The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-09 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1849

rates. But some of my friends think that they have

on tteit companies. I let 1 tor the pro: cribecl interest of
railway property. I think the way in which they are
rated is most unjust, and the same with gas and water
companies who bear their portion of the taxation. But
the real property, which is one-fourth of the wealth of
England, is exposed in the way I have described to
much heavier taxation. It is unjust, and we must have
the means of redressing it, because the measure I sug-
gest is founded on justice, and therefore will ultimately
succeed. If one calmly considers this case—if it were
not in England that it occurred—it is as it
one was travelling in a foreign country, and that, for
the first time, we became acquainted with the system
of finance. It is so remarkable that if we were in a
strange country and learned that, independent of those
who bore their share of the whole taxation, there was a
private and separate revenue to an enormous amount
assessed on one fourth part of the property of the
realm, I ask, what would be the conclusion at which we
should arrive ? Why, Sir, we should say, this must be
a part of some country—probably a remnant of some
conquered race—some proscribed portion of the com-
munity who have been conquered, and who have borne
these burdens for centuries—these are the fruits of a
vassal-war which have been removed. But who would
suppose that this peculiarity was the privilege of the
proud and rapacious aristocracy of the country ?—the
people who made all the laws ; and also made the
laws for their own advantage, according to the doc-
trine of those who pretend to instruct it?—(Loud
cheers.) But, Sir, the most anomalous part of this un-
paralleled state of affairs is, that it,is not the law of the
country. The laws of England have always been the laws
of common sense; they never anticipated conclusions so
monstrous and so oppressive.—(Hear, hear.) I need not
now, considering those whom I address—l need not re-
mind them, I say, that the old statutes never anticipated
or enforced any such injustice. We know that the fa-
mous Act of Elizabeth was conceived in the wisest
spirit, and expressed in the wisest terms—that all the
inhabitants of the country, according to their means,
should be called upon to contribute to the maintenance
of the poor. We know, that, in comparatively modern
times, the Act of William and Mary established a land-
tax—only in common parlance called a land-tax—a tax
on all property. It was not a question of contribution
from land only. The land-tax extended also to persons
holding certain offices. Under the Act of William and
Mary—l believe, Sir, that the judges to this day pay
that tax, though I believe the tax was assessed upon
the allowances which were established in the time
of William and Mary, and not upon those granted
by our gracious Sovereign. And, in modern times—
in our own time—you have declared all property,
of all kinds, should be made liable to those imposts
which only real property has contiuued to pay. I need
not remind the House that stock in trade escapes assess-
ment to the poor-rate only by an annual Bill, which is
passed also by this rapacious aristocraey-.—(Cheers.)
That rapacious aristocracy exempt stock in trade from
the poor-rates, and they inflict this burden on that pro-
perty in which they are peculiarly interested. I ask,
then, i❑ the first place, with what show of reason can it
be advanced, that, for the objects for which these rates
are raised and taxes levied, the local property in a dis-
trict should have to bear additional burdens? Whether
a man's property be in broad acres, or whether he receives
his revenue from other sources, be is equally liable to the
maintenance of the poor. A district, you say, uses cer-
tain roads—the man living in it is interested in the admi-
nistration of justice, and for the good of his soul we hope
he goes to church. No human being will argue against
this. Expedients you may suggest. You may say that the
system has gone on, and that there is a difficulty from
which it is impossible to extricate ourselves—that there
is nothing more difficult than to tax personal property in
a locality—that it is not only inquisitorial but unjust to
do so, and that it is impossible of accomplishment.
These are arguments which you may use, but no man
can maintain them on the principles of justice. No one
can lay it down or maintain it for a moment, that either
property should be exempt. The system may be con-
tinued, but no one can argue that it is just. Now I will
admit fully, frankly, and fairly, that the inconveniences

—perhaps even the impossibility—of rating personal
property in a locality in any satisfactory manner, are in-
dubitable. But I am of opinion that if we pursue this
important inquiry with a less superficial spirit than we
usually, front various circumstances, regard such matters

in this [louse, we may, perhaps, find that the difficulty
will disappear, or that a solution of it may be found. In
the first place, I confess it appears to me that a great deal
of difficulty arises from a confusion of terms, from the
world persisting to associate with what is called local
taxation, as a necessary consequence, the idea that the
purposes for which local taxation is enforced are of a

local nature. Sir, I doubt whether it can be supposed
that the purpose for which taxation is locally levied is
of a local nature. On the contrary, I think it is levied
for purposes of a much wider and more comprehensive
character. I take the first, for example, as being the
most important tax—l mean that for the maintenance of
the poor. I know no el priori reason why the mainte-
nance of the poor should be the duty of a locality. The
maintenance of the poor is either a matter of police or
of social or religious duty. In looking over the ancient
statutes of our predecessors, we find they viewed it in the
limited light of police regulation. To allow people to
perish of famine is to produce mendicity and violence;
and certainly the most convenient way to defend our
persons from assault, and our property from rapine, is
by a poor-law. But it is not to be understood in that
limited sense. The matter is viewed in a much higher
light in this House and through the country.—(Hear.)
It is viewed as a social duty, justified by state policy, and
under the sanction of religion.—(Hear.) But if the
maintenance of the poor be a social duty, it is the duty
of every one according to his means.—(Cheers.) And,
Sir, in a country like England, an ancient country of
complicated civilisation, it is totally impossible that you
should lay it down as a principle that a particular dis-
trict shall support its poor, unless you can prove that that
district produced its poor, or unless you can insure that
local district from metropolitan and imperial legislation,
which may have the effect of intering with employment.
