it had been proclaimed in another place that the object was to turn out the present Government, to dissolve Parliament, to return to protection, and to restore the Corn Law; and this frank avowal must be taken in connection with the motion before the House. Limited as the proposition professed to be, the relief it would afford to the landed interest would be almost imperceptible, whilst it would violate the principle of local check and incur the risk of prodigal expenditure; but the amount of the burden, he admitted, was insignificant, if the claim was founded in justice. He did not hesitate to avow that recent legislative changes had affected the landed interest with considerable difficulty and distress. Mr. Disraeli had contended that, since protection had been withdrawn, it was immaterial whether relief was given to the owner or the occupier of the soil; but the tenant-farmers would think very differently. He (Sir James) was a landlord, and he confidently said that, excepting tenants under lease, the proposed relief would be inoperative, and tenants under lease, when their leases expired, would pay in rent what they saved in rate. With respect to owners, he doubted the policy, in the long run, of opening the question of the redistribution of burdens. He had always impressed upon the class to which he belonged the impolicy of pursuing their exclusive interests as a class; and Sir James, reading a list of articles affecting equally the comforts of the agricultural and manufacturing poor, asked whether there was justice or equity in transferring, in effect, a burden from realized property to these humbler classes. Landed property had, in fact, been VOL. XCII.

relieved of much of the weight of local taxation; land was not rated at its real value; railroads, which were subject to every local rate, were rated to the last shilling. And were there not exemptions in favour of land, in the duties upon descent, insurance on farmingstock, &c.? These exemptions must be taken into the account; and even the commutation of the Land-Tax was a boon to the land. Dissenting, as he did, from the course proposed in the motion, he still thought there were modes, which he pointed out, whereby the landed interest might be relieved, and if the Income-Tax should be renewed, he should urge the farmers to press their claims to relief from its unequal pressure. Feeling confident that whilst the revenue rested upon solid foundations the prosperity of the country would be general, he was equally convinced that the owners and occupiers of the soil would be partakers of that prosperity.

Mr. Gladstone, concurring with Sir James Graham in the opinions he had expressed as to the effects of our recent commercial policy, and having voted with him in questions affecting our trade-attaching, moreover, weight to his authority-felt it incumbent upon him to state the grounds of his present vote, since it differed from that of Sir James, which appeared to be guided, not by what was in the motion, but by what was not in it. He did not take the same view as Sir James of the effects of the motion upon our recent commercial policy, or upon the stability of the Administration. It was plain that Sir George Grey had entertained no such alarm, inasmuch as he had frankly declared that, when the financial statement [C]

of the Government was before the House, these propositions might be considered and even conceded. No one by voting for the motion would be committed to either of the three propositions. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not intend to surrender his discretion to bind himself to either; he only pledged himself to this-Mr. Disraeli's argument was, that a considerable portion of the poor-rate might be advantageously transferred to the Consolidated Fund, and he (Mr. Gladstone) was ready to go into a consideration of that question. So far from believing that the motion menaced a return to protection, he thought it had a tendency to weaken the arguments in favour of a retrograde policy, and to draw off the moderate Protectionists. He voted for the motion upon the same ground that Sir James Graham voted against it-namely, the ground of justice. It was impossible to look at the poor-rate without being struck with the inequality of its incidence. The rate was levied locally-first, for the purposes of police, connected with the poor; and, secondly, for the discharge of a sacred obligation imposed by religion; but this was an old obligation which applied to the community at large. As an abstract proposition, the rate should fall upon all descriptions of property this might be impracticable, but the objection of impracticability did not apply to the proposition before the House. It had been said that landed property came by inheritance charged with this burden; but the burden was accompanied by a system of protection which gave produce an artificial value, contrary, indeed, to abstract justice, but not more so than the inequality of the rate.

Mr. Gladstone combated Sir James Graham's theory as to the class which would be relieved by the transfer of the rate, and expressed his belief that the farmer and the independent yeoman would be the parties benefited by the change; even if the whole benefit, after a certain time, should be reaped by the landlord, that fact, in his opinion, would not of itself be a fatal objection to it. There were, moreover, considerations of policy which should recommend the proposition to a favourable hearing; the claims of the agricultural labourers in England and Ireland demanded the careful attention of Parliament, in connection with those of the farmer.

Mr. Wilson was at issue with Mr. Gladstone on the question of justice, and he denied that protection had ever been beneficial to the landowner. He read a mass of statistical documents in support of his argument, that the present prices of agricultural produce in this country were not to be acted upon by the farmer, the landlord, or the Legislature; that they were exceptional and accidental. He did not believe that those prices would be permanent, or that there was any reason to fear foreign competition.

Mr. Buck considered that the bulk of Mr. Wilson's speech was nothing to the point, and opposed to his theory an allegation of facts stating the actual distress of the agricultural class in this country, upon which he founded his support of the motion.

Mr. Grantley Berkeley replied to some of the arguments of Sir James Graham, and enumerated the grievances and difficulties of the farmers, and the sufferings of the labourers, showing the general de

pression of agriculture in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire, and Hampshire.

