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

DEBATE.

On the question for resuming the adjourned debate on
this question,
Mr. M. GIBSON rose, and said he would endeavour
to explain briefly to the House the grounds for
the vote which he should feel it to be his
duty to give upon the motion now under the
consideration of the House, and knowing as he did
that the House was desirous of coming to a decision
that night upon this question, he would set the example,
as far as he was concerned, of brevity, for there were
many gentlemen on both sides of the House who, he did
not doubt, would be anxious to express their views
upon this question.—(Hear, hear.) They had two pro-
posals before them, the one moved by the Hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire, the other submitted by his
Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose.—(Hear.)
Those two proposals involved entirely different princi-
ples. The one was founded on leaving the whole
amount of the public burdens, and the public taxation,
as it stood at present, merely transferring a por-
tion of the taxation from one class to another;
the other proposal, which was that of his Hon. Friend
the Member for Montrose, was founded on the principle
of giving relief to all classes alike—agricultural and
commercial—(Hear, hear)—by, first, a reduction of
the expenditure, in order that the claims of
the national creditor might be duly regarded ; se-
condly, by applying the surplus procured by a re-
duction of the expenditure to the repeal of those taxes
which pressed on agriculture and commercial in-
dustry.—(Hear, hear.) Now, he said, those two
proposals that the House had before them were
founded on different principles, and he drew the atten-
tion of the House to that matter, because he wanted
Gentlemen to consider strictly speaking what was the
immediate vote which the House should be called
on to give. The immediate vote was nothing more
than this—which, upon the whole, was the House de-
sirous should be put, in order that the sense of the House
might be taken upon it. namely, whether the proposi-
tion of the Honourable Member fur Buckingham-
shire, or that of his Honourable Friend the
Member for Montrose. The first vote the House came
to did not involve any Gentleman in the general prin-
ciple involved in either proposition; but if a Gentleman
saw there was, in the proposition of his lion. Friend the
Member fur Montrose, a principle which he thought was
wore in unison with his views than the principle in-
volved in the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire, he said at least he would vote
for the amendment, in order to give the motion
of his Honourable Friend at least the opportunity
0 being put to the House. The Howe had
to choose between the two—would they seek relief by
the reduction of expenditure, or by transferring a por-
tion of the local taxes to the Consolidated Fund. There
were Gentlemen who might think the House might
select a better instance than the malt-tax for repeal—
for instance, those on paper and on windows; but a
Gentleman who was for the repeal of any one of
those taxes might consistently vote at least for the
amendment of hie Honourable Friend the Member
for Montrose. Now he would state hi,s reasons for
preferring the amendment of his Honourable Friend the
Member for Montrose to that of the Hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire. Be invited the House to go into
Committee, for the purpn.o of agreeing to a resolution
which should transfer a charge of 6,000,0001. sterling
upon the Consolidated Fund. Tha:, he imagined would.
be the resolution that the Honourable Gentleman would
submit to a Committee of the whole House
if they were to agree to this proposal. He ima-
gined that resolution was the foundation of a Bill, and
that he merely submitted his proposal in its present form
in compliance with Parliamentary usage ; but a motion
of that kind should be submitted to Parliament
in a Committee of the whole House. But he
offered the House no security, whether, if it
agreed to transfer those 6,000,0001. to the Consolidated
Fund, that he would be able to prevail on Parlia-
ment to argree in other taxation which would
be necessary if he should carry his resolutions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had last night disposed
of the question of unequal local taxation in a most able
speech.—(Hear, hear.) He thought there never was a
more able or logical speech delivered in that House than
that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last night;
it completely answered all the arguments of the Hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire, and placed the saddle on
thee ee rightde d t o hs oh roswe . w
iTt
hh The
greatß i g h
itn Igleonnu.
tGye n
thattl e
mall
localt hteanx apt Toon.
was much less upon land than upon any other species of
property. The Hon. Gentleman had asserted that real
' property ought not to bear the great weight of
the local taxation, and if he was going to begin
at the commencement he was not sure that he
should adopt the plan of local taxation which now
existed. It was an acknowledged principle that a man
ought to bear his share to the support of the poor, accord-
ing to his means. What better means were there of as-
certaining the condition of any man than by taking the
house in which he lived? But then it was said that the
institution of a poor-rate was for local purposes, and
that in order to equalise the burden throughout the
country there ought to be a rate in aid drawn from.
the Consolidated Fund.—(Hear.) Why of all the por-
tions of the public impositions to which this country was
subject, there was no one whatever more completely
and entirely unjust in its character than those
through which the Consolidated Fund was realised—
none which pressed so heavily upon the means
and exertions of the industrial classes. They had at-
tempted to levy an assessment on stock in trade, and if
it could have been accomplished—if they could
rely upon Vie assertion of a high authority, that
the stock in trade of the country amounted
to 200,000,0001.—it would have been of immense
importance, but it had entirely failed. Well it might,
for it would be utterly impossible to use any machinery
for accomplishing such an object. Were they aware
that there are at the present moment no less
than fifty-four species of Government officials,
comprising no less than 180,000 individuels engaged in
the collection of the Government taxes. It was an utter
,impossibility to enter into every little village
shop, and take an account of its sock in trade;
and it should be further recollected that
if ordinary stock in trade were to be taxed, so also must

