The Sun.
London, England, 1850-05-15 00:00:00

TH E SUN, LONDON,

prosperity, rests on the re-establishment of a just sys-
tem of import duties.' I do not deny, or wish in any
way to shrink from the responsibility which rests upon
her Majesty's Government for the line of policy they
have adopted; but no such proposition has been made to
the House of Commons, and the House of Commons has
not rejected any such proposition." Now the proposition
which he (Mr. G. Berkeley) had to bring before the House
was one that could not be misunderstood by those out of
doors, who were anxious to distinguish their friends from
their foes. He asked the House why no such proposi-
tion had been made before? Were not the steps to
such a proposition attempted by Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site? Did they not approach the question when they
asked for a fair consideration of the depression now
existing in the agricultural districts? Did they not ap-
proach the question more than once by motions? And
were not those steps met by the Government in every
stage, and in every instance, almost with contempt, but
certainly with decided opposition?—(Hear, hear.) The
distress was asserted at the opening of Parliament. Was
not the suffering of the agricultural interest alluded to
in the Speech from the Throne? Was it not thereafter
denied that distress did exist?—(Hear, hear.) He asked
the House, did not the Government, and those Hon.
Gentlemen who supported her Majesty's Government,
assert that the landed proprietors—the Lords and Com-
mons of this country—made and kept up a vain and
vexatious cry of distress for the sole and sordid and
miserable purpose of maintaining their high rents?
—(Hear, hear.) He asked the House was not the
landed interest outraged and insulted by that as-
sertion?—(Hear, hear.) A more insulting or un-
worthy assertion had never emanated from the Go-
vernment benches.—(Hear, hear.) He asked, did not
the Government close the door against any attempt at
bringing the question forward?—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord, in his reply, had gone on to say, " I think
it would neither be desirable to go back from free trade
to prohibition or restriction, nor advisable to dissolve
Parliament in order to ask the opinion of the country
upon the subject. That is the conclusion to which I
have come. With respect to the suffering which has
been stated to exist, it is neither inconsistent with my
expeetations, nor inconsistent with what I have heard,
that in various parts of the country deep suffering does
exist, and that that suffering is partly—and I should say
in part only—owing to recent changes in our commer-
cial laws." There, then, at last they had an admission
from the Prime Minister that suffering did exist—an
admission of a matter that had been frequently denied
by'him, and the landed proprietors were, by that ad-
mission in some respect relieved from the insult of being
charged with striving merely to keep up the price of
their rents. Were it not that he felt the greatest re-
spect for the Noble Lord's character, both in public
and in private—a respect which he was proud to say he
entertained—he should have been disposed to draw a
peculiar inference from what followed in the Noble
Lord's reply. It was this—" I believe that these changes
were in their general aspect inevitable. I believe that
ten years ago it might have been foreseen that this
country, as it became more opulent and commercial,
would require great changes in that direction, and my
object was at that time to make the transition accom-
panied by as little suffering and distress as possible.
But the advice I gave with that view was rejected, not
only with contempt, but with indignation." Were it not
that he knew the Noble Lord was iucapable of enter-
taining such a feeling, he should have been led to sup-
pose that in that paragraph he had spoken with some
feeling of bitterness towards those gentlemen who hal
foregone his advice.—(Hear, hear.) But there never
was a time when the country required so much attention
as it did at present. Agricultural distress was so
general, so universal—they were trenching upon
such immediate ruin, that there was no pos-
sibility of avoiding attending to their condition.
The union workhouses were full to overflowing.
The people were clamorous for a reduction of rents—the
labourers were working at reduced wages. Wheat had
become reduced in price so low that the farmers could
no longer grow it with any profit. The average price
was now about 101. a load, and the importation of foreign
corn showed no probability of becoming less in amount.
There was no prospect of any reward for agriculturists.
What, then, were they to do? They looked for some
notice from the Government, but they had it not. They
looked for some alleviation from the Legislature, but they
had it not. They then looked to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, and hoped that in his budget they would
find some boon for them, some alleviation of their con-
dition, But what did they find? What did the Free-
trade Government do fur them, after all their promises
of retrenchment and economy? Why they did nothing.
