The Sun.
London, England, 1842-03-15 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVRNIN-Gr. MARCH 15, 1842.

perty. He begged, therefore, to move—" That it is
in-
expedient to impose any duty upon the importation of
foreign corn, until this House shall have inquired whether
there are any special burdens peculiarly affecting the
landed interest of this country or any special exemptions
enjoyed by that interest, and shall have ascertained their
nature and extent."

Mr. S. CRAWFORD seconded the motion

Col. T. WOOD (Brecknockshire) said he would only
address a few observations, as the subject was so mitch
exhausted after so many nights' debate, that if he at-
tempted to occupy the House at any great length, it
would not be disposed to listen to hire. Though the
Hon. Member seemed to think that there *ere no
peculiar burdens on land, and went through a long
string of figures, in which he could not very clearly
follow him, in order to make oat that the land was not
very heavily burdened, yet he held in his hand a paper
that had been laid on the table of the House, which he
thought would show that there was one peculiar burden
in which the poor of the country was deeply interested,
and for which the land was peculiarly responsible. In
1826 it appeared that the poor rate was no less
than 6,966,0001., of which 4,795,000/. was paid
by land, anti 1,814,000/ by dwelling-houses.
Ile was unwilling to draw before the House any contrast be-
tween the manufacturers and agriculturists, and the burdens
borne by each, because he did not stand up for the Corn-laws
on the ground that the land was solely interested in the ques-
tion, but because he maintained that renters were deeply inte-
rested on if.—( Hear, bear.) The Hon. Gentleman put out
of his view the price of the cultivation of land in foreign coml.
tries ; but a main consideration in the question was the price of
labourersproduction
would
n
ec otiunaot,rivne so, at nedf
ewmhpe
itohyemr e an t mi
futlht let ucdoe r
no-f
laws were abolished. That is the consideration which regulated
the Corn-laws for the last 150 years. Hon. „Gentlemen were
mistaken in supposing that the Corn-laws gave the agricultu-
rists particular gains. It is not the object of the Corn-law to
do that, but its object is, to prohibit foreign importa-
tion when the home supply was sufficient. That was
its object for the, last 150 years. In the year 1791
when the price was 51s. the dnty was very large, but when it
was 535. the duty was only 2s. 6d. If Hon. Gentleman
only looked at the law, they would find its character was to
regulate the importation according to the home supply, and not
to give agriculturists any particular favour. In the year 1815
a material change took place. and it was enacted that when the
price of corn was nnder 80s. foreign corn was prohibited, but
when it was 80s. unlimited importation was permitted. He
hoped the bonding system would never be departed from. It
was one which required a gradual scale of duties to bring the
corn gradually and smoothly into the market, and prevent a
supply from overstocking the market. He thought the Right
Hon. Baronet, in the measure which he had introduced,
had endeavoured to hold the scales as evenly as possible between
the whole of the interests of the country. However Hon.
Gentlemen opposite might endeavour to retard the progress of
the Bill he believed that people out of the House were con-
vinced that the present system was the one most likely to hold
out a fair prospect of a regular and steady supply of corn. The
whole trade in corn was suspended on account of the delay
given to the Bill now before the House: so he had learnt that
day from a gentleman from Mark-lane, and he was sure no
I greater injury could be done to our poor agricultural and
manufacturing friends, for whom he was equally interested,
that by de aying that measure.----( Hear, hear.)
Mr. GIBSON did not agree with the Hon. Gentleman who
last spoke, that we already had had'discussion enough. He (Mr.
G.) thought we had not yet had half enough of discussion on
the burdens on land.—(Cheers,) We have had, indeed,
a great deal about the sliding scale, and the
fixed duty, and the various concerns of the landed interest, but
on no one occasion yet had we had a solemn and grave discus-
sion as to the peculiar buydens on land.—( Cheers) The Hon.
