After a number of desultory remarks from various
members, the bill was read a second time.

The subject of Agricultural Distress was brought
before the house, on Tuesday the 19th, by Mr.
DISRAELI, who moved for a committee to revise and
amend the Poor-laws, for the purpose of affording
relief to the agricultural classes. He began by admitting
the fact that a large majority in both houses were
disinclined to disturb, at present, the settlement lately
arrived at, and his party were convinced that an
abrogation of the recent legislation on the subject could not
be obtained. It was necessary therefore to adapt our
position to the altered state of the case, and so to revise
taxation that those connected with the soil should be
placed on an equality with their fellow-subjects. He
denied the assertion frequently made, that the landlord
class is luxurious, indolent, and aristocratic. If you
divide the whole rental of England—sixty millions—by
the number of proprietors—205,000—the average income
of each is about £240 a year; and, as many have much
more, many must have much less; the truth being that
they are the most thrifty, industrious, hard-living class,
as a whole, in the kingdom. On the subject of the
Poor-laws, he maintained that the burden of
supporting the poor ought to fall equally on all, and not
upon a particular class. It had been said that the land
in this country was inherited subject to this and all
other charges; but this was not true, at least as regarded
Ireland nor Scotland, nor a considerable portion of land
in England. A surprising number of very considerable
estates, and some very interesting tenures, were not
originally subject to this charge. He stood opposite to
a noble lord, the son of one of our greatest houses—
one which had used its vast possessions generally for the
honour and dignity of England—which certainly did
not inherit or otherwise acquire those vast possessions
subject to the provisions of the 43rd Elizabeth. But in
principle, if you say property was inherited subject to
an impost, was it not also taken subject to laws which
gave it an adventitious value, by securing a market and
offering a bonus? With these general explanations
Mr. Disraeli stated, that the first point he would
consider in committee would be the charges known in
Poor-law administration by the name of the establishment
charges. These he would have defrayed out of
general revenue of the state, after the 25th March, 1850.
These are modern unlocal charges; by their transfer
local burdens would be diminished about £1,500,000.
Secondly, he would deal with all rates raised by the
Poor-law machinery which have nothing to do with the
relief of the poor—excepting the police and county
rates; charges for registering births and deaths,
preparing jury and burgess lists, executing the Nuisances
Act, the Sanatory Acts, the Vaccination Act, and such
irrelevant matters: local burdens of this kind, amounting
to £700,000 for the United Kingdom, he would transfer
to the charge of the Consolidated Fund. Lastly, he
would transfer to the charge of the general revenue of
the kingdom the whole cost of relieving the casual poor.
This was not even, at present, a parochial charge; it
was already paid out of a common fund—the union
rate. These propositions were just and practicable;
they destroyed no old principles or machinery; and
their cost might be well discharged out of that balance
in the Exchequer of which we have heard much and
hope more.—Sir G. GREY rejoiced that the mountains
which had been prophesied in so many county meetings
had resulted in so harmless a proposition as that of
Mr. Disraeli. The hon. member had based his demands
upon an assumption of agricultural distress. He (Sir
G. Grey) would not deny that distress existed; but he
denied that it had increased. The returns of crime and
pauperism were the best tests, and both concurred in
proving that destitution had diminished since 1848. In
passing on to the proposition of Mr. Disraeli, he
signalised the important omission of any reference to the law
of settlement. This law as it existed he admitted to bear
heavily against the landed interest, and recommended
the subject to the attention of those who had
constituted themselves the protectors of British industry.
Mr. Disraeli's proposals were founded upon a confusion
of all descriptions of real property with the landed
interest. Difficulties had always stood in the way of
fairly rating personal and trading properties, and they
were still insurmountable. But the burthens
complained of were decreasing. Since 1813 the amount
raised for the poor and county rates had diminished by
nearly a million, while the population upon whom it
was assessed had expanded from ten to seventeen
millions, and the value of the real property chargeable
had increased from fifty to ninety-one millions. Of
this the land bore a rated value of only forty-three
millions. The rest consisted of houses, railways,
and various other forms of realised property. Land
had nevertheless not decreased in absolute, but
only in relative value, and, as was thus proved, had
in no degree gone out of cultivation. These figures
disposed of the allegation of injustice to the land
in the incidence of local taxation. Sir G. GREY
then commented upon Mr. Disraeli's several proposals.
Instead of a million and a half, the establishment charges
of England were, last year, only £700,000. If this was
withdrawn from local checks, considerable danger of
extravagance would be incurred. Much the same might
be said of the other charges included in the propositions.
But on this point he would not, on the instant, declare
what the government might determine when they came
to decide what was to be done with the surplus revenue.
He denied, however, that they differed materially in
principle from other items of local taxation. The charge
for the relief of the casual poor it was highly
inexpedient to remove from the local control, which had
effected recently a considerable economy in its
distribution. Altogether, he characterised the propositions
as narrow and immature. They would purchase, at a
cost of much trouble and complication, a relief not
exceeding threepence in the pound on the aggregate rates.
Even this modicum of benefit would be monopolised
by the landowner. He concluded by challenging
Mr. Disraeli to reveal a little more of the threatened
series—whose first member had turned out so
inauspiciously and asked what had become of his sinking
fund and the ad valorem duty.—The motion was
supported by the Hon. M. CHARTERIS, Sir J. TYRELL,
and Lord J. MANNERS; and opposed by Mr.
HOBHOUSE and Mr. BRIGHT, who asked, how could Mr.
Disraeli's proposals satisfy the clamour which the
Protectionists had excited during the recess? The
self-called farmers' friends did not attempt to
remove the farmers' taxes by taking off the duties on
tea, tobacco, and malt. Nor did they speak one word
about reforming the Game-laws, or appear willing to
support the tenant compensation lately introduced into
the house. The true prosperity of the cultivator and
the landlord would spring from the expansion of industry,
the increase of population, the improvement in wages,
and the reduction of crime and pauperism—results that
were rapidly following as the legitimate consequences of
free-trade.—Mr. H. DRUMMOND said that the farmer
had been accused of not knowing his business. Were
the learned men of Manchester much wiser? Did they
know the scientific qualities of the pigments and drugs
they used? Was not a school of design provided in
pity for their ignorance? Free trade had promoted
some manufactures but destroyed others. It had
annihilated the farming trade, cut down half the value of
timber and bark, and reduced the produce of all the
land in England from 80s. to 40s. an acre. The
destruction of property on one side had surpassed its
increase on another, and the whole system was one of
class legislation. This was the first skirmish of the
battle. The terms of free trade and protection were the
watchwords of the struggle between capital and labour,
between wealth and life. He should vote for the
propositions of Mr. Disraeli, but would vote also for placing
the burdens upon the property of the rich, leaving the
poorman free to drink untaxed beer, to build with untaxed
bricks, and grow hops, tobacco, or anything else he liked
in his garden.—Captain D. PELHAM made some
observation, after which the debate was adjourned to
Thursday.

The debate was resumed on Thursday the 21st. Mr.
STAFFORD supported the motion, and, among other
observations, calculated that Ireland would be relieved
by the transfer of burdens on land, amounting to
£490,000, to the Consolidated Fund.—Sir James