The Sun. — London, England, 1845-01-16 00:00:00

GREAT MEETING OF THE ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE. The first great metropolitan meeting of the League for the year 184.5 took place last evening in Covent garden Theatre, George Wilson, Esq., Chairman of the League, in the chair. The proceedings commenced at seven o'clock, but long before that time, in fact within a few minutes after the doors were opened, the theatre was crammed to suffocation in every part. There was not, we believe, a private box unoccupied. Several ladies were present. At seven o'clock precisely Mr. Wilson, accompa nied by Mr. Cobden, M.P. ; Mr. Milner Gibson, M.P.; Mr. Christie, M.P.; Colonel Thompson ; J. Fox, Esq., and several other staunch free trade's, entered the theatre. As they severally appeared on the stage, they were greeted with loud and long-con tinued cheering. Among those present we observed George Wilson, Esq., Chairman, Hon. Charles Pelham Villiers, M.P., Richard Cobden, Esq., M.P., W. D. Christie, Esq., M.P., Thomas Milner Gibson, Esq., M.P., W. J. Fox, Esq., Major-General Briggs, Col. T. P. Thompson, Messrs. 'William Leaf, Dr. William Cook Taylor, Captain Cogan, Colonel Henderson, 'William Wiles, P. A. Taylor, jun., George Ridout, Joseph Ivimy, James Beattie, J. Cumming, R. Scholefield (Roch dale), J. Gerstonbery, Parker, Pugh, W. A. Wilkinson, George Thompson, L. and J: Travers, R. Palmer, R. Fowler, Gosnell, Daniel Cooper, S. Smith, Edmund Garrett, Charles Wordsworth, Summers Harford, Abraham Baner, N. Overbury (Westbury), Robert Overbury, William Biggs (ex- Mayor of Leicester), F. Alexander, J. Hunt, J. L. Ward, John Bedford, Rev. Henry Bedford, Thomas Ruston, Samuel Maunder (Exeter), W. J. Bow tr, Wm. Cooke, Henry Jones (Liverpool), Thos. Owen, Thomas Wilkinson, J. S. Stock, G. Hoffman, A. K. Watson, J. N. Senior, Professor Granger, A. liar rison, C. Lloyd, T. B. Barton, Wm. Geesion, Juhn Burd (Manchester). The SECRETARY read the minutes of the last meeting. Colonel TnompsoN then came forward and moved that the minutes be confirmed. The Gallant Colonel was greeted with a cordial shout of welcome on his making his appearance. The motion was seconded by Mr. CHRISTIE, M.P., and carried. The CHAIRMAN then came forward and spoke as follows :—Ladies and Gentlemen,—Since we last met here we have entered on the seventh year of this agi tation. Fresh arrangements have been made, and fresh bonds have been ratified, by thousands 'in the north, to stand together with unswerving resolution to eontinue this agitation—(Loud cheers)—and, if it be possible, to work with increased energies—to seek for the labourer of this country the permis sion to purchase his food in the world's market instead of being confined to the corn-stores of his Grace the Duke of Buckingham.—(Loud cheers.) The space of six years is not much in the history of a country, but yet within these six years many changes have taken place which are not undeserving of no tice. For instance, at the commencement of these six years the term " free trade," had a very different signification from that which is now at tached to it—then it meant anything, or everything— every one who stated it as his opinion that only the slightest possible modification should be made in our import duties, was considered a free trader ; in the same manner as any person who proposed any, even the very slightest change in the corn-laws, passed for a corn-law repealer. That delusion has passed away, and now it is impossible to confound together the free trader and the monopolist ; the division between them is perfect and complete.—(Cheers). During these six years we have seen an Administration attempt an approximation to free trade. We have seen it intro duce measures which were an approximation to free trade. Those measures and that Administration failed. We have seen another Administration introduce measures which were an approximation to free trade, and which measures were carried. We have seen an Administration, which came into office for the avowed purpose of upholding mo nopoly, confessing the principles of free trade.—(Loud cheers.) We have a new corn-law, a tariff, and a Canadian Corn Bill introduced and carried; and yet no shift, no expedient, has detached from us one single individual, but we are still as firm as ever to our principles—(Cheers)—as determined to go on, and as confident that the doctrines of free trade v. ill at length be established as the law of our land.— (Loud cheers.) Six years have disposed, too, of a numerous host of fallacies. For instance, we hear no more of the old cry, " Don't depend upon foreigners for the supply of your food ;" we hear no more of the cry, "That cheap food will bring down the rate of wages." These fallacies, like a host of others, are now exploded. In Parliament they are scarcely heard of, and we certainly possess this great advantage, that in Parliament no question is more ably supported than this question of the repeal of the corn-laws.--(lmmense cheering.) The monopolist newspapers stated some time ago that the League was dead.—(A laugh.) The meetings io Covent-garden were suspended; there were no other meetings held in the country; and, as they saw nothing, these gentlemen took it for granted that nothing was done.—(A. laugh.) This delusion did not last long.—(Renewed laughter.) In a few days after there were leaders in these same papers saying that the League was not dead, but that it was just as un constitutional as ever.—(A laugh.) They was thi old cry raised of "Bring out the Attorney-General. —(Renewed laughter.) Where are the law officer, of the Crown?—(Continued laughter.) If our ad vice had been taken, you would long since have heard nothing of the League."—(Continued laughter.) The idea which some people seem to have of the consti tution is this—that if ever a grievance is discussed I; is the duty of the constitution to suppress the dis cussion directly.—(Cheers.) And nothing content these gentlemen until some fine morning then see our friends, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Villiers, and others, standing before " twelve good men and true," ts answer an indictment as bulky as that which gev. rise to the monster trials in Ireland.—(lmmene cheering.) Their last attack has been upon our efforts in the registration courts. But I think that the plan which our friend Mr. Cobden proposed ten weeks since, cannot have a better certificate of recommendation than the outcry which has beer raised against it by the monopolists. Since that plan was first broached, we have held forty meetings— forty business meetings in Lancashire and York shire—to induce our friends to qualify. These meetings were purely business meetings. I have had some experience in public meetings, and I never sae any merely business meetings so largely attended a these meetings have been.—(Cheers.) We wan , our friends in Yorkshire, in Lancashire, and in Mid dlesex, to come forward, not in a spirit of jealousy, but of commendable rivalry, to see who shall qualif the most voters for the next election.—(Cheers.) Thest were counties in which any man may be proud of being a freeholder. They were not made by the aristocracy. They were not raised to their present position by the aristocracy. They owe nothing to th e protection or to the care of the aristocracy. But they are indebted for the position which they occupy solely to the skill, the industry, the muscle, de sinew, the toil, and the capital of the operative, th( mechanic, and the merchant — (Cheers)—a n d then ought not longer to be held in thraldom to an aris tocracy which is in opposition to the principles on which their prosperity is founded —(Loud cheers.) You will be addressed this evening by Mr. Milner Gibson—(Cheers)—the Member for Manchester: our friend Mr. Cobden—(Loud cheers)—and INIr Fox.