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

•
inatlialt

LONDON, TUESDAY. FEREIUARY 17, ISIG.

The Louie CHANCELLOR took his seat upon tine
Woolsack at Five o'clock.
Various petitions wore pres-mted for and against a
repeal of the corn-laws.
The Earl of RADNOR moved for returns relating to
the export of grain from Ireland.—Agreed to.
Lord BEAUMONT then rose to move for the appoint
went of a Committee to consider the nature of the pecu-
liar burdens upon Lnd, and also as to the manner
in which the Excise duties pressed upon the
landed interest. He had always held that the
subject of the peculiar burdens upon land, and
the necessity of protection to agriculture, were ro
intimately connected that if the one was to be removed
the other ought to be removed also. He should prefer
the continuance of both to the removal of both, as the

mast economical bargain that the community at largo
cou!cl strike with the agriculturists. His rea
son for this pref.rence wag, that
,it would make
u•; indrpal d •nt of foreign countries, cncourage industry
At, home, and enable us to Carom- our colonies by ad-
tn;tting their corn at a lower duty. He, however, now
thought that they had no longer any chance, and he con-
sidered the removal of these duties as the
consequence of the removal of prct:ctior, and
not as an inquiry to throw obstacles in the way of
the passing of iho Ministerial measure. Ho appealed to
the report of the Poor-law Commisiiners to show that

there were various rates levied exclusively op real po-
t-way-3MP. of them s
,i'Ates, and police rates, as sewers' rates, drainage
gihonld not think oers, were merely local. He
lieve local districts, as reil"ving those to re-
local interests alone
profited by them. To thste th':
ought to pay no attention, but t•>thatle,ht the Committee
justice, which
0,, preservation of the
poses, such as rates for the pour thees for general
country, and and the administratiitoentistimj
imposed exclusively on land, were
the Committee ought to bo directed.ghte attention of
of the poor was a general and national
Theoh maintenance
expense should be defrayed out of the national
and the
The same argument applied to the militia rate fends'
the expenses of the administration of justice, andi to
.original Poor-law Act of Elizabeth, it w..s enacted that
'every man should be rated according to his ability, so u
that it was not intended that it should be ixeisu.
sirely a tax upon real property. Eventually, how-
ever, from the difficulty of making the asst,sg-
anent, it had become exclusively a tax on real
property, and such it was at present, and now the
roprietor of a mill only paid up the rental of his mill,
which. he might at any time shut upend thus e cape from
paying the rates, while the farrier hal no choice—
e must either employ men or increase the rates.
Then again, houses did not pay in the s :me proportior.
to the poor-rate that the land paid. It was true that
the proportion of payment on the part of house property
had of late increased, but that was owing to the in-
'crease of the number of houses, and the conse-
lut•nt decrease in the quantity of culiivable
land. owing to the increase of houses and of railroads.
H •flue-
,A • A
$-0: that houses were ' 11 bl perm a e property, end
land was not ; and, therefore,
they ought not to be
r tt..d 60 highly ; but if perishable
___ ,_ A, ~.
what
was
more property ought to be
trizrZacrluer,na
what perablo than the crops of
was more entitled to protection l
Tht. law of settlement,
t trial , 1/43tIY, sad was of too,n was injurious to the agricul-
(l,i, go
tot to the manufacturer, and
require, i alteration,principles • An the corn mark y established free-trade
et, they
labour mu 'rlist.t, pad destroy the
law ofmust do so in the
.Ffo denied tt,
lat; an &Oration in Cs law settlement.
of
the tent pi.ol,o,:pd last year by Sir .3-, itssxettlement, to
eA
hare x:..e effect of re.lieving the agricultural innt4c4r, would
st
as to their making res.:dence for a certain time intiri oad
A

