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

TOM MOW, LONDON. TUESDAY MORNING, PERIITJARI 11, Is4l,

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 the 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 benefit 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-
sioners ; but he might, in a parenthesis, state that, in
his 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 rtt'd in the
ratio of 37 per cent. In this statement it would appear
that the burdens on land had gradually been reduced,
while those imposed on houses had 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 railroadsor objects of a
'similar kind. This showed how it was that houses in.
creased and land diminished, and explained the an-
parent discrepancy between the two returns. 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.
Ile would also refer to Brighton, 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 wore 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, e r
he would take good care that it should be made
to tell on bstailf 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 refereed to that part of the system re-
laths to settlement. To the old law of settlemert
lie bad 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-
tureed 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
sane: 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 offsr
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 that 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-
seiveS. 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 allured 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
toad passes. Indeed there were cases where two town,
formed the termini, and were the only parties VA ha
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. Ile had had an account taken at the several tolls
of the number of vehicles 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. Ile did
not, however, 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 not intefere with the cultivator of the land,
as by the previsions of the 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 tithe 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 two
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 per- j
Lion paid by persons who were consumers of beer, &c., fell
iii 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
That
of late years, the amount ofduty did not keep pace with it.
was the burden, but that was not the only hard-
'.nip—that was the amount of the burden, but the hard-
ship went still further—and by riot allowing him to use
his ha'll'Y he likes for other purposes, they placed
him in the
manufacturer, if they position as they would a
may manufacture cloth, to
say
to him, " You
coat made feom it.", but you must not wear a
'they defied, they prevented him,
from using the barley
in additions
by his own soil. That
was a serious burden,nadditimi to the one he had
give a
named, and he could
hgereat many authorities--
and others—but
sary, because when the d t
_ll4 es printed cottons was cor!sidered it
re-
pealed,unneces-
there was a great increase in the trade in that
article, and lie held that a similar result
w
time duty were taken off malt. There was arotl'il er article
l ensue f
of Excise which he thought particularly
heavytrbe-
owners of real property, and which, if it were onnot th;
quired for the purpose of creating a portion of
revenue, would be a great advantage to the proprietors
of land—he meant the article ofhops; but if they
came again to the general taxation of the country he
wished to know what portion of it the agricultural body
They were exempt from the CLIS•
WO exempt from?
Alpoas an
terns' duties as they contributed as much
them
other body cf the communit, ; theyconsumed any
articles which paid cus-
tPoami4a'ddlitytyu. upon innumerable
m what taxes then wore they exempt ?
They paid the l'oetpotlice and Camp duties ;
the stamp duty for the tvansfer of property fell
p culiarly heavy on them, and was so ea. °mous that he
considered it one of the greatest hardships under which
evy portion of the community laboured at the present
metnent.—(Cheers.) And he must say this, that if
there was a subject which might obtain Q IllOrDent'S
attention from his Noble and Learned Friend
on. the Woolsack it was this ; and if he would
surfer 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 thay 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
'ol* the community care was taken to con-
tinue the burdens uPpon'ZPelAtedi
the law relating to the trans—fePolear.) And again, when
perty was carried
by the Noble Lord, it was foundfoti
be a difficult m
cases
it
was
itam,,uiz to adopt it,
matter to get a convresoyut a nature as to
and in thousands of
property without being obliged to pay sw.s x otrral"fer
sheets to an attorney. Then how long la ed they lesf(ivtLne
eprestiee of the registration of deed, unsettled? en
nry Oita cOautry eon ni ye—enees for the purchase of la

