The Sun. — London, England, 1842-05-11 00:00:00

IMPEhIA L PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, May 10. Their Lordships ►net shortly before five o'clock. The Bristol Floating Dock Bill was read a second time. Several Bills on the table were advanced a stage. The Victoria Park Bill passed through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. The Exchequer Bills Bill (190,0000 passed through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. The Kensington and Knightsbridge Openings Bill also passed through Committee, and was ordered to be read a third time on Thursday. SUNDAY TRAFFIC ON CANALS. Lord HATHERTON gave notice that he would on Friday present petitions on this subject, and that he would take the opportunity of asking her Majesty's Ministers whether it was their intention to take any step upon the suggestion which he ventured to offer last year, that a permissive (not a compulsory) Act should be p a ss e d to enable the directors of canals, if they thought pr, per, to make regulations for preventing Sunday tr.tine on their canals. The Copyright Bill was read a second time. A Message from the Commons brought tip Benecke's and Fierville's Naturalisation Bills, Weatherby and Boroughbridge Roads Bill, and some other private Bills, winch were severally read a first time. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Lord BROUGHAM rose to bring the subject of bri bery at elections before their Lordships, a subject he had before troubled their Lordships upon. He was induced to call the attention of their Lordships on that occasion to the subject, as a Select Committee had been appointed in another place, for the purpose of inquiring into costae corrupt compromises that had been made with respect to charges of bribery. A Bill had been introduced into that House on the subject some time ago, and there was then on their Lordships' table a Bill ready to be read a second time ; but they both differed from each other as widely as they possibly could. The Noble Lord then took a review of the two Bills as sent up from the other House. Their Lordships could not by possibility have given their consent to the former Bill in the shape it was in when first presented. The Bill introduced a year ago, was not introduced prospectively, unlike that at present before their Lordships. The Bill of last year provided that the witness was to tell all he knew—the husband against the wife, and even the counsel to give up his client. Now such a provision in the pre sent Bill, would be passing into a law that which was con trary to the first principles of English justice, that of calling on the counsel to divulge the secrets of his client, and that agent not a party to the bribery at all, but to whom the acts of bribery had been con veyed, in order to the defence before the Committee. Tan; was the man called upon by the Bill to give evidence. The absurd part of the Bill was, that the witness would be indemnified provided he con cealed nothing, but told the whole truth. This was the most absurd part of the Bill. Anything more impossible for their Lordships to give their assent to never entered their Lordships House. But if it be said why did you not alter the Bill more than by leaving out three clauses, his answer was, that the Bill came up to the House on the eve of the dis solution, and that to make even the one alteration it was necessary to take it, not in Committee; but upon bringing up the Report, fur the sake of saving one day. He, therefore, in order to show tha t their Lordships were of all men in the world the last to countenance such practices as had prevailed, and that they might show the utter want of foundation in the charge of which he had spoken of their Lordships having thrown diffi culties in the way of providing a remedy—he urged them to pass the Bill which he had proposed. He thought it was the highest injustice to cast any reproach upon those who; having petitioned for seats to which they felt they were entitled, had with drawn their petitions on the seats being resigned. The man who petitioned did so-in his private capacity, and was not bound to expose himself to the expense and delay of a contested election in Committee, when his adversary abandoned the seat to him. No one abhorred more than he did the corrupt practices which had prevailed ; but it was the worst thing that could be done for the cause of morality to make exaggerated charges ; for then the general sense of mankind was roused in favour of the accused party as of a person who was unjustly attacked. He concluded by moving the second reading of the Indemnity to Witnesses Bill. He was confident that the Bill would greatly assist in puttins , an end to the corruption which was universally admitted and notorious, and to put down which nothing more was neces sary than the cordial co-operation of both Houses of Par liament. The Earl of WICKLOW said the Noble and Learned Lord ought to have given notice of his motion. He (the Earl of Wicklow) perfectly agreed in the principle of the Bill, his objection to it was on a point of form. Lord BROUGHAM said he did not think that any notice was necessary. The LORD CHANCELLOR said that all difficulty would be obviated if the Noble Lord would consent to postpone his motion till to-morrow, and take the discus sion in the Committee. The Earl of WICKLOW said, that whether it was a matter of form or only a custom of courtesy to give no tice, he thought the custom ought to be adhered to. Lord BROUGHAM was understood to assent to the proposal of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool sack. Earl FITZWILLIAM presented petitions from Hud dersfield and other places against the Income-tax. Lord MELBOURNE presented a petition from Aber deen, praying for the abolition of Church patronage in Scotland. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY presented a number of petitions against any alteration in the tariff. Lord CLIFFORD (of Chudleigh) presented petitions from Somerset and other places, complaining of Roman Catholic grievances in the army and navy. The Noble Lord said that he should withdraw his mo tion of which he had given notice, for a Com mittee to inquire into the treatment of certain Roman Catholics in the presidency of Madras. The Noble Lord proceeded to state his reasons for with drawing his motion. It was not for the purpose of advocating any certain class which had induced him to bring it forward, but one motive was, that the House should be put in possession of information not possessed by the House prior to the 23d of September ; and another reason was, that he wished to vindicate the memory of a Noble Friend of his upon whom aspersions totally without foundation had been cast. In withdrawing his motion he wished it to be understood that he had not at all changed his opinion as to this subject, for he still believed that if the system was continued it would much endanger her Majesty's dominions in the East. Having lerrnt from the pub lic prints, that her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Madras, were to receive the attention of her Majesty's Government in another place, he thoughtit was unneces sary to persevere in his motion for a Committee, as he felt perfectly confident that all the good would arise to the parties concerned, by the subject 'sting left to her Majesty's Government, and would result from the .Com mittee. He had not withdrawn his motion from any personal interest of his own. He withdrew his motion, because he believed that every attention would be paid to it by her Majesty's Government, and he therefore thought it his duty to retire. He concluded by moving that the motion he had placed on the books be rescinded. Lord FITZGERALD said lie should not follow the Noble Lord at any length, as he had withdrawn his motion, but had he persevered in his motion, he (Lord Fitzgerald) would have found great difficulty in acceding t it, inasmuch as it would be a perversion of the ' functions of their Lordship's House. The answers to the ad dresses sent by the Noble Lord, the Governor-General of India, to the Presidencies had not been received in England. The Noble Lord might have received information, be cause he had some correspondents in India. Perhaps he could depend upon it ; but this information was unknown to the house. lie (Lord Fitzgerald) thought, upon the imperfect information they possessed on the important question of India, the very character of the inquiries suggested by the Noble Lord, to be made by this Com mittee would render it almost powerless, and he thought the Noble Lord had exercised a sound discretion in with dra e ing his motion, us the Noble Lord had stated it was the invention of her Majesty's Government to inquire , 1 into the whole of the case. That inquiry would, he hoped, be conducted with the utmost impartiality, for he believed that great regard ought to be had to the interests of those people, removed, as they were, so far from the Imperial Government. After a few' words frem Lord Clifford and Lord Fitz geraLl, in explanation; the subject dropped. The 'souse then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 10. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four. Toe Ferrybridge and Boroughbridge Road Bill was read a third time, and passed. Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from Birmingham against the Stourbridge Road Bill. On the motion of Mr. LYALL, the Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company was recd a second time, and • ordered to be committed. GLASGOW AND AYR RAILWAY BILL. Lord J. STUART moved that the House should agree to the Lords' amendments to the Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway Bill. Sir J. EASTHOPE moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should be recommitted to the former Committee, for the purpose of considering the amendments. Lord J. STUART believed the course adopted by the Hon. Member for Leicester - was most unusual, and tie should, therefore, resist the motion. After a few observations from Mr. Fox Maule, Mr. Dennistoun, Sir A. Leith Hay, Mr. Brotherton, and Mr. Grimsditch, Strangers were ordered to withdra.v, and the House divided : The numbers were— For the recommittal of the Bill 54 For the Lords' amendments l5 IVlajority —39 THE FACTORY CHILDREN. C6l. SIBTIIORP presented a petition from a place in Yorkshire, in favour of a Bill to prevent children, under thirteen years old, being employed in factories more than ten hours daily. The Lords' amendments to_ the Gl asgow an d R e dbnrn Bridge Road, and to the k;ottingha rn Drainage, were agreed to without a division. The Warkworth Harbour Bill was read a third time and passed. The Farmers' and Gardeners' Hail -storm Insurance Company Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed. Benecke s Naturalisation Bill was read a third time and passed. The Lords' amendments to the Buckland Enclosure Bill were agreed to. Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from a place in Yorkshire, praying the House to pass a law to limit the labour of all persons employed in factories to fifty-eight Lours per week. INCOME-TAX. Mr. 11. I'. BERKELEY presented a petition from tae solicitors of Bristol, praying that they might be exempt from the operation of the Income-tax ; also a petition from Bristol, praying for an alteration in the pre%ent system of levying the duty on railway passen gers ; also a petition from the same place, complaining. of the alteration in the Colonial law, whereby the ex portation of biscuits and other articles was lost to the British manufacturer. _ Mr. DARBY presented a petition praying for no reduction in the duty on the importation of foreign cattle. Mr. FERRAND presented a petition from Ashton under-Lyne, praying the House to take some measures to prevent the truck system in the manufacturing districts. Mr. M. GIBSON presented a petition from an indivi dual in Manchester, praying that . all protection in con sumable articles might be abolished ; also a petition from the Wesleyan Methodists of Manchester, praying for a total repeal of the Corn-laws ; also a petition from Manchester, praying that the duty on phosphorus might be taken off. EDUCATION. Mr. ORNISBY GORE presented a petition in favour of Church Education in Ireland. REPEAL OF TAE UNION. Mr. J. O'CONNELL presented petitions from Water ford. Kerry, and other places, in favour of a repeal of the Union, universal suffrage. and vote by ballot. POOR-LAWS. Mr. MINCOMBE presented a petition from a private individual, complaining of the operation of the New Poor-law. AIAYNOOTII. Sir H. DOUGLAS presented a petition from Liver pool, praying for inquiry into the system of education pursued at Maynooth. THE TARIFF. Mr. HAWES presented petitions from the county of Surrey against various provisions of the tariff. Captain PECHELL presented petitions from Chiches ter and Worthing, against the importation of cattle. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE presented petitions to the same effect. PUBLIC WALKS. Mr. lIHME presented a petition from the inhabitants of Southwark, Lambeth, Finsbury, and the more crowded parts of the metropolis. The petitioners begged to call the attention of the House to the Reports op public walks, on the health of towns, and of the Poor-law Commissioners; and they prayed the House to affol d them such assistance as should enable them to obtain additional public parks or walks, and they begged to point out the neighbourhood of High-street, Newington, Walcot-terrace, Kensington road, and the Zoological Gardens, as places where such parks might be established. EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN IN FACTORIES. Mr. STUART WORTLEY said, he rose to present a remarkable petition. It was from nearly 300 muslin spinners and manufacturers in the West Riding of the county of York. They stated that the children in their employ at present laboured twelve hours a day of actual labour, besides two hours a day for meals. They stated that there was no necessity whatever for such long hours in these factories. They concluded by say ing that such a state of things made them reduce the wages of their operatives, and they prayed the House to limit the hours of labour to ten hours a day for chil dren between 13 and 14 years of age. NOTTINGHAM ELECTION. Mr. PHILIP HOWARD, in rising to move the issue of a new writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the town of Nottingham, in the room of Sir George de Hochepied Larpent, who has accepted the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds, said that with neither political party in Nottingham had he the least connexion, bnt it was with great alarm that he saw that a full and populous town was about to be deprived of the benefits of representation. and deprived of those benefits without proof of delinquency. He begged leave, therefore, to move that Mr. Speaker should issue a writ for the election of a Member to serve for the borough of Nottingham in that House. Mr. ROEBUCK commenced in a very low tone of voice He was understood to say that he believed the reason for the suspension of the issue of a new writ for the borough of Nottingham, was on account of certain corrupt practices which prevailed there, and he believed that if the case had been fully examined before the Select Committee they would have recommended the House not to issue a writ.—(Hear, hear.) He had no desire to say more on the case than he had already said, but he would ask the House whe ther, if they were to suspend the issue of a writ, this was not a case in which such a course ought to be pursued? Charges had been brought against the town, against one of the Hon. Gentlemen who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and against the present Member. The House was now about to inquire into those transactions, foul as he asserted them to be, and he entreated the House gravely to consider whether, under those circumstances, they would sanction the immediate issuing of a writ. It had been stated the non-issuing of a writ might be looked upon as an infringement of the liberties of the people. But he did not regard it in that light. The town had been already disgraced by its own proceedings, and under the circumstances he should object to the motion before the House. Mr. GODSON thought that the writ should be issued. It was stated by his Hon. and Learned Friend the Mem ber fur Bath, that a corrupt bargain had been entered into between the Member for Nottingham and a third party, but that was not an offence on the part of the electors ; and he did not think that under those circumstances they should be deprived of the privileges of the Constitution. If the House was to inquire into such a subject they might as well do away with Election Committees altogether. The constituency of Nottingham ought . not to be pre judiced by what was done by parties in London, sup posing that anything had been done, and he would therefore support the motion. Mr. WARD said that the Hon. and Learned Gentle man was at least consistent in the course he was pur suing, for he had taken the opportunity of moving for the writ at a late hour, as if he were conscious that he had not quite so good a case as he had in Southampton—(Cheers)—as otherwise he did no think he would have moved that the writ should issue at the hour of one o'clock in the morning.—(Cheers.) His Honourable Friend (Mr. Howard) had at least taken a more manly course, because he moved fur it in the light of day, though h (Mr. Ward) thought he had not shown much judgment in moving for it.— (Hear, hear.) lie regretted that such a motion should have originated on those benches.—(Loud cheers.) If the House of Commons had determined on taking the course best qualified to lower its character in the estimation of the country, it would be by doing that which his Honourable Friend pressed upon them. If the House, after determining one day that there were grounds, not of inquiry into the existence of certain compromises, as was saved by the Honourable and Learned Member for Kidderminster, but for an inquiry into gross bribery, alleged to have been committed at thz• last Nottingham election, in which the constituency was said to be implicated—if the House was now to decide that a writ was to issue without an investigation into the fact, what would the country say ? They held out : hopes, and they made their fulfilment im possible.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") The Committee hich was to be appointed ought to have instructions to pr coed with the Nottingham case first, because the facts might be instantly ascertained, and the writ ought to be suspended as short a time as possible. But if the facts were proved, as he thought they would be, he doubted whether the writ for Nottingham would ever issue ; but until the facts were proved, he should give his direct negative to the motion. Sir E. PEEL said, that having been asked a question last night with regard to the issuing of the writ for the town of Nottingham, he ventured to advise that it would be better for some one to give notice of his intention to move it, and the Hon. Gentleman had taken the course he ventured to recommend. If they adopted no proceedings in the case, there could be no sufficient justification for the refusal of the writ.— (Hear, hear.) But proceedings having taken place, the case was altered. '['he seat of the Hon. Member for Nottingham having been declared valid, and the next day having accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, that was cited as a strong proof of the necessity for inquiry ; and he confessed that the House, having determined to insti tute the inquiry, he thought it would be inconsistent nut to proceed with the inquiry in the first instance. At the same time the suspension of a writ was a matter cf great importance, and they were bound to interpose as short an interval as possible. Upon the whole, how ever, he was of opinion, although he would admit the subject was not free from doubt, that it would be the least inconsistent course they could adopt to suspend the issuing of the writ for the present—(Cheers)—and therefore he should vote.for the issuing of the writ being for the present suspended.—(Cheers.) Sir R. INGLIS was one of those who thought that public opinion would not much longer allow that that House or its Committees should be permitted to decide on questions of election law. He would not attempt to Jo that indirectly which he had failed the other evening in doing directly. He could not consent to accede to the - motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman for suspending the issue of the writ, unless the Honourable and Learned Gentleman could pro , duce a precedent. He (Sir Robert Inglis) ventured to assert that there was no instance of the issue of a writ having been suspended, unless upon the Report of a Committee. In all the instances in which the issue of a writ had been suspended, a Committee had reported the existence of bribery in the borough, and in many instances the Members themselves had been reported to have been implicated. In the present instance the allegations rested solely on the l l authority of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath— (Hear, hear)—and without meaning anything disrespect- till to the Hon. and Learned NI ember, he must say that low as he considered the authority of an Election Com mittee, he still considered the Report of such a Com mittee as better than the unsupported testimony 01 a Honourable Member.—(Hear, hear.) Unless the l r lLourable Member could produce a precedent, h e (sir 11. Inglis) would certainly not consent to the suspension of the issue of the writ. Ile would not enter into further discussion on the subject, but content him ,elf with stating his determination to oppose the motion of the lion. Member for Bath, unless he could produce some precedent of the issuing of a writ having b een :suspended under similar circumstances. Mr. WYNN felt considerable hesitation and doubt on this subject. He thought that a locutory instruction ought to be given to the Committee to proceed in the first instance with the Nottingham case, and that they should have the power to report from time to time upon that case, before they en t ere d u pon any other. Mr. C. WOOD said, that the Right Hon. Gentleman a ho had just sat down, had expressed the very sentiments on this subject which he (Mr. C. Wood) felt, and the Right Hon. Gentleman had done so in a manner that left it unnecessary for him (Mr. C. Wood) to say more upon it. He thought that the objection taken by the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. H. Inglis) was taken a day after the fair. It was true that the motion agreed to Mr. JAMES opposed the motion, on the ground that no writ. ought to be issued whilst the inquiry as to bribery was still pending. