The Sun.
London, England, 1840-01-14 00:00:00

EVENING E'DITION.

eeetion, that numbers have been cheated and duped into ,
' , maintenance of this law ; and, though many of our
e, public men predicted every evil which has f01,,,,i,
,,,,i, and though the working men rudely re-
eel its enactment, yet that there have been
. e : oands in this country who have been deluded and
Oeseeed into the maintenance of this law by the frauds
ear', fallacies which have been uttered in its support. I say
' sk en that experience has taught them that they are fel-
neeies—that every argument that has been urged in favour
1 of this law is proved to be a fallacy, and that those who
have opposed the law can now point to the condition of the
eteuetrv, and all the events that have preceded it, and state
'` • .aat every single ground that purposed to be of a public
h kind, upon which this law was rested, has proved fallacious
and false, and that there is no one single public pretext for
is continuance. Let any man reflect upon what it is
abet he has heard urged as the defence of this law, and
, then let him reflect upon what has occurred within his
nwn experience, and let him judge whether this law can
be any longer maintained.— (Cheers.) Who is it that
i has not been said to be interested in this question excpt the
' right ones ?—( Loud cheers.) Have we riot heard the
} queetion stated to be a question for the purpose of sup-
eerting the interests of trade at home? Have we not
Ocerd that it is a labourer's question—a financial question
a —a question that involves the steady and sufficient supply
,of food to the community ? Let anybe dy then, I say, reflect
r on what has been his experience of the last three years, and
judge what ground there is for supporting the law on such
•iguments as this? Where is that adequate, and sufficient,
" end steady supply of fond which is to relieve us from de-
,l pendence on foreign States? Although, as the men of
Sheffield have justly said, every piece of common ground i
its this country has been Dressed into the service, where s
1 that adequate supply that was to relieve us depen-
dencefrphas
upon foreign powers ?—( Hear, bear.) Where
the dr ficiency of millions been supplied from, but from
I foreign States? and what is the danger of that depen-
dence • ut when the supply is rendered by these laws pre.
carious, and when, as'it would not be under a system of
1 free trade, the dependence is not made mutual by
1 commerce. We have been told that land and trade
' are of a kin—that land cannot flourish and trade decline ;
and the Corn-laws have beenrecommended
,
that if you make land of valuetrade on the ground
will flourish. The case
iv before you —( Hear, hear.) The landlord is rich—he
hs eetting richer by the rents secured to him by themselves.
Where is trade—how is the trade of the country at this
i moment ?—( Hear, hear.) \\, here is that holder of the
' land who is supposed to wax and wane with it?
Where iall the capitalists of this country ? Why don't they
come aed tell us of their profits ? or if they were so good,
wctsii we see thcei seeking the wrest distant and hazardous
iiinvestments in order to obtain a greater return than the Corn
lees a ill afford them in this country ? Where all the mechanics,
where are the labouring men and working classes,vvho depend
i upon trade, end have been encouraged to think that if the
Corr-laws were supported, trade would flourish and wages
Iwould rise? Why don't the men of Leicester, of Nottingham,
s I Sheffield, and of Birmingham, conic and meet us here,
stet tell us of the connection between their high and cot,-
' tented condition arid the high price of food?—(Cheers. )
But perhaps, it is the peasant—he whose healthy and happy
' lot was so ably and honestly depicted in the last Session.
--( Cheers.) It was on that occasion a labourer's question.
Put where is the labourer—why does he not appear to tell
es of the increase of his wages with the high price of food
which has rendered him happy and contented, and which
, hallowed the enactment of these unjust laws ? What is it
we have heard, who is not familiar with the details of the
distress of these villagers, who are unable to maintain
their families in comfort from the high price of food, and
• heir wages nct having increased in the same proportion.
11 I on net mistaken, he who offered thanks for what we
• ice received, published in the public papers the propor-
ten which the reward of the labourer bears to the high
Hee of food. If lam not mistaken, he who said grace
c-day, published in the paper which has tended su
, much to circulate the truth upon this question—(Hear,
eear)—that whereas a man with a family under the pre-
sent high prices of food t illl only subsist upon les. a-week,
so advance has been made upon the pittance of 9a. a-week as
. 1 ceeivedby him under the Corn-laws. I ask you, gentlemen,
ro look at the discussions during the last debate ,n the
Senate, and what is the most dwelt upon ?—it is that it is
a labourer's question. That the man whom our Rev.
1 Friend has declared only receives Os. a week, when to
support his family under the present high prises of food
0 he should receive 13s. a week, would lose the reward of
his labour if it were not for these laws.—( Hear, hear.)
But perhaps it is the Irish peasant—perhaps it is an Irish
question—( A laugh)—the Irien peasant, whose reward
for his labour never allows him to see a wheaten loaf.
