said, he rose, according to notice, to present the petition of his Friend, Mr. Henry Warburton, detailing the circumstances of the late Election for the Borough of Bridport, together with the causes of the compromise then entered into, and the consequent resignation of his seat. He had given notice to the two sitting Members, on Wednesday, that he intended to present the petition yesterday, and that, on this day, he should discuss that petition, and that he should then request the hon. Member for Bath to include Bridport in his committee of inquiry. There being no House yesterday, it was impossible for him to present the petition, and he could, therefore, now only present the petition, without taking a vote upon it, as it was impossible to take a vote upon a petition of which the House had no knowledge, but he should do so the first opportunity after Whitsuntide. He should, with that view, conclude by moving, that the petition of Mr. Warburton be printed for the use of hon. Members, and circulated during the holidays. On the present occasion, he would only detain the House by a short statement of the facts detailed in the petition. Before he did that, he would, however, remark, that the petitioner complained that the resignation of the seat by him, had been the subject of comments very prejudicial and injurious to his character, and more particularly so in the course of a speech delivered by one of her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State (Sir J. Graham) at a public dinner given at a town in the same county as that from whence this peti- tion emanated Mr. Warburton stated, that in 1826, when he stood for the borough of Bridport, it was the custom for the successful candidate to pay, twelve months after the. election, 10l. to each voter, under the denomination of head-money: no previous promises were made, but it was understood, that the successful candidate was bound to pay this money; the petitioner states, that 2,000l. were paid in this way, after his first election. That there was the same understanding at every subsequent election. That after the passing of the Reform Bill, it was resolved in the borough, that head-money should not thereafter continue to be paid, two persons only dissenting from that arrangement; but that, if it should appear, that some of the poorer electors had still been guilty of bribery in this way, the petitioner hoped, that they would not be judged of too severely on that account, but that their general conduct, in other respects, would be considered. He stated, that the usual expenses of the election, were from 1,500l. to 1,700l., of which, 100l. consisted of the cost of dinners after the election, and 490l. for the expenses of the processions. That he was assured by his agents, that the expenses paid were only the usual expenses, and that large sums were paid for breakfasts at the election. That Mr. Mitchell became a candidate at the last election; and that from some correspondence which the petitioner saw, he understood the friends of Mr. Mitchell expressed their determination to carry that election by bribery, if other means failed; and that if open inquiry be granted, this fact could be proved. The petitioner states further, that Mr. Mitchell stood, and was returned; that bribery did take place, not with the congnizance of the petitioner, but under the direction of Mr. Mitchell or his agents; that Mr. Hutchinson was one of Mr. Mitchell's agents, to whom the petitioner's agent paid certain sums of money; and the petitioner admits, that without any interference of his own, he was mixed up in the transaction in a way which compromised his seat? but, he urges, that as the bribery was conducted by Mr. Mitchell and his agents, it was that Gentleman who ought, in justice, to have resigned his seat, and not the petitioner; but that after the petition was presented against the return, the petitioners, not finding that Mr. Mitchell was inclined to resign, intimated to Mr. Cochrane, the petitioner and the unsuccessful candidate at the election, that he, the petitioner (Mr. Warburton), would resign, if Mr. Mitchell did not, before the expiration of the fourteen days allowed for presenting election petitions. The petitioner accordingly accepted the Chiltern Hundreds on the 8th of September, and on the 17th, Mr. Cochrane was elected without opposition. After the election, a letter was sent to the petitioner, from Mr. Cochrane's agent, acknowledging the highly honourable manner in which he (the petitioner) had acted, in reference to the compact which had been so entered into. The petitioner then went into a minute history of the transactions respecting the election, and subsequently stated, that Mr. Warburton's expenses at the last election had amounted to 2,150l., Mr. Mitchell's to 3,200l., and Mr. Cochrane's to a considerable sum, the exact amount of which was unknown to the petitioner. The petitioner concluded by praying, that his petition might be referred to the select committee about to be appointed to investigate similar compromises which bad taken place in reference to other elections, before which committee the petitioner would be willing to attend, to give every information in his power. It was his intention to move that this petition be printed with the votes.

would not then enter into the particulars of what had occurred at the last Bridport election; but having yesterday received from the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard a note, stating it was his intention to present the petition that evening, he had not anticipated that the hon. Member would have taken that opportunity of reading out certain parts of the petition affecting the conduct of the sitting Members, without bringing any motion before the House, in accordance with the prayer of the petition. His hon. Colleague was not present, and could not have anticipated, that the matter would have been so adverted to. He would not then enter into any explanation with reference to what had passed at Bridport at the last election; but he felt great satisfaction, that as regarded the questions between himself and Mr. Warburton, he should have an opportunity next week of laying a statement fully before the House. After that statement should have been made, he felt satisfied that not even the shadow of an imputation could rest on him, and that not even the breath of slander could tarnish his character. If he had acted at all erroneously, his error had arisen from over-sensitiveness and over-regard for the interests of Mr. Warburton. If he had acted as many others would have acted under similar circumstances—if he had acted with a feeling of selfishnesss, he should not have been subjected to the great anxiety from which he had suffered, since he had become the representative of that borough. He should avail himself of an opportunity on Friday next, of laying before that House a full and entire answer to the petition which had just been presented; in the mean time, he would express his conviction, that that answer would add to his own character as a Gentleman and man of honour, while he felt assured, that it would reflect no credit upon the hon. Gentleman who had signed the petition.

said, that he had not been aware that it was the intention of the hon. Member for Liskeard to read any portion of the petition, and be had not on that account taken care to be present during its presentation. He had thought that the petition would have been presented in the usual manner, and that it would have been printed with the votes, in order that every hon. Member might have had an opportunity of examining its contents. He had entered the House only three minutes before the hon. and learned Member had concluded, and was therefore ignorant of the allegations it contained; but, without undertaking to answer the various allegations of the petition on that occasion, he would take that opportunity of giving his direct and positive denial of the few words which he had heard, at the end of the extracts read by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, to the effect that a gentleman of the name of Hutchinson had acted as his agent in spending his money at the election. To this assertion he gave an explicit denial; and he could not help expressing his surprise that Mr. Warburton should have condescended to make that statement without first ascertaining whether it was true or false. With regard to the other allegations of the petition, which he had not heard, he should be prepared, when he was made acquainted with them, to give every explanation in his power.

had thought that a petition of this nature would have been read by the Clerk at the Table. At all events the hon. Gentleman could not complain of the course he had taken, as he had given him an opportunity of denying a statement which he had declared to be untrue. He would now move that the petition be printed and circulated with the votes for the use of Members only, as was usually the course when Members of that House were implicated, and he would give notice that on that day week he should call the attention of the House to the subject of the petition, and move that it be referred to the committee which had been appointed on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath.

rose for the purpose of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government relating to Syria. He had been informed within the last few days that accounts had reached this country, stating that Omar Pacha whose conduct had been the subject of some discussion in that House a short time since, had kidnapped and sent to Constantinople either five or seven of the leading chiefs of the Druses. He wished to know whether Government had received any account of such a transaction. There was also another question which he was desirous of putting, but which he would refrain from asking on the present occasion, from the impression that the right hon. Baronet would not feel justified in answering it. He would, however, venture to express a hope, if the circumstance to which he had alluded should actually have happened, that the Government would find in the nature of the case sufficient grounds to justify them in at least exerting their good offices at Constantinople in favour of those persons who, according to report had been thus treacherously removed from their own country and sent into banishment. Without, therefore, calling upon the Government to state the course which they intended to pursue, he wished to learn from them whether they had received information detailing the occurrences to which he had alluded.

would give the noble Lord the whole information in the possession of the Government. Shortly before the sailing of the vessel which brought the last account from Syria, intelligence had been received by our agents there, that five chiefs of the Druses had been apprehended by Omar Pacha, under these circum- stances. They had been invited to dine with him, and had accepted that invitation, their natural impression, of course, being that the Pacha's disposition towards them was friendly. On this occasion it was that they were apprehended. From the accounts which he had received, it appeared that they had not been sent to Constantinople but to Beyrout. Various cause had been assigned for this conduct; but, as none of them rested on any solid foundation, he did not feel justified in referring to them. The fact, however, appeared to be that these chiefs had been apprehended by Omar Pacha, with respect to whose appointment he had expressed an opinion the other night, under the circumstances which he had just stated. Of course the power of intervention in the affairs of the Ottoman empire possessed by this country must necessarily be limited, but he begged to assure the noble Lord that every possible representation should be made in order to induce the Turkish government to do justice to these injured individuals.

had understood a recommendation to have proceeded from this country to the Ottoman Porte, urging the dismissal of Omar Pacha from his command; he wished to know whether any attention had been paid to it?

said, that certainly from communications which he had received, he was led to suppose that the appointment of Omar Pacha would not be persevered in; he had, however, received no intelligence as to his removal. From recent events his former impression as to the impolicy of his appointment had been confirmed.

moved that the Speaker do issue a writ for the election of a burgess to serve in Parliament for the borough of New-castle-under-Lyme, in the room of John Quincy Harris esq., whose election has been determined to be void.

said, it was better the writ should be suspended until the evidence adduced before the committee was laid upon the Table.

withdrew his motion, and moved that the minutes of the proceedings of the committee of the New-castle-under-Lyme Election Petition and of the evidence taken before them be laid before the House.—Agreed to

begged leave to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government a question of which he had given notice. The question he desired to ask was, whether the Government had instituted or intended to institute— sanction, or intended to sanction — any public subscription for the relief of the destitute districts of the country.

said, that such was undoubtedly the intention of her Majesty's Government. The exemplary patience with which the distress had been borne in the country generally had induced her Majesty's Government to institute a public subscription through the medium of a Queen's letter, and he sincerely trusted that the appeal would be generally responded to.

had understood the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department, in his speech on the Poor-law Amendment Act the other evening, to state that 1,200,000 persons were in the receipt of relief. He wished to know if this were the case. He wished also to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he had any objection to lay a statement on the Table of the House which would show what proportion of those receiving relief belonged to the agricultural, and what proportion belonged to the manufacturing-classes of the population.

said, that he had stated the entire number at 1,072,000, exclusive of relief administered under local acts, those receiving in-door relief at 159,000, and those receiving out-door relief at 913,000. He had no returns showing the proportions required by the hon. Member.

said, that his desire in selecting a committee for the purpose of inquiring into the compromises entered into during the recent elections had been to do justice to all parties, and so to frame the committee that the object of the present inquiry might not be frustrated. It had, therefore, been his earnest wish, to take all possible pains to meet the wishes of all parties, and, if possible, so to frame the committee, that they should command the attention and consideration of the House, and, through them, the attention and consideration of the country; and he hoped that, acting on the sugges- tions of the right hon. Baronet on the last occasion when this subject was under discussion, he should be enabled to obtain that result. Without further preface, therefore, he would read to the House the names of those hon. Gentlemen whom he wished to place on the committee. One noble Lord (Lord F. Egerton), whom he had desired to include in the number, had been compelled to decline the duty on the ground of ill-health. The names were, therefore, Mr. Bramston, Mr. W. Miles, Sir W. Heathcote, the hon. W, S. Lascelles, Sir W. Somerville, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Strutt, Lord Worsley, and himself.

begged that his name might not be included in the list, as he was already a Member of the general committee of elections, which, together with other duties, he feared would prevent him from effectually discharging his duty as a Member of the committee now under discussion.

hoped that his hon. Friend, whose services would be peculiarly valuable, would not press his objection.

consented to waive his objection.

hoped, that no final step would be taken on the present occasion, because he believed that the result of a few days' consideration had been a feeling that the House had done wrong in appointing a committee at all. He believed that the House in granting this committee, had been actuated simply by a want of moral courage, and every hour of reflection since the appointment of that committee had strengthened that feeling in his mind. He did not feel himself called upon to accuse any hon. Member present of a want of moral courage; neither did he accuse the Government, for it was no party question, or the right hon. Baronet, who, in his humble judgment, had expressed somewhat exaggerated sentiments on the subject to which this committee had reference. He believed that if this committee should be granted, the House would enter upon a course of which they could not foresee the end. He thought, nevertheless, his hon. and learned, and, he might almost add, his gallant Friend, perfectly right in bringing the matter before the House. Still, however just the course of the hon. and learned Gentleman might be, he could not view without apprehension the appointment of this committee, the consequence of which might be to hold up certain Members to public obloquy for doing that which every individual whom he now addressed well knew had never hitherto been regarded as morally or legally wrong. The committee would be formed to investigate matters which upon all sides of the House were admitted. He believed that they were but commencing a career which would end in nothing but confusion. It would appear that they were speaking inside this House in a different tone to that which characterised them outside. He believed that if there was proved to be a great necessity for this committee everything else should give way to it. He, however, did not admit the existence of this necessity. He did not admit that this system of bribery and corruption was by any means so large and extensive as hon. Members appeared to think. If he did admit this, he felt that he should also admit the irresistible conclusion, which he thought should naturally follow such admission, that the people of this country were not fit to have the representation of the country confided to them, and that they had received a gift which they had abused; that whatever rights had been given to them by the Reform Bill, had been conferred on them for their detriment, and not for their good. The motion of which the hon. Member for Rochdale had given notice was, in his opinion, but a delusion and an absurdity. By the appointment of this committee, the House would be saying that the people of this country had abused every power which was confided to them in the election of their representatives; that they had been grossly corrupted because they were so easily corruptible. He believed that the alleged increase of bribery and corruption was simply owing to the increased vigilance which was abroad; it was owing, he believed, to the increased value which every man set upon a seat in this House. He believed that this committee was uncalled for; that they were setting out on a wrong principle altogether, because they were now endeavouring to make people out of doors believe what they did not nor could not believe themselves. He would, therefore, give every opposition in his power to the appointment of this committee.

said, that it was very well for the hon. Member to speak of himself, but he begged to remind the hon. Member that he began his speech by saying, that the whole House and all persons knew that these malpractices had been committed.

begged the hon. Member's pardon, but he meant to say, that the House was very well aware of everything with regard to these arrangements.