They gave them bricks when they asked for bread.—
(Hear.) But in removing the brick duties they
benefitted only some of the landed proprietors, not
the tenant-farmers; but the great bulk of the benefit
went to the manufacturers and the- manufacturing
towns. And having thus adverted to the conduct of the
Government, he would allude to the course pursued in
pretending to accoant for the prevailing distress. The
landlords were first told that all they had to do to meet
it was to reduce their rents. He maintained that no re-
duction of rent would have alleviated it; and that no
Government and no Member of that House had any
right to ask private individuals to meet difficulties
which their public legislation had occasioned. It was
not, and it could not be, a question of rent.—(Hear,
hear.) And, moreover, had the rents been reduced to
such an extent as that the landed proprietors would have
been ruined, the agriculturists would not still have been
benefited, and the manufacturers would soon find that
the ruin which bad affected the agriculturists must
reach them in turn. They had been told that the expe-
riment would be finally successful. He denied that it
Was an experiment. But whatever it was, it had lasted
three years, and it had been sufficiently tried and found
unsuccessful. When was it to end ?—(flear ) If they
were not satisfied with the ruin which their hybrid mea-
sure had already occasioned, when, he asked, would
they be content? Why, there was not a single speck
upon the political horizon which gave them hope that
it would ever be successful. The distress having become
4 last too evident to be longer denied, it was admitted.
It was admitted now, when farm sales were taking place
every day, and the tenant-farmers could not pay any
rents, and they were told for comfort that the present
low prices of provisions would not last, and that high
prices would shortly come again. Why, the free-traders
bad set out with stating that low prices were what they
wished to maintain.—((sheers.) That was the boon
which they promised to bestow upon the country. But
now they turned round, and said, that things would be
better, and prices would be higher soon.—(Hear.) Ac-
cording to that reasoning, the Government would allow
that it was possible to buy gold too dear; and that pro-
visions might be so low as not to be remunerative to the
producer in this country. But how were they to
abate the evil unless they gave their labourers
sufficient protection? He, however, was not about
to ask the House to reconsider their erroneous
policy. He only asked that due considera-
tion might be given to it, and that a Committee might
be appointed to advise some remedy for the great dis-
tress under which the agricultural interest was suffer-
ing. If a cheap loaf was not the object of free trade,
he hoped that her Majesty's Government would explain
what its object was? One member of that Government
had said that he did not expect that prices would fall
so low as they had done, and on that ground alone he
thought that they were entitled to demand a revision of
the present law. If the present prices were to continue
—1 we were still to be dependent upon the foreigner—
the farmers would soon be obliged to give up cultivation,
and what would become of England then? They were
told that a bread-tax could no longer be tolerated—that
protection was dead and buried. How came it then
that there were articles of food upon which a duty was
still levied? He held that the necessity of protection
was acknowledged by the list of articles on which a
duty a as imposed—a list comprehending the names of
thirty-six substances produced by manufacturing and
thirty-five by agricultural industry. If it were to be
said that they had no right to impose taxation
upon the food of the people, what right had they to
levy taxation upon the edible articles in question? If
free trade therefore were an experiment, he asked why
had they not tried that experiment in full? Why did
they not allow the farmer to have the full benefit of
what was fairly and really free trade, instead of sup-
porting the present hybrid measure, which, if persisted
in, would go far to ruin all the interests of the state.
Not content, however, with this partial application of
the free-trade system, they had run counter to every
dictate of honour, justice, and religion, by admitting
slave-grown produce—thus erring upon moral as well
as upon economical grounds. No doubt it would be
said, so far as regarded the latter consideration, that the
present low prices would not continue. The last re-
turns, however, showed them still to be in a declining
condition, and although the markets at this moment ex-
hibited a tendency to look up, that fact was, in a great
measure, to be attributed to the late remarkable preva-
lence of easterly winds preventing rapid importation.
