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

Gh,IND WEEKLY

ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE

MEETING

AT COVENT-GARDEN THEATRE

The usual weekly meeting of the Anti-Corn-law
League was held yesterday evening at Covent-garden
Theatre. The meeting was very numerous, and the
greatest order seemed to prevail. Amongst those
present we noticed the following :
George Wilson, Esq., in the Chair ; Hon.
Charles Pelham Villiers, Esq., M.P., Richard Cobden,
75q. M.P., John Bright, Esq., M.P., Benjamin
smith, Esq., M.P., Major-General Robertson, Pro-
t ssor Key, Colonel Tucker, Dr. Tucker, Messrs.W.
Power, J. W. Griffin (Paisley), J. Howorth (Roch-
dale), J. Angae, Jacob Angas, Summers Harfori,
Stainforth (Hull), B. Metcalf (Liverpool), Thos.
Lattimore (Wheathampstead), Robert Hobbs, Chas.
Mackay, Joseph Limey, W. Geesin, Edwards,
11. Moore, Crawford Burkitt, Benjamin Thorne, S.
Lucas, W. A. Wilkinson, P. A. Taylor, J. Gadsby,
0.. P. Burnard, Francis Stokes, Jarvis, Thomas
Clark, jun. (Birmingham), Press Granger, W. J
Blow, Samuel Grafftey, A. Baner (Man-
chester), Richard Ware Cole, S. A. Smith, •
Crabbie (Leith), George Blanshard, H. L. Keeling,
J. T. Campart, G. F. Minton, -- Wilson, J. Chal-
rier3, Charles W. Cobby, Patrick M‘Gregor, George
33eacon, J. Ridge.
George Wilson, Esq., took the chair at half-past
seven o'clock.
The minutes of the last meeting having been con-
tlrmed,
The CHAIRMAN came forward and was received
gteith loud cheers. He said he apprehended there
evere few there who were not aware that the mono-
dists in the House oT Commons, true to themselves
aed their own interests, had again succeeded in es-
tAelisbing their peculiar claims to the gratitude and
admiration of their fellow-countrymen.--(Hear, hear,
tnd laughter.) On Wednesday last they had, by a
majority of 202, decided upon the maintenance and
continuance of the corn-laws. He knew not whether
.any one present had expected a different result, but
he confessed, looking to the party who composed a
majority of the House, and knowing that they were
the men who a few years ago sat by whilst mono-
poly' Was doing its work, he had no expectation that
_they would he found now giving their support to
those just principles which they sought to see estab-
lished. However, he rejoiced to see that they were not
en strong as they formerly were, and that there was a
strong tide setting in in another direction.—(Hear,
heir.) Last year the monopolists voted 381, this
ear they voted 330, having lost 51.--(Hear, hear.)
but it might be asked " Where is the proof of your
rogress in the House—this year you voted 126 and
hat year you voted the same number ?" Here
was the proof it. In 1842, when Mr. Villiers
put the total and unconditional repeal prin-
ciples in issue in the House of Commons, but 92
voted with him on that occasion, and 395 voted
against him, the majority forming considerably more
than one-half the whole House. On the present
occasion, his minority was increased 34, and the
Illajority against him was reduced 65, leaving them
shorn of the majority they had in 1842 by 100.—
(Near, hear.) But, though the Members who voted
with Mr. Villiers on this occasion were the same in
amount with the number who voted with him last
year, they had -28 new votes in favour of the motion.
—(Hear, hear.) Besides 32 of those who supported
him in 1842 were absent, but their opinions were still
the same they were at that time.—(Hear.) Thus the
titrength of his party was near 170.—(Hear, hear.)
And it ought to be understood that this was the same
House of Comte-tons which was elected especially and
epecifically to maintain the corn-laws.--(Hear, hear.)
There was no general electiOn, and they had no
:neaps of operating on the House except by reason
and argument, yet within two years they found those
who supported the motion had increased considerably,
and the majority of their opponents had been reduced
upwards of sixty-five.—(Hear, hear.) He would
ask any one to point out another question which had
made such progress, which was not a party question,
sand not supported by the great leaders in the House.
—(Hear, hear.) Whatever the Ilouse of Commons
might have been in 1841, every one knew it was now
considerably behind public opinion.—(llear, hear.)
how did he prove that? Why, by asking ;here to
turn their eyes to their own city. One of the Mem-
teen for the City of London voted for the motion,
two voted against it, and the fourth ran away.—
(Cheers and hisses.) Yet, was there any one there
hold enough to affirm that any of those, except Mr.
Pettison, had conveyed the opinion of the City of
London ?—(Hear, hear, and vehement cheers.) But
more than this, a majority of the constituencies of
eleven Members who voted au''ainAt the motion re-
quested their representatives to support it.—(Hear,
hear.) Adding those e'even to the 170 who supported
him it would be found that his friends had more than
doulde l in the House of Commons.—(Hear, hear.)
'111,4r majority was, however, still strong, but it was
a diminishing one.—(Hear, heat.) An littendan,e
