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 1" rose loud and high ;
'Till what was the upshot, all shall see
In the second canto of Owhyhee 1"
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 that 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 Leave 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
righ, 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
counties 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 b reemasons' 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 Ailed with nothing
but intemperate abuse of the free-traders, 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
commons of the country, in order, as the landlords
said, that more land might be better cultivated, and that
thus an advantage might be conferred on the poor of
the neighbourhood. 'What was the real state of the
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 convenience either of the farmer or the
sfarmhort
tlhaebopurroerteootrion flothae
eereredrnubynittyhe in genral. In
landlords to the
poor was precisely like the protection afforded by a
strong nation to a weak one—that is to say the
strong nation reaped all the advantage, and expected
the weak nation to be excessively grateful for what
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
sh—im(sHelet.,arit hear)—noatonridouass ftohratthhie.s
wwaogrkes-
ihnigs mang
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
wars diminished. Then let them consider what
a difference the corn-laws made in the price of
bread to the 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 ofother things. By that means he'could

the reason rather than the fears of Parliament,
if he had ever seen anything yielded to reason
which was not backed by agitation.—(Hear, hear.)
Philosophers had characterised man by the distinc-
tive attribute of reason, but he believed no philoso-
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 Parlia-
ment. It led to a count-out of the House.—
(Laughter.) The powerful speeches of Burke, which
would endure as long as the English language existed,
were addressed to empty benches. But when 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 ap-
preciated by millions 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, andliberal.—(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. !Collier)
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 imported bone-dust and
guano for manure, but commerce it was which made
prosperity out of barrennesk— 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, I tedious, and its application perhaps
very painful.—(Laughter:) Aristotle had not known
the science, and therefore political economy was little
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 tolerate monopolies. (Great cheer-
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 suc-
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
ChartiEm found its votaries and its victims. These
things caused any 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
thabte thethe basis of legislation principles of political
out most clearly the causes of the distress, and unequi-
vocally demonstrated the faults of our commercial po-
licy.econ 0
mT
y h e
"y,
hich showed
can-
notshould 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. He
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
increased. We therefore were for adding to the wealth
of the country for the vurpose 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 lining 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 hedvy burdens which were borne by it, but they
refused in 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. If, for example,
two million quarters of corn were imported at a ss.
duty, 500,000/. went to the revenue; but if twenty mil-
lion quarters were in the country the price of each of
these was raised by 55., and 5,000,0001. went to the land-
lords. Well may we say remit to us the 5,000,0001. and
we will raise the 500,0001.—(Hear.) A third supporter
of the corn-laws said it was the labourers' question—viz.,
that dear bread was good for the labourers. The agricul-
turists were one-third of the population of the kingdom.
They had been more, and had not increased for the last
twenty years. The aviculturists seemed to act on the prin-
ciples of Miss Martineau and Malthus, but in reality it
was manufactures and commerce which gave employ-
ment' to the surplus population. There Was still an-
other class more sincere in their arguments—he alluded
to the Knatchbulls, who grounded their arguments for
protection on mortgages and marriage settlements—
(Hear and laughter)—but this position bad been speedily
abandoned, and the argument was quickly dropped,
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-

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
j ury—(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 present 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 Scotland 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-
en would say—" The attack on the protec-
gpt:thheveeaneirlcsseyeayisnwstemtetaeemlmsime;;w.casbegun by the Anti-Corn-law League.
They showed
ettmhti horridahenryhsbpadi ayibni
enaegnendo
tl
lheecmhatedt n.gdetrimentalfoarrTheir
mfseteaentput
it—theirs r,
were
isaenlroide!
dogged by disappointment and difficulties, yet they I
inflicted upon the protective system a blow which
it
would never recover."—(Loud cheers.)
The CHAIRMAN then introduced Mr. Collier to
the meeting. He was the son of the late Member for
Plymouth, and had himself stood for the representa-
tion of Launceston.

Mr. COLLIER 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

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

THE SUN, LONDON, TIITTASDAY EVENT NG, MARCH 7, 1844.

