The Sun.
London, England, 1849-03-14 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY EVENING,

the agricultural Metribt rs generally, that these expres-
siot,.; were not mere woids of course, hut they were the
genuine utterance of his thoughts and feelings—(Hear,
hear.) There was no matter affecting the interests of the
tenant.fatmer in which he did not himself participate.
There was no interest in which he was so largely con-
cerned. No advantage could be derived by them
from which he would not receive a benefit,
and no evil could happen to them from which be would
not equally suffer an injury.—(Hear, hear.) But yet,
notwithstanding all this. he could not forget that the
agricultural interest was not the only One in the count y
to which regard sheu!cl be had.—(tister, hear.) B fore,
however, he proceeded to lay before the House the reu•
sons which impelled him to come to conclusions different
from those of the Hon. Gentleman, he thought it desirable
to state in what he differed and in what he agreed with
him. And, first, he thought it would be better to say
in what he agreed with him. lie agreed then in the
assertion, that local taxation was especially pressing
upon them.—(" Hear," and repeated cheers fremi the
Protectionist benches.) That land was grieviously op-
pressed he knew, for he learned it through the expenses
ti hich he himself had to pay. Thel Hoe:. Gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) would remember the discussion which
ensued upon the income-tax during last year, when
he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had stated
the case as strongly as he could at the time,
when it had been proposed to levy a rate
of a shilling in the pound on real property. He then
had stated many objections, with a repetition of which
he would not now trouble the House, but he might re-
mind them that the main objection was, that to the
tenants it would amount to neither more nor less than a
per tentage rate upon their property. He stated that
there was much uncertainty as to the sources from which
this rate would be derived, even if it were levied, and
that it was quite impossible to learn whether it would
be paid by land or houses. To a certain extent he was
disposed to go with the Hon. Gentleman in the truth of
the assertions which he then made; but he could not go
all the length which the Hon. Gentleman seemed to de-
sire, neither could he altogether agree with the declara-
tion that the whole of the ten millions was borne in the
shape of highway-rate, poor-rate, and church-rate, by
the land, through local taxation.—(Hear, hear.)
He asserted that the land-tax amounted to 2,000,0001.,
and allowing for any discrepancies of opinion respecting
the sources whence these sums were derived, he was
disposed to allow that the amounts were in the aggregate
correct, but he was mistaken in supposing that the
money came into the coffers of the Exchequer. Yet,
notwithstanding the differences that existed before the
redemption of the land. tax, the whole of the money
paid was about 12,000,000/. per annum. Having stated
in what he agreed, he would also now point out in what
he differed with the Honourable Gentleman, and
giving the Honourable Gentleman his own figures, or
rather taking the figures from the same return as
that which had been used by the Honourable
Gentleman in making his calculations, he thought he
could show that he bad erred considerably in the
amount of reduction which it was necessary to make.
The first position which the Hon. Gentleman assumed
was, that this local taxation pressed to the extent of
one-fourth on the incoming tenant. The Hon. Gentle-
man had stated that the amount of real property rated
to the poor was 67,000,0001., but if he referred to
the return of last year he would find that it was
84,000,000I—(Hear, hear.) He always liked to
deal with round numbers, and in this he should follow
the example of the Hon. Gentleman opposite, and the
amount of the income of the country he had calculated
at 248,000,0004 Now, taking the same rule of calcula-
tion, it would appear that the income was more than
386,0001., and the proportion of the local taxation was
not, as represented, one-fourth, but two-firths of the
whole sum. He quite agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
that the matter was one which required present
attention, and the recent changes of the law had
very likely increased the pressure of local turthees
upon the farmer ; but be did not think that
any relief was to be obtained by any such
motion as that which had been brought before
the House by the Hon. Gentleman. With regard to
tithes, he appeared to be entirely mistaken.—(Ht ar,
hour.) They would all agree with him that when they
were proposing to give up a sum like 2,000,0004 or
3,000,000/e that it would be yielded simply tor the pur-
pose of relieving the.agricultural interest, and not fur the
sake of merely throwing the money away. Now to
whom would the benefit go? Why out of this
84,000,0001, 40,000,000/. worth of property was not
agricultural at all, but consisted of houses,
lands, mines; and other property, the owners
of which had been decidedly benefited by that charge.
A little more than two years ago a Committee of the
House of Lords sat upon this suloect, and wit-
ness after witness, land surveyors, and others,
gave the most conclusive evidence that the pro-
bable change of rates was always considered:by the
tenant before he took a farm, and was deducted by the
tenant before he took it. He (the Chancellor of the
Exchequer) had had a great deal to do with the manage-
ment of estates, and he was certainly of opinion that
the evidence that had been given was most correct.—
(Hear, hear.) Tho Right Hon. Gentleman then read
the evidence given before the Lords' Committee by seve-
ralwitnesses, and stated that he believed, upon considera-
tion, that the Hon. Gentleman would not contravene
the proposition that had been laid down: by those wit-
nesses. The result of the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire, came to this, that the
parties he proposed to benefit would not be benefited
at all by the adoption of his resolutions, that
the boon he proposed to confer on the owners of real
property they were not in! the slightest degree entitled
to.—(Hear, hear.) It was to be observed also that land
paid a much more diminished proportion to the poor
than any other description of property—(Hear, hear)—
and as an evidence of that, he might state that in 1826
land paid 69 per cent.,:in 1836, 56 per cent., in 1841, 52
per cent., and at the present time only 47 per cent.,
while other property paid 52 2-10ths per cent.—(Hear.)
