The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-18 00:00:00

CORN LAWS

MEETING OF DELEGATES.—(SATURDAY.)
The following appeared in only a part of our Second Edition
on Saturday Evening :
The Delegates assembled on Saturday afternoon at the usual
time and place.
•Among the Members of Parliament present were—D. O'Con-
nell, Esq., M.P. ; Joseph Hume, Esti., M.P. ; W. Evart,
; J. Easthope, Esq., M.P. ; and G. W. Wood,
Esq., ALP.

The CHAIRMAN said the debate upon the Corn-laws had
been adjourned last night (or rather this morning), contrary to
general expectation. But he was not sorry that the debate bad
been adjourned—( Hear, hear) —for though he had - not had
time to read the speeches—(Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell)
—yet his attention had been directed to a paragraph from
the speech of Sir R. Peel, which was as follows :
" The Hon. Member for Manchester had spoken since of the
decay of trade, and, had prophesied that the country was ap-
proaching to ruin. He (Sir R. Peel) paid the greatest respect
to the statements of that Hon. Member, but he would ask of
him to verify his argument by reference to some public docu-
,ments•—(Hear. ) Now what did the paper which he held in
his hand state with respect to commerce and manufacture ?
Why it showed that the total amount of British produce in
manufacture sent out from the United Kingdom, in the year
1637, was 36,228,000/.—that was during the time when corn
was low—and, in 1835, when it advanced, the total amount of
the exports was 43,300,000/.—(Ckeering. ) He supposed it
would be said by the Hon. Gentlemen opposite that those exports
vrere merely woollen yarn and cotton yarn.—( Hear. ) Now he
would look to what the articles were. In woollen manufac-
tures in 1537 the exports were 4,660,0001. In 1838 they were
6,793,000/. In silk manufactures in 1337 the exports were
6140t3ie,Ory, in 153
O 01.; in 17,838, they were 778,000/. In hardware and
the exports were 1,460,0001. ; in 1538,
1'507,000/. In earthenware, in 1837, 563,0001. In cotton
Yarn, in 1857, 6,955,000/. ; in 1838, 7,438,0001. Now what
Was the total amount of articles into which labour entered ?
•
V 1.17 ii 1837 the export of articles, exclusive of cotton yarn,
:11.eerii.34 .0,/0/., while in 1838 it was 16,700,000/.—(Great
) Then, with respect to the exports in linen manu-
facture; in 1837 they amounted to 2,133,000/. ; and in 1835
t°2,990,000/. Now, after such a statement as that, the Hon-
able Member for Manchester might argue as he pld, but
NNo(Sir R. Peel) would say to him, Take that paperease in your
and tell me why it is unsatisfactory."—( Great cheering. )
."ovr he (Mr. smith) could scarcely believe that such state-
r,(!ments would be made by any Honourable Gentleman.—
:lear, hear.) The year 1837 was one of peculiar commercial
"'stress, arising from the loss of exports from the United States,
and the failure of some of the first mercantile houses in Lon-
don.
4: There was an exportation of gold instead of an exports-
.°!:"u of manufactures, a state of things unparalleled in the history
eninnierce.—(Hear, hear.) Of this the Right Honourable
t
onet could hardly have been ignorant. The exports of
h'36, were 46,000,000/.—of 1337, 36,000,00 U. —( Hear,
hear)e. Now, either the Right Hon. Bart. did know this, or
did not. If he did not, he manifested a degree of ignor-
ancetu.. rery culpable in one aspiring to be Prime Minister of
glind.—( Hear, hear.) If he did know it, his attempt to
Mislead the House by statements so unfair, for the purpose of
rifling a temporary object, was an instance of political dis-
i,restY of the most discreditable character.—( Hear, hear.)
tee Public accountant in Manchester, who was capable of at-
t4l''Pting such a fraud upon the public would ever be allowed
ha" an opportunity of exercising a similar imposition.
1836
Total declared value of Experts of Manufactures.
£46,463,295
1837 36,421,129
~‘e 1538
338,839
" elated value Exports of different Articles Hof Manufactures.
1836. I 1837. I 1838
Cott`

llanufactures ......
Cotton Yarn •......
Hardwares and Cutlery...
Cott
Iron and Steel ...........
on and 8ra55.......
Woollen Manufactures.—

