The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-01 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY; ErVNWG,_ DECEMBPII, 1, isa.

GREAT ANTI-CORN-LAW SOIREE
AT SHEFFIELD.
On Wednesday evening we saw realised what we
have long desired in Sheffield, a meeting in which
our fair townswomen should be fairly enlisted in the
war against monopoly. The meeting was of the most
cheering character. The Music Hall (orchestra,
saloon, and gallery) was filled ; and had the capacity
of the hall been twice as great the result would have
been still a full meeting. The meeting was enthu-
siastic, and the readiness to engage in collections for
the League was unexampled, and the proceedings were
of the most gratifying and satisfactory kind. The
room was tastefully decorated with evergreens and
artificial flowers. On one side was a large banner,
with the motto, " Free Trade and Cheap Bread ;" on
the other, the British flag, with the words, " United
we conquer."
Edward Smith, Esq., occupied the chair, having
on his right Richard Cobden, Esq., M.P., and on
his left Henry Ashworth, Esq., and John Bright.
Esq. The principal Sheffield manufacturers and
many ladies were present. Tea being concluded,
The CHAIRMAN proceeded to open the business of
the evening by dwelling upon the fruits of the pre-
sent " protective" system, whereby he observed, our
workshops are empty, our workpeople are half clad,
hungry, and desponding ; and their would-be em-
ployers see only ruin and want approaching with
rapid strides. .Mr. Smith proceeded to say—l do not
know that I should from choice become a politician. I
do not call these meetings political. I call this a
meeting for commercial and philanthropic purposes.
I call it a philanthropic meeting, because, apart from
the justice of the cause, of which you will hear more
hereafter, leaving that at present out of the question,
it is the only course we can pursue calculated to re-
lieve the grievous sufferings we see about us. Per-
haps I may be accused of weakness, but I speak the
truth when:lsay, that I have, within these few months,
met with cases which I know to be true,—cases told

to me by the lips of the parties themselves,—which
have brought tears into my eyes. A little time ago
I requested the visitors of the Bettering Society to
take the pains to collect some information, for I thought
the public mind wanted informing on the subject of
the destitution and want that, prevail among the poor.
A few of them began to visit with this view, but they
were soon disheartened with the undertaking. I have
a few notes of the cases they have reported, which I
will briefly refer to ; for it is necessary to know the
evil, because we must be made to feel before'we can
be made to move.—(Cheers.) Delicacy forbids the
mention of names, but I have the names and every
thing necessary to prove the facts I shall state. I
take them by house-row :-
1. Very destitute, on the parish. 2. Only bread
and water to work upon. 3. Scale-cutter ; six chil-
dren, out of employment five months, have sold their
clock, and their bedding as far as they could. 4. A
grinder ; pawned nearly everything, the bedding en-
tirely gone. 5. A grinder; his grinding rent is
6s. 6d. a week, his whole earnings 5s : ls. 6d. worse
than if he had not worked at all. 6. A tableknife
cutler ; no furniture left, all gone for rent. 7. A file
cutter; no work, four in family. We know what no
work means—no food, no clothing, no furniture, no
fire. 8. Scissors maker four children, on the parish.
We know what on the parish means : 35., 45., 55., or
6s. a week, half in bread, and that not sufficient to
keep off the pangs of hunger, and the remainder of
their allowance paid to the landlord for rent, or spent
in the purchase of a few coals. 9. Edge-tool striker;
two children, no work. 10. Spoon caster ; two chil-
dren, on the parish. 11. A working silversmith ; on
the parish, though a very steady, sober family,
wretchedly off. 12. A spring-knife cutler ; 'on the
parish, living on bread and water; no covering for
their bed; the children have no shoes, no jackets.
The remarks of the visitors are of this character :
"No new clothing for two years ;" " Clothing patched
as long as it will hold together." I will occupy
your time with but a few more details. 13. A razor-
grinder ; has a wife and one child ; no regular em-
ployment for a year and a half, has never had parish
pay ; they are sometimes reduced to such extremity,
as to be two days without food ; at other times, a little
bread, or a few nettles boiled with a little oatmeal
and salt ; no blanket in the house ; very destitute,
but striving to do without parish pay.—How honour-
able, to be striving to do without parish pay, under
such circumstances of suffering !—(Cheers.) But it is
not what I would recommend them to do. I say, go
to the parish, and get supplied liberally. Demand it
as a right ; you ought to have it ; and the sooner you
do this, the more completely will you open the eyes
of those who stand above. you.—(Cheers.) You will
give me credit for disinterestedness in this. It will
lay prettily heavily upon me, but I do not care for
that. 14. A cutler ; has a wife and four children :
the eldest boy, about 17 years of age, who is very.
delicate, along with his father, works on the roads.—
" Have six shillings a week from the parish; very
little work for a long time, none for eight months ;
his master gives him a good character, and the family
are respectable ; altogether, they have not sufficient
food, but are frequently starving. The wife has had
no under flannel for more than two years." This is a
very common occurrence. The possession of neces-
sary under clothing for the women is rather the ex-
ception than the rule. 15. A file cutter and a hailer ;
four in family, on the parish roads, 6s. a week, half
in bread; very much starved. 16. Arundel-lane;
No covering for his children ; they were very cold,
so he took the matrass, which was all they had to
lie upon, from under them, and shook out the chaff,
and laid the cover over them. 17. Rockingham-street :
Came to his parish work, and his fellow-labourers
saw that something was the matter with him, they
found the family had eaten all the parish bread the
day before; he had had nothing to eat since, and
would get no more till Thursday ; must beg, or do as
they could. They "do not complain, because its of
no use ; all are pretty much alike." 18. Top of St,
Philip's-rOad : nine of them in family, and only one
bed. What must be the moral effects of a state like
this ! 19. Husband gone away to seek work, six in
family, no bed, only a small quantity of old straw to
lie upon in one corner of the room, no covering what-
ever for it; the children, though very ragged and
with little to cover them, were yet clean. This is a
picture of the state of a large portion of the work-
ing classes in Sheffield, and an awful picture it is !
