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

Tall SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 4, 1844.

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 hostility to the
sliding scale. The commercial classes generally were
not very united, but they wire 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, he 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 be attributed to those meetings, by which
expression had been Fiven 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 round. 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) had 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 stated, that the Honourable
Member was proceeding to state his objections,
when he 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
his opinion that the evils of the present system would
not be alleviated by the sliding scale.—(Coughing.)
Now that was the way in which a gentleman was
treated who ventured to express a doubt as to the
merits of the sliding scale. Mr. Whitmore had been
followed by a gentleman with whose name they were
no doubt all familiar, he meant Sir Edward Knatch-
bull.—(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 payment of a certain duty;
for his part, he thought the importation of corn ought
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
House of Lords by the prohibition party, with the
Duke of Wellington at their head, and the party had
se 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 31r.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 againit 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 greater
and the minority less than it had been the 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
people
were
ybee became
ambe attributedeconvincedthtaot
the
sufferings of the pp
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 eleotion 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?
Sir 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 doctrioes of free trade were 'true—Ahoy
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 brougl4
forward his motion for the repeal of this most mun,
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 111 w, and his
motion had been rojeetted by a majority of 300. In 1843
he had repeated the motion; aid the majority against
it had been reduced from 300 to 256; an 4 on the last
ocatsi,on the majority was reduced from 256 to 294,

—(Cheers.) Now that certainly proved that the
question had made progress, and he trusted the time
was not far distant when this atrocious law would
ba abolished.—(Loud cheers.) He found that,
on the last division, there was no Liberal
Member who had been returned for a city or
borough, with the exception of the Member for
Carlisle, who had voted against the motion. With
reference to the arguments which had been used on
that occasion, he would observe that be had not been
content to propose his resolutions for repealing the corn-
law, without stating in those resolutions his reasons
for making such a proposition. He had therefore
proposed a series of resolutions, stating the present dis-
tressed and destitute condition of the popula-
tion of this country—the fact that such
population was increasing, without any in-
creased means of subsistence, and stating also
that their present destitute condition was to be attri-
buted to the want of food, and that, therefore, the
laws which prohibited the importation of that food of
which they stood in need ought to be repealed.
That it was unwise and unjust to prohibit by law the
importation of the subsistence of the people. Now,
how had these propositions been met ? Their oppo-
nents had not denied any one of his proposi-
tions. They had not denied that the peo-
ple were distressed.—(Hear.) They had not
denied that distress increased as the numbers in-
creased. They had not denied that that distress was
attributable to the want of a sufficiency of food.
They had not denied that the corn-law prevented a
free importation of food. He had shown this, and
had challenged• them to prove the contrary—that
when the price of corn was dear, the labourer was
badly off; and that when it was cheap, the
lahourer was well off ; and that when the la-
bourer was well off, the farmer prospered.—(Cheers.)
The opponents of the question had not attempted
to answer these propositions ; but instead they
had spun a long yarn about the delinquencies of the
Anti-Corn-law League. They did net deny that the
people were suffering—they did not deny that the
cause of the suffering was scarcity of food—they did
not deny that the corn-law was intended to produce
that scarcity. At length Sir Robert Peel rose to
put things together, and to defend the present sys-
tem. He did not attempt to defend the law upon
any principle of abstract right or justice, he did not
deny the assertion of Lord Howick that the corn-law
was a robbery, but he said that the corn-law was a
part of the protective system, which, in fact, amounted
to this, that because A, B, and C, robbed the public
they should be permitted to rob it likewise. Now, Sir
Robert said the corn-law ought to be maintained because
of the peculiar burdens on the land ; and what did they
think was the burden, more particularly mentioned
by the Premier ? Why, the poor-rates. The fund
which was raised for the purpose of relieving the po-
verty created by these very corn-laws was given as a
reason for the continuance of those laws.—(Cheers.)
Now, with regard to these rates, he had heard a
landowner say in private, and their discourses in pri-
vate were very different from their discourses in public;
a landowner had said to him, in private, that the poor-
laws did not press so much on the landowner as on
other people, after all ; for, said he, we deal in food,
and the poor-rates are levied from the tradespeople
and the inhabitants of towns to purchase food for the
paupers.—(Cheers.) And then, said Sir Robert Peel,
only think of poor Ireland. Only think of Sir R.
Peel thinking of Ireland !—(Laughter.) One conse-
quence of the shutting up Mr. O'Connell was that Sir
R. Peel could allude to Ireland on such an occasion.
If Mr. O'Connell had been in the House, he, who
had always consistently advocated the cause of the
repeal of the corn-laws, would have told him that
those laws were not upheld for the benefit of Ireland.
—(Cheers.) Why Mr. O'Connell had said on one
occasion, in a county in Ireland, the landlords had
attempted to get up a meeting to support the corn-
laws, and the farmers and peasantry had attended at
it, and out-voted them.—(Cheers.) There was not
a man who loved that county—not a man who under-
stood that country—not a man who had the interest
of that country at heart—who was not eager and
anxious to repeal the corn-laws.—(Loud cheers.)