Why the very transition from war to peace throws out a
whole district from employment, yet that portion of the
country has not waged war or declared peace, and there-
fore is not responsible for the maintenance of those
people. That is a view of the question which, if fol-
lowed up in a country like England, cannot fail to throw
light on the circumstances of the case. The very altera-
tion of a fashion will seriously affect some districts; the
invention of a machine in the north of England—an
invention in Lancashire, will throw a part of Northamp-
tonshire out of employment. In many parts of England
those rural counties are held up to reprobation if they
do not employ their poor, and the existence of the dis-
tress is attested to as a consequence of the late system
of protection. What is the fact? Why, that there are
parts of the country which have been the seats of ma-
nufactures. The manufacturers have left a population
created by manufactures, and these the land have never
been able to-absorb. That is the cause of the misery
of low wages. In Lincolnshire, where there are no
manufactures, on the contrary there we find the highest
wages. But what I have named is the real cause of the
pauperism which exists. So, in the county of Sussex,
where the iron manufacture once flourished, they have
left a population which the land has neverabsorbed. Then
you call upon a district to support the population where
there is not much employment. I might say with refer-
ence to this subject also, that either the nation must
support the poor, or throw them upon the employers who
have profited by their labour; yet in 99 cases out of 100,
where the labourer is thrown out of employment, the
distress of the employer immediately follows. In the
ease of highway rates the same view of the question
immediately offers itself. It is easy, indeed, to make
flippant observations, and to ask why should not the
farmers pay for these roads—(which they do!)—it is
not historically true that these roads were made for the
farmers. If the agricultural classes had the monopoly
in these roads, if no one else used them, if they were
private roads, then there would be a valid reason for
these rates. But inasmuch as everybody had the use of
them till the railways came into operation, and that
these roads were covered and traversed by the clerks and
agents of the great manufacturers; inasmuch as that by
Jaw you have settled that a stranger, though he contri-
butes not one farthing to these rates, can indict the pa
rish if the wheels of his cart or his carriage are injured
—you must admit that public ways are for public use.
Besides, I want to know what item of expenditure can
bear this anal y sis of local purposes and local objects.
Now I will state the case of a gentleman resident in a
midland county, who, in consequence of the distress
which pervades the country, looks at our estimates ;
he opens the estimates, and finds a sum of money of
500,0001. or 700,000/. for foreign packet service. He
says, we know that three-fourths of the letters are
carried either to the metropolis of London or to Liver-
pool, and that the other fourth would not be
carried at all if it were not for the merchants and the
commercial interest. What have I to do with the
packet service? It would be much better that a rate
should be struck upon London and Liverpool for this
purpose. This is a clear case of local taxation, Or he
might, in a midland county, and like the King of Bo-
hemia, who has no seaports—he might object to har-
bours of refuge. And he would say, you might as well
strike a rate on the Cinque Ports, and thus get rid of
the difficulty. The same man might object to the ap-
pointment of inspectors of factories. But, no, Sir, he
does not take the limited view which financial re-
formers do.—(Cheers.) Ile goes on from year to
year in a wise and national spirit, contributing to all.
But if you pursue the inquiry to the subject of expendi-
ture, that is of much greater extent. Now, I take this
ease. About six years ago the merchants of Liverpool
were very much vexed, and they though they were very
much oppressed in South America. They were re-
evived in Downing-street with endless memorials ,• and
they called upon the Government to interfere by force,
and defend their property. The Minister who then pre-
sided in Downing-street was a very experienced able
man—till then—(llear)—he was thought to be a cautious
statesman. But, on these representations of the Liver-
pool merchants, he was induced to interfere in the
troubled waters of La Plata. What was the conse-
quence ? There was a vast expenditure, and great in-
dignation evinced. Six years having elapsed, and my
gentleman in the midland county, unfortunately aware
of this expenditure, because it was thought unnecessary
to the interests of commerce, finds that all he knows is,
that some Manchester gentlemen attack the Government
on account of their armaments, and denounce these
armaments as being only kept up to support the
younger children of the aristocracy.—(Great cheer•
ing.) I say that is a clear case for levying a
separate rate on Liverpool it is a clear case
of local taxation, and we could bear this bur-
den of 10,000,000/. or 12,000,000!. if the rest of the
taxation were apportioned in the same spirit. But look
at the case of the Manchester school. A few years
back the Manchester merchants were of opinion that the
Chinese empire, possessing 300,000,000 of human
beings, were indicated as their best customers, that our
home trade was as nothing, if each Chinese spent as
much sycee silver as amounted to a sovereign in the

year; and they accordingly pressed the Government,
• , sem. reLl intrigui ,
into a war with China. Now, my country gentleman,
not being so dull as he is supposed to be, might have
said, " I have great doubts on this subject. I inherited
a magnificent library from my father, and, from what
I have read, I think it is not likely, though China may
possess 300,000,000 of inhabi'ants, that they will carry
on a commensurate commerce in exchange for our
goods." Now, what the country gentleman said, hap
pened ; and never was there greater disappointment
evinced than by the Manchester merchants.
They said it is true that, having obtained a
reduction of the duty, we now consumed 30,000,0001b5.
of tea. But, Sir, my country gentleman might say, " I
doubt whether this consult ption of 30,000.0001b5. of
tea is good for our nerves. Why not take off the duty
on malt, and return to that Saxon beverage to which our
Saxon ancestors owed their long lives, and whose
example I desire to follow? When I find that this
China affair ends in a considerable expenditure, may I
not call for a rate to be struck against Manchester?"—
(Laughter.) Sir, it is the same with the county. rate—it
is the same with the church-rate. The county rate is
one upon which, with the permission of the House, I will
for a moment venture to touch, because I am sure, from
what many Hon. Gentlemen have said even in this House,
where we are all so well informed, especially upon this
subject, the greatest mistakes sometimes occur. Now the
county rate is a rate that is levied, is an ancient tax that
is raised in this country—a direct tax—for the purposes
of justice. And, Sir, about the year 1835, it is known
to the House that the Government of the country
(aware of the great and unjust burden on the land
ofof tthhies principallyeraxteee,otiooot
justice)
agreed occasioned
to pay one-half
b y the expensese- f
the cost of criminal prosecutions, and that was done
without much of the public attention being given
to it, and the general impression in the House and
the country was, to a great degree, that the landed in-
terest, as usual, had taken advantage of the Minister in
a weak moment, and by some means or other had got
rid of one of the great burdens, and foisted it upon the
Consolidated Fund.—(gear, hejsr,) Now, Sir, that was
in the year 1835. I want to show you how the county
rate is expended, and for what it is expended. And in
order to clear this point from those misconceptions that
are so popular in the public mind, I will just call the
attention of the House to the manner is which the county
rate was expended at a period so recent as the year
1835. I take that period, because subsequently to that
year, in the year 1846, the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Tamworth made another change of a peculiar
nature with reference to the county rate, to which I am
about to refer. Sterne, to illustrate the misery of capti-
vity, takes the case of a single captive; and
to make you understand—to put the case
popularly and clearly before the House,—to show you
the nature of the county rate, I will just refer to my own
experience of one day at the assizes, and this will show
you how the county rate acts upon the county, and how
the far,
cruses
ei
an
() whatf
that x
deg
I take this case.
