The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-01-24 00:00:00

THE CORN LAWS.

(From the Scottish Standard.)
TO THE PEOPLE OF GREAT BRITAIN! ARID TO THE FRESS,
THE MOST POWERFUL ORGAN OF DIRECTION or, PER-
VERSION.
This may seem a most magniloquent address, but it is
exactly the address required by the subject, and no more ;
for the subject is one of VITAL interest to the STATE, and,
of course, to the WHOLE PEOPLE; and it is through the
press alone that I can be heard—and, if it be at all deserving
to be heard—it should be through the whole press.
The subject I am to speak of is the CORN-LAW ; that
question that has been argued so long, as to have become at
last inexplicable in the general apprehension ; but the reason
is, it has seldom been argued aright. The study of the sub-
ject for twenty-five years, and, during all that time, comparing
my, reasonings with events, enables me to say, that upon
this subject THE PEOPLE ARE DECEIVED, by thOse who
would tempt them to relinquish the mainstay of this state
and its reasonable protection,—l mean our NATIVE AGRI-
' CULTURE. _ _

The existence of an anti-corn law league in England has
long been known; it is now extended to Scotland. It is
seeking support by the most 'extraordinary exertions, and it
is receiving it. In the meantime, the farmers of the country
seem to consider themselves bound not to stir in the matter,
because they have been led to regard all questions of public
policy, and on which there may be differences of opinion as
PARTY POLITICS ; and the landowners seem not to stir in it,
either because the prejudices against them, having been
raised to phrenzy, they have no hope ; or because they trust
to their influence in parliament. The events of a very few
months back should teach the landowners, that the distrust
that has long been inculcated as to PRINCES, may now he
extended to PARLIAMENTS ; and as the farmers, if they
stand to their Shibboleth, they will find themselves like the
Jews in their last siege—who were massacred by thousands
on the Sabbath, because they believed it unlawful even to
" do good on the Sabbath."
I set out by admitting that there are many men of the most
respectable character as men, and men of business, intent on
aiding the anti-corn law league ; but their opinions are, as it
were, the. opinions of the day; that a PRO-CORN-LAW advo-
cate, may seem almost a man standing alone and crying in
the wilderness ; and yet I profess myself such an one—and
say again, the people are deceived.
I do not build anything upon the fact, that the anti-corn-
law league has lately been defeated here in all quarters by
Chartism, because that is merely a side-wind ; but the finding
themselves called " RASCALS," and this with every appear-
ance of the deepest sincerity, by the men they say they wish
to benefit, and whom, I believe, they wish to benefit, should
make them consider whether in some part of their arguments,
either as economists or statists, there is not a flaw which
these men can see. I think there are many which these men
see, and more which they do not see ; and I shall endeavour,
very briefly, to establish some of them.
At a late attempted meeting in Edinburgh, for the abolition
of the protection to agriculture, a pamphlet was left for dis-
tribution in the hall, of which I received a copy. It gives out
FOURTEEN PROPOSITIONS, every one of which is liable to
objection on some ground :—that is, either as inapplicable
truisms, as unsound assumptions, as false conclusions from
premises perhaps correct, or as contradictions of forgone
positions. It is, of course, impossible here to enter into
them all; but some of them will obtrude themselves in the
sequel, and of them I may speak.
It is impossible, also, in the compass of a paper like this,
to establish an argument like this. It, will be enough to
raise doubts of the arguments held to be established against it.
Ist. They say agriculture is the creature of manufactures.
This is of little consequence, but it is untrue. They may as
well say the father is the child of.his son. It is true the son
may, Yiy (glance, enrich the father ; but that does not alter
their relation, nor is it the necessary or the usual course.
2d. They say next, that it is by excluding manufactures
from the market of the world, that the agriculture of this
country flourishes as it does. But with equal reason, at
least, might the agriculturist say, that it is by excluding him-
self from the markets of the world, that the most important
and extensive manufactures of this country, ever came to
have an.existence-

3d. They say, that were protecting duties upon corn re-
moved, we should have CHEAP CORN. I answer, more Scot-
tie°, has the, protection of the manufacture of cotton goods,
led to dearth in those goods? No. It has, on the contrary,
not only lowered them in this country, but over the world.
It has given us all of that manufacture that we possess ; and
that is considered so important, that now it arrogates to be
almost alone considered, in the arrangements of the state.