How a Christian an know these facts, and think
of sitting still—saying they do not concern us, we
will not inquire into them ; if we give a man a half-
penny when he comes to our door, it is sufficient—
I cannot explain. I conceive our understandings
are given us for the wisest purposes, to be em-
ployed for the good of ourselves and those about us;
and of that good, I would place foremost the investi-
gation of cases of distress, with a view to a remedy.
We ought to get facts in the first instance ; and
when on every hand we receive the answer to our in-
quiries, "No work, no work, no work," it must satisfy
our minds that the trade of the town is leaving it, and
we have reason to fear is permanently leaving it. The
farmers, whose arguments are listened to with more
complacency than the facts of manufacturers, are
speaking loudly. and plainly. I have had a note put
into my hands since I came into this room, a speci-
men of the kind of argument likely to be effective in
breaking up monopoly. The writer says, " Last week
I was conversing with otie of our overseers, who in-
formed me that Several of the principal rate-payers,
who were farmers, had been to him, complaining that
they could not pay their heavy rates and their rents
besides. They begged he would make no more poor
books at present, for they had no pm spent of paying
their spring rates but out of their stock. They had
reaped a good crop, but all was selling low.' In
spite of all the attempts of the Government, and the
miserable meddling with commerce by men who know
nothing about it ; in spite of the wicked and fruitless
attempts to frustrate the bounties of Providence by
preventing the plentiful harvests of other lands from
entering our ports—there is one argument they can
understand, notices to quit from their tenants, who
can no longer live on their farms. The farmers arc
beginning to see that these laws have done them harm,
and no good.—(Cheers.)
Joirs: Balmer, Esq., in the course of an eloquent
speech, after dilating on the distress and want of the
people, observed, this scarcity is one of the most hor-
rible character. It does not affect the Queen ; the
aristocracy have not felt it; no Member of either
Muse of Parliament can tell of such a thing as having
gone short of food ; and perhaps few of them can
bokst of having for years known the luxury of beirg
hungry. The large class of bankers, merchants,
clergy, large manufacturers, the rich shopkeepers—
these numerous classes know nothing of the want of
food. But if there would be a scarcity, if the food
were divided ,amongst all, how heavily must it
press on the poorest, when so many have as much as
tifhey
found
bei
leitagon
becalmedr
run
I an.
short,
h o rft f
aoshiprc at
woueneek be
the
il s
breadcalled, of provisions,
if
short
tdallowance
IAI
oa
wte arnbe
is
vv.ooorldde rsednb,
ma
in though
td
manfully lly a
ton
the justice Admiral be o
of board,he
taking
no
m‘aolvfoofaatni
Inielridssstoahshbtraaitrvsntfino
fefnhodsri s
mwa fe famine,ei
monthr i share; and the poor cabin-boy
in haytne
oeldor. sn— tryg)
e(
arc
htThisoer
sd famineei.
)s.
oaauns odd': he.—(Loud
:osvi should
alodvEueldni cheers.)
abefrtehee trademost ioniamfooondr.onTs The Isiwoeeuspe
tohfes Le o r d
woulds
and
ob-
noxious laws away—and I believe that, of all
others, the .Bishops would find them particularly in-
convenient.—(Cheers.) Mr. Bright continued to
observe, that owing to the enactments of Government
food has been 3%40, or 50 per cent. above, and pro-
bably, in some cases, double, the price it would have
been had there been no law to interfere. While this
scramble for food has been going on, what has been
the effect on wages ? Ido not consider wages as the
10s., 205., or 30s. a week, which a man may receive
for his work; wages mean the quantity of the com-
forts and necessaries of life which a mans labour will
bring him.—(Hear, hear.) The principal part of
what the body of labouring men consume is food. If,
then, the quantity of food be smaller than is necessary

to supply the whole population, it follows that, how-
3ver much a man may work, he can get only a por-
tion of such food as there is to divide, and that some
must go short. The man who works the hardest,
who gives the most valuable, labour, will get the
highest wages in such circumstances as this. Skilled
artisans have got more wages the last five years than
the unskilled, and they always do. Take a man with
a spade, the lowest sort of labour, in which a man
becomes proficient in a few weeks, for, in fact, it re-
quires little more than muscle to dig—and he will get
the lowest wages. Take, next, the hand-loom
weaver, who can learn the trade in three or four
months, and whose children, at twelve or fourteen, can
weave as well as himself—,he gets low wages also.
