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

„ v eil o f the t hief and to the doubt. lovas , don, cool' hour , o rning majo' nd the town. carriea I at the ennett, The sion of and he, fact of Esumed ,dge ef nd this istaucc• 1r about Lte cork _ r e bay o e; bo! markc- a ity, o -,,,, w ell —; will ' 3° It ho rands. or ,fladii - ebrU oef arl. 013 11 1 see v.,i, be al: urly Spa 0 Gen t " Lye b e . e : con."' the will V, but le r I Er ..4 ;ank tiler i" d to O: void ism Spar' r e° 9 ; I sof; y )-and' iE*6 7 ....• ,/ ..... ~,. Vi . ; l - 65 1 1.1 - 65 Pa r i* 'a ;$O. .cl_ ""oc%* , ~. ..... " . "540 1 / 2 %,./1 ..... ,•••• 11 o _C "": f. .;;!;--, grg "10341„6 g i • A Of g rij 69 164 j 74 41* 5% 4 4 ;-.4 14 t )flif o ' to 'co t vpg• ho t ja d - 95 94 .dolog 5 , . n isb P 1; 34g A iu 4.130, f and t ° o 1 15 ' 61 ct effe a 00 0 r , F , :nur*Ao 0 0 B. , , i'lu'.- he l l o i l ,lyt C °J' 9 A4 1 . t ° . 11111. Sur 8 01 00 iPg ...,r7.. 11`,VEN ING EDITION. CORN LAWS. GREAT MEETING OF DELEGATES. (YESTERDAY.) The Anti-Corn-Law Delegates re-asserr bled yesterday Brown's Hotel, Palace Yard. At a quirtt.r-pst three o'clock the Chair was taken by J. B. SMITH, Esq. Among the delegates present there were from— Manchester—Wm. Evans; T. H. Williams; Richard Cobden ; J. B. Smith; W. Catterall ; M. Robinson; Holland Hoole; C. J. S. Walker; James Howie. Glas gow —Charles Todd, Wm. Weir, Alex. Johnstone, Wm. Brodie. Liverpool —R. W. Wood, and Richard Shiel. Birmingh am— R obert Webb, George Edmonds, Ro bert Mather, D an i e l Mather, Joshua Walrnsley, William tmlthee; Joseph S turge; J os h ua S cho l e fi el d , M. P. ; m. Scholefield, the Secretary o f th e A ssoc iation. Halifax. —W. Dewhurst, Jun., W. Morris, John Holdsworth, Eli Bates, Joseph Thorpe. Leeds. —John Goodman, Thomas Plint, Stansfield, Mr. H. C. Marshall, Mr. Nussey. Bolton. —A. W. Paulton, P. R. Arro wsmith (the Ma y o r), 11. Ashworth, E. Ashworth, M. Thomason, Mr. Kynaston. W. Bradford (Yorkshire)—Robert Milligan, J. Clayton, Byles, John Priestman, Mr. Cousin, Mr. Onley. Preston. —John Hawkins, Francis Sleddon, F. Barker. Tower Hamlets.—T F. Gibson. Kendal. —Thomas Wilson, Mr. Alderman J. Wilson. Loa Derby--. 8. Burney, C . S . P eet John Johnson, W m . gdon. Bt.Pan cras(Middlesex).—James Braby, Mr. Newbury. Iluddersfield.—Joseph Batley, F. Schwann, W. Wil.. lane, d a i c th a u s t r e g r h . L . Dundee. —.G. Kinloch, D. B axter . ---- 4 1- 11 1. w H ig iggins, W. Sattertbwaite. ham, Jun. Ratcliff.— Richard Hallett, Jun. Marylebone. —G. A. Young. London. —Dr. Bowring, and J. A. Taylor. W arringtom—J osep h Crosfield, and W. Eskr i gg. StockportMr. Charles H u d s o n , Mr. Woolla m . Soave port Bridge. —Mr. James Fielding, Samuel Wood. At !taistri c k. —Mr. Joshua Clay. ', l among the M em b ers o f P ar li ament present were— E u. O'Connell Esq. ; J. Hume, Esq. ; N. A. Vigors, ; J. Th orne l y, E sq. ; W. Ewart, Esq., the new Mem er for Wigan ; Sir He s k e th Fl ee t woo d, an d Si r B. Hall. , The CHAIRMAN stated that at their last meeting in this place they had adjourned to Manchester, and at a meeting iticr_ea;y Resolutions t e :lace, and which was attended by 74 Delegates from that places, resolutions were agreed to, which have published in The Sun. Having read the esolutions he proceeded to put the question that they be confirm e d . Dr. BOVVRING moved that the resolutions at the Man chester meeting be confirmed. YouNo, in seconding the motion, said he had been requested to move a resolution at the Manchester meeting, t tri he.would take th e lib erty o f ca lli ng t h e a tt en ti on of the 1 /legates to some 'observations made in the Morning f a ll of yesterday, the 1 lth, by which the correctness his statements had been impugned. The criticism in that Pa p e r commen ce d b y remar ki ng t h at M r C . B u ll er h a d said that the Reform Bill was carried by enormous lying, b ar , k.dt i _that su c h rhetorical figures were especially employed the enemies of the Corn-laws. And after this courteous -nmencement the anonymous writer went on to contro vert one of the statements which he (Mr. Young) had ninde. W hether the Reform Bill had been carried by this lyin g or not h e did not k now; b ut L s be did know, that the Morning Herald best sup ported the Reform Bill, and of course knew h b y what means.—( Hear, hear.) lie thought the erald had a p ostat i zed from its former principles,—yet i t d not changed its private morality, and was now as much addicted to "enormous lying" as it had been when it sup -I"ed the R e f orm Bill, doubtless, according to its own count by such methods. —( Hear. hear.) The point at Issue between him (Mr. Young) and the Herald was, that he had stated that the population of Great Britain being 18OW .000 one.third were agriculturists, and two-thirds I, :in-a griculturists, and that statement was impugned ; ut he again reiterated it, believing it to be correct. He h ad l not intended to speak merely of agriculturists and thanufacturers, but in the non-agricultural he included did trad ing, the manufacturing population, and all who rnot subsist from the land ; in the other class he luded th e agriculturists. Now he held is his hand a Statement of the Numbers and Occupations of Families E . ngland, Wales, and Scotland in 1831 : t , p po yed in Agricultur e All ltohyeerd n To e d s e, Manufactures, &c. 1,018,168 3,414,175 Total Families.. Agriculture T r 4 (le, Scc. ...................... Others .............. Centesimal Parts. 28.2 42. 29.8 ...Porter's pro g Total lOO _. e engaged in The apri 1 ress of the Nation, sec. 1, page 5w th aa ocu tural families in 1831, there ore, wer e to manufactures, trade, &c., as 28.2 to ( 0 42 i and the agricultural families were to the non- 9° as j 211.2 to 71.8. But Mr. M'Culloch says aria '1" . P• 410 ), and I believe correctly, that in England wh ., ',Vales generally, there are 5.6 individuals to a house, aro " in the great towns there are 6.165 or 6.2 nearly. I th * therefore (said the Hon. Delegate), justified in stating ? Re n o 1831 the agricultural population was only one-third vii `ne whole population, while the nonagricultural (Noz Thil ALONE) amounted to two-thirds. 18 ; Paulpation, however, of Great Britain amounted in and 1 it t 0. i 1 1 6,539,318 ; in 1838 it was at least 18,000,000, la will be found, upon inquiry, that the population of l a towns increased at the rate of 23 per ce il n i t. b , e w fe h e il n e d th to e h e rural Population and that of small towns will :_ er tl e ader ini. therefore, of the per cent., oraboutolpe "' cent. under the rip tease of large towns. e The balance, agricultural population in 1831 01;4, gricultural over th Pr' ao greater in 1838 the.% it was in l 183 t 1 h , a a t n i d t i l s a a m s nb ablY understating the amount when say . "co - third s to one-third of the whole population. The C HAIRMAN sa id t h at a f ter thi s t i me h e h o p e d there l Would be no question raised as to the numbers of the agile?i_ tuA co mmunity. The agricultural labourers were rallying r natit: them.—( Hear, hear.) He had received a com munication from the Highlands of Scotland, which stated_*, The spirit of the extreme North is up. Petitions have been adopted in Caithness and Orkney, Pra ying for repeal, and in Shetland the poor starving fishermen were so active throughout every island and s Praarish, that I expect in a week or two t o have petition ned by nearly half of the wh o l e po p u l a tion." He was r e rather surprised that the Irish M em b ers s h ou ld oppose the Peal of the Corn-laws. The condition of the Irish was such, that h e thought any change would be for the better. He wished that some Irish Member present would favou r them withhis views on this subject, for it appeared to him uraccountable that the Irish Members should uphold to monopoly, Ireland having the most miserable popula ion of the whole world—( Hear, hear)—while the agri cultural labourers of England, who were much better off, were continually sending up petitions for the repeal of bit e Corn- laws, an d were supporting them in every possi m' wind Hea r , h ear.) via a '". O'CONNEL L then rose to address the meet i ng, an d s greeted with vehement applause. He could hardly in P°l nt of courtesy even resist the appeal that had been made, an d be was not at all inclined to refrain from giving a statement ti nes ivi of his opinions on this subjec . nte last °lt, 22 Irish Members voted for Mr. Villiers' mo i--38 voted against it, and Gentlmen would be i - , eased to recollect that in Ireland very little trouble had e l taken to enlighten the public mind on the operation °f th e mono Hear, hear.) The monopoly struck 1 fi ev r e ry body to be profitable'to a monopolizing class in the t at instance, and it required a good deal of reasoning mnd knowledge of detail to demonstrate that that erireeaattepdohleyd, after all, did nothing but mischief to the . Y of the people.—( Hear, hear.) Monopolies a few plunderers, and the result to the great po- Potation would necessarily be inevitable destruction. Many nf the Irish county Members voted with Mr. Villiers one would mention Mr. Roche, a young gentle -,;rat;", of larg e f ortune, w h o represen t e d the c o unty Cork, and who, against the urgent entreaties of his con hetituents, had adopted that line of principle.—( Hear, ar.) Of course, it had been his duty to consider the question minutply, and lie had come to the most firm conviction that Ireland was injured and not served 1 11 the existing Coru.laws.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) • e te t eoo.yul;dandawlmhaotstwou 1 l atie ° extcnd manufactures there. th ey n to be emplco ed ? By manufactures ? How were in rn e a r n a p a l f o a y .t e a d reno w thatßy c t o h m ein g‘, o h p e l r ee to ef b l e re T a m a p d lor a l i, to . 1ab0ur......( Hear, hear.) There was not a manufsc- Iri ' V't"gn in this country that was not swarming with an liked of They were driven here by the harsh i,'"' of their landlord. The truth was, that Ireland, with %Ouse, looking for jus w l t d i l e s b i : e t a o d it va l n r teaHlmanufacturing,ar wereadvantageous uwsf o ar ttashomteilri Ireland El i steni poorg, d l industrywpa b 1 001 e (pui - ,ul ..1 10 felt hirnself bound, in the first instance, to do alltstice to England by the Irish people.—(Hear, hear, aad cheers. ) But the impression on his mid was latiost strongly favourable to the repeal of the Corn wa• dit this agitation continued for some months 1 0 , an .... b. a ger, as he was afraid it necessarily would, there could Theo doubt that li•eland would respond.—(Cheers.) te Was 1 of t r i-h Members that would natu , tall one class . c , te a ,' s upport the Corn.laws, he meant the class that wile attached to the aristocratic institution, and oe,„ thought that the good things of this world so e b i l e l to be in the power alone of a select order of th e „ ~Y..- - ( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He understood ,(,,uttl not talk politics, nor would he talk politics there. le ast ' e ar, hear.) But the Tory influence in Ireland, at C ui .Oas entirely bound up with the continuance of the then, at , ws. The wealthier landlords there lieu' .--env . inc ., ed la es that they derived a benefit from the exisla. w 'r tii ; the y he very seldom came into the arena of politics Co l . People at large ; but he was glad the rate n- Iv , agitation had had this advantage at any Pul; tha t it had made these landlords court the po haifr f avour, and for the first time for the last etwe'eeetury they had attended public meetings, and In Aalvoured to direct the public mind.—( Hear, hear. ) hy , act ° o tn a short time ago a highly aristocratic assem- T ati h i e g l e a k t Place to petition in favour of the Corn-laws. aria Y w ere assisted by gentlemen of considerable talent Popularity —th e Catholic clergyman of the town, tiei4hab Catholic magistrate, extremely popular in that old E ir nut hood. The farmers attended the meeting. An sh ow . met', upwards of seventy years of age, made a speech c ol , 'ng that he never derived any benefit from the Pri et a wa. He carried the meeting against the defeat' the parsons, and the aristocracy, and totally f act a t ted th cm.---( Hear, hear, hear.) He mentioned this ought') encourage them to go on, and to show that they M enlts n ot to be surprised at the resistance of the Irish h ave el's. B..for e next Session he was satisfied they would ( / /ea a cry from In land for the repeal of these laws-- N. 111 ,' h ear) Ireland was exclusively an agricultural 1 'llo4i"ec,t. interest ii ; i no o t allowing the ia I Iri s h alminished, because it would lessen the market for La facilities and tendencies to production, was much more ‘...,_ suited fur the production of the greener crops than for tL. , cultivation of wheat. Not that there were not some very large districts in Ireland which were perfectly suitable for it, but the landlords forced a culti vation, and were forced into the cultivation of wheat which ought not to ba employed in it, and they were now extending the farms for that purpos( , driving the population out of the country int, the towns and villages They were obliged to resort to the manufactures of England. If the abolition of the Corn-laws would increase the manu factures of England, the probability would be increased of extending those manufactures to Ireland. The greater the demand for goods on the continent the greater the prospect would there be of that amelioration which was necessary to arrive at one day or other of the condition of the Irish peasantry.—( Hear, hear.) If ma nufactures extended, they would be established in Ireland, and the people who were now starving, would get health ful ymplayment. It was said tauntingly by the Corn-law . . lords, that keeping up the price of corn increased the rate of wages. It was not necessary for him ( Mr. O'Connell) to show that that was a complete fallacy. The price of provision entered into wages only when wages were at the minimum. If there was cornpetitien for labour it then rose beyond that. But when he contrasted Ireland, which had the full benefit of tha blessing of the Cori-laws—when he contrasted the rate of wages there with the wages in England, what came out? Why, that the labourer worked in Ireland ; with all the benefits of the Corn-laws, for Bd. a day, generally 6,l.—he worked 12 hours a day for an hour for a halfpenny—and that was the euthanasia of the Corn-laws—( Hear, hear)—the immense blessing that it kept the Irish labourer in the situation of earn ing a halfpenny an hour. He therefore claimed no merit for supporting the abolition of the Corn-laws, and he came there to-day to make his political faith on the subject distinctly known.—( Hear, hear.) His belief was, in the first place, that it was an act of justice to repeal the Corn-laws—next, that the allegation that wages were raised by therm was immaterial to the poor renter and the poor annuitant, who did not earn wages of any kind, but must consume bread.—( hear, hear.) Next, that these laws retarded the progress of manufactures throughout the country, and would ultimately end in the extinguishing of the manufactures of England, and depriving the people of Ireland of all chance; and next, that the allegation that they tended to raise wages, was proved in Ireland to be the very reverse, as they diminished and threw them down.—(" Hear," and cheering ) His support and influence, whatever it was, would most certainly go with them.--( Loud cheers.) When he used the word "influence," he must protest against the injustice that had been done him on a former occasion. He had been blamed for not using his influence to a greater extent with others, and in that certainly great injustice had been done him. Gentlemen would recollect that in the unprepared state of the Irish mind, the popular Members, as they were called, received an impulse from their constituencies as to the cout'se they should adopt, when they would willingly vote for what was right. The Irish Members who di l not be long to the popular party, were almost all supporters of the Aristocracy, and therefore opposed to the present ques tion ; but if they persevered as they were bound to do-- (Hear, and cheers)—for having gone so far they would not deserve credit for moral integrity if they did not per severe—they must ultimately triumph.—( Cheers. ) did not like being supposed to mix any thing of polities in their discussions, but he was convinced that the influence of the Aristocracy was adverse to them and to the inte rests of the people.—( Hear.) They were all aware that the House of Commons was substantially composed of nominees of the Aristocracy. It was necessary that there should be a little more of popular opinions and popular in fluence let into that House—that they should hear less of the Lords and their influence, and more of the people and their voice. —(Hear.) In that and every similar improvement it would be necessary to go to the fountain head in order that the waeors of life might be made more pure. The CHAIRNIAN inquired if M:. O'Connell would re commend a few lecturers to be sent over to Ireland? Mr. O'CONNELL said, not at present. In the month of October or November, after the adjournment, it might be advisable, and if the Chairman would do him the honour to communicate with him he would be happy to give him any information in his power. Mr. STURGE was just about to put the question which Mr. O'Connell had already answered. He had intended to ask what suggestions he would offer as to the best mode of enlightening the people of Ireland on the subject. Mr. VIGOR% M. P., as the Representative of an Irish county, felt bound to aad his testimony to that of Mr. O'Connell, that the cause of the opposition of the people of Ireland arose from their ignorance of the details of the question, and he certa►nly would re commend that means would be taken to convey in formation to them on the subject, and apprize the agricultural interest in Ireland how much their prosperity was bound up with the repeal of these laws. He could answer for his own county, which although not a large one contained& population of 80,000—that although every means had been taken to get up a meeting in favour of, the Corn-laws, it was a total failure. —( Hear, and cheers.) After a month had elapsed, a petition was sent over signed by 370 persons, out of a population of 80,000, and on analyzing the petition it turned out that nine-tenths of those who had signed it were persons connected with the 'Aristocracy of the country.—( Hear.) The Tories had made it a political question, for the purpose of annoying the Ministers. The Corn-law agitation was in his ( Mr. Vigors) part of the country merely an anti- Ministerial movement. The petition was sent to the Liberal Club, and lay there for a fortnight and received two signatures.—(Cheers. ) At the present moment there was a deputation in town who had been sent over in order to match their agitation, and to join in it if it were found to be, as the Irish people wished to believe, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would be a benefit to their country. The views of the people generally were in favour of the repeal; but there was also a general feeling—he believed, an erro neous one—that, if it were immediate, it might injure their interests. Certainly, and he spoke with certainty upon that head, the gent ral feeling of the Irish people was in favour of free trade in its largest sense—they were for free trade in all things. He would take the liberty of recom mending that some knowledge of the principles upon which the deputation acted should be communicated to the people of Ireland. If a short explanatory pamphlet, not entering into details, was sent over and extens►vely cir culated, he thought it would be received with pleasure and do much good.—(Cheers.) Dr. BowatNo, as one of the Committee appointed to collect evidence, had to report that they had regularly met there since the Deputation last sat. He had since then been deprived of the able assistance of one of their colleagues, who since that time had been called to a sphere 0: greater usefulness. (Mr. E wart, the new. Member for Wigan, was on the evidence Committee ) The evidence they had received, shelled them that ruin was staring this country in the face, in even a more alarming degree than they were prepared before to state. It was imminent, and was approaching fast, and it was most important that the public should be put upon their guard against the evil. The evidence received by the Committee would spew that the apprehensions en tertained by the Delegates was not only not without foundation, but that the danger was actually more immi nent than they had formerly believed it to be, or had represented it to be to the country.—( Hear, hear.) Sir H. FLEETWOOD was, as any one connected with his part of the country would know, entirely a corn-grower, still he was perfectly satisfied that his own interest was bound up entirely with that of the manufacturers. ( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He was entirely convinced that the two interests were bound up together.—( Cheers.) He was perfectly satisfied that it was for the interest of the landed proprietors themselves that the Corn-laws should be repealed, for the acres were limited, but the population was unlimited ; but, even had he not been convinced of this, as a repeal of these laws was called for, in accordance with the principles of free trade, of those principles which he believed to be true, he should have considered it his duty to have voted for their repeal, even although it might have militated against his private interest.