Has the protection afforded to the manntacture of iron, given
us dearer iron ? No. It has cheapened iron universally.
Has it given us an inferior article? No. On the contrary,
no artizan will now lay his hammer upon foreign iron, if he
can procure iron the manufacture of this country; and that
manufacture is every day, that every hour of the day and
night, extending and improving, and directly or indirectly it
is supporting millions. So was our manufacture of cloth ori-
ginated ; so that of silk ; so that of almost every important
ingredient of wealth or, of existence. And can protection and
encouragement, so useful as to every thing else, be baleful
only as to CORN ? Quite the reverse, though it is one of the
insanities of the hour to hold so, as I shall by and by esta-
blish.
4th. They say, not only. would the removal of protection
from agriculture give cheap bread, but cheap bread would
give cheap labour, and a new and inconceivable impulse to
manufactures commonly so called. All these are given out
in the most dogmatical manner ; as irrefragable truths ; they
are the staple of the arguments for removing the protection
from agriculture in this country : and they are all untrue. I
shall prove this as to the most important of these positions,
namely, that " cheap bread would give cheap labour," from
the very pamphlet left in the hall of the late meeting, as fol-
lows—" The price of labour (says that pamphlet) is not re-
gulated much, if at all, by the price of food. It is regulated
almost entirely by the demand and supply of labour !"—and
this is perfectly true. Labour is cheap abroad, not because
food is cheap, but because there is nothing to pay for them.
sth. They say, that were the corn protection abolished
" there would be at once and permanently an additional de-
mandfor our goods. By our consenting to buy corn from
abroad, for instance, foi eigners would be enabled to indulge
proportionally in the purchase of our cotton and other com-
modities—our commercial navy would also be encreased,"
&c. Now, is not this all mere theory? Foreigners begin
not to like our goods, and they say there is cause they have
determined to manufacture fur themselves as far as they can ;
and this is the natural and inevitable course. But supposing
this theory realized to the fullest extent, cui Bono where
would be the profit ? I say there would not only be no
profit, but there would be AN IMMENSE and RUINOUS Loss !
The reason is this. CORN IS a MANUFACTURE just as much
as cloth. I said this many years ago, both of corn and all
agricultural produce—and it is now admitted. 2d. Corn is a
manufacture WHOLLY NATIVE. We have no deduction to
make from it, for staple or accessory. ALL that we save by
manufacturing CORN is GAIN. Are our "cottons and other
commodities" native I Suppose we pay for corn in cottons,
how much do we, as a nation, gain by that ? Have we not
to deduct the price of the raw cotton ? the expense of pur-
chasing and bringing it home ? duty ? transport to the seat of
manufacture ? tear and wear of machinery ? carriage for ex-
port? expense for export? sale? insurance? expense of
purchasing and transporting the corn, &c. &c. ? In
short, we gain nothing as a nation, by the manufacture of
cotton, but the price obtained for labour ; a very inconsi-
derable proportion of the whole article. Suppose we pay
only 20s. a quarter for corn, hi cotton goods, still, all is paid
in capital except the mere labour ; although part of that
capital may have been paid in America, part in this kingdom,
and part abroad, still it has been paid : and of the 20s. price,
15s. at least are capital, and only ss. gain ; perhaps not one
half. Now, by raising corn for ourselves, we have the whole
for our labour, the whole is gain. The gain from farming,
too, is not only all gain, but certain gain to the State. The
sale of manufactures may often, and in an infinity of cases
does, lead to actual loss to the State. There is loss to the state
the moment that the price obtained fails to equal the original
materials, and the charges of importing and exporting,
tear and wear of machinery, and interest of capital ; and
this happens much oftener than is supposed. In short,
manufactures, except from native materials, give immense
room for juggling, and in many casses are a JUGGLE
MERELY, Though the mere manufacturer, after grinding
the bones of his pauper dependents into his painted trash,
which he never expects to see purchased by people in their
senses, may make an ample fortune, the merchant may rea-
lize not one sixpence ; and if the trash rots abroad, as much
of it does, the whole is a dead loss to the country. By agri-
culture she can never lose. Even if her agriculturist could
be turned into a manufacturer, therefore, and made depen-
dent upon the vicissitudes of trade, from change of taste, bad
patterns, bad prints, bad materials, bad texture, everything
that a reckless man can do to swell his own gains (and there
are some such), regardless of the interest or character of the
country, is he not deserting a sure and gainful trade, in na-
tive materials, for a trade wholly uncertain in its gains, and
even in its existence, and based on foreign materials ? He is.
But, 6th, say that it is gainful to prosecute manufactures
for export (as to the extent of what can be obtained for la-
bour, I admit it is), does the production of our native agri-
culture repress this ? It is said it does. I say no ;. and I
will show immediately that I am correct.
I have spoken of the gainful nature of agriculture, and it
may be shewn at once from this, that whatever isfraised be-
yond the seed sown, is all gain to the STATE. It is clear to
the dullest comprehension, that paying capital for agricui-
tural produce, creates a tremendous loss ; and I have shewn
that our payments in manufactures are only a little mitigat-
ed ; that is, by what we can contrive to obtain for labour. I
did not then state, however, what I now state, that by pay-
ments in manufactures, we may pay much more than in
money; because if we pay in a depreciated manufacture,
twice the money price may be embarked in materials, and
expenses of manufacture and export, apart from the only
paying ingredient, that of labour. By raising corn for our-
selves, we evade all possibility of loss of capital to any extent;
and ca
Pitar, as they say, produces capital.
As our opponents admit that price in everything depends
upon demand and supply, is the agriculture of Great Bri-
tain, indisputably the most efficient in the world, in spite of
all drawbacks, likely to raise price, or to lower it ? Can there
he any doubt that it lowers it, when we consider that eight
quarters an acre are often produced here ; while on the con-
tinent (according to William Chambers, himself a free trade
man) the ground is often hardly scratched, by cows yoked
by the horns !
3d. Is bread the only ingredient entering into the food of
man, and, consequently, into the price of labour ?—Must we
notpt add house-rent (not payable to the land-owners), fuel,
i othes, drinks, and all colonial products, including their
enormous taxes ?

