The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-12 00:00:00

tiONDONi SATURDAY EVENING, APRIL 121 1851.

Gentleman ♦oted for the repeal of that tax, and ob-
served, that public credit must be at a low ebb if it
could not afford to lose 5,500,0001. of money. Well, on
a subsequent. occasion the Honourable Gentleman
had expressed his willingness to dispense with the in-
come-tax, amounting to 5,500,000/. more. Here was at
once 11,000,0001. struck off the revenue. He did not
consider the Hon. Gentleman to be consistent in sup-
porting these two propositions, besides which, in doing
so, the Hon. Gentleman wee altogether at variance with
Lord Stanley and the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Stamford, who, as cautious, wary, and practical
rams, had not allowed therns Ives to be pledged to any
such propositions. He should vote against the resolu-
tions of the Hon. Gentleman, not because he bad no
sympathy for the agricultural interest, but because be
would not be the follower of such a leader.
Mr. J. SANDARS did not believe that the agricultu-
ral interest was unduly taxed, and he therefore felt it
his duty to oppose the proposition of the Hon. Member
for Bucking.hemshire. But his chief reason for opposing
the motion was the fear he entertained that, if such a
measure were carried it would strengthen the Pro-
tectionist party in that Hence, and enable them to main-
tain their principle of protection at least by keeping it
asap open question. He entertained a further objection to
the motion on financial grounds. He believed that if the
income tax were removed t 3 great deficit in the revenue
would occur, and the country would be placed in a peril-
ous position. He would deplore the success of the
motion, because he saw in it the firs✓ Etep towards the
resumption of class policy, which would have the effect
of lowering the aristocracy in the eyes of the people.
Lord JOHN MANNERS wished, with the permission
of the House, to recall attention to the immediate sub-

j..,.ct of the motion brought forward by the Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Bucking,hamshire. Ministers
fully admitted the distress of the suffering agricultural
interest, but while they did so they took no steps what-
ever towards affording relief. The question was simply
this—would the House of Commons vote that justice
should be refused to an interest of the country that
was suffering? The Government, speaking by the
President of the Beard of Trade, said that it would
not assent to the measure of justice or mitigation of re-
lief, and the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment, following up the statement of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, told that
suffering interest that they should look for relief to the
closing paragraph in the Queen's Speech. The Right
Hoe. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade
had over and over again declared that the agricultural
interest mast look for relief to the continued prosperity
of the manufacturing interest. Now, for the purposes
of debate, he (Lord J. Manners) had admitted the ex-
istence of that commercial prosperity, although the Hon.
Member for the West Riding had found it convenient to
ualify the statement. When they were asked to look
for relief to that prosperity, they should assure them-
selves that it was placed on a firm foundation, and was
likely to continue. He could not bring his mind to be-
lieve that prosperity, however great it might be at the
present moment, was so based; and even if it were so,
it would take an immense amount of proof to esta-
blish the fact of its reacting favourably on English
rather than on foreign agriculture. The Circulars
of Mr. Littledale, of Liverpool, showed that the country
was not in so prosperous a condition as some
people supposed. The trade report, which appeared in the
Times of that morning, corroborated the fact so far as
Manchester was concerned. These were the words of
the report:—" On Thursday the downward tendency
was less marked, and greater steadiness of prices pre-
vailed, but the extent of transactions was small, and •
buyers appeared to be confining their operations to the
rarrowest limits. Many of the private letters by the •
Isat overland India mail are said to have been very
dispiriting, and scarcely reconcileable with the encourag-
ing tone of the. accounts by the previous mail. Under
these circumstances some of the export houses in that
trade have closed their purchases for the present, or
operate with much caution. In the Levant trade accounts
continue to come of a harassing character; not only do
the markets appear to be abundantly stocked with prints,
which are almost unsaleable at any price, but plain cloths
and yarns are depressed in price, and unremunerative;
still exporters in this market are doing quite as much
here to-day as they have done for some time past. In
the home trade business continues very languid, not-
withstanding the fineness of the weather, and an opinion
is freely put forth in some p uarters, though not generally
acquiesced in, that it is in a great degree attributable to
the steadiness with which the working classes are hoard-
ing their savings to visit the Great Exhibition. In
our account of lest Saturday's market it ewes stated
that th© increased exports of cotton manufactures to
India and China were 1,000,0001b5. of yarn, and
39,000,000 yards of cloth. It should have been that the
total increase of exports in the last three months, as
compared with the same period last year, was to that
amount in yarn. The increase in yarn was rather over
that to India (1,367,0001b5.), butlis counterbalanced to
some extent by a falling off to other ports. The increase
in the exports of calicoes is 39,000,000 yards, of which
14,500,000 nearly are to India, and 10,500,000 to China."
With these practical opinions before him, ho could not
convince himself that the manufacturing interest was in
the prosperous condition which the Free-traders affected.
Under all these circumstances the Hon. Member for
Buckinghamshire came forward and said, "admitting
that distress, and having a surplus to dispose of, apply
it in mitigation of that distress." He did not ask for an
appropriation of the money for the benefit of the land-
owners. Let the Government not rest secure in the be-

