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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, March 14.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)
CLERGY RELIEF BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. LACY rose to more as an amendment, that

be read a second time this day six months, because he
thought the Bill held out a premium to persons in holy
orders to act with insincerity. There were many men
in the Church of England who would avail themselves
of the provisions of this Bill in the event of the
death of a relative, or any other accidental cir-
cumstance, affording them an opportunity of de-
voting their attention to a more profitable em-
ployment than officiating as clergymen, which
might induce them to come forward and make a solemn
declaration, as the Bill provided, if they dissented
from the United Church of England and Ireland.—
(Hear.) Why did not the Bill go the length of pro-
viding that auy clergyman of the Church of England
might become a layman again? Why should he be
rather allowed to become a Dissenting lay-
man and not a Church layman?--(Hear, hear.)
In his opinion that mode of legislation would
have been much more' politic than the present, which
held out an inducement for clergymen to leave the
Church under false pretences.—(Hear.) He had there-
fore felt it to be his duty to himself and the country to
move the amendment, in the hope that it would have the
effect of inducing some alterations in th© provisions of
the Bill, and making it less susceptible of in-
ducing parties to make solemn declarations for
sordid and sinister ends.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.")
He would much rather give his assent to a Bill which
allowed a clergyman to leave the Church without making
any declaration, than to such a measure as that, which
he considered held out a premium to insincerity. He
did not think that the great bulk of the Church would
take advantage of the Bill, but he believed there were
some who would avail themselves of it without con-
scientiously holding the opinions of Dissenters. Upon
these grounds he begged to move that it be read a second
time that day six months.
Mr. FORBES seconded the amendment.

Mr. BOUVERIE said, when he introduced the Bill,
he stated its general purport and object, and he did not
now think it necessary to trouble the House with a re-
petition of the statement. The law which prevented a
clergyman relieving himself from the vows which he had
once taken, and which subjected him to fines and
imprisonment if he attempted to do so, was so unreason-
able that he thought few in the House would refuse to
give their assent to a measure which proposed to abolish
such an oppressive enactment.
Mr. HUME said he knew of nothing more tyrannical
than that which prevented a conscientious man leaving
the Church.—(Hear.) It was a relic of oppression upon
a class of individuals, and he hoped the House would
not allow it to continue long, but would pass the second
reading of the Bill, and amend it if necessary in Committee.
If a man had conscientiously taken vows, and then
afterwards conscientiously saw reason to alter his
opinions with respect to them, he thought he ought to be
allowed to become a Dissenter.

Mr. STAFFORD said, this Bill was one of great im-
portance, but the attention of the House was evidently
set upon another matter. The practical point was this—
that any clergyman who had violated the discipline of
the Church, and laid himself open to a prosecution, had
nothing more to do than to go before a magistrate,
and make the declaration included in the
present Bill, and he was immediately released from all
the vows he might have made. Considering the great
importance of the subject, and the short discussion which
had as yet been devoted to it, he thought it his duty to
oppose the second reading and to support the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend.

Mr. SPOONER said the objections of Hon. Members
seemed to bo confined to the details and not to the
principle of the measure. The evils of the existing
law were great. For instance a clergyman, young in
life, might, upon a first conviction, enter into holy
orders, but might afterwards change his opinions, in
which case he would either have to relinquish
the only means be had of supporting his
family, or be compelled by the necessities of
his position to go on performing his clerical
duties, although contrary to his conscientious convictions.
The objection that a clergyman who had committed a
breach of church discipline might take refuge under
this Bill, was a mere matter of detail, and might be
amended when the Bill went through Committee. He
felt compelled upon those grounds to give his assent to
the second reading.
Mr. WAWN said, as the law now stood, when a
minister of the Protestant Church left that body, and
entered the Roman Catholic Church, he was free from
imprisonment—(Hear)—but if an individual connected
with the Church, yet dissenting from its doctrines,
joined any dissenting body, he might be prosecuted
for so acting.—(Hear.) At the present moment an
individual was suffering from this anomalous state
of the law.—(Hear, hear.) He should support the
second reading of the Bill, because wished to sec
persons dissenting from the Church, and joining one of
the many dissenting bodies, placed in the same position
as those who left the Church and entered the Roman
Catholic.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND wished to know if they could
carry on the army and navy effectually if they repealed
the Mutiny Act? He thought not. He believed that
the ecclesiastical authorities had, in the same way, a
right to use the civil sword to enforce ecclesiastical cen-
sures. He did not, however, think that right. That,
however, was not the question; but so long as that was
the law, no bishop did his duty who neglected to enforce
them. The Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not
seem to understand the question in the least as it ap-
plied to Roman Catholics and to Dissenters. In one
case the man was in holy orders, and in the other was not.
—(" No, no," and laughter.) The Hon. Member might
sneer as much as he pleased. He believed, doubtless,
that he might if he thought proper change his Chris•
tianity and become a Jew, but he could not.—(Cries
of ".Hear, hear.") Let the House bear in mind
that, in fact, by this Act, they were about to separate
the Church from the State. He did not say that it was
wrong to do so; but this he would say, let them know
what they were about, and let them recollect that the
Church was not the gainer, but the State, by
the connexion that at present existed. The State
was a gainer by that union, and if the clergy
and, the Church found it was impossible to
continue the connexion between it and the State,
he was going to say under the monstrous incubus of that
House—(Laughter)—he thought' (as we understood)
they would do well to break them asunder.
Sir G. GREY said, when a clergyman took holy
orders in early life, and in after life saw reason to
alter his opinions, entertaining a conscientious con-
viction that he could no longer continue a clergyman,
ministering the ritual of that Church, which the Hon.
Gentleman would admit he had a perfect right to do, and
joined some other Protestant sect, as the law now stood,
he was amenable to punishment. Again, a minister of that
Establishment might leave the Church and embrace the
Boman Catholic faith, celebrating, though in orders, mass;
but on that he would not express any opinion. He confessed
he thought it a great practical inconvenience that a person
leaving the Church and joining another, on account of
conscientious scruples, should not be out of the jurisdic-
tion of the Ecclesiastical Courts, and be liable to
punishment for acts done at an early period of
his life, and prior to his seceding from the Church
—punishable, let it be boree in mind, for
irregularities not committed in connexion with the
Church, but as a member of a Dissenting community.
Was there anything unreasonable in exempting such per-
sons, under proper limitations, from proceedings being
taken against them at any future period of their lives,
no matter how remote, if they were pleased to exer-
cise the talents which God had given them in
the instruction of their fellow-creatures? (Hear,
hear.) The Han. Gentleman who had proposed the
amendment complained that the measure did not go far
enough, because it did not enable clergymen of the
Established Church to become Church laymen. He was
not aware that clergymen could not resign and enter into
private life as laymen of that Church; whilst the Hon.
Gentleman opposite contended that the Bill did that
which the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lacy) said it did not
accomplish. He did not think that clergymen
who were guilty of irregularity and impropriety
ought to be exempted from this Act, if com-
mitted previous to making the declarations,mstircrues-
quired by the Church, but he thought it was
that he should be punished for acts committed before
he left the Church. He never heard of persons
who bad been in either the army or the navy pro-
ceeded against for what they had done before
leaving the service.—(Hear, hear.) With respect
to whether persons so leaving being exempted
from the provisions of the 10th George IV., he would
merely observe that it would become a serious question
in Committee whether it would not be well to repeal
those restrictions which prevented persons in holy orders
from sitting in that House, and from performing other
duties which the law now prevented them from doing.
He trusted that the majority would support the second
reading of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. KERSHAW contended that a member of the
Church of England had a right to leave its bosom, and
to join the Roman Catholic or any other persuasion,
without being subjected to persecution.
Mr. HENLEY doubted much whether it was correct
that a minister of the Church, leaving the Establish-
ment, and joining the Romaa Catholic Church, was free
from all penalty or hindrance, and appealed to the Attor-
ney. General to set him right in the matter. If he was not
punishable, he considered that both „offences should
be put upon a similar footing.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL declined to reply to
the question until he had had an opportnity of further
considering it.
Mr. LACY explained.
Mr. BRIGHT appealed to the Hon. Member not to
divide. upon a minor point, when so many agreed with
him on the main principle involved in it.
Mr. LACY drew the Hon. Gentleman's attention to
the title of the Bill.
Mr. BRIGHT said there was often a great difference
between the
weretitlead the clauses of a Bill.
Strangers then ordered to withdraw, but no divi-
sion took
amendment. place, Mr. LACY having withdrawn his
The Bill was ordered to be committed on Wednesday
next. _

