had understood that the Colonial Customs Duties Bill was to come on immediately after the Mutiny Bill, and he did not believe, that the latter would be protracted to so late an hour but that the former might be proceeded with that evening. If, however, the hon. Member for Chippenham intended to bring on some Ordnance estimates, as he had understood would be the case immediately after the Mutiny Bill, it would be hardly possible to enter with advantage on the discussion of the Colonial Customs' Duties Bill. All he wished was to know when the latter would be brought on.

said, he had been under the impression that a vote for the Ordnance was necessary, on account of the public service, but his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chippenham did not think that time was so pressing, and therefore that it would not interfere with the Colonial Customs' Duties Bill.

moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Mutiny Bill.

said, that some apology was due to the House and to the country, that a subject which had been heretofore brought forward by men of considerable experience should now be brought under their notice by one who had so slight a claim to their attention as himself. He hoped, however, that he should have the support of hon. Members, who on former occasions, had identified themselves with the measure he was about to propose. The hon. Member for Chippenham, who some years ago entertained strong opinions on the subject, had lately declared his intention to vote in favour of a clause for the mitigation of punishment. [Captain Boldero: No.] It was distinctly understood the other evening, that such was the intention of the hon. and gallant Member. He would put it to his hon. Friends on that (the Opposition) side of the House, whether their impression of what the hon. and gallant Member said, was not the same as his own. But he was about to add, that he hoped that the hon. and gallant Member, when he reflected upon the additional weight his present position under the Government must necessarily give to the subject, would not give a silent vote in furtherance of that cause which he was formerly so energetic and eloquent in supporting. He trusted, that the House would allow him to state, that prior to 1812 there was no limitation to the number of lashes that might be awarded by the sentence of a regimental or other court-martial. By a circular issued from the Horse Guards, dated the 25th of March, 1812, the number of lashes to be awarded by a regimental court-martial was limited to 300. In 1830, the number by a district court-martial was limited to 500. In 1832, that number was reduced to 300, and in the same year, the number by a regimental court-martial was ordered not to exceed 200; but in 1833, in consequence of the strong expression of feeling in that House, there having been a majority of only 11 in favour of corporal punishment, the numbers being 140 to 151, that punishment was, by an order dated Horse Guards, the 24th of August, 1833, limited to the following offences: first, for mutiny, insubordination, and violence, or using or offering violence to superior officers; secondly, drunkenness on duty; thirdly, for the sale of, or making away with arms, ammunition, accoutrements, or necessaries, stealing from comrades, or other disgraceful conduct. Finally, in 1836, the punishment was further limited; viz., by general court-martial, to 200 lashes, by district court-martial to 150, and by regimental court-martial to 100. Now, whilst no one would attempt to undervalue the great improvements which had taken place both in limiting the number of lashes and the crimes for which they were ifl,nicted he confessed, that his objections were directed not only against the quantum, but the nature of the punishment; because, in his judgment, it was totally inefficient to reform the man, as well as to deter others from committing similar offences. He quite agreed in a portion of the evidence that was given before the commissioners appointed in 1835, for inquiry into military punishments. In that evidence. Lord Hill was reported to have said, with reference to the mode of punishment that formerly prevailed, of fastening a weight to the leg, and which was abolished in 1830, that he objected to it because it was more fit for a beast than a man. He would ask the House whether those sentiments were not more applicable to the punishment of the lash than to the fastening a weight to the leg? He knew it might be said, with respect to that commission of 1835, that the report was conclusive against the abolition of flogging in the army. But he had studied that report with the best attention, and he fully coincided with the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham in the opinion he had expressed upon it. That hon. and gallant Member, on seconding Major Fancourt's motion, in April, 1836, declared that the evidence contained in the report, "clearly proved the possibility of abolishing that mode of punishment in the army, without injury or disadvantage to the service." In that opinion, so ably expressed by the hon. and gallant Member, he fully concurred; but, at the same time, he was aware it would be said, that none but military men were competent to give a judgment on this point. Against that doctrine, he most humbly but decidedly entered his protest. Every page of this report showed that the commissioners had rather endeavoured to justify the existence of the practice than to institute a dispassionate inquiry as to what the practice ought to he. Having had the honour to hold a commission in the army, he must be sensible that military men were as humane and considerate as Members of any other profession; but the House would call to mind, that alterations in the received forms of discipline, had scarcely ever been popular with members of any profession. It was matter of history that the judges had shown themselves as averse to the relaxation of the criminal code as the officers of the army to the abolition of corporal punishment. He considered it, and he thought the House would regard it as a rather curious fact, that in 1834, when the question was put by Lord Hill to 214 Field Officers:—

"Are you enabled to suggest any means of restraining or eradicating the propensity to drunkenness so prevalent among the soldiery,' and confessedly the parent of the majority of military crimes?"

That out of the whole number only two or three suggested a moral and intellectual remedy for the prevention of that crime. Sir G. Arthur and the late Colonel Oglander were the only officers who proposed the schoolmasters' drill. Considering all that had been written and said on the subject, it was astonishing how little had been done to prevent crime in our army. During the last few years a new system of drill had been introduced; the clothing and knapsacks had been improved, and a better description of arms had been put into the soldiers' hands; much had been done to perfect the machine, little to improve the man. It was a libel on human nature to say, that instruction tended to render the soldier insubordinate. The teaching of morality, in connection with the sanction of religion never indisposed any man to the proper performance of his duty. He was aware that there were some hon. Members who held that in this case, "ignorance was bliss," but he would refer them to the gaol returns which had been within the last four days placed in their hands for the refutation of such an opinion. He found that in the Preston House of Correction out of 378 males and 94 females committed for felony, 230 males and 65 females were unable to read at all; 61 males and 19 females could read only; 73 males and 10 females could read and write ill; the other 14 males could read and write well, but of superior education there was none. In table 24 there were 140 males and 34 females quite ignorant and knowing nothing of religion; 220 males and 58 females ill instructed, and knowing nothing of the Scriptures, and only 12 males and two females well instructed. He looked upon that report as almost conclusive on the subject of education. It was not his intention to delay the House by allusion to the trite topics of the corresponding merits of the French or continental armies, because he believed that there were regiments of this country in which discipline was maintained without the use of the lash. He believed that the household brigade might challenge competition as to its internal economy. But there was a large body of men who were not included in the service upon the tenure of soldiers, and therefore not subject to be flogged. They were drilled after the manner of the regular troops, but were not subject to corporal punishment. He alluded to the Irish constabulary. Lord Vivian, in speaking of that force, said it consisted of 7,000 of the finest men on the face of the earth, and during the time he had been in Ireland he had never seen a drunken policeman. Why, then, should not the same principle that was applied to them be applied to the regular troops? The House would doubtless recollect that, by an order dated the 24th of February, 1835, the late Lord William Bentinck abolished the flogging of the native troops in India, and he begged hon. Members who were disposed to favour him with their support would bear in mind that Lord William Bentinck did that in direct opposition to the military commission which sat on the subject. Lord William Bentinck on that occasion said,—

" There is an unanimous agreement in all the committees, that flogging, however degrading and injurious, cannot entirely be abolished. They do not even stop for a moment to inquire into the practicability of an adequate substitute. With them corporal punishment is the sine quá non, without which the discipline of the army cannot be maintained. I denounce this opinion as prejudice, because it is opposed to reason. Though I am not surprised at the opinion, I cannot forget that for many years, in conjunction with ninety-nine hundred parts of the officers of the British army, I entertained the same sentiments. It is only from my reflection and discussion that my own prejudice has given way. I now feel confident that this degradation will speedily disappear before a more reasonable and- enlightened legislation even in the British army."

But no one would attempt to defend the practice of flogging upon its own merits. He was aware he should be told that unless he could propose an effectual substitute, it was impossible to maintain the discipline of the army without flogging? but did they find their present practice so efficient for the purpose? He thought also, that the system of recruiting might be revised with great advantage to the service. He naturally wished to fortify his argument by the authority of great names. He must, therefore, state, that Mr. Fox had declared that "enlistment for a life was unsuited to the genius of the British constitution." In 1806, Mr. Wyndham brought in a bill for the limitation of service, and said,—

" That he thought by this means a better description of men would be induced to enter the army, and the better the men you get the less necessity for severe and ignominious punishment."

and Mr. Wilberforce were also of the same opinion. In the report to which he had before alluded he found the following question put to Major-general Archibald Campbell:—

" Did you not find that men enlisted for a limited service were men of the best character in your regiments?"

And the answer of the gallant Officer was,—

" I did, and was always anxious to induce them to re-enlist; they came from a better class of society."

It might be said, that the present system of enlistment was perfectly voluntary. It could hardly be said to be so. Boys of sixteen were entrapped under the excitement of liquor, and deceived by the hopes of promotion held out to them by a recruiting sergeant. Could they wonder, that when a youth, entrapped in this manner, and enlisted for an unlimited period, found that those representations were false, and that he was enlisted for life, with only a shadowy hope of 6d. a-day at the end of twenty years, and then only if his conduct had been good—could they wonder, he said, that men thus entrapped into the service should become reckless and demoralized? Suicides, it was well known, were much more prevalent among soldiers than among those of the labouring population engaged in the avocations of civil life. He wished to engage the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the question whether a greater number of commissions might not be allotted to men who rose from the ranks; and with all deference, but with firmness, he would state it as his humble opinion, that by limiting the time of service, and holding out a reasonable hope of promotion, it would be found possible not only to abolish flogging, but also to obtain a better description of men for the service. His ultimate object was the total abolition of corporal punishment, but in the clause which he was about to move, be had limited the abolition to a time of peace, and had retained the punishment for offences committed on a line of march for theft. On reference to the opinion of a number of officers, he found them unanimous in the opinion, that in those instances the practice must be retained. And on recurring to a speech of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, (Viscount Sandon), he (Captain Bernal) found the noble Viscount ex pressing himself thus:—

" As one of the commissioners, he had given the subject the greatest attention, and he had come to the conclusion that it was not practical to carry on the discipline of the army on foreign service without the power of inflicting the punishment of flogging; but, with the exception of offences committed on a march, or stealing, he thought flogging might be dispensed with in the home service."