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no division took place, and on our re-admission to the gal lery we found Mr. P. lIOWARD on his legs, deprecating the refusal to issue the writ for a large commercial town like Not tingham, upon the eve of a question of great commercial importance— namely, the tariff. He would not persevere against what he considered the opinion of the House — (Hear, hear)—but he was anxious to enter his solemn protest against suspending the liberties of the people without proof that there was ground to do so. He thought the House might, without stultifying itself, adopt the proposition of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Montgomery. Mr. F. FRENCH believed that the Right Honourable Baronet had acted upon an erroneous supposition in re fusing to agree to the issuing of the writ. Lord J. RUSSELL said, he could not agree to the issue of the writ in the present uncertain state of affairs. At the same time, it would be unjust to take this borough first. After a short discussion between Sir R. Peel, Mr. French, Mr. Roebuck, and Mr. Wynn, Mr. HOWARD withdrew his motion. NEW WRIT. On the motion of Sir T. FREMANTLE, it was agreed that the Speaker should issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland, to issue a new writ for the county of Londonderry, in the room of Sir R. Bate son, who had accepted the office of Steward of the Chil tern Hundreds. Mr. G. BANKES presented a petition from the island of Portland against a removal of the duty upon foreign stone. He should give notice, therefore, that he should move, at the proper time, that the duties on the importa tion of foreign stone should not cease, but continue as heretofore. last evening, to appoint a Committee to inquire into the t. hotel, they got tickets, and when they had got existence of bribery at the elections referred to, was them they were told to go to a certain place, without precedent; but when, under extraordinary ' and that there they would get four sovereigns for it. circumstances an extraordinary proceeding had been He thought he had shown, at least, that there were adopted by the House, the Honourable Gentleman grounds enough for bringing in this NIL He had would find it impossible to discover a precedent, where, ' shown that two hundred voters had been grossly under like circumstances, the House had refused to and systematically bribed during the last ele.2- suspend the issuing of the w rit, until the inquiry tion. It was utterly impossible that two can directed to be instituted had been terminated. didate coul4 have arrived on the eve of the election, Ile apprehended, therefore, that according to all former and have found men so perfectly organised as the voters precedent, and certainly according to reason and corn- of Sudbury were, ready to go up to the poll next morning mon sense, it would be preposterously absurd to issue a in batches of eight and ten, the leaders returning to writ to a place which was under an accusation of bribery, take up other bodies of the same kind. Lid the House that accusation being so far sanctioned by the House, suppose that this was a recent occurrence in the borough that a Committee had been appointed to inquire into of Sudbury, or one of a novel character ? At the its truth. election of 1780, the grossest bribery was alleged; Colonel SIBTHORP supported the motion. If there but the bribery of that period was carried on in the were an inquiry into bribery and corruption, it ought to darkness of night, but at present it was not even so con embrace every case that was known to have occurred. cealed. He would also ask the House to look at the Why, it was said that the Noble Lord, the Member fur evidence given before the Commissioners ap the City of London—he did not know for how many pointed to inquire into the condition of the places besides—had been returned by nine dead men.— hand-loom weavers of Sudbury, in 1837, in (Laughter.) He had heard a great deal too on the subject which evidence was given, at a time and under cir of bribery at St. Alban's.—(Hear, hear.) He hoped the cumstances more favourable for ascertaining the state of Hon. Member for Carlisle would take the sense of the the town, than the inquiry before an Election Committee. House. One gentlemen, examined before the Committee, stated that, at the election of 1835, bribery had been carried on in the borough to an unprecedented extent ; and he added that he believed that if the sum given in bribes was divided among the whole constituency, it would amount to between 30/. and 351. to each elector. There was another remark which he wished to make, though not exactly prtinent to the subject. Were the electors of Sudbury friends to the system of voting by ballot? Not at all. At the election of 1835, the brother of one of the candidates, in recommending his brother to the voters of Sudbury, said that he was a friend to voting by ballot, in order that bribery might be put an end to. The assembled electors met that announce ment by a cry of "No ballot, no ballot !" They saw at once what would be the effect of the vote by ballot. A party being asked what sort were the elections of 1837, said that they were very poor—that there was no money expended on either side, and that that was owing to there being four candidates in the field. Such was the picture which the Report before the House enabled him to give of former elections at Sudbury. Was the system to continue, in which 200 voters on one side were proved to be bribed at every election? One witness ex amined before the Committee acknowledged that he always voted for whichever side paid him most, and that on each oc casion he took the bribery oath. The next witness who came forward, was a man of the name of Bell. lie had never before exercised the franehise, and he had received an extra sum of 41. for his vote. Charles King, another voter, state) that he had received 6/., but that they were for travelling expenses. With regard to the last election, there was a man who came befoze the Committee, named Nicholas Cross, who stated that he had been offered 701. for his vote; and that in his opinion the voters had made a regular market of the election. Having thus briefly stated to the House what had occurred at the last election—having shown that the last election for the borough of Sudbury was one at which, in the words of the Committee, a gross, sjstematic, and extensive system of bribery was carried on —be would merely add that the Committee, before whom these facts were investigated, was appointed in the very manner in which the Right. Hon. Baronet himself said it ought to be formed ; and he would say that:a Committee of that kind, not having been selected by chance, but chosen with the utmost care, their Report ought to be attended to. That Committee could not resist the strong facts which were presented to their minds, and they came to the unanimous decision that gross bribery had prevailed. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that he wished to aid the Noble Lord in his object for the sup pression of bribery, and to make an example of those com mitting it. That was the very course he (Mr. Redington) ased the House to pursue now. On other occasions of cor ruption various courses had been pursued : sometimes it had been proposed to incorporate that with the neighbouring borough ; but he did not think it wouid be fair to extend so much vice into the midst of virtue. He thought, however, that there was no other course than that which he proposed to the House. If that measure were not adopted he was sure that all that they had said—all that they had been doing—all that they had at tempted on the subject, would be rendered nugatory. He was satisfied if they did not punish this borough that all their re solutions against bribery would be believed to be idle and in • consistent ; and he was sure if they did not adopt the sugges tions of their own Committee, they would feel that that House, instead of assisting them to put an end to bribery, were se cretly and silently throwing a cloak over proceedings so unjust and reprehensible. Colonel RUSHBROOKE, in the present unrepresented state of the borough of Sudbury, trusted that, as the repre sentative of that division of the county in which the borough was situated, he might be permitted to say a few words in fa vour of that unfortunate borough. The corruption extended only to one portion of the constituency—the freemen—a body for the preservation of which he had voted in conjunction with the majority of that House, and he could only say he was sorry they had made so bad use of their privileges.—( Opposi tion cheers.) That body, however, was a diminishing one, and, ere long, would be extinct. There was not a more re spectable body existing than the bulk of the constituency of the borough ; they were above the suspicion of venality, and he hoped that when the Bill should be in troduced the House would give the question its calm considera tion, and would recollect that it was one class only of the voters which had been disgraced by these practices. He trusted they would net let the innocent suffer with the guilty, but would temper justice with mercy. The motion was then agreed to, and Mr. G. HARCOURT and Mr. SHIEL were ordered to bring in the Bill. THE SUN, LONDON. WEDNESDAY MORNING-, - MAN 11. 1842. ELECTION COMMITTEES. Mr. ROEBUCK rose to move for a Bill to indemnify those parties who should give evidence before the Read ing, Nottingham, Harwich, Lewes, and Falmouth Com mittees. Sir V. BLAKE said, that when the Committee was appointed, he would move, " That it be an instruction to the Committee of Privileges, to be appointed on the motion of the Honourable and Learned Member for Bath, to inquire and report whether the tenants of Lords of Parliament and of spiritual persons are not, by the Act 12 Richard 11., c. 12, exempted from the payment :of the expenses of Knights in Parliament— (Laughter)—upon the principle that such tenants were, by the law and usage of Parliament, inca pacitated from exercising the elective franchise. To report whether the said Act, and also the Act of 23 Henry VI., c. 10, for levying the wages of knights of the Parliament of England, or either of the said Acts, are not still in force and unrepealed.—(Laughter.) Also to report whether annual Parliaments and universal suffrage ever formed a practical ingredient of the Par liamentary representation, by means of which authentic information thus communicated, parties feeling them selves aggrieved will neceasarily avoid the mixing up of vital and fundamental principles—(Great laughter)-- of shortening the duration of Parliament and extending the franchise with matter unknown to the ancient land marks of the Constitution, which may be insidiously introduced into their petitions to this House by designing persons, in order to prevent any concession, lest such concession should have the effect of appeasing the public mind, and of averting an incurable breach between the Parliament and the people." SAVINGS BANKS. Mr. HUME postponed the motion of which he had given notice, respecting Savings Banks, till the 2d ofJune. MAYNOOTH COLLEGE—PRIVILEGE. Mr. SHIEL said that he perceived the Hon. and Gal lant Officer opposite had presented a petition this evening from Liverpool, very numerously signed, with regard to the College of Maynooth. The petition was couched in very strong language, which induced him to read it, and he observed that the names were written in the same hand. It was wrong to attach names to a petition without the authority of those whose signatures were attached. He therefore wished to know whether the attention of the Hon. and Gallant Officer had been directed to the names, and whether the names attached to the petition were ap pended by the authority of those who signed it ? Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS begged leave to say that the petition was put into his hands: on coming into the House, and he had not time to scrutinise the names. But there was the petition itself, and he recommended the ight Hon. and Learned Gen tleman to look over the names himself.—(Cries of " Oh, oh !") His (Mr. Shiel's) well known acuteness and ability made him much more competent to execute that task than he (Sir 11. Douglas).—(" Oh, oh !") But he knew there *was a strong feeling in Liverpool on the subject. Mr. SHIEL then gave notice that he would to-morrow move that the petition be referred to the Committee of Privilege, for the purpose of ascertaining and reporting to the House whether there was not a breach of privilege apparent in the form of the petition.