The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-03-13 00:00:00

Er modificatior., t' • .•uld be deemed necessary
. .•,e Committee, and adopt-
light he ennl64"
0, if the Corhtni: hall 41.11 it proper and ne-
"scary so to dn.
Mr. COKE PLUM Ft, plained.
Mr. COKE (tl•I'oik) said, notwithstanding the
Firuments he he' ' eard urged by the Right Hon.
ntleman, his olp;.ction to this tax still remained the
to He was perfeetly convinced the operation of
would be to take away all inclination to agri•
ltural improvements. There were at this mo-
t fearer horses employed than when the 14,t
cook place, and there could not be a doubt
ut that, from this additional tax, the number
would continue to decrease, which must of course
prove an injury to the general interests of agriculture.
It would prevent the bringing of matte from any
considerable distance, and render the carriage of
every kind of manure more difficult and tedious,
from the decrease in the number ot horses. He was
thoroughly satisfied, that if the tax took place, the
same quantity of corn would not be grown u had
Kenheretofore, which Must prove highly injurious
r the conntry, and contribute to enhance the price
et bread. It o as, be said, an old, and he believed,
a true saying, that when poverty once get, into the
stable, it will not be long before it makes its way
into the house. He warned the Right Hon. Gen-
thman, that the farmers might be indttced, in many
Flaw, to substitute oxen to perform the otlices of
aericulture. In every part of a country like this,
tire would always be a prevalence of local pre-
judices—he could volsh they were not so com-
mun. In Norfolk, where farming was carried to
a great degree of nicety, he believed there was
no such thing known as the use of oxen in husbandry.
but it was otherwise in many other counties, and
might be brought into far more general use in those
counties where there was more grazing land. If
the farmer did not receive a fair remuneration, there
could be no doubt his coin would grow less. From
all these considerations, therefore, he should ter.
sandy vote against the Motion.
Sir W. W. WYNNE said, the argument of the
Right Hon. Gentleman had not altered his opinion
in the least. It was neither more nor less than a
tit on improvements. One farmer may do better
nada it thin another, and he insisted that in grai,
ing farms a great deal may be done by oxen. In
mountainous countries the tar would fall very heavy.
(.1 laugh.) Fie hoped also there would be an al-
lowance made of horses under a certain sire.—
r
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
in explanation, said, that all horses under thirteen
hands are already excepted now, and there was no
alteration made by this Bill. The same was to be
said as to the alteration of farms of a certain size,
which would be an object of consideration in the

not
.
B the
mu/
with

o the
?titled

!
upon
:11 or
err?,

[itr_

!"7

I :, •

(0,4
uutr

t: la
ices
re.rs
Wl,,
but
.wer

1 the
aril
IN.ve

iu~

C

pot-
find
e as
iow
nun

h
t be
Pot(
It to

.-q**4

s•P-
cad&
• di

Committel.
Mr. FOX considered this as a tax on land, and
'should therefore objeft to it generally ; but more
particularly so, as halting heavier on arable than
grazing land; and still more, as coming with a
greater prissure os3 small than large Gnus. It ap-
pt eyed to him to be a severe tax on agriculture, and
as etch he could not agree to it.
Mr. HANBIT Y WILLIAMS considered the
tax not only as very :impolitic, but as highly op-
-1r e‘ive also, eattictibuly tan ilarall arable farms.
ki
*Cornwall and Wales, farmers were obliged to use a
ctrtain number of horses, :ma if compelled to cur-
tail that number, it must of course decrease agri-
culture.
Mr. DICKENS spoke shortly against the Motion.
Mr. GILES opposed it as immediately pressing
hard on agriculture. and will not soon fail to fall on
consumer. He had, however, one objedion to the
ta: entirely, and that was, a hreach of faith with the
farmers. They were only to be taxed three-fourths
of their rents, which was an estimation of his profits,
and you cannot lay a direct tax on the profits of the
fatmer without making an alteration in his property
tax ; for if you lay a tat on him, you diminish his
profits, which cannot he done without a breach of
faith. He therefore objected to the Motion.
Mr. CANNING contended that the arguments
of the Honourable Gentleman who spoke last, prov.
ed ton much, and therefore ought ant to weigh in
the consideration of a measure of this nature.
'Mr. GREY said that, with regard to the opera-
tion of the Bill, he agreed with all his Honourable
Friends, that a more injurious tax could not be pro.
posed. If we are to bear additional burdens, that
cannot be done without attending to the principal
resources of the country. He was doubtful as to
the real policy of the Corn Bill, but sure be was, in
Isis own mind. that the less Parliament interfered in
matters of that kind the better. In every view of
it, be thought there could not he a more impolitic
tat than the present, for it would operate al a dis-
c suragement to agriculture, and consequently prove
highly injurious to the country.
The ATTORNZY GENERAL spoke in fa-
vour of the Bill, and denied the. force of Mr.
Giles's argument, as to breach of faith with the farm-
ers, as it could not be supported without allowing
the farmers to bee:envied from every tax, but the
Property I'ax.
Sir R. BUXTON said the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had supposed that 31)0,0001. on Horses would
tall lightly on the farmers; he thought that it would
be quite the reverse, and was sure they would be
greatly injured by this. He was very arerse from
opposing taxes when necessary to he raised, as was
the case at preteat ; but he could not avoid it when
CI-% were laid on one particular class of' petsons
•re than another. He conceived this to be a direct
tk on a;' ulttire, a heavy burthen on the landed
Interest, mind therefore must oppose the Motion.
stir. BAS EARD said he thought the farmers had
been singled wit in this tax, and that the 'object of
it was to operate by a side wind, as a land tax,
which wag a direa injury to the landed interest.
If the farmer Was to be remunerated for this tax by
'seeing the price of bread, he should objea to it as
*di tea tax on the poorer orders of the people. It
might, perhaps, add I 000 men to our army, for when
persona were very poor, they must enlist; but he
would never be an advocate for raising men in any
such way. He should therefore vote against the
Motion.
Mr. FULLER spoke shortly against the Bill.
Mg . SPENCER S TANHOPE objected to the
tar.* on account of its unequal pressure. Land in
light country was easier worked than it was
Et • •-e. of a heavier soil. The farmer in one can
.0- with one half the horses he can its another. The