The Sun.
London, England, 1844-06-06 00:00:00

Pr
11 SUN, LONDION, THURSDAY MORNING, JUNE o, 1844.

I never knew of any great principle that ever yet
addressed itself to the good sense of the people that
failed. It is impossible but what it must succeed at
last, and I feel convinced 'that the principle of free
trade is a principle so just and so great, that it must
ultimately be triumphant.--(Loud cheers.)
The Secretary then read the minutes of the last
meeting, which, on the motion of Mr. Bright, M.P.,
seconded by Mr. Aicknett, were confirmed.
The Hon. E. BOUVERIE, M.P., then came forward,
and was received . with loud cheering. He thanked
them for those cheers, and felt gratified by them—
not that he took them peculiarly to himself, but be-
cause he looked upon them as intended to testify the
gratitude and sympathy of the meeting for the free
traders of the sister country, Scotland—(Cheers)
—especially for that portion of them who had re-
cently returned one whom he thought he might con-
fidently say was a good free trader to Parliament.—
(Loud cheers.) The opinion of a constituency
like that of Kilmarnock was, perhaps a far bet-
ter test of public opinion, of the feeling of the
country, of the individual judgment of the con-
stituencies throughout the country, than the
result of such an election as South Lancashire, or
such elections as those which he had fought twice on
the same ground at Salisbury, because in the coun-
ties in England and in many of the boroughs situated
in the agricultural districts of England, the ex-
pression of opinion by the constituency at the polling
booth was not their honest and real expression
of opinion, but the expression of the opinion
of those who at present had the majority of
the House of Commons, and who would maintain
that majority unless the people were determined to
get what they had a right to—(Cheers)—and if they
were so determined depend upon it they would have
it.—(Continued cheering.) He had heard nothing at
Kilmarnock of those complaints which he had heard
at Salisbury ; he had had no voters coming up to him
and saying, " We wish you well—we agree with you
in opinion on the subject of free trade—we believe the
corn-laws to be unjust—we are desirous of their
repeal, but we dare not vote for you. He had
heard nothing of the kind at Kilmarnock. There
were no squires and no squires' ladies there to drive
into the town, and tell the tradesmen " You must
vote this way or that way, and not as you like your-
selves."—(Cheers.) But there were honest, hard-
working, intelligent, industrious weavers there, who
thought deeply, and who, having formed their judg-
ment, acted on it.—(Loud cheers.) It was an uni-
versal feeling among that intelligent class, that the
corn-law was a crying evil, and one which ought be
at once repealed. It was too true, and the result of
the South Lancashire election did not prove the con-
trary—that in the battle of free trade they had not
gained the victory. Much was yet to be done, but
much was not to be obtained from the present
House of Commons. When he had last addressed
them in that theatre it was on the eve of the meeting
of Parliament, and he had ventured to prophecy that
little would be done on the part of the Legislature of
the country to advance those principles which they
met weekly in that place to advocate, or to advance
the prosperity of the great mass of the population of
the country. If they looked back for the last three
months, they would find that he had been no bad
prophet. In the first place Mr. Cobden had brought
forward a motion for the appointment of a Committee
to inquire into the advantage of protection to the
farmer and to the agricultural labourer. It might
have been thought that those gentlemen who took an
active part in support of the corn-laws—who called
themselves the farmers' friends, and set up for
being the agricultural interest of the country,
although they had no more to do with agri-
culture than any of those present, they being
merely possessors of the laud, and having nothing to
do with its tillage—(Cheers)—it might have been
thought that these gentlemen would have been but too
glad of the opportunity of showing the country the
advantages of this law which they so stoutly main-
tained, as they said, not for their own benefit,
but for the benefit of the farmer and the labourer.
Surely it could signify nothing whether the motion
were brought forward by Mr. Cobden or by the Duke
of Buckingham. An opportunity was offered for
inquiry, and they refused it because they knew that
if that inquiry were granted, it would show the ab-
surdity of maintaining protection for the benefit.of
the really agricultural' class. Inquiry would InCve"
exposed the delusion. It would have shown that
protection was of no benefit to those classes—that it
was a plundering of the public for the benefit of those
gentlemen—(Loud cheers)—therefore they refused
inquiry—to them ignorance was bliss, and they loved
darkness better than the light—they dreaded the
light because their deeds were evil.—(Loud cheers.)
But there was another measure which to a certain
extent tested the sympathy of the House of Commons
for the wants of the people—he meant the Factory
Bill ; and while they found a majority of the House
of Commons affecting a sympathy for the wants of
the labouring classes, and voting in support of a pro-
position which said " the people are over-worked—
they do more than is consistent with the health either
of their bodies or of their souls—we see women and
children who are terribly over-worked, and therefore
we must vote for a law to limit the hours
of labour"—that very majority was the ma-
jority which maintained a law which com-
pelled the people to work in this manner.—
(Cheers.) It was the corn-law which said to the la-
bourer you shall not have the same means of subsist-
ence as you would have if the trade in corn were
free.—(Cheers.) The corn-law said to the labouring
man, you shall not have the means of employment.
