The Sun. — London, England, 1839-03-15 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION. It 04, was never in practical operation, nor was the law of 1790 for excluding the import of foreign corn by means of, a high duty ; and if not, that law might as well not be on the statute book, and the people enjoyed the advantage of having a free trade in corn. Therefore he said that in 1815 was the first time at which it entered into contemplation of the Parliament of England to endeavour to benefit the landed interest by excluding foreign corn, and the attempt has most signally failed. Now, it was said by his Noble Friend that the object of this law was not to raise the pi - lee of' corn, but to regulate it; but if not, why were ttostisailds of petitions presented in favour of the Corn 'Uwe. It was quite clear from all the evidence given on 'the subject that the real object was to raise the price of 'corn.--(" No, no," from a Noble Lord.) Then he clsimed the vote of that Noble Lord to night.--(Hear.) He was satisfied there was a feeling in the country that this question must be re-considered—that there were ele ments at work in the political and social frame of this country, which if not in this Session, would at no distant day force the matter upon their Lordships' consideration, and convince them that ,it was impossible to go on with the system of prohibition under the cir cumstances of the _country.—( Hear, hear.) Though this was called a law for regulating the price, it was a pro hibition on the grower of foreign corn. At 635. there was a duty of about 245., and it was well known that no person ever imported at a duty of 245. It was therefore perfectly clear that at 635. they had a prohibitory duty. Probably 635. was as serious to the consumer now as 80s. in 1815. But now, with respect to this rising in the price of corn— why were they to have an act to raise it ?—what were the grounds upon which it rested ? A very favourite one was, that because there was a great revenue raised in this country, it was therefore necessary to raise the price of corn. This appeared to him a must extraordinary foundation on which to rest an argument.—(Hear.) What was the law that raised the prices, but an additional tax on the people ? If, by the operation of an Act of Par liament they kept corn up at 745. when it otherwise would have been 61s„ a hat was the extra 10s. paid for every ' quarter, but a taxation on the people of this country to the amount of 10s. a quarter ; and if the consumption which took place was from 12,0G9,000 to 14,000,000 quarters per annum, a tax would be levied on the people of 6,000,0001. or 7 000,0001. per year. Now it apppeared to him the most extraordinary thing in the world to justify the impo sition of one tax by affirming that there were a great many others. But this argument rested upon another, which he was ashamed to hear from landed Gentlemen ; they talked as if they paid the whole of the taxation, and they made that circumstance the foundation upon which to lay an additional tax on corn. But all those things had failed ; they had failed of securing rent to the landlord and profit to the farmer ; and they had failed in securing good wages to the labourer.—( Hear, hear.) He was in a public meeting the other day, which was attended by merchants, bankers, and country gentlemen ; and it was said that a certain law which was discussed in that meeting was for the benefit of the labourer. It would have done their Lordships' hearts good to have observed how all the landed gentlemen applauded that expression. He (Earl Fitzwilliarn) confessed that he was astonished to hear it, and still more was he astonished to hear it said that that law was a law for the labourer. Their Lordships would be surprised if the law of which he was speaking was a law to raise the price of food—a law to raise the price of corn— a law to raise the profits of the farmer—a law to keep up the rents of the landlords ; and yet that was the identical Corn law which was now under discussion. To tell an assembly of well educated men that this Bill was meant for the la bourers would be an insult upon their understandings. If he were to devise a Bill for the benefit of the labourer, he should so frame it, as that the effects of it should be that there should be the greatest possible difference in the con sequence of that Bill between the price of food which the leheurer consumed and the amount of food which he re ceived. But the result of this Bill was directly the con trary. The prioe of corn during the last few months had risen to ahe so alarming that it had been necessary to raise the wages of the labourer; but the rising wages had not at all kept pace with the increased charge brought on him be the rise in the price of corn. But there was another object which it was said it had in view, and that was to Supply the people with a sufficient quantity of corn ; but it had failed of that, for we had been under the necessity of having large importations.—( Hear, hear.) It was manifest that the population had been outgrow ing the power of the production of the country, and indeed of being an exporting country, we had necessarily become an impor!ing country. Why were we an importing na tion? B cause the wealth and prosperity of the country had increased in such a degree, that we had not the means of supplying ourselves at home. He would not now go into the more extensive question of how the Corn-laws oherated on our foreign trade, for this had been very re cs. tly sufficiently dilated upon by his Noble Friend, Lord Brougham ; but undoubtedly it was one from which, he treated, their Lordships would not divert their thoughts. There was, however, one point to which he must draw their Lerdshipshattention, and that was, that though there had been no deficiencyin the exportation of the manufactures of this country, and thought an argument had been founded upon that, to show that exaggerated effects were imputed to the Corn-laws, nevertheless there were circumstances con nected with the peculiar character of them, which led him to look at them with less satisfaction than if he merely looked at the figures which represented them. The cir cumstance to which he alluded was this, that though there had been no deficiency in the exports of manufactured goods generally, there was a great falling off indeed in the export of these manufactured goods into the price of which manual labour entered the most ; and the obvious conclusion to be drawn was, that in all those manufactures into which the wages of labour entered more minutely and directly, the operation of the Corn-laws was most injurious, because it was obvious that the reason why there was a f, lling off in the export of their particular goods was, that there being a large quantity of manual labour entering into the price of them, the wages for that manual labour could nut be afforded by the manufacturer, so as to enable the labourer to earn those wages which were necessary for him. The inference to be drawn from these circumstances, was one of serious importance, because if they were able to compete with foreign nations only, in those articles which depends d upon machinery to a great extent, and those which comprehended works and manual labour, entirely to u great extent, they would not he able to maintain in em ployed labour, that vast population that was now engaged in the manufacturing districts, and a very large number of those persons would be driven to get support under the Poor-law Act. These were circumstances of such a nature, as to induce their Lordships to reflect most seriously upon the effect which the Corn-laws had upon the Foreign Commerce of the country. The great ground upon which he asked their Lordships to reconsider this question was, that it imposed most burdensome taxes on the people of the country, and there was no class upon whom those taxes fell with greater severity than the agricultural classes themselves. The agriculturist was a great consumer of corn—he etas a great consumer of what was manufac tured from corn. He was injured by the present law in the produce of his seed-corn he was injured by the in crease of wages, which he was necessarily obliged to give to his labourer, and he was also injured in the consumption of beer. It therefore appeared to him that the small capitalist suffered more under the present law than the farmer himself. But then he was told that the price of corn must be raised in order to enable the farmer to bear all the burdens that were imposed upon him. Now he saw no longer ago than the present morning an account in the newspapers in favour of the present Corn-law, and in that account what did their Lordships think was the tithe and the rent of land that produced only three quarters of wheat an acre. He thought that their Lordships would think that that was not very fruitful land ; why, in that account, the rent was ono guinea an acre, and the tithe was ten shillings an acres (Hear, hear, hear.) When people came forward with such calculations as that, he thought that very little attention ought to be paid to them. If such calculations as those were to be the ground upon which they were to proceed they must have not the Corn Aet of 1828, cr the Corn Bill of 1813, with its prohibitory clauses, but they must have a minimum upon the price of corn —they must go back to the time of the Tudors and the Plantagenets, if they were to proceed upon such cal culations. Such being the case, he would unhesitatingly assert that this was not a labourer's bill or a farmer's bill, but it was a landlord's bill—a short-sighted landlord's bill— a bill of landlords, who had not the permanent prosperity of the country at heart —a bill of well meaning, no doubt, but mistaken landowners, who thought that, by means of the measure they could raise the price of corn, and thereby keep up the rental of the land in England. Most unfor tunately for them, they had got into their bead a scheme in which they would ultimately be defeated —the ground was I now going from under their feet, and he asked if they were to be defeated, would it not be much better for them to make up their minds to consider the present question with sin gleness of mind and perfect sincerity, and with a deter mination not to look fur truth in one direction or another, but to find it wherever presented to them by sound argu ments and true representation of the state of the country ? He said this, because if Parliament was to be actuated and influenced by such calculations, it was clear that it would be impossible for them to come to any sound conclusion. The particular point, as connected with the interest of the agricultural classes, to which he desired to advert mgr© particularly, was the mischievous fluctuations that had been occasioned by the present law. He. had shown their Lord ships that subsequent to 1833, instead of a fluctuation o f 45 per cent., there bad been a fluctuation of upwards of 120 per cent., and during the five years that a Committee , of the House of Commons was congratulating itself that there had been little or no fluctuation during those five years in the ports of Holland. At Rotterdam, where there was a free trade in corn, the fluctuation had not reac h ed that point without whi c h the English House of Commons had boasted they had been able to keep corn in England. During those periods, the fluctuation was 45 per cent, in England, while at Rotterdam it was only 40. Now, if any thing would show the mischievousness of the present law it was that. He admitted that the difference between 40 and 45 was not very great, but still it showed the neces sity of seriously considering the present law. If a com mittee was appointed to inquire seriously into the subject, he was sure that it would be found that the fluctuations that had taken place were attributable alone to the present sys tem. If their Lordships would look back to the evi dence which bad been given by farmers and land-surveyors Lefore the Committee which sat in 1821, they would find that it was the habit of the land-surveyor to reckon the rent upon the supposition that the price of corn was 80s.:; under the present law 80e. had not been realized, and what was the result ? why the farmer could not pay his rent. and then came the struggle between the landlord and the tenant, a truggle lustier which the tenant was sure to go to the wall. Such was the effect under the law of 1815, and under the law of 1823 the same class of witnesses told them that they looked to the price of corn at 645. as the ground upon which they measured their rents ; that amount however, had not been realised. In September 1835, the lowest average was 40i. and the highest was 675. The averag e of tl e broken pert of the last year since Oct. was 7 0 5. 