The Sun.
London, England, 1842-12-02 00:00:00

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 inanuf'actured
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 I 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-
lliers Stuart, the representative for the county of Wa-
terford, and bather of the largest landed proprietor
in that neighbolirhood, deriving 40,000/. a year from
land ; Lord Charles Fitzroy, son of the Duke of
Graften, a large kndlord 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 It. Heron and Col. Ferguson; Mr. Orde,
of Nothuinberland, a man of large landed property,
having nothing but land; the two Berkeleys, brothers
of Lord Fitz-Hardinge, 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 agriculturist=.—(G° Lord Radnor.")
Lord Radnor I do not 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. 1
We are not opposed to the Executive Government, 1
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
success to 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 by 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 people 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 Radnors and Fitz-
williams, to set against the Buckinghams and Rich-
monds, the aristocracy of this country would have
been Macadamised 50 years ago.—(Loud and con-
tinued cheering.) Who, then, are 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 Twill
put down Sir James Graham and 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 theyvebeenhrmo ; yet,
improvident
or imprudent, but that is not always the
when a noble family, holding- large possessions in
landed property, and having held them for the last
sixty years, during which they have increased fourfold
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 throne' 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. That 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. 1 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 numbers offrotmhe
theirs. more embarrassed
norrassetddeny i whose.t.
property must pass
On the contrary, I ask, are the manufacturing in-
terests of this country, the might, 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 time
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-