The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-24 00:00:00

rHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, MAY 24, 1842.

the purpose of contriving by their legislation that the
people should get a worse kind of beef when they might
have a better ?—(Hear, hear.) That they should be
obliged to pay 7d. a lb. for beef, when they might get
it for 41c1.? He hoped that the wisdom of Parliament
was notconsistent with the adoption of such a mischievous.
course. But he was afraid they would not be able to
make out this case ; he feared that the statements of the
First Lord of the Treasury, and the Vice-President of
the Board of Trade were far better founded, and that
considering the utmost supply from the Continent would
not be more than 30,000 head of cattle, there would be
no material reduction of the price of subsistence.—
Hear, hear.) He much lamented it, it was a great mis-
fortune, and he could not believe that the Right Hon.
Gentleman meant otherwise. He hoped that the con-
sequence of their legislation would be that the labour-
ing classes would be enabled to eat meat more frequently
than heretofore. But then, Hon. Gentlemen seemed to
imply that this would not be without a great injury to
the agricultural interest. This he held to be a complete
mistake ; both from reasoning and experience, he
believed that when they .increased the comforts
of the people, they ultimately improved the market
for agricultural produce. The increased importation
of cattle and beef from Ireland and Scotland had nut
lowered the price of meat ; on the contrary, it had con-
stantly increased. He had been unwilling, when the
Right Hon, Gentleman made his statement, to interfere
in any way that would prevent the House from going
into Committee, but he must now state that, although he
thought the Right lion. Gentleman was proceeding on
perfectly sound principles, yet he found it impossible to
reconcile the proposition and the principles on which it
was founded, to other parts of their legislation, both with
respect to the Corn Bill of the present year, and some
parts of the tariff itself.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gentleman had argued with regard to the duty on fish
and herrings, that if it were shown this food of the
labourer could be reduced in price, it would
be with him an argument in favour of the change of
duty. Then why not apply the same principle to corn ?
—(Hear, hear.) If corn could be obtained at 40s. a
quarter, it ought, on the same principle, to be considered
a benefit and not an injury—a thing to be aimed at
rather than avoided. This was the general principle of
the tariff, and yet, on the main article of corn, they were
pursuing a principle diametrically opposite.—(Cheers.)
And then it seemed to him that they made the case
worse by the argument used with regard to the importa-
tion of cattle, that no great quantity would be imported.
It was argued that there-was no danger in reducing the
duty on cattle, as it could only be imported from the
continent of Europe, while the reduction of duty ore
corn was resisted on the ground that it could
be brought in from all parts of the world.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) Here was one sound principle
of practical legislation, on which they were founding
their commercial policy, yet they only adopted it where
they alleged that it would be inoperative ; and where it
would be most operative, do most good, and secure the
greatest benefit to the people of the country, there they
shrunk back, and said this principle ought not to apply.
—(Cheers.) That was a scheme of policy he could not
understand. At a time when they had heard the Queen's
letter read in the churches, for procuring relief to the
distress existing in various parts of the country, why not
apply the same principle to all their measures, and
place their whole policy on a sound basis ? lie
was quite prepared to apply the same prin-
ciple to articles of manufacture, if it could be shown
that their price was increased to the agriculturist by
protective duties. There were other articles in the tariff
on which a greater reduction might be made; he did not
see why the agriculturist should be called on to compete
with the foreigner in the production of cattle, and why
sugar should not be admitted at such a rate of duty as
should enable him to consume it. On the whole, there-
fore, while he agreed to the proposition, he could not
agree to it as a whole system. He could not see that
the practical benefit arising from it would be so great
as the Right lion. Gentleman supposed. But he thought
it of great value as an assertion of a principle.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) In the first place it put an end to pro-
hibitive duties, and imposed a moderate fixed duty on
a great article of agricultural produce. But, instead of
raising the duty on cattle, as proposed by one Hon.
Member, to meet the duty on corn, he would rather re-
duce the duty on corn to meet the reduced duty on
cattle.—(Hear, hear.) He entirely approved of the pro-
position in itself, and he hoped, as the Government had
begun this course, they would apply the principle to all
other articles without favour or partiality. He should
vote with the Government against the motion.
