The Sun.
London, England, 1841-05-29 00:00:00

ANTI-CORN-LAW MEETING.

A public meeting of the inhabitants of the borough of
Lambeth was yesterday held on Kennington-common,
to consider the Corn-laws, the mopopolies, and the taxes.
The meeting had been advertised for some time before,
and at five o'clock, the hour appointed for the commence-
ment of the proceedings, upwards of five thousand per-
sons had assembled in front of a temporary hustings on
the Walworth side of the common. Among those present
on the hustings we perceived Mr. Hawes, .M.P., and
Mr. Tennyson D'Eyncourt, M.P., the Members for the
borough ; Mr. O'Connell, M.P. ; the Revs. S. Green, J.
Burnet, H. Richard, W. Bear, and J. Mirams ; E. Edwards,
Esq., a county magistrate; Mr. M'Leod, Mr. Barker, Mr.
Palmer, and several other gentlemen connected with the bo-
. rough. In the front of the hustings a banner was displayed
bearing the following inscription :—" Hypocrisy—I hope
that th country will rise as one man against such a tax
—a tax upon bread."—(Lord Winchilsea's speech.—
Times Report.) On that very day the duty on wheat
was 11. 3s. Bd. per quarter. Save us from our Noble
friends." The exhibition of this banner appeared to ex-
cite considerable merriment among the assembled mul-
titude.
On the motion of Mr. M`LEoD, Evan Edwards, Esq.,
was called to the chair.
The CHAIRMAN said that it had been their original in-
tention to have met in the great room, at the Horns,
but they had discovered, after they had fixed the day of
the meeting, that the room was engaged every Friday,
and had therefore determined to hold the meeting on the
Common ; and as the day had turned oat so fine ho
did not think they would have any reason to regret
having done so. The object of the meeting was well known
—it was to support a motion of which Lord John Russell
had given notice for the 4th of June, for a reduction in the
duty on the importation of corn—(Loud cheers)—and the
substitution of a fixed ditty instead of the present sliding
scale. There was great distress existing in the manufac-
turing districts, and the object of the meeting was to pro-
cure such a reduction in the duty on corn as thould se-
cure to the working man a large loaf instead of a small
one, and should enable the manufacturer to give employ-
ment to all the working classes in the manufacturing
districts—(Cheers). As in so numerous an assembly it
was very probable there might be some who could not
agree to the resolutions which might be submitted to the
meeting, if any one, after the mover and seconder:of the
resolutions had been heard, should wish to reply to them,
he would request that such person would come upon the
platform, and he (the Chairman) would endeavour all in
his power to obtain for him a fair and impartial hearing.
—(Cheers.) He trusted too that in their expressions of
approbation and disapprobation, they would, after having
expressed their sense of any sentiments that might be
addressed to them, not carry those expressions to such
an extent as unnecessarily to lengthen out the time of
the meeting.—(Cheers.)
The Rev. S. GREEN then came forward to propose the
first resolution, which was to the effect that all laws
creating monopolies, and the Corn-laws in particular,
were detrimental to the public good by occasioning im-
pediments to trade, and calculated to benefit a small
class only at the expense of the welfare of the people at
large.—(Loud cheers.) Monopoly must, in its very na-
ture, be detrimental to the country, for what was mo-
nopoly but the assigning to one particular class advan-
tages which ought to be open to all.—(Cheers.) In this
country monopoly had been carried to a great extent.
Learning had been formerly a monopoly. It had now
ceased to be so. Were they not the better for its diffu-
sion?—(Cheers.) Political freedom had been a mono-
poly. He might be told that by the restriction of the
franchise it was so still.—(Cheers.) Religious institutions
had been made a monopoly, and it had been roundly as-
serted that the right of administering them was ex-
clusively the property of one particular body of men.
The monopoly, however, which they were more parti-
cularly called upon to consider was that which related
to the supply of food, and which by its action interfered
with the freedom of trade, and cramped the manufac-
turing resources, of the country. He had been talking on
the subject of this monopoly with an Essex farmer, who
supported the Corn-laws, because he said that when corn
was high the labourer's wages were high in proportion ;
and when it was low the wages were lower. He asked
him to look to his labour-book and see what difference
there was in the wages he had given in 1835 and in
1840 ; and he found that in 1840 the wages had been
