The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-09 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY DIV ISION.

(From the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons.)
FRIDAY, MARCH 8, 1839.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND)
BILL.

Order for Second reading read; Motion made, and Question
proposed,-" That the Bill be now read a second time :"-
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word " now," asol
at the end of the Question to add the words " upon II is
day six months ."-Question put, " That the word ' now'
stand part of the Question :"-Tho House divided :-
MAJORITY-AYES, 300.
Abercrombv, G. R. —Stirlingshire Johnstone, J. J. Ir.—Perefrici.
Acheson, Lord—Co. of Armagh shire
Arland, Sir T. D.—.N Devonshire Jones, T.—Undonderry Co.
.','Court, Captain—Tanworth Kemble, H.—West Surrey
Adam, Rear-Adm. Sir C.—Clack- Kirmaird, Hon. A. F.—Perth
m..nuan , Knox, Hon. Th imas—Dl la a n ii
Aglionby, H. A.—Cockermouth I Labouchere, Right Hon. :Henry,
Aglionby, Major F.—Cumberland Taunton
Ainsworth, P.—Bolton Langdale, Hon. C.—Knate.;bo.
Alsager, R.—Surrey rough
Archbold, Robert —Kilifar'l !,asecl'es, Hon. W. S.—Wakefield
Ashley, Lord—Dorsetshire Law, Hon. C E. CarnbridgeUn iv.
.-tttwood, rhos.—Birmingham Lefevre' C. Shaw—North Hants
Bailey, J. D.—Sudbury Lefroy, fit. Hon. T.—Dublin Uni-
Baillie, H D.—Honiton versity
Bainbridge, E. T.—Taunton Lennox, Li rl A —Chlche. ter
Baker, Edward—Wilton Leve,on, Lord Morpeth
&lineman, A.—Aberdeen LiOde 1„ Hon. H.—North Hurl): m
Baring, 1.
I'.l'. leo
Aster, E. t:imlitre—Bratiford
Lushington, Dr.—Tower Hamlets
';::ring, W. B.—N. Staffordshire Lushington, Charles—Ashblirtot,
BFlBl.o_rnifi o,rutisihnout I-
Barnard, E. G.- -Greenwich Lygon, Major-Gen. Hon. H. B.—
aiiri—ir'
Barr , G. S.—Cork Co. Worcestershire West.
Beamish, F. B.—Cork Lynch, A. H.—Galwi.y
Ballew, R. M.—Louth Mackenzie, Thomas—ttesa-shiro
rieritinck, Lord G.—Lynn Mackinnen, W. A.—Lymington
Berkeley, Hon. E. H.—Bristol Vl' Leod, R.—lnverness
Berkeley Hoti. C.—Cheltenham M.Namara, Maj. W. N.—Clare Co.
Bernal, Berkeley,
Rochester APTaggart. John—Wigton, &c.
Bewes, 'l' —Plymouth Maher, John—Wexford Co
Blackett, C.—South Northumber- Maidstone, Visct.—N. Northam',
land I tonshire
Blair, J. Wigtonshirc Nlarshall, Wm.—Carlisle
BiaLe, Martin J.—Galway Marsland, Henry—Stockport
Blake, W. J.—Newport Marslancl, Thomas—Stockport
Biznnerhassett, A.—Kerry Martin, John—Tewkesbury
iilewitt, Reginald—Monmouth %larton, Geo.-I,aheaster
Blunt, Sir Charles—Lewes Master, Colonel—Cirencester
B: elkin, J. J.—Galway Co. 'Talkie, Hon. Fox—Elgin Burghs
Boldero, Hcniy G. —Ch.ppenhan. •
ifelgund, Viscount —Hy the
Bolling, W.—Bolton "liklmay, P. St. John —Winche -
Bowes, John—South Durham ter
Bramston, T. W.—Essex South Miles, William—Sonaersetshire
isridgernan, Hewitt—Ennis Miles, Philip W. Skynner—Bristol
Briscoe, J. I.— Wes. bury Moreton, A. H.—Gloucester:dire:
Broadley, Henry—East Yorkshire dorpeth, Lord—Yorkshire
Brockleinirst, .I. Viacelesfield Morris, D.--Carmarthen
Brodie, W. B.—Salisbury 'turray, flight Hon. J. A.--I,itii
• :rotlierton, J.—Salford ltitskett, George A.—St. Alban's
Browne, It. D.—Mayo `Cagle, Sir 11.—Wes meath
flrownrigg, J. S.—Boston Noel, William M.—Rutland
Bruges, \%. H. L.—Bath Norreys, Sir Denham—Mallow
BuNer, Sir E. L.—Lincoln TBrien, Cornelius—Clare'
Buslield, W.—Bradford 'Plirien, %V. S.—Limerick Co.
fouler, Hon. P.—Kilkenny Co. O'Callaghan, Hon. C —Dungai-
Byng, George—Middlesex van
Byiig, Right Hon. GS —Chadian, O'Connell, M. J.—Kerry
Calcraft, John Hales—%Vareham O'Connell, Morgan—Meath
Callaghan, D, Cork City :'Fearall, Richard M.—Kilda,'
Campbell, Sir John—Edinburgh Ord, W.—Newcastle-upon-'Tyne
Canning, Right Hon. Sir S. —Lyn'. Paget, Fred,rick—Beaumaris
Cavendish, lion. C. C.—E. Sussex Pakington, J. S.—Droitwich
