§ On the order of the day being moved for the 2nd reading of this bill,
§ Mr. Plumerrose to object to it; his reason for doing so was, that the duty bore, with a very extraordinary degree of pressure, on the farmer; and, consquently, in the end, on the landed interest. The farmers of this country, he said, were by no means that very opulent class of men they had been falsely represented to be, and he was well convinced, the times were better 862 for the farmer, when corn sold at 8s. or 9s. per bushel, than in those in which it had reached the very high prices, at which it had been in the course of a few years last past. He had been told, that this tax would, as taxes generally do, fall on the consumer, but who, be asked, are the consumers? The answer is very direct said he; those who eat bread: as such, it must fall with the greatest weight on the lower and poorer orders of the community, and therefore he was averse from it. A committee above stai[...]s had, in the course of last session, been a long time employed to enquire into the most effectual means of reducing the price corn, and, consequently, of bread, and the result of that inquiry was, that it would be necessary to take every possible step towards the improvement of agriculture. The present tax, he was convinced, would very materially impede the interests of agriculture, and there fore he was against it. He did not say this from any captious opposition to taxes, but from a thorough conviction, in his own mind, that he was strongly impelled by his duty to make the observations he had done.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he really thought the bill would not produce the pressure which some gentlemen apprehended, He believed the tax would fall on the consumer; and the increase it, would create in the price of the article of corn would amount to a sum so trifling, that no one could think it any inconvenience to any body. The whole of the duty was estimated at 300,000l. one-third of which would be borne by those who kept horses for trades in large towns, brewers and the like, so that the whole amount of the duty on husbandry was only 200,000l. The amount of the rental of England alone was 37 millions; including Scotland, it was 40 millions. The produce of land had been calculated under the mark many years ago, and since which great improvements had been made; in no case was it calculated at less than 3 tines the rent; in many it was 5 and 6 times that amount; but taking it moderately, at 4 times the rent, the annual produce would then be 100 sterling. Now, this duty was only one 7 50th part of that produce on the whole average of the kingdom; and taking the bill in the most objectionable shape in which gentlemen chose to put it, that was, distinguishing the arable from pasture land, and taking it to be more on the arable than on the pasture, it would then be the 863 1,000th part of the produce of the pasturage, one 500th on the arable land, and this, computing one quarter of corn to each individual in the kingdom in the year, would amount only to an additional charge of 1½ per annum, a sum, he apprehended, not so alarming, nor any thing, likely to check the growth of corn.
Mr. Coke (of Norfolk)said, he was perfeetly convinced the operation of it would be to take away all inclination to agricultural improvements. There were at this moment fewer horses employed than when the last tax took place, and there could not be a doubt but that, from this additional tax, the number would continue to decrease, which must of course prove an injury to the general interests of agriculture. It would prevent the bringing of marle from any considerable distance, and render the carriage of every kind of manure more difficult and tedious, from the decrease in the number of horses. He was thoroughly satisfied, that if the tax took place, the same quantity of corn would not be grown as had been heretofore, which must prove highly injurious to the country, and contribute to enhance the price of bread. It was, he said, an old, and he believed, a true saying, that when poverty once gets into the stable, it will not be long before it makes its way into the house. He warned the right hon. gent. that the farmer might be induced, in many places, to substitute oxen to perform the offices of agriculture. In every part of a country like this, there would be always a prevalence of local prejudices; he could wish they were not so common. In Norfolk, where farming was carried to a great degree of nicety, he believed there was no such thing known as the use of oxen in husbandry, but it was otherwise in many other counties, and might be brought into far more general use in those counties where there was more grazing land. If the farmer did not receive a fair remuneration, there could be no doubt his corn would grow less. From all these considerations, therefore, he should certainly vote against the motion.
Sir W. W. Wynneargued that the present tax would bear heavily, in particular on the holders of mountainous farms, where six horses are sometimes required to do work which two could perform in a low flat country. He hoped also that there would be an exemption, if the bill were persevered in, of horses under 14½ hands high.
§ Mr. Foxsaid, that although farms of 20l. a year were exempt, yet thousands of small farms were now subject to the tax, and ought to be relieved from its pressure.
§ Mr. Gilesopposed it as immediately pressing hard on agriculture, and would not soon fail to fall on the consnmer. He had, however, one objection to the tax entirely, and that was, a breach of faith with the farmers. They were only to be taxed three-fourths of their rents, which was an estimation of his profits, and you cannot lay a direct tax on the profits of the farmer without making an alteration in his property tax; for if you lay a tax on him, you diminish his profits, which cannot be done without a breach of faith.
§ Mr. Canningcontended that the arguments of the hon. gent. who spoke last, proved too much, and therefore ought not to weigh in the consideration of a measure of this nature.
§ Mr. Greysaid, that he agreed with all his hon. friends, that a more injurious tax could not be proposed. If we are to bear additional burdens, that cannot be done without attending to the principal resources of the country. He was doubtful as to the real policy of the corn bill, but sure he was, in his own mind, that the less parliament interfered in matter of that kind, the better. In every view of it, he thought there could not be a more impolitic tax than the present, for it would operate as a discouragement to agriculture, and consequently prove highly injurious to the country.—After this a desultory conversation took place: Sir R. Buxton, Mr. Bastard, and Mr. Fellows, opposed the Bill; the Attorney General and Mr. Huskisson supported it; after which
§ the house divided: For the second reading 73—Against it 76—Majority against the Bill 3.