The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-17 00:00:00

IMPORTS FROM IRELAND.

The NOBLE LORD, before sitting down, begged leave
to give notice of his intention to move for certain returns,
to which he expected the House would have no objec-
tion. They were as to the amountof the imports of grain
into this country from Ireland.
PROTECTION TO AGRICULTURE.
The Duke of RICHMOND presented upwards .of 200
petitions from various parts of the country against
the repeal of the present protection to agriculture, and
praying that the. House of Commons be dissolved before
any attempt was made todecide the question. The peti-
tions were from the counties of Wilts, Kent, Berks, and
from a large meeting in-favour of agricultural protection
lately held in Chelmsford, in E sex ; also petitions from
Stockbridge, in Hampshire ; places in Wicklow, Berk-
shire, and Yorkshire ; also a petition from distillers in
the south-east district of Scotland, from farmers and
others in the counties of Somerset and Lincoln, all pray-
ing that their Lordships would not alter the present ex-
isting corn-laws, and also praying that the measures pro •
posed in another place (House of Commons), which were
calculated to cause so much damage to the agricultural
and other great interests of the country, should not
receive the sanction of their Lordships, in the event
of the Bill being passed by the House of Commons.
The Earl of STRADBROKE presented a number of
petitions from different places (the names of which we
could not catch) to the same effect.
PECULIAR BURDENS ON LAND.

Lord BEAUMONT rose to submit to their Lordships
the motion of which he had given notice, to inquire into
the peculiar burdens on land, the impediments which
existed to the improvement on agriculture, as well as to
inquire into the present system of Ex, ise duties.
Although he understood that it was not the intention of
the Government to oppose that motion, their Lordships
might probably expect that he would enter into the
reasons why he submitted so important a motion to
their consideration, and why also those, with whom he
had hitherto in general acted, refused to comply with a
similar motion when moved by other persons. He had
-ever upheld that peculiar burdens on land, and
protection to agriculture, were matters very
closely connected. They must regard both subjects
from the same point of view. Either they must remove
the peculiar burdens on land, if they attempted to re-
move the protection which agriculture enjoyed, or they
must, in common justice, continue protection, if they
permitted those burdens to remain. He found that he
was fortified in this opinion by men whose authority
was of considerable weight. He found that Mr. M'Cul-
tech, Mr. M'Gregor, and if he mistook not, his Noble
Friend on his left (Lord Brougham), were all of
opinion that there were peculiar burdens on land.
The object of his motion was to inquire what those
peculiar burdens were. If it were submitted to his
choice whether the burdens of land and protection to
agriculture should be removed, or both allowed to con-
tinue, he would have no hesitation in selecting the con-
tinuance of the burdens and the centinuande of protection
rather than the removal of both, and he was influenced
in coming to such a determination by national con-
siderations, by economical considerations, and by
motives of a sense of justice to the colonies.
He believed that the continuation of protection would be
the most economical bargain that the country at large
could strike with the agriculturists, if they granted a
sum of money for general purposes, in which it was
their desire- that all classes should equally participate.
He believed it was for the advantage of the
country at large that they should make an
agreement with owners of real property to pay this
large sum of money for these purposes, in considera-
tion that they should be allowed a duty on the importa-
tion on foreign corn. The motive on which he preferred
this choice of the two was because he believed it would
tend to make this country independent of foreign na-
tions, and at the same time encourage industry at
home. He further believed that the adoption of that system
had one great advantage, inasmuch as it would enable
them to give certain other advantages to our colonies,
and enable them to admit their corn at a lower duty than
that imposed on the corn imported from other countries.
But there seemed to be no longer a chance of having
such a proposition as this submitted to them, and he spoke
rather in anticipation of the possibility of protection
being entirely done away with, because, had he not an-
ticipated such a possibility, he never should have thought
of submitting such a motion to their Lordships. He
might here as well state that the object he had in view
was not to delay the consideration of the question of
protection, because from what he had already stated he
thought their Lordships would see that he considered
the investigation of the peculiar burdens with the inten-
tion of equalising them as the consepience of the repeal
of all duties there, as a measure by itself. Having
thus, he trusted, explained the motive and reasons why
he selected that moment for submitting his motion,
and by implication shown the motives which induced those
with whom he was associated for refusing to grant it on
a formes' occasion, he would proceed with as much brevity
as he could to consider the peculiar questions which he
thought the Committee must take into their considera-
tion. In speaking of those taxes which were raised from
real property, he wished to draw a wide distinction be-
tween the two classes, into which he intended to ar-
range them. In the Poor-law Commissioners' re-
ports he found twenty-four distinct rates enume-
rated, but the only classification of them was
this—that ten were raised on the basis of
the poor-law; 8 raised in practice, though not in law;
and 6 raised on other bases. The operation of the law
was, that they were raised from property and practice.
The distinction which he wished to draw was this—that
he wished to distinguish those which were only for local
purposes—which only interested those people for whom
they were raised, and thOse in the immediate vicinity.