and Gallant Colonel surprised him by referring to the poor
rates so far back as the year 1826, to shew the heavy burdens
on land. Why did not he refer to a later period ?—(Hear,
hear.) The rates were certainly heavy at a former period,
especially in the agricultural districts, because the wages of
labourers were paid out of the poor-rates—(Hear, hear)—
and thus the traders and the occupiers of land were taxed to
pay the farmer's labourers.—( Hear, hear.) The Corn-law
question was fairly before the House, and the country was
much indebted to his Hon. Friend, the Member for Sheffield,
for the able statements he had made.—( Hear, hear.) They
now asked what was the reason that restraints should be put on
the Corn-law tra le ?—( Hear, hear.) The onus of proving
the receipts of these burdens, lies upon the Legislature—it was
with them to show that there were peculiar advantages which
counterbalance those burdens. The manufacturers
contend that they had as good a right to produce
corn and other articles with their looms, by inter-
changing their produce with foreign markets, as
the agriculturists had to produce their corn. The manufacturers
say they have as good a right to get a price for their goods as
the agriculturists have to bring the produce of their fields to
market. When the Legislature imposed burdens upon them,
they were asked to show why they restrained them by sliding
scales and other measures of that sort. The Hon. Member
for Sheffield was right in saying that the peculiar burdens upon
land in England constitute the grounds upon which these bur-
dens could be imposed. The head of her Majesty's Government
talked of the necessity of being independent of foreign countries
for the supply of corn—it was clear his own proposition could
not be maintained by the reasons he had urged. In order to
keep England independent of foreign countries, as the popula-
tion of England increased, so ought the protection to increase :
the greater the number of the people, the stroger should be the
forcing power. If it was otherwise,_ you must inevitably fall
into the condition which the Right Hon. Baronet professed his
anxiety to avoid,viz., into a total dependence upon foreign supplies
of corn. The Right Hon. Baronet could not have any con-
fidence in his own measure. He (Mr. Gibson) did not wish
to use improper terms, but he should say he could not believe
that the Right Hon. Baronet had any confidence in his own
measure—it looked as if the Right Hon. Baronet was merely
pandering to the prejudices of the people.—( Hear, hear.)
The question before- the House relatritt, as the Hon. Member
for Sheffield had stated, to the peculiar burdens upon land in
this country, and not to the burdens borne by other countries ;
because, if the House were to consider the duties imposed upon
land in, other countries, they should have a different Corn-law
and scale of duty for each of those different countries.
Their only desire was that the pressure of taxation should be
distributed with justice ; if it were not so they were bound
to explain the reason of it, and if possible to dis-
tribute it 'equally. They had the power of doing so ;
it was Lbsurd to say that they had not ; and of all means
of making compensation, the most absurd was the grant-
ing protection, as it was called, because the commu-
nity was called upon to pay to an almost unlimited extent by •
such means. The Hon. Member for Sheffield was right in
asserting, that the peculiar burdens borne by the landed inte-
rest, was the only ground upon which they could ask for pro.
tection. It was very well to talk, at Agricultural Associations,
of agriculture being the great cause of national prosperity—it
was very well to tell the farmers that ; but it would not do in
that House, or among sensible men. It was idle to suppose
that the safety and prosperity of this great empire, with our
colonial possessions, depended upon keeping a few acres of dry
sand, or wet clay, in corn cultivation.—(Cheers.) The pe-
culiar burdens upon land, were the only grounds upon which
this protection could be justified ; and if they refused this
Committee, there would be good ground for the suspicion
which existed, that they were legislating for their own
pecuniary interests. Every one knew that, by
.increas-
ing the price of food, they increased their own incomes.
'at the expense of the community—(Cheers.) The Right
Hon. Baronet had admitted, by his constantly maintaining
that all the distress was not attributable to the Corn-laws,
that a small portion ef it was so. Now what right had
he by his laws to inflict even a little distress upon his country-
men ? If they refused this Committee, they would justify the
suspicions entsrtained of the motives. They had resisted the
importation of corn from Canada—they had resisted the im-
portation of corn from Ireland • nay, at one time the land-
owners in the neighbourhood of the metropolis had resisted the
formation of turnpike roads, because the opening a communi-
cation with the country would, by inducing competition, act
unfavourably on their pecuniary interests. Seeing these things
the people would be justified in suspecting that they were actu-
ated by the same motives at the present time, if they refused
the Committee. He would say that this corn question was
exciting a feeling among the thinking portion of the commu-
nity which had never been known in termer times. Hon.
Gentlemen mistook the matter if they thought there was not
an earnest desire to have the Corn-laws repealed. People were
beginning to feel, and to express the feeling, that you have a desire
to degrade and depress the commercial and manufacturing in-
terest, people begin to think, and they have reson for thinking.
that you wish to uphold agriculture by keeping down trade
—that you want to elevate one particular class by depressing
another. He would ask, if that was the feeling, whether it
was not calculated to arouse the bitterest animosity between
different classes in this country ? Was it fair or reasonable that
they should always be seeking to secure power and position to
a particular class by means of legislation, instead of endeavour-
ing to promote the general good, in which all should partici-
eate ? It was the feeling of this country that they were legis-
lating with a view to maintain one class in a particular position
in the social scale by depressing the manufacturing inte-
rest. Ile knew that many manufacturers had upheld
the agricultural interest, but he could tell them that.
this servile opinion was passing away and giving place
to loftier views of what was due to the claims of industry and
enterprise, and they would not be satisfied till they were placed
on a full, fair, and equal faoting with other classes of the
country, however high their rank, however elevated their
station, or however ancient might be their claims..---( Cheers.)
