The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-02 00:00:00

the returns were not made out ; but if the same propor-
tion was observed, the number would be 240 out of every
thousand employed in agriculture, and 760 in other
trades. But the actual number engaged in agricul-
ture was also diminishing. In the year 1821 the
number employed in agriculture was 6,500,000, while
in 1831 it was 6,300,000. The only way he could
account for that was, that it having been found that, in
general, farms, to he advantageous, must not be small,
the landlords had been enlarging their farms, and
thus diminishing the numbers employed in that mode
of life. It should ever be remembered that, if a nation be
allowed a perfectly free commercial intercourse with
other nations, an increase of population would always
lead to an increase of wealth—particularly where the
population was so industrious as that of England was.
Besides as the population increased the public burdens
were lessened to each. In 1811 the taxation was at
the rate of 31 10s. 3d. per head ; in 1821, 2/. 13s. 8d ;
in 1831, 2/. 6s. 5d ; and in 1841, 1/. 18s. 10d. per
head, and the taxation had been reduced from sixty-
five millions to fifty-two millions. In 1821 the popu-
lation, divided into two classes, showed that 6,500,000
were employed in agriculture, and twelve millions
odd were engaged in other trades, and the sixty-five
millions of taxation were paid by those two classses
in the proportion of thirty-six per cent. by the agri-
cultural, and 64 per cent. by the other classes. Thus
they saw what ground there was for saying that the
agricultural body bote the heavier portion of the
burdens of the State, or was superior in point of
numbers to the other classes of the community. But
those agricultural folks took good care of themselves.
They had little or no direct taxation to pay. Their
dogs and their horses were untaxed. One certainly
could hardly blame, them for taking care of them-
selves, for everybody would do it if he
could, and he asked his hearers not to
let those agriculturists do so any longer.—(Cheers.)
If the people of this country were determined in their
opposition to the monopolists, they would yield, for
many of them knew they were wrong, and were will-
ing to give way if a bold front was shown against
them.—(Cheers.) They had been saddled with the
income-tax by reason of the restrictive laws which
had been maintained, against the opinion of Mr. llea-
' con Hume and others, who, by evidence yet to be
contradicted, proved, before a Committee of the House
of Commons, that by lowering duties the revenue
would be increased. With respect to that income-
tax, he remembered, when it was introduced, to have
heard Lord Melbourne say, in the House of Lords,
that it was a very good thing for a Minister to get
hold of; but he (Lord Kinnaird) did not think they
would readily get rid of it. As far as the prosperity
of the country was concerned, he must say
that, were it not for the income-tax, which was
a tax upon the capital of the country, there
would be the same deficit now as on former
occasions in the national revenue. He had been told
that if they did away with the corn-laws they would
throw poor land out of cultivation. But to grow
wheat on poor land was a clear loss of wealth. (The
Noble Lord then entered into a statement of the pro-
duce and profits of a farm of poor land of his OWD,
upon which he did not grow wheat, and which re-
turned a larger profit than if he had sought to make
it produce wheat.) Among other things which the
corn-laws did was that they rendered farming a
gambling transaction.---(Hear, hear.) Now in his
opinion the weather and its changes was quite enough
for the farmer to contend with without the prices
hopping up and down as they often did.—(Hear.) The
Act had been passed to keep up gambling, and he
supposed, by and bye, that something of the same sort
would be done with respect to corn, because it was
very well known that the great monopolists had told
the Ministry that if they did not do something for
them they would turn against them.—(Hear, hear.)
Every one who knew anything of the corn market
must know that the price to be obtained for wheat
was a complete gambling speculation, in consequence
of the mode in which purchases and sales in that im-

portant article of hie were made. He (Lord
Kinnaird) was told gravely the other day by
a gentleman, when he said to him, " Why,
you » were promised 565. for your corn, but
you do not get it," that he did not expect to
get that exactly—he said they could pro-
duce wheat cheaper ; and that if they were only
given time they would be enabled to sell it for 453.
—(Hear, hear.) He said to him, " But, my dear
fellow, if you were told to go without your dinner
for some time, and that then you will have it cheaper,
how would you like that ?"—(Laughter.) He (the
Noble Lord) had no hesitation in saying that, if the
trade was carried on regularly, there would be a
regular supply in the market. In the year 1812,
when Napoleon tried to keep foreign wheat out of
the English market, five or six millions of quarters
were brought in, in defiance of him, though this
country had certainly to pay for it at no small rate.
—(Hear, hear.) He (the Noble Lord) was satisfied
that the farmers were becoming daily more alive to
the importance of consumers being able to buy ;
their eyes were beginning to be opened to
the fact that an injury to the consumer must
be an equal one to the producer.—(Hear, hear.) But
then it was said that there was no certainty that
other countries would take the manufactures of
this country for:their wheat—now in his opinion there
could be no doubt about it. Before he sat down
he must make some observations on a pamphlet
written by Mr. Cayley. That gentleman was a most

