The Sun. — London, England, 1849-03-09 00:00:00

W aS of opinion thee the f - 7i mean. of cra...ee s'.,!: the colonists; anti, to evoici doing a inn. Oiscie tionary power ought to b e g i ven t o th e G overnment t o carry out the eystem under those modifications they considered necessary for the welfare of the colonies and of this country.—(Hear.) Mr. HUME said, much that had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman convinced him of the necessity of having all the documents and information on this sub ject it was possible to lay before the House previous to bringing on a discussion of this nature. They ought to be aware what modifications or changes had taken Place in the system, and how these changes and modifications were operatiug. In regard to all these they were totally ignorant ; and he was glad, in one respect, that the subject had been intro duced, for it now came out that the Government having inflicted considerable evil on the colonies by means of these alterations in the system of transportation, had ,adopted anoth er s y s t em . B ut w h at was t h e use o f f o l. lowing this ever-varying course in regard to this ques tion? Some years ago they had a model prison erected at Pentonville, in a most healthy situation, and they had Convicts sent there, and kept at three times the expense Which ordinary convicts cost the country, and all that in order to test the working of a new system. Well, cer tainly sufficient time had now been given to test the working of the solitary system, but yet, up to the pre sent hour, no report or resolution had been come to in order that they might decide whether that or the other system should be adopted. If the Pentonville system was good, it ought to be introduced into every prison in the kingd om . H e contended that, b y the system they had adopted, they were keeping in this country a vast number of those convicts who ought to be sent out of it as speedily as possible.—(Hear, hear.) Let them go to Pentonville, and what did they see? Why, a large number of those convicts employed at a very gen teel and agreeable employment of making mats, an ern- PIOyMOZt 80 genteel and agreeable that a set of ladies' maids might be set to it w i t h equa l propr i ety , an d yet they called that hard labour, and considered it a just and proper punishment for criminals.—(Hear.) His opinion W as that they might keep those parties in prison at such Work for 10, 20, or 30 years, but their attempts to re form them by such means would prove an utter failure, as they had already done. All the information he had gathered from those in charge of prisons, aid, conse quently, well acquainted with the treatment of prisoners, convinced him in that opinion. Not many days ago, he paid a visit to one of those public establishments in West minster, and a gentleman happened to be there at the time who was a great advocate for this reformatory sys tem, and said he had himself seen a reformed prisoner. The governor of that prisoner immediately said he would go 40 miles to see such an individual, as he did not be lieve such a being existed, and he (Mr. Hume) was of his opinion, there never had been such art individual. The abuses of the present system, however, showed the ne cessity there was for the appointment of some officer of justice or some individual, no matter what his title, to claseify and arrange convicts as to their mode and place of punishment; but, at all events, he would not have them remain in this country to undergo the sentence of t ransportation. He considered the ph.n of assignment a . very good one. The Right Hun. Gentleman had said that it was a system of slavery, and so it ought to be.— pear, hear.) He did not like th a t feeling of morbid humanity which would endeavour to screen these who merited punishment from its infliction. He agreed with the Noble Lord that transportation ought never to have been discontinued; but at the same time he would not send convicts to the colonies in such numbers as to in commode or prove injurious to the colonists. A great Liexpense was incurred to the country in consequence of lo fail ure of the punishment of imprisonment, and the r inging up of those subjected to it so often for new offences. That, he conceived ought to be remedied by tr ansportation, but he would keep no convicts in the icountry longer than th e y cou ld b e sen t a way to the Co.. ` n nywhich had been selected for them.—(Hear, hear.) Sir JOHN PAKINGTON considered that the state of the question for the last few years had been most un satisfactory. He highly approved of the change adopted by the present Government, an d w i s h e d, as w e ll for hi s Oien information as for th a t o f t h e coun t r y, t o k now h ow f a r that prin c ipl e o f separat i on to which the Right Hon. 2 r onet (Sir G. G rey ) h a d alluded shou ld b e carr i ed. 1 e Iron. Baronet then alluded to the opinion of the AIM V • Mr. Nealer on the system of separation and pu nishment in the penal colonies, and said he perfectly ~ agreed with that c l ergyman, for he (Sir J. Pakington) 'nought that the best and most judicious system was to t reat t h e conv i cts in such a manner as their va rious dispositions seemed to require, so that their cha freeler and good conduct might be subservient to their uture emancipation an d i n d e p en d ence; an d t h oug h t t h at anY system, w hi c h would tend to i ncu l cate on the minds of convicts a spirit of self-reliance and industry, C ould be engrafted on the plan now carried out by Go vernment, that a great and useful result would be the Consequence, not only to those convicts, but to society in those penal colonies. ale GLADSTONE did not think that full justice h ad been done to the probation system of 1846, which had been carried on under Lord Stanley, and had conti oued during a part o f h i s (Mr. Gladstone ' s) per i od of ffi c,e when he sa w th a t th ere were many an d great e vils arising from the system of transportation he had suggested to his colleagues to put a suspension to trans portation for 18 months, because it had been a system productive of horrors and of iniquity, which he felt fully assured m ust u l t i mately destroy itself as a system, dhe sh ou ld add that Sir W. Dennison approved of the alteration made in that system by Lord Stanley, for he (Sir W. Dennison) had stated to the then Govern ment, th at a considerable improvement was effected. 'tie regretted be found it to be his duty to state that he c onsidered there was too great a precipitation on the part of the Noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Grey) with regard t o t wo measures -- t h e fi rst , t h at o f breaking up the penal settlement of Norfolk Island, and, ea s econdly, th a t o f convey i ng conv i cts from N ew S out h Wales to Van Diemen's Land; for the Noble Lord (Lord Gr ey) said, the convicts should be removed from by I s l an d to T asmania, which order was disobeyed ,3 7 Sir W. Denni son , an d the resu l t was, t h at t hi s Judicious act of disobedience was subsequently highly t:;Pparov Strung eof by th e N o bl e L or d ( L or d G rey), wh i ch and evident proof that the conduct of the Secretary for the C o l on i es h a d b een prec i p i tate i n !hat part of the bu s i ness . lie would next state that lie felt pleased that there was no intention on the Part of the Government to entirely do away with the f ormer system, and h o p e d t h at t h e N o bl e L or d ( L ar d he would e xt en d t h e area o f transportat i on, b ecause ue felt sorry to say that there was at present a consider able deviation from the prudence and wisdom of our an clators when the stat e s of N or th A mer i ca rece i ve d con but so few in number, comparatively speaking, W ith the settlers, that they were totally lost among the population. He feared that the ruinous and demoralis ,eg system of confining convicts to a small area of terri ‘urY would bring odium on the name and idea of trans- Portation, and that, therefore, particular caution and ti v t'rY possible effort wou ld b e requ i re d on t h e p art o f ue Se cretary f or the Colonies to maintain the system af transportation without exciting prejudice and disgust le the public mind. It was for that reason that he re gretted that the fou n d a ti on o f suc h a p ena l co l on y as -I. aseaania was not carried out; for he did not think that be op en i ng o f a new d our was a measure that should ue discouraged, particularly when he hoped that Go• l'"nneent would take into their consideration the import -Bece of openin g as many receptac l es f or conv i cts as pus -2°le, lest the system might become so obnoxious that it m ust be given up altogether. discussion, but r ose t o as k w h ether V an D i emen ' s L and wer e to b e a receptacle for convicts ; and whether there were any other colonies to be opened for transports ? , Mr. Alderman SIDNEY would have wished to have hea r d th at a proper system of prison discipline was about to be established, so that there might be an end of repeated re-committals. As to th e gao l o f N ewgate an d the Rouse of Correction, they were amongst the monster evils of the system of transportation in this country. Mr. P. SCROPE referred to the state of the Irish gaols, and asked who was to be regarded as responsible for them ? .„ Sir G. GREY , i n answer to the Hon. Member for ureitwich, stated that the utmost period to which soli tary imprisonment could extend was eighteen months, but it might be reduced on tho report and recommenda tion of those who made a tn_nthly examination of the prisoners. In answer to the Hon. Member for Dumfries, he stated the three colonies to which convicts were to be sent were Van Diemen's Land, New South Arales, and the Cape of Good Hope. As to the question relating to the Irish gaols, he referred to the report of the in aPectors of prisons. The motion was then agreed to. MALr TAX. Mr. DISRAELI, a t n i ne o ' clock, rose and presented a Petition which he had just received, and that was signed by nearly 2,000 persons in the actual occupation e t; lend in the counties of Cambridge and Suffolk, com- Pleining of the malt-tax as most unjust to the agricul tural interest, and praying for its repeal. The petition was, amid loud cheers, laid on the table, AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS. Mr. DISRAELI—Mr. Speaker, I rise with the hope th at I may induce the House of Commons to consent to It great measure of justice, of conciliation, and of policy. : - (Rear, hear.) It is not my intention on this occasion `c enter into any detailed demonstration that great dis_ tre ss exists in the agricultural districts of this country th-ether that distress e x i s t s or no t i s no t necessa ry for e e t argument ia which I mean to recommend to your tititention the resolutions that I have placed upon your au le• But, Sir, I sh a ll not en t er i nto t h ese d eta il s , b e e m l lse I believe it i s generally acknowledged that that stress does exist.