CANADA CORN-LAW.

HC Deb 26 May 1843 vol 69 cc939-74

House in committee on the Canadian corn resolutions.

Lord Stanley

moved the following resolution:— That on the 12th day of October, 1842, an act was passed by the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, and reserved by the Governor-General for the signification of her Majesty's pleasure, imposing a duty of 3s. sterling money of Great Britain on each imperial quarter of wheat imported into Canada except from the United Kingdom or any of her Majesty's possessions, and being the growth and produce there of. That the said act recites, that it was passed in the confident belief and expectation, that upon the imposition of a duty upon foreign wheat imported into the province, her Majesty would be graciously pleased to recommend to Parliament the removal or reduction of the duties on wheat and wheat flour imported into the said United Kingdom from Canada: That in consideration of the duty so imposed by the said act of the Legislature of Canada, it is expedient to provide that, if her Majesty shall be pleased to give her sanction to the said act, the duties imposed upon wheat and wheat flour, the produce of and imported from Canada into the United Kingdom, should be reduced; That, from and after a day to be named, and thenceforth during the continuance of the said duty, in lieu of the duties now payable upon wheat and wheat flour, the produce of and imported from Canada into the United Kingdom, under the provisions of an act passed in the last Session of Parliament, intituled, 'An Act to amend the Laws for the Importation of Corn,' there shall be levied and paid the Duties following, viz,— For every quarter of wheat, the produce of and imported from Canada, 1s. For every barrel of wheat meal or flour, the produce of and imported from Canada, being one hundred and ninety-six pounds, a duty equal in amount to the duty payable on thirty-eight gallons and a half of wheat."

Lord J. Russell

said, if he should succeed in inducing the House to adopt his amendment, there were other words, besides the part of the resolution to which he should first object, which it would be necessary to omit also. The words which he should now propose to omit were the whole of the proposed paragraphs down to the words, " That, in consideration." He objected to this part of the resolution, because it rendered the legislation of the Imperial Parliament contingent upon that of the provincial legislature. That was one of the grounds on which the measure had been introduced to the House. He thought that the Legislature of the United Kingdom should be free on that as on all other measures submitted to its consideration; but in this instance it was not free, because the Legislative Assembly of Canada made their legislative act dependent on our passing a particular measure. If, then, we passed an act founded on this resolution we should to all intents and purposes be making the Legislature of this country be dependent thus far upon that of Canada, and we should in effect restore the 5s. duty. If they passed the proposed measure the Legislature of Canada might hereafter think they had made a bad bargain by the duty of 3s. per quarter on the wheat imported from the United States, and might repeal the act for imposing such duty. What then would be the course left for this country to pursue? Would it not be necessary for the Imperial Legislature to alter the proposed law so as to meet the new state of the case? In a word, the whole question would be complicated by making a legislative enactment of the Imperial Parliament dependent on an act of the Legislature of Canada. On these grounds he objected to this part of the resolution and concluded by moving its omission.

Lord Stanley

might appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Mr. Baring) to answer the abjection of the noble Lord—for that right hon, Gentleman had taken an opposite view, and had distinctly stated, that the proper course to have pursued last year was to enact, that if the Legislature of Canada should think fit to impose a duty of 3s. per quarter on wheat imported from the United States, in such case the ad-mission of Canadian wheat and flour imported into this country would be subject to no more than a nominal duty. This certainly was not consistent with the view taken of the question by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), for his objection was, that the proposed measure would make the Imperial Parliament dependent on the Canadian Legislature. This he must deny. The course taken was this: the Government waited to see what course the Canadian Legislature would take. They did take the course of imposing a duty of 3s. on wheat imported into Canada, and then they asked to have that act sanctioned by her Majesty and to have a bill passed such as was now proposed, for allowing their wheat and flour to be admitted into this country at ls. per quarter. Surely this was not making the Imperial Legislature dependent on the provincial Legislature of Canada. It was just the reverse. It was making the Canadian Legislature dependent on the view which the Imperial Legislature might take of the case; but it was objected that the Canadian Legislature might think that they had made a bad bargain, and might repeal the act imposing the 3s. duty on the importation of foreign wheat. They were, no doubt, free to do so; but let it be re collected that the act must receive the sanction of the Crown. Let it also be considered, that if Canada repealed the s. duty, she would thereby lose all the benefit which she derived from the now proposed measure. It might happen that Canada might be advised to take that course. It might even happen that some future minister of the Crown might advise the free admission of American corn into Canada; but he would not trust to the discretion of any future Minister on this matter, for the bill about to be introduced would explicitly enact, that the free admission, or what was nearly so, of Canadian corn and flour into this country was made on the faith, that if the conditions on which it was based were violated, the benefits which it was intended to confer on Canada would be withdrawn. He, for one, would never ask the agricultural interest to agree to this bill without at the same time taking full security for the due fulfilment of the conditions on which it was passed. It would, therefore, be well known by Canada that she was to have the benefits intended for her by this measure so long only as, and no longer than, the conditions on which they were given were to remain in force.

Mr. F. T. Baring

was not disposed to shrink from any language which he bad ever used with reference to this question. He did not quarrel with the noble Lord's version of what he said, but he did most strongly object to the construction which the noble Lord had put upon his observations. That construction, he must say, was most unfair. The noble Lord had not dealt in a frank and open way with regard to his intention respecting the introduction of Canadian corn. The information conveyed to Parliament was of a limited and partial character. Parliament had no knowledge of the noble Lord's despatch, or what he was about to do. The noble Lord should have stated at the time what his proposition was, and, then, without any reference to the question, whether that proposition which he had submitted to the Canadian legislature was a judicious one, no misunderstanding would have arisen. He would ask, whether, last Session, there was any Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House who knew what the noble Lord intended to do on the subject of Canadian corn? Whatever the noble Lord thought proper to say with regard to making the acts of the Imperial Parliament contingent upon the course pursued by the colonial legislature, such was the fact. This act of Parliament was necessarily dependent upon the course adopted by the Canadian legislature. The Imperial Parliament said, " If you," the Canadian legislature, " will impose a duty of 3s. a quarter, we will remove certain restrictions which now exist upon the introduction of Canadian corn into this country." Such was the fair and legitimate construction. It was not always easy to understand the meaning of the noble Lord.

Lord Stanley

did not think the noble Lord's explanation satisfactory. The noble Lord said, that the acts of the Imperial Parliament were made contingent or dependent upon the colonial legislature. He said, that such was not the fact, and for this plain and self-evident reason,—before they legislated on the subject of Canadian corn, they knew what course the legislature of Canada had adopted. Acting upon the principle of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, that House would have been dependent upon the acts of the colonial legislature. The proposition which had been submitted to Parliament was not contingent, but consequent, upon the measure which had passed the colonial legislature with regard to the duty upon American wheat imported into the Canadas.

Lord J. Russell:

Supposing the legislature of Canada were anxious to repeal the bill in consequence of its being obnoxious to the people of the country, the noble Lord said, as long as he remained a Minister of the Crown he would not consent to that repeal. That recommendation the noble Lord would make without any reference to the opinions of the people of Canada. He considered the argument of the noble Lord perfectly untenable. He purposed to bind Canada to a measure which might ultimately prove burthensome to the country. The reasoning of the noble Lord had not satisfied him of the propriety of the course which he proposed to adopt.

Lord Stanley

wished the House to take a security that neither he nor any other Minister of the Crown would permit the legislature of Canada to repeal an act of the British Parliament, passed for the purpose of granting a boon to Canada. Should the colonial legislature pass an act repealing the one which imposed a duty upon American wheat, then he reserved to Parliament the privilege of reconsidering whether they ought to allow Canadian corn to come into this country at a reduced rate of duty.

Colonel Sibthorp

depended more on the legislature of Canada than on the noble Member for London, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth, or the right hon. Member for Taunton. He was not in favour of these resolutions, but he could not countenance any underhand means of defeating them. The noble Lord, the Member for London, entertained very different opinions when he was Member for a county from those he now promulgated. He did not know whether the hospitable entertainments at the Mansion-house had any effect in altering his views. He could tell the noble Lord that his present supporter (Mr. Cobden) came from Lincoln with a flea in his ear. There a vote of thanks was proposed to him, and seconded by whom did they suppose? Not by a farmer, but a shoemaker of the name of Roebuck.

Mr. Labouchere

did not mean to follow the gallant Member through his discursive speech. His opinion had been quoted the other night as if he had suggested that this measure should be refused to the colonial legislature. Now, he thought, that the more convenient and constitutional course on an occasion of this sort was, that the Imperial Parliament, which, confessedly enjoyed the power of regulating trade, should dispose, in the first instance, of a measure which not only affected Canada, but our commercial interests generally.

Sir R. Peel

said, that nothing could be further from his intention than to misrepresent what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman. The impression on his mind always had been, and it still remained, that when the Customs Duties Bill was before the House, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) proposed to impose a duty of 3s. on American flour imported into Canada, the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord expressed a strong objection to that step being taken by the Imperial Legislature, and said it ought to originate with the Canadian Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Canadian Legislature should pass a measure of that nature, it would be for Ministers to determine whether they ought to give the assent of the Crown or not. The right hon. Gentleman it was true, expressly reserved to himself the right of expressing his opinion upon such a measure, but the question was, whether, in consequence of what had been stated on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, taken in connection with the qualified opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, the Canadian people might not reasonably conclude that if they passed a measure of the nature referred to, it would, probably, receive the assent of the Crown.

