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

rnE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, MARCH 21, 1844.

some, all those principles are good, true, and right in
the abstract—(A laugh)—but in the concrete—
(Laughter)—at all events, they ought not to be ap-
plied to articles of food. The article of food, it is said,
is so important that to it the principles of free trade
ought not to be applied. Now, it strikes me that if
the principle is right and good, the more important
the article the more necessary is it, then, in respect
to that article the principle should be enforced.—
(Cheers.) If the principle is not good, why enforce
it at all ?—(Cheers.) If it is good, why exempt from
its operation the most important article ?—(Cheers.)
It is said that agriculture wants protection, and that
if it has it not it will be ruined. Whether or not it
has been ruined under protection it may, perhaps, be
worth while to inquire.—(Cheers.) Now let us see
what is said on the subject by those who advocate
protection. We are told that for hundreds of years
past there have been always corn-laws. I admit that
when I look into the statute-book I find that as far
back as 600 years since I find laws regulating the
trade in corn. But I find this peculiarity about the
laws which were passed at that period. The corn-laws
which were passed in those ancient times had but
one object in view, namely, to secure a sufficient
supply of food for the people—(Hear and cheers)
—and to provide for the introduction of a plentiful
supply of food from abroad when there was a scarcity
of it at home.—(Cheers.) DuKing the latter portion
of that period, however, legislation has taken a dif-
ferent turn. Shortly after the restoration of Charles
the Second, several clauses were passed for the pro-
tection of the landed interest—not for the purpose of
securing a proper supply of food for the people of this
country, but for the purpose of protecting the landed
interest ; and they have gone on legislating in the
same way: and for the same purpose, with one ex-
ception, ever since. The first Act giving protection
to the landed interest was passed in the 12th of
Charles the Second, and since that period there have
been 100 or 120 different Acts of Parliament
passed, regulating the importation and the exporta-
tion of corn. Their number alone is a pretty good
proof that none of the doctors—(Hear, hear)—have
been able to hit upon the right remedy.—(Cheers,
and laughter.) Many of them have tried hard to do
so, however ; for at the rate they haVe been going on
we have had, every two years and a half, or every three
years, a Bill regulating the importation and the ex-
portation of corn.—(Cheers and laughter. Divers
reasons have at different times been given for these
enactments. At an early stage of the business there
was no concealment whatever about the matter. The
object was clearly avowed. In the 15th of
King Charles 11., three years after the first Act was
passed, an Act of Parliament was passed, the preamble
of which stated that, for the encouragement of tillage,
and seeing that there were lands which could not be
so well employed as in the feeding of cattle, and as
vast numbers of cattle had been imported from fo-
reign countries, already fatted—the Act does not say
that the people did not eat them—(A laugh)—and
that in consequence such lands had much fallen, and
were likely to fall, in their rent and value—(Cheers)—
be it enacted, that certain penalties should be imposed
upon the importation of cattle.—(Cheers.) Here
they fairly avowed that the importation of fat cattle
had already caused rents to fall, and that the landed
proprietors required the protection of the Legislature
to prevent their importation.—(Cheers.) They con-
fessed themselves that this principle could not be car-
ried out effectually ; for, three years after, in the
year 1666, they passed an Act, reciting the former
Act, and setting forth that as the rents still con-
tinued to fall, the importation of cattle should be re-
garded as a public and common nuisance—(Cheers)
and should be so adjudged.—(Loud cheers.)
The importation of cattle, therefore' was to be ad-
judged a nuisance, because rents had fallen, and the
Parliament so voted it. This is the earliest time at
which we find Acts passed for the protection of the
landed interest, and from that time to this the Legis-
lature has been employed almost every other
year in passing Bills for the same purpose.
