The Sun. — London, England, 1839-03-13 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. with this country, when they threatened to se !,arate her from the Unio n if s h e p erse v e red. But South Arolina did establish a tariff then, which will soon ex -1 e.. Hear, hear.) Viewing this question generally • t -, its effects upon national industry and :oat peace in relation to foreign countries, L.:.1 difficult to say whether it would be more advan agcou3 to individuals or the State generally, as regards ~ ; mroPrcial profits and political friendship, that the Corn a'%t should be repealed. The promotion of industry, the ncrease of profitable returns, the acquisition of wealth, and h ;:;aintenance bf secur:ty at hone, and peace abroad, lea:ling benefits which I think may be naturslly expected to result from a repeal of the Corn-la ws. —( Hear. ) r, the next subject to which I will advert is the oh r, existin in this country to the adoption of beneficial oh existing is openly and boldly stated by those who ~Isintercsted on the subject, that the persons who are otp'sed to a change in this law are the landowners—that are in the possession of the Legislature, and that their authority is unchecked and uncontrouled, and that 'lathing but actual fear will induce them to change these laws. We cannot conceal from ourselves, that if the working classes of this country had been less anxious for the shadow than for the substance, we might perhaps at this moment be acting under the most degrading and difficult legislation circumstances under which men, having responsible duties to perform, could be found—under the influence of fear. And, really, if one could hope to influence the landlords, it would be desirable to show them that there is no danger to their interests in doing justice to the people, and that there would be danger in withholding it. But Ido think that the people have a right to know upon this occasion distinctly the grounds upon which the landowners of this country seek to maintain th is law. Is it local taxation ? Are they ready to submit to an inquiry, and to abide by the result ? Is it general taxation ? Will they be ready to verify the facts, and surrender the Corn-laws merely upon a commutation of taxes? Is there any social or political reason which they will venture to state? With respect to local taxation, perhaps the most enlight ened ...73 best informed of that party, the Right Hon. Baronet the 1-i• -.-z.!r for (either Pembroke or Tamworth) said that be gave his asaea.t. , n the Corn-laws on account of the local taxation borne by the land proprietors, and be said, " If you cut down these local burdens there is no ground for the Corn-laws."A On the 11 ,- bateppoi. the malt tax he stated that if the New Poor Law continued in ration—if the tithes were commuted—and if the county prosecutions were charged upon the public funds, there would be no ground left but the malt tax for the conti nuance of the Corn-laws. Sir, I think I have a right to assume that the Right lion. Baronet now considers the malt tax the only ground for justifying the continuance of the Corn-laws, because the other conditions have been fulfilled—the ;poor-rates have been reduced 60 per cent--the criminal prosecutions have been charged upon theConsolkiated Fund, and the tithes have been commuted. Are the landowners ready to go upon the ground merely of the malt tax?—( Hear.) Will they contend that a tax which at the most is only equal to 4,500,0001. a year, bearing indirectly upon the landed interest, is an indemnity to the public for the enormous losses sustained by the Corn-laws ?—( Hear.) But what a principle it is that because the public do not consume malt enough to satisfy the landowner, that therefore their bread is to be taxed— as if that would make them better able to consume more. —(Hear.) If any indemnity were required, surely it ought to be a tax upon foreign barley, and not a tax upon foreign wheat, and oats, and rye-4 Hear)—.if in fact foreign barley is not now taxed.—( Hear, hear.) But suppcs ineg the Right Honourable Baronet truly represents the landed proprietors, would they be willing the malt tax should be taken off, and relieve us from the duties upon foreign corn ? for I am satisfied that a largo proportion of those who advocate the repeal of those law; would be willing to enter on such terms—( Hear, hear)—satisfied that four and a half millions would be a very small reduction compared with the beneficial effects which would be produced by allowing industry and enter prise in this country full play.— ( Hear. hear.) Suppos ing this not to be assented to by the agriculturists, what other terms would they be disposed to accept:? Compensation to the landowners, or commutation of general taxation ? Do they consider themselves entitled to compensation, like the slave-owners • or, will they prove the taxes to press unequally upon them ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I believe that the present system is perpetuating an evil upon this country—if you call for compensation the exist ing interests which form the ground of your case now will be still stronger some years hence, or interests will then have arisen which do not now exist. But I believe it would be a good bargain for the country to buy up all the land which the advocates of the Corn-laws say would be thrown out of cultivation by a repeal of the Corn laws, nd to support all the unemployed cultivators in the mead ,me ; I think that would be better than to allow these ormous evils to continue.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, it is erous ground for the agriculturists to enter upon the :ion of more or less taxation, because it raises the dang question, what are the exemptions which they have en joyed ?—( Hear, hear.) Sir, 50,000,000/. has been paid by personal property for the probate of legacy duty, from which the landowners are free.—( Hear, hear.) If the landowners press the inquiry, I think the balance will not be in their favour.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, Ido not think it my business to inquire what the landlords will lose by the repeal of the Corn-laws, because when I learn what fhe community lose by the continuance of those laws, I am satisfied that not a moment should escape before that loss is put an end to.—( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, I think it is impossible for the landlords to deny that the state ments as to the great fall of rents to be anticipated front the repeal—are greatly exaggerated.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I have made inquiries as to the Channel Islands, whit:ll do not consume any of the produce they grow, but export all their productions to this country, and import all their corn from Dantzie and Hamburgh, and the difference in: their price of wheat to ours is but 30 per cent., and that spread over eighteen years, though the price rises in proportion as we import more from Europe.—(Hear.) Sir, I wish I could think that the expence of bringing wheat into this country would be less than it is; but what I have just said, shows the groundlessness of the fears en tertained of being inundated from from foreign ports.— (Hear, hear.) Sir, I wish to know if the landowners of this country see nothing in the signs of the times to make them pause before they decide upon maintaining the system opposed by the intelligence, the industry the commerce, and the numbers of this country.—( Hear, hear.) Are they blind to the fact that those demanding a change in these laws, are those most anxious to trust to the present political institutions of this country ?—( Hear, hear.) Do they hope that these persons are so weak in spirit that they will sit down under the disappointment, contented with reflecting they have misplaced their confi dence in this House ?—(llear, hear.) And have they no apprehensioa that those persons will henceforward call for those changes in the institutions of the country, which they believe are essential to its welfare.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, I do not wish to offer any thing to this House, in the lan guage of intimidation or threat, but I trust that this House, before they refuse to take the question into their considera tion, will reflect that they are taking a step the importance and the responsibility of which they cannot too highly estimate.—( Hear, bear.) Sir, I move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House to take into consideration the duties on the importation of foreign grain. Sir GEORGE STRICKLAND, in seconding the motion, commenced by remarking, that the party who had so long in that House supported the Corn-laws, did not now seem perfectly united among themselves ; and some bf them appeared to be receding from the high ground which they once occupied, and to admit that the Corn-laws were, after all, not founded in absolute wisdom.—( Hear, hear.) The farmers throughout the country were begin ning to ask the question, how far these laws bad been for their advantage.—( Hear, bear.) He considered these laws unjust, because they gave protection to one part of the community at the expense of the great body of the community, and were thus contrary to sound national policy. The manufacturirf , interests represented that as corn in this country varied to 70s. a quarter and upwards, whereas upon the shores of the Baltic the price was from 30s. to .103., a great;advantage was given to foreign manufacturers : that our hosiery was displaced by the manufacturers of S,ixony, and that our Sheffield manufacturers, instead of their trade advancing, as from the increasing population of the country and from our extended connections a ith foreign states, we had a right to expect, were at a stand ; and they point out to the attention of the House that rn,2r chants are at this moment importing hardware goods from the Continent, for the purpose of re-exporting them from , . . this country. He would also wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that that which had formerly been the great staple manufacture of this country, he meant the woollen manufacture, was at present in the most depressed state. In the year 182.0, there were exported from this c,untry to Russia, 5,400,000 yards of woollen cloth ; at this time there is not exported to Russia, one single yard of woollen cloth. What was the inference to be drawn from this circumstance ? Why, the inference was obvious, that the m-mufacturers of the Continent were enabled to produce a woollen cloth of equal quality to that produced by our manu, facturers, and at such a reduced price as totally to exclude us from those markets, which we had hitherto been accus tomed to supply. What was the statement of Mr. Porter, who was a very high authority on those subjects ? He says, that the more he looks at the present policy, the less does he like to think of it ; and he goes on to point out the application of what he says, by showing that while we have an increase in population, there is every symptom of a decrease in the manufactur es—a decrease in the means of industry and subsistence. The great manufacturing class of this country considered themselves in danger at this moment—they felt that there was a cloud hanging over them, and if that cloud should burst, all the manu facturers of the country would be overwhelmed by the torrent ; and if the manufacturing intere st fell, in the end the agricultural interest must perish also. He would now address a few words to the House as to the effect which he conceived the Corn-laws had produced and were likely to produce on the landed interest. lie well recollected what took place at the passing of those laws in the vear 1815—at that time there was a great excitement of the public mind on the subject, and he well recollected the loud clamour of the people for cheap food. At that time there was a perse vering determination actuating the great majority of that House and of the other House of Parliament to carry their laws, in spite of the feelings of opposition on the part of the people, indeed it might almost be said, that in consequence of the commotions excited in London on this subject, the Corn-laws had been carried. Now he would ask, what were the expectations and promises held out to the fame,- by the promoters of these laws ? It had been said by the pro motersof the Corn-laws, that it was the intentionof these laws to keep up the price of corn to 803. a quarter, nay, they vent still further—they stated that it was their intention by these laws to keep up the price of corn to the utmost extent, and th a t th e y h a d no id ea that the price would e r fall so l ow as 803. a quarter . N ow he would ask, have the promises thus made to the farmer been ever rea lised—what had been the fate of the farmer since thcso laws were passed. Ho would wish to draw the attention 14-- li t ..o ltilu3efor a f©w mom en t s t o t h e s t a t eme nt he was .1,1 le 1 how these laws had worked. For ~ .4 4 -* - i - 3ifiis afte4l4l passing of the Corn-laws in 1815, , vs had been iii h. in 1817 the price of wheat was - ti lePd • ,Sttruld now he nsidered a famine price. Wheat : s ,.