—(Cheers.) I have great pleasure in calling or, Mr. Gibson. Mr. MILNER GIBSON, M.P., then came forward and was received with loud cheers. When the cheer ing had subsided, the Hon. Gentleman commenced his address as follows :—Ladies and Gentlemen,—LP: must be deemed a great privilege to be permitted to address so imposing an assembly as that which is gathered together within these walls. But I must confess that, great as that privilege is, I feel some little difficulty in attempting to throw fresh light ot, a subject which has been so ably and so frequently explained by abler persons than myself, and which, doubt not, is thoroughly understood by the great bull( of such an intelligent audience as I see gathered to gether before I have heard of an actor who, themselves at the expense of the community—vain because its recoil would fall on themselves, and pre • vent them from having that full prosperity which would ensue if commercial freedom were established. The landed proprietors say to the Anti-Corn-law League, " You, gentlemen, are very fond of talking about the corn-law monopoly, but you never say anything about other monopolies ; you always attack us ; why not ask other people to give up their mono polies,? We do ask other people to give up their mono polies, but unfortunately the landed proprietors them selves are the Legislature of the country.—(Hear, hear.) It is they, and they only, that can give up the monopolies of other parties, and many of the monopolies they maintain are inoperative to the ad vantage of those parties, or are only maintained as excuses for the great corn monopoly.—(Cheers.) Besides, there is a great difference between other monopolies and the corn monopoly. If we look to any manufacturing monopoly, fresh capital can go into it, fresh mills can be built, and persons who have a monopoly granted to them will not long enjoy it, because the profits of capital will soon he brought down by competition to the profits of all other capital. You can build fresh mills, you can open fresh shops in particular districts, and give what monopolies you please to different branches of indus try, the competition of capital will bring down the profits in them to the ordinary profits of other capital. Those monopolies will not be less injurious to the community ; but what I contend is, that the monopo lists, under the appearance of an advantage, will, in a short time, have no advantage at all, for the profits will soon be brought down by competition. But that is not so in the case of land. You may build more mills, but you cannot add more acres to England.— (Cheers.) The landed proprietors hold the monopoly of the land—that you cannot increase in size ; and though the farmers who hold this land under them will never receive more than the ordinary profits of capital, give them what protection you may, there will be a surplus, in the shape of rent, for the landlords, which they keep a steady eye on, and which makes them unwilling to relinquish their monopoly, even if we abolished all other monopolies.—(Hear, hear.) And what a monstrous thing it is that there should he in these times any question of the propriety of repealing the corn-laws, when you look to the limited extent of this island, and the growth ofits population. There are 230,000 fresh human beings added to the population of England, exclusive of Ireland, each year. But there is not one additional acre added to your soil. There is no increase of acres; on the contrary, there is a diminution of them. Mr. Chadwick, the Secre tary to the Poor-law Commissioners, tells us that, as there are 230,000 fresh persons added to the popula tion every year, there must be an addition to the number of houses in which this population is to reside. He calculates that 59,000 new tenements are built in England every year. Manchester has only 30,000 houses, and Birmingham 27,000 houses ; so that if your population is not to die in ditches, there must be built in England every year a number of houses which would occupy a space equal in extent to the two towns of Manchester and Birmingham. Thus, every year, the territory of the land is smaller for the purposes of agriculture and for the growth of wheat. Your available surface is becoming less and less, and to think that you should hear men in the House of Commons wisely telling the Legislature, or with a wise look (fur their wisdom is in the au thority of their acres)—(Laughter)—and I suppose it is from that the term " wiseacre" is derived— (Great laughter)—gravely telling the assembled Commons that it is for the advantage of this increasing popu lation, upon this limited soil, that every possible difficulty should be thrown in the way of the im portation of food from foreign countries.—(Cheers.) Mr. Chadwick, in the same volume, on the ',sanatory condition of the people of this country, tells us, what I am sure you have often heard repeated within this theatre, that in order to give sufficient food for this increasing population, there must be added to Eng land every year a county, equal in size to Surrey, unless you can devise some means ofgrowing more on the present extent. Now I fear, unless we repeal the corn-laws, we shall not make the present extent grow more. I believe we would get a benefit from their abolition in two ways —by increasing the supply from abroad, and from those at home too. They talk of guano islands. I have no faith in guano without free trade.—(Cheers.) I have no faith in the agriculture of the country put ting forth all their energies. I have no faith in lec tures on under-draining, and the application of che mistry to agriculture, till we remove every vestige of protection from them, and prevent them from pro ceeding on an unsound and deceitful basis.—(Cheers.) There is another charge brought against the Anti- Corn-Law League, that we are opposed to the Church. —(Cheers). 'Why, we have in this society some very distinguished clergymen, and one of the brightest writers on political economy is the Archbishop of Dublin.—(Cheers). But still they say we are ene mies of the Church, because, it' we were not, we would say, when we demand a repeal of the corn-laws, we will indemnify the clergy for any loss that may arise to them in reference to tithes and corn rents.—(Hear, hear, and laughter). Now, I admit that tithes and corn rents are entirely dependent on price, so that they cannot look upon any improvement in agriculture with comfort. They cannot look upon any improve ment which would lower the price of corn with a fa vourable eye. The clergy derives no consolation from guano.—(Laughter). The clergy were, therefore, the determined opponents of the Anti-Corn-law League, because their tithes and rent-charges de pended entirely on price. We may console the land lord by telling him to drain the land, and to expend more capital ; the farmer, by telling him that if prices fell rents would fall ; and the labourer, by telling him that if wages fell he could buy more with them ; but if the corn-laws were repealed the price would fall, and the clergy knew that with the fall of price their tithes and rent-charges would be also reduced ; and to that they would not willingly agree. Mr. Cobden has most ingeniously, but with great truth, met the case with regard to the farmer—in some measure with regard to the landlord—and entirely with regard to the labourer ; but we have got to deal with the clergy. How are we to indemnify them ?—(Loud cheers.) A gentleman, for whom I have a very high respect, said to me, "If you can only convince me that the abolition of the corn-laws will not produce a lessening in the price of corn, why, I wouldnot mind much to support the Anti-Corn-law League." That reminded me of what is said in one of Sheridan's plays by some one to his black servant—" Can you be honest, Mungo ?" " What you give me, massy ?" (Laughter.) That is the question which the clergy man has to consider. Is the corn-law a just law ? If it be unjust, abol;sh it, and take the consequences.— (Cheers.) That is the course which the clergy ought to pursue.—(Cheers.) The course which a clergyman should pursue between his income and his duty ought to be this—if the repeal of the corn-laws makes the Church poor let it be poor, better be poor than unjust.—(Loud cheers.) I would give the same answer which Dr. Channing gave to the slaveowner who complained that the abolition of slavery would make him poor. He said, "Be poor, then, and thank God for your honest poverty."—(Loud cheers.) I think I have completed, so far as I am individually concerned, the denial that there is that hostility to the labourer, the farmer, the landowner, or even the clergy, which was imputed to the Anti-Corn-law League. There is no hostility in the Anti-Corn law League to any individual whatever.