The corn-law ground him to earth, and prevented
him from earning his daily bread by the sweat of his
brow, and compelled him to exert himself beyond his
strength to earn a scanty subsistence.—(Cheers.) But
that was not all—the majority having voted that pro-
position from an affected sympathy for the wants and
sufferings of the labouring classes, no sooner found
that the Minister declared that he would stand or fall
by the measure which he had introduced than their
sympathy disappeared.—(Cheers.) There was no
question as to the wants and sufferings of the work-
ing classes—they looked only to the continuance
of a certain set of men in power, and
at once voted that that which had been
black before was then white.—(Cheers.) But they
had some alterations in duties on articles of con-
sumption. They had made some little, faltering steps in
the good road. They had made an attempt to curry
favour with those who supported the doctrines of free
trade, by proposing some slight alterations ; but
these were merely the tithe of mint and of rue, and
touched not the weightier matters.—(Cheers.) The
people should reply to the House of Commons—
" These things ye ought to have done, and not to
have left the others undone."—(Hear, and cheers.)
They had made an alteration in the duty of currants.
—(A laugh.) They were entitled to the gratitude
of the lovers of pudding and cake for this reduction
in their currant expenditure—(Cheers and laughter)
—but there were other ingredients in pudding and
cake besides currants.—(Cheers.) He believed flour
was essential.—(Loud cheers.) That was a much
more important matter than currants, for many per-
sons were affected by the tax on flour who would never
dream of currants from one year's end to the other.
Then he believed sugar was required to make them.
—(Cheers and laughter.) There was to be an alte-
ration in the sugar duties, but it was not in the right
direction.—(Hear, hear.) He would not say that
the change would be productive of no good, but still
there was a duty of 10s. per cwt., or a tax of
2,000,0001., to be levied on the people of this coun-
try, not to go into the treasury, but for the benefit of
those who were interested in the sugar monopoly,
who were maintained and supported by the present
majority in the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
Therefore the alteration in the sugar duties was, in
his opinion, a fallacious one. Besides, every altera-
tion of this nature was looked upon as a settlement
of the question for a certain time; and when a
change was made at all, it might as well be upon a
sound principle as on a wrong one. He would not
detain them by dwelling on the distinction which was
made between slave-grown sugar and the produce of
those countries where labour was free. The fallacy
of such a distinction had often been refuted in that
place. There were some humane individuals who
thought such a distinction ought to be observed;
but it was out of the question to carry it into prac-
tice, and they would boggle by legislating on such un-
sound principles.—(Hear.) Even if the principle were
sound, where, he would ask, were they to stop ?
(Hear, hear.) Were they to inquire into the moral
and social condition of every peeple with whom they
had commercial transactions ? Why, a great portion
of the corn admitted into the country came from Rus-
sia, where slavery to a great extent existed.—
(Cheers.) He was surprised the Protection Society
did not make use of this as an argument in favour of
the protection—that the repeal of the corn-laws would
be followed by a great increase of slave-grown corn
from Russia.—(Hear, hear.) Slavery was an evil
which produced a degradation in morals amongst the
people subject to its influence, and he was sure that
most of the countries with which they carried on
commercial transactions were in a degraded moral
condition. If they wanted to make inquiries of this
kind, there was a country at no great distance from
them on the other side of the Channel—(Loud
cheers)—to which they should direct their attention.
There was a country with a large industrious popula-
tion, who, by all accounts, were in a very degraded
physical and moral condition. He was reading a
book written by a most intelligent traveller, who
stated that in Poland and Livonia, where so
much wretchedness existed, there was not .near so
much destitution as he found in Ireland.—(Hear,
hear.) He supposed the protection folk would also
try to prevent the introduction of Irish corn and
cattle, and oatmeal and labourers, as they'would pro-
hibit Russian corn. The distinction between slave-
grown produce and the produce of free labour was
absurd, and the public ought not to be imposed on by.
those who math* it. It wars a very good debatable

subject when the present Government were corning
into power, and they could not afford to lose any part
of the miserable rag of consistency they had got, and,
therefore, they stuck to this absurd distinction, the
reasonableness or truth of which the country would
not admit. He, therefore, thought that he was a true
prophet when he said, that not much was to be got
this session. But the remedy was in their own hands.
—(Cheers.) The question was, whether they would
submit to the existing corn-laws, which they knew to
be injurious and oppressive to the industry of the
country, and allow themselves to be taxed for the be-
nefit of a small portion of the community.—(Hear,
hear.) They could not stop where they were.—
(Hear, hear.) The country had risen to great power
and wealth by commerce and manufactures. Pro-
gress, was the law written in the history of the na-
tion. They now came to the end of their tether,
under the present law, and if they did not get free
trade they would retrograde. They might be cer-
tain that would be' the case. Commerce had made
this great city, it had filled their ports with ships,
and called into existence numberless towns through-
out the country.--(Hear, hear.) If that commerce
were allowed to decay, where were they to find sub-
sistence for the people of the country ? Why, if the
principles of the protectionists were true, they would
never have made the advances they had made. No
spur would be given to industry, and they would at
this day be clothed in skins, and have their
bodies painted blue, like their ancestors.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter.) That was not the case ;
but if they wanted to see everybody well employed,
and to be told the families of th working classes
were well maintained, they must havefree trade, other-
wise they would go backwards instead of going
forwards, and would run to misery, aye, and rebel-
lion, he might say, for nothing would stay the in-
stincts of the belly.—(Hear, hear.) Misery, suffer-
ing, and lawlessness would be the consequence. They
must contemplate those things and express their
opinions loudly, and if they did so their voices would
be obeyed, and the consequence would be that pros •
perity would revisit their shores. If manufactures
and commerce were prosperous their prosperity must
re-act on agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) Such would
be the effect of free trade; but though the Ministers
professed the truth of free trade principles they
seemed to have no faith in them. The great prin-
ciple was that free trade would be beneficial to all
classes, without distinction,- even that very class
which it was fancied were benefited by monopoly.
