The Sun. — London, England, 1844-06-27 00:00:00

• Triunity by the corn laws ? The corn-laws were a direct I interference with the freedom of trade—the freedom of ndustry ; and it was incumbent on those who main ained this interference to prove that the community wa; benetitted by restriction.—(Hear, hear.) The Iroi. 1 Gentleman had stated that the tonants themselves were the originators of the Pro-Corn-law Society. Coming from an agricultural county, he knew how easy it was to give a hint, through the steward, that the tenants were required to attend. on some particular day, on behalf of the interests of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He wanted to know who it was that represented the agricultural tabourer in the Agricultural Societies. When the Pro (Corn-law Society was formed, no one appeared to repre • sent him ; no one said, on his behalf, that it was for his advantage that security should be maintained. It was denied by the lion. Member for Lincolnshire that the declarations of the Right Honourable Gentleman at the head of the Government had had any effect on the value of land, or on the bargains between landlords and tenants. Why he himself had seen in the London papers, the other day, an adver tisement of the sale of e:eates by Mr. George Robins, in which one of the grounds stated why agriculturists hould come forward and give a large sum for them was, 'hat the Right Hon. Gentleman had deelarel Viet the orn-lawof 1841 was a final and irrevecable settlement of his great question. Did an eminent auctioneer want to tet less for an estate than it was worth ? He regretted those statements which disparaged the authority of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. .He regretted the disposition which was exhibited, to put forced interpretations on his declarations. As a friend to the English farmer—es one whose interest was bound up with that of the agricultural class, he complained of such an interpretation of tie Right Hon. Gentleman's statements. For what mot be the effect ? They were teaching them that the corn law protection was to he permanent, while at the same time. the Right Hon. Gentleman had never said that he cen templated the permanence either of the present or of any other corn-law,—(Hear, hear.) llis assertion was that at the present moment he did not contemplate a change, test he had no measure then to submit ; that was a very diiferent Thing from saying that,he contemplated the per manent maintenance of the protective principle. • For gentlemen to put that interpretation on his words was to strengthen the fatal error into which the agricul tural tenantry hal fallen, namely, that it was better to rely upon what Parliament could do for them than upon their own industry and enterprise. Gentlemen who slid this were not acting as the true friends of the farmer ; they were not promoting the real and permanent inte• rest even of the landed proprietors ; nor were they, in any way, advancing the true welfare of the community at large.—(llear, hear.) Now the Hon. Member for Lin colnshire said he felt conscious that the iucendiarism in Suffolk, arose from the deep-rooted discontent of the peo ple, and that that discontent arose from distress. He said that the farmers must pay the labourers better wages, the very expression showing that ha hal taken an erro neous view of the while question of wages. Why people could not pay what wages they pleased.—(Hear, hear.) It was not in the power of individuals to regu late wages. From the redundancy . of population, and the pressure on the means of existence, men would work for the smallest possible amount of wages upon which they could live. Let them consider whether there were not some causes arising from their legislation which produced this discontent and distress in a country which apparently had within itself all the resources of happiness and prosperity. It was remark able that incendiarism should prevail in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex, where protection was supposed to confer the greatest benefit—counties which were, to a great extent, grain-growing counties, and in which tht re were all those means and appliances in the greatest abundance which they were frequently told were essential to the morality and good conduct of the popu lation. There • were no counties in England in which the clergy so abounded. To such an extent did they abound, that if a gentleman's calling did not happen to be known, he was set down as a clergyman.— (Laughter.) Yet, notwithstanding these means and appliances for good, a system of the most awful crime twee-tiled ; for what, system could be more appalling than incendiarism ?—(flear, hear.) They had a right to ex pect that they should be allowed to live in their homes, without having their lives or property endangered. Ile denied the insinuation thrown out by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that this incendiarism might he the result of agitation in fa vour of the corn-laws.—(Hear.) Ile contended that that insinuation was unworthy of the Right Hon. Gentleman. lie defied him to produce the smallest atom of proof that any incitement to incendiarism had been thrown out by the opponents of protection. For one placard which had been circulated by the Anti-Corn-law League in the county of Suffolk, he ventured to say, that ten had been circulated by the Pro-Corn-law League.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord had laid down the doctrine that the less corn there was in the country, the greater would be the share of the labourer. Ile ventured to say that they would then find that during cheap years the wages of the labourer had not given him a greater command over the comforts and necessaries of life than he had in dear years. They would find that in the cheap years the labourer had had, it was in his power to obtain a larger quatitity of food than in the dear year.----(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentlemen, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, seemed to think that his llon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had no right to ask for an explanation of the grounds on which protection was based, those groan is being fully explained in Hansard's Debates. Now leo confessed that although he had read nearly all the speeches on this subject, he could not find one in which. 'the advantages of protection were clearly set forth. The Right Hon. Gentleman said they were visionary theorists and schemers, and that without proof of the disadvantages of the corn law, they were not entitled to call upon the Government to explain why it was maintained. Now he took a completely different view of that question. He maintained that those who maintained the corn-laws were the visionary schemers ; for they interfered with the natural course of things, they came forward with a subtle and refined scheme of ascending and descending duties for regulating the importation of corn, for makng mankind happy, and trade and agriculture prosperous. lie (Mr. M. Gibson) did not concur in these extreme opinions,. He preferred trusting to plain common sense, the natural course of events, and the operation of men's interests upon their actions, rather than to that visionary scheme which was maintained by the Government, but which he hoped would not long be maintained in this coun try The NoblelLord, the Member for theCityof London, held extreme opinions in favour of a moderate fixed duty; believing that that was the device for making trade flourish, and for promoting the improvement of agriculture and the happiness of society. To both the devices he preferred that mea should 1;o allowed to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market, believing that Providence had intended that as the means of securing general prosperity. He maintained that those were the visionary schemers who interfered with the natural freedom of industry. They had a right to call upon them to explain clearly and definitely what were the advantages which they conferred upon society by so subtle a scheme, and if they failed to prove those advan tages, they were entitled to ask for the total and imme diate repeal of the corn law. Now lie wished to know how the corn-law benefited that particular class with whom he was connected namely the manu facturers ? When a buyer went from the town of Norwich to Manchester to purchase a fall of goods for the purpose of retailing them in Nor folk, would he give anymore for them than a buyer from America ? If he would not what was the alsrantage conferred on the manufacturers by the corn-law ?-__ (Hear, hear.) But if he reversed the case ho found that the manufacturer had to give a great deal more for his wheat in Norfolk than he would have to give in New York•---(llear, hear.) This appeared to him to be a very odd kind of reciprocity. He defied the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire to show that he had any pro perty in the raw material, the machinery, or the labour which was employed in the production of a particular fabric ; and how could he say, then, that he was entitled to special protection as a landlord ? Could it be said that the proprietors of the land had any property in the industry of other men ?—(Hear, hear.) Could it be said that by any right, b uman or divine, they were entitled to deny to the manufacturers the freedom of industry which they demanded ?--(Cheers.) They came to this House on the tame grounds as the Dis senters had formerly come—to complain of disabilities.— They told the House that they could only live by the ex change of the products of their labour. They said that their trade was legitimate and proper, and the only call ing which they had to follow. But the Legislatures—not for revenue—not for State necessities—but for the in terests of a particular class—(Cheers)—prevented them from obtaining the advantages which Providence had placed within their reaches--(Hear, hear.) They did nut refuse to the aristocracy the enjoyment of their estates— whether they were held by inheritance or by purchase. They asked no more than that the aristocracy should be satisfied with their estates.—(Cheers.) The landlords had bought, or hat inherited their estates, but they had never bought or inherited any right over the industry of other men.—(Cheers.) The landlords were entitled to the full value of thetr estates, but they were not entitled to take the lamest slice from the lea'; of the poorest class of her Majesty a subjects. He called on the Paymaster of the Forces, after his long experience, to state what was the ground on which the - landholders of the country had a matter of right to interfere with the industry of others. When he (Mr. Gibson) was at Cambrid ge l ie read the works of Paley, as part of his academi e course. That great philoecipher said that every restraint was, i n itself, an evil, and that those who impose it should prove its advantages, and that it was not incumbent upon those who suffered from the restraint to prove that it was an evil. —(Hear, hear.) On that fground, he (Mr. Gibson) demanded ' the immediate abolition of this great evil and cruel restraint. The total and immediate abolition of the c em-laws was the only mode of settling the queStiell, for tiny other expedient will still leave uncertainty and doubt. And when they came to vested interests, he must inquire what was the nature of the possession ? It was an adverse possession, and ne time could give a title from an adverse possession.