lief that the pressure of this distress had not extended
and woull not extend to the labouring classes. A report
which he held in his hand, and which had been published
that morning at Spalding, showed the extent of distress,
and the increase of crime, which now prevailed in South
Lincolnshire. In the midland counties, with which
he was connected, he knew that crime bad largely in-
creased from the want of employment. Hr. Justice
Cressivell, in his recent charge to the grand jury, at
Liverpool, said he was totally unable to account for the
large increase of crime in that district which the calen-
dar exhibited, and the presentment of the Suffolk grand
jury, which was of the same melancholy character, di-
rectly attributed it to the went of employment, and the
inability of landlords to give it in consequence of recent
legislation. If it were true, therefore, that this pressure
had not yet reached the agricultural population genes
rally, these, at least, were facts which the Government
would do well to inquire into. It might be a matter of
indifference to Hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite that the
owners and occupiers of land should sink under the load
of difficulties that oppressed them, or that the old an-
cestral houses of England's gentry should find them-
selves obliged to close their doors against the claims of
hospitality; but let them beware how they tampered
with the employment, how they diminished the wages,
and how they curtailed the comforts of the peasantry
of England and Ireland. Let them pause before they
enlarged the injury that had been done, and show to
this suffering, interest that they were willing, at least, to
endeavour to avert the ruin, which, in his conscience, ho
believed to be impending.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT remarked that Hon. Gentlemen oppo-
site did not seem to think it was judicious to discuss the
Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They
agreed that it was applicable to the country, and that it
must pass that House.—(gear.) He considered that
the speeches that had been made by the Hon. Member
for Northampton (Mr. A. Stafford) and the Noble Lord
who had just sat down, must do great damege to their
leader.—(" Hcar, hear," from Lord J. Russell.) Ile
was convinced the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) was
of opinion that any project of a return to protection was
the mevest delusion. That Hon. Gentleman knew that
so long as Members of his party would have protection
they were destined to sit on the shady side of that
House, and that they never would cross the table to the
Ministerial benches—(Hear)—and accordingly the Hon.
Gentleman took his tone in this discussion, and avoided
protection as a thing that was irrevocably and finally
settled.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " No, no.") The
Hon. Gentleman made this proposition for the benefit
of the agricultural interest. The labourers were once
" the agricultural interest," but now they were left
out.—(Cries of " No, no.") The agricultural interest
now consisted of the owners and occupiers of land,
and it was said they had a special claim to a spe-
cial relief. They assumed that they were suffering
throughout the United Kingdom; lout they brought no
proof that the owners or occupiers of land were suffer-
ing much, or at all.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.") He thought
that they had failed in showing that they had any spe-
cial claim for relief, even if they were suffering. The
Nuble Lord at the head of the Government, with that
want of caution which not unfrequently distinguished him
—(Cheers, and laughter)—had admitted the distress in
a paragraph in the Queen's Speech, which was an invi-
tation to the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire to have
in the first week of the session a discussion on the tub-
ject—(Licar)—and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had
committed another blunder—(Laughter)—when ho
brought forward a proposal as applicable to the agricul-
turists, and which, having once brought forward, he
ought to have adhered to.—(Hear.) He was prepared
to dispute half the case—that owners of land were suffer-
ing distress—or had the slightest ground whatever to
come to the House for relief. It was stated the other
night that there had been a full of rent in Herefordshire
of 25 per et-,,nt., but that could not be true generally, as
the lion. Member for Buckinghamshire had placed the
reduction at about ten per cent. He did not believe the
average reduction was ten per cent. He believed the re-
duction was only a temporary remission of rent, such as
had been usual with landlords on special occasions.
He believed the reduction of rent had been very small,
and nothing in comparison to that loss which owners of
other kinds of property were constantly sustaining
throughout the kingdom. He would ask what class
escaped so completely unscathed in time of commercial
disaster as the landowners? It was stated at Aylesbury
that land only returned 2i per cent. Why, that was a
proof of its more than ordinary security. Tho Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had stated that though
6,000,0001. had been lost to the landowners from the re-
duction of rent, yet that this reduction formed no suffi•
cient ground for appealing to that House. This was
quite different to the doctrines usually held in that
House.—(Hear.) But if the working classes generally
were benefited by the loss of that 6,000,000.whic
which the
landowners ought never to have enjoyed—(Hear)—that
was a sufficient recompense.—(llear.) He would take
the consumers belonging to the agricultural interest, and
he asserted they were not suffering to any extent which
entitled them to he considered a suffering class. He came
then to the occupiers of land, and he was not disposed
to deny that they might suffer from the temporary low
price of produce. But it must be recollected that suffer-
ing was not a new thing. ft was a common malady
this :suffering; but there was nothing whatever to show
that the suffering arose from! the legislation of that
House. He wished to strip the question from delu-
sion.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Disraeli) did not wish to go back to protection. Did
lion. Members opposite agree to that?—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member (Mr. Disraeli) did not wish to relieve
agriculturists by raisieg the price of corn. His propo-
sition was to transfer the burdens on certain descriptions