In the West Riding of Yorkshire the valuation on pro-
perty assessed to the poor in 1816 was 1,671,000/.,
and in 1834, 2,287,000/.—(Hear.) Since then a
new valuation had been made, which showed that
the valuation on property in that Riding was
at the present moment, 3,930,000, and during the la,t 14
years, the increase on the manufacturing district; was
ton per cent., while that on the agricultural districts was
only 27 per cent. In towns a similar increase had taken
place to that in the manufacturing districts, and in no
case, therefore, could any of the agricultural districts be
entitled to the boon the Hon. Gentleman had so unne-
cessarily and so improperly, as he conceived, proposed
to confer upon them.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable
Gentleman then referred to the charges, as he said, put
so improperly upon roads. Upon that subject, he
would ask who were the parties most interested
in roads ?—(hear, hear.) Would not, he would
ask, every one answer, most assuredly the
agriculturists .—(Hear,
.—(Hear, hear.)p The Hon. Gentleman
seemed to think it shocking for the commercial traveller
to roll the wheel of his gig over agricultural roads
without paying for them.—(A laugh.) What was the
fact ? Why, that the agricultural districts would not
be half so well off if he did not do so, added to which he
brought them articles which were necessary to their ex-
istence.—(Hear.) Bat it must also be recollected that
there was such things as tolls, and who, he would ask, paid
ammeonntgof toll on manure. Then the Hon.
most of them? Certainly not the agriculturists.—(Hear,
hramr. other things they were exempted
ary
had referred te Church and State, and lh
Gentleman e F
po
leu
com-
plained most loudly of the burthens that had been inflicted
upon land with respect to them; he (the Chancellor of
the Exchequer) denied that any inequality existed with
respect to land on the question of church rates, and
stated his belief that if the proposition of the
Honourable Member on that subject was carried, it
would inflict the greatest hardships on the agricultural
districts. With respect to the subject of cultivation, to
which the Hon. Gentleman had referred, he felt bound
to doubt his premises and conclusions, and to declare
that they were formed on a wrong basis.
He would not dwell upon certain other portions of the
Hon. Gentleman's speech, which he must confess he did
not think worthy of his high standing as a debater. He
did not think much of the. argument which proposed to
relieve agricultural parishes from the burden of main-
taining the soldier who fought the battles in defence of
the Liverpool and Manchester interests.—(Hear.) Of
a somewhat similar character was the other argument
of the Hon. Gentleman as to the injury inflicted upen
agriculture by manufactures.—(Hear.) Ile really
thought that by this time every wan, woman, and child
in this country was convinced of the fact that manufac-
tures conferred the greatest possible amount of benefit
upon agriculture. He should like to know how it was
that the wages of agricultural labour in Yorkshire were
so much higher than those of Dorsetshire.--(Hear.)
How was it that he paid 14s. a week in Yorkshire,
while Hon. Gentlemen opposite, whose property lay in
Dorsetshire, only paid from 7s. to 85.?—(Hear, hear.)
He knew, and the Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Buckinghamshire must know well, that it was because it.
he did not pay these high wages the labourer would
be off into the manufacturing districts.—(Laughter.) He
remembered well the circumstance of a late lamented
friend of his, in Yorkshire, having an excellent farm
servant, who let t him suddenly, and upon being ques-
tioned as to the cause of the man leaving him, he said,
" Oh, dear, I don't know—l gave him 10s. per week to
keep him above ground, but be would go into the pit."
—(Hear, and laughter.) If the Hon. Gentlemen who
were connected with the southern counties would take the
trouble to refer to the evidence taken before the Lords'
Committee they would find the most conclusive testi-
mony of the benefits conferred upon agricultural coun•
ties by the introduction of the manufactures.—(Hear,
hear.) An Hon. Member of the House gave
evidence with regard to the improvement which
had taken place in the value of agricultural
in
troduction
of in the neighbourhood from the
of manufactures into the town of Tiverton.—(Hear,
hear.) But let the Hon. Gentleman who had made this
motion look to his own county, and there he would see
that the introduction of paper-mills into Buckingham-
shire had greatly reduced the pauperism of the county.
—(Hear, hear.) Take, however, the existing manutac-
tures in the north—in Lancashire and Yorkshire—how
far true was it that agriculture derived no benefit
from theta? Why, the very county which the Hon.
Gentleman himself represented had been relieved of its
surplus Population, and its poor-rates diminished, by the
removal of the poor into those very manufacturing dis
fleets-- (Hear, hear) and when they got there
it seemed these poor persons were most particu-
larly anxious to avoid making any application for
parish relief. because they knew if they did they
would be sent back to the place from whence they came.
--((tear, hear.) And yet the lion. Gentleman depicted
in glowing language, which hi perhaps alone knew so
well how to use, the distress which the manufac-
tures of the north inflicted on the southern and some of
the midland counties; but his conviction was that
the existence of these very manufactures was one
of the great sources of relief to those agricultural
districts, by taking off their surplus population, whom