Without further detaining the House, he would conclude by moving to insert the following clause:—

" And be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful to inflict corporal punishment by flogging during the time of peace on any private soldier, corporal, or non-commissioned officer in the army or militia of the United Kingdom, save for offences committed on a line of march, or for theft."

said, with reference to the assumption with which the hon. Member (Captain Bernal) had concluded his speech, he would beg to remind the House of a question that was put to him the other night, and of the answer he gave to it. An hon. and gallant Officer (Captain Howard) inquired of him whether he intended to bring forward his annual motion for the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, and his answer was, that he had no intention of bringing forward such a motion, but that if a motion to that effect were brought forward he should give it his support. The hon. and gallant Officer, in putting that short question, committed two errors: first, his motion was not an annual motion; and, secondly, it was usual, when an hon. Member was about to seek such information, to give some private intimation of it. The gallant Officer had overlooked that point, not, he supposed, with an intention to embarrass him, but no doubt with a view to the good of the service. With regard to his "annual" motion, in 1836 he seconded and voted for a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, but had he voted for a similar motion from that time to this? He said most distinctly and positively that he had not. [Capt. Bernal: In 1837 and 1838.] He repeated that he had voted once, and once only, for the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, and in support of his statement he referred to the records of the House and to Hansard. For what was Major Fancourt's motion in 1837? It was not a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment — that hon. Member shrunk from it advisedly— but for a committee to inquire into and report on the system of military punishment; for the hon. Member stated, that after having brought forward a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment without success, it would be in some sort trifling with the House if he troubled hon. Members for a repetition of their votes without bringing forward further evidence in support of his views, and to obtain that evidence he wished for a committee in order to ascertain if they could not find a substitute for corporal punishment. But what was his conduct in 1836, when on the following night Mr. Lennard, the Member for Maldon, gave notice that when the report of the Mutiny Bill was brought up, he should move that corporal punishment in the army should be abolished altogether? He then said, that

" No one had a greater desire to carry out the object of the motion of the hon. Member than he had, or entertained a greater horror of corporal punishment than he did, but after the fair discussion that had taken place on the subject last night, and the promises of the Government, he conceived that a great boon had been achieved"— For it was a great boon to obtain a remission of 100 stripes, the number in a district court-martial being reduced to 200, and in a regimental court-martial to 100; and he added, that

" He had considered the subject to-day, and consulted several military men, whose opinions were in unison with his own, and they all thought, after the fair promises of the Government that a system of rewards should be introduced, it would be injurious to the service for the hon. Member to press his motion."

He had, therefore, asked the hon. Member not to bring forward his motion, and when it was brought forward he left the House and refused to give his vote. And what was his course in 1838? Did he then take on himself the responsibility not of bringing forward a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment? No; — for it having been stated by Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, the judge-advocate, that he considered it to be the duty of those who brought forward such a motion to find a substitute for flogging; and by the Secretary at War, that if such a motion were carried, they had better disband the army; —when these Gentlemen made such statements, must they not have had great effect upon him—and must he not have been a bold man had he not shrunk from the responsibility of proposing to abolish corporal punishment in the face of that statement? They bad great effect upon him; and to show what was that effect, in 1838 he took on himself the responsibility, on the passing of the Mutiny Act, of bringing forward a motion, not for the abolition of corporal punishment, but for a select committee to inquire into and report on the state of military rewards and punishments; and he stated, that in a judicious system of rewards and of solitary confinement he thought, perhaps, they might find a substitute for flogging. On that occasion he alluded to General Evans, then just returned from Spain, and told General Evans that

" He expected to have his vote, especially as he intended to limit the inquiry to the possibility of finding a substitute for corporal punishment on home service and in time of peace."

And yet this was called a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment. He said further, that

" The hon. Member (General Evans) having been in command since he gave his vote in the House had, as he understood, carried flogging to a great extent in Spain, having, perhaps, found it impossible to do without it in the presence of the enemy,—

And he begged the attention of the House to this—

" that he had found himself obliged to retract somewhat his former opinions on the subject in deference to the opinion of the gallant Officer."

From the year 1838 to the present time he had allowed the Mutiny Bill to pass without any motion on the subject, so that during the ten years in which he had had an opportunity of voting against military flogging, he had only done so once, and brought forward two motions with a view to find a substitute, stating at the time, that in consequence of what had taken place, he had retracted his opinions. He had now given a plain and unvarnished statement of his conduct, and he would only detain the House further, to say, that the vote he was about to give he should give with perfect confidence, and that whatever change had taken place in his opinions, had taken place while he sat on the other side of the House.

said, that he believed there was no power less abused or more mercifully exercised, than that possessed by a court-martial; and were he asked before what tribunal he would prefer to be tried, he should answer one composed of naval or military officers. He had otherwise come to the conclusion, but the opinion of the first soldier of the age of the necessity of flogging in the army had decidedly strengthened his opinion.

said, that having just returned from the command of her Majesty's forces on a foreign station, which he had held for many years, and having had under his command a large proportion of the infantry of the British army, he could not give a silent vote upon this subject. His vote would be founded on the experience he had had, and on the sincere and solemn conviction, that the mode of punishment under discussion could not be dispensed with, with safety to the British service. It was not without doing great violence to his own feelings, that he delivered that opinion; but it was consolatory to him to reflect, and to be able to state to the House, who no doubt would reject the motion of the hon. Member, that this objectionable punishment was by degrees becoming less frequent, and that in proportion as the moral character of the soldier should be raised, and his habits of providence and self-control increase, the punishment might, at" some future period, fall into entire disuse. Looking back at his own career, he acknowledged the frightful extent to which the punishment had been used in the earlier days of his service, an extent which it made him shudder to think of; but he thought, seeing all that was now done to improve the character of the soldier, and the restrictions on the punishment, both as to its infliction and the quantity, there were lines converging, which somewhere or other must meet. By the 252nd regulation of the articles of war, the infliction of corporal punishment was limited to the offences of mutiny, insubordination, or using or threatening violence to a superior, drunkenness on duty, theft, disgraceful conduct, and selling or making away with arms and accoutrements. No general officer was allowed to confirm the sentence on the first conviction, and he seldom did it afterwards, except in aggravated cases. He could safely say, that when the result of a court martial was reported to him, it was with great pain and reluctance that he had confirmed the sentence and ordained the punishment, and that he had never done so except under the conviction that it was necessary for the interests of the service. He would, therefore, entreat the House to leave the subject where it was—to the humanity of the officers of the array, the admirable regulations of the service, and the attempts that were being made every day to raise and improve the moral condition of the soldier. With respect to the clause before the House, he must protest against the proposition, that they should subject the British soldier, who was fighting the battles of his country, to a punishment more odious than was inflicted in the time of peace, which he said would be a most dangerous distinction. The hon. and gallant Member had by his motion proposed to limit flogging in the army to offences committed on a line of march, but he did not know what extent of actual service the hon. and gallant Member had seen which would have entitled him to claim the ability to distinguish between the gravity of a military offence committed on a line of march, and of one committed in garrison or on parade, or in what way the hon. and gallant Member was qualified to pronounce upon the greater detriment or danger to the discipline of the service which was involved in the one to the extenuation of the latter. All he could say was, that in his opinion the distinction, if established, would be a most dangerous one, and fatal to the discipline of the army. The hon. and gallant Member had not specified in his motion whether he would continue to punish drunkenness according to the present code, although he had stated it to be his opinion, that this crime was the worst of any that a soldier could commit, as it was the parent of all others. He had also left stealing and making away with ammunition out of his code of corporal punishment, although there was not an offence more dangerous to the service than that of a soldier making away with his arms or ammunition. He would not take up the time of the House by entering into any further details or arguments. He hoped, that whilst he expressed his determination, founded upon the experience of a long service, to vote against the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, the House would give him credit for the regret which he felt in being compelled by what he knew of the discipline of the army to advocate the punishment of flogging, and at the same time believe, that he would continue to look with sharpness, humanity, and reluctance to punish for all cases of flogging, which might hereafter come before him.

said, that were he disposed to do so, he, of all his late Colleagues in office, could vote with the most perfect consistency in favour of the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, for during the time that he at least had held the office of Secretary at War, the question of flogging in the army was never once mooted. But the question was one of those peculiarly painful topics of inquiry, and upon which the evidence was of so peculiar a nature, that noble Lords or right hon. Gentlemen who had held the office of Secretary at War, and who had obtained the information respecting it, which was only to be acquired in that post, had invariably been compelled by the facts which came to their knowledge, to take their share of the unpopularity which attached to its infliction, and at the hazard of losing their character for consistency to vote for its continuance, notwithstanding any former declarations against the practice. The inquiry that had been instituted into the practice of flogging in the army had terminated in regulations that had confined the legal infliction of that punishment to as narrow a limit as was consistent with the safety of the discipline of the army. For his own part, he was disposed to say, that the actual infliction of flogging ought to be confined to much narrower limits than even the law permitted; but with the knowledge which he had acquired with respect to the facts attendant on this punishment, and after having had the opportunity, which he had availed himself of during the period that he was Secretary of War, of acquiring information on the subject, he must say, that he did not think the practice could with safety be relinquished. The only way to diminish the chances of its infliction was by elevating the moral character of the soldier, and by giving him intellectual enjoyments, which would tend to diminish the chances of his resorting to degrading or un soldier-like habits or faults. As it was, he should vote against the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, and he should have done so, had it been brought forward last year. There was another question that had been incidentally mooted in the course of the observations of the hon. and gallant Member, which was the consistency that had been displayed by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham. The recollection which he had on the subject, was not in accordance with the course which the hon. and gallant Member had expressed his intention to pursue on the present occasion; for, in referring to a record of the debate on this subject, which took place on the 26th of March, 1838, he found the following words attributed to the hon. and gallant Member:—

" He (the hon. and gallant Member) called upon the House to abolish this barbarous and brutal torture, and to show to the continental nations that the British soldier could discharge his duty with equal fidelity under the impulse of more ennobling motives than that of terror."

