The Sun.
London, England, 1821-01-16 00:00:00

THP. NORTHUMBERLAND MEETING

The high Sheriff for the County of -Northum-
berland having refused to convene b. Meeting of
.the Nobility, Gentry, and Freeholders, in com-
pliance with a requisition whiCh was forwarded
to him, the parties who signed that requisition
convened themselves, by their own authority, on
Wednesday last. When we add, that Earl
GREY, Sir C. MoNcK, and Mr. LAINIBTON,
,were
the principal supporters of the Address that was
moved and carried, we need not explain to our
readers its character and tendency.—Like the
Hants and Bedfordshire- Meetings, the junta
who managed the business, had it all their own
way, and triumphed—not over their opponents—
for there were none—but without them. Mr.
Orde, indeed, stood forth, in despite of clamour
and insult, and with manly sincerity avowed
opinions hostile tn the purpose for which the
Meeting was- called. At first, a determined dis-
position was manifested not to hear him, because
it would be subversive of are great- principle
which distinguishes all patriots—thator listen-
ing to themselves only. ma t , as- 4218 eritiernan
seemed no less determined to wait till they. did
hear him ; and as • Earl GttEy hinted that his
own speech could not be delivered till they had
listened to Mr. 011. DE, an unwilling audience was
von chsafed.

The sentiments which Mr. ORDE has fearlessly
delivered, were furiously, but impotently, at-
tacked by Earl C REP, whose oration, as usual,
contained an ample portion of sophistry, and of un-
supported assertion. In some parts we must sup-
pose the Noble Earl has been incorrectly re-
ported, as for example, when he says, " the Mi-
nisters proceeded to the third reading of the Bill
of Pains and Penalties, with a majority of nine."
They proceeded to the third reading with a ma-
jority of twenty-eight ; and they carried the
third reading by the majority of nine. The No-
ble Earl also lays down the doctrine very au-
thoritatively, that in consequence of the aban-
donment of the Bill, the QUEEN stands now as
" fully absolved from all guilt, a 3 if the accusa-
tions had never been instituted against her." Of
course, he means that her Majesty is legally ab•-
solved from all guilt, in reference to any penal
consequences. He cannot intend to imply, that
she is morally absolved, or that she has come out
of the inquiry pure as " unsunned snow." . We
have, indeed, his Lordship's own authority for
the exact contrary ; and, if we had it not, our.own
confidence in the fact would remain just as strong.
In his speech on the 3d November) he thus ex-
presses himself :---

." I am sure•the Noble Earl (LtvinTooL) must
feel that if the Bill
.be read a second time it will
be his duty to pass it, if he can,• through the
Jiouse. If it should- be read- a second time, I,
mysey; am. inclined to thi-dk-l'eat I shuttled deent it
the less evil to pass, than to reject it. Let it be
read a second tune, and the WHOLE MISCHIEF
WILL BE DONE. As far as it is in our power to
do so, we should AFFIX A_ STIGMA UPON THE
QUEEN WHICH NO ULTERIOR MEASURE WOULD
EFFACE."

My Lord—The Bill teas read a second time ;
it was read a third time. Will your Lordship
permit us to think with yourself, that " A STIGMA
HAS BEEN AFFIXFD upon the QUEEN, which HO
ulterior-measure can efface ?" Why, then, should
those who are of that opinion—an opinion held
by a large majority of the Country—suffer them-
selves to be deterred froth expressing it ? The
fact is solemnly recorded, that a majority of the
House of Peers declared, by their votes, that the
QUEEN had been guilty of adultery and of licen-
tious conduct. We agree with that majority.
Have we not a right so to do, as clear and as
positive, as the right of the minority, to dissent
from it ? It is not in our power—as reasoning
beings—to refuse our assent; and we have yet to
learn," that such being our opinion, formed upon
evidence publicly produced, and fortified by a
majority of the judges, before-whom it was pro-
duced, we are not at liberty to avow it.—(lorn-
ing Port.)

At a Vestry Meeting of the Parish of St.
George, Hanover-square, held on Saturday last,
a Loyal Address to his MAJESTY was agreed to.
A Loyal Declaration was signed by Lord Cm-
CHESTER, and all the Magistrates assembled at
the Sussex Quarter Sessions, (with the exception
of two, Messrs. THORP and D'ALBION,) on Sa-
turday last.
A Meeting of the County of Lanark was held
at Hamilton on Thursday last,, when a. Loyal
Address was moved by Sir C. LOCKHART, to
which an Amendment, recommending. economy,
&c. was moved and carried by a majority of four :
the numbers being for the amended Address 94,
against it 90.
The Faculty of Physicians and Surgeons of the
City of Glasgow voted a loyal and constitu-
tional Address to his MAJESTY, on Monday.
A public meeting was, held at D'Arcy's
Rooms, Dublin, on Thursday last, on the sub-
ject of the dispersion of the late County
Meeting at Kilmainham. Colonel TALBOT was
in the Chair. Mr. FINLAY read the report
of the proceedings of the Committee appoint-
ed to obtain redress' since the last meeting.--
The Committee, he said, had presented an °Ad-
dress to the Lord Lieutenant on the subject, but
no answer was returned. Mr. Curran moved a
Petition to be' presented to both Houses of Par-
liament. It was nearly a transcript of the Me-
morial to the Lord Lieutenant. The motion was
carried.