18,511,692 13,625,464 16,700,468
6,120,366 6,933,467 7,430,532
2,271,313 1,458,666 1,507,478
2,342,674 2,069,865 2,530,903
1,072,344 1,181,732 j 1,226,258
7,998,044 4,993,313 I 6,137,813

tSho th
in at the total exports of last year were less by three millions
a.:l 1836, although they were greater by seven millions than
It'ib J337* Re had not had the opportunity of reading any fur-
farther
they part of the speech, and therefore, should not make any
Uobservations ; but he happened to have in his possession
'Peed' made by the Hon. Baronet's father in 1815 upon the
acubject of the Corn-laws. Sir R. Peel (on the debate on
the
°r°-la
formerws in 1815 said " That it had been the wise policy of
Governments to keep the price of the chief articles of
b1,11.4.1a0 subsistence as low as possible ; upon that principle Mr,
'-Itth acted with success." And then he went on in the same
Btrain to show the impolicy of taxing the food of the people.
e regretted to see his son not following his.footsteps, and be
Particularly regretted that ha had condescended to degrade him-
a by a delusive statement to make an impression in favour of
Particular party ; and he could not believe that a man of his
kaowledge and n'et'ta•s—( Hear, great capacity could be speaking his real senti-
hear.)
t COnnzie said there were two or three other points in
speech of. Sir R. Peel which might amuse the meeting.
oe° had devoted about half a column to a statement of the amount
avings deposited in
der to show that different banks in the country, in
Noe there the Corn-laws were operating favourably.
' was scarcely a country in any part of the world
itll which some sort of saving was not going on, whether
eiltreY had corn-laws or not. Holland had always been a frugal
rY, and Dr. Kay, in his report on the education of
said that it was considered a crime for a family to
At i. °P to the full amount of its income.—(Hear, hear.)
core- same time they had the good sense not to permit any
peei'llwa• Holland had not however maintained her pros-
totwithtanding she had a people still remarkable for
beet frugality frugality. Did Sir Robert Peel mean to argue that
savi4;tilhe Dutch had increased the amounts deposited in their
ore sugarlnks, their common or national greatness had there-
The
no decay ? What had savings to do with corn-laws People even in Egypt and Turkey had a propensitylaw_stor
1:13:: This was only another lamentable proof of Si
00°--' Peel having resorted to the weapon most
to 11' self in defending a bad cause.
WpaSeeOrns spe
cone remarkable circumstance in the c our se of Sir
° ert
ch—he never in one single instance referred
t°
the great
fa principles of the question at issue ; he never once
cor onsidered whether it was right or wrong, just or unjust, true
faked
; but he travelled all over the world to pick up 1
isolate se
facts—alluded to isolated statements of his
ups-
the but never once alluded to the great principles of
question. When Mr. Huskisson brought forward the
(14 esti on of the free trade in silk, Sir Robert Peel asked whe-
ther the House would retrace its steps, and recede from the great
vriaciple of free trade, se that Sir Robert is the opponent of
tn°rlnpoly for the poor silk wea vets, but a supporter of mono--
I''l3'hr the rich aristocracy. Sir Robert had been compared
° t pleader pleading the cause of his client, but there never
iras an instance of a barrister, in the same wig and gown, and
'kith the same plausible manner, pleading first one side of a
cause and then the other, which Sir Robert Peel had done oa
the question of free trade.
111 x• PLINT remarked on the disingenuousness of Sir Robert
rpeel in endeavouring to make it appear that the comparative
esperity of 1838 over 1837 was owing to the increased price of
b°°,l, and leaving out of view the depression occasioned in 1837
tiYl the distress in America. ;With regard to his statements as to
