1,500,000 dozen pair per annum. The Saxons supplied as much cotton hosiery to the United States alone as we did to all the world. He held in his hand a beautiful specimen of their manufacture of white cotton gloves, which cost only 3s. 6d. per dozen at Hamburgh. He held in his hand also another specimen of gloves of foreign manufacture, and one of similar quality of the manufacture of this country, but while the price of the English goods was 6s. per dozen, those of the Saxon manufacture were purchased at Hamburgh for 3s. 2d. per dozen. He had before him another specimen of beautiful stockings of Saxon manufacture, which at Hamburgh sold for 12s. 44d. per dozen, while the stockings of the same quality of English manufacture which he held in his hand could not be had for less at Nottingham than 23s. per dozen. It was a lamentable fact that Saxon hosiery and gloves were now regularly imported and sold in this country at lower prices than they can be made here, and will undoubtedly shortly entirely destroy this large branch of our manufactures. (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") Now he would put it to any gentleman whether foreign competition was a farce, after the statement of facts such as these. (Hear, hear.) Could there be a doubt of the pernicious effects of laws which enabled the Saxons thus to undersell us in the manufactured article, the raw material for which they purchased in the same market as ourselves (Cheers); and when it was recollected that the yarn was spun in England, taken there for the purpose of being converted into goods, which were brought back again after a land carriage of nearly 700 miles, and sold at the low rates he had already quoted? He could not but think, that after statements like these, the meeting would agree with him that it was the duty of this chamber to speak in a more decided tone to the legislature. (Hear, hear.) In speaking to Mr Porter, to whom he was indebted for many of his statements, and whose book he would recommend every man to read, that gentleman said-" the more he looked into the subject of our present policy the less he dared to think of it-its consequences were so fearful." (Loud cries of "Hear, hear.") Our population was increasing, while the means of employment and of subsistence were decreasing could any one think of the consequences without seeing the perilous situation in which wer were placed? (Hear, hear.) It was true, as the chairman had already stated, that the landowner's monopoly had been the cause of all this; and we had the best evidence that our corn laws had been the means of establishing manufactures in America. The British minister at Washington, Mr Addington, in reference to the tariff, wrote to Mr Canning as

follows:-"I have only to add, that had no restrictions on the importation of foreign corn existed in Great Britain, the tariff would never have passed through either house of congress, since the agricultural states, and especially Pennsylvania, would have been opposed to its enactment." The Prussian ambassador had in the same way frequently remonstrated against the exclusion of their corn and timber; but had our ministers ever had the courage to mention this, when complaints were made in parliament of the Prussian-German league? This was the time for the chamber to speak out upon this question. If our ministers did not know our wants, and did not know how to legislate for them, they were unfit to govern this great commercial country-(hear, hear,)—and if on the other hand they were aware of those wants, and knowing the justice of them, lacked the courage to bring forward measures of relief, then they were undeserving of our support. (Cheers.) Nothing was more unsatisfactory to him (Mr Smith) than the late interview of Mr Poulett Thomson with the directors of the cham

ber of commerce. He happened to be present at that interview, and he could not but notice the invariable reply which Mr Thomson gave to every question of monopoly brought under his notice-"It is a very important, but it is a very difficult question." (Hear and laughter, and applause.) True, it was difficult to reconcile monopoly with free trade, and the same difficulty would exist to the end of time. (Laughter.) But had not Mr Huskisson greater difficulties to contend with, when he first broached the principles of free trade? What a mass of ignorance, interest, and prejudice was arrayed against him! No wonder that at that time people were startled at the sweeping changes about to be introduced into the protective policy which had existed for ages; but far different was the case now, we had had thirteen years' experience of the effects of free trade; and when we looked at the benefits which free trade had conferred upon the country, we ought to demand the extension of it to every branch of our agriculture, manufactures, and commerce. (Cheers.) Perhaps he might be allowed to speak here of a few of its results. In 1819, to appease the clamour of the English agriculturists, a duty of 6d. per lb. was laid upon foreign wool. They said that wool had fallen in consequence of the large importation of foreign wool, and the object of the duty was to rise the price of the English wool. Fortunately (not for them but society) it failed in its object. It succeeded, however, in ruining the manufacturers of Yorkshire, but so far from the price rising, it fell to a lower figure than it had been known for 200 years before. In 1825 Mr Huskisson was the first man to propose

