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

1849,

that question to the landlords, and if they spoke their
minds freely and cenclidiy, they would say that the dif-
ference lay in the rent,—(Bear, hear.) The 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 Scotland—in some parts
of Scotland more than three times what it had been in
1790.—(Hear, hear.) He was not going to contradict
himself; he was not going to say one thing now, having
said another before the repeal of the corn-laws; be never
in the presence of farmers said anything about rent; he
had often met farmers, but he defied any one to show
that ho had ever dwelt upon the subject of rent; he
never told them that they were to obtain relief by
a reduction of rent; but ho 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
bad 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 bo 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 the dis-
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, thatin 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 was " 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 at 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 1813
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 he 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, end 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 it' 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; be said he
could not give any remission of taxation; and then the
Hon. Member for Montrose stepped in in the kindest
manner—(A. laugh)—and declared the necessity of re-
ducing the national expenditure. He (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 he
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, he passed his estimates, after a great battle for
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 purqueise4,nsuer;
ject to certain imposts, and that, therefore,llat
liable to the
had no right to complain that theywere_
payment of the charges to which het
would be admitted
objected. He thought, however,
it
subject to cer-
that if a person had purchased an e
Mr Disraeli) had
tain charges, and if,
were very materially
circumstances of the country
l of the imposts which
in course of time, the general
altered, he had a right to co p
Tmhe Hon. Member for Mon-
he was required to PP
nemlaai‘n,sfeoxrgisotetdththate.
who purchase
tense had enumerated
d an esteteer t: ifn charges
atgoe,w hwiac a p
was aware
awaerres
hemany persons had but
purchasedt h olnae dGwe nhtel
would be liable
only effect and purpose of which were, according to the
Hon. Member himself, to raise the rents of the country.
—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Disraeli) did not find, how-
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 rato 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 theu2 PM absolutely considered Iva act vi

pl
orwi ee
at
nob
cr geen
oswg
uf
rtoa
tmercyecit ao remindnt favour
the
t evpo
ryolrpo lon—(Hear,
aei
oaxtr ,
utahinet dh
landed
dl
anyea
du g hp .ra)ol
neouo
for
pr erpoapierrst,y
,hvia!
se tfhoier
yp
alsleosws oes otfo optlhaeore dt
oes
jclriisp tai
t
every source of diminution ; and that, by
schedule of the property-tax, the farmer
phaeidse upo
profits which, after the introduction of the property!'
tax, Parliament had by another law totally destroyed:
—(Loud cheers.) He was not surprised, however,
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had acknow-
ledged the excessive burdens upon real property, for
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had on a solemn oc-
casion expressed to his Sovereign his determination,
should it be in his power, to rid the occupiers of land of
the burdens to which they were subject. The Noble Lord
had to night explained that it was his determination, had
he then been in power, to have fulfilled the intentions of
the Right lion. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel).
The Right Honourable Baronet had taken off a tax of
100,000 Z, which was now contributed to the county.
rate ; but did the Noble Lord mean to assert that that
100,0001. was an equivalent for the burdens of which he
(Mr. Disraeli) complained? Was that the Noble Lord's
redemption of the Bs. fixed
duty, which rendered him so
celebrated, and which the farmers were now quite ready
to accept ?—(Laughter and cheers.) It could not be
supposed that the Right Honourable Member for Tam-
worth and his Friends had at all changed their opinions
with respect to these burdens on land ; and he (Mr.
Disraeli) thought, therefore, it would be admitted on all
hands—except by the Honourable Member for Montrose
—that these burdens were unjust.—(Hear, hear.) But
an objection had been made to the practicability of
what had been called the scheme which he (Mr. Dis-
raeli) had proposed. Within a few weeks some memor-
able resolutions had been placed upon the table, and be
bad requested; the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), before
House went into Committee, to favour them with some
details of his views and of his plan.—(Loud cheers from
'the Protectionists.) The Noble Lord was, however,
mute; nothing would tempt him to give any explanation
until the House was in Committee. The Noble Lord
could not be surprised that he (Mr. Disraeli) had fol-
lowed so eminent an example—(Laughter and Cheers)—
and that he had been equally chary in offering those ex-
planatory details which the Noble Lord, with a gay au-
dacity, had expressed astonishment that he had not
afforded.—(Cheers and laughter.) The Chancellor of the
Exchequer had been complimented on the admirable
manner in which he had demolished his (Mr. Disraeli's)
scheme. He certainly must congratulate the Chancellor
of the Exchequer on his success and the victory he had
achieved without meeting an opponent.—(Cheers.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid it down
that he (Mr. Disraeli) was prepared to raise the sum of
5,000,0001. or 6,000,0001. by an income or property-tax,
and then proved satisfactorily to the House that that
would only be taking out of one pocket exactly the sum
placed in the other. Nothing could be snore admirable
than the argument, nothing more sustained than the
logic, and the enthusiasm of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer was interesting.—(Laughter.) As the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer performed the operation, be (Mr.