Cavendish, Hon. G. 11.—N. Derby 'alrner, Charles Fyshe—Reading
Chalmers, Patrick—lnverbervie Palmerston, Viscount—Tiverton
Clerk, Sir G.—Stamford Parker, John—Sheffield
Clive, Edward B.—Hereford Parke, R. T.—Preston
Codrington, Sir E.—Devonport Parnell, Sir H. Dundee
Collier, John—Plymouth Patten, J. Wilson—Lancashire
Colqiihun, John C.—Renfrew Pattison, James—London
Compton, H. Combe—Hampshire Pechell, Captain—Brighton
Conolly, Edward M.—Donegal Peel, lit. Hon. sir IL—Tainworte:
Corry, Hon. H. L.—Tyrone Co. Pendarves, E. W.—W. Cornwall
Craig, %V. G.—Edinburgnshire I),a-meal, Colonel—Sligo, Co.
Crawley, Samuel Bedford Philips, G. It.—Poole
Crompton, S.—Think Phillpotts, John—Gloucester
Currie, Itaikes--Northampton Pigott, Robert—Bridgnorth
Curry, William—Armagh Power, James—Wexford Co.
Dalmeny, Lord—Stirling Price, Sir R—Herefordshire
Davies, Colonel—Worcester Price, Richard—New Radnor
Denistoun, J.—Glasgow Protheroe, Edward—Halifax
De Horsey, S. H.—Newcastle. pusey, Philip—Berkshire
under Lyine Rcdington, T. N.—Dundalk
Donkin, Sir R.—Sandwich Rice, lit. Hon. T. S.—Cambridge
Douglas, Sir C E.— Warwick Rich, H —Knaresborough
Duckworth, Samuel—Leicester Richards, Richard—Merionethsh.
Duff, James—Banff-hire Roche, E. 11.—Cork Co.
Duke, Sir James—Boston Roche, William—Limerick
Manias, C. W. D.—Flint Roche, Sir David—Limerick
Du Pre, George—Bucks Rolfe, :ir R. M.—Penryn
Eliot, Hon. J. E.—Roxburghshire Rolleston, Col.—S. Nottinguam
Ellice, Capt. A.—Harwich Round, John—Maldon
Ellice, Right Hon. E.—Coventry Rundle, John—Tavistoc.k
Ellice, Edward—St. Andrew's Rushbrooke, Colonel—Suffolk
Estcourt, 'l'. Junior—Devizes Russell, Lord John—Stroud
Evans, G. —Dublin County Russell, Lord—Tavistock
Evans, William—North Derby Aalwey, Lieut.-Col.—Ludlow
Feilden, W. J.—Blackburn -anford, E A.—Somersetshire
Ferguson,Sir R. A.—Londonderry Scarlett, Hon. J. Y.—Guildford
Finch, F.—Walsall Scholefield, .I.—Birmingham
Fitzalan, Lord—Arundel Scrope, Poulett—Stroud
Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.—Limerick Seymour, Lord—Totness
Fitzsimon, Nicholas—King's Co. Sharpe, General—Dumfries
Fleetwood, P. H.—Preston Shaw, Rt. Hon. F.—Dublin Univ.
Fort, J.—Clitheroe Shall, Richard Lalor—Tipperary
Fremantle, Sir Thomas—Bucks Shirley, E. J —Warwickshire
French, F.—Rosscommon Smith, J. A.—Chichester
Gibson, 'Thomas—lpswich Smith, R. V. - Northampton
Gladstone, W. E.—Newark-on- Smyth, Sir G. H.—Colchester
Trent Standish, Charles--Wigan
Gordon, Robert—Windsor Stanley, Edward—Cumberland
Gordon, Hon. W.—Aberdeenshire Stanley, Lord—North Lancashire
Goulburn, Right Hon. 11.—Cam- Stanley, W. Massey—Pontefract
bridge University Stansfield,W It. C.—Huddersfield
Graham, Right Hon. Sir J. R. G., Staunton, Sir George Thomas
Bt.—Pembroke Stock, Dr.—Cashel
Grant, F. W.—lnverness-shire Strickland, Sir G.—W- Yorkshire
Grattan, Henry—Meath Strutt, Edward—Derby
Grey, Sir George—Devonport Stuart, Lord J.—Ayr
Grimsditch, T.—Macclesfield Stuart, Villiers—Waterford Co.
Grimston, Viscount—Hertford. Sturt, Henry Chasi—Dersetshire
shire 'Style, Sir Charles—Scarborough
Grimston, Hon. E. H.—St. Al. Surrey, Hail of—West Sussex
ban's Tancred, H. W.—Banbury
Hall, Sir Benjamin—Marylebone Teignmouth, Lord Marylebone
Harcourt, G. S.—Bucks Tennent, J. E.—Belfast
Hardinge, Right Hon. Sir H.—'Thomson, Rt. Hon. C. P. —Man-
Launceston Chester
Hawkins, J. H.—Newport, Isle of Thornely,Thos.—Wolverhampton
Wight Townley, 11. G —Cambridgeshire
ilayter, W. G.—Wells french, Sir F.—Scarborough
Ileathcoat, J —Tiverton Troubridge, Sir T. E —Sandwich
Hector, Cornthwaite John—Pe- Turner, Edmund—Truro
ter sfield Vere, Sir C. B.—East Suffolk
Henniker' Lord—East Suffolk vigors, N. A.—Carlow Co
Herbert, Ron. S.—South Wilts Vivian, John Henry—Swansea
'Teron Sir R.—Peterborough Wathi.ngton, H. S.—West Suffbik ', - ,
rflttlinrg ri Ma
~,,x,
...

