he lamented that the entire duty on timber had not been taken off. When every duty was taken off all other raw articles of manufacture, why was it retained on timber, which was so useful an article in the consumption of the poor? He called particular attention to the advantage which the maritime population of these islands would derive from the entire abolition of the timber duties. The fisheries on our coast were the most productive in the world, and yet we did not draw from them anything like the benefit which we ought. And why? Because our poor countrymen were not in a condition to fit out their boats properly, owing to the high price of timber; and more lives were annually lost on our coasts, owing to the defective equipment of our fishing boats, than were lost on the coasts of every other country in the world.

Lord George Bentinck cautioned honourable Members against being led away by the facts and figures quoted, or to be quoted by Ministers on this subject, for as an illustrious relative of his, Mr. Canning, had once remarked, the last thing which a man of sense would believe in the House of Commons was a statement of facts and figures. He maintained that Mr. Warburton had been correct in declaring that the alteration in the timber duties, made in the tariff of 1842, had been of great advantage to the consumers of this country, by preventing Canadian timber from advancing to an exorbitant price. He showed that that alteration had indeed produced a small reduction in the price of Canadian timber; but, on the other hand, it had placed a considerable amount of duty, which formerly went into the British exchequer, in the pockets

of the Baltic timber grower. He then asked the House to consider whether his friends, who called on the Government for the repeal of the Excise duties, of which the advantage would be equally divided between the consumer and the grower of the article in this country, were not wiser than the Ministers who refused to repeal such duties, and limited themselves to the reduction of the Custom duties on those articles of foreign production which came into competition with articles the production of our own land, or of our own colonies. He then pointed out at great length the injury which the resolution was calculated to inflict upon Canada. Our Canadian brethren had reason to be alarmed, and were alarmed, at the mere proposition of this reduction. They were already discussing the question, whether it would not be better for them to be annexed to the United States, and were preparing remonstrances against the new commercial policy of the British Government. Surely this was not the time, when America was arming her seaboard, and Quincy Adams was blasphemously quoting scripture to justify aggressive war--surely this was not the time to alienate by fiscal regulations and Customs' Acts the attachment of the Canadas from this country. He was no friend to war; but if war should come, he would send those British seamen, whom their present legislation was injuring so much, to destroy the American seaboard, and to speak in language which could not be misunderstood, to New York, and Boston, and New Orleans. Turning from this warlike demonstration against America, which was received with partial cheers, he entered into a long statistical dis

sertation, displaying much industry and research, to prove that the shipping interest had been injured, and would be still more essentially injured, by the relaxation of the protection under which it had grown up. If the shipping interest were injured, our maritime supremacy would be endangered; and if by any vicissitude of fortune it should be lost, the glory and prosperity of England would be placed in the utmost jeopardy.

Sir G. Clerk observed, that though Lord G. Bentinck had declared his intention of objecting to this resolution on the three grounds of revenue, of protection to our colonies, and of our maritime supremacy, he had said little or nothing on the first of them, because it was impossible for him to prove that the resolution would produce injury to the treasury. The noble lord had been more diffuse on the second point, but he (Sir G. Clerk) thought that the predictions of the noble lord, as to the ruin of the Canada trade by this resolution, would be falsified by events as completely as all the former predictions of its ruin had been. On the third point, the noble lord's argument was in some respects of so exaggerated a character as to carry its own refutation along with it; for he had contended that our shipping interest had so fallen off that we must fear competition with the mercantile navy of Norway and Denmark. He then entered into an examination of several of the statistical documents quoted by Lord George Bentinck; and, having concluded it, observed that every shipowner agreed, that up to the year 1840 the shipping interest was in the most flourishing description. During the next three years it

had been in a state of depression, owing to two causes. The first was, that every other interest in this country had been in a state of great depression; and the second, that the shipping interest was then exposed to great competition, but not from foreigners. Too many ships had been built in our own ports, in consequence of the previous prosperity; and when a reaction came, the competition for freight produced a great reduction in the profits of the shipowner. From returns which he read from the ports of London and Liverpool, he hoped that the prosperity of the shipping interest was now reestablished, and he was certain that it would not be impaired by the present resolution.

