Sitting of 2 March 1842

Preamble
MINUTES.] NEW MEMBER. Viscount Howick, for Sunderland.
BILLS. Public—2° Colonial Passengers.
3° Van Diemen's Land; Marriages (Ireland). Private. —1° Glasgow, Paisley, Kilmarnock, and Ayr Railway; Ormesby Inclosure; West Stirlingshire Roads (No. 1).
2° South Eastern Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By MY. Jarvis, from Chester, Dr. Bowring, from St. Mawes, Mr. Forster, from Berwick-upon-Tweed, Sir W. Clay, from Blackwall, and Hackney, Mr. M. Phillips, from Manchester, Mr. Horsman, from Denton, and Haughton, Mr. Wallace, from Muirkirk, and other hon. Members, from Stranaer, South Shields, St. Andrew's, and Aberdeen, for the Repeal of the Cornlaws.—By an hon. Member, from Farmers of Cambridge, against the proposed Measure on the Corn-laws; and from J. M. Daykin, Corn Inspector for Guildford, for Compensation.—By Sir R. Bateson, Viscount Jocelyn, and Mr. Litton, from Kilsea, Lecumper, Rathpreland, Macosquin, Dunboe, and Newry, for Legalizing certain Marriages by Dissenters.—By Mr. T. Wood, and the Earl of March, from St. George's Bloomsbury, Walworth-road, and Northern Boundary of the City of London, for the Redemption of Tolls on Metropolitan Bridges.—By Mr. Manners Sutton, from Wm. Bullock, for Universal Suf-
1356
frage.—By Sir C. Douglas, from Liverpool, against the Borough Improvements and Building Regulations Bills.—By Mr. Duncombe, from Samuel Cobham, and others, for Legislation to give Security to Railway Travelling.—By Mr. Ormsby Gore, from Leitrim, and Mr. Litton, from Coleraine, against the proposed Reduction of Duty on Foreign Oats. —From Coleraine, for Mail Communication between Scotland and Ireland.—By Mr. Aglionby, from Carlisle, for Inquiry into Distress.— By an bon Member, from G. R. W. Baxter, for Inquiring into Committing two Inmates of St. Giles's Workhouse for Singing a Song.

CHALLENGE OF JURORS (IRELAND).
Mr. O'Connellbegged to ask the Solicitor-general for Ireland, whether there was any difference between the instructions given by the present Attorney-general, to Crown prosecutors going circuit, regarding the challenge of jurors, and those given by the late Attorney-general, and if any, what difference.
Mr. Jacksonsaid, that before he left Ireland, the Attorney-general had received the instructions given by several of his predecessors, and considering that those given by the present Lord Chief Baron, when Attorney-general were, upon the whole, most satisfactory, he had directed them to be followed.
Subject at an end.

MOVEMENT OF TROOPS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Fox Mauleunderstanding that troops had been removed from Aberdeen to Huntley, in the neighbourhood of Glass, where a minister was about to be inducted on the presentation of the patron, begged to ask the Lord Advocate whether that removal had taken place in consequence of a representation from the sheriff of the County of Aberdeen? and if so, whether that representation had been accompanied by a declaration from the sheriff that he had reason to anticipate such disturbance in Glass as rendered it necessary to have troops in the immediate neighbourhood.
Sir James Grahamwas somewhat surprised that such a question should be put by the hon. Gentleman, considering his official experience. His answer was, that the fact was true; certain troops had been removed. But as to the object and purpose which induced her Majesty's Government to direct it, he must positively decline giving any answer whatever. The only answer he could give was, that her Majesty's Government were responsible for the maintenance of the peace in Scotland.

AFFGHAN1STAN.
Mr. Mangleswished

1357
to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, whether her Majesty's Government were in possession of any later information with regard to Affghanistan, than that which had been already laid before the House.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that no accounts direct from Cabal or Candahar were in the possession of the Government of a later date than those of which he believed the public were in possession. There were accounts from Calcutta, of a later date; but the accounts from Calcutta were not founded on direct official information conveyed from Affghanistan to Calcutta, but on private letters, conveying intelligence which it was very improbable, could be called in question. That intelligence was such as to create considerable anxiety, but, as it was not official, he was not enabled to communicate it. There was every reason to believe that in the course of a few days they would have accounts direct from Affghanistan. He did not know whether the hon. Gentleman had made any special reference to the reports which had appeared of a surrender having taken place. No such ac-having been received by her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Manglesreferred to reports of negotiations for capitulation.
Sir R. Peelsaid, there were no accounts of that character. The intelligence, as he had said, was calculated to create anxiety, but there were no accounts of a negotiation being actually entered into, and still less, any account of a surrender.
Subject at an end.

