The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-12 00:00:00

TOBACCO TRADE.

Mr. HUME moved for a Select Committee, to exit.
mine into the present state of the tobacco trade, and to
inquire what effects have been produced by the changes
in the laws relating to it ; and whether any and what
Legislative measures, compatible with the general in-
terest of the country, might be advisable, in order to pro-
mote the trade, or to check smuggling in tobacco ; and
to report their observations thereupon to the House.
The motion was agreed to, after a few observations
from the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and )dr.
F. BARING.

The Committee of the Poor-law Amendment Bill was
postponed till Friday.
On the motion of Lord ASIILEY, the following
Members were appointed as the Select Committee on
Netlical Belief to the poor;—Lord Ashley, Mr.

Brotherton, Mr. Bell, Colonel Fox, Mr. Pakington, Mr.
Hawes, Mr. Stuart Wortley, Mr. Owen Stanley, Lord
John Manners, Mr. Warburton, Lord Robert Grosvenor,
ITNIr. Gaily Knight, Mr. Laseelles, Mr. Manners Sutton,
and Mr. Bramston.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought
in the Three-and-a-Half per Cents. Reduction Bill,
which was read a first. time and ordered to be read a
second time to-morrow (this day.)
The House Adjourned at Nine o'Clock.
--
FREE TRADE MEETING.

(From the Suffolk Chronicle.)
On Wednesday evening last, a meeting of landed pro-
prietors, tenant-farmers, merchants, and tradesmen, -was
held at the Swan Inn, Harleston, to take into considera-
tion the propriety of petitioning Parliament to repeal
the duties on foreign corn, the duty on malt, and in fa-
vour of free trade generally.
Thomas Lombe Taylor, Esq., of Starston, a gentle-
man of wealth, station, and intelligence, was called upon
to preside, which he did with an ability seldom exceeded
on similar occasions. The meeting was highly respect-
able, and composed of men holding various political
opinions.
The CHAIRMAN-You are all aware that a meeting
was held in this town upon this day week of those par-
ties who were favourable to protection-protection only.
Many individuals holding the same politics as myself, con-
sidering that meeting was, as it had been stated, to be a pub-
lic meeting, attended, but to their astonishment found they
were not allowed to open their mouths.-(Hear.) Many in-
dividuals indeed were afraid to show themselves, because
their names being gathered, and afterwards inserted in the
Morning Post, and not being allowed to express their
real opinions, the public in reading the report would
have imagined they belonged to the monopolists.--
(Hear, hear.) For this reason, as well as others, the
present meeting had been called. Upon this occasion
full and free discussion is asked for-(Hear)-the fuller
and freer the better. With - respect to himself, in order
that there might be no mistake about his own senti-
ments, he had put them upon paper, and which by their
permission he would read :-" I am so connected with
the land, that if the corn-laws are beneficial to those
immediately interested in the land, they will be so to
me. I state this, trusting you will be more inclined to
listen to what I may advance in favour of an entire re-
peal of those corn-laws. But however dependent I am
upon land, I would not advocate any law which might be
thought to advantage any one part of the community at the
expense of another. The corn-laws (and I beg to remind
you that we have had several, five, I believe, during the
last forty years) may at times have been a benefit
to the landowners and titheowners, but it is
doubtful whether they are now a benefit even to them,
and I am of opinion, and will endeavour to show, that
they are now, and almost always have been, an injury to
the tenant-farmers and their labourers. Have the corn-
laws, for any continuance of time, realised to the farmers
the expectations held out to them by the framers and
passers of those laws ? You cannot have forgotten the
frequent recurrence of agricultural distress, under these
protective laws. I am far from thinking that the repeal
of these laws will produce very cheap corn, as the Anti-
Corn-law League contend it will, and consider that the
League has much injured the cause of repeal and free
trade, by holding out the hope of cheap bread ; but, I
• believe that repeal would produce greater uniformity
between English and Foreign prices, and also more
regular prices. Both landowners and manufacturers are
too selfish and one-sided in their views of this
question. I will now call your attention to the
working of the different corn-laws. - From 1805
to 1815, the law allowed free importation of
wheat at 6d. per quarter when the price was above 665.
