Sitting of 18 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Candle Duties Repeal, read a second time. Prohibition and Mandamus, read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. Against the Grants to the Kildare-street Society, by Mr. D. BROWN, from a Parish in Mayo. In favour of these Grants, by General O'NEIL, four from different Parishes in Ireland:— By Sir A. CHICHESTER, from Balleloghan and Knockboy. By Sir R. BATESON, from the Chamber of Commerce of Londonderry, complaining of the Corporation of that City having misapplied a sum of Money, advanced by the Government, to Build a Bridge over the Foyle, and praying that the Act of Parliament relating to that subject might be Repealed. In favour of the Church Endowment Act, by Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from the Clergy of Rutland. Against any alteration of the Timber Duties, from Whitby, by Sir ROBERT BATESON: —By Sir M. W. RIDLEY, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Against the Tax on Steam Vessels, by the same hon. Member, from the same place:—By Mr. M. FITZGERALD, from the Directors of the Dublin and London Steam Marine Company. By the same hon. Member, from the Islands of Ennis Lee and Ennis Lackane, against lowering the Duties on Barilla. Against the Vestries Bill, by Lord EBRINGTON, from St. George's, Hanover-square. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Mr. PENDARVIS, from several places and Dissenting Congregations in Cornwall. In favour of the Labour in Cotton Factories Bill, by Lord STANLEY, from Chorley. By Mr. R. PRICE, from Ross, for the Abolition of Capital Punishment in Cases of Forgery. In favour of Reform, by Mr. HODGES, from Deptford, Woolwich, and Greenwich, and from High Haldon and Woodchurch: —By Mr. C. BULLER, from Mirfield: —By Colonel TYRELL, from Essex, Halesworth, Bury St. Edmund's, and Beceles: —By Sir M. W. RIDLEY, two from Neweastle-upon-Tyne:—By Mr. ROBARTS, from Maidstone: —By Lord FORDWICH, two from the non-resident Freemen of Canterbury: —By Mr. BLOUNT, from Derbyshire:—By Sir W. W. WYNN, from Wrexham: —By Mr. J. JOHNSTONE, from Dunfermline

529
and Inverkeithing:—By Mr. R. PRICE, from Ross:—By Lord ALTHORP, from Knaresborough, Christchurch, Ludlow, and Keighley:—By Mr. P. THOMSON, from Dover, and St. Leonard's, Shoreditch:—By Sir A. CHICHESTER, from Belfast: —By Mr. HODGES, from the Isle of Thanet. Against the Reform Bill, by Mr. H. HOPE, from East Looe: —By Mr. CAPEL, from Queenborough, so far as the Disfranchisement of that Borough was concerned.

DECCAN PRIZE-MONEY.
Colonel Sibthorp Colonel Sibthorp, after stating that there was some unaccountable delay in distributing the Deccan Prize-money, begged to ask the noble Lord, on behalf of several members of the United Service Club, whether there was any probability of that prize-money being distributed?
Lord Althorpsaid, that the parties most interested in the decision of the question had objected to its being referred by the late Government to Sir James Scarlett and Sir Charles Wetherell (then Attorney and Solicitor General), because those gentlemen had been employed in the argument before the Privy Council; therefore the present Ministers had referred the case to the present Attorney General, as he had not taken, hitherto, any part in the discussion.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.
Mr. Dominick Brownepresented Petitions from parishes in Mayo, praying for Parliamentary aid. He said, that the advances which had been made by the House for public works in Ireland had done much, not only to abate distress, but to improve the condition and habits of the people. Nevertheless, the distress at present prevailing in Mayo, and other parts of the West of Ireland, was excessive and increasing. Every day he received accounts from that part of the country, complaining of the misery suffered by the population, and calling upon the Government to advance sums of money, to be expended in public works for the relief of the people. The sums of money thus called for, were to be laid out, he admitted, without any hope of a direct return. There would, however, be an indirect return, so great as to render the propriety of advancing such a sum as might be required a matter deserving of the favourable consideration of Government. It had been proved, that the money expended under the direction of Mr. Nimmo, returned 100 per cent to Government, by the increased consumption of exciseable articles. He hoped, under those circumstances, and with such a prospect, there would be no objection
530
on the part of his Majesty's Government to advance a small sum of money to be expended in that wild district; and from the extreme suffering and distress endured by the population of that district, he was satisfied, that above all others it demanded attention from his Majesty's Government. The district to which he referred consisted of the baronies of En is and Borriso, in the county of Mayo; but the petitions which he had now to present came from a different district, and one to which his former observations did not apply. A great part of the district from which he was about to present a petition, was the property of the Marquis of Sligo, who was in Ireland, doing all he could to relieve the wants of the people; but the distress had grown to an extent which placed it beyond the power of any individual, however wealthy, to afford adequate relief. He had, also, a Petition from the landowners, merchants, and others of Ballina, in which there were a great number of landed proprietors, who were doing all they could to afford relief. The object of these petitioners was, to obtain an advance from Government, to the amount of 3,000 l., for opening the navigation of the river Moy, and they offered to Government unquestionable security. There was an extensive lake, called Conn, deep and navigable, but it had no communication with the sea, from which it was distant about three miles; and the petitioners stated, that the communication to the sea might be made at a small expense, and that it would be attended with great public benefit. He respectfully submitted, that these petitioners had a strong claim to the favourable attention of the House and the Government. Those who were acquainted with the distress in that part of the country, knew that one-third of the potato-crop had failed. It had failed wherever the lands were mountainous, or near the sea. If, under such circumstances, the Government would advance a sum to be expended in public works, the repayment would be amply secured. If something were not done, he was much afraid, that many would suffer from starvation in the course of the next twelve months. The hon. Member presented petitions, complaining of distress, from the inhabitants of Kilmore Moy — and of the united parishes of Kilbelfad and Ballinahaglish; and a Petition from landowners, merchants, and others, of Ballina, for resum-

531
ing the Government works in that neighbourhood.
Mr. J. Smithcould confirm the statements of the hon. Member, respecting the distress of the poor in Ireland. He feared that it was rapidly increasing, and he regretted that there could scarcely be expected from the people of England such extensive and generous assistance as they had given on a former occasion; for, from what causes he could not say, it was too evident, that the people of Great Britain were becoming very much alienated from their Irish fellow-subjects. He believed that grants of money could be so advanced by the Government as to effect great good, without any loss to the public, and he could say, from his own experience, that loans to the Irish peasantry were not only honestly applied to the purposes for which they were advanced, but in all cases punctually repaid.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that the distress was not confined to Mayo and the West of Ireland, but was equally prevalent in several of the northern counties. The distress was increasing to so great a degree, that it would be necessary for Government to take some measures to check it.
Mr. James Grattanagreed with the hon. Baronet in the opinion that the increase of the distress was alarming, and that it would be necessary for the Government to do something for its alleviation. He acknowledged with gratitude the liberality which the English people had manifested towards the Irish poor in 1822. But he thought that the present occasion called for exertions on the part of the Irish gentlemen themselves. That was the proper course, and he hoped that they would come forward speedily with subscriptions, following the example of the noble Marquis already alluded to, which he would most gladly imitate.
Sir Robert Batesondid not wish it to be understood that he had alluded to the necessity of grants from the Government to relieve the distress. There were other measures which he believed it would be necessary to resort to, in order to prevent a dreadful scarcity of food —such, for instance, as a temporary prohibition of the use of grain in the distilleries.
Mr. Leaderread extracts from several Reports, to show the beneficial effects which had resulted from parliamentary grants for the employment of the poor,
532
and for local improvements in Ireland. The sum of 100,000 l. expended in Connaught, produced an income equal to the whole amount, in seven years. So great was the stimulus given to industry by the expenditure of those sums, that the revenue was, in each instance, during the progress of the works to which the grants were applied, increased to nearly double the amount of the sum advanced by the Government. As an Irish gentleman, he felt bowed down with sorrow and disgrace when he heard the distresses of Ireland brought forward as subjects of discussion in that House. Irish gentlemen ought to consider the great effects which had been produced by parliamentary grants of comparatively small sums of money, which plainly showed, that if they employed at home one-half of the produce at present exported, to the amount of ten millions annually, in the shape of rent to absentee landlords, and for which no return whatever was made, scarcely one man would be unemployed in Ireland.
Mr. George R. Dawsoncould confirm the statements which had been made by the Gentleman who preceded him, respecting the distress in several parts of Ireland. But he could not admit that the means of relieving it ought to come from the Government. He could not consent to Gentlemen's bringing Ireland annually before that House as a mendicant. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Leader), that Ireland had abundant resources in herself for her own relief, if they were properly made use of. It seemed to him, that the most effectual means by which the Legislature could promote the improvement of that country would be, the passing of a bill to allow Grand Juries to raise money for public works and local improvements, upon the security of the county rates; or, perhaps, the institution of Poor-laws, and a bill empowering parishes to mortgage the rates for money to be employed in public works, would afford effectual means of convincing Irish gentlemen, that they must apply their own resources to relieve the distress of Ireland, and not burthen this country for that purpose.
Mr. O'Connellconsidered it his duty, as an Irish Member, to inform the House and the country, that the most frightful distress was spreading over Ireland, and that a famine was approaching. He did not know what was to be the remedy; he

533
would not undertake to suggest any: he had no doubt that the Government was anxious to devise one; but he begged it not to invest the Grand Juries of Ireland with any new power —he begged it not to countenance any scheme for enabling those Juries to tax the people under pretence of relieving them. The distresses of that people were the more grievous, as it was undeniable that the produce of their soil and of their industry was not only ample, but superabundant. It was lamentable that a country whose production was greater, in proportion to its population, than perhaps any country in the world, should be subject to periodical famine.
Lord Althorpwas sure the House would feel, that the Government must have much difficulty in treating a subject of the kind then under the consideration of the House. No doubt there was, as his hon. friend (Mr. D. Browne) had stated, much distress in the county of Mayo; but, unhappily, the distress was not confined to that part of the country, and the Government had much difficulty in attempting to deal with matters so limited and local, lest it might do more harm than good; if, upon inquiry, however, Ministers were enabled to learn anything that could justify or give room for beneficial interference on their part, they would be most happy to do all in their power, consistently with their sense of duty.
Mr. Hodgessaid, that a tax upon absentees, in the form of a well-regulated Poor-rate, would be the only remedy for this periodical famine which visited Ireland.
Mr. A. Lefroyadmitted, that the distress of the peasantry was very great in the part of Ireland mentioned, but he must defend the resident landlords from any imputation of neglect, for he was sure that they did all in their power to relieve the distress in their respective districts.
Sir M. W. Ridleyconcurred with those who thought, that a wise and well-regulated system of Poor-laws would go a great way towards preventing the recurrence of evils of that description. He was, indeed, satisfied, that nothing but a Poor-rate would, or could, compel the wealthy landlords of Ireland to contribute to the support of the peasantry.
Mr. Benettwas also of opinion, that the institution of Poor-laws would be highly beneficial, and that it was in vain
534
to expect that any voluntary system of relief would be sufficient.
Mr. Ruthventhought, that if the Poor-laws were established in Ireland, they should be so limited as to prevent their abuse. He did not wish to see the English Poor-laws introduced into Ireland, for with that system so many abuses were connected, that it would probably be more injurious than beneficial. However, in some towns, the wealthy contributed nothing to the relief of the poor, and some means ought to be devised to reach them. At all events, something ought to be done to arrest the progress of the present famine, and to prevent its recurrence for the future.
Lord Killeensaid, that the distress was not confined to Mayo, but extended all over Ireland. Even in the county which he represented, though near Dublin, and though extraordinarily fertile, the distress was very severe.
Mr. Sadlerhad no difficulty in asserting, that the wealth of the country ought, by compulsory means, to be made to sustain the poverty of the people. New cases of that kind would be continually recurring until provision was made for the poor. The want of a legal provision for the Irish poor was one cause of the sufferings of the English poor, and in justice to them, the Irish Ought to be provided for at home.
Mr. Humesaid, that the time from five to seven o'clock had been set apart for receiving Petitions upon Reform, and they had now spent a considerable portion of that time in discussing Poor-laws.
Petition to be printed.