Now he wished to make this distinction between those
taxes and those rates which were imposed for general
purposes, and those taxes and those rates which were im-
posed for peculiar purposes—the one being borne for the
3-, and the other only for
The taxes which
designate for local
Ibiheeen,eawfidotruaoinfdttahgeewohfoalepcaormtiemuluanritdistrict.
purposes were the
2rainage rates4the sewers' rate, and the rate for the rural
police, and he should no more think of imposing the ex-
penditure for the purposes of these rates upon the com-
munity at large than he should think of imposing the
especial rates for towns upon the rural population ; as,
for instance, he should no more think of imposing the
rate necessary for the improvement of the marsh
lands in the East and West Ridings of Yorkshire,
on the inhabitants of towns, from the peculiar burdens
of the agricultural residents, than he should think it ne-
cessary- or just to impose the burdens which had
to be borne by the residents in cities for peculiar
purposes, from which the rural population de-
rive advantage. The
rates
which The were
es
particularly
imposed
he should
the paving rate, the
nanecdesthsaors3e,
foroth other particularm ode o:
edrinevseeit.-nenaoitnehabitants of towns were mposed
btligi
rhdtei nags
lrrahtiee,ht hae,
erwater a
traatlel,
life of the inhabitants of towns ; these were
what he called the peculiar burdens of towns,
and he should no more think of impos-
ing them upon the inhabitants who were charged
with the cultivation and improvement of the marsh lands
of the. East and West Ridings of Yorkshire than he should
think of imposing upon them the expense of affording a
better supply of water to the inhabitants of Exeter. It
was usual for these rates to be imposed by the inha-
bitants of towns, through the agency of public
meetings, called by the inhabitants themselves, and
ratified by a special act of those inhabitants.
Now the burdens imposed upon land for peculiar pur-
poses aro the rate for drainage, the dike rate, and the
rate for the support of the rural police. These rates
were for particular . acts, in which the rural
population were specially interested. But there
- were other rates which were imposed for general.
purposes, such as those for the maintenance
of the poor, public security, and the support of the ad-
ministration of justice • and without protective duties
he would no more think of imposing them upon land
alone than he would think of imposing them upon the
f undholders or upon any other particular body in the State.
The maintenance of the poor-rate was an object of pecu-
liar interest to all classes, whether manufacturing or
agricultural. He trusted that he had said enough to
convince their Lordships that the maintenance of the
poor was a national and general object. If the militia
were called out, it was not for the purpose of defending
the mere acres—it was not for the purpose of defending
the capitalist—it was to defend the country generally,
and, therefore, all classes were equally interested
in paying the militia rate, which was made for the pro-
tection of every person, and not of peculiar individuals.
Thus, the rates for the maintenance of the poor, the de-
ft nce of the country, and the administration of justice,
were common to all, and equally paid by all, cud were
distinguished from other rates levied for less general
purposes. He wished to see how far the relation between
real property and every other kind of property extended,
and he wished to see the relative position of landed pro-
perty and property that consisted of houses.
The poor rate was originally founded on the same basis
on which most other fates were founded. -It was not
real property alone that was liable to be rated for by an
Act of Elizabeth. Every man was rateable according to
his means and ability, whether his income was derived
from land, from trade, or from funded property. That
had since degenerated, and now, by the law of the
land, only real property was liable to this tax. He
would wish to know the effect of this law
on the capitalist, who embarked his money in
trade, as distinguished from the effect it bad on the
agricultural community. IF a person invested his
money in building a mill, he would be rated
according to the rateable value of the
lie would have to hire the mill, and the mill would he
merely rated according to its rateable value, and -not at
its rack rent, as in some eases land was. It would only
be rated at two-thirds, or one-half, as in the county of
Westmoreland. There land was rack-rented, and
houses were rated two-thirds, while , mills were
only rated one-half. That was the way this
great capitalist contributed to the poor- rate, yet
he made vast sums of money, for he collected from the
entire neighbourhood far and near—from the agricul-
tural districts—able, healthy labourers, capable of con-
tinued exertion ; and unless the manufacturer received
some check in his trade, his profit would go on, in-
creasing. Tileq what did he do ? He dismissed

those persons by hundreds and thousands, and they
were thrown upon the agricultural districts, which were
obliged to support them. The capitalists derived the
profits of their manhood, and the agriculturists sup-
ported their age. Now let them contrast this with the
operation of th law upon the farmer. The farmer had
no choice whatever, he was bound to employ
those men or to increase the rates, and
many farmers he knew in his own district
employed a great many more labourers than the purely
economical working of the farm required. That was
the difference between himself and the capitalist, but let
a glut come on the trade of the towns of Leeds or
Manchester and the labourers would be obliged to re-
turn to the rural parishes, where the farmer was obliged
to contribute to their support, and where he could not
derive much b3nefit from their labour, because their pur-
suits had been confined to manufactures, and these were,
therefore, fitted to cultivate the soil. This was the diffe-
rence he drew between the effect the taxes had
on the capitalist and the farmer. He would
now proceed to show how it operated between land
and houses, or, rather, he would allude to some of
the deductions which had been made from figures,
which appeared in regard to difference of lands and
houses, as placed in the report of the Poor-law.Commis-
stoners ; but he might, in a parenthesis, state that, in

is view of the case,- the difference was not between

land and houses, but between the proprietors of real
property and the rest of the community.
It seemed that in the year 1826 the land paid at the
rate of 69 per cent., while houses paid in the proportion of
26 per cent., whereas in the year 1841 the land paid
in proportion 52 per cent., while houses 1a d in the
ratio of 37 per cent. In this statement it would appear
that the bur dens on land had gradually been reduced,

while those imposed on houses hid increased. But to this
he would answer, that those whose eyes•were open would
see that there had been between the two periods referred
to, a gradual increase of towns and villages, thus in
creasing the number of houses and decreasing the quan-
tity of land. Every day the number of houses was in-
creasing, while the quantity of land was decreasing, the
latter being taken up by railroads and new towns.
They saw day by day that which was formerly field-
ground used for the erection of houses, or used up for
ether purposes—taken up for railroads er objects of a
similar kind. This showed how it was that houses in.
creased and land diminished, and explained the ap-
parent discrepancy between the two /et trns. He might
illustrate the point by one or two strong instances. At
Newcastle there was an extensive parish which formerly
was land, but now it was occupied by a new town.
