rose to move for a committee to inquire into the state of the Game Laws. When the House recollected the numbers who were daily committed to prison for offences arising out of these laws they could not but see the importance of the subject. He thought, too, that the laws were in, many respects absurd and inconsistent. In some cases, a son was qualified while the father was not. The noble lord mentioned several other instances to show the anomalous state of the law upon this subject, and concluded by moving for the committee.

seconded the motion. He was sure that any change would be for the better. A set of laws more absurd or unjust never disgraced any country. With respect to their effects, they tended to demoralize the people. It was his opinion, that game should be put upon the same footing as other property.

said, that when he recollected that a bill for altering the game laws had been brought in by the late member for Hertfordshire (lord Dacre), and enforced by all his eloquence and yet had failed, he could not expect much from the present motion. However, the noble lord had said, to use sporting language, "though lord Dacre missed fire, I'll whip on his jacket, and have a shot at the game laws." The game laws had not been fairly treated; for there was no set of laws that might not be open to objection, if their bad effects only were considered. If the game were destroyed, the great inducement to country gentlemen to reside on their estates would be taken away.

said, that though he was not a killer of game, he was an eater of that nice article, but since the bill of an hon. member (Mr. G. Bankes) had passed, he had never been able to get a second course. He hoped, whatever bill the noble lord brought in, there would be a clause in it to provide, that when an humble individual like himself was about to give a dinner, and said to his wife, "My dear, let us have some game" he might not be met with the unpleasant difficulty where shall we get it?"

was glad his bill had been so effectual. If that bill destroyed poaching, it would destroy the nest from which great part of the evil of the country originated. He objected to a committee which would take up the time of the House without adding any thing to its information. As the subject was not new, the noble lord might at once move for leave to bring in a bill. As to the game laws themselves, no one could deny, that a great number of persons were at present in prison on account of them, and nothing would be more easy than to put an end to this, by abolishing those laws. But this might be said of any other law. They all lamented the number of punishments for forgery. Nothing was more easy than to put an end to the laws against it. But what then became of the property of the country? So they might abolish the game laws, but what then became of the game of the country? The general permission to shoot would only make the country people ten times more vicious and indolent: in six months the game would be destroyed, and the better classes of people would be left without their amusement, which attached them to the country.

said, he was the unfortunate individual who moved for the committee of 1810. When he had got into that committee, they would agree to nothing that he proposed. He had proposed to the committee to examine to what extent the evil of poaching had gone, and to consider a remedy. This the committee refused, and said they would take for granted there was a great deal of evil from poaching. So that after much discussion the only resolution the committee came to was this—"That it is the opinion of this committee that game should be the property of the person on whose ground it is found:" and so they reported. As for the remark of his hon. friend, that no one in London could get a second course, he could only say that his hon. friend was not so much in the confidence of the poulterers as he was. If his hon. friend would give a social dinner, he would undertake to buy game for him. It was of importance that the committee should be appointed, for he was confident that poaching was carried on to as great an extent as ever it was. The poulterers were forced to encourage it, even against their own will. What they said was, "cut off the supply altogether, or let it be legalised." As to the remedy two courses were open. Either they might return to the state in which they were till the latter end of George 2nd, when the sale of game was legal, the rest of the laws remaining the same; or they might (to which he was more inclined) make game the property of the occupier of the land. He recommended also a revision of the law as to qualifications, which was now enforced only against the poor. The certificate might be raised to 5l. and all qualifications taken away. He was anxious the country gentlemen should have every inducement to reside on their estates, but it was their interest to consider the question with liberality, and to put down an evil which filled our gaols with peasantry, and laid the foundation of so many crimes.

opposed the motion. To legalize the sale of game would, he observed, be, in effect, to enable persons to buy licenses for the disposal of stolen purchases.

thought, that at a time when the country gentlemen were labouring under so many privations, it was too much to propose to take from them the only solace they had left. With regard to the main question of the game laws, he was convinced that it would be a bad plan to separate the game from the poperty of the country. In this point he was supported by the late Mr. Fox, who, after having maturely examined the subject, had come to the same conclusion.

thought that a committee ought not to be appointed, unless the specific defect in the law were clearly pointed out, and the remedy stated. The proposition of the noble lord, he was convinced, would not produce the slightest improvement in the morals of the country. If game were to be made property, it must be under the civil law, and then the effect would be, to bring a host of pettyfogging lawyers all over the country, disputing about every head of game. To get rid of one evil, therefore, they were called on to create another of a much worse nature. He begged of the House also to consider what a restriction it would be upon the citizens all over the country, in taking the diversion of shooting, who although they might be permitted to follow the sport on the grounds of those they dealt with, would not dare to cross a hedge after game.

of Wiltshire, thought the game laws required revision. Few persons stole sheep who did not first begin by poaching. If game was put upon the same footing as other property it would be the interest of the occupiers of the land to preserve it; it was now their interest to destroy it. It might be then sold so cheap that it would not be worth the poachers while to sell game.

jun. thought the effect of making game property, would be, to render country gentlemen odious in the eyes of the nation, by giving them a mercenary sordid character, in converting that which had hitherto been regarded as an exclusive source of amusement into a means of lucre. He did not stand up as the defender of the game laws, but he was convinced it was impossible to put a stop to poaching by any laws that could be devised; and the present laws were so fitted and fashioned to their end by the operation of time, that any attempt at alteration would be more likely to defeat the object than to promote it.

