The Sun.
London, England, 1845-01-16 00:00:00

themselves at the expense of the community—vain
because its recoil would fall on themselves, and pre •
vent them from having that full prosperity which
would ensue if commercial freedom were established.
The landed proprietors say to the Anti-Corn-law
League, " You, gentlemen, are very fond of talking
about the corn-law monopoly, but you never say
anything about other monopolies ; you always attack
us ; why not ask other people to give up their mono-
polies,? We do ask other people to give up their mono-
polies, but unfortunately the landed proprietors them-
selves are the Legislature of the country.—(Hear,
hear.) It is they, and they only, that can give up
the monopolies of other parties, and many of the
monopolies they maintain are inoperative to the ad-
vantage of those parties, or are only maintained as
excuses for the great corn monopoly.—(Cheers.)
Besides, there is a great difference between
other monopolies and the corn monopoly. If we
look to any manufacturing monopoly, fresh capital
can go into it, fresh mills can be built, and persons
who have a monopoly granted to them will not long
enjoy it, because the profits of capital will soon he
brought down by competition to the profits of all
other capital. You can build fresh mills, you can
open fresh shops in particular districts, and give what
monopolies you please to different branches of indus-
try, the competition of capital will bring down the
profits in them to the ordinary profits of other capital.
Those monopolies will not be less injurious to the
community ; but what I contend is, that the monopo-
lists, under the appearance of an advantage, will, in a
short time, have no advantage at all, for the profits
will soon be brought down by competition. But that
is not so in the case of land. You may build more
mills, but you cannot add more acres to England.—
(Cheers.) The landed proprietors hold the monopoly
of the land—that you cannot increase in size ; and
though the farmers who hold this land under them will
never receive more than the ordinary profits of capital,
give them what protection you may, there will be a
surplus, in the shape of rent, for the landlords, which
they keep a steady eye on, and which makes them
unwilling to relinquish their monopoly, even if we
abolished all other monopolies.—(Hear, hear.) And
what a monstrous thing it is that there should he in
these times any question of the propriety of repealing
the corn-laws, when you look to the limited extent of
this island, and the growth ofits population. There are
230,000 fresh human beings added to the population
of England, exclusive of Ireland, each year. But
there is not one additional acre added to your soil.
There is no increase of acres; on the contrary, there
is a diminution of them. Mr. Chadwick, the Secre-
tary to the Poor-law Commissioners, tells us that, as
there are 230,000 fresh persons added to the popula-
tion every year, there must be an addition to the
number of houses in which this population is to reside.
He calculates that 59,000 new tenements are built in
England every year. Manchester has only 30,000
houses, and Birmingham 27,000 houses ; so that if
your population is not to die in ditches, there must
be built in England every year a number of houses
which would occupy a space equal in extent to the
two towns of Manchester and Birmingham. Thus,
every year, the territory of the land is smaller for
the purposes of agriculture and for the growth of
wheat. Your available surface is becoming less and
less, and to think that you should hear men in the
House of Commons wisely telling the Legislature,
or with a wise look (fur their wisdom is in the au-
thority of their acres)—(Laughter)—and I suppose it
is from that the term " wiseacre" is derived— (Great
laughter)—gravely telling the assembled Commons
that it is for the advantage of this increasing popu-
lation, upon this limited soil, that every possible
difficulty should be thrown in the way of the im-
portation of food from foreign countries.—(Cheers.)
Mr. Chadwick, in the same volume, on the ',sanatory
condition of the people of this country, tells us, what
I am sure you have often heard repeated within this
theatre, that in order to give sufficient food for this
increasing population, there must be added to Eng-
land every year a county, equal in size to Surrey,
unless you can devise some means ofgrowing more on
the present extent. Now I fear, unless we repeal
the corn-laws, we shall not make the present
extent grow more. I believe we would get
a benefit from their abolition in two ways
—by increasing the supply from abroad, and
from those at home too. They talk of guano islands.
I have no faith in guano without free trade.—(Cheers.)
I have no faith in the agriculture of the country put-
ting forth all their energies. I have no faith in lec-
tures on under-draining, and the application of che-
mistry to agriculture, till we remove every vestige of
protection from them, and prevent them from pro-
ceeding on an unsound and deceitful basis.—(Cheers.)
There is another charge brought against the Anti-
Corn-Law League, that we are opposed to the Church.
—(Cheers). 'Why, we have in this society some very
distinguished clergymen, and one of the brightest
writers on political economy is the Archbishop of
Dublin.—(Cheers). But still they say we are ene-
mies of the Church, because, it' we were not, we would
say, when we demand a repeal of the corn-laws, we
will indemnify the clergy for any loss that may arise
to them in reference to tithes and corn rents.—(Hear,
hear, and laughter). Now, I admit that tithes and
corn rents are entirely dependent on price, so that they
cannot look upon any improvement in agriculture
with comfort. They cannot look upon any improve-
ment which would lower the price of corn with a fa-
vourable eye. The clergy derives no consolation
from guano.—(Laughter). The clergy were, therefore,
the determined opponents of the Anti-Corn-law
League, because their tithes and rent-charges de-
pended entirely on price. We may console the land-
lord by telling him to drain the land, and to expend
more capital ; the farmer, by telling him that if prices
fell rents would fall ; and the labourer, by telling him
that if wages fell he could buy more with them ; but
if the corn-laws were repealed the price would fall,
and the clergy knew that with the fall of price their
tithes and rent-charges would be also reduced ; and
to that they would not willingly agree. Mr. Cobden
has most ingeniously, but with great truth, met the
case with regard to the farmer—in some measure
with regard to the landlord—and entirely with regard
to the labourer ; but we have got to deal with the
clergy. How are we to indemnify them ?—(Loud
cheers.) A gentleman, for whom I have a very high
respect, said to me, "If you can only convince me
that the abolition of the corn-laws will not produce a
lessening in the price of corn, why, I wouldnot mind
much to support the Anti-Corn-law League." That
reminded me of what is said in one of Sheridan's plays
by some one to his black servant—" Can you be
honest, Mungo ?" " What you give me, massy ?"
