The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-14 00:00:00

made good if you remove the taxes on articles of primary
necessity ; and I was astonished, considering his high posi-
tion, to hear him say that the question was not one for in hi
or for any Hon. Member on his si to of ;he House to consider.
Now, Sir, in my opinion, that is an important question, and
there is not a Member in this House who is not affected by it.
If the establishments of the country are to be maintained, the
deficiency arising from taxation ought to be the primary
consideration of every Hon. Member in the House.—(Cheers. )
Now, the question is short and simple. Will you tax It-
hour, or will you tax capital, to the relief of labour, beyond
its present burdens? In other words, will you revise your
financial system and reimpose on industry those burdens from
which relsased capital asks to be reeved? That was the
great question which was decijed in 1842 -and here let me
observe that this discussion has not been unproductive. I
am speaking in the presence of her Majesty's M nitters, and
of the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Home-office.
In 1842 I warned the House of the danger of continuing that
system of taxation. It has been changed, and the Right
Honourable Gentleman, I think, will be able to tell us
that there has been more social order and less seditious
movement for the last three years than at any former
time, and I attribute that fact to our fiscal policy and
to the relief which you have given the people, without
reference to their occupation.—(Cheers.) And now I am
brought to the objections I entertain to this motion,
which are, that it is in effect, though not avowedly, an
approximation to the reversal of that policy. I feel those
objections still more, because the words in which it is framed,
though claiming to be plain. arc studiously elusive, and
present. nothing t ingible.- (Cheers.) It was said by the
Hon. Member who moved it, Ido not ask your votes in
favour of any specific proposal. It is not my duty to bring
it in." Well, then, I say it is my duty to refuse my consent
to a motion the entire extent and tendency of which I can-
not urderstand.—(Cheers.) Now, there is a studious am-
biguity not only in the motion but in the very able speech
in which that motion presented itself to us. Observe what
that speech did. It presented to our consideration a great
many things declared to be objectionable, but which the
mover did net seek to remove, and a great many things
which he indicated as remedies he refused to press. The
Hon. Member referred to the prohibition of the growth of
tobacco. Now, lam surprised that with all the astuteness
of the Hon. Member it did not appear to the Hon. Member
that, whether the extremely high duty upon tobacco were
remitted or continued, one of two inevitable consequences
would be produced. If the duty upon the importation of
foreign tobacco were remitted it would be impossible
for it to be grown in this country.--e Cheers.) It would
come to us from all quarters of America and from many parts
of Europe, where it could be produced at a much cheaper
price, and we should make a great sacrifice of revenue with-
out conferring the smallest advantage upon the landed in-
terest.—(Hear, hear.) But, on the other hand, if you con-
tinue the present Ugh duty upon foreign tobacco, you will be
introducing protection in one of its most flagrant, most ab-
surd, and most objectionable forms.—( Cheers.) You will be
offering a premium to the growth of tobacco to the full ex-
tent of the duty, and you will besides offer irresistible
temptation to frauds upon the revenue and smuggling.—
(Hear, hear.) The same objection applies to the growth of
beetroot for sugar. If you grow it subject to no duty, and
continue the existing duties upon foreign and ea:tidal sugar
there is protection. If you remit the duty on sugar
you will sacrifice 10,0 tO,OOOl. of revenue, which must
be supplied in some other way, while the British
farmer would not derive the least benefit from the
change, for he would be just as unable as he is now to
compete with the grower of foreign sugar.- (Herds hear.)
I now come to the malt-tax. I do not know what the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) may have said upon this subject
in former years. I do not think, however, that he is in
favour of its repeal, and I am sure that the leader of this
party in the other House, Lord Stanley, is not, for that Noble
Lord, in and out of office, has said that it would be inexpe-
dient to repeal that tax ; that it was paid, not by the pro-
ducer, but by the consumer, and that its repeal would carry
with it no benefit to the land commensurate with
the loss to the revenue. These are, then, the
first class of difficulties with which the Hon. Gentle-
man said the agriculturists had to contend, but which he
did not seek to remove. I now come to the second class of
remedies, which the Hon. Gentleman indicated as de-
sirable, but which were not pressed by him. The first was
the cultivation of land en commandite. Now, the Hon. Gen-
tleman the Member for Nottingham (Mr. F. O'Connor) has
had some experience of the cultivation of land en commandite.