--(Hear, hear.) It is only a few ni ghts since that an Honourable G en tl eman , a M em b er e a this House, came forward and offered his voluntarily ;"denc e in that behalf—a witness certainly not to be ei4Peeted of any morbid sympathy with the agricultural a , s ses—the Honourable Member for Manch e st er . H e n e .d us the other night tht he could not for a moment Z n neeal from himself that t a here was distress am ongs t the - 4 Rvieultur a l classes of this country—distress most severe t 3 i Paramount; and lam willing to leave the stat e o f this to d e p en d u p on hi s t e stimony. Nor, Si r , am l on occ as i on a b out to enter i nto any i nqu i ry as to the n eall es of that distress. That also is an investigati on fft at all necessary to the argument which I mean to f,: r in support of the resolution which I have placed ~ore you. But if I did require to know what are the ail is es of that distress, I also would appeal to a witness sits upon the benches opposite, and who upon this a r Vect would, I am sure, be admitted by all to be a wit -1-8,4 Of great and unimpeachable authority on this head— the sing (Mr. Cobden).—(Hear, h b hear.) That he"Wedt R id. Gentl eman on a recent memorable occasion, when te e ' ln lnunicated to his assembled fellow-countrymen the political programme of his intended course, spoke of tile tanners ef England with much er sympathy—(lronical s ) — lamerned their condition, and acknowledged, in ion nf than mac t ~ ~_. ~~. eir dis• m, and lot, ex nontbst I sufa - M 9,1 la' subject ins ani tied on re were Vmore simila r arone 4 rnraent by th e 'or al [ s pew , i nvi ted f d 20' vas 0 jet ployri•;ula 'h Lord being ut th e leo to that in the ihouldt receiv e esseir ideas' ee, bu t thei ttrarft were 0 dig' 0 till should ;nano obje c the iscoU' in one fe ted b. 3 ed, 11 1 f oie° ,re al- Lrd to 6 veil THE SUN, lip a mariner which did infinite credit to his earldom. and -. fi ;•::: jars Jlr, as to the fact and the Causes ei ti.e lace Nor in toe third place, is it my intention to-night to enter into any controversy as to the character of there causes to which this gentleman has referred. It is not my intention to night to introduce any controversy as to the policy or the impolicy of those changes in your laws by which, ac cordine, to the Member for the West Riding, the agri culturalb classes have not been fairly treated.— (Hear, hear.) I hold the same opinions upon those measures such as I have frequently intimated--the same that I have attempted to develop in the House on more than one occasion. I still believe that your new commercial system is founded upon erroneous principles.—(Hear, hear.) I still believe that, in constructing tba'. sy stem, you mistook the rules which regulate the beneficial and advantageous interchange of commodities between nations. I still believe that in attempting to ob viate the inconvenience and injury of hostile tariffs by opening y our ports, you have taken a course which diminishes the efficacy of British industry. I still believe that under your system the native labourer is more unable to give his produce for foreign produce than he has been heretofore, and that in that proportion he has become tributary to the foreigner —(Hear, hear)—that he has less command of foreign produce, and that inasmuch as the precious metals are foreign produce, he has less command of the precious metals. I still believe that you have embarked in a career which must end in the degradation of national industry, and may lead to the catastrophe of a financial convulsion.—(Hear, hear.) I still believe that you have but one way to extricate yourselves from the embarrass ments you are already experiencing, and the calamities which I believe are impending, and that is by a frank recognition of the principle of reciprocity as the funda mental principle of your commercial code, and that the only legitimate means you have to fight against hostile tariffs is by countervailing duties. Still I retain these opinions, and 1 have expressed them not only on this but on every legitimate occasion; and I shall take every legitimate means I possess of making them known to the country, and of obtaining for them from the public that approbation to which I think they are entitled, and which I believe they will ultimately achieve. Be cause, however, I may differ from the changes made of late years in your commercial system, I am not one of those who wish to recur suddenly to the past, by appeal ing to the passions of any suffering classes or taking ad vantage of any party combinations. I wish, on the con trary, that the change, when it is effected, shall be perms nent—permanent because it is called for by the convictions of the country. I look, therefore, to legitimate means to obtain that result, which, for the sake of the country, I 5611 believe to be inevitable. I look to public discus sion, to private investigation, to the failure of economic prophecies, and to the fruits of sharp experience.— (Hear, hear.) But having frankly expressed my opinion upon these points, showing, without offence I hope, that whilst I wish to avoid controversy on those subjects which have no connexion with the measure I hope to introduce to your notice, I am still unwilling that any one should suppose that I shrink from the opinions I have always expressed to this House on the matter; because the reflection of every day, the ob servation of every hour, tended only to confirm my con viction of their truth.—(Hear, hear.) I think I may be permitted to say that, after the extraordinary changes of 1846, which so greatly affected the agricultural inte rests of the country, they were at least entitled to this result—that the system of taxation should not rest un justly and unfairly upon them.—(Hear, hear.) That is the first proposition which I lay down. My second is, that the unjust and unfair apportionment of the taxa tion of which they complain, must be removed and re distributed, and that in that re-distribution they may find, if not a complete, a considerable relief for the suf ferings they at present endure. The question I have to place before the House requires in fact very little statistical detail to introduce it to your notice, though the interests with which it deals are vast ; though the results at which the measure I recommend aims, are no doubt very considerable—the question in itself is extremely simple, and like every thing which is based upon first principles it is clear and easy of apprehension. It seems by accounts now in all our possessions—by the accounts of .the parochial or rating year which termi nated on Lady-day, 1848, that a stun of not less than ten millions sterling has been levied by direct taxation upon the real property of this country.—(Hear.) The poor rate, the county-rate, the highway -rate, the church-rate, and that variety of rates wi h which your are all fami liar, and to which it is unnecessary, as I conceive, I need further refer, and which are levied generally under the head of poor's-rates—these altogether at the termina tion of the last rating year formed a sum of not less than 10,000,0001. sterling levied—and levied only— upon the real property of this country—(H ear , h ear ) —and in addition to that sum of 10,000,0001. sterling under direct taxation, which it strictly and legally speaking is, we have also a local tax—the land-tax —local because it is apportioned to localities, be cause it is assessed in localities and by local jurisdic tion, and because each locality is limited in the liability for its quota. The real property of this country, then, pays at this moment 12,000,0001. sterling of taxation, to which no other species of property is subject. Now, Sir, this question will be placed before us in a manner which will convey the necessary result in a moment to every Gentleman's mind, if we ascertain the annual amount upon which these 12,000,0001. of taxation are levied, and compare that annual amount with the whole annual income of the country. We have all of us the materials in our possession by which we can form this calculation and arrive at the result. Every Gentleman knows the 12,000,0001. I have referred to is raised upon the rental which is contributed by real property to the amount of 67,000,000 s sterling per annum—that that 12,000,01101. is assessed, in fact, upon a rental of 67,000,000/. sterling per annum. Now we have no difficulty in ascertaining what is the probable value of the income of England at this moment. We have a Parliamentary paper moved for by an Hon. Gentleman opposite—No. 747, which gives us the amount of the income-tax paid by England and Wales to the 25th of April, 1846. The paper was laid on the table of the House in 1847. It is mere mechanical operation to calculate the amount of income from the amount of the property and income-tax contributed under the five schedules by England in 1846, because the total income of the country is represented by that tax. The total income of England and Wales, then, in the year ending 1846, was, according to the last return under the five schedules, 166,888,9581. But, in asmuch as 67,000,0001. sterling is the assessed rental of real property in England and Wales, in which every class of property, without limit, is included—even cottages being assessed to the poor-rate--in order to calculate the relative position of the assessed rental of real property with the whole income of England, it will be necessary to ascertain how much income is afforded by those properties which aro not assessed to the property and income-tax. Upon that I shall take the rule laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman the member for Tam•• worth (Sir R. Peel)—a prudent and cautious authority —when he was introducing the property-tax. On that occasion Sir R. Peel, in making his estimate, said he took the incomes under 150/. a year as a quarter of the income of the whole country. Now, a quarter of the income of the whole country—of the 186,000,0001. ster ling which appeared under the five schedules of 1846 would be 62,000,000/.—(l give the round numbers), and that makes the income of the country amount to 249,000,0001. Now, the question I have to ask is this: why should those 12,000,000/. sterling of direct taxation be levied upon a portion of the whole income of the country, which is in fact little more than one-fourth of the whole?—(Hear, hear.) That is a simple question; it is a question in which the country is deeply interested and which a great portion of the country is now asking themselves; it requires no mystification of statistics to answer. The whole income of the country is 2.19,000,000 L, and yet for the purposes to which I have referred you assess only one fourth of that whole amount.—(Hear, hear.) On what principle of justice can you defend that system? What are the objects of this local taxation? The maintenance of the poor of the country; the maintenance of the means of internal communication; the administration of justice, and the maintenance of the sacred fabrics of the country. Are not these affairs in which all property is equally in terested?