The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-29 00:00:00

cast lots to know which of the grown persons in the
ship are to be thrown overboard ; that is what I con-
ceive to be a compulsory emigration.--(Laughter)
But what I want to remind these illustrious Dukes
of is this, before they do draw lots in the case I have
mentioned, everybody takes his chance, and if we
are to have a compulsory system of emigration, I
hope these Dukes and Earls will be prepared to run
the risk of taking their departure as well as others.—
(Cheers.) In fact, it appears most perfectly rea-
sonable that such a course should be taken, because
in case a compulsory emigration should take place,
by which persons were to be transported from Eng-
land to distant climes, because food was not allowed
to be brought to them, it will be necessary that
society should exist in those distant climes in all its
parts, and if Dukes and Earls are necessary here the
must be necessary there also.—(Cheers and laughter)
Therefore, I should propose, if ever this horrible
notion of compulsory emigration should be re-
sorted to, at least it would impose the ne-
cessity of some illustrious Duke going in
company with poor labourers and enterprising
manufacturers into distant regions of the earth, in
order to maintain that social harmony which they say
is so necessary.—(Cheers.) But there is a great
deal of argument in this letter of the Duke of North-
umberland. He tells us that a free trade in corn
would have the effect of throwing the light lands out
of cultivation. Now I am not aware that it is any
necessary part of our national policy to keep our
burning sands or wet clays in wheat cultivation.
But even if admitted that it is the object of legisla-
tion and Acts of Parliament to keep these sands and
clays in cultivation, I want to know how it is that in
Belgium, in France, and in Holland, where the
burdens on land are much heavier, and where the
average price of the produce of the land is
much less than in this country, and where the
labourers are quite as happy—perhaps more so
than in this country—l want to know how
it is that, under all these circumstances, the light
lands of Belgium, of France, and of Holland, are
kept in cultivation. Low prices, heavy taxes, happy
labourers, do not put the lands out of cultivation in
France, Holland, and Belgium. Nothing of the
kind. On the contrary, cultivation is extending
itself in those countries under the circumstances I
have described. 'Judging from the analogy, there is
not the slightest reason to suppose that the abolition
of the corn-laws would put the light sands or heavy
clays out of cultivation. The Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of the Administration has hinted that we
may import guano, and might get foreign manures to
put on these lands, in case they should go out of cul-
tivation. I quite agree with. him. You ought to
import guano if there was free trade. But I beg to
inform him, that I was requested—and I did com-
ply with the request—to present a petition to
the House of Commons from certain dustmen
in Liverpool—(Cheers and laughter)—a both' fide
petition from certain collectors of dust and rubbish
in Liverpool, complaining very much of the proposal
to import guano into this country. They said, No;
give us free trade in corn, and then you may import
foreign manures; but we are collectors of manure in
this country, and if you give protection to the landed
interest, what reason is there you should not give
protection to us ? So you see what difficulties we
are involved in when once we recognise the doctrine
that a Legislature is to interfere with trade. If we
give protection to one, we must give protection to
all; and if we ask for free trade, we must ask for
free trade for all. As the first is impossible, our only
alternative is to resort to the second. But I have no
idea that a free trade in corn would have the
effect of throwing any land out of cultiva-
tion in this country. But if it did, I contend
that it is no part of the duty of a Legislature to
sacrifice the interest of the mercantile class or of any
portion of the community for the purpose of keeping
up any particular system of husbandry or cultivation
on any particular description of land. But I heard
the other day that a Noble Lord at a public meeting
said, that there were highly important considerations
connected with the corn-law question which removed
it altogether from that circle within which they
were entitled to apply their principles ; there were
certain important spiritual considerations connected
with the corn-laws which rendered it necessary to
forget all the principles of political economy, and to
look at it in the light of a question intimately
connected with the religion of the United Kingdom.