The words were hardly out of Sir R. Peel's mouth,
before Mr. Sharman Crawford, the son and the
nephew of Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Shell, voted for
the repeal of the corn-laws.—(Hear, hear.) Yet,
this was all he had to say by way of reason or argu-
ment. There was another thing, he said, but that
was a personality which had been often used against
himself by his friends. He said, he really did not
believe that the same men could be found, either in
the commercial class or in any other class of the com-
munity, who had advocated the total repeal of the
corn-laws.—(Hear.) Why, that was the old state
bit of abuse which had been used by everybody
against anybody, who did not agree with him. Why,
he himself had been called mad for bringing forward
certain measures over and over again. In the case
of the Currency Bill, for instance, madness had been
attributed to him by many persons. He wanted to
know what right he had to call persons mad
because they felt it to be their duty to advocate the
repeal of the corn-laws. He ventured to say that the
Right Hon. Baronet knew no more of agriculture
than the man in the moon.—(Laughter.) What right
had he, then, to tell Lord Ducie, who took the chair
the other night, that he was a madman ?—(Hear,
hear.) The man ought to know something of agri •
culture who made such a declaration. Lord Ducie
was acknowledged on all hands to be the best and the
most scientific practical farmer in the country; and
yet, being a landlord himself, he declared that the
total repeal of the corn-laws was essential to the best
interests of the landlords, as well as those of the rest
of the community. Then, as to the safety
of such a measure, what reason had he to
tell them that such men as Mr. Jones
Loyd and the Marquis of Westminster had not
sufficient stake in the country to be able to judge of
the importance of this measure ?—(Hear, hear.)
They were men with a little property, those two.
—(Laughter.) They had come to years of dis-
cretion, and he thought they might be trusted in this
matter. These two men had come forward in the
most prominent manner, and declared that the repeal
of the corn-laws was not only a just measure but a
wise one, for they had given that proof of' sincerity
which men usually did when they felt interested in a
cause, they had contributed largely to the funds.
Why, then, should they be told that all who recom-
mended or voted for the total repeal of the corn-laws
were insane?—(Hear, hear.) Why, it was the strong
part of their case, that there never was a measure
b ought before the public which was fortified
by so much authority as the repeal of the corn-laws.
They had some of the most reflecting, some of the
most wealthy, some of the most influential persons
in the country on their side ; and let not Sir Robert
Peel imagine that a flippant reference to the sanity
or insanity of those who advocated their cause would
prevent them from continuing such advocacy.—
(Cheers.) It had been stated over and over again by
their opponents that the bringing forward of this
question in the House was a waste of the public
time. Now, he would ask them to turn over in their
minds the measures which occupied the public time
in the House of Commons. Why even those which
had some interest attached to them were branches of
this great question ; they were in reality attempts to
botch up some of the evils which flowed from the
corn-law. What was the Factory Bill ? The Factory
Bill had occupied a considerable portion of time. That
Bill was a mode of preventing persons who were en-
gaged in factories from working so long as they were
led to do by the bard necessities of their condition.
Why, would it not be better to repeal that law which
brought about such a state of things ?—(Cheers.)
What, again, was the Poor-law Bill ?—a Bill which
was thought to be of so much importance, that it
would probably occupy the attention of the House of
Commons for the remainder of the month? Why,
it was actually a measure to mitigate some of the
evils of the existing law, because such an unexpected
amount of distress existed, that some mitigation of it
was absolutely unavoidable. —(Hear, hear.) But now,
what was the great question which they were anxious to
press upon the attention of the Legislature ?
it was the question of the condition of the people of
England—of the best means of alleviating it. Was it
not monstrous, then, to postpone this great question,
in order to avoid discussing the monstrous conse-
quences of the corn-law? The Currency Bill was
another important measure ; and, by the bye, that
measure was recommended to Sir Robert Peel by
this very man, whom he therefore considered insane.
—(Hear, hear.) That measure was recommended
by Mr. Jones Loyd, whom he considered stark
staring mad, for advocating the repeal of the corn-
laws. Everybody said that the Currency Bill was
his measure. The great recommendation of the
measure, as propounded by Sir Robert Peel, was that
it would prevent those great revulsions in commerce
which had before occurred. He believed that it was

utterly impossible to prevent such revulsions.—(Hear,
hear.) The gold would r out just as much under
the Bank Charter Bill as it had done before, and the
same results would follow.—(Hear hear.) He
only mentioned these Bills to show that
they were not wasting the public time by
directing the attention of the House of Commons to
the great question of this country, the question of the
corn-laws. The great point to be considered was,
how to improve the condition of the means of the
people. The country generally was in a healthy
state, but whilst the mass of the people were increas-
ing in numbers and intelligence, they were suffering
the greatest distress, and this state of things was not
consistent, he maintained, with the continued security
of their institutions.—(Hear, hear.) There was no
reason to despair of the progress of their cause. They
had contributed much by assembling there to form
and influenoe public opinion ; and as long as public
opinion was allowed to be expressed freely in this
country, it was impossible that it should not have
great influence.—(Cheers.) He repeated they had
no rpascn to despair. They must not mind
the cowardice, tjr baseness, . or the meanness,
of other personsl ut do their own duty, Ile had

referred the other night to what had been done by
the Legislature with respect to ths. slave trade. He
had since learnt that, within forty years, Mr; Pitt
had been beaten by a majority of 80 on that ques-
tion, on the ground that the change ought to be
moderate and gradual. How would the House of
Commons act if that question were now brought
before them?—(Hear, hear.) They had abundant
proof that the corn-law was an abundant source of
misery, and they were bound, therefore, to do all in
their power to procure its abolition as a nuisance and
calamity, by which the country was grievously
afflicted.—(theers.)

