The Sun. — London, England, 1834-03-08 00:00:00

was as virtually inoperative as if importation were free. Then who could say that the farmer was benetitted by the restrictions on the importation of corn ? He could not conceive on what grounds the fames was concerned, un less he had begun with a lease for a period of time. It must be a perfect matter of indifference to the farmer what was the price of corn, provided he did not hold a lease for a term of years. The noble lord opposite might laugh, but the farmer was an employer of capital just as any person in another trade; and if he embarked his capital under false expectations, and was deluded, he would unquestionably suffer b!, - the state of prices; but if he took his farm from year to year, he could not conceive under what plea the farmer could consider himself to be in the slightest degree interested in the question. But how had their legislation acted on this point? Legisla• tion had been carried on for 19 yea's, and if there were a man in the country that bad a right to complain of it it was the farmer, who bad been deluded by legislation, and had suffered more than any other individual.. What said the law of 1825 ? What language had been then used in that and in the other house of parliament? Assurances had been given to the farmer that prices were not to fall below 80e. Such was the result to be drawn from the arguments used on that occasion, and it was not to be doubted that numbers of farmers embarked their capital on grounds of this description. Then came the laws of 1827 and 1828. What grounds had been held out to the farmer then? Mr. Canning, when he was introducing the corn law of 1827 (and no man would doubt that what applied to the law of 1827 was equally applicable to the law of 1828) had said that fluctuation was at an end; that instead of such prices as they had seen they would see a price never varying beyond 555. and 655. It was on this, he would maintain, that the farmer went; and yet within the space of four or five short years he found that prices had so fluctuated, that whilst in January,lB3l, the price of wheat was 755. lad., on the day on which be was now addressing them the price was only 48e. and a fraction. The farmer was the man who was deluded. He had a right to complain. He was not benefitted by legislation. He would now come to the agricultural la bourers ; and what said the right hon. baronet on this subject ? He Lad rested the weight of his case upon the assertion of Mr. Oliver in his evidence befge the committee; but Mr. Oliver's assertion was not " if the corn laws were altered," hut if they were altered in a way as to throw out of cultivation 2,000,000 of acres that then there would be thrown out of employment two hundred and fifty thousand families, comprising about 900,000 persons. This position was refuted by his right honourable friend (Sir James Graham) last night, for the half of his speech was em ployed in an endeavour to disprove the position laid down by his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, that the result of the proposed alteration in the corn laws would not be to lower the price of corn. If this was not the object of his right hon. friend's reasoning, what became of the argument drawn from that part of Mr. Oliver's evidence which his right hon. friend read ? Mr. Oliver said that such a fall in price as was looked for from the repeal of the corn laws would throw two millions of acres out of cultivation. Now, had they any proof from ex perience that fall of price led to the consequence of throw ing land out of cultivation ? The whole weight of proof was quite in the opposite direction. The fall of price which took place within the last fifteen years was from fifteen shillings and sixpence to twenty shillings the quarter ; and yet they did not see that land at all fitted for the growth of corn was-thrown out of cultivation. He was not among those persons who were liable to the charge made by his right bon. friend against declaimers, who, in their ad dresses at public meetings, held out to the people the delu sive hope of having bread for nearly nothing, if the corn laws were repealed. He addressed no such language upon any occasion to that house, or to any body of men. His observation was, let the system cease, without any re ference to the effect upon price. The whole argument, then, of his right hon. friend rested on the passage he quoted from Mr. Oliver, on the bare assertion of that gentleman. His own conviction was that the price of corn would not fall materially, and therefore that one of the evils apprehended—the throwing of agricultural la bourers out of employment— would not take place. The noble lord who spoke in the course of this debate (Lord Darlington) confirmed his statement when he said that the farmers took leases under an impression that they were to get sixty-two shillings a quarter for their wheat. So far as the general interests of the country were concerned the discussion on this question was said last night to pro ceed in what was called a vicious circle; and thi y were told that if the contemplated alterations were made the inevitable consequence must be that the people would find themselves going from bad to worse, and from thence, through different gradations, to the worst of all, by a hocus pocus that would eventually produce a plethora of food. He would now come to that important point how far these laws contributed to the benefit of the agri cultural interest. He required no argument to disprove the assertion that they were a source of protection and advantage to the agricultural interest than merely looking into the book he had then before him, the Report of the Agricultural Committee of last year. In 1833, when the corn laws had been just eighteen years in operation, this report let out the melancholy intelligence, which ns man lamented more than he did, and no man would more gladly remedy, that the very interest for the protection of which they were designed was in a ruinous state. In this report he found the present state of that interest thus described, that the capital of the farmer had decreased since 1821. Now in the report of the committee which sat in 1821 it was said that agricultural produce did not then afford a remunerating price, and that it was only through some peculiar circumstances in his favour that he was at all enabled to go on. Now, in the last report, that of 1833, be found that the capital of the farmer wasgone, and his condition of course much worse than it waseven ,nlB2l, when produce did not bring remunerating prices ; be found profits represented as so much diminished, that less of the article was produced than was necessary to supply the wants of the country. In this last point be did not con cur ; but it was quite sufficient for his argument, that such was the opinion of the committee. The committee of 1821 stated in their report, that the produce was quite sufficient then to meet the consumption ; that it would be unwise to do anything which tended to lessen production, and thus leave the country dependent on foreign supply. Now in the last report it was not denied that in ordinary years they were still' dependent on foreign supply. Their independence, therefore, was gone—(Near, hear)—the great object contemplated by the corn laws was not at tained, and so far were they from having been a source of protection to the agriculturists, that they had been declin ing more and more every year from 1821 up to the present time. The account of the farmer's situation, as given in the report, was most lamentable ; and no person could read without feelings of the deepest regret the melancholy circumstances of the farmer and the small yeoman, once the boast of this country. Here then, after these laws which were said to be necessary for the support of agriculture, fur rendering them independent of foreign supply, had been in operation for eighteen years, theyfound themselves with decreasing produce, with exhausted capi tal, with a suffering yeomanry, with ruined farmers, and all their boasted and dearly cherished independence of foreigners at an end.