—(Hear, hear.) Upon what plea —upon what principle can you vindicate a system that makes one fourth of the income of the country liable to theso great charges?—(Hear, hear.) This question has been incl. dentally introduced in the House before, and has been, I must say without offence to any one, but superficially treated. There have been attempts made to raise up an idle and odious controversy between landlords and manufacturers, as to who contributed most to the poor-rate, and as to who ought to contribute most — endless and vexatious controversies of that kind. Now it is agricultural land that bears most of the burden; then it is maintained it is household property that maintains the most grievous portion of the burden. I will not enter into those assertions—l am not one of those who want to depreciate the importance of house property—who wish for a moment to shut my eyes to the fact that during the last half century there has been a great change in the relative position of the different sections of real property. Far from wishing to disbe lieve or conceal that from myself; I look upon the result as one of a most satisfactory kind—as one proving the prosperity of our country—proving, by the best of tests, that there is a great amount of fixed capital in the land of this country.—(Hear, hear.) I agree that dwellers in towns are assessed fur the support of their poor, for example, in a manner which I am not at all surprised makes them clamour. I willingly admit that these con tributions are bad, nay more, that they are grievous; and I quite sympathise with the possessors of real pro perty in towns, who are so unequally and dispropor tionately assessed. The measure which I shall introduce, if this House will go into COmmittee of the whole House to-night, is one which will relieve the suffering towns that will meet those complaints I hear so much of from Manchester, Bradford, and other great cities and marts of manufacturing industry. I sympathise with their sufferings—l acknowledge their grievances —and I say it is intolerable to the possessors of real property in these towns that they, being only one-fourth of the property of the country, should have the whole of these grievous burdens upon their shoulders. So with another very im portant species of property, which is very amply and ably represented in this House, and which is in perpetual hot water on the subject of rating to the poor—the rail way interest. Nothing can be more monstrous than the amount to which the railway interest is assessed to the support of the poor—l agree in all their complaints, but not is their remedy. I do not see any justice in the railway interest seeking compensation for their burdens by throwing the burdens altogether upon the agricultural interest. I acknowledge the grievance• of the railway interest that they should have to pay for the whole property of the country, while they are only a section of the fourth part of that property; but if they will support me in this great measure, I mean to propose they shall obtain relief. It is the same with other individuals; it is the same with companies who supply us with water or with light; they are perpetually wrangling about the poor- LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1849 rates. But some of my friends think that they have on tteit companies. I let 1 tor the pro: cribecl interest of railway property. I think the way in which they are rated is most unjust, and the same with gas and water companies who bear their portion of the taxation. But the real property, which is one-fourth of the wealth of England, is exposed in the way I have described to much heavier taxation. It is unjust, and we must have the means of redressing it, because the measure I sug gest is founded on justice, and therefore will ultimately succeed. If one calmly considers this case—if it were not in England that it occurred—it is as it one was travelling in a foreign country, and that, for the first time, we became acquainted with the system of finance. It is so remarkable that if we were in a strange country and learned that, independent of those who bore their share of the whole taxation, there was a private and separate revenue to an enormous amount assessed on one fourth part of the property of the realm, I ask, what would be the conclusion at which we should arrive ? Why, Sir, we should say, this must be a part of some country—probably a remnant of some conquered race—some proscribed portion of the com munity who have been conquered, and who have borne these burdens for centuries—these are the fruits of a vassal-war which have been removed. But who would suppose that this peculiarity was the privilege of the proud and rapacious aristocracy of the country ?—the people who made all the laws ; and also made the laws for their own advantage, according to the doc trine of those who pretend to instruct it?—(Loud cheers.) But, Sir, the most anomalous part of this un paralleled state of affairs is, that it,is not the law of the country. The laws of England have always been the laws of common sense; they never anticipated conclusions so monstrous and so oppressive.—(Hear, hear.) I need not now, considering those whom I address—l need not re mind them, I say, that the old statutes never anticipated or enforced any such injustice. We know that the fa mous Act of Elizabeth was conceived in the wisest spirit, and expressed in the wisest terms—that all the inhabitants of the country, according to their means, should be called upon to contribute to the maintenance of the poor. We know, that, in comparatively modern times, the Act of William and Mary established a land tax—only in common parlance called a land-tax—a tax on all property. It was not a question of contribution from land only. The land-tax extended also to persons holding certain offices. Under the Act of William and Mary—l believe, Sir, that the judges to this day pay that tax, though I believe the tax was assessed upon the allowances which were established in the time of William and Mary, and not upon those granted by our gracious Sovereign. And, in modern times— in our own time—you have declared all property, of all kinds, should be made liable to those imposts which only real property has contiuued to pay. I need not remind the House that stock in trade escapes assess ment to the poor-rate only by an annual Bill, which is passed also by this rapacious aristocraey - .—(Cheers.) That rapacious aristocracy exempt stock in trade from the poor-rates, and they inflict this burden on that pro- perty in which they are peculiarly interested. I ask, then, i❑ the first place, with what show of reason can it be advanced, that, for the objects for which these rates are raised and taxes levied, the local property in a dis trict should have to bear additional burdens? Whether a man's property be in broad acres, or whether he receives his revenue from other sources, be is equally liable to the maintenance of the poor. A district, you say, uses cer tain roads—the man living in it is interested in the admi nistration of justice, and for the good of his soul we hope he goes to church. No human being will argue against this. Expedients you may suggest. You may say that the system has gone on, and that there is a difficulty from which it is impossible to extricate ourselves—that there is nothing more difficult than to tax personal property in a locality—that it is not only inquisitorial but unjust to do so, and that it is impossible of accomplishment. These are arguments which you may use, but no man can maintain them on the principles of justice. No one can lay it down or maintain it for a moment, that either property should be exempt. The system may be con tinued, but no one can argue that it is just. Now I will admit fully, frankly, and fairly, that the inconveniences —perhaps even the impossibility—of rating personal property in a locality in any satisfactory manner, are in dubitable. But I am of opinion that if we pursue this important inquiry with a less superficial spirit than we usually, front various circumstances, regard such matters in this [louse, we may, perhaps, find that the difficulty will disappear, or that a solution of it may be found. In the first place, I confess it appears to me that a great deal of difficulty arises from a confusion of terms, from the world persisting to associate with what is called local taxation, as a necessary consequence, the idea that the purposes for which local taxation is enforced are of a local nature. Sir, I doubt whether it can be supposed that the purpose for which taxation is locally levied is of a local nature. On the contrary, I think it is levied for purposes of a much wider and more comprehensive character. I take the first, for example, as being the most important tax—l mean that for the maintenance of the poor. I know no el priori reason why the mainte nance of the poor should be the duty of a locality. The maintenance of the poor is either a matter of police or of social or religious duty. In looking over the ancient statutes of our predecessors, we find they viewed it in the limited light of police regulation. To allow people to perish of famine is to produce mendicity and violence; and certainly the most convenient way to defend our persons from assault, and our property from rapine, is by a poor-law. But it is not to be understood in that limited sense. The matter is viewed in a much higher light in this House and through the country.—(Hear.) It is viewed as a social duty, justified by state policy, and under the sanction of religion.—(Hear.) But if the maintenance of the poor be a social duty, it is the duty of every one according to his means.—(Cheers.) And, Sir, in a country like England, an ancient country of complicated civilisation, it is totally impossible that you should lay it down as a principle that a particular dis trict shall support its poor, unless you can prove that that district produced its poor, or unless you can insure that local district from metropolitan and imperial legislation, which may have the effect of intering with employment. Why the very transition from war to peace throws out a whole district from employment, yet that portion of the country has not waged war or declared peace, and there fore is not responsible for the maintenance of those people. That is a view of the question which, if fol lowed up in a country like England, cannot fail to throw light on the circumstances of the case. The very altera tion of a fashion will seriously affect some districts; the invention of a machine in the north of England —an invention in Lancashire, will throw a part of Northamp tonshire out of employment. In many parts of England those rural counties are held up to reprobation if they do not employ their poor, and the existence of the dis tress is attested to as a consequence of the late system of protection. What is the fact? Why, that there are parts of the country which have been the seats of ma nufactures. The manufacturers have left a population created by manufactures, and these the land have never been able to - absorb. That is the cause of the misery of low wages. In Lincolnshire, where there are no manufactures, on the contrary there we find the highest wages. But what I have named is the real cause of the pauperism which exists. So, in the county of Sussex, where the iron manufacture once flourished, they have left a population which the land has neverabsorbed. Then you call upon a district to support the population where there is not much employment. I might say with refer ence to this subject also, that either the nation must support the poor, or throw them upon the employers who have profited by their labour; yet in 99 cases out of 100, where the labourer is thrown out of employment, the distress of the employer immediately follows. In the ease of highway rates the same view of the question immediately offers itself. It is easy, indeed, to make flippant observations, and to ask why should not the farmers pay for these roads—(which they do!)