—(Hear, hear.) The law was passed by a Legislature of landlords.—(Tory cries of " Oh; oh !") Yes, it was a Legislature of land lords, for no man could b 3 a Member of the House of ,1 Commons who did not swear that he was posseKed 1 of land of the value of 3001. a year.—(Hear, hear.) The large manufacturing towns were not at the time re presented, and the aristocracy had an especial monopoly of legislation by means of close boroughs.—(Hear, hear.) At the time of the /sassing of the corn-law, Lord Liver pool avow e d that the object was to prevent the settle ment which wou ld ot h erw i se ta k e place b etween landlord and tenant upon the restoration of peace. But the de • mends and entren.tie.s of those who opposed the measure were not atte n d e d to, and the law was passed against.) the expressed will o f t h e country, for l that object Were alone which Lord Liverpo o l avowed: (llear hear.) Slot the landlords a ware , at the time, ' that the peace would induce the manufacturers of other countries to ex tend their works, and to come into competition with the manufacturers of this country. Regardless of my other consideration, however, they adhered to rent—rent. — (Cheers.) The objet of every change of the corn-law was to keep up rents.—(Hear, hear, and Oh, oh !) Gentlemen might laugh and cheer, but this was not the language of the League alone, it was the language of the wisest statesmen, the greatest poets, and the first phi losophers of the time. A poet, the first of modern time, who was himself a I ird and a landlord, expressed the shme opinion in these words:— " Tho last t..) hd the cry of we dare cease, The first to mike a malady of peace; For what were all these cou - atry patriots born ? To hula', and vote, and rare the price of corn." (Cheers.) That - was the language of one of the most eminent poets of this country, and he (Mr G.) would tell the House what the noble poet said of the conduct of the landed proprietors:— " Safe in their barn, the Sabine tillers sent Their brethren out to battle. Why?—for rent ! They roared, they dined, they drank, they swore they, meant To die for England. Why then live?—For rent! The peace has made one general malcontent Of this " high market patriot"—WAß rat RENT — Their love of country—millions all mis-spent. How reconciled ? —by reconciling rent. And will they not repay the trz, , a; . nres lent ? No ; down with everything—but up with rent. Their good, ill, hea►th, wealth, joy, and discontent, Being, end, aim, religion—Rent, rent, rent." —(Great cheering.) But the noble poet did not except the Church itself from its share of participation of mono poly in the corn-lavi s. He said:— "So "Mother Church' while all reFgion writhes. Like Niobe, w,eps o'er her offspring—Trrn ES. " —(Cheers and 1 itighte - .) Ile knew that many excel lent men thought the corn-laws were necessary, and he quoted those lines only to show that one of the landlords' own class was convinced of the evils of those laws; and he believed that the time was coming when the whole community wou7d raise its voice against them. It had been said that manufacture; were protected ; belt the manufacturers, in their petitions, had called for the abolition o 7 protection of every hind. The landlords, however, did not stand upon the same grounds with re spect to protection as other interests in the community. Protection did not increase the wages of labour or raise the rate of profits; the unlimited competition prevented that. But the landed aristocracy had all the benefit of their protection to themselves from the liinited nature of their monopoly. It had been said that the trade of the country was very great—that our export of manufactures had largely in creased. But the manufacturers complained that these laws deprived them of a trade which they might now enjoy ; and the question botweon them and the land lords was, whether the latter had a right to deprive them of that trade. The Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, hail presented a petition in favour of agricultural protection, s'gned by 16,000 persons, who were represented to be manufacturers. Now, he would ask the Noble Lord (Lord Stanley) were .one half of them manufacturers ? Lord STANLEY—Those from Preston and Blackburn were. .......... Mr. M. GIBSON—But those Fran 1 Preston and 13lack- ' burn did not amount to one half.— (Hear, hear.) But the petitioners did not state what amount of protection they asked for. They did not say the fixed duty, or the rising . and descending scale, or what other scale. As the Noble Lord was the representative of a manufacturing county, he wished to ask the Noble Lord, would he un dertake to rise in that House, and say that the corn laws conferred a benefit upon his cc nstituents ? Lord STANLEY said he thought so. He was sup porting the the manufacturing interests still. Mr. M. GIBSON wished the Noble Lord to give the g rounds on which he thought so.—(Cheers and laughter.) rhey might laugh if they pleased, but the Noble Lord did state the grounds once, and what were those grounds ? Why, that they might be enabled to keep grooms and gardeners.—(Cheers.) They had heard ex tremely little, considering the position the Noble Lord ' held in that House, upon the subject of manufaetures. It was true, that he did once threaten the agriculturist by the vision of Tamboff, but he had never satisfied the manufacturers that the keeping out of corn was for ' their benefit.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that they were treating this question in a way that amounted to little short of insult. Whenever gentlemen got up they never came to the question.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord and the gentlemen on these benches—(Great laughter from the Ministerial side of the House, in coneequence of the bench on which the Opposition leaders sit being entirely empty)—the Noble Lord and those who sit' on these benches were not responsible for the law. Those who set on the other side of the House were responsible, became they could alter the law. The Right lion. Baronet was their ruler—he was their Minister, because they could not get a leader out of the Central Pro'ec tion Society. The Right Hon. Baronet would not tell them that he would keep up protection permanently. He would tell them that the League was right in principle. —(Laughter.) It might be all very well for gentlemen to laugh and sneer, but ho was dealing with facts as they were. The gentlemen opposite were responsible for the corn-law. They brought it in, and they kept it up, and, doing so, they ought to tell him what good they had done for the people by keeping up the law. The right of the people was to freedom of industry. Those who sat on the other side of the House kept it from them, and be. therefore, on the part of the people, had a right to call for a satisfactory explanation.—(Cheers.) Mr. BANKS then rose to address the house. He could assure the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down that they, on that side of the House, were most willing to hear all the llon. Member for Manchester had to state, and it was only in consequence of the Opposition bench being empty, that the laughter had taken place. He agreed with the Hon. Members for Manchester and Sheffield that it was desirable to keep as close to the question as possible. If, however, any tile had departed from it, it was the Opposition rather than the Ministe rial. During the present session of Parliament number less petitions had been presented from agriculturists, complaining of the interference of the League. The ac 'count which they had had that night of the proceedings of the League was a summary of its life—it had existed six years, and he trusted that it would nut live six months longer. lie had read many of the papers of the League, but he was not aware *until that night that it owed its origin to the Honourable Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring), and he trusted the Honourable Gentleman would live to write its epitaph.—(Laughter.) There had been in the course of the present debate some questions addressed to him which would have 'rendered it fit that he should have offered some observa tions to the House, even if he a ere indisposed to do so. It had been asked of him and others, why they had taken , part in the Factory Bill, and how they could reconcile it to themselves to venture to interfere with the grand manufacturers unless they were disposed to show the same feeling towards tl - e lower classes ; for his own part, l‘e was sure that had he felt that the in terference would have affected one class and not another, he would not have consented to it. Ile met, in the strongest terms, deny the statements of the Hon. Member for Manchester, that they desired to ma'n lain those laws for the purpose of crushing the manufacturers. He was surprised that the Hon. Member could for a moment have conceived that, in the vote on the Factory Bill, ho fixed upon one portion of his fellow subjects and not upon another. Those who desired to keep up protection to agriculture had no such wish or object in view, and there was no such wish on the part of those who had voted in favour of the factory question. It had been asked whether those who voted were ready to get up in that House and state why they had done so ; he for one was ready to accept:the challenge. In the vote he had given he was not guided by the state ments which he had road in newspapers or pamphlets— he saw the men themseh'es, and it was not until after many interviews with them that he ventured to give that vote. If he was travelling from the question it was not his fault, because he had been taunted to give his opinion on the subject, which he was ready to do, and a'so to defend the conduct ho had hitherto pursued. Tho Honourable Member for WolverhatnptOn, who had brought forward this motion, had adopted a different tone to that which he usually did.. Differing as he (Mr, Banks) did from that line of arguments adopted by the Hon. Member, yet still they had been conducted in such a gentlemanly manner, hitherto they had been expresed in such a proper tone and feeling that he could not but think them worthy of attention ; but upon the pr,:sent occasion he had come forth in a new character. The speech was delivered in an almost uninterrupted tone of defiance. He had asked whether they dared do this and they dared do that ? That might be all very well in another place—(Cheers)—that might do all very well in Covent-garden, It did so the other night, because there when an individual said " he dare" two policemen in stantly took him out. In that I louse, however, it should be remembered, they had no policemen, " I (exclaimed the Hon. Meinter) dare" tell the lion. Member for Wolverhampt , n that I desire to maintain protection fer the good of the tenant•farmer, and the whole popu lation.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and " the landords.") Yes, and the landlords. Nobody who argued this quesi n • omitted landlords.—(A laugh.) But there was one •, class that was omittee, and that was the tenant-farmers. 