The Express.
London, England, 1846-11-03 00:00:00

WILTS.IIIRE.

agitation in favour of a repeal of the
Malt-tax, which is now going on in various parts of the
country, has commenced here, but with rather an unfavour-
able prospect. The first meeting, which was held at Crick-
lade (and reported in this paper), was well attended, and
gave rise to sanguine expectations on the part of its pro-
moters—leading them to anticipate a glorious campaign
throughout the county. But the result of a meeting an•
flounced to be held at Devizes, on Thursday last, of which
great things were expected, has " changed the spirit of
emir dream." This meeting was advertised in the local
papers, and also made known to the public by " posters " ef
every size and shape, and a large gathering wax expected.
A deputation from the parent society, consisting of Messrs.
Northouse, Lattimore (the celebrated free-trade farmer),and
Collyer, were sent down to help their provincial brethren.
Notwithstanding this attraction, the Wiltshire farmers would
not give their countenance to the meeting, and from some
undiscovered reason (as they are nearly unanimous in the
wish for the repeal of the tax,) could not be induced to
attend. In consequence the promoters of the meeting wisely
postponed their advocacy of a " repeal " to a more con-
venient season.

[NAB LLSOIr. a
ILMINSTER AORICVLTURAL oa
ASSOCIATION..-- So many
meetings of agricultural associations take place at this
season, that it is impossible to notice a tithe of them—and
indeed they are all so much alike in their general character,
and in the talk which panes current, that it would be a
waste of space to do so. But Mr. Esoott, M.P., in a speech
at the above meeting, run so far out of the common and
beaten track, that a few sentences may be worth quoting and
recording. We copy from the Somerset Gazette: " There
exists in this country a system of law with respect to the ad-
mission of food, such as never did exist in any civilised
country under similar circumstances. There never was

an example in the whole history of the civilised word
in which, while the governn. ent felt it its bounden duty
(and I think it was a boundes, duty) to make great pe-
cuniary exertions to save a large' Portion of the pee le
from the danger of famine, and at the same time to tole-
' rate the existence of any legal ehes2k upon the importa-
tion of food. I have stated that fact, but will make no
remark on it whatever. We say we is..eet to* encourage
meritorious labour, on which we all lire and depend—on
which high and low equally depend—whits:, gives us all
our wealth, all our power, and all our national honour and
distinction. Why, gentlemen, is there no way by which that
labour may be encouraged which has not yet been hit
upon, or at all events not acted upon, which may afford a
remedy for the distress under which some portion of the
community now labour, and from which the wisest a,nPro-
hend more will labour before the winter is past? IM a I of
us who are entrusted with property do our duty In the ft:-
spective stations in which we are placed? I have heard A
said at meetings of this kind, that there is a remedy for the
distress of the poor. I have heard it said, farmers should
raise their wages. Tell farmers to raise their wages ! Why
do you not tell them to sell their wheat at Gs. while it is
worth 9s. ? Why do you not tell them to sell their oxen at
Se. a score, when they are worth 10s. ? It is most unfair to
throw the distress on the farmers. Well, then, I have
heard another say, the labourers are at fault; they should
not drink so much beer and cider. It is true they are to a
certain extent at fault. I do not defend the man who

spends his hard earnings in drink. But do not suppose
that by saying they ought to retrain from drink you can
effect the great social revolution in their condition that is
necessary. lam a landowner, and if I censure other land-
owners, I censure myself also. I have not done my duty. I
have not exercised the trust which Providence has placed in
me, in granting to me hereditary estates in land, as I ought
to have exercised it. That property has its duties as well as
its rights. And now let me say what I believe to be the
first duty of landowners, and what would be, in my opinion,
a permanent remedy for the distress among agricultural
labourers. That which I believe is to be the remedy for
prsen: distress—not only the remedy in '46, but what is in
future years to prevent, so far as human foresight can pre-
vent, a recurrence of those distresses which for the last

five-and-thirty years I have witnessed, and heard
lamented from time to time is, that landlords
should take care that in letting their estates they, in the first
place, let them to men who have the character of industry
and application to business; and in the next place they
should see that their tenants have not only energy and
activity, but capital to manage the land entrusted to them.
I know not one farm, either of my own or any of my neigh-
bours, in which one-third more labour might not be employed
profitably to landlord, tenant and labourer. Now, I lately
propounded that opinion at a party of farmers not so large as
this, and of different grades, some men of wealth, and others
of comparatively small means. One and all admitted
the truth of what I said ; and I do not believe there is a man
at this table or in this large assembly but who agrees in that
opinion. Well, gentlemen, if that be so, some may say, then
the farmers are in fault; why do they not, if they are to put
money into their pockets by employing three where they
now employ two, why don't they do it ?' What is the rea-
sea they do not employ more labour ? It is this. They
have not got security for laying out their money. (Loud and
long-continued cheering). Give them that security which
other capitalists have, and you will find that if they can em-
ploy three men with advantage where they now employ only
two, they will very soon do it. And their doing so, gentle-
men will be the remedy for that agricultural distress which
people are very apt after a good dinner to ascribe to other
causes. It is not the farmers nor labourers who are in
fault. Who are to give the requires! security? Why, the
owners of the land. It is bemuse I have not done so that I
say I have been in fault as well as others. What has been
done, and what will he done, as steps towards that security,
towards that permanence of system, has been, and is, the
promotion and maintenance of a just and equitable system of
trade and commerce, which alone will give permanence to
agricultural prosperity in this country—for I must say once
more, what I said two years ago, when we seek for the agri-
cultural prosperity of England, what does it depend upon ?
Why is as acre of land worth more in England than in Po-
land? Why are there twenty occupiers to be found here foe
a farm, and in another count,/ miserable slaves are com-
pelled to till the land at the bidding of the landlord ? Be-
cause ships and commerce have given us that command over
the nations of the earth, and over their varied produce,
which has raised the value of our land to a point which,
without ships and commerce, it could never have attained.
The only danger to land at present is this—lest that failure
of !boa to which I have alluded should lead to the decline of
our trade and commerce. As soon as they decline, we shall
find that our markets will decline."