The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-30 00:00:00

their opponents in fair debate, either in the Legislature,
on the hustings, or through the press. The misfortune for
them and their cause was, that they. were too strong.
There appeared so fearful a'contrast between their
power and their enemies' weakness, that there was
no means of bringing about an encounter. They
were like the giant who marches unimpeded through
the ranks of pigmies, defying opposition, but meeting
no sufficient foe. If in the House they raised a de-
bate, the Ministerial whipper-in was instructed to
contrive that the Members should be counted out
before the question was brought to an issue. If they
challenged an inquiry into the existence of those
special burdens on land, which the Minister affirmed
rendered the obnoxious law necessary, some flimsy
pretext or other was put forth to elude it So
things were going on within the walls of the
House of Commons. The same sort of manoeuvring
was being carried on, but with less difficulty in the other
Chamber. The county gentlemen, though generally
a choleric race, and indisposed to sit placidly under
unjust imputations, when they have anything to say
in reply, still they suffered the emissaries of the
League to visit their parishes and hamlets, discourse
on the evils of the corn-laws, and circulate pamphlets
without let or hindrance. Now and then, perhaps,
some bluff and argumentative squire ventured to act
differently from his order, and essay a speech in de-
fence of the landlords' law. But poor Sir JoHN
TYRRELL, at Colchester, was found to be a very in-
adequate controversialist when RICHARD COBDEN
met him face to face. But this was because Sir JOHN
was out of training.
Now, thanks to the plain, straightforward Eng-
lish character, which is not yet, we are glad to find,
quite extinct amongst us, this Peelish reserve cannot
be maintained any longer by the fine old race of
country gentlemen; and hence, at length, they have
started forth in the character of Anti-Leaguers, and
are making their speeches and contributing their
cash. Now all this, we say, is as it should be. We
are happy to find the unnatural tyranny of the Trea-
sury benches giving way. It ought not to be that,
because Sir R. PEEL, Sir J. GRAHAM, and Mr. W. E.
GLADSTONE find some difficulty in squaring their
practice with their theory, and are content to remain,
with Mr. BARING, " free-traders in the abstract,"
it ought not, we say, therefore, to follow that the
farmers' friends should for ever remain tongue-tied,
and for ever withhold from the world their wise,
patriotic, and generous sentiments, which have been
so long bottled up.
The tenant farmers, some of them at least, have
turned their hand to oratory. Mr. BAKER, of Writ-
tle, has made some figure in Essex. The other day
this gentleman was at Romford. "For twelve years,'
says Mr. BAKER, "before the passing of the existing
law in 1842, the average price of wheat was 575., and
the average duty paid ss. 6d., which is only eleven
per cent. for that period. Therefore protection to
agriculture has never been more than eleven per cent.
under the old Corn Bill." Here, we say directly, is
the benefit of Mr. COBDEN'S tour through Essex last
autumn. He set forth with the view of proving to
the tenant farmers of that agricultural county that
they had not benefited after all by the so-called pro-
tection to home agriculture. The course of Mr.
COBDEN'S arguments was to show that, so far from
deriving advantage from the intricate sliding scale,
they had been tricked and cheated out of everything
deserving the name. Mr. COBDEN has in Mr. BAKER,
of Writtle, a promising pupil ; and we dare say Mr.
BAKER will extend still further the benefit of his
instructor's lessons.

Mr. BAKER plainly asserts precisely what Mr.
COBDEN and the League have been long endeavour-
ing to show, viz., that the tenant farmers, the very
class who are supposed to be mainly benefited by this
absurd piece of legislative legerdemain, are equally,
with the rest of the country, interested in procuring
the abolition of it from the statute book. Surely,
then, he may wish the new Protection Societies
good speed, and hail them as most valuable adjuncts
of the Anti-Corn-law League, wisely adapted to meet
the scruples of those who at present quarrel with the
name of the parent institution.