—it is not historically true that these roads were made for the farmers. If the agricultural classes had the monopoly in these roads, if no one else used them, if they were private roads, then there would be a valid reason for these rates. But inasmuch as everybody had the use of them till the railways came into operation, and that these roads were covered and traversed by the clerks and agents of the great manufacturers; inasmuch as that by Jaw you have settled that a stranger, though he contri butes not one farthing to these rates, can indict the pa rish if the wheels of his cart or his carriage are injured —you must admit that public ways are for public use. Besides, I want to know what item of expenditure can bear this anal y sis of local purposes and local objects. Now I will state the case of a gentleman resident in a midland county, who, in consequence of the distress which pervades the country, looks at our estimates ; he opens the estimates, and finds a sum of money of 500,0001. or 700,000/. for foreign packet service. He says, we know that three-fourths of the letters are carried either to the metropolis of London or to Liver pool, and that the other fourth would not be carried at all if it were not for the merchants and the commercial interest. What have I to do with the packet service? It would be much better that a rate should be struck upon London and Liverpool for this purpose. This is a clear case of local taxation, Or he might, in a midland county, and like the King of Bo hemia, who has no seaports—he might object to har bours of refuge. And he would say, you might as well strike a rate on the Cinque Ports, and thus get rid of the difficulty. The same man might object to the ap pointment of inspectors of factories. But, no, Sir, he does not take the limited view which financial re formers do.—(Cheers.) Ile goes on from year to year in a wise and national spirit, contributing to all. But if you pursue the inquiry to the subject of expendi ture, that is of much greater extent. Now, I take this ease. About six years ago the merchants of Liverpool were very much vexed, and they though they were very much oppressed in South America. They were re evived in Downing-street with endless memorials ,• and they called upon the Government to interfere by force, and defend their property. The Minister who then pre sided in Downing-street was a very experienced able man—till then—(llear)—he was thought to be a cautious statesman. But, on these representations of the Liver pool merchants, he was induced to interfere in the troubled waters of La Plata. What was the conse quence ? There was a vast expenditure, and great in dignation evinced. Six years having elapsed, and my gentleman in the midland county, unfortunately aware of this expenditure, because it was thought unnecessary to the interests of commerce, finds that all he knows is, that some Manchester gentlemen attack the Government on account of their armaments, and denounce these armaments as being only kept up to support the younger children of the aristocracy.—(Great cheer• ing.) I say that is a clear case for levying a separate rate on Liverpool it is a clear case of local taxation, and we could bear this bur den of 10,000,000/. or 12,000,000!. if the rest of the taxation were apportioned in the same spirit. But look at the case of the Manchester school. A few years back the Manchester merchants were of opinion that the Chinese empire, possessing 300,000,000 of human beings, were indicated as their best customers, that our home trade was as nothing, if each Chinese spent as much sycee silver as amounted to a sovereign in the year; and they accordingly pressed the Government, • , sem. reLl intrigui , into a war with China. Now, my country gentleman, not being so dull as he is supposed to be, might have said, " I have great doubts on this subject. I inherited a magnificent library from my father, and, from what I have read, I think it is not likely, though China may possess 300,000,000 of inhabi'ants, that they will carry on a commensurate commerce in exchange for our goods." Now, what the country gentleman said, hap pened ; and never was there greater disappointment evinced than by the Manchester merchants. They said it is true that, having obtained a reduction of the duty, we now consumed 30,000,0001b5. of tea. But, Sir, my country gentleman might say, " I doubt whether this consult ption of 30,000.0001b5. of tea is good for our nerves. Why not take off the duty on malt, and return to that Saxon beverage to which our Saxon ancestors owed their long lives, and whose example I desire to follow? When I find that this China affair ends in a considerable expenditure, may I not call for a rate to be struck against Manchester?"— (Laughter.) Sir, it is the same with the county. rate—it is the same with the church -rate. The county rate is one upon which, with the permission of the House, I will for a moment venture to touch, because I am sure, from what many Hon. Gentlemen have said even in this House, where we are all so well informed, especially upon this subject, the greatest mistakes sometimes occur. Now the county rate is a rate that is levied, is an ancient tax that is raised in this country —a direct tax—for the purposes of justice. And, Sir, about the year 1835, it is known to the House that the Government of the country (aware of the great and unjust burden on the land ofof t t h h i e s principallyeraxteee,otiooot justice) agreed occasioned to pay one-half b y the expenses e- f the cost of criminal prosecutions, and that was done without much of the public attention being given to it, and the general impression in the House and the country was, to a great degree, that the landed in terest, as usual, had taken advantage of the Minister in a weak moment, and by some means or other had got rid of one of the great burdens, and foisted it upon the Consolidated Fund. —(gear, hejsr,) Now, Sir, that was in the year 1835. I want to show you how the county rate is expended, and for what it is expended. And in order to clear this point from those misconceptions that are so popular in the public mind, I will just call the attention of the House to the manner is which the county rate was expended at a period so recent as the year 1835. I take that period, because subsequently to that year, in the year 1846, the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth made another change of a peculiar nature with reference to the county rate, to which I am about to refer. Sterne, to illustrate the misery of capti vity, takes the case of a single captive; and to make you understand —to put the case popularly and clearly before the House,—to show you the nature of the county rate, I will just refer to my own experience of one day at the assizes, and this will show you how the county rate acts upon th e county, and how the far, cruses e i a n () whatf that x deg I take this case. A woman came down to a hamlet in th e county with ep re e e nd t i lie rtuceo. county may be interested i n which lam connected—to a place well known to every body--Salt-hill, on the borders of Berkshire and Buck inghamshire. She was a stranger, and took a very hum ble lodging in, I believe, a public-house. A. few days afterwards a man came down by railroad; he had been previously connected with the woman; he visits her and murders her. lie leaves Salt-hill. The electric tele graph allows him to be arrested the moment he arrives at the station in London, the murder having been discovered immediately after its perpetration. He is, therefore, arrested in Mid dlesex; but the crime having been committed in the county of Buckingham, the man is tak en b ack to Salthill, and h e i s co mmitted to the county gaol at Aylesbury. The case was one of a difficult kind, for the murder had been committed by means of poison. It was necessary that scientific men should be sent from various parts of England. It was a very expensive trial. But the prisoner was convicted, and outraged society was vindicated by the execution of the Quaker Tawell.—(Hear, hear.) The clerk of the peace (al though one-half the expenditure of the criminal prose cution was defrayed, and as I have often heard it inti mated, unjustly defrayed, by the Government)--the clerk of the peace sent in his .bill (and it was a fair and reasonable bill), for the county quota for that prosecution, and it amounted to 3001. Now, I want to know what had that county to do with the crime?—(Hear.) The man did not live in Buckingham shire; he was not born there; he did not even reside there ; but that is one of the modes in which the county rate was only very recently expended.—(Hear.) I will take another case. On the same day it happened that a man who was proceeding on one of the canals which pass through that county with a cargo of coals, and who had committed a robbery, I think, in either the county of Rutland or in the county of Northampton, was arrested in the county of Buckingham. He was kept a considerable time in gaol, and the bill for his trial and conviction was upwards of 1001., he having no more to do with the county of Buckingham than with the House of Lords.—(Hear, hear.) I will now take another case; and, let it be remembered, these are three cases which occurred on the same day, and I have taken them because they all describe and illustrate different points. A draper in a flourishing borough town, in the same county, had a burglary committed in his shop, from which broad cloth to the value of 201. is stolen. The burglar is discovered, arrested, sent to the county gaol, tried at the county sessions. The whole ex pense is paid by the county rate, while the very goods, the stock in trade of the very tradesman, to vindicate whose rights of property this expenditure was incurred, are exempted by you and your laws from the county rate.