The Sun.
London, England, 1844-05-16 00:00:00

;o re-

7 -
Ise
In of

they
niting
When
on of
Y
told
Wl°
Price

but be
g ey
idth the
afford

l - bee,l
wow.

make up this deficiency from Cuba, the Brazils, and
the markets of South America ; so that our refusing
to take sugar, the produce of those countries, would
not at all diminish the production of sugar in the
slave States of South America. The effect would be
this, that sugar, the produce of slave-labour, which
Was not allowed to he consumed in England, would
be shipped for Holland and Germany from the
Brazils and Cuba in English ships, would be paid for
in English goods—would be even imported into
England to be refined here, and re-exported,
and yet the English consumer would not be per-
mitted to use it. But he contended that by carrying
it in English ships and paying for it in English pro-
duce, we should he just as much encouraging slave
labour as if we consumed it in England.—(Cheers.)
The West Indian planters had been paid a compensa-
tion of twenty millions for the abolition of slavery.
The protection whieh was still continued to them
Was considered small in comparison with that which
they had hitherto enjoyed, but still it was enormous.
Twenty millions had been granted them as compen-
sation for the abolition of slavery. Now, the pro-
tection which was granted to them on their sugar
amounted to three millions and a half more per annum.
They had received infinitely more than the amount
granted to them as compensation in the shape of pro-
tection—and it would have been cheaper to have
granted the one hundred millions at once than to have
continued these protective duties.—(Cheers.) They
Would have been already several millions in pocket if
they had adopted such a course.—(Cheers.) He
would now briefly allude to a question which had re-
cently occupied a
great deal of the public mind—he
meant the currency question. He would only make
a„ few brief remarks on the subject, and that only as
ictirstaselyit was connected with the subject more imme-
ritesti.
Ti before the meeting. He did not intend to
"cuss the currency question ; but inasmuch as the
of the currency was intimately connected
the the "Le question of free trade, and the abolition of
liakeeorn4aws,
he thought it not inappropriate to
ru
jaeeltew remarks on the subject.—(Cheers.)
tliegseabt• dem had been said by the Prime Minister on
and cf the important question of the currency;
treewthether the theory of the Prime Minister was
corr
subject or not, there could be no doubt but the
present moment_
attention of the public mind at
sthuet would endeavour to follow
example of the Prime Minister in treating this
d„ and to treat it in a popular manner. Now
feet,
the last ten years the Bank of England had
messed the power of regulating the currency.
hey professed to contract the currency when the
d„eroand for bullion from abroad compelled the export
tohreebrullion, and to expand it when the importation of
bullion enabled them to do so. Thus, when
was a disposition for bullion to flow out
they contracted the currency so as to induce bullion
t° flow back again into their coffers, and by contract-
log the issues they lowered the price of cotton, of
calicoes, of all articles of manufactures and produce,
110 as to induce foreigners to send back the bullion to
for country, by giving a greater amount of produce
it than they had previously been enabled to pro-
cure. This was what the Bank had professed to do,
but which it had not been enabled altogether to ac-
eeMPlish. It had not been sufficiently powerful to
accomplish this object, and what the Government
110 W intended to do. was this: it was intended to
create a body that should be powerful enough to
carry
that out this principle to the most rigid extent. So
, whenever the exchanges turned against us, as they
Would immediately—if they lost a million of bullion
they would immediately take two millions of notes
ay to contract the currency. Now it was almost
impossible that they could ever have any very im-
r!rtant derangement of the currency for any length
0 time, except from a deficient harvest. The reason
J this was that the necessity for bread was greater
than the necessity for any other article, and in order
to obtain it every sacrifice must be made. If the
exchanges were to turn against this country, in con-
oquence of too great an importation of silk, or wool,
cotton, or other such articles, it would be very
easY to contract our consumption, and by that means
the •
bad
would very soon become rectified. But, if
btcliarrests should come, a great amount of the
I°ll would of necessity go out of the country, and
Zresponding sacrifice in the exchanges and upon
thtemeredect
Inhamt,odities would ensue. Therefore, he con-
if there was a tendency upon the part of
site exchanges to turn against us, it must, of neces-
0/, arise from bad harvests, for there were no means
pot guarding against such calamities. He was sup•
frerted in this opinion by all experience, for there had
yei:litently been similar derangements. In 1838 there
has a deficient harvest, succeeded by another deficient
ll'
etes eat in 1839. In 1839 the Bank had 9,000,000/.