per quarter. During those 10 years (excepting 1815)
the price never ranged so low as 665. the quarter, con-
sequently there was free importation. In some of these
years, prices averaged 120 s. per quarter, although there
was, I repeat, free importation. I beg to ask whether
the corn-laws caused these high prices, and the high
rents then put upon the land ? Did not the paper
• money produce some effect ? And I ask may not the
present currency laws (I refer partly to Peel's Bill of
1819) produce some effect, and more even than the
present corn-law does on the present prices, and
therefore are not the farmers wrong in looking to
corn-laws and the sliding scale only as a protection?
In those ten years (1805 to 1815) the importation
of wheat averaged about a million quarters a
year. I mention this to show that with open
ports and high prices to tempt importation, we can-
not have unlimited supplies, as some suppose. We
- certainly could not then have supplies from the seat of
war (and even now France cannot spare us any corn)
but Poland, Russia, and America were open to us, and
in those countries corn is said to be the cheapest. Con-
sider how much population has increased all over the
Continent of Europe, and in England too, since the peace
in 1815, and remember, too, what much greater supplies
• are now required to feed their increased population. In
• 1838, 1839, and 1840, our imports of wheat exceeded
two million quarters a year, and yet it cannot be said
there was a surplus of food, or that wheat was then
cheap. No, the more our manufacturers are employed,
the more corn and food they require, and the better
prices we shall receive. In 1815 wheat was down
to 635. Bd. per quarter, on the year's average, and the
landowners, considering then that it could not be
grown for less then 80s. per quarter, passed a law
prohibiting importation when the price was below that
sum. Then the ruin of the tenant-farmer and the la-
bourer commenced ; and mark, that during the ope-
ration of this corn-law, Peel's Currency Bill was passed.
Notwithstanding this law (which was to guarantee the
farmer 80s. for his wheat), prices kept lowering till
1822, when wheat was 435. 3d. per quarter on the year's
average, little more than one• half the price contemplated
by the framers of the Act of 1815. Need I remind you
how many farmers were ruined at this period? The
state of things at that time ought to have warned the
farmers never again to have relied on a corn-law for pro-
tection, and it ought still to warn them. The average
price of wheat in theie seven years, between 1815 and
1822, never reached 80s. per quarter, except in 1817 and
1818, and then the higher price was to be attributed to
the bad seasons , of 1816 and 1817. The law failed in
effect. Agricultural distress produced a new law
in 1823. This prohibited importation when wheat
was below 70s. per quarter, with a duty of
17s. per quarter when above. Landowners and
tenants supposed that whilst this law remained
in force wheat would not be under 70s. This
law continued till 1828, and how did it work ? The
average never touched 70s. per quarter, and in only two
out of the five years (from 1823 to 1828) even 60s. The
lowest, in 1823, was 51s. 9d. Great imports did not pro-
duce these low prices, as they did not average 300,000
quarters ft year. The landowners, however, during this
time, were getting high rents, set according to Act of
Parliament price of corn, and not the market value. In
1828 another law (the sliding-scale law) was passed-
that being a more recent measure, I need hardly state its
effects. It did not, you must allow, produce a healthy
state of things ; prices varied as much as ever. In 1834,
I find the average price of wheat was 465. 2d. ; in 1835,
395. 4d ; and in 1836, 48s. 6d. per quarter. It cannot be
said that great importations at this period caused these
ruinous prices, as in
1833 the imports were 83,601 quarters.
1834 , 64,552 „
1835 . 27,526 „
1836
It is clear, however, that this corn-law did not keep
prices up to the farmers' expectations, and the fluctua-
tions were very considerable. In 1838, 1839, and 1840, we
had large deliveries of foreign corn, the largest ever
known, and I beg to ask whether these were the farmers'
worst years ?-
In 1838... Imports, 1,821,151 qrs....Aver. price, 645. 7d.