___!. . a quarter.,.;: ;In 1818 wheat was 83s. a quarter.. ettr , _ l 7.) Tbk promoters of the Corn-laws said ,:-. 11~~ 1 ~ "~~ S at that time that these laws had completely effected their object, and they prided themselves on their success, but he would wish to compare the then state with what followed. Year after year from that period, the price of corn fell. The price of corn fell to 775. 765. 665. 603. per quarter. In 1828, the price of wheat was 60s. a quarter. In 1829, it was 663. a quarter; in 1830, it was 445. a quarter. In 1831, it was 665. a quarter. In 1835, it was 395. a quarter. He would, therefore, ask the sup porters of this law, bow the promise had been kept to the farmer, that the price of wheat would never fall below 80s. a quarter ? But the melancholy part of the story was this, that while the price of wheat fell, the rents were kept up to their fullest extent.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Year after year, had the landlord been striving to keep up his rent, until the landholder at last was obliged to acknowledge that it was impossible he could obtain the full amount of his rent. At this period the landlord had recourse to a most disgraceful expedient. He made a semblance of returning that portion of the rent which he could not get, but continued the liability of the farmers to the full amount of rent, instead of consenting to ente r into a new arrangement with him on the subject.—( Hear, hear.) What was the consequence ?---why that hundreds and thousands of farmers, without any fault which could be attached to them were, year after year, brought down from affluence to beggary, relying on the promises which had been made to them. The unfortunate farmer after having paid all his profits and interest—paid all his capita also—and the whole of his property passed into the pockets of his landlord. He would appeal to those who now heard him, whether they had not seen farmers, whom they had known formerly in afflu ence, breaking stones on the high road—whether litany farmers had not been reduced to seek refuge in the poor house—whether many had not committed suicide?— ( Cries of " No, no," from the Opposition benches.) He would confidently state that such had been the case. There were countless statements in the newspapers of that time, of farmers who had been so reduced by distress that they had committed suicide ; of others who had died of broken hearts, being no longer able to endure the ab ject misery to which they had been reduced. The more he considered this subject the more was he convinced that the Corn-laws had signally failed in producing the effect which they were intended to produce. The fact was, that the promoters of the Corn-laws, in their zeal for their ~ wn interest, had made a rem:n-1(- .14e nv.,esight, inafmt.clz as they had only limited the zupp?) , of corn from abroad, while they had left the home produce without limit—they had thus cut off the only source from which a regulation of price could take place. How was it to be supposed that in a small island like this, seeing that the fluctuation of the price was regulated by the alternation of the seasons—how was it to be supposed, that in a country where the seasons were so constantly changing, producing sudden alterations from high to low prices, that it could be otherwise than exces sively difficult for the farmer to say what was the amount of the rent which he could safely pay ? He had no hesita tion in declaring that that system which raised the price of food to the industrious classes, in order to enrich still more the affluent, was productive of great injury to the community, was unjust in its operation, and was morally wrong, and there never was a maxim so true as that which says, that the measure which is morally wrong can never be politically right. He would, therefore, entreat the llouse, in the name of those whose petitions had been presented by himself and others, not to turn a deaf ear to their prayers. The Legislature on this question stood in a false position with respect to the people, which could not be maintained ; it was certain that they must yield this question at last, and was it not better to do so while they were asked. There was a growing feeling throughout the country on this subject. With regard to the depressed state of our manufacturing industry, of which agriculture composes but one branch, he was convinced the best policy to relieve that depression was, the policy of free trade. In the present artificial state of society it might be difficult to carry out these principles at once, but in this instance there was no reason why these principles should not be acted upon. He would now make a few ob servations on the amendment of the Hon. Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire—that amendment professes to explain the effect of the Corn-laws, and divides itself into two points. Ist. It upholds the system of Corn-laws, be cause it says that in consequence of the heavy taxation of this country it is necessary that protection should be granted to vested interests—by vested interests he supposed the Honourable Member meant the landed proprietars, and this protection was sought by the landed proprietors, in consequence of the heavy taxation to which they were subjected. He was ready to meet the question, and if it could be demonstrated that the landed proprietors were subjected to any unjust share of taxation, he was ready to take the subject into consideration, and if it could be shown that the land -tax, or the poor-rate rested in unjust or unfair proportions on them, he would afford them relief, but this could not be made the excuse for re sisting the prayer of the country, and checking its pros perity. He believed this to be a fallacy. He did not con sider that the landed proprietor was taxed in a greater, if he was in an equal degree with a poor man—the poor man who purchased his highly taxed commodity, was, in pro portion to his means, as highly taxed as the greatest Noble in the land. He would now pass to the more important part of the Hon. Member's amendment. It stated that the Corn-laws afforded protection to the consumer. Ile should like to hear that proved. He need not ask the Hon. Member to dwell upon this point, more especially as he knew it to be a favourite maxim of his that dear food was advantageous to the poor. Philosophers of his stamp argued this question unfairly, for when asked why dear food was advantageous to the poor, they said that wages followed the high prices of provisions, and that, therefcre, the poor would not suffer from the high price of corn. He (Sir Geo. Strickland) well knew that it was a maxim of Adam Smith that wages in the long run must be regulated by the price of food, but the Hon. Member left out the most important part of the doctrine of Adam Smith, that although wages followed the price of food, it w as a t an awful distance.—( Hear, hear.) When the price of corn was suddenly raised from 395. to 80s., wages had no ten dency to follow this, but they always followed the average of a number of years past. He would call upon the Hon. Member to state distinctly any instance of a labourer re ceiving 2s. a-day when corn was 40s. a quarter, having his wages doubled and receiving 4s. when corn was 80s. a quarter ; no such thing could be proved. The able bodied labourer who could stand out thus against his master for wages, could not be considered in the light of a poor man. The able-bodied labourer receiving ample wages, possessing a cottage with his family around him, was, perhaps, the happiest of human beings, because he was exempt from care—( Hear, hear)—but how was he affected by the dearness of corn ? Did he not suffer in consequence? He ( Sir G. Strickland) utterly denied that his wages were ever doubled with the price of corn. He had seen the effect of a rise in corn on such families—he had seen that when wheat was too dear to enable them to buy the best description—they had been forced to feed their families on unwholesome bread, or to abstain from wheaten bread en tirely, and use barley bread instead. He had seen agricul tural labourers and their families in circumstances like these—their health gradually declining, until at length they were attacked by typhus fever, and many of them car ried off; and be would ask the Hon. Member to say if he would continue to maintain his hard-hearted position, and contend that wages followed the price of food. He would now consider for a moment the important position laid down by the Hon. Gentleman, that dear bread was of advantage to the poor. Who were the poor? Not the able-bodied labourers. But he would ask, what was the situation of the poor widow who had to maintain herself on a small pittance, when a rise of corn took place ? Whenlit was doubled in price, how were persons thus situated to pur chase it ? Hundreds of instances could be proved in which wages had never been raised in consequence of a rise in tho price of corn. What then became of the Hon. Gen man's position that the high price of corn was advantage ous to the poor. There were symptoms in this country at the present moment, of a wide-spread discontent among the labouring classes; he should be sorry that any expression should drop from him which should bear the appearance of countenancing the violent language that had been used, and which, if the users of it would listen to his humble voice nothing should induce them to repeat ; but it was the duty of the Legislature to watch these symptons. If they saw the labourers uniting in masses, choosing delegates, arming themselves, purchasing pikes, they might rest assured that the best way of explaining this would be by a reference to the old but true maxim, that want of food was the greatest cause of discontent.—(Hear.) If they saw such symptoms as these they must come to the conclusion that there was some distress and affliction among the people. In those representations which had been made, and which by some had been doubted, there was a great check to the manufacturing interests of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He would now conclude with one observation, and one observation only, that he hoped he should live to see the day when the landed proprietors of England—the Aristocracy—the proud Aristocracy of England—would look back with feelings of regret and sorow, not unmixed with shame, that they ever filled their coffers with money by raising the price of every morsel of bread that was eaten by the humblest and most wretched of their fellow-creatures. Mr. CAYL E Y then rose to propose the amendment of which he had given notice. He did so under feelings of considerable difficulty, after having heard the very able and ingenious speech of the Hon. Mover of the motion ' then before the House. Ho was fearful, however true and just the views that he entertained of the present question might be, that they would suffer from inability to do justice to them on his part.