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") Now my argument is this—if the vexation and oppression of counties paying only one-half the expense of criminal prosecutions are so grievous, so essentially and palpably unjust as the genuine ones I have placed before you, what must they have been before the change of 1835? Doubly as grievous, doubly as oppressive, doubly as tyrannical. Nay, even the change of 1835 has been de scribed as a positive means by which the landed interest foisted one of its burdens on the national Treasury.— (Hear, hear.) Now, I admit that in the year 1846 the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth took off the other moiety of the county rate, so that no further bills can be sent in like that which I have mentioned in the case of the Quaker Tawell, and no further cases of oppression can occur like that of the bargeman. But how was the act of tardy justice done? The Right Hon. Baronet acknowledged that the justice of the case was un impeachable. He did not pretend for a moment on that occasion that there could be any question about the jus tice of the public paying those costs and expenses which were incurred for vindicating justice and the rights of society. But the Right Hon. Gentleman gave that relief to the landed interest upon a memorable occasion, re specting which I intend to have no discussion, as far as I am concerned at present, beyond saying that it was the memorable occasion on which he deprived it of that just and important protection which it had so long enjoyed. This act of taking the other half of the county rates as to the expense for criminal prosecutions was the most important measure of compensation given on that occa sion. —(Hear, hear.) The claim was so just that it seems to rue that all that was required was, that it should have been stated properly to the House, and every gentleman on that side, whatever his political opinions, whatever his occupation, must have felt something not only unjust, but something shabby in making one particular class pay the expenses in which the whole nation is deeply interested.—(gear, hear.) But having now on two separate occasions, with a very long interval between —with great difficulty, notwithstanding the influence of very powerful ministries, done this tardy justice in this respect to the owners and occupiers of land, what is the result, so far as relief goes, as to this very tax? The county rates are increased in amount—(Hear, hear) — notwithstanding the Government have themselves under taken the expense of criminal prosecutions. This in crease in this impost is accounted for by gentlemen who never inquire into the subject, by our neglect in attend ing to our affairs, by the levy of this tax not being placed in the power of the community of the county. The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) has frequently urged that point.—(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, in the first pl ace , l et me s h ow you this, th a t although the State ha s un d erta k en t o re lieve the coun- ties frO - in the burden of criminal - prosecutions the whole of the county rat es o f thi s country , w i t h the exception of one important item, and that relates to public works of a particular description, and of uniform benefit—l mean county bridges —the wh o l e o f the county rates of this country, generally speaking, are, are still expended for the administration of justice.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.'') I have before me the last abstract of the accounts of the treasurer of the county of Buckingham, and I have reason to believe it is a fair representation of what occurs is every other county. After a certain expenditure on bridges, very heavy in a county through which the Thames passes, and where, for one great bridge, they have been obliged to expend, although not a rich county, 27,0001 .; the expe n dit ure o f t h e coun ty, with that exception, is something like 12,0001. a year; the whole of it c ause d b y expenses for the a d m i n i s tration of justice, clerks of the peace, coroners, maintenance of gaols, lock-up houses, conveyance of prisoners, &c. The allowance from the Government for prosecutions, and for th e ma i ntenance of persons under particular circumstances, is less than 4,0001., and, therefore, still two-thirds of the expenditure of that county (and every county is in exactly the same position) is, in fact, for the administration of justice, which is for the interest of all, and in which all are con cerned. But, Sir, we are told that the county rate, not withstanding the relief given by the Government, is still increasing, and that it is so because those who admi nister the funds of the county are unequal to the occa sion. That i s th e p os ition of the Hon. Me m b er f or Mon trose. But I tell you, if you go to the finance comm i ttee of the county of Buckingham, you will find y our matc h . They are men q u ite equal, even to the H on. M em b er for Montrose.—(Hear.) But, yearafter year, y ou f orget you have been passing laws in this House forcing those districts to erect most expensivs, public buildings— (Hear)—and giving them no option whatever on the subject. The Hon. Member for Montrose talks of the management of funds. Why, all that those magistrates can do is to assemble and as trustees under an Act of Parliament declare a rate to meet the expenditure which you in your legislative capacity agree to.—(H ear .) I do not deny th a t those prisons, built upon a re f orme d model; to whi c h my Noble Friend (Lord MahOn) bas referred in his interesting motion, are of great impor tance. Far be it from me to deny that the advanced philanthropy of the age does not call for these erections, and the institution of this improved discipline; but what I maintain is, that this is a great national object ; that buildings, (llear.) anld then then this is a gr ea t n ational purpose, and th a t not hi ng can be more unfair than that a highly enlighte ne d an d philo sophic senate should pass laws and inflict upon di s t r i c t s the raising of most expensive public L for local ee;sray refuse to t to ie localp l ayfor ttahxattactoesntllys increase. —(Hear.) pur poses. It is raised for national purposes; and I am per fectly aware of the objections which you will make when I make that assertion. The fact is, that the revenue of this country has been raised for a long time under two sJ stetes—the one is the modern system of indirect taxa tion, to which all are subject—the other is the old sya. tem of direct taxation, to which only old property is eubject; which has its coil around old property, and which gulps it at its pleasure.—(Hear). Sir, it a ou'd not be difficult to show how, in the course of time, this anomalous state of affairs has come to pass—how it has happened that real property in this country should cessarily be subject to what is called the general taxation of the country, like all other property ; and yet at the same time, anti eirnultaneeusly, it has been obliged to bear the burden of meth! r reve nue of the enormous amount of 12,000,000/. sterling. Sir, the anomaly I am sure has been long re cognised. um sure at least that the grievance has been lung felt. But the difficulties of dealing with it have been consi dereble, and I am perfectly aware of the remedy which certain Gentlemen opposite will only be glad to oiler me, and which they will say is the necessary inference of my statement—namely, that you should have recourse to a system of national rating. Now, Sir, I have myself the greatest objection to that system—(Hear, hear) — and my reasons are both of an economical and a political kind. I cannot see how you can have the necessary check which is requisite for the administration of funds in a district, if the rating is national; and I am tin • willing to give up local administration, not merely be cause it insures au economical distribution, or is the best means of insuring an economical distribution, but for political reasons connected with our happy self-government of a still graver character. But, Sir, though I admit that our system of self-government and our scheme of local administration are very precious, still, at the same time, I do ask Honourable Gentlemen whether they are prepared to insure eco nomy by practising injustice—whether, in fact, they are going to lay down, as one of the principles of our local system, that in order to insure a good local administra tion of affairs, it is necessary that one or two particular classes of the country should be subject to an unjust and oppressive taxation?—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I am well aware than in placing these views before the House—in laying it down as a principle that real property has no more right to be subjected to this taxation than any other property, I am aware that some lion. Gentlemen, con fining their objections to a p ar ti cu l ar sect i on o f real pro perty, will tell me that land, purely speaking, is favoured otherwise by our law.—(Hear, hear.) The probate and legacy duty will surely be brought forward. Now, Sir, for my own part, as far as I am speaking for myself, and I believe I may say I speak for many others on the sub ject, I am perfectly prepared to enter into an investiga tion of that subiect in the fairest spirit, and join with you in any endeavour for the equitable apportionment of that taxation.—(Hear.) But I protest against that question being brought under the notice of the House to divert them from the question which I have brought forward. Pro pose a Committee to inquire into the whole subject of the probate and legacy duty, and I will support your motion.—(Hear.) Bring forward a measure founded upon sound information and real research, offering a just remedy, and I will give you my vote to carry it. But I airs bound to tell you—it would be disingenuous not to tell you—that having given as much attention as I can command to the investigation of this question, it is my opinion that the result of your Committee would be very different from that which many of you expect. There has been so much said on the subject that I must take this opportunity of stating, that of the legacy duty now paid, to the amount of 1,200,0001. a year, 500,0001. per annum is paid absolutely and directly by the land—that all the leasehold properties and all the ecclesiastical lands are not included in the half million, and pay not only legacy duty but probate duty; and, as far as the landed interest is concerned, there is also included in your probate and legacy duty the stock of every farmer who dies, and the property of every cultivator of land who is subject to these taxes. So that you will find, if you exa mine this subject with the attention which it deserves, and the absence of passion which I doubt not you will give it—you will find, I believe, that it is not the land which pays the least portion both of the probate and the legacy duty. Mind, I have said nothing of your present arrangement of stamps.