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

That was the fact, and he could give the name if they
required it. The Irish farmer did not care for the
corn-laws. All he asked for was fair play.
The Irish did not think so much of the corn-laws as
the want of good roads, and in this respect he wanted
an alteration for them as well as for himself. If
what he had stated was not true, let the Government
send over to Ireland and inspect the roads, and see
the state they were in at this moment. The Irish
farmers, in fact, had no roads at all, and they were
often compelled to carry limestone on their backs to
burn upon the land.—(Cries of "Shame, shame.")
Now that was the state of Ireland, and he for one
said, and he hoped the meet:ng would join with him
in declaring, that the time had arrived when they
ought to be improved. He was sorry for having
detained them so long, but when he knew what he
did know, he could not help speaking out. Things
required to he alleviated as well in Ireland as in this
country, and he would tell them what he thought
would effect that object, Land wanted improve-
ment, and he asked Government to bring in a Bill to
sanction the raising of money upon entailed estates
for their improvement, at about 4 per cent.—(Hear,
hear.) There was another step they ought to adopt.
When an English merchant sent out a vessel to Ame-
rica, he was compelled by law to provide proper ac-
commodation for emigrants, if he carried any ; and
why should not the landlords of Ireland be compelled
to provide suitable accommodation for their depend-
ants ? For his part, he would have first, second, third,
and even fourth-rate dwellings for the Irish tenantry ;
and this plan could easily be carried out, if Government
would only adopt the plan he had just suggested.
And what would be the consequence ? Why, it would
give satisfaction to everybody, and the tenant would
live in a decent dwelling-house instead of a filthy
hovel. It would be the means of conferring great
benefit upon trade in that country, and would inter-
fere with no interest whatever. There was a ques-
tion in Ireland, too, as well as in this country,
respecting the Church. He once wanted to bring
to the notice of Sir Robert Peel a Bill that would
have enabled parties to rent land, which was Church
property, upon a fair and equitable tenure. Some of
the county Members approved of this plan, but de-
clined to support it, because they said it would have
the effect of interfering with the Church establish-
ment. What nonsense it was for men to talk in
that way. It would improve instead of injuring the
Church ; and if his plan were adopted they might de-
fend upon it they would have in Ireland less of agi-
tation and more of cultivation—less of agitation and
more of education.—(Cheers.)
Mr. T. M. GIBsoN, M.P., then came forward, and
was received with great applause. When silence was
restored, he said—Mr. Chairman, Ladies, and Gentle-
men, after the excellent speech of Mr. Villiers, and
the very practicable and useful address of our friend
Mr. Houghton, an extensive agriculturist, it would
perhaps ill become me to trespass long upon your
time, but this I will remark, that it seems you have
not thought, from the vast assemblage collected in
this house this evening, that it is wise at pre-
sent to consider the measure of the repeal of
the corn-laws entirely carried. It has occurred, I
dare say to many, and it has been remarked by some
in my hearing, that it is hardly worth while to attend
a meeting on the corn-laws now that the leaders of
the two parties, Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Rus-
sell, have taken the question into their care ; but let
me beg of you to remember that the question is still
in your hands.—(Hear. hear.) From this fatal mis-
take of considering questions not finally carried as
not being in the hands of the people, have
there been many disappointments to the cause
of liberty. The liberties of a nation were
never given—never yielded by rulers to the
people ; they have been always rung from rulers by
the steady, the persevering, and the unshaken ex-
ertions of the people themselves.— (Cheers.) Whp
knows that Sir Robert has yet decided what questioh
he shall submit to the Legislature, and who knows but
that this very assemblage here this evening may give
him power to dictate better terms to the Cabinet
Council ? Who knows that this assemblage may not
have great weight in inspiring Ministers with the
courage to propose, and the ability to carry, a good
measure ?—(Cheers.) We are in the position of
a person standing by the bed-side of some
worthy matron. We do not know whether
it is to be a boy or a girle—(Cheers and
laughter.) We do not know yet what is to be had,
therefore I say it becomes us not to desert our duty,
but to watch and be satisfied with nothing but a per-
fectly healthy child.—(Cheers and laughter.) Our
worthy Chairman named that child, and it is the total,
the immediate, and the unconditional repeal of the
corn-laws.—(Cheers.) This assemblage l what a
contrast is it with those poor and pitiable meetings of
our opponents. Why, your Chairman has maintained
that at some protection meeting, that a cat might be
discovered if she went amongst the listeners ;
but here I will venture to assert, that if the
whole of the Central Society for the Protection
of British Agriculture, that assembles in the front par-
lour of No. 17, Old Bond-street, were put into this
theatre, you would not know they were here at all.—
(Cheers and laughter.) Perhaps some of them are
here, and I wish they may be. They are going, it
seems, to fight the League with its own weapons.