Mr. C. Buller observed, that as the rest of this question had been very satisfactorily disposed of, he would confine himself to the remarks of Lord G. Bentinck, on the indignation which he declared was now shaking Canada from one end of it to the other. Now he thought that when Lord G. Bentinck unfurled the Union Jack, as the flag of the party sitting on the Protection benches, he ought along with the influence to assume the gravity and responsibility of the leader of a party. He (Mr. C. Buller) thought that the use of the language of dignified courtesy towards foreign nations, such as Sir Robert Peel habitually used, was preferable to bandying bombast with the braggarts of America, and to justifying the vagaries of poor Mr. Adams by congenial bluster. He had intimated his dissent from Lord G. Bentinck, when he said that the inhabitants of Canada were discussing the expediency of separating themselves from England, and of

annexing themselves to America, on account of this resolution. He had received papers from Canada as well as the noble lord; and the editor of one of the Montreal papers, amid the indignation which was said to be shaking Canada to its centre, calmly announced that he would take a week to think of the Government proposition. He was sure that when a call was made upon them, the Canadians would join with us in rallying round our common country. By sending men like Lord Metcalf and Sir C. Bagot, as governors to Canada, Sir Robert Peel had allayed the feelings of the Canadians, and had established a stronger connection between England and Canada than could be established by all our restrictive monopolies. He then proceeded to justify the resolution. He was convinced that this change in the amount of the duties could never have been made at a time more favourable to the Canadas than the present, for their timber was in such demand for railway purposes, both in England and on the continent of Europe, as to render them careless of any monopoly. He implored the House to recollect that every man's dwelling in the United Kingdom would be affected by this resolution.

The House then divided, when there appeared for the amendment, 100; against it, 232. The resolution was, therefore, affirmed by a majority of 132.

The Bill embodying the various reductions in the tariff passed through Committee with very little discussion, it being arranged that the debate should take place on the third reading. On that occasion the opposition was renewed by Lord G. Bentinck, who assailed the measure; first, on the ground

that the best mode of levying taxes for revenue was by Customs, rather than by Excise duties; and secondly, on the ground that we ought not to remit 2,400,0001. of Customs' duties till we had satisfied ourselves that we could not remit any of the duties on Excise, which pressed so heavily on the people of England. His third ground of opposition was that, if we were determined to reduce Customs' duties in preference to Excise duties, we ought to apply ourselves-and his complaint was that we had not applied ourselves

to the reduction of duties on articles produced by those countries which dealt most leniently with our commodities. His fourth ground was that, when you reduced a Customs' duty, the producer abroad shared the benefit of the reduction with the consumer at home; whereas, when you reduced an Excise duty, be it on hops, soap, or corn, the entire reduction went into the pockets of the subjects of Great Britain. The noble lord then proceeded to object, in detail, to the reductions which it was now proposed to make in the duties on silk and timber, and to point out the injury which, in both cases, would be inflicted on our native industry. There was no justification to be found for these reductions in our tariff, in the reductions of foreign tariffs on our commodities. They were in direct opposition to the policy of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Huskisson. Their doctrines of free trade were not doctrines of free trade without reciprocity-on the contrary, they warranted the doctrine of Mr. Disraeli, that we must retaliate on hostile tariffs by antagonistic measures. The noble lord then repeated his former argu

ments against free trade, derived from the alleged injury which it would inflict, first on our shipping and colonial interests, and ultimately on the general interests of the empire. He insisted that Ministers had no reason to exult over the intelligence they had recently received from the Canadas. The Canadas were not satisfied with the imperial policy; but only consented to it because they could not resist it. He concluded by moving, that the report be taken into further consideration that day six months.