neither wished to spoil the amusements of the country gentleman, nor to remove the inducement which he now had to reside on his estate; but he believed the present laws to be the source of much crime, and should therefore vote for their revision.

spoke against the motion, conceiving its object to be two-fold, namely, to legalize the sale of game, and to prevent poaching. He must protest against the former, as it would serve rather to promote than to prevent poaching.

convinced as he was, that great moral evil resulted from the present system, was inclined to support a measure which might tend to correct it. Much stress had been laid upon the argument that the present game laws presented a strong inducement to landed proprietors to reside upon their own estates. If the only amusement which gentlemen could find in the country was that of shooting pheasants, he thought the country would not lose much by their absence.

rose to bring forward his promised motion for the repeal of the tax upon Horses employed in Agriculture. Against this proposition, he felt that the same objections could not apply, which were urged upon the measure of his hon. friend the member for Essex, with regard to the repeal of the malt tax. For the tax to which his motion would refer, operated in a most unequal manner, pressing most severely upon those who had to cultivate the waste land, while it was, to a certain extent, oppressive upon all farmers, especially of the smaller class. There was, indeed, scarcely a farmer who bad not reason to complain of the operation of this tax; for what farmer could conscientiously swear that he never used any of his agricultural horses for any other purpose than farming? and if he did not so swear, the horse otherwise used was charged as a saddle-horse. There was this material difference between the malt tax, and that to which he referred, that while it was maintained, that the repeal of the former would confer no benefit on the agriculturist or the consumer, no such argument could be used in the present case, as the repeal of the agricultural horse tax would be an immediate boon to the farmers. The present tax too, was in amount much less than that of the malt tax; and therefore it could be the more easily dispensed with. This tax was, indeed, so exceptionable, that he was surprised at its original enactment. But the unequal operation of it was peculiarly to be deprecated. For instance, if a farmer had four horses, three were charged at 17s. each as agricultural horses, and the fourth was set down as a saddle horse at 20s., although such horse had never a saddle upon his back or any thing more in that shape than a whisp of straw; in addition to which 10s. 6d. was charged for a groom. Hence it appeared, that if a farmer possessed 50 acres of land, with four horses, he was subject to a tax of above 51. a-year for his horses and supposed groom. He trusted that such a case would attract the attention of the noble lord (Castlereagh), as the friend of agriculture, if the chancellor of the exchequer were even determined to be deaf to the appeal. That appeal was for the consideration due in common equity to those who had bad or inferior lands to cultivate. But another consideration was due to the farmers in the northern counties, compared to those in other districts. For instance, he had been told by his hon. friend, the member for Norfolk (Mr. Coke), that he could plough sixty days more in the year in his county than could be done in Cumberland. Did not this fact, then, entitle the farmers in the northern counties to somewhat more of attention upon the subject of taxation? But the manner in which the farmers were occasionally surcharged was peculiarly grievous. One grievance of this nature had come to his knowledge. A small farmer of 70 years of age, who, when in better circumstances, was a sportsman, was proceeding with his horse to market, having some articles for sale, but, happening to meet a party engaged in fox-hunting, he could not resist the attraction, and therefore throwing down his goods, he mounted his horse and followed the hounds. Was not this a case which ought to be excused from the penalty of using an agricultural horse for any but agricultural purposes? Yet, in this case, an informer appeared, and the poor old farmer was actually surcharged. He called upon ministers to devise some means of relieving the farmers from such oppression, and to contrive a more equal distribution of the taxes. By this remission, 2s. 6d. a week might be added to the weekly wages of every day labourer in England, and that would be an addition, which would lead to various results advantageous to the country. He was confident, that the low price of corn was not owing to an over-production, but to an under-consumption, in consequence of the comparative inability of the labouring classes to purchase. These classes could not, indeed, afford to buy as formerly, and hence consumption had fallen off, which circumstance naturally led to a fall of prices. Some gentlemen professed to think; that the distress of agriculture was in a great measure owing to the quantity of bad land in cultivation, but, if it were not for the cultivation of these lands, with all their disadvantage to the farmers, the surplus produce of all Europe, or of the world, would not be sufficient to supply the wants of this country. The produce of our bad lands generally supplied the consumption of the country for two months in the year, and that was more than had ever been imported. It had been stated, that if the import of corn were free from restriction, those who sent it would take the produce of our manufactures in return; and hence, it was argued, that our commerce and manufactures would be enriched by the unrestrained import of corn. But who were the persons by whom it was expected our manufactured goods would be taken in exchange for corn? There were now no corn-merchants on the continent—Monarchs were, at present, the only great corn-dealers abroad. The king of Sweden was, indeed, one of the first corn-merchants. And, if our ports should be at present opened, the greatest supply of corn to be looked for was from the king of Denmark, who had a vast quantity of corn in store, and who was still a greater dealer in corn than the king of Sweden. And, if the king of Denmark should send us corn, who could suppose, that his majesty would take our hardware or woollen manufactures in return? No. This monarch, like any other foreign dealer in corn, would require from us either bullion or bills in payment for his corn.—But he hoped and trusted, that our ports would never again be opened for the import of corn, and that this country would always be able to grow enough for its own consumption, instead of looking for any foreign supply. This, however, could not be the case, if the low or inferior soils were thrown out of culture. But, if those lands were thrown out of cultivation, what was to become of the people who were at present employed in labouring upon them? Were those labourers thrown out of employment, there would be no resource for them but the poor's-rate, the amount of which was already enormous.—Another subject of complaint among the farmers was, the delay which took place in judging upon surcharges. This delay was a source of great vexation and injury. For example, a farmer happened to find, that the application of a metallic spring to a cart would serve most materially to facilitate labour—to give the power, indeed, of two horses to a one-horse cart. But, as soon as the use of the spring was discovered, he was actually surcharged for a gig. But this farmer deeming it quite impossible, that he should be ultimately required to pay 6l. 12s. for the use of such an improvement, continued the use of it, and 12 months having elapsed before the judgment was pronounced, he had to pay the year's tax as well as the surcharge. It was the duty of the chancellor of the exchequer to look to a case of this nature. But, he called upon the right hon. gentleman to turn his attention to the several taxes which pressed upon the necessaries of life, and bore down the labouring classes. It would be not only a measure of benevolence, but of wisdom, to repeal all those taxes, and, in lieu thereof, to impose an income tax of 5 per cent. To such a tax no rational objection could be made; for, while it would afford great relief to the labouring classes, it would press only upon the rich, including alike the fundholder and the landholder. If such an income-tax were proposed as a substitute for the malt, the salt, and the leather taxes, with those upon soap and candles, it would, he had no doubt, be hailed as a most auspicious measure by all considerate and candid men. This tax upon income would, too, serve very amply to indemnify the treasury for the repeal of the several duties which he had mentioned. Such a substitute would have another material advantage—that it would save the country from great expense in the collection of the revenue, as well as put an end to that patronage of which he feared that government were always too tenacious. But the mode in which the taxes upon the necessaries of life were collected, had some peculiarities which must strike the House with surprise. Would it be believed that two millions of those taxes were exacted for paupers who had really nothing to pay; that one-fourth of their entire annual produce was actually paid upon the necessaries consumed by parish paupers—by those, indeed, who subsisted upon the bounty of others? But how many labourers, who could not subsist upon their present wages, and who therefore were obliged to resort to some parochial aid, were among the contributors to the payment of those taxes? If, then, those taxes were repealed, such persons could subsist upon their wages, and avoid the disgrace of applying for parochial relief. Another circumstance was this—that if the land continued to fall off in price, the paupers could not be maintained without resorting to the towns where the manufacturers and mechanics were scarcely in a state to afford any relief without injuring, if not sacrific- ing themselves. But the great object of the legislature, in every view, should be to support agriculture. The manufactories could, notoriously, produce one-third more than any market could be found for. They still, however, could go on well, if their best customers, the agriculturists, were enabled to purchase more of their commodities. The hon. member concluded with moving "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal so much-of the acts of the 43rd and 52nd Geo. 3, and the 2nd of his present majesty, as imposes certain duties on Agricultural Horses, and other horses employed in leading lime, coal, and other merchandize."

