The Sun. — London, England, 1844-07-04 00:00:00

.SAND WEEKLY ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE MEETING 4T COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE The usual weekly meeting of the Anti-Corn-law League was held yesterday evening at Covent-garden Theatre. The meeting was very numerous, and the greatest order seemed to prevail. Amongst those present we noticed the following : George Wilson, Esq., in the Chair ; Hon. Charles Pelham Villiers, Esq., M.P., Richard Cobden, Esq., M.P., John Bright, Esq., M.P., Benjamin Smith, Esq. ' M.P., Major-General Robertson, Pro fessor Key, Colonel Tucker, Dr. Tucker, Messrs.W. Bower, J. W. Griffin (Paisley), J. Howorth (Roch dale), J. Angus, Jacob Angas, Summers llarford, H. Stainforth (Hull), B. Metcalf (Liverpool), Thos. Lattimore (Wheathampstead), Robert Hobbs, Chas. Mackay, Joseph Ivimey, W. Geesin, Edwards, H. Moore, Crawford Burkitt, Benjamin Thorne, S. Lucas, W. A. Wilkinson, P. A. Taylor, J. Gadsby, J. P. Burnard, Francis Stokes, Jarvis, Thomas Clark, jun. (Birmingham), Press Granger, W. J. Blake, Blow, Samuel Grafftey, A. Baner (Man 'chester), Richard Ware Cole, S. A. Smith, Crabbie (Leith), George Blanshard, 11. L. Keeling, J. T. Campo* G. F. Minton, Wilson, J. Chal mers, Charles W. Cobby, Patrick M‘Gregor, George Beacon, J. Ridge. George Wilson, Esq., took the chair at half-past seven clock. The minutes of the last meeting having been con firmed, The Cnatamear came forward and was received with loud cheers. He said he apprehended there were few there who were not aware that the mono polists in the House of Commons, true to themselves and their own interests, had again succeeded in es tablishing their peculiar claims to the gratitude and admiration of their fellow-countrymen.--(Hear, hear, and laughter.) On Wednesday last they had, by a majority of 202, decided upon the maintenance and continuance of the corn-laws. He knew not whether any one present had expected a different result, but he confessed, looking to the party who composed a majority of the House, and knowing that they were the men who a few years ago sat by whilst mono poly was doing its work, he had no expectation that they would be found now giving their support to those. just principles which they sought to see estab lished he rejoiced to see that they were not so strong as they formerly were, and that there was a strong tide setting in in another direction.—(Hear, hear.) Last year the monopolists voted 381, this year they voted 330, having lost 51.—(Hear, hear.) ,But it might be asked " Where is the proof of your progress in the House—this year you voted 126 and last year you voted the same number ?" Here was the proof it. In 1842, when Mr. Villiers put the total and unconditional repeal prin ciples in issue in the House of Commons, but 92 voted with him on that occasion, and 395 voted against him, the majority forming considerably mote tha.'i one-half the whole House. On the present occasion, his minority was increased 34, and the majoriy against him was reduced 65, leaving them shorn of the majority they had in 1842 by 100.— (Near, hear.) But, though the Members who voted with Mr. Villiers on this occasion were the same in amount with the number who voted with him last year, they had .28 new votes in favour of the motion. —(hear, hear.) Besides 32 of those who supported him in 1842 were absent, but their opinions were still the same they were at :hat time.—(Hear.) Thus the strength of his party wiss near 170.—(Hear, hear.) And it ought to be understood that this was the same house of Commons which was; elected especially and specifically to maintain the corn-Yaws.—(Hear, hear.) There was no general election, and they had no means of operating on the House except by reason and argument, yet within two years they found those who supported the motion had increased considerably, and the majority of their opponents had been reduced upwards of sixty-five.—(Hear, beim) He would ask any one to point out another question which had made such progress, which was not a party question, and not supported by the great leaders in the House. —(Hear, hear.) Whatever the House of Commons might have been in 1841, every one knew it was now considerably behind public opinion.—(Hear, hear.) How did he prove that ? Why, by asking then to turn their eyes to their own city. One of the'-Mem hers for the City of London voted for the motion, two voted apinst it, and the fourth ran away.— (Cheers and tosses.) Yet, was there any one there bold enough to affirm that any of those, except Mr. Pattison, had conveyed the opinion of the City of London ?—(Hear, hear, and vehement cheers.) But more than this, a majority of the constituencies of eleven Members who voted against the motion re quested their representatives to support it.—(llear, hear.) Adding those eleven to the 170 who supported him it would be found that his friends had more than doubled in the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.) Their niajority was, however, still strong, but it was a diminishing one.—(Hear, hear.) An attendance of twelve months at the registry would be sufficient to strip it away—(Hear, hear)—and there was enough of energy and spirit on the part of the people of this country to secure a victory when another elec. tin occurred.—(Cheers.) Mr. Vieenses then came forward, and was received with loud cheers. He said that the Chairman bad in formed them of what, no doubt, they were aware of before, that since the last meeting which took place in that house for the purpose of considering the corn laws, he had been at that House where those laws were made, for the purpose of making his an nual inquiry from its authors upon what grounds either of justice, wisdom, or humanity they could defend the existence of them, and to ask them whether they had any fresh expe rience, circumstances, or reason of any kind which they could allege as a set-off against the mass of misery, and mischief which annually sprang from those laws.—(Hear, hear.) He came before them at the request of the Chairman, and, notwithstand ing the contemptuous reference which had been made to those meetings by Sir R. Peel—(Groans) — out of respect to those who assembled there, to show their sympathy with the sufferings of the people, in on atT to convey to them his impression of the result of the recent discussion and division on the question of the corn-laws—(Loud cheers) — and he would say at once that he never had leas reason to be discouraged on the subject in his life at that result—(Hear, hear)—for it had exceeded his most sanguine expectations. The motion was brought forward under very adverse circumstances, and he was not prepared for that impression being made on the co naitoencies and thereby on the members, which had produced so large a minority in behalf of the mo tion he proposed. But it might be collected from the orzans of the monopolists in Parliament and in the pres.l 4 , - that they considered the result of that discussion as most satisfactory to them and disastrous to the League. But about that, he had something to say. Those who represented the friends of scarcity in the house of Commons—(Cheers)—expressed their satisfaction at the speech of the President of the Board of Trade. They hailed that speech with joy and surprise, and the peculiar value of it, was as they expressed it, in its honesty.—(Laughter.) That seemed to have taken them by surprise ; but the honesty of it, as far as they could collect was, that as far as he had power, and as long as he lived, he would stick by the sliding scale. Now, it was curious to find that any of the party should have faith in any of the present Ministry ; because, when Sir Robert Peel solemnly promises that he will not abandon them, some sarcastic friend gets up and says that he had another corn-law in his pocket.—(Laughter.) And on what grounds they had more faith in the young statesman. Mr. Gladstone, he was at a loss to know, for as far as he (Mr. Villiers) knew he was not of that stuff of which martyrs were made.—(Laughter.) Great consolation was derived from the division, and the organ of the monopolists in the House of Peers, in the person of Nis Grace of Richmond, told his friends the tenants at will that they might now renew their engagements, And expect the Act of Parliament price, because the majority had greatly increased against the repeal of the corn-laws, and probably some persons would be found foolish enough to follow his advice. What was the fact? Why, twenty-eight men, who never before voted for the total repeal had voted for it on this occasion 1— (Hear.) Then they had the organs of those luminaries in the press so satisfied with the result, that they did not occupy themselves with the question whether this debate had been a failure or not, but they entered into a rather curious inquiry ; and the Morning Ile rald---(A laugh)—engaged itself to the extent of two columns as to what had killed the League, and why it.was that the people loved protection.—(Laughter.) He was not able to understand exactly how they ar rived at the conclusion they had come to, but they easne to the conclusion that it was owing to Sir R. peers measures, which were of so comprehensive a character that they settled every question. --(Laughter.) They say that the agriculturists might now be at rest, as the question was now settled, Npw, that seemed to him, if he might venture to differ from so venerable a personage, to be somewhat doubtful.