,ftaoulrion in its coffers. During the whole of that
alter they were obliged to import corn. They had no
Native • they were compelled, necessitated to do
so,
of ' ,aud before the end of the year not a particle
and the
was left in the coffers of the Bank,
of bei_theY found themselves in a position
of France.
oblied to borrow 2,500,000/. from the Bank
therefaoliree.—t-
NOW porting corn
(Gheer Regulations in the currency,
of is, e' .ne contended, depended upon the necessity
that when they had a deficient harvest.
this• the measure which Sir R. Peel proposed was
ago' that
upon a turn in the exchanges, the currency
immediate)y be contracted, to suspend the
s of bullion, in order to make goods go out in-
' „ Nov, by this arrangement, the commercial
itsnin,-,AnitY would have to sacrifice their interests just
Itooe,_" as under the old system. Let it be under-
sh. that he was not complaining of the measure of
Peel. It proceeded on a just principle, as far
root Went ; but what he said was, it did not go to the
he (1(,),f the evil, which it pretended to cure. Now
rn4clr. Wilson) wished to call the attention of the
far gent and the broker of Liverpool at this particu-
factii °Merit, and the merchant in London, the manu-
fari_q_rer, shopkeeper, and trader of every class—the
pep7ir, the landlords themselves, and the labouring
queneaetion above all, to what must be the cense-
in tilt, of this law, if stringently carried into effect
de6ef ease of a deficient harvest. Now, suppose a
1838 eat harvest was to take place, as in the year
pose -Chas no one could say that it would not—sup-
corn, eY were obliged to import a quantity of foreign
ee„ritr as to cause the exchanges to turn against this
fael_anYisit Bank of England would be called upon
of bullion, and then would arise a neces•
4es•ier "Iltracting the currency by two millions of
Would .The Bank would cease to discount bills ; they
twoout their securities until they got in the
milmeasure of notes ; and the consequence of that
vermin unity
would he, that the commercial portion of the
verienunitY would be anxious to effect sales of their
''here-. c°lllrnodities, and no buyers would be found.
peceiatould he an immediate, rapid, and sudden de-
% suddien in the value of property. There would be
tures en depreciation in the value of all the manufac-
vallic of country, and a sudden depreciation in the
tome e` row materials. Ruin, in consequence, would
cottenuP°ll the merchant, who, expecting a cargo of
eca_ e from America, had accepted bills to the full
be end amount of the cargo. What would
with ch situation of the merchant connected
frosts 13toe
,East Indies, who, expecting a cargo
amount revaY, had accepted bills to the full
Wu a_ when he found that the cargo, on its arrival,
A de"7_l3reciated in value upwards of 25 per cent.?
oeneeereeciation in the value of manufactures also must
Would ssltY ensue, and that depreciation in value
totm ultimately reach agricultural produce. He did
effect eaftl to ea--
, y that this would be the immediate
Sir Robert
measure which had been brought forward
0,
now , nert Peel. He would, however, say this,
he nse Minister propounding a measure, which
hQ ho 13,a would cure fluctuations—a measure which,
A ctus—s, "' would secure the interests of trade, menu-
trevee'ts' and the working population—which would
ow a esa. sudden depression and a sudden crisis—
sure
orttiiiister of this country could propose a men-
the allelic at kind with such an object, and retain
Toe all g.-scale, and the corn-law at the bottom
count could not imagine.—(Loud cheers.)
