TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE " FARMER'S FRIENDS " AND THE MALT - TAX.
THE Tory candidates at the last election thought themselves won- derfully clever in cheating the farmers with the notion that the PEEL Ministry would take off the Malt-tax. Sir ROBERT PEEL himself was a party to the deception; for he suffered his sup- porters to practise upon the gullibility of the county voters, and never intimated his own determination to leave office rather than give up that tax. Great success attended the Tory fraud at the time. Many Liberals were defeated upon the strength of their opponent's pledges to vote for the abolition of the Malt-duty. How shamelessly these pledges were violated, what dishonest and absurd apologies were put forth by several of the promise- breakers, must be rife in public recollection. The Marquis of CHANDOS, however, was true to his word. He did his best to Insure the success of his abortive motion. But it appears that even he has, at length, thrown the farmers over on this question. At the Aylesbury agricultural dinner, he told his constiittents that something must be attempted for their relief in another direction. His Lordship was very mysterious and oracular on this occasion; and the poor deluded agriculturists, who had listened with open ears and mouths for the annunciation of the noble quack's new panacea for the disease in their pockets, went home about as wise as they came. Few of them, however, were probably so stupid as not to perceive that the Tories had made up their minds not to do that which last year they declared to be absolutely necessary to save the agricultural interest from utter ruin. It must have been also evident to the veriest clodhopper of the party, that Lord CHANDOS had determined not to be pre- vented again from taking office by any pledge on the subject of the Malt-tax or any other measure for their relief.
This is the upshot of the Malt juggle—the final " blow-up" of one of the most disgraceful frauds ever practised by a faction for the sake of office. We do not of course mean to charge all the Members who advocated the repeal of that impost with dishonest motives. Our remarks apply only to those who have used the question as an election stalking-horse, and now lay it aside as no longer serviceable for the only end they had in view.
As there is no immediate prospect of another election, the " farmer's friends" have not as yet deemed it necessary to pro- vide themselves with a fresh specific lie. They therefore talk vaguely, look wise, and hint at making " an attack in a fresh place," and effecting " something,"—provided always they are supported by the agriculturists. This is a mighty convenient sort of pledge—very different from a positive promise to vote for the removal of a certain tax. But these loose professions will not avail them. The farmers of England, though simple enough, Heaven knows, are not (to use Sir Wit.r.iast MOLESWORTH'S w ords)" so beastly stupid, so brutally ignorant," as to reelect the men who have cruelly and basely duped them, on the mere promise to "make an attack in a fresh place," by way of compensation for the exaction of ruinous rents. No, gentlemen pledge-breakers, you must be prepared with something more tangible and taking before the next dissolution; and doubtless you will be so pre- pared. Of all the assertions ever hazarded for a factious purpose, that of the Tories, who swear that they are par excellence the ft mends of the agricultural interest, is the most astounding. What have they ever done for the tillers of the soil, the tenantry of England, but tax them ? Even the Corn-laws are made the instrument of grinding down the farmer. When a landlord seeks to justify his demand for an exorbitant rent, he points to the duty on foreign corn, and assures the poor dupe who is about to be ruined by be- coming his tenant, that the price can never fall below a certain sum. -What do the farmers think of the corn-duties now ? Wheat in Mark Lane sells at 5s. a bushel, while the duty is 6s. These Corn.laws are a part of the system of fraud Under cover of which the Tories found their claim of exclusive affection for the farmers. Then we have the Malt-tax, the abolition of which would enable the landlord to procure an increased rent for his barley land, but which he tells his tenants would relieve them from all sorts of distress. Well, the Tories come into power, and do they repeal the Malt-tax? No such thing; their leader and Prime Minister speaks for a couple of hours to prove that nothing 'would be so silly as to repeal it. He maintains that it is an excellent tax, not in the least oppressive; and that it is all a hoax to pretend that the agricultural interest is unduly burdened by the existing system of taxation. These statements and asser- tions are cheered to the very echo by the men upon whose lips exaggerated descriptions of the evils of the tax, and solemn pro- mises to vote its abolition, are scarcely dry. These be your " farmer's friends!" At last the faction is driven to its wits-end for an agricultural cry—something that shall do the work of the Malt-tax repeal, and last longer. As we have before said, such one will doubtless be forthcoming in the hour of need ; but in the mean while the duped tenantry are ap.be kept quiet with the assurance, that if they will only be.stitnch to Toryism, Lord CHANDOS, at some future time, will do-"gemething" for them in some way or another. To this it has come at last !
As a contrast to the broken promises of the Tones, we ask the landowners and occupiers to lay prejudice aside, to put theig
hands in their pockets and calculate what the Liberal Ministers have done for them—to state honestly what reduction has already been effected in the poor-rates by the new act. They will find that it amounts to a solid sum in hard cash—to something more substantial than the pledges or the dreams of GRIESLEY the " inspired," or the " attack in a fresh place" of the Marquis of
CHANDOS.
It may be worth while, one of these days, to prepare a statement of the burdens imposed on the People by the Tories and removed by the Liberals since the commencement of the present century ; but let the agriculturists remembet this, at least, that the former have not taken off the Malt-tax, and that the latter have checked the spread of pauperism and largely diminished its cost.
Previous page
