in rising to bring forward his motion on the above subject, pursuant to notice, disclaimed all imputation of a wish to embarrass the right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the furtherance of his plans of finance. He rose for the purpose of protecting a trade which had been long oppressed, and which, if something was not speedily done for its relief, must of necessity be completely ruined. The tax which had been imposed on leather recently had fallen particularly on one class; it had been hitherto paid by the tanners out of their own pockets, without the possibility of being remunerated; but this, it was obvious, they could not long continue to do, because they must execute contracts previously formed; but then this payment reduced them to the necessity of contracting their speculations, in consequence of which they confined themselves to the home slaughter, and the South American market was thrown out of use. Thus the tanning trade had fallen off no less than one-third, and so much had it affected that class, that by way of illustration, he could mention, that the capital of one whom he knew, had been reduced from an immense sum almost to nothing. There were many other circumstances by which this trade was much depressed, but which he did not feel himself justified in taking up the time of the House so long as would be necessary to detail them. The second class affected by the tax were the curriers. These candidly owned that they had hitherto benefited by the tax, but then it was in consequence of the tanners paying it, as he had stated before, out of their own pockets. As long as this was to continue, they were sure of a better price for their labour; but they had, nevertheless, joined in the petition against the tax, seeing that it could not continue, and rationally apprehending that whenever it ceased they would be sufferers in common with all the other trades concerned.—The third class affected was that of the tanners in shumac. Their business had materially suffered; as had also that of the fourth class, namely, the oiled leather-dressers.—A fifth class consisted of the shoemakers, on whom the tax pressed very heavily. The journeymen, as in other cases, had been as yet preserved from absolute starvation by the bounty of their masters, but that source of assistance was not sufficient to preserve them from great distress. In Staffordshire, in particular, some wholesale manufacturers had been reduced from capitals of 25,000l. to almost nothing, and had scarcely been able to keep their labourers from starving. Some had in a short period been so reduced, that when he went to thank them for their kindness in returning him to parliament, they had met him at the threshold of their doors with a hearty shake, indeed, of the hands, but had expressed their unwillingness that he should enter their houses to see their poverty. One person he particularly alluded to, who thus met him at the threshold, greeted him with a hearty shake of the hand, but appeared averse to letting him enter his dwelling, ashamed of the change he would find in it, stripped as it was of all the little conveniences which were formerly to be found within its walls, but of which the want of employment, and consequent pressure of poverty, had now bereft it. He begged leave to call the attention of the House to the evidence which they had before them. In the evidence which had been taken before the Committee, that of Mr. Roby, the tanner of Tamworth, was particularly worthy of remark. This person had candidly stated, that he had not been himself a sufferer by the tax, but had accounted for an exemption which he was almost singular in enjoying, by stating, that he had foreseen the pressure which the tax would be likely to produce on the trade, and having fortunately speculated on it, had done more than preserve himself from becoming subject to it. He foresaw that the great tanners were likely to contract their trade, whilst the minor tanners must do so; and hence that he might look for an increased demand for his own stock: upon this he built, and his speculation succeeded. But he protested against any general conclusion in favour of the tax from this witness's individual success. For Mr. Roby had gone on to state, that it would be wrong to judge of the situation of the trade from his success, for that it was actually ground down almost to nothing, and that if something was not speedily done to assist it, complete ruin must ensue. A different evidence had indeed been given by Mr. Maberly, who was neither a tanner, a currier, nor a shoemaker, but a government contractor to an immense amount, and how such a witness was likely to incline, it could not be difficult to conjecture. This gentleman had made a calculation, whose elaborate accuracy did him great credit; he had estimated, to the fractional part of a farthing, how much the government would receive. But he had neglected to state what, however, it was very essential should be stated, namely, what the poor man paid. Now this was so excessive when compared with the advantages accruing to government, that he could not but pronounce the tax partial, unprofitable and oppressive. With respect to all the other witnesses examined by the Committee they were unanimous against the tax. In fact, the receipt of the Treasury from this tax, was so insignificant compared to its distressing operation, that this comparison alone suggested the propriety of its repeal. For the first quarter after its enactment it had no doubt been tolerably productive, because it applied to the stock of leather on hand; but in the second quarter there was a falling off of no less than 43,000l. This, however, was not the only loss government sustained. He would ask the hon. gentlemen on the Treasury bench how much government lost by the advanced price of boots and shoes in consequence of this tax—that is, how much of the tax did government itself actually pay. He was satisfied that the right hon. gentleman had been egregiously deceived by those who had supplied him with the information which had led to the imposition of the tax. With respect to the augmentation of the revenue, he had to observe, that government paid themselves a considerable proportion of what afforded it, and therefore as they lost by an ill-judged tax in one way nearly what they gained in another, he must consider the public as in a great measure gratuitously visited with a very heavy burden. He was at a loss to know what line of argument would be adopted in defence of a tax which appeared utterly indefensible, in what point of view soever it might be taken. The right hon. gentleman had boasted, when about to impose it, that he had discovered a manufacture which was capable of bearing taxation. How well such a boast was founded might be learned from the result.