While there could never be in a prosperous state
wasle.re was no regular trade in corn.—(Cheers.)
trade inoeeause they had not a regular and uniform
ehetincive
ed.
eeecuorrrnthat frequent derangements of the cur-
The greatest amount of corn that
Was v•er been at one time in stock in this country
eiAtsallaybssu, Refired quarters only, about sufficient for
odities co Yossumption. The dealers in other co-
gadin uld not carry on their business unless they
n Drn tent for ten or twelve months' consumption
ne doubt warehouses.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he had
Sir R.ir. that in the first week that the measure of
wee •r eel
which came into operation—he meant the first
e .
Vould Its operation would be felt—which
cossityshloPuribably, in two years time, when a ne-
!eney in
_arise for a counteraction of the cur-
that firs_ had not the least doubt that in
Lie t week the merchants of London and
hue erpeei
satm would lose more largely than the
nptui -r Cp
oosren
0-
yuetalirsacuoelli:lcited,thfoer thAe
nw:ictthtlithise lfadwo i Leagueasy ay
the corn-laws.—(Cheers.) It
it°evuoPdels:ellef?re_tohfe merchant to look to this—aye,
,to it. The'sviiili for the landlords themselves to look
:e of Richmond had complained of his
Noble DUsing 2
uke
Year on his salmon fisheries. That
attributedie the loss to the tariff. It
arose from no
powers of ll cause, but from the diminished
jariff, ab consumption in the people, for, under
i__ out 2001bs only
Per cent. Navin
al they hear of fifteen and twenty
"'Porte& wh of foreign salmon had been
farm-rents ? been returned last year upon the
power of The simple reason was, that the
consumption in the people had
que-- This was not, therefore, a merchant's
h.:ne'"on only.siletstwi as a landowner's question as well
rchant's
toon, for the two interests were
Lind indissolubl
that if theel;a.ndlorYds themselves were to consider the
gether. And he had no doubt
'would see calm)
'would question
the
ed
lawhiotuhrsoutofprtehjuedAicue,ti-tchoartut-hlsey
to,Ler:
astroicare only directed towards the general inw-
ii" Wholl

The CHAIRMAN then introduced to the meeting
Mr. Turner, one of those tenant-farmers who had
attended at the agricultural meeting lately held in
Bridgewater, in Somersetahire, at which a resolution
in favour of a total repeal of the corn-laws was passed,
Mr. Turner, a farmer holding between 300 and 400
acres of land, being one of the most intelligent of hid
order, seconding the resolution.—(Cheers.)
Mr. TURNER then came forward, and was received
with loud cheering. He thought an apology was due
from him, for venturing to address so magnificent an
audience as that which he then saw before him. He
thought he might, however, ask for some indulgence
and forbearance, seeing that, with the exception of
having proposed a vote of thanks to the Anti-Corn-
law League, at a county meeting, that was the first
time he had ever attempted to address a public meet-
ing on any subject whatever. He could assure them
that he was a bona fide tenant-farmer.—(Cheers.) He
was one of those whose every farthing was invested
in the cultivation of the soil, and it, therefore, might
be easily imagined that in advocating free trade prin-
ciples he did not wish to injure the tenant-farmers of
the country. He must acknowledge that he was
placed in some difficulty in having to follow such
eloquent speakers as those who had that evening pre-
ceded him, but he came forward on that occasion in
the hope, that by his example others •of his
order would be induced to come forward in support
of the principle he was there to advocate.—(Cheers.)
There was a great difficulty in finding anything novel
upon this subject. The preceding speakers had re-
marked upon this ; and how much more should he
feel a difficulty. There was one great objection to
the corn-laws, that they prevented those improve-
ments being made which would undoubtedly take
place under a lengthened tenure. In the present un-
certain state of the law farmers were unwilling to
take leases at the existing high rents, even if land-
lords were disposed to make them.—(Hear, hear.)
But landlords were not so disposed, and why ? They
must he aware of the reason—to advance political
purposes. The circumstance of being compelled to
pay high rents induced the farmer to regard the
price of the article more than the produce of the land.