4d., while in 1835 it was 40s. 7d. He thought that he l n OW ret.y c ' ear l y demonstrated that there had been a e g laweeg h, ulatdon. He thought such being the state of the r Rigg in saying that if any class suf- Wise s w WeAlltibtal class suffered the worst F = ~ n~ he commercial classes he Namination—the mischief done to them was not so much an immediate mischief as the 1 iesult of the course in which they were engaged. He would abstain from going farther into its results with respect to manufactures, his chief wish being upon the present occa sion to draw the attention of their Lordships to the effect of the law upon the price of corn in regard to the fluctua tion, because he apprehended that that was one of the great grounds upon which it was asked to attack the present law. He had fixed upon fluctuation, because that was a point upon which the signality of the failure of the measure was the greatest, and that was the point which the law professed 'to remedy. Under these circumstances he would conclude by moving that the Act of the 9th of George IV., the chap ter he did not recollect, but that could be put in after wards, haft failed in securing that steadiness in the price of corn, which was essential to the best interests of the country. The Duke of BUCKINGHAM felt bound to oppose the present motion. The Noble Lord, in the course of his address, had stated that the present Corn-law Bill was a landlord's measure, tending to the injury of the labourer, He denied that it was any such thing. Noble Lords were doubtless aware of the opinions entertained by the Noble Lords opposite ; but those opinions he would venture to say were not the prevailing opinions of the greater portion of the country.—( Hear, hear.) No ono could doubt that the distress of the farmer caused the labourer to suffer. If the farmer could not get his price, the result was that he could not pay his labourer, and therefore the latter as well as the former became distressed. The Noble Lord had stated that the Corn-laws, as they now existed, did not make the price of wheat steady. Now he (the Duke of Buckingham) would ask, in answer to that statement, whether their Lordships had ever known any Act of Parlia ment have the effect of steadying prices? The agriculturist did not thank parties for the agitation they had caused, as it was said for their good, all that they asked was to be left alone ; but the Noble Lord opposite would not leave them alone.—( Hear, hear.) The agitation that had taken place had led to great difficulties and ill blood, and if Ministers gave sanction to that agitation he would not pretend to say what would be the end of it. The agri culturist did not wish to interfere with the manufacturer, and why should the manufacturer interfere with them? What had the present Ministry or the present party in power done for the agriculturist? Nothing. It was true that a Noble Lord, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, had taken of the tax on sheep-dogs—( Laughter)—and, respecting as he did that Noble Lord, he was sorry that he should have left such a memorial of his official duties. with regard to the present important question, it was im possible for the House not to be aware of the agitation, the dangerous agitation, that had been going on out of doors. He (the Duke of Buckingham) deeply regretted that the manufacturers should have lost sight of the great object they ought to have had in view, namely, the general benefit of the country. If the agriculturist and the farmer were thrown into difficulty and distress, the manufacturer would rue the day when that took place. The greatest abuse had been thrown upon the agriculturist and the farmer, and though the parties who cast that abuse upon them, would be foiled in their attempt, yet they seemed determined to go on in their agitation. If that agitation was proceeded in, it would be dangerous to her Majesty's Government, and they would have to blame themselves for having al lowed this question to be an open one. If the present Corn-laws were repealed, the land of the country would go out of cultivation, but if the farmer was protected there would be a stimulus for him to endeavour to bring bad land to a profitable purpose ; but if the farmer was tampered with, land would never be cultivated as it ought to be. He was as anxious as any man that the manufacturer should have protection, but that protection ought not to be afforded at the expense of the agriculturist, Unless they were enabled, as farmers and occupiers, to give a proper remuneration to their labourers, they would bring upon them the greatest penury, and bring them into a state of degradation which English labourers never ought to be in, and which he hoped to God they never would be in. —(Cheers.) He should give the motion his most de cided opposition in every way he could, and take the sense of the House upon it by moving the previous question.— (Cries of " Move a negative—a negative.") He should move a negative. The Earl of RIPON said, though there were certainly many cir. cumstances connected with this question which might have induced him to have gone more at length into the general question than he should be disposed to do at present, yet he could not abstain from making a few remarks on the speech that had fallen from his Noble Friend. In truth he should think himself wanting in courtesy to his Noble Friend, who had in so willing a manner invited him to take a part in the present question in consequence of the part he had taken in 1833 and 1515, if he did not trouble their Lordships with a few observations. He had no desire to go into anything like a history of the Corn.laws that had been passed in this country—as to whether they had or had not been more or less restrictive, or more or less favourable to importa tion ; it was not necessary that he should go into that for the present view of the question ; still he must say a word on the law of 1815. On more occasions than one he had taken the liberty of stating, whatever might be the demerits of that law, that it never had the object of raising corn to 80s. as a minimum. His Noble Friend had said that an expection had been held out to the farmer that he was to have the benefit of 80s. as a minimum. Earl FITZ WILLIAM said, as we understood, that lie had stated that as the opinion of witnesses. The Earl of RIPON was not bound by the opinion of any of those witnesses, and he totally dissented from any such opinion. He could not give his Noble Friend a greater proof of Isis sin cerity in that respect than to state what he himself did im mediately after the passing of that Act. The first thing he did was to reduce his rents under a perfect conviction that the farmer could not realize 80s., and he bad continued that reduction ever since, living in perfect harmony with his tenants, who had paid punctually their rents from that time.--(Hear, hear.) What surprised him in the argument of his Noble Friend was, that it was an argument that had no conclusion. He did not point out to their Lordships what they were to do. He said this law was ruin to the agriculturist— starvation to the labourer, and destruction to the manufacturer— but he did not give to the House the slightest idea what to do. He admitted that it wax not the duty of his Noble Friend as an individual to point out a law as a substitute for the law he de_ aired to abrogate, but it was the duty of certain persons to do so.— (Hear, hear.) In the first place, it was the duty of a wise and pru dent Government, before they admitted such a proposition as his Noble Friend's, which was calculated to excite and alarm, without having made up their minds upon what they meant to propose as a substitute.—(Hear, hear.) But it would appear that the Govern ment had not made up their minis. If they had made up their minds, it was their duty to propose the subject to the Legislature before they admitted a proposition calculated to overturn existing laws and excite great agitation. New, what were the alterna tives presented to their view if they repealed this law and did nothing, getting rid of all protection upon principle, as his Noble Friend sug gested the ether night ?—he said upon principle they sheuld have no protection to anything. He said he spoke on behalf of some of the petitioners, who were prepared to come to their Lordships' bar and giveup all the protection they had; but that was nothing. It would be utterly impracticable to legislate upon that. On behalf of whom did those petitioners speak, or on behalf of whom slid his Noble Friend speak ? Did he or they speak on behalf of the woollen ma.. nufacturers in Yorkshire—on behalf of the linen manufacturers of Dundee—on behalf of the linen manufacturers of Ireland—on behalf of the cotton manufacturers of Manchester ?—or did they or did he pretend to speak on behalf of any of those? He would be glad to see such a preposition proposed by the Board of Trade, but he would not like to be the President of that Board to undergo the badgering that he would be subject to on account of such a proposition, were such a proposition submitted to the House. But it would be im practicable in reference to the revenue.--(Hear, hear.) Their Lord ships could not do that without overturning the whole system of re. venue. The revenue was founded upon the principle of protection. —(Cheers,) What would the sugar growers of the West Indies say? And if the principle was not to be uniform it was no principle at all. If in the first case that could be mentioned it was to be said that that was a case of exception, where was the principle? He should like to know, if they were to get rid of all the difficulties that arose from duties which existed for protection, what the cultivator of the West Indies would say, who might feel grievously oppressed if not named? What would he say if there was to be a free trade i■ sugar with all other parts of the world ? Would he not naturally say, why was not his produce to be introduced into England on the same footing, and on the same footing, too, as that en which corn was placed ? There were other persons besides agriculturists who whould have something to say on the subject, and who would not be very ready to consent to the reduction of the duty on rum to that which existed on British spirits. What would the President of the Board of Trade, who by the way seemed to rejoice so much at this agitation—(Cheers)--have to encounter, suppose he, in fur therance of this principle, were to say he was prepared to lay down— and which from some of his speeches, if not in the House of Parlia ment, elsewhere, might be inferred—suppose he was to say to the distiller in the West Indies, the principle on which he went was universal, but that certain cases he proposed should be exceptions ? Why the effect would not only be clamour, but whether those persons would be ruined or not, the system would produce an entire convulsion of that principle on which our trade and commerce was carried on.— (Considerable cheering.) In respect to the revenue, there were two articles alone from which the revenue derived above a third of the whole of our customs revenue. He meant tobacco and sugar. Now in order to enable the Government to raise that revenue, amounting to above 6,000,0001. a year, they were obliged to prohibit both the manufac. ture of tobacco here, and the manufacture of beetroot into sugar.- -(Hear, hear.) He did not know to what extent the making of beetroot into sugar might be carried on here, provided there was no restriction upon it, but it was prohibited expressly to prevent the re venue being injured. The restriction of manufacturing beetroot into sugar was an act of only three years standing, and he dared to say that the President of the Board of Trade actually brought that Act in. —(Cheers.) He (Earl Ripon) took theliberty of objecting to that Act, and what did his Noble Friend the President of the Coun cil say on that occasion in answer to him ? He said if he (Earl Ri_ pon) would give him 4,000,0001. for the revenue that was derived on sugar, he would not be one in favour of imposing this restric tion on the manufacture of beet-root. That was a very good reason, but it cut up the whole of the proposition, for settling this question upon the abstract principles which hail been put forward.—(Cheers.) But he had been led to digress. The great principle which his Noble Friend seemed to insist upon was this ?