supported the motion, because he thought its principle unobjectionable. At the same time, he should have preferred that his hon. friend had postponed it until after the bringing up of the report of the agricultural committee.

after declaring his concurrence with the principle of the motion, expressed a wish, that it had been postponed until the report of the agricultural committee were brought up. The unequal pressure of the existing tax could not be denied. For instance, where land required lime, which was particularly the case with lands of inferior quality, additional horses must be employed to carry it; for oxen, although they answered the purpose of agriculture in the field, could not carry great weights for any distance upon the roads. Under all the circumstances, he trusted his hon. friend would consent to postpone his motion.

expressed his concurrence with the motion, but wished it to be postponed until after the agricultural committee had made its report.

of Wilts, approved of the motion, and saw no necessity for its postponement.

said, that if the right hon. gentleman opposite would pledge himself to meet the question at a future period, he would withdraw his motion.

said, he wished to know the degree of importance which the agricultural committee would attach to the repeal of this tax. Unless they considered its repeal of great importance to the agricultural interests, he thought no benefit arising from it could equal the inconvenience which would result, in a financial point of view, from the subtraction of so large a sum as 500,000l. a year from the revenue.

was satisfied, that the country would consider the repeal of the tax as a great relief. He did not wish to undervalue the opinion of the committee up stairs; he must say that he thought it would be much better for the House to grant this small boon to the agriculturists at the present moment.

hoped the hon. member would not press his motion, but bring it forward again after the committee should have made their report. He was convinced if ministers would put their shoulders to the wheel, that they would be able to find means of raising 500,000l. in a manner more serviceable to the country.

said, he should certainly give his support to the motion. He should do so on the same principle on which he had voted for repealing the last duty on malt, not because it was in itself a bad tax, or pressed with peculiar hardship on the landed interest, but with a view of compelling the observance of strict economy in the administration of government. It was his belief that the whole amount of the malt tax might be saved by measures of economy; and as he looked upon the sinking fund to be utterly useless—to be at this moment unproductive of one single good effect—he was quite disposed to abrogate every tax so long as any portion of that fund remained in existence. The hon. mover had stated, that foreign monarchs were embarking in the corn trade, that they were becoming merchants, and that the king of Sweden was importing oats into this country. Now if this were the fact, he for one should rather rejoice at it, because he should expect to make much better bargains with kings and princes than with their subjects. The hon. gentleman, however, need not be under any alarm; for if, as he represented, these trading potentates would not take back our hardware and pottery in exchange, and would receive nothing but bullion, there was a sufficient security for our continuing to grow our own corn.

