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

And they even hinted, awfully;
That if e'er in the isle of Owhyhee
Bread-pudding in price should humbled be,
All was o'er with the aristocracy !
One penny saved to the clods who dine
Would be sure to bring all the "Nobles" to "nine!" *
Meanwhile that cry that dreadful cry,
" We starve, we starve!" rose loud and high ;
'Till what was the upshot, all shall see
In the second canto of Owhyhee !"
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was frequently
interrupted, during the reading of the verses, by the
applause and laughter of the audience, and he was
loudly cheered as he sat down.
J. T. LEADER, Esq., M.P., then came forward.
He said he must first congratulate them on the altered
and improved position of the League, and on the
great, the fair, and the intelligent meetings that now
assembled in to t theatre, to hear what the Council of
the League had to say. When he had the honour of
appearing before them on those boards last year, the
League was rather an object of contempt from its
opponents, a thing to be sneered, at to be laughed at, to
be ridiculed. But now things were quite altered, both
with the League and its opponents. Now it was a thing
feared and hated, a thing to be called, as it was last
night, a "dangerous conclave."—(Hear, hear.) The
League was now a thing to be opposed by Anti-
Leagues, composed of great dukes, and lords, and
squires, with a slight sprinkling of auxiliary forces,
in the shape of Conservative operative societies.
Now, they must examine a little what sort of power
this Anti-League was ; they were told, in a boasting
way, that if the Anti-Corn-law League could raise
a hundred thousand pounds, the Anti-League could
raise two hundred thousand with equal facility. Perhaps
they might ; no doubt they had got plenty of money ;
it would be very hard indeed if they had not. He
dared to say they were rich, because they had had
protection for years, because they had compelled the
people to buy their goods at high prices. They were
rich, and were growing richer; but it was at the ex-
pense of the community; and if a stop were not put
to their protection, they would put more money in
their pockets, and would become richer, but they
would have made the community poor. Of money,
therefore, they probably had plenty; they would
probably !get up county meetings, because in many
countries they possessed such a large extent of land, that
they could do pretty nearly as they liked. He had
no doubt that they would hold plenty of meetings
—some of them in Freemasons' Hall. He wondered
that they were not afraid of a word of so ominous a
sound as one having " free" in it; it must have re-
minded them a little of free trade. For his part, he
should like to see some of the Anti-League gentlemen
here ; it would be better than having all the talk one
way. They might state their arguments, and the
others might answer them. He was sure they would
have a fair hearing.—(Cheers.) He thought it would
be much better to have the arguments stated and
answered in the same assembly, with fair play, than
that each party should have their own meetings, one in
Covent-garden, and the other in Freemasons' Hall.
They might have their county meetings, their meet-
ings in Freemasons' Hall, with plenty of Conservative
operatives around them to explain the state of the
country to them. But he doubted whether, with all
these " appliances and means to boot," they would
ever be able to get in a year as much influence as
the Anti-Corn-law League exercised in a week. And
he would tell them why ; because he conscientiously
believed that the arguments and statements of this
League were founded upon truth, and he believed
that the arguments and assertions of the Anti-League,
of the agricultural gentlemen, were founded on fallacies.
and on unsound reasoning based upon those fallacies,
What were the general topics of these Anti-League
meetings? Why, really, to listen to them, or read them,
one might fancy they were the speeches and after-dinner
talk of the Squire Westerns, described by Fielding 100
years ago. He could hardly believe that they were
the speeches of squires and country gentlemen of the
nineteenth century. They were filled with nothing
but intemperate abuse of the free-tradersp calling
them villains and ragamuffins, and hinting, in a very
country-gentleman-like way, to the listeners,
that it would be a very picturesque thing to
see an Anti-Corn-law man stuck up to his
chin in a horse-pond. And at these meetings
they were not satisfied with attacking the
free traders, they must also show their dissatisfaction
with the Government; for every blow—for every
bold, straightforward blow they planted in the breast
of the League, they gave an equally sincere back-
handed slap at Sir Robert Peel. And he would tell
them why—though Sir R. Peel was not the best
possible Minister for the cause of free trade, yet he
was a great deal better than his supporters. The
language used by the gentlemen of the Anti-League
party plainly proved that they had no confidence in
him, and that they only supported him from fear of
being driven to measures of free trade by
a more liberal Ministry. Judging from the
language used at these meetings, they might see
pretty well what they might expect from these Anti-
League gentlemen if they had everything their own
way. Let them consider a little the actual state of

the-country, as it would be under these-Anti-League
gentlemen ; he was not inclined to set one class against
another, or to excite the manufacturers against the
landowners, or say anything that might set the land
against trade, because he believed they must both
stand and fall together; their interests were so inter-
woven, that what was bad for one must be bad for the
other, and what was good for the one, must ultimately
be good for both. But whenever any particular class
set itself up especially as the protector of the poor, as
the protector of the agricultural labourer, or of the
farmer, it was but fair that they should examine a
little into what pretences they had to that character.