4th. if cultivation does not cheapen bread, (which I say
it does), does it not cheapen butcher's meat, vegetables,
leather, tallow, and wootie our opponents say no ! that by
cultivation "we diminish extent W pasture land ; and
limit the rearing of black cattle and sheep." Can these men
know, that by cultivation we raise tons of provisions both for
man and beast, from acres that but for cultivation would
hardly yield pounds ? • That by the interstitiale crops um-
ntthe
ftounrd-
sessa r i 1 y accompanying the raising of
coy
i t c ' e:Skre, moreknow
wid ) inr n,
these grass,
ipmo
as possibly l b e
y
nips, potatoes, and vegetables, of everyc,tnl h d
of cattle as well as men, are raised,
compensated by pasture, exclusive of the
pro-
ducts of corn and straw. They a
or think of them, or they would never venture upon things,
the rea-
sonings they use. Pasture, as a general thing, is the. very
Poorest mode of occupying- a country. Resorted to in Scot-
land, it it would'reduce the country to beggary ; for acres that
eiplesent yield produce worth five pounds, would not then
1 2d. five shillings—that being the general profit of pastur-
ing
Thsitashss.lhi eev4l3e-istut:itati
Rent is the difference agriculture sthesaid. free. competition would not repress
tire but only reduce the rents payable to landowners.
mer must have ar
acre and a
landlord's profit, wors
principle of these rents is not understood.
bad
one
of rofit between cultivating a good
duce ; and as soon'aaesfot;:g deductinge the charges ;for the far-
uhlea,,c.oieuairdihlis profits, or he cannot live. The
therefore,tli a n past ul,-Ne,
0,
exclusively 1
t,hni
slulsatndepend p
nature
utrhee; price •o f pro -
the country, raised at a cheaper rate than it can°
reining should cease to pay him more
be limited, by letting in 0-rain upon
'legit who would suffearlobloystthel? 1 the landlord or the country?
b agriculture,
e raised
I say THE COUNTRY,
Suppose the rent of the acre,
rives a substance
poorestord
w land that
orotehnsaeutievibes
now cultivated, to be ss, and that tltiehczi
for pasture only 2s 6d—and he would
acres £125 ;, but the country at present derives 113°n
afrnodm
Ittl to ensied
,acres
Itviboarnthdo—nin. g. * it. ' t.o pasture, . ******* *****-
derive
°0
only a substance worth (including the landlords
rent)..