give a settlement, he diought it was impracticable,
!and if practicable would be no compensation.
Then, with regard to the highway-rate—the highways
were more for the benefit of the towns than of the
county. The farmer derived little benefit from the
highways. He would allude for a moment to tidies
although, he did not consider them a harden on land.
Previous to the commutation of tithes, they seriously
interfered with cultivation, but from the moment of the
commutation they became merely a debt on the pro-
perty. He looked on the land-tax in a similar light.
They were Charges on the property merely like
mortgages, and not peculiar burdens. They were
like the direct taxation on land in -France,
which he considered not to be any burden whatever on
the cultivation of the soil. It diminished the value of
the land, but did not interfere with the cultivation. He
contended that the malt duty was a peculiar burden on
land. All who drank beer paid a portion of it, but inasmuch
as it interfered to prevent the production of barley, in so
much it was a peculiar burden upon agriculture
Then, with regard to other duties, the agriculturists
paid to the Customs and Post-office as much as any
other portion of the community ; they paid to the
Stamps more, and in all the law reforms the Stamp
duties upon the transfer of landed property was kept up.
Ile denied that the measures proposed by the Govern-
ment offered any compensation. With regard to the
amount of protection, it was the difference between what
the farmer would obtain for his corn under the present
and under the system of free trade, which it would be
impossible to calculate. With regard to the comparative
taxation on the producing agriculturists of England and
the Continent, be contended that the producing agricul-
turists of England were much higher taxed.
He had always advocated protection, but if public opinion
declared it was to be done away with, he would subm:t,
and use his best endeavours to palliate the evils and the
present angry contention between class and class. He
trusted that those who acted with him would, if beaten,
submit, after a fair fight, and do their best to promote
the prosperity of the country. If, however, the measure
was carried in this Parliament it would not be the
triumph of public opinion, but of party tactics—a mea-
sure carried in opposition to the opinions of the Lords
and the majority of the Cabinet, by an able maneeuvre
of party politics.
Lord Brioncetem said that he retained the opinion
which he had expressed in 1820, that there were bui--
dens pressing peculiarly on land; and he went further
than his Noble Friend, for he considered both
tithes and land tax as peculiar burdens upon land.
but at the same time he denied that the proper way to
compensate the landowners was to impose a duty on
the importation of foreign corn. He feared, however,
that this inquiry would not take within its scope the
most important burdens upon the landowner, in his
inability to go into the labour market to purchase his
labour at the cheapest rate, in consequence of what
he might call the patriarchal state of the
agricultural districts. The farmers and land-
owners paid probate and legacy duty on their per-
sonal property in common with the rest of the com-
munity, but there were many burdens borne exclusively
by land. The recent law changes had saved immense
sums to the agricultural interests, and the stamp duties
had been thereby diminished. Yet he admitted that
the landed interest had cause to complain of the stamp
duties, and he should wish to see the tax changed from
a tax on alienation into a tax on succession.
Lord DACRE considered that any protection which
would encourage an unnatural application of capital to
the cultivation of the soil ought to be removed, but the
agriculturist required some protection as a set-off to the
unjust and improper protection which had been
given to personal property in this country. The
grinding property-tax levied on agriculture under the