—(Hear.) He was ready to take his stand on this report without even offering one tittle further of argument against the continuance of their pre sent corn laws. He was now arguing only upon the general principle of a corn law. By and by he should come to consider that particular system which at present regulated the trade in corn. What were the effects of this principle on the trade and commerce of the country? In 1815 the different states of Europe found themselves at length in the enjoyment of peace, after having been ha rassed for many years by the difficulties, the expenses, and sacrifices necessarily attendant on so great a struggle. The war with the United States of America was not yet ended, but not very long after was brought to a close. America was then, as now, a great agricultural country, capable of taking their manufactures to an incalculable RXtent. As regarded manufactures, what was the situation of England and of the Continental nations at this period ? From one end of Europe to the other there was not a single steam-engine at work. For fifty years before it was known, and at this time was in general use throughout this country. The flax frame, various other machines of the highest utility in manufac tures, were also in use, but still a secret to the rest of Europe, and were scarcely heard of. In machinery, in skill, in capital, and all the means of extending and im proving manufactures, they were then fifty years in advance of the Continent. In that very year, 1815, however, they, in an evil hour, imposed their corn laws; they shut out foreign corn from their ports, the principal article fo reignere bad to give for their manufactures; and thus from necessity they were forced in self-defence to act upon the principle qf....y.h.Great Britain se t th e examp l e ; th ey forced Ifni' jiatiiks . become manufacturers—(Hear)— s s to turn 'tiseie russirsPlf.and their skill, rude as it was, and [Mist necesaarity-havren, to the prod uc ti on o f t h e artiidei - which refue ' to supply to them f or th e on l y equivalent, they had-te-offer. It might be said that this country-created their skill;:for they had none at all before, by retaising to' receive that from them which alone they bad ttgive.—(Cheerr.) might here be permitted to adverclaian obs'ervation 'iftich fell from his hon. friend the menativ.r fcir , 31iddir‘x last night, and which gave occasion te'r ude. '.vottiment from his right hon. friend (Sir J, Gritlitarr The hop, member for Middlesex raid he was inclined to look upon this as an European ques tion, and to try it as such. For his part be would try it as be should all others involving great national interests, solely as a British question. But gentlemen ought to consider on what British interests really depended, and how they could be best supported under existing circum stances. British commercial and manufacturing interests rested almost entirely on foreign traffic. It was very easy to say that foreign traffic should not be encouraged. He would say to those who advanced such a principle, who wished now to act upon it, that they were thirty or forty years too late. He would not now enter into the inquiry whether there were 960,000 families dependant on agri culture, and 1,500,000 dependant on traffic and manu factures; but he would put this question—What would their land be worth without manufactures ? (Hear, hear.) What was the relative position of these two in terests ? Agricultural producers met with a ready market at home, and had no occasion to undertake the risks, the losses, and expenses of a foreign market. He was in a situation to obtain in his immediate neighbourhood the highest price his produce could obtain in any market of the world ; he was completely free from competition. Now how did matters stand as regarded the com merce and trade of the country ? Were honourable gentlemen aware that the value of British manu factures annually exported amounted to the sum of 36,000.000/., all the result of British industry, enterprise, and skill? Now the manufacturer enjoyed none of those great advantages which he before mentioned as connected with agriculture. He could at home find but a very limited market. He was forced to seek for it in distant climes, and to enter into competition with the industry of nations in which the daily pay of a labourer was only one halfpenny. He was obliged to seek it amidst the snows of the north, in the interior of Africa, in the most remote and the most inhospitable regions of the globe. Was it not an incal culable advantage to the laud that the produce of it had the priority of the market at home, free from competition, from the necessity of seeking a foreign market, and from the expenses of insurance of transport by sea, and all the uncertainties attendant upon trading speculation ? Manu facturers could not wait for the foreign market. They must take it as they found it, and accept such prices as circumstances, good or bad, happened to affix for the time being to the article. Would it be denied that in these points alone, without at all considering what might be the effects of a corn law, the agriculturist enjoyed im mense advantages from which manufacturers were shut out ?—(Hear, hear.) He now came to the effects which the corn laws had upon their industry. " How can you," said his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), " complain of the effect of these laws, when it is clear that your trade and commerce, and every branch of your manu facturing industry, have greatly increased while these laws have been in operation ?" Who ever asserted that the restraints of a corn law were undiminished with an increase of exports? They must continue to export their manufactures abroad whatever might be the effect of the corn laws. But it was a question of degree. What they had to consider was, not the amount of manufactures now actually exported, but how far it might be increased under a different system. Were it not for these restrictive laws he entertained not the least doubt that their manufac turing industry would ere this have made advances, have taken a flight far beyond even those strides which it made in consequence of the great inventions of either an Ark wright or a Watt. They would now have been without competitors in the markets of the whole world. His right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), in point of fact, only repeated the statements made last year, by a noble friend of his (the Earl of Ripon we believe) in the other House of Parliament, which upon an occasion like this he should be ashamed not to refer to. His right hon. friend for the purpose of proving that the corn laws were not injurious to the manufactures, said, and referred to re• turns in proof of the assertions, that their exports to cern-growing countries had increased during the period while these laws were in operation. His right hon. friend, however, quoted the official value. He wished he had taken the opportunity at the same time of giving the declared value. His right hon. friend took the years from 1828 to 1832 inclusive. He (Mr. T.) ascertained what was the declared value in these years, and also in the years 1818, 1819, 1820, 1821, and 1822. Some im provement certainly took place in British commerce in these years, but not to the extent mentioned by his right honourable friend. In these five years the de clared value of their exports to the corn-producing countries amounted altogether to the sum of 82,425,0001. In these five years only one was included which could have been affected, as to prices, by the alteration of the cur rency.