The Sun. — 1838-09-21 (London, England)

LONDON FRIDAY EVENING. SEPTEMBER 21, 1835.  We begin to think that our attacks on the Cornlaws have done good. The Journals now denounce them more boldly than they were wont, which is a good augury of their destruction. The Morning Chronicle to-day properly speaks of our Corn-law legislation as absurd and wicked, and says_" the Corn-laws must be abolished." We echo that cry. The country cannot retain absurd and wicked legislation without guilt—there can he no compromise with crime. 'Who ever heard of a wise and virtuous people tolerating half a robbery and two-thirds of a murder ? How, then, can they tolerate the half or any part of the wicked Corn-laws, which are a great mass of theft, and, starving people out of existence, commit a slow but txtensive and torturing murder ? To them belong 'all the horrors of war, and none of its glory. They prevent intercourse between nations— they de;rastate many lands, as the reader may be convinced, by Dr. BOWRING'S speech at Manchester— they nourish national hostility, and all the bad passioas which are conjoined with it—and they slaughter their thousands and their millions. We again ask our humane, enlightened, and intelligent people, who have struck the sword out of the hands of the executioner, and who will scarcely permit the life of the greatest criminal to be sacrificed, we again ask them how long they mean to tolerate this " absurd, wicked," and murderous legislation. Those persons whose minds are yet imbued with the anti-commercial theory, that one nation can only gain because another loses, insist, because other natio::s would gain by the abolition of our Corn-laws, that we should lose all that they gain. This is most absurd ; and it might as well be said that the United. States and England, whose mutual prosperity is so much promoted by the cotton Toanufacture—one producing the raw material and the other making it into cloth—are plundering each other. Nations are in this respect just 111:c individuals, and when one of them produces corn, and the other cloth, their mutual exchange of what each produces benefits both. Our idle landlords may plunder both our weavers and our corn-growers, but foreign nations have no such power. To have our cloth they must buy it by an equivalent. If, therefore, they would be benefitted by our buying their corn, me should certainly he benefired by selling them our cloth ; and if we were not, why they could not force us either to sell or buy, and there would be no dealings between us. The law to prevent the importation of corn by a duty proceeds on the assumption that so to import corn is advantageous, or, there being no pow :T to compel the importation, it would nut take place, and the law begins by putting an end to that great ad vantage.  Now--It is an important question—does putting an end to that advan•age produce any corresponding advantage ? The believers in the anti-commercial theory above alluded to, assert, probably, that the landlords obtain a corresponding advantage; but, as their theory as to nations has-been overthrown; it seems rational to suppose that they are wrong as to individuals. Let us hope they me; otherwise this startling cansequence would arise, that individuals and classes are benefitted by inflicting mutual injuries, and committing mutual injustice That will then be virtue, and murder righteousness ; the whole moral world will be upset, and IKEY So_ LOMONS anti G REENACRE ought to be honoured instcad of 'WILBERFORCE and