Mr. Huskisson, indeed, had, faith in this principle,
and to show how sound it was he would give one ex-
ample. That great commercial Minister altered the
duty on silk, and allowed foreign manufactured silk
to be imported at a low duty. This was in
1825, and it was said that it would destroy
the silk trade of the country. Well, what was the
result? In „1840 it was given in evidence that the
town of Manchester alone, which, previous to the
alteration, employed only 3,000 persons in the manu-
facture of silk, employed at that time 30,000 persons,
and the value of their labour, which, at the former
period, amounted only to 450,0001., rose in 1840 to
1,600,0001.—(Loud cheers.) That was a good evi-
dence of the soundness of the principle, and had Mr.
Huskisson lived, he would have rejoiced to see its
truth thus verified. What he wanted to impress on
them was, that they should have Ministers—and they
had it in their power to make them—(Cheers)—who
would have faith in the principles of free trade, and
who should work it out at their bidding fully and
fairly. (The Hon.-Gentleman sat down amidst loud
cheers.)
Mr. M. Galloon, M.P., then came forward, and was
received with loud cheers. He said he rejoiced at
having an opportunity of meeting his friends that
evening, after a temporary absence, to discuss the
great and important question of commercial freedom.
—(Hear, hear.) He rejoiced to hear there was no
disposition on the part of their Chairman to abate his
efforts ; and when he addressed him he meant to ad-
dress him as the Chairman who represented that large
and important association in the country—the Anti-
Corn-law League. He rejoiced that there was no
desire on its part to abate its efforts till it had accom-
plished the great object for which it was first associated.
He rejoiced that they felt strong in the consciousness
of the justness of their cause, and he knew that this
Assoziation-sandsthose meetings dirtbt-spriii-Orom
any sudden impulse—did not arise from any temporal
and passing interest, but had its foundation on the
broad and eternal basis of immutable justice. He be-
lieved that the cause of commercial freedom
was not a mere question of pounds, shillings, and
pence, but that it invo:ved the civil rights of free-
men, that of buying and selling where they pleased—
the right to have the full reward of their own indus-
try—(Cheers)—and he knew of no higher object for
which government was, instituted than that a man
should have the power of living by his own industry
and his own exertions.—(Cheers.) It was true, as
had been remarked, that there was not the slightest
ground, not the smallest shadow of a pretext for a
feeling of despondency as to the progress of their
cause.—(Cheers.) This was not a mere party poli-
tical question—it was not one as between Whig and
Toryl; and when they got rid of that—he appealed to
any dispassionate mind—to any man of whatever
party, whether he could look around him -and- not
observe the steady progress of public opinion in favour
of the relaxation of the burdens on industry.—(Cheers.)
Let them look to what was the course of the Con-
servative Ministry when they came into office in 1841.
The cry at the elections was " no surrender—
no alteration in the corn-laws." They were raised
to power through this cry, and though the Minister had
a large majority to support him in any measure, yet
he was compelled to come forward from a sense of a
necessity to propose something of a relaxation in
trade, and an alteration of the corn-laws.--(Hear,
hear.) There was great distress throughout the
country. The commercial and manufacturing dis-
tricts were suffering great privations, and if pro-
tection, as it was called, to native industry, was the
true mode to promote the
prosperity of the country,
why did the Minister, with this large majority, come
tariff
jthecorn-laws
forward and attempt to relieve this distress—not by
increasing protection, which, according to the pro-
tectiopists, was the real source of the prosperity of
the
fetters ?
the industry of the country, by the
madebutbypartially
in
the tff and
in removing
the
If prbtection was the true remedy, it should have
which a
crampedti
alterations nation—but
been made more stringent—they should give more of
the dose, if this was the true medicine.—(Cheers.)
He saw around him strong proofs of the advance of
public opinion towards free trade; he saw it amongst
the agricultural classes, amongst whom he lived. He
did not mean to say they would advocate a total and
immediate repeal of the corn-laws. No, but they
began to think that those men who induced
them to vest their capital in farming, did so for their
own benefit. They began to discover that the landed
proprietors acted the part of faithless men, who, for
their own pecuniary advantage, were resolved to risk
the future safety not only of their own tenants, but of
all classes of the country, induced them to invest
their capital on a rotten and unsound basis. What was
the conduct of the landed proprietors ? After the
war they did not give time for prices to settle, and to
accommodate themselves to an altered state of things,
but at once, and without a moment's delay, they
proceeded to enact the corn-law, and told their
tenants they might rely on the price of corn being
kept up to the amount at which it sold before the
war. The farmers accordingly invested their capital,
and that of their families, on this unsound and pre-
carious basis. But what he wished to observe was,
that the farmers would prefer to enter upon farming
operations now on the principle of free trade, rather
than have protection, and rely upon natural rather
than artificial prices. But the pinch of the question
was, how they were to get out of the difficuties in
which they were placed by the representations of the
landlords ? He could only say those difficulties were
the necessary and unavoidable retribution of bad laws
and bad legislation.—(Cheers.) The landlords had
passed the corn-laws under protest from the manu-
facturing and commercial classes, who, it should be
recollected, were not then represented in Parliament,
the representatives of the people being, to a great ex-
tent, returned by rotten boroughs. They sent strong
memorials to the Government of the day, and for-
warded the most earnest protests against the pass-
ing of the law, but in the teeth of those protests,
with a full knowledge before them that the
law would be repealed the first moment the cora-
-1 mercial party had the power to do so; and if, under
these circumstances, the farmers suffered themselves
to be deceived, they could not sympathise with them ;
but they should look to the landed proprietors for
compensation.—(Cheers.) They had strong claims
for compensation on the landed proprietors, but they
hud no claims on the manufacturers or the other
classes of the community. If A did a wrong to B, it
could not prejudice the rights of C, who protested
against the transaction. If, after C protesting against
a certain course which would be ruinous to him, A
and B persist in pursuing it, in consequence of which
one of the parties was a sufferer, he had no claim on
that account upon C.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he ob-
served there was a want of confidence growing up
between the farmers' friends and the farmers in the
country. His Hon. Friend who spoke last alluded to
that want of confidence with great justice. He per-
ceived the farmers began to think their great friends
in Parliament had a disposition to make use
of them for political purposes.--(Laughter.)