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
Hon. Friend intended to add us 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 he 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 more
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, he telt 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 from laud. He would say
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 afford to the English farmer. He would
then turn to another question, and he thought 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
ease. 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 of 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 was likely to
rase 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 h s sin.
verity—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 earried 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 Fay, my Lord', 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 BROUGHAMS- 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 expressed 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
indeed from taking his 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 conclusinn in antici-
pation of the inquiry which must shortly takeplace. To enter upon
the discussion now would he to forejudge the labours of the
Committee. Ile 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 that,
he had represented them, but also there were
burdens in some material particulars which had 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 propositions that the proper
mode of compensation was by taxing corn by imposing a duty
on the importation of foreign graun.—( 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 leas,
ing out of view, its his opinion, the greatest of all the exclu-
sive burdens of land. What he referred to was the positiozi
of the landowners and farmers, which was different from ale
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 the-it
service a year or ten years. They could turn 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 upon what he ( 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 5,000/. and
6• 000/• by. the change, and he had known another friend who had
i 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
upon 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 other exclu.
sive burdens. It was worse than the aleavala 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 coat
10,000/. or 12,000/." He (Lord Brougham) hoped that he
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, to hich 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, hear.) He considered also that protection was of service
as 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 iatmer by the removal or equalisation of such a press
of taxes.—(Hear, hear.) He felt convinced that the
agriculture of the countryi wasth equal to compete with the agri-
aeumltrier.etiootnthoof world,iabm r_(
Hear,
were granted equal tax s, a free
disposal of the products of ,thaetaitlalonu2; an equally free
The Noble Lord then went into some statistical—
that a
Yetitoeaat details relativehear .
upon onepttpiretrltiyo,fwittlilueshatocrterty
to the valuation of real property, and proceode
great portion of taxation fell
i f England, to the exclusion of other
well entitled to be chsrged. Such was the position of thesrea:i
~,_.
_: E 044. What he wanted, therefore, was equal
property of
Qutiroanedrtno unduetiie
proportion
would be able not only t
ot taxation, a ti
taxationon, and i
if;
itaheaetd were
upon c
realied property,
p y ,
agricultu-
rists
this country
inadequacy,
raome the foreign compete's, o.
toon the part of th owners of 'renal
clton t
wasen contend with,
from
that they sought their reduction or
under the ezistiPZ ',Ps' • • hich would be in-
property, to meet thdeinands which were made upon them
a portion of the
by withdrawing
11 cted upon them,
other portions of the community
abolition, but a deep sense fif thg inprY W .
ta*es to which
ltipile . ." ' '
other parties, were cot
..
shed to refer. ffundFeda 41;d
were subjeaterl, whilst those.a peculiar,Hr toheatlrie)m,
Tahnedretownaos
another subject to which he washed
words,
an unconstitutional
and th9usands of persons had establishediiketo
expressthemselythese int
o
combination, ati4 ;..):, Imugh he did not
he could not forb
ear aayirs that it was .
combination, and as an old friend of the prialYges I Parliament
for half a eesitUry, he could not toq strong y clenqimee
the attempt which' those persons were making to control Par-
liament—to control the freed= of election, and to obtain this