honest man, but he (Lord Kinnaird) believed he had
been deceived, and the quotations he had made from
Adam Smith he could no; er have seen, or he would
not have inserted them. This pamphlet issued frcm
a society calling themselves a " Protection Society,"
but they would, in his opinion, be far more appro-
priately called " A Rent League."—(Cheers.) He
thought when he went through the quotations, the
meeting would be of opinion that it was a most
shameful thing that men should be deluded
by such false statements.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
(The Noble Earl then proceeded to comment
upon the different statements in the pamphlet, and
rebutted them most effectually, proving that the
statements of Adam Smith had been erroneously
quoted altogether.) Now, the leading members of
the Protection Society, fls they called themselves, in
the House of Lords, adopted all that was stated in

that pamphlet, because it was the avowed supporter
of monopoly on which they lived.—(Hear, hear.)
lie (Lord Kinnard) believed that if it was not for
some of the members constitutinc, that Society the
Prime Minister would go the whole hog.—(Great

laughter.) But they had told him they would turn
him out if he did not do their bidding, and he • was
obliged to give way.--(Hear, hear.) The Noble Earl
after thanking the meeting for the patience with
which they heard him, resumed the chair amid great
cheering.
Mr. RICARDO, M.P., was then introduced by the
Chairman to the meeting, and was received with
most enthusiastic cheers. He was well aware how
ill.able he was to supply the place of Mr. Cobden—
(Cheers)—a gentleman who had done so much for
the cause—(Cheers)—who had always something new
to say—(Cheers)—and„who, he was sure, would never
desert the great cause in which he had struggled so
long and so effectually while it required his assistance.
—(Great cheering.) He recollected an old stery, in
which it was told how certain philosophers
entered into a' controversy as to the posi-
tion of a certain building, and after expending
a great deal of argument on the subject, some one
suggested whether they had "not better go and look
at it.—(Laughter.) Now, they had heard a great
deal about free trade. They had been told that the
enthusiasm on the subject was dying away. Now,
the answer he would give to those who made that
assertion was, " come and see."—(Great cheering.)
The League had told them, when they first began
the present agitation, not to be led away by any
dogma of any party—(Cheers)—not to listen to the
dicta of any class of philosophers, but to judge
nels
vvaohirtt
ish:
shut
andhf
reeii
suffering
n then og uns n
dt
under
rh eyes,
ea d
crying
object
tn hearinggitu
eaand
fd whether
grievous
the
r e.i
vt
oh
us
theyt hi
League
injustice,
ur s we
wereteno,
for themselves by attending their meetings, seeing
put an end to.—(Cheers.) The League had opened
what had hitherto been a sealed book.--L-(Cheers.)
They had made thousands, tens of thousands, and
hundreds of thousands of political economists—not by
appealing to the passions, but by clearly stating the
case, and asking the opinions of the people upon it.—
(Cheers.) That man must be a bold one who could
come there attempting to add anything to the state-
ments and views the League had laid before them,
or the convictions they had produced. There was
not a single injustice (and God knew there were
many) connected with the corn-laws that they had
not exposed and laid bare.—(Hear, hear.) He had
not presumption enough to attempt to make any fur-
ther exposition of the injustice that existed. He
came there for no such purpose ; bt.t he attended on
account of being disgusted with the place where their
cause ought to be discussed and redressed, but where,
instead of redress, the advocates of free trade met with
nothing but insult and ridicule. He came from the
oppressors to the oppressed—(Cheers)—to those who
were the victims of bad laws.—(Cheers.) He had
heard a good deal in that House about political eco-
nomy upon several occasions. He had heard it with
respect to corks, and he was surprised to see the una-
nimity that prevailed, until he discovered that no
cork-cutters were present.—(Great laughter.) He
had heard it with respect to plaited straw, but he
could discover no straw-plaiters behind the Treasury
curtain.—(Cheers.) The alteration of the duty on
currants had been well received there, but he had
dnoevaelrl
might
sethenesea
of monopoly break out, would come all the
etuhrirnagnst, bbuusth
oiunctehe
let
tacetile 'theyywhive
drones that had been glutting on the honey which of
right belonged to the people—(Cheers)—and if their
sting was as bad as their buzz, it would indeed be bad
for the people. Noiv, how had they been treated in
the House of Commons? Why, when first Mr. Vil-
liers brought forward the question of .the corn-laws