The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-06 00:00:00

Barley. Oats. Pea;e.
375 01 33z 3s 04
335 0(1 I 25s 01 31s 0,1

39s 0,1
Wheatinr
Il Unsold.--

20s Od j 0,1
narket,297 whereof w
—0 Grey.
2/.5,.51. 1-12ths.

sip Od

—s Od

1) A LKE ITH CORN MA RKET. —March 31.
Wheat. . Barley. Oats. tease. Beans.
First I 50s Od I 7/2.s 6d I 32s Od I 36s 61 36s 6d
,econti 4ss Od 23s Od 22s Ott 32i lid 32.4 I'd
Third

LORD LYNDHURST'S IRONY.-Lord Lyndhurst
excels, when he chokes to indulge in it, in quiet irony. No-
thing can be more galling to his opponent than some of his
ironical observations. In the course of one of the discussions
on the Municipal Corporation Reform Bill, last session, the
Noble Lord made one of the happiest hits in this way I have
ever witnessed. After castigating his rival in terms of no
ordinary severity, he all at once assumed an air of special
friendliness to him, and begged to introduce to his notice
some passages from a pamphlet, by a seemingly very respect-
able sort of personage, called Isaac Tomkins. As I quote
from memory, I cannot give the particular phraseology which
the Noble Lord employed on the occasion, but it was ironi-
cally felicitous in the highest degree, and elicited bursts of
laughter from both sides' of the House.—Random Recollec-
tions of the House of Lords.
LORD LYNDIIURST, AS A REASONER.—It iS
only, however, when solid argument cannot be made available
to his side of the question, that he has recourse to sophistry.
When fair argument can be urged, no man can press it into his
service with better effect. In such cases he is clear, close,
and severely logical, beyond any man I know in either
House. Every thing he says bears strictly on the question
at issue, and in favour of his view of it, and he omits no-
thing that can be made to tell with effect on it. He ex-
hausts the leading arguments that can be urged for his
view of the matter, without employing any that are feeble or
unnecessary.—Random Recollections of the House of Lords.
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.—M.—But I do not
see that the farmer contributes much to taxation. F.—To
direct taxes, possibly he does not. But a heavy indirect taxa-
tion is paid by all the labourers and artisans that I employ—by
all the manufacturers and artisans that are engaged in making
the implements and the manufactured goods which
I and my
labourers purchase, and by all the persons occupied in bring-
ing wood, coals, iron, leather, &c. So. to the workshops and
manufactories of these artisans and manufacturers. Now all
implements,
&c. must greatly enhance the price of the labour,
Bce. which I purchase, and, consequently, the costs of cultiva-
tion. Adam Smith says—" Taxes upon necessaries, by rais-
ing the wages of labour, necessarily raise the prices of
amanu-
factures." M.—To what extent, then, do you suppose this
to operate ? F.—Mr. Taylor, in a work lately published,
says, " It is clear that
And ir Pitt is stated Englandthetiaae taxes haveate d
doubled
to
have
e v
the costs of producing corn."
said, 4. the high price of labour arises chiefly from the Excise."
M. But for this effect of indirect taxation, what would be a
remunerating price? F.—l could then grow wheat as pro-
fitably, I think, at 355. as I can now at 60s. ; in so many ways
does this indirect taxation operate against me.—Essex Herald.