Take the Sheffield artisan, or a first-rate mechanic la
Manchester, or a person in a business that requires a
long time to perfect himself, and who gives valuable
labour—that man will get more, in the time of scarcity,
,han the great body of those whose labour is not
skilled. Thus, when there is a state of scarcity, look-
ing from the top to the bottom of the scale of society,
you find the large mass at the bottom pressed almost
into the' earth by the present, state of things, from
which no power can redeem them unless you take off
the restrictions on the importation of food, and
increase the whole amount, so that the un-
skilled labourer shall purchase it at what would
be the natural price in the world's market if inhuman
laws did not restrict the supply.—(Cheers.)
What extension of trade can be expected from the
peace with China, for which, perhaps, your church
bells were yesterday ringing ? I trust that the news
of peace is true, for nothing can be more horrible
than this butchering of men either in the name of
commerce or on any other pretence.—(Cheers.) But ,
where will be the immediate benefit to our trade of
the peace with China? We have sent as many goods
to China during the war as before. And if we now
send ten bales of cloth, or bundles of yarn, or casks
of hardware, where we sent one before, what are we
to bring back ? Tea or silk, probably. These are,
their principal articles ; and if we bring ten chests of
tea instead of one, what will it benefit my workmen ?
They cannot live on tea, though they like it; and,
unless we can change the tea elsewhere for necessary
food, they can have no great benefit. Mr. Bright
further pursued the subject, and the conclusion of his
speech was marked by loud and continued cheering.
HENRY ASHWORTH' Esq., in comparing the present
position of Britishtrade in connection with that of
America, remarked—Look at the position of your
export trade with America. You find that the Ame-
ricans, finding the effect of our Corn-laws, have esta-
blished their tariff, which has acted perniciously on
you and us. It has fostered the manufactures of
America and injured this country. We are the authors
of that regulation, which has ruined our trade ; at the
same time I would remark, that in the late American
tariff extravagant duties have been imposed. There
are people who say, that now we are relaxing our
Corn-laws, other people are tightening their tariffs.
How is that? I will tell you as far as I can judge.
The Corn-law imposes, at this moment, 20s. a quarter
duty on the wheat of America, which, in the interior
of that country is not worth 20s. Yet, while we are
imposing a duty of 100 per cent. on their food, we
murmur when they impose only 30 or 40 per cent. on
our goods. The people of America are now in a fair po- 1
sition to give us a large portion of corn, beef, pork,
and other commodities, if we will receive them. I am
aware, that in the interior of America there are par-
ties who have produced more than they can consume,
and have no market for it. They know not what to
do with their produce, or how to purchase our com-
modities. A workman, in my own service, went to
settle in the United States in March last. He chose
to return ; and after beating about for some time, he
began to dispose of his furniture, spare clothing, and
other articles he had taken out with him. He sold
them for double, treble, and some five times as
much as they cost him. This proves that they want
our manufactures. When he arrived in this country,
he found that a barrel of flour, which he could have
bought there for 12s. 6d., cost here 285., having a
duty of 12s. 6d. Thus the cost of American corn is
doubled to us, and the prices of our goods are much
more than doubled to them. How long twenty mil-
lions in England, and sixteen millions in America,
will look on as idle spectators of a system like this,
remains to be seen.

Mr. CODDEN—(Loud and enthusiastic cheering)—
My friends on my left have placed me in an embar-
rassing predicament, which your kindness in thus
receiving me has rather increased. The three speakers
who have preceded me have so exhausted the subject,
that it is not in the power of any human being to do
more than repeat the good things they have already
told you. I rather think that, in future, I shall re-
frain from visits of this kind with my friends on the
left, unless by previous engagement I am allowed to
have my turn first.—(Laughter.) Of all the range
of topics on which they have treated, my friend Mr.
Bright said he had left something for me to say on
the question of foreign trade. That question in-
terests the town of Sheffield as much as any town
in the kingdom. I have heard, to my astonishment,
that you have exported one-half of your manufactures
to the United States alone, so that with your exports
to other countries, you almost entirely depend
upon foreign trade. 'Under these circumstances,
I must say, not wishing to say
anything um.
courteous or affronting, that you have shown a
great degree of Christian meekness and long-
suffering, or we should have heard something of you
in Manchester, rather than we should have come to
tell you how our foreign trade is affected. One would
think that when our Legislature set itself to make
laws to prevent you from trading abroad, as well as
the rest of the industrious community, that your first
response would be an indignant repudiation of their
right to interfere with your industry, and that it
would have been repeated in loud and forcible terms,
till the Legislature took its unholy grasp
off your in-
dustry. How would it be if Parliament passed a law
to prohibit any Sheffield goods from passing into
Northumberland, that Newcastle, Sunderland, and
Shields should be cut off from the trade of Sheffield ?
Not the smallest manufacturer who sends out a tra-
veller, who takes an order or two in the course of the
year in one of those towns, who would not be in arms
against such an enactment !, Letters would appear
in the newspapers ; public meetings would be called ;
and one unanimous burst of indignation would be
manifested at this invasion of your right. But what
have you been allowing to go on ? The Legislature
has cut off your trade with the continent of Europe
and the whole New World, and von have never
raised your voice against it. They have as just a
right to interfere with your trade to Northumberland
as to interfere with it to the United States. It is no
part of the province of the Legislature to tell you,
manufacturers of Sheffield, where to buy and where
to sell. The Government passes the bounds of just
legislation when it attempts to interfere with the
rights of industry in any such way. But this has
been done, and I need not say that it has injured you
to an enormous extent. I shall not go over again the
proofs you have had of the injury it has inflicted. It
has been done on the pretence that it has been done
for your benefit. They dared not have done it with-
out. You have allowed them to injure you and mock
you into the bargain, without raising your voice to
show that you were not duped. You have some wise
men among you, calling themselves by some political
nickname, who tell you with a grave face that no
harm is done—that if you were allowed to trade with
if America,yu America
send
outwouldgoods,
not trade with you ; and
you will not be able to
find customers. Then what are we contending about ?
that
What is the reason of the great clamour made by the
aristocracy, if no harm can be done by a free trade in
corn? Are these men so short-sighted in matters
affecting their pecuniary interests, that they have been
mistaken as to this matter, and have passed a law
which has exposed them to obloquy, and placed the
institutions of the country in danger, and all this
under a mistake, and in pursuit of a mere chimera ?