A Bill was introduced in 1689 which pre-
sented a new feature in the history of
protection. By that Act a bounty was given upon
the exportation of corn. That must certainly have
been very advantageous to the growers of corn, but to
the public at large it was a general injury. Money
was in fact raised-by taxes upon the people of the
country to buy up the corn to send abroad, so as to
raise the price at home. I believe that nothing ever
prospered under protection. It was remarkable
that during the course of seventy or eighty years
they sere obliged to suspend the operation of the
law seventeen or eighteen times.—(Cheers.) In the
year 1774 they passed an Act—which is the exception
to which I have before alluded—an Act diminishing
the protection to corn. That Act, in fact, did away
with protection altogether, for it was enacted that
after wheat should have attained a price of 48s. a
quarter it should be admitted at a duty of 6d. That,
in fact, continued to be the state of the law up to the
year 1815, for although two Acts were passed, modi-
fying the provisions of the law of 1774, yet the price
never fell so as to bring those Acts into operation ;
so that from 1774 to 1815, we may fairly say that in
this country we had a free trade in corn.—(Cheers.)
I believe that there is no period in English history in
which agriculture flourished more than it did during
that period. Towards the latter part of that period,
notwithstanding all the heavy burdens which we had
to bear to sustain the war—notwithstanding the great
taxation imposed upon us, agriculture was in a flour-
ishing condition. In 1815 an extreme protec-
tion was granted to the landed proprietors. That
law was repealed in 1828, and another was passed
giving a protection not quite so great, but still very
great, to the landed interest; that law, we all know,
was repealed two years ago, and a protection some-
what less, but still very great, was again granted to
them. ow, under all this protection, I ask, has
agriculture flourished ?—(Cheers.) Why, during
the whole of that period, we have heard of no-
thing but complaints of agricultural distress, of
distressed farmers, and of distressed landowners, and
we have had Parliamentary Committees frequently
sitting to consider the subject of agricultural dis-
tress. So that if free trade will not be beneficial to
agriculture' at all events it appears that no system of
protection for the last 150 years has answered
its purpose.—(Loud cheers.) It is my anxious
wish to see every protection removed—(Loud cheers)
—and that is the reason why I wish to see a total aboli-
tion of the corn-laws.--(Loud cheers.) I have been
told of the ill effects which will be produced by such
a measure ; and it will, perhaps, be well to see what
our adversaries say on the -subject. There are' few
persons, I presume, in this assembly who are not
aware that my Hon. Friend on my right,
Mr. Cobden—(Loud cheers)—made a speech the
other evening in the House of Commons, not exactly
on the corn-laws, but on a subject connected with
them. That speech is admitted, even by his opponent,
to have been a speech of consummate ability.—(Loud
cheers.) Now let us take the speech made in answer
to it by Mr. Gladstone, a Minister of the Crown, the
President of the Board of Trade. Mr. Gladstone is
a gentleman of great talent and ability, and I, there-
fore looked with the greatest anxiety to see what
could be said in answer. I found but little, except to
this effect :—" You, Mr. Cobden, think so and so—
other gentlemen think so and so; the matter is of
great importance—it is creating great agitation in
the public mind—there is the greatest excitement
existing; and, therefore,"—l concluded that he would
say, therefore we must inquire into the matter—
(Cheers)—which was all that Mr. Cobden asked ; but
no!—" the matter is one creating intense anxiety—there
are great doubts about the subject—it is impossible
to say who is right or who is wrong, and therefore
we had better hush the matter up, and say nothing
more about it."—(Cheers and laughter.) That is the
substance of the greater part of his speech.—(Cheers
and laughter.) There is one part of it to which I
wish to draw your attention. I will read the pas-
sage to you : The Hon. Gentleman had argued the
question in one way; now there were many
lion. Gentlemen who would argue it in the other.
He had himself heard the Hon. Member for Wiltshire
argue, with great ingenuity and truth, that one of
the immediate results of any change would be a sud-
den depreciation of the value of agricultural property."