LI giv

QUI i 4.1
effort as that must surely arid completely fail.—(Hear. a
He would now beg to draw the attention el the
Honourable Member for Buckiughamshire, and all his
agricultural friends, to two particular points. They
should remember that since the passing of the Bill for
the repeal of tee corn-laws the meo.bers of the aericul-
luref c m ',use) oeel. e•. iir-:
po,t e l st,tu,. Many p,ris. -Ds, 10 riffs n
ledge, hail given up pressing their vices on letrenchnient
and economy, and marshalled themselves among the
ranks of those who went by the name of the prey op-
posed to the Liberal party, Did the lion. Alemb. r for
Buckinghamshire mean to contend that a limitation in
the supply of food would make the inhabitants of towns
in the agricultural countries better able to bear the ex-
cess of local burdens? They were not likely to con-
ciliate the holders ot real property in towns, by telling
them that they had no claim to have the excessive pres-
sure relieved by raising the price of food. Then, as to
the question of distress. Everybody knew that the dis-
tress of 1836, dut ing a period of high protection, when
an Agricultural Committee was sitting, was far greater
than could be brought forward at the present time. 'There-
fore, the question of distress, though it existed to some ex-
in the northern counties, and the question of real pro-
perty in towns, had nothing to do with the subject
before the House. He called the attention of the
landed gentry to the new status of the political party in
the country. If they did not consider well, the Gentle-
men on the opposite side of the House might commit a
serious political blunder, the effects of which could not
well be got rid of, The Hon. Baronet the Member for
Essex, when addressing a large meeting of tenant-far-
mers the other day, told them he had no plan to propose,
but he advised them to be satisfied, and to have confi-
dence in their Member.—(Laughter.) The time was
come when Gentlemen representing the landed, the agri-
cultural interest, were about to be tried, and it would be
seen whether they were found wanting. This was the
moment in which it behoved Gentlemen opposite to
think well of what they had said on the hustings and led
their constituents to believe, and not to be led into com-
mitting a serious political blunder. He had never agi-
tated for the repeal of the malt- tax. He never was a
malt-tax man, but he confessed that he never had any
peculiar affection for that tax. He always thought
there were good • economical arguments against
the continuance of the tax. He thought
its existence injurious to the manufacture of
malt. It fettered and restricted the manufacture ot malt,
and he regarded it as a pressire on the industry of the
country. There was an export trade in beer and other
produce of malt, and by raising the price of those arti-
cles they affected their export trade, and therefore their
import trade and the general industry of the country.
The arguments against the continuance of the tax were
of the strongest and most important character. The re-
peal of the tax might be justified on all those grounds
which justified them in selecting the Excise duties on
glass, paper, and printed calico, for reduction. If, how-
ever, Hon. Gentlemen opposite turned their looks on the
movement in favour of reduction of expenditure, and fol-
lowed the will-o'-the-wisp of the proposition under con-
sideration, they would run the risk of suffering the repeal
of the malt-tax question to slip their fingers, and the
opportunity might not again present itself of conferring
a boon on the agricultural and labouring classes, and of
contributing to the general interest of the country.
There was a sort of delicacy manifested by some
with regard to the discussion of the repeal of this tax,
but neither he nor the Hon. Member for the West Bid-
ing were afraid to face it. What was the real position
of the landed proprietors as a class in this country ?
Were there nct great social advantages connected with
the possession of property? Did riot the purchase of
property almost at orice confer social advantages? led
not proprietors almost immediately become otlie,
deputy-lieutenants, and fill other distinguished posis?—
(Laugiter.) These things were sought atter, and con-
ferred a value on prop sty, lie called oi, gentlemi_n oil
the opposite side of tlie House to consider well betot
they selected the metion of the Hon.. Member for Buck-
inghamshire on which the sense of the House should be
taken. It was their policy, he might say their duty, and
:n consistence with the course taken in their respective
counties, to give their support to the amendment of the
Hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. SEYMER said there could not be a better test of
the existence of distress anicmg the agricultural classes
than the disposition they evinced to emigrate whenever
they could raise the funds necessary for so doing. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer had attributed the exist-
ence of that distress to the language of alarm and ap-
prehension used at public meetings. He agreed with
the Right Hon. Gentleman, but the language be alluded
to was that employed by the Hon. Member for the West
Riding and his friends. He did not think that it was
quite fair for the Anti-Corn-law Leaguers, to use at
different times, and in different places, arguments which,
if brought together, would have neutralised each other.
The difficulty of competing with foreigners was urged
on the ,one hand, while, on the other, the artizans
were promised plenty of work. The landlords were
told that if the corn-laws were not repealed, the rents
would fall; and when addressing the tenants, they said
that protection was the bane of agriculture. The plan
prupo.d by the Hon. Member for the West Riding, with
the view of effecting a reduction of ten millions, was all
moonshine. The House had pronounced it moonshine. The
scheme of his Hon. Friend the Member for Bucking-
hamshire was a just one, and should be carried out. The
maintenance of the poor was a national object—it was
more--it was a national duty. It was a Christian obli-
gation imposed by a Christian creed. He had always
maintained that, where there was a provision for the
poor, the wealth of the country should support its
poverty. He knew this had been called legalized com-
munism; but if it had been practised three hundred years
ago in Ireland, he believed that Ireland would have been
much better off now. His Hon. Friend's proposition
went neither for a revision nor an increase of taxation,
bat a shifting of the burden, according to the principles
of justice. He would say on behalf of, those men, that
they were open, generous, warm-hearted, sincere lovers
of truth; he could not say so much for their opponents.
—(Laughter.) Since the abolition of protection he con-
sidered that there was an additional reason afforded for
a revision of the burdens imposed on the property of the
country; and the question so ably propounded by the
Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, being now taken up
by the country, he had no doubt that in the end some
such revision as that Hon. Member proposed would be
gone into. He, therefore, most cordially supported the
resolutions.
Lord NORREYS said he could not support the reso-
lutions, as, if adopted and carried out, they would lead
to a system of centralisation which would be the means
of ruining the various interests of the country. It was
said all that was wanted was, that the House should go
into Committee on the resolutions; but entertaining the
opinions he did with respect to them, he would consider
it a waste of the time of the House, and a trifling with
the public business of the country, to go into Committee
upon them. In respect to the amendment of the Hon.
Member for Montrose he had voted against the motion
of the Hon. Member for the West Riding on the same
subject, and therefore he could not support it.
Mr. C. LEWIS said the ground upon which the Hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire rested. his case was, that
the local taxes ot the country being directed for the l.ur-
poses of general interest, it was UniUSE that they should
fall principally on one spr.ckes of property. That was
the foundation of the Honourable Gentleman's
argument, and in making out his case he ad-
mitted that he had stated, with precision sod
accuracy, the various local burdens, in no case exagge-
rating, but rather falling within the actual amount of
those. In addressing himself to the subject, he would
confine his remarks to the question of local taxation, and
to its origin. He found that the incidents of local taxa-
tion arose out of the incident of the poor, and the provi-
sion for them being the largest and most important foci
burden, he should confine Minselt to that, as giving rise
to the other local burdens. The Act of Elizabeth regu•
hating the taxation as regarded the poor, while it in •
eluded the occupiers of land and houses, also included the
inhabitants of the parish, and there was no doubt but
that the Act contemplated the making personal as well
as real property assessable for the purpose stated. When,
however, that Act was brought into practice, the Court of
Queen's Bench decided otherwise, and there was, there-
fore, no reason to believe that personal property had ever
been rated under the Act for the support of the poor, or
other local purposes. Some of the courts of law had
held that a person having personal property in one
parish, and resident in another, was not rateable; that
farm-stocking, cattle, horses, articles of husbandry, &c.,
were not rateable; that the wages of labour and pro-
fessional income was not rateable; but that stock in
trade, or the amount of profit it produced, was so; and
that was the only species of personal property which,
up to the present time was considered rateable. The
reason for excluding personal property was, that it was
found impossible to levy local rates on any other prin-
ciple than on the visible property within the parish, and
that the adoption of the principle of the income-tax in
levying these would lead to the utmost confusion. Since
1603, therefore, those rates had been levied on the real
visible property within the parish, and be would state,
in a few words, what was their amount, in order to show
how much of them would fall upon the Exchequer were
the plan of the Hon. Member carried out. These were
as follows, taking the rate for the poor at the last
year's amount, and the other at the average they usually
amounted to:—
Poor-rate ...
Highway-rate
Church-rate ...
Other local rates, such as watching, paving,
sewers, &c. ••• ••• ••• ••• 500,000