expressed his regret at hearing this question argued with reference to the conflicting interests of different classes of the community. It gave him some surprise to find his hon. friend treating a great national subject in a way which, practically considered, he must pronounce extraordinary and almost absurd. He was now alluding chiefly to what fell from his hon. friend in relation to the sinking fund. At the same time he felt it his duty to observe, that those gentlemen who had given their uniform support to ministers through a long and extravagant administration, and who had enabled them to spare the country from a large amount of direct taxes by means of successive loans, did come forward with a very bad grace to propose and recommend the cheating (for it was no less) of the persons who had advanced those loans. The impression which their reasonings were calculated to produce was, to be sure, not very considerable; and he relied too much on the moral feelings of the country, to apprehend that they would ever acquire much popularity either in the House or elsewhere. With regard to the sinking fund, it might be very natural to some to treat it with contempt; but that a person of his hon. friend's ingenuity and sound principles should speak of it as utterly useless, and express a readiness to do away with every tax that contributed to support it, astonished him not a little. When his hon. friend was thus willing to surrender the last sixpence of the sinking fund, he (Mr. B.) could have wished him to amplify his argument, and to lay before the House those views under which he conceived that our financial system ought to be conducted. If his hon. friend had objected only to the mode of keeping the accounts of the sinking fund, he was perfectly ready to concur with him, for it was calculated only to puzzle and confuse. But to say that a sinking fund ought not to be maintained, was in effect to say that the country should go on borrowing, as long as fools enough could be found to lend their money, and that no security should be offered to the creditor. With respect to the repeal of the present tax, he did not think it was calculated to afford much relief to the agricultural interests; nor did he think that much more information than gentlemen already possessed upon the subject, was likely to be obtained by waiting for the report of the committee. For his own part, he had always considered the maintenance of the finances of the country an object of essential importance; and he thought the country would be better able to engage in any contest, or cope with any difficulties, with a strong finance than with a strong military or naval establishment.

said, he was desirous to keep up the financial credit of the coun- try as his hon. friend could possibly be; but with respect to the question of keeping up a sinking fund, it was necessary to consider how far the comforts and means of the people would enable us to do so. Such was the state of the country, and such the situation of particular classes of the community, that it was better, even with a view to keeping up the national credit, to relax a certain part of the public burthen, than to press the people to extremity. Let our army and navy establishments be reduced, and that reduction would afford the very means of keeping up the sinking fund. He did not object to the sinking fund, but to the manner in which it was employed. The sinking fund was, in fact, a hoard of money kept up at a great expense, and taken from the people at inconvenient periods, and by hard means. It was a large treasure amassed under, the name of a sinking fund, and lavished at pleasure by the government. Was that the way to save the resources of the people? The money would be much safer, he contended, in the pockets of the people, both as a security for themselves, and a resource for the state, than it was even in the hands of the commissioners for discharging the public debt. With respect to the motion, he should support it if his hon. friend pressed it to a division.

feared, that the distress of the agricultural classes was not duly appreciated. It seemed to him that the best course would be, to allow his hon. friend to bring in his bill, and then to suspend its stages till they were in possession of further information.

said, that under the circumstances, he did not deem it advisable to press his motion; but, in withdrawing it, he wished to reserve to himself the liberty of again bringing it forward, if there should be no prospect of the committee making an early report.

said, that nothing could be more fair than that the hon. gentleman should retain the option of reviving his motion if the report of the committee should be delayed beyond this session. His own object certainly was, to perceive what was the degree of importance attached to the tax in question by the committee. All that he had to observe at present was, that he did not see what material relief would be afforded by its repeal, and did not know what substitute could be proposed.

gave notice, that he should resist the introduction of any substitute in the event of the tax being repealed.

noticed at some length the objections which had been made to the proposition which it had been his duty to submit to the House. These were most contradictory in their nature. By some he was accused of favouring the trade to the North of Europe too much, while others accused him of undue partiality for that to North America. From these conflicting opinions, he was led to conclude that the proposition which had been brought forward was, upon the whole, pretty fair to all parties concerned. With the view he took of the subject, he could offer no new concessions, and he did not feel disposed to accede to the proposition which the noble lord (Althorp) had submitted to the House on a former night. He was unwilling to afford any undue advantages to the trade of Norway. What had been said with respect to the debt owing by Norway to this country, to make up which he supposed all the bad debts to have been scraped together, did not materially bear on the question. If such debts were owing, it was not to be supposed that it could be paid in wood; it must be settled through the medium of a negotiation between the two governments. Norway had had a full share of our timber trade. This he apprehended, could not be denied, when it was seen that she had had a third of our whole trade to the North of Europe. He was disposed to show some favour to Norway in the arrangements to be made, but he was not disposed to afford her such advantages as would lead to the total exclusion of the trade of Russia and Prussia. The right hon. member then made comparative statements between his proposition and that of the noble lord, thereby shewing that the latter gave considerable advantage to Norway over Russia. The system which had been recommended by an hon. baronet was nothing more nor less than a system for excluding the timber of our colonies from this country altogether. The shipping interests, and the interests of the colonies, had a claim, upon their protection, and it would be the height of injustice if the committee refused to grant that protection. He felt confident that he had said sufficient to convince hon. members that the Resolution was one which ought to be agreed to, both with a view to the conduct they were bound, in fairness, to pursue, as well as to the true interests of all parties connected with the trade.