of property to the Consolidated Fund, and to place them
on the people generally. Now, with respect to the al-
leged burden of the poor-rate he would state a few facts.
He had a return from 1836 to 1842, showing how poor:
rata was levied on land, houses, and other property; and
he only wished it came down to 1851, as he was satis-
fied it would be the best answer to the statement that
land was toe heavily burdened. In 1825, according to
the rental, the poor-law burden on lend was 69 per cent.;
in 1833 it was 63 per cent.; in 1841 it paid 52 per cent.
So that in fifteen years the amount fell from 69 to 52
per cent. —from two-thirds to one-half; and if ha had
the returns up to 1850, he believed the fall would be
found to have been in the same ratio, anal that land
did not now pay more than 40 per cent. The Hon.
Member for Westbury said 45 per cent., but he believed
it was 40 per cent. The amount of the poor-rates in
1833 was 8,600,000/. In 1842 it had fallen to 6 , • 500 000/ •
and in 1850 to 5,395,0001. Now within the last eight
years, during which time that new course of commer-
cial legislation—free trade—had been practieed, the
poor-rates had fallen about 1,300,000/. He had made a
calculation of the poor-rate paid by the land, which, in
round numbers, he would take at 5,500,0001. in
1826, when the amount paid was 69 per teat. The
amount paid in ISSO he took at 40 per cent.,
and, therefore, the sum now paid was not
more then about 2,158,000/. So if they went
back to 1833 they would find the landed interest paid
more than double the amount they paid now. Then the
railways paid 300,0001. in poor-rates to parishes to which
they never contributed a pauper, and: houses were
springing up everywhere which were taxed to the poor_
rates. But he came to the alleged distress of the farmer.
The inapo3ition of taxes on the necessaries of life oF the
working classes would not benefit or relieve the farmer.
Reductions had been made from time to time, hut those
reductions had all gone to enhance rent. The Right
Hon. Gentleman, if be came into power, would advocete
that line of policy which would end in raising rents.—
(Hear, hear.) Farmers were the victims of a vicious
system. But that vicious system was of the creation of
Hon. Gentlemen opposite. They had made the farmers
dependent on them up to the year 1846. As a cotton
maufacturer, he should be sorry to entrust his interests
to the country party or to political parties. The evil of
farmers was that they held too mueh land. If they took
more land than they could find capital to cultivate they
were on the road to ruin, just the same as the landowner
who bought more land than he could pay for merely
to augment his political power.—(Hear, hear.) With
respect to the game laws—(Cries of " Question")—they
were as pertinent to the question as the reductions of
poor-rates and other propositions. It was proved
before the Committee that the injury done by game
to the farmers was more than the whole amount of their
local taxation—(oh.) The injury done by gentlemen
in sporting over the farmer's land wee immense, and if
the law did not induce them to give up their sport, at
least other reasons ought to have effect on them.—(Hear,
hear.) It was the natural effect of passing from a vici-
ous system of forty years' standing to a better system,
that suffering should prevail. But tenant-farmers had
at various poriods sustained suffering, and if they ex-
pected to better their condition, it must be by the reduc-
tion of rent, the application of more capital, and the
adoption of a better system of cultivation. The Noble
Lord the Member for Colchester had alluded to the in-
crease that had taken place in crime. Now, he would
give the Noble Lord the number of persons taken into
custody in Manchester since the year 1842, and the
Noble Lord would see that crime had not increased in
that part of England. The number of persons taken
into custody in Manchester in

1842 were ... 13,801
1844 10,700
1846 ... •.. ... 7,600
1848 ... 7,200
1349 4,600
1850 ... 4,578
—(Hear, hear.) A similar return for the whole of Eng-
land and \Vales would show that the committals had
diminished from 31,000 in 1842, to 27,000 in 1849, not-
withstanding the increase that had taken place in the
population.—(llear, hear.) The proposal brought for-
ward by the Hon. Member for Bucks would only serve
to delude—not the owners of land in that House, for
they understood these tricks—but the farmers of the
country.—(Oh!) Ho believed that one great result of
the repeal of the corn-laws would be that the farmers
would no longer regard themselves as a separate class,
having special claims on the House of Commons to at-
tend to their interests. The sooner the farmers made

themselves independent of their landlords, so far as the
feudal system was concerned, the sooner they could
make a bargain with their landlords in the same way
that they made a bargain with their grocer, the sooner
would they get cut of their difficulties. The only way
to relieve agricultural distress was for the farmers

