Star.
London, England, 1815-02-16 00:00:00

- not meet the question

LT, ly do they _ ...e
fairly ? Their principal opponents (and we.speek
aot now of those who oppose them on motives of
private interzst, but of those who enter the lists on'
principles of general benefit)—their principal oppo.
nents do not contend that they should not at present
be protected : none of them have proposed to repeal
the present protecting duty of 63 shillings. But we
complain that the advocates for dear bread endeavour
to keep it out of view that by the present laws the
,ports are shut against importation whenever the
average price of the twelve maritime districts falls to
63 shillings :—that they keep this fact in the back
ground, and argue as if they enjoyed no protection.
They are protected to the price of 635. wit'a also
an instant exclusive monopoly for a whole quarter of
a year, from the date of the returns. In other words,
they are then allowed to raise the price to 80s. 90s.
100 s.—to any price their conscience may allow : and
we know something, by experience, of the length of
this measure. Now the question is, whether 635. be
not at least a sufficiently high protecting duty? Let
us for a little examine their own evidence. In the
House of Commons' Report, their very first wit-
am states, that with wheat at eighty • shillingo,
the tenants can pay the present rents, and of
course the preselit taxes and expenses : another wit-
ness (still with reference to the pretext rents and taxes)
says, that if the farmers could be protected against
importation to the extent of 73s..they would be under
no particular anciety.or uneasiness.---" they wouldi
have no ground at -all:" a third states, that if the
farmers could be by law protected to the extent of
70 or 755. a quarter, there would be no difTiculty in
getting them to take leases. And one witness
sell a farmer of near 500 acres) speaks thus: " I consi-
der that Vs. a quarter, upon an average crop,although

it would not admit of the introduction of luxuries
into a farmer's house, would be a protection to him."
New this may fairly be called . the landholder's evi-
dence'; for it is matter of nutotiety, that the manu.
facturtrs and others, who presented the petitions, did
not exert themselves to produce, and did not produce
a single witness. •We say, then, that even on this ex•
parse statement, SOs. 73'. 725. or 70s. are to be tact.'
as affording a living profit, under all the then existing
guar taxer, at the war priers of labour, aaJ consuma:le
articles, and at the war-rent: ; but what do these same
witnesses acknowledge to be the ntcessary cuu-
sequence of a change, in the particulars on which
their calculations are grounded ? Why, they admit,
that 66 if the Property Tax were taken off, it would
make a difference ;" that 66 if the high price of the
article is reduced, !dour will necessarily reduce itself;"
that 46 persons have purchased lands at enormiusly
high prices, merely because corn was at so high a
price that tenants could be found to give exorlitamt
rent:;" that •' if the price of wheat should fall back
to the price of 179'2, all the expense:, excepting taxes,
would in.a length of time be diminished in the sime
proportion."—Now, it is certain that the Property
Tax is to be taken off: it is proved that the price GI
labour has actually fallen :and it is not too much to
expect, that those who have taken exorbitant rents
will make some abatement.

But farther, let us observe the mode of managing
the evidence. The questions were generally what
lawyers term leading questions. , They may be illus-
trated by the sapient question of Aunt Deborah to
the Doctor—,6 Is it not murder to drown a child
every morning in cold water ?" 44 Under the prudent
rents, taxes, and expenseS, what price would yield
die farmer an adequate profit ?",..." Can he afford to
sell under per bushel ?" 3cc.
Now if by their own evidence, under war rents and
taxes, from 70s. to 80s. would have been a sufficient
protecting duty, is it too much to assert that, with
the savings occasicned by the repeal of the property
tax, the cessation of war taxes, the reduction in
wages, in wood, in cattle, in tradesmen's bills. and in
seed corn, Sixty-three shillings mould be sufficiently
high to protect-the agricultural interests ?
The fact is undeniable—the aim of some Landhol-
ders is, to compel the country to pay the same prices
las when the Landlords were subject to the Property
Tax, and high war expenses. In other words, to
corn-tax the rest of the community—to make others
still continue to pay their quota of the Property Tax,
that it may go—not into the Treasury—not in aid of
the public exigencies—but into the pockets of the Land-
holder: theinselves.
It is all a farce to talk of protecting the tenants. i
Every one in the smallest degree acquainted with 1
political economy, knows that the question lies en-
tirely between the Landlords and the rest of the com-
munity ; for the greater the profits to the farmer, the
higher must tents eventually rise. It is in the very
nature of things that excessive farming profits, by the
usual operation of rivalry inducing offers of higher
rents, must find their way into tae pockets of the

Landholders-
Were thin, however, a question only between the
Landboldets and the rest of the community, it would
be trivially unimportant;—the one would pocket
what the other lost ; it is a question between Great
Britain and our Continental rivals ; and on its deci-
sion—on the price of our bread—will depend. whether'
Britain is to maintain her superiority in manufactures
and commerce over other nations ? That is, whether
we are to sink in the scale, and become a retrograde—
a falling community ?

1•••••••••
•
It iS not the prevalent opinion in the City, that
aa additional Land Tax of sixpence in the pound
upon the preseat rates, Will form a proasiasat item
in the Cismicm.Loa of the Exnaaavaa's new plan

' ctriatancifoe the eilndisig !trot threllalllnfiles
This will, k is iestimated,produce eight inillions:
The other projects mentioned are the unclaimed di-
videndi in the Bank and in Chancery, amounting
together to about 24 millions.

A. Jamaica Mail arrived this morning. The Papers
brought by it are to the 80th December. On the
9th of that month a Haytian flag of truce arrivtd at
Kingston with the the French pseudo Commissioner,
General LAVAYSIE, on board ; and, it is added, in
the Jamaica Papers, that PErvis had declared his
willingness to surrender his portion of St. Domingo
to Louts XVIII.

The above Mail was brought by the Pi incess Mary
packet, which has arrived at Falmouth. She kit
Jamaica on the 2d January.

SECOND EDITION.

STAR-OFFICE, THREE O'CLOCK.

SIR JOHN MURRAY'4 SENTENCE.

The following is the Sentence of the Court Mar-
tial on General Sir JOHN MURRAY, which will be

promulgated in General Orders this evening. Of
the first and second charges the General is acquitted,
bnt on the third charge, which refers to his leaving
the Stores behind, he is ordered ro be admonished.

By letters received from Liverpool, it sprears that
Admiral Coma Axe's Expedition, consisting ( f be.
tween fifty and sixty vessels, and tea thousatA troops
'on board, arrived before New Orlegns on the 9th
December.

Admiral CocnnAltz immediately look pnssession
of a fort, which had been evacuated by the Ameri.
coos under General Jacis:•`, who had retreated.

NAVAL INTELLIGENCE.

FALMOU ni, FEBRUARY 14.

Arrived the Princess Mary Packet, with a Mail
from Jamaica, in 42 days—she experienced very bad
weather in a hurricane, when scudding under her
toresail—she was strtick by lightning, which killed
the Mate, and wounded one of the men, and mate-
rially injured her decks. Put back the Lady Wel.
lington Packet, sound from hence to Halifax, with a
Mail—after being at sea one month and two days,
she experienced such very bad weather, that she was
at length obliged to bear up for this port to rert4 her
damage, but not until she had been compelled to
throw all her guns overboard.—Wind S.