The hon. and gallant Member was here found exclaiming against the practice of flogging in the army, and calling upon the House to abolish a punishment so brutal and barbarous. He considered those expressions to be more than equivalent to any vote that could have been given in favour of the motion, and the effect which he attributed to them was confirmed by the reply which the hon. and gallant Member made to the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth, during the course of the debate on the same evening, wherein he had stated that he would, if he had the power, abolish corporal punishment in the army altogether. Looking, therefore, at the very slight changes that had been made between the year 1836 and the year 1838, in the practice of flogging in the army, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member was entitled to shelter himself from the charge of inconsistency in the course which he pursued on the present occasion, however right and proper that course might be.

said, with respect to the assertion that the practice of flogging had a ruinous effect upon the future career of a soldier, and that a man who had once felt the lash became reckless thenceforward, he would only assert, that his experience went to prove the contrary; for there were at the present moment four colonels in the British army who had suffered that punishment—who were first-rate officers. Reference had been made to the practice in the French army, and to the absence of corporal punishment in that service; but the absence of this punishment was more than compensated by the severity of the military code, as was proved by the fact that eighty-one cases occurred last year, in which the men were condemned to death; and one-half of these sentences were carried into execution. What would the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe say to the substitution of the punishment of death for that of flogging? Reference had been made to the superior habits of the Irish constabulary force, and a comparison had been drawn between the police there and the soldier, for the purpose of proving that, as flogging was not known in that service, it was plain the discipline could be kept up without it. But there was no parity of circumstances between the two cases; for the British soldier received only 18l. a year pay, subjected to many deductions, whilst the Irish policeman received 24l.— he begged pardon, 32l. per annum, subject to no deductions. The experience which he had acquired during twenty years' service in the army was—and he regretted to say it—decidedly in favour of continuing the practice of flogging. He could not but consider it a brutal and disgusting punishment, but the safety of the service demanded that the power of inflicting it should be continued to the heads of the army. He had done all that was in his power to abolish the practice of flogging in effect, and had made every effort to dispense with its enforcement in such cases as came within his own sphere of action, but he could not help saying with regret, that his experience told him there was danger in its abolition, and therefore he should vote against the motion of the hon. and gallant Member.

said, that the slight and limited experience which he had acquired of military discipline, induced him to think that flogging might safely be dispensed with in times of peace. There would be a better class of men enlisted for the army, if flogging were done away with; and the practice could only be justified by the most urgent necessity, in short by the fact, that there were no other practicable means for maintaining the discipline of the army. The punishment of flogging was the disgraceful distinction which separated the soldier from all other classes of society. Whatever military men might say of the necessity for having recourse to that punishment, he was certain if it were to be abolished, other means for preserving discipline would be devised. It bad been urged, that theft was a crime deserving amongst soldiers of punishment by the lash. He supposed, that the military law was founded on the civil code, and modern legislation had endeavoured to abolish all corporal punishments in jails; why, therefore, was this system of legislation not to be extended to military offenders. In India, flogging had been abandoned, as far as the native troops were concerned; whilst the British soldiers were still subject to the lash. He had never heard, that the discipline of the native corps had been injured by the change. In his opinion, flogging ought to be done away with; and he firmly believed, that if the men were to be flogged in public, instead as now, within the barrack-yard, the outcry against the practice would be so great, that within one month it would be abolished.

regretted, that the hon. Member had thought it necessary to bring the subject before the House at this juncture, when it had been found necessary to increase the army, and when for the good of the service such topics ought to be as little agitated as possible. The army necessarily contained men of bad character, and it was not expedient that further limitations should be imposed upon commanding officers. Corporal punishment was never inflicted, but in cases of the greatest necessity, and when other means had been tried without avail. Sympathy was thrown away when lavished upon men who were destitute of the feelings and attributes that ought to be the boast of a soldier, because, as he had just said, corporal punishment was only inflicted when other measures had been re sorted to without effect, and for the sake of example. All commanding officers would be as anxious as the hon. Member, that flogging should not be resorted to, and so, indeed, would all other officers in the service; but he could not understand the distinction the hon. Member wished to draw, relative to offences on the line of march. It was quite as essential, that examples should be made in cases of mutiny and insubordination as in cases of theft. It had been proposed that the French system of punishing offenders by sending them to the hulks should be adopted; but how was that possible to be carried into effect when the army was out of the British dominions—in China, for example? With respect to what had been said about the Irish police, it should be remembered, that they were a very different body of men. They were men whose characters recommended them to their situations. In the army, there was no test of character—a man was taken because he was five feet six inches high, and was a strong able man. Nothing would give him greater pleasure than to see the army raised to that pitch, that corporal punishment could be totally abolished, as being no longer necessary; but looking to the class of men entering the army at present, it appeared to him essential, that no further limitations should be imposed upon commanding officers. No one could accuse commanding officers of abusing their power. The hon. Member concluded by repeating his expressions of regret, that the motion should have been brought forward at this particular period.

having claimed the indulgence of the House for addressing it, said he had expected to hear the same arguments adduced in the present, that they had heard on former occasions, and that he should have met with similar appeals to the sympathies of the country; but yet, where instances of individual hardship were considered, they should bear in mind that the legislation of that House had generally been conducted on more broad and comprehensive principles. He wished to quote the opinion of Sir J, Macintosh, who he knew was considered a high authority on both sides of the House. With regard to the discipline of an army, he says:—

" A prompt and active obedience to authority is the first principle that hold armies together, and is more necessary in an army, than in any other body of men. Without it, they will speedily degenerate into a ferocious mob."

One of the greatest and wisest men had concentrated into one sentence, the description of an army, in saying, that:—

" An armed and disciplined body may be dangerous to liberty, but an armed undisciplined body was dangerous to society."

The hon. Member concluded by stating that in 1836, the opinion of the judges of the land was against the abolition of corporal punishment.

from the position which he held in connection with the Government, and from the turn which the debate had taken, he hoped he might be permitted to offer a very few observations to the House. He was perfectly convinced, in conformity with the opinions of the highest authorities, both military and civil, that it was not possible to maintain the discipline of the army unless the power of inflicting corporal punishment were retained. At the same time, he thought it necessary and incumbent upon the authorities to restrict the exercise of that power to within the narrowest possible limits. He begged to state one or two facts in illustration of the extent to which the diminution of this mode of punishment had, of late years, been carried. In 1831, the number of men imprisoned for military offences was 3,676; out of these, the number sentenced to corporal punishment was 1,462. In 1838, the number of men imprisoned was 7,170; but of these the number sentenced to corporal punishment was reduced to 850. This was sufficient to show, that the military authorities were determined, to the utmost of their power, to confine the punishment of flogging to within the narrowest limits. Since he had had the honour of holding the situation he now filled, there had not been one single instance, confirmed by her Majesty, in which the sentence of corporal punishment had been inflicted, nor had there been an instance in the whole of the year 1841. In respect to the motion of the gallant Member for Wycombe, he only begged leave to remark, in confirmation of what had been said by other Members, that it appeared to him to be utterly impossible to apply in time of war a rule different from that which obtained in time of peace. If the punishment were stigmatised in time of peace as brutalizing and demoralizing, he did not see how it could be taken up in time of war, when there was a demand for the active and zealous service of the soldier. When the gallant Member referred to the police of Ireland, he must have forgotten, that the men who composed that force were not only better paid, but were not subject to military law; and that they were not compelled to remain in the service, contrary to their own will or wish.

said, he saw, that hon. Gentlemen were exceedingly hungry, and, therefore, he would not detain them long. He could not give a silent vote on this question. It might be supposed, that his political opinions would influence him upon this occasion, but he stood there as an independent representative of the people, and ob/>hould vote according to his conscientious view of the subject. It was because he felt that this motion, if carried, would be destructive to the internal discipline of the army, and therefore prejudicial to the interests of the country, that he could not give his support to it; and it would not be manly conduct if he did not express that opinion. He did not think it a prudent thing to bring forward this question year after year. It should be remembered that a commission was issued a few years back to inquire into this subject, and no man could read the speech which the right hon. Member for Coventry, who was then Secretary-at-War, made upon that occasion—no man could read the report of the commissioners without seeing that it was impossible to substitute any other punishment. That commission was composed of four civilians and three military men, so that if there were any bias it must have been against the practice. But the report was unanimous, and it was to this effect:—

" It was the opinion of almost every witness that the substitution of other punishments in the army on actual service is impracticable, and that, if it were practicable, it would be inadmissible for the benefit of the service."

Again:

" It did not appear safe to abolish this punishment altogether, nor were any other punishments suggested which promised better results."

He was sure that any opinion of the Duke of Wellington on the matter of discipline would command the attention of the House. The Duke of Wellington was asked this question—

" While your Grace commanded the army was it your wish, and did you endeavour, to diminish the frequency of corporal punishment as much as you could!"

Answer—" As much as possible. From the time I entered the army it was the desire of every commanding officer I have ever seen, and who knew his duty, to diminish corporal punishment as much as possible; and there is one remarkable circumstance which I beg the court never to lose sight of—that is that this punishment is always inflicted in public, and that, supposing the commanding-officer had no feeling with respect to it, he must know that many would feel it in a very extraordinary manner—officers and soldiers both—who are excessively annoyed at it. But it is inflicted as a matter of necessity; and as it is done in public there is a security that it will not be carried to excess."

The Duke of Wellington was also asked if he knew of any means of doing away with this punishment, and he said,

" I have not an idea of any possible means. I have had the subject in consideration for six or seven years; I have turned it over in my mind in every possible way, and I candidly declare that I do not know of any means. An army without discipline would be no army at all; and I have not a notion how you are to go on without having a punishment which will make an impression upon the insubordinate."

