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

based upon that supposition.—(hear
Let them prove their case '-
let them satisfy the

, and cheers.)
oetore a Committee—
_ punlic that they bore an unju t
public burdens, and then they might fairly
..oIC for an equivalent, or for the removal of that portion
of the taxation of the country which pressed up m them
exclusively--(Hear, hear)—and he was sure the publ
would in such a case cheerfully share in the common
burden.—(Cheers.) He conceived that the existing law
might be looked upon as having been given up, for those
who introduced it were now abcut to relinquish it, al-
though the public had been to the last hour told it had
worked well.—(Laughter.) It was now condemned by
its own authors, and no argument was required on his
part to show that it had not been useful or beneficial to
the country. They had now viewed the two courses of
maintaining a fixed duty or the present scale, and they
next came to the consideration of a duty-free trade in
corn. They would, in looking at that question, naturally
ask, was a duty-free trade in corn calculated to produce
the effect which some of the friends of the corn-law as-
serted it would, namely, would it throw the land in this
country out of cultivation, and bring ruin up in the agri
culttirists? It was most important to have that portion
of the subject fully understood, and that question per-
fectly answered, and he (sir. Hawes) was ready to as-
sign the sound reasons which convinc'd him that no
such effect could follow the abolition of the corn-laws.
What benefit had the agricultural interest received
from the corn-laws? There were about 120 statues
on the statute-book the object of every one of which was
to give protection in some shape to agriculture, and
every one of those statutes had failed in its avowed object
—(Hear, hear) —and every one which was intended to
regulate the supply of corn had been altered or repealed
from time to time. In 1773 a law was passed which ad-
proached more nearly to free trade than any of the
others, and it happened singularly enough, that the sta-
tute of 1773 remained longest upon the statute•book.—
(Cheers.) That law allowed corn to come into our mar-
kets at a nominal duty when the price in this country,
was over 485., and he could show from excellent autho-
rity that 20 years after it passed the condition of the
farmers was better than it had been since with a higher
protection.—(Hear, hear.) A merchant of London, in a
publication upon the subject of the currency, published
in 1798 or 1799, charged the country bankers with doing
injury by lending money to the farmers to enable them ,
to hold over their stocks of corn, and is reply to that
charge, a distinguished man, Sir Francis Bering, made
a statement which threw great light upon the condition
of the farmers at that period. He said that the general
mass of the bankers in the country, instead of lending
money to the farmers, looked to them for deposits and
support, and that it was rare for the farmers to want
to borrow money, whilst the instances were not rare
where they even accommodated the landlords with
loans.—(Hear, hear.) Could that be said in twenty years
after the enactment of any of the other laws for the
protection of agriculture?—(" No, no.) During the French
war—partly from the effect of monopoly, partly from
the expenses of importation, and partly from bad
seasons—prices rose higher, and additional land was
put into cultivation ; and in 1815, when the peace
took place, a law was introduced in order to uphold those
high prices and high rents which had been produced
during the progress of the war.—(Hear, hear.) He was
in a condition to prove that the law of 1815 was passed
in order to upheld rents and the war prices.—(Hear.)
The price at which the duty was to be nominal was then
fixed at 80s., as it was alleged, to meet the increased ex-
penses of agriculture, and to give remuneration to the
grower. The monopoly was thus established by the law
of the land; but in 1816 corn was down to 52s in this
country, when it should have been at 80s., if that were
to be the remunerating price for the agriculturists Then
there were bad seasons, and prices rose; and then there
were committees to inquire into the cause of agricul-
cultural distress and manufacturing distress.—(Hear,
hear.) When the corn was cheap the farmers com-
plained of being distressed for want of remune-
rating prices, and when corn was high then
manufacturers and artizans were distressed. The
law of 1815 was found to be too stringent in its character,
and in 11122 a new law was proposed and carried; but
it was never in operation, for it was enacted
that it should not come into operation until
corn reached 80s., and as corn never reached 80s. whilst
that law was in existence, it never came into operation.—
(Hear, hear.) From 1822 to 1828 there was a continual
shifting and patching of the corn-law, and last the Bill of
1823 was introduced. In 1815 the growers of corn were
to be secured at 80s., but that law failed, and in 1828 the
friends of agriculture only asked 645. In 1830 the King's
speech prominently put forth agricultural distress as
one of its topics ; and in 1833 a Committee was appointed
to inquire into the cause of that agricultural digress. In
1836 there was another committee to inquire into agri-
cultural distress ;so it was apparent that those laws for
the protection of agriculture had failed in their object,
and were but a delusion, holding out promises to the
farmer which they did not realise.—(:-Tear. hear.) The
author of the report of the Committee of 1836, himself an
enlightened agriculturist, called the corn-law a delusive
protection, and stated that the farmers had been for some
years sinking under it, and paying their rents out of
their capital. The writer to whom he alluded was the
Right Hon. Gentleman who now fills the chair of the
House of Commons, and who, as he before remarked,
'1
was an enlightened agriculturist himself. hey next
came to the law of 1842 ; but be would not say any-
thing of that law, as the Minister who proposed it was
about to give it up, and as it was now in fact but the
ghost of a corn-law.--(hear, hear, and laughter.) He
believed that he had said enough to show the meeting
that these laws for the protection of agriculture had been
a delusion, and he therefore thought he was right in
saying that the best course to pursue would be to do
away with protection altogether.—(Cheers.) He was,
therefore, in favour of the repeal of the corn-laws, and
for a perfect free trade in that article.—(Cheers.) He
was aware that every approach to free trade had been
looked upon by some persons as the signal of the ap-
proaching ruin of the agricultural interest, and most of
them remembered the obloquy with which Mr. Huskis-
son was met when he first proposed an introduction of
the principles of free trade. At that time all the inte-
rests which were connected with iron, silk, and shipping
would be ruined ; but what was the fact ? Now in
1845, twenty years after Mr. Huskisson brought forward
those propositions, those interests which he touched
were in a more flourishing state than before. The iron
trade and the shipping trade had greatly increased, and
experience had shown that the predictions, as regarded
those interests, by those who were opposed to the
principles of free trade, had utterly failed. What had
the world and what had they not lost, by not long ago
following out those principles ?—(Cheers.) All the
great authorities of the world had been free-traders—Mr.
Pitt was a tree-trader—Lord Grenville declared in his
famous protest, that monopoly was the parent of dear-
ness, scarcity, and want,—(Cheers.) Then they had