DUTIES ON NEWSPAPERS.
Mr. Charles Bullerpresented a Petition from Coventry, praying for the removal of all taxes affecting the circulation of knowledge. There was no one, he observed, who took the trouble to make himself acquainted with the condition of the people, but must be fully aware, that the want of instruction was the source of many of their crimes, and of much of the distress that from time to time they suffered. The daily Press was almost the only means of instruction they possessed; the petitioners, therefore, declared their full conviction to be, that the Duties on Newspapers, Advertisements, and on Paper, should be immediately taken off. He feared that the present state of the Revenue would

535
not allow a total repeal of the duties. On a former day he gave notice, that on that night he should move that the duty on Newspapers be reduced to one halfpenny; but as he understood the proposetion to which he intended to move that as an amendment was not to be that night moved, he should, he feared, be precluded from then submitting his amendment to the House. He meant however, to take the opportunity of doing so when the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought the stamp-duties under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Huntsupported the prayer of the petition, and said, he had received many similar petitions from various parts of the country, but had been prevented from presenting them by the House being so much occupied with other matters. Whatever reduction might be proposed in these duties, or should it be proposed to abolish them, he would support the proposition.
Petitions to be laid on the Table.

WEST-INDIA TRADE WITH AMERICA.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonmoved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill. On the Order being read, the right hon. Gentleman explained, that the Resolutions of the Committee on which the Bill was founded, had been correctly stated in the Journals of the House, but that in the report from the Committee presented to the House, a mistake had been committed, making the report at variance with the Resolutions. After a brief conversation, in which the Speaker stated, that the difficulty arose from the fact that the House could know nothing of the Resolutions of the Committee, but through the report, it was agreed that the clerical error in the report should be corrected, and the House be supposed to have known only the correct report.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee.
Mr. George Robinsonstated, that he had an objection to make to the Bill, but he did not wish to oppose it at that stage, provided the discussion of his objection might be taken at a future period.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the Bill had already been discussed, and he wished that the Bill should then be proceeded with; the hon. Member might then state his objections.
Mr. G. Robinsondid not then mean to
536
discuss the propriety of the duties, but he objected to the word "temporary," and to the duties being imposed only for a certain period. He wished that word should be struck out, not meaning to say that the duties should be permanent, but leaving it quite at the discretion of the House to decide unfettered concerning them. He did not wish those duties to be permanent, but he did wish that the House should be unpledged. The right hon. Gentleman declared that they should be reduced in 1834— he wished the Parliament of 1834 to do what it liked. That would be a better means of keeping the Americans in check than by pledging the House at that time to a particular line of conduct in 1834. He wished to propose as an amendment, that the word "temporary" be left out, for he held it to be dangerous to say to the Americans, these duties shall be reduced at any particular period.
Sir John Newportthought the conduct of the hon. Member exceedingly strange. The hon. Member wished the duties not to be permanent, and yet he proposed to strike out the word which made them temporary. If the word temporary was left out they would be made permanent. He dissented altogether from the hon. Members views.
Mr. Humehardly understood the hon. member for Worcester, but as far as he did understand him, he could not agree with him. For his own part he wished that the duties on flour and timber should cease at an earlier period than that provided by the Bill.
Mr. Keith Douglasobjected to the Bill as a most inconsistent piece of legislation, and as striving, contrary to the principles professed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to build up a new interest in the Canadas. He should certainly support the amendment.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonstated, that the object of the Bill was, not to build up any new interest, but to give protection for a certain period to interests which had grown up in Canada in consequence of the Non-Intercourse Act, which interests, unless they were protected, now that the intercourse with the West Indies and the United States was to be renewed, would be endangered. Those interests, however, were only to be protected for a certain time; and the Bill went on a principle which he had often heard praised in that House, and, if he were not mistaken,

537
praised by his hon. friend, the member for Dumfries; and that principle was, of at once saying to any class of persons to whom protection had been granted which was found impolitic, that it should cease at a certain period. The Bill fixed a definite time at which the protection would be withdrawn, and that would enable the parties concerned to withdraw their capital. It was not building up, it was letting down an interest, and in a manner which had been frequently adopted, and generally recommended. He was surprised at the quarter whence the opposition to the Bill came.
Mr. Maurice Fitzgeraldagreed with the hon. member for Worcester, that it was not a constitutional practice to settle beforehand at what period duties should cease. He did not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, and was certain that nothing was more injurious than to have commercial duties and regulations uncertain and fluctuating. He wished to preserve our colonies, and was an advocate for the whole and entire protection which their interests had hitherto received. The noble Lord might sneer, but he could not defend the treatment the colonies now received. He repeated, that he was the advocate for entire protection, and he was prepared to defend that doctrine. He was not to be put down by sneers— he would treat them with contempt, as well as the coxcombry and conceit which prevailed in the measures he opposed. He was not ashamed nor afraid to meet the noble Lord on that ground. He would not say more than declare that he was opposed to the measure.
Mr. Spring Ricewas surprised at the warmth of his right hon. friend, and was sure he must recollect measures of very great importance to which he had agreed, that were founded on the very principle of those measures which he stigmatized as dictated by coxcombry and conceit. The principle of the measure was to give a temporary protection to interests which had been forced into undue importance by the pressure of circumstances, and to fix a definite period when that protection should cease. He meant to give the Bill, as it stood, his warmest support.
Mr. Goulburnthought it was infinitely better to avoid casting any shackles on a future Parliament, or binding it down to adopt any decided course, when circumstances might hereafter show it to be im-
538
politic and inexpedient. He, therefore, supported the proposition of the hon. member for Worcester.
Lord Althorpsaid, if the Parliament did not show that it intended to do away with these duties at a certain period, capital would still continue to be embarked in the Lumber-trade, and the object of the delay in reducing the duties would be wholly defeated.
Mr. Humesaid, that the House was now plainly legislating against the West-India interests, and compelling them to pay a higher price for their Lumber, in order to maintain the colony of the Canadas. He thought the whole measure so unjust and impolitic, that he should certainly move as an amendment, that the duty should be 15 s. now, and that it should wholly cease and determine on the 5th January, 1834.
Mr. Herriesthought it would be better to leave it to Parliament from time to time to deal with the question as it thought fit; and that the House should not be pledged to give any particular time for the removal of the protecting duty.
Mr. Warburtonconsidered, that the duty, as it would stand, would be a tax on the West-India interest for the sole advantage of the Canada trade, and he, therefore, was against making it permanent. He opposed the Amendment.
Sir E. H. Eastbegged to ask the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, why it was, that the duty on American produce had been raised, in the present instance to 24 s.?
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that calculations had been made, and that 24 s. would give a protection of about 9s. a ton, which was found to be the lowest duty that would give a protection to British shipping.
Mr. George Robinsonbegged it to be understood, in the event, of his being compelled to divide the Committee on his amendment, that his objection was not to the rate of protecting duty, but to the period of its continuance, which he thought should not then be peremptorily defined. If another opportunity should be afforded him for taking the sense of the House on this proposition, he would let it stand over for that evening; if not, he should feel himself obliged to then press it to a division.
On the question being put,
Sir A. Grantinformed the hon. Mover of the Amendment (Mr. Robinson), that

539
his object would be defeated by the omission of the word "temporary," because the effect of omitting it would be, as there was a second and lower duty, to make the first and higher duty a permanent duty.
Mr. George Robinson Mr. George Robinson, under such an explanation, could not press his motion to a division; but as he had allowed the original Resolution to pass pro formâ, under the expectation of taking the sense of the House in Committee on this question, he should certainly avail himself of some other mode to effect his object.
The first Amendment, to leave out the word "temporary" was then negatived.
Mr. Humethought, that although there was a formal objection to the Amendment of his hon. friend, there could not be any objection to his, and he therefore moved that the word "additional" should be omitted.
This Amendment, as well as a succeeding one, that the existing Duties should cease in 1834, were negatived without a division and the House resumed.
Mr. Robinsonwished to know the Speaker's opinion with respect to a point of order. The hon. Member stated the nature of the Amendment which he had made, and the decision of the Chairman of the Committee (Sir A. Grant) on the question. He wished to know from the Speaker, whether or not he was properly precluded from making such an Amendment?
The Speakerinformed the hon. Member, that his proposition went to increase the rate of duty mentioned in the Bill, and could not, therefore, be adopted in the Committee.
Mr. Robinsondid not see that his proposition would have had the effect stated by the Speaker. All he proposed to do was to omit the word "temporary" (duty), and leave it to Parliament to lower the duty at any time that might be thought proper.
The Speakerstated, that the hon. Member's Amendment, if adopted, would make the Bill a permanent measure; and that the duties, being fixed permanently, would on that account be higher than if they were only of a temporary nature.

CUSTOMS ACTS — SILK DUTIES.
Lord Althorphaving moved that the House resolve into a Committee on the Customs Acts.
Mr. B. Hoybegged to ask the Vice-
540
president of the Board of Trade (Mr. P. Thomson), whether it was intended, in any new regulation of the Silk-trade, to remove those restrictions by which the port of Dover possessed the exclusive privilege of being the only place on the coast through which silks could be imported? He thought that Southampton, from its position and maritime importance, was entitled to share that privilege, and its inhabitants complained much that they were deprived by the present regulation of many advantages they would otherwise enjoy through the passage of strangers and natives to France.
Mr. P. Thomsonbelieved there was no intention to alter the existing regulations. No representations on the subject had been made to the Board of Trade.
Mr. B. Hoyreplied, that a representation on the subject had been sent in to the President of the Board under the former Government.
Mr. Thomsonsaid, he was satisfied that the noble Lord at the head of the Board would pay attention to the representation.

TIMBER DUTIES.
Lord Althorpthen rose to state to the House the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Duties on Timber. He had at first intended not to bring this matter before the House until that day week; but it having been stated, that mischievous and inconvenient consequences might ensue if any further delay took place before the intention of Government with respect to the timber duties was made known, he had felt it his duty to change his intention, and explain the matter that night to the House, though he did not himself think that any inconvenience would have resulted from postponing the discussion to next Friday. When he first proposed the measure respecting an alteration of the timber duties to the House, his object was, to get a large increase to the revenue, without, at the same time, pressing on the commerce of this country. It was also his opinion, that the proposition Government made would have the effect of leading to the adoption of a better commercial system with respect to the trade of timber. In endeavouring to effect this object, he was aware that he was likely to meet with most powerful opposition. He knew the influence of Gentlemen connected with the shipping interest; which was much increased by the union with which they acted. Still,

541
feeling confident that the proposition of Government would prove beneficial to the country, he was prepared to meet the opposition of those Gentlemen. He knew that it was made a charge against the proposed measure, that it would take money out of some people's pockets. Now he was ready to admit, that whatever capital was destroyed by the change, so far an injury would be done; but if capital was not destroyed, but merely diverted into another channel, the whole operation might be performed, and no person a loser. Supposing that by the operation of a law, coals from Newcastle were obliged to be sent round Scotland before coming into the port of London, the price of the article would be greatly increased to the consumer. But if the Parliament repealed that law, and permitted coals to come straight to London, placing at the same time a duty on the article of the same amount as the expense saved in the carriage, the Exchequer would be benefitted, and not a human being hurt. It was, indeed, plain, that when any article was brought from a greater distance than was necessary, in consequence of a law, that an alteration might be made which would have the effect of increasing the revenue of the public, without injuring any individual, provided the capital employed in the trade could be as profitably employed in another direction. He was desirous that the Committee should fully understand the defect of the present law with respect to the importation of timber. The present law either compelled the consumer in this country to use a worse article than he liked; or, if he used a better article, the law raised the price of it artificially against him. That was the case which was avowed by the advocates of the existing law. It was avowed that for the sake of one class of the community we ought to raise against the consumer the price of the best article, or compel him to use an inferior one. That North American timber was inferior to the Baltic, it needed no argument to convince the House. It was unfit for many purposes; and it was stated, in evidence before the Committee, in 1821, by Sir Robert Seppings, that ships built of North American timber lasted only four years, while ships built of Baltic timber lasted eight years. In consequence of that evidence, North American timber was excluded from the dock-yards of this country, and he believed that in all building contracts there
542
was a specification that Baltic timber should be used. This was a sufficient proof, he thought, of the inferiority of North American timber. He knew it was said, and truly, that the red pine of North America approached nearly to, if not equalled, the quality of the Baltic timber. But then, what was the effect of the existing regulations upon the consumer of wood in this country? Supposing the red pine of North America to be equal to the Baltic timber, yet the price of the red pine before importation was 35 s. per load; while the price of equally good Baltic timber was only 23 s. The existing regulations, therefore, in forcing a man to purchase the red pine of North America, compelled him to pay fifty per cent more for it on the first price than he need have, paid for the Baltic timber. The red pine, of which he had been speaking, was the produce of Upper Canada, but a great deal of that timber was brought from the United States. When Gentlemen, therefore, talked of the existing regulations being a protection to the colonies, he begged leave to say, that though they were partly so, yet at the same time they afforded great protection to the produce and great encouragement to the clearing of the United States. Then, on the other hand, the commercial advantages of the proposed change seemed to be left entirely out of sight. What was the state of the question with respect to that point? There was Norway, in the north of Europe with a bad climate and sterile soil, which could produce nothing to give this country in return for its manufactures excepting timber. Canada, on the contrary, was a fertile country, its climate was propitious, and it produced corn and legumes in abundance. Why, then, should we take a bad timber from a country which could give us in exchange for our commodities other articles of a better description, instead of drawing our supply of timber from a country which could give us nothing else in exchange? But it might be said, that Norway, while it supplied this country with timber, would not take our manufactures in return. It certainly appeared, that whatever of our manufactures was consumed in Norway did not come directly from England; but the reason of that was, the laws which precluded the English consumer from making use of Norwegian timber. If we took the Norwegians' timber, they would be glad to have our