He would also refer to Hrighton, which formerly was
a fishing village, whereas now the houses had so much
increased, that it had become a great town. There
was another point to which he would refer,
while speaking on this subject. It had been
said that houses were perishable property, and
that therefore they ought not to be rated so high as
landed property. He was willing that this should be
so, and he would take care on a future occasion, if the
free-traders used it as an argument, to meet them with
their own weapons. If perishable property was to be fa-
vourably considered, what was more perishable than the
farmer's capital—that which depended upon the season,
which might perish from a decay in the seed or a blight
in the blossom, which a thunder-storm or any other
destructive operation of nature might annihilate.
He would say to them, do not use this argument, or
he would tike good care that it should be made
to tell on behalf of the great question of protec-
tion.—(Hear, hear.) The issue would show how it
would befriend the cause of agricultural industry. He
would further say, let them look at the oppression of the
poor-laws—he referred to that part of the system re-
latiag to settlement. To the old law of settlement,
he had an utter objection, as it operated most in-
juriously to, the agriculturists without doing any
real good *to the manufacturer.—(Hear, hear.)
What happened when there was a sudden check in the
demand for manufactures? The labouring artisan re-
turned to the rural districts, and when the demand for
manufactures returned there the manufacturers could
with difficulty find men to work their mills, while the
rural districts were overcharged with paupers.
This had occurred lately in Manchester and in Nor-
wich. Their Lordships might rely upon it, that if
they adopted free trade in corn, they must apply the
same principle to the labour market, and the first step
towards that must be the abolition of the present law of
settlement. The law of settlement made the labourer a
bondsman to his parish, and it prevented him going into
the dearest market to dispose of his labour. To this
part of the poor-law system he trusted they were ap-
proaching an end. He had alluded to this matter in
consequence of its having been reported to be
the intention of the Government to offer
as a compensation to the agricultural interest
an alteration of the law of settlement. That alteration,
even if it should be carried out to the extent of Sir
James Graham's Bill of last year, would not be satisfac-
tory. But he believed that the repeal of the corn-laws
would be carried, and then the proposed alteration in the
law of settlement would fall to the ground.—(Hear.)
The present measure proposed by the Government was
most objectionable. He considered that making a resi-
dence of a few years the means of obtaining a settle-
ment would lead to very enormous results. The mea-
sure would have a tendency to force women likely to
give birth to children from one parish to another, in
order to get relieved from the burdens of the chil-
dren born there, and as to an industrial residence
of a certain number of years, as being the means
of obtaining a settlement, he considered tha.•, measure
to be impracticable ; it would be too heavy a burden-
on the towns. He believed that in time of a sudden
check in trade, when hundreds , were thrown out of
work, the towns were scarcely able to support them-
selves. He thought the measure would be no compensa-
tion 'Whatever, the only remedy was to get rid alto-
gether of the law of settlement. His -Lord-
ship then tattled to the highway rates. He
maintained that the highways were as much for the be-
nefit of the town as for the country, through which the
road passes. Indeed there were cases where two towns
formed the termini, and were the only parties who
derived any benefit from it. They are of little use to
intervening country accommodation, and bridle roads are
used by the farmer ; he has little or no business on the
highway. He had had an account taken at the several tolls
of the number of vehicle's which passed through, and the
result had been that the majority belonged to the inhabi-
tants of the towns at the different extremities. He would
allude incidentally to the question of tithes. He did
not, howeve-r, consider the tithes were a burden on the
land.—(Hear hear.) He did not wish to be misunder-
stood upon this matter. Previous to the commutation
of tithes they were a burden upon the cultivators of the
land. They objected to laying out their money upon land,
as they did not wish that the benefits of their labours
and enterprise should be applied to other persons.
Since the passing of the Tithe Commutation Act, tithes
did 'riot intefere with the cultivator of - the larid,
•- as by the previsions of tho Act :, they , were
constituted- a certain debt upon the property itself.
That was merely looking at the question in the light of
buying, selling, and barter. The produce of the soil
was the same, and produced the same to the occupier as
if the tax did not exist at all. It merely reduced the
value of the fee simple. He looked upon the
land-tax and the titho in the same point of view
as charges upon the land. He considered they were
merely charges upon the land, but did not interfere
with the production of the agriculturist. He looked
upon the tax as- he did upon indirect taxes. In
France, where land was sold under the in-
direct taxation, the loss sustained was borne
by the seller, but it did not fall upon the
farmer. This kind of tax diminished the value of the
land in both countries. He would pass over one or Iwo
points which he intended to refer to, as he did not wish
to trespass on their attention much longer, and he would
come to the last point to which he wished to
call their attention —he meant the malt-tax.
It was said that that tax was no burden on land, but
he believed that this was an erroneous statement. The
tax he admitted was equally paid by all, but that por-
tion paid by persons who were consumers of beer, &c., fell
in the end upon the agriculturist. In addition to this, how-
ever, he would point out the direct amount of duty which
interfered with the agriculturist. It interfered with the
agriculturist to the extent of the barley to which
the tax amounted. If the tax, therefore, did not
exist, the barley would be increased to that amount, and
the agriculturist would be so much benefited. If any
proof of this were wanting he would refer to the circum-
stance that, notwithstanding the increase of population
of late years, the amount of duty did not keep pace with it.
