Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

chased subject to them. He then entered at some length upon his favourite topic of the general reduction of taxation, and stated the particular taxes he proposed to take off; and he concluded by moving an amendment to Mr. Disraeli's motion to the effect that, if there be any inequality in the local taxation bearing upon real property, it ought to be removed; but the public expenditure should be reduced so as to permit the repeal of the duties on malt and hops.

The debate, having been adjourned after Mr. Hume's speech, was resumed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who combated Mr. Disraeli's propositions in a long and elaborate speech, in which he endeavoured to discredit the estimates on which the reasonings of his opponent were founded, and to show that, even granting his premises, his remedial measures were not adapted to relieve the agriculturists.

Sir Charles Wood agreed that the poor rates, highway rates, church rates, and others of the same kind, together with the land tax, amounted to about 14,000,000.; but he would point out very considerable corrections which should be made in Mr. Disraeli's other assumptions. For instance, he took the property rated to the poor at 67,000,000l. a year; but the Income Tax returns gave the property rated to the poor as 84,000,0007.; and if one-fourth be added for incomes under 150l., the total real property rated to the poor would appear to be 105,000,000l. a year, instead of 67,000,000l. Instead, therefore, of the proportion which real property bore to the whole national property being one-fourth, it was two-fifths. But not more than 40,000,000l. of this aggregate con

sisted of land: houses amounted to 35,000,000l.; canals, railways, mines, and other property which could not pretend to have been directly injured by repeal of the Corn Laws, made up the balance.

There was great confusion as to the persons to whom Mr. Disraeli would allow the compensation claimed; sometimes it was the owner, sometimes the tenant of the land. But it was clear that many of the charges paid in the first instance by the tenant were ultimately and really borne by the landlord. No. thing was more clear than that rates are a deduction from the landowner's rent. The tenant had therefore no interest in this question, and would not be benefited by any removal of these charges to another fund. Then as to many of the charges which were said to press unduly on the land: first, those of maintaining the roads; surely these charges were as fit to be paid exclusively by those who chiefly use them, as were the charges for lighting,paving, and cleansing the streets of towns, the benefits of which are not exclusively enjoyed by the townsmen who exclusively paid for them. It was, moreover, to be observed that a large portion of these charges were borne by the general public, in the shape of general tolls. The church rates ought surely to be paid by the parishioners who benefit by the parochial church ministrations. These local rates were at present moderate in the rural districts; if transferred to the Consolidated Fund, the proportion paid by the rural population would be increased. The cost of public prosecutions was now borne by the public Treasury, and the argument derivable from that change tended exactly in the opposite way to that in which Mr. Disraeli used it. It

must be admitted, by the way, that nothing was more unfounded than the outcry against the privilege of the land to exemption from legacy duty at that moment land, as compared with personal property, appeared to pay 79 per cent. of the legacy duty.

Mr. Disraeli had continually insisted that little or nothing was done for the land, and had exclaimed against the amount of treasure drawn by the Excise from the agricultural interest: but since the year 1815 there had been a remission, by repeal or reduction, of Excise duties affecting agricultural interests to an amount between 7,000,000l. and 8,000,000l. a year; and of the burdens enumerated by Mr. Miles three years ago,-the expenses of maintaining the rural police, the malt tax, the want of a general inclosure Bill and a drainage Bill, and the cost of prosecutions,-the chief had been removed. In addition, there had been votes out of the Consolidated Fund for Coroners' expenses, Registration expenses, and Poor-law Commission, amounting to some 770,000l. a year.

Mr. Disraeli had summed up by saying that the landowners of this country might be rather supposed to be a conquered race than a predominating legislative interest; and that in no European country was the land so heavily burdened. If he would descend from the regions of fancy to the dull realities of life, he would find that in hardly any country does the land pay less: in France, Prussia, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands, a far greater proportion of taxation being borne by the land.

