rose to present a petition, touching a matter of which he had given notice, and he should shortly state the nature of it to the House, as he intended to move, that it be printed with the votes. The petition was from Stephen St. John Cropper, late of Ann-street, Belfast, innkeeper, and stated he had been bribed by Mr. E. Tennent's and Mr. Johnson's friends, and promised a place by Mr. E. Tennent himself. The petitioner prayed, that the House would appoint a committee to examine witnesses on oath and that witnesses might be indemnified so as to enable them to state all the circumstances that came within their knowledge. He should move, that the petition be laid on the Table and printed with the votes. Motion agreed to.

rose to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, relative to a correspondence that took place between the commanding officer of the second battalion of Grenadier Guards, and the Bishop of Quebec, and Montreal, relative to the erection of a tablet in the cathedral church of Quebec to the memory of an officer of rank belonging to that regiment, who died when on service in that city. The hon. Gentleman stated, that the officer in question having died in Quebec, while in the service of his country, his brother officers were desirous of testifying their esteem for his character and conduct by placing a tablet to his memory in the cathedral church of Quebec. On applying to the Bishop of Quebec and Montreal their request for liberty to erect this tablet was refused. A lengthy correspondence ensued between the commanding officer of the regiment and the bishop, and the application was ultimately refused, on the sole ground that the deceased was not a communicant of the English church. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman opposite was officially aware of any such correspondence having taken place, and if so, whether he had any objections to its production.

was aware, that some correspondence had passed between the Bishop of Quebec and the commanding officer alluded to; but as it had not been communicated to the Horse Guards, the War-office, or any other public department, he was unable to produce it. He would take this opportunity of saying, that as he had himself served in the same regiment with the deceased, he could bear his testimony to his many and varied good qualities.

rose to move, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for election of a burgess to serve in this present Parliament in the room of J. Quincey Harris, Esq., whose election has been determined to be void. He believed no case had been made out against the borough of sufficient gravity to warrant the suspension of the writ. The only grounds on which a charge of bribery had been made against the borough was the prevalence of an old custom of the suscessful candidates presenting their supporters with a sovereign each. He thought, that after the decision the House had already come to in a case of this nature, they would be pursuing a very inconsistent course were they to suspend the writ in the present instance.

could not agree to the motion. He was personally unconnected with the borough, and his opposition to the issuing of the writ was solely founded upon what he read in the printed report of the committee appointed to inquire into the proceedings at the late election. He would appeal to the House, as they were about to bring in a bill, having for its object the putting down of bribery and corruption; and as a committee had been appointed to investigate into alleged corrupt practices in five or six boroughs, whether this case should be allowed to pass unnoticed, and whether or not the scenes which had taken place at Newcastle-under-Lyme should not be strictly investigated. The printed evidence went to prove twelve individual cases of bribery, naming the amount paid in each case, and the agent in the transaction, and on these grounds one of the sitting Members was unseated. It further appeared from the evidence, that a most objectionable practice had prevailed for many years of distributing money, under the name of "dinner money," and "market money," and various other local terms. He wished the House to be in full possession of the evidence on those points, and he thought that the writ should not be issued until it was ascertained to what extent this money had been distributed, how general was the practice, and in what way it was applied. It appeared also from other statements, that lending of money by the Members to the electors was another objectionable practice very commonly pursued. He wished that no writ should be issued in favour of any place until alleged bribery had been fully inquired into; and he now appealed to the House not to allow the writ to be issued in the present case until the expiration of fourteen days, a course which the House had decided with respect to other boroughs. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet opposite would see in this case sufficient reason to induce him not to issue a writ which would lead in this case to a repetition of those practices which a recent decision of the House had given rise to in another instance. He would propose that the writ be suspended for a period of fourteen days; and he moved that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the extent of bribery and corruption prevalent at the last election at Newcastle-under-Lyme.

seconded the motion. He would wish to call the attention of the House to what had formerly happened with respect to the borough in question. In the year 1838 a committee sat to determine the merits of a disputed election, and on the 8th of March in that year, they reported the results of their inquiries to the House. Lord Ebrington, who was chairman of that committee, informed the House, that from the evidence heard before the committee, it was clear that a most objectionable practice had prevailed in the borough for many years of distributing money after the election to the poorer voters. This statement was made in March 1838, and they found, by the report now before the House, that the same practice was pointed out in almost the same terms. They thus found that the attention of the House had been already called to these practices as most objectionable, and he was surprised that any kind of apology was attempted to be made for them, on the ground that the persons receiving the money were poor, for a selection had been carefully made. It might, at the time the first committee sat, have been said the exposure to public censure would have terminated the practices reprehended; that exposure had done nothing; and was this House to send down a writ for Newcastle-under-Lyme without first instituting a rigid inquiry as to the practices prevalent there? If they did, it would be conferring a sanction upon the existing mal-practices. Drunkenness—the most profligate drunkenness —had prevailed, not only among the electors, but pervading the entire class of the working men; and all this profligacy could be traced to the demoralizing effects of the enormous quantity of liquor given away during the election time. He had evidence, too, that much of the bribery had been carried on through the instrumentality of a preacher— of a minister of religion. He had, moreover, to tell the House of the horrible fact of a father who was conducive to the perjury of his son. The father had been instrumental in bribing the son. He attended him to the polling booth, when the bribery oath was administered to him. He took it and voted, and when the father was asked how he could allow his son to perjure himself, he attempted to excuse himself by saying, that many others had done the same thing. If he made out a case of profligate drunkenness, of gross bribery, from the report of the committee, and if he could show the most abandoned disregard of the sacred duties imposed by an oath, he would ask was that a case in which the House would venture to issue a writ, and entrust those drunkards, those bribed wretches, those perjurers, with the power of returning Members to this House? He would refer, first, to the drunkenness. Mary Waite, the landlady of a tavern, was examined, and this was part of her evidence:—

" Did you on the Monday serve any but the committeemen in your house with drink?— The committee gave orders; I do not know who had it. You told me you had no orders but what the committee gave you; what orders did the committee give?—For refreshment and liquor. What orders did the committee give? For liquor. When was that?— During the election. Was that on the Saturday or the Monday?—During the canvas. Who was it for?—For themselves and others. Where were the others to be served? —In the tap-room. Did they come and have it?—Yes. Did they pay for it? —No. In numbers?— Yes."

So that it appeared that the order was unlimited to supply all who came. The next witness examined was Waite, the husband of the preceding witness. He was questioned as to the persons who were to be supplied with liquor for nothing:—

" Have you any doubt that the order was for burgesses to have the liquor?—Yes, I should have my doubt about that, that the burgesses were alone to have it, and no one else. Did you take the order from the committee?—No. Did you see any parties engaged in drinking the liquor ordered?—Yes, I dare say I did. Did you or did you not?— I should say 1 did, backwards and forwards in the House. Were they or were they not burgesses who were drinking it? —Yes, and others that were not burgesses. Were those their wives and families? —Yes, I dare say they were amongst them. Were the parties drinking the liquor ordered by the committee either burgesses or the wives and families of burgesses? — I should say the burgesses, and those that were not burgesses amongst them. Men that were not burgesses? — Yes. In short, any body who pleased?—Yes, I dare say that was the case at election time."

Drunkenness, indeed, was so common at the election time that they heard all this as a mere matter of course. The witnesses who gave this testimony were most unwilling witnesses, but the testimony was forced from them. Eliza Davis, a waitress at the Cock Inn, kept by Mr. Waite, was asked,—

" What happened between twelve and one o'clock at night?—There was an order came down. Whom from?—I cannot say. After the order came down, what happened?—-They let any one have it as liked. Have what?— Spirits. Out of what vessels were they filled? —Out of the casks. Out of the casks into what?—Into jugs. How were they handed to the people?—In any way, so as they could get them. Were there many people there?— Yes, a great many. How did the people behave; were they in a hurry for the drink? —Yes, in a great hurry. Do you know what scrambling means; trying against one another to get it?—Trying who should get it first. How long did this last? — About half an hour. What made it end?—I suppose the order was up. Those that came after that got none?— No. Did you see whether the barrels ran dry in that time?—No; I cannot say. There are good-sized barrels round the bar-room, are there not? —Yes. What sort of jugs were those, pints or quarts? —Pints and half-pints. That was one order; when was the other? —I think the other was about seven or eight o'clock in the morning. Which morning? — The morning of the polling-day; Did the scramble begin again? —Yes. Did the people come in numbers again? —Yes. Do you know any of the people that came?—No; I cannot say that I do. Do you know any of the people that came at night?—No; I cannot say. Can you tell whether there were any burgesses or no?—I cannot. I dare say you don't know much about the people in Newcastle?—No. Did you see anybody refused that asked?— No; I think there was no one refused. As long as the order lasted?—Yes."

So long, continued the right hon. Gen- tleman, as the election continued it seemed clear, then, that a beastly quantity of liquor was served, and that a most profligate degree of drunkenness was the consequence. He would now show the effect of this system upon the young tradesmen of the place, and on this point they had the evidence of a young man named Joseph Lanernor. The following were some of the questions asked him, with his answers:—

" Does it ever occur to you to be intoxicated?—Yes, I have been intoxicated. Once or twice in your life?—Yes, above scores of times. Does a week ever pass without your becoming intoxicated?—No. Committee: Do you mean that you get drunk once a week? —I have been drunk every day: you asked me whether I ever drank; I said I have. Mr. Austen; I ask you if you have been intoxicated?—I have been. I ask you if a week ever passes without your being intoxicated?—-Yes, plenty. When?—I am not obliged to answer that. I ask you whether it has not happened to you very frequently in your life, short as it is, to he intoxicated?—I have been intoxicated. Have you been intoxicated day after day?—Yes, I have; I have been sober before I have got intoxicated again. But has it happened to you that, day after day, you have been intoxicated?—Yes, before I have gone home. Where do you get the drink?—-I pay for it. Where do you get it?—I work for it."

This drunken young creature was cross-examined. Let the House see whether his evidence did not bear out his statements as to the effects produced by these election scenes upon the young working men:—

" You say you generally get intoxicated when you get your wages; is that common with the journeyman hatters at Newcastle?— Yes, the biggest part of them. Upon a Saturday?—And any other day they can get it. When they get their wages they get drunk?— Yes, sometimes they get it before they get their wages. And you do like the rest?— Yes."

What a fearful picture was here given of the state of the town. Here were the journeymen tradesmen getting intoxicated, the habit indeed being that they did so whenever they could; when they got their wages certainly, and before that time, if they could find means to get liquor. He would ask the House, what notion of the morality of the people of England would be entertained out of the country, if the House did not take the most decided steps to put down practices of the description of which he had just been citing ex- amples, by a rigid inquiry into the state of the constituency. He now came to the bribery, which was exceedingly extensive. The evidence of Joseph Fellows proved that three voters were bribed with 31. each by Thomas Mayer, a preacher. The same man bribed others also. He did not know of what persuasion Mayer was a preacher, but he did utter the word of God, he did pretend to call up religious feelings, and was it not most awful that this agent in bribery was a man whose voice was heard upon the Sabbath-day proclaiming the great truths of religion? Might not his influence have been origiginally obtained from religion—that influence so horribly perverted—and with such facts staring them in the face, would they issue a writ to empower these men to repeat these practices? In addition to the ordinary species of corruption, there was a peculiar kind of bribery practised in this borough. The system of carrying flags prevailed to a great extent. Burgesses attended every flag-bearer, and every burgess who accompanied a standard bearer received money to the extent of 3l. 15s. in money, and 5s. in drink. In addition to all this, it was reported by the committee that regular bribery agencies were established in the town; that there were agents appointed, and a commission charged for their trouble in bribing—Mayer, the preacher, was one of those. William Fellowes was questioned as follows:—

" You got 3l. you say, from Mr. Mayer; what was that for?—For voting. Was that the same Mr. Mayer that you spoke of before? —Yes. Did you go to him to ask for money after the election?—Yes. When was that?— At night, after the election was over. Who went with you?—My wife. You said something about his having no change?-He said he had no change. And then you got a pound and a half of cheese from Mayer?—My wife did. Did you get all the 3l?—No. How much, did you get?—Two pounds, eighteen shillings; he stopped 2s. for his own trouble."

"Market money," and "dinner money," were given after every election. He now came to the third point—perjury. He would read the particulars of the case to which, with reference to this part of his charges, he had already referred. Thomas Gullimore was examined as follows:—

" You voted for Buckley and Miller; did you see your son vote?—Yes. Was the bribery oath put to him?—Yes. Did be take it?— Yes. He swore that he had received no bribe?—Yes. Were you by at the time?— There was only one man voted between him and me; I voted nearly as soon as he. You were by all the time?—Yes. He swore that he had received no bribe, and no promise of a bribe?—He did swear that. You were by him, and heard the oath put to him?—Yes. Did you try to stop him, to prevent his taking the oath?—No. You stood by your son, and heard him take that oath?—Yes, and I heard many a one beside him take the oath."

His father who was present at this scene, had just been proved to have been instrumental in giving his son that bribe, which, as he stood beside him, he heard him swear that he had not received. He would put it to the House—put it to the consciences of the Members, whether such things should be allowed to pass unnoticed. Here was a father leading his son on to receive a bribe, and then consummated the villainy by perjury; and did the father show the slightest feeling—the smallest "compunctious visitings?" Did he appear to regret that he was the suborner of his son's perjury? No, he justified it? And how? "There were many besides him took the oath." Was such a matter to be flippantly disposed of—was it nothing to inoculate the whole population with crime? Were these the sources of purity of legislation? They assembled here to deliberate upon grave state matters, and those who sent them there were vile drunkards, bribers, and perjurers. A committee had sat, and instituted an inquiry into the circumstance of the former election. Instead of amendment, deterioration had since taken place, and under these circumstances he asked the House to suspend the writ and institute a further inquiry. If they would not purify the constituency by taking away the temptation to bribery, would they not at least inquire into these practices, as reported by two committees? Would they not, he appealed to them, pause until some investigation had been made, and some method suggested for the suppression of these practices?

hoped the House would not be induced, by the ability and ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member for Cork—a practised lawyer, who had picked out portions of the evidence to suit his own case,—to suspend the issue of this writ, and thus inflict great injustice upon the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. There was not sufficient evidence for such a proceeding, and as, according to the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of her Majesty's Government, every case ought to be dealt with on its own merits, he hoped the House would not punish one borough for any offences that might have been committed by others. The hon. Member for Montrose could not even state his own case without exaggeration, for instead of twelve cases of bribery, as he had stated, there were only eight. The committee—and he believed a fairer committee had never sat—were unanimous in all their decisions except one, upon which one gentleman divided alone. The committee gave no recommendation to suspend the writ. It was true there was an objectionable practice proved to have prevailed at Newcastle—that of head money. If that was an evil, and he fully admitted it to be so, let steps be taken to get rid of i t There could be no doubt that it was an evil that electors should make a corrupt and venal use of the franchise entrusted to them; but it was a still greater evil that gentlemen of wealth and education should go down to these boroughs with large sums of money, in order to tempt the poor voters to give them suffrages, not according to their conscience, but according to the sums they received. These were evils upon which it behoved the House to express an opinion; and he trusted the noble Lord's bill would put an end to the improper practices which were prevalent: but because a few illiterate ersons—drunken persons, if you will—in a constituency of one thousand electors, had yielded to the temptation of bribery, he trusted the House would not mix up the innocent with the guilty, or be induced to enter upon a further inquiry Sufficient inquiry had already been made The points of evidence selected by the hon. Member for Cork were calculated to raise a presumption that bribery was more general than the evidence proved it to be. That hon. Member spoke with very proper disgust of the drunkenness which appeared to have been indulged in, but that had nothing to do with the election. He had exaggerated the extent of the treating, for the committee found that they should not be justified in voiding the election on the ground of treating. What had been the amount of the bills at the two public-houses where all this treating was said to have taken place? Little more than 50l. —about 531. at each—for the expenses of the candidate and his friends, with all the enormous amount of treating that was said to have taken place during a canvass that lasted for three or four weeks. He insisted there was no ground for depriving the borough of its right to send representatives to the House. If the hon. Member for Cork wished to reclaim the drunkards of Newcastle-under-Lyme, he recommended him to send down his friend Father Mathew who had been so successful in Ireland, and perhaps he might be able to mend their morals. But he hoped the House would not visit the borough with a punishment which it did not deserve. He should certainly divide in favour of the motion of his hon. friend the Member for North Staffordshire.

maintained that the practice of distributing money, as had been done at Newcastle-under-Lyme, was nothing else but bribery. It was bribery paid after the election to avoid the consequences of paying it while the election was going on. The hon. Gentleman had tried to make the House imagine that very little money had been paid; but let them see what the evidence said: Thomas Emary is asked,—

"Is Hill a voter?—'Yes. He voted for Buckley and Miller?—I believe he did."

