The Sun. — London, England, 1849-03-16 00:00:00

most )they dens t and state that Lktlon (Mr. ianu could fist— sym- ment CUM. rouse erest 3our- lie, crate duty and d be eased Id be kraeli) led, in wavily Cour that trice of v on], NI the would ir w nc bf,ri r ePJ ,„ rt of th e Your-taw C_rnixii,aotier., in 1843, show, `e what t hi s was to b e a ttributed—it was to the att-mpt ~ ratin g stock in trade; when that was done the poor e a ! was badly administered, and then head money was established; and the consequence was that the m anufactures once established in the clothing counties of t he south were driven to the north. He (Mr. Bright) a lis • e - In a townsaie, or parish, in which the rating was not wore than 7d. in the pound; in some other town • ships, and at no great distance, the rating was 3s. or 4s, the pound. Now if a person was about building a mill, tWeuld be his interest to erect it in a place where the ra tes were low, and such would be the tendency of (1 4 acts which sought to impose such burdens—they would drive manufactures from certain counties and Parishes to others. A great deal of mist hung about the P r oposition of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, en d he should endeavour to penetrate it. The Hon. Member's proposition was to withdraw 6,000,0001. of l axation, which were now imposed upon certain Shouldtra, and to return them upon the same shoulders ipart ly, and partly upon the shoulders of oth ers. If the Pn. Member took away the 6,000,000/, he would cer- Lately return 3,000,000/. of it to the same parties who now had to bear it; for 3,000,0001. should certainly be Paid by the real property of the country, and the real treperty of the country was not that which Hon. Gen emen opposite always made it mean—the land only. I CO, no," from Members on the Opposition benches.) Y doing this—by taking away 9,000,000/., they would raise the w h o l e value of the 30,000,0001. of property w hich n ow paid to 100,000,0001. ; and that, he said, / s a proposition which would not meet with muc h r/It a i 'rour from the House or the country. Suppose , t that the Honourable Gentleman's proposition should go to the taxation of all kinds of property, they tIVIlld find that the cultivated land in England and ales was 30,000,000 of acres; every acre required 10/. ' 0 cultivate it properly, but taking it at Si., there was a capital of 150,000,0001. employed by the tenant-farmers, 11 nd by the proposition now made it was intended to w hich the tenant-farmer employed in the cultivation of the lands of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(Hear , hear.) This was certainly the most extraordinary proposition he dealing with and relieving agricultural distress tha t " had ever heard of.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Gentle man ia making such a proposition was discriminating in his favours; Scotland was not mentioned by him, and Its to the sister island he had nothing to give it but that Which benevolent people with nothing in their pockets Were but too apt to give—advice.—(Laughter.) Such advice had been but too long given; and he believed that Ireland would not be tempted on this occasion to follow him, when all he proposed to do fur her was to pay heavy taxation, and no other compensation for it but counsels.—(Laughter.) He was disposed to think that the Hon. Gentleman's proposition caused great dissatisfaction amongst the farmers.—(A laugh.) The laugh was extremely faint; but Hon. Gentleman oppo site, he believed, were aware that the Mark. lane express was a paper of very high authority amongst tuners, and that it was read by a very large and very r espectable class amongst the agriculturists. Now, what said that paper of the proposition of the Honourable Member?—that it was " a detestable piece of duplicity," as detestable as ever yet was submitted by a public man. --- (Laughter.) Now he would not say anything so harsh as that of the Hon. Gentleman.—(Laughter.) He be lieved that the Hon. Gentleman had calculated upon the EtUpidity of the farmers, that by mixing up landlords and t enants together as if they were but one class, and pro- Posing some relief which was to go into the pockets of Ilee class—and that the landlords— the farmers might be induced to follow in the train of the Hon. Gentleman. ith agricultural distress spoken, End such relief pro- Posed, it reminded him of the story o a party of strolling players, who advertised at one time that they would p+ay for the benefit of the poor of the parish. The announcement excited a great deal of at t ention—the barn wa, crowded, but when the distribu tion was looked for, the players maintained that " they were the poor of the parish themselves"—(Laughter)— e,,nd therefore kept the whole of the receipts.—(Laughter.) was precisely the conduct of the Hon. Member for hisekingbamshire in bringing forward his proposition. was not what was said would be sought for. This ~.,.1 4a s not the story that was told in Bond-street or in Willis's Rooms, where language was used by Hon. Gen tlemen not as temperate as they employed in that House, and he might retaliate on Lion. Gentlemen opposite the reproof delivered by the Right Hon. Member for Stam ford (Mr. Herries) to his lion. Friend (Mr. Cobden) in a'recent debate.—(bear.) There was, in fact, as it was 4 ,boWn , by the Chaim« llor ohe Excheur, nothin in the proposition of the Hon. f t Member for Buckingha g m shire intended to mitigate the distress of the farmers, or to enable them to bear that competition to which they Were exposed. When he (Mr. B.) and his friends sat 01 1 the opposite side of the House, they never said any 'tiling of the malt-tax. They were then engaged with a laudable object—in that object they had succeeded. They 8 0tIght not to give partial relief to this or that interest; but they sought then, and sought now, to reduce the ex penditure so as to give general relief to all classes. There Was no class more industrious or more meritorious than that class for which Hon. Gentlemen opposite professed to sympathise. Now he (Mr. Bright) slid not ask for a repeal of the malt-tax in order to have the people hap. Ater by making beer cheaper; he was not one of those Who thought they promoted morality by making vice expensive; he thought that the beer drinker who was sober would, if beer were cheaper, have more money to PUrchase something else. He thought the malt-tax was Injurious to the agricultural interests to some consider able extent, and as he had ever advocated, when sitting at the other side of the House, the abolition of Excise duties, he was now prepared to advocate the abolition of the duty on malt and hops.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gen tlemen opposite, however, never alluded to the malt-tax, They had discarded it— " Oh no, they never mentioned it, Its name was never heard ; Their lips were now forbid to speak That once familiar word."—(Laughter.) Notwithstanding all their strong language about the Malt -tax, they now said to the farmers to wait till the time came for repealing it; but whether that would be !II the present generation or in the next everybody was left in th e dark.—(Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen oppo site seemed to him to be each like two different persons et different times: they each took one course in that House and another in the country. In the country they spoke of the various burdens on land, and even referred to tithes as a burden on the land. They allowed their tenants to speak of tithes as a burden. Well they might do so; they might say farmers would be better off if they paid no tithes, just as it might be said that every farmer would be better off if he had no rent to pay. — (Rear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite told farmers ,to look to Parliament for relief. Now, if he were a landlord he would inculcate upon his tenantry this lesson, that Parliament was not a Parliament for land lords, but it was constituted to deal with the interests of the whole empire; not to look to the particular condition o f a particular class, but to the general welfare of 411 classes; and he would tell them of all places to ,look for succour, Parliament and St. Stephen's Were the very worst places in which they would find it.—(Cheers from Members on t he O pp osition benches.) He would tell them that they must look to vicissitudes in their trade as in every other, and they Lust exercise their talents as other men exercised them, and they must work out their prosperity by their own skill and industry.—(Hear, hear.) Gentlemen were leading the farmers away on a false scent. They had a newspaper which was most powerful in their interest — the Standard. Now the Standard said at one time, as the organ of the agriculturists, that England would be s great, happy, and as powerful—that England would 13 e as rich as she was, if the whole of the manufacturing districta of her empire were involved in one common That was the substance of a sentiment to which it gave expression a few years ago. But the 'Standard now took another course. That paper was all laudation for Members on the opposite side of the House who were in favour of protection. It said now that there was an association of farmers and labourers to do away with the use of the productions of the mills of the north. There was, then, to be no more broad cloth in Dorsetshire—cotton was to be repudiated, and even linen smocks on farmers' boys were to be rejected un less they were made by the hand-loom.—(Laughter.) He did not know what Honourable Gentlemen were to do if this proposition were to be acted upon. What were they to do fur clothing ? Were they, like their ancestors, to pride themselves on their painted skins?— (Laughter.) Or were Eon. Members to come to that House from the agricultural counties clothed in thatch ? —(Laughter.) If they did, he hoped their tenants would receive a remunerating price for straw.—(Laughter) That, then, was the proposition which he found stated in that paper which was the powerful and great organ of their party. It was not thus they ought to mislead the farmers. They ought to treat the farmers fairly if they wished for the good and full cultivation of their grounds. What, he asked, was the difference between a farmer and a manufacturer ? He was a manufacturer she occupied premises—he paid a high rent for it. The farmers took their land, and paid them rent for it. There Was no difference in principle or in practice between the two. There was no difference in the mode of attaining pros perity. They wanted all restrictions imposed upon them by that House to be removed, that they might be able to receive the raw material at the cheapest price, and have 11. fair and open market where they might obtain the best price. The farmer laboured under disadvantages Which the manufacturer had not. The Hon Mem ber for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer) had appealed to them on behalf of the farmers who had not capital. But the people in the north of England and in the towns could not be mulcted by the laws of this House to sus• thin men who had no capital. An HON. MEMBER—SmaII capital. Mr. BRIGHT—WeII, small capital. If a man bad a hundred acres of land, and only 5001. to cultivate it with, if it required 101. an acre, he should have only 50 acres of land.