That was the burden, but that was not the only hard-
ship—that was the amount of the burden, but the hard-
ship went still further—and by not allowing him to use
his barley as he likes for other, purposes, they placed
him in the same position as they would a
manufacturer, if they were to say to him, " You
may manufacture cloth, but you- must not wear a
coat made from it." They defied, they prevented him,
from using the barley produced by his own soil. That
I was a serious burden, in addition to the one he had
named, and he could give a great many authorities—
M'Culloch and others--but he considered it unneces- 1
nary, because when the duty on printed cottons was re-
pealed, there was a great increase in the trade in that
article, and he held that a similar result would ensue if
the duty were taken off malt. There was another article
of Excise which he thought particularly heavy on the
owners of real property, and which, if it were not re--

quire) for the purp,•su of creating a portion of the
revenue, would be' a great advantage to the proprietors
of land--he meant the article of hops; but if they
came again to the general taxation' of the country, he
wished to know what portion of it the agricultural body
was exempt from? They were exempt from the Cus-
toms' duties as they contributed as much to them as any
other body cf the community; they also consumed and
paid duty upon innumerable articles which paid cus-
toms' duty. From what taxes then were they exempt ?
They paid the Post-office and stamp duties ;
the stamp duty for the transfer of property fell
peculiarly heavy cn them, and was so enormous that he
considered it one of the greatest hardships under which
any p otion of the community laboured at the present
moment.—(Cheers.) And he must say this, that if
there was a subject which might obtain a moment's
attention from his Noble and Learned Friend
on the Woolsack it was this ; and if be would
suffer him for a moment, he would say if there was a
department against which the agriculturists had reason
to complain to the Noble Lord, it was the enormous
duty which they were thus compelled to pay—(Cheers)
—and he had especial reason to complain, because in all
the reforms which had taken place in which the portions
of the community participated, care was taken to con-
tinue the burdens upon land.—(]Tear.) And again, when
the law relating to the transfer of property was carried
by the Noble Lord, it was found of such a nature as to
be a difficult matter to get a conveyancer to adopt it,
and in thousands of cases it was impossible to transfer
property without being obliged to pay for six or seven
sheets to an attorney. Then how long had they left the
question of the registration of des ds unsettled? In
every other country conveniences for the purchase of land

were so great compared with those of this country, as to
cast a blot on this country, and to induce every one to do
all in his power to obtain some alteration in it.
He would, before he concluded, refer to that which his
/lon. Friend intended to add as an amendment, and he
would wish to know what were the numerous exceptions
proposed in that amendment. The legacy duty was cer-
tainly a case in point, and he would allow it to be fair
that it should be exempted. Certain property belonging
to the agriculturists was exempt from insurance. • The
farmer's property, such as stacks; &c., was from its nature
exposed to danger, and that property was not to be se-
cured by insurance. He was sorry to say the danger was
increased in consequence of the very violent language
sometimes addressed to the labouring people. The per-
sons who addressed it to them did not mean to do the
mischief they did—they were emissaries from others,
who were not aware of the high tone they adopted. He,
for one, when he used to read the strong• language made
use of, used to remark:—" There will be some mote
stack-burning in the district." He had no peculiar ob-
jection to strong language ; he thought that it
sometimes added to the interest of the debate,
and he was perfectly indifferent to the hard names
which were heaped upon the agricultural body, of which
he was a member. At the same time, lie felt that he
had not terms strong enough to use in condemnation of
the violent language which sometimes led to so much
mischief in the country. The Right Hon. Baronet at
the head of the Government had brought forward certain
measures which he intended as a compensation for the
withdrawal of protection fro in land. He would sty
that these• measures were no compensation, and if
they did give any, the difficulty of ascertaining
the benefit it would confer would be enormous, as they would
have to ascertain the precise loss which the withdrawal of pro-
tection would cause, and the precise gain which the diminution
of taxation would aford to the English farmer. He would
then turn to another question, and he theught that if it could
not be shown that the impositions on the protection of corn in
foreign countries were commensurate with the imposition on
real property in this country, they would fail to show that
British-grown corn- was in a condition to compete with
foreign corn. He had seen some attempts to render this
assertion a fact to the minds of the people, but he thought it
would be extremely improbable that any such attempt should
succeed. If they were to take the whole amount of the
taxes imposed upon towns, or what were properly called
civic rates, and would compare them with the communes
or department districts in . France, they would find that
taxes imposed in that country stood as five to four with those
which were laid on the inhabitants of cities and towns here. This
was no fair comparison with the impositions in France, but
they would find that it was not quite so high as that in Eng-
land.—( Hear, hear.) That was not• the way to put the
case—they ought to take the amount of costs imposed for
realising the produce of one hundred acres of land in one
country and the amount of costs imposed for obtaining a
hundred acres in the other country, and if they could show the
amount was the same they would make out a good
case. But by this mode of calculation they would
find that in • England the cost was nearly double
that in France, that in the German States it was more than in
that proportion, and that in Turkey and some parts of Russia
it only bore the proportion cf two in a hundred. It was even
notorious that Great Britain was taxed in a far greater
degree' than in any other foreign state, at least in
Europe. He had now come to his conclusion
and he felt compelled to say a • few words with respect to him •
self. He had always conceived that the system of protection
was absolutely required by the peculiar burdens imposed upon
land ; yet, if he found the continuance of that imposition was con-
trary to the tendency of public opinion—that it wan likely to
raise one class in opposition to another, he should feel it his
duty to refrain from further opposition to the measure, and
instead of wrapping himself up in a sulky humour, and aggra-
vating the evil of domestic schism. he would endeavour to
pacify the conflicting feelings, and he trusted his Noble
Friends would use their powerful influence in prevent-
ing that hostile disposition and unnecessary difference
which might arise between the manufacturer and farmer.