The tax was imposed, and in the short space of nine months, this supposed flourishing manufacture was reduced almost to nothing. The fact was, that it had been long in a declining state, and was more in need of a bounty to raise than of a tax to depress it. He must return thanks to the House for the indulgence with which they had heard him, and he should now conclude by moving, "That so much of the Act of the 52d of his present Majesty should be repealed, as went to impose an additional duty on hides and skins."

said, the present question was one of vital importance to the revenue. After having paid the utmost attention to the evidence taken before the Committee, he should now endeavour to give his unbiassed opinion upon the whole of the case. The hon. gentleman, he must remark, had very religiously abstained from noticing the accounts which were lying on the table, and was disposed to view the subject wholly through the medium of the evidence of persons interested in the abolition of the tax; from such persons no unbiassed statement could be expected, and it was fair to impute to the hon. member a wish to promote an unsound decision, when he had attached himself wholly to such statements, and had entirely neglected papers which supplied unexceptionable means of forming a judgment, for it was admitted in evidence that these persons, on whose testimony he had relied, had contracted their trade in order to reduce the amount of the tax. He maintained that although the trade had been so contracted by these persons it had increased in other quarters, for instance, in Northampton and Wellingborough, as he learned upon the most authentic information. He had, indeed, received intelligence from various quarters, very different from that deposed before the committee by the hon. mover's constituents and others, and his conclusion from this intelligence was, not that the leather trade had declined in consequence of the tax objected to, but through the general distress of trade, through the same distress which appeared in the evidence respecting the operation of the Orders in Council, which distress must affect tanners and shoemakers, as well as other manufacturers. The decline of the tanning trade was therefore not attributable to the tax complained of. The hon. member would never have given himself any trouble with respect to the duty if he had not been a member for Stafford. But with whatever zeal he might be disposed to serve the shoemakers of that place, he was surprised that he could assert their distress to have arisen from the additional duty. The hon. gentleman, in enlarging upon the evils arising from the new duty, had confined himself to the case of the shoemakers of Stafford, for it had been abundantly proved that no case had been made out for other places said to be injured, as the noble lord (Compton) himself would, he was sure, acknowledge. He contended, that the trade of the tanners was very greatly ameliorated within the last four years; and this was proved by the diminished quantity of leather imported into this country, and the increased quantity of leather manufactured in the country during that time. He next proceeded to state the result of the examination of the accounts which had been laid upon the table, and which showed that a considerable diminution had taken place in the imports of tanned leather from the year 1810, up to the half year ending in January 1813, from which he inferred, that as far as the internal trade was concerned, the condition of the persons concerned in the leather trade was much ameliorated in being protected from competition. He next argued from the documents on the table, the progressive increase in the exports of wrought leather for the last ten years. From these he contended that the exportation of leather manufacture had rather increased since the imposition of this tax; that to our colonies had increased two-thirds within the last year. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Benson) had stated as a proof of the distressed state of the trade, that a number of tanners were going out of business, and that several tan-yards were untenanted; but this, if admitted, would not go to establish the fact contended for by the hon. gentleman, for it was well known that trade changed hands, and passed from one set of persons to another. Mr. Bruen, for instance, his great informer, had carried his speculations to too great an extent in the use of Valonia, and the consequence was, that he lost his customers. The general trade had increased, as was proved by the progressive increase of duties. The number of tanners had considerably increased. The number of licences had increased within a very short time from 1,600 and odds to 1,700 odds. Mr. Roby said truly, that the trade had been lately in a state of great depression; but he did not tell the reason. It was this great influx of persons who produced an inferior manufacture from foreign hides of a bad quality, which were purchased at a cheap rate, and the competition thus occasioned. There were a great quantity of damaged hides wrought up to the great injury of the trade. Mr. Roby, however, said, the way to improve the trade was to lay on a heavy duty, because that would render a great capital necessary to carry it on, and by the addition of a heavy duty the price would be so raised, that when the good and the bad article came into the market nobody would buy the inferior. It was said by the hon. gentleman, that this tax fell disproportionably heavy on the lower orders. He would show that the operation of the new duty was more fair than had been represented. Supposing a farm servant to wear two pair of shoes per annum, the increase of duty would only increase their price to him Is. in the year; and, allowing a profit upon the duty of 200 per cent. the whole that he would pay of addition, in consequence of the tax, would be 3s. per year, not more than one day's labour. He could wish the hon. gentleman to suggest any tax that would fall lighter on the lower orders of people, or at all proportionably heavier on the rich. He could not conceive how any tax could operate more equitably on that class of persons who were least able to