—That this law had not produced a steadiness of price. Before that quest;on could be settled they ought to understand what was meant by a steadiness of price.—( Hear, hear.) Ire did not suppose his Noble Friend could think that those who introduced the law in 1828 could intend to secure a uniformity of price —that would have been guarding against accidents by weather and accidents in the animal creation—from the moment at which the seeds were put into the ground until the produce came to the maturity—which nobody could ever pretend to.—(Hear, hear.) The utmost they ever intended was as much steadiness of price as in the nature of things it was possible to expect--(Cheers.) But be would show the House what the fluctuation in corn had been, and then he would show what the fluctuation had been in other articles, the importa tion of which, into this country, was followed by no law or duties, but came here in immense quantities from other parts; and if he could show that in the same years there had been as much fluctuation in those other articles as in corn, he thought he would establish that it was preposterous and absurd to say the fluctuation in corn was to be attributed to this law.— (Cheers.) The fluctuation was owing to the laws of nature, which that House could not contravene. His Nob:e Friend had referred to a paper on their Lordships' table, but he had not referred to a paper which he (the Earl of Ripon) had moved for, which had been printed. There was something in that paper to show there had been an habitual variation under this law. In reference to corn during the first year that elapsed af er the act of 1828 was passed, the highest price during that year was 755. 3d., and the lowest price 511 s. 3d. The paper to which he referred was headed "An Account of the Aggregate Averages of Wheat," by which the duty on foreign wheat was regulated in each week for the last ten years, up to the latest period. He admitted there was a great difference between 565. 3d. and 755. 3d, but it would not do to take two several weeks. They must take the general rate extending over the weeks gene rally There was but one week in the whole series of weeks in _ - that year in which this average amounted to 745. 11d., and the week in which it was lowest it was 565. 3d. During the whole of the remainder of the year it fluctuated between those two points. They were the two extremes, but the real average of all the intervening weeks was a fair medium between the two. In 1830 the price fluctuated between 725. I Id. and 365. hl. But there again the high price and the low price was between two weeks,—the high price being close upon harvest, when probably the prospect of the state of the harvest had a considerable effect upon the market, as it often had. In the following year the fluctuation was from 78s. sd. to 601., less, therefore, than the Thriller year, In 1832, the fluctuation was reduced. This seas , beginning at the time on which his Noble Friend relied as proving his case, though rather curious it was it proved his (Lord Ripon's), because in that year, instead of its being between 735. sd. and 605., it was between 555. sd. and 495. 10d. ; se in 1834 the fluctuation was between 495. 6d. and 41s. sd. In 1835 it was between 425. 10d. and 365. 8(1. Jn 1838 the fluctuation was more consi derable-it was between 60s. 3d. and 365. 3d. In 1837 it was be. tween 595. 7d. and 525. 6d. In 1838 it was higher, owing to the then peculiar circumstances; but to draw the argument from that, that it arose from the result of the last harvest was preposterous, be cause the harvest was not only deficient here last year, but it was so all over Europe and all over America-but he chewed that out of six of the ten years the fluctuation had been nothing but a few shillings between 505. and something, and 40s. and something. That was quite inconsistent with what his Noble Friend thought he had proved, but if their Lordships would take the fluctuation as operating over a more extended period, viz., from the Ist of January, 1832, to the 3d of January, 1834, they would find that the price ranged between 635. sd. and 495. 10d. There was a con. siderable difference there certainly-rather more than 20 per cent. fluctuation on those two years. Then, again, on the two and a half years from the 3d of January, 1834 to the 17th of June, 1836, the fluctuation was from 625. 11d. to 475. Bd., being rather more thtsn 25 per cent., but how could that fluctuation in reason be ascribed to this law ? He did not say the price would have been exactly the same-he did riot say the variation would have been exactly the same if there had been no such law, but his Noble Friend must prove that the fluctuation was the consequence of the law.-(Hear, hear.) He would now come to those other articles to which he had referred, and their Lordships would see that what ever fluctuations had existed in corn, equal, if not much greater fluctuations had taken place in other articles, respecting which there were no restrictions. He had documents with him, which he did not mean to say were official documents. He had no means of pro. curing official documents, but they were from very good authority, and he would undertake to chew that in reference to the article of hemp and flax, which came here from every part of the world where it was produced, and the produce of which he believed at one time was protected, though it was not now, that the fluctuation in it far exceeded the fluctuation which he had shewn to exist in the price of wheat; so again, with respect to china, raw silk of different sorts which, for twelve or fifteen years past, had been relieved from all duty, the same extraordinary fluctuations took place, which could riot be ascribed to the operation of any such laws as the Corn-laws, but to natural causes, which could not be controuled. In January 1825, the price of one particular species of raw silk was 255. 6d., it got down in the following year to 17s. That was a greater fluctua tion than appeared to have taken place in the price of wheat, during the period to which he had referred. Their Lordships would find, again, that in 182 S it was at 225. 9d., and in 1829 at 18s. 2d. In 1833 it was at lEs., in 1634, 21s. In 1836 it got up to 245, In 1837 it was down to 235., and in 1838 it was up again to 245. So also as to cotton-that showed the same fluctuation. He then came to an article which was of peculiar importance in reference to the present question-that of wool, because wool was in the same situation, in one sense, as corn. It was not in the same situation as those articles, of which we had ne production of our own ; but we grew an enormous quantity of wool, and the importation of it was perfectly open, which importation had gone on increasing immensely. He was one (as we understood) who opposed the removal of all re strictions upon the importation of wool. He had been for a very reduced duty upon it, but it had been thrown perfectly cpen, and had now been so far many years. Yet their Lordships would ob serve that the fluctuation in the price of British wool had been far more remarkable than any his Noble Friend had been able to shew in reference to the price of wheat.-(Hear.) Between 1826 and 1827, there was a fall of 25 per cent. Between 1829 and 1830, there was a rise of more than 50 per cent. Be tween 1829 and 1833, there was a fluctuation in the price of British wool of no less than 150 per cent-that was to say, in 1829, the price was 9d., and in 1833, it was 2s. So again in the next year it fellB per cent. Then as compared with 1825, it fell 25 per cent. Then it rose 20 per cent Then it fell from 36 to 37 more than 83 per cent. Then in 1837 and 1838, th e r i se was from Is. 3d. to Is. 10d,-an alteration of ups and downs far greater than had taken place in respect to the price of corn independently of any restrictive law whatever.- fie would not inquire into whether that was a landlord's, a tenant's, or a poor man's question.-(Hear, hear.) Much vulgar abuse had been thrown out upon what was called the aristocrasy, upon this subject. He disliked the name of aristeerasy ;he would call them the landed proprietors of the country. It was not necessary for their Lordships to defend themselves from the low and vulgar abuse which had been heaped upon them-their acts spoke for them. Be fore sitting down he would advert for a moment to the way in which it was said this law interfered with our ccmmerce with other coun. tries. The argument used was, that as we by our system of corn. laws, rendered it necessary for other nations to exclude our manu factures, and in consequence of them,also the manufactures of other countries, had greatly improved, and had driven our manufactures out of markets we formerly served. The fact that foreign menu_ factures had increased, he did not deny; but he denied that such increase was caused by the Corn-laws of this country. After a war of 25 year's duration, and several years of peace, a man must indeed be very short-sighted who did not take for granted, that the elasticity of human industry would naturally cause' manufactures to grow up where before they had never been thought of.-(Hear, hear.) And he for one did not think it was any evil. Why should we grudge to other nations their fair share of trade and commerce. Some markets might be closed against us, but that must be highly beneficial to all nations, and as much to us as to any other. But what were the facts of the case ? They were told that the manner in which the Corn-laws worked made labour dear in this conntry, and the consequence was that Belgium was supplying other countries with cloths, whom we used to have for customers. But those who argued so forgot that Belgium had a Corn-law.-(Hear, hear.) A most absurd and ini. -quitous law, but still they had Corn-laws. And again, with re. spect to France, the French had certainly made very great advances in the manufacture of cottons ; the beauty of their colours, and the neatness of their patterns, gave them great command in markets, which we used to supply. The increase of that trade had led many good artisans to France, and the cottons were almost all .made by our machinery, but that was not at all to be attributed to the system of Corn-laws existing here, because there were Corn-laws existing in France even more absurd and iniquitous than those of Belgium. Then, again, came the cases of Saxony and Switzerland; they were told that great improvements had taken place in the manufactures of Saxony, which had been put forward ; but that improvement could not at all arise from our system of Corn-laws, What corn, he would ask, did Saxony grow for exportation ? They grew none at all : how, then could our Corn-laws hava anything to do with the increase of their manufac tures ? Then, with respect to Switzerland. He did not know that the Swiss grew any wheat at all. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE-They don't eat wheat. The Earl o!' RIPON was aware of that, but they did not grow it, therefore It could not be because we did not take their corn, they having none, that therefore they were compelled to resort to manufactures. But then it was said because we prohibited the importation of corn from other countries, those countries were compelled to resort to Saxony or to Switzerland for their manufactures. He did not know where Saxony took her goods to. Did they take them to Bavaria ? Now, what corn was grown its Bavaria ? None. Did they take Oita goods to Wurtem burg ? He had heard a story told of a Wurtemburg Minister telling an Englishman, " Oh dear, we cannot allow your manufactures to come into our country, because you won't take our corn Now, he must have been a very excellent mystifying diplomatist, because he concealed that Wurtemburg grew no corn.-(Cheers.) Then take the case of Austria, with its 30,000,000, or 40,000,000 of po pulation. Were we excluded from supplying that large population in consequence of our Corn-laws ? He was not at all sure that Austria had not a Corn-law herself; nor was he aware that Austria gave any advantage to the introduction of the manufactures of Saxony over our own ; but at all events there had lately been con cluded with Austria a much boasted-of Treaty, which was to do wonders, not only politically but commercially. It did not at all appear that Austria had made any objection to the system of our Corn-laws in concluding that Treaty.