Mr. T. Buncombe

protested against the monstrous and unconstitutional doctrine which had been broached by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies. The noble Lord proposed to insert certain words in the resolution, because, as he said, he would not trust a future Minister to deal with the matter. It was evident that the measure was intended to be a final one, and the words were introduced merely for the purpose of bamboozling the country Gentlemen. He was aware that the country Gentlemen were in an awkward position just now. What between their pledges to their constituents, their attachment to the Government, and their antipathy to the Whigs, they were in a most unpleasant predicament. They smelt a rat, but did not know where to put their hand upon it. He would tell them where the rat was. It was in the Canadian Corn Bill. The noble Lord need not take much trouble about the 3s. duty; the Americans would never pay it, and the Canadians would never collect it. Oh, but it was said, " if there will be smuggling after the passing of the bill, why is there not smuggling now?" For this simple reason, that we now collect the duty instead of the Canadians. We collected a duty of 5s. under the sliding-scale; but when the duly came to be collected in Canada, the country Gentlemen might depend upon it that it would never be realized. Don't let the country Gentlemen hereafter say that they had been deceived. The measure was intended to be a final one; but the noble Lord had no right to fetter the course which any future Minister might pursue with respect to this subject. The noble Lord had no business to consider, nor had the House any business to speculate upon what might be the opinions of a future Minister. No Minister could act unless he were supported by a majority of the House of Commons.

Lord Worsley

was understood to express an opinion that the amendment before the House did not go far enough, and, therefore, he would, after the division, propose the amendment of which he had given notice.

Colonel Wyndham:

Sir, I can tell the hon. Member for Finsbury, that I, for one, am not deceived, and never have been deceived. I was one of the first to speak loudly against the Corn Bill which the Government brought forward last Session. I opposed it in London and in the country. I am determined, as long as i sit in this House, to oppose everything that is connected with free-trade. I wish to stand fairly in the eyes of my constituents, and I wish to stand fairly in the eyes of the country. I voted against the motion of the right hon. Member for Taunton the other night because it was a free-trade motion, and I shall vote against the Canadian Corn Bill because that also is a free-trade measure, and that is not what I like. When the Corn-law Bill was under discussion last year, we were told that we should have wheat ranging from 54s. to 58s. If I am wrong, correct me; but I believe I am right. Well, what has been the fact? Wheat has been ten or twelve shillings below the promised figure; and let me ask the House — and it is unanswerable common sense, too— if Ministers have been wrong in one set of figures, why should they not be wrong in another set of figures? Look at the right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting there. Are they practical men who know anything about agriculture? Take the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, for instance; I very much doubt whether he knows a cow from a donkey, or a plough from a wheelbarrow. The agriculture of England is the permanent interest of the country; but it is made a handle of. Now I think I have explained my vote.

The committee divided, on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question.—Ayes 203; Noes 94; Majority 109.

List of the AYES.
A'Court, Capt.	Campbell, Sir H.
Acton, Col.	Cardell, E.
Ainsworth, Peter	Cartwright, W. R
Allix, J. P.	Chelsea, Visct.
Arbuthnott, hon H,	Chetwode, Sir J.
Arkwright, G.	Cholmondeley, hn. H.
Ashley, Lord	Christopher, R, A.
Bailey, J.	Clayton, It. R.
Bailey, J. jun.	Clerk, Sir G.
Baillie, Col.	Clive, hon. R. H.
Baillie, H. J	Cochrane, A.
Baldwin, B.	Collett, J.
Bankes, G.	Colquhoun, J. C.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Compton, H. C.
Barrington, Visct,	Connolly, Col.
Bell, M.	Corry, rt. hon. H
Bernard, Visct.	Courtney, Lord
Blackstone, W. S.	Cresswell, B.
Boldero, H. G.	Curteis, H. B.
Borthwick, P.	Darner, hon. Col.
Botfield, B.	Davies, D. A. S.
Broadley, H.	Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Broadwood, II.	Denison, E. B.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Dickinson, F. II.
Brownrigg, J. S.	Divett, E.
Bruce, Lord E,	Douglas, Sir H.
Buckley, E.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.	Douro, Marquis of
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Drummond, H. H.
Bunbury, T.	Dugdale, W. S.
Burrell, Sir C. M	Duncombe, hon. A.

Du Pre, C. G.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Eaton, R. J.	Lincoln, Earl of
Egerton, W. T.	Lindsay, H. H.
Egerton, Sir P.	LoWther, J. H.
Eliot, Lord	Lyall, G.
Escott, B.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Farnham, E. B.	Mackenzie, T.
Fellowes, E.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Fitzmaurice, hon. W.	McGeachy, F. A.
Follett, Sir W. W.	Mahon, Visct.
Ffolliott, J.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Forester, hn. G. C. W.	Manners, Lord J.
Fox, S. L.	Marsham, Visct.
Fuller, A. E.	Masterman, J.
Gladstone,rt.hn.W.E.	Meynell, Capt.
Gladstone, Capt.	Mildmay, H. St. J.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Miles, P. W. S.
Goring, C.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Goulburn, rt.hon. H.	Morgan, O.
Graham, rt. hon Sir J.	Mundy, E. M.
Greenall, P.	Murray, C. R. S.
Grimsditch, T.	Newport, Visct.
Grimston, Visct.	Newry, Visct.
Grogan, E.	Norreys, Lord
Hale, It. B.	O'Brien, A. S.
Halford,H.	Pakington, J. S.
Hamilton, J. H.	Palmer, R.
Hamilton, G. A.	Patten, J. W.
Hamilton, W. J.	Peel, rt. hn. Sir It.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Peel, J.
Hampden, R.	Plumptre, J. P.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Polhill, F.
Harcourt, G. G.	Pollington, Visct.
Hardinge,rt.hn;Sir II.	Praed, W. T.
Heneage,G. H. W.	Pringle, A.
Henley, J. W.	Repton, G. W. 1.
Henniker, Lord	Round, C. G.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Round, J.
Herbert, hon. S.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Hervey, Lord A.	Russell, G.
Hillsborough, Earl of	Sandon, Visct.
Holmes, hon. W. A'C	Shaw, rt. hon. F.
Hope, hon. C.	Sheppard, T.
Hope, G. W.	Sibthorp, Col.
Hornby, J.	Smith, A.
Houldsworth, T.	Smith,rt. hn. T. B. C
Howard, P. H.	Smyth, Sir H.
Hughes. W. B.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Inglis, Sir-R. H.	Stanley, Lord
Irving, J.	Stuart, H.
James, W.	Sturt, H. C.
James, Sir W. C.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Jermyn, Earl	Tennent, J. E.
Jocelyn, Visct.	Thornhili, G.
Johnstone, Sir J.	Tollemache, J.
Jones, Capt.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Kelburne, Visct.	Trollope, Sir J.
Kelly, F. R.	Trotter, J.
Kemble, H.	Turner, E.
Ker, D. S.	Tumor, C.
Knatchbull,rt.hn.SirE	Verner, Col.
Knight, H. G.	Vernon, G. H.
Lambton, H.	Waddington, H. S.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Welby, G. E.
Lawson, A.	Whitmore, T. C.
Legh, G.C.	Wilbraham, hon.R.B
Lemon, Sir C.	Wood, Col.

Wood, Col. T.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Worsley, Lord	Young, J.
Wortley, hon. J. S.	TELLERS.
Wortley, hon. J. S.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Wyndham, Col. C.	Baring, H.

List of the NOES.
Aldam, W.	Marshall, W.
Archbold, It.	Marsland, H.
Barclay, D.	Martin, J.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T.	Matheson, J.
Barnard, E G.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Berkeley, hon. Capt.	Mitcalfe, II.
Bernal, Capt.	Mitchell, T. A.
Blewitt, R. J.	O'Brien, J.
Bowring, Dr.	O'Connell, M. J.
Brotherton, J.	Ogle, S. C, H.
Busfeild, W.j	Ord, W.
Byng, G.	Paget, Col.
Cavendish, hn. G. II.	Palmerston, Visct.
Chapman, B.	Pechell, Capt.
Childers, J. W.	Philips, G. It.
Clements, Visct.	Philipps,Sir R.B.P.
Cobden, It.	Philips, M.
Colborne,hn.W. N.R.	Plumridge, Capt.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Redington, T. N.
Craig, W. G.	Russell, Lord J.
Dalrymple, Capt.	Russell, Lord E.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Scrope, G. P.
Duncan, G.	Seale, Sir J. H.
Duncombe, T.	Seymour, Lord
Dundas, hn. J. C.	Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Evans, W.	Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Ewart, W.	Stanley, hon. W. O.
Ferguson, Col.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Filzroy, Lord C.	Staunton, Sir G. T.
Forster, M.	Stewart, P. M.
French, F.	Strickland, Sir G.
Gibson, T. M.	Strutt, E.
Gisborne, T.	Tancred, H. W,
Gore, hon. R.	Thornley, T.
Greenaway, C.	Towneley, J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.	Villiers, hon. C
Hallyburton, Lord J.	Vivian, J. H.
Hatton, Capt. V.	Wall, C. B.
Hawes, B.	Ward, H. G.
Hay, Sir A. L.	Wawn, J. T.
Hill, Lord M.	Winnington,SirT. E.
Howard, hn. J. K.	Wood, B.
Howard, Lord	Wood, C.
Howard, hon. II.	Wood, G. W.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H,	Wyse, T.
Langston, J. H.
Langton, W, G.	TELLEIIS.
Layard, Capt.	Parker, J.
Leader, J. T.	Horsman, E.

On the original question being again put,

Lord Worsley

rose to propose his amendment. He contended that when the Corn-law Bill of last Session was under consideration, the Government gave no intimation of their intention to propose the present measure. It had completely taken the agriculturists by surprise. Could it be otherwise? Parliament met on the 3rd of February, last year. On the same day, the right hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the Treasury gave notice of his intention, on an early day, to move that the House resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the laws relating to the importation of corn. On the 9th of February he brought forward his motion, and in detailing his proposed alterations said, It was due also to the importance of the subject, that her Majesty's Government should undertake, on their own responsibility, to propose a measure for the adjustment of this question.