of twelve months at the registry would he sufficient
to strip it away—(Hear, hear)—and there was
enlugh of energy and spirit on the part of the people
of this country to secure a victory when another elec-
ti,.in occurred. —(Cheers )
Mr. VILLIERS th,n came forward, and was re,eiv,d
with loud cheers. He said that the Chairman had in.
f:rrned them of what, no doubt, they were aware of
before, that since the last meeting which took place
in that house for the purpose of considering the corn-
laws, he had been at that house where those laws
were made, for the purpose of making his an-
nual inquiry from its authors upon what grounds
either of justice, wisdom, or humanity they
c:euld defend the existence of them, and to
ask them whether they had any fresh expe-
rience, circumstances, or reason of any kind which
they could allege as a set-off against the mass of
misery, and mischief which annually sprang from
those laws.—(Hear, hear) He came before them
at the reqUest of the Chairman, and, notwithstand-
ing the- contemptuous reference which had been
made to those meetings by Sir R. Peel—(Groans)—
out of respect to those who assembled there, to show
their sympathy with the sufferings of the people, in
order to convey to them his impression of the
result of the recent discussion and division on
the question of the corn-laws—(Loud cheers)—
and he would say at once that he never had less
reason to be discouraged on the subject in his lire at
that result--(Hear, hear)—for it had exceeded his
numt sanguine expectations. The motion was brought
forward under very adverse circumstances, and he
was not prepared for that impression being made on
-the constituencies, and thereby on the members, which
had pi-educed so large a minority in behalf of the mo-
tion he proposed. But it might be collected from the
organs of the monopolists in Parliament and in the
preSsathat they considered the result of thatdiscussion
as most satisfactory to them and disastrous to the League.
But about that, he had something to say. Those
who represented the friends of scarcity in the House
0: Commons--(Cheers)—expressed their satisfaction
at the speech of the President of the Board of Trade.
They hailed that speech with joy and surprise, and
the peculiar value of it, was as they expressed it, in
its honeety.—(Latighter.) That seemed to have
taken them by surprise; but the honesty of it, as far
as they could collect was, that as far as he had power,
and as long as he lived, he would stick by the sliding
scale. Now, it was curious to find that any of the
party should have faith in any of the present
-Ministry ; because, when Sir Robert Peel
solemnly promises that he will not abandon them,
some sarcastic friend gets up and says that he had
another corn-law in his pocket.—(Laughter.) And
on what grounds they had more faith in the young
statesman Mr. Gladstone, he was at a loss to know,
for as far as he (Mr. Villiers) knew he was not of
that stuff of which martyrs were made.—(Laughter.)
Great consolation was derived from the division, and
the organ of the monopolists in the House of Peers,
in the person of his Grace of Richmond, told his
friends the tenants at will that they might now renew
their engagements, and expect the Act of
Parliament price, because the majority had
greatly increased against the repeal of the corn-laws,
and probably some . persons would be found foolish
enough to follow his advice. What was the fact ?
Why, twenty-eight men, who never before voted for
the total repeal had voted for it on this occasion f—
(Hker.) Then they had the organs of those luminaries
in the press so satisfied with the result, that they
did not occupy themselves with the question whether
this debate had been a failure or not, but they entered
into a rather curious inquiry ; and the Morning Irs.
ridd—(A laugh)—engaged itself to the extent of two
columns as to what had killed the League, and why
it was-that the people loved protection.—(Laughter.)
He was not able to understand exactly how they ar-
rived at the conclusion they had come to, but they
came to the conclusion that it was owing to Sir R.
Peel's measures, which were of so comprehensive a
character that they settled every questioa.
—(Laughter.) They say that the agriculturists
might now be at rest, as the question was now settled.
Now, that seemed to him, if he might venture to
differ from so venerable a personage, to be somewhat
doubtfetl.—(Laughter.) What reason was there for
supposing that the great agricultural question was
settled, or that the Government had done anything or
intended to do anything to settle it ? Those who sup-
ported the Government, said the question was settled,
because the Minister had said that he would stick
to the eliding scale, and that the principle of protec-
tion should be adhered to. Now, he maintained that
was not enough for the Minister to declare. There
was another condition neoessary to give assurance to
the effrieulturista, and that was, that the public
would stick to itink,gfear, hear, and cheers.)
Unless they did soitie itiokin to the sliding ecele

