The Sun.
London, England, 1844-12-12 00:00:00

plenty of official documents from which the informa-
tion may he derived, and I say it is the duty of every
man to compare those documents and see if such an
effect is not produced. I beg also that you will pre-
pare yourselves for a fallacy which your opponents
may urge, but which any well-informed man will at
once be enabled to meet. It may be said—True, these
misfortunes and calamities have diminished—all these
evils are less in amonnt than they were, but it does
not follow that it is because the price of provisions is
lower. I then advise you to put it to them
this way. Ask them, what did you say were the
causes of distress when all men were suffering?
What were the things which, three or four years ago,
you pointed out as causes, when speaking of the dis-
tress of the people ? You said it was machinery—it
was over-production—it was agitation—it was hostile
tariffs—it was the new poor-law—it was the truck-
system— it was, God knows what all.—(Laughter.)
Now, ask them if any one of these things have been
changed ? Whether any alteration has taken place in
these causes of distress since prices were high ?
There is more machinery now than there was three
years ago—there is more produced than there was
three years age—and I do not think there is less
agitation.—(Loud cheers.) And is it the hostile
tariffs of other States ? There is hardly one
State with which it ia important to us to
have a trade that has not raised its tariff against
us. It is not our foreign trade that has improved—
it is not the diminution of machinery—it is not the
lessening of production—l want to know from our
opponents what other cause they can assign, but the
reduction in the price of provisions, and a much
greater abundance of food than ever existed before ?
Why, I remember that that notable gentleman, whom
the borough of Knaresborough sent up as its repre-
sentative—(Loud hisses)—wished, like many people
of that sort, to divert the attention of the public from
the monopoly of his party, which he, as a good par-
tisan, was hound to support. He at that time came
forward with all kinds of charges and perso- 1
nalities against the whole commercial and
manufacturing classes, alleging against them
all sorts of crimes and misdemeanours—accus-
ing them of causing all the miseries of the peo-
ple. Ask him if any of these things have changed ?
Everything then existing remains as it was—even he
himself is just as he was.—(Cheers and laughter.)
He has been making a long speech lately, in which he
has been abusing everybody and everything, and
praising himself, just as he always did before. He I
thought he bad found a real mare's nest when he dis-
covered
that the truck system was practised in this
county. He procured a Committee of the House of
Commons on the subject, because he hoped that all the
members of the Anti-Corn-law League might be
proved to be practisers of the truck system. Evidence
was taken, and it has been before the House of Com-
mons for two sessions, but we have never heard of the
lion. Member for Knaresborough on the truck system
since. Now I want to call your attention to those
persons who are supporting that system, which is a
system of artificial scarcity, for that is the character
of the corn-laws—they are not worth a struggle un-
less they do that. The simple purpose of the corn-
laws is to occasion a scarcity of food ; this it is which
raises prices, and makes it valuable to those who profit
by it. Now, I want to know how these people can 1
escape from all the responsibility of the consequences
that have flowed from it? I want to know how they
can escape the charge of having caused all the mor-
tality, the misery, and the distress, that has occurred
in times of scarcity ? How can they escape this
charge ? Men must look to the consequences of their
acts. Now, I ask if it is not something like setting
the rich against the poor, and the educated man
against the ignorant one, to go forth and tell them, in
the face of all experience, sense, and evidence, that
the higher was the price of food the better would be
their condition. What is this ? Is it not a positive
and rank delusion, palmed upon people who do not
know better? Is it not a trick practised by the rich ,
upon the poor for the purpose of making themselves
richer by it ? I ask any educated man if ha can be-
lieve for one instant that a scarcity of food can make
the condition of the poor better ? Is it anything less
than saying that wages would rise if the price of pro- '
visions rise, and that it is an injury if the price should
fall ? I ask, if it is not drawing too much on the sim-
plicity of the county to claim a character for being '
more charitable and Christian-like if they go forth 1
and relieve some part of the sufferings which they cause?
Are they better neighbours because they go about
asking what can the matter be—what can have '
caused all this suffering, and recommending you to 1
relieve it? Ido not wish to use harsh terms, but this
seems to me as near to hypocrisy as anything can be.