—(Loud cheers.) All I contend for is, that it will he for the advantage of all those individuals, and not the least, of the clergy, that this law should be abolished ; for, if there be a loss in income, will nut there be a gain in reputation and a relief from odium, the settling of discord, and the harmony of all classes in society, and the increase of social happiness? And if there be those gains, how can we set off against them those paltry additions which it is said are made to some particular classes by a great infringement of the first law of nature, of the first principles of civil liberty, that man has a right to the full enjoyment of his industry, and alone: entitled to the rewards of his own labour, whether of head or hand ? Now it is said, " If you reduce the price of corn you will reduce the wages of the labourer." It is said that this Anti-Corn-law League are totally indifferent to the welfare of the labourer ; that this question is a mere question between the manufacturers on the one hand, and the landowner on the other ; and that the interest of the labourer is completely lost sight of. It is contended that the interest of the labourer would he even injured by reducing the price of corn and making food more abundant. Now I should not have much difficulty in convicting our opponents, by their own assertions, of uttering what they do not believe. What do I read in the papers ? 'Why, within the last two or three days I have seen, in the Morning Post and in otherj ournals, a statement that certain philanthropic gentlemen are about to establish a society for the purpose of grinding and baking for the poor.—(Laughter.) They propose to raise a large sum of money, and to erect mills, offices, and bakehouses, in order to un dersell the present millers and bakers, who, they tell us, are extracting too high a price for their bread from the pockets of the poor. But how does this tally with the notion that if you reduce the price of bread to the poor, you will reduce their wages ? Why, what is it to me who raises the price of bread, whether it be raised by the miller, or the landowner, or the baker ? If the raising of the price be a benefit to me, I say, "Don't lower it."—(llear, hear.) The labourer does not buy his bread in Mark-lane; we do not buy our corn, and our food, by the averages which are published in the Gazelle. No, we buy our bread from the baker. They tell us, that if we make bread cheaper in price, we shall reduce wages. " Well, then," we reply, " if you make it cheaper by baking more cheaply,or grinding more cheaply, , you will make wages lower than they are at present. So that these philanthropic gentlemen are convicted by their own course of not entertaining the belief that the wages of the labourer will be reduced by reducing having forgotten his part on the 140th repetition of the piece, pleaded, as an excuse, that it could not be expected that his memory could last for ever.—(A laugh.) I can plead no such excuse here. In the first place, we are not assembled here for the purpose of dealing with merely imaginary things, but for the purpose of dealing with stern re alities—of dealing with facts which are po tent to all—of dealing with the great subjects of justice, of humanity, of the spread of civilisation, and of procuring for our fellow-countrymen the full reward of their industry, which can only be accom plished by commercial freedom.—(Loud cheers.) The present moment is remarkable for the progressive advance which the principles of free trade are making in public opinion ; the progress of those principles is sure without being slow.—(Cheers.) If we look at our adversaries, we shall find that they are moving in a retrograde direction. Who can doubt that such is the fact, when we hear the confused nature of their demands—when we see the different opinions that prevail amongst the protectionists? The monopolists at the present moment constitute anything but a happy family.—(Cheers and laughter.) Sugar frowns upon corn, and corn frowns upon sugar. Sir Robert Peel has no confidence in the monopolists, arid they are equally suspicious of Sir Robert Peel.— (Cheers and laughter.) Some demand the repeal of the malt-tax—others demand the repeal of the Cana dian Corn Bill. In one direction we hear that the currency ought to be depreciated, and in another that the present corn-law is not a sufficient protection to the agricultural interest, and that the farmers are losing their money. In whatever direction we cast our eyes, we see no signs of harmony in the mono polist ranks. There is universal disunion—universal discontent. If we look at our own ranks of the free traders, we see this great combination of the Anti- Corn-law League.—(Cheers.) Here there is no dif ference of opinion.—(Cheers.) Our demands are simple and straightforward. Our course is uniform ; we neither swerve to the right nor to the left ; we do not ask less to-day than we asked yesterday ; but we confine ourselves to the plain unvarnished claims which is the same now as it was at the corn meacement of this agitation. We demand now, as we ever have demanded, the total and unconditional repeal of the corn-laws, and of all other monopolies.— (Loud cheers.) This time last year there were Anti- League meetings assembled in various parts of the kingdom. At those meetings there took place such a display of brutality and ignorance, as to leave a stain on those assemblies which will not be readily wiped out.—(Cheers). It is very different now. There aro none of those meetings held in the country now. The Central Protection Society in London dares not allow the smaller societies in the country to hold their meet ings, for fear that the public should be made aware of the discontent which prevails in the camp of the protectionists.—(Cheers.) We hold our meet ings openly. We have no desire to prevent our friends from assembling boldly in any part of the country and expressing their opinions on the subject of free trade.—(Cheers.) This is one great proof that the cause which we advocate is based in truth. Any cause which is not based in truth has no principle of cohesion in it, and any combination to support such a cause becomes split up into fragments, and is scattered to the winds. There is no bond of union to hold men together for any length of time in sup port of any great cause, but truth ; and when we see a great society like this holding together year after year, and assembling together constantly, as we are now assembled, it is a convincing proof that the cause which we advocate is the cause of truth and of justice, if the experience of past times is to be trusted on the subject.—(Cheers.) It is said we are opposed to the established institutions of Church and State, and that under the guise of corn-law repeal we have revolutionary views, and wish to interfere with the existing arrangements of society—that we are jealous of distinctions, and speak evil of dignities; that under the plea of making known the princi ples of political economy, we are in reality endea vouring to excite class against class, and to spread through the land feelings somewhat resembling those which prevailed in France previous to the Revolution. There is nothing more untrue.—(Cheers.) There are amongst us men of all political opinions and of all religious persuasions.—(Cheers.) We have men amongst us who hold liberal opinions as to the extent of representation and forms of Go vernment; we have also in this great Association men of Conservative opinions, who think the present form of Government best adapted to the happiness of the country.—(Hear, hear.) We have never made pro fessions on other subjects a condition of being a member of this Association.—(Hear, hear.) It unites all men—the only common ground upon which we stand is that of free trade, the striking off the fetters of commerce, and freeing mankind from those selfish combinations against the community for the benefit of a few known under the name of monopolies.— (Cheers.) We are what we profess to be. We are nothing less and nothing more; and I am quite sure I speak the sentiments of the distinguished leaders of this Association, when I say there is no man, let his general opinions on any other subjects, political or religious, be what they may, who will not find a welcome here, if he only supports the great prin ciple of commercial freedom.—(Cheers.) It is said we are enemies of agriculture—of the art of tilling the land. We enemies to the extension of art! We opposed to the progress of science in any form or shape, adverse to any description of knowledge ! We are not opposed to agriculture. On the contrary, amongst the:members of this Association will be found some of the best supporters of science at present existing in the United supporters There will be found in the Anti Corn-law League all the principal improvers of agricultural science ; there will be found in it men who have enlightened the agriculturists upon husbandry, and upon the different modes by which the produce of the earth may be increased.