Do you think it was a blunder, made by ) the keen-
eyed and far-seeing monopolists? At least I may
contend that you might have the option of sending
out your goods, or not, without having it settled for
you by the Government. Take the option : require
the freedom to go where you please, and that it shall
be left to you to make goods to suit your customers,
and to promote your own prosperity.—(Cheers.)
do not care what the tariff of this or that part of the
world may be • if it interferes with the direct trade,
trade is not to be repressed by such interference. We
may have a circuitous trade, if we cannot have a
direct one. If you cannot trade with America
directly, you may carry cutlery to China, and, ex-
changing that for tea, exchange that tea again with
the Americans for corn. You may carry cutlery to
Brazil, and purchase sugar, and carry that sugar to
Russia, and purchase wheat. That would' be a good
transaction, and what worse would the corn be for
having been purchased with sugar and tea, instead of
cutlery ? This is the sort of trade we are now carry-
ing on with Russia. The tallow and the hemp of
Russia are not exchanged for our manufactures ; but
we purchase the sugar of Brazil, and the indigo of
the East Indies, and send them to Russia, to the
profit of all parties. Let us carry out the principle, in
regard to corn, as we do with tallow and hemp, and,
directly or indirectly, you will find customers for
your cutlery in every part of the world. What are
the requisites for trade between two countries, but
mutual wants ? What are the countries which, of all
others, we should prefer as customers of England ?
They are the newly-settled States, whose population is
rapidly increasing; and of all parts of England, what
portion ought to find customers more readily than those
who make commodities required by new communi-
ties, who especially require iron imp'ements, which;
are the pioneers of civilization ? The very instru-
ments which cut down the forests, and till the fields,
and with which growing manhood must cut hip
beard, will come from Sheffield.—(Laughter.) Those
are the countries with which England must find hei
chief foreign trade, and they, are the countries) iii
g which Sheffield must expect to find continually in-

creasing customers for her commodities. If there be
any place on the face of the earth, where, instead of
the pauperism we have heard described—if there be
any part of the country where we should be sure of
finding the people well employed and comfortable, it
should be such a
,place as Sheffield. You have
around you the endowments of nature, for con-
structing implements equally necessary to rude
and civilised society. if this town manufactured
luxuries—if it depended on the trade in silks or
jewellery, or the more finished fabrics of cotton goods
—then the' same conclusive arguments would not
be applicable to you. It might then be said, these
rude commodities cannot always buy our silks, or
our highly finished cottons, or adorn themselves with
jewellery ; but there is no country that does not want
primarily the articles you construct.—(Cheers.) For
what reasons are you cut off' from trade ? We are
told that farming cannot be carried on without an
Act of Parliament to protect it. This is assumed as
if there were no controversy on the subject. We are
told with all the confidence in the world, and it has
been foolishly taken for granted, that unless we had
this Corn-law, the land would go out of cultivation,
and that agricultural labourers would be thrown out
of employment, and the country become dependent
upon foreigners for food. You have men in your
town, calling themselves by some political nickname
which 1 will not here mention, for I never mention
party names on these occasions, who will swallow
these things with open mouth, asking no questions,
but believing all that, is told them. Why, the
fact is, that we have better men than the monopo-
lists among the landlords, who tell a different story.
We have evidence from the best men among the
agriculturists, who tell us that they need no pro-
tection, and that they are as ready for tree trade in
food, as you are for free trade in razors and knives.—
.(Cheers.) To (hear the language of the monopolist
newspapers, and the ravings of frantic monopolist
landlords, one would fancy that such a person as a
great landowner, or a man depending chiefly upon
land, could never be found among those who supported
by their votes Mr. Villiers, in his motion for total and
immediate repeal ; yet I find the name of Mr. Gore
Langton, a large proprietor in Somersetshire, who
has represented that county for fifty years; Mr. Vil-
liers Stuart, the representative for the county of Wa-
terford, and brother of the largest landed proprietor
in that neighbourhood, deriving 4Q,000/. a year from
land ; Lord Charles Fitzroy, son of the Duke of ,
Grafton, a large landlord in "Suffolk and Nottingham-
shire (his Grace, too, is understood to be a well wisher
to our cause) ; Lord J. Stuart, brother to the Mar-
quis , of Bute, a large proprietor in Scotland and
Wales • Sir R. Heron and Col. Ferguson: Mr. Orde,
of Nothumberland, a man of large landed property,
having nothing but land ; the two Berkeleys, brothers
of Lord Fitz- llardinge, whose family property in Glou-
cestershire is enormous; and Mr. Sharman Crawford,
one of the largest proprietors in the north of Ireland,
an enthusiastic advocate for total and immediate re.
peal.—(Cheers.) I will now give the names of some
of those who paired off in favour of the same princi-
ple—Lord Seymour, Lord Shelburn, Lord Levison,
Lord Clements, and Earl ListoWell. These names
extend throughout all parts of England, Wales, Scot-
land, and Ireland, representing some of the largest
landed proprietors, and containing some of the most
intelligent and best agriculturists.--(" Lord Radnor.")