But to whom did Mr. Disraeli propose to transfer the pressure

thus indiscriminately removed? The effect of his plan would be to place upon the general taxation a sum of 14,000,000l. a year; not less than half of which, it must be presumed, would have to be met by an additional tax on income. Now, under that arrangement, Schedule A would have to bear some 3,233,000l. beyond the sum at present borne by it; the effect of which would be little beyond taking money out of one pocket to put it in the other. Under Schedule B, the tenant farmers themselves would have 405,000l. additional placed on their shoulders. Sir Charles did not claim to be the farmer's advocate, but he strenuously protested against such imposition of new burdens on that interest. But perhaps Mr. Disraeli proposed to omit Schedules A and B altogether, and to levy the whole 7,000,000l. on the last three schedules, which at present produced only 2,750,000.

In conclusion, Sir Charles offered some statistics on the prices of agricultural produce, to support exceptions which he took to Mr. Disraeli's sweeping assumptions regarding agricultural distress. The general result was, that, comparing the prices of meats of all sorts for all the months of the two years 1844 and 1848, prices had very materially advanced; the average price of beef being but 3s. 104d. in 1844, and 4s. 34d. in 1848; that of mutton being 4s. Od. in 1844, and 5s. 14d. in 1848. The price of wheat was now on the advance.

Mr. Christopher supported the motion of Mr. Disraeli, contending that Sir Charles Wood had not dealt fairly with that proposition, which was offered as one of conciliation and policy. The land, it

1

was admitted, was unequally burdened; by the law of England every person should be rated to the poor according to his ability, and the fundholder, having lent his money subject to this law, could not complain of being called upon to pay his proportion. Agriculture alone was subjected to the unlimited operation of free trade; manufacturers were protected by import duties; the landed interest, therefore, had a right to look to other remedies; and unless some remedy were given, the Ministers would find all the leading interests against them, and it would be impossible to carry on the government of the country.

The debate was again adjourned, and resumed on the 15th of March, when Mr. Disraeli's resolution was discussed in a long array of speeches from both sides of the House; the principal speakers being Mr. Seymer, Sir R. Lopez, Sir Montagu Cholmley, Mr. W. Miles, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Cayley, and the Marquis of Granby, in favour of the motion; and on the other side, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Cornewall Lewis, Lord Norreys, Mr. Bright, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Goulburn, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Cobden. Our space will only admit a few samples of the more prominent speeches.

Mr. Milner Gibson supplied a useful view, by showing that as local rates are levied on the annual income arising from real property, a very small proportion falls on land used for agricultural purposes, in which the annual value is low as compared with the intrinsic value. Mr. Disraeli proposed to retain all the expensive local machinery to administer half the present fund; so that it would be as expensive to collect sixpence

as it now is to collect a shilling. Mr. Gibson made light of the Malt Tax as a grievance. It was not a good tax, but the arguments against it were not more stringent than in other cases; and he earnestly exhorted the agriculturists to abandon that willo'-the-wisp, in order to join with the manufacturers in obtaining a reduction of expenditure. To that end he should vote with Mr. Hume.

Mr. Lewis briefly examined the nature of local taxation. No doubt the 43rd of Elizabeth meant the poor rate to fall on personal as well as real property; but practically it had been found impossible to levy local rates, except on visible property within the parish. There was a great advantage in levying the rates upon persons who had an interest in economizing the expenditure of the rate, and who looked to the actual disposal of the money. No one would suppose that the House could be induced to vote the half of 18,000,0007. annually without being minutely informed as to what would become of the money. Mr. Disraeli seemed to assume that the local rates were a fixed sum, not to increase. [Mr. Disraeli exclaimed, "No, no!"] Then if they were to increase, that was a great argument against removing the check.

In answer to Mr. Lewis, Mr. Miles read passages from Blackstone to show that it was a principle of law that the provision of the poor should fall upon personal as well as real property.

Mr. Sidney Herbert addressed himself to the task of making out that the agricultural distress was not caused by free trade, but by transitory and extraneous causes. wheat was now but 45s. a quarter, the average price during the last century was considerably less. At

If

this time, however, the corn-market was seriously deranged. Wheat in the north still sold for 45s., but in the south it was bad in quality and deficient in quantity; during the panic in France there were no purchasers of wheat, and she exported; she was now importing largely; in the meantime, the consumption in this country had been considerably checked. Mr. Herbert contended that the system of local taxation could not be disturbed without resorting to the representative principle in the management of county affairs.