543
manufactures. In fact, they used them now, but they obtained them circuitously through the North of Germany, and there could be no doubt that Norway, as well as all the countries of the North of Europe, would gladly receive them direct in exchange for their own produce. It was then plain, that we excluded from this country the only article which Norway could supply us with, in order to take a worse article from a country which was able to supply us with much better commodities. When, therefore, he found himself called upon to provide for a large amount of revenue, he did think that the proposition which Government had made, to alter the duties on timber, would, for the reasons he had stated, prove most beneficial to the country. That proposition had met with great opposition, and he admitted that the opposition it had experienced made him feel a difficulty in carrying it. He had also no hesitation in saying, that with respect to the shipping interest, every possible anxiety would be shown on the part of Government to avoid injuring it if possible; but he was not prepared to say, that he would sacrifice every other class of the community in order to support that one. He did not think that the House ought to sacrifice commercial advantages merely for the sake of supporting the shipping interest; yet he should wish that the alteration of the duty should be as little injurious as possible to the shipping interest, and in carrying it into effect, he had studied in what manner he might best accomplish it with regard to that interest. The question then arose in his mind, could any alteration in the duty on timber be made, in such a manner as to effect the object he had in view —namely, the restoration of the trade to a healthy and natural state, without injury to any one? In order to put the House in a condition to judge of the propriety of the change in the duties on timber which Government now intended to propose, it would be necessary for him to enter into a statement of the state and prospects of the revenue of the country. The House would then be able to judge of the policy of the proposition which he should submit at the conclusion of his speech. The House would recollect, that in the financial statement which he made a few weeks ago, he had calculated what would be the produce of the revenue for this year, from its amount in last year, and had stated his expectation,
544
that the new taxes which he intended to lay on would bring more to the revenue than would be lost by the repeal of some others. But since that period he had the experience of the effect which the reductions of taxation made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, during last year, had had on the revenue. Looking at the amount of the revenue derived from the Customs for the first two months of the present year, he found that it exceeded the amount received during the corresponding months of last year by the sum of 176,000 l. If the revenue proceeded increasing at that rate, he calculated that at the end of the year there would be an excess, upon the Customs alone, of 1,056,000 l. beyond the amount of last year. He did not mean, however, to calculate upon the whole of that sum; but he would take two-thirds of it, or 704,000 l. as the excess which would exist at the end of the present year over the receipts of last. Adding that sum to the amount of Customs of last year, he found it would give a total of 18,250,000 l. From that sum he deducted the amount of the duty on coals and slates for ten months, 700,000 l., and the total amount would then be about 17,550,000 l. From the taxes he proposed to place on steam-boats, he expected 75,000 l.; on cotton wool, 250,000 l.; on coals exported, 100,000 l.; and on wine, 150,000 l. These taxes made up a sum of 575,000 l., which added to 17,550,000 l. made a total exceeding 18,125,000 l. He had founded his calculation upon the receipts of the Customs for the two first months of the year, a test which had been often taken, which, he believed, was taken by Lord Goderich, and had always been found to answer. Looking at the revenue derived from the Excise during the same term, he found it had fallen off as might have been expected from the remission of taxes, but not in proportion to the amount of taxes reduced. The diminution of this branch of the revenue in the first two months of the year was 239,704 l., which would give in the whole year 1,438,224 l.; but in order to be quite safe he would take it at 1,500,000 l. He deducted this from 18,644,384 l., the amount of the Excise last year, and this gave 17,144,384 l. In addition, there had been taken off this year the taxes on

Printed Calicoes

£540,000

Candles

200,000

Drawback on exported Calicoes, estimated at

600,000

Making

£1,340,000

545
The Post-Office, Stamps, Taxes, and Miscellaneous items he would take as last year, and the whole revenue would therefore be,

Customs

£18,125,000

Excise

15,804,348

Stamps

6,950,000

Taxes

5,000,000

Post Office

1,450,000

Miscellaneous

350,000

Total

£47,679,348

The expenditure of the year he estimated at 47,000,000 l., leaving a surplus of 680,000 l. He was not apprehensive that any falling off was to be anticipated in the amount of the revenue for the present year. Indeed, from the success —he had almost said the splendid success. —both of our trade and manufactures at this time, he saw no reason to calculate even on the chance of any deficiency in the Revenue. He was anxious, however, to keep himself on the safe side, and therefore, in the estimate he had made, as there was a decrease in the receipt of the Excise to be deducted from the increase of the Customs, he had taken the increase as equal to only two-thirds of its probable amount; but he took the whole probable decrease of the Excise, and the result was a surplus of about 680,000 l. on the whole amount for the year. In addition to this sum of 680,000 l., at which he calculated the surplus of this year, in the next year several items would appear to the public credit. There would then be no drawback on printed calicoes, amounting this year to 600,000 l.; linen bounties would cease, amounting to 150,000 l.; the duty on cotton wool imported to be received next year would be 50,000 l.: all which, added to the 680,000 l. of this year, would make a gross surplus for the next year of 1,480,000 l. But when it was recollected that there was a deduction to be made from the income of the present year, in consequence of the duties repealed on candles, 200,000 l., on coals, 130,000 l., it would be more prudent to take the nett surplus for the year at 1,150,000 l. If that view of our finances was correct, there remained no imperative reason why the Government should lay any heavy taxation on the importation of timber for the purpose of benefiting the revenue. But commercial policy did call on the Government to take steps, not violently, but gradually, to relieve the consumer of timber in this country from the heavy duties he now paid. While he looked on
546
this question as one of revenue, he was bound to take that course which he thought would produce the greatest benefit, and therefore he considered it necessary to increase the duty on Canada timber. But now, when the prospect of the revenue was more flattering, he did not propose to increase the duty on Canada timber; but he intended to reduce that on Baltic timber, and he would state the grounds which made him believe that the plan he had adopted would prove advantageous to the country. He was aware of the importance of the shipping interest, yet he did not consider that it should be alone regarded. The prosperity of that interest depended on the state of the commerce of the country, and unless that commerce were flourishing, the shipping interest could not thrive. Some hon. Gentlemen were accustomed to argue the question as if the shipping interest were opposed to the other interests of the country; but he considered that any regulation which interfered with the commerce and industry of the nation, would be injurious to the shipping interest. The duty on timber in log, coming from the Baltic, almost amounted to prohibition; and while from Canada one-third only of the quantity imported came in the shape of deal, two-thirds came from the Baltic. The alteration which he proposed to make in the duty on timber, in log and in deal, would, he thought, be advantageous to the commerce of the country, and open the trade with the Baltic more than at present. The only points of objection that could, he conceived, be raised against his proposition was, the effect it would have on the colonies. He was ready to admit, that whatever capital was laid out on saw-mills in Canada, would suffer. But the amount of capital so laid out was very small in proportion to the capital which was otherwise engaged in the timber trade; and even that capital might be applied, to a certain extent, to other purposes. The largest amount of capital was employed in the lumber-trade in Canada. That was an entirely floating capital, and capable of being diverted to other channels, with as great ease as any other floating capital. Then it was said, that the emigrants would suffer. But the emigrants were not employed in any one part of the operation of the timber trade, because they did not understand the use of the axe. They were certainly employed to a

547
certain extent in moving the timber down to the coast; but the only reason why emigrants accustomed to agricultural pursuits were so employed, arose from the legislation of this country, which had the effect of driving capital into the lumber-trade. By taking gradually away the inducement to capitalists to place their capital in the lumber-trade of Canada, he hoped to induce them to turn their speculations to the cultivation of the soil, and give employment to the emigrants in agricultural occupations. He did not believe that the effect of such a change could be anything but advantageous to Canada; and it was clear, from evidence produced at different times before that House, that persons engaged in the lumber-trade were not desirous of continuing in it. He admitted that the case was somewhat different with respect to the southern parts of Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. The soil there was not so propitious, and the timber-trade was, consequently, of greater importance: but he could never admit that that trade would be destroyed by the proposed measures of Government. The timber of that part of these colonies was used for the manufacture of certain articles, and it would always continue to be used for that purpose. Though an improper material to be used in buildings of a permanent nature, yet it had the advantage of being more easily worked than other timber, and therefore it would continue in some cases to be used. Indeed, the yellow pine of those provinces was more valuable than the yellow pine of Canada, and would be the last American timber displaced from the market by the Baltic timber. The noble Lord proceeded to state his plans respecting the duties on timber, but his remarks were nearly inaudible in the gallery. He was understood to propose that the duty now payable on Baltic timber should be lowered from its present amount, 55 s. per load, to 40 s.; which duty of 40 s. so far from being the means, as it was weakly asserted by some, of the ruin and annihilation of the timber-trade in Canada, would operate as a permanent protecting duty to the productions and industry of that colony. The timber, too, had properties of itself which rendered it highly valuable. It was a soft wood, with very few knots, and was found very easy to work. It was impassible, then, to imagine that, with all these natural advantages, and the continuance
548
of a protecting duty to the amount he had before stated, the change in the existing scale of duties on Baltic timber could possibly injure either the trade in the red pine of these colonies, or in the yellow pine of the southern part of them, nor, least of all, could it prove injurious to the trade of New Brunswick, the pine of which was the best of any. The amount of duty which Baltic timber paid above Canada timber might be taken as at 45 s. per load; namely, 55 s. on the Baltic timber, and 10 s. on the Canada timber. The Baltic deals were subject to a duty, according to their length, from twelve to twenty-one feet, of from 19 l. to 22 l., making an average duty altogether, on all Baltic timber, as nearly as possible 55 s. throughout. The consequence of the duty on both sorts of deals being formerly the same was, that the Baltic merchant only sent us the fourteen feet deals instead of those of twenty-one feet. Having premised thus much with respect to the duties formerly, and as they stood at present, he should proceed to detail his plan. He first would apprize the House that, aware of the effect which might be occasioned by any sudden alteration in these duties on Baltic timber upon our colonial trade, he intended to avoid any such consequence by making the alteration gradual, in such a way as that the Bill should not come into operation as to the reduction of duties until the 1st of January, 1832, so as to afford ample time, during the whole of this year, to the Canadians to carry on this trade without competition, or to re-invest their capital in other occupations. On the 1st, then, of next January, he should propose to reduce the duty on Baltic timber 6s.; on the 1st of January, 1833, a second reduction in the amount of duty, to the extent of 6s., should also take place; and, in the beginning of the year 1834, the remaining 3s. would, by the first of his resolutions, expire; after which, no further redaction of duty was contemplated, leaving, therefore, the Canada timber-trade with a protecting duty of 30 s. There was an advantage arising from thus arriving, by degrees, in a period of three years, at his object of reducing the duties on Canada timber, which was, that it would enable him to bring about, at the same time, the establishment of the same rate of duty both in Ireland and in England. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, concluded by moving his first

