The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-07 00:00:00

_

s r

the reason rather than the fears of
if he had ever seen anything yielded .
'-'
snoohtfabdracecaskh eoadnra,cbtbyeurphidte a Ibni oear
I.e4dltnhole,Lisr;:.;\
cr::1-;x1
tP7‘lll:eiilcohs ha
attributeser
pher could be found who made it the distinguishing
feature of Parliaments.—(Cheers and laughter.) A
logical demonstration, or a consecutive-chain of rea-
soning, was the last thing which affected a Member
of Parliament. It would lead to a count-out.—
(Laughter.) The powerful speeches of Burke, which
would endure as long as the English language existed,
were addressed to empty benches. But *hen a little
agitation was mixed with reason, it generally inclined
Parliament to listen to the people. It was thus that the
emancipation of the negro, that the Reform Bill, and the
destruction of Gatton and Old Sarum, had been effected.
Sir Robert Peel taunted O'Connell with having ad-
dressed himself to the Irish people rather than to
Parliament. Did Sir Robert Peel believe in his heart
that the eloquence of O'Connell, if addressed to Par-
liament would produce the slightest effect, or be at-
tended with the smallest benefit?—(Hear, hear)—or
that any one grievance of the unfortunate sister king-
dom would be redressed—(Renewed cries of " Hear,
hear")—if he had not been backed by the Irish na-
tion ? Would Mr. Cobden or Mr. Bright, if they had
been addressing Parliament for three years have ob-
tained as many votes ?—(Hear, hear.) Would those
arguments have been listened to which were so appre-
ciated by the generality of their fellow-countrymen?
The aristocracy and squirearchy of this country ma-
nifested a predilection for everything rotten and ex-
clusive in its nature and tendency, and a dislike for
that which was sound, reasonable, and liberal.—(Hear,
hear.) They had the declaration of Lord John
Russell, if; indeed, any declaration were needed
on so plain a subject, that the opposition to
a repeal of the corn-laws was grounded upon sordid,
selfish, and interested motives. He (Mr. Collyer)
believed, from his heart, that the landlord class was
mistaking its true advantage—that they did not see
their true interests—and forgot that commerce was
the greatest of all the fertilisers of the earth.—(Loud
cheers.) The agriculturists importid bone-dust and
guano for manure, but commerce it was which made
prosperity out of barrenness which produced a
Manchester and a Liverpool.—(Renewed cheering.)
Did Manchester and Liverpool add nothing to the
value of land ? Had not the rents in Lancashire in-
creased two-fold within fifty years, and would they
not continue to increase, though corn were fifty
shillings a quarter ?—(Hear, hear.) Was it not
commerce which made thriving cities and
a comfortable population ? Was it not the source
of high rents, and demand for labour and its
produce ? And was not monopoly the reverse ?
Did it not make populous villages uninhabited, and
prevent the flow of prosperity? Was not its progress
attended with misery, and did not the tears of the
people attest it ?—(Hear, hear.) . The landlord seemed
altogether unacquainted with the commonest prin-
ciples of political economy. It was a very dry, in-
sipid study—very tedious and its application perhaps
very painful.—(Laughter.) Aristotle had not known
the science, and therefore political economy was not
taught in our universities. The agriculturists had
instituted several societies, but the most useful so-
ciety of any they could form would be one for the
diffusion of the principles of political economy among
the landlords.—(Loud cheers.) The people of England
had tolerated monopoly too long, but they would not
patiently starve. (Hear, hear.) Their ancestors
would not have tolerated monopoly.—(Great cheei-
ing.) They themselves would not tolerate monopoly
under that name. They bore it because it was shel-
thered under the imposing appellation of a protective
duty. But monopoly had seen its best days. The
meetings of the League in Covent-garden and else-
where, were spreading far and wide the principles of
common sense, and it was high time for the monopo-
lists " to put their house in order."—(Loud cheers.)
Sixty years ago Adam Smith had demonstrated the
principles of political economy in his immortal work,
and since those principles had been developed and
proved in a manner to convince the most obstinate of
philosophers, and Mr. Baring himself—(Laughter
and cheers.) The attentions of the people had been
diverted to a thousand questions of much less
import, and monopoly had been overlooked,
and was suffered silently to prey upon the
best interests of the country. The land-
owners, narrow-sighted and selfish, were framing
laws for their own exclusive advantage. They
had converted the foreign ploughman into a manufac-
turer, because we shut out his corn. Their policy
raised the mill and the factory abroad where the
ploughshare would have run—they had sown dragon's
teeth all over the Continent—and those who would
have been now useful friends became our enemies,
and successful rivals.—(Hear, hear.) All this the
country quietly endured, until at length it had a sue.
cession of bad harvests—then the eyes of the people
were opened, and it was found that the population had
for twenty years been increasing at the rate of a thou-
sand a day, and that no precaution had been taken to
raise food for them. The discontent arose, and the cry
of hunger went forth—the people, rendered by