CORN LAWS—MINISTERIAL PLAN. REPORT OF THE RESOLUTIONS.
On the motion that the first resolution be read a second time,
Mr. Greene,the Chairman of the Committee, brought up the report of the resolutions on the Corn Importation Acts, which was read as follows:—
1. "That the following duties shall be paid upon the importation of corn, grain, meal, or flour, in lieu of the duties now payable thereon: viz.:—
If imported from any foreign country;

WHEAT.
Whenever the average price of wheat, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be, for every quarter,

Under 51 s the duty shall be, for every

quarter

20 s.

51 s.

and under 52 s.

19

1358

52 s.

and under 55 s.

Duty 18 s.

55

56

17

56

57

16

57

58

15

58

59

14

59

60

13

60

61

12

61

62

11

62

63

10

63

64

9

64

65

8

65

66

7

66

69

6

69

70

5

70

71

4

71

72

3

72

73

2

73

and upwards

1

BARLEY
Whenever the average price of barley, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be, for every quarter,

Under 26 s.

the duty shall be, for every quarter

11 s.

26 s.

and under 27 s.

10

27

30

9

30

31

8

31

32

7

32

33

6

33

34

5

34

35

4

35

36

3

36

37

2

37

and upwards

1

OATS.
Whenever the average price of oats, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be, for every quarter,

Under 19 s.

the duty shall be, for every quarter

8s.

19 s.

and under 20 s.

7

20

23

6

23

24

5

24

25

4

25

26

3

26

27

2

27

and upwards

1

RYE, PEASE, AND BEANS.
Whenever the average price of rye, or of pease, or of beans, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be, for every quarter,

Under 30 s.

the duty shall be, for every quarter

11 s.

6d.

30 s.

and under 33 s.

10

6

33

34

9

6

34

35

8

6

35

36

7

6

36

37

6

6

37

38

5

6

38

39

4

6

39

40

3

6

40

41

2

6

41

42

1

6

42

and upwards

1

0

WHEAT MEAL AND FLOUR.
For every barrel, being one hundred and ninety-six pounds;
A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on thirty-eight and a half gallons of wheat.

OATMEAL.
For every quantity of one hundred and eighty-one pounds and a half;
A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of oats.

MAIZE OR INDIAN CORN, BUCK WHEAT, BEAR, OR BIGG.
For every quarter;
A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of barley.
If the produce of, and imported from, any British possession in North America, or elsewhere out of Europe:—

WHEAT.
Whenever the average price of wheat, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be, for every quarter,

Under 55 s the duty shall be, for every

quarter

5s.

55 s.

and under 56 s

4

56

57

3

57

58

2

58

and upwards

1

BARLEY.
Whenever the average price of barley, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be, for every quarter,

Under 28 s.

the duty shall be, for every quarter

2s.

6d.

28 s.

and under 29 s.

2

0

29

30

1

6

30

31

1

0

31

and upwards

0

6

OATS.
Whenever the average price of oats, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be, for every quarter,

Under 22 s.

the duty shall be, for every quarter

2s.

0d.

22 s.

and under 23 s.

1

6

33 s.

and upwards

0

6

RYE, PEASE, AND BEANS.
Whenever the average price of rye, or of pease, or of beans, made up and published in the manner required by law, shall be, for every quarter,

Under 30 s.

the duty shall be, for every quarter

3s.

0d.

30 s.

and under 31 s.

2

6

31

32

2

0

32

33

1

6

33

34

1

0

34

and upwards

0

6

WHEAT MEAL AND FLOUR.
For every barrel, being one hundred and ninety-six pounds;
A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on thirty-eight and a half gallons of wheat.

OATMEAL.
For every quantity of one hundred and eighty-one pounds and a half;
A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of oats.