Now I know the Member for Wiltshire, and I know
his feelings on the subject. His sentiments do not
astonish me, for I remember that, before the. Com-
mittee in 1814, on the Report of which the corn-law
was passed, the object of which was to keep up the
price of corn to 825., that gentleman gave it as his
opinion, in evidence, that corn could not be grown in
this country at a profit if the price was lower than
965. He would therefore, I presume, have had that
fixed as the price by. Act of Parliament—a pretty
stout charge I think.—(Cheers and laughter.) The
Hon. Member for Wiltshire reminded them that land-
lords must live.—(Laughter.) Well, I for one, have
no objection to that—(Renewed laughter)—but when
I read that I was reminded of a story which I had
read of Cardinal Fleury. The Cardinal was one day
=walking in his grounds, when he met a man who
presented a pistol at his head, and demanded his
purse. The Cardinal remonstrated with him on his
conduct. " I must live," said the man. The
Cardinal, with great coolness, declared to the
fellow that he did not see the necessity for that
at all.—(A laugh.) Now I will not apply that
saying of the Cardinal to the landlords.--(A laugh.)
but the Hon. Member for Wiltshire goes on to say—
" The landlords must live, and, if they cannot get a
fair rent for their land, they must make an effort to
effect that object by taking it out of the pockets of
the farmers.'—(A laugh.) Now, that seems to me
very much like putting their hands in other men's
pockets—(Loud cheers and laughter)—and although
in that statement of the Honourable Gentleman
ingenuitytnk
Ha
en
adr
and truth,
cheers) there
itshenreot
I dare say that,
—and,within '4a
'iet
Inmayuchbehoinneustcyh,
of this.
'ortown,
many could be found most in e. in that way.—
taio respect
areato
ot
fhethiinsgpenlacui;y,
Bight Hon. Gentleman
(Great latiOter.) Well, the Righ

went on further to say that, if they pressed upon the
farmer, they would compel the landlord to adopt a
cheaper mode of cultivation. That may he all very
true ; but it appears to me that the gentleman who
farms his own land will be like the man who pleads
his own cause in a court of justice—(Cheers)—have
a fool for his client. The Noble Lord then proceeded
to read several other extracts from the speech of Mr.
Gladstone, and said—We sometimes read—mind you,
I don't hear it, because, at these protection socie-
ties, all is a secret ; but it has been thrown out
that these gentlemen—the manufacturers—have ob-
tained by their manufactures immense wealth.—
(Hear, hear.) They say, here is Mr. Cobden, who
has made his 300,0001. or his 400,0001. by his mills,
but did you ever hear of a faimer doing that? No;
and the reason was, that they had not a cheap mode
of cultivation.—(Cheers.) I believe, that if this
question was sealed, and there was any probable as-
surance of a certainty in the trade of agriculture—
in the trade of raising corn—if there was the same
certainty that existed in the trade of manufactured
goods, that there would be plenty of capital—
(Cheers)—that there would be plenty of money, of
science, and of knowledge, ready to em-
ploy in it—(Hear and cheers)--which was not
put forward now, in consequence of the uncertainty
which the corn-laws occasioned. To put an end to
that uncertainty is, in my opinion, and must be in
that of every thinking man, a very great object.—
(Cheers.) It is because great capital is employed,
directed by great science, knowledge, and attention,
that manufactures have risen in the way they have—
(Cheers)—and I have for one thought that if the
same science, capital, and industry, had been em-
ployed in agriculture, it would have been productive
of the best effects.—(Cheers.) Mr. Gladstone then
went on to say that it was not wise or politic to
change the present law, because it would cause a
violent alteration in the condition of the farmers.
Suppose it does, will it not be the best thing that
could occur at present ?—(Cheers.) Their condition
at the present moment, God knows, is not of the most
envious description.—(Cheers.) The arguments of
Mr. Gladstone put me in mind of a friend of mine
who has a great aversion to railways, because he
says they are subversive of inns, stage-coaches, and
post-horses— (Cheers)-- and many a time has
he in travelling been some days' on the
road, because he thought that innkeepers and post-
horses ought not to be put a stop to.—(Cheers.) Mr.
