The Sun.
London, England, 1841-03-22 00:00:00

land would be the same as the cheapest port abroad—
say Hamburgh, with the addition of the carriage neces-
sary to bring it to England. If the duty on foreign
corn was 103. a quarter, then the price in England
would be higher by that 10s. and the cost of carriage,
than in Hamburgh ; so that we had previously paid
103. a quarter, upon every quarter raised at home,
which was estimated by Mr. M'Culloch, and other au-
thorities, to be equal to sixty millions of quarters an-
nually. Thus, in order to put 103. into the Exchequer,
they might actually he obliged to pay sixty millions,
not all into the pockets of the aristocracy. because
much was wasted by the way; but it was wrung from the
pockets, and was taken for the benefit of a small sec-
tion of the community.—(Applause.) This was enough
to justify those who looked upon the bread-tax as one
of the mighty grievances under which we labour ; not
the only grievance ; nobody ever heard him sly that ;
but surely grievance enough to justify us meeting once
a year, and devoting a morning to this subject exclu-
sive of every other. We might be told that, notwith-
standing these burdens, the people were better, or, at
least, as well off as the people of other countries,—as
the people of Poland or Italy. Why, was it enough,
that after all the advantages this country possessed,
with the advantages of " our glorious Constitution in
Church and Stat"," of which we heard so much ; after
inventing and contriving to manufacture and produce,
and almost to destroy time and space in accelerated
movement,—was it enough that the working popula-
tion of England were only as well off as that of coun-
tries which had no such advantages? But if the
working population were badly off (us he maintained),
what was the condition of those who enjoyed the
benefit of this tax ? Why, the landowners of this
country were, without exception, the most luxurious,
the richest, proudest, greetest of all the nobility in the
known world, either now or at any former time. When
they went abroad, a landowner with 5,000 acres would
eclipse, with his pomp and equipage, a German Prince
with 50,000 acres? Why? Because they enjoyed an
exclusive monopoly ; and the more the people toiled
and spun, the more they put into the pockets of those
who raised the food of the country, while the people
were denied the right of exchangiug their productions,
for an increased supply of food. It had been asked,
what had our free trade done for us? It was said, it
had done no good for us, and he had come to tell them
why our imports were confined to articles of luxury,
wanted only by the rich ; but the people were denied
the right to import earn and meat, by which the great
mass of the people wool" be benefited. Oar tnauu-
lectures were sent abroad for a constantly increasing
supply of the silks, wines, spices, and diamonds, and
other luxurious articles brought from sircatl, which
had been constantly cheapened by the people's con-
stint activity and enterprise ; yet the people were de-
nied the right to import that alone which could minis-
tw to the comfort and happiness of the poor man. This
was why the working classes and the people had not
derived any advantage from our foreign trade. We
had around us a population living in a state the most
frightful to contemplate. He was glad he was sur.
rounded by a great number of the ministers of the Gos-
pel, whose duty it was (and no doubt they fulfilled it )
to visit the poor : and he called upon them, in the face
of so many of the poorer population of Mancester, to
raise their voice and let it be heard, that the state of
the population in this town was or,e bordering on har•
barism and heathenism ; for he main:ained, with Lot d
Ellenborough and the Bishop of London, in their state-
ment in the House of Lord, the other day, Oat we
could not have a population raised in the scale of intel-
lect, morality, or religion, while the people were physi-
cally degraded.—( Hear.) He was here to contend,
that the people of England were entitled to eat untaxed
bread ; and be waited to hear, whether any ore
present would say, that our bread ought to be taxe I.