A woman came down to a hamlet in the county with
epreeendtilie rtuceo. county
may be interested in
which lam connected—to a place well known to every-
body--Salt-hill, on the borders of Berkshire and Buck-
inghamshire. She was a stranger, and took a very hum-
ble lodging in, I believe, a public-house. A. few days
afterwards a man came down by railroad; he had been
previously connected with the woman; he visits her and
murders her. lie leaves Salt-hill. The electric tele-
graph allows him to be arrested the moment
he arrives at the station in London, the murder
having been discovered immediately after its
perpetration. He is, therefore, arrested in Mid-
dlesex; but the crime having been committed in the
county of Buckingham, the man is taken back to
Salthill, and he is committed to the county gaol at
Aylesbury. The case was one of a difficult kind, for
the murder had been committed by means of poison.
It was necessary that scientific men should be sent from
various parts of England. It was a very expensive
trial. But the prisoner was convicted, and outraged
society was vindicated by the execution of the Quaker
Tawell.—(Hear, hear.) The clerk of the peace (al-
though one-half the expenditure of the criminal prose-
cution was defrayed, and as I have often heard it inti-
mated, unjustly defrayed, by the Government)--the
clerk of the peace sent in his .bill (and it was a fair
and reasonable bill), for the county quota for that
prosecution, and it amounted to 3001. Now, I
want to know what had that county to do with the
crime?—(Hear.) The man did not live in Buckingham-
shire; he was not born there; he did not even reside
there ; but that is one of the modes in which the
county rate was only very recently expended.—(Hear.)
I will take another case. On the same day it happened
that a man who was proceeding on one of the canals
which pass through that county with a cargo of coals,
and who had committed a robbery, I think, in either the
county of Rutland or in the county of Northampton,
was arrested in the county of Buckingham. He was
kept a considerable time in gaol, and the bill for his
trial and conviction was upwards of 1001., he having no
more to do with the county of Buckingham than with
the House of Lords.—(Hear, hear.) I will now take
another case; and, let it be remembered, these are three
cases which occurred on the same day, and I have taken
them because they all describe and illustrate different
points. A draper in a flourishing borough town, in the
same county, had a burglary committed in his shop,
from which broad cloth to the value of 201. is stolen.
The burglar is discovered, arrested, sent to the county
gaol, tried at the county sessions. The whole ex-
pense is paid by the county rate, while the very
goods, the stock in trade of the very tradesman, to
vindicate whose rights of property this expenditure
was incurred, are exempted by you and your laws
from the county rate.—(Loud cries of " Hear.") Now
my argument is this—if the vexation and oppression of
counties paying only one-half the expense of criminal
prosecutions are so grievous, so essentially and palpably
unjust as the genuine ones I have placed before you,
what must they have been before the change of 1835?
Doubly as grievous, doubly as oppressive, doubly as
tyrannical. Nay, even the change of 1835 has been de-
scribed as a positive means by which the landed interest
foisted one of its burdens on the national Treasury.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, I admit that in the year 1846 the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth took off
the other moiety of the county rate, so that no further
bills can be sent in like that which I have mentioned in
the case of the Quaker Tawell, and no further cases of
oppression can occur like that of the bargeman. But how
was the act of tardy justice done? The Right Hon.
Baronet acknowledged that the justice of the case was un-
impeachable. He did not pretend for a moment on that
occasion that there could be any question about the jus-
tice of the public paying those costs and expenses which
were incurred for vindicating justice and the rights of
society. But the Right Hon. Gentleman gave that relief
to the landed interest upon a memorable occasion, re-
specting which I intend to have no discussion, as far as
I am concerned at present, beyond saying that it was the
memorable occasion on which he deprived it of that just
and important protection which it had so long enjoyed.
This act of taking the other half of the county rates as
to the expense for criminal prosecutions was the most
important measure of compensation given on that occa-
sion.—(Hear, hear.) The claim was so just that it seems
to rue that all that was required was, that it should have
been stated properly to the House, and every gentleman
on that side, whatever his political opinions, whatever
his occupation, must have felt something not only
unjust, but something shabby in making one particular
class pay the expenses in which the whole nation is
deeply interested.—(gear, hear.) But having now on
two separate occasions, with a very long interval between
—with great difficulty, notwithstanding the influence
of very powerful ministries, done this tardy justice in
this respect to the owners and occupiers of land, what is
the result, so far as relief goes, as to this very tax? The
county rates are increased in amount—(Hear, hear)—
notwithstanding the Government have themselves under-
taken the expense of criminal prosecutions. This in-
crease
in this impost is accounted for by gentlemen who
never inquire into the subject, by our neglect in attend-
ing to our affairs, by the levy of this tax not being
placed in the power of the community of the county.
The Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Mr.
Hume) has frequently urged that point.—(Hear, hear.)
Now, Sir, in the first place, let me show you this, that
although the State has undertaken to relieve the coun-

ties frO-in the burden of criminal -prosecutions the whole
of the county rates of this country, with the exception of
one important item, and that relates to public works of
a particular description, and of uniform benefit—l mean
county bridges—the whole of the county rates of this
country, generally speaking, are, are still expended for
the administration of justice.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.'')
I have before me the last abstract of the accounts
of the treasurer of the county of Buckingham, and I
have reason to believe it is a fair representation of what
occurs is every other county. After a certain
expenditure on bridges, very heavy in a
county through which the Thames passes, and
where, for one great bridge, they have been
obliged to expend, although not a rich county, 27,0001.;
the expenditure of the county, with that exception, is
something like 12,0001. a year; the whole of it caused by
expenses for the administration of justice, clerks of the
peace, coroners, maintenance of gaols, lock-up houses,
conveyance of prisoners, &c. The allowance from the
Government for prosecutions, and for the maintenance of
persons under particular circumstances, is less than
4,0001., and, therefore, still two-thirds of the expenditure
of that county (and every county is in exactly the same
position) is, in fact, for the administration of justice,
which is for the interest of all, and in which all are con-
cerned. But, Sir, we are told that the county rate, not-
withstanding the relief given by the Government, is still
increasing, and that it is so because those who admi-
nister the funds of the county are unequal to the occa-
sion. That is the position of the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose. But I tell you, if you go to the finance committee
of the county of Buckingham, you will find your match.