110,12 individuals had come forward in a body and re pudiated the docnrines of the Moeda rs for Stocleport and Bolton. Ile hoped there were some tenant-farmers in the House last n•gl t to hear the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Sunderland. What said that Noble Lord? Why did they not do in this country as in Canada ? There there were no tenant-farmers, there was only the landlord and the labourer. But it must be I remembered that that country was in a very different state to this; and here they ought to legislate for the whole —the tenant farmers as wed as the labourers. The move that had been made on the part of the tenant farmers was spontaneous, and was not encouraged by any 1 1 landlord ; but the)' were pleased to see that they were i l ' person s w h o would attend to t h e i r own i nterests. On 1 ' his part th ere had been nothing to encourage them to rise ' I as men against ng s the bullying -y stem of the Anti•Corn law League. Th ey had risen as - o ra one man, and he be lieved they would idtimately put it down. The lion. Memher for Mancheste r (Mr. Mark Philips) had I asked him a question with respect to cotton. I ! The lion. Member had asked him what greater advan- j I tape it was to t he manufactur er to have him for a cus tomer, than to have as a customer an American residing in New York. lie had asked if he supposed that he (Mr. Bankes) would have to pay him more for his cotton geode than his American customer. Why, if the manufacturer were an honest man, he certsinly should ! not have to pay more, but the manufactur,r would have this advantage in dealing with him—that as a home- I 1 customer he could be more certainly relied on.-__(A laugh.) Why, certainly, the home customer might be more certainly relied on.—(llear and laughter.) 'There I might be a change in the American tariff, which might 1 altogether prevent the sale of our manufactures in that country. Why, one of the persons who was at present a candidate for the Presidential chair of that empire, he supposed he might cell it, went about; with banners inscribed, " Protection to native industry."—(Hear, bear.) Now, suppose they should place a prohibitory THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JUNE 27, 1844. duty on the importation of our manufactures, did not the Hon. Member for Manchester think that even he would be a better customer to the manufacturer than the inhabitant of New York ? It would be no difficult matter to adduce many reasons to prove to the Honourable Member for Manchester, the advan tages of the home trade. They were secure of that at all events, as long as they could assure them a sufficiency of money to purchase.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, who was not now . , in his place, had, last night, referred to the condition of the labourers in the county which he (Mr. Bankes) had the honour to represent. The Noble Lord had said that the Hon. Member for Stockport had stated more than once that their condition was worse than the condition of any other labourers, and that statement hail not been contra dicted. It was true that the lion. Member for Stock port had made the statement more than once. He was in the habit of making statements more than once ; but if those statements were contradicted, it was rather hard that those persons would not take the trouble to attend to the contradictions, but would continue to repeat them as if they never had been contradic'ed. Ho would now refer to the report of the Commissioners appointed to in quire into the condition of the women and children ens pleyed in agriculture, as a proof that the report which had been laid on the table at the close of last session, had been the foundetion of much vituperation of the county which he represented, and of the other counties of the south of England. lie believed that the true reason why the county of Dorset had been fixed on in this manner, was because it was representel by a Noble Lord ho had taken up the cause of the factory women and children, and it was thought by Honourable Gentlemen opposite that it would be a fair retaliation to move for this Commission.—(Cries of " Oh, oh." Now, he would read a few extracts from the report of the Commissioners on the state of the agricultural labourers in the county of Dorset.—(The Hun. Member here rend several extracts from . the report alluded to, from which it apps wed that the svemen themselves stated that out door work was beneficial both to their health and spirits, and that the medical men who were examined, stated that, in their opinion, such was the case. The Hun. Gentleman also read an extract, de scribing the clothing club at Blandford, which, last year, had expended 2,0001. in the purchase of articles of clothing for its members.) lie begged to call the atten tion of the Hon. Member to the amount expended by this clothing club in a limited district, as a proof of the value of the home market.—(tlear, hear.) He now came to the subject of wages.—(Hear, hear.) The report stated that, in the district of Blandford, wages were by no. means low, and, so far from placing the county of Dorset lower than others as to wages, it showed that it was not so low in this respect as Somersetshire and Wiltshire. He did nut say bat that, in many parts of the county, wages were lower than in the Blandford district, owing to the superabundance of the population. He wished the wages were everywhere as good as they were at Blandford ; but he was certain of this—that wages would not be made better by the repeal of the corn- laws.—(Cheers.) That was the question before them, and he felt convinced that, however much manufactures might be extended by that measure, they could not be so extended as to give employment to all those who would ba thrown out of employment in the agricultural districts in consequence of that measure.—(Hear.) Evers if the exchange could be made, he was net satis fled that it would be for the advantage of the labouring class. He had never drawn any distinction between manufactures and agriculture—their interests were amalgamated; but if they looked to the comfort, the hap piness, and the morality of the labouringclaesee, he could nut give the preference to the manufacturing over the agricultural districts.—(Hear.) Admitting that the agricultural labourer received less money, it must be remembered that money was not all that contributed to happiness. Admitting that wages were lower in the agricultural districts, still the labourer had more time to attend to his comforts ; and as to happiness, he should c‘rtainly give the preference to the labourer of the agricultural districts. The Noble Lord (Lord Hoe ick) had very much exagge rated the distress which prevailed in the southern coun ties of England. He hoped, as the Noble Lord had read the accusations against the landowners there, he would read their vindication in the report. The Noble Lord had contrasted the condition of the people of Dorset shire with those in Northumberland. He (Mr. Bankes) acknowledged that in some parts of Dorsetshire their dwellings were bad ; but the report stated that in many parts of Northumberland they were still wore. The advocates of the repeal of the corn-law sail the repeal would not throw a single acre out of cultivation. lVell, he thought differently ; and he thought, moreover, that the condition of those labourers, who would be still em ployed in agriculture, would be much worse than it was at present. In those weekly displays at Covent-garden Theatre in which the Hon. Member for Manchester cut such a figure, great stress had been laid upon the de clarations of Lord Ducie, who, it appeared, had beta present at some of their meetings ; but he thought his Lordship, however amiable and estimable his character might be, entertained wrong opinions on this sub ject, and arrived at wrung conclusions.—(Hear, hear.) He thought he might be termed rather a 'farmer among lords than a lord among farmers. Having detained the House so long, he would not trespass fur ther on their patience ; nor would he have taken up so much of their time had he not felt it necessary to rebut those calumnious assertions which had been put forth regarding the landowners in that part of the country with which he was so intimately acquainted. Mr. HUTT would be very brief. He would rapport the motion of the Hon. Member for Wolverhatuptun, but not for the reasons with which he had recom mended it to the favourable consideration of the House. He preferred the adoption of a low fixed duty to the abolition of all duty on corn under present cicumstances. A low fixed duty would not be paid for by the consumer, but by the foreign exporter ; and if he erred in his opinion, he erred in the company of most intelligent and independent mcn. The Hon. Member concluded by saying he would support the motion. Mr. COBDEN then rose, and said—lt is not my in tention, Sir, to follow the example of the lion. Members for Northamptonshire and Dursctshire, in making this a question of the character or conduct of the Anti-Corn law League, for to any apprehension we are met here to discuss the charscter of the corn-laws, and not that of the Anti-Corn-law Leagtie.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from both sides of the House.) If it were not so very trite and familiar an anecdote, I would illustrate the conduct of these Hon. Gentlemen by that of the bar rister who, in complaisance with the wish of the defen dant to abuse the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attorney, lost his client's case.—(Laughter.) The corn-laws are now on their trial, and there is only one way by which they can be tried, and that is by their effects on the na tion at large.—(Hear, bear.) Whether the farmer or the farmer's labourer is a little better or a little worse, or whether the landlord is a little richer or a little poorer, dues not, to my mind, form anything like the whole of the question which we have to consider. Now, I never heard but two arguments, on national grounds, in fan-our of the corn-law. One is, that it is a part of a system of protection. This is one ground upon which the corn law is defended. Is that a good ground of argument ? The other national argument is, that without the corn laws you cannot meet the taxation or pay the interest on the heavy debt which has been incurred. Now, with re gard to the argument that it is a part of a system of pro tsction of native industry in all its branches. Is it so ? If it be so—if you can show rae that it does protect na tive industry, I will give up the corn-law. But have you done so ? Can you protect the exporting manufacturer Of this country ?