... £7,817,000

... 1,600,000

400,000

Making a total of £10,317,000
Poor-rate for Scotland, which last year
amounted to
Poor-rate for Ireland, which, following out
the system laid down by the lion. Gentle-
man, must b© taken into account, and
which last year amounted to
County cess

544,000

... 1,600,000
... 1,500,000

Amounting in all to ••• ••• £13,961,000
The amount of local rates levied yeaflly in Scotland,
England and Ireland, and he conceived tlte.t the transfer-
ring the one half of that, sum, to be paid out of the Trea-
sury, would give rise to changes of the gl:eatest magni-
tude. There was not a doubt that were such done, and
he had kept out of the calculation two, millions, the
amount of the land-tax, that the taxes 061 the country
must be raised in a corresponding stamina t to meet that
increased demand upon the Treasury. There were,
moreover, other considerations besides t'ao,ie of a finan-
cial nature. If that sum was paid by tli,e Treasury, it
must come under V:e control of thai, ause—the local
machinery must be abolished, and unless e very item de-
manded by the varmus districts were AU nn iitted to that
House, and the justice of the dcantoci ma de manifest,
how could the plan be carried out ? It wo all, he con-
ceived, give rise to great inconvenience, sad would be a
means of injuring the general interests of tj3 e country.

—olitei two. They e.ei pmost
affected, and therefore bad a right to demand that other
interests should ba made take a share of those burdens
they had so long borne. It became the Government and
the Legislature to pay particular attention to the state
of the agricultural interest, and to see how heavily that
interest was burdened witti undue and
hien r d iht, iitai!i lailtloll
It the 11 .otturahlt, Member for But!kingh,tut (Mr.
D;sraA). He Roped that trade, commerce, and manu-
facture would be subjt,ct to heir ju,,t quota which would
tend to ameliorate the condition of the agriculturist—
(Hear, hear)—and hoped that support as well as sym-
pathy would be evinced on the par: of the Government
by devising some beneficial means of reducing the exor-
bitant and ruinous burdens pressing so much on the com-
munity at large.—(Hear.)
Sir M. CHOLMELEY said that it became the House
to express its sympathy for the suffering landed interest
by granting the Committee on the motion of the Honour-
able Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli.) He,
as one of the irregular corps, thought that a moderate
duty should be placed on corn, because such a duty
would not come from the pocket of the consumer, but
from that of the importer, and he firmly believed, on the
authority of a merchant, who trades in the German and
Baltic seas, that such was the case. That merchant had
stated to him that he could import corn into this country
at the rate of 3s. 6d. per bushel, and have a considerable
profit by such a line of trade. He next reprobated the
idea of repealing the malt. tax, as being introduced by
the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) not
from any sympathy with the agricultural interest, but as
a counterpoise to the motion before the House; and he
contended that oil-cake and tallow were better and
cheaper for the support of cattle than malt, and he
hoped, therefore, that in consequence of the oppressed
state of the landed interest, the Committee would be
granted.

