The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-13 00:00:00

of producers in this conn'ry who are suffering because
they are plaeed in noequsi cempetition, it is Dot only our
policy as a party, but our duty as English s:ut> ecaea. to
sue inat that interest is placed in its legitimate
p eition.—(Loud cheers.) I mu.t cenfi ,a my
cbeervations, because I do not wish to extend th
to any great length, to that interest, because it is the
interest in which you are mainly concerned. But don't
suppose that in talking of land my thoughts centre in
land. When I consider this question I consider—and
this I say most sincerely and frankly—what I
take to be for the advantage of the commu-
nity; but if I confine my argument to the agri-
cultural interest it is only because you are mainly inte-
rested in agriculture and the products of agriculture,
and because, being familiar with the subject, your
minds will easily grapple with the observations
and reasons which I may be permitted to give you.—
(Hear, hear,) Well, I consider, then, with regard to
agriculture, that it is our duty to bring forward mea-
sures which will permit the British cultivators of
the soil to enter into fair competition with
the producers of foreign countries.—(Cheera.) We
have not the slightest wish to restrict the energy and
enterprise of the foreign producer, provided, when he
comes into competition with the English producer,
the English producer is not overwhelmed.—(Bear, hear.)
That is all we want. Thera is, I apprehend, a vast
majority in this country who agree that there is a
pressure of taxation on the cultivators of the soil which
is not experienced by any other class in the country.
But, I candidly tell you, there are people who say
that is not the case. Bat, if you will permit me, I will
place before you, in a few sentences, and with extreme
brevity—not attempting to exhaust the whole question
—some of the most prominent facts, and if answered by
any Free-trader who is present—and there is none more
capable than the Learned Gentleman (Dr. Lee), and
whom I would listen to with greater pleasure—if, I say,
he will answer me, the meeting to-day will not be
without profit, and I assure you I will communicate the
information I receive to the next Cabinet meeting.
You, the Free-traders who are present, will, doubtless,
give weight to what I say, for, after all, being Bucking-
hamshire men, you are men of sense and spirit.—
(Cheers.) The income-tax in this country is raised on
income in round numbers to something more than 200
millions a year. Now real property, which con-
tributes exactly half of the revenue on which
the income-tax is levied, viz., something more than a
hundred millions a year, is a moiety of the great national
income. Real property, besides contributing to the
general taxation—the imperial taxation of the country—
pave in great Britain alone ten millions per annum extra.
It is, therefore, quite clear on the surtace that if a hun-
ired millions out of two hundred millions, pays ten mil-
lions extra, it pays five millions more than it ought to pay.
It is then said that real property consists of something
else besides land. I admit it does. I will put thecase
with great fairness. Supposing that real property, as-
sessed to the income-tax, is something more than one
eundred millions—l will take fifty millions as a moiety of
it, as applying to land—then it follows, land pays two and
a half millions more than it ought to do. It is
clear, therefore, by the system of local taxation, upon
the question as stated by the Free-traders, that laud
pays two millions and a half more per annum than any
other class in the community.—(Cheers.) Well, that is
a very great burden—a very great burden indeed, when
you are calling upon the cultivators of the soil to
enter into unrestricted competition with the cultivators
of the soil in all other countries.—(Cheers.) Is that
so or not?—(" Yea" and hear.) Now, let me ask you
this question—what is your legislation when you call
upon the occupiers or owners—for if there be
justice or injustice in this respect in your le-
gislation, it matters not whether it falls upon the occu-
piers or owners, for these distinctions exist no longer ;
but lot me ask you under what financial sys-
tem the cultivators of the soil in Great
Britain were asked to bear this additional burden ?
Let me put before you your financial system in this re-
spect, under which you were encouraged to produce one
of the most valuable articles which the soil brings forth.
I allude to wheat; but of late years you are told, that since
the repeal of the cern-laws the British farmer complains
that the price he gets for a quarter of wheat is no longer
remunerative to him. You are also told that the British
farmer ought not to produce wheat—that he produces
too much wheat, and that he ought to give up the pro-
duce of wheat as much as he CStl. That advice was
given to the British farmer by Sir R. Peel, and re-echoed
by Lord John Russell. It is the common formula
of all writers on political economy, and is suggested as
a means of curing the evils to which the repeal of the
corn-laws has given rise. Their advice is that you
should discourage as much as you can the production
of that article which under other circumstances was
your most valuable crop.—(Hear, hear, and cheers )
Now, I ask my free-trade friends whether I put
the case fairly? If that be so, then, naturally,
you would suppose the financial system of the
country would encourage the British farmer in the
production of some other crop, but what is the seas, ?
When you go to the next superior crop which British
Ministers advised to be grown in the place of wheat, and
to which the soil in this country is generally fa-
vourable—when we come to the next superior
trop, barley, what dues the Legislature du?