LIFE POLICIES ASSURANCE
without any dis-
cussion.
BILL.
Committee This Bill passed through
LOCAL TAXATION—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
On the order of the day for the adjourned debate
being read,
Mr. DISRAELI rose and presented a petition
from a numerous body of holders and occupiers
of land in different parts of England, agreed to
at a meeting held in St. George's, Westminster, and
which petition was signed by the Duke of Richmond as
chairman of the meeting. The petitioners stated that
they perceived with deep regret an apparent indifference
in the House of Commons to the interests of the tenant-

farmers to whom they had been accustomed to look up
as their natural protectors; they also attributed their
present condition to the recent legislative changes
in the country, and although they did not con-
sider there was anything equivalent for the
protection of which they had been deprived,
they sought some mitigation in the remission of the
local and general taxation of the country, and in the re-
peal of the malt tax._(" Hear," from the Protectionists.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
when the House adjourned on Thursday last, they had
before them two counter-propositions, namely, that of the
Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, and the other came

from the Hon. Member fo; Montrose. It would now be
come his ditty to state the course which the Government in-
tended to pursue, and which they recommended the
House to adopt. In the first place, he was quite ready
to do justice to the Hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr.
Hume), and he admitted his claim for candour both with
respect to the ultra views which he entertained and to
the proposition which he had submitted to the House.
The Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) was a great
master in the art of oratory, and he used it to much pur-
pose, and it seemed there were Hon. Members who were
prepared to follow him in adopting a proposition which
they did not understand, but from which they expected
some undefined good. He told the House when they
got into Committee that he would propose some
mighty scheme, and he referred to a proposition
which a Noble Lord had devised with respect to
Ireland—(Hear, hear)—and that it would have been
more beneficial to that country than any measure which
had been passed for her relief during half a century ;
but he did not give the House the slightest intimation
what that scheme would be. His Hon. Friend behind
him (Mr. Hume) was clear and plain-spoken. He knew
that his Honourable Friend near him intended that
the Honourable Member for the West Riding should
commit political suicide, for his Honourable Friend (Mr.
Hume) had it in contemplation to do away with
counties.