[Interruption.'] I believe (said the hon. Member) for my own part the evidence is just as strong against the sitting Member as against the Member that has been unseated. I do not mean to say that he should on that account be unseated before he has been heard, and before his case has been inquired into. But I will now quote the evidence:

" My learned friend has been asking you a good deal about your expectations, and you have told him about a rule in the borough; your expectation is on account of that rule?— Certainly. Your only expecting is the rule?— Yes; they generally call it market money. That rule, you say, Mr. Buckley and Mr. Miller have complied with, and they have paid?— Yes, I believe they have, to all those that did not get £5 for their vote"

What did this evidence indicate, but that there was a kind of rude justice among the electors of Newcastle, and that they were at all events desirous that no man should get the 5l. twice over? The character of the borough was notorious for bribery. One witness after another had proved that money had been distributed among the electors under the various denominations of head-money, flag-money, colour-money, and market-money. [Mr. Liddell:Read the next answer.] I will do so with pleasure, for it makes my case still stronger:—

"Do you know of any persons having received the 1l. market-money from Mr. Buckley and Mr. Miller?—I do not know any one individual, to tell the truth, but it was a general remark that it was the case."

He had thus the general notoriety of the practices that prevailed in the borough; he had the most objectionable practice, as it had been described by the committee, of giving head-money; he had proofs of the disgusting practice of drunkenness, and with this evidence before them, if the House should determine on sending down this writ, it would be the same thing as sending down an order for so much drunkenness, and for the distribution among the electors of so much head-money, and so much market-money. He saw that Mr. Miller was one of the candidates on the present occasion; so they would be sending down the same candidate to the same electors, and must look for a renewal of the same practices. He differed from many Gentlemen on his own side of the House on the subject of disfranchising boroughs. He thought it an objectionable practice to suspend a writ, unless it was understood that that suspension was to be followed up by some practical measure; but here a practical measure was in view. The House which had appointed a committee of inquiry to investigate these corrupt practices, and had determined to adopt some remedial measures, and his noble Friend was that night to bring in a bill for the express purpose of preventing the repetition of such practices. Under these circumstances, it was impossible there could be a case where it would be more justifiable to suspend the writ, when it was proved that the last election for the borough was carried by bribery.

wished to state the reasons why he should vote against the suspension of this writ, and he could assure the House that he was not led to that conclusion by any approbation of the practices which appeared to have prevailed at Newcastle-under-Lyme of paying head-money. He agreed with the Gentlemen opposite that some very objectionable practices had prevailed, and he thought no one could find fault with the committee for unseating the Member who was proved to have been by his agents a party to those practices; but he should have been glad if some other Member of the committee, besides his hon. Friend had stated the views of the committee as to the effect of the evidence, because it was impossible not to see that the right hon. and learned Member for Cork had selected certain passages as if they were applicable to the constituency of the borough, when it was perfectly plain that they were applicable only to a very small portion of it. Why there was scarcely a borough or a county in which you could not in this manner make out a case for the suspension of the writ. Nobody of course complained that the decision of the committee, which left the right hon. and learned Member his seat, was not perfectly right, but if any one would take the evidence in that case, and read the evidence as to the scenes of violence and outrage which had occurred, and read that part only, and demand of the House whether that was the sort of constituency to which they were prepared to send a writ, might not as strong a case be made out for the disfranchisement of that constituency as any that existed here? That might be done in any case; but that was not the way to look at the case; and notwithstanding the charge or insinuation that every man who did not at once assent to any proposition that might be brought forward purporting to put an end to bribery and for the suspension of a writ, was not anxious to put down bribery—in spite of that charge, he felt it his duty to exercise his judgment upon every proposition that might be submitted to the House; and he knew of nothing more dangerous or objectionable than the power which the House of Commons seemed to be assuming to itself of suspending writs. On what principle did the House propose to exercise this power in the case before it? His hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard said, the practice of suspending a writ was a bad one, unless it were followed up by some remedial or penal measure. What was the authority for such a proceeding at all? Hon. Gentlemen spoke as if it was a power to be exercised for the purpose of punishing a borough or some parties in it; but he did not apprehend that the constitution gave that power to the House on any such ground. If they wished to disfranchise a borough, it must be by an act of the Legislature; but the House of Commons had no power of suspending a writ for the purpose of punishing a borough. The only constitutional reason or ground for the suspension of a writ was, that the House of Commons was on the point of taking some practical step against a borough, to be followed up by a 1838, and that of the late committee, with respect to head money. If they thought it necessary to disfranchise the borough, suspend the writ; but if not, it was not why suspend it? What was the object?the mean- The hon. Member for Montrose had stated legislative measure, and that expedient to issue the writ in time. If any Gentleman told him, that none, nor had the hon. Member for Cork The hon. Member for Liskeard said, it was necessary to suspend the writ, because the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London was about to bring in a bill for the effectual prevention of bribery, but what had that, to do with the suspending this writ? Was it meant that the writ should be suspended till the bill should become there was sufficient in the evidence to disfranchise the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, and undertook to bring in a bill for that purpose, he would understand the object of suspending the writ. In the present case, no witnesses had refused to answer the questions put to them. It was not like the case of Southampton, where the witnesses refused to disclose what they knew, on the ground of criminating themselves. There had been no compromise. The inquiry was followed up. All the witnesses answered the questions put to them. They were examined with respect to bribery and treating; and with regard to treating, which the right hon. Member for Cork put forward as the most important part of his case, it was stated by one Member of the committee, and not contradicted by any other, that the committee did not consider the treating sufficient even to unseat the Member. If not, it surely was not sufficient to disfranchise the borough. The committee had acted with the utmost impartiality throughout. Whoever looked at their resolutions must see, at least, that no party motives had influenced their report. They reported that three persons in one family, and five other persons, had received bribes, but there was no report at all against the borough. There was no recommendation that the writ should be suspended, and neither the chairman nor any other Member had made any motion to that effect, and as far as the statements in the report of the committee went, it appeared that they did not consider there was any ground for proceeding against the borough. If, then, there was no ground for disfranchising the borough, was there any for suspending the writ. He believed, that most objectionable practices prevailed, and if any bill was brought in by the noble Lord, he hoped he would be able to introduce some enactment to meet them, for one great objection to the present system was that committees doubted whether cases of that nature came under the class of bribery that only suspended the writ. The facts were not disputed. They had the report of the committee of 1838, and that of the late committee, with respect to head money. If they thought it necessary to disfranchise the borough, suspend the writ; but if not, why suspend it? What was the object? The hon. Member for Montrose had stated none, nor had the hon. Member for Cork. The hon. Member for Liskeard said, it was necessary to suspend the writ, because the noble Lord, the Member for the city of London was about to bring in a bill for the effectual prevention of bribery, but what had that to do with the suspending this writ? Was it meant that the writ should be suspended till the bill should become law. For what purpose? He could very well understand it if the noble Lord was about to bring in a bill for preventing bribery, and enabling parties in the boroughs in which bribery prevailed to be dealt with by the bill; but he could not conceive that the bill which the noble Lord was about to bring in, furnished any reason for suspending the writ. He objected to such a proceeding on constitutional grounds. He did not think the House of Commons ought lightly to adopt such a step. It would be unconstitutional to suspend a writ merely for the purpose of punishment; and if any legislative measure were proposed for the purpose of putting an end to bribery, he should be quite ready to lend any aid in his power for the purpose of making it effectual. But no such legislative measure had been proposed, nor did he find that any such was contemplated. With respect to drunkenness, surely the evidence given, before the committee by the journeyman hatter, was no ground for suspending the writ. Let the House consider who they would be punishing by a suspension of the writ. There were a thousand electors in Newcastle; and on the evidence of a drunken journeyman hatter they were asked to take this step ! Now, however objectionable treating might be, it was a very different case to giving money to private persons for their votes. It certainly was a highly objectionable practice; but it did not show, that the constituency of Newcastle was in that rotten and depraved state that this House ought to suspend the writ. And if the House, having all the evidence before them, and there being no allegation of a compromise, were not prepared for a legislative measure, he, for one, would not give his vote in favour of the suspension of the writ; for he be- lieved it was not justifiable to do so, unless further legislative measures were taken upon the subject.

as a Member of the committee, agreed with his hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-general, that there was no evidence with respect to drunkenness or treating in the borough of Newcastle sufficient to unseat the Members. But, in coming to what was the constitutional doctrine, he thought his hon. and learned Friend took too narrow a view of the question. He said, it was not constitutional to suspend a writ in any case where the House was not prepared immediately, per saltum, to disfranchise the borough. On that point he joined issue; and would say that, according to the practice which had prevailed of late years, and a salutary, wholesome, and necessary practice it was, that if they intended to be serious, and convince people out of doors that they were in earnest in their attempts to put down mal-practices at elections, they must suspend the writs in cases where committees reported against boroughs. He asked his hon. and learned Friend opposite on what ground the notification was made by the committee in their report, that objectionable practices had prevailed in this borough at the last and previous elections? Upon what ground did the committee of 1838 make a similar notification to the House? What was the use of such a notification, except to induce the attention of the House, and to call upon the House to take some steps on such a notification? If this were not so, it was mere child's play to give committees the powers with which they were invested. The point was, whether there was a sufficient indication in the opinion of the committee that it was incidentally proved before them that objectionable practices prevailed in Newcastle-under-Lyme, not only at the last, but also at previous elections. The committee reported that; and in his opinion that was sufficient ground for further investigation. It was said that it was not necessary to go into the argument whether head-money was bribery or not. He thought it was the province of the House to go into that question. It was enough, however, that the committee of 1838 proved to the same extent, and in the same spirit, and that four years had since passed away without anything having been done to remedy the practices or counteract the evil which must naturally result from these practices. But in 1842, when a committee reported the same, it was said, "Oh, it is not constitutional to suspend the writ; wait until some measure drops from the clouds, or the noble Lord brings in his bill." But if this bill did not pass into a law, still they would be considered as having done their duty as the House of Commons, because it was argued not to be constitutional to suspend the writ. Upon that narrow pivot the whole question turned. The hon. Gentleman concluded by stating that he should give his vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Montrose.

would be sorry if the vote he was about to give should infer disapprobation of the argument that this House ought to be most jealous and most particular in agreeing to any motion for the suspension of a writ. He should be sorry also to be supposed not to agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-general, that there were not grounds in the evidence before the Newcastle committee upon which to frame a bill for the disfranchisement of the borough. He did not conceive that there were; but he did think there grounds which not only warranted, but actually required further inquiry. In the first place, this was a second time that it had been reported that an objectionable practice prevailed in Newcastle of distributing money under particular appellations to the poorer voters after the election; and it was his decided opinion that when those parties voted they did so with the expectation of receiving this money at a future period. He remembered it was stated before the committee, in the case of the borough of Warwick, that it was the constant practice of a person, who was known by the name of" The Miller," to go round as soon as the period for presenting petitions had elapsed and | distribute money among the electors. That seemed to be very much the case in the borough of Newcastle, except, perhaps, that on this occasion they had to wait until the decision of the committee. The acceptance of head-money was stated in the evidence to have been very general. There appeared to be no less than six agents for the purposes of bribery, subordinate agents, for they could not be assumed to be the heads of it, and it was naturally supposed that they were employed by some other agents. It was proved in evidence by Isaac Titensaw, that in Newcastle there were six burgesses to each of the three great flags of the party, and three burgesses to each of the six or seven small flags, and that all these received, as flag-bearers, 3l. 15s. each. Now, those gentlemen did not take the trouble of carrying the flags themselves. They were merely flag-bearers for the purpose of receiving a large fee, and Titensaw gave a sovereign and a pair of boots to a man for acting as his deputy, There was also very similar evidence with respect to the band. But if it were asked, "Would you proceed to disfranchise the borough," he would distinctly say "no." The view he entertained was, that by sitting the evidence given before the committee, and by inquiry, it might be found out to what extent those objectionable practices were carried on, and what number of persons had actually been bribed. It was said that one feature of this case was that no witness had refused to answer; but then the evidence given before the committee proved more than sufficient bribery to unseat the Members. In the recent Ipswich case, he recommended a general instruction to the Attorney-general to prosecute those persons who were concerned in acts of bribery, and he did so because he could not tell how many of those against whom there was specific evidence it might be necessary to employ as witnesses in order to convict the principal offenders. And he was still of opinion that that mode of prosecution was justified both by precedent and principle. There had been repeated instances in which the Attorney-general had been directed to prosecute the author, publisher, and printer of a libel, not to punish all the three, but, if he could not get at the author, to proceed against the publisher, and soon. No longer ago than the year 1835, in the case of the borough of Ipswich, a general instruction was given to the Attorney-general to prosecute such persons as should appear to have been engaged in the practices carried on in that borough. But, as the House was now unwilling to commit this duty to the Attorney-general, they had no option but to agree to a committee, unless they meant, that in this case, there should be no punishment awarded against the borough, or against individuals. He knew he was censured, and was told, "Will you punish these poor persons, for the bribers are of the lower orders as well as the bribed;" but, in answer to that, he could only say, he knew no way of checking offences, but by punishing: offenders.

