The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-03-18 00:00:00

Colonel WOOD said, that a paper which had already been
laid upon the table would have told the hon. member if he
had read it, that land has a larger share of burdens than
pressed upon other interests. Of the poor-rates, for instance,
the great bulk was paid by the land, amounting to over four
millions, and the policy, he thought, would be unwise which
went to destroy the means of extending such a large amount
of relief to the poor.
Mr. M. GlnsoN supported the amendment of Mr. Ward,
and said it was absurd to talk in that house as hon. members
were in the habit of talking at agricultural dinners, for men
of sense would not believe that the greatness of England was
to be attributed to keeping a few acres of burni❑g sand or
wet clay in wheat cultivation. There was a feeling abroad
that the landed proprietors were seeking to uphold agricul-
ture by keeping down trade, and that feeling would be in-
creased if the motion before the house were rejected.

Mr. DA RBY opposed the motion, and instanced the burden
which the malt-tax flung upon the land, notwithstanding its
being a tax that was paid by the consumer. How often had
the landlords been refused permission by the government to
wet their corn in order to feed their cattle on account of
this tax on malt? and had not the government put a stop to
the growth of tobacco in Ireland, which was found to be
very profitable to the landholder, because it interfered with
the revenue? and did not the landlords also pay largely upon
articles of importation in order to give protection to the ma-
nufacturers at home? He could not consent to an inquiry
so limited as that suggested.
Dr. BOWRING said he had no doubt Mr. Ward would con-
sent to enlarge the inquiry. lie also said that in every
country, except this, nearly the whole of the revenue was
derived from land.

Mr. SCARLETT contended that the land bore nearly all
the burdens of the state.
Mr. CIIILDERS said that the landed interest bad been
always too powerful in parliament to allow unfair burdens
being flung upon them.
Mr. PALMER said that the landowner laboured under a
disadvantage which did not apply to the manufacturer. His
capital was fixed, whereas the manufacturer might be con-
sidered as a bird of passage, who could not transport his ca-
pital where he.could most profitably use it.
Sir R. PHEL complained of those protracted discussions,
the only tendency of which was to impede a bill universally
admitted to be a great improvement of the law now in exis-
tence. If the motion of the hon. member for Sheffield
were to be agreed to, were they to hang up the corn law for
two or three sessions until a committee could report upon
the subject entrusted to them for investigation. The hon.
member would not admit that tithes were a burden on the
land, but Mr. Ricardo and Mr. A. Smith were of a different
opinion. It was in fact very difficult to ascertain what were
or were not burdens on land, nor would a committee settle
the matter at last. He hoped, therefore, the house would no
longer delay the progress of public business.
Mr. STRUTT supported Mr. Wakley's amendment, and said
that in the whole discussion all the argument was with his
side of the house.
Mr. COBDEN said that the land tax was an evasion. It

was originally intended to be a growing rental in accordance

with the exigencies of the state, as was proved by the Land
Tax Act; and although it was to be levied upon the value of
the land, yet no new assessment had been made since 1692.
This was not the case with the window duties, or any other
tax. Upon these they made new assessments, but the land
was paying the same tax now as it, paid 150 years ago. As
they were now about to impose new taxes, the mercantile
classes, when applied to to know how much they had earned
in the last year, would ask how much the tax on land had
increased since the last assessment. It they became inquisi-
tive into the affairs of the merchant, the latter would become
equally inquisitive into the affairs of the landed proprirtor.
Lord WORSLEY opposed the motion of Mr. Ward, for
although he was opposed to the bill before the house, yet he
would not aid any motion meant apparently for the mere
purpose of obstructing it.
Mr. VILLIERS thought the reason for the opposition of the
noble lord, as well as for that of hon. members on the other
side of the house, was no other than a fear of the results of
an inquiry upon the subject. The hon. gentleman read a
statement to show that since 1816 taxes amounting to over
£900,000 had been remitted to the landed interest.

Lord HOWICK thought it was a matter of great interest
to the house and to the country to ascertain what were the
burdens which exclusively pressed upon land ; but still he
could not support the motion because of the interest the
public had in the procedure of public business without inter-
ruption.

Mr. WA KLEY suggested a compromise, and hoped the
right hon. baronet would say to Mr. Ward, " you shall have
your committee of inquiry another time, but do not press it
now."

Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought his hon. friend was unfairly
treated in being told that he was interfering with the pro-
gress of the bill, when in point of fact he had intended to
bring forward his motion last Thursday, but there was no
house owing to the " whipping out" of those connected with
the government, who ought to be the parties to " whip in."
Indeed, Mr. Canning had once said that the younger membet s
of the government—such as secretaries to the Treasury, &c.,
had only three important duties to perform—first, to make a
house ; secondly, to keep a house ; and thirdly, to cheer the
minister. (Great laughter.) He thought the government
ought to be responsible for making a house.
The house divided, and the motion of Mr. Ward was de-
feated by a majority of 230 to 115.
The house then went into Committee, and Sir V. Blake
occasioned much amusement by giving a disquisition on the
merits of potatoes.
Mr. PARKER moved that it be lawful for any person to give
bond for the payment of duty on foreign corn at the ruling
duty of the time, even though such corn might not be in bond,
provided that such corn should be in bond within four months
from the time of giving bond.

Sir R. PEEL said this certainly was a most extraordinary
proposition. A man might give bond when the duty was at
a shilling for an unlimited quantity of corn ; he would then
take the chance of the next four months, and if they did not
suit his purpose he would neither pay the duty nor bring in
the corn.

After a short discussion, Mr. PARKER withdrew his mo-
tion.

Mr. P. SCROPE moved that at the desire of the importer
the duty might be taken from the ruling duty on the day the
ship left the port from which the corn was exported.
Sir R. PEEL said this would give the importer a choice as
to the duty he would wish to pay, which was unjust in prin-
ciple, and might lead to the most serious inconvenience.
After a short discussion, the motion was negatived without
a division. _ . _

- Having got through eight clauses of the bill, and it being
20 minutes past 12 o'clock, the house adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
Thr royal assent was given, by commission, to the Duchy
of Cornwall Bill and the Van Diemen's Land Bill.
Lord Baou GUAM postponed, until Thursday, his motion
relative to Sir li. Peel's proposed plan of finance.
Adjourned.