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

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, MA/ 25, 1842.

put forward on that side or' the House—namely, that the
Corn-law was founded upon a higher principle of pro-
tection than the tariff. The Right Hon. Baronet had
made the valuable admission, that in the present state of
things the people of this country were not provided with
food to the extent which they had a right to expect.
Judging from the language of the Right Honour-
able Baronet, any one would suppose that meat
was the staple food of the people.—(Hear, hear.)
Every argument, howeVer, which had been urged by the
Right Hon. Baronet, in favour of a reduction in the duty
on cattle, would apply with ten-fold force to corn ; and if
the present Corn-laws should fail to supply the wants of
the people the Government would be compelled in very
shame to apply that principle to corn which, with respect
to cattle, they had admitted to be absolutely neces-
sary for the interests of the people.--(Hear, hear.)
Major VIVIAN said that his motion was rather in
the nature of an appeal to the Right Hon. Baronet. He
did not wish to take up the time of the House in pressing
it to a division, and he would 'therefore beg to with-
draw it.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that before the motion was
withdrawn he would observe that as the Right Hon.
Gentleman had referred to the quantity of corn im-
ported under the present Corn Bill-law he hoped he
would have no objection to lay before the House an ac-
count of the amount of corn taken out of bond, and the
quantity now in bond, which he understood to 1,000,000
quarters. It was desirable that there should be an accu-
xate statement made on the matter.
Mr. HUME said that the Colonies ought to be consi-
dered an integral part of the empire, and that there
should be no duties imposed on their productions when
imported into this country.
Mr. PUSEY said that his views had been called theo-
retical. He would then state what a practical farmer,
who rented 200 acres of land at 200/. a-year, told him on
this subject. He had stated that he would rather wheat
had fallen 10s. a quarter than that mutton had fallen
the extent to which it had between last May and the
present time.
Sir R. PEEL said that, according to his butcher's
bills, no fall had taken place whatever in the price of
mutton. The Noble Lord referred to the quantity of
corn in bond. The quantity in bond was 800,000 quar-
ters, and he was ready to give every information on the
subject. .
Mr. PUSEY explained.
Mr. C. WOOD agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet
that they should not draw any hasty conclusions with
regard to the new Corn-law. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man stated the advantage of the C Drn-law from the
quantity of corn admitted within the last two weeks. He
stated that 15,000 quarters were admitted the week end-
ing the 12th of May, and in the last week 5,000 quarters
in London alone. But under the old Corn-law there
were entered in the corresponding weeks last year,
17,000 quarters in the first, and almost as large a quan-
tity in the second, at a price of 235.. Bd., so that very
little could be drawn from the quantity imported.
Lord SANDON said that the case of corn was diffe-
rent from the case of cattle, for one was imported from
the most extensive market, and the other from a compa-
ratively circumscribed one.—(Cheers from the Oppo-
sition.) They might have an immense crop of corn in
ono year, but they would not have a large crop of cattle,
and therefore the cases were distinct. The fact was
that the subject was a most intricate one, and whoever
dealt with it had to deal with the most conflicting
opinions.—(Cheers.) The Noble Lord the Member for
Sunderland for instance, would treat the colonies as
foreign countries, while the Hon. Member for Montrose
would have them treated_ like an integral portion of tfie
kingdom. He should for his own part prefer the opinion
of the Hon. Member for Montrose, but it was with such
different opinions the Right Hon. Baronet had to deal.