understood the hon. Member had argued against this inquiry altogether, and founded his objections upon the fact, that they all knew already the existence of the evils. It appeared, however, that he did not understand the hon. Member correctly. The hon. Gentleman, however, objected to this inquiry, though, at the same time, he did not deny that in some instances bribery and corruption had existed. If the hon. Member admitted so much, he must also admit, that the facts which had been brought before the House must be also believed. Whatever opinion the hon. Member might entertain of the people of England, he believed that they were more honest than the hon. Member would lead us to believe. In his opinion there were no means which would prove so effectual in putting an end to these evils of which they now complained than by largely extending the suffrage, and doing away with the monopoly which now existed in the franchise. Let a law be passed which would give every man liable to taxation a vote in the election of Members of that House. He hoped that nothing would stop the progress of the present inquiry.

did not think he was addressing himself to a subject altogether beside the question if he called the attention of the House not only to the extent and importance of those duties, but to the change which had been made in the nature of those duties, and to the greater width of the objects which would be given to this committee by the introduction of certain words into the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath at the close of the discussion on Monday night, of which addition a great part of the House was totally and entirely ignorant. He would begin by saying that he disclaimed making any charge of an unfair nature against the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He could perfectly conceive that the hon. and learned Gentleman had no intention whatever to take any advantage of the House or to make any alterations in the terms of his motion in a furtive or clandestine manner. While, however, he acquitted him of such misconduct, he was then, as a Member of this House, to deal with results, and consequences, and effects, and not with intentions. If, in characterising such results, he should apply any terms too strong to the subject, he begged the House to believe, and the hon. and learned Member himself, that he would do so without any intention whatsoever of violating that respect which was due to this House, and that respect which he should always feel for the talents and abilities of the hon. and learned Member who had brought the question forward. While saying this he contended that the hon. and learned Member did introduce into the original motion put into the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker's hands most important principles, and a subject not at all contemplated by the terms of the motion as it originally stood. ["Question"]

begged to inform the hon. Baronet, that if it were his intention to move for any alteration in the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath he should give notice of such intention, when it could be discussed upon some future occasion. The question which was now before the House was one respecting the names of those hon. Members who should form this committee, and to that it would be necessary for the hon. Baronet to confine himself. If the hon. Baronet had any objection to make to those hon. Gentlemen who were already mentioned as those who should form this committee, the hon. Baronet could of course state it.

could only say that he conceived the duties which the committee would have to perform would necessarily be of a most important nature, and, being such, they should be most particular in their selection of such hon. Members as would be competent to discharge those duties with efficiency. He had ventured to address some observations to the alteration which had been made in the hon. and learned Gentleman's motion, but if the House should be of opinion that the consideration of such a subject, did not bear upon the question now before the House, he should of course defer to that opinion, and take another opportunity of pressing this point upon the consideration of hon. Members, which he thought was well worthy of their attention. He was therefore quite in the hands of the House, and he should of course bow to its decision. The connection which he wished to establish between the question itself, the nature of the present motion, and the Members who should form this committee, would, he thought, warrant him in entering upon the subject with which he had commenced his observations. He should wish to learn from the House if he would be out of order in continuing his observations under those circumstances. [" Question "] Well, then, he supposed he was to understand that he could only object to the names already proposed to form this committee. He would therefore proceed by saying that he had an objection to some of the names which were proposed. He thought he could make his objections without mentioning certain names, which would render the task he undertook most disagreeable and invidious. He conceived that hon. Members might be spared the painful task of objecting to certain names without stating reasons of a personal and invidious character. He was saying, that in a manner perfectly unexpected by the House, the hon. and learned Member had extended, considerably, the duties of this committee, which rendered it necessary that they should select hon. Members of the highest character for professional and legal eminence to form this committee. He conceived that on all ordinary occasions, perhaps, they should not appeal to such hon. Gentlemen, nor would they be justified in withdrawing them from their professional avocations. He, however, conceived that on the present occasion, considering the subject in the aspect in which the hon. and learned Gentleman had placed it, they would be perfectly justified in appealing to the professional Members of this House, who ought to lend their services to a question like this. There was a voice which once commanded the universal attention of this House—a voice that whenever its tones were uttered, all those who could appreciate the talent or admire the genius of the greatest living orator of the day, would follow and endeavour to catch the accents wherever they would flow. He did hear a certain noble and learned Lord not very long ago in commenting upon the composition of election committees—he did hear that distinguished individual say, that he was surprised and he much regretted to find those great professional names which would have given weight and effect to the deliberations of any committee, and authority to the judicial decisions of any assembly, were absent from the lists of those election committees. And the noble and learned Lord, who, no doubt, well knew his own profession, and those liberal feelings which actuated it, had further said, that whatever personal sacrifice men of the highest professional ability would subject themselves, he was certain, nevertheless, that they would be found most willing and desirous to contribute their assistance, if it was deemed necessary, in the fulfilment and discharge of those duties, which, as Members of this House, they might be called upon to give. Having said that, he considered this was a question of such importance, and of such a judicial character, the House, he thought, was fully justified in asking those Members of high professional eminence to allow themselves to be placed on this committee. He now asked if he were out of order if he endeavoured to trace those duties which would be imposed on this committee, and to show that they partook of a judicial character. From the extended form given to the motion by the alteration which had been made in it, it embraced objects of importance sufficient to justify the House in an appeal to professional assistance, however eminent. If the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, as originally framed [cries of " Order;"] he begged leave to refer to the original notice that that hon. and learned Gentleman had given, which was for a committee to inquire into certain practices connected with the elections of certain hon. Members, and to ascertain whether such practices were not gross breaches of the privileges of this House. That was the tenor of the first notice. The motion, however, which was founded upon it was,—

"That a select committee be appointed to inquire whether, in the cases of the election petitions presented to that House from Nottingham, Heading, Harwich, Lewes, and Falmouth, there has not been a corrupt compromise entered into for the purpose of withdrawing from the investigations of the committees appointed to try the merits of these petitions. the gross bribery practised at them."

This was the amended motion of the hon. and learned Member, and not the one which was first submitted from the Chair of this House. He contended, that this involved a judicial inquiry of great importance, an inquiry which concerned not only the honour and character of several Members of this House, but also a judicial inquiry in which the interests, rights, and privileges of those electors were concerned who returned nine representatives to this House. Was this number, nine, so trivial a part of this House? He recollected the time when upon the voice of nine Members hung the fate of the Ministry. And he did not think it impossible that in fifty years hence the votes of nine hon. Members of this House might turn the fate of the monarchy itself. As the motion of the hon. and learned Member originally stood, it was impossible he could ground upon it his objection to the issuing of the writ for Nottingham, or that he could have asked for the suspension of that writ; but it was upon his amended motion he did ground his objection to the issuing of that writ. He should remind the House that it was a serious thing to move for the suspension of a writ, and nothing should justify such a proceeding, except some very strong grounds indeed, and when it was contemplated to have recourse to ulterior legal proceedings against the borough itself. The consequence he would then draw from the hon. and learned Member's motion was this, that it was possible on the report of this committee that ulterior proceedings would he taken against the borough of Nottingham, it was equally possible that ulterior proceedings would be taken against all the other boroughs mentioned in the motion. Therefore, in point of fact, the House had brought itself to this position. It had voted a committee which might be said to combine the subject matter of five election committees in one. That was a case which required the assistance of the hon. Members of professional and high legal character in this House. He entertained the highest respect for the Gentlemen appointed to serve on this committee, and he need not say that he felt the greatest respect for those hon. Friends of his own who were chosen from his side of the House. Yet he did say that, though they took an occasional and highly creditable part in the deliberations of this House, he did not feel, and he said this frankly and openly, that they were sufficiently acquainted with the privileges and practices of this House, nor had they that legal and professional knowledge which it was so necessary they should possess to have such duties as those entrusted to them. He wished to make no invidious observations, for a number of his own personal friends had been selected to form this committee; but he considered that this was a question of such immense importance, a question into which in his opinion the assent of the House was in a great degree surprised, that he for one should raise his feeble voice in favour of a full and fair investigation into it. It should be recollected that this inquiry was to be taken for a committee not upon their oaths, and who were not bound to hear all the evidence which might be adduced on the occasion. He would not have the rights and privileges of so large a portion of the electors entrusted to this committee if he had known the exact nature of the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Since, however, the consent of the House had been surprised into this committee, he thought that the only remedy they could apply would be to make an appeal to the gentlemen of the greatest professional eminence and legal information to assist them in this inquiry. In the spirit of the noble and learned Lord who answered for those gentlemen, he was sure they would respond cheerfully to the call which would be made upon them, and would give their assistance to an investigation wherein the rights and privileges of so large a portion of the constituencies of this country were involved.

said, that having been informed that the presentation of the petion from Mr. Warburton was advised by the hon. Member for Derby, he thought he had a right to ask that hon. Member whether he was a party to those extraordinary proceedings in which he was so interested? He asked the hon. Member this question in consequence of having seen his name mentioned as one of the Members of this committee.

wished the hon. Member would repeat his interrogatory, as he did not rightly understand him.

said, in the course which Mr. Warburton had taken with respect to a petition demanding that Bridport should be added to this inquiry, he was advised that the hon. Member for Derby advised this proceeding. And for the" reasons already stated he felt himself justified in asking the hon. Member if such was the fact?

said, he was glad that he could contradict the report, that he had given Mr. Warburton any such advice whatsoever. He thought he did hear that Mr. Warburton had some intention to present such petition. But if he did hear that, it went to the extent of his recollection on the subject. He was not aware that he had ever stated any opinion upon the subject. And he was not aware of the contents of this petition until this night, when they were mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard.

on the Opposition side of the House said, as one of the Members lately returned to the House, he wished to ask the Speaker whether the system of putting questions to hon. Members not connected with the Government was strictly in order? He wished to ascertain the opinion of the Speaker, as some doubt existed on the subject.

said, the strict practice of the House was, that questions should be confined to the orders of the day. The rule with regard to answering questions had been considerably relaxed, and questions were now put to the Members of the Government with respect to the general policy of the Government, and to hon. Members with respect to particular measures with which they were connected. Further than that, he never knew the rule to be relaxed until the hon. and learned Member for Bath lately put certain questions to hon. Members.

in voting for the committee, wished it to be understood that the arrangements and compromises referred to had nothing to do with bribery and corruption.

said, the situation in which he had been placed was not a very enviable one; but he should be sorry to let his private feelings interfere with his public duty, and if he could be of service in facilitating the object in view, he should be happy to give his attention to it.

said, as some objection had been taken to his name, he should be extremely glad to be excused serving on the committee. He did not wish to shrink from any duty which the House might impose upon him, but if any Gentleman objected to his name being placed on the committee it would not give him the slightest offence; on the contrary, he should have great satisfaction in being excused from serving.

said, that supposing two out of the nine Gentlemen named should not attend the committees, the number would then be reduced to seven. He objected to any quorum being named, and thought that all the Gentlemen nominated ought to attend, as they were bound to do when appointed to try the merits of election petitions.

said, that when an accusation was made against the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork, Mr. Hardy was objected to on the ground of being the accuser. In the same spirit he objected to the hon. and learned Member for Bath being placed on the committee.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has already been appointed.

said, he did not see how the attendance of hon. Members could be enforced. It was of the utmost importance that those Gentlemen who undertook the duty should do so with the understanding that their attendance should be regular. If, unfortunately, any individual Member should be prevented from giving his attendance, the House ought to have the opportunity of immediately supplying his place. That, however, would be an imperfect remedy for his absence, because any new Member would have to commence with hearing only the latter part of the evidence. He trusted that those Gentlemen composed the committee would feel it their duty to be regular in their attendance.

said, he would at once move that nine be the quorum. The question was put that the word "five" stand part of the question.

having served on two committees of an analogous description, wished to state these precedents for the guidance of the House. It was understood that on both these committees the attendance should be precisely the same as on an election committee — that no Gentleman should absent himself from their sittings.

said, having been nominated on the committee, he would endeavour to do his duty to the best of his ability. He trusted the House would make an order that the committee should meet in full number. It was due to the committee, to the House, and to the important matter they were about to take in hand, to be regular in their attendance; and they ought to consider themselves precisely in the situation of an election committee.

believed the rule of the House to be this, that the whole body must attend.

thought it very desirable that the whole of the Members of the committee should attend; and he believed that to be the general opinion of the House.

then moved that the committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Sir, as this is the proper time to submit to the consideration of the House the amendment of which I have given notice, and as I have made some slight alteration in the wording of it, I will at once read it to the House:—

"That each Member appointed to serve on the select committee on compromises of election petitions shall subscribe the following declaration, in the presence of Mr. Speaker:—

"I — do solemnly declare, that I never, directly, or indirectly, have to my knowledge been guilty, by myself or agents, of any act of bribery, treating, or corruption in procuring a seat in Parliament; that I never paid or promised to pay, intend to pay, or sanctioned the payment of, any sum or sums of money, beyond the legal charges for procuring my return for my last or any previous election; nor have I, at any time, connived at, been privy to, or assisted in, any bribery, treating, or other corrupt practices, at the election of any Member or Members to serve in Parliament.

said, that the hon. Member who had just down had applied such language to the borough which he represented, that he felt it his duty to rise and inform the House of the circumstances of the election to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded—he meant the election when the hon. Gentleman stood for Pontefract. That election was unsuccessful, and he would tell the House why it was unsuccessful. It was unsuccessful because they could not succeed in corrupting the people. Some time previous to the election a gentleman connected with the borough, with local influence—he did not apply the term invidiously—he meant that influence which high character gave in the neighbourhood—(and so he was one himself, if he might use the term)—came down, and there was a very severe contest indeed, and the memory of that contest remained to this day in the town. There was also no bribery alleged in the town to any amount, with one exception, which his hon. Friend reminded him of. All these gentlemen — these strangers who came to Pontefract, and attempted in vain to corrupt the people, were from that side of the House on which the hon. Gentleman sat. In 1834 he was himself absent from England, but he was proposed by some friends as a candidate. A gentleman then well known, Mr. Raphael, formerly sheriff of London, went to Pontefract in his sheriff's coach. He was asked whether he was a Jew, and his answer was, that he was not a Jew, but he was as rich as one. He went down with a very large sum of money. He paid into the bank 4,000l. The House would observe that he was unsuccessful. He knew one honest man who had been offered a high bribe by the agents of Mr. Raphael, but he refused the bribe and voted for him. If bribery ever prevailed in the borough it was owing to these three gentlemen, whom he had mentioned, all belonging to the other side of the House. He did not believe that it was general. He believed that the few persons who might still be disposed to accept a bribe were fast dying off, and that a better class of voters were taking their places, and he made no doubt that if these imputations were true (which he denied), very shortly the borough would be entirely rescued from any such practices.