--(Hear, hear, hear.) That lead him to the great consumption of Prussia. The argument is, that because we don't take her corn, she would not take our manufactures, and consequently we were on the high road to ruin. That was a most extravagant proposition. No doubt, Prus sia imposed a duty on our goods, and so she had a right to do. But the Noble Viscount opposite (Melbourne) had suggested that though this was the case, the motive was not to retaliate, because of our re striction upon the importation of corn. The fact was, that every power in Europe had been striving to encourage by artificial means, their own manufacture and industry, and that by means of exclud ing all others. He thought that his Noble Friend (the Earl Fitz. williarn) in ascribing a greater effect to the Corn.laws as inducing fluctuations in prices, had entirely failed in establishing that fact-(Hear, hear)-that he had entirely failed in making out the proposition he called upon the House to support. It was a question of very great difficulty and great delicacy, and he could assure his Noble Friend that he was less blotted upon the coin question than many persons. He thought that the system of 1815 was a decided failure, and if any one could convince him that the present system had equally failed and had created mischief, he could assure the House that without taking into consideration his own interests, as he was sure the whole of their Lordships would, for the benefit of the public, at once agree that they should be abolished. But, thinking that the public would not be benefited by the repeal, but that it would pro duce incomparable confusion amongst great interests, he thought their Lordships could not do better than stop his Noble Friend on the very threshhold. The Duke of WELLINGTON-After the lucid speech of his Noble Friend who had just sat down, he could do little more than give the same recommendation as that with which his Noble Friend had concluded. But above all, that which he recommended to their Lordships was, that they should pay no attention to that part of the Noble Earl (Fitzwilliam's) speech in which he held out threats to their Lordships.-(Cries of " Hear.") He was sure that their Lordships would attend to everything that fell from the Noble Earl, but he (the Duke of Wellington) re. commended earnestly that they would treat with something very different from respect those parts of his speech which held out threats to them. They were to take the question into consideration on the grounds in which it stood, and vote for the motion on its merits, or vote for the motion of his Noble Friend (the Duke of Buckingham) which was to reject the former. The resolution before the House embraced only a very small part of that important question, for let their Lordships observe, that if that resolution was carried, they would be called upon probably not by her Majesty's Ministers, but by others to go forward, and they would ground themselves on that very resolution. The Noble Earl had stated that the prices bad not been steady under the: operation of the present system of Corn-laws, but he contended that by corn. parison prices had been more steady under these laws than in this country under former laws or in foreign countries where no Corn laws existed. He would venture to assert, without fear of contradiction, that during the last century the Corn-laws of this country had been carried into execution for the encourage meet of agriculture. Under such encouragement it had made such a progress that we were now enabled to grow as much food as satis fied the annual consumption of the country. Let them remember that in Engler(' at least, every one, even the lower orders of the people subsisted upon wheat-(Hear, hear)-which was not the Case in any other country that was known -(Hear, hear.) He intreated their Lordships to reflect what would be the effects of the measure proposed by the Noble Lord upcn this progressive increase of our home produce, and also upon many other national interests. They should not lose sight of those effects. He, there. fore, begged of them, if they should take a step upon this most important question, to do so s ith their eyes open to all the results that might ensue to all those interests which that House and the other House of Parliament were bound to cherish and promote. He had already stated that the corn produced in this country had so much increased as to be almost equal to the consumption of the inhabitants-and he was happy to feel confidence in asserting that in proportion as our home produce increased the price for it would also decrease-and with this must also come naturally the decrease of their prices. And herein he thought would be found a solution of all the difficulty in the present case. He was most anxious to impress those views on the attention of their Lordships. Now, he would say a few words on the supposed operation of the prices of foreign corn on the prices of this country. Now, wheat at home being 735. a quarter, the duty on foreign wheat was merely nominal, being but Is. a quarter. Was there, in consequence, such an influx of foreign corn, that the prices at home were lowered ? Not at all. When the ports were I : open, the merchant was influenced by the same motives as the ' farmer. The spcculator, therefore, would not sell his stock at less than the current price of the day. He would refer to the state of things in the time of the late war. Wheat was then from 70s. to 150 s. in the home markets. Did the speculators in foreign corn, sell their stock at Is. a quarter less, in consequence ? Let their Lordships reflect upon the state of things that must naturally ensue. From the discouragement of agriculture wished in the motion of the Noble Lord, would the master manufacturer, or the exporter of corn gain by it?—(Cries of " No, no.") Foreign States then would put an export duty at pleasure upon corn, which the manu facturer, the labourer, or the purchaser, here would have to pay in wages, earnings and purchases. Suppose now we were competing with Russia or Prussia in manufactures, and that our Corn.laws were repealed. Were we to expect that if we relied upon the people of these countries—that they then being our rivals in particular branches, and we depending on them for a supply of food—would hesitate to lay a duty on exports of corn which would still oblige our manufacturers to charge higher prices ? He (the Noble Duke) ob. jected to any measure which would make this country depend on At a . ~__%l : 7 / / ' , V4 _, i _ ~....,,,_x4,,-,,,; THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 15, PR39. foreign states for a supply of food ; and which might lead to the serious injury of our commerce. Let them rather by the rejection of the Treasure, encourage her Majesty's subjects, and look for a supply of food to her Majesty's dominions. Earl RADNOR assured the Noble Duke that he must be mis taken in referring to threats made by the Noble Earl (Fitzwilliam). He thought the Noble Duke's reference to comparative prices in countries where there were Corn.laws, and where there we 'e none, were too vague to be met by direct argument. But facts would not support the Noble Duke. Instead of the greatest variance in prices being where there were no duties on corn, he would remind the Noble Duke that in Amsterdam, the capital of a country which produced very little corn of her own, the price of imported corn was most uniform for one hundred and fifty years, until an act was passed in 1815. If we could not have wheat from other countries we might have abundance of barley at home, and with good barley. bread and plenty of beer, bread, butter, and cheese, he thought our labourers would not grumble much.---(Laughter and cheers.) But the wants of this country would amount to 52,000,000 of quarters a year, which would cost 78,000,000/. Now was it likely that the countries receiving those vast sums of money from us would be easily induced to discontinue that receipt ? If the Govern ment should order them to do so, was it likely they would comply ? The Noble Duke had referred to a statement made by the Noble Earl with respect to the variations in prices, and one was with re spect to wool. Now he (Lord R.) had an official paper which was not conformable to that statement. Excluding the years 1629 and 1830, when the variations were not considerable, there had been a remarkable variation in the five following years : In 1831, the price was 67s. Id. 1632, 1633, ......... ~„ 1834, 1833, So that the variation from 1829 was 43 per cent., and a regular fall. The Noble Duke talked of the encouragement and protection of agriculture. If he meant protection for the farmer, this returii was most ominous for the farmer. A farmer might embark his capital on a concern in 1329 or 1830, after the operation of this Bill, with the understanding that he was not only to secure steady prices, but 665. Now from that time to the end of 1835, the price regularly fell, and of course the farmer would every year be losing more and more. Talk of encouragement and protection to ayricul_ ture ! It was encouragement and protection to the landlords. After the five years of fall, what came next ? Why a regular rise, In 1836, the price was 43s. I Id. 11137 1838 1839 (up to February) The effect was to make the whole a mere gambling transaction, and the tendency of the Corn Bill, of which the Noble Duke was so fond, was the introduction of gambling in British agriculture. It was said that the corn trade would be ruined by being free. Now, let the House look to what had taken place in the silk trade. In the five years before the alterations took place, the quantity of raw silk, &c. entered for consumption, from 1825, averaged annually 2,626,000 lbs., and in the het five years it was 5,189,000 lbs. The quantity of British silk manufactured and exported in the first five years was 384,391 lbs., and in the last five years 722,102 lbs. ; so that this trade had more than doubled, besides the immense increase in the quantity entered for consumption.—(Hear, hear.) He would now refer to another article more immediately connected with agri_ tural produce—wool; mid there the market had been opened with precisely the same effect. The importation duty was taken off in 18e4 or 1825, and wool was allowed to be exported. The wool growers said they would be ruined by the importation, and the clothiers said they would be ruined by the exportation duties. But neither the predictions of the one nor the other had been verified. The quantity of foreign wool imported had been very considerably increased. The first five years before the duty was taken off, it was upwards of 17,000,000 lbs., and the last five it was upwards of 50,000,000 lbs. The quantity of British exported had gone on increasing from 53,000 lbs. to 2,640,000 lbs. He now came to what the Noble Earl had said about the valuation of the price of wool. The prices had been Is. 5d., Is. 2P., Is. l d., is. 2p. Is., Is. 40., 10d , 9d., ad., 10d., and then the prices began to rise again. From 1831 the prices had been Is., Is. tid., Is. 4d., Is, 5d., Is. ad , ls. 7d., Is. 20., and Is. 3d. The Duke of RICHMOND inquired where that statement was obtained ? The Earl of RADNOR replied from the Board of Trade ; and as the Noble Duke had refused 21d. and 220., the case was not over-stated.—(Hear, hear.) What reason was there to suppose that the repeal of the Corn.laws would not have a similar effect ? He believed that protection injured everything which it was meant to protect.—(Hear, hear.) It had been an injury to the silk arid woollen manufacture : and why should not the agriculturist of England be enabled to compete with the fo reigner. Our soil and climate were not so bad, and we had better huslaandmen, better cattle, better and more abundant markets. He thought corn much better without protection, and should like to see an entire repeal of theCorn-laws,and no substitute for them whatever. He believed that if the farmers were left to compete without pro tection, it would be far better for them. The present protection, as it was called, operated as a decoy to the farmers—it caused their ruin, and it made them gamblers. There could be no doubt that it was a great grievance to the labourers to have corn dear, because, notwithstanding all that had been said, he would unhesitatingly de. dare that it was a fallacy to suppose that the wages of the labourers depended upon the price of provisions, The wages of the labourer depended upon the demand and supply. He (the Earl of Radnor) could not conceive how any Noble Lord could for one moment en tertain the notion that the present motion could be met with a po sitive negative; for how could their Lordships declare that the Act had effected uniformity in prices ? In conclusion he would say that it was his intention to vete for the motion of his Noble Friend, and he had two proxies in his pocket to the same effect. The Duke of WELLINGTON felt bound to say a few words in explanation. It was known to the Noble Earl, and to all Noble Lords in that House, that numerous sums had been laid out in the improvement of land under the existing Corn-laws, and that the laying out of these sums had tended to the good of the country was admitted by the Noble Earl opposite. Such being the case, he entreated their Lordships not to consent to adopt the resolution, which was in fact a first step to the abolition of those protecting laws under which large sums had been laid out for the improvement of the country. Notwithstanding all that had been said by the Noble Earl to the contrary, he begged again to repeat that when he came down to the House he came there upon public injuries, and not as the advocate of any particular class of men, be they landlords, la bourers, or manufacturers—(Hear, hear)—and his Noble Friends near him looked at the present question upon public grounds, and upon public grounds alone.