There was a growing suspicion that they had not
been fairly dealt with by their leaders in the House of
hereditary legislators. There was the case of the
Duke of Buckingham. He would not, for the world,
say that the Duke had done anything to perfect his
claim to the confidence of the protection party ; but,
somehow or other, he was now undestood to be de-
posed.—(Hear, hear.) He was no longer the leader.
He was supposed to have come under that peculiar
influence—he (Mr. Gibson) did not know what it
was— -which Governments contrived to obtain over
gentlemen with whom they had connexion—(Hear,

hear)—and his Grace the Duke of Richmond was
now the professed leader of the protection party—at
any rate, he was the President of the Central Society
for the protection of British Agricultuiv. Now, the
Morning Post—(Great laughter)—he really felt the
greatest difficulty in quoting from that newspaper,
because there was always a predisposition to laugh
when the name was mentioned—(Laugther)—the
Morning Post of that day contained a letter which
took the Duke of Richmond to task for not
having pursued a bolder course in reference to the
duties on foreign wool. These duties were to
be totally and immediately repealed; and it was said
that the fact of the Duke of Richmond's relative
having received an appointment in the Treasury had
had the effect of influencing his Grace's conduct.
That was the sort of insinuation thrown out: He
did not believe that the Duke of Richmond had been
influenced by that circumstance, and he would tell
them why he did not believe it. He had been a sup-
porter of the Conservative party; his brother had
been a supporter of the Conservative party, and there
was nothing at all improbable in the circumstance
that his brother should have an appointment given to
him.—(Hear, hear.) But his reason for bringing
forward this case was to show the disposition which
there was amongst the farmers and the protection
party to suspect the farmers' friend.—(Hear, hear.)
The moment any circumstance took place which had
a prima facie appearance of suspicion, although it
might be without the slightest foundation, the
protectionists immediately began to think that
they were betrayed.—(Hear.) There seemed to
be a sort of disposition amongst the agriculturists
to suspect that the great leaders of their party had
not dealt fairly with them in Parliament. He did not
mean to say that if the Anti-Corn-law League had
some places to give away there might not be an in-
fluence produced by that circumstance, even amongst
the protection party.—(Laughter.) He should be sorry
to hint that they would
.act so directly at variance
'with all their professed pledges, as to sanction any
sort of political bribery whatsoever—(Cheers)--,but
they could not disguise from themselves the fact that,
in some way or other, Governments did contrive, when
gentlemen got to London, to obtain a kind of influ-
ence over them which was very remarkable, and which
led innocent and simple-minded rustics to believe that
they were betrayed, and that justice was not done to
them.—(Hear, hear.) Now the Duke of Rich-
mond had in former times expressed very strong
opinions—and he believed he held them
now—against the repeal of the corn-laws.
He said, " If you abolish the corn-laws, I'll go out
of the country altogether."—(Laughter.) " Well,
but," it was said, "if you do, you can't take the
land with you."—(Laughter.) Let them consider
in what position a person placed himself Who made
such a declararation. " If you abolish the corn-laws
rn go out of the country altogether." Now, what
were the corn-laws ? What was the nature of them ?
It was simply this —that certain parties in this
country, dealing in the articles of bread and beef,
having shops open to supply the community with
those necessary articles, were very unwilling that
any body else should open shops of a similar descrip-
tion.—(Laughter.) Now, his Grace, together with
his friends, was extensively concerned in this victual-
ling business.—(Laughter.) His Grace, in fact,
wanted :to be a sort of licensed victualler.—(Great
laughter.) Now he (Mr. Gibson) contended that
one Englishman had as good a right as
another to supply the market of the coun-
try with provisions, provided he came by those
provisions honestly.—(Laughter.) He had a right
as an Englishman to supply the market with corn
by the operations of trade, just as the Duke of Rich-
mond had a right to supply it by the operations of
agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) He contended that trade
was as legitimate a calling as any other branch of in-
dustry, and that if it pleased him to send hi's capital
to the Continent to turn it into corn, and to bring
that corn into the English market, in order that he
might thus obtain a profit by the employment of his
capital, there was no earthly reason why he should
not be permitted to do so.—(Cheers.) If, however,
he proposed to bring corn from the Continent to Lon-
don, and to sell it, he was told that he must not do so.
Why ? Because, if he did, some gentlemen in this
country would not get so large a pecuniary
return—, from their property as they otherwise
would do.--(Hear.) Well, but what claim hid those
gentlemen upon him ?—(Hear, hear.) ''He Was not
aware that
.tbsre was any account between them—
that they had any right to control his actions, or to
make demands upon his industry.—(Hear, hear.)
Putting it in this light, how monstrous an interference
was; this corn-law with the civil liberty of her
Majesty's subjects.—(Hear, hear.) What were
Governments for ? The only object in Government
should be to prevent men from encroaching upon
one another, to prevent the several classes of society
from invading the rights and property of each other.
