The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-16 00:00:00

of ultimately introducing a free trade in corn. The citizens
of London, having at all times access to the Govern-
ment, were not aware of the importance of a Dele-
gation like the present ; —it was something quite new
to them—when they understood the subject better they would
more fully sympathise with them. He had himself proposed an
amendment in the Common Council for a total and immediate
repeal. He admired the zeal of the Delegates, and hoped they
would be successful in the House of Commons.
Mr. GREEN appeared as an individual, not as a Member of
the Corporation of the City of London. He thought the
• change produced by a total and immediate repeal, would be too
sudden, and was in favour of a gradual repeal of the present
duty, so as ultimately to bring about a total repeal.
Mr. COBDEN said the Association was based on the funda-
mental principle of advocating the total and immediate repeal
of the Corn-laws. The question was thoroughly discussed at
Manchester, and the decision come to was, that that should
be their bond of union.—( Hear, hear.) He was glad that
they had had the opportunity of communicating with the Lord
Mayor, as his Lordship had been kind enough to intimate
that he thought there would be no objection to the Delegates
appearing at the Bar of the Curt of Common Council, although
they had been refused access to the bar of another place.
The Delegates would be able to state to the Corporation of
London the reasons that had induced them to advocate a total
and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) He
would take leave to refer. to the speech of Lord Melbourne
in the House of Lords last night, and he sincerely wished that
some of the plain common sense that he heard in the Delegates'
room, could, by possibility, be brought in contact with the
Members of the House of Lords —( Hear, hear.) While stand-
ing at the bar of their Lordships, last night, he turned round to
a friend near him and ejaculates with some astonish-
ment, "am I in the House of Peers ?" for he had
never thought that so much delusive ignorance and prejudice
coald have existed in the assembly of the Peers of England.—
When he heard the Prime Minister of England state that he
considered free-trade doctrines—doctrines advocated by Adam
Smith, and every great luminary connected with political
economy, that he considered them wild and mad, he confessed
he was not a little startled ; but when he heard from the Pre-
mier himself that he was unaware of the distinction between
duties for revenue and duties for protection—when lie found
that the Premier had so little discrimination that he treated
them as advocates of the destruction of the revenue when they
advocated a course that would increase the revenue, he was
perfectly astonished.—( Hear, hear.) But lie had impugned
their honesty, and had said that when the manufacturers
stated they wanted no protection, " that was all very well;
it seemed liberal enough ; it seemed like generosity itself ;
but at the very time that they were expressing themselves
thus liberally and generously, they knew very well that there
was such a thing as a public exchequer which must be sup-
plied, and that those duties which afforded them a protection,
which they pretended to despise, must necessarily be kept up
for the sake of the revenue. Theref ire, the manufac-
turers were perfectly safe in throwing these duties on
the carpet, and declaring they were ready to part with them."
These were the sentiments of the Prime Minister, in speaking
of the representatives of all the great manufacturing towns.
What was the fact? It was well known to every one in that
room, known to every one who pretended to have an acquaint-
ance with the concerns of the courttry,except the Prime Minister,
that the revenues derived from manufactures was a nullity—
there were no manufactures imported.—( Hear, hear.) We
could not be great exporters and great importers if the same
article, and the national greatness of England vested in the
exportation of her woollens, cottons, silks, linens, and hardware.
—( Hear, hear.) She could not, therefore, be an importer of
these articles, and this, he should have thought, was
self-evident to every one, but it still seemed to be unknown to
Lord Melbourne.—(Hear.) If the duty derived from wool-
lens, cottons, silks, hardware, and linens imported, together
with the duty dorived from corn imported during an average of
years were deducted, he did net apprehend the revenue would
suffer more than 200,0001. or 300,0001. a year. Were they to
suppose that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Premier
were se utterly unfit for their offices that they were not
qualified to make a substitution for that amount of re-
venue ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it not possible to tax other
articles ? And were they to be placed in this situation
that the commerce of England was to be ruined because
they had Ministers of such wesk capacity that they were ob-
liged to take the revenues from those sources formed by their
predecessors, and had not talent enough to revise the taxation
of the country to the extent of 200,0001. or 300,0001. It
could not be too oft n repeated, nor too well known, that all they