The Noble Lord then continued—My Lords, I have never
joined in the abuse of the Right Hon. Baronet at the head, of
her Majesty's Government. I believe in the sincerity of his
convictions—l believe that he thinks he is doing for
the best in the measure he proposes. I respect his sin.
cerity—l respect his courage. But this I will say,
that if in the present Parliament he carries thiS measure, it
will not be the triumph of opinion, but the triumph of par-
tisanship—l say, not the triumph of opinion, because he will
have carried it against the opinion of the country, as declared
at -the last election ; he will have carried it against
the' opinion of the House of Commons, as declared
in various divisions ; he will have carried it • against
the opinion of the House of Lords, as also delared on numerous
divisions ; but lastly, and above all, he will have carried it in
defiance of the opinion of a majority of the Cabinet.—( Great
cheering.) I say, my Lords, that I. shall submit to the
triumph of opinion. Let. the Government look to that
point ; let them appeal to the country ; let
them ask what the opinions of the country are ;
let them follow that up by securing a majority of the
opinions in the House of Commons, and again in this House,
and I myself will no longer offer a factious opposition to the
measure.—(Cheers.) I believe that then your Lordships will
no longer oppose it ;. and if that shall be the
case, it will be in the fullest sense a triumph of
opinion, but as it now stands it is merely an able manoeuvre of
party politics.—( Great cheering. )
Lord BROUGHAM rose to second the motion, but was
called to 'order by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE, who said
that in that House it was not necessary that any motion
should be seconded.
On the question being put,
Lord BROUGHAM said that he wished only to speak to
their Lordships a very few words, in answer to his Noble
Friend who had made mention of his name in connexion with
the opinions he had exprossed in 1820. Far from differing
from the motion of his Noble Friend, he (Lord Brougham)
considered that the burdens he had enumerated fell exclusively
upon the land, and he went even further, for he was very far
intleed from taking hie views on the subject of the tithes or
land-tax. Ile did not admit, with the Noble Lord, that the
land-tax or the poor-rates were not peculiar burdens.
He did not wish to enter upon the subject to-night, there being
no opposition to the motion of the Noble Lord. He would not
therefore follow that Noble Lord, or enter upon the discussion,
as the consequence would be to anticipate that which would be
brought under their Lordships' consideration in a short time. It
was not his desire to bring about a foregone conclusion irtantici-
pation of the inquiry which must shortly take place. To enter upon
the discussion now would be to forejudge the labours of the
Committee. He would go into 'Committee, though he still
entertained the opinions which he held in 1820 and 1822 re-
specting the burdens upon land. He differed with the Noble
Lord in a considerable degree. He thought that the burdens
on land were not only greater in some respects than
he had represented them, but also there were
burdens in some material particulars which bad not
been referred to—still, though admitting - the greatness
of these burdens, he did not agree in the conclusions drawn
by the Noble Lord, namely, the proposition that the proper
mode of compensation was by taxing corn by imposing a duty
on the importation of foreign grain.—( Hear, hear.) He would
not anticipate the corn-law debate by snatching a debate on the
question before their Lordships. The question of the corn-laws
would be brought before them properly, timely, and regularly,
as soon as the Measure came from the other House. He
must say.in the present inquiry he greatly lamented the leav
ing out of view, in his opinion, the greatest of 411 the exclu-
sive burdens of land. What he referred to was the position
of the landowners and farmers, which was different from all
other kind of employers. They had not the power of going
into the labour market, and selecting the cheapest labourers and
workmen. The manufacturers had amongst them none of
that patriarchial relationship which existed in the
agricultural district. They could turn off their work-
men in a day, whether they had been in their
service a year or ten years. They could tarn them off at any
time if they (the manufacturers) were able to get better and
cheaper workmen. It was not so with the farmers—half the
labourers they employed were employed tr„on what be ( Lord
Brougham) called the patriarchial relation, and they often em-
ployed a great number of workmen when they might procure a
supply of labour at half the price. The obliga-
tions of the poor-law did not alone impose this, but it
arose from a feeling of attachment, to those who had long
been engaged in the service of the farmers in the cultivation
of the soil. No one felt stronger than he did the force of this
particular burden. When a Noble Lord died he very often
left eighty thousand pounds or ninety thousand pounds of per-
sonal property, on all of which he paid probate and legacy duty.
One word with respect to the stamp duties, to which his Noble
Friend had referred. There never was a greater error than
supposing that the late improvements which had taken place
in the law were not beneficial to the landed interest. What
did they think of the abolition of fines and recoveries? He, him-
self, knew one landowner who had saved between 5,00 e/. and
.6,000/. by,the change, and• he had krown another friend who had
delayed his recoveries until after the Act of 1832 passed, by which
he gained a large amount. Then there was the change in the
law respecting leases. Instead of ten sheets for a lease, only
half a sheet was now'required, and instead of ten skins, only halt
a skin was required. There was no additional stamp-duty
non that ; on the contrary there was a large reduction, and
this reduction it was which made many persons doubt whether
the Chancellor of the Exchequer Would not oppose the change.
He did not, however think it is duty to do so. He (Lord
Brougham) certainly thought the landed interest had a right to
complain of the stamp duties, perhaps more than the ot herexclu-
sive burdens. It was worse than the alcavala of Spain. The stamp
duties pressed most heavily upon mortgagers, for the mortgagee
might, at any time, say to the mortgager " unless you raise
your interest you shall change your securities, which will cost
10,000/. or 12,0001." He (Lord Brougham) hoped that lie
would not live long before he saw the tax on the alienation of
property replaced by a tax upon succession. •
Lord DACRE ( whose remarks in the opening part of his
speech were inaudible in the gallery.) stated that he conceived
protection to be giving a certain advantage to some particular
application of capital, or giving some encouragement to trade, or
to some particular enterprise, which might be considered of
particular advantage to the country who granted this protection.