(Laughter.) That is the question which the clergy-
man has to consider. Is the corn-law a just law ? If
it be unjust, abol;sh it, and take the consequences.—
(Cheers.) That is the course which the clergy
ought to pursue.—(Cheers.) The course which a
clergyman should pursue between his income and his
duty ought to be this—if the repeal of the corn-laws
makes the Church poor let it be poor, better be poor
than unjust.—(Loud cheers.) I would give the same
answer which Dr. Channing gave to the slaveowner
who complained that the abolition of slavery would
make him poor. He said, "Be poor, then, and thank
God for your honest poverty."—(Loud cheers.) I
think I have completed, so far as I am individually
concerned, the denial that there is that hostility to
the labourer, the farmer, the landowner, or even the
clergy, which was imputed to the Anti-Corn-law
League. There is no hostility in the Anti-Corn-
law League to any individual whatever.—(Loud
cheers.) All I contend for is, that it will
he for the advantage of all those individuals,
and not the least, of the clergy, that this law should
be abolished ; for, if there be a loss in income, will
nut there be a gain in reputation and a relief from
odium, the settling of discord, and the harmony of all
classes in society, and the increase of social happiness?
And if there be those gains, how can we set off against
them those paltry additions which it is said are made
to some particular classes by a great infringement of
the first law of nature, of the first principles of civil
liberty, that man has a right to the full enjoyment
of his industry, and alone: entitled to the rewards of
his own labour, whether of head or hand ?
Now it is said, " If you reduce the price of corn you
will reduce the wages of the labourer." It is said that
this Anti-Corn-law League are totally indifferent to
the welfare of the labourer ; that this question is a
mere question between the manufacturers on the one
hand, and the landowner on the other ; and that the
interest of the labourer is completely lost sight of.
It is contended that the interest of the labourer would
he even injured by reducing the price of corn and
making food more abundant. Now I should not
have much difficulty in convicting our opponents,
by their own assertions, of uttering what they do
not believe. What do I read in the papers ? 'Why,
within the last two or three days I have seen, in the
Morning Post and in otherj ournals, a statement that
certain philanthropic gentlemen are about to
establish a society for the purpose of grinding
and baking for the poor.—(Laughter.) They
propose to raise a large sum of money, and to
erect mills, offices, and bakehouses, in order to un-
dersell the present millers and bakers, who, they tell
us, are extracting too high a price for their bread
from the pockets of the poor. But how does this
tally with the notion that if you reduce the price of
bread to the poor, you will reduce their wages ?
Why, what is it to me who raises the price of bread,
whether it be raised by the miller, or the landowner,
or the baker ? If the raising of the price be a benefit
to me, I say, "Don't lower it."—(llear, hear.) The
labourer does not buy his bread in Mark-lane; we do
not buy our corn, and our food, by the averages
which are published in the Gazelle. No, we buy
our bread from the baker. They tell us, that if we
make bread cheaper in price, we shall reduce wages.
" Well, then," we reply, " if you make it cheaper by
baking more cheaply,or grinding more cheaply,, you will
make wages lower than they are at present. So that
these philanthropic gentlemen are convicted by their
own course of not entertaining the belief that the
wages of the labourer will be reduced by reducing

having forgotten his part on the 140th repetition of
the piece, pleaded, as an excuse, that it could not be
expected that his memory could last for ever.—(A
laugh.) I can plead no such excuse here. In the
first place, we are not assembled here for the purpose
of dealing with merely imaginary things, but
for the purpose of dealing with stern re-
alities—of dealing with facts which are po-
tent to all—of dealing with the great subjects of
justice, of humanity, of the spread of civilisation,
and of procuring for our fellow-countrymen the full
reward of their industry, which can only be accom-
plished by commercial freedom.—(Loud cheers.) The
present moment is remarkable for the progressive
advance which the principles of free trade are making
in public opinion ; the progress of those principles is
sure without being slow.—(Cheers.) If we look at
our adversaries, we shall find that they are moving
in a retrograde direction. Who can doubt that such
is the fact, when we hear the confused nature of their
demands—when we see the different opinions that
prevail amongst the protectionists? The monopolists
at the present moment constitute anything but a
happy family.—(Cheers and laughter.) Sugar
frowns upon corn, and corn frowns upon sugar. Sir
Robert Peel has no confidence in the monopolists, arid
they are equally suspicious of Sir Robert Peel.—
(Cheers and laughter.) Some demand the repeal of
the malt-tax—others demand the repeal of the Cana-
dian Corn Bill. In one direction we hear that the
currency ought to be depreciated, and in another that
the present corn-law is not a sufficient protection to
the agricultural interest, and that the farmers are
losing their money. In whatever direction we cast
our eyes, we see no signs of harmony in the mono-
polist ranks. There is universal disunion—universal
discontent. If we look at our own ranks of the free
traders, we see this great combination of the Anti-
Corn-law League.—(Cheers.) Here there is no dif-
ference of opinion.—(Cheers.) Our demands are
simple and straightforward. Our course is uniform ;
we neither swerve to the right nor to the left ; we do
not ask less to-day than we asked yesterday ;
but we confine ourselves to the plain unvarnished
claims which is the same now as it was at the corn-
meacement of this agitation. We demand now, as
we ever have demanded, the total and unconditional
repeal of the corn-laws, and of all other monopolies.—
(Loud cheers.) This time last year there were Anti-
League meetings assembled in various parts of the
kingdom. At those meetings there took place such a
display of brutality and ignorance, as to leave a stain
on those assemblies which will not be readily wiped
out.—(Cheers). It is very different now. There aro
none of those meetings held in the country now. The
Central Protection Society in London dares not allow
the smaller societies in the country to hold their meet-
ings, for fear that the public should be made
aware of the discontent which prevails in the camp of
the protectionists.—(Cheers.) We hold our meet-
ings openly. We have no desire to prevent our friends
from assembling boldly in any part of the country
and expressing their opinions on the subject of free
trade.—(Cheers.) This is one great proof that the
cause which we advocate is based in truth. Any
cause which is not based in truth has no principle of
cohesion in it, and any combination to support such
a cause becomes split up into fragments, and is
scattered to the winds. There is no bond of union
to hold men together for any length of time in sup-
port of any great cause, but truth ; and when we see
a great society like this holding together year after
year, and assembling together constantly, as we are
now assembled, it is a convincing proof that the
cause which we advocate is the cause of truth and
of justice, if the experience of past times is to be
trusted on the subject.—(Cheers.) It is said we are
opposed to the established institutions of Church and
State, and that under the guise of corn-law repeal
we have revolutionary views, and wish to interfere
with the existing arrangements of society—that we
are jealous of distinctions, and speak evil of dignities;
that under the plea of making known the princi-
ples of political economy, we are in reality endea-
vouring to excite class against class, and to spread
through the land feelings somewhat resembling those
which prevailed in France previous to the Revolution.
