be more willingly led into the right path. We are,
therefore, not disposed to pass strictures on his dilatory
conduct, partly because he had a very obstinate class to deal
with, and partly because he bad fairly begun the free trade
system, by reducing the duties on many necessaries of life,
and thereby could exhibit to them facts which no reasoning,
no bigotry, no blindness, in short, could gainsay. Some of
these facts are already admitted by the monopolists, and they
gaze at them as at the works of an enchanter. While
the sliding scale has been preserved in all its integrity, while
American flour and Odessa wheat are all but prohibited by
its absurd regulations, while the landlords have been relieved
of many taxes, and the agricultural farmers have no reason
to complain that they are more burdened by the income-tax
than others, are they in a prosperous condition? Has the
sliding scale benefited them ? Are they not, on the con-
trary, convinced that it has done them incalculable mischief,
that it has prevented leases—that it has not raised the price
of grain, or, if raised it at all, only for the
benefit of corn-dealers and corn-speculators, and that there
can be no security for them till the whole question is
thoroughly investigated, and such a settlement adopted as
shall prevent all further legislation on the subject. Even these
facts, conclusive as they are, give only one view of the case.
When the impost on foreign cattle was reduced, a
universal terror seized the graziers ; the apostate PEEL had
ruined them ; the country would be inundated with oxen, and
sheep, and calves, from Belgium, and Holland, and Prussia,
and even Spain ; butchers' meat would be sold at half the
usual price, and agricultural shows—even the Great Smith-
field Cattle Show—would soon be numbered among
the things that were. What has been the result ?
Though foreign cattle have been imported to
an extent hitherto unknown, though some fifteen
thousand head of cattle, independent of sheep and other
animals for consumption, have been imported within the
year from only one country, the price of butchers' meat has
been rising, and is now too high fur the use of all that portion
of the working classes who are not in full and good employment.
Corn has fallen with a high duty, and cattle have risen with
a low duty—a duty, in fact, so small, that it can hardly be
taken into account when calculating the value of a pound
weight. Cannot the farmers, or rather the selfish land-
owners, see the real cause? It is nothing else than the pros-
perity of the manufacturing districts, the best market, after
all,
for our
bread
raegaadieultural produce. Little more bread is
used now than when times were worse, because
without
mutually affect eachor tphoet
revives'
when the British manu-
facturersra, ttohe
es ,
verythleewepsnt.
the wages
foreigners, nay, undersell them,
r are raised, cpeOspulaotfionwchould
not subsist ;but when tradeich
";
theecompete
labourer rwe
and he is enabled to Fir-
ith
chase animal food, fro
barred. This is the realuiseerwetbo the p
ielif
st poverty he is totally de-
r and it is, therefore, needless to attributeree of butchers' meat,
fodder, or to any other cause. It rises bit to
deficiency
of
demand for it, and that demand is caused enntsier tillers is a
by
prosperity which the advocates of monopoly, if they thathad
their way, would entirely destroy. The landed interest
cannot prosper when the manufacturing classes are depressed,
and the well-being of both is as intimately connected as
cause and (Coot. The more provident and sensible 'rodeo