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

Sir It PSET, raid if be

a committee

re to agree to such a proposal,
article of the

'ould be demanded upon eve

Colonel WOOD, sen. was of opinion that the duty
proposed
by government was a very fair protection to the farmer.
Mr. M. GIBSON said it was the duty of the landlords to
inform the farmers that the system of protection could not
be much longer maintained either for corn or cattle. _ _

After some observations from
WARD,
Mr. BUCK said he was equally opposed to free trade and
absolute prohibition, but he feared the proposition of the go-
vernment would lead to the adoption of a system ruinous to
the best interests of the country.
After a few observations from Mr. 0. STANLEY,
Mr. VILLIERS said he did not consider the proposition of
the government sufficiently extensive to rueet.the enormous
amount of distress prevailing through the country, and he
should therefore move that the duty should be one shilling
per head on all cattle imported.
After some observations from Mr. ESCOTT and Mr. R.
YORKE,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not support either of the
amendments. He believed the proposition of the govern-
ment was a fair one, and ha should support it.
The house divided on the amendment of Mr. MILES,
which was negatived by a majority of 209 to 44.
Major VIVIAN moved "that the duty on cattle, meat, and
other provisions, mentioned in the tariff, imported from the
Canadas, be equal to the import duty from other foreign
countries;" but, after considerable discussion, withdrew it,
as it was not assented to by Sir R. Peel, without whose con
currence he knew it was impossible it should succeed.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN. moved that, instead of a uniform duty of
ss. on hogs and swine, a blank should be left for the sum,
with a view to its being filled up in such a way as to give
more adequate protection.
Mr. MILES seconded the motion, which, on a division,
was negatived by a majority of 121 to 32.
The resolutions respecting cattle having been agreed to, the
committee proceeded to the article " fish," and a lengthened
discussion took place as to the propriety of the proposed duty
on lobsters. It was contended by Lord Hoxvicx, Mr. LA-
BOUCRERE, Major BERESFORD and other hon. members,
that the proposed duty was injudicious. It could not be im-
posed for the purposes of revenue, for the duty would pro-
duce comparatively nothing, nor could it be proposed for
protection, for the trade was principally carried on by British
fishermen. It could, therefore, be productive of no benefit,
and might do injury by an unnecessary interference with an
important trade.
Mr. 1-Itnws contended that the duty should be abolished
on all fish, of whatever description, the produce of the duty
amounting only to a few pounds.
Sir R. PEEL admitted the force of the arguments respect-
ing lobsters, and would take time to consider whether the
law should not be left as it was at present. He could not
however, agree that all fish should be admitted without an'
duty whatever.
The remaining duties on fish, as proposed by the gover

Mr. R. PALMER and Mr

• •
went, were then agreed to, and the committee proceeded to
the articles under the bead of " fruits."
The proposed duty on apples led to considerable discus-
sion, and an amendment was moved by Mr. WAKLEY, the
effect of which would be to leave the duty as it now stood.
On a division, however, the duty proposed by the govern-
ment was carried by a majority of 110 to 51.
The articles of fruit having been gone through, the chair-
man reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
The orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house
adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNEspAy

The house proceeded with the tariff in committee.
Lord HOWICK proposed that the import duty on foreign
butter should be reduced from 20s. per cwt. to 10s., leaving
the duty on colonial butter at 55., as imposed in the tariff.
Sir R. PEEL objected to this reduction which, he said,
would work a serious loss of revenue. lie remarked it as
inconsistent with the anti-differential doctrines advanced on
a former evening by Lord Howick, that the noble lord, in
now proposing to alter the duty on foreign butter, should
himself have made a difference between the foreign and the
colonial article.

Lord HowicK pleaded that he was obliged to propose, not
what he most wished, but what he had the best chance of
carrying.

Some of the country gentlemen represented the necessity
of keeping up the protection of the small dairymen.