Mr. DARBY said he was not sorry. the House had been
counted out on the night the Hon. Gentleman had fixed for
his motion, as it had obliged him to develop° his views more
fully. If it was the object of the Hon. Gentleman to prove
that, if there were no particular burdens on land. there ought
to be no Corn-laws, he thought lie had mistaken the result of
the Corn-laws in the Corn-laws theinselves. But a small
portions of corn could be imported.at a time, a.uti if they threw
the corn laud of the country out of cnitivation, by reducing
the price below that at which it could be grown, they would
soom come to famine prices.—( Hear, hear.) The object of
the law was to keep corn at a moderate price, which would en-
courage its cultivation on our own soil. The authority of the
Import Committee had been referred to, but he would tell
Hon. Gentlemen opposite that that Committee was of no au-
thority whatever. It had exceeded its powers. Why, the
' other day, Lord Melbourne' himself declared that the report
had brought to his mind nothing new, and had not influ-.
enced any one of his opinions. Indeed the Noble Lord, the
head of the late Government, said he waa.indignant at its being
supposed that the report. had caused any one of his opinions to
be changed. If the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ward) had his
Committee, it should not be so narrow. The inquiry , should
be made a good deal wider.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gen-
tleman said that the malt duty was paid by the 'consumer' and
was, therefore, ne burden on the land. But did not the Hun.
Gentleman know hew much loss it entailed on the farmer, or
how often they went to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ask
leave to steep the barley to give to their cattle and it was pe-
remptorily refused,? Did not the Hon. Gentleman think that the
tobacco tax affected the farmers, when he knew that tobacco was
cultivated for a time in Ireland at a great profit, and was sup-
pressed because it interfered with the revenue.—( Hear, hear. )
But the object of the law was not to protect the farmers, or
compensate them for their burcens, but to secure a constant
supply of corn at a reasonable price ; and if the law was done
away with, then the price of corn would be raised to a famine
price.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. Jacob himself said, that if one-
tenth of the corn lard of this country were thrown out of cul-
tivation,_ the deficiency could not be made up from all Eurape.
Dr. BOWRING thought that the Hun. Gentleman who had
just sat down had a right to complain that they were not al-
lowed tp pultiyate tobacco and beet-root, if they did not want
to be protected lay a high duty on foreign produce of the same
kind. The Hon. Gentleman had referred to the Report of the
Import Duties C
by thoommßiigtthete.HoAn. gprletraotutertib(usteir had brieeeenoiriwahtoo
thitlidt 4.701;71:d irs recommendations with respect to 750 articles.
—( Hear, hear,) If this inquiry were gone into, Hon. Mem-
bers would find that there was no ground for alarm, on account
of an alteration in the Corn-laws. It was an
undoubted fact, that in almost every other country
but this, land was the great source of revenue. Mr.
:
11;iCouilie
liochhelestimated
hatbnadt, tliitealpanpielatraedx in France rtahnecetawxascael
called
lot to
-one-fifth or one-sixth of the whole revenue. From returns
Infpgf.PPlFiert Rnd Oalf sterling, and
the taxes of registration to seven millionssterling. The land
tai in France amouutod.to fourteen milliens of the whole reve-
nue, The land in this eountry was more productive than the
land in any other country, and could bear greater burdens in

consequence. But if land here was taxed at tbe same rate as
in other countries it should have to pay at least 00,00,000/. In
Switzerland they were taxed at one half of the exoe,ises of the
State. In Egypt the tax upon land fluctuated at ft om Bto 14
per cent. upon the value of the land. So GI., thttre fore, from
land being subject in this country to any peculiar hardship, all
the evidence went to show that the history of the leg islation of
this country was a history of exemption from burdens.--( Hear.)
It was but natural that the landed proprietors in thiti country
should have turned the power they possessed to their own
benefit. He could hardly blame them for it—it was the course
of human nature. All that was now asked was an inquiry into
the burdens which pressed in this country upon agriculture,
and to which such constant reference had of late been made..

Mr. SCARLETT was much surprised at the motion of the
lion. Gentleman opposite, which he must oppose, because he
did believe that the land was subject to peculiar burdens,
though the subject was an obscure one. It is the
opinion of the French economists that the land
ultimately paid all the taxes. The landlord being the largest
proprietor was the greatest consumer of luxuries, and conse-
quently the taxes on luxuries fell on him; and this view was
not the result of his own genius, but was derived from Adam
Smith's chapter 't On Revenue."—(Laughter.) If the House
went into Committee it would appear that. the landowners bore
all the burdens of the State.—( Laughter.) As the price of
corn regulated the price of all other commodities, if they re.
duced the price of it by one-tenth, they would reduce the
income of the country by one-tenth.

Mr. CHILDERS-- here was 'a
great distinction, of
which they should not lose sight, between land and
agriculture. It would be seen that every country in the
world had borne burdens on land heavier than England had
done. We raised an immense revenue, it was true, but
the land paid comparatively a Very small portion of it.