nomination of counties, and this, too, after the complete reform
which the laws relating to the election of Members of Parliament
had undergone, and when they were aware that their rights and
their elective franchise were derived from that very reform.
When he saw all this he hoped they would resist any vneaauree
which were forced upon them by these persons.—(Tlse Noble
Lord, during the whole of his address, was hardly audible in
the gallery, but during this part only detached sentences
scald be caught.) Then with respeet to the malt
duty. There had been no consumption of malt com-
pared with the increased population, which he considered
was an argument in favour of a modification of those duties.
Malt was a commodity which the agriculturist could not
apply to the purposes which were most available with-
out the fiat of the Exciseman, and without paying a
duty of 30 per cent. on what he had produced.—( Hear. )
If foreign timber was imported into this country at a reduced
duty, it would be an unfair competition with English timber,
the grower of which had been liable to increased taxation in
consequence of it. So it was with English wheat. Foreign
wheat would be brought in, duty free, to compete with the pro-
duce of the English farmer, which had been rated for income-
tax and every other tax to which property was liable. He had
not intended to trespass on the time of their Lordships at any
length, nor did he intend to enter on the subject any further,
but he certainly thought that before protection was removed
-all these points should be taken into consideration. [The
Noble Lord here made some remark referring (as we under-
stood) to a speech of his that had been misrepresented, but he
s_poke in so low a tone that it was quite inaudible in thegallery.l
He had there an extract of a speech delivered at Covent-
garden on the 18th of December. The extract was from the
Times, and he (Lord Dacre) had taken measures to ascertain
whether or not it was correct. [The Noble Lord then
read the extract which was, as near as we could hear, for
the Noble Lord was scarcely audible—" I hope that the people
will bear in mind how great a:terror has been created by the very
name of 40s. freeholder, a power lately created, which would
eventually humble the proud aristocracy to the dust." Have
ing said this, he would be grieved to imagine that any Minis-
ter of that country would allow Parliament to separate without
passing some measure to restrict this interference
with the Constitution.—(Hear, hear.) As an old
reformer, he recollected the creation of the forty-shilling
freeholders of Ireland, and the repugnance with which they
had passed that measure ; necessity, however, had compelled
them. He did not, however, wish in any way to restrict the
right of voting, either in county or borough, provided that it
were conducted on constitutional principles. He believed that
all diffialties would be removed, if some arrangement were en-
tered into to equalise taxation, and so secure the prosperity
of the country.
Lord MONTEAGLE rose to move an amendment to the
motion of his Noble Friend. That amendment, he be-
lieved, would not meet with any opposition either from his No-
ble Friend or any of the Noble Lords on the other side.
He begged here to say, he would be sorry to take up some of
the doctrines which had been laid down by the Noble Lord
(Lord Beaumont). He did not wish to anticipa'e the result
of the inquiry, but he must protest against the doctrine
laid down. His Noble Friend had addressed the
House in a fair and candid manner, end he had
made a series of admissions on the subject.
There was one material point in which he main-
tained a similar doctrine :o him ( Lord Monteagle) on the sub-
ject of the commutation of tithes. Tithes, he said, must
depend on the same principles as rent. If so there was no
ground for its protection unless he (Lord Beaumont) main-
tained that protection was due to it, not for the benefit of
the country at large, but to uphold rent. He ( Lori Monteagle)
would like any Noble Lord, or any writer of emin nce, to
show the difference between 255. an acre derived from land
subject to tithes and 20s. paid on land with ss. as a fixed rate
to the clergyman. The effect would be precisely the same,
and he could not see how they could talk of protection to tithe
unless it was to be considered as protection to rent, and
not for the benefit of the clergy, or the country at large.
He denied that the commutation of tithes made any difference
in the question ; the principle of protection in relation to tithes
was precisely the same as before, and he cautioned their Lord-
ships of the great danger there was to the rights of property in
supporting any clamour against rent which had been raised in
connexion with this question of tithes. Twenty shil-
lings payable to the landlord stood in precisely the
same position as five shillings paid to the clergyman,
and in arguing the question of protection, must be considered
alike. If there was any inequality in the taxation on landed
property beyond what was fair and impartial, let them remove
that inequality, but do not give protection to one class of
society or interest at the expense of all the others. With
regard to what had been mooted about the removal of the poor-
laws on to the State, he called their attention to the great
danger of such a case. It would deprive all parties locally in-
terested from participation in the administration of the poor-
rates, and take away from the poor themselves all check which
they now had over the good administration of those laws.—
( Hear, hear.) A very rapid diminution had taken place in
tithes. From the year 1826 to 1841 the proportion of poor-
rate chargeable on different classes of property was very con-
siderably altering, and altering for the benefit of land as com-
pared with other taxable property. Were they aware of the
extent to which railways were chargeable ?—( Hear, hear.) It
was perfectly true that by the original conception of the law of
Elizabeth, or the statutes immediately subsequent, descriptions
of property net now taxed to the poor were then taxable. Well,
they had not been able to enforce that state of the law from
the difficulties and inconveniences which stood in the way. Let
them look to the state of the law in Scotland. What was
called " means and substance" was rated in Scotland, and it
was one of the most difficult and most complicated rates to en-
force. The reason was that it was in the nature of a property-
tax, without any of its exemptions. His Noble Friend had
spoken of the cost of the administration of justice. but he
seemed to forget that one-half of the expense of prosecution
was borne by the State.— (Hear, bear.) It must be
remembered that if they threw the whole of the
expense on the State they must have a public prosecutor.
He should be sorry to state that this was any objection to the
proposition ; on the contrary, he thought it was one of its
greatest recommendations, and involved one of the greatest
alterations that was ever contemplated with benefit in the pre-
sent criminal law. With reference to the malt-tax, he agreed
with the admission of the Noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) that
the malt-tax is a tax paid by the consumer, and that this
amount of duty tended to limit the consumption of barley.
Of all the articles upon which hid been made a reduction of
duty, the article of malt is that which has participated to the
largest extent in the remission of duties. At the close of the
war, and long after, at the time of the Government of the
Noble Duke in 1830, the country was subject to a beer-tax.
In 1816 a war-tax was imposed. Malt then paid a duty equal
to a charge of 435. per quarter, while at the present period the
tax is 20s. Bd. per quarter. The amount of duty removed is
more than has been removed from any similar article of revenue,
And he doubted much, even if the whole amount of
luty now payable on malt were to be repealed, that the pro-
timers of that article would be in any better condition. The
malt-tax is a charge made by anticipation fir a period of from
three to six months. The molester sells his malt, receiving
not only the price of the malt, but also the amount of duty
payable on that article. And the consequence is, that he re-
ceives a portion of the State money equal to one-fourth of the
whole value of the article ; and with that money he could go
into the market and buy barley at reduced prices. He be-
lieved that if the agricultural interests could obtain the imme-
diate abolition of this duty, and allow the five millions of duty
now obtained on that article to be imposed in any other man-
ner, it would not be so beneficial as the present mode. There
was one point, however, to which the Noble Lord had not
eluded. The maltster is subject to a tax, paid for the most
part by the consumer, but he forgot to state that he also main-
tained a close.monopoly of the article. He had power over all the
breweries and distilleries of the country; and no use could he
made by them of the pi oduce of the country. In this manner
the English barley-grower maintained his monopnly, and by
this means the tax was a positive good to the producer.
On that subject any loss alleged to be sustained must be mea-
4ured by the advantage which would be gained if the restrie-
:ions were removed. Inquiries have been made by some very
eminent men, by Professors Graham and Playfair, into the
relative value of barley in a malted and unsalted state, for agri-
eultural purposes, and they were of opinion that it was much
better in an unmalted state. In G .rmany there was no tax
upon malt, and no prohibition duties with respect to its we.
Professor Liebig had given a similar opinion. There was an-
other subject to which he would allude, he meant the exemp-
tion on probate and legacy duties. That was a tax which
might be considered as partaking a little of inequality, but the
inequality was rather to the advantage of the landed interest.
tie condemned the principle, however, of allowing one inequality
to be redressed by another. With respect to that taxation he
considered, that though it was much dwelt upon, it was not so
great as it had been represented. Everything was a grievance
until it was redressed.—( Hear.) The taxes on agriculturists
were he believed fairly distributed, as they were placed on ser-
vants, horses, hounds, agricultural implements, &c. The law
which affected the agriculturists had contained a number
of exemptions, but the argument of maintaining it
was that it was so full of exceptions that it was impossible to
hold so tattered a flag ; but, at any rate, the exceptions were
n favour of the agriculturiste. However, the whole of these
matters would come under the investigation of the Committee.
ile was sorry that in that debate a Noble Lord, for whom he
entertained sincere respect (Lord Duce) had introduced the
transactionsof the League. He (Lord Monteagle) never belonged
to that body, neither had he any interest in its concerns ; nay,
more, he must say that he did not like bodies acting in the
way it had done. He must not, however, be accounted re-
sponsible for its actions because he chose to express these
'pinions; neither did he approve of the conduct of a Noble
Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond), who
talked of the past, present, and future transactions of that body.
But he wished to know what had the question of the League to
do with the subject before their Lordships ?—( Cries of
Hear, hear.") His Noble Friend (Lord Ducie) him-
self, in adverting to the representations which were made,
said that persons ought to abstain from making remarks on
speeches made by persons in another place; but the Noble Lord
had not adopted the advice he had given, ashe had quoted from
speeches of the members of the League. Novo he (Lord
Monteagle) wished to see the League cease, the promoters
of which, he believed, were just the men, of all others in this
country who were desirous that their labours should end
(Cheers )—and, he believed, rejoiced that their Lordships were
now embarking in a cause which would extinguish the League.
( Hear, hear.) With these expressions, he should move an
amendment to the following effect " And also to inquire and
to report on the legislative exceptions an.. pecuniary advantages
provided by law in respect to taxation as affecting landed
property."
The Earl of ESSEX defended Sir R. Peel from the charge
which had been made against him, that he ha-1 consented to re-
duce the duties on the importation of cattle, but had sustained

