The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-04 00:00:00

—(Cheers.) Now that certainly proved that the
question had made progress, and he trusted the time
was not far distant when this atrocious law would
be abolished.—(Loud cheers.) He found that,
on the last division, there was no Liberal
Member who had been returned for a city or
borough, with the exception of the Member for
Carlisle, who had voted against the motion. With
reference to the arguments which had been used on
that occasion, he would observe that he had not been
content to propose his resolutions for repealing the corn-
law, without stating in those resolutions his reasons
for making such a proposition. He had therefore
proposed a series of resolutions, stating the present dis-
tressed and destitute condition of the popula-
tion of this country—the fact that such
population was increasing, without any in-
creased means of subsistence, and stating also
that their present destitute cond;tion was to be attri-
buted to the want of food, and that, therefore, the
laws which prohibited the importation of that food of
which they stood in need ought to be repealed.
That it was unwise and unjust to prohibit by law the
importation of the subsistence of the people. Now,
how had these propositions been met ? Their oppo-
nents had not denied any one of his proposi-
tions. They had not denied that the peo-
ple were distressed.—(Hear.) They had not
denied that distress increased as the numbers in-
creased. They had not denied that that distress was
attributable to the want of a sufficiency of food.
Thay had not denied that the corn-law prevented a
free importation of food. He had shown this, and
had challenged them to prove the contrary—that
when the price of corn was dear, the labourer was
badly off; and that when it was cheap, the
lahourer was well off; and that when the la-
bourer was well off, the farmer prospered.—(Cheers.)
The opponents of the question had not attempted
to answer these propositions ; but instead they
had spun a long yarn about the delinquencies of the
Anti-Corn-law League. They did not deny that the
people were suffering—they did not deny that the
cause of the suffering was scarcity of food—they did
not deny that the corn-law was intended to produce
that scarcity. At length Sir Robert Peel rose to
put things together, and to defend the present sys-
tem. He did not attempt to defend the law upon
any principle of abstract right or justice, he did not
deny the assertion of Lord Howick that the corn-law
was a robbery, but he said that the corn-law was a
part of the protective system, which, in fact, amounted
to this, that because A, B, and C, robbed the public
they should be permitted to rob it likewise. Now, Sir
Robert said the corn =law ought to be maintained because
of the peculiar burdens on the-land ; and what did they
think was the burden, more particularly mentioned
by the Premier? Why, the poor-rates. The fund
which was raised for the purpose of relieving the po-
verty created by these very corn-laws was given as a
reason for the continuance of those laws.—(Cheers.)
Now, with regard to these rates, he had heard a
landowner say in private, and their discourses in pri-
vate were very different from their discourses in public;
a landowner had said to him, in private, that the poor-
laws did not press so much on the landowner as on
other people, after all ; for, said he, we deal in food,
and the poor-rates are levied from the tradespeople
and the inhabitants of towns to purchase food for the,
paupers.—(Cheers.) And then, said Sir Robert Peel,
only think of poor Ireland. Only think of Sir R.
Peel thinking of Ireland !—(Laughter.) One conse-
quence of the shutting up Mr. O'Connell was that Sir
R. Peel could allude to Irelan.l on such an occasion.
If Mr. O'Connell had been in the House, he, who
had always consistently advocated the cause of the
repeal of the corn-laws, would have told him that
tho,e laws were not upheld for the benefit of Ireland.
—(Cheers.) Why Mr. O'Connell had said on one
occasion, in a county in Ireland, the landlords had
attempted to get up a meeting to support the corn-
laws, and the farmers and peasantry had attended at
it, and out-voted them.—(Cheers.) There was not
a man who loved that county—not a man who under-
stood that country—not a man who had theinterest
of that country at heart—who was not eager and
anxious to repeal the corn-laws.---(Loud cheers.)