He thought they could see a little what the landed
gentry meant by protection to the poor, from the Acts
they were constantly getting passed through the Le-
gislature. At the present moment a Bill was before
Parliament, brought in by these friends of agriculture ;
it proved pretty clearly what their meaning of protection
for the poor was ; the measure he alluded to was an
Inclosure Bill—an Act for inclosing the fields and
tsct
hhao
said,
thus
n,metaohi
an advantage
htsa b
omdof the
vouarnrohtiaoagonedd.might country,
iigghi
ht t
Whatb en o
be
hweeoatr
nstdefetrehrr,er
cultivated,e a sdr
e l he
i stthal the
state
poorndld
of
fothrt
the
estf
case? There was a very good article on the subject
in the Times of yesterday, which stated the case with
tolerable fairness, and with a good deal of force. The
Bill was brought in by Lord Worsley. He had not
a word to say against , Lord Worsley; he was a
liberal minded man, and really one of the best of his
class. But in this case he thought he was mistaken.
In the county of Lincolnshire, with which his Lord-
ship was connected, and the counties round it, the
Bill might be of use, because in them there was a great
deal of uninclosed land that might be improved ; but
for the whole country, the Bill would be a serious evil
to the poor who had common rights, and to the public
in general who had any advantage from the commons.
In a letter in the Times of that morning, some corre-
spondent asked, why did not some one in the House of
Commons prevent the Bill from passing ? He would tell
them why. In the House of Commons the landlords
had such a majority that it was impossible to prevent
any Bill from passing which they chose should pass.
With respect to this Inclosure Bill, he remembered
opposing Lord Worsley on this subject once before,
and what was the result of his opposition ? The ut-
most he could gain was this—that within a certain
distance from certain great towns the commons should
not be inclosed—that was all. They might see that
every year attempts were made to inclose Hampstead-
heath and Blackheath. The landlords told them it
was for the benefit of the poor of the neighbourhood.
What benefit would it be to the poor of the neigh-
bourhood to see Hampstead-heath covered with
houses ? The rent-roll of the landlord would be in-
creased, but the inclosure would be a very bad thing
for those who had any benefit from the common right.
This was a specimen of what the landlords called pro-
tection. They said that the protection was not
for themselves, but for the poor and the farmer ;
their protection in the case of agricultural produce
was precisely the sort of protection extended to the
poor in the commons. Depend upon it in every in-
closure it was the rich men of the parish that got the
lion's share—the poor man got little or nothing. It
was just the same with the laws relating to the im-
portation of corn. The real protection was to the
prices of the landlord—not in any respect to the
comfort or the convenieice either of the farmer or the
farm labourer or the community in general. In
short the protection afforded by the landlords to the
poor was precisely like the protection afforded by a
strong nation to a weak one—that is to say the
thest ro ng
we a nation tni oa nt
orne a p
tod be all theadvantage,
excessively
grateful and expected
for
at
it did not get—(Loud cheers)—and for all which it
saw the strong one reaping at its expense, under the
generous and disinterested pretence of protecting the
weak one. Now they heard a great deal of these
Anti-League meetings. He wondered they had the
face to repeat the arguments they put forth that the
agitation of the League was solely directed to bring-
ing down wages in the manufacturing districts. The
landlords held up the manufacturers as monsters of
cruelty and iniquity—men whose every act was di-
rected only to lowering wages. Why, the profits of
the manufacturer did not depend nearly so much on
low wages as on the increased demand for
his goods—(Hear, hear)—and as for the work-
ing man himself, it was notorious that his wages
did not depend upon the price of bread—it was re-
gulated by the supply and demand for his labour. If
there were more hands than could be employed the
ivages diminished. Then let them consider what
a difference the corn•laws made in the price of
bread tothe poor man. When the price of bread was
low, he would spend less of his means in the pur-
chase of bread, and he could apply the remainder in
the purchase of other things. By that means he could

* According to the old arithmetic process of " bringing
nobles to ninepence."