and whose appalling distress during the high price of wheat
has struck every mart who has regarded the wants, and
lias cared for the condition of his fellow-countrymen,
in Ireland. The distress in Ireland has never been more
appalling than during this year, and the price of food under '
the Corn-laws has never been higher than for the last two
years ; and, Gentlemen, do we not see at this meeting,
identified with the total and immediate repeal of the Corn-
laws, that man who knows the condition of the people of
Ireland, and who cares for the condition of the people of
, that country.—(Leud cheers.) Is he not amongst us, and
one of the most strenuous advocates for the repeal of these
! laws ?—(Great. cheering.) But we hive some candid op-
ponents, rnere are men who have opposed us on this
question, 'Rho manfully maintain that the Corn-laws are
the bane.of commerce and the curse of the industry of tbis
country, They say it is a great evil, but that it is a neces-
, awry ',evil. They say we have a large revenue to collect
k we have a large debt to pay, and it is necessary, to
I enable the people to pay that large debt, to impose another
( burden upon them.—(A laugh.) This is the logic that
, is current among the 'squires.—(Laughter.) W grant
you, they say, that the peasant is wretched—that trade is
declining, but we have to pay the debt, and, therefore, we
' must have the Corn-laws. I wish to know whether there
is anything that appears on the face of the returns of the
-revenue that cheers us? Will the idea that our revenue
ii is increasing because food is dear, and the poor man mi-
serable ?—( Hear.) We had before last Session closed
i some evidence upon this subject—we had a Chancellor of
' the Exchequer—we had a man connected with our p üblic
finances for eight years together—a:man who, when he camel
into office, was prepossessed in favour of the law, who was
! an owner of land- in Ireland and fancied that it was al Irish
i 'question, and that it was necessary to the revenue. He,
t remained eight years in office, connected with the finances
of this country, and what was his last dying speech and
iconfession ?—( Hear, and a laugh.) Why all the dist-es-
i bances that I see around me—all. the derangements of the
monetary affairs of the country—all the deficiency of the
revenue—all the prospects of distress I see before me, are
entirely owing to these Corn-laws.-_( Loud cheers.)
r What object had be in saying that ? He had nothing to
, gain, He was going into the Peerage, and if ho had not
been overcome by the force of truth, that discretion
end caution which so peculiarly becomes men in
office, would not have deserted him; but with the
nenerous impulse that belongs to his country he could
not resist declaring what he knew to be the fact, after an
xperience of eight years of our financial affairs. How
ii.d the next Chancellor of the Exchequer think that he
' , ould best curry favour with his constituents and enjoy
, popularity with the people of this country ? Why, he went
terthwith and declared himself oppcsed to these laws, and
' aeteithstanding the logic of the Squires, we thus have
4 Chancellor of the Exchequer after Chancellor declaring
• to you that the revenue cannot be maintained, and that we
eeunot divert distress so long as these laws arc maintained.
( Loud cheers..) Gentlemen, you' had rtrurns• Of - the
: • ..eles of the revenue of the country leid before you. Do
.ey cheer you, much, or encourage you to maintain these
no; s ?—( Loud cries of " No, no.") Do you know—
, le. t I need not ask you from what sources your revenue is
derived ? Is there anything more natural than that the
revenue should sink when people have less the means of
purchasing articles of consumption ? Gentlemen, if the
working and industrious classes are obliged to pay higher
1 prices for their food, which yields nothing to tho revenue,
surely they must have less means for expending what they
nave upon erticles which arc taxed. Now, I ask you to
' turn to these tables of the revenue which have been to-
eently published, and see whether you will not find that
precisely in those articles in which you would expect the in-
dustrious and working portion of the community expend the
most, they have latterly expended the least, because of the
pressure of these iniquitous laws. I say, if we look at the
revenue we shall find the department of the Excise chiefly
to have fallen off, any that arises from these men being
obliged to ray more for their bread, which is a necessary
of subsistence, than they would under other circumstances.
Are we, then, aey more to be deluded with the idea that,
because we have a large revenue to collect, we must bear
an additional tax upon the necessaries of existence ? We
have been told that one of the advantages of the Cenrn-lairs
would be to prevent our money going forth from the coun-
tri—ihat those' nations who would send you food would
refuse to take your manufacturea, and that you would be
obliged to send Nom- money if
_there were no protective
duties, in exellange tor toed.
ask this assembly, is
that statement true or talse?—.(Cries I
ries of " False, false.")
The advocates of the repeal have certainly this advantir,
that every argument that has ever been urged by them
ag.inst the: Corn-laws has been established and to bra well-rounded, while the argument—or rather, the
prey its, on the other side have been shown to be hollow
ana false. I ask you, whether the Corn-lacs have prevented
yrur a oney going nut of the country ?—( Cries of " No.")
I Have any of the countries that grow gr ain refused to take
( cue manutacture's if we take their grain ? --(Cries of
e Noire.") We never Lad before this time official docu-
, meets rhowing that it is a constant theme of complaint
with these nations, that we do not trade with them. They
Ihe' c not refused to trade with us. We have had statements
:and before us, that for the last twenty years they have
been most willing to take our manufactures. And mark
the importance of the statement at this particular time,
that now at the eleventh hour, at the last moment, before
their tariffs are raised, and our manufactures further
excluded, they yet offer to us, if we change our laws
wish respect to the importation of foreign corn and other
sure',us produce, to take our manufactures—( Loud cheers).
Teem is no doubt about the matter, for the papers were
I /aid upon the table of the House of Commons by your late
respected Member, showing that these states were ready
:Jed willing to take the manufactures which we were equally
i ,•acly to send, if we only took their produce —( Loud cheers).
i Gentlemen, this is not a matter of slight importance. You
t -. cre told, twenty years ago in this country, that you
f could not be excelled in your manufactures—that the idea
ni rivalry was absurd, and that British skill and Britins
capitai could compete with all the world, and the Coro-
tlaws into the bargain —( Hear, hear.) But last year,
, when an inquiry was instituted by order of the House of
(es omens as to whether these people were progressing in
) the number of their manufactures, or whether they excelled
: seu her any particular branch, your opponents turned round
;se you, and while admitting both these positions, said
( there was no doubt that rivalry did exist—that such rivalry
kers but reasonable and natural, but that you had no else
eeeauao you bad not proved that you were completely
i - tied. I cannot give it any other interpretation
. the only answer your opponents would give was, you
I Lie no case, for you have proved that you have somethieg
yea to lose—you arc not yet ruined.—( Hear, hear.) But,
' Gentlemen, I rosk you whether these have not been the ar-
, eesnente which have been deduced in support of our pre-
,;t J
,: C. ril• lios,s? You have been !ulnd into the endur-
lat,' cc of that which you thought unjust and iniquitous, bc- i