' would not do much good, for it was very possible,
nay, very probable, that they would sink together.—
(Cheers.) Now, what was the state of the case ?
Public parties were not now much united upon any mat-
ter, but if there was any one thing in which they were
more united than another, it was in hostil' y to the
sliding scale. The commercial classes generally were
not very united, but they were united in their hosti-
lity to the sliding scale. The Liberal party in Par-
liament were not united on many points, but even
Lord John Russell himself, who was not a friend to
the League, and who the other night had been cross
with them because, a few nights before they had
crossed him on the question of the sugar
duties ; even Lord John Russell said, that as
long as the sliding scale existed, agitation
was not only excusable, but it was commendable.—
(Loud cheers.) There was not a single man who
was likely to be a member of the next Government,
who was in favour of a sliding-scale.—(Cheers.) Now
the present Government was not so strong as it had
been.—(Cheers.) If they asked any man they met in
the street what he thought of it, be would tell them
he thought it was going.—(Cheers.) Every one
thought that it was tottering, and that it was very
shakey—(A laugh)—that it could not go on for any
long time. Now why was this so ? It was impossi-
ble to deny that such was the fact; and it was very
much to he attributed to those meetings, by which
expression had been given to the public opinion of the
country. Public opinion would not any longer tole-
rate monopoly. It insisted upon its abolition. The
tide of public opinion had set in against monopoly.
The present Ministry were aware of this, and while
on the one hand they dreaded to outrage public opi-
nion by openly supporting monopoly, on the other
hand they feared to offend their friends by attacking it.
They feared to run counter to public opinion, and
when they acted in accordance with it they ran the
risk of irritating their friends ; and as long as they
remained in office there would be a constant recur-
rence of those family jars which had so nearly upset
them the other day. If they inquired of the agricul-
turists, they would inform them that the farmers had
never before been left in such an unsettled state.
Such was the complaint of every man connected with
agriculture, and the man was a fool who, upon the
faith of the continuance of the present law, would
invest any money in improvements, or would lay out
capital upon the faith of the present law continuing,
and the present prices being obtained. The agricul-
turists said they never were in a worse position ; they
would prefer anything to it; they would rather have
total repeal, free trade—anything, rather than things
should be left in their present unsettled state. They
were perfectly convinced that while the law remained
in its unsettled state, they were more injured than
benefited by it. If they read the debates on this
subject, in the Lords and the Commons, and what
was said by their organs in the press, they would find
that when those parties said they considered the ques-
tion as settled, there had not been any question which
was more unsettled. This was a great encouragement
to them to proceed, and afforded them good ground
for hoping that they should succeed if they perse-
vered. The agriculturists saw nothing but the
prospect of change before them. Either the
Government would be turned out, or their friends
would turn found. Why the Government might be
turned out every day; and if they continued in office,
and turned round by a judicious distribution of
stars and places, they might at any time alienate the
friends of the agriculturists from the cause. They
were only eager to seize an opportunity of being re-
conciled to Sir Robert Peel. The recent discussions
in the Houses of Parliament had shown their weakness
and impotence. As compared with the free-traders,
they were weak indeed. They had no spokesman
among them, who could come forward and give rea-
sons which would bear discussion, for supporting this
law. They trusted entirely in Sir Robert Peel, and
were glad to do whatever he told them. Now this
fixed upon Sir Robert Peel the responsibility of main-
taining this law.—(Cheers.) They had been blamed
for advocating what were called violent measures,
such as total and immediate repeal.—(Hear hear.)
Now let them look at the history of this
corn-law, and see what encouragement there
was to bring forward moderate propositions.
It was in the year 1827 that Mr. Canning first pro-
posed the sliding-scale. At that time, as at present,
there were three parties in the House of Commons,
those who were in favour of an entire prohibition of
the import of corn, those who were in favour of a
sliding scale, and those who were against all mono-
poly. In 1827, when Mr. Canning first proposed the
sliding scale, a gentleman representing the district
which he (Mr. Villiers) hed now the honour to re-
present, Mr. Woolryche Whitmore, was opposed to
the sliding scale, and rose to express his doubts as to
the advantages accruing which its proposer expected
to derive from it. Now, how had that gentleman
been received at the time ? He turned to "Hansard,"
and he found it there state'', that the Honourable
Member was proceeding to state hi= objections,
when ho was interrupted by loud and general
coughing —he waited for some time until the
noise had somewhat subsided when he said that if he
had proposed counter-resolutions there might have
been some reasons for refusing to hear him—(Re-
newed coughing)—but he merely wished to state
hs opinion that the evils of the present system would
not be alleviated by the sliding seale.—(Coughing.)
Now that was the way in which a gentleman was
treated who ventured to express a doubt as to the
merit: of the sliding scale. Mr. Whitmore had been
followed by a gentleman with whose name the,y were
no doubt all familiar, he meant Sir Edward knetch-
hull.—(A laugh.) He had no doubt but that Sir E.
Knatchbull had not suppressed his cough, if he hap-
pened to be suffering from one during the speech of
the former speaker. Sir E. Knatchbull had stated
that he was of a different opinion from the Honourable
Gentleman, that the question before the House was a
most important question, it was whether the importa-
tion of food should be entirely prohibited, or whether