I think that no man can be found who would agree
to such an absurd sentiment, but I think also that I
can explain how he arrived at his conclusion that the
Protestant religion of England depended on the main-
tenance of the corn-laws—(Loud cheering)—for
what did the Noble Lord say—it was a sort of " house
that Jack built," as thus : the Protestant religion de-
pends on the Established Church—the Established
Church depends upon agriculture—agriculture de-
pends on the price of corn—and the price of corn de-
pends on the ascending and descending scale of gra-
duated duties.—(lmmense cheering and laughter.)
So here in point of fact we have the assertion that
the Church of England, which we were always
taught to believe was built upon a rock is built
upon nothing but a sliding scale—(Greatt cheer-
ing and laughter)—and that in vain' would
be the teaching of its ministers—in vain
the efforts of its preachers, unless they were backed
by that ascending and descending scale which regu-
lates the importation of foreign corn.—(Laughter and
cheers.) Now, can anything be conceived more ab-
surd than such a doctrine? Why, if that is true—
why do they not impose an oath upon persons taking
their seats in the British House of Commons ?
(Cheers.) We all declare on oath, as well as the
Catholics, that we will not make use of any privilege
we may acquire to shake the Protestant Church as
by law established in England.—(Cheers.) I be-
lieve every man makes a declaration on taking his
seat connected in some manner with the safety of the
Established Church.--(Cheers.) Now, I propose, if
the maintenance of the Church depends on the
corn-laws, that we should have a corn-law oath.—(lm-
mense cheering.) Now I will take the liberty of
reading to you the oath as it would run—" I hereby do
disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure, any belief in
the abominable doctrine that free trade is founded on
common sense.—(Cheers and laughter.) And I do
solemnly swear that it is not one of the articles of my
faith to buy in the cheapest and sell in the dearest
markets.—(Loud cheering and laughter.) And I do
renounce, reject, and abjure, as a dangerous heresy,
the opinion that an abundance of food can be a bless-
ing to the people.—(Loud cheers.) And I solemnly
swear never to exercise any privilege to which I am,
or may become, entitled to disturb the corn monopoly
of the United Kingdom, as by the law established."
(Cheers.) (Cheers.) Now I would recommend those gentlemen
in consistency with the course they take on other
political questions—namely, that of placing reliance
upon oaths and declarations, that they suggest a
corn-law oath.—(Cheers.) I think they have very
little safety in the declaration of their Prime Minister,
that he does not now contemplate a change, but does
not know what may be possible.--(Cheers) There
is very little safety in the question, when his col-
leagues in office declare that free trade is founded
on common sense ; and I fear the day will come
when public opinion will be sufficiently formed,
when these gentlemen, who fear that the Church
Establishment and the Protestant clergy will be
jeopardised by abolishing the corn-laws, will have to face
the difficulties of their situation and take the chance
of all those dangers ; for, depend upon it, no Minister
of the Crown will be found who will support the
interests of the few—of the aristocratical few—in this
county, when the great body of the community come
forward united as one man in support of stern re-
monstrance to demand that there shall no longer be
this interference with freedom of trade, the depriva-
tion of the reward of industry, the disappointment of
'the exertions and enterprise of their fellow-country-
men.—(Cheers.) It would, perhaps, be unfair to
discuss the merits of the agricultural protection socie-
ties, for, as The Times has very wittily said, they have
only just emerged from that alluvial mud and arti-
ficial compost in which they were generated —(Loud
cheers and laughter.) But this I will say, we are
far more entitled to assert that those societies have other
and ulterior views, than they are entitled to assert
that the Anti-Corn-law League has other views than
those we profess.—(Cheers.) We have great reason
to know, from speeches and declarations made in
times past in both Houses of Parliament, that there
are other considerations influencing the supporters of
those societies, than the mere keeping up the price of
corn—(Cheers)--or the interruption of the freedom
of trade.—(Cheers.) I say there is another ulterior
view, and that is political ascendancy—(Great cheer-
ing.) You know that the poet Moore, in speaking
of ascendency of this nature, and especially of the
ascendancy of the landed interest, says that in read-
ing it we ought to lay the emphasis on the first
syllable—ass-endency—(Laughter)--ebut that is the
ascendancy aimed at by these Corn Leagues, by these
Protection Societies ; and I ask you, the representatives
of a large portion of the intelligent population of the
metropolis—l ask you, aro you prepared to submit
to the humiliating proposition that you are only to
exist upon the sufferance of the landed ascendancy ?