sought was the power of exchanging the products of this
country for the products of other countries; and while such
prohibitive duties were levied OR corn, it was impossible there
could be any trade, or that the population or revenue
of the country could increase.—( Hear, ht'ar, hear.) If
the revenue was deficient on the sth of July next, that
deficiency would be solely attributable to the shackles imposed
on the industry of th 4 country, which prevented the increase
of our wealth, and prevented the consumption of those articles
from which a revenue might be derived.
Mr. WEIR, of Glasgow, thought that his Friend, Mr.
Cobden, had wasted a little superfluous wonder on
the proceedings of the House of Lords.—(Laughter.) He
would be surprised at nothing which they might do. Their
Lordships, without impugning the accuracy of the decla-
ration of Earl Fitzwilliam, had thought proper to give
a direct negative to the proposition, on the sole ground
that it would tend- to shake the stability of the Corn-
laws.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Was it to be borne that a
hereditary House of Legislators should vote black was white,
rather than do justice to the country ?—(Cheers.) Were 224
hereditary Legislators to be allowed to vote that was false, which
not one of them had dared to impugn in the course of his remarks ?
He would just allude to an expression that had dropped from
Lord Maidstone. That Noble Lord had said the proposition
ought to have been met by a silent negative ; but his Lordship
might feel assured that such a line of conduct would not be tole-
rated.—( Cheers.) Two years ago the proposition was met by
a silent negative, but winched been the consequence ? Why
they had seen that when any Member in the House sat down,
who had impugned the Corn-laws, the supporters of those laws
rose in covies of 20 and 30 at a time.—( Hear, and laughter.)
The question could no longer be met by silent contempt,
nor could it be put down by any such course.--( Cheers.) He
observed that towards the close of,the discussion last evening an
attempt had again been resorted to by the friends of the Corn-
laws to put down those who wished to speak, and to force on a
premature decision without discussion. Every such attempt
on the part of the Legislature only tended to impair its dig-
nity, and to shake the confidence of the people in it as a legis-
lative body.—( Cheers. )
The CHAIRMAN then read a letter from Cirencester, stating
that petitions had been sent from that place, and from the agri-
cultural labourers of Dunsburne and Winstone, to Sir Wm.
.Molesworth, fur presentation in the House of Commons, pray-
ing for the repeal the Corn-laws.—(Cheers.)
Mr. STANSFIELD, of Leeds, said that thinking a great deal
of information might be conveyed to the working classes in the
shape of a tale he had written to Miss Martineau on the subject,
and had received from her the following letter:—
'° In referene to your wish that I should prepare a small
tract on the Corn-laws, for the information of the working-
classes, I should have been strongly tempted to do this some
time ago, if I had not already put the best of my knowledge on
that subject into one of my political economy tales. In the tale
" Sowers not Reapers," I have treated the subject better than
I could do it now ; and I find that some of our publica-
tions on that subject have completely availed to give
the Americans an understanding of the case. In con-
sequence of your message, I have asked my publisher
how low he could bring the price of this tract for
circulation among the working classes at the present crisis.
He is willing, as I am, to forego all advantage, and to
present the tract for the price of the paper and print.
He would sell it at 6d., if it was purchased in quarters, hundreds,
or fifties. We are enabled to offer you this, by the tract
being stereotyped ; and I really know of no way in which I
could be so likely to be of use to the good cause, as by the diffu-
sion of what I wrote when my mind was more full of the topic
than now. I trust you will receive kindly what I say, as pro-
ceeding from a sincere desire to be of service.
" I shall be happy to know whether you approve my proposal
or not. " Believe me, Sir, truly yours,
" HARRIET MARTINEAU."
He thought that for this liberal and handsome offer Miss
Martineau deserved the thanks of the Delegates ; and he there-
fore begged to move the vote accordingly. He himself had
read the work mentioned by her, and felt convinced that it
would be essential service in enabling the agricultural labour-
ers and working classes to understand the question.—( Hear. )
Mr. Joins Horooswoimr, of Halifax, seconded the
motion, and, after a few observations from Messrs. Barker,
Plint, and Johnstone, it was carried unanimously.
Mr. MURRAY then refuted the statements made by the
Duke of BUCKINGHAM in the House of Lords last night;
that Nobleman had charged the manufacturers with fomenting
discord throughout the country ; but he, although not a manu-
facturer, but an agriculturist, would throw back that charge on
the Noble Duke and his two hundred followers, for the wealthy
landlords had done more for the last 20 yea-s to create agita-
tion on this subject, than all the manufacturing interests put
together.—( Hear, hear. )
The meeting then adjourned.