bear it. It was quite evident too that the rich man paid the duty in an enormous proportion, for he felt it not worth mentioning in the article of shoes, but of boots, carriages, harness, book-binding, and various other articles in which leather was used as a necessary material; yet in the face of these facts, it was stated that the tax was oppressive, because it fell more severely on the lower orders. He would be glad if the hon. gentleman, or those who thought with him, would propose any tax which was more free from the imputation than the one now under consideration; he would be glad to know what the hon. gentleman, would say to the taxes on salt, on malt, or on glass windows—taxes ofa much severer operation, but which no person had brought forward any proposition to repeal. The hon. gentleman he believed, was the first in the annals of the House who had ever brought forward a proposition of-the kind, and he would be much obliged if the committee adopted it. With respect to the government purchases in the article of leather, he wished to say one word about the effect of their purchases on the duty. He had taken pains to go through the scattered facts in the evidence on this subject, and the whole addition occasioned by the purchases for the army and navy, amounted only to 22,000l. whereas the tax produced 346,000l. Government purchased 600,000 pairs of shoes, on which the additional duty was 5,000l.; in boots and soles the amount of duty was about one-fifth, making in the whole 6,000l. a year. To this sum 10,000l. more was to be added for harness, &c. making in all for the army 16,000l. The navy might be computed at a similar rate, so that the whole additional duty paid by government might be estimated at 22,000l. therefore, the whole effect produced by the government purchases, was to be computed in the ratio of 22,000l. to 346,000l. the total amount of the new duty. He would ask, whether the committee could be induced to suppose that such a proposition could have the effect of keeping up the trade? He wished to offer a few words on a point which had been considered important in the committee; namely, that the effect would be ruinous to the export trade. If this were the case, the objection would be a strong one; but the reverse was the fact, as amply appeared from the answer of Mr. Bell before the committee, relative to the export of shoes to Batavia, before and since the new duty, there being a clear profit of difference of 71l. 8s. in the former case, and of 99l. 4s. in the latter, to the exporter. The tanner, however, had laid an advance of price upon the article, which was much higher in proportion to the duty than he ought to have charged. Some years ago the encreased price of bark had encreased the price of tanning 1½d. per lb. Now at that time nobody complained to parliament of the encreased price of bark; nor did any one assert that the tanning trade would be ruined by it. How then could it be said that the new tax, which added no more than 1½d. per lb. to the price of leather, could injure the trade? There could be no export trade of leather to the continent, because it was evident that the continental tanner obtained his hides and his bark almost for nothing. The hon. gentleman next commented at considerable length on the evidence given before the committee, adducing several arguments, and referring to different documents to disprove the assertion advanced by several of the witnesses who were adverse to the tax, and pointed out contradictions in the evidence of Mr. Bruin, Mr. Beddow, Mr. Learmouth, and the rest of the "seven wise men" who had been brought forward. The object of these comments was to show, that the witnesses alluded to, in their answers had evinced such ignorance and inconsistency, such a wish to give a colour to every thing, and had committed so many blunders, that their evidence was not entitled to the smallest consideration. He conceived the whole of the evidence on which the mover of this question had founded his motion to have arisen from a perversion of ideas on the part of the witnesses, contracted in their tan-yards, and that the only real in- formation on the subject was to be derived from the official returns. The amount of the import of foreign leather since 1804, when it was 787, 413lbs. In the last year, 1812, the quantity of foreign leather imported was 171bs. Such had been the effect of a duty which, according to Mr. Lear-mouth's opinion, was to have ruined our domestic leather trade, and to operate so greatly in favour of the foreign trade, Mr. Bruen had given in evidence that the tax would give an undue influence to Ireland; but the advantage gained by Ireland, by the Irish curriers, appeared in one year to be 318l.! This it was that was to ruin the English leather market! But even if there were any advantage peculiarly enjoyed by Ireland, he thought the House would do wrong, if it impossed any shackles on it; for Ireland was a part of the empire, and the creation of a new market for it ought not to be viewed with a too jealous eye. The views that had broken in upon them this evening, from the much-lauded body of evidence, originated with narrow minds—with those whose ideas did not extend further than their own tan-yards! The House, however, was called on to repeal the additional duty; but if the arguments, which had been adduced, went for any thing, they were equally powerful against the old tax, which, though it produced annually 650,000l. ought also to be repealed. But could the House resolve even to repeal the additional tax on such contradictory, inconsistent evidence, as had been laid before them? In enforcing the inconsistent and contradictory evidence of his seven counsellors, the hon. member (Mr. Benson) had carefully abstained from suggesting any other tax in the place of the one which he proposed to abolish; but possibly he might say, that was not his business. He (Mr. Wharton) regretted that the hon. member had not carried his patriotism a little further—that he should have confined it to his constituents of Stafford—that he had not proposed some other tax, which would be as productive, and less objectionable, than the one now proposed to be repealed.