—(Hear.) I make this observa • tion to the lion. Gentleman opposite in no hostile spirit. I remember my promise. I will redeem it if he ever gives me the opportunity. But Ido protest against the lion. Gentleman, or any one else, particularly after what you have said, introducing these extraneous subjects into the simple question which I urn putting before you. Is it just, or is it unjust, that the real property, one-fourth o 1 the income of the country, should bear these burdens in which all property is equally interested?—(Hear.) That is the question.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman does not for a moment say that all property is not equally interested. The lion. Gentleman it he takes a fine house in Berkshire to-morrow, I dare say will look over the roads in his neighbourhood—perhaps, he will be a pre server of game; perhaps, his keeper may be shot by the poacher; perhaps, he may proceed against the puacher at the assizes; and I dare say he will do all this without paying the highway or county rates. Well, now the question is, which under these circumstances is the best method of settling this long vexed question.—(Hear.) I am afraid that I shall disappoint Hon. Gentlemen who have sedulously announced that all I was going to do was to move for a Committee. But instead of doing that, I shall express my readiness, if the House will go into Committee of the whole House, to offer a plan for their adoption.—(Hear, hear.) And as that plan is founded upon justice, as that plan is conceived in a spirit of conciliation, I hope it will have a chance of success.— (Hear, hear.) I am perfectly aware that in attempting to settle the question nothing could be more unwise than for the possessors of real property to stickle too severely on their right. I admit that in a country like England, where a system has existed for a considerable ; period, however oppressive and unjust that system, that the period of duration does not alter the objectionable character of the arrangement, or miti• gate the nature of the oppression. You will, there fore, be still aware where a system has existed for a considerable time, clear as may be our case, it is neces sary and wise to come forward in the spirit of compro mise.—(Hear,bear.) Ido not say I have a right to say that these taxes are imposed for national purposes—no one can say they are not national purposes for which they are levied. The local taxation is levied on one fourth of the income of the country. We say we are ready to pay our quota, or fourth, but you have no right to ask us to pay more.—(Hear, hear.) We aro ready to pay our portion of the 10,000,0001. or 12,000,0001,—f0r it is a varying amount—but you can not fairly require us to subscribe to a principle which calls upon us to undertake a greater amount of responsi• bility.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I feel it is of the greatest importance to maintain the system of local tdministra tration which obtains in this country; therefore I shall not propose to change the principle of self-government that exists.—(llear, hear.) I anticipate it will remain, and that the rates will be levied as they have hitherto been levied. But considering all the circumstances of the case—considering that the land has some slight ex emptions of little importance, but which may be re membered at this moment—the amount is about 14-1,0001. which it would be inconvenient to rid the land of by a change in the existing law; considering it to be of the greatest importance, the maintenance of the law of local administration—considering that this is a period in which all portions of the empire, and all the great bodies, should be prepared to make great sacrifices— I say, in the spirit of compromise and conciliation, I should propose the present system of local administra tion remaining ; the present system of levying rates continuing ; that the local districts should be respon sible for one moiety of this amount of taxation, and that the other moiety be contributed by ; the Consolidated Fund —(Hear, (Hear, bear)—the Government having no difficulty by the machinery which they at pre sent possess, with some slight modification, to obtain from the privileged properties their quota.—(Hear, hear.) I take that to be a just proposal.—(Hear, hear.) I think terms might have been demanded founded on justice, extravagant and violent. But I think that the proposition I have made is one which all men, after due reflection, will consider a fair and reasonable proposition —a proposition founded on justice and recommended by policy—and which, if put into practice, will give relief to the suffering portion of real property in a legitiuvite wanner, not by demanding from the community, bat by merely granting in recognition of their rights. Nuw I am at a loss to conceive where the great opposition to the proposition will arise. I shall be surprised if any per son of authority rises in this House and maintains that this taxation of ten or twelve millions is not a i'urden on real property which no other property shares. As far Its that section of real property is concerned, whose case is not a whit more advantageous than the other—their distressed condition being undoubted—for we have the opinion of the Right lion. Baronet the Member for Tamwoi th recognising, almost in his last speech on the subject in 1846—fully recognising those burdens. The Right Hon. Gentleman placed his vindication of the corn laws, I believe, so late back as 1844.5—he placed his vindication of the earn-laws, when he was Minister, on the acknowledged burdens of the land, and hence the necessity for that system of taxation to which the reso lution laid on the table refers. But from the Ministers of the present day—l am not going to read old speeches of the Noble Lord, or anybody else—but I am going to refer to a document much more worthy of attention. I will not say one word respecting the past, but on the memorable occasion, which most men thought a grave occasion a letter was written by the Noble Lord, vidently under a feeling of deep responsibily, when the Noble Lord failed in forming a Government in 1846, and lamenting a circumstance in language befitting the occasion to his Sovereign. The Honourable. Member hero read an extract from the Noble Lord's letter, which concluded by stating " that the Noble Lord would come forward without delay with measures to relieve the occupiers of land from the burdens to which they were subjected." Well, then, that is a great authority in favour of these resolutions. The Right lion. Baronet and the Noble Lord are my witnesses, and will be the the answer to the Hon. Gentleman a ho, I doubt not, will get up and maintain the argument that real property is not subjected to impositions which other property is liable to, and front which it is in justice ex euspted.—(ilear.) Well, then, is it that her Majesty's Ministers—they being the most powerful party must be considered before all others—is it that they shrink back from the idea of performing a great act of ,justice by , levying anything like an impost on the privileged pro perties? This is not so, for only last year they made a proposition to increase the income-tax, not to do a grea t act of justice and to conciliate rival classes, or to su but an injured and aggrieved interest of importance, vs for t o fur the hat I never could make out, except that it was the purpose of paying thethe militia.—(Hear and laughter.) But if the militia had been called out, there would have been a militia rate, and real property would have been liable.—(Hear, hear.) Well, considering the Noble Lord and the Right lion. Baronet have recognised the burdens I have referred to in the amplest and full est spirit —considering the p rocess I have indicated for a just apportionment of the burdens to take place—with rnechinery also in existence—l want to know what op position I am to expect from those who are the profess sors of liberal principles—who are the vindicators of men of all classes—whose hearts arc always touched with deeds of inju:tice, and who are prompt to come forward and succour the oppressed?—(Hear, hear.) Are they going to complete the fulness of their liberal posi• lion, and to maintain that this portion of property shall b overburdened? They can have no abstract howility to the process of relief I have indicated. They all admire direct taxation.—(Laughter.) We have suffered from indirect taxation this many a year —we wish you should now taste its fruits.—(Laughter.) Well, under these circumstances, considering the sanction we have in the expressed opinion of leading men —the facility afforded by the machinery of the income-tax —the abstract apprebition in favour of direct taxation avowed by Hon. Gentlemen oppo...ite, I hope this oppressed real property will stand some chance of obtaining redress.—(Hear ) But do not let the House imagine that the sufferings of that class are not considerable. Do not let them con sider that the portion of real property connected with the cultivation of land is not in a state of depression. This is acknowledged without hesitation. You see how eager they are for relief by the petitions for the repeal of the malt-tax. You see how a portion of the country, indirectly interested in the growth of barley, wish for a repeal of this tax. You also find many, not imme diately interested in the growth of barley, who complain that they are labouring under the oppression and weight of this unjust tax ; and that they arc ready to adopt the first remedy that is offered. I expressed in the two reso lutions on the table of the House my sincere opinion on the subject of the malt-tax. I think, when we recol lect that the landed interest of the country—a con e siderablo portion of real property is subject to that amount of taxation to which I have referred in the first resolution. It is a great aggravation of the grievance when wo remember that two .hirds of the revenue of the excise is con tributed by restrictions on the articles of their growth.— (Hear.) I think the circumstances connected with this tax have been so fully and recently before the House that I need not trouble myself with going very much into details with which Hon. Members are undoubtedly furnished. But there is one circumstance connected with the proposition for relief from this tax which must be well understood by the House before they can fully com prehend the feelings of the farmers on the subject. This suffering class cannot but remember that 20 years ago they made application to the House of Commons for the repeal of the malt-tax, and what was the answer? Why that the minister oould not spare the sum from the re venue, he could not spare the 3,500,0001. from the malt tax. The farmers yielded to the representation of Go vernment, and next year the same Government took off 3,500,0001. for other articles.—(Hear;hear.) I will not say whether the policy was wise or unwise on the part of the Government of that day; but was it ingenuous to treat the agricultural class that way? Or are you sur prised they should remember this with mortification and shame, and now have no confidence in the leading men of the country?