from ls. 6d. to 2s. a-week more than in 1835. In 1835
the price of wheat was 40s. a quarter, in 1840 it was 80s.
Would that ls. 6d. a week make a compensation for the
difference in price ?—(Loud cheers.) Then again they
were told of the burdens, such as Poor-rates and land tax
exclusively borne by the land, as a ground for maintaining
them. Now the annual amount of those burdens was about
six millions per annum, while the annual amount of the
burdens exclusively borne by trades—such as stamp du-
ties, insurance duties, legacy duties, &c. amounted to from
eleven millions to eleven millions and a half, so that
here was no ground for protection.—(Cheers.) Ireland
was an illustration of what the Corn-law did to a country
where there were no manufacturing interests to restrain
its tendency to mischief. It might be asked what busi-
ness he as a minister of religion had to interfere in such
a question. His answer was that he was a man and an
Englishman, and therefore had a right to interfere ; but
the present was a religious question. Did they not all
pray to the Almighty to give them their daily bread,
and what right had any set of men to step between the
bounties of Providence and say, You shall not enjoy the
blessings your Creator has given you until you have first
filled our pockets ? The Reverend Gentleman concluded
amidst loud cheers by proposing the resolution.
Mr. BARKER, in seconding the resolution, said that
the question was purely one of political economy, al-
though their opponents had chosen to make it a political
one. Let them look at the distress occasioned by the
operation of this law in the manufacturing districts ; he
had read a report of a speech of Mr. Hearne, a Roman
Catholic clergyman of Manchester, who stated that of
20,000 persons who had died in the neighbourhood of
his chapel, and to whom he had been called upon to ad-
minister religious consolation in the last moments,
10,000 died of actual starvation.—(Loud cries of
" Oh, oh ! Shame, shame ! No Corn-laws.") He
would now give them a practical illustration
of what would be the effect of the Ministerial measures if
carried; and, first, with regard to the sugar duties.—(Mr.
Barker here produced a loaf of fine refined sugar.) That was
a specimen of Brazil sugar which had been refined in this
country in bond, and which was prohibited to be used for home
consumption ; but the monopolists exported to their own colo-
nies in the West Indies and sold it to the negro population
there at 4d. per lb., while the labourer in this country was
obliged to give 9d. for coarse brown.—( Cheers.) Then with
regard to the Corn-laws. Hero (said the speaker, producing
a half-quartern loaf) is the 4d. English loaf—the Duke of
Buckingham's loaf, and a very small one it is. Here (pro-
ducing a loaf nearly double the size) is the French 4d. leaf ;
and here (producing an enormous loaf) is the Polish 4d. loaf.
—(Cheers.) He had intended producing before them eight-
penny quartern loaves, but the baker had not an oven large
enough to bake the Polish eightpennv loaf.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Here they are, said Mr. Barker, placing the three
loaves in a row, Peel's sliding scale. Was it surprising that
with such loaves the Germans should be able to undersell our
manufacturers in our own markets, which they were doing at the
present moment ? There could not be a greater fallacy than to
say that cheap bread would lower wages ; it would increase em-
ployment, and wages must always be higher when the capitalist
had to seek the labourer, than while the labourer had to seek
the capitalist. They hadbeen told that this measure had been
squeezed out of Ministers—there must have been some good in
them, for if it had not been in them how could it have been
squeezed out. He called upon them to unite to procure a re-
peal of this law. If it had not been for the accursed Corn-law
they would never have had the Poor daw.—( Loud cheers.) He
concluded by urging them to persevere, and they must succeed
in getting rid of the accursed law.—(Loud cheers. )
A working man named Bite wri here stepped upon the plat-
form, and amidst some uproar attempted to address the mee:ing.
The Chairman having interfered to procure him a hearing he
stated that it was impossible to hope for any repeal of the Corn-
laws, to which he was opposed, while the House of Commons
was constituted as at present, and proposed an amendment to
the effect that it was useless to hope for a repeal of the mo-
nopolies until the Charter should become the law of the land.
Ihe amendment having been seconded, was put from the
chair, and twelve hands only were held up in its favour. The
original resolution was then put and carried amidst the loudest
acclamations.