had already stated, that in similar cases to the present, he had found it exceedingly difficult to adopt any principle which was capable of a general application. He must, therefore, judge of the merits of each particular case by itself, and having weighed and mate-ally considered these, then to come to a decision from a review of its special circumstances. In attempting thus to apply himself to each particular case, he might appear inconsistent, and his opinions conflicting—but he did not think, that he was fairly liable to such an imputation. He referred to the cases of Ipswich and Southampton. In the case of Ipswich, he had stated he did not consider that either in the report of the committee, or the evidence reported by the committee, there was sufficient to warrant them in suspending the writ. He thought, that the suspending of the writ was a most important matter in itself. It was a most important precedent to establish; and he thought, that nothing but very peculiar circumstances could justify the House of Commons in suspending the constitutional rights of the constituents. He thought, that the noble Lord opposite had admitted that the suspension of the writ in the case of Ipswich was a matter difficult to determine. He did not find in the report of the committee for Ipswich, that the committee thought, that there was ground for disfranchisement; nor did they recommend an inquiry on that ground. It had been stated, that there was extensive bribery in the borough; but then the committee were not of opinion, that there were grounds for disfranchisement, or that there ought to be an inquiry with a view to the disfranchisement. The committee was the recognised tribunal, and they ought to have its distinct recommendation for further inquiry, and no Member of the committee had ever proposed it. As to the case of Southampton, if he were to decide it upon the report of the committee alone, he must have voted for the issuing of the writ. But, in that case, they had the petition of 300 electors, who supported the general allegations contained in the petition, and they stated, that there was an extensive system of bribery prevailing there. In addition to those reasons for further inquiry, there was the evidence of a witness, who was willing, if indemnified, to support the allegations of extensive bribery. He thought, then, that in the case of Southampton the allegation of the 300 petitioners was, with other circumstances, sufficient for suspending the writ. They now came to deal with the case of the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. He confessed, that judging from the report of the committee, he did not think the case of Newcastle was so strong as that of Ipswich. He, for his part, placed confidence in the proceedings of committees, and he did so, although a different opinion had been expressed. He said, that judging from their proceedings, they seemed to be well constituted tribunals. He found, in this instance, the committee reporting against specific cases of bribery, and also that which appeared to be a most objectionable practice prevailing at the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme— that which was the distribution of "market mouey." He admitted, that it was very objectionable, and ought to be abolished. He believed, that it had grown up in this way. A dinner was given after the election. There was an expensive dinner to the principal voters of the town of respectable station. The lower class of voters naturally said, "if you, gentlemen of the town, can have these pleasures, why not let us partake in them?" Then there was a dinner for that class of voters, and that ended in a commutation of the dinner for money. That practice had prevailed for a long series of years. That practice was objectionable, and if brought home to the sitting Member, would be sufficient to unseat him. If the sum were very small, and not sufficient to influence a vote, he doubted whether it might be so severely visited—but, then, long prevailing as it did, and though in some degree an abuse, yet he did not think it would be regarded as bribery by the law, or that it would not be considered as given for a corrupt purpose. He did not think it sufficient for a suspension of the writt He did not deny the evil of drunkenness which had been referred to by the right hon. and learned Member for Cork; but, then, he saw no requisition from voters calling for disfranchisement. On the whole, he meant to give his vote on the same principle as he had given it in the Ipswich case. He did not think there was sufficient ground for their suspending the writ, and therefore he should simply give his vote for the writ being issued.

had only one remark to make. He meant to vote for the suspension on the grounds on which the hon. and learned Solicitor-general had come to an opposite conclusion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that money given in the way it was distributed in this place was very objectionable, yet there was a doubt amongst many legal persons that it was bribery, and he had recommended that there should be a clause inserted in his proposed bill with respect to it. There could be no doubt as to its objectionable nature, and that it partook very much of bribery. But then if there were a doubt as to its legality, and if legislation could put an end to it, he then said, in that case, it was adviseable for them not to issue the writ for Newcastle-under-Lyme until by the Legislature they had prohibited it for the future.

considered, after the vote which the house had come to, that would be much better for them to repeal all the bribery laws. They ought to tell candidates to go down to the different constituencies, and fairly tell them that they would buy and sell them as they pleased. Let the electors sell themselves, and the candidates buy them, if it would content a majority of the House. The mode in which they voted was for the continuance of bribery and corruption. Here was an attempt to blind the people of England. They saw the Minister of the Crown lending his opposition against an inquiry into bribery, which he did not say he would wish to countenance, because he | believed he was sincerely anxious to put it I down. But then, he regretted that the time of the House should be thus taken up—that they should so speak against bribery, and yet so countenance it by their acts.

I have now to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the better discovery of Bribery in the Elections of Members of Parliament. In doing so, I must take it for granted, that the House will, in the same manner as they have done in former times, consider bribery an offence which poisons the fountains of representation and of morality. I know, that there are many who ingeniously argue, that as we cannot I do away with all corrupt motives—as we cannot establish complete intelligence, and complete purity, in the exercise of the elective franchise, so it is useless to attempt, by the penalties of any law, to prevent the practice of bribery. Now, Sir, until I hear such arguments supported by a great number of Members of this House, I shall consider that in this, as in all other cases, you are to inquire, whether by penalties and punishment you can put an end to that which the law can reach— and this, though you may not be able to do all that you may wish to do. You must deal with respect to this as you deal with other cases in criminal law. There are vices which that law does not affect to reach—there is treachery—there is ingratitude— vices tinged with the deepest guilt. They are crimes, but not criminally punishable by our laws; for we know, that with respect to them, the attempt at legislation would be worse than useless; and we must content ourselves with the punishment of offences which are within the scope of legislation. 1, therefore, consider that we may act with respect to the bribery of electors, as was once done with a crime not un frequent in this House—the actual corruption of Members of Parliament in the disposal of their votes. It is impossible, that we can say, that every vote that may be given, may not be without bias, and without some motive that taints it with corruption about it. This we may admit, but, at least, we may endeavour, and as then it was effected; that as to the direct corruption in this House, of Members of Parliament, we are, at least, free from the vice of former times. With respect to bribery, it had been said by a great authority, "If you show me the bribery, 1 will show you the law and the punishment." Though it is perfectly true as to personal bribery, that no act of bribery can be committed, for which there is not some penalty affixed by law, still there is the difficulty in the discovery of the offence, and there is the additional difficulty of your being able to show it to the satisfaction of the judge and jury, or the House of Parliament, who have to decide upon it. I heard it said, a very few days ago, and I believe with very great truth, that there was not merely a very great tendency not to regard this merely as a crime, but scarcely to consider it as an offence. The practice was compared to that of smuggling and poaching, as they are regarded by whole classes of the people. But with respect to these offences, you have much better means of discovering them, than you have with regard to bribery. As regards poaching, you have opposed to it the interests of the landed proprietors, and of their servants employed and engaged in detecting such an offence; and then, as to smuggling, you have the boards of revenue, and the officers acting under them, and you have large numbers all engaged in its prevention and detection, maintained at the public expense. With respect to bribery, as the matter at present stands, it seems to me, that it is left very much to the chance of private individuals having, in pursuance of their private rights, to bring to light acts of bribery that have been committed, or that may appear hereafter to be committed; and hence you have, as you must have, an imperfect inquiry, and bribery prevailing in many boroughs, of which no complaint is made. Of all the compromises, of which you have lately heard so much, this is the natural and inevitable result. You have a trial for the decision of a seat; a person wishes to obtain a seat, and he proves so much as will convict his adversary, and there he stops—and then to hope, that he will go on to fee counsel, and pay witnesses, in order that he may attain some public object, and go to the expense of procuring punishment upon others, as a mere national duty, is more than you can expect any individual to perform. With respect, likewise, to actions in our courts of law, where parties may have lost the elections, they may, in a moment of resentment, think, that their majority may be regained by actions in the courts of law. They may do this without proceeding further. This is, shortly, one of the objects of the bill which I shall propose. It is not so much to apply new penalties to bribery,' but it is to endeavour to bring to light, by more efficacious means than hitherto have been proposed, that bribery which has been committed, or that may hereafter take place. Nor should we at all despond; because, although it is impossible that bribery can be at once abolished by an act of Parliament, yet we have found that an act of Parliament, where it was intended to touch corruption in this House, was efficacious at a particular time, and with regard to the kind of bribery, in checking that practice. I believe the act which was passed in the last Session of Parliament, though the measure sent up from the Commons, was much shorn of its fair proportions in the other House, yet, I repeat, I believe, that simple enactment, making it unnecessary to prove agency, providing that parties should be allowed to prove bribery in the first instance, and afterwards trace that bribery home to the agents, or to the sitting Member—I believe that enactment has been found very effective. I say this, because I know, that there are not a few who, as the hon. Member for Montrose said just now, in his disappointment at the vote to which the House has this evening come, are disposed to say that there is no good to be derived from these continual enactments against bribery; who assert that it would be better at once to repeal all the laws against bribery, and leave the electors to do what they like. My opinion is quite different from this; and though I have no such Utopian notion as to believe that we can altogether put an end to bribery at elections for Members of Parliament, yet I am persuaded that great good may be effected by legislating on the subject, if all parties should agree in determining to consider with temper, fairness, and attention, the means which may be suggested for imposing a check upon these practices I will state the means which I shall beg to propose, under different heads. The first part of the bill which 1 intend to propose will have reference to the prevention of compromises, and the effectually bringing out disclosures of actual bribery before committees. I shall propose, with this view, that parties who assert bribery to have taken place within their electoral divisions, should be obliged to give — in some way so that it should only become public a few hours before the committee meet—a list of the parties who, as they allege, have received bribes; that impugned voters shall be allowed to defend their votes, and their cases be respectively considered by the election committee, and that in cases where the voters are not able satisfactorily to defend the votes they have given, such voters shall be reported to the House by the election committee, for the purpose of the parties being disfranchised by that report. I propose, in the same part of my bill, to recommend that there shall be an indemnity from the usual penalties in certain cases. What I shall propose is, that where a full disclosure is made of acts of bribery, the committee, in the mode agreed to with respect to past acts of bribery, shall have the power of reporting that certain witnesses have made full disclosures of those acts of bribery, and that in consequence they should be fully indemnified from any penalties in which they might be convicted in a court of law. I will not now state the arguments on which I justify this provision, but will go on to describe the various arrangements which I propose to introduce. I shall propose, in the same part of the bill, that the members, the candidates, and their agents, may be examined before the election committee. The next part of the bill is intended to prevent charges of bribery being compromised or withdrawn on an election petition. In the first part of the bill, I have secured, as far as possible, that the names shall be given of the parties alleged to have been bribed. In this part of the bill I propose that the committees, in certain cases, if they are satisfied that any compromise has been made, and that the proceedings have come to a premature close, or that a petition has been withdrawn in consequence of such compromise, may report to the House that such is their belief; and that then the House shall give such committee authority to proceed. It is clear, however, as 1 have already stated, that if this fresh proceeding, if this continued prosecution of the petition were to be left to the parties, it would be imposing an undue hardship on them; and that we have no right to call upon parties, who, pursuing their private rights, find they must expend some thousands of pounds for a doubtful result. I say we cannot call upon them to prosecute a petition under such circumstances, and I therefore propose that a solicitor or agent shall be appointed by the Speaker, or rather, perhaps, by the general committee named by the Speaker, which solicitor shall prosecute the matter of the complaint; and I propose, that if it shall then be found that bribery has been committed-by the sitting member or members, the election committee shall have the power of declaring the election void, in the same manner as if the opposing petitioners had carried on the petition, the inquiry being carried on in the same manner as at present. With respect to the costs of these petitions, ultimately, I shall propose that, in certain cases, where it shall be proved that the sitting member or his agents have been guilty of bribery, on those parties shall the costs be levied; and that in other cases they shall be levied on the petitioners. There will be various clauses in respect to this part of the measure. I come now to a class of cases which do not come regularly before election committees, which do not, in fact, come before any committee appointed in consequence of a petition claiming a seat; I allude to petitions generally alleging extensive bribery to have taken place in certain boroughs. It may be that before a case comes to a hearing, or immediately after an election, there has been extensive bribery, but there may be no person inclined to risk the consequences of prosecuting an opposing petition; or it may be that in some old borough a compromise is made, of which, either one of the sitting members is at one sacrificed, or it is agreed that at the next election some particular candidate shall be allowed to take his seat without opposition. It is well known that such cases as these do occur. I shall propose, then, that where a petition is presented, distinctly alleging extensive bribery to have taken place in a particular place, such petition may be tried, by order of the House, in the same way as an election petition; that the inquiry shall be prosecuted by a solicitor or agent appointed by the Speaker or the general committee; and I shall propose that the committee shall have the power to declare the seat to be void or otherwise in this case, in the same way as in the case of an inquiry coming before a committee in the ordinary way. All these provisions are intended to effect this object, that candidates shall not in future expect that by means of a large distribution of money, by means of giving either by themselves or their agents, some four or five thousand pounds, to persons who choose to receive bribes, in whatever form, they can secure a seat in this House. With respect to those portions of the bribery which proceed from a candidate seeking the honour of a seat in this House you would impose a great check on them if you could by any effectual measures, which would act generally, and in many cases prove to them that they would not obtain the honour which they seek, that they would lose that seat in Parliament which was the object of their hopes and expectations, and be likewise losers of a very considerable sum of money, which they had parted with in that vain expectation. With respect to the persons who are bribed, their object is different; what they seek is an immediate reward in the shape of a sum of money; and the check to be placed on them is that which I have mentioned, disfranchisement; but I do not think that part so effectual as some means, if we could devise them, by which candidates should be taught that bribery in future would be unavailing, or at least, that if they were guilty of it, there was a very great probability that they would lose their seats. The next point we have to deal with is that of an entire borough. We had in the course of the past year, and, unhappily, in the course of the present Session more particularly, several cases of complaints of extensive bribery in particular boroughs. Now there are two ways in which a remedy may be applied to such evils; there are two ways in which this House may attempt to check the nuisance; one way is by disfranchisement and I own that this seems to me to be a complete remedy when the borough is a very small one, and only enjoys the right of sending Members to Parliament originally by prescription, and now, in conformity with that prescription, under the Reform Bill. Such boroughs are only qualified by prescription, and not by their population or importance, to exercise the franchise. If we find their franchise to be exercised corruptly, inundating the country with bribery, if they possess no real importance, we may then, as in the case of Grampound before the Reform Bill, justly proceed to entire disfranchisement. There are other cases, in which particular places, such as Liverpool, Birmingham, and soon, seem naturally entitled to return representatives to Parliament, and in such cases, were we now about to redistribute the representation, we should assuredly continue to allow these places to elect Members. Now, in these places there are sometimes complaints of bribery; and some years ago, in reference to Liverpool, the hon. Member for Wiltshire introduced a bill, which he had very considerable difficulty, both in point of time and labour, in carrying through the House, for disfranchising a certain class of the electors of Liverpool—the freemen. I will not say now, whether the freemen of Liverpool ought to have been disfranchised by act of Parliament; but I think that was a remedy in the right direction; if there is corruption in a large place, in a large town, which all must agree is of sufficient importance to give it a right to representatives, the endeavour should be to form the constituent body in such a manner as seems best calculated to prevent bribery for the future. There is another mode which Parliament may take, that of suspending their power of returning Members to Parliament for one or two Parliaments, or for a limited number of years; but I do not think this mode so much in the spirit of the constitution as that I have just mentioned, and which has been in many instances sanctioned by the House; but then comes the difficulty, which 1 have seen as much as any man; that is to say, the difficulty of having one of these remedies carried into law. You find that an inquiry before a first election committee fails; you go through some other inquiry, either at the Bar of the House or before another committee; meantime, the public, the important political business of the Session, obliges you to postpone this inquiry from time to time, and ultimately the bill does not go to the House of Lords till the second or third Session. By the time it arrives in the House of Lords, the House of Lords being disposed to look strictly at these matters, a great portion of the evidence and many of the witnesses who established the case in the first instance may not be forthcoming, or the evidence adduced may not be such as was given on the former occasion, the wish on the part of the borough in question, being naturally to avoid disfranchisement; and it may well be found that after a year or two have elapsed, when the matter coming before the House of Lords, the evidence is not, in their opinion, sufficiently strong to support disfranchisement; not sufficient, at all events, to induce noble Lords in the profession of the law, and here I do not speak of one party or the other in the House of Lords, but of the law Lords generally. In 1834, I attempted a remedy for this evil, by proposing a select committee which should inquire into such cases. That bill was altered in the House of Lords, after considerable deliberation, I believe by a select committee, and a new shape was given to the measure. I stated, at the end of that Session, that though this was not such a bill as I should have proposed, yet I did not object to the general principle of the bill as it had been altered. The principle of the bill so altered was, that instead of a separate inquiry into these cases by the two Houses of Parliament, there should be a united investigation; that the case, being first examined in a mode analogous to the grand jury, by a committee of the House of Commons, and that it should then come before a tribunal composed of both Lords and Commons. The proposal of the Lords was, that there should be a judge to preside; and that there should be seven Members of the House of Lords, and five of the Commons, proposed by this House separately. Now, I think, that there is a very great objection to the having a judge to preside over these inquiries. I think, in the first place, that it is a matter so much concerning Parliament itself, so much concerning the functions of Parliament, and our rights as a legislative body, that it should be decided by Parliament itself, not acting under the direction of a judge. I think, likewise, that the number suggested by the Lords, assimilated to that of a jury, is too large. I should, therefore, propose, in adopting generally the principle of that bill, that there should be either five Peers and four Commoners, or four Peers and five Members of the House of Commons, constituting a commission of nine Members; and that this commission, instead of a judge, should be presided over by one of the Peers, who should be named by the Crown for that purpose. I shall propose that all the Members be named by the Crown, thinking it better that her Majesty, by her responsible advisers, should choose the persons for this sort of inquiry, than that either House should, by a majority, or any other mode, select Members for this purpose. However, this is a point for future consideration. I should propose to give to this commission the power of seeking the assistance of a judge, as their Lordships have the power of doing now in the case of impeachment. Cases of impeachment, such as happened in former times, are not likely now to arise, and do not occur in the present state of our constitution, as in the case of Strafford and of Bolingbroke; such matters as those are not likely again to engage the attention of their Lordships, but cases of corrupt boroughs are such as may occupy their attention; and I think in such cases their Lordships may very well be called upon to exercise their functions jointly with the House of Commons, I should hardly, perhaps, have proposed such a scheme in this House as an original plan, but finding that the House of Lords themselves have proposed it, I think it as good a mode of carrying on these inquiries as Parliament can devise. Then, what is to be the effect of these inquiries, and how far are they to go? I should propose that the result of them should be merely this, that the House should have a report laid before it, and should then legislate according to the circumstances, and according to the popula- tion and importance in other respects of the city or borough with which we should have to deal. Different cases would require different legislation. I do not think that we could well give such a tribunal any more power than to inquire into the circumstances, and ascertain what the facts are on which Parliament would then have to legislate. It will be necessary, when the House of Commons first addresses the Crown to appoint such a commission, that we should, by such Address, or by order of the House, obtain the services of the Attorney-general for that purpose. I do not know that I am here suggesting a very agreeable addition to the duties of that hon, and learned Gentleman, but still I think that the Attorney-general, and not an inferior law officer of the Crown, would be the proper person to be the adviser to such a tribunal. There are two other clauses in the bill, one of which is a clause to abolish the bribery oath. It appears to me that the administering the bribery oath to persons suspected or accused of bribery at an election, does not serve the purpose of preventing bribery, while it too often super adds perjury to bribery. It has been the declared opinion of Parliament, of late years, that oaths should not be needlessly kept up; and I certainly cannot but think that the bribery oath is, in most cases, liable to a sound objection. The other proposition I shall make, is in conformity with a suggestion made in the course of the debate this evening by the Solicitor-general, to the effect that the payment of any gift or valuable consideration to any voter, under whatever name, shall be deemed to be bribery. Such a provision as this is no doubt necessary. In the bill which I shall propose, there are some clauses not in conformity with the usual proceedings before courts of law. I allude especially to those clauses which give indemnity to persons who give evidence before any of these tribunals with respect to acts of bribery. It may be said that this is an indemnity given beforehand —a prospective indemnity, and, therefore, calculated to encourage persons to commit the crime on the certainty of impunity; and that, further, it is giving to these committees that power to pardon which now belongs to the Crown. I admit, the latter part of this objection; but as these are inquiries which are to be made by Parliament by a joint tribunal of this and of the other House of Parliament, the power of pardoning or indemnifying, if given at all, must, as it seems to me, be given to these committees, appointed in the manner I have stated. As to the power itself, it, as I think, must be admitted, only giving a power which the Crown now has in various cases, and which is continually exercised. In great crimes, even such as murder, the advisers of the Crown are in the practice of offering her Majesty's gracious pardon to those who may have been accessory to the offence, provided they were not the actual persons who committed it; but this cannot be said to operate as an inducement for persons to commit offences. There may be another objection—that the asking persons questions tending to criminate themselves, is not in conformity with the usual proceedings of courts of law. I hold, however, with reference to all these matters, that if we wish, if we endeavour to succeed in inquiries into bribery, we shall be obliged to adopt measures going beyond the ordinary rules of courts of law. In this respect, I consider that the House of Parliament should exercise that ancient right and privilege, which have been acknowledged by the greatest judges and the ablest statesmen of this country. In the report which Mr. Burke drew up by desire of the committee, in respect to the impeachment of Warren Hastings, he pointed out with great ability those arguments which tended to show that with respect to impeachments by the House, there was in Parliament an inherent power which is not to be hounded by the usual proceedings in courts of law. I will first read to the House two quotations, the one from Coke, as given in the report of the committee appointed to inspect the Lords' journals, and another from Mr. Justice Foster, a modern authority, and I will then read to you the words of Mr. Burke. Sir lid-ward Coke says:—