The words were hardly out of Sir R. Peers mouth,
before Mr. Sharman Crawford, the son and the
n-phew of Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Sheil, voted for
the repeal of the corn-laws.—([fear, hear.) Yet,
this was all he had to say by way of reason or argu-
ment. There was another thing, lie said, hut that
was a personality which had been often used against
himself by his friends. He said, he really did not
believe that the same men could be found, either in
the commercial class or in any other class of the com-
mun:ty, who had advocated the total repeal of the
corn-laws.—(Hear.) Why, that was the old state
bit of abuse which had been used by everyb'dy
against anybody, who did not agree with him. Why,
he himself had been called mad for bringing forward
certain measures over and over again. In the case
of the Currency Bill, for instance, madness had been
attributed to him by many persons. He wanted to
know what right he had to call persons mad
because they felt it to be their duty to advocate the
repeal of the corn-laws. He ventured to say that the
Right lion. Baronet knew no more of agriculture
than the man in the moon.—(Laughter.) What right
had he, then, to tell Lord Ducie, who took the chair

be other night, that he was a madman ?—(Hear,
hear.) The man ought to know something of agri•
culture who made such a declaration. Lord Ducie
was acknowledged on all hands to be the best and the
most scientific practical farmer in the country; and
yet, being a landlord himself, he declared that the
total repeal of the corn-laws was essential to the best
interests of the landlords, as well as those of the rest
of the community. Then, as to the safety
of such a measure, what reason had he to
tell them that such men as Mr. Jones
Loyd and the Marquis of Westminster had not
sufficient stake in the country to be able to judge of
the importance of this measure ?—(Hear, hear.)
They were men with a little property, those two.
—(Laughter.) They had come to years of dis-
cretion, and he thought they might be trusted in this
matter. These two men had come forward in the
most prominent manner, and declared that the repeal
of the corn-laws was not only a just measure but a
wise one, for they had given that proof of sincerity
which men usually did when they felt interested in a
cause, they had contributed largely to the funds.
Why, then, should they be told that all who recom-
mended or voted for the total repeal of the cora-laws
were insane?—(Hear, hear.) Why, it was the strong
part of their case, that there never was a measure
b ought before the public which was fortified
by so much authority as the repeal of the corn-laws.
They had same of the most reflecting, some of the
most wealthy, some of the most influential persons
in the country on their side ; and let not Sir Robert
Peel imagine that a flippant reference to the sanity
or insanity of those who advocated their cause would
prevent them from continuing such advocacy.—
(Cheers.) It had been stated over and over again by
their opponents that the bringing forward of this
question in the House was a waste of the public
time. Now, he would ask them to turn over in their
minds the measures which occupied the public time
in the House of Commons. Why even those which
had some interest attached to them were branches of
this great question ; they were in reality attempts to
botch up some of the evils which flowed from the
corn-law. What was the Factory Bill ? The Factory
Bill had occupied a considerable portion of time. That
Bill was a mode of preventing persons who were en-
gaged in factories from working so long as they were
led to do by the hard necessities of their condition.
Why, would it not he better to repeal that law which
brought about such a state of things ?—(Cheers.)
What, again, was the Poor-law Bill ?—a Bill which
was thought to be of so much importance, that it
would probably occupy the attention of the House of
Commons for the remainder of the month ? Why,
it was actually a measure to mitigate some of the
evils of the existing law, because such an unexpected
amount of distress existed, that some mitigation of it
was absolutely unavoidable. —(Hear, hear.) But now,
what was the great question which they were anxious to
press upon the attention of the Legislature ? Why,
it was the question of the condition of the people of
England—of the best means of alleviating it. Was it
not monstrous, then, to postpone this great question,
in order to avoid discussing the monstrous conse-
quences of the eorn-law ? The Currency Bill was
another important measure ; and, by the bye, that
measure was recommended to Sir Robert Peel by
this very man, whom he therefore considered insane.
—(Hear, hear.) That measure was recommended
by Mr. Jones Loyd, whom he considered stark
staring mad, for advocating the repeal of the corn-
laws. Everybody said that the Currency Bill was
his measure. The great recommendation of the
measure, as propounded by Sir Robert Peel, was that
it would prevent those great revulsions in commerce
which had before occurred. He believed that it was
utterly impossible to prevent such revulsions.—(Hear,
hear.) The gold would go out just as much under
the Bank Charter Bill as it had done before, and the
same results would follow.—(Hear hear.) He
only mentioned these Bills to show that
they were not wasting the public time by
directing the attention of the House of Commons to
the great question of this country, the question of the
corn-laws. The great point to be considered was,
how to improve the condition of the means of the
people. the country generally was in a healthy
state, but whilst the mass of the people were increas-
ing in numbers and intelligence, they were suffering
the greatest distress, and this state of things was not
consistent, he maintained, with the continued security
of their institutions.—(Hear, hear.) There was no
reason to despair of the progress of their cause. They
had contributed much by assembling there to form
and influence public opinion ; and as long as public
opinion was allowed to be expressed freely in this
country, it was impossible that it should not have
great influence.—(Cheers.) He repeated they had
no reason to despair. They must not mind
the cowardice, the baseness, or the meanness,
of other persons, but do their own duty. had