The Sun.
London, England, 1846-03-14 00:00:00

- _
done away with. If the TedtieCon in the duty on stained
parer was made to 2d. the yard, they ought also to re-
move all import duty on bronze powder and metal leaf.
—(fiear. 'Peer.)
Sir GEORGE CLERK, in answer to the Hon.
Member said that the excise duty complained of
was but very trifling, being but 14d. per lb.
Now he would ask the Hon. Member, what was the
weight of twelve yards of superior kind of paper ? Why,
just twenty ounces, so that the duty was not quite id.
a square yard.—(Hear, hear.) Against this they haa
protective duty of 2d. a yard, while the duty on rags,
and nearly every other article of raw material was done
away with. Though there was still a duty on varnish ;
very little of it was imported, it being made principally
in this country, and the duty on the raw material,
which entered into its composition, was done away with:
Bronze powder was but used in a small quantity of
paper, and he was tokd that buyers now provided them-
se v, s at Birmingham, where the article was so much
improve 1 that they used it in preference to that imported.
Ile might also state that the duty on ultra marine and
other pigments had been done away with; and, there-
fore, he saw no reason why the paper-stainers of this
country should not compete with those of any other
country in the world.
Mr. Alderman COPELAND complimented the Hon.
Member for Finsbury (Mr. buncombe), for the able
protection speech he had made. He admitted that the
tcnticnt'y of the Tariff would be to reduce wages.—(Hear,
hear.) Ile (Mr. Alderman Copeland) was persuaded
that net only would the paper-stainers suffer in this
re3p'!et, but shoemakers, and many other trades. He
would go with the lion. Member entirely on the present
cieeasiuo.—The subject then dropped.
Oa the article buckwheat being read,
Mr. S. O'BRIEN repeated the question he had put to
the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), about buck-wheat
flour and ordinary wheat flour. Unless the Right Hon.
Baronet could tell them wherein it was different, and
.how it was to be distinguished from ordinary flour, he
(Mr. S. O'Brien) considered the article should be struck
out of the resolution.
Mr. THORNELEY said when he was in America he
had seen buck-wheat used.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said the question he put to the
Right Hon. Baronet was, suppose two samples of flour,
one of bnck-wheat and another of ordinary wheat flour,
how could he distinguish between them ?
Sir R. PEEL replied by taste. He could not state
any other certain means of doing so.
On that portion of the resolution relating to butter
and cheese being read,
Mr. GROGAN complained that the alteration pro-
posed in those articles would seriously affect the farmers
engaged in making them. All experience went to show
that in this particular branch of agriculture, it was with
the greatest difficulty the farmers could maintain their
ground in the market against home competition.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving that
the butter be left out of the present tariff altogether, and
thus leave the article still at 255. per cwt.
Sir G. CLERK said, that considering the importance
of this article, being an important component part of
the food of the masses, he was inclined to believe that
a duty of 25 per cent, was too high. Considering, also,
that the price of butter varied in this country from 20s.
to 100 s. per cwt., he was disposed to think that 10 per
cent. was a sufficient and ample protection against foreign
corn pqition.
Mr. TOLLE NIACHE said that, since the duty had
been taken off butter, 150,000 casks of that commodity
had been imported from America, greatly to the disad-
vantae,e of the British producer ; for it must be remein•
bered, that the price of land in this country, devoted to
the produce of cheese and butter, varied from 10/. to
121. per acre ; land of the same quality could be got for
little or nothing in America.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said the duty paid last year upon
foreign butter was 247,000 L. and upon cheese, 147,000/.
That dthy would be, no doubt doubled, under the present
Tariff, and it would be so much taken from the British