Mr. COBDUN said that, after the narrative which
their friend had given them of the past pro-
ceedings of himself and others in the
House of Commons, in connexion with this great
question, he was sure it would be as acceptable to
this meeting as it would be pleasant to his own feel-
ings, if he expressed their gratitude to him for the
manful support which for the last six years, in spite
of all sinister influences, he had given to the cause
of the League.—(Cheers.) He had told them that
the progress which he had made in the House had
been measured by the progress of their agitation
out of doors ; and really, when he remarked what
the Anti-Corn-law League was six months ago, and
when he considered the progress which that move-
ment had made in this country since that time, he
coald not help thinking that it afforded every encou-
ragement to them to proceed.—(Cheers.) Six years
ago all the members of the Anti-Corn-law League
might have been put into one of the stage-boxes.—
(Hear, hear.) Year after year they had seen the
progress of this movement, not merely in Manchester,
but in every provincial town, until they found them-
selves landed in the midst of this mighty metropolis,
where they had been holding meetings for the last
six months, almost weekly, in that vast theatre,
which seemed still to excite unabated interest. If
this were not a proof of the advance of free-trade
principles, he knew not where to go for one. Their
friend Mr. Villiers had referred to the arguments
used in the Houses of Parliament in opposition to
their claims. Now, he was not so jealous of any as-
sertions made in Parliament as of one which had
been made on the previous night by his Grace of
Richmond. He was now continually repeating in
the House of Lords that the tenantry of this
country rose as one man to oppose the League. He
had heard the same 'thing from the squires in the
House of Commons so often that he confessed that,
of itself, it would, if he had known nothing of the
subject, have made him rather suspect the assertion.
—(Laughter.) It very mush reminded him of the
schoolboy whistling on his way through the church
yard,

round to these customers, and demands payment,
but the linen draper says, oh, your cotton was of a
frailer texture than was agreed for—the colours have
turned out fugitive. I expected to get such prices,
and have not realised them—l have lost by the
transaction." Suppose the traveller to be the land-
lord, why he would in that case say, oh, it may be
perfectly true that you have lost, and that you have
had a bad bargain, but petition the House of Com-
mons to appoint a Committee to i nquire into this
subject.—(Great laughter.) And, following up the
simile, if the former demurred the traveller (or agent)
would tell the linen draper, in case he
persisted in refusal " You must pay Cobden every
farthing, for there is an Act of Parliament which em-
powers us to levy a distress upon your goods, and
until the last shilling he paid no other creditor can
be satisfied.—(Hear, hear.) Did they think linen-
drapers would thrive upon such treatment as that ?
Would they not find themselves where farmers had
frequently found themselves—in the hands of the
auctioneer ?—(Hear, hear.) He should never despair
of the bona fide tenant-farmers; they would find out
at last how they had been bamboozled, and
how they had been diverted by their landlords
from the real grievances which affected them,
and confused with a hocus pocus of Acts of Parlia-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) But what did the landlord
now ask the tenant to do ? IVas it to petition Parlia-
ment to reform or redress existing evils—to consider
their condition with the view of bettering it ? No
such thing, but to keep things exactly where they
were. It was acknowledged on all hands that great
distress at present existed in the agricultural districts,
that there were large numbers of able-bodied men
unemployed there, and standing at corners of roads
looking for work, or filling gaols or union work-
houses—the farmers oppressed beyond endurance
by the weight of the taxes and the poor-rates ; and
yet in this state of things the landlord had the auda-
city to ask the farmer. and the farm labourer to peti-
tion Parliament to keep things as they were.—(Hear,
hear.) Was it not a shameful imposture to tell farmers
that they should persevere in a course that would in-
fallibly lead to their own downfal?—(Renewed cries
of " Hear, hear.") It was said that he (Mr. Cob-
ben) had not the voice of the farmers. Well, all he
could say was, that in Dorsetshire and in other
places where he attended meetings, large numbers of
the farmers were present, and great numbers of the
mechanics resident in country towns. Many of the
farmers held up their hands in favour of tree trade
opinions. All the mechanics did. The landlords, in
a recent discussion, would not admit that the opinion
of the artisans should be taken as any indication of
those of the farmers, yet in the same breath they
stated that in considering the question of the corn-
laws, not only the farmers should be considered,
but those mechanics and artisans who lived in towns
and who were dependent upon the farmers for broad,
should be considered likewise. There was one other
argument which he did not expect to hear even from
a Duke.—(Laughter.) A Noble Duke told them
that the Anti-Corn-law League wanted to reduce the
price of corn in order to reduce the price of wages;
and that when the price of corn was high, wages
were high ; and when corn was low in price wages
were likewise low. Well, he (Mr. Cobden) must
say, that he did not expect to hear this
statement thrown out and falsified as it
had been, even in the House of Lords.
