The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-12 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MARCH 12, 1844,

matters to be settled, because he felt if they legislated
in too great a hurry they would run the risk of aggra-
vating the evil.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROTHERTON said that, although several Hon.
Members had declared that duelling was contrary to the
laws of God and man, yet it was chiefly among the
kigher classes that it took place. He for one would
never give or accept a challenge. Let the principle of
duelling be discouraged, by its being considered dis-
graceful to send a challenge. He would say, let the
House express some opinion of its abhorrence at the
system, and public opinion would put down the system.
The resolution was then withdrawn, and the Report
on the Committee of Supply was brought up.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES.
Mr. O'CONNELL obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to alter and amend the law relating to Roman Catholic
charities, and the tenure of lands for the purposes of
Roman Catholic worship, in Ireland, which was read a
first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the
19th of April.

ject to tithe) you buy only nine-tenths of it. Ido not
say that the Church has not more than its due. I con-
tend that it has more than a tithe or tenth. The clergy
should not have more than the tenth which the land
will naturally produce, but they reap the benefit of the
farmers' increased skill and capital, his draining, cluing,
and mucking, and the tithe has also been greatly aug-
mented by the operation of the corn-laws; but this point
is too extensive for me to enter upon further at this
time. I allow that the commutation of the tithes will
materially direct their increase, but the commutation is
based on compositions set according to Act of Parlia-
ment prices of corn. They may have no poor,
highway, and county-rates on the Continent, but
have they no poor ? If they have, they feed and clothe
them, and as well as we do. Are they worse fed or paid
than our poor ? Perhaps sixpence in Russia will go as
far or further than three sixpences will in England in
the purchase of food. In Ireland, that unjustly treated and
unhappy country, and which too is blessed with corn-law
protection, it is stated that the labourers get but the poor
scanty pittance of fourpence or sixpence a-day. So that
you see with corn-law protection the poor may be
as badly off as in Poland or Russia ; and can any-
body say that our poor are .well paid and fed, and that
their state is independent ? As to highways on the
Continent, if there are roads, they are kept in repair, and
will take labour and materials as in England, and if
there are no roads, how will the farmers get their corn
to the shipping ports ? But the county-rates, which are
increasing so fast ! Are there no gaols, no thieves, or
rogues on the Continent ? If not, thD people there are
better off than in England, and we need not fear being
brought to the same state by free trade. The fact really
is, that in many parts of the Continent, the direct taxes
on land are as great, if not greater, than in England.
This reminds me of the malt tax, which some protec-
tionists call a tax on land, but this, like the other taxes on
articles of consumption, is paid by the consumer of the beer
and not the grower of the barley. I fear that less good
to the farmer will arise from a repeal of the malt tax than
he reckons upon. Does his barley sell for more money
since the repeal of the tax on beer? I think I may answer
it does not. He probably would not be benefited more
than to the extent that he is a consumer of beer. See
too the effect on the price of hides occasioned by takingthe
tax off leather; the consumer only is benefited. Never-
theless, I am for a repeal of the malt tax, it being, in my
opinion, oppressive to the labourer. I wish just to call
your attention to the alteration of the law with regard to
the admission of foreign cattle into this country. Ido
this to show you that you need not fear the importation
of them so as to glut or affect our markets. The supply
of foreign cattle (on account of the difficulty and ex •
pense of transit) must be so small and limited that it
cannot produce any effect on our markets. But I fancy
I hear some of you say are not prices at Smithfield
lower?- I admit they are, but I answer you cannot
prove the importations produced the reduction in prices.
Having now given you my opinions on the corn laws, I
cculetude with re-stating that I consider, and I trust I
have in.some degree shown that the cc rn-laws are rather
an, injury than a-benefit to the tenant-farmers and their
labourers, and, in the long run, to the landowner and
titheowner; and having seen that these laws ha-ve failed
to make the landed interest prosperous, I say that the
sooner they are repealed the better, especially, too, as many
of their advocates now allow. that their repeal is only a
question of time ; but, remember, that with a repeal and
free trade, I am for a revision of our monetary laws, and
a reduction of taxation generally."
Mr..RICLIARD PRIEST (liarleston) moved the first re-
solution. As many gentlemen present would doubtless
make long speeches, he would make none of his own, but
simply move the first resolution, as follows :
" It is the opinion of this meeting that the corn-law,
whilst injuring the consumer, has failed to benefit the
producer, of English corn, inasmuch as it has fixed the
expenses of cultivation, without securing a corresponding
price.
" That the duty on malt has proved a serious injury
to both producer and consumer ; to the latter enhancing
the price, and to the former, not only lessening the de-
mand, but entirely preventing the use of barley in its
most advantageous form, as food for cattle.
" That restrictions upon trade.are frequently injurious
and always impolitic—preventing its expansion and
tending to benenfit one class at the expense of another.
" With the view, therefore, of forwarding the cause of
free trade, it is the opinion of this meeting that a peti-
tion to the House of Commons, in accordance with the
above resolution, be now adopted."
Mr. GEORGE THEORALD, of Starston, observed, the
observations that had been made by the Chairman con-
tained many incontrovertible facts, and it was on such
facts his own opinions upon the vital question before
him were based. He had looked back for thirteen years
through his books, in order that he might arrive at the
truth with respect to the good or evil effects of the
system of corn-laws. He did not see, upon consulting
his banking-book minutely, and from year to year, that
such laws had been any protection to him as an agricul-
turist, or had accomplished any good for him as an
occupier. That was the truth with respect to himself ;
and he asked others, the tenant-farmers and agricul-
turists around him, whether such things were true or
false with respect to them ?—(Hear, hear.) Like
other men, he had from his heart believed that the corn-
laws had been enacted for the purpose of guaran-
teeing him, with others, a certain price for his corn.
He expected he should have obtained that price. Ile
asked those around him if he had stated the truth—if
the expectancy was but a creation of his own brain, and
not the general persuasion ?—(Hear, hear.) Figures
were facts, and he asked those who heard him whether
the figures read by the Chairman in the able address he
had given them, were true, or likely to be true or
not. In truth, and in short, be asked if farmers had
ever realised those good prices held out to them• as pro-
duceable by the corn-laws, and the corn-laws alone 7
(Hear, hear.) But suppose these high prices had been
realised, what would they have produced? If the laws
were to do good, such good ought not to have been done
at the expense of a man's neighbours. Where corn had
been raised in price by the operation of these laws, no
one eould deny it had increased such price for the
benefit of the few, by the detriment of the many.
Was this fair play? He believed that commerce
and manufactures created the farmers best ens-

tomers. When he found his yard full of bullocks and
was desirous of turning them into money, where did he
send them? lie did not sell them on the spot where they
were fed, but forwarded them to London, and they soon
became absorbed by the wants of that great commercial
and manufacturing community.—(Cheers and voices of
dissent.) By what means had our natural wealth been
obtained, but from commerce and manufactures? Why,
the agricultural classes themselves were dependent for
their prosperity on commerce—(Cries of " No, no.")
Could not people observe that England would have been
little better than a second Poland, if not for her manu-