DOWTON is gone to-Ipswich, where he is en-
gaged to perform during the present week.
The Windsor Theatre closed its short and un-
profitable winter season on Saturday last.

AGRICULTURE

ASHBY DE LA Z(--)t:C1-1, JAN. 6, 1821.

TO THE EDI COIL

Sits—Although the Agrlctiltural Question is
now :almost worti thread-bare, still the mind of
the public seems as much diVided on its merits
as ever: I therefore trust some further remarks
nt the subject will not be deemed' superfluous;
.particularly if they 6o towardS 'elucidating .a
question which so many conflicting opfnions on
both sides, and not always very consistent argu-
ments on either, have rather tended to confuse:
It will best 'answer this object, to put the case
in the form of questions, leaving the answers to

be supplied by the reader. The first I shall put
will be general questions, either 'founded on ac-
knowledge-4 principlei of political economy, or
deduced 'theefrOni.
1. Is not the general price of labour (omitting
its fltictuations from demand) founded on the
price of food ?
2: Does net the taking-into cultivation soils of
an inferior quality to those already under the
plough, tend to increase the cost of provisions.?
3. Are not the prices of articles of manufac-
ture (generally speaking) affected by the price
of labour ?
4. Can therefore a commercial nation maintain
a progressive prosperity, if she resorts, for the
supply of' her_ increasing population, to the
cultivation of soils, inferior to' those already in
cultivation by their 'neighbours ? _

5., Must not the consequence be -that she
could not afford her manufactures so cheap as
before, and that her foreign trade must of course
decline ?

6. Would it not therefore be better to import
the additional quantity of provisions she required
by the increase of her population ?
7. What injury would this be to the Farmer?
Could the foreign grower of corn, on soils of
equal fertility, undersell him in his own markets,
when the price of labour was nearly the same in
both countries ?

8. Is not the produce of Agriculture (except
what is caused by improvements in the science)
limited by the number of aeres you possess ?
9. Are there any limits to trade and manu-
factures ?

10. Is it not better to apply any surplus ca-
pital obtained by commerce, to some profitable
branch of trade, rather than employ it in the cul-
tivation of soils; whereby the cost of provisions
is increased ?
11. Would not that be a wholesome state of
things, in which nations were left, by• an unre-
stricted commerce, to the full benefit arising from
their natural advantages, or the habits of their
people ; and is it not therefore advisable to ap-
proximate as much as possible to such a state of
things ? •
12. Would it not therefore (arguing in the
abstract) be politic, to abandon any branch of
commerce in which we could be undersold by
our neighbours ?
13. Does not the culture of bad soils come un-
der that head ? '

14. Would the throwing out of cultivating
bad soils, diminish the profits of farmers of good
soils, provided rents fell'accordingiv ; and would
they have less stimulus to the improvement of
their land ?

15. Which gives the greatest encouragement
to a farmer to improve his land—Security of
high prices, or security of possession ?
Let me now apply these general questions.to
our own case.

Ist. Can Great Britian maintain her present
power without foreign commerce, (i.e.) can she
exist as a great nation by her internal resources
alone ?

2. On what is her naval power founded ?
3. Whichi composes the chief part of her ex-
ports—Agricultural produce .or Manufactures ?

4. Can✓the export of the latter, to any great
extent, be maintained with au increase in the
prices of labour?
5. Would any further protection to Agricul-
ture, occasion an increase in the price of Pro-
visions ?,

6. Has not Great Britain a great deal of land
under the plough, inferior to what is cultivated
among the countries of Europe ?
7. Can she grow sufficient corn for- her own
consumption, without having recource to very
poor soils ?
8. Would it not be politic gradually to with-
draw these soils from culti•ation ?

9. Is the protection now afforded by the corn
laws sufficient to preserve soils, not of a very
inferior quality, in cultivation, supposing rents
to fall to their due, after throwing out the bad
soils ?

10. Supposing taxes to fall in proportion to
the reduced prices, would not this protection be
wore than sufficient to preserve good soils in cul-
tivation ?

11. Have not prices so fallen, that SO shillings
are now equal to • what 100 were at the time the
Corn Laws were passed ; and is not, therefore,
the protection to the farmer three-fourths more
than it was at that period ?
12. Is not this more than sufficient to make up
for any defect in the return of averages ?
13. Is the quantity imported within these few
years, sufficient to account for the present low
price of corn.?

14. To what then is it to be attributed—ls it
not to causes which have affected Agriculture in
common with all branches of home trade ?

15-. Supposing the. present system of protection
to Agriculture to be exchanged for one of Port
duties ;. what amount of duty would satisfy the
Yeti tioners ?
16. Must it not be the difference between .40s.
at which. it is said foreign corn can .he irriported,
and 80s. fixed. in 1815, as' the price at which
corn could be grown upon the. worst soils.then
under cultivation in England—That is =h)s..per
quarter ? .

17. Would not this amount almost to a total
prohibition ?
18. Would such a prohibition be consistent
with the principles already admitted ?
Now the obvious answers to these questions
will slim) I think) clearly; that any additional