But that truly noble and patriotic peer Lord Radnor
had shivered these idle arguments to atoms.—(Lord
cheers.) It did require considerable moral courage
in such an atmosphere as the House of Lords, to
meet those misstatements ; but Lord Radnor, in the
most clever and concise manner, put the extinguisher
upon the Noble Duke.—(Loud cheers.) He told
the Duke what was an axiom, and what should
be always borne in mind—that, if labour sunk
so low that man could not subsist, or less
than the price of that labour, the price of
labour could have nothing to do with the
price of corn, for if the latter sunk lower still in
price,
the labourer would infallibly be starved. When
labour reached the minimum of value, the labourer
was treated as a horse—a fixed quantity of bread was
apportioned for his use—if it were dear, as in scarce
years, the complement would be still the same—just
the same sum of money to be expended in oats whe-
ther the horses would live or die. Why labourers
were kept in a worse condition than the slaves of
Cuba or Brazil, who dined on a stinted meal of rice
and red herring.—(Hear, hear.) Was the price
of wages regulated by the price of food ?
(A voice, " Yes. ") Somebody said " Yes,'
Well, then, let them examine the state of the metro-
polis. In 1839 and 1840 the price of corn was double
what it was in 1835 and 1836, but did the price of
labour increase with the price of corn ? No, the
reverse was the case.—(Cheers.) The wages of labour
were greater in the cheap than in the dear years. All
trades in the dear years felt the oppression—the
citizen, of whatever description, received but the same
money in 1841 and 1842 ; even the poor boatman,
who rowed them from Westminster to Black-
friars-bridge, did not demand 2d. more because
the guar tern loaf was nearly twice dearer.
What had been stated by Mr. Robert Gardiner, a
Conservative, and a man of wealth, who was treasurer
of the Church-building Fund in Manchester, and
which had already erected ten churches there? This
gentleman subscribed 1,000/. himself towards this
fund, but yet he was an advocate of free-trade prin-
ciples, and had nominated Mr. Brown as a candidate
at the South Lancashire election.—(Cheers.) Well,
what did Mr. Gardiner say—one of the oldest and
most extensive manufacturers in Lancashire ? After
an experience of thirty years? Mr. Gardiner
gave it as his opinion that wages always declined
with the increasing price of corn, and always
wim-
proved with its declension of price. He said that,
when corn was dear, labour was cheap, and labourers
in superfluity ; but when corn was cheap, labourers
were fully employed, and labour was dear. Mr.
Gardiner's observations had not been contradicted,
or even questioned, although he had ut-
tered them in a place where most of his
hearers were conversant with them, and where
many of them would have been happy to confute them if
they could. Therefore when men said that the object
of the Anti-Corn-law League in lowering the price
of food was to lower the price of wages, and so ad-
vantage themselves, they stated a fact contrary to all
experience. He was happy to say that the League
was not confined to manufacturers—they were in a
large minority, but if there were any of
this minority who were so blind and be-
sotted as to believe that they were further-
ing their own exclusive and selfish interests by
seeking a repeal of the corn-laws, they would be
most sadly disappointed, and were hoping against ex-
perience, and against reason.—(Hear, hear.) The
League had, indeed, made wonderful progress. Did
they remember when, in 1839, they came from the
manufacturing districts to London and went to
Brown's hotel, in Palace-yard, what a cold reception
they met with. If the people of London felt then as
they feel now, a repeal of the corn-laws would have
been obtained in 1841 or 1842. What did the manu-
facturers come to London for then—were they in
want of labour ?—no, the price of corn was high, and
labourers were idle in thousands in the districts from
whence they came. Did they want to cheapen labour?
Why labour was to be had for less than they re-
quired it there—half the concerns in Stockport
were at that time shut up, and as a last
remedy they sought for a free-trade in corn.
The condition of the agricultural labourers at
that period was likewise distressing in the extreme.
In fact, the condition of the labouring classes was
a state of degradation below that which should
exist in any Christian country. (Hear, hear.)
What did Adam Smith say ? He said that " the
wages of labour do not, in Great Britain, fluctuate
with the price of provisions,. wages vary everywhere
from year to year, frequently from month to month.
But in many places the money price of labour re-
mains uniformly the same, some for half a century
together. If in these places, therefore, the labouring
poor can maintain their families in dear years, they
must be at their ease in times of moderate plenty,
and in affluence in those of extraordinary cheapness.'
The Duke of Cleveland had lately quoted the pam-
phlet of Mr. Caylon, one in which Lord Kinnaird, at
a meeting of this body clearly showed that Adam
Smith's
" Wealth of Nations" had been most sadly
mutilated—something, in fact, in the same way in
which the atheist had quoted Scripture to show that
there was no God. He quoted from the passage in
the Psalms, " The fool says in his heart, there is no
God;" but he quoted only " 4 There is no God,"
and upon this garbled quotation based his argu-
ment. But there was no need whatever
for quoting any authority. Experience, the surest
guide, clearly demonstrated that the corn-laws were
injurious to trade, to commerce, to the labourer, to
the shopkeeper, to the farmer, and, in fact, to all but
the landlord.—(Hear, hear.) The Chairman would
tell them that the weekly meetings of this body were
drawing to a close; but they had the satisfaction of
knowing that they had made their cause popular,
and had excited sympathy for their exertions, not only
in England and in Europe, but in America, and every
quarter of the world. They :wanted free trade in
corn, and they sought free trade in this prime
necessary of life, not only for its own sake, but be-
cause it would lead to the abolition of all monopolies.