factures and her commercial trade.—(Hear, hear ,
How could he say that the law served him as a member
of the general community, when he saw it did not
serve his neighbour? How were they to reconcile these
two facts if the corn-laws had been productive of good
to agriculture ?—he alluded to the decrease of agricultu-
ral population, and the increase of the manufacturing.
Many around him were perfectly acquainted with indi-
vidual instances of the labourers leaving their agricultu-
ral employment and migrating to the north. Some had
returned dissatisfied and impoverished, but those in-
stances were few and far between, and he stated with-
out fear of contradiction, as a truth known to many in
that assembly, that the majority of labourers who had
left this district of agriculture would not return to it for
any amount of persuasion. All must admit that agricul-
turists were naturally an increasing population equally
with others, and he would ask this question, supposing
they had not left the land, would the farmers have found
employment for them—was there employment to have
been found by which these men would have supported
their wives and families ?—(Cries of " Upon the land.")
The land—the land would not have employed
them, for the agriculturists have now more labourers
than they know how to provide for.—(Hear, hear.) It
appeared to him a great crisis had arrived in agricul-
tural affairs. He looked around him and he found one
course of general agitation upon one great question—the
continuance of the corn-laws—nor would that agitation
subside until that question had been set at rest for ever.—
(Hear, hear.) If free trade were good for the 'manufac-
turer, if was good also for the farmer, and the converse
of the proposition must be equally true. He fully be-
lieved in. the good to result from the principles of un-
fettered trade, and, thinking so, he must join with those
who thought with him. Not influenced by any individual,
he said free trade for the community would be produc-
tive of the greatest good, and the sooner free trade came
the better would it be for all. He advocated free trade
upon• the grounds of eternal justice, nor would he think
of asking for its adoption if he thought, for one instant,
it was contrary to the spirit of reason and truth.
W. Masox (Chartist) moved the following amendment :
—" That this meeting believes the principles of free
trade, as propounded by the Anti-Corn-law League, to
be visionary and fallacious in the extreme ; and that
their practical operation would be productive of the most
wide-spread and devastating distress ; and further, that
a just protection for all classes in the community is most
likely to secure the happiness andpromote the prosperity
of the society." He had once been an advocate for free
trade, but he could assure them, after the most patient in-
vestigation, he had found free trade fallacious and erro-
neous in the extreme.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He
should attack the principles of the League, as the
gentlemen who had gone before him had identified
themselves with that bedy.—(Cries of " No, no.") He
contended that they had, and by exposing the fal-
lacies of the Anti-Corn-law League, he also exposed
the fallaci es those gentlemen had brought before
the farmer of Harleston and its neighbourhood.—
(Loud cri es of " That is mere assertion.") Repudiate
protection What were governments but protection ?
Mr. Theo bald said he abhorred " protection; ' but, if a
thief were 3 to attack him on the highway, or rifle him
of his pre )perty, would he abhor the protection of a
policeman ?—(Loud laughter.)
CHernsaAN—We do not come here to support the
Anti-Conn-law League.—(Loud cries of " Yes, yes," and
" No, no,. put him down," &c.)
WALTIM 7AASON—It is my right to speak, and your
duty to het r.—(Cries of " Who sent you here? We
knowyou reome to disturb the meeting. Speak to the ques-
tion, and 'we'll hear you.") I repeat that the League say
the corm law has increased the foreign trade of this coun-
try. Listen to me, and I will show, in spite of what is
advanced, that the trade has increased, aye increased
monstrous ly.
[Here . violent altercation took place between Mr.
William I ,eapitiga ell, of Fressingfield, and another gen-
tleman, in which the word " lie" was frequently repeated
by the fu rmer gentleman. This altercation had been
caused by a charge made against Mr. Leapingwell, of
having brt night Walter Mason to the meeting for the
purpose of disturbing its proceedings. Mr. Leapingwell
declared tb at the individual was unknown to him, which
statements though appearing to satisfy his immediate
antagonit k. but increased the asseverations to the con-
trary oft na ny around him. After this uproar had con-
tinued so the time, the Chairman interfered.]

CHAIRMAN—Pray, let us be orderly. Let us behave
like men. Allow the speaker to proceed. Ifwe are not
to'hear arguments against, as well as our own, we had
better leave the room.—(Cheers.)
W. MAsoN—lf you have no wish to hear me, I will
sit down.
___

CHAIRMAN—We wish to hear you, and therefore pro-
eeecl.

W. MASON—He would prove by figures, which, as Mr.
Theobald said, were facts and could-not err, that during
the period of this baneful corn-law, which had produced
the ruin of the foreign trade, that trade had been upon
the increase.—(Hear.) In 1798, the official value of
British produce and manufactures exported was,
19,672,501/.; in 1808, 26,662,2881.; in 1818, 41,963,527/4
in 1828, 52,092,151/4 in 1838, ninety two millions and
odd pounds. This, mind, was at the time when the trade
was stated-to be going down by the operation the corn-
laws.—(Hear, hear.)
A VOICE—WiII you read the declared value ?
W. MASON—He would. In 1798, thirty-three mil-
lions; in 1808, above forty millions; in 1818, forty-five
millions; in 1838, upwards of fifty millions; and in 1841,
the real value was fifty-one millions. Therefore, in-
stead of foreign trade being depreciated, it had been
precisely the reverse.—(Hear, hear.) But, although
both foreign and home trade had increased, yet the
wages paid to the labouring classes had decreased.
What had been the cause of this ? (A voice—" I
deny the cause.") What, do you say there is an effect
without a cause ? A pretty sample of the argument we
are to expect from you l I say there has been a cause,
and I will tell you what it is. The cause is machinery.