, Mr. LABOUCHERE agreed with the Noble Lord
who had just sat down, that very little cattle could be
imported into this country, but that a large . quantity of
corn might ; and he had no doubt that that circumstance
was the basis of the present measures of the Govern-
ment ; and if they had avowed that, they would not have
been accused, as they had been, of inconsistency. A
very different principle had been adopted with respect to
corn and to cattle, both of which he contended ought to
be placed on the same footing. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man stated, that population was outstripping the pro-
duction of food in this country. There could be no doubt
of that, and the assertions of the Right Hon. Gentleman
would not be forgotten in the country, Was it not, there-
fore, surprising, that a Minister of the Crown, after such
an assertion, should have brought forward such a Corn-
law as the Right Hon Baronet had done ? With regard
to the question of colonial protection, he was not
inclined to act upon any abstract principle ' - but he
thought the principle of colonial protection had been
carried to too great an extent in the original tariff ; he
was, however, glad to find that in the present one seve-
ral alterations were made in that respect. With respect
to the manufactures of India, he considered they had not
been placed as yet upon a fair footing, and he was, there-
fore, glad to find in the present tariff, that they were
likely to be more favourably dealt with. He considered
that hitherto the greatest injustice had been done to
India, and he was glad to see that something like a re-
medy for that injustice was proposed in the tariff. At
the same time, he thought the eight Hon. Gentleman had
extended the principle of colonial protection to a mis-
chievous extent. In that very article of live cattle, what
could be the meaning of imposing a differential duty in
favour of colonial cattle, when it was admitted on all
hands that no cattle could come from our colonies? What
could be the meaning of it except, to assert the principle
that colonial protection ought to be universal ? Now,
although he could not agree with some of his lion.
Friends that our colonies should be treated precisely as
if they were foreign countries, yet he could not but con-
sider that the Right lion. Gentleman had pushed his
, principle of colonial protection to a most mischievous
1 extent. . _ _ _ _

Mr. COBDEN felt astonished at hearing such a
speeech as that which had been made by the Noble
Lord the Member for Liverpool emanate from the repre-
sentative of a large commercial community. The Noble
Lord approved of the Corn-law, because it prevented us
from exchanging our commodities for the produce of other
countries, and he approved of the provision-law, because,
although it suffered that exchange to take place, it was
impossible, from the circumstance of the countries from
which the cattle was to be brought, that it could give
rise to commercial transactions to any great extent. In
Lancashire the people agreed with the Noble Lord • in
thinking that the object of their legislation in that House
was to prevent importation from taking place, when it
might take place in large quantities. The Noble Lord
said the country might be inundated with foreign corn.
Yes, and then our manufacturers would be inundated
with orders to execute, which must give increased em-
ployment to the labouring classes; and it was to
prevent that they were legislating. The people looked
on such a course of legislation with anything but appro-
bation. He thought the Right Hon. Baronet, in the
different arguments he had addressed to the different
sides of the House, as he had desired to conciliate their
support, had paid anything but a compliment to their
understandings. It reminded him of an actor on another
stage speaking was technically called aside, so that only
the person addressed should hear him, while in fact he
was heard all over the house. It was a mockery of the
people to legislate in such a manner. In Lancashire
hope was extinguished—there was a settled, lasting
gloom among the industrious classes, with no hope or
prospect of revival. But Englishmen would not lie
down to die like dogs ; and while they were legis-
lating in that House, haggling over a miserable
penny a pound on beef, they were rousing a
spirit that would bring about changes far more
sweeping than any now contemplated. The people
wanted food and employment, and they were legislating
systematically to prevent their having either. They ex-
cluded them from all trade with America, and then they
told them that from New Orleans this country might be
inundated with corn. They said this at a time when
there were tens of thousands of people starving for want
of that very food—when their machinery was rusting,
and their ships rotting for want of employment. Such
legislation was a scandal to England—was a scandal to
Christendom. They had no earthly right to prevent the
inhabitants of Stockport from exchanging the produce of
their industry for the corn of the Mississipi valley.
It was neither more nor less than legislative murder,
to prevent the people from exchanging the pro-
duce o,f their labour for the food of other countries.
It was not the price they cared about—a penny a pound
upon meat; give the people employme,nt, and the people
could pay double the price. What the people contended
for was the right to exchange the produce of their labour
for the food of other countries. Was it too much for the
people to claim the right to go 3,000 miles for food?
Would the landed gentlemen give them food in exchange
for their cotton manufactures ?—were they prepared to
employ them ? The manufacturers never came to Par-
liament to fix the price of a yard of calico, as the agri-
culturalists who settled the price of corn at 565. No,

they challenged conpetition with the whole world. The
landed interest could not employ them, and yet they
denied them the right of exchanging the produce of their
labour for the food of other countries. He could not
listen patiently to such proceedings. He felt himself
justified, coming from the place he did, seeing so much
distress around him, to take any course that was allowed
him, if he could get a man to join him in that course, to
put an end to that which he considered to be a national
farce in the country.