—(Hear.) BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. Lord J. RUSSELL gave notice that he would on Friday move for leave to bring in a Bill for preventing bribery and corruption at elections. SUDBURY ELECTION. • Mr. REDINGTON rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to exclude the borough of Sudbury from sending burgesses to Parliament.i (There prevailed great noise and confusion in the House owing to Members leaving their places at the commencement of the Hon. Member's speech.) He said he had to call the attention of the House to another chapter in the history of corrup tion.— (Continued interruption.) He hoped he should be able to arrest the attention of the House, and that the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Pe6l) would not disregard the question, because it was brought forward by one so humble as himself, and who so long breathed the impure air of a Southampton Election Committee. He was well aware that of all privileges, the franchise was the most important, and that it was one which ought not lightly be taken away. But at the same time time that he re garded it in that light, he always thought it was due to those who honestly exercised their right, to protect their suffrage from being neutralised or nullified by those who used theirs corruptly.—(Hear. hear.) It was with that view the House had always marked its dis pleasure at corruption on the part of a Member, or of a constituency. He thought he should be able to show that the case to which was now calling the atten tion of the House was one which ought to be marked with the greatest severity. 'lt was true that even after Election Committees had recommended . the disfranchisement of a bo rough, the House had always been unwilling to take away the franchise, without having first ascertained all the facts in the fullest manner, and the Report of the Election Com mittee had been referred to a Select Committee. Not many years ago a measure had been brought in by the Noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, fur the repression of bribery at elections. In the debate on that Bill the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworh— and he (Mr. Redington) would not wish for a more ar-, dent advocate for the suppression of bribery than the Right Hon. Baronet—in that debate the Right Hon. Baronet had said that what the House would require in every instance of bribery, before proceeding to a measure of disfranchisement, would be to be well satisfied of the exist ence of the fact, and that the evidence required would be such as should not only be satisfactory to this House, but to the other House of Parliament also. • The Right Hon. Baronet had also stated that in his opinion the Committee for the conducting of any investigation on such questions ought to be nominated by the Speaker ; and that a Bill founded upon the Report of the Committee, should be sent up to the other House of Parliament. lii the case of the borough of Sudbury, all these conditions had been almost literally complied with. The Committee had been nominated under the provisions of the Right Hon. Baronet's own measure for the trial of controverted elections, so that it might be said to have been nominated by the Speaker, who appointed the Com mittee of Selection by which the Election Committee was chosen. He would now proceed briefly to narrate to the House the circumstances which had occurred at the last election for Sudbury. The nomination took place on a Monday, and the election on the Tuesday follow ing. Up to six o'clock on the preceding Sunday night, neither of the candidates who were returned had made their appearance in the borough. One arrived on the Sunday evening and the other on the Monday morning, end within 36 hours after their arrival they were both re turned as the Members for Sudbury. In some cases of bribery certain corrupt individuals were em ployed,and they endeavoured to tempt others into corruption. In Sudbury there was no necessity to have recourse to such mea sures. The votes were bought openly in the market. There were the hustings and two public-houses, and tile stream of corruption could be traced uninterruptedly from the one to the other during the whole election. He would now endeavour to show how many of the voters of Sudbury appeared to have acted in this man- De e. One of the first witnesses examined was a con stable of the borough of Sudbury. On the morning the polling this man stated that he saw a great number of people run up t o t h e h ust i ngs ; that he saw also as many as two hundred electors come from the Black Boy, go up to the hustings, and vote for the late Members. Now, what took place at that inn ? Why, the number of persons there was so great that the stairs nearly broke down, and when the parties were asked what they wanted, they said they were going for their money. He thought after this the House would entertain but little doubt whqt the course adopted had been. That with respect to the Swan Inn, the money was handed out to the electors at that place by a person who had not yet been dis covered, because nothing more was seen of him than his hands. The same crowd of people surrounded that THE TARIFF. On the motion that the Order of the Day for the House re solving itself into Committee on the Customs' Bill be read, Lord STANLEY presented two peetions, one from Mon treal, and the other from the inhabitants of Canada, in favour of the Government measure. Mr. HAWES presented a petition from the timber mer chants of London, praying for an alteration in certain por tions of the proposed measure relating to the admeasurement of timber for the calculation of the duty. Sir ROBERT PEEL rose and said—Mr. Speaker, Sir, I was in hopes I would be enabled to make the statement I have to make on the subject of the commercial tariff after the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Customs' Duties Bill, but I think it is quite clear that it was for the general con venience that I did not raise any general discussion on the tariff at that time; and as the Noble Lord (Lord Howick) has given notice of motions which he intends to make, I have, under the circumstances, no option but to make my general statement previous to the motion for the Order of the Daybeing read. But at the same time it is not my desire to anticipate any discussion that probably will take place. I think, as im portant notices have been given, it is better to avoid entering into the discussion of those particular questions, and not preju dice the facts by any partial representation of them.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, I rejoice that we are now arrived at a period when we can enter, as I trust we are about to do now, seri ously and continuously, on the discussion of this subject.— ( Hear, hear.) I very much fear that great public inconveni ence has resulted necessarily from the delay that has taken place, but it was absolutely necessary that at whatever period these propositions were made, a considerable interval must have intervened between the first proposal of them, and their being submitted by Government for the consideration of the House in their perfect form.—( Hear, hear.) But, at the same time. I am not complaining of any impediments that have been thrown in the way of their discussion. The delay was unavoidable on the part of the Government ; because I am sure the House will feel it was the duty of her Ma jesty's Government to avoid having communications with parties who were were personally interested. It would be impossible to hold those communications without giving some declaration of our intention as to the proposal to be made, and those persons who had knowledge of the measure to be proposed had an unfair advantage over the rest of the public. There was no alterative but to make the motion with out the advantage of private communication; but, having made it, the parties had time to be heard against any important changes affecting their private arrangements. I trust that some compensation of the evil necessarily connected with this pro posal—l trust that there has been the opportunity given to those whose partial and individual interests are affected mate rially, to consider the whole scope of her Majesty's Ministers, and fairly to consider whether they cannot find ample compen sation for the losses they may sustain in their special occupa• tions by the general advantage which we may hope to gain from the measure in contemplation. The House has before it, in the papers recently presented, the existing rate of duties upon the imports. They have also the amount of duty collected under those duties which are now existing. They have the original proposition submitted by the Government for the amendment of the commercial tariff, and they have also before them the proposal last suggested by her Majesty's present Go vernment. They have also the opportunity of comparing the last proposal with the former, and also of judging of the altera tions made by the Government, and of the temper and spirit with which those great arrangements had been undertaken ; and I think it must be evident to every one who has com pared the first with the last proportion, that no undue influences have been allowed to operate on the judgment of her Majesty's Government. In the course of this discussion I have been re peatedly assured that I should not be able to set aside party considerations. Now, I appeal to her Majesty's late Govern ment, to the House, and to all parties, whether any of the mo difications have been introduced from unworthy motives.— ( Hear, hear.) I think it will be seen by parties who had rea sons on either side for inquiry, that modifications have been at tended to, and their requests granted; and I think it will also be manifest that powerful parties, who have urged alterations without foundation, have been resisted. I think it will also be shown that when weak parties have suggested alterations, they have had a fair hearing; and if favour has been shown to any one, it has been to those who were weak and unprotected.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, avoiding, as far as I can, reference to the specific question brought udder consideration, I will state what the general scope and purport of the commercial arrangements are which are proposed by her Majesty's Government. The general ob ject of her Majesty's Government has been to simplify the tariff. It cannot be denied that there are duties on different articles not reconcileable with that principle. At different pe riods great alterations have been made in the tariff: in 1787 Mr. Pitt consolidated the Customs' duties. During the war, as there was a financial press ure, it was the practice occa sionally to rai se t h e Customs' duties by an indiscriminating per centage ; and a great part of the anomalies of the present , tariff arose from that practice. In 1 825, the Customs duties came u n d er t h e r eview of Parliament, at the instance of Mr. Huskisson, and great changes were made. I wish to claim for her Majesty's Government no undue credit for the alterations which are now proposed. I remember the last oc casion on which the attention of Parliament was called to the subject was by the Committee on the Import Duties in 1839. 1 do nut say that, if time had permitted, the inquiry might not have been more complete; I never did at the time, nor do I wish now to depreciate the labours of that Committee, neither do I wish to deny that by bringing the attention of the public to the state of the tariff, the Import duty Committee ac quired a claim to public gratitude. We have, therefore, applied ourselves to making the tariff clear, intelligible, and, as far as possible, consistent, which, without reference to the amount of o re u i r g e n d tto rye,mwo'ovteddallbepoasitgivreeaptrci)hulbbliitconbsenoenfit. the ilmVpeohratavtemenndoefats.