Sir R. Peel, after paying a tribute to the ability and moderation displayed by Mr. Disraeli, acknowledged that the agricultural interest was suffering considerable distress, from causes, however, which appeared to have pervaded other countries of Europe, where prices had been depressed notwithstanding protection, and with the advantage of free importation into England. But the increase in the consumption of grain in this country was a consolatory fact. With out diminishing the demand for our own grain, we had last year imported, paid for, and consumed, 5,600,000 quarters of foreign wheat. And who had been the consumers of this additional quantity of grain? Not the upper classes, but those who lived by labour; and there was no surer indication of the prosperity of the country-in which the agricultural interest had the best chance of an augmented demand for their produce. Sir Robert then proceeded to state the grounds upon which he came to a conclusion different from that of Mr. Gladstone. The proposal was to transfer 2,000,000l. of taxation to the Consolidated Fund, as the first of a series of measures which would appropriate the surplus of this and of succeeding years; and he considered, first, the effect of this measure upon the finances of the country, and then, whether it was really for the benefit of the agricultural class itself. Upon the first question, he showed the impolicy of so appropriating the surplus revenue as to preclude the Legislature from the remission of taxes affecting the industry and the comforts of the people. The

adoption of this motion would either compel the continuance of the Income-Tax or the alternative which Mr. Drummond advocated, the imposition of a duty upon every foreign product, in order to maintain public credit. On the other branch of the question, he observed that the proposed transfer of 2,000,000l. of rates to the exchequer would relieve the land of only 900,000l., the remaining 1,100,000l. being now borne by other descriptions of real property; yet all must be made up by the occupying tenant (in common with other classes), who would not gain a greater remission than 3d. or 4d. in the pound. He objected to the scheme on another ground— namely, that it would be a reversal of our successful commercial and financial policy for the last six years. The wisdom of that policy he vindicated; and repelled a charge which had been made against him by Lord H. Bentinck out of the House, that, in the changes of 1842, he had been actuated by motives of private and personal interest.

Lord J. Russell felt it to be his duty to state why, as a Minister of the Crown, he was bound to resist the motion. He objected to it, first, because the allegation that it was founded in justice had not been proved: that position would have affected the whole 12,000,000l. But he did not believe that, looking to the whole charge upon the country, there was an unfair pressure upon the agricultural class. Then, if the claim was not just, was it nevertheless expedient to concede it? He should not be justified, as a Minister of the Crown, in assuming that there would be always an annual surplus of 2,000,000l., and if not, additional taxes must

be levied to make up the deficiency. Even if there should be such an amount of annual surplus, it would not be wise to give it to real property, and thereby preclude the Legislature from remitting or mitigating taxes which impede consumption, or oppress the industry of the country. Lord John insisted upon the increased expenditure that would be consequent upon the change, especially with respect to the casual poor, the amounts of which item of charge it would be impossible for the Poor Law Board to check. The logic of Mr. Gladstone, he contended, was faulty when he argued that by conceding this motion the cause of Protection would be damaged. The object of Mr. Disraeli, who pursued fair game, was intelligible; but he could not understand those who, although against the end, were in favour of the means. With reference to the vindication of his own motives offered by Sir R. Peel, Lord John, in very handsome terms, bore testimony to the disinterested spirit which had dictated his policy; declaring that nothing but what he believed to be a prevailing and paramount sense of duty to his sovereign, his colleagues, and his country, could have induced him to take the course he did.

After an explanation from Lord H. Bentinck, and a few words of comment upon it by Sir R. Peel,

Mr. Disraeli made a replyskilful, pointed, and facetious; and the House then divided, when the motion was negatived by 273 to 252, the majority being only 21. The subject of the extension of the elective franchise was mooted by Mr. Hume at an early period of the Session. A report had prevailed some time previous to the meeting of Parliament, that some

measure of Parliamentary Reform would be proposed by the Ministers of the Crown. The anticipation, however, proved to be unfounded; and finding that the Government had no intention of stirring the question, the Member for Montrose brought it formally before the House on the 28th of February, in the shape of the following resolution:

"That leave be granted to bring in a Bill to amend the national representation by extending the elective franchise, so that every man of full age, and not subject to any mental or legal disability, who shall have been the resident occupier of a house, or part of a house as a lodger, for twelve months, and shall have been duly rated to the poor of that parish for that time, shall be registered as an elector, and be entitled to vote for a representative in Parliament; also, by enacting that votes shall be taken by ballot, that the duration of Parliaments shall not exceed three years, and that the proportion of representatives be made more consistent with the amount of population and property."

Mr. Hume founded his motion on the avowed admission that the present state of our representation is grossly defective, and on the necessity of bringing back the constitution to its ancient principles, and establishing a system of rigid economy. The principle of the Reform Bill was not one of taxation, but the occupation of houses of certain value, and of paying taxes: he proposed to adopt the simple test of respectability. He would require residence during twelve months and being rated to the poor-expressly excluding any reference to payment of the rates;