Gladstone further stated, that assenting to the mo-
tion of my Hon. Friend, the Member for Stockport,
would displease the farmers and the rural labourers.
—(Cheers.) Has any person present heard of the
state of some of the rural population in Dorsetshire ?
—(Cheers.) If they have, I am.sure they will think
that it will not be a great misery to alter their situa-
tion.—(Cheers.) I believe that nothing Will be more
beneficial to the agricultural labourer and the farmer
than the repeal of the corn-laws.—(Great cheering.)
I am afraid that I have detained you too long.—
(Cries of " No, no," and " Go on.") Well, I
must detain you a few minutes longer to
state that, for the sake of the agriculturists,
themselves—for their best interests I believe the re-
peal of the corn-laws is necessary—(Cheers)—and
for their sakes I hope that event will soon take place.
—(Cheers.) But there is a reason that weighs with
me more in expressing that hope, and that is, because I
think the corn-laws and all protecting laws fly in the
face of Providence, and deprive the people of the be-
neficial arrangements made for them by their Creator.
—(Great cheering.) It has been most wisely arranged
by Providence that one country should be supplied by
others with the different necessaries of existence ; it
brings men into amicable relations with each other—
(Cheers)—it prevents hostilities ; and it makes na-
tions feel dependent on each other.—(Great cheering.)
Some countries are united on one continent, while
others are, as England is, separated by the great
waters of the ocean—(Cheers)—the great highway of
commerce.—(Cheers.) Now, I have never heard of
any island where the people were so little informed on
the subject of navigation that they could not use the
east element of the ocean for the good of themselves
and their fellow -men.—(Cheers.) That vast extent
of water is the means of communication between
different countries and different climes—(Cheers)—
to cultivate friendly intercourse between mankind,
is the design of an all-wise Power, and we counter-
act that if we uphold any duties or laws that deprive
our fellow-creatures of their daily bread.—(Cheers.)
We have now seen an era of peace for nearly thirty
years, and I think it must be apparent to the whole
world, that the feeling of Governments, of nations,
and of mankind is, that war ought to end.—(Great
cheering.) I sincerely believe and hope that that is
the opinion of every nation upon the globe.—
(Cheers.) The Governments throughout the world
are, I believe, inclined to'that opinion—they are dis-
posed to peace and amicable relations with all States.
—(Cheers.) But if Governments were disposed to
encourage war, such is, I believe, the progref.s of
knowledge among the generality of mankind, that it
would be found a most difficult task, on the part of
any Government, to excite them to wage war.—
(Cheers.) Nothing, I am convinced, is more likely to
produce peace than the free intercourse between
countries ; and that is to be produced mainly
by the total abolition of all protective duties.—
(Great cheering.) It was intended by Providence that
one country should be dependent on another—
(Cheers)—and of this I am sure, that nothing is
more calculated to create greater peace throughout
the world than putting an end to all restrictive duties.
—(Cheers.) By doing that, we shall do more to
civilise the lower orders of the people than by any
other course, and will bring about that which must
be the devoted wish of all mankind--" Glory to God
in the highest, on earth peace and good will towards
men." The Noble Earl sat down amidst tremendous

of voting. The political landlords—for there was a
great distinction between them—bad endeavoured to
carry out the idea of the monster Caligula, who
wished that the people of Rome had but one neck,
that he might destroy them by one stroke. They
knew that the liberties of the people had but one
neck—the franchise—and they endeavoured to
sever that by one blow.—(Loud cheering.)
The Noble Earl who presided over them that even-
ing, had lately been called on to speak on this sub-
ject. He happened to have a tenant who was
unworthy, if he might say so, of such a landlord.—
(Hear, hear.) This foolish man having some mis-
givings, instead of carrying out his own views, wrote
a letter to the Noble Earl, thus giving him an oppor-
tunity of stating his real feelings on the question.