They are men quite equal, even to the Hon. Member
for Montrose.—(Hear.) But, yearafter year, you forget
you have been passing laws in this House forcing those
districts to erect most expensivs, public buildings—
(Hear)—and giving them no option whatever on the
subject. The Hon. Member for Montrose talks of the
management of funds. Why, all that those magistrates
can do is to assemble and as trustees under an Act of
Parliament declare a rate to meet the expenditure which
you in your legislative capacity agree to.—(Hear.) I
do not deny that those prisons, built upon a reformed
model; to which my Noble Friend (Lord MahOn) bas
referred in his interesting motion, are of great impor-
tance. Far be it from me to deny that the advanced
philanthropy of the age does not call for these erections,
and the institution of this improved discipline; but what
I maintain is, that this is a great national object ; that
buildings,(llear.) anld
thenthen
this is a great national purpose, and that nothing can be
more unfair than that a highly enlightened and philo-
sophic senate should pass laws and inflict upon districts
the raising of most expensive public
L for local ee;sray refuse to
ttoie localplayfor ttahxattactoesntllys increase.—(Hear.)
pur-
poses. It is raised for national purposes; and I am per-
fectly aware of the objections which you will make when
I make that assertion. The fact is, that the revenue of

this country has been raised for a long time under two
sJ stetes—the one is the modern system of indirect taxa-
tion, to which all are subject—the other is the old sya.
tem of direct taxation, to which only old property is
eubject; which has its coil around old property, and
which gulps it at its pleasure.—(Hear). Sir, it a ou'd
not be difficult to show how, in the course of time, this
anomalous state of affairs has come to pass—how it has
happened that real property in this country should
cessarily be subject to what is called the general
taxation of the country, like all other property ;
and yet at the same time, anti eirnultaneeusly,
it has been obliged to bear the burden of meth! r reve-
nue of the enormous amount of 12,000,000/. sterling.
Sir, the anomaly I am sure has been long re cognised.
um sure at least that the grievance has been lung felt.
But the difficulties of dealing with it have been consi-
dereble, and I am perfectly aware of the remedy which
certain Gentlemen opposite will only be glad to oiler
me, and which they will say is the necessary inference of
my statement—namely, that you should have recourse to
a system of national rating. Now, Sir, I have myself
the greatest objection to that system—(Hear, hear)—
and my reasons are both of an economical and a political
kind. I cannot see how you can have the necessary
check which is requisite for the administration of funds
in a district, if the rating is national; and I am tin •
willing to give up local administration, not merely be-
cause it insures au economical distribution, or is the
best means of insuring an economical distribution, but
for political reasons connected with our happy
self-government of a still graver character. But, Sir,
though I admit that our system of self-government
and our scheme of local administration are very
precious, still, at the same time, I do ask Honourable
Gentlemen whether they are prepared to insure eco-
nomy by practising injustice—whether, in fact, they are
going to lay down, as one of the principles of our local
system, that in order to insure a good local administra-
tion of affairs, it is necessary that one or two particular
classes of the country should be subject to an unjust and
oppressive taxation?—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I am well
aware than in placing these views before the House—in
laying it down as a principle that real property has no
more right to be subjected to this taxation than any other
property, I am aware that some lion. Gentlemen, con-
fining their objections to a particular section of real pro-
perty, will tell me that land, purely speaking, is favoured
otherwise by our law.—(Hear, hear.) The probate and
legacy duty will surely be brought forward. Now, Sir,
for my own part, as far as I am speaking for myself, and
I believe I may say I speak for many others on the sub-
ject, I am perfectly prepared to enter into an investiga-
tion of that subiect in the fairest spirit, and join with you
in any endeavour for the equitable apportionment of that
taxation.—(Hear.) But I protest against that question
being brought under the notice of the House to divert them
from the question which I have brought forward. Pro-
pose a Committee to inquire into the whole subject of
the probate and legacy duty, and I will support your
motion.—(Hear.) Bring forward a measure founded
upon sound information and real research, offering a just
remedy, and I will give you my vote to carry it. But I
airs bound to tell you—it would be disingenuous not to
tell you—that having given as much attention as I can
command to the investigation of this question, it is my
opinion that the result of your Committee would be very
different from that which many of you expect. There
has been so much said on the subject that I must take
this opportunity of stating, that of the legacy duty now
paid, to the amount of 1,200,0001. a year, 500,0001. per
annum is paid absolutely and directly by the land—that
all the leasehold properties and all the ecclesiastical
lands are not included in the half million, and pay not
only legacy duty but probate duty; and, as far as the
landed interest is concerned, there is also included in your
probate and legacy duty the stock of every farmer who
dies, and the property of every cultivator of land who is
subject to these taxes. So that you will find, if you exa-
mine this subject with the attention which it deserves,
and the absence of passion which I doubt not you will
give it—you will find, I believe, that it is not the land
which pays the least portion both of the probate and the
legacy duty. Mind, I have said nothing of your present
arrangement of stamps.—(Hear.) I make this observa •
tion to the lion. Gentleman opposite in no hostile spirit.
I remember my promise. I will redeem it if he ever
gives me the opportunity. But Ido protest against the
lion. Gentleman, or any one else, particularly after what
you have said, introducing these extraneous subjects into
the simple question which I urn putting before you. Is
it just, or is it unjust, that the real property, one-fourth
o 1 the income of the country, should bear these burdens
in which all property is equally interested?—(Hear.)
That is the question.—(Hear.) The Hon. Gentleman does
not for a moment say that all property is not equally
interested. The lion. Gentleman it he takes a fine house
in Berkshire to-morrow, I dare say will look over the
roads in his neighbourhood—perhaps, he will be a pre-
server of game; perhaps, his keeper may be shot by the
poacher; perhaps, he may proceed against the puacher
at the assizes; and I dare say he will do all this without
paying the highway or county rates. Well, now the
question is, which under these circumstances is the best
method of settling this long vexed question.—(Hear.) I
am afraid that I shall disappoint Hon. Gentlemen who
have sedulously announced that all I was going to do
was to move for a Committee. But instead of doing
that, I shall express my readiness, if the House will
go into Committee of the whole House, to offer a plan
for their adoption.—(Hear, hear.) And as that plan is
founded upon justice, as that plan is conceived in a spirit
of conciliation, I hope it will have a chance of success.—
(Hear, hear.) I am perfectly aware that in attempting
to settle the question nothing could be more
unwise than for the possessors of real property to
stickle too severely on their right. I admit that in a
country like England, where a system has existed for
a considerable ;period, however oppressive and unjust
that system, that the period of duration does not alter
the objectionable character of the arrangement, or miti•
gate the nature of the oppression. You will, there-
fore, be still aware where a system has existed for a
considerable time, clear as may be our case, it is neces-
sary and wise to come forward in the spirit of compro-
mise.—(Hear,bear.) Ido not say I have a right to say
that these taxes are imposed for national purposes—no
one can say they are not national purposes for which
they are levied. The local taxation is levied on one-
fourth of the income of the country. We say we are
ready to pay our quota, or fourth, but you have no
right to ask us to pay more.—(Hear, hear.) We aro
ready to pay our portion of the 10,000,0001. or
12,000,0001,—f0r it is a varying amount—but you can-
not fairly require us to subscribe to a principle which
calls upon us to undertake a greater amount of responsi•
bility.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I feel it is of the greatest
importance to maintain the system of local tdministra-
tration which obtains in this country; therefore I shall
not propose to change the principle of self-government
that exists.—(llear, hear.) I anticipate it will remain,
and that the rates will be levied as they have hitherto
been levied. But considering all the circumstances of
the case—considering that the land has some slight ex-
emptions of little importance, but which may be re-
membered at this moment—the amount is about 14-1,0001.
