been written by Lord Cowley or Mr. Aston bearing on the differences existing between France and Spain. Such documents would at once show what was the language which the English Government held to France and Spain; and it was certainly most desirable, in every point of view, that these contentions in other countries, as to the language of the British Government, should be cleared up.

Mr. Ward said, that it was with very great reluctance that he offered any opposition to the further progress of a bill which the House had already sanctioned by repeated andlarge majorities. But he had a public duty to perform. His motion was the proper preliminary to any legislation on the subject of the Corn-laws, and it was not his fault that it was not so brought forward. The moment the House gave its assent to the resolutions on which the bill of the right hon. Baronet was founded, he took the earliest notice day which was open, on which to fix his discussion. His hopes of submitting his motion on the day he had selected were certainly disappointed, not from any fault of bis, but in consequence of the very unusual appearance of the benches opposite-an appearance which he admitted was accounted for by the natural desire of hon. Gentlemen to give the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) a day's relaxation before submitting the important financial statement which he had since laid before Par

Sir R. Peel: His answer to the question of the noble Viscount was, that he had already sufficiently explained the course of Government, and their motives in the conduct which they had adopted. Their sole wish was, to promote the welfare of Spain. His impression was, that it would be most inconvenient to produce a despatch for the purpose of solving a question of fact between two foreign states, and written while that question was pending. If he were to produce such a document now, he must do so again, and so go on again indefinitely. As he had stated what the views of the Government were, he did not see the necessity of pro-liament. He (Mr. Ward), however, had ducing this despatch, though, if he were to lay it before Parliament, he believed it would be found not to reflect any discredit on our Government.

Mr. Sheil observed that the report on which he had grounded his question appeared in the Morning Herald and Morning Chronicle, and upon it he felt justified in asking what the course was which the Government had pursued.

always looked upon the motion which he wished to bring before the House as absolutely essential to the proper consideration of the question of the Corn-laws. It had legitimate claims to attention from ts intrinsic importance, and it derived ten-fold weight from the views which had been broached in the late debates, and from the opinions of men who were of the highest authority on economical subjects. He found Sir R. Peel could hardly admit that the that the noble Lord the Member for London appearance of such a report in the Morn-made the existence of certain peculiar ing Herald and Morning Chronicle was a sufficient ground for the production of the despatch which the noble Lord opposite called for. When the English Government offered its advice, they were not aware of the position in which the Spanish government stood according to the arti-suming throughout, as the basis of his arcles of their constitution; but the mo ment they ascertained the fact, they admitted the Spanish government had a perfect right to put the proper interpretation on their own usages. M. Guizot was perfectly right in his anticipation of what the conduct of this Government would be.

CORN BILL-BURDENS ON LAND.] Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Corn Importation Bill was read.

On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

burdens specially affecting the agricultural interest his measure of compensation. He found the noble Member for Sunderland assuming the existence of those burdens. He found Mr. M'Culloch going into the subject very largely, and as

gument, that there were burdens which pressed upon the land to the amount of 5s. per acre; and he saw the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government absolutely taunt his opponents with a want of straightforwardness, and explicitness in not stating the grounds of their 8s. duty, and challenging them, if they wished to enlighten the House and the country as to their motives, to discuss the basis of the protection which they proposed. But the right hon. Baronet himself was not much more specific in his arguments at least in that House. Out of that House

taxed or not, because they all knew it was; but whether it was more highly taxed than property derived from other sources of industry and labour. They could not make a comparison between the land of England and that of Poland, and say that one paid a larger duty to the revenue than the other; but in order to entitle them

he had gone at considerable detail into this subject, and the right hon. Gentleman's opinion being a matter of incalculable importance, since his very errors were the basis of legislation, he thought himself justified in alluding to it, especially as he had been much more reserved upon the subject, since the discussion on the Corn-laws had commenced in Parlia-selves to a protecting duty, the landment. He should first advert shortly to the opinions given on this subject by a high authority on political economy, Mr. M'Culloch.

"We believe that land is more heavily taxed than any other species of property in the country; and if so, its owners are clearly entitled to insist that a duty should be laid on foreign corn when imported, sufficient fully to countervail the excess of burdens laid upon

the land."

"If," was said to be a great peacemaker; but not in this instance, for Mr. M'Culloch assumed what he was bound to prove, that land was more heavily taxed than any other kind of property. He then proceeded

owners must show that they bore peculiar burdens, as compared with other classes of English subjects. They must show that they were subjected to those burdens not for their own benefit, but for that of the other classes who did not contribute to them. If those burdens were proved, they had a legitimate right to protection; if not, a double injustice was done to the other classes. He now came to the speech of the right hon. Baronet,

that a fixed duty of 88. per quarter on corn brought here from Poland and the north of Europe will afford sufficient protection to the land of this country. The proposition of buying corn in the cheapest market, is cer

