The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-26 00:00:00

instruments, &c., &c., andf unfortunately, the
wages of labour, as we are continually told, have
fallen from 50 to 200 per cent. within a fewyears.
That this has been eminently beneficial in all cases,
except the fall of wages, we have not the smallest
doubt; but, whether beneficial or not, it is the con-
sequence of that general struggling after im-
provement in the means of production which we
have described as a law of nature.
The fall of wages, under these circumstances,
is of much importance. We do 'not consider
it to be the consequence of the introduction of
machinery, for the effect of that is to give man-
kind more for less labour, and consequently to
augment its rewards. It is the consequence of
the mode in which, under the existing right of
property, the produce of the machinery is Un-
equally distributed amongst capitalists and
labourers. The general rule for regulating wages,
since the abolition of serfdom in Europe, has
been what would supply the labourer and his
family with the bare necessaries of life. To
use the words of Mr. RICA RDO, deduced from
and representing the practice in Europe—not the
laws of nature—" The natural price of labour
is that price which is necessary to enable the
labourers, one with another, to subsist, and to
perpetuate their race without increase or diminu-
tion." That at times some classes of labourers
have been successively and temporarily raised
above that condition, has been the consequence
of new discoveries and new inventions, which
have given higher wages to those employed in
carrying them out. For example, the demand
for gas-fitters, cotton-spinners, &c., as gas and
machine spinning came into use, caused high
wages to be given in those trades, and propor-
tionally gave an impulse towards a rise in every
department of business. The fall in wages,
therefore, or in the price of labour, has not been
caused, though latterly it has accompanied, the
noble efforts continually made to lessen the cost
of production. On the contrary, the meaning of
that phrase is, that man, by less labour, gets
more from nature ; and consequently a rise in
natural wages, and a lessening of the cost of
production have an identical meaning, or repre-
sent the same general fact.
The real cause of the fall in wages as
the cost of production has fallen, which, duly
considered, is a very singular circumstance,
is to be found in the laws of the land.
Natural wages are all paid by produce, and food,
being the most essential of all produce, influences
and determines all the rest. Men must have
food before they can buy muslin frills or orna-
mented books. All other produce must, in the
last resort, be exchanged for some kind or other
of food. Now, while all mankind have been
struggling in their individual capacity—for even
landlords have essayed to reduce the cost of agri-

cultultural produce—our community, in its CO]

porate capacity—or rather that part of it in whose
hands, for our sins, is placed the scourge of legis-
lation—has been making and enforcing laws to
keep up the cost of producing and supplying the
community with food. Our manufacturers strug-
gle to make cotton and hardware cheap for all
the world, but our statute law says that all the
world in return shall not struggle to make food
cheap for our cotton and hardware manufac-
turers. An end is thus at once put to reciprocity
of exertion and exchange. The plain and pal-
pable consequence is, that while cotton and hard-
ware have become more and more abundant, and
more and more cheap, the food which, in the
course of nature, should be exchanged for them,
to obtain which, in fact, they are manufactured,.
has not become more and more abundant, and
more and more cheap. The law has prohibited it
by prohibiting the reciprocity of exertion. In fact,
in relation to the increasing population, to which
the extension of our manufactures has hitherto
given employment, food, in consequence of the
_ _

supply being limited and cut off by the law, has
become scarcer and scarcer, and dearer and
dearer. There being less and less food to be
divided among an increasing number of manu-
facturers, their produce exchanges for less and
less. They receive less food, or less money to
buy it, which is the same thing, and the fall of
wages is the consequence of the statute law.
It interferes with the course of nature, and
decrees, contrary to the struggles of mankind in
all ages, that food shall not be obtained by Eng-
lishmen at a less and less cost of production.
This is the chief, but not the sole source, of
the present distress. In conformity to the law
of nature, our manufacturers have striven to pro-
duce useful commodities at the greatest possible
diminution of cost, and have been most eminently
' successful. In opposition to the law of nature
our Legislators have decreed that food, the most
indispensible of all commodities,shall not be pro-
duced and had here, in England, at the greatest
possible diminution of cost. They have, as far as
they could, thwarted the laws of nature ; there is,
in consequence, little food for the increasing
people—hence little wages and general suffering.
There is, in consequence, comparatively little to
exchange for the produce of our manufacturers;
hence their lessened profits, decay, and great
distress. The statute law against making food
cheap and abundant is the curse of the community.
Some most important considerations arise from
this proof that our Legislature thwarts the laws of
nature. The circumstance has often been pointed
out, but the Legislature, from selfish and sinister
motives, refuses to alter its unnatural statutes.