—( Hear.) As a Member exclusively connected with the landed interests, be had thought it his duty to make these observations. He assured the meeting no exertion should be wanting on his part to procure the object they all had in view. The CHAIRMAN then said that if there was no other bu siness to be brought lor w ard , as the time had arrived for the meeting of the House of Commons, he would propose that they adjourn till to-morrow The meeting accordingly adjourned till to-morrow at three o'clock. It was announced that a private meeting of the Delegates would be held to-morrow (this day), at eleven o'clock, and the public meeting, as usual, at three in the afternoon. M. De Montalivet, says the Commerce, late Minister of the Interior, and appointed agent for the Crown to influence the electors, has certainly bad his full share - in the troubles which have overwhelmed the Ministry. His uncle, his brother-in-law, his principal secretary, and three of his intimate friends have all been rejected by the electors. General Lallemand, who was condemned to death in 1815, for his fidelity to Bonaparte, died at Paris on Sunday morning, aged 65. ONE OF THE MISERIES OF HUMAN LIFE. —Being a compositor on a newspaper, and having to insert the marriage of a girl you love with a^ old man—old enough to be her father. He is rich, and you are poor. A Court of Common Council was held yester day, in which a most spirited discussion took place on the subject of waiting upon the Queen with an Address against the City Police Bill. The Committee of the Stock Exchange have t ,:21 engaged since Friday last in the consideration of an appeal ve.7 properly made to them on the part of the job bers. It seems t one of the influential brokers came into the market on that rift, "nd purchased, for the opening Three-and-a-Half per Cent. Reline, ' 1 `lock at the price of 10, the current quotation being at t he t;..: 4 only 1011 to S. The jobbers would readily have furnished the su.:: required at a l f per cent. lower, and the operation being consequently out of the regular course of business, it was suggested to the gentlemen of the Committee that it could not with propriety be inserted in the authorised lists of the house, or rather, that being inserted, it should be expunged. The Committee, contrary to the usual practice in cases where bargains have beer. concluded at a price notoriously above or below that which regulates the general business of the day, and which must be considered a false one, de cided that the transaction referred to should be regarded as legitimate, and that the quotation complained of should stand. A decision so contrary to common sense, so op posed to the ordinary usage of the establishment, and at the same time so unfair towards the jobbers at large and the public, has naturally caused great dissatisfaction. An effort was made to get the objectionable quotation super seded on the first issuing by the Committee of their im primatur, and the case was accordingly reconsidered, but the determination originally pronounced upon the matter has to-day, we understand, been confirmed. If these irre gularities are to be permitted we do not, we confess, see what confidence can in future be placed in the lists which the public have been hitherto in the habit of consulting and o n f u m 88 t, 3 7 9 ( 0 , f o b d o o u l d l a s ros which aaarte regarding as authentic.—Morning Post. The Prussian Government have drawn by lots a july s- c .F e to to S b l e l ptd b off on amount th th e e lst next. IMPEIZIAL PAULIATVIENT. ROUSE OF CORDS, MARCH 12 The Lord CHANCELLOR took his ;eat on the Woolsack shortly after Five o'Clock. Lord LYNDHURST presented petitions, from Col chester and other place 3, against any alteration in the C. rn-laws. The Marquis of ANG LESE A presented petitions front Anglesea to the same effect. Mr. Brown, from the Queen's Rcmembranccr's Office, presented an account of fees. Mr Christian presented paper:, from the Court of Chan cery (Ireland). Viscount MELVILLE presented petitions from Dal keith and Edinburgh, praying for increased accommo dation in the Church of Scotland. The Earl of GALLOWAY, after presenting several petitions to the same effect, begged to ask the Noble Viscount opposite whether it was his intcntion, after the repeated grants that had been made to Ireland, to turn a deaf ear to the people of Scot land on this most important subject. He wished to know whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to bring forward any proposition, in answer to the numerous petitions that had been presented from Scotland upon this subject? Lord MELBOURNE said that it was not the intention of Government to propose any grant. The Earl of GALLOWAY said that the people of Scotland would grieve greatly at the answer of the Noble Viscount, he thought that it was not treating the people of Scotland with sufficient respect. Lord BROUGHAM presented petitions from Brandon, in Suffolk, and several other places, praying for free trade in corn. The Noble Lord also presented a petition from Bridgwater, signed by 1,100 persons, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws. This present petition was from an entirely agricultural district, and therefore it must be taken as showing the feeling of the agricultural districts on the subject. The Duke of RICHMOND presented 48 petitions from different parts of Scotland against any repeal of the Corn laws. The Noble and Learned Lord who had presented the last petition appeared to think that that peti tion, signed by a few hundred persons, represented the voice of the agricultural interests generally. Now, in answer to that lie had only to refer the Noble Lord to the resolution that had been passed by the Cham ber of Commerce at Glasgow. That resolution was passed in January of the present year, and was to the effect that the abolition of the Corn-laws would be impolitic and unwise. Lord BROUGHAM could not but think that the re solution to which the Noble Duke had referred, was ,no thing but a hoax. It might be the draft of an intended resolution, but it never could be said that it was a resolu- tiun that had been adopted. The Duke of RICHMOND believed the resolution to be what he had stated. He did not object to an alteration in the Corn-laws, provided at the same time other taxes were removed which would enable the people of this country to compete with foreigners. TURKEY AND EGYPT. Lord BROUGHAM said, the British Government had interfered to prevent hostilities between the Sultan of Tur key and the Governor—the real Monarch—of Egypt, Mehemet, who had steadily preserved a p- seeable line of conduct, having directed his whole attention to the internal administration of his kingdom, established a de partment of public instruction—an example which he (Lord Brougham) wished was followed nearer home— ( Hear)—and abolished the slave trade, which had formerly prevailed to a great extent in his country. The Porte, however, from accounts which he (Lord Brougham) had receiwed, had lately made very extensive military pre parations; end he wished to hear what course the Government intended to adopt to preserve peace in the East. Lord MELBOURNE said it was 'the anxious desire of the Government, in connection with its allies, to prevent hostilities between the Porte and the present ruler of Egypt—( H.-ar, hear)—and both powers had till now complied with that desire.—( Hear.) As to the representa tions of the Noble Lord (Brougham) he believed them to be either wholly untrue or greatly exaggerated. But the Government would do all in its power to preserve peace in that part of the East.—( Hear.) Lord BROUGHAM said the answer was perfectly sa- tisfactory, and expressed his high opinion of the States manlike qualities of Mehemet. CANADA.--MR. MACKENZIE AND LORD RIPON. The Earl of RIPON, in moving for certain communi cations which had passed between the Colonial-office, in 1832, (when he was at the head of that Department,) and Mr. Mackenzie, said he was induced to make this motion in consequence of various injurious mis-statements which ap peared in the 7th Report of the Committee of grievances of the House of Assembly, Upper Canada. The Noble Earl entered at some length into a vindication of his conduct with regard to Mackenzie, stating that he had consented to receive him as the bearer of petitions from thousands of the Canadian people ; but had expressly declined to recognize him in any authorised capacity. The Noble Earl represented Mackenzie as a very shallow-headed person, and seemed exceedingly desirous of having it understood that he had not fostered and encouraged a person who was now an ad mitted traitor. The Marquis of NORM AN B Y had no objection to the production of the papers, and perfectly believed the Noble Earl's representations. At the same time the Noble Mar quis took that opportunity of protesting most emphatically against the publication of official documents, relating to the Department over which he had the honour to preside. CORN-LAWS. Petitions were presented by several Noble Lords in favour of the Corti-laws ; among others, by Lord Redcs dale, from the agriculturists of Epsom, Surrey. Their Lordships Adjourned at HALF-PAST Six, till Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mixer 12. The Gallery was opened at the usual hour, Mr. Chris topher declining to persevere in his 'notion for a Call of the House. Mr. EWART took the oaths and his seat for Wigan. ARBROATH HARBOUR. The Arbroath Harbour Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Captain A L SAGER presented petitions in favour of the Corn-laws. SMALL DEBT BILLS. Mr. EVANS having moved the second reading of some small Debt Court Bill, Mr. HAWES gave notice that he should oppose the further proceeding on this or any other Bill until the Government measure had been brought in. On the motion of Mr. EATON, the Chick Inclosure Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. On the motion of Mr. PavME, the Cambridge Gaol Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. NORTH OF ENGLAND RAILWAY. Mr. PEASE moved for leave to bring in a Bill to ex tend the time for completing the works of the North of England Railway. Mr. L A MBTON wished to know how it had happened that in the North of England Railway Coaipanies had not completed the line from the Tees to the Tyne. He thought that some account should be given by the Hon. Member of that, as reports had got abroad injurious to the conduct and character of the Company. Mr. PE ASE said that a more Hon. Board did not exist than the Directors of the North of England Railway, but the truth was, that they had been crippled in ther finances. The Bill was allowed to be brought up. LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAILWAY. Mr. EGERTON moved the second reading of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway Extension Bill. Agreed to. DOVER, DEAL, AND SANDWICH ROAD BILL. On the motion of Sir E. KNATCHBULL, this Bill was read a second time CO . RN- L A W S. The SPEAKER said it would perhaps be convenient that Corn-law petitions be now presented.