It was twelve months since they bad met upon
this question of the Corn-laws. Many pre tent might.
be disposed to despond, and to say, that no progre:s
had been made in public opinion upon this question ;
but he was not disposed to agree with them ; since
they last met in this room, a vast amount of knowledge
had been spread through the country upon this un-
righteous law. They might congratulate themselves
upon the evidence tendered by official men, and pub-
lished at the instance of the House of Commons
itself,—in which it was declared, that the burden
of the food taxes was greater than the burden of
ail the State taxes, This was not the testimony of
a Corn-law agitator ; hut that was the testimony of
Mr. Deacon Hume and Mr. M'Gregor, who spoke,
not so much for the interest of the working classes
only, as for the interest of the Government and the
State at large. Whatever others might do, he should
always be found opposing the C wn-laws with his
utmost ability : he had ben at it for two years ; and
now, after spending some little time and money, he felt
more detestation to the Corn-laws now than he did
two years ago. He hoped the meeting would not ter-
minate without its being made fully known to the
world at large what was the real state of the poor of
this great town. Should we have Sir Robert Peel
talking in the House of Commons of giving us pl ty-
grounds, and walks, and food for the mind, and mea-
sures brought forward to give the people amusements,
when they want bread, and houses, and beds to lie
upon.—(Appl lase.) Seine one had sounded the
tocsin of foreign competition ; and its influence
was denied. Why, we had competition already from
every country of the globe ; there was not an article
we exported anywhere, but we already made it cheaper
than in any other country on the face of the earth ; for,
if we did not, we could not export it. Why did we
manage to undersell all other countries ? Because we
had great natural advantages ; and because, without
flattering them, he would say, the muscles and bones
of Englishmen accomplished far more work in a d iy
than any other people, except our descendants in Ame-
rica. But how did they do it? Notwithstanding
the burden of the bread-tax upon their shoulders, in
telditioa to all the State taxes they had to pay, we sent
our goods to New Yosk, where might be bought a bar-
rel of flour (19e1b.) at theloresent moment, at 19s. Gd.
as appeared by the list advices ; and he was told, yes-
terday, that the same barrel of flour was worth now,
in Manchester, 395. or just double.—(A Voice—No ;
36s Gd.) fie was speaking of the best brands, and
was told it would be worth 395. We were already
competing with foreign countries, with the Americans
and Germans, notwithstanding we paid for our flour
2e. 31 a dozen lb., when we might and ought to have
it ut Is. 6i.—(Hear.) If we could compete with them
now, he would ask any reasonable man whether he.
would not be able tea enter into competition with them
on still better terms, if he could get hie bread at the
same price as they did ? As had been well said
by Mr. Rawson, we had been running a race, by
means of our machinery, with foreigners ; but all
the. while we had been forgetting the weight of the
riders ; we had been carrying 365. 6d. a barrel, or 2s.
3d. a dozen for our flour, while our foreign rivals had
carried only Is. Gd. It might be said that we wanted
to bring in foreign flour, in order to reduce wages here.
—(Cries of" True I" " So you do.") Why should the
repeal of the Corn-laws lower wages ? We traded with
one-third of the population of the United States, who
grew tobacco, rice, and cotton ; but there were two-
thirds of the richest, most industrious, and most intel-
ligent part of the population of America, where there
were no slaves—he spoke pf the great north-western
and northern States, where they produced the flour for
which we had now to pay 36'. Gd. a barrel—and from
all trade with these two-thirds of the people of America
we were excluded by our Corn-laws. Would any
working man say, if his master were getting three times
the orders he was now getting, that that would be a
reason for reducing the workman's wages ? Was any
working man so ignorant as to suppose that the master
had the power of reducing wages when and how he
pleased ?—(" Yes.") If so, how was it that the
masters here were so good-natured as to give c'ghteen
shillings weekly wageg, whilst in Ireland they only gave
four shillings.—(Uproar.) He believed no one present
but would admit, that, if the masters had the power of
regulating wages, the operatives would be put on much
shorter allowance than they were, he was afraid. No—it
was decided, like the price of apples in the market, by
the quantity there is, and the demand for it. As the
popul &on was increasing, at the rate of 1,000, the only
re user) why labour should not become cheaper, was the
want of more customers ; and how were they to be
got, unless the other countries could trade with us ?