Mr. HUME said his proposition was to do away with
the Excise and not counties.—(Roars of laughter.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was perfectly true his Hon. Friend proposed to do away
with the Excise ; but in a much more general
scheme of instruction the Honourable Gentleman said
he was justified in claiming to be the most
candid Member of the House. He said he proposed to
do away with counties.—(Hear, hear, and cries of
" No, no" from Mr. Hume.) At any rate he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it would some-
whet iwpuga the new character in which his Hon. Friend
(Mr. Hume) came forward In being the fat-met-a' friend.
—(" Hear, hear" from the Opposition.) In the amend.
ment which the Honourable Gentleman proposed,
although the two duties on malt and hops
were those which he proposed to reduce, he
referred to certain other duties to the amount altogether
of nine millions and a half.—(Hear.) He begged to call
the attention of the House to this fact, that the proposal
of his Hon. Friend was based on a previous reduction of
expenditure, to the amount of ten millions.—(Hear,
hear.) The total expense for the army and navy was
eleven millions and a quarter ; and his Hon.
Friend proposed to do away with ten-elevenths
of that expenditure, which was necessary
for the defence of the country.—(" No, no," from Mr.
flume.) That was the position in which his Hon.
Friend proposed to leave the House, and that was the
essential preliminary to the reduction in the taxation
which his Hon. Friend proposed. He (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) thought this question was fairly dis-
cussed on the previous occasion, on the motion of the
Honourable Member for the West Riding; and ho did
not think he should be justified in occupying the atten-
tion of the House in further discussing a matter which
he thought had already been fully discussed and de-
cided; and in calling on the House to negative the
amendment of his Hon. Friend he believed he simply
called on them to re-affirm that decision which a few
weeks ago they came to by a large majority. He
therefore should propose to the House to negative the
amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for Mon-
trose, and to leave to the decision of the House the pro-
posal of the Honourable Member for Bucking.
hamshire. Now, turning to the proposal of the
Honourable Member opposite (Mr. Disraeli), he
must bear testimony to the calm and temperate tone in
which he brought it before the House.—(Cheers from
the Protectionists.) It had been a source of the greatest
satisfaction to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer),
not only on the former occasion but on this, that those
great questions had been brought before the House
in such a manner as to avoid any heat, or
any party spirit, or any angry feeling. He
could also perfectly agree with the Hon. Gentleman
in the eulogies which he had bestowed on the farmers of
this country. He perfectly concurred with him in
declaring his full confidence in the attachment of that
body to the institutions of their native land. He also
perfectly concurred with him in the truth of the state-
ment of the distress in which they were many of them
labouring, in consequence partly of the recent changes
which had been effected in the laws respecting
agricultural produce.—(Hear, hear.) And in saying
thus much he would beg to impress upon him, and upon
the agricultural Members generally, that these expres-
sions were not mere words of course, but they were the
genuine utterance of his thoughts and feelings.—(Hear,
hear.) There was no matter affecting the interests of the
tenant-farmer in which he did not himself participate.
There was no interest in which he was so largely con-
cerned. No advantage could be derived by them
, from which he would not receive a benefit,
and no evil could happen to them from which he would
not equally suffer an injury.—(Hear, hear.) But yet,
notwithstanding all this, he could not forget that the
agricultural interest was not the only one in the country
to which regard should be had.—(Hear, hear.) Before,
however, he proceeded to lay before the House the rea-
sons which impelled him to come to conclusions different
from those of the Hon. Gentleman, he thought it desirable
to state in what he differed and in what he agreed with
him. And, first, he thought it would be better to say
in what he agreed with him. He agreed then in the
assertion, that local taxation was especially pressing
upon them.—(" Hear," and repeated cheers from the
Protectionist benches.) That land was grieviously op-
pressed he knew, for he learned it through the expenses
which he himself had to pay. The Hon. Gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) would remember the discussion which
ensued upon the income-tax during last year, when
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated
the case as strongly as he could at the time,
when it had been proposed to levy a rate
of a shilling in the pound on real property. He then
had stated many objections, with a repetition of which
he would not now trouble the House, but he might re-
mind them that the main objection was, that to the
tenants it would amount to neither more nor less than a
per-centage rate upon their property. He stated that
there was much uncertainty as to the sources from which
this rate would be derived, even if it were levied, and
that it was quite impossible to learn whether it would
be paid by land or houses. To a certain extent ho was
disposed to go with the Hon. Gentleman in the truth of
the assertions which he then made; but he could not go
all the length which the Hon. Gentleman seemed to de-
sire, neither could he altogether agree with the declara-
tion that the whole of the ten millions was borne in the
shape of highway-rate, poor-rate, and church-rate, by
the land, through local taxation.—(Hear, hear.)
He asserted that the land-tax amounted to 2,000,0001.,
and allowing for any discrepancies of opinion respecting
the sources whence these sums were derived, he was
disposed to allow that the amounts were in the aggregate
correct, but he was mistaken in supposing that the
money came into the coffers of the Exchequer. Yet,
notwithstanding the differences that existed before the
redemption of the land• tax, the whole of the money
paid was about 12,000,0001. per annum. Having stated
in what he agreed, he would also now point out in what
he differed with the Honourable Gentleman, and
giving the Honourable Gentleman his own figures, or
rather taking the figures from the same return as
that which had been used by the Honourable
Gentleman in making his calculations, he thought he
could show that he had erred considerably in the
amount of reduction which it was necessary to make.
The first position which the Hon. Gentleman assumed
was, that this local taxation pressed to the extent of
one-fourth on the incoming tenant. The Hon. Gentle-
man had stated that the amount of real property rated
to the poor was 67,000,0001., but if he referred to
the return of last year he would find that it was
sa,ooo,ooot —(Heer, hear.) He always liked to
deal with round numbers, and in this he should follow
the example of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, and the
amount of the income of the country he had calculated
at 248,000,0001. Now, taking the same rule of calcula-
tion, it would appear that the income was more than
386,0001., and the proportion of the local taxation was
not, as represented, one-fourth, but two-fifths of the
whole sum. He quite agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
that the matter was one which required present
attention, and the recent changes of the law had
very likely increased the pressure of local burthens
upon
reliefth was the farmer ; but he did not think that
anyto be obtained by any such
motion as that which had been
With
bghret
regard
dfotrne
the House by the Hon. Gentleman.
tithes, he appeared to be entirely mistaken.—(Hear,
hear.) They would all agree with him that
when they
were proposing to give up a sum like 2,000,0001. or
3,000,0001., that it would be yielded simply for the pur-
pose of relieving the:agricultural interest, and not for the
sake of merely throwing the money away. Now to
whom would the benefit go? Why out of this
84,000,0001., 40,000,000/. worth of property was not
agricultural at all, but consisted of houses,
lands, mines, and other property, the owners
of which had been decidedly benefitei by that change.
A little more than two years ago a Committee of the
shi
da that r e tdh e
by pro-
bable
the
change of rates wa
House of Lords sat upon this subject, and wit-
ness after witness, land surveyors, and others,
gave the most conclusives evidence
alwayscon
ucte d d d
tenant before he took it. He (the Chancellor of the
tenant before he took a farm, and was e by the
Exchequer) had had a great deal to do with the manage-
ment of estates, and he was certainly of opinion that
the evidence that had been given was most correct.—
(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman then read
the evidence given before the Lords' Committee by seve-
ral witnesses, and stated that he believed, upon considera-
tion, that the Hon. Gentleman would not contravene
the proposition that had been laid down by those wit-
nesses. The result of the proposition of the lion.
Member for Buckinghamshire came to this, that the
parties he proposed to benefit would not be benefited
at all by the adoption of his resolutions, that
the boon he proposed to confer on the owners of real
property they were not in the slightest degree entitled
to.—(Hear, hear.) It was to be observed also that land
paid a much more diminished proportion to the poor
than any
other description of property—(Hear, hear)—
and as an evidence of that, he might state that in 1826
land paid 69 per cent., in 1836, 56 per cent., in 1841, 52
per cent, and at the present time only 47 per cent.,
while other property paid 52 2-10ths per cent.—(Hear.)
LI the West Riding of Yorkshire the valuation on pro-