—(Laughter.) He has tried the experiment. I do not
know whether he is favourable to the plan, but I believe his
partners were not.—(A laugh.) [Mr. O'Coswou—•"rhey
would not pay their rents."] And I believe the only parties
who derived any benefit from the scheme were the gentle-
men in Westminster Hall.—(A laugh.) At all events, the
experience we have had on this subject would not induce me
o look for relief to the agricultural interest in this direction.
The law of settlement was next adverted to by the Hon.
Gentleman. Now, I rejoice that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man at the head of the Poor-law Board. (Mr. .Baines),
who is sow a part, of the Government, has expressed an in-
tention of dealing with the law on this subject. I have be-
fore expressed my opinion that the landed interest will gain
extremely, by an alteration in the law of settlement, and
gain in the most legitimate manner, because the labourer is,
after all, the principal sufferer from the present state of the
law. His labour is his only property, but by the force of
the law you restrict the free employment of his labour
within 1,500 narrow circles. But, by adopting a union set-
tlement in the place of a parish seetlement, you do a great
deal to emancipate the labourer, for you widen the sphere of
his rabour and enable him to seek employment within 600
circles. But I warn the Hon. Gentleman if he has not well
considered this matter.—(Hear.) There are lions in his
path.—(A laugh.) He wilt, if I mistake not, encounter the
opposition of some distinguished representatives of the landed
interest. The Hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes),
and, I believe, the Honourable Member for Oxfordshire (.Ir.
Henley), will be against him, and I suspect that the landed
interest will be found very much divided in opinion as to the
benefits of such an arrangement, and whether it would be
desirable to introduce a union settlement and a union
rate. But that is not the plan of the Honourable Mem-
ber for Buckinghamshire. He opened to our view the
much larger measure of a national rate.—( Hear, hear.)
It is true he did not pledge himself to support it, and
I for one know no course that the House of Corn-
mons could take more dangerous in every respect than a
measure having such a decidedly Socialist diiection as insti-
tuting a claim to this national main enance.—(Cheers.) A
national rate for the relief of the poor would, as I believe, '
hand over the property of this country and the industry of
this country to the idleness and the poverty caused by indo-
lence. Such a measure would be Socialism, and Socialism
in its most dangerous form.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentle-
man also adverted to the commutation of tithes. Well, now,
I say that the less the landowners say on this subject the
better.- (A. laugh.) I. as a landowner, am entirely satisfied
with the bargain we have made.--(Hear, hear.) We had
before the Tithe Commutation Act passed Li ugly copartener
dinustthrey soil,—up(Aal,lyauegt
h rd in nwe
ho,coniti theribu produce nnothingthouft
of in-
dustry and the profits of that capital. That growing claim
to the increasing value and produce of the soil was cut
short and ousted by what was certainly a very stringent,
and, as I thought, very politic measure. But what was
the effect? I think that the poet's advice to the domestic
chaplain—

" Stick to thy pudding, friend,
And hold thy tongue,"
—(A. laugh) —is applicable to us. The parson was not
well pleased with the Act, but the country gentleman has
every reason to be pleased with it. The parson in future
shares in a fries t and immutable quantity, however much in-
creased the amount of produce may be. He gets no share
in any increase in quantity, and yet he shares in the dimi-
nished value of that quantity through the fall in the price
of wheat.—(Hear, hear.) My advice to the Honourable
Gentleman is, then, to let the Tithe Act remain untouched.
—( Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman then came to
the repeal of the Banking Act of 1844. Now, I would ask
him when the supply of bullion in the coffers of the Bank
has been more abundant than since the passing of that Act?
I should like to know when the issees of paper, both by
the Bank of England and the country banks, coincident
with and justified by the amount of bullion in the Bank,
have ever been more sound or more unrestricted? I
should like to know when the rate of interest has ever
been lower for commercial transactions or mortgages than
during the last three years? -(Hear, hear.) And I tell
the country g-ntlemen that if they seek to operate through
the medium of the currency, they must go much further
than the Bank Act of 1844.—(" Hear, hear," from Mr.