said, that in two elections for the borough of Pontefract he had never heard the subject of bribery so much as alluded to. The question which the hon. Member for Finsbury had brought forward carried with it such an excellent reductio ad absurdum, that if the hon. Member divided the House he must vote with him.

hoped, that as he had been alluded to, not only on this but on other occasions, he might be allowed a few minutes in explanation. He certainly had the misfortune to be a candidate for the borough in 1826, but he had the good fortune at that time to prevail on the returning officer to take the election in one day instead of two days, which would have afforded the opportunity of leaving the previous night open to certain practices. To avoid those practices he prevailed on the returning officer to have the election on that day. He was told when that day was considerably advanced that if he spent 500l. and allowed a certain sum to be put into the hands of the electors, he would win the election. He totally refused to do that. He declared before the House, and before a higher tribunal, that he was not cognisant of the least bribery at that election. To show in what way he considered his own conduct, he would mention that when the committee sat, in which a gentleman below him was his nominee, he put himself in the witness-box that he might be examined by the counsel on the other side, and they did not choose to put a question to him which imputed improper conduct. His late excellent friend Daniel Sykes had mentioned the legitimate expenses at Hull as 300l. In consequence of the prava consuetudo which prevailed at Hull, and which seemed to prevail at Pontefract every gentleman, who was considered a gentleman, was bound to pay that, otherwise it was not possible for him to show his face. He certainly did pay that, but he took care that that should not be the means of introducing him to the constituency again, although he was strongly solicited. That was the head and front of his offending. As to bribery, he was ready to state before the House and a higher tribunal that he knew nothing of it.

wished, before the House divided, shortly to state his reason for voting against the motion of his hon. Friend. He regarded this as an attempt to cast something like ridicule on what he conceived to be a grave and useful proceeding; and when he found an inquiry conducted, as this had been, with temper, tact, and fairness, approved of by the House, and likely to produce a useful result, he would not oppose an obstacle in the way of it, by framing a test which was so impracticable—so ill defined, because nobody knew what legal expenses were. He did not think that any man on either side of the House could take the test with anything like safety of conscience. By act of Parliament the legal expenses of an election were strictly defined. The hon. Member had made the test too stringent. He looked upon it simply as an attempt to interfere with the motion of his hon. Friend near him, in which he cordially concurred, and therefore he should vote against him.

I shall vote for the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The House knows of the committee which it is proposed to appoint, and can judge of the character of the Members whether they are qualified to discharge their duties. In my opinion the committee, constituted as it is, are qualified to discharge their duties as honourable men. In the selection of election committees, constituted under the act of Parliament, you impose no such test as this which the hon. Gentleman proposes. You do not consider them as disqualified from adjudicating upon the case of election committees—upon the rights of Members —upon the rights of constituencies. You have not considered them as disqualified from coming to a just judgment. I am not clear that the House has a right to impose the test. I think it questionable whether the House has a right to assign a duty to Members of its own body, or to tell them that they shall not discharge that duty unless a certain test is applied. I am sure it is a dangerous precedent, that a majority of this House should impose a test of this nature, to be taken by certain of its Members who are called upon to discharge a public duty. I think he said his object was not to prevent inquiry, and yet he said, that supposing nine Members could be found who could take the test, whole towns would flock to see such paragons of virtue, or some expressions of that kind, and throughout he clearly indicated his opinion that no nine Members would be found who would take such a test. He said, that on these Members entering the committee-room, and on their departure from it, a considerable number of admiring spectators would see their entry and their exit. He considered it absolutely necessary before they entered on the inquiry that they should take the test; and if he considered that 658 Members could not by some means take the test, I do not see how he could expect a satisfactory result from the inquiry which he proposed to institute; because he said the inquiry would show that the majority owed their seats to gross bribery. If an inquiry is to be instituted, at the best that inquiry must be conducted by Members the majority of whom the hon. Gentleman must hold to be disqualified to conduct the inquiry. I question the right of the House to act as is proposed, but I am quite sure it would be establishing a most dangerous precedent. Without such test I am sure the hon. Members to whom the inquiry is delegated will, as honourable and honest men, discharge their duty; and therefore I withhold my assent.

wished to explain the grounds on which he felt bound to oppose this motion. Undoubtedly, the general nature of the proposition was such as that if it were brought forward in a fit and proper manner, he should feel himself bound to vote in support of it, and he had on two previous occasions given his vote in favour of the adoption of such a declaration. In each of the cases to which he alluded, however, the adoption of such a test was incorporated in a bill before the House, and did not form the subject of a motion such as that of the hon. Member for Finsbury. If that motion were carried, its effect would be to frustrate the object of the inquiry proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath; and he could hardly conceive a motion more directly opposed to that object than that now before the House. He disapproved of the time at which the proposition was brought forward; but if a clause was introduced into any bill carrying out the same object, and he might suggest the introduction of such a clause in the measure to be proposed by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) he would give it his support, and he would do so because then every hon. Gentleman entering that House would know the terms upon which he must look to hold his seat.

thought that it was fit for an hon. Member when he opposed a motion introduced to that House, to do it in an honest, straightforward manner—that he should not assume a virtue which he did not possess—that he should not assume to be a patriot, and at the same time frustrate the objects of those whose inten- tions were good. When he had originally brought this subject before the House, he had been desirous to state—and he had done so explicitly, and he believed in such a manner that he had received the perfect assurance of his being understood by the majority of hon. Gentlemen—that it was the system, and not individuals against which he was aiming; and throughout the whole of these proceedings it had been his endeavour to point at the system, and to abstain from all asperity of language whatsoever with reference to particular individuals. The hon. Member for Fins-bury, however, in oblique language—language as oblique as his motion—had endeavoured to fix the stigma on him of being actuated by other motives than those which he professed. The hon. Member said, he was desirous of forwarding the cause of purity of election — that he was desirous of maintaining the high character of that House—a character in which he of course desired to participate, while at the same time he had stated acts of his own commission, which, according to his own phraseology, were most corrupt. Those who wished to promote purity did it by example as well as by precept; and he did not think that any man ought to come to this House and say, "I desire to be pure," and at the same time admit that he was corrupt, but he should first establish his own purity, and then express his wish that others should be pure also. He would ask the House whether they conceived the mode of proceeding of the hon. Member to be honest and straightforward. An hon. Baronet opposite had given a distinct notice that he would propose a motion, calling into question the propriety of the motion which he had laid before the House; and if he could understand the object of that motion, it was that the hon. Baronet complained of the inquiry. The hon. Member for Finsbury, however, said, that he did not complain of the inquiry— that he was favourable to the establishment of purity in that House; but at the same time he stood up in his place to prevent their making an investigation into the proceedings of five or six men, when he professed his belief that 600 other hon. Members were just as bad. Now, for his own part, he had no objection to inquire into the whole of the 600 cases; but when the matter was before the world, and it was gravely stated that there were these five or six cases, in which men were able, and willing, and desirous to afford proof of that which was alleged, were they to turn round and say, that the whole state of the representation was so foul —the whole thing so bad, that they would not make any inquiry—that they would sit down contented with the existing state of things. To make a proposition having such an effect, would do very well in that House to gain a laugh—to acquire a reputation for the hon. Member who brought it forward for facetiousness, but it would not go down with the country, as being in any way conclusive either as to the honour of the House or their desire for the well-being of the community; and he thought that the country would hardly approve of the hon. Member's esoterick morality, which seemed to justify his indulging in laughter and sneers at subjects which he dared not mention when he got of doors. [Mr. T. Duncombe: "Hear."] "Hear, hear," was the grave exclamation of the hon. Member, as if he were absolutely detesting that species of false morality against which he proclaimed. He was there to entreat the support of the well-toned morality of that House: and he believed that there was a large majority of hon. Members who felt that the mischief which prevailed was one which was rapidly increasing—that there were many who, from weakness of mind or other causes, had been unwillingly drawn into a system of corruption to which they were opposed, and who would be most thankful to be placed in a position in which they might be relieved from the possibility of further participation in such acts. What he desired was to make the case so plain—so palpable, that the Legislature should feel bound to take some steps which should shield the weak, and at the same time prevent a repetition of such scenes as had of late been too frequent. There was a large majority of really virtuous constituencies which would be most thankful to the Legislature if a law was framed, the effect of which would be to throw a shield round the weak as well as the strong, to prevent the recurrence to such modes of proceeding as had been adopted. But he asked, in all seriousness, with all the gravity with which the Legislature should be called on in such a case, and also with something, he must say, of sorrow and regret at what had occurred, was this the mode of proceeding in such a case. Was it fit that, as representatives of a great people, they should treat with levity, and jeering, and scorn, all the common axioms of morality. Should they not take the means of preventing these foul corruptions entering into every family of this kingdom? He asked hon. Members not to receive his proposal in that spirit of jeering with which it had been assailed, because he said that that spirit was not calculated, if it got abroad, to reflect honour on the House; and he did trust that hon. Gentlemen round him would fix the finger of scorn on the present motion—would treat it as it deserved to be —not considering it as an honest opposition to his own proposition, but as a round-about, oblique, facetious mode of opposing it. He placed the most sincere reliance upon the honour of the House, and he had no doubt that the result would be such as the country would approve.

begged to express his great astonishment at the declaration of the hon, Member for Finsbury, that he intended to press his extravagant motion to a division—a degree of astonishment which was only equalled upon his hearing the speech of the hon. Member, in which he had introduced that motion to the House, with regard to which he did not hesitate to say, he knew not whether most to wonder at the shameless confessions which were comprised in it, or at the unjust and unfounded attacks in which he had, at the same time, indulged against the great majority of the Members of that House. He believed that the sole object of the motion of the hon. Member was to throw ridicule on the proposition of the hon. Member for Bath, and with these feelings it was impossible that he should vote with the hon. Member for Finsbury. He would not shrink from saying, for it was his firm and conscientious opinion, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had done a great public service. He did not altogether approve of the manner in which he had brought the whole question forward; he disapproved of those questions which he had put; he had entertained, and still felt, very serious doubts whether the committee should have been granted; and he doubted whether it would not have been a better and a wiser plan to trust to preventive legislation rather than to enter into an inquiry which, he feared, must assume the character of a strongly personal, if not of a vindictive attack against particular persons. But he was free to admit that the extent of bribery which had taken place at the last election was discreditable to that House, and to the law. Compromises had no doubt been entered into, which had produced great public scandal, and it was time that some measure should be adopted in order to prevent those compromises taking place in future.

must say, with respect to the motion now before the House, that he thought that nearly all of the reasons which had been already stated as affording ground of opposition to it were extremely applicable. But he felt, above all, that the House having consented to appoint this committee, they ought not by any extraordinary, unusual, or objectionable means, to endeavour to defeat that inquiry. Whether it was fit to require such a declaration as was called for under the provisions of an act of Parliament was another question, but he thought that to agree to the present motion would be a mode evidently of avoiding that inquiry which had been already granted. Without entering into the question, to which reference had been made, whether they should have granted that committee originally, he must say that he had nothing to find fault with in the mode of proceeding of the hon. Member for Bath, with one exception. He could not help regretting that words of considerable importance should have been added to the motion for the appointment of the committee, the effect of which was not only to give to that committee the means of inquiring into the compromises which were alleged to have taken place, but which extended that inquiry to matters of bribery. He said, that he regretted that such an addition should have been made without full notice having been previously given to the House, and he did so the more, because they could not now be well taken away from the resolution, without an appearance being produced of a desire on the part of the House to restrain the inquiry. His hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury seemed to imply, by his motion, either that the House by agreeing to it, on one hand, would be thereby exposed to great difficulty, or on the other hand, that by rejecting it, hon. Gentlemen would in effect confess that they were not ready to make the declaration against bribery, which he proposed should be required of them. He could not but think, however, that his hon. Friend had drawn his motion in a very peculiar manner with regard to the introduction of that part of it which had reference to the sanction by hon. Members of the payment of other than legal expences. They all knew the extent to which bribery had been carried on, but they all knew at the same time that there were many expences incidental to an election, which were not perhaps strictly legal, and on which even, he believed, hon. Members had been unseated, but which, at the same time, were frequently paid. He spoke of such expences as were incurred where, in a county election, voters had a great distance to travel to the poll, the candidates on both sides agreed to allow them such moderate refreshment as were necessary. Whether such expences were legal or not —and he believed that they had been decided not to be legal—it was obvious that they were of a very different character from those which constituted a sufficient ground to support a charge of bribery; and however the question of their legality might stand, it was clear that, in a moral point of view, or looked at politically with regard to the position of that House, they were totally different from those charges which were incurred by the payment of five or ten guineas per head for each voter. If the hon. Member should alter his motion, so as to meet such cases, it might stand in a different position; but he should say, that it would be extremely difficult for him, even in his own case, to say that he had never paid any sums of money beyond the amount of the legal expences of his election; and agreeing, as he hoped he should, with the majority of the House, he must give his vote in opposition to a motion, the effect of which was to throw out an imputation that all hon. Members were guilty of acts of bribery.

expressed his intention to support the motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and thought that the object of that motion was anything but that of defeating the proposition of the hon. Member for Bath. He thought, that the House had reason to thank the hon. and learned Member for his motion; but he could see no reason why, if a test of disinterestedness was applied to hon. Members forming committees on private bills, the same species of test should be also applied in the present case.

