The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-12 00:00:00

TOBACCO TRADE.

Mr. HUME moved for a Select Committee, to exa-
mine into the present state of the tobacco trade, and to
inquire what effects have been produced by the changes
in the laws relating to it ; and whether any and what
Legislative measures, compatible with the general in-
terest of the country, might be advisable, in order to pro-
mote the trade, or to check smuggling in tobacco ; and
to report their observations thereupon to the House.
The motion was agreed to, after a few observations
from the CIIA.NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr.
F. BARING.
The Committee of the Poor-law Amendment Bill was
postponed till Friday. -
On the motion of Lord ASHLEY, the following
Members were appointed as the Select Committee on
Medical Relief to the poor:—Lord Ashley, Mr.
Brotherton, Mr. Bell, Colonel Fox, Mr. Pakington, Mr.
Hawes, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Owen Stanley, Lord
John Manners, Mr. Warburton, Lord Robert Grosvenor,
Mr. Gaily Knight, Mr. Lascelles, Mr. Manners Sutton,
and Mr. Bramston.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
in the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Reduction Bill,
which was read a first time and ordered to be read a
second time to-morrow (this day.)
The House Adjourned at Nine o'Clock.

FREE TRADE MEETING.
(From the Suffolk Chronicle.)
On Wednesday evening last, a meeting of landed pro-
prietors, tenant-farmers, merchants, and tradesmen, was
held at the Swan Inn, Harleston, to take into considera-
tion the propriety of petitioning Parliament to repeal
the duties on foreign corn, the duty on malt, and in fa-
vour of free tt ade generally.
Thomas Lombe Taylor, Esq., of Starston, a gentle-
man of wealth, station, and intelligence, was called upon
to preside, which he did with an ability seldom exceeded
on similar occasions. The meeting was highly respect-
able, and composed of wen holding various political

