The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-25 00:00:00

part of the tariff pass without entering nis protest against
it. This proposition was a change from total prohibition
to a system of free-trade. A protection of ss. was not
sufficient—it would be unjust to Ireland. What he had
to propose was that a duty of 4s. per cwt.. be substituted for
the uniform duty of 55., as proposed under the new
tariff. He would not then even press this motion, but
he wished to negative the amount of 'ss., leaving it to, the
Government to substitute another amount.
Mr. MILES said he heard with great satisfaction the
proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, and he should sup-.
port him in his proposition. It was a question which
concerned the poor cottager as much as the agriculturist.
The House divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it l2l
Majority against the amendment —B9
On going into the article of cassava powder,
Mr. VERNON SMITH said as this and other arti-
cles in the tariff produced scarcely ,any amount of re-
venue, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Vice-President of the Board of Trade if he saw any ob-
jection to lower the duties so as to retain them merely for
statistical purposes, or to strike them out of the tariff
altogether. These articles were adMitted now at a very
low rate of duty, and had given scarcely any revenue
of late years, and they appeared tolie, the burdens of the
tariff. In the first edition of the tariff, he counted 267
articles, not one of which produceclls/. to the revenue in
the year 1840. He thought all these might be struck out
of the tariff, as nothing more than. an incumbrance. In
the third edition, he was glad to observe that a great
many of those articles had been: struck out, and he
begged now to ask the Right llon, Gentleman whether
he objected to that course being pursued with regard to
all artieles of a low rate of duty.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he •did;pot see what advant-
age was to be obtained from the adoption of the Hon.
Gentleman's suggestion. He thought that the duty on
the articles referred to was very low at present, at the
same time he would wish to point out to the Hon. Gen-
tleman, that however low the rate for statistical pur-.
poses, the incumbrance to the tariff, would be the same ;
he did not see that the tariff would be at all simplified
by the plan proposed.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that the suggestion
was really well worthy the attention of the Right Hon.
Gentleman.
Mr. HUME said he thought this was a matter of con-
siderable importance. Two plans; had been proposed;
one was to reduce the number of,articles in the tariff
from 11 or 1,200 to 150, which he thought might be done
with considerable advantage; he was.sure the simplification
of the tariff would depend entirely upon that being adopted.
He should recommend that there should be one
.general
item, at the end of the tariff, of enumerated articles, at
a certain duty, say of ls. a cwt. '°
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob-
served that the enumerating of tke articles was of little
importance, as far as the revenue Was concerned ; but it
was of importance for the information of manufacturers,
that they should know the quantity imported.
Mr. HUME briefly explained ; and after a short con-
versation the matter dropped, when the proposition
was agreed to.
On the item " ash" being read,
Capt. PECHELL protested against the neglect of the
interests of British fishermen, in the arrangements of the
new tariff. He did not object, nor did the fishermen of
the south coast of England object, to a free trade in fish,
although the French fishermen obtained their bread at
one-third the price which the English paid for theirs.—
(Hear.) But the Government olight to take as much
care of the English fishermen as the French did of theirs.
There would be no complaint on this side of the Channel
if our Government insisted on preserving the coast fish-
ing from the encroachments of the French.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY moved that lobsters
should continue to be imported cliity free.
Mr. AARON CHAPMAN supported the proposition.
Sir R.. PEEL said, that as the government had deter-
mined on subjecting fish generally to a moderate duty,
they did not think it would be wise to make an exception
in favour of lobster and turbot, which were consumed
almost exclusively by the richer classes.
Mr. LABOUCHERE believed that the imposition of
a duty upon lobsters would injure the fishermen engaged
in the trade, without conferring any material benefit upon
the public ; and he trusted, therefore, that the Govern-
ment would take the subject into their further consi-
deration.

Mr. GLADSTONE did not apprehend that the trade
would be materially affected by the imposition of the
proposed duty. The question oc. convenience was more
open to objection, but it had not yet been found that any
material inconvenience would athe,

