The Express.
London, England, 1849-03-15 00:00:00

meat is his philippies at 17, Old Bond-Menei, teueferred hie
denudation W ohs midland eounties,'Where he amend a
inning of hrmiesthet it was all up with them, that they
would net get a farthing beyond 48s. for the very hest wheat
' they might grew thi=. Whilfellpoll a farmer present, a
oeighboor el the , said : " Wells come, I 'll give you
a. kg eU the eat you grow this ;earl good and bed."
"No." " Wei!, I'll give yin 474.' " No." " 485."
-0 No." "Ch.' " No." " Well, 50e. good and bad all
round ;" and, after some hesitation, 50.. was agreed upon.
(Luebke.) It was yea), clear that this gentleman's
the differed mathislly beta his theory. (Hear, hear,
sad laughter, and cries of "Name.") He would men-
tion the gentleman's name to his hon. friend opposite,
who, us *mitt, knew the gentlemen very well. (Laughter.)
In relation to the distress said to exist throughout the coun-
try, he bad obtained from venous parts of England, through
bis hon. friend the President of the Poor Law Board, returns
of poor law expenditure, which showed that the distress had
by no means been on the increase, and especially not in the
urieultand districts. (Hear, hear.) He excepted from his
calculations the north of England—not because distress
existed there at all in the way assumed, but hecause it was
partly manufacturing in its character—and he would take
some purely agricultural districts. Take, for example, the
county of Lincoln. There had, indeed, been a recent in
crease in the poor rates there, bat there had also been an in-
crease on the rental rated to no less an amount than 85,00 W.,
the amount having been, in 1841, 2,127.0001., and in 1847,
2,212,000/. Taking the period from 1834 to 1847, there had
hien in the county a decrease of 19 per ant. in poor law
exrenditure, the rate there being, in 1847, Is. 2id„
while the average for England was is. 61d. It
was further worthy of remark, that it appeared from a
paper laid on the table of the house last year, that the nun
ties In which, during the pest 14 years, there bad been the
most distinct decrease in poor rates, were the six moat purely
agricultural counties—Bedford, Sussex, Suffolk, Norfolk,
Essex, and Cambridge. Again, taking the 60 unions of
Cambridge, Essex, Norfo'k, and Suffolk, he found that the
total number of in-door paupers in the three last weeks of
February, 1848, was 13,511, whereas the total number in the
corresponding weeks of the present year was only 13,012,
being a decrease of 499 ; the out-door paupers in the same
anions, during the former period numbered 8,983, in the
latter 8,947, a diastase of 36 • no great number, indeed, but
diaiinetly against the assertion that distress was on the in-
crease. Aga* taking 8 unions in Bedfordehiro, and 5 in
Northamptonshire, the number of in-door paupers, in the 12
weeks, 4 before and 8 afterChristmes, 1848, was 2301, in the
12 corresponding weeks of 1848 9, the numbers were 2,010,
being a diminution of 291 • the average of outdoor paupers
during the same periods being respectively 1,264 and 1,161.
(Hear, hear.) He himself felt that as landlords they must
rely on the increasing consumption of the increasing popula-
tion of this country. If these are well to do, if they have
not high prices to pay for the necessaries of life, they will
buy large quantities of those articles of consumption which
the landowners could alone supply ; but it was essential to
this that the necessaries of lite should be easily available to
them. (Hear, hear.) He believed the well-being of the
mimes essential to that of the higher classes. (Hear,
hear.) If that well-being could be aecured by the sacrifice
of some of the luxuries to which hitherto the higher clews
had '
oven accustomed, the a tenure should be made freely and
fully. (Hear, hear.) The population of this country must
have the necessaries of life at a cheap rate. It was a matter
of the highest political importance that thn end should be
attained and maintained. (Hear.) In the well-doieg. of the
crest body of the people—in their prosperity—in their cot.-
tentment—lay the best security, the only security, for the
tranquillity of the country, the safety of property; he would
only add that while all classes had alike ap.rmanent interest
in these objects, there was no clan so strongly and imme-
diately interested in them as that which enjoyed the perma-
nent and inalienable interest of being the owners of the soil.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CHRISTOPHER said he would be very brief in hi'
observations on the speech of his right hon. friend who had
just sat down. By that speech he had put an end to any
doubts that might have been entertained as to the reality of
the disuses that existed amongst the agricultural classes is
England. The reason of that distress was that agriculture
was the only unprotected interest in the whole leingdom,
and now that the former protection granted to it had
been withdrawn, the agriculturists were compelled to
look more aarrowly into the burthens which they
exclusively bore, and to endeavour to obtain some re-
lief from them. Ho would give his right hon. friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer credit for having availed him-
self of his statistical details with sincerity and candour, but
still he meet say he had not dealt fairly by the proposal
made by hie hon. friend the member for Buckinghamshire,
who had asked the house to agree to his motion as a measure
of good policy and conciliation. His hon. friend did not
propose to introduce any new system of taxation, but only
to enable the house either to go into committee and
listen to the plan which he bad to propose for the alleviation
of the local taxation, or else to revert at once to the ancient
and constitutional practice of the country, and to lay no bur-
dens upon the land but those which the land was anciently
accustomed to bear. His right hon. friend opposite had ad
mined the truth of much of what his hon. friend had stated.