poor-laws required that the agriculturists should have
some sort of protective compensatiou. It amounted to
a property-tax of twelve per cent. on real
property, tbr all personal property was exempt.
If protection were withdrawn, there ought to be some
partial remission of special taxation, so as to restore an
equality of burdens. The Noble Lord then alluded to
one of the speeches made at one of the League meetings
in Covent-garden, in which one of the speakers, alluding
to tLe forty-shilling-freehold movement, called it a
weapon which would lay the hereditary aristocacy in
the dust, and called upon the Government to adopt
measures to put down the League.
Lord MOSTEAGLE then rose to move the addition
to the motion of which he had given notice, viz., that the
inquiry should extend to the peculiar exemptions en-
joyed by the agricultural interest. It was necessary that
this addition should be made, in order to secure an im-
partial inquiry, and therefore he did not antici-
pate any opposition to his proposition. He
complimented his Noble Friend on the frank-
ness of his speech, and was glad to find that he did
not consider tithe as a peculiar burden upon land ; and
if not, it could constitute no ground for protection, unless
protection were intended as a protection for rent only,
and not for the general interests of the community.
Neither rent nor tithe was the cause of price—they
were the consequences of price, and not the cause
of it ; and they both stood on the same ground—
there was no difference between the rent paid to
the landlord and that paid to the clergyman.
He considered that the dangers connected with trans-
ferring the charge of the pour to the State were so great
as to render the adoption of the plan impossible, and be-
sides, there had been a great alteration during the
last few years, in proportion of the ratability of
various properties, greatly in favour of landed property,
As to assssdng means and substances, it was so difficult
as to be practically impossible. Then, with regard to
the administration of justice, one-half was already
borne by the State ; and if the State were to beer
the who'e burden, the State must have the manage-
ment of prosecuting, and they must hate a
public prosecutor, an alternative which he considered
would be a wise one. Then with regard to' the malt-
tax. Malt had participated more largely in the
reduction of taxation than any other article. Two-thirds
of the duty had been remitted since 1815, and he
doubted whether any further reduction would benefit the
agriculturists, inasmuch as at present the manner
in which the duty was levied enabled the malt-
ster to give a higher price for barley than he
would otherwise give ; and it also afforded
the English barley-grower a close monopoly of
all breweries and distilleries, as against the
produce of sugar and other articles that might
be used in those establishments. Then with
regard to using malt for feeding cattle, the
most scientific chemists declared it was not so nourish-
ing as unmalted barley. As to the probate and
legacy duties, he considered that they impesed an
inequality of taxation favourable to the landed
interest, although that inequality was not so
great as had been imagined. The agriculturists
also ssized exemptions in regard to draining
tiles, houses, and various other articles, and an
the exemptions in the auction Bill of last year were ex
emptions in favour of the agricultural intere t. He was
sorry his Noble Friend had alluded to the League.
He liked not their organisations, but he would
ask what had the League to do with this ques-
tion ? He wished to see the League cease, and he
believed the promoters of it were anxious it should
cease, and the way to destroy the League was for the
Ministry to continue in the course which they had new
entered. The Noble Lord concluded by moving the
eddition of whhh he had given no i .e.
The Earl of ESSEX expressed his intention of voting
for the Ministerial measure.