which it would be inconvenient to rid the land of by a
change in the existing law; considering it to be of the
greatest importance, the maintenance of the law of
local administration—considering that this is a period
in which all portions of the empire, and all the great
bodies, should be prepared to make great sacrifices—
I say, in the spirit of compromise and conciliation, I
should propose the present system of local administra-
tion remaining ; the present system of levying rates
continuing ; that the local districts should be respon-
sible for one moiety of this amount of taxation,
and that the other moiety be contributed by
;the
Consolidated Fund —(Hear, (Hear, bear)—the Government
having no difficulty by the machinery which they at pre-
sent possess, with some slight modification, to obtain
from the privileged properties their quota.—(Hear,
hear.) I take that to be a just proposal.—(Hear, hear.)
I think terms might have been demanded founded on
justice, extravagant and violent. But I think that the
proposition I have made is one which all men, after due
reflection, will consider a fair and reasonable proposition
—a proposition founded on justice and recommended by
policy—and which, if put into practice, will give relief
to the suffering portion of real property in a legitiuvite
wanner, not by demanding from the community, bat by
merely granting in recognition of their rights. Nuw I am
at a loss to conceive where the great opposition to the
proposition will arise. I shall be surprised if any per-
son of authority rises in this House and maintains that
this taxation of ten or twelve millions is not a i'urden
on real property which no other property shares. As far
Its that section of real property is concerned, whose case
is not a whit more advantageous than the other—their
distressed condition being undoubted—for we have the
opinion of the Right lion. Baronet the Member for
Tamwoi th recognising, almost in his last speech on the
subject in 1846—fully recognising those burdens. The
Right Hon. Gentleman placed his vindication of the corn-
laws, I believe, so late back as 1844.5—he placed his
vindication of the earn-laws, when he was Minister, on
the acknowledged burdens of the land, and hence the
necessity for that system of taxation to which the reso-
lution laid on the table refers. But from the Ministers
of the present day—l am not going to read old speeches
of the Noble Lord, or anybody else—but I am going to
refer to a document much more worthy of attention. I
will not say one word respecting the past, but on the
memorable occasion, which most men thought a grave
occasion a letter was written by the Noble Lord,
vidently under a feeling of deep responsibily, when the
Noble Lord failed in forming a Government in 1846,
and lamenting a circumstance in language befitting
the occasion to his Sovereign. The Honourable.
Member hero read an extract from the Noble Lord's
letter, which concluded by stating " that the Noble
Lord would come forward without delay with measures
to relieve the occupiers of land from the burdens to
which they were subjected." Well, then, that is a great
authority in favour of these resolutions. The Right
lion. Baronet and the Noble Lord are my witnesses, and
will be the the answer to the Hon. Gentleman a ho, I
doubt not, will get up and maintain the argument that
real property is not subjected to impositions which other
property is liable to, and front which it is in justice ex-
euspted.—(ilear.) Well, then, is it that her Majesty's
Ministers—they being the most powerful party must be
considered before all others—is it that they shrink back
from the idea of performing a great act of
,justice by,
levying anything like an impost on the privileged pro-
perties? This is not so, for only last year they made a
proposition to increase the income-tax, not to do a great
act of justice and to conciliate rival classes, or to su
but
an injured and aggrieved interest of importance,
vs for t o
fur
the hat I never could make out, except that it was
the purpose of paying thethe militia.—(Hear and laughter.)
But if the militia had been called out, there would
have been a militia rate, and real property would have
been liable.—(Hear, hear.) Well, considering the
Noble Lord and the Right lion. Baronet have recognised
the burdens I have referred to in the amplest and full-
est spirit—considering the process I have indicated for
a just apportionment of the burdens to take place—with
rnechinery also in existence—l want to know what op-
position I am to expect from those who are the profess
sors of liberal principles—who are the vindicators of
men of all classes—whose hearts arc always touched

with deeds of inju:tice, and who are prompt to come
forward and succour the oppressed?—(Hear, hear.) Are
they going to complete the fulness of their liberal posi•
lion, and to maintain that this portion of property shall
b overburdened? They can have no abstract howility
to the process of relief I have indicated. They all admire
direct taxation.—(Laughter.) We have suffered from
indirect taxation this many a year—we wish you should
now taste its fruits.—(Laughter.) Well, under these
circumstances, considering the sanction we have in the
expressed opinion of leading men—the facility afforded
by the machinery of the income-tax—the abstract
apprebition in favour of direct taxation avowed by Hon.
Gentlemen oppo...ite, I hope this oppressed real property
will stand some chance of obtaining redress.—(Hear )
But do not let the House imagine that the sufferings of
that class are not considerable. Do not let them con-
sider that the portion of real property connected with
the cultivation of land is not in a state of depression.
