proportion to corn. Now, looking at the amount of duties proposed, he found the duty on meat was only equal to 9 per cent., while they put a duty equal to 27 per cent. on corn. This was a manifest injustice to the interest which most affected the sister country. He thought Ireland was entitled to demand some equivalent for this, and the only equivalent which he asked was a good and substantial measure of legislative justice to that country.

Mr. G. Palmer said, he was surprised to find both parties claiming credit for the principles of free-trade. He believed in his conscience that the happiness and greatness of the country depended not upon free-trade, but upon protection. The Tariff, as now presented to them, was composed of a mixture of all sorts of contradictions. There was protection to one interest, and all protection was taken away from another. The agricultural interest, he thought, must look with much alarm on the measures that were now taking place. He could not but regard as ominous for the agricultural interests the cheers with which Sir Robert Peel's statements had been received on the opposite benches by the enemies of the Corn-laws, and the appeal which had been made by Sir Robert Peel to the opinions of Members on the other side, whose authority, if good in one case, must be good in another. He felt alarm because he did not know to what lengths the Government might not be led on after they had begun legislating on free-trade principles. When the Tariff was passed, the next step to be expected would be the repeal of the Cornlaws.

Colonel Sibthorp said, that if one thing could make him more dissatisfied with the Tariff than another, it would be the full and entire approval which it had received from Mr. Hume. He remembered the old lesson, “Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."

On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, Major Vivian rose to move for any additional details which had been furnished in a report made to the Government by Mr. Meek, a gentleman at the head of the Victualling department at Hamburgh, relative to the importation of agricultural provisions, salted produce, &c.; some portions of which report Major Vivian alleged to have been suppressed by the Government, whereas the entire document ought, as he contended, to have been laid before the House before going into Committee. The motion was seconded by Lord Worsley, and supported by Lord John Russell, Sir G. Grey, Mr. M. Attwood, Mr. Sheil, Mr. Muntz, and other Members. It was resisted on the part of the Government by Sir R. Peel, Lord Stanley, and Mr. Gladstone, on the ground that the Government had a right to withhold at their discretion any portion of statements furnished to them by their confidential agent, and also, because in the present instance no matter really in the nature of information had been suppressed, but every detail and fact furnished by Mr. Meek had been fairly submitted to the House. After a protracted discussion the House divided on the question, that the Speaker do now leave the Chair-Ayes, 219; Noes, 152: majority, 67.

On the next occasion on which the motion for going into Committee on the Customs' Duties

Bill was proposed, viz.-on May 13th, Lord Howick proposed a resolution of which he had before given notice, and which was to the following effect :-"That in making a new arrangement of the Customs duties, it is not expedient to impose different rates of duty upon the same articles when imported from foreign countries or from British possessions, in any case where no such difference now exists and that in those cases in which such a difference already exists, it is not expedient that it should be increased." He argued that such differences would injure the revenue without benefiting the consumer; while they would force Colonial trades into precarious existence. The principle to be applied to the colonies was that avowed by Sir Robert Peel, that they should be allowed to buy cheap and sell dear, with access to our markets, but with no peculiar advantages. The House should be cautious of creating fresh protections and difficulties of this kind, especially, considering the effect which the example of Great Britain would have in America and other foreign countries.

Mr.Gladstone thought that Lord Howick did not understand the contemplated arrangements. There were 131 remissions in favour of differential duties in the existing Tariff, and in each of ninety-eight cases, the foreign duty had now been lowered; other duties were reserved for foreign negotiations, but that was no reason why in the meantime the duty on Colonial produce should not be reduced. Opposition Members had grown more alive to the evils of differential duties since they had changed sides, for they had extended them to East Indian products. But the VOL. LXXXIV.

The

reduction of Colonial duties could not be called the creation of differential duties, since it was merely extending what they had done for Ireland half a century ago, when the commercial separation of that country from England was removed-it was in fact removing a restriction, not creating one; and as in the case of the German Customs' Union, it was so far giving freedom to trade within certain boundaries. While we retained differential duties in favour of our manufactures within the Colonies, and restrictions which compelled the employment of our shipping, the name of differential duties must not frighten us from doing justice to the Colonies.

Lord Howick's view was supported by Mr. F. T. Baring, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Villiers; that of Mr. Gladstone by Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Peel, who contended that Colonies ought not to be treated as foreign countries, otherwise wherefore retain them at all or go to the expense of defending them? On a division the motion was negatived by 281 to 108.