The reign of Ministerial humbug and chicanery—
as regards the corn-laws at least—is, we suspect,
drawing to a clone, and, whether willingly or un-
willingly, Sir ROBERT PEEL must fake an early op-
portunity of speaking out, and telling the country
manfully and distinctly, what he intends to do with
the corn question—whether to maintain the present
sliding scale, resort to a moderate fixed duty, or
abolish the impost altogether. The vague, mys-
terious course of policy he has hitherto pursued, has
had the natural effect of rendering all parties
nearly equally discontented—men's patience is corn-
ple' ely worn out—and they now at length feel that
they have a right—and it is a right they
will insist on—to be put in full possession of the
Premier's views, as regards that momentous question
in which the whole country takes so deep an interest.
The Monopolists are not less peremptory than the
Leaguers on this point. " Speak out !" is the cry of
the one party—" Speak out !" is the cry of the other.
" You have appealed to our compassion and for-
bearance long enough," exclaim both in unison; "you
have put us off with fine smooth words and plausible
sophistries, till the repetition of such inanities has
become quite sickening ; and now we demand that,
for the first time since you took the reins of Govern-
ment, you shall address us in the plain, bold, in-
telligible dialect of common sense." Are we
mistaken in attributing these feelings to the Mo-
nopolists and the Free-traders ? Certainly not,
for at all the recent meetings of the League such
has been the language held by the principal
speakers ; and at the late agricultural gathering in
Sussex we find the Duke of RICHMOND expressing
himself in this explicit style—" I think we are en-
titled to tell Ministers that the uncertainty of
their opinions is an evil of no ordinary magni-
tude. We want to know whether it is their
intention to maintain the protection which is still
left to us. We only ask there to speak out. I, for
one, will never vote for one iota of your present pro-
tection being diminished. No threats on the one hand,
no cajolery on the other, shall ever persuade me
to stir from the position which we now occupy."
"No cajolery !" How expressive is this one word
of Sir R. PEEL'S favourite system of tactics, and how
distinctly it denotes his Grace's impressions of the
Premier's character "No cajolery !" We must
repeat the word once more, for it is an accurate por-
trait, true to the life, dexterously finished off by one
single touch of the brush. But if the Duke is ex-
plicit at Steyning, Sir JOHN TROLLOPB is still more
so at Kesteven. "He had received," observed
the Hon. Baronet, " a note from Sir R. PEEL, re-
minding him of the approaching session of Parliament,
and requesting his early attendance. To that note
he had answered that, if the Government were not
prepared to put down an agitation going on in this
country, similar to that which they were suppressing
in Ireland, they would have but little support from
him, or from county Members in general." This is a
pretty little nut for our equivocating, expediency-
courting Premier to crack at his leisure ;
but Sir THOMAS LETHBRIDGE—for so many years
his unflinching supporter in the House of Commons
—hits him nearly quite as hard. " Remember," he
says, in a recent letter to the landholders of West
Somerset—" remember, there is a gentleman of great
power sitting in Downing-street, who is carefully
watching all that is going on, and he only
wants to see what you do in opposition to
League doctrines, to speak out himself, or to
hold his tongue, or to speak out in his own
peculiar manner, which few* among us will,
perhaps understand." It is clear from these,
and similar demonstrations of public feeling that
have recently been evinced both at the meetings of
the League and those of the Monopolists, that Sir
ROBERT PEEL must at length make up his mind to
speak out, and tell. the country in distinct, intelligible
terms what it is, or is not, to expect from him. And
surely it is high time that he should be taught
the necessity of making himself understood by those
for whose presumed benefit he is intrusted with
the reins of authority Anything is better than
the tricky, studied mystification in which he now
deals, and whose only effect is to keep every interest
in the community in a state of fever and unsettle-
ment. Once more, then, we say—with the Duke of
RICHMOND on the one side, and with Mr. COBDEN on
the other—in GoD's name, Sir ROBERT PEEL, speak
out; and tell us distinctly what you are, " fish, flesh,
1 or good herring:" At present, a man "does not know 1