He could nut discover anything but the land-tax, which fell
exclusively on the land, and that amounted to but 1,400,00 W.,
or ab mit one-fortieth of the whole revenue of the nation,
while he believed-the burdens on land were not greater than
in other countries. In Holland it was not thought necessary
to have protective duties on the importation of corn on ac-
count of the peculiar taxes on the land, and yet, though the
importation into Rotterdam and Ostend was nearly free, the
price was generally from 50s. to 555. They must distinguish
between what were burdens on land and what were taxes on
agriculture. Thus tithes levied in kind he believed to be a tax
on agriculture. Under the old Poor-law, also, the system of
labour rates, and of roundsmen, was a burden upon the
farmer, but, by the Tithe Commutation Act, and by the New
Poor-law Act, those burdens had been removed. The
burden that at present pressed the most severely on the
farmer was, in his (Mr. Childers) opinion, the Corn-law itself.
The Corn-law inflicted the greatest injury on the agricultu-
rist, for, by holding out to him the temptation of an increased
price, it induced him to crop his land improperly. If the
Corn-laws were abolished, be doubted not but that agriculture
in England would soon be equal to what it was in Scotland ;
and that the farmers, by adopting improved systems, would
soon be able to defy foreign competition. —(Cheers. )
Mr. G. PALMER would not accuse the manufacturing
interest of being actuated by any desire ti injure the agricul-
tural interest; but, on the other hand, he could not admit that
the landed proprietors had any wish to starve the monufac-
turers. The two interests were mutually dependent upon
each other, and whatever injured the one must eventually in-
jure the other. The manufacturer was merely a bird of pas-
sage—was here to-day and may be in Belgium to-morrow. Ile
should not be very far from the truth if he was to say that some
manufacturers had embarked their capital in Belgium. He did
not mean to say that they had no right to do so. They had a
perfect right if the country permitted it. He would appeal to
the manutacturera on the other side of the House, if a bale of
cotton could not be purchased in Liverpool on a Monday morn-
ing and sent to Manchester, brought .baCk to Liverpool, and
shipped on the Saturday night? Could the agriculturist plough
his land, and sow his corn, and reap it in that time ?—( Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Brotherton) had
stated that the manufacturer used to.get Is. 9d. in the pound
of cotton after all the expenses were paid, and that now he could
not expect to get more than 61d. Now he (Mr. Palmer) would
like to know what he would say to the agticulturalits if he
expected even a profit of 61d. upon 5%d., the price of a
pound of cotton. Cotton— was purchased by the manu-
nufacturer at_ sd. a pound, and if he got 6%d. upon that he
had no reason to complain. But there were other advantages.
Now he (Mr. Palmer) would like to know how many times in
a year of full employ the manufacturer turned his capital, He
should say from seven to eight times a year, and oftener if there
was a demand for goods. he did not merely turn his capital,
but he worked by means of bills, a system carried on for the
last twenty years by which, in the course of a week or ten
days after-his original purchase, he could go again into the mar-
ket, and purchase a fresh supply of cotton. Could the agricul-
turist do this? He (Mr. Palmer) would like to know how he
could manage to work up his capitalmore than once a year, and
that a real and not a fictitious one. if he got twenty or thirty
per cent., he thought himself well off. The manufacturers of
this country were like a great snowball placed in the middle of
a large common. It was not with a view to promote individual
interest, but it was from a conviction that the whole interest of
the country, the existence of the security of the country, of pro .
perty and credit, every thing depended on the produce of the
soil; in fact, it was that which Almighty God had given to us to
support life, and this was the real and only capits.l they had to look
up to. He sincerely wished that, before this great measure
had been proposed, there had been a committee appointed to
inquire into not only what burdens were on one interest or the
other, but what burdens were existing which required protection
against foreign capital. Not that he would withhold the hand
of good fellowship from his neighbor". Far from it, he would
encourage foreign trade, but he would never sacrifice home
property to any foreign trade whatever. If they were but true
to themselves, no power on earth could injure them. What
was the case of the administration of Mr. Pitt ? Did he not
raise the interest of millions of the country. Did the country
not thrive under it —was not every individual at the end of the
war in a state of prosperity ? The Right Hon. Baronet would
find in levying his tax that therels a great faling off in the
wealth of the inhabitants. But he hoped the Right Hon.
Baronet would succeed in his measure. He (Mr. Palmer) had
not the slightest objection to the tax, and it would have his
hearty support,lbut he would not attempt to dress his fish before
ho caught it.