There is nothing more untrue.—(Cheers.) There
are amongst us men of all political opinions
and of all religious persuasions.—(Cheers.) We
have men amongst us who hold liberal opinions
as to the extent of representation and forms of Go-
vernment; we have also in this great Association men
of Conservative opinions, who think the present form
of Government best adapted to the happiness of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) We have never made pro-
fessions on other subjects a condition of being a
member of this Association.—(Hear, hear.) It unites
all men—the only common ground upon which we
stand is that of free trade, the striking off the fetters
of commerce, and freeing mankind from those selfish
combinations against the community for the benefit
of a few known under the name of monopolies.—
(Cheers.) We are what we profess to be. We are
nothing less and nothing more; and I am quite sure
I speak the sentiments of the distinguished leaders of
this Association, when I say there is no man, let
his general opinions on any other subjects, political
or religious, be what they may, who will not find a
welcome here, if he only supports the great prin-
ciple of commercial freedom.—(Cheers.) It is said
we are enemies of agriculture—of the art of tilling the
land. We enemies to the extension of art! We
opposed to the progress of science in any form or
shape, adverse to any description of knowledge ! We
are not opposed to agriculture. On the contrary,
amongst the:members of this Association will be found
some of the best supporters of science at present existing
in the United supporters
There will be
found in the Anti Corn-law League all the principal
improvers of agricultural science ; there will be found
in it men who have enlightened the agriculturists
upon husbandry, and upon the different modes by
which the produce of the earth may be increased.—
(Hear.) I will venture to say, not in any part of the
kingdom is any individual to be found more anxious
to improve the agriculture of the kingdom, more
anxious to see two blades of grass where one was now
produced, than our excellent leader, my friend Mr.
Cobden.—(Hear.) His speeches are replete with
sound advice to the agriculturists—his speeches have
led, I believe, practically to improvements in agricul-
ture ; his speeches in different parts of the kingdom
have turned the attention of the agriculturist to the
improvement of his art rather than that fatal reliance
of what Parliament could do, which has hitherto
been the bane of the farming body.—(Hear, hear.)
We are no enemies to agriculture. It has been said
that we are enemies to the British farmer. When
Anti-League meetings have been associated together
they have told us the British lion—that is, the British
farmer—(Laughter)—was shaking his mane at us.
lie is beginning to think, in that part
of the country where I reside, in Suffolk,
that the League will turn out, after all, to be his real
friend. We are no enemies of the British farmer.
We desire to see him prosperous. We know there can
he no stability in the pursuits of the farmer till every
vestige of monopoly is swept away.—(Hear, hear.)
We know that he is now building on an unsound
basis—that he is raising his edifice on sand, and that it
will not stand the shock with which it will have to
contend.—(Hear, hear.) Experience proves that there
is no portion of the kingdom suffers more severely
from the operation of the corn-laws than the British
farmers. Then, it is said, we are opposed to the land-
owners. We are not opposed to men because they are
landowners. We are opposed to the principle which
is laid down by the landowners of the country, at
least, many of them, that the possession of land en-
titles hire to go to the Legislature and ask the Legisla-
ture to prevent persons from buying food from any
one but him.—(Cheers.) If a shoemaker made a de-
mand that this metropolis should buy all its shoes of
him, and we objected to such a monopoly—that any
single person should have the shoeing of the inhabi-
t ants of this metropolis, would it be said that we were
opposed to shoe-making ?—(Hear.) We are opposed
to the unjust demands of the landlords; we are opposed
to the principles laid down by them that trade is to
be a secondary consideration in the country—that the
merchant and the manufacturer, and all other classes,
are not to be deemed equal in the eyes of the Legisla-
ture.—(Hear, hear.) We hold that all are equally
worthy in the eye of the Legislature. The landowners
have legislated for England in the spirit that they
constituted the country, and the rest of the commu-
nity were but to enjoy just so much comfort, so much
rade, so much of the conveniences of life, as may suit
their peculiar interests.—(Hear, hear.) That has been
the principle of the landed legislators. You cannot
look into the statute-book without discovering it in
every page. I need not give a stronger instance of
their favouritism than appeared in the Times news-
paper the other day—l mean the legacy duty. That
will give one small instance of the way in which the
landed proprietors have used their power in the Legis-
lature, for when personal property passes after death to
another, it has to pay a duty to the Government,
while landed property is exempted.—(Cheers.) But
it I were to go over the numerous instances in which
the landed interest have favoured themselves in the
distribution of the burdens of the country, 'I should
detain you much longer than I should desire, and
trespass on your time unwarrantably. But the
landed proprietors and when I say landed
proprietors, perhaps I am wrong in using the term
too generally, because we have as members of this
Association men of vast landed possessions, men who
hold large quantities both of arable and pasture land,
who are anxious to give up this odious monopoly, and
who believe that it is, after all, a vain effort to benefit

the price of bread.—(Cheers.) They seem detere
ruined that nobody shall rob the poor except the land-
lord.—(Great laughter.) Oh, it is a shocking thing
for millers and bakers to be getting this large profit
out of the hard earnings of the poor man, and it is
a shocking thing for the people to make such advan-
tage of the labourer; but my Lord Duke is entitled
to increase the price of flour by an Act of the Legis-
lature, and he has a right to call all men fools who
do not believe with him, that to raise the price of
flour in that way is a benefit, though in all other
ways he admits that it is a curse.—(Hear, hear.)