was at a loss to understand why so much sourness of criticism should have been bestowed on the motion of his hon. Colleague. It was said, that the object of the motion was to get rid of the inquiry. By what means, he would beg to ask? If it were by proving to the public that there were not nine men in that House who could take the test, the effect of it would be to prove the allegations of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and to carry out his motion, and it would show, in point of fact, what was the state of the misrepresentation of the people in that assembly; and he said, that instead of this proposition bringing upon his hon. Friend the displeasure of the House, his example should be looked upon as one which, for its honour and its courage, ought to be followed. He said, let other hon. Members make similar confessions, and let the public see by what means seats were to be obtained in that House. He said, therefore, that his hon. Friend had no object in this motion in defeating the object of the hon. Member for Bath, for he thought that if anything could give effect to the committee, it would be by the Members of that committee taking the test which was proposed. Did the right hon. Baronet mean to say, that there was anything in this test which hon. Members should not be capable of taking? Did the right hon. Baronet mean to say, that there was anything preposterous and unjust in this test? The right hon. Baronet had only objected to it because it was introduced in this particular case, but they must make a beginning in some case, and it would surely be something for hon. Members to point out this test as one which they had been compelled to take, and in that point of view, at least, would be most useful to the community at large. The House must not rest with an inquiry with regard to the six boroughs alone which were named, and if it were suffered to go forth to the public that it was to be so confined, the most unfavourable inferences would be drawn from such a result. His hon. Friend had said, that he thought that 600 of the Members of that House had not been duly elected; but he thought that he had gone too far in making that assertion, and he believed, that there were many hon. Gentlemen who had done nothing dishonourable, and his hon. Friend had no right to assume, that hon. Members had adopted means of obtaining seats in that House which he would not have taken himself. So far as the test pro- posed went, he was perfectly willing to take it; he should have no difficulty in doing so, for he had not at any time expended one farthing of money for the purpose of corrupting or deceiving a voter, and he thought, that there were many others who could make a similar declaration. But what he wished to impress on the House was, that having entered into this investigation, they ought to go on with it as far as the petitions before the House would enable them. Many petitions had been withdrawn, but in those petitions were allegations in many instances as bad as those contained in the petitions which they were about to investigate. He said, that they could not do justice to the people, unless they carried out the inquiry to its fullest extent, and if that were done, a most useful lesson would be taught to the country, and before many years had passed, an entire change would be effected in the constitution of that House.

begged to be allowed to explain the vote which he was about to give, and which would be in opposition to the motion of the hon. Member for Fins-bury. He thought, that that was a motion which ought to have been brought forward before the committee had been granted; but he was confident, that the committee would do its duty—that the hon. Members composing that committee would do everything in their power to bring to light those corrupt practices which had been too common throughout the kingdom. For his own part, he should have no difficulty in taking the test, for he had never expended one shilling in corrupting a voter, nor had he ever solicited a vote, but he did not think that the motion was calculated to produce the end which was sought to be attained.

thought, it would not be considered too much for him, as he was about to vote with his hon. Friend, the Member for Finsbury, to state his reasons for adopting that course, and he must premise by saying, that he had adopted that determination without entertaining the least desire to throw ridicule on the motion of the hon. Member for Bath, but that he had done so upon a most serious view of the case, and upon the best consideration which he had been able to give to the question. It was all very well for the hon. and learned Member for Bath to lecture his hon. Friend for throwing ridi- rule on his motion, because he had brought forward some comical statements, in that agreeable manner with which the hon. Member was in the habit of entertaining the House. Those statements, however, were most serious, and the public would set their due value upon them. With reference to the refusal of this committee, he could not help thinking, that after what had passed, and after all the reproaches which had been thrown out upon that House, if the House refused to sanction the application of this test, the most unsatisfactory results must ensue; because he thought, that if that committee came to a conclusion that the charge of bribery was unfounded, its Members would be considered to be just as bad as those whose cases they had had to consider; while on the other hand, if they declared that the charges were made out, it would be said, that they had determined to sacrifice these cases, in order to hide their own delinquencies. It appeared to him, that to adopt this test would be to act in strict accordance with the line of practice adopted in other cases. In the case of election committees, hon. Members were sworn to do justice, but an objection might be made to any hon. Member on the score of private interest, or that he was petitioned against, nor, for any other reasons; while in cases of committees on private bills, Members of those committees were compelled to declare that they had No local or private interest in the matter which they were to consider. And he begged to say, that in giving his vote in favour of this motion, he did so with no sort of want of confidence in the Members proposed to form that committee, but because he thought that unless some such test as was proposed was required, the conclusions to which he had referred would be drawn. Although in this case he admitted, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had conducted himself in a manner which might be deemed to be in general correct, he denied that he was entitled to those eulogiums which had been showered upon him by hon. Gentlemen, and he thought, that the course adopted by that hon. Member, in introducing this subject to the House by means of the questions which he had put, he had hit upon a mode of proceeding most likely to give personal offence, and which tended to produce a scene much more likely to give rise to ridicule than anything that had been done by the hon. Member for Finsbury.

said, he knew that he had only a right to explain, but he hoped the House would indulge him for a few minutes, for he must offer a few observations in answer to the attack of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. He had always understood that it was not Parliamentary for any hon. Member to impute motives to any hon. Member for any conduct of his in that House. But the hon. and learned Member had imputed unworthy motives to him, in language which was wholly unjust and inapplicable. The hon. and learned Member said, that he was endeavouring by underhand means to defeat the inquiry. Now, he could tell the hon. and learned Member, that he knew nothing that authorised any hon. Member to say that he ever adopted any but the direct course. He was not one of those individuals who made indirect attacks on persons in their absence, and when called upon out of the House of Commons to explain or substantiate the charge, shrunk from it.

said, that as he understood the hon. Member to be speaking of him, he asked him when it was that he shrank from any charge he had made?

resumed, and was proceeding to repeat that he was not one of those who made indirect attacks, &c, when he was interrupted by

who said, that the rule of the House only admitted of an hon. Member saying a few words by way of explanation, and therefore the hon. Member would see the propriety of not going into these matters.

said, he wished to explain that he was not one of those individuals who made attacks on individuals in their absence, and then shrank from those attacks when asked to substantiate them out of the House.

rose to order. It was not consistent with the rules of the House that an hon. Member should use expressions which went to attack another.

I am attacking no person.

thought, that as the hon. Member for Finsbury had been assailed he had a right to defend himself, and unless the permission were granted, he would move the adjournment of the debate.

said, that he should, as the right hon. Baronet opposite had done the other night, address himself to the main question. It was not his object in making the present motion to defeat the purpose for which the committee was appointed. On the contrary, he was desirous of placing the committee in a position which would secure for it the confidence and esteem of the public, and unless the test which he proposed were applied, it could neither gain nor deserve public estimation. He had been accused of making a barefaced confession. He had, however, only told the truth, and, in his opinion, such a confession of human frailty was better than to indulge in professions of extreme purity, and assume with a complacent self-conceit a character of superior virtue, which none but the modest professor himself could discover.

said, that seeing the right hon Member for Dungarvon in his place, he would take the opportunity of saying a few words with respect to a petition which he had presented on Tuesday evening. The right hon. Gentleman appeared on that occasion to doubt the authenticity of the signatures, because several of them appeared in the same handwriting. He had since made inquiries, and had received a letter from Mr. Crisp, stating that the signatures were duly authorized by the parties whose names were attached to the petition.

would make no other remark than that it was strange the first page of signatures to a petition which made such extraordinary charges against the whole Catholic hierarchy of Ireland should be written in the same hand.

wished to know whether it was consistent with the rules of the House that public business should be thus stopped. This delay with respect to the tariff was very inconvenient, and he was resolved to take advantage of every rule which would enable him to proceed with it.

said, that any observations made on proposing to read an Order of the Day should, properly speaking, have reference to the Order, though of late a practice had arisen of deviating from this rule.

said, it should be remembered that the question relating to the petition was one of privilege.

rose to move the following resolution:—

"That in making a new arrangement of the customs duties, it is not expedient to impose different rates of duty upon the same articles when imported from foreign countries or from British possessions, in any case where no such difference now exists; and that in those cases in which such a difference already exists, it is not expedient that it should be increased."

