MEETINGS IN KENT AND HAMPSHIRE. (Hansard, 16 June 1843)

§ Earl Stanhope
in calling attention to the meetings which had taken place in the counties of Kent and Hampshire said, that they followed in all respects the example which was given in Buckinghamshire.
3 Those meetings were convened by the farmers and not by the landed aristocracy; not because co-operation was undervalued, but because it appeared idle and useless to apply to those who were known or believed to be unfavourable to the object in view. It would have been equally futile to apply to those who were willing to surrender their rents, rather than remonstrate against the legislative measures through which they were now in process of confiscation; to those who seemed disposed to allow the vessel of the state to founder amid rocks and shoals, rather than alter the pilot or induce him to steer a different course. The farmers, however, knew that a considerable portion of their capital was already exhausted; that their skill and industry were unprofitably exerted; that bankruptcy and ruin were advancing rapidly on them, and that they were now in a state of distress which might speedily assume the character of despair. If the aristocracy did not come forward as the leaders of the occupiers of the soil, they must look to others for the guidance of their proceedings. At all those meetings the questions of a fixed duty, as well as of a total repeal, were discussed, and they were not of that one-sided character that distinguished those meetings, on which the noble Lord opposite (Earl of Radnor) set so much importance. The latter did not meet under the sanction of the high-sheriff, and discussion was studiously avoided. It was true, an invitation was given to the farmers to ask questions; but it was well known the farmers were not accustomed to public speaking, and might be unwilling to interrupt the proceedings, though they had sufficient intelligence and information to discover the falsehood of the statements which were made, and to detect the fallacy of the arguments which were adduced. The results of such meetings could not then be considered victories of the Anti-Corn-law League. With respect to the majority at the Berkshire meeting he understood the noble Earl threw a doubt upon the point.

The Earl of Radnor
If the noble Earl will say where, I have no objection to his making such a statement. But I certainly never so represented this meeting here or any where else.