However, the day is not far distant when this great
delusion will be thoroughly exposed and understood.
I am convinced that we are approaching the time
when the corn-law question, and the question of
free trade, must have a practical issue.—(Hear, hear.)
The Morning Post is an honest paper after all.
What did the Morning Post tell the agriculturists but
the other day ? It says that the only difference be-
tween the policy which even Sir Robert Peel is pre-
pared to pursue and the policy of the League, is this,
the: of Sir Robert's is a slow decay of gradual po-
verty, saddened by disappointed hopes ; while the
other, the policy, namely, of the League, is prompt as
the guillotine ; but he says they are both forms of
extinction—both are going in the same direction to a
certain extent. I believe this is true. I believe from
all that I have heard Sir Robert Peel say
in Parliament, that he is, in his own mind,
firmly convinced of the truth of the principle
of free trade, but that he is prevented from doing all
he would do by the power of the aristocracy of this
country, which rules not only Sir Robert Peel, but
the Queen upon her throne.—(Cheers.) The
strongest Ministers that England has ever seen, have
succumbed at last under the weight of this powerful
landed aristocracy.— (Hear, hear.) Pitt succumbed
under that weight when he yielded his point with
regard to the legacy duties on landed and personal
property. It was his intention to have placed the
same duty on landed and personal property. It was
his design that the lands of the great man should pay
the same duty on passing to his heir, as the money
or the furniture of the poor man pays in
passing to his heir. Such, I say, was his intention,
but he was overborne by the great landed aristocracy
of the country. Ministers have always quailed before
that tyranny ; and the only power in this country
which can overcome the landed aristocracy, is the
power which exists in such meetings as these.—(Loud
cheers). It is the firm and indignant voice of the
intelligent classes of this community, conscious of
their rights, and determined to vindicate them, which
will make that landed aristocracy succumb.—(Cheers).
The corn-law is the last—l will not say the last—
but it is one of the badges of feudal barbarism.—
(Cheers). It is a remain of the Norman Conquest,
and it is for the Saxon population of this country to
rise up and throw off this yoke.—(Hear, hear.) They,
and they only, can do it. No Ministers that ever will
be born can make them a present of commercial free-
dom. It will never be a free gift at the hands of the
great. It will be wrested from the great by the
exertions of the people themselves.—(lmmense cheer-
ing.) I know we are told that majorities are large,
that landed gentlemen return numbers of Members
to Parliament, and that the towns can never com-
pete with them. I would not despair, even if
there were no plan so good as that which
has been struck out by Mr. Cobden for the
registration and formation of 40s. freeholders.
No, I should not even then despair. I have faith in
the ultimate conquest of truth over error—of reason
over prejudice—of freedom over oppression.—
(Cheers.) The experience of mankind tells me that
those triumphs have always been accomplished. The
mind of this country has but to be awakened, and I
am persuaded that the hearts of all good men will be
united in the cause of commercial freedom.—(Cheers.)
It is emphatically the cause of justice—it is the cause
of truth—it is the cause of civilisation—it is the cause
of social happiness—and I cannot entertain the small-
est shadow of a doubt of its ultimate and enduring
triumph.—(The Hon. Gentleman concluded his ad-
dress amidst loud and prolonged applause.)
Mr. COBDEW, M.P., then came forward, and was
received with customary enthusiasm. When the
cheering had subsided, the Hon. Gentleman said—
Ladies and Gentlemen,—Even I, who have almost
lived in public meetings for the last three years, feel
somewhat daunted at this magnificent spectacle.
Why, is there here any friend or acquaintance of the
Duke of Richmond?—(Cheers and laughter.) If
there be, I hope he will describe the scene of to-
night. Ido not know how he may be impressed,
but I am quite sure that if the Duke of Richmond
could assemble such a meeting as this in behalf of the
monopolists, I should abandon in despair all hope of
repealing the corn-law. But this is only one meeting.
When we look back at the numerous gatherings
which we have had of a similar kind, and
when we remember that not one discordant opinion,
not a single violation of order, or even a breach of
etiquette has occurred at any of our meetings, we
cannot but feel that there is an amount of moral
force gathered together around these great assemblies
which it is impossible for any unjust law long to re-
sist. Now, ladies and gentlemen, I come before you
to-night as a kind of connecting link, and a very short
one, between two gentlemen who have not so recently
presented themselves before you. I come between
our mast able and efficient fellow-labourer in the
House of Commons, whose speech you have heard to-
night, and one of the most distinguished and accom-
plished orators of the age, who will follow me—
(Cheers)—and I promise you that on this occasion
I shall, in deference
to your feelings, and in justice
to myself, be very brief in my remarks.—(No, No.)