Elinaley, Charles—Ashton
Hebhouse, Right Hon. Sir J. C.I
Nottingham
Hotmouse, T. Benj.—Rochester
Hodges, T L.—West Kent
Hodgson, ltd.—Berwick-on.Tweed
Hogg, James Weir—Beverley
Holmes, Hon W.—lsle of Wight
Holmes, W.—Berwick-on Tweed
Charles—Linlithgowshire I
Hope, G. W.—Weymouth
/I orsinan , Ed ward— Cockermouth
Houston, G. J.—Renfrewshire
Howard, P. fl.—Carlisle
Howard, Sir IL—Wicklow Co.
How ick , Vir orthumbeilano
Hughes, W. B.—Carnarvon
Hume, Jaeoh—Kilkenny
liumphery, John—Southwark
Hurt, Francis—South Derby
Hutt, W.—Hull
Hutton, Robert—Dublin
Jackson, Mr. Setj.—Bantion Bridge
James. Sir W. C.—Kingston.on-
Hull
Jervis, S.—Bridport

..
Walker, R.—Bury, Lancashire
. Wall, C. Baring—Guildford
Wallace, Robert—Greenock
Warburton, H.—Thrldport
Westenra Hon.H IL—Monaghai
l'White, Andrew—Sundeyland
i ,Vhite, Henry—Longford
: i Whitmore, T. C.-13ridgenorth
iWilbraham, George—Cheshire
t Wilde, Mr. Serjeant—Newark
'Williams, William—Coventry
Williams, W. A.—Monmouthsh.
Wilshere, William—Yarmouth
Winnington, T. E.— Beivdley
Winnington, H. J.—Woreestersh.
, Wodehouse, Edmund—Norfolk
Wood, Charles—Halifax
Wood, Sir Matthew—London
'Wood, G. W.—Kendal

Worsfey, Lord—Lincolnshire
Wyse, Thomas—Waterfora

Yates, J. Ashton -Carlow

MINORITY.
Ad ,re, Lord—Glamorganshire
A rchdall, Gen. M.—Fermanagh
Bagge, W.—West Norfolk
Bateson, Sir R.—Londonderry
Broadigood, Henry—Bridgewater
Bruce, Lord E.—Marlborough
Cole, Hon. Arthur H.—Entiiskilleu
Cole, Viscount—Fermanagh
Dick, Quintin—Maldon
D'lsraeli, B.—Maidstone
Duticombe, Hon. \V.—Yorkshire
D uncom be, Hon. A.—East Betford
Ellis, John—Newry
Fati,mn, E B —N. Leicestershire
Fector, John Minet—Maidstone
Gore, Ormsby—Salop
Heathcote, Sir W —S. Hampshire
Hillsborough, Earl of—Down
Hodgson, Frederick—Barnstaple
Jones, Job n—Carmarthenshire
K lly, 1. it zroy—lpswich

ANTI-uORN-LAW

MEETING OF ANTI-CORN-LAW

DELEGATES AT MANCHESTER,

(BY EXPRESS.)
(FItOM OUR OWN REPORTER.)
The Anti-Corn-law Delegates from various parts of
the kingdom yesterday held their first public meeting since
their return from Lon:lon, at the Corn Exchange, Hang.
ing• ditch. The hour originally fixed for bolding the meet-
ing was 12 o'clock, but as several respectable and judo
ential gentlemen, merchants, manufacturers, and otherp.
who were desirous of being present on so import:int and
in:eresting occasion, stated they would not be able to attend
at so early an hour without great inconvenience and neglect
of business, it was determined to postpone the meeting till
a later period of the day, and, in the course of the morning,
placards were posted about the town, stating that the
Delegates would not meet until three o'clock. The 4t 0_
of the inhabitants was regulated by the distribu-
tion of tickets.

The business of the day did net commence till nearly
half-past three o'clock, by which time, however, the plat-
form was completely covered with Delegates, and the bid}
of the Hall well crowded.

R. H. GREG, Esq., on being called to the Chair, said
that he regretted their esteemed and worthy friend, Mr.
Smith, was prevented, in consequence of domestic afflic-
tion, from presiding. He would, however, endeavour to
make himself as good a substitute as possible, although he
was afraid the meeting would feel the absence of Mr.
Smith. By way of informing the meeting how it was that
the Delegates had been called together that day, he would
state that the body of the Delegates who assembled in
London, to obtain, if possible, the sanction of the Legisla-
ture to hear evidence at their bar respecting the mischie-
sous effects of the Corn-laws, came to a resolution that
they would adjourn to Manchester, and communicate the
result of their mission. The present meeting of Delegates
was called in compliance with that resolution, and he
would just mention, in the first place, this was a meeting
of Delegat2s only—that there were 50 or 60 gentlemen
present from almost every part of the kingdom. These
gentlemen would state their sentiments, and the persons in
the body of the Hall would consider themselves as au-
ditors. —( Hear, hear.) He would now read the list of
Delegates present. The Manchester Delegates present,
whom they were all well acquainted with, were Messrs.
Cobden, Rawson, Walker, and George Wilson. There
were present
Front LEEDS—Messrs. E. Baines, jun., Plint, Mar-
sha•l, Fairburn, Wilkinson, Massey, and Stansfield,
Halm ax—Messrs. Hoatson, Ackroye, Glidhill, Sa-
muel Smith, Clarkson, Baldwin, and Barrowelough.
LANCASTER—Messrs. Armstrong (the Mayor), and
Eli gin.
_ _

LONDON-Mes-rs. Taylor and Young.
PRESTON—Messrs. Barker:and Addison.
GLASGOW—Messrs. Todd, Weir, Johnstone, Craig, and
Tennant.