To illustrate what he meant, he would suppose an ara-
ble farm which averaged2o bushels of wheat per acre.
The wheat sold under present prices at Bs. per bushel.
Now if the produce of that farm could be increased
to 40 bushels per acre, would it not be better for the
farmer to sell the grain at 6s. a bushel ? Why the
thing was manifest. Notwithstanding what was
called the low price, he would be a gainer of 2s. a
bushel. Now this appeared to him so convincing a
fact, that he wondered the landlords and tenant-
farmers had not before perceived it. They were all
aware that the corn-laws had a tendency to create
fluctuations in price, so that, as he had before re-
marked, even where the landlords were disposed to
grant a lease of seven years, the farmers were
in many instances afraid to accept it. He (Mr. T.)
was one of those who held a farm on a seven years'
tenure, and he knew well that the landlords were
afraid of parting with the least portion of the power
they now possessed over their tenantry, and which
they so disreputably employed.—(Loud cries of Hear,
hear.) The gentleman who had just preceded him
had so indisputably demonstrated that the corn-laws
restricted trade, that they were injurious to commerce
and manufactures, that the one could not thrive where
the other did not prosper, nor the one be depressed
but at the expense of the other, that it was
altogether needless for him to recapitulate
those arguments. Now, it must also be admitted,
that fluctuation in price prevented what was so de-
sirable—an adjustment of rent; so that the old pro-
verb of " Live and let live" could not well be car-
ried into operation.—(Loud cheers.) Suppose that
the land agent calculated on an average of the prices
of wheat for six years, in order to fix a rent, which
the tenant should pay for an arable farm. Did not
that seem fair and equitable ?—(Hear, hear.) Yet it
was not so. And why ? Because in nine cases out
of ten the crops of the tenant-farmer did not reach
the average price. The generality of farmers, he was
sorry to say, were needy. They had nothing to fall
back upon. They must sell at all risks to meet pre-
sent emergencies. In short, the corn must be sold
as soon as thrashed. The consequence of this gene-
ral necessity was, that between Michaelmas and
Christmas there was a glut of corn in the market.
In these three months the prices were lowered; then
in the six months which intervened between
Christmas and the period at which the harvest
arrived at maturity, only those farmers who had
capital enough to meet the pressing emergencies of
the harvest season were enabled to keep their corn
over for high prices.—(Hear, hear.) There were
some farmers in the neighbourhood in which he re-
sided (but they were not numerous) whose means
enabled them to keep the wheat produce of their
farms over from one year to the other.
But these men had assured him that such was the
uncertainty and fluctuation of the corn market,
that somehow or another they had been generally
losers, and fared worse than those who had been
obliged to sell their corn within the year. The po-
sition of the landlords was by no means enviable. It
was the natural desire of mankind to maintain a cre-
ditable character with their fellow-creatures, but he
was sorry to say the proceedings of this body did not
entitle them to be regarded in a very favourable
point of view, and the day would come when they
would look back upon their conduct with feelings of
shame.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") Again, he felt
hound to say, and he said it with equal regret and
sincerity, that the corn-laws had been productive of
most calamitous results.—(Hear.) At the present mo-
ment the great bulk of the farmers were paying
rack-rents. Those who had capital were paying those
rents out of it, and those who had not, were in a de-
plorable condition. These were facts that might be
relied upon. His knowledge of them was derived
from sad experience. Those farmers who had not the
command of capital were, as had been told them by
Mr. Summers, in a condition bordering upon insol-
vency. Mr. Summers' speech had been received with
astonishment in the neighbourhood from where he
(Mr. Turner) came, but he now came forward to cor-
roborate the statement of Mr. Summers.—(Hear.)
The farm labourers, too, were in a most depressed
condition ; they were in the most abject misery that
it was possible for man to conceive. To picture to
them faithfully and truly the condition of these men,
would be a task as painful to his own feelings as it
would be harrowing to the feelings of those
who heard them. He was sure those who
listened to him, notwithstanding all that had
been said about the national dislike entertained by

artisans towards agricultural labourers, would sym
pathise deeply in the condition of those unhappy men.