Lord Radnor I do net mention, because he is in the
House of Peers, and my object now is to name the
representatives of counties and agricultural constitu-
encies. Tell me the name of any landowner, in any
part of the kingdom, who is rampant against us, and
furious for monopoly, and I will undertake to show
you, in his own vicinity, a better man, a better agri-
culturist, and as large an unencumbered landowner as
he—(Cheers)—in favour of our principle of the re-
peal of the Corn-law. Sir James Graham is the ad-
vocate of monopoly; but his brother-in-law Sir
Wilfred Lawson, of Cumberland, is a subscriber to
the League, and one of the richest proprietors in that
part of the country. If there be a party in this town
who speak of the Anti-Corn-law League as a low and
vulgar party, and if my good friends, the ladies, wish
to have a sanction when they walk through the streets,
that they may not be snubbed by the aristocracy of
Sheffield—(Laughter and cheers)—let them carry
these names with them, and show how many of the
sons and nephews of Dukes and Lords are for total
and immediate repeal, and I will undertake to say
that the cause will be fashionable with the aristo-
cracy of Sheffield from that time -forward. I will
just tell you how the case stands between the League
and its opponents, and who its opponents are.
We are not opposed to the Executive Government,
Our conflict is not with the Government. My firm
belief is, that Sir R. Peel, Mr. Gladstone, and Lord
Ripon, the three most efficient members of the Admi-
nistration, that these three men would rather wish
suceesslo the League, than the Duke of Buckingham.
--(Cheers.) Our battle is not with the whole body
of the 'landed aristocracy. I could give you a long
list of Peers of the realm, but I need not go far
from Sheffield for an honoured instance—(Cheers)—
who are not only favourable, but earnestly anxious
for the repeal of the Corn .law. We are not against
the whole aristocracy of England, for we have never
found in the history of this country, whenever any
great principle was being advocated bj, the people
which had justice on its side, that we have wanted
some honoured and distinguished members of the
aristocracy to come out from their ranks, and head
the People even against their order or supposed in-
terest, for the purpose of obtaining for the Iseople of
this country justice.—(Loud cheers.) This it is
which has preserved the aristocracy beyond the period
of the feudal system in other countries. Had it not
been for these exceptions, for the Ra.dnors and Fitz-
williams, to set against the Buckinghams and Rich-
monds, the aristocracy of this country would have
been macadamised 50 years ago.--I(Loud and con-
tinued cheering.) Who, then, arc the opponents with
whom the League is engaged in contest ? It is
with a Pro-Corn-law League, of which the Dukes
of Buckingham and Richmond- are the head, and I will
put down Sir James Graham aid Lord Wharncliffe
as nearly on a level with them.—(Cheers.) Well,
but you say there must be a reason why some portion
of the aristocracy are so bitterly oposed to the League.
There is a reason, and I will tell you the reason. We
are principally opposed by the more impoverished sec-
tion of the aristocracy.—(Cheers.) It may probably
recommend this cause to the aristocracy of Sheffield,
if they know that that portion of the aristocracy which
is opposed to the League is not the richest portion of
it.—(Hear,'hear.) I need not tell you how it is that
a section of the aristocracy, which had vast advantages
during the war, and received wealth untold into their
coffers, I need not tell you why they are now em-
barrassed. When merchants are embarrassed, it is
generally considered that they have been improvides
or imprudent, but that is not always the case ; ,
when a noble family, holding large possessions
landed property, and having held them for the las
sixty years, during which they have increased fourfoli
in value, without the slightest effort or risk on the
part of the owners, when such a family is embarrassed,
we need not go far to find out the cause of it. It is
accounted for by their extravagance and wasteful im-
providence.—(Cheers.) ;That is the section of the aris-
tocracy which is opposed to us ; and why ? Because
they have their fixed money incumbrances on their
estates. In some instances, four out of five parts of
their rents only pass through their hands into those
of the mortgagees. They fear, therefore, lest by the
repeal of the Corn-laws, the rents of the land may so
fall, that the one-fifth might pass away from them, and
that the remainder should become the property of the
mortgagees. Thai is the whole secret of the opposi-
tion on the part of the aristocracy I am speaking of.
I do not say that there are not some individuals
leagued with that party who may themselves be rich.
,There are unworthy members of the aristocracy, who,
though rich themselves, have leagued themselves with
this band of men of desperate fortunes, because they
wish to• maintain an undue supremacy over the rest
of the community. I have described, and none dare
dispute it, the character and nature of the opposition
we have to encounter, and the class of men who are
more especially opposed to us. Well, now, Gentle-
men, as we have dealt with this question on the
ground of justice and its merits, let us look a little at
the case of the landowners, and inquire whether the
repeal of the Corn-laws would necessarily confiscate
their small remaining properties. It is the opinion of
the best agriculturists, that if all the land were culti-
vated like that of Northumberland and some parts of
Scotland, particularly that of the Lothians, it would
still maintain the same rental as now, but that is not
to be done without an outlay of capital, and consider-
able improvement in the mode of cultivation. If we
repeal the Corn-law, and the landowner has not capi-
tal, he must let his land for at least 19 years to men
with capital; but they will not take it to set out at
once with improvements in draining, and many other
ameliorations, unless they have a consideration for it ;
therefore they will be compelled to let the land at a
moderate rent. I will not attempt to put salt on the
bird's tail, by saying that it will not ruin the men
who have been desperately mismanaging their pro-
perty. In the transition state, there must of neces-
sity be a number of the more embarrassed whose
property must pass from them. I do not deny it.