Indeed, I scarcely know that I should have any pre-
tence for appearing before you at all, if it were not
that we are preparing for our Parliamentary cam-
paign—that it will probably be some time before I
have a similar opportunity. As we are preparing for
that campaign, it may be as well, if we can possibly
dive into futurity, to try and speculate at least upon
what the course of proceeding may be in connexion
with our question. Now I think I may venture,
without any great risk of failure to tell you what
course the Prime Minister will pursue. He will at-
tempt his old arts of mystification.—(Laughter.) He
has acquired, somehow, a great character as a finan-
cier—that is a character which amongst men of busi-
ness does not always place a man in the very highest
grade of respectability. A clever financier ! He has put
the finances of the country in a satisfactory state.
Yes, he has done so ; and how ? Why, I hope to
your satisfaction, through the income-tax.—(Laugh-
ter.)—Now we have nothing to do with fiscal regu-
lations here. As free traders we have nothing to do
with systems of taxation for revenue ; but perceiving
that it will be the policy of the Government, and of
the Prime -Minister in particular, to raise a dust, to
shuffle the cards, and to mix up revenue taxation and
free trade all together, I think we cannot do better,
at the beginning of the year 1845, than by letting the
country know, even at the risk of repetition, what
we, as free traders, really want—that we are
not to be made supporters of this or that system of
taxation, inasmuch as we want nothing which
involves an increase of taxation of any kind. I have
said again and again—and I now repeat—that free
trade means the removal of all protective duties, and
that protective duties are monopoly taxes paid to
individuals and not to the Government.—(Cheers.)
In order to carry out our principle of free trade—
in order to realise what the League wants—what
which, if granted, would dissolve it to-morrow—it is
not necessary that one shilling of taxation which goes
to the Queen's Exchequer should be removed. You
will increase the Queen's revenue in proportion as
you take away those taxes which are now paid to
particular classes and to individuals. We are told
that there is a surplus revenue, and there is a great
boast on this account. The income-tax has been
productive. Those men with sharp noses and ink
bottles at their buttons, who go about
prying at the back doors of houses to
ascertain how many dinners you give in
the year, and who examine and cross-examine cooks
and footboys to find out what style of living you
adopt—(Laughter)—these men have managed to
secure a very reasonable surplus revenue. There is
now a very great contest among different parties as to
what taxes are to be removed in consequence of this
surplus. The parties dealing in cotton claim a re-
duction in the duty on that article; those who deal
in malt claim a reduction of the duty on malt ; and a
third class step in and say, " Let us have half the
duty taken off tea." Now, what I want to have clearly
understood is this, that although there are many par-
ties claiming a specific reduction, you do not find any
one class organising themselves in opposition to the
taking off of any tax paid to the Exchequer.
How is it that we, who want to take off
the tax on bread, meet with such a mighty
opposition ? Why, it is because the tax which we
pay on bread goes to the titheowner and the land-
owner, and not to Queen Victoria.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, do you think it will do us any more harm to
take off a tax which is paid to the squires, than one
which is paid to the Queen's Exchequer?—(Hear,
hoar.) It seems to be universally admitted, that to
reduce a tax paid to the Queen is a benefit to the
community at large ; the only question is, who shall
get the most. But when you come to reduce the
duty on breads thous and dangers and difficulties arise.
Talk to a man about the bread-tax, and he
says, " It's a very complicated question."—(Loud
laughter.) Talk about that other ingredient of
the tea-table, tea, and there is scarcely a gentle-
man or a gentlewoman to be found who will not im-
mediately say, " I think it would be a very good
thing to reduce the duty." If you speak of taking
off the tax on bread, people say, " Why, you want to
lower the wages of the working man, and to make
us dependent on foreigners." Take the case of sugar.
As free traders, we do not want to reduce the Queen's
tax on sugar; we simply want to bring the foreign
tax down to a level with the colonial tax on sugar,
so that the whole tax paid shall go to the
Queen's Exchequer and not to the owners of estates

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JANUARY 16 1845.

in the West Indies. Now nobody opposes the reduc-
tion of the duty on sugar so far as the Queen gets
it ; but if, we propose to take away the tax
which is paid to what is called the colonial interest,
we have a powerful body arrayed against us, and all
the same dangers are alleged as in the case of bread
Now, this will serve to illustrate our position to
those who are not in the habit of reasoningslosely on
this subject. I put it to any one, can itbeless in-
jurious to a country to pay taxes to individuals who
make no return, in the shape of services to the State,
than it is to pay taxes which go into the Exchequer?
Now, what we wish to guard ourselves against is this,
the mixing up by Sir R. Peel of our question of free
trade with his dexterity in finance. If he likes to shuffle
the cards, or, in other words, to make an interchange
between tea, and cotton, and tobacco, and malt, and
the income-tax, and to set up one interest against the
other, it may suit him very well as an effort in the
jugglery of statesmanship—(Laughter)—but let it
be understood that we have nothing to do with that
mystification and shuffling. Ours is a very simple
and plain proposition. We say, "Abolish those mo-
nopolies which go to enrich the majority in Parlia-
ment, and which placed and keeps it in power." I
confess I am more afraid of our friends being taken
in by plausibilities and mystifications than anything
else. I wish we had the Duke of Richmond, or his
Grace of Buckingham, in power for a twelve •
month.—(Laughter.) Let them only avow what
it is they really want, and it would not be long
before we should have achieved the object of our
organisation.—(Cheers.) Now Sir Robert Peel will
meet Parliament under circumstances which may per-
haps call for congratulations in the Queen's speech.