—(Hear, hear.) He had a right to follow that
branch of industry—namely, trade—which Providence
had placed within his reach. That was his property,
and Government ought to protect him in that pro-
perty.—(Hear, hear.) But what had Government
done in this country ? It had assisted a class in
this country to invade this property of his,
this freedom, of trade, this right to exchange
his , industry in any quarter of the globe he
pleased, and thus it had completely departed- from the
true functions and the true end of all government.—
(Cheers.) He trusted that he was not dwelling upon
this point too long—that he was not becoming tedi-
ous.—(No, no.) He did feel, however, that this was
the most important view of the subject which could
be taken.—(Hear, hear.) He did feel that they had
not sufficiently considered the corn-law question as a
question of civil liberty.—(Hear, hear.) He coil-
tended that as they had abolished slavery in their
colonies—as they had totally abolished the right of
man to' hold property in man in any part of the Bri-
tish empire, so the same principles, if they carried
them out, would lead them to abolish monopoly.—
(Cheers.) For what was slavery ? Why one por-
tion of the community claiming a property in the
industry of another portion of the community—
one set of men claiming a right to control the actions
to possess themselves of the result of the
exertions of another set of men. And was not mono-
poly the same thing ?—(Hear, hear.) If they had
destroyed slavery they were bound to destroy mono-
poly.—(Cheers.) Slavery recognised an inherent
right in one man to possess the mind, the muscles,
and the body of another; the corn-laws recognised a
sort of inherent right in the landed aristocracy of this
country to possess the reward of the industry, of other
classes of the community.—(Hear, hear.) They were
precisely the same in principle. Of what use was it
to the planter to possess the slave ? He did not hold
him for mere ornament, for the mere pleasure of look-
ing at him as you would look at a canary bird in a
cage ; no, he possessed him that he might eat the
fruits of his industry.—(Hear, hear.) That was the
principle which he believed actuated many supporters
of the corn-laws; he believed they were actuated by
a desire to possess themselves of a large share of
the industry of the commercial and manufacturing
classes—a larger share than they were entitled
to. Now he had seen, within a day or two, an in-
stance of boldly stating that there was some inherent
right in the landed aristocracy of this country to in-
terfere with the freedom of trade.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.')
He had copied a little extract from a publication
called the Quarterly Review. There was an article
in the Quarterly Review upon agricultural improve-
ments, and in that article is found the following
paragraph :—" The people forget that the land, and
the owners and cultivators of the land, formed the
primary essentials ; and the mercantile and manufac-
turing establishments the adjuncts of the State."—
(Laughter.) So that they who did not own land in
this country were merely adjuncts to the State.
They were not to be recognised as free citizens, or as
having a claim to equal laws ; they were to be re-
garded merely as human beings sojourning
upon this island ; who were only to have
just so much trade, and just so much
of the comforts and conveniences of life, as it suited
the pleasure of the landed proprietors to allow them.
That was the principle which was avowed in this
paragraph ; but what a principle it was !—(Hear,
hear.) Why, when he heard the debates in Parlia-
ment, he sometimes asked himself, " What, are we in
this House of Commons ? Are we employed in mak-
ing equal laws for all classes of her Majesty's subjects,
or are we concerning ourselves with the carrying on
of particular branches of business, and making parti-
cular employments pay ?" Why, what had they to
do in Parliament with making lands pay, whether they
were in the West Indies or in England ? Were the
Members of the House of Commons to be considered
as sugar-planters and corn-growers ; or were they to
be considered as men dealing not with lands and in-
animate substances, but with human beings, who de-
manded of them the discharge of the true functions of
civil government P—(Hear, hear.) If they were to
concern themselves with making estates in the
West Indies pay, why sit in Westminster ?
Why not go to the West Indies ?—(Laugh-
ter.) Why should not the Speaker
.appoint
different Members to be bailiffs over different districts,
and to see to the management of the property in
those districts ? (Cheers.) This would be a far
more reasonable course than sitting there and talking
of it. He protested against a combination
to usurp
the rights of free citizens. If an impartial being
could descend to this earth he would wonder what
was the reason of all this philosophy upon the duties
of Governors and the functions of Government, while
legislators dutysa
t.
to their fellow-subjects, but
in Parliament without ever
considering only how it could particular spots
upon the earths surface return large revenue to
thinking practical
fo their
their proprietors. The. corn-law question lay in a
very small compass.—(Hear.) He had heard of
learned divines, skilled in the philosophy of the
ancients, acquainted with mathematics, and capable of
writing in the dead languages, declare that the corn-law
war; so difficult, so complicated, and so intricate, that

they were really unable to approach it—they could
not touch it.—(Laughter.) Now he was afraid that
when these excellent divines of the Church of Eng-
land—(Laughter) —talked of this immense difficulty,
they forgot the maxim which they sometimes made
use of when they told them that their kingdom was
not of this world.—(Laughter.) He was afraid that
the Tithe Commutation Act had had a very curious
influence in preventing their coming to that question
with that unbiassed power of reflection which they
would otherwise have been enabled to give to it. He
was afraid that, with some few exceptions, there was
an idea among the clergy of the Church of England
that if they repealed the corn-laws the price of corn
would fall very greatly, and that then the tithe .rent
charge would be lessened.—(Laughter.) If it were
not fur this unfortunate influence he believed they
would have the assistance of all who professed
Christianity. The question was intimately con-
nected, in fact, with the whole code of Christian
morals.—(Hear, hear.) Although some had found
fault with them for introducing scriptural quotations
into discussions, he believed that the best anti-corn-
law arguments were to be found in the Bible itself.—
(Cheers.) He had referred to the want of confidence
in the agricultural leaders. He believed there never
was anything so absurd as the views entertained upon
that subject. What became of all the threats and
grand denunciations in Parliament against the Anti-
Corn-law League ? Why they had

" died upon the lip
Faint as a chicken's note that has the pip."