—(Hear, hear.) What happened in 1834? The Right Honourable Baronet the Member for Tamworth was then Minister, and that period was, perhaps, the most difficult, and not the least distin guished portion of his eminent career. In that year there was great agricultural distress, and the great body of the agriculturists of England were of opinion that the repeal of the malt-tax might give relief. At that time there was what was called a considerable commotion, in modern days it is called agitation, and a Noble Lord who then represented Buckinghamshire, who is still remem bered by the farmers of the country for his firm and consistent conduct—(Hear, hear)—and pledged himself to bring forward a motion for the repeal of that tax, and embarrassing as was his proposition in consequence of the Right Hon. Baronet being in office, still he redeemed his pledge.---(Hear, bear.) How was he met by the Right lion. Baronet? The Right Hon. Baronet exerted all his powers to combat the motion, and he took occa sion to administer a solemn admonition to the country gentlemen. The Right lion. Gentleman told them, " 'rake care what you are about. You may get rid of the malt-tax, but I tell you what you will get instead— you will get a good comfortable property-tax?' —(Hear, hear.) Now such was the effect produced on the agricultural interest, they fled like frightened sheep. Some came down to the House and rescinded all they had promised to their constituents—they dreamed dreams—they saw visions. —(Hear, hear.) Well, what have you got now ? You have got the malt-tax, and with a good comfortable pro perty-tax you have all those burdens of land which you found so oppressive, and which the Right Hon. Baronet admitted were so oppressive. Are you, then, surprised that the farmers of England, after such incidents as these, should be a little ill-tempered? Are you surprised that they should fly to the first offer of refuge and succour— (Hear, hear)—whi n they recollect how often the ques tion has been matured out of doors—how often it has been debated in the House ; that it was once carried and rescinded immediately afterwards—are you surprised that the farmers should feel some distrust in the conduct of public men?—(Hear, hear.) That this tax is an injury to the farmer no one can doubt ; that it is a tax upon the consumer is no answer to his com plaint. All taxes are taxes on the consumer. No one can deny that the tax is an injury to the producer. Mr. M'Culloch, a political economist, and, though a political economist, a sensible man— (Laughter)—one of the most rational of the school, in one of his works on apportioning the amount of duties, considers that land, on account of its being taxed more than any other property, has a malt-tax claim to the ex tent of 2s. Therefore, the demand on the part of the farmers is not so unreasonable. I do not deal with the domestic arrangements of the tax; they are known to all, felt by most, and are the hourly conversation of these men. Daring now frankly expressed my opinion on the subject, as far as the amount of loss and annoyance to the farmer are concerned—at the risk of losing that fa vour which they have accorded to me, I counsel the farmers not to press for the repeal of the malt-tax. And I will give you my reason. I advise the farmers not to press for a repeal of the malt-tax, for I consider the portion of benefit they would receive from the repeal of that tax would be slight, compared with the inconvenience which would be occasioned; and, further, the particular reason why I recommend them not to press for the repeal of the malt-tax is—if they attain the repeal of that tax, they will obtain that which may prove a fatal obstacle to those measures of relief I now propose, and to other mea sures which I hope to be able to propose.—(Hear, hear.) The measure I have proposed to-night will allow mu to take off 5,000,0001. or 6,000,0001. from the real property of the country—from property which will be felt in every village and in every farmhouse in the country.—(Hear.) The benefits that will be produced will be felt in every town—not in sectional departments —not by sectarian arguments—but they will be benefits felt by every far mer in the kingdom, far beyond what would be produced by the repeal of the malt-tax. It will also be felt by great bodios of our countrymen not connected with agriculture—felt as a measure founded on justice and on truths which no one can impugn. —(Hear, hear.) If we deny these men justice —if we deny redress to real pro perty—if this property is to be still encumbered with ten or twelve millions of taxation, from which pri vileged property is exempted, we mast not conceal from ourselves the probability, if we do not meet them in a spirit of justice, that you will have not only an appeal for relief from the malt-tax, but an ap peal for relief from other taxes. You will make an op pressed population run a muck against all taxation. I have been asked by Gentlemen from Ireland whether I intend the resolutions which I have laid on the table to apply to their country. It is my intention they should apply.—(Hear.) I can conceive no reason and know no principle why the application should not be made. If I have not specifically introduced the case of Ireland into the debate, it has been because the analogous rates and taxes levied in that country are levied by a different machinery, that would have introduced different figures into this discussion, and would have complicated a pro position which I wished to keep perfect in the simpli city of its justice, and unclouded with details which might have distracted the attention of the House from its due consideration. But it is my intention, if I am per mitted to introduce the measure I have mentioned in a Committee of the whole House, to follow it up by a mea sure which shall apply in the same spirit to Ireland. I cannot comprehend what arguments can be urged against Ireland being relieved in the same spirit of justice. I do not offer such a measure to Ireland as a boon which is entirely to reanimate her in her present depressed position, but it is an arrangement which she is entitled to claim from the landed interest of this coun try, if they themselves receive it. There are other mea sures which I think might do more for Ireland than even the present; and if I do not bring them forward now, it is because I feel this is not the occasion to introduce them. I was taunted the other night by a gentleman representing an Irish constituency, because I opposed the proposition of Government, and proposed nothing. The criticism is not just, and rather stale. It is neither new nor true.—(A laugh.) It is not our duty, because we do not approve of a proposition, instantly to bring forward a counter one. Wo are in opposition, and our duty is to oppose.—(Laughter.) I can easily understand why Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot approve of an opposi tim being in existence. But we are sensible of our duties, and shall endeavour to fulfil them. I will, how ever, tell Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that there is one means of assisting them which I am most anxious to introduce into this House. It is a great and com prehensive measure. I would wish Hon. Gentlemen on either side to forget their fatal feuds, and join with us to restore their depressed and prostrate co untry.— (Hear, hear.) H a d my l amented friend b een spa r e d e, i s ` us he would h ave i ntro d uced a measure w hi c h I bel ieve would have done mo re f or I re l an d th a n all the ever introduced by Mi n i s t ers f or the lasthalf measures century-- great tur)•— more comprehen s i ve , more b Eliencial than even the (Hear.) But it is useli ss to attemg: cl their party feel measure which unfortunately he cou t l o d a n ss o i t st c l a r r e r l ) a % n — d unless Irish Members will throw which they cannot stand long.—(Hear. ) more injurious to the feel ings and remember their interest;:intl!e laNndo,thninigthcoaunt be more fatal to them—nothing o combining future fort fortune of the country than their not welfared interests of England to main tain) I have endeavoured to place before ties —(Hear, hear. their interests in their mutually-oppressed proper inthanthdelande, e s those o lu ti who ns I in the o r f the'llousc—l trust in a fair, I am sure not in an intem perate!pirit—thev i views an and involved suggestions complain of the grievances have placed on the table of the House. These complainants are the various classes which, combined and united, form what in popular language is called the landed interest— a portion of the nation, which, whether we look to their property, to their numbers, or to the weight and in fluence which necessarily result from their social posi tion or from their interesting occupation, still form the most considerable order of our society.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, it would be disingenuous if in this discussion I at tempted to conceal that the landed interest do not merely complain of the grievances alleged in these reso luti,ns, but of the great injury which they deem they have received from the hands of this House.—(Hear, hear.) It is not my intention now to enter into the policy or impolicy of those great measures which you passed three years ago—which you passed and which they d-plore—(Ch eers f rom the Protection ben c h es )— but it is my duty to represent to you that dull or in different as you may sometimes have chosen to picture them, they have not been unmindful of has hap psi ed in this cou n t r y o f l ater years, of much that hi..?.; been done and said in this House. They have witnessed the rise and development in this country of new proper ties and new sources of influence, and they have wit nessed them without jealousy, for it is a part of their creed that national prosperity depends upon the union of all classes.—(Cheers.) They have not witnessed with any hostile feeling the rightful representation of those interests and properties in this House; but although they have observed these great' incidents, and with no other feeling but such as becomes a manly mind, it is but right that you should understand that it is not without emotion they have witnessed that the whole course of your legis lation for 3 ears has been to invest those new properties with privileges, and simultaneously to deprive them of theirs.—(Loud cheers.) They have not forgotten that they have been spoken of in terms of contempt by Mi nisters of State—(Renewed cheers)—aye, even by the son of a great house—a house that always loved the land, and whom the land still loves.—(Continued ap plause.) They have not forgotten that they have been held up to public odium and reprobation by triumphant demagogues.—(Prolonged cheers.) They have not for gotten that their noble industry, that in olden days was considered the invention of gods and the occupation of heroes, has been stigmatised and denounced as au incubus upon English enterprise. They have not forgotten that even the very empire that was created by the valour and with the bleed and the devotion of their fathers had been held up to public hatred as a cumbrous and ensanguined machinery devised to pamper the luxury and to feed the rapacity of territorial houses. The fact is, Sir, that these things are very hard to digest. They are not plea sant to the humble, and they are intolerable to the justly proud.