The Sun.
London, England, 1842-10-07 00:00:00

bts

LONDON:
FRIDAY MORNING. OCTOBER 7, 1842.

It is a theory, confirmed by experience, that
what depends on the will of one man may be
capricious, and cannot be reduced to any genera
laws ; but what depends on the will of a multi-
tude is not capricious, and is regulated by such
laws. What, for example, appear more ca-
pricious than the liking and attachments of young
men and women ? at least we of the male sex
speak proverbially of the fickleness of young la-
dies ; and yet the records of every country show
that the number of marriages, in proportion to
the population, it much the same one year with
another. The same is true of births, which also
depend on individual passion and caprice. Or
where any remarkable deviation occurs, either in
marriages or births, it may in general be traced
to, and accounted for, by some peculiar external
circumstance, .such as abundant or scanty har-
vests, prosperous or decaying trade, which only
serve to prove more completely how much the
actions of the multitude, even when they appear
the-most capricious, are under the guidance of
general laws. The same fact is true of the
number of letters posted. The number of or-
ders which any individual tradesman may re-
ceive by post, or the number of letters which
men' or pleasure and corresponding friends and
. relatives may write, seems a matter of what
is
.called chance, yet we learn, from. authen-
tic documents, that the number of letters trans-
mitted by the Post-office, year after year, is ex-
tremely steady ; and we have, in the great in-
crease of letters which has taken place in conse-
quence of Mr. Hues improvement, a remark-
able illustration of this apparently capricious
circumstance being subjected to known, and, to
some extent, calculable laws. It is a general
fact, theretbre, confirmed by much experience,
that however capricious may be the actions of an
individual, the actions of a great multitude of
individuals are not capricious, but are regular,
and are determined by general laws.

This well-known truth is as applicable to poll-
ties, as to any other branch of moral science; and
the regular march of the representative Govern-
me‘nt of Great Britain, controlled by a large
Portion of the population—and, we may say,
considering the influence of the Press, con-
trolled by the bulk of the population—as
contrasted with the less regular march of
the Governments of Prussia or Austria, which
merely depend on a Monarch and a Mi-
nister—and with the still less regular
march of the Government of . the self-
. willed SULTAN, is aniliustration the correctness of
which every Englishman will admit. In spite,
however, of this truth being applicable to All
nations and people, at all times, and necessarily
making the march of a democracy more regular
and steady than the march of a monarchy, we
find one of our Contemporaries breaking out yes-
terday into a furious tirade against the uncer-
tainty of the regulations and policy of the
Government of the United States. Such ob- .

servations are undoubtedly contrary to all.
theory, and, we think, contrary to the facts.
The occasion of the tirade is, the recent altera-
tions in the American tariff; but so far from that
being capricious or unexpected, it was long fore-
seen and foretold ; and, moreover, since the year
1816, the legislation of the United States has
tended continually in that direction.
Our Corn-laws (says Mr. Goddard, in a letter to
the Birmingham Advertiser) having cut off this
market for flour, and our money-laws having drained
the States of specie, the manufacturing interest there
became extremely active and clamorous ; and through
holding up to the community as an example the pro-
hibitory laws of England, and enlarging on the• loss
of the English market for flour, and by urging through
every possible channel the advantages and • necessity
of creating a home market for produce, by fostering
their own manufactures, succeeded in passing through
Congress the tariff of 1816. Still further derange-
ment being experienced through the action of our
money-laws in 1821, 22, and 23, the still higher
tariff of 1824 was enacted ; and again, from the same
cause, the high discriminatory tariff of 1828 was
forced through Congress ; the manufacturing interest
during this whole period being increasing in their
efforts in writing, speaking, and in every possible way
in inculcating their own interested notions, and in in-
stilling into men's minds their peculiar views.
While our trade has been year afteryear exposed
to alterations in duties in Germany, Spain, and
Portugal, it has not been exposed to any such al-
terations of duties in the United States. The only
memorable fluctuation in the policy of the United
States, in respect to commerce, that occurs to us,
which may not be easily outdone by the conduct
of almost every monarchy in Europe, and in al-
most every year, was first chartering and then
dischartering the great monied corporation of the
United States Bank. But even that change in
the policy of the American Government and
people was not accomplished without a long and
arduous struggle, which gave warning to all
parties concerned, while in a European monarchy
such a change would have been accomplished on
the instant, without any warning whatever.
Comparing the alteration of the United States
tariff with the ordonnance for raising the duties
' on linen yarn in France, we affirm that the latter
was sudden and capricious compared to the long-
discussed and foreseen American tariff.