—(Laughter.) What reason was there for supposing that the great agricultural question was .settled, or that the Goverdsnent had done anything or ;'intended to do anything to settle it ? Those who sup ported the Government, said the question was settled, because the Minister had said that he would stick 6'!ll427 4 ilinff-spale, and that the principle of protec tiosi-faboudhered to. Now, he maintained that was nut anotigh'for th e Minister to declare. There was another condition necessary to give assurance to the agriculturists, and that was, that the public would stick to - ( r, hear, • and cheers.) Unless they did so, his stickin g t o 01 slidin g 6cOia -,, FP by t ' . Tall SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 4 , 1844. would not do much good, for it was very possible, nay, very probable, that they would sink together. — (Cheers.) Now, what was the state of the case ? Public parties were not now much united upon any mat ter, but if there was any one thing in which they were more united than another, it was in hostility to the sliding scale. The commercial classes generally were not very united, but they wire united in their hosti lity to the sliding scale. The Liberal party in Par liament were not united on many points, but even Lord John Russell himself, who was not a friend to the League, and who the other night had been cross with them because, a few nights before they had crossed him on the question of the sugar duties ; even Lord John Russell said, that as long as the sliding scale existed, agitation was not only excusable, but it was commendable.— (Loud cheers.) There was not a single man who was likely to be a member of the next Government, who was in favour of a sliding-scale.—(Cheers.) Now the present Government was not so strong as it had been.—(Cheers.) If they asked any man they met in the street what he thought of it, he would tell them he thought it was going.—(Cheers.) Every one thought that it was tottering, and that it was very shakey—(A laugh)—that it could not go on for any long time. Now why was this so ? It was impossi ble to deny that such was the fact; and it was very much to be attributed to those meetings, by which expression had been Fiven to the public opinion of the country. Public opinion would not any longer tole rate monopoly. It insisted upon its abolition. The tide of public opinion had set in against monopoly. The present Ministry were aware of this, and while on the one hand they dreaded to outrage public opi nion by openly supporting monopoly, on the other hand they feared to offend their friends by attacking it. They feared to run counter to public opinion, and when they acted in accordance with it they ran the risk of irritating their friends ; and as long as they remained in office there would be a constant recur rence of those family jars which had so nearly upset them the other day. If they inquired of the agricul turists, they would inform them that the farmers had never before been left in such an unsettled state. Such was the complaint of every man connected with agriculture, and the man was a fool who, upon the faith of the continuance of the present law, would invest any money in improvements, or would lay out capital upon the faith of the present law continuing, and the present prices being obtained. The agricul turists said they never were in a worse position ; they would prefer anything to it; they would rather have total repeal, free trade—anything, rather than things should be left in their present unsettled state. They were perfectly convinced that while the law remained in its unsettled state, they were more injured than benefited by it. If they read the debates on this subject, in the Lords and the Commons, and what was said by their organs in the press, they would find that when those parties said they considered the ques tion as settled, there had not been any question which was more unsettled. This was a great encouragement to them to proceed, and afforded them good ground for hoping that they should succeed if they perse vered. The agriculturists saw nothing but the prospect of change before them. Either the Government would be turned out, or their friends would turn round. Why the Government might be turned out every day; and if they continued in office, and turned round by a judicious distribution of stars and places, they might at any time alienate the friends of the agriculturists from the cause. They were only eager to seize an opportunity of being re conciled to Sir Robert Peel. The recent discussions in the Houses of Parliament had shown their weakness and impotence. As compared with the free-traders, they were weak indeed. They had no spokesman among them, who could come forward and give rea sons which would bear discussion, for supporting this law. They trusted entirely in Sir Robert Peel, and were glad to do whatever he told them. Now this fixed upon Sir Robert Peel the responsibility of main taining this law.—(Cheers.) They had been blamed for advocating what were called violent measures, such as total and immediate repeal.—(Hear hear.) Now let them look at the history of this corn-law, and see what encouragement there was to bring forward moderate propositions. It was in the year 1827 that Mr. Canning first pro posed the sliding-scale. At that time, as at present, there were three parties in the House of Commons, those who were in favour of an entire prohibition of the import of corn, those who were in favour of a sliding scale, and those who were against all mono poly. In 1827, when Mr. Canning first proposed the sliding scale, a gentleman representing the district which he (Mr. Villiers) had now the honour to re present, Mr. Woolryche Whitmore, was opposed to the sliding scale, and rose to express his doubts as to the advantages accruing which its proposer expected to derive from it. Now, how had that gentleman been received at the time ? He turned to "Hansard," and he found it there stated, that the Honourable Member was proceeding to state his objections, when he was interrupted by loud and general coughing —he waited for some time until the noise had somewhat subsided when he said that if he had proposed counter-resolutions there might have been some reasons for refusing to hear him—(Re newed coughing)—but he merely wished to state his opinion that the evils of the present system would not be alleviated by the sliding scale.—(Coughing.) Now that was the way in which a gentleman was treated who ventured to express a doubt as to the merits of the sliding scale. Mr. Whitmore had been followed by a gentleman with whose name they were no doubt all familiar, he meant Sir Edward Knatch bull.—(A laugh.) He had no doubt but that Sir E. Knatchbull had not suppressed his cough, if he hap pened to be suffering from one during the speech of the former speaker. Sir E. Knatchbull had stated that he was of a different opinion from the Honourable Gentleman, that the question before the House was a most important question, it was whether the importa tion of food should be entirely prohibited, or whether it should be permitted on payment of a certain duty; for his part, he thought the importation of corn ought to be entirely prohibited. He stated that he had heard with horror the declaration of Mr. Canning, that this measure was an approximation towards free trade, and he trusted that the House would never accede to such doctrines. That Bill had passed the House of Commons, but it had been thrown out of the House of Lords by the prohibition party, with the Duke of Wellington at their head, and the party had se attacked Canning, that they had worried him to death—the session had hardly closed before he had expired. He had been succeeded in office by his opponents, and in the year following they also had proposed a sliding-scale, which the year before they had exposed. This was in 1828, and on that occasion Mr. Woolriche Whitmore had opposed the Ministe rial sliding scale, and had proposed another in opposi tion to it as an amendment. Now what was the scale which Mr. Whitmore had then proposed ? Why the very scale which Sir Rohert Peel had proposed the other day. Now 31r.Whitmore had been attacked in the most violent manner for this proposition—he had been stigmatised as the enemy of the agricultural interest had been told that the ruin of the interest must be the consequence of the adoption of his motion, and on a division 383 had voted againit it, and only 50 for it. Now that was an encouragement to moderation, and it con firmed him in his determination to ask for nothing less than total and immediate repeal. In 1833 and 1834 motions on the subject of an alteration in the corn-laws had been treated in the same sort of way. In 1837 a change had been proposed from a sliding scale to a fixed duty—that motion had been rejected, and on that occasion the majority had been greater and the minority less than it had been the next year, when he had proposed total and immediate repeal.— (Cheers.) In 1838 he had proposed as a measure of justice the total and immediate repeal of the. corn laws.