share of rb''

Adam Smith, Ricardo, M'Culloch, ranged upon their
side—a mighty array, in short, of statesmen—of theo-
retical and practical authorities, all declaring their so-
lemn conviction that :he doctrines of free trade were
those of justice and truth.—(Hear.) What. had they
lost by monopoly ? lie need not remind them that
their North American colonies were sacrificed to its de
mends, eel now they found every nation in Europe
copying their bad example, while this country was
sulfa-in.; from the evil precedents which it itself had set.
—(ilear.) Then look to France, it was a country full
of all they most required. But let them remember what
an insignificant trade existed between us and our neigh-
' hours on the other side of the Channel.—(Hear.) Why
was it so ? why, when our Government pressed for a
liberal treaty of commerce they were continually met by
taunting allusions to our own monopolist enactments.—
(Hear.) Again, let them look to the state of America.
By opening our markets to the produce of the United
Suttee they would be tending more than by any other
means to restore and promote peaceful relations between
Eagland and her ol:t colonies—(llcar)—relations, the
surest and broadest basis of which must ever be free trade
(Cheers.) Free trade in fact was a kind of hostage for
the peace of the world, and it would be well if the people
of the dill, rent countries of Europe would take a large
and enlightened view of their interests—a view which
could tiring them to no conclusion other than that free
trade was the best and greatest security for the peace,the
civilisation, and the progress of the world.—(Cheers.)
These were his principles, and he confessed that he should
feel fortified in them, and in giving expression to them
in the House of Commons, by thee general concurrence
which they had met with from that large and respectable
„wean.- of his constituents, the inhabitants of the
borough of Lambeth. The Hon. Gentleman resumed his
seat amid much loud applause.