—(Hear.) Now the official value (as we beard) for the same period was 92,312,0001., making a differ , of 9,887,0001. However, he should not press his argu ment. He knew it would be said that the currency had been altered, but that alteration could never account for so great a difference ; and no person could pretend to say that under a more free system of trade in corn their ex ports would not have been considerably greater in t; ese years. If the United States of America passed what amounted to prohibitory laws against the introduction of British manufactures—if Prussia retaliated by . a system of prohibition for refusing to admit her produce upon liberal terms, and not only this, but was making efforts, and suc ceeded in a great measure, to induce the other German states to adopt a similar system—if Russia refused to open her ports, and Great Britain made complaints against such a line of commercial restriction, what answer could be expected from these powers? No answer but such as those with which the archives of his office was already cross-tied namely this—" What ! yon ask for a more liberal system, while you yourselves act upon a prohibitory one.—(Hear.) We adopt this system in imitation of you, in de ference to your example." It was in vain to preach up to the nations of the continent such free doctrines..- (Heir, hear)—while they refused to act upon them them selves. He accepted that cheer as an indication of hosti lity to the opinions he was now expressing. He should never be deterred by cheers from maintaining the opinions he thought most favourable, and most likely to promote the best interests of the country. It would be vain to contend much longer against the spirit that was growing up and was daily gaining strength upon the subject of ex clusive doctrines in matters of trade and commerce. No matter what might be the views a government took as to the manner in which people ought to dispose of their produce, that must ultimately be governed by the view which the producers took of their own interest. What had recently passed and was now passing in France ought to be viewed as a lesson indicating the course people were hereafter likely to pursue when they considered their interests sacrificed to a narrow view of commercial in terests. The progress of improvement in this way might, he admitted, be slow ; but why should they not pursue a direct course? Why excite by their example the other states of Europe to do the very thing which they were anxious they should not do ? The house would permit him, as he was upon this subject, to read a state ment from a paper written in 1329. It would show in what light their commercial policy was viewed at the time by the states of Germany, and how much they lost by acting upon such a policy. It was dated from Berlin. An Hots. MEmanta—ls it an extract from a news paper ? Mr. P. THOMSON—No, nor is it an official paper. (The right hon. gentleman then read, in a tone of voice scarcely audible, a paper pointing out the injury inflicted on British commerce in the States of Germany by the exclusive policy of Great Britain, and her refusal to admit upon liberal terms the produce of these countries.) He produced this as evidence of the feeling which then ex isted. It was but a private document; but if the house knew who the writer was they would receive his opi nions with respect. He now came to the question more immediately before the house. The motion was brought forward with the view of substituting a fixed for a fluc tuating duty. Whatever arguments he Lad hitherto beard in opposition to this principle resolved themselves into that employed by the committee in their report, used also by his right hon. friend (Sir James Graham) and by the hon. member for Shropshire, namely, that a fixed duty produced greater fluctuations in price, and a fluctuating scale of duties more fixedness of price. He (Mr. C. P. Thomson) found that the noble lord (the Earl of Darlington) had withdrawn the amendment of which he had given notice, and which was to declare that a fluctua tion in the scale of duties was better than any other scale of duties that could be framed. He (Mr. C. P. Thom son) was glad to find that the noble lord bad done so. He did not believe that the house would have been induced to assent to such a resolution ; but if it consented to such a resolution it would fairly be entitled to be put on a footing with that House of Commons that declared that a one pound note and a shilling of a depreciated currency . were equivalent to a guinea. —(Hear, hear.) The only differ ence that now existed was between a fluctuating scale and a fixed scale. An Hots. MEMBER observed that the motion of the bon. member for Middlesex was not for a fixed duty. Mr. C. P. THOMSON agreed with the honourable member that it was the same as a fixed duty, although it was not positively a fixed duty. It was in principle a fixed duty. The resolution of his lion. friend said not a word about fluctuation.—(Hear.) The resolution stated that, instead of the present graduated scale of duty, there should be charged a fixed and moderate duty on the im portation of foreign corn into the United Kingdom, and also for granting a fixed and equivalent duty on the extort of corn from the United Kingdonn.--(Hear, hear.) That then was the question they would have to consider should they get into committee. He would ask, what were the arguments in favour of a fluctuating duty? There was but one, namely, that it produced a greater steadiness of prices and prevented fluctuations. He denied that it was so. He denied it whether he was called upon to riot his denial on arguments or facts. He denied it under both circumstances. His right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), in arguing the question last night, referred to a letter of the late Mr. Huskisson, in which he expressed his appro bation of corn laws. His right hon. friend quoted the opinion of Mr. Huskisson, with the view of showing that that distinguished statesman approved of the corn law of 1828, whereas the letter was written in 1815, and had reference to the corn law then under agitation. With regard to the letter quoted by his right hon. friend, he (Mr. Thomson) owned that it struck him with some surprise. He had read the letter before, and he had beard it quoted on previous occasions in debates in that house, but he had not believed that any one would quote it, and, above all, a friend of the late Mr. Huskisson, as expres• sive of the real sentiments and opinions of that great man. No man could entertain a higher opinion of the talents of that statesman than be (Mr. Thomson) did ; no per son in that house could entertain a greater feeling of re spect for him. He (Mr. Thomson) had been wholly unconnected with him in politics; but not only was Mr. Huskisson the object of his admiration for the great talents be possessed, but by his kindness when he (Mr. Thomson) was a very young man. Dy the advic e and admonitions of that great man he had greatly profited, and it would be most ungrateful, on his part, if he did not speak of his memory in terms of the highest respect. But what were the circumstances under which that letter was written ? Mr. Huskisson was writing to his constituents for the purpose of de fending himself as they did not go the full length of the opinions he had expressed. Mr. Huskisson bad argi l . menrs to urge with that view, and he was obliged to make use of the most specious for that purpose.