—(Cheers.) There was a majority of 300 against that motion, although he had so framed it as to enable every person who disapproved of the existing system to vote in its favour; for although he had argued in favour of total repeal, he had only moved for a Committee. In 1839 he had proposed the same motion, and the majority had been diminished to 147 ;in 1840, he had proposed the same motion, and the ma jority had diminished to 123, but at that time the Anti-Corn-law League was in active operation, and their energy in diffusing information on the subject had tended much to reduce the majority on the question. The majority, which, in 1838, had been 300, had been, in 1840, reduced to 123. At that time the people were ybe e became ambe attributed econvincedthtaot the sufferings of the pp continuance of the system of monopoly, and they pro posed measures for putting an end to it. On those measures they were defeated, and the present Go vernment came forward as the supporters of monopoly. Who could forget the calumnies, the misrepresenta tions, the falsehoods, which were had recourse to at the last eleotion to make the people believe that monopoly was for their benefit ? It was impossible, without being disgusted, to consider the system which was then pur sued to induce the people to believe that monopoly was for their advantage, and that the free traders were their enemies. Now what happened in the session of 1842? Sir R. Peel was fain to yield to public opinion, and he proposed the tariff, and the new corn-law. Every principle that the free traders had contended for was admitted by the monopolist Ministry. They admitted that the doctrioes of free trade were 'true—Ahoy admitted that persons ought to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest market—(Hear)-- they admitted that abstractedly monopoly was wrong, and free trade was right.---(Cheers.) Now that principle having been acknowledged, he brougl4 forward his motion for the repeal of this most mun, derous law. This law had produced all the evils of which the country complained. He had moved in - 1842 for the total repeal of the corn 111 w, an d hi s motion had been rojeetted by a majority of 300. In 1843 he had repeated the motion ; aid the majority against it had been reduced from 300 to 256; an 4 on the last ocatsi,on the majority was reduced from 256 to 294, —(Cheers.) Now that certainly proved that the question had made progress, and he trusted the time was not far distant when this atrocious law would ba abolished.—(Loud cheers.) He found that, on the last division, there was no Liberal Member who had been returned for a city or borough, with the exception of the Member for Carlisle, who had voted against the motion. With reference to the arguments which had been used on that occasion, he would observe that be had not been content to propose his resolutions for repealing the corn law, without stating in those resolutions his reasons for making such a proposition. He had therefore proposed a series of resolutions, stating the present dis tressed and destitute condition of the popula tion of this country—the fact that such population was increasing, without any in creased means of subsistence, and stating also that their present destitute condition was to be attri buted to the want of food, and that, therefore, the laws which prohibited the importation of that food of which they stood in need ought to be repealed. That it was unwise and unjust to prohibit by law the importation of the subsistence of the people. Now, how had these propositions been met ? Their oppo nents had not denied any one of his proposi tions. They had not denied that the peo ple were distressed.—(Hear.) They had not denied that distress increased as the numbers in creased. They had not denied that that distress was attributable to the want of a sufficiency of food. They had not denied that the corn-law prevented a free importation of food. He had shown this, and had challenged• them to prove the contrary—that when the price of corn was dear, the labourer was badly off; and that when it was cheap, the lahourer was well off ; and that when the la bourer was well off, the farmer prospered.—(Cheers.) The opponents of the question had not attempted to answer these propositions ; but instead they had spun a long yarn about the delinquencies of the Anti-Corn-law League. They did net deny that the people were suffering—they did not deny that the cause of the suffering was scarcity of food—they did not deny that the corn-law was intended to produce that scarcity. At length Sir Robert Peel rose to put things together, and to defend the present sys tem. He did not attempt to defend the law upon any principle of abstract right or justice, he did not deny the assertion of Lord Howick that the corn-law was a robbery, but he said that the corn-law was a part of the protective system, which, in fact, amounted to this, that because A, B, and C, robbed the public they should be permitted to rob it likewise. Now, Sir Robert said the corn-law ought to be maintained because of the peculiar burdens on the land ; and what did they think was the burden, more particularly mentioned by the Premier ? Why, the poor-rates. The fund which was raised for the purpose of relieving the po verty created by these very corn-laws was given as a reason for the continuance of those laws.—(Cheers.) Now, with regard to these rates, he had heard a landowner say in private, and their discourses in pri vate were very different from their discourses in public; a landowner had said to him, in private, that the poor laws did not press so much on the landowner as on other people, after all ; for, said he, we deal in food, and the poor-rates are levied from the tradespeople and the inhabitants of towns to purchase food for the paupers.—(Cheers.) And then, said Sir Robert Peel, only think of poor Ireland. Only think of Sir R. Peel thinking of Ireland !—(Laughter.) One conse quence of the shutting up Mr. O'Connell was that Sir R. Peel could allude to Ireland on such an occasion. If Mr. O'Connell had been in the House, he, who had always consistently advocated the cause of the repeal of the corn-laws, would have told him that those laws were not upheld for the benefit of Ireland. —(Cheers.) Why Mr. O'Connell had said on one occasion, in a county in Ireland, the landlords had attempted to get up a meeting to support the corn laws, and the farmers and peasantry had attended at it, and out-voted them.—(Cheers.) There was not a man who loved that county—not a man who under stood that country—not a man who had the interest of that country at heart—who was not eager and anxious to repeal the corn-laws.—(Loud cheers.) The words were hardly out of Sir R. Peel's mouth, before Mr. Sharman Crawford, the son and the nephew of Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Shell, voted for the repeal of the corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) Yet, this was all he had to say by way of reason or argu ment. There was another thing, he said, but that was a personality which had been often used against himself by his friends. He said, he really did not believe that the same men could be found, either in the commercial class or in any other class of the com munity, who had advocated the total repeal of the corn-laws.—(Hear.) Why, that was the old state bit of abuse which had been used by everybody against anybody, who did not agree with him. Why, he himself had been called mad for bringing forward certain measures over and over again. In the case of the Currency Bill, for instance, madness had been attributed to him by many persons. He wanted to know what right he had to call persons mad because they felt it to be their duty to advocate the repeal of the corn-laws. He ventured to say that the Right Hon. Baronet knew no more of agriculture than the man in the moon.—(Laughter.) What right had he, then, to tell Lord Ducie, who took the chair the other night, that he was a madman ?—(Hear, hear.) The man ought to know something of agri • culture who made such a declaration. Lord Ducie was acknowledged on all hands to be the best and the most scientific practical farmer in the country; and yet, being a landlord himself, he declared that the total repeal of the corn-laws was essential to the best interests of the landlords, as well as those of the rest of the community. Then, as to the safety of such a measure, what reason had he to tell them that such men as Mr. Jones Loyd and the Marquis of Westminster had not sufficient stake in the country to be able to judge of the importance of this measure ?—(Hear, hear.) They were men with a little property, those two. —(Laughter.) They had come to years of dis cretion, and he thought they might be trusted in this matter. These two men had come forward in the most prominent manner, and declared that the repeal of the corn-laws was not only a just measure but a wise one, for they had given that proof of' sincerity which men usually did when they felt interested in a cause, they had contributed largely to the funds. Why, then, should they be told that all who recom mended or voted for the total repeal of the corn-laws were insane?—(Hear, hear.) Why, it was the strong part of their case, that there never was a measure b ought before the public which was fortified by so much authority as the repeal of the corn-laws. They had some of the most reflecting, some of the most wealthy, some of the most influential persons in the country on their side ; and let not Sir Robert Peel imagine that a flippant reference to the sanity or insanity of those who advocated their cause would prevent them from continuing such advocacy.— (Cheers.) It had been stated over and over again by their opponents that the bringing forward of this question in the House was a waste of the public time. Now, he would ask them to turn over in their minds the measures which occupied the public time in the House of Commons. Why even those which had some interest attached to them were branches of this great question ; they were in reality attempts to botch up some of the evils which flowed from the corn-law. What was the Factory Bill ? The Factory Bill had occupied a considerable portion of time. That Bill was a mode of preventing persons who were en gaged in factories from working so long as they were led to do by the bard necessities of their condition. Why, would it not be better to repeal that law which brought about such a state of things ?