—(hear, hear.) Ono Hon. Gentleman has referred to the case of a person who is a candidate for the office of President of America, who had inscribed I on his banners the motto, " Protection to native indus try." Why, there is a party in America in precisely the same situation as the manufactures here—l mean the exporters of cotton. They r.ceive no protection from those parties who affect the cry of " Protection to native industry." There is precisely the same discord in Ame rica, and precisely the same kind of agitation as that. in England. Everybody must recollect the course which was taken by the South Carolinists when they threat ened to pass an Act of nullificatien. This is the case in France. The wine-growers are the exporting producers, and they require no system of protection for native in dustry. This is the secret which is at the bottom of the opposition which now exists to the corn-law. How do you suppose you will put that opposition down ? By calling names ? No. Show me that the corn-law is a just law, and we will dissolve the Anti- Corn-law League; but, unless you can show that, do not deceive yourselves by supposing that such displays as these which have been indulged in to-night—such childish displays I may call them—can ever effect the dissolu tion of the League. You talk of protection to native industry in all its branches. Now, I will bring that question home to you, and I will rs , lc you to show me how you protect the labourer of the country. I have told you before, and state it to you aga'n, that you may depend upon it that these vague declara tions will not serve you in this House. I will have you declare, and show, how you protect labour in this coun try. I will meet you on the poor-law question. I will nut avoid that discussion although an attempt has been made to as oid it by the Ministry. You shall not avoid it. It shall be brought before the country ; and the working classes of the country shall thoroughly under stand the gross imposture you put upon them. Now with regard to the revenue. It is said that without a protec tive duty on corn we cannot pay the taxation of the country, I heard a remark fall from art Hon. Gentle man sitting opposite to me, who spoke with as much gravity as if he believed what he was saying was un answerable—that unless we maintained the corn• law we could not pay the taxation of the country. Why if we are to be taxed to pay the taxes of the corn-grower,who is to be taxed to pay the taxes of the manufacturer ? I think it has been shown that you cannot protect the manufac turer; and the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire, with great candour, admitted that he does not pay more for manu factures than the foreign merchant pays fur them, and therefore there was no protection for the manufacturer either in the home or in the foreign market. I heard an Hon. Gentleman say that unless we have a high range of prices it is impossible for us to meet the national taxation. Does anybody suppose that the corn-laws keep up anything but the price of corn? You would have high prices, yet have you not admitted that manu factures are so'd cheaper here than in any other part of the globe? And I want to know why you cannot pay the taxes the same as the manufacturers? There is a great and fundamental fallacy lying under this argument —that protecting duties tend to the benefit of the ceuntry. Protecting duties on corn, as has been ex plained by the Nolle Lord the Member for Sun derland tend to lower both wages and profits; and how in the world, I ask, can it, therefore, tend to enable the country to bear the taxat:qn? This is an argument, let me remind you, which applies not merely to the manufacturers as against the agriculturalists — that is not the application of my argument. I contend that you are losing sight of the great body of the people when you come to use this argument about protection. I want to know how it will affect that great body of people who are neither manufacturers, farmers, nor landowners. If you raise the price of corn how will that enable those p. op'e to pay their taxes ?. They are people with a fixed income. If you tax them for the purpose of raying your taxes, then you make them pay not only their own taxes but yours No. Why, I really believe that the proprietors of land have a confused no tion that the national debt only means private mort gages. I have one or two facts to show what are the consequences to the labourers of the country of high p ices of cern. I have in my hand a list of the prices of corn since the corn-law was established in 1315. It is a very remarkable fact, that the price of corn is a kind of barometer of the state ( f taxation. The revenue of the country alwaysdeelines just as the price of c am rises, and rises as the price of corn falls. It is so mueh so, that, as I said before, it is a perfect barometer of the state of the revenue. Now I will take the four years from 1817 to 1820, when the average price of corn was 84e. 4d. the quarter, and when the farmers and landowners were rejoicing at high prices. What was the effect to the revenue ? Why there was an addition to the annual taxes of the country of 2,400,000/. imposed. I then take the six years up to 1825, when there was unparalleled agricultural distress. During those years you had taxes repealed to the amount of 8,100,000/. Now I come to the next period of exceeding low prices of corn, viz., in the years 1833, 1634, 1835, aed 1835, when the average price for the four years was 465. 9d. During those years there were taxes repealed to the extent of four or five millions per annum. I now come to the last dear years. During the years 1838 to 1842 the average Trice of wheat was 645. 7d. the quarter, b..ing 20s. higher than the previous four years. During these five years, you had first of all five per cent. additions' taxes, and ten per cent. additional assessed taxes; and then came the income-tax, amounting altogether to as much as 8,000,0001. sterling per annum. That was at a tune when rent was rising, when the landowners were laying in extra rents and when the farmers were in a state of prosperity. Now, I want to ask the Right Hon. Baronet, who, I presume, will favour the House with his opinion on this question—l want to ask him where is the difficulty of carrying out the principles of free trade in everything? I wish to state, honestly and empha tically, that I am an advocate of free trade in every thing. If you go into Committee on the corn-law, and the rules of the House .vial permit me, I will move that every asticle that is protected be inserted in this resolu tion. Now, the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London expressed some surprise that we did net bring forward a free trade mrnion. Why, the Right Hon. Baronet at the head,of the Government told us that we ought to deal with cora in a very different manner to any other article. Unfortunately to our sorrow, we know that that is true, and we know that by abolishing the corn-laws we shall abolish other monopolies. Now, lam for free trade in everything. And lest the Right Hon. Baronet should think this a revolutionary proposal, I want to show that you can adopt free trad and that there is n > national obstacle to its being carried out immelatele. I want to show you that, barring your, own class interests and the interest of the landowners, and the farm labourers, there is no national impediment to your carrying free-trade to-mor row.—(" Hear, hear," ironical's? fro- - n Lord Jana Man ners.) lam glad to see the Noble Lerd, because the Noble Lord professes as assumed benevolence. I am glad to see the Noble Lord laugh. because it is a laugh of incredulity. It shows that he votes for the corn-laws because he believes there are national grounds for hi doing so. The Noble Lord cannot be sincere in his pro fessions of humanity in upholding the corn-law for class interests. I want to show you that you can carry out free trade anywhere.—('Hear, hear.) What is carrying out free trade ? Not by removing all custom-houses. I have heard that an Hon. Gentleman, in writing to le;s constituents, has sad that we wanted to abolish all custom houses, and I have seen a letter in the Times newspaper declaring that such is my doctrine. Free trade does not mean the abolition of customs' duties. It means twine off the duties which are levied fur protection. How much was the amount of that ? The whole amount of duty paid last year for protective duties was 2,800,000/. ; that includes the duty on corn, on timber, oti silk, and other items, in which there was a protective duty. Now lam an advocate for removing the whole of those protective duties. The whole duty paid on foreige manufactures dues not amount to 300,000/. How much do you suppose was paid of duty for cotton and foreign manufactures last year ? For cotton there was paid 3,7001. ; for lace, 7,60 C/. ; china and earthen ware, 3,600/.; linen, 12,000/. ; wool, 16,7001. ; silk manufactures, 240,6001.; the whole amounting to 284,000/. Now abolish all these duties, let there be no protection on manufactures ; we do not want them, for I began my address by saying we have no protection. The test of this is, that manufactures in this country are much cheaper than they are anywhere else. The protection on silk manufactures is generally on peculiar kinds, of which the fabrics are rich and the patterns peculiar, I say abolish the protective duties on silk and other manu factures, and if there is any one here who suppos s that I am for a free trade in corn, and not in anything else. I repudiate his co-operation. I say you have no more right to put a protective duty on silk than on corn. Where we put out our proposal for subscription to the Anti-Corn-law League among:the manufacturers of the country, we distinctly stated that we did not ask a single shilling from anybody who was not waling to abolish all prOtective duties in connection With his own trade. This is the case. The amount you have to deal with would cause an apparent loss to the revenue of two millions and a half ; but you must recillect that by equalising ;he sugar duties you are voting away two millions per annum in protection to sugar. That is not enough fir Pon. Gentlemen opposite, and they want a little more ; but if eou equalise the duties on sugar, on coffee, and on other colonial products, you will make up every arthing of the revenue you are going to lose by abolishing protective duties. You may abolish every protective duty, and yet if you equalise the colonial duties, the statesman will find himself without the loss of one shilling of revenue. The Right Hon. Baronet, when he wished to benefit by an opinion as to an exception from his general rule, quoted with great approbation the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume with re gard to slave grown sugar Now, I have reason to know that Mr. Hume's opinion on that point was the only part of his evidence before the Committee which he regretted having given. I was in correspondence with him at the time of his death as to the publishing of that evidence with notes, and the qualification he had made with re spect to slave grown sugar, was the only part he re- Wgretted ; and if he had lived he would have expunged it. What was the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume with respect to protective duties ? He was asked by the Committee whether he thought the revenue would present any ob stacle to the simultaneous abolition of all protective duties: His answer was ",Certainly not ; my hesitation applies only to the interests affectesi by the change, not the revenue, Ai hkh I have ne doubt would be instantly increased by removing the protective duties." There appears to have been on the Committee some gentlemen ho entertained an idea thr.t it was not possible to pay the State taxes unless they continued the protective sys tem and it was in answer to the questions of these gentlemen that Mr. Deacon Hume made this statement. He says that a highly taxed people cannot afford protec whese expe n c es are grea t, canno t the very circumstance of the people the d fo ll ii irdhut i ' : good of th e St a t e i s a reason w h y tbbteeohiinei. being Aae xr °n taxed for ' cannot be taxed between themselves. A people obliged to pay high public taxes are less able to pay pri vate ones. Now, upon Mr. Deacon Hume's opinion, and the facts I have stated, I take my stand against all protection. If protection' cannot be given equally, it must be unjust to some portion of the community ; and, if it is unjust to any portion, if they have the spirit of Englishmen they ought never to submit quietly to such a system. If you can apply generally, it can be of no advantage to any one. Then, I say, abandon this system. It is unsound, and cannot be defended on any principle of sound policy. Therefore it is I aslc you to give your de: talon against this principle. You may say " IVe are strong in power —we have the const:tuencies with us."