there is another fallacy connected with this subject which it is our privilege and duty to expose. It is said that when corn fails, every thing else fails; that when corn is dear, every thing else is dear, and that a dear loaf means dear every thing.

This is a capital and amazing error, which, however, can easily be exposed and understood. Look, for instance, at this year's harvest and crops. What do we see? Plenty of peas and beans, an abundance of potatoes, excellent mutton and beef, and very little disease among the the cattle; a superabundance of fruit, apples in large-very large quantities, but wheat only (throughout the kingdom) about a two-thirds crop. We have had vegetables cheap all the summer; potatoes are at their usual price and cannot rise, since the crops are so advanced and abundant as to meet any extra demand resulting from the partial failure of wheats. Meat has a tendency to fall. The season has been admirable for the graziers; and we speak from a personal knowledge and observation of the grazing districts when we say that stock is plentiful, healthy, and looking and doing remarkably well. Now these are facts which are actually opposed to the lying cry, that when corn fails all fails, and that a dear loaf means dear every thing. The marsh lands were never better; pasture lands are in the most perfect condition; hay crops have been excellent, and well got in; potatoes will be cheap; the carrots, turnips, cabbages, and other vegetables in the gardens and fields, have done, and are doing admirably; but the wheat has suffered from the rain, and from the wind, and above all from want of sun. Well, what follows? The prices will rise a little; and dear Thompson will not be able to realise his plans of bread for nothing and muffins included. But will the poor man therefore starve? No! Providence has provided a surplus of potatoes, vegetables, fruit, and meat, as a set-off for a dear loaf; and it is thus that He who counteth the hairs of our heads, and who doth not suffer even a sparrow to fall to the ground without His notice, taketh care of the labouring classes, and supplieth them with their daily and their necessary food.

We maintain, then, that there is no monopoly in food; that there is no law, therefore, to govern that monopoly; and that it is all stuff to talk about "the principles upon which the law of that monopoly is based."

"But then," asks an Anti-corn League agitator, "do you mean to say that bread is not food, that bread is not made from flour, and flour from corn, and that there are no such laws as corn-laws?" We reply, we do not mean to say any such thing; but we are anxious that it should be more extensively understood and felt than it is at present, that the words monopoly in food" are canting and deceptive terms, got up to deceive and to annoy.

66

The principle of the corn-laws is PROTECTION TO THE CONSUMER, and PROTECTION TO THE PRODUCER. First to the consumer; for the corn-laws encourage the cultivation of corn; render it morally certain that there will always be grown an adequate quantity of corn; guarantee a supply of corn to the markets of Great Britain in the event of war: when if we had to rely on foreign corn, we might be reduced to great extremities and difficulties from the deficiencies of corn; and, finally, employ a vast number of the labouring classes. If the corn-laws did not protect the interests of the consumer by guaranteeing such a remunerative price to the producer as to secure the cultivation of corn and its being sent to the home markets, the consumer would be exposed to the horrors of occasional famines or scarcity, being left to the tender mercies of the foreign corn-merchant and foreign corn-grower. By the present laws, and the present arrangements, a season of scarcity is met by corn importation, and a season of plenty is one of profit and advantage to both consumer and producer. If, on the contrary, there were no corn-laws, the farmers and millers would be ruined, whole masses of agricultural labourers would be thrown out of employ, the remainder would suffer from reduced wages; and, finally, the population of the country becoming dependent on foreign supply, foreigners would take advantage of this circumstance; and when it would be too late to remedy the evil, it would be found out not that our manufactures were

going out of the country to be exchanged for cheap corn, but that dear corn had to be purchased of foreigners with exported bullion.

