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 pallia tives, as most wise, and the Minis, ter 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 ewt., if imported as meat, would pay 21. 8s.; if alive, 17.; or deducting 1s. 84d. for the duty that would be paid on the hide and tallow if imported separately, but 18s. 3 d. A hog of 3 cwt., as meat, would pay 11. 4s.; as ham or bacon, 11. 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 21. 10s.; and an ox can be imported from Hamburg, all expenses paid, at 151. 13s. ; from Ostend, Kiel, Rostock, Dantzic, Elsinore, at charges varying from 15l. 17s. 6d. to 11. 9s. 6d; in England the price of an ox is 161. 16s. ; so that there would be an average loss to the British farmer of 2l. 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, Louisjana, 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 31d. 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 quantities 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, 1. 1s.; in all 37. 6s. the expenses on six hundredweight of dead meat would be 31. 10s.: not great 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 increase the oxen were divided into four classes:

1st Class. 2d Class. 3d Class. 4th Class. £. s. £. S. £. s. L. 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 1d. 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. 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 27. 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

natural operation of supply and demand? But it was the violent interference of the existing system with the natural operations of supply and demand which made it desirable that that system should undergo some modification. Suppose that 50,000 head of cattle were to be annually imported: such importation would produce but a small effect upon the prices of meat, but it would create an import-trade to the amount of half a million of money; a trade which in its nature would lead, by a smooth, certain course of operation, to an export-trade in return of an equal amount; which would contribute he did not say in a moment, but in the course of years -to an increased demand for employment and labour. The proposition was a safe one.

Lord Norreys said, he had at first participated in the alarm felt at Sir Robert Peel's plan; but he believed that that alarm had now been much dissipated.

Mr. Gally Knight declared also that he had no fears of Sir Robert Peel's free-trade. What he dreaded was, union with men of extreme opinions, who were constantly tampering with the established provisions of the Constitution.

Lord Alford opposed the Amend

ment.

Lord John Russell expressed his surprise at the arguments by which the Motion was supported and opposed: "I should have thought that those who came forward to propose, that cattle should be admitted at a moderate fixed duty, would have endeavoured to show, that great benefit would accrue from that importation taking place, and that the labouring classes of this country might procure at a cheaper rate more animal food;

their welfare being, of course, proportionably promoted. I quite expected, also, that the other side would have shown the fallacy of supposing that the supply which was predicted could be relied on ; that it was a mistake to think that any of the countries on the Continent could give us a large quantity of provisions, and that the price of meat would substantially remain the same after this Act became law. But, in point of fact, the arguments of the two parties are the reverse of what I have stated. Those who oppose the motion come forward to show, that the comforts of the people will be increased; that the price of subsistence will be lowered; while, on the other hand, it is contended that no such difference will arise from the passing of this Tariff. I must confess, if I could believe all the statements of the honourable Member for Somersetshire (Mr. Miles), his I should take to be the ablest and most convincing speech in favour of the proposition of the Government. He says, 'Certain countries will become dépôts for the fattening of cattle, which they can do by reason of their abundance of corn, and send them over here at a moderate price; that this meat could be had at 44d. a pound; and that the grosser parts being got rid of, the people will secure a better article at a cheaper rate.' If that is the case, let us by all means adopt the proposition. (Cheers.) What are we sitting here for? Are we sitting here to prevent the people from having cheap food?"

He rejoiced to hear the principles laid down by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Gladstone ; but he could not reconcile their arguments on cattle with the Corn-bill. "We

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 introduced 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 iu 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 Ss. 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