Disraeli) saw a man, as it were, squaring the circle, or
on the point of discovering the philosopher's stone; but
there was one objection to the triumph which the Chane
cellor of the Exchequer and his friends claimed, and that
was that he (Mr. Disraeli) never in any way stated that
he intended to raise any sum whatever by an income or
property tax; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer hay.;
ing completed his whole process of ratiocination was so
convinced that he (sir. Disraeli) had not intimated such
a project, that he was at last obliged to confess the hypo-
thesis with which he had amused the House
had no foundation. He therefore left the Chancellor
of :the Exchequer to the full enjoyment of his
triumph. That Right Hon. Gentleman had demolished
a case which never existed, and he (Mr. Disraeli) left
him to crow on the dunghill of the Consolidated Fund.---e
(Cheers and laughter.) It had been his object, in in-
troducing the present resolutions to the House, to show
that the real property of this country was unjustly
treated. Had he limited his endeavours to establish that
point he should have been perfectly justified, leaving it
to public opinion to influence the Minister to perform
that duty which would then have devolved on the Ad-
ministration. But, considering that he represented the
feelings of a considerable party in the House and coun-
try, he thought it respectful to the House to state that
in Committee he was prepared in detail to explain the
remedy which the grievance required; and he also
thought it fair to intimate that one moiety of this
great amount of local taxation for national purposes
should be taken off the shoulders of the real property
of the country. He showed that 10,000,0001. were levied
on little more than one-fourth of the income of the
country, and that the other three• fourths were privileged
property in this respect; and he said that he, supported
by the Hon. Gentlemen with whom he acted, consi-
dered that the moiety of this local taxation for national
purposes should be supplied to the localities by the Con-
solidated Fund; not for a moment intending that it
should be a permanent charge on the Consolidated Fund,
but that it should be raised from the three-fourths of the
property of the country at present not contributing to-
wards those national purposes.—(Cheers.) And now •
he would briefly show how this scheme, so completely
demolished, would have operated for the benefit of the
farmers of England. If 5,000,0004 being half of the
local taxation for national purposes, were raised upon
the property not now contributing towards them, that
would have been Gil in the pound. He admitted that
he farmer, for his profits in trade, would have to pay
that 61d. on half his rent, but how would that operate?
It appeared from a petition presented that night that
the farmers of Bradford, Wilts, complained of paying at
present Bs. in the pound for rates. Now, if his resolu-
tions were carried into eff ct those farmers might rise on
the following day and feel that they relieved from one-
half of their rates. They would then be paying only 4s.
together with 3id. in the pound. and under his plan roil
property would pay no more than that moiety which the
owner of it, through his medium. most generously of-
fered to accept.—(hear, hear.) Would that, he ask( d,
be no relief to the farmer ?—(Cheers.) So much for
the scheme so remarkably misrepresented. But the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, a suming that he (Mr.
Disraeli) was about to propose to put a tax on the fends,
expressed surprise that he should have made himself re-
sponsible fur a proposition drawn up by some Tash spirit.
He begged to inform the Right Hon. Gentleman that•he
(Mr. Disraeli) was responsible for the resolutions he bad
placed on the table, but at the same time he was satis-
fied to this k that be bad done nothing in this matter
without the counsel and advice of men second to none in
that House in ability and experience—the Gentlemen
with whom he had the happiness to act.—(Hear, hear.)
If he were allowed to go into Committee be woald meet
the Right Hon. Gentleman on the point he had alluded
to, and he begged to say that he called upon no one to
go into Committee to touch the public funds. He asked
the House to do an act of justice.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Home De-
partment had delivered some opinions on the law
respetting the rating of personal property. That Hon.