(Great cheering.) I ask you, would you deserve the
name of Englishmen if you consented to the proposi-
tion that there is no class in the community, how-
ever wealthy, however distinguished by titles, how-
ever remarkable for other qualities, whether of igno-
rance or of knowledge—(Laughter)--I ask you,
would it not be humiliating to admit that there could
be any one class entitled to ascendancy over you ?
(Cheers.) What is involved in the proposition of
ascendancy ? Why, that you are the property of
others.—(Cheers.) If you are not entitled to equality
by the exertions of your own enterprise and indus-
try, you are slaves—(Great cheering)—and if you do
not exert yourselves to throw off this yoke, you de-
serve to be told that you are slaves.—(Oheers.)
I trust that we may see a growing spirit of inde-
pendence in this community, and that we shall not
longer have to complain of that servile adulation of

mere rank and wealth which has enabled the' Legisla-
ture to impose this yoke upon your necks.—(Cheers.)
I trust we shall see a recognition of the right of free
men, and a determination to vindicate those rights,
accompanied at the same time by a sacred regard to
property.—(Cheers.) Not a property under Acts of
Parliament, but property to which men are entitled,
as the fruits of their industry and enterprise ; not
a regard for the vested interests created by monopoly,
but for the vested interests created by the enjoyment
of the gift of Heaven—(Great cheering)—the pro-
perty required by the exertions of our sinews and our
intellect. Those are the vested interests to which
men have a right, and which never can be inter-
fered with without injustice.—(Cheers.) These are
the vested interests we all are called upon to
protect, and there is no interference so great with
these vested interests as that of the corn-laws and the
restrictive system.—(Cheers.) As they say, in so
many words, we will only allow so much trade as
suits our pecuniary interests or political ascendancy ;
we will not allow you to have that free scope for your
industry or that reward for your exertion, which
Providence has entitled you to enjoy.—(Cheers.)
They say the commercial part of the community may
rival us in political power and intelligence, and other
matters, but we desire to remain the only
representatives of England, and to consider ail
other classes but as serfs and slaves to be used
as the instruments of our power, our pleasure, or our
convenience.—(Immense cheering.) Freedom of
trade will never be the gift of your rulers—liberty
was never bestowed fairly by any governing body
upon any people since the commencement of the
world.—(Cheers.) Liberty is only attained by the
exertions of the people themselves.—(Cheers.) Com-
mercial freedom is within your power if you choose
to take it, and you will never have it if you do not
put forth your own hands and take it.—(Cheers.)
You will never see those blessings realised of peace
and tranquillity throughout the world, and the diffu-
sion of the blessings of civilisation which must be the
consequence of unrestricted commercial freedom, un-
less you put forth your own exertions to accomplish
this great end.—(Cheers.) It will not come upon you
by the chapter of accidents, they are only to be ob-
tained by a steady and unflinching perseverance, and
at the cost of many sacrifices ; and believe me, when I
say that there is no greater truth than is contained in
the old English proverb, " God helps them who help
themselves."—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman re-
sumed his seat amid much cheering.
The CHAIRMAN then announced that the Hon.
Member for Durham would next address the meet-
ing. He was happy to state that, notwithstanding the
flourish of trumpets about the petition against that
gentleman's return, he was still the Member for
Durham. The parties, themselves, not having the
slightest shadow of a chance of impugning the proper
return of Mr. Bright, had last night abandoned the
petition.—(Great cheering.)