said, that nothing which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman went to change the opinion which he had previously entertained upon this question. He considered his proposition to impose a direct tax upon the country, and that partly for the purpose of giving Russia an opportunity of importing deals, if his principle was good in this respect, he would perhaps see the propriety of extending it further in encouraging a free foreign trade. If he took off the duties upon foreign deals, why not also take off the duties upon linen? He knew no reason why the duties upon hemp should be kept up at its present high rate. All these duties would be reduced with the most beneficial results to trade in general. The right hon. gentleman supported his proposition upon the ground of expediency, and upon the great protection which he considered to be due to the shipping and colonies. But with regard to this doctrine of expediency, it was not supported by any of the facts of the case. There had been no case made out to call for the imposition of such duties for the sake of conferring benefit upon the colonies. Nothing had been said to justify the sacrifice which the country must make for the sake of affording protection to these particular interests. The bounty given would create a tax not amounting to less than 3 or 400,000l. a year. They ought, as soon as possible, to recur to sound principles respecting this trade, and at some future period the duties should be placed upon a footing of equalization. Feeling that the present opportunity ought not to pass by without their endeavouring in some degree to accomplish that object, by acting upon broader principles, he should move as an amendment to the Resolution, that after the word "And," all the words shall be left out, and the following be inserted ill their place:—That from and after the 1st of January 1825, the duty upon all foreign timber imported into the united kingdom, shall be 2l. per load of 50 cubic feet. And that the duty upon all foreign deals imported into the united kingdom, from and after the same period, shall be 2l. 5s. per load of fifty cubic feet; the same to be charged on the cubical contents of the said timber."

said, that standing as a neutral person, without any shipping or other commercial interest, he wished to give his public aid to that great principle of free trade, which alone could relieve the country from its present difficulties. The House ought at least to take the first favourable opportunity of putting one branch of trade out of the trammels in which it toiled; and the committee would bear in mind, that this was not a trade which had been established for centuries, it was not like the silk trade, for instance, it had only been established since 1807 or 1809. He wished the committee to bear in mind that they were not legislating for Russia, for Norway, or for Canada—but for England. They were bound to examine in what way they could bring the article of-timber into this country at the cheapest rate. If he could show, as he thought he could, that it could be procured from Russia and Norway, for one half less than from Canada, he should be making out a case which must satisfy the committee. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman went to prohibit the good article which was near at hand in those Northern countries, for the sake of introducing one so bad, that it would otherwise never find its way here. And this was to be done for the sake of saving the pockets of the Canadian lumbermen, or those other lumbermen the ship owners. He contended that what the right hon. gentleman called enabling Russia to compete with Norway, was, in fact, keeping the timber of the latter, which was the very best, farther and farther from our market. Instead of which it ought to be brought here as soon as an opportunity offered, inasmuch as it was not only the best but the cheapest article. Every man of common sense would see, that the proposition of the hon. baronet was that which ought to be adopted by the committee, and not the proposition of the right hon. gentleman. The hon. member then made a statement to prove that the amendment went to save 400,000l. per year to the country. This was a direct tax, and it was useless for the right hon. gentleman to say, that it ought to be put into the pockets of the Canada lumbermen. He then alluded to the evidence of Mr. Duff, given before the committee. He declared that that gentleman was in- terested in the question, inasmuch as he was the agent of the ship owners and timber merchants. It was not to be expected that those individuals would care for any body but themselves. They had no feeling for the public, but the right hon. gentleman ought to have. He held an office of public trust, and he ought to consider the welfare of the public as a paramount object to that of any body of individuals whatever. The right hon. gentleman had had his choice of consulting the welfare of that public by supplying them with a cheap and a good article, or of supporting other interests, and letting them keep it dear and bad. Unfortunately he had chosen the latter, and rejected the former.

said, he thought it would have been better if the hon. baronet, had reserved his motion till the whole question had been discussed. The system now proposed was only experimental, and it might be corrected by future regulations if found inconvenient: he approved of it generally, though, with respect to deals, he thought too great an advantage had been given to the Americans.

said, that he differed considerably from his hon. friend the member for Shrewsbury. He had indulged in some remarks upon the evidence given before the committee by those interested in the Canada trade. Now it was impossible not to observe that the same disposition existed in the evidence on all sides, to give the best colouring for the advantage of the different parties. One gentleman being asked if the Norwegian merchants did not owe a considerable debt to this country, replied "yes, and they would be glad to pay it in timber." He was not one who thought that they were bound to look to the interest of the consumer alone. They were bound also to take into consideration how the seller and the importer would be affected by the measures they were about to adopt. The Canada timber was less subject to dry rot than that of any other country. A Mr. Hay had given it in evidence, that he put down gate-posts in 1792 made of Canada timber, and upon taking them up in 1814', found them entirely free from dry-rot, and in a serviceable state for the common purposes of timber. This was undoubtedly an advantage well worthy of attention. There were 1,200 sail of shipping yearly employed in the American timber trade, and if the high rates of duty were adopted, only one half of that number would be sent out. The diminished consumption and outfitting of those vessels would create a loss to the country of 150,000l.