MAIZE OR INDIAN CORN, BUCK WHEAT, BEAR, OR BIGG.
For every quarter;
A duty equal in amount to the duty payable on a quarter of barley."
2. "That it is expedient to amend the laws relating to the mode of taking and determining the average prices of corn."
Mr. E. Bullerrose to move an amendment. It was from a feeling that this measure could give no satisfaction that he overcame his reluctance to protract the debate. He wished to preserve Ministers from the consequences, and the country from the mischiefs of this ruinous measure. Were the question at issue solely between himself and the right hon. Baronet, or himself and the hon. Members for Dorsetshire and East Kent, it would be very considerably narrowed. It might be recollected that, on a former occasion, he ventured to say that he thought there were terms in which a compromise might be come to. He ventured to say that the principal part of the compromise ought to be protection to the agricultural interest up to the point where it was expedient that the interest of the consumer should be attended to. The right hon. Baronet, in his reply, fully admitted that. He said it was perfectly right to consult the interest of the agriculturist up to a certain point, and beyond that, it was the duty of the House to look mainly at the interest of the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman went further, he said he was satisfied that if the agricultural interest was protected at 60 s., then it was their duty to look only to the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman had proposed his scale, which was to give protection to the agricultural interest up to 60 s.; he proposed his scale, which was also to give protection to the agricultural interest up to 64 s. The first question at issue was, the degree of protection which the right hon. Baronet himself held the agricultural interest to be justly entitled to; the second was, whether his (Mr. E. Buller's) scale did not afford adequate protection. If it

1361
did, and if it were at the same time better for the consumer, the right hon. Baronet was bound to accept it. The great question at issue was this,—whether, having arrived at 66 s., with a duty of 6s., the duty ought to be gradually remitted; or whether it ought, under all the circumstances, to be permanently maintained. The question between himself and the hon. Members for Dorsetshire and East Kent, was a narrower question. They said that a fixed duty was the best mode of protection, provided it could be maintained. Having undertaken to bring forward a scale, and place it in contrast with the right hon. Baronet's, he felt it his duty to enter more fully into the question—to point out the defects of the scale of the right hon. Gentleman, and having so done, he should proceed to show that his own scale gave adequate protection to the farmer, and was infinitely better for the consumer. The great difference between the two scales was, that the right hon. Baronet proposed gradually to lower the duty as the price of corn rose to 73 s., whereas, he proposed only to lower the duty till the price reached 64 s., and then to retain a duty of 6s. The right hon Baronet fully admitted all the mischiefs of the present law. He admitted that it had acted with undue severity on the consumers. He admitted that it held out a sufficient inducement under almost all circumstances to the holders of corn in bond to keep it from the market; but the right hon. Baronet said that in the plan which he now proposed he had reduced the inducement to withhold corn— that his new proposal would not have the injurious effects of the old law. He took issue with the right hon. Gentleman. He told him that, inasmuch as he had left the maximum of price and the minimum of duty precisely where it was, he had given no effectual relief to the consumer when prices were high— that it would be found that the law, as at present, would naturally force up corn to the maximum price of 73 s., and a minimum duty of 1s. The right hon. Baronet said that he had reduced the temptation to withhold corn in bond from the market, in which he did not concur. Comparing the existing scale with the plan proposed by the right hon. Baronet, he found that by the proposed scale, when corn was at 73 s. there was a duty of 1s., and it held out an inducement to the holder of corn in bond when the price was 64 s., to retain it there, and speculate for a high price, by which, he would obtain an advance of 1s. upon
1362
each quarter of grain, and, if the price reached 73 s., 8s. per quarter, in the duty. On the other hand, there was the possibility of a loss by the fall of price and the rise of the duty of 1s. upon each quarter of corn. The measure of the right hon. Baronet was in fact the same in principle as the existing measure, but the profit or loss to the corn dealer consequent upon a rise or fall in price was more gradual; but still a prudent man would withhold corn in the one case as the other. The result, as all might perceive, was that so far from corn flowing freely into the market when the price was at 64 s. or 66 s., it was retained in bond in order to obtain the higher price and escape the duty. In 1841 the price of corn, early in September, was 72 s. 8d., and the duty 2s. 8d., and there was at that time in bond no less than 1,900,000 quarters of wheat ready to come into the market. Of that quantity only 28,000 quarters were brought in at the duty of 2s. 8d., and the great bulk was retained until the price rose and the duty fell, and the whole of the remainder was brought in at the duty of 1s. Again in 1838, the average price on the 4th September, was 72 s.11 d., and there was then in bond and ready to be brought into the market 1,200,000 quarters. Of that quantity again, 28,000 quarters were brought in at the duty of 2s. 8d., while upwards of 1,100,000 quarters were retained till the duty fell to1 s. In 1831 the same results occurred with a smaller quantity in bond. In February of that year there were 200,000 quarters in bond, and the price was 72 s. 8d.; 1,000 quarters only were introduced at the 2s. 8d. duty, while 195,000 were brought in when the price rose to the highest point and the duty fell to 1s. In 1828, in the first week of November, the duty was 2s. 8d., the price being 72 s. 8d., and at that time there was between 400,000 and 500,000 quarters in bond. Of that quantity only 1000 quarters were brought in at the duty of 2s. 8d. — it was retained in bond till the duty fell to 1s. when the whole of the remainder was freed. Now, what he ventured to assert from these results was, that whenever the price rose to a certain amount in this country it clearly indicated that a supply of foreign corn was necessary, and if that supply was withheld corn would necessarily reach the maximum price. He would venture further to assert that 66 s. was the price which indicated the necessity for that foreign supply, and which would most certainly bring up the price of corn in the English markets

