The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-17 00:00:00

rnrnmnn masse: , h,. as tney are litr, and th

shopkeepers—that' a little above them, the proprie'ar:
class, even down to the most huuible ot that proprietary
class—very different, indeed, from any thing that existed
at a former period. But I come next, and last, to by far
the most flagrant proof of this total difference which sepa-
rates the various classes of the community—l come at
once to the Corn-law. I venture to say that if there is
env one subject in which the interests of all classes are
mooted—your Lordships; may think the interests of the
landloid are pre-eminent, and I know that most of you
think the intvrests of all classes are in favour of the Corn-
laws—het I am taking the interests of all classes, exclu-
sive of the landlords, and these are supposed to be. I hink
rightly supposed to ho, the interests of all classes, the
numerous class of labourCrs, as well as the classes of pro-
prietors, capitalists, and oti,'ers, are supposed to be univer-
sally the same, and whose op: pion, rightly, as I suppose, is
against those laws, and in favor:' of the repeal. But it is
quite immaterial to me whether I and right or wrong, fir
at all events no man can doubt that all those classes firmly
believe their interests are against the Corn-laws, and in
favour of the repeal, and my Noble Friend opposite (Earl
Stanhope) would make the greatest mistake that he ever
committed in his life, if he were for a moment to fancy '
that, in consequence of what has taken place at some
public meetings, the great bulk of the people agree
with him, and differ with me, on the subject of the Corn.
laws. They know full well their interest is against. the
Corn-laws—they have declared it again and again—they
declare it to this House as often as they have a fair oppor- ,
tunity of doing so ; but they are firmly resolved, not.-
withstanding their desire to effect a repeal, notwithstand-
ing their conviction that it is for their better interests
to abolish those laws; notwithst inding they are anxious
to see the end of them, they declare and they act upon the ff
supposition, that it is not their interest, and would not be
their pleasure, to join with the superior classes of their
fellow-citizens in any such project of improvement. The
consequence of that is, that upon a question involving the
interests of the whole population of th country, )ou dare
not in the greatest towns call a public meeting, because
you are sure that public meeting would decide against
those who called it.—(" Hear, hear," from Earl Stan-
hope.) Not, as my Noble Friend may be well aware, on
the merits of the question—l know their reason, I know
they bold the same opinion against the Corn-laws—they ;
were not taken in by the foolish speeches made by
some Manchester men some years ago, in which
they said as if they had been determined to alienate from
themselves the labourers of the country, that 'he conse-
quences of repealing the Corn-laws would be to lower the ,
price of wages—they have not taken in that. First, be-
cause they doubt whether it would lower wages, and next,
because if it did take a little away it would bring it home
to them in another direction, acid that they would gain a
great deal more by lowering the price of food than they'
would lose by the lowering of their wages. But these
men are not to be taken in by the nonsense that is talked
in some quarters, any more than that they are men to be
dejected on the question of the Corn-laws or the Charter
itself, on account of extreme violence of language. I have
heard that the shopkeepers look down upon them with a
degree of aristocratic pride wholly unknown in this
House, and in the other legitimate haunts of pa-
tricians—any thing more unmitigated, more unbroken,
or more proud and somewhat intolerant, and per
haps unbearable than the aristocracy of the infe-
rior classes of men towards those who are yet their
inferiors, I believe can hardly be exaggerated.—Don't
believe what they tell you when they say they did not
wish for their alliance on account of the extreme vie-
lence to which they had recourse. Why no Chartist ever
made half so violent a speech since the Charter was first
drawn up and first talked of, than was made at the
Manchester Meeting of the " Capitalocracy."—
(Laughter. ) That particular description of the aria-
tocracy of the shopkeepers at Manchester, the other day,
when your Lordships were described as dishonest men
because you maintained your opinion in favour of the Corn- .1,
law—when being for or against them was laid down as the
test of common honesty—ay, and when every landlord
for abiding by the law, and using his property as he
chose, was openly a and amidst the applause of thousands, de-
nominated a robbeia I never heard such violence as that
by any of the Chartists at any of their meetings, or even
at their own Convention in Palace-yard. Now, my Lords,
no such meeting can be held its London, in Southwark or
in Westminster. In Edinburgh it has been attempted,
and signally failed. In Nottingham and other places also at-
tempted, and signally failed. But in this immense metro-
polis, with 1,500,000 inhabitants, who of all others have the
greatest interest, and who, from personal intercourse with
them, I know of all others have the strcngest opinions and
the warmest feelings against the Corn-laws, no man dare
gammon a meeting to petition or to resolve for a repeal
of the Corn-laws. --( Hear, near, hear.) It is ascer-
tained the cause of that is, that they ccnsider
it is not their interest to co-operate in any degree or to any
extent whatever with other classes above them, between
whom and them there is now so wide a separation. Ano-
ther mode of reasoning is this—we stood by you in 183/ to
obtain Parliamentary Reform. You obtained the franchise
for yourselves, but you left us out, and we are as much mis-
represented as before . My Lords, that brings me at once to
what I think is the cause of all this, and I rejoice (and of
course your Lordships still more rejoice) that I am ap-
proaching to the end of what I deem to be a necessary and
indispensable, though certainly a most painful duty. The
great body of the people of England are excluded, and
they know and feel that they are excluded from the political
privileges of the Constitution. They deny the doctrine of
virtual representation altogether. If the workman has
no vote himself he holds that it is an insult, and
not an argument, when you bid him look to the
vote of his master. His master I That is the very man,
perhaps, that he is pitted against, and whom he wishes to
vote against had he the franchise himself. He holds himself
excluded ley the vote being withheld, and he holds himself
insulted by the mockery of the argument of his being vir-
tually represented. He says that to be represented by
another whom he has no fellow-feeling with, is not being
represented, but that it is being misrepresented. He holds
that he were better left without the vote of the other,
without the virtual representation, if he is to have no
direct and substantive vote. That is the condition of the
great body of English people—it is the condition of ninety-
nine in one hundred of the inhabitants of this country
—it is the condition of all the most industrious, the
most virtuous, the most skilful workmen—it is the
condition of almost all the artizans of the country—
those whose ingenuity, as well as hard labour,
are the very causes of the prosperity of England—it is the
condition of 9 in 10 of the 1 terary men in this country,
men of science, lovers ot arts, those men who carry the
name with the wealth of this country all over the world to
universal acceptation—it is the condition of all those la-
bouring, industrious, ingenious classes, that a broad and
impassable line is drawn between them and the Constitu-
tion, and that they are outlaws and outcasts from the Con-
stitution. Then the question is, how long is this to be en-
dured by them ? and are they patiently to sit down undor
thisl exclusion ? Are they to hng these chains: as they
deem thorn to be ? And i f men are excluded from that
which they wish to enjoy, it is the consequence, the nature
of men, greatly to overvalue that which you withhold
from them, and you enhance prodigiously and incalculably
the value of it in their eyes. Then the common answer is,
Oh, hut you are not sufficiently 'educated, and the reply to
that answer, when used by a very liberal person, a M.P.,
among his constituents the other day, appeared to me
very applicable. The Member said to his constituents,
" I am extremely desirous you should have the Elective
Franchise,:provided you are sufficiently instructed to use it."