— (Hear.) I will venture to say, not in any part of the kingdom is any individual to be found more anxious to improve the agriculture of the kingdom, more anxious to see two blades of grass where one was now produced, than our excellent leader, my friend Mr. Cobden.—(Hear.) His speeches are replete with sound advice to the agriculturists—his speeches have led, I believe, practically to improvements in agricul ture ; his speeches in different parts of the kingdom have turned the attention of the agriculturist to the improvement of his art rather than that fatal reliance of what Parliament could do, which has hitherto been the bane of the farming body.—(Hear, hear.) We are no enemies to agriculture. It has been said that we are enemies to the British farmer. When Anti-League meetings have been associated together they have told us the British lion—that is, the British farmer—(Laughter)—was shaking his mane at us. lie is beginning to think, in that part of the country where I reside, in Suffolk, that the League will turn out, after all, to be his real friend. We are no enemies of the British farmer. We desire to see him prosperous. We know there can he no stability in the pursuits of the farmer till every vestige of monopoly is swept away.—(Hear, hear.) We know that he is now building on an unsound basis—that he is raising his edifice on sand, and that it will not stand the shock with which it will have to contend.—(Hear, hear.) Experience proves that there is no portion of the kingdom suffers more severely from the operation of the corn-laws than the British farmers. Then, it is said, we are opposed to the land owners. We are not opposed to men because they are landowners. We are opposed to the principle which is laid down by the landowners of the country, at least, many of them, that the possession of land en titles hire to go to the Legislature and ask the Legisla ture to prevent persons from buying food from any one but him.—(Cheers.) If a shoemaker made a de mand that this metropolis should buy all its shoes of him, and we o bj ec t e d t o suc h a monopo l y — t h at any single person should have the shoeing of the inhabi t ants of this metropolis, would it be said that we were opposed to shoe-making ?—(Hear.) We are opposed to the unjust demands of the landlords; we are opposed to the principles laid down by them that trade is to be a secondary consideration in the country—that the merchant and the manufacturer, and all other classes, are not to be deemed equal in the eyes of the Legisla ture.—(Hear, hear.) We hold that all are equally worthy in the eye of the Legislature. The landowners have legislated for England in the spirit that they constituted the country, and the rest of the commu nity were but to enjoy just so much comfort, so much rade, so much of the conveniences of life, as may suit their peculiar interests.—(Hear, hear.) That has been the principle of the landed legislators. You cannot look into the statute-book without discovering it in every page. I need not give a stronger instance of their favouritism than appeared in the Times news paper the other day—l mean the legacy duty. That will give one small instance of the way in which the landed proprietors have used their power in the Legis lature, for when personal property passes after death to another, it has to pay a duty to the Government, while landed property i s exempted.—(Cheers.) But it I were to go over the numerous instances in which the landed interest have favoured themselves in the distribution of the burdens of the country, 'I should detain you much longer than I should desire, and trespass on your time unwarrantably. But the landed proprietors and when I say l a nd e d proprietors, perhaps I am wrong in using the term too generally, because we have as members of this Association men of vast landed possessions, men who hold large quantities both of arable and pasture land, who are anxious to give up this odious monopoly, and who believe that it is, after all, a vain effort to benefit the price of bread.—(Cheers.) They seem detere ruined that nobody shall rob the poor except the land lord.—(Great laughter.) Oh, it is a shocking thing for millers and bakers to be getting this large profit out of the hard earnings of the poor man, and it is a shocking thing for the people to make such advan tage of the labourer; but my Lord Duke is entitled to increase the price of flour by an Act of the Legis lature, and he has a right to call all men fools who do not believe with him, that to raise the price of flour in that way is a benefit, though in all other ways he admits that it is a curse.—(Hear, hear.) However, the day is not far distant when this great delusion will be thoroughly exposed and understood. I am convinced that we are approaching the time when the corn-law question, and the question of free trade, must have a practical issue. —(Hear, hear.) The Morning Post is an honest paper after all. What did the Morning Post tell the agriculturists but the other day ? It says that the only difference be tween the policy which even Sir Robert Peel is pre pared to pursue and the policy of the League, is this, the: of Sir Robert's is a slow decay of gradual po verty, saddened by disappointed hopes ; while the other, the policy, namely, of the League, is prompt as the guillotine ; but he says they are both forms of extinction—both are going in the same direction to a certain extent. I believe this is true. I believe from all that I have heard Sir Robert Peel say in Parliament, that he is, in his own mind, firmly convinced of the truth of the principle of free trade, but that he is prevented from doing all he would do by the power of the aristocracy of this country, which rules not only Sir Robert Peel, but the Queen upon her throne.—(Cheers.) The strongest Ministers that England has ever seen, have succumbed at last under the weight of this powerful landed aristocracy.— (Hear, hear.) Pitt succumbed under that weight when he yielded his point with regard to the legacy duties on landed and personal property. It was his intention to have placed the same duty on landed and personal property. It was his design that the lands of the great man should pay the same duty on passing to his heir, as the money or the furniture of the poor man pays in passing to his heir. Such, I say, was his intention, but he was overborne by the great landed aristocracy of the country. Ministers have always quailed before that tyranny ; and the only power in this country which can overcome the landed aristocracy, is the power which exists in such meetings as these.—(Loud cheers). It is the firm and indignant voice of the intelligent classes of this community, conscious of their rights, and determined to vindicate them, which will make that landed aristocracy succumb.—(Cheers). The corn-law is the last—l will not say the last— but it is one of the badges of feudal barbarism.— (Cheers). It is a remain of the Norman Conquest, and it is for the Saxon population of this country to rise up and throw off this yoke.—(Hear, hear.) They, and they only, can do it. No Ministers that ever will be born can make them a present of commercial free dom. It will never be a free gift at the hands of the great. It will be wrested from the great by the exertions of the people themselves.—(lmmense cheer ing.) I know we are told that majorities are large, that landed gentlemen return numbers of Members to Parliament, and that the towns can never com pete with them. I would not despair, even if there were no plan so good as that which has been struck out by Mr. Cobden for the registration and formation of 40s. freeholders. No, I should not even then despair. I have faith in the ultimate conquest of truth over error—of reason over prejudice—of freedom over oppression.— (Cheers.) The experience of mankind tells me that those triumphs have always been accomplished. The mind of this country has but to be awakened, and I am persuaded that the hearts of all good men will be united in the cause of commercial freedom.—(Cheers.) It is emphatically the cause of justice—it is the cause of truth—it is the cause of civilisation—it is the cause of social happiness—and I cannot entertain the small est shadow of a doubt of its ultimate and enduring triumph.