To this protection it was that the agricultural interest lay claim.
He considered, from the great improvements which had been
made, the facilities of communication, and the increased appli-
cation of the capital of this country, and from the statistical re-
, turns which had been made to this House, that this kind of pro-
tection should be removed from the agriculture of this country.
.(Hear, hair.) He considered also that protection was of service
to maintain the -balance or equilibrium of the country, when
from circumstances of taxation or some other cause, the level
of the application of capital had been destroyed.' That level
has been destroyed by the protection which has been afforded
to personal property beyond all bounds of reason or defence,
He would not enter into detail, but would take his stand on the
broad basis of the injustice which had been done to the country
by the imposition of a grinding property- tax, imposed upon the
country in the shape of a poor-law. Justice should be done
to the farmer by the removal or equalisation of such a press
of taxes.—( Hear, hear.) He felt convinced that the
agriculture of the country was equal to compete with the agri-
-Iture of the world. If they were granted equal tax s, a free
application of labour—( Hear, hear)—and an equally free
disposal of the products of that labour.—(hear, hear. )
The Noble Lord then went into some statistical details relative
to the valuation of real property, and proceeded to say that a
great portion of taxation fell upon one-fourth of the property
of England, to the exclusion of other property, which was as
well entitled to be charged. Such was the position of the real
property of England. What he wanted, therefore, 'was equal
taxation., and if that were carried out, and no undue proportion
of taxation placed upon real property, the agricultu-
rists of this country would be able not only to
contend with, but to overcome the foreign competition.
.It was not from inadequacy, on the part of the owners of real
property, to meet the demands which were made upon them
under the existing laws, that they sought their reduction or
abolition, but a deep sense of the injury which would be in-
flicted upon them, by withdrawing a portion of the
taxes to which other portions of the community
were subjected, whilst those peculiar to them, and to no
other parties, were continued.— ( Hear, hear.) There was
another subject to which lie wished to refer. Hundreds and
and thousands of persons had established themselves into a
combination, and although he did not like to express the words,
he could not forbear saying that it was an unconstitutional
combination, and as an old friend of the privileges of Parliament
for half a century, he could not too strongly denounce
the attempt which those persons were making to control Par-
liament—to control the freedom of election, and to obtain the

nomination of counties, and this, too, after the comp,ete refer.,
which the laws relating to the election of Members of Parba and
had undergone, and when they were aware that their ri g •
their elective franchise were derived from that very ref'.3 tau
_re, e
When he saw all this he hoped they would resist any
Inoble
which were forced upon them by these persons.—(•l 'ble ia
Lent, during the whole of his address, was hardly audi
nos
the gallery, but during this part only detached
could be caught.) Then with respect to th
•duty. There had been no consumption of malt
;e!';e
pared with the increased population, which he consitud•
was an argument in favour of a modification of thosel.tifo't
Malt was a comniodoy which the agriculturist con
lo
w 14.,
apply to the purposes which were most available f
out the fiat of the Exciseman, and without ea1t,.1.)
as
duty of 30 per cent. on what he had produced.— 11
If foreign timber was imported into this country at a (rtetodtteeer-,
duty, it would be an unfair competition with English
ge
the grower of which had been liable to increased tax,trreuigl,
consequence of it. So it was with English wheat. rihepro.
wheat would be brought in, duty free, to compete with.
_we,
duce•of the English farmer, which had been rated for tehaj
tax and every other tax to which property was liable. tit; 2,y
not intended to trespass on the time of their Lordshirrartber,
length, nor did he intend to enter on the subject mg ' weed
but he certainly thought that before protection was re crbe
all these points should be taken into consideration'
ttlideo
Noble Lord here made some remark referring (as we tbv
stood) to a speech of his that had been misrepresented,,teel
spoke in so low a tone that it was quite inaudible in thegc7.lo
He had there an extract of a speech delivered at
a; the
garden on the 18th of December. The extract sees fleijeol
T;mes, and he (Lord Deere) had taken measures to ali.theo
whether or not it was correct. The Noble 1,07.,. fat
read the extract which was, as near as we could b_eSdple
the Noble Lord was scarcely audible—" I hope that th!el'a-verf
will bear in mind how great a terror has been created be 'he would
name of 40s. freeholder, a power lately creatrd, Oslo
eventually humble the proud aristocracy to the dust. midi?
irg said this, he would he grieved to imagine that all.iteoet
ter of that country would allow Parliament to sepal:at:4ol
int 01
passing some measure to restrict this
with the Constitution. —( Hear, hear.) As
reformer, he recollected the creation of the forlie), tbq
freeholders of Ireland, and the repugnance with wi'd,pelle:
had passed that measure ; necessity, however, ha- "...at al.
them. He did not, however, wish in any way to regfibetei
right of voting, either in county or borough, providieieve
were conducted on constitutional principles. He be" pee ,e 1;
all diffiulties would be removed, if some arrangement ropem
tered into to equalise taxation, and so secure the
of the country. t, to the
&lien •
Lord MONTEAGLE rose to move an amen be be,
motion of his Noble Friend. That amendment, tete
lieved, would not meet with any opposition either frillier
side'
ble Friend or any of the Noble Lords on the oullidoe
He begged here to say, he would be sorry to take Noble
the doctrines which had been laid dawn by the 'city fete
(Lord Beaumont). He did not wish to anticipa!e dues e,
of the inquiry, but he must protest against the ,re
laid down. His Noble Friend had addne
House in a fair and candid manner, en" eable)'
made a series of admissions on the iesi;
There was one material point it which °tee!'