1839... „ 2,652,553 70s. Bd.
1840... „ 2,295,419 ... 665. 4d.
And probably more foreign corn could not have been
obtained with perfectly open ports, as much of this corn
consisted of accumulation of the growth of former
years. The sliding-scale did not prevent prices
• going down to 365., and up to 70s. per quarter.
. There has not been more corn raised in foreign coun-
tries than has been consumed there, or exported ;
and from the accounts of travellers, it appears that all
the land near good roads or rivers -is cultivated. If
their exports are to be increased, their cultivation must
be extended, and this cannot be done without a great
outlay of capital, the want of which must be a bar to
a great or rapid extension ; besides which, the skill in
cultivation, as I can certify, is also wanting. The ex-
pense of transit of foreign corn, port dues, merchant's
profits, warehousing, loss by moisture and heating, being
from 15s. to 20s. per quarter, will, with the benefits of
free trade, be a sufficient protection to the English
farmer
; but, in addition, I say we must have a healthy
currency adapted to our enormous taxation-there must
be no tamperings with it, so that one day
• have credit, and on another nobody, b°ansyomduyehmaoy
and f
Peel's Bill of 1819, as regulates the
agricultural of
gold,
must be repealed.
In an
parish
the rates are paid by the- farmers, but in
manufacturing town they are paid (and oftenain n
much higher proportion) by the manufacturers and
their dependents. The tithes have been called a bur-
den on land, but these never belonged to the landown-
ers or their tenants. If you purchased an estate (sub-
ject to tithe) you buy only nine-tenths of it. I do not
say that the Church has not more than its due. I con-
tend that it has more than a tithe or tenth. The clergy
should not have more than the tenth which the land
will naturally produce, but they reap the benefit of the
farmers' increased skill and capital, his draining, cluing,
and mucking, and the tithe has also been greatly aug-
mented by the operation of the corn-laws • but this point
is too extensive for me to enter upon 'further at this
time. I allow that the commutation of the tithes will
materially direct their increase, but the commutation is
based on compositions set according to Act of Parlia-
ment
prices of corn. They may have no poor,
highway, and county-rates on the Continent, but
have they no poor ? If they have, they feed and clothe
them, and as well as we do. Are they worse fed or paid
than our poor? Perhaps sixpence in Russia will go as
far or further than three sixpences will in England in
the purchase of food. In Ireland, that unjustly treated and
unhappy country, and which too is blessed with corn-law
protection, it is stated that thelabourers get but the poor
scanty pittance of fourpence or sixpence a-day. So that
you see with corn-law protection the poor may be
as badly off as in Poland or Russia ; and can any-
body say that our poor are well paid and fed, and that
their state is independent ? As to highways on the
Continent, if there are roads, they are kept in repair, and
will take labour and materials as in England, and if
there are no roads, how will the farmers get their corn
to the shipping ports ? But the county-rates, which are
increasing so fast ! Are there no gaols, no thieves, or
rogues on the Continent ? If not, the people there are
better off than in England, and we need not fear being
brought to the same state by free trade. The fact really
is, that in many parts of the Continent, the direct taxes
on land are as great, if not greater, than in England. ;
This reminds me of the malt tax, which some protec-
tionists call a tax on land, but this, like the other taxes on i

articles of consumption, is paid by the consumer of the beer
and not the grower of the barley. I fear that less good
to the farmer will arise from a repeal of the malt tax than
he reckons upon. Does his barley sell for more money I
since the repeal of the tax on beer? I think I may answer
it does not. He probably would not be benefited more
than to the extent that he is a consumer of beer. See
too the effect on the price of hides occasioned by taking the
tax off leather; the consumer only is benefited. Never-
theless, I am for a repeal of the maltitax, it being, in my
opinion, oppressive to the labourer. I wish just to call
your attention to the alteration of the law with regard to
the admission of foreign cattle into this country. Ido
this to show you that you need not fear the importation
of them so as to glut or affect our markets. The supply
of foreign cattle (on account of the difficulty and ex
pense of transit) must be so small and limited that it
cannot produce any effect on our markets. But I fancy
I hear some of you say are not prices at Smithfield
lower? I admit they are, but I answer you cannot
prove the importations produced the reduction in prices.
