SIR CHARLES KNIGIITLEY'S "1109N" TO THE WASHERWOMEN.

ANY proposition which is said to be favourable to the Agricultural interest is sure to receive large soopert in the House of Commons.

There is a numerous class of Member; who dare not for their

seats oppose any motion which may subject them even to the false charge of abandoning the limners. The pretended benefit to the

farmer may he almost inealcrhably minute, or non-existent, and the injustice to other classes of the community may be serious and evident—still these gentlemen feel bound to " support the agricultural interest," by committing this injustice. rather than risk the odium of giving a single vote which the ignorant and malicious may misinterpret to their disadvantage at an election.

It is by the prevalence of this feeling that we west in a great mea- sure account for the narrow majority which supported Mr. SPRING RICE'S motion to reduce the duty on newspapers. Sir CH altLES KNIGHTLEY proposed to diminish the duty on hard soap by a Halfpenny, and on soft soap by three farthings a pound, in preference to taking off about twopence -farthing from the Newspaper-tax. Sir CHARLES brought forward this motion expressly for the relief of the "suffering agricultural interest," as it is called ; and there- fore he received extensive support. No doubt, when he returns to Northamptonshire Ile will complain of the which Minis- ters bear to the farmers, and beast of his own exertions in their behalf. He will not cut down his private establishment, and reduce his rents ; but he will point to the Soap tax debate told his own "excellent speech," as the Standard phrases one ut the most lame and broken-winded exhibitions ever witnessed in the House of Commons; and then he will claim the votes of the landed gen- tlemen and their tenants, as a great prop of their " interests."

Now let us see what Sir CHARLES KNIGHTLEY would actually have accomplished had his plan succeeded. Mr. CHARLES BARCLAY, the brewer, who seconded the motion, calculated that the proposed reduction of the Soap-duty would amount to 244,000/. This 244,000/. divided among the English population of fifteen millions, would give each a sum of 3.14. per anuum. The agri- culturists, we suppose, do not use more soap than the mechanics —probably not so much. They would at any rate only have an equal share with other classes in the benefit of the reduction; and that share would be 34d. a head. Beheld the great boun to the suffering agricultural interest! Mr. JOHN BRICKWELL, a Buckinghamshire _farmer, was ex- amined before the Agricultural Committee of the Home of Com- mons. He rents 700 acres of land ; and he told the Committee, that by the abolition of the Malt-tax of five millions and a half, he would only have gained al/. a year ; and now it is proposed to relieve this man by taking off a tax of less than a quarter of a million. If the abolition of the Malt-tax would only put 211. a year in Biticawuee's pocket, the proposed reduction of the Soap- tax would give less than one pound a year! Look at the calcu- lation in another way. Sir Cu .ARLES KNIGHTLEY proposed to take a halfpenny oft' the tax on hard soap : suppose Mr. BRICK- WELL consumed 480 pounds a year of snap, still this reduction would only relieve him to the amount of 1/. But what farmer cansumes 480 pounds a year of soap in his household, now that the practice of boarding, his labourers is put an end to? Mr. GOULDURN says that each person on au average uses 6% pounds of soap a year. Suppose that a farmer has ten per- sons under his roof, his consumption of snap would be 65 pounds; and his saving by Sir CHARLES KNIGHTLEY'S scheme of relief, would therefore be two shillings and eightpence halfpenny per annum! What a relief to the suffering agriculturists ! The quantity of wheat raised in England is not less than twelve milieus of quarters: suppose that the price of wheat on Mon- day last had risen sixpence a quarter—three farthings a bushel— me Mark Lane : would any farmer's friend have admitted that the rise had given great relief- to the suffering agricultural interest ? Yet sixpence a quarter on twelve millions amounts to 300,0001.;

i

that s, 56,000/. more than is produced by that portion of the Soap- tax sought to be repealed., Even if the whole benefit of the remission were to he engrossed by the agriculturist:;, still an ad" vance of legs than a pruner a bushel on wheat would be the greater advantage to the agricultural interest.

Let its suppose that a firmer Iii s 5001. a year rent and tithes. The "agriculture) interest is suffering" in spite of the Corn-laws,

and lie applies for a loWering or his rent : would he thank his landlord for a reduetion of ow, per rent.? Scarcely, we should imagine: yet, on the suppositian that his family consists of tea

Iterating, even that paltry reduction of rent would be about 38

times as large a " bona" as den which Sir CH ARLES Ksiteirrasar propta,es, to give hint. The fact is, that the only chaos Or persons who would reap any material sating by the reduction of a half- penny a pound on snap, wet1141 be the laundresses; awl Sir vat.us Kalt01111.4a: should have proposed it as a " boon" to the waaherwetatet.

Such being the real state of this question, what is the proper name for the 'homeland's proenve, that "the remiesitat of the Soap-tax yeaild Alin! great relict' to the ,..ntierin:.; agriculturist?" The " friends " of the farmers treat them as if they were stupid (hilts, who could not put t a;V1 two together to make lour. Any

farmer e ho has had the haetalt sun:lay-school teaching, can calculate at once, that tl:e remission of a halfpenny a pound on

snap, would give no relief' mentanting to any large " in- terest." But " the neltietio t of the tax would stimulate produc- tion : " possibly, a very small additional quantity of tallow might be required. Tallow, however, romes ream, Russia, as well as from the English grazing districts: and it must be remembered, that the iilieit manufacturer supplies a large quantity of the pre- sent consumption. A reductien of the duty might bring more soap " to charm;'' yet we queetian whether the demand is not already satisfied by the fair dealer and the smuggler together. At any rate, the indirect advent:lee to the English farmer is un- certain, and so minute as not to be tangible. The readers of the Spectator know that we are aware of the vexatious impediments threwn by the Excise regulations in the way of the honest inatelfieetrer of soap. But be it remembered, that the tnolien on Monday night did not touch these. It left the whole cost and trouble and annoyance of the system of collection in its present infamous state. For the collection of' a duty of 5a5,000/., the same cost would be incurred, and the sante iniqui- ties sanctioned, as for 799,0001., the present net revenue from the Soap-tax. The Excise Revenue Comtnissioners did not anticipate a reduction of revenue by putting the duty at a penny a pound; but then, they proposed that the penny tax should be extended to Ireland,—a proposition which the soap gentlemen on Monday carefully eschewed; knowing well that it would array against them all the Irish Representatives. When the Soap-tax is next meddled with, it should be entirely abolished.

One word as to the motion which gave the Opposition this new opportunity of proclaiming their hollow affection for the farmers. The arguments for the reduction of the Newspaper-tax, on which we rely, have little reference to mere finance. Unquestionably it is unjust to the stamp-paying newspaper proprietor that contra- bandists should set the Government at defiance, and publish papers by the million without the stamp: it is also a very dan- gerous example which these men set of successful resistance to the law : but the main argument for cheapening newspapers is the necessity of diffusing, political knowledge as widely as possible. It has been shown by Du TocQuav LLE and other writers, that the " movement "—the " democracy "—the populace—are likely to obtain supreme power before they are sufficiently instructed how to use it. This is the peculiar danger of modern times; a danger which can only be averted by active exertions to spread information among the masses. The newspaper is the most effectual instrument for this end; and it is a very short-sighted and dangerous policy, which can place in competition with such an object a much larger amount of revenue than is derived from the present tax on newspapers.