—(Cheers.) What, again, was the Poor-law Bill ?—a Bill which was thought to be of so much importance, that it would probably occupy the attention of the House of Commons for the remai n d er o f th e month? Why, it was actually a measure to mitigate some of the evils of the existing law, because such an unexpected amount of distress existed, that some mitigation of it was absolutely unavoidable. —(Hear, hear.) But now, what was the great question which they were anxious to press upon the attention of the Legislature ? it was the question of the condition of the people of England—of the best means of alleviating it. Was it not monstrous, then, to postpone this great question, in order to avoid discussing the monstrous conse quences of the corn-law? The Currency Bill was another important measure ; and, by the bye, that measure was recommended to Sir Robert Peel by this very man, whom he therefore considered insane. —(Hear, hear.) That measure was recommended by Mr. Jones Loyd, whom he considered stark staring mad, for advocating the repeal of the corn laws. Everybody said that the Currency Bill was his measure. The great recommendation of the measure, as propounded by Sir Robert Peel, was that it would prevent those great revulsions in commerce which had before occurred. He believed that it was utterly impossible to prevent such revulsions .—( Hear, hear.) The gold would r out just as much under the Bank Charter Bill as it had done before, and the same results would follow.—(Hear hear.) He only mentioned these Bills to show that they were not wasting the public time by directing the attention of the House of Commons to the great question of this country, the question of the corn-laws. The great point to be considered was, how to improve the condition of the means of the people. The country generally was in a healthy state, but whilst the mass of the people were increas ing in numbers and intelligence, they were suffering the greatest distress, and this state of things was not consistent, he maintained, with the continued security of their institutions.—(Hear, hear.) There was no reason to despair of the progress of their cause. They had contributed much by assembling there to form and influenoe public opinion ; and as long as public opinion was allowed to be expressed freely in this country, it was impossible that it should not have great influence.—(Cheers.) He repeated they had no rpascn to despair. They must not mind the cowardice, tjr baseness, . or the meanness, of other personsl ut do their own duty, Ile had referred the other night to what had been done by the Legislature with respect to ths. slave trade. He had since learnt that, within forty years, Mr; Pitt had been beaten by a majority of 80 on that ques tion, on the ground that the change ought to be moderate and gradual. How would the House of Commons act if that question were now brought before them?—(Hear, hear.) They had abundant proof that the corn-law was an abundant source of misery, and they were bound, therefore, to do all in their power to procure its abolition as a nuisance and calamity, by which the country was grievously afflicted.—(theers.) Mr. COBDUN said that, after the narrative which their friend had given them of the past pro ceedings of himself and others in th e House of Commons, in connexion with this great question, he was sure it would be as acceptable to this meeting as it would be pleasant to his own feel ings, if he expressed their gratitude to him for the manful support which for the last six years, in spite of all sinister influences, he had given to the cause of the League.—(Cheers.) He had told them that the progress which he had made in the House had been measured by the progress of their agitation out of doors ; and really, when he remarked what the Anti-Corn-law League was six months ago, and when he considered the progress which that move ment had made in this country since that time, he coald not help thinking that it afforded every encou ragement to them to proceed.—(Cheers.) Six years ago all the members of the Anti-Corn-law League might have been put into one of the stage-boxes.— (Hear, hear.) Year after year they had seen the progress of this movement, not merely in Manchester, but in every provincial town, until they found them selves landed in the midst of this mighty metropolis, where they had been holding meetings for the last six months, almost weekly, in that vast theatre, which seemed still to excite unabated interest. If this were not a proof of the advance of free-trade principles, he knew not where to go for one. Their friend Mr. Villiers had referred to the arguments used in the Houses of Parliament in opposition to their claims. Now, he was not so jealous of any as sertions made in Parliament as of one which had been made on the previous night by his Grace of Richmond. He was now continually repeating in the House of Lords that the tenantry of this country rose as one man to oppose the League. He had heard the same 'thing from the squires in the House of Commons so often that he confessed that, of itself, it would, if he had known nothing of the subject, have made him rather suspect the assertion. —(Laughter.) It very mush reminded him of the schoolboy whistling on his way through the church yard, round to these customers, and demands payment, but the linen draper says, oh, your cotton was of a frailer texture than was agreed for—the colours have turned out fugitive. I expected to get such prices, and have not realised them—l have lost by the transaction." Suppose the traveller to be the land lord, why he would in that case say, oh, it may be perfectly true that you have lost, and that you have had a bad bargain, but petition the House of Com mons to appoint a Committee to i nquire into this subject.—(Great laughter.) And, following up the simile, if the former demurred the traveller (or agent) would tell the linen draper, in case he persisted in refusal " You must pay Cobden every farthing, for there is an Act of Parliament which em powers us to levy a distress upon your goods, and until the last shilling he paid no other creditor can be satisfied.—(Hear, hear.) Did they think linen drapers would thrive upon such treatment as that ? Would they not find themselves where farmers had frequently found themselves—in the hands of the auctioneer ?—(Hear, hear.) He should never despair of the bona fide tenant-farmers; they would find out at last how they had been bamboozled, and how they had been diverted by their landlords from the real grievances which affected them, and confused with a hocus pocus of Acts of Parlia ment.—(Hear, hear.) But what did the landlord now ask the tenant to do ? IVas it to petition Parlia ment to reform or redress existing evils—to consider their condition with the view of bettering it ? No such thing, but to keep things exactly where they were. It was acknowledged on all hands that great distress at present existed in the agricultural districts, that there were large numbers of able-bodied men unemployed there, and standing at corners of roads looking for work, or filling gaols or union work houses—the farmers oppressed beyond endurance by the weight of the taxes and the poor-rates ; and yet in this state of things the landlord had the auda city to ask the farmer. and the farm labourer to peti tion Parliament to keep things as they were.—(Hear, hear.) Was it not a shameful imposture to tell farmers that they should persevere in a course that would in fallibly lead to their own downfal?—(Renewed cries of " Hear, hear.") It was said that he (Mr. Cob ben) had not the voice of the farmers. Well, all he could say was, that in Dorsetshire and in other places where he attended meetings, large numbers of the farmers were present, and great numbers of the mechanics resident in country towns. Many of the farmers held up their hands in favour of tree trade opinions. All the mechanics did. The landlords, in a recent discussion, would not admit that the opinion of the artisans should be taken as any indication of those of the farmers, yet in the same breath th e y stated that in considering the question of the corn laws, not only the farmers should be considered, but those mechanics and artisans who lived in towns and who were dependent upon the farmers for broad, should be considered likewise. There was one other argument which he did not expect to hear even from a Duke.—(Laughter.) A Noble Duke told them that the Anti-Corn-law League wanted to reduce the price of corn in order to reduce the price of wages; and that when the price of corn was high, wages were high ; and when corn was low in price wages were likewise low. Well, he (Mr. Cobden) must say, that he did not expect to hear this statement thrown out and falsified as it had been, even in the House of Lords. But that truly noble and patriotic peer Lord Radnor had shivered these idle arguments to atoms.—(Lord cheers.) It did require considerable moral courage in such an atmosphere as the House of Lords, to meet those misstatements ; but Lord Radnor, in the most clever and concise manner, put the extinguisher upon the Noble Duke.