also thought the proposition of the right hon. gentleman would seriously affect the ship-owner, but he supported it because it was less injurious than the amendment. He looked at the interests of the ship-owners as bound up with the general interests of the country, and he did not wish to give them advantages unconnected with the general interest. He apprehended that the necessary consequence of the proposition would be, the transfer of the American trade to Norway which must seriously hurt the shipowners of this country. The American timber trade was carried on by British shipping, but three-fourths of the Norway timber trade was carried on by foreign ships, and the other quarter by British. Even if all British ships were employed in the Norway trade, it would be carried on by one-third of the number of ships employed in the American. If this country wished to retain her colonies, their produce ought to be protected. He did not think the only object to be to procure articles at the cheapest rate possible, because if that were the object the corn laws ought to be repealed, as corn could be purchased at Dantzic at 26s. per quarter.

conceived the American, timber trade not so beneficial to the inhabitants of Canada as to the ship-owners, because timber was cut down in that country for the purpose of clearing the land. He could not agree with the amendment, because he thought as long as the colonial system was kept up, so long ought protection to be afforded, in such a degree as not to do more hurt than service to the subjects of this country. The right hon. gentleman had said, that Norway being put upon the same footing with Russia might give cause of complaint to the latter; but he could see no reason for complaint on the part of Russia, unless a greater duty were imposed upon her produce than upon that of Norway. The right hon. gentleman had said, that what he (lord A.) had proposed on a former night would benefit Russia; because if the article could not be procured from Norway, it must come from Russia; but the right hon. gentleman forgot that Prussia and Sweden might enter into competition. He should on some future occasion propose a graduating scale of duties, but at present should do no more than vote against the amendment.

observed, that the opinions which had been expressed on this question were widely different, and the inference he drew from them all was, that the proposition of his right hon. friend was the best that could be adopted. Our colonies he conceived, ought rather to be considered as an integral part of the kingdom, than as an appendage having only a remote interest in common with the mother country. As to the shipping interest he trusted parliament and the country would never be so ungrateful as to forget that to it we owed the glory of that navy

"Whose flag had brav'd a thousand years "The battle and the breeze."

He denied that either their interests, or those of the North American colonies, were compromised by the proposition before the committee. The right hon. gentleman defended the policy of encouraging the importation of timber from Canada, on the ground that a great quantity of it was consumed at present in the manufacturing districts in making packing cases, and in various other uses. With regard to the second branch of the subject—the duty on Baltic timber—he thought the scale of duties proposed by his right hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) was the best that could be suggested. If long Norway deals were to be excluded, by lowering the duty on short deals, there would be no possibility of getting them by any other means than by sawing up logs, which would be a great inconvenience as well as loss to the consumer. It was alleged that this duty would have the effect of throwing all the trade in deals into the hands of Russia; but though the quantity of deals lately imported from Norway had been greatly diminished, that did not seem to have increased the importation from Russia or Prussia; and since this effect had not been produced by the former duty, there was no reason to apprehend it from the new duty.

remarked, that the general principle of political economy which ought to regulate the conduct of a great country, and which should never be deviated from but in cases of urgent necessity, would lead us to purchase an article wherever it could be had of the best quality and at the cheapest price. Of all the nuisances that could infest a new settlement, he looked upon lumber-men as the greatest: they were a set of vagabonds who encouraged every species of profligacy among the agricultural settlers, and were the pests of the colony. Dismissing therefore, the interests of this class of individuals, the colonies in Canada were not particularly interested in the present question. They were rendered independent of the timber trade, and were in fact the most thriving part of America, in consequence of the monopoly they enjoyed of the West India Islands. They did not pay on tea and sugar, and the other produce of the East and West Indies, those duties which were paid in this country; and, therefore, he denied that they were either oppressed or ill-treated. With regard to the advantage of exchanging com modities, he admitted that it would be the same whether the timber trade were transferred or not from Canada to the Baltic, because both markets were equally good consumers of our manufactures. He had no hesitation in saying with the hon. baronet near him (sir H. Parnell), that, as a general principle, a free trade with all the world was the best policy; but at the same time he was aware that circumstances might render a deviation from this liberal principle necessary in particular cases. Some sacrifices of the several interests of the public to those of the shipowners was necessary; and the only question at issue appeared to be, to what extent this sacrifice should be carried. To continue it at its present extent would be absurd, for it was unquestionably much too great. The increased expense of so material an article as timber, was an important consideration, and the inferiority of the quality was still more important. The question then was, whether the rate of duty proposed by the right hon. gentleman was such a rate as would increase the trade to the Baltic, without destroying that to America. To him (Mr. Baring) it appeared that this would be the effect of the proposition before the committee; and if the duties were to be altered to a greater extent, that change should be made gradually; because when they had created a great interest, like that of the shipping, it was not to be let down all at once. As to the question between Norway and Russia, it was exactly the same as that between Canada and the Baltic; and therefore he should not discuss it at any length. He should merely observe, that Norway did not consume so much of our manufactures as Russia; and that consideration certainly entitled the latter to a greater degree of favour [Hear, hear!]. The inclination of his mind was, to support the proposition before the committee, as pointing out the rate of duties most likely to answer the end desired. It was surely more safe for the House to abide by the decision of a committee which had examined the subject for weeks together, than to be guided by cursory remarks in the speeches of hon. members.