Sir ti. PEEL said he wished to call the attention of the
House badly to the time at which, and the circumstances
under which, the motion of the Hon. Gentleman was made, he
believed upon the fourteenth time that he had occupied this
House—( Loud cheers)—in the discussion of the Corn-laws.—

(Hear, hear.) And as yet they were not allowed to go into
Committee upon it. Some Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite
side of the House who differed from the Bill, who objected to
the principles and details of the Bill, yet who seeing the large
majority by which that Bill had been carried—considering to e
sense of the House hat been fully and fairly expressed—con-
sidering that the trade of this country, and especially the trade
in corn —( Hear, hear)—was so embe-rassed on account of the
delay—seeing that that Bill was admitted to be a great improve-
ment on the present law—(Cheers)—by many opposed to it—
seeing that they admitted that it was a mitigation of the exist-
ing evils, arising from the present state of the law, have come
to the conclusion, perfectly justifiable in my opinion, that the
the sooner the question was settled the better.—(" Hear,
hear," and Cheers.) The question, in his opinion, for them
to consider was whether or not there was a prospect of over-
ruling the sense of a majority of that House. If there was
not, then they ought not further to protre et discussion. Many
Hon. Gentlemen having had the whole of last Session to con-
sider the propriety of this motion—knowing that the Corn-
laws were under discussion—foreseeing that they would be un-
der discussion, had full opportunity of appointing a Committee
in the last Session. But the Hon. Gentleman permitted them
to have thirteen nights of debate, one on the motion for the
Bill, three on the motion of the Noble Lord for a fixed duty
instead of a graduated scale, five nights debate on a subject
identical with it, viz. an absolute repeal, four other nights since
that, making altogether thirteen nights ; and on the fourteenth
the Hon. Gentleman proposed
that the whole of the Corn-law
Bill should be suspended until a Committee shall have made
its report. Now what he (Sir R. Peel) called upon the Hon-
Gentleman to do was in fairness to adhere to his own notice.
The object of this notice was not to mislead.—( Loud cheers
and laughter.) If the object of it was to instruct the
House...and inform them what was the nature of the motion
which ought to be brought forward the Hon. Gentleman would
not have had occasion to ransack musty speeches or looking
for old debates in 1834, but, after thirteen nights of debate,
when the country was expecting the House would, at last, de-
tide what was to be the law regulating the importation of corn,
the Hon. Gentleman came down and occupied their time; not
but resuscitating old
swpiet reference k
tt ot h
et h
De euzei s toi f
eekbiantgeh,
am had said, and what
he (Sir R. Peel) had said in 1834, and to satisfy the impatience
of the country by reference to the proceedings of six or seven
years ago. But he (Sir R. Peel) asked the Hon. Gentleman
who had given so much time and attention, at lest to make up
his mind what his motion would be.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
lie (Sir R. Peel) came down that night, presuming that the
Hon. Gentleman would have given so much attention to the
subject that he would have, at least, adhered to the notice he
had given--a perfectly legitimate notice, which ran thus:—
"On the motion that the Speaker do leave Chair, to go into
Committee on Corn Importation Bill, to move that it is
inexpedient to impose any duty upon the importation
of foreign corn, until the House shall have inquired whether
there are any special burdens peculiarly affecting the landed
interest of this country, or any special exemption enjoyed-by
that interest, and ehail have ascertained their nature and ex-
tent." He (Sir R.. Peel) asked the Hon. Gentleman to stand
by his own notice. He asked the Hon. Gentleman to ask for
leave to withdraw the motion, rid adhere to his own notice.—
( Hear, hear.) Let him (Sir It. Peel) fairly understand whe-
ther the House was then to pass that Corn-law Bill, and pro-
ceed to its completion by that House, or whether or no it should
be postponed indefinitely, until the Hon. Gentleman had
formed his Committee. He (Sir R. Peel) asked the Noble
Lord (Lord J. Bessell) who •sat smear the lion. Gentleman,
whether it was not consistent with the usage of Parliament,
that he (Sir R. Peel) should ask for the notice being adhered
to? When a notice was brought forward by the lion. Gentle-
man for a Committee, it was competent to him to renew that
notice, but the Hon. Gentleman had expressly joined issue
with him (Sir R. Peel) as to whether they should go into Com-
mittee, or whether he should—perfectly fairly and legiti-
mately, he admitted—take the tense of the House
be appointed to in.
n
forward that mo-
-0(11: trhe, s
veoswt
ntshi
satte an
tClyoamnmd iftatierel
ys ht
ooubl dr n g
tion, he had ample time, considering the discussion; but it
note he( shira dßohbi
Robert Peel)if won't( not given notice.
consent to the supension of the Corn-law Bill, until such a
was perfectly unusual for an Hon. Gentleman to give notice,
and not to say one single word to those opposed to him of his
intention to change that notice, . and to make a whole speech,
and then at the close of it to bring about a motion by with-
drawing
Whether
Committee should have been appointed, and made its report.
Putting that Report altogether out of consideration whether or
not it 'was fit to suspend that bill, they might depend they
thistha t was motionfitt in g o f o r which
h
would not carry public feeling with them. They knew in the
last Session that-he (Sir R. Peel) never attacked the Noble
Lord with what amount of burdens there were; but what he
said was, that the Noble Lord would labour under great difficulty
when he proposed his Bs. daty to cover the burden on land.