increase the price of labour, and thus the continual
action and re-action would be kept up throughout the
community. High or low, the price of bread caused
more adversity or prosperity to a country than could
be imagined.—(Hear, hear.) They were told that
the representative system was wisely and well ar-
ranged, the power being in the hands of the
agricultural classes, and that they ought to have the
preponderating influence in the Legislature—(Hear,
hear)—and that it would be unwise to deprive them
of any portion of the power which they possessed.
They were also told that if they (the agriculturists)
did not yield of themselves, nothing could be done in
a legal way which would make them yield—that was,
that they were to continue to enrich themselves at
the expense of the community.—(Hear, hear.) He
confessed that from Parliament nothing could be ex-
pected at present. But were they to despair on that
account ?—(Cheers.) He should say, far from it.—
(Loud cheers). He saw everything showing that
the cause of free trade was making rapid advances—
that the arguments of the free traders were making
way in the country, and even in high places—in Par-
liament itself; as was proved by the advance which
was made during the last session towards free trade,
on the Canada Corn Bill.—(Hear, hear.) By that
Bill, corn might be imported from Canada, at a duty
of Is. But why should it not be imported at the
same rate from every other British colony.—(Loud
cheers.) But that was not only an admission to the
principles of free trade : there were other practical
advantages derived from it—namely, that the Ame-
ricans would be likely to smuggle a great deal of
flour into Canada, so that they would then have
American flour as Canadian. The landlords were
very a igry at this. They pretended that their great
reason for opposing the repeal of the corn-laws was
that they would be dependent upon foreign countries
for the supply of such a necessary article of life ; but
in this case they were equally angry though the
supply were to come from their own colonies, thus
showing that they did not so much object to the corn
being foreign as to its being cheap.—(Hear, hear.)
Anything which made corn cheap must, be bad,
and it must be a bad law which enabled it to come
into this country. That was the doctrine of the
agriculturists.—(Cheers.) In the course of the next
week the question of the corn-laws would be dis-
cussed in the House of Commons, and he supposed
they pretty well knew what the result would be—
(Hear, hear)—what the course of the debate would
be. His worthy and respected friend Mr. Cobden
would introduce the subject with his usual cleverness
and talent. He would deal with the question this
year as in former years, and state his case so clearly
before the House, that if the Members had not an in-
terest in opposing him they would be compelled by
their consciences to vote with him.—(Hear, hear.)
He would make a speech so full of sound argument—
so happily illustrated, so ably delivered, that there
would not be a word to add to his statement.—(Hear,
hear.) It must carry conviction to the breast of
every honest man. The same country gentleman
would get up, and, if he did not actually call his Hon.
Friend ragamuffin, he would insinuate that he was
nothing better than an ignorant man, and, not being
possessed of many acres, was not fit to develope any
comprehensive policy in the House of Commons, or
introduce any alterations in the laws of the country.
They would have other friends for the repeal of the
corn-laws—Mr. Villiers, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr.
Bright, and others—who would give additional force
to his statements. Then they would have a number
of country gentlemen say that they were low-bred
ragamuffins, and that they were attempting to
overturn the Established Church and all their
revered institutions—(Great laughter)—and that
they were determined, as long as they had seats in
that House, to stand by the throne, the altar, and the
corn-laws.—(Cheers and laughter.) They probably
would have some determined enemy of the manufac-
turers, like
,the Hon. Member for Knaresborough,—
(Laughter)—who would deliver a violent phillipic
against every man, either himself a manufacturer or
connected with manufactures, or who had anything
to do with the trade or the commerce of the country,
forgetting that very many of the country gentlemen
themselves owed their fortunes to manufactures, for
he (Mr. Leader) ventured to say that since the in-
troduction of manufactures on a large scale into this
country the value of landed estates had been doubled
in England. Well, after one or two nights passed in
debate of this kind—if debate it could be called—
(Laughter)—where all the argument was on one
side, and all the personality on the other, Sir Robert
Peel would get up and make a very plausible Minis-
terial speech—(Laughter)—probably he would speak
for three hours, but they must not expect that in
those three hours he would tell them anything—
(Laughter)—for, beyond all the men he (Mr. Leader)
ever heard, the Right Hon. Gentleman possessed
more than any other the singular felicity of talking
a long time and leaving his audience in doubt as to
which side his opinion inclined.—(Cheers and
laughter.) He illustrated in the most happy manner
the witty saying of a celebrated French diplomatist,
who said " that language was given to men in
order to conceal their thoughts."—(Laughter.)