—(Hear, hear.) With reference to the observations that had fallen both from the mover and seconder, he must confess that if he had come into that House without knowing the sub ject under discussion, he should have thought that the table of the House had been loaded with petitions from the far mers and the labourers for a repeal of the Corn-laws. —(Hear, hear.) Instead of speaking as be expected they would have done on the side of the manufacturers, they had spoken on behalf of the farmers, just as if the agriculturist and the labourer had requested them to advocate their in terests. No doubt upon the subject of food a great deal of plausible arguments and sophistry had been put forth. His Hon Friend had taunted him with stating that dear bread was good fur the labourer. Now what he stated was this—that from practical experience he knew cheap corn rnadu the dearest bread that the labourer could eat ; because the farmer, when corn was cheap, found it impost sible to give employment io the labourer.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Mover went at great length into what he con ceived to be the opinions of the agriculturist and the la bourer ; and what ought to be the opinion of the farmers. Of course it became every one to speak with doubt upon all subjects, particularly so abstruse - a one as that now be fore the House ; but if he were to judge from the theories of the Hon. Members on the subject of rtiang4PtPres, he thought that they were entitled to very little faith from the farmers and l a b ourers , N o w, what had the non. Member stated with reg ar d to t h e ad been de. i n zhordination of the labourers in IMO ? It w as notor i ous that the tar 1""a pressed for a long ti me a f ter the war, b i u — t - the farmer never reduced the wage s o f the labourers as quickly as might have done, in pr o p ort i on as foodbecame dear. The farmers had been for a long period in a state of distress, and at last they were reduced to the condition of being unable to keep their labourers employed. That pressure upon the farmer arose from the low pri ce o f corn, ' THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1889. and that alone was the cause of the insubordination that I landed interest were to have protection at all, let them had been adverted to. The Hon. Mover had stated as I have it in reality. The farmers and landlords were dc true that the higher food was, the higher also were rants. , cidedly in favour cf the present Corn-laws—they objected He had stated that it was surprising to him how any one 1 to a fixed duty because it would never be high enough to could advocate the Corn-laws, when it was notorious that ' protect them, or the moment it became so there would be since they had been in existence the farmer had been in a cry raised for its immediate repeal. —( Cheers. ) There distress. The Corn-laws, in his view, were never fore he and farmers generally were in favour of a gra expected to fix the price of corn; all that the Corn- cleated scale of duty. If the House meant to protect the laws were expected to do was to prevent foreign agriculturists, then they could not protect the public by a produce from coming in collision with the produce fixed duty; and the moment that the publicwere protected— of this country. It was unjust to say that the Corn-laws unless it were by a graduated scale--a scale rising when increased the price of produce—the cause of that increase prices fell, and tailing when prices rose—the agriculturist was the change in the value of money. Then with regard must be left entirely without protection. lie perfectly to the state of the farmer when corn was free, be g inning agreed with the Hon. mover, that scarcity was no advare in 1773 and ending in 1793, the Hon. Mover had stated tage whatever to the corn grower.—( Cheers. ) If there that the farmers were never in so flourishing a condition as was a deficiency during one, tee), or three years, it was at that period. Now what was the real fact? Why if impossible that the grower could be compensated, unless ever there were two periods when the farmers were there was a rise of prices. It was stated that there was a distressed it was during the American war and at the considerable deficiency in the years 1829-30 and 1831. conclusion of the late war. It was easy to argue other The average price which, for ten years before, had been wise, but the fact was not so. The Hon. Mover had al- in France 405., rose in those years to an average of 515., luded to the speech of the Hon. Baronet the Member for a proof that in France the deficiency was as great as in Pembroke, and had designated it as one of the this country. It was said that this fluctuating scale gave most intellectual that had been made on the subject. rise to great fluctuations in the price of grain. Now he lie (Mr. Cayley) trusted that they would be favoured contended that no one could ever pretend to fix the with a similar speech on the present occasion from the price of grain.—( Cheers.) The principle of the present Right Hon. Baronet. The Hon. Mover had stated that scale was to keep the prices of grain as nearly equal as in the course of that speech the Hon. Baronet had relied possible.—( Hear.) But was there no fluctuaiion in the on the local rates. He believed that a careful perusal prices of other articles besides grain? He held in his of that speech would show the contrary to have been the hand a document showing the fluctuation in the prices of case. Now he ( Mr. Cayley) put his defence for the pro- various articles from 1820 to 1837. The fluctuations in tection of the agricultural interest—first, upon the local wheat during that period amounted to 113 per cent., taxes; 2dly, upon the general taxation ; 3dly, upon the cochineal 231 per cent., coffee 90 per cent., cotton 90 per employment of agricultural produce towards large masses cent., sheeps' wool 300 per cent., currants 209 per cent., of the people—to the custom which the large masses indigo 165 per cent., sugar 95 per cent., tea 65 per cent., would afford to the artisans and tradesmen in villages ; tobacco 207 per cent.—( Hear, hear.) Besides all these and, last of all, the property which was invested in arguments he would contend that there ought to the soil.—( Hear, hear.) The question of property be a protection on the production of wheat, so that we seemed . to him to have been lightly entertained, he knew might not be disappointed of a supply in consequence of a not upon what ground, because estimating the property in general blight, which might exist throughout the north of the soil at 50,000,0001., that was too large a sum to be Europe. A very eminent writer had stated that between lightly dealt with. The Hon. Member for Wolverhamp- the 45th and 50th degree of latitude we were liable to the ton had made some allusion to tithes, and had stated that same winds and droughts, so that we might at any time they were not to be taken into consideration because the be deprived of that of which it was a matter of prudence landlord had invested his capital, keowing that the and security to insure, if possible, a sufficient supply. If tithes existed. Now if that argument was good, might it we were obliged to depend upon foreign countries, might it not with equal truth be asserted that the manufacturers had not happen, as it had this year in Russia, Prussia, and laid out their capital knowing that the Corn-laws existed ? France, where there had been a very deficient supply ? The present motion, although it professed only to have the This country had always prohibited the exportation of corn object of obtaining a Committee, w as, in truth, for the when it rose to a certain price, but that prohibition was purpose of enforcing a repeal of the laws altogether. not for the protection of the corn-growers but of the pub- The Honourable Mover might attempt to show that such lic.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Whenever the time came—he was not its object, but he would take upon himself to assert trusted that it never would—but should England that repeal, and nothing else, was the object in view. ever be dependent on a foreign nation—if there Not only the speeches in that House, but elsewhere, went should ever be a great deficiency in England, to that. Now he (Mr. Cayley 1 would assert, that if the then would the King of Prussia and the Emperor present Corn-laws were repealed, property would be de- of Russia follow the example set by Frederic of I preciated upwards of a fourth. With regard to the present Prussia—impose a heavy tax or prohibition upon the ex- I question, he had had intimation from both sides of the portation of corn, so as to give a decided protection to House of an indisposition to receive his amendment.— the manufactures of his own country. —( Hear, hear.) ( Hear, hear.) When he said that parties were indisposed The question of property was a material one, although it to the amendment, he alluded to both sides of the House, seemed to have been but little entertained. His Hon who all agreed that the agricultural interests of the country Friend, the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, said, demanded some protection. Now, the course he intended " You protect the landowner—why the landowner is to adopt on the present subject was this: he should move the most secure of any man in the country in his pro that the present motion should be met with a direct negative, perty." What security had he, when they were and at the same time he wished, it could be done—for he about to take from him the very basis of the value of still held himself to the first resolution—if it could be done his property ? The landowner had embarked 1,500/ he should wish to take the discussion on the present ques- capital in the soil, and had been contented to receive tion, and take a substantive decision upon the resolution, upon the faith of the absolute security to which his Hon. immediately after the present motion had been decided, friend had alluded, two and-a.half and three per cent for either in the negative or the affirmative. Having stated his money; while other parties, who had not the real and that in justice to himself, he felt bound to say that when be substantial security of law, but only a paper one, or chose proposed to negative the motion he did so not from any in• to venture their money upon , trade risks, and so to ven difference as to the condition of the manufacturer, or from tore their property f or great risks, with the expecta any hostility to any part of that body. For himself he tion of deriving a higher profit in consequence, these respected them for the skill which they had displayed, and parties rho had been receiving in higher profits no one felt more strongly than be did the real identity of the risks they run—( Hear, bear)—were to have interest that existed between the agriculturist and protection when they bad been receiving 20, the manufacturer. He meant those parties who were 30, or 40 per cent., while the landowners, who had re willing to deal with :one another. The agriculturist and ceived only 2i or three per cent., were to be curtailed of that the manufacturer were as identified with each other as the very absolute security on which alone he consented to receive buyer and the seller. The farmer bought from the artizan, that small sum. Although he stated at the outset that the and the artizan from the farmer. There was an identity of Hon. mover had made this much more a ease of the farmer interest, but if the artisan or tradesman of a village could and the labourer seeking for the repeal of the Corn-laws, yet afford to go to other places to buy corn and neglect the upon this question did he wish the House to believe that he in farmer,tended it to have referenc e t o th e s tate of our f ore i gn manufac fore then the identity of interest ceased to exist. Th ere - Manchester and