" It is by the Lex et Consuetudo Parliamenti' that all mighty matters in any Parliament moved, concerning the Peers of the Realm, or Commons in Parliament assembled, ought to be determined, adjudged, and discussed by the course of the Parliament, and not by the writ law, nor yet by the common laws of this realm, used in more inferior courts."

Mr. Justice Foster's opinion runs thus:—

" It is well known that in parliamentary proceedings of this kind it is, and ever was, sufficient that matters appear with proper light and certainty to a common understanding, without that minute exactness which is required in criminal proceedings in Westminster Hall."

And Mr. Burke says—

"Your committee were fully assured, and were resolved strenuously to contend, that no doctrine or rule of law, much less the practice of any court, ought to have weight or authority in Parliament, further than as such doctrine, rule, or practice is agreeable to the proceedings in Parliament, or hath received the sanction of approved precedent there; or is founded on the immutable principles of substantial justice, without which your committee readily agrees no practice in any Court high or low, is proper or fit to be maintained."

If any of the provisions which I shall propose should be found at variance with justice, I shall be ready to abandon them; but I do not think it will be sufficient to any such provision that it is not in conformity with the usual practice of the courts of law. That practice may be most safe and admirable in cases to which it applies, but I conceive that we are bound more by the great rules of justice, and the great precedents of Parliamentary proceedings, than by any such limited and confined practice. I will conclude with saying that though, as I have already observed, I think that our legislation in this matter will not be fruitless, and that by the earnest endeavour of all parties we may effect great good, yet it does not depend on parties, much less on the leaders of parties, to effect a permanent and effectual cure for this great evil. Setting aside the leaders of parties, and those other Gentlemen who are conspicuous in this House, there are various persons of whatever party, who feel no difficulty and no scruple in spending large sums of money in elections, which, it must be obvious, are employed in bribery. There is, beyond these, a great body of electors, to whom the bribes are offered. We must hope that a better tone, that better feelings, that a more strict regard to the principles of morality on this subject will spring up and make its way, if we hope that our legislative measures should take effect. It is not by legislation merely that we can hope to succeed, but it is our part, at all events, to show that, as far as we are concerned, we will adopt any measures which can be shown to be useful, and not inconsistent with the principles of justice. I am far from despairing that, with the increase of knowledge—with the increase of religious instruction—with the increase of general improvement which we may hope to take place in the morals of the country—we may make some progress in remedying and removing this great evil. The noble Lord concluded with moving for leave to bring in a bill for the better discovery of bribery in the election of Members of Parliament.

said: Sir, I shall give my cordial support to the motion of the noble Lord for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the practice of bribery, and to facilitate the exposure of that offence after it has been committed. It appears to me that there are three defects in the present law with respect to the examination of witnesses. The first is the case in which an election committee is appointed at the instance of an individual for the purpose of determining an individual right. In that case the individual having no other object than to maintain his own personal right, when the enforcement of that right becomes desperate, or the. expense of maintaining it is likely to be so considerable that his private fortune would be injured, he has every motive for withdrawing from the contest. That consideration leads to compromises, several alleged instances of which we have heard of in the course of the present Session. Now I do think there ought to be a remedy for this, and that a committee having been appointed for the adjudication of an individual right, that committee ought to have the power, and ought to be compelled as a duty, to report to the House that the inquiry had been broken off" on account of circumstances which the committee might set forth, and that it considered the public interest required that the inquiry should be conducted at the public charge. I apprehend that the noble Lord's measure will have for its object the providing an effective remedy for this defect. There may be cases, too, in which electors, though aware of bribery and corruption having taken place, fear to call for a Parliamentary inquiry into the matter, in consequence of the expense; and in such cases no committee would be appointed, whatever the state of the case, and there would be consequently, a great impediment in the way of justice. I am prepared to support a measure which should facilitate inquiries into such cases as these. I do not wish to transfer the onus of trying questions of individual right from individuals to the public, where such inquiries would otherwise be made in the same way as at present; but where, from some such circumstances as those which I have pointed out, the inquiry which the public ' interest demands would not otherwise be made, it would be highly desirable that the public should institute the inquiry, and that electors should have due protection in such inquiries. In cases where such an examination should be instituted, and should be found that the sitting Members were unduly returned, I should suggest that where the opposing candidates, by the determination of the committee, were shown to have had the majority of bonâ fide votes, that the seats should not be, as was proposed, declared void; but that the opposing candidates, so placed in a majority, should, as in the rule already observed, be declared the sitting Members. I think it of great importance that Members in affording facilities for candidates, who have not succeeded to petition, should take care not to transfer the onus of prosecuting an individual right from the individual to the public. When the public interest is involved in the question—when, for instance, the question arises, whether a borough should be disfranchised, or some public example should be made on account of bribery — in a case like this, it is quite right that the public should take charge of conducting the inquiry, and bear the expense of it; but, then, you must be careful, that by being too ready to transfer the expense to the public, you do not altogether do away with the inducement to the individual to prosecute his own rights. I do not say the public have no concern in the question as to who shall have the seat. What I say is, that if, without due precaution, you promote petitions to be prosecuted at the public expense, the effect will be that unsuccessful candidates may incite electors in their interest to present petitions in cases when such petitions would otherwise never be heard of. The opportunities or temptations thus presented for attempting to get a seat in the House through the means of election petitions would be a serious evil, and I hope the noble Lord provides for it.

was understood to say, that when the petition was prosecuted at the public expense, and the sitting Member unseated, the election should be declared void.