He had been frequently asked by his brother farmers
if free trade would benefit them, and if there was any
probability of free trade benefiting their condition.
He had always told them that he believed free trade
would benefit their condition ; and he felt convinced
that it would do so. These men were now suffering
under severe privations, and he could not conceive
how, by any possibility, they could be placed in a
worse condition than they were.—(Hear, hear.) The
fact was, these tenant-farmers were, for the most part,
uneducated men. They had been unaccustomed to
habits of thinking, and looked only to present
circumstances and their immediate results.—
(Hear, hear.) But the Anti-Corn-law League
had done much towards disseminating knowledge
among them, and through the tracts circulated by that
useful body, they now began to believe that they
were in a position to compete with any of the corn
growers of any other country in the world.--(Hear,
hear.) The first question he had to consider was,
whether there were more mouths to eat than there was
corn to he had in this country ? Whether the pro-
duce of this country was equal to the consumption of
its inhabitants? It was apparent that such was not the
case. Then was it not necessary to import corn from
abroad ? How was the surplus to be produced ?
Must it not come from foreign countries ? Some of
the farmers who opposed the repeal of the corn-laws
thought that if there were a free trade in corn it would
flow into this country like water in the river,
without obstruction, and superabundant. These
people seemed to forget that, in this country at least,
there was an expense of 61. or 71. in cultivating an
acre of wheat. They did not calculate that it would
cost anything at all abroad. They appeared to be-
lieve that corn grew in foreign countries sponta-
neously, and that it could be picked up on the banks
of the rivers, without cultivation. If these men read
and considered for themselves, they would soon think
differently. In the report made by Mr. Meek, in
1841, as to the capacities of the different corn-growing
countries, the only country in which the cultivation
of the soil was particularly cheap, and from which
competition might be most dreaded, was Polish Prussia,
and in Polish Prussia there were bad roads, no canals,
no railroads, and, in short, the expenses of carriage,
and the freight and other expenses of transmission to
this country, would leave the English farmer little to
dread. Now in the Channel Islands, free trade prin-
ciples had been tested. In these places corn had been
imported free of duty, yet home-grown corn had
averaged 475. per quarter for the last seven years,
which circumstance clearly proved that corn would
not descend to so low a price as had been anticipated.
Then there was another great argument in favour of
free trade principles—reciprocity of dealings, mutual
intercourse, and extended connexion—he would not
say with foreigners, he disliked the word "foreigners,"
but with their neighbours abroad.—(Loud and pro-
tracted cheering.) He felt perfectly convinced that
if we imported their corn, they would import our mer-
chandise. In fact, Mr. Gladstone had already ad-
mitted so much in the debate upon the tariff.
When the question of importation of cattle was in-
troduced, the answer to that proposition by the
country gentlemen was that an exceeding loss would
be inflicted upon the farmers. Now he (Mr. Turner)
said that, if we were to import cattle from abroad,
we should export manufactures in proportion. This
appeared to him to be an established, an admitted
fact. He would not' hay* tqfpeood Araog them

that night, had it not been for the earnest desire
of his brother farmers, who had requested him
to speak his and their sentiments before the citizens
of London. All that he was anxious for was to elicit
the truth, and when the truth was elicited, to see it
acted upon. The truth must out. There was no
neutral ground to stand upon, for there must be either
free traders or anti-free traders.—(Cheers.) There
could be no doubt that lengthened tenure would be
beneficial to the farmer, and lengthened
tenure was what free trade would give.
-What they required was security for the investment
of capital in land. He had lately been at some pro-
tection meetings, and the speakers there most cau-
tiously shunned the discussion of that subject—the
instability of the present corn-law. He had been to
one of those protection meetings, where the talking
was all on one side—on the side of protection, of
course, for they refused to allow any discussion whatever
as to the benefits offree trade. The Morning Post had, in
one of its recent articles commented in very sarcastic
terms upon the ungrammatical language used by the
tenant-farmers who spoke at the meetings of the
Anti-Corn-law League. Why, it was not to be won-
dered at, if these men were deficient in learning,
considering the slight opportunities of improving
themselves which they possessed, and the manner in
which they were ground down and oppressed by
their landlords. The wonder was that they ever
possessed so much information as they did.—(Hear.)