—( Hear.) Petitions were then presented in favour of the Corn laws, by the Earl of Lincoln ; by Mr. Hodges, East Kent; Mr. Kemble, from Surrey ; Mr. Eaton. twenty ; Sir J. Tyrell, seventy-three; Mr. Parker ; Mr. V. Stuart , Lord Eastnor; Mr. R. Hill, Salop, thirteen ; Lord Gt Lennox, three from Sussex ; Mr. Horn, Isle of Wight ; Mr. Christopher, Lincolnshire ; Mr. Fitzgibbon, Limerick; Col. Rushbrooke, several ; Mr. W. Benett ; Mr. 0. Gore. junior ; Mr. Hurt, several ; Lord Hotliam ; Mr. 0. Gore, from the Central Agricultural Association, representing above seventy provincial agricultural associa tions), Lord Grimston ( Hertfordshire), Colonel Lygon ( Worcester), Mr. Pease (Durham), Earl of Darlington ( Shropshire), Mr. Cripps (several), Sir C. Knightley (30), Mr. Darby, Lord Worsley, Mr. Palmer (Essex), Mr. W. Duncombe( North Riding, 20, and Doncaster and neighbour hood); Sir C. B. Vere (Suffolk, several petitions), Lord Henniker (Southwold, Suffolk), Mr. Fleming (Hants), Captain Gordon (Aberdeen, signed by 13,000 persons). Petitions were presented for the abolition of the Corn laws by Mr. Elliot, Mr. Lambtnn, (Gateshead); General Sharp, Mr. Collier, Mr. Chalmers, Mr. Brotherton, ( Lancashire); Captain Berkeley, (Bristol); Mr. Pease, (Darlington); Mr. M. Phillips, Mr. D. W. Harvey, (Essex —representing the Corn-laws as the fru t of exclusive Legislation); Sir G. Strickland, ( Yorkshire); Mr. W. Roche, Mr. Hume, (one from the Coffee house ;Keepers —one from the county of Berwick). Petitions were presented against any alteration in the Corn-laws by Mr. Barnaby from places in the county of Hereford ; by Mr. Sandford and by Sir Charles Burrell from various places. Petitions were presented, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws, by Mr. Ewart, from various places in the West Riding of Yorkshire ; by Lord Mor. peth from the West Riding of Yorkshire ; by Mr. T. Duncombe, from the county of Middlesex ; by Mr. Villiers, t f w ro o m ot N h o e r r th p a l rn ac p e t s o ; n, b f y ron l i r. Fr G o r tn o e te , , ii f i ro S m om o e x r . . -.ersons. It being Five o'clock, setshire, wicthorotl-Ileawpsr_e aaked ‘,hether the House would go for T d, h s e ig s n i e , d E b it y K l E , ,; k 7 : l s o e n nta w ti i o ti i i i (Loud cries of " the Corn-iaXg. the Corn-laws." the regular repgeutiltaiornlosusrieTts'i.,,,,:r t 0 0 0 on with A great number of Me mbers crowded toget.t:fir to the table, and presented several p etitions, but without stating their prayer.) LORD LIEUTENANT OF IRELAND. Mr. HUME gave notice that, on Monday next, on the Order of the Day being read for the House going into Committee of Supply, it was his intention to bring for ward his motion relative to the abolition of the office of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Sir EDWARD RICE postponed the motion of which he had given notice, for an inquiry into the state of the harbours on the South-Eastern Coast, till that d4y week. Mr. HAWES postponed the motion of which he had given notice, to call the attention of the House to the pe tition of David Jones, till that day fortnight. ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES. Sir THOMAS ACL AND suggested to tke Noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, the yropriety of postponing the Ecclesiastical afterDu and Revenues Bill, which stood for Monday nekt, !ill the Easter recess. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was most anxious to THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 13, 1839. have the measure carried brought that 'louse before the acii,urnment took place. The dropped notices of motion were then called over for the purpose of being replaced on the hook. RAILWAYS (IRELAND). Viscount CASTLE REAG wished to ask what course the Governau.Aat intended to pursue with respect to the proposed plan of Irish Railways ? L.rd MORPETH said he intended to brkg up the resolutions adopted by the House of Commons en the ear liest day after Eas . e-. SUNDAY DELIVERY OF LETTERS. Sir ROBERT INGLIS, seeity , the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place wished to ask him a ques- tion respecting a mexiorial presented by 1,600 solicitors against the proposed plan of opening the Post.office on Sundays. As the receipt of that memorial had not been acknowledged, the memorialists were anxious to have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the views of the Government on the subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that no disrespect towards the memorialists had been intended by not aeknowl, , dging the receipt of it. With respect to any intention on the part of the Govern ment of opening the Post-offiee on Sundays, there was not the slightest p , issible shadow of a ground for supposing th'tt they had ever entertained the idea of opening the Post office for the receipt and delivery of letters oil Sundays. But with respect to delivering letters to those parties who might apply for them, that was a question that might be entertained without at all infring ing on the due observance of the Sabbath.—( Hear.) DISTRICT SESSIONS BILL. Mr. P AKING TON wished to know whether it was the intention of the Noble Lord to press the above Bill to a second reading before the Magistrates had an oppor tunity of discussing its merits at the ensuing Quarter Sessions. Lord J. RUSSELL said it was not his intention to press the Bill before Easter, but he would take an early day of asking for its second readily,- after Easter. CORN-LAWS. Mr. P. THOMSON preseOted ;petition from Man chester numerously signed against the existing system of Corn-laws. Mr. VILLIERS then rose, and silence having been restored, he proceeded to say—Sir, it is in pur suance of that course which I ventured to suggest in the early part of the Session, that it would be convenient to discuss the subject of the Corn laws, that I now rise to bring under the consideration of the House those more general consequences of the law, which upon the last occasion were kept out of sight. Certainly, Sir, I do consider that it is far mere preferable to judge a measure • by its general ef. fects than by what may be deemed its special or particular effects ; and more particularly, Sir, is it necessary in this case, because it is impossible to do justice to the subject without taking the most comprehen sive view of it. Still, Sir, lam decidedly of opinion, that any law which is alleged to be prejudicial to the manu facturing or mercantile interest of this country, is well worthy of being the subject of distinct deliberation in this House; and notwithstanding the aspersions which have been cast on the manufacturing interests of this country, for their impatience, for their want of feelings, still, Sir, I cannot but think that they have taken the 'Hover steps ; in my opinion they have pursued the only proper course. In my opinion, Sir, they have not only pursued a course which was reasonable and becoming in them to do, but whether as regards the present or the future prospects of this question, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that their course has been the most judicious that could have been pursued.—( Hear. ) But, Sir, I have only to regret that those who openly op pose this question, do so far forget what is generally ex pected in this House, that you should hear before you decide.—( Hear, hear.) But the manner in which this question is proposed for discussion this night, will clic t upon what grounds it was that the House thought it ex pedient to refuse to hear the information that was ten dered, and whether it was that that information was possessed, and needed not to be sought, or whether that information was in dispute, and it was thought wise so to leave it. Sir, the manner in which the question now comes before the House will open the widest field for the display of all the intelligence that can be brought into its discussion, and there will be this advan tage (I fear it may be the only one), that it will at least allow the country to know upon what ground it is that the majority of this House and the legislature of this country do intend to maintain these laws, against the feelings and the wishes of the community. —( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, I am glad to observe, moreover, the eager ness which our opponents manifest for the discussion. There is one that is so anxious to be heard that be has not only proposed to negative my motion, but he has recorded his aguments Mono- with his notice ; and it is one of so bold a character that b I own I feel curious to hear him ex plain its policy.—( Hear.) I hope, Sir, that upon this oc casion also we shall hear chose more general views taken of this subject, that we are reproved on this side for not having taken ; and that when we are told that this is not only an economical question, but one that is far wider, I trust that we shall hear what are more political, social, and moral considerations, which can justify the support of such a law.—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") Ido not deny that the question will be so regarded, and most certainly I shall not shrink from so regarding it, because I be lieve that the more extensively this question is viewed, the more minutely its consequences are examined, the less will persons be left in doubt as to its policy or its tendency. —(Hear, hear.) But still, Sir, lam of opinion, that this is a very simple question, and it is as simple as many of those questions that have been already decided in this country. It appears to me, to resemble such a question as that of personal liberty, or as freedom of opinion. There seems to be even less difficulty to decide it, and it seems a matter of surprise that it should be left to this day to decide a question so little difficult as this seems to, be. It really appears astonishing to me, that we should be in this period of our history, gravely discussing whether a free, industrious, and commercial people should have the right to exercise their calling in any manner they pleased—that they should hare the liberty to carry on their trade in any man• ner that should be most profitable to themselves and advan tageous to the State, or whether they shall be allowed the liberty of obtaining the subsistence which they require at the least cost to themselves and the best advantage to the coun try. It is difficult, I say, to conceive that we are at this period discussing a question of that kind, and it will ba a curious sign of the intelligence and integrity of this House, that it shall be found that one Member, who deemed it important to move that it is the privilege of the people to exercise their industry with perfect liberty, and that another Member of this House (and perhaps the more successful one) should have moved that it is important that the people should be restricted in the exercise of that liberty, and that the law which had limited the amount and raised the price of hu man subsistence, had worked well for the interests of the country. Sir, if it occurred to the Noble Lord to think that we must slumber pending an inquiry into the consequences of such a law, it seems to me to be no stretch of the imagi nation to suppose that those who resisted the motion which is to be made to-night should heartily laugh when they went forth to a derision at the imbecility and ignorance of the people who could subunit to such a law as the present.—( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, not to expose myself again to the charge of arguing this question upon too narrow a ground, and as it seems, by the author of the amendment to be proposed, that we should consider its import upon the productive industry of this country,it does not seem to me inappropriate that I should at once proceed to consider this question in its effects upon the most numerous and important class of the com munity, and that class I consider to be the working class, for upon their condition and upon their content ment must the stability of the whole social fabric depend. And here, Sir, I contend that I and the author of the amendment, are directly at issue, for al though his language is not quite so plain as that I should be disposed to use, I conclude that when he uses the term of productive industry, he means only what I mean—he means only those persons who labour in the business of production.—(Cries of Hear, hear.) And here I would suggest to the Hon. Member that he should be as clear and explicit in the language be may pos sibly can ; because, although nothing new can be alleged cm this subject, whether in the shape of fact or argument, that that has not been already heard, there is this new, use as he and I expect that no fact, or argument, closely and stated in the discussion that will not be so the attention of the public is directs o n u w b i . l e l c b t e ; severely examined by those who are the intention of the Hon. Member to move, and which I understandtiiese laws—thatt h nowdortoo interested pinei e m t e h n e d mleanwt whose h ten have ni I s t u a b v j e e c r read, d , N i is that if dency is to increase the price o f p beneficial to the working - clas ses of this country.rovisions, has been I will venture to say that a proposition more contradictory to whatever has been proved by experience, as well as to what is expedient and right, has never before to been pro- Hon. Gentleman , a nd those with whom he acts u p on t hi s mulgated. In the fi rst p lace, Hon. I w ven tell the facilitate the production, whatever tends to question, that I will lay down as a principle that an increase in the amount of . all o bjects of necessary other articles of increases the wealth . country—increases the es the consumption, confers a blessing on the community means of consumption —increases demands of labour, i s `nothingt e article of fuod, that and improves the condition ginvhy member of the commu it from can possibly distinguishnotwithstanding the a consumption, and •ed by the rguments that have been generally I will Hon. Member and nity. Tlnere the party with whom he venturebaecdsi;coveredfor to tell him that if any means could ifthepresent methodincreasing the produce of the land, anyof cultivation admitted of any improvement, it :h method f could be in troduced to increase the produce s the land and to dispense with the i__ of cultivators, I tell the Hon • °usable Member or of labourers — hat they would instantly resort to and his party, t ell to scorn any persons those means, and lau t ,who should for the venture to tell them that purpose of protecting the to forego a these adv labourers they "ghtunderstand the Hon antages,_ ( Hear, hear.) It I ember right, these laws • he resists the repeal of , on the ground of crated for the advantage of the these laws having operated , wouel propose to productive classes•. divide the into two divisions ; the first division, productive classes the production of food, an d those employed in the last, production of other articles; and I those employed in the P n r at it is utterly teit tine lion. Nlernber t, impossible for him high price of food ever has to prove that the been, or ies reeve to tilt, agricultural ever can be, of 4( r‘,-= . itural p0pu 1ati0n.......( tion to lation.--( Hear.) NT; el y /lon. the Gentlemen 9Pinion on this subject which is entertsin 'u the opposite, I will ask the House to consider result of the inquiry set on foot by the Poor-11 toCommissioners.in. Those gentlemen, who were empl:c d Poor•lavweetigate and inquire '°.tti-1 the operation of toe r whic. prior to its aboli tion,s trace all ttie OPPP"'T , • ou..s. l ) , the country then suffered, which had reduce ton t • 1 . ) • tee to 140 to a state more degraded than that of the negro_ slave—( Cheers).— they refer all this pauperism, I say .veto the high and the low pr of labour. PYic^c• provisions e"r" W a s !Ir een,-n-ent tea that in 1705and170, when i ke price of • • provisions rose to a great height, that they first resorted to the plan of payitig labourers out of the rates,' for the pur •of pose ofthe escaping the increase of wages that would be the result ;_ from that time to the time of peace, the prices of provisions were extremely high, and during that time the condition of the agricultural labourer was far worse, and was greatly deteriorated—it was far worse before that time and since, showing therefore that when the price of provisions was high the condition of the labourer was bad. The result of the high price of provisions was, to cause a greater number of labourers in the market, and therefore an increase of the costs of their support. The next point that I will advert to for the purpose of proving that the agricul tural labourer is badly off when provisions are high is, be cause it is the moment when their employers extract from them a greater amount of labour than at any other time. It is notorious to every person residing in the country that this is the case, that whenever the price of food is high, you find a greater number of labourers are unemployed, and you make better terms with them than at any other time. Ido not state this ex actly upon my own authority, but I will quote the evidence given before a Committee of this House. I allude, Sir, to the evidence of a Gentleman of the name of AI ;lite, who stated, that wishing to enclose a farm at the latter end of the year of 1812, he sent for his bailiff; he stated to him that some years back he had enclosed a farm, and that the cost of thet en closure was 3s. an acre. Ile also stated that a neighbour of his some time afterwards had enclosed a farm at ss. an acre, and upon asking him what he thought a farm could be enclosed for at that time, he stated that, as provisions were high and labour cheap, it could be enclosed at 2s. an acre. I told him that I had proposed the same plan for another farm, but which I intended to postpone from the circum stance of not being in possession of the whole farm. He re quested that I would allow him to do it that season, as he could do it cheaper, and that a great many labourers were idle from having little work, in consequence of those employed doing double work. I requested him to go on, and he contracted at 6d. per acre, what I do not think I could have done for Is. 6d. an acre, in consequence of the fall of provisions." Now that is the evidence of a person before a Committee of this House, who was called upon to give evidence as to the state of agricultural labourers. I have made inquiries at the places, and I find the evidence correspond with the fact, that when provisions are high, there is a greater number of labourers unemployed ; and it is always pos sible to extract from them a higher amount of labour.— ( Hear, hear, hear. ) But this is termed a labourer's ques tion, and it is said that if the Corn-laws were repealed, a great number of labourers would be thrown out of employ ment. This seems to imply that the Corn-laws arc ne cessary for retaining agricultural labourers. I say that the Corn-laws have not that effect—that the Corn-laws do not secure employment to the labourer, and that it is an accident that any labourer is not rendered destitute under existing circumstances.—(Cries of " Hear. hear.") Now, Sir, since the Poor-law has been in operation, upwards of 6,000 families have been assisted to remove from agri cultural districts to towns and manufacturing districts, be cause they were unable to find labour in their own county. Upwards of 7,000 persons have got into towns and manufactories, and those families have done well. There has also been annually during the last ten or fifteen years an emigration from this country to the agricultural parts of our provinces in North America. This, I think, shows that the Corn-laws as they exist do not secure to the agricultural labourer a constant and regular employment, for the worst that could happen to those labourers, if land were cast out of cultivation, would be that they would be deprived of employment, and it appears that when that is the case the labourers are ac customed to look to the manufactories, and to the prospe rity of the manufacturing districts for employment. Neither do the Corn-laws secure employment to the labourer, nor do they secure content to the labourer ; for it seems that since these Corn-laws have been actually in operation the agricultural labourers have been more dissatisfied ; and there has been more disaffection among that class than ver prevailed at any previous time —( Hear, hear) — and we find that not only where they pauperise by the cir cumstance of the high prices, but the effect of their being pauperised, was found to render them mose dis contented, and to excite a worse feeling towards their employers in 1830, than had ever been known before. In 1830, these Corn-laws which are said to be a protection to productive industry, hal been 15 years in oper ation, and I venture to say that in no period of our history w ere the labourers found to be more wretched or more disaffected. Sir, but it is said that these lands are kept in cultivation by means of the Corn-laws, and so give employment to the labourers ; but I want to know upon what princi ple it is that you are to keep those lands in cultiva tion for such a purpose, at an acknowledged expense to the corm - nullity ? Why not apply the same principle to the working of machinery? You threw many labourers out of employment by the introduction of your threshing machines, why not forego the advantage of machinery in order to give employment to the labourers? Can you point out one single instance where you have foregone the advantages of your machinery ? yet can any one doubt for one moment that that machinery has thrown many labourers out of em ployment? I ask, then, upon what principle should we keep those lands in cultivation for the benefit, the nominal benefit, of the labourer ? So much, Sir, for the advantage of the law in giving protection to one class of what is called productive industry. Sir, I have tables here, showing the wages of the labouring classes during two years previous to these Corn-laws being enacted, and two years subse quently. In 1829 the average price of wheat was forty-three shillings. The wages of cotton-spinners then averaged 31 s. 6d., and he was enabled to command twenty-three pecks of wheat. In 1828, the average price was GOs., the wages averaged 345., and the cotton-spinner was then enabled to command only eighteen pecks. Teo sticking-makers of Leicester, when the wheat averaged 435., were able to command eight pecks, while it was at 605., they were able to command only four. The wages of printers, compositors, and that class, did not seam to vary much—their wages were 365. at each period, while the wheat averaged 435., they were able to com mand 27 pecks ; while in 1828, and when wheat ave raged 603., they could only _command nineteen pecks. Since the present Corn - laws were passed, in 1831 the average price of wheat was 665., in 1835 the average was 395. The cotton-spinners in the dear year were enabled to command 15 pecks, and in the cheap year 23 pecks. When the price of wheat was at 665. the poor hand-loom weavers were able to command only two pecks of wheat, while the price averaged 395. he was enabled to command four pecks.