o • tet
tamed a similar doctrine to him (Lord Monteagle) °,je, rtido
jest of the commutation of tithes. Tithes, he '"e 010
depend on the same principles as rent. if so theft) peoi
. ground for its protection unless he (Lord Beatlfoabesestie)
mined that protection was due to it, not for theefoolegg
the country at large, but to uphold rent. He (Lord !",, ores od
would like any Noble Lord, or any writer of ereilrlool,t,
show the difference between 253. an acre derived ward
subject to tithes and 20s. paid on land with ss. as stee°lo;
to the clergyman.. The effect would be preeiselY.ed title
and he could not see how they could talk of prose
rent,
g:„
unless it was to be considered as protection •to rat 111 s
not for the benefit of the clergy, or the coital defqo
He denied that the commutation of tithes made en.Y to tiot.
in the question ; the principle of protection in relauftaeit ie
was precisely the same as before, and he cautioned belt
ships of the great danger there was to the rights oil 0040
supporting any clamour against rent which had beeneo 'to
connexion with this question of tithes. ItceielY so,
Hugs payable to the landlcrd stood in Prejerella„e/
same position as five shillings paid to the ced,olool
and in arguing the question of protection, must be de Wee,
alike. If there was any inequality in the taxatito tlest
property beyond what was fair and impartial, let tn de civil
that inequality,• but do • not give protection t°
Society or interest at the expense of all the owe, tee ree
regard to whit bad beer, mooted about the removal °,.• tee g
laws on to the State, he called their attention 'l'lolll e
danger of such a case. It would deprive all party the
terested from participati in the administration °beef./
rates, and take away from the poor themselves ellt.e4d 151!
they now had over the g od administration of tuj°,-01',1/
( Hear, hear.) A very rapid diminution had ta. ell pi
tithes. From the year 1 826 to 1841 the propor7reride
rate chargeable on differs nt classes of property w
land (the
siderably altering, and altering-for the benefit a ore 01,
pared with other taxable property. Were they bear•llo,l
extent to Which railways were chargeable ?—(I
was perfectly true that by the original conception deecrile
Elizabeth,Aor the statutes immediately Eubsequerrts oet•
of property not now taxed to the poor were then taab"e 6dthey had not been able to enforce that state of t„ 4'loo
the difficulties and inconveniences which stood in !""
them look to the state of the law in Scotland., oh g'se
called means and substance" was rated in Scotta"atest° te,
• was one of the most difficult and most complicated ra
tie
force. The reason was that it was in the nature offre0„010
. tax, without any of its exemptions.. His Noble
spoken of the cost of the administration of .ins,-„efog::, be
seemed to forget that oneehalf of the expense °lr teti the
was borne by the State.—(Hear, hear.) ,j of
remembered that if they threw the vf°°erote; the
expense on he State they must have a publ:°,,Oo Ofits;
He should bets rry to state that this was any able" Ogre,
a!
proposition; on the contrary, he thought it woo 04
greatest recommendations, and involved one of
dt jothe,,
. alterations that was ever contemplated with belee"„ be,e)tht,
sent criminal law. With reference to the malt-ta:oavolPt
with the admission of the Noble Lord (Lord Be pd toff
the malt-tax is a tax paid by the consumer, "" of .ot,
. amount of duty tended to limit the consumPtil. deft et;
Of all the articles upon which had been made,ain-eate+e-
duty, the article of malt is that which has partleg Wee the
largest extent in the remission of duties. At the eeeet",etj
war, and long after, at the time of the Gov"-, bee're
. Noble Duke in 1830, the country was subject !,°, diillo3 the
, In 1816 a war-tax was imposed. Malt then Paiurt
to a charge of 435. per quarter, while at the prose " tetroigef
, tax is 20s. Bd. per quarter. The amount of &It/ of root
, more than has been removed from any similar article", re
And he doubted much, even if the whole tbat 111
I duty now payable on malt were to- be repealed, iitjetef fro"'
, ducers of that article would be in any better coreet.dee
malt-tax is a charge made by anticipation fir a F reef
, three to six months. The maltster sells his io not°
, not only the price of the malt, but also the thatof
, payable on that article. And the• consequence I.'adribio,l!"
ceives a portion of the State money equal to one', be clePee
whole value of the article ; and with that Debneles. • it"(
into the market and buy barley at reduced Pr,l.f,tbeoftl,i';
• lieved that if the agricultural interests could obts!iiiioosrier,
7 diate abolition of this duty, and allow the five in' othe o'4
Y
now obtained on that article to be imposed in aniootieeed
net, it would not be so beneficial as the present for
, was one point, however, to which the' Noble, ior t,b,
alluded. The maltster is subject to a tax, Inn", be s's',sl',.4
part by the consumer, but he forgot to state the
er ofeellti;t
tamed a close monopoly of the article. He ha•l P°llo use.co'
breweries and distilleries of the country; and It, teitie
, made by them of the pi °duce of the country.
I the English barley-grower maintained his in°9jee
, this means the tax was a positive good to
_let rolf,,c
I On that subject any loss alleged to be sustained the
r sured by the advantage which would be gained 'by f°,04,.
tions were removed. Inquiries have been madefee, jf,(!eli
eminent men,_ by Professors Graham and Pia „,te,
▪ relative value of barley in a malted and unmade it ef '
s{!e.