(Here another uproar arose, in which the Chairman was
obliged a second time to interpose.) He repeated
that the cause had been machinery, and that cause
being kept out of sight, had produced the errors into
which the Chairman and Mr. Theobald had fallen in
stating their argument. He would show them now how
machinery had increased, throwing out of employment
the industrious and laborious citizen. In 1792 the
mechanical power of the country had been equal
to twelve millions of human beings. Between that
period and 1817 it had been increased to two
hundred millions. In 1833 it rose to four hundred
millions, and in 1841 it had increased to the won-
derful power of six hundred millions of human beings.
Such was the increase in machinery, and it was to keep
that power in work, that the Leaguers and their friends
clamoured for free trade. What had been the wages at
the early part of this era, and what at the last ? In
1792, when the mechanical power was twelve millions,
a hand-loom weaver was paid 15s. for weaving a certain
length. When the power had reached 200 millions,
wages for the same length had fallen to 4s. And when,
the enormous power had risen to 400 millions, the remu-
neration had sunk to the paltry pittance of Is. 7d.
This was in 1831.—(Hear, hear.) It was to keep this
great power, increasing still, in work, that the cry was
made. An excuse must be made for this. Foreign
trade was said to decline, and means must be taken to
keep it up to the full amount of supply for the lion's
mouth. Open xew markets, cut down the wages
of the labourers, ruin the farmers, destroy the
land—but limit not the power of machinery.
As regarded the emigration of the poor he thought the
meeting bad not heard all the truth, and he thought.also
such emigration would be found bad both for the agri-
culturist and the millocrat. What would become of the
poor, when upon going to the manufacturing districts,
they found all the work done by machinery ? The end
of such a state of things would be really too dreadful to
contemplate, and the long and short of the matter was
that the poor must return to the fields they had left, and
there strive to produce corn for themselves.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HENRY WALNE, of Syleham, observed, that he,
with others, came to that meeting to discuss questions of
importance to all. He had adopted no principle at first
sight, but, before he had acknowledged a principle to be
good, or denounced it as bad, he had surveyed it under
all aspects, in order to arrive at the truth. He held
no principle but such as he hoped might serve the
general good. He claimed for himself the same liberty
of speech and action that others did, but he trusted his
claims were founded on reason, and that a man should
arise in any meeting who claimed the possession of reason,
and state that the principles of free trade were absurd
was to him really monstrous ! He could but wonder
at such a man's temerity I Free trade visionary, too I
Why, what did Sir James Graham say—one of the
brightest intellects of the age ?—(Laughter.) Sir J.
Graham said in 1842,-that the principles of free trade
were the principles of common sense. He was no great
politician, nor had he any affection for particular men or
particular parties, and he would select his examples at
random from one side or the other, just as it happened.
What said Sir Robert Peel, when that statesman
brought forward the tariff ?—mind Sir Robert was one
of his opponent's friends—the " farmer's friend," recol-
lect.—(Cheers.) Sir R. Peel had said it was the right of
every man to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the
dearest: was not that the very quintessence of free trade?
Mr. Baring, a candidate at the last election for the
City of London—an election confessedly a struggle be-
tween the friends of free trade and Monopoly—said
that the principles of free trade were right in the ab-
stract. Mr. Baring's friends said that, though free
trade was right in the abstract, yet the circumstances of
the country were such that it was imprudent to put those
principles into action. The argument of Mr. Mason
was a mere waste of words, when he attempted to show
that, by opposing protecting laws in corn, an opposition
to the protection of Government was intended.—(Hear.)
An Englishman's house was his castle; all men knew
that, and so nothing more needbe said on the point; and
what really was opposed was the protection devised for
a class, and designed to benefit the few, and not the ge-
neral mass.—(Hear, hear.) All agreed, both One party
and the other, that the object of the corn-laws Was to
make corn scarce and dear.—(Cries of " No, no.") He
said " Yes, yes;" and he had heard on the previous
Wednesday, at a meeting held on the spot where they
were then assembled, that farmers could not live with-
out high prices.—(Hear.)
Mr. LEAPINGWELL—YOU are wrong; fair prices were
the words used.
Mr. WALNE—He believed the contrary. He had
beard confidently to the contrary, though if Mr.Leaping-
well asserted what he said on his word, he did not wish
further to contradict. He would put it to the meeting,
whatever the aim of the corn-law, to
.say whether the
law had in reality accomplished that or not. The farmers
therefore had been duped.—(Cries of " No,
no," and
" Yes.") The Chairman himself had shown in his tabular
statement that the law had proved entirely fallacious.
He would put this question to the meeting. Who were
benefited by the law? Had there not been five Com-
mittees within comparatively a small number of years,
and since the operation of the Corn Bill, sitting upon
agricultural distress? Could the agricultural labourer be
employed at a remunerating price for his labour? Had
the tenant-farmer been benefited, or had the poor been
benefited? He did not complain of the landlord or of the
clergyman, but he would assert this most confidently,
that under that law which had benefited them, the tenant-
farmer and the labourer had been much injured.—
(Hear.) The landlords' rent had doubled.—(Hear.)
The tithe had doubled. Had the farmer secured any of
that doubling ?—(Loud cries of " No.") Had the poor ?
" No-'') Suppose the
—(Cries of philanthrophy of the
landlord and the clergyman had given back a portion of
this added value, this doubling that was spoken about, to
the farmer and to the labourer, would it have ben un-
fair ? By whose energies had the land been increased
in value, if not by the farmer and the labourer? and
if the two latter had had but a small portion of this in-
creased value bestowed upon them, it would have enabled
one to have paid his landlord better, the other to have
served his master better and both to have been better
customers to the manufacturers.—(Loud cheers.) As to
emigration, why, what an absurdity to talk of that when
farmers themselves wanted all the mouths they could get
to eat their corn. When trade was good in Manchester
and Sheffield, the price of produce was so excellent
in those :localities that graziers would send their stock
there, knowing even at that distance, the prices of good
times would amply repay them for the journey. But
where did they take their beasts when trade was bad ?
Why just to the nearest point, and even then were
under the necessity of accepting such prices, fair or un-
fair, as were offered them.—(Hear, hear.) Again he
would return to '
re madthe position that the cor-laws were de-
signednefit only the few. The manufacturer never complained
e
to make corn dear—that they
wen
of the high price of produce if his trade were good, but
the corn-laws limited trade, foreign trade especially, and
it was a mere bag of moonshine in any man to say to the
contrary. If trade were extended in freedom, many
rational evils would cease. What did Tory, Whig,
and Radical agree in saying on the late de-
bates upon the Chinese affairs ? Was it not stated
as an advantage when three ports in that country
were declared open ? If free trade were good
in China, it was also good in England; and if the free-
dom of three ports were good, greater benefits would be
conferred if three hundred were free.—(Cheers.) He
had given them some few of his arguments why he pre-
ferred free trade and open ports to monopoly and re-
stricted commerce.—(H hear.) One gentleman had
condemned machinery ; but how were we, as a menu-
facturing nation, to do without it ? A neutral ground
spirit existed,
r resorted
instance,tedto
to which all nations of a commercial
dispose of their commodities. The
foreigner, with his low taxation, and his machinery im-
perfect, as it was said to be, was enabled to undersell the
Englishman,,. who, though his power of production was
a hundred times the foreigner's superior, he must yet
succumb, because of restrictive laws and protective corn
duties at home. Such an effect was now really in
existence.
Mr. MasoN—Tell us about machinery. Answer my
argument.
Mr. WALNE—Your argument has been settled long
ago. 'What did the political economists say about
machinery? What did Maculloch and others give as
their opinion of the effect of machinery—men that saw,
as it were, over the world?. They said, and he thought
English farmers would perfectly understand their
saying, that without machinery England would not
have withstood the French.—(Hear, hear.) Then as to
wages, and what Mr. Mason had stated, that the hand-
loom weaver bad to compete with the power-loom—let
them compare manufacturing wages, depreciated as they
were said to be, with the wages given by occupiers of
land, protected as it was called by Acts specially passed
for their benefit. He had been in Lancashire, and for
the very purpose of comparing the amounts of wages,
upon going into a manufactory and seeing a number of
girls at work, he had inquired how they were paid.
There are two there, said the manufacturer to him, to
whom I pay 18s. a-week; to yonder rank I pay 155.,
and there are none here earning less than 12s.—(Hear.)
Mr. MASON—And how long do they work? Do we
not know that the manufacturing system is a system of
the greatest cruelty?
Mr. WALNE—The gentleman has but a distorted
view of manufactures. He (Mr. Walne) knew some-
thing more of manufactures than the gentleman who
had interrupted him, being a manufacturer himself ;
and he would state this—that such was the anxiety of
labourers to gain manufacturing employment in an agri-