—(Hear, hear.) There were many persons in Lancashire and Yorkshire who had found their capital very much crippled of late years, and were not only not extending their business, but some of them diminishing it, and that was precisely the principle upon which the Proprietors of land ought to act, and endeavour to secure Upon their farms men who had capital and great spirit ill agriculture; but he would tell Hon. Gentlemen oppo site that they were taking a course which rendered it impossible.—(" Oh, oh.") For example, if a farmer came to-them to ask for a farm and wished to make stipulations, Which were called stipulations of a commercial character; that was, it he said, " I must plough as I like, and gro w as I like, of course saving your interest at the end of the lease. I must have every creature that lives on the land, and I must not have my farm infested by game ;" Hon. Gentlemen opposite—not all of them — f many of them were now acting more{ judiciously than they did sonic time ago—did not like the man as a tenant.—(llear, hear.) Now, it was one of the conse quences from which they could not escape, and o'' which they were told before free trade was granted, that they must introduce the commercial principle in future ~rr911,9. , ,n,nt., botwenn I n r,llo,rd find t,nnnt. P. vca:4 jog interests and dense population, should ,tc4.:d still, or rest under the baneful influcacc of protec tion to agriculture, simply because they were unAilling to adopt in their relations with their tenontry those it, total principles which were acted upon by all the other branches of industry throughout the country. Now the proposition which he (Mr. Bright) sup ported was ad mitted on all hands to be more distinct than that of the Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire. That Hon. Gentleman had come forward in the character of a Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and the framer of a budget ; but he had only shown himself a novice in this new walk, for he had left out of view the source from which he was going to obtain the six millions of taxes which he must necessarily have. The Hon. Gentleman spoke of the " expansion of the income-tax," and from that phrase he presumed the Hon. Gentleman intended to increase the income-tax. But the llon. Baronet the Member for Lincolnshire thought that a fixed duty on corn would do as well ; but how six millions were to be raised by a fixed duty on corn he (Mr. Bright) did not know. They had no calculation as to the quantity of corn that bad come in, or as to the amount of duty that was to be levied per quarter. Let Hon. Gentlemen beware, how ever, how they turned their attention, or the attention of their tenantry, to the question of the re-imposition of duties on corn. They would be attempting that which he believed to be as impossible as it would be to re peal the Reform Bill or the Catholic Emancipa tion Act.—(Ministerial cheers.) Let them take care that that which was constantly said of "free-traders when they were agitating for free trade, did not become the universal sentiment. The only valid objection then raised to them was, that they were doing that which possibly, because of the supremacy of the landowners in this House, might be only temporary; that they were wasting their energies in repealing an Act of Parliament; and that however important it might be, they ought at the same time so to reform and change the constitution of this House as that not corn-growers and landowners should be represented there, but the great mass of the population who never had, and never could have, any interest in the imposition of a duty upon food. Hon. Gentlemen must take care of what they were about. They fancied there was a lull in the public mind, and that events abroad had frightened people at home. Let them bear in mind that in all the European capitals a system was now being established which some S wished might not last, but which, if it did last, might have a strange effect upon the minds of the people in this coun try who were looking, and wisely looking, to great and permanent changes in the constitution of Parliament. Whilst Gentlemen opposite were leading them in one direction, he begged to tell them that they were defeat ing their object in another direction; for they were lead ing the farmers after that false light, which must here after entice them into still greater and more permanent difficulties than they were in at present. Hon. Gentle men talked of the experiment of free trade as if had failed, or had been but an experiment.—(lronical cheers.) Had they not been legislating ever since the oldest man amongst them entered that House, every few years, in favour of protection, and to keep up the price of corn?—(No, no.) Had they not had Committee after Committee for the purpose of proving that there was agricultural distress?—(Hear and No, no.) Did they not recollect that under the protective law of 1828, in the year 1836 the whole average price for the year, not of sprouted wheat, but of good wheat, was 395. 4d. a quarter? whereas the Hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Miles) had told the House to-night that he was selling his sprouted wheat at 425. a quarter. Was it possible that Hon. Gentlemen could have forgotten all that had taken place within the last 35 years, in which time they had had great practical illustrations of the working of their sys tem? Well, that system was abolished. They had wreaked their vengeance upon a Minister—they had split up a party—they had shown an anger which political parties in this country had scarcely ever before exhibit(' d, because the industry of the people, through the power and the patriotism of the man whom they hml discarded —(Laughter, and ironical cheers from the Protectionists, answered by Ministerial cheering)—beeause through that man the industry of this great and growing popula tion had escaped from the pressure of that screw which, through the corn-law, had been laid upon the necessaries of life. He feared Honourable Gentlemen were not exactly aware of what was passing in the country—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and in the great towns. The question of a reduction of expendi ture, which had been placed before the House, was ex citing the greatest interest in every meeting of farMers. In every county the same cry was echoed. Nay, the very men who thought the free-traders were their greatest enemies, were now ready to shake hands with his Hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," " No, no," and ironical cheers, and laughter.) They were anxious that that measure of justice should be done to the country which his Hon. Friend advocated, and that in this House they should force upon the Exe cutive Government the greatest possible economy which was compatible with the efficiency of the public service. —(" Hear," from the Opposition benches.) Hon. Gentle. men opposite blamed the Government because they had made some small reduction in the estimates, and told them that they were following the Honourable Member for the West Riding. His Honourable Friend the Member for the West Riding was certainly a most extraordinary man.—(Laughter.) The greatest charge brought against Sir Robert Peel was, that he obeyed the dictates and fol lowed the recommendations of his Honourable Friend; and now, when the Minister did anything that was sen sible, or wished for by the country, the instant cry was that they were following the recommendations of the Honourable Member for the West Riding. Why, it was because he (Mr. Bright) and his Honourable Friend lived among the people, had travelled in every county among them, knew their feelings and wishes, were iden tified with their interests, and had come to this House as the reprerentatiues of great and free constituencies, that the measures of the Honourable Member for the West Riding had the sympathy of millions in the country; and not many sessions of Parliament would pass before Honourable Gentlemen opposite—powerful as they were —would vote for the measures they now affected to de- spise.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. NEWDEGATE said the Hon. Member for Man chester (Mr. Bright) had told them the Hon. Member for the West Riding was a great man, but he (Mr. New degate) did not think so, and his ire seemed to be espe cially excited by the prospect which he said had been held out to the farmers, that the corn-laws would be re enacted. The Hon. Member had also endeavoured to cast ridicule upon the proposal which had been made by the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and the able speech of that Hon. Gentleman had been met by vitupe ration on the part of the Hon. Member for Manchester. Looking at the whole of the statistics on the question of rates, the conclusion to be arrived at was, that in the agricultural counties the rates were 81 per cent. higher than in the manufac turing towns; and he, therefore, considered the measure of his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire well-timed, and trusted it would meet with the support of the House, despite of the short-sighted light-hearted ness of certain Hon. Members. The Right Hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House, that within a very few years 9,000,0001. of taxation had been remitted in favour of the agricultural interests; but while the Right Hon. Baronet had made that statement—which exceeded the fact—he had failed to inform the House that 23,000,000/. of taxation had been remitted in favour of other classes of the community. Now, for every 100 /. of taxation which had been remitted in favour of the agriculturists, he found that 2701. had been remitted in favour of the other classes, and the balance was, there fore, against the agricultural classes. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT considered the motion of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire with all the bias —if he might be permitted so to speak—of a person con nected with the landed interest, yet be could not regard it as perfect. He had listened, on the other hand, to the very able speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Chan cellor of the Exchequer; but he thought the Right Hon. Baronet had, to a great degree, undervalued the amount of distress. He (Mr. Herbert) was connected with a part of the country which was greatly affected by the distress; and he believed, although the distress was said to be only local, that it was extended more than Hon. Gentlemen were willing to admit. As to the cause of the distress, he did not form his opinions on the simple reference to the depressed prices of wheat. The question was, what were the circum stances which made the distress so peculiar as now? He believed that they arose from the unfavourable ness of the seasons, and consequent bad harvests.