Lord SANDON said, he bad represented a large con-
stituency for a period of eleven years, and he had always
maintained the same principle. The argument used by
the Hon. Gentleman was, that they would destroy em-
ployment by those principles. If the Hon. Members on
his (Lord Sandon's) side of the House saw the argument
the same insight as the Hon. Member, he believed
they would be willing to adopt the principles ; but they
differed entirely as to their result, for they believed that
the policy of the Hon. Gentleman would be the means of
diminishing labour. The manufacturers wished to main-
tain their protection, and he did not believe they wished
any change in the Corn-laws.
Mr. TURNOUR said he thought the tariff ought
speedily to pass into a law. Whether the tariff was good
or evil, those who promoted it must stand or fall by it.
The country was extremely desirous that it should be-
come law. He did not mean to say that this was not his
opinion. He thought it ought to be submitted to the
jury of the country, for them to decide upon it. The
present Government was making a great step towards
free trade, and the proposition of the late Government
would yet be considered by future generations a great
measure. The House had been occupied one whole night,
and they had made no progress ; and nine o'clock of
another night had arrived, and no further progress
made, whilel millions were looking to the result with
anxious expectation, and the delay prevented the em-
ployment of capital.
The proposition was then agreed to.
The different items, to swine and hogs exclusive, were
then agreed to.
On the item of swine and hogs being proposed,
Mr. S. O'BRIEN said, he thought it was almost use-
less to attempt to induce the Right Hon. Baronet to
modify this part of the tariff ; still he thought it right
to those interests which he represented, not to' let th

Sir E. KNATCHBULL, denied that there had been
any real increase in the duty on apples. He woul

p,t-rt , --9 lain the circuin,tto,. • . !;te clo,e of
it. Tins proposition was a change from total prohibition ;'tile Session in 1838, '. een aiinost Members of
to a system of free-trade- A protection of ss. -.vas not ' Parliament had left town, the Annual Customs Bill was
sufficient—it would be unjust to Ireland. What he had proposed, and into it a clause had been introduced re-
to propose was that ,a duty of 4s. per cwt. be substituted for . clueing the duty on :apples from 4s. the bushel to five per
.the uniform
:duty of 55., as proposed under the new • cent. ad valorem. This clause had been introduced
tariff. He would not then even press this motion, but withotit notice. The. parties interested had waited on
he wished to negative the amount of 55., leaving it to the , their friends in the other House of Parliament, and
Government to substitute another amount. I threats had been held out by those who had the power of
Mr. MILES said he heard with great satisfaction the I carrying them into execution, that the Bill should not be
proposition of the Hon. Gentleman, and he should sup- allowed to pass unless an assurance were Given that some
port him in his proposition. It was a question which t measure giving adequate protection to the apple-grower
concerned the poor cottager as much as the agriculturist. I should be introduced. It had been generally understood
The House divided, when the numbers were— that Lord Melbourne had acquiesced in that arrange-
For the amendment
Against it , l2- mit the correctness of that understanding ; but he knew
Majority against the amendment —.89 that from the volumes to which they generally appealed
On going into the article of caSsava.Powder, for a report of their debates, and also from the recollec-
Mr. VERNON SMITH said this and other arti- tion of those who were present during the discussion, it
cies in the tariff produced scarcely any. amount of re- • appeared that some such understanding had been come
venue, he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman the to, and he was at a loss to understand, how the misunder-
Vice-President of the Board of Trade if'he saw.any ob- standing on the subject could have arisen. He thought
jection to lower the (lurk% so as' to retain them merely fbr the parties interested had just ground of complaint ; and
statistical purposes, or .to strike them out Of the tariff although the duty of 6d. a bushel might be an increase
altogether. These articles were admitted now ata very upon the duty of 5 per ctnt., it was a decrease upon the
low rate of duty, and had "given scarcely: 'any revenue duty of 4s. a bushel, the protection to which, upon the
of late years, and they appeared to be the burdens of the faith of that understanding, the apple-grower was en-
tariff. In the first edition of the tariff,.he counted 267 titled.
