The Sun.
London, England, 1839-02-20 00:00:00

ANTI•CORN-LAW DELEGATES.

The Delegates met at Brown's Hotel, yesterday morn-
ing at the usual hour, J. B. SMITH, Esq., in the Chair.
There was a very full attendance of the Delegates. Mr.
Paulton, the Anti-Corn-Law Lecturer, was also present.
Dr. BOWRING reported from the Evidence Committee,
that they continued to receive from various parts of the
country, facts confirmatory of their views, which could not
fail to awaken public attention, and to convince even
the most prejudiced, would they allow them to be
heard. From Birmingham, among other interesting
documents, was one signed by Mr. Muntz, who se-
conded the Chartist resolutions, declaring that the
Corn-laws had limited exports, that in many articles there
was a progressive decrease of production—in some a com-
plete annihilation—that the average increase of foreign
manufactures was far greater than the increase of our on n
—that many skilled workmen were expatriating themselves
—that the laws prohibitory of the export of machinery
were a dead letter, while the manufacture of machinery
was widely extending on the Continent. Other returns
from Birmingham showed that our trade had not advanced
with the advance of the trade of other countries; that if
our commerce with the United States had not declined,
and been annihilated, like a great portion of our trade with
Continental Europe, it was because we took their cotton,
while we refused the corn and timber of adjacent
nations—that our exports were composed more and more of
raw materials—that in the United States the native
manufactures had already extinguished many branches of
our trade—were rapidly advancing on others, and meeting
us in third markets on all sides. One of these returns
shewed that superiority in the arts of design, is one of the
causes of foreign superiority—but even the greater cheap-
ness of art abroad might be traced indirectly to the opera-
tion of the Corn-laws. A house, in Glasgow bad given
from their own books a statement of their reduced trans
actions with a large house in Germany, in consequence of
the Prussian Custom-house League. From 1826 to
1830, the average amount was 20,000/. per annum ;
from 1830 to 1833, 16,5691. per annum ; from 1834 to
1837,1 7,5001. per annum ; in 1838 and 1839 they had
not s,1(1 a single yard. This was but a specimen of what
was in the hands of the Committee. In fact, the accounts
from the country were beginning to be alarming ; they saw
.only the beginning of sorrows.—( Hear, hear )
The CHAIRMAN reported letters from Warrington, Car-
lisle, &c. He said that having attended in the House of
Lords, he came back impressed with a conv;etion that
many parish meetings could have been conducted with more
intelligence and justice.—( Cheers.) Lord Brougham had
in vain shown their Lordships the disprcplrtion of our
exports to the Continent while the Continent is rapidly
advancing in population. No effect was produced on their
Lordships by such staternents.—( Hear, hear.)
The CHAIRMAN then read a letter from Bradford, Wilts,
showing the extremely depressed state of trade, and com.
municating many interesting circumstances in elucidation
of the statements made by the Anti Corn-law Delegates.
The fatal effects produced at Bradford would extentt over
the country.
Mr. TAYLOR said that this was an instance of the ill
effects of a depression of manufactures on agriculture.
For the answers showed that fewer bullocks were killed,
and a much less demand for landed produce existed since
the trade of Bradford had declined.
Mr. COBDEN suggested that a vote of thanks should be
passed to Lord Brougham, and that Lord Melbourre's
statement should be corrected, that Lord Brougham had
been solicited to adopt the case of the Delegates. No
such thing had been done.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Cobden
directed the attention of the Committee to the great in-
consistency exhibited by Lord Melbourne in the course of
the Debate last night—( Cheers.) It was said that the
Lords knew all that the petitioners could tell them,
which was impossible.—( Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. BAINES, jun., of Le,ds, proposed a vote of thanks
to Lord Brougham.
Mr. JOHNETONE, of Glasgow, seconded the motion, and
recommended that ten thousand copies of Lord Brougham's
speech should be circulated by the Delegation.—( Hear,
hear.) He (.Ir. Johnstone) was convinced that such
speeches as these of the Duke of Richmond, Earl Stan-
hope, and the Duke of Buckingham, would not be listened
to by intelligent manufacturers in Scotland. Their Lord-
ships k new nothing of Adam Smith, with whom every
Sowell artisan was familiar.---( Cheers. )
Mr. AITKEN hoped the motion would not be pressed ; for
it would produce dissension among the Delegates. Would
any one of them wish Lord Brougham's speech to go forth
as their case to the world. He had listened to that
speech, as he always did to an address of Lord Brougham's,
with delight and admiration ; but it did not embrace their
cause, and made no impression on the House. It was such
speeches as had been made at Manchester by persons well
acquainted with the facts, which would tell upon the
country.
Dr. BOWRING suggested that the discussion should be
post pone d.
Mr. CLOSE (Nottingham) said he did not consider Lord
Brougham's speech such a very able one ; and he could
not concur in a vote of thanks to his Lordship, as it would
be token as connecting the Delegates with that speech, of
which he must deny that it contained anything like the
whole of their case.
Mr. BAINES said he did not see any advantage in post-
poning the motion ; for if it excited dissension now, it
would do so at any time.—( Hear, hear.) Having had
the pleasure to hear the speech of Lord Brougham, he
must declare that a more magnificent oration he had never
heard.—a speech containing more strength of reasoning,
and more acquaintance with details, he bad never read._
(Hear, hear.) He could not understand how any Delegate
should withhold thanks for that masterly address.—( Loud
cries of " Hear, bear.") Were they so rich in advocates
in the House of Lords as to be able to neglect and dispise
one so poweiful as Lord Brougham.—(Hc,Ar, hear )
Why, not a single cheer greeted his Lordship during the
whole of his splendid speech.—(Hear, hear.) To
say that it did not contain the whole of the case,
was saying that it did not effect an impossibility ;
for in what single speech could the varied and extensive
details, the complicated calculations of such a question,
be embraced ?—( Hear, hear.) The motion for thanks
could not pledge, or commit, the delegates to Lord
Brougham's statements in any way.--(Hear. ) As to
what Mr. Close had sa;tir,hout the speech not tieing so
very able, why, that gentleman must have studied in a
school of oratory more magnificent than he (Mr. Baines)
had ever heard of.--( Hear.) He had read all the master
orations of ancient and modern times, and he deliberately
declared that, except perhaps in some of the speeches of
Mr. Burke, he had never read a speech presenting such
powers of eloquence, combined with such mastery over
statistics._( Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. CLOSE said he did not consider that an able speech
which contained twenty words for one fact, which was the
case with Lord Brougham's.—(" Oh, oh," and laughter. )
Mr. Ewart, Mr. Weir, Mr. Barker, Mr. Rawson, Dr.
Bowring, and several other Delegates, expressed their
high admiration of Lord Brougham's speech.
The MAYOR Of STOCKPORT said the speech was un-
doubtedly an able one, but it would have been much better
if Lord Brougham had conferred with the Delegates, and
received from them many valuable facts, which would have
strengthened their case.

