laborer shall have as full employment, and at as good wages, provided you allow me to enter into the same arrangement that I have made with my own tenants." But that would not suit these parties. It would make a dry, dull, unprofita ble matter of business of what is now made a piece of agitation, which ought to be called moonshine.

Now, if I had been a protectionist, I might have made money by this. I will show you how I should have done so. When my tenants wrote to me to say there ought to be a fresh agreement between us, what would have been my answer had I been a protectionist? I should have said, "That is true, my good friends; we will have a meeting at Great Marlow or High Wycombe, and we will petition Parliament to pass a law to protect you." Well, we should have had a meeting, my tenants would have been invited to attend, and would have shouted, "We are rowing in the same boat!" and after two or three hours of dull speeches, you would have had a conclusion with "three groans for Cobden." After this meeting was over my tenants might have gone home, and might have been prepared, until the next audit, to pay their full rents as before. And if I were a protectionist landowner I should have then wanted some fresh excuse against the next audit-day. Consequently I should probably have told the farmers to come to the next meeting, at 17 Old Bondstreet, to memorialize her Majesty, -for they were not to be told to petition the House of Commons, but to lay their complaints at the foot of the throne. After my poor tenants had done all this and had gone home, and prepared their rents for the next audit-day, then some fresh excuse must be found, and we might have told the farmers that instead of memorializing the Queen they should agitate for a dissolution of Parliament. In this case we should have been safe in respect to our rents for the next three years, because that is an agitation which would last such a period.

In the mean time what would be the consequence to my tenants? With heartsickening delay, and with the hopelessness inspired into their souls by these dreary, dull, protectionist speeches, telling them that they could not cultivate their land even if no rent were paid; and with the constant drain on their resources to pay their old rents, without amelioration in their holdings, one-half the tenants might be ruined, and I am not sure that a large proportion will not be ruined by the tactics of the protectionists at the present moment. But was it necessary for any farmer to be ruined if the landlords pursued the same system as myself? This is simply and purely a rent question. And if the farmers cannot carry on their business, it is because they pay too high a rent in proportion to the amount of their produce. I do not say that in many cases the rents of the landlords might not be excessive, provided the land were cultivated to its full capacity. But that cannot be done without sufficient capital, and that sufficient capital cannot be applied without sufficient security, or without a tenant-right, or a lease amounting to tenant-right. We want to bring the landowner and the tenant together, to confront them in their separate capacity as buyers and sellers; so that they might deal together as other men of business, and not allow themselves to play this comedy of farmers and landlords crying about for protection, and saying that they are rowing in the same boat; when, in fact, they are rowing in two boats, and in opposite directions.

There is a new red-herring thrown across the scent of the farmers; they are told that protection cannot be had just now; but in the mean time they must have half the amount of the local rates thrown on the Consolidated Fund. I am really astonished that anybody should have the assurance to get up, and, facing a body of tenant-farmers, make such a proposal to them for the benefit of the landowners. The

local rates at present are paid on the real property of the country. Such is the nature of the poor-rates and of the county-rates, etc. They are not assessed on the tenant's capital. [Hear," and a cry, "Mr. Lattimore said they are."] He said no such thing. [Some expressions of dissent.] He did not say that the assessment was on the ploughs and oxen of the tenantry. It is on the rent of land, and not on the floating capital; for it is known to everybody that the assessment is on the rent, and, if the rate is assessed on the rent, why, the tenant charges it to the landlord when he takes his farm. He calculates what the rates and taxes are, and, if the farm is highly rated, he pays less rent. Did you ever know a landlord let his land tithe free on the same terms as land which had the tithe on it? At present the rates were laid on the rent of land, and were ultimately paid by the landlord. I admit that at first the tenant pays it out of his pocket, but he gets it again when he pays his rent. But only think of this wise proposal of the farmers' friend, who says, "in order to relieve you tenant farmers, I will take one-half of these £12,000,000 of local taxes off, and put it on the Consolidated Fund-that is to say, on tea, sugar, coffee, tobacco, and other articles which you tenant-farmers and laborers consume." There is a pretty project for benefiting the tenant-farmers!

But there is another scheme; there are two ways of doing this. The other way is by assessing the rates on the floating capital of the country. The argument is-why should not the shop-keepers, the bankers, and the fundholders be assessed? But if you allow the bringing in of stock-in-trade to be assessed, you must bring in the farmers' stock-in-trade to be assessed. I now ask the farmers in Aylesbury and its neighborhood what they would gain if the value of all stock held upon land within the neighborhood of Aylesbury were assessed? Has not Mr. Lattimore told you that the estimated

value of the farming stock of this kingdom is £250,000,000? then I can only say it is five times as much as the capital invested in the cotton trade, and more than that employed in the great staple manufactures together; and under such cir cumstances, how can those landlords tell the farmers that they would put rates on the floating stock? And is it not, then, a wise proposal to make to the farmers, to take off half of the rates, and to put the assessment on the floating capital, of which the farmer possesses the greater proportion? I am humiliated when I read of these meetings, in which the farmers listen and gape at such speeches; and I feel a relief that it is not my duty to attend at such meetings, and that I have no landlord to oblige by being present at these meetings.

CHAPTER XII,

WEBSTER'S CHANGE OF VIEWS.

SPEECH OF MR. WEBSTER OF MASSACHUSETTS, ON THE TARIFF, IN THE SENATE, JULY 25 AND 27, 1846.

A

ND now, sir, with the leave of the Senate, I shall proceed to consider the effects of this bill upon some of those interests which have been regarded as protected interests.

I shall not argue at length the question whether the gov ernment has committed itself to maintain interests that have grown up under laws such as have been passed for thirty years back. I will not argue the question, whether, looking to the policy indicated by the laws of 1789, 1817, 1824, 1828, 1832, and 1842, there has been ground for the industrious and enterprising people of the United States, engaged in home pursuits, to expect protection from the government for internal industry. The question is, do these laws or do they not, from 1789, till the present time, constantly show and preserve a purpose, a policy, which might naturally and really induce men to invest property in manufacturing undertakings and commit themselves to these pursuits in life? Without lengthened arguments, I shall take this for granted.

But, sir, before I proceed further with this part of the case, I will take notice of what appears to be some attempt, latterly, by the republication of opinions and expressions, arguments and speeches of mine, at an earlier and later

9

(193)