He admitted that the local taxation was unjustly borne for
the greatest part by the land. He admitted that there
was 10,000,0001. annually levied on the land by way. of
kcal taxes, and that 2,000,0001. more was raised
by the lend tax, so that the amount of 12,000,0001. stated by
his hon. friend the member for Buckinghamshire to be ex-
clusively levied on the land was admitted by his right hon.
friend opposite to be correctly estimated. But the right hon.
baronet had attempted to mystify the proposal of his hon.
friend, which was that there existed certain classes in Eng-
land who were altogether exempt from the payment of the
local taxes levied on the land. His hon. friend Bad stated that
there existed privileged chases in this respect, end not
that he had soy wish to increase the income tax. The right
hon, baronet had asserted that the decrease of local taxes
would not relieve the occupiers of land, but would only tend
to increase the rents of the landlords. He would not deny
that rent was a material element in the profits of lend, hut
he would ask whether it was possible at present for any land-
lord to raise his rentals? There were districts in which rents
were only 7s. an acre, whilst poor rates were much
more in the pound, and how could any decrease
in those rates increase the rental? But hie reason
for supporting the motion of the hon. member for Bucking-
hamehire was that being precluded from all hope of inducing
the legislature to retrace its steps, the only chance which the
agriculturists had was in the reduction of local taxes. The
right hon. baronet opposite had urged the impossibility. of
making the fundholden pay a poor's rate. He must remind
his right hon. friend that long before the fundholders
were known to exist, there existed an ancient and
constitutional law of England which enjoined every man 1
to contribute to the relief of the poor according to his
means, and there was no reason, legal, constitutional, or of
expediency, why the fuadholder shouldn't contribute to the
relief of the poor according to his men.. (Hear, bear.)
He would call the attention of the house to the opinion of a
very high authority upon this point, that of the Rev. Mr.
Jones, chief tithe commissioner, who, in his eviience
before the Lords' committee, stated that the law of
England anciently war, and still continued to be, that
all profits and personal property of every deshipton
was snared to the maintenance of the poor. In former
times land represented the great bulk of the nation, there
being 3,000,000 suiculturists and 1,000,000 of other classes
oat of the 4,000.000 constituting the population of England.
In the present altered state of things Mr. Jones stated that
the non-agricultural classes were double in numbers to three
of the agriculturists, and consequently that the capital which
was employed in putting the operatives and other non-agri-
cultural chum into activity was of an amount heretofore
unheard of and unparalleled. That the law of England
was that all classes of property were liable to be rated to the
poor in equal proportion • and that, although the principle
was admitted, the practice was to exonerate a vast amount
of the capital thEs employed in setting the operatives to
work, and it escaped the poorrate altogether—that, inasmuch
as real property was tangible, it could not escape; so
that it had to bear the principal burden of the poor
rates, which was a very serious injury to the land-
holders. (Hear.) These were the opinions of Mr. Jones;
and he ventured to say they could not be controverted
(Hear, hear.) The highway rates, which were also
an exclusively local burden, were unjustly so, because
as his boa. Mend had demonstrated, the high road was kept
in repair for the bunfit of the 18,000,000 of which the whole
populationof England was composed. It was, therefore, a
sufficient reason for him, looking at the facts he had stated,
for asserting that the fundholders, who were not now taxed
for the relief of the poor, ought henceforward to bear their
proportion of the linnets. The Chancellor off the Exchequer
had asserted that if the kcal burdens comlained of who
more equally distributed, the remission of taxes on land
would not affect the occupying tenant. To refute
this assertion he would only ate the opinion expressed by
one of the witnesss before the Lords' Committee, who was
not a farmer nor a landowner, but who was a poor-law com-
missioner. That witness stated that in the year 1835, when
the price of produce was low, the poor's rates in the districts
referred to by the right hon. gentlemen were 17s. Bd. in the
pound, whilst the rental of land was only 15s. an acre.
Would any one tell him that in this state of things the
occupier of land would net be relieved to the extent of
one-balf of the poor-rate if the proposition of his hon.
Mend the member for Buckinghamshire was carried into
execution 1 That proposal would be the greatest boon
_ which the occupying tenant could receive at the bands of
the legislature. A Right Hon. Member : Yes, as long as
his lease lasts.) (A laugh.) But in addition to this, he had
other reasons for supporting the proposal of his
hon. Mend, and one of them was, that all other
branches of production and manufacture were pro-
tected in England, gave and except agriculture.
Olass, carriages, buttons, cutlery, and steel, were protected
to the extant of 10 per cent.; silks ts the extent of 15 per
cent.; woollen cloths 10 per cent• whilst wool grown at
home was not protected at all. There was another point on
which the agriculturists had a right to complain, namely,
that they were not allowed to grow tobacco. The Chairman
of the Excise had stated that if tobacco was grown in England
a differential duty of le. Bd. per lb. would be required to keep
it in the market. He would very willingly make the
government a present of the differential duty, if the land
was permitted to grow tobacco in England. There were
now two propositions before the house, that of his hon.
Mend, and that of the hoe. member for Montrose, who had
made bis fleet appearanes in the new chanter of the farmer's
Mend. (A laugh.) The latter proposal was to repeal the
malt tax in connexion with the reduction of the
sweatily of the empire. Man might be said
with rasped to the inequality of the malt tax.
It was a most odious tax. It was an excessive tax, being 70
per cent. upon the value, and that levied in a most ingsui-
twist manner. It was most unjust and oppressive in its
open/dos; bat it had been hinted by his right hon. friend
wait*, and broadly stated by others, that it was mainly
paid by the eonsamer. That he denied. (Hear, hear.) He
would put a parallel case to the manufacturers on the
opposite side of the house. Suppose his right hon. friend
wen to impose in Wm of the malt tax a duty of so much