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Now be (Mr. Thomson) asked whether the letter thus written was to be taken as the real opinion of Mr. Huskisson in preference to repeated declarations of a contrary nature made by him ? His right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham) said that Mr. Huskisson had never changed his opinion as to the policy of the corn laws. Now if lie (Mr. Thomson) was not very much mistaken, he had heard Mr. Huskisson declare in that house, and, if not in the house, at any rate somewhere else, that he was not to be bound by that letter. But was that letter to be considered as expressing the private and independent opi nions of that statesman ? Might it not rather be said that he was looking to some object when he wrote the letter —(Hear, and a laugh.) On the motion which he (Mr. C. P. Thomson) brought forward on the subject of tax ation on the 25th of March, 1830, Mr. Huskisson made use of some remarkable expressions of a directly con trary tendency to those in his letter. It should be, re collected that that was sixteen years after he had written the letter. An HON. MEMBER asked the right bon. gentleman whether Mr. Huskisson was canvassing his constituents when be wrote the letter? Mr. C. P. THOAISON would be the last man in that houss who would throw any imputation on the me mory of the late Mr.,Huskisson, but it ought to be remem bered that that lamented gentleman was defending his conduct to his constituents; but he (Mr. Thomson) did not mean to say, that when the letter was written, the opinions expressed in it were conscientiously entertained by Mr. Huskisson. The opinion, however, that he ex pressed in that house in 1830 was after the country had had experience of the corn law of 1628, to which his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham) had referred, as if Mr. Hus kisson had expressed his approbation of it. On the occa sion alluded to, Mr. Huskisson said—" It was his unal terable opinion, that it was impossible to uphold the corn laws that then existed, together with the then amount of taxation, or to increase the national prosperity and pre serve the national faith ; that those laws could be re pealed without affecting the landed interest, and if that were at once done, he had no doubt whatever that the people would be relieved from their distress."—(Hear, hear.) Teat was the answer he (Mr. Thomson) adduced to the declaration of Mr. Huskisson, read by his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham). He (Mr. Thomson) took the declaration of the man of mature mind—(Hear, hear)—and he would ask any hon. member to say that he did not value an opinion given after a series of years of most important experience, more than one expressed after a short reflection.—( Hear, hear, hear.) But what did the letter of Mr. Huskisson really state ? In the letter ' of Mr. Huskisson fault was found with the alterations that had been made in the policy of the country as re• garded the trade in corn ; and it declared that for a long time the country had been pursuing a vicious course of policy. It was also stated that a free trade in corn would be detrimental to all interests. Now, how far Mr. Hus• kisson had changed his opinio❑ on the subject he (Mr. C R Thomson) had already shown. But he would bring against Mr. Huskisson another authority, who had an swered him so completely, had referred to so many facts, had gone into such exact calculations, and bad adduced such important arguments on the subject, that it would be unnecessary for him (Mr. Thomson) to do more than request the attention of the house whilst he referred to a few passages. They were from a work that he would recommend to the attention of every hon. member in that house ; and he was sure that his right hon. friend would not undervalue it. The book he alluded to was entitled " A Free Trade in Corn the true Policy of the State. By a Cumberland Landlord."—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear, hear.") He (Mr. Thomson) was anxious to refer to that work because he found his own opi nions and sentiments expressed in much better lan guage and in a much more forcible manner than he could put them. (The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to read some extracts from the pamphlet he alluded to. They were to the effect that, since 1765, when the great alteration was made in the policy of the country •ps regarded the corn laws, and when the sup ply of corn and cattle to the home market was almost secured to the English agriculturists, the situation of the farmers had not been materially improved.) There was the most conclusive evidence, founded on admitted fact, that the restrictions on the importation of foreign corn had nut benefited the farmer. Although the price of corn had been doubled between 1780 and 1806, and at the same time commerce had been greatly injured, and that during those iutermediate periods that the trade in corn was open, commerce and agriculture were most prosperous, he (Mr. C. P. Thomson) could not help saying that it was delightful to find, when he wanted an answer to Mr. Huskisson's letter, that he could refer to so able an autho rity as the writer of that book. When he had such wea pons at hand he did not want any other armoury to go to. (The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to read another extract from the pamphlet in answer to Mr. Hus kisson's remark that a free trade in corn would be detri mental to all interests, in which the writer proceeded to show that the manufacturers were greatly injured by the operation of the corn laws, and quoted Dr. A. Smith, who stated that the Yorkshire manufactures declined from 1756 to 1766.} The right hon. gentleman then proceeded--The author of the pamphlet, not satisfied with the opinions of Dr. Smith, fixed the date of the decline in the manufactures at the period when the change in the corn laws was made. Until 1763, he said the trade in corn was free and commerce was prosperous ; but in 1766, after the restrictions had been imposed, commerce declined. He (Mr. C. P. Thomson) was satisfied with that authority, and he quoted.it because the opinions in it were stated in a better manner than he could express them. He thought that what he had stated was a sufficient answer to the letter of Mr. Huskisson. He had shown what had hitherto been the consequences of imposing restrictions on the corn trade, and he would ask the house to consider what would be the consequences of continuing them. A rapid decline of manufactures, the embarrassment of the shipping and mercantile interest!. Of course that would be attended with a want of employ ment. The prevalence of distress among the labouring classes would be followed by an increase of the poor rates, by an increase of crime, by a diminution of the public revenue, and by a want of public confidence, and, more than all, by the certain eventual ruin of the agricultural interest itself. Such were the bitter prospects that a blind and selfish policy held out to those who endeavoured to grasp at undue gains, and at advantages not within its power.—(Hear.) He had taken the last observation from the pamphlet h had before referred to, and he was con vinced that his right hon. friend would regard it with respect as coining from a Cumberland landlord. He would now proceed to the question of fluctuations. Now how did that matter stand ? He would ask whether there had really been, as had been asserted by almost all the honourable gentleman who had opposed the motion, less fluctuation in the price of corn under the last corn bill than at any former period ?-- (Hear, hear.) To what period did the noble lord who cheered refer ? Did he refer to the measure of 1815 (Hear, hear.) Now he (Mr. Thomson) would comp ire the prices for a few years previous to that time, and a few year, previous to the present yeas. The noble lord per hai s would say that he (Mr. Thomson) ought to take years of peace ; but he would give the same aliswer that his right hon., friend (Sir J. Graham) gave yesterday to an lion. gentleman, who said that a comparison could ❑ot be made between years of war and peace, namely, that he would then take a period after 4+15, The hon. mem ber for Essex would probably say that the corn law of 1815 was much worse than the present corn law. He (Mr. Thomson) thought, therefore, hon. gentlemen could not object to his taking a period in which the corn law of 1815 was in operation, and taking a few years previous. It might be said that by acting thus he would go into a period of both war and peace. But be begged the house to recollect, that with one slight exception, the whole pe riod between 1790 and 1818 was a period of war. He would therefore go back to a period of peace, when the trade in corn was almost free. He was aware that it was stated in the report of the agricultural committee that there was no accurate returns of the average prices of corn previous to 1792. He had, however, met with some returns and statements as to the price of corn which led to very important conclusions. He confessed that he was surprised to see it stated in the agricultural report that there were no returns previous to 1792. -Did not the committee look to the act of 1770 ?