a reduction of the duty from 6d. to a 1d. upon wools above 1s. per pound, and to d. upon all below it. The result was, that while in 1820, when the protective duty was in force, our imports were only 9,000,000 pounds, in 1835, ten years after the reduction of the duty, they had risen to 42,000,000 pounds; and the price of British wool rose to double the price it fetched during the monopoly. (Loud cries of "hear.") He would appeal to his friend Mr Tootal, if the benefits derived by the silk trade from a similar policy were not equally satisfactory, the duty on raw silk being reduced from 4s. in 1824 to 1d.; and the duty on thrown silk being reduced from 148. 8d. to 3s. 6d. The result was an increase of imports from 2,399,000 pounds to 5,315,000 pounds, thus giving employment to double the number of people previously engaged in this manufacture. Another measure of Mr Huskisson's was the reduction of the duty upon coffee from 1s. to 6d., by which the consumption rose from 8,000,000 pounds in 1825 to 22,000,000 pounds in 1830. Now ought there to be a difficulty as to the line of policy we should pursue, after results like these? (Hear, hear.) Another important question with us was the protection of monopolies by discriminative duties. They would all be aware, for instance, that the duty on foreign sugar was 63s. per cwt., while the duty on British colonial sugar was only 24s.; that on foreign coffee 15d., while on British it was only 6d.; and on foreign timber 55s. per load, while the duty on Canada timber was only 10s. Now we have a treaty with Brazil, which would expire in 1841, and the Brazilians complained very loudly (as the Prussians had done) that we would not take their sugar and coffee; and they say, "If you don't take our produce, we won't take your manufactures." And that was a very reasonable proposition. Was it surprising they should complain when they saw our ships enter their ports laden. with our manufactures, and return empty? (Hear, hear.) And what was all this for? Why, to protect the West India interest! He did not understand the difficulties to which Mr Thomson had alluded when down here; but he had a suspicion, and the matter was now explained by seeing the papers this morning, where he had read the answer of the board of trade to a petition from merchants interested in the coffee trade, proposing that the duty on colonial coffee should be reduced from 6d. to 34d., and on foreign coffee from 15d. to 7d., a measure which the board says it cannot recommend. Mr Birley thought this was not the question before the meeting. A Member: I think many gentlemen will be of opinion with me, that the facts Mr Smith has been stating bear materially on the question before us, and it would be desirable to hear them.

Mr Smith believed the meaning of Mr Thomson's difficulty was, that they meant to stick by the monopoly system. He had little doubt, however, "the difficulty" would, by-and-by, be settled by the Brazilians in the same way as the Prussian league had been settled, and that our unjust exclusion of Brazilian sugar and coffee would be retaliated by their prohibition of our manufactures. (Loud cries of hear, hear.) He would not, after these interruptions, further occupy the attention of the meeting; he believed he had said sufficient to shew that our corn law legislation had been one of most scandalous injustice, and he thought they should so state in their petition, with the addition, that while we sought for abolition of the corn laws, we were not so unjust as to ask for protection on manufactures. (Applause.)

Mr Henry Tootal (extensive silk manufacturer, of the firm of H. and E. Tootal) said, that the prayer and some other sentences of the petition had been added since the day before; but the spirit and substance of those sentences had been stated by the president before he left the chair, and it was formally put to the directors, whether that statement was in accordance with their views, and whether the sentiments then expressed, and to be embodied in the addition, also met their concurrence. Those sentiments, in his (Mr Tootal's) opinion, were embodied, as they were represented by the president. (Hear, hear.) Mr Smith had given his unqualified assent to the petition, and stated that it met his concurrence, except as to one thing omitted, without which he said he thought it was incomplete. Mr J. B. Smith explained, that what had been added since, was what he disapproved of.

Mr T. Townend and Mr S. Fletcher spoke in explanation. The chairman said he considered that the remarks of Mr Smith tended to impeach his (the chairman's) good faith in what he had stated to the meeting as to what had been done the day before. Then the petition had been first read over at length, then paragraph by paragraph, and considered for some time; it was then moved that it be adopted and recommended to this meeting. The question was put upon that, and it passed unanimously. He (the chairman) had then inquired whether he might consider every gentleman then present as concurring in the petition, and whether they authorized him to state to this meeting that such was the fact. He said that if any difference of opinion existed amongst the directors, he should not think it becoming in him to enter into the subject at the meeting; but if they were unanimous, as he was strongly urged to introduce the subject, then there could be no impropriety in his doing so. The petition stood the

same as when read the day before, save that additions had been made (not in the body, but at the end) in consequence of suggestions then made, and which he understood had the full concurrence of every gentleman present. On coming there this morning, he read those additions to some of the directors who were present; and had Mr Smith been there, they would have been shewn to him also. He thought in those additions he had not gone beyond what the directors had concurred in suggesting, and he could only express his deep regret that the dissent now uttered by Mr Smith was not stated the day before; for in that case he (the chairman) would have qualified his statement, and have said that one gentleman did not go thoroughly with the other directors in their concurrence.-Mr J. B. Smith said, what he had stated was, that the petition ought to embody a similar prayer to that of last year, which contained a disavowal of a wish for protection to manufactures.-To this the chairman replied, "We have asked for that before; need we ask for it again?" -He (Mr Smith) replied, that it was an argument always used against us by the agriculturists.-The chairman then said, "Let them raise the argument first," and he (Mr Smith) rejoined that he thought that we ought to state and meet it at once.[After some further discussion, Mr Smith said he considered the quotation from Mr Canning's speech in the petition a very objectionable passage; and Mr J. C. Dyer suggested that the words "without overwhelming it," in that quotation, should be omitted. The chairman said, the quotation must be wholly given or wholly omitted; besides, no one could wish to see the country overwhelmed with a mass of corn. Mr J. B. Smith thought we could not have too much.]

Mr J. C. Dyer (machine maker, and who was the chairman of Mr Thomson's election committees) begged, as an humble member of the chamber, to express his sentiments. He regretted that there should have been any difference of opinion among them. He thought unanimity was a matter of the first importance, both on their own account and that of the public. He had been highly gratified with the important statements made by Mr Smith. He had thought of bringing forward some facts on the subject, but would now abstain from doing so at any length, seeing that gentlemen had already done it so much more ably. He could have wished to see a strong demand for the absolute repeal of the corn laws, on the simple ground of justice, embodied in the petition. Nothing could be plainer than that principle of eternal justice-that every man had a right to exchange his labour for food, without restriction of any kind; and he