Gentleman was mistaken in his view; we had the
evidence of Mr. Coode before the Lords' Committee;
personal property was liable to all these rates; stock in
trade was liable to every rate constructed on the basis of
the poor's rate, and was exempted only from the poor's
rate by a fleeting and transitory statute, which the Go-
vernment would shortly call upon the House to renew—
reviving this great controversy, which would never
cease till justice was done.—(Cheers.) To come now to
the third point. Was it true or not that the tenant
would be benefitted by the proposed plan? Here he
(Mr. Disraeli) had to deal, not with the practise of life,
but with the dogmas of the schools; and applying the
abstract science of political economy to circumstances
having nothing of an abstract character, it was very pos-
sible to anounce a result susceptible, as the Chancellor
of the Exchequer said, of severe demonstration—and
susceptible of nothing else.—(A laugh.) There were
disturbing causes in human life which would baffle the
most abstruse calculations; and the most powerful in
its influence, and most general in its character,
was time. If rents rose immediately that the cost
of production was diminished, what had been said of
the influence of this plan upon rent would be true ;
but the adjustment of rent depended upon there
being a new proprietor or a new tenant—occasions of
rare occurrence; and the present generation of farmers,
we might rely upon it, would enjoy this remission to
the full, and for many a long year after it was absorbed
in that rent, which for ought one could tell, when the
term had arrived, might not even exist.—(Hear, hear.)
There seemed a morbid antipathy, on the part of
.Gen-
tlemen opposite, to rent under any circumstances.(A.
laugh.) If by legitimate means we raised rent, surely
hear.)
we increased the wealth of the country.—(Hear, usee
The proprietors of rent were spoken of as a useless
be
class ; but in a country like England classes might
very useful, even if they were not productive
roductive classes.—
was a very useful
class—(Hear, hear.)
(Hear, hear.) A Conservative
If H a
n. Gentlemen were op-
posed to the existence of a territorial aristocracy, let
them say it out—(Opposition cheers)—it would be well
known then was :to be met—(Hear, hear)—but
they who believedwha an independent class of landed pro-
prietors to be the best security for popular rights, for
public order, and even for Imperial 'conservation,
would
know that if they had to struggle it was a stake worth
struggling for .—(Cheers.)
—(Cheers.) The Hon Member for the West
Riding (Mr. Cobden), who had made a most interesting
speech, but upon which it was impossible now to touch
except lightly, bad said that since the repeal of the
corn-laws the country had really been flourishing,
especially in those classes whose interests were so dear
to him, and that wages never were higher. But if so,
hew was it that the poor's-rates had risen seventeen per
cent.—(Hear, hear.) Perhaps that skilful rhetorician,
never at a loss, would revive the masquerade of Goat.
acre, and ask how, with a neglected and debased pea-
sentry, we could wonder at the increase of poors'-rate.
But the Poor- law Commissioners reported that it was
"mainly caused by the general depression which existed
in the maufacturing districts—(Opposition cheers)—and
by the influx of poor persons from Ireland in a state of
destitution"—(Hear, bear)—the depression of the popu-
lation the lion. Member stated to be so prosperous—the
destitution of Ireland, ruined by the repeal of the corn-
laws.—(Renewed cheers) The Hon. Member (Mr.
flume) had produced an amendment to the resolutions
before the House, and it was said that some Gentle-
men from Surrey or Suffolk were going to vote for it,
desiring the repeal of the malt-tax as an immediate
remedy, and persuaded that the original motion went
to the increase of the income-tax. Would they, then,
go before their constituents and avow that they voted
for a sceptical amendment, which promised relief "_if the
Would they
taxation upon real property was undue?"
single out the leader who in this moment of distress told
the landed interest he did not believe they were sub-
jected to unjust burdens?—(Hear, hear.) The Chan.
the House that cellor of the Exchequer bad informed
where the taxation d"
there was no country in Europe where
in n
E gland. F
d
not fall more upon the land than lashed
with triumph, and fiery he felt with victory, that at that
moment of his speech he might dare a good deal—
(A laugh)—and be visited several countries purely
agricultural, and ovid xo 4109 thoimslat lityy auk tf