In that case there certainly would not be so much temptation. But then, if it appeared clearly by the result of this inquiry that a majority of the electors was in favour of the unsuccessful candidate, would you, in that case, make a new election necessary? Suppose it be proved to your satisfaction that a certain individual ought to have been elected, would it be just to make the election void, and have recourse to a new election? I do not understand exactly how the noble Lord means to deal with such a case. With the principle of his motion I cordially concur—and I trust he will see that it is in no unfriendly spirit I throw out this remark. It is of the greatest importance that you should not lightly promote petitions at the public expense, relieving candidates from the charge attending the prosecution of their individual right. There is one other consideration with respect to this branch of the subject. You ought not to subject Members honestly and fairly returned to annoyance and vexation, on account of the facility given to the prosecution of petitions. You ought not to subject a Member, who has firmly refused to participate in bribery, and who has obtained his seat through perfectly honest means—you ought not, indeed it would be manifestly unjust, to subject this man to the annoyance and expense of defending his seat. At present you subject the party prosecuting the petition to enter into recognizances. But if you provide that, on a petition against the return of a Member merely signed by a certain number of electors, it shall be proceeded with at the public expense; that no doubt will be very efficient in causing petitions to be presented when corruption has taken place; but take care that you do not subject Members honestly returned to vexations to which an honest man will not submit. Now, you take a certain number of voters—you say six—as the number by whom the petition must be signed. Take the case of a Member who has said he would not owe his election to bribery, and whose friends have done all in their power to prevent it. Yet we all know what a stimulus to the getting up petitions the heats and animosities of elections are. [Lord J. Russell would require recognizances from the petitioning party.] I wish it to be understood that I speak for honest men, who are honestly returned; and if you wish Members to be fairly returned to this House, you should not subject honest men to a prosecution which would operate as so great a discouragement against coming forward as candidates as to deprive the House of the services of many who are most useful as Members. I do hope, therefore, that, in facilitating petitions, you will not subject honest men to these discouragements. The other defect which I wish to allude to, is the difficulty, so far as the boroughs are concerned, of obtaining results satisfactory to Parliament and the public. We appoint a committee of inquiry; the committee reports the existence of systematic bribery; the inquiry goes to the Lords, and is not proceeded with during that Session. In the mean time, the feelings which led to the presentation of the petition have died away. The electors meet: they say, why should we proceed with this? Shall we not be charged by posterity with causing the disfranchisement of the borough? and is it not much better to withdraw the evidence from the House of Lords? Again, examined before the committee of this House may be dead, or gone over sea, when the case is proceeded with by the Lords, so that that House may have a different evidence from this. I apprehend therefore, that if the law be left as it is, the Lords will not in such a case be unwilling to concur in positive disfranchisement, except upon evidence heard at their own Bar. I understand the noble Lord means to provide a joint tribunal, consisting of Members of both Houses, before which these inquiries should be entered on;men of a certain number of Members. The noble Lord's proposition I am par-Lords and Commons, in a clear case, would be satisfied, the House of Lords, whose legislative power I understand the noble Lord to leave in full force, would consent to the. step of disfranchisement, I believe that supposing the House to consent to the measure, it would be better to leave to the Crown the nomination of the tribunal than to give it to Parliament, as it appears more likely that the Crown, acting under the advice of responsible advisers, would make an appropriate selection; especially when it is considered that there may be differences in Parliament from election reasons, and a committee constituted under such influences could hardly produce a good result. Though the course is somewhat novel, there is, I think, something analogous in East-Indian jurisdiction, and on the whole, 1 think it would be better to leave to the Crown the appointment of a certain number of Members. The noble Lord's proposition I am per- fectly satisfied with, and I believe it to be a great improvement on the bill of 1834 which was sent down from the Lords. It is much less cumbrous, and we have seen, Sir, by recent experience, the good effect of leaving nominations in certain cases to rest with the Chair, under the guarantee of the character of the individual who occupies it. instead of referring them to majorities of the House. For these reasons, Sir, I approve of the Noble Lord's bill more than that of the House of Lords. With respect, to the observations of an hon. Gentleman opposite, (the Member for Montrose) as to the see-saw decisions of committees, though, by adopting a definite rule, you might avoid these see-saw decisions, I doubt much whether this is a principle by which questions of this kind ought to be decided. To the retrospective provisions of the noble Lord's bill I shall Newcastle, for instance, I hope that it will be carried into effect, and that a clause will be contained in the bill, by which, though the Noble Lord's bill may not receive the Royal assent these two months, any person taking money at the approaching elections, whether it be taken in the shape of "market-money" or in any other way, shall be liable to punishment. The law with respect to bribery and treating is certainly in an unsatisfactory state. 1 hardly know what the law relating to treating is now. It will be a difficult point to define am! dining together. But here again, I fear, it roust be admitted that though such dinners do not operate as bribery on the electors, they may do so on the publican. Therefore it will be difficult in boroughs of a limited size and particular description to discriminate between hospitality and corrupt practices. There is another point to which attention should be called,— I mean the payments made for the conveyance of electors to the poll. It is very doubtful, at this moment, what, is the law in respect to that point. Some committees of this House will say that it is legal to give reasonable refreshments to the electors, and I believe it has been decided that it is perfectly allowable on the part of a candidate to pay the expenses of the conveyance of electors to the polling places. [Dissent.] At least I am under the impression that election committees of this House have determined that a candidate might legally pay for reasonable refreshment for his voters, and for their conveyance to the place of polling. ["Mr. C. Wynn: No."] My right hon. Friend may be right. But I never yet passed through a town in which there was a contested election, that I did not see a number of carriages always provided at the expense of the candidates for the conveyance of their voters. And if it be the case that electors will not take a sufficient interest in the exercise of the valuable privilege they possess, to induce them to come to the poll, unless they have the means provided them of doing so, I am very much afraid that any sudden and violent interference with the existing practice in that respect, will very materially diminish the number of voters. To say, therefore, that on no account shall the expenses of conveyance or reasonable refreshment be paid on the part of the candidates, would be, in my opinion, to make the number of electors voting at each election considerably less—thus practically diminishing the amount of the elective franchise. On the other hand, I am sensible that if it were made legal to pay such charges, the permission might be made a cloak to cover a far worse degree of corruption than now prevails, and which carried to excess, would be neither more nor less than the grossest bribery. Now, Sir, I think that the noble Lord is perfectly right, in proposing that every species of direct payment, as between the voter and the candidate, should be held as bribery; whether that, payment, be made under the name of "market money," of "head money, "or of treating in general; be the amount 7s. 6d., to one class of electors, 10s. to another or 1l. to another. I am perfectly ready to support that proposition. But after this shall have been done I am afraid that we will leave the law on other points connected with the question, on treating for instance, and on various other classes of expenses, the same as we found it. In every borough there are certain individuals who take a lead in all political matters, and who altogether influence the electors in their respective places. Now, I believe that if these influential persons of both parties in boroughs set their faces against bribery, and came to an understanding to discourage all unnecessary expenses, they would do a great deal more towards the suppression of the evils complained of than all the acts of the legislature. These practices have prevailed so long that I do not expect a great deal could be done towards their suppression at once; and I consider that the extinction of them must be the effect of time and better habits. I do not wish to underrate the advantage of law in this respect. I believe that the noble Lord has struck at the root of bribery in his bill; but, though the committees of this House have shown hitherto an almost total absence of party feeling and a fixed determination to put down bribery, I think at the same time that the exposure of the practices made necessary some preliminary proof. I do not, therefore, underrate the law, but I think that good example and improved habits will more effectually lead to the diminution of bribery—its extinction I scarcely look for —than any legislative enactment whatever, and I do hope that the leading men of the country will set their faces so effectually against it, that after the next general election, come when it may, there shall be little or no cause to complain on the score of bribery.

regretted the law did not take the question out of the hands of committees—and define what it was constituted bribery. This it should do by express words. And it should also define what treating meant. He did not. agree in the view of the right hon. Baronet respecting the value of the interference of leading men at elections, since he considered them very generally the most active in promoting the corruption of the constituency. The takers of bribes were not the only persons who ought to suffer a penalty—the givers were equally culpable and deserving of punishment. Ought not the Southampton people, who had collected money for this purpose, to be rendered subject to the penalty for bribery, which was sought to be visited upon the poor man, who had been but too easily tempted to take the money for his vote. What he wanted to get at was the briber in these cases, but it was vain to hope for successfully combating bribery, unless they agreed to enlarge the constituency. [Cheers.] Aye, he was even for going further, and giving the people the protection of the ballot, to assist the effects of the enlargement of the constituency. If a person even lent a voter a sum of money at a less rate of interest than legal interest, in order to secure his vote, it ought to be reported to be bribery in both the giver's and receiver's cases.

would not attempt to debate the proposition of the noble Lord, though he would throw out a suggestion which he thought might materially check the practice of corruption by means of the person who might be declared duly elected. He should recommend that that person upon appearing at the Table of the House to depose to his having neither bribed his constituents, nor being a party to the bribery, should also put in a statement, and verify it, of the amount of the expenses he had incurred at such election.

said, that the recommendation of the hon. and learned Gentleman would not go for much in dealing with the question; inasmuch as no account of the expenses of a candidate could indicate the real amount of money expended. It would be impossible to carry on an election in a great town, such as Liverpool, without the expenses of printing, music, and other such necessary excitement. His first election did not cost him a shilling. His other elections did not cost him more than 200l. or 300l. The question as regarded the conveyance of voters was beset with difficulties. It was scarcely possible to expect that poor electors would come a distance of twenty miles in some cases, to vote at their own expence, besides leaving their daily business. He was, therefore, of opinion, that the House would do better to legalise a certain amount of expenses in respect of maintenance and conveyance than to attempt to abolish them alto- gether. He was of opinion that 5s. tickets to pay for the use of the horse and the dinner of the voter, would be more likely to prevent illegal practices than the most stringent legislation on the subject. There was also much difficulty in regard to boroughs, because it would be almost impossible to prevent the franchise from being affected by extraneous influence. With respect to the particular proposition before the House, he (Lord Sandon) was of opinion that the subject should be treated more as a moral than as a political crime. He should, therefore, prefer that in place of the tribunal suggested, a power should be given to the House, on a primâ facie case of bribery being established against a borough to address the Crown to send down a commission of inquiry to the spot, and that the report of that commission should be taken as the basis of any proceedings on the part of the Legislature. If upon the report bribery was found to prevail to that extent in the borough, that there were not 300 electors untainted by it, he should then suggest, as that was the number fixed by the Reform Act as entitling a place to retain the franchise, that the privilege of returning to Parliament should be taken away from it; and if the number, on the contrary, was above 300, then he should suggest that the delinquent electors be disfranchised, and left in the middle of their neighbours as a mark for observation. That would have a better effect, in his opinion, by promoting a good moral feeling, than all the laws that could be passed on the subject.

rose, to bring forward his motion for equalising the duties on foreign and colonial timber. The hon. and learned Member contended that the effect of the discriminating duty was to compel this country to pay a higher price for the inferior timber of North America than the superior timber of the north of Europe might be obtained for, were no such differential duty in existence. The loss sustained by this country on the article timber by the operation of the present law was not less than 2,000,000l. a-year, and this without any advantage to the revenue of this country, or to the Canadas, which it was designed to protect. By the adoption of a uniform duty of 20s., the revenue would be benefitted to a large amount. It was generally supposed, that the Canadas derived a great advantage from this trade in timber, and that it enabled the colonists to clear their estates, and so aided in the cultivation and improvement of the colony; but it was not so, for the timber exported from Canada to this country came not from the inhabited parts of the colony, but from the interior and distant wilds, and the trade in it was carried on by a class of persons, few in numbers, and who formed a race almost as distinct from the rest of the population as did the gipsies from the people of England; or perhaps, more like the navigators here. The timber hewn by these persons was floated down the rivers to the places of export, and it frequently happened that the greater part of it would be lost; in fact, it was mere lottery whether it arrived or not. The only parties who were at all benefitted by this trade were the merchants and importers. Much stress had been laid upon the importance of the carrying- trade of timber between the Canadas and this country, as fostering the navy of Great Britain; and it had been said, that as many as 40,000 seamen were engaged in the trade. That calculation, however, had been made upon the whole number of ships employed in the trade, supposing that they made but one voyage in the year; but those ships frequently made three voyages in the year. The average number of voyages was at least two in the year; the number of seamen, therefore, would be under 20,000 instead of 40,000. In the event of the cessation of the Canadian timber trade two-thirds of the vessels now engaged in that traffic would go into the Baltic trade, and he had no doubt that the alterations now in progress in the tariff would find employment for the remaining two-thirds; so that the loss to the shipping interest was utterly unworthy of consideration. The surest way to promote the naval efficiency of this country %was to make it a thriving mercantile community. It must also be borne in mind that the capital employed in the Canadian timber trade was all floating capital, with the exception, perhaps, of that invested in saw mills, which alone came under the denomination of fixed capital. Under these circumstances he begged leave to move,

"That the duties on colonial and foreign timber be rendered equal, and that the duty on both be 20s. per load."

said: Passing over the minor points, if there be any minor points, in the very clever speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, I proceed at once to the national points of the question, and which is nothing less than to attack the very principle of the colonial system, and reply in terms of manufactures consumed, shipping employed, emigration encouraged, commercial and maritime power, and all the other fruits of the colonial system, l shall apply myself first to the British North American trade, and then request the attention of the House to a few brief statements on the value and importance the increase and the certainty, of the colonial trade, compared with the foreign trade, and which contrast cannot but be useful when we see attempts made to depress, if not ruin, the former. In 1821 the British North American provinces, with a limited population, took of British manufactures and productions 1,141,000l.; in 1831, 2,089,000l.; in. 1840, 2,847,0001; and in 1341, about 3,000,000l. The population of British North America is about 1,300,000; they consume, consequently, per head, about 46s. The shipping employed in the British North American trade amounts to 2,461 ships, 841,348 tons, manned by 32,950 men; of this, about 600,000 tons are employed in the timber trade. The outward tonnage, in ballast chiefly, makes freight so cheap as to afford great facilities for emigration; but emigration depends upon the demand for labour in the provinces. That demand depends greatly upon the timber trade, and upon the impulse to agriculture and other industry, which the timber trade occasions. The well-being of the emigrants themselves requires that they be absorbed into the mass of employed labour; and, if any distress prevail, such as must attend that ruin to the timber trade which the equa- lization of the timber duties would occasion, there would not be immigration into the colonies from hence, but emigration from the colonies to the United States. The hon. and learned Member has stated that the timber trade is prejudicial to agriculture—that it is a curse to the country. In reply to this, I would first beg the attention of the House to the following extract of a letter from Mr. Buchanan, agent for emigrants in Canada, dated the 31st December, 1841, and which hon. Members will find in the printed papers lately laid before this House:—

" Unless there is great demand for labour, by extensive public works, or by ready markets for lumber, there is great distress."

He then states the favourable and prosperous condition of those who settle in the Ottawa country, than which no portion of the province offers greater facilities or encouragement to the industrious emigrant:—

" This being the great lumbering depot of the country, the farmer is certain to find a ready sale and a good market at his door for all his surplus produce. To the poor but industrious labourer it presents a sure and certain field for employment at all seasons—a most important consideration, of which thousands of settlers throughout that section of the country are proofs."

I shall next read a few extracts from a memorial of the lumberers and agriculturists residing in the central section of Canada:—

" That your memorialists viewing this as practical men, beg leave humbly to represent the results which would inevitably follow such a measure, viz.:—

" The present prosperous state of agriculture would receive an immediate check; for the only purchases of farm produce in these distant parts are the lumberers.

" Emigration, which is now so much required, would receive an immediate check; for the lumberers, as it is well known, both on the rivers St. Lawrence and Ottawa, have been the pioneers of the agriculturists, and the ships which carry home the timber form, as it were, a bridge for the surplus and destitute population of England migrating to her colonies, and forming an arm of strength in her transatlantic dominions."

The addresses and petitions lately made and presented from all parts of British North America state that the wood trade, the staple of the country, encourages settlement and cultivation, by affording to the agriculturist a ready and convenient market for the produce of his labour. I shall now only read an extract of a letter from a well-known and experienced person, Mr. Charles Shirreff, whose evidence upon the subject is quite conclusive:—

" Upon the strength of this trade being protected and continued as a market for produce, settlements have extended 250 miles up the Ottawa on its banks, and for a considerable distance into the districts.

" But extensive and important as that section of the country is, it is still in its infancy, and not yet within reach of any general market, so that if deprived of this prop, it must sink, and its prospects of future prosperity must vanish, for without the immediate market produced by the timber trade, it would be no longer a field so inviting for emigrants."

The hon. Member opposite proposes to equalize the duty on foreign and colonial timber—that is, to release the British consumer of the colonial production, from buying from him, and, in short, allowing the British consumer to buy cheap, wherever he can find the article cheapest, without regard to the country of origin, growth, or production. The hon. Member applies this, by the present and his late motion, to timber and sugar. Other hon. Members apply this maxim of free-trade to other articles; and the free traders in general assert it with respect to all. Now, if, as a concession to price, the British consumer of colonial productions be released from the necessity of dealing with the colonial producer, then the colonists must be released from the reciprocal obligation of buying British manufactures and productions; but this is the essential principle of the colonial system. Adam Smith, who has been badly read upon this subject, states that:

" In compensation for the restrictions laid by the British Parliament on the colonial trade it gives, in return, preference and protection to colonial production in the home market, by imposing higher duties upon analogous productions from foreign countries."