Mr. W. MILES said that his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Disraeli) had recourse, in his able and eloquent speech,
not to judges as his guide, bat to principles—to the
Elizabethan law. He could not see why the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Hon.
Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) should severally
state that. the exchequer or the property-tax should
suffer by the success of the proposition of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Disraeli); but such was not the case, for
his Hon. Friend did not make any, even the least, allu-
sion either to the exchequer or to the property-tax.—
(Hear, hear.) The only allusion that he (Mr. Disraeli)
did make was, that the machinery did exist by which
the tax could be taken off real property and placed
on some other interest in the community; and he should
add, that he did not know whence the Honourable
Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) got such information
as to enable him to state that that tax was placed ell
real property in lieu of military service.—(Laughter.)
In a word, he looked on the amendment as a mere
ad captandum budget, in which he (Mr. Hume), how"
ever, failed to state how he would make up for the defi-
ciency in the revenue caused by a repeal of the malt-tax.
—(Laughter.) Nor would the House know how it would
be made up but for the speech of the Hon. Member for
the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) which had been delivered
a few nights before he (Mr. Hume) introduced his
amendment—(Hear)—and as he (Mr. Hume) had not
disclosed to the House his motives for relieving the agri-
cultural class of the community, he (Mr. Miles), with a
vast majority of the House, should overthrow the amend-
ment. Next, to address himself t , the mit on of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Disraeli), he should say, the fact that real
property was too heavily burdened was recognised by
Noble Lords and Right Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of
the thist., and he would refer to the able report of one of
the highest authorities in the country—one who had filled
so many various and important offices under the Crown,
with an ability, jadgait rr. and talent, that diitiogui.,bed
him. He ,dani.-ti to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Jatuei
(irahr.iiii), v. h.,, in his speech in 1845, On the report (-!i
the C-totaittee over which lie (Sir J. G.) presided, 1°
1833 re e 'gnised that county rates presse:t most heavily
on the t,grictiltural interests. Here the Hon. Gentle'
man read some extracts from the report of the Coto'
mittee of 1833, in fay air of his argument, and said, that
as there was a declension of Bs. per barrel in the price of
corn since that year, it being then 535., and now only
455., with the same outgoings and expenditure
,on the
part of the farmers, he hot:IA that Parliament would
not reftliP to modify the state of the agricultural ill,
terest. That d, mand was not asked for the landed
interest alone—it was asked for the public utility, and he
could prove, on the authority of Blackstone, to show the
principle on which he was acting, in concert with his
Hon. Friend Mr. Disraeli, that the poor of England
lived on the private benificence, and not on taxation, he
fore the time of Henry the Eighth, and that then no poor
died through want. If he looked at the county-rate be
found a great increase in its annual amounts. Thus, la
1793, it was 184.0001. ; in 1803, 235,0001. ; in 18139
510,000/. ; in 1823, 571,0001. ; in 1833, 757,0001. ; stud
in 1847, which was the last year of whiCh returns had
been received, it was 1,310,000/. Deducting from the/
sum the expenses of prosecutions, the county-rate for
that year would be 1,058,8091. available for general pus•
poses. Therefore, in fifty-four years, the rate had le;
creased 874,8191. It immediately became a question of
grave consequence to ascertain whether that sum might
not be better applied, or distributed. Notwithstanding
the great importation of foreign corn which was noir
taking place, there might be cause for the clis'
tress which prevailed so generally, but he
could not conceal from himself the fact, that
that distress was not confined to the agricultural
classes, but extended itself very largely amongst the
manufacturers. He denied that real property for age'
cultural purposes was more taxed than real property for
any other purpose. Whilst he was upon that point, be
might take occasion to remark that it was very much to
.
be regretted that the tables which were constantly pub
lished, setting forth the details of the trade and cool'
merce of the country, should not be more correctly, of
rather discreetly, compiled. With regard to the tot°
aboliticn of the malt-tax, he felt that they had been
stripped of every rag of protection, and when he 5
how vague and indefinite were the means of replacing
the lost revenue, he did not think the times were 5
changed as to justify him in giving his assent to the
view of the question taken by the Honourable Membersh,
for Montrose and the West Riding of Yorkshire. I__,' "0
looked to the increasing poor-rate, with the knowledge
he had of the injurious effects of the competition vil a
foreign produce and foreign artisans, to which they hid
been exposed by the withdrawal of protection, he col
not think that the schemes of Honourable Gentlereg
opposite were such as would tend to improve the cos al'
tion of the country; and believing that the proposltl"„be
under discussion would be a much greater benefit to
~i&
agricultural community than the repeal of the 0170
duties, he could have no choice but cordially to assent
the motion of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshireuo
Mr. BRIGHT thought, he said, that the House srellici
find some difficulty as to the manner in which it shot'
regard the motion submitted to it by the Hon. Mentber
to
for Buckinghamshire. Originally they were give l i..
understand that the basis or groundwork of his prop e!,
tion was the prevalence of groat distress amongst person,
engaged in agriculture; but the speech of the Hon. Gen
,
Littman himself orought them to a very different cone,d,
sion, and the speech of the Hon. Member for Somersei,
shire seemed to set that question at rest, as the grotto r
work of the proposition of his Um. Friend the Menib,er
for Buckinghamshire.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member OA
Buckinghamshire had quoted something he (Mr. Brie",
had said as to the distress of the agricultural classes'
but the Hon. Member had misquoted—of course. 11 01 fit'
tentionally—what he had said, as well as what had het,"
said by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) on the same s°,,"t
jest. He (Mr. Bright) never had admitted that through°:A
the agricultural classes there was wide-spread and inters 7
di,tresm. He had not even heard at any of the meetings
whether in Suffolk, or in Cainbridge. or elsewhere, el
the distress was so great; and he knew that in the el it
of England. so tar was distress from being spoken eitoto
was not even thought of.—(Cries of " Oh I oh !" fro
Members on the Opposition benches.) Since tot
meeting of Parliament, he believed that prices had °e
fallen.—(Cries of " Oh! oh!") A gentleman from 11°4
of the southern counties of Scotland told him that 5„0.
had had a good year, and that they were perfectlY.'"ia
tent.—(Cries of " Oh! oh 1") In some of the countlego,
the south of England he believed that there was dte.trefill
There were vicissitudes in farming precisely as I°Tee
other trades. The seasons were not all alike. tb;
rain fell at a critical time for the farmers in the
.seutbe
it fell before the critical time for the farmers in jot
north. In the south the crops, therefore, were eleu,se-tee
in quantity and inferior in quality; but in the noe:pre,
farmers had a fair crop and a fair quantity; and, t."; or
fore, he heard no complaints from them.—(Crieeert
" Oh! oh !") But if they had any doubt on this alli;lire.
he appealed to the Hon. Member for Somersets toe,
The Hon. Gentleman had given them the price of erfebor
but that point had been so well disposed of by the tii,., it;
cellor of the Exchequer that he should not revert :ola
however, the Hon. Member for Somersetshire heuriot
them of the sale of some of his own corn of an inwriao
quality at 425. the quarter. Now, to tell them the P ie
of a damaged article in the market was not the wetiele
which one could learn the average price of any er to,
in the market. Now, if a Somersetsbire farmer or v.
nant could procure 425. a quarter for damaged violet,
for wheat which the Hon. Member said had " aPe)ll red
—he took it that 48s. or 50s. might be consideid
the lowest price for which wheat of a fair cial°,.ool
could be purehased.—(Loud cries of "No, ne,' :ireci
Members on the Opposition benches.) He had ietl_,:4o
of a gentleman on his way to Mark-lane what vvr7, or
price of wheat, and he said that good wheat was it irs.
535., and that the average price of foreigai vibe*. the
48e.; and if their wheat was equal in quality Wore
foreign, they must get an equal price for it. frile„rhee e%,'
there. was no ground on that account to make "-iustr
tennio change called for, and which could not b° jth°
1 fled
. either on the price of grain, or the condition t oven'
farmer at the present time.—(Hear.) He dida°asioet
ture to go into any elaborate figures on this 0e...t0 0
because all had been said on this and other poi,„-0,0
well by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he AO°
not repeat them; for he must say that ou this 5 arie e
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not only °ld rote
good speech, but the very best speech he had beefs eats!
the Treasury bench since its present occupants
bops
into office.—(Hear, and laughter.) There were= ber
ever, some points in the proposition of the Hon. Pil, the
for Buckinghamshire which the Chancellor °f 10,
Exchequer had not placed in all the lltatugei&
which they might be regarded. The II`nhopool„
ber fa- Buckinghamshire seemed to adopt the 11..eiv o,'
tion that local rates should not be levied Ine.i_ci;o3oP
houses, railways, factories, lands, but on all the I._u_ [toll'
of the country. If that were not so said by the for
Member for Buckinghamshire, the Hon. Nlea% to be'
Soinersetshiro said so, and so lie took the
.iec,!'„, wag
The lion. Member for Buckinghamshire said. 7, that
not for a national rate; and this might be remarked, ~.0100
a national rate would run up 50 i er.cent. in !i_vfal rf,t
higher than rates were at present, if the natw,..h.,0001
were distributed by local authorities. In the SUl'.