Having now given you my opinions on the corn laws, I
conclude with re-stating that I consider, and I trust I
have in some degree shown that t'le cern-laws are rather
an injury than a benefit to the tenant-farmers and their
labourers, and, in the long run, to the landowner and
titheowner; and having seen that these laws have failed
to make the landed interest prosperous, I say that the
sooner they are repealed the better, especially, too, as many
of their advocates now allow that their repeal is only a
question of time ; but, remember, that with a repeal and
free trade, I am for a revision of our monetary laws, and
a reduction of taxation generally."
Mr. RICHARD PRIEST (Harleston) moved the first re-
solution. As many gentlemen present would doubtless
make long speeches, he would make none of his own, but
simply move the first resolution, as follows :
" It is the opinion of this meeting that the corn-law,
whilst injuring the consumer, has failed to benefit the
producer, of English corn, inasmuch as it has fixed the
expenses of cultivation, without securing a corresponding
price.
" That the duty on malt has proved a serious injury
to both producer and consumer ; to the latter enhancing
the price, and to the former, not only lessening the de-
mand, but entirely preventing the use of barley in,.its
most advantageous form, as food for cattle.
" That restrictions upon trade are frequently injurious
and always impolitic—preventing its expansion and
tending to benenfit one class at the expense of another.
" With the view, therefore, of forwarding the cause of
free trade, it is the opinion of this meeting that a peti-
tion to the House of Commons, in accordance with the
above resolution, be now adopted."
Mr. GEORGE THEOBALD, of Starston, observed, the
observations that had been made by the Chairman con-
tained many incontrovertible facts, and it was on such
facts his own opinions upon the vital question before
him were based. He had looked back for thirteen years
through his books, in order that he might arrive at the
truth with respect to the good or evil effects of the
system of corn-laws. He did not see, upon consulting
his banking-book minutely, and from year to year, that
such laws had been any protection to him as an agricul-
turist, or had accomplished any good for him as an
occupier. That was the truth with respect to himself ;
and he asked others, the tenant-farmers and agricul-
turists around him, whether such things were true or
false with respect to them ?—(Hear, hear.) Like
other men, he had from his heart believed that the corn-
laws had been enacted for the purpose of guaran-
teeing him, with others, a certain price for his corn.
He expected he should have obtained that price. He
asked those around him if he had stated the truth—if
the expectancy was but a creation of his own brain, and
not the general persuasion ?—(Hear, hear.) Figures
were facts, and he asked those who heard him whether
the figures read by the Chairman in the able address he
had given them, were true, or likely to be true or
not. In truth, and in short, he asked if farmers had
ever realised those good prices held out to them as pro-
duceable by the corn-laws, and the corn-laws alone ?
(Hear, hear.) But suppose these high prices had been
realised, what would they have produced? If the laws
were to do good, such good ought not to have been done
at the expense of a man's neighbours. Where corn had
been raised in price by the operation of these lawi, no
one could deny it had increased such price for the
benefit of the few, by the detriment of the many.
Was this fair play? He believed that commerce
and manufactures created the farmers best cus-
tomers. When he found his yard full of bullocks and
was desirous of turning them into money, where did he
send them? He did not sell them on the spot where they
were fed, but forwarded them to London, and they soon
became absorbed by the wants of that great commercial
and manufacturing community.—(Cheers and voices of
dissent.) By what means had our natural wealth been
obtained, but from commerce and manufactures? Why,
the agricultural classes themselves were dependent for
their prosperity on commerce—(Cries of " No, no.")
Could not people observe that England would have been
little better than a second Poland, if not for her manu-
factures and her commercial trade.—(Hear, hear.)
How could he say that the law served him as a member
of the general community, when he saw it did not
serve his neighbour? How were they to reconcile these
two facts if the corn-laws had been productive of good
to agriculture ?—he alluded to the decrease of agricultu-
ral population, and the increase of the manufacturing.