- Were they ignorant of it ? He knew that under that act the averages were not struck in so perfect a man ner as they were then, or as they were even in 1815 or 1792. At the same time, however, under the act he had just referred to, some important averages were made. By the act of 1770, the average price of corn in the London market, should be published in the Gazette at fixed periods. He would take, therefore, the average price of corn for a number of years then, and compare it with the averages for a similar number of years from 1819. He found, that taking the five years from 1829, the highest average price of wheat for any year was 665. 4d., and the lowest average price was 525. 10d. The average price of 1831 was 665. 4d., and the average price for 1833 was 525. 10d., thus making a difference between the average of the highest year and the lowest year of 13e. 6d. He would alto take from 1771 to 1776, the five first years under the operation of the act of 1770. He found during that period the highest average price of corn for any one of those years was 525. Bd., and the lowest yearly ave rage was 475. 2d., thus making the greatest difference only ss. 6d. He would then take the five :years prior, from 1781 to 1785. He found that the highest average for any of those years was 525. SJ. The lowest yearly average was 445. 81, thus showing the greatest differ ence to be Bs. Now, he begged hon. members to recollect that the greatest difference in the average of the five years under the corn law of 1818 was 13e. 6d. He would ask them whether what he had just read was not sufficient to show that there was greater fiuc tuatien in prices at present, than there was formerly. Did it not show that the corn law that had been passed to prevent fluct ua tion had failed in its object? But he would not stop there. He was prepared to contend, however, that taking yearly averages did not furnish anything like a c o rrect criterion by which to judge of the extent of fluctuations in the course of a year. The price of corn at one period of a year might be 80s a quarter, and at another 40e., and yet the yearly average might make it appear that the price was only 60s. Under such circumstances, the country might labour under all the evils of the great es t fluctuation iu prices, and yet it would not be apparent. - (Hear, hear.) He would, therefore, adopt a course which he thought would make the matter much clearer to the house. He would take a period between the passing of the last corn bill and the present, and take the highest and lowest average prices, not fur years, but for periods of six weeks. He would compare those averages with similar averages that had been made of the price of corn between 1783 and 1791. He obtained the latter averages from returns printed in the Gazette of the price of corn in the city of London, and signed by the Lord Mayor. The returns undoubt edly were only the returns of prices of wheat in London, hut that would rather tell against his argument than if Ise took the whole country, as it must be quite clear that in small mat kets the quentity as well as the price was to be taken into calculation. He would take from 1783, and be found that the highest and lowest average prices of corn, as given by the Lord Mayor, and published in the Gazette, was as follows : - In 1784 the highest average price of wheat was 48e. 2d., and the lowest was 41s. 10d., making a difference of 6s. 4d. ; in 1785 the highest average price was 475. 5d., and the lowest was 445. 6d., making a difference of 2s. 11d. ; in 1786 the highest average price was 465. 2d., and the lowest was 435. 10d., thus making a difference of 2s. 4d. ; in 1787 the highest average was 445. 10d., and the lowest was 365. Id. ; that which was the largest difference was Ss. 9d. ; in 1788 the highest average was 455. ld., and the lowest 425. 9d., making a difference of 2s. 4d. ; and in 1789 the highest average was 549. 1 ed., and the lowest 475., thus making a difference of le. ; the highest sraristion was Bs. Ved., and the lowest 2s. 4d. They then came to the fluctuations since the bill was passed, which was to fix the price, and of course to prevent fluctuations. It certainly was not de scribed by Mr. Canning as going that length ; but he said that under it the priees would fluctuate between 655. and 755. In 1828 the highest average price of wheat (taking the six weeks' average) was 755. 3,1., the lowest average price 565., thus m king a variation in:price of not less than 19e. 3d. ; in 1829 the highest average price was 755. 3d , the lowest was 565. 3d., making a difference of 19s. ; in 1830 the highest average was 725. 11(1., and the low est was 565. ld., making a difference of 16s. 10J.- (The right hon. gentleman, in consequence of some inter • ruption, did not give the average prices for 1831.) The averages for 1832, taking the six weeks also, the highest price was 635. 5d.. and the lowest 525., thus snaking a difference of 11 s. If any hon. member would take the trouble to examine the statement he had just made, he was satisfied that it would be found to be correct. It showed that, so far from the last corn law giving fixity of price, there had been greater fluctuation in the price of wheat under that act, than at any former perio,l. He con tended also that a fluctuating scale of duties was most in jurious to the consumer, and was, above all, injurious to the party hon. gentlemen said that they were most anxious to protect. He wished to allude to what took place in 1830. It would be in the recollection of many lion. members that it was much feared that the harvest of 1630 would prove a very bad one ; the greatest fears were ex pressed on the subject, and above all on the Corn Ex change. The price of corn rose rapidly in June and July, he believed so much as 2e., 45., and 6s. a week on the quarter. The harvest came on, and was a moderate one; although it was not of the average quantity it was of very good quality. The farmer, of course, expected to obtain tor the deficiency a higher price for his corn. Just pre vious to the harvest, however, the prices rose, so that the duty fell to nothing, and the consequence was, that in the course of six weeks, namely, from the sth of August to the 30th of September, during which period it was thought that the harvest would be deficient not less than 1,250,000 quarters of wheat were taken out of bond and carried into the Market. The consequence was that prices fell to a ruinous extent, and the farmers could get nothing like a remunerating price for their corn. He begged the house to recollect that that was under a law framed for the protection of the farmer-under a law that was to give him complete prosperity.