And he also said, There are some who will admit of no modification whatever in those laws as they now exist. My firm belief is, that that party in this country is exceedingly limited in number. I do believe that among the agriculturists themselves, there is a prevailing feeling that the Corn-laws may be altered with advantage, He was ready to admit that the agriculturists wished for an alteration in the lower part of the scale; they thought that there might be amendment in it, but they did not wish for so extensive an alteration as was made. But could it be said now, that the agriculturists asked for change? Were the Government in ignorance of the county meetings that were held to oppose this very measure? And he contended that no persons in this country would have expected a further change in these laws; for in the same speech to which he had referred the right hon. Baronet, after giving the new scale of duties to be imposed on the foreign corn imported, went on to say, And now I must enter into a short explanation respecting colonial wheat. The law with respect to it was to this effect, that British colonial wheat and flour shall be imported into this country at a duty of 5s. whenever the price of British is below 67s., that when the price of British wheat exceeds 67s., it shall then be admissible at a duty of 6d. (And then he went on to say) " we propose to make this arrangement respecting colonial wheat. The right hon. Baronet then mentioned the scale of duties which are now in force; but said not one word of an intention of further alterations. But the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Colonies, said, that on the motion of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Brien) on Feb. 38tb, be used words which justified him in saying the Members ought not to have been ignorant of their alteration; but he (Lord Worsley) believed that it was that motion which prompted the noble Lord to write the despatch dated March 2nd, which is the first intimation we have of such a measure being proposed by the Government, but which had not come to light till this Session; indeed, on the 18th of April, Lord Ripon, in moving the second reading of the Corn Importation Bill in the House of Lords, announced the scale of duties now in force, but never hinted either at the despatch of the 2nd of March, or of any intention of her Majesty's Government at a future time to alter the scale. The Government represented that they were bound in honour to propose the measure for the advantage of Canada; but he was under no such obligation, and, therefore, exercising his discretion as an independent Member of Parliament, he would offer it all the opposition in his power. The Government ought to be extremely cautious, particularly at a period of depression, bow they excited fresh apprehensions among the agriculturists. The alteration of last year was not expected by them. They had, however, submitted to it, and their submission ought to have obtained for them a forbearance from measures calculated still more to militate against their interests. The farmers were naturally alarmed by the measure now proposed. They thought reasonably enough that what was given to Canada could not well be refused to the other colonies, and thus the consequences of what Government now proposed to do might extend further than even the authors of the measure themselves contemplated. In 1833, at a time of great depression— when certainly wheat was lower than now, but other agricultural produce fetched higher prices — a committee was appointed to inquire into the causes of agricultural distress. The report of that committee was generally supposed to have been drawn up by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham), who, in the report, particularly urged forbearance from all unnecessary interference with the agricultural interest, particularly at a time of distress. Your committee assure the House that they are deeply impressed with the caution which appears to them necessary in drawing any general conclusions, or in offering any positive opinions, when national interests of such vital importance are concerned, where doubts so reasonable exist, and where errors so fatal may be committed. They remember ' that the agriculture of the kingdom is the first of all its concerns, the foundation of all its prosperity, in every other matter by which that prosperity is produced;' and they cannot forget what Mr. Burke has so truly stated, ' that it is a perilous thing to try experiments on the farmer—on the farmer whose capital is far more feeble than commonly is imagined— whose trade is a very poor one, for it is subject to great risks and losses; the capital, such as it is, is turned but once in the year; in some branches it requires even three years before the money is repaid;' and although it is in the power of the Legislature to do much evil, yet it can do little positive good by frequent interference with agricultural industry. If these be general principles which are true in ordinary times, the peculiar circumstances of the present moment require also peculiar caution. In conclusion, your committee avow their opinion that hopes of melioration in the condition of the landed interest rest rather on the cautious forbearance than on the active interposition of Parliament. Why did the right hon. Baronet now act upon principles so opposed to those which he then advocated? He was by no means convinced that a great deal of American wheat would not be smuggled into Canada. American wheat was better in quality than Canadian, and the Canadians would therefore find it much to their advantage to get American wheat to mix with Canadian flour for the English market. He did not recollect any time since the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) proposed his fixed duty of eight shillings, when there was so much agitation among the agriculturists as there was at present. He regretted the necessity under which he had felt himself of intruding on the House the amendment with which he was about to conclude. It was certainly his intention to press it to a division; for if he allowed the resolutions to pass in committee unopposed, he could not feel justified in opposing the second reading of the bill, to be founded on those resolutions. He could not see why, when, in spite of the income tax, there was a deficiency of two millions and a half in the revenue, so much of the duty was to be abandoned here, and be given to the Canadians, who were lightly taxed. They were not, like the agriculturists here, asking for protection. They wished to export all they grew, and to consume wheat from America; such being the case, the interest of the Canadian con. summer clearly was to get wheat from America as cheap as possible. The noble Lord the Secretary of the colonies, complained the other night of the misrepresentations which he said had been so sedulously disseminated amongst the farmers in this country. He begged to assure the noble Lord he had never misrepresented the measure; so far from it, he had stated the measure to be what the noble Lord had described it to him in a letter, an exact copy of which, to his surprise, he saw had been read at a meeting in Essex. The noble Lord concluded by moving, as an amendment, to leave out from the word " Canada," at the end of the second paragraph, to the words " That from and after," at the beginning of the fourth paragraph, in order to insert the words, That it is inexpedient to make an alteration in the provisions of the act of last Session, regulating the duties on the importation of corn, by which alteration the protection intended to be given to the British producer of wheat no longer rests on duties which are imposed by the Imperial Legislature, and the produce of which is not available in aid of the burthen of taxation under which this country is now labouring.

Mr. Lindsay

was understood to say, that if the resolutions proposed by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had been brought forward now, for the first time, and unconnected with any other measure, he should have no hesitation in giving to the resolutions his humble but most determined opposition; but viewing the present measure as a part of the great policy of last year, he was disposed to look upon it in a very different light. He repudiated the idea that any deceit had been practised by the noble Lord. The whole tenour of that noble Lord's life was against the supposition that he would be capable of bringing forward any measure in a surreptitious manner. He therefore would cordially support the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Henley

said, he had carefully read the speeches delivered last Session by the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, and by the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and he would maintain that no man could, from those speeches, have had any ground for expecting a measure like the present. He could not agree that the measure was a small one. It was a very great colonial measure; and he could not see the least reason why, if this boon was granted to one colony, it should be refused to the other colonies. New Brunswick and Prince Edward's Island had, by their loyalty, entitled themselves to quite as much consideration as Canada, and if they could not grow any great surplus of corn, they might be anxious at least to participate in the transit trade. Why should they not be treated as an integral part of the empire quite as much as Canada? They were told that the power existed, under the present law, of import ing American corn by grinding it in Canada, and that, in this respect, very little change would be made by the bill about to be brought in; but the existence of such a power was not generally known, and he believed there were not even many Members of that House to whom it was known. Another objection he had to the measure was the entire ignorance of the House as to what the effect of the proposed change was likely to be. He was himself a sincere advocate of the sliding-scale, because he thought that when corn was cheap the home grower ought to have the first chance of the market, and when it was dear he did not think that it ought to be made dearer by keeping food out of the country. The proposed measure was in direct opposition to the principle of the sliding-scale. It was equivalent to a fixed duty on all corn that could be imported into this country. On Dantzic corn he thought the fixed duty would be about 15s. a quarter, for shipowners could easily be found to carry Dantzic corn to Canada, and bring it back to England as colonial corn. It might be that a fixed duty of 15s. would be more than Dantzic corn could bear, and that, therefore, no such operations would be carried on; but the power would be there. They had talked a great deal about panics; but he thought if there was anything that was calculated to make a man button up his breeches pocket and do nothing, it was this constant tampering and tinkering with a great measure.

Colonel Wood

said, there always was money gained as well as lost by panics. With respect to the importation of Dantzic corn through Canada as Canadian corn, the power already existed. A man could now take Dantzic corn to Canada, and then introduce it into England at a duty never higher than 5s.; the effect of the proposed measure would be to enable him to bring it in at a duty of 4s.; 3s. in Canada and one in England. The only difference, therefore, between the present and the proposed law, in this respect, would be one shilling. If this measure were to be submitted to Parliament as a new measure, he would not be inclined to support it, but he conscientiously believed that this was a part of the measure of last year. The right hon. Member for Portsmouth complained that they ought to have legislated on this subject last year; but it was out of delicacy to the Canadian Parliament that they had not legislated. The origin of the measure was the proposal of the President of the Board of Trade last year, that a duty of 3s. per quarter should be levied on all wheat corning into Canada from the United States. He thought the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies was perfectly justified in making an engagement with the Canadian legislature, that if they would take proper precautions against the influx of American corn into the colony, the duties on their own produce should be reduced to a nominal amount, and Canada should be treated as an integral part of the united kingdom. That proposition was made to a new Parliament, assembled for the first time, under very peculiar circumstances, and met with glad acceptance. If the House should reject the proposition, he would now leave it to the House to judge whether they would not lower themselves in the eyes of the Canadian legislature and of the whole world. He believed the present measure would be advantageous to this country in the main, and be greatly advantageous to Canada. Instead of infringing the law of last year, it would place that law on a much firmer basis [" No, no."] Gentlemen said no; but what was the principle of the law of last year? It was, that the importation of foreign corn should be regulated by a scale of duties, one end of which should be prohibitory, and the other should admit corn into this country duty free when there was a deficiency of supply. When the price was under 50s., it was to be presumed that the supply was equal to the demand, and therefore, that there was no need of importation from abroad; but when the price rose, the supply fell off, and then the question to be considered was, whence would it be best to look for that supply? Clearly from a colony which was of so much importance, and with which we were so intimately connected as Canada. Bread at Montreal was, by the last advices, at 9d. a loaf, while in this country we had bread at 6d. a loaf, which showed that the growers of corn need be under no apprehensions of the effects which would result from the importation to this country of corn and flour from Canada. It was for the interest of both parties that the connection between Canada and this country should be placed on the most intimate footing, and that we should cement the bonds of strength and power by which the empire should be knit together. It had been asked why our other colonies in America should not enjoy the same privileges for the admission of their produce to this country. With one or two exceptions, the freight from them was cheaper than from the St. Lawrence, and therefore the price of Canadian corn would he much more nearly assimilated to that of home grown corn, than that of corn from any other of our colonies would be. For the reasons he had stated, he should give the measure his support.