• articles, torectuce the duty on such articles, so as to admit them to a free competition with our domestic produce. In the cases in which we have departed from th.s rule, it was justified by special circumstances, but the gene ral ride has been to abolish all prohibition, and reduce all prohibitive duties within the range of fair competition. With respect to duties on raw materialsiconstituting the ele ments of manfacturer, the object has been to reduce the duties on those materials to a nominal amount. On half manufac tured articles, which enter almost as much into manufactures so that willttle as raw material, the o bject has been to reduce the duty to a moderate amount. With respect to articles completely menu factored, the obj ec t h as been to remove prohibition manufactures of foreign countries may enter into competition with our own ; and I s till entertain a confident belief and ex pectation that the ge n eral result of this tariff, if adapted, be materially to diminish the charge of living in this country. If you say we do not make such a reduction in this or that par ticular article as to make any saving in the expenses of a family, I am ready to admit that that is true as to an individual artic!e : hut if you consider the general effect of the redutaion taken together, I contend that the inevitable result 'rank be' to make a great reduction in the price of living in this'COUntry as compared to what it is at present; and that must be great advantage to all classes.—(Hear, bear.) I am not ap plying this to any one or two particular duties, but taking the whole effect 'of the reduction as to manufactured goods, raw mater ials. and provisions. I contend that the whole effect kill be to make a material reduction in the expense of living.— ( Hear, hear.) I will take the liberty of calling attention to some of the reductions proposed by her Majesty's Govern ment in relation to agriculture.—( Hear.) I am quite aware that in these, as in other duties, it wag impossible for us to make great reductions without affecting some interest.— ( Hear, hear.) But, Sir, I have been told that we ought, therefore, not to take so many articles, and that the wiser course would be to take a fewer number and make larger re ductions of duty. But, Sir, I think that when you make re ductions which affect an individual, it is but just and proper to give him compensation in some other articles.—(Hear.) Let me take an article which is of great importance to agri culture, I mean clover seed. —( Hear, hear.) I find that the duty on clover seed is 11. per cwt. on foreign clover, and such is the demand for it, that the amount of the duty, in 1841, was 141,00d1.—( Hear, hear.) The clover seed is produced in some of the southern counties of England, but in some of the northern counties, and in Scotland, they depend on the foreign, or, at least, the extraneous supply.—(hear, hear.) We pro pose to reduce that duty from 11. to 10s. per cwt.—( Hear, hear.) 1 know very well that in this reduction some injury will be inflicted on those districts which derive a profit from the monopoly, for they have in some sort a monopoly, but a monopoly which was, however, overruled by the necessity, as is shown by the duty producing a revenue of 141,0001. ( Hear, hear.) But I think that the cheap admission of so important an article must be fur the general benefit of agri culture.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to grain, there may be a scarcity in some years, which would render a supply from abroad a great benefit, or there may be a superiority in foreign grass, and it is not of great importance that it should be cheap. The reduction of the duty on grass was from 1/. to ss. per cwt. Now again, take onions —( A laugh from an Hon. Member on the Opposition)—Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but the im portation of vegetable of this kind is of great importance ; and it is of importance with respect to the grower of that vegetable, that the home grower may be able to enter into competition with the foreigner. The duty is Is. 6d. per pound at present on onion seed, and in this case we propose to make a great reduction from the present amount, that is to bring it to Is. per pound. With respect to lint-seed, hemp seed, and oil-seed, the duty is at present Is.; we propose to reduce it to I d. for the purpose of encouraging the manufac turers here to enter into competition with the manufacturers abroad. I will now call the attention of the House to the changes proposed on the charges at present imposed on the im portation of foreign woods for purposes of ornamental furniture and dying. The duty on foreign woods had ranged from 50 to 100 per cent. on the value of the article. The high amount of duty has, I believe, nearly contributed to effect of late years, a great change in the industry of this country, with re spect to furniture. What country in the world is there where there might be greater ski I exercised in the making of furni ture than England? I cannot conceive a country in which there are greater opportunities for the exercise of consummate skill than this : but what has been the consequence of the high duties upon these woods ? I know there have been cases in which mahogany has been imported into England, re exported into the Continent, where the furniture has been manufactured from that mahogany, and then it has been re-imported into England, paying 20 per cent. duty. Great advantage, 1 think, would arise from reducing the duty on this wood. And I do not despair, by the reduction of that duty, to make such alteration, that instead of leading you to import furniture from France and Germany, you may be enabled to make a considerable export from the produce of the skilful mechanics of the country. At present it is im possible to deny that the cabinet trade, whether from the operation of this cause alone, or conjointly with other causes, has been transferred from this country to France and Ger many. I pass on then from the reduction of the duty on woods for the purposes of ornamental furniture, and I think we shall by and . by see the great advantage which will arise from the reduction of the duty on mahogany. It has been disco vered of late years that this most useful wood, which has hitherto been confined to furniture, may be applied with great effect to the more substantial parts of ship-building. It is a wood that strenuously resists the operation of dry-rot —no wood more so—and I believe if the price could be re duced, it would be used with great advantage in ship-build ing. I think it would be also right to reduce the duty on woods for dyeing. I pass on now to ores of metal, and I think there is no part of the tariff which is more important than that which relates to the reduction on the duty on ores of metal—whether I speak of iron, whether I speak of lead, or whether I speak of copper, in my opinion great advantage to the commerce and manufactures of this country will result from permitting the entry of those important articles at a much diminished rate of duty. Just let me take the case of copper. At present in this country you cannot import and sell foreign copper for internal use. You have greater advantages than any other country possesses with re spect to coal; you have it at a cheaper rate, and can apply it with great advantage to the smelting of foreign copper, but when smelted you cannot make use of it for home manufacture, and you must send it to France and Belgium to undergo the more valuable process, viz., to be rolled and manufactured. And what is the consequence of this? Foreign countries can undersell you in copper smelted wish your coals ; they can undersell you in the production of belts and sheaths for ships, and of boilers for steam. vessels, and in a variety of other articles of manufacture made of brass and copper. The con sequence of permitting that use of smelted copper abroad has been to give to foreign countries an advantage of 101. per ton in the market on copper smelted with your coal. In France and Belgium—l believe I am stating a fact—thi price of smelted copper is 101. per ton less than in this country; and ships in foreign countries can be fastened and coppered, on account of this advantage, at a cheaper rate than they can in this country; this is a decisive proof of the advantage which may be derired from reducing the price of the manufactured copper in this country, or rather of raising it on the Continent ; and this tariff has had that effect already.—(Hear, hear.) I will state to you what has been the effect of the present duty. A foreign Power was desirous of entering into a very large con tract for the building of several large steam-ships. Applica tion was made to this country, and the only objection to enter ing into the contract was the very great expense of fastening and coppering in this country as compared with Holland and Belgium. A demand was made, on account of the expense of coppering, to which it was found impossible to accede, and it was then stated that the contract must be transferred either to Rotterdam or to some part of Belgium. I believe, however, that the matter will not be decided until the decision of the House shall be made known. I think there is every reason to believe that, inj case the proposed reduction in the price of copper should be agreed to, the contract, instead of being trans ferred to foreign countries, will be reserved for our own. I pass now from copper to other most important elements of manufac ture, which are arranged under the head of oils and extracts. Now, I consider that the manufactures of this country have been exposed to disadvantage on account of the price of o il s and extracts. In point of fact, there is no more important ele ment in the manufactures of this country than sper. maceti oil.—( Hear, hear.) The present duty on sper maceti oil is 26/. 10s. per tun. That duty applies to spermaceti oil and train and blubber oil. Now we propose to reduce that duty from 261. 10s., in respect to train and blubber oil, to 61. ; and with respect to spermaceti oil to 151. 10s. ; thus giving a competition to ell the produce of America, in cases where the price of oil in this country is extraordinary and extravagant. I hope I am not wearying the House by these details.—( Cheers. ) I want to establish the proof that the general result of the tariff will be to give new life and activity to commerce, and to make a reduction in those charges which are unavoidable under the present system.—( Cheers.) Now a very short time since the price of spermaceti oil was almost 601. or 701, per tun. But of late • years the price has risen. In the year 1839 or 1840 the price of spermaceti oil rose to 951. and 1111. per tun. The consequence has been a great reduction in the consumption. The manu facturer h ,s had no other alternative, but either to consume olive or other vegetable oil for his machinery, or else trspay a most extravagant price for spermaceti oil in this country, as compared with spermaceti oil in the United States ; and there are no oils which, when applied to certain purposes of ma chinery, will answer the purpose so well as spermaceti oil. We have a formidable competition with the United States in some branches of manufactures; and they have this advantage over us that the spermaceti oil in that country of the best quality is sold at from 3s. 9d. to 4s. per gallon, while in this country the price is from Bs. to 9s. per gallon. I propose a reduction of the duty, which will not, I trust, seriously affect that important branch of our fisheries engaged in the oil-trade ; but yet at the same time it is advisable, in my opinion, that as the spermaceti oil has borne the price to which it has of late years been raised—l think it is advisable that there should be some competition with the oils of other countries, so as to reduce the price within reasonable limits.