You talk of imprisonment, but by imprisonment you weaken yourself, for the men in prison cannot serve you. Besides, by imprisoning the bad man you throw additional duty on the good man, and thus punish him for the fault of another. It might not be difficult, perhaps, to show that insubordination towards non-commissioned officers had increased as corporal punishment had been relaxed. He was president of a court-martial in January, 1840, by which a soldier was sentenced to receive 150 lashes. By that proceeding he knew that the officers of the court-martial incurred great odium, but what was the crime of the soldier? He had quarrelled with a comrade, and was afterwards seen deliberately to load his musket with ball. It was feared that he meditated violence, and he was therefore put under arrest. The charge of his musket was drawn, and a ball found in it. For that he was sentenced to be flogged, and he would aver that the officers did their duly in making an example of such a man.

declared, that during sixteen years' service he had witnessed the beneficial effects of the commanding-officer having the power to inflict corporal punishment; and that he had known instances of the infliction of the punishment causing a reformation of the delinquent.

would only say, that he considered the whole argument to have been misunderstood and unanswered.

moved,

" That, from and after a day or days to be named, the duties chargeable upon goods, wares, or merchandize, imported or brought into any of the British possessions in America or the Mauritius, under or by virtue of the following acts respectively, namely: Act 4, Geo. 3, c. 15, imposing certain duties on wines imported into the British possessions in America; Act 6 Geo. 3, c. 52, imposing cer-. tain duties on molasses, syrups, and pimento, imported into the British possessions in America; Act 14 Geo. 3, c. 88, imposing certain duties on spirits imported into Canada; Act 3 and 4 Will. 4, c. 59, for regulating the trade of the British possessions abroad, shall cease and be repealed.

on the first item of the resolution relative to wheat flour, being read, said, he believed the time had arrived for bringing forward the motion of which he had given notice. He deeply regretted to find in a measure, the general principles of which he entirely approved, and was prepared cordially to support, a proposal so highly objectionable—so much at variance with the general purport of the bill, and which he felt it his duty to resist by every means in his power. The proposal of Government was to alter the existing law, which permitted the free importation from the United States into Canada of a great variety of articles, and to im- pose a duty on some of the most important of them. It was necessary for him to state what the present system was. By the present system, the articles of wheat flour and cured provisions were allowed to cross the border of the United States into Canada without paying any duty whatever. That principle was adopted by the House in 1831 on a full consideration of the question, when a bill was brought in by his late lamented Friend (Lord Sydenham), then Vice-President of the Board of Trade. Previous to that period a duty was chargeable on wheat flour brought to Canada from the United States of 5s. per barrel, and then also a duty on the importation of salted provisions. The late Lord Sydenham proposed to the House to remit those duties, and the House having agreed with him, the trade across the border, so far as the Imperial Parliament was concerned, was left entirely free. That noble Lord argued that no imperial interest was concerned, that no British interest was maintained by interfering with the free entrance of these provisions into Canada. That was the opinion he then expressed, and, not being contradicted, his measure was not opposed. He begged the attention of the committee to the very important grounds on which Lord Sydenham proposed his measure. The House would agree with him, that there was a very important principle connected with their decision on this question. He held it to be a sound general principle to abstain from all interference with the colonies in reference to subjects of this kind, unless some clear advantage—some distinct object—was stated for their interference. That principle was recognised, in the bill which they were now considering, except in reference to the duty it went to impose on the importation of American wheat into Canada. In every other respect it was a measure of relaxation, but on that point alone it was a measure of restriction. The same principle was stated by Lord Sydenham when he produced his measure to the House of Commons. He said that by taking off altogether the duty on flour, they would secure for their own shipping the freight of all the American flour that came down the river St. Lawrence, without the expense of its being warehoused as before. That was one reason. Lord Sydenham went on to say, "that great advantage would accrue from the arrangement of allowing salted provi- sions to be imported free of duty, that of getting rid of all the custom houses on the St. Lawrence, and opening that outlet to the productions of the states bordering upon the Ohio." Mr. Herries, who followed Lord Sydenham in that debate, although he objected to some parts of the plan then proposed, did not object to that part of it relating to Canada. So far as it appeared, then, the justice of the principle laid down by Lord Sydenham was universally allowed by the House. But they were now called on to retrace their steps—to go back and enforce those principles which were unanimously abrogated by the House in 1831. It behoved them to consider well the grounds on which they were asked to do this. There was no imperial interest —no interest of any kind half so strong as that which was stated by Lord Sydenham—the retaining the St. Lawrence as the great outlet for the produce of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, of all those portions of America in the neighbourhood of the great lake9. These states were rapidly increasing in prosperity, and every one would admit that the St. Lawrence was the natural outlet for the productions of these states. Independent of all other considerations, he thought the employment which such a traffic would give to our shipping was of infinitely greater importance than the paltry duty which was now proposed to be levied. The House ought to know the grounds on which they were called on to assent to this measure. He was happy to say that the discussion that had taken place the other night on this subject, and the admissions made by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, had brought the question within very narrow limits. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not propose the measure for the benefit of the English landowners, and as he disclaimed any such intention, he hoped that they would not hear the question argued as one having any connection with the system of corn-laws in this country, or that the House was called on to make the change for the benefit of any class of persons in this country. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he proposed the measure for the benefit of any class in Canada, remarking, if he had done so, that it would be much better to let the Canadian Legislature protect the interests of the people of Canada as they saw fit. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledged the obvious justice of the observation, and said that he had not proposed the tax for the benefit of any Canadian interest. The right hon. Gentleman might say, that the Canadians complained of the high duty put by the United States on Canada flour, and that their remedy was to place a duty on American flour. He would express no opinion on this point, beyond saying, that it ought to be left for the consideration of the Colonial Legislature. But this was not the question before the House. If any Canadian interest was affected by the present measure, it was obviously no ground for the interference of the Imperial Parliament. He was happy, however, to receive the admission of the right hon. Gentleman, that he had brought forward his measure with no such intention. He then asked the right hon. Gentleman for whose interest the measure had been brought forward? But he had not received a very satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman on this point. The right hon. Gentleman said, that it was founded on the inter-colonial principle. But Canada being a corn-exporting country, he told the right hon. Gentleman that he could not understand how a protecting duty on wheat imported into Canada from the United States could protect the produce of any other British colony. He had not been fortunate enough to receive any answer on this point, which rather surprised him, when he considered the talent and ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the measure. It was not merely the article of flour on which they proposed to place a duty, but Government proposed to apply the same principle to salted provisions. Under the plan of Lord Sydenham, which was now the law, salted provisions were imported into Canada from the United States free, as far as the Imperial Parliament was concerned. Government proposed to put a duty of 3s. per cwt. on salted provisions and cured meat. He protested against this, and hoped the committee would not give their consent unless strong reasons were advanced by Government in support of the proposal. In the resolutions which he had proposed last year, he had carefully abstained from altering the law which at present existed on this subject—he left all these matters free, and he could only regret that the right hon. Gentleman had pursued a different course. He did not mean to contend that the present system did not afford a facility for the importation of Canadian flour into this country. He believed and he rejoiced that it did; he believed that it often happened Canadian flour was sent to this country, and that the people of Canada went to the United States for the flour which they themselves consumed. When last this subject was discussed, he recollected the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies stating that the present system gave rise to a great deal of fraud in this respect. He said, that he believed United States flour was brought across the border, and that Canadian flour was sent to this country. He had made some inquiries of parties who were possessed of very precise information on this point, and from all he could learn he believed that there was not much fear of that fraud being carried to any great extent. A barrel of flour sent from Canada to this country must have the brand of the mill at which it was ground, and as the mills for the grinding of wheat for exportation were very extensive establishments, there was very little fear of fraud taking place. But whether it did so or not, he trusted that this would not be used as an argument for the proposal of Government. He believed, that the trade which had sprung up of late years, and was increasing between Canada and the United States, was likely to be of the greatest advantage to both countries. He begged the committee to recollect that this American flour was paid for wholly in British manufactures. It was stated, in the course of the debates on this subject, by one of the hon. Members for Sheffield, that at a period of great distress in that town, the distress was materially alleviated by the circumstance of there being a considerable importation of flour into Canada from the United States, which was paid for by Sheffield ware. He begged the attention of hon. Gentleman to this part of the subject. He had heard the right hon. Baronet at the head of affairs state his extreme anxiety, if by any fair means he could do so, to frame the Corn-law in such a way as to obviate the disadvantage under which the United States laboured in respect to the corn trade with this country as compared with other countries—those on the Baltic, for instance. The right hon. Baronet admitted, that as the United States were better customers, so it would be desirable to take the corn which our necessities might compel us to import as much as possible from that country. Now, he did not ask the Government to grant any facilities which did not already exist for carrying on a corn trade with America. He did but call upon them not to put a stop to a channel of trade which was open at the present moment. The present system, he admitted, did in some degree—he regretted it was not to a greater extent—compensate America for the disadvantages under which she now laboured, with reference to her corn-trade with this country. He did not think it necessary to trouble the committee with any further observations. The right hon. Gentleman had truly said, that in legislating with respect to these matters of trade, it was extremely difficult to avoid falling into errors; but the right hon. Gentleman also said, that whenever a case could be made out to his satisfaction in which an error had inadvertently been committed, he would be perfectly ready to alter it, without suffering himself to be induced, by any fancied necessity for adhering to consistency of conduct, into a perseverance in a cause which he believed, on reflection, to be at variance with the general interests of the commerce of the country. He really hoped, unless they should hear, in the course of the present debates, some stronger arguments than he had yet heard, or than he expected to hear, that the committee would refuse its sanction to a proposal which appeared to him to be no less detrimental to British trade than it was opposed to every sound principle of commercial legislation. He proposed, therefore, after the words "wheat flour," to add the words "except in Canada." If that should be carried, he would pursue a similar course with regard to salted provisions.