1363
to the maximum. He believed there was scarcely an instance on record in which, when the price had risen to 66 s. it had not eventually reached the maximum point [" Hear, hear."] He had, unfortunately for his sins, been guilty of the offence of putting a notice of an amended scale upon the books, and he trusted he might be allowed to explain his motives for so doing to the House. In 1828, on the 30th October, the price of corn was 66 s. and 67 s., and on the 27th of November it had reached 75 s. In 1829, on the 9th of April, the price was 66 s. 3d., and in September it was 72 s. 11 d. And that certainly was an instance in which it did not quite reach the maximum point. In 1830, on the 10th of December the price was 65 s. 11 d., and on the 3d March, 1831, it was 73 s. 2d. He would pass over the years in which there was no importation of foreign corn. In 1838, on the 19th July, the price was 66 s. 4d., and on the 13th September, it was 73 s. In 1839, on the 13th October it was 66 s., and on the 13th December it was 73 s. In 1839, on the 26th December it was 66 s. 5d., and on the 3d September 1840, following, it was 72 s. 3d., being the second and only other exception to the general rule. In 1841, the price in July was 66 s. 3d., and on the 12th August it was 74 s. 7d. Now, if that view were a correct one, and that it was all but certain that the inducement to withhold corn at 66 s. was so great as he had shown, the scale of the right hon. Baronet would act in the very same way. He maintained that the result of the scale proposed by the right. hon. Baronet, would be, as was the case with the present scale, to retain corn in bond until the price was forced up to 73 s. It was true the inducements held out by the scale of the right hon. Baronet were not quite so strong as those under the existing scale, but still they were sufficient to produce similar results. The only way in which the sliding scale could be retained without producing that result was to lower the maximum point of price, and by that means relieve the consumer from the pressure under which lie at present laboured. It was said by the right hon. Baronet that there were four locks on the door that kept the corn in bond, and the key which opened the door was the maximum price and the minimum duty. The right hon. Gentleman said he had removed two of the locks, by which means the door would be opened more easily, and more frequently; but he (Mr. Buller) would tell him that the two locks he left
1364
behind were sufficiently strong to keep the property secure, unless he applied the master key of lowering of the duty. It was for the reasons he had stated, that be objected to the scale proposed by the right hon. Baronet—the material difference between his plan and that of the right hon. Baronet was, that whereas the right hon. Baronet made a rest at 66 s. and retained the sliding scale up to 69 s.—not, as he said, for the benefit of the grower or the producer, but solely and entirely for the benefit of the consumer—that being so, he (Mr. Buller) took a different view of the matter, and proposed that at 64 s. there should be a fixed duty of 6s., which would give the people of this country, when corn had reached that price, the absolute advantage of a free-trade in corn. 64 s. was the highest price the farmer obtained when this country was supplied by the home growth. He would now show what would have been the effect of the right hon. Baronet's scale had it been in operation in 1841, and he would next show what would have been the effect of his own scale. During the whole of the early part of that year the prices rose gradually and steadily, and if the view which he took of this subject were correct, the certainty of obtaining a rise in price and a reduction in duty would have been sufficient, under the right hon. Baronet's scale as well as under the present, to keep up the whole of the corn till the price rose to 73 s. and the duty fell to 1s. He would show the effect of his own scale. In July there were in bond in this country 558,000 quarters of corn; the price at that time was 61 s., and the whole of that might have been purchased at Dantric— the price at which port he would take to be the ruling price of the Baltic—at 40 s. Adding 10 s. for the cost of importation, and 6s. for duty, the whole of it might have been sold in this country at a profit at 56 s. a quarter. But it all remained in bond. In August there were 800,000 quarters in bond, which might have been sold at some profit at prices varying from 60 s. 6d. to 66 s., paying a duty of 240,000 l. But none of this was sold till the prices rose to 76 s., and the duty fell so low, that the entire duty then paid was only 40,000 l. In September there were 1,300,000 quarters in bond, which might have been profitably sold at 71 s., and would then have paid a gross duty of 380,000 l.; but it was kept up till the price rose in the country to 77 s. and in London to 80 s., and the duty fell, so that the entire amount paid was

1365
65,000 l. In July, when the price was 64 s., if his scale had been in operation, the markets would have been relieved, instead of suffering from such an increased rise in prices, and the public generally would have been benefited. He could not believe, with Mr. Hubbard, that the country would be ever again in the same situation in which it was in 1817. The hon. Member concluded with moving the following scale as an amendment, to leave out the words—

52 s.

and under 53 s.