That raises the question, whether men are to obey
nature, benevolent and wise, or to obey their
fellow men, selfish, tyrannical, and ignorant? It
raises the question in the minds of the suffering
millions, whether such a Legislature be not the
opponent of civilization—which has its root in
that desire for improvement' which Corn and
Provision-laws counteract—whether it be not the
antagonist of prosperity, the foe of peace, the
promoter of strife, the enemy of human power,
grandeur, and happiness ; and whether it be not
the duty of men to root out and destroy such a
Legislature ? Do we say, raise the question ?
We imperfectly represent the fact. Already the
masses have instinctively, as the adoption of
the Charter evinces, come to the conclusion that
such a Legislature ought to be destroyed. It
seems to them a complete nuisance which they
are called upon to abate, and they lack only the
power, which union can any day give them, to
carry their conclusions into practical effect.

We learn with satisfaction that several com-
munications have been received by the Secre-
tary of the Anti-Corn-law Society, recommending
the inhabitants of the metropolis to avail them-
selves of the opportunity offered by the opening
of Parliament on Thursday week, which is to be
done by her MAJESTY in person, to convey to
her their opinion on the subject of the Corn-
laws. We think the opportunity most favour-
able ; her MAJESTY goes in procession purposely
to see her people and be seen by them; and the
voices of perhaps half a million of persons would
have a more thrilling and powerful effect than a
whole cart-load of memorials placed before her
MAJESTY by the Secretary of State or a series
of bag-wigged deputations.

How often do we hear it said by the poor,
"I wish I could speak to her MAJESTY, I am
sure she would not suffer it." On Thursday
week every poor man, aye, every poor woman
and child, not only of the metropolis, but of
many miles round, may have an opportunity of
telling the QUEEN how she can benefit the poor.
It is impossible she can know or have heard any-
thing of the misery suffered by the starving
people of Bolton, Stockport, Leeds, Manchester,
Paisley, or her heart would bleed for their deep
distress, and she would command her Tory Mi-
nisters, on pain of her stern displeasure, and
dismissal from her !councils, to find means to
relieve it. Her MAJESTY, though she be young
in years, is wise in council, and she is well aware
that her throne cannot be safe if her people be
distressed and discontented. Whenever she
learns that they are so, we feel confident that
the monopolists will not dare to thwart her ardent
desires to see her throne based on the happiness
of the people.

While Colonel the Earl of CARDIGAN, his
courts-martial and black bottles, are still fresh

in public recollection, a case has occurred in
the Navy,
which shows that both services are
alike in the tyranny of the superiors, and the
oppression of the subalterns.

Mr. ELTON was a midshipman of her Majesty's
ship Cambridge. While lying off Beyrout last
July, a friend of his, Mr. BAGOT CREWE REID;
a gentleman of fortune, travelling in Syria, came
on board the Cambridge to visit him. By an
over-sight, very common after dinner, the means
of conveying Mr. REID to the shore were over-
looked, and at an advanced period of the evening
it was discovered that no boat had been sent fin•
him, and he was to leave Beyrout for the interior
on the following morning.

In this dilemma, it happened that a Captain
WILLIAMS, of the Stromboli, with whom Mr.
ELTON had served, was dining on board the
Cambridge, and his vessel was lying between
the Cambridge and the shore. Mr. ELTON ac-
cordingly addressed a respectful note to Cap-
tain WILLIAMS, requesting him to allow his boat,
after putting him on board his own ship, to con-
vey Mr. ELTON'S friend to Beyrout. To this
note Captain WILLIAms did not deign to return
an answer.

Nettled at this contemptuous treatment, Mr.
ELTON wrote an improper letter to Captain
WILLIAMS, describing his conduct as " un-
courteous and ungentlemanlike," arid saying
that " Captain WILLIAMS screened himself tin-
der his rank to offer an insult which he would
not dare to do were Mr. ELTON not his junior
officer."

Mr. ELTON soon became sensible of his error,
and on the first opportunity wrote a humble
apology to Captain WILLIAMS. That did not
suffice; he was, in November last, tried by a
Court-martial at Malta, Rear-Admiral Sir JOHN
Louis, President, and was found guilty of treat-
ing his superior officer with disrespect, and of
provoking him to quarrel. He was sentenced to
be dismissed the naval service, and on his arrival
in England to be imprisoned six months in some
one of her Majesty's gaols. Mr. ELTON was
subsequently confined for twenty-five days on 1
board the Howe, and then sent as a prisoner to
Gibraltar and England. Such are the facts of
the case. They suggest one or two reflections.
The offence was committed by an inferior to
a superior; the Court was wholly composed of
superior officers. There was, at least, suspicion
of partiality. The offence was brought under a
vague article of war, which means whatever
superiors choose to make it mean. Hence a
suspicion of injustice. The punishment is severe,
unusual, and most degrading; whence we infer,
either that insubordination is becoming rife, or
that the CARDIGAN race is multiplying in the
Navy as well as the Army. Of the individuals
who composed the Court-martial we know no-
thing; but the system which banishes a youth
from the service, and sends him to gaol for such
a trifling breach of discipline, which Captain
WILLIAMS might have put in his pocket, and
nobody would have known that it had been com-
mitted—which enables malice and malignity to
find their gratification by the aid of the law, is
thoroughly bad. This case, and that of the Earl
of CARDIGAN, show that the rules and regulations
of both services must be reformed, or they will
breed up nothing but hideous tyrants and de-
crepid slaves.