-(Hear, hear.) He asked whether it would not have been much better for the farmer if there had been a fixed duty ? The farmer naturally calculated on getting something more than the average price for his produce in p, oportion to the diminu tion of the crop ; but he found just as the harvest cause in, instead of prices rising or 'continuing high that in the course of six weeks the price of wheat fell no less than 1 le. 4d. per quarter. The right hon. gentleman con tended that a fixed duty of from So. to 10s. the quarter, tinder which foreign corn could come into the markets of this country at a moderate price, instead of injuring, would be an advantage to the home producer, as well as a benefit to the shipping interest. He begged to call the he shipping. average attention of the house to the effect of the fluctuating law upon our t o ne In order was necessary a given tgsh m ip ar t k i e le t before corn without loss of tim-, and hence it followed that the instant the ports of this country were thrown open for the admission of foreign corn the vessels on the spot were used for the purpose. It therefore happened that by far the larger proportion of the foreign grain imported into our ports reached this country in foreign, and not in British, bottoms; but would this be the case if the pre sent corn laws were not in being? Undoubtedly it would not, and consequently he was justified in saying that these laws operated most injuriously upon our shipping interest. _-(Hear.) One of the witnesses examined before the committee on trade of last year, Mr. Young, was asked whether he thought that having a larger supply of foreign corn would tend to the advantage of the bottoms of this country. He said it would, and added that be had no doubt a fixed instead of a fluctuating duty would be an advantage to our shipping. The arrangement with respect to opening of the ports of this country was such as to render the employment of foreign vessels a matter of necessity. the principal pe ther i s n o c f i o p iro a el l ivg p na a s r p t too o r f t the ie aav and d r d t it e lhe r e s nni e , x n e , of - Even if our shipping were to se e k f or cargoes o f f ore i gn course, corn ouut e ds e t they tdesyfi‘nrvedoauctl would chance of cleating the expenses of their voyage out and back. Mr. Heatley, another of the witnesses examined before the committee, gave similar evidence. He should now at last proceed t o po i nt out t h e i n j ur i ous e ff ects which this fluctuating law had upon the trade of this country, and it was on this ground that he princi pally founded the objection which he hail to it. Ile must say that lie did not expect-no matter what change might occur-to see corn much cheaper than it was at present. It was not to the price that he so much ob jected as that that price should be so unequal as it was. There was no denying the fact that we must to a certain extent be dependant upon foreign countries for our sup plies ; and that being the case, the question was, what were the best means of paying for them ? Under the ex isting law it was quite manifest we could not do so by an exchange of our own manufactures. Our trade for corn with foreign countries, instead of being:an advantage, was considered by them as a nuisance. It disturbed the price of their markets to a considerable extent; and he could adduce well•supported authority to show that it af fected in a most injurious way the whole state of society in Prussia and other parts of Germany, without afford• ing the least benefit to this country. if a free communi cation existed, our manufactures would be received in ex change for the quantity of corn required, and by this means the people of other countries would imperceptibly be led into a taste for the articles which we produced. No taste of that kind now existed, and, instead of coming to us as they would do under other circumstances, the corn countries on the continent obtained those articles with which we could supply them from our rivals in manufactures. This was unquestionably great injury to our trade. Within the last five years six millions of quarters of wheat were imported into this country, and if, instead of keeping up a prohibitory system, we had, by admitting corn at all times upon paying a fixed duty, inspired a taste for English pro duce abroad, the whole, or at all events the greater parr, of this supply would have been paid for by an exchange of commodities.—(Hear.) When he was concerned in this trade he calculated the charges on kiln.dried wheat at from Bs. to 10s. the quarter. This might be deemed a positive loss to the producer, and he therefore asked them whether it would not be better to adopt a system by which such a loss would be prevented than to continue a system by which it was mainly created? But it was said that they would be acting imprudently if they were to depend too much upon foreign supplies. The report of the com mittee to which he had before referred proved that they must to a certain extent depend on the foreign grower, and, that being the case, he thought they would best con sult the interests of this country by substituting a fixed for a fluctuating duty. He felt surprised at the quotation which his right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham) adduced from the pamphlet written by Mr. Huskisson. It so happened that, instead of sustaining his right hon. friend's argument, the fact relied upon by Mr. Huskisson as to the combination of foreign powers to close their ports against the vessels of this country only weakened it. But what was the truth ? Why, that when the ports of foreign nations were closed against our ships we imported a greater quantity of wheat than at any otber period.—(Hear, hear.) No less than 1,400,000 quarters of wheat were imported into this country while we were at war, and this fact he thought completely negatived the inference which his right hon. friend had drawn. His right boo. friend ha I alluded to the prices of grain at Rotterdam, but he hail forgotten to recollect that these prices were in a great measure attributable to the operation of our laws ; and this was another of the grounds of complaint which he had against them.— (Hear, hear.) It was quite clear that hie right hon. friend did not anticipate that a change would lower prices. On the contrary, he said that the prices in Volhynia and in Ireland were at par. He told them, however, that the landed interest of this country was subject to so many peculiar burdens that they were bound to afraid it very large protection. Noes he (Mr. Thomson) would say, that if it could be shown to him that the landed interest was more burdened than the other great interests of the country, it certainly should not only have protection, but relief.—(Hear, hear, hear.) This be knew was a doctrine hewa h s e nofriendto injustice, entertained. the buta sentiments s He quite agreed with his hon. friend the member for must very avow popular, Middlesex that the laws of 1815 gave the landed interest which no legal claim to compensation, although perhaps it might have an equitable claim. If, however, any such claim existed, the best way would be for the landowners tomake out the bill of costs ; and he, for one, would have very great pleasure in paying it. ( Hear, and a laugh.) His right hon. friend cited Mr. Ricardo as an authority against any alteration of the present system. Now he (Mr. Thomson) could quote Mr. Ricardo as an authority for change—for a fixed duty which would operate as an ample compensation for any loss which the land owner might be supposed to sustain. He should have no objection to devote a part of the revenue arising from a fixed duty to the relief of the landed interest, nor would he be very niggardly as to the amount ; but that, at all events, some change was necessary for the welfare of all parties he was well convinced or he would not advocate it. He now arrived at the question of time, and he must say that if ever there was a period in which change could be effected without risk or difficulty the present was that period.