—(Renewed cheers.) These are things which you may depend change the heart and the blood of nations ; and whether you think their feeling is founded on justice, or whether you deem it baseless, I tell you—and every Member of this House, every good and wise man must feel, that nothing is more to be de precated, that nothing is more dangerous, than that con siderable classes of the country should deem that they are treated unfairly by the Legislature.—(Hear, hear.) It Is a fact, Sir, that the spirit of the landed interest is deeply wounded, and whether they have foundation for their feeling or not, it is one which I would recommend any Minister not to treat with contempt.—(Loud cheers.) I fancy that it has been somewhat too long the habit to believe that you might conduct yourselves towards that interest with impunity. It was a proverb, even in the time of Walpole, that they might be fleeced with all security, and I have observed that at no time is the landed interest more unjustly treated than when dema gogues aro denouncing :them as oligarchical usurpers. But this may be dangerous play if you are outraging justice. You think you may trust their proverbial loyalty. Trust their loyalty, but do not abuse it.— (Cheers.) I dare say it may be said as it wale said 3,000 years ago, in the most precious legacy of political science that has descended to us—l dare say it may be said of them that the agricultural class is the least given to sedition.—(hear, hear.) I doubt not that it is as true of the Englishman of the plain and the dale as it was of the Greeks of the isle and the continent ; but it would be just as well if you also recollected that the fathers of these men were the founders of your liberties, and that, before this time, their ancestors have bled for justice.—(Hear, hear.) You may rely upon it that the blood of those men who refused to pay ship-money is not to bo trued with.—(Loud cheers.) Their conduct to you has exhibited no hostile feeling, notwithstanding the political changes that have abounded of late years, and all, appa rently, to a diminution of their power. They have inscribed a very humble sentence upon their rural ban ners, but it is one which, it I mistake not, is calculated to touch the heart and coevinee the reason of England— " Live and let live."—(Great applause.) You have adopted a different motto—you, the leading spirits on the benches which I see before me, have openly declared your opinion that if there was not an acre of land culti vated in England it would not he the worse for this country.—(llear, hear.) You have all of you in open chorus been always ready to announce your object to be to obtain a monopoly of the commerce of the universe, and to make this country the workshop of the world. Your system and theirs aro exactly contrary. They in vite union. They believe that national prosperity can only be produced by the prosperity of all classes. You prefer to remain in isolated splendour and solitary mag nificence, but believe me I speak not as your enemy when I say that it will be an exception to the principles which seem hitherto to have ruled society, if you can succeed in main taining the prosperity which you desire without the possession of that permanence and stability which the territorial principle alone can afford.—(Hear, hear.) Although you may for a moment flourish atter their de struction—although your ports may be filled with ship ping—although your factories may smoke on every plain, and your forges flame in every city—l see no reason why you should form an exception to that which the page of history has recorded; that you, too, should not fade like the Tyrian dye, and moulder like the Ve netian palaces.—(Loud cheers.) But, united with land, you will obtain the best and surest foundation upon which you can build an enduring prosperity; and you will find in that interest a consoler in all your troubles; in dangers your undoubted champion; and in adversities your ready customer.—(Renewed applause.) It is to assist in producing this result, Sir, that lam about to place these resolutions in your hands. I wish to see the agriculture, the commerce, and the manufactures of England, not adversaries, but co-mates and partners— rivals only in the ardour of their patriotism and the acti vity of their public spirit.—(The Hon. Gentleman re sumed his seat amid prolonged applause.) Mr. HUME said he could not help expressing his utter astonishment at the remedy which the Hon. Gen tleman had proposed for the alleged distress of the agri cultural interest. His speech had not been at all in ac cordance with his resolutions, for his resolutions stated that the burden of local taxation " bore with undue severity upon the occupiers of land ; " whereas in his speech the " occupiers of land" had never been men tioned from first to last.—(Hear, hear.) It had been all about the landed interest, and the plan which the Hon. Gentleman had proposed would benefit the landed in terest alone. What benefit it would confer upon the tenant-farmer he (Mr. Hume) could not possibly ima gine. The Hon. Gentleman had asked with what justice they could call upon the landed proprietors to pay the local taxes he had enumerated. He (Mr. Hume) would say that they were bound to pay them upon every prin ciple of justice. The lands were obtained originally upon condition of rendering military service. That, for the convenience of all parties, had been commuted into the payment of certain taxes; the lands that had since changed hands had been bought with the burden of these taxes upon them, and under proportionate deduc tions for the same, and, therefore, the landowners had no right now to ask to be relieved of them. The statement of the Hon. Gentleman, then, was all moon shine. It was an appeal to the charity and commisera tion of the House, not to its justice. The Hon. Gentle man had spoken of the roads as imposing a burden on the agricultural interest; but wherever good roads had been established at the expense of a county, they had proved more than reproductive as regarded the value of the landed property. Then, with respect to police es tablishments and the administration of justice, were the same parties not interested in preventing robbery; and had not the property of a county always been bound to uphold those establishments and that administration? It was the ancient lords of the soil who, in the absence of the Sovereign, were the administrators of justice. Bridges were built in early times for the convenience of the lo cality; indeed, there were none of the taxes mentioned by the Hon. Gentleman which did not come within the category of taxes raised within the district for the advan tage of the the district. The tenant-farmers had been hoodwinked and led to suppose that the motion would lead to their relief; but, if the whole 12,000,0001. taxes were removed, what would be the consequence? The very next time the landowner came to let his land he would charge the full rent, including the amount theretofore paid for those taxes. Nothing could be more wild than the supposition of the Hon. Gentleman that the tenant farmers could be so stolid and stupid as not to see through the present attempt. If the Hon. Gentleman succeeded in adding 6,000,000/, to the taxation of the country another income-tax would be necessary. The Hon. Gentleman addressed merchants and manufac turers as if they were the only parties who ought to pay for the pack e t service aid other objects of national con cert.. But what was it that made the land of Englan d five times more valuable than the land of Poland, though it was in itself no better and produced no better crops? which The difference consisted in the enhancedva arose from manufacturers,the o perati Birmingham com merce and which Ma nchester Liverpool. But for had been stigmatized as carrieucce ss, the land of England their enterprise, capital, and influence of on a s ud o f f t dr h o e omnti hna delivered wit hin the last two ay e . speeches had been would beTaos what t e bad spoken of a farm which • worth w a s 1 t h at asthat tho odwsul though gh o f n l o ' u o wt l atinotd brought. the Some st strange ,do o oiin A Reverend Gentlemano , 1 79 , ) was rented at . 0 . .. b hear," from the 1 c a o y m e m ar e'rce and manufactures? The day was coming Up to Opposition benches.) this hour the landed interest b a d had the control of the expenditure and taxation. when justice would be done.—(" Ilear, Ilad not their families been provided for by means of taxes raised from the industry of the country ? It was too much to hear other classes taunted, as if no class were of any avail except the landed proprietors. The Hon. Gentleman did not propose the repeal of the malt tax. He (Mr. Hume), however, would do so, having consistently maintained that the malt and hop duties were two of the worst taxes, and having voted some years ago with the majority of the House for the repeal of the malt-tax, though honourable Gentlemen op posite a few days after reversed their votes and the decision. In 1821 he moved for the repeal of taxes to the amount of 4,000/., which were imposed upon salt, leather, candles, and soap. The taxes on the first articles had been repealed. r o r l i and the soap tax would also hav e b een repealed, if Lord Monteagle had not made a f oo l of himself. —(Much laughter.) He now wished to cl l nas taxationelt•' d am ow o s, un s t oa o p, of bricks,lu ,000,Op0a0pte,r, an imposedd othere repeal e p a a n t andhops, t o w w h i the e n n those imposts were re move d , he would abolish the'Excise department altogether. It wa s not to b e supposed t h at he could succe e d in repealing 10,000,0001. of taxation all at once, but he would abolish the malt-tax as soon as he could get the farmers on his side.—(A laugh.) Agri cultural Members who might vote against his reso lutions must be prepared to encounter strong opposition at the next general election. The farmers were becoming men of sense, and all that he (Mr. Hume) wanted was that the county Members shouldot behave better. To show the pernicious effect th f at h t e h malt tax, it was only necessary to stets increased e con h d only thirty sumption of the article had . . 1780, although the population had per cent, since the in creased from 79 to 80 'per cent. within. same period. t of high duty in Ireland, he would To show the effect state that in 1795 and the five following years, when the duty was 1,. 4d., the everago quantit y of malt con sumed was 4,410,000 bushels. The duty was increased It over , t hon on °; tool , n ceo, oi Coe' Ou r ob in e—Go bleb N ban' a ced Tbo T• - Ded f - tfl ° r th e ; li d eg 100 3 ; Sen. ;I to uofic forte kept d bY, ,atea ,-- _ log, ce 0 ' Cla99 ri me dder abet Pie ao ay; pro. :be r ter' ;b0 30 a 3 ;a i to 'to, PO ra o Ott be 1