The Sun.
London, England, 1851-02-12 00:00:00

cellor of the Exchequer) was happy to state that that de-
mand was apparently inc. easi:,g in a:I the manuf,cturing
towns. He did not see how it was possible, with the im-
provements that had taken place in agriculture, and the
rearing of cattle, that a fall in prices could be avoided. The
Hon. Gentleman dirt not, in referring to the agriculturists,
seem inclined to dwell much on that topic, as it was noticed
in the Speech from the Throne. The Hon. Gentleman said
he would deal only with the owners and occupiers of land,
and ignored altogether the fact of the improved state of
the agricultural labourers, as shown by the diminished
burden thrown on the ratepayers for the relief of the poor.
Though the Honourable Gentleman was disposed to pass that
bv, as a circumstance too iusignificant to notice, he (the
Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought it of such im-
portance that he refreshed his memory on the subject by
the perusal of a speech made by the Noble Lord (March)
one of the Members for West Sussex, who stated that the
whole question of protection turned on the condition of the
agricultural labourer, and disclaimed it altogether as one in
which the landlord was interested. Hon. Gentlemen opposite
might now be willing enough to omit that view of the subject
altogether.--(" Hear, hear, • from the Free-traders, and loud
cries of " No" from the Opposition.) It was now admitted
on all hands that throughout the length and breadth of the
land, with the exception, perhaps, of some small districts,
the agricultural labourers were in a prosperous state, and
that even where the reduction of wages had taken place, that
reduction had not been commensurate with the advantages
derived from the reduction in the price of food, comfort, and
luxuries. He had seen a few days ago, an admission made by
a gentleman once a Member of that House, now chairman of
the Protection Society, and who was in the habit of delivering
Protectionist speeches in different parts of the country—Mr.
G. Frederick Young. At a great agricultural meeting, held
in the autumn of last year, that gentleman said he was ready
to admit the truth of the remark, that the mass of the peo-
ple were now enjoying an extraordinary degree of material
prosperity. He also observed, that since the repeal of the
corn-laws wages had been reduced, but not to an amount
equivalent to the reduction that had taken place in the price
of articles of food. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
set great store by that admission, for he had always con-
tended that that would be the result of free trade. Now,
this chairman and champion of the Protectionist Society ad-
mitted it to be the fact. He (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) would now show, from the poor-law returns, the
reduction that had been made in the expenditure incurred
for the relief of the poor. This he considered an important
point, for those expenses were charged as one of the extra-
ordinary burdens pressing upon agriculture.— (Hear.) It was
no slight matter for consideration that, by recent legislation,
not only was the amount paid for the relief of
the poor diminished, but also the number of the persons in
the workhouses. In the year ending Lady-day last, as com-
pared with Lady-day, 1849, there had been a diminution in
the expenditure incurred for the relief the poor of no less
a sum than 397,0001. In the year ending Michaelmas last,
which embraced a portion of the same time, there was a re-
duction in the expenditure, as compared with Michaelmas,
1849, of no less than 405,000/. Again, the number relieved
on the Ist of January last year, was 6 per cent. lower than
that of the preceding year. The Ist of January, 1850, as
compared with the Ist of January, 1849, showed a diminu-
tion of 15 per cent. On the Ist of July, 1850, as compared
with the Ist of Jaly, 1849, there was a diminution of more
than 15V2 per cent.; and comparing the number receiving
relief on the Ist January, 1851, with that of the Ist of Ja-
nuary, 1850, there was a further diminution of 14fr per cent.