He (Sir R. Peel) said that the objection would equally apply
to any protection, for, if they were called upon to shoW the
burthens, the objection wouid apply to a fixed duty. He dSir
R. Peel) rested his proposition upon a combination of interest.
He stated, in the first place, that in consideration of that pro-
tection, they must look to the 150 years that capital had been
invested under a system of protection to agricultural produce.
He (Sir R. Peel) stated, that nothing could be more unwise
than to risk disturbing new interest by withdrawing that pro-
tection rapidly, without full consideration, and under which
capital had been applied to the cultivation of land. He ( Sir
R. Peel) stated, that any person was perfectly right to differ
from him. He stated, as another reason, it gave protection
whets it was necessary to the cultivation of the soil, and the
growth of domestic produce, and to prevent dependence upon
foreign countries lie (Sir R. Peel) stated, that it was neces-
sary that protection should exist as an insurance against
any possible calamity. He (Sir Robert Peel) had
stated, . that there were especially peculiar burdens
affecting land, as compared to ether great interest.
The lion. Gentleman ridiculed the notion of tithes being a
burden. He wondered how any one could be absurd enough
to suppose that tithes were a burden on land. The Hon.
Gentleman was a great authnritys but there were others equal
to him, who entertained a different opinion. They wrote at a
liras comparatively barbarous.—( Laughter and cheers.) He
would mention Adam Smith. What Adam Smith said was,
that taxes upon the produce of land were really taxes upon
rent, that they were paid by the landlord, and were considered
as a land tax. The Right Honourable Baronet then read
an extract from Adam Smith, Which stated that the

-
is tithes fell upen the landlord idconntries where there was an Es-
tablished Church, and was a great discouragement to agricul-
ture. But the Hon. Gentleman would say there had been
considerable alteration in the tithes as they were commuted.
The Right Hon. liaronet then read an extract from Mr. lii-
cardo, which stated the opinion of the writer, that the tithes
were a great, burden on the land, and justified a duty of ten
This was the opinion of Mr. Ricardo. He might be
entirely wrong, and the Hon. Gentleman right, but they
differed from the Hon. Gentleman. He ( Sir R. Peel) would
say, en the part of the landed interest, that there was no pressure
upon him to resist that inquiry, as the result would be unfa-
vourable. But he could assure the Hnn. Gentleman, that if
that inquiry took place it would occupy rather more than ten
days. The authority of the Hon. Gentleman was great ; bur
without disrespect to the lion. Gentleman, there were others
equally great.—(Laughter.) To what extent the burdens
imposed upon land must be determined rather be general rea-
soning, than taking the entire charge. Another burden the
Hon. Gentleman had referred to was the poor-rate, and he
stated that this burden fell equally upon the tradesman and
landlord, but the lion. Gentlemon must remember that
the recent alteration took those rates from the trades-
men, and they were entirely on the land. —( Hear. )
Of late years, however, there had been a more equal and just
apportionment, but if lie looked to the amount of poor-rates he
must say that a very large proportion of the amount was levied
upon land. When he looked to the returns he found that in
1826 the proportion of rates upon lands, houses, and other
species of property was, 4,523,000/. upon land; 1,788,0001.
upon dwelling.houses ; and 255,000/. upon mills, factories,
and other species of property of that sort. He did not quote
those returns: as an accurate statement of the relative burdens
upon the different species of property to which he referred.
Then again there was the malt-tax—that was levied from
barley aloae, the produce of the land, not less than 10,000,0001
antually. If soca a sum was levied from one article, it was
very difficult to say what amount of restriction there was upon
land, for if a restrictive duty was imposed upon the produce of
the land, it was just as great a restriction as if it was placed
upon the land itself; and after all the lengthened and various
discussions of that Committee it would remain excessive.
These were the general impressions which induced him (Sir
R. Peel) to submit to the House that the present practical
question was, whether he should postpone the Corn.law Bill
indefinitely. The expression made use of by the Hon.
Member (Mr. Ward) who brought forward the motion,
that it might be a very " tedious business"—( Cries of
" Hear, hear")—so lit might he a very " tedious business" if
the lion. Gentleman's motion was adopted, but he (Sir R.