Liverpool, as long as they dealt with t fi 7 r r e e i s c; N m o a w nu , fa w c h tu a r t es w w as co t n h t a e t nd o e t d her fo c r ou w n i t th rie respect to our this country for corn, were identified with it, but the mo. us so'hard in the race of a m s 'anufacture that Russia s , w L re it r zerla ' n,, moot they went across the Water and ceased to employ the Prussia, Saxony, Belgium, and France, were competing very English labourer, the English farmer, and the English nearly with us; and he found in a speech made by Mr. Smith, landlord, then the identity of interest ceased. By those who the President of the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, cer held the opinions of the Hon. Mover, an attempt had been tain statements with regard to the falling off of British manufac made—a kind of delusive opinion had been put forth, that tures in particular parts of the Continent. He would ask the land of England was poor and not well cultivated, and when the Continent began to manufacture? Every that it was not so good as land in other countries. Now one knew th .hi a ll t inua it was at the time of the passing what had Mr. Jacob said in his tract on the corn trade? of the Milan and Berlin Decrees, and when once they began Manchester, tl'ey w.eie n n Why, he stated that the average returns of barley and oats th a e s m th u e p again. ex M o r. rt ß er ar o t f on , , ar o n f in other countries was as four to one, while in Britain it from this coun w try n , s ntil tated thayt was 1812 greatesthe was in ') Russia —that was eight to one; that, therefore, was an answer to the he had cotton yarn at Moscow and Petersburg—that in conse opinions entertained by Hon. Members, that the land of quence of the retreat of the French he was obliged to carry off England was bad. He spoke from confident authority when his cotton yarn in 700 waggons from Petersburg, and 1,500 he stated that the land of this country was superior to that from Moscow. What did that prove? Why, that it had been of other parts of the world; and although great progress taken there to be used in manufactures in Russia. Did the had been made in the manufactures and commerce of the persons who exported the yarn from this country imagine that country—although great progress had been made in the it was not to be used abroad—that they were to have the menu building of ships, the constructing of railroads and canals, facture of the yarn, and the export to foreign countries, and the and other branches of industry—alth oug h thi s country weaving of it here as well ? It was impo ss ible to suppos e th a t. Now, in answer to the arguments that the Corn-laws had had rendered herself eminent in w o rks of that Produced this great competitionour manufactures, of he con kind, she was more em i nen t f or th e advance tended it was the export of yarn that hadproduceditinflnitely she had made in agricniture. He did not say more. A friend of his, who lived in the neighbourhood of Man that in every respect she was superior to other countries, chester 20 or 30 years ago, took the liberty of telling the because it was well known that Holland was more expe- exporters of yarn, " You may rely upon it, by the system of teemed in draining, and Belgium in horticulture. In exporting yarn, you will allow the foreigner to get between you some things, too, Italy and Switzerland surpassed this and the market, and deprive you of your trade." What was their answer? It will last our day." And it lasted their d a y. country ; but in the feedi ng o f ca t t l e a nd a ll o p era ti ons o f the dairy, England stood pre-eminent.—(Hear, bear.) Those who had listened to no remonstrance then were the He was glad to hear that Hon. Members concurred with e yarn exported i n 1815 was 14 1834, ,0001b5. ; 1824, parties who were now seeki ng th e re p ea l o f th e C orn -l aws . h,OOO him in the opinion he had express e d re l at i ve t o E ng l an d ; 2 6000,0001b5. ; 1329, 60,000 and he would ask how it could be said, with all the past 1837, 100,000,0001b5. ; 1838,0001b5. ; 51000,0001b5. ; 115,000,0001b5. It was sent resources this country had, with the great efforts she had made in argriculture, that her l an d was p oor ?—( H ear . ) to Russia, certain parts in the Baltic, Germany, Belgium, Hol land, France, Spain, Portugal, the ports of the Mediterranean, there were several local taxes that bore heavily on the agri- North and South America ; and in 1834 there were culturists, and there could be no doubt but that the malt sent to India and China, 5,000,0001b5. It was ab tax was a tax on the cultivation of the land, because it pre- surd to say the Corn-laws had been the cause of foreign vented the consumption of the article produced. The manufactures flourishing. As the Right Hon. Baronet, mistake that a great many fell into was, that they dealt with the Member for Tamworth, had stated—when peace came the labouring classes as consumers only, whereas the la- and left foreigners to pursue their peaceful avocation, it was not bouring classes were ten times more deeply interested in what likely they would deprive themselves of their manufactures, a n d they produced than in what they consumed. Tithes also bore it us.—(Hear, hear.) One thing which had conduced verywas undobtedly most likely that they should seek to compete heavily on the cultivation of land in this country, whil e there with much to the manufactures on the Continent, was the great fall was no such burtben on the cultivation of land in foreign which had taken place in theprice of raw cotton. Now, what countries,and when gentlemen talked about the legacy d u ty, was the price of cotton yarn, 0 hanks to the lb. ? In— they forgot to take into consideration the tax that was paid 1786 the price was ... 3Bs. Od. on the transfer of land.—( Hear, hear.) Then, as to local 1790 . taxes. He would appeal to the evidence of a most intelli- 1796 gent witness (Evan Davey), who was called before the 1809 Agricultural Committee of 1836, who spoke from his own 1806 books, and from his father's books, and which showed the When the raw material fell in price, it gave the foreign manu condition of the former with respect to local rates in 1834 him factur to er the facilities—thatgreat ‘ e v r itt.usand u with manufactures wage it enatled ought t obe stated and in 1790—before the war. He came, then, to the consi deration of the next ground on which he rested his defence that the exports of woollen woollenantllinen yarn had not t increased compete exactly in the same proportion cs cotton yarn. of protection to the agricultural interests, namely, its comps- But if we repealed the Corn-laws, were Honourable Members retire magnitude. He did not wish to state this inviduously, certain that it would have the desired effect of inducing foreign but other people had stated this was amere landowner's ques- manufacturers te give up their manufactures, and to send their tion. The Hon. Member had stated that evening this was corn and take our manufactures in exchange ?—( Hear, hear.) a mere landowner's question ; he wished to show it was The argument was put forth that the Prussian Corn-laws sane not. It had been stated elsewhere that the landowners tioned this proceeding, and were for carrying it out. That if were a monopolising body—that they consisted of about we would take their corn, they would endeavour to repress 30,000 persons, and that all this taxation and all this their manufactures ; but it was quite certain that there was a money was taken out of the pockets of the people to sup. determination, on the part of foreign potentates, to manufac port 30,000 landholders. He begged to state that this ture for themselves. This might be seen in the protection Y t whichlen ilok t f li m ey an afferded manufacturers on every occasion—take the was a mistake in the outset. By the property-tax return Belgium ft for instance. He being anxious to introduce it was shown that the landowners were very nearl manufacture Belgium,u t zi s nt c o ounta o a ff te e n re t d o re ten of our largest 600,000.—( Hear, hear.) He would show that it was not manufacturesu a landowner's question, but a tenant's question, a labourer's would set himself up ther y e. & - 14 single fact in showed question, and a tradesman's question.—( Hear.) He had the determination there was on the Continent to encourage stated elsewhere, that according to the census of 1831 the manufacturers, and that no act of ours would detain or retard population of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales con- them. What had happened in Russia? Our artizans had gone sisted of Agricultural Occupiers Agricultural Labourers 4,800,000 competition by foreign manufacturers with us in point of profit, Money Interest powers ; and he might mention one fact, that an Englishman, named Wilson, had received the rank of Major-General, for superintending a manufactory at Bruges. The Hon. Member then alluded to the statement made by Mr. Rawson relative to Saxon hosiery, and stated that he had received letters from the Continent, the details of which totally contradicted the whole of Mr. Rawson's statement--(Hear, hear)—and showed that a year or two ago Saxon stockings were patronized, but they had been found so bad that they were obliged to return to the English manufacturers. But after all the question of the Corn-laws, was a question which affected wages. The Hon. Member here went into a variety of details which were ' perfectly unintelligible in the gallery—we undorstood him au of the rative. fifteen s t h o ill s in ay gs t a hi ti t ua th rt e er, pr t a T e as tica a l ho e u ff t ec si t x , pe a n n e t e l a th s ., yee t k ax Did any man contend that a reduction of sixpence per week would enable the English manufacturer to com pete with the foreign manufacturer.—(llcar, hear.) Now what were the wages of the foreign manufacturers, as compared with those of this country. The wages here averaged ten or twelve shillings a week, but in France the wages in the cotton manufactories were ss. Bd. a week, in Switzerland, 4'. lid., in Austria, 45., in Saxony, 3s. 6d., and on the Rhine, 2s. 6d.—the average being 4s. a week.—(Cries of Hear, hear.) Now this was the statement of Mr. Greg. Unless we were to recede from the advances we had made, having given our labourers wheaten bread when they had been used to rye and barley—unless we desired to bring them back to the labourers' state two years ago—he defied the advocates of this measure to argue this as a labourer's question. — (Hear, hear.) He placed y er y little confidence in columnso_f _figures, for they had often d ece i ve d that House; but it was well known t an t ;l efo th re e dthise ttastswohfenthteheagdrisictruelstsuroafl the population was weaversbroagh House, they were always referred to the increase in the ex ports. In iB2O, in the midst of the agricultural distress that prevailed, Mr. Huskisson said it was sense consolation that the of the menu eeeriltayr,a,tion was re peated.:,gfieanxccaptriouenrrastistsne ihadninoiunlrcsr3a exportss increased. r n l p n opur l oreotfOt ofTt h ht e ohme s a spo m rno e prosperity Look at the iot e i Thomson n l a r pe . dp.e P ian . retdhethoautt chrye 16 millions .. ; in then refe'rred were the very parties who now interests." e ls e : t s s .. " B y t T h h e e C p u a s r t t o i e m s sto declared value of their exports in 1820 1832 it was 20 millions ; and in 1836 it was 24 millions. In for home * 1838 the total quantity of cotton yarn entered it,con sumption was 378 millions of lbs., a nd in 1839 was 463 mil lions of lbs., being an increase of nearly 100 millions of lbs., in the course of one year. It appeared that the quantity of cotton wool entered for home consumption in ISOI was 54 millions of lbs., and in 1814 the quantity was 53 millions of showing Returnswonlw a s that the consumption was precisely the same at the e end as a t the be g i nn i ng o f t h e war , an d h e b e lieved that during that pe riod the cotton