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

IHE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 24, 1842.

f" I 1 • t tae purposeioil lvtlig t Wir4 egasa ion that the
people should get a worse kind-of beef when they might
have a betterl;-..--(tiehr. heir;) That they should be
obliged to pay 7d. a lb. for beef, when they might go;
it for 4+d.? He hoped that the wisdom of Parliament

was noCeoniistent with the adoption of such a mischievous
course. But he was afraid they would not be able to
make out this case Lhe feared that the statements of the

'First Lord Of the treasury,- and the Vice-President of
the Board of Trade were fir 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.—
I-Lar, hear.) lie much lamented it, it was a great mis-

fortune; and he could not . believe that the Bight lion.
Gentleman meant otherwise. He. hoped that the con-
sequence of their legislation would be that the labour-
ing claSses would be enabled to eattneat more frequently
than lieretobre. 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 'experienee, he
believed that when they increased the comforts
of the people, they ultimately improved the marker
for agricultural produce. The increased importation
of cattle and beef from Ireland and Scotland had not

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 Hon. 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
he With him an argument in favour of the change of
duty. Then why not'apply the same principle to corn ?
—(Hear, hear.) If corn coulcr 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 rethiction of duty on
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.
understand.
—(Cheers.) That
At
t Isa s a s
time
ewh
when
hmee of policy h
they
had
dil
e,xdte could
he nut
Queen's
letter read in the churches, for proctiring 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 ? He
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 proluction 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 Hon. 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
duties, 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 betweea the Noble Lord and himself was not a
question of principle, but a question of degree. He 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. He did not wish to revive the diseu.ssion 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 he 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 wore not fairly entitled.—(Hear, hear.) He
now came to the particular proposition before the House,
namely, whether it was desirable tocontintte the existing
prohibition, or whether the 'duty .proposed by her Ma-
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 lie 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 imposing
tun Income-tax.—(Laughter from the Opposition.) From
the agricultutalbedy 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 assistance which he had received from them.
—(Great laughter.) But he must say that it appeared
to him that the interests of the country required 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 lest
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 had looked in the country
papersto 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 Monday, May 16, lie
found the following:—" We have had rather a larger supply of
corn in the market to-day than last week, but prices were very
high; beef, 60. and 7d. per pound; mutton, 7d. and 74d."
He put it to intelligent men whether such being the price at Li.
verpool, it was rightthat the prohibition should continue. The
number of cows and oxen brought from Ireland in 1820 was
16966. 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, being an averageof 9t,400 in each year. And what
had been the effect on the prices;? Why, that the prices had risen
notwithstanding the increased import. Under those circum-
stances, then, was it advisable to continue the prohibition, and
were they not bound to look out 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 yet the price of meat was increasing. Did not that
suggest an important lessen 2—( Hear, bear.) 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 o: 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 to remove 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 theprice on the Continent.
In reference to the quality, he thought it was impossible
to compare for a moment the meat sold at 41Ad. a pound in
Hamburgh or Ostend, with the meat sold at 7d. or Bd. 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 that
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 for
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 Re, al Agricultural Society of England. The Right Hon.
and the Treas, übrey
handadnovidoolautbetd,
Baronet *then read a letter, stating four bulls had been
imported from Switzerlandforthweiiphuourptoasne of improving the
breed. Scarcely a year passed application being
made to the Treasury for educetpoitthaeleo, drowulpoeuytledon bulls, from various
parts of the world,
the law by permitting them to be - brought in.
eTnhaeb I e spirith e ofE successfully in the
article of cattle with the farmer on the Continent. It was a
etroug proof of the propriety nignldiushstr
of the proposal of the Government,
that every foreign country permitted the importation of
foreign cattle at a fixed duty per head. In Austria the duty
was S. per head; in Belgium 165.; in France 2/. • in Germany
13s. ;in Holland 13s. 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 hi• per head on lean cattle was too
high. One possibly nlight not comprehend what the Hon.
Yf:rundierca
Gentleman meant, for he (Sir R. Peel) conceived that there
were those who would prefer half-a-crown per cwt. to a duty of
IL per head. In that case 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 ieterestof the agricultual body. There-
fore, he thought his Hop. Friend was bound to explain what
his proposal was. His Hon. Friend wished for a duty per cwt.
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., 6s.' or Bs. per cwt.
would materially prevent the importation of foreign cattle,
and his impression was, that a dety_ef 11. per head wu quite