Peel) would ask the House to consider what the country would
think of him, if he said that he would acquiesce in a motion
which would postpone the measure which he had submitted to
the House, merely because a very plausible argument was urged
in its favour by the Hon. Gentleman opposite.—(Cheers, and
ironical cheers from the Opposition.) Would it be said that
he should postpone the Corn-law Bill—leave the interests of
larullords and of tenants, and of men who derive income
from corn—in a state of uncertainty, until the Ho-
nourable Gentleman opposite should, in three sessions hence,
have his motion brought to a determination. For these
reasons, he (Sir Robert Peel) should give his most decided
opposition to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman.—( Hear.) '
Mr. STRUTT said there was a great deal of inconsistency
in the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet. The question was
not whether tithe was a burden on land, but whether it was a
burthen on landholders.—(Cheers and counter cheers.) The
Right Hon. Baronet must have weedy changed his opinions
within the last one or two ye.rs, for it appears that some time
ago he entertained the opinion that those rates were not a charge
upon land. On the 24th of July, 1840, the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet delivered a speech in which he stated that it was exceed.
ingly unjust that Dissenters should be expected to pay church-
rates, and why he should now turn round and say that landlords
ought to receive compensation for the burthens imposed upon
them, by taxing other persons for them, was most inconsistent.
From alt that was said upon the subject this evening it was
most satisfactorily proved to the House, that hitherto there had
been no sufficient reasons shown to justify the exemption of
landowners and the imposition of burdens upon other classes of
the people of the country. The burthens in respect to
poor-rates were increased generally in proportion with the
increase of population, and it seemed to him (Mr. Strutt)
most unjust that the landlords should now have any claim
upon Parliament for redress, upon the grounds that there were
great burdens upon land. The burdens to which land was now
subject hail been imposed for many successive centuries. It
could be shown that all the old feudal burdens had been com-
mitted for a specific tax. So that even taking an antiquarian
view of the matter (which, however, he did not then mean to
take), and even in the whole course of the debates of that

House he had never heard any which appeared to him to have
been so very decidedly on one side of the question, and that
upon his (the Opposition) side, as the debate of that night—
( Laughter and ironical cheers)—he was quite sure, at all
events, that a case had been made for inquiry, although he felt
it was not easy to satisfy Hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side
of the House.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) It was objected
that his Hon. Friend's motion was too minute. Now, ho ap-
pealed to the House, whether, if it was shaped in a different
way, in order to meet that objection, it would not be said the
terms of it were so vague and uncertain that it could never be
brought to a conclusion. The Right Hon. Baronet had said
something like that even as the motion stood at present. On the
whole he would give his most hearty and cordial support to the
motion of his Hon. Friend.

Mr. COBDeN begged—leaye to remind the Hon. Baronet
that immediately after the Queen's Speech had been delivered,
he had taken the earliest opportunity to ask the Right Hon.
Baronet to state to the House what the special burdens were
to which her Majesty's Speech referred—the answer given by
the Right Hon. Baronet was, that the proper time to answer
that inquiry was in his speech in the debate ; the Right Hon.
Baronet delivered his speech and did not define what those
burdens were—he was then again asked to state what they
were, and he declined to do so. Then the Hon. Member for
Sheffield brought forward his motion, and instead of being
censured by the opposite party for doing so, as he had been,
the Hen. tientlernan ought to have their thanks for giving
them an opportunity of answering these inquiries which it is
reasonably expected they should answer. The Hon. Member
(Mr. Ward) gave notiee of his motion for Thursday last, on
that day there were 30 or 40 Gentlemen on this (the Oppo-
sition) side of the House, but the benches opposite were
vacant—the Members on that side of the House were whipped
away—(Laughter)—because he (Mr. Cobden) heard when he
came down to the House at four o'clock, that it was determined
the motion of his Hon. Friend was (in vulgar parlance) to be
"bucked "—he had observed that Hon. Gentlemen who
were constantly at their devotions in that House—(Laughter )
—were on that occasion absent—even the Hon. Baronet the
Member for Oxford, was nit at prayers on that evening.—
( Question, question)—and now that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
Ward) had brought his motion forward to-night, and though
there was a House, it seemed they were not to have a discus-
sion ; there was some reason or other why the Right Hon:
Baronet would not entertain the question—some said it ought
to have been introduced long ago, but he (Mr. Cobden) ap-
pealed to the Right Hon. Baronet and the country whether,
after what had taken place, it should be said that the peoplo
were anxious for the passing of the Corn-law Bill. As- far as
his constituents were concerned, he could say they were most
opposed to it. He had then a resolution which was unanimously
agreed to at a public meeting held at Stockport the other day,
in the open air, with the Mayor in the chair—( A laugh)—
calling upon him to give his most decided opposition
to the measure.—(Hear, Hear.) He would tell the
Right Hon. Baronet and Honourable Gentlemen on the
opposite side of the House, that he had come there to represent
the wishes and interests of his constituents, and that he did not
mean to bow to the behests of the majority which the Right
lion. Baronet might command.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir
Robert Peel.) The principal object to-night was to show
that there were no special be-dens upon land, but it could be
shoe a that they (the landed proprietors) were exempted from
taxes, and that they were to be exclusively borne by other
classes. He could state the opinion of Frenchmen and others
for that.—(" Oh, oh," and " Question, question.") He had
heard how Learned Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House
read similar opinions.—( Hear, hear.) The taxes to which
land was now subject have been borne by it for a thousand
years. Ile would state what the taxes were 150 years after
the Conquest, when the whole of the taxes were derived from
land. '1 he Hon. Gentleman then went on to show that for a
series of years the proportionate amount of taxes was three-
fourths
of the entire of the revenues of the land—down to the
reign of Anne, one-fourth—to the reign of George 1., one--
fifth—George 11., one-sixth—for thirty years of the reign of
George 111., one-seventh—from 1793 down to 1816, one-ninth
—and from that time down to the present, one twenty-fith of tho
whole revenue was derived from the lai.d.—(Hear, hear. )
Then there is the land tax which had its origin in the feudal
services—the landowners were exempted, and then the tax of
4s. was put on instead—the tax levied first was 4s. in the
pound of the full year's value—it was regularly valued and the
Lax paid upon that valuation, but it was never re-valued since
1692 ; that was not the system allowed in the valuation of
taxes—the taxes paid on windows for instance would not be
according to the valuation of 20 years ago. The land pro-
prietors had been exempted from their services by the bargain
made by them with the Sovereign to give up their feudal
'services for that tax, but they retained their own minor
services, which as Lingard said, was a dishonour to the country.