This is acknowledged without hesitation. You see how
eager they are for relief by the petitions for the repeal
of the malt-tax. You see how a portion of the country,
indirectly interested in the growth of barley, wish for a
repeal of this tax. You also find many, not imme-
diately interested in the growth of barley, who complain
that they are labouring under the oppression and weight
of this unjust tax ; and that they arc ready to adopt the
first remedy that is offered. I expressed in the two reso-
lutions on the table of the House my sincere opinion
on the subject of the malt-tax. I think, when we recol-
lect that the landed interest of the country—a cone
siderablo portion of real property is subject to that
amount of taxation to which I have referred in the
first resolution. It is a great aggravation of
the grievance when wo remember that two-
.hirds of the revenue of the excise is con-
tributed by restrictions on the articles of their growth.—
(Hear.) I think the circumstances connected with this
tax have been so fully and recently before the House
that I need not trouble myself with going very much
into details with which Hon. Members are undoubtedly
furnished. But there is one circumstance connected with
the proposition for relief from this tax which must be
well understood by the House before they can fully com-
prehend the feelings of the farmers on the subject. This
suffering class cannot but remember that 20 years ago
they made application to the House of Commons for the
repeal of the malt-tax, and what was the answer? Why
that the minister oould not spare the sum from the re-
venue, he could not spare the 3,500,0001. from the malt-
tax. The farmers yielded to the representation of Go-
vernment, and next year the same Government took off
3,500,0001. for other articles.—(Hear;hear.) I will not
say whether the policy was wise or unwise on the part
of the Government of that day; but was it ingenuous to
treat the agricultural class that way? Or are you sur-
prised they should remember this with mortification and
shame, and now have no confidence in the leading men
of the country?—(Hear, hear.) What happened in
1834? The Right Honourable Baronet the Member
for Tamworth was then Minister, and that period was,
perhaps, the most difficult, and not the least distin-
guished portion of his eminent career. In that year
there was great agricultural distress, and the great body
of the agriculturists of England were of opinion that the
repeal of the malt-tax might give relief. At that time
there was what was called a considerable commotion, in
modern days it is called agitation, and a Noble Lord who
then represented Buckinghamshire, who is still remem-
bered by the farmers of the country for his firm and
consistent conduct—(Hear, hear)—and pledged himself
to bring forward a motion for the repeal of that tax, and
embarrassing as was his proposition in consequence of
the Right Hon. Baronet being in office, still he redeemed
his pledge.---(Hear, bear.) How was he met by the
Right lion. Baronet? The Right Hon. Baronet exerted
all his powers to combat the motion, and he took occa-
sion to administer a solemn admonition to the country
gentlemen. The Right lion. Gentleman told them,
" 'rake care what you are about. You may get rid of
the malt-tax, but I tell you what you will get instead—
you will get a good comfortable property-tax?'
—(Hear, hear.) Now such was the effect
produced on the agricultural interest, they fled
like frightened sheep. Some came down to
the House and rescinded all they had promised to their
constituents—they dreamed dreams—they saw visions.
—(Hear, hear.) Well, what have you got now ? You
have got the malt-tax, and with a good comfortable pro-
perty-tax you have all those burdens of land which you
found so oppressive, and which the Right Hon. Baronet
admitted were so oppressive. Are you, then, surprised
that the farmers of England, after such incidents as these,
should be a little ill-tempered? Are you surprised that
they should fly to the first offer of refuge and succour—
(Hear, hear)—whi n they recollect how often the ques-
tion has been matured out of doors—how often it has
been debated in the House ; that it was once carried
and rescinded immediately afterwards—are you surprised
that the farmers should feel some distrust in the conduct
of public men?—(Hear, hear.) That this tax is an
injury to the farmer no one can doubt ; that it is
a tax upon the consumer is no answer to his com-
plaint. All taxes are taxes on the consumer.
No one can deny that the tax is an injury
to the producer. Mr. M'Culloch, a political economist,
and, though a political economist, a sensible man—
(Laughter)—one of the most rational of the school, in
one of his works on apportioning the amount of duties,
considers that land, on account of its being taxed more
than any other property, has a malt-tax claim to the ex-
tent of 2s. Therefore, the demand on the part of the
farmers is not so unreasonable. I do not deal with the
domestic arrangements of the tax; they are known to
all, felt by most, and are the hourly conversation of these
men. Daring now frankly expressed my opinion on the
subject, as far as the amount of loss and annoyance to
the farmer are concerned—at the risk of losing that fa-
vour which they have accorded to me, I counsel the
farmers not to press for the repeal of the malt-tax. And I
will give you my reason. I advise the farmers not to press
for a repeal of the malt-tax, for I consider the portion of
benefit they would receive from the repeal of that tax
would be slight, compared with the inconvenience which
would be occasioned; and, further, the particular reason
why I recommend them not to press for the repeal of
the malt-tax is—if they attain the repeal of that tax,
they will obtain that which may prove a fatal obstacle to
those measures of relief I now propose, and to other mea-
sures which I hope to be able to propose.—(Hear, hear.)
The measure I have proposed to-night will allow mu to
take off 5,000,0001. or 6,000,0001. from the real property
of the country—from property which will be felt in every
village and in every farmhouse in the country.—(Hear.)
The benefits that will be produced will be felt in every
town—not in sectional departments—not by sectarian
arguments—but they will be benefits felt by every far-
mer in the kingdom, far beyond what would be produced
by the repeal of the malt-tax. It will also be felt by
great bodios of our countrymen not connected with
agriculture—felt as a measure founded on justice and on
truths which no one can impugn.—(Hear, hear.) If we
deny these men justice—if we deny redress to real pro-
perty—if this property is to be still encumbered with
ten or twelve millions of taxation, from which pri-
vileged property is exempted, we mast not conceal
from ourselves the probability, if we do not meet
them in a spirit of justice, that you will have not
only an appeal for relief from the malt-tax, but an ap-
peal for relief from other taxes. You will make an op-
pressed population run a muck against all taxation. I
have been asked by Gentlemen from Ireland whether I
intend the resolutions which I have laid on the table to
apply to their country. It is my intention they should
apply.—(Hear.) I can conceive no reason and know no
principle why the application should not be made. If I
have not specifically introduced the case of Ireland into
the debate, it has been because the analogous rates and

taxes levied in that country are levied by a different
machinery, that would have introduced different figures
into this discussion, and would have complicated a pro-
position
which I wished to keep perfect in the simpli-
city of its justice, and unclouded with details which
might have distracted the attention of the House from its
due consideration. But it is my intention, if I am per-
mitted to introduce the measure I have mentioned in a
Committee of the whole House, to follow it up by a mea-
sure which shall apply in the same spirit to Ireland.