He perceived that in the scale of duties, there were a number of cases in which a lower rate was charged on articles which came from the British colonies than was placed on articles of a similar kind coming from foreign countries. It was a matter well worthy of consideration to ascertain whether such a mode of legislating was a wise one, and he thought that it would save the time of the House to bring the principle into discussion in the shape of a resolution before going into committee, rather than test it by moving amendments on each particular item. His objection was to that system of imposing differential duties upon colonial as compared with foreign productions which it was now for the first time proposed to carry to an extent never yet contemplated. The ground of his objection to that principle of differential duties was, that he conceived that while they left the consumer in this country still subject to the burden of the tax, the Treasury was deprived of that income which, bearing as the public did the burden of the tax, it ought to receive; and that those differential duties entirely failed to accord to the colonies those advantages which it was the object of the system to confer. In order to show what was the operation of the principle of the differential duty, as well on the consumer as on the revenue, he would refer to two articles in the tariff of the right hon. Baronet in respect of which differential duties were proposed. They were under the head of provisions. Cheese and butter now paid duty at the same rate when imported from our colonies as when imported from abroad. Butter paid 1l. per cwt., and cheese 10s. the cwt. The consequence of this state of the duties had been that none, or very small quantities of these articles had been imported from British possessions, while the revenue on what had been imported from other countries amounted to 375,000l. But under the proposed tariff the duties were to be reduced to one-fourth the duty on foreign, as regarded those articles of consumption when imported from our own colonies. The duty on colonial butter was now proposed to be 5s. the cwt. instead of 1l., and on cheese only 2s. 6d. instead of 10s. Now, as the right hon. Baronet had told them in opening the tariff that the differential duties had been regulated after a careful consideration of their effect upon the prices of the articles, he was entitled, he conceived, to assume that her Majesty's Government expected that those changes in the duties would enable the productions of our colonies to compete on equal terms with those of foreign countries. Suppose this to be admitted, and suppose also that some of our North American colonies, which suffered under disadvantages in competing with countries in our more immediate neighbourhood, were by the operation of these differential duties to be enabled to compete successfully in importing butter and cheese with Holland, the country from which we now chiefly imported those articles —— suppose also that under the operation of those increased advantages we were hereafter to import one-half from the colonies in question, instead of, as now, the whole from the foreign countries —assuming all this to occur, still it must be obvious that the position of the consumer would remain unaltered. Whether the articles of produce came from British possessions or from colonies, the consumer would be in the same position. But how would the case stand with regard to the revenue? Why, that instead of, as now, receiving 375,000l. on these articles, the revenue would only amount to half that sum on the articles imported from abroad; and if the duty on the remaining half of the produce imported, that from British colonies, was reduced to one-fourth, the amount of revenue received upon them, would be somewhat less than 47,000l., thus producing upon the whole a loss of rather more than 140,000l. upon the whole revenue, without there being any diminution of the burden upon the consumer. This, as far as the measure would be operative at all, would clearly be the effect of it. He had stated the operation as far as these two articles were concerned, and the same principle would apply to all the other cases in which differential duties were proposed to be imposed. Now, in considering the subject of the imposition of duties in general, he held it to be an admitted principle that it was for the interest of the country not to allow the consumer to be subjected to the burden of any tax that was not productive to the Treasury. He knew he might be answered that there was a great distinction to be drawn between protective duties and revenue duties, and, also, that it would be urged that if foreign countries refused to give our colonies any advantage by taking their productions at reduced duties we ought to give them those advantages. Now, with reference to the first objection, that which related to the distinction between protective and revenue duties, he must say, that he for one was very reluctant to admit the principle of that distinction, and he would add, that he did hope, especially after what the right hon. Baronet had said a few evenings since, that the time would very soon arrive when they would have none but revenue duties. Even at present it was difficult to draw the line between the two descriptions of duty, for those which were called protective duties yielded a revenue, as in the instance of the Corn-duties. Those duties on cheese and butter, were they protective duties or were they revenue duties, if they were revenue duties the argument failed, for they were partially protective, and vice versa. This argument however, was not so much relied on in support of the principle of differential duties as that other which he had adverted to, and which was the real argument—viz., that as other countries did not receive the productions of our colonies on favourable terms, that therefore we ought to receive them on such terms. His answer to this argument was a reference to that passage in the speech of the right hon. Baronet the other evening in which he expressed his opinion that if other countries did not choose to buy cheap from us that was no reason why we should punish ourselves by refusing to buy cheap from them. It seemed to him that this opinion of the right hon. Baronet cut away altogether the ground upon which these differential duties were defended. But this brought him to the question whether or not the creation of these differential duties was really beneficial to the colonies for whose benefit it was presumed they were imposed. He was prepared to maintain that it was altogether delusive to suppose that differential duties conferred any such advantages on the colonies. He was prepared to assert that instead of such duties being really beneficial to the well-understood interests of the colonies, they were, on the contrary most injurious to them. He contended that the operation of these differential duties tended to divert the capital and industry of the colonies from their natural channels. He contended that their effect was to lead to a reliance on an artificial system of commerce, liable to all the dangers that attended every artificial system of the kind, and which exposed the colonies hereafter to all the suffering that might be occasioned by a change of commercial policy in this country. All experience showed the danger there was by legislative acts of creating vested interests in commerce of this description, subject to all these natural con- tingencies. But it would be said that it was necessary to apply a stimulus to the capital and the labour of the colonies. He rather thought that no such stimulus was required. Of course he knew that the principles he was avowing were contrary to the received opinions on the subject of the relation between the colonies and the mother-country. He knew well that it would be maintained that the true principle of colonial government was that there should be a reciprocal trade between the mother-country and the colonies, in which each party should receive the produce of the other at lower rates of duty than those imposed on the produce of other countries. But, however fortified by prescription such an opinion might be, he thought it was one which few would feel bound to maintain in principle, however they might in practice. It was now very generally abandoned, and for his own part he thought that a trade of this kind was very disadvantageous to both parties; because, if we received the produce of our colonies on terms more favourable than those on which we received the produce of other countries, it was obvious that we should expect the colonies to do the same, a principle which must go to restrict the general trade of the colonies, to injure both parties, and, ultimately, to weaken rather than to strengthen the connexion of the colonies with the mother-country. The true policy was to give the colonies the freedom to buy wherever they could buy cheapest, and to sell where they could get the best price; that they should have free access to our markets, but no superior advantages. If we pursued this policy, and abstained from vexatious interference in the internal government of the colonies —if we allowed them, as far as was consistent, to manage their own affairs in their own way, so far from such a policy weakening the connexion between the mother-country and the colonies, it would contribute to render it permanent and mutually beneficial. It might be said that he did not go as far as in point of consistency he ought, and that he should propose to sweep away the existing protections, as well as to prevent the creation of new protections. But he was one of those who were of opinion that where, by a mistaken course of policy, certain interests had been created, and expectations raised in connexion with the commerce of the country, it would not be just that they should hastily and at once make great alterations which would expose those interests to hazard. He felt that they could not sweep away the existing duties without greatly disturbing and sacrificing those interests, and it was this difficulty which, above all other considerations, strengthened his unwillingness to embark in the mistaken course which was now proposed. It was because he felt himself hampered and entangled by existing differential duties that he was unwilling to create new ones of a similar description. The House, he conceived, ought to deal with existing differential duties with great caution; but they should be sure, when they did make any change, that it was in the right direction—not a change creating fresh protections and fresh difficulties, but a decided move towards the establishment of a better and a sounder system. This was all he asked by his resolution, and after the speech of the right hon. Baronet he was at a loss to conceive how he could object to it. The right hon. Baronet in that speech adopted all the great principles of commercial freedom, and took credit to himself for being the supporter of those principles, and for having cordially cooperated with Mr. Huskisson in those measures of improvement which were founded on those principles. Now, he asked the House to look at Mr. Huskisson's measures and principles as laid down in his admirable speeches, not to take from them isolated passages, but to look at their general tone and spirit, and then to say whether they believed that if Mr. Huskisson were now alive, and possessed the same absolute power of dealing with the question which was now lodged in the hands of the right hon. Baronet, he would at this time of day create new differential duties in favour of the colonies? The right hon. Baronet, quoting the rule laid down by Mr. Huskisson, said, that in applying general principles you must deal cautiously with existing interests, and not wholly disregard the feelings of those who were to be made sufferers by a change in your policy. He cordially concurred in the soundness and wisdom of that maxim of Mr. Huskisson, and he considered the resolution he now proposed to be in strict conformity with it. The simple demand he made was, that if they could not undo all the impolitic acts of their predecessors, let them at least abstain from adding to their errors. Upon a careful examination of the scale of duties now before the House, he confessed he was unable to discover the principles upon which it was framed. He found, various articles dealt with in a totally different manner without any apparent reason. In some colonial articles protection was altogether withheld and in others granted. The cotton manufactures of our colonies, for instance, were protected, and the linen manufactures not. There was no less a difference than 50 per cent, between the amount of duty chargeable on cotton manufactures coming from our colonies and on those coming from foreign countries, while in the duty on linen manufactures there was no difference. Then again, manufactures made of goat's wool were protected; those made of sheep's wool were not. Why this difference? He found, too, that in those articles in reference to which a differential duty was to be established there was the greatest possible variety as to the extent of the advantage. In a great number of cases the duty upon articles from the colonies was only one-half the amount of duty charged on similar articles coming from foreign countries. On others it was to be one-third the amount, in some one-fourth, in others again one-fifth; and in the article of tallow, and he believed of wool, the duty was to be less than one-twentieth of the amount chargeable on the foreign article. Again, he asked, why this difference? Should not the right hon. Baronet at least show that if this was a mighty maze, it was, at all events, not without a plan? As regarded our commercial relations with foreign countries, he was persuaded that at this particular time, it was of the greatest importance that the example of this country should be a good one. The unhappy system of commercial jealousy and restrictions which so extensively prevailed throughout the civilised world had, he believed, derived its principal encouragement from the example of this great country, whose prosperity had been falsely attributed to that system. We were now feeling the inconvenience of that state of things. We were now endeavouring to persuade other countries to retrace their steps, and endeavouring to convince them that their own interests, no less than ours, required that they should abandon so narrow and so selfish a policy. But again, he must refer to the right hon. Baronet opposite, and say that in endeavouring to do this, our example would have a most powerful effect. All the ability and management which it was possible to display in our diplomatic negotiations would have infinitely less weight than the example which it was now in the power of this country to set to the rest of the world. If the Government continued to pursue the faulty course of former Governments, and increased instead of diminishing restrictions already existing, then did he fear that the attempt to persuade other nations to adopt a more liberal and enlightened policy towards this country would be utterly fruitless. To every one who considered how little a thing determined the direction of the tide of public opinion in America, it must appear unfortunate that in the new protective duties they were about to establish, there should be any likely to give rise to a feeling of jealousy amongst the people of that country. They had already passed one measure which was contrary to the principles, if not to the very letter of the reciprocity system. He alluded to the Corn Importation Act, the sliding-scale of which operated unmeasure was calculated to injure the United States of America in their trade with us, it was the more particularly necessary, in any other changes they made, to avoid inflicting on them any new blow of the same kind. Now, in the very first schedule of this amended tariff, a new protective duty was to be granted to the colonies in the article of provisions, which would materially affect our trade with America. In salted provisions he believed it possible that a considerable trade might grow up between this country and America. Was it then wise or politic, in the present state of public opinion in both countries, to grant to our colonies the right of sending us salted provisions at one-fourth of the duty paid on the articles from foreign countries? Would not this have a tendency to drive a usual trade in America from its natural channel, and to give rise to a contraband trade over the border into Canada, whence the article might come to this country at the lower duty? He thanked the right hon. Baronet for the advantages which his present measures would effect; he thanked him for the mitigation of those restictions which pressed upon the commerce of the country in so many of its branches; and he only had to regret, that in doing so much that was both wise and prudent, the right hon. Baronet did not carry further into effect those principles which he had so ably laid down in his speech. For the assertion of those principles he was even more grateful to the right hon. Baronet than for the measure itself, for he was persuaded that, although they might not be able immediately to carry those principles into effect, yet that, so announced as they had been by the right hon. Baronet many years could not elapse before they would be full and completely carried out.