The lyre lularities of taxation were arguments against its jus-
tice.—( Hear.) No taxation ought to be levied unjustly ; and if
the pressure were unequal, it was a proof that the tax ought
either to be abolished or reassessed. The Hon. Gentleman
then showed that in several of the counties of England, taking
the land tax of 1815, as a guide of taxation, was most unequal.
The highest tax was levied in Bedfordshire, when it was Is. 841.
and the lowest was levied in Cumberland, when it was only
IlAd. The parishes showed the same inequality of taxation.
In some it was Is. 6d. and in others it did not amount to more
than the one-tenth of a penny.—( Hear, hear.) What was the
reason of that? It was because some counties and towns had
become rich and populous ; but he would ask, was that
a reason why the others should be exempt from their fair
amauut of taxation ? What said Adam Smith on the
subject ? He said that " the subjects of every state should
support the government as nearly as possible, but the land tax
was a violation of that just principle" and Mr. John Wood,
Chairman of the Board of Stamps, in his evidence before a
committee of the House of Commons, in April, 1836, stated
the collection of the tax as three or four times as much as the
sum raised and paid into the Exchequer.—(" Divide.")
Whatever degree of attention may be paid to the subject in that
House, it would be well discussed out of it. They were on
the eve of new taxation, and the budget of the other evening
would call the middle classes to a proper sense of their political
duty, though it had no other good effect. They would
have fiscal discussions amongst the class of shopkeepers.
And when they discovered that the profits of stock were to be
assessed, and that the inquisitors were to be sent into their
houses, they would be inclined to inquire into the progress of
the rentals of Hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Gentlemen
were scarcely aware of the powers of the Reform Bill.—( Hear,
hear.) They scarcely knew the powers given by that Bill to the
middle classes, because they were never called on to try them ;
but now that their pockets are touched he believed they would
exhibit sufficient spirit to resist those who upheld unjust mono-
poly.—( Hear, hear.) If the Right Hon. Baronet had come
down and proposed a preperty tax to relieve the people, he
(Mr. Cobden) would join him to the utmost extent—
(Hear, hear)—but, when finding the means of the work-
ing classes were exhausted, and that they could not bear any
more taxation, the Right Hon. Baronet proposed to apply the
screw to the middle classes, he believed that those ciasses
would look narrowly into the monopoly of bread, and the
kindred monopoly of sugar.—( Hear.) They would demand
of the Right Hon. Baronet the means of increasing trade, if
he meant to get additional taxation.—( Hear.) He never
heard anything better said of the modification of the Right
Hon. Gentleman that it was not quite se bad as the present
system.—(Question, question.) He thought the mode in
which Hon. Gentlemen opposite advocated that law was
suspicious, because if the Corn-law was to be repealed,
its repeal ought to be advocated by his (Mr. Cob-
den's) side of the House, and not by the Gentlemen
opposite. There was nothing in the law whirls would
reconcile the country to it. So fe- as lie was acquainted with
the feelings of the manufacturing classes, they did not regard
the measure of the Right Hon. Gentleman as one that would
restore them to prosperity, and until he put corn into the hands
of persons generally, and not confined it to a few, he would
not reconcile the feelings of the people to it, or render the
country contented.--(Cheers.)
Lord WORSLEY said that having opposed any alteration
of the Corn-laws, he felt it to be his duty to vote against the
motion of his Hon. Friend. _(Hear, hear ) If burdens did
press peculiarly on any class, he thought it would
be only fair that means might be taken to adjust
the taxation more evenly throughout the country,
But it appeared to him that the object of the motion was to