549
resolution, as follows:— "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that in lieu of the duties of Customs heretofore payable, as mentioned in the table annexed, there shall be taken and received the duties following:— On all timber being eight inches square, imported from any Port in the Baltic, on or after the 1st of January, 1832, there shall be payable, per load, a duty of 2l. 9s.; after the 1st of January, 1833, a duty of 2l. 3s.; and, after the first of January, 1834, a duty of 2l."
Mr. Attwoodcondemned the plan of the noble Lord, as differing from what had been anticipated. It had proved, in effect, to be an attempt to destroy a protection formerly given to timber, the growth of British colonies. The reverse of a sound principle was adopted, for here the duty on the foreign timber was reduced, whilst that on the British colonial timber was suffered to continue. He must confess he had felt obliged by the seeming candour of the noble Lord, in attending to the wishes of the parties most interested in the ultimate decision of the House on this question. That candour, he regretted to say, was anything but real, for it was a fact that, up to this hour, the trade was in doubt as to what was the measure to be proposed by Government. He differed altogether from the noble Lord as to the imagined facility with which capital embarked in one trade could be changed and diverted into another. But it was too prevalent an error with that class of men denominated political economists. He congratulated the House that they, as practical men, were aware of other interests and of other parties than those which solely constituted the solicitude of the noble Lord in his scheme of finance. The interests and amount of the revenue, with the interests of the consumers of timber, had, for the first time been avowed as adequate and abundant grounds on which to legislate. He knew well, that the Committee would throw out all consideration of revenue, and all question as to the price of timber, in discussing this subject, and decide on the broad ground of just colonial policy. He would remind the House that, ever since the year 1809, this trade had been settled under particular stipulations, and secured to Canada as sacredly as any trade could by treaty have been ceded to a foreign nation. Previously to 1810, in fact, no trade whatever existed in timber exported from
550
Canada to this country, but the expediency of establishing such a trade had been rendered palpable, if not imperiously necessary, by the political changes in Europe. We had begun to feel most sensibly the effects of the prohibitive system of the French government, whose power extended over the countries on the Baltic, and crippled our supply of timber. The reasons, then, on which this trade was founded, were neither considerations of revenue nor the cheapness of the price at which timber might be procured. The duties were, in effect, duties of prohibition, nor was the distance of the colonies from the northern countries left out of the consideration. The price of the transport of timber from the Baltic being 1l., whilst that from Canada was 2l. It was, then, no mercantile speculation, on which this system of protection on the one side, and prohibition on the other was established. The report of the Committee of the House of Lords on the subject in 1820, distinctly recognised the principle in these remarkable words, "As our intercourse with the Northern States must be liable to be influenced by the fluctuations of political events; and as the exclusion from their ports, which has been once experienced, may at some future period recur, your Committee are apprehensive that the consequences of any measure that might have the effect of placing our dependence for a supply of timber exclusively on those countries, might become, eventually, the occasion of serious political inconvenience and danger." Here the political principle was embodied on which the Canada timber-trade was encouraged; and it appeared that it was in a time of peril and danger that we had endeavoured to liberate ourselves from the possibility of ever finding that important arm of our national strength — namely, our navy, threatened with extinction for want of the raw material of naval warfare. It was under a threat of invasion by the enemy, and upon the faith of an Act of Parliament, that our merchants were induced to invest an enormous amount of capital in the deep recesses of the woods and forests of Canada, in the erection of saw-mills and wharfs. But the danger, it was said, had now passed away. He admitted that, at present, Government had reason to be perfectly satisfied with the friendly relations in which it stood

551
towards all the Powers of Europe, there being no political danger to be apprehended from without—no terror of invasion. But though he admitted all that, were they, he would ask, therefore prepared to sacrifice those men, who by their capital and enterprise had saved the nation from a great danger, and now secured it against the possible recurrence of such a crisis? Were they to sacrifice the property of such men which had been embarked on the faith of an Act of Parliament. There could be no wisdom in any policy which was not founded on justice and fair dealing. No measure could be beneficial or safe which had not justice for its basis. Cheap timber would be dearly purchased by a sacrifice of the national faith, and the Exchequer would be filled at a great cost if it were done by confiscation. Whatever measures were proposed for the regulation of the policy of the country, it was necessary to preserve the national honour, instead of adopting changes which nearly bordered upon revolution. He was convinced that the discontent which prevailed would be increased by the measure which was or posed; that it would augment the violence of the violent, and urge the dissatisfied:o still further demands. Was this a time to excite more discontent by a series of acts of legislative injustice, sacrificing one class after another—pressing down the rights of the higher classes, and valuing little the property which was embarked in commercial enterprises? The discontent which existed, not to call it disaffection, had originated in a long series of misgovernment and fallacious legislation, which sacrificed vast properties embarked in important interests to the vague notions of a crude philosophy. One after the other—the farmer, the trader, the manufacturer, the merchant, had been ruined, and the latest victim had been the unfortunate kelp-burner. The revolution of property would bring about revolution of Government, and would render it absolutely necessary that some change of system should be adopted. It was a great delusion which was at the bottom of the proposed change, to imagine that capital invested in one way, which might be considered by certain political economists wrong, might simply or lightly be transferred to another trade. This fallacy ran through Adam Smith's works, and was adopted by all his disciples. He (Mr. Attwood) maintained, that capital
552
embarked in one branch of commerce could not without danger be transferred to another, any more than a labourer, habituated to one species of industry, could, with equal advantage, apply his exertions in another way. It was impossible for any set of men to make industry accommodate itself to their crude notions and abstruse speculations. It was upon the general policy and propriety of adopting these measures, and not merely upon what the Exchequer would gain, that the House was to decide. If the principle of this measure were adopted, it would dissolve the links that bound our colonial possessions to the mother-country, and destroy the protection hitherto wisely extended to our domestic interests. Whatever was off of protection might be invaded upon the same arguments and Reasoning. He was far from admitting that a system of protection ought never to have been established; but that was not now the question; capital had been invested under it, and labour had been supported by it, and the point was, whether it was politic to put an end to that system? Supposing that decided in the affirmative, there would still remain the question, whether the present was the period when the great change ought to be adopted? In order to effect it, under the most favourable circumstances, some period of prosperity at home and tranquillity abroad ought to be sought. The question came then — Was this a period at which this country could be deprived of her protective policy? Even if it were desirable to abandon the system of protection, still it was necessary to look for a period of general prosperity and tranquillity — prosperity at home, and tranquillity abroad—before we made that great experiment which, as one of its unavoidable consequences, must obstruct, for a time at least the progress of national prosperity. Was there any branch of commerce upon the stability of which we could rely at home, and what market was there abroad, upon which we could reckon for three months certain? Political economists supposed that labour could be better employed than it was, and accordingly they closed one channel and opened another, without reflecting that, before they had closed the old channel for a month, political events might occur which would render the new one unavailable. He should not be astonished that those who called themselves liberal politicians,

553
and were carried away by abstract and fanciful theories, were to put experiments of this kind into practice, without regard to the state of the country, and of the world around them; but he candidly confessed, he was astonished that men filling the high situation of Ministers of the Crown—responsible for the acts of the Government—should at this period, when danger threatened on every side—when, turn in whatever direction we might, the aspect of the future was unfavourable and menacing, and when, consequently, they ought to address themselves to the necessary precautions against the coming evils—that they should, instead of providing safeguards against these dangers, or occupying themselves with the calamities of the country, when they saw half Europe in arms, bring forward a crude and precipitate plan, which must be accompanied by grievous calamities, and must, augment the national embarrassment. It was to bring the subject properly before the House and the country, that he, advocating the cause of the property of the trader, and stated his determination to take the opinion of the Committee before he suffered this proposition to be adopted. The noble Lord, in his present plan, altered nothing of the principle of his former propositions; the only alteration made was in degree. The plan was open to all the objections which had been formerly urged. It was defended upon grounds very different from those upon which he should wish to see a question of this nature argued; and he trusted that the House would not. concur with his Majesty's Ministers in the proposition which they had now brought forward.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the hon. Gentleman had stated, that his Majesty's Government argued this question upon principles very different from those upon which he wished to see it argued, and upon which he should wish to argue it himself. He was glad of this, and he should be very sorry if any Government in that House were to place a question of great national importance, like the present, upon the exclusive grounds of the two interests to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded. He had argued it with reference to the interests of the colonies and of the shipowners, and he seemed to wish, what he (Mr. Thomson) trusted would not occur, that the interests of the consumers should be wholly lost sight of. He trusted, that
554
never would such grounds be urged by any Government—and although on this question the interests of the colonies and of the ship-owners had been considered by his Majesty's Government, they were considered as they ought, in common with the interests of the country. He said, they had been wisely so considered, because it would be vain to think that one interest could be bolstered up effectually or permanently at the expense of another, and they must be short-sighted legislators who would advocate any other interests than those of the country generally. The objections urged by the hon. Gentleman were —first, that the Legislature had no right to interfere with duties without looking to the rights of the parties concerned, and he had read a report from a Committee, which, as he contended, would bear him out in the statement, that some pledge had been given, or understanding entered into, that these duties were to be permanent and fixed. The House had heard to-night, and heard properly, that when a duty was fixed by that House, it was in the power of Parliament to alter it at a subsequent period; and if it were found inconsistent with the safety or the advantage of the country, it became not only the right, but the duty of that House to alter it, and no plea of injustice could be set up against t exchange. He would beg to read to the hon. Gentleman another part of the Report to which he referred—a Report of the Committee of the Lords, when, in 1820, an attempt was made lose up this very plea, and that attempt so strongly made, that the Lords' Committee thought it necessary to give a distinct denial to that supposition, after hearing all the evidence. The report slated, that the principle of altering duties, when the necessities of the State should require it, had always been explained to the Can told merchants, in all their communications with the Board of Trade. But the Resolution of that House was not in conformity with the Report of the Committee, which recommended a scale different from that adopted by the House. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of a breach of faith, he must allow him to refer him to an authority for the measure now about to be adopted, and he believed the hon. Gentleman would not call the individuals to whom he now alluded visionary or crude philosophers. He referred to the authority of a Minister of the Crown, in another place, who expressed his deep regret at the scale having

555
been altered from that proposed by the Committee; and of another Minister, who declared that the whole scale of duties was open to revision, and that such revision would probably take place in a few years. Lord Bathurst reminded their Lordships, that it was necessary to give protection to the colonial interests; that the Resolution went further than the Report; but the difference was rather in quantum than in principle, and that it would be open to revision. He (Mr. Thomson; had never heard another place, which he need not more distinctly particularize, talked of as the nestling place of rash visionaries and crude philosophers. What was the express report of the Committee of that House ten years ago? In 1820 the Lords' Committee reported, that it would be expedient to compensate the Canada merchants by such limited duty as should be found necessary for the purpose. The measure now before the House, which would have its full operation in three years hence, would give a protection, in 1834, of one-half more than that which the Lords proposed in 1820. The details of this subject were necessarily tedious, and he was unwilling to press them more than he could avoid upon the House; but when exaggerated statements were made, and exaggerated conclusions drawn from facts and figures, it was only by a recurrence to facts and figures that these exaggerations could be met. There fore, if his details were tedious, the subject must be his apology, and the House would grant him its indulgence. He should now beg to call the attention of the Committee to one material point in the present plan—namely, the alteration of the duty on deals. His noble friend had not put forward, perhaps, as strongly as he might have done, the disadvantage to the industry of the country, when labour was needed—of the unequal rates of duty upon timber and deals. It was obvious that while deals could be brought in at 45 l. per load duty, they would be used in preference to timber, and many were the petitions which he had had occasion to read, and which had been placed on the Table of that House, praying that this unreasonable law might be altered, and a due protection given to the industry of the country. He now came to the most extraordinary statement of all the statements made by the hon. Gentleman opposite. He said, that the proposition now before the House would have the effect of raising
556
up the industry of Russia at the expense of our own colonies. Surely the hon. Gentleman could not fully understand the measure; and he (Mr. Thomson) was surprised that he had not applied himself to some of those sources from which he could have derived correct information. The effect of the measure, instead of assisting the trade of Russia, would be to place Russian timber, which now had a great advantage, as it paid but 19 l. where it ought to pay 29 l., upon an equal footing with the timber of Sweden and Norway, and not the least pressing expostulations which had been forwarded to the Board of Trade, on the subject of this measure, were from persons interested in the Russia trade, who considered that their interests were injured by it. The effect of the measure was to draw nearer to a gradual approximation of the duties between American and Baltic timber. He was glad that the operation of the measure was to be gradual, but he would ask the Committee to consider fairly the nature of this trade, and what price the country paid for the unequal protection afforded to the colonies —that protection his Majesty's Government professed not to remove, but only to diminish to a certain extent,—Those who said, that in introducing this measure they were destroying their colonies, could not know what they said, or it would be impossible for them to make the statements they did. In judging of these statements, the House ought to be guided by the truth or fallacy of the statements which had been made on former occasions. When this subject was under consideration before, exactly the same statements were made as those at present; it was then said, "Alter the duties as they now exist, and you destroy the Canada trade." But instead of these expectations being realized, or such predictions verified, exactly the reverse occurred, and, therefore, he said, the House had good grounds for hesitating, at least, ere it gave credence to the assertions of the same party, founded on the same facts. In 1820, when it was said, that the Canada trade would be destroyed by any interference with the duties, what was the state of that trade? It was known that in 1819 and 1820, the trade received an unnatural impulse, and that its state, at that time, did not furnish a criterion of its general condition. But he would take that period for the purpose of his present calculation. In 1817, the timber imported from Canada,