said, he was not one of those who thought members of that House were in all cases bound to follow the opinions and instructions of their constituents; they had undoubtedly a right to act according to the dictates of their own consciences: but if there should happen to be a case in which their constituents were confessedly much better informed than the member could be, and, from their peculiar distresses, they called on their representative to state their grievances to the House, as had been done by the people of Stafford, they were unquestionably entitled to his particular attention in bringing forward their complaints. He thought the hon. mover had acted most wisely on the present occasion in listening to the suggestions of his constituents, and in originating the present motion. For his own part he had generally supported ministers, but in this case he should not go along with them, as he thought a tax oppressive in its effects, and unproductive in its results, ought not to be persisted in. If the trade had declined antecedent to imposing the tax, it was improper to resort to it; if it had declined since, he must suppose the tax had occasioned the decline, and as such ought not to be continued.

objected to the tax (which he had opposed on its laying on last session) as far as his own constituents, who dealt principally in sheep skins, were concerned, on the ground that it had hitherto fallen entirely on the manufacturer, not on the consumer. The additional tax had not only much diminished the export of the article, but much diminished the home consumption. He could perceive demonstrative evidence of this even on taking a view of the ministerial bench, where he perceived that gaiters had generally usurped the place of boots. One invincible objection against the late increase of duty, however, was, that it had enhanced the price of the commodity to the poor man in the proportion of 1s, 6d. and to the gentleman, in the proportion only of 6d.

said, he had attended the committee daily during the time of its sitting, and the conviction on his mind was, that this was an extremely injudicious tax, and therefore the motion had his support.

also supported the motion. The additional duty was imposed at a time when the trade was in a depressed state, the poor were unable to bear it, although no new duty had been imposed upon leather for the last 100 years, and at a time when the poor contributed to the payment of the additional tax at the rate of 200 per cent. and the rich only at the rate of 30 per cent. The poor were, therefore, so far as this additional duty was concerned, taxed, when compared with the rich, in the proportion of 200 to 30.— While the revenue to government from this tax, too, was only as 10½, the public was, by the operation of it, paying from Is. 6d. to 4s. on the articles for home consumption; and the loss upon the drawbacks for exportation was in the proportion of 7 or 8s. to 2s. 6d.

defended the gentlemen who gave evidence before the committee, from the aspersions that had been thrown upon them, and argued generally against the tax. If the gentlemen opposite would seriously set about reforming existing and glaring abuses, and abolishing the pensions and sinecures held by members of that House, it would produce four times more than this obnoxious and imprudent tax, which he could not support, although it might be said that government wanted money, since that was a want common to all spendthrifts.

