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

of two nays, by -kee64-4...mendiis that the remaining
taxes on the land he redeerned, 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, hiring the past session,
almost already removed ail the taxes which.pressed upon
the farmer; and „he taxes r hich were wont to into
the Exchequer, now went into the poeketi of the land-
lords, in the shape of rent.—(Hear, hear.) They, could
do nothihg, 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 not

promise the farmers 58N a quarter. The promise was a
very guarded one. It v.-Ls, 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 bailiffs 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 1815, when the

law had been passed ; and the landlords ought then
to have told the farmers the degree of power they really
possessed. There was no consistency in the conduct of
the landlords towards their tenants, no affinity between
their acts in that House and their professions in Free-
mason'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
for."—(Laughter.) It was time that that imposition on
the farmer should be ended. If he (Mr. Bright). stood
in the same relation to the people vele° 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rescinded, he would not again have tha face to say.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 lien. 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 of the farmer) never think that
they were putting him to this inconverdence by the duty
they had placed 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. urderstanding 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.
cashire manufacturers were making fifty per cent. of
profit, lie said that those who made the statement
knew very little about it; but, whatever their profits,
they did not come to Parliament for protection to their
interests. They did not wish to overcharge their cus-
tomers, as the landlords did in the matter of West India
sugar. The result of the inquiries instituted by the
members of the Anti-Corn .law League in the counties,
provsd that where the agricultural labourer expended
at most 255. a year for himself and family, the manu-
facturing labourer expended three times as mech.
It tea; 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 y. u free
traders would net be so impatient, he would still ge on ;
and as the fears of the agriculturists are dissipaied he
e ill do all that you desire, for he has no ;uteri si but that
of the good goy, rnment of the ceuntry." Every one
iseee ;hat the Right Hen. Baronet had ambition, for if
be had not he would not have been whe:e he was. Few
men del anything without ambition. The Right lion.
Cenelernan knew that the present syetern was turning
the ag: icultural 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
friend—who had taken upon himself; at the Freemasons'
Tavern, to say that there would be no alteration made
at pr re ,nt. The next object that met his (Mr. Bright's)
eye wits 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 once than see the farmers hum-
bugged as they had been 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. Ile
did not call upon them to transfer protection to the
manufacturers, for he believed that their skill and industry
would be a sufficient protection to them. He would not
have wished to have seen a total and immediate repeal
of the corn laws in 1839 and 18-10, when the price of
wheat aas 70 . or 80s. a quarter, because sueh te sudden
change would have caused a serious panic amongst the
agricultural interests. But now they hail wheat at the
tree trade price. In fact, the price of wheat in the chan-
nel i,dands, wt.ere free trade existed, was 3s. higher than
tl-e price in this country. Thay had a 20s. protective
duty here, and yet they were in d stuss. 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, hear)—and he believed that if the present
protective system were maintained, the time would come
when, instead of complaints bring sent up from the
agricultural counties, on account of her Majesty's
Ministers leaning towards free trade, the com-
plaints would be that they di I not go much further. The
population was growing up, and there was no employ-
ment commensurate with their increasing numbers. but
they were competing for the little employment there
was. The amount of wages was about six or seven
shill.ags a week, and the &stitution that existed was a
disgrece to the Legislature and the landowners of the
country. It was going on, and they c uld not stop it,
and yet they actually m:.& a law to secure themselves
from foreign competition, leaving their defers 'less la-
bourer3 subject to all the evils of that competition which
they had brought upon them. He had no hope of doing
much to convince Hon. Members opposite, and the
leaders of party were seldom convinced ; but he could
assure Iln. Gentlemen opposite, that amongst their
tenantry ,a. fseiing of suspicion was sprineing up —a
feeling which he could not wish to see spread amongst
them were he a lendoener. Hon. Gentlemen opposite
bad charged the Anti-Corn-law League with increasing
that feeling ; but they had only told them what they
were beginning to discover theinselves—that they had
been deluded by their lendlords. 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 forsign coun-
tries, whilst they diminished the profits of their tenantry
tied +he wages of their labourers, by forcing them into
cempetitiozi amongst themselves. That was the charge
which they brought against the agricultural interest, and
it would be reiterated so lon!, as the present sy:tetn con-
tinued. They reed not lay the flattering enceon to their
souls that the agitation agaiest the corn-laws would be put
doe nby prosprous years. He might, if the time of the
I louse would allow him, enter into particulars, to show
that the agitation, from time to time, went on increasing,
and he could shoe that such was the feeling in Lanca-
shire at the present moment, if the Council of the League
should thistle fit to call for ir, they might raise almost-
any amount of money to carry on the agitation to a suc-
cessful conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen op-
posite must ace 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 deend a system of restriction or mo-
noeoly, although they were the very men whom the
monopolist party had plated on the Treasury bench—
men the moat distinguished in that whole party, and who
were p assessed of as great au amount of knowledge and
statesmanship as any.set of men in the country.. He
would ask them, then, whether it was woi th 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, an 1 let them get rid at
once of this law, which had inflicted such tremendous
evils on this country.
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN coull not but admire
the tone and moderation of temper which had charac-
turisel 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
deal with the gentry of England. If the lion. Gentle-
Man thought he could set the tenantry of England
against the landlords by such vituperation, and such
8•'-'us'e. he (Mr. Stafford O'Brien) would tell him dis-
tinctly that he never
F was more
in hie life. Thae,.. miserably disappointed
agitation
Gentleman was now in the seventh
year. of his
laation, and the ill success
at-
tended it mui which had
e.mvae taught him to adopt another course.
The Hun.
been hitherto such anfaciould not suppose, that having
now say would be attenepdrotret, any thing he could
there was distress in the na rSorae time ago, when
Hon. Gentleman said, that 2tratacturing districts, the
be removed so long as
the Protective
would never
lasted ; but that distress had been system
and the protective system still • removed,
conclusion, he could only say, that if the Hon.
In
man would move for the Committee, he, Nirn.(Vißentle-
men)
would.r.ot only cot object to it, but wouldg' •
be to
serve open it.
Mr. VILLIERS said the Hon. Gentleman had not
answered a single charge which had been brought for-
ward by the Hon. Member for Durham. The Hoe,
Gentleman had made some personal allusions, and that
was all. The Hon. Member for Durham brought one
specific charge against the landowners to which it would
ise well for the Hon. Member fur Northamptonshire to
address himself. That charge was, that the landowners
protected themselves from competition while they sub-
meted their labourers to competition amongst them-
selves. The landowners came there
to pass a law to
which pro-
tee
t themselves against that competition from
H
their tenants were suffering. The on, Gentleman bad
(Mr. Villiers)
that point. Ile
not addressed himself to
could not but remark the difference between the opinions
the Hon.
of the Iron. Member for Dorsetshire and
Northamptonshire.The lion. Member for
Memiier for
to
anal distress was owing113orsetshire said the .agricultural
the late relaxations, whereas the I on. Member forb
orthamptonshire said :the country was flourishing -e-
-cause the restrictions were maintained. It was not those
restrictions that had caused the prosperity, but the COll/1