a

Second. The principle of the cornlaws is protection also to the producer. Manufacturers are protected, why should not agriculturists be protected too? Why is any duty imposed on foreign watches, cutlery, jewellery, pottery, silk goods, cotton goods, muslins, and iron, copper, and tin, both in the raw and manufactured state? To protect our own producers, our own mines, and our own manufacturers. Is this wise? Perfectly so; for otherwise our markets would be overstocked with foreign goods, instead of the products of British industry. What would be said to an appeal to the religious public on the principles of that law, or of those laws which secure monopoly in clothing, in the metals, and in all the goods manufactured by our manufacturers? "You wish to ruin our manufacturers by introducing foreign goods," would be the cry, and that cry would be a just one. But then we must be allowed to turn round upon these men and say, "You wish to ruin our landowners, farmers, and millers, by the introduction of foreign corn." The producer of wheat in this country is not, however, protected to an improper or excessive length. The sliding-scale secures him remuneration for his capital, his industry, and his talents; but it does not do more than this. When wheat sells for such a price in the markets that it does more than secure that remuneration, the result is that foreign corn comes in, and prices diminish. The corn-laws and the sliding-scale secure the landed interests from ruin, at the same time that they protect the manufacturing interests from high prices, and a long continuance of dear bread. So that the principles upon which the corn-laws are based are protection to the bread-grower from ruin by foreign agency; and protection to the bread-consumer, from any conspiracy on the part of the bread - growers. So much for the "principles upon which the law of that monopoly is based." We are aware that the" Anti-corn League" agitators reply, "That the slidingscale system does not work well;

that since its existence there have been enormous fluctuations in the prices of corn; and that the system is only favourable to monopolists, and to great speculators." But how is this? Is not this to be ascribed to the introduction of foreign corn? Unquestionably. Then how would the further introduction of foreign corn be beneficial? Is it believed that foreign landowners, foreign farmers, foreign merchants, foreign speculators, foreign ship - owners, foreign insurers, are all very innocent and simple-hearted men, who desire nothing better than to send us all the corn we may desire in exchange for our Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield goods; and that they will so act on the most broad, plain, straightforward, and perfectly honourable principles of barter? We are often ashamed for the writers of pamphlets and treatises on this subject when we read the mad theories and absurd statements of those who set up to be our teachers; and with all our respect for the personal character and piety of the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, M. A., minister of St. John's Chapel, Bedford Row, we cannot but deeply regret that he has condescended to write the niaseries contained in his popular pamphlet: A Plea for the Poor, shewing how the proposed Repeal of the existing CornLaws will affect the Interests of the Working Classes. It is a dangerous thing for shoemakers to turn tailors; or even for boot-makers to set up for shoe-makers; or for gentlemen's shoe-makers to attempt to make the same article of dress for the softer

sex.

The last, the form, the leather, the kind of handy-work necessary, are not the same; and he who can gain a very comfortable income out of top-boot making, could not earn salt for his porridge as a maker of ladies' sandals. So we counsel the Hon. and Rev. Baptist Noel to stick to St. John's Chapel, to his pulpit, to his visits to the sick, the poor, and the dying, and not to write about trade and commerce. What merchant's little clerk, who receives but half-a-guinea a-week for his penmanship in his master's counting-house, would not laugh aloud at the naïveté of the following note in page 19 of that pamphlet ?

"The trade in foreign corn would

cause a demand for English goods; hence a new demand for raw materials, which would be paid for in goods." (Just as if we purchased all our imports with our exported manufactures.) "Hence a number of new ships, and new demand for timber, which likewise would be paid for in goods, and require more ships." (Just as if all the world were waiting tiptoe for the decision as to the cornlaws, wholly deprived hitherto of English manufactures, but which all would rush to purchase with corn, now allowed of course to spoil and rot.) "All this fresh employment would enable the artisan to consume more tea, sugar, &c., which would be paid for in more goods, and require more ships." (Oh, happy thrice happy Mr. Noel, who has thus discovered the true principle of interminable and interrupted barter. Knives for corn; muslins for corn; pots and pans for corn; gridirons and mustard-pots for corn; pepperboxes for timber; Spitalfields gowns for timber; Manchester goods for ships; corkscrews for ships. All exchange-all barter. No need for bullion; no need for bills of exchange, or bank-notes; but a bale of goods for a cart of corn; an article of crockery for each ear of wheat; and all this for ever, and no money either necessary or required.)

"Meanwhile," adds Mr. Noel, "there would be a demand for new houses and warehouses, and therefore for more timber and more ships. On all which accounts the increase for employment would be great to many classes." Halcyon days - bright visions — blessed prospects! Yes, many classes would indeed be employed, but they would at least not include the agricultural poor of England.