Mr. GEDDIS proposed the neat resolution, which was—
" That petitions be prepared to both Houses of Parliament
against the monopolies of Sugar, Timber, and Corn, and pre-
sented to both Houses of Parliament."

Mr.APLEoD, in seconding the resolution, said, that as a

staunch Radical, now he saw Ministers pursuing a right course,
he would 'support them to the utmost of his power. He could
not but be surprised at the impudent twaddle of Peel in taunt-
ing the Ministers with having this measure forced upon them
by the people. Had not Peel and the Duke of Wellington
both cringed before the Irish people? and they would on this
question make them cringe before the English people.—
( Cheers ) What mattered it about the motives of Ministers.
Supposed they had brought forward this measure to keep their
places—were not those the best entitled to receive the people's
pay who did the people's work ?—( Loud cheers. )
Mr. O'CONiELL, M.P., then stepped forward, and was
received with loud cheering, which lasted some minutes. The
Hon. Gentleman said he was delighted to see such an assem-
blage met together for vindicating the cause of common
sense, for the putting down monopoly was common sense.—
(Loud cheers.) What was monopoly ? it was a long word for
robbery.—( Cheers and laughter.) It meant, I must have all
my own, and some of yours besides. It meant, you may have
your tea or your coffee, but you shall have no sugar to sweeten
it.—( Slight uproar from the Chartists.) He saw some of the
poor honest Chartists were against them. Now, would it do
them any great harm to have a large loaf ?—( Cheers.) The
Lords were the great monopolists every where. They mono-
polised one House of Parliament, Bishops and all.—( Cheers. )
They were irresponsible—public opinion could never reach
them, and they legislated as a class for themselves. They
claimed a right to be legislators because their fathers had been
so before them. Would any of them trust a man who
had never learned tailoring to make his coat, be.
cause his father had been a tailor before him 2—(Cheers)--
and if they would not trust hereditary, tailors, why should they
trust hereditary legislators. They monopolised the Church,
all the bishoprics, and fat livings were monopolised by the aris-
tocracy, and he should like to know what the poor got out of
the Church except the prayers.—(Loud cheers.) They mono-
polised the army. A poor man might be a private soldier,
but commissions were reserved for my Lord Cardigan ; had
they ever heard of that chap?—( Loud laughter )—a fel-
low who, for the better observance of the Sabbath, flogged a
soldier on a Sunday.—( Loud cheers.) They monopolised the
colonies, they monopolised the law ; the state of the law was
disgraceful to any civilised society. It was a jumble of myste-
rious perplexity, fit for nothing but to make the fortune of certain
whitexconjurers called lawyers.—(Loud cheers.) Then there
was the corn monopoly, of which the Duke of Buckingham,
when a poor woman was cutting slices off her loaf for her starv-
ing children, came in and took away the largest slice for him-
self. He did not actually come into the cottage himself to do
it—if he did he might perhaps find the children's nails in his
eyes—(Cheers)—he kept out of the way of the scratches, but
he got an Act of Parliament made which produced precisely
the same effect.—( Cheers.) It was a most serious question this,
connected as it was with the subsistence of millions of people
and with the comforts of the wives and children of every man
in the empire.—( Cheers. ) Why talk on such a question as this
of Whigs and Tories ;—the Whigs were bad because they re-
sembled the Tories, and the Tories were worse because they had
not in them even the good that the Whigs had. The Corn -law up-
holders were worse than all, to make use of an expression he had
once heard from a Tipperary man, " They were worse than Col.
Head,who was worse than tho Devil." There could not be a greater
fallacy than to say that where corn was high wages were high.
In Tipperary, last year, when corn was at tills. a quarter,