laws just and equitable; that to show how Mr. Cobden
said one thing in one place, and Mr. Bright or Mr. Fox
said a different thing in another, was to prove
that free trade principles were false. The most
trifling inaccuracy was to be made the con-
demnation of. the League; and if a hayrick was set
fire to it at once showed that the Anti-Corn-law League
was a wicked combination, and that the corn-laws were
just and ought to be supported.—(Hear, hear.) A
writer in the Morning Post had produced a greater
impression on him than most things which he read
in that paper. It was a letter from a Member
of Parliament to the farmers of Essex, who argued
not only against importing, foreign corn, but said
there was danger in growing too much at home
—(Laughter)—for, said he, the more corn produced the
lower will be the prices. One of the best efforts of the
agitation of the League was the stimulus it gave to
agriculture. Meetings were now constantly held, at
which some useful information was promulgated. Pro-
fessors lectured on manures—agricultural societies were
established, and those who never took any interest in it
before, seemed now quite alive to its importance. Lord
Stanley and Sir Robert Peel condescended to address
the farmers on the necessity of improving the system of
agriculture, and the men of Tamworth were indebted
for the League for that incomparable bull.—(Great
laughter.) The writer in the Morning Post would say
to the man who farmed an acre of land near a city on
which that city depended for bread—Only farm half
that acre and you will double your price for the
produce—consult your own interest even if the citizens
starve. Such were his tenets. The League had been
accused of being revolutionary, but it was such men and
such legislation that were making the people become so.
The exclusive and heartless monopolists were the real
and sole revolutionists.—(Hear, hear.) The way to
make men revolutionary was to starve them.
There was yet another class of adversaries who
formed the .extreme rear of the party of which the
redoubtable Post was the leader. They would carry
out exclusion to the utmost, and set customers against
tradesmen, in the war of monopoly. If they looked at
the state f Europe and the civilised world, they would
find that those countries which were the most exclusive
in their dealings contained the poorest population—that
those which espoused and encouraged free trade the
most prosperous. Look at Switzerland, with a popula-
tion the most industrious, and a commerce the most un-
restricted, the most independent and happy. After
some further observations the speaker said it was im-
possible the country could remain as it was. Our
present protective system was the great bar to beneficial
treaties with America, Brazil, and other countries with
whom a free trade would be most advantageous.
These countries would be alienated from us if we
did not alter our policy. But when he reflected
%pen the admirable organisation of the League—the
wealth, intelligence, perseverance, and character of its
members, when he considered what the feelings of the
great body of the people really were, when he witnessed
such assemblages as those in Covent-garden Theatre, he
could not allow himself to believe that a petty monopo-
list class, though counting in its ranks some gaudy
coronets and titled legislators, and supported by an un-
principled Ministry, and a tyrannical Parliamentary ma-
jority, would be suffered to work out the ruin of their
country.—(Loud and prolonged cheers.)
Mr. W. J. Fox then came forward, and was received
with much cheering. He said there had been many
allusions made that evening, some most felicitous ones,
to the associations which were forming in different parts
of the country, and which were to have their central
Anti-League in the metropolis. Bnt in those allusions one
particular view had not been taken, or.been but very slightly
glanced at, and which to his apprehension was the most im-
portant in which those associations could be contemplated.
In- those Anti-League Associations he saw one of the
most perfect triumphs that the League had achieved—
one of the most remarkable indications of its rapid and
successful progress.—(Hear, hear.) For what were
they ? They confessed that the public were those that
must decide the great question at last. They conceded
that even Parliament was not the ultimate tribunal, but
there was a greater power which was to be conciliated
by persuasion—by the semblance at least of facts and
arguments.—(Hear, hear.) In those associations they
had dragged the landed aristocracy of Great Britain
to the bar of public opinion, and made them plead in
their own defence. In their resolutions and speeches,
all addressed to the public ear, those inheritors of
ancient titles that had descended almost from the Nor-
' man Conquest—those Lords of Parliament and pos-
sessori of the broad lands of Great Britain, with all
their pomp and station of office—those patrons of cler-
gymen and supporters, or deemed so, of whatever was
rich and grand and lovely in art and science—this
great and proud body were obliged to confess that
it was put upon its defence—that an indictment
had been found against it, and that it must answer for
its doings to the public—that it must plead where " not
guilty upon my honour" would not be admitted—where
valid argument and substantial facts must show its case,
and whether that case desired general reprobation or
not. What could they desire better than to bring the
matter to that issue ? They had now the monopolist
aristocracy where they always wished to find them—
where they must submit to certain awkward cross-ques-
tioning, like other persons who had to hold up their hands
at the bar where former deeds and doings might be can-
vassed, and where the question might be put to them which
was so awkward to many personages at the bar—pray,
were you ever in trouble before ?—(Cheers and laughter)
—and whether they had been or not, unless they got well
through it, they would be very likely to be in trouble again ;
or if their obstinacy
,prevented jusice, and the speedy
settlement of this question, a time would come when the