375

.........

Loss to the country by pasturing
or exactly thirty-Seven times the sum that would be lost by
the laxdowner ! As a general position, the landowner's inte-
rest is only one, and a trivial one .comparatively,' of very

many interests. By the Assessments to which be is liable, I
particularly in some parts of Scotland, for county and paro-
chial burdens, roads, and bridges, &c., his interest is often
reduced to a mere fraction. The fact that land seldom
yields four per cent. on purchase money, shows that either
the interest is not considerable, or it is overpaid for. Both
are perhaps true. The original character of landlord was
rather administrative than lucrative. It was a post of ho-
nour, and it is still regarded as such, and paid for accordingly.
It may be that in many of the efforts that have been made
for the encouragement of agriculture, the landowners have
had an eye to their own interest. lam not aware that there
is, or can be, any other general motive of action. But when
we see them, with equal vigour at least, applying themselves
to the promotion of every species of manufacture promising
to be useful to the country, and protecting them by every
rate of duty, from one to one hundred per cent., or by abso-
lute exclusion if that seemed' necessary; and paying those
duties themselves, either- directly, for their families and es:.
tablishments. or indirectly through every one paying them
rent, I cannot but think that they acted from national feel-
ings ; and it is clear they have produced the most splendid
national results ; for, by protecting and encouraging agri-
culture, they have covered the country with beauty and fer-
tility, and enabled it to raise up those manufactures that
have so greatly augmented its comfort, and perhaps its
wealth, though not to the extent they now arrogate, nor
authorising the engrossing preference they so insanely seek.
Does HOLLAND, a country naturally so much more commer-
cial than BRITAIN, yet despise its soil? No. It cultivates
every patch. Why should not Britain ? It could be so
much better employed, say our opponents. Show us that I
I am decidedly of opinion that, even in Britain, AGRICULTURE
is the vine—manufacture (commonly so called) the branches.
The proprietor of a Highland estate, only to a small extent
arable, seeing the difficulty his tenant had, in conquering the
effects of the late unfavourable season asked him why be
cultivating,did not at once give up the idea of iltivating, depending
wholly on pasture ? The man's answer was, I think instruc-
tive—" By cultivating, I can maintain my family and esta-
blishment in comfort ; by pasture, I would not have the
means of maintaining myself; for the acre that at present
yields me five or six bolls of victual, could not, in the space
of three years, pasture a sheep ; and what could I purchase
with that ? It is true we must labour for it; but in every
event we must labour ; and perhaps at something not
so sure ?" This man's answer may stand for that of the
country. His case is ours. He cared nothing about protec-
tion—be only wished to be allowed to labour. But had rents
declined, his landlord must have enlarged his farms, till by
diminishing the number of families, and lessening the ex-
pense of looking after the flocks, he might have drawn the
former income, or as near it as possible, from one farm, as
from many. In this way the landlord would have lost no-
thing—perhaps lie might have gained ; but the country would
have lost strength in the loss of several industrious families ;
and wealth in the products that maintained them. It is true,
a manufacturer or two, for the foreign market, might have
replaced the twenty or thirty agriculturists lost; but I am-to
learn that we ought in any sense, to have " doated on the
Exchange."
Your space will not allow me to go farther at present. I
shall show in a subsequent paper, that the rage at present ex-
hibited to destroy our agriculture, proceeds not only from
ignorance as to the value and necessity of agriculture to this
country, but also from being ignorant, that it is not the protec-
tion aflbrded to agriculture, that is raising the price of its
products, but an utter disregard to the operations of those
who are allowed to interpose themselves between the
grower and consumer, and that manufactures, so far as they
are repressed, are repressed to a great extent, by the fault of
manufacturers themselves and their dependents.