557
was 188,000 loads. In 1820 it amounted to 270,000 loads; and in 1829, the quantity of timber and deals imported from Canada, was 518,000 loads, so that, instead of the Canada trade having been destroyed by an arrangement which raised the duty on the one species of timber by 10 s. and lowered the other by the same amount, it had increased in this large ratio. The House ought to receive with very great caution the statements which were made upon this subject by the opponents of the measure. Nothing was more obvious than that the calculations they had made were quite erroneous. He would take as an instance the statement which had been made by an hon. Member opposite on a former evening—that in this trade there were engaged 1,600 ships, amounting to 430,000 tons, and giving employment to 20,000 seamen; for when that hon. Member talked of this measure being calculated to throw out of employment 800 ships and 10,000 seamen, which he took as half of the whole trade, the fair inference from his statement was, that the total number of ships employed was 1,600, and of men 20,000. Now, what was the fact —a fact which he called upon any man to deny if he could? That this number of ships was the total amount of all ships which had been entered inwards from our North American possessions in the course of the year; and it was well known that these ships made repeated voyages, averaging one voyage and three quarters to each ship annually. By taking that fact into account, the number of ships employed in the entire trade with our North American colonies would be reduced to 900; their tonnage to 246,000 tons; and the number of men to 11,000. From that amount we had to deduct the amount of shipping and men not employed in this particular trade—the timber trade. That amount was 100 ships, 27,000 tons, and 1,500 men. After making that deduction, we had 800 ships, with 219,000 tons of tonnage, and upwards of 8,000 men, employed in the timber trade with the Canadas. That simple fact would show the House how careful it ought to be in giving credence to the exaggerated statements which had been put forward on this subject. He was anxious to bring the question of this trade before the Committee in the way of pounds, shillings, and pence; for that, after all, was the proper way to look at the subject, and he wished, therefore, to
558
state to the Committee the amount of real loss which the country suffered in consequence of the difference in the duties. Now in doing this he would take the statement which had been put forward by the ship-owners themselves, and he believed be should be able, from that statement alone, to lay before the Committee an estimate of the loss which we had suffered in this way, which would make the House reflect and wonder how such a preposterous system should ever have been introduced. When he, and those who acted with him, were accused of going too much upon theory, and of carrying principles too far, he thought it would be proper that the country should know how much at present it had to pay for this protection. Two years ago, his hon. friend the member for Bridport, moved for an account of the amount of duty which had been received upon North American timber, and also for an account of what the amount of that duty would have been if it had been received upon Baltic timber. Now the result of the difference between those two amounts would be, upon the showing of the shipowners and the petitioners themselves, the actual amount of the loss which the country sustained from upholding this protection. The languages of the shipowner was, that, if you should withdraw that protection at all, the whole of this trade would go from them to the Baltic. Now this trade with the Canadas, since its first commencement in the year 1810, had cost the country a sum of not less than 20,000,000 l. He held in his hand the accounts which had been laid before Parliament, in pursuance of the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, and referring to those accounts, he found that in the year 1825, the difference between the amount of duty levied on Canada timber that year, and what the amount of that duty would have been if it had been levied on Baltic timber, was 1,226,000 l. The difference in l826 was, 1,409,000 l., and so on in the succeeding years. Last year the difference was 1,348,0002., making altogether the loss to the country, during the last seven years, of 7,424,000 l. He assumed that to be the loss, taking for granted the statement of the shipowners, that if this alteration should be made in the duty, the whole trade would go to the Baltic. He founded his calculation on the statement of the petitioners, but he would strengthen that calculation by one

559
which had been made in a different manner, which did not go quite so far, and which appeared to him a better one. He would take the timber imported from the North American colonies as costing 20s. per load more for the freight than an equal quantity from Europe, and he would take the difference as to the quality of the timber by the market price, which estimated it at 1l. 10 s. less than that of the European timber. With regard to the deals from America, he would take it that their cost of freight was 6l. per load more, and that the difference in quality between them and the European deals, calculating it by the market price, amounted to 6l. more. It appeared then, that in the year 1829, the calculation stood thus,—in that year we imported from the North American colonies 393,000 loads of timber, which cost 20s. more in freight than the same quantity would have cost from Europe, making 393,000 l., and the difference in quality being estimated at 1l.. l0 s.., made an additional sum of 590,000 l. The difference of freight upon 18,250 hundred of deals imported in that year, estimated at 6l., made 109,000 l., and the difference in quality, estimated also at 6l., made a further sum of 109,000 l. It thus appeared from this statement, which checked the former calculation, that the total loss in that year amounted to 1,202,000 l. a sum which the country had to pay for following this circuitous mode of obtaining its timber instead of going directly for it to the Baltic. He defied them to show that this loss was made up to the country in any other way, by the employment of capital in this trade which could not be profitably employed in some other manner. What was the capital employed in this trade? The ship-owners estimated the tonnage at 430,000 tons. He would strike off the 30,000 tons, and leaving it at 400,000 tons, the rate of freight was 40 s., which in 400,000tons made 800,000 l. Now, if the country actually took up those ships, and paid their owners that freight, and kept them sailing about the Atlantic, and doing nothing, it would be seen that the country would be a gainer by such an arrangement. It was said, that this measure would totally destroy this trade; but without denying that this measure would eventually diminish the trade to a considerable extent, he denied that it would produce more than a trifling destruction in the employment of the ship-
560
ping. But, even if it were calculated to throw the half of the ships out of employment, he would contend, that it would be; more economical to keep those ships sailing about, doing nothing, and to buy up the whole of the timber which was cut down for exportation in Canada, and bring it to the coast and burn it there, than to be paying for it at the rate which the country paid at present. By such an arrangement as that even the country would be a loser by 20,000 l. less than it lost at present. The Government did not propose any violent or sudden measure—it proposed merely a gradual diminution of the protection. The Ministers said, they were willing that the country should continue to pay a portion of that protection, but that the existing amount of it was too great, and that it must be diminished. This measure was not to come into operation immediately, it would not take effect until the 1st of January next year, and then the diminution in the duty on Baltic timber would be only 6s. in the first instance. The entire reduction in the end would be 15 s.; but as that would be brought about gradually, it would not have the effects which might be anticipated from a sudden reduction to that amount. When the amount of the reduction reached 15 s., the effect would be to displace a portion of the Canada timber, and enable the public to get supplied from the Baltic with timber of a better description. There was a duty of 10 s. a load upon Canada timber, and it had a clear protection above Baltic timber of 35 s. a load upon deals, and 45 s. upon solid timber. By the proposed change, Canada deals of every description would have a clear and an increased protection of 39 s. He calculated that about one-third of the quantity of timber which was now imported from Canada would be brought from the Baltic when the alteration was effected. He now came to consider how far this measure interfered with the shipping of the country—namely, by the transfer of one-third of the shipping to the Baltic trade. This part of the subject brought him to meet the assertion, that the trade of the country would be carried on in foreign bottoms. In the statement made by those who opposed the alteration, the whole of the Russia trade was excluded. The total amount of importation in the timber trade in 1830, from Norway, Sweden, and Russia, was 141,000 loads in foreign ships. The quan-

561
tity brought in British ships in the same year was 219,000 loads. The tonnage of foreign ships, as compared with British ships, had not lost any of its proportions. It was as three-fifths to two-fifths up to 1823, and it was above three-fifths now. It was said, that foreign ships were more fully employed than British ships, but it ought to be borne in mind that British ships were ready and prepared to go into the Baltic trade. He contended, that at least one-half of the one-third of the numbers of ships that would be displaced from the colonial trade, would find employment in bringing timber from the Baltic. Taking the number of ships reduced at 265, he felt satisfied that 133 of them would go to the Baltic. Supposing the amount to be proportionate on 265 ships, he thought it impossible that sufficient employment might not be found for them, even if they had recourse to the coasting coal trade. He had been taunted with not knowing that those timber ships were generally of from 400 to 500 tons, and that such ships could not be employed advantageously in the coasting trade. Now he would take the statement of the ship-owners themselves, that there were 1,600 ships, amounting to 430,000 tons, employed in this trade; and by dividing that tonnage by the number of ships, it would give 200 tons as the average tonnage to those ships employed in this trade. He was well aware that there were vessels of 400 and 500 tons employed in that trade, but, to give the average which he had stated, there must be a considerable number of vessels employed in it under 200 tons. Now, as an instance of the ships employed in the coasting trade, he would state the number of ships, and the amount of their tonnage, which had come into the port of London, laden with coal, in the year 1830. The number of vessels was 6,944, measuring 1,432,000 tons; and by dividing the tonnage by the vessels, it would be found that the average tonnage was 204 tons. He was glad to have an opportunity of stating this fact, for it showed how little consideration was paid to the merits of the present question, by many of those who indulged in taunts and sarcasms. The average amount from the port of Newcastle-upon-Tyne was 207 tons. He would ask, then, had he been proved to have been guilty of ignorance when he asserted that a large proportion of the Canadian vessels would get em-
562
ployment in the coasting trade? He wished to add a word or two on the exorbitant nature of the protection given to the Canada trade, and the effects resulting from it. He contended that the existing system of protection was exorbitant and uncalled for. In the last Session, his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, had moved for an account of the number of vessels which had sailed from the Baltic, with timber to the Canadas—had discharged their cargoes there—had reloaded, and then sailed to this country, thus undergoing the expense of a double voyage for the purpose of avoiding the duty. That return shewed that such things were done. But it might be said, that if such a thing had been done, it was only an experiment, and that it would not be repeated. He denied that it was a mere experiment, the thing could be done, and had been done. In proof of that statement, he read an extract from a letter which he had received shortly after he had come into office, from a merchant in Newcastle, inquiring whether it was not the construction of the law that such importations avoiding the higher rate of duty could be made, stating that such voyages had been made, and timber carried from Member to Canada, and afterwards brought to England, and could be made by the merchants there with advantage, and expressing a wish to know whether it was the intention of the Government, acting up to the declaration of Mr. Herries last Session, to have that part of the law amended, because, he added, while the continuation of the law was doubtful, the merchants did not know how to act. He would ask whether such a state of things as that should be allowed to continue? The next point to which he (Mr. Thomson) must advert, was the injury which it was alleged the colonists would sustain by the change. It was asserted, that a capital of 1,500,000 l. was invested in saw-mills, in the colonies. If such were the fact, the increase must have been most extraordinary since the year 1822. In that year the whole amount of capital employed in saw-mills was only from 100,000 l. to 150,000 l., and he thought it hardly probable that the sum should have increased to such magnitude in the comparatively short period that had since expired. The consequence of the proposed alterations which were contemplated by the present measure might probably, and, indeed, he was prepared at once to admit, would have