Sir R. PEEL had hoped he should have been able to
confine his observations to the subject immediately under
discussion. But the Noble Lord had invited discussion
on the sugar duties, and the Corn-laws. As to the sugar
Zuties, there would be another opportunity of discussing
.them, and he would state again that there were reasons
that exempted sugar from the application of the general
principles of the tariff. With respect to the Corn-laws,
he thought the Noble Lord, the author of an Bs. duty,
must himself impose some restriction on the
principle he had been contending for to-night.
The Noble Lord must admit. in order to maintain that
proposition, either that there were special burdens upon
agriculture, which justified the imposition of that duty,
or that it was desirable on general political grounds to
give protection to domestic agriculture; and the question
therefore between the Noble ord and himself was hot a
question of principle, but a question of degree.. lie pro
posed a graduated scale, the Noble Lord proposed a fixed
duty; but the Noble Lord must show that there were
special reasons applicable to agriculture to justify that
protection. lie did not wish to revive the discussion of
the Corn-laws; but, on a former occasion, when it suited
his purpose, the Noble Lord had charged him with de-
luding the farmers. He thought it was impossible to
contend on the one hand that lie had deceived the agri-
culturists by raising false expectations, and on the other
that he had given a protection to the agriculturists to
which they were not fairly entitled.—(Hear, hear.) Ile
now came to the particular proposition before the House,
namely, whether it was desirable to continue the existing
prohibition, or whether the duty proposed -by her .A.la-
jesty's Government upon the importation of foreign
cattle did so far diminish the protection upon domestic
agriculture as to justify the apprehensions which some
had entertained. On this point he totally differed from
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Miles), but he could assure his
Hon. Friend that he was not ungrateful to him or to
those who thought with him on this subject, for the
support which he had received from them in impesing
an Income-tax.—(Laughter from the Opposition.) From
the agricultutal body he had received most valuable and
generous support during this session and previously,
and the difference which might exist between them to-
night did not in the slightest degree diminish his grateful
sense of the assistatwe which he had received from them.
(Great laughter.) But he must say that it appeared
to him that the interests of the country req&red that
the prohibition upon the import of foreign cattle
should be removed, and that the proposal which he had
made on the subject would benefit all classes of
the community. When he spoke on the last
occasion, during the prevalence of the panic,
he stated that he did not think that panic would continue ; the
result had justified his opinion. He hid looked in the country
papers to ascertain the real state of things, believing that th. y
were a very good indication of the state of feeling among the
agriculturists. In a Liverpool paper, of Alonday, May 16, he
found the following :—" We have had rather a.larger supply of
corn in the market to-day tha . last week, but prices were very
high; beef, 61d. and 7d. per pound; mutton, 7d. and 7d."
He put it to intelligent men whether such being the price at Li.
verpool, it was right that the prohibition should continue. The
number of cows and oxen brought from Ireland in 1820 was
16,966. Now what had taken place after a lapse of 20 years ?
Why, that on an average of the last five years the number of oxen
and cows brought from Ireland into the port of Liverpool alone,
was 472,200, beingan averageof 94,400 in each year. And what
had been the effect on the pricesl? Why, that the prices had risen
notwithstanding the increased import. Under these circum-
stances, then, was it advisable to continue the prohibition, and
were they not bound to look nut for a wider area ? Taking
the five years preceding the last, in the five years ending 1836,
the number of oxen brought into Liverpool from Ireland was
54,800, and t the price of meat was increasing. •Didnot that
suggest an important lesson ?—( Hear, hear.) Was it not a
strong indication that the population of this country was in-
creasing more rapidly than the supply of cattle? And where
was that supply to be found ? The four great countries—
France, Holland, Belgium, and the United States, containing
a population of 65 millions, were all exporting countries ; in
each he was afraid the price of cattle and the price of meat was
rising, and in each the consumption in proportion, to the popu-
lation, was rapidly diminishing. The Noble Lord said, " Atone
(time you contend that you ought toremove theprohibition, and at
another that it would not materially affect the price of meat."
