have heard it stated by the right honourable Gentleman, that when he proposed a reduction of the duty on herrings, a correspondent of his stated, that it would reduce the price from 20s. to 10s. the barrel. The right honourable Baronet, however, professed to disbelieve the fact; but added, that if there could be such a reduction in the · price of the food of the labouring classes, it would be an argument in favour of, and not against, his proposition. I perfectly agree in the statement and in the principle; but when I recollect that a Member of the Government stated, in the late debate on the Corn-laws, that foreign corn could be intro duced at 40s., it seems preposterous that the main article of the people's food should be treated on principles diametrically opposed to those which the right honourable Baronet and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade now maintain at all hazards. The right honourable Baronet on a former night observed that cattle could not be expected in any great quantities, because the area from which they could be imported was small, and they could not bear a long voyage; but that corn may be had from all the world. But what is the meaning of this argument? Here is a sound principle, one which can be adopted in practical legislation, one which you can make the basis of your future commercial policy, and hold up as an example to foreign nations; and yet we adopt it only where it is inoperative; but when it would effect most good, and be productive of most benefit to the people, we shrink from its application. That I cannot understand; much less can I understand it at a moment like this, when we yesterday heard in our churches the

Queen's letter calling for subscriptions to relieve the general distress."

But there were other articles in the Tariff upon which a great reduction could be made; why should the farmer be called upon to compete with the foreigner in producing meat, and yet be prevented by an enormous prohibitory duty from purchasing sugar on equal terms? He did not see that the practical benefit of the Tariff would be so great as some of its supporters seemed to apprehend; but he thought it of great value as the assertion of a principle, as putting an end to monopoly, and as apportioning a moderate and fixed duty to fresh articles of consumption; and therefore he should support it against the amendment of Mr. Miles.

Sir Robert Peel would state the principle on which sugar had been excluded from the Tariff, when it should come under separate discussion. With respect to the Cornlaw, Lord John Russell's present argument was, that the people should have the cheapest supply of food wherever they could get it; nevertheless he was the author of the 8s. fixed duty. He formerly charged him (Sir Robert Peel) with deluding the agriculturists; he now accused him of unduly favouring them, and of shrinking from the application of free-trade principles. He had prophesied that the panic would cease before they got through the discussion of the Tariff, and his expectation had been realized; for the accounts in the papers of the markets at Liverpool, and at other places, showed that meat was rising in price. With beef and mutton at 7d. and 74d. in Liverpool, he put it to any intelligent man whether it was

right to continue the prohibition on the importation of cattle. Adverting then to the general merits of the question, Sir Robert Peel argued that a free intercourse with the Continent would be advantageous to the agricultural interest by leading to improvements in the breed of cattle. And in looking back to the records of the Treasury, he found that it had constantly violated the existing law in favour of applications to permit the introduction of bulls from Lombardy, Switzerland, Flanders, and other foreign countries. He must adhere to the proposition which he had made, and he hoped that the House would affirm it by a large majority.

A discussion of some length ensued. Lord Worsley expressed his disapprobation of the Tariff, not because he desired prohibition, but a higher protection than it afforded. Mr. Villiers said, that if the House of Commons had represented the country, the proposition of Mr. Miles would have been scouted; it was an attempt to deprive suffering people of the miserable boon which was offered them. The people were fearfully distressed, and Sir Robert Peel defended his measure on the ground that it would afford them no praetical relief. He had comforted the agriculturists in the same way about the Corn-law, and he proved to be right, for wheat had already risen 4s. since the new Act was passed.

The amendment was further opposed by Mr. Ormsby Gore, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Hume. After a reply from Mr. Miles there appeared; For the Amendment, 113; against it, 380; majority, 267.

-

When the committee resumed

on the following day, Mr. Miles stated that the duty which he aimed at was 5s. 6d. per cwt. on live cattle, and he now moved an amendment imposing that duty, and 9s. 4d. per cwt. on the dead meat.

Sir Robert Peel observed, that in fixing the duty at 8s. he had not gone far from the amount which, Mr. Miles said, would quiet all apprehension. He could not consent to a suggestion which had been offered by Mr. Pusey, that the matter should be referred to a select committee for investigation; if he did so, the same demand might be made with respect to nine-tenths of the articles in the Tariff.