—(hear, hear.) There was another point that the Noble Earl had adverted to in his speech, which he begged to correct, and that was that he had never stated the export of corn was prohibited from foreign nations. What he had stated was, that during the war there had been an in. stance of a foreign power having taxed foreign corn because the price of corn was high. The Duke of RICHMOND felt bound to oppose the motion of his Noble Friend. His Noble Friend admitted that in his opinion the motion did not go far enough, but he would take a little now, in order that he might get more. He (the Duke of II.) was sur prised at the conduct of his Noble Friend. He considered it un. like him to nibble in that manner at a question.—(Hear, hear.) There was one very extraordinary thing about the pre sent question, which ha had never yet been able to find out, and that was whether the advocates of the repeal of the Corn.laws thought their repeal would reduce the price of bread or not ? In one instance they said it would, in another that it would not. Ile had heard numbers of persons declaim on the great ad. vantage to be derived to the operatives of the country from cheap bread, but he had never heard it pointed out of what that cheap bread was to be made. Was that cheap loaf to be made of barley ? —(Great cheering.) He believed that the manufacturers of the country sought for the repeal of the Corn-laws—he would not say the manufacturers, for he did not believe that the respectable part of that body sought for the repeal of those laws. It was only a certain number of large mill-owners that wanted the repeal because they were not satisfied with moderate profits, but bought to lower the price of wages that they might be the better able to compete with the manufacturers abroad. The foreign manufacturer was told that the manufacturer of this country could not com pete with them, because the Corn-laws existed. Now if the fo. reign manufacturers were not much greater fools than he believed them to be, they would take care to foster their own manufacturers. If the present Corn-laws were repealed large tracts of land in this country would be thrown out of cultivation, and the agitation that had taken place had already had the effect of preventing many persons expending their capital in improvements.—(Hear, hear.) No person would lay out money in improvements while such agitations were going on. He was surprised to hear his Noble Friend state that the farmers of England were not so good as they ought to be. He would undertake to say that the farmers of this country, as a body, were a most intelligent set of men. Much had been said about the present question being a landlord's W nitbhiu h r eerp e asace a cootuuwi rlhlnaus,au, country, nofudtudhadhuel question. Now he would venture to assert that it was a landlord's and agriculturist's, a labourer's and operative's question.—(Hear, place. If then the repeal of the present laws would have so inju rious an effect upon the people of England, how much more inju i ttffiksrrsvneeyeawilo, empl oy ed t i w h i u t aas o i O tn i sn i p lc l C or h t kE. o :y ees i s n ei sl d elyt ei a e sel npi tir n f ge : tp o ho a n a h r ye l ug ae w el brp txar a e ei obtcrynotbdtudehouelraaatertytyungteirdrrerrasi landowner c e t l Pu : sta p i e Lho e n lu°t i a n ad ri u ui nu si p r t eu gi I tt nys : s . f pose te do away with the protection now afforded to the silk trade, d ter.) He heartily concurred in the motion of the Noble Duke, and nibbling at any question. The repeal of the Corn-laws would ruin would be carried within six months, lie would if possible sell off whom he left behind him.—(Hear, and laughter.) The Earl of RADNOR explained—What he had said was that if wheat lands were thrown out of cultivation, it would be no bad thing for the people of this country to fall back upon barley-bread, butter, cheese, roast-beef and plum-pudding.—(Laughter.) The Duke of RICHMOND hail not heard one word about the roast.beef and plum-pudding before. Was the pudding to be made with barley flour. ld The Earl of RADNOR did net know, for he had never made one ulepodiehaotekwlftafiretaafsastheyktsttefhoh,, part oup eehl belie fw rre i goeceerotcoriefrhg,uosovw,to, performing utioyh:h nuh:uaogterlittltmaodhnfr.li yg,tuhef. wegtnewiesaiteh, the present r e day were w h e n repealed, that t i t k e c etdernet i t hhdyh u t twnterme e i w yry,i e ghrtnau a . r poren s t s i —(Laughter.) Viscount MELBOURNE—AIthough the subject had been very much discussed, and although it was one with which he was not so familiar as with some other subjects, and although he could not ex pect to throw much new light upon it, he felt it due to their Lord. ships to say a few words on the eccaeion—a great deal of observation had been made upon some expression which had fallen from his. Right Hon. Friend the President of the Board of trade, who, in speaking of that discussion which had taken place on this subject, had used the modern phrase of agitation.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he (Lord Melbourne) thought that, considering the situation held by his Right Honourable Friend, and considering that it was a most important question not only to the country, but more particularly to the manufacturing interest, he thought that that expression was not at ail improper. Ile did not think that it was at all wonderful, con sidering the vast multitudes who had taken part in the discussion, which very nearly touched their own interests, that it had been at all violently dis tissed, and certain he was that there had been not the slightest danger to either the public peace or security. Though it was extremely natural for his Right Honourable Friend to express such an opinion, he (Lord M.) could not but differ from him. He was sorry that it had been discussed, because it was one of an ex treinely difficult nature.—(Cheers.) It was one setting class against class, and casting reflections upon all castes and grades in the country. It could not be discussed at all, either on the one hand or the other, without leaving behind it much bitterness and discord.—(Hear, hear.) Ile was sorry that it should have been brought forward at the present moment—that advantage should have been taken of a temporary high price of provisions, to urge the discussion of the question ; but, at the same time, it must be known to all, that it was in vain for him, or even for persons of more weight than him,to attempt to stop it—persons always seize dsu ch opportuni. ties of pushing f orwar d th e i r own polit i ca l purposes. The Noble Duke opposite had referred to a subject which had be en fre q uentl y brought forward, vis.—the impolicy of this country depen din g upon foreign countries fin' its supply of grain. Hs (Lo rd M.) was not en tirely He wouldld supposeist t, ti satisfied upon that subject.—(Hear, hear.) ever was, 'and nobody we s ometimes to suppose such situations for th e sake of ar g um ent. He yu r v e er in would a uuid situation be (a in jau which nobody it was con ven i ent ge)—but would suppose that on this whole matter they were res integra. That it was as it were a blank sheet of paper, upon which people might make what impression they pleased — that it was one in Whi ch they had no interest—that they had given no protection to any interest—that they had no great interest to contend with or to manage, in fact, that they could do what they pleased on the occasion, They were told that this was likely to be a large m anufacturing population—that thousands and millions were to be congregated in large towns concerned in manufactures. He would then say that he would very much doubt whether it would be wise to establish laws which would bring up in that country a very large manufacturing population dependent upon a foreign country fur their supplies.—(Cheers.) When he considered the great financial concerns of this country and its revenues, as they had been de scribed by his Noble Friend opposite—when he considered the situa. tion in whi c h th ey rea ll y we re placed, he must say that th e propo sition of his Noble Friend far throw in g awa y all protection to the agriculterel interest—he deplered before God that it was the wildest and "Mddeet proposition Pe 1101 ever heard made.—(Hear, and cheers.) The manufacturers said they wanted no protection—they were perfectly willing to give up all the protection they now enjoyed—they might easily make the offer, because they knew that it couldnot be taken advantage of. What was to become of the public revenue ? They knew that they were perfectly safe in saying that they were ready to give up that protection, but the Government were not. His Noble Friend (Earl Radnor) had said, suppose they received a great deal of cern from foreign countries, would it ever afterwards be possible for foreign Governments to pro hibit the exportation of corn from their countries; but let their Lordships look at the times in which they lived.—(Hear, hear.) He really knew not what might be done by the conspiracies and villanies which might arise among other parties. In 1792 who could ever have dreamed of the burning of the Milan decree—who could then have foreseen the efforts made by Bonaparte ?—(llear, hear.) In his opinion it was not a desirable thing to depend in any very great degree for the subsistence of a large population upon any foreign country.—(Cheers.) He thought that it would be better even to sacrifice something cf manufacturing prosperity, for the na. tional safety and independence.—(Loud cheers.) It was his strong feeling upon the subject,that they would, by carrying the resolution, be guilty of much unwiseness and imprudence, if they were to give up the national independence, for that something which would aug ment the commerce and capital of the country. He entirely agreed with what had been stated by his Noble Friend the Earl of Ripon, that he was not bigotted at all to this law. The House were bound to look a t the vast change which a repeal of those laws would make in all matters relating to lend—in improve. ments, in fact, in all connected with land. He was not ready to make any change unless he was perfectly convinced— unless he was shown something that would render it worth while to make the alteration. With respect to the resolution which had been moved by his Noble Friend, he would !sive his vote against it in any shape. He would rather that this Noble Duke had moved the previous question, because most undoubtedly it stated some truths. There had been fluctuations under the present law, though, being not so nice as many Noble Lords, he did not care from what side of the House the motion came.—(Laughter.) He would vote for the proposition of the Noble Duke, if it was persisted in. At the same time, he did so because he did not wish that it should ap pear upon the journals of the House, and because they had no means of carrying it into effect. He did not pledge him. self to the present law, nor did he pledge himself against any amendment of it at a future time ; but he thought it imprudent and unwise to adept the resolution. Lord BROUGHAM had hoped from the turn which the debate had taken at first that he would have been relieved from troubling the House again upon this aubject ; but when he looked back upon the debate, and found that with only one exception, every speech which had been delivered only shewed the necessity and the justice of the House agreeing in the proposition which he had made to them only three weeks ago; he at mice abandoned himself to the temptation.