18 s.

53 s.

54 s.

17 s.

54 s.

55 s.

16 s.

Sir R. Peelthought that the proposition of the hon. Gentleman's resembled his own, so far as it was said to please nobody, as he conjectured by the difficulty which the hon. Gentleman had in obtaining a seconder. He trusted that the hon. Gentleman would not attribute to any feeling of personal disrespect his intention to decline entering into a discussion on the present occasion. It was desirable to have an end to these discussions. If they were to have a perpetual renewal of these debates, though he might travel over the ground even at a canter, he could produce no effect but that which the hon. Member had deprecated in his own person—that of wearying the House. The hon. Gentleman proposed a duty of 20 s. when wheat was below 50 s., and a duty of 6s. when wheat was 64 s. and upwards. The hon. Gentleman's scale differed slightly from his. At 66 s. he proposed a duty of 6s.; at 64 s. the hon. Gentleman proposed the same rate of duty, but the hon. Gentleman's 6s. duty was at that point to be permanently fixed, and therefore at certain prices it would be higher than his. He thought they had sufficiently discussed these preliminary ques-
* The following is the scale which Mr. Buller meant to have substituted, had he succeeded.

Under 51 s.

Duty 20 s.

51 s.

and under 52

19

52

53

18

53

54

17

54

55

16

55

56

15

56

57

14

57

58

13

58

59

12

59

60

11

60

61

10

61

62

9

62

63

8

63

64

7

64

and upwards

6

tions, to render it unnecessary to say any thing upon them at this period of these debates. He must remind the hon. Gentleman that had the noble Lord the Member for the City of London been in his place he would not have agreed with the hon. Gentleman, for that noble Lord said, in reference to a fixed duty of 8s., that it would be necessary to provide by law for its cessation under certain circumstances. He did not think that he could be charged with having shrunk from a discussion during these debates, but, considering that it was for the public advantage that there should be a limit to them, that they had had nine nights' debate already, and that at other stages of the measure there would be ample opportunity afforded for discussing it, he trusted that the House would excuse him if he declined entering now into the discussion to which the hon. Gentleman seemed to invite him.
Mr. E. Bullersaid, he was surprised and disappointed to find that the compromise which he offered, and which he had been led to suppose would be cheerfully accepted, was now, on the contrary, contemptuously ejected.
Sir R. Peeldisclaimed having said a word which would at all justify the hon. Member in supposing that if he brought forward any scheme in the way of a compromise, it would be at once cheerfully accepted by him. Having succeeded in carrying through the committee every proposition embodied in his resolutions, if the hon. Gentleman believed that any alteration of his scale would be at once accepted by him, the hon. Gentleman was more credulous than, from what he knew of the hon. Gentleman's character and conduct, he should have been led to believe.
Mr. Wardsaid, that as a compromise, the proposition of the hon. Member for Staffordshire, would be quite as unacceptable to many hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House as it appeared to be to the right hon. Baronet, because it contained at one end a duty which amounted to a prohibition, and, at the other, a fixed duty of 6s., to both of which they were opposed.
Amendment withdrawn, resolution again put.
Mr. Hastiewould not detain the House with any long statements. He would only remark upon some of the effects of the present sliding scale, which he believed to be most injurious to the country, and then proceed to propose the amendment of which