Our Contemporary, like many other persons,
mistakes, we believe, the form for the substance.
Because the Bank of England has only un-
dergone one legislative change, while the banks
of the Federal States have undergone several, he
infers that here all is stability, and there all fluc-
tuation. In fact, however, the conduct of the
Bank of England, though more regular, from
being influenced by a numerous Proprietary and a
body of Directors, than it would have been had it
been under the sole guidance of an individual, has
been extremely capricious, now pushing out its
notes, offering a large loan to the United States
Bank, and anon screwing down the circulation to
the lowest possible level, as the gold flowed into
or flowed out of its coffers, or as its own apparent
interest dictated. In fact, the capricious conduct

of the Bank of England, according to the opi-
nion of tho best informed merchants, had no
little influence bath in causing the excessive
speculation in the United States in 1834 and
1825, and in paralyzing trade there in 1838.
While a change in a Ministry has endangered
the peace of Europe, or re-established the
friendly relations which self-will and smart dip-
lomatic impertinence had endangered, the people
of England have through many years relied on
the steady friendship and steady policy of the
United States, and have felt that many successive
changes in the Presidents and in their Cabinets
could have, because the people were friendly,
little or no influence on the peaceful relations

between the two nations. Nay, when differences
have arisen between the Cabinets of England and
America, rational and philanthropic men in both
countries have invariably looked to the good
disposition of the great multitude in both,
and to the binding commercial interests
of the many, to preserve that peace which
the self-will of their respective rulers might en-
danger. We know no monarchy of Europe—not
even that of Austria, under the guidance of
Prince METTERNICH—Of which the policy, com-
mercial and other, is so steady and so evidently
uuder the influence of general laws, like the
number of letters transmitted through the Post-
office, as the democracy of the United States.
This perhaps theoretical discussion has an
important practical bearing. On account of the

asserted unsteadiness in the policy of the United
States, trade with that country is decried, and it
is said to be " shameful to think that the com-
fort of our people should be left to rest on a
foundation like this." Nearly all that is un-
stable in the commercial policy of the United
States may be traced to our own money opera-
tions, and all that is hostile to our own laws.
The comfort of our people, therefore, rests, as it
ought and must rest, on no other foundation
than their own conduct and their own laws, and
it is in their power to-morrow, by abrogating our
own scandalous legislation, to place the trade be-
tween the two countries on the simple,
uninterrupted, but broad basis, of the
mutual wants of the two people. One
year with another, our people would re-
quire an equal, or rather ever-increasing, quan-
tity of meat, flour, cheese, and cotton to be
brought from the United States ; and, one year
with another, the Americans would require an
equal, or gradually increasini, quantity of woollen
garments, scythes, and cutlery from England.
The quantities required would be in both countries
quite as regular, and quite as definite, as the
number of marriages and births. Both would
depend on the bellies to be filled in one country,
and on the backs to be clothed in the other;

and over those great natural circumstances

human laws and commercial treaties can have
but little influence. Free trade would place

the commerce of both countries under the na-
tural laws of trade, and would release it alike
from the caprice of an American Congress or
that of a British Parliament. Unfortunately for
the country, those who know the least possible
about the natural foundations of trade in the mu-
tual wants of different men, and the natural laws
which regulate it, persist in disturbing it by
their own crude and mischievous restrictions.

The friends of the priesthood, disguised under
the term Church, have formed a dogged determi-
nation to obtain and secure for them a com-
plete ascendancy over society. We
.are to have
more Bishops as well as more Churches and more
Rectors. It is again proposed to revive the Con-
vocation, that the English priesthood may, like
the Presbyterian priesthood in the General As-
sembly, provide for the independent government
of the Church, and beard the secular authority.
The Church Courts are. to be restored in all the
fullness of ecclesiastical dominion. Hints are
thrown out that the appointment of Bishops must
be taken out of the hands of the Ministers, and not
placed, as originally, in the hands of the congre-
gations, but given to the priesthood. Then these
great ecclesiastical functionaries, much multi-
plied, placed each at the head of his Court, which
they will use more effectually than the pulpit,
wielding the power of the whole clerical corpo- '
ration, will, it is expected, be a complete match
fur the State, somewhat jealous of them, and will
regain for the priesthood all the power they pos-
sessed in the dark ages. Only they, we are told,
can deal with Chartism ; only they can counteract
the effects of education; only they can offerany re-
sistance to the "false principles" which threaten
to disable the State; and they only can make the
people virtuous. The State is to be taught that
there is no safety for it but under the wing of
the priesthood, and it is to be at once coaxed
and bullied into making them supreme over all.
That such designs are entertained, we arc not
at all surprised. We should, on the contrary,
be surprised if they were not, as all political par-
ties conspire to assert that the services of the
priesthood are essential to the well-being of so-
ciety. Their determination to obtain a complete
supremacy is the practical logical conclusion
from the opinion that they cannot be dispensed
with. It being asserted and believed that they are
necessary to man's salvation, to which all other
things are said to be inconceivable trifles, they
act only consistently with that opinion in claim-
ing supremacy over all other powers. Either we