question would be enlarged, and indemnity for the• past
would be coupled with security for the future.—(Cheers.)
One must look with charity on the exertions that were
made in a new sphere, and he would, in all friendliness,
as one who murt have seen something more of popular
agitation than many of the titled personages who were
now, engaging in it—he would suggest some matters that
might be worthy of their consideration ; one especially,
which was, that they should take care not to underrate
the understandings of the public to the extent to which
they seemed disposed—no, not of any class whatsoever
of the people of this country. If they had not :the
advantage of instruction in Latin, Greek, and mathe-
matics, by college tutors, yet they had eyes, and
ears, and brains, and were not so easily imposed upon as
some might seem to think, by that species of logic or
rhetoric which was called "humbug."—(Laughter.) At
the last meeting of the Anti-League, a paper had been
distributed by thousands, which showed a total dis-
regard of the intellect of the working people. This
paper was stated to have been printed at the Church and
State Gazette office. He would read a few passages
from that paper, as specimens of the manner in which
those young agitators proceeded—of the manner in
which these newly-fledged demagogues entered upon their
novel functions. The paper was headed " Facts are
stubborn things," and then, after mentioning what the
census of the United Kingdom was in 1831, it stated that
seven-ninths of the population are dependent upon agri-
culture, and two-ninths upon manufactures. Why it_
must occur to every weaver that entered the
Freemasons' Hall at that meeting, that the whole of
Ireland was included in that scale of agricultural popu-
lation. But let them take it on that ground, and what
business had the monopolists to talk of the agricultural
interest ; for Ireland had pronounced in their (the
League's) favour, and had re-echoed to their sympathy
on a very recent occasion, declaring that they were heart
and soul with them in their cause. They should not
enter upon the perilous subject of Ireland and the agri-
cultural monopolist interest there. In that country there
was a soil which seemed to grow landlords like potatoes.
The poor labourer there, after he had in vain endea-
voured to squeeze a rental out of his own potatoe patch
of land, was obliged to come to this country in the lowest
stage of distress to seek the means of subsistence.
Another of these facts alleged by the monopolists was,
that every quarter of wheat introduced into this country
superseded just as much labour as would be-required to
produce it at home. Surely that depended upon' how it
came to be introduced into the country. There must be
some feasibility in the statement if the land grew such
quantities of food that every individual in every locality
had as much as he could consume; but whilst there were
millions, as it was called, rejoicing in potatoes—whilst
there were multitudes of beings able and willing to work,
but had no means of earning food, it was a galling,
cruel, and insulting falsehood to the honest man to
broach such doctrines. Another of those facts was, that
in Russia land could be rented at 15d. per acre, and that
labourers' wages were sd. per day. Was not this a
paltry thing to tell the working men of London, and the
tenant-farmers, and the agricultural labourers through-
out the country ? Why, there were many of them who
would deem it no great mischief if the land was rented
at 151 per acre instead of from 18s. to 30s. per
acre. It would be just as fertile, and not less
profitable to the condition of the labourers in Eng-
land if, as in Prussia, he could earn the rent
of two acres of land in the course of a week. Another
fact was, that the agricultural wages in England were
regulated by the price of wheat, the value of a day's la-
bour being equal to a peck of wheat for the last hundred
years, and that was, in the face of recorded wages,
the price of wheat; which showed to the farm labourer
that the weekly wages were measured by the price of
wheat,. varying from 635. to 965. per quarter; and which
showed to the artisan that the wages he earnd were ex-
actly the same when wheat was even 525. per quarter,
and when it was 105 s. per quarter. It would never do
to deceive the working classes of the country. This
might be culled, and it was, to a certain extent a middle
class agitation, and he was sorry there should be any re-
duction of the unanimity of the working classes in its
favour, because it was pre-eminently their ques-
tion; and more deeply than any other rank or class
in the community was their concern in asserting
the rights of industry, which the League had been so
determined in making. But, however they might regret
any reduction of their support, he thought it became that
meeting—the British people and the aristocracy espe-
cially—.to render that respect which was due to the cha-
racter and intellect of the working people of Great Bri-
tain. The working classes had, perhaps, been too
impatient and unscrupulous in their means of attaining
political rights. They, perhaps, had been too impatient
of being a slave class, as they wished to realise what
was called the great maxim of the Constitution—that
no one should be taxed without his own consent. That
might have been a blunder ; but there was something
truthful, honourable, and praiseworthy in it, while their
indomitable energy worked from week to week, and
from year to year, and their teachability progressed in
the acquirement of knowledge within their reach. They
were strong of arm and sound of head—true of heart, and
deserving of the sympathy and respect of the landed aris-
tocracy. But to return, they had the aristocracy at the bar
of public opinion in a position which they called one of
self-defence. There was perhaps something skilful in
the word self-defence, because men naturally inclined to
look favourably upon those who merely defended them-
selves. But when on the defensive they must submit to
the question—What was that which they defended ?
Why the thief in the street acted on the defensive when
he knocked down the man whom he robbed. If is should