The Sun.
London, England, 1846-01-15 00:00:00

them a patient hearing, and we would reply
fairly and dispassionately to their arguments
—(llear)---and if we do not convince those
of them who are capable of being convinced that our
cause is one of justice, one of humanity, and one of
right, then I can only say that I should despair of
ever triumphing in the cause we are advocating
(Cheers.) What an extraordinary thing it is that.
we should have this mighty opposition to the proposi-
tion we make. What is it we are proposing? Why,
we are proposing to take off a tax. If we were as-
sembled in these great numbers for the imposition of
a tax upon the people, then I could perfectly under-
stand that there might be meetings of those people
who would be unwilling to bear our burden. But
our object is nothing of the kind. Our object is to re-
move a tax ; and what a strange notion—what a
strange perversion of just political principles—is it
that there can be such a tax existing, that, when you
propose to remove it, you have gig at numbers of per-
sons coining forward, saying the tax is a benefit to
us—it is a tax that is putting money into our pockets,
and therefore we will not consent to relieve the na-
tion from the burden. Does it not strike every one
that a tax ought to be a general burden, and ought to
be levied for the general purposes of the State, and it is
impossible that a rightful tax can he imposed for tl
benefit of any portion of the State's subjects? But
this it at once a burden on the nation, and a benefit
to a large portion of the nation, according to their
own showing. Therefore I say their opposition to the
removal of this tax is of itself proof that there must
be something dishonest in its operation—there must be
something at variance with the true principles of
taxation when you have a tax that is a burden upon
some and a benefit to others.—(Cheers.) We have
never made this question a question of mere price ; cn
the contrary, we have treated the corn-laws as a
question affecting the food of the people. The high
ground we have taken is this—that we have a right
to the freedom of exchange. We d errand of the
Legislature—the landed proprietors who have
been, from time immcmorial, the ruling party—
to desist from obstructing the corn trade. We
say the corn trade is a legitimate pursuit ;
we say that Englishmen have a right to
invest their capital in a foreign trade, and we say
they have a right to bring corn into England to sell
it at a profit, if it suitedtheir interest and convenience
to do so. We
say they ought not to he obstructed from
doing so to suit the private or pecuniary interest of
any class of their fellow-subjects. We do not put it
upon the mere ground of price, but upon freedom of
exchange, which was the most obvious right. We
say, if there is to be any article thrown in the way of
foreign corn, the same burden ought to be placed on
home-grown corn, and let the home corn grower bear
his proportion to the tax. Thera would be justice
between them ; not that we say that corn is a fit
subject of taxation—nothing of the kind. We think
the food of the people ought more than anything to
he exempted from taxes, but I am anxious to dwell
upon this point, because so much has been said by
our opponents of certain alleged inconsistencies in
the statements of free traders with reference to what
would be the price of food after the repeal of the
corn laws. I admit, as I have done before, that
our demand rests not upon price, but still the price
may be a matter for our speculation.—(Hear.)
Be the price what it may, we contend for
commercial freedom in the corn trade. Speculation
as to the price, when that freedom shall be obtained,
would be a curious speculation, and an interesting
speculation undoubtedly, if price be the primary ques-
tion ; but it does not form the basis upon which the
just and righteous demand is made. Now, with re-
gard to price, our excellent friend, Mr. Houghton„
does not anticipate a fall of price from a repeal of thew
corn-laws. True, there may be no fall of price,
yet there may be a great increased consumption of
food. Imported food may not be substituted for.
what is grown at home. It may be for additional!
consumption. Customers may be so increased as to
require all the imported corn, without causing any
diminution in the sale of corn grown at home. But
the protection party seem to me to be trying all in,
their power to depreciate the value of their landed
properties.—(Hear, hear.) It seems very singular
for them to exert all their abilities in telling their
tenants that when the corn-law is repealed their lands
will not produce any rent. Will they not, when thes
corn-law is repealed, come forward and ask to have
their farms for nothing? Now, we free traders
have never said so. What was the case with respect
to estates ? Why,
it -vas a fact that estates had been
lately selling
in the public market by auction, and
had not
.'oese been purchased as mere investments ?
"ele, if these lands have sold for one year's less pur-
chase than when the agitation against the corn-laws
was not so rife as it is at the present moment ? Again,
it is a fact that the farmers are selling their farms by
auction at as high prices as ever they did. He was
himself aware of a case in which two farms
were sold at a higher price than they brought
two years ago; and this was at a time
when the corn-laws was not as near being repealed
as they now are.—(Hear, and cheers.) If there was
an idea on the minds of the farmers that the repeal
of this law would ruin land, put it in the same scale
as everything saleable, would they not be induced to
adhere to the same or a higher price in purchasing it ?
—(Hear, hear.) If there were shares in a railroad
to be disposed of, it would greatly diminish their
value if there were any competing lines. And so it
would he with land, if there were truth in the doc-
trines of those opposed to the free trade principles.
With reference to what has been said by Mr. Hough-
ton respecting tenants, I will offer an observation.
I myself am acquainted with tour tenants in Suffolk,
who at the time when the recent change had taken
place in the Ministry, and the power was supposed to
be placed in the hands of Lord John Russell, in nego •
tiating, leases with their landlords, did not one of
them say a word respecting the corn-laws. Now it
is not our business, as advocates of free trade, to
counsel persons whose property it is said is about to
be injured. But I must say that it is strange that
the landlords should be endeavouring to create a panic
to depreciate their own property.—(Hear, hear.) I
will recommend this view to Noble Marquises
and Dukes, if they do not wish to make
a sweeping measure.—(Cheers.) When speaking
of Dukes, I mean those who have that propensity to
deliver themselves of corn-law speeches, who, I must
say, are not the most wise persons in the world.—
(Hear, and laughter.) They appear to be persons of
very homely wit, and it is difficult to single out one
more foolish than another. It reminds me of a
French Duke who applied at. Court fora place for his
friend, saying that lie was deeply indebted to him ;
and on being asked as to the nature of his obligations
to him, replied that, but for him, he would be the
ugliest man in France.—(A. laugh.) Now, so it is
with those noblemen ; for it would be difficult to
single out one that has madeamore
speech than another, for theykeptfooelaieshh
have
other in countenance with theirm
nonsense ; notme
however, that he despaired ofg some
of Duke
of Norfolkwas notle
of them disciples of the Leag
that u
se•
popokeleesosf Even
curryca th
case, and
and
perhaps when
pow-
der he meant rice, for they were mixed together in
India. we have another Duke, who says that
Noble Duke hopeless
anti-corn-law meetings should be treated with the
contempt they deserved.—(Name.) Ile was well
known, for he was at one time engaged in a corre-
spondence with the chairman of the League.—
(Name, name.) It was the Duke of Cleveland,
whose speech was in this day's Times. He says that
the country was convulsed from one end to
the other by the agitation that was car-
ried on. And so it was, but it was with laughter at
the nonsense uttered by Noble Dukes at protection
meetings that it was convulsed.—(Laughter.) As I
have alluded to a correspondenee that has taken place,
I will take the liberty of reading those letters,
which are important documents, as showing that
they were as anxious as those who were deficient in
knowledge of this matter. The Duke of Cleveland
delivered himself of a speech, at Raby Castle, which
appeared in the illarh-lune Express, upholding the
corn-laws. The Chairman of the League wrote to
the Duke this letter :