party assessed to the poor in 1816 was 1,671,0001.,
and in 1834, 2,287,0001.—(Heer.) Since tests a
new valuation had been made, which t..s•
the valuation on property in that Riding was
at the present moment, 3,930,000, and during the last 14
years, the increase on the manufacturing districts was
108 per cent., while that on the agricultural districts was
only 27 per cent. In towns a similar increase had taken
place to that in the manufacturing districts, and in no
case, therefore, could any of the agricultural districts be
entitled to the boon the Hon. Gentleman had so unne-
cessarily and so improperly, as he conceived, proposed
to confer upon them.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable
Gentleman then referred to the charges, as he said, put
so improperly upon roads. Upon that subject, he
would ask who were the parties most interested
in roads ?—(Hear, hear.) Would not, he would
ask, every one answer, most assuredly the
agriculturists.—(Hear, hear.)! The Hon. Gentleman
seemed to think it shocking for the commercial traveller
to roll the wheels of his gig over agricultural roads
without paying for them.—(A laugh.) What was the
fact ? Why, that the agricultural districts would not
be half so well off if he did net do so, added to which he
brought them articles which were necessary to their ex-
istence.—(Hear.) But it must also be recollected that
there was such things as tolls, and who, he would ask. paid
most of them? Certainly not the agriculturists.—(Hear,
hear.) For among other things they were exempted
from the payment of toll on manure. Then the Hon.
Gentleman had referred to Church and State, and com-
plained most loudly of the burdens that had been inflicted
upon land with respect to them; he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) denied that any inequality existed with
respect to land on the question of church-rates, and
stated his belief that if the proposition of the
Honourable Member on that subject was carried, it
would inflict the greatest hardships on the agricultural
districts. With respect to the subject of cultivation, to
which the Hon. Gentleman had referred, he felt bound
to doubt his premises and conclusions, and to declare
that they were formed nn a wrong basis.
He would not dwell upon certain other portions of the
Hon. Gentleman's speech, which he must confess he did
not think worthy of his high standing as a debater. He
did not think much of the argument which proposed to
relieve agricultural parishes from the burden of main-
taining the soldier who fought the battles in defence of
the Liverpool and Manchester interests.—(Hear.) Of
-a somewhat similar character was the other argument
of the Hon. Gentleman as to the injury inflicted upon
agriculture by manufactures.—(Hear.) He really
thought that by this time every man, woman, and child
in this oountry was convinced of the fact that manufac-
tures conferred the greatest possible amount of benefit
upon agriculture. He should like to know how it was
that the wages of agricultural labour in Yorkshire were
so much higher than those of Dorsetshire.—(llear.)
How was it that he paid 14s. a week in Yorkshire,
while Hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose property lay in
Dorsetshire, only paid from 7s. to Bs.?---(Hear, hear.)
He knew, and the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Buckinghamshire must know well, that it was because if
he did not pay these high wages the labourer would
be off into the manufacturing districts.—(Laughter.) He
remembered well the circumstance of a late lamented
friend of his, in Yorkshire, having an excellent farm
servant, who left 'him suddenly, and upon being ques-
tioned as to the cause of the man leaving him, he said,
" Oh, dear, I don't know—l gave him 10s. per week to
keep him above ground, but he would go into the pit."
—(Hear, and laughter.) If the Hon. Gentlemen who
were connected with the southern counties would take the
trouble to refer to the evidence taken before the Lords'
Committee they would find the most conclusive testi-
mony of the benefits conferred upon agricultural coun •
ties by the introduction of the manufactures.—(Hear,
hear.) An Hon. Member of the House gave
evidence with regard to the improvement which
had taken place in the value of agricultural
property in the neighbourhood from the introduction
of manufactures into the town of Tiverton.—(Hear,
hear.) But let the Hon. Gentleman who had made this
motion look to his own county, and there be would see
that the introduction of paper-mills into Buckingham-
shire had greatly reduced the pauperism of the county.
—(Hear, hear.) Take, however, the existing manufac-
tures in the north—in Lancashire and Yorkshire—how
far true was it that agriculture derived no benefit
from them? Why, the very county which the Hon.
Gentleman himself represented had been relieved of its
surplus population, and its poor-rates diminished, by the
removal of the poor into those very manufacturing dis-
tricts--(Hear, hear) and when they got there
it seemed these poor persons were most particu-
larly anxious to avoid making any application for
parish relief, because they knew if they did they
would be sent back to the place from whence they came.
—(Hear, hear.) And yet the Hon. Gentleman depicted
in glowing language, which he perhaps alone knew so
well how to use, the distress which the manufac-
tures of the north inflicted on the southern and some of
the midland counties; but his conviction was that
the existence of these very manufactures was one
of the great sources of relief to those agricultural
districts, by taking off their surplus population, whom
they did not know how to employ.—(Hear, hear.) Let
him ask the House whether the introduction of ''manu-
factures into Ireland would not be the greatest benefit
that could be conferred on that unfortunate country?—
(Hear, hear.) Indeed their non-existence in that
country had been constantly complained of by
the landed interest of Ireland, because they
knew not how to employ their surplus
population, which could be got rid of at once if they could
only introduce similar manufactories to some of those in
England.—(Hear, hear.) He came now to a still more
extraordinary part of the Hon. Gentleman's speech. In
considering what he thought were the especial burdens
of agriculture, he left entirely out of his consideration the
especial exemptions in favour of that interest, but he
did not see how they could come to a satisfactory con-
clusion on this subject, if they left these exceptions out
of the question.—(Hear.) He, however, agreed with the
Hon. Gentleman, that the legacy duty was not so ex-
clusively confined to personal property as was gene-
rally supposed. He believed by the returns made up to
May last it would be seen that the duty fell far more
heavily on real than personal property, or rather, that
real yielded more to the legacy duty than personal pro-
perty.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") But he did not mean
to go into that part of the question now, and he
merely alluded to it in the slight manner he had
done for the purpose of protesting against the
Hon. Gentleman's leaving out of consideration the
exemptions in favour of agriculture.—(Hear, hear.) Sup-
posing his Committee were granted, how could'a correct
conclusion be arrived at, if the Committee were to con-
fine its attention only to the especial burdens which
pressed upon land? (Hear.) But what were those
burdens? The Hon. Gentleman, amongst others, enume-
rated the Excise duties on malt and hops, but so long as they
adhered to a system of indirect taxation, so long must
they continue the Excise duties.—(Hear, hear.) Sweep
away indirect, and adopt in its place direct taxation,
and then the Honourable Gentleman might hope, and
not until then, to do away with those Excise duties
which were at present imposed upon agricultural produce.
But he did not think the removal of the malt-tax would
materially benefit agriculture ; but, supposing it would,
that benefit could only exten to one portion of the
agricultural interest.—(Hear.) He repeated, however,
that so long as indirect taxation lasted, so long would
these Excise duties remain in existence; but just let
him enumerate some of the reductions which had been
made since 1815 in the duties which pressed heavily upon
agricultural produce. Those reductions amounted to no
less than 1,800,0001., but besides these, the duties had
been remitted on horses, carriages, and shepherds' dogs.
—(Hear and laughter.) Hon. Gentlemen might laugh
at the latter item, but let them remember that it was just
as requisite for a manufacturer to keep a dog to
protect his property as it was for the farmer to protect
his sheep; but while the manufacturer paid a duty upon
his dog, the farmer paid none whatever for his.—(Hear.)
Then they were exempted from the duty on the insur-
ance of farm stock. He did not say that this was
wrong, but when the Honourable Gentleman said that
nothing had been done for the agricultural interest, it
was desirable that the true state of the case, borne out
by facts, should be stated to the House—facts which
were easily attainable by any Hon. Gentleman who
liked to take the trouble to collect them. The manufac-
turer was bound to pay duty on the assurance of his stock ;
nevertheless, he was glad to see the great impetus the
removal of the duty had given to elle insurance of stock.
—(Hear, hear.) In 1834 the amount of farm stock
assured amounted to 37,211,0001., in 1838, 47,807,0001.,
and in 1847, 58,192,0001., the premiums paid during the
latter year being 87,0001. The House must surely be
of opinion that the removal of 7,000,0001. or 8,000,000/.
from the taxes formerly paid by the agricultural interest
was some alleviation of their burdens.—(Hear,
hear.) In 1845—three years ago—the Hon. Member
for West Somersetahire (Mr. Bankes) brought for-
ward several propositions for the relief of the agricul-
tural classes. The first was that the expense of the
rural police should be paid out of the consolidated rate,
but as the payment of the cost was entirely voluntary,
and the benefit of a purely local character, that
proposition was not entertained. Next, that the manu-
facture of malt for the feeding of cattle should be free
from duty. The Government had had the difference
between malt and barley tested, and finding that the
latter was preferable, that proposition was not enter-
tained. Next, he proposed that a general Inclosure Bill
should be passed. It was acceded to, and the result had
proved most satisfactory, since in 1839 nineteen
Bills were passed for the inclosure of particular
plots of land; in 1840,14; in 1841, 22, and in 1842, 12—
total 67. In 1845 there were 42 applications; in 1846,
90; 1847, 87; and in 1848, 69, making a total in four
years of 288, exceeding the former four years by a large
amount.—(Hear, hear.) This showed at least that agri-
culturists did not despair to the same extent as to the
value of agriculture as the Hon. Gentleman seemed de-
sirous to lead the House to believe. His fourth proposition
was that a general drainage Bill should be passed. That,
he was sorry to say, had not been done, but he believed
the Hon. Member for Berkshire intended to propose a
measure of the kind, which, be trusted, would meet with
success. The next proposition was that prosecutions
should be defrayed by the State. In 1846 his Right
Honourable Friend (Sir George Grey) in-
troduced a Bill by which the whole of
the expense of the prosecutions of criminals was defrayed
at the expense of the public. Then he proposed further,
that the maintenance of convicted prisoners should be
borne likewise by the State. In 1847 that was effected
passing of a Bill. He found that last year,
public
edthe
for money,these
to
purposes.—(Hear,the amoun t
of
hear.)34Bo 00H1 , haddid been
not,
therefore, think that the landed interest had '
tao rightre sted t a
in tlyet
oh
ualtt
ynaottihoinn go hf atdh
obleaenndd. oneT hfoonr
tt
hh
eo sne
oi n-
n.
Gentleman summed up that part of his speech by a
strong exercise of his imagination, saying, in effect, that
he was at a loss to understand why such momentous in-
terests had been neglected ; that the agriculturists
had been compelled to pay the whole ex-
penses of the country, and in a far greater
proportion than was paid by any other country in the