, cultural purposes, and they were of opinion that 1001, 0,0,
I -better in an unenalted state. In G rmany there et to ',eye
upon malt, and no prohibition duties with rescliete es74.te
i Professor Liebig had given a similar opinion• t the, sb'ie
other subject to which he would allude. he mean, 3 label
tion on probate. and legacy duties. That ‘caajitftete;el
, might he considered as partaking a little of ineee tee be
inequality was rather to the advantage of the lando °dee°,
- He condemned the principle, however, of allowingbet
to be redressed by another. With respect to elrevtle
, considered, that though it was much dwelt uP°°;d3e!,,ltg,:r
, great as it had been represented. Everything oeloll •istr
until it was redrewted.—( Hear.) The taxes °piece „tr
were he believed fairly distributed, as they were s;c• ooril
vents, horses, hounds, agricultural implernentseeod a_irg to
which affected the agriculturists had conta;001: ole
ere
of exemptions, but the argument of
was itoP%*osl;ee
was thet it was so full of exceptions that it ,ce,t of !tit
hold so tattered a flag ; but, at any rate, the e Veditett t,/
in favour of the agriculturists. However, th,et; g;°0110°t11!
matters would come under the investigation I'l rj, for .cel gel
He was sorry id
that in that debate a Noble I,°t-oodliseose
entertained sincere respect (Lord Ducie) had o°o9 I'ol
• transactions of the League. He (Lord Monte aele)
cooder
„to re
to that body, neither had he any interest i re' arnoreetlii,
more, he must say that he did not like besee:°ese;
way it had done. He must not, however,
,0 Xt.(
sponsible for its actions because he chose '4O(. „e•
opinions ; neither did- he approve of the ouiereenely,
Duke on the cro3s benches (the Duke °I :7,„0s of eiesg°
talked of the past, present, and future transaeb—f the ,Ctle'
But he wished to know what had the que3tioo ,° ?....t)
do with the subject before their Lordsl7 D° ere to
self,ear, hear.") His Noble Friend (Lerejeli fetrtotj
in adverting to the representations waiing rii10„eleA1(0004
said that persons ought to abstain from in t the *dote"l,
speeches made by persons in another place; bi.ne bole, (o,
had not adopted the advice he had given, as' Nocv I'oo!ibd
• speeches of the members of the League. e tbeelers eidY
Monteagle) wished to see the League eear;jl ()Wale cited
of which, he believed, were just the men* ° re sb° eife de.
country who were desirous that their labour jetedse
(Cheers)—and, he believed, rejoiced that t below, 0,,f
now embarking in a cause which would eatin4,ooel?doeteote;
( Hear, hear.) With these expressions, h; to aVOYe
amendment to the following effect :—" An" niarY !le°
to report on the legislative exemptions and pee! affe.c%l
c
pbttft
rovided by law in respect to taxation as he te,
tee e! ot
property." I fore nteutoo
The 'Earl of ESSEX defended Sir It t- e2'l eA
which had been made against him, that. he )what ha" e"
duce the duties on the importation of cattl.e, 0
vioevelliiet;
the present duty on- corn.
Lord STANLEY could not but admit th!titbbeigilgsi'iti°7.
tion requiring the deepest consideration jr, 01:51
but he was bound to enter leis counter proetre• stn e ;.0$od
1,
the protest of the Noble Lord'on the othi_t oroundefe
to tithes. He did not understand on "1'; r
Lord had abandoned the assertion that th ttibthatese;itielit.t;
imposition upon l_nd ; for in abandoning argo4 for
fact threw overboard the chief grounds ! ,nlfeeerenciejeesl,ol
this reason he felt bound' to. assert that tn.iu atoll tediot,..
this P dos 4
•ei, sweet o e
on land was as high, if not more 1)1, ,
that for rent itself. In aseertninineo on oh. . jot.
only to look to the peculiarity of the,tetr
_rfotetennet 01..1'0!
was held, for when a purchaser bouo bade
uch..eidelle4 0.70
eetcdte
tlfool:ei.:aybatevre
triettie;drek!,,
bought it with the knowledge that it e a
tehhaaorgteh,aatnwdhtiehheihmerwelomosie was d
been so charged. He would, e
th free, es, which tiled !object
0.1
cePetbe sew) °.,j,
complain of the
draughtdh from hie hie), he
turally made upn fro
hie
exldferenee bet4uporl the' of
from his estate. On a full 'Pinatt" 'ee° ti
would appear that there was this charge. were
eitel.e,
rent, that whereas rent was simety.edet, own the ceebige,,
and must rise and fall with the Pi.'"
abstract eranlook a
,et
it
profits of the land, tithe, on t!
upon the la,i'cuure;,6
from land, and just so much of ancooritrary% etitto ry
t
dt
stand, for it was not only a ehaVr /tide tothe l.l.tdint.e,
i`e his sdl td
ntimawaitedtely connectedoo
such
accidents,
fiver o
duce before any of those r;iise
righet 'to °I to ,0
eitherroubt e, ape
and the proprietor had
vitil itsbucirt7t l00%_k!
whatever might be
or tenant,- and whatever prices
the P eid rP o'
ever the p
norpe t 0,
It might be the consumer who
id
of
the °°- eot a,bel"iol
Hon. Friend opposite had se.dieill
1,00
,e.e
ition Lithos ~,et 11" odi
malt tax, and that the ins
Pnd assume the e° feel •t °
cost of the article. Head° by sate law rt of ebepeProd
built in a certain town, that 'tee tenth Pifer the OS'
the resultsrodoce
to,o
tho
n should -seed ts,
of cotton made in that net s not
the tats—would the tithe
so iniPsea
posed on the owner should be that