Spooner) The Honourable Member (Mr. Disraeli) went on
to say that the best course which he, as a leader of Opposi-
tion, could take was, to recommend that certain unenurne-
rated local burdens should be placed upon the consolidated
fund. Now, if we look merely to the tactics of a leader
of Opposition, that may be so; but if we look at the public
welfare, and the interests of public economy, then no more
dangerous course could be pursued by the Government—
( Hear, hear.) I have had some experience, and I have
observed that all charges once placed upon the consolidated
fund are seldom revised, seldom abated, and never removed.
—(Cheers.) That is my experience, and lam therefore
jealous of placing local charges upon the consolidated
fund. But then I may innocently ask, what is really in-
tended by this motion? What does the Noble Marquis
(Granby) ack the House to do? The Hon. Member who
introduced this motion does not ask you to return to pro-
tection. But the Noble Marquis is better satisfied with
frankly declaring that, in his opinion, it would be better to
return to protection.—( Hear, hear.) Now, I say that if this
motion does not mean that we are to return to protection,
what in the name of common sense does it mean?—(Cheers. )
The Hon. Member in his prelminary observations had this
remarkable object in view—he implored us to forget the
past. Now, this struck me as very much like administering
a dose of chloroform before a capital operation.—(Laughter.)
It was not a soporific, certainly, but it lulled the senses very
sweetly.—(Continued laughter.) However, I have since had
time to analyze this invitation, and I have come to the con-
clusion that it is our duty to look to the past.- (Cheers.)
The Hon. Member told us the other night that he adhered
strictly, severely, and religiously to all that he had said on
this subject in a former debate when he introduced the sub-
ject of agricultural burdens. I have compared the declara-
tion of last year with the declaration of this year—(Hear,
hear)—anC I hope I shall net, say anything in the least
displeasing to the Hon. Gentleman if I quote the important
words used by him in the debate last year, and contrast
them with some of the expressions used by him this year,
because, in a case where we are not quite sure what is really
intended, it is important to compare his words, and see what
is meant. The Hon. Member last year, on bd....ging forward
his motion relative to the burdens upon land, said
On this side of the House we believe that this depression
has been occasioned by recent legislative enactments ;—by
the recent repeal of the laws which regulated the importa-
tion of foreign agricultural produce. We believe that the
surest course, the most safe, the most efficacious, the course
which, in the long run, would be most advantageous to the
community, and most popular with the community, would
be the re-establishment of laws regulating the importation
of that foreign produce."—( Hear.) "Speaking for those
gentlemen with whom I have the honour to act, I can say
that we do not in any way shrink from an argument on this
subject. We have seen nothing at all which in our opinion
confutes the conclusions which, in good report and evil re-
port, we have attempted to advocate in this House with re-
gard to this great subject. We still believe that the princi-
ples
on which you have constructed your commercial code are
fallacious." These words are strong. but still they are not
so strong as those which were quoted by me in the debate
of the 21st of February, which were taken down by me
when spoken, and not disclaimed by the Hon. Member (Mr.
Disraeli) :—" Ido not bate one jot of what I have always
declared. I adhere to every argument and every opinion
on this question ; and I tell you I think it would be wiser
and more politic to return to protection—no longer
to cease to impose duties of revenue on articles from
abroad, including corn, and thus indirectly to raise
revenue having the effect of protection."—(Cheers.). Words
more clear could not be used- (Hear, hear)—and they
indicate a distinct policy, which is known to be advocated
by the great body of the party of which the Hon. Gentleman
is at the head. Now, what were the words used by him
upon the present oecasion, the night before last? I have the
words before me, rand I cannot find in them anything at
variance with the, language used last wear. The Hon. Gen-
tleman told what
t 8 ,',ll Tuesday night—" last year said
now adhere Ur, severely, strictly, even religiously. I said
wouldthen, that I •
e would not in this Parliament make any at-
tenlPt to ;,ring back the abrogated 13y5tal Of Prowtiou."