On the last occasion, he had told them, that we were
competing with the Germans and others, paying nearly
double the price they paid for wheat ; and be now left
it to every rational man to say, whether he would not
wish that his family, for the same money, should have
three loaves instead of two. They had met to protest
against those unrighteous laws, the greatest of the prac-
tical grievances under which we laboured ; and he firmly
hoped that our Legislature might in time do us justice,
that the peace and welfare of this country might be
preserved.—(Great applause.)
The Rev. Wm. M'Kefteow, of the Scotch Secession
Kirk, in seconding the motion, said, he had risen to
identify himself with the Anti-Corn-law movement,
and to support the resolution so ably advocated by his
friend, Mr. Cobden, After justifying his
,coming for-
ward on this question, as a ministet o,t' the Gospel, be
said he should leave it to commercial men to go into
the commercial views ofthis question ; he would bring
before the meeting its religious aspect. He held that
the law by which food and labour were r
whether
estriete I was
condemned by every principle of religion, .
natural or revealed. It was at variance with tee re-
quirements of God's law ; for why should the few be
enriched and pampered at the expense of the exhaus,..-
ing toils, wants, and sufferings of the many ? It was at
variance with intellectus il and moral elevation and m-
provement ; for it was frequently found that poverty is
the p trent of crime ; and how was it to be expected
that those who were borne down by the toils, cares, and
providing for the means of life, should cultivate their
minds, and grow in knowledge or virtue ? It was at
variance with the dictates of the divine word, for He
had said, " Blessed is he that considercth the rights of I
the poor :" and again, " lie that withholdeth corn, the I
people shall curse him." It was at variance with all the I
design and tendency of the spirit of Christianity, for the i
very essence of the Gospel was.not only" Glory to God

in the highest," but also, " Good will towards men."
Hit, therefore, thought religious men were bound to
identify themselves with such movements as this ; as
be felt that the Corn-laws were opposed by all the in-
timations he had both from nature and the Scriptures
of God. It was the will of God that al nations should
maintain friendly intercourse, but the Corn-laws
forbade it ; it was the will of God that the productions
of various countries be interchanged, so as to promote
thc'r mutual enjoyment, but the Corn-laws foruade it ;
it was the will of God that wars should cease, but the
Corn-laws forbade it ; it wes the will of God that we
should all enjoy peace, and plenty, and happiness, as our
portion, but the Cnrn-lows forbade it. Holding such
sentiments, he deemed it lf's duty to avow them. lie
had no sympathy with the religion of cant and hypo-
crisy.—( Hear.) The religion he professed taught him
to do good to every men. He feared this question
must ultimately, unless our rulers were wise, cause the
v:il I frenzy of revolution. This was as much a reli-
gious question as the Anti-Slavery Question. If it was
right to give freedom to the slave, it was right to give
bread to him who called himself a free man at horn,.
it was right to break the yoke of the slave abroad, he
was sure it was to burst the fetters of slaves at home.
—(Applause.) With these sentiments he would most
cheerfully and cordially support the motion of Mr.
Cobden.—( Applause.)
Doctor M'DOUALL then said, he came before them
at this time, not for the purpose of seconding the er-
forts of the landed proprietors in maintaining a mo-
nopoly in corn, nor to second the efforts of the capi-
talists in removing the monopoly. He came rather
for the purpose of advocating the rights of labour—
( Applause)—because, he believed, the working-man,
lil:e Jesus Chris!, had been crucified between two
thieves ; and he came there to move an amendment to
the following effect—" That, in the opinion of this
meeting, not only the Corn-laws, but every other tax on
the necessaries of life, ought to be repealed ; and that
to make up the deficiency in the revenue, a tax should
be levied on all real and funded property ; that there
should be an equal adjustment of the debt mis-
called national; and that, as soon as possible, the national
expenditure should be controlled by a House of Com-
mons chosen on the principle of universal suffrage."—
Mr. Cobden had referred them to Turkey and China,
and said, that these so called barbarians had no mono-
poly in corn ; but he woull tell them, that there was
not, either in China or Turkey, such a hell-born sys-
tem as that create] by the manufacturers of this coun-
try. If the Corn-laws were repealed, it would only
amount to their getting the quartern loaf 2d. cheaper ;'
and what security had they that the working man's
wages would not be reduced 2 6d, a week? Their
object was to reduce the wages of the people of this
country.—(" No, no ;" and Chertist cheers.) He should
oppose the abolition of the Corn-laws until the working
classes had power to protect themselves.
