The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1849-03-20 00:00:00

prorertings In Varliaunt.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-MONDAY

The adjourned debate on the Navigation-laws was re-
sumed by Mr. GLADSTONE, who strongly supported the
bill.

Mr. Robinson, Mr. Clay, Mr. Hornby, Mr. Wawn,
Mr. C. Bruce, Mr. Hildyard, Admiral Bowles, and Mr.
Drummond, opposed the measure; and Mr. Muntz spoke
against it, but announced his intention of voting for it.
Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Willcox, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Labou-
ctere, and Mr. Scholefield supported the bill.
The house then divided, and the amendment of Mr.
nerries was negatived by a majority of 266 to 210.
This division was hailed with vehement and protracted
cheering from the Protectionist benches.
The bill was then read a second time.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-TUESDAY

Mr. TRELAWNEY moved the following resolution :
" That it is the opinion of this house that effectual mea-
sures should be immediately taken for the abolition of
church rates."
Mr. P. WOOD moved as an amendment, that the words
" abolition of church rates" be omitted, and the follow-
ing words inserted after the word " for"—" discharging
persons dissenting from the Church as by law established
from contributing to church rates, and taking any part in
levying, assessing, or administering the same."
After a long discussion the house divided, and the
amendment was negatived by a majority of 183 to 20.
mi..

ue House again divided on the original motion, which
was also negatived by a majority of 119 to 84.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

-WEDNESDAY

PUSEY moved the second reading of the Landlord
and Tenant Bill, which was founded strictly upon the re-
port of the committee of last session.
Colonel SIBTHORP deprecated such interference between
landlord and tenant, and moved, as ar. amendment, that
the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Sir H. VURNER seconded the amendment, contending
that the tenant-farmers had the remedy in their own
bands, by insisting on having leases, which it would be
the interest of the landlords to grant.
A discussion ensued, in which Mr. R. Palmer, Mr.
Packe, Mr. Henley, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Newde-
gate, the Attorney-General, and other hon. members took
part, after which

- The house divided, and the amendment was negatived
by a majority of 147 to 11.
The bill was then read a second time.
On the motion for the second reading of the Clergy
Relief Bill, the object of which was to relieve persons in
holy orders seceding from the Church of England from
certain penalties and dis.hilif;.. .4,- _ •

the bill ;
The ai

some discussion

ueeare on Mr. Disraeli's motion with
respect to-local taxation, was resumed by
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, who said it now
became his duty to state the course which the Government
meant to pursue with respect both to the motion of Mr.
Disraeli, and the amendment of Mr. Hume. The latter
hon. gentleman had proposed to reduce the duties on
malt and hops, and also on other articles, to the extent in
the aggregate of £9,500,000. This he based on a reduc-
tion of expenditure to the extent of £10,000,000, which
was no less than ten-elevenths of the whole expense of
the naval and military establishments of the country.
This proposition had been already decided upon by the
house upon the motion of Mr. Cobden, and he should ask
the house to re-affirm that decision and vote against the
amendment. With respect to the speech of the hon.
member for Buckinghamshire, he would say that he en-
tirely agreed with a great deal which had fallen from him.
He agreed that local taxation was a taxation pressing spe-
cially on the land, and that it amounted in round num-
bers to about £12,000,000. Further than this, he feared
he could not agree with him ; for in point of fact the
burden of local taxation fell, not, as the hon. gentleman
had stated, upon one-fourth, but upon two-fifths of the
whole rateable property of the kingdom. The right hon.
gentleman then proceeded to contend that the proposition
of Mr. Disraeli would in no way whatever benefit the oc-
cupiers of land, and the owners of real property had no
right to receive such a boon at the expense of other inte-
rests. The owners of real property did not at present pay
the same proportion of poor rates as heretofore. In 1833
real property paid 69 per cent, of those rates, whereas now
they only paid 40 per cent. He could not consi
just that the roads should be maintained by
turists, for they were the parties
They did not, however, pay the whole expense, for a por-
tion was paid by tolls, from which manure was exempt.
In the same way church rates were not a burden falling
exclusively on land, for they were paid by all the house-
holciers of the parish. He could not see, in considering
the question, how they could leave out of view the special
exemptions of the land, such as the legacy and probate
duties, although he admitted it was unjust to suppose that
the land did not bear a considerable proportion of the for-
mer. The right hon. gentleman then enumerated the
amount of taxes taken off real property since 1815, which
was no less than £989,000. Besides this, the reduction
of the stamp duty on the insurance of agricultural pro-
duce was a saving of a large sum to the agriculturists. In
1837 the amount insured was £3,747,807. In 1847 it
amounted to £4,753,192, and the stamp duty on this
would have been no less than £87,208. The malt tax he
could not consent to repeal without an equivalent to the
revenue, nor did he think that malt would be used in
feeding cattle to such an extent as to justify him in at-
tempting to touch it. The hon. gentleman proposed, to
supply the deficiency which his plan would create in the
Consolidated Fund, that an addition should be made to
the property tax, which tax, doubled as it would be, would
then fall so heavily on real property that it would be like
taking money out of one pocket to put it in the other;
while it would put upon the occupying tenant a charge of
no less than £405,000. Independent of the plan of Mr.
Mr. Disraeli, he had no hesitation in saving that any
large proposition for changing local into general taxation
would be fraught with danger, and he also thought that it
would be of the greatest advantage to retain the principle
of local self-government. The right hon. gentleman con-
cluded by expressing his intention to vote against the re-
solutions of the hon. member for Buckinghamshire.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER thought the right hon. gentleman
had not dealt fairly with the arguments of Mr. Disraeli,
whose proposition he had sought to mystify ; but it was
impossible to get rid of the broad fact that the land was
taxed, as the right hon. gentleman admitted, £12,000,000
beyond the amount paid by the other interests of the
community. The true way of restoring prosperity was by
imposing a tax on foreign agricultural product, but as
they would not do that they should place a portion of the
agricultural burdens on the funds, and he should there-
fore support the motion of the hon. member for Bucking-
hamshire. Not only did the landlords pay £12,000,000
more than the other interests of the community, but they
were not permitted to cultivate it in their own way.
They were not allowed to grow tobacco, although its cul-
ture would be most advantageous to the landed interest.
With respect to the malt tax, it was unjust, and he denied
the assertion that it was chiefly paid by the consumer;
but, coupled as its proposed repeal was with an imprudent
reduction of expenditure, he could not vote in its favour.
He preferred the motion of Mr. Disraeli. though it would
have pleased him better had a proposition been made to
restore protection to the agriculturist. In the course
which the Government was pursuing they would bring all
the interests in the country to such a condition that it
would be impossible for any Government whatever to go
on with our existing institutions.
The debate was again adjourned.