—(Laughter.) No Member of the House of Com-
mons had been bold enough to get up and say, " I
came here to keep up the price of corn, and I won'
have any alteration in the corn-laws ,;" although that
was the language used to the agriculturists in the
country. He believed that many of the agriculturists
imagined that country Members went to Parliament
with only one object, namely, to keep up the price of
wheat.—(Laughter.) An agriculturist in Suffolk
bad said to him that since the prices had
fallen lie could not see that their Member
had done any good by going to Parliament.
Were the great body of the commercial classes to be
ruled by farmers' ordinaries and market tables ?
Rather should they not insist upon the inalienable
right of man to buy in the cheapest and sell in the
dearest market ?—(Cheers.) The cause was gaining
ground from the studied attempts made in Parlia-
ment to blacken and degrade the manufacturing com-
munity. They could not read of any meeting of
bishops or divines, or persons of that description,
without finding allusions to the dreadful vices and
horrid state of the manufacturing districts. And what
was the reason of this attempt to degrade the manu-
facturing population ? 'Why, they knew that among
that population there was a tone of free and indepen-
dent thought.—(Cheers.) They knew that in that
population had been the germ of civil and religious
libertv.—(Hear, hear.) They knew that, from the
great body of the commercial community, had sprung,
and were now springing, those great changes which
had freed numbers from intellectual and
physical thraldom ; they knew that there were
to be found stern enemies of monopoly, and
those who had the least respect for hereditary
wisdom.—(Cheers and laughter.) And what a mon-
strous thing it was to talk in this manner of the
manufacturing population when the agricultural
labourers were in the depth of misery ; when incen-
diary fires were continually taking place in agricul-
tural districts; when the cottages were ill built, and
ill ventilated, and misery was rife. Instead of en-
deavouring to degrade the manufacturing population,
it would be much better if they would look to the
agricultural. Why, these agricultural districts were
the fountains from which flowed the population into
the manufacturing and commercial districts. The
population was increasing at the rate of seven or
eight hundred per day; but the land did not increase
in extent. There was not one acre more in the
United Kingdom than there was fifty years ago, and
they had not the means of employing a single indi-
vidual more in any part of the country, and he asked
whether it were possible to suppose that they could
much longer restrain the extension of the manu-
factures and trade of the country ? That trade could
no longer employ the increasing population, and,
unless they wished to see that loved land of theirs, at
some future day, a formidable scene of convulsion and
bloodshed, it must be unfettered and made free.
The present state of things, if continued, would have
the effect of upsetting reason, of upsetting religion—
(Cheers)—and of upsetting morality ; for when a
man was reduced to despair—when his wife and chil-
dren were famishing around him, when he had not
the means of existence, he (Mr. Gibson) would ask;
of what use was it to that man to have a sermon
preached to him ?—(Cheers.) In conversing with
persons connected with trade, he (Mr. Gibson) was
continually met with the complaint of excessive
competition, and the great difficulty there was in find-
ing employment and situations for the younger
branches of families. He heard this complaint amongst
all professions—in the law, and even in the Church
itself ; and amongst all classes, there was that one
complaint—the great competition, and the struggle
that there was for a man who was not of an inde-
pendent fortune to obtain a livelihood. Now, he did
from his conscience believe that it was the restrictions
upon trade—the interference with the freedom of
action—to which was to be attributed all this difii-
culty.—(Cheers.) They had all natural advantages,
and Providence had, he fully believed, provided the
means of comfortable subsistence for all classes of her
Majesty's subjects. On the other hand, he thought
that it was the cupidity of a certain interest and class,
who had interfered with the distribution of the pro-
duce of the industry of this country, which prevented
a large portion of the people of this country from ob-
taining the advantages which Providence had placed
within their reach.—(Cheers.) Commercial freedom
contained within itself all the objects which a philan-
thropist could desire to see attained.—(Cheers.) It
contained within itself the means of diffusing freedom,
not only through the United Kingdom, but over
every other part of the globe. Commerce would
spread blessings which nothing else could accom-
plish. Opinions upon slavery—opinions upon all
those great questions which influenced men's actions,
could only be spread through the instrumentality of
commerce. If they desired to see in Brazil and Cuba
the slave trade abolished, the best means of doing so
would be by opening communication with the various
arts of the world in which slavery did not exist.
hat was our act when we were slave-owners--
when even the very Bishops were the advocates of the
slave-trade--what was our act? 'Why, having abo-
lished slavery in St. Domingo, we passed a law to
prevent any communication being had between St.
Domingo and the West India colonies, for fear
of the introduction of freedom into St. Domingo
spreading to tho West Indian colonies also.—(Cheers.)
They had at that moment the Emperor of Russia in
England—(Groans and hisses)—and they had also
another crowned head here. 'When they spoke of the
Emperor of Russia, he thought they ought not to
carry their feelings beyond the mere circumstance of
his coming to this country as a simple individual man,
and he thought they ought not to carry their ideas
into Russia. They were expecting a visit from the
King of the French, and they were told that the visits
of all these monarchs to one another forboded peace
throughout the world.---(Cheers.) It might be so,
and he was glad to see such friendly communications
existing. If, however, they wanted really to main-
tain peace, he believed that the best recipe was by
uniting nations together by a tie of common interest,
for that would prevent outbreak, and would prevent
the existence of jealousies between different Powers.