— (Hear, Hear.) He did not recollect a season more un favourable to agricultural interests than the last. Wheat was at present 455.; but there were few who had wheat to send into the market which would fetch that price. And it was also a fact, ascertained from the returns, that there was at present a greater diminution of con sumption than at former times. He now came to the question how far this distress would be remedied by the motion before the House, and he must say he was at a loss to know whence the six millions sterling were to come, which the Hon. Member for Buckingham shire said it would be necessary to make up, in lieu of the six millions which he proposed to be remitted. He considered that the Hon. Member had propounded but one-half of his plan, and as he could not approve of it as by any means perfect, he, for one, for the reasons he bad given, could not consent to raise false hopes, and he must, therefore, come to the conclusian not to give his vote in favour of the Hon. Member's motion to go into Committee. Mr. CAYLEY must give a contradiction to the state. ments that no complaints had as yet been made with re spect to the existence of distress in the north of England, for no later than the previous day he had had a letter informing him that distress prevailed there, and that a great meeting was contemplated to take into considera tion the causes of the low prices of agricultural produce. With respect to the complaints made by the agricultural classes of the burdens of taxation on land, he was not surprised to hear them, for he felt that cause existed ; but to hear a complaint emanate from the manufacturing classes, he confessed, surprised him. The shise must pinch somewhere ; and he apprehended there was some thing going wrong in the affairs of the manufacturing interests. It was the failure of trade in 1837 that led to the agitation in favour of a repeal of the corn laws. Free trade had realised almost every one of the i evils which it promised; and if it be persevered n, some such measure as that promulgated by his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, in favour of a remis sion of taxation pressing on agricultural interests, should be resorted to. The Excise duties paid by agrieultu rists amounted in the whole to 12,171,8041.; the stamp duties to 1,997,1961.; stage coaches, 552,000/.; post horses, 166,0001.; and the assessed taxes, 1,662,00 0 /. , which, with others, made a grand total of 17.119.00 0 /. What they lost by the duty on tobacco, which they could easily grow in this country, could not be esti mated at less than 3,000,000/., and the local taxation could not be l"ss than 40,000.000/. If they were to have free trade they should have it in every re spect, and the agricultural interest should not be fettered by taxes to the amount of 17,000,000/. It. should be ob served that the agricultural interest paid the duty on tea THE SUN, stal euear. He wished to see free trade fairly carried - taxation of the country. It had occurred to him that they might repeal all :bete taxes aild adopt a system of inland revenue. The censumere in some cases ware taxed 600 per cent, and in other cares 300 per eel.% end these, therefore, could not object. Mr. Hugh, in no able pemphlet, stated that the entire income of Lb, country was above 485 millions a year, upon which, 0 there was imposed a per-tentage-tae of ten per cent. upon all matters subject to taxation, no matter what, it would yield an income to the revenue of forty millions, and if the whole was paid, it would amount to forty eight millions. The consequence of this tax of ten per cent, might reduce labour perhaps 25 per cent., and re duce the burdens on agriculture 30 per cent., and those on the foreign importer 20 per cent., but the labourer would be compensated by the low price at which be e ould procure all articles of consumption. There would be also a great saving upon the collection. This plan had been in force in Holland for the last one hundred years, and in various other parts of the continent. He wished to throw it out as a suggestion for consideration. The Marquis of GRANBY said they had heard much of the advantages conferred upon agriculture by the manufacturers, but he would ask, had the manufac turers done this from affection towards the farmers, and not for their own advantage? With regard to the land-tax it was said that in France and Germany the land paid more than half the taxes, but, com paring France with England, Mr. M'Culloch said they knew little of the nature of the taxes raised in France, they led persons to believe that the taxes were there raised from land, but that was an error, for - .be held that the burden in England was much greater than in France. Ho denied the imputation of the Hon. Member for Manchester, that the agricultural party considered the tithes a burden. He considered them a part of the rent due to another party. It was a hardship that the tithe commutation took place when the average price of corn was 569. a quarter, and now it was not more than 475. a quarter. The consequence was, that the farmer now paid more than he would have to pay if the tithes had not been commuted. He would say one word as to the malt-tax. He looked on beer as the natural beverage of the country. He believed it pro moted in a great measure the comforts of the working classes, and that if it could be repealed it was not de sirable to do so; bat at that moment they could not spare five millions of the revenue. By putting, however, a tax on corn and other articles of excise, that tax could be re mined without any great danger to it. It was, then, on such grounds as had been alluded to that they relinquished protection, that they took off the duty on foreign corn and other articles, which he believed was the cause of the agricultural distress now existing; but the time was come when something should be done to relieve it. He confessed he thought the Right Honourable Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have consented to go into Committee; but even that small boon was re fused. He thought such a course dangerous on many grounds; he thonght it was unwise to yield everything to clamour, and nothing to moderation and good sense. The agricultural classes were loyal and peaceable; and if the time came, as come it may, when their services were required, they may not be able to come forward with that alacrity they were always accustomed to show in times of real danger.—(Hear, hear.) He was glad to hear the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilt shire admit that agricultural distress existed—and existed to a degree of great intensity—but he denied it arose from the admission free of duty of foreign corn. The Noble Lord next proceeded to read some extracts from a speech of Mr. Huskisson, in which he condemned the repeal of the corn-laws, and prophecied that low prices would confer no benefit on the labouring classes in the community. That was the opinion of agricultural la bourers, who thought, and who thought justly, that they were better off when prices were high, for they got wages more in proportion than when they were low. The price of corn when low threw a great many out:of employment, and therefore made their condition always worse. For these reasons he should always support the motion of hi; lion. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire. He be lieved he would have the thanks of the agricultural and labouring classes for the course he pursued ; and, in ac cordance with the opinion of Mr. MCCulloch, that justice ought to be followed in taxation as well as anything else, he cordially approved of the proposition. Mr. GOULBURN thought it was impossible to have listened to the debate without observing that, in the course of it, great changes had taken place in the views of those who supported the motion. He had listened to the Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire with that attention which his powers of eloquence and argument always commanded, and which was due to the temperate manner in which his proposition had been urged. He (Mr. Goulburn) understood the Honourable Gentleman, in suggesting the means of supplying the vacuum in the revenue, which would be consequent on the adoption of the proposition, to say that it would not be supplied by the property-tax, but that the property-tax suggested the means by which the deficit might be supplied. Coupling what the Hon. Member said about obtaining a quota from the privileged classes with his denial of any attention to return to a protective saystem, it was reasonable to suppose that the vacuum he was about to create in the Consolidated Fund was to be supplied by an impost analagous to the property-tax, to be drawn from classes which he styled. in contradistinction to the owners of real property, the privileged classes. The disclaimer of the Hon. Member for Somersetshire, and the able speech delivered yester day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, relieved him from the necessity of entering further into this branch of the subject. The Hon. Member for Lincolnshire, who seconded the motion, evidently pointed to a tax upon the fundholder as one means of supplying the de ficiency which would be caused by the adoption of the plan. He (Mr. Goulburn) had often before protested against any attempt to tax funded property, and he would never believe that the House of Commons would so far lose sight of what was due to the public honour and national credit as to agree to any proposition of that na ture. The Hon. Member for Somersetshire having de nied the property-tax, told the House that what was meant was an adjustment of taxation. He (Mr. Goulburn) remem bered the time when the phrase " equitable adjustment" meant the confiscation of landed and funded property, and its distribution among the mass of the community. (Hear.) The Hon. Member for Somersetshire, of course, contemplated nothing of that sort ; but it was unfortunate that he had used a phrase liable to miscon struction. The Hon. Member for Somersetshire wished to recur to the state of the law as it existed in the 43d year of Elizabeth; but the Hon. Member would find that that would not enable him to supply a deficit of 6,000,000/. or 7,000,0001. It had been stated that in the time of Elizabeth the agricultural interest numbered 3,000 per sons, whilst the commercial and manufacturing in terest was limited to 1,000. Still those 1,000 persons possessed property. If there were no fundholders and bankers in London, there were merchants and goldsmiths possessing great capital, which they lent out at interest; but it never entered into the mind of any statesman of that day to tax them for the relief of distant parishes. Yet at that time the landed interest was predominant in Parliament. The schemes already noticed for supplying the vacuum in the Consolidated Fund not having been received with any favour, the Hon. Member for the North Riding (Mr. Cayley) came to the rescue. That Hon. Member, with more enlarged views, and greater knowledge of the subject, promulgated a new system of taxation altogether. The Hon. Member proposed to get rid of all existing internal taxation, with the exception of the land and property taxes, and to raise 40,000,0001. by a duty of 10 per cent. on every article consumed in the country. This would give a revenue of 48,000,0001., leaving a deficit of 8,000,0001., to be supplied when the Hon. Member was able to mature his plan.