presented Petitions from Montreal, and from persons in the City of London engaged in the Timber Trade, against any alteration of the Timber Duties. He said that the Timber Trade was almost the only trade enjoyed by Canada with the mother country, and that, therefore, the petitioners in Montreal and elsewhere had viewed with alarm propositions founded on the views of political economists to alter duties. They were also in favour of a measure that would check emigration—a check which he deemed by no means desirable. As to the alterations in the duties, the prospects in many cases with which they had been made had not been realised. Here, as upon the wine duties, the liberal system had failed. When Lord Althorpe proposed the alteration of the wine duties, he declared that they would not produce the calculated benefits; the result justified his observation, for from that period France had not taken the slightest notice of our reduction of duties. Therefore had there been not only decided loss to the revenue, but grievous injury to individuals who had embarked their capital in the particular trade. The same would be found to be the case as regarded the changes of the timber duties. He would not enter upon the remarks that he might otherwise have made, had the President of the Board of Trade been present; but as the change on the timber duties had been founded on the recommendations of a Committee, he trusted that before anything were done on the timber duties, the evidence might be allowed to be in the hands of Members. Not that he placed much value in the evidence received. Indeed, he could not but think that Committees on trade, commerce, &c, were mere farces, because they were always appointed by the Government of the day, and re-echoed their sentiments. He was sure that if any Member would examine the evidence given on this Question, he would see that it was in favour of the present scale of duties. He hoped that the House would not be led away by the vague theories of political economists on this important subject.

said, that the people would set down the observations just made as mere vague declamation. Not one proof had been adduced. The petitioners and the hon. Member sought to perpetuate what he must deem a most mischievous system, and a most unjust tax. From the way in which the hon. Gentleman constantly talked about free trade and reciprocity, it was evident, that he knew not what he spoke about. He was not aware of the principles on which free trade and reciprocity duties were defended. It was a defensive principle that the people should be allowed to get, and ought to get, the products of their own and other countries as cheap as possible. As to other countries not following our example, if the duites were put on a proper footing of reciprocity, he apprehended that other countries would soon find it to their interest to follow our example.

defended the principle of free trade and reciprocity duties, contending that the people ought to be allowed to find the best articles on the cheapest terms; and the application of that principle would be best calculated to effect the development of the greatest freedom of and improvement in trade.

rose to request that his Majesty's Ministers would not take advantage of the interval between this and the meeting of Parliament, to begin, or to lay the foundation of any proceeding founded upon the resolutions of the Committee upon the timber duties, until that House should have had an opportunity of fully discussing them. He was obliged, by the desire of his constituents, to take this course, although he feared it might be interpreted into a suspicion of unfairness, which personally he did not entertain.

said, the protection at present given to the ship-owners and others in that class of the community, was to an outrageous extent, and it was too much that those parties should still wish it to be perpetuated. What was really the proposition? In 1823, when the former Committee sat, the proposition was this—that whatever difference there was in freight between bringing timber from the Baltic and from Canada, to that extent they should give the Canadas protection. More than that, they said they would not only give protection to the extent of the difference of freight, but to the extent of fifty per cent. on the prime cost. The persons connected with the trade, however, were not satisfied with that, nor would they be quiet till they had complete exclusion.

thought there was nothing in the evidence justifying the conclusion to which the Committee on the timber duties had arrived. He did not mean to advocate the old-fashioned doctrines of exclusive trade, but he hoped the House would be cautious in meddling with subjects without the clearest demonstrations for the necessity of doing so. If hon. Members would only prove that the interests of the consumer would be consulted by the proposition of the Committee, it should have his warmest support. But in his opinion, there was no case made out to justify the proposition of the Committee.

said, if the hon. Member claimed the right of going to the cheapest butcher and baker, why should he deny the privilege of going to the cheapest timber merchant. The hon. Member for Worcester said, that no man could accuse him of ignorance. He would accuse that hon. Member of ignorance. The hon. Member warned the House against the visionary theories of political economists, such as himself. He would warn the House against the hon. Member as not being a political economist, or, at least, as being altogether ignorant of the subject. The hon. Member's arguments were as contrary to all rules of true political economy as they were to common sense. According to the hon. Member they must send ships to the Baltic, and from thence to Canada, so that instead of having that timber home in two months, the vessel would have to go all round the world, in order that the timber might be improved by doubling Cape Horn. Before the hon. Member accused him of being a visionary, let him be satisfied that he was quite correct himself. The trade of the country would not benefit by any of the extravagant propositions of the hon. Member. The way to promote the best interests of the country was to facilitate the exchange of commodities. The hon. Member relied upon the opinion of Mr. Huskisson; but the hon. Member should recollect that a protest was entered against that opinion, and what had then been foretold had since actually taken place. On these grounds, he had no hesitation in charging the hon. Member with being himself a theorist, and entirely ignorant of the true principles of political economy.

