CORRESPONDENCE.
To the Editob or thb "Evening Mail." Sib. — It seems that we are getting nearer an mderstanding. You have at last admitted hat your proposition needed some qualifica ;ion, and that was all I contended for. I need aot stop to enquire how far this over produc tion, which has oaused the deolinein the price d£ hops, is attributable directly to protection, both here and elsewhere I certainly never led you to infer so absurd an argument as you wish to saddle upon me, and a little reflection will convinoe you of this. I said that many articles had been cheapened under _ the fostering care of protection, and I mentioned woollens, some kinds of boots, &c, as instances. This statement was made in reply to your question : Whether goods would be cheapened by protection if we excluded the foreign article. If the material bad cheapened, it could, of course, also be bought oheaper by those foreigners who had been supplying us, and thus the argument would not apply. Indeed when speaking of ploughs, I gave the I reason why I thought it likely that they would be cheapened under protection, and the price of the material had certainly noth ing to do with the reason I gave. And now let me say a few words to " Free* trader, " namely, that I decline to enter into a controversy with an anonymous writer, but more particularly with one who in his very first letter, under the pretence of quoting me, changes the easily understood word, saleable used by me, into what he calls a somewhat vague term rateable, and thus proves himself to be superficial to a degree. I am &c. H. A. Levestam,

MR LEVESTAM ON THE PRICE OF HOPS.