to exercise V those virtues and talents by which the
rest of their countrymen prospered. If they did
that he believed that, with the means of com-
munication, and with the markets they possessed, not
only the agricultural, but also the manufacturing in-
terest, would be found to triumph.
Mr. REYNOLDS said, the Hon. Gentleman had in- ,
formed the House that the motion of the lion. Member
for Buckinghamshire was intended to delude the House,
and delude the farmer. He regretted he did not include
a certain portion of that House, and himself also—
(Laughter)—as he was about to vote for it.—(Hear and
laughter.) Hi was particularly anxious to state the
ground upon which he felt it his duty to record that
vote. He heard his lion. Friend any that there was a
protection required; and he agreed with him that if the
proposition of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
could be construed, either directly or indirectly, to mean
protection, he would be found voting against him. If
it could ae construed to mean an attempt to raise the
price of bread, he would bo found voting against him.
But what was the motion ? That in the financial ar-
rangements for the year due regard should be paid to
the interest of land. In his proposition there was not a
word about protection—(Hear)--but it occurred to him
that it bore this construction, that as there was a sur-
plus of 2,000,000/., there was a reasonable struggle be-
tween the .two interests as to which would have the
larger relief. NOW, passing from England, he would
cross the Irish Channel, where there was an island con-
taining 8,000,000 of inhabitants. The eight millions in Ire-
land derived their support chiefly from agricultural pur-
suits, and Ireland ought not to be blotted out of the map.
Let them consider what the agriculturists had to deal
with. Within the last year 1,500,000 quarters of wheat
had arrived from France—more than one-half of it in
flour—and within the last two months a cargo of flour
had arrived in Dublin, also from France, and he had it
on the best information that not more than a week had
elapsed since it had been taken from the mill. In this
country the capital invested in flour mills would not re-
alise one-fourth of the original investment. He defied
any honest man to prove that free trade had conferred
any benefit on Ireland. He (Mr. Reynolds) was a Free-
trader—(A laugh)—but he was not for one-sided reci-
procity. They had given Ireland the poor-law, and be
had no doubt they had done so with the best intention,
but that law cost the landlords of Ireland two millions.
—(Hear, hear.) And then there was the grand jury
cess on laud alone to the amount of 1,300,0001. per
annum, and which was devotod to the support of gaols,
hospitals, and lunatic asylums. In addition to these
burthens, the tithes had been converted into a rent-
charge, and they had made the Church the owner of the
fee, and not the landlord. He recollected that a charge
had been brought against himself and other Irish
Members for voting as they did on the 14th of last month,
and it had been said what an extraordinary set of fel-
lows these Irish Members are to vote as they did.—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Twenty Irish Members

_ -
voted in the minority,' some voted the other way, and
some got tickets of leave.—(Laughter.) He would tell
them what happened to some of these Members. Their

constituents read their votes and their spe,ches, for
somehow these matters became known.—(Laughter.)
Meetings were held, and votes of censure were passed on
some of them. [An HON. MEMBER—Is that all?] No,
it is not all: there was something more.—(Laughter.)
Votes of censure, as he had said, were passed on some of
them, and absolution was given to others on the terms
that they should go and sin no more.—(Laughter.) Pro-
tection was the cry, but ho was not to be gulled by that
cry. The time of delusion for Ireland had gone by.
The people of Ireland read the votes and the speeches of
their representatives, and he hoped they would read his.
—(Hear, and laughter.) It was not protection that was
meant by the present motion—it was a scramble for the
booty, and that the agricultural interest should get a share.
—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Ministerial
benches.) It was said that the object of the motion was,
to put out one Ministry and to put in another; but even
at that risk he (Mr. Reynolds) would give his vote for
the motion.—(llear, hear.) He came into that House to
support the Noble Lord; but, if the Noble Lord had

deserted his principles, ho (il% Reynolds) had not de-
serted his.—(Hear, hoar, and laughter.) Ho might be
told that this vote would not decide the fate of the

Minister, but he could not help that. It mattered little
0 Ireland who held the helm of the State, provided the
Government attended to the wants of the people.—(Hear,
hear.) It mattered little to him whether the Noble
Lord or the Right Hon Baronet (the Member for Ripon)
—(Loud cries of " Hoar, hear," and laughter)—or the
Noble Lord whose name had been so notorious in con-
nexion with protection, held the reins •of power. Ire-
land wanted measures and not men. They had got rid
of the sectarian .and political prejudices which had so
long been the bane of the country. Upon one point all
parties were bound up together, and that it was to do their
best to raise Ireland from the position in which bad
legislation had placed her.—(Hear, hear.) Let him call
the attention of the Noble Lord and his colleagues to the
fact, that they would have the majority of the Irish
Members voting in favour of the motion of the Hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire (M. Disraeli).—(Cries of
" Oh, oh," and " No.") The Hon. Member might cry
" No," but one could not speak for 150 Members. Lot
him remind the Government that fifty-three Irish Mem.
hers voted in favour of the motion of the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Stamford (Mr. Herries).—
Cries of " Divide.") Members were anxious to divide,
and he would not longer trespass on their attention.
They were about to enter upon the Easter recess. The
Irish Members were on the eve of returning to Ire-
land, and if he (Mr. Reynolds) should be asked his
opinion as to the manner in which Ireland had been
treated by her Majesty's Ministers, he should feel it his
duty to give them the worst possible character.—(oh.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the Hon. Gentleman had no need to occupy so much
time in telling the House his reasons for voting against
the Government. It was not many nights since he had
informed the House that whatever were the principles of
the Government he should oppose, them.—(Hear.) They
all knew the cause. But though the Government might
regret the loss of the Hon. Gentleman's support, they
could not on his account compromise their principles.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should not, there-
tore, attempt to reconcile the former votes of the Hon.
Gentleman with his recent votes, nor to explain the dif-
ference between his previous speeches in favour of free
trade and his present speech in favour of protection.—