They wanted to bring corn down to its natural price
—to that price which nature, and nature's God, in-
tended it should be, and then they would be satisfied.
They did not believe that a free trade in corn could
. .

injure the farmer; he believed it would benefit the
tenant-farmer as much as it would any trader or ma-
nufacturer in the country. They believed it would
benefit the agricultural labourer, by enlarging the
market for his employment, not only from the im-
provements which the agriculturist would have to
adopt, but also from the general rise in the prosperity
of the neighbouring towns, which would give
to the young peasant a chance of choosing
between labour in the fields and labour in the towns.
They believed it would not injure the landowners,

provided they looked merely to their pecuniary inte-
rest in the matter. He believed a repeal of the corn-
laws might interfere with that political despotism and
political union which still existed, though terribly
shattered in the counties—he meant that union by
which man sought political power by other means than
the honest one of appealing to the intelligence of their
fellow-countrymen, by means of that monopoly which
oppressed the nation. If the landowners chose
to undertake improvements, and would surrender
their political power by granting long leases ; if they
would be content to eschew such old, feudal privi-
leges of the chase, as that of " vert and venison ;" if
they would choose between keeping tenants to culti-
vate the land, and game to destroy the tenants' crops,
he believed the landowner would not be injured.
They took their stand on the principles and evidence
furnished by such men as Lord Spencer and Lord
Ducie. They believed that if landowners would be-
come what they ought to be, useful, practical men ;
if they would dispense with those agents and
valuers who were now their ready tools for
hoodwinking the farmers, he did not believe
that a free trade in corn would necessarily
injure the landowners themselves.—(Hear, hear.)
If any one class of men would be injured by the re-
peal of the corn-laws, it would be the clergymen of
the Established Church. The Tithe Commutation
Act fixed the income of the clergy at a certain number
of quarters of corn per annum. Suppose a clergy-
man's tithes were fixed at 200 quarters of corn per
annum, at 40s. per quarter, that would be 4001.
a-year. If corn was at 50s. a quarter it would amount
to 500/. a-year. Now, if the result of the corn-law
should be to cause a reduction of the price of corn in
the amount of 10s. a quarter, though he did not
predict such a result, or take it as an argument,
he admitted that this would cause an uncompensated
loss to the tithe-owner; he did not spend enough of
his income in bread to make the greater cheapness of
it, a compensation. But he would ask, if this was
a right position of the clergymen of this country to
be placed in, that those who prayed for plenty should
have an interest in dearth and scarcity ?—(Cheers.)
He would put it to the clergy themselves, whether it
was in accordance with their character and respect-
ability, that they should be found going about to
these meetings of the Anti-League Societies, for the
purpose of upholding the corn-laws. Why, a
clergyman would not be fit to sit on a jury
to try these corn-laws; he might be challenged and
excluded from the jury as an interested person ; in
decency then he asked them to stand neuter on this
question ; he asked no more. He believed that free
trade would cause a rise in the money wages of the
operative, and would give him provisions at the
natural price, which natural price would probably be
lower than they had ever hitherto been. He believed
that it would cause an increase in the demand for
labour of every kind, not merely in the labour of
operatives, but of every class—of clerks, of the youths
they wished to set out in life, and about whom fathers
and mothers felt so much difficulty ; they heard
everywhere that trades were full, all the professions
were overflowing, and they could get nothing from
the Government, because it gave everything it had to
give to the aristocracy.—(Cheers.) This was their
faith; these were their objects ; this was the ground
on which they stood; they believed they were right,
and their opponents acknowledged they were right.
They acknowledged their principles to be true, and
the League stood on the truth of those principles.
Let them not be discouraged at the present difficul-
ties of their position ; he had never felt less discou-
raged than he did at the present moment. Their
labours for the next few months might not be quite so
noisy as they had been. Probably there had been a little
too much talking ; but they would be quite as efficient.
The registration throughout the country would be
well and systematically worked.—(Cheers.) And he
would advise them in every locality, to press the im-
portance of this subject on their neighbours, to watch
the registration, to put themselves on the list, and to
endeavour to strike off those monopolists, who would
not listen to truth and reason on this question. Let
them have this registration, and another after it, and
they should be able to make a very different account
of things in the House of Commons than at
presebt. One word more : let them keep
the question in its true position. Let them
not permit themselves to be used or abused
by any existing political party. They had no objec-
tion to an alliance, offensive or defensive, with any
party that would adopt their principles ; but let them
not be such blockheads as to go into partnership with
any one ; with whom at the first step they should
find themselves going quite in opposite directions.
