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

Sir R. LOPES supported the resolution. It was but
fair that the ss stem, as regarded the landed interest,
sheu.d be looked live). They were the party most
affected, and therefore had a right to demand that other
interests should be made take a share of those burdens
they had so Img borne. It be cline the Government and
the Logi leture to pay particuler attention to the state
of the agricultural interest, and to see how heavily that
interest was burdened with undue and unfair taxation,
which he considered to be the main object of the motion
of the Honourable Member for Buckingham (Mr.
Disraeli). He hoped that trade, commerce, and manu-
facture would be subject to their just quota which would
tend to ameliorate the condition of the agriculturist--
(Hear, hear)—acrd hoped that support as well as sym-
pathy would be evinced on the part of the Government
by devising some beneficial means of reducing the exor-
bitant and ruinous burdens pressing so much on the com-
munity at large.—(Hear.)
Sir M. CHOLMELEY said that it became the House
to express its sympathy for the suffering landed interest
by granting the Committee on the motion of the Honour-
able Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli.) Ile,
as one of the irregular corps, thought that a moderate
duty should be placed en corn, because such a duty
weuld not come from the pocket of the consumer, but
from that of the importer, and he firmly believed, on the
authority of a merchant, who trades in the German and
Baltic seas, that such was the case. That merchant had
stated to him that he could import corn into this country
at the rate of 3s. 6d. lye. bushel, and have a considerable
profit by such a line of trade. Ile next reprobated the
idea of repealing the malt• tax, as being introduced by
the Honourable Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) not
from any sympathy with the agricultural interest, but as
a counterpoise to the motion before the House; and he
contended that oil-cake and tallow were better and
cheaper for the support of cattle than malt, and be
hoped, therefore, that in consequence of the oppressed
state of the landed interest, the Committed would be
granted.
Mr. W. MILES raid that his Hon. Friend (Mr.
Disraeli) had recourse, in his able and eloquent speech,
not to judges as his guide, bet to principles—to the
Elizabethan law. He could not see why the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Hon.
Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) should severally
state that the exchequer or the property-tax should
suffer by the success of the proposition of his Hon.
Friend (Mr.-Disraeli); but such was not the case, for
his Hon. Friend did not make any, even the least, allu-
sion either to the exchequer or to the property-tax.—
(Hear, hear.) The only allusion that he (Mr. Disraeli)
did make was, that the machinery did exist by which
the tax could be taken off real property and placed
on some other interest in the community; and he should
add, that he did not know whence the Honourable
Member for Montrose (Mr. Httme) got such information
as to enable him to state that that tax was placed on
real property in lieu of military service.—(Laughter.)
In a word, he looked on the amendment as a mere
ad captandum budget, in which he (Mr. Hume), how-
ever, failed to state how he would make up for the defi •
ciency in the revenue caused by a repeal of the malt-tax.
--(Laughter.) Nor would the House know how it would
be made up but for the speech of the Hon. Member for
the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) which had been delivered
a few nights before he (Mr. Hume) introduced his
amendment—(llear)—and as he (Mr. Hume) had not
disclosed to the House his motives for relieving the agri-
cultural class of the community, he (Mr. Miles), with a
vast majority of the House, should overthrow the amend-
ment. Next, to address himself to the motion of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Disraeli), he should say, the fact that real
property was too heavily burdened was recognised by
Noble Lords and Right Hon. Gentlemen on both sides of
the House, and he would refer to the able report of one of
the highest authorities in the country—one who had filled
so many various and important offices under the Crown,
with an ability, judgment, and talent, that distinguished
him. He alluded to the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James
Graham), who, in his speech in 1845, on the report of
the Committee over which he (Sir J. G.) presided, in
1833, recognised that county rates pressed most heavily
on the agricultural interests. Here the Hon. Gentle-
man read some extracts from the report of the Com-
mittee of 1833, in favour of his argument, and said, that
as there was a declension of Bs. per barrel in the price of
corn since that year, it being then 535., and now only
455., with the same outgoings and expenditure on the
part of the farmers, he hoped that Parliament would
not refuse to modify the state of the agricultural in-
terest. That demand was not asked for the landed
interest alone—it was asked for the public utility, and ho
could prove, on the authority of Blackstone, to show the
principle on which he was acting, in concert with 'his
Hon. Friend Mr. Disraeli, that the peer of England
lived on the private benificence, and not on taxation, be-
fore the time of Henry the Eighth, and that then no poor
died through want. If he looked at the county-rate he
found a great increase in its annual amounts. Thus, in
1793, it was 184,000/. ; in 1803, 235,000/. ; in 1813,
510,000/. ; in 1823, 571,0002 ; in 1833, 757,000/. ; and
in 1847, which was the last year of which returns had
been received, it was 1,310,0001. Deducting from this
sum the expenses of prosecutions, the county-rate for
that year would be 1,058,809/. available for general pur-
poses. Therefore, in fifty-four years, the rate had in-
creased 874,819/. It immediately became a question of
grave consequence to ascertain whether that sum might
not be better applied, or distributed. Notwithstanding
the great importation of foreign corn which was now
taking place, there might be cause for the dis •
tress which prevailed so generally, but he
could not conceal from himself the fact, that
that distress was not confined to the agricultural