—( Hear, hear.) I do not believe that if the price here were reasonable, the American oil could compete with the oil of this country. From oil I shall pass to dye stuffs. The amount of duty at present leviaole upon dye stuffs is so great as to have led to considerable smuggling. Very recently a person had smuggled to so large an amount that he had compounded with the Custom House officers for a sum of 100,0001. rather than defend the action commenced against him. The great amount of the duty naturally led to illicit importation. With regard to timber, I am aware that a difference of opinion has prevailed upon the proposed altera tion in the duty on that article. Now the more I consider the subject, the more I am inclined to think that we are about to confer an important benefit on the country at large by the pro posed reduction, although at the expense of a large amount of revenue. I beg to remind the House of a memorable doctrine of the late Mr. Deacon Hume, on the subject of timber. Mr. Hume says, " we have abundance of untaxed coal, abundance of untaxed iron, and we only want abundance of untaxed wood, in order to be provided chiefly with the thi ee great primary raw materials of employment and of manufactures." That was the opinion of Mr. Hume. The import of colonial timber will, in my opinion, keep in check any demand made upon us on account of the additional facility given for the im portation of Baltic timber. I admit that the proposed change is liable to this grave objection, that it will at first be attended with the loss of revenue to the amount of 600,0001. or 700,000/. ; but I doubt whether there is any article in which a reduction of the revenue would be attended with better effects. These are the principal raw materials or elements of manufac tures with respect to which great reductions have . been made. I cited some instances as examples of the benefit which I think will arise from the proposed reduction. Now I approach the consideration of the reduction of duty upon articles of foreign mannfactures. I propose, generally speaking, to apply an amount of duty, not exceeding twenty per cent., upon articles of foreign manufacture. There will be particular exceptions, but, as a general rule, the maximum amount of duty which has been applied to ar ticles of foreign manufacture is twenty per cent. At the pre sent moment many of the duties upon these articles are as high as they were during the war. There does not appear to have been any consistent, uniform consideration of the amount of these duties. Now objections have been taken by some Hon. Gentlemen to the proposed reduction in the duties of these articles of foreign manufacture. It is said that by making the reduction, and by inviting competition with articles of foreign manufacture, we have begun at the wrong end—that we ought to have dealt more largely with the Corn-laws—(" Hear, I' hear," from the Opposition benches)—that we ought to have reduced, in a greater degree, the duties upon articles of pro visions, and that it is not just to reduce the duties on foreign manufactures until such reductions have been made—(" Oh, oh," from the Opposition ben c h es )— t h at we are subjecting the manufacturers of this country to a competition w ith labour which can be had on the Continent on more favourable terms, and therefore that it i s un j ust to t h e manufacturer. Now I i w sh to consider the force of t hat objection. My answer to it is, in the first place, that we have reduced, in a very material degree the price of the necessaries of life. I take the article of corn. The duty upon tee importation of foreign wheat is at present 15s. ; if the old law were in force it would be 275. I say there has been a very material reduction of the duty on the import of foreign corn ; and if any man will com pare the duties which are payable at this day on the import of foreign oats, b ar l e y, a n d wheat, with the duties which would have been paid were the old law it force, he must admit that there has been a very great reduction in the duty on those arti cles. 1 will next take the article of meat. 1 address myself more particularly to the reductions which have been pro posed in the duties on beef, either fresh . or slightly salted, whi c h is subject to absolute prohibition. ith regard to fresh pork, there is at present a prohibition— I propose freely to admit that article at a duty of Bs. a i cwt. Then, with regard to lard, a most important article, be it re membered to the poor, and an article of the greatest importance in many of our mar.ufactures—with regard to lard we find it at present subject to a duty of Bs. a cwt., and we propose to reduce that duty to 2s.—(Cheers.) With regard to salted meat, it is at present subject to a duty of 12s a cwt., and we propose to reduce it to 83. a cwt. On hams the duty at present is I/. 8s a cwt., we propose to reduce it to 145., just one half the present duty. With regard to live animals, or cows and calves, we find at present an absolute prohibition. We pi o pose to admit them at a rate of duty which, I admit, is ex tremely low, but which, I trent, 1 shail be able to show, although it will be such as to prevent any increase in the price of meat, will give the agricultural interest no reason whatever to complain—(Cheering and counter cheering)—while, in common with every class, they will share in the benefits to be derived from these reductions. Now, in addition to the prohibition on the importation of meat and live animals; which we propose to remove, we also propose to re move the prohibitions on the importation of fish. With re gard to salmon, instead of a prohibition, we propose to admit it at a duty of 10s. a cwt.—( A laugh.) In every case we re move prohibition.—(Cheers.) Soles, I believe, before were prohibited ; at all events, I know there have been many invi dious distinctions made that the importation of those species of fish, which were for the exclusive consumption of the rich was permitted, while the importation of those species of fish which were principally consumed by the poor was prohibited. But I now come to a description of fish in which I imagine the poor have the greatest interest—l mean herrings. In that I pro pose to introduce a most important change in the duties. I know not if the lion. Gentleman opposite approves of the al teration or r.ot—(Mr. Bannerman bowed)-1 know not whe ther I am to consider that as an expression of as sent or dissent. It is a subject in which I know the Hon. Gen tleman and his constituents take a great interest.—( Hear.) I will read to the House a communication I received on the sub ject :—" Norway," it gates, " produces as many herrings as we do. She goes to the Baltic and can sell her herrings at from 7s. Gd. to Bs. a barrel. I presume Norway herrings may be imported into the north of Ireland at from I Is. to 12s. per barrel, while we cannot do it at less than from 20s. to 225. I am a free trader in respect to everything else."—(Laughter.) This is the communication I have received, and it appears that the person who made it is a free trader in everything else ex cept herrings.--( Laughter.) Now I do not share in the ap prehension of my correspondent, and I cannot help thinking that a repeal of that duty would very much benefit the working classes ; but I would wish to encourage the native fisheries so that we might be enabled to compete with foreigners.—( Hear.) I do not see why wo should not beat the Norwegians.—( Hear, hear.) Reduce the duty on timber.—( fleas, hear.) Enable the fisherman to build better boats, that they may not fear the ruder weather and the greater storm, and you will enable him to compete with the Nor wegian. His labour is as great, and his skill is as great, but he wants the means ; reduce the duty on timber, and you give him a new stimulus to exertion; and when you do that, you will enable the Scotch fisherman to supply the North 01. Ireland with the herrings which they want. I now come to vegetables, which chiefly enter into the consumption of the working classes. The duty on onions, which is 35., we propose to reduce to 6d.—( Hear.) Potatoes are at present subject to a duty of '2s. per cwt., which almost amounts to a prohibition. During last winter, many communications were made to me from the North of England and Scotland, on this subject. Great alarm was felt at the price of potatoes, but the cause of the reduction of the price was, that they were unduly forced into the market. I should, therefore, propose to permit the importation of foreign potatoes, in respect to the supply of this country. I do not think the apprehensions entertained on this subject are well founded, but, considering the import ance of this article, I think a duty of two shillings is too high to be maintained, and that a material reduc tion ought to be made in the duty on potatoes. I now pass from vegetables to rice. Rice may be made a most material element in the sulssistence of the people. With respect to rice, the duty, at the present moment is 11. per quarter, and we propose to reduce it to 7s. per quarter. I now come to a vegetable, in respect to which some notice has been taken in this House, and upon which questions have been put to me—l allude to hops. It appears in the present tariff that there is no alteration in the duty on hops. I stated that the consideration of this question was encompassed with many dif ficulties on account of the Excise duties and other matters, and that such being the case, I wished an opportunity of com municating freely with parties who had a local knowledge on the subject, and that I would suspend the decision of the Go vernment till I had had full communication on the subject. That full communication has now taken place, and the Go vernment had formed their decision as to the course they would pursue ; and considering there were great vicissitudes in the sea son, as applicable to the production of hops, the great variation in the supply, arid the high price they bear at some times when compared with others, considering also the great importance of this article as connected with the beverage of the people, I think the present rate of duty on hops is extravagantly high.— ( Hear, hear.) Although, 1 should be most unwilling in this, as in any other interest rudely to disarrange capital, or bring about distress that would react upon other parts of the country, yet, Government considering the peculiar nature of this arti cle, think that some security ought to be taken against those exorbitant prices taken in some years. The present rate of duty on hopss is 8/. 1 Is. per cwt., and after giving the subject full consideration, we are of opinion, contrary, however to the impression of many persons, and contrary to the remonstrances we have received, we feel it to be our duty to propose to Par liament that the duty on hops shall be reduced from Si. Ils. to 41. 10s. The effect of that will be. not to effect materially the cultivation of hops, but to prevent an extravagant price. j To estimate how great a reduction her Majesty's Government have made in duties on the articles of life, the House must look at the whole ; look at the articles mainly necessary to the sub sistence of the people, and can you deny that, having made this material reduction, we are justified in calling on the manufac turer to submit to a reduction in those duties which are sup posed to constitute his protection. There are very material errors made with regard to the comparative cost of living in this and in foreign countries. If we institute a comparison, particularly with respect to the inhabitants of large towns on the Continent, it will be found that the expense of living is almost as great as in this country. Take the case of Brus sels, for instance._-( The Right Hon. Baronet here read a letter from the British representative at Brussels, stating that in making the comparison of the cost of living in this country and on the Continent allowance was not frequently enough made for the municipal dues exacted on the Continent for provisions. Thus the town dues of Brussels had all but doubled the charge on articles within the last teL years, from 1830 to 1840. The duties on articles leviable on entering a town were frequently higher than on passing the frontier. Now, supposing the answer I have given on the subject of the reduction of the duty on articles of food is not entirely satisfactory—there is yet another conclusive ground, independently of the cost of these articles, on which I would vindicate the reduction. 