world. Now, if .he would descend from the airy fliuhts I
of imszieati,,n, ir, whiob he was prone to influlge, to Os,
dull realities of life, lie would find that a, 11111(1h small. r
proportion of the burdens of the State of this
country was borne by the landed interest than
was borne by the agriculturists of other countries.
If he crossed the channel to France ; if he crossed
the Rhine to Prussia, and reviewed the amount
of taxation borne by the agriculturists of Sweden
and Denmark, he would find that the aaricul•uri,ts
in those countries paid a gr.o prop ,rtiie, of
burdens of their respective countries than those
of the same class at home.-(Hear, hear.) Nay, further,
if he reviewed the condition of the Netherlands, he would
find that a much larger proportion was paid by land and
real property.-(Hear, hear.) He (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) only wished to show that the agricul-
turists at home enjoyed a better state of things than
the Honourable Gentleman wished to be believed.
He now came to what was really the main question be.
fore the House. The Hon. Gentleman put the whole
local taxation, including, he supposed, the municipal
institutions of Scotland, at 10,000,000/. He spoke, also,
of a Midland Counties squire, and spoke of his injuries.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) apprehended
that he was in the habit of going to his
county town in his chariot, rolled over a well-
paved and well-watered street, and a brightly lighted
road, for not one of which he paid.-(Hear.) Surely
he did not mean to contend that such a class of persons
were badly used. He (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) took the local taxation at 12,000,0001., or, in-
cluding a 11,14,000,0001., one-half of which, or 7,000,0001.,
he proposed to take off the shoulders of those
who now bore it, and in some way or other, which he
really did not understand, to place the burden so re-
moved upon, he supposed, some other class of the com-
munity. He said, it was to be effected by the plan of
increasing the income-tax, which he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) submitted last year; but the pro-
position was certainly not received with universal
favour.-(Laughter.) That proposition was certainly
not one which was likely to be received
with favour by the agriculturist interest.-(Hear, hear.)
He proposed to double the income-tax, and to distribute
it in the same proportions as at present. The first
effect of that would be to impose on schedule A an ad-
dition to the amount at present paid under it, of
3,233,0001., or, in fact, taking so much money out of one
pocket, and putting it into another, for the mere pur-
pose of doing so.-(Hear.) The second effect would be
that the tenant-farmers, whose interests had been put so
strongly forward, would have to pay a much greater
proportion of taxation than they did at present.-
(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He said no portion
of the local taxation was borne by the occupying
tenant He, therefore, would saddle upon the tenant-
farmers under schedule B an additional amount of
taxation of 405,000/. per annum.-(Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) Now to gentlemen who came forward as the
advocates of the tenant-farmers, this was uvery remark-
able proposition. He, as a landlord, would not
take the burdens he bore at present off
his shoulders and place them on bis tenants.(Hear,
hear.) A proposition of this kind, made by the followers
of the Duke of Richmond, seemed to him one not very
likely to be received with pleasure by the tenant-farmers.
An Hon. Member speaking in 1835 against the
repeal of the malt-tax said, " take care you do
Intotwas
get
not unlikely, instead a comfortable income-tax."
if the repeal of the malt-tax were
adopted, as recommended by the Hon. Gentleman, that
they would get in return a " comfortable income-tax"
instead of it, since he proposed to double their burdens.
-(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He confessed, however,
that the Hon. Gentleman dealt in many obscurities,
and perhaps he had not correctly understood him, but,
if correct, this was a very serious proposition.-(Hear,
hear.) They paid now 2,750,0001., his proposition would
compel them to pay 9,750,000/., which would increase their
taxation in the same proportion as 11 was to 39. Then,
again, they could not tax money in the funds unless they
taxed it to the same extent as all real or realised property.
He could not help thinking that a proposition so im-
practicable must have been suggested to his Hon. Friend
by some person not so attentive as his Hon. Friend was
to the claims of a measure of this kind.-(Hear. hear.)
He confessed, even independently of the impracticability
of the plan on so large a scale as that which the Hon.
Gentleman had proposed, that he could not help thinking
any large transfer of local to general taxation was of a
most dangerous character, and one which he would be
most sorry to see the House adopt. The Hon. Gentle-
man said-he felt the strongest objection to the levying a
naticnal rate. He said self-government was of the
greatest value in this country, and he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) agreed with him.-(Hear.) The
objections, he said, were so strong and so insuperable to
placing the whole charge of the maintenance* of the
poor upon the Consolidated Fund:; he (the Chancellor
of Exchequer) was far from denying it, but he must say
the objection remained most strong and powerful, even
with the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, of adding
one-half to the Consolidated Fund.-(Hear, hear.)
They had had some experience in that matter, they had
had the half-grant system in Ireland, and that expe-
rience led to the irresistible conclusion that if they wished
to increase the burdens on the public and on the Exche-
quer, that was the way to do it. He was equally con-
vinced that that transfer would not beta transfer merely,
but a clear addition to the whole burdens of the country.
t hteo conclusion
tthhea t
fu
nthe
aparties
not
w htoo
ehoand.
-(Cheers.) The experience on that subject tended
had-
only
tribute to it, led to the greatest waste and