cultu-ral district, cruel as it was, that he might employ
girls at the wages of only 3s. a week. He had a girl,
who lived in Brockdish, and-whom be would name if it
were necessary, to whom he paid 7s. 9d. a week—nearly
as much as her father earned.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. LEAPINGWELL (of Fressingfield) observed
that many able addresses had been delivered that
evening. With respect to the very able statement of the
Chairman he had listened to it with many agreeable
feelings ' • but he did not assent to its argument, and he
disputed its facts. Much had been said of what had
gone by, nothing had been offered of what was to come
when free trade should be the law of the land.—(Hear,
hear.) Foreigners' had no roads of an expensive
nature to make and repair, as Englishmen had ;
foreigners were for the most part unacquainted with
roads, except the important military roads which inter-
sected the country. The state of cultivation too was
far different; the climate also was different. In some
instances it was merely necessary to scatter the grain
over the earth to ensure an abundant and superior har-
vest. The principal subject of that evening's discussion
ivas free trade, but the Chairman had said that their
meeting upon free trade had nothing whatever to do
with the Anti-Corn-law League. He would not sup-
port that view. He could not see why the two were not
to :be identified, and for the Anti-Corn-law League
gentry collectively he had no hesitation in saying they
were the pest of the country, and were connected with a
man who had been convicted of conspiracy.—(This al-
lusion to Mr. O'Connell produced a burst of applause
which could not be checked.) O'Connell had been con-
victed.

A VOICE—Can you say he has been convicted by other
than a packed jury?—(Loud cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN—If I made any allusion to Mr. O'Con-
nell, I only mentioned his name as an authority for the
low state of wages in Ireland; and therefore it is unfair
to use his name in reference to any argument a gentle-
man might be disposed to bring before the meeting. I
cannot see who Mr. O'Connell's conviction can have any
connexion with an argument upon free trade, nor do I
believe I used his name.—(Cheers.) _ _ _

Mr. LEAPINGIVELL—WeII, let Mr. O'Connell pass,
then, and he would return to free trade. The advocates
of free trade had not told their opponents how the nation
was to be benefited by the abrogation of the present laws.
He held in his hand a Report of the Harleston Farmers'
Club, just published, and then read an extract from the
document with reference to free trade, by an individual
who professed to support it. Why, he would ask, should
farmers be asked to give up twenty-five per cent? What
had been said that night by the Chairman he did not
believe. He did not believe that the corn-laws were
enacted to confirm the farmer in the belief that certain
prices would be guaranteed by the corn-laws.
CitsinNAN—All that was stated was, that such had
been held out to them.

Mr. LEAPING WELL—WeII, the Chairman might have
his own way, and he would go to another part ©f the
subject. He should have been better pleased if the free-
traders could have shown the position of farmers to be
better under free trade. Good and proper protection
was necessary for the agriculturists. Agriculture was
the greatest prop of the State. The agricultural interest
was the foundation of the empire, and should be kept
intact. He did not wish to say much against manufac-
turers, but he was certaintly ready to eontend that the
manufacturing interest was an overgrown power. Show
him the country where there was a free trade in corn, or
that free trade existed at all ?

A VOlCE—Jersey ; and the rent of land in that island
is four pounds an acre.
Mr. LEAnNowEue—Seeing all the world was pro •
tecting itself, he thought it would be the height of folly
for British farmers to wish to relinquish the protection
given them.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CIIDDEN (Bungay), thought the question before
the meeting was not at all a political question—a ques-
tion of party—but simply whether free trade were or
were not likely to be of benefit to the country.—(Hear,
hear.) Sir Robert Peel had said, that the price of corn
should not fall below a minimum price of 545. a quarter,
nor rise above a maximum of 58s. Now, since this had
been said, the farmers had had two bad seasons, and
therefore, according to the promises held out, the
growers should have been protected by the operation of
the law. But what had been the real state of things ?
Only last year farmers obtained at some times 445. a
quarter-225. a coomb for their wheat.—(Hear, hear.)
He would say this, that if the land bore an abundant
crop, the probability would be that wheat would fall
to 20s. a coomb.—(Hear, hear.) So, whether the crop
were good or bad, the farmer got no protection
by the law.—(Hear, hear.) In 1828 Mr. Canning
brought in a corn-law, and he said the prices under its
operation would range between 555. and 655. Were
such prices secured? He (Mr. Cudden) assured the
meeting that after the law had worked six or seven
years—namely, in the year 1835, he had bought as fine
wheat as man wished to use at 17s. a coomb.—(Hear,
hear.) He pledged his word and honour to that state-
ment. In short, the matter came to this, farmers must
not depend at all on Legislative protection, because he
repeated it was fallacious, and only deceived them to
their ruin.—(Hear, hear.) It was clear to him the tithe
commutation had given to the clergyman 35 per cent.
upon his tithe more than in fairness he ought to have.
When Lord John Russell passed his Bill respecting this
tithe commutation, it was not to be forgotten that himself
and family held large possessions in Church property.
When that law was passed the poor ought to have had
50 per cent. given them, and then perhaps the adjustment
would have been more equal. Could it be likely that
when the tithe had been given to the clergyman it was
intended to bestow a full tenth of the land, its produce,
and all its improvements, on him ?—(Hear, hear.) He
would advise tenant-farmers not to run after the hifing
of farms in the headlong manner they were accustomed
to do, but to go fairly and wisely to work, and offer less
rent.—(Hear, hear.) He would conclude by stating his
conviction that, under the corn-laws the landholder and
clergymen obtained too high rents and tithe, and the
tenant and the poor too tittle remuneration.—(Hear.)
Mr. JAMES PRATT (Needham) did not hold with Sir
Robert Peel's law. Peel was nothing to him; but he did
mean to say this, that the present law, though a bad
garment to cover the farmers, was nevertheless better
than nothing—much better than taking away that
which they had. He wanted to ask, in what degree the
farmers were to be benefited by free trade, for benefit
had never been made apparent to his eyes. The Anti-
Corn-law . League were a strong body, and called a
" great fact"—but so was the Devil a " great fact," and
men were not told to flee from him, as the farmers were
doing from the League, but were commanded to resist
him.—(Laughter.)
A VOlCE—Don't forget the Times originated the title.
It is the abettors of monopoly that called the Anti-Corn-
law League a " great fact."—(Hear,)
The CHAIRMAN—Had any other gentleman a desire
to make any observation upon the motion and amend-
ment ? With respect to machinery, he was desirous of
asking what Legislative enactment could prevent fo-
reigners from employing machinery? Some years since
the Legislature were so foolish as to pass a law prohibi-
ting the exportation of machinery, and the consequence
was, that though even with a stringent law against ex-
portation, machinery nevertheless left the country. He
had a relative who was forced out of this country by the
very law now spoken of, and he established a large ma-
nufactory abroad, where he constructed machinery
which was driving his countrymen out of the markets.
He stated this to show that the use of machinery abroad
could not be stopped.—(Hear.)
After a pause, the CHAIRMAN put the amendment and
the original motion to the meeting, when the original
motion, in favour of free trade, was carried by a majority
of nearly three to one, amid loud cheering and expres-
sions of the most enthusiastic description.
Mr. R. B. HARVEY then proposed the adoption of a
petition to the House of Commons in favour of free
trade. He thought free trade was the right of free men.
That the principle of free trade was good was evident,
and the only obstacle appeared to be that the time for
its adoption had not yet arrived. But it struck him if
I free trade was necessary at all, the nation ought to have
at once.