D. BAIN.

THE MANCHESTER ANTI-CORN-LAW DEMON-

STRATION.

(From the Kentish Gazette.)
A " grand" meeting of the enemies of the farmer took place
at Manchester a few days ago. Twenty-seven members of
parliament attended, to give their name and weight against
the corn-laws, and, singular enough, not one of them holds
an acre of arable land in the country. These are certainly
the right sort of men to sit in judgment on the farmer. If
land realised only a shilling an acre, what would it signify to
them ? They might, with the rest of the community, be in-
direct sufferers, but the demon of ruin would have spent itself
ere it reached their dwellings.
It is a goodly list, and headed by a political rebel worthy
his company :
Daniel O'Connell, M.P. The Beggar Man, No Corn Lands
Hon. C. P. Villiers, M.P. A place-hunting barrister,No Corn Lands
Mark Philips, M.P. A Cotton Lord, No Corn Lands
G. W. Wood, M.P. Partner of the above, No Corn Lands
T. Thornely, %LP. A Liverpool dealer, No Corn• Lands
R. Walker, M.P. An Ironfounder, No Corn Lands
J. Phillpots, M P. A Whig barrister, No Corn Lands
E. Baines, sen., M.P. A bookseller, No Corn Lands
P. Ainsworth, M.P. A Cotton Lord, No Corn Lands
J. Scholefield, M.P. Brummagem merchant, No Corn Lands
H. Aglionby, M.P. A Whig barrister, No Corn Lands
H. Marsland, M.P. A Cotton Lord, No Corn Lands
J. Easthope, M.P. A Stock-jobber, No Corn Lands
James Stewart, M.P. A Whig barrister, No Corn Lands
W. Ewart, M.P. A Whig bar. & merchant, No Corn Lands
J. Brotherton, M.P. A Cotton Lord, No Corn Lands
N. A. Vigors, M.P. An Irish Tail Man, No Corn Lands
R. Holland, M.P. A ballooning barrister, No Corn Lands
.1. Oswald, M.P. Glasgow manufacturer, No Corn Lands
T. Gisborne, M.P. A losing corn grower,No Corn Lands now
Sir De Lacy Evans, M.P. Count Irun, No Corn Lands
C. Hindley, M.P. A Cotton Lord, No Corn Lands
W. Ellis, M.P. A haberdasher, - No Corn Lands
A. Denistoun, M.P. Glasgow manufacturer, No Corn Lands
J. Fenton, M.P. A Rochdale banker, No Corn Lands
P. Chalmers, M.P. A Scotch merchant, No Corn Lands
T. S. Duncombe. M.P. A fishmonger, No Corn Lands

PRECEDENCE OF PRINCE ALBERT.

(From the Spectator)

In the bill now prepared, or in preparation, for naturaliz-
ing the Queen's future husband, it is proposed to give a power
for conferring precedence upon Prince Albert above her Ma-
jesty's uncles, the Dukes of the Blood Royal. This, we
believe, would be not only unprecedented, but contrary to
all principle applicable to such matters. By the common law
the Sovereign might confer on his subjects whatsoever place
and precedency he thought proper ; but it has been held that
the statute 31st Henry VIII. for " placing the lords," re-
strains the crown from granting to a peer a higher place than
the date of his patent would entitle him to claim ; and under
the Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland, the crown can-
not, by its own authority, grant to persons not peers prece-
dency over peers, or assign to any peer a place higher than
belongs to the date of his creation. An act of parliament,
therefore, becomes necessary to enable her Majesty to bestow
upon Prince Albert the rank and precedence destined for
him in the royal inclination.
Should parliament pass the bill for the purpose mentioned,
it will become a party to the degradation of the Blood Royal.
Next to the King, the Royal Family are held in highest
consideration by the law. Although the wives of the King's
sons, grandsons, brothers, and nephews, are held to be part
of the Royal Family, the law does not invest with the same
character the husband of any female relation whatever, not
even of the sovereign's only child, heiress presumptive to
the crown. The constitution takes no cognizance of any
male relation of the Royal Family by marriage; limiting its
regards to those who may succeed to the throne, or from
whom the right of succession may be derived. For these
reasons, members of the Blood Royal have always occupied
a higher station in the country than any other persons what-
soever save the sovereign, and have never been postponed in
rank to any others. By the common law and by the statute
their rank has been fixed ; and to place any person between
them and the throne is a violation of an established right, if
not inconsistent with the principles on which the English
monarchy is founded.
No similar usurpation to that now in contemplation has
ever been attempted. The English history furnishes no in-
stance of any person not of the Blood Royal taking prece-
dence of the Blood Royal ; and we can only discover three
cases in which individuals have been placed above the Arch-
bishop of Canterbury and the Great Officers of State. Prince
George of Denmark was invested by the statute Ist William
and Mary with that privilege • but his son, the young Duke
of Gloucester, ranked before his own father, because he was
of the Blood Royal. After Queen Anne came to the throne,
Prince George, her husband, obtained no higher rank. The
Princess Sophia, her son, the Elector of Hanover, and the
Duke of Cambridge his son, were authorised to take place
before the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Great Officers of
State, the Dukes and other Peers, by an act pasSed in the
10th of Anne. Prince Leopold of -Saie,,Coburg obtained a
similar precedence by act of parliament—the exception of
the Dukes of the Blood Royal being especially named in his
case.