Many around him were perfectly acquainted NA ith indi-
vidual instances of the labourers leaving their agricultu-
ral employment and migrating to the north. Some had
returned dissatisfied and impoverished, but those in-
stances were few and far between, and he stated with-
out fear of contradiction, as a truth known to many in
that assembly, that the majority of labourers who had
left this district of agriculture would not return to it for
any amount of persuasion. All must admit that agricul-
turists were naturally an increasing population equally
with others, and he would ask this question, supposing
they had not left the land, would the farmers have found
employment for them—was there employment to have
been found by which these men would have supported
their wives and families ?—(Cries of " Upon the land.")
The land—the land would not have employed
them, for the agriculturists have now more labourers
than they know how to provide for.—(Hear, hear.) It
appeared to him a great crisis had arrived in agricul-
tural affairs. He looked around him and he found one
course of general agitation upon one great question—the
continuance of the corn-laws—nor would that agitation
subside until that question had been set at rest for ever.—
(Hear, hear.) If free trade were good for the manufac-
turer, it was good also for the farmer, and the converse
of the proposition must be equally true. He fully be-
lieved in the good to result from the principles of un-
fettered trade, and, thinking so, he must join with those
who thought with him. Not influenced by any individual,
he said free trade-Tor the community would be produc-
tive of the greatest good, and the sooner free trade came
the better would it be for all. He advocated free trade
upon the grounds of eternal justice, nor would he think
of asking for its adoption if he thought, for one instant,
it was contrary to the spirit of reason and truth.
W. MASON (Chartist) moved the following amendment :
That this meeting believes the principles of free
ti ade, as propounded by the Anti-Corn-law League, to
be visionary and fallacious in the extreme ; and that
their practical operation would be productive of the most
wide-spread and devastating distress ; and further, that
a just protection for all classes in the community is most
likely to secure the happiness andpromote the prosperity
of the society." He had once been an advocate for free
trade, but he could assure them, after the most patient in-
vestigation, he had found free trade fallacious and erro-
neous in the extreme.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He
should attack the principles of the League, as the
gentlemen who had gone before him had identified
themselves with that body.—(Cries of "No, no.") He
contended that they had, and by exposing the fal-
lacies of the Anti-Corn-law League, he also. exposed
the fallacies those gentlemen had brought before
the farmers of Harleston and its neighbourhood.—
(Loud cries of " That is mere assertion.") Repudiate
protection ! What were governments but protection ?
Mr. Theobald said he abhorred " protection; ' but, if a
thief were to attack him on the highway, or rifle him
of his property, would he abhor the protection of a
policeman?—(Loud laughter.)
CHAIRMAN—We do not come here to support the
Anti-Corn-law League.—(Loud cries of " Yes, yes," and
" No, no, put him down," &c.)

WALTER MASON—It is my-right to speak, and your
duty to bear.—(Cries of " Who sent you here? We
knowyou come to disturb the meeting. Speak to the ques-
tion, and we'll hear you.") I repeat that the League say
the corn-law has increased the foreign trade of this coun-
try. Listen to me, and I will show, in spite of what is
advanced, that the trade has increased, aye increased
monstrously.

[Here a, violent altercation took place between Mr.
William Leapingwell, of Fressingfield, and another gen-
tleman, in which the word " lie" was frequently repeated
by the former gentleman. This altercation had been
caused by a charge made against Mr. Leapingwell, of
having brought Walter Mason to the meeting for the
purpose of disturbing its proceedings. Mr. Leapingwell
declared that the individual-was unknown to him, which
statement, though appearing to satisfy his immediate
antagonist, but increased the asseverations to the con-
trary of many around him. After this uproar had con-
tinued some time, the Chairman interfered.]
CHAIRMAN—Pray, let us be orderly. Let us behave
like men. Allow the' speaker to proceed.. If we are not
tohear arguments against., as well as our own, we had
beitte.rmleaalittlrfooymou.—h(aCveheneors
)
W.
wish to hear me, I will
sit
CHAIRMAN—We wish to hear you, and therefore pro-
,down.
ceed.