1 say that these high duties are a mere delusion ; they do nut constitute protection to the home manufacturer; he rests entirely upon an imaginary support—the check is the smuggler.--( Hear, hear.) It is a mere delusion to tell the manufacturer that we retain a duty of thirty and forty per cent. if he is robbed of that protection in an illicit manner. Now, Sir, just let me read a letter which I hold in my hand; for this is important in order to remove the uneasy feelings from the minds of the manufacturers. Let me read a letter from a smuggler.—( Hear, and laughter. ). The letter ! is certainly not addressed to me.—( Hear, and laughter.) It is dated Dec., 1841, and it comes from a man of very large means, who has a weekly intercourse with this metropolis. He says, " I am able to forward you articles of lace, blonde, silk, gloves, jewellery, &c., by the indirect channel—(Laughter)— the goods to be received in London the same day as they arrive at this port, and to be delivered by a discreet and trusty indivi dual."—( Loud laughter.) The letter proceeds to set forth the per-tentage difference between the prices at which the writer could furnish the goods, and the regular London market prices.) The Hight Hon. Baronet continued : Is it not clear that it is a positive advantage to the domestic J manufacturer that he should be aware of the extent of this competition, and that he should not be exposed to a secret. lurking ; and unseen competition, against which he could take no precaution ?—(Hear, hear.) There is a'case which has been brought under the consideration of myself and my coi -1 leagues—l mean that of the straw-plait manufacturers. Their condition has been reported to us, arid on account of those re ! presentations we have been induced to make an increase in the j i duty of from ss. to 7s. Gd. I hope that will enable j them to better their condition. But at the same time I, wish to convince them how delusive are their expectations of benefit from a high protecting duty. At present, the duty upon the raw material in this country is I not more than Id. per hundred-weight, whilst the duty upon the manufactured article is the extravagant one of 17s. 6d. In this case, as in others, there are great facilities for smuggling. In one case, there is a duty of 17s. 6d. per hundred-weight ; in the other, there is a gain of 17s. 6d. per hundred- seeight. Here again, I say, is a complete and decisive proof of the little advantage which is derived to the domestic manufacture of this country from duties which may easily be evaded. Now these are the general grounds upon which I vindicate the reduction of the duties on articles of foreign manufacture, upon the double ground, first of showing that we have made such a reduction in the cost of subsistence as justifies us in reducing the duties upon foreign manufactures ; and, secondly, of showing that the existing rates of duties are in many cases so high as to afford no protection whatsoever. Now, Sir, I wish to come to another point of the tariff. I dare say that by stating the amount of reduction I propose on some articles of foreign produce, tending to diminish thereby the rate of living in this country, I have, as far as I have hitherto gone, caused some alarm to the producers of those commodities in this country. I speak of those who are con cerned in the production of cattle and in the supply of meat in this country. I leant to address myself to that case, and I never felt more confident than I do nosy that I shall be enabled to show that the removal of prohibitions in the case of cattle, and the reduction of the duty on the import of foreign meat, is not only justifiable but is demanded by a full considera tion of the interests W . this country.--( Hear, hear.) Now in the first place it is quite an error to suppose that any class de rives an advantage from a high rate of living in this country. In the first place, there is no man—whatever the article which he uses—there is no man, if there be a general reduction in the cost of living, but must derive very great advantage from that general reduction. Looking to individual articles, parties may be exposed to some suffering and some loss, but they must set against that the general reduction in other articles. Let us look to the case of the poor-rates for the last four years. '1 he price of the articles of subsistence has been high of late years ; and we say, justly Ithink, that the poor-rates have fallen with pecular severity upon the landed interest of the country. During the last four years I find that the poor, rates in England and Wales amount, in 1837 to 5,274,0001. ; in 1838 (which was the year , :of the minimum amount), to 5,186,0001 ; in 1840 to 5,613,000/. ; and in 1841, they amounted to 6,014,0001. I am quite aware that there has been in this country a general apprehension, and what is called a general panic, upon the subject of the importation of live cattle. It has been constantly represented to me that it would be hut just to defer to that apprehen s i on , an d th at i t was i n va i n to argue against it. Now, I ve n t ure t o diff er a l toget h er f rom that opinion. I do not think that it would be consistent with the part of a real friend to the agricultural interest of this country to defer to their unjust apprehensions.—( Hear, hear.) I admit that it would be perfectly wise, perfectly right, to defer to sound arguments, to defer to justifiable ap prehensions, but it would not be right to conciliate the agri cultural interests by unwise concessions—it would not be wise to invite them to rest on the unstable foundation of pro tecting duties.—( Hear ) No step I could take would guard against the panic that has arisen ; but let me observe, that some portiom of the apprehensions entertained was owing to other circumstances besides the contemplated changes in the tariff. If parties will believe advertisements in t he newspapers, stating that meat can be supplied from Hanthurgh at three penee per pound, and if people will believe these advertisements, I cannot help them. I believe that a little inquiry would show that the house of Messrs. something, with a fine name in Hareburgh, who offered to make the supply, did not exist at all.__( Hear, hear.) Parties will find that the towns which offer to supply the manufacturing districts of the country at threepence per p Rind, are at present themselves paying six pence per pound ; and my belief is, that interested parties, pre tending sympathy with the people of those districts,. have inserted those advertisements for the purpose of taking, advantage of the tariff ; sled I trust that the delay which has taken place in bringing - it forward, hasin duced the formation of a more correct judgment on the sub ject, and that the cattle panic is of itself fast dying away. I have heard accounts from recent fairs, particularly in the northern parts of this count r y, w hi c h show that those who ex pert that the prices of cattle will be reduced, shall be much disappointed. In arguing this question of cattle, I am not preisared to say that th ere w ill be no reduction in the price of cattle, but I state that the prices of cattle and meat have been extravagantly hi g h i n thi s co untry, and that, if you can effect a reduction, it w 7ll no t b e su ch an one as to affect the price of land, or disturb the relations between landlord and tenant. I am about to establish, by c onclusive proof, that you ought to take security, if you can, against an extravagant price of meat, which may arise from a defective supply. Supposing any English grazier had been told, fifteen years ago, of the won der ful discovery- of steam, and the great facilities that it w mild afford for bringing, from Aberdeen and other par t ' of Scotland, enormous quantities of food for the London mar' ket—if he bad also bee n t o ld th a t th e pro d uce o f Ireiarld should be i ncrease d t o an enormous d egree, I appre h en d that the English grazier would have felt a panic twice as great 21 that which lately existed. He would have held it was MVO,' impossible for him to contend with the importations from Ir e : land and S co tl an d. N ow l am qu i te rea d y to a d m it that , with respect t o I re l an d an d S cot l an d , b eing parts of the United Kingdom, they are entitled to the import of catt le. Will it be de n i e d th a t 10 . 000 h ea d o f catt l e imported ite m Scotland and Ireland would have the same effect on the hO5 market as if they w ere b roug ht f rom f ore i gn coun t r i es ? I not say that Ireland and Scotland should rest on the same fe t ' y ingas foreign countries, nor that foreign countries have the 01 . 1 right to claim the admissi on o f th e i r catt l e on t h e same f av our e a terms as Ireland and Scotland, which are parts of the Unit e Kingdom. All I say is, that the expected increase from I re ' land and Scotland would produce the same effect 01 the English market, as if it proceeded from Ha t '' burg, or any other part of the Continent.—( Hear, bear i t If twenty years ago you had told a n E ng li s h grazier to ab et an extent the importation of cattle from Ireland would in Car sequence of the application of steam to navigation have be es carried, would he not, I ask you, have considered that the price e d cattle must be so reduced in consequence that he could 5 1 ° no chance ? Now what has been the result ? Why, n otwit standing this enormously increased imporiati on , th e price cattle has increased, the price of me a t h as i ncr eased'' and increased in a manner deserving of th e mos t seri ,° consideration, and this notwithstanding the increased ig t : portation from Ireland and Scotland. I will t a k e the ) 16 4 s. estimates in the article of fresh meat. I find in 1835 that t `', contract price for fresh meat in the Navy es ti ma t e , was 3tt' s i ewt. In 1837 it was 425. a cwt., in 1838 it was 415., in it was 465., in 1840 it was 485., and in 1841 it was 495. aof So that the price of fresh meat ha s inc rease d f rom 35 5 . a e slt, in 1835 to 495. a cwt. in 1841, notwithstandin g th e i ncr ease ' o the importation of cattle f'om Scotl an d an d I re l an d. I b e contract price for fresh meat supplied for the use of Greer with Hospital, was in 1835 40s. a cwt. I imagine they a re supplied with meat of, better quality there th an they s in the Navy. The contract price o f f res h tee n supplied to Greenwich Hospital has ri sen f ro m a cwt. in 1835, to b6s. a cwt. in 1841. In 1835 , 4 Leadenhall-macket, the contract price of fresh m e at fort supply of shipping was 365. a cwt. In 1841 it was 481. s 0 shows that notwithstanding the increased importation of - ea'l o from Scotland and Ireland, there has been a great rise in price of provisions. Now let us take the article of salt porks; salt pork for the use of the Navy. All this too goes to swell ta; amount of the Navy estimates. In 1835 the price of the tie r of salt pork was 4/. 14s. Bd. ; in 1841 it w as 71. a s . 3dt , ( Iles.r.) The rise has been a gradual rise. In 1837 it tr ip Si. 4s. ; in 1838 it was Si. 195. ; in 1839 it was 6/. Ils.; 1840 it was 6/. 155.: and in 1841 the price of the tierce of 5 1 , park for the use of the Navy was 71. 3s. 3d. fro m 4/. 