After all this the division would come on, and the
numbers would be pretty much as they were last year.
When they considered all that had been done since
last year, in favour of the corn-laws, all the resolu-
tions which had been passed in favour of them, even
in the country districts—when they remembered the
number of converts, even of farmers themselves,
made to the cause of free trade, was it not surprising
that, in the House of Commons, there was not a
single convert to this doctrine ? And why ? Because
ruling interests were generally stronger than any rea-
son which could be adduced against it, and they were
ready to adopt any frivolous or fallacious view which
would tend to support any opinion that coincided
with their own interests. The question, so far as the
House of Commons was concerned, was already
decided, because the case came on before a packed
jury—(Cheers)—or, rather, one might say they were
judge and jury in their own cause.—(Hear, hear.)
But that was no reason why they should despair of
success.—(Hear, hear.) There were many who
heard him who remembered the Reform Bill, and
who must recollect that it was far more difficult to
carry that measure, because, in that case, men not
only sat for their own boroughs, but they returned
ten or twelve others whom they pleased to select.—
(Hear, hear.) Yet they yielded to long continued
agitation. They yielded when they found the
conviction of the middle classes of the country so
strongly opposed to them, and that the opinion of
the country was so strongly evinced that the measure
could be no longer resisted. But it appeared to him
to be a great misfortune that the Legislature of this
country always held back reforms till they were too late,
and till they did little good when they were conceded.
The remedy was always deferred till it became too
late to put them in the same state of prosperity
which it would have done if applied sooner. The
question of Catholic Emancipation was a modern in-
stance of this. He would ask any intelligent or
disinterested man whether, if that question was con-
ceded at the time of the union, Ireland would be in

its cresent distressed and miserable condition ? If,
according to Mr. Pitt's plan, Catholic Emancipation
had been carried at the time of the union, and if the
Irish Catholic Establishment had been paid, Ireland,
instead of being a poor and miserable country con-
vulsed by agitation, would be as happy, prosperous,
and contented as cotland was at present.—(Hear,
hear.) The case of reform was another instance,
and it would also be the case with regard to the
corn 'laws, which made the first necessary of life so
dear to the poor man. He was afraid this agitation would
continue for a long time before the House of Commons
were brought to reason ; but if by a combination of
circumstances they were able to force the Govern-
ment and the aristocracy to grant a total repeal of the
corn-laws, they could then tell them that what they
had refused to mercy they were terrified into yielding
to justice.—(Hear, hear.) But then the advantages
to be derived from a repeal of the corn-laws would
not be one-tenth what they would be if conceded
now or two or three years ago—(Hear, hear)—be-
cause the consequence of the protective system had
been to prevent commercial treaties with France,
Portugal, Brazil, and Spain.—(Hear, hear.) Those
countries said—" When you first get rid of your ex-
clusive system and your extravagant tariff then we
will negotiate treaties with you. As long as you
keep up that protective system, from which you have
no doubt derived good, we will follow your example."
The consequence was that this country was losing its
markets amongst foreign nations.—(Hear, hear.)
Whenever they had brought their cause to triumph,
whether in a year or two, or even longer, he was sure
of this at all events, that the Anti-Corn-law League
had by its agitation done great good, by diffusing in-
formation amongst the people and enlightening the
country on the question.—(Hear.) When the re-
peal came men would say—" The attack on the protec-
tive system was begun by the Anti-Corn-law League.
They showed the horrid and detrimental features of
the system; they had been hated for it—their dili-
gence was remarkable in collecting arguments, and
their intellect in displaying them. Their steps were
dogged by disappointment and difficulties, yet they
inflicted upon the protective system a blow which it
would never recover."—(Loud cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN then introduced Mr. Collyer to
the meeting. He was the son of the late Member for
Plymouth, and had himself stood for the representa-
tion of Launceston.

Mr. COLLYER then came forward, and said that
nothing but the sense of the necessity and duty of
every man coming forward to advocate the question
of the corn-law would have induced him, a mere
stranger, to appear before them. This was an im-
portant question, and would be important in the his-
tory of the country. It was a hard struggle ; but as
it was likely to be the last with monopoly, that was
not surprising. He was one of a large class in the
country who detested agitation ; but when circum-
stances arose to justify it; it became the :duty of every
man to agitate.—(Cheers.) He would also. address