The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

I PROJECTED ADDRESS 1' THE
I ANTI-CORN-LA W

TO THE EDITOT? OF THE SUN.

SlR,—The leading Ministerial organ protests
t was not he; it was " the matronly." It is
hard to settle such differences; the probability
being, there was a little of both.- One thing
is clear; that jealousies are , felt in one or
more portions of the Tory camp, at the visit
of the King of Prussia. And a • single word in
the protest alluded to, is decisive-of the reasons
why. An error is dreaded somewhere, which is
to consist in taking certain events or things to
"imply a political predilection for Prussian opi-
nions on matters of commerce and administration."
And as n9body supposes- the danger of anti-libe-
ral .opinions on commerce to be the subject of
alarm, it must needs be the danger of liberal.

Suppose then the Anti-Corn-law League or a
delegation from them, were to present themselves
to the King of Prussia and to say—

" Persuaded that your Majesty will lose no
opportunity of becoming acquainted with the pro-
gress of opinion in the country which you visit,
the representatives of a considerable portion of
the commercial classes in Great Britain, present
themselves as the advocates of principles which
your Majesty will assuredly not hear from the
administrators of the government."
" Seeing in your Majesty the sovereign of a
foreign state, they are conscious that as citizens
ofa state which is foreign in respect of your Ma-
jesty's dominionSi- they are bound to advance An
arg,umentsbut those in which they believe the in-
terests of all- independent countries to be equally
concerned,".

" What.therwould announce as the belief of
the commercial classes of Great Britain, or such
portions of, them as they represent, is that no
commodity is ever created in one country, when
it might havebeen obtained at a cheaper rate
from another country through the intervention
of foreign commerce, without incurring a na-
tional or aggregate loss equal to the difference
of price concerned."
" They know how far they are from the pro-
bability of seeing a government in their own
country, by which this arithmetical truth shall
be admitted. Butthey do not despair of gaining
supporters in other-countries, where the frame
and organization of the government have been
less expressly directed to the suppression of the
principle."
" The ground on which therenionstrants rest
their conviction of the fallacy which now go-
verns nations,: is, that there has been an 'over-
looking of .one of the parties.c.oncerned. Every
consumer who gives three shillings to
.a
home fabrie, for what he might have of
tamed through foreign trade - for-two, takes
the third shilling from the custom of sonieh6tieei
trader, to whom_it would_have been precisely as
beneficial as .to the dishonest. This honest
trader, is the man who
,has been overlooked-
And, setting off his loss against the other trader's
gain the final result is that the consumer gets
nothing forhis shilling, instead of what he might
have had for it from the honest trader. It mat--
ters not within what circle, national, colonial, or
federative; the folly takes its range; he who re-
jects a cheaper road by tbreign commerce, courts
aggregate loss to his. community, and not gain.'
" The French government has invented a term
fcr the. prosecution of this national loss. It
styles it 'conquest.' The remonstrants believe,
that it is such conquest as a cultivator would
make out of his.fen or his sand, by expending
his resources on them with %the consequence of
leaving uncultivated some portions of his better
soil."

" Resisting the adinisSion, that a trade on
which there is a loss at every turn, is gainful to
a nation, the remcinStrants .equally resist the de-
lusion which has been attempted on them under
the` nerve of Reciprocity."
"They:l66W that if a foreign government
would remove theLirupediments to the introduc-
tion of Brititi)-triuodities, at the same time
that.the:..Tioni4e government would remove the
impedlihents to foreign .produce, the adiran-
tage4k, the inhabitants, of their own and of
thatE Areittirn country, would on. each. side
berdtw.o., instead of one. And they are
well :aware that two governments actu-
ated by zeal for the interests of their respec-
tivenations, might employ the contemporaneous
removal -of restrictions on the two sides, as 'pow,
erftil machine for diminishing the opposition on
both. But they absolutely and totally deny, that
the inability to obtain the gain which would
arise from the removal-of foreign restrictions, is
any reason for preserving the loss which results
from continuing those at home. They know the
mockery this may meet. from . the interested
but they look into- their-ledgers,- -and they fib
that it is true." -

"In all countries, there are proverbial ex-
pressions, for that species of revenge a man
takes for his sufferings, where the consequences
of his anger fall on his own proper person. The
remonstrants believe, that when a government
shall he found sufficiently intelligent to disavow
this proverbial impolicy in the matter called of
Reciprocity,' it will take the lead among the
commercial states of Europe, and justly claim
the pre-eminence, which a man with one eye is
said to have among the blind."
"The certainty that your Majesty will not

hear anything ofd this nature from the govern-
ment appointed to watch their interests, is the
reason of the'remonstrants taking the liberty to
intrdduce it in the present form. If they shall
have succeeded in their desire to involve no prin?
ciple which is not common in its operation to
independent states, they will rejoice in having
discharged a courtesy, which the position of
your Majesty as their nation's guest, appeared
to call for at Weir hands."

I should like to know, whether something of
this kind, would not be very germane to the
occasion, and be a fitting use to make, of what
the Tory vessels have permitted to leak out.
Yours very sincerely,
_ T. PERRONEI"THOMPSON.
Blackheath, Jan. 20, 1842.