(Hear.) Neither should he (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) occupy the House for any time, as he hal done
so only very recently. He would merely observe to the
Noble Lord the Member for Colehe,ster that he ought
not to give credence to the gosstppicg stories ho might
hear; and with respect to the Hon. Member for sucks,
he should not follow him into all the facts of his speech,
but contiin his observations to the details of the
motion. Like his Right Honourable Friend (Mr.
Labouchere), he was a good deal puzzled by the
Hen. Gentleman's motion. As it originally stood it
had some sense, but now it had none. The Hon. Gen-
tleman declared himself favourable to a repeal of the
window tax; but on the face of such a declaration now
he had taken the extraordinary course of moving an
amendment on the motion for going into Committee to
repeal it. The Hon. Gentleman had, it is true, talked of
some indefinite relief; but he had made out nothing
clear, except that in which he had had the assistance of
the Right Hon. Gentleman near him. The purpose of
the amendment was to defeat the repeal of the window-
tax, because if it was carried the motion tor the repeal
of that tax would ho lost. If the Hon. Gentleman sup-
ported, as he said he did, the proposition of the Govern-
ment, he should not have moved his amendment. The
Hon, Gentleman said the proposal of the Government
gave no relief to agriculture. Did country grntlemen,
however, pay no window-tax? Did tenant-farmers use
timber.—(Hear)—or live in houses which paid window-
tax? It they did, then, wcy,ld they not get relief to the
same extent as the rest of the community?—(dear,
hear.) The Honourable Gentleman said that the pro-

posals made to repeal the duty on seeds, and to take a
portion of the expense of lunatic asylums by the Govern-
ment, was received with silence. Ho (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) begged to say that it was, on the
contrary, received by the Hon. Membcrs for Peterbo-
rough and North Warwickshire with opposition. Yet the
former was the single one paid by the occupying tenant.
If, therefore, the tenant-farmers complained hereafter
that they did not get their seeds as cheap as they might
have got them, it was to the owners of the land and not
to the Government, they owed it to.—(Cries of " Oh,"
and Hear.) When he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer), however, withdrew these propositions, ho was
prepared to prove that he gave the agricultural interest
under his new plans far more than he withheld from
them. What single tax, except perhaps the income-tax,
pressed so heavily upon the agricultural interest as the
window-tax; and was its reduction, therefore, nothing ?
The amount of relief to the agricultural interest, through
the relief of the charge for lunatics and the duty on
seeds, amounted to little more than a farthing in the
pound on the rating of that interest; but, besides a house-
tax being a more just and equal tax, he (the Chancellor
of the Exchequer) could show that the repeal of the
window-tax gave an amount of relief that bore no pro-
portion to this amount. Taking eight counties in Eng-
land, of which two were manufacturtng counties, with a
large town-population, and six purely agricultural, the
result of the remission of taxation was as follows:

Lancashire paid the amount of the present window-tax.
Yorkshire
Hampshire c;.3

• lP -7
Bedfordshire
Essex
59
Lincolnshire
Norfolk
Suffolk
The relief to the last six was, therefore, much greater
than that to the first two; and it could not consequently
be said that the agricultural interest in those counties
did not get relief, at least in the same proportion as the
town population in the manufacturing counties. The
whole amount that had been proposed to be taken on
the Consolidated Fund for the support of lunatic asylums
was 150,0001.; but the remission of the window-tax on
the six last named agricultural counties alone was equal
to 70,0001., or one-half of the whole sum in question.
It was true he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did
withdraw what he proposed originally to give; but it
was equally true that he had not been unmindful or
negligent of the interests of agriculture. The Noble
Lord the Member for Colchester had said the proposi-
tion of the Government had no regard for the peasantry
of England. But the fact was the other way, for the
peasantry were never so well off as now.—(Hear, hear.)
The reduction in prices had been, in these respects,
greater than the reduction in wages. Prices had, in
some cases, fallen one-half; would any Hon. Gentleman
say wages had fallen in the same proportion?
Mr. BOOKER said they had in the iron districts.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
these were not agricultural districts, to which alone he
he had alluded. The Hon. Member for Bucks had put
into his mouth an argument he had never used. The
Hon. Member for Stafford had warned them against
rural demagogues. Nov, such persons as would go to
tenants—incite them to pay no rent—and recommend
them to mount their horses and ride into Manchester,
these he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) held in as
much abhorrence as the Honourable Member himself.
But the policy which Honourable Gentlemen opposite
pursued and advocated might encourage rural orators to
do something in another sense. lie could not help
thinking, notwithstanding that they so carefully con-
cealed it, that the main object of the Hon. Members
who supported the present motion was the establishment
of the Sc.duty on corn. With respect to the window-