perfectly concurred with the right hon. Gentleman as to the inexpediency of interfering in any subject belonging to colonial legislation by discussion in that House. At the same time, when such things did occur, the best way of obviating any inconvenience was to approach the subject in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had approached it. He concurred in all the general principles laid down by the right hon. Gentleman with respect to the expediency of giving every fair encouragement to the trade with the United States. The right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to com- pliment him on his talent and ingenuity. He feared, however, that he must decline the compliment of the right hon. Gentleman, for it appeared that he had failed to convey an accurate idea of his measure to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, and he was sure this could only be owing to want of clearness on his part. The right hon. Gentleman said, there were two reasons why flour should be exempted from duty on entering Canada from the United States, one of which was in order to destroy the custom-houses on the frontier. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not exactly see how the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in effecting that object by his present amendment; because, in order to be enabled to abolish the customhouses, he must exempt all other articles that cross the frontier from duty as well as flour. [Mr. Labouchere: On what other articles is the imperial duty levied.] On every article, with the exception of flour and salt meat. If butter crossed the frontier, it would be subject to duty. Therefore, it appeared to him, that the right hon. Gentleman must have been directing his observations to a subject of infinitely greater importance — namely, that of making the St. Lawrence the great outlet of the north-western States of the American Union. He perfectly agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in his views on that subject, but he feared the time was hardly come when they could enter upon the discussion of that subject, with its entire scope in view. He did not think that such a question could be fully entertained till the works on the St. Lawrence were completed. As far as he could form an opinion, when these works should be complete, it might be well worthy of consideration whether to establish for the Canadians a system of freedom of trade, with respect to imports of produce from the Union, exempting them from our colonial system. If they said, "We wish to abandon these privileges, which you have secured to us by your laws, in order that we may at the same time liberate ourselves from your artificial restrictions," he could understand that as a perfectly fair proposition; but he could not understand on what ground they could prefer a claim to all the benefits of our colonial system, while they should seek to be relieved from its limitations and restrictions. This was not, as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, a question of the transmission of American produce down the St. Lawrence. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that there were provisions already which allowed American goods to pass down the St. Lawrence without payment of duty. [Mr. Labouchere: By warehousing them.] Not by warehousing exactly, but by bonds: he did not, however, think it worth while to discuss the point, for, until they had the St. Lawrence in a condition to compete with the rival channel of transmission by the United States, the time was not come for the consideration of that question. He came now to the reasons upon which the present proposition had been recommended to the House. On a former evening, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, he had said, without any scruple, that the object of this proposition was not merely to remove an anomalous exemption. On that occasion he asserted, that no such object as the protection of Canadian interests or British interests entered into the project. The right hon. Gentleman would see, that it must be so; the proposition spoke for itself. If, while they laid a duty of 2s. a barrel on American flour, so as to check its importation into our other colonies, they allowed, at the same time, the Americans to carry their flour across their rivers or lakes into Canada, and then allowed the Canadian merchant to send it to our colonies as Canadian flour, it must be evident that the duty would be so much bonus to him, and so much tax upon the consumers of those colonies. Parliament could not entertain such a project. The right hon. Gentleman had asked whose interests this duty was designed to benefit, and in doing so appeared to confine his views to the producing class in the respective colonies alone. It was not designed to defend any class of producers, but a class of consumers. [Mr. Labouchere: Whom?] Those of the colonies which were importers and not exporters of flour. The principle of the colonial laws, and a very just system he held it to be, was, that where preferences were given to articles of colonial growth, the producing colonies should not be permitted to create a fictitious export trade, and so gain artificial profits at the expense of other colonies by substituting foreign produce for their own. This was the case with the tropical productions of sugar and rum. The right hon. Gentleman himself applied a very stringent rule of this kind with regard to rum, in the act of last year. Canada was in the condition of an exporting colony. He did not mean to say exclusively exporting, because there were few countries that did not sometimes import. Therefore, the duty now proposed was no tax on the consumers of Canada; the consumers in that colony being supplied by their own produce. The question was this. There were other colonies habitually importing countries—Newfoundland for instance, and the West Indies. Hon. Gentlemen apposite would be the first to blame him if he pursued an opposite course; and would, he conceived, according to their own principles, contend that he taxed these colonies in order to give a preference to British flour. The system which at present existed was a system of give and take. The question now was whether, by giving the exporting colony which claimed the benefit of differential duty in other colonies, a power of free importation for itself, they would enable the merchants of that exporting colony in effect to lay a tax on foreign produce on its way to an importing colony. He would suppose that Newfoundland required for its consumption 50,000 barrels of flour per annum. He would suppose the law which he now proposed to carry to be in existence. Here were the United States on one side of the St. Lawrence able to send their flour into that colony; there was Canada on the other side, not having (let it be supposed, for argument's sake,) any produce of her own to export, because she consumes it, but having the power to carry these 50,000 barrels of flour over the St. Lawrence, and to re-export them free of duty to Newfoundland: the effect of this operation would clearly be to tax the Newfoundland consumer for the benefit of the merchant in Canada. Was not that the fact? [Mr. Labouchere was understood to intimate his dissent.] He was surprised that any doubt could exist on the subject. The importer would get additional profit. He did not maintain that the people of Newfoundland would be able to get their flour cheaper by importing it direct from the United States; in that case the revenue would obtain that, which would tend to diminish taxation. If the people of Canada were to say, we do not want your differential duty, but, on the contrary, had rather be on a footing with the rest of the world in the colonial markets; we wish to become the outlet of those vast corn-growing states, and therefore claim to be re- lieved from these artificial disadvantages, that would be a fair question to entertain; but the case was otherwise. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman would tend to create an artificial export trade, or neither more nor less than this—to lay a transit duty on American produce to the colonies, a duty imposed only on importing colonies, and not on those which exported. These were the grounds on which he opposed the amendment of the right hon. Gentleman. These were what he called intercolonial principles; he meant principles of equality and impartiality in the commercial relations established by Parliament between colony and colony. He hoped it was a question on which they might compare opinions, or agree to differ, without any party feeling; for on the general objects in view perfect concurrence prevailed. Under these circumstances he was perfectly willing to leave the question in the hands of the committee.