—(The Hon. Gentleman concluded his ad dress amidst loud and prolonged applause.) Mr. COBDEW, M.P., then came forward, and was received with customary enthusiasm. When the cheering had subsided, the Hon. Gentleman said— Ladies and Gentlemen,—Even I, who have almost lived in public meetings for the last three years, feel somewhat daunted at this magnificent spectacle. Why, is there here any friend or acquaintance of the Duke of Richmond?—(Cheers and laughter.) If there be, I hope he will describe the scene of to night. Ido not know how he may be impressed, but I am quite sure that if the Duke of Richmond could assemble such a meeting as this in behalf of the monopolists, I should abandon in despair all hope of repealing the corn-law. But this is only one meeting. When we look back at the numerous gatherings which we have had of a similar kind, and when we remember that not one discordant opinion, not a single violation of order, or even a breach of etiquette has occurred at any of our meetings, we cannot but feel that there is an amount of moral force gathered together around these great assemblies which it is impossible for any unjust law long to re sist. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I come before you to-night as a kind of connecting link, and a very short one, between two gentlemen who have not so recently presented themselves before you. I come between our mast able and efficient fellow-labourer in the House of Commons, whose speech you have heard to night, and one of the most distinguished and accom plished orators of the age, who will follow me— (Cheers)—and I promise you that on this occasion I shall, in deference to your feelings, and in justice to myself, be ve ry brief in my remarks.—(No, No.) Indeed, I scarcely know that I should have any pre tence for appearing before you at all, if it were not that we are preparing for our Parliamentary cam paign—that it will probably be some time before I have a similar opportunity. As we are preparing for that campaign, it may be as well, if we can possibly dive into futurity, to try and speculate at least upon what the course of proceeding may be in connexion with our question. Now I thi n k I may venture, without any great risk of failure to tell you what course the Prime Minister will pursue. He will at tempt his old arts of mystification.—(Laughter.) He has acquired, somehow, a great character as a finan cier—that is a character which amongst men of busi ness does not always place a man in the very highest grade of respectability. A clever financier ! He has put the finances of the country in a satisfactory state. Yes, he has done so ; and how ? Why, I hope to your satisfaction, through the income-tax.—(Laugh ter.)—Now we have nothing to do with fiscal regu lations here. As free traders we have nothing to do with systems of taxation for reve nue ; b u t p erce i v i n g that it will be the policy of the Government, and of the Prime - Minister in particular, to r a i se a dust, to shuffle the cards, and to mix up revenue taxation and free trade all together, I think we cannot do better, at the beginning of the year 1845, than by letting the country know, even at the risk of repetition, what we, as free traders, really want—that we are not to be made supporters of this or that system of taxation, inasmuch as we want nothing w hi c h involves an increase of taxation of any kind. I have said again and again—and I now repeat—that free trade means the removal of all protective duties, and that protective duties are monopoly taxes paid to individuals and not to the Government.—(Cheers.) In order to carry out our principle of free trade— in order to realise what the League wants—what which, if granted, would dissolve it to-morrow—it is not necessary that one shilling of taxation which goes to the Queen's Exchequer should be removed. You will increase the Queen's revenue in proportion as you take away those taxes which are now paid to particular classes and to individuals. We are told that there is a surplus revenue, and there is a great boast on this account. The income-tax has been productive. Those men with sharp noses and ink bottles at their buttons, who go about prying at the back doors of houses to ascertain how many dinners you give in the year, and who examine and cross-examine cooks and footboys to find out what style of living you adopt—(Laughter)—these men have managed to secure a very reasonable surplus revenue. There is now a very great contest among different parties as to what taxes are to be removed in consequence of this surplus. The parties dealing in cotton claim a re duction in the duty on that article; those who deal in malt claim a reduction of the duty on malt ; and a third class step in and say, " Let us have half the duty taken off tea." Now, what I want to have clearly understood is this, that although there are many par ties claiming a specific reduction, you do not find any one class organising themselves in opposition to the taking off of any tax paid to the Exchequer. How is it that we, who want to take off the tax on bread, meet with such a mighty opposition ? Why, it is because the tax which we pay on bread goes to the titheowner and the land owner, and not to Queen Victoria.—(Hear, hear.) Now, do you think it will do us any more harm to take off a tax which is paid to the squires, than one which is paid to the Queen's Exchequer?—(Hear, hoar.) It seems to be universally admitted, that to reduce a tax paid to the Queen is a benefit to the community at large ; the only question is, who shall get the most. But when you come to reduce th e duty on breads thous and dangers and difficulties arise. Talk to a man about the bread-tax, and he says, " It's a very complicated question."—(Loud laughter.) Talk about that other ingredient of the tea-table, tea, and there is scarcely a gentle man or a gentlewoman to be found who will not im mediately say, " I think it would be a very good thing to reduce the duty." If you speak of taking off the tax on bread, people say, " Why, you want to lower the wages of the working man, and to make us dependent on foreigners." Take the case of sugar. As free traders, we do not want to reduce the Queen's tax on sugar; we simply want to bring the foreign tax down to a level with the colonial tax on sugar, so that the whole tax paid shall go to the Queen's Exchequer and not to the owners of estates THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 16 1845. in the West Indies. Now nobody opposes the reduc tion of the duty on sugar so far as the Queen gets it ; but if, we propose to take away the tax which is paid to what is called the colonial interest, we have a powerful body arrayed against us, and all the same dangers are alleged as in the case of bread Now, this will serve to illustrate our position to those who are not in the habit of reasoningslosely on this subject. I put it to any one, can itbeless in jurious to a country to pay taxes to individuals who make no return, in the shape of services to the State, than it is to pay taxes which go into the Exchequer? Now, what we wish to guard ourselves against is this, the mixing up by Sir R. Peel of our question of free trade with his dexterity in finance. If he likes to shuffle the cards, or, in other words, to make an interchange between tea, and cotton, and tobacco, and malt, and the income-tax, and to set up one interest against the other, it may suit him very well as an effort in the jugglery of statesmanship—(Laughter)—but let it be understood that we have nothing to do with that mystification and shuffling. Ours is a very simple and plain proposition. We say, "Abolish those mo nopolies which go to enrich the majority in Parlia ment, and which placed and keeps it in power." I confess I am more afraid of our friends being taken in by plausibilities and mystifications than anything else. I wish we had the Duke of Richmond, or his Grace of Buckingham, in power for a twelve • month.—(Laughter.) Let them only avow what it is they really want, and it would not be long before we should have achieved the object of our organisation.