opinions.
The CHAIRMAN-You are all aware that a meeting
was held in this town upon thii day week of those par-
ties who were favourable to protection-protection only.
Many individuals holding the same politics as myself, con-
sidering that meeting was, as it had been stated, to be a pub-
lic meeting, attended, but to their astonishment found they
were not allowed to open their mouths.-(Hear.) Many in-
dividuals indeed were afraid to show themselves, because
their names being gathered, and afterwards inserted in the
Morning Post, and not being allowed to express their
real opinions, the public in reading the report would
have 'imagined they belonged to the monopolists.-
(Hear, hear.) For this reason, as well as others, the
present meeting had been called. Upon this occasion
full and free discussion is asked for-(Hear)-the fuller
and freer the better. With respect to himself, in order
that there might be no mistake about his own senti-
ments, he had put them upon paper, and which by their
permission he would read :-" I am so connected with
the land, that if the corn-laws are beneficial to those
immediately interested in the land, they will -be so to
me. I state this, trusting you will be more inclined to
listen to what I may advance in favour of an entire re-
peal:of those corn-laws. But however dependent I am
upon land, I would not advocate any law which might be
thought to advantage any one part of the community at the
expense of another. The corn-laws (and I beg to remind
you that we have had several, five, I believe, during the
last forty years) may at times have been a benefit
to the landowners and titheowners, but it is
doubtful whether they are now a benefit even to them,
and I am of opinion, and will endeavour to show, that
they are now, and almost always have been, an injury to
the tenant-farmers and their labourers. Have the corn-
laws, for any continuance of time, realised to the farmers
the expectations held out to them by the framers and
passers of those laws ? You cannot have forgotten the
frequent recurrence of agricultural distress, under these
protective laws. lam far from thinking that the repeal
of these laws will produce very cheap corn, as the Anti-
Corn-law League contend it will, and consider that the
League has much injured the cause of repeal and free
trade, by holding out the hope of cheap bread ; but, I
believe that repeal would produce greater uniformity
between English and Foreign prices, and also more
regular prices. Both landowners and manufacturers are
too selfish and one-sided in their views of this
question. I will now call your attention to the
working of the different corn-laws. From 1805
to 1815, the law allowed free importation of
wheat at 6d. per quarter when the price was above 665.
per quarter. During those 10 years (excepting 1815)
the price never ranged so low as 665. the quarter, con-
sequeatly there was free importation. In some of these
years, prices averaged 120 s. per quarter, although there
was, I repeat, free importation. I beg to ask whether
the corn-laws caused these high prices, and the high
rents then put upon the land ? Did not the paper
money produce some effect ? And I ask may not the
present currency laws (I refer partly to Peel's Bill of
1819) produce some effect, and more even than the
present corn-law does on the present prices, and
therefore are not the farmers wrong in looking to
corn-laws and the sliding scale only as a protection?
In those ten years (1805 to 1815) the importation
of wheat averaged about a million quarters a
year. I mention this to show that with open
ports and high prices to tempt importation, we can-
not have unlimited supplies, as some suppose. We
certainly could not then have supplies from the seat of
war (and even now France cannot spare us any corn)
but Poland, Russia, and America were open to us, and
in those countries corn is said to be the cheapest. Con-
sider how much population has increased all over the
Continent of Europe, and in England too, since the peace
in 1815, and remember, too, what much greater supplies
are now required to feed their' increased population. In
1838, 1839, and 1840, our imports of wheat exceeded
two million quarters a year, and yet it cannot be said
there was a surplus of food, or that wheat was then
cheap. No, the more our manufacturers are employed,
the more corn and food they require, and the better
prices we shall receive. In 1815 wheat was down
to 635. Bd. per quarter, on the year's average, and the
landowners, considering then that it could not be
grown for less then 80s. per quarter, passed a law
prohibiting importation when the price was below that
sum. Then the ruin of the tenant-farmer and the la-
bourer commenced ; and mark, that during the ope-
ration of this corn-law, Peel's Currency Bill was passed.
Notwithstanding this law (which was to guarantee the
farmer 80s. for his wheat), prices kept lowering till
1822, when wheat was 435. 3d. per quarter on the year's
average, little more than one-half the price contemplated
by the framers of the Act of 1815. Need I remind you
how many farmers were ruined at this period? The
state of things at that time ought to have warned the
farmers never again to have relied on a corn-law for pro-
tection, and it ought still to warn them. The average
price of wheat in these seven years, between 1815 and
1822, never reached 80s. per quarter, except in 1817 and
1818, and then the higher price was tb be attributed to
the bad seasons of 1816 and 1817. The law failed in
effect. Agricultural distress produced a new law
in 1823. This prohibited importation when wheat
was below 70s. per quarter, with a duty of
17s. per quarter when above. Landowners and
tenants supposed that whilst this law remained
in force wheat would not be under 70s. This
law continued till 1828, and how did it work ? The
average never touched 70s. per quarter, and in only two
out of the five years (from 1823 to 1828) even 60s. The
lowest, in 1823, was 51s. 9d. Great imports did not pro-
duce these low prices, as they did not average 300,000
quarters a year. The landowners, however, during this
time, were getting high rents, set according to Act of
Parliament price of corn, and not the market value. In
1828 another law (the sliding-scale law) was passed:-
that being a more recent measure, I need hardly state its
effects. It did not, you must allow, produce a healthy
state of things ; prices varied as much as ever. In 1834,
I find the average price of wheat was 465. 2d. ; in 1835,
395. 4d ; and in 1836, 48s. 6d. per quarter. It cannot be
said that great importations at this period caused these
ruinous prices, as in
1833 the imports were 83,601 quarters.
1834
1835
1836
It is clear, however, that this corn-law did not keep
prices up to the farmers' expectations, and the fluctua-
tions were very considerable. In 1838, 1839, and 1840, we
had large deliveries of foreign corn, the largest ever
known, and I beg to ask whether these were the farmers'
worst years ?-
In 1838... Imports, 1,821,151 qrs....Aver. price, 645. 7d.
1839... „ 2,652,553 ... If 70s. Bd.
1840... „ 2,295,419 ... 19 665. 4d.
And probably more foreign corn could not have been
obtained with perfectly open ports, as much of this corn
consisted of accumulation of the growth of former
years. The sliding-scale did not prevent prices
going down to 365., and up to 70s. per quarter.
here has not been more corn raised in foreign coun-
tries than has been consumed there, or exported ;
and from the accounts of travellers, it appears that all
the land near good roads or rivers is cultivated. If
their exports are to be increased, their cultivation must
be extended, and this cannot be done without a great
outlay of capital, the want of which must be a bar to
a great or rapid extension ; besides which, the skill in
cultivation, as I can certify, is also wanting. The ex-
pense of transit of foreign corn, port dues, merchant's
profits, warehousing, loss by moisture and heating, being
from 15s. to 20s. per quarter, will, with the benefits of
free trade, be a sufficient protection to the English
farmer ; but, in addition, I say we must have a healthy
currency adapted to our enormous taxation-there must
be no tamperings with it, so that one day anybody may
have credit, and on another nobody, and so much of
Peel's Bill of 1819, as regulates the price of gold,
must be repealed. In an agricultural parish
the rates are paid by the farmers, but in a
manufacturing town they are paid (and often in a
much higher proportion) by the manufacturers and
their dependents. The tithes have been called a bur-
den en land, but these never belonged to the landown-
ers or their tenants. If you purchased an estate (sub-