After the Whitsuntide recesswhich followed soon after the debate just referred to the House resumed the consideration of the Tariff in detail. The dutics on cattle and provisions excited the keenest discussion, the agricultural Members taking alarm at the prospect of foreign competition which they anticipated from the reduced duties. Mr. P. Miles, one of the Members for Somersetshire, took the lead in this discussion on the part of the farming interest. On the House going into Committee on the 23rd May, the motion being made, "That in lieu of the present rates of duty now payable on the [I]

articles enumerated in the annexed schedules, there shall be raised, levied, and paid upon the importation of the said articles into the United Kingdom, the rates of duty proposed in the annexed schedules;" Mr. Miles proposed to add, by way of amendment, the following words: All live stock imported from foreign countries being charged by weight." A deputation of country and agricultural Members, he said, had waited on Sir Robert Peel, to endeavour to induce him to alter the duty on foreign cattle, but without success; and therefore there was nothing left for them but to come to that House to get what they considered a fair protection for agriculture. He considered the general system of taxation offered by Sir Robert Peel, a resort to direct taxation to relieve the embarrassed Exchequer of the country instead of palliatives, as most wise, and the Minister had received constant support from the phalanx of county Members who surrounded him, and who submitted in silence to the taunts of the party opposite. The time for silence, however, had now passed, and they were called upon to offer every opposition which the present proposal demanded. He knew that the Corn Bill had been received with great alarm by many agriculturists, but in this feeling he did not participate, believing that in a few years the English system of tillage would so greatly improve by the application of science as to have nothing to fear from competition. With respect to changes in the Corn-laws, they were a matter of calculation, and afforded data to go upon, but in the present measure they had to grope in the dark, and were called upon to give their assent to prin

ciples, which, if carried into effect, would be most detrimental to the agricultural interests of this country. Mr. Miles then went into a variety of calculations to show the injury that would result to the farmer from the proposed arrangement of duties. An ox of 6 cwt., if imported as meat, would pay 21. 8s.; if alive, 17.; or deducting 1s. 8d. for the duty that would be paid on the hide and tallow if imported separately, but 18s. 31d. A hog of 3 cwt., as meat, would pay 1. 4s.; as ham or bacon, 17. 8s.; alive, 5s. The expense to the English farmer of fattening an ox up to 6 cwt. was 8l. 15s. 6d.; the expense of fattening a hog up to 3 cwt. was 31. 5s.; so that it was evidently quite impossible for the farmer here to compete with the foreign breeder, if the latter were so much favoured. The freight of an ox from Aberdeen is 21.; from Hamburg about the same, but say 27. 10s.; and an ox can be imported from Hamburg, all expenses paid, at 15l. 13s.; from Ostend, Kiel, Rostock, Dantzic, Elsinore, at charges varying from 15l. 17s. 6d. to 11l. 9s. 6d; in England the price of an ox is 167. 16s.; so that there would be an average loss to the British farmer of 21. 13s. 44d. a head. The average price of pork at Smithfield is 7d.; pork from the places named can be imported at less than 44d. The trade in salt provisions from the United States has increased from 77 cwt. imported two years ago, to 22,429 cwt. in 1841. Mr. Miles quoted from the New Orleans Price Current, in which a writer observed that New Orleans was the outlet for nine important States of the Union,-Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Ken

tucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas, containing 450,000 square miles of rich cultivable territory, in which the manufacture of cotton and other clothing was almost entirely unknown; yet the exclusive legislation of England had prevented both countries from enjoying the advantages of a free intercommunication. The average price of American pork brought into this country, when all expenses were paid, would be 3 d. a lb., of messbeef 34d. Moreover a new communication was about to be completed between the Danube and the Maine: when it was so, what would there be to prevent large quanti ties of cattle from being sent from the countries bordering on the banks of the Danube? what would there be to prevent the Dutch, who were admirable farmers, with almost a Chinese veneration for manure, importing their cattle, and fattening them for the English market? In like manner, Denmark, Prussia, Wurtemburg, and Hanover, would be able to supply large quantities.

The amendment was seconded by Mr. R. Palmer, and supported by the Earl of March and Mr. G. Heathcote, who observed, that since the announcement of the Tariff, many descriptions of produce had fallen in price. The amendment was opposed by Colonel Wyndham.

