The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-23 00:00:00

mongers, schedules A and B, and many others, could
be gained—if, from a Parliament of West Indians,
negro emancipation could be obtained—from a Par-
liament of landlords they would get a law abolishing
the corn-laws.—(Creat cheering.) Hiving said thus
much about corn, would the meeting tolerate him for
a few moments if he said a word or two about sugar?
—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He did this with
some reluctance, because on a former occasion
when .the state of his health did not permit Mm to
be there, a speech had been delivered on that subject
by a gentle Man whom, on such matters as that, he
was scarcely worthy to follow, so infinitely superior
was he, as the 'exponent of a question like that, to
himself. He referred to one who, unostentatious as
he was, and unseen as he generally might be, was
one of the most effective labourers, in their cause—
Mr. James Wilson.—(Cheers.) But there were
several reasons why he wanted to say a word upon
sugar on that occasion. First, because there was an
honest difference of opinion on that question.—
(Hear, hear.) He said, an honest difference of
opinion: He was sure it was honest' on the other
side ; he hoped, he believed, it was honest on that
side.—(Hear, hear.) Again, he wished to speak upon
this question, because it was a very important branch
of the subject which would have to be- discussed i

Parliament; and the discussions there, at least their
results, would be controlled very much by the state of
public opinion out of doors.—(Hear, hear.) Again
he wished to do so because he had better means than
some around him of knowing what were the scruples
of their friends on the other side of this question,
seeing that he had been long identified with them, an
was still one with them, with -regard to the object
which they were pursuing, though differing from
them, and he was pained that it should be so, upon this
particular aspect of this great question. He knew
that these opinions were sincerely held. He knew
that they would not give them up without a reason—
a reason which would be strong enough to overcome
their feelings, but he thought it might easily be shown
that their feelings of humanity would be equally gra-
tified by the accomplishment of the object of the
League. He went with the anti-slavery party
because he believed that their cause was righteous.
He went with the free traders for the same reason.
Two righteous principles could not cross one another,
could not conflict with one another; they must run
parallel with one another to eternity. He had felt it
his duty to attend in Exeter Hall on Friday last—
had he consulted his own feelings or friendships he
would not have been there. Ile would have been
silent on that branch of the question had he not
thought that his friends had been in error. He was
not willing that they should unintentionally do in-
jury to a just cause, by putting arguments into the
mouths of their opponents in order to enable them to
practise a gross fraud upon the House of Commons.
Ile wanted monopoly to stand forth in the
House in all its natural odiousness, filthiness,
and selfishness.--(Loud cheers.) He did not want
to enable the advocates of monopoly in that House
to put into their pockets 'those ;arguments which re-
futed themselves, and which must disgust all who
heard them. He did not want to enable them to, lay
aside all those arguments in order to make
use of the argument of humanity—(Cheers.) He
had attended that meeting, and he had succeeded; but
he did not so much rejoice in the success which had
attended him in carrying the amendment, as he re-
gretted that there were so large a number of persons
in the minority.—(Cheers.) They had so voted be-
cause they were honest—(Cheers.) When their
minds were convinced they would be with them—
(Loud cheers)—and all that integrity, all that in-
flexibility of :purpose would then be exerted in the
cause—would then be their own.—(Loud cheers.)
They would then persevere in carrying out the prin-
ciple to which they now took exception in one parti-
cular case, and they would carry it out universally.
—(Loud cheers.) He had received many letters
from different friends expressing surprise that he who
had hitherto been the untiring advocate of the
abolition of slavery, should be now found engaged
in a cause tending to the promotion of slavery. -He
protested against such an imputation.—(Cheers.)
No man was the promoter of slavery because he ad-
vocated the doctrines of free trade.—(Hear, hear.)
Those friends were in error who supposed that he
was a promoter of slavery, because he struggled
against the false opinion which was sought to be pro-
pagated, that slavery would be; promoted by free
trade. Why, the abolition of monopoly would lead
to the abolition of slavery.—(Cheers.) Slavery was
the spawn of monopoly.—(Cheers.) Slavery was be-
gotten by monopoly—it was nurtured by monopoly
—it was fed and continued by monopoly. The death
of monopoly fifty years ago would have been the cer-
tain extinction of slavery, without cost, without
cruisers, without treaties, without protocols, without
costly agitation, without the payment of twenty mil-
lions.—(Cheers.) Ile had changed no opinion what-
ever on that subject. In the year 1839, long before
he had ever spoken at a corn-law meeting, at a meet-
ing which had nothing whatever to do with the- sub-
ject of the corn-laws, he had spoken at Manchester
on the subject of the abolition of slavery
and the improving the condition and pro.