—(Loud cheers.) He told the Duke what was an axiom, and what should be always borne in mind—that, if labour sunk so low that man could not subsist, or less than the price of that labour, the price of labour could have nothing to do with the price of corn, for if the latter sunk lower still in price, the labourer would infallibly be st arve d. Wh en labour reached the minimum of value, the labourer was treated as a horse—a fixed quantity of bread was apportioned for his use—if it were dear, as in scarce years, the complement would be still the same—just the same sum of money to be expended in oats whe ther the horses would live or die. Why labourers were kept in a worse condition than the slaves of Cuba or Brazil, who dined on a stinted meal of rice and red herring.—(Hear, hear.) Was the price of wages regulated by the price of food ? (A voice, " Yes. ") Somebody said " Yes,' Well, then, let them examine the state of the metro polis. In 1839 and 1840 the price of corn was double what it was in 1835 and 1836, but did the price of labour increase with the price of corn ? No, the reverse was the case.—(Cheers.) The wages of labour were greater in the cheap than in the dear years. All trades in the dear years felt the oppression—the citizen, of whatever description, received but the same money in 1841 and 1842 ; even the poor boatman, who rowed them from Westminster to Black friars-bridge, did not demand 2d. more because the guar tern loaf was nearly twice dearer. What had been stated by Mr. Robert Gardiner, a Conservative, and a man of wealth, who was treasurer of the Church-building Fund in Manchester, and which had already erected ten churches there? This gentleman subscribed 1,000/. himself towards this fund, but yet he was an advocate of free-trade prin ciples, and had nominated Mr. Brown as a candidate at the South Lancashire election.—(Cheers.) Well, what did Mr. Gardiner say—one of the oldest and most extensive manufacturers in Lancashire ? After an experience of thirty years? Mr. Gardiner gave it as his opinion that wages always declined with the increasing price of corn, and always wim proved with its declension of price. He said that, when corn was dear, labour was cheap, and labourers in superfluity ; but when corn was cheap, labourers were fully employed, and labour was dear. Mr. Gardiner's observations had not been contradicted, or even questioned, although he had ut tered them in a place where most of his hearers were conversant with them, and where many of them would have been happy to confute them if they could. Therefore when men said that the object of the Anti-Corn-law League in lowering the price of food was to lower the price of wages, and so ad vantage themselves, they stated a fact contrary to all experience. He was happy to say that the League was not confined to manufacturers—they were in a large minority, but if there were any of this minority who were so blind and be sotted as to believe that they were further ing their own exclusive and selfish interests by seeking a repeal of the corn-laws, they would be most sadly disappointed, and were hoping against ex perience, and against reason.—(Hear, hear.) The League had, indeed, mad e won d er f u l progress. Did they remember when, in 1839, they came f rom th e manufacturing districts to London and went to Brown's hotel, in Palace-yard, what a cold reception they met with. If the people of London felt then as they feel now, a repeal of the corn-laws would have been obtained in 1841 or 1842. What did the manu facturers come to London for then —were they in want of labour ?—no, the price of corn was high, and labourers were idle in thousands in the districts from whence they came. Did they want to cheapen labour? Why labour was to be had for less than they re quired it there—half the concerns in Stockport were at that time shut up, and as a last remedy they sought for a free-trade in corn. The condition of the agricultural labourers at that period was likewise distressing in the extreme. In fact, the condition of the labouring classes was a state of degradation below that which should exist in any Christian country. (Hear, hear.) What did Adam Smith say ? He said that " the wages of labour do not, in Great Britain, fluctuate with the price of provisions,. wages vary everywhere from year to year, frequently from month to month. But in many places the money price of labour re mains uniformly the same, some for half a century together. If in these places, therefore, the labouring poor can maintain their families in dear years, they must be at their ease in times of moderate plenty, and in affluence in those of extraordinary cheapness.' The Duke of Cleveland had lately quoted the pam phlet of M r . C aylon, one in which Lord Kinnaird, at a meeting o f t hi s b ody clearly showed that Adam Smith's " Wealth of Nations" had been most sadly m utilated —something, in fact, in the same way in which the atheist had quoted Scripture to show that there was no God. He quoted from the passage in the Psalms, " The fool says in his heart, there is no God;" but he quoted only " 4 There is no God," and upon this garbled quotation based his argu ment. But there was no need whatever for quoting any authority. Experience, the surest guide, clearly demonstrated that the corn-laws were injurious to trade, to commerce, to the labourer, to the shopkeeper, to the farmer, and, in fact, to all but the landlord.—(Hear, hear.) The Chairman would tell them that the weekly meetings of this body were drawing to a close; but they had the satisfaction of knowing that they had made their cause popular, and had excited sympathy for their exertions, not only in En g l an d an d in Europe, but in America, and every quarter of the world. They :wanted free trade in corn, and they sought free trade in this prime necessary of life, not only for its own sake, but be cause it would lead to the abolition of all monopolies. They wanted to bring corn down to its natural price —to that price which nature, and nature's God, in tended it should be, and then they would be satisfied. They did not believe that a free trade in corn could . . injure the farmer; he believed it would benefit the tenant-farmer as much as it would any trader or ma nufacturer in the country. They believed it would benefit the agricultural labourer, by enlarging the market for his employment, not only from the im provements which the agriculturist would have to adopt, but also from the general rise in the prosperity of the neighbouring towns, which would give to the young peasant a chance of choosing between labour in the fields and labour in the towns. They believed it would not injure the landowners, provided they looked merely to their pecuniary inte rest in the matter. He believed a repeal of the corn laws might interfere with that political despotism and political union which still existed, though terribly shattered in the counties—he meant that union by which man sought political power by other means than the honest one of appealing to the intelligence of their fellow-countrymen, by means of that monopoly which oppressed the nation. If the landowners chose to undertake improvements, and would surrender their political power by granting long leases ; if they would be content to eschew such old, feudal privi leges of the chase, as that of " vert and venison ;" if they would choose between keeping tenants to culti vate the land, and game to destroy the tenants' crops, he believed the landowner would not be injured. They took their stand on the principles and evidence furnished by such men as Lord Spencer and Lord Ducie. They believed that if landowners would be come what they ought to be, useful, practical men ; if they would dispense with those agents and valuers who were now their ready tools for hoodwinking the farmers, he did not believe that a free trade in corn would necessarily injure the landowners themselves.—(Hear, hear.) If any one class of men would be injured by the re peal of the corn-laws, it would be the clergymen of the Established Church. The Tithe Commutation Act fixed the income of the clergy at a certain number of quarters of corn per annum. Suppose a clergy man's tithes were fixed at 200 quarters of corn per annum, at 40s. per quarter, that would be 4001. a-year. If corn was at 50s. a quarter it would amount to 500/. a-year. Now, if the result of the corn-law should be to cause a reduction of the price of corn in the amount of 10s. a quarter, though he did not predict such a result, or take it as an argument, he admitted that this would cause an uncompensated loss to the tithe-owner; he did not spend enough of his income in bread to make the greater cheapness of it, a compensation. But he would ask, if this was a right position of the clergymen of this country to be placed in, that those who prayed for plenty should have an interest in dearth and scarcity ?—(Cheers.) He would put it to the clergy themselves, whether it was in accordance with their character and respect ability, that they should be found going about to these meetings of the Anti-League Societies, for the purpose of upholding the corn-laws. Why, a clergyman would not be fit to sit on a jury to try these corn-laws; he might be challenged and excluded from the jury as an interested person ; in decency then he asked them to stand neuter on this question ; he asked no more. He believed that free trade would cause a rise in the money wages of the operative, and would give him provisions at the natural price, which natural price would probably be lower than they had ever hitherto been. He believed that it would cause an increase in the demand for labour of every kind, not merely in the labour of operatives, but of every class— o f c l er k s , o f th e you th s they wished to set out in life, and about whom fathers and mothers felt so much difficulty ; they heard everywhere that trades were full, all the professions were overflowing, and they could get nothing from the Government, because it gave everything it had to give to the aristocracy.