the present duty on corn.
Lord STANLEY could not but admit that this was a clues-
tian requiring the deepest consideration of the Legislature,
but he was bound to enter his counter protest, in opposition to
the protest of the Noble Lord on the other side, with respect
to tithes. He did not understand on what ground the Noble
Lord had abandoned the assertion that the tithes were a fixed
imposition upon land ; for in abandoning that position he in
fact threw overboard the chief grounds of his argument. Fur
this- reason he felt bound to assert that the charge for tithes
on land was as high, if not more high, sacred, and indefeasible,
that for rent itself. In ascertaining this point, they had
only to look to the peculiarity of the tenure on which the land
was held, for when a purchaser bought an estate he invariably
bought it with the knowledge that it was burdened with this
charge, and the purchase was effected for a much smaller stint
than that which he would hare had to pay for it had it nut
been so charged. lie weelii, therefore, have no reason to
complain of the draught from his funds, which the tither 113-
totally made upon the returns which he expected to derive
from hi, estate. On a fell examination of the subject it
would appear that there was this difference between tithe and
reanitlit , thatu;
rwi !ice whereas rent simplywiththe
p roati
tep avlee ph
,Ao.
were
et land,
ved
fprirfi
tlsatoufl ,thaendijaunsdt,
so
tithe,much on of
at
nheab(s,,t,ruatertarfyr,omtotohle, ca higher
lheorr
stand, for it was not. only a charge upon the land, but one so
intimately connected with its original title to tenure, that it
waited for no such accidents, bet took
the tenth rf the pro-
duce before any of those rises or falls were ascertained,
and the proprietor had a right to claim his share,
whatever might be the results either
might
colmannil4lnodrd,
or tenant, and whatever prices the produce rn
u
to. m.lllPrind op
4t
etiethese had iconsumertwhgevetiteally paid the tithe. His
Hon. said that the consumer paid the
malt tax, and that the imposition of tithes did not add to the
cost of the article. He would assume that a mill should bo
built in a certain town, and that by sotne law the condition im-
of co* made in that min should 11 e used for the benefit of
posed on the owner should be that the tenth part of every piece
the State—would the tithe so imposed not add to the cost of the