wished to know why a duty of 2s. on a barrel of American flour should be imposed on its importation into Canada? Did the right hon. Baronet apprehend that, under the name of Canadian flour imported into England, there might be imported American flour, and that for ''the purpose of keeping that out, he would put upon it a duty that should render it difficult to bring it into Canada? He had fancied that might be the object of the right hon. Baronet; but "No," said the right hon. Baronet, "I have no such object in view." The truth was, the right hon. Baronet did not know what the real object of imposing such a duty at all was. The right hon. Baronet had been used as an instrument, not knowing what he was about; for he put perfect faith in what the right hon. Baronet had stated, and he believed that no advantage was attempted to be attained for anybody in England. He gave the right hon. Baronet credit for his statement, but at the same time he was bound to say that the only rational ground he could give for this proposed impost, arose from that sectional spirit— that desire to promote a fancied interest which parties thought they had, in maintaining a monopoly in the growth of corn. —self-interest was always intelligible. The dread of leaving foreign corn un touched by any impost was the besetting sin of the landlords of England. To favour that feeling, therefore, and to smooth the difficulties that lay in the way of the right hon. Baronet, difficulties which he deeply appreciated, and which he was glad to see the right hon. Baronet had the courage to face—but nevertheless, in order to smooth away those difficulties, and hold out something to the agricultural classes who were raving behind him, there was this put forward as a sop— "Don't you see, that by this impost we are about to render it impossible that there should be any importation of American flour?" He could not close his remarks without touching upon one great point which the House ought to bear in mind, namely, whether the British Legislature was now in a condition to impose a duty for the benefit of the landlords of England upon the importation of corn from America into Canada? This was a point he would speak upon by and by: at present he would proceed to explicate, if he could, the ratiocination of the right hon. Baronet. The right hon. Gentleman said—" I do not intend to attempt to favour or benefit any interest in England; neither do I intend to benefit any interest in Canada. I do not intend to benefit the producers; my object is to benefit the consumers." Now he would ask, was it the consumers in Canada? The benefit to the consumers in Canada he took to be cheap corn; but you do not cheapen it by putting a duty of two or three shillings a barrel upon it. Therefore it could not be the consumers in Canada who were to be benefitted. "No," said the right hon. Gentleman, "but it is the consumers in Newfoundland." Now he (Mr. Roebuck) wished to know how the consumer in Newfoundland was to have his corn cheaper by having an impost of two shillings a barrel upon it? The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. He knew there were certain catch words, a sort of phraseology used to explain this: the phrase was "differential duties." He had always found that half-bred physicians, half-bred philosophers, and half-bred theologians, sought shelter under the use of technical phraseology; but those who thoroughly understood the subject they were talking about, always used the language of plain common sense: and he would recommend the right hon. Baronet never, when speaking on this subject, to use the words "differential duties." But the question he wished to have solved was this, how the imposition of 2s. a barrel upon American flour by way of duty could lower its price to anybody? He did not understand how, by possibility, that could be. How could the Canadians, after paying a duty of 2s., import American flour into New. foundland cheaper than it could be imported from America itself? Would anybody give 2s. more a barrel for flour because it came from Canada, and not from America? Not a bit. American corn was better than Canadian corn, as he knew from experience, and would find its way to Newfoundland without a 2s. impost. How the right hon. Baronet could make it out, he could not understand. The fact was, the right hon. Baronet was in a mess; he wanted to make out a case, but he was unable to do so—he talked round about the subject, and about and about it, but he never explained it. The real question, then, was this—was the House prepared—the Government itself having declared that it had no object in view as respected this country, and as respected Canada—upon the explanation which had been given by the right hon. Baronet, to put a duty upon foreign corn imported into Canada, and that for the benefit of the consumers in Newfoundland? Were they to interfere with the great principles of colonial self-government, for the purpose laid down by the right hon. Baronet? He had always believed, that the rule laid down since the disastrous war with America, which led to American independence, was not to interfere with the legislation of our colonies, except as far as regarded matters of trade. The right hon. Baronet had admitted, that he did not intend this tax for the benefit of the merchants of England, or of Canada, nor for the benefit of the producers or the consumers in Canada, but that he intended it for the benefit of the consumers in Newfoundland. The argument was reduced to that single item. It was for the benefit of the consumers in Newfoundland. [Lord Stanley: And for others.] Where were they? [Lord Stanley: In the West-Indies.] Were they to receive flour cheaper because a duty of 2s. a barrel was put upon it. He wished the right hon. Baronet, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the noble Secretary for the Colonies, or any political economist on the Ministerial benches to explain how, by the imposition of a duty of 2s. upon a barrel of American flour, they would cheapen the article in our colonial market. That was the question in issue. He wanted to know how that could be. The right hon. Baronet had taken some time to explain it; and he had said, the tax was imposed upon an inter-colonial principle. And when he was asked what that principle was, the answer was — the imposing a duty of 2s. upon every barrel of flour imported into Canada, and that for the benefit of the consumers in Newfoundland. And it was upon this principle, that a great country like England was about to legislate. They had broken up the original constitution of the Ca-nadas—they had made one Legislature out of the two estates—they had crowded Frenchmen into the hall of Englishmen; and had bound them up into one body; and they then interfered as much as they could with everything connected with the interests of that people; and were now about to repeat an act similar to that which finally dissevered the United States from Great Britain, and in perfect contravention of the statute which was passed prior to that event, and with the express view to ward it off". What was it that commenced the riots at Boston? It was the imposition of a tax upon tea. And they were now about to impose a duty upon corn. Why, might they not suppose that there might be some demagogue in Canada who might point out to the people of that country that this imposition was an infringement of the statute of George 3rd, which declared the wisdom of not again interfering with colonial affairs? Why, might not some leader rise up, and say to the Canadian people, pointing to the United States, "Look! there is a free country; there is no metropolis to interfere with the productions of your industry, or the freedom of your commerce." Why might he not compare Upper Canada with New York, or with Michigan, or with Wisconsin, where there were rising up, from day to day, city after city, and metropolis after metropolis, and where railroads were extending thousands of miles in length beyond any known in England; why might not such an individual contrast the condition of those states with that of Canada, which was now unable to rise and exert her innate energies, because of the weight that was pressing upon her? Were they, the British Parliament, prepared to impose upon Canada this tax, and thus risk the separation of that colony from the mother country, by this interference with colonial arrange- ments? Was it to be said, that there should be no colonial legislation? The right hon. Baronet had said, that there was no great chance of the importation of much corn or flour from America into Canada because of the natural impediments of the river St. Lawrence. This only showed how ignorant gentlemen often were upon matters that most intimately concerned the interests of the British dependencies. The importation from America into Canada was easy beyond almost any conception. It did not depend upon impediments on the river St. Lawrence coming from America to Canada, for the tide ran down so rapidly and smoothly that corn floated to Montreal, as he had often seen it do, in twelve hours, as if it were wafted by the spirit of that mighty stream. And yet the right hon. Baronet had spoken on the subject with that authority which office inspired, but not with that knowledge which office required, because, on the river St. Lawrence, from America to Canada there were none. Let the world live a thousand years, and they would not have the means of importation from America to Canada more easy than they had now. Why, then, did they propose this tax? It was that mischievous spirit which besets them. They did not know how to govern the countries they possessed, but by showing a petty love of authority by this mischievous interposition. Why not let the people govern themselves? The House did not know even the common geography of the country. They did not know the common arithmetic of the country. The commercial people of this country would tell you, that if you put a duty of 2s. upon a barrel of flour, you would raise the price. But the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of political economy declared, that the way to reduce the price was to impose a duty. The commercial knowledge, political economy, and the geographical knowledge of the right hon. Baronet were upon a par. The right hon. Gentleman shook his head. Then not only he, but almost all the Gentlemen on his side of the House, were most unfortunate, for they could not understand him. He would now say a few words upon the law of the case. The proposition he laid down was this—first, that good policy would teach you not to interfere with the internal regulations of your colonies, without some special ground being laid that it would be for the benefit of the whole com- munity of the colony. His next proposition was, that the mode in which that benefit was to be derived was especially pointed out by the Declaratory Act of Great Britain, and that you should not say, that you would interfere with its trade for this, that, or the other purpose; not for the purposes of the revenue of the colony, nor for the purposes of the revenue of Great Britain. The only case in which Great Britain might interfere with its trade at all was where they could point specifically and broadly to their being beneficial to the great leading interests of this mighty empire. Now, he would ask, what interest was to be promoted by this proposition? The right hon. Gentleman had put the agricultural interest out of the question, because he had said it was not his object to promote that interest by this tax. The mercantile interest he did not wish to benefit at all. All whom he appeared to wish to favour were certain fish curers at Newfoundland. The tax was not for the regulation of trade, or to balance trade, nor to promote the shipping or carrying trade, but it was to benefit the consumers of corn. He would pin the right hon. Baronet to that proposition. Now the onus was upon the right hon. Baronet to show how by the imposition of a duty of 2s. a barrel corn could be made cheaper to the consumer. The rule was this: in 1778, just before England was forced to acknowledge the independence of the United States, an attempt was made to conciliate the angry state of the mind of the American people by a declaratory act which he would read to the House. The hon. and learned Member here read the Act of George the 3rd, as follows—

" Whereas taxation by the Parliament of Great Britain, for the purpose of raising a revenue in his Majesty's colonies, provinces, and plantations in North America, has been found by experience to occasion great uneasiness and disorders among his Majesty's faithful subjects, who may, nevertheless be disposed to acknowledge the justice of contributing to the common defence of the empire, provided such contribution should be raised under the authority of the general court or general assembly of each respective colony, province, or plantation; and whereas, in order as well to remove the said uneasiness, and to quiet the minds of his Majesty's subjects who may be disposed to return to their allegiance, as to restore the peace and welfare of all his Majesty's dominions, it is expedient to declare that the King and Parliament of Great Britain will not impose any duty, tax, or assessment, for the purpose of raising a revenue in any of the colonies, provinces, or plantations; may it please your Majesty that it may be declared and enacted; and it is hereby declared and enacted, by the King's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act, the King and Parliament of Great Britain will not impose any duty, tax, or assessment whatever, payable in any of his Majesty's colonies, provinces, or plantations in North America or the West Indies, except only such duties as it may be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce; the net produce of such duties to be always paid and applied to and for the use of the colony, province or plantation, in which the same shall be respectively levied, in such manner as other duties collected by the authority of the respective general courts or general assemblies of such colonies, provinces, or plantations, are ordinarily paid and applied."

With that act before the House, the onus lay upon those who were about to impose a tax upon the colony of Canada to show that it was for the regulation of commerce, and for the general benefit of the whole United Kingdom. It was not enough to show that it might by possibility put 2½d. or 2¼d. into somebody's pocket, but it must be shown that it would produce a benefit to the community at large. And now he would put it to the right hon. Baronet how be could show that the commerce of England, the carrying trade of England, the internal trade of Canada, or the general interests of commerce of Great Britain, not excepting the agricultural interest in this country, which it was said was not to be benefitted by this matter—he would ask the right hon. Baronet to show to the House and to the country at large how this general benefit was to be obtained by raising to the consumer the price of flour, by putting on a duty of 2s, a barrel.

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman might have convinced himself, that at least the proposition he had been discussing was not peculiarly intended for the benefit of the agricultural interest, if he had only observed the kind of attendance of hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had charged his right hon. Friend, with an ignorance of the geography of Canada, an ignorance of political economy, and an ignorance of the commercial bearing of the tax now under discussion. He did not think, that his right hon. Friend stood in need of any defence against these charges of the hon. and learned Gentleman, or that he need in any way fear, upon any one or all of those subjects, to come in competition with the hon. and learned Member. But the hon. and learned Gentleman had most elaborately, through the course of his speech, misrepresented both the propositions laid down by his right hon. Friend. In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted the Declaratory Act, which imposed restrictions upon the Parliament of Great Britain of imposing a tax upon the colonies for the regulation of trade, such tax to be applied for the benefit of the colony; and then contended, that the British Parliament had no right to impose any tax upon any of the colonies which was not to be universally beneficial, that was for the benefit of the general interest, excluding the agricultural. [Mr. Roebuck: I said, "not excluding."] Well, not excluding the agricultural interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman accused his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) of not having known; that the river St. Lawrence furnished an easy communication between the United States and Canada. His right hon. Friend never made a representation that could have convicted him of an ignorance so gross. No person in England could be so ignorant. What his right hon. Friend did say was this—and he said it in answer to the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Labouchere) who had reminded the House that the whole of this trade was paid for in British goods, and, therefore, it ought to be maintained for the encouragement of British manufactures—what his right hon. Friend said, in reply, was:—

" I fear you have taken too sanguine a view of the case, and have not considered the difficulty of carrying goods up the St. Lawrence. The difficulty of the transit from Canada up to America, by the river St. Lawrence, is so great, that I am afraid you will not get a trade to an extent which will pay for the transport of corn brought down the St. Lawrence from the western states of America."

That was the answer of his right hon. Friend; but that argument had been quite misrepresented by the hon. and learned Member. The other argument of his right hon. Friend was equally misunderstood by the hon. and learned Member for Bath— he meant, the argument as to the benefit to be derived by the people of Newfound- land from the imposition of the proposed tax. The hon. and learned Gentleman said:—

" I cannot understand how the imposition of 2s. duty upon a barrel of flour, can make flour cheaper to the consumer instead of dearer."