Mr. C. Wood

said, the sole advantage he had been able to discover in the measure proposed by Government, was its approximation to the principle of a fixed duty; and his hon. Friend who had just spoken had gone far to shake his opinion of the value of that solitary advantage, for according to him the measure would place the sliding-scale on a firmer foundation than ever. He agreed that the measure was an advance to the principle of a fixed duty, but he must leave it to Government to reconcile their support of that principle with any regard to their own consistency. He would state shortly the grounds on which he supported the amendment proposed by his noble Friend. He was perfectly willing to take the measure of Government on the showing of the noble Lord opposite, who stated that it would do neither one thing nor the other; that it would not admit one grain for the benefit of the consumer, nor the supposed advantage of the grower. He was willing to consider it as a colonial measure, and that, although there had been much exaggeration on the subject, whatever there was in the bill, seemed, with the single exception of a fixed duty, of a very objectionable nature. The measure affected, in the first place, the intercourse between the United States and Canada; and next, the intercourse between Canada and this country. The intention was to interpose an additional obstacle on corn coming from the United States to Canada, He confessed, if he wanted an additional reason for opposing the measure, it would be found in the circumstance mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, that the price of bread at Montreal was half as high again as in this country; yet with this high rate of prices, the House was asked to pass a law to increase the price of bread in the colony. They had heard a great deal of the advantage of protection to agriculture, in raising the price obtained by the grower; but could anything he more monstrous than, with so high a price in the colony, to pass a law to raise the price to the consumer. It appeared that the Canadians themselves had no wish for a plan of this nature, except in so far as they expected to derive greater advantages from an increased importation to this country and the proposal of Government came to this, that we were to bribe the Canadians to impose a barrier to their own supply, to which, but for that consideration they would not consent. It was stated in the papers on the Table, that but for the proposal made by this country they would not have passed the act, and he contended that the bribe we were about to offer them was one that would cost this country dear; for, as far as the intercourse between Canada and the United States was concerned, we were about to bribe Canada to impose a new protection. With respect to the intercourse between Canada and this country, no doubt if there were a surplus production of corn in Canada which could be exported to this country, it would be a benefit to the consumer that that corn should come in at a low fixed duty rather than under a small sliding-scale. But when it turned out, as was established by the papers on the Table, that there was no Canadian corn at all; that no corn could at present be brought from Canada unless it were replaced by American corn, so far as the boon to Canada, or the advantage to the consumer in this country was concerned, the measure proved to be perfectly ludicrous, and the importation of Canadian corn, like that of foreign cattle, a mere bugbear to the agriculturists. The noble Lord opposite had stated that at this moment American corn paying no duty at all on its importation into Canada, was ground there, and imported to this country at a duty varying from 1s. to 5s. a quarter, and he proposed to substitute for that small sliding-scale a fixed duty of 4s. He would not stop to inquire whether a fixed duty of 4s. was a fair equivalent for the average duty of 2s. ld.; whether the highest duty which had ever been levied in practice was a fair average to take on which to calculate the amount of the commutation. The proposal came to this, that the farmers of this country were to have the protection of a fixed duty of 4s. on American wheat imported in this indirect mode through Canada, and the effect of the proposal, after all, was, as stated in the resolution, that three-fourths of the duty, instead of being paid, as now into the British Exchequer, was to be paid into the Exchequer of Canada. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to a paper on the Table, showing the number of quarters of corn imported from Canada during five years past, which they might assume to be American corn coming in a circuitous way, they would see that the imposition of a fixed duty of 4s. during that time would have brought into our Exchequer an additional sum of 24,000l. a-year. The proposition of the noble Lord went to put 3s. out of the 4s. into the Exchequer of Canada, and ls. into our own. That was really the only effect of the noble Lord's measure, if he were correct in stating that it would make no difference whatever in the importation of corn, and that both to the consumer and producer it was perfectly immaterial whether the bill passed or not. He would take the bill on the noble Lord's own showing, and he said the only effect of it would be to give 18,000l. a-year to the Canadians, to induce them to impose a duty on corn coming from America, which they did not wish to impose because it would be injurious to them. An hon. Gentleman had observed the other night that the Canadian Exchequer was very much in want of money; but he should like to know whether the hon. Member would consent to vote 18,000l. a-year for the benefit of the Canadians. He thought the proposal exceedingly objectionable, not so much for the amount involved in it, which was not very great, but because it was part and parcel of the fiscal arrangements of the right hon. Gentleman to which in principle he was entirely opposed. The principle of that arrangement was to impose very low duties on colonial produce, and of course to obtain a minimum of revenue, and to impose very high differential duties on foreign produce, and thus also to obtain a minimum of revenue from that source. Then came the absolute necessity of imposing a heavy amount of direct taxation on this country. Every proposition of this kind, great or small, so far created the ne- cessity for imposing that most odious of taxes under the burthen of which the country was now labouring. Then as to the fine sounding words that we were to treat Canada as an integral part of the empire —if it were to be treated like an English county, ought it not to have its due share of taxation as well as of favours? He was of opinion that while we paid the military and naval expenses of the colony, and gave some preference to its productions, we went as far as we were bound to go, and that we were acting a most unwise part lor our own purposes in throwing away our money in this manner for a futile object. When this principle came to be tested, and the way in which it was proposed to be carried out by Government examined, it appeared to be absolutely useless. The noble Lord had been asked whether if our other neighbouring colonies were prepared to establish a similar duty on foreign corn, that step would be met by a similar reduction of duties on their produce imported to this country? The noble Lord had not given a very definite answer, but had said, " We must do this as to Canada, because we proposed it last year." That might be a reason for his making the proposion, but he only removed the difficulty one step further back, for the question remained. Why did not the noble Lord make the promise to the other colonies last year? Anything more invidious, anything more contrary to the spirit which ought to mark our legislation, could not be conceived, than to tell the Canadas that they were to be treated as an integral part of the empire, and New Brunswick and Nova Scotia that they were not to be so treated. He thought this more impolitic and unjust towards those colonies than any declaration he had ever heard in that House. What he wished to affirm by the amendment was, that whatever the amount of protection might be, it ought to depend on the British Legislature, and not on that of Canada; and whatever duty there might be on the importation of corn into this country, the produce of that duty ought to be paid into the British Exchequer, and not into that of Canada. He was entirely opposed to the measure, as being, first, a mere bribe to the Canadians to pass a protection which they did not want; and secondly, as a part of a fiscal policy rendering necessary, on the part of this country, the maintenance of a tax to which he thought the people would not be much longer willing to submit.

Mr. G. W. Hope

said, that considerable misapprehension seemed to exist as to the facts upon which the consideration of this question depended. The right hon. Member for Halifax had commented upon the large amount of revenue which this measure would take out of the Treasury of this country,and had stated that the average duty on Canadian wheat for the last five years had been 4s., producing a revenue of 24,000l., whereas, in point of fact, the average duty had not been more than 2s. ld., or at the outside 2s. 2d., which would give a revenue of only 10,000l.; so that, in truth, the loss to the British revenue was compariatvely trifling. The right hon. Member had also asked why Canada should be selected for this boon, and why the other British colonies should not be allowed to share in the supposed advantages of this measure. The reason was this, that with regard to the other British colonies, their capabilities of producing corn was not sufficient to make the free introduction of it into this country an object, for the sake of which, it was worth while to disturb the present settlement of the corn question. What were the facts? The total importation of corn from all the British colonies between 1814 and 1842 was, 1,697,000 quarters; from Canada alone 1,560,000 quarters; showing an importation from all the other colonies of only 137,000, and of that 137,000 they must deduct 99,000 which came from the East Indies, and consisted of damaged corn which could not be taken into the calculation; leaving, therefore, the importation from all the other British colonies during that period at 38,000 quarters only. A good deal had been said about the injustice of this measure towards Prince Edward's Island, as being a corn growing colony; but again he must appeal to the fact that Prince Edward's Island during five years, had exported only 1,616 bushels. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia confessedly were not corn growing countries; whatever corn had come from them came in the shape of flour, having been first imported into them from other countries. The answer, therefore, which he would give to the hon. Gentleman who complained of injustice towards the colonies was, that this measure, which would be a great boon to corn-growing Canada, would be no boon to the other colonies of this country. The utmost export from the Cape of Good Hope in any one year had been, 3,000 quarters. Some hon. Gentlemen on the other side apprehended, that an extensive system of smuggling would result from this measure; but he apprehended no such danger, because it had been made out to his satisfaction, that the expense of conveyance across the lakes of Canada was quite as great as that along the shores. He had felt it his duty to correct the erroneous impression which seemed to exist as to the corn-growing capabilities of all the other British colonies except Canada; but he would not further detain the House upon a subject which had been so fully discussed.