Mr. SAYER, shopkeeper, Harleston said—That the
operation of the corn-laws had done evil to the farmer
could be proved. He knew many years since an old
woman who had a farm, and who though she eat and
drank well, nevertheless contrived to save money. She
died, and her sons in looking over her effects found to
their very great surprise 1,400 guineas in her drawers.
They followed the occupation of farmers, but had they
increased their stock of cash ? Had they even kept it ?
No, though they had cultivated their land as well as
their parent, they had not now 145., much less 1,400
guineas.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DowsoN (Geldeston) observed, that to attempt
to stop machinery, as Mr. Mason wished, was to follow
the example of Mrs. Partington, and attempt to mop out
the Atlantic. Machinery had increased—had not the
rent of land increased ? He held in his hand an official
statement of the increase of rent on land in Suffolk. In
1796, the rental of Suffolk was 446,000/. ; when last
taken it was 1,297,900/.
A VOICE—For what purpose was the rental taken ?
Mr. DowsoN—For the purposes of the poor-law.
A VOICE—Then were not buildings included in the
last statement ?
Mr. DowsoN—lf they were, they also were in the first.
The petition was then put and carried unanimously.
C. A. MILLS, Esq. (Fulham), proposed a vote of
thanks to the Chairman, for his excellent presidentship.
WAT.TER MASON seconded the motion, which was car-
ried unanimously.
The CHAIRMAN returned thanks, and could not avoid
saying, that he felt proud that the little town of Harles-
ton, seated in the midst of an agricultural
district, had
originated the movement among agriculturists in favour
of free trade.—(Cheers.) Nor had this movement been
the single one which had originated in Harleston, cal-
culated to prove of benefit to agriculture. Farmers'
clubs also originated in that town.—llear, hear.)
The meeting, which, inits effects, is evidently looked
upon by the monopolists. as the comir encement of an
agitation in favour of free trade among the farmers
themselves, then separated, having borne a most tri-
umphant aspect throughout the whole of its pro-
ceedings.

NATURAL CLAIRVOYANCE.—Dr. Teste, of Paris,
has lately announced the arrival in France of a man who, in
his natural state, has the power of seeing through opaque
bodies. He is a Polish Jew, named Rabbi Horech Dcene-
mark, and on his arrival at Mentz, in August last, exhibited
letters from the Pope, Prince Metternich, and some professors
in Germany, testifying the reality of his pretensions. The
three seances he held at that city are asserted to have been
satisfactory. He read a closed book by his hand. He has a
son, aged ten, at St. Petersburgh, who is said to possess. the
same faculties in a higher degree. He is consulted in cases of
sickness or as to the future event of affairs ; he is declared
to have mentioned to the Emperor Nicholas what was con-
tained in the apartments of the Empr.ess. At a recehtex-
amination of his pretensions, he is said to have exhibited
proofs of his powers ; they are to be investigated by a com-
mission of the faculty.—Polytechnic Review.
Sir Robert H. Inglis transacted business yesterday at the
Home-office.

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.
NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—Durham, March 7.
(Before Mr. Baron ROLFE and a Special Jury.)
TOPHASI AND WIFE V. IWGREGOR AND WIFE.
This was an issue out of Chancery, to try the validity of a
will, executed in favour of Mrs. Topham by her former hus-

band, Mr. Wrightson. The peculiar nature of the case, and
the large amount of property depending on its decision, have
excited very great interest in this county. The Court was
crowded at an early hour.
Mr. Knowles, Mr. Wortley, and Mr. Addison, appeared for
the plaintiffs ; lir. Fitzroy Kelly (who had been brought
down specially in this case), Mr. Martin, and Mr. Crompton
conducted the case for the defendant.

Mr. KNOWLES stated the case for the plaintiffs. They
were, he said, called upon to vindicate their claim to certain
property, to which ➢irs. Topham had become entitled under
the will of her former husband, a Mr. Wrightson. The case

was a very important one, not only on account of the amount

of the property, though that was considerable, but on account
of other considerations, and other and still higher interests
involved in its issue. The cause must necessarily be a long
one; but it would not, he was assured, be to the jury a tedi-
ous one, as every point would receive at their hands a full
and patient consideration. The testator, Mr.Wrightson, was the
son of an attorney, but he hinthelf, for some time, at all events,

before his death; was of no particular profession,
.though in
his earlier years he had held a commission in the North
York Militia. He resided at Houghton, in the neighbour-
hood of Darlington. He had no children, and his mode of

life, from his riinited means and other circumstances, was
necessarily quiet and retired. While there he became ac-
quainted with Mr. Mewburn, a solicitor at Darlington. Mr.
Wrightson's sister, now Mrs. M'Gregor, and one of the de-
fendants in this cause, had been acquainted with Mr. Mew-
. .

burn long before, and it was through her that the introduc-
tion took place. The acquaintance, however, between Mr.
Mewburn and the testator never became intimate. It con-

tinned, indeed, strictly of a professional character—that
merely of solicitor and client. In the summer of 1829 Mr.

Wrightson removed to the town of Darlington itself, and
towards the end of that year a circumstance took place which
made a very great difference in his circumstances and pros-
pects. There died in that year a lady of the name of Garth,
who resided at Cockerton, near Darlington, and by her will
she bequeathed to Mr. Wrightson a very considerable pro-
perty. This was the Ist of December, 1820, and immediately
after her death, indeed that very day, Mr. Wrightson removed
to Cockerton, and he resided there until the following year,
when he died. Mrs. Garth at her death had in the house a very

large suns, amounting to about 4,000/. in notes and gold, and
the immediate removal of Mr. Wrightson to Cockerton was
thought necessary for the purpose of protecting the property.
At Cockerton, Mr. Wrightson found two persons who
had for a great many years been in the:service of Mrs. Garth—
George Hind, who acted as bailiff, and Jane Fenny, who had
been a servant. These personslhad been left each a consider-
able legacy in Mrs. Garth's will, and they continued to dis •
charge the same duties as before in the household of Mr.
Wrightson. As a necessary consequence of so large an ac •
cession of property, Mr. Wrightson \had occasion more fre-
quently to consult his attorney. There was the probate of
Mrs. Garth's will to take out, certain rents of which Mrs.
Garth was only tenant for life to be apportioned, and various
other business to transact. Among other matters were two
estates, one the Newhall and Fowlaw farm, which on Mrs.
Garth's death came to Mr. Wilkinson, the pleader, of the

