Page:History of the Anti corn law league - Volume 2.pdf/301

 could say that the tenantry had not this year lost a great deal of capital? He rose now to call their lordships' attention to that fact, He blamed not the government. because he never saw a government that troubled themselves much about agriculture. One of the misfortunes of this country was that as soon as ever a government got into office, they appeared to forget altogether that there was any such thing as agriculture, The state of manufactures and commerce was well known to them through tho Board of Trade; but there was no board of agriculture, and therefore the government were not aware of the fact which he had mentioned. But he could state from his own knowledge that there was great distress among the torantry, and upon that ground he thought it should have been referred to in the speech. One recommendation contained in her majesty's speech was, that the income tax should be continued for a further period. Now, he merely wished to remark that he hoped, if the income tax were re-enacted, as far as the tenantry were concerned, they would charge them according to their profits; for at present, whilst other trades paid the tax upon £150 profits, the farmer had to pay the tax on £150 if his rents amounted to £300 a-year, when it was clear that, with the existing low prices, it was impossible he could realise that amount of profit. He would not, however, provoke a Corn Law speech; he only rose in order to protest against the omission from the royal speech of all reference to the subject of agriculture, and to inform her Majesty's government that what he had stated was the truth, and that there was very considerable distress in many parts of the country."

In the House of Commons the address was moved by Mr. Charteris, seconded by Mr. Baring. Lord J. Russell, referring to the present flourishing condition of trade and manufactures, thought steps ought to be taken to make them more permanently so. "No man," his lordship