The Noble Earl, in his reply to that letter said, " You
will observe that when you give your vote for a
Member of Parliament, you are executing a sacred
trust reposed in you by the Legislature, not for your
personal benefit or advantage, not to indulge any
predilection for one candidate over another, not to
please the landlord, but for the benefit
of the people at large.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.)
If you, ignorantly, give that vote in a manner not
consistent with their benefit, the fault may rest with
others; but at the same time, if that ignorance is
wilful, arising from a neglect of the opportunities of
acquiring information, you are not by any means
free from blame."—(Cheers.) These were the views
of the Noble Earl, and he hoped he would never
want a tenant who knew how to respect them and
carry them out.—(Cheers.) He felt this the more
deeply, because he had been told that his own pro-
perty—vested in the soil of another, though
no political contract had been entered into—
was not to be reached by him; he was not
to be permitted to realise that to which justice en-
titled him. Such was the contrast between these two
species of landlords. It was necessary that he should
now say a few words as to the present state of the
farmers. When he was a boy, an old farmer, an
experienced man, bade him mark him, while he told
him that from his past experience he felt convinced
that if the present -eorri-laws were continued
for another twenty years, the present race—that was,
the then race—of farmers, with their capital
would be entirely annihilated. In the parish where
this was saide had recently calculated the number
of those tenants and those farms ; the number of
farms was twenty-one, and in the twenty years those
twenty-one farms had had fifty tenants.—(Hear,
hear.) He had calculated also what had become of
the twenty-nine tenants who had ceased to be so.
Some had gone to their last account, but others
were in the union workhouse ; some on the roads, in
a state of miserable dependence, their property de-
stroyed, their hopes blighted, their families
ruined.—(Hear, hear.) As a practical man
he felt convinced that the next three years, under the
present system of protection, would see more changes
than any three years preceding them.—(Hear, hear.)
With these facts before him, facts that nothing could
controvert, if he supported monopoly he must be an
unwise or a dishonest man. If the English farmers
generally understood the system, and continued to
support it, as the Duke of Richmond said they did at
present, he must say they exhibited a suprising fond-
ness for it.

" The beaten spaniel's fondness not more strange."
The abolition of the corn-laws naturally included the
abolition of all feudal privileges, the game-laws, and
other things connected with them. They might
fairly consider the corn-laws as a rent question ;
instead of protecting the farmers, it only annihilated
them, and swept them away from their occupation.
Another point that had been touched on was the posi-
tion of the agricultural labourers. They were told
that the corn-laws were necessary for the sake of the
labourers. Now, if anything could reduce the
labourer to a lower state than he was in at present,
it. must bring him very low indeed. It was to him
a melancholy reflection, that in this country the re-
ward obtainable by industry was so small. They
had heard something in this metropolis about the
small price paid for making shirts to the poer women,
who toiled day and night, and yet could scarcely
obtain a miserable subsistence. But in the agricul-
tural districts the poor labourer, . with his utmost
exertions, was scarcely able to obtain a sufficiency of
food. He knew cases in which a labourer, with a
family of six children,. had to vegetate on 9s. per
week, 2s. of which had to be paid for rent, while
poor-rates had actually to be . paid out of the
remaining 7s. There was another instance
in which eight persons had to exist on 7s. per
week ; they might think it almost incredible' but it
was the fact, and he believed that, had ft not been for
the sympathy and kindness of those around them,
they must have been lost for want. He should like
to see the Noble Duke; or any Noble Lord who ad-
vocated the bread-tai, go into such a place and take
his tax in kind ; if he could look upon the wretched
and shrunken forms of those children, and the stamp
of misery that was upon their countenance, it would be
a study for an artist, and he thought would forin an
excellent frontispiece to a Protection Hall. He
had often thought—might Ileaven forgive him if he
were wrong—that more care was bestowed upon
their horses and dogs than upon their poor.—(Hear,
hear.) Under these circumstances, he did not be-
lieve that any advantage was gained from the poor
laws by the labourer. He was not making
any charge against the farmers for the small-
ness of the wages they paid to •the la-
bourer ; unless there was a greater demand for
his produce, he could not give a higher rate.