They are going to try the registration courts ; they
are going to try the manufacture of votes, as it is
called. Thus, though they condemned such a course
as highly immoral and unconstitutional, yet it seems,
they are going to try it themselves. These are
the persons, who, though favourable to unrelaxed
protection, have no great objection to relax-
ing morals—(Hear, and laughter)--and so they are
going to use our weapons. Well, then, perhaps we
may live to see a rival house—not Drury-lane. Let
me advise them not to be so aspiring as all that at
first. They had better try a smaller house, and I will
suggest to them the Strand.—(Hear, and laughter.)
I am quite sure our excellent friend, the Chairman, if
they are unwilling to try at first a theatre upon their
own account, would let them some portion of these
boxes to some of the principal members of the Central
Society for the Protection of Agriculture, when they
might attend and speak forthemselves. We would give
them a patient hearing, and we would reply
fairly and dispassionately to their arguments
—(Hear)—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 1 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 great numbers of per-
eons coming 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 be imposed for the
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 ; on
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 demand of the
Legislature—the landed proprietors who have
been, from time immemorial, 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 be 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. There 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
be 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 fur 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 the
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 bale 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 the'
corn-law is repealed, coma 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 was a fact that estates had been
lately selling in the public market by auction, and
had not these been purchased as mere investments ?
I ask, 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 be 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 four 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 riot 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 he 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 made a more foolish
speech than another, for they have kept each
other in countenance with their nonsense ; not
however, that he despaired of making some
of them disciples of the League. Even the Duke
of Norfolk was not a hopeless case, and
perhaps when that Noble Duke spoke of curry pow-
der he meant rice, for they were mixed together in
India. Now, we have another Duke, who says that
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 Baby Castle, which
appeared in the Mark-lane 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-
Lne Express, to have warned your tenants against the
doctrines of the League, and that they (the 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,
" Chairman of the National Anti-Corn•law Le igue."
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 on what I have thought fit to say
at a private party at which no member of the press was
present. I know nothing about the Mark-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. He 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 8,000,0001. 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
R. Peel, they could not answer him when he asked them
what were the peculiar burdens that pressed upon lands.
Now he himself was counted with the landed interest,
though to a small extent, and should feel very loth to
have, as had been suggested this evening, a hill fur-
nished for the amounts received off the land. My Lord
Beaumont had said that real property in England
bore about 8,000,0001. taxes; and that he would set
that 8,000,0001. in one scale and the corn -laws in
the other, and they ought to be satisfied. But did
not the Noble Lord know that houses, mining pro-
perty, and shares in companies, were as much real
property as land ? So much for that portion of the
subject. Then the argument that if corn from fo-
reign countries were to be admitted, it would have a
very injurious tendency. Poland had been particu-
larly mentioned ; and they were very fond of declar-
ing, that if Polish bread were admitted, their labourers
would become like Poles ; to use the expression of
a venerable labourer in this cause, Col. Thompson, if
they admitted this Polish corn they would begin to
speak the Polish tongue.—(Laughter.) This arose
from the different circumstances of the two countries,
and what was applicable to Poland could not be ap-
plied consistently to Great Britain.. This great
question now agitated is no pecuniary question.