It was a matter of great doubt to him whether, if the
present corn-laws were persevered in, the farmer
would be able to give his children any education at
all. The Anti-Corn-law League had very much en-
lightened the tenant-farmers in his neighbourhood,
and their tracts were eagerly sought after by the
farmers of Somersetshire. They were anxious to be
informed on a subject which had been so much dis-
cussed, and upon which their interests so much de-
pended. The farm labourers were at present in a
most depressed condition, and many of them threw
the blame upon the farmers ; but upon a perusal of
these well-digested pamphlets, they would see that it
was not the fault of the farmers that their wages
were so low, and their condition so had, but
of the landlords, who kept up high rents.
These poor labourers would see that the wages which
should go into their pockets went into the coffers of the
landlords ; but if the farmers would stand forward,
and, in a bold and independent manner, avow their
opinions, and their determination to act upon them,
the landlords would cease to exercise the tyranny they
at present practised. Another very erroneous opinion
prevailed among these farmers, that the manufac-
turers were their enemies. He was disposed to look
upon no man as his enemy, but he regarded the
manufacturers as his best friends, because they were
working out that for them which they could not
accomplish for themselves.—(Cheers.) Without the
manufacturing population, it was impossible for the
farmer to thrive. They were the home consumers,
that furnished the best market for agricultural pro-
duce. They were, in short, their best friends. He
thanked the meeting heartily for the kindness with
which they had heard him ; and, as the advocate of
truth, would conclude in the words of the poet :
" To seize on truth, where'er 'tis found,
Among our friends, among our foes—
On Christian or on Heathen ground—
A flower divine, where'er it grows."
The Rev. Mr. BURNETT then came forward, and
was received with great cheering. He said that it
was exceedingly gratifying to the free traders of
London to see such numbers of the tenant-farmers
come forward to advocate the "principles of common
sense." The landlords said the repeal of the corn-
laws would be ruinous to the farmers. The farmers
said it would be serviceable to them. Now which
were they to believe, the landlords or the farmers—
those who felt or those who spoke ? Were they to
believe those who had no experience whatever in
preference to those who had a great deal of ex-
perience ? "Ohl but," said the landlords, " the
farmers are ignorant men." Then why should
they blame them for being ignorant when
the pressure of high rents was the cause ? The
gentleman who had just sat doWn had, with great
propriety and feeling, alluded to the mode by which
the landlords contrived to extend their political influ-
ence, not only at the expense of the farmer's pocket,
but of his conscience also. Why should the British
farmer be the slave of the British landlord ?—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") Was he not a freeman, and
should he not possess the dearest privilege of a
freeman—voting according to his conscience? Bat
at present he was obliged to act like a slave. The
farmer, like a mercantile man, entered into a contract
with the landlord for a certain number of acres at a
certain rent, and when he fulfilled that contract, the
landlord should have no further claim upon him. He
could not conceive a more degraded position than that
of a landlord who forced a tenant to vote against
his conscience in support of a system which
was injurious to both.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
He cared not whether they wore a ducal coronet or
any other badge of high distinction. An accident
might have thrown that coronet in his way, or he
might have been born to it, and, therefore, have not
gained it by any merit of his own—(Cheers)—or it
might happen that amongst his ancestry there might
have been sycophants who courted Royal favour by
bowing and cringing, or, perhaps, by deeds of their
own they might have shown that high talent which
elevated their family, and with honour ; but
then they hurled themselves one and all from
this high pinnacle the moment they attempted to
fetter the minds, opinions, and convictions of the peo-
ple.—(Cheers.) It had been shown that the land-
lords were deeply interested in the maintenance of the
present system. It was possible that reasons might
be adduced to prove that it would be against their in-
terest if this country were to become a manufacturing
community ; and that reason was, the aristocracy and
squirearchy could not wield the franchise of the manu-
facturers as they did that of the farmers; they could
not drive the former to the poll, as they did the
latter. Neither had they that threat to hold over them
in terrorem of granting no leases, serving ejectments,
or driving them from their houses if they opposed them
at an election. If the landlords could just as well
drive one class to the hustings as the other, he
doubted much whether they would set themselves so
strongly against the manufacturers, or retain their at-
tachment so exclusively in favour of the farmers. The
manufacturers were rather an unwieldy political
material, and the country gentlemen, well knowing
this fact, were unwilling to run the risk of letting go
their political grasp upon the farmers, because they and
the monopolists
the m
well
manufacturers.—(Loud llaknuerwerts.hLloud cheers.)eycouldn
not regain
regain
it upon The
landlords were interested in this change, but not-
withstanding the system could not go on. They
all had seen many changes during the last century.