He must say, he wished that he could make a reduction in the
price of meat in this country. He saw great improvements
made in steam navigation, whilst there was no reduction in the
price of meat, on the contrary there was a progressive rise ;
and he must say, that was in his opinion a conclusive proof of
the necessity of removing the prohibition. But on the other
hand, when the farmer apprehended a reduction of 25 per cent.
he was obliged to tell him that he thought his apprehensions en-
tirely unfounded. There were three things to be taken into
account, the quantity of the cattle to be produced. the quality
of the cattle to be produced, and the inevitable effect of re-
ducing the prohibition in increasing the price on the Continent.
In reference to the quality, he thought it was impossible
to compare for a moment the meat sold at 4%d. a pound in
Hamburgh or Ostend, with the meat sold at 7d. or &I. in the
London markets. He very much doubted whether the latter
meat would not sell in any market on the Continent for 6d. a
pound. —( Hear, hear.) Now he could not but think the;
there would be great advantage from a free import of cattle, in
the improved facilities for improving our own breed of cattle.
He had been much struck with an account which he had read
of a meeting over which his Hon. Friend the Member fir
Berkshire presided last year, of that most useful institution
which was founded mainly by Lord Spencer, and with which
he (Sir R. Peel) had the honour to be connected—he alluded
to the Res al Agricultural Society of England. The Right HOTI.
Baronet *then read a letter, stating four bulls bad been
imported from Switzerland for the purpose of improving the
breed. Scarcely a year passed without an application being
made to the Treasury to reduce the duty on bulls, from various
parts of the world, and the Treasury had violated
the law by permitting them to be brought in.
The spirit of industry and capital would, be had no doubt,
enable the English farmer to compete successfully in the
article of cattle with the farmer on the Continent. It was a
strong proof of the propriety of the proposal of the Government.
that every foreign country permitted the importation of
foreign cattle at a fixed duty per bead. In Austria the duty
was Bs. per head; in Belgium leis.; in France 2/. ; in Germany
13s. ;in Holland 11. 131. 4d. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Miles )
should explain what was the practical proposal which he
wished to make. But it was a mere delusion voting for the
proposal of his Hon. Friend, because he might think
that the present duty of 1/. per head on lean cattle was tao
high. One possibly mieht not comprehend what the Hon.
Gentleman meant, for he ( Sir R. Peel) conceived that there
were those who would prefer half-a-crown per cat. to a duty of
1/. per head. In that ease oxen weighing four cwt. would be
subject to a duty of only 10s. If the result of his Hon. Friend's
proposal should be to get such a duty as that, he apprehended
he would not serve the interest of the agrieultual body. There-
fore, he thought his Hots, -Friead. was .hound to_explainashat
his proposal was. His Hon. Friend wished for a duty per cit.
for the purpose of increasing the protection to British cattle,
and therefore of diminishing the facilities of introducing
foreign cattle. If they added to the amount of duty the
obstructions that there might be to the landing of those
animals—that in addition to a duty of 55.. Gs., or Bg. per cwt.
would materially prevent the importation of foreign cattle,
.ikrid hid ialptewx3 VIVI that a duty of V. per hews Irsite
- -

sufficie-t. A deputation of friends, whom he highly esteemed, I
had waited upon him and pressed upon him arguments in favour
of higher protection. He had not conceded to them w: at
they sought, because he conceived the interest of the com-
munity required that he should not make the concession. He had
a deep impression that, the population of the country increas-
ing, it would be no advantage to the agricultural body, but the
reverse, to give increased protection so far as lean
cattle were concerned. They wanted to widen compe-
tition, and give the country the benefit of a large supply
of lean cattle, but there were apprehensions entertained
with respect to fat cattle. Now the passage from Hamburgh
was very different from the passage from Aberdeen. He did
not believe that the Steam' Navigation Company would im-
port cattle at less than 2/. per head. Besides, for all the
damage done to cattle during the voyage there was no in-
surance. Those matters it was that formed protection, and not
the amount of duty. It was very difficult to bring cattle across
the North Sea, and he thought that would operate to prevent
the introduction of cattle. His own interest was connected
with these matters, and if the general interest of the country
required the sacrifice, he should be proud to follow
the example of the agricultural body. He believed
it would be adverse to the interests of the agriculturists, to
insist on a higher protection. He believed that asking for
higher protection, was but incurring superfluous and unneces-
sary odium. He doubted whether they would derive so great
a supply from the Continent as would bring down the price to
that point to which it certainly was desirable to reduce it. He
deeply regretted that he should differ from his friends on that
(the Ministerial) side of the House on this subject, but he was
convinced that the interest of the consumer required increased
facilities for the introduction of cattle. He was so
deeply convinced that this proposal was not ad-
verse to the interests of the agricultural body, that
he saw with regret that he could not make the concession
which had been sought. He trusted that the decision of that
House would assist, by the influence of its sober judgment
and reflection, in relieving the agricultural body from unne-
cessary trammels, and, by a large majority, affirm the proposi-
tion of her Majesty's Government.
Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL asked who it was that de-
ceived the agriculturists? It was those who taught them to
rely upon legislation fur a measure of protection. The organ
of the Right Hon. Baronet's Government, the Morning Post,
in commenting on the Right Hon. Baronet's conduct—in de-
fending it, said that the Righ, Hon. Baronet had not deceived
the agriculturists, but had looked on while they deceived
themselves.—(" Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches. )
That was the language of a Paper which was considered the
Government organ.—(Question, question.) They were told
some time ago, when discussing another subject, that the
money which was taken out of the pockets of the people would
be repaid by the diminished cost of the necessaries of life. The
Right Hon. Gentleman bad been called the doctor, and he
was then about to administer a very nauseous medicine.—
(Loud cries of " Question, question ; divide, divide.") Ile
said that to make the income-tax go down easily ; but at the
same time he told his agricultural friends, when the tariff came
on, that one of the prime necessaries of life would not be re-
duced. —(Hear, hear.) The question had two aspects ; it had
the visage of Janus, and the protective face was turned towards
them now.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) The Right Hon.
Baronet told them that cattle would he brought from a circum-
scribed region, and that the introduction of foreign cattle would
produce no effect. He ( Mr. M. J. r )'Connell) did not think
so.—(Question, question.) He was showing on what frivo-
lous grounds what was called a great question was based, but
he believed the reason was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman
did not wish to alarm his agricultural friends, and had, there-
fore, put forward the question on those contradictory grounds.
He did not think the effects of the measure would be so small
as were anticipated, for he believed that foreigners would now
grow a better description of cattle. But if that were even the
case, he trusted the energy of the native farmers would always
enable them to compete with foreigners. The same arguments
that applied to cattle, applied to corn, and the Right Han.
Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, made a
most conclusive speech in favour of a fixed duty, if not for an
entire free trade.--(Hear, hear.) He said the demand for
foreign food would not only cheapen the price, but would
create an export trade, which he, said would go far to compen
sate any loss the agriculturists might sustain. If this were
true, with regard to the article which entered in the smaller
degree, into consumption, how much more was it true with re-
spect to corn, which was not confined to Holstein or Denmark,
but might be obtained. from Europe and America.—( Cheers
and "Divide, divide.") The Right Hon. Gentleman had
told them of the application of chemistry to the feeding of
cattle—(Continued cries of " Divide, divide ")—but if it
cheapened the feeding of cattle, it also cheapened the produc-
tion of corn. He hoped the panic of the farmers, with respect
to corn, was passing away, and that they would at length see it
was better to trust in their own skill than in legislative regula-
tions; and that when they saw this protection on cattle was
sufficient, they would begin to perceive they had been misled
in considering those their enemies who, with regard
to articles of greater importance only endeavoured to
apply the same principlestow contended for.
Lord WORSLEY did not think that the motion of the Hon.
Member for East Somersetshire had been treated fairly.
Those who had argued against it had assumed that the object
of that motion was to continue prohibition. It was no such
thing. The agricultural body did not ask for the continuance
of prohibition ; all they asked for was a fair and adequate pro-
tection.