—(Cheers.) This was their faith; these were their objects ; this was the ground on which they stood; they believed they were right, and their opponents acknowledged they were right. They acknowledged their principles to be true, and the League stood on the truth of those principles. Let them not be discouraged at the present difficul ties of their position ; he had never felt less discou raged than he did at the present moment. Their labours for the next few months might not be quite so noisy as they had been. Probably there had been a little too much talking ; but they would be quite as efficient. The registration throughout the country would be well and systematically worked.—(Cheers.) And he would advise them in every locality, to press the im portance of this subject on their neighbours, to watch the registration, to put themselves on the list, and to endeavour to strike off those monopolists, who would not listen to truth and reason on this question. Let them have this registration, and another after it, and they should be able to make a very different account of things in the House of Commons than at presebt. One word more : let them keep the question in its true position. Let them not permit themselves to be used or abused by any existing political party. They had no objec tion to an alliance, offensive or defensive, with any party that would adopt their principles ; but let them not be such blockheads as to go into partnership with any one ; with whom at the first step they should find themselves going quite in opposite directions. Political parties were breaking up in this country— all political parties; there never was a period in their history, in which there was an attempt to carry on an opposition with so intangible a line of demar cation as that at present existing between the Whigs and Tory party. From the time of Charles the First, when differences were so great, that men drew their broadswords, and decided the question in the ,field, down to the present hour, there never was a period at which an attempt was made to keep up an opposition, as against the party in power, with out any one great public question of the slightest interest out of doors to support that opposition. There were many other questions in which the people took an interest besides free trade. But on no one question had the Opposition the support of the people out of doors ; and if they gave up one iota of their principles, he knew the temper and character of these who nourished this agitation from the begin ning, and he was convinced that the moment there was the slightest evidence of a coalition with any party that would compromise their principles, from that moment the right arm of every true friend of the League would be paralyzed.—(Cheers.) Let poli ticians take up the principles of the League, or any other that they might think would gain them more popular support; but at present the Opposition had no sympathy out of doors ; and he asked them, whatever might be said of them in the party newspapers, whose pens were often guided by the intriguers of the political fac tions, he asked them as free traders to try them by one test—were they true to their principles ? What ever obstacles they might meet with, they might depend upon it, if they were true to their principles, their principles would be true to them—(Cheers)--- and lead them on to an ultimate and not very distant triumph.—(Great cheering.) Mr. BRIGHT, M.P., then came forward and was received with several rounds of enthusiastic cheering. He said it was a matter of very pleasant reflection, that after having been consigned to utter oblivion on several occasions, after having been killed outright at least half-a-dozen times, to find that they could yet assemble together in such respectable numbers, and could feel themselves in such cheerful and good condition. It was satisfactory to feel that they were yet able to struggle for the great principles which had been the cause of their so often meeting in that theatre. Although in the course of this warfare they had met with storm and sun shine, and those vicissitudes which most men have met with in pursuance of a great object, they had ground for believing that the principles for which they strove, although they might be out •voted in both Houses of Parliament, were making sure and steady progress in the minds of the honest, the intelligent, and the re spectable portion of the people of this country. It was satisfactory to know that the opposition they had now met with, partook more of the character of a political than a commercial opposition. They were certain that the principle of free trade was so beautiful, so natural, so simple, that it must commend itself to the mind of every unprejudiced person. The infringement of that principle he was convinced was considered by a majority of the people of this country to be unsound and vicious. But now they had to contend with a political opposi tion ; it had assumed this character naturally, for the question about which they had been battling was one, round which political parties were turning. The men of the party new in power were afraid of it ; because their rents might be injured by it, and that the great party which they had been ten years in building up, might be shattered in pieces by a blow. And it was not only afraid of rent, everything else possessed - by a great political party might be endangered ; all the patronage of office, at home and abroad, the patronage of the army and navy, the vast amount of patronage in the church, in fact the feeding and fattening upon 50,000,000 L of revenue, besides much more in other departments, all this might be sacrificed, and they, themselves, might be thrown into the " cold shades of opposition." They were not daunted at the opposition having taken that character. They found that all the great writers who had touched upon this question had, almost without an exception, taken the same view of it as they had done. Great men, and great statesmen, for fifty years past, had held the same opinion ; they knew that their opponents practised the principles the League advocated in all their private affairs ; they held the prin ciples of free trade to be the principles of com mon sense, in their private business, though they did not apply it in the national affairs. All the past justified the course they were pursuing, whether they regarded free trade as conferring benefits upon all those who had applied it to commerce ; or whether they re garded it as beholding monopoly inflicting grievous and indescribable evils upon large portions of the population. The present exhorted them also on the working of this question, for though there was now a respite from the evils they had lately suffered, yet it was a respite only, which must be followed by disasters at least as great as those from which they had but just escaped. And the future was before them, warning them that if they did not take a lesson from the part it had in store for them— a lesson not only teaching themselves the error they had committed, but making them a warning to nations in all future times, teaching them that there were dangers on which a nation might run, and make fearful shipwreck. Their honest opponents had honest fears, and, if he could bring those fears to a point, it would be this— that they suspect the introduction of foreign pro duce, especially of foreign grain, would supersede the consumption of their own corn, and cheapen it in the market, and throw the land out of cul tivation, by making it unprofitable to the occu pying tenantry of the country. They thought that if foreign wheat was eaten, the same quantity of English wheat would remain uneaten. The same might be said with respect to rice. The importation of rice was an addition to the food of the country, and of potatoes; yet no one found that their potato-grounds were not worth cultivating. The importation of tea, of coffee, of cocoa, of sugar, increased the consumption of these va rious beverages ; and those who drank them would have consumed more beer, made from the malt of barley. Yet the barley growers did not find any difficulty in belling their produce. Again, there were no less than seventy millions of eggs imported annually; and he had seen in a scrap book, a p et i t i on from the hens of England, published at the time th e i mportat i on was first allowed, complaining of the hardship and injustice of allowing it —using arguments against it as reasonable as those of the Duke of Richmond in the House of Lords. In July 1842, the importation of live cattle was permitted at a moderate fixed duty. He wished them to know the number of cattl e t h at had been imported since that time, up to January 1843, there kad been imported 1,114 oxen, 368 cows!, 40 calves, 210 sheep, 7 lambs, swine 361, sucking pigs 87. The Dukes of Richmond and Cleveland said before this law was passed, that cattle were actually standing on the shores of foreign countries in the utmost agony of expectation that they would come over to this country to feed the people here. In consequence of this repre sentation the farmers of the country were panic struck, and this, added to the poverty of their customers. caused cattle to fall in value twenty per cent. He recollected reading in history that 250 years ago, or rather more, the Spaniards equipped a numerous fleet for the purpose of invading this country. He believed that there was not half so much fear at the idea of the Spanish fleet invading this country, as the landowners got up amongst the tenantry about a lot of poor unfortunate half-starved oxen and cows coming over here.