Prices might partially get up in this way, but they would
find that after the next harvest they would fall lower
than ever they had done. In America and other coun-
tries a greater breadth of ground was sown with wheat
during
any past year; and he felt certain, from all
they had not as yet by any means seen the
worst saw,oarn stas that
regarded the prices of agricultural produce.
Now, what had been the predictions of the leading ad-
vocates of free trade as to the results of their doctrine?
They had told the people that the land would be a land
flowing with milk and honey—that there Iwas happi-
ness and prosperity in store for every one under a free-
trade regime. Was such the Faso ? No • the reality
was as different from the promise as was the reality of
the Mississippi estate Eden, described in Martin
Chuzzlewit," from the account given of it by the land
"
speculator. All that free trade proved was, that its ad-
vocatesttheir
conclusions—thoroughly
d
wrong,heir
premises—wrong in
in fact, from first
to last.—(Hear, hear.) Let the House remember the
promises made to the farmers by the Honourable Gen-
tleman the Member for the West Riding. He pro-
mised them a reign of happy abundance—he promised
the labourers an increase of wages.—(Hear.) Had
this promise come true ?—(Hear, hear.) Were not the
labourers in some counties now reduced to six shillings a
week?—a sum which gare them less money, in propor-
vdtaehlaaurteo
onfe
ment.
edf work
e et
propor-
tion, to buy the cheap loaf than they had before to pur-
chasehewAi As
when supposed
tthheehew
was
taken
ahr
km eenr
increasedas ,
away—(Bear,
wa ya
_s
activityi
(t toe a ber,
hear)—or was it to be supposed that theyh
would bear
with patient passiveness any such proceeding
t
of the Legialature?—(Hear, hear.) yet, now
on the
et e
thepar
House observe how every impatient
word d w hieh f
11
from the farmers was marked and scrutinise d ( e
He
hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Member"'
Riding had told the for the West
agriculturists that they were as dull
' as the oxen which they drove, and the Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Manchester had stigmatised theni
cowards; yet no sooner were the farmers found
to as
becoming restive in their turn, than their speeches were
branded by the free-traders as containing threats of a re-
vclutionary character. As soon as the farmers, who, cif
all classes had the most rEason to use hasty expressions,

did hold language of the kind, the free. traders,who ought
to be the last, were the first to take the matter up; and
already he found that there was an intention announced
of moving that the yeomanry forces should no longer be
tolerated,—(Hear, hear.) Why, he asked, was a hasty
expression or so to be so seriously visited, and that by
men who had been such great sinners in the same way
themselves ? What he wondered at was, that the yeo-
manry and farmers had been quite so long. Not that he
advocated an appeal to violence, but he did believe that
if farmers had bestirred themselves in time, they would
not have found themselves in the position in which they
now stood. The advice given to them to continue to
agitate until they should find themselves properly and
fairly represented in the House of Commons was good
advice, and he hoped that it would be acted upon.—
(Hear, hear.) He challenged any free-trader to point
to one instance of any of our institutions having been
improved by free trade. The state of the country, par-
ticularly in the rural districts, told quite a different
story from that of improvement. (The Honourable
Gentleman then proceeded at considerable length to
read long tabular statements of figures, purport-
ing to show the great depreciation in the value of
landed property in the county of Suffolk since the ad-
vent of free trade, the general results being that the
capital employed in agriculture in the county had been
reduced in value from 6,418,0001. to 4,258,6671.) The
Hon. Gentleman then proceeded to quote various letters
from different parts of the country, giving accounts of
the depressed state of agriculture. A correspondent
from Gloucestershire, a gentleman of high authority, had
written, that unless some alteration were made in the
existing laws, half of the farmers would be ruined in the
course of the next twelve months. Many had been
already obliged to sacrifice their little private property
to pay their rents. How, indeed, could it be otherwise,
when one corn-merchant in Bristol had imported great
quantities of corn at 3s. a bushel. The next letter was
from a farmer, near Ely, in Cambridgeshire. This
gentleman wrote that that county was fast approaching
ruin, and that the farmers could not go on with the pre-
sent low prices of agricultural produce. While the dif-
ference between a remunerating and an unduly low price
was hardly felt by the consumer' it was ruin to the farmer,
the labourer, and to all trades depending upon agricul-
ture. He (Mr. G. Berkeley) therefore asked the
House to take these represertations into consideration,
and to deliberate as to whether it was not time for this
experiment of free trade to be put an end to. It was
time, in his opinion, that a line should be drawn limiting
the distress of the country. If they could not economise,
and reduce the burdens upon land so as to allow the
home. farmer to compete with the foreigner, he called
upon them to give native industry sufficient protection.
