The Sun.
London, England, 1845-03-14 00:00:00

facts.—(Hear, hear.) Why not go into Committee and
3CT on a hich side the iruta lay, preparatory et the dis
cusston which must eventually come on in the !louse?
—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Was it not desirable,
ascertain whether the existence of the kw had or
net the etfect of eneeuragieg false hopes in the m•nds of
the farmer.-?—(Hea.r.) That it had that effect was as-
sertea in that Heuse, and he now asserted that it was
easy of proof if they went into the Comm ttee.—(Hear,
hear.) It led the farmers to expect a certain price for
their product-, and, since the peace, that false expectation
had been the ruin of thtusands.—(Cheers.) Again, it
was material to ascertain what was the effect of the
price of corn upon wages of labour.—(Cries of ,6 Hear,
hear.) He heard it repeatedly said in the House
that the low price of corn produced low price of labour.
But new it was with infinite satisfaction he heard the
Right Hon. Gentleman say that the low price of food
brought on by ahundance was a benefit to every class.—
(Hear, hear.) That must be the case in a proper state
of the law ; but even in the present state he believed
that it was so.—(lcar, hear.) Bet how happened
it that whenever prices were lowered there
were the most whining cennplainte on the part of the
agriculturists?--(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman said that it was not the low prices that caused
the present distress but the failure of the crops. He (Lord
Ilowick) believed it, was so. But did that account for
the language used by the Duke of Buckingham, which
he could only describe, in the words of an old statute, as
:het of a sturdy beggar --(Hear, hear, and laughtsr.)
T: •:e limit Gentlemen opposite reported in 1833
the neat meldnehely station tats as to the condition or
the tenant- farmers. Their condition was painted in the
most gloemy terms—they were paying the rent out of
their capital—end thee were then in a state of prey re-s
aide: rain.—(The Noble L,, 1 then read at great length
an ex-rail from the it--port of the Agricultural Commit-
tee of 1821 ;:ettirg f mIt!) the distressed state of the fat'
mrs et that period.)—lf they teak that report, the lew
prices ehich Rteht Hon. Gentlemen now stated to
le? Jar tae benefit of all parties were the ruin of the far-
mers. lioaever, the resulted all the inquiries had been
to take off the protection from other a-tidies. He should
like to see what would the answer of the proposed Com-
mittee be to the gloomy predictions of the Duke of Rich-
mond as to the importation of wool since 1837, and of
cattle more recently.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) The
House would remember the arguments of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Berkshire against the importation of pigs, when
that Hon. Member said that so many quarters of corn
would be imported in the shape of pigs.—(Laughter.)
Nov he sheuld like to ascertain in Committee what had
been the effect of the introduction of cattle ? He should
like to inquire for the facts which would show that pro
tection was neces ary for the cultivation of wheat and
not for flax.—(Hear, hear.) They were told that the
removal of protection would affect the labourer more
than the landlord, and would throw land out of cultiva-
tion. He should like to hear from a Committee, as
merely matter of figures, whether rent entered so much
into the price of corn that a reduction of rent would
enable the farmer to meet a reduction of prices.--(Hear,
hear.) There were many of those points on which in-
formation was easily attained, which would refute the
mass of vague, unfounded assertions which were
constantly reported in the House, and which in
teetered with the discussion of this me-mentors
question.—(Hear, and cheers.) Suppose they had
a strong conviction that the Committee would not tend
to any practical result. Was that a ground for refu-ing
the inquiry, when they saw at that moment what was
the condition of the tenant-farmer and the labourer?—
(Hear, hear.) They might consider the inquiry useless,
but their reason for refusing the inquiry was to him in-
comprehensiblee—(Hear, hear.) The Secretary at Wer
stated that the agriculturists were of very delicate nerves
—(A laugh)—and if th-- House were to go into the in-
quiry, they would be thrown into a scat-' of alarm, so
that they would give up their farms.—(Laught- r.) How
could such a Committee ,as the Hon. Member for v'i'ol
verhampton most fairly offered, containing a majority
of " farmers' friends," give them such a shock?—(Hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman said that, in asking fur the
Committee, they (the Opposition) expected to put an
end to protection. Undoubtedly he (Lord Howick), for
one, did so.—(Cheers.) He believed that in the Com-
mittee it would be shown that the repeal of the pro
tective duties would be a relief to the farmers them-
selves. It was because he had such perfect confidence
in the justice of his case, that he asked for inquiry,
because he believed that the most irrefragable proofs
would be produced of the justice of his case.—(Cheers.)
The refusal to give the Committee could be accounted
for on no other ground than that they (the Ministers)
had no confidence in their own assertions.—(Cheers.)
They would be ready enough to grant the inquiry, if
they did not find, in the bottom of their hearts, that
the vague sophistries which they passed muster so
boldly in the House would not bear to be silted in de-
tail, and pass throuah the ordeal of examination up-
stairs.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) They knew that
they e ould undergo so cawplete a refutation that
they we be ashamed to repeat' them.—(Cheers.)
The only rational ground of Hun. Gentlemen oppo-
site refusing to go into this Committee was, that they
had really no case; and he was the more convinced of
this, because, while they refused a Committee, they also
refused to grapple with the ereuments of the Bon. Mem-
ber for Stockport against, the whele system of protecting
duties. If they felt any confidence in their case, they
might, at least, rtes mpt to grapple with the luminous
and able speech of the Hon. Member for Steckport, and
price that the system of protective ditties was not the
cause of the agricultural distress. The Right Hon.