- .
Mr. C. BULLER thought it much more important to pro-
vide cheap food for the poor population.
Lord J. RUSSELL was resolved to take this opportunity of
supporting Sir R. Peel's general principles of free trade
against Sir R. Peel himself.
The committee, dividing, sustained the 20s. duty.
Some discussion then followed respecting the duty on
cheese, which it was proposed by Mr. M. PHILIPS to reduce
from the 10s. 6d. proposed on the tariff to 7s. 6d.
Mr. LABOUCHERE referred to a Cheshire newspaper, in
which the high rate of duty preserved in the tariff on this
article was ascribed to the influential exertions of the county
members with the government.
Sir R. PEEL assured the committee that the decision of
government had been taken upon considerations of revenue,
before the county members had brought in any application
whatever.

Messrs. HUME, COBDEN, WAKLEY, and WARD, in-
veighed against the agricultural party, who, they said, re-
sisted the relief of the starving people, for the sake of their
own rents.

Mr. JERVIS, though generally favourable to free trade,
would support the protection of cheese, on a mere compara-
tive question between 7s. 6d. and 10s. id.
Sir R. PEEL regarded the preceding speech as a strong il-
lustration of the difficulty of his task. Mr. Jervis was mak-
ing an exception in favour of cheese, as being member for
Chester ; and thus it was that each man thwarted the go-
vernment measure in the matter that touched his own con-
stituents. This showed how necessary it was, instead of
dividing on these single items, to take the tariff as a whole;
and he believed the wisest thing the house could do would be
to pass the entire measure that very night.
The committee, on a division, negatived Mr. Philips's
amendment.

Mr. PALMER, of Essex, moved to raise the proposed duty
upon onions from 6d. to ls. per bushel.
Mr. GLADSTONE resisted this, as unreasonable in amount
and unnecessary for revenue.
Mr. PALMIGIL refrained from pressing his-amendment to a
division ; bat moved to raise the duty on potatoes from 2d.
per cwt. to a shilling ; and this he desired, not for the sake
of rents, but in order to keep the country independent of fo-
reigners for this great article of food. The ministers, before
their accession to office, had held out expectations of full pro-
tection to agriculture, and the agriculturists were not to be
blamed if they now required the fulfilment of that pledge.
Mr. GLADSTONE represented the great importance of pro-
viding for the importation of potatoes in time of scarcity.
The consumer of wheat could fall back on oats ; of oats upon
potatoes; but the consumer of potatoes could fall back upon
nothing. Still the ordinary importation of them was greatly
checked by their bulk, and the conseouent dearriP..
freight.
Mr. WAKLEY said Mr. Gladstone was mistaken if he sup-
posed there would not be a very extensive importation of
potatoes. The admission of them was one of the best points
in this tariff, and would even have great effect in reducing
the price of bread.
Mr. Escorr opposed Mr. Palmer's motion, and said that
the farmers of England did not desire to keep up the price of
food.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY and Mr. BECKETT having also
declared themselves against the amendment, Mr. Palmer
withdrew it. _

The schedule of duties upon food having been disposed of,
the schedules relating to spices, seeds, and woods were passed
without opposition ; and the committee then came to the
schedule affecting minerals, on which Mr. TURNER raised a
long discussion in reference to the mining interests of Corn-
wall.

Mr. GLADSTONE replied, and refuted some rather extraor-
dinary statements with whicltAr. Turner had surprised the
house. lie explained the pkitillar advantages which it was
expected the adoption of the proposed rate of duty would
confer upon those engaged in smelting the metal ; and was
followed by Sir C. LEMON, who supported the view taken
by Mr. Turner.
Mr. LABOUCHERE and Mr. C. BULLER were in favour of
the government measure, and several of the Cornish mem-
bers having each said a few words, the house divided, seven
members only voting with Mr. Turner.
The committee then proceeded with the other descriptions
of ores, the proposed changes in the duties upon which were
agreed to without scarcely any discussion.

FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE,

THE LEVANT MAIL

We have received, by express, the Levant mail of the 7th.
The news brought by this conveyance is not of particular
importance. It appears by our Constantinople letter that
the contemplated removal of Ashbar Pasha will certainly
take place.