BIRMINGHAM—Messrs. Sturge, Boultbee, and Edmonds.
BRADFORD.—Messrs. Byles, Priestwall and Illingworth.
BOLTON.—The Mayor, Messrs. Paulton, H. Ashworth,
and E. Ashworth.
DUNDEE.—Messrs. Kinloch and Baxter.
BURNLEY.—Messrs. Barnes and Sellard.
ST. PANCRAS.—Messrs. Foraby and Newburry.
LEICESTER.—Mr. Kimpson.
NOTTINGHAM.—Messrs. Close arid Bean.
EDINBURGIL—Hon. J. Erskine Murray, and Mr.
Witham of the Chamber of Commerce.
H unnEnsr TELD. —Messrs. Sliaw, Williams, Sl] erriood,
Starkie, and Batley.
HULL.—Color et Thompson.
SOURBT BRIDGE. —Mr. James Fielding.
KENDAL. —Mr. Alderman Wilson.
WARRINGTON.—Messrs. Eskrigg and Rylands.
DERBY.—Mr. Johnson, and from
LITBRPOOL.—Messrs. Holland, Atkinson, Blackstone,
and Wood.

That was a very formidable list, indeed. Instead of being
discouraged and dispersed by the defeat they had met
with in London, like fugitives, they had re-assembled in
double force —(Hear, hear)—and intended to start for
London on the Saturday morning, or the day following, so
as to be in London on Monday.—(Cheers.) This would
show the country and the Legislature that they were in
eat nest ; and, perhaps, as he would not have an opportunity
of addressing the meeting again this day, they would allow
him to detain them a few minutes while he touched upon
one or two questions. The refusal of the Legislature
to allow evidence to be given at the bar was on
every account to be lamented. There were many false
statements made that required to be cleared up, and
there were many facts of a statistical nature that
required the most accurate explanation, in order to
prevent false impressions being created in the minds of in-
dividuals.—( Hear, hear.) He would allude for an instant
to a very important mistake made by Sir R. Peel, and
which had been allowed to remain uncontradicted by any
Member of Parliament. In order to show the flourishing
state of the cotton manufactures of England, Sir Robert
['eel took an average of seven years, including 1837, and
compared them with the exports of 1838, and stated there
bad been an increase in 1838 of 2,000,0001. In the first
place that was an uncandid statement, because 1837 being,
as they well knew, a year of extreme depression,
the exports of that year were small, and there fore
mnroor.4...the average of the seven )ears to a great extent.
'the export of 1838 -ices doubly great, because of the small
export of 1837, and, therefore, showed an average
certainly to our discredit as financiers in the matter ; but
he believed that not only was the statement unfair in that
respect, but that there was an actual error of a million and
a-half in the amount of exports given by Sir Robert Peel,
and which statement he (Mr. Greg) believed had
Leen supplied by the Board of Trade.. This was
a neater of so much importance, that he would just
observe there were gross returns made at the Cue
tote-house to the flourd of l'irele of experts, and
that source ye as afterwards there was a net account.
Both were forwarded to the Board of Trade. It appeared
that up to this time the correct account had not been re-
ceived ; and that, consequently, the amount of exports for
1838, given by Sir Robert Peel, was the gross amount of
exports. On a comparison of the gross exports and the
net exports of former years, he found on an average a
surplus in the gross accounts of exports, over the net, of
1,500,0001 ; and there was no reason to suppose that the
gross account of exports, for 1838, would differ from
those which had preceded it, or that it would not be found
to give 1,500,0001., which the net accounts when furnished
would show. If that was correct, which he believed
it to be, and which he had authorised Mr. Villiers, in his
authority to state, all Sir Robert Peel's argument would fall
to the ground, because it would show there was no surplus
at all in the exports of 1838 over former years.--( Hear,
hear, bear.) That was a very important view of the case,
and if fairly put, it would have stood thus:—He would
class the years 1835 and 1836 together, and 1837 and 1838
and then it would be seen hoof, the account would stand.
Time export of the manufactured cotton goods in 1835 and
1836, was on an average 595,000,000 yards. In 1837 and
1838, it was 588,000,000 yards, showing a diminution, not
an increase in the exports. The value of the export of
manufactured cotton goods in 1835 and 1836, was
16.182,0001. ; the value of the exports in 1837 and
1838, was 14,470,000 ; so that instead of, an

there being a great increase, there was a great diminution
in the value ; and even allowing for a difference of price
in the raw material, there would be still a great detciency
in the value of our exports. This proved that the state-
ment of Sir Robert Peel was rather unfair and uncandid.
—( Hear, hear.) There was another statement which was
rather an important one, and which related to the nature
of those exports. He would divide the whole amount of
cotton exports into two classes, and would sub-divide thc
first into ti4ree, namely, grey and white calicoes, printed
and dyed calicoes, and lace. Those three articles form, d,
what proportion did they suppose to the whole exports?
92 per cent., almost the entire export, and all the rest
of the articles of cotton manufacture, including hosiery,
nankeens, ginghams, &c., the whole the produce of the
hand-loom, amounted to 8 per cent.—( Hear, hear.) The
fact was, that all that branch of the trade was gone, and
nothing remained but the produce of the power-loom, and
lace, which was very small. In the great article of grey
and white calicoes they were met in many markets by
American competition and were beaten. In 1831, the
second class,• consisting of hosiery, cotton, and lace, bore
in reference to the let class 254 per cent on the whole.
In 1832 it bore 24i per cent.
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
So that the whole branch of our cotton business,
in which any quantity of labour was required, was
fast going, and, in fact, was nearly gone, for in that short
period it had actually fallen off to one half the value it
was in 1831, and now proved altogether only 8 per cent. of
the whole portion of the cotton manufacture.—( Hear,
hear.) He should shortly publish one or two very im-
portant facts, and would just mention to the meeting
with respect to the comparative profits of 1836 and 1838,
that 242,000,000 lbs. of cotton goods exported in 1836,
sold for 26,000,0001., while the same quantity in 1838
sold for only 22,000,0001., which, allowing for the extra
price of cotton, not quite 3d. per lb., in the former year,
showed a loss of 3,000,000/. sterling. So much
for their present prospects. It must be admitted
tEat there had gradually been a considerable decrease in
our exports, and to that must be attributed the present
distressed state of the manufacturing community. At the
same time, if the markets throughout the world were open,
which they would be if the Corn-laws were repealed,
those temporary checks would not be felt, but there would
be room for the trade and commerce of all countries to
expand and flourish.—( Cheers.) With these remarks he
begged to call on Mr. Young, from London, to address
and move the first resolution.—( Cheers. )
Mr. G. A. YOUNG, of Marylebone, said the resolution
which be been requested to move was as follows:
" That the refusal to hear evidence against the Corn and
Provision-lairs, in the manner best calculated to expose their
pernicious tendency—thus virtually closing the door of Parlia-
ment against the manufacturing and commercial populations—
is calculated to impair the confidence of the natio.i in the wis-
dom and justice of the Legislature. The evidence collected
from all parts of the kingdom by the Delegates since their last
meeting in Manchester proves, beyond their former knowledge,
that those laws are exercising a most pernicious influence upon
manufacturing and commercial industry; whilst at the same
time, without benefiting the landowner, they are shown to
operate 'Most injuriously upon the interests of the cultivators of
the sail, and especially upon that numerous class the distressed
agricultural labourers. '