said, that both the character of the noble Lord and the temper of his speech fully demonstrated that he had no motive whatever in his present proposition beyond that of the public advantage; and he quite concurred with the noble Lord that the mode he had chosen of submitting that proposition to the House was the most convenient he could have devised. At the same time, he was sure he might claim the noble Lord's acknowledgment of his belief that the Government would not have been slow to adopt the measure he recommended, if, like him, they had mote the public benefit. Without any sense of false shame, or without any great unwillingness to entertain suggestions, because they happened to proceed from one who was usually a political opponent, he might point to the state of the tariff in its first and its present forms respecting the protective duties in favour of our colonies, as affording a proof that Government were not unwilling to act upon the views and principles of the noble Lord, so far as they deemed them just. He thought, however, that the noble Lord had not apprehended aright-—he could not say the political and social, but even the commercial effects of the arrangements it was proposed to make. He meant especially the effect of the alterations in the customs' duties with regard to the differential duties on foreign and colonial produce. In order to lay before the House the spirit in which those changes were made, he would, in the first place, refer to the differential duties at present found on the statute. There were now 131 differences of duty in favour of colonial productions. Of these existing differences of duty, it was proposed to effect a reduction in ninety-eight cases; in no instance, however, was that reduction to be effected by raising the duty on the article proceeding from the colonies, but in every instance, let the House remark, it was to be brought about by lowering the rate of duty on the competing article which proceeded from foreign countries. In four cases, into which he need not enter at present, but one of which was tobacco, the differential principle was to be abolished. In twenty-one other cases, the rates would remain unchanged—sugar and spirits, as the House was aware, were the principal commodities of that class which would remain subject to the existing rates of duty. Eight cases remained, in which the amount of differential duty between the articles was to be increased, and he would very briefly state why that arrangement was proposed to be made. Four of the cases, indeed, those of Brazilletto wood, ebony, wrought copper, and pitch, he might dismiss without comment, as the rate upon them is very trifling, or the change is one incidentally made for the sake of classification. The four remaining cases, however, or at least three of them—isinglass, silk goods, and tallow, were more important. Now, the principle of proceeding in these instances was, that they would reserve the consideration of the alteration of the duties levied upon so much of these articles as was imported from foreign countries in consequence of the present state of our relations with those countries; but whilst on this ground they did not interterfere with the present rate of duty upon the foreign article, the same reason offered no excuse for not reducing or adjusting the duty upon the colonial article. In the case of tallow, for instance, the state of our foreign relations presented no reason whatever why they should not carry into effect the proposed reduction of the duty on tallow or colonial import. The only remaining article, and to it he must succinctly allude, was the article of coffee. At present, there were four several rates of duty upon the importation of that article. 1s. 3d. was charged upon coffee imported from abroad, 1s. upon coffee imported from any place within the limits of the East-India Company's charter not being a British possession, 9d. upon coffee imported from any British possession within the limits of that charter not being the produce thereof, and 6d. upon coffee the produce of any British possession in America, or within the limits of the Company's charter. Now, the higher rates had in this case been greatly reduced, and in the differential duty, as measured by those, there had also been a great reduction. By effecting a more simple classification, too, there would be a still greater saving, for a class of coffee, styled, he believed, by the merchants "naturalised coffee," would be admitted free from heavy charges now entailed upon it. At present 6d. was charged upon British coffee coming directly from our possessions within the limits of the East India Company's charter, whilst upon foreign coffee coming from those possessions 9d. was levied. The new duty would be 4d. on the one, and 8d. on the other, and the advantage gained by this would be considerable, because at present the importer of the latter class of coffee had not only to compete in the British market with coffee paying a duty of 3d. less, but his coffee was subjected to the cost of a second voyage; for, in order to obtain the advantage of importing from a British possession, the naturalized coffee was shipped to the place from which imported, there unshipped, and reshipped to Great Britain. He would hereafter show, that the practical effect was to subject the circuitous importations to charges exceeding the 1l., which it was now proposed, for the advantage of the revenue, to add directly to the 3d. which constituted the former nominal difference in duty. Thus, by the proposed reduction and equalization, all coffee of foreign countries would be put upon the same footing, and it would be needless to send coffee half round the world in order to save a small amount of duty. But he would not go further into this point, as the noble Lord had promised them a separate entertainment upon the proposed alteration of the coffee duties. He would only mention that he had referred to this case with a view particularly to show that any apparent increase in the differential duty was not in fact a real increase. Now, the article of tobacco deserved some notice; and here he might refer very appropriately to the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Whatever might be said as to the application of the rule the present Government had applied to the duties on colonial productions, certainly he must say that the perceptions of hon. Gentlemen on the other side had marvellously quickened with their change of seats. [Viscount Howick; No.] The noble Viscount cried "No, No," but how stood the facts? Really, he might say without much exaggeration, that if they had fallen into a wrong course respecting these colonial duties, (and so far as there had been haste or error, he was of course ready to bear the blame,) they had been in no small degree misled by the legislation of the party last in power. Why, the principal act of the commercial legislation of that party was the creation of new protected interests by the measure they had brought forward with regard to East India sugar. Under the cover of that protective duty they admitted an interest not before included in the protection, and had in consequence raised up a party against themselves, whose exertions in and out of that House they had subsequently cause to remember. With regard to East-India rum their conduct was precisely the same, and he could adduce many other cases equally or even more decisively in point. For instance, there were the articles of rough rice, imported from the western coast of Africa, and of bees wax, imported from the same district. What had they done in 1836? Had they not created a new differential rate of duty with respect to those articles? Then, in 1838, again they had created another new differential duty in favour of hides coming from the colonies, and in the same year a differential duty in respect of woods from Honduras. This was what they had done, but what was their tone with respect to these differential duties? What was their tone with regard to the change of the duties on tobacco, of which the noble Lord had that night urged the inexpediency? In 1840 the Government had been requested to put the East Indies on the same footing with regard to its productions as the West Indies. Of course, that proposition included the article of tobacco. If he remembered right, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose was one of those who most vehemently urged the Government to adopt that course. What did the late President of the Board of Trade, whom he did not now see in his place, say on that occasion? He had taken the trouble that morning to refer to the sentiments the right hon. Gentleman had expressed, unrebuked by his Colleagues or his party on the subject of East-India tobacco, and he found that lie fully admitted the justice of the claim set up for an equalization with the West-Indian producers, and only objected to alteration on considerations connected with the revenue. He might, too, take another case—the case of East India tea. It was then proposed to adopt a differential duty in favour of tea from the East Indies—a measure, the policy of which the noble Lord opposite had referred to that night in an argument which he must say he thought sound and valid. The right hon. Gentleman had in this matter said in 1840, he was not prepared to offer an opinion upon the proposition to create this new differential duty, because he had formed no opinion upon it. It was clear, therefore, that the perceptions of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side had been sharpened, and that the country had derived great advantage from the alteration in their Parliamentary position. But, returning to the speech of the noble Viscount, he would at once say with him that he believed the soundness of our true principles of commerce would, in the course of time, make their way, and be felt and appreciated in every part of the globe; and further, he also agreed that the example of England, in following out what she believed to be the true principles of trade, would be eventually most effectual with other countries. At the same time, looking at the present state of our foreign trade in some quarters, he could not help thinking that great uneasiness would be felt in England if it were to go forth that we were neglectful of the trade with our colonial dependencies. An impression already he knew existed that injury had been done to our colonies in some particulars. Several communications had been made to him, and he had found that the greatest anxiety was felt that the interests of the colonial markets should be maintained, and a peculiar value was attached to that trade. But it was not his object to dwell at any length upon the effects of our colonial system, either political or commercial—its encouragement of that marine which fostered our navy — and further, he was prepared to admit with the noble Lord that commercially a price had been paid for these advantages, either by a loss to the revenue on the one hand, or by an increase of price to the consumer on the other, or, as occasionally happened, by the conjunction of both results. Admitting this, however, he could not say that he thought the noble Lord had done his duty to this part of his argument. He believed there was even some truth in the proposition that these differential duties had sometimes had encouraging results in cheapening prices all over the world. The article of indigo was an instance in point. Before the East Indies became the great source of supply for the world as respects that article, indigo bore a price three or four times greater — certainly not less than twice as great as at present. It might be, that the preference accorded by our laws to East-Indian indigo, had materially contributed to causing that abundance of production which led to so satisfactory a result. Although, therefore, not prepared to defend the theory of a colonial system alike in all its particulars—admitting that there were objections to it in some points—he was, nevertheless, prepared to defend the position that it was in some cases even commercially and in direct money results beneficial. What he did say, too, was that the proposition of the Government, whilst it was open to few or none of the objections of that system, combined many, he might say the whole of its advantages. To illustrate this position—to show that the plan of these new differential duties, as they were termed, might be at the same time anything but detrimental to the revenue, and decidedly advantageous to the consumer, he would begin by remarking, it was admitted that price was governed by the rate at which the unprotected producer could bring his goods into the market. The new differential duties were all applicable to articles produced in the United Kingdom, as well as abroad; and whatever might come in under them, would therefore compete with a producer at home, as well as with the foreigner. This it was most important to bear in mind. Now in the case of an article grown at home, and highly protected against foreign competition, if they introduced an intermediate or second class of duty beneficially serving our own colonists, they did not raise the price, but, on the contrary, they augmented the supply, and by bringing a new party into the field produced a tendency to lower prices. The noble Lord had quoted, and as he thought very unfortunately quoted, the case of salt provisions. Now, if they had a good case in regulating their tariff with regard to American articles, it was the case of salt provisions, for the fact was, that our marine constituted the chief purchasers of these provisions, and the tariff provided that for the use of that service such provisions might be taken out of bond without payment of any duty whatever. But to return to his illustration. Supposing the admission of an article from the colonies following upon the reduction of the rate of duty in its favour, and increasing the consumption, it naturally followed that it added to the revenue by the duty payable upon the increase of supply; but if it did not increase consumption, but only displaced what was previously consumed, it still added to the revenue if it displaced what was produced at home, and what consequently had paid no duty at all; or if it displaced an article of foreign production being introduced at a lower duty, it had at least some tendency to the other good effect of benefitting the consumer by admitting of a sale at a lower price. It was an abuse of words to call this imposition of new rates of duty a creation of differential duties; the real effect of the measure would, in point of fact, be to admit the colonies pro tanto not absolutely to commercial equality, but to an approximation to commercial equality, with the British producers of any commodity. The noble Lord had spoken of the danger of raising up additional protected interests, which would be sure to throw obstructions in the way of Government, should it hereafter be desirous of introducing improvements into the commercial policy of the country. He thought that the course taken during the present Session with respect to the duties on important articles produced in the colonies would be a more than ample guarantee to the community, that when Parliament should judge it fit and wise to introduce some measure for the commercial benefit of the country at large, it would not be deterred from giving effect to that measure by any partial or selfish views. The noble Lord had said that the propositions of Government, if adopted, would have a tendency to lay further restrictions on the trade of the colonies themselves, for that if you gave the colonies such advantages, you must give the mother country corresponding artificial advantages in the markets of the colonies. The best answer to this argument was to be found in the fact that we were at this moment greatly reducing the duties on all foreign commodities imported into the great western market of the British colonies which could enter into competition with the productions of this country. That measure would, by removing restrictions, give great extension to the trade of our colonies and give new encouragement to their enterprise. Again, the noble Lord said, that the House should be careful as to what example they set at this moment to foreign countries in matters of commercial policy. He hoped that they would not be led to put an unfavourable interpretation on the propositions of Government, if they should be adopted by the House. Sure he was, they would have no right to construe them in a sense unfavourable to themselves, nor did he think they would be inclined to do so, unless they were in-instructed so to interpret them by others, as, for example, by the interpretations of the noble Lord. What was the real fact? The Legislature of a great empire, which had colonies subject to it that were parts of the same body, was establishing a system, which would effect an approximation to entire freedom of intercourse between the different regions of the empire. Was it to be supposed that any foreign country could take upon itself to interfere, and say that this country should not give commercial freedom to her own subjects and her own children, nor even an approximation to it? If the House should sanction the scheme, they would only be doing now for the colonies what they had done scores of years ago for Ireland. Ireland was then separated from us by commercial barriers, and when those restrictions were removed, that course was adopted which the House was now asked to apply to the colonies. The Legislature then, in fact, created so many differential duties in favour of Ireland against the rest of the world. Could any man deny that that was the practical effect of the measure? Take the case of Irish cattle, for instance. [Mr. C. Wood: The duties were removed]. He did not mean to say, that the course taken, or that the case of the colonies was exactly that of Ireland in form, but the cases were certainly in substance analogous, and the measures he now asked the House to adopt, while they would be socially and politically advantageous, would tend towards commercial freedom. He would take another case—that of the German Customs Union. He had heard an hon. Gentleman not now in his place, one of the most ardent admirers and zealous prosecutors of commercial freedom — the Member for Dum- fries describes that union as an establishment of freedom of trade within a large circle of population. Did any man ever make it a matter of objection against the great power at the head of that union, that it admitted to a perfect participation in its own privileges the other states which it took into the union? The objection made to its conduct was, not that it admitted other states to perfect commercial equality with itself, but that it caused exorbitant duties to be imposed in other states of Germany on many articles which would otherwise have been admitted on moderate terms under their own former tariffs. He did not think that foreign countries generally were in the wisest temper at the present moment with respect to commercial matters, but was it credible that they would urge it as a charge against England, that she was doing partially and incompletely for her own colonies what Prussia had done, not only without any complaint from, but with the loudest approbation of the champions of free-trade to other countries that were not her own subjects, but were, in reality, foreign countries, except as members of the Germanic body? In imposing a lower duty on colonial than on foreign produce, they were taking steps to lower and not to enhance the price—to increase and not to contract the supply; at the same time, that they would secure all those advantages of increasing their own trade and fostering the growth of the colonies which had always been an object—a justifiable and important object of the colonial system. He moreover held, that the colonies had a claim upon our mere justice for some preference, inasmuch as they were placed under disadvantages which they were called upon, to bear for the general benefit of the empire. Differential duties were still imposed in favour of our goods imported into the colonial markets. That had always—he believed he was right in saying always— been the principle of our law. It was the principle of our law at present, it was the principle of the bill introduced last year by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), it was the principle of the bill introduced this Session under the auspices of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, to impose a differential duty, small as it might be, on all foreign articles whatever imported into our colonies, where they might compete with articles the produce of Great Britain. He was wrong in saying all; there were certain articles exempted on special grounds. But the rule was to tax every foreign article. The exemptions were the exceptions. It was true that the range of those differential duties was, by the new bill, to be very greatly contracted — he thought most justly and beneficially; but the principle was retained. It had at first been intended to abolish the duties generally, and restrict their application to a few specific articles, instead of retaining the duties generally with a few exceptions. But it was thought wiser, on reflection, and actually on the suggestion of the late President of the Board of Trade, to let the principle remain as it now stood. We laid restrictions on the colonies, also, with respect to the manner in which they were allowed to obtain the commodities they required. They were not permitted to receive any foreign commodity whatever, except under three conditions: first, unless with a differential duty; second, unless coming either from England, or from the country in which it was produced; third, unless coming in a British ship, or in a vessel belonging to the country in which it was produced. On the whole, he was convinced, that the proposed plan would insure increase of supply with reduction of price to the consumer, and benefit rather than detriment to the revenue. There was no reason whatever, therefore, why Parliament should be afraid of the name of a differential duty, but they ought to do that, which considering all the circumstances of the case would be most beneficial to our fellow subjects, and best for the interests of the whole empire. One point more, on the score of justice. He was not aware whether it were a rule of law; but it had, at all events, been a rule of Administration, to prohibit our colonies from levying taxes, even for purposes of revenue, on the introduction of British manufactures, beyond the most restricted rates, although we had ourselves raised heavy revenue duties from almost all colonial articles. [Mr. Labouchere: In Canada, a part of the revenue was raised from duties on British goods imported.] True; a portion of revenue was so raised, and the duties had just been raised; but to what point? To 5 per cent; and even that was a deviation from the old system, which permitted only a duty of 2½ per cent, ad valorem to be raised. That was the limit to which the colonial legislation had been formerly con- fined, but by a recent enactment passed only a few months ago, we had with a great stretch of generosity allowed it to be increased to 5 per cent. Many of the colonists were prevented from raising so much. He had stated these considerations to the House, because he trusted they would dispose hon. Gentlemen to regard with favour any duties tending so much to foster the general well-being of the country as the differential duties now recommended, while they likewise tended to foster the colonial trade. He had not thought fit to urge the importance of those political advantages which arose from colonial connexions, and which would be so much affected by commercial arrangements, for he was contented to rest the case of the Government wholly and solely on the commercial effect of the change now proposed in our tariff, by which the duties on certain colonial articles, heretofore subject to high rates, would be lowered. By those propositions they could afford to stand or fall, according as they should be proved to tend, or not to tend to increase the supply of the article and lower its price.

said, although he coincided in the expressions of opinion of the noble Lord, as to the benefit likely to arise to the country from the tariff, yet he must say, that the objections made by the noble Lord had met with no reply. This mode of proceeding was one that he thought must be preferred by the Government itself. They preferred rather discussing the tariff upon general principles, than upon the mere details, and thus having the matter decided at once. In the course of the proceedings upon this matter, the opinions of Mr. Deacon Hume had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and yet Mr. Deacon Hume had given it as his opinion, that the colonial system, which they were still about to uphold, had been of no benefit whatever to the colonies. It had, indeed, been said, that the colonies were to be regarded as an integral portion of this country, like Ireland. He thought they might be so considered, if they contributed to the charges of the country, and if the same burdens were put upon them as were put upon Ireland, which bore her fair share of the expenditure of England. If that were done with the colonies, then the argument would be a fair one, that they should be put upon the same footing; but until that was done, no claim of that sort ought to be made. Instead of bearing a portion of the burden, the contrary would be found to have occurred; for instance, a large burden was imposed upon this country for the defence of the colonies. There was Canada, for which they had incurred a large expense for her defence; and large expenses, too, had been incurred for her internal improvement. Large burdens were borne by this country for the protection of their colonies. It was, in his estimation, one thing to deal with existing protections, and another to deal with new protections. The injury of the present course was, that they were raising up new vested interests in the colonies. This had already been proved in the case of timber, the duty on which was not originally imposed as a protecting duty, and yet upon which the injury at least was 500,000l. a-year for the last ten years. The same thing had occurred with regard to the sugar duties, they were at first not protecting duties, but at length they became a great injury to the revenue, and at the same time enhanced the price to the consumer.

so much approved of the tariff, that it was with reluctance he offered opposition to any part of it. But he considered that the differential duties on tin would open the door to frauds which no sagacity could guard against, and they would have a most injurious effect upon the mining interests in this country.