said, he was anxious to deliver his opinion on the present proposition, as it involved a principle of infinitely greater importance than the question immediately under consideration. They had been told that they ought to go to the best and cheapest market, and also that the timber of Norway and Russia was better and cheaper than that of America; and yet they were recommended as a practical measure, to take the worst timber at the dearest rate! His hon. friend (Mr. Bennet), in a speech full of the soundest argument, and as yet totally unanswered by the gentlemen opposite, had shown, in the most convincing manner, that by buying our timber from the northern powers of Europe, we should save 400,000l. annually on the purchase of hat article, and consequently that we were yearly incurring a debt to that amount, in order to put this money into the pockets of the ship-owners. If a bill were introduced for the specific and avowed purpose of granting a sum to that amount to the ship-owners, he would much rather agree to it than to the resolutions now before the committee, for in that case the capital thus given to them might be more usefully employed. At present it was a total sacrifice of 400,000l. a year, as much so as if the ships engaged in the coasting trade should be obliged to sail round the island in order to give employment to a greater number. He was of opinion that, according to the true principles of commerce, it ought to form no part of the consumer's consideration to enter into the distribution by the seller, of the money or labour which he (the consumer) exchanged for any commodity which he wanted. All the consumer had to consider was, where he could get the article he wanted cheapest; whether the payments were to be made in money or in manufactures was matter quite of minor importance. In this, as in all other branches of commercial policy, it was useless to urge partial views in behalf of one set of men or another. That House ought not to look to the right or the left, but consider merely how the people of England, as a body, could best employ their capital and labour. Wrong notions of commercial policy had too long prevailed; and now that the country had begun to recognize sounder principles, the sooner they acted upon them the better. There were exceptions to be made in cases of very old established arrangements; but this American trade was not one of them was of new date, and mainly sprung out of a quarrel between England and the Baltic powers: it was then said that the latter would withhold her timber, and that the colonial trade must necessarily be encouraged in Canada. What once occurred, might again happen it was said Well, then, his reply was—if ever it should happen, it would be time enough to pay the high price; at present let more economical arrangements be attempted. It was strange that inconsistency always marked the progress of monopolists. One set of men now called out for this colonial trade in behalf of the shipping interest, and the very same set of men, if they were spoken to about the West India Dock system, would call it partial and oppressive. So, respecting the Irish linen monopoly, it was said, why not be allowed to go to Germany, where the same manufacture might be had cheaper? He certainly-concurred in the hon. baronet's view of this question.