en!,nt;

- ,

the
tier,
ThE

lap
lest
for
the

most
)they
dens
t and
state
that

Lktlon
(Mr.
ianu

could
fist—
sym-
ment

CUM.

rouse
erest
3our-

lie,
crate
duty

and
d be
eased
Id be

kraeli)

led, in
wavily
Cour
that
trice of
v on],
NI the
would

ir wnc bf,ri

rePJ ,„
rt of the Your-taw C_rnixii,aotier., in 1843, show,
`e what this was to be attributed—it was to the att-mpt
~
rating stock in trade; when that was done the poor
ea! was badly administered, and then head money was
established; and the consequence was that the
manufactures once established in the clothing counties of
the south were driven to the north. He (Mr. Bright)
a
lis •
e- In a townsaie, or parish, in which the rating
was not wore than 7d. in the pound; in some other town •
ships, and at no great distance, the rating was 3s. or 4s,
the pound. Now if a person was about building a mill,
tWeuld be his interest to erect it in a place where the
rates were low, and such would be the tendency of
(14 acts which sought to impose such burdens—they
would drive manufactures from certain counties and
Parishes to others. A great deal of mist hung about the
Proposition of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire,
end he should endeavour to penetrate it. The Hon.
Member's proposition was to withdraw 6,000,0001. of
laxation, which were now imposed upon certain
Shouldtra, and to return them upon the same shoulders
ipartly,
and partly upon the shoulders of others. If the
Pn. Member took away the 6,000,000/, he would cer-
Lately return 3,000,000/. of it to the same parties who
now had to bear it; for 3,000,0001. should certainly be
Paid by the real property of the country, and the real
treperty of the country was not that which Hon. Gen-
emen opposite always made it mean—the land only.
ICO, no," from Members on the Opposition benches.)
Y doing this—by taking away 9,000,000/., they would
raise the whole value of the 30,000,0001. of property
which now paid to 100,000,0001. ; and that, he said,
/s a proposition which would not meet with much
r/Itai'rour from the House or the country. Suppose,
t
that the Honourable Gentleman's proposition
should go to the taxation of all kinds of property, they
tIVIlld find that the cultivated land in England and
ales was 30,000,000 of acres; every acre required 10/.
'0 cultivate it properly, but taking it at Si., there was a
capital of 150,000,0001. employed by the tenant-farmers,
11nd by the proposition now made it was intended to
which the tenant-farmer employed in the cultivation of
the lands of Hon. Gentlemen opposite.—(Hear, hear.)
This was certainly the most extraordinary proposition
he dealing with and relieving agricultural distress that
" had ever heard of.—(Laughter.) The Hon. Gentle-
man ia making such a proposition was discriminating
in his favours; Scotland was not mentioned by him, and
Its to the sister island he had nothing to give it but that
Which benevolent people with nothing in their pockets
Were but too apt to give—advice.—(Laughter.) Such
advice had been but too long given; and he believed that
Ireland would not be tempted on this occasion to follow
him, when all he proposed to do fur her was to pay
heavy taxation, and no other compensation for it but
counsels.—(Laughter.) He was disposed to think
that the Hon. Gentleman's proposition caused great
dissatisfaction amongst the farmers.—(A laugh.) The
laugh was extremely faint; but Hon. Gentleman oppo-
site, he believed, were aware that the Mark. lane
express was a paper of very high authority amongst
tuners, and that it was read by a very large and very
respectable class amongst the agriculturists. Now, what
said that paper of the proposition of the Honourable
Member?—that it was " a detestable piece of duplicity,"
as detestable as ever yet was submitted by a public man.
---(Laughter.) Now he would not say anything so harsh
as that of the Hon. Gentleman.—(Laughter.) He be-
lieved that the Hon. Gentleman had calculated upon the
EtUpidity of the farmers, that by mixing up landlords and
tenants together as if they were but one class, and pro-
Posing some relief which was to go into the pockets of
Ilee class—and that the landlords— the farmers might be
induced to follow in the train of the Hon. Gentleman.
ith agricultural distress spoken, End such relief pro-
Posed, it reminded him of the story o a party of
strolling players, who advertised at one time that they
would p+ay for the benefit of the poor of the
parish. The announcement excited a great deal of at
tention—the barn wa, crowded, but when the distribu-
tion was looked for, the players maintained that " they
were the poor of the parish themselves"—(Laughter)—
e,,nd therefore kept the whole of the receipts.—(Laughter.)
was precisely the conduct of the Hon. Member for
hisekingbamshire in bringing forward his proposition.
was not what was said would be sought for. This
~.,.14as not the story that was told in Bond-street or in
Willis's Rooms, where language was used by Hon. Gen-
tlemen not as temperate as they employed in that House,
and he might retaliate on Lion. Gentlemen opposite the
reproof delivered by the Right Hon. Member for Stam-
ford (Mr. Herries) to his lion. Friend (Mr. Cobden) in
a'recent debate.—(bear.) There was, in fact, as it was
4,boWn,by the Chaim« llor ohe Excheur, nothin in
the proposition of the Hon.f t
Member for Buckinghag m-
shire intended to mitigate the distress of the farmers, or
to enable them to bear that competition to which they
Were exposed. When he (Mr. B.) and his friends sat
011 the opposite side of the House, they never said any-
'tiling of the malt-tax. They were then engaged with a
laudable object—in that object they had succeeded. They
80tIght not to give partial relief to this or that interest;
but they sought then, and sought now, to reduce the ex-
penditure so as to give general relief to all classes. There
Was no class more industrious or more meritorious than
that class for which Hon. Gentlemen opposite professed
to sympathise. Now he (Mr. Bright) slid not ask for a
repeal of the malt-tax in order to have the people hap.
Ater by making beer cheaper; he was not one of those
Who thought they promoted morality by making vice
expensive; he thought that the beer drinker who was