— ( Hear, hear.) The labourer obtained when wheat was 665. four pecks, and when 31)s. six pecks—the printer at 665. obtained 17, and when at 395. obtained 28. Now this is the law that gives protection to productive industry, and which by maintaining the high price of provisions, places the working classes in a better position. These are the direct effects. But what are we to say for a law whose claim it is to protect industry, when we consider the indirect effect on the manufacturing class. Why, what is the ground on which protection is claimed, according to the author of the amendment? It is that the productive classes are not able to compete with the cheap and light-taxed living of other countries. Why, Sir, that is the very case of the artisan and the manufacturers, they say that they cannot compete with the cheaper-living and lighter-taxed artisans of the Continent, and they ask you to give them the protection of cheap living here, in order that they may compete with their neighbours abroad.—(Hear, hear, hear.) They are employed by a foreign em ployer, who does not care in what country ha gets his work done—he cares not whether in England, or in Switzerland, or in Belgium, but he looks to what country he can get the work done at the cheapest rate. He finds that the artisans in Switzerland can pro duce cheaper than the English artisan because they live cheaper.—( Hear.) What interest then can he have to employ the English unless the English manufacturer produces as cheap ? Therefore the English manufacturer tells you to put him on the same footing with the foreign artisan, and there is this difference between your claim for protection and his, that he does not ask you to pass a law to make bread cheap, but to repeal the law which you have passed to make bread dear.--( Hear, hear.) His case is, that lie cannot compete with the lightly taxed manufsc turer abroad, and that lie cannot do so because you have taxed his food, and when you claim protection because you cannot compete with the foreign grower, who is more light ly taxed than yourselves—upon what ground do you suppose he can compete with the foreign manufacturer any more than yourselves ?—( Hear, hear.) 1 ask if that is justice to the English manufacturer ? Th e diff erence between hint and the foreigner is this, that one is obliged to pay dearly for his food, and the other cheaply ; and his diffi culty is in competing with the foreigner who lives thus cheap. And you claim that protection of your inte rest, because you say you cannot compete with the foreign grower, who is so lightly taxed. Now, I ask what pretext there is for your protection, that is not as good for that of the manufacturers? I will not refer again to those details of foreign competition, that I mentioned on a former occasion, because it seemed to be admitted that this competition did exist and must continue. But every year the English manufacturer is called upon to produce an article which he has been in the habit of producing at a lower cost than he ever produced it before, and the merchant and factor who received orders from the foreigner, received also a di rection that if he cannot execute their orders at a certain price he is not to execute them. 'Why, then, he has no alternative but that of executing at a lower price, or not executing them at all, and he is obliged constantly to sug gest to his workmen that they must work at lower wages or not work at all. Now this has been going on constantly for the last five or six years in this country, and it has already had the effect of throwing vast numbers of our manufacturers and artisans out of employ.--( Hear, hear.) I say that competition does exist, and you must consider that the circumstances of other countries are changed, and that you cannot retain the monopoly you have hitherto en joyed. I want to know whether you can expect that if fo reign manufacturers produce more cheaply in consequence of their cheaper living, that you can retain the manufactures by which you have given employment and occupation to your artisans. Sir, lam aware of the argument which has been ' advanced by some of the supporters of the Corn- laws, that what the manufacturer must depend upon is not the foreign but the home trade, and that the Corn-laws improve the home-trade by creating customers. Sir, I don't deny that the home-trade is beneficial to the home manufacturer, but that is nay case.—( Hear, hear.) I wish to put the home con sumer in the best possible position, and thereby enable him to consume as much as he can, and I say that the cheaper he can procure subsistence, the more he has to spend for ma nufactures, and that you are by the operation of these Corn- laws seriously diminishing the means of the home con sumer for the benefit of the landlord. Sir, I know that it is not usual in discussions upon this question to put very prominently forward the ease attic labourers, and it is new perhaps to this Session to hear that this is a labourer's question.--( Hear, hear.) lam perfectly aware that there is another class whose claim for protection has been WU sually put forward as a defence of the Corn-laws—l am perfectly aware of the claims that have always been put forth on these occasions in behalf of what is called the British farrner-7the Elnglish grower. Now, Sir, I really hope that the case of the British farmer will ree , - till thi s occasion very clear and eon:sideration ; be cause I am well aware that that valuable class of eapitalit's are under some delusion on this subject.— ( Cheers and laughter.) But lam perfectly aware that they are vigilant on this occasion —that their atteetion has been roused to the subje ct, and I think it likely that they will attend to the discussion which takes place on this occasion. Sir, I think that they will expect some thing more on this occasion than vague decarna.tions about their importance, or exaggerated statements of their dis tress; for they are to hear to-night that the Corn-laws have protected their interests, and they will hear on the other side that the Corn-laws certainly have not protected them from distress—that they are not benefited by the Corn laws, but on the contrary, that they hare occasioned distress. Sir, I wish the whole discussion would turn on the interests of the farmers, because it is the only plausible plea, in my opinion, for supporting the present system. I am very anxious not to be in error in anything I may state with re ference to this part of the subj ect, and I hope I shall be corrected if wrong ; but I want to know if the farmer is anything but a person who, having a certain property, wishes to employ his capital in the cultivation of land ; and whether he does not go to the owner of the land in the same spirit, and for the same purpose, as any merchant or owner of a vessel, or person engaged in trade, might go to borrow mon e y f or commercial purposes ? Can there be any doubt that the price for which he is able to obtain the land must he determined by the value of the produce of that land "s The capitalist on his side will not allow him to ob tain more than an average rate of profit, and the owner of the land, aware that there are other capitalists to compete for it, will nut allow him to have the land at less than a cer tain rate. If a law should be passed to fix the produce of land at 80z. or 645. an acre, and that the person who takes the land expects that price for its produce, it cannot be de nied that he will fail to produce that amount in all circum stances. Then it is said that there are certain local charges which press upon the industry of the farmer, and that it is necessary and just he should have protection. But these charges do not arise subsequently to his occupation of the land—they are known beforehand--they are the subject of precise estimate, and he is just as well acquainted with them as with the charges incident to the occupation of a house, and if he has not capital sufficient to cultivate the land and pay those charges, what interest can he have in it ? There fore he takes the land subject to all these charges, and if these charges are heavy, and the price of the prodnce of his land high, he requires a larger capital than he otherwise should. This is so evident that perhaps it will not be dis puted. But it maybe said that these charges place the agri culturists of this country under disadvantageous circum stances for competing with other countries. I will venture to state that the manner in which it has been proposed to indemnify them for these local charges has had the praeise effees of enhancing them. Why, look at the outgoings of the farmer? With the exception of relit there is hardly one of them which is not enhanced by increasing the price of provisions.—( Hear and cheers.) Look at the County rate, the Poor-ratc,the taxes on servants, the taxes on horses, the Assessed taxes; which of these is not increased by adding to the cost of provisi on s ?