Gentlemen the Secretary at War did not attempt. the
slightest answer to those arguments. He (Lord Howick)
weuld now endeavour to show why it was that he en-
tireiy concurred in the opinion expressed by his Noble
Friend the Member fi. London same time ago, who
said that protecting duties had indeed been the bane
of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) If this Committee
were granted, they would show that the system
of protection had been tried thirty rears ago, and that,
notwithstanding all the modifications which it under-
went, it was _acknowledged to be a complete failure.—
(Hear.) The Bill of 1815 had even this advantage,
that it was concocted according to the views of the high-
flown advocates of protection.—(Hear, hear.) But the
result was, that in a few years after there was a great
deal of agricultural distress. A Committee was ap-
pointed, containing a majority of agricultural Members,
who came to the conclusion that the Act of 1815 had
failed in its object, but they did not give up its protecting
se stem. No such thing—they said they mistook the
way, but they did Rut • give up their favourite notion.
The Committee made . a report, and in consequence of
that report -an alteration was made in the law of 1815,
and, under the auspices of the Right Honour-
able: Baronet opposite, the law of 1828, which
he afterwards destroyed, became the law of the land.
But what was the consequence ? In 1833, 1834, 1835,
and 1836, complaints were made in that House of agri-
cultural dietress. A Committee was again appointed,
and the Right Hon. Baronet declared that more protec-
tion would not mend the case, and that they had better
wait for better times—for that was the meaning, shortly
translated, of the report of 1833. What was the cause
of that ? There was then no Anti-Corn•law agitation,
because prices were so low that the evils of protection
were not then so seriously felt.. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman then came forward, and said that there had been
a good deal of bungling about protection—that protec-
tion
was a good thing, but they had not gone the right
way to work it, and accordingly he passed his Corn
Bill with a great majority. But they were now witness-
ing the happy results of his experiment.—(Hear, hear.)
Under that system of protection, the progress of agri-
cultural improvement had been extraordinarily slow, as
the lion. Gentleman the Member for Stockport had
shown. If any body looked at the country he could not
fail to see that the degree of agricultural improvement
was far below what it ought to be. Let them compare
the improvements which had taken place in agriculture
since the peace, with the improvements which had taken
place in other branches of science, and it would appear
from the result, that while steam navigation and railroad
development, and, in fact, all the arts and sciences, had
progressed with great regularity, the science of agricul-
ture had by no means kept pace with them.—( Hear,
hear.) Although the most beneficial results might be
derived from draining, draining was scarcely begun in
some counties ; and while farmers allowed the best
manure at their own doors to run to waste, they imported
it at a NrqS;t expense from the coast of Africa.---(Hear,
hear.) O. ey person who travelled down to Manchester
must perceive that while the land in the neighbourhood
that town, which was most fertile by nature, and
which had an excellent market for milk and butter which
it would yield, was grown over with rushes—(Hear,
hear)—land which required only a few hours to render it.
/lost productive—that while the land near that town was
suffired to lie in such a state, in the town itself every
improvement was adopted which would multiply the
me ems of production, and yield a saving, however small.
There was one mode, and only one, of tiecountiog for
this, nemely, that there was no security.—(Hear, hear,
ratan Mr. Miles.) Ile understo el the cheer of the Hon.
qem her for ti,imerFet, and would advert to it prese..tl3.
cuu,,, of that difference was tiebe found, in the first
place, ie the absence of the stimulus of foreign competi-
tion—(li ar, hear)—owing to which the handed proprie-
tor,: were content to leave the land in such a disgraceful
‘fate as it was in at present.—(Cheers.) It was owing
again to the want of leases.—(Hear, hear.) Any Gen-
tleman who was at all acquainted with the subject, must
know there was the grease-t difference between those
farms which were held under lease, and those which
were not.—(Hear.) Let a person for instance compare
the agriculture of East Lothian and Buckinghamshire.
—(Hear.) But he would tell the Hon. Member for
Somerset, it was owing also, and principally, to that
want of security which the landlords could not give as
long as they kept up a system of security.—(Hear, hear.)
He supposed the Hon. Member meant by his cheer
that that want of security was owing to the Anti-corn•
law League, but he would tell the Hon. Gentleman that
there was notary security for the farmers before the Anti-
corn- law League were in existence. And as lung as they
were subject to the ebb and flow, which he believed were
insenarahle from protection, they would not have se-
curity.—(Cheers.) They would not find it as long as
they breathed the sickly air of protection. It was this
insecurity that caused capital to flow out of the country
anti to be invested in foreign railways, at the risk of
war. Even if they rejected this motion, as he expected
they would, by a majority of tare to one, that would not
give that security to the farmers which the farmers'
friends themselves were conscious was necessary.—
(Hear.) He would now come to a more serious part of
the case, because, after what had been said by the Hon.
Member for Stockport ou the former part of it, he (Lord
Howick) felt it would he unnecessarily wasting the time
of the House to dwell longer upon it. But he would
come to the effect of the protective sysa m upon the
labouring chisses ; and here also he theught that a
stronir. pima facie- case had been made out against
protection.—(llear, hear.) In the southern coun-
ties of England particularly, the agricultural labourers
were in a most wretched condition. It was the wonder
of every one how the agrieultural labourer supported
• himself and family en the wages he received.—(Bear.)