sober would, if beer were cheaper, have more money to
PUrchase something else. He thought the malt-tax was
Injurious to the agricultural interests to some consider-
able extent, and as he had ever advocated, when sitting
at the other side of the House, the abolition of Excise
duties, he was now prepared to advocate the abolition of
the duty on malt and hops.—(Hear, hear.) Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite, however, never alluded to the malt-tax,
They had discarded it—
" Oh no, they never mentioned it,
Its name was never heard ;
Their lips were now forbid to speak
That once familiar word."—(Laughter.)
Notwithstanding all their strong language about the
Malt-tax, they now said to the farmers to wait till the
time came for repealing it; but whether that would be
!II the present generation or in the next everybody was
left in the dark.—(Laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site seemed to him to be each like two different persons
et different times: they each took one course in that
House and another in the country. In the country they
spoke of the various burdens on land, and even referred
to tithes as a burden on the land. They allowed their
tenants to speak of tithes as a burden. Well they might
do so; they might say farmers would be better off if
they paid no tithes, just as it might be said that every
farmer would be better off if he had no rent to
pay.—
(Rear, hear.) Hon. Gentlemen opposite told farmers
,to look to Parliament for relief. Now, if he were a
landlord he would inculcate upon his tenantry this
lesson, that Parliament was not a Parliament for land-
lords, but it was constituted to deal with the interests of
the whole empire; not to look to the particular condition
of a particular class, but to the general welfare of
411 classes; and he would tell them of all places
to ,look for succour, Parliament and St. Stephen's
Were the very worst places in which they would
find it.—(Cheers from Members on the Opposition
benches.) He would tell them that they must look to
vicissitudes in their trade as in every other, and they
Lust exercise their talents as other men exercised them,
and they must work out their prosperity by their own
skill and industry.—(Hear, hear.) Gentlemen were
leading the farmers away on a false scent. They had a
newspaper which was most powerful in their interest—
the Standard. Now the Standard said at one time, as
the organ of the agriculturists, that England would be
s great, happy, and as powerful—that England would
13e as rich as she was, if the whole of the manufacturing
districta of her empire were involved in one common
That was the substance of a sentiment to which
it gave expression a few years ago. But the 'Standard
now took another course. That paper was all laudation
for Members on the opposite side of the House who were
in favour of protection. It said now that there was an
association of farmers and labourers to do away with the
use of the productions of the mills of the north.
There was, then, to be no more broad cloth in
Dorsetshire—cotton was to be repudiated, and even
linen smocks on farmers' boys were to be rejected un-
less they were made by the hand-loom.—(Laughter.)
He did not know what Honourable Gentlemen were to
do if this proposition were to be acted upon. What
were they to do fur clothing ? Were they, like their
ancestors, to pride themselves on their painted skins?—
(Laughter.) Or were Eon. Members to come to that
House from the agricultural counties clothed in thatch ?
—(Laughter.) If they did, he hoped their tenants
would receive a remunerating price for straw.—(Laughter)
That, then, was the proposition which he found stated
in that paper which was the powerful and great organ
of their party. It was not thus they ought to mislead
the farmers. They ought to treat the farmers fairly
if they wished for the good and full cultivation of their
grounds. What, he asked, was the difference between
a farmer and a manufacturer ? He was a manufacturer
she occupied premises—he paid a high rent for it.
The farmers took their land, and paid them rent for it. There
Was no difference in principle or in practice between the two.
There was no difference in the mode of attaining pros-
perity. They wanted all restrictions imposed upon them
by that House to be removed, that they might be able to
receive the raw material at the cheapest price, and have
11. fair and open market where they might obtain the
best price. The farmer laboured under disadvantages
Which the manufacturer had not. The Hon Mem-
ber for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer) had appealed to
them on behalf of the farmers who had not capital.
But the people in the north of England and in the towns
could not be mulcted by the laws of this House to sus•
thin men who had no capital.
An HON. MEMBER—SmaII capital.
Mr. BRIGHT—WeII, small capital. If a man bad a
hundred acres of land, and only 5001. to cultivate it with,
if it required 101. an acre, he should have only 50 acres
of land.—(Hear, hear.) There were many persons in
Lancashire and Yorkshire who had found their capital
very much crippled of late years, and were not only not
extending their business, but some of them diminishing
it, and that was precisely the principle upon which the
Proprietors of land ought to act, and endeavour to secure
Upon their farms men who had capital and great spirit
ill agriculture; but he would tell Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site that they were taking a course which rendered it
impossible.—(" Oh, oh.") For example, if a farmer came
to-them to ask for a farm and wished to make stipulations,
Which were called stipulations of a commercial character;
that was, it he said, " I must plough as I like, and
grow as I like, of course saving your interest at
the end of the lease. I must have every creature that
lives on the land, and I must not have my farm infested
by game ;" Hon. Gentlemen opposite—not all of them—
f many of them were now acting more{ judiciously
than they did sonic time ago—did not like the man as a
tenant.—(llear, hear.) Now, it was one of the conse-
quences from which they could not escape, and o'' which
they were told before free trade was granted, that they
must introduce the commercial principle in future