Let them not persist in refusing to confiss that they had
been in the wrong, and that they had been pursuing a
course which was eminently qualified to prostrate the
principal interest of the kingdom. At all events the
House would not, he hoped, deceive themselves with the
idea that the agitation now going on was about to be put
au end to.—(Great Protectionist cheering.) He was
aware that for the present they would be forced to allow
the present hybrid measure to continue, because the Go-
vernment used unconstitutional means to force its
majorities.—(Hear, hear.) Those who were afraid
of adissolution were obliged to vote for
Ministers.—(Hear, hear.) Why, was not there a
letter recently published from one of the Members for
Westminster, stating that the Government had forced
him to vote for them against his conscience?—(Hear,
hear, oh, oh, and laughter.) For his own part, he would
always rather yield his seat than vote against the dic-
tates of his opinions.—(Hear.) It was time, however, if
Hon. Gentlemen were to be thus coerced into voting,
that something should be done for the reform of the
House itself. It was not without great pain that he now
found himself imperatively obliged to sever—in one re-
spect at least—his political connexion with the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government. Notwithstanding
he brought forward this motion—still claiming to be a
free-trader—(oh, oh, and cheers)—still advocating the
cause of free trade, which the country did not yet
Possess, and upon which odium had been thrown, by
the insufficient manner in which it had been carried out.
At present the policy in operation gave a cheap loaf to
one portion of the country at the expense of the other.
In familiar language, they were robbing Peter to pay
Paul—taking from one man the produce of his acres
to enrich therewith his neighbour. The Govern-
ment, he believed, did not think they had the power
to put their theory of free trade into practice, and
under those circumstances they ought to retrace their
steps, and give the suffering interest he represented
some chance of better days. By all that the Govern-
ment and the House held most dear, he implored them
to re-consider the present measure of free trade, and
show some sympathy for those who in times of war and
trouble were England's best supporters. He repre-
sented an interest from whose ranks our armies and
martial forces were supplied, but which was now fast
sinking to decay and ruin. The industry of England
was no longer flourishing, and foreigners were reaping
the benefits of our legislation, for which they thanked
the Hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire. In
conclusion, he trusted that his motion would at all
events have the effect of showing the farmers out of
doors, to whom they would have to look for assistance,
and of exhibiting how gentlemen who had come to
that House pledged to protect native industry had for-
feited their pledges. Of this he felt assured, that if
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
would retrace his policy in favour of that interest
which had stood by so many Governments in times
gone by—if he would give protection to all classes
alike, and hold out some hope for the future, he could
appeal with a clearer conscience for the blessing of Pro-
vidence on the councils over which he had so long pre-
sided.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by
moving, " That this House will resolve itself into a Com-
mittee of the whole House, to take into consideration the
Acts relating to the importation of foreign corn."
Colonel DUNNE seconded the motion.

Mr. HASTIE (Paisley) had heard no grounds laid by
the Hon. Member for West Gloucestershire which should
justify the House in acceding to his proposal; on the
contrary, he had only heard that which. was going the
round of all the newspapers in the country—broad
assertion without data. He admitted that si.t the pre-
sent moment, as for some six months past, the price
of corn had been very low, but he denied that it had
been lower than during a long period under protec-
tive laws. Until the price of corn should have been at
a lower price ander free trade than under the protective
system, and for a longer period, he contended there was
no grounds for the proposed inquiry. But whenever it
should happen that for three consecutive years the price
should be lower than under protection, and the farmers
showed that they bad been ruined in consequence—
(Laughter)—he should be willing to grant a Committee
such as that now asked for. Now, with regard to the
importation ot foreign corn, he believed it would be
found, that taking the ruling price of corn for the last
half-century in those corn-growing countries which
competed with us, it would b• impossible far the ports of
the Baltic or America to compete with us lower than at
455. per quarter for wheat, and other grain in proportion.