—(A laugh.) The Hon. Member told the House that he held the ex cise system in utter abhorrence, and yet he suggested a scheme of taxation which would render the presence of an excise officer necessary not only in every village, but in every dwelling-house.—(" Hear," and a laugh.) He (Mr. Goulburn) objected to the House going into Committee in order to arrange a change of taxation without having a definite idea on the subject. No one could have watched the finances of this country without being aware that a mere change of taxation, without any alteration of amount. caused great individual loss and derangement of national interests. Interests which had grown up under a system of taxation must necessarily be disturbed by the abrogation of that system ; and, on the other hand, interests which had before been untaxed became depressed by being subjected to a new burden. When there was a prospect of any important change being made in the system of taxation hopes were ex cited in some quarters, whilst apprehensions were raised in others, and thus transactions became deranged, and, in many instances, business was paralyzed. The present attempt should be regarded as the beginning of a system which was pregnant with alarming consequences. The efforts of one party to relieve real property, and to throw a greater burden on personal property must be met by those interested in personal property, and anxious to repel what they conceive to be an unreasonable attack upon their interests ; thus would be laid the foundation of a dispute between two great classes of the community, which would lead to continued agitation and conflict, re sulting in the ruin of both classes.—(Hear, hear.) It was another ground of objection to the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire's plan, that it would necessarily lead to the transfer of local business from local authori ties to the Government. The Hon. Member for Dor setshire had accurately described the business habits and other excellent qualities of the yeomanry and far mers of his county ; but they were indebted for these characteristics to their being habituated to the admini stration of their own affairs. Declare that a moiety of local charges shall be borne by the state, and it will not be long before the Government will engross the whole of the local administration. Upon those grounds, if there were no others, he should think it his duty to resist the proposition now made to the House. Lord J. RUSSELL and Mr. COBDEN rose together, but the latter giving way, the Noble Lord spoke as follows :—lf I could prevail upon myself to vote for a Committee of the whole House, as the Hon. Gentleman opposite recommended in his very able and very rheto rical speech, it would be from motives of curiosity, to see what his plans are, which have been held out to us so vaguely, but of which we have had no distinct outline in the whole course of this debate. Every one seems to believe, from the speech of the Hon. Gentleman, that he was about to propose an increase of the income-tax. That an interest most important in this country is in a state of distress no one den!es. My Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted it fully with regard to a great portion of the country. Then the Hon. Gentleman proposed to Wee off 6,000,0001. of taxes from the land, and to put it on the Consolidated Fund, and it was und• ratood that an increased income tax was to be the mode of meeting that; but my Right Hoe. Friend showed, and most clearly, that if that were the case he would either take off a considerable sum fe - im the landed interest to put it on again, and to put it upon the occupiers more particularly, or that you would commit a breach of faith to which it is impossible LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 16, 1849. this Muse could ever give its consent. And then, after we have had this plan two whole days as I thought tualer _ _ ecnsitieration, ti Hon. Gentleman the Member for So mersetshire gets up this evening and says, for his part, he did not hear his lion. Friend mention a word of the income-tax, and as far as he knows no such plan is in contemplation.—(Hear, hear.) But although he giv,s us this information, he studiously keeps secret wha:t the plan is to be by which this large amount of revenue is to be supplied. No wonder, if the authors and pro. pounders of the plan, if those who are in the confidence of ihe Hon. Gentleman, refuse to give any light to the House, that other Hon. Gentlemen should come forward and propose their various plans to supply this want. The Hon. Member for Lincolnshire said he thought a mode rate duty on corn might supply the deficiency—a defi ciency of 6,000,0001. to be supplied by a moderate duty on corn !—(Laughter.) That would hardly do either. No doubt he intended to come to the rescue of the Hon. Gentleman, who seemed to have a plan, but to have abandoned it; but the Hon. Member for the North Riding made certainly a much bolder at tempt, and, being obliged at the instant to volunteer an extempore plan of finance, propounds one so astounding that I do not wonder the old habits of the Right Hon. Member opposite should have been shocked by its no velty and boldness—(Hear, and laughter)—to see the Customs and Excise abolished, and then to have 40,000,0001. raised by a tax on every article of produce or consumption to be found in the country—(Hear) — is replacing that which is not a very pleasant burden, but a burden we can bear, by one so intolerable that it would be impossible for the country to submit to it for a month. Therefore, giving my Honourable Friend great credit for his intention and promptitude in coming to the relief of the Hon. Gentleman, I must say he has not produced any plan that can satisfy the House to go into Committee. Then what is this great secret? It is a great temptation to go into Committee to find it out. 6,000,000/. of taxation is no small portion to be replaced. What can it be the Hon. Gentleman proposes? — (Laughter.) The Noble Lord the Member for Stamford says there is to be a tax which will not bear upon the occupiers of land at all. It will all be placed on per sonal property which is not now taxed for local purposes. Is that the Hon. Gentleman's plan? Does he mean there should be a general tax upon personal property and upon personal property only, from which all real property should be relieved? It is necessary to consider a little, and I will do so very shortly, what is the gene. ral nature of the proposition the Hon. Gentleman made. He finds that local taxation, the greater part of which is the poor-rates, has subsisted from the time of Queen Elizabeth—for more than 2 50 .. years—and which has been assessed according to the decisions of the courts of law. What reason has the Honourable Gentleman to say that this is by any means a new tax upon land? What ground has he to say that land is more taxed at the present moment than in former times? We know that four years after the Revolution—in 1692, a tax was imposed of 4s. in the pound on land; that for many years land did not alter in value, and that Sir R. Walpole, in 1730, in pro posing a reduction of that tax, said, the tax had borne so hard upon the landed interests that many gentlemen were obliged to sell their estates, being utterly ruined by that burden upon them. That tax, not having been altered, has become, not 2,G00,000/. out of 40,000,0001., which was supposed to be the income of the country at that time, but 2,000,0001. out of 20 0 ,000,0001., the pre sent income of the country, and therefore it is a tax upon land not anything like what it was in former times. Then, with regard to the poor-rates, I think the objec tion stated by the Right Bon. Gentleman opposite, even supposing you are to take off this tax from realproperty, would be conclusive against such an application of the tax. Suppose you had 6,000,000/., and it was perfectly easy to find 6,000,000/. in the Exchequer, and that you were to apply it to this purpose, it would not be wise to say that that which has hitherto been a local burden, admi nistered for local purposes, and governed and con front d by the will, the care, and the discretion of local bodies, should hereafter be a public tax, and that the Charcellor of the Exchequer should be obliged to meddle with its application and control its direction and amount, because you could not otherwise submit to it. In certain cases the poor-rates may be light, in other cases they may be heavy, and both light and heavy taxes may be proportioned to the necessities of the parish in which they are imposed; but it may be other wise; and are you to admit that oeparish shou e ld b burdened with only 2s. in the pound, n another with 10s. in the pound, and you are to give ss. in the pound with out inquiring whether they are very lavish in their ex penditure, and whether that enormous amount of taxa tion is justified? Therefore there must be a constant interference with the local rating, and that breaks down the principal of local government, which it is so desir able to maintain. I should say, therefore, even sup posing this tax could be changed, it would not be wise to alter your parochial government in a degree that might break down the allele of the local go vernment hitherto administered by local and repre sentative bodies. But the Honourable Gentleman in the course of his speech made some reference to me, and to what I had said and proposed on this subject. It is quite true that in 1846, following the Right :Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth, I said that if the corn-laws were to be repealed I thought considerable re lief ought to be given to the landed interests from the burdens to which they were subject.