Lax, lion. Gentlemen said he shotild have carried the

tax lower. Now there was no doubt but that he might
have so arranged the tax as to bring some 25,000 or
30,000 more houses under its operation; but in so doing
he would not have realized a greater revenue than
40,000/., and for such an amount as that he did not wish
to hazard the success and popularity of the entire pro-
position by bringing such a largo number of persons
under taxation for . the first time.—(Hear, hear.) Ho
saw no reason to doubt that the House was in favour of
his proposal, and if they agreed with him they would
vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Buck-
inghamshire. Lot no one fancy they could agree in
opinion with the Hon. Member for Bucks and with him
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) also.--(Hear, and
cries of " Divide.")
Mr. W. MILES said, the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer having thrown overboard the owners and occupiers
of land, now sought to reconcile his total neglect of that
class of persons, whom he stated to be in a condition of
great distress. The Right Hon. Gentleman stated that,
although the owners and occupiers of land were in a
state of distress, the labourers were not so, for that they
had every article of necessity at only one-half the price
it used to be. Then, he would ask, was the labourer's
malt, his tea, his coffee, his rent, less by one-half than
formerly.—(Hear, hear, and loud cries of " Divide.")
The Right Hon. Gentleman said that the Hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire had a design for the re-imposi-
tion of a duty on corn behind his present motion.—
(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") Such was not the
case. He had not heard one word leading to such a
conclusion in the speech of the Hon. Gentleman or any
one who supported him. They ought to consider well
to what they might drive the agricultural interest. If
they refused that interest justice, nothing was left them
but to try, not the feeling of the House, but the sense of
the country. They would endeavour to go back to the
system which was believed to be thoroughly expired.—
(Criss of "Divide." The Hon. Member here went into
various statistical details (which were very impatiently
received by the House), proving the depreciation of
landed property and produce, and the consequent dis-
tress prevailing, and concluded by announcing leis inten-
tion of supporting the motion of his Hon. Friend.
Mr. NEWDEGATE end other Hon. Members,
amongst whom was we believe Sir R. Peel, rose together.
There were cries of " Divide, divide," and "Peel, Peel."
The Ilon.Gentleman proceeded to address the House amid
much noise and confusion, but was totally unheard in
the gallery. He was understood to say he considered
the remedies proposed for the agricultural classes as
totally insignificant in amount, and entirely dispropor-
tioned to the wants of the case,—(Cries of " Divide.")
The Hon. Gentleman having in vain attempted to
make himself heard amidst the uproar that prevailed in
the House, resumed his seat.
Lord J. RUSSELL rose to say, that, es ho thought it
most desirable the House should divide that night, he
trusted, in order to enable them to come to a division,
which could not then be far off, that those Hon. Gentle-
men who wished to address to the House their reasons
for their vote would be listened to.
Mr. NE WDEGATE again rose, amidst cries of
e spoke, spoke." All that ho had wished to statewtahes,
that he had expressed a distinct opinion that, as
Right Hon. Gentleman had proposed to remit or reduce
taxation to the amount of 1,500,000/,, and as one-eighth
of that reduction would apply to the most distressed in-
terest in the country—the agricultural body—it was a
very insignificant equivalent for the distress of which
they complained. Ile also wished to say that the Right
Hon. Gentleman had, on two occasions, unfairly endea-
voured to saddle him with the onus of withdrawing his
paltry tender of delayed justice. lie had said nothing
whatever with respect to the transfer of the cost of the
pauper lunatic asylums to the Consolidated Fund being
insignificant.
Sir R. PEEL said, in order that no misconstruction
might result from the conscientious vote ho was pre-
pared to/give that night on the motion before the House,
and being unwilling to detain the House with any state-
ment of his views, however desirous he might bo of
doing so, if they were discussing any financial or com-
mercial scheme, with the view of introducing changes
in the free-trade policy of 1846—(11ear, hear)—yet,
as one of that class comprised under the denomi-
nation of owners and occupiers of land—that class which
was allowed to be suffering under great and unparalleled
distress—that influential class from which greater and
more enduring benefits flowed to the industry of the
country and the poorer classes than from any other—
certainly than from the paltry professions of certain po-
litical economists—as one of the country gentlemen of
England, whose interests were not antagonistic to those
of the poorer classes, but were rather indissolubly united
with their permanent prosperity—as such he felt that he
could not give a silent vote on the present occasion, but
state briefly that, Free-trader as he was and landed pro-
prietor also, he would give his vote in favour of a measuree
which declared that, in any relaxation of taxation, some
attention should be paid to the claims of the owners and
occupiers of land.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord NORREYS, whe spoke amidst great
the motion,
and and continued cries for a division, opposed
and warned Hon. Members that every vote
Hon. Member
eill_efa;
your of the cleverly worded motion of the n. uab
against the
for Buckinghamshire was an indirect veto
repeal of the window-tax.
Sir W. JOLLIFFE explained with reference to what
had been said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of
his having repudiated the boon of the reductions—re-
ferring to clover seeds—that tne agricultural interest
would repudiate a boon which was wrung from the la-
bour of the poor.
After a few words
in explanation from the CHAN-
CELLOR of the EXCHEQUER,
Colonel SIBTHORP told the Noble Lord the Member
that he should never
for Oxfordshire (Lord Norreys)
attempt to stand for that county again. After the speech
of that night the Noble Lord could no longer bo con-
sidered as the farmers' friend,