extravagance.-(Hear.) He could not see any means of
exercising an effectual controul over the local expendi-
ture and management of the poor without a most formi-
dable and expensive machinery.-(Hear, hear.) He
thought the habit of self-government had led to the sta-
bility of this country-(Bear, hear)-and we could
hardly pay a price too high for it. He said if
they looked on the things going on on the Continent,
upon the chances between a blind submission to an officer
of Government, and a revolutionary Committee-if they
sought to undermine what he believed constituted much
of the stability of our Constitution-the habit and prac-
tice of self-government--lie believed they would in-
flict a blow not only on the prosperity, but
the happiness of :this country, which we should
long rue.-(Hear, hear, and cheers.) He would not
trouble the House much longer.-(lronical cheers and
counter cheers.) But before he sat down he must say a
word or two in reference to the price of agricultural pro-
duce, on which the Hon. Gentleman had based his pro-
position. He believed both the quality and quantity of the
harvest in the counties bordering on the southern coasts
had been exceedingly bad, and that parties who hada small
quantity of agriculturalproduce to dispose of could not be
otherwise than in a situation of some distress. In Sussex and
Kent, where the crops had been very bad, he believed
there was much distress, and he feared there was too
much reason to apprehend the existence of distress in
the southern counties of England; bat he could not think
there was anything like a general distress pervading the
agricultural counties of England.-(Hear, hear.) He
believed the markets had been depressed by the state
of the law, and he believed at the present moment the
hnigeheinr in
the 1848
year
thanr 1844 in
price of meat had been excessively depressed. The price
of
1844. beef
Thein S mi
averageth fiel d
pmarketriee was
per
stone
was 3s. 104 d., and in 1848, 4s. sd. The price of mutton
eB,44andin second
184c8lasast beasts were erTe
hseoltdhiradt
per stone in 1844 wag 45., and in 1848, ss. Itd. In
1844 inferior beasts sold at 2s. 7d. per stone, and in 1848
class were 3s. 34d. in 1844, and 3s. 11d. in 1848. The
3ats.
33415. 2d.
perd.
sltnonl
fourth class were 3s. 10d. in 1844, and 4s. 3411. in 1848.
Inferior sheep in 1844 were sold at 3s. 24d.
per stone, and at 3s. 9d. in 1848. Second class
sheep fetched 3s. 4d. in 1844, and 4s. 2d. in 1848; third
class fetched 3s. Bd. in 1844, and 4s. Bd. in 1848; and
the fourth class fetched 3s. 11d. in 1844, and sa. Hid.
in 1848.-(Hear, hear.) There was not a single descrip-
tion of agricultural produce the price of which was not
considerably higher in 1848 than it was in 1844, of
which year the Hon. Gentleman had spoken. He (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not think, therefore, the
alarm which the Hon. Gentleman expressed from the
introduction of foreign cattle had been realised, or that in
the last four years the agriculturists had any great reason
to complain of the depreciation of farming produce.
He thought that the gentlemen who were connected
with the body for whom the Hon. Member for Bucks
was on the present occasion the advocate were a great
deal too apt to indulge in assertions which had really no
very sound foundation in fact. He had heard the other
day of a gentleman, who was a member of some im-
portance, he believed, in the great society of Bond-street,
having gone down-to one of the midland counties with
the view to treat there with a farmer for the whole of
his produce. - (Hear, hear.) Well, they met;
the gentleman had some few days before at
a public meeting declared that no British
farmer cculd live with corn at 465. per quarter. Well
he went down and offered the veritable sum of 465. for
the crop -(Laughter.) To his proffer the reply was of
course-and it might be in a somewhat surly tone-No.
475.?-No. 485.?-No. 495.?-with a shake of the head
still No. 505.?-No, no. But however he believed:thatan
agreement was ultimately come to that the corn should
be taken at 50s. the year round.-(Cheers and laughter.)
Now he really thought that it was hardly
fair of these gentlemen to go from meeting
to meeting and state that which was not
precisely in accordance with the facts of the case.-.
(Hear, hear.) It was greatly and very unduly depre-
ciating agricultural produce by these assertions.-(Cries
of " Name, name!") He would give the name to his
Hon. Friend shortly.-(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But
he did not think it was fair-(Renewed cries of" Name,
name!" and cries of " Order, order!")-he did not think
that it was in accordance with custom, or that it would
be in any way convenient to give names on all occasions
publicly-(Heer, hear)-but he would give it privately
to his Hon. Friend as soon as an opportunity occurred.
The Hon. Member, when ho brought on his motion on
this subject in 1847, had referred to the pressure of the
poor-rates. Now he could not find that such was the
case, but ha would refer to the returns that had been
furnished on the return moved for by the Honourable
Member for Leeds. He would now refer to the agricul-
tural counties in the south of England. He would not
refer to the north ofEngland at all, where it might be sup-
posed thepressurearising from distress among the manu-
facturing classes might occasion any excess. He
would take six counties in the south of England, and he
must allow that in the poor-rates there had been for a
certain time a small increase during a certain period. In
1841 the amount collected was 2,128,0001, and in 1847,
it was 2,212,000/, showing an increase of about 84,000/.;
but between 1834 and 1847, there had been, owing to the
operation of the poor- law, a decrease of 19,000/. The
average amount of rating in those six counties was
Is. 2id. in the pound, whereas the average rating for
all England was Is. 6/d. in the pound. The weekly
wages of a daily labourer were formerly 121. ;
whereas, in 1846, they were reduced to Bs. a week.
He would now read from an extract from one of the
returns what the reductions were which had been
made during the last fourteen years in six
counties which were purely agricultural, and