ML. BYRON proposed the next resolution, to the effect
that the meeting pledged itself only to support that Go-
vernment which would propose the total and immediate
repeal of the corn-laws.
_ _

Mr. CHRI:TIE seconded the resolution, congratulating
the meeting upon the conversion to free-trade principles
of their chairman.—(Cheers.)
T.IVEYNcounr, Esq., M.P., then shortly addressed the
meeting. He stood in a distinct position from his Hon.
Colleague wilo had just addressed them. He was a land-
owner. He enjoyed the signal distinction of being en-
trusted with their confidence—a confidence which he
would ever attempt to merit by being ready, when the
time came to take that course which the public interest
indicated.—(Hear, hear.) He assured them that he
was heart and soul with them, and with his Hon. Col-
leag,ue—( Hear, hear)—agreeing as he did with him in
all the sentiments which he had expressed, and which
he perceived they were so eager favourably to entertain.
—(Cheers.) He had at a former period voted for a
fixed duty to replace the corn-laws. Let it not be
supposed from that moment that he was an advocate
of a fixed duty. But he thought that a moderate
fixed duty would have ha I—just as well as corn-law
repeal—the effect of opening the markets of the world ;
the great desideratum they had to complain of—the
great object they had to struggle for.—(Hear, hear.)
At all events, a fixed duty would have been infi-
nitely better than the present sliding-scale. He had
often been challenged upon this subject. He had been
frequently asked whether he was for a total repeal of the
corn-laws? His reply had always been as it now was_
The production of corn was a manufacture—he

manufacturer of corn. Let them repeal - - was a
ties upon all articles of manufaete- protective du-
happy in that case to reoP-' ...e, and he would be
the rest.—(EL,an that upon corn also with
trade see' • . ...ear.) The great apostles ;of free-
-eu now to be agreed upon that point. Let
...em, then, be agreed as to the repeal of all protecting
duties—let them be just to all. He should be satisfied
with such an arrangement ; and if the landed interest
generally were not, they ought to be.--(Cheers.) Re-
K-rence had been made as to the course which Sir Robert
Peel would probably adopt. He thought it a vain ima-
gination to suppose that the Premier would go for un-
conditional free-trade. He thought he would rather take
the course which his Hon Colleague had hinted at, and
would propose :some half-and-half measure.—(Cries of
No, no. No half-and-half measures.") His own dis-
position distinctly was to oppose any such measure ; and
then if there should be concluded, as he trusted there
wo:dd be, a union between the Liberals and many gen-
tlemen sitting on the opposite side of the House, which
tnight have the effect, at no distant day, of again eject-
ing the Tory Ministry from office, then there would be
an appeal to the people, and he trusted that they would
be well prepared for it.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. WiLsoN had listened attentively to the speech of
their representative, Mr. D'Eyncourt, and he wished to
have a more explicit statement from that Hon. Gentle-
man, as to the course which he intended to take with
resp..ct to the corn-law question in the House of Com-
mons. He was desirous to be informed if the Hon.
Meinh-r was prepared to vote for a total and uncon-
ditional repeal of the corn-laws, at the meeting of Par-
liament?—(flear, hear.)
Mr. D'Evszcocier said that since he first entered
public life, nearly half a century ago, it had been his
universal practice never to give a pledge upon any sub-
ect.—(Cries of " Hear, hear," mingled with marks of
disapprobation.) He had always candidly and fully ex-
pressed his opinions, and he had acted consistently and
honestly in Parliament, and with regard to pledges, he
was confident that his Hon. Colleague would give the
same answer which he had given. He had, on three
occasions, brought forward a motion for the reduction
of the duration of Parliaments, and yet, if he were
asked to pledge himself to any particular vote with re-
srwet to that question, he would refuse to give such
pledge. His duty, as their representative, was not to
give pledges at the call of any individual who chose to
jump up and ask him to do so.—(Disapprobation,
mingled with cries of " Hear.") He repeated, he had
given his opinions clearly to them on the subject of the
corn-laws, and he did not see how any individual could
misunderstand his views.