LEECH, one of the Chartist agitators of 1839, and
who is now a Chartist lecturer, next addressed the
meeting. He contended that while, since 1815, our
trade had considerably increased, wages had decreased ;
and, therefore, if trade increased more, wages would go
still lower, and that the misery of the people was not
owing to the Corn-laws, but to the great improvements
which had, from time to time, been made in machinery.
Mr. A. CAMPBELL, a socialist missionary, contended
tdat this country was capable of producing food for a
hundred millions of people, and that the main cause of
Vseir distress was the law of primogeniture, v hich
kept the land in the bands of a few. He could sea no
difference between the amendment and the resclution ;
and Mr. M'Douall in moving, and Mr. Leech in se-
conding the amendment, had in fact agreed to the reso-
lution.—(Hubbub.)
M. E. DIXON—Mr. Cobden had told them that
they were increasing at the rate of a thousand a d my.
Why that was a thousand new customers every day for
food and clothing, so that they had no occasion to go
abroad for them. Unless they begun at the right end,
nail laid a tax on accumulated property, there would be
no ced t ) the misery of Vie people.
Mr. R. BUCHANAN, a socialist- missionary, said there
was the adjustment of the debt, and many points con-
nected with this subject ; and it was one-sided justice
to declare war against the landlords merely, while they let
atone the Jews and stack jobbers, who bought 100/. stock
with 601. of ready money. He contended thst the re-
peal of the Corn-laws would not be a benefit, unless
they could agree that the inventive powers would be so
kept doWn, and the orders from abroad for manufactures
so increased, as to keep the demand for labourers above
the supply. He hoped they would all unite for the
good of the country.
Mr COBDEN then replied. The first speaker in favour
of the amendment had begun by denouncing as strongly.
as he did himself,the Corn and Provision-laws as unjust,
and every following speaker avowed the same opinion.
Now, if he found an injustice, common sense told him to
put it down ; but the argument of his opponents was—
" Oh, no; the Corn-1 iw is very unjust, but if you put
it down something else unjust will arise ; and, unless you
can prophesy that nothing of this kind will arise, we won't
allow this injustice to be put down:'—(Hear and ap-
plans,...) Was there not as much safety in petitioning for
a repeal of the Corn-laws as for any other question? and,
till they gave up petitioning altogether, they were incon-
sistent in refusing to petition for the repeal of what they
had acknowledged to he unjust. Amongst the speakers
had been' Whigs, 11 Chartists, and Socialists : and
one speaker moved an amendment to go for universal
suffrage. But the Anti-Corn-law party said, " No, we'll
go for the repeal of the Corn-laws alone ; because the
Corn-laws arc admitted by a 1 to he unjust." But no
Whig could, consistently, be a Chartist and a Whig ;
no Chartist could, consistently, be a Whig and a Char-
tist ; no Tory could be both a Tory and a Whig ; and,
therefore, if the Anti-Corn-law advocates were to join
any of these parties they could not take the others along
with them ; but they might unite all right-minded men
of all parties in the State on this one great question on
which so many were agreed Applause.) Without
asking any man to give up or compromise his political
principles, he would say to thein all, Take more along
with you ; get three loaves instead of two ; then you
will have more leisure, more money to spend in news-
papers.—(" Oh.") He concluded by recommending
all to hold up both their hands, and those who were
for justice to keep their eyes on him, and hold up their
hands when he did.—Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, after some
conference with the MAYOR, said, that, as it was
customary, at all public meetings, to put the
amendment first, he would put the amendment, and
Mr. Neild would put the original motion.—(Uproar.)