1367
he had given notice. By the scale proposed by the right hon. Baronet opposite a prohibitory duty would exist when the price of wheat amounted to 56 s. Now, the consequence of this prohibitory duty would be, that in years of comparative plenty, such as 1834-5-6, when the average price of corn ranged at about 44 s., great quantities of grain would accumulate in the continental ports, as well as in bond in this country. A sudden demand in consequence of a bad harvest arises, and will necessarily cause an immense circulation of bills upon the continent, for the purchase of the wheat in store, and the exchanges would thus be turned against the country. The Bank would at once feel the effects of this state of things in the drain of gold which would follow. The monetary and commercial relations of the country would thereby be deranged, and the interests of the manufacturer and the merchant seriously injured. This was the effect of prohibitory duties of the present law, and will be the same under the one proposed. But did the farmer benefit by them? From the derangement of the currency, the merchant and the manufacturer's trade was paralysed, workmen thrown out of employment, and the wages of those retained lowered; in these circumstances was it likely that, with reduced means, people could afford to buy the quantity of food they otherwise would consume? He had no hesitation in saying that consequences such as he had described would probably be felt in the present year from the want of consumption, and the quantity of wheat imported. The wheat market was then dull, and prices were falling, on account of the immense quantity of wheat imported in consequence of the jerks of the present sliding scale. Having thus alluded to some of the effects of the sliding scale, he would proceed to demonstrate how he believed the measure he was about to propose would operate in curing them. Supposing that 1,000,000 quarters of wheat were allowed to be annually imported at a duty of 1s., he did not believe that the consequent reduction of price would injuriously affect the interests of the farmer, but it would have the excellent consequence of forming a steady trade with corn-growing nations to the amount in value of the quantity of corn regularly imported. And not only would these good effects as regarded extension of trade follow, but the imported corn, being of the best quality, would be mixed with the second class of English
1368
wheat, and thus give it a currency and price, which, in bad seasons, it would not otherwise obtain. He would allude to the effect his motion, if agreed to, would produce in Ireland. It was well known that in that country there were very few seasons when the quality of corn grown was such that the grain could be used by itself, and without mixture with corn of a superior quality. Now, under the provisions of his proposition, corn could be at once brought to Ireland in order to improve the quality of the native grown wheat. But in years such as 1835, when corn was comparatively low-priced, the land-owner might say that the introduction of the proposed quantity of a million of quarters of corn would lower the price so far as to prove most injurious to the home grower. He, however, thought that such would not be the case, for under such regulations as he was about to propose, the prices of corn would be such that they could export large quantities to the colonies, and even supply the Brazils. Thus the surplus quantity of grain would be got rid of in a way which would employ both the capital and the shipping belonging to the country. Having stated some of the effects which he believed his proposition would produce, he could not help saying, with regard to the sliding scale, that he believed that if the original contrivers of that measure had laid their heads together to invent a mode whereby the farmer should have the greatest amount of nominal, without any real protection, they would not have contrived a better. And if at the same time they had studied how best to contrive it, so as periodically to derange the currency and paralyse the commerce and manufactures of the country, it is impossible they could have devised a plan better calculated to produce those evils, and which must ever attend any sliding scale of duties which has in it, under any circumstance of price, a prohibitory duty. He would detain the House no longer, but proceed at once to move the addition of the following words to the end of the resolution:—
"And that in each year, and before the scale of duties comes into operation, the following quantities of grain shall be admitted for home consumption at a duty of 1s. the quarter, viz. 1,000,000 quarters of wheat, 250,000 quarters of barley, and 250,000 quarters of oats."
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he hoped that he had not said anything which would lead the hon. Gentleman opposite to be-