—(Cheers.) Now Sir Robert Peel will meet Parliament under circumstances which may per haps call for congratulations in the Queen's speech. Manufactures and commerce are thriving, and the revenue is flourishing. Now, was that ever known when corn was at an immoderately high price ? (Hear, hear.) Why, the present state of our finances and manufactures afford an illustration of the truth of our doctrines. I have been, as the Chairman has told you, during the last two months paying a visit to nearly all the principal towns in Lancashire and Yorkshire. I have seen the great prosperity prevail ing there, where four years ago the people were plunged in the greatest distress, and I am glad to tell you that I have everywhere witnessed larger and more enthusiastic meetings than were held in the time of the great crisis of distress. We have arrived at that time which I thought would be most difficult to test this agita tion. I mean the time at which the manufacturers of this country have returned to a temporary pros perity. We are proof against that trial. We have had larger, and more enthusiastic, and more influential meetings than we have ever had before—(Cheers.) I am happy to tell you, that as far as the north of England goes, the present state of prosperity in busi ness is merely recruiting the funds of the Anti-Corn law League.—(Cheers.) There is not a working man in the manufacturing districts who has not had his eyes opened to the enormous falsehoods which have been uttered by the monopolists during the last five years. These men do not deal largely in books ; they are not very great theorists or philo sophers, but they have a lively faith in what passes under their own noses.—(Laughter.) They have seen the prices of provisions high, and have at the same time seen pauperism and starvation in their streets • they have seen prices low, and the demand for labour rising, and wages increasing in every part of Lancashire and Yorkshire—the very oppo site fact from that which we are told exists. In fact, some working men have their employers so completely at their mercy, that they can dictate their own terms to their own employers. I have heard one gentleman in the north say, that if the cern-laws were repealed he should not be able to manage them at all. I was at Oldham the other day, and during our proceedings at a public meeting held at the Town-hall, a working-man got up in the body of the hall and begged to say a few words as to the effect of high and low prices on the wages of the opera tive. I have here a verbatim report of his words. Joseph Shaw, the working man to whom I allude, said : " Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I rise for the purpose of making a few remarks on the subject of the corn-laws. I have but once before spoken before a member of Par liament, viz., Mr. Hindley,: at a public meeting at Lees. I have spoken once at Ashton and Saddleworth, but never before in Oldham. I have thought on the subject of the corn-laws for the last twenty years and more, and I have ever seen great reason to con demn them. As there is no probability that I shall ever see Sir Robert Peel, as he never comes down into this neighbourhood, and I being not able to bear the ex pense of going to London, I wish you (addressing Mr. Cobden) to be so kind as to tell him what you have heard a working man say on the subject of the corn-laws in a large and respectable public meeting in the town of Old ' ham. lam now, and have been long of opinion, that the corn-laws are very injurious to the working classes, and I will tell you how I prove it. I have been in the habit of observing that, when the prices of food have been high, wages have been low, which sufficiently accounts for the dreadful state of Stockport and the other manu facturing towns and districts two or three years since. At that time, when wheat was up to about 70s. a quarter, the working man would have 255. per quarter to pay for it more than now when it is down to 455., and consequently would have 255. less to lay out for clothing and other necessaries for his comfort during the time he was consuming a quarter of wheat. I have further to state, that, since the prices of eatables have come down, I have seen a deal more new fustian jackets in our village of Lees than I have seen for four or five years during the time of high prices ; and I will also tell you how I ac count for that. When provisions are high, the people have so much to pay for them that they have little er nothing left to buy clothes with; and when they have little to buy clothes with, there are few clothes sold; and when there are few clothes sold, there are too many to sell; and when there are too many to sell, they are very cheap; and when they are very cheap, there cannot be much paid for making them; and that, consequently, the manufacturing working man's wages are reduced, the mills are shut up, business is ruined, and general distress is spread through the country. But when, as now, the working man has the said 255. left in his pocket, he buys more clothing with it (aye, and other articles of comfort too), and that increases the demand for them, and the greater the demand, you know, makes them rise in price, and the rising in price enables the working man to get higher wages and the masters better profits. This, therefore, is the way I prove that high provisions make lower wages, and cheap provisions make higher wages." Now, is it not impossible, that when there can be found one intelligent man like this, to rise at a public meeting and give so clear and satisfactory a view of the working of the system, that other equally intelligent men, his fellow-workmen, should not also be equally able to do so ? Well, gentlemen, one by one these fallacies of our opponents have been, by a continued and successful course of exposure, cut from under the feet of the monopolists.—(Cheers). Now, I do not know that the objects of the Association can be better advanced than by reiterating what is our mode of attack, what the grounds of our principles, what the provision for the fight.—(Loud cheering). In allud ing to these, I may tell the gentlemen with the pens in their hands that they may lay them down, for I repeated the same things a hundred times before, but seeing some persons present who seem strangers to our objects, I will again this evening refer briefly to them. We do not want a free trade in corn for the purpose of reducing the wages of the working man. If we did so, we should keep up the corn-laws, because experience has proved that wages have ever been lowest when corn was at the highest price. —(Cheers.) We do not want to be de pendent upon foreigners for our supplies of food, or to give a higher price to one country at the expense of another, merely because they took our manufactures. Supposing one of our manu facturers who voted for the corn laws sending goods to China, and supposing that he said to the people of that country, " Give us a higher price than you give to the French or Germans, for we have a corn-law in Eng land imposing a tax upon the articles imported, and I always vote for it.' Why, what would the men with the pigtails say ? They would naturally enough say this, " If you are such blockheads in England as to submit to a high bread-tax, we are not such fools as to give you ahi her price than we give to the Germans." You compete with foreigners now, but you would be better able to compete with them if you could get bread at the same price that they do.—(Continued cheering.) Well, then, gentlemen, the object of free trade in corn is this—to have more trade ; and the Old • ham operative shows how more trade would raise the workman's wages. We want trade, and more par ticularly free trade in that article that so materially ministers to the comforts of the working man. Now, in that case, every cargo of corn that comes into the country—every quarter of corn will serve the working classes in two ways. In the first place, when corn is cut at all, it must be paid for, and there fore it is that I say every quarter of corn that enters our ports [serves him in two ways. It can only be paid for by a demand for his labour, and an increased demand for his labour will increase his wages, whilst it lowers the price of corn. This will also benefit other classes, but only through the working classes— that is, through the classes that now unfortunately do not get enough to eat. But then the farmer objects if you bring in foreign corn, because for every quarter you so bring in there is just so much the less a mar ket for the home farmer. It is but just and reason able that the people in this country should be suffi ciently fed. The class that I belong to—the middle class—is sufficiently fed ; the upper classes get more than what is sufficient—more than, in fact, is good for them—(Laughter and cheers)—but the work ing classes—and in this I include the Irish, the Welsh, the labouring classes—l say are not—to our shame be it said—are not half fed.