— (Cheers from the Opposition.) What I had in contemplation was more particularly those charges which referred to the adminis tration of justice, and the Right Hon. Gentleman, coming back to office, and proposing his own plan, did propose a diminution of those burdens, and several others, which pressed on real property to the amount of 535,0001. a year. I do not know whether I should have,proposed exactly that amount or something more; but it would have been a change in that direetion and applied to those purposes, and not a change applying to the general administration of the poor-law. I certainly thought that part of that charge might have been charged on the public revenue; but, on the other hand, the Right Hon. Gentleman put some of those charges on the Exchequer, which, perhaps, I should not. I believe that the sum of 585,0001. would have been the amount had I proposed to deal with the cprn r laws,_ and that would have been a_relief to the landed interest. But the Honourable Gentleman seems to suppose that I used expressions at some period which he thought were applied injuriously to the owners and occupiers of land. I can assure him the only ex pressions I used derogatory to any person were applied to those who called me the enemy of the farmer. It so happened that for several years I told those gentlemen who were particularly interested in the defence of the landed interest that it appeared to tee public opinion tended to a great change in the corn-laws, and that I thought it would be wise in them to consent to that change in time, and that particularly when there was a large surplus of revenue it would be wise in them to consider whether any relief co u ld b e g i v en to them out of that landed interest, consistent at the same time with a very great and exteasive change in the corn-laws. The only answer to that proposition which they gave was such an answer as I received in 1844 from the Honour able Gentleman the Member for Somersetahire, who came forward to-night to deplore the loss of the corn law. The Hon. Gentlem an i s reporte d to have said that " he commiserated the position of the Noble Lord, which obliged him to suggest a compromise; but he Failed upon the Government, and the whole agricultural interest in the country, to submit to no compromise." — (Hear, .hear.) That I thi n k was a f ata l err or which the landed interest made. It a p peare d to me both that the protection then given was much greater than existed previous to the war of 1793, an d lik ew i s e that that pro tection was in a shape that could not be long continued. I warned them, and warned them in vain, year after year, that a change was coming, and I advised them to endeavour to make that change as easy and as useful to the agricultural interests as by an offer on their part they could make it. I was called an e nemy of the farmer, and I could not help resenting that expressio n, knowing that all I had prop ose d i n that way was notin tended as an injury, but for the benefit of the landed in terests, some of the members of which I was then ad dressing. I can only say, in the same spirit in which I gave that advice, hope the landed inte rest will not follow the Hon. Gentleman in his proposition of to-night. I am quite sure if he were imposing most succeed in that proposition, he would be most unjustifiably, as I think, upon personal pro perty, a new burden of the sum of 6,000,0001., and that if that House and the other House of Parliament were to sanction such a proposition, it would be a signal for a new contest, a signal for invectives against the landed interest of this country. It would be a ground for the charge that they were considering only their own power and their own pecuniary advantage, regardless of the great and national interests of the country; and, in the course of that contest, not only would they be deprived of the new tax they are now se ekin g to impose, but we should probably find that other and harder conditions would be imposed, i n order to diminish the weight which they p o ssess, and I think justly possess, in the Legislature of the country. I ob• serve that that remark of mine raises some mirth in Honourable Gentlemen opposite. It was the same thing, I remember, when I said tha t protective laws could not be continued. That was considered an absurd and extravagant speculati on of mine, and I am not therefore, surprised that . . what I at present say , should be received with derision by th em . With regard to the proposition of the Honourable Member for Montrose, I certainly think that this is not the pro per occasion when the Hon. Member should give effect to a proposition of that kind. When the Hon. Member for the West Riding proposed a reduction of 10,000,0001. in the expenditure, he did it on a suitable occ as i on , an d when the subject of the expenditure was before the House, and the House was called upon to say, a n d did say, whether they thought that reduct ion was justified or not. But to bring forward a proposition for a reduc tion of expenditure of 10,000,000/. without having the means of saying whether that money may or may not be required for the revenue of the country is, in my opinion, an interference. with the motion of the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disrael i ) which the House would not be justified in entertaining. That Hon. Gentleman has made his proposition, and I would vote against any amendment being proposed to it, in order that it may come fairly before the House. But when it is brought before the House I will give my vote against it, believ ing that, if carried, it will be unjust, that it w ill b e inexpe dient, and that it will be the signal for a new war of classes, and produce evils of which that Hon. G en tl eman has no conception.—(Loud cheers.) Mr. COBDEN would not have thought it necessary to address the House, but he had been alluded to so fre quently in the course of this debate that he was not wil_ ling to remain under some of the imputations which bad been directed against him. He would not weary the House by any reference to the speech of the Hon. Mem ber for Buckinghamshire, because, after the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that would only be " to slay the slain."—(Hear, hear.) Nor would he say any thing respecting the motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, although to-morrow night on the estimates he should refer to the misapprehension which prevailed in the speech of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer respecting the amount of expenditure on the army and navy. The question proposed by the Honourable Gentleman had been resolved by the Chancellor - of the Exchequer into this, that it was a proposal to lay on between 400,0001. and 000,000 i. upon the tenant-tarniers on the plea of being a benefit to them.—(Hear, hear.) That proceeded, too, upon the assumption that it was proved to demonstra tion, and beyond cavil or contradiction, that the local burdens laid upon property were borne by real property, and not by the floating capital of the country. If the House agreed to that proposition, they might feel in clined to reduce the burdens upon real property; but was there one human being who would deny this propo sition, that if they reduced the burden upon real pro perty, the relief would go into the pockets of the owners of that property ?—(Cheers, and dissent from the Pro tectionist benches.) But there would be farmers who would read what he was saying, and farm labourers too, and he would put the case of two farms to be let of pre cisely equal intrinsic value as regarded the quality of the soil and the situation, but upon one of them the poor-rates should be 2s. in the pound, and on the other Bs. in the pound. Now, would any Hon. Member tell him that he would let the two farms for the same rent?—(Hear, hear.) He asked for even a nod of assent from Hen. Gentlemen opposite.—(Laughter.) Why, there was not a farm agent or valuer iR the kingdom who would not scout the proposition that those two farms would be let at the same rent.—(Hear, hear.) Those persons would tell them that, after deducting the rates from the value of the land, the difference was always taken as the amount of the rent. Did not such a propo- sition, therefore, as that of the lion. Gentleman, come before them under false pretences, or even very much like a hoax? First, the farmers were paraded before them. Hon. Members came in hot haste from Willis's Rooms, where ,resolutions were passed by tenant-far mers, and where they were told no one but tenant farmers were allowed to speak. Now he (Mr. Cobden) knew that most of those persons whom they called " tenant-farmers" were land agents, for he had met hem all.—(A laugh and cries of " Hear, hear,") But Hon. Gentlemen proposed to serve the tenant-farmers, and in doing so they raised up quarrels between the tenant-farmers and the manufacturers.—(Oh, oh.) The peroration of the speech of the Honourable Gen tleman (Mr. Disraeli) was nothing but an attempt to array the farmers against the manufacturers, under the insidious title of the landed interest.—(Bear, hear.) Now, he would maintain that there was no difference whatever between the farmer and the manufacturer in relation to the question before the House. The farmer was a manufacturer; he held a farm for the purpose of manufacture, and the interests of farmer and manufac turer were to that extent identical. But he would tell them that the interests of farmer and landlord, as such, were antagonistic, in spite of anything that could be said to the contrary.—(Loud cries of " Oh! oh !") And let him be understood. He did not want to set one class against others.—(Laughter and interruption.) As members of one and the same community, he did not say that their interests were necessarily antagonistic; but it they came to the House for measures for the benefit of the landlord and tenant-farmer jointly, then he said that those interests as such were antagonistic, for it was the interest of the tenant-farmer to get the land as cheap, and tha interest of the landlord to let the land as dear as ho could.—(Hear.) It was just as impossible for the House to legislate for one and the other, so that they could be equally benefited by the same measure, as it would be impossible for the cotton broker of Liverpool and the cotton-spinner of Manchester to come with common case, and ask the House to do something that would benefit both those interests exclusively.