The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-01 00:00:00

more followed that because obtaining the Charter would
secure the power of making other reforms, therefore
the Charter was the only thing to be gone for, than it
followed that putting salt on their tails was the way to
catch birds, because when we had the power to put salt
upon the tail we should have power to catch the bird.—
(Cheers.) These were the reasons why he held to the
opinion, that they ought to allow each other to take
their separate ways, and not do anything to interfere
with each other.—(Hear, hear.) Suppose, when the
abolition of the slave trade was agitated, some one had
turned round and said it was no use trying to abolish
the slave trade, nothing but a bloody revolution. would
ever accomplish it ; go for Universal Suffrage, and then
they would abolish the slave trade. Where should
they have been. The slave trade was abolished in
1808. They might get Universal Suffrage in eighteen
hundred, and the largest number anybody chose to
add.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. CLAYTON said, if they bad not a majority
of the liou,e of Commons • for Universal Suffrage,
thee hld a mijority of the people. The people
had made a decided et and for • the bill measure. of
ti, it rights. They would 5tr04..,,g1e for nothing short of
their rights. .The ntigldle elas,ef were now. becoming
' more liberal, because the people stood aloof and would
not help them in their party measure=. And ,if the
people stood firm to their position, 'Key would he
obliged ultimately to come to them. It was the pres-
sure from without that would carry the.Peopic's Char-
ter.—( Loud cheers.)
Col. TuomrsoN—He thought there was a tendency
io the people to overrate the power they had, for at the
same time they admitted that the complaint they had
to make was de. they had no power at all.—(Hear,
hear.) He Would ask them the question, would their
power be greater or less if the prohibition were abo-
lished that cut down the food of all ?—(Hear and
cheers.) Did he advise them to trust to any pro-
misls ? God forbid. He bad seen instances lately of
men doing their utmost to stretch a point in this (fleet,-
tioa. On this subject he would only say—" Blessed
are they that expect nothing, for they shall not be
disappoiated."—(Laughter.) All that he came there
for was to invite as many as were of his opinion to go
on, pressing at all events this principle, that we will not
oppose one another.—(Cheers.) If one party could do
away with ottOttivV, and aroather party could do away
with ano•her, they might shake bands, as the lioglish
avizi .-tbe Prussians did after the Batt.'a.; of Waterloo, and
congratulate themselves on their success.—(Cheers.)
Here a person of the name of Samuel Binns came