manufacturers enjoyed very great prosp er it y . If the i ncrease o f t ra d e was any p ro of of prosperity it would pear th a t th e num b er o f power-looms in 820 was 14,00 Q ; lq 1 830 it was 55,000 ; and in 1833 it was 100,000 being an Igoin crease of fell 700 pet cent. since - - The Noble Lord ' + I , - Membe r f or N ort h Lancashire had allud e d t o t 4e increase pf f4e tory mills in 1834-6 ; but one of the Duce -law Cnilireissioeersho given them more precise information, and had stated that iq July 14,33 there was 3,743,000 e being l a id gut in mills and factories in Lancashire and its vicinity. Did not that account for the reduction which had taken place in the profits of the manufacturers ? It was evidently as much the result of home as of foreign mime _ tition. In fact a manufacturer had t o ld him tttat they peted with gne another as ranch at home as the -fOreigner"clia } - 11 4 1 1 ttiein :thread. • • ft appeared, Iraq returns which h e h eld in his land; that of 26' millieni of cotton goods mehefeettiree millions had been ertperted; ot , e4 Y4hie of 17(4)16 1 gods Matlefaciered, 4' TpilliOrn 110 sea eiportea ni 14 g iit2 ions of yarn and hosiery manufactured , 3 milliups and a half had been exported; of iron and hardware there had been 88 mil lions produ ce d, and 2,800,0001. exported; of brass and ' •nr.f., • . copper th ere nau ueen Pr°"ueee , anti 961,000/. sent abroad. If that was the state of their foreign and home consumption it would be seen at once how Making altogether 6,900,000 Manufacturers Millers, Bakers, and Butchers 900,000 Builders 600,000 Shopkeepers and others Making in all 6,400,000 t t; ‘ h ui r e r a. r 1 , :‘ w pi a oa s rps e uh n l aatlti population n l y vo s a h fl u u t athboi this out c t oodufi digest daesr stated a s t._i o 6 n tth . hsa f t While Ireland, w hi c h was an agr i cu l tura l countr y altoge to w l o e ft h f t o eh u ea n g, d vrili it, co ul e. The number of the cotton-spinners, who made this outcry, , had been greatly exaggerated. It appeared that in 1835 there were 1,262 cotton factories, and that there were 220,134 persons employed in them—that there were about 13,130 wool-factories in England with about 61,800 persons employed in them—that there were 238 silk-factories employing 30,000 persons ; 423 flax factorie,,, employing 33,000;persons. The total number of those four factories was 3,236, with about 355,000 persons employed in them. He did not wish to under-rate or under estimate their importance, but when persons out of that House talked of 30,000 landowners,under-estimated as that number was, it should be borne in mind that the millown ers were not more than 3,236. In opposing this motion he wished it to be understood that he had not the slightest feeling of hostility towards the manufacturing body, and he did not wish to undervalue that body in any particular, Allusion had been made in another place the other night by a Noble and Learned Lord to a letter written by the Noble Lord, the Secrectary for the Home Department, to his constituents in the year 1520. He had not that letter by him now, but so far as his memory served, he agreed in every sentiment it contained, and he trusted that if the Noble Lord intended to oppose the motion, that he would do so upon the ground therein stated. After referring to a speech ' made by Mr. Hume (as we understood) in 1820 upon a motion made by Mr. Holme Sumner, he said a suggestion had been thrown out that the growers of corn in this coun tryhad nothing to apprehend from the competition of foreign growers; it was stated that corn would rise in price abroad" in consequence of the demand created for it here. The argument used was, that the demand fur corn in this coun try from foreign nations would cause a cessation of their manufacturing industry, but he did not believe that that would be the case at all events ; he was not content to sa crifice the landed interest upon such a speculation. I t would not at all follow that we would send our manufac. tures abroad in exchange for corn ; they would send their gold and silver to Poland and other places from whence they took corn.—( Cheers.) He understood that cheer—it meant that we must buy our gold and our silver by our manufactures, but it did not seem that that would at all follow. The manufacturers of this country would inundate foreign markets with their goods in order to purchase that gold and silver—in order to purchase the corn from Poland and other places. There was another danger to be apprehended. He was informed that the dis tt•ict beyond Odessa extending to upwards of 1,000 miles, that 4istriet luing between the Danube and the Doe, was Ling line country; and was &here nt: 4 dier.d to by erite;: 7 tallied of an inundation ?—( Hear, hear.) Then how was the corn grown in that country to be brought down ? It down ,by the farmer in a te m p orar y was brou b ... at a shilling a - growrt waggon to Odessa. it hroken bushel ; being carrried to Odessa, the waggon up and sold. The wheat at Odessa cost 245. a quarter, and there was nothing to prevent that wheat from being landed in this country at 355. per quarter. Now, if the much more English manufacturers depended upon home consumption than upon the foreign trade, and it behoved them to be careful how they passed any Act in that or the other House of Parliament, which would tend to affect the interest of that large class of consumers. He trusted in the observations he had made, he had not shown any hostile feeling to that large portion of the community by whom the question was I,rought forward, and for whom he entertained the highest possible respect. If anything he had said had given the slightest degree of pain, he certainly had not intended it. To hear the language that had been used by some parties who advocated a repeal of the Corn-laws, one would imagine that their island, with all its beauty and industry—with all the energy and independence of centuries—had sprung into exist ence but yesterday. Was not England, in the days of their Alfreds and their Harolds—in the days of their Cressys and their Agincourts—in the days of their Elizabeths and Crom wells, Williams and Anne, as much as in those latter days of Wellington and Grey ?—( Hear.) He trusted that that House would never place the exertions, and industry, and employment of their countrymen, on so treacherous and uncertain a basis as a Foreign trade, which was daily diminishing. By whose advice were they acting in that way ? By the advice of those who stated that they held no allegiance to the soil of that country. If so, he hoped that far, far distant would be the day when they and their schemes would preponderate in that House. Give him the broad lands of England andlreland on which to rest the solid and lasting foundation of their national greatness.— (Cheers and laughter.) He hoped that the people of that country would remain contented under the fostering influence of the landed interest, who, by attention to th e com forts of the agricultural classes would diffuse peace and goodwill to all around them, and who formed the noblest and strongest bul wark against external invasion or internal aggression that ever existed in any age or country. He begged leave to withdraw his amendment.—( Hear, cheers, and laughter. ) Mr. POULETT THOMSON said he would not say at that ea , ly period of the night, but at that early stage of the debate which was not likely to terminate that night—(Hear)—and he would throw himself upon the indulgence of the House, assuring them that he would endeavour to compress what he had to say into as short a space as possible. It seemed to him difficult to say anything new upon the question which had been so much disceeeed and debated. He owned, however, that he did rejoice that the question was at last brought before the House in the manner in which it had been by his Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton—that it was to be discussed upon those grounds alone on which he thought it ought to be discussed or debated, namely, with reference to the general interests of the country.—( Hear, hear.) He had never dis guised his opinion from these gentlemen who much to their credit, had began agitation upon the subject.—( Cheers, and cries of 6' Hear, hear.") He had never disguised his opinion that they had rather injured their own cause than promoted it by narrowing so much the ground on which they placed it. He was not surprised that feeling as they did their own interests immediately and seriously affected, they should have so narrowed the ground ; but he had never treated the subject in that way. He had always wished to see it discussed on its general bearings, with reference to the general interests of the country and all the interests likely to be affected by it. He was glad to think that his Hon. Friend the Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire was inclined (at least so he had told the House) to meet the question in a full, fair, and manly man ner. He had, it was true, yielding to the advice of others, flinched from the proposition which he had enunciated to the House.— (Hear, hear.) Actuated perhaps by very prudential considera tions, he had receded from his position, and he had told them that he intended to meet the motion by a negative, but not to test it by the resolution which he had laid before the House. Perhaps he could understand why his Honourable Friend had withdrawn his first resolution, considering the eifficulty be would have in finding many Honourable Members to support it; but with regard to his second resolution, namely, that the Corn-laws had worked well, and had answered the purpose for which they were enacted, although that had been equally with drawn, yet he presumed that all those Gentlemen who were inclined to vote for the negative of the other proposition, must be equally determined to assert that proposition. He knew of no grounds on which it was possible to refuse to go into a Committee with a view to change these laws, unless they were prepared to say that they were the best that could be made.—(Opposition cheers.) He (Mr. P. Thomson) was prepared to contend the exact contrary of that proposition—he was prepared to show that these laws had worked ill for all the interests in that country, and it was for that reason, and with a view to change these laws, that he agreed to the proposition of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton. Now a word with regard to that proposition. His Hon. Friend, the Member for the North Riding of York shire, stated that the object of his Hon. Friend must undoubt edly be, when he got his Committee, to repeal at once the Corn laws. He heard nothing from his Hon. Friend to that effect. (Cries of " Oh!") That weight be the view of his Hon. Friend, but that was not the view with which he (Mr. Poulett Thomson), taking a more practical view of the subject, should go into Committee. If he was asked whether it would not be beneficial for the interests of the country that there should be a free trade in corn, he answered at once that it would be so.—( Hear, hear.) But he knew well th ere were considerations—he knew well there were interests—he knew well that these interests could not be either lightly dealt with, or, whatever change was proposed, they should be fairly considered. He, therefore, taking the more practical view of the subject, would say at once that he did not go with that view, but to ascertain in what manner they would be enabled to introduce such a practical change in the system of Corn-laws as would be beneficial to all parties, and not in jurious to any existing interests. That was the view he took of the subject, and he considered that all those who were not prepared to support the present Corn-laws as the best that could be framed were bound to ge into Committee with him. —( Hear, and cries of " No, no.") There they might propose their schemes if they pleased.