Political parties were breaking up in this country—
all political parties; there never was a period in their
history, in which there was an attempt to carry on
an opposition with so intangible a line of demar-
cation as that at present existing between the Whigs
and Tory party. From the time of Charles the First,
when differences were so great, that men drew their
broadswords, and decided the question in the ,field,
down to the present hour, there never was a period
at which an attempt was made to keep up an
opposition, as against the party in power, with-
out any one great public question of the slightest
interest out of doors to support that opposition.
There were many other questions in which the
people took an interest besides free trade. But on no
one question had the Opposition the support of the
people out of doors ; and if they gave up one iota of
their principles, he knew the temper and character of
these who nourished this agitation from the begin-
ning, and he was convinced that the moment there
was the slightest evidence of a coalition with any
party that would compromise their principles, from
that moment the right arm of every true friend of
the League would be paralyzed.—(Cheers.) Let poli-
ticians take up the principles of the League, or any
other that they might think would gain them more
popular support; but at present the Opposition had
no sympathy out of doors ; and he asked them,
whatever might be said of them in the
party newspapers, whose pens were often
guided by the intriguers of the political fac-
tions, he asked them as free traders to try them by
one test—were they true to their principles ? What-
ever obstacles they might meet with, they might
depend upon it, if they were true to their principles,
their principles would be true to them—(Cheers)---
and lead them on to an ultimate and not very distant
triumph.—(Great cheering.)
Mr. BRIGHT, M.P., then came forward and was
received with several rounds of enthusiastic cheering.
He said it was a matter of very pleasant reflection,
that after having been consigned to utter oblivion
on several occasions, after having been killed outright at
least half-a-dozen times, to find that they could yet
assemble together in such respectable numbers, and could
feel themselves in such cheerful and good condition. It
was satisfactory to feel that they were yet able to struggle
for the great principles which had been the cause of
their so often meeting in that theatre. Although in the
course of this warfare they had met with storm and sun-
shine, and those vicissitudes which most men have met
with in pursuance of a great object, they had ground for
believing that the principles for which they strove,
although they might be out •voted in both Houses of
Parliament, were making sure and steady progress
in the minds of the honest, the intelligent, and the re-
spectable portion of the people of this country. It was
satisfactory to know that the opposition they had now
met with, partook more of the character of a political
than a commercial opposition. They were certain that
the principle of free trade was so beautiful, so natural,
so simple, that it must commend itself to the mind of
every unprejudiced person. The infringement of that
principle he was convinced was considered by a majority
of the people of this country to be unsound and vicious.
But now they had to contend with a political opposi-
tion ; it had assumed this character naturally,
for the question about which they had been battling
was one, round which political parties were turning.
The men of the party new in power were afraid of it ;
because their rents might be injured by it, and that the
great party which they had been ten years in building
up, might be shattered in pieces by a blow. And it was
not only afraid of rent, everything else possessed -by a
great political party might be endangered ; all the
patronage of office, at home and abroad, the patronage
of the army and navy, the vast amount of patronage in
the church, in fact the feeding and fattening upon
50,000,000 L of revenue, besides much more in other
departments, all this might be sacrificed, and they,
themselves, might be thrown into the " cold shades of
opposition." They were not daunted at the opposition
having taken that character. They found that all the
great writers who had touched upon this question had,
almost without an exception, taken the same view of it
as they had done. Great men, and great statesmen, for
fifty years past, had held the same opinion ; they knew
that their opponents practised the principles the League
advocated in all their private affairs ; they held the prin-
ciples of free trade to be the principles of com-
mon sense, in their private business, though they
did not apply it in the national affairs. All the past
justified the course they were pursuing, whether they
regarded free trade as conferring benefits upon all those
who had applied it to commerce ; or whether they re-
garded it as beholding monopoly inflicting grievous and
indescribable evils upon large portions of the population.
The present exhorted them also on the working of this
question, for though there was now a respite from the
evils they had lately suffered, yet it was a respite only,
which must be followed by disasters at least as great as
those from which they had but just escaped. And the
future was before them, warning them that if they did not
take a lesson from the part it had in store for them—
a lesson not only teaching themselves the error they had
committed, but making them a warning to nations in
all future times, teaching them that there were dangers on
which a nation might run, and make fearful shipwreck.
Their honest opponents had honest fears, and, if he
could bring those fears to a point, it would be this—
that they suspect the introduction of foreign pro-
duce, especially of foreign grain, would supersede
the consumption of their own corn, and cheapen
it in the market, and throw the land out of cul-
tivation, by making it unprofitable to the occu-
pying tenantry of the country. They thought
that if foreign wheat was eaten, the same quantity of
English wheat would remain uneaten. The same might
be said with respect to rice. The importation of rice was
an addition to the food of the country, and of potatoes;
yet no one found that their potato-grounds were not
worth cultivating. The importation of tea, of coffee, of

cocoa, of sugar, increased the consumption of these va-
rious beverages ; and those who drank them would have
consumed more beer, made from the malt of barley. Yet
the barley growers did not find any difficulty in belling
their produce. Again, there were no less than seventy
millions of eggs imported annually; and he had seen
in a scrap book, a petition from the hens of England,
published at the time the importation was first allowed,
complaining of the hardship and injustice of allowing it
—using arguments against it as reasonable as those of
the Duke of Richmond in the House of Lords. In July
1842, the importation of live cattle was permitted at a
moderate fixed duty. He wished them to know the
number of cattle that had been imported since that
time, up to January 1843, there kad been
imported 1,114 oxen, 368 cows!, 40 calves, 210
sheep, 7 lambs, swine 361, sucking pigs 87.