e.e Savings' Banks, of course, in 1837, when the work was defi-
thiseilt, the poor would withdraw their deposits; and in 1838; when
ot,:bhad fuller employment, their deposits would be renewed.
c first debate Sir R. Peel had made use of a comparison
Nrizaots from 1830 to 1837, and then taking 1838 and com-
bee:g them he had drawn the conclusion that the country had
his
rue more prosperous, without taking at all into
Sirconsideration the increased population of the country.
iftg_aß bert Peel had drawn his conclusion from the
e of those seven years ; whereas he would venture to say
' eola had taken the years from 1830 to 1835, and drawn his
ret„Pari'°o upon them, he would have found the country was
14414'441 instead of increasing. The Right Hon. Baronet
he :been guilty of several other fallacies, particularly in
he took of the question of profits. Another fallacy
a the corn
the
analog parison of corn and wool. Before he had drawn
beeo,:r°gY he had done upon that subject, he ought to have
ttear thate that he was master of the whole of the facts ; but it was
Peal f that he was not master of those facts. Without the re-
detan.°4,`" Corn-laws would have the effect of increasing the
it and for English c there could be no analogy between
'''°°l- There urn'
another mis-statement on the part of
Robert Peel tvhiewhashetrusted some Hon. Member would
trot
The •
t Uf Right Hen. Baronet had said "you cannotf
Ito 4)44% „, ta4ing off the duties on the importation of
t goods, because they are a source of
r,"• If Sir Robert had taken the trouble to go through
t'at then's Lists, he would have seen how perfectly absurd
tti7a, 44 Was. It was true there was a duty of twenty per
It fact Foreign woollens, and manufactures of that sort, but
Watt "as these things did not come into this country.
eit3i44.° a certain amount of revenue was derived from the
11 a deLat'eand talking-sticks.—(Laughter.) He believed. thatn_
I.'l' to the House of Commons some gentleman in a
It'iaitasm,":tawteeinnent of Sir Robert Peel, very happily said that
°"r`lent d •
irk
Ned derived from the fact, that manufactures were
as agriculture, might be called the " walking-
itt,tll'" duties exl‘
t—(Laughter)—for he found that among
te";_stielcs iuere was a tax on the importation of walk-
°
4is --st Hear, hear.) The same idea had occurred
14 h
could44l that his friend Mr. Cobden bad expressed
not but help noticing the entire absence of all. al-
That'Peech of the Right Hon. Bart. to the question of
:No te'r icjestice involved in the subject of the Corn-laws.—
tted t studiously kept out of sight. Not only had he
"iltner, ° look to the justice of the case as it affected the eon-
ctilt,a,itlat'sfelf,oo!l, but be had altogether kept out of sight the in-
ho eattp 4,itY of foreign competition,a.nd the diffiul ties in which
• kitid Placed the British manufacturer, and had offered
"ier a ' "atien as to how the
.manufacturers were to avoid
reduction f
0 profits or a reduction of the money rate of
ti:') Olt go 'ar• ) It was said, indeed, that our manufacturers
and thus a country 'where labour was cheap and taxes
11.0'irrit, a atlceeed in competing with the forr;igner. But
'Oil be t' di ,1 that the effect of a repeal of the Corn-laws
ht4,l that ° canalize the prices of both countries, he did not
,4tel Nivantage would be gained by the course which
tße'l r• 11 uv,rit,e,d to•—(Hear. )
ItC'birattr4,l4itheb-aTtetnutLatigh:f it right to mention what perhaps had
gentlemen, that the facts to which the
tamtlagre4t
eidealladed, were stated by Sir William A. lolesworth
out ta,, arness, and he (Mr. Hume,) having himself
of fie- P of the same character, found those statements
thud the
1.5
.co!'rect.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Bart. had.
skit, exporairlations in the amount of exports, and the nature
ces of itltt.• And Sir RAert Peel had access to the same
°rlniticn,/ he had indeed apparently read from the