Mr. C. P. VILLIERS rose amidst loud cries of "
divide ; withdraw, withdraw." He thought with his Noble
Friend that the motion of the Hon. Member for East Somer..
setshire had not been fairly treated, because it had been treated
with great respect—( Cheers, and cries of " Oh, oh")—and if
the House had fairly represented the people, it would not have
been so treated.—(Cheers.) It asked for a still further obstruc-
tion to the trade in food for the people of this country—
that people who were starving in consequence of those accursed
regulations—(Cheers)—and now the Minister who had been
chosen by the agriculturists themselves found himself com-
pelled to propose some slight measure of relief for the starving
people, the Hon. Member came to endeavour to do away even
with the slight relief which the Minister had proposed.—
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member was opposed to granting
even the slightest relief.—(Loud cheers.) Now ought such s
motion as that to be treated with any respect ?—( Loud cheers.)
He trusted that the Hon. Member's speech would be pub-
lished, and that the Anti-Corn-law League would circulate it
through the country. A more conclusive argument in favour of
the principles of the Anti-Corn-law League he had never
heard.—( Cheers. ) The Hon. Member showed that there
were ample resources throughout the world for providing the
starving people of this country with food. He expressed a fear
that the starving people of this country would have the benefit
of these resources.—( Cheers.) The Hon. Member throughout
his speech had never once referred to the state of the country.
The Hon. Member had talked of what he called the farmers,
but they all knew that when they talked of the fanners
they meant the landlords. (Loud cheers.) The Ho-
nourable Member bad actually asked the Minister of the
Crown not to relieve the distresses of the people because it
might lower the rents of the landlords.— (Loud cheers.)
This benefit had, however, been gained by the motion—
the Ministers bad been obliged to admit that the ac-
counts of the sufferings of the people had not been
exaggerated.—( Hear.) There was not one medic.] man
in any manufacturing town in the kingdom who would not
come forward and give evidence that there were hundree.t of
people who had died for want of food, and who were dying for
want of sufficient sustenance.—( Hear, hear.) These things
had forced the Ministers to propose some small measure of re-
lief, they had been obliged to propose some relaxation of the
monopoly, and this proposal the Hon. Member opposed,
and they had that night consumed five hours in discussing the
Hon. Member's motion. That would not have been the case,
if the people had been properly re presented in that House.
Such a motion ought not to be tre,ted with respect.--(Cheers,
and cries of " Oh, oh.") He (Mr. Viliers) had heard the
Hon. Member for a quarter of an hour, endeavouring to prove
that,by the proposed alterations, the price of meat might be re-
duced to sd. a lb. from 6d. This had been an important even-
ing. The Hon. Member's own friends had admitted the dis-
tresses of the people, though at the same time the Ministers
had told them that no result would follow their measures.—
(Hear, hear.) Just before. the Right Hotr. Baronet had ad-
dressed the House, half a dozen of the friends of the
Honourable Member for Somersetshshire had risen, but they
had all become quiet after they had heard the assurance of
the Right Hon. Baronet that meat wou!ci not be cheaper. As
soon as they had got that assertion. Hon. Gentlemen were
satisfied. As soon as Hon. Gentlemen were satisfied that
prices would be kept up, and that the misery of the people
would continue, they were quiet.—(Cheers.) What. had
been the case with the Corn-law? He had seen the walls
placards(' with a notice that since the Corn-law had passed
the price of wheat had actually risen 4s. a quarter. They had
the statement of the Right lion. Gentleman, that the price of
meat was rising.—( Hear. hear.) The distresses of the
people were admitted, and the people must be most servile and
most ignorant if they did not derive instruction from that
night's proceedings.—( Cheers.)
Mr. F. SCOTT complained of the speech of the Hon.
Member who had just sat down. It was a foul calumny to say
that all that the Members on his (Mr. Scott's)side of the House
wished was, that rents should be kept up.—(Cheers.) They
were actuated by no such feelings.—(Cheers.) It was a ca-
lumny on them to say that they were so void of spirit as to sit
down quietly because they had heard three or four observations
from the Right Hon. Baronet, by which they had not been
convinced.—(Cheers.) He believed that Hon. Members re-
presenting agricultural bodies had just as great sympathy for
the distresses of the people as the Hon. Members opposite;
but this he could say, that Hon. Members on his (Mr. Scott's)
side of the House understood their own interests.—( Tremen-

dous Opposition cheers.) They did not ask for prohibition—
all they wanted was fair protection. He thought fat cattle ought
not to be admitted at the same rate of duty as lean, and therefore
on principle, he felt inclined to support the lion. Member for
Somersetshire, but he should vote with the Government, be-
cause, as he understood that all the cattle that could he im-
ported would not amount to one week's consumption, he did not
think that a depreciation in price could take place so rapidly as
to do harm to the home producer.