The Dukes of Richmond and Cleveland said before this
law was passed, that cattle were actually standing on
the shores of foreign countries in the utmost agony of
expectation that they would come over to this country
to feed the people here. In consequence of this repre-
sentation the farmers of the country were panic struck,
and this, added to the poverty of their customers. caused
cattle to fall in value twenty per cent. He recollected
reading in history that 250 years ago, or rather more,
the Spaniards equipped a numerous fleet for the purpose
of invading this country. He believed that there was
not half so much fear at the idea of the Spanish fleet
invading this country, as the landowners got up amongst
the tenantry about a lot of poor unfortunate half-starved
oxen and cows coming over here.—(Cheers and
laughter,) But there were other articles. than
those which he had mentioned. There was the
article of hides. In the year 1843 there were intro-
duced into this country hides to the amount of
535,000 cwt. Of hides leather was made, and of leather,
boots and shoes, and carriage harness, and a variety of
other articles. In this country they had a large quan-
tity of hides that came from cattle slaughtered here.
Nobody ever found, that because 535,000 cwt. of hides
were imported from foreign countries, that hides the
produce of this country could not be sold. Let them
take the article of tallow. There were imported into
this country last year 1,778,000 cwt. of foreign tallow.
The Dukes of Cleveland and Richmond, no doubt, burnt
a portion of that tallow. Tallow was produced in this
country, yet this tallow was not diminished in con-
sumption. Take the article of silk. From the year
1820 to 1827 the average annnal consumption of silk in
this country was about 3,000,000 lbs. In 1843 the
importation was 5,743,000, very nearly double the
amount imported between 1820 and 1827. There were
96,000 pieces of silk handkerchiefs which came from our
possessions in the East. Did any one say that the manu-
facturers of silk of this country had been injured in
consequence of this ? Take again the article of flax,
from which linen was made. In 1835, the importation
was 740,000 cwt. ; in 1843, it was 1,438,000 cwt., or
nearly double what it was in 1835. The case of wool
was the same. The importation in this article had
doubled in ten years, and yet in spite of that the price of
wool grown in this country had increased from iod. to
Is. 6d. per pound. Cotton, too, had increased from 1810
from 90 millions of pounds to 585 millions, yet this had
not affected the agricultural produce of the country.
He was prepared to argue that ao harm had come to this
country or to the population in any shape from thus in-
creasing importation in these most useful articles. Let
them turn for a moment to the protected trade. What
had the West Indies been doing lately ? He had heard
persons in the House of Commons get up and say that
they were producing sugar at a cost of 6d. per lb., for
which they could only get 6d. per lb. Why, suppose
the manufacturers of this country were to do this,
and call for a tax to be placed on the people in
order to enable them to carry on their trade
to a profit, would they not be classed as fools or
something worse? If the West India people could not
carry on their trade, why let drop.—(Loud cheers.)
The men who, of all others, deserved the least sym-
pathy, were the proprietors in the West India colonies.
—(Renewed cheers.) There was another protected in-
terest, and that was the shipping interest. The com-
plaint of the shipping interest was one continued howl.
They were continually calling on the Legislature
for relief—they had been protected into their
present wretched condition.—(Hear,) There was a
Committee now sitting on the subject—the same sort of
Committee that used to sit to inquire why the farmers
were badly off. They had examined a large shipowner
in London, who, at the last election, if he voted at all,
voted in favour of monopoly. He told the Committee
that ships could be built cheaper in the colonies than
they could in this country, and it was therefore, he said,
necessary that a tax should be imposed on all ships built
in the colonies. Now what could be more absurd than
that ? Was it not disgraceful that the shipping interest
of this country, which was the mistress of the seas, should
come to the House of Commons and ask for assistance
in the difficulties in which they were placed? This ha"
been the effect of the agricultural protection in this
country. His business was entirely ono on which Par-
liament had never laid its deadening fingers, in
the shape of an Act of Parliament to pro-
tect it. Let them look to the cotton trade of
Lancashire. Sixty years ago cotton was scarcely known
there. It was said that the man was still alive who
hauled the first bale of cotton into Liverpool that came
from America. He had no doubt, too, that the man who
erected the first steam-engine in Lancashire for the pur-
pose of weaving cotton was still living. He would read
to them a statement of the value of property in land and
bui Wings in Lancashire. The valuation of the county-rate
including, altogether, stock in shops, furniture in houses,
and including the enormous value of machinery em-
ployed in that county. The annual rateable value Was
6,192,0671 How many counties did they suppose, in
England and Wales, it would take to make up this ?