it should be permitted on paim-ent of a certain duty :
for his part, he thought the importation of corn ough
to be entirely prohibited. He stated that he had
heard with horror the declaration of Mr. Canning,
that this measure was an approximation towards free
trade, and he trusted that the House would never
accede to such doctrines. That Bill had passed the
House of Commons, but it had been thrown out of the
[louse of Lords by the prohibition party, with the
Duke of Wellington at their head, and the party had
so attacked Canning, that they had worried him to
death—the session had hardly closed before he had
expired. He had been succeeded in office by his
opponents, and in the year following they also had
proposed a sliding-scale, which the year before they
had exposed. This was in 1828, and on that occasion
Mr. Woolriche 'Whitmore had opposed the :Ministe-
rial sliding scale, and had proposed another in opposi-
tion to it as an amendment. Now what was the scale
which Mr. Whitmore had then proposed ? Why the
very scale which Sir Rohert Peel had proposed the
other day. Now Mr.Whitmore had been attacked
in the most violent manner for this proposition—he
had been stigmatised as the enemy of the
agricultural interest had been told that the
ruin of the interest must be the consequence
of the adoption of his motion, and on a division 383
had voted against it, and only 50 for it. Now that
was an encouragement to moderation, and it con-
firmed him in his determination to ask for nothing
less than total and immediate repeal. In 1833 and
1834 motions on the subject of an alteration in the
corn-laws had been treated in the same sort of way.
In 1837 a change had been proposed from a sliding
scale to a fixed duty—that motion had been rejected,
and on that occasion the majority had been greatcr
and the minority less than it had been to next year,
when he had proposed total and immediate repeal.—
(Cheers.) In 1838 he had proposed as a measure of
justice the total and immediate repeal of the corn-

laws.—(Cheers.) There was a majority of 300
against that motion, although he had so framed it as
to enable every person who disapproved of the existing
system to vote in its favour; for although
he had argued in favour of total repeal,
he had only moved for a Committee. In
1839 he had proposed the same motion,
and the majority had been diminished to 147 ;in
1840, he had proposed the same motion, and the ma-
jority had diminished to 123, but at that time the
Anti-Corn -law League was in active operation, and

their energy in diffusing information on the subject
had tended much to reduce the majority on
the question. The majority, which, in 1838,
had been 300, had been, in 1840, reduced to 123.
At that time the Ministry became convinced that the
sufferings of the people were to be attributed to the
continuance of the system of monopoly, and they pro-
posed measures for putting an end to it. On those
measures they were defeated, and the present Go-
vernment came forward as the supporters of monopoly.
Who could forget the calumnies, the misrepresenta-
tions, the falsehoods, which were had recourse to at the
last election to make the people believe that monopoly
was for their benefit ? It was impossible, without being
disgusted, to consider the system which was then pur-
sued to induce the people to believe that monopoly was
for their advantage, and that the free traders were their
enemies. Now what happened in the session of 1842 ?
Sib R. Peel was fain to yield to public opinion, and
he proposed the tariff, and the new corn-law. Every
principle that the free traders had contended for was
admitted by the monopolist Ministry. They admitted
that • the doctrines of free trade were true—they
admitted that persons ought to buy In the
cheapest and sell in the dearest market—(Hear)—
they admitted that abstractedly monopoly was
wrong,. and free trade was right.—(Cheers.) Now
that principle having been acknowledged, he brought
forward his motion for the repeal of this most mur-
derous law. This law had produced all the evils of
which the country complained. He had moved in
1842 for the total repeal of the corn-law, and his
motion had been rejected by a majority of 304. In 1843
he had repeated the motion, and the majority against
it had been reduced from 300 to 256; and on the last
OCClid011) tite rujolity Tras reduted from 256 to 204.