1369
lieve that he would accede to his proposal. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman was not labouring under the delusion which appeared to have possessed the last hon. Member who had spoken from his side of the House. Of all the schemes which had been submitted to the House, that of the hon. Member appeared to him to be the most extravagant. The proposition of that hon. Gentleman was, that a certain given quantity of wheat, of oats, and of barley, should be admitted at the nominal duty of 1s. in every year. This quantity was to be admitted regularly, no matter what the necessities of the country might be, no matter what the prices of corn might be—1,000,000 quarters of wheat, 250,000 quarters of barley, and 250,000 quarters of oats were to be regularly admitted during each year. It would of course be necessary to define the exact limits of the year. Take it from the 1st of January to the 1st of January, suppose it to be limited by these periods—then suppose that on the 2nd of January 2,000,000 of quarters were in bond—the holders of 1,000,000 quarters of this quantity would be entitled to introduce it at the duty of 1s. per quarter, what a scramble there would be among the holders. Suppose 2,000,000 of quarters were to be imported, one half of which was to be imported almost duty free, who was to decide between the rival holders?
Mr. Hastie:The point would be settled by the order of the arrivals of the importing vessels.
Sir Robert Peel:Supposing corn to be at the time of the introduction of the duty free quantity about 56 s. in price, importers would be entitled to introduce it upon paying a duty of 16 s. Suddenly, without any peculiar necessity or demand,1,000,000 of quarters would be poured in, prices would immediately fall, and duties would be raised as regarded the holders of the remaining stock in bond. The price would fall to 50 s., the duty would rise to 20 s., and how the hon. Member could propose a measure having such effects as a remedy for the evils of having sliding scale he could not understand. Then the measure of the hon. Gentleman appeared to le intended to facilitate intercourse with the United States of America. [Mr. Hastie : "It will do so effectually."]" He could not understand how." The right hon. Baronet proceeded: If 1,000,000 of quarters of corn were every year to be introduced, say
1370
on the 2nd of January, the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp would have a great advantage over the ports of America, because the quantity to be admitted was limited, and as every party would be desirous of having his grain entered as soon as possible after the 1st of January, it was obvious that the result would be a great disadvantage to the more distant corn growing countries. His great objection to the proposition was, that in all years corn was to be regularly thrown in upon the market free of duty. Such a proposal he thought was vicious in its very nature. When the price of wheat was 50 s. per quarter, 1,000,000 quarters were to be poured in, when it was 70 s. per quarter, no additional quantity was to be introduced. The same degree of relief was to be given in every year, without reference to public necessities, and, after the stated quantity of grain was introduced, the sliding scale was proposed to be left in full operation for the remainder of the year. He could not understand in what manner the proposed measure was to affect the stability or the extension of trade. It appeared to him that it would aggravate the evils of the present system, instead of producing a tendency to mitigate their effects; and if relief were to depend on the accidental length of time in which corn might happen to have been kept in bond, a very great advantage would be given to the countries along the shores of the Baltic over America. Under these circumstances he felt it to be his duty not to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member.
Mr. Hastierose to explain the mode or introduction which he intended should be pursued, and which he believed the right hon. Baronet did not clearly comprehend. Vessels with wheat would not all arrive at once, but in succession, and his plan was, that they should take precedence in the order of the arrival, until the required quantity of grain was made up.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that this would still be giving a great advantage to the nearer over the distant ports.
Mr. Hastiereplied, that the distant ports would be aware of the law, and would ship their cargoes so as to be in good time for the period of free admission. If the cargoes did not arrive until the million of quarters had been filled up, the corn must be kept in bond until the next year. He feared that, from want of prac-

1371
tice in addressing the House, he had not made his plan sufficiently intelligible.
Motion negatived.
Resolution agreed to.
Second resolution agreed to, and bill ordered to be brought in.

VAN DIEMEN'S LAND.
On the order of the day for the third reading of the Van Diemen's Land Bill having been read,
Mr. Murphybegged to call the attention of the House to a circumstance connected with the measure before the House, of which he had been informed by a constituent. The gentleman alluded to had carried on business in Van Diemen's Land as a distiller before a proclamation of Sir G. Arthur was issued, which levied certain duties upon the article which he manufactured, and had ruined his business. It was, however, since understood, that these duties were laid on by a party having no authority to levy them or to levy any such duties. His constituent in consequence had raised an action against Sir G. Arthur for damages, and he (Mr. Murphy) wished to know whether it were the intention of Government that the bill which they were now to introduce, upon subjects connected with that to which he was alluding, would contain a clause having a retrospective effect in legalising the proceedings of the governor of the colony, and thus cutting off the legal means of redress open to his constituent, for what at the time of its exaction was undoubtedly an unauthorised exaction. He thought it hard that the Governor of Van Diemen's Land should be indemnified, while the gentleman for whom he asked the question was left without any such relief. He trusted, however, that the bill in question would contain a clause giving the required compensation.
Lord Stanleythought that the person alluded to by the hon. Gentleman had no claim to object to the passing of the bill which Government had introduced. He had no doubt but that that person was a respectable individual; but the hon. Gentleman opposite had not had the opportunity of seeing the voluminous correspondence in which he had been engaged with reference to the matter, and had, therefore, no such complete knowledge of the case as he had. The claim of this person, Mr. Hackett, was that which led to the discovery of the flaw in the power of the governor to levy the taxes alluded to. Mr. Hackett had received compensation, but
1372
was not satisfied with the amount; and it was on that question that he had entered into the voluminous correspondence referred to. The bill introduced by Government was founded on the following circumstances: It appeared that, previous to the year 1829, the duties were levied in Van Diemen's Land by proclamation. In 1829, an act was passed for levying the duties by order of the Governor and Council. Up to 1834 all the duties continued to be levied, without considering the illegality of the proceeding, on proclamation by the governor, instead of by the Governor and Council. In 1834, the irregularity was discovered, and an act of the Governor and Council passed to give validity to duties claimed under the irregular order. Doubts were, however, thrown upon the power of the council of Van Diemen's Land to remedy the irregularities under which the duties had been collected from 1829 to 1834; and it was under these circumstances that Parliament was called open to interfere and legalise the proceedings of the council of Van Diemen's Land.
Mr. Murphywas quite satisfied with the noble Lord's explanation, and rejoiced that he should have elicited so clear a statement on the part of the Government.
Mr. Wakley:If the fact was that no proceedings had been instituted of late years, he did not see why indemnity should be granted. It may have been that a higher amount of duties was levied than the officers were justified imposing, and if that were so, it was hard that the parties resisting them should be refused costs.
Lord Stanley:There was no doubt about what occurred since 1834. This measure was merely to give validity to acts previous to that year.
Bill read a third time.