~rr911,9.,,n,nt., botwenn Inr,llo,rd find t,nnnt. P. vca:4

jog interests and dense population, should ,tc4.:d still,
or rest under the baneful influcacc of protec-
tion to agriculture, simply because they were unAilling
to adopt in their relations with their tenontry those it,
total principles which were acted upon by all the other
branches of industry throughout the country. Now the
proposition which he (Mr. Bright) sup ported was ad-
mitted on all hands to be more distinct than that of the
Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire. That Hon.
Gentleman had come forward in the character of a Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and the framer of a budget ;
but he had only shown himself a novice in this new walk,
for he had left out of view the source from which he
was going to obtain the six millions of taxes which he
must necessarily have. The Hon. Gentleman spoke of
the " expansion of the income-tax," and from that phrase
he presumed the Hon. Gentleman intended to increase
the income-tax. But the llon. Baronet the Member for
Lincolnshire thought that a fixed duty on corn would do
as well ; but how six millions were to be raised by a
fixed duty on corn he (Mr. Bright) did not know. They
had no calculation as to the quantity of corn that bad
come in, or as to the amount of duty that was to be
levied per quarter. Let Hon. Gentlemen beware, how
ever, how they turned their attention, or the attention
of their tenantry, to the question of the re-imposition of
duties on corn. They would be attempting that which
he believed to be as impossible as it would be to re-
peal the Reform Bill or the Catholic Emancipa-
tion Act.—(Ministerial cheers.) Let them take
care that that which was constantly said of "free-traders
when they were agitating for free trade, did not become
the universal sentiment. The only valid objection then
raised to them was, that they were doing that which
possibly, because of the supremacy of the landowners in
this House, might be only temporary; that they were
wasting their energies in repealing an Act of Parliament;
and that however important it might be, they ought at
the same time so to reform and change the constitution
of this House as that not corn-growers and landowners
should be represented there, but the great mass of the
population who never had, and never could have, any
interest in the imposition of a duty upon food. Hon.
Gentlemen must take care of what they were about.
They fancied there was a lull in the public mind, and
that events abroad had frightened people at home. Let
them bear in mind that in all the European capitals a
system was now being established which some Swished
might not last, but which, if it did last, might have a
strange effect upon the minds of the people in this coun-
try who were looking, and wisely looking, to great and
permanent changes in the constitution of Parliament.
Whilst Gentlemen opposite were leading them in one
direction, he begged to tell them that they were defeat-
ing their object in another direction; for they were lead-
ing the farmers after that false light, which must here-
after entice them into still greater and more permanent
difficulties than they were in at present. Hon. Gentle-
men talked of the experiment of free trade as if had
failed, or had been but an experiment.—(lronical
cheers.) Had they not been legislating ever since the
oldest man amongst them entered that House, every few
years, in favour of protection, and to keep up the price
of corn?—(No, no.) Had they not had Committee after
Committee for the purpose of proving that there was
agricultural distress?—(Hear and No, no.) Did they not
recollect that under the protective law of 1828, in the
year 1836 the whole average price for the year, not of
sprouted wheat, but of good wheat, was 395. 4d. a quarter?
whereas the Hon. Member for Somerset (Mr. Miles) had
told the House to-night that he was selling his sprouted

wheat at 425. a quarter. Was it possible that Hon.
Gentlemen could have forgotten all that had taken place
within the last 35 years, in which time they had had
great practical illustrations of the working of their sys-
tem? Well, that system was abolished. They had
wreaked their vengeance upon a Minister—they had split
up a party—they had shown an anger which political
parties in this country had scarcely ever before exhibit(' d,
because the industry of the people, through the power
and the patriotism of the man whom they hml discarded
—(Laughter, and ironical cheers from the Protectionists,
answered by Ministerial cheering)—beeause through
that man the industry of this great and growing popula-
tion had escaped from the pressure of that screw
which, through the corn-law, had been laid upon
the necessaries of life. He feared Honourable