er it un-
agrieul-

most interested in them

HOUSE OF LORDS.—THURSDAY.
The Earl of WicKLow moved for various returns re-
lating to the income remitted to England from Ireland,
and which was in consequence subjected to the income-
tax in England.
The motion was agreed to.
_ _

The Marquis Of LONDONDERRY, Lord MONTEAGLE,
and Lord STANLEY, presented several petitions against
the rate in aid. Their lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.-

THI'R RD Ax.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL gave notice that on a future day he
should move that the house resolve itself into a Commit-
tee to consider the expeaiency of altering the policy that
had of late been pursued in Ireland, and the introduction
of a better system, with the view of rectifying the evils of
which the people of that country complained.
Mr. COBDEN gave notice that on that day fortnight he
should propose that the Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs be empowered to enter in all treaties with foreign
uttymiedv‘c- riakum,Aßßviding that all disputes should be
Sir R. PEEL asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
when he proposed to bring on the second reading of the
Rate in Aid Bill.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he had in-
tended to move the second reading of the bill next day ;
it had, however, been found necessary to postpone it, but
he should bring it on shortly before Easter.
Mr. FIERRIES asked whether her Majesty's ministers
were prepared to proceed with the Bill for the repeal of
the Navigation Laws ; and, if so, when ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, if the right
hon. gentleman thought the government entertained the
slightest doubt about this bill he was mistaken. The
time of bringing it on must depend on the private busi-
ness.

Mr. EWART moved a resolution, of which he had given
notice, viz., for a Select Committee on existing public
libraries in Great Britain and Ireland, and on the best
means of extending the establishment of libraries freely
open to the public, especially in large towns.
Sir GEORGE GREY said that the general object of tho
motion was good, and he should have no objection to a
select committee if those words were struck out of the
motion which had reference to the public libraries now in
existence.

Mr. EWART acceded to Sir G. Grey's suggestion, and
the select committee was ordered.
Viscount DRUMLANRIG moved for a return of the ex-
pense the country has incurred from printing and pub-
lishing and collecting returns moved for by the hon. mem-
ber for Montrose, from February, 1848, to February,
1849 ; but after a short debate, the noble Viscount with-
drew his motion.

On the motion of Mr. M. GIBSON. a select committee
was appointed to inquire into the constitution and manage-
ment of the Government School of Design, and to report
their opinion thereupon.

On the question for resuming the adjourned debate on
Agricultural Distress, Mr. M. GIBSON strongly opposed
Mr. Disraeli's motion, and expressed a hope that the
amendment of Mr. Hume would be carried.
Mr. CORNWALL LEWIS also opposed the motion, on
the ground that if it should be carried, the agricultural
interest would be rather burthened than relieved.
The motion was supported by Mr. Seymer, Sir R.
Lopez, Sir M. Cholmondeley, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Miles,
and the Marquis of Granby • and opposed by Lord Nor-