The Sun.
London, England, 1845-12-20 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 so 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 side. 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-banded the great tight 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 merits of their case may haply supply. 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
are 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 tl:e 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 most
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 sifting 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-manoeuvred, or dverpowered by hos-
tile influences, but by internal divisions and decay.
Hence its utter and fatal debility. It has been insinuated
e
that because we refer to the notorioust batthfearcefottrawtetlniieuastgrtiiclinulk-
-1 tural party is actually powerless,
h.
There is
tgood
twofor
ideas.not
What are
no
ctio'nenocpxiToion wnolfiaatneyaegrribceutlwtuereisnt
opinions of the agriculturists? Many—as many almost as
there are men. We respect the opinions of a farmer or a
landowner quite as much as the opinions of a millowner or a
merchant. But if we are to go by the opinions of either class,
fcalatsesr,
I it will be necessary to take their votes one by one ; and,
I 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