—(Cheers.) You have all heard the anecdote of the Irishman in Ken tucky, who could not write, and who, wishing to send a letter to his friends in Ireland, got his master to write it for him :—" Dear Murphy, I am Lere in America, happy and comfortable, and get meat once a day." His master said, " Get meat once a day ; what do you mean ? You can get me a t th ree t i mes i a day if you wish t."—" Ah, sure yer an ner , b u t thi m at home wouldnt belave id if I tould thim."— (Cheers and laughter.) Well, now, why should not the working men of this country be allowed to have , as much meat if they can get it as the labourer of America ? It is a hard penalty to be obliged to send three thousand miles to be fed, but this penalty of nature, which the allwise Creator of the world im poses upon us, is greatly increased when certain per sons, the owners of land here, step in and throw obstacles in the way, and prevent the men of this country being fed by their fellow -creatures three thousand miles off. All persons being sufficiently fed, it follows that the introduction of better prices will not hurt the farmer, and those who are now sufficiently fed will still con tinue to be his customers. All we say is, that those who now do not get enough, have an undoubted right to get bread for the produce of their labour, be it of the head or of the hands.—(Cheers.) Now the case of wool will well illustrate the truth of what I say. During the last year, not less than 2,000,000 of pounds have been introduced more than in any previous year. And why ? The ld. duty had been taken off, and this vast influx of wool was but the natural consequence ; yet farmers in this country still got from twenty to thirty per cent. more for their wool than beCire. How is this ? Simply because the extension and prosperity of the manufacture increwea in a greater ratio than the increase in the importation of the wool. And so if you give freedom to commerce, the ability to con sume food will be proportionably increased.— (Cheers.) I feel shame to reiterate these truisms to you, but I feel that they are necessary in the present position of the question. My own firm conviction, gentlemen, is, that this question cannot be carried in doors, in the House of Commons, in the next session, although in its progress in that House the supporters of free trade should express with a fertility of argument the justice and expediency of their demands—although they-should cover their opponents with disgrace in debate—although these op ponents should talk such stuff that the veriest child would be ashamed of it out of the House, yet these opponents will still vote for the corn-laws. It would be just as easy to draw a kid out of the maw of the wolf, as to get them to vote on our side in this national question.—(Cheers). I remember, that at the beginning of our labours in London, a certain Noble Earl called upon us at Brown's Hotel. We met him at a private interview, and he asked what we intended to petition for ? We answered, the total re peal of the corn-laws.—(Loud and long-continued cheering). The Noble Earl then said, "My belief is, that the present Parliament would not pass a 12s. fixed duty certainly not a 10s. ; but, for a total repeal of the corn-laws, oh, you may as well try to overturn the monarchy." Now, I do not think that they will think the con summation so remote now, and, if you go to Tattersall's, my Lord George may not be inclined to lay long odds that this law will last much longer.— (Laughter and great cheering.) We are doing all we can to shake the old edifice, but it wants a good deal of battering yet to bring it down.—(Cheers.) Down, however, it must go, if we enlarge the consti tuency.—(Continued cheering.) I have done some thing in aid of this object since last I saw you.— (Tremendous cheers.) I have done something to wards bringing some four or five thousand voters, good men and true, upon the electoral list—(En thusiastic cheering)—four or five thousand votes that will very greatly influence the counties of Lanca shire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire.—(Cheers.) But a good many more in the country could be equally well organised. Some people had said, and many say, "It is dangerous and unconstitutional thus to invite persons to take up their freedom by buying 40s. qualifications." I say, without being in any way revolutionary or de mocraic, that the sooner the power is transferred from a landed oligarchy, and placed absolutely in the hands of the industrious—the middle and working classes, the sooner it will work well for the corn munity.—(Cheers.) I hope that every man who has it in his power to purchase himself a franchise for a county will regard it as a sacred and solemn duty to do so before the 31st of January. I ask you to take into your own hands the power of doing justice to the twenty-seven millions of people in these islands. You remember what the immortal Watt said, when presented before his Maajesty George the Third The Monarch asked him what he had made, and the great inventor of the steam-engine replied, " I have made that which kings are fond of— power I"—(Great cheering.) Now, we seek to create a moral power, by inducing those favourable to the abolition of the corn- !aws to place themselves on the electoral lists of the country. We wish not merely to have the boroughs, but in carrying tin war into the country of the squires, we wish to give the counties to the towns, instead of, as formerly the towns to the counties.—(Great cheering.) There should be no father now but ought to purchase a county qualification for his son, and—there are ladies here—though it is a strange anomaly tha ladies cannot vote themselves, yet they can confer votes on other persons—l wish they could vote for they would make a better use of it than their husbands and brothers do.—(lmmense cheering.) When in Manchester yesterday--for now the power of steam brings that town within an eight hours' journey, a lady presented herself to make inqu rie: how she might confer a freehold qualification on son before the 31st of January. She received every instruction how to do so. Now, the ladies who feel strongly on this question cannot do better than make an addition to the county votes, by conferring such where they can bestow that privilege. The time is short, and we have much to do. Let us qualify for Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and Middlesex. I will guarantee Lancashire and the West Riding if you will assure the county of Middlesex. This is a labour in which all may engage. It re quires no ostentatious exertion--no gaudy oratory.— (Cheers.) Let all follow up the movement—let all do their best to further this object.—(Cheers.) We are not without consolation in the meantime ; for when I think of this odious and oppressive system— when I seb the people of this country tamely submit ting to this odious tax, deprived of the first necessary of life—l blush that my countrymen should submit to it ; but I console myself that I did my best to put an end to it.—(lmmense cheering.) The Rev. W. J. Fox then came forward to address the meeting, and was received with the most en thusiastic cheering. The Rev. Gentleman several times attempted to address the meeting, but such was the rapturous reception given, that for some minutes he could not obtain a hearing. Silence having been somewhat restored, he proceeded as follows :—The practical measure by which the Anti-Corn-Law League is characterised this present year, is that to which Mr. Cobden has just adverted—the correction of the registration of counties, and the enlarging of the county constituency, by'inducing the wealthy free traders of towns to employ part of their surplus money for such a purpose, and the industrious classes of the same towns to invest their savings in purchasing forty-shilling freeholds, in the contemplation, at no distant time, of meeting the lords of the soil on their own ground, and, as we confidently believe, fight, aye, and drive them from their own strong-holds.