Mr. Gladstone said, that the object of the Government was to secure to the English grazier such fair and equitable protection as would enable him to compete with the foreigner; but those who devoted themselves to agriculture trusted too little to their own science and skill, and too much to protection. It was said that the

price of meat was depreciated, but in fact it had only returned to the price which it had always borne in this country. In proof of this statement Mr. Gladstone read returns from the markets of Carlow, Clonmel, and Waterford, which stated that cattle and lambs were there selling at fair prices. Mr. Miles had not defined the duties to be taken by weight; he might take it so low as to obtain the votes of Members opposite: Mr. Gladstone, however, would assume that it was meant to be about 5s. per cwt. He admitted the theoretical accuracy of taking the duty on live animals by weight; but it was a remarkable testimony to the convenience of the different plan, that live animals' appear in the tariff of every country in Europe, and there is not one in which the duty is levied by weight. There might have been some show of reason for making a distinction between fat and lean cattle; but he contended that the duty of 17. on a live ox was not out of proportion with the duty of 8s. a hundredweight on the dead meat. A higher rate of insurance was required for live animals. There was a greater risk in importing them, but when the dead meat arrived it was ready to go on the table. It was more nearly arrived at the ultimate stage of labour: it was the manufactured article, as compared with the raw material; and he contended that its being subjected to a double duty, as compared with live meat, was perfectly fair and equitable. For an ox of six hundredweight, freight and expenses would be 21. 5s.; the duty and 5 per cent. added, 11. 1s.; in all 37. 6s.: the expenses on six hundredweight of dead meat would be 37. 10s.: not agreat difference. Again, the

carcass of the live animal was very far from being of an uniform value. There were some parts that were prime parts, others of an inferior quality. He had made some inquiries on this point, and he found that one-third part of the carcass was 20 to 25 per cent. above the average value of the carcass. The butchers, then, at Hamburgh, when sending meat here, would send the picked joints and pieces. In summer, he admitted that this species of trade would be of very little importance; but out of the summer-months joints of meat could be sent from Hamburgh into the London market. Taking the value of the ox at the average weight, they might consider it as worth 18. That paying in freight and charges 31. 6s. would be about 22 per cent. on the value; but then, the foreign butcher sending picked meat, and allowing it to be six hundredweight, and the value of it 187., the cost was 20 per cent. on the value. Very nearly the same result would be arrived at with fat hogs.

It had been said, that in showing the increased price of meat in this country, the result would have been different, had Sir Robert Peel gone further back than 1835; he might have gone much further back. The returns of the prices of cattle sold at Ballinasloe fair in 1841 as compared with 1830, showed a considerable increasethe oxen were divided into four classes:

1st Class. 2d Class. 3d Class. 4th Class. £. s. £. S. £. S. £. s. 1830..11 0 9 10 1841..18 0..17 0

7 10.. 60 14 11.. 11 0 The returns of the Poor-law Unions, commencing from 1837, showed a progressive increase in the price of meat. At Liverpool,

which received the bulk of the immense supply from Ireland, meat had risen ld. or 1d. per lb. within the last ten years. A material omission in Mr. Miles' argument was the want of proof that a large quantity of cattle could be imported so as to injure the English farmer. What part of Europe were they to come from? He wished to have an estimate stated of the probable importation of live cattle. It had been asserted that in the course of five years there would be an importation of 80,000 head per annum. Take it at this amount, they would find if they calculated the annual increase of population of this country, that in order to prevent the price of meat rising beyond its present rate, giving the same amount of supply that they now had, which was about 50 lbs. of meat per head annually, they would require for their increasing population as much as 80,000 head of cattle. Then as to the dread of American salt meat-If the positions of his honourable friend were correct, the American salted meat could, even with the present duty, have undersold that both of Hamburgh and Ireland: why did it not do so? The beef of Canada was to be had at Liverpool, under the name of Indian beef, for 21. to 21. 4s. the three hundredweight; that was about 2d. the pound it could be sold for half the usual price of Irish beef; and yet the salted beef of Canada, for 31. to 5l., was neglected in bond, and Irish beef at 81. was taken in preference. Why so?-because of the superior quality of the Irish meat.'

It had been asked, if there was to be so small an importation of cattle, why alter the law at all? why not leave the matter to the