said, this tax had all the vices of a poll-tax, without any of its merits. It also fell heaviest on those who could least afford it, the labourers of the country. The right hon. the Secretary of the Treasury had said, that this tax would cost a labourer no more than half a day's wages in the whole year; but he ought to remember, that a labourer used often more leather than that which was necessary for his shoes, as, in some cases, various other parts of his dress were made of it. He ought also to recollect, that labourers had generally wives and children, for whom shoes were necessary, and that he could not well spare even half a day's wages without inconvenience. A rich man, on the contrary, if he found the tax too heavy, had only to retrench a little in the decorations of his harness and carriage; and in this he would probably be even a gainer, as he might gain more in soundness of materials than he lost in ornament,—or, at the worst, let him only use his harness one year longer than he was accustomed to do, and it would answer the same purpose of economy. He disapproved of this tax, as it was a tax upon agriculture: it also fell very heavy upon the labourer, who was not able, as the French call it, to make a repartition of his share of this tax upon others.

was convinced the tax was injurious to the leather trade, without being productive to the public; and therefore he should support the motion.

said, that to his certain knowledge many journeymen shoemakers were turned out of employment in conse- quence of this tax. He would give his vote for the motion.

alluded to the intimations given on this subject to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on a former occasion, in consequence of the instructions which most of the county members had received from their constituents on the oppressive operation of the tax, and was sorry that they had been wholly disregarded. When the right hon. the Secretary for the Treasury complained that the witnesses examined before the Committee were all interested, he must tell him, begging his pardon, that he spoke nonsense; and that those who recommended the measure to the right hon. gentleman were equally interested. He had heard that this measure originated with the right hon. Secretary, and not with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was sorry that the right hon. gentleman had adopted the spurious offspring of another. He, however, hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would persevere, that he would abandon the benedictions of his friend to receive the gratitude of thousands whom he would thereby save from ruin.

remarked that two-thirds of the leather were lost in the currying, so that the tax was trebled upon the consumer. On every ground which had been stated, he felt he must support the motion.

spoke, at some length, in favour of the tax. It was true, that the tax had been previously considered before it came into his hands; but the experience of the past year confirmed his opinion, that it could not be given up without public detriment, and he knew of no other tax less objectionable. If now repealed, the supposed benefits could not be produced: but a clear gain would accrue to individuals. The price of leather had been affected by other causes, and the repeal would not reduce it: therefore he could see no relief for the poor. He praised the degree of accuracy with which the public accounts of the revenue were made up. It was an error to say this tax was unproductive; which might be seen by looking at its product, and comparing it with others. In three quarters, ending April the 5th, it brought 118,000l.; the glass duty imposed at the same time, producing only 2,089l. The tax was originally carried by only a small majority, but there had been afterwards a very busy canvass and intrigue through the country in favour of its repeal. Tan- ners were advised to lessen their trade, in order to see if the tax would be taken off. Objections might be raised to all taxes, but nobody had, in this case, pointed out a better as a substitute. It appeared, from evidence, that the price of leather was not affected by the tax. The increased price of the manufactured goods did not depend so much on the tax on leather as on the fluctuation of the price of the raw materials. The price had in five years risen from five to eight shillings, before the new duty, without complaint from the consumers. In the same time skins had advanced from two to four shillings. The fluctuation was of such a nature that the repeal was unlikely to have any effect. In 1799, a witness said that leather was tenpence a pound, and now it was four shillings. He was willing to give the evidence on both sides due weight, as it was valuable; but many answers were given to questions not precisely understood. It was evident that the tanner was sufficiently reimbursed. The sufferings in Stafford arose from other circumstances: wages had been raised there by a combination of the workmen, and it was evident that the tanning trade could not possibly be so ruinous as was represented. The effect on the export trade, it appeared had not been unfavourable, because it appeared that from 664,000 lbs. exported in 1810, and 1,164,000 lbs. in 1811, the export had increased in 1812 to 3,00S,000 lbs. The drawbacks last year were also double what they had been in the preceding one. The question, whether it might tie proper to alter the mode of imposing the charge—but this was one which it was not fit to debate in that House; he should, however, make all due inquiries on the subject.

rose to state the effect of the tax on the trade of leather; as appeared by the documents on the table, 93,000 hides having been imported in 1810 and only 35,000 last year, which were all re-exported. This amounted to a decay of one-third of the whole trade. The duty was in effect 80 per cent. on the prices of foreign hides. The exportation, though increased as to Ireland, had decreased to foreign parts. In 1810 this latter branch was 136,000 lbs. in 1811, 101,000 lbs. and in 1810 only 92,000 lbs. This difference he conceived to be owing to the decay of the trade, and, therefore, thought this was not the time for taxing the raw material.