— (Cheers.) This policy has excited a remarkable degree of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The displeasure at it has been expressed by the use of the word uncon stitutional, which, for the purpose of political dis grace, is analogous to the word respectable as a moral characteristic. The late William Hazlitt says that one never calls a man respectable if there can be any other defined quality by which he can be designated. If a man uses ardent and ima ginative language—if he makes good verses you call him a poet; if a person is learned in profound problems, if versed in diagrams, you call him a ma thematician or philosopher, till, having run the round If the qualities by which men may he honourably distinguished, and having failed in discovering any one of them, you conclude by saying he is certainly a respectable man. And so in politics, if a person acts not illegally when he violates no engage ment of the laws of the land—if he cannot he charged with acting immorally because he com mits no breach of the commandments, if you cannot account his conduct dishonourable when it is perfectly consistent with all conventional forms, you can fail back en the word which has been inferred, and say, at any rate, "It is very unconstitutional." (Laughter and cheers.) Although it is with singular impropriety that such dispraise is applied to a policy that tends to give life to the constitution—to make it more than a dead letter, and to enlarge the number of those who possess its prvileges, and thr oug h th a t extension Lo multiply its blessings to the community—(Cheers)-7: we displease our enem i es , b u t we gra tif y our f r i en d s . With the Centr a l S oc i e ty f or th e P ro t ec ti on o f Agriculture the case is reversed, and whate v e r is the effect of there proceedings on their opponents, certainly during the last year they h ave excited the strongest di s satisfaction and rep roo f f rom their friends.— (Cheers.) Never was protection, if it can be so called, so thinly represented. They stated that they were the friends of the labourer and of the farmer, but throughout these classes there was but one feeling of disappointment and uneasiness. At a meeting they held the other day—not a meeting like that of the League, unless every Noble Duke counted for a thousand, and every Member of Par liament for two hundred—at a general meeting of the Great Central Society—(Laughter)—in the first floor in Bond-street, numbering about forty, even the members of the Committee found fault with their own report, and backed their o wn di s satisfaction by saying that it was generally thought throughout the country that the agriculturists had carried out nothing—had done nothing—attempted nothing—had not suggested or originated any proceeding—had not gone to Man chester, and had not held a great discussion there. I wish they had done so. They thought the farmers were going to ruin, for the prices whi ) ch were to ha ve been secured at 565. by Sir Robert 1 eel's Bill, were found not to h ave averaged five-and-forty shillin gs . And there was truth and reason in this dissatisfacti on . The League had risen during the last twelve months in the opinion of every well-thinking man, and the monopolists had by its exertions been led to mortifica- tion, defeat, and disgrace.—(Cheers.) The League h;.d taught the monopolists this lesson., that they co not attempt to carry out their principles by means. Wheat and corn was grown by the aristoc...gen, and so were surplices and gowns.—(Cheers.) f 1140 . but after all this, was it not better to have a haCern than no bread ?—(Cheers.) The leaders of the for th e law League had used all means in their power or.c., accomplishment of the great object they had in view, and they bad succeeded in , a most eminen th e gree. Their great efforts now must be 0 . 11 ,,, it . hustings. That was the principal focus to which astrinrgac; strength was to be applied. Now, how does the .A Corn-law League act, notwithstanding all that p il l been said against it ? Did it follow the fo otstep s i _° . : the Duke of Buckingham ?—(Cheers.) Did it eo ns dirty tricks and unworthy proceedings to prnegr'ho ends ?—(Cheers.) The mandate of the Le g : l b e rea the d; gone forth that the people shall have cheap and that mandate will be carried out, not t bDY, by means of trickery on the part of the League, but the means of the people themselves. He s hould to see her Majesty—God bless her—(Che e rye cotne to their free trade bazaar next May ; of," o .b. he did, not expect her to take a stall there - 0 - 'l' o i ter)—but he was sure that none would be rec .: wa .with a more hearty welcome.—(Cheers.) No w useless to disguise facts. The leaders of the Lear had shown themselves to be men who would I? cease to persevere in obtaining the great object vin a m• ere long, they hoped t o o bt a i n . In the great .c in which they were en gage d, th e y had not a 13e _ . or more hearty friend th an Colonel ThoroPer (Cheers)—and he trusted that the time was not , listant when they would see him in the Sous' Commons fighting the battles of the Leag v (Cheers.) What was the object of the Leaf Why, to make bread cheap, to enable the to be well paid, and to ensure the people tuency which would send such Members to r went as would look to their interests. The law League wished to make a. county dee reality and not a farce.—(Cheers.) The this the interference of strangers! There absurd way of speaking of the League stranger everywhere ; I contend that the Le new a stranger nowhere I We are domestic London ; besides, the League is with every ' sees clearly, and whose heart beats strong]: cause of free trade.—(Cheers.) We, here, League in Lonion ! and, if you look abi the towns and districts of the country, whet see the true interests of the mai feel the wrongs of the poor, and against oppression, say this tax upon of the indigent shall not continue—the! League ! The League are there ! When or Lord Radnor rise in their place to as fellow Peers, then the League is in th Lords—(Cheers)—and when by any char remote, a courageous thought shall arise of the Premier, and one honest determin matter should come from his mouth ar leagues, then the League will be in tl (Loud cheers.) Principles of this natur air and water ; they have an eleme presence; they are wherever there and warmth of feeling. Besides, w' representation ? Are not towns part and parcel of counties ? Are countries ? Are they " aliens in b and religion ?"—(Loud cheers.) Are ties made of the towns and cities in tl not arise as the crown of the riches your prouder counties ? And where fertility, but where natural treasur surface, do we not find works and coast? Why, the towns and ( counties, by a work which i compared to creation; they the numbers, wealth, grande tance which nature seemed t( or overlooked.—(Cheers) What be if you struck London out of it what would your most rural cow from them the advantages of their richest counties, those said to be tt of towns, what would they do if y wheat at their own monopolis not often feed their poor here ? Do you not supply wi refuse and surplus hands ? Do to the victims who seek refuge all this, do you not purchase t and laughter.) Cities are the and are the last portion of t left unrepresented. If it be 'lva separate representation, it all. It is property that is authority of the law under wl •ver has a freehold of forty a he reinstitution supposes, and aid demands of us, if we are ng vote also. It is not ye holder who is represented Members ; he has yet and well is it when urged with such happy to attend it in the pr this plan there is a m naps, that which in its thought of. It tends to acl entire labouring populatioy working classes, and the n middle class; it holds out mise of an incitement of eating description. It proprietor of a portion, England. Have a ate something here. It thing when, by the ry late Mr. George Rose, t' connected with the pub! was thought a judiciou those who could amass national institutions an( good to endeavour to ru tance become fundhc as wise and good to their proportion or become landholders their lovely and bee as much as it was whose lands cover gives them a tangible and a feeling of they are put in posse to citizenship in the which was best ad of consistency, prop The poet Campbell ( when he wanders wistfully at a cotta hangs over the gat " Oh! that for m Some hamlet's Health in the And such, too, is been spent in toi durance. Let th at least to such holds out such country; may t' seize, and, obtai the high-road lators, and a interests of ti those who thin] classes extendi tions of societl better show vv . representation (Loud cheers you this ev great financi prosperity o' revenue is n mains in is taken out comparative falsified ev verified eve —(Hear, cotnparativ gone towa lured by rake up look at ti sng_a destitutio straw s in any nutr such see is not fo ,great st: is anoth that ye' confine of, for societie ing-hc 'dales societi wome blame and e towa of ti tiles( fact soli( w he as so the feu tht de ti(