articles, not one of which produced 51. to the revenue in I Mr. AGLIONBY wished to know, whether it was ad-
the year 1840. He thought all these might-be struck out I mitted that 6d. a bushel was an increase upon 5 per cent.,
of the tariff. as nothing more than an incumbrance. In i and whether this increase was proposed because some
the third edition, he was glad to observe that a great misunderstanding had taken place some six years
many of those articles had been struck out; and he since? He thought that was no ground for departing
begged now to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether from the general principles of the tariff, and increasing
he objected to that course being pursued with regard to the duty upon the fruit consumed by the poor, from.s per
all articles of a low rate of' duty. cent. to 25 per cent. which would be the effect of the
Mr. GLADSTONE said he did not see what advent- proposed alterations while it would leave the duty on
age was to be obtained from the adoption of the Hon. the finer sort of apples, which were consumed by the rich,
Gentleman's suggestion. He thought that the duty on at nearly the present rate.
the articles referred to was very low at present, at the Mr. F. T. BARING had avoided discussing the ques-
same time he would wish to point out to the Hon. Gen- tion as a personal one. A Committee of that House
tleman, that however low the rate for statistical pur-. had sat in 1839, to consider the subject, and it appeared
poses, the incumbrance to the tariff would be the same ,• from this investigation, that so far from the alteration
he did not see that the term' would be at all simplified having diminished the price, the price of apples had
by the plan proposed. actually risen after the increased importations had taken
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought that the suggestion place.
was really well worthy the attention of the Right Hon... Mr. GLADSTONE said, he Agreed with the Right
Gentleman.
,• Hon. Gentleman that the sole question they had to con-
' Mr. HUME said he thought this was a matter of con- eider was, whether 5 per cent. duty was a fair and proper
siderablo importance. Two plans had been proposed; duty. He admitted that 6d. a bushel would be a high
one was to reduce the number of articles in the tariff duty, with regard to apples of an inferior quality.
from 11 or 1,200 to 150, which he thought might be done There were some apples as low as 2s. 6d. a bushel. But
with.considerable advantage; he was sure the simplification the apples of the inferior quality were not those which
of the tariff would depend entirely upon that being adopted. came from France, but the medium quality. The duty
He should recommend that there should be one general on the lower kind would be about 10 or 12 per cent.
item, at the end of the tariff, of enumerated articles, at but on the best quality it would amount to almost no-
a certain duty, say of ls. a cwt. thing. The growers of apples in this country had some
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER ob- claim upon the Government for a measure of this sort, for
served that the enumerating- of the articles was of little when the late duty was before Parliament, Lord Mel-
importance, as far as the revenue was concerned ; but it bourne said that, if there were any objections to it, those
was of importance for the information of manufacturers, should be subsequently a Bill brought in to meet those
that they should know the quantity imported. objects then before the House.
Mr. HUME briefly explained ; and after a short con- Mr. WAKLEY said that since that law had been in
versation the matter dropped, when the proposition operation, years had elapsed, and they had had a Com-
was agreed to. mittee to inquire into the subject.—(" No, no.") They
On the item "fish" being read, heard no complaints from the counties of Devon end
Capt.. PECHELL protested against the neglect of the Hereford where apples were grown; the complaints were
interests of British fishermen, in the arrangements of the all from Kent; and if the Right Hon. Baronet, the Mem-
new tariff. He did not object, nor did the fishermen of ber for Kent, had not been a member of the Adminis-
the south coast of England object, to a free trade in fish, tration, the Government would not have made this pro-
although the French fishermen obtained their bread at position.. Here was the duty on the fruit of the working
one-third the price which the English paid for theirs.— people of this country, the fruit they consumed, if they
(Hear.) But the Government ought to take as much' had the good fortune to get fruit at all, raised from a
care of the English fishermen as the French did of theirs. penny to sixpence a bushel ; from 5 per cent. to 20 per
There would be no complaint on this side of the Channel cent., and even more. The Right Hon. Gentleman said
if our Government insisted on preserving the coast fish- that the duty would only apply to apples of an inferior
ing from the encroachments of the French. quality, but this was a mistake, because the apples con-
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY moved that lobsters sumed by the working classes were the inferior
should continue to be imported duty free. qualities, therefore this duty would operate oil
Mr. AARON CHAPMAN supported the proposition. them to the amount of 35 or 40 per cent.
