The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-07 00:00:00

of two ways, by recommending that the remaining
taxes on the land be redeemed, or by having
a greater protection enacted. Now, he asked them
• whether it was possible to do one or other of these?
They might as.well stay the operations of nature as at-
tempt to do either, because protection had reached its
limit; and the Legislature had, during the past session,
almost already removed all the taxes which pressed upon
the farmer; and the taxes which were wont to go into
the Exchequer, now went into the pockets of the land-
lords, in the shape of rent.—(Hear, hear.) They could
do nothing, then, to serve the farmer. They did not,
in consequence, wish to have a Committee of inquiry.
The Hon. Member for Falmouth said that the Right
Hon. Baronet, in proposing the new Corn Bill, did nvt
promise the farmers 58-. a quarter. The promise was a
very guarded one. It wt-s, that a certain price would
be guaranteed by the Legislature. That was, indeed, a
very guarded statement ; but the landlords had been
doing their best to make that expression convey a cer-
tainty of 58s to the farmer. That impression was con-
stantly inculcated by their bailiff's and stewards in the
country, and the opinion was strengthened by their as-
sessing the land to the poor-rate at 565. per quarter.
This system had been continued since 181 a, when the
law had been passed ; and the landlords ought then
to have told the iiirmers the degree of power ;hay really
p i'esussed. There eas no consistency in the conduct of
the landlords towards their tenants, no affinity between
their acts in that House and their professions in Free-
meson's Hall or in that shop which they had opened in
Bond-street, where they ought to have placed above the
door, " The British farmer regularly taken in and done
or."—(Laughter.) It was time that that imposition en
.he farmer should be ended. If he (Mr. Bright) stood
in the same relation to the people who were employed
by him in Lancashire that they did to the farmer, and if
he came to that House and assented to pass a law to
keep up the price of their labour, which was afterwards
rescinded, he would not again have the face to say to
those persons that Parliament had the power of keeping
up their wages. And that was exactly what the land
lords were doing. The Hen. Member for Dorset had
explained to the House that the farmer suffered when
the grain crops were large and the prices low, and when
the grass crops were insufficient to feed their cattle.
But did they (the friends ef the farmer) never theik that
they were puttieg him to this inconvenienee by the duty
they had pieced on Indian corn—and Indian corn they
knew was food for cattle—and by the duty on Egyptian
beans, also good food for cattle. He would tell them
that the law they had made to keep these out injured
the farmer, and assisted to create the distress they now
so much complained of. He was not very conversant
with agricultural matters, but that was not absolutely
necessary for the understanding of this question. He
held a letter in his hand, which appeared in the Wilt-
shire monopolist journal, written by Nathaniel Haver-
ton, a man of the very first intelligence, and a farmer,
and he said that he lost by the protective duties at the
rate of Bs. per quarter. It had been said that the Lan.
eashire manufacturers were mai& g fifty per cent. of
profit. He said that those who made the statement
knew very little about it; but, whatever their profits,
they did out cerne to Parliament fir pretectien to their
interests. They did not wish to overcharge` their cus-
tomers, as the landlords did in the matter of est India
sugar. The result of the inquiries instituted by the
members of the Anti-Corn-law League in the counties,
proved that where the agricultural labourer expended
at most 255. a year for himself and family, the' manu-
facturing labourer expended three times as much.
It was well known amongst their supporters that the
Government were most anxious to proceed on the prin-
ciples of free trade. Many and many Conservatives had
spoken to him in exultation, and had said, "Did I not
tell you Sir Robert Peel would do this? And if you free
traders would not be so impatient, he would still go on ;
and as the fears of the agriculturists are dissipated he
will do all that you desire, for he haS no interest but that
of the good government of the country." Every one
knew that the Right Hon. Baronet had ambition, for if
he had not be would not have been where he was. Few
men did anything without ambition. The Right Hon.
Gentleman knew that the present system was turning
the agricultural population into a population of paupers.