cotton? The burden of one-tenth would increase the cost to
the consumer. Supposing that another mill were built in the
same town subject to no tithe tax or burden, would not the
owner of that mill be enabled to undersell the first owner, who
had tithes to pay ? They were, then, looking at those things
as burdens to be borne by the agricultural community of this
country, while they would he exposed to foreign competition;
arid he would ask, were not the burdens they bore sufficient to
warrant their asking for protection against foreign competi-
tion ? If a.stack of corn was brought into the market, which
stack had been raised meground that paid one-tenth of its pro-
duce, exclusive of the charges of cultivation, could it compete
with a stack raised on ground easily cultivated and subject to
no burden whatever ? The Noble Lord who opened that de-
bate had very properly made a distinction with regard to the
forms of taxation, and he would avail himself of that distinc-
tion, for the taxes paid by the corn-growers were not for the
benefit of a certain class or district, but for the benefit of the
nation at large, and he would ask which of the two stacks of
corn—the one free from burden and the other heavily taxed—
which of them could be sold at the lowest rate? Was it
not right for the agricultural community to ask for
that relief that would give them an opportunity of fair
competition with the foreign grain ? ( Hear, hear.)
Now, his Noble Friend went on to say, " Oh, but by the com-
mutation the tithes are no longer a land burden, because they
are considered in the price of the land—it is no longer a bur-
den." Now he (Lord Stanley) would again return to his si-
mile, and he would ask this question. They would admit that
if one-tenth was paid by one mill, and nothing by another, that
the proprietors of each were not placed upon equal terms. The
commutation takes place : the first mill-owner does not wish
Isis industry to be interfered with ; he does not wish to be taxed
in proportion to his success; he wishes to compound with the
commissioners, taking the average of his rise in the last five
year., and the average prices the produce was sold at. But
even that commutation, although faille and clearly made
out, did not remove the burden; the burden remained
as much a burden when paid in a certain sum as when
paid in produce. Nay, it remained a greater
burden, and his Noble Friend was going beyond a paradox in
affirming that it was no burden at all. He trusted he might
be forgiven for thus trying to controvert the argument of his
Noble Friend. He felt himself obliged to protest against it,
but he rejoiced that the Government did not intend to offer
any opposition to the motion. He rejoiced that it would be
acquiesced in by the House ; hut, at the same time, he could
not go into that Committee without protesting against one of
the propositions of the Noble Lord, that he introduced this mo-
tion because he considered that the question of the abolition of
protection was already settled.—(Great cheering.) While he
concurred with the Noble Lord in thinking that on this and
other questions the opinion and voice of the country, calmly,
deliberately, and seriously expressed, aye, and stedfastly main-
tained, ought and would influence the decisions of their Lord-
ships and the ether House, he also agreed with the Noble
Lord that there should be no doubt in a question of this vast,
this immense importance, that the sense of the country and of
Parliament were in favour of a change ; for its agitation
and accomplishment, unless productive of undoubted
good, could not fail to be an undoubted evil.
Whatever might be the result of the question of protection,
it did not do away with the argument that they should have
claim to fair and reasonable compensation.—(Heear, hear.)
He must protest against being supposed to agree in the opinion
that the question of the policy of the corn-laws rested in the
slightest degree on any particular interest or individual body.
Let them prove that the landlords and farmers shall receive
full and entire compensation, both in their individual and pecu-
niary interests, still he would not consider the question of the
corn-laws settled. The abolition of the corn-laws was a ques-
tion, in his opinion, that rested on conclusions far beyond the
personal or pecuniary interests of any class or party. It was
to be considered, not in a pecuniary or individual sense, but
in its effects on the great social, moral, political, and material
interests of the country.—(Cheers.)
The Duke of RICHMOND must, like the Noble:Lord, ented
a similar protest to that which the Noble Lord (Stanley) bar
just made. He considered the inquiry now sought for should
have taken place earlier. He would not believe that the Bills
proposed to be brought from the other House, to do away with
the corn-laws, would receive their sanction. He could not
believe that their Lordships would make so sudden a change as
Hon. Members in the other House; but that they would throw
out the measures, in order that the sense of the country might
be taken on them.—(Hear, hear.) It might be said that great
excitement existed out of doors ; but who were its authors?
The Anti-Corn-law Leagne.—( Hear, hear.) It had been
remarked by the Noble Lord, that if he measure passed into
a law he would do his best not to set class against class; on
that subject, however, he (the Duke of Richmond) could
not make any promise.—( Hear, hear.) The responsibility
was not in his hands, but in that of the Government.
They would have scorned to betray their leader, but with the
feelings of deep injury which they were likely to sustain,
with the feeling that their families and themselves were to be
consigned to ruin and the workhouse by the acts of that
leader. How could they feel any confidence in him.—(Hear,
bear.) How could the honest farmer who heel heard men from
the hustings declare that they were for protection, and protection
they would maintain, and had seen them in the House of
Commons desert the cause they had promised to support, rely
again upon those in whom they had placed their confidence?
What could they think. when they saw the places of a few
honest men who resisted the measure, filled up by those who
had promised to defend, but had afterwards deserted them?
Could they be blamed, if, under circumstances like these,
they ventured to take a leaf out of the Anti-Corn-law League?
Up to this moment they lied abstained from sending itinerant
lecturers into the manufacturing districts to excite the opera-
tives against their employers?—but had the Anti-Corn-law
League done the same ? No ; they had not. They had sent
their lecturers into every agricultural district, who had, if he
might be allowed to use the term, blackguaaded all the land-
owners and farmers of the country. They, however, were not
cantcnt with this, but went further, and told the labourers that
stacks would burn as well as straw. Their people had never
done anything of this sort • they had never sent men into the
manufacturing districts, although it might have been easy
enough to do so, to tell the operative that cotton and such
like articles would fire as well as straw, or to set the operative
to congregate in large bodies to coerce ther employers, and he
foe one trusted they would never do so, but would rather
pursue the dignified course of appealing to Parliament in a tone
that was at once honourable, loyal, and constitutional. But
he warned'their Lordships not to be induced to vote for the
Government measure in the hope that it would be the means of
putting down agitation. They might depend upon it that