Sir R. PEEL said, that as the Government had deter- If apples could be brought from America at a remune-
mined on subjecting fish generally to a moderate duty, rative price to the American, the Kent farmers must in-
they did not think it would be wise to make an exception deed'he a sluggish set if they could not bring them to
in favour of lobster and turbot, which were consumed the London market so as to be remunerated.
almost exclusively by the richer clasees. Sir R. PEEL had deeply considered this subject ; he
Mr. LABOUCHERE believed that the imposition of believed that apples constituted the principal luxury of
a duty upon lobsters would injure the fishermen engaged the poor—(Hear, hear, hear)—but when he looked at
in the trade, without conferring any material benefit upon the circumstances attendant on this item, he must
the public.; and he trusted, therefore, that the Govern- say that he thought he was fulfilling an engagement
ment would take the subject into their further consie of the late Government in proposing this measure.—
deration. (Hear.) In the year 1838, Lord Melbourne was re-
Mr. GLADSTONE did not apprehend that the trade corded to have said that which he (Sir R. Peel) thought
would be materially affected by the imposition of the was as much as to say that the Government would, in
proposed duty. The question of convenience was more some manner or other, bring forward a motion to in-
open to 'objection, but it had not yet been found that any crease the duty on apples. He had brought forward
material inconvenience would arise. this motion principally because Lord Melbourne had
Lord HOWICK asked on what ground the duty was pledged himself to a measure of the kind, and he did
imposed ? He apprehended it was not for revenue, nor think that the engagements of one Government should
could it be necessary- for protection.' Then, was it wise be fulfilled by the other Government, if they possibly
to run the risk of interfering with the trade for the sake could, in accordance with their political sentiments.
of an apparent uniformity in the tariff ? It was not the Mr. HUTT thought that this measure would apply to
amount of the duty, but the restriction that would be all classes of apples, and not to the best kind, as stated
found to be an inconvenience • and a very considerable by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. He hoped that
degree of inconvenience would. be created, while there the question would be reconsidered by the Government.
would be no commensurate advantage: Mr. PLUMPTRE supported the proposition of .the
Mr. HUME suggested that the duty should be taken Government.
off fish altogether. The present duties on different kinds Lord J. RUSSELL said that the pledge which Lord
of fish only produced a few shillings a year, and as it Melbourne had given, was merely respecting perishable
was an article of great importance as food, let them give fruit, and the whole extent of his pledge was, that the whole
the poor the full benefit of free trade in • it. Let them subject of the duties should be reconsidered in a Com-
reduce one of the Commissioners of Customs, who might mittee. What was the statement of the Vice-President of
be well spared, and that would make up for every possi- the Board of Trade ?He said that the price of apples con-
ble deficiency. tinually varied, and that the proposed duty would there-
Mr. WAKLEY showed the fallacy of the opinion fore vary from two per cent. ad valorem, to twenty-five
that lobsters were principally consumed by. the higher per cent. ad valorem. The whole question resolved
classes ; the far greater proportion was used by the mid- itself into this, was the sixpenny duty then
dle and lower classes. proposed better than 5 per cent. ad valorem? He
Sir R. PEEL said the time of the House was of more could not but think that the latter was best. .
importance than the subject under discussion ;he ad- Mr. ESCOTT agreed with gentlemen who had pre-
mitted the fact that lobsters were greatly used by the ceded him that this was a very important question ; and
middle and lower classes. He also admitted that the that the article of apples formed one of the principal
Hon,,,Xernber for Harwich had shown some strong luxuries of the poorer classes ; he perfectly agreed, too,
reasons for a revision of the duty ; as the sense of the with the Noble Lord, that they ought not to act on the
House appeared to be favourable to it, he would consent precedent of Lord Melbourne's 'Government.