brought up the Report of the Select Committee appointed to search the Journals of the House of Lords, to see what had become of two Bills, the Execution of Wills' Bill, and Administrator's Bill. He was sure that at all times he should be found exceedingly unwilling to give offence to that House, much more at this moment. He would, therefore, content himself with saying that it appeared that these two Bills had been read a second time on the 22nd of June, and referred to a Select Committee, and no further trace of them could be found.

The proceedings that had been adopted elsewhere respecting those two measures required that they should be brought under the notice of that House, and he trusted that lie would not be thought impertinent, if he stated briefly the circumstances under which they were introduced, and the manner in which they had been treated elsewhere. They had been founded on the Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, of whom two were Lord Chief Justices—the late Chief Justice, and the Chief Baron, and they had been produced with their unanimous assent. The propositions also underwent the discussion of the Commissioners of Real Property, and received their approbation. The Bills were then introduced by his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and debated in that House and referred to a Select Committee up stairs; and as they were of great importance to the welfare of the community, as tending to remedy some of the greatest grievances the present state of the law inflicted upon his Majesty's subjects, the Bills were passed after great consideration. The Bills were then sent up to the House of Lords in the course of June; they were read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee; and though this was now the third day of September, the Journals of the Lords had been searched, and no further notice was taken of measures which so deeply affected the interests of the people. It was his duty, as the Representative of a large portion of that people, to see what had become of important legislative measures, involving no political consideration—exciting no strife between adverse parties—and that House would not do its duty to the public whom they represented if, upon similar conduct being adopted by the other House, they did not take all constitutional means in their power to carry into effect those measures which they deemed essential to the welfare of the people. Had this been an isolated case, he might be content to pass it by, after saying that it might accidentally have escaped notice; but it was only one of a great series of measures which had been neglected or rejected, and he thought that it was his duty to call the attention of the House to it.

did not rise to underrate the importance of those measures; on the contrary, he felt, and admitted, they were measures of great importance, and deserved serious consideration. But he was not prepared to admit, that upon the footing of neglect of the interests of the people these measures had not progressed in the other House to the extent which the hon. Member anticipated. That delay was owing to the absence on the Circuit of certain learned Lords, whose legal experience was necessary to enable the House of Lords to come to a proper consideration of those Bills. If that was not sufficient, how, he would ask, did it happen that a noble individual in the other House, who was so forward to advocate the interests of the people, had not forced forward these Bills, if he thought them necessary? He believed it was generally understood that both those measures were to be brought forward at an early period of the next Session.

moved the third reading of the Consolidated Fund, (Appropriation) Bill.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would not press the third read- ing, as the House had no right to be much satisfied with the proceedings in another place. If this Bill were passed, the House might let slip the opportunity of withholding the Supplies and discussing the measure just sent to the Lords again; and, without farther preface, he moved that it be read a third time on Monday.

objected to the Amendment, and if he stood alone would resist the postponement of the third reading. The hon. Member wished for an opportunity of discussing the Municipal Corporations' Bill, just sent up to the Lords again. He earnestly hoped that there might be no need to discuss it again; and that the measure would not be returned. This House had given it the most sedulous, candid, and conciliatory attention; and whoever was friendly to its provisions, and thought they were of any value, would wish that it might never come back to the Commons. If there were any decided enemy to its provisions, he could not do better than to promote its return. If it were returned, then indeed the opportunity of discussion which the hon. Member for Middlesex desired would be afforded; but at a moment like the present, pregnant with important interests, he entreated the House not, upon any imperfect and partial view, to take a step which would materially (and he spoke advisedly) most materially prevent the completion of its wishes. He did not resort to any obvious arguments founded upon the fact that to defer the Bill till Monday would necessarily prolong the Session for another week, but he relied upon the conviction, which he thought even the hon. Member for Middlesex must feel, that to adopt his Amendment would tend to defeat the very object he contemplated. He did not wish to avoid or to prevent discussion, should it become necessary by the return of the Bill from the Lords, but he trusted that the calm tone observed and the conciliatory spirit evinced by hon. Members—and which did them infinite honour, considering the strength of their convictions—would have its due effect, since a firm but respectful attitude and demeanour were not likely to be misinterpreted, and would recommend the measure to the serious attention of the other branch of the Legislature. He only asked hon. Members to persevere in this course, to be consistent with themselves, and, as friends to the Bill, to give it the best chance of being passed into a law. He, therefore, humbly entreated the House not to postpone the third reading of the Appropriation Bill, or rather he humbly entreated the hon. Member for Middlesex to withdraw his Amendment.