Lord STANLEY rose to protest against the doctrine
that tithes and land-tax were not burdens on the
land. The claim of the tit'te owner was as
sacred as that of the landlord, nod the
landowner had no right to complain of the tithe, pro-
vided he had purchased his land eubject to tithe; but he
denied. that rent and tithe send on the same
footing. Bent was the surplus of profit. Tithe was
to be paid undiminished, whether there was profit or not.
and entered into the cost of production. The question
was not whether a person had bought the property
subject to a payment of the tenth of the produce, but
whether the tithe added to the cost of production. This
made no difference as long as all were protected, and all
were subject to the same burdens ; but if the foreigner,
whose land was not subject to tithe, were to be suffered
to enter into competition with the British farmer, whose
land was suhject to tithe, he woul I ask, would they enter
into competition on equal terms ? They would not ;
and the farmer was entitled to protection, not for the
purposes of monopely, but to enab'e him to enter into fair
competition. He rejoiced to find that no 'opposition was to
be offered to the motion, but he must protest against the as-
sumption of the Noble Lord that the question of protection
was already settled. He the ught that public opinion,
clearly and deliberately expri sued, ought to have great
influence with their Lordships; but it ought to be clearly,
deliberately, and undoubtedly expressed before their
Lordships ought to consent 'to a change which, if not a
great good, must be a great evil. Even if the
landlords and farmers were to receive full
compensation, they would not have, in his mind,
settled the question of the policy of the corn-laws,
which ought to be considered in the view which their
abolition might have on the moral, political, social, and
national interests of the country.
The Duke of RICHMOND would not believe that the
House of Commons would pass the Ministerial measure
until it came up to that House ; and he would not believe
that their Lordships would- pass it, but he would not
hold out to their Lordships the hope that if
these measures were to- pass into law, the excitement
would cease. The excitement among the yeomanry
would continue and increase. They would take
a leaf out of the League book, who sent itinerant orators
into the agricultural districts to excite employed against
employers. They had never sent any orators into the
manufacturing districts to tell the labourers that it was as
easy to fire cotton as to fire straw, but he hoped none of
their Lordships epuLl Taostteopfotro
idea that it svourd measureagitation. under the
The House was this
subsequently addressed by Earl GREY,
Lord ASHBURTON, and the Duke U. WELLINGTON, after
which the motion was agreed to.
The Bills on the table
_ were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned,