Mr. BRIGHT, M.P., then came forward to address the
meeting, and was received with the most deafening
cheers, which lasted some minutes. He said—l have
been called on unexpectedly to speak at this meeting ;
but the difficulty I feel from the suddenness with which
the call has been made, arises in no degree from lack
of matter to speak upon, for, after all the inquiry we
have made into the question, the only difficulty, when-
ever we stand up to speak, is to select from the abun-
dance of matter before us such as may appear most in-
teresting and most useful.—(Cheers.) This theatre was
formerly, and is now occasionally, used for purposes
rather of entertainment than instruction ; we have done
something to transform it into a theatre for instruc-
tion.—(Cheers.) We are a Political Economy Associa-
tion—(Cheers)—and our worthy President occupies
the Professor's chair—(Cheers)—and from this platform
we take upon ourselves to expound certain great prin-
ciples which we believe to be of the utmost importance to
the people of this country, and to instruct those who
may come here—and, through the press, those who may
be absent—in that which we believe to be essential to the
well-being, if not the very existence, of this empire.—
(Loud cheers.) We are not alarmed at the symptoms
which have exhibited themselves lately among our oppo-
nents, we never expected the foul thing we banded our-
selves together to destroy, would give up its foul ex-
istence without a last and somewhat violent kick.—
(Cheers and laughter.) We did not suppose that the
landowners of this country, who enjoy, or some of whom
seem to enjoy, the monopoly of ignorance on this great
question—(Cheers)—and of selfishness besides, that they
would give up their monopoly of the supply of bread to
the people after having enjoyed it nearly thirty
years, without a desperate effort to shake us off:
But all along they have mistaken us entirely—they say
we are political agitators, and that we might be content
with speeches in Parliament, and occasional large meet-
ings, and the farce of petitioning the Houses of Parlia-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) They supposed that by standing
strongly bound together, and showing what they called
a bold front to the Anti-Corn-Law League, we would
get tired of agitation—men would be weary of meeting
and working.—(Hear, hear.) I have often asserted from
this platform that they were entirely mistaken; and it
they still remain under this delusion, they are as much
mistaken as they were before.—(Loud cheers.) They
charge us with bringing the aristocracy of this country
into contempt. Of v.ll the works of supererogation ever
performed, I believe this would lc the grossest. and the
most extraordinary.—(Great laughter, and cries of
"Hear, hear.") I have heard or a ineultr of an aristocratic
family, who attended some of our.anti-corn-law 2,.eetings,
and who was affected. not unto tears—for these gentle-
men seldom shed tears— but who was affected even to
shuddering—that the anti-aristocratic feeling should be
found so strong among the people of the metropolis.—
(Laughter and cheers.) Now, Sir, we have a reverence
for that true aristocracy which consists in all that is good
—in a love of industry—in a pre-eminence of intellect—
and a superiority in virtue.—(Loud cheers.) This is
the aristocracy to which we all -bow, and which we all
venerate.—(Hear' hear.) But there is another aristo-
cracy, which has been called a bastaid chivalry —(Hear,
hear)—an aristocracy which- vaunt of never doing any
thing for any body—an aristocracy whose greatest boast
is that their ancestors have been Trom all times as they
are—idlers—the largest consuming and the least produc-
ing part of the people of this country.—(Laughter,
and cries of " Hear, hear."), I have been often charged
with being hostile to the aristocracy of this country—
they have not dared to prove it, which they would have
done if their case was good or their position sound. I
avow I am hostile to the aristocracy of this country, in
so far as resisting their attempts to trample on the order
to which I belong.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and
great cheering.) The class to- which we are opposed
is 'the idle and the noxious class of the aristocracy.—
(Hear, hear.) They are the men who are bound by
none of those ties which bind other-men—they are not
particularly exemplary of all that is admirable in pri-