Now, his right hon. Friend never contended, that corn or flour in Newfoundland would be received cheaper from Canada, with a duty of 2s., than it would from the United States; but what his right hon. Friend contended was this— that whereas Canada possessed in the first instance the opportunity, right, and privilege, of importing into any colony belonging to the British empire, corn or flour, subject to a lower duty than what was received on the same articles imported from other quarters of the globe, the result of importing flour from the United States into Canada free of duty would be not to relieve the consumer of any colony to which Canada might carry it—say to Newfoundland—from the payment of any additional price which the duty imposed upon the importation of flour or wheat directly from the United States into that colony—say Newfoundland — would occasion; but the benefit of that additional price would go into the pockets of the merchants of Canada. Take, for instance, the case of 2,000 barrels of flour imported from the United States directly into Newfoundland, at a duty of 2s. The duty of 2s. would go to the revenue of the colony of Newfoundland. Now, suppose no such duty was imposed upon flour imported into Newfoundland from Canada, what would be the result? The price of flour in Newfoundland would be regulated by the price which the merchants of the United States would accept, after having paid the 2s. duty. The result, then would be, that the Canadian merchant would receive the same price for his flour as the merchant of the United States had received, although he would not have paid the 2s. duty. This would hold out a bonus for the Canadian merchant to obtain American flour to take to Newfoundland: and in proportion as the quantity so imported into Newfoundland by Canada was obtained from the United States, would be the diminution of importation from the United States direct to Newfoundland. And as, furthermore, flour imported from the United States to Newfoundland paid a duty, whilst flour from Canada to New- foundland did not pay a duty, and as the price of the Canadian imported flour, free of duty, was regulated by the United States imported flour paying a duty—the result would be, that the revenue of the colony of Newfoundland would lose 2s. upon every barrel of flour imported from Canada, which had been obtained from the United States by Canadian merchants, and the benefit and profit to the exact same amount would go into the pockets of those same Canadian merchants. To rectify this evil, to benefit not so much the consumer in Newfoundland as the revenue of that colony, it was proposed to impose a duty of 2s. a-barrel upon all flour transported from the United States into Canada. He rose merely for the purpose of explaining the points on which the hon. and learned Gentleman had misunderstood his right hon. Friend. The proposition was brought forward as one of justice and equity between different colonies. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that no interest in Canada— no interest in this country—no agricultural question connected with the importation of corn into England had anything to do with this question. It was merely a question of inter-colonial policy; and to his mind, was one of very small and very insignificant importance, and one which was not at all calculated to raise in Canada those hostile feelings which the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to anticipate. It was merely a question of regulation of duties between two colonies, the interests of both of which the British Legislature was equally bound to protect. It was not a question of class-interest; it was for the purpose of putting two colonies, one an exporting and the other a consuming colony, upon an equal footing.

Did the noble Lord mean to tax Canada for the benefit of the people of Newfoundland?

The object was not to tax Newfoundland for the benefit of Canada.

said, he was not about to address the committee on the question as to the duties to be imposed upon fish, salted or cured, otherwise than to say the present proposition was a continuance of the same kind of legislation as that which had been carried just now by so small a majority. He wished the committee, however, to consider what was the existing state of things. The right hon. the Vice-President of the Board of Trade found a law in force for eleven years, by which corn, flour, and provisions of different kinds had been introduced into Canada from other countries duty free—he found also that under that state of things great benefit had been derived—that trade between the United States and Canada was increasing—he found that on some occasions the distress which had prevailed among the manufacturers of this country had been relieved by the demand by Canada for goods the produce of Sheffield and other manufacturing towns, in order to pay in goods for the provisions received from the United States. In the midst of this state of things the right hon. Gentleman, while no single practical evil arose from this system, without being able to state to the committee that any single particular mischief had arisen from this law, which had existed and been acted upon for eleven years, came down with his abstract principle and said,

"Because the revenue of Newfoundland is injured, I will interpose with my legislation and interrupt that which has been good, wholesome, and useful to commerce, and put an end to all the advantages which have accrued."

He never in his life had heard so wanton and unnecessary a proposition. If the right hon. Gentleman had stated that this measure was for the benefit of a great English interest, or that it was requisite for the protection of that interest which already had the Corn-laws, or that it was necessary for the protection of some imperial interest, then though he must have said that the principle was erroneous and the legislation vicious, still he could state that great interests were concerned, and a great matter obtained; but this proposition was admitted not even to be for the benefit of the consumer, and was only for the sake of a distinction in which Canada and some West India islands were concerned. What was the case which had been made out by the right hon. Gentleman? Why, that the Canadian merchant being able to send his goods to Newfoundland and other colonies duty free, had an advantage over the foreign or American merchant, inasmuch as he sold his provisions at the same price, and thereby de- rived an advantage. But even this argument supposed that the Newfoundland market could not be supplied without importation from the United States, and taking that to be the case, it was made out that no positive advantage would arise to the consumer under the proposed scheme. The only thing the right hon. Gentleman had made out was, that the Canadian merchant, and those engaged in the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and the transit of goods through Canada at present gained some advantage. Now, he begged to ask was this a reason for the alteration of a system now established for eleven years—a system which had worked and was still working, and which in time, he did not hesitate to say, would produce very great advantages? There could be no greater advantage than a free communication between Canada and the United States—that traffic was increasing, would increase, and would, he was persuaded, be the means of bringing back to the colonies and to this country, a great importation from the western states of North America. He could understand the application of the principle for which the right hon. Gentleman now contended to the East-India rum question, but even in that case conditions had been added to the benefit conferred. In this case, however, there was no benefit conferred upon anybody, except under a refined and abstract notion, upon the revenues of Newfoundland, and for this Parliament was interfering with the laws, the commerce, and the future prosperity of Canada. He hoped, that although the committee had decided just now in favour of that principle on the question of wheat, they would not carry the principle any further, and would negative the proposition now under consideration; and he also hoped that in some future stage the House would discountenance this system of petty, meddling, and mischievous legislation.

said, when he considered the number of colonial questions with which the noble Lord had had to deal, and the knowledge which the noble Lord must possess of the relations between this country and the colonies, he was sorry the noble Lord had not followed the example, in tone and temper, set by the right hon. Gentleman the member for Taunton. He must say, that a sharper speech than that of the noble Lord, and language less justified by the occasion, he had never heard—With respect to the argument of the noble Lord, all he would say was this—that if the noble Lord intended to imply that the effect of this measure was to limit the commerce between Canada and the United States he was completely mistaken; for he must know, or ought to know, that even if, upon these particular articles, this effect would be incidentally produced, upon every other article on which a rated duty was laid by the right hon. Gentleman last year, that rated duty was proposed to be reduced. The noble Lord alluded to the duty on salted meat as if it were intended also to obstruct the commerce between the United States and this country through the medium of Canada. The noble Lord alluded to it as if it had that aspect and view. [Lord J Russell: Incidentally.] A more unfortunate instance the noble Lord could not have selected. It was impossible that America should send her salted meat into Canada, paying 3s. duty, to be transmitted from Canada to this country, for this reason, that America might, from her own ports, under the tariff proposed by his right hon. Friend, send her salted meats to the ports of this country, where they would have the command of a great market—that was to say, of the consumption of our shipping, without the payment of any duty whatever.

said, that was not his argument. His argument was, that any increase in the tariff between the United States and Canada would tend generally to promote commerce.

was ready to admit, that when he addressed the House on the preceding duty, he believed it quite impossible for hon. Gentlemen opposite to bring forward anything bearing the slightest semblance of an argument in favour of the views which they had taken. They certainly had advanced more plausible arguments than he believed it possible for them to do. But having admitted that, be must say, that he never heard a question gravely proposed by a Government, bolstered up by such trumpery arguments as had been used on the present occasion. He would ask any man who had listened to the debate, and heard the possible loss to the revenue of Newfoundland — set against the positive loss which would accrue to our manufactures,—the positive evil which would result from our interfering in the trade—he would ask any man whether any doubt could exist that the present proposition was one which ought not to be assented to on the part of the House? He could not help thinking that Government would have done better to have abandoned the proposal altogether. The hon. Gentleman seemed to argue as if this would not lead to practical results. He could not help thinking that much more important practical results would follow than was supposed. He would say no more about that now, but confine himself to the proposal as to salt meat. It would operate in this way. The St. Lawrence was the natural outlet, unless you prevented it by your regulations, of Michigan, Ohio, and other important north-eastern states of the Union. The right hon. Gentleman might say, that they might warehouse; but it was these petty vexatious obstacles which so much interfered with trade. It was the policy of this country to keep the St. Lawrence open. It should only be on some broad and plain grounds that the House should refuse to act on that principle. He had heard with regret from the right hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of the Colonies, of all persons, the argument which he had used on the present occasion, because he was a member of the committee which decided on the measure brought forward by Mr. P. Thomson, and which established the system he was now seeking to alter. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had stated a substantial reason for departing from the policy which he then recommended, and which had been acted upon for eleven years without the smallest complaint. The inhabitants of Newfoundland would be surprised when they heard that they had been suffering under a grievance. No complaint had ever been made on the part of the Assembly and people of Newfoundland. He thought that our policy ought to be not to interfere with the colonial trade unless it was absolutely necessary. He could not agree, however much he might object to the course which Government had pursued — he could not agree with the hon. Member for Bath in saying that he thought the course they had taken was a violation of the Declaratory Act. He felt bound to state his humble opinion that he did not think that ground could be sustained. He thought the course impolitic and ill-advised, but he did not think it unconstitutional.

said, that there were great objections from the House of Assembly of Lower Canada on that unconstitutional point. He would follow out the consequences of this proposition to Canada and Newfoundland. He assumed that flour was at the same price on both sides of the St. Lawrence. He assumed that as a fact. There was a duty of 2s. per barrel on the importation of American flour into Newfoundland. Suppose that in Canada it was 20s.; if it were imported into Newfoundland from America it would be 22s. —if from Canada, it would be 20s. Therefore, it would be imported from Canada, and the people of Newfoundland would get it at 20s. If you put the duty upon the importation of American flour into Canada, then American flour would come to 22s. If they exported their own they must buy of America. If they bought of America, they must buy at 22s.; if they sold to Newfoundland, they would sell at 22s.; therefore, Newfoundland would have to pay 22s., that was to say, would pay the tax of 2s. which ought to be paid by Canada.

concurred with his hon. Friend near him, that the change proposed was a disadvantageous one, but he would not say, that it was totally without foundation or some ground to proceed upon. He admitted, that the argument was entirely well founded, it was the argument the late Ministry had urged with regard to East-India tobacco; but be wanted to know how stood the fact? Would, in point of fact, flour in this manner be carried into Newfoundland? The law had been in operation eleven years, and bad there been practical complaint of this inconvenience? If there had not, if no such inconvenience had been felt, if we had not injured the revenue of these colonies, it seemed we were making a mistake, if, merely to correct theoretical objections to the state of the law, we were going to impose new restrictions on the intercourse between Canada and the United States. If the object was to extend and promote intercourse between the United States and Canada—if that was the case, it seemed to him extremely imprudent to adopt this resolution. The mere fact of having a duty at all must of necessity interfere with the intercourse between the two sides of the St. Lawrence. More than that he could not understand on what principle it was contended this would be a violation of the Declaratory Act. It seemed to fall within the exception provided by the act. Although he admitted a power to make regulations, he thought it was a power and right which ought to be exercised as sparingly as possible; and, above all, we ought to teach the colonies that we exercised the power on some steady and uniform principle—that we did not act capriciously-—that our decisions one day were not to be overturned by the decision of the next—that they were not to be the sport of the changes of political party, or that because Gentlemen who sat on one side of the House in 1831 gave them free-trade, in 1842, a Government of a different character was to reverse that. He held these changes to be exceedingly mischievous. Let local acts be passed imposing on the importation of flour a duty equivalent to what was imposed on importation into the United States; but let not the House adopt, to meet a theoretical grievance, a regulation which would cramp the freedom of commercial intercourse between Canada and the United States.