moting the welfare of the natives of India. He
had at that meeting made a speech, advocating the
necessity of encouraging free trade with all parts of
the world as the best means of promoting the aboli-
tion of slavery; he had then stated that although he
should wish to see the time when every atom of cot-
ton wool worn or spun by the people of this country
should be the produce of free labour, yet he would
ask for no restriction, he would ask for no prohi-
bitory duties to prevent cotton, the produce of
every kind of labour, from being brought into
the market. All he asked for was liberty,
justice, and impartiality, being convinced that
if monopoly were done away with slavery would
totter to its destruction.—(Loud cheers.) 'When
had he delivered that speech? In the Friends'
Meeting-house at Manchester, and his audience had
been to a great extent made up of the members of
that estimable society. What had he said on the
following evening at a meeting held in the same
place ?—that if they encouraged free labour by admit•
ting it fairly into competition with slave labour, he
was of opinion that other nations would so clearly
see the advantage of free labour over slave
labour, that they would be compelled to also.
lish slavery so successful would be the free
labour of the East over the slave labour of the West,
when they were brought into fair competition,
(Cheers.) He adhered to those opinions now.—
(Loud cheers.) He believed that these would be
better than all the other means that could be employed
to put down slavery. He did not say they were the
only means that should be employed, but he believed
that free trade would be one of the most effectual
means for the suppression of slavery. If he were in
error, he was in error with some of the brightest'
names that adorned the anti-slavery cause. There
was a time when he was intimately associated with
that nob'e body which had secured the
abolition of slavery in our colonies. / He
had shared in the great triumph which they
had obtained over slavery—he had been supplied by
the Anti-Slavery Society with books, illustrative of
the iniquity and impolicy of the system of slavery—
he had looked into those books at the time, to supply
him with facts which he might use in support of the
anti-slavery cause. He looked into those books now,
and what did he find in them? The first Isook to
which he would refer was the work of Mr. Adam
Hodson of Liverpool. That book was intended to
show the superiority of free labour over slave labour.
It was published in 1823, now twenty-one years ago,
and had been circulated throughout the length and
breadth of the land by the Anti-Slavery Society.
What did Mr. Hodson say in speaking of slave labour?
He said, " the nation would not much longer con-
tinue to submit to a wasteful system of cultivation
which experience had pointed out to be the
dearest that could be employed; and that the time
vas approaching when the nation would de-
mand rapidly
thatthe commerce with sixty millions of their
fellow-subjects should be thrown open to them, and
that the slave labour of the West would fall before
the free labour of the East.—(Loud cheers.) There
was another book from which he would quote what
had been presented to him at the same time, and
which was now full of the marks which he had made
in it twelve years ago. He trusted those
present would pardon him for dwelling on this
subject. They should bear in mind that the audience
he was addressing was not merely within those walls
—there were those beyond those walls who would be
acquainted with what passed within them.
There were present then gentlemen whose ready pens
would record with the utmost celerity the words then
spoken. Those words thus written would be trans-
ferred to everlasting type ; and that which if left to
the living voice would produce no effect beyond
those walls—that which was said there that men
would go forth to the whole world.—(Loud cheers.)
He trusted, therefore, that he might bermitted to
remonstrate with his friends.—(Cheers.)pe He loved
them so well that he wished to Show
could not do better than join their ranks.—(Loud
tt
them that they
cheers.) The book from which he was als?tu _ o
slave-labour
produce iqtuodtoewhnadasbeaenprpirnicnitpelde it
that
at Birmingham,whenever
sla.anvtde
ocoemx:
because jn
petition, slave-labour p
and free-labourdupereodmuucset cfaalml:
b r was the cheapest,
la
what was the name of the author of that book
perience proved that free lab r
The name of the author was Sturge—(Loud cheers)
—not Joseph Sturge, but his lamented brother John,
who had died too soon for his friends, and for that
cause, the fundamental principles of which he had
been the advocate.—(Loud cheers.) He had laid it
down that no system of legislation for trade and com-
merce could be rightl4ut that which was in accords
:once with the laws of God, which was not injurious to
the rational creation, and was not beneficial to every
body and class of men. It had been shown that the
labour of the free man was cheaper than
that of the slave ; and, therefore, in promoting