ANTI-CORN-LAW DELEGATION

DINNER.

—...,,,
The Anti- Corn.law Delegates dined together yesterday
evening, at Brown's lintel. Upwards of sixty gentlemen
sat:down to dinner.
J. B. SMITH, Esq, the Chairman of the Delegates, prc.
sided.

The cloth having been removed,
The CHAIRMAN gave " The Queen," which was drunk
with all the honours.

The CHAIRMAN, in giving the next toast, " The total
and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws," observed, that
one of the objections urged by Lord Melbourne against
any change in the existing system, was the inconvenience
of cl-ange. No doubt change was an exceedingly incon-
venient thing for his Lordship, and probably a change of
Ministry would be a change that he would both seriously
feel and greatly dislike.—(Cheers and laughter.) But
the manufacturer felt the inconvenience of change as well
as his Lordship, and they did not like to change
their customers.—( Hear, bear.)
.There were many
Delegates present who could inform his Lord-
ship that they did not sell one-half, or one-quarter
the goods to some of their customers that they
formerly had done, and in fact, that in some instances,
they had lost their custom altogether—that was the change
they complained of.—(Heart hear). They looked beyond
a change of Ministry, which was the only thing, that
seemed to enter his Lordships mind.—(Cheer; and
aughter).
The toast having been drank, the Chairman called on
Mr. Plint, of Leeds, to respondto it.
Mr. PLINT then rose and was received with great
applause. He had been called upon rather suddenly and
unexpectedly, but he understood the toast he had to reply
to was " Free Trade."—( Hear, bear). No one had been
a stronger advocate for free trade than himself ; and he
had always based his advocacy of free tradeon the broad
principle, so well maintained by Dr. B. °wring and others,
at one of their great Manchester Meetings, viz.—that they
were not seeking their own advantage merely, but the
advantage of all other nations.—( Hear. hear). He main-
tained that the old protective system, was a system
)
of gross, narrow selfishness. --(Hear, hear, hear
No one could look over the history of our own country.
and mar's the legislation, especially of that period so often'
quoted by the little statesmen of the present day, without
seeing that the whole aim was to gratify the selfishness of
this country at the expense of others. If an ambassador
was sent out to a foreign country, all that was expected
was that he should make a treaty of commerce the effect
of which would be to make us rich and them poor. If
a man did that, be was considered the very beau ideal of a
clever diplomatist; and that was the system
upon which
cur commercial legislation had for a long time been con-
ducted. Ile could not conceive anything more selfish
blind, or stupid, than such a system of commercial
legisla-
tion. Cobbett, he believed, notwithstanding the gigantic
force and power of his intellect, fell into many errors
upon this subject. vet he Coll CeIVC it s
no
advantage' to England to Lave poor neighbours.—( Hear,
hear.) But he trusted that the present generation would
act on a more enlightened system, for they might depend