— (Cheers.) He thought they had got beyond the discus sion of such questions as these—(Hear)—and that the time was coming when they might put plainly before the farmer the real state of the case. It had been said that he had admitted that the farmer had a claim for compen sation, and that he (Mr. Cobden) had been a party to in juring him. What he had said was that farming was in future to be carried on like any other operation of com merce, and that he was prepared to relieve the farmer from every impediteent to the free exercise of his in dustry—(Oh, oh)—among which impediments he had enumerated the malt-tax. The present discussion had very much taken the character of a free-trade debate, and he (Mr. Cobden) had said that ha would not enter upon a discussion of that question until there was a mo tion on the table of the House to restore protection in corn. It was now alleged that free trade had produced all kinds of disasters to agricultural labourers, as well as farmers ; and he would accept these challenges. The House were called upon to believe that the agricultural labourer was suffering from the low price of pro visions. —(Cheers and laughter.) The Noble Lord the Member for West Sussex (the Earl of March) spoke of seven years of those Halcyon days of protection, and declared how well the agricultural labourer was off in those years. Now, he (Mr. Cobden) had taken some pains to inform himself upon this:part of the question, and he denied that the labourer was better off in dear years than when corn was cheap. Take the year 1847, adverted to by the Noble Earl, and let them compare the situation of an agricultural labourer having a family of five persons in that year and the present. If he consumed as much bread as the union allowed him he would eat 10 41b. loaves per week, which in the year 1847 cost him 9d. per loaf, or 7s. 6d. in all. The price of these loaves is 6d. at present, so that the same quan tity of bread now would cost him 55., or less by 2s. 6d. than in 1847. The reduction of wages might be is. per week, or, taking the reduction at the Noble Earl's own showing, at 2s. per ;week, it left the labourer be • nefited to the amount of 6d. per week in bread, in ad dition to the reduction in the price of sugar and other articles.—(Cheers.) But take the case of the manufac turing and other labourers in the north of England and in London, and compare their situation at present with what it was in the bygone and cherished years of pro tection—years which had gone by for ever. The me chanics, porters, and labourers, in the morth of England were saving from 2s. to 3s. per week in the diminished price of bread and other articles, which was tantamount to an advance of 15 per cent. in their weekly income.— (Hear, hear.) The House had heard from the lion. Member (Mr. Cayley) that the free-traders had failed in all their predictions, and he had made it appear as if they had expected from free trade what he (Mr. Cob den) had never expected from it. Among other things it had been said that free trade would reduce wages. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were the authorities for that assertion, and he denied that wages were reduced either in manufacturing towns or in the neighbour hood of manufacturing districts.—(Hear, hear.) On the contrary, there had been a tendency to raise wages during the six weeks which had elapsed since the corn-laws were abolished.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the Member for Stamford (the Marquis of Granby) knew something of the " stockingers," as they were called, who made stockings and gloves in the midland coun ties. It appeared from what he had seen in the Nottingham Review that four successive strikes had taken place on the part of the stockingers, and that they had succeeded in gaining an advance of wages—a thing that had not been known for the last seventy years, - - during - the whole of which time their wages had been in the course of gradual reduction.—(Hear, hear.) Let them next take the district of the West Riding of Yorkshire or Lancashire, and compare the present state of dig labouring population with their state in those years to which Hon. Members wished to go back. lie did not hesitate to say that their state was now one of comparative comfort and happiness to what it was when about twelve months ago, he and other persons formed part of a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to represent the state of the town of Bradford. Take the condition of the farmers themselves. He admitted that there was suffering in certain districts of the country, but he was not going to let Hon. Gentlemen off as to the cause of that suffering. Had not the farmers complained of suffering before ?—(Hear, hear.) If they looked to " Hansard" they would find that in the years 1819, 1820, 1821, 1822, there were speeches and motions made every night in that House on the subject of agri cultural distress, and on the suffering among farmers and agricultural labourers. The farmers met, and they took a sensible course, for they demanded a reduction of tax ation and expenditure, and they were not bamboozled into a repeal of the malt-tax, and yet saying not a word about Government expenditure.—(A laugh and hear, hear.) A Committee was appointed in 1822, and at that time the agricultural interest had a monopoly of the supply of corn, and the Act gave them a protection up to 80s. What said the report of that Committee ? It admitted that protection could go no further than an en • tire monopoly, and that the agricultural interest had enjoyed a complete monopoly since 1819.—(Hear, hear.) In 1835 the agricultural interests were in the samo con dition of distress, and a Committee was appointed to in ' quire into the agricultural distress. That Committee did not make any report, because they had no case.— (Hear, hear.) That was under the sliding scale, which was such a favourite with Hon. Gentlemen. When the Marquis of Chandos, in 1836, carried a motion for a re peal of the malt -tax, and when, as the Hon. Gentleman had stated, the agricultural interest were threatened with a good comfortable property-tax if they did not rescind that vote, a Member of that House (Mr. Beuett) said that that threat had no force as far as the landed gentry were concerned, and that they would not be affected by such a measure. They said that free trade caused the distress of the farmers : how could they say so with any show of reason ? The distress was owing, not to free trade, but to the fact that the corn-laws had not been at once and promptly repealed. It was the three years' delay and uncertainty that had proved moat injurious. But, without dwelling upon that point, he would go into a little computation with the Hon. Gentle men opposite, and he would begin by asking them when was it that the farmers were most prosperous ? Every one knew that their best time was between the close of our disastrous contest with America and the commencement of the French revolutionary war ; that was to say, about the year 1790, or rather from 1785 to 1793. That was a period at which the farmers felt them selves perfectly safe and at ease, and how was it that they found themselves in that condition when the prices of their produce were as nearly as possible the same then as now—what was it that occasioned the difference? The price of wheat in 1790 was not much different from its present price. But how was it then with the articles which the farmers consumed? Iron and all the imple ments made of iron were then double their present prices. Clothing—all clothing was at least double its present price, and cotton clothing was four or five times the price that it bore at present. Salt was double its present price, having then been about 4s. 6d. a bushel, and now not exceeding 2s. 3d. Tea, sugar, coffee, soap, fuel, candles, spices, preserved fruits—(A laugh)—they were all vastly dearer than at present. But, on the other hand, butchers' meat, bacon, butter, cheese, poultry, e ggs, were all and every one of them cheaper than in these days—all those articles were dearer now than then. With the exception of beer, it might be said that every ' thing that the farmer was interested in selling went cheaply, and all that he wanted to consume bore high • prices, not an article necessary for the use of himself or his family which was not then dearer than now. Wherein, LI he would ask, lay the secret of his prosperity? He put that question to the landlords, and if they spoke their minds freely and candidly, they would say that the dif ierenee lay in the r, , nt.—(ll ear, hear.) Ttic rent of land at present was double, and in many cases treble, what it had been in 1790. He had no fear of being contradicted when he said, that the rent of land now was double its rent in 1790. It was treble in Seotland—in semo parts of Scotland more than three tim es w h a t it h a d been in 1790.—(lIeux, hear.) lie was not going to contradict himself; he was not going to say one thing now, having said anuther before the repeal of the corn-laws; he never in the presence of farmers said anything about rent; he had often met farmers, but he defied any one to show that he had ever dwelt upon the subject of rent; he never told them that they were to obtain relief by a reduction of rent; but he had always told them that with free trade they would have a better system and more room for energy and enterprise. And now he would tell the landlords that if they meant or intended to keep up the old rents, they mast have farmers of more capital and intelligence than those to whom they had previously been in the habit of letting their lands. In future the landlords must proceed upon mercantile principles. If rents were to be maintained the land must be made more productive than ever, and that was only to be done by farmers of greater capital, skill, and energy, than the present race of tenants. But then the landlords must also be willing to accept as tenants far mers who would not be afraid to vote according to their own judgment of public men—(Hear, hear)—and land lords must give up battue shooting. There was no ne cessity for giving up a healthful and manly pursuit of game after the manner of our ancestors; but the modern mode, unknown to men of a former age, must be aban doned.—(A laugh.) He asked them to deal fairly when they laughed. Were they aware of the different manner in which remarks of that kind were received by farmers when people talked to them of battue shooting? They regarded the preservation of game as a great nuisance; but the best farmers did not by any means wish to exterminate game. By an extreme preservation of game landlords would drive men of capital off their estates. If landlords desired to imitate the example of a certain Noble Lord and his friends, who in the course of a single day shot 530 head of game, they could not hope to keep up their rents—(Hear, hear)—or command the votes of the far mers.—(Hear, hear.) They ought to be content with money, and not demand both game and votes, in addition to high rents. It was not unreasonable, or out of place, or out of time, to tell them so now, though it might be greatly out of time for him to detain the House at that advanced hour of the morning.