Government from repealing the duties on soap, hops, and malt, as the noble lord advised, he proceeded to point out the fallacy of his objections to the reductions now proposed in the timber duties. The fallacy of them consisted in this-that his lordship appeared to suppose that what was an advantage to one country must of necessity be a disadvantage to another; whereas trade, if properly carried on, was productive of advantage to all parties concerned in it. He denied that the Canadians were adverse to the reduction of either

The Chancellor of the Exchequer proceeded to comment upon the new principles of finance and trade which had been that evening laid down by Lord G. Bentinck, and which were not likely to be adopted by any finance Minister, unless, indeed, it were by the noble lord himself. He had proposed to repeal the whole of the Excise duties, and to raise a similar amount of revenue by raising Customs' duties commensurate to the Excise duties which he repealed. Now, if Lord G. Bentinck were able to carry such a project into execution, he would place on the foreign trade of the country a burden which it could not bear, and which would be equally injurious to the foreign producer and the home consumer. Such a project was not in conformity with the commercial policy of Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning, and Mr. Huskisson, which the noble lord had so much eulogized; for it was the constant practice of those great Ministers to apportion the amount of taxation which they proposed to remit, equally between Customs and Excise. After declaring that reasons of revenue prevented the

ties, and treated as a mere idle bugbear the apprehension that ei ther reduction would induce them to wish for annexation to the United States. He ridiculed the notion that commerce could be beficially carried on under a mutual system of hostile tariffs. Hostile tariffs always begot complaint and irritation between nations, and not unfrequently terminated in animosity and war.

Mr. G. Bankes complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had answered a speech which he had made for Lord G. Bentinck, and had left unanswered the speech which his lordship had made for himself. His noble friend had never proposed to repeal the whole amount of the Excise duties, but, as Mr. Pitt and Mr. Huskisson had proposed before him, to apportion his remission of duties between those two departments. He thought that we had rushed rashly on to the repeal of our Customs' duties, without considering whether we should gain any corresponding advantage for it. It would have been better to have repealed the duties on tea, sugar, soap, and malt, or one or all of

those articles, as the state of the revenue permitted. He concluded by replying to some observations of Sir James Graham on the Corn Laws, and justified the irregularity of his doing so by declaring that, though the Corn Importation Bill was not now before the House, it was very probable that it might be before it again within a short period.

Mr. Hawes understood that the House was assembled to debate the Customs' duties; and he was therefore not inclined to discuss at present whether we ought to repeal the Excise duties, or whether we did right in passing the Corn Bill. He knew that this measure was calculated to promote the general trade of the country, and was acceptable to far the largest portion of the community. The House had already listened that evening to a long debate upon it; and yet no person connected with either the trading, manufacturing, or commercial interests had come forward to support the motion of Lord G. Bentinck. When he saw that the same had been the case on many other motions, which the noble lord had prefaced with very long speeches, he could not help considering these mere party motions made principally for the sake of delay.

Mr. Plumptre indignantly repelled the accusation that the Protection party had unnecessarily obstructed this measure, which would plunge the trade and commerce of the country into irretrievable ruin. If the delays, of which Mr. Hawes complained, had lasted not for a few weeks, but for a whole Session, or even for a whole Parliament, they would have been justified by the immense VOL. LXXXVIII.

importance of this most alarming innovation.

Dr. Bowring entered into a consideration of the favourable effects which the liberal policy of Her Majesty's Government was calculated to produce upon foreign Governments. To his knowledge they were already responding to our friendly legislation, and there could be no doubt of its being received by them in a spirit of reciprocity. He read several letters from the United States, and also from the Canadas, to prove the high satisfaction with which the announcement of our free-trade measures had been received in every portion of the North American Continent. He had no hesitation in declaring that on the Continent of Europe they had made Sir Robert Peel justly and universally popular. He was considered as the representative of the wealth and power and intelligence of England, and his example had already encouraged the Sovereigns of Naples, Sardinia, and Tuscany, to make considerable reductions in their tariffs.

Mr. Henley could not support this measure, which was a specimen of legislation for the benefit of one class of the community at the expense of the other.

Mr. Hudson defended the protective system, and complained of the injurious consequences which had already resulted to the labouring classes from the breaches made in that system. The reductions in the silk duties had not worked well for the operative classes in that trade, nor had the reduction of the timber duties been for the benefit of the home consumer. sent measure was of an un-English character; it disregarded home pro[I]

The pre