went.

same printed paper, and it was exceedingly disingenuous in the
Right Hon. Bart. to make such misrepresentations ashe had done.
What he wished to call the attention of the meeting to was
a substantive objection. Sir R. Peel noticed the rate of duty
on different articles of manufacture. He (Mr. H.) felt that
that would be the principal objection to the repeal ; and he con-
sulted Dr. Bowring as to the best course to be taken in obtain-
ing a Committee of the House to examine the nature of all
duties paid on imports, in order to draw the distinction between
revenue and protection. Sir R. Peel had in his hand at
the time a list of the duties levied on about sixty articles.
Opposite each article was placed the rate of duty, and then
the whole were added together, and divided by the number of
a"ticles, and they got about 49 per cent., although some of them
did not pay a farthing. It would be a matter of the greatest
importance if the Delegates would adopt measures for carrying
into effect their resolution of the sth of February.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) He read the resolution in the House of Com-
mons, and stated that the advocates for repeal came into the
House with clean hands, because they were willing to relieve
themselves from protection, and they were warranted in claiming
a free trade in corn. He thought a petition to the House of Com-
mons, suggesting such a measure, would have a beneficial effect.
It would be well if the manufacturers would present a petition
stating the practical exist .nee of those protections, and offering
to have the whole of them removed, and also requesting that
an inquiry should take place as to the extent to which protection
had operated on manufactures. He thought this Session should
not be permitted to pass without the appointment of such a
Committee, which would show that the manufacturers were not
afraid to meet the question on the fullest grounds, and then Sir
Robert Peel would have no grounds for asserting, as he had
last night, that protection was claimed for the manufacturer,
whose capital could be moved, and taken from the farmer,
whose capital could not be moved.—( Cheers. )
Dr. Bowatma said that in fact there were only six or seven
articles at most which could be considered as sources of revenue.
The legislation on that subject was most complicated—the re-
gulations as to the quantity of Alkali operated as a prohibition
on Natron, whereas on Barilla the legislation was simplified.
On all non•enumerated articles the tariff was 30 per cent. al-
though some favoured articles were taken out of the category.
If the English tariff were changed, the French would change
theirs, and a saving of one million would be made in the Custom
House machinery, by the introduction of free trade. He agreed
in deprecating the miserable, trivial manner in which this ques-
tion had been treated by Sir R. Peel. The quest on was, should
the whole world be opened or closed to the twenty millions of
inhabitants of this country. The question was whether they
should communicate to other countries the blessings they en-
joyed, and whether they should receive from them, in return,
some of the blessings they enjoyed. It was a natural right
that man should become the friend of man; new
what was Sir Robert Peel's statments with respect
to the present question and its consequences, a free trade. Why,
he had stated over and over again, that the question was the
importation of 250,000 quarters of corn, and that paltry amount
was to prevent them from trading with the whole world. Now,
that was a position no man couldhonestly stand upon for a mo-
The Right H na. Baronet had asked the House of Com-
mon, and the people of the country, to abjure a narrow-minded
policy with respect to other nations. Why, all that they desired
was to have free and uninterrupted connection with other
nations.—( Hear, hear.) He had felt very much annoyed at
the arguments in Parliament that a great deal of property was
yet left to this country. Why, had not these people a right to
the prosperity which they had obtained by their capital and
and intelligence ?—( Hear, hear.) But whether they turned
to the right or the left they found the doors closed against them
by the Legislature of the country. It was in the House of
Commons that the artillery was found against the interests of
the country.—( Hear. ) He trusted that prohibitions would
soon be done away with, and better things brought forward.
Mr. J. STURGE wished to make one or two remarks on the
speech of Sir R. Peel. He had stated that the imrorteion of
corn from Ireland, in 1807,• was 463,000 quarters, and the
greatest importation into this country, in 1838, was
3,758,000 quarters. NOW he believed that statement was
exaggerated to the extent of half. a-million. In 1838 the
quantity of wheat imported into Great Britain from Ireland
was 210,000 quarters; oats, 1,950,000 quarters; Barley,
156,000 quarters ; Beans, 21,000 quarters ; Peas, 5,300 ;
Rye, 650 ; Malt, 5,000 ; Oatmeal, 1,253,000 cwt. ; wheat
flour, &c., 1,170,000 cwt. The importation of wheat from
Ireland hid reached its maximum in 1832,—when it was
552,000 qrs., in 1833 541,475 qrs., in 1834 462,229 qrs., in
1835 340,535 qrs., in 1836 249,360 qrs., in 1837 252,720
qrs., and in 1836210,000. This showed a great decrease in
the importation of wheat from Ireland. The importation of
wheat flour from Ireland into this country, was—