forward, but was received with much hissing and dis-
approbation.
An operative in the body of the meeting. whose name
we could not learn, said they found their exports in-
I creasing to a great amount, and at the same time their
wages had been decreasing. That had not been for the
want of a market. They found the menufacturer set-
ting up a machine that would do as much work
as a thousend men, and giving the man whet.-
worked it, ten shillings, or say a pound a week.
Where did the benefit go to, but to the very man who
set up the machine—(Shouts of " No, no," and " Yes,
yes.") He wished Colonel Thompson to show how,
and where machinery was calculated to be a blessing to
mankind. If they could get the whole world for a
market, and have machinery to produce it, and only just
AS many labourers as could work that machinery, then
there would not be any material injury from it. But
this could not be the case, because other nations would
have machinery as well as themselves.—(Hear, Lear.)
Wages had decreased as machinery had increased.
COL. THOMPSON—He was not aware that he had
used such an expression as that machinery was a bless-
ing ; if he had used that term, he should have bec a un-
derstood as meaning something different from what he
had on his mind at the time. What he stated was,
that machinery was the result of the ingenuity implanted
in mankind by the Creator, and which would be brought
into action whether they or he would or not. The great
relief to the injury arising from machinery, and what in
the end would turn it into a good rather than an evil,
was the having a perfect freedom for disposing of the
products of machinery.—(Cheers.) But if they tied
them up from disposing of its products, no man could
doubt that it would bean instrument of destruction ; but
then it was the tying up, and not the machinery which
was the cause.—(Cheers.) A rope was a very good
thing in its way, but if it were tied in a particular man-
ner about a particular part of a living man, it was likely
to work him exceeding woe.—(Laughter.)
The operative again rose and said, if they increased
their trade fifty times, they would have increased'
machinery to • do. the work, and then there
would be, again plenty of labourers out of employ-I',
went. Where would be the benefit to these men
The benefit would go to the masters who employed the
machinery.—(Laud cheers.) Then they would have
as princely merchants in England as there were in
Genoa.—(Cheery") If they looked abroad, they found
other countries increasing in machinery as well as
theMselves, but had they taxes to pay as the people of
this country had ?—(Hear, hear.) A man abroad
might live for 10S. a week better than Englishmen
could on '205. a week. England must not expect to
have the whole world for a market, as she had before
the Frenchitel.,*ricrti: Thetressets -a great quantity
of land in this country capable of improvement, but if
they did away with the Corn-!aws, instead of bringing
land into cultivation, they threw it out. IN hat, then,
would they do with the agricultural labourers? They
indeed, come into the manufacturing districts,
and this was what the manufacturers wanted, as it would
enable them to beat down wnge..—(Loud cheers.)
Col. THOMPSON-The objector who had just sitter'
down had introduced an entirely new question, and ho
was glad he had done so. He had entered on the
question of the agricultural labourers, and the effect to
be produced by allowing free exchange of goods for
foreign corn. Put the converse case. Suppose some-
body were to come to them and say, " We come to pro-
pose to the manufacturing interest, especially to th e
manufacturing operatives, that a prohibition should b e
put on the exchange, of goods for corn. Do you not see,
manufacturing operatives, in how many ways this will
benefit you ? By your paying an extra price for corn
the landlords will be able to employ more labourers on
the land, and these must be taken from the manufactur-
ing ranks. There is a cheap and easy way of raising
the condition of the manufacturing operatives, that,
you should subscribe to pay an unnecessary price for
the landlord's corn."—(Hear, hear.) He thought there
were few men, who would adventure to present them-
selves before the maufacturing operatives with such a
proposal as that.—(Hear, hear.) The disadvantage
arising from the landlords not employing any more la-
bourers than they could pay for out of their own
pockets, could never be a disadvantage to them, the
sufferers.—(Hear, hear.) if the manufacturers were to
make a proposol to put a bounty on foreign corn, they
might say in turn " You shall see how we shall im-
prove manufacturing employment; it will raise wages,
it will bring away some of your agricultural labourers.
Do allow us this bounty on foreign corn directly?" They
knew what a hopeless ease that would be. Why
should they then allow the agriculturists to force the
opposite case on theni,?
The Operative in the tweeting—But you have not
told us what you would do with the labourers thrown
out of employment.
Col. Tineeesoe—ln the first place he believed
there would be none.—(Cheers.) He
was prepared to
state his belief that the repeal of the Corn-laws would
be a great good to the agricultural labourers. Instead
of bein' forced tootoarktoaittiy,,
wages as at present, they
would have the from the growing industryppun
of the country, to sell their labour, and that of their
chthe benefits
• ill
,rree.
nniitliatNts
Narseb_s ue tl(tt ienr !e fromprice t
he ?x
twewould have
ea. share in
hisses)—wishes; to know if the open-
ing of the China trade had benefited the people of
England, lie contended that it had not.
Col. THONIPSON thought it rested with those who de-
nied that it bad not been beneficial, to prove that it
had not been so.
Mr. Bless—(Hisses.)—Since the orening
of the
China trade there had been a great reduction in wages.
—( Loud and continued laughter.) Perhaps these gen-
tlemen did not know that the China trade was a
beenmono
poly ; but it was.—(Renewed laughter.) It had
sonc
i
a monopoly. He could tell them it was openedi
years ago, and wages had fallen since. (A o
ce—" is
it a consequence ?--Laughter.)
Colonel THOMPSON thought the meetingdid not
seem convinced there was that connexion between the
opening of the China trade and the
old wives who
of wages
the speaker thought.—(Laughter.) The
esthe
China their tea cheaper would be able toi tell him somie-
vantag resultingrom opening
thing about the ad
China trade.—(Cheers.)
monopoly of legislation,
and lie called
upon them, in the name of his country, and of all that
was near and
mono-
polies was. the s
Mr. VEVERS contended that the cause of all
dear to them, to go on for universal
suffrage—(Loud cheers)—and demand that all men
should be represented in the House of Commons, and
thee they would redress all their wrongs.—(Cheers.)
Colonel THOMPSON said, that the question involved
in what the gentleman had said was, the main question
which had been debated that evening. He reiterated
his opinions Ss to the policy Chartists end Anti,
Corn-law men should pursue towards. each. nth r
Darnels. to let each other
A person in the niseting said I .olanel Thorepsee
stated that he did Dot think any agricultural labourers
would be thrown out of employment, but he did not
explain why he thought so. If they threw this coun-
try into a grazing country, as the Corn-law repealiee
gentlemen said—(Cries of " No, no," from several
parties). The speaker resumed, and said he had heard
Mr. Batley say so, and he now said no. If they threw
this country into a grazing country, then one labourer
would look after a grazing farm, while it. would require
tep to look after a plough farm. What became of
the nine ?

Mr. BATLEY said be had intended to have remained
silent, but he had been pointedly alluded to. He dis-
tinctly and emphatically denied the charge imputed to
him.—(Cheers.) He had been completely misunder-
stood if ever he had been understood to say that this
country should be throughout nothing but a grazing
country. He did say we were over-corn cropped in this