Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/287

 manufacturer, all other classes, are to be deemed in the eye of the legislature of minor importance to the landowner. We hold, on the contrary, that all are equally worthy of the regard of the legislature. The landowners have legislated for England on the principle that they themselves constitute the country, and that the rest of the community are only to enjoy just so much of the comforts, trade, and conveniences of life as may suit the pecuniary interests of the dominant class. This has been the constant principle of landowners' legislation. You cannot look through our statute-hook without discovering it in nearly every page. Can there he a more conclusive instance of the favouritism of such legislation than the statement which appeared in the Times newspaper the other day, in reference to the legacy duty? What could he more striking than that law, as one small instance of the way in which the landed proprietors of this country have used their power in the legislature? (Hear, hear.) When personal property passes, after the death of its holder, to another, it pays a heavy duty to the government. Landed property, however, is exempt from any such tax. (Hear, hear.)"

In the course of his speech, Mr. Gibson referred to the wages question as affected by the price of food:—

"Now, it is said, 'If you reduce the price of corn, you will lower the wages of the labourer.' It is stated that the Anti-Corn-Law League is totally indifferent to the welfare of the labourer; that this question is a mere contest between the manufacturers on the one hand, and the landowners on the other; and that the interest of the labourer is completely lost sight of in the matter. It is alleged that the interest of the labourer would be even injured by reducing the price of corn, and making food more abundant. Now, I should not have much difficulty in convicting our opponents, from their own proceedings, of uttering what they do not believe. What do I read in the papers? Why, even within the last two or three days 1 have seen, in the Morning Post and other journals, a statement that certain philanthropic gentlemen are about to establish a society for the purpose of grinding flour and baking bread for the poor. (Laughter.) They propose to raise a large sum of money, and to erect mills, offices, and bakehouses, in order to undersell the present millers and bakers, who, they tell us, are extracting too high a price for their bread from the pockets of the poor. But how does this tally with the oft-repeated statement, that it you reduce the price of bread to the poor, you will bring down their wages? What is it to me who raises the price of bread, whether it be the miller, the landowner, or the baker? If the raising of the price be a benefit to me, I say, 'Do not lower it.' Hear, hear.) The labourer does not buy his loaf in Mark-lane; we