Why it raises on barley a revenue amounting to
11,000,000 sterling—(Cheers)—equal to the revenue of
p )wertul monarchies and ancient empires, for that
amount is raised upon barley under the Spirit Acts,
Well, I say, that is monstrous.—(Cheers.) That
system could, no doubt, have existed when an
artificial price, as it is called, was given to wheat;
but we s.ty, when you tell the farmer we
have subjected you to such severe competition that you
mutt give up growing wheat, you are bound to take
care that an inferior crop is not loaded with heavy re-
strictions ti.nd severe imposts.—(Cheers.) Is that the
truth?—do Free-traders support that system? But I
dare say it may he said that this tax of eleven millions
is not of the slightest importance to the producer, as it is
paid by the consumer and not the producer. Now, Ido
eot think that eleven millions on one article can be paid
by the consumer without checking the production of that
article.—(Cries of "Hear, hear,' and loud cheers.) It
it were possible to produce eleven millions from
'in inferior crop by a tax. without checking consumpion,
what would become of the argument of the tax upon
wheat? It, is quite clear we cannot have it both ways,
and he was glad to hear a Free-trader say, candidly and
honestly, that they could not.—(Cheers.) I am • in-
formed this Free-trader carries my colours, and I be-
lieve you will find a good many Free-traders carry-
ing my colours.—(Laughter.) Now, gentlemen, the
question has arisen how to retain unrestricted
importation, and yet adjust the balance, so that no in-
justice to done to the British producer? That is the
question; and if you will listen to me, I will give you
some information on the subject. First of all, we have
the opinions of Free-traders, and I will give you the opi-
nion of the most eminent one. The gentleman to
whom I allude has only this year published his ob-
servations with regard to the recent commer-
cial legislation of the - country. Recollect
his opinion is that of an uncompromising Free-trader, of
the highest literary authority, as a Free-trader, and
whose works are constantly referred to in the House of
Commons, and are perpetually thrown in our face.—
(Hear, hear.) Ho is the literary executor of Ricardo,
and the editor of Adam Smith. Now, will such an autho-
rity satisfy you?—(Rear.) I refer to a new edition of
the celebrated work of M'Culloch on Taxation, and I
find that Mr. M'Cullooh says in that book, that it is of
the greatest importance that the malt-tax should be re-
tained; but that it cannot be retained with perfect jus
tice to the English producer without a countervailing
duty; and Mr. M'Culloch says, sooner than give up the
malt-tax, though it restricts the industry of the farmer
and checks comsumption, he would propose a different
course; and he adds, it is of the utmost importance
to keep that great arm of finance, and that it would be
best to give the farmer a countervailing duty of 2s. 6d.
on barley.—(Hear, hear.) But he says more—he
thinks that the present system is most unjust to the
cultivator of the British soil, and he states there is ne
doubt that the beat way of settling the question
It by a countervailing duty of seven shillings on
every quarter of wheat, and by a modified duty
for other species of grain. This is his opinion in 1852.
(Cheers.) But he says still more—that though the
British farmer, the occupier and owner of land in Great
Britain. according to the .yattm, are placed in a
most unjust position, yet so much prejudice exists on
the subject at the present moment that it would no longer
be wise to do that justice to which they were entitled.
But I cannot believe myself that the country will remain
quiescent while a great body of the industrious and hard-
working portion of the community /lave to support
burdens from which other classes are exempt.—
( beers.) Yuu, the Free- railer:, must agree with
us, that that society is nut safely establiehrd
where any considerable body of the producers
of the country carry on their industry under
unfair fiscal circumstances.—(Cheers.) I will now tell
you my opinion, I agree with Nix.. M`Cullech thus far,
that the cheapest, easiest mode, and the least expensive
to the community of settling the question, is by a coun-
tervailing duty. I think no one will deny that in
the aggregate that countervailing duty would
give the English producer much less than
he was scientifically entitled to, and knowing the cha-
racter of the English people he was disposed to think
that they would not object to a compromise of this kind.
110 did not speak for the agricultural interest alone, but
for the whole community, when he said he believed that
the cheapest, easiest, and most effective and least onerous
manner of paying their debts—for it really came to
that—was to follow the advice given and the policy
recommended by Mr. M'Culloch.—(Cheers.) But if
the people of England are determined to adhere to what
I consider prejudice and short-sighted views—if the ge-
neral body of the community have a prejudice against
settling the question in a manner which has been recom-
mended by the highest nut horities, I am not going to
pledge the existence of a Government or of a policy on
such a measure.—(Laughter.) The policy which I think
eo Government ought to shrink from who have acceded
to office under the circumstances we have done, is to
secure to the agricultural interest ample and compete
upon, the
redress.—(Cheers.) I am of opinion that the simplest
and cheapest mode to the community is the one which
this great political economist has recommended. The
country will soon have an opportunity of expressing its
minds to the s
opinion. But it cannot be said I speak with any reserve
Free-traders tudy7o7 the subject—which .
the nation chooses the olicv which the
not to sanction p .
highest authorit theirmen who f
men who were
s(oAt.lghtlautgoh) ore brawling Free-traders ted—
crisnever
advo-
cate;; of free trade, one ended—
f the country rejects thatre_cona
believe
to
vants of the community such as
be the advice of wise
and which .1
and
dthaoll prornhinaen3nt advo-
unimpassioned ser •
the distinguished
writer to whom Ihavereferred—the country must be
prepared to take the consequence.—(H.) If the
people will not, in the manirq which z recommend, dQ