accounted for the circumstance mentioned by the last speaker, by stating that there had been such an extraordinary importation in the three years preceding 1812, that the market was quite glutted with them.

observed, that the interruption of the intercourse with Buenos Ayres, in 1812, might have been the cause of the diminution of the import of leather in that year.

objected to the Bill on the grounds that it imposed a disproportionate burthen on the leather traders; that the tax was not of such consequence as to render it worth while to throw the leather trade, from which the profit derived was so much as 19 millions, into confusion on its account; that it was a burthen pressing particularly on the poor, and that there was paid on its account by the consumer thrice as much as the amount of the receipt to the Exchequer.

shortly replied, and observed that he should have answered at some length the hon. Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Wharton) had that gentleman remained in his place. He should confine himself to the remark, as to what the hon. gentleman had said against the evidence of the leather trade; that although they were not philosophers or statesmen, nor had published quarto poems to astonish and amuse the world, they were men of common sense, and as much honour, probably, as the hon. Secretary himself. He complained of the tone and language which the hon. Secretary to the Treasury had applied to him.

in the absence of his hon. friend, assured the hon. gentleman that there had been no intention to show him any disrespect.

The House divided, when the numbers on each side appeared equal, viz. 104. The Speaker then observed, that as the question was to be decided by his vote, he should give it with the Ayes, because he thought the question deserved further consideration. He accordingly gave his vote in favour of the motion. The numbers then were—

afterwards brought in the Bill, which was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Thursday.

on presenting a Petition from the Baptist Missionary Committee, relative to the propagation of Christianity in India, took occasion to correct a misapprehension which had gone abroad, that the members of this sect had petitioned the House for leave to propagate their own peculiar tenets in India, whereas their object was the promotion of Christianity generally, without reference to any particular sectarian doctrines. The hon. member had pronounced a high eu-logium upon the general conduct and character of the body to whom the petitioners belonged, that body having, although it commenced under peculiar disadvantages, succeeded in promoting very considerably the great interests of religion, humanity and learning. In India it was known that, although the Baptist Missionaries were not originally proficients in literature, they had contrived to acquire an intimate knowledge of the Sanscrit and several Indian languages. Indeed Dr. Carey (one of the most distinguished of the Baptist Missionaries), in consequence of his proficiency in these languages, and his general merit, had been appointed by lord Wellesley a professor in the college of Calcutta. But, there was this farther and remarkable merit belonging to the Baptist Missionaries; that they were now engaged in translating the Bible into ten or eleven different languages of India, and that the produce of their literary labour and industry had, instead of being appropriated to their own use, been uniformly thrown into the common fund for extending the adoption and influence of Christianity. [Hear, hear!] After reading the testimonies of lords Wekllesley and Minto in favour of these Missionaries, with the copy of the authentic instructions which they received when proceeding on their mission, the hon. gentleman concluded with moving that the Petition be received.

confirmed the statement of the hon. gentleman, as to the mistake which had gone forth on the subject of the intentions of the Baptists.—The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

presented a Petition from certain merchants of London, which he wished to preface by a few observations, and trusted the House would favour him with an attention equal to the importance of the subject. The chief complaint of the petitioners was, the encouragement given by licenses to the trade of lumber and staves, between the United States of America and our West India colonies, whilst the Americans took nothing from us. This system was unjust and ruinous to our colonies, or rather to our provinces in North America, which had evinced so much loyalty and so much bravery in repelling the invasion of the enemy, as to deserve every favour this country could bestow upon them. It was ruinous to trade in general, and more especially injurious to the shipping interest, which employed between five and six hundred sail of regular ships in the trade of Quebec alone, and which were now without freight by the interference of neutral ships provided with licenses. It. had been said in defence of that system, that as the greatest part of the American ports could not be blockaded during the whole year, neutrals would at all events get possession of that trade; and it was better, since they were to enjoy it, that it should be under some regulations advantageous to us. This, however, was a plausible argument, and nothing else. It was true, indeed, that some of the American ports could not be blockaded throughout the year, but then there was no other market open to the kind of American produce he had alluded to but our West India colonies; for the description of neutrals the present system of warfare admitted, could not carry it to France or to her dependencies, being considered by that power as enemies. By encouraging that exportation from the United States, we were, in fact, submitting our own American provinces to the commercial pressure which was intended against the enemy. It had been said also, that our American provinces were not able to supply the West India market with a sufficient quantity of lumber and staves: this, however, he could deny from the most respectable authority. Lumber and staves were at present unsaleable in Canada, Nova Scotia, and the Prince of Wales's Island, from the want of demand: and they had on hand a stock sufficient to supply the West Indies for five years. In a political point of view, the system was equally erroneous; as it prevented the States of America, which supplied those articles, from feeling the pressure of the war, the only thing perhaps which could thoroughly disgust them with it. He had always been against the system of licenses; but he thought that in no case had it been more injuriously extended. The hon. gentleman then adverted to the decrease of British seamen, owing to the employment of foreign shipping. This had been proved in the most melancholy way, in the action of the Java against the Constitution; a great part of the crew of our frigate consisted of foreigners who refused to obey the orders of the captain to repair the ship in the intermission of the action, whereas the American frigate was ready in an hour to renew the engagement. He understood, that on board most of the men of war, there was the same unusual proportion of foreign seamen, and this could be attributed to no other cause, but to the encouragement exclusively given to foreign shipping. The hon. gentleman then apologized to the House for having trespassed so long on their time; but he had thought it necessary to say so much, on such an important subject.