Manufactures and commerce are thriving, and the
revenue is flourishing. Now, was that ever known
when corn was at an immoderately high price ?
(Hear, hear.) Why, the present state of our finances
and manufactures afford an illustration of the truth
of our doctrines. I have been, as the Chairman has
told you, during the last two months paying a visit
to nearly all the principal towns in Lancashire and
Yorkshire. I have seen the great prosperity prevail-
ing there, where four years ago the people were
plunged in the greatest distress, and I am glad
to tell you that I have everywhere witnessed
larger and more enthusiastic meetings than
were held in the time of the great crisis
of distress. We have arrived at that time which
I thought would be most difficult to test this agita-
tion. I mean the time at which the manufacturers
of this country have returned to a temporary pros-
perity. We are proof against that trial. We have
had larger, and more enthusiastic, and more influential
meetings than we have ever had before—(Cheers.)
I am happy to tell you, that as far as the north of
England goes, the present state of prosperity in busi-
ness is merely recruiting the funds of the Anti-Corn-
law League.—(Cheers.) There is not a working
man in the manufacturing districts who has not
had his eyes opened to the enormous falsehoods
which have been uttered by the monopolists during
the last five years. These men do not deal largely
in books ; they are not very great theorists or philo-
sophers, but they have a lively faith in what passes
under their own noses.—(Laughter.) They have
seen the prices of provisions high, and have at the
same time seen pauperism and starvation in their
streets • they have seen prices low, and the demand
for labour rising, and wages increasing in every
part of Lancashire and Yorkshire—the very oppo-
site fact from that which we are told exists.
In fact, some working men have their employers
so completely at their mercy, that they can dictate
their own terms to their own employers. I have
heard one gentleman in the north say, that if
the cern-laws were repealed he should not be able to
manage them at all. I was at Oldham the other day,
and during our proceedings at a public meeting held
at the Town-hall, a working-man got up in the body
of the hall and begged to say a few words as to the
effect of high and low prices on the wages of the opera-
tive. I have here a verbatim report of his words.
Joseph Shaw, the working man to whom I allude, said :
" Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I rise for the purpose
of making a few remarks on the subject of the corn-laws.
I have but once before spoken before a member of Par-
liament, viz., Mr. Hindley,: at a public meeting at Lees. I
have spoken once at Ashton and Saddleworth, but
never before in Oldham. I have thought on the
subject of the corn-laws for the last twenty years
and more, and I have ever seen great reason to con-
demn them. As there is no probability that I shall ever
see Sir Robert Peel, as he never comes down into
this neighbourhood, and I being not able to bear the ex-
pense of going to London, I wish you (addressing Mr.
Cobden) to be so kind as to tell him what you have heard
a working man say on the subject of the corn-laws in a
large and respectable public meeting in the town of Old-
' ham. lam now, and have been long of opinion, that
the corn-laws are very injurious to the working classes,
and I will tell you how I prove it. I have been in the
habit of observing that, when the prices of food have been
high, wages have been low, which sufficiently accounts
for the dreadful state of Stockport and the other manu-
facturing towns and districts two or three years since.
At that time, when wheat was up to about 70s. a
quarter, the working man would have 255. per quarter
to pay for it more than now when it is down to 455.,
and consequently would have 255. less to lay out for
clothing and other necessaries for his comfort during
the time he was consuming a quarter of wheat. I have
further to state, that, since the prices of eatables have
come down, I have seen a deal more new fustian jackets
in our village of Lees than I have seen for
four or five years during the time of high
prices ; and I will also tell you how I ac-
count for that. When provisions are high, the people
have so much to pay for them that they have little er
nothing left to buy clothes with; and when they have
little to buy clothes with, there are few clothes sold; and
when there are few clothes sold, there are too many to
sell; and when there are too many to sell, they are very
cheap; and when they are very cheap, there cannot be
much paid for making them; and that, consequently, the
manufacturing working man's wages are reduced, the
mills are shut up, business is ruined, and general distress
is spread through the country. But when, as now, the
working man has the said 255. left in his pocket, he buys
more clothing with it (aye, and other articles of comfort
too), and that increases the demand for them, and the
greater the demand, you know, makes them rise in price,
and the rising in price enables the working man to get
higher wages and the masters better profits. This,
therefore, is the way I prove that high provisions make
lower wages, and cheap provisions make higher wages."
Now, is it not impossible, that when there can be
found one intelligent man like this, to rise at a public
meeting and give so clear and satisfactory a view of
the working of the system, that other equally intelligent
men, his fellow-workmen, should not also be equally
able to do so ? Well, gentlemen, one by one these
fallacies of our opponents have been, by a continued
and successful course of exposure, cut from under the
feet of the monopolists.—(Cheers). Now, I do not
know that the objects of the Association can be better
advanced than by reiterating what is our mode of
attack, what the grounds of our principles, what the
provision for the fight.—(Loud cheering). In allud-
ing to these, I may tell the gentlemen with
the pens in their hands that they may lay them
down, for I repeated the same things a hundred times
before, but seeing some persons present who seem
strangers to our objects, I will again this evening
refer briefly to them. We do not want a free trade
in corn for the purpose of reducing the wages
of the working man. If we did so, we should keep
up the corn-laws, because experience has proved that
wages have ever been lowest when corn was at the
highest price.—(Cheers.) We do not want to be de-
pendent upon foreigners for our supplies of food, or
to give a higher price to one country at the
expense of another, merely because they
took our manufactures. Supposing one of our manu-
facturers who voted for the corn laws sending goods to
China, and supposing that he said to the people of that
country, " Give us a higher price than you give to
the French or Germans, for we have a corn-law in Eng-
land imposing a tax upon the articles imported, and
I always vote for it.' Why, what would the men
with the pigtails say ? They would naturally enough
say this, " If you are such blockheads in England as
to submit to a high bread-tax, we are not such fools as
to give you ahi her price than we give to the Germans."
