WeRead Powered by ReaderPub
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.III. / From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria cover

The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol.III. / From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year of the Reign of Queen Victoria

Chapter 1052: AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.
By Edward Farr
Open in WeRead

Explore more books like this:

History - BritishHistory - Modern (1750+)History - RoyaltyHistory - Warfare

About This Book

The volume traces British political, parliamentary, and military developments from the accession of George III through the early nineteenth century, chronicling changes of ministry and cabinet, debates over colonial taxation and the American conflict, parliamentary controversies involving figures such as Wilkes and Warren Hastings, questions of Catholic relief and slave-trade abolition, and responses to the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, including major naval and continental campaigns, the union with Ireland, and domestic legislation on finance, civil liberties, and parliamentary reform.

AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS.

WILLIAM IV. 1835—1836

On the 25th of May the Marquis of Chandos again brought forward the subject of agricultural distress. The object of his present motion was to give relief by diminishing the pressure of the local burdens to which land was subject. The farmer, he said, severely felt the heavy pressure of the maintenance of prisoners in gaol, and building and repairing county bridges. He was likewise compelled to perform statute labour on the highway. He thought all this should be thrown on the general taxation of the country. He thought also that the duty on windows in farm-houses, and on horses used in husbandry, should be taken off entirely. Lord Althorp had made some reductions; but the benefit would be increased by total relief from these burdens. He moved:—“That an humble address be presented to his majesty, expressing the deep regret this house feels at the continuing distressed state of the agricultural interest of this country, to which the attention of parliament was called by his majesty’s most gracious speeches from the throne at the commencement of the preceding and of the present session of parliament; and humbly to represent the anxious desire of this house that the attention of his majesty’s government may be directed without delay to this subject, with a view to the immediate removal of some portion of those burdens to which the land is subject through the pressure of general and local taxation.” The motion was seconded by the Earl of Darlington. Government opposed it on the ground that what was proposed would give no relief, and that the suggestions at which it pointed required deliberate consideration. The home-secretary moved an amendment to the effect, that “the house would direct its early attention to the recommendations of a committee which sat last session of parliament upon the subject of county-rates, with a view to the utmost practical alleviation of those burdens to which the land was subject through the pressure of local taxation.” Sir Robert Peel supported the amendment, because the resolution pledged the house to objects which must excite expectations on the part of the agriculturists which could not, consistently with public credit, be fulfilled. The Marquis of Chandos, however, pressed his motion to a division, which was lost by a majority of two hundred and eleven against one hundred and fifty. In the course of the debate on this subject, some members urged that all the evil had arisen from the resumption of cash payments, and that it could only be cured by some alteration of the currency. On the 1st of June, Mr. Cayley moved the appointment of “a select committee, to inquire if there be not effectual means within the reach of parliament to afford substantial relief to the agriculture of the United Kingdom, and especially to recommend to the attention of such committee the subject of a silver standard, or conjoined standard of silver and gold.” Sir Robert Peel and Mr. P. Thompson opposed the motion; and Sir C. Burrell and Messrs. Wodehouse, Bennett, and O’Connell supported it; but on a division it was lost by a majority of two hundred and sixteen against one hundred and twenty-six.