The Madrid Papers received are of the 16th
instant, but they bring no news of the slightest
interest. The following are the only extracts:—
Count Requena, lately sentenced to transportation for
the part which he had taken in the revolt of October last,
was embarked at Cadiz for Porto Rico on the 7th.
The &nail), of General Concha had received a letter
from him, mentioning his having safely reached a foreign
country, after escaping the most imminent dangers.
It was said that the Duke of San Carlos, another
Christino conspirator, had travelled in M. de Salvandy's
carriage from Madrid to Bayonne.
The Gazette announces that 766 lots of national pro-
perty were sold in the month of October last, for a
sum of 31,920,000 reals. 'The whole of the national
property disposed of since the commencement, had pro
duced 1,681,644,000 reals.

The whole of the Paris Journals of Monday
[save reached us, together with the opening of
adjourned debate in the Chamber of Deputies on
that day on tile right of search question, now
the all-absorbing theme of public attention. All
parties in the Chamber had been for some time
preparing themselves for the struggle on the
question of the Treaty of the Five Powers recog-
nising the pre-existing right of maritime search.
The Debats is the great defender of the Ministry,
but, strange to say, its defence is not based on
the merits of the treaty itself: On the contrary,
this journal admits that the right of search is an
exorbitant right, and might have been dispensed
with in the first instance, viz., in 1831, when the
primitive convention between France and England
for the suppression of the slave-trade was entered
into, at which time, says theDebats, the sympathy
excited in France for our fellow-creatures, whose
misfortune is to differ from us in the colour of
their skin, was so intense that, in the grand work
of humanity, all considerations of prudence and
precaution, as regarded any real or supposed
French interests, disappeared. The principle of
the right of search, says the Debats, was esta-
blished in 1831, at which period not a voice was
raised in the Chambers against the proposed
means of execution. A second convention was
entered into in 1833, and the right of search was
on that occasion again recognised and con-
firmed; but every precaution was taken to
conciliate the great sacrifice made in the
cause of humanity with the honour and indepen-
ence of the French flag, and the interests of French
trade. To this treaty, says our French Contem-
porary, M. THIERS was a party, for he was then
a member of the Cabinet. The question, there-
fore, as far as the opposition of M. THIERS and
those who vote with him systematically is con-
cerned, is not whether the right of search ought
to have been conceded, but whether in this new
treaty the precautions and stipulations which M.
TRIERS regarded as all-sufficient, in 1833, are
respected or departed from in 1842. The Debats
shows that they are not. It says—
In order to exercise the right of search, it is not suf-
ficient that the cruizer should have the warrant of its
Government. If it be an English cruizer, it must,
to have the right of searching a French ship, be pro-
vided with a warrant from the French Government.
These warrants may be granted or refused by
either of the Governments ; the number of them
may be extended or restricted. Let us suppose,
for example, that the English Government, from a
motive of ambition or in opposition to our trade,
should desire to augment the number of its cruizers, it
would depend upon our Government to check it at once
by refusing to deliver any more warrants. We shall
therefore always have in our hands an easy means of
fixing the number of English cruizers, and the duration of
the warrants is only for one year. During the ten years
that the right of search has been mutually practised by
England and France, has the number of English
cruizers considerably exceeded that of French cruizers ?
No ! England has had 124 cruizers, and ranee 10.1.

The bebats then proceeds to mention other
guarantees in the treaty againsrthe abuse of the
powers of the treaty, but as they are more fully
stated in the report of the discussion in the
Chamber, it is unnecessary to give them here.
The Presse, although it is, generally speaking,
friendly to the present Ministry, had expressed
its disapprobation of the new treaty for the sup-
pression of the Slave-trade, on the ground of
its recognising the right of maritime search,
which this journal supposed to have been stipu-
lated for by the English Government, in order
to confirm and perpetuate its maritime prepon-
derance, The Presse, however, professes to be
tranquillized by the explanations which have

been given on the subject. It says :
Although we retain our opinion as to the principle,
and could have desired that France should not, in 1831
or 1833, have made a concession which had been so long
refused, we must declare in good faith that, after having
attentively listened to the different speakers, we regard
the nature of the concession as changed by the clauses of
the late treaty as they are stated by the Minister for
Foreign Affairs.

The Constitutionnel gives an analysis of the
debate, in the course of which it repeats its cen..

sure of the treaty. This journal describes the
speech of M. TRIERS as one of great power, and
declares that "the feeble reply of M. GUIZOT did
not destroy one of his arguments." The Chain-
ber, adds the Constitutionnel, " was evidently
under the impression of a sense of a great duty to
the country, and the majority appearing doubt-