You compete with foreigners now, but you would be
better able to compete with them if you could get
bread at the same price that they do.—(Continued
cheering.) Well, then, gentlemen, the object of free
trade in corn is this—to have more trade ; and the Old •
ham operative shows how more trade would raise the
workman's wages. We want trade, and more par-
ticularly free trade in that article that so materially
ministers to the comforts of the working man.
Now, in that case, every cargo of corn that comes
into the country—every quarter of corn will serve
the working classes in two ways. In the first place,
when corn is cut at all, it must be paid for, and there-
fore it is that I say every quarter of corn that enters
our ports [serves him in two ways. It can only be
paid for by a demand for his labour, and an increased
demand for his labour will increase his wages, whilst
it lowers the price of corn. This will also benefit
other classes, but only through the working classes—
that is, through the classes that now unfortunately do
not get enough to eat. But then the farmer objects
if you bring in foreign corn, because for every quarter
you so bring in there is just so much the less a mar-
ket for the home farmer. It is but just and reason-
able that the people in this country should be suffi-
ciently fed. The class that I belong to—the middle
class—is sufficiently fed ; the upper classes get more
than what is sufficient—more than, in fact, is good
for them—(Laughter and cheers)—but the work-
ing classes—and in this I include the Irish, the
Welsh, the labouring classes—l say are not—to our
shame be it said—are not half fed.—(Cheers.) You
have all heard the anecdote of the Irishman in Ken-
tucky, who could not write, and who, wishing to send
a letter to his friends in Ireland, got his master
to write it for him :—" Dear Murphy, I am Lere in
America, happy and comfortable, and get meat once
a day." His master said, " Get meat once a day ;
what do you mean ? You can get meat three times
i
a day if you wish t."—" Ah, sure yer anner, but thim
at home wouldnt belave id if I tould thim."—
(Cheers and laughter.) Well, now, why should not

the working men of this country be allowed to have ,
as much meat if they can get it as the labourer of
America ? It is a hard penalty to be obliged to send
three thousand miles to be fed, but this penalty of
nature, which the allwise Creator of the world im-
poses upon us, is greatly increased when certain per-
sons, the owners of land here, step in and throw obstacles
in the way, and prevent the men of this country being
fed by their fellow-creatures three thousand miles off.
All persons being sufficiently fed, it follows that the
introduction of better prices will not hurt the farmer,
and those who are now sufficiently fed will still con-
tinue to be his customers. All we say is, that those
who now do not get enough, have an undoubted
right to get bread for the produce of their labour,
be it of the head or of the hands.—(Cheers.) Now
the case of wool will well illustrate the truth of what
I say. During the last year, not less than 2,000,000
of pounds have been introduced more than in any
previous year. And why ? The ld. duty
had been taken off, and this vast influx
of wool was but the natural consequence ; yet
farmers in this country still got from twenty to thirty
per cent. more for their wool than beCire. How is
this ? Simply because the extension and prosperity
of the manufacture increwea in a greater ratio than
the increase in the importation of the wool. And so
if you give freedom to commerce, the ability to con-
sume food will be proportionably increased.— (Cheers.)
I feel shame to reiterate these truisms to you, but I
feel that they are necessary in the present position of
the question. My own firm conviction, gentlemen,
is, that this question cannot be carried in
doors, in the House of Commons, in the next
session, although in its progress in that House
the supporters of free trade should express with
a fertility of argument the justice and expediency
of their demands—although they-should cover their
opponents with disgrace in debate—although these op-
ponents should talk such stuff that the veriest child
would be ashamed of it out of the House, yet these
opponents will still vote for the corn-laws. It
would be just as easy to draw a kid out of the maw
of the wolf, as to get them to vote on our side in this
national question.—(Cheers). I remember, that at
the beginning of our labours in London, a certain
Noble Earl called upon us at Brown's Hotel. We
met him at a private interview, and he asked what we
intended to petition for ? We answered, the total re-
peal of the corn-laws.—(Loud and long-continued
cheering). The Noble Earl then said, "My belief
is, that the present Parliament would not pass a 12s.
fixed duty certainly not a 10s. ; but, for a
total repeal of the corn-laws, oh, you may
as well try to overturn the monarchy." Now,
I do not think that they will think the con-
summation so remote now, and, if you go to
Tattersall's, my Lord George may not be inclined to
lay long odds that this law will last much longer.—
(Laughter and great cheering.) We are doing all
we can to shake the old edifice, but it wants a good
deal of battering yet to bring it down.—(Cheers.)
Down, however, it must go, if we enlarge the consti-
tuency.—(Continued cheering.) I have done some-
thing in aid of this object since last I saw you.—
(Tremendous cheers.) I have done something to-
wards bringing some four or five thousand voters,
good men and true, upon the electoral list—(En-
thusiastic cheering)—four or five thousand votes that
will very greatly influence the counties of Lanca-
shire, Yorkshire, and Cheshire.—(Cheers.) But a
good many more in the country could be equally well
organised. Some people had said, and many say, "It is
dangerous and unconstitutional thus to invite persons to
take up their freedom by buying 40s. qualifications." I
say, without being in any way revolutionary or de-
mocraic, that the sooner the power is transferred
from a landed oligarchy, and placed absolutely in the
hands of the industrious—the middle and working
classes, the sooner it will work well for the corn-
munity.—(Cheers.) I hope that every man who has
it in his power to purchase himself a franchise for a
county will regard it as a sacred and solemn duty
to do so before the 31st of January. I ask you to
take into your own hands the power of doing justice
to the twenty-seven millions of people in these islands.