The advantages of a repeal of the corn-laws to the
labourer consisted in this, that the labourer had no-
thing to do with the prices. His object was only to
obtain a fair proportion of the necessaries of life, and
unless they gave that, all the party sentiment they
held out to him was of no avail. lie could not help
remarking on the gross hypocrisy of those who ex-
pressed an anxious desire to promote the welfare of
the poor, while at the same time they lessened their
supply of food. It was in vain they desired their
mental improvement, unless the demands of nature
were first complied with.—(Hear, hear, and cheer-
ing.) In the savage state, men advanced by
slow degrees to civilisation, and from civilisation to
refinement. Men in every state were always cooks
before they were gentlemen.—(Laughter.) With
these convictions, he felt that the only chance of
raisins the condition of the labourer was the total
abolition of all monopolies. There were other features
in this case which ought to have their influence on
the minds of every intelligent man. By the abolition
of all monopolies they were taking the surest means
of promoting a kindly feeling between themselves and
every country in the world, because they were
thereby making all nations in advance of intelligence,
feel a mutual dependence and sympathy with each
other, which in time the Government would not be
able to resist. The hostile tariff of America was.
caused entirely by the operation of the corn-laws.
Take away this law, and throw open the trade of this
country with America and the whole world, and they
would soon see that the good muse of :the
American people would cause them to rescind
this obnoxious tariff, and to hold out the
hand of amity to England. He said that, as a farmer,
he felt that he was much injured by this continual
call for protection. Was an occupation which had
been honoured in all ages—which had been the em-
ployment of a Cesar—which had occupied the leisure
hours of a Cicero—which had engaged the eloquent
pen of a Virgil, a pursuit which had nourished the
mind of thepatriot Cincinnatus, and which, in modern
times, had been the occupation of a Leicester, of a
Spencer—(Cheers)—a Ducie, a Kinnaird, and
many others, was it not an insult to the intelligent
farmers of this country to tell them that their goodly
vessel of British agriculture dared not put to sea save'
under the rotten flag of protection—(Cheers)—lest
some paltry bark of competition should board
that stately vessel and make all the crew
prisoners ? He told them as an agriculturist,
that they had resources within themselves
if they would only abolish these monopolies,
give them freedom of trade, unaccompanied by
political degradation ; if they would unshackle them
of their feudal privileges, which crippled and de-
stroyed their energies. He hailed therefore with
delight the intellectual discussions which were con-
tinually taking place within these walls. He con-
gratulated Mena on their magnificent meetings, which
showed that they wished to promote the interests of
the poor as well as the happiness of the higher classes.
He was confident of the issue of this struggle. If
they allowed the principle to develop itself, provided
it had its roots in nature, it was certain to
wax strong, and bear fruit in due season,
although that time might be a distant one.
There was . nothing in agriculture which made him
look with envy on the happiness of another man.
They were all dependent on one another, and it was
their bounden duty to promote feelings of kindness
and good-will, and to cherish them without any dis-
tinction of class, manufacturers or agriculturists. He
would say to them, in the words of his celebrated
namesake, "Be of good cheer, for by that day's dis-
cussion they had so suppressed discord, so crushed
dissensions, and kindled such a flame of brotherly
love, kindly feeling, and• universal good• will, as he
trusted, with the blessing of Providence, would never
—never be extinguished."--(Loud cheers.)
The Noble CHAIRMAN then announced, amid loud
and general cheering that Mr. Hunt, another tenant-
farmer, a Quaker, would next address the meeting.
Mr. HUNT came forward and was warmly received.