—(Cheers and laughter,) But there were other articles. than those which he had mentioned. There was the article of hides. In the year 1843 there were intro duced into this country hides to the amount of 535,000 cwt. Of hides leather was made, and of leather, boots and shoes, and carriage harness, and a variety of other articles. In this country they had a large quan tity of hides that came from cattle slaughtered here. Nobody ever found, that because 535,000 cwt. of hides were imported from foreign countries, that hides the produce of this country could not be sold. Let them take the article of tallow. There were imported into this country last year 1,778,000 cwt. of foreign tallow. The Dukes of Cleveland and Richmond, no doubt, burnt a portion of that tallow. Tallow was produced in this country, yet this tallow was not diminished in con sumption. Take the article of silk. From the year 1820 to 1827 the average annnal consumption of silk in this country was about 3,000,000 lbs. In 1843 the importation was 5,743,000, very nearly double the amount imported between 1820 and 1827. There were 96,000 pieces of silk handkerchiefs which came from our possessions in the East. Did any one say that the manu facturers of silk of this country had been injured in consequence of this ? Take again the article of flax, from which linen was made. In 1835, the importation was 740,000 cwt. ; in 1843, it was 1,438,000 cwt., or nearly double what it was in 1835. The case of wool was the same. The importation in this article had doubled in ten years, and yet in spite of that the price of wool grown in this country had increased from iod. to Is. 6d. per pound. Cotton, too, had increased from 1810 from 90 millions of pounds to 585 millions, yet this had not affected the agricultural produce of the country. He was prepared to argue that ao harm had come to this country or to the population in any shape from thus in creasing importation in these most useful articles. Let them turn for a moment to the protected trade. What had the West Indies been doing lately ? He had heard persons in the House of Commons get up and say that they were producing sugar at a cost of 6d. per lb., for which they could only get 6d. per lb. Why, suppose the manufacturers of this country were to do this, and call for a tax to be placed on the people in order to enable them to carry on their trade to a profit, would they not be classed as fools or something worse? If the West India people could not carry on their trade, why let drop.—(Loud cheers.) The men who, of all others, deserved the least sym pathy, were the proprietors in the West India colonies. —(Renewed cheers.) There was another protected in terest, and that was the shipping interest. The com plaint of the shipping interest was one continued howl. They were continually calling on the Legislature for relief—they had been protected into their present wretched condition.—(Hear,) There was a Committee now sitting on the subject—the same sort of Committee that used to sit to inquire why the farmers were badly off. They had examined a large shipowner in London, who, at the last election, if he voted at all, voted in favour of monopoly. He told the Committee that ships could be built cheaper in the colonies than they could in this country, and it was therefore, he said, necessary that a tax should be imposed on all ships built in the colonies. Now what could be more absurd than that ? Was it not disgraceful that the shipping interest of this country, which was the mistress of the seas, should come to the House of Commons and ask for assistance in the difficulties in which they were placed? This ha" been the eff ec t o f t h e agr i cultural protection in this country. His business was entirely ono on which Par liament had never laid its deadening fingers, in the shape of an Act of Parliament to pro tect it. Let them look to the cotton trade of Lancashire. Sixty years ago cotton was scarcely known there. It was said that the man was still alive who hauled the first bale of cotton into Liverpool that came from America. He had no doubt, too, that the man who erected the first steam-engine in Lancashire for the pur pose of weaving cotton was still living. He would read to them a statement of the value of property in land and bui Wings in Lancashire. The valuation of the county-rate including, altogether, stock in shops, furniture in houses, and including the enormous value of machinery em ployed in that county. The annual rateable value Was 6,192,0671 How many counties did they suppose, in England and Wales, it would take to make up this ? Huntingdonshire, 272,5701. ; Westmoreland, 256,3031 ; Rutland and Anglesea, 15,7001 ; Brecon, 171,132/. ; Cardigan, 180,151/. ; Carnarvon, 204,2981. ; Denbigh 232,703/. ; Flint, 207,4561. ; Merioneth, 25,506/. ; Mont gomery, 273,964/. ; Pembroke, 217,2221 ; Radnor and Beiltshire, 652,916/. ; Buckingham, 636,027/. ; Hereford, 627,1371.; Hertford, 724,687/.; Monmouth, 453,750/ ; and Oxfordshire, being a total of 5,860,4821. The whole of Wales was rated at 2,443,5101., and all England at 48,169,588/. Thus was Lancashire two and-a-half times the amount of all Wales, and more than one-eighth of all England. This, however, was an unimportant fact, if they spoke of it to the squires. They certainly had passed through Lancashire, when on their way to Scot land for the purpose of grouse-shooting. They saw there a great many chimneys, and a great deal of sm oke, and a great many working men, who did not touch their hats to them.—(Great cheering.) That was a very disagreeable feature. But it would be well if these men would reflect that there was such a county.—(lleac, hear.) The majority of the corn and flour produced In Lincolnshire went to Lancashire. The landlord class would not lose by the abolition of the corn-laws—they might lose in political power, but not in a pecuniary point of view. But they should recollect that political power might be bought too dearly. Who were those who- kept up this system of monopoly? Sir Robert Peel's father made his fortune by honest trade—Mr. Gladstone's father made his fortune by the extent of his operations in foreign commerce. They had nothing to boast of with respect to ancestry. They could not say " Their blood Had flowed through scoundrels since the flood;" and yet it was these men whom the aristocracy boasted of—men of whom it might be said that it was doubtful whether they had any grandfathers or not. He knew not which were the most contemptible or disgraceful, the aristocracy who became the dupes of these me n, or the men themselves. The Standard, in a late article, had contended that the labourers in Lancashire ought to share the profits of their employers ; and the Herald the other day alleged that wages had fallen ten per cent. since 1842. This was 11 most infamous assertion. He had no personal acquaintance with the editor of the Standard; but he un derstood that he was a native of Ireland; If so, then he was a living contradiction to the assertion that Ireland produced nothing of the reptile species, That paper, the Standard, a short time ago, consigned, with out the slightest remorse, a ll t h e manufacturing cities and towns of this country to utter ruin and destruction. He understood that this publication was now in the p3Y of the Government. In the years 1816 and 1817 $ spy system was established in this country under Lord Sidmouth and Co. In the year 1820 two dr serving, but erring men, paid the penalty of thelir lives on the scaffold at Stirling, on account of their having been engaged in some seditious movement. Those men were brought to that untimely -end through the instrumentality of a spy. The Standard, a i'?"' days ago, said they were particularly acquainted with . the subject of the manu f actures o f Lancashire. One of the spies in Scotland, in 1820, was a cotton weaver. It might be that that very man wrote this article in the Standard. He (Mr. Bright) did lot say that it was ; but he had heard that this individual had been engaged to supply the columns of those gemini of the press, the Herald and Standard, with matter. Oh, this was a filthy trade.—(Cheers.) Nothing could be more glorious to his (Mr. Bright's) mind, than an organ of the press like the daily press of this country, if it were managed with honour and integrity. H e time not think that any ma n , h owever great his ambition might be, could wish for a higher honour than to put forth, every morning his sentiments to ten of twenty thousand reflecting, intelligent minds. lie was thereby insinuating his own soul into the souls of thousands of his fellow-countrymen. Bet when a man perverted this power he became it demon. He (Mr. Bri g ht) ca ll e d upon that meeting' and upon the inhabitants of that metropolis, not to slacken in their efforts —not for one moment to let g° their resolution, until the corn-law—that impious—that bla,sphemous law, had been abolished for ever.