563
the effect of diminishing the export of timber from Canada into England, and, consequently, would affect also the productiveness of the capital that was now invested in the mills to which he had referred; but, the Committee ought not to lose sight of the fact, that though in this one branch of industry there would be a great falling off, yet the same amount of labour might be applied to much greater advantage on the land in the colonies; and the mills which would be rendered useless for their original purposes, might be converted into highly useful auxiliaries to the agricultural and other pursuits of the colonists. So that the enormous losses that had been placed in so frightful a point of view, would, as he had shewn, be absolutely next to nothing. Then again he had been told, and the country had been told, that at one time the Government of this country had given extraordinary encouragement to emigration to the Canadas, and now, after the impulse had been given, and the effects to a certain degree produced by a number of new settlers having been located on the lands in the Canadas, that same Government was about to wrest from them, by this measure, their only means of support, which consisted in the produce of the trees which they cut down on the lots of land which were portioned out to them. Were they, however, to be imposed on by this statement for a single moment? Did any one in that House believe, that the moment an emigrant gets located upon his land in Canada, he sets to work and cuts down the trees, trims them, and floats them down the nearest river to the market, where they are to produce him immediate returns? Why, there was not one tree in a hundred that was fit for the purposes of timber; and, instead of this timber trade being an advantage to the settler, it was exactly the reverse, because, when he cut the trees down for timber, instead of burning them down, he presently afterwards found that a great heap of brushwood sprung up from the root of each tree that had been cut down, and which never occurred where his land had been cleared by the operation most in use—that of burning; and this brushwood was evidently a great hindrance to the cultivation. So notorious an evil was this on the lands in Canada, that there was actually a Company established there for the purpose of clearing the lands, and the charges incurred in that process
564
were absolutely greater than the original cost of the land. Instead, therefore, of this prospective diminution of the export of timber from Canada being injurious to the emigrant, it was precisely the reverse, for it rendered it a matter of necessity that he should clear his lands in the most effectual way, having no inducement to cut down his timber for exportation. Then again, the emigrants would very soon find employment in other pursuits, which would prove much more beneficial to them than this of which they were deprived; and with reference to the arguments which had been urged against the alterations in the timber duties, let them look at what language his hon. friend, the member for Callington had used at a previous period, not far distant from the present, and with reference to the Canadas. Why, that hon. Member had said, that the Lumber men were, of all the nuisances that could be found in any colony, the very greatest; and yet that hon. Member was now, by the course he had chosen to pursue, absolutely encouraging this class of men who were, as he had described them, a nest of pests in the Canadas. The right hon. Member referred also to a work on the North American Colonies, by Mr. Richards, who had been sent by the late Government to investigate the state of Canada, in support of his views. Mr. Richards stated, in his account of his journey through Upper Canada, that, in New Brunswick, that a great portion of the labour of the inhabitants is devoted to the removal of lumber: that farming is neglected; and that the produce of the land is, consequently, sometimes insufficient to meet the consumption;" and he observed, "that when time or chance shall induce or compel the inhabitants to desist from that employment, agriculture will then begin to raise its head." This was the language of a gentleman sent out by the Government. There was only one point further, with reference to this subject on which he wished to say a few words to the Committee, and that was with reference to an important document, which was not a public one, but which he had become possessed of by private means, and which he was disposed to consider of the greatest value, as affording another opportunity of proving that the injury to the shipping interests of this country and the Canadas would not be so great as was represented by those who were op-

565
posed to the measure. The document was a statement of the number of ships, and the mode of employing those ships, belonging to the North American colonies; and before he proceeded to state the results of that inquiry on which the document was founded, he must observe, that when it was argued that the alterrations in the timber duties would destroy the Canadian colonies altogether, he would first refer those Gentlemen who used such arguments to the statements which showed the number of ships which bona fide belonged to the colonies, and then let them say, whether it would be possible for so trifling a reduction in the duty, as was proposed, or rather, whether so trifling a diminution of the present protection extended to one branch of the trade of those colonies could by any possibility have such a ruinous effect as was predicted. The paper which he held in his hand contained an account of the coasting and corn trade of those colonies; and it appeared from the statements that, in the year 1829, the number of ships that entered the ports of Quebec, St. John's, St. Andrew's, Halifax, and other adjacent places, was no less than 5,596; and the tonnage of those vessels was 724,000 tons. The mode in which those vessels were employed was as follows;— In the West-India trade, 3,712; in the trade with the United States, 488; leaving out of the gross amount of 5,598 ships belonging to the ports of our North American colonies, 1,396 vessels employed in the direct trade to this country. He must again repeat, that he had ever, whilst on the opposite side of the House, entertained views and opinions which were peculiarly his own, and which, from the knowledge that he had of this subject, he was the more confirmed in, and the less inclined to abandon, though he was thwarted and opposed by a powerful body in that House, who entertained opinions at variance with his. He had never, however, been hostile to the commercial, the shipping, or the colonial interests, and now that he was in office, it was his duty to defend and protect them. At the same time, it was also his duty, as it was the duty of Parliament, to protect the interest of the consumer, and the more important permanent interests of the whole nation. He trusted, therefore, the House would see that he had clearly and distinctly made out the fact that a saving to the country of 1,200,000 l. a-year would result
566
from the alterations which he proposed to make, and that the gradual diminution of the protection which was at present awarded to the North American colonies, which the proposed modifications in the duty would effect, was not calculated to produce such injurious consequences as had been predicted by those hon. Members who were opposed to the measure.
Sir George Murraywished to set the right hon. Member right with respect to the mode in which the settler in Canada found it most advantageous to get rid of the wood on the lot of ground which was apportioned to him on his arrival. When a settler arrives there, he generally has a lot of 200 acres, on which he can only cut down a certain portion of the timber, and in a certain season of the year. He must also only cut down in proportion to the ability which he has of cultivating the land which he clears; for, if he were not to cultivate it at once, and keep it in cultivation, it would speedily become covered again with brushwood.
Mr. Keith Douglasobserved, that the noble Lord had abandoned the tax which he had before proposed, and, instead of it, he had brought forward a measure which would not come into operation before next year. So that it seemed as if the House had so little to do, that the only method of filling up their time was by legislating for three or four years in prospective. The hon. Member proceeded to observe upon the gradual rise and progress of the Canada trade with England since the year 1809, when the continental system of Napoleon had interdicted any commercial intercourse between this country and the Continent of Europe. In the year 1820, the comparative imports of the produce of the two countries, Canada and the Baltic—were, from the latter, 280,000 loads, and from the former 300,000 loads of timber; and in the year 1827 the import of Canadian timber amounted to 380,000 loads, whilst that of Baltic timber was reduced to 260,000 loads, which showed that there was a preference for the former. As it was impossible to know what alteration would take place before the change in these duties was to come into operation, he thought it quite unnecessary then to legislate on the subject, and he should oppose the Motion.
Mr. George Robinson(with great difficulty in being heard) protested against the Committee hearing only one side of

567
the question, and observed, that however incompetent he might be to offer any opposition to the measure, he felt it to be his duty to do so; and he should, therefore, looking at the lateness of the hour, endeavour to compress his observations into as short a space as possible. It was, however, to be remarked, that the House was placed by the noble Lord in the predicament of discussing an entirely novel proposition at that late hour; and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. P. Thomson) had dilated on the measure in a manner that it was impossible for any one not intimately conversant with this subject to understand or to follow. It had been his intention originally to have discussed singly the details of the proposed alterations; but, in consequence of what had been stated, he must pass at once to the general observations which he had to offer to the Committee. The alterations effected in the year 1821 in the timber duties were not brought forward in the same manner as the present measure was, but were submitted to two Committees, who obtained evidence, and upon that evidence furnished reports by which the decision of the House was guided. He could not agree with the hon. member for Borough-bridge, who seemed to think that it was not in the power of Parliament to alter the present scale of duties. He considered that the Parliament was perfectly competent to effect such alterations as might be found necessary; but then it ought to be done after the deepest consideration, and it ought not to be confined to a question of finance as it had been by the light hon. member for Dover; but all the political considerations, which could never be separated from it, ought also to undergo investigation.— Such a subject ought never to be discussed but with reference to those considerations; and he should therefore, come at once to the point, and express it to be his opinion, that a measure which might be calculated to prove injurious to the North American colonies and the shipping interests should receive some further consideration than the present had done. He thought it would not be judged wise to inflict on those colonies a measure of this tendency, whilst the effects of another, the Colonial Trade Bill, were yet untried. Two such important changes in the colonial policy were never brought under the consideration of the House before in this manner. To be sure
568
the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had given the Committee one advantage, by acknowledging that the measure was given up as a financial operation, and in so far he had disencumbered him, and many others who thought with him, of the hesitation with which he should have come forward to discuss a matter connected, as this was, with finance. He denied that the present system of raising the duty on the Baltic timber was at all oppressive, for no one had ever come before that House to petition against it; and when the noble Lord opposite observed that the consumers of this timber complained of the duties, he stated that which he was not justified in doing. The shipping trade of this country had been depressed for several years.

In 1819 the number of British ships was

25,482

In 1829 the number was

22,040

Being a decrease in ten years of

3,442

ships; and within the same period there was a decrease of tonnage to the amount of 251,590 tons. A proportionable decrease was apparent in the building of ships, which as every one knew, was the only mode of keeping up the number of ships.

The number of ships built in 1827, in the ports of Great Britain, was

1,719

The number built in 1830 was only

1,075

Being a decrease in the building of ships in three years of

644

When ships were once built they must be employed. He was not now a ship-owner for he got out of the trade as rapidly as he could, knowing it to be ruinous. But he knew the practice was, to transfer the vessel from one owner to another at a loss; and because ships were kept afloat in that way, the shipping interest was said to be in a state of prosperity. He would not trouble the House with reading the statement; but he had in his hand a comparative statement of the British and Foreign shipping employed in the North of Europe for several years; and it would appear, from that statement, that since the Reciprocity system was adopted, the number of British ships engaged in that trade had greatly diminished. If the experience of eleven years was taken, it would appear that the exports from these kingdoms to the North of Europe had decreased considerably; the only exception was the trade with Russia. Taking at a sweep Norway, Denmark, and Prussia, the value

569
of the exports from Great Britain to those countries was—

In 1822

£1,510,040

In 1829

1,24,4,678

Within the same period, the exports to British North America, the trade with which was now proposed to be transferred to the North of Europe, had increased from 1,597,000 l. to 2,206,000 l. He put it to the House, whether those facts did not require some consideration. It was proposed to transfer the trade with our colonies to foreign nations, who would not take our manufactured goods, though they were willing to supply us with theirs. It was impossible the country could go on much longer with such a delusive system of policy as was pursued, by encouraging the importation of foreign goods, even at some advantage of price, from countries which declined all trade with us. America was the most commercial nation, perhaps, in the world, and possessed numbers of shrewd practical men; and yet America distinctly declined to enter into the system of reciprocity proposed by this country. The fallacious character of that system h;\d been aptly exposed by the former President of the United States, Mr. Munro, and subsequently by Mr. Jefferson, in a work published after his death. At this late hour, and as many other Gentlemen were anxious to speak, he would not trespass further on the attention of the House, though many other topics suggested themselves as worthy of remark.
Mr. Herriesrose amidst cries of "Question" and "Adjourn." He assured the House that it was not his intention to argue the important question now submitted to the Committee. He asked, could any man pretend to give his assent to such important propositions without further consideration? Such an example of what the must call a political trick he had never witnessed. What had they assembled for? What had they come down to consider? The noble Lord had brought them together to consider a part of his Budget— the imposition of a duly of frightful importance to the interests concerned, but still apart of the Budget. Upon coming down, however, to discuss a part of the Budget, a measure of general policy, of the very first importance was submitted to the House. There was a taking off of duty it was true but the proposed measure had nothing to do with the Budget. There were circumstances connected with this revolution in
570
the intention of his Majesty's Ministers well deserving of consideration. He (Mr. Herries) had put a question to the noble Lord to ascertain his views with respect to Ireland on this question. The answer the noble Lord gave was, that the duty on Canada timber was not to be raised in Ireland, but that Baltic timber was to be reduced to 40 s. At the time the noble Lord gave that answer, he (Mr. Herries) had no doubt the noble Lord intended to persevere in his original plan. Up to the last moment, the noble Lord had informed the various deputations that waited on him, that the plan he had first introduced was the one he would adhere to. The change must have been effected within a few hours. His Majesty's Ministers had suddenly retreated from a position they were unable to defend: they knew well that a majority of that House could not be found to support them, and, without previous notice, they abruptly changed their front, and came forward with the present measure. The measure now brought forward was different in every respect from that originally brought forward. It was different in its purpose, in its working, and in its terms—it was totally different. No legislature, he contended, had a right to assent to a measure of such importance without the deepest and fullest deliberation. The House was not now called upon to decide upon a part of the Budget, but on a question of general policy. Coming down to decide on one plan, they were called upon to decide on another plan, founded on another principle. He begged not to be understood as giving any opinion on that plan, he had a very strong opinion, but he did not think it necessary now to state it, He did not say that such a plan as that proposed might not be with propriety, and after full consideration, adopted; but a measure brought forward at such an hour, and in such a manner, ought not to be agreed to whatever were its merits. The plan went to alter a system which had been acted upon for ten years, after the fullest consideration, and after a report of a Committee of the House of Commons. If it was resolved to depart from that system, it should not be done without a similar investigation, and an equally prolonged consideration. The vast importance of the proposition was clear from the noble Lord's (Althorp) statement. The noble Lord admitted the injurious effects of the measure