—(Loud cheers.) Emperors and diplomatists
might do something by communicating with
each other; but let them depend upon it that
they could do nothing so effective as that
feeling of interest amongst nations which would
arise by the ties of commercial intercourse.—
(Cheers.) If they were to adopt this principle, it
would not then be in the power of emperors or am-
bassadors to create war between two nations. He
thought no despair ought to be felt on account of the
progress of free trade principles. No one that he had
heard of considered the corn-laws settled, except Mr.
George Robins, the auctioneer. (Cheers and
laughter.) He—small blame to him, as they said in
Ireland—in his advertisements, when he wanted to
sell an estate, said " the corn-law question is settled
in consequence of the declaration of Sir Robert Peel
during this session that he does not contemplate. a
change."— (Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Robins
advised persons to sell out their stock, and give
an additional price for an estate in consequence of
Sir Robert's Contemplations.—(Cheers and laughter.)
He (Mr. Gibson) must say that he thought that the
contemplations of that distinguished Minister were not
very good security for capital.—(Laughter.) He
(Mr. Gibson) should give as much for the estate with-
out the corn-laws as with them. He certainly
would not recommend gentlemen who thought the
corn-laws were necessary to maintain the value of an
estate to place much reliance on the contemplations of
the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Go-
vernment.—(Laughter.) He (Mr. Gibson) thought
they might with truth apply to the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman the term which the late Lord Grenville applied
to monopoly, that " he was the parent of uncer-
tainty."—(Cheers and laughter.) lie (Mr. Gibson)
believed that the Right Hon. Gentleman congratu-
lated himself,but it must not be mentioned in public—
(Laughter)—on the progress of the Anti-Corn-law
League.—(Cheers.) He (Mr. Gibson) had known a
case himself in which a Minister had been anxious to
resist some job, who gave encouragement to the Oppo-
sition to oppose it in order that he might have an
excuse to his • friends not to adopt the job.—
(Cheers.) He believed that was the position
of her Majesty's Government new. They wanted
forcing—they were inviting the Opposition to force
them—and the more they put on the screw, the more
I the Government would give. He was persuaded
that at no period of the history of the country had
i there been such a number of direct invitations to

agitating and forcing as had been given by the p.
I m sent Minister of the Crown to the Opposition. A
I Minister frequently carried his measures not by his
I own supporters, becruse they were generally
dupes, but by the influence of the Opposition.
—(Cheers.) The Minister would say to his sup-
porters, with respect to the corn-law question,
" Those gentlemen who are connected with the free
trade party are making a great noise; we really cannot
maintain these laws any longer—you must give way;
the country is in danger, and if you do not give up
these laws, you will have to give up something better
worth keeping. You cannot make a Government from
the Central Society for the Protection of Agriculture,
nor can you make a Government from the Assembly
in Jamaica; and the pressure of the free-trade party is
so strong that I will not let any_ considerations of
consistency stand in my way. You must have free
trade, or you must part with me." That was sound
advice to give, and he (Mr. Gibson) said that they
were taking a proper course in endeavouring, as far
as in them lay, to bring this subject prominently
before the public, because the advice the Minister
would thereby be led to give his friends would be
that, unless they gave up the corn-laws, they would
have to give up something better worth keeping ; for
they all knew the expression that was used by the
Rev. Mr. Hall—" If there is a taint of rottenness at
the root of society, it will wither the highest branches
of the tree, be they ever so lofty."—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. R. R. MOORE then came forward to address the
meeting, and said he came before them instead of Josiah
Hunt, a tenant-farmer. He would much rather that
Mr. 11-unt had been there himself on that stage to
address that meeting as he had done before, in proof,
from his own experience, that the corn-laws had
neither benefited him, nor any tenant-farmer that he
had ever been acquainted with.—(Cheers.) He (Mr.
Moore) did not know any class that he would rather
be the advocate of in that cause than the tenant-
farmer ; for he did not know any other class that had
suffered more continuously and more deeply from the
corn-laws--(Cheers)--.nor did he know any other
class that would sooner reap the benefit of their total
and immediate abottion. He was always g'ad to ap-
pear as the farmers' advocate against the corn-laws,
because in the name of the farmers unjustly and
falsely was the law passed, and was continued.—
(Cheers.) As Mr. Gibson had said, the supporters of
this law stated that they maintained it for the benefit
of the farmer, and farm labourer, yet on no other
class of the community had more bitter dis-
tress come than on the farmer and farm
labourer of this country.—(Loud cheering.)
But he was not going to speak of the farmer and the
corn-law with respect to what might be called the
agricultural view of the question. He was not going
to argue that an impulse to competition would give
rise to an improvement in agriculture, and would give
a spur to the exertions of the landlord and the farmer,
and would lead them to call to their aid all the dis-
coveries which science had made, and which might
be brought into practice for the increase of agricul.
.tural productions; nor was he going to speak of the
farmer as being oppressed by the pauperism of the
labourers, made paupers because there was no work
for them to do in this corn-law protected land. No,
he was going to speak of the farmer as a serf—as a
man who was not allowed to have an opinion—as a
man who, if in secret he cherished an opinion,
after having read a paper upon free trade, that
the corn-laws had been a curse to him—had stolen
I his customers from him, and had given him
paupers instead of beef and mutton eaters—
dared not express that opinion in public. He
(Mr. Moore) had lately had some share in the
South Lancashire election, and this had taught him
to hate the corn-laws more than ever; for, under the
cloak and cover of protection the electors in that dis-
trict had been coerced into giving a vote against the
opinions which they conscientiously held.—Cheers.)