Temple ; and another, Buttsfield, the reversion of which
was in a Mr. Greville. Application was made to Mr. Mew-
burn by Mr. Wilkinson for his deeds, and after some corre-
spondence (which the Learned Counsel read in detail), it
was arranged that Mr. Mewburn should at an early day go
over to Cockerton, and examine and arrange all' the deeds
belonging to Mrs. Garth's estate. On the 26th of December
Mr. Mewburn wrote to Mr. Wrightson, saying, thatif he
had no engagement Mr. Mewburnwouldhave the pleasure of
coming over on the Tuesday following, spending the day, and
going through the deeds. Mr. Wrightson, at a former in-
terview, had requested he would, when he came out, dine
with him, and take a long day at this business. To this
letter Mr. Mewburn received a reply, stating that Mr. and
Mrs. Wrightson would have great pleasure in seeing Mr.
Mewburn, as they had no engagement. On the 29th Mr.
Mewburn went over to Cockerton. He was engaged the
whole day in the examination of the deeds. He stayed din-
ner and tea, and in the after:part of the evening some conver-
sation, the subject being introduced by Mr. Wrightson, took
place about his making a will. It was by no means an im-
probable occasion for such an idea to occur to him. The
late death of Mrs. Garth, and the occupation in which they
had just been engagednaturally suggested it to him. It was
natural, too, that in making such an arrangement, his wife
should be the principal object of his bounty. Except his
sister, Mrs. M'Gregor, he had no immediate relation. She was
married, she had no children, she resided at a distance, and
there had not been between her and her brother any great cor-
diality. When the subject of the will was first mentioned, Mr.
Mewburn thought it would of course be one of considerable
length, from the limitations usually introduced in such
cases where property to so considerable an amount was to be
disposed of. Mr. Wrightson, however, said it would be very I
short, as he intended to leave all to his wife. The Learned
Counsel then went on to state the mode in which the will
was executed, as subsequently detailed by Mr. Mewburn. It
was attested by Mr. Mewburn, and the two servants, George
Hind and Jane Fenney. Mr. Wrightson died in December,
1830, and Mrs. Wrightson entered into possession. In 1831
she became the wife of Mr. Topham and the two persons,
Fenney and Hind, continued in her service for a considerable
time. Year after year passed away, and it never occurred to
any one to throw any doubt on the validity of Mr. Wright-
son's disposition of his property until so late as the year
1842, when a bill was filed by the present defendants. Mrs.
M'Gregor, formerly Cordelia Wrightson, was married to NI r.
M‘Gregor a year or two before the making of the will, and,
had for many years resided in Edinburgh. When a party
files a bill of this sort in the Court of Chancery, ho is, as
a matter of course, entitled to an issue, and the
validity of the will is left to be decided by a jury.
There would be two main points in this case; one was the
will signed by the testator in the presence of three witnesses.
On this point they would have the evidence of Mr. Mewburn,
the first attesting witness. If the other witnesses to the will
were called to give other testimony, he would again have to
address them, and to comment upon that evidence. The
second point would be, was the testator capable of making a
will ? He hardly thought his Learned Friend Mr. Kelly,
after the evidence that would be laid before them, would
deny his capability, though it might perhaps be sought to
show that some considerable time after the rule was made,
and in the latter part of the year 1830, he had in some
degree fallen into habits of intoxication. In the meantime
he would leave the case in their hands, and for the present
detain them no longer, especially as, in all probability before
the case closed, he would be under the necessity of again
addressing them.
Evidence to the effect stated by the Learned Counsel was
then given, and the Court adjourned.
March 8.

The case was resumed this morning, the interest continu-
ing unabated.
The case for the plaintiffs closed with the examination of
a few more witnesses.
Mr. KELLY then addressed the jury for the defendants,
impeaching the validity of the will, on the ground that it
was signed by the attesting witnesses, while it was a blank
merely ; and secondly, that the testator signed it while in a
state of unsound mind from continual intoxication ; and that,
in short, the making of the will was the result of a conspi-
racy between Mr.l opham and his wife, and Mr. Mewburn,
their law agent.
Evidence at great length was given in support of the state-
ment of the Learned Counsel, and the Court again adjourned.

Mizrch 9.

This morning the further evidence in the case for the de..
fendants was resumed.
Sarah Pattenson was called, who deposed that Mr.Wright-
son was almost always drunk, and that on the day the will
was said to have been made she drove him out in a pony gig,
and that he said to her that he wished to get away from the
quill-driver (Mr. Mewburn) and Mrs. Wrightson, who were
always teasing him to make a will, but that he would not
'sign his death-warrant.
Other witnesses were called, for the purpose of showing, by
inference, that the signature to the will was a fabrication, and
that the person who had written the testator's name had done
it hesitatingly, and with a slowness implying imitation. It
was shown on the other hand, that the real signature of the
deceased (attached to some notices to quit) partook of the
same .character.
At the close of the defendant's case,
Mr. KNOWLES replied in an able speech. He admitted
that he felt anxiety, but it was lest the jury should permit
prejudice to influence their minds to give a verdict which
would affect the honour of Mr. Mewburn, who had made the
will now disputed, for a man of fairer fame or higher prin-
ciple did not exist. If they should decide that his will was
invalid, it would be the first instance within his knowledge,
or, he believed within the knowledge of any one who heard
him, in which a will had been set aside on the testimony of
the witnesses attesting it. If it were believed that juries could
be persuaded to do so, how dangerous would be the conse-
quences. Unprincipled witnesses to a will might wait until
the witness of truth was dead, the witness who would, if
living, maintain as honest the honest act which he had done,
and the property which a testator had left to those he most
loved in life, and winch had for years been enjoyed by them
as his gift and the testimony of his affection, might be
wrested from them on the testimony of those who came to
invalidate their own act, and to ask for credit from a jury
while they declared themselves parties to a fraud.
His Lonnsitly having summed up with great minuteness,
occupying nearly three hours,
The Jury, after retiring for a short time, returned a verdict
for the plaintiffs. •
This verdict affirms the validity of the will. _