In 1832 831,434 ewt.
In 1833 1,059,587 cwt.
• In 1834 1,110,463 cwt.
In 1835 1,124,343 cwt.
In 1836 1,169,200 cwt.
In 1837 932,990 cwt.
In 1838 1,170,000 cwt.
Nor was it a matter of regret that there was less wheat im-
ported from Ireland, for he (Mr. Sturge) believed that there
was an increased consumption of the better kinds of food by the
inhabitants of Ireland.—(Hear, hear,)--and he was convinced
that if the system of free trade was established, Ireland would
soon consume its whole agricultural produce.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BARKER remarked that Colonel Wood had stated in
the House of Commons that the labourers perfectly under-
stood that cheap bread meant low wages. This he denied.
There was one observation of Mr. Handley's which he wished
to allude to—it was this:—" He had watched the progress of
the agitation of this question, and could see one prin-
ciple pervading all the expedients that had been adopted,
down to the last miserable resource of closing the mills,
or setting them to work on short hours." Now the town
with which he (Mr. Barker) was connected had certainly
adopted " short time," but the gentleman who was the
most anxious that that should be done, a cotton spin-
ner, happened to be one of those who supported the present
systerm of Corn-laws.—( Hear, hear.) IsTrit only had that gen
tlenaan adopted the short time himself, but had solicited his
neighbours to do the same.—(Hear, hear.) That gentleman
was one of Sir Robert Peel's admirers.—(Laughter.) This
chewed what miserable shifts certain persons in the House,
over the way, were driven to for the purpose of supporting a
system that must after all tumble down, and the sooner it did
so the better.—( Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. WHIT3IORE (formerly ALP. for Bridgenorth) said that
having, at an early period of his life, taken considerable interest
in this question, and feeling the proceedings of the Delegates
were going on with increased interest, he trusted that, although
a stranger, he might be considered justified in offering a few
observations.—( Hear. ) One great fallacy in the speech of Sir
R. Peel was as to the import from abroad of 750,000 quarters of
wheat per annum, and he stated that according to the statements
of some gentlemen advocating the repeal, that quantity could
not be greatly increased. But the fallacy of that argument
was this that he alluded to an importation of 750,000 quarters
per annum, as if that importation were going on
year by year, whereas the fact was that foreign
corn was excluded, except in years of scarcity at home,
and the amount of 750,000 quarters per; annum was made up
by taking the imports of one or two years of scarcity.—(Hear. )
That was a very important point, because that irregularity was
not only injurious to the trade and currency of the country,
but was of considerable moment to the agriculturists themselves.
If it had been imported regularly in the period which he took
for the average, it would have done no injury to the agricul-
turist.--( Hear. ) He had rarely an opportunity of attending
meetings of this description, and perhaps he might be per-
mitted to sugggest that it was exceedingly desirable that they
should endeavour to operate in their arguments, not on the
House of Commons only, but out of the House of Commons—
( Hear)—not only at the present moment, but continually—
upon the minds and feelings and reasoning of different classes.—
(Hear.) They must endeavour to convince the good sense of the
country, that this was not a question solely affecting the manu-
factures of the country, but that it was one deeply affecting ail
the interests of the country, and no less affecting the great
bulk of the agriculturists than other classes. It was of essential
consequence that they should show this in a clear and forcible
light, and he would advise them to endeavour to put the ques-
tion fairly before the farmers. It was very possible to show, then,
that the Corn-law system was diametrically opposed to their in-
terests. That a great quantity of agricultural capital
had been destroyed by the operation of these laws ; and he
would urge upon them to endeavour, by simple statements, in
cheap publications, to convince the great mass of the people that
they were deeply interested in the question.—(Hear, hear. )
They must divest the question of its manufacturing hue, to
make it a great national question, and if they continued to dis-
cuss it in this mode—if, avoiding exaggeration, they would take
an extended view of the subject, and the benefit that would
accrue to the world by the adoption of the free trade princple—
it might lead to the adoption of free trade not only in Great
Britain, but be the means of extending it throughout the world.
They should state their reasons fairly and impartially without
exaggeration, for if they had the least tincture of exagge-
ration, those who were not conversant with the subject would
treat their statements with inattention. He did not believe the
agriculturists of this country would suffer to any great extent
from the change, but if the mistaken policy of keeping
up the price of food were persisted in, it would prove fatal to
the manufacturing interests of this country. The advantages
which this country possessed in coal, in machinery, and by our
insular position, have hitherto enabled us to sustain the
pressure of foreign competition, but these great advantages
would not enable us to do so much longer.
He d:d not imagine that any great quantity of land would be
thrown out of cultivation. The land at present cultivated
would, perhaps, not be so frequently cropped, which
would be an improvement in agriculture. lie thought
that a repeal of the Corn-laws would tend to
an increase in the home consumption of manufactures.
It was impossible to say what might be the extent of wheat
imported into this country from abroad, in consequence of
the increased application of capital to cultivation of the soil.
Therefore they were not to take the experience that Sir Robert
Peel had taken of the last few years, and say the importa-
tion from abroad would be limited, but they were to look
at the stimulus given to production, and the stimulus
given to improvement in communication, whereby
foreign produce was brought in larger quantities to this coun-
try. Taking all that into consideration the probabilities were
that they would import from 1,600,000 to 2,000,000 quarters.
The foreign trade would be benifited by having to pay for the
foreign wheat imported. There would be a larger amount of
manufacture going on, and a larger portion of the population
would be employed. Taking the two things together, taking
the large demand which he would venture to say would arise
from the supply of the home market and the foreign
market, taking these circumstances together, his belief was
that a great additional demand would be made upon the labour