On Monday last he was in Buckinghamshire, and the
first thing that struck him was the number of fields
which he saw covered with ant-hills. So numerous were
they, that it was impossible to find a spaCe sufficiently
large to wield a scythe. That was protected land in the
county of the very man who was especially the farmer's
tliend—who had taken upon himself, at the Freemasons'
Tavern, to say that there would be no alteration made
at present. The next object that met his (Mr. Bright's)
eye was the multitudinous chimneys of the union of the
Aylesbury district. The persons that ought to have
cultivated the land were confined in that house.—(Hear,
hear.) An Hon. Friend of his, who lived in the neigh-
bourhood of Salisbury, and who was a subscriber to the
Wilts Prot, ction Society, had said to him that he would
rather have free trade at onceehan see the farmers hum-
hueged as they had be en by the landlords for a long
time past. Now he (Mr. Bright) thought it was time
that this state of things should be put an end to. He
did not call upon them to transfer protection to the
manufacturer:, for he believed that their skill and industry
would be a sufficient protection to them. Ile would not
have wished to have seen a total and immediate repeal
of the corn-laws in 1839 and 1840, when the price of
wheat was 70 . or 80s. a quarter, because such a sudden
change would have caused a serious panic amongst the
agricultural interests. But now they. had wheat at the
tree trade price. In fact, the price of wheat in the chan-
nel islands, where free trade existed, was 3s. higher than
tt e price in this country. They had a 20s. protective
duty here, and yet they were in distress. In 1823,
they had a protection that amounted to actual prohibi-
tion, and yet they had agricultural distress. Such also
was the state of things • in 1835 and 1836 ;
(Hear, bear)—and he believed that if the present
pretect Lee system were maintained, the time would come
when, instead of complaints being sent up from the
agricultural counties, on account of her Majesty's
Ministers leaning towards tree trade, the com-
plaints would he that they did not go much further. The
pulatien was growing up, and there was no employ-
ment cennuensurete with their increasing numbers. but
they were, competing for the little employment there
was. The amount of wages was about six or seven
shillings a week, and the destitution that existed was a
disgrace to tile Legislature and the landowners of the
country. It was going on, and they could not stop it,
and yet they actually made a law to secure themselves
from foreign competition, leaving their defenceless la-
bourers subject to ail the evils of that competition which
they had brought upon them. Ile had no hope of doing
uite-h to eon vim-c loin. Metat.ers (ippos;tf•, and the
leaders of party were seldom convinced ; but he could
assure Hon. Gentlemen opposite, that amongst their
tenantry a feeling of suspicion was springing up—a
feeling which he could not wish to see spread amongst
them were he a landowner. Hon. Gentlemen opposite
had charged the Anti-Corn-law League with increasing
that feeling ; but they had only told them what they
were beginning to discover themselves—that they had
been deluded by their landlords. They had told them
that the landlords were entitled to their rent, and they
had also told them that the landlords had no right to
raise the value of their property by passing a law
to shield themselves from competition with foreign coun-
tries, whilst they diminished the profits of their tenantry
and the wages of their labourers, by forcing them into
competition amongst themselves. That was the charge
which they brought against the agricultural interest, and
it would be reiterated so long as the present system con-
tinued. They need not lay the flattering unction to their
souls that the agitation against the corn-laws would be put
down by prosperous years. He might, if the time of the
Ilouse would allow him, enter into particulars, to show
that the agitation, from time to time, went on increasing,
and he could show that such was the feeling in Lanca-
shire at the present moment, if the Council of the League
should think fit to call for it, they might raise almost
any amount of money to carry on the agitation to a suc-
cessful conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite muit see that their measures were continually
slipping from their grasp, and a different policy was gra-
dually growing upon them. The present Government,
when they came into office, were looked upon as Conser-
vatives or monopolists; but from that time to this they
had never dared to defend a system of restriction or mo-
nopoly, although the) were the very men whom the
monopolist party had plreed on the Treiteury bench—
men the most distinguished in that whole party, and who
were p ssessed of as great an amount of knowledge and
statesmanship as any set of men in the country. He
would ask them, then, whether it was worth while to
maintain the present system under such circumstances ?
Let them show a virtue, even if they had it not ; and he
trusted it would now be shown, and let them get rid at
once of this law, which had inflicted such tremendous
evils on this country. _ _ _

Mr. S'T'AFFORD O'BRIEN could not but admire
the tone and moderation of temper which had charac-
terised the addresses of the Hon. Members for Stock-
port and Manchester. He could not, however, say so
much for that of the Hon. Member for Durham, who,
he trusted, would ere long learn that to make a bullying
speech, and to get into a passion was not the way to
daal with the gentry of England. If the Hon. Gentle-
man thought he could set the tenantry of England
against the landlords by such vituperation, and such
abuse, he (Mr. Stafford O'Brien) would tell him dis-
tinctly that he never was more miserably disappointed
in his life. The Hon. Gentleman was now in the seventh
year of his agitation, and the ill success which had at-
tended it mi,,ht have taught him to adopt another course.
The lion. Gentleman could not suppose, that having
been hitherto such a false prophet, any thing he could
now say would be attended to. borne time ago, when
there was distress in the manufacturing districts, the
lion. Gentleman said, that that distress would never
be removed so long as the protective system
lasted ; but that distress had been removed;
and the protective system still existed. In
conclusion, he could only say, that if the Hon. Gentle-
man would move for the Committee, he (Mr. O'Brien)
would not only not object to it, but would be willing to
serve upon it.
Mr. VILLIERS said the Hon. Gentleman had not
answered a single charge which had been brought for-
ward by the Hon. Member ft,r Durham. The Hon.
Gentleman had urlde some personal allusions, and that
was all. The Hon. Member for Durham brought one
specific charge against the landowners to which it would
ne well for the lion. Member for Northamptonshire to
address himsel:. That charge was, that the landowners
protected themselves from competition while they sub-
;eeted their labourers to competition amongst them-
selves. The landowners came there to pass a law to pro-
tect themselves against that competition from which
their tenants were suffering. The Hon. Gentleman had
not addressed himself to that point. He (Mr. Villiers)
could not but remark the difference between the opinions
of the lion. Member for Dorsetshire and the Hon.
Member for Northamptonshire. The Hon. Member for
Dorsetshire said the agricultural distress was owing to
the late relaxations, whereas the Hon. Member for
Northamptonshire said :the country was flourishing be-
cause the restrictions were maintained. It was not those
restrictions that had caused the prosperity, but the eoun