PROPOSED AMENDMENT of the
POOR-LAW.
MEETING OF DELEGATES OF THE METROPOLI•
TAN PARISHES.
_

- -
Yesterday a numerous meeting of deputations from various
metropolitan parishes was held at the Marylebone Court-
house, for the purpose of considering certain clauses in the Bill
now before Parliament for altering and amending the Poor-
law Act. Amongst the deputations in attendance were those
from St. Luke's, Middlesex ; St. James, Westminster ; St.
George's, Hanover-square ; St. James, Clerkenwell ; St.
Pancras ; St. Mary's, Islington ; St. Margaret's, St. John's,
and St. Leonard's, Shoreditch.
Mr. KIRBY, a barrister, was in the chair, and after stating
the objects for which the meeting had been convened, said,
that the representatives of those parishes which had the ad-
vantage of possessing local Acts, could not but feel that
the amended Poor-law Bill, now before the House of Com-
mons, was a fatal blow about to be aimed at their independ-
ence.—(Hear, hear.) Should the 56th clause of that amended
Bill be suffered to pass the Legislature,. their in-
dependence was not only totally gone, but they would be
placed entirely under the control of the Poor-law Commis-
sioners. Then, with regard to the proposed establishment
of district asylums aneschools, there would not only be a
great increase of expense inflicted on the various parishes,
but the very fact of such clauses being inserted in the Bill
implied that they were not able to manage their own affairs,
or that they had grossly abused the trust reposed in them.—
(Hear, hear.) It was admitted, on all hands, that the parish
of Marvlebone was never so well conducted as it had been
since it-had been under the control of Hobliouse's Vestries'
Act; and this was borne out by the fact that the rates had
been reduced from 4s. 4d. in the pound to 35., and a further
reduction was still contemplated; but he would ask what
might they not have to expect under the control of the
Poor-law Commissioners 2—(Hear, hear.) It was clear that
the system of centralisation sought to be carried out by the
amended Poor• law Bill was not at all adapted to parishes like
those of Marylebone and others who were represented there
that day.—(Hear, hear.)
Letters were here read by Mr. Thorne, the Secretary to the
Board of Guardians, from Mr. Temple Leader, M.P., Mr.
Duncombe, M.P., the lion. Captain Rous, M.P., all of which
agreed in the expediency of opposing those clauses affecting
the Local Acts referred to.
Mr. MAUL; of Saville-row (Churchwarden of St. James,
Westminster), said that a Committee of their vestry had
been appointed, to ascertain in what particulars the amended
Poor-law Bill encroached on the local Act of St. James's.
They unanimously came to a resolution—" That the general
principles of the Bill so entirely destroy or materially affect
the local Act of this parish, as in the opinion of this Com-
mittee to render it desirable that the same should be strenu-
ously opposed.—(Hear, hear.) By the general principles of
the Bill, he (Mr. Maule) begged to observe that the autho-

rities of St. James's did not mean to impugn by wholesale
the Poor-law ; but, at the same time, the 7 wished clearly and
distinctly to express their strong conviction that the pro-
posed appendage did not act fairly and honestly with exist
ing parochial Acts. Its effect would be utterly to displace
all sorts of local government, and destroy the present salu-
tary establishment of an independent board of auditors
chosen by the rate-payers.—(Hear, hear.) The apprentice-
ship clauses of the Bill were most partial and unjust, and the
district houses for the destitute and district schools were not
required. Taking the Bill in many of its leading features,
he considered it descry ed their strenuous and determined op-
position.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. DANIELL wished the Chairman to inquire if there
were any gentlemen present who had formed part of the de-
putatiOn which had waited on Sir James Graham on the
subject of the Bill, as they might be enabled to afford the
meeting information.
Mr. JOSEPH said that the deputation merely consisted of
Members of Parliament, as he understood was indicated in
the letter from Sir Charles Napier, read to the vestry of
Marylebone on Saturday, and which he would now move be
read to that meeting.
The resolution having been seconded and carried, the
letter from Sir Charles Napier to the Vestry-clerk of St.
Marylebone was read by Mr. Thorne, as follows
178, 1844.
" Sir,—l only received your letter this night, on my arrival
from the country. I shall not fail to attend the meeting.
" I was with Sir James Graham this morning, with other
Members. He declined discussing the question of asylums,

but will consider the 28th clause.
" Relative to the 56th clause, Sir James declares that he
has no wish to touch the unions under local Acts, and he
means to alter the clause. All he wishes is, to oblige unions
under local Acts to hold their meetings as often as the unions
under the Commissioners do, and to oblige them to have a
Chairman and Vice-Chairman ; but, even if the clause stands,
it does not affect Marylebone, because the population is
above 20,000.—1 am, Sir, your obedient servant,
" CHARLES NAPIER.
" C. Flood, Esq., Vestry-clerk, St. Marylebone."
The above letter was received with derisive laughter, and
cries of " Oh !"

Mr. DANIELL said that every sentence in the amended Bill
was•diametrically opposed to each sentence of the Gallant
Commodore's letter.—(Hear.) Why, every person who pe-
rused this Bill of Sir James Graham's, put a different con-
struction upon the meaning of its various clauses. If this
Bill was to become a law, and they were to obey that law,
it should be clearly defined. Sir James Graham first asserts
that the Bill will interfere with parishes having local Acts--• -
and then he says it will not The purpose of the till was
for nothing less than to carry out a scheme of centralisation
in order that the whole and sole control of large parishes
should be under the management of the Government. :Let
every man then be up and doing—let every parish now go-
verned by local Acts be active, and prevent, to the best of
their ability, their being placed under the thumb of the Poor-
law Commissioners.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. Daniell then moved
the following resolution :—" That the experience of many
years has proved the inestimable value of local and inde-
pendent boards, which are justly popular with rate-payers
generally, and have been maialy instrumental in fostering
the spirit of liberality, and endearing to Englishmen the con-
stitution of this country." . _ _

Mr. HOWARTIT, churchwarden of St. Pancras parish, after
some strong preliminary remarks, moved, " That the Poor-
law Amendment Bill, now before the House of Commons,
contained provisions which, if enacted, will increase the ar-
bitrary power of the Poor-law Commissioners, subvert the
ancient independence of local boards, and repeal, without
express enactment, important and valuable privileges, by
depriving rate-payers of the control over their own re-
sources in the administration of relief to their local peon!'
Mr. CLARKE, of St. Pancras, seconded the resolution, which
was unanimously carried.
Mr. MAULE begged to propose, " That the principle and
details of the Poor-law Amendment Bill are alike obnoxious ;
and the principle, as being a further centralisation of power
in an irresponsible body, to whom are delegated the functions
of the three estates of the realm to issue rules having the
force of law—the details, as being calculated, through the
power given to the Poor-law Commissioners, to render the
operation of the law vexatious and contrary to that mild
spirit which has endured for centuries during which the
powers remained unfettered in local representatives to protect
and relieve their own poor." This resolution haying been
seconded, was carried nem. dis.

Mr. RATIIBONE proposed the following resolution :--"That
the amended Poor-law Bill, proposed to give absolute con-
trol to the Poor-law Commissioners over parish apprentices ;
that, remembering the restrictive and sectarian character of
the classes, together with the vexatious and penal regulations
as to persons taking parish apprentices, that were embodied
in the Poor-law Bill introduced in 1842, but subsequently
withdrawn, there is reason to apprehend that the Poor-law
Commissioners may exercise their new powers by issuing
similar objectionable regulations, and thereby deter many
worthy persons from taking parish apprentices, and deprive
poor children, in many cases, of the means of earning an
honest and independent livelihood."
The resolution, having been seconded by Mr. HARBERT,
was carried unanimously.
Mr. ROLFE, a delegate from St. James's, Westminster,
moved the fifth resolution, and said, that schools being esta-
blished in the heart of such a parish as St. James's would

greatly deteriorate the value of Property :
" That the proposed establishment of district schools will
not only entail additional expenses upon the rate-payers, but
will tend to aggravate the miseries of pauperism, by remov-
ing children away from their parishes, and will curtail the
opportunity of communication with their parents, and alie-
nate them from the legitimate influence of local guardians
and the superintending clergy."
The resolution having been seconded,
A GENTLEMAN from the parish of St. Mary, Islington, said,
that he could not agree to the principle of the resolution just
proposed, as the children belonging to their parish were at
Drouett's establishment, where none of the miseries enume-
rated in the resolution were to be found.