Gentlemen were not exactly aware of what was passing
in the country—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—and in the
great towns. The question of a reduction of expendi-
ture, which had been placed before the House, was ex-
citing the greatest interest in every meeting of farMers.
In every county the same cry was echoed. Nay, the
very men who thought the free-traders were their greatest
enemies, were now ready to shake hands with his Hon.
Friend the Member for the West Riding.—(Cries of
" Oh, oh," " No, no," and ironical cheers, and laughter.)
They were anxious that that measure of justice should be
done to the country which his Hon. Friend advocated,
and that in this House they should force upon the Exe-
cutive Government the greatest possible economy which
was compatible with the efficiency of the public service.
—(" Hear," from the Opposition benches.) Hon. Gentle.
men opposite blamed the Government because they had
made some small reduction in the estimates, and told them
that they were following the Honourable Member for the
West Riding. His Honourable Friend the Member for
the West Riding was certainly a most extraordinary
man.—(Laughter.) The greatest charge brought against
Sir Robert Peel was, that he obeyed the dictates and fol-
lowed the recommendations of his Honourable Friend;
and now, when the Minister did anything that was sen-
sible, or wished for by the country, the instant cry was
that they were following the recommendations of the
Honourable Member for the West Riding. Why, it was
because he (Mr. Bright) and his Honourable Friend
lived among the people, had travelled in every county
among them, knew their feelings and wishes, were iden-
tified with their interests, and had come to this House as
the reprerentatiues of great and free constituencies, that
the measures of the Honourable Member for the West
Riding had the sympathy of millions in the country; and
not many sessions of Parliament would pass before
Honourable Gentlemen opposite—powerful as they were
—would vote for the measures they now affected to de-

spise.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE said the Hon. Member for Man
chester (Mr. Bright) had told them the Hon. Member
for the West Riding was a great man, but he (Mr. New-
degate) did not think so, and his ire seemed to be espe-
cially excited by the prospect which he said had been
held out to the farmers, that the corn-laws would be re-
enacted. The Hon. Member had also endeavoured to
cast ridicule upon the proposal which had been made by
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and the able
speech of that Hon. Gentleman had been met by vitupe-
ration on the part of the Hon. Member for Manchester.
Looking at the whole of the statistics on the
question of rates, the conclusion to be arrived at
was, that in the agricultural counties the rates
were 81 per cent. higher than in the manufac-
turing towns; and he, therefore, considered the measure
of his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire
well-timed, and trusted it would meet with the support of
the House, despite of the short-sighted light-hearted-
ness of certain Hon. Members. The Right Hon. Baronet
the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told the House, that
within a very few years 9,000,0001. of taxation had been
remitted in favour of the agricultural interests; but while
the Right Hon. Baronet had made that statement—which
exceeded the fact—he had failed to inform the House
that 23,000,000/. of taxation had been remitted in favour
of other classes of the community. Now, for every 100/.
of taxation which had been remitted in favour of the
agriculturists, he found that 2701. had been remitted in
favour of the other classes, and the balance was, there-
fore, against the agricultural classes.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT considered the motion of
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire with all the bias
—if he might be permitted so to speak—of a person con-
nected with the landed interest, yet be could not regard
it as perfect. He had listened, on the other hand, to the
very able speech of the Right Hon. Baronet the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer; but he thought the Right Hon.
Baronet had, to a great degree, undervalued the amount
of distress. He (Mr. Herbert) was connected with a
part of the country which was greatly affected by the
distress; and he believed, although the distress was
said to be only local, that it was extended more than
Hon. Gentlemen were willing to admit. As to the
cause of the distress, he did not form his opinions
on the simple reference to the depressed prices of
wheat. The question was, what were the circum-
stances which made the distress so peculiar as now?
He believed that they arose from the unfavourable-
ness of the seasons, and consequent bad harvests.—
(Hear, Hear.) He did not recollect a season more un-
favourable to agricultural interests than the last. Wheat
was at present 455.; but there were few who had wheat
to send into the market which would fetch that price.
And it was also a fact, ascertained from the returns,
that there was at present a greater diminution of con-
sumption than at former times. He now came to the
question how far this distress would be remedied by the
motion before the House, and he must say he was at a
loss to know whence the six millions sterling were
to come, which the Hon. Member for Buckingham-
shire said it would be necessary to make up, in lieu of
the six millions which he proposed to be remitted. He
considered that the Hon. Member had propounded but
one-half of his plan, and as he could not approve of it
as by any means perfect, he, for one, for the reasons he
bad given, could not consent to raise false hopes, and
he must, therefore, come to the conclusian not to give
his vote in favour of the Hon. Member's motion to go
into Committee.
Mr. CAYLEY must give a contradiction to the state.
ments that no complaints had as yet been made with re-
spect to the existence of distress in the north of England,
for no later than the previous day he had had a letter
informing him that distress prevailed there, and that a
great meeting was contemplated to take into considera-
tion the causes of the low prices of agricultural produce.
With respect to the complaints made by the agricultural
classes of the burdens of taxation on land, he was not
surprised to hear them, for he felt that cause existed ;
but to hear a complaint emanate from the manufacturing
classes, he confessed, surprised him. The shise must
pinch somewhere ; and he apprehended there was some-
thing going wrong in the affairs of the manufacturing
interests. It was the failure of trade in 1837 that led
to the agitation in favour of a repeal of the corn-
laws. Free trade had realised almost every one of the
i
evils which it promised; and if it be persevered n, some
such measure as that promulgated by his Hon. Friend
the Member for Buckinghamshire, in favour of a remis
sion of taxation pressing on agricultural interests, should
be resorted to. The Excise duties paid by agrieultu-
rists amounted in the whole to 12,171,8041.; the stamp
duties to 1,997,1961.; stage coaches, 552,000/.; post
horses, 166,0001.; and the assessed taxes, 1,662,000/.,
which, with others, made a grand total of 17.119.000/.
What they lost by the duty on tobacco, which they
could easily grow in this country, could not be esti-
mated at less than 3,000,000/., and the local taxation
could not be l"ss than 40,000.000/. If they were
to have free trade they should have it in every re-
spect, and the agricultural interest should not be fettered
by taxes to the amount of 17,000,000/. It. should be ob-
served that the agricultural interest paid the duty on tea