The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-07 00:00:00

amply borne out by the testimony of the greatest
authority in matters of trade and commerce in this
country. The Hon. President of the Board of Trade,
Mr. Poulett Thomson went deeply into the question,
and acquitted himself, in the debate on the hearing of
euidence, in such way as to do credit to himself and to
the Manchester gentlemen who are bis constituents.—
(Cheers.) He said he could bear his testimony that to the
facts just stated by Mr. Villiers, and without communica-
tion with the manufacturers cn the subject, he had obtained
other evidence which induced him to believe that the trade
and manufactures of this country, were likely to be in a
. most perilous position by the operation of the Corn-laws—
and also in allusion to the report of the gentleman appointed
by Government to investigate the state of the manufactures
and trade of Switzerland, Belgium, France, and Austria, the
result is in the following words : As a general result I
have arrived at this view, that we are forcing foreign coun-
tries to manufacture those goods fur their increasing popu-
lation, which they have hitherto purchased from us and
which they would
.continue to purchase from us to a much
greater amount than ever, if we would take from them the
agricultural produce which they could well spare in exchange
for the goods which we have peculiar facilities for creating.
The report of this person is not yet laid on the table of the
House of Commons, but will in a few days, and you wi.l
hare an opportunity of examining the statements it con-
tains. I have again to express my regret that we have not
been more successful. I hope, with your countenance, and
with the support of the meeting in Manchester, vie may con-
tinue to agitate successfully until we shall ultimately prevail.
Mr. WALTER BUCHANAN was satisfied that they were all
deeply convinced of the urgency of the cause in which
the Association was embarked, of the importance of the
evidence that coul.d have been adduced, and of the facilities
yet existing fir bringing that evidence before the public—
( Hear, hear)—and when they reflected upon this they
would lie more and more convinced that there was no
ground for despair, but have the assurance, that crc long
the cause of justi-e and truth must certainly triumph. The
petition presented to the House from the Delegates was, as
they were aware, prepared with the gre:ztest care, under the
advice of professional men of eminence, and was not, in
any point, liable to objection in matter of form. The
greatest purist even in the House of Commons, Er from
atte:rpting to impugn its accuracy in this re:pect, admitted
that it was unobjectionable on the ground of form.
There was also, on the pgrt of the members
both of the Lords and Commons, the most per-
fect willingness to admit that the object of the
petition was of great national importance. Not one
Member attempted to undervalue the deep import .nee of the
Corn-laws; arid it therefore did seem strange that a peti-
tion so formal, so important, and withal so just and rehson-
able ; should have been so unceremoniously rejected be
both Houses of Parliament.—( Hear.) It was worthy of
attention to stop a little, then, and inquire into the reasons
which induced Members of both Houses to treat thus un-
ccremonicusly a petition preceding from delegates so re-
spectable as those assembled in the metropolis, dele-
gates representing constituencies so important and so nu-
merous, being equal, as had been stated on the best autho-
rity to five millions of people, representing an enormous
mass of capital, and confessed by the admission of the Lords
and Commons themselves. A part of the population whose
interests were deeply tied up with their own, and whose
fate must also unavoidably involve their own..-4 Hear,
hear.) The reasons for the rejection of the petition, as
they were to be gathered from the speeches delivered
on the occasion, were certainly very extraordinary,
and in his humble judgment exceedingly contra-
dictory. In the first place it was stated by various Noble
Lords and lion. Gentlemen, that the facts of the case were
so clear and apparent, that they were all at one about
them ; and, therefore, evidence was entirely unneces-
sary. Lords Melbourne, and Howick, and Russell, and
Sir F. Burdett, all declared that there was no use what-
ever for evidence—that the facts spoke for themselves, and
were well known ; and that, therefore, inquiry was not at
all called for.—( Hear.) With the permission of the Meet-
ing, he would quote a few extracts from the speeches of
Members of both Houses on this point. Mr. B. then pro.
cceded to read quotations from the speeches 'of the various
Members illustrative of the statement he had made, and