had not intended to make any observations in this debate, and now he should say but a very few words, as he did not wish to interfere with the division for which he saw that the House was most anxious. He could not, however, help pointing to the objection of the hon. Baronet opposite, as contrasted with the objection raised by his noble Friend to the principle of the tariff and the differential duties. What said his noble Friend? That they favoured the colonies, and gave them an undue advantage over foreigners; and doing this, they made the prices high for the home consumer, and diminished the amount of the revenue. But then when they came to apply the principles so much spoken of on the opposite side to the tariff, they found the hon. Member approving of a portion, but objecting to it on one article, and that article a most important one—tin ore. And why did the hon. Baronet make his objection as to that article? Was it that it would not increase the revenue and keep the prices high to the consumer? No, but it was because it would lower the price to the consumer, and raise the amount of the revenue. But why make the objection? Why dislike the lowering of the duties on tin ore, when it might bring them the importation of Indian ore? Because the producers in this country had a monopoly of the home market, and the constituents of the hon. Baronet were especially interested in keeping up the prices, in excluding the article from abroad, and in keeping down the revenue. With reference to the speech of the noble Lord, though it professed to object now only to the new differential duties, as affecting the British colonies, yet the whole speech and arguments of the noble Lord went to the annihilation of the total system of trade carried on in the wide spread colonies of the British empire. The position which he had the honour to hold, would, he trusted, excuse him for detaining the House, and he meant to do so but for a very few minutes; but he must enter his protest against the doctrine laid down by the noble Lord, that they were to put their connection with British colonies on no more advantageous terms than their connection with foreigners. Against the justice or policy of such a system he must altogether protest. They imposed on the colonies restrictions—they prevented them from purchasing in the cheapest markets—they prevented them from introducing goods from other countries on an equal footing with their own— they imposed restrictions upon their navigation and trade—and then the noble Lord turned round upon them, and said they should place their colonies upon the same footing as foreign countries. He admitted that the colonies were not entitled to be placed upon the same footing as this country, for they did not bear the same taxes, and did not pay for military protection; but then, if they were subjected to restrictions, upon the one hand, they might claim extension of protection upon the other. On the ground of justice, the colonies should be admitted on more advantageous terms to the markets of this country than foreigners; but, on the ground of policy, was it nothing that they had extended to all parts of the world—subject to no hostilities, subject to no caprice, to no embarrassment—the means of carrying on a trade unchained and unfettered by foreign restrictions—a trade the most beneficial of all which they were engaged in, a trade which more than any other employed our shipping, consumed the produce of our manufactures, and gave encouragement to native and to colonial industry— and, more than all that, which kept entire that strong, that beneficial tie of nationality, that tie of mutual connection between the different parts of this great empire, which constituted its protection from war, and its strength and glory in peace? What was the extent of this trade which the noble Lord proposed to treat so lightly? He had moved for, and he now held in his hand a return relative to the nature and extent of trade carried on by the British colonies; and he would ask the House to consider the extent of that trade with which it was proposed to deal so lightly? He would ask the House to look not only to the amount of that trade in numbers, but how much of it was carried on directly with the mother country, and the proportion of our manufactures consumed in the colonies with reference to their population. In 1837 the total amount of the trade carried on by our North American possessions—of the exports to these colonies was 3,844,000l. In 1838 the amount was 3,640,000l. The total average amount for those two years was 3,700,000l. Now, of that large amount what proportion came from foreign countries? That proportion amounted only to about 700,000l. Such was the proportion of imports into British North America not derived either directly or indirectly from the mother country—the remainder of the great traffic which he had cited was exclusively in their own hands, it consisted of their own manufactures. The total value of the trade of the British colonies, of the trade with British America, with the West Indies, and with Australia, was in 1837 upwards of 10,261,000l., and in 1838 upwards of 10,580,000l., and of this amount there was not above 2,000,000l. worth not directly derived from Great Britain or her other colonies; the returns of the exports of these colonies showed that of those exports, which were increasing in amount, upwards of eight-tenths were introduced into this country. Let them compare this trade with any commerce they carried on with any other parts of the world. Let them look to the consumption of their manufactured goods in proportion to the populations which they were supplying, and let them tell him whether or not it would be an advantageous step for them to allow the colonies still to keep up their trade, still to keep up the demand for British manufactures? But what was the relative proportion of our manufactures consumed in Canada, with respect to the population of that country, and the proportion consumed in the United States, with reference to its population? Taking the amount of British manufactures imported into Canada as 2,629,000l., and the population as amounting to 1,300,000l., the consumption amounted to the value of 39s. 2d. per head. Compare this with the consumption of the United States. He did not desire to disparage the trade with the United States; on the contrary, it was a most important traffic, and he wished most sincerely that it could be still further extended; but what was the comparative consumption of our manufactures in the United States in proportion to the population of that country? Taking that population as 17,000,000, there was consumed in the United States about the value of 7,236,000l. of our manufactures, or somewhere about the rate of 8s. 5d. per head. Although it was true that our exports to the United States had fallen off from the value of 65,000,000 dollars, at which they had stood in 1839, to 33,000,000, at which they had stood in 1840, he did not wish to refer in terms of reprehension to any causes which might have produced that falling off; but from whatever cause such decline might have arisen, it proved that trade with foreign countries was liable to embarrassment from caprice, and from hostile feeling, and was exposed to many other sources of interruption while it wanted all these elements of security and of safety which could be attained in colonial traffic. Let them look to the position of this country—to the magnitude of its interests, to the extent of its commerce, to the necessity of extending its commercial interests. He besought them —not from the adoption of any shortsighted principles of policy, however plausibly they might be supported—he besought them not to sacrifice the great, the increasing, the incalculable advantage which they possessed in the colonial traffic by putting the British colonies on the footing of foreign countries regarding their commercial relations with the mother country, and by the attempt—an attempt in which they could, no doubt, to a certain extent succeed—raise the amount of revenue by raising the amount of duty. In their efforts for the support and maintenance of unity and harmony between the various portions of this great empire, let them remember that it was not restraint which was best adapted to keep it together—the sense of union was to be cherished by means of strict commercial connection carrying with it mutual advantages. It was, he said, such a sense that would keep their colonies together The noble Lord himself, in talking of the colonies, had expressed an opinion that they ought to be integral portions of the empire, bound to it by ties of mutual self-interest, nationality, and commercial advantage. Let them rely upon it that, if they lightly threw away the advantages which they possessed—if they taught the colonies to consider that they were to be looked upon as foreign countries—let them rely upon it that they were shaking the main elements of the strength of the empire abroad, and with that strength only which arose from union could that empire be maintained. But if they deprived the colonies of the sense of mutual commercial advantage, they would diminish the strength arising from union, and if they abandoned the colonies, and commerce with the colonies, they would diminish their national power and glory, and sink into the condition of a second-rate power.

said, the course proposed by his noble Friend was with a view of saving the time of the House when in committee. His noble Friend proposed, instead of applying his principle to the numerous details of the tariff, when it should come to be considered in committee, to take the opinion of the House at once, whether or not it were proper and advantageous in cases where no differential duties at present existed, to create them. His noble Friend's resolution did not touch those duties which at present existed. He asked no opinion as to them; all he asked was a decision upon the principle whether they would abandon the course which they had hitherto pursued, and impose new differential duties in cases in which they did not at present exist? And what was the answer to this question just given by the noble Lord? Why, it was a panegyric on the system which at present existed, and an innovation in the name of all that was valuable, not to adhere to that system, but to one introduced for the first time. If there was any Gentleman, who had just entered the House, unaware of the nature of the question before it, he must have felt rather surprised at finding, that while the whole of the noble Lord's arguments were directed against change, he was, in fact, asking the House for a change. The speech of the noble Lord was an excellent one against the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman near him, and against the whole of the tariff of the right hon. Gentleman. If the noble Lord had been but upon this side of the House, his speech would have been one of the most powerful speeches which could be pronounced against any change in the existing system, for every word was directed against the proposed measures of the right hon. Baronet, at the head of the Government. The noble Lord had told them, that the colonies were to be preserved by means of differential duties, that they were the ties which bound the colonies to the mother country; and what had the noble Lord proposed to do with these differential duties? In the latter part of his speech he had answered the former part, but towards its commencement, he had admitted to a very great extent the justice of the principles of his noble Friend (Lord Howick), and had even tried to show, that in the construction of the tariff he had been following out the opinions of his noble Friend—for what were to be the effects of his measures? There existed 131 differential duties. These duties were those under which the great trade the noble Lord had described had sprung up—they were the duties which, according to the noble Lord, bound the colonies to the mother country. He implored you not to touch those duties. But have they been, are they to be left untouched? He would tell them what had been done with them. Of the 131 differential duties, ninety-eight were to be reduced, four were to be abolished, and only eight were to be increased; and that only on account of particular and temporary circumstances. Of the 131 differential duties, there remained only twenty one which were to be left untouched. And they were now, forsooth, called on, in the name of the old principle, to reject the proposition of his noble Friend—a proposition not half so violent as that of Government, and which only proposed, that they would not enact new differential duties. His noble Friend did not propose rashly to deal with the duties upon which great existing interests had been founded. On the contrary, he expressly said, that when there were interests created under the concurrence of legislation, he would be the last man to deal rashly with such cases. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) had said, that they were more sensitive upon the subject than they had been, when on the other side of the House. If it was so, he was happy, that they were now more enlightened. It had been said —and he admitted that it was so—that it was difficult to deal with those great interests which had grown up under differential duties; and it had been said, that those Gentlemen whose language was very liberal out of the House, when they got seals in it, were apt to shut the door in the face of others. He admitted, that this was, to a certain extent, correct. But was there no lesson to be derived from it? Did it not show, that if they created new differential duties, they would also be creating those powerful interests which were so hard to deal with. There were two cases which had been alluded to in the conduct of the late Ministry with regard to their alteration in the duties on rough rice and bees' wax. But that alteration had been dictated by a desire to promote a fair and legitimate trade on the coast of Africa, as it was represented to Government that the establishment of such a trade would be the best means of counteracting and putting an end to the slave-trade. But these were small and trifling articles, and his noble Friend had acceded to the reduction in these instances. For his own part he had not the slightest notion on what principle the tariff was founded. He could understand the first edition; but the alterations which were subsequently made rendered it utterly impossible to comprehend on what principle the differential duties were placed. He confessed, though the right hon. Gentleman had given him a principle, he was at a loss to understand on what good grounds it rested. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that where colonial produce met with the same produce of this country, and also with foreign produce of the same nature, the reductions proposed by the Government were such as must either reduce the price to the consumer or cause no loss to the revenue. But we had a case of this very nature. We had the case of timber. On that article there was a large differential duty, and the timber of Canada, it must be recollected, not only entered into competition with that which was produced at home, but with foreign timber. The definition of the right hon. Gentleman, then, exactly applied. He should like to ask how the introduction of Canada timber at a low differential duty, tended either to reduce the price or not to injure the revenue? What regulated the price of timber in this country? It was the price of foreign timber. The price of the colonial kept just under the foreign; and by the protecting duty on the foreign the price of the colonial was calculated. If a change was made which tended to raise the price of colonial timber, the difference would not go into the revenue, but into the pockets of the Canadian timber merchant. He thought it quite clear, then, that both in the case of timber and all such articles which came in large quantities into consumption under the circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman described, the price of colonial timber was a matter of indifference, as it was foreign timber which regulated the market price. The colonists were so well aware of this, that they were not so scrupulous about the duty on timber as the Imperial Legislature, and if he was not much mistaken, the article of timber was there subjected to an export duty. He had run his eye over various articles of the tariff, since the right hon. Gentleman had laid down this principle, and he could not see how it was made to operate with respect to them. On rosewood and mahogany be admitted that his objection did not apply, for high differential duties were still to be kept up. But there was the article of cinnamon, with respect to which it was plain that it was utterly useless to keep up a differential duty. Our colonies produced more of this article than was required for our supply; that the surplus went into foreign markets, and the prices in this country must be regulated by those in the foreign markets, just as it was with our West-Indian colonies in the case of sugar; and he might add, that a considerable part of the Ceylon revenue arose from cinnamon, of which the colony had such a monopoly as to enable it to impose thereon an export duty. But now to recur once more to the general principle of the tariff. Really, if there were one, he could not understand it, especially as to the new "differential" duties—if there were any principle at all in the imposition of any import duties, it must be the necessity of protecting home producers; but now that principle was violated in the differential duties which took away from the home producers much of the protection as to colonial produce which was maintained as to the foreign. What did it matter to our producers at home, whether the imports were from colonists or foreigners? This was, of course, adopting the argument of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, as to the justice of protection to the home producers. If that principle were sound, why then it was carried out most inconsistently and most unfairly as to those home producers, professedly the objects of protection. Again, he asked, what was the principle on which the tariff was formed? Its inconsistencies were palpable—but unaccountable. No reason could be assigned for the variations as to the mode of dealing with different articles. To instance the case of fruit:— on apples, pears, and medlars, there were differential duties; but on no other fruit. Why was this? What consistency was here? What reason could be given for such a preference of these particular fruits alone as objects of peculiar favour to the colonists? and the difficulty of comprehending the thing was enhanced by the fact, that, if these three sorts of fruit were dried, why, then, the "differential" duty in favour of our colonies ceased Where was the "principle" here? Further, as regarded seeds, like rape, linseed, &c, there were no differential duties, while, as to the oils expressed from them, there were such duties. Where was the principle here? Surely, in a great commercial reform, something like great leading principles, it might be expected, would be adhered to with consistency. Again, on liquids there were no protecting duties; and with respect to other articles of a like nature the case was the same. He should be glad, then, to know upon what principle the duties on the different articles were charged—upon what principles those duties were to be based. He did not now wish to trouble the committee for any longer time, but he should be happy to avail himself of a further opportunity to discuss the propositions of the tariff more in detail, and he hoped that they were speedily to receive a definition of the whole principles upon which the tariff was founded.

I was in hopes, until I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the object of the noble Lord was to save us the trouble and delay of a discussion on details, and that we were to get rid of further discussion by the motion of the noble Lord on the general principle of the tariff as far as the differential duties between articles the production of the colonies to those produced in foreign countries were concerned; but I am afraid, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that the object of the noble Lord will not be accomplished, for the right hon. Gentleman tells us that when we enter into the details of the tariff, then we must go into the consideration of these minute articles. Now, I confess I thought, from the indignation to which the right hon. Gentleman gave vent with respect to medlars, that it was his intention to promote discussion on details on the present occasion. I thought that the noble Lord had given notice of this motion for the purpose of rescuing the right hon. Gentleman from a difficulty, for if the noble Lord had not given notice of his motion, the division must have been taken on some individual article of the tariff. That article, the first in the list, would have been colonial asses, which so greatly excited the right hon. Gentleman's indignation the other night—and he would have had no alternative but to try this great question on the subject of imposing a duty of 1s. 3d. a-head on colonial asses. I certainly thought that the noble Lord had brought forward his motion by way of a pons asinorum for the right hon. Gentleman. I think we shall do better by following the example of the noble Lord, and discussing the question of principle rather than by entering into these details, which I should have been disposed, nevertheless, to treat in a better temper than the right hon. Gentleman has exhibited with regard to the subject of medlars, but which, in my opinion, would be, with better judgment, reserved for an earlier period of the evening, if we are to enter upon them at all. The right hon. Gentleman explained to those hon. Members who did not hear the early part of the dis- cussion, the nature of the motion made by the noble Lord (Lord Howick), but I protest against the correctness of the exposition given by the right hon. Gentleman. And I beg those hon. Gentlemen who were not present and did not hear the early part of the debate, to hear my version of the noble Lord's motion. It is neither more nor less than this: —

"That in making a new arrangement of the customs' duties it is not expedient to impose different rates of duty upon the same articles when imported from foreign countries or from British possessions in any case where no such difference now exists; and that in those cases in which such a difference already exists, it is not expedient that it should be increased."