--(lronical cheers.) Yes, but hew long will you stand firmly on that pinnacle of power, if the foundations of your pedestal are placed in jeopardy ? You must show that you arc on a just footing before you can hope to maintain your power. Now, I have never heard the question argued how protection benefits the farn:er, the farm labourer, or any other class of the community. You tell me that you do this to benefit the fermer . and theefarm-labourer, but my Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton has asked you to show how it does that. Do you do so? No, you immediately r'se up and talk as you always do, in the future tense, and you tell us what effect the opposite system has in injuring e farmer and the farm-labourer, but you do not t, li us how the present system benefits them. But I do ask the Right Hon, Baronet not to fly off into de tails—not I mean the mere expediency of this matter. The Hon. Member fur Wolverhampton has brought the question fairly before the House. This is a question, I admit, which is not sanctioned by the leading men on this side of the House. But it is the sole question of controversy out of doors. The question out of doors is the principle of protection cr no protection; and when a gentleman on this side of the House, possessing so large a share of the public confidence as my Hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, brings forward a pro position against protection, hay the Eight Hon. Baronet will not be treating him or the people of this country fairly, unless he fairly met the argument he brought forward on this occasion. The Right HOll. the President of the Board of Trude said that he would not argue the principle of protection, because it was recognised by the Legislature of this country. But we come here to contest that principle, awl to call upon you to justify it. Is it not then sophistry:, to say the least of it, to tell us that because the principle has been admitted we will not argue it, unless we-make an excep tion to the mode in which the tax is laid on corn. But I say ag in, we reject the principle, and call upon the lion. Baronet to show how that principle benefits the country at large. The Treasury Benches on the other side have shown a disposition to c-rade this question. The Noble Lord, the Mew.ber for South Lancashire, (Lord Stanley), whose great talents for debating no body denied, was sent to this House to defend the corn 'awe. Now, I have never heard him open his mouth on the subject of protection, and I challenge him to justify this principle. I challenge him to justify it to the ma nufacturers of Preston and Blackburn, not to the minority who had petitioned in favour of it, but to the majority who opposed it. I ask him to show upon public grounds, the justice of this law. I do not ask him to engage in a personal skirmish in this House. I do not ask him to engage upon that which he is so well able to do—to engage in a slashing debate upui personal topics. I ask him:to show upon public grounds, the jus tice of the system of protection. If the Right Hon. Baronet-rises in his place in this House, to defend the system, it will go forth to the country, and the pecple would see whether the argument of the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton was founded in reason and on facts, or whether the weight of argument by which they were going to vote is on our side. do appeal to the House not to go the vote until some argument has been given to show the justice of your principle of protection. Sir R. PEEL said, I can assure the House that it is advantage of the merchant. So the Noble Lord is pre • of rent. He remembered a speech delivered more than. talc not my intention to trouble it at any length to-night on pared to guard the merchant against loss from excess in years ago by Lord Eldon, in which he stated that it_ wasc V this subject. I consider that the House has to-night the quaetity of importation. lam afraid that sib'e for any tax on agriculture to be remitted wil vr h ar t_:' Tee been eNaged for the benefit of that company which concurrently with a good harvest in • this c our,- ing the difference into the pockets of the land owner' i e Right i . I l len. Baron generally performs at Covent-garden Theetre—(Loud try there might be - good harvests in other ofg ranted the Baronet spoke of the ßu caipfitakei meants St cheers and laughter) —and I have very great reluctence : countries, and a great glut of corn coming into this t as te the m soil. He landowner thus thus invested. l, in interposing myself, so as to prevent them from having 1 country would be the result ; whereas, if the tenant has denied that - this was a claim against the repeal of the law. I , the full benefit of the occasion. lam exceedingly sorry , a guarantee against a sudden glut, I cannot help think- to the farmer, the complaint was that he did not invest Wog_ that at an earlier part of the performances the front ' ing that these must be more certainty in the application of capital in the land, and it was notorious that he weas_p_rigi; benches were not occupied. For a very considerable I , of capital. I have heard it asserted to-night I gave an vented from doing so by the operation of this law. Thrllo part of the debate, those places were without a single I assurance that there should he art average price of 565. Hon. Baronet spoke of farmers half a century old, who bad ue, d he o w . occupant—(Renewed the ring)—until the Gallant 'Ad - (Heal . , hear.) Sir, I ask how can any gentlemen say . brought up to leek to this system of protection. But 1 . 5, tbs. miral came in and took his seat alone upon them.— so ?--(Hear, hear.) I tell him that there were men in the tow ns, manufacture re __, k (Cheers.) I hope the . assistance the Hon. Gentleman Mr. CORDEN—h was so understood, - 1 were quite as much entitled to protection . One more WY He said that ,1 and his friends gave to me at my benefit the other night Sir R. I'EEL—I do not know what was understood. It on the speech of the Right Ho-. Baronet. hat they 00', —(Great cheering and laughter)—has not been the was said the other night that I gave some assurances on - the found no fault with the present corn-lea —that t cf feee tr ade• . cause of depriving them of a fuller audience.—(Cheers.) i !ode et of the ! Bank Charter ; but I could only reply,.thatl itelii w io e - s eci sel i i t . faaestora• te violation tbe m to of he tahre theeri n R e i 1 rght Hea. i ll i gr°ll l I only refer to it its a fact, that for the far greater per- rase had neverwhat said saidit an z a s suchthin th4t I g d . i —I not(1 I e t a b r i , a l i i , e t a b r a . ? a And less tr T e this re e : It g state again what lie had stated before, that the prioc*P - a e : ;11 don of this evening tamest the only occupants of the than 56'. would be re ' muneratin; and that the price ought not - bring before the- House are true ones, and that be who 35' benches on the other side of the House, upon this Ito go lower than s's. --' - I willing to contest them. He believed that no man '' cee ;d great and important discussion of the corn-law?, I Mr. COBDE si said that the Right Hon. Baronet was un- I Aired to the character of a great statesman in this country , j e t 0° ) have been that particular class of gentlemen who have desstooe to soraeantee the average at 565. I long continue ti all svr that great principles were truf, ear.) t ie rehearsed their parts en another stage.—(Cheers and Sir IL PEEL—I have only stated w h a t I sa id,—(Cheere) ' oppose their being carried into oeeration.—( near , e l .c iee e, fl O laughter. An lion. Member—" Your own Lenches !") I said that I took 560 as the average of the last five ears. I I had =poken, too, of the predictions of his Hon. t Igo in' Well !at least we were here.—(Cheers.) An Hon. I read these words from the pritred report of the deb ties. It is , Member fur Stockport. He believed that no maned, Liu! Gentleman commenced his speech by attacking my Hon. not my report. It is the report of a dieintereste d witness, j dulged in predictions than his Honourable_ "1 1 , e nle_o_ Friend the Member for Northampton for having con- ( The R.& Hon. harenet then read an extract of his speech I they did predict in Itl4', 1811, and 194t:Zr, could eeer earned a considerable portion of the time of the House by from Hansard's Dehites, in which he was reported to have , the price of provisions were reduced, the coon y_Q_ ;nte de, said that "it was beyond the power of the Legislature to I raised frees i-s state of depression. There was a ie! test it , referring to the speeches of the Hon. Gentlemen who uarantee the price of wheat, and that it would be ~ n cou-ag. I this law that nothing but sophistry could get wee;Aw were membere of the Anti-Corn -law League, and he frig a delusion to hold out hopes that such a species of protec. was a law for Milting food scarce for the purpose of n ol e o 0 thought that reference was entirely misplaced— tion would he given to agricul uret") Now , I ask could any dear. It was a law that raised rent, and had o ._ beis; (Hear, hear)—he said he ought to have addressed reasonable man, from this put that construct . on upon my raring wages, while it prevented the landlords fr o a i s 0: himself simply and so l e ly t o th e me in question words that I wsuld uphold the price to 565? I referred to subject to the same competition. So strong ts. a ce , saa before us.—(Cheers.) But I wish he had given that ad- former Acts, and I stated hose they had failed, and that it was viction of the mischief of this law, its insid , ous Vi a ? be a gate' vice to his llon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampe impossible for the Legislature to guarantee prices which were the danger that awaited the country from it, if it s he:o va , o h ( ton—(Loud cheer..) —because it is the gentleman who determined by other cotisiderati ins.—( Hear, hear.) That is visited by a succession of bad harvests, that be t . 0 commences the discussion who gives the tone to the what I said; and I hope that in future the Hon. Gentleman it %soled ovoehrow the Government, as it had vr e.l th i s tah.',' whole debate— (Cheers)—it is the leading performer will rather refer to what I said, than to fO s h . igh an authority ov e ern a m le 7 ci nt i th a at ti p m r e ec e e f ededh him. He dtidenrota timetn of the from whom all tae others take their cue.—(Cheers.) 1 as t Mr. Genre G w e p o h rg h e e Robins.—( l Lau d g i h t, tcr. ) ir h w a e ve h L e t 1 1 : 3a R e e s ti n He wished t n hat these great alic) wereexcl excitement, there to reeres en isao I heard the Hon. Member for Wolverhampton speak I realised. an - whole community should treat this question as a aa ti°n „ believe for three hours on 1 a half, and if I mistake not, tions which have ' been made by the gentlemen who se, taunt and not one merely of the interests of a peculiar ci° ,l * leh,o h ' s s one - hour and a half was occupied in the production of us—and which have not been realised.