The South Lancashire election, above all others, had
made him hate the monopoly of the corn-laws. In
America, in the Southern States, for every five slaves
the slaveholder had a vote for a member of the Local
Legislature, and for Congress. A man's feelings some-
what revolted at the idea of another man having the
quantity of his votes regulated by the number of
heads he could count, but he (Mr. Moore) wished that
were the case in this country. It was less degrading
for them, as independent Britons—for the bold pea-
santy, their country's pride for Britons, who
" Never—never —never --would be slaves" —for
it would relieve them from their present degradation,
if the landlord had a vote for every five of them. He
asked them to take this oppressed and degraded set of
men, the tenant-farmers, under their protection, and
suffer them no longer to be dictated to and degraded.
It was no light matter that men should be so de-
graded—that men looking like yourselves, having the
same sympathies, the same right to independence of
action, should be told you must vote for Mr. So and
So at the next election—not the candidate, but the
steward of my Lord's estate.—(Hear, hear.) If they
wanted anything to make them more earnest to carry
the repeal, South Lancashire was the spur. He (Mr.
M.) went round to the voting places in that county—
he had spoken at meetings at which there were large
numbers of farmers, some of whom had spoken to
him in private, and when he asked them why they
did not vote for the free trade candidate, their answer
was, " Why don't you bring our customers—those to
whom we sell our milk and butter—to solicit our
votes for your candidate, and let them tell us that
they won't buy from us in future unless we support
free trade principles ; and then, having your dictation
against the landlords' dictation, we will support the
anti-corn-law candidate."—(Hear.) But he said,
" No—we will not use such means, but we will put
down this landlord-dictation; but you should assist, and
you should even at some peril support those principles,
the operation of which would be so advantageous to
your fellow-countrymen and ultimately to your-
selves.—(Cheers.) You should take courage, and,
however inconvenient, throw yourselves under our
protection, instead of the landlord, and we promise
to treat you better than they have done. We will
neither drain your pockets nor coerce your con-
sciences.—(Cheers.) We will set not only trade
free, but the farmers themselves. They had been
called " accidental adjuncts of the land"—well, as
they were so, they should be acquainted with the
great means by which the League proposed to effect
a repeal of the corn-laws. Those means were the
Registration Courts. They in London were well
versed in the mode whereby they could have a voice
in the selection of the candidate, and they should never
omit to use those means. It was not merely when an
election came that they should exert themselves—it
was not enough for them to make a close canvass,
but they should urge every man in a position to
record his vote to record it on the first opportunity—
(Hear, hear.) It was not when the struggle came
they should commence—it was not when the battle
begun they should examine their weapons. They
should lose no time in seeing that their taxes
were paid, and that their names were on the registry,
that they were duly enlisted under the banners of
free trade. It was an important right, that of voting
—it was a sort of safeguard, whereby they might de-
fend themselves from the landlords levying oppress
sion upon them—levying, in fact, a tax upon the
towns and upon industry.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
The mode of dragooning and coercing the tenantry,
practised by the landlords in South Lancashire, was
almost equivalent to the landlords levying a tax upon.
trade, and collecting it from door to door. They had
plundered the people of their dearest right, the con-
scientious exercise of their opinions.—(Hear, hear.)
It was a bad thing this monopoly. It was not a mere
visionary speculation or abstract—not a mere name—,
a bug-bear; but it was a crushing, griping, biting,
reality—it was that which made dear food, scarcity
of employment, ruinous competition in trade, and
still more ruinous competition of labour—it was the
cause of low wages and high rents, of increasing shops
and diminished customers, at least of diminished
means of those customers—in short it was an active
principle of evil, which shed its baneful influence
over the whole community.—(Hear.) It was net
enough for them merely to come to meetings such
as these, and spout and cheer in favour of free trade,
but they should ask themselves when they went home,
"Now what can we do to advance the repeal of the
corn-laws ?"—(Hear, hear)—and they should forth
with proceed to act upon their
_opinions. They should
consider in what position the House of Commons at
present stood—they should recollect that Parliament
would last but two years longer, and that it rested
with the country to say who should be the Members
of the new Parliament. If the people were well
but they
taught, and really in earnest, there was little doubt
would have a majority in that Parliament;
and the very first session of that Parliament, monopoly
would have received its death-blow. But If the people
were not yet thoroughly taught, they would again
send to Parliament men who would only squabble and
make paltry compromises.—(Hear, hear.) They
must bring their representatives to a plain declaration
of their sentiments, " Are you for a repeal of the
corn-laws--aye or no ?" Promises equivocal—
general promises—were good for nothing
they should have men of principle—steadfast,
uncompromising principle, who would support3uir_
Villiers motion ; they should do these things else
they might at once retire from the field, and make
room for stauncher men. He held in his band the
answers which had been sent by Lord Seymour and
Mr. Baldwin to their constituents in Totnes. Ono
hundred and thirty electors of this borough had re.
their representatives, to
2.3 motion for a free trade in corn.
these two
He (Mr. Moore), without meaning to cast the least
support Mr. Members,
reflection on these Hon. Members, would read to the
meeting the answer of Lord Seymour, which was ad.
dressed to Mr. Ferris::—

" Spring-gardens, Friday,
" Sir—l have received you letter with the inclosed
memorial. With regard to the question of the corn•
laws it may be remembered that in 1834, when I first
addressed the electors of Totnes, I told them that my
opinions were in favour of an alteration of the corn-laws,
aad should ute Cyr any mOtiQg tending toward*