thought that the hon. gentleman had been very far from taking a correct view of the subject; he had Seemed to object to the granting of licenses for American exportation, especially on the ground that they contained no specific condition for an adequate quantity of exports on our side. But this condition was necessary only when the power with which we traded had imposed a similar one on his side, as was the case in respect to France. That power had first enacted, that for every article of importation she might be disposed to admit, an adequate exportation of her own produce should previously take place; it was of course necessary to meet her on equal terms, or no trade could possibly take place; but in any other circumstances it was impolitic to force exports. It should be besides recollected, that previous to the declaration of war, a number of American vessels had sailed from the ports of this country, laden with the produce of our manufactures, and the licenses now so much complained of, might be considered as a just way of affording America the means of paying for the goods she had thus got before hand. It was impossible, besides, to carry on long a trade when all the advantages of exportation were on one side; and it ought to be considered, that America took our manufactures in exchange for her raw produce, and we were in a manner compelled to that advantageous exchange, for she had nothing else to give. If it was true, which he did not pretend to deny, that American ports could not be blockaded during the whole year, and that neutrals might then enjoy that trade undisturbed, why should we deprive our merchants of a fair participation in it? Licences were, besides, for unblockaded ports only, and to these neutral vessels had access at ail times. As to the employment of foreign ships to carry on our trade, it was an evil naturally attendant on a state of warfare, and had been so from time immemorial, but that was no reason for giving up all trade, because it, could not be carried on in English bottoms. As to the produce of our American colonies, it was sufficiently protected by the high duties imposed in all the West India islands upon foreign lumber, and which was such, that many representations had been made, complaining that those duties amounted to a prohibition. The hon. gentleman concluded by observing, that commerce, in time of war, could not be attended with the same beneficial consequences as in time of peace, and the only duty of government was to devise the best way possible under existing circumstances.

approved also of the principles of the Petition.