—(Hear, hear, and ironical cheers.) He asked his Noble Friend who cheered so loudly if it was possible to propose any alteration in these laws without going into a Committee of the whole House ?—( Hear, hear, from Lord Stanley.) There was no course left for them but to go into a Committee, and there they would be enabled to discuss the various plans which might be submitted. He (Mr. Poulett Thomson) was pre pared to submit a plan himself, and there let him be dealt with as to the House might seem best. Having said thus much with regard to the motion of his Hon. Friend, he must say there were some points on which he did not agree with him. He wished he could go along with him, especially with regard to what he had stated about the price of corn. And now for the statement of the Honourable Member for the North Riding of Yorkshire ; and he must say that one part of his statement struck him with some surprise. Some attempt had been made by the Hon. Gentleman opposite to separate the two laws, but both were in practice the same. The present law- professed to produce the same effects as those of 1815 or 1822. Its object was to place the trade in corn on the same footing as that in other commodities. Its object was to allow importation, not merely when corn was at a print when there was prohibition under the old system, but to allow impor tation when the prices were far below what should have been the point of permission before. But the present law produced the same effects as the old one : instead of corn coming in when it was wanted, corn now came in in the same manner as when prices rose under the old system, until there was either no pro hibition or a famine price. He would refer to docu ments to illustrate that. He found from a paper which he held in his hand that, from July, 1826, to the 31st of December, 1838, there had been imported into this country 6,788,000 quarters of corn. Now we often had corn very dear during that time, and we had a stated price some times for months together ; and if the law had operated accord ing to the intentions of its framers (i. e. admitting corn in times of scarcity at a moderate duty), it was higher than when the first law had fixed the importation point at 705., which the Hon. Gentleman opposite then considered the famine price. One would suppose that a considerable quantity came in during the latter time; but of the 6,788,000 quarters already men tioned, 5,089,000 came in and paid day at less than Os. Bth, which was the rate at which prohibition ceased before. Thus 25 per cent. of all the corn imported during the 10 years came in, when the price was 70s. here, and only 25 per cent. at the other prices but it was reasonable th a t it s h ou ld b e so, as any gentleman who had watched the corn-market, and the operation of prices, must know when corn rose to 60s. or 655., the specu lators who had it in bond would not take it out and bring it into the market—pay 155., or 163., or 20s. duty; but they would keep it in bond, still causing it to operate upon the market, until the price became yet higher, and that then they would bring it out for sale when they had only a duty of Is. to pay.—(Hear, hear.) Was this a benefit expected by the framers of this law ?—( Hear, hear.) Now, he would ask, what was the intention of the framers of the present law ? The Hon. Gentleman opposite was, perhaps, upon the Committee for the year 1621 ; that Committee said, that the great object to be secured was a steady price for corn, free from fluctua tions.—(Hear, hear.) The admirable report of that Com mittee, which was framed by Mr. Huskisson, and which was introduced to the House under the auspices of the Chairman—that report was so clear and convincing as to the real objects which any Corn-law should have, that his (Mr. P. T's) only surprise was that in introducing the scales of 1827-28, that report was not more implicitly followed up. However, the views of those scales were in conformity with the report, viz., to prevent fluctuation in the price of corn. He had in his hand a document with which he must trouble the House, as tieing of great importance in connection with this question. It was an extract from a speech made by Mr. Canning, the introducer of the 13111 of 1827, and upon which the Bill of 1828 was in a great degree founded. iMr. Canning said—" It seems desirable, if we are to have a trade in corn at all, that it should be on the principle of other trades, and proceed in a sober and regular course, and not be liable to perpetual risks and reverses rising out of extraordinary cases.—( Hear, hear.) If re proceed to permit the importation of foreign corn, we must take care that, while it shall be a security against famine, it shall not lead to an inundation of the whole market ; that while it regulates the supply it should not overload our market; that it should give the supply a character upon which one might calculate, instead of permitting it to be, as now, a perpetual source of alternations between dearth and plenty—instead of the prices fluctuating, as has been lately the case, between 112 s. a t one time, and 38e. at another, making them graduate, perhaps, between 555. and 65s."—(During the reading of this and other documents the Speaker was several times obliged to call out " Order at the bar," which was almost entirely blocked up by Members and strangers.) Now what he (Mr. P. Thomson) wanted of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite was, that while they supported the present Corn-laws, they would tell him whether the views of their framers had been fulfilled ?—(Hear, hear.) On the contrary, must not every one admit, after a moment's considera tion of the case, that the direct contrary of those expectati ons had been the re su lt ? H e h e ld i n his hand a statement of the highest and the lowest prices of wheat during ten years from the year 1828. In 1828 the highest price per quarter of wheat was 76s.—the lowest was els. making a difference of 49 per cent. In 1829 the highest price was 75s.—the lowest, 555., making a difference of 38 per cent. In 1830 the highest was 745. 11d.—the lowest was 555., the difference, 35 per cent. In 1831 the difference was 26 per cer.t. In 1832 the difference was 24 per cent. In 1833 it was 14 per cent. In 1834 it was 23 per cent. In 1835 it was 22 per cent. In 1836 the highest price was 60s. per quarter— the lowest was 305., the difference was 68 per cent. Ie 1837 the highest price was 60s.—the lowest, els„ the difference, 17 per cent. In 1838 the highest price was 78s.—the lowest, 525., the difference, 49 per cent. Between the year 1836 and 1839 the difference between the t• and the lowest price was so much ' - - eighest 116 per cent ? (Hear, hea r .) Now he would Hon. -6 ite whether th e o bj ec t of Mr. Cannineeis when he introducedentlemen opposite h Bill had be en b orne out ?—e(i.eeer, treer.) He had a l so ano ther return, eis'eiess k kin would not trouble the House, which would Oi!ow that erig;,r another state of the l aw th e fl uctuations fleleleg ten years were " ' not by two and a half, or much less, so much as th ey were now, Ilet his Hon. F r i en d h a d said that ltl un4ertukiu4 this question it ought to be considered with reference to three important classes—viz., the labourers, the tenants, al - 0 the landlords. Now he would do so, and he welsh' salt, was it possible that a tenant meld be otherwise than injured under the fluctuations qe & system which diffused so much uncertainty thretegh all its transactions ? ( Hear. ) Why would the flee, eeeetlereen opposite make corn different from e•ii,k, A , clibcr. article ? W 0 had not a fluctuating scale in eetten ens wine, or all the OW articles which were imported Into this Coentry, eed why should we h ave i t upon corn ? ( Hear, hey.) Nc k w, with reference to the relation between landlp,rds and tenants, as effected by the Corn-laws, instead of aegseng tq show that under the present system they were mutually ireiered rather than served by the present system, as asserted by the Honourable Gentlemen opposite, he would refer to a series of documents, the authority of which he was sure would not be disputed or c on t rov erted. The Hon. Gentleman opposite had said- that under the present system the agricultural interests hack esejoyed unexampled pros perity. Had it?—(Hear ; hey. ) Ale Would new refer to a tier rq 9f §,M 9I ,Af 4 frefe the ''prone. He found that during a few years since 1828, in no less than five King's speeches, the depressed condition of agriculture was dwelt upon, and the ear nest attention of the House was directed to it, with a view to introduce some remedy.—(Bear, hear.) In February, 1830, his Majesty lamented that, notwithstanding the improve ment of our commerce, distress at the same time existed in some portion of the agricultural and manufacturing district. That speech was put into his Majesty's mouth by the Right Hon. t ientlernan opposite.—( Hear. hear. and laugh ter ) But even that was not strong enough ; an amendment was carried to paint the distress in higher colour. In 1831, his Majesty's speech lamented that distress afflicted mar.y parts of his dominions at home and abroad. In 1833 there was no mention of agricultural distress, but a Committee was appointed to inquire into it. In 1834 his Majesty's Speech la mented the continuance of distress among the proprietors and occupiers of land. In 1835 his Majesty said, " I deeply lament that the agricultural interests still con tine in distress." In 1836 his Majesty again lamented that one class of his subjects, viz.. the agriculturists, were in deep distress, and trusted that Parliament would introduce some measure for its alleviation. Here there were one, two, three, four; five King's speeches, and a Committee of the House, when there was no King's speech at all, complaining of ::gricultural distress, and calling out for a remedy.—( hear, ' hear.) Was he to be told, then, that the present law worked well for the a,ricultnrist ?—( Hear, and cheers.) Really he did not know how posterity might read history, but he thought it must seem hereafter that those gentlemen who so recently complained of their condition, and then boasted that the law under which they suffered was the best, must have committed some great mistake. He confessed he could not understand the reasoning in his Hon. Friend's speech ; but he was persuaded, however, that the condition of the labourer would be greatly ameliorated by a fixed duty. if foreign corn were to displace home corn, the labourer must be employed in the production of other articles.—( Hear, hear, and No, no.) But his argument was, that under a repeal of the Corn-laws there would be a greater importation of all kinds of commodities, and a greater export. The demand for labour would then increase ; labour would produce a higher price, though the capital might re main the same; as for food, he did not mean to say that it would be always cheaper than now, but the prices would be more equal.—(Hear, hear.) It', therefore, there was one man who, more than another, would be interested in having a steady price for corn, that man would be the labourer. He had heard the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth state that the wages of labour did not follow prices rapidly, but in 1835 and 1836, when the prices of corn were low, and when the supply of labour was greater than the demand, the rate of labour was reduced to the minimum scale of sub sistence, and now the wages of the labourer, in many places, were still calculated at 7s. or Bs. a week, though corn was now double its former price. He repeated, therefore, that the labourer was, of all others, interested in having a steady system.