farmer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER agreed
with the Hon. Baronet that the reduction of the duty
would prove injurious to the producer, but it was im-
possible for Government to look at this question without
considering the consumer. He admitted that they were
making a large amount of revenue, but at the same time
he confidently hoped that the importation of the articles
we al be so much increased as to render that reduction less
in amount than it wss at present supposed it would be.
When it was considered that butter was an article which
entered into the every-day wants of the people, he was
sure his lion. Friend would feel that it was the duty of
the Government to take care that at no time there should
he any scarcity in the supply of that necessary article.
He therefore, for the reasons he had already stated, did
Lot anticipate that there would be so large a reduction
in the revenue as some Hon. Members had predicted,
would follow this measure, while he was convinced the
measure itself would contribute materially to the benefit
of the lower classes, in so far as it would always keep at
a steady and moderate price.
An HON. MEMBER declared that since the passing of
the new tariff a great number of farms in this country
had been converted into dairies ; and he knsw of his
own knowledge that the present change proposed by the
Government was looked upon with great alarm.
Lord G. BENTINCK thought the arguments adduced
by the Right Hon. B ironet the President of the Board
of Trade were sufficient to justify the House in adoit
ing the amendment in preference to the original motion.
The Right lion. Baronet began by telling them that
butter was the starle manufacture of Ireland. upon
which it was now proposed to reduce the protection by
one-half ; and he followed up that statement by de-
claring, what might appear to be incredible to some
Hon. Members, that there were annually introduced
into this country from the sister island up-
ward; of one million hundred weight of butter.
If they were going to release the protection to butter at
the rate of toe. per hundred weight, the amount that
would be lost to Ireland would be half a million sterling
annually.--(` Hear, hear," from the protective portion
of the House.) He should like to know if this would
reduce the price of the article to the consumer ?
—the contrary would be the result. If then they were
not going to reduce the price of butter by taking
off the duty, what advantage could result to
the country ?—(Hear, hear.) This was proved by
the arguments of her Majesty's Government. This re-
duction then would injure Ireland in her most staple
article of produce, and this surely was not the Session
of Parliament to do anything that could injure that
country.—(Hear, hear.) Why in this very session they
were called upon to vote 230,0001. for the relief of Ire-
land, and in the very same breath they were asked to
pass a measure which would injure it to the amount
of half a million sterling annually.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear, hear," from the Noble Lord's supporters.)
%Vhat said a very excellent authority on Irish subjects?
The Times Commissioner said, that the small farmers in
the county of Kerry—the frieze-coated farmers of that
plaee—had made deposits in the savings' banks to the
amount of 200,000/., which was an average of 341. for
each depositor. Such, then, will be the injury to these
men ; they will be injured to that amount each.—(Hear,
hear, and No, no.) The protective laws upheld the in-
terests of these men, and her Majesty's Ministers pro
posed to do away with them. This large amount
of deposits was made by six thousand little
farmers, and it was now proposed to injure them to that
amount.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Divide.") What
said the Right Hon. Gentleman?—why, that whatever
Was the duty on butter, it would have the same effect on
the Dutch. Why n:,t protect the producers of this coun-
try, and not lock after the Dutch?—(Bear, hear.) They
were also asked to take off 70,000/. on cheese. The re-
duction of the malt tax, would not be allowed because it
would benefit the drinkers, and the brewers, so of course
her Majesty's Ministers would not allow of such a thing.
—(Laughter.) If this measure was introduced for the
benefit of the consumer, why not then propose the
reduction of the duty on tea ? The reduction of that
duty would be as great a benefit as another.—(Hear,
hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had not attempted
to take that off, because it was not the produce of Great
Britain.—(Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") For these
and other reasons, he moat cordially concurred with his
Pon. Friend behind him in opposing this reduction.—
(Divide, divide.)
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority against the amendment --102

On our re admission, we found
Mr. NEWD3GATE addressing the House. He said
he had received many letters besides the one which he
had alluded to. The same post which brought that
letter brought him also one from a manufacturer, who
said he perceived it was but one step in the course of
the Right Hon. Baronet. That letter ended with a fer-
vent wish that the measure blore the House might be
paised.

Lord G. BENTINCK said that th4y objected to cheese
as much as butter, but they would lilt divide the House,
as they considered the question of butter carried that of
cheese.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. SPOONER objected to the proposod reduction
On copper.
Sir If. HALFORD objected to the reduction on cot-
ton; as injurious to the stocking and frame•working
mutaftecturers of Leicester and Nottingham. He would
quote from art authority which had been often relied on
in that ITouor—Mr. M`Gregor, in answer to a question,
whether it would be proper to admit the manufactures
of s.lem y ? His answer was, that he would admit them
eel it b e duty, whether it would destroy the trade
of 14-Le st r and Nottingham or not—(Cries of
.4 !rear Lea -")—but, if it did, it would be better for
thN whole c entry to subscribe sufficient to relieve the
diitres,ed than continue the tax on the property of the
country. he Saxons, in the )eir 1815, had only 9,000
; in the present year they had 25,000,
stockwh n r-fratirs
which were all employed for the purposes of ex-
portatien hear.)
Mr. GISI-303NE did not rise to contradict the state-
ments made by the Honourable Member who had just
set down. He believed that what he had maintained re-
specting the wretched condition of the frame knit-
workers was but too true. He, himself, lived
for ten years in a village in Leicestershire,
and (hiring th it time the condition of this
class was most miserable. He had also occasion
to know the state of the poor-rates in many of the vil-
lages of Scotland, and he could bear testimony to the
pppressive nature of those rates which, in a great mea-
su.-e, arose from the destitute condition of the frame-
knit-workers, and those who were dependent for their
support on this department of industry. He had many
opportun'ties of seeing this misery, and he could, there-
fore, speak with the more readiness and accuracy as to
its existence. He now lived in a larga place, where
hosiery formed ihe staple manufacture, and he regretted
to say that the representations he had made were too
truly borne out by the hosiers in that city. It
might be that thesr would not be more likely to
flourish under the measure at present under discussion,
but if anything could give them relief, it would be open-
ing their ports to all parts of the world, and allowing a
free interchange with all nations. go did not receive