The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-22 00:00:00

THE AGRICULTURAL PARTY.

Whether Lord John Russell or Sir Robert Peel be the
Minister to whom, among the endless changes of party, the
task of carrying a repeal of the corn-laws be committed, it
will not be lost time to contemplate a little more closely the
prospects of the approaching campaign. If Lord John
Russell be the new Premier, he, we may conclude, is pretty
sure of the bulk of his own party, and may also reckon, not
unfairly, on the more sensible and patriotic members of Sir
Robert Peel's. If, on the other hand, it be the fate of our
late Minister to resume the office he gave up to abruptly, he
will carry with him not only those who would have given a
disinterested support to his rival, but no small proportion of
that large party who, having consistently voted with him
when in power, will, whatever might have been their course
in opposition, be but too delighted at an opportunity of re-
taining their seats on the Ministerial aide. An opposi-
tion, however, there certainly will be—the opposition
of the agricultural party—that is, of the political party
which, in spite of a vast change and diversity of sentiment
in the agricultural classes, arrogates to itself the representa-
tion of their interests and opinions. Such is the party which
will stand alone before the nation and the civilised world, in
this great theatre of politics, arts, and virtues, unassociated
with any other public, or moral, or sacred cause, and fight
single-handed the great fight of monoply. That truth and
justice will conquer we doubt not. Yet it is most desirable
that we should be spared a struggle inconvenient to the
business of the Government and the interests of the country,
and certain to do irreparable damage to the character and
social position of many respectable but mistaken men. In
order, if possible, to avert, or to smooth this struggle, we
will venture to call the attention of the agricultural party to
the utter weakness of their political position. There are two
views of the question. It is a question of argument, and a
question of power. Leaving the argument alone for the present,
we wish to impress on the agriculturists that they must not
presume the least on that social momentum—that brute force—
which they once possessed in their numbers, their union, and
their enthusiasm. They have now no other resource than
what the ....qt. of their cane may haply .nnnlY.• It is no
time for threatening and blustering, or even for vexatious
opposition. They cannot throw the sword, or gold, or num-
bers, or any other makeweight, into the scale. To the in-
trinsic rights of the controversy they will do well to give their
undivided attention, and not hold out one moment longer
than their argument stands its ground. The agriculturists
ate gone by as a party. As a class, of course, they contain
the usual proportion of able and enlightened men. But the
party which once made its own terms with the Minister—
the party which once assumed to be the leading interest of
the country—the party which once invited the Church to its
alliance, and to a partnership in its prejudices and its
fortunes—is, as a party, all but extinct. Various reasons
have conspired to its downfal. The first of these
is the gigantic growth of the manufacturing interest,
which has welcomed,.nursed, and developed that population
which the narrow limits and narrower genius of agriculture
could not retain. Then comes the excessive and intolerable
presumption of the landed interest, which, notwithstanding
its confessed incompetence to employ and feed the people—
notwithstanding that it has never ceased to throw out an
annual swarm of outcasts, yet clung to the obsolete figment
of a territorial and prescriptive dominion. But what has must
weakened the party is its own want of unity and coherence.
The agricultural party has long ceased to be co-extensive
with the agricultural class. Year by year,at every new con-
flict and sitting of opinions, its best, its freshest, its strongest,
its ablest members have fallen away to other schools. We
now meet as many landowners, and even almost as many
farmers, of one opinion as of another. If there are two
neighbours, there are two parties; and ten to one the
most sensible and well informed of the two is half, if
not wholly, a free-trader. The party, therefore, has
dwindled away, not merely because it has been out-
numbered, out-manceuvred, or overpowered by hos-
tile influences, but by internal divisions and decay.
