The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, MONDAY, JUNE 14, 1841.

SIR -.ROBERT PEEL, AND THE
MANCHE-tin:lt CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
'FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE MANCHESTER GUARDIAN.
- Chamber of Commerce, Jan. 11, 1841.
Sir,—When we requested you in your last paper to
insert the correspondence between Sir Robert Peel and
ourselves, we thought it had closed. Since then, how-
ever, 'another letter has been received from the Right
Hon. Gentleman ; • and we shall be obliged by your in-
serting this and our reply thereto, in your next publica-
tion.--We are, Sir, yours respectfully,
J. B. SMITH,
HOLLAND HOOLE.
Whitehall, June Bth, 1841.
• 'Gentlemen,—l have received your letter of yesterday,
and cannot permit it to close our correspondence.
There is no doubt a variation in phrase between the
passage to which you refer in the Report of the Morning
Chronicle, and another report in which, according to
your remark, all the mis-statements which led you to
-address me are altogether omitted or corrected.
Now, in this latter rep Art are the 'following allegations
with respect to the pamphlet of Mr. Greg :
That, at my interview with the deputation, a particular
wish was expressed that :I would read the pamphlet,—
that I was assured I should attach great importance to
it, and that I entered on its perusal with no little anxiety
after. the assurance I had received from such high au-
thority, that it was difficult to resist its conclusions.
In this latter report also I speak of the author of the
pamphlet as the chosen champion of the Chamber of
Commerce.
The expressions themselves may be different, but there
is no such difference in the purport of them, as would
justify me in saying that the passage in the report of the
Morning Chronicle is an erroneous one.
I cannot discuss the subject without observing that the
course which has been pursued by the members of the
deputation has been a most unfair one.
I spoke in the House of Commons on the 18th of May.
On the day. following, one of the. members of the depu-
tation published in the newspapers a letter nominally ad-
dressed to me, impugning the correctness of my state-
ments ; but he did not send to me either the original, or
a copy of that letter.
From you I received no communication whatever until
the 2d of. Tune, a fortnight after the debate ' • and then. in
a letter which professes to give a simple and true recital
of the circumstances of the interview which you had
with me, you wish to make it appear that nothing had
passed on the subject of Mr. Greg's pamphlet during our
conference ; but that, after the members had left their
seats, Mr. Ashworth asked whether I had seen some eb-
servations upon Sir Fowell. Buxton's Schemes, in a pam-
phlet by Mr. Greg.
This is completely at variance with the fact.
In your last letter, you write as if I had not at once
admitted to yourselves, that there was a mati•rial error
in one of the passages in the report of the Morning
Chronicle, and you assume, without any foundation, that,
independently of that error, there is a substantial diffe-
rence in the two reports to which you refer, in respect
to the importance which was attached to the pamphlet
of Mr. Greg at my interview with the deputation.
Though I cannot understand the motives for the course
which you have pursued, either in respect to the original .
delay your communications to me, or to the tenor of
them,' and ;mist protest altogether against the fairness of
your proceedings, yet I shall abstain from following
your example, and decline the interchange of harsh and
abusive expressions.
I have the honour to be, Gentlemen,
Your obedient servant, ROBERT PEEL.
Chamber of Commerce, Manchester,
June 10th, 1841.
Sir,—We beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter
of the Bth instant. ; in which, after we had supposed
the correspondence had closed, we regret to see, for the
first time, that you make a charge of unfairness against
us, " in respect to the original delay in our communica-
tions to you."
If this charge were at all warrantable, it would in
no respect alter the facts of the case : with regard to
them it is entirely unimportant. But it has no substan-
tial foundation : Mr. Ashworth, through the news-
papers, without a moment's delay, addressed you on
the subject ; and, in your reply to .a letter he subse-
qnently wrote to you, you say, " I make no complaint
of discourtesy on your part." For ourselves, we beg to
remind you, that in the very first paragraph of our first
letter to you, we explicitly stated the reasons which had
prevented us from previously writing to you. We dis-
claim, therefore, your insinuation of any " motive" for
the delay.
We have complained that, in your speech in the
House of. Commons, and in your letters to us, yon have
misrepresented the ,real object for which the•deputation
sought an interview with you. You do, indeed, in the
only sentence relating to it in the published speech
corrected by yourself, say, " They (the deputation)
called on me to advocate the principles of free trade
but you kept out of sight the arguments adduced by
them in favour of these principles -- the evidences of
the want of employment and distress, as evinced by the
10,000 empty houses in Manchester and five neighbour-
ing towns, and the fears entertained that if the system
of monopolies were persevered in, we should shortly lose
the two best customers we hid in the world for our
manufactures, viz., the United • States:llnd Brazil, You
had not the candour to refer to the. clocuments,in sup-
port of their views, which- were formally and officially
presented to you by the deputation, vii.—" The Report
of the Directors on the impolicy of restrictions on trade,"
and the " resolutions" adopted by the Chamber thereof ;
but you represented the object of-the deputation, in call-
ing upon you, to be "to express 4 particular wish
that you would read a:certain pamphlet on the extinc-
tion -of -slavery," written by Mr. W. R. Greg, and that
•they told you "they would abide by the decision you
came to upon this pamphlet."
We again most explicitly declare this statement to be
a misrepresentation of the objects of the deputation, and
of the fact, which occurred at the -interview ; and we
leave you, after having affirmed its accuracy, to account
for the suppression, in the published speech corrected by
yourself, of this latter statement, viz., that the deputa-
tion told you they would abide by the decision you came
to upon Mr. Greg's pamphlet.
We feel that we were bound, in our own justification
to the body whom we had the honour to represent, to
call upon you to explain the misrepresentations made by
you in the House of Commons, relating to your inter-
view with the deputation. On a review of our corre-
spondence with you, we still think that the circumstances
of the case justify the comments and language to which
we have given utterance, and of which you complain.
The whole matter, however, is now before the public ;
and we are willing to abide by its decision upon the
" fairness," between you and ourselves, of the whole
proceedings.—We have the honour to be, Sir, your
obedient set vants,
(Signed)