lfnerk i
tutland-
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four
Mr. FINCH took the oaths and his .: (''e
. •-•t
shire in the room of the Hon. Mr. DatAvNAY.
Several Railway Bil's were read a second time, tma
ordered to be committed.
A discussion took place upon the motion of Mr.
GREENE, " That it be an instruction to the Committee on
Petitions for Private Bills not to hear parties on any
petition hereafter to be referred to them, which should
not be prepared and signed in strict conformity with
the rules and orders of the House."
Mr. ENTWISLE moved, as an amendment to the
motion, to leave out the word "hereafter;" which, upon
a division, was lost by a majority of 42.
The original motion was agreed to.
Mr. I'. DustcomßE gave notice of his intention, to-
morrow week, to bring forward the petition on behalf
of Frost, Williams, and Jones.

Lord DITNCA./I postponed his motion for the repeal of
the window duties to the 26th of February.
In answer to a question from Sir R. Iricus,
Lord JOCELYN said that the Government had received
no information with respect to the war in India, further
than that which had appeared in the public papers. He bad
no doubt that in a few days the Government would he
in possession of information which would show that the
aggressions that had taken place had been properly and
fully resented.

Sir R. PEEL, in answer to a question from Mr. S
CRAIVFORD, said her was in hopes the Government
would be enabled, during the present session, to intrn-
duce a Bill relative to the law of landlord and tenant in
Ireland.

Mr. O'CortteEm„ in answer to a question, said it was
his intention, if he possibly could to-morrow, to bring
forward the motion of which he had given notice, rela•
tive to the disease and famine existing in Ireland.
Several petitions were presented for and against pro-
tection to agriculture and native industry.
Lord WORSLEY presented petitions from Lincoln-
shire, praying that the House would not place any
confidence in her MAJESTY'S Ministers.
Lord J. RUSSELL presented petitions in favour of the
total repeal of the corn-laws.
Sir It. PEEL presented a petition from Tamworth,
signed by the Mayor, Corporation, Town Council, and
a great portion of the inhabitants, in favour of the Go-
vornment measure for the removal of restrictive duties.
Tne Right Honourable Baronet presented several other
petitions to the same effect.
The Earl of MARCH resumed the debate on
the Customs and Corn Importation measure.
He considered that the debate on this mea-
sure had been entirely on one side. He be-
lieved that the taking away of protection to native in-
dustry in England would ultimately tend to the
ruin of the country. He maintained that protection
was necessary both to agriculture and manufactures.
The feelings of the country were opposed to the mea-
sures of the Government. and as a proof of that he
thought he might refer to what was taking place at the
elections for some of the counties. He thought the
interests of the manufacturer and the agriculturist
were united, and that one could not be injured or bene-
fited without injuring or benefiting the other.
He believed this measure would injure all classes, and
therefore he gave it his determined opposition.
Mr. M. GIBSON agreed with the Noble Lord, that if
protection was not given to the growth of corn, none
should be given to manufactures. Those with whom
he was acting had always advocated the abolition of
protection of every kind. The question now was,
whether the corn-laws should be abolished or not. The
parties who advocated protection in that House had
led the tenant-farmers to believe that protection
would be permanently adhered to. For those
mis-statements they were now reaping the fruits
of the agitation of this question. The protectionists
had called on the Right Honourable Baronet, instead of
the Noble Lord, to prescribe for them, and they were
now suffering under the severe dose he had administered
to them. The Right Honourable Baronet, in leaving a
protective duty of ls. on foreign wheat, gave to the
agriculturists more than an equivalent for the—lA.lr-
dens which they bore. The price of bread of
late had increased, and could it therefore be said
that the repeal of the corn-laws was likely to reduce
its value ? In Suffolk not less than sixty-three
farmers had renewed their leases, and not asked for any
decrease of rent. What, then, could be thought of
those who wished to retain protecion, who thought the
aristocracy of the country were determined to support
their own interests without any consideration to those of
the community ? The landed gentry monopolised all the
places in society, and it was only a short time since that
one of their body said they could make and unmake
Ministries. He did not see, if the corn-laws were to be
repealed why that repeal should not take place now, and
not be delayed for three years ? He believed the agri-
cultural interest would be more benefited by the im-
mediate than by the delayed repeal of the corn-laws.
He urged upon the Government to consider the neces-
sity of making the repeal of the corn-laws immediate ;
believing that nothing would settle the different questions
that were under agitation in the country but the
adoption of that course. He felt convinced that those
with whom he acted were so strongly of the same opi-
nion as himself, that they would not be induced by any
consideration to forego asking the sense of the House
upon the question. The protectionists might ask for a
dissolution if they would, hut it would be only a post-
ponement of the measure. He entreated of Hon. Mem-
bers to put a stop to their futile opposition.
Mr. HALSEY opposed the Government proposition.
He asserted that the proceedings of the League were
neither honest nor constitutional, and if they were legal
as trusted the Government would adopt each measures
he would soon put a stop to their legality. He advocated
equal protection to agriculture and oommeree
Mr. DreasersoN 'supported the Ministerial plan, be-
lieving the best course to pursue to prevent scarcity of
food in this country would be to give every facility to
its admission into England from foreign countries.
Lord ALFRED CHUCHILL opposed the measure.
Sir W. CLAY supported the motion. The Hon.
Member opposite put him in mind of the attorney
who indorsed his brief for his council
with "no merit ;" abuse the plaintiff's attorney"
They had dealt in every sort of abuse of the Right Hon.
Baronet, but had not stated one fact in support of the
retention of the corn-laws. They had over stated their ease
and dealt in abuse, and thereby damaged their own case.
He believed that the cry for protection: would not
be responded to by the people, whose great object
now was to have a free and unrestricted trsde.
The House was then addressed by Lord Lanny VANE, Sir
J. TYRRELL, and Mr. JAaIES.