of the country, and if so the result would be, that without a corre-
sponding increase in population there would be no fall in the
price of labour.—(hear, hear.) Now if that was a sound
view, and it was his deep conviction that it was, he threw it out
for the consideration of gentlemen; but if it was not a soundview
it was of gr eat importance that the labourers of England should
know that they had as deep an interest as any class, because
they would have cheaper food—(Hear)—and that too without
a, diminution of wages.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.) He did
not conceive, therefore, that the manufacturers of Eng-
land would derive any immediate advantage from cheaper
labour—(Hear)— but they would derive this advantage—
that they would change and stop the most unnatural and fatal
competition which was in progress abroad, with respect to the
manufactures of the country, and which would go on
to a much greater extent.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Trade
by the stoppage of that competition would be increased, and
the manufacturer in this country would be enabled to employ
his fixed capital in machinery to a much greater extent: the
manufacturer would no longer have to dread the great competition
he now did; he would find the demand increased in the home and
foreign markets, and they would be able to carry on a much better
trade than at the present time. He (Mr. Whitmore) felt con-
vinced that it was by convincing the great mass of the people
of the vital interests which they had in this question—by
operating on the good sense and real honesty which, notwith-
standing what had taken place in Parliament, existed as a kind
of under-current in this country—it was by .such means
alone, that the object of the Delegates would be attained.
Let them not imagine that they would succeed the first Session
—that they would succeed without great exertion and perseve-
rence, but by sound arguments. By firmness and by modera-
tion, he would venture to say that in a very short time they
would see at least the commencement of that great object which
he sincerely trusted they would ultimately triumphantly achieve.
The CHAIRMAN said the observations of Mr. Whitmore
were most valuable—that gentleman being a very old " free
trader," having, so long ago as ten or twelve years, brought
forward the repeal of the Corn-laws in the House of Commons,
and endeavoured to apply the principles of free trade to other
commodities.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Besides which
the Hon. Gentleman was a large landed proprietor, and was
therefore more disinterested perhaps than the Delegates. Many
of the suggestions of the Hon. Gentleman had already been
acted upon, and it was gratifying to find that their opinions had
been confirmed by such high authority and such long experi-
ence.—( Hear. )
Mr. BOULTBEE expressed his pleasure that the course which
the Delegates had taken was sanctioned by a, gentleman of such
talents and influence as Mr. Whitmore —(Hear, hear.)
He had come down prepared to give notice of a motion in
accordance with the advice that gentleman bad recommended.
He thought they ought to compress their observations in as
concise and clear a form as possible.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
He had that morning read Mr. Porter's pamphlet, and
the views of that writer coincided with those
which he had always entertained, and although that
pamphlet was not very long, yet it would, perhaps, take
more time to read than some of their opponents would think
proper to bestow upon it. He, therefore, begged leave to give
notice that he should, at their next meeting, move for the ap-
pointment of a Committee to select as many facts fro ii Mr.
Porter's Pamphlet, or any other Work, as could be compressed
into a letter, and that such letter be transmitted to Members of
both Houses of Parliament.—(Hear, hear, hear).