then went on to state that it was exceedingly strange that,
while all the Members he had referred to and many others
admitted the accuracy of the facts brought forward by the
Corn-law repeaters, they nevertheless, called in question
almost all the leading positions laid down by the advocates
of repeal ; thus affording a most admirable specimen of the
contradictory notions entertained by the Members on this
important sulject.—( Hear.) Scarcely one fact or argument
had been brought forward by the enemies of the Corn-laws,
which were not made matter of dispute by the Members
of both Houses ; and yet they found that these parties made
it an argument against the motion of Mr. Villiers, that the
facts stated were so notorious, that no inquiry into their
existence was requisite.—( Cheers.) He would take the li-
berty of shortly stating a few of those opinions, which, in
his view were inconsistent with the statement that the facts
and the whole of the arguments were perfectly well known.
The Duke of Buckingham, in replying to Lord Brougham,
said—" If the agriculturists were deprived of protection, it
would be impossible for the English farmer to compete with
the foreign farmer.—( Hear.) It would be quite impossi-
ble that he could grow his corn as cheaply as his rival. There
was no man more anxious to promote the interest of the la-
bouring classes than himself; but at the same time it was
equally fair that care should be taken to secure a remunerat-
ing price to the farmer, which could not be done without
protection." Now one great argument of the opponents
of the Corn-laws was, that agricultural distress was mainly
owing to the operation of these laws,and yet here was aNuble
Lord who admitted the facts but denied one of the leadin,r
positions of the Corn-law repeaters. Earl Stanhope had
stated that the Corn-law repeaters " did not deny but that
this country could feed its awn inhabitants." Now he (Mr.
B.) maint tined that they did. The experience of last year
showed to their satisfaction that this country could not sup-
ply itself. —( Cries of " Hear, hear !") Ile now came to
the much controverted point of wages as brought forward
by Noble Lords in the debates. The Delegates who sought
to be heard at the bar were prepared to prove the fact that
the introducing of foreign corn free would not have the
effect of reducing wages ; and it was assumed by the Noble
Lords who spoke against the hearing of evidence, that one
certain consequence of the repeal of the Corn-laws would
be the lowering of wages. The Duke of Richmond had
said if they succeeded in reducing the rate of wages of..la-
bour, all experience showed that it would be to a much
greater extent than the reduction in the price of corn.
He was asked if the labourers got five shillings a
week less than at present, and could get their corn
five shillings cheaper, what difference could it be to

. •
them ? But if this were the case, the condition of the
labcuring classes, instead of being better, would be
much worse than at present, as they would not get
their clothes or other ar►icles cheaper.—( Hear, and a
call of " Good.") The Duke of Richmond had enter-
tained another false position. He said he hid spoken
of the competition of forei'gners, as the natural result of
peace. It was to dissipate such statements, to throw light
upon the subjects, on which the Noble Lords had showed
such ignorance, that the Delegates wished to lead evidence.
( Cheers.) The Delegates were still determined that they
shall pray to be hrard by counsel, notwithstanding that it had
been decrired that all the facts were already before the pub-
lic, for t'aero a as no body of men could be convened in any part
of the country who could have exhibited more palpable ig-
norance than the Lords and Commons had done in this
question.—(Cheers.) Mr. B. next adverted to the state-
ment made by Mr. Wood at the commencement of the Ses-
sion which he said, having been made:without that explana-
tion which was called for from him as aperson holding a high
position in a manufacturing town and a friend to the aboli-
tion of the Corn Laws, Sir Robert Peel was entitled to take
advantage of, and he (the Hon. Baronet) had, by that
cause, endeavoured to hoodwink the count! y.—( Cheers )
Sir Rob( rt Peel, after a long and elaborate speech, endea.
vouring to mistily the question, had made a statement
(the speaker quoted the passage), in which he gave up his
whole care. The Hon. Baronet had said there was cause
fur inquiry, but by his language and his vote he refused
to hear the people establish their case at the bar of the
House of Commons. Another extraordinary argument
used was, that the Members who represented the people
in Parliament, had not time to attend to the affairs of the
commercial community. ( Hear, hear, hear.) Lord
Howick said they had not time to enter upon this
inquiry—that the Speaker during its progress would be
engaged in making verses, and that Hon Gentlemen
would be sleeping on the benches. One Hon. Gentle.
man went the length of complaining that the question of
the Corn-laws was not to come on for a fortnight, as he
, had come up from the country, and was desirous to go
back again —( Laughter.) Was it not, in reality, insult-

ing the country to tell the people that they had not time to
attend to their aff.Airs?—(Cheers.) The third argument