Mr. Hutt

could not conceive any measure more calculated to exasperate the Canadians, or to excite a renewal of those angry feelings by which the colony had had been recently disturbed, than to give it a united legislature, and then deprive it of those powers which must necessarily belong to a legislature. He did not think it a sufficent reason for limiting the authority of the Canadian legislature that a portion of those goods which had passed over the frontier might be hereafter imported into this country; but, in addition to this, he was prepared to contend, that the duties imposed by the Government plan would not be paid by the people of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, thought that the proposal of transferring 18,000l. a-year into the exchequer of Canada, was equivalent to levying 18,000l. a-year in the form of taxes on the people of this country. He entirely differed from the right hon. Gentleman. It had always appeared to him to be one of the great merits of a fixed duty on corn, that the duty would be paid by the producer and not the consumer. He approved of this measure because he thought it an approach to the system of a fixed duty, at least in regard to the intercourse between this country and Canada, and he should support it not merely for itself, but for the good effects which were likely to flow from it. He was convinced that the day was not far distant when they must apply that system to the general corn-trade with the world. The sliding-scale had lasted long enough, and done its work well enough—it had produced enough of delusion and mischief, The noble Lord the Secretary for the colonies had said, that this was not a measure of free-trade; but it appeared to him to have the strongest claims to his support, on the very ground of its being framed on these principles of free-trade and common sense, which Ministers were in general far more inclined to praise than to practice. Doubts had been thrown on the capacity of the Canadas to produce corn for exportation; but he would beg to refer hon. Gentlemen to Lord Durham's report, in which it was stated, that the soil of the country north of the lakes, was equal, if not superior, So that of the opposite territory of the United States. He hoped, that if the bill passed, it would be a death-blow to the Corn-laws.

Colonel Rushbrooke

said, he must crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while he made some observations on the question. He voted against the amendments which had been proposed because he considered them to be an improper interference with the act of an independent legislature, and also with the prerogative, which should never be so addressed but in cases of the highest and most vital importance; but he had the greatest possible objections to the proposed resolutions. In the first place, the manufacture of the flour would be placed in the hands of the Canadians, whereas, one of the principal reasons given for the introduction of the Grinding Bill of last year was, that it would be a bonus to the millers of the United Kingdom, who by this measure would be entirely deprived of that advantage. Then the statements as to the price of flour, and the cost of its transport to this country, were so at variance that it was quite impossible to arrive at the truth without further information. Equally at variance with each other were the opinions relative to the facility of smuggling; but, even passing them by, it was impossible to say what might be the inundation of Canadian flour in the course of a few years. In the paper No. 218, laid on the Table of the House, there was a paragraph which stated that Canada now was an exporting country, and that in a short time she would be able to supply the mother country with any quantity required, provided the ports of England be open to her produce. This confirmed Lord Durham's observation, that Canada, would, in a few years, supply England with all the corn she wanted. Again, he had a decided objection to a fixed duty; a fixed duty was like a fixed bayonet—give but the word of command, and it was off in a moment. Such had been the fact more than once in the course of his experience. Whether such would be the case, in the present instance, remained, certainly, to be proved; but, at all events, this measure was one which contemplated a reduction of protection. By it a 3.s. duty was proposed, which was to flow into the coffers of Canada, together with a nominal one of 1s. flowing into our own; altogether a protection of 4s. By the present law, we had a sliding-scale of from 1s. to 5s. A paper had been printed, showing the average duty of the last five years to have been 2s. ld. but this was at the time of high prices, and not when our best wheat was selling at 45s. He for one, and he believed the agricultural body in general, never expected to see prices range beyond 55s. At that point, they had a permanent protection of 5s., and why should they be called upon to relinquish it? He was among the first to admit that the colonies, after ourselves, were the object of consideration, but charity must begin at home. In acquiescing in the enactments of the new Corn-law, the farmers went to the extremest verge of reduction and concession. They could not, therefore, do otherwise than deprecate and oppose a measure which was the cause of repeated agitation, and which, in its effect, did paralyze and destroy the markets of the home producer. He assured the House that so desperate was the view which some of our farmers took of the measure, that should these resolutions pass into a law, they would wish the Corn-laws repealed altogether, rather than be exposed to the painful suspense which they seemed doomed interminably to suffer. With these views, and with this statement but with the greatest regret and reluctance, he could not do otherwise than oppose the proposed resolutions.

Mr. Phillip Howard

considered it of the greatest importance that they should legislate in a confiding spirit for our Colonies, and especially for Canada, which during the American war, and in 1813-14 —at a time we were engaged in a struggle with the neighbouring—the United States —had shown such heroic constancy and true devotion to our cause. It also seemed to him to be an object of paramount importance to divert the tide of emigration which now set towards the United States from that country to Canada. The Legislature of Canada had now thrown itself on the generosity of the British Parliament, and it would be most impolitic and unjust to scorn a proposal so frankly made. Moreover, by this measure we should enable the Canadians to take a greater quantity of our manufactures, and thus to advance the prosperity of this country. As an advocate of a fixed duty on grain imported, he rejoiced that the Government had at least partially adopted that principle. Having been compelled, as in the case of the Constitution of Newfoundland last year, to differ from the noble Lord opposite on questions of colonial policy, it was exceedingly satisfactory to him to find the high and undoubted talents of the noble Lord now devoted to an object calculated to prove of essential benefit both to that important colony and to the mother country. He should certainly support the measure, and as to any defence of it, he only took the speeches of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) and of his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard, and they supplied the wall and the cement which would withstand the assault of all its opponents.

Mr. Bankes

thought, however opportune this measure might be considered with respect to Canada or to America, that, viewed in regard to the present condition of this country, it was introduced at a most unfortunate period. The right hon. President of the Board of Trade had said that no promises had been made; but who would say that no expectations had been held out? Had nothing been heard as to prices, had no averages been calculated almost with certainty, but which were essentially different to those which now actually prevailed? The hon. and gallant Member for Brecon had said, that if this were a new measure he should oppose it; but it was a new measure to him (Mr, Bankes), it was a new measure to his constituents, and it was a new measure to a great part of the people of this country. He was, therefore, in that condition which his hon. and gallant Friend had said if he were in he should oppose the bill, and consequently he felt bound to oppose the measure as a new one. The measure had been inopportunely introduced, and without previous inquiry, and without that information which it was their duty to acquire before they ventured to sanction a change of this description. Whatever might be his respect for the talents of the Member of the present Government, under the present circumstances and at the present time he did not feel justified in giving his assent to the further progress of this measure. With regard to the first stage of the measure, namely, its introduction, he should have greatly regretted if any other decision had been arrived at than that which the House had come to by a large majority; and if the House had not received with attention and respect a measure which had obtained the sanction of an independent Legislature. He should have greatly regretted if the House of Commons had interposed in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and had addressed the Crown to refuse its assent to the measure of the Colonial Legislature. He should have deemed it unreasonable to go out of their way, to pass an affront upon the Colonial Legislature, when a strictly constitutional mode was left to them of indicating their sentiments, if they wished it, with respect to the proposition now offered for their consideration. As he felt constrained to negative these resolutions, he was ready to accede to the amendment of the noble Lord, which negatived two of the propositions contained in the resolutions. The noble Lord submitted that it was inexpedient that the protection desired for the agriculturists should be allowed to rest upon the will of a Colonial Legislature wholly independent of us. That proposition was well deserving of consideration. The second proposition of the noble Lord's amendment was also of importance— namely, that it was inexpedient that a revenue, to be derived from such protection, should, at the present period, be applied not to the relief of the burthens of the parent country, but to the relief of the burthens of the colony. He could not give his assent to the measure, and he thought if the effect of the Grinding Act had been seen as it might possibly be found to operate under the influence of the present measure (although there was no flaw in that measure, as had been erroneously supposed), it was highly probable that the assent of many gentlemen who had voted for it would not have been awarded. Flour ground in Canada might be taken to the bonding warehouse, and the same quantity of American or other foreign wheat might he taken out of bond, consequently American wheat, which ought to pay 20s. duty, would be taken out from bond for the same quantity of American wheat ground into flour, which had only paid 4s. That was as it appeared to him a, possible effect of the proposed law. It was, however, his complaint that the House was called upon to pass this measure without the means of information they ought to possess, and without that time for deliberation and discussion which was requisite for such a measure. If the measure had been brought forward last year, there would have been a larger field for the attention of members, and a large scope for their inquiry. If they had been informed that this was a part of the general scheme, it would then have been their duty to make themselves acquainted with the probable amount of produce that would be supplied by Canada, and taking that additional amount of produce into their calculation, the decision of some hon. Members last year might have been different. With respect to that general measure itself, he confessed he had at the time doubts and difficulties upon his mind. It appeared, too, that prices in Canada were such as to render it impossible that that colony could derive benefit from the measure now. There was, therefore, no reason why the measure should be hurried through the House, and he humbly ventured to submit to the Government— as then the decision of an overwhelming majority had shown that there could be no appearance of insult to the colonial Legislature— whether it would not be possible to postpone the further progress of this measure. If it had all the advantages described by the noble Lord, and if his statement could be borne out, hon. Members would be very happy to have their minds satisfied, and adopt his views if they thought that by the facts and information supplied to them they were justified in so doing. He must therefore urge the Government to delay a measure which had excited, whether justified or not, much alarm and anxiety.