Huntingdonshire, 272,5701. ; Westmoreland, 256,3031 ;
Rutland and Anglesea, 15,7001 ; Brecon, 171,132/. ;
Cardigan, 180,151/. ; Carnarvon, 204,2981. ; Denbigh
232,703/. ; Flint, 207,4561. ; Merioneth, 25,506/. ; Mont-
gomery, 273,964/. ; Pembroke, 217,2221 ; Radnor and
Beiltshire, 652,916/. ; Buckingham, 636,027/. ; Hereford,
627,1371.; Hertford, 724,687/.; Monmouth, 453,750/ ; and
Oxfordshire, being a total of 5,860,4821. The whole of
Wales was rated at 2,443,5101., and all England at
48,169,588/. Thus was Lancashire two and-a-half times
the amount of all Wales, and more than one-eighth of
all England. This, however, was an unimportant fact,
if they spoke of it to the squires. They certainly had
passed through Lancashire, when on their way to Scot-
land for the purpose of grouse-shooting. They saw
there a great many chimneys, and a great deal of smoke,
and a great many working men, who did not touch
their hats to them.—(Great cheering.) That was a very
disagreeable feature. But it would be well if these
men would reflect that there was such a county.—(lleac,
hear.) The majority of the corn and flour produced In
Lincolnshire went to Lancashire. The landlord class
would not lose by the abolition of the corn-laws—they
might lose in political power, but not in a pecuniary
point of view. But they should recollect that political
power might be bought too dearly. Who were those
who- kept up this system of monopoly? Sir Robert
Peel's father made his fortune by honest trade—Mr.
Gladstone's father made his fortune by the extent of
his operations in foreign commerce. They had nothing
to boast of with respect to ancestry. They could not say
" Their blood
Had flowed through scoundrels since the flood;"
and yet it was these men whom the aristocracy boasted
of—men of whom it might be said that it was doubtful
whether they had any grandfathers or not. He knew
not which were the most contemptible or disgraceful,
the aristocracy who became the dupes of these men, or
the men themselves. The Standard, in a late article, had
contended that the labourers in Lancashire ought to
share the profits of their employers ; and the
Herald the other day alleged that wages had
fallen ten per cent. since 1842. This was 11
most infamous assertion. He had no personal
acquaintance with the editor of the Standard; but he un-
derstood that he was a native of Ireland; If so, then
he was a living contradiction to the assertion that
Ireland produced nothing of the reptile species, That
paper, the Standard, a short time ago, consigned, with-
out the slightest remorse, all the manufacturing cities
and towns of this country to utter ruin and destruction.
He understood that this publication was now in the p3Y
of the Government. In the years 1816 and 1817 $
spy system was established in this country under
Lord Sidmouth and Co. In the year 1820 two dr
serving, but erring men, paid the penalty of thelir
lives on the scaffold at Stirling, on account of their
having been engaged in some seditious movement.
Those men were brought to that untimely -end through
the instrumentality of a spy. The Standard, a i'?"'
days ago, said they were particularly acquainted with.
the subject of the manufactures of Lancashire. One of
the spies in Scotland, in 1820, was a cotton weaver. It
might be that that very man wrote this article in the
Standard. He (Mr. Bright) did lot say that
it was ; but he had heard that this individual
had been engaged to supply the columns of those
gemini of the press, the Herald and Standard, with
matter. Oh, this was a filthy trade.—(Cheers.) Nothing
could be more glorious to his (Mr. Bright's) mind, than
an organ of the press like the daily press of this country,
if it were managed with honour and integrity. He time
not think that any man, however great his ambition
might be, could wish for a higher honour than to put
forth, every morning his sentiments to ten of
twenty thousand reflecting, intelligent minds. lie
was thereby insinuating his own soul into the
souls of thousands of his fellow-countrymen. Bet
when a man perverted this power he became it
demon. He (Mr. Bright) called upon that meeting'
and upon the inhabitants of that metropolis, not to
slacken in their efforts—not for one moment to let g°
their resolution, until the corn-law—that impious—that
bla,sphemous law, had been abolished for ever.—(The
Hon. Gentleman sat down amidst loud cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN then said that he had the painful
duty to perform of announcing to them that the nest
would be their last meeting during the present season.
Their next meeting would be held on that day month,
in Covent-garden Theatre. He thought they ought not
to separate on this occasion without giving three cheers
for Mr. Cobden, Mr. Bright, Lord Howick, Mr. Gibson,
Mr. Ward, and the other Members who supported Mf•
Villiers in his late motion in the llouse of Commons for
a repeal of the corn-laws.
Three cheers were then given, and the meeting
separated.

SIX POUNDS of TEA, and upwards, sent, carriage free, t• &Pe
part of the Kingdom, at the Wholesale Price, on receipt of a relll3.
tance, or Post-office order.
Black, 2s. Bd., as., 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 4s. Bd., Bs.
Green, 3s. 4d., 38. Bd., 48., 4s. Id., is., ss. 4d. 65., 7s.
Coffee, 9d„ Is. Is. 2d., Is. 4d., Is., 6d., Is. id., Is. 10d., 2s.
.„
G. T. MANSELL and (0., Wholesale Tea Dealers, 2, B 110""
LERSBUIty, CIIEAPSIDE. Agencies will be given to respectalm,,,
parties

'DIED.
On the 19th ult., at Rochester Frances, wire of CVal°
Curry W. llillier,

London : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNGt of
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. Lin
g
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the CountY
Middlesex, Thursday, July 4, 1844.