Mr. WARD rose to address the House, (but amidst vocifer-
ous cries of " Divide," so that we could not cat.:.h his ob-
servations.

Mr. 0. GORE rose amidst and general cries of "Divide."
The Hon. Member fer Wolverhampton had cast a great, ca-
lumny on those on his (Mr. 0. Gore's) side of the House. He
said that several Gentlemen had risen together, but when the
Right Hon. Gentleman addressed the House they were silent.
When he (Mt. 0. Gore) rose to address the House he did so
for the purpose of o•, posing the amendment. 'He had no hesi-
tation in saying that the farmers in his county were perfectly
satisfied. _ _

Mr. HUME rose amidst great uproar and cries of " Divide."
He said, if he was not allowed to go on, he should move that
the Chairman report progress. He thought many Gentlemen
came there that evening. to interrupt the business of that
House. It was not his intention to address the. House.—
( Cheers. ) He should not have done so but for the charge
made by the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire 4,ainst the
Hon. Member for Wolverhampton. If it was a calumny to
speak the truth, then had his Hon. Friend spoken calumny.
The motion of the Hon. Member for Somersetshire was to
render food dear. It was to obstruct the Right Hon. Baronet
also in the difficult situation in which he was placed, in his
attempt to alleviate the miseries of the people. He (Mr.
Hume) hoped Hon. Members on the other side of the House
would attend to the arguments of the Vice-President
of the Board of Trade, or even the arguments
of the Right Hon. Baronet himself, and they must be con-
vineedthat tehuegbsttatete ofbe
ethbeemcworu. 't his motion was to prevent
country required that the food of
the countryfood beingcheaper. He, therefore, agreed with his Hon.
Friend that it was an attempt to add to the misery and suffer-
ing of the people.—(Uproar. and cries of " No, no.") No !
What was t then? He could only say, that if the Hight Hon.
Baronet was anxious,
as he stated himself to be, that animal
food should he cheaper, let him adopt the proper course let
Wm make corn cheaper. It did not require argument.—
(Loud ironical cheers.) It did not require argument.—
(Cheers.) It was necessary before they had cheap
cattle they should have eheap food to feed them with.
He believed that those Members who sat around the Right
Hon. Baronet would not allow him to give that relief to the
distress in 'he country which he was inclined to do. Distress
never was so prevalent in this country as at the present moment,
and what was the effect of the present proposition? Why to in-
crease that distress. He agreed with his Hon. Friend that the
whole proceedings of the Home were calculated to starve the ,
people,. every act they performed had that tendency.—(Cries
of, " Oh, oh.") They could not think of the suffering mil-
lions, and act as they had done. He thought the Right Hon.
Baronet ought to be supported against a party who seemed to
him to be only looking to their own interests. He thought the

Right Hon. Baronet deserved credit for any attempt he had
made to alleviate the distress of the people.
Mr. MILES replied—He and those who s 1 around him
had as much feeling for the distress of the people, as the Hon.
and Learned Member for Wolverhampton, and those who sat
around him. He did not stand up for prohibition ;he was for
protection, aryl only a protection for live cattle equivalent to
that on dead meat. He should be ready at a future p, riod to
state the exaet nature of the measure he meant to propose ;
but he trusted that the House would now sanction the principle
of giving a due protection to the British farmer.
The House then divided, when the numbers were,
For the motion
Against the motion

Majority against the motion 205
Some discussion ensue ( as to whether the amendment of
Major Vivian should be proceeded with or nut.
Major VIVIAN finally moved that the Chairman du report
progress and obtain leave to sit again.—Agreed to.
Mr. PUSEY postponed his resolutions till the bringing up
of the Report.