GRAHAM characterised the motion as a clever party
manœuvre. Taken by themselves, the propositions
would confer an almost imperceptible benefit on the
landed interest. He had always enforced upon the
agricultural body, to whom he himself belonged, the
imprudence of legislating for themselves as a class
distinct from the rest of the community. Eleven articles,
all of them to be classed among the necessaries of the
operative and manufacturing population, paid in taxes
thirty-one millions annually. Was it equitable to add
to this burden by transferring some of the load now
resting upon realised property? The burdens on land
were diminishing. A report drawn up in 1833 showed
a condition of the landed interest under the sliding scale
far more deplorable even than at present. What
personal good management could effect, he exemplified
by his own experience, the poor-rate, county-rate, and
highway-rate in his neighbourhood having been reduced
from 30 to 40 per cent, since he came into his property
in 1822. The increased imports of guano and application
for inclosure bills showed that agricultural enterprise
was still lively. Land enjoyed many exemptions from
taxation. Nothing was paid by it on descents, while
personal properties had paid sixty millions in legacy duties
since 1797. Stamps, servants, vehicles, and horses were
also exempt from duty when they appertained to land
and agriculture. The reliefs to which the landed
interest was fairly entitled were the alleviation of
burdens that checked improvement. Among these
were the duties on brick and timber. If the income-
tax were re-enacted after its expiration next year, some
claim might also be urged for a revision of Schedule B,
which fixed the farmer's profits at half his rent; and
even of Schedule A, where no allowance was made for
the landlord's expenses and repairs. Speaking of the
general condition of the English labourer, he declared
that in his own neighbourhood there had been no reduction
of wages, while all articles of consumption had
fallen, and the husbandman was able to enjoy more
comforts than he had ever known before.—Mr.
GLADSTONE expressed his intention to vote for the motion;
but said he should not do so if he thought that it
involved a reversion of the Free-trade policy. He agreed
that local management is a stimulus to economy; but
he would go into committee to consider the charges
—such as establishment charges and the like—which do
not need that check, and might therefore be transferred
to the Consolidated Fund. As a matter of justice, it is
clear that property should be made liable for the
maintenance of the poor. He supported the motion mainly
because he thought it would have a tendency to lessen
the agitation for the restoration of protection, by drawing
off the moderate; and the struggling class which
now makes its claim upon the house should be met with
aid and encouragement.—Sir R. PEEL admitted the
existence of agricultural distress, for which he felt
sincerely; but described it as exceptional, and owing to
special causes: similar distress existing in protected
countries. He characterised Mr. Disraeli's proposition
as a plan tending to shake confidence in public credit;
and said that he should consider its adoption a most
precipitate and unwise act. And how could we remove
the tax upon bricks, timber, and other articles on which
relief might properly be given, if we took away from
the exchequer the surplus which might justify such
relief? And yet real property, by the repeal of the
£500,000 or £600,000 of brick duty, would be gaining
more real benefit than if the proposal of Mr. Disraeli
were acceded to. Sir R Peel further objected to the
proposal as a reversal of the financial policy of the
country; and said that its adoption would render it an
impossibility to repeal any tax, however objectionable.
It would be an ill return to the mass of the people for
their patience and loyalty to begin to reverse a policy
which had made them so thankful. He (Sir Robert)
had been charged with acting treacherously towards a
certain interest. What reason (he asked, amid loud
cheers), personal or political, could he have for such a
course? He alluded to an attack made upon him by
Lord H. Bentinck, who had accused him of having a
pecuniary interest in supporting the funds as against
land. Lord H. Bentinck, in describing his (Sir Robert's)
fortune, should, if he wished to speak truth, have
exactly reversed the account he gave of it. He then
defended himself for his course upon the Corn-law;—a
course which, he said, he believed to have been his duty
to God and to his country, and of the wisdom of
which he was more confirmed than ever. Protection
never could be revived; and the landed aristocracy
would one day see that the abrogation of protection had
established their just influence more firmly than ever.—
Lord John RUSSELL supported and enforced the
arguments of Sir James Graham and Sir R. Peel, and
expressed some regret that Sir Robert had thought it
worth his while to allude to the personal attacks made
on him; feeling convinced that in the present as well as
future time, full justice would be done to Sir Robert's
motives (a testimony loudly cheered by the house).—
Lord Henry BENTINCK attempted to renew his previous
attack, but was prevented from going on, by indignant
exclamations from all parts of the house.—On the
division, Mr. D'Israeli's motion was negatived by 273
to 252.

On Monday the 25th, on the order of the day for
going into committee on the Parliamentary Voters
(Ireland) Bill, Mr. Disraeli urged its postponement
till after the termination of the Irish assizes. This was
opposed by ministers, and a pertinacious party struggle
took place. After two divisions the house went into
committee; but the committee was prevented from
proceeding by a series of obstructive motions and
divisions on them, to which ministers were forced to
give way.

On Tuesday the 26th, Mr. W. J. FOX moved for leave
to bring in a bill for the Promotion of Secular Education.
In a speech of great ability, he explained the
nature of his measure. It provided that there should
be a government examination into the educational
deficiency of each district in England, and that the
inhabitants should be invited to supply that deficiency, by
providing the means of adding to the numbers in existing
schools, and by instituting free schools in which no
religious system should be taught, except by desire of
the parents. Where a locality refused the invitation,
government should interfere, and compel it to do its
duty. One of the advantages of this plan would be,
that the sturdy independence of the lower class, which
revolted against "charities," and objected to theological
dogmas, would be won over to education. He said that,
according to a Lancashire estimate, a rate of 4¾d. in the
pound would provide schools all over England, against
which should be set the expected diminution in criminal
expenditure. After dwelling upon the necessity of
raising the standard of the teacher, he hoped that his
bill might be laid on the table of the house, and be
considered by the country, where thousands upon
thousands of children were growing up in savageness and
crime.—Lord J. RUSSELL recognised the importance of
the subject, and the reality of the deficiency alluded to
by Mr. Fox. He hoped the house would allow the
bill to be introduced; but whether the plan it included
would meet all the vast difficulties of the question, he
would not at the present moment pronounce a definite
judgment. The statement as to the total failure of the
existing societies to extend the means of instruction, he
however believed to have been somewhat overcharged.
The noble lord trusted that something might result
from the motion, and acknowledged the admirable spirit
in which the subject had been approached by the hon.
member for Oldham.—After observations from Mr.
Hume, Mr. Plumptre, Mr. B. Osborne, and others,
leave was given to introduce the bill.

Mr. FiTZROY, for leave to bring in a bill Extending to
£50 the Jurisdiction of County Courts. The ATTORNEY
GENERAL said he would not oppose the introduction of
the bill, though he had serious objections to extending
the powers of these courts. Leave was given, and the
bill brought in.

On Wednesday, the 27th, Mr. Stuart WORTLEY
moved the second reading of the Marriages Bill,
explaining that its main features were similar to the bill of
last year, except that he had withdrawn the words which
legalised marriage with a deceased wife's niece, and had
also left it to the discretion of the clergy to solemnise
the marriages with the deceased wife's sister or not,
according to their conscience. Mr. THESIGER moved that