success never did or ever would produce moderation in or out
of Parliament. Tee Anti-Corn-law League might tell them
what they liked about their dissolution, but he believed they
would never dissolve until they had destroyed the Church, and
every other institution which they themselves were prepared to
stand by and defend.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) A Noble
Lord, who had spoken in the course of the evening, had asked
him a question respecting the law of settlement in Scotland.
The Noble Lord said there were great detects in that law, and
he (the Duke of Richmond) to a certain extent, agreed with
him.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord, however, should
remember that it was Parliament that was respon-
sible for the existence of the defects.—( Hear.) A Bill upon
this subject was passed last year, and he could not help think-
ing that the Noble Lord would have better served his purpose
had he stated his complaint there. 'With respect to the malt-
tax, he could not follow his Noble Friend upon this branch of
the discussion. He was aware that great difference of opinion
existed amongst the farmers of the country upon the subject
of the malt-tax, but Noble Lords must remember that the
proposed measure of the Government would render this tax a
vi
adapted to the l
great deal heavier than it ever had been. The Noble Lord
hadite rest
:a o quotedt nsaronwue number
that malt
verymofa l professors,tl
iwkeasly ntootake with the agricultural
and amongst them Mr.
Graham,nt
w
fatten-
ing of tattle ; but the farmers of England preferred the motto
of the Royal Agriculture Society, " The practice of science,"
to the theories of science. Be knew a gentleman, who was a
most extensive farmer in the county of Norfolk, who had
tried the experiment of feeding with malt, anti who
would tell the Noble Lord that it was infinitely superior to that
of any ogler method he had ever heard of. Before he sat down
he must again protest against the removal of the existing pro-
tection to native industry ; but he could not do so without at
the same time congratulating the agricultural interest that the
Noble Lord the late Secretary for the Colonies hart vacated his
office for the sake of principle; and was likely to bring the
benefit of his great eloquence and ability to the cause of
domestic indutsry. In conelusion, he could only say that if
these measures came up to their Lordships' House he should
do his utmost to induce their Lordships to throw them out,
because he did believe that if these measures were passed they
would entail ruin upon the agricultural interest, upon the
labourers, upon the domestic industry, and inflict injury upon
the manufacturers of the country.--( Hear, hear. )
Earl GREY would not then enter into a discussion which
would hereafter have to be brought before them, except so far as
to express Isis concurrence in the opinion of the Noble Lord
oppo,ite, that when the question was decided, it ought to be
settled, not for the partial advantage of me interest, but for the
general benefit of all classes of the community.—( Hear, hear.)
He was persuaded that when they 50 considered the subject,
they would find that not only the interest of one, but the in-
terest of every class was concerned in the adjustment of this
great quest:on. They would show that during the thirty years
in which ;you ction had existed, it bad been attended with
constant disappointment, and they had never for five years to..
gether been free from the pressure of extreme agricultural dis-
tress. He for one would undertake to show, when the proper
time arrived for his doing so, that this had been the result of
the protective system. From the earliest period protection
had been a failure, and at different intervals extreme suffering
had produced changes; and after trying one sort of protection
after another, the farmer found that none of them ever realised
his hopes ; and now, after having for a long series of years been
subjected to great disappointments, they had come to the con-
sideration of the question whether it would not be better that
protection should be abolished altogn. her. As he had said
before, he would not then go into the discussion of the ques-
tion, but when the proper time arrived, he should be pre-
pared to meet the arguments of the Noble Duke. He wished
now strictly to confine himself to the subject immediately before
the House, and as this Committee is not to be considered as
a reason for postponing the discussion or settlement of the
great question now before the country, he should not offer it
any opposition. Having a commone into rest with the Noble
Lord who proposed it, in the prosperity of the land, he greatly
lamented that the Noble Lord had raised this question, because
he was convicted that if the subject was properly sifted and
impartially considered, it would be proved that they, as land-
holders, instead of bearing a larger proportion of public
burdens, were subject to much less taxation than other
classes of the community. His Noble Friend who had
proposed the motion was mistaken in supposing that tithes wer e
a burden upon land. His Noble Friend, however, put forward
an illustration to show that tithes were a burden upon land,
the case of the millot,vner, who was charged a tenth of the
cloth which he produced for tithes; and then the Noble
Lord asked how the millowner could enter into competition
with the millowner whose land was not subjected to
tithes. He confessed that this was a very plausible argument,
but let them alter the position of the mill-owner, and make it
something more analogous to the position occupied by the
Lords. A millowner purchased a piece of land for the site of
a mill, and he agreed to pay a charge of 1001. a year. Now
he wanted to know what difference it made to the millowner
whether he paid 1001. a year to the owner of the site or whether
he paid 901. a year to the owner and 101. a year to the titheowner.
The fact was, tithe was not a burthen Olson land, and the land-
owner and eecupier had no right to claim compensation for this
alleged burden, and the land was vested jointly in the laud.
owner and the tithe-owner, and the former had ne more right
to claim compensation for the charge of the latter than he had
to chain a title to laid which did not belong to him.
With reference to the malt-tax, he believed that barley was
the meet ratable article that the farmers could grow, sad
ho was convinced that there was a demand for all the barley
which could be grown in this country. But the Noble Duke
( Richmond) had told them of the prohibition to feed
cattle with malt. It is perfectly true that all the most emie
vent chemists have shown, upon =den ifi' p: inciples, that
barley is more useful for the fatten ng of cattle than being
terned into malt. He (the Duke of Richmond) had
stated that the motto of the Royal Agricultural Society is
" Practice with science." I'ow he begged to inform him
that practice and experiment had supported the conclusions of
science. In a report vvhirsh had been presents d to the House of
Commons last session, it had been shown that barley, bruised,
crushed, or soaked, was better adapted for the fattening ,
cattle than if it were converted into malt. Farmers
might now boil the malt, and get all the ad-
vant2ges from it which they would obtain if dried,
and thus converted into malt. The only thing forbidden by
the Legislature is the act of drying and converting it into
malt. Experiments had been instituted by these gentleman,
and the result had been that it was the most econoraioal to use