MARRIAGES (IRELAND.)
On the order of the day being read for the third reading of the Marriages (Ireland) Bill,
Mr. Murphysaid, that though he understood the Solicitor general for Ireland to promise that he would frame a clause for the purpose of fixing the burden of the supporting' the children by a first marriage, which was declared illegal, on the man, who had married a second time, he found no such clause in the bill as it was now submitted.
Mr. Sergeant Jackson: Though the case stated by the hon. and learned Gen-

1373
tleman was a very strong one, he had given no other promise with regard to it than that he should take it into consideration. It was not considered expedient to frame a clause to meet the case complained of—first, because he believed it was a solitary one; and next, because it would not be just that the person alluded to should be dealt with, as it was suggested he should be, without being heard.
Bill read a third time.
On the question that it do pass,
Mr. Sharman Crawfordwas desirous of calling the attention of the House to the injudicious limitation of the first clause. Relief, it appeared, was only intended to be given in cases in which marriages had been celebrated by Presbyterian ministers between members of their own congregations and of the Established Church. Now it had been understood in Ireland for years, that all marriages celebrated by Presbyterian ministers were legal, and many instances had occurred in which two members of the Established Church had been married by a Presbyterian minister. Now it was very hard that persons so circumstanced should be precluded from relief. It was cruel to illegitimatise families, merely in consequence of such a mistake on the part of their parents. Relief by such a bill as this ought not to be stinted, but it should be extended to all cases in which parties had married under a misapprehension of the law. He had understood that there were many cases in Ireland of marriages celebrated by Presbyterian ministers between members of their own congregation and members of the other sects; he wished to know from the learned Gentleman opposite, in what situation those parties were placed by the decision of the Irish Judges, and whether such marriages were valid in law? He thought that all marriages solemnised by a Presbyterian clergyman should be made valid. He would, therefore, move that all the words in the first clause, between the word "teachers," in the 11th line, to the word "shall," in the 25th, be omitted.
Mr. F. Maulehoped that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion, as he was sure his object would be answered by an assurance from the Government that they would take it into consideration. He must, however, enter his protest against the clause for legitimatising the offspring of the second marriage, and leaving the father quite free, even as to the support of
1374
the first. He thought it was not at all certain but that the children of the first marriage would dispute the matter at law after this bill was brought in, and it was by no means certain whether the decision of the Irish judges would be adhered to.
Mr. Shawobserved, that in the first place it was always considered that a Presbyterian clergyman marrying persons belonging to the Church of England did that which was not considered quite lawful. And, in the next place, it was clear that though this bill provided for an existing defect, it did not shut out the parties alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman from trying the question before a legal tribunal.
Sir R. Peeltrusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not press his motion to a division. The object of this bill was merely to provide for an existing evil, which might lead to others if remedied in too hasty and inconsiderate a manner. Looking at the state of the marriage law, it did not present much ground for satisfaction. He was aware of the difficulties of assimilating the law in the three countries, and particularly of those which impeded any change in Scotland; but a question which affected the peace and domestic happiness of families was in a most unsatisfactory condition. He was sure, too, that the general marriage law of Ireland could not be touched without inquiry and without great caution. It was the intention of her Majesty's Government to look into the subject, which was one the House of Lords might apply themselves to with the greatest advantage. It would be impossible, however, even for that House, reckoning as it did amongst its members the highest legal authorities, to touch this question without consulting the feelings of all classes of the people.
Mr. Wakley,while he hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw the present amendment, did not see why, if any change was requisite, that House could not make the necessary inquiry and alterations with as much advantage as the House of Lords.
Lord Eliotobserved, that there existed the greatest anxiety for the passing of this bill. He had looked through the petitions, and he did not find a single allusion to such a case as that referred to by the amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
Sir P. Peelwished to qualify what he had said, by a single observation—and that was, that if they extended the provisions of this law to a single other case than the

1375
obvious evil which it meant to remedy they might throw doubts on the validity of several marriages which were now undisputed.
Mr. Littonbore testimony to the fact, that no case such as that alluded to had occurred within the knowledge of the bar of Ireland.
Amendment withdrawn. Bill passed.
Adjourned.