—(Hear, hear.) They Colonel SIBTHORY rose, amidst loud cries of l a ; e st l." newspapers which con t a i ne d t h e speec h es which Lad ptedieted in 18:2 that the averages would bit lowered by the He was surprisedthat the Hon. been delivered at every agricultural meeting, and which addi ion of the new towns. down should talk about class legislation, when he rote, a he with great solemnity recerred to. And if that is the Mr. GIBSON said that the average had been lowered - . introduction of slave labour produce. n oel' °I occur , ' -- ire° course which the author of the debate takes, if that he Sir R. PEEL—On referring to the returns, it would be Mr. VILLIERS replied. He would not . , 4 d g to e- -- te the example set, really the Hon. Gentleman is the last seen that the averages are rather higher, in consequence of the the time of the House, for Hon. Gentlemen oppo n sl 0 . be st ar _ person who ought to complain that other gentlemen addition of those new town;.—(The Hon. Baronet then read him n s oth h i t ng t t i o reply to. No anse - er had beet! agricultural L a , 10 1; came provided with similar docements in order to remind an extract from an - agricultural paper, which was intended to d m e e b n a t te w ba p no i w e m e, a m d c e la w d i e n d i regard because " the th e ß a .t r l i i t ' i l l on . & t r i t e s iel him and his Hon. Friends of the speeche3 they have deli- show that theb gambling—:hat c c oi d aja n w et didd end d t n give encouragement nlfit uations t r ( ) ) f had spoken, and he had heard that there ' was great o ' o %i et ver:d. I was glad to hear the. secon 1 topic to which the Hon. the m weather m h a -u p t n tu e ctuations OF se i 17) " Hon. " Gentlemen even amongst his own supporters as to the characte r , -- e , tou Gentleman referred Ho delivered a homily against eppefte _l preeicted, when the present s p y ) stm was proposed, that speech.—(" No, n ..") The Right Hon. Gentlema a ci ° ; r atio: calling names. It is a bad practice, and I have re- it would be a progress from bid to worse, and that the re- that if he made a broad and distinct d e L i g' j marked that those a - ho are most lavish of attacks on viral of trade was incompstible with the new corn-law. The that he would resist the attacks of the Anti-Cornsla w eni eete o i others are the first to shrink from the application of a Hoe. Member fur Stockport said that if the law were carried it would tend to unite the divisions of the party who t r ie ss o similar instrument when used against themselves.—• into effect, Stockport would be a howling wilderness, and all the Right Hon. Gentleman. lie would then hear ° fro tir a (Hear, hear.) If there is any party in this House who the middle classes throughout the country would be reduced a ten hours' Bill or of the poor-laws —(No, no) . 05 , Gen o e deals largely in the practice of calling names, awl affix- to the condition of paupers.—( Hear, hear, and a laugh.) mannerin which the conclusion of the Right . 2 1 , lie 0;4 co( in; odious imputations on the motives of those who dis- Now, Sir, that prophecy has net been realised—( Hear, pearl nian'sspeeclswasrecei t v o ed th h e e ra conc .— ( l c ud h e e d er t s ha; whet i, t he Fi b sent from themselves, that party is the one to which the —but. I . hey et that the improvement ti has not beer t s .d sn t gr d ea t t h a a s t 83 perfectlythe Rieht satisfactorylln. Gentlsman made a speech of a - fil of Hon. Gentleman belongs.—(Cheers.) Ido not defend withinl. have w , lshe e d. Th .. en eman pr ic e . h I 'edh l ' d utter &oleo 11° rex montns 'ne manufacturing interest would be in a c erecter, c iaracteris y evity, an an te ^ea the practice, but the example provokes retaliation. the privations of the poor— (Oh, oh )—at least the ew seat o i state of dissolution. And those who first resort to the practice are very Mr. CO3DEN—And it was so. allusion to the condition of the poor. But Ho% i s eg Le frequently the first to say the calling of names ought to Si r R. PEEL—What is the state of dissolution ?—( Hear.) sh oul d recollect what had taken p lace betwee obit 70 3 - , be distinct thenfrm legitimate argumeat, and they beg that Has there been no improvement? In cotton the declared value 1814, and they should take care lest 0 sur sg ' e l in future practice may be nvoided. 'I he Honeurable of the exports in 1844, as compared with 1842, showed an in- happened during this time should not c_li ti.e lle i, 3 o Gentleman asked how the Anti-Corn-law.League were crease of 16,300,000 lbs. The export of yarn had been in- The Right Hon. Gen leman, the Nrce-Presiden t to be combatted. I think they have greatly diminished creasing. It had, however, since diminished, and the export of Trade, had offered a sort of reproof to him e s o h__!., cret %o . their power by the use of the instruments they have bad of h goot t l i s l in a more advanced state of manufacture had increased eic e c h u a pi d ed de so n m e e ,, t a im s e tr imading e e x e tr t acts i f i r e o m m a t i a nta i i r le ' ll a t h ol a a,i l ' e el recourse to.—(llear, hear.) They have provoked in- respect. I t y o as ea s r s t o he t n oo rsa l r , e, w t h h i e le eLpoi l t s a i ti 3 o7 t w of as th 6 a s t 9, c o o o m ol - . h modify in re t.. who opposed flee trade ) We l r n e P bo l und to show that th h eY he d re s o , d:gnation on the part of the tenants of the country, at So with respect to glass, siii, &c., the exportation had in- adequate supely for the wants of the people; there 0 0 ,, e t the free use they have m tile of unjust imputations, and creaeed during the continuance ef the corn-laws. So that it extracts to show that under the present sestem w tl ic h belit e i, they have provoke], by the attributing of base, and selfish, wou ld b e seen t h a t th e expor ts, as c ompared bet:veep 1842 and hope of an adequate supply. Now what was it e e e rePl e ,:tba and int -rested motives to honourable men, a combination 1843, had considerably iscreased- But then it had been said brought before the House. Ile had shown that t' s ` c ' ee o l e r against themselves. It was but a short time since a take care of your imports. Now, what was the fact with - re- suffering great privations, because they had notm ilia, th el aboast was made that the tenants and labourers were in sped to then ? Why, in 1842 the imports were 6e,204,0001., first necessaries of lie. He had reminded the if t he 6 : t br Favour of repeal of the corn-laws; but I apprehend, and while in 1843 they were,70,093,000f. I am, continued the putition was increasing at an enormous rate, tl!ah s b e OP e sse I infer it from the altered tone I perceived in the Right Hon. Baronet, only stating these things for the was correct, it had increased by two millions. ,Q ow' usestiou. 1) ia'-enit debate, that they have discovered that they have purpose of showing that the confident predictions that geneo discuss the question-( Cries oft' but thei I; out-stripped the, limits within which it would be have been made as to the particular operation might attempt cen _a to t gt , ta of h and statements, but The ise 11- of the Bill have failed and been felsified.—(Hear, hear.) The procure • tei pdetestation prudent to have confined themselves, and the use of the Noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland, is for total repeal. only get contemptfor their maudlin professions ~. r i n gs 6e s in.arument they have employed has recoiled on theta- He p als to feelings and measure's whic ' h I think come ex- night had been occupied in talking about the a ntler ° n• or sel , es.— (Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman, then went to trem a e p ly e late. The Noble Lord said, that if there was a repeal people, but when their own interests were at stas e ' for seta e ~eOl the particu'ar motion, and said we would not escape from of the corn-laws there would he an increased demand for in- dement scouted discussion. He had asked t hero he o l d : 0 1 the discussion of it. It would appear from the speech dustry, a nd the r e sult w ould be an immediate restoration of tification of the policy of stopping trade in f° °d ' nue rl. , li e ile i of the Hon. Gentleman that the question they'were now Prosperity. Now, there have been many years in which there them to show why that policy was eont_ ho h s dh e y et' discussing was,the total abrogation of all protecting duties. bits been an unre.dricted importatien of foreign corn. There been visited that moriaint by a working man; n ur iog w e i,ofi e , If that was the question, why was . not notice given ac- was no duty on corn at the time of the war, but there was to him the sufferings which he had endurede :_^,.. ee of „to' cordingly ? Nothing would have b en easier to frame no cessation from those privations which are inseparable of bad harvests ; and he.expressed but little nu t r oe st " .. than a mo'.ion, having for its object the repeal of all pro- from _society in _ a great agrieul l tyr f al and tom- r w e ith eet t i h e e ns p o r n es r e e n a t dt . ; l e:: t g em that ofde bprotection.could pot ' so. our re , b sci o tective duties, but it referred to one particular deeart- w m a e s rcia a l r c e ou e n a t l ry. ef islt tbe ee m ra y la fi w r a m tbbeereie wouldthat i n f et th be fl Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. C in cerra ° tie moot of industry, which it was thought expedient should that demand for industry which is anticipated. The mission to the gallery we understood that lthh Ail aesela il cease and determine. The Hon. Gentleman shakes his Noble Lord said that the labourer should - have a fair withdrawn his amendment, and that the House " head, but lam not wrong in saying that this motion has day's wages for a fair day's work, and that the repeal of the original motion, when the numbers were, la 4 e reverence to only one particular branch of industy. Now corn-laws would ensure it to him. For my own part I believe For the motion ................................... ' lig. O a I defend protection to agriculture—(Checrs)—on tie that no legislation could effect that, and what would not be the Against it - t o • ret principle and to the extent that I defended it before. I disappointment if, after the repeal of the corn-laws had taken Alajority against the motion .ete•• A s am about to address no new opinions on the subject to place, it turned out that that perfet prosperitythen diets which the Noble The other orders of the day were . the House. I have a strong feeling that, speaking Lord prophesied did n o t occur , and that the lab o u rer did not House ad j ourned at a Quarter to Two o'Clocx. generally—l am now speaking •of the amount obtain a fair day's wages for a fair day's work ? Would they not of protection—that the agriculture of the country is then od i revert which he e o the h,d Noble entitled to protection from considerations of justice as n g a o da and this w country promised. isttalyinapplicab a l a ; og b y ecause e it could well as of policy. I consider there are special peculiar, easily be shown why there was an increased demand for burdens on land which entitle it to this protection— labour in Canada and other colonies which there was not in burdens imposed on the land for the relief of the poor. others, Now, I lok to the state of the United States, and I On considerations of policy, I think agricu'atire is en- feud that, even there, where there are no restrictions upon titled to protection, because I think that great public food, there exists great distress. In New York and Phila evils would be the result if this motion were carried to- delphia, there is certainty on the part of the labouring corn night—that is essay, Ido not believe there are ten re- munity. On these grounds, Ido nut believe that the removal fleeting, thinking men out of the Anti-Corn-law League of restrictions will realise the expectations of the Noble Lord. who are of opinion that if the announcement were made I thank the House for the inaltegenoe with which they have to-morrow, that the House of Commons resolved that listened to me while I ven used to ass-ign the reasons why I from next Monday week all protection were suddenly t m ot a a n lli ta d s is im asz t r e o , f ..