The Statesman.
London, England, 1815-02-02 00:00:00

,1 generally, not partially, and in the way that cer-
Churchmen are taking upon themselves to point,
.Iy, 66 robbing Peter to pay Paul." We long
see the clerical character giving practical examples
retrenchment and reform, and exercising a
!tip of that self-denial which they so de.
,ut!y recommend to others; for whilst the Per-
m and the Government reoeive one pound

acre from landed property, it is morally impel-
si‘,le that the people of England can be fed at a
reasonable rate, unless the landlords in general will
be patriotic enough to dispense with their customary
demands of rent. It might also be worthy of con.
•ideration, whether it is necessary for the Clergy to
levy such heavy contributions upon the community,
and whether they might not be more useful members
of society, by reducing their incomes within mo•
Aerate limits, than in running about to public meet-
ings to speculate and petition in favour of Corn
Bills? As fur some of the young Members of the
Church, we fenr they are better calculated for giving
examples of vice than virtue, and lack the necessary
.talities of grace and their calling so much, that their
parishioners would be glad to dispense with their
offices altogether.
Relieve the land from these grievous burdenr, and
there %sill be no occasion for the Legislature to pass
an Oct for keeping up the price of corn ; landed pro.
perry is like every other article of sale, and will find its
revel so long as there is an open market; but if it is to
be for ever loaded miLli tithes and immense taxes, the
landlord must lose his rent, or manufactured articles
cannot be made for exportation, so as to fetch the
necessary return from abroad; and in case of failure
of trade,it is known that the land will have to main-
tain the people after all.
Any comparison between the profits derivable
from land, rent especially, and those of trade mast
be merely suppositious, we may say erroneous, be.
cause the tatter are subject to risks which the former
art not. If it could be proved that the mass of con-
sumers were is a situation of prosperity which those
who have corn to dispose of did not enjoy, and could
thfrefore afford higher prices; the riculturists might
jestly desire that a part of the burdens which press
se heavily on them might be removed to the shoulders
of the consumers ; but the number of paupers, and
the general distress which high provisions, accumu-
lated taxes, atia the miseries of war have created)
must cobvince every man who has a mind open to
cuoviction, that the weight of distress with which
the people of this country have to struggle is
already sufficiently grievous—it is overwhelming.—
WhNi the actual prices which we pay for our daily
food are so :.acessive as they are, even at present, be.
yowl the rate of subsistence in any other country,
can it be pretended that due encouragement has not
been given to agriculture ? The chief impediments
to British agriculture are neither want of markets nor
want of prices. They have been already mentioned.
Tittles and tales, and excessive rents, are more
p ful bars to improvement and prosperity in the
agricultural department of the kingdom than any
impoitations that ever were or can he made.

Mr. WHITBREAD has said he wishes he could see
vs again an exporting country ; we join him in the
wish that we could behold thing 'again in this country
on a level with those in other nations, so that we could
affoal to sell as cheap as them ; but, whether is it
more for the advantage of this commercial kingdom
that we should continue our exports in merchandize,
and be the emporium of the trade of the world, or
that we should sacrifice these to endeavour to be
a grain exporting country, which nature never in-
tench.d we should be?

11 e observe that Mr. MtLTIICS has published a!
pamphlet on the Corn Laws, which the Courier an'l
Mooting Chronicle of yesterday affirm supports their
opinion on the subject. We leave the Readers of
these Papers to find out what op;nion it is they en-
tertsiti in regard to the law s relative to grain, and
the mode proper to be pursued, for it is either nothing
at all, or one thing to-day rind another to-morrow ;
bit Mr. MArliit;s, who we should not forget is a
lictvrend Gentleman, argues for an adequate and .
red duty on importation as the must beneficial ar-
rangemetit both for farmer and manufacturer, and by
which, he says, air end would be put to all the de-
fective plans of average prices from a number of dis-
tricts, which leads to great deception. By this I
method, he adds, " corn would never be introduced
into this country, when the harvest was abundant ; I
and it would certainly come when it would pay for
Importation. The single question would be, what;
should be the importing duty—say, perhaps, tea,
fifteen, twenty, and twenty-five shillings per quar-
ter. according to the distance of the voyage, be- i
c.use that which would be a protecting duty against
A meek: and the Baltic, would he no protection against
France and Flanders. This, with the right of
cri.ortation at all firms, might at least be tried."
" The right of exportation at all times," and a fixed
duty on importation, adequate, no doubt, to a pro.
Lbition—this was precisely what was wanted in the
first Corn Bill, which was so justly defeated by the
indignant voice of the people. But it seems to be
forot that it is questionable how far the steady price i
Grain is favourable to the farmer, inasmuch as it
would put him more in the power of his landlord,
who would thereby be better able to ascertain the
extreme point of rent possible to be borne, than if
prices were liable to fluctuation.—" The right of
exportation at all times ;" that is, whether there were
corn sufficient in this country for the support of its in-
habitants or trot ?—A very modest proposition. This