whore manufactures could have had no influeeee
) I ,e.at. sLii' fl' raL, 6 ill.l ;. ila
Bedfordshire 42 per cent.; in Sussex 41 per cent.;
in Kent, 39 per cent.; in Cambridge, 48 per cent.; in
Norfolk, 42 per cent.; and in Suffolk, 40 per cent. He
would now state the number of paupers which were
sustained in the several workhouses in 60 unions,
in the four counties of Cambridge, Essex,
Norfolk. and Suffolk. During the eerreseonding vet k
of1:.-• ore 13,311 iumaee e.• Ne.e.
'louses, dud during the present 13,012. shoe leg
a decrease of 499. During the same week
in last year the money paid for out• door
relief was 6,9831. ; this year it was 6,9471.
showing a decrease of 361. He would then turn to the
midland counties, and he found that the number of
paupers, on an average of twelve weeks, in a similar dis-
trict in that part of the country, was—last year 2,301,
and this year it was 2,010, showing a decrease of 291.
The amount of money granted for outdoor relief was,
in 1848, 1,2641., whilst this year it was only 1,161/. So
that he thought he might safely say that the assertions
of those gentlemen who spoke so strongly respecting the
distress in the agricultural districts were either grievously
exaggerated, or altogether unfounded.—(Hear, and
cheers.) In speaking the other day with his Hon. Friend
the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire, he
had expressed an opinion that the quietude which
had been kept in this country last year was owing, to a
great extent, to the relief felt by the labouring classes
from the low prices of food, and the little duty which
existed upon grain. He did believe that such was the
case, he did believe that that relief was necessary,
but he also felt that it was requisite for the Government
to provide them with the other necessaries of life.—
(Hear, bear.) He believed that there was no prosperity
for one class without prosperity for another. It' the
poor suffered adversity, the rich would not be
saved from distress, and, above all, he felt,
even if it were to deprive them of some
of the luxuries which they enjoyed, the poor must have
the necessaries of life secured to them—(Loud cheers
from all sides of the House)—and that, above all, none
were so interested in providing those necessaries, and
ensuring the security of the country, as the landowners,
who had the greatest, the deepest, and the most perma-
nent interest in the soil.—The Right Hon. Gentleman
then sat down amid loud and repeated cheers.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER could assure the House that he
would be very brief in the observations he should make,
in answer to the speech of his Right Hon. Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ilis Right Honourable
Friend, at the conclusion of his speech, seemed
to doubt that great distress had arisen, and still existed,
in the agricultural districts. If he (Mr. Christopher)
could coincide with his Right Honourable Friend,
he could assure him, that he would rather
have consented to try the experiment of free
trade than come forward and support the reso-
lution of his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham-
shire.—(Hear, hear.) But as he knew that distress in
the agricultural districts was general he felt bound
to support his Honourable Friend's resolution.
To what state, he would ask, was the agricultural dis-
tricts reduced at the present moment? All protection
had of late years been withdrawn from them, and it was
at the present time the only interest wholly unpro-
tected. It, therefore, in his opinion, became
the duty of the House to look into the local taxation of
the country, in order to see how far it pressed un-
justly upon the agricultural interest. He did
not think his Right Honourable Friend the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt fairly
with the proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Buckinghamshire. He had brought forward his resolu-
tion, not for the purpose of introducing any new
system of taxation, but in order to obtain the ap-
pointment of a Committee in order that the
burdens on land might be considered and redressed. His
Right Hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
had admitted that the local taxation of the country had
been unequally borne by the land, but he had gone
a great way to mystify the facts stated by the Hon.
Member fur Buckinghamshire. That Hon. M, mber did
not propose, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
stated, to increase the income-tax; far from it, fer
he (air. Christopher) had no doubt that he would gladly
come forward and aid the Chancellor of the Exchequer
in putting an end to it altogether. He believed the
agricultural interest would be g reatly relieved if Ministers
would retrace their steps, and put a fair duty upon
agricultural produce coming from other coun-
tries ; but the course that had been pursued
in that and the ocher House of Parliament had
put a stop to the adoption of such a proceeding. Such
being the case, the agricultural interest was reduced
to adopt the only course left open to them,
and endeavour to reduce their local taxation:
He denied the proposition that had been put forward
that the public funds of the country ought not to be
called upon to pay the local taxation, and in support of
that denial he need only allude to the opinion of
great political economists, who stated that the
real and personal property of the country ought
to be assessed to the poor-rates.—(Hear, hear.)
Considering that the recent commercial alterations had
been made almost exclusively for the benefit of the fund-
holder, he ought to take upon his own shoulders his
portion of the burdens of the country, which the agri-
cultural, at a former period, was content to bear,
but which, under the existing circumstances,
had become intolerable. Now, with regard to the bur-
dens which bore upon the occupying tenant, in the year
1845 the poor-rates on the tenant amounted in some
parishes to 17a. 6d. in the pound.—(Hear, hear.) Surely,
the fundholder might take upon himself part of
the tax. He participated in all the rights and
liberties of the kingdom, and as the law provided
that every interest should be taxed according to
its means for the support of the poor, surely it was not
fair to throw all the burden upon the farmer, and
exempt his neighbour, the fundholder.—(Hear.) At
the present moment the agricultural was the only in-
terest without protection, and the farming produce of this
country had to enter into unrestricted competition with
the foreigner, while many manufacturing trades were
protected with duties varying from ten to twenty per
cent.—(Hear, hear.) Now, was that fair or Just ?
Tho agriculturists did not complain of those inte-
rests being protected, but they had a right to
expect that the same justice that was meted
oat to manufacturers would be conferred upon
them.—(Hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, however, admitted that agricul-
ture bore an excess of local taxation to the extent of
12,000,0601, and that he thought was a sufficient reason,
now that the farmers had lost all protection against the
foreigner, that the burdens of the country should be
considered by the House with the view to a more equal
and equitable distribution of them.—(Hear hear.) But
not only had the farmer been deprived of all protection,
but he was prohibited from cultivating his own hied
as he pleased. He was precluded from growing tobacco
although it might be grown in many parts of England
as well as in Ireland,—(Hear, hear.) Now, with
regard to what had fallen from the Honourable
Member for Montrose on the first night of this session,
who expressed his delight that mere questions of pro-
tection were no longer to disturb the House, he for one,
begged to assure him, that the agriculturists had never
ventured to ask the House for a greater share of
protection than was enjoyed by any other interest.
and so long as the present unequalised system of local
and excise taxation continued he should feel himself
justified iu demanding for the farmer the same privi
leges that were extended to the manufacturer.—(Elear.)
Different scales of taxation prevAled in different parts
of France, and duties were levied upon all corn that
came to that country in foreign ships. The agri-
culture of France, therefore, could not be justly
compared with the agriculture of this coun-
try. Besides, Am-rica was an excellent customer.
of the produce of France. Then the country would
not have accepted the income-tax except it had been
proposed as a temporary expedient; nevertheless, seeing
that it saved the poor from many imposts, he would not
be a party to its abrogation. The Hon. Member for
Montrose (Mr. Hume) had come forward in a new light
—as the farmers' friend—since he proposed the re-
peal of the malt-tax and the reduction of the expendi-
ture. The malt-tax was a most odious one, since it was
7 per cent. upon the cost of produce, which after all fell
with the greatest weight upon the consumer. But if a
similar tax were proposed to be placed on cotton the
whole of Manchester and Liverpool would rise in arms.
aganist it. He considered that the proposition of his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) was far preferable to that of
the Hon. Gentleman the Member fur Montrose, who, in-
stead of dealing in obscurities, as the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had imputed to him, made as clear a state-
ments as he had ever heard in that House.
Colonel THOMPSON said be never was very
strong upon accounts, but he wished to know from
Honourable Gentlemen opposite what compensation
they intended to give Honourable Gentlemen on this
side of the House for the twenty years' existence of
the corn-laws, which he, for one, should be glad to
have in the form of a rent charge. He always considered
that the malt tax pressed heavily on the owners of land,
and was prepared to remove it; but, in the meantime, he
wished to have his conscience set right upon the matter
he had mentioned.
The Earl of MARCH said he was prepared to prove,
by official returns, that the wages and the burdens of the
people had been augmented by the passing of the repeal
of the corn-laws—that when corn was cheap, that
the poor-rates were highest, and when the price
was high, that they were much lower.—(Hear, hear.)
There was 10,000,000/, mere of charges on the agri-
cultural interest in the seven years when the price
of wheat was low then in the seven years, when it
was at the highest price.—(" Hear, hear," from
the Protectionists.) He thought that with that evidence
before them they were not quite justified in
taking the same view of the case as the Chancellor
of the Exchequer. With regard to the use of
roads, he entirely disagreed with the statement made by
the Hon. Member for Montrose, when he stated that not
only the making but the repairing the roads were so
great a benefit to the land that on the
land only should that taxation fall. In the Isle of
Wight, where there were no turnpikes, the
highway-rate was a shilling in the pound.
He believed that was a charge which was
not fair upon those upon whom it was charged, and
it ought to he got rid of. He believed it would be proved
that the land had burdens to bear which were not borne
by the other classes of the community. He
wished to put a case to the Honourable Member
for Montrose. A has an entailed estate assessed at
5,000/. a year with a mansion, and he has a mansion in
London also assessed at 400/. He had to pay in direct
charges as follows: the poor, county, and church-rates at
3s. in the pound was 750/., the land tax was 79/., the income-
tax upon the actual rental of 4,600/. was 138/.; the
tenants' property- tax on farms above 300/. a year wt.
961., making, in all, 1,0631. The house in London
was assessed at 601. on a rate of three shillings
in the pound, making a total of 1,123/. Whereas
A, who was entitled to an entailed estate in :law, Wa
subject to taxes to the amount of 1,1231.; B, who re-