Mr. Ward

said, he supported the resolutions of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, but upon grounds diametrically the opposite of those which the noble Lord had advanced. He supported the noble Lord's resolutions in the full conviction that they would give a very dangerous shock to a very bad system which he wanted to get rid of. That did away at once with a great deal of the nonsense which had been talked in that House about the sliding-scale. The noble Lord had openly avowed his preference of a fixed duty to the clumsy machinery of a sliding-scale. [Lord Stanley; Provided the scale only varies 3s. or 4s.] But surely it was quite as easy to take the medium point between 20s. and 1s., as between 12s. and 8s. He supported the resolutions of the noble Lord, because, in the next place, they established a precedent which must be followed with reference to all the British colonies. If the noble Lord refused the boon upon any other terms, it would be worth their while to get up a little insurrection, a little rebellion, in order to force a measure of concession from the Government. They would be very foolish not to do so. He had another reason for supporting these resolutions— they afforded such a beautiful exemplification of the practical absurdity of our present system. They had heard a good deal from the hon. Member for Oxfordshire about sending Dantzic wheat to be ground in Canada and then brought to this country at the colonial duty. Such was the absurd system which now prevailed with regard to coffee. The produce of Brazil had to go round by the Cape of Good Hope in order to take the benefit of a colonial duty. How long would they support such a practical absurdity? He believed that a great deal of good would come of these resolutions; he would take his chance of all that might arise— of the great extension of cultivation which could undoubtedly take place in Canada —of the smuggling which he believed would also take place; and if he could get rid of the 3s. fixed duty in Canada altogether and be able to extend the measure to all our other colonies, he should still more cordially support the resolutions of the noble Lord.

Mr. Borthwick

thought that it was the duty of the Legislature to afford a fair and judicious protection to British agriculture. He supported the measure proposed by the noble Lord, because he believed that its effects would be to encourage agriculture in the Canadian colonies; and the colonists, when they were enabled to supply this country with grain, would take in exchange— not gold, which was required by America— but our manufactures. Frequent allusion had been made during the debates to certain implied pledges which had been given by the Government to the Canadians; but to such pledges he had been no party. He considered the subject as an independent Member; and when he looked at the effect which he believed the measure of the noble Lord would produce on Canada, and upon our own market, he could not i hesitate to give it his support. Some hon. Members of that House had pledged themselves to their constituents against countenancing any alteration in the former Corn-law; but last Session a change in that law was proposed, and by the assistance of those hon. Gentlemen it was carried. The farmers, finding that they did not now obtain that return for their industry upon which they had calculated, complained of the conduct of these hon. Members who had, in some cases, lost much of that popularity which they had formerly enjoyed; but now those hon. Gentlemen, with a view to recover their popularity, and to retain their interest with the farmers, opposed the present measure, the effect of which would, be believed, be to increase the protection of English agriculture. It had been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that if this measure were adopted, New Brunswick and other colonies might claim the same privilege which it would extend to Canada. He did not, however, see any probability of such a result; but if it was shown that any other British colony was placed in similar circumstances to Canada, he would vote for the extension to it of those privileges. The noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) had charged the present Government with proposing constant changes in the Corn-laws; but he thought that such an accusation came with a very bad grace from the noble Lord; for if any " state doctor"— to use a term which had been applied to the right hon. Baronet on that side of the House—had evinced a disposition to tamper with the Corn-laws, it was the state doctor on the opposite benches, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. His conviction was, that if the measure proposed by the noble Secretary for the Colonies were adopted, it would afford an additional protection of 2s. per quarter on wheat in favour of the English farmer as against American produce. He believed that it would tend to impede the too rapid march of free-trade principles; and it would have the effect of preventing the progress of that system of agitation which had been pursued with such unfortunate and injurious effects by some hon. Gentlemen opposite. On these grounds, and because he was anxious to protect the English farmers against those false friends who would over-burthen him with protection, he would give a vote in favour of the resolution of the noble Lord.

Mr. E. Buller

would support the motion of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), because he believed it was a step towards the adoption of free-trade principles, and that it would have the effect of increasing the supply of food, and of placing the necessaries of life within the reach of the people of this country. Like his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Ward), he believed that its effect would be to shake the foundations of the existing Corn-laws. This measure would extend the area from which untaxed produce might be brought; it would afford facilities for the introduction into this country of American corn; and he would therefore give his vote in its favour. He confessed that he objected to the mode in which, under this bill, it was proposed to allow the introduction of American corn. He should prefer the direct introduction of American produce from the ports of the United States, a fixed duty being imposed in this country. It was said by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite (the Ministerial) side, that this was not a free-trade measure, but one rather protective than otherwise. It had been stated, on the part of the Government, that this was one of the measures which they intended to introduce last year; but he would like to ask the noble Lord opposite—if he had any chance of obtaining a candid and straightforward answer—whether, if this measure had been introduced last year, they would have introduced it on the same grounds on which they had now brought it forward? The measures proposed by the Government last year were free-trade measures; but they contended that this measure was one of a protective character. He accused the Government of saying to the con sumer,—" The measure we propose will have the effect of lowering the price of food," while turning to the producer—the agriculturist—they said, " This measure cannot have any prejudicial effect on your interests." This conduct reminded him of a treatise he had read on the origin of love, in which it was contended that males and females were first created in one body, but that they were afterwards split in halves; and that man, a lonely biped, was constantly seeking for his other and his " better half." He thought that the speeches of the Members of the Government had been split in halves, one half being in favour of protection, and the other advocating free-trade principles. He believed that the effect of the proposed measure would be to introduce a large— though not an overwhelming— quantity of wheat from Canada into this country, and therefore he supported it.

Mr. O. Gore

said, that it was with deep regret he felt himself called upon to give any vote adverse to that uniform support he had always hitherto given to her Majesty's present Government, composed as that Government was, he felt convinced, of men whose services were essential to the welfare and best interests of this country. But, strongly as he felt the disposition to support the Government, he had a paramount duty to perform— a duty which he owed it to his country to discharge conscientiously and faithfully. Last year he supported every proposition in the tariff but one, and he did not now regret having done so, because he was sure, that although he voted for a reduced protection, yet that there was still a sufficient protection for the agricultural interests of this country. He supported last year the principle of a sliding-scale, and he was not disposed to change his opinion by now supporting a fixed duty. At the same time, he did not consider that in this measure there was involved the principle of a fixed duty as connected with a fixed duty in this country. In Canada there could be nothing but a fixed duty, because they could have there no regular return of average prices. He was, at the same time that he admitted this, prepared to vote against the present measure, as he considered it to he impolitic, unwise, and, above all, ill-timed. The country had not as yet recovered from the panic caused by the tariff of last year. The farmers were barely beginning to recover. It was notorious that the shock which the farmers had received had greatly diminished their confidence in the Government, and from his own knowledge of them he was sure it would be a long time before their confidence could be restored; they were recovering by degrees, but they were not prepared for another shock such as was now about to be given to them. The agriculturists were a sensitive body, as was justly remarked the other night by the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, and it would require a Succession of prosperous seasons to prove to them what he himself really believed, that the late measures of the Government were wise and good measures relieving protection from the odium of useless and oppressive excess. What he desired on the part of the agriculturists was, that their interests should not be tampered with year after year. He was free to admit, that he looked upon the Canada measure as a trifle in itself, but then it was calculated to inflame the minds of the farmers against the rulers of the country, and he did not think it wise to rouse up such feelings for such a paltry benefit. He did look upon it at present as a paltry measure, both as regarded this country and Canada; but hereafter, he did not doubt, Canada would find it to be of great importance when the fine soil of that country should be brought into cultivation, and a finer soil for wheat could not exist than the extreme west of Upper Canada. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had stated that the idea of smuggling was ridiculous. He thought otherwise; and any person who knew the country must know the great facilities for smuggling along the whole frontier. It had been stated by the noble Lord that the wheat growing states were so remote, that the expense of transport would be a strong prevention to smuggling, and his Lordship enumerated the states of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois as the corn-producing states. True, these were remote but he would read the returns from the marshall's report. Ohio produced 16,000,000 bushels of corn in one year, Indiana 4,000,000, Illinois 2,700,000; whilst the state of New York, which was close bordering on Canada, produced 11,800,000 bushels. The larger portion of this produce close adjoining Lake Ontario, in the beautifully fertile valley of Seneca, and the whole of the Gennesee country, as yet but half cultivated. The most fruitful part of America was that adjoining Canada; and when it was stated that smuggling would not take place, as it was the Canadian's interest to resist it, Gentlemen should recollect the number of Indian villages along the banks of the rivers, the population of which were ever ready to assist the smuggling trade. Besides, immense facilities were afforded for smuggling along the whole frontier, by the lakes and by sledges, by means of which more corn could be conveyed in a single night than by any waggon. The capitalists in the United States would erect mills on our side of the frontier, and there grind the corn which they would smuggle across, paying the duty perhaps on a small quantity —thence exporting to this country with the mill-brand upon the entire. He therefore objected to the measure, because of the enormous quantity of smuggled American corn which might be introduced into this country duty free. He had been delighted to hear the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government the other night state, that " frequent alterations of an important kind were to be deprecated." He would also add, that sudden alterations were likewise to be deprecated. Now, although it was true that this subject had been cursorily mentioned in the House last Session, he would ask every Member of her Majesty's Government, or any Member of the House, whether they thought that the farming interest of the country ever knew a word of it, or even dreamt of it? It came upon them like a thunder stroke. No farmer living fifty miles from London had ever heard of any alteration being about to be made in the present system of corn-law as regarded Canada. He had supported the Ministry in carrying the measure for the reduction of protection, but he had gone to the limit that that protection would bear, and would resist any further innovation, at least for some time to come, until the measures of last year were fairly, amply, and honestly tried. He would not pledge him-himself to any course, because circumstances might alter, but reserve to himself the exercise of free discretion in every opinion he formed and every vote he gave. Acting on these principles, and being guided by what he thought due to the farmers, he should vote for the amendment.