Lord HOWICK asked on' what ground the duty was
imposed ? He apprehended it was not for revenue, nor
could it be necessary for protection. Then, was it wise
to run the risk of interfering with the trade for the sake
of an apparent uniformity in die tariff ? It was not the
amount of the duty, but the restrictioa that would be
found to be an inconvenience • and a very considerable
degree of inconvenience would be created, while there
would be no commensurate advantage.
Mr. HUME suggested that the• duty should be taken
off fish altogether. The present duties on different kinds
of fish only produced a few shillings a year, and as it
was-an article of great importance as food, let them give
the poor the full benefit of free trade in it. Let them
reduce one of the Commissioners of Customs, who might
be well spared, and that would make up for etery possi-
ble deficiency.
Mr. WAKLEY showed the fallacy of the opinion
that lobsters were principally consumed by the higher
classes ; the far greater proportion was used by the mid-
dle and lower classes.
Sir R. PEEL said the time of the House was of more
importance than the subject under discussion ; he ad-
mitted the fact that lobsters were greatly used by the
middle and lower classes. He also admitted that the
Hon. Member for Harwich had shown some strong
reasons for a revision of the duty; as the sense of the
House appeared to be favourable to it, he would consent
to reserve the article of lobsters for consideration.
Mr. RICE asked for an explanation of the words
"Fish imported from foreign places in other than Bri-
tish vessels."
Mr, GLADSTONE said it:was intended that none
should be imported except in vessels that had cleared out
from a British port.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said that the Brighton
fishermen were in the habit of meeting the French
fishermen halt way in the Channel, and pur-
chasing fish of them, rather than , fish them-
selves. The question then was, where they should
take them in. With respect to turbot, they were for-
merly allowed to be brought in free, in foreign bottoms
—(Laughter)—but the tariff prevented them from being
brought in at all, or they must be transported from one
vessel to another, by which their quality would be much
injured.—(Hear, heall)
Mr. GLADSTONE said he was prepared to remedy
the evil complained of by the Hon. Gentleman, by
placing the word " turbot" immediately before the words
" fish imported from foreign places:'
On the question—That a duty of ss. be imposed upon
turbot,
Mr. AGLIONBY objected to the proposal, on the
ground that it was a retrograde step, and contrary to the
principle of the tariff. On this point he felt so strongly,
that if any Hon. Member would divide with him, he
would take the sense' of the House.. He could not under-
stand on what principle the Right Hon. Baronet refused
to accede to a reduction with regard to turbot, which he
admitted with respect to lobsters.
Sir R. PEEL said, under the old tariff, the admission
of turbot was objected to, on the ground that it was a
luxury, and could not be obtained by the poor. If ho
had continued the duty upon salted herrings, and had
exempted turbot, it would have been said that he was
favouring the rich.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY in explana-
tion, and from Lord INGESTRIE, the resolution was
agreed to without a division.
On the resolution imposing various duties on fish im-
ported from foreign places in other than fishing vessels
being proposed,
Mr. C. BULLER inquired' why it was that various
duties were proposed for different kinds of fish ? For
instance, on salmon the duty was to -be los. per cwt., and
on turbot ss. per cwt.
Sir R. PEEL said that it was owing to the difference
in the expense incurred in the various fisheries.
Mr. C. BULLER expressed himself satisfied with the
Right Hon. Baronet's explanation.
Mr. M. GIBSON said, it appeared to him that the
present proposition withdrew protection from the poor
fisherman, and retained it to a great extent in the case of
the fisherman who catered for the rich. He thought that
the imposition of a duty of 10s. per cwt. on salmon was
yielding to that influence which the Right Hon. Baronet
had deprecated.
Sir R. PEEL said, that under the former system of
protection, leases of 14, and, in some instances, 20
years, had been entered into in salmon fisheries, parti-
cularly in the northern parts of the country, and
very large sums had been expended on those fisheries ;
it was therefore but just that they should in some degree
be protected. With regard to soles, he had not:received
a single remonstrance, while, as respected salmon, there
was not a single article on which hehad received so many
representations.' And if there was 'any one article to
which he might refer for the sake of political power, it
was to the article of salmon, and also to that of soles.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that, looking to the value of
the articles, the duty on salmon was lower than the duty
on soles.
Mr. WAKLEY suggested that it would be well to re-
duce the duty on salmon from 10s. to Bs. .
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said that an additional
penny in the pound. would be of little consequence. He
thought that the largest boon ever given by the Right
Hon. Baronet related to the article of salmon.—(Great
laughter.) With regard to-the fishing of soles no rent
whatever was paid, while a very large rent was paid for
salmon fisheries. The rent of Lough Foyle alone was
6,000/.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the duty of 10s. was Very
considerate, but he considered that no expectation chould
be held out that the duty was to be for ever maintained.
After a few words from Mr. RICE, Captain PECIIELL,
Mr. HOME, and Sir ROBERT PEEL, the resolution was
agreed to.
On the resolution dutiesimposinptgoruipruLso ldv on various descrip-
tions o foreignf
fruit
wi
sbeingiied
'
Dn BOWRING why any distinction
was made with regard to almonds. He thought it better
that they should go under one name.
Mr. GLADSTONE saidtliatthed
to raiseistinet theion m ,ads
uatly-
ready made, and they had only proposed
on one sort still higher from 20s. to 255.
Mr. PARKER wished to know why the duty on fo-
reign apples had been increased ?
Sir E. KNATCHBULL said that the duty was re-
duced," and -he believed that reduction would prove
. . •
beneficial.
Mr. F. BARING considered that in the present tariff
the duty on foreign apples had been increased, and not
diminished.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL denied that there had been
any real increase in the duty on apples. lie would