Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/402

 the trouble of making inquiries on the subject, he would find that there were six or eight counties taxing the rest of the country, as well as all Ireland and Scotland, in order that they might receive a high price for their cheese. Mr. Tatton Egerton did not, he said, reproach the manufacturers for making large fortunes; but he would ask, why were not the landed proprietors to have also a return for their capital? Dr. Bowring said that the manufacturers had repeatedly declared that they required no protection, and they even showed that those manufacturers which had been most protected bad progressed least. Sir Robert Peel asked, how was it to be expected that Her Majesty's government could seriously consider a reduction of £350,000 in the revenue at the present period of the session? Did the House think it right to anaihilate the small sun that would remain in the hands of the government, and to run the risk of having a deficiency of £200,000 or £300,000 at the end of the present year? He, therefore, hoped that the House would give no countenance to the motion of the honourable member, but that they would leave the subject to be considered with the financial policy of the government in the ensuing session. Mr. M. J. O'Connell said his constituents depended more on the sale of butter than even on corn; but still he thought one rule should be applied to all agricultural produce. The House then divided—

The parliamentary session was drawing to a close, while the weather continued to be unsettled. The state of trade fluctuated with the rise and fall of the barometer. When the sun shone out goods were in demand and prices were reported "firm;" and in cloudy and rainy days there was a report of depression in the goods, and of firmness and