For the last two years there had been a reduction of at least
15 per cent. of the number of able-bodied persons re-
ceiving relief throughout England, If Honourable Gentle-
men would refer to the return from which he quoted they
would find that there were only two counties in England,
neither of them exclusively agricultural, in which there had
not been a reduction in the number of able-bodied poor. It
was impossible, then, not to admit that a great boon had
been conferred on agricultural labourers by a reduction in
the price of food, while the reduction in the charges on the
poors'-rate must have proved a direct benefit to the owners
and occupiers of land.—( Hear, hear.) He was bound to say
that a similar reduction had taken place in Ireland ; and,
considering the extremity of suffering to which that country
had been redueed some time ago, the improvement was the
more remarkable. In the year ending September, 1848, the
number of persons receiving out-door relief was 1,419,000;
in the year ending September, Is-19, only 1,210,000, and
last year only a little more than one-fourth of that num-
ber, namely, 370,600.—(Hear, hear.) A more gratifying
proof of the improvement of the condition of the people could
not be conceived than that.—(Hear.) But the Hon. Gentle-
man said, that even with the benefit which the labourers de-
rived from cheap food, still they were not so well off as for-
merly He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) would soon
show how much the Hon. Gentleman was mistaken, and to
what extent the labourer was benefited. Taking the wa, es
of an ordinary labourer during the war at 155., and the pre-
sent wages at 101. and supposing that a labourer with a
wife and three children would require about ten loaves for
their weekly sustenance, the result would be, taking into ac-
count the difference of price since the war, that at the
end of the week the man with 15s. a week would
have a surplus of 2s. 6d., while the man with 10s.
a week would have a surplus of ss. 10d Again,
taking the average price of a quarter of corn, during
the war, at 80s.—the price which the corn-law of 1815 pre-
fessed to secure—and taking the average price of last
year at 405., then it is obvious that the labourer
obtaining 15s. a-week, under the system of high
prices, would be in a"much less favourable position than
the person now receiving only 10s. a-week. in fact, there
could be no doubt but the fall in the price of provisions was
far more than enough to compensate the labourer, even
though his wages were reduced so low as ss. a-week. He
hoped the House would permit him to state the fall that had
taken place in the price of some other articles of general
consumption among the poor. In doing so, he would not
go back to such a remote time as that of the
war, but only so far back as the year 1840.
In that year the price of best flour was 35., now it was
selling at Is. 10d.; second flour was then 25., now only
Is. Bd.; best sugari9d. per lb. in 1840, now only sid. ;
treacle sd. in 1840, 3id. at present; coffee 2s. 4d., now
Is. Bd. ; candles 6id., now 4id. ; tea from ss. to Cs., now
from 3s. to ss. There was hardly an item which the poor
man used that had not been reduced one-third or one-half

in price. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did
not believe that the distress of the agricultural interest was
so great or so universal as the Honourable Gentleman had
depicted it. In many parts of the country there were no
such complaints as those which the Honourable Gentleman
had noticed. In Scotland there was great competition for
farms, and where corn rents were given rents were rising
rather than falling. In Northumberland there was con-
siderable difficulty in letting farms, but in Cumberland there
was great competition for them. In fact, there was no
ground whatever for the allegation so frequently made, that
tenants could not pay rents at present prices, and that
nothing bat ruin awaited the farmer under the existing
system. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought
the language generally held forth at agricultural meetings
was much to be deprecated; it was calculated to do material
injury to the farmers, but more especially to the land-
lords; and if any bad feelings were excited by such
language against the Legislature, it would recoil upon the
agriculturists themselves, and the landlords would be the
first to suffer. He had waited to hear the proposal
which the .Honourable Gentleman had to make, but
he carefully abstained from making any intelligible pro-
position. The Hon. Gentleman referred to the tithe, but he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that, since the
Tithe Commutation Act, it was clearly understood that the
tithe formed simply a part of the rent, and he was somewhat
astonished at the pains the Hon. Gentleman took to mystify
a subject so clearly understood by everybody. With respect
to the cultivation of tobacco, it was true, as the Ron. Gentle-
man stated, that it was cultivated here twenty years ago,
but only to a small extent, and not with great success,
though raised under cover of high protection, for it had to
pay no duty at all, while foreign tobacco paid 4s. It was
calculated on a most hazardous and gambling system, and
with loss to all the parties engaged in the occupation. The
Hon. Gentleman said the subject had never been inquired
into. A Committee sat upon the subject in 1828, and their
opinion was that it was perfectly impossible that it could be
cultivated with advantage in this country, unless the
growers re:eived an enormous protection. If that protec-
tion were given. it would afford an unlimited opportunity
of fraud. Mr. H.,skisson, who drew up the report, was of
opinion that the most advantageous course would
be to prohibit the growth of tobacco in Ireland
as well as in England, in order to protect a revenue
amounting to about 4,500,0001. The whole of the tobacco
consumed would only cost about half a million, and it
would be very unwise, for the sake of that small benefit, to
sacrifice a revenue of 4,500,0001., which in some way or an-
other must be exacted from the community at large, and
probably in no small proportion from the agriculturists
themselves. The Hon. Gentleman also referred to the sub-
ject of making sugar
-from beet root. The farmers were at

U • a. 4, so
liberty to make sugar from beetroot if they pleased, by paying
a certainduty—they might manufacture on conditions similar
to those imposed on France. The Honourable Gentleman
next referred to the excise duties, namely, the hop duty, the
malt duty, and the duty on spirits, and remarked that he
(the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was inconsistent as a
free-trader in not removing all the excise duties laid on the
agricu tural produce of this country, more particularly the
malt duty. His notions of free trade, however, were not
such as to lead him to believe it possible to go on with-
outs
s!hlt shouldtuiall
should
possible
s oslr eifabvilslueee
such
on
infnao rtcaht revenueoaesraeas3cw't
taxes. His idea, however, was, that the taxes
mannereahroapshuatrodp opts
oerascsspspaoyws
only,istitbh
andlersan—sl.