J. 33. SMITH,
HOLLAND HOOLE.

P.S.- -Your letter, and this reply, will be published
,hrough the same channel as the.previous correspondence.
The Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel, Bart., M.P.
London.

THE CORN-LAWS.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR,—As you have ever been a steady advocate for
the repeal of the Corn-laws, I trope you will favour with
insertion a reason for repeal which is not usually brought
forward—and that is, the advantage of this repeal to
landed proprietors themselves. I own land in thirteen
parishes in the South, and I occupy a considerable farm
myself, which leads me to believe the doing away of
the Corn-laws would raise my rents, by stimulating our
tenants to raise, in 1842; as much grain as in 1836,
when wheat averaged 395. sd. •a quarter, at which price
the Scotch farmers, examined before the House of Com-
mons, stated they were making handsome profits ; and
Earl Radnor's argument for Arepeal was a strong one,
when he said the Corn-laws are proved not to have
answtmed, because more grain has been imported in
the eleven years previous to 1839, than dur-
ing any former eleven years ; and the great
crops obtained by my little allotment tenants,
have shown me how much my great tenants
might produce by equal capital and skill. Your readers
will say, where do your little allotment tenants obtain
their capital ? It is a patrimony which has descended
to them from a long line of ancestors, and without which
the largest estate would be useless to its possessor, till
man can live on the briars and thorns which spring of
themselves. The capital I allude to consists of limbs
inured 'to the toil requisite for producing such food as
man can digest ; and what is capital generally but accu-
mulated labour, represented by gold, which may glitter
but can neither feed, clothe, or lodge us, till again ex-
changed for labour ? Capital for farming well is all
relativeAo.,.the extent of acres occupied ; and the man
who has not more land than his own hands can cultivate,
really has a larger capital than he who has thousands of
pounvds.sterling, if he cannot purchase with those thou-
sands as much labour on the land he uses as the man be-
stows who has only the labour of himself and his wife
and children ; nor will he be deficient in manure if as
careful of that which is usually thrown away, as the
Chinese are, whose dense population has hitherto resisted
all foreign encroachments. . .
Landlords whose rents have risen with the rise of the
price of bread have substantial reasons for supporting the
Corn-laws, but I know none whose rents have' risen, and
I have found my own rents fall as prices rose. I there-
fore wish the Corn-laws repealed, which I have no doubt
would occasion such increased diligence as would occasion
my rents to rise in proportion as the price of corn falls.
Tenants who are indolent wish the Corn-laws to continue
because fewer loads of wheat paid their rents at 695. per
quarter in 1839 than at 395. per quarter in 1836 ; but Sir
Robert Peel would not have enjoyed his present fortune
if cotton goods . had remained at the prices of fifty
years since, and I doubt not his income from land will
equally rise as the price of the produce declines.
I consider that the tenantry have . been lured .to that
ruin by what was called tne legislative protection of
agriculture ; for" abundant produce and high prices are
incompatible, and whilst abundant produce gives certain
grain, high prices do not benefit those who have little or
nothing to sell ; but no outlay of capital or trouble is re-
quired
for
growingofweeds, and whilst landlords were
towilling their rents as weeds increased; their
llower
tenants would not take the trouble of removing them,
but if left fairly to compete with fOreigners, they will
soon show that England is capable of supporting double
its-present population, and cheap bread would increase
-the- demand. , for it by inviting, home absentees to
spend their incomes on their native soil, to the great
gain. of all trades and professions.
• Tents •
,
June 3, 1841. M. G.

oriiNGtl;:inGh:ea.
tv-hielesuewbnliw:cliotuice
in: ,
az I,oor sad
station. made the passage
.-- ~ ,
EXTRAORDINARY I LRFO:bNifehANhaCsE
always I N STEAM-
BOAT
been
a great
fTa
vf toAuNt rt Le L
from London• bridge wharf to the Town Pier, Gravesend, on
Monday last, the 7th instant. in the sherteAt time, that has ever
been known, I'.-:,:ving
thirty-five minutes, altboegh SheLltpmed..",
..•
7, • • - • ..
•- • ~-, 41.4%..9.^.1. erl: :Loa:: ' "1-
raupge to take in passengeze. .
•-7 ::,-'73.- '," :..i. eibqjr) : i
~ . ''''''. 12TIPael 02 be
:.-::::. ar.,..-...n: ..n!..7 ,••