-e r o t f he t o p u r t oxo r s e it m io o nz h o i r ch al t l h p e ro lil ti o b e it . i. G n e n o t . " e ly and immediately to be withdrawn from agricultural not adopting any new opinions and principles for the present produce, such . a precipitate withdrawal of protection occasion, only in opposition to the Noble Lord, who, with me, would be for the advantage of the general interests of admits the principle of protection. I prefer the princ'ple of the country. —(Hear, hear.) Suddenly to withdraw all the Bill of 1842 to the principle of the Bill of the Noble Lord — protection from the coffee and ginger producers of (Cheers)—and I have only to repeat the declaration which, on the colonies, anal to withdraw all protection from agri- the part of her Majesty's Government, I made at the corn culture and manufacturea, would have the effect of mencement of the present session, that we do not intend, and we paralysing the commercial industry of the, country, and have not intended, to diminish the protection which the existing would produce general distress, and the labourers of the corn-law gives to the agricultural interest.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial side of the House.) country would be involved in the general ruin. The Lord HO WICK rose to explain. The Right Hon. Gen question, then, we have to consider to-night is, whether tleman had so entirely mistaken - what he (Lord Howick) bad we shall affirm this resolution, which, though confined - said last night, and it related to a matter of so much import to the question of corn alone, involves the sudden ante, that he trusted the House would allow him to state what and immediate removal of all protection from it was that he really had said. The Right Hon. Gentleman our colonial and domestic products. We should had imputed to him that he had said that a repeal of the corn deal dispassionately and gradually with the removal of laws would produce such an immediate effect as to insure, under those protective duties, looking to the money expended all circumstances, to every labouring man a fair day's wages for in the cultivation of the soil, and seeing that Ireland is a fair day's work. Now he had said no such thing. lie hod wholly dependent on agriculture.—(Cheers.) I know said that, in his . opinion, .society was d s i o tb co b nstituteclby Provi that, according to your rigid principles of political eco- dente, ca t b h o a u t r i w f o it ol w d e a r l e w n a o y t s, interfered e s re w und and artificialwyholesom e s r t e a s t t e r i c o - f notny, I cannot abstractedly contest your principles.— society, secure its due reward. He had said that it had been (Hear, hear.) Speaking mathematically, they may be admitted, on both sides of the House, that there had been a true. It may be true that the population from which progressive diminution in wages and in profits. He had said production is sought to be withdrawn, ought to be em- that there existed in this country artificial restrictions, and that ploved in other avocations. But is that practicable ? if those artificial restrictions were removed in the majority of —(Hear, hear.) If we are not mere philsophers or min eases, and under ordinary circums'ances, they would secure to of science, having to deal with abstract and imaginary the poor, industrious man, a fair return for his labour, and that quantities, but men having to deal with the comforts and a syetem of legalised relief was a proper resource under extra subsistence of millions of human beings, bon can we ordinary circumstances, d but . one which ought not to be had re disregard those considerations which are presented to the coe s h i s r e i t i o under ) j or w f u s i version i c iy ee c r ir t e a t i r r ye a a d ne i es t .— tb ( e Cheers.) which the contemplation of the legislate'. and the statesman ? Noble Lord had given of the wo y rds which P he had spoken last You may regret having voted on the strict principles of night, and he would abide by that construction on all future rigid philosophy and political economy ; but when you occasions ; but the Yoble Lot d would perhaps i e=mit him to have endaxsged the peace and prosperity of the country, read the passage of his speech by which he had been misled. you will have but a serry return. Therefore, I say, far The Noble Lord had said we might give a new value to labour considerations of ju tice, looking at the long endurance by diminishing competition, and he had then proceeded to say of th's protection—looking at the amount of capital in- that all that the poor man asked for was a fair day's wages for vested--looking at the nature of the population—looking a fair day's work, and they had a right to ask this, and the at the fearful Magnitude of the interests, nut from a re- Legislature had the power to give them this, by simply reliev gard merely for the interests of landlords and tenants, ing them from those artificial restrictions which prevented them from furnishing their labour to their best customers : — but the interests of ail classes of the community—l mint (Cheers.) He read the passage for the purpose of showing give my decided and unqualified opposition to the pro- that the Noble Lord had made use of expressions which, with. posit! for the immediate repeal of the corn-laws.— out those qualifications which the Noble Lord had intended, (Cheers.) lam speaking now of the first proposal. If would bear the construction which he had placed upon them. lam asked whether lam prepared to bring under Lord 110 WICK said that the passage which the Right the consideration of the House any modified Hon. Gentleman hid quoted was perfectly consistent with the proposition, I reply at once that I am not prepared. explanation which he had given. He did not usually look over The Hon. Gentleman says that my Right Hon. Friend the reports of his speeches, but it so happened that he looked and myself are using language differ( nt from that which this morning at the report of his speech in the papers—( Loud we used at a former period. We are not holding diffe- laughter)--and owing to the late hour at which he had spoken his observations had been so much abridsied that many rent language. We said then, and we say now, that we do im not contemplate any. alteration in the corn-law.—(Hear,) Portent qualifications had been entirely omitted in the newt hear.) The Noble Lord, the Member for the City of pape i r r. rep . A EIe or LICE had originally entertained no intention of ad- London, whose absence on this occasion I regret— dressing the House, and should not have done so hail it not (Laughter)—has declared his intention of not voting been for the allusion which had been made to against the proposal of the Honourable Gentle him by the Right Honourable Gentleman.—(Hear, hear.) man. Now the Honourable Gentleman has very fairly There was no choice left him between supporting the present called upon us to declare to night whether we are motion and voting for the continuance of the existing corn-laws, for or against a total repeal of the corn-laws. Nothing and he should, therefore, support the motion. With regard to can be fairer than the course pursued by him. y ou what the Right lion. Gentleman had said on the subject of the cannot impute to him that he wants to catch silk duty, he would observe that it was not all f or protection, and that if they were to raise a revenue by duties on imports, stray votes by an eqeivocal motion. The. Noble it was better to raise it on an article of luxury like she, Lord says distinctly that he is not prepared than on food, and the whole of the duty on silk for immediate repeal, being -of opinion that agri- was only one-half the duty imposed upon food. culture is entitled to protection. On what ground does lie had always, in discussing the question of the corn-laws, he vvithluald from his party the light of his countenance, and those other propositions which would most affect the work-• and the advantage of his efforts, against the proposition ing classes, said, begin with reducing the duty on the raw ma of the Hen. Member fur Wolverhampton ? The Noble terial, reduce the tax on food, enab:e the poor man to enter Lord said that he found himself in a position in which into competition with his rivals in foreign countrie a. He the Government had been, namely, in a very unenviable thought, considering the whole question, it would be absurd to one. At any rate, we base not solved the difficulty by say the, present corn-laws would be permanent; could the t y e , for instance, be maintained in this plis; would t . I running away. he Noble Lord says, that because we here he content to compete with paying one-third maintain the existing corn-law, he cannot vote with us, a m r o ti r s e a f n o s r their bread than in any other town in Europe?—( Hear, though he concurs with us in denouncing the proposi. hear.) ibis country formerly possessed exclusive advantages Lion of the Hon. Gentleman. The Noble Lord has not regarding steam and machinery, which no other countries en always been so squeatnish.—(Hear, hear.) The other ;eyed; but those advantages they possessed no longer, and it night the Noble Lord vindicated himself from voting with I became therefore imperative on the Legis lature to e nable our those to whom lie was opposed, by saying that he , mechanists to compete with those of other countries. should never have carried the Reform Bill and various Mr. P. BORTHWICK rose amid loud cries of "Divide," other Bills, if he had not combined with those with whom, and one or two exclamations of " Turn him out !" H e at though generally opposed to them, he occasionally con- t e m p t ed t o ex p lain, amid greatcorusoloorsomeaspersions curred in approbation or disapprobation of a particular which H e had ri A been le b ]Member, cost e u p e o him in the o W v n er, failed in obtainie of ng a hearing. Mr. debate. measure. Well, the Noble Lord does concur with us in Mr. BRIGHT then rose and was received with loud cries disapprobation of this particular measure, yet he cannot of " Divide, divide," and mingled chters and uproar. He make up his mind to give that vote which his judgment sa id that he could assure the House that he did not intend to tells him is the proper one.—(Hear.) 