—(Laughter.) He doubted whether they would laugh within five minutes by that clock, unless they thought it was sub ject worthy of laughter, that they had placed themselves in a posi tion which shewed them guilty of a dereliction of the most sacred duty they owed to the country. If it was a matter of mirth to Noble Lords—if it was a matter of self-gratulatron, let them enjoy their mirth, and hug themselves in their gratulations. (Hear, hear, hear,) What was his motion last Monday three weeks—that a Committee should be appointed to enquire into the whole facts of this great and important question. What ground did he lay for an inquiry —propositions of facts, one after another, offering proof of each upon oath, and he then called upon them to take either one of three courses, either to admit the fact he stated as true, to assert that they were impossible and incapable of proof, or to say that they deserved no investigation whatever they were pleased to turn upon each and all these pro positions a deaf ear. They turned a deaf ear to the prayers and petitions of thousands of their fellow-subjects —and what was the the situation in which they were now placed—they had refused all inquiry, and now net one statement that had been made that night, by any Noble Lord, but had been contradicted by another. No one assertion that had been made by his Noble Friend (Earl Fitz william) but had been most distinctly and articulately denied by the Noble Duke opposite. The statements made by that Noble Duke were again deemed by his two friends who sat by him, even they, though they were upon the same side, could cot agree upon the facts, and to show the absurdity of the House in refusing his motion for an inquiry, even his two Noble Friends behind him differed as entirely in their facts as the Noble Lord opposite. One of his Noble Friends denied that the price of provisions affected the price of wages, or while'he said that it would take 3 or 4 years to do so, his other Noble Friend was full of his belief that it would take a period of 30 or 40 years.—(Laughter.) Did not their Lordships admit that they had more gri unds for in quiry than before? Was not their position of last Monday three weeks a dignified position compared with' their present ? They were now about to rush forward to a motion, elating themselves with the feeling of instantaneous triumph. But that triumph would be over themselves, and disparaging to them as men of consistency, as he would presently demonstrate to them, to their entire satisfaction. —(Laughter) Really, he would recommend some of their Lord ships to study the English language.—(Laughter.) Some of them were uuder.read, even in the works they used. With all respect, then, he would inform them that the word " satisfaction" meant a proof that could not be denied, rather than anything particularly pleasant or agreeable. But to make himself better understood, h e would prove to their conviction that they were about to place them.. selves in a dishonourable and, perhaps, a painful position. Their Lordships refused inquiry —they refused a Committee—they re jected evidence at the Bar, which he had offered—they hooted his motion out of the House—they would neither permit him to prove the facts lie had stated, nor would they themselves dis prove them. If he (Lord Brougham) were wrong, why not disprove his statements—if he were right, why net let him prove them ? Having rejected his motion—having refused the evidence which tendered—having preferred to remain in the darkness of ignorance, rather than meet the light of inquiry —they were now ready, on most disputed and most important facts, to do what ? Why, to vote on one side of this disputed proposition of mere facts. Was this the conduct of rational men ? It was not more rational than the conduct of men who laughed at being convicted of their own irrationality.—(Laughter.) He (Lord 13.) was a man of old fashioned ideas, but he spoke the truth when he said that the con duct of their Lordships would be most irrational in rushing to rote on one side of a question, without waiting to hear the fat's which had been offered to be prove by oath on the other side. The Noble Viscount himself (Lord Melbourne) felt himself that he was going to give a vote which was not true.—(Laughter.) Truly the Noble Lord must feel himself in an awkward place, and no doubt he would be much relieved if the Noble Duke had moved the previous ques tion as he had had a mind to do. The Noble Viscount said that he was not very nice indeed—not very nice indeed ? Why to record by a solemn vote that those facts were not true, the truth of which he had offered to substantiate on oath, was not very nice indeed. To say that without caring whether the facts on one side was true or not you would vote on the other side—the man who would do so ap. pearod to him (Lord B.) to be a man not only of no sincerity, but also of the least possible honesty he had evepheard.—(" Hear" and laughter.) He (Lord B.) meant to.throw out no threats, but he would tell them a solemn warning, that the course their Lordships were about to adopt would place themselves in a position in which no rational man would wish to be recorded in after times, and be spoken of during his own age, Their Lordships might rely upon it, that the present assembly would be only one in England, Ireland, or Scotland, in which their conduct would be viewed with the same satisfaction which their Lordships felt to-night. He (Lord Brougham) had heard -the most extraordinary remarks from the Noble Duke, and his Noble Friend opposite, and the most singu lar and unintelligible misstatements respecting what lied been said by one of her Majesty's Ministers in another place. It was not his (Lord B.'s) business to defend the statements of that Minister elsewhere, as his colleagues would not do it here. Never. theless, the offices of common humanity would induce him (Lord B.), since the Ministers here would not defend their colleague, to say a few words in behalf of that misjudged individual, although he dif fered from him to a certain extent. For instance, he (Lord B.) should regard a fixed duty as a monstrous and extravagant absur dity.—(Hear, hear.) He should like to see the Minister who, if Parliament were not sitting, and wheat at 00s., would dare to up hold a fixed duty of 10s., which would make it still dearer.—(Hear, hear.) But it Parliament were sitting, the Standing Orders might be suspended, and a Free Duty Bill passed in a single day, and a fixed duty would indeed be most absurd ; but he subscribed so far to the statements of his Right Hon. Friend in the other House, that the effect of the C orn- l aws was to raise the price of English labour and to lower that of the Continent, and to force the 13ritish manufacturer into an unequal and ruinous competition with hi s foreign rivals. There was one country, namely France, which had extensive manufactures and also Corn-laws, but the referenc e made to that country had nothing to do with the present question. 1 the Corn-law in this country made labour cheaper there than here,, and gave the foreign competitcr an advantage over us, the French Corn.law was of no advantage to us. Saxony had been referred to but that country had no corn to export, but it had hosiery, with which, going into Poland, where our Corn laws dammed up the trade, and where consequently the manufacture and provisions were sold at an unnatural low price, while ours were unjustly high. But the arguments on his (Lord B.'s) side was extended all over the surface of Europe, throughout which the Corn..laws made labour univer sally cheaper, and goods unjustly low, while our prices were die. tressingly high. Thus the Corn laws were felt as a general hard. ship both at home and abroad. The Noble Duke had said there was no Corn-law In Dantzic, but this was no more necessary than was a Sugar-law in Jamaica, or a law about the importation of coals in Newcastle, because those countries grew those commodities. — (Laughter.) But Dantzic, he would remind the House, was a transit port, not producing corn itself; but affording the means of shipping for Poland and other countries. The Noble Lord had alluded to a resolution of the Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, in order to show that Corn laws were not so much disliked amongst commer cial men as their Lordships might think. But then he would remind them that those gentlemen, however respectable, were no authority in politics. The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce was instituted in 1785, and its fundamental principle of protecting trades and manu facture from the evil operation of the Corn-laws. This body was in fact elected by a few Directors, whose number consisted in 36, and who were always enabled to outvote the 150 shareholders/ Now by passing the resolution referred to, they had abandoned and violated their own principles. He (Lord B.) really thought that a quo warranto might issue against the Glasgow Chamber of Com merce. The Noble Duke said, if we have a free trade in corn, let us have a free trade in all other commodities. In answer to this, he would refer to the resolution that had that day been passed by the Anti-Corn-law Delegates, and who, instead of being mill-owners, as had been said, were, for the most part, unconnected with mills. The Chairman, Mr. Sturge, of Birmingham, was a corn dealer, and several others were dyers, bleachers, manufacturers, calico printers, and all of those had that day come to a unanimous resolution, caldng for a free trade not only in corn, but in all commodities whatever.—(Hear.) It had been said that the taxes were paid by the landowner. He denied that. Why, take the Malt-tax, for in. stance, the five or six millions a year raised from which were not paid by the farmers and landlords, but by the consumers in general. The Malt-tax was paid by those who drank beer, and the poor un happy wretches who drank gin. There was not one of those misera ble phantoms who frequented the gin-shops of this great capital, to the injury of fortune, the ruin of health, the degradation of cha racter, and the sinking themselves almost to the level of the brute that perishes—there was not one of those miserable phantoms who did not supply a part of the tax on malt. In like manner the con sumers of agricultural produce pay the Land-tax as the consumers of cotton would have to pay a tax of Sl, per bale if it were levied, They were all aware of the school of political economy which had been introduced by Canni. To this school, after being re lieved from certain over fine theories, belonging to statesmen of this country, for whose talents and noble disposition lie (Lord B.) had always felt a profound admiration, though he differed from them on many subjects. He alluded to Mr. Pitt: who was a convert, aye, and an apostle of that school, that no tax ought to be Imposed at all but one tax—and did Mirabeau and Tergot, meaning to abolish all taxes and convert them into a land tax, intend that all the taxes were to be paid by the landlords ? They were not what we called Liberals—their doctrines were as irrational as their views were philosophical—but their views never led them to lower the pillar of Monarchy. Yet their doctrine was that all taxes should be converted into one. Why? Because in that way they held that the taxation would be spread over every member of the community, and that every person consuming bread would pay a portion of that tax. No man could ever doubt that a tax so laid on land should find its way to every consumer. As to the Poor.rates he utterly denied that the land paid them. The Learned Lord paid his share, but so did the manufacturer. , --..... The inhabitants of towns paid their sharey, and an immense propor tion it was.—(Hear, hear.) If those who said that the land paid them would take the trouble of going into Staffordshire, Lanca shire, and Yorkshire, they would hear a very different tale told. If these things were disputed, be again offered _ _ evidence to prove them. He called on their Lordships t• resolve them;elves into a Committee, and so completely was he satisfied that the result of that debate would prove a demonstration of his proposition, that whenever his Noble Friend's motion was negatived, which it was clear it would be, he should not wait till tomorrow, but this very night he should call on their Lordships, and he should take the sense of the House upon it, to resolve themselves into a Committee, for the purpose of considering what might be done ,with respect to the Corn.laws. The Duke of RICHMOND explained. A NOBLE Loan put a question to Lord Brougham, the nature a which we could not hear. LordBROUGHAM said this was excessively irregular, for no p enion had a right to put A question in the miCelle of a debate. lie cou'd 1 ell the Noble Lord that if there was any part of the Empire that had no chance of having its interest neglected it was Ireland.