The landed proprietors are jealous of the advance of
the mercantile community of this country; they do
not like their heels trod upon by a class whom they
have been taught from their cradle to look down upon.
t They like to depress the mercantile community. Yet
this cannot be from a pecuniary motive. From their
love of power, their love of ascendancy, and their love
of aristocratic privilege, they wish to keep down the
middle classes of this country. Now, however, that
this question and its merits are clearly developed in
the sight of the country—now that free-trade is almost
obtained, that it is so near their hands that they can
reach its fruits—Englishmen ought to be branded as
slaves if they do not throw off the yoke which a proud
landed aristocracy have pressed upon their necks.—
(Immense cheering.) When we consider the great-
ness and universality of the cause now advocated, it
is evident that the mercantile communitycannot throw
off the yoke without their act being felt throughout
the whole world. It will be felt not in this nation only
—it will be felt through all the civilised nations of the
world. Ties which link them in mutual union
and interests, which bind them together, will be
drawn closer, and more beneficially interwoven—
commercial freedom will be " peace on earth
and good will to men."—(Cheers.) The first step
to this is the abolition of the British corn-laws. It
is not true what has been asserted by our oppo-
nents, that we seek protection for certain branches
of manufacture, and that we will not give it to agri-
culture. I deny the truth of this. , I, who am a
representative of Manchester—the men of Man-
chester—the men of the greatest manufacturing town
in the kingdom, desire no such thing. The merchants in
the Chamber of Commerce in Manchester, and the
petitions, all of them that have issued out thence, have
prayed for the total abolition of the corn-laws, and of
all restrictions on free trade.—(Cheers.) There is a
gentleman, a Mr. Stuart, about to become the repre-
sentative of the constituency of Newark, the represen-
tative of the Duke of Newcastle—(Laughter)---who
has said so much, namely, that those who demand free
trade are seeking protection for themselves. I must
tell that gentleman that it is not to be tolerated, after
we have asserted so often that we seek the abolition
of the corn-laws, free trade, and no protection—it is
not to be tolerated that he should write letters, and
give the authority of his name to such statements
Ile is, I iftelieve, a Chancery barrister of some practice ;
this,however, is rather sharp practice; and his brief has
not contained proper instructions.—(Laughter.) Mr.
Gladstone, too, is leaving Newark.—(Laughter.)
Whither he is going I do not know ; but if Sir Robert
Peel make such a change in his policy as is rumoured
at present, the probability is that the League may
have to find a seat for him.—(Laughter.) Mr.

Gladstone, indeed, is the best man among them. As
for Sir Robert Peel, he has been taught by a proper I
preceptor—he has learned from experience ; in the
Cabinet he is the best supporter of our cause. But,
after all, it signifies little what Cabinet Councils may
do, it is you, you only, with the aid of the people of
this country, that must carry this question ; but you
will not succeed if you show the slightest flagging in
your exertions to gain the point. If it were supposed
that you had allowed yourselves to be lulled into a
false security of success, the League would have for
many years to continue in the struggle. But I know
you must triumph— (Cheers)—l know the ' con-
test is between justice and oppression—between
right and guilty privilege—and you must prevail.
I. believe you will succeed in the present year else,
and this hope I draw from the condition of the two
parties. What is it ? On the side of the one party,
on the side of protection, there is division ; on our
side there is unity ; on our side there is confidence—
on theirs, suspicion ; here, reason—there, passion ;
here we have the use of experience and philosophy—
there they are supported by none but those who
have maintained feudal tyranny, and every abuse on
the statute-book of the kingdom. Considering both
parties in the contest, comparing their condition, there
was everything to hope, and everything to stir
energy and encourage perseverance till a triumph has
been achieved.—The lion. Gentleman sai. down amid
great and prolonged cheering.