—(Hear.) But if the country gentlemen come to that house to parade thedis- tresses of the farmers, and threaten the Ministers of the Crown, and deal in idle predictions, and say that the far mers could not be prosperous, it became necessary for him and those who thought with him, to tell those gentlemen the reasons of the present state of affairs. He did not forget how they had been told that it was most _ . painful to send away good farmers merely because they were men of small capital. How was it that there should be any scarcity of capital amongst the agricul turists. There was a glut of capital amongst all other classes. Why was it not attracted to that most tempting of all employments, agriculture? He regretted to be obliged to say so, but it was too true, that in many places farmers wanted, not only capital, but energy and intelligence. They had been told that, if they went down into Dorcetshire, they would find there farmers who desired to see local rates removed. If that were the character of their mind, he would say that they wanted intelligence as well as capital. In calling on the House to legislate respecting these local rates, the landlords seemed to him to overlook, not only the interest of the farmers, but the interest also of the agricultural la bourers; for he could easily show that in any district where the farmers were remarkable for a want of capital the farm labourers were in a most depressed condition; the landlords, then, must invite men of capital to take their land, or the agricultural classes must continue in a depressed condition. Farther, the landlords must leave off talking of protection. They must talk of it no longer. It wtis " a delusion, a mockery, and a snare." Protection could never be restored.—(Hear.) What might be done with the navigation-laws depended upon the Noble Lord, but if he were Minister he should stand or fall by the measure then before them; he should not alter a single clause of it; and he would tell Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in a perfectly amicable spirit, that the free trade question had been settled, that they ought to occupy their minds rather with try ing to get the tariff equalised, than with futile attempts to restore free trade. With a majority of 50 or 60 against them in that House there was nothing to be feared from the advocates of protection. The corn laws had been settled; while they remained doubtful he told the people to think of nothing else; he regarded their repeal as the keystone of the arch, and now if any one proposed to levy a duty on corn he would be met by a body of opponents, not such as they had surrounding that House in 1815, but by a very different class. No man who valued the interests of the farmer or those of the labourer would now think of imposing a duty on the importation of foreign corn—he believed it to be impossible to recur to protection—they might as well think of repealing Magna Charta. The landlords must go alongside of the tenants and accommodate themselves to circumstances, but high prices were incompatible with the well being of the country. Did they want to follow the example of the Noble Lord the Member for West Sussex, who told them of the prosperity of the years 1839.40-41 and 1842 ? Had they forgotten the state of Stockport et that period, with '20,000 persons on the poor -rates; and in Leeds 30,000 in the same condition? Would they dare to face such a state of things and call it prosperity? It was well known that, three years after the war, prices underwent a great revulsion, and many were ruined by the stock in hand; but trade was re vived by large production and small profits. From 1815 to the present time fortunes were made, not by selling at high prices, but by bringing prices lower and lower. There was now abundant scope for carrying out the same prin ciple; and ho hoped to see the time when a man who laid out 1,0001. upon 50 acres of' - land would be more inde pendent, more prosperous, and more useful than many who now held 500 or 600 acres, without possessing a quarter or a tenth of the capital they ought to have. —(Hear, hear.) He would be sorry if the motion of his Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose were ignored. It was clear the Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire was put out of court. He would recommend every farmer to read that Honourable Gen tleman's speech, aided by the analysis in Punch.—(A laugh.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not promise much better; he had nothing to offer; he said he could not give any remission of taxation; and then the lion. Member for Montrose stepped in in the kindest manner—(A laugh)—and declared the necessity of re ducing the national expenditure. Ho (Mr. Cobden) was satisfied that they could not benefit the farmer ex cept by a general reduction of the public expenditure. They would find, taking two countries where land was of the same intrinsic value, and which were placed under precisely the same circumstances, that the land in that country where taxation was the lightest would fetch the highest rent; and the reduction of the national expendi ture was the only means by which they could stave off that tendency to a reduction of rent which must arise in the transition state. The Hon. Member for Montrose proposed the repeal of the malt-tax; and for that mea sure he (Mr. Cobden) was an advocate. Some farmers deluded themselves into the belief that they paid the malt-tax; but many a coalheaver on the Thames paid far more to that tax than many farmers.—(Laughter.) lie supported the repeal of the malt-tax because ho was desirous to get rid of excise taxes as far as he could, but mainly because he wished to diminish the waste of the national expenditure upon cumbrous and unnecessary armaments. He was satisfied, from study ing the proceedings of that House for 35 years past, that if they wanted to reduce expenditure they must get hold of a tax as a grievance—they must bring a pressure to bear upon the Government, and means would be found of effecting a reduction. In 1816 or 1817, when the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) was Secretary at War, ho passed his estimates, after a great battle fur a reduction in the number of men to be voted—the Noble Lord now at the head of the Government having fought most manfully in favour of that reduction.— (Hear, hear.) A week afterwards the property-tax was brought under the consideration of the House, and it was rejected by a large majority. What was the re sult? Within a week from that time the Secretary at War (Lord Palmerston) came down and withdrew his army estimates, in order to amend and reduce them.— (Hear, hear.) If, then, they enforced upon the Govern ment the necessity of reducing the malt-tax and other taxes, they would obtain a reduction of the public ex penditure. He would, therefore, vote for the amend ment of the Hon. Member for Montrose.—(Cheers.) Mr. DISRAELI said that, having carefully listened to every speech that had been delivered on either side throughout the debate, it appeared to him that the ob jections to the resolutions he had proposed might be classed under three heads:—First, the justice of the allegations contained in those resolutions was denied ; secondly, the practicability of his suggestions was ques tioned; and thirdly, it was maintained that, even if prac ticable, the scheme would not be in any degree beneficial to the farmer.—(Hear, hear.) The denial that there was great injustice in the burdens which were solely laid upon real property came mainly from the Honourable Member for Montrose and those who agreed with him in political opinions. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Hume) said that the land of England, whether culti vated or covered with buildings, had been purchasedth sub ject to certain imposts, and that, there f ore, er eliable to the had no right to complain that t h hc b , y eownersit would be admitted payment of the charges to which objected. He thought, however d estate subject to cer taine (Ir. Disraeli) had that if a person had purchase charges, and if, ntry were very materially circumstances of the " o u mplain of the imposts which in course of time, the general altered, he had a right pa y. t o c omplain of the iniposts which ay. The Hon. Member for Mon hecertain charges to which a person trose d an estate a few years ago, was aware he who purchase but the Hon. Gentleman forgot that w a h s a r d eq e u n i u r m ed er t a o ted would be liable ; many persons had purchased land when laws existed the only effect and pu r p ose of which were, according to the to. Member himself , to ra ise the rents of the country. _(Bear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli) did not find, lhow ever, with that exception, that the allegations that real property was subject to burdens from which other pro perty was exempt, and that the apportionment of those burdens was most unjust, had been denied by any party in the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had clearly acknowledged that the burdens of real property were considerable ; and the Right Honourable Gentle man stated that the Government had taken those burdens into consideration, and had already furnished a com pensation to the landed interest, because, in im posing the income-tax, they had not charged upon that interest a higher rate in the pound than was charged upon any other class of persons.—(lronical cheers from the Protectionists.) In what a position were the owners of real property placed, when equality with regard to them was absolutely considered an act of yw r'~~ • ~ mercy and favour !—(Hear, and a laugh.) Hetaette 40:7 to remind the House that the landed prokrie*.'i rated to the property-tax without any a19V040 AV I P P repairs, while the possessor of other descriplacies ff , S property was fairly allowed to place to his account every source of diminution ; and that, by the second schedule of the property -tax, the farmer paid upon profits which, after the introduction of the property tax, Parliament had by another law totally destroyed. —(Loud cheers.) He was not surprised, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acknow ledged the excessive burdens upon real property, for the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had on a solemn oc casion expressed to his Sovereign his determination, should it be in his power, to rid the occupiers of land of the burdens to which they were subject. The Noble Lord had to night explained that it was his determination, had he then been in power, to have fulfilled the intentions of the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel). The Right Honourable Baronet had taken off a tax of 100,000/., which was now contributed to the county rate ; but did the Noble Lord mean to assert that that 100,0001. was an equivalent for the burdens of which he (Mr. Disraeli) complained? Was that the Noble Lord's redemption of the Bs. fixed duty, which rendered him so celebrated, and which the farmers were now quite ready to accept ?—(Laughter and cheers.) It could Rot be supposed that the Right Honourable Member for Tam worth and his Friends had at all changed their opinions with respect to these burdens on land ; and he (Mr. Disraeli) thought, therefore, it would be admitted on all hands—except by the Honourable Member for Montrose —that these burdens were unjust.