said:—I have listened with great attention to the discussion before the committee, and more particularly to the doctrines of our new school of political economists; but must confess that they have produced very little conviction on my mind. Hitherto ships, colonies, and commerce have been considered as inseparably connected with each other; but, according to the new system, we are to sacrifice our ships and colonies, in order that our commerce may go on the better without them. Whenever these philosophers v/ill illustrate their theory by experimental proof; if, for example, they will take off two legs from a three-legged stool, and make it stand on the remaining one leg more firmly than it before did on all the three, then, but not till then, will I become one of their disciples. Our trade with our own colonies and in our own ships, we can always call our own, because we hold it independent of the will of foreign powers; but in trusting to a trade with foreign nations we are leaning on a broken reed. Have we already forgotten the continental system, which last war cut us off from all communication with every port in Europe; and the non-intercourse and non-importation acts of the government of the United States, which excluded us from all America? Or do we flatter ourselves that what has been may not again be? If so, we reason in opposition to experience and the evidence of facts, and to the true rule of judging of the future by the past. Have we any reason to believe that the jealousy expressed by foreign powers of our commercial greatness, which they envy, and of our naval power, which they dread, is at all abated? On the contrary, has not increased cause of dissatisfaction been recently given on our part, to the great European potentates, by our declaration to every foreign court, that the principles laid down and acted upon in their attack upon Naples, are repugnant to the fundamental principles of the British constitution? It seems impossible that our good understanding with these powers can long continue, unless they adopt our notions of government, or we adopt theirs, events neither of which are very likely to happen. With such prospects before' us, we are called upon, in defiance of every principle of sound policy, and with total disregard to the maintenance of our maritime greatness, to abandon a colonial trade in British ships, in order to encourage a foreign trade in foreign ships, and are desired to trust to the liberality of foreign powers for correspondent advantages in return, as if history was filled with examples of national gratitude; though if such there are they have escaped all my researches, while examples of the ingratitude of nations, for whom we have expended our blood and treasure, abound almost in every page. In order to put us out of conceit with our navigation laws, we are told, that we have not grown great from our restrictive system, but in spite of it. This is a perversion of argument. The prosperity of every nation depends upon the wisdom of its political institutions. Our navigation system has been so long established, that its effects have had ample time to show themselves. Had they been bad, our commerce would long ago have been ruined; but, as they have been good, we have prospered under them, and have risen to the greatest height of commercial prosperity and naval power that ever was attained by any nation. To argue otherwise, is to deny the existence of cause and effect; to shut out the light of experience, and the evidence of facts; and to contradict the highest authorities amongst writers on political economy. Dr. Adam Smith, speaking of the act of Navigation, says, "although some of the provisions of this famous act (as he emphatically terms it) probably originated in a spirit of national animosity, yet they are all as wise as if they had been dictated by the most deliberate wisdom;" and, in a subsequent passage, he adds, "that as defence is of more importance than opulence, the act of navigation is, perhaps, after all, the wisest of all the commercial regulations of England." Another high authority on political subjects, one of our own members, in a treatise on colonial policy that he published some years ago, after agreeing with Dr. Smith that our navigation law is not favourable either to the extent of foreign commerce, or to the growth of that opulence which arises out of it, concludes by saying, that "it is now known only by its good effects." This nation now labours under great pressure, and men who suffer are apt to show their impatience by readily listening to any proposal for a change, without considering whether that change may not be from bad to worse; let us act a wiser part, and not mistake the source of all the prosperity and greatness that yet remain to us, for the cause of the difficulties under which we labour, or we shall aggravate them 'till they become insupportable, and render them irretrievable.—Let us not cut away the sheet anchor, which will enable the vessel to ride out the gale in safety, and leave her to drift at random among the rocks and breakers with which she is surrounded. Having said thus much on general principles, I shall now advert to the particular points before the committee. The motion of the hon. baronet who began this debate, appears to have received so little countenance, that I shall pass it over without any observations. The motion of the noble lord I shall oppose, because it gives additional advantages to the northern powers over the British provinces in North America. Great Britain adopts various rules in regulating her duties on different commodities. Some pay by weight, some by mea- sure, some by tale, and some ad valorem. Deals have always paid by tale, and the noble lord would now assess them in their Cubical contents. This I object too, in the first place, because, any sudden or violent alteration of a long established system is always attended with great injury to the interest of individuals, and therefore ought only to be adopted for very strong and urgent reasons. In the next place, the avowed object is, to benefit Norway, who already enjoys more then her share of the deal trade; for her import, on an average of the four years 1816, 1817, 1818, and 1819, was 13,000 out of 40,000 loads, being more than that of any of the northern powers, while that of the British colonies was only 5,500.—The scale of duties proposed in the schedule lowers the duty on Norway deals 1l. 15s. 8d. and raises that on Canada deals 2l. per load; a considerable disadvantage to Canada, which, if increased, would drive her deals out of the market altogether; and, therefore, of two evils I shall choose the least. The contiguity of Norway to this country gives her a great advantage over the other Northern powers; the small size of her deals is a disadvantage, according to our mode of levying the duty by tale; but I contend that we have nothing to do with these considerations. On the same grounds we might be called upon to make endless alterations in our existing system. For instance, oranges pay duty by tale; and the inhabitants of the Western Islands might as reasonably complain that their small oranges pay as much duty per thousand as the large oranges from Portugal, and request that in future they should all be measured, and the duty taken according to their cubical contents, as the Norwegians make this application with respect to their deals. This principle applies to a great number of other articles, and would lead to endless remonstrances and difficulties. I persist in the intention of which I gave notice, of moving an amendment to the schedule before the committee, by opposing the intended reduction in the duty on Baltic timber. I do this in conformity to the evidence given before the committee on foreign trade, which uniformly states that this reduction will be attended with no advantage to the British consumer, but lead to an immediate advance in the price of the timber abroad; and some of them declare, that such an advance has already taken place in anticipation. Now, I am not for sacrificing British revenue for the benefit of foreigners, and am much mistaken if the chancellor of the exchequer has any spare duty so to give away, under present circumstances. The great preponderance of the evidence also proves that a duty of 10 shillings per load on timber from the British colonies in North America is as much as the trade can bear; and that a reduction of 10 shillings from the Baltic timber at the same time will be going much too far. This is the opinion of ten witnesses; only four think differently; and four others are against any alteration whatever. I have two sheets of extracts, from their evidence, but content myself with giving this abstract of it, rather than occupy the time of the committee by reading it at length. One of them asks where any duty is to come from? the load of timber, which cost 18 shillings in America, producing only five shillings here; and the freight being so low, from the distress of the ship-owners, that they lose money by every voyage. These considerations will, I trust, induce the committee to support me in this amendment. Before I sit down I wish to notice one or two observations that have been made in the course of this debate. The hon. member for Shrewsbury reproaches those who advocate the cause of the ship-owners with supporting a bad trade carried on in bad ships; and they have also been called rotten ships. In order to show how far they merit these epithets, I have examined Lloyd's register-book, and find that of 434 ships that arrived from Quebec last year, 183 are of the very first class, standing letter A; 249 are of the second class, letter E, (vessels fit to carry any cargo to any part of the world), and only two stand the third letter, I. The truth is, that we have now no rotten ships; and very few old ships; because, as even good ships cannot all find employment, the bad can of course expect none, and therefore are broken up much sooner than usual. For this reason the shipping in use at the present moment is of a superior description to what it was at any former period. The right hon. gentleman who proposed these resolutions stated on a former occasion that we had a great number of superfluous seamen. The data on which he reasoned are just, but the conclusions he drew from them were erroneous. He argued from the comparative tonnage of British shipping in the year 1792 and 1820, but did not consider that in 1792 every ship was manned and employed, but that at present great numbers are not employed, and consequently not manned for which he made no allowance in his estimate. I greatly doubt whether we have a single British seaman more now than we had in the year 1792, and think it important to explain this point.

rose to correct a misapprehension under which the hon. member for Shrewsbury laboured. He could assure the hon. gentleman, that though he had an interest in the subject, yet he was as independent as any member in the House. He contended, that the view taken of the subject by the two hon. baronets opposite, was the true view of the subject. He could not agree with the member for Portarlington, that it was a matter of indifference whether the return for foreign timber was made in goods or specie. He had lived long enough to know that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush, and he should feel disposed to trade with a country which would take his own goods in exchange, rather than demand it in specie.

supported the amendment; and after a brief reply, from Mr. Wallace, the committee divided four times; viz.