14s. the price in 1835. Now take the instance of Greenwich HOtI pital. The cost of meat for Greenwich Hospital was in 1 4,4207. more than the cost of meat for the same establishraf si in 1835. The household expenses had, however, increase a . 1841 above 1835 12,0001. Surely I have said enough to 9 1 1,j that, notwithstanding the great importation from Scotland t o t Ireland, there has been that continual progress in the pric i e rho meat, which makes it desirable to open a more free trade. 1,,5) can deny it? Does not the comparison of 1841 and '`' s , show that something twist be done.—( Hear, hear.) The r i v s rulation is increasing more rapidly than the means of surf' s But it is said there is a disorder among the cattle. Ar d is not that conclusive also that importation on a freer scale ot to take place.—( Hear, hear.) There ought not to be s' e s * lute prohibition, but the means of obtaining a supply 1 ;0. other places. The duty we mean to propose is a duty a st if per pound on the importation of fresh meat and meat salted, acid of 11. on the importation of cattle. The chief caption is taken to the uniform rate of 1/. per head on cattl e !o (Hear, hear.) But in estimating the amount of dange r ,l domestic produce from this, we must consider what is the s p of Continental Europe with which we are to compete. , A respect to corn, the principle was different, for that cou'd obtained from the most distant parts of the world, and it be obtained from Odessa arid New York as well as from cashire ; hut are there not natural difficulties which dimi ty ) the chances:of competition in the article of meat ?—( Hear, li, e , c at Let me separate the case of lean cattle from fat.—(ulit laughter.) And I think I can prove completely to the Eng o it, grazier that the facility to the importer of lean cattle,. e at confer nothing lint advantage on him.—( Hear, hear.) ' b p show him that there is no description of profit o ro ll, has been reduced in so great a degree as the P ro s, , derived from the feeding of lean cattle—(Hear, which, indeed, has almost ceased to be a profit.—(Hear s h e i . o ts I admit importation is carried on t o a grea t e xtent r e parts of Leland and Scotland, but I can show you by jean' ferunce to documents such an increase in th e price o' ee l! cattle brought into this country, as makes the trade se ar s it' ore of profit at all.—( Hear, hear.) Ido not think i t or be denied that the compel ition of lean cattle front the •,,V tinent would be a great advantage. I have made' inqu f or on this point among some of the first graziers, and I fie s j profit on feeding cattle is reduced almrst to nothing , s'f, do believe the feeding would cease but for the manure . feeding lean cattle 1 am benefiting the agriculturist s s o d are employed to supply cattle for market. But snail; placed my duty according to the weight of cattle, I 'or; defeat the object of my Hon. Friend, because the weigh t :oo , cattle varies touch. In respect to lean cattle, there i s to difficult yin applying the duty according to the weight. No 1 ,0 70 ,; take the case of the importation of fat cattle. what country would your competition in this respect el:, s lP e No man would argue much danger of importation from or Portugal. I don't suppose in the course of years a e ‘ l itel on, fat or lean, crosses the Bay of Biscay.—(A laugh:) ldl4 then, take France ; let us consider whether there any danger of competition there. Now, if you will rna'' ,s, quiries into the case of France with respect to cattle , have ground for apprehension that the supply is rapid!): ii ,for !„ off. In respect to France, there is means of procur i g.oo,, raasion with respect to the supply of cattle, and 0011, show you that there is no danger of the importanl e fat or lean, from France. 1 can show that fo r t n ex porti" years France has ;handeen an importing and ne t , a „ le o f the s j i° country of cattle 12 or 15 years, the balance of imports is grea tly itirres s te s ap? . notwithstanding that France does import so largelY., t “., n• of meat does not keep pace with the increase of riot" _ a ' t tose f us take the prices in France upon a comparison in ow ( and departments. In 1822 the price of beef, on the 163 9 rt of those 86 markets, was 'lid. per kilogramme. In , s are, ' last fa! price had risen to 94. per kilogramme ; and in the !a . T` ..i r s t; , the price of mutton had risen from lid. to 9i-d. In Ya l- e t )) average price of all sorts of meat was, in 1822, no more sat' Sid.; but on the 10th of March 1841 the price had riseoo.oo. 81(1. which was the price in 1822, to 14d. ; and th is n standing the increased importation.—( Hear, hear. ) If s b the price of oxen in Paris was 296 francs, or about 11; head. In 1839 it was 322 francs, or about 16/. In littot was 459 francs, or about 191. 10s. Now if there is so g_ danger from the foreign supply, how is it that prices haleitst! from 12/. to 19/. in the years from 182 2 to -041 Is it because the foreigners did not imp ort into France ? It is not. Foreign oxen haved,,ol, imported into France; but they have not prevented t'he crease of prices, nor have they been sufficient to equal s i roe mand, so that there had been a decrease in the i n divida l ' o ssi ! sumption. There has been a great diminution in the eon , c o', tion of meat. From 1837 to 1840 it was represented 04 0 12Ibs. I think I have shown conclusively that there is eu_ e st s , to be apprehended from competition. Now with tol'osi; Belgium. The Minister of Belgium saw the alar °3 9os et,,, prevailed in this country, and he writes, that with re ss r a i the low price at which meat will be brought into Gr' s d, j taro, it cannot be, as has been stated, as low as i t t potted, because the price in the Belgian market t e ll/ time twice that amount. Well, then, Holland, I aqise t e 7s is not a country from which we can expect to de,„, 11 * - 4 1 great consumption, for the price of cattle n . ,o ' c , country will prevent any great supply. SPs t a cri of the question ; France, Belgium, and Holland del: co t , ply ; Prussia' is an importing rather than an ex port J, s ll try. The only danger I apprehend is from Holstein a ce , 0 . 4 land. But the facilities of exportation from these 1 0 0 g y v riot be so great as front Aberdeen; and, recalleod numerous quantity of cattle brought from Ireland al t , , es , land, comparing Holstein and Jutland with Yotseeial many other parrs of the country, I ask whether t or d , chance of a competition from those places, which s* ,, I Doi rally affect the interests of the English agriculturist • at once, if you can make some reduction sllrif price of meat in the London Idarket—abo ve 50 , 0 0 you can provide a security against such ri selo t t st crease in the price of meat, it must be a great e ° and advantage to all classes of the community thist sag s to agriculturists as well as others.—( Hear.) r eo extent of the area from which competition is to taKe folto such that no danger to the interests of agriculture caprojacil, apprehended; that there is no danger, at least, Of t e st t o ok of the price to 21-d. per lb. The quality of the l' s better. Now take the meat on the Continent at 4d...ollritaf and compare it with the meat sold in the London r e p, 70., or Bil., for you can form no safe inference of try by the difference in the price. Ido not despair of t i oth s not despair of seeing you an exporting country. great improvement going on in science, and the aPP (In! those improvements to agriculture, 1 do h O sr'sl ! of seeing you arrive at the necessity of, 00 den' cattle.—( Hear.) Look at France. In the countries T r ias l e ai France imports her cattle, 1 am glad to see Eggl.olfit tinned among the number. Your own mutton I! b la e liefpo to the mutton on the Continent. —( A laugh.) I d r 7 s e to 40.1 at this moment, legs of mutton are taken from ri;aolej o il burgh for consumption there. Well, now, t a ke the r i c e °` tlil case above, and look at the gradual increase in the uPe ri r 1 01. in this country. I want to establish some ch ec h i s la i r le „ 54 1 Upon the whole, I have vindicated the course 91 0 1 1 113 . 1 10 s .'" L 'ail jesty's Government has taken in removing the P r atity aft reducing the price of meat—at leasnreducing the a the import of cattle. It is said—" Why not irar- 711 Pt li jie pro; tion to the value of the cattle ?" I say it 1 5 7 1 11se t , i sli possible to apprehend any such importation 8 5 v ' c l e $ rious to the country. Every foreign country ireP ° lr ssitial! t o dh r u r et) tl: t e ouit s ,y an ii i us e re.2 i i i 6 r , i ci n f c rma ii n i e l ta ,: st, u i p s on no " t •h l i e c v h ie:i .e ad la v y a i lo t rem i s n d t sorry to see this great maeit'p ro li p c o a i ble to all tchaettilme.rneinetbsed to the imports from Ireland, derive no benefit from reco ce improvement in seam navigation. My o bject is f te ii. r erof price of meat in London, therefore, I lay a duty e d are i ‘ o .ot's on cattle, because, I consider that from the limits W which cattle would come in, laying on a duty a dloc, have the effect of discouraging importation. In t.o l, : d f slaughter, and in London you consume 150,000 stia trir l e, all slaughtered meat of the country. What c. thos ever supply that ! Can you apprehend that more eh eol?si'd head would come ? The total consumption of In_ sec ,n oid from 1,300,000 to 1,500 000 head. Is there any e: - , a .u " o ptlf - !, , to the high price of meat and the amount of e T se a rg%er,', any material injury to the agriculturists? I thinl c a o r side s ! ' to : 4 entirely fails. The proof is quite decisive. pe t s i done with 1 fore, acting on the principle we have ara u whichar can't— I to increase think th e there y is o na foreign conceivable cattle import of cattle from Ireland has greatly increai t oh nef i'; l ttleor ,e 6 Vi e rt at t o l t- e , withstanding, gone on increasing. With their u eat ion. r ieo few years, yet this has not affected the price,. u w_e r l eas iegts,, lation, you need not fear the effect of this impo o f y there times ut scarcity. With respect to horses,. o , 4 , it will give a security against an exorbitant increase ,12 of 1/. per head on importation of horses of all s ls,9 if there not, then, been an importation of horses into . _`„, oo sP,. O For several years there has not been an imporl' uor se) 9 •4( than 400 per annum. In 1841 you imported 3 13 r0 ", sap o t ip you exported 4,536. I shall rejoice to see the '2 l,d fre i a) will be the case with respect to cattle, see tis q improvements in agriculture, I do not despair K os', s o i y! These are the grounds, then, on which,l rest the . P i hi o ,y l her Majesty's Government, and I do hope tha t‘ t a , he satisfied the mind of my Right Hon. Friend li .i vel no ti ice s to pense with the amendment of which he has g i ve to c ro o o r. he moves that amendment, I shall feel it my di tt y be ca ts 9 0 1 a respectful but decided resistance. and I ' l ' 010" know by what arguments my Noble Friend asl ll ., b b e as e ff ys e ; /, port an increase in the dty on foreign cattle. . 1 . 0 1 a ea",t,,,,rw duty to enter upon thesestatements from some ," e , ,nnf o st having been taken of the tariff by some pretendlo.tioit.," with the farmers. At the same time, a full comni un ip ion . , ( l at e parties has confirmed the Government in the . °P S, Jr ) tains, that an advantage will result to all parti es ' pit Oat _, agriculturists themselves, front the reductionsr, above all, from the removal of the complete s *f" make in the duties on foreign meat and fn . re_ i s g„ s l - A t lv st te s , Government found existing when it undertook „,ell/' tion of the subject. I have now fulfilled the Purr arv o ~b~~~~ aUos~~~ ;' .~t -b~l ~7 a ~ 1[ ; ; `~* }:_ ~ 44t , a 4014 11 14, 1 ti ri C t , pa ,„ . ±N kl - " n 4- ), ea Nil trio ' 1 -1 41 ) PO to Sti Li, Wi !sal re ea Sol ~~, ~~ '~ jsS-r, °hy~Jt~ a 8 ti