—(The Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst loud cheers.) The CHAIRMAN then said that he had the painful duty to perform of announcing to them that the nest would be their last meeting during the present season. Their next meeting would be held on that day month , in Covent-garden Theatre. He thought they ought not to separate on this occasion without giving three cheers for Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, Lord Howick, Mr. Gibson , Mr. Ward, and the other Members who supported Mf• Villiers in his late motion in the llouse of Commons for a repeal of the corn-laws. Three cheers were then given, and the meeting separated. SIX POUNDS of TEA, and upwards, sent, carriage free, t• &Pe part of the Kingdom, at the Wholesale Price, on receipt of a relll3 . tance, or Post-office order. Black, 2s. Bd., as., 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 4s. Bd., Bs. Green, 3s. 4d., 38. Bd., 48., 4s. Id., is., ss. 4d. 65., 7s. Coffee, 9d„ Is. Is. 2d., Is. 4d., Is., 6d., Is. id ., I s. 10d., 2s. .„ G. T. MANSELL and (0., Wholesal e T ea Dealers, 2, B 11 0"" LERSBUIty, CIIEAPSIDE. Agencies will be given to respectalm,,, parties 'DIED. On the 19th ult., at Rochester Frances, wire of CV al° Curry W. llillier, London : Printed an d P u b l i shed by MURDO YOUNGt of No. 112, Strand, P r i nter, at The Sun Office, No. L i n g Strand, in the Pre c i nc t o f t h e S avoy, in the CountY Middlesex, Thursday, July 4, 1844. " To keep his courage up." Whence the necessity for these assertions ? Why had the landlords found out, on a sudden, that the far mers were with them ? It must have arisen, he sup posed, from some doubts pervading their minds as to whether the farmers were really hoodwinked and blinded by their professions.—(Hear, hear.) But when they told him that the farmers—that the tenant-farmers, rose spontaneously to form the Anti- League Associations, he told them there, in the most public place in the world, that what they said was not true, and that they knew it was not true.—(Cheers.) He did not wish to be offensive, and, therefore, he would only say it was not true in a logical sense. He said it was not true, and he would prove it by reference to facts. He would take the meeting at which his Grace the Duke of Richmond attended at Steyning, to Sussex. He knew something of Sussex, and he fearlessly asserted that th e meet i ng was got up by the aristocracy and s qu i rearc h y o f S ussex. —(Hear.) If they themselves did not go round and canvass their tenants, their agents and land-surveyors did, and the tenants were c anvasse d an d pressed to come to that meeti▪ ng in just the same manner as they were canvassed at a genera l e l ect i on ; nay, more, the carri▪ ages, the horses, the vehicles, down even to the deer-cart, were put at the disposal of the farmers, to carry them up to Steyning.—(Cheers.) What he said of the meeting at Steyning he asserted of almost every other meeting, purporting to be spon taneous, which had been held in opposition to the League. The tenant-farmers were moved by the landlords. They were canvassed by the agents and the surveyors of the landlords in every part of the country.—(Cheers.) In many cases the farmers did not even know what was the object of the meeting. What he told them was patent to the whole com munity. There was not an individual there from the counties where those meetings were got up who would not testify that the tenant was at the bidding of the landlord, either in his own person, or second hand. And who were the men who had taken the lead at these meetings ? Could they mention one bona fide, intelligent, substantial farmer, like his friend Mr. Lattimore, whom he saw sitting on the platform ?—(Cheers)—or like Mr. Josiah Hunt, who had addressed them there ? or like those two worthy men who had come out of Somersetshire to deliver their sentiments ?—(Cheers.) But while there were no farmers of that stamp, the persons who took a prominent part in the meetings would nearly always be found to be either an agent, an auctioneer, or a land steward. Why, who was Mr. Baker, of Writtle, in Essex ? This was the man who was put forward as their great leader, and who made speeches and pamphlets in support of the cause. lie saw his name advertised in one column of a paper as the auth or of a pamphlet or a letter addressed t o th e s P a r w ote m e r ti . o u n ak S e oc r, of ietY Writtle, ;NN'ilileaP in another colum n , h e appearing as an auctioneer, who was going to sell up an unfortunate farmer who had been ruined by the corn-laws.—(Cheers.) Did his Grace of Richmond, or the squi rearc h y i n the House of Commons, believe that after th e en lightenment and education which th e i r great peripatetic political university, the League, had diffused through the country, the people would be gulled by their assertions that the t enant- f armers had risen s p on t an eously to join the Protection Asso ciations ?—(Hear, hear.) They appeared to him to be about as cunning as the ostrich which had its head in the sand and thought that nobody could see its unfortunate b o d y b ecause it could not see that body itself. -- (Great laughter.) He was jealous of their taking the name of the tenant farmers in vain. They told them that th ey h a d b een abusing the farmers, and that it was f or thi s reason that they had turned against them. Why h e (Mr. Cobden) rights.—(Dear, g hts. i h i a e d a r lw a y been the ch amp i on of their hear.) . He was bred in a farm-house, and, up to the time of his going to school, he saw none but farmers and farm labourers. He should be a traitor to his forefathers if he entered into a crusade against one of the most deserving, industrious, and pains-taking classes in the community.—(Ch eers .) He had said scores of times, in all parts of the country, that he believed the tenant-farmers had been more deeply injured by the corn-laws than any other class of society. If they could but have the hi s t or y o f th e tenant-Armen who had been ruined during the last thirty years by the blessed protection of the corn laws, it would form a dark calendar of woe and suf fering, not to be equalled by the history of any other elass of men. An enemy to farmers ! If he were so, at all events he had not thrust himself among them. —(Hear, hear.) He had challeng e d th e monopo li sts to meet him in any county in England, and take the sense of the meeting on the question of the corn laws. They would not accept the c h a ll enge, because they knew that, if they did, they would be outvoted. —(Cheers.) The corn-laws protect f armers ! Wh y, the farmers paid their rents according to tlse price of produce.—(Hear, corn-laws kept up the price of produce, they e hear.) If the kept up rents, and the question was, i n f ac t, a ren t question. He had commenced his career i n th e House of Commons by telling the la n dl or d s t h at th ey were no more agriculturist; because they were land lords, than shipowners were sailors, because they owned ships; and when the D u k e o f Ri c h mon d go t up and said the Anti-Corn-l aw L eague, b y i ts a b use of the agriculturists, had set the farmers against them, why, he told him th a t h e did no t k no w the English language, for, that th e t erm ag ric u lturist meant a cultivator of the land, and, th e r e fore, could not pos sibly be applied to any one except the tenant-farmer. It was not only in this wa y that they had heard it pointed out that the corn -la ws i n jured the farmers — the corn-laws did not merely tempt . the farmers to make bad bargains, by expe c ti ng Act of Parliament high prices, but by distracti ng th e ir attention from other grievances that lay nearer home and were really of importance—keepi ng th e ir attention fixed upon an ignis fatuas, which a l wa ys evaded their pur suit, and which would not benefit them even if they could grasp it.—(Hear, h ear. ) Th e farmer wanted a cheap tenure for his land—he wanted a lease, he wanted to plant good h e d ge ro ws, and to rid the ground of noxio us wee d s , which were devouring the produce o f i n d us try . and of capi tal.—(Hear.) The farmers wanted improvements in their homesteads—they wan ted draining—they wanted, in short, a variety of concessions from their landlords, and how were they met ? Why, the far mer could not approach the land agent or steward to ask for assistance or red ress , w ithout them telling him—" Oh, that is not the matter which concerns you; go and oppose the Anti-Corn -law League— (Laughter, and cries of "H ear , hear.") Name any other class treated in that way b u t farmers. Did it happen with any other port i on of the commu nity that they could no t see k any arrangement of a business nature w i t h out h a ving an Act of Parliament constantl y t h rown i n their i teeth? He had often illustrated thi s to the f arm ers n the agri cultural districts, and as he found that they compre hended and approved of the illustration, he would now repeat it. He had often said to the farmers, " Your dealings with your landlords are very diffe rent from mine with the linendrapers, my cus tomers. I will tell you h ow the linendraper and I manage our busine ss . m y goo ds are dis posed of to the d raper at cer ta in prices. My traveller, at the end of six months, goes , triad .uitto To 4 ..ePai 4 egei ii amp can, tlen; flay Barn ( - York the 3 glen roul t Tabl e , Th uer ; ea • ~ s tlgar q Salt at 3 1-4 4 -41 b, b°l4Pap, . tt AF b A 8, at eni , Ti C b At 8, Situ day, -10 Bp _ and ( Even It fi lie Thur at tli For, Aiotti, bmi, It 4 of A 01 Wo, nori,