The Sun.
London, England, 1842-09-23 00:00:00

"We are rather surprised that our generally astute
Contemporary should have made so silly a blunder, in
comparing the effects of the sliding corn duty with
what would have occurred under his favourite eight
shilling scheme. He complains that the price of corn
ill he favour
would
uld prevent us with
has fallon too low! and says that the fixed duty would
have prevented this. It is odd enough to hear him
his
complainingof
f cheap
proof
how the Russellthis? He says that wheat has suddenly fallen from
61s. to .535., and that the Bs. duty would have kept up
the price. This is worth looking to. Let us see how
cor
prescription but
his theory rests. Under the present scale the duty is
I Is. when the prices are at 61s. Does a duty of I Is.
tend to reduce prices more suddenly (unnecessarily
he says) than one of Bs. ? When prices are at 535.
the duty is 18s. Does this run down the article more
rapidly than the Globey's everlasting octavo ? It
would puzzle even the sharp wits of our lively friend
to show how the present duties, at the figures between
61s. and 535., work more for a fall than his own plan.
Will he, with all his sharpness, disprove the self-
apparent fact, that the sliding scale goes altogether to
counteract fluctuation—duties falling with rising
prices, and vice versa?"

We did not complain that the price of corn
had fallen too low. We said that a sudden, ma-
terial, and (had the fixed duty been adopted)
unnecessary fall in the price of wheat had taken
place, just at the critical moment for the far-
mer's profits, which fall would have been pre-
vented, to such sudden and serious extent, had
the foreign corn in bond been eaten, during the
season when it was most wanted, instead of
being pent up, like waters impeded in their
natural course, to be forced out all at once, and
drown the plains with a sudden inundation. The
effect of the sliding scale is to keep corn in
bond when folks want to eat it; and to let it out
when it is quite certain that folks won't want to
eat it, and when speculators dare not hold on
any longer for that very reason. We were
flooded with foreign corn not till a large supply
of our own was coming to market ; and all the
time it was really most wanted, we could not
have out a grain of it. All the foreign corn we
could have got to eat, up to this harvest, would
have scantily supplied us, coming in by degrees;
—instead of which, ft was hoarded for a still
further anticipated fall of our arbitrary scale of
duties, and not released till it was quite certain
averages would fall and duties rise—i. e., till it
was quite certain it was less, or not at all,
wanted. This is a pretty illustration of what the
Post calls " the self-apparent fact, that the
sliding scale goes altogether to counteract
fluctuation."

STANDARD.—Supposing, contrary to what
we believe to be the truth, that Great Britain
were overreached in the matter of the boundary,
we should be much better pleased that it should
be so than that this empire had overreached the
Republic. It is not pretended that any sacrifice
of interest or security has been made; and such
being the case, we give our transatlantic kinsmen
joy of what they have obtained. The very tact
that it is argued (and we believe justly argued)
that Great Britain was in a condition, supposing
a bargain of some kind made, to demand higher
terms than have contented her, is proof that she
has made no unworthy concession. The hypo-
thesis that we have introduced is, however, one
that deserves attention, because the refusal to
settle the question was a resource always open to
the States. They might, if they disliked our
conditions, have left the question in the state in
which it has rested for 59 years ; and though we
might have, as undoubtedly we have, the power
to torce an arrangement and to dictate its terms,
we would not have the right to do so after wait-
ing Si) years, and opening successive negotia-
tions, upon the assumption that the territory is
of doubtful proprietorship. We could not have
the right to originate a war upon the subject.
To close this place of retreat (an abrupt post-
pon,lment of the settlement) against the
United States was, after all, Lord Ashburton's
greatest difficulty; but this place of retreat
was to be closed only by liberal and
even inviting terms, which the Government
could not reject, but in compromising itself with
the democracy. Again, it is a mistake to sup-
pose that there was any dispute upon the subject
of the slave-trade. This, like the question of the
boundary, was an open question between two
independent parties, neither complaining of
wrong by the other—for the casual, private, and
well-deserved sufferings of Americans were pro-
perly held back ; and Great Britain had not even
such shadows of wrong to complain of. Great
Britain has no right to interfere with the Ameri-
can slave trade further than as the United States
may give the right by treaty. Great Britain has
no more original right to prevent the carriage of
slaves from Africa to the United States, than
she has to liberate the slaves already domiciled
in those States. It is necessary to keep this
steadily in view, because all the misapprensions
that have arisen upon the subject rest upon the
hypothesis, that we have a right to suppress the
foreign slave-trade. We have no such right—
and
the attempt to arrogate it would only defeat
our object; because it would identify the ac-
cursed traffic with the independence of nations-
We have not any such right, any more
than in any other matter we have
a commission to keep the police of the world.
We may do much by the influence of example,
by expostulation with other independent nations.
and by obtaining from them treaties which shall
enable us to prevent the trade, as far as their sub-
jects and our own citizens are concerned; but
this is all we have a right to expect, and in this
way we have done a great deal. The United
States profess a wish to prevent that traffic in
human flesh which costs a thousand daily mur-
ders; to the degree in which they co-operate
with us, to the extent to which they afford us
facilities, they prove the sincerity of their pro-
fession; but if their co-operation is lukewarm—
if, instead of affording facilities to the extinction
of the abominable trade, they throw difficulties
in the way of such as would extinguish it; the re-
sponsibility is not to us, who have no legal autho-
rity over them, but to their character beforemen and to their Almighty Creator. Engage-
ments to assist in putting down the slave trade
are not engagements made to Great Britain, or
to, any particular country, but to human nature.
To refuse such engagements, to withhold
the means of enforcing them when professedly
made, is no wrong to Great Britain in particular,
but to. the whole family of mankind, It matters,
therefore, nothing to the honour of this country
whether the provisions conceded to the United
States fbr the suppression of the slave-trade are
made bona fide, and are adequate to their object ;
but it 'natters everything to the character of the
United States. Great Britain has done her part
when she has earnestly recommended that proper
course, which she has, however, no right to com-
mand; and even though she gain nothing by her
recommendation,
she in no respect compromises
her honour by resting patient with that nothing.