Mr. Scholefield then put the amendment, for which the
Chartists in the centre of the room raised their hands.
The Mayor then put the original motion, for which the
number of hands raised appeared to us to be nearly
double that of the show for the amendment. Each
party claimed the victory ; both cheered and huzzaed ;
the MAYOR pronounced the original motion to be car-
ried ; and Mr. SCHOLEFIELD said, that there were three
to one in favour of the amendment—(Great uproar
ensued, during which a number of Chartists climbed
over the benches, and came upon the table where the
reporters were writing, trampling on their notes, pens,
&c., and completely preventing them from hearing or
seeing what was passing. Under these circumstances,
the reporters for the whole of the Manchester press
determined to retire, and they accordingly left the
room about three o'clock, when the greatest noise and
confusion prevailed).
We should think that, about-halipast twelve o'clock,
the numbers were largest, probably amounting, at that
time, to fifteen hundred ; but soon afterwards, many re-
spectable persons, tired of the Chartist harangues to
which they were doomed to listen, left the, hall, and
the numbers continued rapidly to decrease to the con-
clusion of the meeting.

We are told, that about the same time as the re-
porters left, Mr. Scholeifeld, from some cause or other,
deemed it right to quit his chair and the table ; and
notwithstanding the irruption of the Chartists already
noticed, the' original resolutions as prepared by the
pron-ioters of the meeting, were proposed and seconded
by various gentlen:en. put to the meeting by the Mayor,
as Chairman, and passed by considerable majorities.
They were moved and seconded by the following gen-
tlemen, who contented themselves with a very few ob-
servations, as it was now nearly three o'chck :—Mr.
George Hadfield, Ray. F. Beardsall, Messrs. J. C.
Dyer, and George Wilson, Sir Thomas Potter, Messrs.
William Rawson, Robert Gardner, C. H. Jones,
Samuel Stocks, and James Hampson. The resolu-
tions passed, together with the petition adopted, will be
found in our advertising columns.—The Mayor having
quitted the chair, Sir Thomas Potter was called thereto ;
and, on the motion of Mr. Robert Gardner, seconded
by Mr. Alderman Cobden, the thanks of the meeting
were voted to the Mayor for his patient, persevering,
and impartial conduct in the chair ; and the proceed-
ir.gs then terminated, about a quarter past three o'clock.

BRISTOL SUGAR MARKET, MARCH 19.
We have no sugar market, and prices are quite nominal.
The arrival of the Sybilla from the Maurititis, ;and the
Eleanor from Demerara, may probably lead to a resump-
ton of buiine3s shortly, but to what extent, or on what
iermF, it is impossible to hazard an opinion, as no trade
appears to IT more prejudicially affected by the general
wavt of coefidenco, and th dearession in mercantile affairs,
than the su ar trade. —Bristol Mercury.
The Asia was inspected by our Port Admiral this
afternoon, more particularly in her gunnery practice,
which is in a most perfect state of efficiency ; a large
party of naval officers accompanied Sir Edward Cod-
ringtop, and all u ere highly gratified with the target
practice. She will proceed to-morrow or next day for
Chatham to be paid off.
MONAGHAN ASSIZES.—TRIAL OF SAM
(NAY FOR MURDER, FRIDAY, MARCH 19.—At the sitting
of t,T court thin morning, Samuel Gray, who was yester-
day arraigned for having, on the 26th of November last,
rmilic:ously and feloniously caused the death of Owen Mur-
phy, by shooting him with a loaded pistol in the right side
of the cbelt, of the effects of which he instantly died,"
was placed at the bar. In the course of the jury being
formed, Gray objected to eight or ten persons —some
generally, and some because they had expressed their
opiei)ns decisively on the matter. For the_ defence
several witnesses proved an alibi, and the jury, after wee
consultation, returned a verdict of—• Not Guilty,