trusted that his hon. Friend would comply, since no reasonable advantage could be gained by insisting upon the Amendment. As to stopping the Supplies, that was out of the question: they had been voted by the House seriatim, and after having voted them, it ought never to be said that it had any ulterior thought of retracting them. He put it to the hon. Member for Middlesex, that whatever he could gain by his Amendment he would at all events gain equally when the Appropriation Bill had passed, if the Municipal Corporations' Bill were to be returned from the House of Lords. Nay, he would then have an additional advantage, for it would be seen that all had been done with temper and conciliation. If he were not afraid that his advocacy of the Bill would be injurious to its passing, he should say that he supported it heartily and unequivocally. If poor paltry considerations concerning this individual or that individual were allowed elsewhere to interfere with the sober consideration of a legislative enactment, it might be taken that the postponement of the third reading was an intended insult, and it might be urged as a reason for rejecting the Bill just sent to the Lords, that the Member for Middlesex had ventured to object to the Appropriation Clause. This might be taken as an indignity and the consequences might be most injurious. This country was come to an important and awful crisis, when it was to be ascertained, not in this Session, but in the next, whether every beneficial measure was to be checked and controlled by those over whom at present there was no check or control—whether measures of immense utility were to be stopped in their progress, not on the fair ground of their merits or defects, but on grounds that were too futile to be repeated. Let this House act so as to leave all the fault elsewhere, and abstain from anything like giving a pretext for a course which all dispassionate men must deprecate. He was sure that the country would not have less confidence in the hon. Member for Middlesex, who had followed one undeviating line of public conduct, because he forbore on this occasion, and allowed the Bill to pass.

was desirous of being informed of the use of passing the Bill; he had been told that it was of no use. If, as was said, the money had been voted, and could not be recalled, what good could the Appropriation Bill accomplish? If he were wrong, he wished to be undeceived and to learn whether the measure before the House was necessary to give validity to its votes? He did not wish the Municipal Corporations' Bill to be rejected; on the contrary, he had done all that was consistent with his public duty to secure its adoption as a law; he had been as ready as any man to yield on many points, but he wished to be in a condition—if the other House rejected the Bill, and did not estimate properly the condescension that had been shown and concession that had been made—to object to the final granting of the public money. He could not help looking back to what had occurred last year, when men in full possession of the confidence of the country had been excluded from office; by whose advice it had been done he knew not, but certainly not the individual who had been principally responsible in the new Government, for he was at a distance of some thousands of miles. There must, however, have been some adviser, and, for ought he knew, what had happened last year might occur again. He considered it the duty of the House to guard against the possible recurrence of such a transaction. The House had the power—or if they had not they ought to possess it—of putting the supplies into any hands they pleased. They had voted these supplies to a liberal extent to his Majesty; and in his opinion, lest his Majesty should be led by evil counsellors to repeat the course of last year, they ought to place the dispensing of the supplies in hands on which they could depend. He could not indeed go so far as to say that he contemplated the dismissal of the present Administration in the same manner as that of last year was dismissed, but at the same time he thought that they ought to guard against the possibility of such a proceeding. He wished the House not to do anything for the purpose of offending the House of Lords, but simply to exercise the management of their affairs, and postpone for a little while the reading of a Bill before them—which, as he conceived, might easily be done without giving any such offence to that assembly—in order that they might be able to judge whether any such proceeding might be necessary in the case of the Bill which they had sent up to the House of Lords being rejected. He made this proposal not from any want of confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, for he was perfectly ready to place that confidence in them now which he had always placed in them during the previous part of the Session. He hoped, therefore, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would explain further why he wished the Bill to be read at once.