Sir R. PEEL thee rose to defend the course pursued by the
GoVernment in bringing forward the measures. The Right
Hon. Baronet, having referred to what had taken plaee
with respect to the dissolution and re-formation
of the pros nt Ministry stated that he was sorry the Noble
Lord the Member for the City of London had not taken
office, because he believed if he/ had dons so he would have
been successful. Though opposed to the Noble Lord in poli-
tics he had never said one word against him, and in his
character of a private Member of the House of Commons,
he should have given him his most cordial support. The
Right Hon. Baronet then referred to the letters written by
him to her MAJESTY' and stated that he had nothing to
corn' lain of in the conduct of the Noble Lord,
or the statements he bad made the other night.
He hoped that the letter he had read would prove that he
was not desirous of robbing others of the honour of settling
this question. He declined to receive from the Noble Lord,
any statement of the details of his measure, because he
thought that any appearance of concert might have
jeopardised the success of the measure ; but he was pre-
pared .to give the same support to the Noble Lord which
given it had been the Noble Lord's boast that lie had
to the present Government. Then, with regard to
the course he was pursuing, he had admitted that it was
contrary to that usually pursued by party leaders, but he
would ask, was not that a proof that he must be convinced
that the measures he proposed were absolutely necessary
fur the safety of the country? Knowing the party, the con-
fidence of which he had lost, he would say, that never was
there a party actuated by more honourable considerations.
But he was satisfied that the advice he had given was wise
and good advice. To have hoisted the flag of protection would
have conciliated temporary confidence, ha's the
month of May would not have elapsed with-
out showing that by so doing he should have
betrayed his duty to Ireland to England, to his SOVEREING,
to the people, and to his party. Had he maintained the
doctrine of protection to that time, such a degree of odium
would have attached to the landed interest, that it could
not have stood against it. In one part of the empir, there
were 4,000,000 of people depending on a certain food. It
was impossible to say what would he the extent of the
potato crop, but if they foresaw famine and pestilence, it was
their duty to provide against it. He could not conciliate
eupport by any expressions of regret, for the day of his po-
litical life on which he looked hack with the greatest pride
was that Ist of November when he had proposed to ()pee
the ports by an Order in Council for the free
importation of feod. Even if their anticipations
had proved erroneous, he believed Parliament would have in-
demnified them. In December there was a temporary ces-
sation of the potato disease. He had entertained no faith in
its permanent cessation, and now whet was the fact? He ha I
proposed a virtual repeal of all duties on food except wheat;
and before they rejected that, let them listen to the state-
ments which the last two mails had brought from Ireland—
one from Sir D. ROCHE who had Viought the fears of famine ;
were exaggerated. Yet now Sir D. Room wrote him a
letter (which he read), stating that the lotato disease was
Mill fearfallyrrigressing, and that he did not think that by the
Ist of May,out of 'Nacres ofpota toes on his land, enough would
be left him for seed, and that the rot was general in the county
ofLimerick,and praying the Gwernmentto look to it in time.
The state of affaha :n Queen's (Linty was as bad. (The
Right Hon. Baronet read letters describing the frightful
extent to which the destruction of the crop had proceeded in
the country, some of which were from Lord STUART DE
DECIES, the Lord-Lieutenant of the county, which stated
that in one Union there were 300 persons whose stores of
provisions were on the point of being exhausted.) The
House waq aware that a commission was sitting in Dublin on
the subject, but since the commission had made its report the
disease had re-appeared. (The Right Hon. Baronet then
read the report which represented the immense loss of the
potato crop in all the electoral divisions in Ireland.) The
Government were establishing stores of corn to give it in
exchange for labour. To get seed for the ensuing
year was next to impossible. It would take 10,000
tuns to do it, and that could not be obtained
for Europe, and they must take measures to save it from the
existing stock, in order to prevent famine next year. Now,
if they had negected these measures, and had come down in
May asking large grants of public money, would he have
proposed such votes, while at the same time he was main-
taining a duty of 16s. on the importation of corn ? Suppefe
a famine should ensue, would it do for the landed aristocracy
to say, we throw upon the Government the responsibility of
providing against it, blot we will maintain our pr. tes ti m ?
Had we encouraged them in such a course, they might, in-
deed, have accused him of treachery. In Belgium and Holland
the ports were opened by the Government, and the Legis-
lature, the representatives of the landed interest, had almost
by acclamation voted them an indemnity. In former times,
in this country, whenever scarcity had been apprehended, the
duties on importation had been fur a time removed.—
(Cheers) He rejoiced in that cheer, because it showed that
the proper precaution to take against impending famine was
to remove the duties on the importation of food.e--(Cheers.)
If they were so, then, let them expedite the passing of this
Bill, or move, as an amendment, that the duties be imme-
diately suspended. He would not say what they ought to do
after, he was only showing the face of the Irish case, and
proving that, to hoist the flag of protection or rouse the
British lien, would have been bad policy in the present
case. Would any one contend that, at the present
moment no maize should be admitted, no oats should...be ad-
mitted, and the duty on wheat should be sustained ?
iitaall those
ti
No:ohel dilu, cases
lt} have
on
y the
ebr do i
From 1765 down to the present day, whenever scarcity was
threatened,
amungplo:trrtation of corn was suspended,
at he
aciuldm less than it iump.aosn wt greater
at e
pre-
sent. The maintenance of the present law under these cir-
icu
odium. Now in all those cases the law provided that when corn
' wasabove 58s. it should be admitted
at a GU. duty, and yet
a
the law had been suspended in order to give -
the foreign importer that the high duty
should gnuoatrain tee to
imposed. Under these circumstances himself and
th)ereim-
his colleagues advised the suspension of the le of
e
Parliament was now sitting, and it was not therefore fitting
to
to do that by order in Council, which ought to have
been done in November, but which it was now neces-
sary to do in February. He called upon Parliament
either to pats his measure or rorse Some.