That is the question. We are required to lay down an abstract proposition that it is not desirable to raise in any case the duty on a commodity, the produce of foreign countries, above the duty on the same article produced in a colony. We are to lay down that as a principle. We are not merely to correct an error committed with respect to an individual article, but we are to lay this down as a principle of legislation, that the difference is not to be increased. But what is the principle for which the noble Lord contends? The principle is this: that you shall treat your colonies, without discrimination, as foreign countries in this respect. The noble Lord will not deny that such is the proposition for which he contends. But the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends, when in office, did not adhere to this rule. "True," replies the right hon. Gentleman, "there were slight exceptions. There was rough rice and bees'-wax from the western coast of Africa. "And what account does the right hon. Gentleman give of the motives which induced them to take this course? He says, "If you can confer a benefit on the natives of Africa, it would be by encouraging their trade. Give them the benefit of differential duties, and you will encourage their attention to domestic industry; and you cannot confer a greater benefit on a country like Africa than by encouraging the natives to devote themselves to industry." But what becomes of the argument of the noble Lord about inflicting injury on our colonies? The noble Lord says, "You only disturb the application of capital; and, under a notion of conferring a benefit, you are inflicting future injury." What humanity was it, then, to encourage the growth of rough rice on the coast of Africa? If the noble Lord's principle were correct, there was no humanity in giving peculiar encouragement and facilities to African produce. Humanity ought to have dictated the establishment of the same rate of duty on the productions of Africa and those of foreign countries. But the great principle of the noble Lord, on which the House is to decide to-night, is, whether it be just, with respect to all articles the produce of your colonies, that the same rate of duty should apply as applies to articles the produce of foreign countries. If that principle be correct there is an end of your colonial system. The noble Lord's argument strikes at the foundation of our colonial connection. Is it just to say to the colonies, "You shall import British articles on a more favourable footing than those of foreign nations." You are at the present moment passing an act through the House giving to British manufacturers advantages in the colonial markets—you restrict commercial intercourse with the colonies by preventing them from choosing their markets. Would it then, I ask, be just to say to the colonies, "You shall admit the manufactures of Great Britain on more favourable terms than the produce of foreign countries, but Great Britain shall give your produce no preference whatever?" Yet that is the principle for which the noble Lord contends. Then would the noble Lord do away with the privileges which British manufactures enjoy in the colonies? If he would, let me ask him, why would he maintain the colonies at all? The colonies are, according to the noble Lord, to have the unlimited right to buy in the cheapest market. This country ought to show no preference to colonial produce. If you think fit, for purposes of revenue, to lay a duty of 30 per cent, on any articles coming from Russia or France, in that case, according to the noble Lord's principle, you ought indiscriminately to lay the same rate on articles the produce of a colony. Be it so; but let me ask the noble Lord, why we should be at the expense of defending these colonies? The noble Lord says, "See what results followed in the United States by abolishing these distinctions since the independence of the United States was established—since the system of privilege and protection has been abolished? "Be it so; but why retain the colonies if we are to derive no ad- vantage whatever in respect to commercial intercourse—no advantages to navigation —no exclusive privileges for British shipping? Why abandon these advantages, whether real or supposed, and then garrison Canada with 15,000 men. The noble Lord's principle is to let the colonies govern themselves, and declare their separation from this country; for it is quite clear that our connection with the colonies can be of no possible advantage if we incur all the obligations of defence, but in every other respect place them on the footing of foreign countries. It appears to me that the colonies can be nothing but an onerous obligation to this country if the principle of the noble Lord be true. The noble Lord says that Mr. Huskisson's principles were adverse to the course now pursued. What! Mr. Huskisson, who proposed that Canada should be allowed to sell her corn in the British market at a fixed duty of 5s. With the noble Lord's resolution in force it would have been impossible for Mr. Huskisson to have applied, as he did, his principle to the sugar of the Mauritius, lowering the duty on it to 10s. the cwt. It would have been impossible for Mr. Huskisson, in 1826 or 1827, to have equalised the duty on the sugar of the Mauritius and that produced in the West Indies, if the House of Commons had determined to act on the principle laid down by the noble Lord. What did Mr. Huskisson say with respect to the East Indies? Mr. Huskisson complained of the conduct of the United States in refusing to our manufactures the privileges which had been given to other manufactures Mr. Huskisson intimated that there were two articles, the produce of the United States, of which we might derive an abundant supply from our own colonies. Mr. Huskisson said,

"We could, he was satisfied, soon be abundantly supplied with tobacco from the East Indies, by wise and prudent inducemens held out to induce its improved cultivation. The rice of India would soon (indeed it was already doing so) usurp the place in our list of imports which that of Carolina had held. In other articles the same change would soon be observed. With reference to cotton, that raw article so essential in our great staple trade, it was only necessary to give its culture in India the same encouragement and protection which the indigo-trade had obtained to insure its cultivation with equal success, and the growth of as good, as durable, and as fine an article. The result would soon be, that the cotton of India would rival and supplant the cotton of the western world, as the Indigo of India already excelled that of Guatemala, to which it was formerly so much inferior, and would still have continued so but for the judicious encouragement afforded to it."

Therefore, for the noble Lord to contend that Mr. Huskisson was the patron of the principle that colonial articles in all cases should be subjected to the duty to which foreign articles were exposed, is entirely inconsistent with the fact. Take the case of India. You have ruined the cotton manufactures of India by the importation of your own. You insist upon India receiving it upon most favourable terms to yourself. If India attempted to get a revenue by subjecting your cotton manufactures to a duty you would take means to prevent it. But you contend that your cotton manufactures shall be introduced into India with great advantage, as compared with the manufactures of other states; and that the produce of India shall be subject to all the duties to which the produce of foreign states is subject. Is there any justice in that arrangement? Will the noble Lord be prepared in contending for this principle to subvert altogether the colonial interests? Are you prepared, for the purpose of increasing your manufactures in the colonies, to insist upon your manufactures being introduced at lower rates than the manufactures of other countries? I put it to any rational man who is actuated by equitable principles, whether it could be justly concurrent with the maintenance of the advantages which you derive from those colonies to contend that colonial produce shall have no advantage? It would be altogether inconsistent. You have told your colonies that you will maintain your connexion with them; you have pledged yourself to the Canadas to maintain your connexion with them; and I "should deeply regret if the House of Commons should propose either one or the other of these alternatives—either to tell the Canadas that "There must be no distinction in favour of British manufactures; you are at liberty to introduce French goods and the manufactures of other countries on terms equally advantageous with those on which British articles are imported;" or to take this other and still more impolitic course, and say, "We insist upon your introducing British goods, and upon depriving you of the discretion of carrying on intercourse with other countries in the cheapest manner—namely, by the ships of other countries; but, with respect to the introduction of your goods, they must be introduced upon the same footing as French and other foreign articles." Why, sir, to use such language as this, and to adopt such a course as this now suggested, would place us in that situation with our colonies that nothing but physical force could enable us satisfactorily to maintain any longer the connection. Sir, again I must repeat that I cannot answer for the justice with which every subject is treated, with respect to those 600 or 700 articles set forth in the tariff. I think it is impossible to answer for the justice of all those discriminating duties. If the course you mean to pursue be this—namely, to put us to the proof with respect to every article here described —if you take one article with the sum of 6d. attached to it, and say, "here I put it to you to defend this article at 6d., and this other which is marked at 9d," 1 say, Sir, that by adopting such a course of proceeding towards us, we should find it utterly impossible to give any satisfaction. Hon. Members must consider the complicated relationship of this country. They must consider the immense extent of capital which is involved—they must consider the enormous extent of our colonial empire, and the extensive field of our commerce. With these considerations they must be aware of the danger that would naturally arise by any attempt at legislation which would rashly shake the foundations of the empire. You must decide on the whole of those financial and commercial measures. And you must look to the practical results which were likely to follow. We have done all that a wise and prudent Government could do for the purpose of adopting this question. We have made an effort to restore the finances of the country and relieve the spirit of industry. I appeal to your justice to decide upon these measures as a whole, rather than to sacrifice the grand object we have in view by descanting upon its minute parts, in respect to which I confess it would be most difficult to give satisfactory and conclusive proofs in favour of. If this House should assent to this, I shall still hope that, as the course we have pursued has been hitherto approved of, and as the House has already decided upon the general principles involved in the noble Lord's amendment, we shall be still allowed to carry out our objects with- out being called upon to account for every item of the tariff. The amendment of the noble Lord cannot be entertained, for we are not yet prepared to create that alarm throughout India, the Canadas, and the whole of our colonial empire, which such a proposition was so well calculated to do; for, by adopting it, you would be only proclaiming the principle that they should be treated, in respect to colonial intercourse, in the same manner, and upon no more advantageous terms, than we should treat the foreigner. This was but a unilateral course, which, in justice to our own interests, as well as those of our colonies we cannot think of pursuing. [Viscount Howick; I urged it against any great alterations being made.] Why, I would ask, is not the whole of the noble Lord's principle this—that it must be desirable to maintain the duties with respect to the produce of the colonies and that of other countries on the same footing. The noble Lord stated that you were doing an injury to the colonies by supporting their permanent interest—his principle was this, that colonial produce ought not to be introduced on a more favoured footing than that of foreign countries. The noble Lord said, the system we pursued on this subject was vicious. I am now protesting against that unqualified and exceptionless doctrine—namely, that you ought to treat Canada in respect to colonial and commercial intercourse on the same footing as other countries. If such a proposition be entertained, there is an end at once to our colonial empire, and to maintain it will only be to place a useless burden on ourselves. If you sanction this proposition, then you ought also to say let the colonies assert their own independence, and provide for their own maintenance.

assured the right hon. Baronet that the satisfaction which he presumed to exist on that side of the House with his commercial scheme, arose solely from its approximation to the principles of free-trade, the value of which they were told were now appreciated on the other side; but if they were now to collect from the speeches of Members of the Government that all the exploded doctrines connected with monopoly were yet held and adhered to, he for one, should say that there was little in the changes proposed to recommend them to the country. If he understood the objection which the right hon. Baronet offered to the noble Lord's motion, it was, that it was based on the policy of doing away with protective duties, and not that of preferring articles that came from the colonies to those imported from a foreign country, as this (said the light hon. Gentleman) would destroy all connection between the mother country and colony. Why, this was the old answer, given in support of every kind of colonial misgovernment, however injurious to this country as well as to the colony itself. It put out of question the real merits of the change proposed, and assumed that the existing system was attended with unqualified advantage, and could only be changed with detriment to the colony. Now he begged to say that it was precisely because the noble Lord did, in a certain measure, assail that system of differential duty, that he, and many around him, supported it; and it was indeed to prevent his being misunderstood in voting for it, that he then rose; for his objection to the motion was, that it was too limited, that it did not go far enough, that it did not fully and fairly recognise the principle laid down by the right hon. Baronet the other night, namely, that the real interest and true policy of the community was to get what they desired at the cheapest market, while the noble Lord's motion in fact, only referred to such duties that should be rendered differential in future, and not those that now existed. He would do away with all duties for protection, as impolitic and unjust. A differential duty was a duty to support some particular interest in a colony, very often prejudicial to the colony, as a protective duty was to support some monopoly in this country: the same arguments were required to support both, and the same party —namely, the English community—were equally aggrieved by both. If there was anything sound, or anything just in the principles now avowed by the right hon. Baronet, there is the same mischief in paying more for an article when it comes from a colony, as in paying more from monopoly, or not buying at the cheapest market on any other account; and to urge as an excuse, that unless you submit to this great disadvantage you cannot maintain the connection with the colony, is to show that this connection is an evil, not that paying more is a good. But what is the argument used by the Government to-night which seeks to rest their policy on justice to the colony? Why, that the colonies are subjected to certain restrictions for our advantage, to which foreign countries are not subjected, and that gave them a claim to be preferred in this market. But who wanted these restrictions to be maintained? Not the colonies—not the manufacturers here. It is the grievance of the colonies of long standing, that these restrictions still continue; if they were removed, they care not for competition, and they were promised by the late Government that they should be removed; indeed, he believed that they are to be favoured by this Government in having them mitigated or removed. It is absurd, also, to suppose that they benefit the manufacturer here, because he only exports to the colony what he exports to foreign countries, and he could not get more for his goods in the colony than he received in the foreign country; and if he sent the same goods to Canada and New York, he could only receive the price in the former that he did in the latter; and if foreign countries could produce them cheaper than they were made here, this country would not export them. The colonies, therefore, are really injured by those restrictions imposed upon their commerce with other countries, and the manufacturers here are not benefitted one bit more by their custom than by that of foreigners. But the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies, defends the system, on the ground that the trade is more beneficial to the colonies than to other countries in proportion to their people, and compares the United States with our American provinces. But he asked why the trade with America was so limited? Why, solely on account of our own absurd restrictions on that trade, because we would not allow a beneficial trade to be carried on between the countries; which it was notorious might be done with America as well as with many other countries. The fact was, that this system of differential duties did nothing but mischief to both this country and the colony; they did, as the noble Lord, the Member for Sunderland said, divert capital and industry into wrong channels, and subjected this country to the burden of an unnecessary tax upon the articles imported; and he believed that, so far from strengthening our connection with the colonies, it had the opposite effect—it rendered them less prosperous, made the advantage of any connection a question with both, and loosened the tie which would derive strength from exhibiting to both a mutual advantage in its continuance. As a partial application then of a sound principle, he should support the noble Lord's motion.

said, he would deal with the motion of his noble Friend as he found it, and as applicable to the tariff proposed by the Government. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, and the right hon. Baronet finding, he supposed, that the motion was reasonable in itself, had applied the whole of their arguments to some other proposition which was not before the House. The state of the question was this, that at the present moment there existed differential duties applying to colonial productions, and the Government purposed to impose new duties of the same description upon other articles. His noble Friend contended that those duties would occasion loss to the revenue, without being productive of any advantage to the consumer. His noble Friend's motion did not propose to put the trade of the colonies upon the same footing as that of foreign countries. Wheel other it would be right to allow the colonies to obtain what they wanted from any country they pleased, and to subject their produce to the same duties as that of other countries, was an abstract question, which it might be desirable to discuss at another time, but which had no relation to the motion before the House. As the right hon. Baronet had announced his intention of not explaining the grounds upon which the duties were laid upon particular articles, although he had taken the whole recess to consider the subject, he, or the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, ought, at least, to have given some general exposition of the reasons which had led to the establishment of the new differential duties. That, however, had not been done. He had heard nothing but declamation about the advantage of maintaining our connection with the colonies, all of which was totally beside the question. The other night the right hon. Baronet, after laying down some sound principles, and expatiating upon the advantages which must result from the people of this country being able to obtain commodities at a cheaper rate, concluded by assuring the House that there was little chance of the articles upon which he had lowered the duties in his tariff being procured at a less price than at present. He hoped, that when the House came to examine the tariff in detail, they would find that the changes proposed in it were not merely ideal, but that there would be something in it which would really benefit the public.