The Sun.
London, England, 1844-03-21 00:00:00

All he possessed was invested in agriculture, and they
=night easily suppose that he would not wilfully do
anything contrary to his own interest.—(Hear, hear.)
31e was one of those who believed there were many
mistaken notions as to the utility of agri-
culture. He compared agriculture and commerce
to a pair of scissors, very good when properly united
begether, but when separate nearly useless.—
(.aughter, and cries of " Hear.") And however in
days gone by agriculture might have been of para-
mount importance in the kingdom, he believed that
state of things had gone by, and although, engaged in
ttgriculture, he must say that he believed manufac-
tures were now of paramount importance. It was in
Ahe mistaken belief that agriculture was the para-
;nount interest, that the corn-laws of 1815 were im-
Tosed. It was very well known that during the war
:at -was an easy matter for the farmer to pay rent, and
for the landlord to receive it—(A laugh)—and
equally clear that the landlords then, as now, formed
la large majority in both Houses of Parliament—that
tth?y passed the corn-laws with a view of increasing
:their own incomes, as they now supported
'that law with a view of securing them.—(Hear, hear.)
'The inconvenience of the principle which was then
mdopted had been, from the first moment of its opera-
; ion up to the present moment, productive of the
-worst and the most unfair effects. All bad prin-
kfples, all vicious laws, were certain to produce injury';
eod those laws which were passed with a view to
be►sefit agriculture lie sincerely believed were most
iojttrious to its best interests.—(Hear, hear.) The
landowners of the country had been trusting to these
laws to secure their rents, instead of to improvements
in the system of tillage, and in general management,
nand hence had resulted the present state of
'things. A great deal had been said about
erection
in and out of Parliament, and
protection Societies had been got up, but his opinion
-was that protection was a real injury.—(Hear, hear.)
'let him for a few moments investigate the present
condition of the landed interest of the kingdom, and
particularly with reference to the tenant-farmers.
Why, the landowners, instead of turning their atten-
tion to the improvement of their estates, had trusted
to the corn-laws for their rents, and the farmers
-were led away by the delusion that it was by those
]aws they would be enabled to make up their rents.
—(Hear, hear.) The consequence was, that the land-
lords held their tenantry in a state of great political
:vassalage.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and
cheering.) He had been all his life engaged in
the culture of land, and knew the farming class
well, and he declared it as his firm conviction that the
tenant farmers had no political independence, and that
they had scarcely any political sentiments.—(Hear,
hear.) There were high and bright exceptions among
the landowners, as shown in the case of their Noble
Chairman, but, generally speaking, the tenants were
driven hither and thither wherever their landlords
pleased to take them.—(Hear, hear.) Nor had the
farmers derived any pecuniary advantages from the
present system, as might te reasonably expected, in
return for the surrender of their liberties and privi-
leges, which, as reasonable beings, they had a right to
exercise. No ; the condition of the tenant-farmei was
deplorably bad, and he was satisfied that it was not
likely to improve under the restrictive laws now in
:force.—(Hear, hear.) These laws had another effect
—they lessened the national demand for agricultural
labour, and therefore to the agricultural labourer
they were especially injurious.—(Hear, hear.) The
landowners, as Mr. Cobden had justly observed, held
certain old-fashioned notions, which they could not
bear to see any innovation upon. There was yet
=oiler very bad effect of the corn-laws—they
,caused a great deal of land to lie in an almost unpro-
Auctive state. On his way from Bristol to this city
hP had passed by thousands of acres of land,
which, by judicious culture, would be capable
.of producing more than twofold what it
did at present In effecting those desirable improve-
ments it was clear that a large demand for labour.
-would take place, and hundreds would be called into '
:active and profitable employment who were now
reggling about in starvation and idleness.—(Hear,
hear.) All good farmers knew how much more em-
afloyment, permanent and certain employment, tillage
land gave beyond pasture—more than double the
labour and much more than double the produce.
Speaking of the agriculture of the kingdom, as a
whole, he must say, that if the best system of farm-
ing were adopted—he would not exaggerate,
(tor he disliked exaggeration)—where one labourer
was at present employed three would then be en-
. gaged, not in temporary, but in permanent, profit-
. able, and useful labour ; and further, the land would
be much 'tore productive, and the net profit would
be vastly greater.—(Hear, and loud cheering.) If
the corn-laws were repealed, a much larger amount
of labour would be called into requisition, for the
landlords were at present unwilling to encourage
agricultural improvement, because of the uncertainty
of the system. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had said something about the landlords taking the
farms into their own hands, in the event o
the repeal of the corn-laws. Why, to be
slue, some few landlords might do so, but
they would not—they could not, as a class
do so, because they had not the means.—(Cheers.)