We cannot withdraw any part of that protection, without depriving the colonies of the compensation which is, in fact, the essential principle of the colonial system, and subvert and destroy the colonial empire. Adam Smith says, that the colonial trade opens fresh markets for manufactured productions. Abounding in the rude produce of land, and having few hands to spare for the necessary, and none for the ornamental manufactures, the colonies find it cheaper to purchase, than to make them. Encouraging the manu- factures of Great Britain by these demands, the colonial trade encourages indirectly the agriculture of Great Britain likewise, since the manufacturers to whom that trade gives employment, constitute new markets for the productions of the land; and those are the most advantageous of all markets in which the home demand for corn, and cattle, bread, and butchers' meat, are thus greatly extended by means of the colonial trade. The East Indies took, of British manufactures and productions, in 1821, 4,151,000l. In 1831, it fell to 3,377,000l. This was the result of throwing open the China trade, which, in 1836, was 1,326,000l., and in 1840, only 525,000l.; but our exports to India rose, in 1840, to 6,023.000l. The British shipping now employed in the East India trade, is 288 ships, 137,883 tons, 7,583 men. And why this increase in our exports? Why, because we take more of their productions. In 1834, we took 50,522 bales of their cottons; in 1841, we took 150,000; in 1836, in consequence of the equalization of the duties, we took 171,758 cwt. of their sugar; in 1841, 1,223,079 cwt. Rice and paddy, too, have greatly increased. In 1821, the West Indies took 4,320,000l. of British manufactures and productions. In 1831, it fell off to 2,581,000l.—this was the consequence of the emancipation. I speak of that measure with all respect, but we certainly have indulged our humanity at the cost of the West India interests, and, for this reason, we are bound to protect those interests, until we carry out to success the great experiment of not only emancipating the negro, but also of civilizing him, and making free negro labour productive. The shipping employed in the West India trade is 697 ships, 181,731 tons, 9,880 men. Australia took of British goods, in 1821, 126,114l.; in 1831, 2,581,949l.; and in 1840, 3,574,970l. The total value of British manufactures and productions exported to all the colonies, in 1831, was 9,773,412l.; in 1840,itrose to 17,499,824l. employing 6,742 ships, 1,443,000 tons, 72,000 men. Now, proceeding to the foreign trade. The United States took of British manufactures and productions, in 1831, 9,053,583l.; in 1836,12,425,605l.; in 1840, our exports fell off to 5,283,020l. The population of the United States is 17,000,000, they consumed, in 1836, 14s. 6d. per head of British goods, and in 1840, about 6s. per head. Taking the United States official tables, it appears, that their imports from the United Kingdom and exports to the United Kingdom were in—

Imports from the United Kingdom Dollars.		Exports to the United Kingdom Dollars.
1837	44,886,000	54,583,000
1838	44,867,000	52,179,000
1839	65,964,000	47,069,000
1840	33,737,000	59,317,000

Of which 54,000,000 was domestic produce. The shipping employed in the trade between the United Kingdom and the United States, in 1840, was, of British ships, 360, 180,000 tons, 7,329 men; whilst of United States ships, there were 839 ships, 409,000 tons, 14,791 men ! Contrast this with the British North American trade, 2,461 British ships, three-fourths of which the hon. and learned Member's motion would throw out of employment. Thus, there is a great decrease of commercial intercourse, so far as this depends upon them with the United States. Let us see whether this diminution in our exports to that country is likely further to diminish or otherwise. I ventured to state to the House, some time ago, my conviction that whatever we might have done, or may yet do, the United States would not relax, far less abolish, their protective system. I showed by extracts from the speeches of all the Presidents, from Washington to Van Buren, that the protective system would be steadily adhered to. I beg now to call the attention of the House to the recommendation of the present President upon this subject:—

" The diminution in the revenue, arising from the great diminution of duties, under what is called the Compromise Act, necessarily involves the Treasury in embarrassments, which have been for some years palliated by the temporary expedient of issuing Treasury notes—an expedient which, affording no permanent relief, has imposed upon Congress, from time to time, the necessity of replacing the old by a new issue.

" The contemplated revision of the tariff duties may, and doubtless will lead, in the end, to a relief of the Treasury from these constantly recurring embarrassments."

In compliance with this recommendation, certain resolutions were moved by Mr. Clay, of which I shall only mention the 3rd and 4th:—

"3rd, Resolved, therefore, that the rates of du- ties on foreign imports ought to be augmented beyond the rate of 20 per cent, so as to produce a net revenue of 26,000,000 dollars, 22,000,000 dollars, for the ordinary expenses of Government, 2,000.000 dollars for the payment of the existing debt, and 2,000,000 dollars as a reserved fund for contingencies.

" 4th, Resolved, that in the adjustment of a tariff, to raise an amount of 60,000,000 dollars of revenue, the principles of the Compromise Act generally should be adhered to, and that especially a maximum rate of ad valorem duties should be established, from which there ought to be as little departure as possible."

These having been adopted, a tariff bill has been reported, increasing enormously the duties upon all importations, and which will certainly act very restrictively, if not prohibitively, on those of the United King dom. I wish the House would permit me to read an extract from Mr. Clay's speech in moving these resolutions, it will show how little we have to rely on the assertions that have been made, and expectations entertained here, as to the Americans abandoning their protective system:—

"I contend, with entire confidence, that it is perfectly consistent with the provisions of the Compromise Act to impose duties to any amount whatever, 30, 40, or more per cent on imports, subject only to the condition of an economical administration of the Government. We have tried free-trade—we have listened to its advocates—that it would remedy the sad picture of fields abandoned, houses dilapidated, overseers turning masters, and masters overseers, general stagnations, and approaching ruins. Those gentlemen cried out to us, abolish your tariff of duties on importations, reduce your revenue to the standard of an economical Government, and all those evils will disappear; you will have augmented prices for your staples, contentment and happiness will be restored to a distressed people. Well, we did reduce the tariff. After nine years of protection, we have had nine years of descending tariff and free-trade. I am not going into abstractions and metaphysics, but two leading facts have been established—namely, that a high tariff did not put down the prices of staple commodities, and a low tariff and free-trade have not been able to save them from depression.

" These are facts that casuists and the advocates of a one-sided paralytical free-trade cannot controvert, say what they like in favour of free-trade, by which we turn our sound side to the world, and our blighted and paralytic side towards our own people."

Now, this is just what free-trade would do here. It would blight our home market, destroy our colonial markets, and play into the hands of rivals who abjure the theory, and abandon its practice. The following is an extract of the reply of Mr. Clay to an address presented to him, conveying the strongest expression of their thanks for his advocacy of the American system and for having proposed the resolutions:—

" Those nations which make the nearest approach to free-trade are in the least prosperous state. During the last nine years, about half of our importations have been duty free; and the other half, a descending scale has been progressive. If there were any truth in free-trade, our country ought at this time to be in the enjoyment of vast prosperity ! But directly the reverse is our melancholy condition. Never were the productions of agriculture selling at more discouraging prices; and have been so highly benefitted by a reduction of duties, is now selling at ruinous prices. We shall not rise from our present embarrassed position until we produce, within our own country, more of the supplies necessary to consumption, and depend less on foreign countries, by a tariff properly adjusted to stimulate production at home, and to diminish importations from abroad."

Now, with respect to France. In 1839, France took from the United Kingdom, of raw materials necessary for her arts and manufactures, 2,168,513l.; of articles in a manufactured state 1,565,757; of British manufactures for consumption, only 570,357; whilst we, in that year, took from France raw produce of the value of 2,173,147l., and of her manufactures we took 2,002,847l., and we actually remitted in specie 3,055,838l. sterling! Then the trade in linen yarns and linen manufactures, of which we exported, in 1840, to the amount of 13,137,3671bs. weight, of the value of 629,533l, sterling, or more than one-fourth of our exports to France. Let me appeal to a late measure of the French government, increasing vastly the duties on this, to show what prospects there are of our trade with France becoming more valuable. Examining the commercial intercourse between France and the United States, it appears that France inclines most to increase her commercial intercourse with that country. The trade with the United States is more valuable to France than ours is, upon the footing which she, not we, have placed it, and that of France is very valuable to the United States—and both unquestionably are actuated by commercial rivalry and maritime ambition with destroy our colonial markets, and play into respect to this country. We see on the one hand an enormous increase of their tariff, which will most seriously affect this country, and on the other part a late increase of the prohibitory system, which will most seriously affect us likewise. Then, in the midst of these evidences, we ought to note the very portentous vote of the Chamber of Deputies forcing upon the Government, and the Government adopting it, a vote for keeping ready in the roads eight sail of the line more than the Government demanded. Now, the value of British manufactures and productions exported to all the world, in 1831, was 37,164,372l.; in 1840 it was 51,406,430l.; of which there was exported to the colonies, in 1831,9,773,412l.; and in 1840, 17,499,824l.; the increase in the colonial trade being 7,726,412l. The total of British shipping employed in trade with all the world was, in 1841, 17,883 ships, 3,197,501 tons, 172,100 men, of which more than one-third was employed in the colonial trade. Now, it appears from these statements that the economic maxim of free-trade—that for every increase in our reception of the production of other countries there is a coextensive and contemporaneous demand for British manufactures — is true with respect to the colonial trade in this respect, and likewise in the employment of British shipping; but it is not true with respect to France and the United States, and other countries, and then the colonial trade is increasing in a much higher ratio than the foreign trade. Now, what our manufacturers want and what all our interests require is not increased production, but increased consumption. This we can command in the colonies—it is steadily increasing; and, if we will but cultivate the boundless spaces which we possess there, and the abundant elements of every kind which we require, there we shall find our best certainty, profit, and power; but if we neglect those sources, withdraw protection from their productions, disregard and depress the colonial trade, frame all our measures and regulations with a view to seek to extend foreign trade at the sacrifice of the colonial trade, and in the vain hope of stopping other nations in the prosecution of the protective system, we shall exchange substance for shadow. The hon. Members opposite congratulate themselves that we, on this side of the House, have gone over to the adoption of the theory of free-trade. I, for one, have made no such surrender. I maintain firmly the protective principle applied to all national interests severally, giving to each a just and reasonable degree of protection, which may produce the greatest possible advantage to all interests. The protective principle is affirmed in this tariff, and we are now discussing its details. The hon. Members opposite receive it with great satisfaction. They, therefore, rather come over to a modification of the protective principle, than that we surrender to the doctrines of free-trade. My conviction is that the colonial system is in danger, from the progress which that specious, but fraudulent, philosophy is making here, whilst other nations abjure it. I speak with great respect, personally, of its very able and learned disciples opposite. Not intentionally, nor advisedly, but effectually, nevertheless, is that theory used to subvert, in fact, the colonial empire. Perhaps the House would permit me to advert to the opinion of a few eminent statesmen of the vastness, the power, the supremacy, the invincibility of this great empire. A celebrated French statesman and savan (M. Charles Duping who came to this country to examine practically into the means and system by means of which this empire was raised, and how far, by such means, the commerce and manufactures, and navigation and maritime power of France might be restored (and she has made vast progress towards this), writes —

"Thus, from a common centre, by the vigour of her institutions, and the advanced state of her civil and military arts, an island, by itself a spot in the Archipelago of Ocean, and which may scarcely be reckoned a state of the third order, causes the force of its industry, and the weight of its power, to be felt in the remotest extremities of the four quarters of the globe; rules, peoples, and civilizes about one-fifth of the universe, with races who receive her laws, speak her tongue, adopt her manners and customs, deal exclusively with her subjects on her own terms, and prosper by her enlightenment and arts. It is because the external provinces of her empire are separated from her by immense distances, that she is not vulnerable through any or either. It is because they are distant from each other, that they cannot be reduced under the yoke of a single adversary. To attack them is difficult—to blockade them impossible. The supply of so many home markets ensures encouragement to the metropolitan, and conveys the productions of her industry to possessions on the shores of every sea; enables her to employ, in peace, in voyages which she reserves to herself, a vast number of vessels; and to train prodigious numbers of seamen, which, in war, enable her naval force to fly, at the first signal of alarm, to carry succour, and reinforcement to any menaced point, by which they become impregnable by force, and irreducible by famine."

Hear what Mr. Cambrelang, an eminent statesman of the United States, says:—

" Through all the past changes of her regulations of trade, Great Britain has never permitted any conflicting interest to interfere with the steady growth of her commercial marine; she has been consistent in omitting no occasion to check the progress of her rivals for naval power. Change her ministers as she may, this has been her permanent policy."

Listen to Huskisson:—

" It is the first and paramount law of every state to provide for its own safety and defence; we will never listen to a theory which, by withdrawing protection from the colonial trade, would render insecure those possessions on which essentially depends the power of Great Britain to retain that high station in the rank of nations which she owes to her commercial and colonial ascendancy; and, least of all, shall we listen to the representations of states which evince boundless jealousy of our navigation in peace, and of our maritime ascendancy in case of war; and who tell us distinctly that they are steadily looking to the ulterior object of one day disputing with us the dominion of the seas."

Thus spoke Huskisson, the advocate of reciprocity, but the wise and steady protector of the colonial system, But that empire is in danger from the progress which, I repeat, this specious but fraudulent philosophy is making, and, if carried out, it must blight our own prospects. If it could be shown that it were true, and that other nations would reciprocate with us on its principles, why let us play the whole game. Let us go all the length of the theory. Let us convert our hardy tars into effeminate spinners—our fabricators of "Britain's best bulwarks" into the builders of spinning jennies ! Let us convert large masses of our robust agriculturists into increased numbers of manufacturers— throw land out of cultivation! Let us discard our colonies—resolve them into foreign states—and, on the principles of free-trade, being divested of those "burdens," make ourselves dependent on foreign powers for the materials of our industry, the means of subsistence, and the elements of our power! But I, for one, will be no party to this; I will attack such folly wherever I find it; and if this House should ever become the instrument of such a visionary and dangerous course, we shall ruin, here from within, an empire that has withstood a world in arms, and may be maintained in its supremacy by observing the principles that made it great. But if we do otherwise, if we abandon those principles, Samson-like shall we pull down on our own heads a mighty ruin, and tumulate to ourselves a terrible monument of our folly.