I cannot comprehend what arguments can be urged
against Ireland being relieved in the same spirit of
justice. I do not offer such a measure to Ireland as a
boon which is entirely to reanimate her in her present
depressed position, but it is an arrangement which she is
entitled to claim from the landed interest of this coun-
try, if they themselves receive it. There are other mea-
sures which I think might do more for Ireland than even
the present; and if I do not bring them forward now, it
is because I feel this is not the occasion to introduce
them. I was taunted the other night by a gentleman
representing an Irish constituency, because I opposed the
proposition of Government, and proposed nothing. The
criticism is not just, and rather stale. It is neither new
nor true.—(A laugh.) It is not our duty, because we do
not approve of a proposition, instantly to bring forward
a counter one. Wo are in opposition, and our duty is to
oppose.—(Laughter.) I can easily understand why
Hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot approve of an opposi-
tim being in existence. But we are sensible of our
duties, and shall endeavour to fulfil them. I will, how-
ever, tell Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland that there is
one means of assisting them which I am most anxious
to introduce into this House. It is a great and com-
prehensive measure. I would wish Hon. Gentlemen on
either side to forget their fatal feuds, and join with
us to restore their depressed and prostrate country.—
(Hear, hear.) Had my lamented friend been spared
e,is`
us he would have introduced a measure which I believe
would have done more for Ireland than all the
ever introduced by Ministers for the lasthalf measures
century--
great
tur)•—
more comprehensive, more b Eliencial than even the
(Hear.) But it is useli ss to attemg:
cl their party feel-
measure which unfortunately he coutlod
anssoitstclarrerl)a%n—d
unless Irish Members will throw
which they cannot stand long.—(Hear.)more injurious to the
feel-
ings and remember their interest;:intl!e laNndo,thninigthcoaunt
be more fatal to them—nothingo
combining future fort fortune of the country than their not
welfared
interests of England to main-
tain) I have endeavoured to place before
ties —(Hear, hear.
their interests in their mutually-oppressed proper-
inthanthdelande,
e s thoseo
lu ti whons I
in theorf
the'llousc—l trust in a fair, I am sure not in an intem-
perate!pirit—thev i views an and
involvedsuggestions
complain of the grievances
have placed on the table of the House. These complainants
are the various classes which, combined and united, form
what in popular language is called the landed interest—
a portion of the nation, which, whether we look to their
property, to their numbers, or to the weight and in-
fluence which necessarily result from their social posi-
tion
or from their interesting occupation, still form the
most considerable order of our society.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir, it would be disingenuous if in this discussion I at-
tempted to conceal that the landed interest do not
merely complain of the grievances alleged in these reso-
luti,ns, but of the great injury which they deem they
have received from the hands of this House.—(Hear,
hear.) It is not my intention now to enter into the
policy or impolicy of those great measures which you
passed three years ago—which you passed and which
they d-plore—(Cheers from the Protection benches)—
but it is my duty to represent to you that dull or in-
different as you may sometimes have chosen to picture

them, they have not been unmindful of has hap
psi ed in this country of later years, of much that hi..?.;
been done and said in this House. They have witnessed
the rise and development in this country of new proper-
ties and new sources of influence, and they have wit-
nessed them without jealousy, for it is a part of their
creed that national prosperity depends upon the union of
all classes.—(Cheers.) They have not witnessed with
any hostile feeling the rightful representation of those
interests and properties in this House; but although they
have observed these great' incidents, and with no other
feeling but such as becomes a manly mind, it is but right
that you should understand that it is not without emotion
they have witnessed that the whole course of your legis-
lation for 3 ears has been to invest those new properties
with privileges, and simultaneously to deprive them of
theirs.—(Loud cheers.) They have not forgotten that
they have been spoken of in terms of contempt by Mi-
nisters of State—(Renewed cheers)—aye, even by the
son of a great house—a house that always loved the
land, and whom the land still loves.—(Continued ap-
plause.) They have not forgotten that they have been
held up to public odium and reprobation by triumphant
demagogues.—(Prolonged cheers.) They have not for-
gotten that their noble industry, that in olden days was
considered the invention of gods and the occupation of
heroes, has been stigmatised and denounced as au incubus
upon English enterprise. They have not forgotten that
even the very empire that was created by the valour and
with the bleed and the devotion of their fathers had been
held up to public hatred as a cumbrous and ensanguined
machinery devised to pamper the luxury and to feed the
rapacity of territorial houses. The fact is, Sir, that these
things are very hard to digest. They are not plea-
sant to the humble, and they are intolerable to
the justly proud.—(Renewed cheers.) These are things
which you may depend change the heart and the blood
of nations ; and whether you think their feeling is
founded on justice, or whether you deem it baseless, I
tell you—and every Member of this House, every good
and wise man must feel, that nothing is more to be de-
precated, that nothing is more dangerous, than that con-
siderable classes of the country should deem that they
are treated unfairly by the Legislature.—(Hear, hear.)
It Is a fact, Sir, that the spirit of the landed interest is
deeply wounded, and whether they have foundation for
their feeling or not, it is one which I would recommend
any Minister not to treat with contempt.—(Loud cheers.)
I fancy that it has been somewhat too long the habit to
believe that you might conduct yourselves towards that
interest with impunity. It was a proverb, even in the
time of Walpole, that they might be fleeced with all
security, and I have observed that at no time is the
landed interest more unjustly treated than when dema-
gogues aro denouncing :them as oligarchical usurpers.
But this may be dangerous play if you are outraging
justice. You think you may trust their proverbial
loyalty. Trust their loyalty, but do not abuse it.—
(Cheers.) I dare say it may be said as it wale said
3,000 years ago, in the most precious legacy of political
science that has descended to us—l dare say it may be
said of them that the agricultural class is the least
given to sedition.—(hear, hear.) I doubt not that it is
as true of the Englishman of the plain and the dale as
it was of the Greeks of the isle and the continent ;
but it would be just as well if you also recollected
that the fathers of these men were the founders of your
liberties, and that, before this time, their ancestors
have bled for justice.—(Hear, hear.) You may rely
upon it that the blood of those men who refused to pay
ship-money is not to bo trued with.—(Loud cheers.)
Their conduct to you has exhibited no hostile
feeling, notwithstanding the political changes that
have abounded of late years, and all, appa-
rently, to a diminution of their power. They have
inscribed a very humble sentence upon their rural ban-
ners, but it is one which, it I mistake not, is calculated
to touch the heart and coevinee the reason of England—
" Live and let live."—(Great applause.) You have
adopted a different motto—you, the leading spirits on the
benches which I see before me, have openly declared
your opinion that if there was not an acre of land culti-
vated in England it would not he the worse for this
country.—(llear, hear.) You have all of you in open
chorus been always ready to announce your object to be
to obtain a monopoly of the commerce of the universe,
and to make this country the workshop of the world.
Your system and theirs aro exactly contrary. They in-
vite union. They believe that national prosperity can
only be produced by the prosperity of all classes. You
prefer to remain in isolated splendour and solitary mag-
nificence, but believe me I speak not as your enemy
when I say that it will be an exception
to the principles which seem hitherto to have
ruled society, if you can succeed in main-
taining the prosperity which you desire without
the possession of that permanence and stability which
the territorial principle alone can afford.—(Hear, hear.)