classes, but extended itself very largely amongst the
manufacturers. He denied that real property for agri-
cultural purposes was more taxed than real property for
any other purpose. Whilst he was upon that point, he
might take occasion to remark that it was very much to
be regretted that the tables which were constantly pub-
lished, setting forth the details of the trade and com-
merce of the country, should not be more correctly, or
rather discreetly, compiled. With regard to the total
aboliticn of the malt-tax, he felt that they had been
stripped of every rag of protection, and when he saw
how vague and indefinite were the means of replacing
the lost revenue, he did not think the times were so
changed as to justify him in giving his assent to the
view of the question taken by the Honourable Members
for Montrose and the West Riding of Yorkshire. If he
looked to the increasing poor-rate, with the knowledge
he had of the injurious effects of the competition with
foreign produce and foreign artizans, to which they had
been exposed by the withdrawal of protection, he could
not think that the schemes of Honourable Gentlemen
opposite were such as would tend to improve the condi-
tion of the country; and believing that the proposition
under discussion would be-a much greater benefit to the
agricultural community than the repeal of the malt
duties, he could have no choice but cordially to assent to
the motion of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire.
Mr. BRIGHT thought, he said, that the House would
find some difficulty as to the manner in which it should
regard the motion submitted to it by the Hon. 141rmber
for Buckinghamshire. Originally they were given to
understand that the basis or groundwork of his proposi-
tion was the prevalence of great distress amongst persons
engaged in agriculture; but the speech of the Hon. Gen-
tleman himself brought them to a very different conclu-
sion, and the speech of the Hon. Member for Somerset-
shire seemed to set that question at rest, as the ground-
work of else proposition of his Hon. Friend the Member
for Buckinghamshire.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire had quoted something he (Mr. Bright)
had said as to the distress of the agricultural classes ;
but the Hon. Member had misquoted—of course, unin-
tentionally—what he had said, as well as what had been
said by his Hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) on the same sub-
ject. He (Mr. Bright) never had admitted that throughout
the agricultural classes there was wide-spread and intense
distress. He had not even heard at any of the meetings,
whether in Suffolk, or in Cambridge, or elsewhere, that
the distress was so great; and he knew that in the north
of England, so far was distress from being spoken of, it
was not even thought of.—(Cries of " Oh I oh 1" from
Members on the Opposition benches.) Since the
meeting of Parliament, he believed that prices had not
fallen.—(Cries of " Oh! oh !") A gentleman from one
of the southern counties of Scotland told him that they
had had a good year, and that they were perfectly con-
tent.—(Cries of "Oh! oh!") In some of the counties in
the south of England be believed that there was distress.
There were vicissitudes in farming precisely as in all
other trades. The seasons were not all alike. The
rain fell at a critical time for the farmers in the south;
it fell before the critical time for the farmers in the
north. In the south the crops, therefore, were deficient
in quantity and inferior in quality; but in the north the
farmers had a fair crop and a fair quantity; and, there-
fore, he heard no complaints from them.—(Cries of
" Oh! oh!") But if they had any doubt on this subject
he appealed to the lion. Member for Somersetshire.
The Hon. Gentleman had given them the price of cattle,
but that point had been so well disposed of by the Chan'
cellor of the Exchequer that he should not revert to it;
however, the Hon. Member for Somersetshire had told
them of the sale of some of his own corn of an inferior
quality at 425. the quarter. Now, to toll them the price
of a damaged article in the market was not the way in
which one could learn the average price of any article
in the market. Now, if a Somersetsbire farmer or te-
nant could procure 425. a quarter for damaged wheat--
for wheat which the Hon. Member said had " sprouted"
—.he took it that 48s. or 50s. might be considered
the lowest price for which wheat of a fair quality
could be purchased.—(Loud cries of "No, no, from
Members on the Opposition benches.) Ile had inquired
of a gentleman on his way to Mark-lane what was the
price of wheat, and he said that good wheat was 545. or
535., and that the average price of foreign wheat was
485.; and if their wheat was equal in quality to the
foreign, they must get an equal price for it. Therefore
there was no ground on that account to make the ex-
tensive change called for, and which could not be justi-
fied either on the price of grain, or the condition of the
farmer at the present time,—(Hear.) He did not ven-
ture to go into any elaborate figures on this occasion,
because all had been said on this and other points so
well by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would
not repeat them; for he must say that ou this subject
the Chancellor of the Exchequer bad not only made a
good speech, but the very best speech he had beard from
the Treasury bench since its present occupants came
into office.—(Hear, and laughter.) There were, how-
ever, some points in the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire which the Chancellor of the
Exchequer had not placed in all the lights in
which they might be regarded. The Hon. Mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire seemed to adopt the proposi-
tion that local rates should not be levied merely on
houses, railways, factories, lands, but on all the incomes
of the country. If that were not so said by the Hoe.
Member for Buckinghamshire, the Hon. Member for

. _
Soinersetshire said 5.0, and so he took the fart to be.

The Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire-said he was
not for a national rate; and this might be remarked, that
a national rate would run up 50 per cent. in five years
higher than rates were at present, if the national rate
were distributed by local authorities. ILI the eeutheril