He sincerely regretted that the task of moving this Reso-
lution had not devolved on some individual more capable
of doing justice to it than himself; for he was aware that
in addressing that Meeting he was addressing those who
were practically acquainted with all the details of the
Corn-law question as it pressed on the manufacturing in-
terests of the country ; and not being himself engaged in
any branch of trade, he approached the discussion of the
question with unfeigned diffidence and distrust in his
own power of doing it i ustice.—( Hear, and cheers.)

But it had always appeared to him that it would be a very
convenient and a very effectual way of settling the diffa-
rences between themselves and their opponents, if they
could reduce the question to two or three well defined
points of issue, and he thought this might easily he done.
—( Hear, hear.) For instance, they were told the Corn
laws could not be repealed without making this country
dependent on foreign countries for a supply of food Was
that a sound proposition, or was it not? &p hi.
they were told that the agricuitto al interests were
overwhelmed with taxation, while the non-agricul-
tural portion of the community were comparatively
free from those burthens which pressed the agriculturists
to the ground. As to tne first quastion he was aware that
in stating the extreme falacy involved in that proposition.,
he was only saying that which was well known to the meet
ing, but it was to their own interests that they should at
such assemblies as the present challenge inquiry and dis-
cussion on those points; and it was for that reasen he
would venture to call their attention to the two he h..d
mentioned in particular.—( Thus, if they investigated their
own cotton trade they would find that there tie ,e
nearly a million of persons two or three years ago
employed in it; there were, probably more than
that number at the present time actually engaged in
that manufacture ; and there w ere 1,500,000 probably
directly or indirectly dependant on the cotton manufacture
for their support.—( Hear, hear.) Now he would ask
whether the 1,500,000 persons consumed any corn or not,
and in what were they dependent for the supply of that
foreign material which enabled them to purchase corn of
the landowners? Were they not dependent on the cotton
growers of the Southern States of America ?—( Hear,
hear.) Was not that supply liable to interruption from
the jealousy of the American Government, and from all
those contingencies and accidents which attended the trade
in corn with America, or any other country in the world.
—(Cheers.) Then it was estimated that each person
consumed one quarter of corn in a year, so that there
were 1,500,000 persons consuming 1,500,000 quarters of
corn annually ; for the means of buying and consuming
whirls corn, they were dependent on the cotton growers of
the United States of America. Why did not the land-
owners stop that trade ? Were they not aware of the ex-
treme danger that might result to them from the indivi-
duals engaged in the cotton trade being dependent on
America for the means of purchasing their corn, and did
they not perfectly well know that if the trade were inter.
rupted, the means of purchasing that amount of corn would
be wanting? The same argument, he apprehended, applied
to every other trade, and if they took the number of fami-
lies engaged in agriculture in 1831, and the number of fa
inilies engaged in manufactures in 1831, they would find
tiro number of families engaged in agriculture were 961,134,
while the number of families engaged in manufactures in
1831 was 1,434;873—the number of families engaged in
manufactures exceeded those engaged in agriculture by
one-third.—(Cheers.) Again, if they took the population
of Great Britain, exclusive of Ireland, they would find it
amounted at the present time to 18,000,000 ; and if the
number of agricultural families was compared with
the number of manufacturing families; it would be
feund that two-thirds of the eighteen millions were
non-agriculturists.—( Hear, hear, hear.) He would ask
where did these two-thirds find support I Was it not from
the trade and the manufactures of the country, and was not
the majority of those two-thirds of the population de-
pendent on foreign trade and on the raw produce received
from foreign countries for the means of purchasing the pro-
duce of the corn growers ?—(Hear, hear.) The same
principle applied to the mass of the population, and the
corn-grower was now labouring under these very disadvan-
tages which he anticipated would arise if there were a free
trade in corn ; for the vast bulk of consumers were de-
pendent on foreign countries for the means of purchasing the
produce of the land.—(Cheers.) It might be as well to
inquire what probability there was of this foreign trade
being interrupted? They had been told that the advocates
of free trade were theorists—that they were fond of in-
dulging in Utopian schemes extremely disastrous to the
well-being of the State. Of course, on this subject, they
had not many facts to refer to, because a system of free
trade had never been acted on. To a certain degree they
were theorists, but facts were not altogether wanting, and
as far as those facts went, they proved their views to be
correct. He would call the attention of the meeting
to the operation of the American tariff. The Americans
determined to exclude our manufactures; they imposed a
heavy duty on them, and what was the consequence? why
the Southern Americans found they had to pay from 30 to
100 per cent. more for their native manufactured goods
than for goods imported from this country.—( Hear, hear.)
The result was, that the state of South Carolina determined
to resist the custom-house laws of the whole Union, and a
dissolution of the Union was threatened in consequence. Did
not this show that there was a power in the principle
of the free-trade operating on the minds of an
intelligent people, for the purpose of putting down
monopoly ?—( Cheers. ) It was perfectly clear there was
not that danger in relying on free trade which the advo-
cates of monopoly represented, and that Governments
had not the poster always of blinding their citizens to
their true interests, and could not, in spite of them, carry
bad laws into operation.—(hear, hear.) Another in-
stance was Russia. The nobles and landed proprietors
of Russia were dependent, in a great measure, for their
incomes on the exports from Russia to this country.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) It happened that the Emperor
Paul of Russia, in 11100, laid an embargo on English
shipping, but he was the next morning found dead in his
bed, and it was supposed his death had been caused by