571
on the Canada trade. He only presumed to hope that the measure would not altogether destroy the Canada trade; but it might be gathered from the noble Lord's statement, that it would go pretty well to effect that. Under all these circumstances it was impossible for him to give the present proposition his support. He was not unwilling, if any mode was proposed to investigate the subject, to meet such a proposition with his assent, but he could not now enter into the merits of the question. It was a new Budget, forming no part of the old Budget, and liable to considerable objection. The noble Lord now thought he should be enabled to do without the increase of revenue he had reckoned upon from the change in the timber duties. He found himself richer than he thought he should be when he brought forward his Budget. Now, sanguine as he felt as to the revenue, he could not think that the noble Lord's new conviction was well founded. The noble Lord founded his anticipations of a great increase of revenue by comparing the produce of the months of January and February, this year, with the produce of the same months in 1830. He had pointed out the great increase in the produce of the revenue, and especially the Customs, in those two months, as compared with January and February, 1830. It was right the House should remember, however, that in January and February, 1830, the ports were shut up, and business at a stand, in consequence of protracted frost. The comparison, therefore, was calculated to mislead. If the noble Lord reckoned upon an increase during the whole year, founded upon that in January and February, he proceeded on a poor foundation": building upon that slender foundation, however, the noble Lord calculated that the total sum available at the end of 1832 would only amount to 1,000,000 l. Under those ' circumstances, the noble Lord thought he might dispense with the timber duties. It was for the Committee to consider whether the noble Lord was not putting his faith upon a slender foundation, which would render him unable, perhaps, at the close of the year to pay the interest of the public Debt. The reasons which induced him to abstain from entering into the merits of the question ought, he thought, to induce the House not to give its assent to the proposition now made. Before the House adopted any new course, it ought to be solemnly
572
and carefully investigated; and he considered that an investigation by a Committee of that House would be the most expedient. The measure, whenever it was brought forward, ought to be brought forward, not delusively, but fairly, and after proper notice; and they should not be called upon to determine on one proposition, when they were prepared to discuss another. For these reasons, abstaining from touching on the merits of the proposed measure, if it should be pressed to a division, he should certainly divide against it.
Sir. Warburtonsaid, thnt as many Gentlemen were anxious to address the House, he should propose an adjournment. [This motion was received with cries of "Divide," "Go on," and "Adjourn".]
Lord Althorphoped, that however the Committee disposed of the question of adjournment, after the attack made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries), they would suffer him to say a few words. As to the answer which he had given the right hon. Gentleman some days ago, he assured the House it had been given sincerely. But then the right hon. Gentleman charged his Majesty's Ministers with having altered the whole principle of the measure. That he must deny. The hon. member for Boroughbridge (Mr. Attwood) had said the measure was precisely the same in principle as that originally proposed; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted it was precisely the same measure in principle. It was charged against Ministers, that they had changed their mind; but, he asked, why were Ministers to listen to deputations if they were only to hear them, and not to attend to their representations? It was undoubtedly true that, upon representations being made as to the effect of the suddenness of the change, when he (Lord Althorp) found that the change might be made gradually, without injuring the revenue, he was glad to take advantage of the opportunity. As to the danger to the revenue, the Committee had heard his statement of the grounds on which he had formed his opinion, and they might judge for themselves. For his own part he entertained a perfect confidence on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman had represented him as saying that he had only a small degree of hope that his propositions would not destroy the whole of the Canada trade. Now, he had stated that his decided feeling

573
was, that the measure could not destroy the Canada trade, although it might transfer a portion of it.
Mr. Attwoodfelt it incumbent on him to move that the Chairman should leave the Chair. The measure now proposed was similar, he admitted, in principle, to that originally proposed by the noble Lord, but it was a different measure of policy, different in all its details, and different in its results. The noble Lord stated, that he had proposed the measure in compliance with the representations made to him. He had proposed the measure at nine o'clock, and called upon the House to decide on it at twelve o'clock.—["No, no!" from the Ministerial Benches.] He begged the noble Lord's pardon; he thought he intended to press the question to a division. As to the motion for Adjournment, the question could not be adjourned, or it must be adjourned for a very long time, as other important questions were to be brought forward. To remedy that inconvenience, and to mark the sense of the House as to the manner in which the measure was brought forward, he should move, that the Chairman do leave the Chair.
The Question having been put on this Motion,
Mr. Warburtonagain rose, amidst cries of "Question" and considerable confusion. He expressed his surprise that the last speaker, a Gentleman himself engaged in trade, should not have allowed an adjournment, which would give other Gentlemen engaged in commercial pursuits an opportunity of delivering their sentiments, more particularly as the hon. Member himself had already obtained a patient hearing. If he (Mr. Warburton) was to enter into the subject, he should occupy the Committee for the greater part of an hour. Exhausted as he (Mr. Warburton) and the House were, and knowing that many other Gentlemen wished to address the House on the subject, he (Mr. Warburton) should not speak to it that night, but would persist in his motion for adjournment.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he had never been involved in greater difficulty than in coming to a decision on the question. He expected that he should be called upon to discuss a portion of the noble Lord's Budget, but he found to his surprise, that, instead of having a portion of the former Budget, the noble Lord thought he had succeeded so well with his Budget of 1831, that he had ventured to make one for
574
1832. He (Sir Robert Peel) was anxious to hear the matter fully discussed. He could not dismiss financial considerations, nor the interests of the consumers, nor those varied and important considerations which arose out of the question. He felt that the Legislature had attempted too many experiments, and that it was not desirable to add to them by an experiment on the shipping and colonial interests. The noble Lord gave no reason for the proceeding. He had himself completely changed his own view of the question, and could give no reason for the change; yet he expected that, without any consideration, all others should also adopt his altered views. The noble Lord would not accede to the proposition of his right hon. friend (Mr. Herries), and have a Committee similar to that of the year 1821 to inquire into the subject. Such a Committee could inquire far more satisfactorily than it was possible for the whole House to discharge such a duty. They stood upon the report of the House of Commons in 1821, which went fully into the whole subject, and recommended the existing scale. The noble Lord was bound to show that that report was unfounded; but not even one cogent argument had been urged to prove that to be the case, and yet they were to be excluded from that further inquiry which they desired—and this, too, when the Resolutions referred only to a future year, and could not require immediate or instant decision. He did not mean to impute to the noble Lord any desire to take the House by surprise, but he must say, that if such had been the noble Lord's intention, he could not more completely have effected it. An hon. Gentleman had said, on a preceding night, with reference to the question of Reform, that the surprise of the measure then brought forward had taken away his breath; and it really appeared as if the noble Lord had been anxious on this occasion, in a similar measure, to take away the breath of those on the side of the House opposite to himself. As he should not be precluded from further inquiry by supporting the amendment, and as it left the subject open to have a better and fuller inquiry before a Committee, he should certainly support the motion of the hon. member for Borough-bridge.
Lord Palmerstonclaimed the vote of his right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel), on the ground that, as he wished for further in-

575
quiry, he ought to support the motion for reporting progress and asking leave to sit again, instead of that for the Chairman to leave the Chair.
Sir R. Peelwas quite astonished at the observations of his noble friend. He was reluctantly, indeed, compelled, by the course which the noble Lord had pursued, to prefer that proposition which would undoubtedly preclude the noble Lord from proceeding further with the question at present. But why did the noble Lord postpone the question to the Friday? Why postpone the discussion to the day preceding the question of Reform, which must necessarily occupy several nights? Why, too, not begin till nine at night, when, on other occasions, the important business of the evening always began at five o'clock. He could not help thinking that this singular delay was intentional; and he could not consent to allow all those important interests involved in this question to remain in a state of suspense till it accorded with the pleasure of the noble Lord to fix some subsequent day for continuing the adjourned Debate. Would the noble Lord either allow this question to have precedence of Reform on Monday, or would he agree to the appointment of a Select Committee? If the noble Lord would do neither of these things, he must vote with the hon. member for Boroughbridge.
Mr. Spring Ricestated, that it must not be forgotten that the bringing on of this measure was not the act of the Ministers. It had been pressed upon them from the other side of the House, as essentially necessary for the satisfaction of important interests in the country; neither were they answerable for the lateness of the hour at which it was brought forward. The Sugar Bill admitted of no delay, as the duty expired on the 5th of April. The Colonial Trade Bill was equally urgent for other causes, and they were not responsible for the debate which arose upon it.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he was one of those who had pressed for an early decision by Parliament of the question respecting timber, as brought forward by the noble Lord in his Budget, and which had been unnecessarily and too long delayed, to the prejudice of those interested in the colonies and shipping. But had the noble Lord told him, when he pressed him on the subject, that he meant to lay no new duty in 1831, he should have been satisfied
576
to wait to any future period the discussion of the political question involved in a future change of the timber duties. Such arrangements could not affect the trade of this year, and it was only with reference to that trade that he had applied to the noble Lord. In voting upon the present question he did so on the ground, not of stifling discussion, but on the refusal of the noble Lord to accede to the proposal of appointing a Committee to inquire into the whole subject, considering that that which had been settled by a Committee, after a laborious inquiry, in 1821, ought not to be completely changed without that careful examination and inquiry which could be effected but in a Committee.
The House then divided—For the Chairman leaving the Chair, 236; Against it 190 Majority against Ministers 46.
The House accordingly resumed.