On the contrary, I ask, are the manufacturing in-
terests of this country, the mighty interests of the
great body of the people, to be sacrificed for ever, be-
cause, in the transition from wrong to right—from in-
justice to justice, from bad to good, these men, who
have been prodigal of their property, and embarrassed
themselves, may be ruined in the process ? What is
the course when any one of us falls into embarrass-
ment ? Does the law step in to shield him from the
Gazette ? Is there any Act of Parliament to stand
between you and the creditor, if you happen to be
ruined by an unsuccessful speculation ? If not, why
should there be an Act of Parliament to ruin the ho-
nest and industrious, and shield these desperate men,
who never ought to have been in their present posi-
tion ?—(Cheers.) So far as speculation may carry
me, I have stated my belief, and I repeat it, that un-

yet,

der a free trade, the landlord who has capital to lay
out on his land, or who could wait the transition state,
and could afford to let his land to a skilful capitalist
for nineteen or twenty years, to improveit, would be
no loser. Under a free trade, the value of such land
would increase rather than diminish. But how ?
Not merely by leaving the land, and going to Paris
or Italy, or remaining in London, haunting the scenes
which the aristocracy have been exhibited as frequent-
ing, and leaving his lands in the hands of voracious
agents. The process would be by acting like a man of
business, improving his property, and adapting
all the ameliorations that modern science can af-
ford, to produce the greatest quantity at the least
expense. It has been demonstrably proved that the
land of England is capable of producing double its
present quantity, if it was cultivated as some parts of
Scotland are now; and where then would be the loss
to the landowner ? Do you think it would be more
unworthy in him if, instead of being known at Crock-
ford's, Newmarket, and Doncaster, or in the saloons
of the London Opera, he took his estates into his own
management, and assisted his farmers by adding his
superior intelligence to their less mental cultivation,
to aid them in the breeding of cattle, to look abroad
for stock to improve the English breeds, to go to the
sea-ports, and see if he cannot purchase a cargo of fo- •
reign manure to divide among his farmers, instead of
leaving them to purchase it at a dear rate, by retail,
or by purchasing cargoes of seeds to enable theta to
sow their land at a less cost ? Are these occupations
that would be less worthy in the landlord than riding
with a harlequin's jacket at the races, or exposing him-
self to the censures of the press for still more shame-
less proceedings in the vicious haunts of the metropo-
lis ? Is there no economy that the landlord might ap-
ply in the management of his property—no lawyers,
with red tape, that might be dispensed with? Why should
the owner of acres be above letting them to tenants
himself, and being a party to an honourable transac-
tion between himself and his tenants ? Why should
he be above being a. party to the receipt of his money
rents, the man who can soil his palm by receiving
the gains of the gaming-table or the winnings of the
turf? Why should not the landlord, like the manu-
facturer, be acquainted with every man on his estate,
and know whether they were proper characters and
worthy of his patronage ? See how the manufac-
turers in the neighbourhood of Manchester, the much-
maligned cotton-lords, do their business—men worth'
150,0001., invested in bricks, mortar, and machinery.
The Manchester man is on 'Change every Tuesday,
from twelve to one, when business to the amount of
five or ten thousand pounds is transacted with a nod of
the head, or a monosyllable. He goes to Liverpool the
next day, to buy cotton. lie examines the staple, and
looks to the quality ; he brings away the invoice in his
pocket, and pays the money himself.—(Hear.) He
goes home, and do you think he goes a fox-hunting ?
lie daily superintends the process of cotton spinning
and weaving. He has no lawyer with red tape to tell
him when a spindle is out of place, or he wants a
new loom. He knows where every strap and wheel
about his premises should be ; and if they are out of
order, he himself directs them to be properly adjusted.
And what does he do with his son? Do you think
his son is sent to the Continent, to come back preco-
cious in the worst vices to be picked up there ? No ;
his son rises at the ring of the factory-bell ; is in the
factory at six in the morning; sees every man at his
post; and knows every one by sight and name. This is
the discipline of the factory-lord. How does the land-
lord, who has 150,0001. vested in his estate which
consists of green fields—how does he manage his busi-
ness ? I should rather say, how does he mismanage
it ? He places his affairs in the hands, first of a land-
steward, and then of a law-steward ; and if the one
does not fleece him enough, then the other will finish
him off.—(Laughter and cheers.) if a new barn be
wanted on my Lord's estate, or a gate be off its
hinges, or a fence be broken down, or a homestead
out of repair, or a fold-yard want a well or a pump,
the land-steward must be applied to, for my Lord
must not be troubled ; he is off to the opera with my
Lady, and his thoughts are filled with the last skip of
Taglioni.—(Laughter and cheers.) Does my Lord
let his farm as the cotton lord buys his cotton ?