— (Laughter.) It seemed to have occupied the attentioe of both Houses for nine days out of ten for the last ten years, and he should almost as soon expect Scotland to be neglected as Ireland.— (Laughter.) ' The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said the motion proposed by his Noble Friend appeared to him to be a truism, and such a motion would have been more properly disposed of accord. ing to the technical forms of proceeding by moving the pre vious question, than in any other mode. But he felt bound to state, that if he voted against the motion of his Noble Friend, it was not because he wished to preclude himself, or any future Government, from considering whether it Might be expedient to substitute a more efficacious, a less objectionable, form of protection to the agriculture of the country than that which now existed, if such a mode of protection could be found ; but solely be cause he saw no convenience or advantage in entertaining that ques tion now without he was prepared to proceed and follow it up by the substitution of another protection, which not one of the Noble Lords who had supported this motion had shown themselves ready to pro pose, and from their silence on the subject he bad a right to assume that they had no such system to propose. The Noble Earl (Radnor) had said that he would vote for this motion as a first step, but had he told the House what his second step would be; and was any man justified, on a question involving such important interests, to vote for a measure inefficacious in itself, merely because it was a first step; he could not embark in any such proceeding, and he could not contemplate without alarm the repeal of the Corn4aws. 'rho No. ble and Learned Lord had stated that he was prepared to with. draw ell protection. Any one who looked to the necessity of raising the revenue of the country must be aware that every manu fac:urer in England who stated this must state it with the knowledge that it was a prayer that could not be complied with. But if it were the opinion of the manfacturers or of the Noble and Learned Lord that we were to get out of our present artificial state—to shake off the financial trammels with which the country was impeded. Let the proposition be laid distinctly before the House—let it be stated by the substitution of what other methods it was proposed to provide for the payment cf the public debt and the exigencies of the public service, and then he should be prepared to go into the plan. Bus without pretending to go into any argument, he must say that he could not concur in the proposition of his Noble and Learned Friend, that the taxation of this country did not hear on the agricultural interest in an equal or greater proportion than any other class.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Not thinking it was necessary to refer to those topics which his Noble and Learned Friend stated they might have heard at the bar of the House, but looking to the necessity of maintaining the protec tion in its present shape until it could be shown to exist more effectually, more distinctly, and less objectionably in another, he felt bound to vote against placing a resolution, although a truism, on the journals of the House. In giving his vote, he did not wish it to be understood as an affirmation that the pre sent system had answered, but that it was not conve nient to entertain a change until it was openly before them, and they were enabled to judge fully of its extent. Lord BROUGHAM explained. The Marquis of NORTHAMPTON thought the Noble Lord who had brought forward the question had not proved his case. Earl FITZ WILLIAM had not intended to have said anything in reply, but after the speech of the Noble Marquis, the President of the Council, he felt bound to express his heartfelt satisfaction at that speech, for he had so involved his own views, in the selection of the language he had used, that the Noble Lords on the other side of the House had but a slight glimmering of what his opinions were—that glimmering however had shown him (the Earl Fitzwilliam) that the opinion of the Noble Marquis was that, whatever might be the fate of the present motion, the question must come before Parliament, for the purpose of making an altera tion in the present law. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House divided, when there were— l 1 1 Contents present.... Non -contents .. Proxies for the motion Ditto against Majority against the resolution - 200 The House adjourned at ONE o'Clock. HOUSE OF COSIMONAS, MARCkt 14. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before four o'clock, Colonel BRUEN was introduced by Sir Thomas Fre mantle and Colonel Perceval, and took the oaths and his seat:for Carlow. 11fr."..HOPE brought in a Bill for extending the Line of the Gloucester and Biriningham Railway, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time. Mr. LOCKHART brought in the \Vishay , / Railway Bill, which was read a first time. Sir IL FLEET WOOD brought up the Preston and Wyre Railway Bill, which was real a first time. On the motion of Mr. D. BROWNE the Moy Naviga tion Bill was read a first time and ordered to be engrossed. Mr. HINDLE Y presented two petitions in favour of the Westminster Improvement Bill.—Referred to the Com mittee. Sir M. WOOD presented a petition from some inha bitants of Holborn, against the Bill for making a new street there. Mr. BAINES moved the second reading of the North Midland Railway Bill.—Agreed to Mr. F. KELLY presented a petition from Ipswich, against the Northern and Eastern Extension Railway Bill. POSTAGE. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from Perth, and another from Emsworth, in Hampshire, praying for a re duction in the rate of postage; also a petition from James Hunter, now residing in Lancaster, but belonging to Ren frew, in Scotland, who stated that he could not communi cate with his friends because he could not pay postage, and that the taxing of these communications was con trary to the laws of G d and man, and praying that the rate of postage might he reduced to Id. RAILWAYS (IRELAND.) Mr. BRADY presented a petition from Connaught, complaining of the Report of the Irish Railway Commis sioners, which had deprived that province of the benefits of railway communication; also a petition from the same dis trict, complaining of the present system of education in Ireland. CORN-LAWS. Petitions were presented by Colonel Lowther from Yorkshire, by Lord George Lennox from three parishes in Sussex, by Mr. Raikes Curry from Northampton, paying fora repeal of the Corn-laws. The last petition had been signed by a large party of Chartists who had giren in their adhesion to the Corn• law agitation. By Mr. F. Dundas, from Orkney and North End; and by Mr. Las cellcs, from 1,000 inhabitants of Wakefield, to the same effect. Petitions in favour of the present system of Corn-laws were presented by Lord Dalmeny, from Stirling ; by Mr. Hayter, from Gloucestershire; by Lord Cole, from the Grand Jury of the County Fermanagh ; by Mr. Hope John stone, from Dumfries ; by Mr. Grant, from Banff; by Sir Edmund Filmer, from Kent; by Lord Norreys, from Ox ford ; by Mr. Barneby, from Hereford ; by Sir William Somerville, from Meath; by Mr. Goddard, from Crick lade ; and by Lord Clive from Montgomeryshire. Mr. LOCKHART presented petitions from Ross and Lanark, praying for a grant in aid of Church Extension in Scotland. Mr. BL E NNE R HA SSE TT presented a petition from the county Kerry, signed by 2,000 persons, against any alteration in the existing Corn.laws, also a petition from the Grand Jury of the same county in favour of the Government plan for constructing railways in Ireland. Lord G. SOMERSET presented a petition from Christ Church, Monmouth, against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. W. G LAD STO NE presented a petition from the Church of England Lay Association, against the Eccle siastical Duties and Revenues Bill. Sir H. PARNELL presented a petition from Dundee, against the Small Tenements Assessments Bill. Sir CHARLES BURRELL presented a petition from the Diocese of Chichester, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenue Bill. Mr. WODE HO USE gave notice of his intention to move for a copy of the memorandum entered by Mr. Hus kisson at the Board of Trade, in reply to the correspond ence with the Foreign-office respecting the intercourse with Prussia in foreign timber and heat ; also for a copy of the return of the exports of wheat. Mr. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Kildare and Wexford, praying the House either to give them the benefit of the Union, or repeal it altogether. On the motion of the Honourable and Learned Member returns were ordered of the number of persons licensed to sell beer by retail, and also a return of the number of retailers of coffee and tea. On the motion of the same Hon. and Learned Member the petition that he presented yesterday from the Lord Mayor of Dublin, with respect to Railways in Wales, was ordered to be printed. The Hon. Member stating it was his intention to call the attention of the House to the subject after the Easter recess. Mr. BA GGE presented a petition from East Dereham, Norfolk, against any system of national education which shall not be founded on the doctrines of the Established Church. Colonel SEALE presented a petition from Darlington against any alteration in the Corn-laws. Mr. PRINGLE presented a similar petition from Roxburgh. Lord — DUNGANNON presented a petition from a place in the County of Durham, complaining of the desti tute state of the Church in Canada. Mr. GOULBURN presented a petition to the same effect. Mr. MANSELL presented a petition from a place (the name of which we could not hear), praying for the total Repeal of the Corn-laws. Mr. BANNERMAN presented a petition from Aber deen, praying for the total abolition of the Corn-laws. Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from the Diocese of Winchester, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Reve nues Bill. Sir G. SINCLAIR presented a petition from the Pres b}•tery of Kirkwall, and one from a parish in the county of Caithness praying for further endowments to the Church of Scotland. NEW WRIT. Mr. C. J. STANLEY moved that a new writ be issued for the election of a Member to serve for the borough of Liverpool, in the room of J. Duckworth, Esq., who, since his election, has accepted the office of one of the Masters in Chancery. Lord M ORPETH presented petitions from Dewsbury, Orbury, and several other parishes in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Mr. HUME moved for a series of returns connected with the National Gallery. Also a return of the amouut expended on the outfit of the School of Design at So. merset House, and a continuation of the papers relative to the affairs of Holland and Belgium. Mr. HA WES postponed his motion for the postpone ment of all Small Debts Bill till Monday, when he wculd bring it on the first thing after private business. ROYAL MARINES. Captain BOL DERO gave notice that on the Navy Es timates he would move an address to the Crown for tho production of the order issued to the Royal Marine Corps, directing them to provide themselves with great-coats. MEXICO. Mr. D'ISRAELI asked if the Government had re. ceived intelligence of certain hostile proceedings (as we understood) between the Admiral of the French squadron at Mexico and the Mexican Government ? Mr. C. WOOD said he had spoken to the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Foreign Department about half an hour ago, and the Noble Lord had expressed his intention to be down at the House shortly, .but had doubtl ess b y some accident bean prevented .— ( Ironical cries of " Hear, hear" from the Opposition.) Sir S. CANNING said he wished to put a question to the Noble Lord as to certain communications which EVIINING EDITION Lad appeared in the newspapers between the Governor. of New Brunswick and the P res id en t o f t h e St a t e of ' l4 aT which were of a most important nature.—(Hear, bear.): ~ Col. SIBTH OR P sa id h e was anx i ous to p n t q uesto to the Chancell o r o f th e Ei c b equer , an d h e thought i I ! very improper that the Ministers could not be in their places at five o'clock.