W. MASON—He would prove by figures, which, as Mr.
Theobald said, were facts and could not err, that during
the period of this baneful corn-law, which had produced
the ruin of the foreign trade, that trade had been upon
the increase.—(Hear.) In 1798, the official value of
British produce and manufactures exported was,
19,672,5011; in 1808, 26,662,2881; in 1818, 41,963,5271.•,
in 1828, 52,092,15 d.; in 1838, ninety two millions and
odd pounds. This, mind, was at the time when the trade
was stated to be going down by the operation the corn-
laws.—(Hear, hear.)
A VOICE—WiII you read the declared value ?
W. MASON—He would. In 1798, thirty-three mil-
l' lion
s; in 1808, above forty millions;. in 1818, forty-five
millions; in 1838, upwards of fifty millions; and in 1841,
the real value was fifty-one millions. Therefore, in-
, stead of foreign trade being depreciated, it had been
precisely the reverse.—(Hear, hear.) But, although
both foreign and home trade had increased, yet the
wages paid to the labouring classes had decreased.
What had been the cause of this ? (A voice—" I
deny the cause.") What, do you say there is an effect
without a cause ? A pretty sample of the argument we
are to expect from you ! I say there has been a cause,
and I will tell you what it is. The cause is machinery.
(Here another uproar arose, in which the Chairman was
obliged a second time to interpose.) He repeated
that the cause had been machinery, and that cause
being kept out of sight, had produced the errors into
which the Chairman and Mr. Theobald had fallen iu

stating their argument. He would show them now how
machinery had increased, throwing out of employment
the industrious and laborious citizen. In 1792 the
mechanical power of the country had been equal
to twelve millions of human beings. Between that
period and 1817 it had been increased to two
hundred millions. In 1833 it rose to four hundred
millions, and in 1841 it had increased to the won-
derful power of six hundred millions of human beings.
Such was the increase in machinery, and it was to keep
that power in work, that the Leaguers and their friends
clamoured for free trade. What had been the wages at
the early part of this era, and what at the last ? In
1792, when the mechanical power was twelve millions,
a hand-loom weaver was paid 15s. for weaving a certain
length. When the power had reached 200 millions,
wages for the same length had fallen to 4s. And when
the enormous power had risen to 400 millions, the remu-
neration had sunk to the paltry pittance of Is. 7d.
This was in 1831.—(Hear. hear.) It was to keep this
great power, increasing still, in work, that the cry was
made. An excuse must be made for this. Foreign
trade was said to decline, and means must be taken to
keep it up to the full amount of supply for the lion's
mouth. Open new markets, cut down the wages
of the labourers, ruin the farmers, destroy the
land—but limit not the power of machinery.
As regarded the emigration of the poor he thought the
meeting had not heard all the truth, and he thought:also
such emigration would be found bad both for the agri-
culturist and the millocrat. What would become of the
poor, when upon going to the manufacturing districts,
they found all the work done by machinery ? The end
of such a state of things would be really too dreadful to
contemplate, and the long and short of the matter was
that the poor must return to the fields they had left, and
there strive to produce corn for themselves.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HENRY WALNE, of Syleham, observed, that he,
with others, came to that meeting to discuss questions of
importance to all. He had adopted no principle at first
sight, but, before he had acknowledged a principle to be
good, or denounced it as bad, he had surveyed it under
all aspects, in order to arrive at the truth. He held
no principle but such as he hoped might serve the
general good. He claimed for himself the same liberty
of speech and action that others did, but he trusted his
claims were founded on reason, and that a man should
arise in any meeting who claimed the possession of reason,
And state that the principles of free trade were absurd
was to him really monstrous 1 He could but wonder
at such a man's temerity 1 Free trade visionary, too !
Why, what did Sir James Graham say—one of the
brightest intellects of the age ?—(Laughter.) Sir J.
