The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-05-27 00:00:00

imptrial Varttamttat.

HOUSE OF LOE.DS.—MoNu.4,:ir.
bills were brought up from the House of Common;

I a first ti
CAM PBEI
n of the

asked the Lord Chancellor if it was th(
r to bring in any measure to pre.

zovernmen

-.6 , eassengers on railways ?
...ORD CHANCELLOR said he could not answer the
Auestion in the absence of the noble lord the President of the
Board of Trade. He had himself been that morning locked
up and had suffered no inconirrion should tdke an was not particu-
larly desirous that any alterata place.
The house then adjourned.

up of

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—MONDAY.
A new writ was moved for by Colonel ItusunnooKE for
the borough of Ipswich.
Mr. C. Wiani called the attention of the house to the re-
port of the Ipswich election committee, which stated that
extensive corruption had prevailed in that borough at the last
election. That report should not be suffered to be passed
over in silence, and he should recommend that an inquiry
be instituted, and, if requisite, that the Attorney-General
should be directed to prosecute those who bribed as well as
ibed. _ _ .

hoped that some effective alteration would be
the recurrence of such practices.
...cussion, Mr. Hima moved the post-
.. one writ for 14 days, to give time to the house
rtain the nature of the measure to be proposed by Lord
sell, for the purpose of putting a stop to bribery and

ose Who
Sir G. G

corruption

arevent

Lo;11 J. RUSSELL supported the amendment.
Sir R. PEEL considered suth practices derogatory to the
!dit ty of the house, and would support the
tendment, in order to allow Mr. Wynn an opportunity of
aging the question before the house as to the expediency

3g the parties.
i his arrangement was adopted, and it was subsequently
•anged that the Southampton case should be similarly dealt

and authori

of prose

with.
Mr. WYNN then gave notice, that on Thursday he would
move that the Attorney General be instructed to prosecute
in the Ipswich case, and the motion for the issue of the writ
was postponed.
On the motion for going into committee on the Customs
Duties Acts (the new Tariff),
Mr. COLO,IIHOUN moved a resolution, to the effect that
in removing the proposition to the importation of any article
there ought not to be charged any duty on the raw material
which should not be charged to articles the manufacture
thereof ; and that so long as living animals be charged with
a fixed duty, salted provisions should be chargeable with an
equivalent rate, and not be removeable from warehouses with-
out payment thereof for exportation.
Mr. GLADSTONE contended that such a resolution, if
adopted, would lead to fraud and evasion. It was impossible,
in the present state of things, to give effective protection to

•
the Irish provision trad
After some discussioi

,n, the motion was withdrawn,

and the

house went into committee.
Mr. W. MILES then brought forward his motion " That
the duties to be levied on all life stock imported from foreign
countries for the purposes of food be taken by weight." He
said he was surrounded by many hon. members who thought
that the time had now arrived when it became them to pause
in the support which, as agriculturists, they gave to the
present Government. They had gone along with the right
hon. baronet as far as they thought they could go consistent-
ly with safety to the farming interests of the country. The
hon. member then contrasted the comparative prices of ar-
tificial food for cattle in Denmark and in this country, show-
ing that in the former they were little more than half the
price in the latter. He then compared the prices of cattle
in various parts of the Continent, adding the expenses of
importation, and the result of his calculations showed a loss
to the British farmer of from £1 lls. to £5 per head ; or if
an average of all those places were taken the loss to the
farmer would be £2 13s. 4d. per head,; if forced, as he ne-
cessarily would be, to sell at the same price as the foreigner.
Unless the right hon. baronet would assent to his proposition
he must respectfully, but decidedly give his opposition to
this part of the tariff.
Mr. R. PALMER seconded the motion, concurring in all
that had fallen from Mr. Miles.
Mr. WYNDHAM opposed the motion, and said that in the
places alluded to by Mr. Miles they had no cattle to spare,
and what they had was of a very inferior quality.
Mr. HEATHCOTE said in the experiments proposed by
Sir R. Peel all the profit and all the benefit would accrue to
the commercial interests, while all the risks and all the losses
would be sustained by the agriculturists.
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the government were quite sa-
tisfied that the British farmer had no occasion to feel any ap-
prehensions from the part of the measure before the house,
which related to the importation of cattle. It was alleged
that a great panic prevailed through the country on the sub-
ject of the tariff, but the prices of cattle at recent country
fairs proved that those fears on the part of the agriculturists
had been much exaggerated. He admitted that theory was
in favour of the proposition for levying the duty by weight ;
but it would lead to great inconvenience if it were adopted,
and indeed it was quite without precedent in any country
whatever to take the duties on animals otherwise than by the
head. He was of opinion that the duty of £1 per head bore
a fair proportion to the duty on meat, because the expense of
freight would be much greater on the living than on the
slaughtered animal. For his own part he would feel grati-
fied if he thought that a larger importation would take place
than he at present contemplated the possibility of, for he was
of opinion that, considering the enormous consumption of
England, and the increasing prices on the Continent, there
was not much probability that the importation would pro-
duce any injurious effect on prices. It was asserted that
800,000 head of cattle would be annually imported under the
proposed measure ; but, considering the ratio in which our
population was increasing, it would require an additional an-
nual supply of 85,000 heed of cattle to keep prices from

Dr. BOWRING supported the proposition of the govern-
ment as an important step towards sound principles of le-

