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

that question to the landlords, and if they spoke their
minds freely and candidly, they would say that the dif-
ierenee lay in the r,,nt.—(ll ear, hear.) Ttic rent of land
at present was double, and in many cases treble, what it
had been in 1790. He had no fear of being contradicted
when he said, that the rent of land now was double its

rent in 1790. It was treble in Seotland—in semo parts
of Scotland more than three times what it had been in

1790.—(lIeux, hear.) lie was not going to contradict
himself; he was not going to say one thing now, having
said anuther before the repeal of the corn-laws; he never
in the presence of farmers said anything about rent; he
had often met farmers, but he defied any one to show
that he had ever dwelt upon the subject of rent; he
never told them that they were to obtain relief by
a reduction of rent; but he had always told them
that with free trade they would have a better system
and more room for energy and enterprise. And now he
would tell the landlords that if they meant or intended
to keep up the old rents, they mast have farmers of
more capital and intelligence than those to whom they
had previously been in the habit of letting their lands.
In future the landlords must proceed upon mercantile
principles. If rents were to be maintained the land must
be made more productive than ever, and that was only
to be done by farmers of greater capital, skill, and
energy, than the present race of tenants. But then the
landlords must also be willing to accept as tenants far-
mers who would not be afraid to vote according to their
own judgment of public men—(Hear, hear)—and land-
lords must give up battue shooting. There was no ne-
cessity for giving up a healthful and manly pursuit of
game after the manner of our ancestors; but the modern
mode, unknown to men of a former age, must be aban-
doned.—(A laugh.) He asked them to deal fairly
when they laughed. Were they aware of the
different manner in which remarks of that

kind were received by farmers when people
talked to them of battue shooting? They regarded
the preservation of game as a great nuisance; but the
best farmers did not by any means wish to exterminate
game. By an extreme preservation of game landlords
would drive men of capital off their estates. If landlords
desired to imitate the example of a certain Noble Lord
and his friends, who in the course of a single day shot
530 head of game, they could not hope to keep up their
rents—(Hear, hear)—or command the votes of the far-
mers.—(Hear, hear.) They ought to be content with
money, and not demand both game and votes, in addition
to high rents. It was not unreasonable, or out of place,
or out of time, to tell them so now, though it might be
greatly out of time for him to detain the House at that
advanced hour of the morning.—(Hear.) But if the
country gentlemen come to that house to parade thedis-

tresses of the farmers, and threaten the Ministers of the
Crown, and deal in idle predictions, and say that the far-
mers could not be prosperous, it became necessary for him
and those who thought with him, to tell those gentlemen
the reasons of the present state of affairs. He did not
forget how they had been told that it was most
_ .

painful to send away good farmers merely because they
were men of small capital. How was it that there
should be any scarcity of capital amongst the agricul-
turists. There was a glut of capital amongst all other
classes. Why was it not attracted to that most tempting
of all employments, agriculture? He regretted to be
obliged to say so, but it was too true, that in many
places farmers wanted, not only capital, but energy and
intelligence. They had been told that, if they went
down into Dorcetshire, they would find there farmers
who desired to see local rates removed. If that were the

character of their mind, he would say that they wanted
intelligence as well as capital. In calling on the House
to legislate respecting these local rates, the landlords
seemed to him to overlook, not only the interest of the
farmers, but the interest also of the agricultural la-
bourers; for he could easily show that in any district
where the farmers were remarkable for a want of capital
the farm labourers were in a most depressed condition;
the landlords, then, must invite men of capital to take
their land, or the agricultural classes must continue in
a depressed condition. Farther, the landlords must
leave off talking of protection. They must talk of it
no longer. It wtis " a delusion, a mockery, and a
snare." Protection could never be restored.—(Hear.)
What might be done with the navigation-laws depended
upon the Noble Lord, but if he were Minister he
should stand or fall by the measure then before them;
he should not alter a single clause of it; and he would
tell Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in a perfectly amicable
spirit, that the free trade question had been settled,
that they ought to occupy their minds rather with try-
ing to get the tariff equalised, than with futile attempts
to restore free trade. With a majority of 50 or 60
against them in that House there was nothing to be
feared from the advocates of protection. The corn-
laws had been settled; while they remained doubtful he
told the people to think of nothing else; he regarded
their repeal as the keystone of the arch, and now if any
one proposed to levy a duty on corn he would be met
by a body of opponents, not such as they had surrounding
that House in 1815, but by a very different class. No