barley, not made into malt, for the purpose of fattening
cattle. In Germany, where there are no fiscal regulations to
aff.!et the practice of fattening cattle with malt, that article is
not used. He entreated their Lordshipsnot to urge the Go-
vernment to meddle with the malt-tax. In the whole scale •
of duties, none pressed so little upon the public as the malt-
tax. Beer, after all, is only a luxury. There are other
luxuries to the labouring classes, upon which he would rather
see the duty diminished—tea, coffee, sugar—all these would
be iufinately more to the advantage of the labouring glasses, if
the duties were reduced upon these instead of the malt. They
are all already too high for the purposes of revenue. He had
heard with regret and much alarm of the proposal of an in-
creased property-tax. There had been of late a great ten-
dency to remove indirect taxation and place in its stead a system
of direct taxation.—( Hear, hear.) It had been stated that
the poor-law imposed upon real property a tax equal to 12 per
cent. It must, however, be borne in mind that this charge
was not namlusively upon land; houses, canals, and railways paid
a large proportion. The exemption with reference to stock in
trade extenled equally to the stock and capital of the
farmer as to the tradesman or manufacturer; but it would be
attended with great d.ificulty to ascertain the value of the in-
come of each party resident in the parish. The Noble Lord
(Lord Beaumont) bad given them a very formidable list of
the burdens on land, not excluding the militia-rate, which has
not, however, been levied far some years, and which I hope
will not be levied again.—( Hear. hear.) Land in this coun-
try bears a much higher value than it does in America or other
countries. In the western parts of America the finest prairie
land may be purcha.ed for four dollars (about 45.) an acre.
Now land of an equal quality in this country would let at a
price of from 40s. to 50s. an acre. What causes this difference?
Why does land in this country yield as an annual rent about
ten times as much as the sum for which in America you could
purchase the whole fee-simple of a similar quantity and quality
in America? Simply on account of the large population of the
country, great markets, and good roads. It is these which
give an increased value to land, and it is upon these circum-
stances which of all others Mr. Geo. Robins, or any other
most eloquent auctioneer, would delight to expatiate.. In this
case then, if the.e circumstances tend to improve the value of
the estate, is it not nerfectly fair that the burdens should be
borne by the owners?—( Hear, hear.) He considered, taking
the whole of the circumstances into his consideration, that the
present burdens upon land were nothing more than
payments for value received. He should not therefore
object to this Committee.. But he warned Noble Lords not to
carry the inquiry too far. And there are many per,ons who
will not be wanting, in pursuing that inquiry, to expatiate very
largely upon the information which that report may furnish.
They would consider that the proportions of the burthen on
land in this country was not so much as it was either in France
or in Austria. When the land-tax was first imposed in 1692,
there was a tax of four shillings in the pound; that tax remains
the same at the present period, notwithstanding the value of
land—as appeared in the returns made to the House of Com-
mons—was increased to the value of eighty-five millions ; and
that excluding a great amount of income under 150/. per
annum. He should not therefore oppose the motion of the
Noble Lord.