Hence its utter and fatal debility. It has been insinuated
that because we refer to the notorious fact that the agricul-
tural party is actually powerless, that therefore we must think
the opinion of an agriculturist good for nothing _ There is no
connexion whatever between the two ideas. What are the
opinions of the agriculturists? Many—as many almost a,s
there are men. We respect the opinions of a farmer or a
landowner nuite as much as the opinions of a millowner or a
merchant. But if we are to go by the opinions of either class,
it will be necessary to take their votes one by one ; and, after
all, no one will expect us to swear by a mere majority, what-
ever it may happen to be. If in twenty agriculturists ten are
of one way of thinking, and ten of another, or if they
divide twelve against eight, it is obvious they have lost the
unity and weight necessary to make them a political
party. They pull some one way and some another. They
can neither do good nor harm. They cannot contribute pre-
ponderating weight to a Minister, nor can they offer any
serious resistance. It need not be a discreditable circum-
stance that they are thus divided and powerless. It may be
the gradual desertion of error—the slow and somewhat en-
feebling process of repentance and improvement. So it is,
we believe, in this instance. The agricultural party is losing
the force of error, and has not yet acquired much of the force
of truth. In every qualification of a party there has been a
great and evident decay. Its numbers have shrunk, its
zeal has flagged, its money has run short. It is
found impossible either to recruit the rank and file
with ordinary partisans, or to fill up the commissions
of the odious service. In vain do a few would-be
leaders persevere, or rather affect to persevere, in their gro-
tesque endeavours to " get up the steam." They cannot find
either hearers or speakers, or readers or writers. They can
neither raise funds, nor discover what to do with the money
when they have it. They tax the brains of men who can-
not argue, and the pens of men who cannot write; and when
they have flung the waste paper broadcast over the land, the
committee reports that no more tracts are wanted, because
those already distributed have not yet been read. Could
we suppose the assemblage of a corn-law monster meeting,
there would be nobody competent to address them. Could
we suppose a corn-law agitator of common sense or elo-
quence, he would have to " waste his sweetness on thedesert
air," for there would be none to listen. A corn-law meet-
ing, a corn-law speech, a corn-law pamphlet, a corn-
law argument, a corn-law fact, a corn-law sentiment, a
corn-law Duke, a corn-law limber of Parliament, are
things which the public is prepared to find the very
worst of their kind, and is never by any chance disappointed.
The only mitigation of the failure is that there is not even
that mediocrity which escapes the ridiculous. The agricul-
tural movement has not stopped at common-place—htitTilif
for the patience of the public, it has dwindled to iijoke.
there are any protectionists who think that public opinion is
still su-ceptible of a reaction In their favour, or that there is
the least vitality in their cause, we beg to call their attention
name come
they can. Has a single clergyman of any _
t least, in support of the for-
ward,corn-
within these two years a
laws ? There are fifteen thousand clergymen in England, a
• of whom are enthusiastic, able, tolerably
to a remarkable fact, which we challenge them to deny if
large proportion
well informed, a little disposed to be forward, confident, and,
in fact, with every quality for agitation. An unusual propor-
tion also are writers—writers on many other subjects besides
theology. Moreover, according CO the more prevalent
opinion of anti-corn-law authorities, though, we are
bound to add, contrary to our own, the clergy are
meat of all 'kinds, milk, butter, cheese,
specially interested in maintaining the corn-laws The
Tithe Commutation Act leaves their income ex-
actly dependent on the price of corn, and throws out
of count all other kinds of agricultural and titheable produce,
Underwood, ice. Now, it is the general expec-
,sfrteraewtr'ade in food will permanently lower the
but raise the price of all those other articles,
ittyynryag of the character of „luxuries, and being, there-
e
fore, come into increased demand on the more gene-
raltaspes aggur
iteciphos
employment sfittokahuhkcorn,alal
and prosperity of the people. On this view
the income of the titheowner will fall on the repeal of the corn-
laws, and his expenses rise : so that he will be impoverished in
the midst of agricultural prosperity.. This view, problematical
as we think it, is a very common one. The clerical tithe-
<Milers have, notwithstanding, kept entirely
aloof from the
PL'o-c:Omlaw movement—ore should have Pad 04a Men