He said that he did not appear before them on the
present occasion from any conviction that.he would
be able to do much service to the cause the League
met weekly to advocate. He came there at the re-
quest of some friends, and was willing to throw in
his humble mite to forward the good cause.—
(Cheers.) He did not intend to trouble them with
many observations, but before he proceeded further he
Would state that he was a tenant-farmer, and, com-
paratively speaking, but a poor tenant-farmer.—
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and renewed clieerizig )

cheering.
Mr. LATTIMORE, of Whethampstead, Hertford.
shire, a tenant-farmer, was then introduced by the
' Noble Chairman, and proceeded to address the meet-
ing. The Noble Lord who had taken the Chair that
evening, had kindly introduced him as a tenant-
farmer, and if they entertained a doubt upon it, he
should be most happy to solve it.—(Cheers.) He
was a farmer by choice, he had adopted it from a
natural bias and inclination.---(Cheers.) He trusted
that as he had adopted that trade from choice, they
to
injure it.—(Cheers.) He, how-
would give him credit for not wishing or attempting
toev
ever,
entertained
rtthaiinnge
dopinions like the Noble Lord, that
keeping up monopolies, so far from doing good to the
agriculturists injured them in the greatest degree.—
(Cheers.) lie was convinced that in promoting the
cause of free trade they were promoting the cause of
agriculture. 'lhey had heard some observations that
had been made by the Noble Lord, upon the answer
of Mr. Gladstone to the speech of Mr. Cobden, and
from that they might see how the question of the
tenant-farmers had been shirked.—(Cheers.) It had
been said that free trade would displace the present
race of farmers ; he thought there would not be
much harm if it did. But it was further
asserted that they would throw a vast
number of labourers out of employ, if the corn-law
were repealed; his opinion was that the repeal of that
lo,w would give much greater employment and confer
greater blessings on the country.—(Cheers.) He was
cure that a committee of intelligent farmers would
give that verdict.—(Cheers.) Then why was it not
put in force, it might be asked ? Why, because there
was the political part of the case—(Cheers)—and the
farmer had no interest in that.--(Cheers.) They had
no interest in the army and navy promotions.—(Hear,
hear.) As a farmer he held that man as an enemy to
his country who attempted to keep up that line of
demarcation between manufacturers and agricultu-
ralists—(Cheers)—which the protectionists were pro-
moting.—(Cheers.) The Duke of Ricbmond, who was
at the top of all this, had said that he had all the
farmers and agriculturists with him ; he ('Mr. L.)
denied that such was the case. It might be true,
that the Duke of Richmond had a few with him, but,
with the permission of the meeting, he would analyse
them.—(Cheers.) There was a certain class of
amphibious farmers, land-agents, and auctioneers,
who might be with him.,—(Cheers.) There we.re
others also he might dependi:on, but the general
farmer gave that Noble Duke no support—(Loud
cheers)—and he only obtained it from those
who lived in his immediate neighbourhood.—(Hear.)
He wished to secure to the farmers political inde-
pendence ; he wished they possessed it.—(Hear,
hear.) But under the Chanios clause of the Reform
Act they could not enjoy it. Would the Noble Duke
of Richmond give them the ballot ?—(Cheers.) That
was the question.—(Cheers.) To prove the insince-
rity of the professions of the protection landlords, he
invited the Noble Duke to repeal the 501. tenant-at-
will clause, or give the farmers the means of exer-
cising their votes conscienticusly under it. Another
little thing not talked of at these protection meetings,
some of which he had had the pleasure, he would not
was say much about the honour, of attending,
the subject of game. The , system of game-laws
in this country did a vast deal of injury to the tenants,
and destroyed a great deal of agricultural produce.