their wretched condition, and exasperated at the con-
duct of their aristocracy, rose up against the law and
became a prey to the demagogue. The demon of
Chartism found its votaries and its victims. These
things caused soy man to think and feel. The enor-
mous distress of a country destined by nature to be
the most flourishing in the world was found to re-
sult from this gigantic error in legislation—the en-
couragement of monopoly.—(Hear, hear.) At this
crisis the members of the Anti-Corn-law League
commenced they labours—they went forth among the
people as the apostles of free trade, they pointed
out most clearly the causes of the distress, and unequi-
vocally demonstrated the faults of our commercial po-
licy. They showed that the principles of political
economy which should be the basis of legislation can-
not be violated with impunity. Those comprehensive
and philanthropic principles were rescued from the
silence of the book-shelf; and spread before the face
of the nation—they were laid down in Parliament.
The advocates of free trade inquired if they were re-
futable, and if not refutable why should they not be
acted upon ?—(Loud and prolonged cheering.) Those
advocates were answered by the supercilious sneer of
a Parliament which mocks rather than represents
the nation.—(Hear, hear, and great applause.) He
rejoiced that the squirearchy had fairly hunted Sir
R. Peel out of his cover of generalities, and that they
now knew what they might expect from him. lie
was glad to see that Peel had nailed his colours to the
mast of protection, which was fixed in the rotten
vessel of expediency.—(Great cheers.) The declara-
tion of the Prime Minister would fairly divide the
country into two parties, and it could be fully ascer-
tained on what ground those parties took their stand.
We free traders contended for unlimited freedom of
importation, because the difference between our ex-
ports and the imports from our foreign neighbours
formed the wealth of the country, and as this system
of free trade advanced the prosperity of the country
inoreased. We therefore were for adding to the wealth
of the country for the purpose of providing for an
increasing population. Their adversaries would pre-
vent the wealth of the country from increasing in
order that what existed might be unfairly divided.
The principles for which the League contended could
not be reasonably opposed—they were maintained by
the most eminent writers—by the greatest statesmen,
the most sagacious politicians, and the wisest philoso-
phers—they were supported by all the living talent
of the day—by reviews, magazines, and newspapers,
in short by every man of sense in the kingdom, but
they were opposed—by who or what think you ?—hy
the Morning Post—(Laughter.) Yes, by the
Morning Post, and he must say that the articles in
that paper advocating protection to agriculture
were really the most melancholy indications of the
retrograde movement of the human intellect. It was
not very likely that the Post would survive, except as
a covering for books, or a linim3 for trunks—(Laugh-
ter)—but should a copy of that journal by any possibi-
lity reach the historian in future ages, it might sadly
mislead him as to the present state of knowledge.
How could such stupid fallacies be put forth after the
writings of such men as Adam Smith, Ricardo, and
M'Culloch ? Why such articles should have been
written a century before the existence of such
men, and the historian might charitably ac-
count for them by a chronological mistake.
They should be bound up with a volume of Punch as
an antidote. The Morning Post supports the exploded
doctrine of expediency, and sacrifice of great principles
to selfish opinions, and the welfare of the many to the
interests of the few.—(Hear, hear.) No two of the
adversaries of free trade were agreed. One said agri-
culture should be protected on account of the exclu-
sive heavy burdens which were borne by it, but they
refused to accede to the motion of Mr. Ward for in-
quiry into those burdens.—(Hear, hear.) Another
asserted that protection should exist to enable them
to pay the taxes. There could not be a more stupid
or palpable absurdity than this. They were
taxed to pay taxes—that is, they were taxed,
most heavily taxed, for the two millions of
foreign corn annually imported, in order to pay a tax
which was trifling in comparison with that of dear bread
and empty stomachs, in order to raise the revenue.—
(Hear, hear.) A third supporter of the corn-laws said
it was the labourers' question—viz., that dear bread was
good for the labourers. It was stated that the agricul-
turists were one-third of the.population of the kingdom.
They had been more, and had not increased for the last
e alludedn
t sfor
twenty years. The landlords seemed to act on the prin-
ciples of Miss Martineau and Malthus, but in reality it
was manufactures and commerce- which gave employ.
went to the surplus population. There was still an-
insd positionm a rri marriage settlements—
(Hear
beent le m
speedilyents—
otothetrheclaKnss
amwohrbeuszewrheoingrothueinrdaedrgtuhmeeirntasr—guhme
this
abandoned, and the argument, was quickly dropped,
(p
Hr protection ti
andon laughter)—but hmtecrbguets
though obstinately acted upon. They had lately hit
upon a new and seemingly fertile mine of argument—
the abuse of the Anti-Corn-law League.—(Laughter.)
They appeared to consider, that to convict the League
of the slightest inconsistency, was to prove the corn-

.'3 J~

,:D
ir....". 24
,-,:`-.`.--.l'i
.--....;_:-.4 ..
•