You remember what the immortal Watt said, when
presented before his Maajesty George the Third
The Monarch asked him what he had made,
and the great inventor of the steam-engine replied,
" I have made that which kings are fond of—
power I"—(Great cheering.) Now, we seek to
create a moral power, by inducing those favourable
to the abolition of the corn- !aws to place themselves
on the electoral lists of the country. We wish not
merely to have the boroughs, but in carrying tin
war into the country of the squires, we wish to give
the counties to the towns, instead of, as formerly
the towns to the counties.—(Great cheering.) There
should be no father now but ought to purchase a
county qualification for his son, and—there are
ladies here—though it is a strange anomaly tha
ladies cannot vote themselves, yet they can confer
votes on other persons—l wish they could vote
for they would make a better use of it than their
husbands and brothers do.—(lmmense cheering.)
When in Manchester yesterday--for now the power
of steam brings that town within an eight hours'
journey, a lady presented herself to make inqu rie:
how she might confer a freehold qualification on
son before the 31st of January. She received every
instruction how to do so. Now, the ladies who feel
strongly on this question cannot do better than make
an addition to the county votes, by conferring such
where they can bestow that privilege. The time is
short, and we have much to do. Let us qualify for
Lancashire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, and
Middlesex. I will guarantee Lancashire and the West
Riding if you will assure the county of Middlesex.
This is a labour in which all may engage. It re-
quires no ostentatious exertion--no gaudy oratory.—
(Cheers.) Let all follow up the movement—let all
do their best to further this object.—(Cheers.) We
are not without consolation in the meantime ; for
when I think of this odious and oppressive system—
when I seb the people of this country tamely submit-
ting to this odious tax, deprived of the first necessary
of life—l blush that my countrymen should submit
to it ; but I console myself that I did my best to put
an end to it.—(lmmense cheering.)
The Rev. W. J. Fox then came forward to address
the meeting, and was received with the most en-
thusiastic cheering. The Rev. Gentleman several
times attempted to address the meeting, but such was
the rapturous reception given, that for some minutes
he could not obtain a hearing. Silence having been
somewhat restored, he proceeded as follows :—The
practical measure by which the Anti-Corn-Law
League is characterised this present year, is that to
which Mr. Cobden has just adverted—the correction
of the registration of counties, and the enlarging of
the county constituency, by'inducing the wealthy
free traders of towns to employ part of their surplus
money for such a purpose, and the industrious classes
of the same towns to invest their savings in purchasing
forty-shilling freeholds, in the contemplation, at no
distant time, of meeting the lords of the soil on their
own ground, and, as we confidently believe, fight, aye,
and drive them from their own strong-holds.—
(Cheers.) This policy has excited a remarkable degree
of satisfaction and dissatisfaction. The displeasure at
it has been expressed by the use of the word uncon-
stitutional, which, for the purpose of political dis-
grace, is analogous to the word respectable
as a moral characteristic. The late William
Hazlitt says that one never calls a man respectable
if there can be any other defined quality by which he
can be designated. If a man uses ardent and ima-
ginative language—if he makes good verses you
call him a poet; if a person is learned in profound
problems, if versed in diagrams, you call him a ma-
thematician or philosopher, till, having run the round
If the qualities by which men may he honourably
distinguished, and having failed in discovering any
one of them, you conclude by saying he is certainly a
respectable man. And so in politics, if a person
acts not illegally when he violates no engage-
ment of the laws of the land—if he cannot
he charged with acting immorally because he com-
mits no breach of the commandments, if you cannot
account his conduct dishonourable when it is perfectly
consistent with all conventional forms, you can fail
back en the word which has been inferred, and say, at
any rate, "It is very unconstitutional." (Laughter
and cheers.) Although it is with singular impropriety
that such dispraise is applied to a policy that tends to
give life to the constitution—to make it more than a
dead letter, and to enlarge the number of those who
possess its prvileges, and through that extension Lomultiply its blessings to the community—(Cheers)-7:
we displease our enemies, but we gratify our friends.
With the Central Society for the Protection of
Agriculture the case is reversed, and whatever
is the effect of there proceedings on their
opponents, certainly during the last year they have
excited the strongest dissatisfaction and reproof from
their friends.— (Cheers.) Never was protection, if it
can be so called, so thinly represented. They stated
that they were the friends of the labourer and of the
farmer, but throughout these classes there was but
one feeling of disappointment and uneasiness. At a
meeting they held the other day—not a meeting like
that of the League, unless every Noble Duke
counted for a thousand, and every Member of Par-
liament for two hundred—at a general meeting of the
Great Central Society—(Laughter)—in the first
floor in Bond-street, numbering about forty, even
the members of the Committee found fault with their own
report, and backed their own dissatisfaction by saying
that it was generally thought throughout the country
that the agriculturists had carried out nothing—had
done nothing—attempted nothing—had not suggested
or originated any proceeding—had not gone to Man-
chester, and had not held a great discussion there. I
wish they had done so. They thought the farmers
were going to ruin, for the prices whi)ch were to have
been secured at 565. by Sir Robert 1 eel's Bill, were
found not to have averaged five-and-forty shillings.
And there was truth and reason in this dissatisfaction.
The League had risen during the last twelve months
in the opinion of every well-thinking man, and the
monopolists had by its exertions been led to mortifica-