There were thousands of tenant-farmers in this
country who were almost ruined by the game
system. The law itself was based on injustice, it was
founded on a false principle; it made the game the
private property of the landowner, hut it did not
make him liable for the damage done by it to the pro-
perty of his neighbour; all must admit that this was
very unjust.—(Hear, hear.) There was another
law called the law of landlord and tenant ; by it
the property of the first party was clearly recog-
nised by Parliament, denoting the influence of
the landowners in it ; but there was no
law' recognising the property of the tenant,
protecting it from injury from game; nor was there
any protection for the conscientious farmer by the
ballot. If that protection were given, he had some
notion that they should get on better. He had some
very strong opinions on that point ; he happened to
have suffered under political persecution. The basis
of political liberty was the' free exercise of the right

All he possessed was invested in agriculture, and they
might easily suppose that he would not wilfully do
anything contrary to his own interest.—(Hear, hear.)
He 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
together, but when separate nearly useless.—
(Laughter, 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
agriculture, he must say that he believed manufac-
tures were now of paramount importance. It was in
the mistaken belief that agriculture was the para-
mount interest, that the corn-laws of 1815 were im-
posed. It was very well known that during the war
it 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
a large majority in both Houses of Parliament—that
th 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
adopted had been, from the first moment of its opera-
tion up to the present moment, productive of the
worst and the most unfair effects. All bad prin-
ciples, all vicious laws, were certain to produce injury:;
and those laws which were passed with a view to
benefit agriculture he sincerely believed were most
injurious 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,
and hence had resulted the present state of
things. A great deal had been said about
protection 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
laws 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 be 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-farmer 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
another very bad effect of the corn-laws—they
caused a great deal of land to lie in an almost unpro-
ductive state. On his way from Bristol to this city
he 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
straggling about in starvation and idleness.—(Hear,
hear.) All good farmers knew howemuch more em-
ployment, 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,
(for 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 more 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
sure, 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.)
But if the corn-laws were repealed, those leases must
be granted, and there would be an end to that system
ofpolitical 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 farms 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. for voting
for 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
the question, " What have we done for ourselves ?"
None 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 boasted 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
great distress—that those among them whose cir-
cumstances were comfortable resided chiefly in the
vicinity of large towns, and in the neighbourhood of
manufactures ; and those who resided in purely agri-
cultural districts had the lowest wages.—(Hear.)
Why; the labourers in Gloucestershire and Dorset-
shire were living far below the usual standard
at union workhouses. 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 com-
plained 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,
not 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 ls. 6d.
for rent, it would be 13s. 6d. Had the agricultural
labourer any such sum to support his family upon ?
(Hear, hear.) He had already pointed out num-
berless instances where the labourer had but 7s.
He had been lately speaking to one of the Duke of
Beaufort's tenants on the subject of the distress of
the agricultural labourers, but this farmer said,
" Oh, don't talk to me about the distress of the la-
bourer, and about their not tasting any meat for a
long time ; why there are scores of farmers that can't
get or afford to buy any meat."—(Loud cries of
" Hear, hear," and great cheering.) Yet all this was
Carried on under what was called the protective sys-
tem. He believed that farmers would benefit by the
repeal of the corn-lavvi, from an improved system of
agriculture, which would be founded upon them.
(Hear.) A few years ago the iron trade in
Monmouthshire was very brisk, and the
operatives, being all in full employment, were living
comfortably, and hundreds of capital daily left
Bristol to be sent to the markets in Monmouthshire,
where they were eagerly bought up to supply the
wants of the mechanics—there was a constant de-
mand on the Bristol market, What was the case now?
Why, instead of a demand in the Bristol market, the
Monmouthshire farmers were inundating the Bristol
market themselves with that stock, which formerly
was not nearly adequate to the supply of their own.
There was not a third of the meat consumed in that
district at present that there was formerly. It was
urged as an argument against the corn-laws, that a
great deal of land would be thrown out of cultiva-
tion. Now, the Duke of Richmond, and those men
who called themselves the farmers' friends, had
turned out bad prophets on a former occasion, and so
he apprehended they would prove on the present.
The Duke of Richmond said that if the duty on wool
was reduced, we should have no mutton and no sheep-
walks, but that duty was reduced, and the conse-
quence was that the stock of wool had increased, and
there was. more sheep in the country than there had
ever been before.—(Hear, hear.) The farmers of