,to reserve the article of lobsters for consideration. Mr. HUME said if one Government were bound to
Mr. RICE asked for an explanation of the words carry out the measures of another Government, why did
"Fish imported from foreign places in other than Bri- not the present Government carry out Lord Melbourne's
tish vessels." proposition relative to the fixed duty on corn ?—(Hear.)
Mr, GLADSTONE said it was intended that none He hoped, looking at the merits of the case, that the
should be imported except in vessels that had cleared out Right Hon. Baronet would add the words ad valorem in
from a British port. this instance. He did think that a duty Of 20 per cent.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said that the Brighton was too much.
fishermen were in the habit of meeting the French Sir R. PEEL had given the subject every consider-
fishermen half way in the Channel, and pui,- ation, and having heard evidence upon it, he could not
chasing fish of them, rather than fish them- undertake to reduce the duty, but must steadfastly ad-
selves. The question then was, where they should here to the amount he had proposed.
take them in. With respect to turbot, they were for- Mr. WAKLEY proposed as an amendment, that the
merly allowed to be brought in free, in foreign bottoms duty on apples be 5 per cent. ad valorem, instead of 6d. a
--(Laughter)—but the tariff prevented them from being bushel.
brought in at all, or they must be transported from one After sonic further conversational discUssion, the Corn-
vessel to another, by which their quality would be much mittee divided ; the numbers were—
injured.—(Hear, hear.) For Mr. Wakley's amendment 5l
Mr. GLADSTONE said he was prepared to remedy Against it llO
the evil complained of by the Hon. Gentleman, by Majority against the amendment -59
placing the word " turbot" immediately before the words The resolution was then agreed to.
" fish imported from foreign places." The other items relating to fruit were agreed to, and,
On the question—That a duty of ss. be imposed upon On the motion of Dr. BOWRING,
turbot, The CHAIRMAN reported progress, and obtained
Mr. AGLIONBY objected to the proposal, on the leave to sit again.
ground that it was a retrograde step, and contrary to the The House then resumed.
principle of the tariff. On this point he felt so strongly, On the Motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, the In-
that if any Hon. Member. would divide with him,_ he cumbents Leasing Bill (No. 2), was read a third time
, would take the sense of the House. He could not under- and passed.
stand on what principle the Right Hon. Baronet refused The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of,
to accede to a reduction with regard to turbot, which he and the House adjourned at Half-past One.
admitted with respect to lobsters.
Sir H. PEEL said, under the.old tariff, the admission
of turbot was objected to, on the grotind that it was a
luxury, and could not be obtained by the poor. If he
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 variote 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-10s. 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, lie had not:received
a single remonstrance, while, as respected salmon, there
was not a single article on which he had 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. WAIiLEY
duce the duty on salmon from 10s. to Bs.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY said that an additional
suggested that it. would be well to re-
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/.
After
tte
On agreed
h o a .
resolution few v
imropmosg
Mr.n RICE, Captain PECHELL,
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the duty of 10s. was very
considerate, but he considered that no expectation should
be held out that the duty was to be for ever maintained.
Mr. iItTME, and Sir ROBERT PEEL, the resolution was
a
duties on various descrip-
tionsiords from
of foreign fruit being proposed,
Dr. BOWRING wished to know why any distinction
was made with regard to almonds. He thought it better
that they should go under one name.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the distinction was al-
ready
made, and they had only proposed to raise the duty
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. •

FROM LAST NIGHT'S GAZETTE.
DOWNING-STREET, MAY 23, 1842.

The Queen has been pleased to appoint Adolphus William
Young, Esq., to be Sheriff of the Colony of New South Wales.
WHITEHALL, MAY 23.
The Queen has been pleased to present the Rev. Alexander
Gardner to the church and parish of Lethnot, in the presbytery
of Brechin and county of Forfar, vacant by the death of the
Rev. Alexander Sy mere.
Commissions by the Lcrd Lieutenant of Bedfordshire.