said that the second speech of his hon. Friend rendered it still more necessary to pass the Bill at once. His hon. Friend would have the goodness to recollect that he was not asking the House to do anything extraordinary, but simply to do that which was in the usual course of proceeding. If the proposition of his hon. Friend were agreed to, he would put it to the House and his hon. Friend, as men of sense and understanding, whether an impression would not be created that they wished to keep in their hands a power over the supplies, to be exercised in the event of the rejection of the Municipal Corporations' Bill as sent amended from this House? Now, that was a course which, of all others, would be most pregnant with danger. As had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—do not let the debate in another place go off on a question of etiquette; let the discussion be one, and one only, on the merits of the Amendments we have made in the Bill. His hon. Friend had said that he entertained confidence in his Majesty's present Ministers. If such were the case, let him allow them, ledged as they were on the question of Municipal Reform, to fight their own battle, and take their own chance of success. The step which he proposed was eminently qualified to weaken the Government in the public opinion; and he called on the majority of the House, composing the friends f the Municipal Reform Bill, not to peril its success by crying out it was in danger. A very unfounded statement had been put forth out of doors, that he—the person charged with the superintendence of the finances of the country—had counselled, or taken a course which countenanced, he stopping of the supplies; and that had seen made an argument against the Government, and against himself individually, as a Member of it. It was scarcely necessary for him to say that he had never countenanced such a course.

wanted to know distinctly whether the House did or did not possess the power of stopping the supplies, [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: No!] There had been a great misapprehension existing out of doors that the House was in a situation to stop the supplies, and he himself had received a petition from a large portion of his constituents, with a request that he would vote for taking that course, in the event of the House of Lords rejecting or injuring the Municipal Corporations' Reform Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, it now appeared, told them that they could not stop the supplies; and such being the case, there would be no use in adopting the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex. As to its giving offence to the House of Lords, he could not see how the suspension of the third reading of one of their Bills could be fairly thought to have any such effect. He trusted that his right hon. Friend would state to the House the nature and operation of this Appropriation Clause; he himself had tried to explain it to his constituents, and had said to them, "Gentlemen, I believe it is too late to attempt to stop the supplies now." If they were indeed in a situation to stop the supplies by suspending the Appropriation Clause, he should give a vote in favour of the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex.

observed, that if the House possessed the power of inserting a Clause for placing the money voted in the bands of Commissioners, without the consent of the other House—if they could of themselves give final effect to any proposition of that nature, then they would be able to exercise the check alluded to; but if they did not possess it, it would appear that that mysterious power of which his hon. Friend talked was entirely imaginary. Any course which they could take would have no effect. There were, already, in the hands of Government Exchequer Bills sufficient to carry on the functions of the Government until Parliament should again meet. If it were proper to exercise any power of stopping the supplies, it ought to have been resorted to before they were voted; there was no such power now.

referred to the form of the Appropriation Act of 1833, and said that he might easily move Amendments to the effect of granting the supplies for a term of nine months, instead of twelve months as proposed. If, however, his Majesty's Government were of opinion that the course which he proposed would, if adopted, have the effect of weakening the confidence reposed in them, or endangering the success of the Municipal Reform Bill, then he would not press it.

said that, as he understood the question, the effect of such a motion as that which the hon. Member for Middlesex proposed would be, to show a great want of confidence in the Government; and the support of the Motion which had been made by his right hon. Friend, the. Chancellor of the Exchequer—as the official representative of the Government on this occasion—appeared to him to be the only right and constitutional way of showing confidence in that Government.

brought up the Report of the Committee appointed last night to draw up reasons to be offered to the Lords for disagreeing to several of the Amendments made by the Lords in the Municipal Corporations' Bill. The noble Lord moved that a Conference be desired with the Lords on the subject matter of their Amendments in this Bill. Motion agreed to. Lord John Russell, accompanied by the greater portion of the Members of the House, went to desire the said Conference. Conference agreed to. Speaker left the Chair. Conference held. Speaker resumed his seat. Conference reported.

moved the third reading of this Bill.

suggested that the words in the Bill—"And also reserving to all parties, who before the 12th of May in this present year shall have objected judicially to the validity of any such writ or writs on the ground of erasure, all pleas that would have been competent to them before the passing of this Act," should be left out. This provision, he contended, would place the parties engaged in pending suits in a worse situation than they were at present.