1!7.

nf,ivrt-1 his 5,0.00/
tomer: i;;,• .)
c-,Jos:Lt. Ci,anft,ii.,,r vi die Exco,qucr was per-
fectly right when he said he was not a practical
farmer, for when he said that the price of agricultural
produce was so high this year, he should have consi-
dered that whatever was the quality of the produce, the
farmers in Sussex have recently not been able to
get any price at nil for their wheat. He was pre-
pa.,d t vet, t e 1,1;. Imr -:•

for Aloi:trose.—(eto ens.)
On the motion of Mr. MILNER GIBSON, ih d, bate
was adjourned a few minutes betore Six, and the House

STATE OF TRADE.
(From the Manchester Guardian.)
MANCHESTER, MARCH 13.—The checks that business
received last week, from the accounts brought by the
American packet and the overland mail have been felt in
a somewhat diminished degree to day. But though cotton
has recovered much of what it then lost, there remains, on
the whole, a strengtbeeed impression that the present
range of prices must eventually be rather lowered by the
weight of the supply, and this impression tends to produce
caution in our market. In the letters received to-day
from Italy, previous orders are countermanded in con-
sequence of dist usted paper having been put out by the
Leghorn Bank, and of a depreciation of the Tuscan and
Roman currencies by forced issues of inconvertible
paper on the part of the Provisional Govern-
ments. 'While, therefore, a slightly improved feeling is
perceptible, as compared with last week, still business
drags heavily, and not a little irregularity exists.
The transactions of the day have been of very limited
amount, buyers having shown no disposition to operate.
Prices have, consequently, been very imperfectly tested;
but it is evident that, although the quotations are gene-
rally the same as those of a week ago, yet, in most
things, sales could be effected only through some con-
cessions. Goods are, on the whole, firmer than yarns;
and, of the latter, spinnings for home manufactures are
better than those for exportation.
ROCHDALE, MARCH 12.—We have had a quiet market
to -day, and the merchants have purchased very sparingly,
at last week's prices. In the wool market there is no
change to report from that of the preceding Monday.
HALIFAX, MARCH 10.—The state of trade, in our
Piece Hall and in the warehouses, is about the same as
last week. The demand is not brisk, and is chiefly for
lastings, which go off at rates nearly equal to the ad-
vanced cost of the raw material. Yarns are firm, at late
rates, and the spinners are fully employed on old orders;
but the shipping houses are extremely shy of giving out
new orders at the improved rates. There is no altera-
tion to quote in wool, which maintains its price with
considerable firmness.

HUDDERSFIELD, MARCH 13.—The market keeps up
the character of the last few weeks, and everything indi-
cates a steady, improved state of trade. A good business
is doing in the warehouses. In vestings, we have not
heard of many orders being yet received.
LEEDS, MARCH 13.—We cannot report any material
change hi our cloth market since last week. The amount
of business done at our halls today was about the same
as last Tuesday, and prices were unaltered. There is
little doubt the higher prices asked by the manafactu-
rers interfere with the business in some degree, and
check the merchants in their purchases.