Lord J. RUSSELL said, before the debate closed he
was anxious to call the tettertion of the House to the
delusion which he thought had been practised upon the
House and upon a great portion of the country by the
repeated motions of a similar nature which they had
been called upon to discust. The present motion, appa-
rently the smallest of the sort, merely proposed, instead
of going into Commitiee to condier the question of the
repeal of the window-tax, that in any relief to be granted
by the remission or adjustment of taxation, due regard
should be paid to the distressed condition of the
owners and occupiers of land in the United King-
dom. Well, as if the Honourable Member for Buck-
ingharnehire said, the window-tax was to be repealed,
and the Honourable Gentleman assented to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer's proposition upon that subject,
looking at the amount of surplus, it was quite clear that
no effectual relief could be given by the remainder of
that surplus to the owners and occupiers of land.—
(Cheers.) Then, if the question were taken as a general
question, admitting what the Hon. Gentleman had al-
leged es to the importance and the number of the landed
interest in this country, he should say that, if it were
possible to make any considerable remission of taxation,
Parlieinent could not remit the duties upon windows.
upon tea, or reap, or on any other of the chief articles of
taxation, without at the same time giving large relief to
the owners and occupiers of land. So he should say to
them upon this subject as upon all subjects which af-
feted the !ended interest, let them not look for any spe-
cial legislation in their behalf—let them not look for a
measure which would either fix a particular price for
corn, or to give them special exemptions from taxation,
but look rather to measures of relief which, along with
themselves, would affect the other classes of the commu-
nity; for if the prosperity of the community wore secured
they might depend upon it that that great and important
interest would prosper along with the rest of the Queen's
subjects.--(Cheers) The Hon. Member for Somerset-
shire said that be had heard no one declare in the course
of this debate—he certainly had not heard from the
Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire—that protection
was involved in this motion. And the Hon. Member
for Manchester (Mr. Bright) said ho believed that the
Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire had no in-
tention to restore the duties upon corn. Well, but if
that were the case, why was it, when the simple-
minded yeomen and farmers who desired the restora-
tion of protection went to the Honourable Gentleman
and other leaders of the patty oppcsite, and said to
them, " You ore continually bringing forward motions
witihrespect to local taxation ; but why do you not
at once ask Parliament to give us protection ? "—how
was it that the invariable answer was, "Although that
is not the direct, it is the indirect object of our motion ;
and you will find that if ever these motions are carried.
the restoration of protection will follow."—(Hear, hear.)
Here, then, he contended, was a delusion practised both
upon the House of Commons and upon that portion of
the community which still looked to the restoration of
protection, and the re-imposition of duties upon corn.—
(Cheers.) Every one knew by the test of the motion
of the Hon. Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. Grant-
ley Berkeley) last year, that if a direct motion for the
imposition of a duty upon corn were introduced in this
House, it would be, as it had been on that occasion, re-
jected by a large majority, yet the debates and divisions
upon such motions as the one now before the House
were exhibited to the farmers as a test of the opinion of
the British House of Commons. Ile said, then, that it
would be more fair and honourable if, as the Honourable
Member for Oxford had proposed, they said, " There are
certain duties which affect us, the landed interest; give
us relief with respect to these duties, and you shall not
again hear a word about protection from us, and that
great source of quarrel and dissension will for ever be
dried up." Either let them say that, or say fairly, oWe
stand boldly upon the question of protection. If protec-
dun is restored, we succeed; if protection is denied, we
fail."—(Loud cheers.) Let them place the matter upon
fair grounds like that. Let them not adopt these delu-
sive motions, which were unbecoming a great party in
the State, but put the issue fairly and openly before the
country at once.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL warmly condemned the rule
of action—he could not call it a principle or policy—
which the Hen. Member for Dublin (Mr. J. Reynolds)
had thought it his duty, before an assembly of British
gentlemen, unblushingly to avow—that whatever course
the Government might take, and whother;it was in accord-
ance with his own principles or not, he should vote against
them.—(Laughter and cheers.) Let the Irish Roman.
Catholic Itlembers recollect that nine out of ten of those
Ron. Gentlemen who on this side of the water had sup-
ported them in their resistance to the Ecclesiastical
Titles Assumption Bill opposed the motion of:Mr. Disra-
eli to-night because they would not stultify themselves—
because they were in favour of on adherence to principle,
and would not he dragged through the mire of those who
were ready, per foss et nefas, to oppose the Government.
—(Cheers, and " Oh, oh.") He now rose merely to
state that in the early part of the evening he was rather
in doubt how he should vote to-night; but he owned that
he had been converted.—(Laughter.) His mind was
now settled. The speech of the Hen. Member for Dub-
lin had settled it.—(Oh, oh, and laughter.) And ho
trusted the Members from Ireland would oppose the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, which
was meant simply to hoodwink the British public, and
to excite expectations amongst the agriculturists which
must surely be disappointed.—(Hear, hear, and Oh, oh.)
Dlr. KEOGH (amidst crieslof " Divide" end constant