Graham said in 1842, that the principles of free trade
were the principles of common sense. He was no great
politician, nor had he any affection for particular men or
particular parties, and he would select his examples at
random from one side or the other, just as it happened.
What said Sir Robert Peel, when that statesman
brought forward the tariff ?—mind Sir Robert was one
of his opponent's friends—the "farmer's friend," recol-
lect.—(Cheers.) Sir R. Feel had said it was the right of
every man to buy in the cheapest market and sell in the
dearest: was not that the very quintessence of free trade?
Mr. Baring, a candidate at the last election for the
City of London—an election confessedly a struggle be-
tween the friends of free trade and monopoly—said
that the principles of free trade were right in the ab-
stract. Mr. Baring's friends said that, though free
trade was right in the abstract, yet the circumstances of
the country were such that it was imprudent to put those
principles into action. The argument of Mr. Mason
was a mere waste of words, when he attempted to show
that, by opposing protecting laws in corn, an opposition
to the protection of Government was intended.—(Hear.)
An Englishman's house was his castle; all men knew
that, and so nothing more need be said on the point; and
what really was opposed was the protection devised for
a class, and designed to benefit the few, and not the ge-
neral mass.—(Hear, hear.) All agreed, both one party
and the other, that the object of the corn-laws was to
make corn scarce and dear.—(Cries of " No, no.") He
said " Yes, yes;" and he had heard on the previous
Wednesday, at a meeting held on the spot where they
were then assembled, that farmers could not live with-
out high prices.-r-(Hear.)
Mr. LEAPINGWELL—YOU are wrong; fair prices were
the words used.

Ur. WALNE—He believed the contrary. He had
heard confidently to the contrary, though if Mr. Leaping-
well asserted what he said on his word, he did not wish
further to contradict. He would put it to the meeting,
whatever the aim of the corn-law, to say whether the
law had in reality accomplished that or not. The farmers
therefore had been duped.—(Cries of " No, no," and
" Yes.") The Chairman himself had shown in his tabular
statement that the law had proved entirely fallacious.
He would put this question to .the meeting. Who were
benefited by the law? Had there not been five Com-
mittees within comparatively a small number of years,
and since the operation of the Corn Bill, sitting upon
agricultural distress Could the agricultural labourer be
employed at a remunerating price for his labour? Had
the tenant-farmer been benefited, or had the poor been
benefited? He did not complain of the landlord or of the
clergyman, but he would assert this most confidently,
that under that law which had benefited them, the tenant-
farmer and the labourer had been much injured.—
(Hear.) The landlords' rent had doubled.—(Hear.)
The tithe had doubled. Had the farmer secured any of
that doubling ?—(Loud cries of " No.") Had the poor ?
—(Cries of " No.") Suppose the philanthrophy of the
landlord and the clergyman had given back a portion of
this added value, this doubling that was spoken about, to
the farmer and to the labourer, would it have been un-
fair ? By whose energies had the land been increased
in value, if not by the farmer and the labourer? and
if the two latter had had but a small portion of this in-
creased value bestowed upon them, it would have enabled
one to have paid his landlord better, the other to have
served his master better, and both to have been better
customers to the manufacturers.—(Loud cheers.) As to
emigration, why, what an absurdity to talk of that when
farmers themselves wanted all the mouths they could get
to eat their corn. When trade was good in Manchester
and Sheffield, the price of produce was so excellent
in those :localities that graziers would send their stock
thereAnowing even at that distance, the prices of good
times would amply repay them for the journey. But
where did they take their beasts when trade was bad ?