" Living, shall we forfeit fair renown, And doubly dying shall go down To the vile dust, from whence we sprung, Unwept, unhonoured and unsung."

did not feel quite certain that he should be perfectly in order were he no w to make the proposition of which he had given notice. It was in these words,

" That the duty on colonial timber be reduced to 5s. per load, and the duty on foreign timber to 35s., and that the measurement of deals for the purpose of charging duty be taken in conformity with the recommendation of the committee of 1835-"

In justice to the spirit which appeared to actuate her Majesty's Government, he was bound to say that many Members on that side of the House hailed the tariff as bringing with it much good at present, and likely to produce more hereafter, and he therefore wished to thank the Government for it, though he took upon himself to say that some portion of the merit of that measure was due to those in that House upon whose suggestions it had, in some degree, been founded. Without stopping to discuss the question as to who was really entitled to the copyright of the tariff, he felt bound at least to thank the Government for the present edition. Bearing his testimony, then, to the general merits of the measure, he still should say that the timber duties formed its weakest portion. In the tariff there were sins of commission as well as those of omission, but the timber duties formed its cardinal and crying fault. Influenced by that conviction, he gave notice of the motion which he was now about to submit, and he felt strongly persuaded that the duties which he proposed were those which, under the circumstances, the House ought to adopt. He begged to say, that he was one of those who now and at all times maintained the great value of our colonies to the mother country.

rose to order. He wished to know which of the two propositions they were discussing,—the motion of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire or that of the hon, and learned Member for Bath? [It was after some conversation settled I that the question should be put on Mr. Roebuck's amendment, but that Mr. Stewart should state his views.]

when interrupted} had been about to say that he considered the colonies inestimable. We had our ! colonies extending over half the globe, and in those colonies we could command a market, even though all other markets failed us. In addition to the authorities quoted by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down, in respect to the value of colonies, he might repeat the often repeated saying of Napoleon Bonaparte, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself, who seemed to feel the force of the opinions of the great men who had preceded him upon that subject. The right hon. Baronet in introducing the measure had declared, that although he expected to derive an additional revenue of 600,000l. a year from this measure, nevertheless, it would be productive of most substantial benefits to the manufactures and commerce of the country, and that without detriment to the colonies. He believed, however, that the differential duties upon timber which the committee were now debating had been fixed upon in error by the right hon. Baronet, through a miscalculation which had been made in taking an average by throwing woods of various kinds, which ought not to have been included, into one heterogeneous combination, which led to a false average being taken, namely, 41s. as the average duty upon foreign timber, instead of 46s. 11d. It was admitted by all that the present duties on timber required alteration. With regard to Baltic firs, and the deals of Norway and Sweden, the prohibition was too absolute, and the trade was hampered by it. But in taking off the screw from the Baltic department, they did not draw it away from, but fixed it on, the colonial department, and therefore they crippled the colonial trade. The last committee which sat upon this subject was that of which the late Lord Sydenham was an important member, and that committee resolved upon the evidence before it that there should not be a greater reduction in the differential duties than 7s. 6d. or 8s.; and Lord Sydenham, in letters which he sent home from Canada, advised that if Government made any alterations in the timber duties they should act upon the recommendations of that committee; and what he complained of was, that those recommendations were not regarded. The advantages to be derived by the consumer from the present duties would be felt, it had been argued, in the respective articles of houses, ships, and fishing-boats. Now, he had taken the trouble to get a calculation of the benefit to be derived from the proposed reduction in regard to the building of houses; and he proved that in the building of a house which cost 150l., and which consumed seven loads of colonial timber, the saving would be only 3l. 10s. In a house costing 250l. there would be a saving of 5l. In a house costing 500l., a saving of 11l. In a house costing 1,000l., half the timber consumed being foreign and half colonial, a saving of 40l. might be effected. In a house costing 2,000l., in which eighty-eight loads of timber, two-thirds foreign and one-third colonial, were used, there would be a saving of 93l. What he meant to propose was, that the duty on colonial timber should be 5s., and on foreign 35s., so that, taking the present proportion of the trade as three-fifths colonial and two-fifths foreign, he thought that his proposition would come to about the same result as that of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. It had been argued by some that the Government ought to derive no revenue from wood; but Mr. Deacon Hume said, that he knew no article better calculated to yield revenue than wood. He observed, that it was an article more extensively used throughout the country than any other, and moreover it was one wholly out of the range of the smuggler. Mr. Deacon Hume maintained that it was possible to raise 1,000,000l. from wood without affecting in the slightest degree the consumer. He objected to the loss of revenue which would be produced, whilst at the same time there would arise no compensating benefit. The hon. Member concluded by moving that the duty be 35s.

read the motion formally from the Chair.

said, that it should be borne in mind that the committee was now advanced considerably in the consideration of the tariff. It would be well to remind the House with respect to the question which had been raised as to a better measurement of timber, that it was one the| discussion of which must be suspended, as it was not legitimately embraced within the motion then under the consideration of the committee. He would come to the proposition actually made to the committee. There was first the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and there was also an important motion by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Sir H. Douglas) which, however, the forms of the House would not allow him to bring before the House at that time. He would first direct their attention to the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The hon. and learned Member had entered at some length into a general discussion of the expediency of creating a colonial interest in timber by means of differential duties. The hon. and learned Member has computed the loss which the people of this country sustained by the article of Canadian timber. The hon. and learned Member referred particularly to the lumber trade, and he asserted that there was a loss of 25s. a load on that article. The hon. and learned Member argued, that the lumber trade was of no benefit to any but the merchants, whilst it operated injuriously to Canadian interests. The hon. and learned Member maintained, that the government was creating a trade which could only be fostered by law, whilst it would be in direct opposition to the regular rules and principles of commerce. If the propositions of the hon. and learned Member were true, then they formed a conclusive argument against the adoption of his motion at the present moment. With respect to the argument of forcing trade, if it were unnatural, if it counteracted the force of nature, it was a conclusive argument why we ought to resort, using the words of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, to a "natural system." He meant no disrespect to the hon. and learned Member when he asserted that the House could not consistently entertain his proposition. They were not then at the commencement of the tariff, but in the midst of it. Several schedules had already received the sanction of the House. Up to that time the House had been enforcing protective duties. Even as late as last Friday evening, when the motion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was brought under the notice of the House, the principle of protection had been maintained. The hon. and learned Member for Bath, by asking the House to assent to his motion, wished the committee to undo all it had hitherto done. On that ground he hoped that the committee would refuse its sanction to the motion of the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member for Bath was out of time now in refusing all protection to the colonial exports; if the House were to do so now, surely they must retrace their steps and throw open the colonial markets to a complete free foreign trade. Within a week they had imposed differential duties varying from 4 to 20 per cent, in favour of the trade of this country—they had imposed those duties upon the colonial markets; surely then they would not be so unjust as to take another course with respect to timber, which constituted three-fourths of the exports from our American colonies. He now came to the proposition of his hon. Friend opposite. His hon. Friend (Mr. P. Stewart) said, the measures proposed by her Majesty's Ministers would tend to the ruin of the colony, while the home consumer would receive, if any, a very trifling benefit, and that he viewed them with great alarm and distress. When he heard his hon. Friend complaining in such a manner, he was reminded of what had fallen from the same hon. Gentleman a few nights ago. His hon. Friend said, that he being a sincere free trader, and being also a colonial proprietor, he found it rather nice steering, and very nice steering it was on that occasion. His hon. Friend inquired what great interest would be benefitted by the cheapening of wood— he challenged any one to point out any interest in the country which would be materially benefitted, and yet at the same time be admitted, that upon the building of a house which would cost 1,000l., the saving would be 40l., and on one costing 2,000l;. it would amount to 93l.; be it remembered that saving was to be made upon the wood alone; and yet his hon. Friend called it a paltry reduction. Why, in return, he would ask, what interest in the country was not deeply interested in having good and cheap wood? The present duties besides laying a heavy tax upon industry of every kind, had another result—that of forcing the trade into channels contrary to nature. All of that would be obviated, and that was as much a matter to be desired as the lowering of prices. Then with respect to the motion of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Liverpool, undoubtedly considerable loss would be occasioned by the proposition of the Government, but when any sacrifice of revenue was to be made, surely it was most desirable that it should go to the removal of duties which pressed upon the raw ma- terials of industry. The shipping engaged in the American trade amounted to nearly one-fourth of the tonnage of the whole country, and therefore that was an ingredient in the question which rendered it one of much importance. On the subject opened by his hon. Friend, that the Government had not abided by the reports of the former committees on wood duties, he would merely say that those committees, especially that of 1835, contemplated a change in the timber duties as an isolated measure—it was not to be connected with many reductions and numerous changes— that was why a greater reduction on colonial wood was now justified. Another reason was, that when the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) removed the duties from colonial wood, he set that trade free from many restrictions, all of which were expensive. For instance, under the present duties much wood is bonded, and that adds considerably to the cost, but on that measure coming into operation, the duty being nominal, that practice would be done away with, and that source of expense dried up. That would prove a great relief to the colonial trade. Now let him contrast the conduct of the British wood-grower with that of the colonial, or rather, he should have said, with the conduct of some who were connected with the colonies. The former made no complaint while the latter did nothing else. What was the actual amount of reduction they were going to make? On deals, for instance, taking it in money, it was but small, but with reference to the best interests of the consumer it was large and wholesome. There was not always a perfect correspondence in figures and calculations on this subject, but he would take a calculation with which he had been furnished by an eminent merchant engaged in the colonial timber trade, and who was opposed to the Government proposition. It appeared that the average duty upon foreign deals had been 43s. 9d., and upon colonial deals 7s., leaving a difference of 36s. 9d. against foreign deals. His right hon. Friend proposed, that for a single year the duty on foreign deals should be 38s., and that subsequently it should be 32s. On the average, with respect to deals, the ultimate amount of protection to colonial produce would be 31s. 6d., while at present it was 36s. 9d. This was the amount of reduction proposed to be effected, and he did not think it could be reasonably objected to. The reduction of protection on various kinds of deals might be considerable, but so anomalous a rate of duties as prevailed at present—which was most disadvantageous to the consumer— could not be continued when Parliament was engaged in revising the commercial system. The reduction with regard to timber was considerable. The present duty on colonial timber averaged 11s., on Baltic timber it was 56s. 6d., so that the protection to colonial timber was 45s.6d. As to the timber trade, one portion of the British market, connected with the mines, was entirely free, and colonial timber, with regard to this branch, enjoyed no protection. It was felt that it would be impossible to expect that Parliament would sanction the permanent continuance of this system. It was, therefore, proposed that those parties who required timber for mines in Cornwall should purchase it in the same manner as other persons. It was true that those parties were thus deprived of a valuable privilege, but he conceived they would be compensated by the advantage which would be afforded them by the reduction of the price of the commodity. The amount of duty on timber, in consequence of drawbacks obtained on that required for mines, had been, in fact, 37s. instead of 45s. 6d. It was proposed to reduce the duty at once to 30s. 6d., and ultimately to 25s. 3d; and this was the amount of protection which it was proposed to extend to colonial timber. The colonial importers ought, he conceived, to be satisfied with this amount of protection, especially when it was considered that they might be fairly called upon to bear their share in any burdens consequent on endeavours to facilitate the revival of trade. It was contended by some persons who argued in favour of the maintenance of a high rate of protective duty, that, under the present rate of duty, equal and fair competition had existed, and they maintained that this was an increasing trade. If that were the case, he presumed the colonial and foreign branches of the trade would have increased in the same ratio. What, then, had been the relative increase in the colonial and Baltic trades with respect to the principal articles of trade in wood? In 1821 this country imported from the Baltic 98,000 loads of wood; in 1841 the quantity was 114,000 loads. In 1821 the quantity of colonial timber imported was 317,000 loads; in 1841 the quantity imported was 632,000 loads, showing a difference of nearly 100 per cent, in favour of colonial timber. Then with regard to battens and batten ends, from 1821 to 1841 the importations of foreign goods into this country had increased 144 per cent., in consequence of the advancing demand; but from the colonies the importation had increased 479 per cent. In 1821 the quantity of foreign deals and deal-ends imported was 27,000 great hundreds, while in 1841 the quantity was the same. The importation from the colonies, however, was in 1821 8,000 great hundreds, while in 1841 it was 46,000 great hundreds. With respect to staves, there had been an increase on the importations from the colonies during the last twenty years of 71 per cent., while there had been a decrease on the importations from the Baltic of 16 per cent. He did not think any reasonable argument had been adduced to show that the proposed alteration of the duties would operate detrimentally to the colonial interest; and there could not be a doubt that it would prove most beneficial to the consumer in this country. It was unquestionable that the change might be productive of temporary inconvenience, and that a momentary shock might be given to the trade. Not only was a reduction of the duty proposed, but his right hon. Friend proposed to afford facilities for the introduction of all kinds of wood, instead of excluding certain descriptions; and it was impossible to substitute a system of equality for one of inequality, with regard to an article of this nature, without causing serious inconvenience. He understood that a motion was to be made for a return of the number of ships which had sailed from Great Britain for Quebec in the course of the last spring as compared with the number which had sailed in the course of the present spring. He had no doubt the return would show a considerable decrease; but he thought it would not be fair to ground any argument on that decrease. The parties who had come before Government to protest against the change in the duty on wood had complained that under the operation of the present system at this time—even with the protection they enjoyed—they scarcely cleared the cost of freight. It appeared from a resolution adopted at a meeting at Liverpool in April, that North American timber was sold at an extremely low price. It appeared by Challoner's Liverpool Circular for 1841, that American timber sold here at 1s. per load under the first cost, taking freight and duty. Deals were also in the same predicament; the calculation in 1841 being, that the cost on import was 18d. the foot, whilst they sold here at 15d., being a loss of 20 per cent. These facts showed, that notwithstanding the disadvantages thrown in the way of the Baltic trade, and the unnatural stimulus given to the colonial, still the latter did not pay. It was obvious, then, that those engaged in the timber trade should have a common interest, and make some sacrifice for the general revival of trade. It should be also remembered, that the increased stimulus which would be given to trade by the reduction of other duties would compensate for any supposed loss which the proposed alteration might be calulated to occcasion.

admitted, that the Canadian timber was not as good as that of Riga, but the inferiority was not as great as the hon. Member for Bath would have it appear. Every power in the Baltic could build, man, and work their ships cheaper than we, and he hoped the House would never consent to any proposition which would have the effect of weakening our navy.

said, if timber, corn, and other articles were freed from duty we could build and man our ships cheaper than any other nation. The question now before the House was that of the hon. Member for Bath, to do away altogether with differential duties, and he had heard no argument urged against it. His hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bath had said, that by the repeal of the differential duties England would get timber both better and cheaper, and he had proved that the colonists would lose nothing. His hon. Friend's argument on this head had not been met at all. The change would have the effect of converting a number of persons at present employed in cutting timber, who were a very lawless and unruly race, into agriculturists, which would unquestionably be a gain to the colony. The only question, therefore, was, as to the carrying trade, in which, though there might be some small loss of profit, yet that ought not to be put in competition with the general good. His hon. and learned Friend had also proved, that the revenue would be benefitted by the change he proposed. The proposition then would be of great benefit to the colonists and the consumers here, and why should it not be I adopted? At any rate, it was a matter of importance to decide whether they should have differential duties or not in this case. That point had hardly been adverted to in the debate.

said, that on a former occasion he had expressed to the House his opinion, that it was not advisable to bring into operation any new differential duties, or to increase those already in existence; but, although he was opposed to differential duties in theory, he had never been of opinion that it was expedient to get rid at once of the existing differential duties without reference to the great interests which the course of legislation, whether right or wrong, had raised up. The hon. Gentleman here proposed 30s. a load duty, while the Government proposed 25s. 3d., which was lower than the duty which he had proposed last year. He had in fact himself proposed 30s., and the reason was this;—the committee of 1821 stated, that by making this proposal, they left a bonus to the Canadian grower of 15s. per load. Lord Spencer had proposed the same amount, and the committee of 1836 had recommended the same. He had therefore thought it right to propose that amount of differential duty, which had the sanction of one Government and the authorities he had mentioned, but the present Government having shown they were favourable to the principle of differential duties, so far as to have introduced differential duties where they did not exist before, when he found that they proposed a less differential duty than he had proposed, stating that it would be beneficial to trade, he thought that he was justified in voting with them, and he must say, that he was very happy to find that the amount of differential duty which he had proposed with the concurrence of the late Lord Sydenham would not have been so ruinous to the trade as he was told when he introduced the proposal that it would be by hon. Gentlemen opposite. With regard to the proposition of the Government, although there were some grounds on which he might have preferred others, he should support it. When 600,000l. of revenue was to be sacrificed, he might be of opinion, that a more satisfactory arrangement might be made than to spend the whole of it upon the reduction of the timber duties. Perhaps he might think, that a mode of disposing of that amount of revenue might be found which would be more advantageous to the productive in- dustry of the country. Perhaps, had a measure been adopted somewhat like that of his hon. Friend, by reducing the differential duty, taking off 15s., and leaving a duty of 30s. on Baltic timber, considerable relief might have been afforded to the consumer without the same risk to the revenue. If on the operation of the Income-tax the Ministers could afford to dispense with a sum of 600,000l., he thought that, looking at the article of cotton wool, and at the articles of cheese and butter, a way of spending that amount might have been found that would have had a more immediate effect upon the production and industry of the country, and upon the expense of living. But still he could not speak lightly of so great a reduction as this was upon an article of this kind; and, therefore, although he must say hon. Gentlemen opposite, when they talked of the pressure of the timber duties, seemed to forget that the duty on colonial timber was raised in 1821 from 2s. 6d. to 10s,, by Lord Ripon, with the consent of Mr. Huskisson and Lord Liverpool, still, admitting, as he did, the benefit to be derived from this particular measure, and reserving his opinion as to whether some better mode of disposing of that amount of revenue might not have been found, he should not feel justified in voting against the proposition of the Government.

moved, that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

said, he did not wish to press the discussion of important matters at so late an hour; but he certainly should I wish that the timber table might be gone through that night. It was of the utmost importance that the tariff should now be I got through as soon as possible. He really believed, that at present long discussions were estimated as of little importance compared with the settlement of commercial arrangements.