Sir, the noble Lord has stated his case with great fairness. He had stated very fairly, and very fully also, his objection to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman on the ground of a violation of the Declaratory Act. But in point of policy, the noble Lord thinks that the measure of her Majesty's Government is liable to exceptions; and he says, let your policy be based upon a sound and steady principle. The noble Lord considers there is a hardship in the case as regards Canada; and considers also, that the effect of our proposition may be injurious to the trade of that colony with the United States. The noble Lord admits, that he is not prepared with any argument in support of the measure, while the right hon. Gentleman admits, that the arguments made use of are of great weight upon reflection. A little subsequent reflection may, however, convince him still more, and that I recommend him. The noble Lord has said, we should adopt some steady settled system of policy in regard to the colonies, and carry out that principle without reference to any change of Government. Now, if he applies that principle to our inter-colonial system of legislation, the noble Lord will find it extremely difficult to resist the measure of her Majesty's Government. For instance, in Nova Scotia, at present there is a duty of 5s. a barrel on the importation of American flour, and the same in New Brunswick and Prince Edward's Island. That is to say, in the case of three out of four of our North American colonies, there is a duty of 5s., while in one of them there is no duty at all; which duty of 5s., be it remembered also, was not imposed by a Colonial Act, but by an act of the Imperial Parliament. The noble Lord said, let us act on a settled system, and not disturb existing relations. Now, if that advice be adopted, Canada should be placed on the same footing as those colonies; and then what becomes of the noble Lord's suggestion? As regards theory, there can be no doubt that the noble Lord is right; but it is far otherwise as regards its practical application. We have been charged with creating a hostile feeling towards us in the minds of the people of the United States by this measure. How stands the fact? So far from endeavouring to create any such feeling, we are trying our best to efface it, if it already exist; and instead of checking intercourse between our colonies and that country, we are encouraging it by a reduction of duty, to the amount of 3s. But suppose we were to act on the sound system and steady principle suggested by the noble Lord, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Taunton, of his own proposition last year, respecting butter and cheese, the produce of the United States, imported into Canada. In those propositions he retained the duty on these articles, while he did not attempt to alter that which existed on flour in the three other colonies that I have just named. Was that to act on a steady, fixed principle. If you act on those sound theoretical principles enunciated by the noble Lord, how can you continue one duty and propose the remission of another? One must be as objectionable as another, and, therefore, you must begin de novo. The question, therefore, resolves itself into this —you find a case in which certain circumstances have existed for eleven years, and the amount of your objection to our measure is, that having so long existed, it should not be altered or disturbed. Now, Sir, I recollect when, the other night, I rested my vote on a question on the practice of the House for 150 years, and grounded my opposition to a motion on the impolicy of disturbing such a state of things, I was met with a sort of cheering which seemed to imply derision at my folly. And, Sir, 1 cannot help thinking of the cheering which greeted the suggestion of the noble Lord, when I recollect the contemptuous treatment which my advocacy of prescription in virtue of old practice received at the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Whether this was available or not, I do think that the noble Lord should not prop up his argument by reference, so soon after his vote upon that occasion, to prescriptive right and ancient usages. Therefore, the question is, whether the same policy shall be applied to Canada as regards flour, which the right hon. Gentleman proposed with regard to butter and cheese. It has been said, that this proposition is a violation of the Declaratory Act, but which is not in the slightest degree the case; and the only point to be considered, therefore, is whether the restriction complained of in the trade of one colony counterbalances the advantage which is calculated will be derived from making all our colonies in that quarter equal—for doing, in short, with regard to flour what the right hon. Gentleman proposed to do with butter and cheese. I hope, I must say, in conclusion that I have observed the precept which was so vehemently laid down by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that I am not one of those who do not keep my temper when discussing financial matters. The right hon. Member for Portsmouth, directed a withering look at me, and in a tone of voice which I shall not forget, lamented the misfortune of this country in not having public men to guide its councils who could preserve their temper. I admit, that nothing is so unwise as to be betrayed into ill temper, and I hope, I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's precept without imitating his example.

was not aware that in discussing that which was not an exciting subject, he had been betrayed into any ill-temper>

said, they would probably arrive by-and-by at a clear understanding of this wonderful intercolonial principle on which these duties were to be imposed, but at present he doubted very much whether the committee fully comprehended them. It was gratifying to find that when the right hon. Gentleman was called upon for an explanation that evening, the proposition had been put in so seductive a point of view that it would appear the clapping on a duty of 2s. a barrel was calculated to benefit the consumer. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had however, explained, that the object was to benefit the revenue of Newfoundland. He congratulated the Government upon having after two months' consideration, and with the advantage of official research, at last arrived at the knowledge of its own principle. Three evils he apprehended would arise out of this proposition. In the first place, it would operate as an evil by increasing the price of flour to our homeward bound shipping victualling at Quebec, who to evade it would have recourse to an extensive system of smuggling, which could not be prevented on the St. Lawrence even in such articles as barrels of wheat. The second evil would be the to a certain extent fostering a protected agricultural interest in Canada by this differential duty on American produce. The third evil was one of greater magnitude still, and that was the effect of the measure upon the United States. The right hon. Baronet told them that they were conciliating that people by at the same time diminishing the duties on American produce imported into our other colonies. It might be very well to say that this was the case with regard to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but he doubted whether the reductions as regarded those colonies would affect the Americans so favourably as to compensate them for the augmentation of duties on imports into Canada. At any rate he feared that the benefit if in fact equivalent to the evil, would be thought as much of by the Americans. They would naturally be more likely, in their present state of feeling towards this country, to dwell upon that part of the measure which would operate to their injury, than on that part of it which benefited them. More especially did he think this would be the case with those States of the Union where in fact the reduction of duties would in no wise immediately benefit. The only portion of the States affected by the alterations in duties as regarded New Brunswick and Nova Scotia was New England; but by the restrictions on imports into Canada, you were raising new enemies against you in New York, Ohio, Michigan, and two or three other states, by for the first time imposing a duty upon their great staple article of produce when imported into Canada. A more unpropitious time for such a measure could scarcely have been chosen than the present, looking at the state of our relations with the United States, at the fact that the American commercial tariff was coming on for discussion, and seeing what a motive it afforded to some Members both of Congress and of the Senate for an increase, on commercial grounds, of the hostility already entertained by them towards this country. On that part of the resolution imposing a duty of 5s. per cwt. upon unrefined sugar,

begged to observe, that he had no intention to introduce unrefined sugar into all the West-India colonies. The prohibition would remain precisely as it was at present.

observed, that there was an alteration proposed in the duty which the late Government had suggested with regard to tea imported across the frontier. He had no doubt that the object of the present, as well as that of the late Government, was to do away with the existing prohibition, and the only question was, what system they should substitute. He, however, preferred the plan he had last year proposed, on the suggestion of Lord Sydenham, of allowing the importation of tea by land carriage into the North American colonies, upon the same duty as into the United Kingdom, increased JO per cent. All wished to do away with that system of prohibition which had given rise to so much smuggling; and as he knew that his proposal had given satisfaction in the colony, he was disposed to regret that the right hon. Gentleman had not adopted his plan.

explained, that he had taken the ordinary rule of fixing differential duties upon some definite principle, rather than to allow particular cases to influence him. The plan of the right hon. Gentleman was applicable to Canada alone, whilst the present proposal empowered all the American colonies to receive tea from other countries, as well as from China and Great Britain, upon equal terms.

remarked, that the late Government went out upon a question of admitting foreign sugar into this country at a moderate duty. The noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon), would allow nothing to be done which would encourage slavery; but it was not, perhaps, generally known, that some of Lord Sandon's most influential constituents were engaged in refining sugar, (he produce of slave-labour, for the pur- pose of exportation. And how could hon. Members who came forward so recently to prevent the introduction of slave-grown sugar into this country consistently propose to give the right of using that same sugar to the West Indies? The truth was, the West Indians had the power over our people of regulating their consumption by entering into a confederacy with the landlords. He heartily wished that some bon. Member on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who last year entertained conscientious scruples against allowing the use of slave-grown sugar, would put the sincerity of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the test.

said, it was a privilege which the colonies had previously enjoyed, and which the present Government found existing in the law. So far as he knew, be believed the West Indians were anxious to exclude slave-grown sugar from their colonies. And even the legislature of Jamaica had passed a law imposing a duty of 6d. a pound on slave-grown sugar.

said, that in the six months from the 5th June, 1840, to the 5th January, 1841,14,097 cwt. of slave-grown sugar, refined here, were sent from this country to the West Indies.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not sufficiently explained why he imposed 10 per cent, on foreign sugar refined in bond in this country. These differential duties were proposed as protections to British goods as against foreign goods imported into the colonies. But foreign sugar refined in this country-was a British manufacture, and, therefore, should not be subject to the duty. Unless be should hear some good reason for this duty from the right hon. Gentleman, he should oppose the resolution,

said, this duty would be by no means injurious to British manufactures. The Government made no innovation, but left everything as they found it. He had explained this matter over and over again to the refiners, who were all satisfied with the proposition. In the several colonies there was a colonial duty imposed which would absorb this 10 per cent.