Sir J. Hanmer

was glad to find the country gentlemen of England resume their natural courage and generosity, and dare to look these questions in the face, and not be frightened by every shadow of free trade. There was not a single argument to be adduced against the introduction of corn from Canada into this country which might not have been adduced against the introduction of corn from Ireland into this country which might not have been adduced against the introduction of corn from Ireland in 1806. In 1806 this country had imported 300,000 quarters of wheat from Ireland. The last return made of our imports of wheat from Ireland was in 1837, and this country had then imported thence in round numbers somewhere about 3,000,000 of quarters, very greatly to the advantage of this country and to the detriment of no one. If, therefore, they were to look at this measure as one solely connected with Canada, he confessed he could not understand why the same beneficial results which had been derived from our intercourse with Ireland should not be derived from our extended intercourse with Canada. He had no reason to suppose that the other North American colonies would not shortly seek to place themselves in the same position; and in a short time he thought it would be absolutely necessary that they should be placed in that position. When this should be accomplished, looking at the contiguity of the United States, and the facilities of introducing United States' corn, let them ask themselves how long they should be able to deny a free trade in corn, regulated by a fixed duty? He should support this measure chiefly because he looked on it as the foundation of the only just and wise corn-law— that was, free trade with all the world, regulated by moderate fixed duties. That was a doctrine which was dreaded in some quarters, but he knew that it was a doctrine which was founded on a wise and just policy, and he knew it was a doctrine which states had adopted in former times; and he knew it was a doctrine which they must boldly and courageously determine to act on, if they wished to avert danger from this country.

Mr. Lefroy

as one of those Members for Ireland who had hitherto felt much satisfaction in supporting her Majesty's present Government, stated with great regret, that he felt it, in this instance, to be his conscientious and honest duty to vote against them. He thought it would be unreasonable that the division to which the House had come the other night, should be looked upon as the final decision and settlement of this question, particularly as the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government had himself said that other opportunities of opposing the measure would be offered. He should give his vote against the Government on this subject, not for the same reasons as those of many hon. Members opposite, but principally because he objected to the new principle introduced into this measure viz.— the principle of a fixed duty for Canada, instead of a sliding-scale which prevailed in this country, and which he considered it would be more for the interest of this country that it should not be departed from in the present instance. Me also called on the Members for Ireland to reflect on what would be the result to that part of the kingdom of a measure like this, when Canada should have advanced, as no doubt she would very considerably hereafter, in the production of wheat. He felt himself compelled to vote against it, however much he might regret the necessity of doing so.

Mr. Blackstone

would not have spoken had he npt been pointedly alluded to by several hon. Members in the course of the debate. The speech of the bon. Member for Shropshire quite delighted him. He had several petitions in his hand, which he should oh some future occasion take the liberty of presenting to the House. They were Irish petitions. In one of those petitions it was stated that the poverty and distress existing in the country had arisen from the alterations made in the Corn-laws and tariff. The hon. Member for Oxfordshire, whose speech he had listened to with much pleasure, asked why were not the provinces of New Brunswick to have the benefit of a measure like that which was to be extended to Canada? The inhabitants of New Brunswick were loyal subjects, and had a right to complain of any exclusive boon being conferred upon the Canadian colony. What was the secret of the Canadian Corn Bill? By the alterations in the timber duty 700,000l. had been lost to the revenue, so greatly had the timber trade been affected; and as a compensation for that loss the reduction in the duty on the importation of Canadian wheat into this country was to take place. But the English agriculturists had a right to complain of this. They ought not to be compelled to pay for an injury which had been inflicted upon the timber trade of Canada. He was glad to find that the county Members had assumed their proper position in that House,

Mr. R. Yorke

said, I will not detain the House for a moment. I wish to make one observation. It shall only be a sentence. We have all heard of oldBlackstone's Commentaries, but I am glad to hear in this House young Blackstone's Commentaries.

The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question. Ayes 203; Noes 102:—Majority 101.

list of the AYES
A'Court, Capt.	Esmonde, Sir T.
Adderly, C. B.	Fellowes, E.
Aldam, W,	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Antrobus, E.	Flower, Sir J.
Arkwright, G.	Follett, Sir W. W.
Ashley, Lord	Fuller, A. E.
Bailey, J.	Gibson,T. M.
Baillie, Col.	Gladstone.rt.hn.W.E,
Baillie, H. J.	Gordon, hon. Capt.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Gore, M.
Barneby, J.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Bateson, R.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Bell, M.	Granby, Marquess of
Bentinck, Lord G.	Granger, T. C.
Bernard, Visct.	Greenall, P.
Bodkin, W. H.	Grimsditch, T.
Boldero, H. G.	Grimston, Visct.
Borthwick, P.	Hale, R. B
Botfield, B.	Halford, H.
Bowring, Dr.	Hamilton, G. A.
Boyd, J.	Hamilton, W. J.
Bramston, T. W.	Hamilton, Lord C.
Broadwood, H.	Hampden, R.
Brotherton, J.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Bruce, Lord E.	Harcourt, G. G.
Buckley, E.	Hardinge,rt.hn.SirH.
Buller, E.	Hardy, J.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Hatton, Capt. V.
Burroughes, H. N.	Heneage, G. H. W.
Campbell, Sir H	Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Cardwell, E.	Herbert, hon. S.
Charteris, hon. F.	Hervey, Lord A.
Chelsea, Visct.	Hillsborough, Earl of
Clayton, R. R.	Holmes, hn. W. A'C.
Clerk, Sir G.	Hope, hon. C.
Clive, hon. R. H	Hope, G. W.
Collett, W. R.	Hornby, J.
Collett, J.	Howard, P. H.
Colquhoun, J. C.	Hughes, W. B.
Compton, H. C.	Hussey, A.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Hutt, W.
Copeland, Ald.	Ingestre, Visct,
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Courtenay, Lord	James, Sir W. C.
Crawford, W. S	Jermyn, Earl
Cresswell, B.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Cripps, W.	Jones, Capt.
Damer, hon. Col.	Kemble, H,
Darby, G.	Ker, D. S.
Davies, D. A. S.	Kirk, P.
Dawnay, hon. W. H.	Knatchbull.rt.hn.SirE
Denison, E. B.	Lambton, H.
Dickinson, F. H.	Lascelles, hon, W. S.
Divett, E.	Law, hon. C. E.
Douglas, Sir H.	Legh, G. C.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Lennox, Lord A.
Douglas, J. D. S.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Douro, Marq. of	Lincoln, Earl of
Dowdeswell, W.	Lindsay, H. H.
Drummond, H. H.	Lowther, J. H.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Lowther, hon. Col,
Egerton, W. T.	Lygon, hon. Gen.
Egerton, Sir P.	Mackenzie, T.
Eliot, Lord	Mackenzie, W. F.
Escott, B.	Maclean, D.

McGeachy, F. A.	Shirley, E. P.
Mahon, Visct.	Smith, A.
Mainwaring, T.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Marsham, Visct.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Martin, C. W.	Stanley, Lord
Masterman, J.	Stanton, W. H.
Maunsell, T. P.	Stewart, J.
Maxwell, hon. J. P.	Stuart, H.
Mitcalfe, H.	Sturt, H. C.
Morgan, O.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Morgan, C.	Thesiger, F.
Mundy, E. M.	Thornhill, G.
Newport, Visct.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Newry, Visct.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Norreys, Lord	Trotter, J.
Northland, Visct.	Turner, E.
Packe, C. W.	Vesey, hon. T.
Paget, Lord W.	Vivian, J. E.
Patten, J. W.	Wakley, T.
Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.	Wall, C. B.
Peel, J.	Walsh, Sir J. B.
Plumptre, J. P.	Wawn, J. T.
Pollington, Visct.	Welby, G. E.
Praed, W. T.	Wellesley, Lord C.
Pringle, A.	Whitmore, T. C.
Reid, Sir J. R.	Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Rice, E. R.	Williams, W.
Rolleston, Col.	Wood, B.
Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.	Wood, Col.
Round, C. G.	Wood, Col. T.
Round, J.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Rous, hon. Capt.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Russell, C.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Russell, J. D. W.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Sandon, Visct.	Young, J.
Seymour, Sir H. B.	TELLERS.
Sheppard, T.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Shirley, E. J.	Gaskell, J. Milnes

List of the NOES.
Allix, J, P.	Disraeli, B.
Archbold, R.	Drax, J. S. W. S. E.
Bailey, J. Jun.	Duncombe, hon. O.
Bankes, G.	Dundas, D.
Bannerman, A.	Du Pre, C. G.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T.	Eaton, R. J.
Barnard, E. G.	Ebrington, Visct.
Barrington, Visct.	Evans, W.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Farnham, E. B.
Benett, J.	Fitzmaurice, hon. W.
Blackstone, W. S.	French, F.
Blewitt, R. J.	Gisborne, T.
Broadley, H.	Gore,W. O.
Buck, L. W.	Greenaway, C.
Busfeild, W.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Byng, G.	Hall, Sir B.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S.	Hallyburton, Lord G.
Cave, hon. R. O.	Hay, Sir A. L.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Heathcote, G. J.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Heneage, E.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Henniker, Lord
Childers, J. W.	Hoskins, K.
Christopher, R. A.	Howard, Lord
Colvile, C. R.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Craig, W. G.	Knightley, Sir C.
Curteis, H. B.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Dashwood, G. H.	Lefroy, A.