—(Hear, hear.) B a t an objection had been made to the practicability of what had been called the scheme which he (Mr. Dis raeli) had proposed. Within a few weeks some memor able resolutions had been placed upon the table, and he had requested; the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), before House went into Committee, to favour them with some details of his views and of his plan.—(Loud cheers from the Protectionists.) The Noble Lord was, however, mute; nothing would tempt him to give any explanation until the House was in Committee. The Noble Lord could not be surprised that he (Mr. Disraeli) had fol lowed so eminent an example—(Laughter and cheers) — and that he had been equally chary in offering those ex planatory details which the Noble Lord, with a gay au dacity, had expressed astonishment that he had not afforded.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been complimented on the admirable manner in which he had demolished his (Mr. Disraeli's) scheme. He certainly must congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his success and the victory he had achieved without meeting an opponent.—(Cheers.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid it down that he (Mr. Disraeli) was prepared to raise the sum of 5,000,0001. or 6,000,0001. by an income or property-tax, and then proved satisfactorily to the House that that would only be taking out of one pocket exactly the sum placed in the other. Nothing could be more admirable than the argument, nothing more sustained than the logic, and the enthusiasm of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer was interesting.—(Laughter.) As the Chan. cellor of the Exchequer performed the operation, he (Mr. Disraeli) saw a man, as it were, squaring the circle, or on the point of discovering the philosopher's stone; but there was ono objection to the triumph which the Chan cellor of the Exchequer and his friends claimed, and that was that he (Mr. Disraeli) never in any way stated that he intended to raise any sum whatever by an income or property tax; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer hav ing completed his whole process of ratiocination was so convinced that he (Mr. Disraeli) had not intimated such a project, that he was at last obliged to confess the hypo thesis with which he had amused the House had no foundation. He therefore left the Chancellor of , the Exchequer to the full enjoyment of his triumph. That Right Hon. Gentleman had demolished a case which never existed, and he (Mr. Disraeli) left him to crow on the dunghill of the Consolidated Fund.— (Cheers and laughter.) It had been his object, in in troducing the present resolutions to the House, to show that the real property of this country was unjustly treated. Had he limited his endeavours to establish that point he should have been perfectly justified, leaving it to public opinion to influence the Minister to perform that duty which would then have devolved on the Ad ministration. But, considering that he represented the feelings of a considerable party in the House and coun try, he thought it respectful to the House to state that in Committee he was prepared in detail to explain the remedy which the grievance required; and he also thought it fair to intimate that one moiety of this great amount of local taxation for national purposes should be taken off the shoulders of the real property of the country. He showed that 10,000,000/. were levied on little more than one-fourth of the income of the country, and that the other three-fourths were privileged property in this respect; and he said that he, supported by the Hon. Gentlemen with whom he acted, consi dered that the moiety of this local taxation for national purposes should be supplied to the localities by the Con solidated Fund; not for a moment intending that it should bo a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund, but that it should be raised from the three-fourths of the property of the country at present not contributing to wards those national purposes.—(Cheers.) And now he would briefly show how this scheme, so completely demolished, would have operated for the benefit of the farmers of England. If 5,000,000/., being half of the local taxation for national purposes, were raised upon the property not now contributing towards them, that would have been 6id. in the pound. He admitted that the farmer, for his profits in trade, would have to pay that Gil on half his rent, but how would that operate? It appeared from a petition presented that night that the farmers of Bradford, Wilts, complained of paying at present Bs. in the pound for rates. Now, if his resolu tions were carried into effect those farmers might rise on the following day and feel that they relieved from one half of their rates. They would then be paying only 4s. together with 3f d. in the pound, and under his plan real property would pay no more than that moiety which the owner of it, through his medium, most generously of fered to accept.—(Hear, hear.) Would that, he asked, be no relief to the farmer ?—(Cheers.) So much for the scheme so remarkably misrepresented. Bat the Chancellor of the Exchequer, assuming that he (Mr. Disraeli) was about to propose to put a tax on the fends, expressed surprise that he should have made himself re sponsible for a proposition drawn up by some rash spirit. He begged to inform the Right Hon. Gentleman that he (Mr. Disraeli) was responsible for the resolutions he had placed on the table, but at the same time he was satis fied to think that he had done nothing in this matter without the counsel and advice of men second to none in that House in ability and experience—the Gentlemen with whom he had the happiness to act.—(Hear, hear.) If he were allowed to go into Committee ho woald meet the Right Hon. Gentleman on the point he had alluded to, and he begged to say that he called upon no one to go into Committee to touch the public funds. He asked the House to do an act of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home De partment had delivered some opinions on the law respecting the rating of personal property. That Hon. Gentleman was mistaken in his view; we had the evidence of Mr. Coode before the Lords' Committee; personal property was liable to all these rates; stock in trade was liable to every rate constructed on the basis of the poor's rate, and was exempted only from the poor's rate by a fleeting and transitory statute, which the Go vernment would shortly cull upon the House to renew— reviving this great controversy, which would never cease till justice was done.—(Cheers.) To come now to the third point. Was it true or not that the tenant would be benefitted by the proposed plan? Here he (Mr. Disraeli) had to deal, not with the practise of life, but with the dogmas of the schools; and applying the abstract science of political economy to circumstances having nothing of an abstract character, it was very pos sible to anounce a result susceptible, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, of severe demonstration—and susceptible of nothing else.—(A laugh.) There were disturbing causes in human life which would baffle the most abstruse calculations; and the most powerful in its influence, and most general in its character, was time. If rents rose immediately that the cost t of production was diminished, what had been said of influence of this plan upon rent would be true ; but the adjustment of rent depended upon there being a new proprietor or a new tenant—occasions of rare occurrence; and the present generation of farmers, we might rely upon it, would enjoy this remission to the full, and for many a long year after it was absorbed in that rent, which for ought one could tell, when the term had arrived, might not even exist.—(Hear, hear.) p k u n b o l wieno t r h d teenr.they There seemed a morbid antipathy, on the part of Gen tlemenA opposite, to rent under any circumstances.—(A hear.) we increased the wealth of the country.— 1 of as a useless laugh.) If by legitimate means we raised_rar,es;--urely The proprietors of rent were spokenneloassea might be class ; but in a country like England wetievenctass was a very useful very useful, even if they r_ (Hear, hear.) A Conserva If lion. Gentlemen were op class—(Hear, hear.)e of a productive classes.— territorial aristocracy, let posed to the existence them say it out—(Opposition cheers)—it would be well what was :to be met—(Hear, hear)—but landed pro prietorsthey who believed and even for Imperial conservation, would to bo the popular rights, for an independent class of struggle it was a stake worth had to know that struggling for.—((.heers.) The Hon Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), who had made a most interesting s peech, but upon which it was impossible now to touch except lightly, had said that since the repeal of the corn-laws the country had really been flourishing, especially in those classes whose interests were so dear to him, and that wages never were higher. But if so, how was it that the poor's-rates had risen seventeen per cent.—(Hear, hear.) Perhaps that skilful rhetorician, never at a loss, would revive the masquerade of Goat acre, and ask how, with a neglected and debased pea santry, we could wonder at the increase of poors'-rate. But the Poor-law Commissioners reported that it was " mainly caused by the general depression which existed in the maufacturing districts—(Opposition cheers)—and by the influx of poor persons from Ireland in a state of destitution"—(Hear, hear)—the depression of the popu lation the Hon. Member stated to be so prosperous —the destitution of Ireland, ruined by the repeal of the corn laws.—(Renewed cheers.) The lion. Member (Mr. Hume) had produced an amendment to the resolutions before the House, and it was said that some Gentle men from Surrey or Suffolk were going to vote for it, desiring the repeal of the malt-tax as an immediate remedy, and persuaded that the original motion went to the increase of the income-tax. Would they, then, go before th e i r constituents and avow that thq, ivfottehde for a scepti ca l amen d ment, which prom ised relief Would they moment en taxation upon real p ro p er ty w as undue! of distress told single out the lead e r w ho in this .eve they were the lauded i n t eres t ho did not b sub jected to unjust burdens?—(hear, hear.) The Chan cellor of the Exchequer had i nformed the House that ' e taxation did there was no country in E uro p e not fall more upon th e land than in England. Fl us h e d with triumph, and fiery with victory, he felt that a t th a t moment of his speech he might dare a good deal — (A laugh) --- visited several countries a nd he. agricultural, And said we little thought how much of h.s~~`~