Mr. R. R. Moores then came forward, and said he
would rather the chairman had allowed the
meeting to break up after the closing of
Mr. Gibson's address, for nothing more could
be added to what had been said. If anything was
necessary in addition, it was to urge them to continue
their activity in increasing the number of free trade
votes in Middlesex, ei:ast Surrey, and Hertfordshire.
Middlesex was won-1,700 free trade votes had been
gained in that county—but East Surrey and Hertford-
shire must be won. He recollected, in urging this
upon them, that they had been charged by a Noble
Duke with using unconstitutional means to gain their
end. He had the best ground for denying that, and
for retorting it upon the author and his party. The
unconstitutional means which the nation had to com-
plain of, was the interference of the House of Peers
with the representatives of the nation. It is not the
League, but the other party that boasted of the power
they had in returning a representative, and the num-
ber of farmers they could drive up to the poll.—
(Hear, hear.) The Earl of Salisbury boasts his
sway over Hertfordshire, the Duke of Richmond over
Chichester and Sussex, Londonderry over Durham
city and south Durham county. The Duke of Marl-
borough had had three representatives for Woodstock
in two years, and two of them his own sons ; Newark
was in the power of the Duke of Newcastle, where the
majority of the voters are free traders ; the Duke of
Buckingham for Buckingham, Winchester, and
Aylesbury ; the Marquis of Exeter for
Stamford ; Lord Sandwich for Huntingdon ;
Lord Egretnont for Midhur3t ; the Earl of
Bathurst for Cirencester, and various other names
that may be found in The Sun of the sth January.
It i 3 this kind of tampering with the election of the
people's representatives that must be put a stop to.
The Duke of Richmond said the other day
that the gentlemen of the Anti-Corn-law League
threatened, and were determined to carry the
elections by means of fabricated votes,
and by no other means. Mr. Moore believed it was
the Corn-law League which proposed such a course
for themselves—that league in which is the Duke of
Norfolk, and the Duke of Buckingham—meeting at
17, New Bond-street. Their only hope was by
means of fabricated votes. They made uncon-
stitutional use of the register of this country.
The agents of the Anti-Corn-law League had gone
and taken the register, and purged it of the fabricated
votes put on it in favour of protection. One man
in Highgate claimed a 405. freehold. Where was it ?
In the churchyard.—(Laughter.) Who was the
tenant there that paid rent ? He was struck off.
Nor had they restricted their doings with the regis-
tration to this ; they Lad taken care to have many
recorded of the right kind, and in the legal way,
to all of which the other party had opportunity
of objecting. Yet, though that party had a right to
expenses had they been successful against them, from
all those recorded in Middlesex they had got but 21.
of expenses. He (Mr. Moore) hoped many would
continue to apply at 67, Fleet. street, with a view to
qualification as freehold voters. For 561. they could
have a 405. freehold, and thereby re-
ceive four per cent. for their money, be-
sides the opportunity they had of benefiting the
country. The League had not spent their 100,0001.,
and their 50,0001. of the year before, in giving free-
holds gratis—they had used that money in
spreading abroad right information among the
people on the great question occupying their atten-
tion, and on the means of qualification as voters.