—( Hear, hear.) He regarded it as most preposterous, that his Honourable Friend should assert that the object of the change was to reduce the wages of the agricultural and manufacturing labour to 4s. a week. His object was, on the contrary, to improve the condition of the labourer, and he had no doubt that that condition would be improved under a change, for when foreign corn was admitted, the wages of labour must be increased with ,it. To attempt to compare the variations of the prices of articles. depending on many minute and complicated causes, was beside the question. His Hon. Friend had said that after all the home trade was the trade on which our manufacturers were chiefly dependent, and that he would not sacrifice the country for the sake of the foreign trade. Nor would he (Mr. P. Thomson) ; but at the same time he must say that it was now too late to talk of this country not being dependent upon foreign trade.—( Hear, hear.) That might have been said a hundred years, or even seventy years ago, but the time for it was now past. And a, large portion of our population was wholly dependent on foreign trade. We import now scarcely anything but raw material, for manufacturing—part certainly for home consumption, but chiefly for foreign consumption, and we import, to the extent of thirty millions, the raw ma terial.—( Hear, hear.) We had by the Corn-laws raised against us many enemies, who complained not indeed that we would not take their commodities at all—for we took their corn when we were obliged to do so—but that the greatest un certainty was produced in the trade by the Corn-laws.-- ( Hear, hear.) Coi respondence had been moved for and would be presented to the House, showing the propositions which had been made by foreign nations as to their willingness to treat with us, if we did away with the Corn-laws. 1 - iox could we ask them to take off their prohibitions when we refused corn, the only article they could offer us?—( Hear, hear.) It was said that protection was necessary. H e (Mr.i P. Thomson) was willing to give that fair protection which was required by those burthens which pressed particularly upon the land, but he quarrelled with the mode in which that protection was administered, tending, as it did, not to the advantage of the landowners, and at the same time to the detriment of the other parties.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Yorkshire had stated that there were 690,000,0001. invested in land. He _ _ (Mr. P. Thomson) could not understand that calculation, nor the exaggerated statements which the Hon. Member had made as to the burthens which rested on land. He was ready to ad mit that there were burthens pressing upon the land. At the same time they had been much reduced ; and there were others which bore as exclusively upon other interests. He thought it would be fair to examine what the particular burthens were for which allowance ought to be made.—( Hear.) Now, with re gard to the Poor-rates, by the returns of 1833 it appeared that the proportion paid by the land was 65 per cent., and by other interests 35 per cent. And then it ought to be considered that there was the legacy probate duty, amounting to 2,400,000/. a year, and which pressed exclusively upon other interests, and which ought, therefore, to be taken into account.—( Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had alluded to the malt tax as a burden which pressed peculiarly upon the land. He (Mr. Poulett Thomson) could sot but regret that the Right Honourable Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, was not in his place in the Howe to answer that objection of the Honourable Gentleman. He would quote the authority of the Right Honourable Baronet in opposition to the Honourable Gentleman. He recollected that he had on the occasion alluded to, voted with the Right Honourable Baronet, who, in one of the most convincing speeches he had ever heard delivered, had incontrovertibly esta blished the fact, that the malt tax was not a tav exclusively on the land, but was a tax that was paid by the consumer.--( Hear, hear.) That the malt tax in its operation was partially injuri ous to the land--(Hear, hear, hear, from the Opposition)— he was willing to admit, because it a ff ec t e d profits to a certain degree ; he would admit that it was a grievance to that extent, but it was absurd to call it a tax upon the land, because it was in fact a tax paid by the consumer. Hewould ask them why then did they refuse to make an altera tion in the Corn-laws ? What were they afraid of? Did they fear that the effects of any alteration would be to produce a great lowering of the price? His own opinion was, and this was not the first time that he had stated it, that the price on an average would not be much lower than it was at present. He knew that many were afraid that during ordinary years the averages would be reduced as low as 325. per quarter, but he was of opinion that if there was a regular demand for corn, with a constant supply, if we took a supply steadily, it would be impossible to ship wheat for the supply of this country under 465. or 475. per quarter. Hon. Members should recollect that the further we went from the banks of the river, the further we went from the means of communication to procure our supply of wheat, the greater would be the expence accruing on it ; an expense not increasing according to common progression, but in a progres sion that was almost impossible to calculate. He knew of a place in Russia through which he had passed in his travels, where wheat was ss. per quarter. Gentlemen opposite would be horrified at the bare mention of such a price, but that very wheat at a distance of a hundred miles from this village fetched from 20s. to 255. per quarter in consequence of the enormous expenses of transporting it. It was a most unfair practice of Hon. Gentlemen opposite, to quote the prices of corn in the interior of foreign countries, at the time when the ports in this country were closed. This was a practice that was inconsistent with anything like sound argument; but if Hon. Gentlemen entertained any fears on this ground, let them go hack a few years, and consider how little their fears had been realized, in a case somewhat similar to the one now under considera tion. He alluded to the case of wool. Who did not recollect that when it was proposed to admit the importation of foreign wool into this country it had been decried in that House, and a Noble Lord had stated in another place that in consequence of that measure the sheep farmer of this country would be utterly ruined—that it was impossible for him to compete with the foreign sheep farmers, with their immense flocks, and he was led to believe that the price of wool was incredibly cheap abroad.—( Loud cries of " Order," " Bar," occasioned by the noise of Members at the Bar, which frequently drowned the voice of the Hon. Member.) What had been the result ? Why, the sheep farmer was at this moment receiving a higher price for his wool than he had before the alteration. This had been the natural consequence of the exchange of com. modifies which had taken place, and what reason was there for supposing that, if the Corn-laws were repealed, a similar result would not follow. He held in his hand a return of the price of Leicester long wool at different periods--in 11125 it had been 28s. ; in 1e27, 245. ; in 1828, 245. ; while during the last three years the prices had been as follows :—ln 1836, 345. ; in 1837, 375. ; and in 1838, 38s. He would not say these cases were exactly parallel, but the same fears had been entertained on this subject as were now expressed regarding any alteration in the Corn-laws. He would now come to the last argument urged by his Hon. Friend.—( Order ! order ! Here the confusion became so great that Mr. P. Thomson was obliged to appeal to the gentlemen at the bar not to continue their inter ruption. The Speaker having in some measure succeeded in restoring silence, Mr. P. Thomson proceeded amidst loud cheering.) The last argument urged against any alteration was the injurious consequences to t hi s country resulting from being dependent up on f ore i gn nat i ons for a supple of food in the even t o f th ese a l terations being made ; but that argument was brought forward too late to be of any importance, for the fact was we were now dependent upon fo reign countries for a supply even under the existing system of Corn-laws—and foreigners did not now like to afford us the supply we needed, they shut their ports against any exportation of corn, because we had no fixed and regular trade with them, and are not regular customers. (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") But foreigners might be made as dependent upon this country for the sale of their corn, if we were once to esta blish a regular and fixed demand, as the Americans are now for the sale of their cotton. It might be said that cotton was not a necessary of life, bet vet there were 150,000 persons in this country dependent for their living on the supply of cotton being received from America. It was the inevitah7e effect of trade and commerce to make each oeutstry dependent upon others. The fact was in the present state of the question foreigners looked upon our demand fur corn as an absolute nuisance. How did it act on foreigners --it deranged the state of the markets, after they had grown as much corn as they thought sufficient to meet the demands likely to be made upon them. This corn might be sent to our ports—it might lie year after year in the warehouses, the merchant losing the i ,, torest nf money besides his capital being locked up, and a sudden change taking place it is let out of bond, with a loss to the merchant ; although the consumer has to pay a hid'. price ail the art tional price being consented by charges, still th;- and capital i s 1 j ust as tench thrown away , interest : 9 been thrown o ver b oar d i nto the as. • if the corn had brought into poulart,r - N ow if instead of having been to become reg ce demand for foreign corn were manner and steady, instead of fl uc t ua ti ng in the ' winch it now fluctuates--if we were to become re suer and steady customers to the foreign producers, we should be no longer subject to these sudden alterations in price, and the supply of corn would become regular and fixed. He would not detain the House longer, but he could not avoid expressing his opinion that the present system of Corn-laws was injurious to the landowner, as it produced uncertainty as to the amount of his rental—that it was injurious to the tenant, as he never could know exactly what course to pursue—that it was injurioue to the labourer as depressing the rate of wages—and that it was injurious to the trader as it fettered his industry and induced foreign competition. In conclusion, he trusted the House would go into Committee on the subject, as it. was there, and there only, that the case could be established which it was wished to make out. He implored the House not heedlessly and thoughtles s ly t o reject a motion upon which depended the welfare of the industrious classes of the country. Sir E. KNATCHBULL felt perfectly aware of the difficult task he had to perform in following the Right Honourable Gentleman, but there were some parts of his speech which called for special observation. The Right Honourable Gentleman had said that there was nothing novel in the present ; question ' that might be so or it might not, but he thought there was a good deal of novelty in the course pursued by the Right Honourable Gentleman. He heard with astonishment and surprise from a Minister of the Crown that he was prepared to act upon the principle of agitation._ ( Hear, hear, hear.) What was it that the House was asked to do ? Why to go into a Committee of the whole House to consider the Act regulating the sale of corn. After the decla rat on which had been made by the Right Honourable Gentle man, he thought that the House was enti: Id e to expect that EVENING EDITION he would have stated the scheme that Government had in view. In that expectation, however, they were deceived; the. present Government had not thought right to follow the example set them by Mr. Canning in 1827. He came down to the Hous e and boldly stated that the easure he was about to propose Nos the measure of the Govei m nment.—( Hear.) Why was that course not adopted in the present instance?