—( Hear, he ar .) If a ll these local charges are too high, his business is to go to the person from whom he took the land in order to abate the price. But it is clear that he has no interest in all these outgoings being higher than necessary. Perhaps it will be said that all these things may be true, and that the farmers have no interest in pa: , ing high charges. I have reason to expect from the nature of the amendment to he proposed here to-night, notwithstanding all these things, that either through the bounty of heaven, or the landlords, or some other circumstance which cannot be explained, that important class, the farmers of this country, have gone on well since the Corn-laws were introduced. It has often been contended that such was the crse, and that it was a thousand pities to disturb that which worked so well. if that be so, it will not be difficult to characterize some of the statements which have been made in this House in the present, and every other Session since the Corn-laws have passed. I myself have heard Members complain that they wanted language to convey an idea of the sufferings of the agriculturists, and the detail of their woes were the constant theme of discussion in this House. A Noble Duke, whose constant friendship to the farmers is matter of notoriety, has frequently brought forward this question, and I have heard him commence by regretting that he had to detail the same sad story which he so often previously had repeated, of agricultural dis tress. We have heard of the deplorable state to which they were reduced—we have heard of seizures and execu tions, and debt and imprisonments--of farmers becoming insolvent—of great arrears of rents, tithes, and poor-rates unpaid, of live stock lessened, and tradesmen's bills undis charged, and general poverty in the agricultural districts. —( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") Sir, I am quite con vinced that every Member here is perfectly familiar with similar language. Within the last 20 years there have been five Committees sitting on the unparalleled distress of the agriculturists. I have read some of these reports, and I find that in about four or five years after the first Corn- Law Bill had passed, the distress was referred to the Corn law itself. The Corn-law is there denounced as a mea sure calculated to ruin every person engaged in the trade of grain. It appeared that the distress increased in 1826, and at last the law was altered in 1828; but the same prin ciple- existed in the last as in the former law, and again we have distress in 1833 and 1936. Complaints were brought before this House and a Committee was appointed to inves tigate the cause, and on looking through these inquiries I find among them many details and much evidence of the sufferings of the farmers. But, Sir, what I was curious to ascertain was whether any great landowaer was called on this occasion to state that he was suffering from distress. I looked in rain for any evidence of that sort. We have a goad many questions asked the farmers as to whether they don't think that there would soon be nothing left to pay the rents, and s good deal of evidence that rent was paid out of the capital, but I don't see that the landlords were giving up their horses or their establishments, or lowering their rents, or going to the Continent to retrench. I don't see any evidence of that at all. I have a decided inference to draw from this, and I wish the farmers to con sider whether it is not the delusive promise of these Corn laws themselves, that have occasioned their ruin and that distress. The Corn-laws professed to fix the price which is to remunerate the farmer. In 1815, the farmer got 80s. a quarter for his wheat, and trusting in what the House of Commons did, he was perfectly ready to give rent for the laud, with reference to that price. The law promised a certain price for the produce of the land, but how far does the low realise these expectations ? Four years after the law promised eighty shillings a quarter for the wheat, it was selling for thirty-seven shillings, but the farmer had contracted with the landlord to give a rent ac cording to the promise of the law. Then the farmer finds himself deceived and destroyed ; then he tells his tale of paying rent out of capital, and then the landlord, who gets all the benefit of these laws, and who has from the farmer a legal undertaking that he shall pay rent on the promise of 803. a quarter, tells him " go to the House and get a Committee to inquire into your distress, and we will come down and detail your distresses to the House, and we will obtain for you the advantage of a Committee." That is the history of some of these Committees of Inquiry. Now I say that the same principle which was introduced into the first law is still in existence. It is not 80s. now, but 645., and the law of 1828 still promised the farmer 645. a quarter, and I find in the evidence given before a Committee of the House of Lords in 1830 that the same farmers say, " iF we were aware of what has happened, we never would have made such an engagement as we have done ; we expected that wheat would have con tinued at 645. a quarter, when we took our farms in 1828; but 1832 and 1633 came, and we found that wheat fell some 30 or 40 per cent. ; we were unable to meet our en gagements, and then our ruin began." This is exactly the consequence of these laws. You make these farmers en gage in certain expenses—you make them prepare for cer tain large outgoings—you prophecy that they will have a highs price for their produce, and then they find themselves disappointed, and you find them ruined. They pay a rent according to a price which was promised them, and it is at tempted to introduce a priniiple which you neither can nor dare enforce—which both ruins the farmer and angers the people. You profess to regulate the price by these laws, and you cannot regulate it but by limiting the quantity, and that you dare not do.—(Cheers.) You tantalize the people with food which they dare not touch, and you tan talize the farmer by telling him that foreign corn shall not be introduced into this country. Then comes the accident of a bad season, which is no advantage to the farmer, although the price rises. His crops are short, but the price being raised, you are compelled to let in a quantity of foreign grain, produced at a much less cost than the home producer can send it to market. You sink the price at home, and the farmer, who has incurred all the expenses of this system, finds himself ruined by the fall which has taken place.--( Hear, hear,) Then, if there happens to be a bad season abroad as well as at home, the farmer finds a general clamour against these laws—they are denounced in every town where the people can assemble —he feels uncertain whether these laws will remain, and he knows not what engagements he can enter into. And these are time persons for whose benefit you say these laws are made—these are the persons for whom you say these laws have been called into existence. He finds himself selling his produce one year at 120 s. a quarter, amidst the curses of the people, and a few years afterwards ho is obliged to sell at 375. a quarter, and perhaps it is the officer of the sheriff who is selling it to pay his rent. Within the last four years of these improved laws we find a fluctuation of 100 percent. in the price of corn, and you admit that a steady price was, above all things, what you sought for, and yet this is in the face of the experience of a system under which you impose the nominal duty of 6d. per quarter on foreign grain ; when time ports were open from 1773 to 17til, and when there was less fluctuation in the price, more agricultural improvement going on—no complaints of dis tress and general contentment among the labouring popu lation. Sir, I really pity the farmer—l feel for him as one of the industrious and productive classes, who wastes his labour in fruitless efforts ; and I lament to see him the vic tim of the present system of Corn-laws. Sir, the farmers are men of peculiar habits and feelings, and I cannot help thinking that they have been practised upon.—( Hear, and cries of "Oh 0 They are strongly attached to the sail and locality on which their forefathers lived—they are men of little education—( Cries of " Oh I" mid laughter)—and they are not what is usually termed men of business.— ( Hear, and renewed laughter.) They feel themselves helpless when engaging in any other occupation, and they are unwilling to leave the place which gives them bread. The consequence is that they are ready and willing to make engagements which prudence does not justify, and they are always ready to agree to the terms which the land lord proposes.—( Loud laughter.) I cannot help feeling that is the struggle which is going on between the farmers and the landlords, the former being anxious to retain occu pation, and the latter desirous of taxing the farmer be yond his ability. I know that this is what has taken place of late years—the landlord exacting too much rent, and the farmer being anxious to retain his land. He is anxious to retain his land—he expects some redress from the Legislature—he hopes that things may turn out better --he is deluded by various circumstances, and he under takes to do what he cannot fuliil. Sir, lam not speaking vs'•.hout book in these matters-_I am repealing almost the v ery aekitiments expressed to me by farmers themselves. know well what farmers say_tl• land were an raised they Iv; :".'s then the prices of would , ants corresponding benefit. It retie to talk of much land going out of cultiva tion by a repeal of the Corn-laws, when we know that all rent must cease before the land can be permitted to go out of cultivation. And though it is plain that a tenant at will in arrear will not express his free opinion, yet it is certain that the farmers arc becoming every day more enlightened respec tin g t h connexion of their interests with this ques tion, and it will Er - r.. ED Frit) not be long, lam certain, before we hear from them that I they will have nothing to do with those laws whi ch have no other practical object than that of raising the value of land. I inn aware, Sir, that this is the only plea for this 111 law, and I have, therefore, dwelt upon it at greater length that I should otherwise have done. But I believe that I need make no apology for dwelling in detail upon any pert of a question, every view of which must be regarded as of paramount importance to the community at large. _( Hear, hear. ) Indeed it would seem to me to be almost humiliat ing if we should find it necessary now to discuss the ques tion whether or not it would be advantageous to the corn munity at large to have the prime article of the consump tion of life cheap or dear?—( Hear, hear.) And really it must be as clear as that to-morrow's sun wil! rise that if the interest of those whose object it is to maintain high prices were not very powerful, the proposition itself would be met with scorn. Indeed if it were not for the great interest one part of the community feel regarding the ques tion, and the ignorance of another, it would net be necessary to enter into a discussion. Now, I shall say a few words respecting the operations of the present law upon the community at large. I find in the observations of those who say that if a change were to be made in the law, vast loss could not be averted on their side—l - snal in this assertion evidence that the expense of the present system is now borne by the community at lergss.—(Hear, 1 1 hear.) Does not the assertion of those interested in L maintaining the present law, who say that if the prices of foreign wheat be reduced they must lose, prove that the public now suffers the difference between their profit and loss ?—( Hear, hear.) Why, Sir, upon the very lowest cal culation which I can come to, illustrative of the expense which the Corn-laws now entail upon the public at large, I find our aggregate loss to be not less than 10,000,0001. a year. But if you take the statements of those who oppose any alteration in the pre. sent law, it will be found much larger—fearful, therefore, that they may be exaggerated, I shall not quote it. Taking however, the very lowest quotation, it seems that the Corn-laws, as they now stand, cost the country 10,000,000/. at least.