"I now come, I repeat, to a most important question that of the introduction of foreign corn. I must repeat to you here the opinion which I have declared heretofore, which I have declared to you, and also in the Commons' House of Parliament, that I cannot consent to substitute a fixed duty of 8s. "So long as taxation affects all classes per quarter for the present ascending and equally, none of them has any peculiar right descending scale. I prefer the principle of to complain; nor can it, however heavy, justify the ascending and descending scale, and I any attempts to protect either one or more do not consider, when I look to the burden classes from foreign competition. But when-which land in this country is subjected to, ever it ceases to be equal, whenever it presses more severely on some than others, that moment do those that are most heavily taxed acquire a legitimate claim to an equivalent protection. It is impossible to refuse them this, without trampling on every principle of jus-tainly tempting in theory; but before you detice. Such protection is not given them as a favour, but to keep them where they have a right to be kept on the same level as the other classes of their countrymen. If they be relieved from these peculiar burdens, the necessity for the countervailing duties will of course cease, and they may, and indeed should be repealed forthwith; but the equalization of taxation at home must, in all cases, precede the equalization of the duties on importation from abroad. Land is a species of property that cannot be concealed; it is visible to every one; and the fair presumption consequently is, that it will be more heavily taxed than the capital of the manufacturer or merchant, which it is frequently very difficult to trace. Any one indeed, who will compare the amount of poor-rate, county-rates, and such like burdens paid by the land, with that paid by other sorts of property will be satisfied that the former is charged far beyond its fair proportion."

He quite agreed with the doctrine, that land in England had a considerable share of the public burdens to bear, but the question was, not whether the land was highly

termine that that is just, you must ascertain the amount of burdens to which land in other countries is subjected, and compare them with the burdens imposed on land in this country. Look at the amount of poor-rates levied from land in this country, compared with the amount levied from the profits of manufactures. Who pays the highway-rate? Who pays the church-rate? Who pays the poor-rate and the tithe? I say not altogether-but chieflythe landed occupier of this country; and if there be corn produced by other land not subject to those burdens, it would clearly be not just to the land of this country to admit that corn on equal terms."

The convictions entertained by the right hon. Baronet at present on this subject were somewhat new. At all events the opinions of gentlemen connected with the agricultural interest, as to the burdens which pressed on land, were by no means fixed or unanimous in 1834. He recollected a curious debate in that year on the subject of agricultural distress. The

subject was brought forward by the Mar- Government can do will remedy or penequess of Chandos, who drew a heart-trate, as it were, the interstices of our rending picture of the agriculturists. He distress," of which the currency was the said

cause, and must be the cure. Was he “Their savings were gone, their credit had not justified in saying that at that period failed, their resources were exhausted, their no sort of unanimity prevailed as to the condition was becoming worse every day.” existence of any peculiar burdens. With They were said to be weighed down regard to the malt-duty, he thought they were indebted to the Speaker for having with heavy burdens, but the cause of them was perfectly mysterious. There dissipated many erroneous views on this question, by asking a party of barley was a great deal of vague talk as to the pressure on the land; but neither the growers amongst his constituents, every right hon. Baronet, nor any body else, the whole amount of the malt-duty came one of whom was ready to make oath that defined or specified very accurately the peculiar imposts levied upon it. Tithes out of his own pocket, "whether they had never heard of such a person as the conand poor-rates were by no means so ge-sumer, who certainly paid nine-tenths of nerally insisted on as the fact of the dis- the tax?" The right hon. Baronet (Sir tress. The malt duty was slightly alluded R. Peel) confirmed this opinion in a to. The surcharges on horses and ladebate on the malt-tax, which followed shortly after that to which he had alluded, and in which the Marquess of Chandos maintained that the malt-duty amounted to 70% or 801. a-year on every farm of 250 acres. The farmers were said to be unanimous in their cry for an alteration, and the noble Marquess certainly took care that it should be sufficiently sweeping, for he proposed the entire extinction of the duty. Mr. Handley also said that the malt-tax" was the most injudicious, partial, and unjust of all possible imposts." The right hon. Baronet rode the storm gallantly on this occasion. He said,

bourers employed occasionally as household servants, were spoken of; and not unnaturally, every speaker dwelt on the extraordinary increase of poor-rate which threatened to swallow up the land. Lord Spencer agreed in this.

"Nothing that could be done with regard to other taxes, would afford half the relief that would be derived from a better administration of the poor-law."

selves relieved from the pressure of the malttax, and falling back on a good, comfortable, property-tax, with a proposal, probably, for a heavy lands of this country, I felicitate you on graduated scale. And you, who represent the the prospect which lies before you. If you believe that the substitute will be advantageous to your interest, be it so; but do not blame those who offered you a timely warning, and cautioned you against exchanging the light pressure of the malt-duty for the scourge of a property-tax."