Thus it appears that there is neither principle, law, nor
practice in favour of the measure by which it is proposed to
thrust aside the Dukes of the Blood Royal to make a place
for Prince Albert nearest to a throne which his birth forbids
that he should ever inherit.

The thing may be done, nevertheless. The Whig minis-
ters are ready to gratify the Queen in this matter. Will they,
indeed, stick at any thing to retain the Royal favour ? The
Duke of Sussex has been applied to for his consent ; his Royal
Highness has not refused, and it is thought that promise of
the additional income so shabbily denied to him last session
might, in a peat degree, overcome his scruples. The Duke
of Cambridge has undertaken to waive his claims ; and it is
not unlikely that his complaisance may be rewarded by the
command of the army. His Majesty the King of Hanover,
heir presumptive to the Crown of these realms, may not be
so easily sopped ; he is the person most particularly affronted
by the intrusion of a stranger into a place never before occu-
pied save by a prince or princess of the Royal Blood.
As to the House of Commons, their consent may be relied
upon ; a majority of five, or of two, will be sufficient, Our
curiosity is to see how the Lords will act. Will they agree
to degrade the Blood Royal of England ?—will they be won
over to sanction a violation of the principles of the monarchy?

If the Royal Dukes consent to be degraded, and Lords and
Commons are ready to aid in the Prince's elevation above
the children of George the Third, so be it. But let there be
no complaint in future of popular want of veneration for "il-
lustrious" blood.

MACHINE FOR STONE-CUTTING.