Mr. Cayley threw out a new plan of taxation for the consideration of the House. Mr. Cayley suspected that the agitation for financial reform on the part of the manufacturing body had some connection with the failure of the free-trade experiment, which had realized all the worst prognostications, and none of the best. If, however, this principle of free trade was to be perse vered in, there must not only be a reduction, but a general revision of taxation; and he understood that Mr. Disraeli intended in the Committee to go into the question of the pressure of the Excise duties upon agricultural interests. He would propose that all those duties and the Customs should be repealed, and that, by a system of inland revenue, charge-say of 10 per cent-be laid upon every article, agricultural or manufactured, which would yield 48,000,000l.

a

Mr. Goulburn observed that Mr. Cayley, who held the Excise system in utter abhorrence, suggested a scheme of taxation which would render the presence of an exciseofficer necessary not only in every village, but in every house.

Lord John Russell sarcastically

taunted Mr. Disraeli for his secrecy as to the plan by which he would make good the needful amount of taxation. He was almost induced to go into Committee through mere curiosity. Mr. Miles had repudiated an additional income tax; Sir Montagu Cholmley had hinted at making good the deficiency by a moderate duty on corn; and Mr. Cayley had volunteered an extempore plan of taxation for the nonce! Lord John explained what he meant when he said, in 1846, that if the Corn Laws were repealed considerable relief ought to be given to the landed interests from the burdens to which they were subject. When Sir Robert Peel abrogated the Corn Laws, he did propose a remission of the burdens which pressed upon real property to the amount of 535,000l. a year. He (Lord J. Russell) might have proposed to have put some different charges on the Exchequer, and he believed that the total amount which he should have imposed would have been 585,0001.

Mr. Cobden would not weary the House after Sir Charles Wood's speech, by slaying the slain in replying to Mr. Disraeli; and he therefore directed his arguments to particular points. He contended that the relief would go, not to the farmers, but to the owners of land; and, being met by signs of dissent, he defied any Member to assert that if two farms were to be let, one with poor rates of 28. in the pound, and the other of 8s., they would be let for the same rent. Mr. Disraeli's proposition, therefore, came before them under false pretences. In like manner, it had been said at a late meeting in Willis's Rooms that none but tenant farmers were to speak; now he knew that most of the persons

who were called tenant farmers were land agents for he had met them all. Mr. Cobden entered into minute statistics to show that the labouring part of the agricultural classes were better off in cheap years than in dear years, as the wages do not increase proportionately with the price of provisions; for instance, the stockingers of Nottingham, who had been depressed for nearly 70 years, were now in a state of comparative comfort and happiness. On the other hand, while the price of the farmer's staple, wheat, had remained nearly what it was in 1790, and other produce in the nature of animal food had risen in price; the price of articles consumed by the farmer-his iron implements, clothing, cotton goods, tea, sugar, coffee, soap, fuel, candles, preserved fruits, in fact almost everything except beer-was cheaper than it was then, in some cases four or five times as cheap: rent, however, was double what it was in 1790; in Scotland it was treble. Mr. Cobden said that he should vote for Mr. Hume's Amendment.

Mr. Disraeli replied, justifying his case against the principal objections—namely, that his allegations were not correct; that his scheme was impracticable; and that if practicable it would not benefit the farmer. He retorted Lord John Russell's banter; reminding him that he had pledged himself

to an eight shilling duty on corn, and offering to accept that now. He reminded the noble Lord also, that he himself, who was surprised at Mr. Disraeli's “ secrecy," had laid on the table certain celebrated resolutions [on the Irish Poor Law], and proposed to go into Committee without explaining his plan. If the House would go into Committee, Mr. Disraeli would be prepared to explain the remedy that he proposed; and he endeavoured to show that his plan would benefit the farmer. If 5,000,000l. were raised on property not now subject to poor rate, it would require a rate of 6d. in the pound; in common with other classes the farmer would have to pay 6d. in the pound in lieu of half his present rates; but those rates were at present in some places as high as 88. in the pound. some combination of parties Ministers might extricate themselves from the embarrassment which his resolution might occasion them, but the only consequence of rejecting that resolution would be a proposition conceived in a sterner spirit of justice hereafter.

By

The House divided first on Mr. Hume's amendment; negatived by 394 to 70, majority 324. It then divided on Mr. Disraeli's resolutions; negatived by 280 to 189, majority 91.

« ZurückWeiter »