Why just to the nearest point, and even then were
under the necessity of accepting such prices, fair or un-
fair, as were offered them.—(Hear, hear.) Again he
would return to the position that the corn-laws were de-
signed to make :corn dear—that they were made to be-
nefit only the few. The manufacturer never complained
of the high price of produce if his trade were good, but
the corn-laws limited trade, foreign trade especially, and
it was a mere bag of moonshine in any man to say to the
contrary. If trade were extended in freedom, many
rational evils would cease. What did Tory, Whig,
and Radical agree in saying on the late de-
bates upon the Chinese affairs ? Was it not stated
as •an advantage when three ports in that country
were declared open ? If free trade were good
in China, it was also good in England; and if the free-
dom of three ports were good, greater benefits would be
and
pre-
ferred
conferred if three hundred were free.—(Cheers.) He
had given
fr free
themtrad e some
and fewope
no f
portshisargtoumen monopolyt s why he
re-
stricted commerce.—(Hear, hear.) One gentleman had
condemned machinery ; but how were we, as a manu-
facturing nation, to do without it ? A neutral ground
existed, for instance, to which all nations of a commercial
spirit resorted to dispose of their commodities. The
foreigner, with his low taxation, and his machinery im-
perfect, as it was said to be, was enabled to undersell the
Englishman, who, though his power of production was
a hundred times the foreigner's superior, he must yet
succumb, because of restrictive laws and protective corn
duties at home. Such an effect was now really in
existence.

Mr. MASON—TeII us about machinery. Answer my
argument.

-Mr. WALNE—Your argument has been settled long
ago. What did the political economists say about
machinery? What did Maculloch and others give as
their opinion of the effect of machinery—men that saw,
as it were, over the world?' They said, and he thought
English farmers would perfectly understand their
saying, that without machinery England would not
have withstood the French.—(Hear, hear.) Then as to
wages, and what Mr. Mason had stated, that the hand-
loom weaver had to compete with the power-loom—let
them compare manufacturing wages, depreciated as they
were said to be, with the wages given by occupiers of
land, protected as it was called by Acts specially passed
for their benefit. He had been in Lancashire, and for
the very purpose of comparing the amounts of wages,
upon going into a manufactory and seeing a number of
girls at work, he had inquired how they were paid.
There are two there, said the manufacturer to him, to
whom I pay 18s. a-week; to yonder rank I pay 155.,
and there are none here earning less than 12s.—(Hear.)
Mr. MAsoN—And how long do they work? Do we
not know that the manufacturing system is a system of
the greatest cruelty?
Mr. WALNE—The gentleman has but a distorted
view of manufactures. He (Mr. Walne) knew some-
thing more of manufactures than the gentleman who
had interrupted him, being a manufacturer himself ;
and he would state this—that such was the anxiety of
labourers to gain manufacturing employment in an agri-
cultural district, cruel as it was, that he might employ
girls at the wages of only 3s. a week. He had a girl,
who lived in Brockdish, and whom he would name if it
were necessary, to whom he paid 7s. 9d. a week—nearly
as much as her father earned.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. LEAPINGWELL (of Fressingfield) observed
that many able addresses had been delivered that
evening. With respect to the very able statement of the
Chairman he had listened to it with many agreeable
feelings • but he did not assent to its argument, and he
disputed its facts. Much had been said of what had
gone by, nothing had been offered of what was to come
when free trade should be the law of the land.—(Hear,
hear.) Foreigners had no roads of an expensive
nature to make and repair, as Englishmen had ;
foreigners were for the most part unacquainted with
roads, except the important military roads which inter-
sected the country. The state of cultivation too was
far different; the climate also was different. In some
instances it was merely necessary to scatter the grain
over the earth to ensure an abundant and superior har-
vest. The principal subject of that evening's discussion
was free trade, but the Chairman had said that their
meeting upon free trade had nothing whatever to do
with the Anti-Corn-law League. He would not sup-
port that view. He could not see why the two were not
to :be identified, and for the Anti-Corn-law League
gentry collectively he had no hesitation in saying they
.were the pest of the country, and were connected with a
man who had been convicted of conspiracy.—(This al-
luSion to Mr. O'Connell produced a burst of applause
which could not be checked.) O'Connell had been con-
victed. . _ _

A VOICE—Can you say he has been convicted by other
than a packed jury ?—(Loud cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN—If I made any allusion to Mr. O'Con-
nell, I only mentioned his name as an authority for the
low state of wages in Ireland; and therefore it is unfair