An important invention we saw in operation to-day at the
marble manufactory in Wilson-street, near Broad. A newly
invented stone-dressing machine, which promises, so far as
we could judge, to be an improvement of great utility in this
branch of the mechanic arts. It consists of an immense
frame of cast iron, 23 feet in length by 5 in breadth, and 5
feet high, with its contents and appurtenances, weighs nearly
ten tons. Within this frame are two long cast iron cylinders,
of about 20 inches or 2 feet diameter, in one of which is in-
serted, in spiral lines, a number of hammers or chisels, tem-
pered and shaped to suit the purpose of cutting away the
stone, which they do with admirable exactness, striking the
surface in quick succession, as the cylinder passes over it.
These cylinders have three distinct movements, one rotary,
one perpendicular„ and one horizontal. The second cylinder
covered with emory, and intended for polishing, moves with
great velocity, and finishes the work in the handsomest man-
ner. The gearing is so arranged with screws, that the ma-
chine feeds itself while in operation, upon the same principle
that a log upon the carriage of a saw mill feeds the saw—with
this difference only, that the stone remains stationary and
the horizontal movement is performed by the cylinder, which,
being fixed in a similar frame work, slides upon the great
frame which contains the stone.
This stone dresser, as we judge, will perform the work of.
aidoce.ahftog.cig,frtsiageer
chisels
agsyot
r, t
ta:ghnl,cotitys.ugn
whichetes in n a
cntandne may:.cbe
tt
donebi
ne used g
:by by hand.
cylinder,
dos
ern r almostalmostß y e vee re yh
everyasnp
gekeci inee
kind
machine
aranncahbmieneeenxteialclaust ebwork,deelvni t
hstiurcslti
facility.sea tsugpr oiont vi iosnuagr,gcrflistetyei
gratifying
and
that it has been taken in Isivelonucilmlbdpy a public spirited and wealthy
become
ee
goelnethrael. iinvei.hnetiotnm..diys
aciiitxizioenus, Ntvhhaocitsawbaeirieefiotfst
and expensive process of preparing stone for building pur-
poses, Ly hand, has caused this material to be much less used
than we hope and expect to see it hereafter.
This stone dresser was made at the expensive machine es-
tablishment of R. Hoe & Co., of New York. It is the only
one, we believe, which has.yet been manufactured. Dr. John
D. Buzzell, of Cape Elizabeth, Maine, is the inventor.—
Philadelphia Public Ledger.
We have had an opportunity of seeing the machine .alluded
to in the above extract, and we regard it as one of the most
valuable improvements of the day. It
gad executes
simplicity
believedbeeavveerityof
and power to a remarkable degree,.ande.cecuwees,
could
work
with a rapidity and perfection of finish, which. not
thpe
bringing •
it into extensive use • but we hope soon to see it at
work in all our cities !—New Daily" .ExpresB.
ostsimiblees,
hasifw ephraedvenntoetdsetehne
proprietorsit

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.

MANCHESTER, TUESDAY EVENING.

Either owing to the boisterous weather, or the near ap-
proach to the day when the acceptance must be made known
for the Chester Cup, there was next to nothing accomplished
this day at noon, nor has much life since been perceptible in
the betting. The Cheshire baronet's horse, with Sst. 61b,
and the certainly favoured Cruiskeen, are decidedly the fa-
vourites ; and few will exceed by one fraction the figures
attached. Abraham Newland, king Cole, the Dey of Al-
giers, Imogene, Retriever, Tamburini, St. Bennett, Captain
Pops, George, the Feather weight" (Colonel Peel's roan
by Augustus), Sir Ralph, Caravan, and Mr. Speed's horse,
have all to our knowledge been supported more or less. On
the other hand, Lanercost. The Doctor, Lightfoot, The
Dean, and Malvolio, are atprssent so out of all fashion, that
their owners or trainers might have sealed the letters of
" resignation." On Friday we stated that 10 would be
given versus the field : it is requisite to state that the half-
score would now be willingly accepted in the very best quar-
ter, or 50 to 20 that five defeat the field ; it was offered to be
laid at 30. The following are as near the prices as ob-
tainable :

11 to 1 against Sir T. Stanley's Cowboy.-100 to 10 off
100 to 8 „ Lord Miltown's Cruiskeen.—t to 7 freely
15 to I „ Mr. 0. Fairlie's Abraham Newland.
100 to 6 „ Mr. Copeland's King Cole.
100 to 6 „ Col. Peel's Dey of Algiers.—off
20 to 1 „ Mr. Massey's Tubalcain.—off
25 to 1 „ Lord Westminster's Sir Ralph.
20 to 1 „ Major Hay's Retriever: off to take 25
25 to 1 „ Lord Eglinton's St. Bennett.—t
25 to 1 „ Mr. F. R. Price's Captain Pops.—t

25 to 1 „ Sir T. Stanley's Apothecary.
200 to 7 „ Mr. Isaac Day's Tanaburini.—t

25 to 1 Mr. Isaac Day's Caravan.

100 to 2 1, Mr. Knox's George.—t
THE DERBY.-14 to lon the field ; 100 to 6 against An-
gelica (take it to 5); 100 to 6 against Bokhara (off) ; 100 to
5 (t) ; 10 to 1 against Confederate and Gambia (offers to take
it to 13) ; 500. to 10 Monops :(off) ; 500 to 10Chamau (off) ;
500 to 10 Assassin (t) ; 1000 to 15 against Morgan Rattler
(offered—take it to-day to 10, (which has been laid to a sum
since our last.
THE OAKS.—No betting to-day.