The Sun.
London, England, 1840-04-02 00:00:00

into this country. The result was that a great many
manufacturers were entirely ruined, and the price
of British wool fell to a much lower amount
than had been known for two hundred years.
A very great diminution took place in the amount of Bri-
tish wool consumed and in the amount of foreign wool im-
ported. Mr. Huskisson reduced the duty from 6d. to Id.
on wool below Is., and to ld. on wool above Is. Did any
land go out of cultivation in consequence of that ? Quite
the reverse. The price of British wool rose to more than
double of what it had been during the monopoly, and the
amount of foreign wool imported and consumed in the short
space of seven years rose from 8,000,000 to 42,000,0001b5.
The Earl of Falmouth had said that the present system
had promoted steadiness of prices. Now, in 1773 a Corn-
law was passed, permitting importation when the price
was 48s. a quarter ; a more favourable law than had been
passed since 1688. And from 1760 to 1790 there bad only
been the variation of a few pence per quarter in the price.
From 1760 to 1770 the price was 455. 10d.
1770 to 1780 ..... 455.
1778 to 1790 .. 4ss. 9d.
And within the last year or two—from 1836 to 1838—the
variation in price had been 125 per cent.-4 Hear. )
Mr. BREwsTia said he had been last night in the House
of Lords, and heard the Duke of Buckingham say he won-
dered why the people should dare to complain when they
got lOs. a-week—(Hear)—though it had been proved
that this would not support a labourer with a family.
Mr. GREG said be might state that he had procured spe-
cimens of prison food, workhouse food, dog food, and la-
bourers' food, and he had enumerated them in the order of
their respective qualities. The last was the worst.
Mr. S. SMITH suggested that some specimen of the la-
bourers' food should be taken by some Liberal Member
into the House of Commons during the ensuing debate—
( Laughter)—and when Sir James Graham pronounced
his pathetic eulogy on rural happiness, and described his
modern Arcadia, and quoted Gray's Elegy—a portion of
this awful bread, which the labourers had in many districts
to eat, should be held up before him..—(Loud laughter.)
Decidedly a fitter material for stopping the mouth of an
orator he never saw.--(Laughter.) Nobody could tell
whether it was mineral or vegetable.—(Laughter.)
The Delegates then adjourned till twelve to-morrow
(this day), to meet at that hour during the Corn-law debate,

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Brown's Hotel, Palace-yard, April 1, 1840.
SIR,—A letter just received from my friends in the
country leads me to believe that the purport of one of Lord
Melbourne's remarks to the Deputation of Anti-Corn-
law Delegates has been misreported or misunderstood, and
as my recollection of the matter is very distinct, it is only
fair to explain exactly what his Lordship's remark was.
The Delegate from Liverpool (an extensive shipowner)
bad explained, amongst other matters, that in consequence
of the low price of prov►sions in continental ports, he, and
other British shipowners, were sending their ships to be
provisioned in those ports instead of at home. In subse-
quent conversation it was mentioned that the repeal of the
Corn-laws would cause prices to rise on the Continent.
Upon which Lord Melbourne turned round to the gentle-
man from Liverpool, and remarked—" It appears, then, to
he your interest to keep the Corn-laws as they are, because
you would not after their repeal be able to provision your
ships as cheap abroad as you can now. Of course you, as
a patriot, would not wish this to the disadvantage of your
country, but it appears to be your individual interest."
It was explained in reply that the inconvenience in
several respects of thus sending abroad would, after the re-
peal of the Corn-laws, be greater than any advantage in price;
but the purport of his Lordship's remarks, which has been
somewhat mis-stated, was to the above effect.
I am, &c.,
AN ANTI-CORN-LAW DELEGATE.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS

FROM THE DAILY PAPERS OF YESTERDAY.
(From the Globe.)
It will be remembered that in discussing the question o
the pension paid by this country to the King of Hanover,
we stated that application had been made to that Prince
for the apartments in St. James's Palace assigned to him
as a member of the Royal Family, having his domicile
in this country : but which he could no longer require
now he had become the Sovereign of a Foreign State.
The ground of this application was that the apartments
were desired for the Duchess of Kent, who, in consequence of
tier Majesty's marriage would require a separate residence.
We also added that the application had been met with a
refusal by the King of Hanover, conveyed in terms other
than courteous. The Times was " authorised" to con-
tradict " the manner" of the refusal ; and the Standard;
soaring on yet bolder pinions, with its characteristic regard
for truth and decency, pronounced the entire statement—" a
lie." Having full confidence in the accuracy of our information
we referred our informant to the contradictions " by autho-
rity" of these veracious prints ; and the result is a full confir-
mation of our original statement both as to form and substance.
We now assert, and challenge the Times and Standard to
produce any " authority" for a contradiction, that two appli-
cations were made for the resignation of these apartments
for the occupancy of the Duchess of Kent ; the first by Lord
Duncannon, to whose department it belonged, which was
refused; the second by Lord Melbourne, who urged as a
reason for making the application the inexpediency of ap-
plying to Parliament for a residence for the Duchess of
Kent, at a time when the exigencies of the public service
called for an increased expenditure. To this application
a refusal, in terms anything but gracious, was also received.
(From the Standard.)
We yesterday urged the exemption of Dublin from the
operation of the Irish Municipal Bill, even if the House of
Lords should, in an evil hour, consent to hand over the other
municipalities of Ireland to the O'Connell faction in that
country. We claimed the exemption on the peculiar cir-
cumstances of a metropolitan city—on the fact that the ar-
gument derived from these circumstances had been already
recognised by the Legislature, in the exemption granted
to London in the English Bill—and lastly, on the fact that
the persons who must pay the greatly larger portion of the
cost of the new Corporation, have petitioned the House of
Lords not to inflict it on them. We understand that on
the ground of similar petitions from Galway and Clonmel
it is intended, at all events, to remove these towns from
Schedule A. If our information on this point be correct,
upon what principle the Dublin petition can be disregarded
a e do not understand.
( From the Courier.)
The cotton people are afflicted it would seem with an
extraordinary monomania, that by some special favour
they alone are invested with a monopoly right of the
cotton industry in all the markets of the world, although
no plea of long prescription can fairly be urged in sup-
port of the claim. The cotton manufacture, properly
so called, does not yet count a century of age in this
country, whilst in India and China it dates not by hun-
dreds but by thousands of years. Long-seated and
deeply-rooted as it was, we have seen it in our own
times mercilessly supplanted and uprooted in India by the
cheaper and more improved fabrics of this country. No
voice has been heard in India, however, to accuse Corn-
laws or Rice-laws A ith the slow destruction of cotton
clothe. - In Belgium the distress of the cotton manufac.
turercrs, men and masters, is appalling to witness or to
read of, and yet no one complains of dear bread and assigns
Corn-laws as the cause, although the prices of corn and
bread are enhanced, and might have been more so but for
the prohibition of export by the Government at the precise
moment when corn was wanted here.