Again, farmers would not be willing to throw their
capital, if they possessed it, into their farms, except
under the protection of long leases.—(Hear, hear.)
Rat if the corn-laws were repealed, those leases must
be granted, and there would be an end'to that system
of political tyranny so much felt at present.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear," and great cheering.) He
-would like to show them how things went on under
the present system. The farmer, were the land his own,
might, no doubt, under the present system, improve
land; but under the present yearly and uncertain
tenure, how could it be expected that the tenant
would throw his capital, his energy, his hopes, into
his farm, which a conscientious refusal to vote at the
next election, according to the wish of his landlord,
might deprive him of ?—(Hear, hear.) Three or four
thousand pounds, which the farmer employed in
drainage, fencing, &c., on his farm, might be thus
lost to him for ever. The election would come, and
the agent would write a note to him, saying
" The Duke of So-and-so, or Mr. So-and-so,
. would feel obliged to Mr.
foe Mr. So-and-so at the ensuing election."
And if he did not comply with the request he would
receive a notice to quit. So that he must either sub-
mit to the degradation of voting against his con-
science and his interests, or be turned out of the farm
in which he had vested his labour and every shilling
he possessed. The granting of leases, which must
take place in the. event of the repeal of the corn-laws,
was, he believed, a great obstacle to that repeal.—
(Hear, hear.) But let, then, the tenant-farmers ask
1-I'e question, " What have we done for ourselves ?"
Note of them had got rich—a very large proportion
of them were struggling, enduring great suffer-
ing and privation—(Hear, hear, and cheers)—not-
withstanding this much boa3ted protection. A great
sympathy was lately evinced for the agricultural la-
bourers.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he was for benefiting
the labourer of any description, and he gave, it as
~his opinion, that the agricultural labourers were in
distress—that those among them whose cir-
cumstances were comfortable resided chiefly in the
vicinity of large towns, and in the neighbourhood o
manufactures ; and those who resided in purely agri
Oultural districts had the loss est wages.—(Hear.

• : Why, the labourers in Gloucestershire- and Dorset-
shire were living far below the
,usual standard
. at.. union worknouses. In Gloucestershire, hun-
dreds, of families were living, on seven shillings
a week, and. there were .districts .in Somersetshire
where no more was given ; and the farmer then corn-
pinined of the frequent. petty robberies of their gates
and farming implements, which doubtless arose from
the extreme poverty of the labouring classes. Taking
the average of the kingdom, the expense of maintain-
ing paupers in workhouses was 2s. a week per head,
rot including any charge for rent. Now a man and
his. wife and four children maintained in a workhouse
would cost 12s. a week, exclusive of rent--add Is. Gd.
for rent, it would be 13s. Gd. Had the agricultural
labourer' any b•ucla sum to support his family upon
(Hear, hear.) He had already pointed- out num-
berless instances where the labourer had but is.
lie had been lately speaking to one of the Duke Of
:Beaufores tenants on the subject of the distress ,of
.the agricultural labourers, but this farmer 'said,
" Oh, don't talk to me about ihe distress of the la-
lurer, and about their not tasting
any meat for a
lon .g time ; why there are scores Of
farmers that can't
get , 9r afford to buy any meat.,'!—(Loud cries of
r, He az, hear," and great cheering.) Yet all this was'
carrie on under what was called the protective sys-
tem. . bie believed that farmers woul d benefit by the
vOie corn-laws, from an impr:
• - repeal oi wed • system of
which would be founded upon them.—
: (Hear.) ..A few years ago the in on trade in
• ...Monmouthshire was very brisk, and the
all in full employment, were living
operatives, bo,ing
comfortably, ond hundreds of capital daily left
Bristol to he seotP, the markets in Arlo' unouthshire,
where they were ,eagerly bought up to • supply the
wants of the mechanics—there was a ..tonstant de-
oand on the. Bristol market. What was tl. te case now?
instead of a demand in the Bristol market, the
Aion*i.nouthshire farmers were inundating the Bristol
market themselves with that stock, whi ..ch formerly
was not i warly adequate to the supply .e f their own.
There was not a third of the meat
.consi lined in that
. district at pi vsent that there was forme.. rly. It was
urged as an argument against the corn -laws, that a
great deal of . Ana would be thrown or lof cultiva-
tion. Now, th€' Duke of Richmond, an. d those men
who called theniselyes the -farmers friends, had
turned out bad pr ophe:s on a former occasion, and so
he apprehended t hey w.ould prove on the present.
The Duke of Rich mond a,.iid that if the duty on wool
was reduced, we stiould have no mutton and no sheep-.
walks, but that duty was', reduced, an .d the conse-
quence we that the stock of wool had increased, and
there was more sheep in the country t lutn there had
ever been before.—(4ear,
.hear.) T ise . farmers of