Mr. Villiers, after a dissertation of some length on the food of the people in past and present times, moved, as an amendment, that the duty be 1s. per head on oxen and bulls. After some further debating, the amendment of Mr. Miles was withdrawn, and that of Mr. Villiers rejected, by 209 to 44.

Major Vivian next proposed an amendment to make the duty on cattle and provisions imported from the Canadas equal to the duties on similar imports from " other foreign countries," arguing, that the boon, which was intended for the Colonists, would really be bestowed on a foreign country, the Western States of North America.

Sir Robert Peel could not conceive the possibility of danger from the importation of oxen from the banks of the Mississippi. The boon had already been allowed to Guernsey and Jersey, and he did not see why it should not be extended to Canada.

Mr. C. Buller said, that although the proposition in the Tariff might be theoretically objected to on the

ground of its artificially fostering particular trades in Canada, yet he did not think that the importation under it would be so considerable as to give any practical importance to the objection. The Tariff would be the greatest step towards freetrade that had ever been--he would not say attempted, but made, and they ought not to look the gift horse in the mouth.

Major Vivian's amendment was eventually withdrawn, and the items in the Tariff were taken seriatim. Discussions took place, and amendments were proposed on those affecting swine and hogs, foreign fish, and apples. The duties affixed by the Government were, however, in each case affirmed by large majorities.

On a foreign duty of 17., and a Colonial duty of 5s., being moved on butter, Lord Howick moved that the duty levied upon foreign butter should be 10s., observing that, according to the original proposal, the result would be, that the consumer would not obtain relief, while the revenue would suffer by the introduction of American, under the name of Canadian, butter.

Sir Robert Peel remarked, that Lord Howick did not carry out his own principle, according to which he ought to move that the duty on colonial butter be also 10s. He did not expect the results which Lord Howick anticipated. The noble Lord said, "You have reduced the revenue, let us also have a hand in it." That was not a legitimate mode of proceeding. The Government had made what reductions they thought they could concede; and if they found that more would be obtained from the Income-tax than was expected, they would then see what

further reduction they could make. He thought it would be found that he had not overrated the financial income, and that it would not be safe to make further experiments in reducing taxation.

Mr. C. Buller suggested to the House, if they were about to give away revenue, to give it on necessaries of life, which butter might also be considered, and not upon timber. The result of the debate was the rejection of Lord Howick's amendment by 115 to 59. The items of cheese, onion seed, and potatoes, engaged successively the consideration of the committee; with respect to each of them some amendment being proposed, but in each case without success.

Mr. G. Palmer moved that the duty on foreign potatoes should be 1s. per cwt., instead of 2d. as proposed. Mr. Gladstone opposed the amendment, alleging that the bulk of the article, and the cost of conveyance would prevent any considerable importation when ordinary prices prevailed, and on no article of the Tariff could a reduction of the high duty be more beneficially effected. The first object of the reduction was, to enable the poor consumer to obtain a supply of the article when the home production fell short, and the price suddenly and materially increased: the second was to secure the introduction of a class of very cheap potatoes, used in the starch and the other manufactures; of which class our produce was, in fact, very inconsiderable. He believed it to be capable of demonstration, that a greater protection was afforded to an acre of potatoes than was afforded to an acre of wheat.

Mr. Wakley thought this the best proposition in the whole

Tariff. It passed without alter ation.

After several discussions upon various articles in succession, which led to no important result, the amendments proposed being negatived or withdrawn, the committee arrived at that part of the Tariff which imposed a duty of 17. 10s. on foreign timber, and of ls. on colonial; 11. 8s.,-and, after 10th October 1843, 17. 12s.- -on foreign deals, battens, &c., and on colonial, 2s. Upon this, Mr. Roebuck moved as an amendment, to impose an equal duty of 20s. on foreign and colonial timber. Sir Howard Douglas objected to disturbing the interests of commerce with the North American colonies; the British imports into which had increased from 1,000,000l. value in 1821 to 3,000,000l. at present. He said, that our trade with other countries-with France and America for instance-was declining; and it was essential to maintain those differential duties which up. held our colonial system.

Mr. P. M. Stewart proposed a new amendment-" That the duty on colonial timber be reduced to 5s. per load, and the duty on foreign timber to 35s., and that the measurement of deals for the purpose of charging duty be taken in conformity with the recommendation of the committee of 1835."