—( Hear, bear.) The people expec'ed, and had aright to expect, 'hat the Go: vernment would take upon themselves the responsibility that belonged w them —( Hear, hear. ) They had chosen to throw off that responsibility, and they had not even condescended W submit their plan to the House. Those who had brought for ward the present question had acted a much more manly part, they had boldly come forward and tated that their object was a total repeal of the Corn-laws.— s ( Hear. ) He had attended to the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he could not for the life of him tell what he intended to do. It was true that something had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman which led him to suspect what the scheme was ; and he was the more inclined to that supposition when he re7ollected the letter written by the Noble Lord opposite to his constituents in which he talked of a fixed duty.—( Hear, hear.) The Ili ht Hon. Gentleman had said, why was corn to be treated in a fei ent manner from any other article ? He would tell him wit,' ; because corn was an essential article of life, and it would be madness to depend upon other countries for it.—(Hear, hear.) I , He trusted lion. Members would not be led away by talking about a fixed duty, because he would venture to say, if it w t s , established, it would not last three years.—(Hear.) He tho u g ht the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to look with an ey e of great jealousy on the course pursued by his Right Hon' Friend, as it would go far to rob the Exchequer.—( Hear, hear. ) It had been said and repeated more than once, that this was a landowner's question. To that proposition he entirely dis 7 sented. He could not understand how it was possible that the landlords could be in a state of prosperity while the farmers who occupied their land were in a state of adversity. It was impossible for the one to thrive while the ether was depressed. As regarded the labourer, his case might be put on exactly tile same footing ; and, as far as his experience went, the labourer was found to be in a better condition when the price of corn was high than when it was low. In his part of the country the labourer got about 12s. a-week when corn was one shilling a gallon. The Hon. Member for Wolverhampton had coy' eluded his speech by declaring that there were three great en cumbrances which it was necessary to remove. He did not knoW whether the Rt. Hon. Gentleman on the Treasury benches were in their places when the Hon. Member stated that those inculn brances were the Church Establishment, the Natio:Aal D ebt ' and the aristocracy.—( Hear, hear.) Who was it that com posed the last class? All the nobility, the clergy, and an who were in possession of a considerable quantity of lab' What were they to think of those who, in removing thoselo;_s' wished to put an extinction on that class of her Majesty's st ur jects ?—(Hear, hear .) If that was the object, it became t heir to resist the motion by all the means in their Pow er ' And it was not true, as was stated by the Honoura ble Baronet who seconded the motion, that the landowner wanted to raise the price of food. He was aston ished to hear such an assertion matte, and he begged to give as flat i s 3 contradiction as it was possible to do. The best answer to sn ! an assertion was the high and unblemished character o f the landowner.—( Hear, hear.) The Right H o n. Gentlemen bad concluded by referring to the speech of the Hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke. He would follow the same exampl e ' and refer, in conclusion, to a letter which had been ad dressed by the Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, to his constituents of the county of Huntingd don in the year 1820. The Right Hon. Baronet then re the letter of the Noble Lord, but amidst so much noise that its was impossible to give a detailed report of it. The reading t the letter caused much laughter. He called upon the House Commons to do their duty. He called upon them to act uP ° '" the opinions of the Noble Lord as expressed by him to his O n stituents in Huntingdon, which he considered much better t han t• e opinions now supposed to be entertained by the Noble Lord.—( Loud cheers.) Sir William Molesworth, Mr. Clay, and several of the MeV . bers rose together, amidst loud cries of Adjourn, adjourn. The question was put, and the Debate adjourned till W morrow. STANDING ORDERS. Mr. ESTCOURT then moved to rescind the Standing ° r . der, number 10, page 34, and to substitute for it the follonl Standing Order :—'• That notice of the day and hour on sc hl i n the Committee on the Bill is appointed to sit be give n '. writing, seven clear days beforehand by the agent solicitn?. the Bill, to the clerks in the Private Bill Office, and to the clerks in the Committee Clerks' Office ; and that all Conoi tt: be proceedings of which such notices shall not have been giYo' void."—Agreed to. IRISH RAILWAYS. Mr. HARVEY move d That an humble address be Prii sented to her Majesty, that her Majesty will be grac i° _, n u n s pleased to direct an alphabetical list of the names of all peir" 0 through whose property the proposed line of railroad be tviee the cities of Dublin and C.,rk is intended to pass to be for.;. with made to this House, distinguishing the name of each r son who is a Member of either House of Parliament." io e Lord MORPETH was very anxious that ever y infornitt4 should be given, but suggested so m e a lt era ti on i n th e vic ruj of it. After a short discussion, Mr. HARVEY withdrew his motion, and said that he / 1°111(1 endeavour so to frame it as to meet the wishes of the House:w Mr. HARLAND brought in a B i ll t o i mprove the pra'''y and proceedings in the Court of Pl e as o f th e C oun ty Pau" -- of Durham and Sadberge, which was read a first time. The House adjourned at half-past twelve. COURT OF BANKRUPTCY. (YESTERDAY.) JOSEPH LAST'S BANKRUPTCY. This was the day appointed for the choice of assign ie j against the estate of the above bankrupt, described 0_.. 0 1 " printer," but more generally k nown as th e pro prieto r a publication called the " Town," and other periodicals:., Mr. Anderson applied to the C our t un d er t h e follocrn circumstances. He had engaged t o -w r i te a wor k for Poe tion called the " Lives o f th e P oe t s ;" a ce rtain FL . ; tion of this work was in the press, and another portion .o — i in manuscript, and a furth er p ar t h e h a d a l rea d y prepol,,, the notes for. H e now as k e d w h at port i on under bankrupt's estate he would be allowed to claim for. fo Sir C. F. WILLIAMS said he would be allowed to poi, for as much as he could prove at the time of the b. 13 ruptcy the bankrupt was indebted to him. The Solicitor who attended on the partof Mr. Anderr i n ' t said, that accordin g t o t h e custom o f the trade his ch.- would be allowed to prove for so much per sheet. Sir C. F. WILLIAMS was of opinion that some auto"', were not persons who were rightful judges of their 0 % tal nts ; they som e ti mes over - rate d t h em. An d the they might thi n k t h e i r wor k s super-em i nent, they We' not so. The Bank ru pt sa id t h at h e h a d g i ven the author notlo l to discontinue them. Sir C. F. WILLIAMS —From what time? The Bankrupt could not exactly name the time. fi r when he found the claimant did not work a t them " gu arly, he gave him notice to discontinue the writing' The Solicitor for the claimant deniethis. Sir C. F. WILLIA ms would give e v ery attention t° tb e ease, and named a day for the entering into it. • er. Subsequently M r . H arr ild , of Distaff.lane, Pri pt e t broker, a n d M r . J ames I nray, of Upper Thames-W e d ; stationer, w ere c h osen t h e ass i gnees, and the proceed°. adjourned. GEORGE GLADWYN'S BANKRUPTCY. Of ibt This was the d a y fi xe d f or t h e f i nal examination for above bankrupt, a grocer, at Billericay, Essex, an d the further proof of debts. A claim was brought forward by the father of the i rupt for upwards of 8001. 00 1 After much discu ss i on , pro and con, a proof for - 4 was admitted by consent. An objection was then raised by the solicitor to the of to the fin a l exam i nat i on of the bankrupt, on sect: 4l1 t 4d extravagant exp en di ture ; but was eventually over-r - on s by the Learned CommissirJner, who allowed the bap kr to pass. w oo" P OWERFUL MUSICAL BOXES, in sift* cases, 12 inches long by five inches wide, each playing four with the mechanism finished in a very superior manne r 'oo offered fir Five Guineas each. Also a few of as description, larger sizes, at the followingiprices : Six Airs £7 70 I Eight Airs extra, Eight Airs ... BIS 6 large ... £l4 1 4 i ( 0 1 Three Overt ures .. 14 '60.0' At T. COX SAVORY'S,. Working Sil vers mith, n 0 smith, and Wat c h ma k er, 47, Cornhill, Lendtm (Seven ' l ' from Gracechurch-street). pe N.B. The small Musical Boxes, Si inches long, c•now• selling in ti n cases, pr i ce 19s. each, or in composition cases, 255, ea c h. M e A Catalogue con t a i n i ng a Li st of the Music may he :001rt gratis, or can be forwarded by post as a single letter is to a post-paid application. DIED. At Fine Court House, B room fi e ld , on Monde)? lot, Richard, youngest son of Andrew Crosse, Esq. d iiai gerOinngthilelnleslst,hboinrnste.,winithhecr hsr3idstiyanearr,esaignfteartaiopna,i3ffnalrys:lviifo 0 Mr. Bladon, Uttoxeter. ... On the Bth inst., MiES Caroline M a k epeace , seconddram' of Mr. Samuel Mak e p eace, of Mitcham-commo n, aged 18. Wa lton' If On the Bth inst , A nn , th e w i fe •f Mr. H enr i „ Sidmouth-street, Gray' s -i on - road. 0 of On the 17th ult.,_ at R ome , William, only surviving ssiiire, the late Thomas Yates, Esq of Irwe ll.houso , Lan° aged 36. ".' pete r On the Bth inst., at Marks Tev, Essex, the Rq' h oter' Wright, rector of th e par i s h of the Holy Tr i n ity, C° t• and of Baddiley, Cheshire, aged 80. Lie u d On the 28th u lt., at hi s residence, Dalston, Hackne I 'est Thomas William James, ot her Majesty's 58th Beg" - , Foot, aged 49. w oohe" On the 6th inst., at Black-rock, Dublin, A. L. B e e Esq., aged 50. On the 27th ult., at Lucerne, Switzerland, wife of J. 13. i\hynard, Esq. late 0001 On the sth inst., at Bath, Mary, relict of the of t he Haffey, Esq., aged 78. only . 5 2 °, 1 ! o f the On the Bth inst., at Torquay, Henry James, Rev. James Tomkinson, of Dorfold, Cheshire, and 1 " er Ree d Royal Horse Guards. Plymouth, On the 9th inst., at Bushland-terrace, a l ai, Watts, Esq. Sarrat t ''' On the 10th ins'., Samuel Blackwell, Esq., of Herts. i ., o f yOUN' in London : Printed and Published by MURDO 4 .,. a nc1, No. 112, Strand, at The Sun Office. No. 112, '„: 0 ; 20 . the county of Middlesex.—Wednesday, March 13, 72 .000 . Henrietta, th BIRTHS. On the 9th inst., at Godmersham Park, Lady G e orge of a son. On the 9th inst., the lady of Frederick Widder, V s q . ' a son. Qi On the 9th inst., at W es t on Bi r t , Gl ocestershire, t h e R. B. Hale, Esq., of a daughter. On the 10th i ns t., i n G reat M ar lb orough -street, t he UN John Hillard, Esq., of a daughter. On the 10th inst., at Meekleuburgh-street, Meolde n e t ar: square, th e l a d y o f t h e R ev. Dr. Worthington, of a claug__,/ MARRIED. On the 11th inst., at Grundisburgh, Suffolk, Stephen t he mond Springßice, Esq., eldest so n o f th e Ri g ht 10b et d Chancellor of the Exchequer, to Ellen Mary, eldest daos the late Mr. Serjeant Frere, Master of Downing College , bridge. Sfe . „ a it ' On the Bth inst., at Lewes, James Scott, Esq., bourne-place, to Harriett, third daughter of the late Verrall, Esq., of Seuthover, Sussex. go bert On the 7th inst., at Ab ercrom b y , p l ace, Edinburgh, ,Jr't 1° Trotter Knox, Esq., 6 t h R eg i ment Bengal Light Csl::tero Charlotte Knox, second daughter of the late William Esq., of Ballindean. f JO " M On the 9th in s t , at S t. G eorge ' s, Camberwell, etepbe° Culler!. i't s tile City, to Mary, e ld es t d aug h ter o f Mr. PT,,fold, of the Old Kent-road. _~ n~V