The Earl of Stanhope
Such was certainly the assurance given him; but it was really a matter of little consequence.
4 Although the noble Earl attended that meeting, and proposed an amendment in a plausible address, the petition was carried by a large majority in point of numbers, and with respect to those connected with land, by a majority of 99 out of 100. [Earl of Radnor: "On whose authority do you speak."] He had not the permission of the person who supplied him with the information to give his name. He was also informed that, at the farmers' meetings, the same persons attended to vote in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws in Ailesbury, Reading, and Uxbridge. It was improbable that they were freeholders in those counties, and impossible they could be residents, and they ought not to have given their votes at those meetings. Let it not be supposed that he wished to shun a discussion in any assembly composed of intelligent and impartial persons; but he could not respect such votes, unless he knew whether the attendance was spontaneous; whether those who voted were independent in their opinion or in their conduct, or whether, on the other hand, they were paid for their services on those occasions. As to the meeting in Kent, he admitted it was far less numerous than he had anticipated; but although the weather was most tempestuous, the attendance would have been immense, if the advice which he had given had been followed. [Earl of Radnor: "May I ask what that advice was."] When he was connected with the noble Earl in any association for the protection of native industry, he should be happy to communicate any plan he might devise to carry their common object into effect. There was, he rejoiced to say, a person present at that meeting the right hon. Paymaster of the Forces (Sir Edward Knatchbull), who must not only have been gratified, but instructed. He must have felt that the opinions entertained in his own county prevailed universally, he must have seen what an implicit trust was placed in himself and his colleagues— what an unbroken confidence was still reposed in them— and what a favourable reception they roust receive at the next general election. Nor could he be surprised at the result which the right hon. Gentleman must anticipate, when he and his colleagues had inflicted greater injuries, not only on agriculture, but on all the productive classes, than could have been supposed possible in so short a time But it was said there were meetings 5 of a very different description, of an opposite nature to those to which he had already alluded, those, for instance, at Hertford, Bedford, Dorchester, and other places. The noble Earl opposite seemed to think that the farmers were generally converted to free trade doctrines, but let him look around, and tell him how many of their Lordships coincided with him in their opinions—why he might carry them all home in a hackney coach. If however, farmers seemed to be in favour of free trade, it must be observed that the report expressed on the Farmers' Association of Cambridge, and the Isle of Ely, had, in their opinion, no effectual protection that could he permanently secured to them, until the destructive tendency of entire free trade had been demonstrated by melancholy experience. In these views he agreed, while at the same time he could not help thinking that a total subversion of our institutions would follow the repeal of the Corn-laws. In agitating to carry his point, the noble Earl opposite, he was sure, would disdain to follow the course pursued by the hon. Member for Stockport, and say one thing to suit one audience and another to suit another audience. Mr. Cobden had told the farmers of Rye that they would have as high prices for their produce without the Corn-laws as with them. If such was the case, what became of the cry for cheap bread? What were they to think of the denunciations against the landed interest. as being blood-suckers, and vampires, and men who starved the great body of the community, in order to obtain high rents for themselves? Surely common honesty or at all events common sense, ought to make the Anti-Corn-law agitators hold the same language, whatever audience they might address. But they had lately declared that, even if they should attain their objects—objects fraught with ruin to every productive class of the community —they would not discontinue their efforts at agitation. They had ulterior views in contemplation, and it was instructive to consider what these ulterior objects might be. At a meeting held on New Year's Day of last year it was stated by Mr. Brooks that the object of the meeting was to petition for a total and immediate repeal of the Corn-laws, and for the appointment of a committee to consider the subject of compensation, and the meeting afterwards resolved, in order 6 to convince the then new House of Commons of the wide-spread hatred of what was called the "bread-tax," and the general desire of the people not only for a removal of that act of injustice, but for retribution on those who had perpetuated and profited by it, to petition both Houses of Parliament for the repeal of the Corn-laws, and to recommend in their petition the immediate appointment of a committee to consider the best way in which that compensation could be made which the people had a right to demand of the aristocracy. Now let their Lordships put this into plain English and what did it amount to—only a petition for the appointment of a committee of confiscation and prescription. He had some time ago attended a meeting at Aylesbury, where he had made some statements as to the ulterior intentions of the Anti-Corn-law League. Their Lordships knew that in these days, falsehoods, or to speak more plainly still, lies, calumnies, and misrepresentations of every sort were manufactured, with as much ease and expedition, as if newly-invented machinery had been employed for the purpose. Now it had been said in one of these vehicles the Anti-Bread-tax Circular, that upon the occasion alluded to he had made use of pretended or imperfect extracts. He threw back with scorn and contempt any charge which might be made against him in the paper alluded to; but he would not allow it to be said that he had ever made statements unsupported by the facts, they had been taken from the Anti-Corn-law Circular of January 14th 1841. His Lordship concluded by presenting petitions from Berks and Kent, praying for protection to native agricultural industry.

The Earl of Radnor
would not have said a word upon the present occasion, had he not been so specially addressed by the noble Earl who had just sat down. He had been present at both of the meetings alluded to by the noble Earl, being connected by property with both Berkshire and Kent. He had, however, no hand in getting up these meetings—he had merely attended and expressed his opinions at them. At Reading he had moved the adoption of a petition, but had been defeated: however, he had experienced strong support, and he believed that it was doubtful whet her he had not in reality a majority on his side. With respect to the Kent meeting, he had no hand in con- 7 cocting it, but he believed that the noble Earl opposite had—that, in fact, the meeting was of the noble Earl's own concoction. As to the doctrines he had maintained at both meetings, he believed them to be those of truth; they had been declared by the highest authority to be the principles of common sense; he thought they were the principles of abstract, and likewise of practical truth; and he believed that they would ultimately prevail, and the sooner the better. He would not defend all that might appear in the Anti-Bread-tax Circular. Many articles appeared in newspapers published in the heat of controversy, which the best friends of the cause they maintained would wish had not appeared; but on the whole he believed that the print alluded to had done much good in enlightening the public upon the real merits of the corn question.