➢lr. JOHNSTONE, of Glasgow, regretted that the Legislature
had not thought proper to allow evidence to be tendered at

their bar, because that might have prevented many erroneous
statements being circulated, and they would then have
been able to have convinced them that this was not a
question affecting mill-owners merely, or relating to the
export of manufacturers, nor was it a question of
any one class of the people against the other ; but if there ever
was a question that ought to be characterised as a national
question, it. was this.—( Hear, hear.) Their object was not
only to obtain the removal of tho Corn-laws, but to obtain an
abandonment of everything in the shape of monopolies or res-
trictions on this exporting country. Statements of a very minute
and very important kind had been sent forth to the public by
Mr. M'Queen. He did not wish to speak disrespectfully of
that gentleman, as he was a personal friend of his own, and he
knew him to be a most industrious man, and was certainly very
zealous for his party; but in looking over the statements
of Mr. M'Queen, he found conclusions drawn from
them which he could not follow. He would have them
believe that the colonies were the great props of our trade, and
that we ought to cultivate their connection rather than the con-
nection of foreign powers. He could not agree to that. Mr.
M'Queen stated the exports of foreign countries in 1836 to
amount to 37,000,000/, sterling, and he put under British pos-
sessions an export of 15,000,000/. sterling. Now, on examining
the particulars of our exports to British possessions, be
found that under the head of Gibraltar, 756,000/. as exports
was put down.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Every one knew
that they could take nothing for home consumption
out of 756,000/. Nine-tenths of it should be put to
the foreign account for the wants of Spain and the southern
parts of France. The West Indies, East Indies, and Ceylon
were put down at 4,605,0001. Every one knew that the ex-
ports to Singapore, were not for that colony, The greatest
part being transhipped to China, the Philippine
Islands, &c. The British West Indies were put down
at 3,716,000/. New, nine-tenths of this was for the
consumption of places foreign to us. He put down China
1,350,0001. What right had China to be considered a British
possession ?—( Hear, and laughter.) Not less than three or
four millions might be deducted from the fifteen millions,
which would reduce the exports to about twelve millions
to the British possessions.---( Hear, hear.) Was the Govern-
ment prepared to put the exporting manufacturers of the
country in jeopardy by their monopolies and Corn-law s ?
What were the disadvantages under which we laboured from
these monopolies? We paid 12s. to 15s. per cwt. more for
our sugar, and 30 or 40 per cent. for our coffee. We there-
fore gave them a sum nearly equal to four millions annually
out of our pockets, to put into theirs.—(hear, hear.)
It had been attempted to be represented that the foreign export
trade was of small importance; but if we did not export, how
was it possible we could import. The foundation of trade was
. Food
dw—e thosmieghltvapnrtoscuvcere lodging,
r-cathome:
bfaouotsduc'ploptallyniidnogf we lheoetirinagnts of man
must fetch from abroad, and we should have
nothing to give in exchange except our coal or corn, and our
iron ; and how would our landlords like to export their corn to
the Continent, and only get continental prices for it? So that
the landlords had a greater interest in the exportation of ma-
nufactures than they imagined. He was surprised at the
observation made by Lord Melbourne, the other night, in the
House of Lords on this question, and he was convinced that it
was necessary for the well-being of the country that this pro-
tective system should be discontinued.

Mr. SHIEL, of Liverpool, said, in allusion to the observations
which had been m ade as to the price of coff: e, Mr. Johnson
had said that the consumer paid from 40 to 50 per cent. more
than he ought to, in consequence of the protective system.
The fact was, he paid a great deal more, in fact he paid three
prices—the actual value of a pound of coffee was 6d., the duty
paid to the Government was 6d., and the additional price
paid to the Colonist amounted to 60. per lb., so that the con-
sumers actually paid three prices for their pound of coffee in
consequence of this protective system.
Mr. JOHNSON, of Derby, gave notice that, on the first
meeting of the Committee, he would bring forward a proposi-
tion for enlarging the sphere of the usefulness of this Society
—to embrace what was the original intention ; because
he, for one, was rather sorry that the Association had
the somewhat narrow title of the " Anti-Corn-Law." Be-
lieving as he did that the agriculturists, as well as all ethor
classes, were interested in the destruction of the Coffee and
other monopolies, he thought it would be well for the Delegates
to rally round them the opponents of monopolies of all kinds.
The Delegates then adjourned till Monday.