'The Hon. Mem- take up many minutes of their time. He felt that he would bee for Gateshead, on the other band, who is the arivo- not be performing his duty to those who had sent him to that care of a fixed duty, intends to vote with the Hon. Gen- House if he did not state the grounds upon which he would tleman (Mr. Villiers), who has done all he can to repu- give his vote that night. He was exceedingly glad that the Right diate his company, and who tells him that his resolu- Hon. Baronet had spoken upon this question that night, for tion is as much directed against a fixed duty as riga"nst when he spoke upon it he generally brought the question a sliding scale. I think the Hon. Member has just as Intoothae narrowerßight compass than it was before. Three years little defence fir giving his vote, as the Noble Lord i a g g rou d Hon. Gentleman opposed them upon the same n that he did then, that the special burdens upon the has for stopping away. (Loud cheering.) Now . Ilandowners and farmers were a claim and a just claim to pro the more I hear this question discussed, the more tectitin. On this occasion the Right lion. Gentleman had ' convinced am I that it is infinitely better to maintain I narrowed his ground, and had only addressed himself to the the present protection than to attempt to conciliate sup- I pour -rates.—(Cries of " No, no.") He wou'd not like to mss ' pert in favour of any slight molitication.—(Cheers.) e represent any Member of that House, but certainly the only rho real, practical question, is between the mainte- special burden to which ihe Hon. Gentleman had alluded was 'lance of the ex i st i n g l aw a nd the total and unqualified that of the poor-rates. Now the Noble Lord, the Member for I repeal ; and I cannot copceive of any public advantage , Lancashire, came from a county where the landowners and arising from the substitution of the Noble Lord's duty I farmers were not so large a porti.in of the population as eons ; for the existing system. Ido believe that, for the bene- pared with otherclasses as they were in other counties. The fit of the consuming classes , the present system worksl Noble Lord was perhaps k aware, and if so, he would perhaps his coil league, that there were better than a fixed duty of Bs. a quarter could possibly communica te suh : hin t , he er- n r o a . t a e l s e i a g to° his csunty, and e if the poor-rate were do. I have never heard a better argument in favour of a ground g f s or as ta i xing the community, to enable the landowners a graduated duty in preference to a fixed one, than we to; pay their poor-rates, they were also a ground for taxing heard from the Noble Lord last night. The Noble Lord the community for the manufacturers to pay their poor-rates. goes quite as far as I do in objections to the He would ask, where was the difference between the two cases? removal of all protection. Ile asked last night what He would be glad if the Right Hon. Baronet, when he spoke could we reasonably expect from a sudden revolution, l on this question, would be a little more explicit. No one a wli t s . from a state of considerable protection to one of free-- more capab'e of going into details, even the most insignifi d cn aer. trade? The landlord and tenant Would, said the Noble If the poor-rates were lessened r o e n r, fa s rms what e og i that, when Lord, be in doubt as to the manner in which their capital , t e i r: e ce 7 ,3 Nu ° r ld rat i c t s k m were lowe e nt st, _vas e re at the highest. could be profitably employed. Tam afraid that a low fixed anti, l when the p o or -rates were high, rent was low ? duty would not remove• the anxiety. The Noble Lord L e t them cross the Tweed, and ask the farmer there why he further stated, that the effect would be a diminution in the I petd more rent than his neighbour on the other side. The y employment of labour, and that there would be a much i would be told that he had but little tithe and little poor-rate to greater importation than would bo consistent with the pay, and that the difference went to th e TO THE EDITOR OF THE Si -- 'ch SIR,—I gto be allowed to correct a 1 - nis t ' i il' l ference to a case of " Suspec:ed Child I,llurticr,. appeared in your journal of yesterd.i,v evelli9g" made to say that "the child had been born though the case is one of a most serious cha rt ' e boro l s . in the entire absence (for the present) of COrro 50, or confirmatory post mortem proofs of the ruotbereat.),,ri pected guilt, I should consider it an act of g o atV' e , justice to the poor creature to volunteer ,tc. cll. to and dananatory an opinion.—l have . he 1 1 ° r° , 2 main, Sir, your most obedient servant , , t irALO . GEORGE A. 11, St. James's-place, Thursday. , 0 0,0 OPENING LETTERS POST-OFFIE. , d y, ;a TO THE EDITOR OF T THE ' 3 ' A ctic e t d, SlR,—The expose of the letter openirg i l: n coal f c• London has caused great alarm througltouD x vhe re : te r§ I have no doubt ; at all events in that Par t 'ai j ig l e ' P side, I assure ycu, Sir, these is a fear of ,seto,,e, _ 0 flaying to pass through the General Post , l 'i r oard wonder that there should be.—the recent tWelighteldi enough to alarm any one. We boast of an I . lp t „ bi 3 , l oen house being his castle, and, with all this b° 3 ,', 0 1f. , ,O 0 vale and confidential commuuicat;ons a re 11extcirrloo passing to their destinations ! 11Ia)4Y li. t o , ', r id ) notion that the Government have a de s t r° A lly,teti 4l ; people. I hope not, but such impression i 5 r;welllttel A question ought to be put to the Duke ( " he r tr , iil e Sir Robert Peel, or Sir J. Graham, wil°l,-- Th c 1 opening system extends into the provinces. v 0 spread alarm is daily increasing.ll,o,- June 25, 1844. ONE OF TO ' 0 1 -----2r2.--or ii icl ce ~ 0 [ADVERTISEMENNT.]—The A trapilator-r; for 0 t ot Hair Dye, the only dye that really ans Wer fi s the el tae g lo r u o r vt s .s , , a a n s d it d n o e e i s ,e n r o fa t d i e e s r oirreacrgeudioreinsg bu t ino ralu t l 50 5 that ivo aau a boi l or purple tint common to all other dy es ' end °c oil i ; can, with the greatest confidence, reel:1,00; 0 brik dye as infallable, if done at their e stabli',: es ted t • ' 3 ' e t t‘ l vhh t i e eai s iincreh o fe r rlivoe g ifnl e lfda n esi t ri l loua e rrb m els. e ee n rtvhsa r en e em q tyse u trw i o r ai i lc n tiho g prtiii i ity t ea t m l ute r f i :rts !„ ,tr b ds o e l i t i s ho l ire a c t eos i t d s, 5 t he e par o 01 t he: 1 0 " entirely to the above purpose, and o°6loo bes t blishment having USE d it, tbe effect produf tin t 11 1/ , o f df,,; seen. They think it necessary to add , l a h bett; e v itn strictly to per, instructions given wit h li , w ell .4 9 ., numerous pons have succeeded eq1 1 c 06 .7 . 119 ; it oer e ' a coming to them.—Address Ross and o ti i e rs,V e S iterl d Bishepsgate-street,the celebratedPerreparailies ti Hair-cutters, red Hair-dyers.- - N• l3 ' dietso ce fob e re at their own residences, whatever the . reo or s so % 1; TII E WEAT II ER.--AfIC f some thir :t sv eel ' ) r ' a 31)t e" weeks' drought (excepting a fewshose%l3conlOetn to ,Pirc(-r -yesterday visited by a heavy rain, witl e . e ieu' hi efr' 9 o'clock, a. 51., and still continued whetl.24Calabri"7 with every appearance of its continuance tiger of this day. _....ei i ' ll ,----< free. l i to l. 1•111%. - • ~,, cat -0 ' 1 , 4 0 0 f ' - SIX POUNDS of TEA, and upwarca, e: - ' O O ro e ~• part of the Kingdom, at the Wholesale's 1 " 1 4 , • scl.. a" taut:., or Post-office order. 40. 4 t 1 tis., 7 7 SA•,p Black, 2s. Bd., 35., 3s. 4d ., 3s. 8(I., 4s , bs . 4 . 10- 1 , ' pl.' 0 Green, :is. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 5"""' lers, 2.e.eco Coffee, 9d„ Is. Is. 2d., Is. 4,1., Is., 6 ,l •', re a Pel ei , to r G. T. MANSELL and CO., Wholesale' . 1 b , el LEItSBURY, CIIEAPSIDE. Agencies WL ~„../- parties- • __,,,......._/ /I ~,,, --------- he g et BIRTHS. pf V.` On the 24th inst., at Datche t, the wi fe .. r_iaptoe, - Henry Labouchere, M P.. of a dauglq.',-,,,er '-'• frA 9`.° On the 22d inst., at Warwick -road, " ~ . 3 / 1.1 "' f Ll) ,o W. Turner, of a son. ifec kne. , • On the 22d inst., at Spring - P lgce ' hire, f ib' Lovell, of a son. York s rCy 3 41 eS, On the 23d inst., at Burton Ag n j heir. Is. A.li ,- Henry Boynton, Ess, o f a soo '` .. n agu are, 3 r .--,* On the 25th inst., in Wobu rn if , don, of a daughter..,, ').44e, , isle r , u l Dit ( Paris,On F th r e ed 2 e 2 r d ick ins jta.,ntrt3iintl:leClibilej.)l.°fotfllrel3d..e,reicekhipa: Qlll' I e, EE ( 11:1; Jai tleg ot 0 sono re. t° '3,,,,15. •,(05' Esq., of York-place, Porternidaenstsigista daughter of the late Thomas De nirnsta ple„ n 3 ,1 p,r . j o l On the 21st inst., at l'ilton,toPleatb, Capt_' e /ate sir , gent, Esq., of Clonlost, WresdJughter of tu •11 0° . Si , to Guards, to Anne younges- the Be ' . - 1 1 ° 1 4 , Robison, of EdinbUrgh. o,nersetshire, ne vonp._ , f,„ Sitipton lielir,s,,tri pig" WAeltlinßgtroonck:Bey.A.C, horcll, R e ,for ( „ n g u gh ,e..i p fjom Fier:lice, second daughter 3 of Brod tley lall,". n uset. . ii Ric DIE -D ' Indies, " 431 -cr' a s. E t In March last, at Moulmein, nc l or , . s .i l l? sut v ' On the 18th inst., at m eat , ~,, onl y ' L. Coxe, of her Itlsj cent Randall, Esq. bead, Na';' - Lodge..,c,''' ! iet Lop 0 5 daughter of the late J iarr cti On the 23d inst., at Dove r, _ ate hir Esq. Seru er3 daughter of H. Taylor, _ ,_.,, r o dge, S r ale. i,, C. Will be On the 20th inst., oaltinlitaeied,eFn,sl of w„ o fie) s ue r , i, On the 23,1 inst., at uP""!,-_'. Knvf;en, i• b q' G. re /vlr• of t Knyfton, relict of T. , __ ;ngt „ i i o , On the 24th inst., at IS-ci;r n E rd, Ireland- .„„te6e esti's 814natioi. nilt-esgitrineeetn, t .f . .‘.' ford, J05`313 , .00' t Ludien , ile, p On the 15th inst., a F.sci' ‘ il' o!ill surgeon, of that. place at Abern g. j .€i t ' - ' ° Colonel Bernard, of - Castie D • . On the 18th just , at tford-Place' -intar e ' ie 4 Upp Be( f .ton - r .- i if it , In London, Lady Cathsrerinnen James Esdaile, Esq , et . ter-terrace, -,- f i l er ' 4 1, On the 19th inst., at Ches Tattersall, k:sq , 0 fr sl'‘ . wife ( ,f G B. Jane, the • Ceylon Rifle Regiment. On the 20th inst., at Earl's-,.,1 , iza. char!e' .: 00 e' ~ „.• f t , Tyrone • Ge ° . rg lit g° 9 l44 . l-11 1' ect eldest sure On the 21st inst., Jo'an peter, ~, Pr' ..13itcrinctiittadr,drte,li:t id, 4: the fifth datt7liter of the llon. a nd . -i s ring' 4 Gr o ar t . t t, ti E le sl is o t f i A ns c t t , on On the 22(1 inst., at Trenodderi .. o l' 'ornivall• lift .tr ~ magistrate for the county of U ee1,,...w . 10, , , ilie. ' On the 23d inst.,' at Berwick -on- l_ace tca:da , iis o , baton, Vicar of Wandsworth, Sttrrcy'. art>linc, On the 23d inst, at Aberdeen-pl , 01 ' .ifil_ /' , On the 23d inst., Hannah, the wit 4 , ./ Ocff of Tulse-hill, Brixton. —.---- f ollk I) f Foley Hodgkinson, Esq., aged 36. . 0 _±. 3 f r . r / e ~....,---- -_-. -.t. , 1 0., I '''-' --- ' -- --- '-' ' ' - ' .--..."7-.' 31 li: 1) ' • 0, ) ;01 1 Loadon : Printed and Published bY ' 47 L OIL C co No. 112, Strand, PrilllC,7, At 'l'm Qua ~ t o Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy:, """ Middlesex. Thnraday, June 27, 1844 , ' the,wßifeicloifatrdLePltoel.;gefiriv de4 -4 _ snia, tkiettor Pr"' G. R 41 414 r 8 Ma toetween3 keti sr air. II . kessr MPgsrs k air. s; F. Iv . trtkico . • S t Oli c) Nv deli, v5 442 % 1 4 1 4 .1) 01\7ER A s 4 h i ff r ! .. the ( hi Wl ll l O dd a 14s - „Pqtr,",' L, hr riy s 44,N to 40 le n t 1 .4 ,4 ,; h r , ()i),Ne