The Petition was then brought up and read, setting forth,

"That by the Act 43 Geo. 3, c. 153, various articles therein specified may be imported from hostile countries in neutral ships, and any goods, wares, or merchandize, specified in any order of council, may also be so imported, in contravention of the Act of 12 Car. 2, c. 18, for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation; and that, by the Act 48 Geo. 3, c. 37, any goods, wares, or merchandizes, specified in any order of council or licence, are permitted to be imported, during the continuance of hostilities, from, any port or place from which the British flag is excluded in any vessels belonging to any country, whether in amity with his Majesty or not, in further contravention of the said Act; and that the petitioners humbly conceive, both from the important national interests dependent on the aforesaid Act of 12 Car. 2, c. 18, as well as from the purport of the Acts of the 43d and 48th of his present Majesty, that it was not the intention of the legislature to dispense with the provisions of the aforesaid Act, for the encouraging and increasing of shipping and navigation, in any other than cases of urgent necessity; and that the petitioners have therefore learnt, with equal surprize and regret, that it is in the contemplation of his Majesty's government to authorize the importation into the United Kingdom, in neutral vessels, of certain articles of the growth and produce of the United States of America, although those states are now engaged in the most inveterate and unprovoked hostilities against this country; and that the petitioners have reason to doubt whether any necessity exists for the admission into the United Kingdom of any of the articles of the growth and produce of the United States; but more particularly they beg leave to state their conviction that no necessity can exist for the admission of American ashes, staves, or wood of any kind, as the markets of this kingdom have, for several years last past, not only been fully supplied, but were absolutely overstocked with the articles last mentioned, imported chiefly from the British North American colonies, in British ships, and paid for in British manufactures; and that large additional quantities of all the aforesaid articles, and more than sufficient for the demand and consumption of this country, may be imported this season from the said colonies, if not prevented by the admission of the same articles from the United States, which, if licensed by his Majesty's government, must, from the lower rate of freight and insurance at which the same, if so licensed, could be imported, entirely destroy the trade of those colonies; and that the petitioners, independently of the total destruction of their trade, have reason to dread still greater evils from the measure in question, if adopted, as they apprehend it will act not only as an encouragement to the United States to persevere in the present war, but as a discouragement, in an equal degree, to the inhabitants of the British North American colonies, whom the petitioners much fear it might lead to relax in those exertions which have hitherto contributed so materially to preserve those invaluable colonies; and that the petitioners humbly conceive, that no fact has been more clearly established, by the experience of late years, than the importance, not to say the necessity, of every country providing, as far as possible, for the sale of those commodities and articles of produce, the manufacturing or raising of which tend, in the greatest degree, to employ the industry and promote the general prosperity of the community; to this necessity his Majesty's ministers were last year induced, contrary to their own avowed conviction of expediency, to sacrifice the Orders in Council; to a similar necessity, the government of the United States was obliged, four years ago, to sacrifice its system of embargoes, the favourite measure of the present ruling party of that country, and the same neces- sity formed the first grounds of the present exertions of Russia; that a principle, thus powerful, should therefore be applied to the encouragement of their enemies, and the discouragement of those colonists in whose fate the honour of the whole empire is engaged, and the interests and fortunes of the petitioners more immediately involved, is to them a source of the greatest alarm; and that the petitioners further conceive, that, in the present war with the United States of America, it is most essentially necessary to make the inhabitants of those states feel the pressure thereof on their trade as an important means of reducing their government to sentiments of moderation, for, should the war be unfortunately protracted so as to enable those states to form a disciplined army, the petitioners cannot but apprehend, from their great numerical superiority, the eventual loss to this kingdom of all its North American colonies; and that the petitioners beg leave humbly to represent that, independently of the various evils which they have specified as likely to arise from the proposed measure, it appears to them that no adequate motives can be assigned for the adoption thereof; it is a well-known fact, that the balance of debt is at present greatly in favour of the United States against this country, and therefore the proposed measure cannot be necessary for obtaining payment of debts due from American citizens to British subjects, nor yet for realising property or effects belonging to British subjects in the United States, since the amount of British property in that country is by no means equal to the amount of American property in this; neither does it appear to the petitioners, that the proposed measure can be necessary, to prevent other countries being supplied with the raw materials of our manufactures below the rate at which this country can procure them, for, although the blockade of the ports of the United States may not be adequate to prevent all trade in the produce and commodities of those states, it is fully sufficient to enhance the rates of freight and insurance so much as to prevent their produce being exported at such rates as either to interfere with British manufactures, or to afford any material encouragement to the industry of those states; and praying, that the importation from an enemy's country of any goods or merchandize, the produce of such country, and more especially of ashes, staves, and wood of any kind, from the United States of America, may be prohibited, or that such other remedy may be applied, as to the House shall seem meet."

Ordered to lie upon the table.

after some remarks upon the mode in which this Bill had been introduced, proposed two additional clauses. 1. To exempt from the operation of the Act the Instance Court of Admiralty, on account of the smallness of the sums in dispute in the suits there pending. 2. To continue in the hands of the Registrar of the court of Admiralty, constantly, the sum of 10,000l. to defray the necessary expence of stamps, &c. &c.

did not oppose the clauses, taking it for granted that the representation of their necessity was correct; but he did not exactly see how so large a sum was requisite.

in reply, adverted to the inconvenience that would result from the payment of all small sums into the hands of the governor of the Bank of England, and adduced this as a reason in support of both his clauses.

thought that small sums could be as easily paid into the Bank as large amounts.

and sir John Nichol supported sir W. Scott's clauses, and after a short conversation they were agreed to, the judge of the Admiralty undertaking that no more than 10,000l. should remain in the hands of the Registrar.

The Report was then brought up, received, and ordered to be taken into further consideration on Friday.