p,,ion. This showed that the interests of persons engaged
in free trade, even under despotic Governments, were suf-
ficient to controul the narrow-mindedness of those who
would interfere with their interests.—(Cheers. ) But per-
haps the best instance in modern times was the Prussian
Commercial League, which, whether political or not iii
the intention of its projectors, had not been extended by
ordinary political means. No international treaties, formed
to be broken, had heralded its progress. No armies had
been necessary to subdue reluctant nations beneath its sway
—no blood hsd been shed, no triumphs had been cele-
erated, no lists of killed and wounded had graced its
peeceful establishment, and net 28,000,000 of persoes were
included within its donnnien. Fer the first time the jdr-
ring elements of discord in Northern Germany had been
successfully controlled, and peace, commerce, and civiliza-
tion had united men and States which seemed destined to
remain asunder.—( Cheers ) He thought they might,
therefore, infer from those instances that the advocates of
the free trade were not such mere theorists as had been
supposed.—( Hear, hear ) One observation on the fal-
lacy of this argument, that the landlords were oppressed
by an excessive amount of taxation : He had shown
that the majority of the people were non agriculturists,
and he contended that the taxes of the country were paid
by the consumers—by the great body of the people.—
( Hear, hear.) The Customs and the Excise, in 1834,
amounted to 36,000,0001. The population was about
18.000,000, of which one-third was agricultural, and two-
thirds non-agricultural. In what proportion was that
36,000,0001. paid by the people ? Two-thirds were paid
by those who neither had any interest in land, nor derived
their subsistence from land ; while one-third was paid only
by the agriculturists, who said that they alone bore the
burdens of taxation. The same with regard to stamps.
There was an item of 2,129,000 f. paid annually for probates
and legacies, but there was no duty whatever paid on landed
property that was either devised or descended. Of this sum
2,000,0001. a year was paid entirely on the personal property
of the country, in which the non-agricultural portion of
the community was interested to a much larger amount
than the agricultural. And so it was with the other items
of the public revenue. If, then, his proposition was cor-
rect, which he contended it was, that, in the proportion 1
of two-thirds to one-third, the non-agricultural con-
turners paid the taxes of the country, they would find on the
general revenue, exclusive of local taxation, that there
was an excess of 16,000,000/. paid by the non-agricultural
portion of the community of Great Britain.--( Hear, hear)
But then they were told that there was an enormous set-
oft against this in Poor- rates and County-rates. He be-
lieved that a man purchased land with a perfect knowledge
that it was charged with poor. rates and other taxes ; but
it would be found that the poor-rates in 1833, amounted to
8,000,Q00/., out of which 5,000,0001. was paid by the
land, and 2,944,000/. was paid by dwelling-houses, mills,
and factories ; that was to say, about fire-eighths were
paid by the land, and three-eighths by houses
and factories. In 1836, the gross amount of poor-rates was
reduced to 5,422,0001.. and even allowing that they paid
two-thirds of that, the amount paid by them would be
3,614,000/., and the ateeunt paid by towns would be
1,807,0001. The enormous tax, therefore, on the wealthy
land-owners was three and a half millions, while he had
shown that the excess on the general revenue paid by the
non-agriculturist part of the commueity amounted to ebout
16,000,000/.—( Hear, hear.) The allegation, therefore,
-that the agricultural portion of the community was weighed
down by taxes was one that could not be maintained.
In fact, the other portions of the community paid taxes
to a much larger amount, and it was in order to prove
that fact, and to assert those principles, that the petition
of the Delegates had been presented to the Commons'
House of Parliament. They all knew what had been the
fate of that petition. That petition contained very re-
spectful statements, and a prayer that might have been
very properly complied with, but it was rejected. Every
precedent was in favour of the inquiry, the evidence taken
on many of the inquiries insulted the public morality of the
country, and they knew with what zeal Noble Lords inquired
into some of the pollutions. that were revolting to the ear.
But the grand inquest of the nation had repulsed the
manufactures of England ! and the House of Parlia-
ment that could find a place in its records for the
testimony of that witness " without memory" whose
name lived in our language as synonimous with every-
tiling that was infamous and false, had refused a hear-
ing to those from whose ranks had sprung the genius
of an Ark w right and a Watt._(Cheers.) He would call
their attention to one proximate cause, in his opinion, to
the rejection of that petition. No Government had ever
existed, in which questions of great importance had been
made open questions, that had not been a weak and vacil-
lating government.--( Hear.) He said this riot with any
feeling of enmity to the present Government, but he believed
that the doctrine of open questions was one that must end
in undermining the influence of the Government upon the
public opinion of the oountry. The instances cited by
Lord Melbourne in the House of Lords, of the Ministers
of 1619 and 1828, were instances of Tory Governments
that could scarcely afford an example worthy of imitation
by Reformers. But the Government of Mr. Canning was
continually reproached for acting upon Whig principles
under the cover of Tory professions ; and in the famous
coalition between Mr. Fox and Lord North, the eloquence
of Burke--the wit and genius of Sheridan—the unparal-
leled powers of Mr. Fox himself—joined to the experience
of Lord North, could not sustain the Government under the
condemnation of public opinion.—(Cheers.) Besides,
open questions were, he contended, unconstitutional. They
said " the King could do no wrong"—that the Mo-
narch in England reigned, but did not govern_..
but they only assented to this contitutional maxim because
they substituted a Ministerial for a Royal responsibility.
And under what circumstances had the Queen's Ministers
shrunk from the responsibility which attached to there
An amiable, an accomplished, and a well-educated Royal
Lady occupied the Throne—(Cheers)—but still a per..
nonage, however illustrious, of so immature an age, that
were she the daughter of one of her own subjects, she
would not be permitted to dispose of her pin-money, with-