Mr. Gladstone observed, that the committee were no longer at the commencement of the Tariff; they had up to that time been enforcing protecting duties varying from 4 to 20 per cent,; and thus Mr. Roebuck was out of time in refusing all protection to colonial imports. The House divided on the latter gentleman's amendment, which was negatived by 243 to 16. A motion by Sir Howard Doug

las to negative the proposed reduction of duty in 1843 was with. drawn. In the course of the discussion upon it, Sir Robert Peel stated that the Tariff had already produced a favourable effect in the countries on the shores of the Baltic. The German League had intended to make a heavy increase in the duties on British iron, but the proposal had been abandoned when the Tariff became known on the Continent. It was not possible to conceive anything like the general acquiescence with which his Income-tax, an impost so unusual in time of peace, had been received by the country; but he felt all the more strongly the obligation he had incurred to adhere to his original plan of holding out by the Tariff a compensation to the payers of the Income-tax. Of this the article of timber would form no small element.

On the question, that there be a duty of 5 per cent. on cottonmanufactures,' Mr. Mangles moved, that the duty be only 3 per cent., contending that, as the manufactures of India had been ruined in their own markets, this country ought not in justice to impose so high a duty. Mr. Gladstone said, that the proposed alteration would not make a difference of 50l. to the India trade; and the amendment was rejected by 56 to 42.

On cotton, or waste of cottonwool, the duties imposed were 2s. 11d. on foreign, and 4d. on colonial. Dr. Bowring maintained that, to be consistent, Sir Robert Peel should carry out his profession of reducing the duty on the raw material of manufactures to a merely nominal amount. said, that the present high duty on cotton rendered it nearly impossible for our manufacturers to

He

compete with those of America, or the European continent; and he moved that the duty on cottonwool be reduced to 1d. per cwt. Mr. Gladstone said, that the revenue derived from this article, which amounted, in 1840, to 640,9177., could not be spared. America had a similar apprehension, as that now expressed, of the competition of England; and the Americans especially apprehended the effect of the cheap wool from the East Indies. Mr. Cobden observed, that the reason given by the Americans was, that they could not compete with the pauper population of England. The amendment was negatived by 97 to 44. An amendment was then moved by Mr. Charles Wood, to reduce the duty proposed on foreign sheep and lambs' wool. But this was opposed by Mr. Gladstone, who stated, that Government could not afford to give up the revenue, and the House negatived the motion by 122 to 65. The duties proposed by the Government on foreign silk were affirmed, notwithstanding an attempt by Mr. Grimsditch to resist the reduction of the duty, and by Dr. Bowring, to reduce the ad valorem duty on silks and satins to a lower amount.

The discussion of the various items in committee having been continued at intervals for several nights, but without affording any points worthy of peculiar notice, besides those which have been already referred to, the third reading of the Customs Act was at length moved on the 28th of June. On that occasion, Mr. John Jervis moved a clause to grant a drawback on coals proved to be exported for the consumption of British steam-vessels. He said, that the effect of compelling steam

vessels to pay the duty would be, that they would be obliged to take out a supply sufficient for the outward and homeward voyages, or to pay an increased price at a foreign port; their cargo would thus be unprofitably increased; they would thus be obliged to reduce the power of their engines in order to diminish the expenditure on each voyage, and the burthen would fall with particular severity on those companies which have steam-vessels performing long voyages.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it would be impossible to allow of a system of drawbacks without opening the door to fraud. When the duty of 4s. was proposed, the owners of steam-vessels said that only 5,000l. would be derived from the duty, and the duty being reduced to 2s., of course the burthen would be diminished to 2,500l., but a deduction would have to be made even from that amount on account of coals shipped in the colonies. Sir Robert Peel asked the House whether the amount of drawbacks claimed would not exceed 5,000l.; did they not believe it would go far beyond 10,000l.? The clause was rejected by 80 to 42.

On the question that the Bill do pass, Lord John Russell made a few remarks on its general provisions. He admitted that the alterations which it comprised were calculated to effect a great improvement in the commercial system of the country. He rejoiced that the Bill was founded on principles on which the Opposition had proceeded last year, and which they contended ought to be established as the general commercial principles of the country. In the application of those principles,