Although you may for a moment flourish atter their de-
struction—although your ports may be filled with ship-
ping—although your factories may smoke on every
plain, and your forges flame in every city—l see no
reason why you should form an exception to that which
the page of history has recorded; that you, too, should
not fade like the Tyrian dye, and moulder like the Ve-
netian palaces.—(Loud cheers.) But, united with land,
you will obtain the best and surest foundation upon
which you can build an enduring prosperity; and you
will find in that interest a consoler in all your troubles;
in dangers your undoubted champion; and in adversities
your ready customer.—(Renewed applause.) It is to
assist in producing this result, Sir, that lam about to
place these resolutions in your hands. I wish to see the
agriculture, the commerce, and the manufactures of
England, not adversaries, but co-mates and partners—
rivals only in the ardour of their patriotism and the acti-
vity of their public spirit.—(The Hon. Gentleman re-
sumed his seat amid prolonged applause.)
Mr. HUME said he could not help expressing his
utter astonishment at the remedy which the Hon. Gen-
tleman had proposed for the alleged distress of the agri-
cultural interest. His speech had not been at all in ac-
cordance with his resolutions, for his resolutions stated
that the burden of local taxation " bore with undue
severity upon the occupiers of land;" whereas in his
speech the " occupiers of land" had never been men-
tioned from first to last.—(Hear, hear.) It had been all
about the landed interest, and the plan which the Hon.
Gentleman had proposed would benefit the landed in-
terest alone. What benefit it would confer upon the
tenant-farmer he (Mr. Hume) could not possibly ima-
gine. The Hon. Gentleman had asked with what justice
they could call upon the landed proprietors to pay the
local taxes he had enumerated. He (Mr. Hume) would
say that they were bound to pay them upon every prin-
ciple of justice. The lands were obtained originally
upon condition of rendering military service. That, for
the convenience of all parties, had been commuted into
the payment of certain taxes; the lands that had since
changed hands had been bought with the burden of these
taxes upon them, and under proportionate deduc-
tions for the same, and, therefore, the landowners
had no right now to ask to be relieved of them. The
statement of the Hon. Gentleman, then, was all moon-
shine. It was an appeal to the charity and commisera-
tion of the House, not to its justice. The Hon. Gentle-
man had spoken of the roads as imposing a burden on
the agricultural interest; but wherever good roads had
been established at the expense of a county, they had
proved more than reproductive as regarded the value of
the landed property. Then, with respect to police es-
tablishments and the administration of justice, were the
same parties not interested in preventing robbery; and
had not the property of a county always been bound to
uphold those establishments and that administration? It
was the ancient lords of the soil who, in the absence of
the Sovereign, were the administrators of justice. Bridges
were built in early times for the convenience of the lo-
cality; indeed, there were none of the taxes mentioned
by the Hon. Gentleman which did not come within the
category of taxes raised within the district for the advan-
tage of the the district. The tenant-farmers had been
hoodwinked and led to suppose that the motion would lead
to their relief; but, if the whole 12,000,0001. taxes were
removed, what would be the consequence? The very
next time the landowner came to let his land he would
charge the full rent, including the amount theretofore
paid for those taxes. Nothing could be more wild than
the supposition of the Hon. Gentleman that the tenant-
farmers could be so stolid and stupid as not to see
through the present attempt. If the Hon. Gentleman
succeeded in adding 6,000,000/, to the taxation of the
country another income-tax would be necessary. The
Hon. Gentleman addressed merchants and manufac-
turers as if they were the only parties who ought to pay
for the packet service aid other objects of national con
cert.. But what was it that made the land of England
five times more valuable than the land of Poland, though
it was in itself no better and produced no better crops?
which
The difference consisted in the enhancedva
arose from
manufacturers,the o perati
Birmingham commerceand which Ma-
nchester
Liverpool. But for
had been stigmatized as carrieucce
ss, the land of England
their enterprise, capital, and
influence of
onasudo f
ftdrhoeomnti
hna
delivered within the last two aye.
speeches had been
would beTaos
what
te
bad spoken of a farm which •
worthw a s
1 that asthattho odwsul
though
gho fnlo'uowtl atinotd
brought.
the Some
st strange,do o
oiin
A Reverend Gentlemano ,
179,) was rented at . 0 .
.. b
hear," from the
1 caoymemare'rce and manufactures? The day was coming
Up to
Opposition benches.) this hour the landed interest
bad had the control of the expenditure and taxation.
when justice would be done.—(" Ilear,
Ilad not their families been provided for by means of
taxes raised from the industry of the country ? It was
too much to hear other classes taunted, as if no class
were of any avail except the landed proprietors. The
Hon. Gentleman did not propose the repeal of the malt-
tax. He (Mr. Hume), however, would do so, having
consistently maintained that the malt and hop duties
were two of the worst taxes, and having voted some
years ago with the majority of the House for the repeal
of the malt-tax, though honourable Gentlemen op-
posite a few days after reversed their votes and
the decision. In 1821 he moved for the repeal
of taxes to the amount of 4,000/., which were
imposed upon salt, leather, candles, and soap.
The taxes on the first articles had been repealed.
rorli
and the soap tax would also have been repealed, if Lord
Monteagle had not made a fool of himself.—(Much
laughter.) He now wished to
cll nas taxationelt•'
damowos, unstoaop, of
bricks,lu
,000,Op0a0pte,r, an
imposedd othere repeal
epaan t andhops, t owwh i theen n-
those imposts were removed, he would abolish the'Excise
department altogether. It was not to be supposed that
he could succeed in repealing 10,000,0001. of taxation all
at once, but he would abolish the malt-tax as soon as he
could get the farmers on his side.—(A laugh.) Agri-
cultural Members who might vote against his reso-
lutions must be prepared to encounter strong opposition
at the next general election. The farmers were
becoming men of sense, and all that he (Mr. Hume)
wanted was that the county Members shouldot behave
better. To show the pernicious
effect
thfat hteh malt-
tax, it was only necessary to stets
increased e con-
h d only thirty
sumption of the article had . .
1780, although the population had per cent, since
the
in-
creased from 79 to 80 'per cent. within. same period.
t of high duty in Ireland, he would
To show the effect
state that in 1795 and the five following years, when
the duty was 1,. 4d., the everago quantity of malt
con-
sumed was
4,410,000 bushels. The duty was increased