out the previous consent of her parents or guardians.—
( Hear, hear.) It was under these very peeuli.e• circum-
stances, and on a question which touches the very spring,
of our national prosperity, that her Ministers were less
justified than in any other in abandoning that intermediate
position which separated the direct responsibility of the
Crow re from the epen remonstrances of the people.
Mr. JOHNSTONE, of Glasgow, seconded the resolution,
without snaking any alliess to the Meeting.
Mr. EDMONDS, of 13;rmingham, supported the Resolu-
tion. As sonic of thole who had long acted with him,
differed in opinion with hiin on the subject of the Corn-
laws, he would just state his opinions on this question
No one could be more convinced than he was of the atrocity
of those laws, and of the tendency they had to injure com-
merce, but he would very respectfully express his opiiiion
that it was in the highest dogre. aleurd to assume that they
might to allow one great political subject, whatever
it; importance might be, to engross all their attention
to the neglect of all other subjects, though they might be
eensidered ;n some degree as matters of detail. —(Hear.)
Ile was a Radical Reformer.—(Cheers.) He knew that
p litical subjects were forbidden, but he only wished it to
be known what it was, and that the opinion he expressed
was connected with all those ardent feelings which he bad
manifested for so many years in favour of the cause of re-
form. He was sorry that impediments had been thrown
in the way of the progress of the Corn-law question, because
it did appear to him that for the working men of England
to be engaged in mere speculative politics While they were
suffering in their trade from the atrocious Corn-laws, Was
to be pursuing a shadow, and neglecting what they must
ail feel to be the' subitance.—( Hear, hear.) He was cer-
t=ain that the declsretion in the resolution that the course
recently taken by Parliament in refusing to hear evidence
was calculated impair the confidence of the nation in the
wisdom of the Legislature, was one that would find an
echo in the bosom of every one present.—( Hear, hear.)
After the details they had heard of the large amount of
taxation paid by the commercial community over the
agricultural, the Government would be guilty indeed of A
great dereliction of duty if it neglected to inquire into
those statements and would forfeit the confidence of the
country.—( Cheers.) He would not on the present occa-
s;on go into details because he conceived that to be super-
ileons ; but he would beg leave to impress on the Delegates
and the meeting that this was a question so connected
with the final success or decay of trade—that he hoped
they would all join heart and hand, insist on the
the removal of those atrocious laws, and suffer nothing
to take precedence of this great subject.—(Cheers.)
Conscious of the superierity of the Gentlemen around
bin to occupy their attention with more advantage, he
would conclude with saying, that the resolution which
had been brought forward met with his hearty, concur-
rence.—(Cheers.)