It is with great regret that I find myself under the necessity of introducing this motion to the House; but having undertaken this, I do so, not as a mere ruse de guerre to keep myself straight with my constituents and others who have confided their representations to to me, but with a sincere and honest desire to succeed in my motion, or if not, to prevail upon the right hon. Baronet to accede to this—that he will at least consent to defer the application of the ulterior duty of 25s. for three or four years. Approving in principle, and accordingly supporting, all the great measures brought forward by her Majesty's Government—finding embodied in this tariff the protective principle, and being engaged in discussing its details and degrees, I may state to the House the strong objections which 1 entertain to the prospective duty of 25s., without evincing, and certainly without feeling, the slightest disposition to withdraw any part of that entire and full confidence which I repose in the ability, integrity, and wisdom of my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, and of his Colleagues, in their endeavours to extricate the country from those difficulties and embarrassments in which it is now involved. I approve of all the principles upon which this tariff has been framed: — Prohibition repealed— moderate duties substituted—the differential principle extended, and the degrees of protection revised and modified. I approve of the general objects of this tariff. 1st, Cheapness to the consumer. 2nd, To cheapen all raw materials. 3rd, To reduce the cost of production. 4th, To relieve the springs of industry and restore activity, vigour, and energy, to the trading, manufacturing, commercial, and shipping interests. And here I must express unbounded admiration at the industry, ability, practical knowledge, and enlightened views with which this important measure is framed. I admit that sacrifices must be made, minor evils engendered, perhaps, to produce the general good, which I hope and trust will be the result of this great experiment. But the apprehensions so generally entertained with respect to the application of the ulterior duty, which it is the object of my motion to get rid of, are not of minor evils—but of major evils, prejudicial to the manufacturing, shipping, and colonial interests, as depending upon the maintenance of the British North American trade; the political evils which may be produced, in the present posture of our affairs in British North America, if we do not proceed with great caution in dealing with their interests; and then the stake which the right hon. Baronet himself has, and to which I, with great personal regard and respect, attach much importance— namely, that this measure should realise to the British North American people the strong assurances which he held out in bringing forward this measure, that he did not propose, either at present or permanently to injure their interests, but to proceed with the greatest caution, and to do nothing that can suddenly affect their interests; that his object was only to cheapen timber to the British consumer, without interfering with the proportions in which it is supplied, severally from the colonies, and from the Baltic; but which assurances, I very seriously apprehend, will not be carried out, if the ulterior duty should take effect, as proposed. My constituents are deeply concerned in this trade, and seriously alarmed as to the very prejudicial and ruinous effects of that extreme part of the measure. They are willing and prepared to make sacrifices for the general good; but they all concur that the descent of protection from 30s. to 25s. would be a vast and ruinous sacrifice. Every other constituency in the United Kingdom concur in this, and have all confided to my noble Colleague and myself petitions to this effect. From every part of British North America, I have received strong petitions against the proposed measure, and which representations I deem it my duty to make faithfully to this House, whilst discussing and disposing of their interests, where they are not represented. The Governor-general of Canada transmits five petitions, representing in very strong terms the very great alarm into which they have been thrown by the proposed measures, and submits the expediency of a delay of four or five years. No recent representations from Nova Scotia have been laid before Parliament, but those of last year deprecate in the strongest terms the then proposed alterations in the timber duties and the inter-colonial trade. The Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick transmits, and strongly recommends to the favourable consideration of her Majesty's Government, twelve petitions against the proposed measures. He remarks—

" That any sudden alteration in the duties, and without affording time and aid in developing new resources, will seriously aggravate the distress now prevailing."

gain, on the 30th of March last—

" I have reason to believe that this petition expresses very generally the sentiments entertained at this time by the inhabitants of the other counties, but who, from the information of the proposed measures having only been received by the last packet, they have been unable to send up petitions in time to be transmitted by the present mail."

And in another despatch of the same date, he writes—

" I have just received the enclosed address to the Queen from the legislative Council and Assembly of this province, on the subject of the changes which are understood to have been proposed in Parliament, affecting the regulation of the trade of the British colonial possessions; and having already explained to your Lordship my apprehensions of the effect of those changes at this time on the inhabitants of this province, I have only to recommend the subject to the consideration of your Lordship and her Majesty's Government."

Before I proceed to the figures of this case, I deem it right to make a few observations on the ratio of the proposed reduction in the scale of duties. Taking those on coloniel timber singly, it appears to be a vast boon. That reduction is nine-tenths. The reduction on the foreign timber is infinitely less; but the ratio of protection is not always that in which the scale may be altered, where the difference of duty is considerable, as in this case, and the proportions of the article of timber supplied pretty evenly maintained. In this case, the great absolute reduction of the higher duty destroys the balance, although the ratio of that decrease is infinitely less than that of the other duty. I hope the House will not be alarmed at my unfolding this paper, covered with figures; I shall take out our case and present it in very simple terms. In the year 1840 there were imported from the Baltic woods of all sorts to the amount of 607,533 loads, the average rate of duty paid on which was 43s. 6d.; but this included firewood, subject to a specific duty by fathom, but which, reduced to loads, amounted to 40,963, average rate of duty 4s. 4¾d. But this sort of wood stuff ought not to have been taken into calculation for the purpose of determining the average rate of duty per load. Subtracting, then, 40,963 from 607,533, we have 566,570, and the average duty 46s. 3d., which is a difference of 5s. 3d. over the 41s., which the right hon. Baronet stated to be the average rate of duty paid upon all woods imported from the Baltic; and was, in fact, the cardinal number upon which the scale of duties on foreign timber and deals, proposed by her Majesty's Government, was framed. But my constituents think they have a right to claim a higher average rate of duty than this. They plead that neither oak-knees, lath wood, handspikes, nor spars, being all subject to specific duties, should have been taken into the calculation. The total quantity of these imported, and reduced to loads, amount to 35,740,which, subtracted from 566,570, leaves 530,830, and the average rate of duty rises to 47s. 11d., which is 6s. 11d. over the right hon. Baronet's cardinal number of 41s. But I do not intend to claim this, and confine my case to the 5s. 3d. difference, and claim to apply the 5s. to get rid of the descent of 5s. from 30s. to 25s., and so extinguish that ulterior duty. Now, applying here what I have said upon the subject of ratios of protection, I shall state, first, the proportion in which timber has been supplied from the Baltic and from the colonies under the present scheme. The quantity of red pine imported from the Baltic was 138,000. From the colonies it was 95,000, being 43,000 in favour of the Baltic. The oak was nearly equal, being 29,100 from the Baltic and 29,400 from the colonies. Now, the protection by which this proportion was maintained was 45s. It is proposed to reduce it to 25s.; if this be done it must be quite clear that the proportion must be very materially altered and the colonies seriously injured. Of yellow pine the importation from the colonies was 439,967, and of ash, elm, and birch 60,835; and it is hoped the colonies will continue to supply those articles. Now, with respect to deals, the importation into Great Britain, from the Baltic, was 321,894, and from the colonies 208,239, which shows that the protection even of 35s. 6d. was not sufficient. The importation of deals from the Baltic into Ireland was 3,601, from the colonies it was 65,303, which I am bound, in all fairness, to admit was too much. The spars imported from the Baltic were 13,334 loads, and only 1,223 loads from the colonies, showing that the protection of 9s. 3d. per load, instead of being reduced, should be increased. The staves imported from the Baltic were 22,999 loads, from the colonies 32,577 loads. I implore the right hon. Baronet to be cautious with respect to this ulterior duty. I earnestly recommend him to postpone it at least for some years; this is the only way of acting with caution and certainly relatively with the assurances that he has given. Let the 30s. duty be tried for a period of years. If it give to the colonial interests a preponderating advantage, a greater participation in the supply than they have now, let it be reduced. My constituents desire no more, nor do I; and if the right hon. Baronet will accede to my motion, and it should appear that the 30s. duty may bear reduction, then I pledge myself to vote for such reduction, either to 25s. or to such other duty as may be requisite to restore a just proportion, and a fair competition between the Baltic and colonial supplies. Now to show the effect upon the colonial timber trade of carrying out the extreme measure of the 25s. duty. The price of freight from the Baltic varies from 12s. to 17s., taking the average at 15s., and adding to it the duty, we have 40s. The freight from British North America is about 39s., the proposed duty 1s. Here there is no protection to the colonies. I am not certain what the cost and charges on timber shipped in the Baltic may be, but it is very important to state to the House what the cost of timber is, exclusive of that of felling, getting out and shipping in British North America. The price of timber standing in the Crown forests is:—

Oak	6s.	2d.	per load.
Red Pine	4s.	2d.	per load.
Elm and Ash	4s.	2d.	per load.
Yellow Pine	2s.	1d.	per load.
Saw Logs	2s.	Od.	each.

These sums are paid on licences to cut timber on the ungranted or crown lands, and their revenue forms the "timber fund," which, by agreement between the Crown and the local legislatures, was turned over to, them, on condition of which they entered into engagements to pay the local civil lists. Now, let the House consider well what will be the effect of materially interfering with the sufficiency or productiveness of this fund. It would be breaking faith with the colonial legislatures; it would disable them to meet their engagements, and produce the most serious evils, unless this House were to restore the colonial civil lists to the Parliamentary estimates. It was the withdrawing of those charges from the Parliamentary estimates that occasioned all the difficulties and conflicts between the colonial executives and legislatures; and it was only by turning over to them the properties and revenues of the Crown in the provinces that these most serious and threatening conflicts were terminated. The civil list of New Brunswick is 14,500l. a-year. I am not sure what the amount is in the Canadas, but I believe that the timber fund arising from licences to cut timber in the districts bordering upon the Ottawa alone, in the last year, was 20,000l. The select committee of 1835 recommended a differential duty of 30s. The late Government plan was to raise the duty on colonial timber to 20s., and reduce that on Baltic timber to 50s., giving thus a differential duty of 30s. in favour of the colonies. On these grounds, too, I move, that the duty should now rest at that amount. Now, to show the value of this entire trade, the British manufactures, taken by British North America, is steadily and vastly increasing, in consequence chiefly of the activity in the timber trade. In 1821, the value taken in pounds was 1,100,000l. In 1831, it was 2,080,000l. In 1840, it was 2,800,000l., and it is now 3,000,000l. The British North American trade employed in 1841, 2,461 ships, whose tonnage amounted to 841,348 tons, manned by 32,950 men, being about one-fourth of the shipping employed in the whole trade of the empire. The tonnage employed in the timber trade alone is about 600,000 tons. The outward spring tonnage in number of ships—and what an advantage this by cheap freight for emigration— is usually from 1,000 to 1,200 sail; but such is the panic—the consternation, I may say—occasioned by the present measure, that not more than 500 sail have gone out this spring. The effects of this in Canada and New Brunswick will be most serious. The ladings for the usual number are all prepared; full stocks of the supply on hand. Orders have been sent out to stop all proceedings'. Contracts for a year's business, and for nice competitions, founded on existing laws, will be interfered with; and it is scarcely necessary to trace further the distress, the disappointment, the loss of confidence, that must ensue. I shall not take up more of the time of the House at this late hour, by dwelling further upon the case which I represent, and upon the grounds and under the circumstances which I have endeavoured to state, as concisely and distinctly as possible. I move that the duty on and after October next on foreign timber shall be 30s., and on deals 38s., both per load; and that the ulterior duty of 25s., contemplated in the proposed measure, shall not take effect.

said, of all the calculations he had heard as to the probable effect of the plan he proposed for the arrangement of the timber duties, the most striking was that of the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Renfrewshire (Mr. P. M. Stewart), who was generally opposed to her Majesty's Government, and not very favourable to his financial measures, but who calculated that on a sum of 2,000l. employed in house building there would be a saving on the article of timber alone of 93l. If the hon. Gentleman's calculation was correct, it was difficult to say what the extent of encouragement would be that would be held out to the building trade. If this was the effect of the tariff, as regarded the building of houses, what must be its effects on ship-building? Would not the demand for Canadian timber be immensely increased, and would not the general prosperity of trade amply compensate the Canadians for any trifling loss to which they might possibly at first be subjected? He was happy to inform the House, that the impression already made by this tariff in the countries on the shores of the Baltic was most favourable. The German League had intended to make a heavy increase in the duties on British iron, but the proposal had been abandoned, when the tariff became known on the continent. It was not possible to conceive anything like the general acquiescence with which his Income-tax, an impost so unusual in time of peace, had been received by the country, but he felt all the more strongly the obligation he had incurred to adhere to his original plan of holding out by the tariff a compensation to the payers of the Income-tax. Of this the article of timber would form no small element. On the whole he hoped the House would steadily refuse to interfere with the proposition of Government, as the best medium between the two extremes, seeing that regard for the interest of the revenue and for the national faith would not allow them to carry the reduction of the duty on timber any further.

wished to say a few words on a matter personal to himself. When the House was about to divide, he and an hon. and gallant Friend near him was thrust back by the Serjeant-at-Arms. The door was not shut, and he was on the step when he was violently pushed back by the Serjeant-at-Arms. He wished to know whether it was a proper proceeding thus to exclude Members who had been anxiously waiting in the House to divide? It would be utterly useless for Members to attend, if the Serjeant-at-Arms were permitted to exclude them in the manner he had described.

said, the question was, whether the hon. Member was in the House when the motion was put from the Chair? If he were in the lobby when the motion was put, he had no right to enter the House.

asked, how a Member was to know when a motion was to be put? It would be only common courtesy for the officer of the House to inform Members when the question was put, and not to thrust them back as they were entering the House. This appeared to him to be perfectly monstrous.