Mr. WILSON said he would have put the question to
Mr. Hawes, but that his speech was clear and distinct
as regarded the subject. lie thought it the duty of the
meeting plainly to put the question to either of their
members, whether he would or would not vote for an
abolition of the corn-laws.—(Hear, and cheers.) If the
Hon. Member, having been so many years in the House
of Commons, had not made up his mind as yet on the
subject of the corn-laws, it was time for the electors to
look for some one who could make up his mind on the
subject. A deputation from the constituency of Lam-
beth, men who co-operated with the League, had waited
on the lion. Member (Mr. D'Eyncourt) on the subject,
and never could get a direct answer from him with
respect to it. He was of opinion that from the position
which he held the Hon. Member ought to be prepared
not only to vote for an abolition of the corn-law, but to
exert himself strenuously to effect that object.—(Cheers.)
Having put the question to the lion. Member, he thought
it but fair to adopt a similar course towards his col-
league, and he would now ask Mr. Hawes if he was
prepared to vote for an entire and unconditional repeal
of the corn-laws in the ensuing Parliament.

Mr. HewEs said he had spoken clearly and at length
on the subject, and in the most distinct and unequivocal
terrus. It they asked him after that declaration of his
opinion to go into Parliament, bound hand and foot,
under all circumstances, and at all times bound to vote
for any particular question, he would sooner fling his
scat to the winds than consent to be so bound.—
(Cheers.) Neither his colleague or himself were to be
brow-beaten.—(Cheers and marks of disapprobation.)
He had always been the advocate of free-trade in Par-
liament, but he woulti not go to Parliament bound hand
and foot. When a man went to the House of Commons
in a deliberate character, he ought to listen to argument;
but if he went there and said that nothing which he
could hear would change his opinion, he must neces-
sarily lose dignity and self-respect.
The CHAIRMAN said that he had pledged
vote
of
r t nh oe
corn-laws.—(Cheers.)
auwt
sa
—m(acn
hwe
ehros.
)would vote forharaebiro abolit
-
tion
he ehd
pledge
heca
corn-laws
snr edpaae:stse
unconstitu-
tional l.s
necessaryt a t ed
thal‘ti er. pconsidered the said
ari depetahla
and beneficial; he had voted repeatedly for Mr. Villiers's
motions, but he looked upon a
proceeding.
The resolution was then ueesniilnbuitomidooyauinstlgoy
tahgereeeffdectot.that a
the resolutions,
yucourt and Mr. Hawes for
pp
andreetl‘si iteirtn.o.ntnNtaVrst7hlosLotnnen.
entrusted
d be adopted, pa:idsroe.pd tpea d,
Er,
The resolution having been seconded, was unanimously
agreed to.
Mr. HAWES thanked the meeting, and said that he
would always to the best of his ability cordially and
faithfully support the measure which the petition prayed
for.—(Loud cheers.) They now saw the difference be-
tween tyranny and freedom. He Lad been the advocate
of a free trade in corn—(Cheers)---before the League
was in existence; and he was sure that the leaders of
the League would not lend their approval to the course
which had been pursued on that occasion.—(Cheers.)
He would support the unconditional repeal of the corn-
, laws.—(Cheers.) He had called on the landlords to
slow that they had exclusive burdens, and if he did so
again in the House of Commons, they might, if he
pledged himself to a particular vote, say it was no use
talking to him, as he was bound hand and foot ; but he
would never consent to go to the House of Commons un-
der such circumstances.
Mr. IYEYNCOURT said he concurred in all the senti-
ments of his Honourable Colleague. He intended to vote
(or the entire, unconditional, and immediate repeal of the
corn-laws.—(Loud cheers.) And he would add, after
what had taken place, that whenever he found that he
had not the confidence of his constituents, he should be
the first to desire an end of the connexion between
them.

A vote of thanks was passed to the leading members
of the League, after which the meeting separated.