The only way he knew of to promote the prosperity of agriculture was to promote the prosperity of those who became the purchasers of agricultural produce. This difference of opinion was characteristic of the whole debate. A great "If you repeal this tax, to a property-tax number of gentlemen connected with the you must come, and I congratulate you gen landed interest took part in it, but in-tlemen of the landed interest, on finding yourstead of the deep conviction which the right hon. Baronet announced at Tamworth that he entertained, there was the greatest possible conflict of opinions as to the causes of agricultural decay. Every speaker had his own nostrum. Every man was his own burden-maker. Lord Ashburton alluded to beer-shops, and dwelt upon the impossibility of the landowner taking up and laying down labour with the same facility as the manufacturer. Mr. Cobbett attributed the evils which pressed down the agriculturist to the malttax and a standing army. Mr. Maxwell proposed a tax on absentees. Mr. Cartwright said that distress was not confined to titheable parishes, and Mr. Cayley maintained that his constituents who did not pay 1s. 6d. in the pound for poor-rates were just as much distressed as the Bucks farmers, and added, "nothing that the

The right hon. Member for Dorchester also went into the whole question, and seemed to have considerable doubts as to the real amount of his burdens, though, as a landowner, he thought it necessary to assume their existence. He said,

grievous burdens press upon the landed in"It must not be dissembled that heavy and terest-and what are they? First, there are the poor-laws,'-but means have been re

houses, tithes, and railways amounted to 33,400,000l.; and though the latter description of property contributed to all the burdens of the State, and poor-rates amongst them, in an equal proportion to the former, a claim was now made on the one-half of the rateable property to indemnify the other half, because it happened to be held by landowners. Again, the rate was assessed not on the actual but the an

cently devised for lightening their pressure. What is the next in importance? The tithes, but there is reason to hope that something will be done to lighten the weight of them by an equitable system of commutation. Then there are the county-rates.' Now, a reduction in the amount of that tax has likewise been dis tinctly promised to the landed interest. The only unalleviated burden on that interest, that would then remain, would be the malt-tax, and if that were removed, the repeal of the Corn-laws would be urged upon the House to-nual value, so that a man having 1,000l.

morrow."

in houses which yielded 7 per cent., but He (Mr. Ward) should now take the bur- constituted a property of a perishable dens on land as they were enumerated in nature, paid twice as much as the man the Tamworth list, which was, he believed, holding the same property in land yielding the last published. They were the poor- 34 per cent, but being of an improving rates, county-rates, highway-rates, church- and permanent value. The landholders rates, and tithes. These were the burdens gave no encouragement to the formation for which the right hon. Baronet thought of railways. They only held a very trifling that the noble Lord's duty of 8s. was a most proportion of shares, but the moment inadequate compensation, an act of miser- these works were formed they were heavily able parsimony and injustice on the part rated. He was fully justified, therefore, of the Whigs. Most of the grievances which in stating, that whatever may have been the right hon. Member for Dorchester had the proportions in 1826, considerably alluded to were remedied in the manner in more than one third of the poor-rate which he had hinted. They had therefore was now paid by property unconnected only to deal now with peculiar burdens. with land, and yet the holders of it Take that of poor-rates. The most pro- claimed no compensation for their burminent feature connected with it was its dens, though every shilling that raised progressive diminution. In 1834 they the price of corn constituted a double tax amounted to 6,317,2541., and in 1840 upon them. There was no end to petitions they fell to 4,576,9651. A most im- from boards of guardians, praying for portant question arose, as to the amount the admission of corn duty free, at all for which the land claimed compensa- events, for the use of the poor in worktion, for in 1818 the poor-rates amounted houses. Land bore a somewhat larger to 9,000,000l. Now, did the landed share of the burdens of the country, only interest rest their demands on the large because it was the most widely extended or the small amount? But compensa- property. It was constantly shifting its tion for such a charge appeared to him population, and its supply of unemployed peculiarly objectionable, for it was hold-poor to the manufacturing districts since ing out an encouragement to abuse to 1831 was 300,000. The landholders were say that none could be remedied without no more entitled to indemnity for poor. lessening the claim to public indemnity. Besides, the compensation tax could never work fairly if given in the shape of a protecting duty on corn. A poor-rate was levied on every species of property houses as well as land, and in proportion as you added to the price of corn, in order to benefit the landholders, you increased the burdens of the rest of the community who contributed their due share to the public revenue. In 1801, the number of inhabited houses (according to the statement of the right hon. Baronet the other night) was 1,875,456; and in 1841, it was 3,464,007. The right hon. Baronet gave the rental of land at 39,400,000%., and he showed the rental of

rate than Marylebone or Westminster were to charge their rates on the consolidated fund. To the county-rates precisely the same reasoning applied. They were raised for the purpose of administering justice, without which property could not exist. The land did no more than every borough town did for itself, and even as regarded the land itself, compensation could not be given without injustice in the way proposed, for there were 15,000,000 acres of pasture, and about 20,000,000 acres of arable land, and the duty on corn compensated the arable at the expense of the pasture land, for both were equally liable to the county-rate, yet by every shilling that the price of corn was