--(Hear.) There never was a time when there existed the same necessity for imposing only a moderate duty on the importation of foreign corn. Any quantity could now be obtained without disturbing prices in any material degree, and therefore this was the moment for altering our system without the fear of injury. But there was a still mote powerful reason for seizing upon the present time to effect these alterations. They could now discuss the question with calm and sober deliberation and wisdom, whereas if they waited until one of these sudden fluctuations arose, either in consequence of a failing har vest or from some other cause, they would find it impossi ble to deal with the subject without creating dissatisfaction and hostility against them in the public mind. They would also find prior customers in the foreign markets and if they failed in procuring a sufficient supply the re sult would naturally be a cry for change throughout the country couched in less respectful terms. At the present time our foreign trade absolutely trembled in the balance, and foreign competition was rapidly gaining ground on the industry of this country. Whatever was the decision of the house, the settlement of the question could not be much prolonged, for he would, in the words of Lord Mil ton, assert, that, in spite of any decision to which they might come, the present restrictions on food could not endure much longer. Mr. A. BARING would not make any comment upon either the able speech of the right hon. gentleman who bad just sat down, or the difference of opinion which existed between him and the right hon. baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty. Without observing upon the manner in which that difference of opinion was expressecl,and leaving the right hon. gentlemen to settle their differences how they pleased, he would call the attention of the house to the position in which it was placed, and the question it was called upon to decide. What was the real state of the facts? List year they appointed committees to in quire into the condition of the c mninercial, shipping, and agticultural interests of the country. And what was the result to which those inquiries had led ? Why, that the agricultural interest was labouring under extreme depres• sion, and that the other interests were enjoying compara— tive prosperity. The speech which his Majesty delivered from the Throne recognized the same points, and the noble lord (Althorp) had, in his place in that house, deplored the condition of the agricultural classes while intimating the relief which he intended affording to all parties, more o landed interest, and, in answer to a q uestion that was p ut ptohoer proposedl av s towns. w cooun2 T l da h , e up rt ao n tvi o eo l l a e ogfr l e o ta r i tt d h , be nt and nfidt teas at t t er the ha e Go vernment propose making no al t eration in the corn laws those laws which were framed for the protection of se t tia o sor(n h eic i t m oihafa , lltyt h iti e declared that not only did hii Majesty's ht:e the farmer, and on which his very existence might he said to depend—but that, if any proposition of the kind should be brought forward, it should be met by the stre nuous opposition of ministers. The noble lord had certainly used expressions to this effect, and although in the reports that had gone abroad and the exact language which the noble lord had used, there might be some slight shade of difference—still the impression was, that the noble lord had given some such assurance to the country as that which he had stated to the house, (Hear, hear.) But how had this assurance of the noble lord been followed up, when, so far (rein opposing the pro position of the hon. member for Middlesex, the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Thomson) took so prominent a lead in supporting it ?—(Cheers.) It was to this as surance that the noble lord was indebted for the majorities which he had obtained, more particularly in the instance of the malt tax; and he (Mr. firing) alluded to the cir cumstance only because he did not consider the noble lord was keeping faith with the country.—(Cheers.) Could it be said that the noble lord was keeping faith with the agricultural interest when the principal champion in sup port of the motion of the hon. member for Middlesex was the right hon. gentleman opposite the President of the Board of Trade ?—(Cheers.) He would not say that it was so until the fact was indisputably proved, but he at the same time heard it insinuated that one-half of those member's who were either officially connected with the administration or who were its habitual supporters in tended to oppose the declaration of the noble lord by giving their votes in favour of an alteration of the corn laws, which he had assured the country should not be altered. Whatever might be the shades of difference between what the noble lord had really said and the words attributed to him by the newspapers, one thing was clear, and that was, that the impression on the public mini was, that he had made such a deci 'ration, and therefore that lie had not kept faith, as lie was bound to have done if he respected hil word.—(Hear, hear.) Ile (Mr. Baring) would not hallow the right lion. gentleman through the whole of his speech, but he would take two branches of it i and oche es to agriculture. It w b a e s r ipwnahrtithcohef for r r m s y t beaoprols.acmepeamsctonsider the cireurnstanees d or zenu tbe protection a scio imddp complete protectinn was first afforded in 1815, for before that ti r , able degree than at present.—(Hear, have occousr.ver, notwithstanding occasional variations might the landed interest was protected even in a more c° Aft i e d t 6 the par variety of regulations they had at length come t° _,. 0 sent law, which was made in 1828, and although at the time the measure was proposed, be disapproved of 4 0 0 ; provisions of it (Hear from Mr. Hu me.) Le r,,) member for Middleses cried " Hear," as if he L'' ' e go had said that his disapprobation extended to the prote.„be that was given by the measure. He bad not n could dived "° make any such admission.—(Cheers.) He eon ~..„ he that protection had proved sufficient, notwihtana_wee_.# doubted it at the time the change was proposed. _Be 7; prepared to maintain that the outcry against th under m leaks e on ,it laws did not originate in any evil felt by the Po o p — O Ol by a class of pet. their operation, but had been got up i an interferets who went about and told them, " Her, • get _ re with your food; if you get rid of it, you wid n h 0 cheaper, and have a loaf for half the price you 01/ _ c ; # for it." Now, it was very well known that when t. o "_b of that description were stated to public bodies: trola made by ever so doubtful a class of persons, th Y that 11_4 never fail to excite popular feeling. Seeing felt l ü b .i , proceedings had been going on, he bad duty to make inquiry in the city of London , an d at t he inquiries had confirmed him in the opinion, th 0 .40 respectable classes of the community in the niet h r P o u o i had by no means joined in the clamour believe that the greater part of the articles which had.6rof paared upon the subject had been supplied by Ihe grant' foreigners who had large quantities corn is the et been ra is e d by a few persons. He bad alsowir)iecaa°l'....l° ries of this country ready to come into sale if the Wo o could be opened.—(Hear.) This he was satisfied waste could case in the m etropolis ; bus, at the same time fie 0 perfectly aware that, when this sort of agitation bad 0 0 6 0 arisen, nothing was more easy than for any perso ..,. pulation That this had been dome was in some it" . .l po . sure to be gathered ft om the class of gentlemen who 07: 1 forward as the principal supporters of the motion iu .c t to spread tbe flame amongst a numerous class of the te . '"; house. They bad resorted to the sort of threat wilt . ; to amongst others had already predicted they W 05 1 40 overwhelmed with when deliberating upon greatoPufree questions, namely, " If you do not do this of yo .r f el d will, you will be compelled to do it by for the to address..— (Loud cheers.) He would say now, ai he had always said, that seri o !,_ erh impression this sort of argument might make upon tu_ e i t he trusted that as long as he had a seat in that hou,s.tq should never influence him in the discharge of his 01 '1 ,0 and he felt quite sure that it would fall equally haolor upon the mass of the gentlemen whom he had the b° , who intinsidation was a species of argume nt , witie S i knew well the feelings of English gmen se i not be forward to nee.—(Cheers and some confuses The right hon. gentleman the member for Man cbe lut argued the question on two points of vie s ' . fernierllnil:t the present protecting low duty did not do the a y or the labouring population any good ; and, 66 f, i n tl; hie had dwelt with much triumph in anticipation ur — ,. tbe immense good to be done to the foreign commerce ot4 country by its abolition, Now there was one arguraent W:7; the right hon. gentleman had used in maintaining the plo' positions which he hoped would be weighed well by the r ,i 0 He had told them very plainly that he was not abo ut Leiw eed , He must obserohet ow; them cheaper bread.