From America, in its present state, he did not think this
country need fear the importation of corn at less than
455. Taking for the last twenty years the average price
of wheat in New Orleans, the cheapest wheat port in
America, it would be found to be not below 345. or
a quarter, and it could Hot be imported to this country
under 455. In times of scarcity at home, no doubt, im-
portations must take place from abroad; but he felt satis-
fied that country gentlemen would not think of weighing
the injury done to the farmers with the boon con-
ferred on the great bulk of the population in such periods
of scarcity. The only difference between the manufac-
turers and the agriculturists was, that the former
adapted themselves more to the altered circumstances
which might surround them, and employed superior
skill. But whether there was protection or not, there
would be complaints of agricultural distress. From 1832
to 1835 such complaints hat been rife. He denied the
allegations of the Hon. Mover, that our agriculturists
were competing with untaxed growers of corn; for
France, from which our largest supplies came, was
taxed very nearly as high as England. The large sup-
ply from that country last year might be accounted for
partly on account of an abundant harvest, partly on
ac-
count of the desire of the growers, in the present politi-
cal aspect of affairs, to realise capital. The real
injury to the farmers was inflicted by the landlords
themselves, who told them that they could not com-
pete with the foreigners, and were believed.---(Hear,
hear.) When this idea had been forced into the
minds of the farmers, it was not an easy matter
to dispossess it. But believing that free-trade measures
had not had the injurious effect attributed to them, but
that at the present moment the poor were better clad
and fed, and were more fully
employed than at any
former period; and, moreover, that the charges upon
land were less than they had formerly been, he regarded
the present motion as uncalled for and unnecessary.
Colonel SIBTHORP ridiculed the recommendation of
the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the
farmers should wait until they were ruined before they
preferred their complaints, and denied that free trade
had produced the good effects claimed for it. With re-
gard to the present proposal, be thought you might as
well attempt to
get blood out of a mill-stone as justice
out of a Committee of the House ot Commons as at pre-
sent constituted.—(Laughter.) It would have been
better if the Hon. Member for West Gloucestershire
had recommended a dilsolution of Parliament and a
ehsnge of Ministry. Who were to take the place of the
present Ministry he knew not. The Government had
been bad enough before; it was not much better now.
They were, in Booth,
a previous lot altogether.
A dissolution would at all events preclude those who had
otbrorkeefaugeth.iir(Lpolueddgleasugtohtethr.)eir constituents from again
se.eking the House of Commons as an asylum and place
He believed that the
Noble Lord at the head of the Governmnet was not in-
disposed to assist the agricultural interest, but that he
shrunk from periling his administration by so doing.
The advice he (Colonel Sibthorp) should give to the
agriculturists was to agitate and to register, and if that
insulted body adopted that advice he felt no doubt as to
the result.

Mr. PLUMPTRE confessed that he had failed to de-
rive one jot of consolation from the prophecy of the
Honourable Member for Paisley (Mr. Ilastie) that corn
from America could not be imported here under 455. a
quarter. It was a downright delusion aLd fallacy to
make such an assertion, for he (Mr. Plumptro) had heard
that there were illimitable tracts of land in America
which would be made to supply corn at a much cheaper
rate. The Honourable Member had also recommended
that the language of encouragement and not of despair
should be addressed to the agricultural interest, and
had supposed a similarity between toe conditions of agri-
culture and manufactures, when, in fact, there was dis-
similarity. He was sorry the Government had not held out
to those who were confessedly now in great distress, and
apprehending still more, any ground of hope for the
future; and to tell them, although they had no prospect
of encouragement, to use more energy. capital and skill,
was only adding insult to injury. The maxim of the
Government appeared to be, " Perish agriculture;