We read in history that the Emperor Charles V.
caused the Pope to be imprisoned, and then ordered
prayers to he offered up in all churches that a safe
deliverance might attend his Holiness, taking care at
the same time to recommend his gaolers to pay par-
'ticular attention how they let him out.—(Great
laughter.) Something like this is the conduct of
those who support the corn-laws. They fetter the in-
dustry of the people—they bind it hand and foot—
and when they perceive the miserable con-
sequences of this, they ask what can be the cause
of all the suffering—for God's sake relieve it as
quickly as you can. Ido not wish to cast discredit
on their charity—l do not wish to discourage them
in relieving the suffering they cause—it is only some
indemnity to the poor, some restitution of what they
had been deprived of by their system. Let them con-
tribute their cash to charities—let them thus mitigate
some portion of the mischief done by the law ; but
I do say, this cannot be a recompense for the
living that might be gained by honest industry.—
(Cheers.) It is a calumny that the people of this
country prefer charity to labour—it is quite against
the spirit of the people ; the very genius of the people
of this country is to be industrious, to become inde-
pendent. I believe, what the poor men of Wiltshire
the other day embodied in their petition, expresses
the sentiments of their class. They say, we do not
want charity, we want justice.—(Loud cheers.) They
wished to spare the great folks the expense of giving,
and themselves the humiliation of receiving, charity.
They wanted their rights—they wanted to exchange
their labour with those who were willing to employ
them, and to do so freely. They repudiated altogether
the principle that they were benefited by a
few persons being protected, and that sentiment
has been proclaimed and affirmed by all the
democratic party of the United States.—(Hear.)
['here they have repudiated the principle of protec-
tion to a few. They say there, " Protection for all or
for none."—(Cheers.) You cannot protect the few
but at the expense of the many—(Cheers)—and that
is not justice or wisdom, and they proved their sin-
cerity by the manner in which they acted.—(Hear.)
The great question in this country now is, How are
the people to be employed—how the great increasing
population of this country is to find employment? If
you look at all the meetings that take place, all the
associations that are formed, you will observe the
great question is, How can the great body of the popu-
lation find employment? And that is the question which
ought to absorb the thoughts of every practical states-
man in this country.---(Hear.) It is due time that
something should be done in this respect. The quan-
tity of poor which we have in this country is become
a scandal to the rest of Europe.—(Hear.) It is known
wherever England is known, and foreigners cannot
understand it, for, with the wealthiest Church and
aristocracy in Christendom, they find a larger mass of
moral and physical destitution than is to be found in
any other State.—(Cheers.) And this question has
now become narrowed to this, whether this employ-
ment for the people can be best found by impeding
and restricting their commerce, or by setting it free ?
That is the question which is now to be decided in
this country. That is the onlygreat and comprehensive
way to meet the difficulties of our social position.
And there are some persons who believe, or profess to
do so, that by impeding commerce, and stopping up
the channels through which it flows, you will find
better employment tor the people, and that you will
ameliorate their condition rather by preventing the
foreign customer from coming in, than by allowing a
free trade. Why, if a duty was imposed on the ex-
ports of this country, no person could doubt of the
fact that it would be prejudicial to the industry of the
country. If any barrier were placed on the exports
of the country, every person would see that it would
be a reason why persons could not find employment.
But there was no difference between a barrier to ex-
ports and a barrier to imports.—(Hear, hear.) There
could he no export without an import. Every im-
port was a customer. Stop the customer, and you
prevent the people from getting employment.—(Loud
cheering.) What is our case ? What do we do to
meet the question as to how the people are to be em-
ployed ? We say, allow free trade ; let there be an
unrestricted interchange of the products of various
countries ; allow the foreign customer to come in, and
the produce of British labour will increase ; and, for
my part, I cannot see any limit to it.—(Hear, hear.)
Let the home producer get food ia the cheapest mar-
ket he can, and he will soon find markets for
his labour.—(Hear.) But I say that a free trade in
commerce would improve the condition of the agri-
culturist more obviously than it would the condition
of the manufacturer, if you take the admissions of the
agriculturists themselves, and their evidence might be
taken as conclusive on such a subject. They say that
the system of agriculture is defective—that it is going
backwards—that the soil was not properly cultivated,
for if it were there would not be a labourer too much.
—(Hear.) Well, then, the question comes, How has
it come to pass in this rich and enterprising country
that the soil is not well cultivated, and that the la-
bourers are not employed ? Why, it results from
this. There are arrangements made between the land-
lord and the occupier which preclude the cultivation
of the soil, and he is not stimulated to exertion by
competition as the other classes of the community are.
When he knows that he is protected by an Act of
Parliament, can you wonder that he does not exert
himself ?—(Hear, hear.) What would be the case if
you opened the corn trade ? One of two things would