. Mr. STURGE, while paying what he considered a just
tribute to Lord Brougham's masterly speech, felt that it
was but justice to that Noble Lord to say that had he been
made aware that it was contrary to the wishes of the De-
' legates, he (Mr. S.) was sure the Noble Lord would not
have brought forward the subject, but no such intimation
had been conveyed to him.—( Hear.)
Mr. WALstsLEr concurred in the motion of the vote of
thanks to Lord Brougham for his eloquent and masterly
exposition of the leading facts of our case, which were not
only unanswered but unanswerable. The miserable drivel-
ling which followed from the other side of the House, to-
tally unworthy even of a parish meeting, gave us some idea
of what the country had to expect from our hereditary le-
gislators. The only point on which they seemed to dwell,
was their excessive care for the farmer and the agricultur-
al labourer. They knew full well--and if they do not, the
farmer knows it well; that he can never permanently receive
more than a fair profit for the outlay of his capital, and the
employment of his labour. As respects the agricultural
labourer, he can scarcely be in a worse position than toiling
from sunrise to sunset for from seven to ten shillings per
week, with food 50 per cent. above its proper va-
lue. The question of wages was one of great
importance, but he Mr. (Mr. Walmsley) apprehended
that wages depended not upon the price of food, but
upon the demand for labour, and anything that tended to
injure the manufacturing interest, would act fearfully upon
the great masses of all description of labour throughout
the county.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GREG proposed that the debate be adjourned till
after Mr. Villier's motion, stating at the same time that
he would support the vote of thanks then, hut would not
do so now. The proposition was, however, negatived.
The CriAIRMAN expressed an apprehension that the De-
legates would be committed to Lord Brougham's state-
ments (which did not embrace the whole case), unless the
word " voluntary" was applied to his speech in the
vote of thanks.

Mr. 13AiNxs thought that would be an insulting, or, at
least, a slighting, disclaimer of Lord Brougham, which
was quite unnecessary.—( Cheers. )
Several Delegates hoped that if the vote of thanks were
carried, it Mould be done heartily, and without reserve.
Mr. RAWSON suggested that the word " unsolicited" be
introduced.

Mr. AITKEN and Mr. CLosF. said this would not satisfy
them, as they objected to any rote of thanks which they
thought would commit the Delegates to Lord Brougham's
statement of the case.—(Cries of " No, no.")
After some discussion the motion was carried worded
thus—" That the Thanks of the Delegates be given to Lord
Brougham for his unsolicited, admirable, unanswered, and
unanswerable speech last night."
The Delegates then adjourned.

Mr. Gillon was prevented by severe indisposi-
tion from being present in the House, and voting in favour
of Mr. Villiers' motion for hearing evidence on the Corn-
laws.

Mr. Villiers last night presented petitions from
Glasgow, Wolverhampton, Marylebone, and several other
places, praying for the repeal of the Corn-laws.
LORD DURHAM'S THREAT.—When Lord
Durham, in reply to the Earl of Whici,iisca, threatened last bight
in the House of Lords to bring forward a motion of i nquiry into
Vie case of every ind:vidual who h id received official employment after
having been legally convicted of adultery, many of their Lordships
were observed to cast at each other glances of singular sheepishness and
perplexity. One Noble Lord in particular turned exceedingly pale,
and shifted about in his seat, evidently in a state of high nervous
excitement. Of course, he was oiily apprehensive of the diastrous
effects that such an inquiry would have on his sense of modesty'.
The Bishops, too, appeared not a little discomposed ; but of course,
the same laudable feelings were at work also in the breasts of these
ghostly men.

„-
IN A TIONA L CONVENTION.—At the. National
Convention of Monday, Mr. O'Connor entered into a lengthened
exposition of the present state of Ireland, in the course of which he
obsersed that "it was not a religious thraldom under which the
people of Ire'and laboured ; but it was rather from the ills that were
entailed on them by the landed interest.” At the meeting of the
Convention which took place yesterday, a vote of thanks to Mr.
Frost was proposed and agreed to, fur "his spirited rebuke to Lord
John Russell."

ITIONI--FEBRUA it. Y_2o, 1839