Leveson, Lord	Rehdlesham, Lord
Listowell, Earl of	Rushbrooke, Col.
M'Taggart, Sir J.	Russell, Lord J.
Maher, V.	Seymour, Lord
Manners, Lord C. S.	Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.
Manners, Lord J.	Sibthorp, Col.
March, Earl of	Smith, rt. hn. R. V.
Marjoribanks, S.	Smyth, Sir H.
Marshall, W.	Spry, Sir S. T.
Miles, W.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Mitchell, T. A.	Stewart, P. M.
Morris, D.	Strickland, Sir G.
Murray, C. R. S.	Strutt, E.
Neeld, J.	Tollemache, J.
Neeld, J.	Trollope, Sir J.
Norreys, Sir D. J.	Tufnell, H.
O'Brien, A. S.	Tumor, C.
Ogle, S. C. H.	Waddington, H. S.
Ossulston, Lord	Watson, W. H.
Paget, Lord A.	Wodehouse, E.
Palmer, R.	Wood, C.
Palmerston, Visct.	Wyndham, Col. C.
Parker, J.
Philips, G. R.	TELLERS.
Plumridge, Capt.	Worsley, Lord
Pusey, P.	Henley, J. W.

The Committee again divided on the main question. Ayes 218; Noes 137: —Majority 81.

List of the AYES.
Acland, T. D.	Campbell, Sir H.
A'Court, Capt.	Cardwell, E.
Adderley, C. B.	Charteris, hon. F.
Aldam, W.	Chelsea, Visct.
Alford, Visct.	Clayton, R. R.
Antrobus, E.	Clerk, Sir G.
Arkwright, G.	Clive hon. R. H.
Ashley, Lord	Collett, W. R.
Bailey, J.	Colquhoun, J. C.
Baillie, Col.	Compton, H. C.
Baillie, H. J.	Coote, Sir C. II.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Copeland, Mr. Ald.
Bell, M.	Corry, right hon. H.
Bentinck, Lord G.	Courtenay, Lord
Bernard, Visct.	Crawford, W. S.
Bodkin, W. H.	Cresswell, B.
Boldero, H. G.	Cripps, W.
Borthwick, P.	Damer, hon. Col.
Botfield, B.	Darby, G.
Bowring, Dr.	Davies, D. A. S.
Boyd, J.	Dawnay, hon. W. H.
Bradshaw, J.	Denison, E. B.
Bramston, T. W.	Dickinson, F. H.
Broadwood, H.	Divett, E.
Brocklehurst, J.	Douglas, Sir H.
Brooke, Sir A. B.	Douglas, Sir C. E.
Brotherton, J.	Douglas, J. D. S.
Brownrigg, J. S.	Douro, Marquess of
Bruce, Lord E.	Dowdeswell, W.
Bruce, C. L. C.	Drummond, H. H.
Buckley, E.	Dugdale, W. S.
Buller, E.	Duncombe, T.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Duncombe, hon. A.
Burrell, Sir C. M.	East, J. B.
Burroughes, H. N.	Egerton, W. T.

Egerton, Sir P.	Lowther, hon. Col,
Eliot, Lord	Lyall, G.
Emlyn, Visct.	Lygon, hon. G.
Escott, B.	Mackenzie, T.
Fellowes, E.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Fitzroy, hon. H.	Maclean, D.
Flower, Sir J.	Mc Geachy, F. A.
Fuller, A. E.	Mahon, Visct.
Gladstone,rt.hn.W.E.	Mainwaring, T.
Gladstone, Capt.	Marsham, Visct.
Glynne, Sir S. R.	Martin, C. W.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Marton, G.
Gore, M.	Masterman, J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Maunsell, T. P.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Miles, P. W. S.
Granby, Marquess of	Morgan, O.
Granger, T. C.	Morgan, C.
Greenall, P.	Munday, E. M.
Grimsditch, T.	Newport, Visct.
Grimston, Visct.	Newry, Visct.
Hale, R. B.	Norreys, Lord
Halford, H.	Northland, Visct.
Hamilton, G. A.	O'Brien, W. S.
Hamilton, W. J.	Owen, Sir J.
Hamilton, Lord C.	Packe, C. W.
Hampden, R.	Paget, Lord W.
Hanmer, Sir J.	Patten, J. W.
Harcourt, G. G.	Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Hardinge,rt.hn. Sir H.	Peel, J.
Hardy, J.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Plumptre, J. P.
Heneage, G. H. W.	Pollington, Visct.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Pollock, Sir F.
Herbert, hon. S.	Praed, W. T.
Hervey, Lord A.	Pringle, A.
Hillsborough, Earl of	Reid, Sir J. R.
Hodgson, F.	Rice, E. R.
Holmes, hn. W. A'Ct.	Rolleston, Col.
Hope, hon. C.	Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Hope, A.	Round, C. G.
Hope, G. W.	Round, J.
Hornby, J.	Rous, hon. Capt.
Howard, P. H.	Russell, C.
Hughes, W. B.	Russell, J. D. W.
Hussey, A.	Ryder, hon. G. D.
Hutt, W.	Sandon, Visct.
Ingestre, Visct.	Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Inglis Sir R. H.	Seymour, Sir H. B.
Jermyn, Earl	Sheppard, T.
Joeelyn, Visct.	Shirley, E. J.
Jones, Capt.	Shirley, E. P.
Kemble, H.	Smith, A.
Ker, D. S.	Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.
Kirk, P.	Sotheron, T. H. S.
Knatchbull,rt.hn.SirE.	Stanley, Lord
Knight, H. G.	Stewart, J.
Lambton, H.	Stuart, H.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Sturt, H. C.
Law, hon. C. E.	Sutton, hon. H, M.
Lawson, A.	Thesiger, F.
Legh, G. C.	Thornhill, G.
Lennox, Lord A.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Leslie, C. P.	Trevor, hon. G. R.
Liddell, hon. H. T.	Trotter, J.
Lincoln, Earl of	Vesey, hon. T.
Lindsay, H. H.	Vivian, J. E.
Lowther, J. H.	Wakley, T.

Walsh, Sir J. B.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Welby, G. E.	Wortley, hon. Jn. S.
Wellesley, Lord C.	Wynn, Sir W. W.
Whitmore, T. C.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Wilbraham, hn. R. B.	Young, J.
Williams, W.
Wood, Col.	TELLERS.
Wood, Col. T.	Fremantle, Sir T.
Wood, G. W.	Gaskell, J. Milnes

List of the NOES.
Allix, J. P.	Gore, hon. R.
Archbold, R.	Greenaway, C.
Bailey, J. Jun.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bankes, G.	Hall, Sir B.
Baunerman, A.	Hallyburton,LordJ.F.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Hay, Sir A. L.
Barnard, E. G.	Hayes, Sir E.
Barneby, J.	Heathcote, G. J.
Barrington, Visct,	Heneage, E.
Baskerville, T. B. M.	Henley, J. W.
Benett, J.	Henniker, Lord
Berkeley, hon. C.	Hoskins, K.
Bernal, C.	Howard, hon. J. K.
Blackstone, W. S.	Howard, Lord
Blake Sir V.	Howard, hon. H.
Blewitt, R. J.	Jolliffe, Sir W. G. II.
Broadley, H.	Knightley, Sir C.
Buck, L. W.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Busfeild, W.	Layard, Capt.
Byng, rt. hon. G. S.	Lefroy, A.
Cave, hon. R. O.	Leveson, Lord
Cavendish, hn. C. C.	Listowel, Earl of
Cavendish, hn. G. H.	Mc. Taggart, Sir J.
Chetwode, Sir J.	Maher, V.
Childers, J. W.	Manners, Lord C. S.
Christie, W. D.	Manners, Lord J.
Christopher, R. A.	March, Earl of
Clements, Visct.	Majoribanks, S.
Colborne.hn. W. N.R.	Marshall, W.
Colvile, C. R.	Martin, J.
Corbally, M. E.	Miles, W.
Craig, W. G.	Mitcalfe, H.
Curteis, H. B.	Mitchell, T. A.
Dalmeny, Lord	Murphy, F. S.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Murray, C. R. S.
Denison, J. E.	Napier, Sir C.
Dick, Quintin	Neeld, J.
D'Israeli, B.	Neeld, John
Drax, J. S. W. S. E.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Duff, J.	O'Brien, A. S.
Duncan, Visct.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Duncan, G.	Ossulston, Lord
Duncomb, hon. O.	Paget, Lord A.
Dundas, Adm.	Palmer, R.
Dundas, D.	Palmerston, Visct.
Du Pre, C. G.	Philips, G. R.
Eaton, R. J.	Plumridge, Capt.
Ebrington, Visct.	Ponsonby, hon. J. G.
Evans, W.	Pusey, P.
Ewart, W.	Redington, T. N.
Farnham, E. B.	Rendlesham, Lord
Fitzmaurice, hon. W.	Repton, G. W. J.
French, F.	Ross, D. R.
Gisborne, T.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Gore, W. O.	Russell, Lord J,

Seale, Sir J. H.	Tumor, C.
Seymour, Lord	Vivian, J. II.
Sheil, rt. hon. It. L.	Waddington, H. S.
Sibthorp, Col,	Watson, W. H.
Smith, rt. hon. It. V.	Wawn, J. T.
Smyth, Sir H.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Stansfleld, W. It. C.	Wodehouse, E.
Stanton, W. II.	Wood, B.
Stewart, P. M.	Wood, C.
Stuart, Lord J.	Worsley, Lord
Strickland, Sir G.	Wyndham, Col. C.
Strutt, E.	Wyse, T.
Tollemache, J.	TELLERS.
Traill G.	Parker, J-
Trollope,SirJ.	Tufnell,H.

Resolution to be reported