man who valued the interests of the farmer or those of
the labourer would now think of imposing a duty on
the importation of foreign corn—he believed it to be
impossible to recur to protection—they might as well
think of repealing Magna Charta. The landlords must
go alongside of the tenants and accommodate themselves
to circumstances, but high prices were incompatible with
the well being of the country. Did they want to
follow the example of the Noble Lord the Member for
West Sussex, who told them of the prosperity of the years
1839.40-41 and 1842 ? Had they forgotten the state of
Stockport et that period, with '20,000 persons on the
poor-rates; and in Leeds 30,000 in the same condition?
Would they dare to face such a state of things and call
it prosperity? It was well known that, three years after
the war, prices underwent a great revulsion, and many
were ruined by the stock in hand; but trade was re-
vived by large production and small profits. From 1815
to the present time fortunes were made, not by selling at
high prices, but by bringing prices lower and lower. There
was now abundant scope for carrying out the same prin-
ciple; and ho hoped to see the time when a man who laid
out 1,0001. upon 50 acres of'-land would be more inde-
pendent, more prosperous, and more useful than many
who now held 500 or 600 acres, without possessing a
quarter or a tenth of the capital they ought to have.
—(Hear, hear.) He would be sorry if the motion of
his Honourable Friend the Member for Montrose
were ignored. It was clear the Honourable Member
for Buckinghamshire was put out of court. He would
recommend every farmer to read that Honourable Gen-
tleman's speech, aided by the analysis in Punch.—(A
laugh.) But the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not
promise much better; he had nothing to offer; he said he
could not give any remission of taxation; and then the
lion. Member for Montrose stepped in in the kindest
manner—(A laugh)—and declared the necessity of re-
ducing the national expenditure. Ho (Mr. Cobden)
was satisfied that they could not benefit the farmer ex-
cept by a general reduction of the public expenditure.
They would find, taking two countries where land was
of the same intrinsic value, and which were placed under
precisely the same circumstances, that the land in that
country where taxation was the lightest would fetch the
highest rent; and the reduction of the national expendi-
ture was the only means by which they could stave off
that tendency to a reduction of rent which must arise in
the transition state. The Hon. Member for Montrose
proposed the repeal of the malt-tax; and for that mea-
sure he (Mr. Cobden) was an advocate. Some farmers
deluded themselves into the belief that they paid the
malt-tax; but many a coalheaver on the Thames paid
far more to that tax than many farmers.—(Laughter.)
lie supported the repeal of the malt-tax because ho
was desirous to get rid of excise taxes as far as he
could, but mainly because he wished to diminish the
waste of the national expenditure upon cumbrous and
unnecessary armaments. He was satisfied, from study-
ing the proceedings of that House for 35 years past,
that if they wanted to reduce expenditure they must
get hold of a tax as a grievance—they must bring a
pressure to bear upon the Government, and means would
be found of effecting a reduction. In 1816 or 1817,
when the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) was Secretary
at War, ho passed his estimates, after a great battle fur
a reduction in the number of men to be voted—the
Noble Lord now at the head of the Government having
fought most manfully in favour of that reduction.—
(Hear, hear.) A week afterwards the property-tax was
brought under the consideration of the House, and it
was rejected by a large majority. What was the re-
sult? Within a week from that time the Secretary at
War (Lord Palmerston) came down and withdrew his
army estimates, in order to amend and reduce them.—
(Hear, hear.) If, then, they enforced upon the Govern-
ment the necessity of reducing the malt-tax and other
taxes, they would obtain a reduction of the public ex-
penditure. He would, therefore, vote for the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for Montrose.—(Cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI said that, having carefully listened to
every speech that had been delivered on either side
throughout the debate, it appeared to him that the ob-
jections to the resolutions he had proposed might be
classed under three heads:—First, the justice of the
allegations contained in those resolutions was denied ;
secondly, the practicability of his suggestions was ques-
tioned; and thirdly, it was maintained that, even if prac-
ticable, the scheme would not be in any degree beneficial
to the farmer.—(Hear, hear.) The denial that there was
great injustice in the burdens which were solely laid
upon real property came mainly from the Honourable
Member for Montrose and those who agreed with him
in political opinions. The Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Hume) said that the land of England, whether
culti-
vated or covered with buildings, had been
purchasedth
sub-
ject to certain imposts, and that, therefore,ereliable to the
had no right to complain that thhcb,y eownersit would be admitted
payment of the charges to which
objected. He thought, however
d estate subject to cer-
taine (Ir. Disraeli) had
that if a person had purchase
charges, and if,
ntry were very materially
circumstances of the
"oumplain of the imposts which
in course of time, the general
altered, he had a rightpay.t o complain of the iniposts which
ay. The Hon. Member for Mon-
hecertain charges to which a person
trose
d an estate a few years ago, was aware he
who purchase
but the Hon. Gentleman forgot that
wahsardeqeuniurmedertaoted
would be liable ;
many persons had purchased land when laws existed the
only effect and purpose of which were, according to the
to. Member himself, to raise the rents of the country.
_(Bear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli) did not find, lhow-
ever, with that exception, that the allegations that real
property was subject to burdens from which other pro-
perty was exempt, and that the apportionment of those
burdens was most unjust, had been denied by any party
in the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had
clearly acknowledged that the burdens of real property
were considerable ; and the Right Honourable Gentle-
man stated that the Government had taken those burdens
into consideration, and had already furnished a com-
pensation to the landed interest, because, in im-
posing the income-tax, they had not charged upon
that interest a higher rate in the pound than was
charged upon any other class of persons.—(lronical
cheers from the Protectionists.) In what a position were
the owners of real property placed, when equality with
regard to them was absolutely considered an act of