interruptions) appealed to the House whether it lay with
the Hon. Member for Kerry to talk of Members of this
House being "dragged through the mire."—(Laughter
and cries of " Oh.") The illon. Member shrugged his
shoulders at the observation. He (Mr. Keogh) would
not say that he enjoyed the " Pleasures of Hope—(A.
laugh)—but surely he might be permitted to indulge the
"Pleasures of Memory"—(Laughter)—and his memory,
according to the Honourable Member himself, did not
require that he should go so far back as to pain the
recollection, for the Honourable Member had told the
House that he had come down this evening intending to
vote one way, and that he had determined on voting
another. —(" No, no," from Mr. M. J. O'Connell.)
Well, the Hon. Member came down with a saving doubt
in his mind respecting the vote he should give,
although in substance this identical question was
discussed some six or seven weeks ago in the
House.—(" Oh, oh," " Question," "Divide," and other
marks of impatience.) The Hon. Member took a broad
prospective view of all parties, and the result was that he
who had come down in doubt was now not only per-
fectly satisfied in his own mind as to the vote he should
give, but took upon himself to lecture those gentlemen
who had not come down in doubt, but were quite satis-
fied in their minds as to the propriety of the vote they
were about to give. He (Mr. Keogh) intended to record
his vote in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member
for Buckinghamshire, and was ready to defend that vote.
A few nights ago he went into the same lobby with the
Hon. Member for Kerry in support of the motion of the
Hon. Member for Waterford (Sir H. W. Barron), who
proposed that the House should go into Committee to
consider the distressed state of the people of Ireland.
And what was the motion of Mr. Disraeli but that, in any
remission of taxation that might be made, due regard
should be p that
distress to the distressed condition of the owners
and occupiers of land in the United Kingdom? and
ihie to t'eny, when
distress was existing it was in:mom-- h.
they found it admitted in the Qnee n's hisSec
reasons for
Sir THOMAS ACLAND, is givingMemberen for
supporting the amendment ofthe od:o:lore:in.thad
ad-
mitted that the agrßuckinghamshire, said that
agricultural class wasma deen ffbeyrtihnge
ff.rrioemnddsios-f
.ieultuarlal
tress, yet they resisted
that class to obtain inquiry
and
union amongst the agricultural class which
ieh relief. But there
was found,
iolcl
in principle, and which,
against beingt founded
efforts and designs
of a ulcdla ss gin principle,
eventuallyonst succeed
whom there was no union of principle.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL remembered the time when the
wo
Hon. Member (Mr. Keogh) was not so redhot a Liberal
as he now professed to. The Hon. Member for Dublin
(Mr. Reynolds) had thrown out two challenges. lie
said that were it not for free-trade the rates for the sup-
portwhvthat
H of the poor in Ireland would have been double what
wore.sthaey avote deniedieh that.
il h
He
he had
adli geien had
in beforebeouesen, een-
red for bat
he felt
condition to defend
his vote. With regard to the amendment now before
the House, if anything could induce him to vote for that
amendment it would be the speech of the Hon. Member
for I3nclzinghemshire.
Mr. H. GRATTAN did not rise to lecture the House.
nor to receive " lectures," which, as far as he was con-
cerned, passed unheeded as " the idle wind." But feel-
ing that the legislation of this House had ruined Ireland,
and brought death and desolation on her people, hun-
dreds. and thousands of whom, too, had been driven by
it to fly to America, he should vote for the amendment
of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamsbiro.
The House then divided, when there apPeoo
273
For going into Committee... • •
F- Mr. D' tie
50- • •

a_ or r. -Israeli's motion ...
Majority for the Government 13
This announcement was received with loud cheers by

the Opposition.
The motion for going into Con' was then agreed
to, and the House went into Committee.
Mr. DISRAELI asked the Noble Lord what businoal
Lord J. RUSSELL proposed to take the resolution. in
he proposed to proceed with on Mondayoso.ax
t?, then to pro-
ceed with the coffee and timber-duties,
to the window duties and hu
, and then to take
the second reading of the income-tax.
Mr.FRWE
N asked whether it was the Noble Lord's
intention ttine
toEgo on with a Committee of Supply before
Easter.
RUSSELL said ho .
did intend to propose the
Lord J.
Committee business Suvv"ly on
Mild not Monday,w but he as afraid the
state o
ffir. DISRAELI hoped permit him to do so.
ask the House to read the Noble Lord would not
Monday. the income-tax a second time on
Sir B. HALL thought that the Noble Lord should
opportunity of discussing the principle of
the house-tax.
Heproposed taking the sense of the
House upon it.
Mr• HUME.
con-
sidered that the
would • said
A simple question to be eon-
su would be whether they have the
house-
tax or the window duties.
.. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
the proposal was to proceed with the window-tax, which
was a house-tax assessed in a particular way. He would
propose to alter the mode of assessing that tax. The
Hon. Baronet might, no doubt, if he pleased, propose to
repeal both ono and the other.
Mr. HUME asked whether the motion of his Hon.
Friend near him was not virtually one to continue the
window duties?
Mr. SPOONER said, it was too late to consider
these matters then. He would, therefore, move that the
Chairman report progress.
After a few words from Mr. IL GRATTAN and Sir B.

HALL,
Lord J. RUSSELL said ho had . hoped that the
Committee would have assented to this resolution. As.
it appeared that. some Hon. Gentlemen were
hdeotweerinveinr'ed $o pop the bunneos, then he could not help it.