There was some talk of compensation with the other
party. Compensation, continued the speaker, to those
who, in spite of a petition signed by the citizens of
London in one day to the amount of 44,000, enacted
that law ! Compensation to the men who rode down
the poor people assembled at Peterloo in 1819 to peti-
tion for the repeal of this law ! Compensation to
those who have oppressed industry for thirty-one
years ! Was there ever such an instance of audacity
heard of before ? Do you imagine that any men will
be found to stand up in the House of Commons and
ask for compensation ? That there can be any
serious idea of putting in such a claim ? Do they
come forward and say, " You gave twenty millions
to the slaveholders to take their grasp off their fel-
low-creatures, give us something to let their bread
be free," we reply, do you want to stand in the
same category with the slaveholder ? We have re-
viewed our verdict as to that grant. We say that
that twenty millions should have been given to the
slave.—(Loud cheers.) It should have been taken
not from our purses to be given to the slaveholder,
but from the pockets of the slaveholders to be given
to the men whom they had wronged. These protec-
tionists talk of compensation ; we tell them to be
content ; that we ask for nothing but forgetfulness of
the past, and the total and immediate abolition of the
law. If they speak of compensation, we will tell
them to go over to our penal colonies, and see if they
cannot find some men there whom poverty and
hunger, the result of the scarcity of food made by
those laws, tempted in the beginning to that criminal
course which ended in their transportation to a penal
colony. We ask if they can compensate them—if they
can bring them home, and restore them to the situa-
tion they held, before want drove them into a course
that ended so lamentably ? We will ask them to go
and look at our Gazette for the last thirty years,
since they enacted this law,and trace the history of
those merchants, shopkeepers, manufacturers, and
others whose names are inserted there, and find out
which of them has been broken down struggling for
independence, in spite of the most heroin endurance,
perseverance, and industry, by the crippling of trade,
the result of these laws. Who can compensate
them? We will tell them to go into our orphan asy-
lums, and try if they cannot find some children there
whose parents were worn out before their time by
want, from endeavouring to work when they
had not food enough to sustain them in their anxiety
for the support of their families, and let them
try if they can compensate those children for the
loss of their parents. We will tell them to go into
okir union workhouses, and endeavour to find old men
and women there scarcely knowing whether they
have a friend on earth left to protect them, left with-
out home in their old age, notwithstanding they had
worked hard in their youth to earn an honest inde-
pendence, who had a right to expect it from their
work in their old days. We ask them to look if
there are no young persons in those workhouses
brought down to that by the perpetually crushing
effect of these corn-laws, and we will tell them to
compensate them. When they have done all that, let
them go out over the broad land into those counties
where they keep their agents ever busy at work on
the register; let them go oat into the neighbourhood
of the boroughs which these Noble Lords influence—
into the counties of Dorset, Devon, Norfolk, Suffolk,
to Essex, Hants, and Wilts, and tell -us if there
are not whole sets of farmers who have
been swept off farm after farm, having agreed to
give high rents, believing that the corn-law
would enable them to realise such prices as
would enable them to pay those rents by pressing the
whole population down ; and let them tell us if these
parties can be compensated ? Then let them take
the climax of the whole—let them go out amongst
their own agricultural labourers---" a bold peasantry,
their country's pride"—the labourers whose health
they drink—the labourers to whom they give prizes
for rearing their families upon the least possible
amount of provision—the labourers that they are for
ever talking of as if they were their especial fa-
vourites—to go into their wretched hovels that do not
keep the wind and rain out—and let them go amongst
the 500 or 600 labourers amongst whom the beds were
distributed, which were subscribed for by the free-
traders in Wiltshire, Dorsetshire,Hampshire, Oxford-
shire, and elsewhere—let them go into the cabins of
their own peasantry and see how they live—
let them recollect that much of the anxiety
felt at the present moment is on account of the rot
amongst the potato crop. It is proved that five I
millions of agricultural labourers, four millions in
Ireland, and one in this country, live upon potatoes,
and are likely to starve in consequence of the failure
of the crop. How do they propose to compensate
these labourers ? Can they compensate men for years
of unrequited toil ? Can they compensate men who
have grown old before their time, working while it
was daylight from year's end to year's end, and
living, after all, on nothing better than pig's food—
potatoes ?—(Cheers.) Can these protectionists com-
pensate these injured men ? Let them talk of com-
pensation ! There is a dark and heavy account of
responsibility lying at the doors of those who maintain
the corn-law. If they speak of compensation—if they
retard the repeal by one day's debate for compensation,