vate life and in public conduct. - In the performance of
senatorial functions we never discover anything which
calls upon us to be particularly respectful to them.—
(Hear' hear.) But there is an aristocracy which we
can have no hope of bringing into contempt. If
I were to stand up here and mention some names, such
as Westminster, Spencer, Radnor, Ducie, Fitzwilliam,
Kinnaird, Howick, Morpeth—(Loud cheers)—how
should I be received by this audience if I were to attempt
to bring these men into contempt?—(Hear, hear.) How
should I succeed—by what arguments could I prevail on
you to agree with me, that these men were to be looked
upon with scorn?—(Hear, hear.) What passage of their
lives could I bring before you to show that they were
ennobled but not noble ?—(Hear, hear.) If we spoke of
Earl Spencer and mentioned his conduct in the House
of Commons, when it was allowed by all parties that he
was too honest, too high minded, too candid for the po-
sition which he occupied in that House, would it not
rather excite your admiration than your dislike?—
(Hear, hear.) If we were to compare his manly,
straightforward conduct—his daring to acknowledge
that he had done wrong—his clear enunciation of the
principles by which he was actuated, and if we com-
pared his conduct with the conduct- of the man who
now occupies his place—(Hear, hear)—should we be
successful in heaping g obloquy on-Lord Spencer?—(Loud
cries of " No, no," and great cheering.) And if I spoke
of Earl. Radnor, the friend of the people from his youth
upwards, and to whom, now that he-is in his old age, it
must give the purest pleasure to see those principles
which he advocated in his youth spreading and taking
root in the minds of millions of the intelligent people of
this country—if I were, I say, to declare these things,
how could I throw contempt, on his name?—(Loud cries
of " Hear, hear," and cheers.) And if I speak of Lord
Ducie, who is not merely an agriculturist owning land,
but is, in fact, a great practical scientific farmer—a man
who has done more for the- agriculture of this country
than all the protective societies that ever existed, or that
ever will exist—(Loud and prolonged cheering)—could
I heap obloquy .on the name bf Ducie ?—(No, no.)
Could I bring his character or conduct into contempt
before this meeting ?—(No, no.) - And then if I turned
to Earl Fitzwilliam, Lords Kinnaird, Morpeth, or
Howick, and mentioned the leading characteristics of
these men, surely nobody could charge me with bringing
the aristocracy into contempt. No ; I would rather be
boasting of these men as the-noble among the people of
this country, and in declaring their character and con-
duct I would be actually leading you, my country-
men, to bow down and worship these men, and exalt
them to a • higher aristocracy than_ any to which they
have yet aspired.—(Great cheering.) The monopolist
landlord, from the duke to the squire, are doing our
work most effectually—(Hear, bear)—if the object be
to bring them into contempt.—(Renewed cries of
" Hear, hear," and great laughter.) -They profess to be
honourable legislators of this country. One man de
elared, in the county of Surrey, that it is but reasonable
that that class which owns the land should be the rulers
of the country.—(Laughter.) That is but another
mode of saying—that class -which owns the land shall
likewise own the people.—(Hear, hear.) Some of them
are certainly legislators by birth—at least in name; and
they think it great condescension to allow a con-
stituency to send them tO Parliament. When they
enter the House they make a solemn declaration
that they will legislate without favour or affection, and
without any views of self-interest, end solely for the
public good. If they do that, all I can say is, that the
majority of the people of these countries are living
under a most deplorable delusion.—(Laughter and
cries of " Hear, hear.") No, Sir, they make laws for
themselves in Parliament, and in private they confess
freely that those laws are for themselves, and the
hear.)indis-
erect of them acknowledge it in public.L(e
In this country these class legislators are engaged in
stirring up the worst passions in the minds of the farmers,
exciting their hostility to the manufacturing classes,
doing their utmost tofroduCe that bad feeling with vv
hich
they charge us. They have, ever since 1815, to go
no further back, practised
this
delusion
On them tenantry, and encourage vwsspirit 9f delusion