They had also seen some changes within the last two
or three years, during which they found certain gen-
tlemen—Tories, and Ministers, too—coming forward
peopleto pl ea do
ft e
Encgalua sned of
set the
ftier ioornb lsapcikt e moafn
them,, w h whom the
in-
veigh against the system of slavery in general.
Those charitable gentlemen said, if you set the
slaves free the consequence will be that they all must
perish. No person could have any idea of the mis-
chief which would be likely to ensue if the slaves
were to be emancipated. And therefore those gen-
tlemen at that time resisted every attempt to set
the slaves free. Now, they were still connected
by the most kindly feeling towards them, and were
anxious that nothing should occur which would be
likely to improve them, and consequently they took
them up, as they had taken up the farmers, and would
allow no sugar to come in, except that grown by free
blacks.—(Laughter.) Query—was this kindness at
all manifested on account of the West Indian inte-
rests ?—(Cheers.) Well then, after the voice of the
country and humanity had been elevated so often and
loudly against the vile system of slavery, those
philanthropic gentlemen became at length convinced
that it was the voice of God and nature, and they
ceded the freedom of the slave—by purchase. After
yielding to all those circumstances—circumstances
forced upon them—they have found those very same
gentlemen coming forward to take up the part of the
freemen. But what were they to say to such hypo-
crisy as this ? After the Niger expedition, at a
public meeting he (silenced to be sitting next to Sir
R. Peel—a strange coincidence—(Laughter)—but
still no secrets passed between them—.(Renewed
laughter)—so therefore he had no ministerial secrets
to reveal to the meeting. But the. Right Hon. Ba-
ronet got up upon that occasion ; and to show that a
sense of shame was sometimes inherent in all
minds, began by saying that it was incumbent
upon those who were not in the field before
to come forward and speak on behalf of the injured
African. There must have been a twitch of conscience
which affected the Right Hon. Gentleman. Now he
(the Rev. Mr. Burnett) believed that if there was any
one monopolising interest concerned in this Niger ex-
pedition, it would have kept that wily gentleman
away from speaking one word in favour of the African.
He would tell the meeting, therefore, to take comfort
from this : they had one who was sensible to the in-
fluence of shame, and who, although steeled against
many things, was not yet made of steel, and this
showed they, by perseverance, would be crowned with
' success. What did the aristocracy mean by pressing
their opposition so long ? Did they intend to set the
different classes of society at variance with each
other, and tell them that if one prospered the other
must necessarily decay ? Did they mean to tell
their respected Chairman, that if he succeeded, Mr.
Turner, who favoured them with his enlightened
views upon the operation of the corn-laws that even-
ing, must be reduced to poverty ? Did those pro-
phets mean to assert, that if the one class were to
succeed the other should go down ? Such an asser-
tion was most ridiculous. If those persons meant to
say that manufactures were to go down, he
(the Rev. Mr. Burnett) would tell them that he
would rather see the whole face of England
L covered with manufacturing shops, without an
acre of tillage, and England supplying 00 world