Lord A S H BURTON considered it paradoxical that the charge
upon land in the shape of tithe before the Commutation Act
was a burden, while after the passing of the Act it ceased to be so.
Their Lordships were aware that before the Tithes Commuta-
tion Act, tithes were virtually commuted. The land-tax was
thrown over by the Noble Lord himself. The poor-law was
kept up in America in the same state as it was kept up here.
The statutes of Elizabeth, in respect of the poor. laws, were
observed in that country. He would say with respect to the
land changes—leave them as they are, but give compensation
to those lands which had to meet such burdens. With respect
to protection, or compensation, or whatever else their Lord-
ships wished to call it, it was not only due to the land, but if
they attempted to take it off they would throw much of the
land out of cultivation. There was ne comparison between
the land of this country and the land of America. In the rich
prairies that country land was nothing, but labour was
every th y
. _ . .

I.;,rd ICE A IJMONT, in reply, said, the Noble Lord had
stated that the cost of keeping up turnpike roads was not a bur-
den on land. Now the cost of keeping these roads amounted
to 2,500,0001., and of that from 1,200,000/. was defrayed out
of the funds raised from land.

The motion, with the addition, was then agreed to.
The Duke of WELLINGTON was -quite satisfied, now that
the Committee was appointed, no unnece.sary delay would that
take place, but that the result of the inquiry would be laid on
the table as soon as possible. '
Lord BEA umoNT intimated that no time would be lost in
laying the report on the table.
ADMINISTRATION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
On the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, the Admi-
nistration of Criminal Justice Bill was read a third time.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved for certain returns re-
garding local taxation from the year 1821 to 1845.—Agreed to.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS brought in a Bill for the
better protection of life and property in Ireland, which was
read a first time.

The second reading was appointed for Monday neat.
The other Bills on their Lordships' table were then ad-
vanced a stage, and the House adjourned at a Quarter past
Nine o'clock.

HOUSE OF (70MMOA S, Monday, Feb. 16.
The SPEAKER took the chair at five minutes before
Four o'clock.

NEW MEMBER.

Mr. FIN .= took the oaths and his seat for the county
of Rutland, in the room of. Mr. llawnay, who has ac-
cepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
GOVERNMES'r POLICY.

Sir JOHN lIANMER presented four putitions from
the inhabitants of Hull, in favour of the financial and
commercial policy of the Government. The Hon. Me-
mber also presented a fifth petition, praying the Govern-
ment to take irriro consideration the duties on tea.
RAILWAY BUSINESS.

The following railway Bills were read a second time.

and ordered to be committed, viz.:—
York and Not is Midland Railway (Whitby and Pick-
ering Extensnon).
Blackburn, Choi iey, and Liverpool Railway.
Liverpool, Ortm kirk, and Priston Railway.
Blackburn and Preston Railway.
Ashburton, Newton, and South Devon Railway.
North Staffurds: 2ire Railway (Llarecastle and Sandbach
line).
North Staffordshire Railway (Churnet Valley line).
East Lincolnshire, Railway.

Epsom and Dorking Rail;Way.
Forth Kent Rails way.
North Kent Rail way (City Extension).
London and Sou Ci-Western Railway (Hampton Court
Branch).
London . and SCMth-Western Railway (London-bridge
Extension).
London and South-Western Railway • (Ckertser, and
Eghum Branch)
London and South-Western Railway (Epsom Branch).
Staines and Richmond Junction Railway.
Grand Junction. Railway (Huy ton and Warrington
Branch).
Manchester and Birmingham Railway.
Mr. W. PA.TTEN wished to bring under the attention
of the House the proceedings of Parliamentary agents
with respect to the introduction of their Bills
into the House. It appeared that those gentlemen were
in the habit of giving the Bin; one name before the
Board of Trade. a second name when brought into the
Private Bill Office, and a third title when introduced
into t'ie [louse. This practice was attended with great
inconvenience, and rendered it almost impossible for the
Classification Committee properly to classify the Bills
referred to them. I{. trusted that the House would
take some steps. to remedy their practice.
Mr. GREENE moved—" That it be an instruction to
The Committee on Petitions for Private Bills, and to all
Committees upon Private Bills, not to hear parties on
any petition hereafter referred to them, which shall not
be prepared and signed in strict conformity with the
rules and orders of this House."
Mr. ENT %MIX thought that people ought to comply
with the standing orders themselves before making any
com Plaints, and moved, as an amendment, to leave out
the word hereafter."

The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the original motion
Against it
Majoriry for the original motion —42
CORN-LA-WS.

Mr.. T. M. GIBSON presented a petition from Man-
chester,. in favour of the Government measure on the
corn-laws.

THE CONVICTS FROST, WILLIAMS, AND
JONES.

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented petitions pray-
ing the House to consider "the condition of the convicts
Frost, Williams, and Jones, with a view to entreat ber
Must Gracious Majesty to mitigate their sentence.