Mr. PARSONS, of St. Luke's, said the system of schools was
approved by the greatest portion of the inhabitants of that
parish, their children being well-treated at the establishment
in which they were placed, and, therefore, he must oppose
the resolution.
After a few words from the Rev. E. SCOBELL with refer-
ence to their not requiring the interference of Government in
the instruction given in the schools in Marylebone, the reso-

lution was put, and carried with but one dissentient.
Mr. PorrEn moved the next resolution, and said that Lord
Brougham, the great mover of the New Poor-law Bill, had
given his reason for it—that the object was to preserve the
landed interest; but in his (Mr. Potter's) opinion the object
was to obtain the gift of something like 15,000-places. It was
that alone which prompted the Whigs in framing the mea-
sure, and it was that only which caused the present Admi-
nistration to follow it out.—(Hear, hear.) The Government
thought a great deal of the asylums for the houseless poor,
and that was the reason they wished to make them
adopted by parishes The asylum in Playhouse-yard stated
that they had relieved in one year 8,000 persons, and the
managers held it forth to the public as something great ; but
in that.parish they relieved more than 8,000 every week. It
was true, in a great measure, what Lord Brougham had said,
that the object of the New Poor-law was to save the landed
interest, for out of the 8,000 relieved at the asylum in Play-
house-yard, only 200 belonged to the metropolis, the remain-
ing portion being poor creatures from the country districts.
—(Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to their own workhouse
(Marylebone), out of 1,400 inmates, not more than 25 were
mechanics or their wives, the remainder having followed the
avocation of gentlemen's servants.—(Hear, hear.) He begged
to move " That the proposed establishment of district
asylums for the casual houseless poor will tend to increase
vagrancy, rather than legitimately provide for destitution,
and that the proposed incorporation of parishes, having local
Acts for such purpose, will subject them to the control of
the Poor-law Commissioners, by including them in a district
for the auditing of accounts, thereby interfering with the
duties of other auditors already appointed under local and
general Statutes."
The resolution was then seconded by Mr. MEcm, and car-
ried nem. con.
Sir B. HALL, M.P., then rose. He said that as he was
about to hasten from the meeting, he would at once state
that he should oppose any interference with the local govern-
ment of that parish, or any other in the metropolis, as sought
to be done by the amended Poor-law Bill. Further, he should
be proud to accompany the deputation to Sir James Graham,
and to do anything in his power to oppose the passing of a Bill
which would interfere in the management of the affairs of'
that parish.(Hear, hear.)
Mr. POTTER inquired of the Right Hon. Baronet if he did
not think they would succeed more effectually in their object,
if they could have an interview with the Premier?
Sir B. HALL—Even if an interview were obtained with Sir
Robert Peel, the probability would be that the deputation
would be referred to Sir James Graham. Sir Robert Peel had
enough to do, and would, he felt assured, not meddle with
the province of the Home Secretary.—(Hear.)
Mr. PERRY then moved and Mr. CLEnx seconded a reso-
lution—" That it is the decided opinion of this meeting that
every parish having 20,000 inhabitants, and governed by a
local Act, ought to be exempted from the operation of the said
Bill, as containing within itself sufficient material for efficient
local self-government, and for the economical management of
its own poor."
Mr. RAxx, of Shoreditch, said there was a portion of the
Bill which had not been referred to—he meant the bastardy
clauses. These clauses lie considered were cruel in the ex-
treme as regarded the female, for she was compelled within
six weeks after the child was born to affiliate it, or in failing
she would be debarred from receiving relief. An enlightened
country, like England, he contended, was disgraced by
having such clauses introduced into any Bill. With respect
to the resolution he was about to propose, he must say he
fully coincided in it. Though politically opposed to the prin-
ciples of the Times newspaper, still he must say, that for the
advocacy of the poor, and the strenuous opposition that jour-
nal had given to this Bill, the zeal and ability with which
those gentlemen connected with it had supported the poor
against everything that was bad in policy or unjust in prin-
ciple, called forth the cordial thanks of all those who were
anxious to better the condition of their poorer brethren.—
(Hear, hear.) He begged leave to move :
"That the thanks of this meeting be given, and they are
hereby given accordingly, to the Times newspaper, for its
strenuous and consistent advocacy of the rights of the poor,
at
hnedr, e
totr,
etxhtee
nndui
nngi e roovuesr
aabpl ee
riarticles
nw3h,eai c haaalve appeared
rdifferent
rdsuttieos
theof the
ro3o Legis-
lative
their relief." I
Administrations, ably advocating the constitutional rights of
ltahteivpoeoapaltei,parnivdatfeeabrleensselv3o'
en asserting
benevolence, as the duties
Mr. JOSEPH seconded the resolution, which was carried
unanimously.
A deputation was then appointed, to be composed of Mem-
bers of Parliament, churchwardens, and chairmen of the
boards of guardians of the different metropolitan parishes :to
wait upon Sir James Graham with reference to the Bill not
to interfere with parishes under local Acts.
Thanks having been voted to the Chair, the meeting sepa-
rated.

ABLANK DAY WITH SIR JOHN COPE'S FOXHOUNDS.
—The meet on Saturday last was at Temple House, Birham,
near Great Marlow, the residence of T. P. Williams, Esq.,
M.P. for that borough, where a splendid luncheon had been
prepared for Sir John Cope and his friends. After drawing
the several great covers at Mr. Clayton's, around Clay Hall,
near Hurley, blank, the pack was then taken towards Twy-
ford, then to Mr. Bulkeley's, at Hare -Hatch, and nearly to
Wargrave, and thence all around to Lawrence Waltham, and
although between 40 and 50 covers were drawn, extending
over a large portion of the county of Berks, not so much as
the ghost of a fox was found during the whole of the day up
to four o'clock in the afternoon, when the pack returned to
kennel.
In a provincial town in Hampshire, not a dozen
miles from Southampton, a member of the musical profession
announced his intention of forming a singing class on the
plan adopted by Hullah. He commenced by giving an in-
troductory lecture, in which he descanted much on good
singing, and moralised on the relative merits of nature and
art, observing that the former could materially assist the
latter, but that art could not improve nature, when he was
interrupted by a voice from among his auditors, with "How
would you look without your wig ?"—Dramatic and Musical
Review.
Dispatches were received yesterday at the Colonial-office
from the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. liispatches
were also received yesterday from the Governor orthe ghu-
ritius.