The resolution was then put and carried unanimously.
Mr. MARSHALL ( Leeds) proposed the second resolution,
which was as follows:—" That whilst the thanks of the
country are due to those Members of the House of Com-
mons who supported the prayer of the Delegates, this
meeting has seen with regret and astonishment among their
opponents the names of certain of the people's Represen-
tatives, who have been esteemed inimical to every species
of monopoly and misgovernment. Whilst calling upon
their fellow-countrymen to suspend their opinion of those
Legislators until they shall have recorded their votes on
the substantive motion shortly to be submitted to the
House of Commons, the Delegates earnestly hope that on
that occasion every friend of freedom will be found advo-
cating the right of the people to procure the first neces-
saries of life in exchange for the produce of their labour in
the cheapest markets of the world." In stating his con-
currence in the terms of this resolution he did not wish to
impugn the motives of the gentlemen there referred to, who
ought to be as firm friends of the great cause theywere support-
ing as themselves—he would only impugn their judgments.
The grounds on which Mr. Villiers' motion had been ne-
gatived were—first; that the inquiry would have stopped
the other business of legislation ; and secondly, that it was
tint the best mode of agitating the question. With regard
to the first objection—if it had had the effect of putting a
step to the other business of the Legislature, the House
of Commons could not have spent their time better than by
inquiring into the matter; and with respect to the second,
that it was not the best means of agitating the question--
that was a subject on which there might be a difference 01.
opinion.—( Hear.) This was not a measure that could t e
ranked with ordinary measures. An exception might leave
been made in favour of it. This question did not merely
affect trade and commerce ; it was a measure of compre-
hensive and beneficial justice. It affected not merely this
country, but the whole world ; and the steps that might b 3
taken, as it would influence the proceedings of the
whole world. In the United States a struggle was mak-
ing against protective duties by the Southern States, and
should not England set an example, which, if followed.
would be bsecticial to both ?—( Cheers.) They had ob-
tained a:tariff, providing a gradual diminution of that duty;
that was now approaching its termination; the question
was_ whether or not when that terminated they should pro-
ceed in the course they had already commenced, of free
trade, or whether they should retrogade, and the example
of this country would heve a great weight with them. Oa
these grounds it was, that he thought the question ought
not to he treated as an ordinary question.—( Hear, hear.)
It was one that must of necessity occupy the attention of
the country, and which no sensible man could refuse to
support.—( Hear, hem. )
Mr. JOSEPH STURGE, of Birmingham, seconded the re-
solution. As it had been said in some quarters that those
Members of the House of Commons who voted against
the inquiry, did not ell by that vote prove that they were
against the abolition of the Corn-laws, he ardently wished
that on the forthcoming occasion the minority would be
converted by a majority. But whatever might be the re-
sult of that motion, he hoped there was not an individual
present who might have taken any interest in promoting
this question who would suppose his labour had been lost.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) Great progress had been made
in the public mind on this subject. It was also important
that the advocates for the repeal of the Corn-laws
should accept nothing less than what they had asked,
nemely, a total abolition.—( Cheers ) Nothing short of
that would he worth naming.—( Hear, hear.) When the
Delegates were in London they passed a resolution dis-
claiming all intention of wishing for any protection to the
artizari against the foreign labourer, and they had
thereby removed from the landed proprietor all shadow of
claim for this monopoly.—( Hear, hear.). He hoped that
friends of the rt peal would not cease agitating until every
particle of this infamous law was swept away. ( Hear,
hear, and loud cheering.) He regretted that the re-
ligious community had not more generally taken up this
question. As an humble individual he thought that t'aia
question called on them in a peculiar manner to come for--
ward and support it. All would admit that it was reore
their duty to prevent misery, than to relieve it wiles, it ex-
isted.—( Cheers. ) He believed it had been shown to de-
monstration that even with tolerably favourable seasons
the produce of bread food in that country could scarcely
keep pace with the increase of population. Ireland was
gradually sending them less and less wheat, either from
an increase of population, or, he would willingly hope.
from the increased comforts which the people of that;
country were able to afford themselves. On a moderatecalcu-
ation their own population was increasing at the rate of 1,000
a-day—(Hear)—and the question was, should the popu-
lation be driven to the lowest kind of food on which man
could subsist, or should they be allowed to exchange the
produce of their industry with the countries which were
able and willing to oipply them with comfortable and nu-
tritious food? To avert such a calamity as that, which
the present system was entailing on that country, should be
the object of all intelligent men, and there could not be
stronger claims upon the best exertions of all patriots, phi-
lanthropists and Christians than to proceed in such a course.
Another reason why he thought these laws contrary to
Christianity, and which had great weight in his own encode
was, that the free trade which would inevitably follow the
destruction of the Corn-laws would be the greatest of all
human means to promote permanent and universal peace,
and would do more than all other circumstances to hasten
the day when they might feel that every country was their
country, and every man their brother.—(Loud cheers.)
Ile was one of those who had great confidence in the ulti-
mate united force of the community, and he thought there was great encouragement to those engaged in the cause ,
to press it forward, for he believed that if there was a more.
equal distribution of the representation of the people,
these laws would soon fall away for ever. He cordially
seconded the resolution.

Mr. (LINT, of Leeds, supported the resolutions. The
great difficulty of speaking on the subject of the Corn-
Laws was in endeavouring to say something new. The
subject was worn so threadbare, that he found it very diffi-
cult to avoid saying something that had not been repeatedly
said before. He would, however, endeavour to say a few
words in support of the principles that had been advo-
cated.—_( Hear, hear.) One great argument in favour of
the repeal of the Corn-laws was, that one nation would be
dependent or, the other ; so that if they went to war
they would bo committing suicide.—(Hear, hear.) tall
cur wealth arose from foreign trade, and it was an observa-
tion of one of our monarchs, in a letter which he sent by
his Ambassador to the Emperor of Russia, that Provi-
dence appeared to have given to the respective nations of
the world some peculiar commodity or luxury, so that each
nation might be induced to change their productions, and
reciprocate all the offices of kindness and friendship.--
( Hear.) The agriculturists would have them believe th:at f
the landlords paid the greatest share of taxes, rind
that if his rental was diminished, the taxes be
paid would have to come out of the pocket of some other I
person. He should like to know for what the landlord
paid taxes that was not consumed in as large a degree by
the plain working man ?--(Hear, hear.) What would the
landlords lose by a repeal of the Corn-laws. If it had the
effect of reducing rents would not that be the best thing
that could take place Some one had said that the land"
lords paid off the greatest porportion of the National Debt.
But whatever the landlords paid would not the people
generally be glad to pay on the simple condition that they
put the residue of the rents into their own pockets.
There was another objection that had been raised, which,
prima facie, bore a very philanthropic character. They
had been told, and told by some whom he was sorry to see
in the ranks of their opponents—the Irish Members--they
had been told that the repeal of the Corn-laws would ruin
the poor peasants of Ireland. He would ask whether that
peasantry could be reduced to a worse condition than they
wer in at present. Could they depress men much more
than they were when they were working for 6d., Bd., 9d.i.
or 10d. a day, and men were to be found in the town.o
Cork working for Is. 6d. per day. And what did the
ao r
little 6 /. fobra
cloatnil
Irish farmer get by cultivation ? He had to pay 4/., 51'2
produce went in the shape
Why, a little butter-milk, potatoes, and sometimes )
oHfearre"n)t--
Ciiruiteswohfat did he get in return for it.
btout
and yet the Irish Members endeavoured to excite
they
re of the people of England by saying that if t
repealed the Corn.laws Ireland would be ruined.—(
Hear'
He contendrd that it would be a just retribution
they
the Irish landlords for the state in which
s.
kept the people of that unhappy country. —(Cheers.)
Another objection urged against the repeal was, it would
the
ee restd
landowner
ntehr;
ruin the home markets.--( Hear, hear.) That F.
another falacy. By the home market the agsi:,
culturalists meant the market of the agricultural labourer.
but they very nicely kept out of view this fact, that ..e0
best home market for the consumption of goods was the

....••••••••-••- ,