PETITIONS IN FAVOUR OF REFORM.
Mr. Benettpresented Petitions from Wiltshire, Bradford, Malmesbury, Warminster, Swindon, and Devizes, in favour of Parliamentary Reform. All these petitioners highly approved of the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, and hoped that it would pass into a law.
Sir J. Dugdale Astleysupported the prayer of these petitions.
Sir C. Forbestook occasion to express his regret that so many persons should be induced to express themselves in favour of a measure which was not reform, but revolution, and which must prove ruinous to the Constitution of this country.
Mr. Hobhousewas equally surprised that any person of common sense could suppose that the Reform measure would have such an effect as that which the hon. Baronet attributed to it.
Sir C. Forbessaid, he could not understand why the hon. member for Westminster had not, after the decision of the House that evening, asked his usual question of "When do the Ministers mean to resign?" Why had not the hon. Member, after so decisive a defeat, put the same question they had so often heard him put to the late Government, of "When does the noble Lord propose to resign."
Mr. Hobhousesaid, his memory was not so defective but that he could recollect the opinions of the hon. Baronet to have been, on former occasions, different from what they were now. The question, which

577
the hon. Baronet wished him to put was not, however, quite so appropriate at the present moment. The country would not be gulled by the trickery of the vote of that evening. The question for them was, whether they were to have Reform or not, and whether those who had for fifty years been labouring to obtain Reform were now to be tricked out of their object? He was convinced that the day when the Ministers resigned would be a bad day for the country; but he was satisfied that the country would not be baulked in their wishes by the vote of that night. He had frequently heard the hon. Baronet pledge himself to Reform, and would now call upon him to prove his consistency.
Sir C. Forbesdeclared, that he was still a friend to Reform, but not to Revolution.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, an account of the Waste Lands belonging to the different Manors of the Crown in England and Wales:—On the Motion of the Marquis of SALISBURY the statements, calculations, and explanations submitted to the Board of Trade, relating to the commercial, financial, and political state of the British West-India Colonies, since the 19th of May, 1830.
Petitions presented. In favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform, by the Earl of RADNOR, from the Parish of Christchurch, in Middlesex; from St. Peter's, in the Isle of Thanet; and from another Parish in Kent: —By Earl GOWER, several from the Staffordshire Potteries: —By Lord DURHAM, from the Parish of Mary-la-bonne; from Horsham, in Surrey; from Breehin, in Scotland; and from Longtown, in the County of Cumberland: —By the Duke of NORFOLK, from Shepton Mallett, from Kirkaldy, from the Operatives of a place in Fife, from the parish of St. Ann's, Limehouse, and from Leven, Fife: —By the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from Derby, and other places in Derbyshire: —By the LORD CHANCELLOR, from the Members of the London Bar, signed by 396 practising Barristers, including the great majority of those who went the Northern and Western Circuits; from Beverley, Yorkshire, signed by 3,000 persons; twenty-nine Petitions from Falmouth, Taunton, Kingston-upon-Hull, signed by 7,000 persons, from Dumfries, Penzance, Knaresborough, from different Trade Corporations of Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leith, and Stirling, with forty other Petitions, from Huddersfield, in Yorkshire, signed by 7,500 persons; from Ross, in the County of Somerset; from Leeds; from Dumfermline; from the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh; from the Shoemakers and Bakers of Perth; from Portobello; from Kingston; from the Glovers of Perth; from the Merchants of Glasgow; from the parish of All Saints, Poplar; from York; from Totness; from Had-dington, Montrose, Chatham, and other places: —

He had already presented 147 Petitions, many of them from the most important places of the country, in favour of the Ministerial measure of Reform, and be had still forty-seven in his possession, the presenting of which he would postpone till Monday.
By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Bradford, Trowbridge, and another place in Wilts; from the parish of St. Mary, Whitechapel; and from the Magistrates and Town Council of Stranraer: —By Lord KING, from Beverley, Yorkshire; from Emsworth, Southampton; and from a place in the County of Lancaster. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Neweastle-under-Lime, against the Ministerial plan of Reform, but praying that Representatives might be given to large Towns. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Earl GOWER, from Dissenters at Tiers Cross: —By Earl CAWDOR, from Glenwr and Ean: —By Lord STOURTON, from Teignmouth. By the Duke of ARGYLE, against any alteration of the Timber Duties, from the Shipowners of Ayr; and against the Reduction of Duty on Barilla, from the Western Islands. By Lord KING, for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes, and for a Commutation of Tithes, from Winstow, Somersetshire; and from a Barony in Carlow.

SUB-LETTING ACT.
Lord Melbournerose, pursuant to notice, to lay on their Lordships' Table an Act to repeal the Act of the 7th Geo. 4th, commonly called the Sub-letting Act, and to substitute other

523
provisions in lieu thereof. As this was a subject of great importance, especially to the landholders and agricultural population of Ireland, he hoped their Lordships would indulge him while he made a few observations in explanation of the alterations which it was intended to make in the provisions of the existing Act. He repeated at the outset what he had said the other night, in answer to a question put to him by one of the noble Lords opposite (Carbery), that it was the intention of Ministers to maintain, support, and strengthen the principles of the existing Act, and that the only object was to remove some inconveniences and difficulties that had occurred in the execution and operation of the Statute, and clear up some doubts that had arisen as to its proper construction. In order to effect this object, it had been thought preferable to repeal the existing Act, rather than attempt to amend it, in order to avoid those ambiguities, complexity, and confusion which so often resulted from passing several Acts for amending a particular Statute, instead of entirely remodelling it. The plan of substituting a new Statute was adopted for the sake of perspicuity and simplicity. Their Lordships were probably all acquainted with the history of the Sub-letting Act. In consequence of the distresses which existed in Ireland in 1822–3, the subject was taken under the consideration of Parliament, and a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed in 1824 to investigate the subject, which was again taken up in 1825, and investigated by the Committee of the other House, and also by a Committee of their Lordships, and it was from the Reports of these Committees that the Acts originated. A laborious and extensive investigation then took place, and various remedies were suggested for the evils which pressed so heavily on the country. That investigation was conducted by men of the greatest ability, industry, and understanding, and many witnesses, of various classes, who had the best opportunity of being acquainted with the state of Ireland, were examined. Eminent lawyers were consulted who were connected by their professional duties, and otherwise, with the different parts of the country; several Roman Catholic priests; many resident Magistrates, and land-agents, as well as surveyors who had been employed by Government; men, all of them having the best
524
opportunities of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the situation and condition of the various parts of Ireland, were minutely examined; and the result was, that all, with one voice, ascribed the disturbed state of that country chiefly to the relation which there existed between landlord and tenant, to the great and manifest injury of both parties. The landlords, when their lands came into their hands, after the expiration of leases, found them crowded with a multitude of paupers, whom they had no means of removing or providing for in other places; and the case was still more hard on the occupying tenant, for, perhaps, between him and the head landlord there were six or seven intermediate persons, and each of these, in case of disputes, or in case of failure in payments between themselves, had the power to distrain on the occupying tenant, who was thus liable to be compelled to pay his rent repeatedly, instead of paying it only once. The concurrent testimony of all was, that the grand evil was this relation between landlord and tenant, and in this the Reports of the two Committees concurred; and the first remedy recommended in the Report of the Commons was an amendment of the law between landlord and tenant. In consequence of this recommendation, the Bill was brought into the House of Commons by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Secretary for Ireland, assisted by the then Attorney-general for Ireland. The Bill was brought in in 1825, and stood over for a Session, and in 1826 it passed. But it was soon found that those by whom it had been prepared had fixed their eyes steadily on the existing evils, and on the application of the remedy, without sufficiently considering the effect which the remedy would have when viewed with reference to the existing state of the country; and, therefore, when the Act came into operation, some blots and errors in it were discovered. These blots and errors had, however, been most grossly exaggerated, and a great clamour had been raised by those whose object it was to excite discontent and animosity among the people. A great outcry was consequently set up against the Act; but it was not to satisfy that clamour, or to give way to the outrages promoted by agitators, that Ministers proposed to bring in another Bill on the subject. The only object was, to remedy the defects and remove the inconveniences and diffi-

525
culties of the existing Act, and to clear up the doubts which had existed as to its construction. Having made these preliminary observations, he would state to the House the most material alterations now to be made. The enactments of the Statute were two-fold; first, respecting the leases that were in existence on and before the passing of the Act in 1826; secondly, respecting the leases that might be made subsequent to the passing of the Act. It was not intended that the Act should be retrospective, nor that it should have any operation on the leases in existence at the time of its passing, as to their covenants, or waivers of those covenants, all which covenants and acts it left as before. But it had been generally understood in Ireland, that it had such a retrospective effect on pre-existing leases, which gave rise to various disputes, and to much irritation. At the Bar in Ireland, however, the general opinion was, that it had not a retrospective operation, but that covenants and waivers were left in the same condition as before the passing of the Act of 1826. But as there was some doubt on that head, that doubt was a sufficient reason for passing an enactment for its removal. It was intended that the new Bill should be entirely prospective, and relate only to leases made subsequent to its passing, and should not affect, one way or other, any covenants or waivers, whether constructive or otherwise, of preceding leases, with reference to any question of sale or sub-letting. The Bill would leave all the preceding leases to the ordinary rules of law, whether as to assignment or sub-letting. But where there should be introduced in subsequent leases covenants against assigning or sub-letting, it was intended that such leases should not be saleable under executions, nor on bankruptcy, or insolvency, of the tenants; but that the leases should become void, and the land revert to the landlord. This, perhaps, would be in some measure retrospective, as far as regarded creditors, and might, perhaps, startle their Lordships; but it was conformable to the spirit of the Act, and he hoped to be able to prove in the course of the progress of the Bill, that there was no injustice in this, and that a mode would be left open for fraud, unless some such clause was introduced. Another difficulty was, the devolution of leases on intestacy. In case of the decease of the lessees without having made any will, their
526
personal representatives, if they were chattel interests, took the lease, and this gave occasion to much of that division of lands which it was so desirable to avoid. It was proposed to enact that no divisions should take place on death and intestacy which the lessees could not make by will. It was enacted by the 9th Geo. 4th, that the lease, when left by will, could be left only to one person, but it left the case of intestacy unprovided for. By the new Act it was intended to adopt the provision, that if left to two or more, it should only be as joint tenants, without division or power of alienation, except among each other. In the same manner, in cases of intestacy unprovided for by the former Act, it was intended that when leases came, as real property, to the heir, or as chattel interests to the next of kin, that when it happened in either cases that the successors were co-heiresses, or there were more than one next of kin in the same degree, these respectively should take as joint tenants, and that there should be no division or alienation except between each other. These were the most material alterations intended to be made, and he thought it unnecessary to say more on the subject until the Bill came under the consideration of their Lordships.
Lord Carberythought the propositions upon the whole satisfactory; although there might be shades of difference in opinion as to some of them. The object of the original Bill was, to create a substantial yeomanry in Ireland, and to enable landlords to get their land into possession in such a state, that they could with prudence and safety lay out money on the improvement of it, instead of having it crowded with a pauper peasantry, without capital to render it productive; so that the benefit of the land was in a great measure lost both to landlord and tenant. The Act, however, was an instrument in the hands of the agitators, who had endeavoured by its means to work upon the people; nevertheless, knowing the value of the Bill, he was glad that Ministers were resolved to maintain its principle, and he would render every assistance in his power in forwarding the Bill.
The Earl of Wicklowdiffered in toto from his noble friend, as far as he approved of the new Bill; for he thought the original Act far preferable to the very serious alterations which were to be made in it. He had taken various opinions on that

527
Act, and he maintained that the objections to it were entirely groundless, although one or two not very material alterations might be made in it. The proposed Bill would do a great deal of mischief, and he would rather have no Act at all on the subject. He would, therefore, strenuously oppose it.
Lord Farnhamagreed, as to the mode of proceeding, that the best way was to bring in a new Bill, and so to avoid complexity and confusion. On the old Act, he gave no opinion as to whether it was retrospective or not. Lawyers had adopted a doctrine, where there was a lease with covenant against alienation, and yet an alienation had taken place, and the landlord had accepted rent after that alienation, that this was a constructive waiver of the covenant, even although the acceptance should have been owing to mere inadvertence. This might be law, but it was a doctrine that had he just foundation in fact. But, however, the discussion would come better when the Bill should be before their Lordships.
Bill read a first time.

COMMUTATION OF TITHES.
Lord Kingstated, that he had some Petitions to present, praying for a Commutation of Tithes. He had presented several petitions to the same effect without saying anything upon the subject, from a belief that the Clergy of the Church themselves were disposed to propose some measure for effecting a commutation. But when a noble and learned Lord (Tenterden) —a friend of the Church — brought forward a Bill, one object of which was to limit the time for contesting moduses, and thus putting an end to a fertile source of vexation and oppression, a right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Bristol, took the alarm, and proposed that a notice of sixty years should be given to incumbents to enable them to consider about contesting their claims. But if matters went on as they had done for sixty years, there would probably be no Church property at the end of that period to legislate about, and, the Bill would so far be perfectly useless. So true it was, as Lord Clarendon said, that of all those who were able to write and read, the clergy were the most ignorant, and took the narrowest view of things. The Petition he had to present was from the Hundred of Newcastle, in the County of Glamorgan, praying for a Commutation of Tithes.
The Bishop of Bristolobserved, that the observations of the noble Baron proceeded from mistake, for he had not opposed the Bill in question, but only suggested that, as incumbents were often very negligent in enforcing their rights, and disinclined to have disputes concerning them, for various reasons, a period of three years was a great deal too short a time to be allowed before the prescription began to run; and in this the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack appeared, to a certain extent, to concur with him.
Lord Kingsaid, in consequence of what had fallen from the right reverend Prelate, he would move, that there be laid before this House a return of the number of suits on account of tithes commenced in the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer, and in the Courts of Common-law, during the last forty years. This would show whether incumbents had been backward or not in asserting their claims to tithes, or in their efforts to set aside moduses or compositions. —Motion agreed to.