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear). EXECUTIONS IN CANADA. Mr. O'CONNELL b egge d t o as k t h e Under-Secret or ! for the Colonies, whether her Majesty's- Government !Ild l i e_ received any account of 34 persons having been l i angedT t Canada recently ; and h e w i s h e d a l so to k now whether I was their intention to have these executions continued? Mr. L A BOUCH F.RE said no information had boo t received at the Colonial- o ffi ce w i t h regar d t o the a ceouet: which had appeared in th e N ews p a p ers o f seve ral pers°n4, having been execut e d i n U pper an d L ower C ana da to a dition to those whi c h h a d a l rea d y for we e b een stated t to r: the House. From s ome c i rcums tances, be was not able t o account , t h e G rea t Wests rs steam-ship did not bring any despatches from the GoveraFn of Upper and Lower Canada, and therefore no inforrnsOd had reached them. With regard to the Hon. and Lon ePr ho Gentleman's second question, as to whether it tees o t intention of her Maj es ty' s G overnment to t a k e steps t 0 stop these executions, he begged to say that v; every occasion when that mos t p a i n f u l su bj ec t had he adverted to by Lord Norrnanby and himself, in their cool° munication with the Governors of these c oloniese_ t ; opportunity had been lost o f i m p ress i ng u p on their real o t a strong feeling of the advisableness and proprie w ty bio confining the exercis e o f cap i ta l pun i s h men t 1 .; to the narrowest possibl e li m it s , d ue regar d b e i n g hau, protection of the lives a n d p ro p ert i es o f her Ma:le ste i to subjects.—( Hear, hear.) He felt bound to state , justice to those Gallant Officers, the Governors of UPP,, c t and Lower Canada w h o , un d er c i rcumstance s of of ordinary description had b een c h arge d w i t h t h e condee t b ot the affairs of these provinces, to state that they thea lse et e felt precisely in the same manner as the Que 6r d Government upon the s u bj ec t.—( H ear. ) H e wa s sati! s i t that from the high mora l an d pro f ess i ona l charac t e r of e , John Colborne and Si r G eorge A rt h ur, that t° o l l , would carry into effect the painful duty imposed q ui them with a due regard t o mercy , an d f rom a cons ciener4 t conviction of what wa s d ue t o th e sa f ety an d pro tection v these provinces.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") t ee Mr. HUME wished to ask whether it was the into e r o t of Government to:introduce any measure respecting nada before Easter. tte' Mr. L ABOUC HE RE cou ld a dd not hi ng to the s the ment made by his Noble Friend the Secretary fe r tro , Home Department, that it was not their intention to to l ye duce any measure with regard to the settlement 0 ' affairs of Canada before Easter• IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL, Mr. SHAW wi s h e d t o as k w h en i t was i nten d e d to P coed with this Bill ? i olet Lord MO RPETH rep li e d, very soon after t h e v ...- holidays, but he could not state the precise day. CORN-LAWS—ADJOURNED DEBATE. e The Order of the Day, for resuming the debate ea been read, goo° Lord WO RSLE Y said he would not detain the - e r e long, because be f e lt h e h a d not the ability to to length into the subject, and also that if he slefl t e detain the House long, they might have another et t he debate. He w a s d ec id e dl y o f op i n i on that it woo l eel most detrimental t o th e i nterests o f the country to te et . the Corn-laws. Wh en H on . M em b ers talked o f the s i l t s culturists exaggerating the danger that wou ld arise t.'i o t the repeal, lie cou ld not b ut express his b e lief o ' it e the manufactu r e rs exaggerate d t h e benefits t h e y It is. receive from it.---( Hear, hear.) It had bee t ' , t he sinuated by the Hon. M em b er f or W o l verhampton thlo tbo ir agricultural M em b ers were actuated by the fear of o lf constituents. If that w ere hi s meaning, it did not °Pio to him ( Lord Worsley) after the vote which be g a L re e,) one question last Session. (Hear, hear, l i p Upon that question h e h a d f e l t i t to b e h i s duty to o pt from his con s tit uents , an d a l t h ough the Hon. !dealt, Wolverhampt on h a d state d t h at t h e farmers were 070 rant class, and that th e y d are d not express the i r Wi t te he thought the H on . M em b er wou l d not have sela,46o'l) statement, if he had gon e w i t h hi m among h i s ( L o rd constituents after he had given that vote. Wherseseos thought his constituents wrong he should adopt the 00 cour3c ; but upon the present most important clu T e t i j d his constituents and hi mse lf per f ect l y coincided. el been stated in th e p resent d e b ate t h at the laboure rs sufferers. The N o bl e L or d t h e Member for Neeted berland had s a id t h a t t h e i r wages had not been rais cording to the pri ce o f corn . N ow h e (Lord W.) °el that he could very shortly prove the reverse, A t that at the time wheat was high the labourer o r receiving better wages. At the time wheat I ° o lol tremely low, there w as no t a l a b ourer i n Lt shire, that was rec e i v i ng l ees t h an f rom es. to Ws. vr ei - J O l The difference i n th e wages b etween wheat at 355..1,001 80s., at the calculatio n th a t t h e f am il y wou ld reete i e' r es bushels of flour, o ug h t t o b e eid . N ow be coul ° , l P pe r that the rise had ac t ua ll y b een from od. to• day. The labourers were now receiving from 1g jOO 15s. per week, in place of receiving from 85. S rs bo to The high wages were not paid by a single farmer , t hell all parts of the county of Lincoln; neither wer e ", any labourers out of employ —even the ; o pt end children w ere now part i a ll y employed .--( p si' Even during the whole of last winter, in two Unions ' , where he resided, there was not, except in (Mei night, any labo urers out Si employment. He tb 00 that the repeal of the Corn-laws would be most &oc t et to all classes, znd most ruinous to those who, at eel S e expense, brought poor lands into wheat cu ltivation. .. ro e would grant that wh ea t wou ld r i se a b road in conseV ti eg of the demand from this country; the question ea t ee was to what extent. He rejected the plan of a repeal. He equally rejected the plan of a fixed duty o es supposing that the duty was to be made los., that ip not be enough for protection to the farmer " v et year of plenty, a n d i n a t i me of scarcity the 1-1° ment would be obliged to give up that da t i,..0 0 ,1 was said that the fluctuation of p r i ces was t h e male herl of now altering the present laws. By Returns which b ole!t in his hand, h e f oun d t h at i n O ctober, November, an d j(0 eember 1837 th e p r i ce o f w h eat at Dantzic was 28s. 1/10 it was M., and at Hamburg 295. In the M e !'6 od l January, February, and March, 1839, the er.,,i e ''„,bee,, risen in Dantzic to 575., in Kiel to 539., and in ti l aweß to 555. In this country the fluctuation had 0.1 been 19s. but these returns proved tha",,',llr fluctuations in foreign countries not only eq`' f t those in this country, but exceeded them. He O'er formed by an eminent merchant in this country', 0 wheat could be brought from most of the P° 6d' the Baltic, and lauded in Hull at from ss ',/ to 6s. per quarter. Now it would cost 3s. p er , 14, ter to transmit th e pro d uce from L i nc oln He was an x i ous to come to a proper consideration °, question, even without reference to the wishes of bight atituents. He had tried to think the repeal re l gfe, for th e b ene fi t o f manufacturers, but he had .f, tri it impossibl e t o d o so.—Hear, hear.) But t o e country would suff er by the repeal, what would betel ,/ Ireland 2—( Hear, hear.) He found by the racy the imports o f gra i n f rom I reland had been edit!, rising from 1836. In 1836 the number o f quart%) r ported into Scotland and England was 1,982, 98 , 1 0 / 1837, 2,075,266; in 1838, 2,404,857. In his opios ° 4 : l o effect of the repeal of the Cora-laws would be tetio . te . ; end to that importation, and so would be extrerteeli, 4 ' o ir e dicial to Ireland. Having only last year passed ae, 0 1 1 relieving the poor of Ireland, it became them to e" cautious in what way they legislated for that countrP e o Hon. Member the o th er n i g h t h a d c h arged the fag liee S England with i gnorance . He supposed that mig u iatie r arisen from the refusal t o answer long string 0 : ;OS tions sent to them by the Anti-Corn-law Dve some had answered the queries, and he would read .. . 1 00, cimen of them in order to s h ow w h et h er the charge 1/7,ire° or not. The Noble L or d th en rea d several of the 013-00' to the queries,which have already appeared in our ole o 0 0 Although much had b een sa id as to the anxiety thsee° manifested in this country for a free trade in core , 0 s information he h a d rece i ved, he was convinced that ter were by no means the number of persons that 09 Tb s posed, anxi ous f or t h e repeal of the Corn-lasea• mud people in the manufacturing districts were very 0 0, divided upon the question. Some were in favou r /ell repeal of those laws, and some were in favour of a at duty. Th e H on . M em b er f or Wolverhampton bad uhle that the farmers were against the present system, ee, O' (Lord W.) had s p o k en to f armers who stated to t t they would rather have a fixed duty, but as they 01 ( 10 1 v, likely to obtain a fi xe d d uty o f 20s . a quarter, he W.) would, under such circumstances, support the P' ey system. O s Sir. H. VIVIAN wa s anx i ous to address t he H s he eet e upon this questi on , as a large number of persons i t iop i t had the hon our o f representing had pr ese nted pe t 'llo,, against th e re p ea l o f t h e Corn-laws. Fee ling the " he could not consistently adopt or suppor t ee l opinions, he was anx i ous to express the grouts' is ., ( A which he di ssen t e d f rom the prayer of then ,' titions. Nothi ng surpr i se d hi m more than the 5'.117 upon which the advocates of the ex i s ting iso 0 argued. One wou ld i mag i ne t h at these laws had edellet existence for a very l ong per i o d, an d that the 47„, l ral interests had b een most prosperous under Wie n ero t seemed to be forgotten that they had heard agri e f . o o 4s , distress discussed year a ft er year i n t h at House , art'' the subject of sp eec h es f rom t h e Throne, tha t / 001 taxes had been got rid of in order to them ; and last of all one would supec' s° 4 o ,', these laws had b een per f ect l y successful in t'iy, `" out the object f or w hi c h t h ey h ad b een framed, ea'coes, protect the i n t erests o f t h e producers of corn in thsittforei; try. Was it n o t k nown t h at b ut for the importation et tioa corn they would now b e suffering distress and Po h l i These laws. have not the desired effect, end ba d been complained of earsy fter year by the sell ° e t ° '' He could not understand on what grounds they c aill aff ward and objected to inquiry. If they were net 11- goe' d lowed to go into Committee, he hoped th e y W i re' never hear again of agricultural distress.—( He ar ' ala i. ' They could hardly ask for a Committee on Agriculter o de tress after that. He was sorry to bear the remarltotsed last night about plunging the agriculturists je S° l , e sg ri c i and distress. He spoke not in disparagement of t h - v cultural labourers—he knew the manner in whic h te e ,' o f conducted themselves, arid the manner in which " e ths s ways would, but the manufacturers bad contributedt lea; share to the prosperity of the country, and were r: i t teoffi d istress h c a i e v n e t bo t ef h ew a n n h itachnhe his agricult ural argument w. Fr i e labourers. e 0 wi.Tnpcibiuee inquiry, in b o c e t c : for going into frose et steps could not be taken to redeem the people int° (I misery. He was sorry the inquiry was not gen% foe°, the bar of the House.—( Hear, hear.) When " alio , h e opinions formed so d , fferently from the same preen we r e thought it was a sufficient ground for inquire. e peed' questions which he should like to ask; he should bat! better ascertain whether the fact was as stated, that. a b e s b e tb ..r s facturers were in a state of distress, and likewise vi beth i c r it had arisen from the high price of corn, and als the 'O a any alteration in the laws would remedyhad aro had not the least hesitation in saying that be his o _ l o at the opinion which he entertained from tt : lrurie h i s 0 0 4 tention to the subject, in consequence not only,u„ b he hs: interest, but of the interest of the county ne_lernitie was the honour to represent. The impression on his wen that protection and prohibition meant the Lakin.