"My Lord Duke,—ln an account of a meeting of
your Grace's tenants, you are reported, in the Mark-
lune Express, to have warned your tenants against the
doctrines of the League, and that they (th tenants)
could not compete with the foreign growers. As chair-
man of the League, I believe you have made these state-
ments in ignorance, and I forward you some tracts of the
League that will give you information on the subject,
which will show you that the land does not bear those
burdens that you have asserted, and that it is not so
heavily taxed, and that income derived from land is a
small compensation ; and I trust that you will take the
earliest opportunity of correcting- your error.
"I am, &c., GEORGE WILSON,
19
" Chairman of the National Anti-Corn-law League.
To this letter the Duke returned the following
answer:--
" Sir,---I have received a letter which has followed
me to the Highlands of Scotland, and has filled me with
astonishment. The writer signs himself' Chairman of
the League.' However despicable that faction has be-
come in the consideration of the country, I could not
conceive that any one of its members should have the
boldness to lecture me ewhonichwhnaotnliehmasb-eertho(f)utghhetfit
pressto way
at a private party at
present. I know nothing about the Murk-lane Ex-
press, and treat your observations with the contempt
they deserve.
Now this was a very unhandsome reply to the letter
that was framed in very courteous terms. Ile con-
tended that they had a right to investigate the opi-
nions of those who were hereditary legislators, and
in whose hands the transactions of affairs affecting
their interest was confided. Now, he would assert
that it was false what had been stated about the land
being more taxed. It had been shown by Mr. Hume
in the house of Commons, that the taxes pressing
peculiarly upon agriculture amounted to something
about 8,000,000/. a year; and they would have now
yielded about 30,000,0001. to the revenue. When
the deputation of the Central Committee waited on Sir

.40.11