Lord NORREYS opposed the amendment. It was said that
the agricultural members might vote for the proposition of
Mr. Miles without injuring the government, because that
proposition was sure to be negatived. To such a course of
action he would be no party, for it was only throwing dirt in
the eyes of the farmers.
Mr. G. KNIGHT said that any one who had seen the lean
cattle of France, :its frightful pigs, and ate of its detestable
mutton, would have no apprehension for our superior breeds.
Lord ALFORD did not anticipate any extensive importa-
tion of cattle, and therefore opposed the amendment.
Mr. 0. STANLEY supported the amendment, believing
that if a market were created we should have a very large
supply from the Continent.
Lord J. RUSSELL thought the speech of Mr. Miles was
full of argument against his own proposition. Parliament
could not be wisely employed in legislating to compel the
people to pay more dearly for meat than they otherwise would
be called upon to do. If instead of such a course they tried
to increase the comforts of the labouring classes, their im-
proved condition would be advantageous to the agriculturists
themselves. Approving as he did of the measures before the
house, he could not however reconcile them with the course
pursued respecting the corn and sugar duties. He should
support the proposition of the government, but he should
like to see the principle carried yet further.
Sir R. PEEL said there were peculiar circumstances con-
nected with the protection to corn and sugar, which rendered
it impossible to deal with them to the same extent as they
proposed to do with respect to cattle. He expressed his
gratitude to the agricultural members, who bad so generously
supported his government, and he hoped that the difference
between them would not last beyond that evening. He was
firmly persuaded that the agriculturists were needlessly ap-
prehensive of a measure which the interests of the whole
community imperatively demanded. He was of opinion that
a duty of 41 a head was a protection amply sufficient con-
sidering the alarming rate at which the population of the
country was increasing, and he could therefore make no con-
cession in his original proposition, which he hoped would be
carried by a large majority.
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL. opposed the amendment of Mr.
Miles, and attributed the alarm which had prevailed through
the country, to those who were called the friends of the
farmer.

Lord WoRsLEY was of opinion that the amendment of
Mr. Miles had not been fairly met in the course of the ar-
gument, and contended that it was not right to charge the
same duty on a fat as on a lean beast, when the value of each
was so materially different.

Mr. Milt
Law Le.
agai

VILLIERS opposed the amendment, and hoped that
s's speech would be published by the Anti-Corn-
gue, for it was the most conclusive he had ever heard
t the corn laws. It was too bad that when the people
were starving the honourable member should occasion a five
lours' discussion in that house, from an apprehension that

food might fall in price.
Mr. F. SCOTT said that the agricultural classes had as
much sympathy for the poorer classes as any other class of

_
the community.
After a few observations from Mr. WARD,
Mr. 0. GORE said he had made it his business to see se-
veral large farmers in the county be represented, and they
were perfectly content with the proposition of Sir R. Peel.
They only wished that a high protection should be given to
the smaller animals—to the breeding rather than to the rear-

supported the government proposition.
3 replied, after which the committee divided,
and the hon. members amendment was negatived by a ma-

4 of cattle,
Mr. Hum.
Mr. MILD

jority of 380 to 113.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress, and obtained
leave to sit again on Tuesday.
Mr. ROEBUCK obtained leave to bring in a bill to indem-
nify witnesses who may give evidence before the committee
to be appointed by the house to inquire relative to corrupt
c°olProu '

sin certain borougt
Vie-oTher orders of
~
house adjourned

ere then disposed of, and

Lova i., HOUSE OF LORDS.—TUESDAY.
ing ci -*iimPBELL renewed his question respecting thelock-
The Ene? carriages ou railways.
the nniniWlßAPoist said that the government had solicited
propriety of utt_the surveyor-general of railways upon the
carriages, my that of locking the passengers in the
was certainly dangerous, had replied that the practice
advantage to be dters, and he could not see any possible
sequently been wit :Id from it. A circular letter bad con-
continue the practice. all the railways, inviting them to dis-
the power to do; but he had the
all that the government had
his belief that there wociab: the satisfaction of expressing
directors of the Great weeternno difficulty on the part of the
Railway in
practice. giving up the
pre_s_se_ d_ himself gratified at the infor-
Lord CAMPBELL ex
/nation, but thought the government ought to be armed with
utlicient power to interfere effeetnau
s petition, presented by the bilkeY4l such matters.
some discussion upon that portion -- -- RICHMOND, led to
t:teatceustoref
'importation of foreign cattle, in thueTeatileiirtri_ff. relating to the
I Lord KINNAIRD referred to the distressed°' which
and gave notice that on Thursday week the
country, eek he would
move for a select committee
He
inquire
mcondition of the country. e also gave notice thitis-
Thursday next he would move for_ what he called,. the %lete
obegging letter—a letter to the clergy calling upon the u s
distress. •
raise subscriptions for the relief of the present al t°
e was no aware
The Duke of WELLIN sat
GTON 'd h Y
such letter, but the noble lord was,
of courser of an
to, at liberty

move for
Lord (
last.

that he pie
DLBORNE SI

id he heard the letter read on Sunday

Some bills on the table were forwarded a stage, after which
eir lordships adjourned•

HOUSE OF COMMONS—TuEsnAY.
In reply to a question asked by Mr. Hume on a former
evening,
Sir it. PEEL, without giving an opinion on the taonrduscstinogf
Captain Elliot during the time he was in his embarrassing
position in China, said he must, nevertheless, say thr t from
communications with him since he returned, he
greatest confidence in his integrity and ability. faelt the
The house then went into committee on the new tariff.
Mr. MtLas moved, as an amendment to the proposition
for a duty of X 1 per head on cattle imported, that henceforth
the duty should be ss. 6d. per cwt.
Sir R. PEEL opposed the proposition. He thought no in-
jury would from the importation of fatted cattle under
the duty proposed by government, while the farmers would
derive a positive advantage from the importation of lean
rattle.

Mr. PUSEY thought a select committee should be appoint-
ed, before wbich, without at all delaying the tariff, the evi-
dence of practical men might be taken upon A Aubject SO im-
portant to the agriculturists.