—(Hear, hear.) Noe- a lAx of 10,000,00 C/. a year is equal to a pe sasax of 8s- a• head upon each individual, or :.• eemunts to 21. a year upon eh l family. dbe ooz T t h o i a the . e it,.a, value e t h of a a larg e i the'lsaslsaboofurlabourerslab year : or taking his average number of hours per day at ten, the amount which would be sacrificed in consequence of the Corn-laws would be three-quarters of an hour per day. But this is only the effect of the duty on wheat. In many parts of the country oats are more important than wheat. I therefore confine my specific calculation of loss to the community upon the returns of the number of quarters e f wheat consumed every year, and now beg leave to direct the attention of the House to the influence of the Corn laws upon local and general taxation. lam particularly desirous to do so, because the effect is not generally con sidered by the public with respect to local taxation. I will take, for example, the Poor-rates. Now, in those Unions already under the operation of the Poor-law Amendment Act, the sum of 8,0001. a week is paid for flour. Now, if it be shown that in this weekly expenditure of 8,0001. there is double as much paid for flour as there ought to be, is it not clear that under this head alone there is half again as much as there ought to be taken out of the poor-rates ? And if the Guardians of the Poor could purchase the wheat at the price at which it might now be deposited here from abroad, it is clear that half that sum would be saved to their respective unions. But the calculation does not end here. It is clear that what ever more than is necessary is taken from the Poor's-rates, is so much deducted from the wages of labour, because th., rate-payers are generally men who require labour.—( Hear, hear.) It is therefore worth while to consider how much in each of these respective districts is, under the Corn-law system, taken out of the rates, which might otherwise go to the promotion of the objects of the Poor-law, or to the remuneration of labour. The annual amount of Poor_ rates is now about 4,500,0001., and therefore their effect forms no inconsiderable item in the expenditure of every man,—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") The inference for this part is, that this subject is a labourer's question as well as a rate-payer's question, and whenever we are called upon to pay the poor-rates, we ought to ask ourselves whether we must endure such heavy rates for the support of the poor or on account of the Corn-laws ?—( Hear,hear.) If we contribute for the relief of the poor, it will be mores . fying to find that their relief is so disproportioned to what it ought-to be ;if for the Corn-laws, we must upon a gene- ' ral consideration of the question admit that it is absurd and unjust to do so.—( Hear, hear.) I find that nearly 100,000/. a year are raised from the county rates for the support of county prisons. The rates upon land are in creased 40 per cent., by the cost of provisions. I Lunatic asylums and all of our other pubic institutions are affected by them ; in short, the benevo- I lence, the charity, and the usefulness of all our public esta- 1 blishments are limited in consequence of the high price of 1 of no t t l a i e departmentCern-lasys - appropvlyisitoonlso.t li effects oro i s of the public service to which they do not apply. The ' local taxation. manner,lndetdhe, expense of the Army, the Navy, and the Ordnance is more than 8,000,0001. a year. Now, all the contracts for these forces arc regulated by the price of provisions. In the Army the soldier is guaranteed by the Governmeot against paying more than 6d. for his bread. Who pays the difference? Why the people.—( Hear, hear.) Looking at the Miscellaneous Estimates, 1 find that they are a b ove ; 2,000,000/. a year. In short, there is not an item in the system of national finance into which the operation of the I, Corn-laws does not enter. One of their leading con se . f quences is, that they oppress the public with a greater t amount of taxation than is necessary fur the State. H, re it may be properly considered how many beneficial on- 1 jests may be accomplished by a reduction of the taxation, which in the aggregate is paid by the consn.:ner, acid which in the item of the Excise amounts to 1e,000,0001. a year. We have seen how anxiously the parties interested have solicited this House to take off the post-horse duties, Why ? Because the parties have been nearly ruined by the recent improvements which have taken place in our i t m i system of communioation, But the parties did not c ome k to solicit protection against the locomotive engin es , n:r to be indemnifi e d aga i ns t th e ra il r o a ds, but because th ey 1 than, , under they are obligedthe competition to pay m more for havethe neoe‘ tot of clei e i shier horsescin t e r, t p v h publicds 1 that bear tat 6 they can afford, But why h ave not t h ose duties been I revenueusethesuppose t u h l e d t d a i k m e i n n u t i o o li n ‘ . ? B ü ßec td a o you not consider all this? Do you not think that they culate that the present artificial price of food is the nuvr cat- why they pay more than is necessary for the public cause and that consequently they will not be more ai,c service, ontented J every year ?—( Hear, hear.) There are, moreover, private interests which would feel the operation of 't any in a most distressing manner; as, for instance, the this : ping interest, as any one connected with it can illustrate Besides the increase of the price of provisions consumed in ships which it produces, it deprives them of a very profit able business they would otherwise have in bringing f oe reign grain to our ports. I was at Ilamburgh about two months since, and I found that the difference in this in stance alone amounted to between 40 and 50 per cent. I found several vessels were loaded with flour for Newfoundland and other colonies of ours, and also that flour mills had been erected and completed in consequence of the rejection of the Bill of the Hon. Member for Dartmouth.— ( Hear, hear.) In considering how our enormous pub r lie debt is supported—a debt that is larger than that of all other countries together, including that of the ", • East India Company, I am told that the people tvlip I pay that debt are burdened with a third heavy charge, in order to enable them to sustain two others. These three burdens are—the public debt, the public service, i and the aristocracy.—(" Hear," and laughter.) Now,, , looking to the comparative resources from which the means t ofsupporting the two former burdens have been derived, I and seeing how great a portion of the money has been pro- I duced from eor manufactures, I conic to the conclusion that our resources would be much increased, if the Corn laws were repealed. Now that they exist, they do not add to our wealth ; and if they were repealed, they would not endanger the result of our public credit. I want to know how our public credit could have been maintained, or how our burdens could have been met, if it were not for our foreign trade? and as we have been enabled to contract that great debt, and to sustain the expenses of a war through our manufactures, so it is clear that we should be enabled to maintain our credit and discharge our debt through supplies from them. How do we raise 22,000,0001. in Customs' duties, but from the manufactures? Surely it is not from exporting the produce of the soil ? It is only raised from, our manufactures. Why, then, should you make light of those manufactures? 1 ! really believe but thk for the operation of the Corn-laws we might by this time have almost discharged the National Debt through the revenue from the manufacturers, if our commerce had been permitted to he as wide as it is powerful. Indeed, it requires such a scheme as the Corn laws to check us in our career of prosperity; and certainly the effect has been complete. The effect of the Corn_ laws is to lower the price of labour at home, and to enhance at the same time the price of food, while they act as a kind of premium to the foreign manufacturer ; and I am sa tisfied, if they be persevered in on the scale on which they have already commenced, that every year a greater amount of our capital and a larger number of artizans willrbtieiecoubie pelled to leave this country ; but lam sure that, if y repealed, that check will be removed which we i w r e E n . i ro. appre hend so much. It will promote a demand 3ro ' vfsi l o s n i s p- it duce by increasing the demand for foreign provisions; will at least take away the advantage that .isa superabundant abour now gives to the foreign competitor... It moat have still time enough to important consideration that we b;this rn correct the greatest error which country has ever co .. . mitted. It happens by singular coincidence that within two years those duties wh i c h now preclude . the importatio n of our manufactures into the north of ( Europe, The Germany, sail expire. parti es and the United S tates, to the Commercial League will assemble in 1841, an d no doubt if we in • the mean time should make arrangement s for receiving ' their timber and grain , no doubt they will draw up a tang' • favourable to the reception of our maim factures, which they now exclude. Again, if we repeal • l the Corn-laws, it will become an important con sideration with the United States whether they shall ems ploy their capital in agriculture, or persevere in manufac turing- against us as at present. Indeed the most impor tant advantages, political as well as commercial, w ill result from our uniting with the United States in the solid grounds—in the intercourse of neutral trade.—( Hear, hear.) in my opinion, no consideration is more important than that of extending our commercial relations with other countries._( H ear , hear.) I think it is impos sible for any man not to admit that it would be more rea sonable to expect peace, wealth, and prosperity from a friendly commercial intercourse with foreign nations, than by raising a powerful army or navy, or making trea. • ties or alliances.—( Hear, bear.) I cannot conceive a more • useful occupation for our Minister of Trade or Foreign Af. fairs, than to devote his attention to the means of extend ing those relations, not only for the purpose of increasinca ' our wealth, but also to allay those apprehensions as to the existence of peace, which have of late been so generally felt. As great alarm is now felt as to the disposit n Northern Powers, I think we could not h ave aon favourable opportunity of enlisting those Powers, especially Prussia, and 1 believe that if Prussia were induced by the hc , offers of a free trade from our Government enlist t o enli her- ! , self on our side, it would be as impossible for the other States to prevent that measure as it was f o r th e 13 ' nltse a 1 1 States to resist the institution of a tariff by South C aro - , 3 , r o_ (