little
iht ta
thatt
they duties
Hon. Gentleman seemed to forget the most importaßnleuttspervtihne;-
Ciple of taxation, in stating that those excise duties fell upon
the agricultural interest. It was the man who drank tea
and beer who paid the duties on them; and, as the consumers
were not confined to the agricultural interest, it would not
be either wise or prudent to sacrifice a revenue of 5,500,0001,
for the sake of the small advantage that would accrue to
that interest by the remission of the tax. But the argument
applicable to the malt was also applicable to spirits, and if
the duty should be remitted on the one, there could; be
no reason for retaining it upon the other. The
Honourable Gentleman was desirous to have duties
amounting to 15,000,000/. or 16,000,000/. removed,
but he left that material topic without suggesting any
mode in which the same amount of revenue could he
more conveniently raised. He (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer) had listened with some anxiety to the Hon. Gen-
tleman when he promised to tell the House what he was
going to propose, but the Hon. Gentleman had left the
House in complete ignorance on the subject. The Hon.
Gentleman then referred to the local rates, and stated that
7,000,C031. out of 12,000,000/. were paid by the landed pro.
prietors. The Honourable Gentleman's fallacy on this point
arose from his confounding all the owners of real property
with those who were merely owners of land. The
parties entitled to relief (if any relief was due) were the
producers of agricultural produce; but .when they talked of
taking off a large portion of the burdens on the owners of
land, they meant in effect to relieve those who had no pre-
tencea to relief. The Hon. Gentleman had said that agricul-
tural land paid 7-12ths of the whole amount charged upon
real property. The Hon. Gentleman was entirely mistaken.
nwere this c
countryont i nua 1 ltya d c h
ceasedangin
gto. beAagrgicreual!
tural land, and had become land connected with houses,
t
&c.—(Hear, hear.) There was a time, no
amount The pr oopfo r
landtit; n s
rdaoiul ri,:ta,dws,hceann
bayis'far the greatest amount of real property in
this country was land. It was not so now. The proportion
of burthena which land bears to the property of the country
is diminishing year by year, and therefore the relief year
after year extended to real property goes less and less to land.
In the year 1815 (which was the last assessment of the real
property-tax ), the whole value of real property in England
amounted to 53,000,000/. The land was assessed at
34,000,000/. In the year 1849 the whole amount of pro-
perty assessed to the property-tax was 94,000,0001., the land
being assessed at only 42,009,000/. That was to say, in
1815 land was 64 per cent. of the whole of the real property
of the country, whilst in 1849 it was only 44 per cent.
Therefore, of 1001. devoted to the relief of real property, 561.
went to the relief of real property, not consisting of agricul-
tural land, and 44/. to agricultural land. The facts of the
case prov,ed that the owners of land ware only a part and
parcel of the general community of this country, whose lot.
was cast with the community at large. But that portion of
the community could not be benefited by any special legis-
lation of the nature suggested by the Hon. Gentleman.
They must consider how they could best benefit the coin-