But then dear Thompson proposes finally, that the attention of the religious public should be called

"To the most legitimate and Christian means of obtaining an equitable settlement of the question, WITHOUT CIVIL CONVULSION, and without injury to the just interests of any class of our fellow-citizens."

We once knew a youth in our boyish days, who was himself much addicted to fighting. He loved pugilism so well, that he would not only fight his own battles, but engage

with pleasure as a combatant for any of his acquaintances. If two boys did not speak to each other, he vowed "they were sulking, and ought to fight it out." If two boys spoke in a somewhat loud tone of voice, he took off his coat, tucked up his shirt-sleeves, and was ready to fight for him who neither loved a black eye nor a bloody nose. This pro

pensity of his engendered much strife, led to quarrels between lads who had no intention whatever to fight, and turned the once happy circle of school-boys into a boxing arena. The Anti-corn League agitators are acting on this principle. They travel all over the country and cry, "A fight! a fight!" No one thought of fighting till these gentlemen told them they did; and as to "civil convulsion," they had quite as much intention of going into convulsions, as of concocting either a revolution or an émeute. "Civil convulsion!" Why, in the name of Daniel O'Connell himself, who ever thought of "civil convulsion" about the cornlaws?

66

But what does our friend Thompson mean by an equitable settlement of the question?" Does he mean to set up the manufacturing against the agricultural interests? Is this the "equitable" settlement he alludes to? Does he mean that the farmers who took leases of lands at fixed rents with the understanding that the slidingscale would be continued, are now to be ruined by the admission of foreign corn at seven or eight shillings per quarter? Does he mean that the British farmer is to be left unprotected to compete with foreign farmers in the British market, whilst British manufacturers are protected against foreign goods and manufactures? Is this the equitable settlement he alludes to ? "Oh, no!" he replies;" all this is to be done without injury to the just interests of any class of our fellow-citizens." You being the judge, dear George, eh? But now, you know, though you are a very clever man, you are neither the "Wizard of the North," nor "the Conjuror from the West." Are you? Well, then, how is this equitable settlement to be effected, which is to be so equitable as not to injure the just interests of any class of our fellow-citizens? Do you tell

THE Whig-Radical press have been some weeks labouring with all their might to prove, not only that divisions exist in the Conservative camp, but that the clergy, as a body, have no confidence in Sir Robert Peel, the acknowledged leader of the great Conservative party at the present moment. We purpose, therefore, to dissipate the mist in which the Whig-Radical newspapers have attempted to envelope this subject, and to state, for the benefit of any of our clerical readers who may have fallen in too much with the disparaging views of the ministerial organs, what those claims are which Sir Robert Peel, as a statesman, may fairly put forth to the confidence and support of all the Anglican clergy. Certain preliminary observations are, however, necessary. country has been exposed to imminent peril during the last ten years, the period of Whig ascendancy and Whig misrule, no one who exercises the powers of reflection, and is sufficiently honest to abide by the decisions of his own conscience, can entertain any reasonable doubt. The Reform-bill was carried in a moment of excitement, the people being led away by the current, which appears to have passed over from the Continent to this country after the glorious days of July 1830. Now, however, the people are sufficiently awake to perceive that the Reform-bill has left them much in the same condition

That our

the efforts of the late ministers failed to get up the steam in their favour, it is admitted on every side,-admitted even by their friends, that the people of England are not favourable to those statesmen by whom that measure was concocted and carried into a law. Since the passing of that measure a party has been gradually rising up in the country, which, at the present moment, outnumbers by far all the other parties in the kingdom and, as far as property and influence are concerned, no comparison can be instituted between the Conservatives and the motley crew of their opponents. In the first parliament under the Reform-bill, the Conservatives, having been seized with a feeling of indifference, were but few in number; in the second and third they nearly equalled all the other parties collectively; in the last they actually outnumbered them; and in the present the Conservative majority was, on the amendment to the address, ninety-one. The change, therefore, which has taken place in public opinion since the year of the Reform - bill, is most marvellous, and in no way inferior to that which was the cause of the rapid passing of the measure in question. It is not our purpose to express our condemnation or our approval of the Reform-bill. The Conservatives are prepared to act upon it, to carry its provisions into