" Then," said the constituent to the Member, " Why did.
you vote for 3,0001. only for a grant for education the
other day, because of what are you now alleging? You
don't educate me, and then you make your own withhold-
to practicable
draw,
an
hhdt
eiost
course
ceeuooexrs
ustpne
enlsovuttewaordnwyl exclude teeahr
fbtaaer hltdoeeomoal
adopted,
withhold-
ing of education from me a ground for refusing me the
Elective Franchise." Therefore it will be seen at
once that such argument as that was utterly intolerable
and ought not to be used. The time, if not come, is fast,
approaching when you will find it hopeless to use such an
argument. The time will come when it will be no longer
wholeiatogteephhdyet
cos
dhuyiliiroCnnb
enjoyment
ofel :ykfroemwi Itneolehoarnfletwel
:Iliac
Constitution.
ouvvonlrdisahtbcai trt:thoughtitoyuunemttrifihieoendexnfitgely..t,
feelplfeoa tloe
contrarybo be
tt
einlusivthee sysgtoen
and under judicious regulations, adopting such tests
independent of property, as might give you the best se-
curity for the Elective Franchise being honestly and wisely
used—if following that sacred principle of our Constitution,
which holds that no man ought to be taxed who is not re-
presented, and that no man ought to be called upon to
obey laws which lie had no hand, directly or indirectly, in
making—if following that principle, and working it
out, you were to throw open the door wider
sedition great
lecture change.
to
empty You wralidls
all
fetn
t h see he preacherst
o
to
e e ofthan it now is of our political constitution, extend
t eoor
continued
n sseparatedpsights
the portals still farther to all classes of your industrious
and useful fellow-countrymen, believe me, you would see
a
h
it. You
wtheYoofmu
osstwatoteufslrmdigehnst,eful see an end to what I now regard
thathoa of the
of
a,l heey
p pou have been displayed to the
into classes, irreconcilable, hostile to eachp other, and,hts
that of late years
moreover, you would see the genuine aristocracy of the
eountr
andy,thethe experiencerank,the of the upper oealth, the virtue,per classes, intelli-
gence,tahse,
mw
ho
ircehr eg I
believeai n that
t o
be
e nascendanceatural
anwditwhhitchhe,ir if
I knowfellow-citizens
te a-
lags
and
dE
theirnglis hhma beint I
Abeliever
dt
so, be ehactroongtoenaipaolltoogitsheetior •fee I -
your
Lord hips for detaining you so long on the present
and i occa-
s •
. , nd if I had thought I would have
tunity I would willingly have postponed what I had to
say, but I deemed it t duty these my to make observations.
—( Hear, hear.)
Earl STANHOPE said that nothing was ,further from
his wish than to trespass on their Lordships' attention, but
it was utterly impossible for him to remain silent after the
speech which had been made by his Noble and Learned
Friend. In all the observations which he had made upon
the perils which encompassed the country, he entirely con-
curred. The Noble and Learned Lord had talked
of the discontent throughout the country, and had said
that farther concessions would conciliate them. Six
years had not elapsed since the Noble and Learned Lord
had implored their Lordships, on his bended knees, to
pass the Reform Bill, assuring their Lordships that from
that moment all agitation would cease, all discontent would
be calmed, and that there would exist nothing but quiet
and contentment. How had the event justified the assertion ?
The Noble Lord opposite thongbt that the Poor-law was
most important to the condition of the people. But he
(Lord Stanhope) spoke not on the authority of the
Chartists, but on the authority of clergymen, constantly
engaged in communication with their parishioners in dis-
charging the duties of their profession—it was on their
authority that he asserted that if any disturbance had taken
place the agricultural population, as well as the manufac-
turing, were disposed, by discontent, to participate in these
disturbances. His Noble Fr end opposite considered the
Corn-laws as the main spring and origin of the discontent;
but he (Le d Stanhope) would have him refer to the pro-
ceedings at public meetings, and he would find that ques-
tion was treated with the utmost scorn and contempt.
In his ( the Noble Earl's) opinion, the main cause of the