Not he. He will not even condescend to know the
names of his tenants. The law-steward must travel
probably 50 miles, carrying a clerk with him, to carry
his papers and red tapes. He takes up his quarters at
the nearest town, where there is a good inn, and the
quality of the wine is very good. There he waits a day or
two, to see the applicants for the farm. He receives the
bidders, and may please himself whether he lets it to the
best man or the worst. his Lordship is above inquir-
ing into such matters. The farms are let, and the rent-
day comes again. The law-steward attends at the
hotel, and notice is given to the tenantry, that dinner
and punch will be prepared for such as are punctual.
We have heard grave censure on the smaller maim-
facturers, who pay their workmen at public-houses.
You have no idea with what holy horror the land-
lords—sweet innocents ! in the House of Commons
talk of the payment of workpeople at public-houses.
The real cotton-lord, a man of wealth and capital,
would feel disgraced by allowing his wages to be paid
at a public-house. Yet the landlord's rents are com-
monly paid there. This is the rule—l do not say
there are no exceptions. The rents of the landlords
are paid in taverns,- and it ends generally in a scene of
debauchery. Here you have the contrast between a
man of property, subjected to the wholesome breeze of
competition ; and the other, who has property, but
under the narcotic influence of protection. Is there
no good margin to turn in ? By getting free trade
in grain, landowners will be most strongly incited to
attend to their own affairs. They will take their
business into their own hands. (I cannot expect
that the lawyers will be in love with the League
after this.) Thus the landlords will be enabled to
compete with foreigners, as the manufacturers now
do. Not only will he compete successfully, but we
intend him great benefit by the process. We will
make him what every man must become, a man of
business. By giving him occupation, we shall render
him a 'more useful member of society, and entitle him
to self-respect, and the respect of his fellow-country-
men. I have now stated the case of that portion of
the aristocracy who are opposed to us. It is neces-
sary to understand this. We have heard talk of such
absurdities as that the Government intend to prose-
cute the Leaguers. After what I have told you of
the nature of our •situation, you will see how absurd
is the report. All that I have told yowls well-known
to Sir Robert Peel and the influential heads of Go-
vernment. They know that the Executive is placed
between two fires—the fire of the League, and the fire
of the mortgaged landowners. Do you not think
that, in this country, where there is some rem-
nant of freedom, that we have as good a right to
exist as an Anti-Corn-law League, as our opponents
have to exist as a Pro-Corn-law League ? This
is not for Attorney-Generals, but for public opinion
to decide. Therefore am I come here to-night, to ask
you to say, in this most influential town of Sheffield,
where, I may add, without flattery, that all classes
have a reputation for intelligence and order which has
been justified of late ; and I ask you to throw your
moral influence into the scale of free trade against
monopoly.—(Loud cheers.) I want the moral weight
of your intelligence to support us in the House of
Commons, in the coming session. We can meet no
opponent out of the House— we can get up no con-
troversy. All we can say falls flat, because we want
opponents. In the House of Commons alone we now
find men who dare, in the face of the world, to get up
and defend the bread-tax. If you want to know how
you can enable the humblest individual in that House
most effectually to put down the defenders of that
system, you have only to let it be seen out of doors
that the question is thoroughly understood.—(Cheers.)
Let it be understood, when one of Mr. Villiers' party
gets up to denounce this system, that he is armed
with the convictions, and, I may say, the holier pas-
sions of our countrymen. Let him who dare uphold
the system, speak under the withering consciousness
that he is frowned upon by the intelligence and moral
feeling of his countrymen and women. With this
view, let it be seen that you will no longer be content
with the passive endurance of this enormity. Look
at the state of your borough. I have heard that the
oldest inhabitant never knew it in such a state as it is
at' present. lam told your prospects are worse than
ever before. Now, Ladies and Gentlemen, is there
no duty incumbent upon you under such circum-
stances ? If I may be allowed to leave one word of
exhortation with you before I go, I would say—
Throw away all party differences, and come to the
rescue of your poorer countrymen.—(Cheers.)
ROBERT R. R. MOORE, Esq., said,—The landlords
were leagued together to keep up the price of bread, to
keep down trade, and literally to root out the maim-
facturing towns. Their league was permanently
sitting in London ; it was a powerful league ; it could
spend five or ten thousand pounds to secure a single
election, knowing that every vote gained helps to keep
down your town of Sheffield. It came not before the
public, for it had no public truth to teach.—(Cheers.)
It held no tea-parties, knowing that the public could,
not 'bear its falsehoods and its trash.—(Cheers.) Now
and then, at some meagre agricultural dinner to some
special tenantry, or some degraded county constitu-
ency, it put out its sophistries to perpetuate delusion.
The farmers were nominally independent, but, in
reality, the poor dumb drudges of their landlords,- _
(Loud cheers.) This league of landlords numbered
d
at most thirty thousand persons, and was con-;pined
against the vital interests of this town.—
(The Anti-Corn-law League strove for Oa eeP
preserva-
vation:rhear.) of the town ; it would restore to rirosperity the
,
cold forges;
little masters, and light the fires again, in
it would restore the scissor trade, tiiie edge-tool trade,
the cross-saw and the machine-raw trade ;in short, it
would restore Sheffield to prosperity.—(Cheers.)