F. Pym, Esq., to be Deputy Lieutenant; H. C Hoare,
Esq„ to be ditto, May 18; R. T. Gilpin, Esq., to be ditto,
May 20.
taamtnission by the Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire.
F. Cavendish, Esq., to be Deputy-Lieutenant, May 17.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Norfolk.
W. B. Folkes, Esq., to be Deputy-Lieutenant, vice Sir
\V. J. H. Folkes, resigned, May 10.
Commissions by the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Durham.
Durham Militia—The Most Noble Henry Duke of Cleveland,
to be Colonel ; the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Seaham
to be Major, May 16.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Wiltshire.
Royal Regular Militia—The Hon. H. St. John to be G.p-
tain, vice Fau-sett, deceased, May 2
Commissions by the Lord-Lieutenant of Westmorland.
Westmorland Yeomanry Cavalry—G. E. Wilson, Gent., to
be Lieutenant, vice Tatham. resigned; W. SlAdale, Gent.,
to be ditto, vice Fetherstonhaugh, resigned; J. Y. Thexton,
Gent., to be Cornet, vice Sleddale, promoted.
Commission by the Lord Lieutenant of Kent.
West Kent Squadron of Yeomanry Cavalry--R. Boyd, Gent.,
to be Cornet, vice Latham, resigned, May 21.
WHITEHALL, MAY 19.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Wm. Clifton, of Wat-
ford, in the county of Herts, Gent., to be a Master Extraordi-
nary in the High Court of Chancery.
DECLARATION OF INSOLVENCY.
THOMAS QUAIFFE, THOMAS JONES TYRRELL,
and JAMES QUAIFFE, brewers, Fulham.
BANKRUPTCIES SUPERSEDED.

WILLIAM HOOPER, tobacco manufacturer, Reading.
WILLIAM MAWMAN BRAWN, Jun., merchant, Skin-
ner's-place, Size-lane.
BANKRUPTS.
ADAM TELFER, smith, Praed-street, Paddington, to
surrender June 3, and July 5, at half-past eleven, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Alsager, official assignee, Basinghall-street ;
Virgo, Essex-street, Strand.
WILLIAM FINDEN and EDWARD FRANCIS FIN-

DEN,—engravers, Southampton-place, New-road, Pancras,
Middlesex, June 3, at one, anal July 5, at eleven, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Johnson, official assignee, Basinghall-street ;
Jenkinson. Cannon-street.
MARK QUICK, baker, Compton-street, Burton-crescent,
June 3, at twelve, and July 5, at eleven, at the Court of Bank-
, ruptcy. Turquand, official assignee ; Drake, 13ouverie-street,
Fleet-street.
JOHN RADFORD, upholsterer, Tiveron, June 21, and
July 5, at twelve, at the Old London Inn, Exeter. Fox,
Finsbury-circus, London ; Tanner, Crediton, Devon.
ROBERT ATTREE, hosier, Brighton, June 3, and
July .5, at two, at the Town-hall, Brighton. Freeman,
Bothamley, and Bentall, Coleman.street, London ; Chalk,
Brighton.
JAMES SMITH, wine merchant, Hertford, June 3, at
two, and July 5, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Lackington, official assignee, Coleman-street-buildings; Eve-
ritt. Havdon-•quare, Minories.
JOHN BERRY, grocer, Rugby, Warwickshire, June S•
and July 5, at eleven, at the Graziers' Arms, Rugby. Wratis•
law, Rugby; Fuller and Saltwell, Carlton-chambers, Regent.
street, London.
ROBERT BI A SS, wine merchant., Liverpool, June 3, and
July 5, at twelve, at the Clarendon-rooms, Liverpool. Dim.
mock, Sise-lane, Bucklersbury, London ; Fairclough, Liverpool.
WILLIAM GOVER GRAY, dentist, Bath, June 6, and
July 5, at twelve, at the Christopher Inn, Bath. Sheppard,
Castle-street, Holborn, London,
WILLIAM DONALD, furrier, Brighton, May 28 and
July 5, at twelve, at the Town-hall, Brighton. Bennett,
Brighton; Rickards and Walker, Lincoln's-inn-fields, London.