—(Hear, hear.) He had sai d, in s ok that farmers were to have better prices for their c orn,. .. ope that when gentlemen were about to harangue therefore, were to be better ofF.—(Hear, hear.) Il e chd , i ' h eis topics at public meetings, where political incendiarism Wc_Pot easy, that they would take care to bring snto their a to this declaration of the right hon. member for Man° ll° . s „ t# lle (Cheers and laughter.) Upon these two different Pe w b .., re. First, ...,lu'e to would trouble the house with some remarks• tense classes, though in 1815 he opposed, hear that ,03,,,, gard to the state of the farmer and the labourer. 11 ,, oa to always considered that this was a question of pr:tet.r sr as str IlY to sP could do, the increase of the protecting duty frein d?: 0 , t liet He felt it his duty to do so because the country bod J d A O . cording pvr emerged ueheek sdt t toen f . , r rm o ittg m ahhhkeoetenr a war of unprecedented andwo ferteh the protection. raotes necessary t e a t t i o e n. of wgTriheneadti great i.dge.eaurtapn adversaryge f e in: the e t W a a s orf to p ill e u t e l . ) c ° . , ' or a ' n , e , o w, wavinaodsu tol would not e s:co t t li therefore e e faonr prudent,e in th de o p u e g an h nd t de i t , I t i a.tu consequentlya t osmoses unseal ti ° p lc'''. pos e s sta ai ed .„, ,c : to be carrying into effect l'fr* t this wereune awno fussed ; awhceoaolrnsnet. beingoen gentlema nn o e l o d t a f f a ew e l d i chettlehvt doctrine that the c g i t t : Pu i hs r h i Plu oi ea e: s pYtfi i pe s p roo . u s h tr f ft p h e t p e d g et r f o h s o e i rl i rt nut t e d gli (i 1) e ° ,t i l i t , it e ' h i a7 : o l ' . Y v io n O gt i x had.' s oc u o c i i... ,, 1 1 i . d rth in y of d , for thelleoed duty' bu This was what he contended the house was now r to do . gentleman the member for Ma he;ot talked of not taunting the people with being theoris.tbod philosophers, the objection he took to tilheupskhisi 81o°sopshepr:;:itelsg4 when they thought of throwing their sc communities, such as existed in this country, Ida`l.„ooe:,, were in the midst of other old communities Which b ..... .' OP' them on all sides throughout the European system 5 0 5 V o si m ade uP of old prejudices and old associations, b u t,ii iji: which it was impossible that men could be driverl f up t oe Oil purpose. With such materials as these tO ur° . v , ju st ,:j i went as if they were dealing with a new contluuT_,feopeOuo blished at the Swan River, where he certainly that they should go, and apply their principles--o%;_b, 10,. least, they would destroy nothing, whatever theY li__. op! - the P'" tlk° create.—(Hear, and laughter.) NiThere wa' ca uses e iti would n ot take into his view all the gist g dpio ;o ff must arise to impede the operation of drs t P r ne rafted settled systems full of complicated interests, e---. s o s o and interwoven with every engagement of s ocietY r ~,,i 0 d tbe He w as in reality a child in intellect who attempted et r) with these things without taking all the eleM e d n la ugi' te go d case into his consideration.--(Loud cheers, a n ch oter, fo r The right hon. gentleman the member for IVl 3n a per r ot those who supported him, particularly the WO "of it o r Middlesex, had dwelt upon the superior advantag'co' , IMO a t i f manufacturing country and a great cononercia, tol d ths j e every other description of eraployment. we were a " free tc ,e they only listened to them, if we would only adO w ou l4l a , in corn, we should double our manufactures, ther! do f JI . :1 . no end to our foreign commerce, and that, lus . ,L e : o o Pr e r tressed agricultural population as they pretentlede".,l plt' j all the country was to be divided into ornamental pipe ground, and all the people to be as flourishing s:,sEdiatit.s as the manufacturers now were. Hem ust coul"_,, re ie ",,,, peered somewhat strange, if all the other of o ,, tiie ite:, a palmy condition, that they should be complaitnbiey sad tection enjoyed by the agriculturists, i ‘ n v e i'° at the Po o r 0 ,, ruined. Why, it was the rich Mao begg -- - way an y " door.—(flear, hear.) He denied that there any incr ease - '4O look for this increase in our foreign trade, orfrom such a sP tii ti in the demand for our manufactures arising would ptos He denied that any sacrifice they might Make e• , the other powers of Europe, all of whom had exclustv... ia po . 6 . of their own, to receive our own manufactures to h t7 . o"; of their own. "They will recbive you," said the poi; her, " with great attention. Your great philoslibej'coal ring—(Laughter)—wiil be puffed from one end rif t ":,,,iiis 00 to the other in their newspapers as the greatest .", yO O a id ever came amongst them—(Shouts of laughter)--bu" ) ' ' get ue nothing else from them." laugbiertio 0 00 .. ; i —(Continued t the right hon. member for Manchester on d ert ioOtc - f,„ ' member for Middlesex recently join their e',', 1 ,0;4 worthynot trio—to those of the illustrious doctor, 3 ' 1 .1 0 1 f oi able proceeded ie through France and GermanY v i t o t ,s? oft was obtain any concessions from those govertif;the sill hut, the experience they had had ; they had gi re do o'et 4 gentleman from year to year to bring them P „here ti st return for the sacrifices they had made, a nd OW ' alit Ll e e e y ?—(Hear, hear.) He was one of those who n t'; o ofp t trade was most desirable if its accomPlishine de '''' f ill' l' ticable, and that considerable sacrifices shouid bona ..,,, i h t- But the right hon. gentleman must n ow lw! 1 : t - 0 0. 0 e came in contact with official Men in raris--he ll sc ,it : 9 ( experie _'.uts, ~ reason to know that it was so from his own the easiest thing in the world to get every geepossieAs;oo,ooo their desire to reciprocate the advantages You ~A tD e o cji cept the last act.—(Hear, and a laug) Weil, o w too hon. gentleman had told them that we must u° ,l% e 5 . 0,70 thing done in France, for the people of Bdea . . o stn, 110 such a stir—(Great laughter)—that something mu ofts'lSs done. Let him call to the recollection of the lie u Thel te the peculiar situation of the people of Bordeaux' wa nted e l for a free trade with all the world, because theYvey wired for their wines, and wine was chunk ere e Olt /4 , 1 „ ' 4 whether the manufactures they consumed cat u ch ig - g or 4 ter or Rouen. The people of Lyons were ":. Rouerh_agit position. But would the manufacturers 0. , to ri t; , manufacturers of hardware in France, Consen t ao 4, our manufactures ? It was a " e thallirl the off' 14 ' to know that the people of Bordeau% --(5,1 their ~,,5 of Lyons wished to sell their silks and Arab le and were very favourable to the right h, oier '..," or ,1 man's plans ; but it was necessary that 111 ' a nd ", I' ilii ild ; Dorde sn 'f" in France should be of the same ~,, in w oe o 00 11 that the popularity of free-trade doctrine'-,, house ; , at eli Lyons was hardly a ground upon which t''/Rhea ', jo lt 1° ;t1 dently proceed to a repeal of the corn laWs• 0 14 0 1 7 3 ,0 0 that some canton in Switzerland had rO de 4 d ill. ' jr 0 1 bracing the purest principles of political s c o t b ee r : 0 01 0 , come from a club of economists it could net b „, he,,, Il i i orthodox, and no doubt the right bon. gentletu'riticivOte ' ti t as a triumphant proof of the march of hi s r e p lac e , ili pl a ere again it unfortunately happened that t ' ..ia 0, 1 e l oi situated that no other people in the world cou,., a trt° ,O # it t ourse with them.—(Loud laughter.) There vfro fr5..,0„,00 effect changes of this nature. But noW, as ii t ee ' 01. 4 '," measure of that sort had to run the gauntlet of ',,, isot le co be affected by it, and would never come to t , " to s ee' 0 the right honourable gentleman vainly lleP et : e r 004 same with respect to Russia. She :pursued 0., a 00,, Wave system, holding the door in her hand e tu ovilL aw upoii us whenever for the pretection of b / ( _ ,