All r.,en one great League, not
to hewSaragffiealid snsthld haveaonuyinter,..,
bst of the country, but' to de-
fend their own, and defeat the efforts that were made
forsethceuirrertuhie powern.The Pro-Corn-law League taxed itself
toof making the laws, by which it
taxed the people to
support its own idle scions. Lec-
turers would be sent throughout the country to talk

especially to farmers. The duties on butter and cheese
were not altered, and there were 300,000 people to be
fed, and yet the price was down. This disposed the
farmers to read and inquire, and they would soon come
to the conclusion that it could not be for their interest
that the landlords should have the power perpetually
to raise rents, and that the sliding-scale, letting in the
foreign corn in the mass just at harvest time, could
not serve them. The labourers, too, with 7s. or Bs. a
week in England, and half-a-crown in his own un-
fortunate country, might think it was hardly worth
while to have a law to keep wages at that price. In
Cheshire, Somersetshire, and Herefordshire, the farm-
ers had been addressed with great effect. In Cheshiw,
the farmers found that 5,000 people had left Stock
port, and they would begin to ask why the people
were gone, why the mills were standing, and why no
work was to be had ? It was important that these
lessons should be taught at once, before Parliament
met again, that the wants of the people might be en-
forced. The increased distress of the people, the heavy
poor rates, the number of paupers, and the increased des-
titution of both agricultural and manufacturing classes,
would compel a settleMent of, the question. Constitu-
ents would compel their members to grant their demand
for a repeal of the Corn-laws, or to give up their trust.
The League had been four years in operation, and
had done more than had ever been done by any similar
body. It had Changed the opinion of the country. It
was the great topic of the last session, particularly at
the close, as it would be of the next from the begin-
'ling to the close. There must be another great Con-
ference in London, to sit while Parliament sat, and
urge the question- incessantly upon it. The League
owed to the Manchester ladies 10,0001. from the
Bazaar, and it would owe much of the 50,0001. to the
efforts of the ladies of England. There was great
advantage in the assistance of the women ; and surely
it was right, that where unparalleled misery was to be
. removed, the women should be active.. Ile was sorry
they had not the women engaged long before, and he
disowned all,sympathy with those who objected to
their interference. .lf it were a cruel, a heartless, or
a mercenary cause, then they need look for no aid
from the women.—(Cheers.) Their co-operation was a
guarantee for the nobleness and justice of the cause,
and he was delighted to have their aid. They had no
right to be idle while their fellow-creatures were
starving, or indifferent while their country was sink-
ing into ruin.—(Cheers.) Early in January, the
League would have its 50,0001., ready and determineo,
to fight the battle out.—(Cheers.)
Wm. Fisnim, Esq., moved a vote of thanks to
Richard Cobden, Esq., M.P., and the other gentlemen
who had visited them.

Dr. CORDES TnomrsoN secwded the motion, which
was put by the Chairman, and carried by acCiamation.
Mr. COBDEN returned thanks, and made some ob-
servations, which were followed by loud cheers.
Mr. BRIGHT moved, and Mr. ASHWORTH seconded,
a vote of thanks to the Chairman, and this gratifying
meeting closed soon after half-past ten.

CRIMINAL COURT—(THIS DAY.)
OLD COUR7.
(Before Mr. Baron PARKE.)
RAPE.—Robert Floret, a youth 18 years of age,
was indicted for a rape on the person of 12izabeth
Brown, an ill-looking girl aged 16, at Colnbrook,
in the parish of Stanwell, on the 14th of Nov. last.
Mr. Payne conducted the case for the prosecution,
and Mr. Prendergast defended the prisoner.
The facts of the case are unfit for publication.
The Jury, without hearing the defence, acquitted
the prisoner.
Peter Barrett, 30, a paviour, was indicted with
feloniously and maliciously wounding his 'wife, Brid-
get Barrett, on the 28th of October last, with intent
to do her some grievous bodily harm.
From the statements of the prosecutrix, who was
in an advanced stage of pregnancy, it appeared that
the prisoner came home on the night in ques-
tion rather intoxicated ; at this time the pro-
secutrix was in bed ; he desired her to get up, and
on her refusing to do so he pulled her out, and she
fell on the floor. She got up and struck him with a
chair, when he instantly kicked her on the lower part
of her person, and injured her violently. The prisoner
had generally acted very kindly to her. She trusted
the Court would deal as leniently with the prisoner as
it could, as any severe punishment that might be in-
flicted upon him would have the effect of depriving
her and her child of subsistence.

A surgeon was called, who stated that the prose.
cutrix was so severely injured when he was called in
that he considered it necessary to send her to Middle-
sex Hospital.
The house-surgeon of Middlesex Hospital corrobo-
rated the evidence of the last witness as to the seve•
rity of the injuries he had received.
Several other witnesses were called, who said that
the prisoner and his wife frequently quarrelled.
The prisoner, in his defence said, he did not intend
to hurt his wife, but he was exasperated on coming
home to find her in bed, and nothing ready fur him.
Mr. Baron PARKE summed up.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of a common
assault, and
The Learned JUDGE sentenced him to twelve
months' imprisonment and hard labour. •
BURGLARY.—John Sutherland, 18, and Peter Free-
grove, 2.1, were indicted for a burglary in the dwell-
ing-house of John Cowderoy, on the 19th of Nov.
last, and stealing therefrom money to the value of
13s. Gd.—The Jury convicted both prisoners, and
Mr. Baron PARKE sentenced them to ten years'
transportation.